View source for Comm Line - Overt Act-Motivator Sequence (2ACC 531216)

'''Series:''' 2nd Advanced Clinical Course (2ACC)

'''Date:''' 16 December 1953

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

----

← [[Lecture_Index_2ACC|Back to Series]]

And this is evening lecture of December the 16th.

This evening we're going to take up the facsimile, its origin and behavior, and some more about this communication line. Actually, those two things should be in reverse, since first we will talk about C and E and the communication line.

First thing I'm going to give you is something which is the overt act-motivator sequence, where you will see very definitely that theory is practice, but in this case theory and practice, while they make a technique, create too much of a severity for use.

Now, I gave you, a few lectures ago, the graph there of C to E, cause to effect, the gradient—not a gradient, but just that communication line. Person is at C, and then puts his communication at E. We depend for the receipt at E, effect, of a duplicate of what has been put out at C. A good, reliable communication system is one which receives at E, that which was put in at C.

Well, this is source and it's a lot of other things, and you could go on talking about theory here for some time. This is also duplication, I point out. And so we've tied cause and effect to duplication and a communication line, and why people don't receive well because they're trying not to be a duplicate of the cause and so on.

Well, now let's put in the overt act-motivator sequence into this, and the first part of this is an exercise which is for investigation only. It's not a process.

You see, almost anybody can create an effect with Scientology, but to create a beneficial effect is something else. You'll find people running around very often saying, "I've just invented a new technique." Well, they don't know any of the old ones, much less invented a new one, and then they suddenly shovel one out which is an incredible piece of stuff in that it produces an effect all right, and bogs the case down with rapidity.

And it's very easy to evaluate a technique—after it's been run for a few minutes and the case doesn't feel better, that isn't the technique to use. I mean, that's—yeah, that's the most elementary sort of thing. Well, cases don't feel better after they've run this one, so I just give you warning on it. It's not a process, this is an investigatory technique.

You just have the preclear mock up a line. And have him have—call one end of it A, and the other end of it B. And then have him put the A end toward him—put this line in front of him and have him—the A end toward him, and the B end away from him.

Now have him turn the line around so that the A end is away from him and the B end is toward him. Now have him turn the line around so that the A end is toward him and the B end is away from him. In other words, you just make this line swap ends.

You have him do this for a while, and what do you know—the overt act-motivator sequences, in great number, show up.

The reason for this is the most elementary reason you could imagine: He has been at A as cause, and has been unwilling to be at B as effect. And this is the line, and there is a communication line present in the action, and so we have the graph suddenly coming to life and being about the most horrible thing you could do to anybody. That's why I say, I call to your attention, that theory and practice are just that close together. Theory is practice. But this you are trying to solve. But that is too tough.

Now, you take some case that's down there around IV, V, or VI and try to get that case into some sort of a frame of mind that he can be audited to get him over a little fright. Well, the way to not go about it is to run such a technique on him, because immediately all the things of which he's guilty will show up.

Now, if Freud was ever sincere about wanting to get everybody's guilt out of the road, he certainly had his opportunity—all he had to do was invent Scientology. Because, believe me, this is the last ditch on investigatory procedures. And we find investigatory procedures so arduous, so heroic, that a IV, V, VI is made very ill with this technique—not even vaguely ill, just very ill. And you can get away with it with a I, you can get away with it with a II, but anything works on Is and IIs.

It's—this is just a demonstration technique of the exact theory of cause-effect, communication and duplication and inversion and overt act-motivator sequences and guilt and refusal to receive communications and inability to give communications and compulsive agreement. That's just the complete package there, you see, right there, and it's just this line.

Funny part of it is, the line is more important in investigation than the terminals. This is a curious thing. Now, you can audit terminals for quite some time without getting any particular effect, but if you'll just have somebody put up a line and audit the line, you'll get more effect than you wanted. You start putting up the line to somebody who is interiorized and you have him start stringing lines around, and you're liable to encounter the things the GE fondly hopes are his genetic line. He's got them, no kidding. He has these lines, they run in all directions. And if you start disturbing them very much ... I mean, they go out into the past and the future and to Mars and all—they're all—it's just weird. And the next thing you know, you have him wound up in something that resembles taffy. So you start having somebody who's interiorized handle lines too much and push lines around, and they get into a lot of trouble.

Well, that's beside the point. The point here is that we have theory and practice the same, as far as what we're handling. But now if that theory and practice is so close together and this is too tough for 50 percent of the cases that you're going to operate on, why, naturally you have to use a lighter technique— and there are many, many of these.

But there—when it comes to space, when it comes to delivery and receipt of messages and it comes to any type of relay system, so on—there is the basic, there is the fundamental. You're operating from that fundamental. That is the fundamental of communication as applied in this universe, and that's it. If you think you're going any further than that, you're going to have to go out of this universe. Well, you can go out of this universe and go further than that, but not in this universe. When I tell you, then, we're there with SOP 8, that is—that was what came into view in the Factors, and that's what starts the Factors. And this investigatory procedure demonstrates it very rapidly.

You take somebody and tell him to change—interchange those A and B points on that line (don't tell him so much A and B points, you just get him reversing that line, one way or the other) and if it's a man, dead women show up and mangled corpses. And then all of a sudden at his end, why, his mangled body, and blown-up countries, and—all these overt act-motivator sequences show up. It's any time that he was unwilling to be an effect, he put on resistance to being an effect, which stopped him halfway down. See, so it locks him up in the middle point of the line which gives him no distance and no space eventually. He's unwilling to be out there, you see, because he's been a bad boy.

Now, it's all right for you to feel sympathetic for IV, V, VIs and VIIs. And I'm not putting this in there just to make them feel bad, but the truth of the matter is, is you're looking at a pretty wild boy when you're looking at anybody from IV down. Any gal, any guy—even in this lifetime. Not necessarily bad, you understand, but darned active, real active—pretty ornery about a lot of things. And you're also looking at the more active sort of individual. They have to be fairly active to louse themselves up this thoroughly. That's the truth of the matter. And all that's really wrong with them is this overt act-motivator sequence coupled in with the automatic facsimile-maker.

Now, there isn't any facsimile in past time. We'll just talk now about facsimiles. There is the thought-pattern automaticity: the postulates which furnish to the individuals those pictures of which one thinks.

Now, the funny part of it is, the automatic machinery is so good that it only furnishes to the individual those pictures which he actually has observed. It's real cute. Automatic facsimile-makers. And the automatic facsimile-maker is a piece of automaticity that you'll have to know a lot more about.

Because you see this character, you know he's loused up because he's in Fac One. He keeps wearing these big horn-rimmed glasses and staring at everybody and so on. And if a girl's doing it, why—if a man's doing it, you know he's a "Monitor" in a Fac One. If a girl's doing it, why, you generally call her a "Merrimack." Anyway … (audience laughter)

For the sake of the English, those were two famous—the two first ironclad vessels. Anyway, the—when we have a ... (Those were the two vessels that reformed the British Navy.) Anyway, we have … (They didn't fight the British, though.) A facsimile … (The British stole the whole idea from us. After it— invented first in Scotland.)

There is an automatic facsimile-maker at work. It's a gag, I'm just giving you a gag, but I'm showing you. You see, it's a demonstration of what happens on a thought pattern.

Now, there is stimulus-response at work. Fellow gets off the groove by thinking of something peculiar or getting interrupted in some way, and he sets up that chain of thought and he keeps being presented with new ideas on that line, see? That's life. And that's how a fellow starts going off the deep end.

How does this come about? Well, he sets up a communication system. He's talking, let's say, and he says the word cat but he says it in relationship to a whip; he says "a cat-of-nine-tails." And having said it in relationship to a whip, he yet said cat, didn't he?

Well, if he were observing real closely this beautiful automatic machinery he has, he would find that he had presented himself automatically with a picture of a cat. But he doesn't want a picture of a cat. So he doesn't look at this picture of the cat, he puts that one aside. And the horrible part of it is, by that same act, you see, of getting the picture of the cat and then putting it aside with effort, he puts into the statement "cat," putting the cat aside with effort; because that goes into the machine, too. That's what it's going to make next time.

He says cat next time, now he gets "cat, put aside the cat with effort," that's going to be what the picture is. And in a very short time he becomes occluded, once he starts working too heavily with this automatic picture-furnishing machine—that's occlusion.

The time track actually is a track in terms of cause and effect, message emanating or action emanating, and action received.

And so if we have a duplicator going full blast on every message which is started, and if it is going harnessed to the postulate that it's only going to present one with what is exactly true, it must then present one with whatever is true. And when the machine goes out of whack, the fellow individually (I mean, he just got too much this time; I mean, he—too many of these things have come up as associative ideas; it's the machine doing this associating for him, you see), why, he'll just cover it all with blackness and skip it. He's afraid to get pictures anymore, because there are just too many pictures come in—he starts looking at pictures, and pictures come up, and pictures, so on.

Now, many people don't do this at all. You see, they don't think a thought and get a picture. But—many people don't do that, but once they have started doing that, then about the only thing you can do is to wipe the slate or knock out the automaticity. You wipe the slate by running engrams selectively, but of course this validates the machine to some degree and really lays in, to some degree, wiping engrams as part of the true picture. So let's handle it as an automaticity.

Now, I—the terriblest quiet seems to be settling over. Are you following me? Or is this—is this too horrible for you to contemplate? (audience laughter)

Well, now, for instance—I'll give you a demonstration of this.

Now, right now, think a thought.

Now, connect it to an object.

Male voice: Mm-hm.

Now, think another thought. All right.

Think of another object.

Now who's getting pictures shoved at him automatically?

Male voice: Yeah.

Yeah. And who's refusing the pictures which might come up?

See that? What are you doing?

Male voice: Oh, I thought of—you was just talking about a cat a while ago, and I thought of cathead, which was an oil derrick, and the cathead safety devices which I used to put on them, and why they were put on them, and how people got hurt in them.

Mm-hm. And here we go, see?

Male voice: Shucks!

Well, when a fellow is blanking the picture, this gets desperate, because he starts presenting himself with consecutive thoughts. Now, I just gave you an example of having gotten off track with a consecutive line of thoughts, how far off track you can go, you see?

Associative logic comes up and suddenly crosses back past what the individual is doing or saying, and he is no longer really following his thread of conversation at all. Now, it's doubly confusing due to the fact that it is really wonderful—the idea of following an associated line of thought. This is triumph itself. It can only really be done adequately by a wide-awake thetan. He's really got to be wide-awake. He's got to find facts which just—very similar to the facts just uttered. And he can go on with these similar facts—and we just had an example of it—the gradient scale, see. The next fact must be very similar to it, and it sounds very logical to everybody, you see, merely because it's a gradient scale. Everything is very—nearly like the thing which was just there.

Now, when things get more nearly like, and more nearly like, and more nearly like, all of a sudden they become the same thing. So logic in essence becomes a complete identity. So a person says identity, identity, identity. He'd start in, you see—we'll talk about this cat, see. All right, he's—"cat, cathead, oil derrick, people getting hurt on them," and so on. Well, that's a perfectly logical, clear view. Now, a person who'll go on like that forever, doesn't mean that his reason deteriorates to this point.

But the next step down from any associative reasoning—no matter how logical the conversation sounds or anything—is, of course, that the cat doesn't remind one of a cathead; it reminds one of "cat" which reminds one of a cat, which reminds one of a cat, which reminds one of a cat. You see? We don't get associative logic then, what we get is identity. And the difference between logic and identification is—well, it's a pretty wide bridge to cross in terms of sanity, out it's actually—they're first cousins; they're right there, you see. There's not much difference between somebody holding forth logically, and then condensing the logic down to tiny gradients which become indistinguishable, and then eventually just saying, "cat, cat, cat, cat, cat, cat, cat." Now, or ironclad ships: ''Monitor, Merrimack, ironclad ships—British, made in Scotland," and so forth. This is a pretty jumpy band. See, that's a pretty widely associative band.

Eventually, you'd come down to ironclad ships and then we'd go into counting the number of the rivets—this is, by the way, the way logic does deteriorate. Then you count the number of rivets and start thinking about the number of rivets in the turrets. And then you wonder whether or not they had that many rivets and you decide that better be truer, you see, and better check on that. And then you—ironclad—whether or not the iron was really around the ship or not. See, it's getting very identified with the symbols.

Well, the end product of all this is you would think of an ironclad ship just by getting the symbol "an ironclad ship," see. Pardon me—you think I mean a picture of an ironclad ship. I don't mean that, I mean i-r-o-n (hyphen) c-l-a-d (capital) S-H-I-P. See, one would think of "ironclad ship." Not even by getting the picture of the ironclad ship—he would get "ironclad ship."

Well, to avoid this kind of nonsense happening to him, the best thing to do is just to ring down the curtain. And so he just lets everything go black, and after that to hell with it. And after that he can operate—as long as he doesn't keep his space as too big, he operates fine.

Well, now, in view of the fact—I was running a fellow back down the track one time (to run some para-Scientology in here) and I was trying to find states of sanity from life to life, and I found out that he was following a very different pattern. I mean, one life to the next—consecutive lives—had very little to do with the sanity of the life before. That's mostly because he'd just jettison it, you see, and have nothing to do with it and not even fight it. It just never occurred to him there was anything there to fight. And way early on the track, we found a "schiz tape." Now, where I—what I say, "schiz tape"— that is this thing i-r-o-n clad.

You get somebody who is a bit balmy or is on his way—I don't think there's anybody here even vaguely in that condition, by the way—whereby they get everything they're just about to say presented to them with a tape. Or you have—they have little railroad trains—little model trains that run around and the words appear in the cars, and they read them off the cars. Oh, yes, fantastic things. Ferris wheels going around with a—and sometimes flashing lights tell them, and stockbroker ticker tapes that are going clackity-clack and all sorts of things. Or they have a sonic gadget that tells them. And these sonic gadgets reel off the whole thing for them before they speak. That's—people that want people to "think twice before speaking once" are actually trying to set up such a gimmick. It's an interesting gimmick.

Well, there—we call that a "schiz tape." Now, that doesn't mean the person's gone—don't be alarmed about that. It just means that this automatic machinery that has gotten down into mental imagery or eidetic recall, has gone to the point where it's awful solid.

Well, this schiz tape I found in this individual, about umpteen lives ago— way back—was in Arabic. It was Arabic script. He couldn't read it, it just went on by, but he could give me the thought impression of what it was saying— and he was very, very mystified about this whole thing. He had been pretty batty in that life, really pretty batty. And he'd still left—the ridges of education of that life were still being mocked up. You talk about the fantastic capability of the individual; they were still being mocked up.

How an individual ever has any thought energy—that is to say, how he ever manages to emanate any energy at all that he can see or salvage is sometimes a wonder, when he's got it all thoughtwise diverted so that he is even constantly mocking up or paying attention to patterns which go back just thousands and thousands of years, and reactivating them and rebuilding them and—oh, boy. You just stop and think about how complex it is to have these postulates countering postulates and everything fixed geographically and ideas fixed here and ideas fixed there and ideas that are supposed to move over to there and replace those ideas, and the little wheels are supposed to click this way and that, and he has to put up enough energy to mock up enough energy to make enough wheels that are supposed to go there—rrrrr!

Well now, this fellow who gets this eidetic recall is in the same shape that most children are in. This is pretty good shape, by the way—a person who gets perfect mental imagery. He has converted his knowingness into the same facsimile pattern as he perceived at the time he knew. And if he is convinced that what he says must be the truth and nothing but the truth, then the machine will only present him with actual pictures which were taken at the time. Now, he knows how to make the picture and he has set it up automatically. You see this? He knows how to make it, he can make it, and it is presented.

Now, we needn't go that far into theory about simultaneous—I mean, consistent and constant mock up, in order to have any MEST universe at all. We won't bother with that. Let's just take it in its accomplished fact: When he thinks of a chunk of energy, he has that chunk of energy. When he thinks of a picture, it's just as reliable as when he looks up at the wall, he has a chart that is on the wall, and when he looks at the wall, there is a chart on the wall. In other words, he has a chunk of energy which is a facsimile, which is a thing, which has mass, and which, when he energizes it, after he has presented it to himself—when he energizes, it spits back. It reactivates. It has some fifty-some perceptics in it, it's got everything in it imaginable, and it can be erased and so forth.

Well, all right, after he's erased a few of them, he is—finds it safe to live through these experiences again because he's lived through them again. You see that?

Erasure, in essence, is a knowingness process rather than an energy rub-out process. It teaches somebody that he can duplicate the experience and is still alive. Shows him he can duplicate it. It's the same way with Creative Processing.

Now, people get worried about making their mock-ups disappear for fear that they will then have on their hands a mass of energy. They aren't going to have a mass of energy on their hands. All they've done is feed a new pattern into their automaticity. And it will now mock up, but gloriously. It'll mock up this new pattern, and it'll mock up newer patterns.

How many patterns can an individual mock up? How many patterns can be fed into an automatic piece of machinery? Well, it probably goes into a number which we could not write if we started with zeros at the top corner of the room and wrote very small, and we wrote all the way around the walls of the room, and then we wrote down—still with our zeros, see; 1,000, that's the way we started this thing—and we went all the way around the walls of the room once, and then we dropped down a little bit diagonally just so we could continue the number, and we went all the way around the walls of the room twice and we dropped down just a little hair or so there so we could continue, then we went all the way around the walls of the room again, and we went all the way around the walls of the room again. And if we were writing in six-point type, this room is not high enough to hold the number—it's a big number.

It's no wonder that individuals balked at the idea of trying to do anything with the human mind—if they themselves were bogged down at the thought of quantity or complexity. If something should be shied away from merely because it was complex—if the individual wouldn't move a trunk just because it was heavy, he would shy away from the problem just because it had quantity. You know, there isn't any quantity about it, it's just that. But it is terribly complex—oh, but thoroughly complex.

What we've tried to do is reach the basic simplicities—and what we've evidently succeeded in doing is reaching these basic simplicities—which untangle the rest of the complexity. Not necessarily in terms of an earlier moment in time, but in terms of an earlier common basic to each process.

Now, if we had in each one of the things in that which we were representing with those numbers—in other words, the number of factors and facsimiles and machineries and so forth that could be activated—if we had one common denominator to each one of these and we just sort of pulled the thread, why, you see, the rest of it'd sort of go. We'd be left with a clean slate.

Thetan is unwilling to do this merely because he considers that havingness is a very difficult thing to achieve. And so he holds on to the inability to create— he holds on to the inability to create because he can't create. That doesn't make sense, does it? But that's exactly what he's doing. He's holding on to all the things which make him—it impossible for him to create, because, you see, he can't create. And so therefore he has to hold on to all of these things which he can't create, which include the inability to create. And that's because if he then took away all this sort of thing, his havingness would disappear, and he doesn't consider that his creativeness would, of course, return immediately and he could put the havingness back. No, he sort of likes the randomity of all these patterns.

A fellow can be pretty batty, and you ask him to part with one single tiny object—you ask him, "What will you give me? One word—zum. Give me a broken pencil, you—anything—a scrap of paper, a tiny little piece of lead or a piece of dirt on the floor, or …"

And he—boy, he'll just think it over for a long time before he'll push that over to you. So—he's so convinced that he's unable to create, therefore he has to hold on to and have everything which comes in. He's got a life, he's living it consecutively, he's being a good boy, he thinks, and so forth, and he's not going to fool around with all this stuff.

Well, what's the first thing he learns about a facsimile? How is it that everybody learns about one of these facsimiles and everybody's got the same piece of automatic machinery?

Well, it's because the making of a facsimile—it's almost impossibly difficult not to make a facsimile if one is a fairly live thetan. Oh, very difficult not to make a facsimile.

Well, let's say we push against a wall. We're taking a look at a wall and there's a wall up there, and we push against this wall. And we push against it with merely the thetan-emanated energy and it goes against this wall and it makes a pattern, of course, of the wall. That's all—you've made a facsimile; that's it.

Now, facsimiles—very funny, but facsimiles don't have backs. And mock-ups have backs, but facsimiles don't have backs. And the fellow who's mocking up three-dimensionally is mocking up three-dimensionally all right, but if he reaches around kind of quick to the other side of the figures—even though they're in three dimensions and so on—he'll find they're hollow. That's because they've been made from a certain angle. Well, if he's mocking them up, he'll mock them up solidly, but he has to do this consciously. Well, very well.

If one tries to pull away from something, one will also make a picture of it; and he'll have a momentary pattern. Now, he knows what this pattern is. This is fabulous. The ability to duplicate to such an exactness these patterns, and then not store them, that is the wrong word—merely to know the pattern, and then to know one doesn't know the pattern so one can surprise oneself with the pattern—that's fabulous.

Now, one of the ways to do this is to know without looking. Now, undoubtedly somebody could master some exercises of knowing without looking; undoubtedly this could be true. I—in various studies I've made of Indian lore and so forth, I've never run across any effective ones. But now we know what we know here, possibly you could make up one of these things of knowing—you know, I mean knowing without looking.

But a person who has become convinced that he has to look to know, then furnishes himself something to look at so that he will then know, which gives him a reason to know.

"Well, how did you know that?" somebody says.

Well, the fellow early on the track could say, "Well I've got a picture of it right here. And this is an exact picture of the scene." Well, he mocked it up consciously and looked at it and then said to the other fellow, "Well, it exists because it's here."

And, "Well, that's …" The other fellow had to say, "Well, that's all right then. Okay. If that's just exactly the way it was."

Now, somebody comes along and says to you, "All right. You tell me all this stuff about you going fishing and catching that fifteen-pound bass, and so forth. Well, I was kidding with one of the boys down at the office yesterday and they said, 'No fifteen-pound bass ever came out of that lake, and you possibly couldn't.

You whip out of your pocket at that moment a picture of the bass, a picture of the scales, a picture of you standing there triumphantly leaning upon your trout rod or something, and he shuts up.

They still dramatize it. Anybody can make a picture of a fish, by the way, that makes a bass look taller than a man. They never think of that. You can make pictures look any way. The touching faith and confidence of people believing pictures and statistics is not just a marvel to me, but is probably a marvel to people who take pictures—all people who take pictures, and all statisticians. Just exactly what holds everybody into an agreement on the honesty of what he's mocking up is very interesting.

Well, let's not linger too long on how that facsimile is made, beyond— take another example: A fellow is being sprayed with energy like sunlight. He's being sprayed with this energy and as it comes in he resists it. As soon as he resists it he gets a pattern, a picture.

Now, a thetan does something else: He puts out some energy against a thing and then brings it in and takes a look at it; that's another trick he has. It's amusing that there isn't a single individual in this room who cannot do that. That's very amusing, because you go and you slug and stress and so forth, and "I haven't got any pictures" and "I don't see anything" and that sort of thing.

Well, actually, all you have to ask them to do is, "All right. Get the idea of pouring out a lot of lines of energy away from yourself. And now get the idea of pulling them back in, and what kind of a picture do you have?" And they tell you.

It's very—it's a very simple exercise. You did that, sure. I mean, there's nothing to that. It's just that an individual doesn't want to do that. He thinks it might be dangerous or something. Quite often when he brings them back in he says, "It's a black picture."

And you say, "Yeah. Well, why don't you turn it around?"

He turns it around and looks at it, and tells you what it is. It's quite routine. It's a black picture. Sometimes it's a picture of the darnedest things. Quite often it's a picture of something radiating, because the thetan in doing this, of course, is paralleling the action of suns and other things in this universe.

This type of radiation—a thetan doesn't necessarily radiate all the time. That's quite a bore, radiating continually, going around with a big halo plastered on top of your head or some such thing. But anybody who is alive can do this. And it's beneficial to some degree, but mostly beneficial in pushing out these energy waves. Just a big—you know, just like you were a glowing ball or something, you can put out all these—this "flitter" is what it is, and bring it back in and take a look at what you took a picture of. That's the way a thetan takes pictures, if he wants to take pictures. It's kind of a gyp, he really isn't taking pictures. But they're more real to him quite often than a photograph would be; they're—because they're his. Well, that is picture-taking equipment, that's facsimiles.

Now, they take a picture of sound—if an individual will resist sound, then he'll get a picture of the sound, then he can unravel it and let it play again. But, what do you know, anybody who's heard a sound can mock it up and hear it again; that's much easier.

Now, most people who are having trouble trying to run facsimiles, have either completely keyed out on their automaticity or they've been so swamped by this automaticity that they've blacked it out—this picture-making automaticity. They just black it out, and after that they won't look.

Well, now, you ask this individual—reference here is the Philadelphia congress tapes—you ask this individual to put a sound there so he can hear a sound. And he tries this a couple of times, all of a sudden—and he looks pretty suspicious about the whole deal. He expected all this to be automatic, he expected everything to run off just according to Hoyle. He was supposed to run through an incident, and he was supposed to lie there and the incident was supposed to parade past his face like a motion-picture screen, you see. And he gets very confused by this, because he realized he's got to put the picture there before he gets a picture.

Well, if he is—has a black field, his automaticity in putting the picture there has overweighted to a point where he has destroyed it by hanging up some curtains. He doesn't want it anymore, it's too much for him, and so he's quit using it and he's hung up these curtains. Well, now in order to get this started again, he's got to handle it just the way you would any other automaticity— but why start it again? Since the direct method of use would simply be to know everything that had ever happened to you, why look at pictures? So his fixation is looking at pictures. He thinks he has to get a picture of what happened to him before he can believe what happened to him.

A preclear will go on this, and he'll get the foggiest, filmiest notion of what has happened to him—oh, real foggy, thin. But he'll be sure it happened to him if he has a picture of it. That's not valid at all; that's not even vaguely valid. He can take pictures of other thetans' pictures—he gets thought impressions of thought impressions. If a thetan is holding up a picture, if he resists that exact impression, he will get it back again. I mean, he can get the picture, in other words—that's a "borrowed facsimile." The experience didn't happen to him, but he can show people the pictures of the bass afterwards anyhow.

Well, this society at this time permits an individual to get very occluded. In the first place, it sprays printer's ink into his face. In order to read, you have to suppress white. You do not read by suppressing the blackness. You want the letters in and the whiteness right where it is. And so to read, you suppress the white. So an individual who does a lot of reading suppresses white, suppresses white, suppresses white. And that was why I wanted that run on some of the people here today, so you'd have an example of what happened when you just weren't… This—"Give me three books that you are not. Three pictures you are not. Three movie actors you are not," and so forth, in brackets.

Here we have the suppression of white and the effect, actually, is—of a lifetime of reading and study—is when run, getting a face full of printer's ink. And a person will even taste it—nyahh—mouthful of printer's ink; because they've really absorbed it in tremendous quantities. And the suppression of white has become automatic, so that in order to know, one must suppress white. Well, if one is to suppress lightness in order to know, a person trying to know will wind up getting blackness. And this goes back into early explosions; the earliest incident of this is the explosion. A thetan's standing there and something goes boom! and the big flash goes up, and his immediate response is to push out against this flash in such a way as to repress the flash. Of course, the second he represses it, he gets a patch of blackness.

Now, in order to know what it is, why, the thing to do is not to let the flash come and hit him and knock apart everything he has—the thing to do is simply to repress it where it is and then move it aside and take a look at the picture he made of it, and he'll find out what it is. That's one of the ways of doing it.

But white flashes are followed, in terms of an explosion, by a very great blackness. If you don't believe that sometime, get a flashbulb to explode in your face or—like I did during the war—have an aviation gas tanker blow up in your face. There were several gallons of gas there and it made a big flash, and the night was red and green and pink and purple there for a second afterwards. And then, boy, that was the blackest night you ever saw; and it just stayed black for about a half an hour. That was remarkable. That certainly put out the lights quick. So the deepest blackness you get is after the highest whiteness. Well, that's all over the track—people suppressing explosions.

So they're into space opera. You know, you get a preclear—oh, they got lots of space opera on the bank, and—they always have. And you get some preclear that's been stutter-gunned and bapped and so forth. No, no, he isn't—he doesn't like flashes. He's gotten to a point where he isn't in favor of them anymore at all.

Give you some idea of why this is, the "stutter gun"—it just threw out great big gobs of jolt, one right after the other. When it hit a man it didn't penetrate him cleanly or anything like that, it just beat the flesh off his bones, and then beat the bones off the other bones. You know, it'd—he'd get a glancing blow from one of those stutter guns, and it'd spout the blood up through the pores of the skin. I mean, you'd just get—one would explode near him, you know, it'd be enough blow, enough impact, to just knock the blood right straight out through the skin. Possibly stutter gun and birthmarks have some connection. Well, anyway, the ... As impossible as it may seem.

You get that sort of thing—an individual sees this big white flash in terms of a gun or he sees a gunshot of any kind or he's in a war (he gets mixed up with one of these rather minor parties they throw down here on Earth every once in a while) and he, of course, is repressing whiteness, he's repressing yellowness and greenness—whatever's in that explosion—redness.

And then you set him down and give him a book to read. Oh-oh. Because you have enough associative logic on the bank so that his automatic machinery will promptly go into line, and explosions are things which mustn't happen again very often, and so it handily goes into work and doesn't let it happen again. And there he sits with an explosion on his lap every time he reads a book—and he wonders what's wrong with his eyes.

Well, your eyes would be in bad shape too if they were looking at an explosion all the time. Did you ever blow off a firecracker in somebody's face, something like that? And did you notice that they had a slight tendency to recoil with their eyes?

Oh, let's take a more graphic example. Let's take a fellow and let's put three hundred pounds of TNT two feet from his face and let's light it off and get it properly exploded. Well, do you suppose at the moment it went off, just before the full import hit him, that he might have a sort of a flinched feeling in his eyes? Well, this is the feeling in the eyes of somebody wearing glasses— it's a flinch. Comes from books—this is the key-in. Ah, sit there reading books, see, suppress the white and get in the black, suppress the white and get in the black, suppress the white and get in the black, word after word after word after word. The first thing you know, they'll tell you the future is slightly to the right and black. Why is that? It's simply because books read from left to right and deep. See, they go down—books go down on the right side—they go away from one on the right side, and the end of the book is in the future. So this puts the future over to the right and black. That's all the significance there is to it. But you can get anybody to look at a piece of blackness and get "What is the significance of this blackness?"

Now, you told me about that the other day. You said you wanted a—saw this big blackness and the postulate that went with it was "must have a teacher." Well, that's very parallel to this, because any postulate connected with blackness wonders what that explosion was.

Now, if you want people to ask the question, "What was that?" If you wanted five million people right this—in the next couple of minutes to ask the question "What was that?" you would throw up into the sky, just a little way from here, a tremendous white flash. And all the people of Philadelphia and the Camden area and so forth would immediately ask each other, like a flock of monkeys or parrots, they would say to each other, "What do you suppose that was?" And then you would get the more imaginative ones around them theorizing on the subject: "What is the significance of that flash?"

What is the significance this boils down to which gives you printer's ink— what is the significance?

Now, if you really wanted to revolutionize a whole reading public, you would print your books in yellow on red paper, and believe me, the people would feel like they were having their brains blown out by the words written thereon— I may be doing this one of these days. Because they'd suppress the red in order to get the flame. Huh! Those words would burn themselves in! (audience laughter)

Well, this blackness is actually something which is used to protect himself, and you're not going to get a case that is black very far out of it unless he has some sort of a guarantee that he'll be protected. And so he wants to be pretty sure. He wants to know before he goes. Before he backs up any distance or goes anywhere, he wants to know that he's fairly safe, and that the explosion isn't actually happening.

Well, the—one of the first things that upsets him is this automaticity. This automaticity comes about when he, early—early in his life, he's thought of a thing and gotten the picture, and thought of a thing and gotten a picture, and thought of a thing and gotten a picture, and he's tried to get a picture of a thing and he thought of seeing something, and he saw it. And after a while, this got damned annoying to him. He didn't like this. A lot of other things happened to him and mainly—just thinking in terms of associative reasoning—he's gotten interested in associative logic, and then all of a sudden he lost something.

Well, of course the earliest thing on the track that happened—I mean, one had lots of blackness and very little lightness. He'd have to make the lightness. Well, when the lightness would go out, he'd leave blackness. So a person has the idea that if he loses something, it's all going to go black. And sure enough, you can get anybody—anybody to get the idea of losing something, and the field in front of their face will turn black. Naturally, it isn't anything very alarming. It just simply means that if they had a mock-up that somebody swiped or wiped out or played the "God trick" with, they immediately had a problem of blackness. You see, they—bang! everything went black. And that is loss.

Now, there's something else involved. When they lost a terminal they were depending on to continue to manufacture energy—they'd already gone into the point of using terminals to manufacture energy, this is real silly—when they've lost this terminal, of course, they got no further energy. So when they lose a person whom they have been using as an anchor point, the energy is no longer manufactured, so they feel dead and tired and everything's black; because that's a terminal gone. But that's just one step down from losing, actually, a mock-up.

Anybody who is—actually sets up two terminals and thereinafter gets his generated energy from these two terminals going back and forth against each other, he's into the use of motors and automaticity already. And when they lose one of these terminals, why, they feel like part of the body's gone and the whole field is black and that sort of thing.

Well, these manifestations all center around pictures and they center around views. Because the whole field wouldn't be black, you see, unless he had a picture of things being black. This is real simple. Almost anybody who has an occlusion, an occlusive curtain and so forth, tells you this.

But the problem is one of pictures. What he's complaining about is an absence of pictures. What he's complaining about is an absence of receiving those impressions coming off the walls which permit him to see the MEST universe. This is blindness, you see—no picture. So, everywhere we look on this problem we find no picture.

Well, above no picture, we had knowingness without any pictures, and we find out one has to know like the dickens before he can get a picture. So we'll find the occluded case trying to know like mad in the absence of pictures, and then complaining at the same time because he doesn't get any pictures.

Well, in order to know he has to repress the pictures, because you have to repress the white of a book, you see, in order to get the printer's ink so that you can know. And so we go round and around in this dizzy little squirrel cage: "Well, you can't have any pictures because we've got to repress the white so that we can know, and we can't see it because it's all black because we've got a curtain of blackness hanging up in front of all the pictures."

Well, the grim and dismal joke is, there aren't any pictures beyond those the individual makes. And he makes them from the patterns which he knows exist.

Now, here is one of the lowest level drills that remedies this situation: You cover a desk with a number of objects, throw a black curtain over them and tell the individual to tell you what was there. And theoretically, if you drilled him long enough, he would no longer bother to look at it the first time with his MEST eyes—when you uncovered it and let him have a glimpse of it and then shut it down again—so that he could see it. You'd no longer need this. What he'd have to do, he'd just look through the cloth at it—if it was a problem of lookingness. But he wouldn't go to this degree. His knowingness theoretically could be drilled up to a point where he would simply know what was underneath the cloth. Not by seeing it—just by knowing it was there. You see, knowingness is so featherweight it's very hard to understand. It's so lacking in significance.

Now, that'd be about the crudest kind of a drill you could do. It isn't a recommended drill, I mean, that's just a crude drill. There'd probably be a lot of them like this, which would have a tendency to remedy blackness.

But let's take somebody who doesn't have sonic recall and is complaining about not having sonic recall. Well, unless he puts the recall there, he's not going to have any sonic recall. For this reason: He's going to object putting it there. He's going to say, "It ought to be done for me automatically." In other words, he's telling you, "I have a machine out there that does all this for me and it's not working, and you're supposed to fix it."

"All right," you say, "fellow, we'll fix that machine for you. Now, the way we'll do it is to make you put there all the sounds which I am now going to give you, one after the other, and you hear them back after you have put them there." You make him take over the control of his sonic machinery. Now, people who run around telling you, "Don't have sonic," it's just that they don't have the automaticity of sonic recall repaired—because it's an automaticity just like any other automaticity.

Now, how do you do that? And how would you repair that? You would say to an individual, "All right. Now, you don't have sonic? All right, do this now. Now, I'm going to snap my fingers and I want you to get the sound of that finger snap, and I want you to repeat the sound of this finger snap immediately afterwards. All right, I'm going to snap my fingers. (snap)"

"All right. Now, I'm going to snap my fingers again, and you repeat the finger snap. (snap)"

"All right. Now this time I want you to do it again. I'm going to repeat this finger snap and I want you to get again the sound of this finger snap. (snap)"

And you just keep that up, little while, and some of the cases will all of a sudden turn on their sonic and say, "The heck with it."

Other cases that don't come in, you say, "Keep putting sounds of various kinds out there for you to hear." You, in each case, will recover the automaticity.

Now, here's the way you do that. You say, "Put the sound of a bell out there. (pause) Now put the sound of a gong out there. (pause) Now let's put the sound of a doorbell out there. (pause) Let's put the sound of a cow mooing out there. (pause) Let's put the sound of a sheep baaing out there. (pause) And let's not worry that these things might remind you of things you have heard before. Let's not worry about that. Let's not worry about whether or not they're a good sheep. Let's not worry about whether or not they remind you of an incident. Let's just disregard all of that and keep putting sounds out there."

And by the time you've completely neglected this poor automatic machine that you've thrown back into restimulation, see—and then you neglect it. And you keep the preclear putting sounds out there, he keeps himself putting sounds out there, regardless of what sounds come in. And you start making a liar out of this machine—it'll go goofy and that piece of knowingness will straighten out with nothing in it. In other words, it's gone. You'll key out the machine.

What do you do with a facsimile? Huh-huh? What do you do about pictures then, huh? Well, this is the way you handle pictures—and this is not an investigatory technique, this is the way you handle pictures with somebody who still complains about pictures. Get him to get the thought "chair" and then get him to get a picture of a chair, no matter how bad. He'll sometimes tell you, "I got a picture of a chair. As soon as I said 'chair,' a chair sneaked in."

And you say, "That is not the chair we want. We want the chair that you're going to pick up over on your right side and put in there."

Now he says, "All right."

And you say, "Get a picture of a saint."

And he does. He gets an automatic picture of a saint.

You're just—started to work his machinery. Make him put another picture of a saint in place of the picture of the saint which did come up—if none came up or if one came up, regardless.

Now, we have him get the idea of an object and then promptly and immediately put an object there before it can be presented. And you'll find out that the automatic machine, no matter how fast it is, isn't as fast as the thetan; isn't as fast as he is. Actually he can, at any time, be faster than any automatic machine which he has. But, you'll find that machine in there for a first few licks—boy, there, it's really trying to get it in there quick, see? Bzzzt! It's not trying to get it in there any quicker than it ever did, it's getting it in at its routine speed because it's not sentient. It's just doing what he is doing back of his hand.

But what you do is, you say, "Get an idea of a clock now." And he puts a clock there.

Now, he'll get another impression of another clock. If he got another impression of another clock, have him put that there three times. Handle it just like you handle any other automaticity. Make him get the impression he thinks ought to be delivered to him—make him get it himself. And then make him duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and believe me, you'll turn on his pictures. He'll go right on straight through.

In order to get anyplace in Scientology, the shortest route is usually through it.

And there is how you cure the automaticity of facsimiles.

Okay.

COMM LINE: PAGE 2 2ACC-25A - 16.12.53

OVERT ACT-MOTIVATOR SEQUENCE

[[Category:Lectures]]
[[Category:Lectures 2ACC]]
[[Category:Lectures 1953]]