View source for Agreement, Motion and Perception (3ACC 540111)

'''Series:''' 3rd Advanced Clinical Course (3ACC)

'''Date:''' 11 January 1954

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

----

← [[Lecture_Index_3ACC|Back to Series]]

A lecture given by L. Ron Hubbard on the 11 January 1954

Okay. Today, this afternoon, we are here and now going to talk about: "Exteriorization: Why don't you try it sometime?"

The problem to be solved in exteriorization is a very simple one: you have to solve the problems which determine or make the preclear determine that mass is wonderful and that he has to have terminals with which to operate – if you have any difficulty with exteriorization.

The preclear first felt degraded when he contacted and interiorized in a piece of MEST. He first felt degraded when this occurred. And this is the heaviest degradation there is on the bank – entrance to the MEST universe.

Degradation is simply powerlessness. It's just an extremity of powerlessness, that's all. If somebody feels degraded, he feels powerless and that's all. Let's not read any deeper significance into it and to say why he is degraded – or naturally, it would be the case if so-and-so and so-and-so – and long and drawn out. No, he feels degraded because of a loss of power, which is loss of the ability to create energy.

When a person has become to depend upon something else to create energy for him, when he depends upon this, then it of course stops creating energy and so does he. He stops first depending on something else to create the energy, then it stops because, naturally, the only thing that's creating energy is himself.

It sometimes takes him a long time to find this out. He's getting less and less and less energy. He's running down, he says. He ought to have a rest, he . . , sc forth. There are lots of reasons why. [said gruffly] The truth of the matter is, is he set up something to create energy for him and then, thereafter, depended on it more and more and more and more. And of course his power was all that it was using for power all the time. Get that little hooker: the only power being furnished anywhere around there was being furnished by himself.

The GE does not furnish any power to the thetan. The only power being furnished was by himself, but he, in other words, became more and more covert. His lines to furnish this power became more and more circuitous and more and more hidden from him and he could say all the time – more and more and more he could say, "Well, I'm depending on it and it is furnishing me power. He's furnishing himself power via it. So when he stops creating power, it stops creating power and he has no power. You see that?

Now, this appears, at first glance, to be a little bit unreasonable with relationship to the MEST universe, whereas we see very, very well that an individual goes down the road in a car and it is burning gasoline, which we know very well was laid down as a deposit in the earth by lots of fishes who became compressed and decayed and all that sort of thing. And we know all this completely and we know all this perfectly and this is a fact and this is a reason.

The only thing wrong with it is, that isn't what happened. Even though you have the deposit that makes the gasoline that converts into the tank of your car that burns in the car and even though you are depending on the car to pull the body around and all that sort of thing, the moment you have lost sight of the fact that you're just playing a rather complex game with yourself, you lose the power the car can furnish you.

Now, I'm not going to tell you, to this extremity, that the day you depend entirely on the gasoline running your car, the car is going to stop. I'm going to tell you the day you start – that you have totally depended on nothing but gasoline, the car is going to stop. So, don't go off the wheels and think I'm saying something unreasonable. Don't get lost with that one.

Now, I hate to have to tell you this because it gives so many ins and so forth to the field of mysticism and so on and a lot of guys get dreaming up and imagining things about it and so forth. But you know all this ridge energy you've got hanging around? Well, every doggone one of these ridges and every darn one of these automatic machines and all these deposits of energy and that sort of tiling, you've got because you know you can't have the real thing!

A mock-up and what the thetan considers theta energy to himself, he has because he can't have the real McCoy, according to him. You've got that? I mean, he can't have the real McCoy, according to him.

This is rather silly, I mean, if you think about it. He obviously has all these terminals and all this energy and all this saved-up this and that and so forth. Well, that's all very well – that's all very well, but it is a substitute. And where you read on brands of food, "Accept no substitutes" and so forth, that's an awfully good motto for a thetan.

But he couldn't have a woman, so he's carrying a mock-up of a woman. Well, he had to have a woman in the first place and he didn't have to have one and it gets involved that way. But anyway, he's carrying a mock-up of a woman. So if you just add it up every time, well, he's got a scarcity of them. And that's a substitute for a scarcity of women, not just a scarcity of one particular woman. If he's got a ridge, that's a scarcity of manufactured energy. If you just mock it up that way, if he's got a ridge, it's a scarcity of manufactured energy. If he's carrying around a mass of applause or a sexual sensation in the bank or something of the sort, well, he's carrying it around because he's got a scarcity of it.

A fellow has a lot of facsimiles, even mean, brutal ones like electronics and so forth, and they get into restimulation all the time. Then you figure out, well, he must have depended on them sometime or another and then he depended on them more and more and now he's surreptitiously furnishing stuff to them. And that's the one way he can have electrical energy back is to put it into an electronic facsimile and to feed it back to himself and that's what he's doing. And he isn't doing anything more complicated than that. An individual who has facsimiles popping up in front of his face all the time is putting them there by circuitous circuits which he himself has forgotten about and is no longer responsible for. This is a facsimile.

An individual can take a facsimile simply by resisting a solid object.

You get the idea, for instance, of resisting one of those ashtrays.

All right. Now look up above the ashtray.

Got another ashtray?

Let's get the idea now – let's really resist something that's a little bit interesting to resist and let's all look up at that lamp overhead there.

Now let's resist it. Let's put it back in its place!

Now let's conceive a dislike for it and put it back in its place!

Now let's put it back in its place again.

Now let's get how hard its pushing – the son of a gun – get how hard it's pushing and how mean this is of it to push.

Now look at some other part of the room.

Now close your eyes. Got a picture of the lamp?

That's the way you make a facsimile.

So an individual who resists the MEST universe real hard winds up, first, with a particularized facsimile of lamps and scenes and winds up with a completely unparticularized facsimile of the MEST universe, which is guess what? Solid blackness. Because it's a black universe.

If you don't believe it's a black universe, get out there beyond the bounds of the air on this planet and take a look. That's about the blackest black you'll ever run into. You see that?

All right. If he is depending upon the MEST universe to furnish him light and to furnish him darkness and to furnish him the space he's going to move in – particularly furnish him the space he's going to move in – and to be all things to all him, he'll wind up eventually with no MEST universe.

Now, let's take the problem of motion. And let's go into this very particularly – the problem of motion. And the problem of motion is as follows: we're going to move this ashtray from this position on the desk over to this position on the desk.

Now, how did it get over there? In order to be a part of this universe and a partner to this universe, you have to know something which you've forgotten you know. Well, you had to forget that you knew it, otherwise you wouldn't be able to perceive this and become an effect to it.

Now, what's this thing you have to know? You have to know how to mock-up and unmock things at the speed of light.

The speed of light is 186,000 miles per second, which is how fast a particle travels. If you're in agreement with energy, this makes sense. If you're not in agreement with energy, it doesn't make sense at all. Because there's no sense to it except you put it there.

All right. How do you get it across there, then, if you're in agreement with energy? All right, we start it at position A here and we have to unmock it, then mock it up and then unmock it and mock it up, unmock it – unmock, mock, unmock. See? We have to unmock it in this old place and mock it up in the new place and unmock it here and mock it up here and unmock it here and mock it up here and unmock it there and mock it up there and unmock it there and mock it up there and unmock it there and mock it up there and unmock it there and then mock it up there. Now, when you try this – to mock and unmock, mock and unmock, mock and unmock a mock-up, don't be surprised if it all of a sudden gets solid. Eech! You say, "Ooh! No-no, no-no, 110, no, I don't want-I don't want-I-I-don't want a-a green hat right there-no, no, not for all time!" And you'll struggle around as to how to unmock the thing and you won't quite know how to unmock it.

Ah, there's ways of unmocking it: you just move it around a couple of times and it will disappear because it unmocks itself.

Now, why is this moving postulates? Why does that make things disappear? Oh, it's very simple. You put this big, heavy mass out there and start moving it around and it disappears. Hah! It's interesting, isn't it? You know, you put a mass out and you start moving it. Now, when I say move something, I do mean move. Now this is moving an ashtray, [sliding sound] It's in a number of consecutive positions.

All right. Now, let's take another problem and let's materialize the ashtray as completely different than move it. Now we'll have the ashtray appear here [bang], and then [bang] appear over here, without being through the consecutive positions. That's materializing something.

Now, most of your preclears, when you ask them to move things around, will put something in front of them and something behind them and something to the right and something to the left and so forth and they'll merely unmock and mock something up – they will materialize things, they won't move them.

Now, when you tell them to move a mock-up or move a symbol, you mean just that. You mean move this symbol from position A through A' and A" and A'" and A'"", until they get over there to B. And you want it to go through all of those consecutive positions and see it the whole way And you'll find out, sooner or later, they'll skip on this.

Well, this is forcing them to chew into their automatic machinery, which is actually – for our theoretical purposes – putting this universe here. Can you see that? For theoretical purposes, we'll consider it this way. You don't have to be hung with this postulate, because every once in a while it'll make you awfully groggy. You won't like this postulate. The best thing to do if you don't like this is to hold on to the two back anchor points of the room and go around and kick the walls for a while and you'll get over it very rapidly. That reassures you that your automaticity is still working. Anyway… [laughter]

So in order to move something, however, we've got to form new consecutive spaces. We have to form new spaces. This is the modus operandi of motion. Actually, we don't give a damn about motion or forms or objects, because they all come out of the subject of knowingness. If you know they're there, they're there. If you don't know they're there, they're not there.

Oh yeah, well, we won't really have to go into any deeper anatomy than this. And if you'll just recall that while you're trying to steer your way through this morass of data, why, you'll be a lot happier. You just know it's there, it's there.

How do you get a mock-up out there? Well, you know it's there, so it's there.

And then you'll get in some preclear – he can't get a mock-up out there because he hasn't got enough energy and wait a minute, he'll have to grab some more energy from someplace else, he'll scratch some energy together in order to get another black mock-up or something. "Just a minute and I'll find some more black energy around here someplace and I'll put…"

Oh boy, how involved can you get! Because he has to put the black energy there, that is scattered all around, so that he can scrape the black energy together so he has found the energy so that he can make a new mock-up out of the energy he's found, see? Tzzzzt! This is just silly.

Why didn't he just say, "All right, there's a black shape out there"? How does he know it's there? Because he knows it's there. Well, if he really knows it's there, he can see it. That's the test of knowing it's there. If he knows it's there well enough, he can see it. If he doesn't know it's there well – it isn't well enough and so forth, he, of course, can't see it.

So perception and knowing – unless we want to go into the agreements with the MEST universe and take them apart – and to a large degree in auditing, we do have to take apart the agreements which form the MEST universe in order to bail a preclear out and return to him some of his power and abilities. We do have to take it into effect, but if we took it into effect exclusively and just left out knowingness about the whole thing, we'd be talking about physics. And we'd be talking about a higher echelon of physics than anybody has ever echeloned.

They've tried to fly that high. Sir James Jeans, once in a while, used to. And he finally came out with a very significant remark, well, as near as he could find out, "The whole thing began with the explosion of an atom." That's not very high. That takes him as high as the explosion. But he knew it wasn't here and he could prove it wasn't here, but he could also prove it was here and so forth. So he just went kind of non sequitur and dived over sideways and said, "Well, it all started with the explosion of an atom" and that settled the problem for him. Well, actually, he'd settled no problem at all. Where did the atom come from, fella? It works!

Now, there is a central position and there is a central creation moment for all creations and we'll call this – the first terminal is "prime post unposted." That's where you would depart from: "prime post unposted" – which of course is a mock-up on Prime Mover Unmoved.

All right. Now, we'll get into the next echelon and we find out that knowingness – and really the anatomy of knowingness itself – would just be the anatomy of consecutive agreements which keep everybody timed with everybody else and they're in good time with everybody else or in bad time with everybody else. And you can depart in two directions, then, on auditing.

You could say, "Well let's get somebody out of agreement so he can be in agreement on choice or let somebody get in complete agreement with everything. Well, you'd have that theoretical choice, you see, as an auditor. So, let's just take it as a theoretical choice and let's pull somebody out of agreement and see how he is and then let's get somebody to really agree very nicely and then see how he is. And we find out both these preclears have made a slight advance. And we'll do it a little bit longer and we'll just work on somebody to pull him out of agreement just a little bit further, see, a little bit further, and we'll push somebody in agreement about the universe just a little bit deeper. Ah-ah. The fellow who's been pushed into agreement a little bit deeper will all of a sudden start caving in. Isn't that curious? And the fellow who's been pulled out of agreement will continue to improve. And pulling people out of the agreement channel gives us, then, almost an unlimited improvement and pushing them into agreement gives, at first, a little improvement and then a rapid deterioration of a case.

You can make this test sometime if you want to. Because you know what you're looking at when you do that? You're looking at what reality is. We'll just measure what these fellows laughingly call reality and we find out the fellow we're pulling out of agreement gets higher and higher reality. And the fellow we're pushing into agreement gets lower and lower a reality. Well now, that's kind of funny, isn't it? The fellow who's forced to agree with the MEST universe and continues to agree with the MEST universe is, of course, agreeing with a dependency. Because this universe is set up as a dependency universe. And so he gets more – has to be more and more dependent upon this universe because he has to agree that other things exist besides himself and that he doesn't own them. Well, of course, the truth of the matter is, nothing exists outside of himself unless he set it up to be.

Now, we don't go adrift with this. This is not theory that we're reaching for over your head. Someday you may or may not – and you may or may not, right this instant – be tangling horns with the actuality and the fact of this case. That is to say, it may or may not be registering very well. Because actually, I've had a fellow hang fire five, six weeks on this mock-unmock system of creation and all of a sudden happily remember the bracket or some such thing. You know, all of a sudden he remembers, "By golly, now wait a minute, sometimes a case hangs up when we don't do the rest of the bracket." Oooooh! He knows that because he's seen it happen, you see? He's read it on an E-Meter. Errrh!

Why should we have to do the rest of the bracket? Let's see, if you're just a partner with this universe and it really belonged to everybody else, we'd never have to do a bracket, would we? Oh-oh, looks like you have to do the bracket in order to keep up with the rest of the agreement. Mm-hm. Say, you don't suppose that you got a hand in other people's agreements or something? No, you couldn't do that, because you're bad cause if you were that way and you couldn't do that. But he'll sometimes plod around like that for quite a while and then he'll grab hold of it and for some reason or other he feels better. Because the truth of the matter is the universe you see, you put there.

Now, that doesn't mean that for you the walls might be pink and for me they might be purple. And that doesn't mean we'd see anything different MEST-wise, because you've got something in front of you – or you're in something like a GE that has done nothing but specialize in agreement And you've agreed that he has done nothing but specialize in agreement. And so he sees and that leaves you – it leaves you a little bit unnecessary to go into such a complete agreement to see. But, of course, you could just choose to see and you would see. We're not going afield anyplace, we're talking about exteriorization.

Get the difference between materializing something and moving something. We have to unmock this and mock it up and unmock it and mock it up. But the difference is that it's being unmocked and unmocked at the consecutive spaces which are the distance a particle would travel to make a new space. Particles are always being made into new spaces right here in this ashtray if we go into the modus operandi of what we're agreeing to. But the first thing we'd go into is just knowing about it. And we could just know it was there and see it and there wouldn't have to be any particles or mass or weight or anything else in it. See that?

But the next thing we'd go into as well – we wanted somebody else to see it too, so we've got some kind of an agreement we'd better work out with this person. Well, you could enforce your agreement on him just by out-postulating him, you might say.

But a couple of guys now see this ashtray, well, they have to agree how they see the ashtray. And we gradually get out the tremendous chemical, biological bric-a-brac that is kicking all over the place and is so complex and everybody pretends so hard he has to study in order to know about. Well, for God's sakes, his agreement – energy, his own basic energy has to run back through the whole cockeyed chain to activate it so that he can know. That's real good, isn't it?

Well, it's a very funny thing that a little kid who doesn't know any nuclear physics at all can see much better than a nuclear physicist who has studied and knows all about it. Now, if you tally those two data together, this starts to make a little sense. It has nothing to do with the deterioration of the GE.

Let's take Fanny Featherbrain who works at the rather light task of taking dollars away from customers down at the restaurant. And we find out that Fanny is twenty-six years of age and her vision is 200/200 or something of the sort – whatever would be a very high vision – and she's just doing fine. She's doing fine.

And now let's take Miss Bookworm who has studied hard and slaved to get there and so forth. Well, she might be in the advertising office across the street but she's twenty-six and we compare their visions. Well, of course, one used up her eyes a lot on books and so forth, while Fanny Featherbrain wasn't doing this.

Well, you say, that's got a lot of other angles there that we might test one way and we might test the other way, but isn't it a funny thing that we pick up the whole class of girls who are twenty-six, along with Fanny Featherbrain, and we find out the incidence of eyesight and perception and brightness of the MEST universe is remarkably lower than the whole class of Fanny Featherbrains.

And well, we'd say, "Well, she read, you see. And these other girls read and they didn't read in good light and they didn't watch their diet or they didn't do something" and there's big – lots of explanations and more agreements, more agreements.

Well, let's not avoid, let's just look at the straight fact. These girls who are educated divide into two classes: those who studied in the arts and those who studied in sciences. And we find out that those who studied in the sciences have poorer eyesight than those who studied in the arts. Oh-oh!

So we've got the girls who didn't study at all and the girls who studied in the arts and the girls who studied in the sciences and we have a gradient scale of how bright is the MEST universe. Getting real silly, isn't it? It's beginning to look like maybe something else is at work here besides just photons.

Well, they had to agree. And they had to agree hard. And they've been agreeing with more doggone modus operandi and less sense than anything you could count.

Well anyway, we get a gradient scale of eyesights here.

Now let's take other professions and let's find out who has, professionally, the worst eyesight. And we find out the nuclear physicist does. Isn't that silly! This is queer, isn't it? Well, you don't have to take it as a fact. You just go meet some. Go get an optical chart, go look them over.

And we find out the fellow who has been studying to agree – in other words, exterior knowingness to self – who has been studying to agree on the particularities of the agreement of the MEST universe and has agreed and agreed and agreed on such fundamentals as how many photons are on the head of a pin or something. And has gone on with chemical, year after year after year after year, with no other solution than "Let's look at something," he's been pushing himself right down into the depths in terms of perception. It's getting less and less real to him. And that's all it amounts to as far as perception goes.

Well, that's funny that agreement would go below and invert. But do you know ARC goes down to a certain point and then inverts? And you get below that, the best possible affinity is complete identification. The best possible agreement is an identification of two data. And the best possible communication is from one point to the same point without any wires. So you get entire identification at the bottom of the ARC chain.

So ARC has to have some differentiation and so there's two ends to ARC. One is ARC with differentiation – distance. And the other is ARC with no distance. And when you get ARC with no distance, you get psychosis. And so you could push this down below a certain desirable level. At a certain level, it's social and below that level, it gets worse and worse and it caves in and gets worse and worse and worse and worse and worse and worse and worse. And that's the scale from 4.0 on the Tone Scale.

It's a study of the increasing identification of A, R and C from 4.0 down. Increasing identification. Actually, you call it less ARC. It's an inverted ARC. You see that? Because the person has agreed that the MEST universe is his boss, he has then agreed to have communication forced on him. Because it's the handiest, jim-dandiest, most God-awful thing you ever ran into, in terms of communication, is the MEST universe. It will force communication on you, whether you like it or not, if you are a piece of matter. If you're a piece of matter, the MEST universe can and does force identification on you. See that? You cannot help but get into that rut and fall off the bridge, you might say, and into the pond if you insist upon the MEST universe as an other-determinism. The solution to it is not just a banishment of the MEST universe. The solution to it is the MEST universe is your determinism.

Well, when we look at the scale of ARC, we find out that it goes down to a certain point and that's desirable and an individual can communicate or change communication and so on. And below this point, we get an enforced identification with the MEST universe, in other words, a big dependency on the MEST universe. It's at that point where the MEST universe becomes the other-determinism.

The invention of God as a "God trick" was an interesting invention for thetans. But much more interesting is the development of a philosophy which tells you that God owns all the space. That, of course, gives you a total dependency on it. And actually, the individual initially bought this, very knowingly, as a very neat mechanism for having a universe for a playing field. It's the most obvious automaticity you could possibly lay in. And you say, "Well, all this belongs to somebody else and we'll call him 'God.'" You know, and then you'd have a playing field that you wouldn't have to look at all the time. See that?

The day when you say, "The playing field is there and it's victimizing me" and you put a playing field there and you coincided with the other players and other pieces so that you've all got a playing field, you've got a basic agreement on the existence of this symbol called God. Therefore, you've all got a playing field and that becomes very elementarily simple then, doesn't it?

And then you'd go down the line and it works along fine for a long time and then you become convinced, utterly, that it belongs to somebody else and it isn't yours. And the moment that you find out it isn't yours, why, you become slightly dead duck because it becomes a trap. And the only trap you can be caught in is the trap that you make yourself.

All right. So you've got an agreement chain there and that agreement chain itself is the "fixation chain." It's what fixes the idea. Continuous agreement. Continuous repetition. In other words, you put more and more mass into something and, sure enough, there's been more and more mass put into this universe. See? It's more and more agreement. So that you all know that somebody else knows that you know that anybody knows that there is a universe here and it is called the MEST universe and you're thoroughly agreed on it. Now you start to depend on somebody else's agreement in order to keep the universe there. Well, unfortunately somebody else's agreement doesn't exist in your bank – except as you put it there. So you depend on somebody else's agreement to put the MEST universe there and you're just going to sit back and ride.

Well, at the moment when your dependency comes complete, the universe disappears.

Now, the gradient scale of sight, perception and the whole scale of Emoting and Effort and Thinking and Symbols and everything else – in other words, that entire gradient scale – starts to fade out at the top and fade out on the way down, as though you were drawing a curtain. If you had at the top here Knowingness, then under it Lookingness and then under that Emotingness and under that Effortingness and under that Thinkingness and under that Symbolizingness and under that Eatingness and Sexingness, that they were all down on this scale all the way down like that and you drew a curtain from the top down, you would see how a person's perceptions go out.

Only it's actually a process of drawing, repeatedly, more and more curtains from the top down. You see, we draw a fairly transparent one from the top down the moment we set up the automaticity. Now, let's draw another one down slowly, which is also transparent, but the two of them together don't add up to any greater transparency. Now we draw a third one and now we draw a fourth one and a fifth one and we're just going on down the line each time repetitively and we will eventually wind up without any… First? First thing that goes is Knowingness. That goes totally while there's still some Lookingness. Then Lookingness goes and that goes totally. And then below Lookingness, Emotingness starts to go and we get Effortingness. And when we've got Effortingness good and solid and there's very little above that, why, we go into Thinkingness. And boy, are they thinking at that level without looking. They'll sit back and figure for hours whether there's a dog in front of them and it never occurs to them to look and see if there's a dog there. And then they go down into Symbols and symbols are condensed thinking, so you get somebody looking at you very fixedly and saying, "Well now, when you said 'dog,' did you really mean dog? Now according to Korzybski, dog would mean two different things to two different people."

And you say, "Now look, bud, 'A dog is a dog is a dog is a dog when I was a little girl,' according to Gertrude Stein. So Let's roll." So when we have our problems in agreement and disagreement and all of this sort of thing, let's not get so fret up as auditors, for instance, about Mama and about Papa and all the rest of it.

Yeah, one guy has a tough break and another one has a tough break and so forth and it isn't on the other basis of "you did it all yourself and you're all to blame" and so on. Just remember that it couldn't happen unless the fellow had a basic automaticity so it could happen! And that's his and he put it there in full knowingness and, somewhere or other, after the garbage of agreement has been pulled off the top of it to some degree, why, you'll locate again where this machinery is located.

And you'll locate it in brackets quicker than you locate it on a solo effort. Why? It's simply because you run off so much agreement with brackets.

In order for Papa and Mama to fight and in order for him to see Papa and Mama fighting, he had to have some kind of a basic automaticity about parents fighting or about people fighting or thetans fighting or something fighting, for this to come in over the top of and him to reactivate.

You'll find very often that your preclear is busy shadowboxing over in a corner someplace – oh, anyplace he's aberrated he's doing this – fully convinced that there's somebody else in the corner shadowboxing with him and that it's a real fight going on. And it's only when it becomes apparent to us, as auditors, that there isn't any other person there, that we begin to doubt the fellow's sanity. But the truth of the matter is he's always in his own corner shadowboxing the whole darn way down the line until you get him up to a point where he can say "Universe" and there's a universe.

But there are certain high spots of agreement that you have to take apart as you come up the line in order to let the guy let go. Because you can't ask him to let go in a hurry. I'm sorry, he just won't let go in a hurry. He'll let go slowly. And what you want to hit is the minimum number of high spots that make him let go – of what? Of his total dependency upon (1) the other fellow's universe, (2) the MEST universe and (3) his own automatic machinery. And you're trying to make him let go.

Well now, what points will he let go of? And Scientology, in processing, then becomes a study of the most available points to let go of, which when let go of will cause the maximum lift of curtains, see? That's all you're studying.

Now, naturally, when you go on and process something too long, on any of these lines, that which you validate materializes. So there's always a peak point for processing something, but it's not very critical and it shouldn't disturb you very much. Because, for instance, you'd have to get a fellow going over something, oh, I don't know, fifty or a hundred hours, before he'd materialize it.

But sure enough, you can make a fellow materialize matched terminals until they haunt him. And you go out along the line and you're undoing his case very nicely for a while with matched terminals and then after a while, you're just putting in new agreements. You're agreeing now that there are matched terminals. And you agree about that long enough, you can set somebody up that can process himself with matched terminals for the next ten years.

Why? Because they're realer than the walls. Well, you can also fix a guy up with processing so that you can validate walls. And I don't know how many thousands of hours you'd have to go this way, but you'd have to get him to a point of validating walls and validating wails and then putting up walls inside the agreed-upon walls and validating those inner walls. And if you did this long enough, you'd have a double-boxed room. That is to say, every room he walked into would have another set of walls.

He wouldn't be crazy, you see. I mean, you just build up another agreement. And you could build him up until the inner walls were better than the outer walls. Take you a long time. You'd have to slant your processing in this direction to do it, but it has been done experimentally. If you want to do it experimentally, that's a horse of another hue. You learn what you're doing here and then you can experiment in all different directions. Better learn what's been known – those first – before we do too much experimentation on the thing. Because we have, first and foremost – we want to get some immediate results here. And we're getting some immediate results.

Well, how does this all vary and fool around and monkey up and make this problem of exteriorization important?

Well, what is exteriorization in the first place? Well, it takes somebody out of a body and puts him three feet back of his chair or on the roof or at his office. Or you could exteriorize somebody by saying, "Well, just be in a place where you'd like to be. Where's a place you'd most like to be?"

"Oh," the fellow says, "Canada. In the Canadian Rockies."

You say, "Okay. You know the exact place where you'd like to be there?"

The fellow says, "Oh, yes. Fished there many times. Big cliffs on the…"

You say, "All right. Be there."

And what do you know, very often the fellow will just, pop, exteriorize and he'll be there. This is another process of giving him some mass. You understand that? You let him exteriorize from his body to new mass with which he's already familiar and knows exists, see? Another trick of exteriorization – an old one, very old.

Now, that's an easy way to go about it. But a fellow who'll exteriorize only that way, you have a big problem with. Why? Because he's sold on mass. And if he's sold on mass, he's sold on his own automaticity as being somebody else's automaticity. He's sold on something that is actually his, being somebody else's. Anybody who is sold on the problem of needing mass, as contrary to creating mass, is sold on the idea that his automaticity is somebody else's. In other words, he's denied himself.

Now, this is theory weaving its treacherous way along the brink of many a cliff. And you could take this material and turn it around the other way and do something weird and strange with it, probably. And you could probably get all wrong with it. But a test of the thing is simply this: you take somebody who's exteriorized and you ask him to mock-up and unmock something and ask him to do it more and more rapidly and, the next thing you know, he's got the being there. He's got somebody there. He doesn't like that too well. So have him cut it to pieces and throw it away. Move it around. Do something else with it. And it of course, disintegrates.

Now, who's pretty good at this? I haven't been told the result. Who's doing a good job of exteriorization these days?

[to student] Okay, Julia. Why don't you be about three feet back of your head there. And what's your favorite mock-up?

Female voice: Mm – you tell me.

All right. Well, let's mock-up a cat.

Female voice: Okay.

Now, let's unmock him.

Mock him up.

Unmock him.

Mock him up.

And now just continue that process more and more rapidly. And what you got there now?

Female voice: Still the same cat.

Still the same cat. Is he getting more solid or less solid?

Female voice: Oh, about the same.

About the same. What are you omitting about the cat that you aren't mocking-up and unmocking?

Is he really disappearing each time?

Female voice: I think so.

All right. Now let's throw each cat away and put a new cat in its place.

Female voice: Okay.

One after the other.

Till you got a pile of old mock-ups.

Female voice: Mm-hm.

Got that?

Female voice: Yeah.

All right. Now make this one you've got right now, make it disappear. Now a little bit ahead of that, make one appear. Make a cat appear. New place, slightly ahead of that.

Difficulty?

Female voice: I keep – I keep changing the – what the cat is doing.

Oh. Oh, I see. I see. All right. Let's just put a post there.

Female voice: Done it.

All right. Let's unmock the post. And mock it up a little bit to the right of where it was.

Do that okay?

Female voice: Yeah.

All right. Unmock it there and mock it up a little further to the right.

Female voice: Mm-hm.

And unmock it there and mock it up a little bit further to the right.

Female voice: Mm-hm.

And unmock it there and mock it up a little bit further to the right. Okay. Is this post doing all right now?

Female voice: Yeah. It's getting real solid.

Ah! That's what we're looking for. All right. Now let's unmock it there and mock it up a little bit further to the right again.

Female voice: Well, do you want me to wait until you tell me to or…

No. Just go ahead and do that until you get a post actually moving by being mocked and unmocked.

You getting a nice solid post?

Female voice: It went black for a minute there, the first time.

Okay.

Female voice: Yeah, it's a nice solid.

All right. Throw it away.

Female voice: Okay.

Thank you.

Female voice: Thank you.

That's just an example of an SOP 8-O process. Because, of course, that takes over the mock-up of the MEST universe and the mock-up of moving things. It takes over the basic automaticity on it. And it's true, it'll just get solider,

[to student] Did it get nice and solid there?

Female voice: Yeah.

Yeah. Oh, these things get gorgeously solid. Just gorgeous. I mean, you can get a thetan to get things that look so much better than a real person that, holy cats, the dickens with these other mock-ups! And now he gets powerful enough so that he can stretch across and influence a couple of other universes and he's got agreement on his mock-up and you've got a materialization which you can go into. And there you get materialization in front of a crowd, which they used to do, and still do, possibly, in India.

I've seen this done in India, as a boy, and was quite mystified as to exactly what was occurring, because this was actual, real materialization. Well, of course, if you can do this sort of thing, why, the rest of it becomes child's play. I mean, as far as handling people is concerned and doing things like that – if you want to make slaves out of them. But you have to make a slave out of a person, to some degree, if you're going to control him by showing him signs and wonders. And showing people signs and wonders is done more or less in this fashion.

Now, that's a little bit off of theory. But there we just have the example of putting the ashtray from A to B on the communication line – you know, just mocking it up and unmocking it. Now, that's a standard exercise for 8-O. Now, that's how a fellow gets good, solid, big handsome mock-ups.

Now, another manifestation you'll run into is just mocking-up and unmocking and mocking-up and unmocking in one place. All of a sudden, you'll kick the machine to pieces. And the moment you kick the machine to pieces, it'll set up some sort of an automaticity where it'll start mocking-up everything solid. And all of a sudden, you'll get things just hung up solid and we were already hitting it there a little bit with the cat, see? We were kicking the cat. Because the cat started to do something funny, it started to go out a little bit under control. Well, that's typical, but that's just the machine.

Now, the only reason you're doing this is to kick out the automatic machine which mocks-up the MEST universe. Now, you've obviously got to have one in these many parts: one that mocks-up the MEST universe for you, one that mocks-up the MEST universe for somebody else for himself, one that mocks-up the MEST universe of somebody else for you, yours that mocks-up the MEST universe for somebody else and the machinery that belongs to somebody else that mocks-up the MEST universe for somebody else and for others. In other words, the parts of the bracket have to be in that machine in order to get a materialization which is visible across the boards. And this is why we fool around with this and every time we start running brackets we're kicking that automatic machine. Any bracket you run will kick the machine.

If you just ran just idle brackets, that is to say, no deeper significance than, "All right, now for yourself."

"What for yourself?" the preclear will say.

"Oh, the hell with 'what,' just for yourself."

And "Okay."

And "Now get somebody else there,"

"All right. For him."

"Yeah, but what for him?"

"No, no. Just for him."

"Now somebody else for somebody else."

"Okay."

"Now somebody else for you."

"Ummmm, okay. And what am I supposed to be getting for me?"

"It doesn't matter, just doesn't matter."

"Do I put something there?"

"Oh, if you want to."

Well, the fellow will finally just run a bracket as a bracket. And the next thing you know, his brackets and his mock-ups will start having funny things happen to them.

You start into this automaticity, you see? You'll start into the automaticity that puts things there for you in three universes. And the second that you start kicking this automaticity… A case, by the way, doesn't deteriorate the way you'd think it would – you'd think it would just kind of go to pieces and sink in. No. The person gets to feeling better and better, but stranger and stranger things are happening, see? And he gets to feeling better and better.

Well, you just carry it through and all of a sudden (and in 8-O you may, but you don't have to) get up to the position where, for a little while, the fellow will be laying down the MEST universe so he can look at it. He'll be walking down the street and putting a street there so he can walk on it and so on. All the while, his body is totally visible to you because you haven't omitted his machine from your mock-up of machinery. You know, that's another's body for you, so you keep on seeing the fellow. But his body can disappear for him simply by kicking out that part of his automaticity.

Now, we have an automatic mocker and an unmocker there, you see? And in order to get this down just pat so everybody's got time with everybody else's time, we have to get a uniform rate of mock-up, unmock, mock-up, unmock, mock-up, unmock and that in itself is time. The agreed-upon rate is the speed of light – give you some idea of your own ability.

But a fellow has this idea that all of this is here just for him to embrace. You know, it's all made up and it's his and all that but, of course, it's been put there by somebody and it isn't his and so on. But he's happy to have that and this is very cheerful and he'll go along in that state for a very short space of time before it caves in and starts disappearing. And he also feels he's kind of drained and he's unable to create.

Well, boy, he's feeding energy out into the mock-up machinery that makes everything around him – he's feeding energy … Oh, you would just be fascinated with the amount of energy which leaves you in terms of make-up energy, in terms of knowingness, in terms of old covered-up knowingnesses and agreed-upon channels. Think of the amount of energy that it takes to put up the number of ridges and hold the number of ridges in place which some ridge case is holding up around him. Think of the amount of continuous effort which he has to undergo to have an electronic facsimile pushing his face in. See? And this becomes rather silly.

Now, the proof of this theory – and you understand this is a theory – this has no other foundation than its workability. And it is workable. Now, we get somebody and we have him be the various machines and be other ends of the communication line. In other words, "Be the MEST universe." "Now be your body." "Now be yourself." "Now be yourself." "Be the MEST universe." "Be your body." And back and forth, around like this and around like this. "Now let's be the MEST universe doing you a big favor by existing." And "Be the MEST universe being depended upon by you," Uhhh! If you've done that for a little while, back and forth, all of a sudden, this automatic machinery begins to creak, see?

And you get somebody exteriorized, well, he has the body as a very set, beautiful piece of agreement and he's picked up its agreements and he's got it all dovetailed gorgeously and this body is a very solid contraption. Now, it isn't necessarily in on his line. Thought can cross and knowingness can cross and therefore individuality can exist, but knowingness can cross without a wavelength, actual knowingness can cross without a wavelength. That frightens many people.

A person will get down pretty low into circuits and that sort of thing and he'll get unselective mind reading. He'll walk down the street and all of a sudden he knows what everybody is thinking about. He's going to go nuts. Well that, of course, stems from the fact that if it bothers him, he's unwilling to be those other people and this tells you why he's automatic mind reading. And the other fellow can simply know or not know.

It is this "thoughtness" itself, not beingness itself, which is a communication channel which makes it possible for you to stay in agreement. Nothing more than that is actually necessary in order to stay in agreement. And here's this terrific built – up automaticity that puts the MEST universe here and takes it away at the speed of light – machinery which you evidently are feeding at a mad rate of energy – if you have energy at all, you know you have to have energy. And yet you are feeding energy to all of this, so it's all – boy, oh boy, oh boy!

There's that Sun blazing up there and there's your body sitting there and, oh man, oh man, this is just nice, to sit in that nice warm Sun. Well, I don't know, why don't you put the Sun someplace else sometime and bask in it? It's just as simple as that. You can bask in it much better. You can bask in it without ants. You can mock-up a lawn without ants. Well, that restores to an individual, to a large degree, his fluidity.

Now, to say that the whole track has been in vain would be a falsehood and that individuals who are passing through this particular phase at this time – all is lost and all of that sort of thing. No, no. – Any randomity which is built up which gives an individual a tremendous interchange of knowingness, one with another, and makes the playground possible and makes a game possible, is very far from lost.

You'll go on knowing what you have found out, because what you have found out is the accidental combinations of patterns. And this is tremendously valuable to you.

Did you ever see a couple of little kids go out and decide to play a game and then not know any rules or anything and no pattern? They can't get enough in agreement with each other to have any kind of a game. So we're not just trying to wipe out a game. The truth of the matter is that it is not all lost and your travail is not for nothing and all that sort of thing. But it does work out that you have gone a bit far south on the game and it ceased to be a game, to some degree, because everybody has agreed that it ceases to be.

When you ask somebody to exteriorize from himself then, you aren't asking a being to be anyplace else, although he knows he is someplace else. But is there a being at that new place? Oh yes, there's as much being as he ever has been and probably more than he has been in many cases. There's a being there. There's a being – if a viewpoint is a being. But his viewpoint and his being are synonymous. There isn't something with mass there.

Well now, when an individual has done a tremendous agreement upon the existence of terminals and interchange of energies and masses and the need of masses and he has to have two big masses rigged up so they'll interchange – and he's fooling himself to the point of where he doesn't put in the interchange between these two masses so he can have energy and not watch himself do it, you see – when he's going through all of this stuff, well, at the first moment that he came into this universe, you might say, the first moment when he set up his agreement with this universe, he experienced a certain degradation. Of course, because he set up an other-determinism which was so much more powerful than himself that he never, never can solve it – he figured.

Science is a hectic game called "find the rules." And they weren't succeeding too well. Yet life itself has succeeded when we can pull it out of the hat like this. But don't succeed so well that you don't set up another game.

Here we have the fellow exteriorized, though. What are we trying to do? We're trying to give him another viewpoint, another place to look from, another place to know from and a choice of where to know from, which does not entirely depend upon a body.

Well, why can't you get the same effect inside a body? Well, when he's inside the body, he's already depending upon something. You just kick him out and say, "Depend on yourself, guy!"

All right. So exteriorization is the single biggest jump that we can make. We say, "All right. Let's you set it up. Instead of you setting it up via all the agreements to which the body is subject, let's just you set it up." And the fellow has to and does set it up without all the bric-a-brac machinery and he can still keep the bric-a-brac machinery parked to one side. So therefore a fellow can let go of an awful lot as an exteriorized being – that is a being who is communicating without the system and agreement of the MEST body. See? He can let go of a lot. He can unmake a lot of automaticity. He can get himself beautifully squared around in all directions without immediately tearing down all of his ownership and investment in the game. Because, remember, he has an investment in the game. That is more than havingness. Investment in the game is fun, randomity, action, drama, so on. It's only when the drama has run out that the worry runs in.

Now, as a matter of fact, a couple soldiers sitting in a foxhole in the mud starving to death and shooting people all over the place and being shot up and bombed and so forth… You read a lot in the storybooks about how they feel, but actually at a moment of action of this character they don't feel they're – because anything is justified, any drama, any speech, any action, any gesture is entirely justified – they've got drama. And they don't sit there and ask many questions. Unfortunately books about soldiers are seldom written by soldiers and soldiers don't write. Take Eisenhower, for instance. Anyway… [laughter]

We have a large problem in getting somebody exteriorized only where we have a large problem in two things: one, agreement, and the other, terminals or masses. We say terminals, we say masses. And where we have a tremendous dependency on masses or a tremendous dependency on agreements, we have a problem in exteriorization. The fellow can be anyplace. He is not a character of mass. As long as he thinks he has mass, he'll go all through all sorts of degradations and so forth. So we get the basic theory that goes behind, immediately, how he puts the universe together and what he's doing in that head in the first place.

Well, a lot of incident comes later than all of his agreements and so we have a tremendous incident pattern. You get this incident chain? He's got 76 trillion years, or something on that order, of agreements and patterns and things that he can fall back on, overlying the top of an automaticity from the moment since he built the playing field, you might say.

And you'll have two fellows going around – he'll argue this way, "I built the MEST universe," one says. And the other one says, "No, I did it. You didn't, I did. And I know. We ran it on the E-Meter and I know I did." Well, the truth of the matter is, they both did. The only MEST universe you see is the universe which you put there. But it's in such a beautiful, tight package of agreement that it obviously is there and you can count on it being there for a heck of a long time. But it's your universe.

Now, the person has been disenfranchised who can't see this universe well and who isn't perceiving well and doesn't exteriorize well. He's been disenfranchised. You get that? Part of his agreement is that it isn't his. See? To such a degree that he can't see it.

Now, if you can get somebody to own an object, to warm it up with his own (quote) "body heat" (unquote), to pet it, to carry it around for some days – take a pebble and have him concentrate on owning it. Even though this person never before got a picture, a facsimile, a mock-up or anything, he thereafter will be able to get the most beautiful picture of that pebble anytime he wants it, anyplace he wants to put it. It's on ownership. And if you can make some preclear simply look up and take ownership on an object or take ownership of the world around them, they will then be able to close their eyes and see it. Not a facsimile of it, they'll be able to see it.

There are certain things expected of a body and a body has certain frailties. But it's holding space apart merely because a thetan agrees it holds space apart. It keeps things stabilized. Now many a thetan exteriorizes, gets three feet back of his head and has the whole room go out of shape. You know, it gets narrower than it is long and the anchor points start to wobble off like a parallelogram collapsing and the anchor points get pretty shaky and so forth. You exteriorized him outside of where he had concentrated his automaticity for perception. And now he's outside of this place and he hasn't got his automaticity concentrated at that place anymore and he isn't yet aware of the fact that he has to set it up in order for it to be straight.

So he keeps sitting outside the body, pretending he's still sitting in the body – you know, kind of. He's still got a body agreement to a level where he expects something else – or not even a body agreement, he's got a MEST universe – where he very much expects something else to hold the anchor points straight. The only thing that'll ever hold the anchor points straight is himself. So you just train him in holding anchor points straight and all of a sudden the MEST universe straightens up.

Okay?

[[Category:Lectures 3ACC]]