View source for Basic Process On Time, Survival Pace (3ACC 540118)

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

'''Date:''' 18 January 1954

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

----

← [[Lecture_Index_3ACC|Back to Series]]

A lecture given by L. Ron Hubbard on the 18 January 1954

The more an Individual believes he has to handle energy with energy, the more he'll believe he has to communicate through energy. So, if he has to communicate through energy, it's going to take him a long time to communicate through the energy. Right?

Actually, his communication isn't carried on in this fashion at all. You people sit here every morning and think I talk to you with a voice. Okay, I do talk to you with a voice. I put it on a tape and it's magnetic and all that sort of thing. Sure, it's all very mechanical.

Well, I talk to you mostly – I just monitor a sense message. I wouldn't care much how we were putting this communication across – be utterly unimportant. You just happen to accept this type of communication better.

All right, let's get in, then, to the formulas involving the processes. The basic process is "Two particles you don't object to having apart. Two particles you don't object to having together." Simple one, isn't it?

That'll give you a change in tone on the individual. It will give a constant rise on the tone indicator aide of a meter, just done that way. You'd have to do it in brackets if you're going to make sense all the way around. And you have to treat objects and animals and people – objects, animals, people, spaces, just to broaden out the technique.

The basic technique though, you see, is "Two particles you don't object to having apart. Two particles you don't object to having together." That's the basic technique and that technique resolves time and this opens up to us a new type of process, which process immediately is monitored on an E-Meter this way: you look for the fellow on a "stuck." You look for the "stuck," you don't look for the motion of the needle. You don't look for charge, you look for absence of charge in terms of a stuck needle. In other words, you're looking for a mass or you're looking for an absence of a mass. And you get that; usually it'll show up on a terrifically dispersing meter or a stuck needle. One of these meters that'll just rise-rise-rise-rise-rise-rise-rise-rise-rise-rise or just stick. Either one of those two tell you what you're looking for.

Soon as you find such a manifestation and the subject of it, you just beat it to death on the two whatever-it-wases, apart and together, in brackets. And you look over there on your tone needle and you'll see, strangely and mystically, that the tone needle is doing a very constant but very rather rapid rise from stuck or utterly unstable to a constant and steady rise.

Now, you could just run this blind on a preclear and you'll get a tone rise, It's very strange, single out a process and say, "Well, this process gets a tone rise, this is very rapid and other processes don't get a tone rise."

Well, all processes get a tone rise to the degree that they impinge upon that formula that you've just had. So, "Give me three people you're not." The fellow immediately has to separate two particles. "Three places you're not." He merely – immediately has to check the position of particles.

And that's why you don't let somebody just rattle off to you, "Oh, yeah, I'm not in those places," so on. No sir, you'd better make them check the position of those particles. That's why taking a fixed idea and moving it around – you move it in relationship to exactly placed other particles and so you get a change – why you get a rise on that.

But all those are slow actually, by my experience, compared to this other as a direct process for processing time. Time is "havingness." Havingness "consists of particles." Time "consists of particles coming together and pushing apart." Okay. That's all there is to it.

Now, you work at this on a case and you'll find immediately that he's stuck in his head to the degree that he has to have particles together. And he does this pressor beam escape to the degree that he's got to have particles apart.

You'll find in your background as a preclear and in your preclear's background that there were people of mixed types, ordinarily, but there wer$3$3e people of such fixed intention as to cause an enormous upset in terms of time.

For instance, the preclear's mother may well have been obsessed with the idea of pulling particles apart. It demonstrated itself in terms of having to have people apart. Maybe this woman was suffering from a postpartum psychosis: trying to get the baby away from self, you see? Trying to get two particles apart. And you'll find out that this preclear's mother has broken up his marriages, has broken up his friendships, broken up his relationship with his family in all directions and has gone on slumps or propitiations where this person had to get everything together in the family. And then this would immediately be followed by a slow explosion. You see that?

And then there would be somebody in his family who was completely obsessed with having to bring particles in proximity. Had to pile them up and bring them close together. Couldn't let any particles get apart.

Now, I told you that if you could just get a preclear to reject some particles, you've got a psychotherapy. This is a very usable psychotherapy. Well, it's only a partial psychotherapy, because you'll find preclears that you'll have to get into a state of mind where they can bring a couple together, you see? Particles apart, particles together.

So you'll get this preclear, if you got him exteriorized, finally, would all of a sudden do a bunk for Arcturus. Pressor beam action – particles apart.

And the other one just can't seem to get these two particles apart any way you look at it. You just can't get him out of his head! If lie gets out of his head, he's stone-blind – which is to say, all particles that I have here must stay together, but no particles out there must come in to these particles which I have here, which means no perception. And that's a problem of perception then. See that?

Now, communication, as I've told you over and over and over, is your index of this sort of thing. But what it's really an index of is how much he's using energy, how much he's obsessed about particles. Because a person communicates as well as he doesn't use particles to communicate, actually. All right.

We have then as a basic process: "Two particles you don't object to having apart. Two particles you don't object to having together." You can fancy that up: "Give me a particle that you don't object to having in motion. A particle that you don't object to having stopped." And "that you don't object to" is of course the most feather touch of the process. You'll be amazed to find many a preclear sitting there for several minutes trying to find two particles.

Now, the significance that shows up on this is that he starts to run out of particles with the rapidity that he is aberrated on the subject where he's trying to find the particles. In other words, a sudden scarcity of particles starts showing up. On something you want – "Give me two people now that you don't mind having together,"

Well, he'll give you two and then he'll give you a couple more and then he starts to run out of people. And then he'll get two more and then he's really running out of people now. And, gee, he just can't think of two other people and finally he tells you, "Well, it's because I just haven't known many people."

And you say, "Well, offhand, how many people do you think you've known in the last thirty-five years?"

"Oh, urn, not too many. Five thousand."

So, you carry it out into a bracket. You have to work a very limited bracket on this, of course, because you just get at other people – there are several ways you can work a bracket, but it's very limited. At least get other people, see? "Get somebody else," I meant to say.

"Now, get somebody else and get two particles this person doesn't mind having apart, or two people." See, object… When you keep saying "particle," why, they just get into the groove. But if you consider a person as a particle or any object as a particle or a wall as a particle, it's just how big is the particle or how mobile is the particle or a symbol is a particle. "Give me two words you don't object to having apart." You wouldn't think that would stick somebody – it will.

The fellow all of a sudden says, "Oh, I don't know, I just can't seem to think of a couple." Now, there's your Step VI. This of course, obviously – he doesn't mind having these two symbols apart: "the cat". They have to be apart in order to be intelligible. And yet he can't quite grab this and he'll finally come up with one eventually, something of the sort.

You want to keep hammering and pounding at them about how certain they are about this. Because they'll tell you quite ordinarily, they're not certain they want "the" and the "cat" apart. "The" and the "cat" belong together in a sentence. And here, because you're saying together and apart, you're solving space rather directly.

All right. Now, there's a lower process than this which hits the same thing and this process covers communication rather directly and you use this process as a variation. But don't kid yourself that it's as valuable as the other one because it's not. It's getting more covert. And a particle is as unworkable as it is covert, in direct ratio. Of course, all processes are to some degree covert.

You start asking the fellow – in brackets – for knowledge, perceptions, emotions, efforts, which is to say, force and objects, thoughts, symbols, food and sex, which must not depart, arrive or travel, start, change or stop. Now, out of that formula you could make a tremendous amount of stuff. That's knowledge, perceptions, emotions, efforts, force, which is to say, objects, thoughts, symbols like words, foods and sex, sex partners, children, babies, so forth, which must not depart, arrive, travel or start, change or stop and you run that in brackets. It's a very effective process. And we're talking mainly about exteriorization, you know, when we're talking about this. Even though it's the most basic process.

Here's another one which makes the individual look at reality: "Three things to which you do not have to agree to communicate with or to feel affinity for," in brackets. "Give me three things you don't have to agree with right now." "Three things you don't have to communicate with." "Three things you don't have to feel affinity for," in brackets.

Now, a little note as we go along there, the Seventh Dynamic is the spooky one. (Isn't that a nice pun?) They're all spooked on the Seventh Dynamic. I hate that to be such a horrible pun, but I'm just putting it that way so that it – so kind of nail it down.

You say to this fellow, "All right, give me three ghosts that aren't present."

"Nyah!" The fellow says, "Well, almost anybody could – present? Uh, no, you couldn't tell about ghosts, uh-uh-you-uh-mmm…" See, it takes knowingness. It takes knowledge. And that's about the only purity on that level. You see, a ghost, he's up there toward knowledge or missingness and no-particleness to a point of where the fellow who, depending on particles to tell him everything. Boy, he really can't tell anything about this at all, so he says, no, he couldn't do this.

Well, all right, "How about some ghosts of fiction?"

"Oh, well, yeah, yeah, yeah. That's – sure – there's Banquo's ghost, he didn't exist. So he is – well, well, wait a minute now – I don't know, he might have been a real ghost, you know? Just a minute now. Well, uh… Oh, yeah, there's Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn" (to quote a preclear). "There's Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn and so on, they had a ghost in that Huck. Finn. They talk about that ghost. That ghost didn't exist. They even found out he didn't exist. So that ghost isn't present!" [panting]

And we keep beating it around until finally the guy does find some ghosts that aren't present. Just remember that you are dealing with a ghost who is afraid of ghosts. A spirit who is afraid of spirits, a soul that is desperately afraid of souls and you'll make more progress in Theta Clearing. That Seventh Dynamic is very important.

The Sixth is the most important when you're handling psychosomatics and body ills and that sort of thing. The Sixth is much more important than any of the others. Next to that, of course, is the Seventh. And following in back of that, you get the most aberrated one is perpetuity, because so many people are so low on the Lookingness Scale or the Knowledge Scale that they're clear down there below food, which is Sex, and they'll hit into that bracket rather easily. But by the way, don't beat it too long, because they'll simply leave that bracket and come up to food. Cute, huh? And then you've got to handle food.

In other words, after you handle Freud, you would have had to have taken up – what was this character that ate everybody here recently? Oh, I don't know, he wrote a book How to Live Without Eating.

Female voice: Gayelord Hauser.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Gayelord Hauser. I don't make any pun on his name now. There isn't any reason to believe that this man's eatingness had anything to do with housingness. But you would have had to come up through Hauser, and then you would have come up through there, you'd have had to go into Korzybski. And when you got up to Korzybski, you'd have had to go into the field of probably Schopenhauer and electronic machinery and of thinkingness and computers and that sort of thing and just carrying up the Knowledge Scale. And up above that, why, you would have had to have handled bricklaying and furniture moving and that's much senior to that, you see. And up above that, why, lightning bolts and, finally, we would have gotten into emotions and we'd have had to have handled emotions rather exhaustively and then perceptions, including smell and hearing and so forth. And then we would have gotten up to knowledge. In other words, that would have carried you up the whole span with the preclear.

But, we say, "Two particles which you don't object to having apart, together, and in motion – let's get a sound that you don't object to having against your eardrum." And it instantly rearranges a person's entire concept of what's happening. He's liable to throw a fit on you. "Let's get some sounds." And he'll start naming them off very pleasantly and realizing he's holding them out there about two yards. The only reason sonic is off is just that: he's trying to hold two particles apart. And you'll find this individual quite ordinarily who has sound shut – off is either trying to hold two sounds very firmly together or trying to keep two very far apart.

Almost anybody in the society who's been thoroughly trained into not using dirty words, for instance, has had the basic aberration on sound laid in, but that's actually way down there in symbols. He's afraid he'll hear certain words, he's afraid certain words will be heard and, gee, that's very bad because he's got to keep two particles apart, he feels. He's got to keep a particle away from that eardrum. And if he's got to keep a particle away from the eardrum and a truck comes by and demonstrates to him that it can put any number of sounds it wants to right up against his eardrum, he starts to get frantic in the presence of noise.

All right, here's another process: "Things which you aren't duplicating" is another method and a higher method than those I've given you before. "Things you aren't duplicating" is a very high level of workability.

All right. Now, we'll get it from a high level of workability into a bric-a-brac bracket. You want to know what your pc is trying to do. Well, running or auditing, itself, is this: he's trying to put out a thought to get an effect. And he dramatizes that when he's being audited. Did you ever see one put out a thought and then wait for the effect to hit him? Put out the thought and wait for the effect to hit him. Well, he knows there's one thing he can effect and that's on the First Dynamic, which is to say, his own body. So, he becomes very happy when he finally gets a somatic; he has created an effect with a thought. That's what he's dramatizing and that is actually what a thetan has been trying to do all the way up and down the track. He's been trying to get an effect by putting out a thought.

And when you see him doing that, why, you just run him on this: You say, "All right, now, put out a thought, now get an effect back from it. Put out a thought, now get an effect back from it." And you'll practically kick out nine tons of his automatic machinery just by that. Because the effect lands in the… Pardon me, there's another law that goes along with this and that is "the effect lands in the zone of the dynamic on which the pc is stuck." A zone of dynamic.

If you could conceive of a pc as a spot with a circle around him – that spot being the First Dynamic, the circle around him being the Second Dynamic, with another circle around those, concentric, see, that being the Third Dynamic, and another circle around that being the Fourth Dynamic and another circle around that being the Fifth and another circle around that being the Sixth and another circle around that being the Seventh and another circle around that being the Eighth – you would have a spot with seven circles which would comprise your eight dynamics. And your pc can be mapped this way. The thought which he puts out will land on one of those zone points. He is, in other words, restricted in terms of dynamics.

Now, the dynamics press in from Eight on down to One, in that order. So that an individual has a tendency to be – he uses one of these circles as his target and that person who is putting out a thought and then only getting the effect upon his body, of course, is obviously stuck on One. See that? That's the primary place he would be stuck. He'd be stuck a lot of other places, too.

Because unfortunately, although we can't draw it in MEST space, it starts from that One and it goes inward. And you keep drawing tinier and tinier circles until you get to Eight again and that's what's known as an inversion. Sec that? That single dot, then, has smaller and smaller circles in it where the final inner dot is Eight and then there's a dot inside of that dot which is one again. And then unfortunately we can't draw it, but there's another circle inside that finest dot that went inside there and it comes right on down to Eight once more and so we keep going. See how that would work? That would be a very complex picture.

But the only thing that graph incidentally demonstrates to you – the only reason the pc looks complex, he finally gets to a point where he can't put out a thought that hits him. he puts out a thought that hits an inverted S. You know, he puts out a thought that hits the god on which he is particularly inverted.

All right. Now, to one below 2.0 – to an individual below 2.0 – the only punishment appears to be for communicating. The only reason you can get punished in this universe is for communicating. That's because the universe is doing an inflow on all sides, and to get along on it, you know, you can reflect what comes in. just like the Sun, you see, can shine upon a roof, but that roof had better not put out an emanation itself; otherwise, it'll run into the Sun coming in.

So, when we get into flows and when we get into communication of various kinds, then – flows and communication are not synonymous, you know, because you can communicate without a flow. But the only punishment to one who is below 2.0 appears to be for communicating. See, he can't get punished for noncommunication. It just appears this way to him. So below 2.0 his lines are collapsing inward and they collapse quite rapidly.

Thus, the genetic entity is on a compelled "don't let anything go" or inverted "got to let everything go." "Don't let anything go," now inverted, "got to let everything go." That's lower. That's an abandonment area of releases.

Now, the thetan agrees to this when he agrees with the GE-sympathy. See that? The thetan agrees not to let anything go and he agrees with the GE or agrees if the GE is on a lower inversion which is an abandonment "let everything go," why, the thetan has agreed with the GE. All right.

The GE has a black interior and a form. Doesn't he? There is no light gets into the GE's interior worth a nickel. See? Fatty tissue and so forth, is quite insulative. No light inside there, is there? Also the GE has a form. Well, let's get a thetan that agrees with him. A thetan who agrees too long with the GE gets a no-communicate and a shape and blackness. And there is your "theta body."

Now, I'll go over that again. That's just a little system of logic there. It's important to you as an auditor so you stop worrying about this occlusion. It has many significances, but its most basic significance is simply this: the only punishment appears to be below 2.0 for communicating. See, one is punished only because he communicates. If you were hiding in a shack and you hid very well and you didn't say anything, why, when they came by looking for you, they of course, would pass on by. But if you said anything as they came by, you would, of course, be located and so you would be punished. A person has to believe in the first place that he's being punished for something before all this takes place. All right.

That's right. A writer goes downhill, by the way, after awhile. He begins to believe that, you know, if he didn't write, he wouldn't get criticized and so on. And you'll find many a failed writer or a person who'd love to write, who starts a story, goes halfway through it and lays it away, who starts a painting, finishes it halfway and then lays it away and so on, is just doing this stunt: he feels chat he's going to be punished for communicating, so he's not going to communicate. He'll make a stab at communicating and then he won't communicate very far. All right.

The GE is on a compelled "don't let anything go." Now, we were covering that earlier with particles, you see. He's on a compelled "mustn't let anything go." And he gets all sorts of weirdities – he can't cry, he gets constipated, so on, he gets overweight or so on.

Now, below that level, he gets an enforced, an abandonment and there comes in such things as obsessive tears, diarrhea, an abandonment of weight, terrific thinness and so forth. He gets below that, you see that? All right.

And the thetan agrees to this when he agrees with the GE. See, a thetan doesn't have to have it this way at all, but he agrees with the GE and, thereupon, he sort of takes in the burdens of the GE. And it's an interesting fact that this aberration cuts in at the time when the environment no longer sympathizes with the thetan. He starts to look for sympathy from his own body. And it also happens he starts to look for sensation only from his own body, he also gets this same sympathy computation. See that? All right.

And the genetic entity has a black interior and a form and the thetan who agrees too long with the GE gets "no-communicate" and a shape and blackness. Okay?

Now, that's a lot of bric-a-brac but you're expected to know it because it adds up, very sensibly, to exactly what you're trying to do. We're mainly talking here today about exteriorization.

There is another technique that is surprising for pickup of perception and that is simply – it isn't a very high level technique, but you can run it for a long time. You can run it a lot longer than you would think possible – is "letting the wall be a wall, granting beingness to the wall as a wall."

[At this point there is a gap in the original recording.]

Silly technique, but it's quite effective because you'll find most people are running around refusing to grant the right to streets to be streets. And this has got them on a combat basis and they don't know what they're combating. And this goes in to some degree with time and it assists in bringing somebody up to present time. It's a mild technique, it's…

Your basic technique on all this, of course, is two particles that you don't object to having apart or together, two particles that – you don't want two particles you want apart, you know, two particles you want together. You don't go into that too much because that's examining the track. You just make the person look,, is all you're trying to do.

This other one is a long and involved formula which gives a lot of processing. This business about knowledge, perceptions, emotions, efforts, objects, force, thoughts, words, food and sex; items which must not depart, arrive, travel, start, change or stop.

Now, let's see:

"Give me three sexual conditions which mustn't start."

"Let's get somebody else now and have this person get three sexual conditions which mustn't start."

"Now, let's get two other people and let's get one of them getting three conditions – sexual conditions – which the other person mustn't start."

You'd be surprised at the variety that suddenly begins to appear in the subject called sex. You think it gets very plain and there's nothing much to it, but more significance can be read into this super, super communication significance. There's nothing quite as complex as sex. Boy! You just start examining some of the protein acids that go into the sperm, for instance. "Well," you say, "you mean they got to do all this just to communicate?" And then the growth and so forth. You talk about a covert output! The GE can only duplicate by this very covert via energy communication line.

Now, apropos to this business of "the GE mustn't put out," the funny damn part of it is, is the GE is, actually, usually engaged in a tremendous – if the guy is rather bad off particularly – the GE will be engaged in some tremendous covert furnishing of energy.

Now, "You get three things that you wouldn't want to furnish energy to." And, "Let's get somebody else now, three things he wouldn't want to furnish any energy to." "Now, let's get two other people and get one of them not wanting to furnish three kinds of energy to the other one" and all of a sudden you've just got a hole out there in space! And your GE has got a communication system rigged so as to furnish energy to something else somewhere else. And you, incidentally, will look in vain for the person. An awful lot of people will come off of it. But he's gone back, way back on the "Helper" and oh, way back to – just to hell and gone.

He's furnishing energy to other beings (at least he thinks so) and he's covert, he's very covert about this. You'll run into that as a mystery while you're running this, so you might as well know about it. It's a mystery.

The total mystery of it is, is that he can be punished for communicating, so he isn't going to put out any energy. And the pc's energy is being run on a communication line which probably goes three miles past "Ditty-Wah-Ditty." We don't quite know where this communication line is going. It may be just pouring out into space, but the GE is thoroughly convinced that he can put a lot of energy out on that line.

This gets keyed-in by parents who don't want the children to exhibit lots of excess energy. You know, nobody will let them put out any energy. So, we get bypass circuits and so forth and this fellow is exhausted and he can't accumulate any energy and food doesn't do him any good. And we find all the energy he's accumulating is apparently being poured out in space someplace to somebody else, but we're not interested to who.

If you find somebody that the GE is pouring out energy to and the person is satisfied that this was what was happening, why, generally the flow will stop and everything will be happy thereafter. But don't you be satisfied that that was where it was going. You see, everywhere is nowhere according to the GE. He's real nuts.

All right. Get this and run this in on your pc who is putting out an effect – a thought, you know, he puts out a thought. You get him to run a concept and he expects it to land someplace; he expects to get an effect someplace. And he just runs this and he'll just dramatize this forever unless you take it up as an automatic machine, which is what it is, he's got it built in automatically and your auditing is just going down the drain.

Why? Because he's just using every concept that you hand him to simply put out a thought and then get an effect. He's just demonstrating cause and effect, cause and effect, cause and effect, cause and effect.

Therefore, actually, the best auditing is that which least addresses the "deep significances" covertly. There's lots of clever auditing that you can do, but it all breaks down to really, two particles apart and two particles together. Not even two particles in motion; that will all come up. You're not interested in the particles in motion because he isn't stuck there. And your perception and so forth will come on up on this process. This is an interesting process, isn't it?

Well, you have to know something about time before it begins to make sense. Time is a "co-motion of particles" and if he won't let a couple of particles move and they're not there anymore, this looks silly doesn't it?

I imagine you'll go find some preclear that is trying to keep the Santa Maria from sailing from Cadiz. I'm sure that you'll find some pc and, certainly, every pc you get will be trying to restrain something from happening. He's trying to restrain something desperate – like he's trying to keep a pyramid together and the thing is on another planet that has long since gone to dust. And in addition to that, the planet isn't even there anymore, and yet, he is devoting an enormous amount of energy to keeping this together. Well, in order to keep it together he has to have a mock-up of it which he is keeping together. Well, of course, that's just a mock-up.

And the fact that he believes it still exists or that he can say it exists and he knows he can't create it anymore produces a strange state of mind. So, you'll get a date flash on him. You'll get eighteen million years ago or something like that.

Now, the proof of the falsity of dates comes about this way – I'll give you some demonstration of this right now:

Now, give me two dates that you don't want to come together.

Now, give me two dates that you don't want to go apart, [pause] You can probably think of some,

Give me two years that you don't want to get together.

Now, give me two years you don't want to go apart.

Kind of a boggy process, isn't it? You can probably get some, huh? Kind of a silly process.

All right. Now, get two particles you don't want to get together. By "particle" I mean anything, any object, [pause] See if you can find one right away.

All right, now, let's get a little more factual than this and get right on the groove of the process the way it would be delivered.

Give me two objects now which you don't mind having apart.

Now, two objects which you don't mind having together – you don't mind being together.

Now, get somebody else and have this person get two objects which he doesn't mind having apart.

And two objects which he doesn't mind having together. Now, get two people you don't mind having apart. And two people you don't mind having together.

Now, let's get somebody else and get two people this person doesn't mind having apart.

And two people this person doesn't object to being together.

All right. Get two particles that you don't mind having separated – don't object to being apart.

And two particles you don't object to having together.

And get somebody else and have this person get two particles they don't mind having apart.

And they don't mind having together.

Now, let's get a symbol you wouldn't mind having arrive.

And a symbol you wouldn't mind having depart.

Well, and let's get somebody else and have this person get a symbol he wouldn't mind having arrive.

And a symbol he wouldn't mind having depart, [pause] Which of course was an immediate way of covering these zones. All right.

Now, let's get the two anchor points of the back of the room.

And now let's get two particles in one corner of the back of the room. And then the two anchor points of the back of the room. And then two particles in the other anchor point. And two anchor points in the back of the room. Okay. Let's look, you might say, straight up and find the ceiling. And then look through the ceiling and find the roof. And look through the roof and find the sky. And look through the sky and find space, blackness. And through the blackness and find nothing. Look straight down and find the floor. Through the floor and find the Earth.

Through the Earth and find the sky on the other side of the Earth.

And through the sky and find black space.

And through black space and find nothing.

And sit back and know.

And behind you find the wall of the room.

Look through the wall of the room, find the next wall.

Look through that wall, find the space in the street. Look straight on out, find the sky behind you. Find black space.

Look through the black space, find nothing. Sit back and know.

Straight out in front of you, find the front wall of the room.

Look through the front wall of the room, find the next wall.

Look through the next wall and find the yard.

Straight on out through remaining barriers and find the sky.

Through the sky and find black space.

Through black space and find nothing.

Sit back and know.

And to the right, find the wall of the room. Look through the wall of the room to the next wall. Look through that and find the next building. Look through that and find the next building. Look through that and find the next building.

And look through all the rest of them and find the sky.

Look through the sky and find black space.

Look through black space and find nothing.

And sit back and know.

Look to the left and find the wall.

Look through the wall and find the next wall.

Look through that and find another barrier.

Look through that and find the sky.

Look through that and find black space.

And through the black space find nothing.

And sit back and know.

Okay.

Because you are addressing particles, any such process carried along must, in essence, carry with it a lot of Nothingness processes. Don't concentrate the pc on particles without looking through particles, without finding nothingnesses, without duplicating nothingnesses. A process is as good as it processes from falsehood to truth. And nothingness and the process of nothingness is, of course, processing out toward truth.

The processing of particles is a junior truth, but you have to get your pc out of his entanglement with particles into a concept of nothing, into a recognition of it and then into an ability to create an awareness of what he is creating. As long as you do this, you'll be successful with pcs and if you don't do this, you won't be successful with them. A process is as good as it processes toward truth. And we don't care much where the truth is, as a matter of sober fact. We do care how workable the processes are, which is to say, how much happiness does it restore to the preclear.

Now, in 1938 I had a definition for happiness which I've never had any reason to – never had any reason at all to alter it. Happiness is the overcoming of not unknowable obstacles toward a known goal. It isn't the arrival at the goal, it's the overcoming of obstacles in the direction of that goal. Your pc is uniformly looking for this thing called happiness – a will-o'-the-wisp. He's been lied to, to believe that he can sit back and the bluebirds will not necessarily come into his backyard but will come in and sit on his head. And by the time he gets into this complete state of relaxation, he's not happy. You wonder why he isn't happy? It's because you've retired him from the game entirely.

The field of medicine has only one mania and that is retire the boy from the game. It's berserk on the subject! "Well, what you need, John, is a long rest."

What you need, John, are some not unknowable obstacles and a goal to attain by having crossed them. And the reason you are sick, John, is because you believe so many obstacles intervene between you and any goal you might put up that you'll never be able to reach a goal. You see that?

All right. So, the direct processing of obstacles is in itself, to some degree, a validation of obstacles but it can be done with benefit if it is coupled with nothingness. Because the truth of the matter is, is there is no obstacle between you and anything you want to be or do. No obstacle exists except your obstacle. The walls aren't there unless the walls are put there by you. The stones do not exist in the road unless you have elected a method of travel which balks at stones in the road.

But the funny part of it is that unless you have some stones in the road… You ever been out on a freeway or an autobahn where you had something as level as a marble floor and you could put your foot down on the throttle and go to the entire top limit of the car and without curves, turns, traffic lights, traffic or anything in your road, have an unlimited distance for advance? And you say, "Why, that first – that would just be wonderful! A car traveling at a hundred and twenty miles an hour or something like that without a curve, without traffic, without lights, why, just think of that, my goodness, couldn't that thing go! That's very exhilarating!" The hell it is. Your passengers for the first few minutes will be rather upset about the speed because they haven't seen landscape pass by that fast before, but will quickly adjust to this, and after that you have solid boredom on your hands. You'd better have a car radio. Just because there's no change.

All right. Now, let's take what is basically wrong with your preclear (we'll go back to what I was talking about much earlier in this Unit) and that is "survival pace." Your preclear is advancing at a certain survival pace and he can't change it. If he could change it merely by postulating it, he would be very, very happy indeed. Oh, he'd be very cheerful indeed simply to change it. He's there to get you to change it. You see that? He's there to get you to make some kind of an alteration in his survival pace.

There is in essence your problem: you've got to change his survival pace. What's his survival pace depending upon? It is depending upon his tolerance for the departure and arrival of particles. Go back into the earlier lecture, earlier than today, that I made on this subject of time.

Now, let's take this lively, go-to-hell, good-looking young man and we put him to work in a bank. This boy is very much on the qui vive, he's – oh, he's the kind of a fellow who would really get there. And we put him behind a cashier's window at the bank. People step up there and they slap down their checks. He adds them up – pang! And he throws their change back at them again and out they go. And his line is very rapidly diminishing there at his cashier's wicket and he's making lots of friends there at the wicket and you'd say, "This young man – this young man, without any doubt whatsoever, will succeed in this bank and will someday become president of it." Don't believe it for a moment!

He'll be fired or monitor himself to the speed which that bank can tolerate the arrival and departure of the symbol known as the dollar! The bank has a certain survival pace. They know how long it takes a cashier to add up figures and take care of customers. And the boy who's in charge of that bank is the fellow who is best in agreement with the banking corporation's survival pace on the subject of the outgo and income of money – the speed of outgo, the speed of income of the money.

If this fellow were to make too much money for this bank, he would be held – this president – he would be held in enormous question by all kinds of people. You'd find the banking commission coming in and wondering: How come bud? Here in the space of one month with this bank, in a small town, you have made a hundred and eighty-five thousand dollars clear profit! What crookedness are you into?

Well, maybe the fellow did it by turning the whole town into some other kind of a town. It wouldn't matter, he'd sure get investigated. And in just such a way, this bank president having been slowed down to that pace will slow down this young cashier. And then this young cashier comes to you two or three years later and instead of dressing in sport clothes anymore, he dresses in a very conservative blue, you see, with a tie that exactly matches and so on. He looks kind of shabby, but – he really is and he looks kind of sad and he doesn't quite know what's happened to him, but he knows that he isn't well-off.

The actual fact of the matter is, professionally, he has been forced into the survival pace of arrival and departure of dollars. And you process him on particles, people, objects and so forth that he doesn't mind having apart and he doesn't mind having together, and one of the first things that will start coming off is his banking career because that's a survival pace which he can't stand because it's death itself!

Now, what happens to a bus driver? A bus driver who is on a long bus line and he's got dispatchers and he's supposed to pass certain corners at a certain specific instant. Well now, you'll find some of the boys went into driving that bus much faster and you'll find some that went in much slower. Some of those bus drivers are being whipped up above their tolerance and some are being pulled down below their tolerance and both of them will have accidents. Why? Because they've been upset in a survival pace which they themselves were accustomed to and so they cannot predict particles at this new survival pace. Just as your bank cashier if he didn't come to you, would have probably lost his job at the bank because he would have started eventually to make mistakes. He couldn't help but it, because he can't predict that slowly and this is his main trouble.

Now, the English language forces upon an individual a certain speed, mostly because individuals to whom he is talking can only assimilate at a certain speed. Therefore, a writer can sit down and hit a word pace and eventually the word pace is imposed upon him by his typewriter. And when it's been imposed upon him thoroughly, he no longer writes creatively because he's been forced into an inflexible survival pace, which means he's stuck on the time track every paragraph he's written for years, because the particles are traveling at the wrong speed. As far as he's concerned, he runs faster than that. Now, some fellow is forced to write at a great volume of speed for some newspaper, he eventually cracks up.

What is randomity? Randomity is simply the ratio of unpredicted to predicted motion; plus and minus randomity. When you talk about survival pace, you're getting that randomity which an individual believes he should have – no more. Know this: there's nothing else than that. It isn't any more weird than that. How fast should he take the obstacles?

The United States War Department, which specializes in time of war of finding those officers which have pumpkins instead of heads, and they put them in the Pentagon building or some such place and they punish people by sending them to combat duty and so forth and they get rid of people fast. They go mad when they run into an officer somewhere in their ranks that exceeds their survival pace. And the public would be absolutely astonished and gratified, maybe, by this army officer's activities if it knew them and it actually continues to be, really, if it knows them at all.

You can rationalize any way you want, but the only trouble with Patton was he didn't know the meaning of going slow. He was paced to cavalry pace and he thought that he would go very fast. Incidentally, he was quite a guy. So the guy lands on a beachhead and he goes so deep in, in all directions – he drives a spearhead so deep in that the Wehrmacht is getting out-Wehrmachted and lines are crumbling in all directions and the poor little quartermasters couldn't get enough trucks together to send them to Patton. They got awful mad. And the next thing you know the War Department is awful mad at Patton and everybody is mad at Patton and then they start publishing things in the papers about Patton and they try to get him removed and so forth. And they easily would have except they couldn't find anybody from the War Department that had nerve enough to go that deep into the enemy lines.

Now, whether he was a good officer or a bad officer is completely beside the point. The individual, however, was traveling at an entirely different survival pace.

The marines have a different survival pace than the army. The army consolidates every position. The marines believe that it is necessary to fight a war to knock out all enemy positions. These are two entirely different philosophies which require two different survival paces. More army men get killed trying to dig in when they ought to be attacking and more marines get killed attacking when they ought to be digging in than you can count.

And so you try to exercise the army and the Marine Corps, regiment by regiment, side by side, and it never works out. The marines are three-quarters of the way across the battleground, have five regiments of the enemy completely in rout and they look around to their flanks and try to find the army regiments that they came in there with.

Well, these boys are still sorting their cartridges out on the beach. So the marines have to cover their own flanks and the next thing you know, why, everything has happened that's going to happen or the marines have been wiped out. Well, it's just luckily they never have gotten into quite that second stage and so they condemn and damn the army and they hate to fight with the army because of that. It's two different survival paces.

Well, the marine is trained in insurgent and guerrilla warfare. You get these differences? He's trained in not having enough troops and not having enough enemy, really. And he's just trained in that and so when he starts in on a battle, his idea is "Let's see, where's the bandit capital?" and so on.

And the marines, by the way, would have tolerated such an officer as Patton. They wouldn't have been able to have understood several other varieties of officer that came out of the war.

A young man – there was a fellow by the name of Charlemagne, he called himself. He was a bandit, a caco down in Haiti, and the marines were getting killed and skinned alive and pegged out in the swamps and a lot of bad things were happening. So one night, a sergeant of the marines who was serving as a gendarmerie lieutenant got the idea that he'd better go get Charlemagne. So he and a pal located where Charlemagne was camped that night and went through about seven successive waves of enemy positions, went into the camp where Charlemagne was – he was standing there by the camp fire in a white silk shirt – and Harrington simply up and shot him dead and then walked out. And that was the end of the caco uprising. But the marines were very satisfied with Harrington. This man had no more than barely done his duty.

So we get survival pace. Now, every time you get a person trained at one survival pace or habituated to a survival pace and then shifted violently into some other survival pace, you're going to get (quote) "mental trouble." So look for this in a pc. I haven't just been talking about the marines or the army. Pm talking about – here's two profession's survival paces.

Actually, there are a lot of things Patton did wrong. There's no doubt about that. Look at all the people he did out of jobs – he finished the European War, so on. Look at all the shipyard contracts that he had cancelled. This is bad stuff, we all know that. But when it comes to action, Patton died because his survival pace was too consistently violated. They just stopped him enough to kill him. Do you see that?

There's another officer that we never hear about his early career, we only hear about his later career: Benedict Arnold. Well, nobody should leave British pay and employ and join a revolutionary force called the American army in the first place. And therefore, we've thought of him ever since as a traitor. I'm not quite sure if that's the historical fact, but he certainly did turn his coat. But every time Benedict Arnold – early in the Revolutionary War – every time Benedict Arnold appeared on a battlefield, he started things moving in an awful rate of speed and the other generals that were appointed around were fantastically agin' it. And he was court-martialed time after time after time. You've never heard of Benedict Arnold without him being in a court-martial.

About what? He was always acquitted. They couldn't find anything wrong. But the troops wouldn't attack if Benedict Arnold was in the area – they wouldn't attack unless he was leading them. We get Morgan's Riflemen practically throwing down their arms when they heard that Benedict Arnold was not going to be the general at Saratoga. And then when he was, why, they went right in there and pitched. But here's a difference of action.

So we get in action one kind of a guy as doing something and as soon as the action ceases we get another kind of a guy doing something. Just two survival paces which match what is now happening. See? Now, if everything was war all the time, the world would be filled with such survival paces as people who could carry a battle forward to its fast conclusion.

But these two things when they overlap get into trouble. For instance, all during the battle of Saratoga, I think it was, Gates or one of those boys' aide was madly riding after Benedict Arnold trying to catch him so as to give him orders to stay in his tent during the battle. And all through the battle this aide was ducking shot and shell trying to get close enough to Benedict Arnold to call him off. And he couldn't get up with him until the battle was won. At which time they served him papers for court-martial. It's fantastic.

But here we get the big argument in which Man is engaged. And one of the biggest overall points of randomity is trying to mismatch survival paces. So we get a Ford car and we hep it up to a point where it will beat a 180-horsepower Chrysler. See? Let's take something of one survival pace and alter it into another survival pace and then we think we've done something.

If you could, for instance, exhibit a turtle which could go thirty-five miles an hour, I'm sure that people would be very interested. Because you've changed the survival pace.

Well, people will be as interested in you as an auditor as you can change the survival pace of a preclear. That's the long and short of it. There's no sense in being more theoretical about it. That depends, then, upon time and his life is being garbled up with havingness, which he doesn't need. He's always getting fully equipped to play the part and by the time he's fully equipped he's forgotten what the part is. There is no sadder thing than that. I've never had an audience respond to that particularly because it's too sad. I'm sure that's it. They understand it, they just never quite welcome it. It's just too sad. As a little kid you were the cowboy hero of the moment or the war heroine or something of the sort. You were quite this – you didn't have any equipment and then you had to have an education and you had to be trained and you had to have equipment and so forth so that you could be this person.

You don't have to have to be. That is something like saying, space is entirely dependent upon the number of objects in it. It's not dependent upon the number of objects in it.

Doingness, only relatively, is tied down by havingness. Oh, it's not very much. And the freer an individual is, the less havingness he has to have in order to do. And you've just about got the picture.

If you want to understand the (quote) "human personality" (unquote), well, try to understand it in terms of survival pace – how much he has to have before he can do. And understand that havingness itself – that is, masses, owned objects, are themselves imposing new spaces relatively unchangeable on the individual and so havingness reduces doingness. Havingness reduces doingness. It never has any other effect.

The baggage trains of Alexander at length grew so great that he could no longer conquer forward into India. When he first started out, it was very nice to have a sword. But I'm sure that if the guys didn't have a sword, they would have solved that. Their first mistake was they needed bodies and swords to conquer India. If he'd just exteriorized a few boys and made Operating Thetans out of them, he could have had India. And if he'd done that, he'd have found out he already owned it. And this would have been very sad. So, he would have had to have thrown some obstacles in his path and those obstacles would have been havingness obstacles. And by throwing those in, you had to have more.

Now, the only way that that dwindling spiral works is you have and then you have to have more because you already have and then you have to have because you have to have because you have to have and you get solider and solider and solider. And then after a while you decide – other people and other things decide you have too much so they decide they'd better put you on an abandonment level. So they get you to start abandoning. And then the next thing you know you're abandoning, abandoning, abandoning, abandoning. So, all of your doingness begins to be occupied with accumulation and dispersal. And there is no further intent and there's no other goal than just accumulation and dispersal.

If you want to know why a capitalista is one of the roughest people to process you ever walked into, it's just because he has nothing on his mind but grabbing and holding dollars, which is in complete agreement with the GE. I know no capitalistas who aren't constipated. That's not an irrelevant fact. It happens to be true. It's not just a wisecrack.

All right. Processes, then, which give a person mobility in terms of barriers are valuable processes. And processes which tend to fix him amongst barriers have a lesser value. But the normal course of processing is to get a guy out of an inversion (which is to say, an abandonment) and get him to have something so he can then, on his own determinism, unhave it. You see? You've got to pattern to some degree his pattern of agreement that is holding him where he is and is depriving him of the freedom which he desires.

So you've got to change his survival pace. So you'd better change his ideas about particles, objects, people, energies and spaces. If you change his ideas about those things, you've changed his idea about time.

The only plea that a preclear ever makes to you is "When I was young, I had all this ambition. I did this, I did that, yap-yap-yap-yap-yap. Now I am old. And although I have all this money or although I don't have any money, I can no longer do."

The girl says to you – this girl with an enormous amount of experience, she says, "I am no longer beautiful. I can no longer attract the boys the way I used to."

Deliver me from a woman of about fifty who knows all the answers: she is dangerous. She is really dangerous. And as far as adventure is concerned, she begins to compound the compounds if she really starts to get free.

The old guy says, "My goodness, if I had only known while I was in high school, what I know now about women. Oh my!" he says.

Well, I don't know – high school – that's a flock of particles that's back to the right or back to the left or behind him or someplace. These particles have gone right along the time track with him and yet they're stuck someplace because he's not looking at them. See, there are all these particles, so he thinks there is, halfway, some sort of a high school which he went to once which is now still there and it has all these female particles still in it, see? And he gets fixated in this direction and he looks around his environment and he can't find anything.

Look, there are just as many stupid little girls in this world today as there were in high school. He doesn't see them anymore.

And then he excuses this and says he's in bad condition physically, you see? Can't do the things he used to do. He's in bad condition physically. His hormone system is shot.

Why?

Just because there's that many particles held and that many particles held apart and so forth as to determine his exact age. And a man is as old as he's stuck on the track. And he's as young as his GE can still communicate.

Now, here's your thetan. He can't live without communicating outward. He must create to be. Any beingness he has that's real he must create. So, therefore, his keynote is outflow as well as inflow. He must outflow, certainly that, and he'd better inflow some too; opposed to the GE that must not outflow. Mustn't. Mustn't communicate. Only can reflect. The Sun can shine upon the face and the face can then reflect an image. The GE isn't supposed to create a face that goes out into space. Not like a thetan. He can throw a mock-up out there that will keep on going and run into somebody.

All right. What's our problem here then?

On a person who won't exteriorize, you have too close an agreement with something that won't and better not communicate. And the thetan believes then that he is relatively dead because he can't create. So he doesn't think he's there anymore. He thinks the body must be there. He's dead and that's all.

So you have something which must communicate to live, coupled up with something which must not communicate to live.

So you get into a problem. But it's not much of a problem since it tears down into its basic elements of particles being held together and particles apart. And it's all right in present time to hold all the particles together and hold all the particles apart you want to, as long as you go on and hold particles, not your duplicated images of the particles. Let's not hold apart and pull together all the duplicated images of those beautiful girls you knew in high school. They are not there!

And so we get into this: if we're going to play the game called MEST universe, the only place we can play it is in present time. And it's really a very interesting game. There's nothing wrong with the game.

Okay. Why don't you take a break and I will give you a little Group Processing. We'll move Unit Five auditing period, one up to auditing period five tonight.

Note: The recording starts with the lecture already in progress.

[[Category:Lectures 3ACC]]