View source for Basic Theory and Practice (3ACC 540111)

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

'''Date:''' 11 January 1954

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

----

← [[Lecture_Index_3ACC|Back to Series]]

Okay. And this is January the 11th. We've had a week to get ourselves squared around and catch our breath and find out that it wasn't too awful and so forth. And so let's work a little harder and I'm going to spend this morning with you, one way or the other, on exteriorizations.

I want to take up several things with you very rapidly. One is automaticity, another is randomity, another is Opening Procedure a little bit more expanded, and a couple other items.

Automaticity is that which the individual sets up as a continuance of happenings, that which an individual sets up as a continuance of happenings without further direct investment of attention. Now, maybe you'll understand it better if I phrase it that way. You got that? Without further direct attention. A continuance of happenings without further direct attention. That which the individual sets up.

Now, if any of you go getting on roan horses, pintos, dobbins and riding off over the hills and far away on this and interpret it in the fashion that an automaticity is something which is set up for an individual, we understand the US Army, for hire as usual, will furnish a firing squad at very, very low rates. Cost of the bullets, practically. They like the boys to get in practice, because…

Now, you think that's very bad taste of me to say so. But do you know what you can do? You know what you can do by misinterpreting automaticity? You can extend a case upwards to a couple of hundred hours. Just like that. So it may be bad taste for me to say so, but it's worse auditing for you to have done it.

Now, you can say, "Well, that's just something we don't have to know too much about and we'll get by one way or the other on it, and it'll turn up…"

No, I'm afraid you won't do that. Because modern technique depends almost entirely upon the definition of (1) communication (2) duplication and (3) automaticity and (4) randomity. And The Factors which we are using are laid out and written in the issue you have of 16-G and which was issued to you, called "The Factors." And we aren't using anything else but what's in The Factors and we haven't been for some time. If you read The Factors again, you'll find out there's a heck of a lot in The Factors that isn't carried out and worked out to its final, ultimate degree.

Now, the listing I gave you there is not in order of importance. I don't care if you put this in order of importance or not. If you were to put that in order of importance, you'd put duplication first. And one other factor that you would add on to it would be knowingness, lookingness, emotingness, effortingness, thinkingness, symbolingness, eatingness and sexingness.

And another factor which you would add on as very, very important, would be certainty. And another one which you would add on that would be very important would be nothing-something. And you'd also add on a viewpoint of dimension – space.

You know, you're getting awful close to all you have to know. It's just getting awful close there. There are a few more items scattered around, but the point is that these, known as precise definitions, are quite important to you. And if you know them as precise definitions, you're an auditor. I'm not saying this is any effort to get you to imbibe and swallow forevermore what poor old Hubbard told you, but I'm just trying in my own mild, innocent – "You better sure as hell had make auditors out of them."

Now, as we go into this data, we discover that an auditor is pretty near as good as he can use it. And he's pretty near as bad as he doesn't know it. So, we can narrow it down from you having to know eighteen billion data in five thousand books or even a couple of billion data in a couple of books and we can narrow it down to this level. But having narrowed it down to this level, remember that you are expected to be able to know your way out of it. Not like mice. Not gnaw your way out of it, know your way out of it. Very bad pun this morning – very early.

Now, what our procedure is there, in SOP 8 and SOP 8-C, we are using a very, very positive piece of codification. Now, we've furnished a number of bins, in 8-C there, and we just throw techniques into these bins. And when you add up the number and names of the bins, you know, eight of them, why, you've pretty well nailed down the eight bins that we're working with. And the names of those bins are quite important to you. And if you know the names of them, why, you can know them in order or not in order. You will still get by if you know the names of them and what they mean.

Our main difficulty with an auditor is that he strays before he knows. Nobody gives a damn how far you stray from basic data as long as you're straying on the highway of basic data. But by golly, if you start straying before you know your basic information and know it so cold that every time we give a quiz you get a hundred and ten on it, now, you can stray then. You can get on your horse and ride far away and you'll find out some places are dead alleys and other places are okay and so forth.

But, let's get these fundamentals down pretty hard. Now, let me tell you, for instance, one of the formulas you're working with. Now, I'm going to give you, by the way, all the formulas on SOP 8-C as they are worked out. I'm going to have them in your hands here shortly. Because the axioms and formulas on which it's worked out are more or less what I've been talking to you about. They're just precisely this data.

The material that I've just listed, however, stands above each and every one of these steps, see? You get this material in the steps and then we combine it in this way and we get a step known as "symbolization," for instance, or we get a step known as "havingness."

Well, we go down, then, for the names of these steps into what is actually second echelon material. But this is the material you use in auditing. The material which I just listed for you and with some additional material, such as: what is time? Time is havingness, in human experience. And what's energy? Energy is doing, in human experience. And what's space? Space is beingness, in human experience – when we get into this material below that level, why, we have it moving out of just the field of livingness and get it applied to something very specific, such as auditing.

But this material, which I've just listed to you first off, is actually the woof and warp of livingness. And it applies in all directions. It applies to ants as fast as it applies to coconut trees. And your understanding of existence advances quite markedly when you get a data certainty on this.

You go out and look at a coconut tree and say, "Well, what the devil has communication got to do with this coconut tree? And what's duplication got to do with this coconut tree? And what's this coconut tree being and doing and having? And how does that regulate it? And how can I then better predict the course and activity of this coconut tree? And how can I extrapolate what its past must have been?"

Why, you're going into livingness. Then you have no intentions of auditing the coconut tree. Well, maybe you do, but maybe it's too early in the morning to go into how to audit a coconut tree. Actual truth of the matter is you can audit a coconut tree. But you go back to the machine that makes coconut trees. It's a timeless floating ridge.

Well anyway, now there's tremendous, tremendous quantities of terribly interesting and fascinating data, terribly interesting, very fascinating, that you can just stray off into and get lost in quicker than scat.

That's why, principally – not to agree with Johnny Q„ the inevitable public, or to make it possible for several fellows who immediately wrote in and told them that Scientology was now acceptable to them because I had divided it into Scientology and Para-Scientology. I wrote them back individually and told them that it might be acceptable to them, but they still weren't acceptable to me. They hadn't heard of Acceptance Level Processing yet so this made them kind of spinny.

But anyhow, our problem here is divided into Scientology and Para-Scientology on this order: what's direct line and what you can find out about a specific sphere of data with direct-line law application.

Now, I'll give you an idea of what that would be. We would take Scientology, which would be the set of laws which more or less approximate exactly what I've told you earlier in the lecture and that's Scientology.

Well, now we apply it, now we apply it to coconut trees, and we immediately have Para-Scientology. See, the second that you apply the laws of livingness to something that is living or a sphere that exists, you have, then, something which is paralleling laws – paralleling knowingness or paralleling livingness – and we can start bailing out data. And it is no more than this: it's an effort to get you to distinguish, very sharply, between a law, which is universally applicable, and data. And these are two different bins. Data – oh boy, oh boy.

Ever since the Catholic Church reached down into the Catacombs and brought out Aristotle whole cloth about a thousand years ago, so the world could have some science they wouldn't have to argue about (which is exactly what happened) – ever since that day, everybody's been data-happy. After this boy Aristotle trained up young Alexander, he got himself a return on his investment in terms of natural philosophy gimmicks, gadgets and preserved elephants on toast being sent back to him from all corners of the world. And he sat there in one of the most superbly, beautifully endowed laboratories (if you want to call it that) imaginable. And had a vast number of slaves in all directions. You know, he was Alexander's tutor. That paid in, that was worth money.

And he didn't do anything for the young boy particularly. As a matter of fact, Alexander was too much for him. And he sort of threw in his hands in horror and never used them afterwards. But what happened there is he took this tremendous quantity of inflow and he started cataloging, cataloging, cataloging. And if there's any quicker way for an individual to bury himself or a science, it's by the system called cataloging.

Psychology has the pluperfect nerve to call itself a science and it does that solely on the virtue of the fact that it catalogs. You can call some fellow who is calling himself a scientist, a catalogist, and you will get a rather broader understanding of knowledge itself.

Knowingness isn't cataloging. Cataloging is simply gathering data. Now, you can gather a lot of data on a case without attaining, yourself, any more real knowingness. You've got some data. It's interesting, it's fascinating to combine these pieces of the puzzle and so forth. But the knowingness, which stands over to the side of that, is quite something else. It would be as close as you could get to a native, or continuingly and a universally applicable, truth. And that's the level of knowingness which people should gun for, which is a good common denominator to an awful lot of subjects. And once they get something that'll go out through an enormous number of subjects and explain this and explain that, they have something very useful.

But they don't have a datum. They have in essence – crudely, you could call it a mathematical formula. Because it is something which predicts data. And when you look for the data – it predicts that some data is going to exist and when you go and look for the data, by golly, you'll find it there. And it just keeps doing this.

Well now, this is what would be the duty or activity of a basic law. The data which it finds is interesting, but is it basic law? No. And any time you want to louse up an entire educational program, when you want to ruin an institution of learning, or when you want to utterly wreck Scientology or anything even vaguely resembling Scientology, all you've got to do is confuse and identify those two things and you're in. There you are. Confuse basic knowingness with data.

You work a case off of data. And after you've got all of this data off this ease, you might find it in common in some other case and you might not. But it's just data. Now, where did you find basic law weaving through the case? Where did you find basic law showing up in the case?

And if you found what you believed to be an evasion of basic law, why, be very alert. Be perfectly happy to consider the fact that there is such a thing as an evasion to a basic law. Be perfectly willing to consider this. And if you are that, then be doggone sure that you're willing to look on both sides of it to try to prove the basic law does apply and try to prove that it doesn't apply. Take both. Don't be what you might call "slanted" in your data search or slanted in your evaluation of basic law.

You know, there's many a fellow gets a wonderful theory and he goes out and spends the rest of his life trying to get everybody to agree with it, rather than spend an additional five minutes applying it to find out if it's right.

And you'll discover, in your looking over of a lot of work that has been done in the field of science, that it could have been done much better if the fellow had not been so anxious to be right. That's really all that's wrong with your preclear, you see? He's anxious to be right about his knowingness.

And a fellow starts running out on being right. And he starts to get – gradient scales at work here – and he starts to get more and more anxious about being right, until at last he can only be right. Not about anything, you know, but he happens to say by error that the Moon is made out of blue cheese, whereas he meant to say green cheese. And this of course is something he now has to defend with his life. Why? He said it.

His opinion and his Tightness are so terribly valuable that he has to hang on to them to the bitter end. Now, you'll find preclear after preclear defending the most confoundedly stupid assessments of themselves, merely because they have to be right. They've said so and now they've got to be right. Well, when you get this manifestation into the field of investigation, you get chaos. Because the man who is doing it or the group that is doing it doesn't bother to go on and look any further, you see? They just sit back and get combative about being right.

The only reason, if there is any reason at all, we got where we did in Scientology and things work the way they work lies in the fact that from early to late in this business I pressed to my bosom some of the material and teachings of Will Durant. And that is one of them. And you will find him talking about that many times. And that is straight whole cloth out of Durant, which is of course, to a large degree, whole cloth out of the entire field of epistemology.

I suppose many philosophers have said this from one time to another. Because a good philosopher, and one who is very savvy, understands this instinctively. That he mustn't, he mustn't, for the sake of his own ego or for any other reason, color his basic theory in such a way as to promulgate an error. In other words, let's be as happy to be wrong as to be right, in the field of philosophy. And if you're as happy to be wrong as to be right, believe me, you're really researching in an old relaxed frame of mind.

Oddly enough, I actually haven't given a damn here for twenty-five years whether I was right or not. That isn't a pat on the back for me, it's just trying to explain to you something about the data which you have and the process and the preclear in front of you and the application of that data. I haven't given a darn. It hasn't mattered.

Because if one was wrong, you always learn something. And if one was right, why, that was fine. And this has been very confusing to people occasionally, because they have come up to me and expected me to feel bad about something I said two years before which now doesn't appear to be quite the same breed of cat that it was two years before. And they expect me to eat crow or eat dirt or eat them or anything that's handy and so forth. And I look at them very innocently and say, "Well, that's right, that's right, that was wrong, that was completely wrong. And it proved so." And they try and worry me.

Well, people try to worry each other about this all the time. All they want to do is stick a guy with his own rightness. And everybody has been around doing that to you and doing it to each other and doing it to your preclear. They stick him with his own rightness. They try to show him that "there is a great virtue in consistency." Well, I'll tell you what's in consistency, there's death in it, that's what it is. It's a fixed rigidity, which in itself allows no change of survival pace. And when you have somebody who is fixed on the subject of being right – you're trying to change his survival pace as a preclear, you see? And you try to change that pace, well that pace is totally governed, really, by his ability or inability to change. And his pace is fixed, against his best interests and so forth, only to the degree that he is trying to assert his own rightness.

So when we get into the field of fixation of survival pace, what is a fixed survival pace, we get immediately into what is a fixed rightness and we get in immediately into, actually, basic investigation in Dianetics and Scientology.

So we've had a lot of variation here for three years. Actually, through no fault of mine or anybody else, we have a rather clear-cut curve. There's very little that is off curve. That's surprising! I mean, it's merely surprising. It's not congratulatory or anything of the sort. It's surprising that a fellow could go along for that long and be that consistent without trying to even vaguely be consistent or give a damn whether he's consistent or not. That's amazing. And the reason that curve is that way is simply because the fellow didn't give a damn whether he was right or wrong on the theory, he only wanted the theory to work.

People came around and expected you to be – "I-I-expected you," for instance, "to take all of your pride out of inventing something or discovering something" and so on. Well, boy, that is the other thing that an individual shouldn't do, is depend upon a piece of philosophic material for his own personal pride and aggrandizement. Ah, that's horrible! Because that gets him right into the line of having to be right, you see? And here he goes!

Well, I don't take any pride in this particular – you would be amazed and you probably would not believe me when I tell you that it really doesn't matter a damn to me, one way or the other, whether I ever invented Dianetics or the "science of front wheel spokes." It couldn't matter less. It has been of benefit, it has been of benefit to me personally because, as I say, I've dug myself out of a couple of graves with the stuff. And I'm tremendously interested in it and I'm very happy about it.

But this isn't depending on it for one's pride. If you want to know, you'd be surprised what I personally am proud of that I have done, so on. For instance, I'm very proud of yesterday. I took a four-hundred pound motorbike cross-country, Arizona desert, see, burying it to its hubs and so forth, and got me and it in one piece back home again and that's incredible. I'm trying to find out what these fellows do out here and why they don't live long. And it's an interesting piece of stuff. I feel very happy.

And yet last night I cracked a case that was hanging fire for a long time on getting a new little tiny scrap of theory assembled. And I'm not proud of that. I'm a little bit proud of having helped somebody, but it hasn't anything to do with this other. It is a very, very severe regimen which an individual must lay down about such a thing. And he has to lay it down very early in his work. And the work is as good as he lays it down, it's no better. And that is, he mustn't take his pride out of it, he mustn't depend upon that work for his feeling of accomplishment in this life and he mustn't depend upon his Tightness to be bolstered and his self-conceit to be bolstered by the work. He just has to delete himself, as a personality, markedly out of the whole picture. And when he does that, then he of course doesn't care whether he's right or wrong and so we get a consistent curve.

Now, the only thing that ever warps a curve is the only thing that ever warps a preclear: dependency. He begins to depend on this or that or something and the next thing you know, why, he's fine. Now, I don't know, there might be a society where a man depended upon his wrongness. You see, theoretically you could have a society where a man depended upon his wrongness, like a robber society or something of the sort. He's sufficiently wrong or he makes enough mistakes or something so that his fellows think well of him. You see how there might be such a society?

Well, when an individual begins to depend upon his Tightness all the way down the track – like a bank cashier, you know, he depends upon his honesty and he sells his honesty. Pie's got all this green stuff going through his hands and, well, he gets employed more and gets to spend more time behind a cage because he is honest.

And then he begins to believe, at last, that there is some sort of native virtue, some innate, built-in automaticity in Man at large which makes him honest or dishonest and this has an ethical value which is transcendental or something.

And we go back to 1792 when philosophy stopped in full flight – it just stopped. There was a smoking of brakes and everybody looked with complete white face at the work of the Great Chinaman of Königsberg, Immanuel Kant. And believe me, he couldn't.

But his work is so fabulous in its complete twisted up, burrowed in, spun down, backward – sentenced way, that actually he. stabilized, of all things, philosophy – the definition of which is unstable thought. Now, he stabilized it. He wrote the "laws" of philosophy. Today, you go down to a university to take philosophy and do you know that the sons of bitches leach you philosophy? Can you imagine anybody teaching anybody philosophy? How could you teach anybody philosophy? And you get ahold of one of these fellows later and they're a philosopher. And you say, "Okay. Philosophize something." And they quote!

You don't hire one of these boys to solve a few problems in aesthetics or something for you. You don't hire them to do anything except quote to another class on the subject of philosophy. But in essence, the only, only reason there would ever be to have a Doctor of Philosophy would be somebody who could philosophize. Even on that, it would be perfectly proper.

And yet, in America, a philosopher is somebody who cracks witticisms on a store porch. Well, this was what proceeded from Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Because what? He stabilized something which shouldn't have been stabilized. Because he didn't know from nothing.

This fellow and his ilk of his period were trying to die so hard that they had the colossal nerve to lay across the whole field of Western thinking this barricade: "Anything worth knowing is beyond the realm and ability of the human being to know." And it didn't loosen up till Herbert Spencer came along and says, "Well, ahem, I'm sorry folks, but I believe in Kant too and so forth and so we'll only break this down a little bit. We'll say, well, there's the knowable and the unknowable." Well, that was where I came in this picture: knowable and unknowable. Okay, It's busted in half at least. Then what's knowable and what's unknowable?

Well, I'll let you in on something. There isn't anything unknowable today. But we at least, with Herbert Spencer, got some method just of that: a compartmentation by which we could break down this problem of the knowable and the unknowable. And so we get, actually, a basic law about thinkingness. If you take any problem and break it into its component parts and classify by its parts and solve one of the parts, you'll find that that solution is native to the whole problem. It's a tremendously interesting way of diagnosing a case.

Let's break the case down into eight parts, eight dynamics. And we'll find out what's native to one of these dynamics will be slightly native to all of them. We'll find a consistency, then, on all eight dynamics. So if we take any dynamic and we just work hard on this one dynamic, why, we'll get enough clues to unravel an awful lot of case.

We'll find a trace of this through every dynamic. So let's just break a life down into these eight component parts and, with these eight compartments, let's find at least some entrance to the problem. In other words, like Herbert Spencer did, let's at least bust the case in half. Instead of trying to look at a wholeness sitting in front of us – an unsolvable, impenetrable, utterly integrated wholeness which permits no entrance and forbids all approach and resolution and won't look at any of the things that he must look at in order to get well, and you can't find out what he isn't looking at because he is carefully telling you that he is looking at anything that he isn't looking at, in various ways, and he's a complex beast. So if we just break him into eight parts, why, we will find quickly what's knowable and what's unknowable about that case.

Every case is a complete picture of livingness. Every case is a complete picture of H epistemology. Every case is a complete picture of aesthetics and data. Wonderful to think about this and if you were to think about it very hard without any solution, it would paralyze you. I mean, you can just… "What? We're going to take this human being to pieces? Oh, no. No, no, no, no. We… Gosh! In the first place, there's a certain privacy and an individuality which we must preserve. And there are certain things which we mustn't touch, one way or the other. Well, what are we going to do?"

Oh boy. You could think to yourself on this for a long time if you didn't have two things: one, a pattern which will work it out for you anyhow, but the other, really more important to you as this group (and if you've been trained by me and you haven't got this slant, I'm ashamed of you), is you can take the problem apart into component parts, any set of component parts, really, and find out that by solving one of the little parts, you've solved slightly the whole part. And you've at least got the pattern for some of the other or all of the other parts.

Let's break this case down into arts and sciences. And let's break the case down into those exact divisions which are laid down in the curriculum catalog of a university. You get how, apparently how far afield we are right now? All right We make a university out of this case. And then we break him down into all the arts and sciences and so forth and, not educationally but from a standpoint of behavior, find out what he's doing in each department.

Now, this is a very, very crude, silly way to go about it, but we just reach out on this basic law of let's compartment the individual and compartment the case and let's just yank in a pattern of knowingness (a university is supposed to be a pattern of knowingness) and let's just take this pattern of knowingness and look down and find out how he stands on chemistry.

And, all right, the Department of Chemistry. Let's look over and let's see… chemistry? What's he have the most to do with chemically? Well, that's food. All right.

We say, "All right, how do you feel about food?"

And the fellow says, "Food? That stuff? Uuughr.

You say, "Well, that's the way he feels about food. There's chemistry for you. Let's see, now, if he feels that way chemically, then he won't be converting anything." And you say, "Do you take Ex-Lax often?" And you're right. This stuff is ugh! He can't touch this.

So he – food? Let's see now. All right. "Now how do you feel about cosmetics and that sort of thing?" "Oh, terrible. You can't touch them, so forth. And you have to have very carefully prepared creams and so forth before you could even begin to shave or something." Chemistry.

All right. We have the immediate index of reach and withdraw for this character. We just entered it in one department.

Now, let's go into the field of art. Let's go into art and we find he's terribly interesting in the field of art. He finds that they shouldn't do it. He finds that art, well, he can go in for it, but he knew a young artist once and the fellow was obsessive on the subject, you know? He just kept doing it and doing it and so on.

Hm. We really don't have to go too much further on this. This case feels that if he gets going in any particular direction he won't be able to stop, so he doesn't dare start or something on that order.

In other words, we could just go right through the university catalog, silly as it may sound, and we would find out everything there is to know about this case as long as we're dealing with the basic knowingness about livingness.

See, here's an application of it. It's applied on any kind of a pattern. And here we're going to deal with communication and duplication. We're just going to ask the questions native to that.

Communication. He said in the field of eatingness, "Nooo!" Don't communicate, huh? Get that out there and so on. So he can't duplicate food or attention, so this is a very interesting case right off the bat.

But we have a simpler way of taking it apart than by a university catalog although, as I say, we can use any system of compartmentation. We've got the eight dynamics. One of the very, very innocent, sweet, calm, kindly and covert methods of attacking the case is to take some dynamic that he evidently isn't very interested in. You know, we'll discuss the problem of God with him. He's not very interested in it. Modern world, fellow with a scientific bent, taught in high school where all is science, all is science. There's God too, but we can't eat as long as we peddle God anymore, so they teach science. I mean, it's just about that rationale.

And so we examine God on the subject and he says, "Well… well… um… God… Well, I don't know. There are a lot of people…" We're on our way. Everywhere is nowhere for this boy. I mean, it's a fact. We're investigating immediately a dynamic. So his standard, polite, social patter is disarmed.

Now this fellow, right away, right away – you sit down, auditor, and he sits down and you say, "Well, how do you feel today?" And he says, "I feel all right. I mean, I get along all right. And how are you? And how's the kids? And…" You're into the groove. You're auditing the social patter ridge, see? You don't know anything about a comm lag. Now, let's swing off onto a specific subject and let's investigate one that he isn't accustomed to talking about – God. "Well, live and let live, I always say. I don't know, but it seems to me" and so forth. And you say, "Oh, no. My God, another VI. Heh-heh!"

And up to that time you didn't suspect it. But that's because you've actually attacked the problem on a compartmentation basis. You haven't made him unaware or something of the sort. You started taking the problem to pieces. And your preclear is a universe. And a universe has so many parts. And it's got the parts that we talk about as the parts of knowingness. And it's not a very peculiar thing that this keeps applying to preclear after preclear, simply because we're perfectly content to talk about knowingness and, then, knowing the basic theory of knowingness, turn around and apply it to a specific thing to get data and to rearrange data and to change lookingness and thinkingness. See?

We take this set of basic laws and basic extrapolations, just as I've given them to you here, and we're now applying this to get data and to change data and to effect a shift. And we can effect that shift as long as we know our knowingness pretty well – what's a basic experience – and then we apply it over to something that's going to be a bin of data.

And we're as successful as we follow those steps. Not as successful as we suddenly look at somebody and think that at that moment we have to become a boy genius or something of the sort and know instinctively and feel instinctively and so on. Or confronted this horrible thing, another human being, and we're going to do something for him and we're going to worry about him, one way or the other.

No, chat would be the wrong way to go about it. The right way to go about it is to know first what you know. You have a good data certainty. In other words, this basic knowingness, when applied, will turn up data for you and will rearrange data and it'll change data.

You know the basic laws and so forth and, knowing this, you know about communication, you know about reach and withdraw, you know about agreements, you know about these various factors that go to make up the woof and warp of livingness. And you turn around, if you know those well, boy, you can just sit on your hands as preclear after preclear just solve, solve, solve, solve.

Well, there's dozens of ways to apply them and I'm giving you one of them. Take the preclear, as a problem, cold. And take the eight dynamics and slice him into eight dynamics. And he won't talk about Dynamic One for the good and adequate reason it's not polite to talk about Dynamic One. You're running into a circuit the second you start to talk about himself. He's not supposed to, society has educated him. Furthermore, he's bad enough off that he's to some degree playing the "only one" anyway. And so he's sort of moved out and you know One, the First Dynamic, pretty well by just taking a guess at the average individual of his society. And we could describe him to a T, really, with a few sentences – what he's supposed to do and not to do. We're getting the basic agreement on which this case exists. But let's get up to the Second Dynamic.

Now, if we're out in Hollywood, it'd be unsafe to open a case on the Second Dynamic because it would explode. But let's get a little bit further from our social chatter and let's move over into kids. Second Dynamic and sex. Well, Second Dynamic is sex all right, but it's also children. Let's talk about children. However, that has its liability because there's a certain social response that is expected of him about children. So he's liable to sidestep that one slightly and you're still talking slightly about a circuit.

Now, hardly anybody in this society, at this time, really talks very much about groups. There's very little social chatter on that subject. He'll talk about the Republicans and Democrats a little bit these days but not very much. They have fallen off the Third Dynamic. But believe me, what's wrong with the Third Dynamic is what's wrong with the First Dynamic to a large degree. We take the problem apart, we find out that there is something about each one of these dynamics that has a good chance of being – you know, it doesn't have to be wrong with every other dynamic, but there's a good chance of it being wrong with the rest of the dynamics, too.

And so we can undercut this case and suddenly find an awful lot about this fellow just by drifting off from that First and Second, drifting into at least the Third. And if you drift into the Fourth or the Fifth, you'll learn many more interesting things about the case, but they will be native to the First. They have a good chance of being quite native to the First Dynamic.

So you ought to know your stuff well enough so that if you simply start auditing the case and you run into some basic departures that are fascinating, you know darn well where these things are going to go and whither they drift in terms of this fellow's aberration or his inability to exteriorize or something of the sort.

We find out that he believes that "Well, 'share the wealth' is the best political philosophy. Ought to cut all this money up, you know, and give it to everybody in equal parts…" We're looking at poverty orientation. Economy. Well, let's just start in – just for kicks, just having found this out – let's just start wasting things. So after we've wasted a couple of universes full of oranges, we find out he can have one.

Socialism is a very low-strata agreement. And this fellow's pretty bogged down in agreement so we're going to have to break the crust someplace. Social agreement is his problem. We just find that out by talking to him on evidently the (whichever way you want to call it), the Third or the Fourth Dynamic – actually, it's the Fourth Dynamic – it wouldn't take very long to find out an awful lot about this fellow, would it? But you'd have to know and be able to integrate something. This fellow says, "Well personally, in the standpoint of politics and so on, I actually believe in Pelvinism."

You never heard of Pelvinism. And you say, "Well, what's this? What is that?" Well, he's very happy to explain it to you. It's explained on the basis that there is no law whatsoever but the law of the family. And after you've integrated the law of the family . ., You expect this guy to exteriorize? What's he doing? You've gone just that far and now you know. He's trying to hold a family together. His whole goal is togetherness and you want him to be three feet back of his head. See? Those other fellows share the wealth, he's going to be buttered all over the universe – his basic agreement and so on.

Well, you don't have to really learn to think like that, but if you'll see your way through enough fogs to think like that as you look at the case, you're on your way with a preclear. They just won't stop you. That's all.

As far as techniques are concerned, there are certain, definite, positive techniques. And some are infinitely more workable than others, I assure you. The main difference of techniques is not the artistry involved with them but their workability. And some techniques are very good and some are, you know, all right, but they're just slow.

And some fellow complained, who has been trained in 1952, that we are not now using the techniques in which he was trained. Well, all right. That's okay. It doesn't mean that his techniques are any the worse off or they become less workable by common agreement or something. It just means that we're trying to teach him the fastest techniques we know in the interests of more preclears solved in less time and so on. So a person shouldn't feel upset about that.

Well, our problem here and in instruction, and your problem in instructing people, will be along this line of trying to get them to see the difference between basic livingness and data – basic law and data, data, data.

Because data is, oh boy. You try to instruct somebody using data only, without any basic integrating laws back of it, without anything from which they can figure out their data from, and you just go into a memory course, that's all. Has him sit down and commit everything to their memory.

Whereas, if you give him basic law, you have to give him as well this: this is that from which we figure out-predict-data. Let's take communication. Let's find out that communication – a perfect communication is a duplication from cause to effect. A perfect duplication. We find the thetan, of course, would be very unhappy if he had to duplicate everything, so we find out that he's unwilling to duplicate an awful lot of things.

Okay. So we find out that he is very low on the Second Dynamic. We know this about communication and we find out he's very low on the Second Dynamic. He doesn't want anything to do with sexual relationships. Or if he does, why, he feels he wouldn't be able to do anything about it anyhow.

Well, what do we do about this? Well, communication – that's essentially a very MESTy sort of communication. All right, let's take a look at it and see what the score is and we find out that he's running no desire. There must have been something on the other end of the communication line which he's unwilling to duplicate, which of course was first no desire and then he ran into somebody who had desire and so we've got him on two ends of a communication line and they aren't matching, which adds up to a maybe.

He won't duplicate, so that'll hang him with a maybe. And there's probably somebody in die room with him right at that minute, I mean, he's probably got somebody standing in front of him, somebody of the opposite sex. If this is a girl you're auditing, it'll be some male will be standing in the room right with them.

What's a maybe? A maybe is an unduplicated communication. See? So you've got both ends of this comm line. One end of the comm line is no desire, he's on that. And the other end of the comm line is desire.

Well, now that turns around the other way. At one time or another, he had a comm line which went the other way. He was on the end of it as desire and there was no desire on the other end of it. And then he's also got the comm line where he had no desire and something else had no desire, which was a good, perfect communication which isn't aberrative. And we've also got where he desired and the other end of the comm line desired but that isn't aberrative either.

The one we'll find hung up is where he has no desire and the other end of the line has desire. If he's no desire, then he must be hung in one where the other end of the line is desire. And we inquire into this and he kind of twists his toes and he feels embarrassed to tell you about this, because you're a opposite-sex auditor and mmm-mmm-zuzzz-zuzz-zu and so on and so on and…

Well it turns out, actually, that he hated to mention this, but his mother was a nymphomaniac and he spent the early years of his life ducking her sexual advances. Otherwise there's nothing aberrative in his case! See?

Well now, when you get the Second Dynamic and a desire – no desire (in other words, an unduplicated communication on a subject which is entirely a duplication subject), you run into something that's very interesting, which disentangled makes a tremendous change in the case. Take long to disentangle it? No, you've got lots of techniques with which to disentangle it. What I'm talking about now is diagnosis or assessment, see?

And we get down to another little thing that actually merits a basic communication law and that is that a communication line which is in suspense is a line which isn't duplicating properly. The more MEST they put in the line, why, the less they duplicate, too.

Any communication line which is in suspense with the case – you know, he has a circuit. Let's put this a little further now. "Any communication line that's in suspense isn't duplicating properly." He's got a circuit. And every once in a while this voice says to him, "Oh, tsk, tsk, what a fool you are." You know, he's just got this silly voice. And there it is.

Well, what is it? Well, it's just an improper duplication. He resists duplicating this. And we get right off into automaticity. Then an automaticity has a communication line on the preclear, doesn't it? And it's a very strange communication line because an automaticity always becomes a randomity.

Any automaticity becomes a randomity of the preclear eventually. So it means that you've got a sort of a communication line, the kind of a communication line that'd go across no man's land. If you could see a picture of randomity as a no man's land, with the enemy on the opposite side from the preclear, and the enemy is his randomity, you've got a pretty clear visual picture about what's happening here. And a communication line that runs from no man's land – across no man's land from the enemy to the preclear is of course a very involved communication.

In wartime they have a very hard time getting people to do this sort of thing, you know? Getting messages across the lines. And this gets very involved, it goes various tracks and goes through various countries and, two countries are at war, it even goes to this: they find some other country half the world away to mediate between them. They're shooting at each other all the time and communicating like mad, you might say, but there isn't any rationale or thought can go on the communication line.

See, a communication line doesn't have to have thought on it to be a communication line, by the way. Just don't get your definitions that precise. A communication line is simply a communication line. A fellow walks up to you and punches you in the nose and keeps on walking down the street. He communicated with you.

All right. So we have this problem of this little circuit saying to him he's a fool. Well, he's had something he's been unwilling to be. Any randomity is something a person isn't supposed to be in order to keep the game going, He wouldn't keep the game going if he became the randomity.

So it tells you that all you have to do is swap ends on the communication line, which is for him to tell himself what a fool he is. Tell himself that a few times and – we don't care if he identifies it or recognizes it or gets happy about it or unhappy about it. The way we handle this circuit and blow the circuit out of existence is just have him say these very words to himself and set himself up there.

Now, what have we done? We've just swapped the lines on the communication, that's all. We just swapped ends. We had him be the other thing. And by making him be the enemy, it ceased to be an enemy. So we get beingness and communication and duplication and automaticity all in one operation. See those component parts?

Well, now I hope you're getting a very happy understanding of this because it's really very easy to understand. And you're going to be overreaching it rather than underreaching it.

Now, you see how all those things can tie in together there? Okay? Why don't you take a ten-minute break now and we'll go on into some exteriorization on this same thing.

BASIC THEORY AND APPLICATION PAGE 2 3ACC-12 - 11.01.54

[[Category:Lectures 3ACC]]