View source for Duplication and Communication (4ACC 540318)

'''Series:''' 4th Advanced Clinical Course (4ACC)

'''Date:''' 18 March 1954

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

----

← [[Lecture_Index_4ACC|Back to Series]]

This is March 18th, first morning lecture. This morning we're going to cover something about duplication and communication. Want to draw you a little picture. It's a very, very simple little picture. Well, it's a little picture that contains everything in it. You want to know anything about living, it's in this picture. Very simple picture.

Here we have space, which we will draw as a little box up here in the upper left-hand corner. And here we have energy—we draw it as a lightning bolt in the middle top of the sheet. And over here we have objects, which we draw over here in the upper right-hand corner.

This space here is essentially a MEST universe definition of nothingness. Remember, it's not quite a definition of nothingness, because it has location. That's what's wrong with this nothingness. Something a little bit wrong with MEST universe space: it has location, which is a fixed, unalterable, invariable thing. So it's not quite nothing, because an absolute nothing would have in it no location. Definition of an absolute nothing would be something without mass, without wavelength, without size, shape or form, which had no location in the past, the present or the future. And that would be an absolute nothing.

Very important definition. You should know that definition, because there's something just a little bit wrong with MEST universe space. That is, it gets a fixed location which doesn't thereafter change.

Now, many things can change relative to many things and it would be easy to get lost in this space if all of the objects by which everything were being related were shifted in position. But the point is if you consider this as a fixed unalterable space forevermore, then any position in it continues to be that position in it. You see that?

So that if you got hit by a rocket on Ganymede, although Ganymede had moved on and the rocket had moved on and the splinters had all died away and the screams and the moans were just part of somebody's engram bank, there would still be a point in space in the MEST universe, theoretically—be a point there—where that accident occurred.

That's all that's left, really, in terms of the real universe, to be afraid of. We know by experience all other things go, die, perish, vanish, but there's one thing that doesn't vanish—that it becomes an unalterable, fixed thing—and that is a location in the physical universe space.

Now, that's about the most fixed thing there is anyplace, as long as you continue to consider this, as long as you continue to consider MEST universe space as one unit, one space that is in itself unalterable. Actually, it's a series of consecutive spaces. It's changing space at the rate of, oh, at least 180,000-186,000 disappearances and appearances per second, something on that order.

All right. Now, we get over here and we get the things that are themselves what get fixed in position: that is energy. And over here, these things are unalterably fixed in position.

Energy could be defined as a particle which was running around waiting to get fixed in position. And mass could be defined as a particle of something that'd really gotten fixed. It's certainly fixed in relationship to the other particles in the mass. Not necessarily fixed in relationship to space.

So as we look this over, mass really isn't terribly important in our computations as far as an unalterableness is concerned, because we can always alter mass. Energy actually isn't terribly important.

But these two things share one thing in common. That is, the particles which compose them at least pretend to be conserved, totally surviving, indestructible, so forth: the particles, the actual particles of MEST, atoms and molecules. Not even the nuclear physicist today has blown up an electron. Nobody has blown up any electrons. What they do is take some unstable formation of electrons, protons, neutrons, positrons and alter the patterns and so they get another reaction. So what? I mean, so they altered the pattern of the solar system by deleting Earth from it. But they had to put Earth someplace and it didn't disappear as a consequence.

Now, the unalterableness of this universe is what's really very wonderful about it. But it's a communicating universe. But note that this fixed position in space is an unalterable and the actual characteristic of the particle of energy only pretends to be an unalterable thing and it isn't fixed in space.

All right. A thetan who is obsessively duplicating space is trying to get fixed in position, you see? That's the one thing that space will do: it will pass along this thing that we have a fixed position. "Fixed positions are possible," the MEST universe space says. "Fixed positions are possible." And "fixed positions are here" and "there are fixed positions." And the thetan who is duplicating MEST universe space continually and so forth he has this idea too: "fixed positions are unalterable."

And when he duplicates, then, MEST universe space, why, he has a tendency to get stuck. What's he get stuck on? He gets stuck on fixed positions in space. So therefore where you were hurt is more important than what you were hurt with.

All right. Now, let's draw a communication graph. Here we have essentially a conversation between two Homo sapiens. And we have over here—we'll just consider that a nothingness—and here we have a body. Going from left to right here on the graph: a nothingness, a body, a body and a nothingness. We have that consecutively from left to right: nothing, body, body, nothing. Now, that's your basic communication graph.

Now, how many possible things can you get out of this communication graph?

Well, let's draw just above this graph a line, here, and let's put C at the left-hand end of this line and E at the right-hand end of this line and then underneath this let's draw in another line and at the left-hand end we put an E. And at the right-hand end we put a C. So that we have, actually, two lines here and the top one, the left-hand end is C and the right-hand end is E, and the bottom one, the left-hand end is E and the right-hand end is C. So we have two lines here with E at the end of—the right-hand ends in C below it—and C, E over here. Okay.

Now, this is a graph of a conversation. These are both communication graphs. One of them, all by itself, is a communication graph: C (line) E. Now, you see, there doesn't have to be a line there, really, but we just put that to mark a distance.

All right. Now, over here at C we have Cause. Cause—that means Source. All Cause means, as far as we're concerned, is just a source-point—and that's any kind of a cause. We just define it as source-point and after that we can use it and be happy with it. And up to that time we're really foggy with it.

All right. Now, over here we have E, and all E is, is Effect and that is Receipt-point. C (line) E—Receipt-point.

Now, a conversation would be; Source-point says, "can." E over here would receive that and duplicate it. If it were going to be a complete communication, it would duplicate it perfectly. Over here at E, then, would appear "can."

Now, down below here at C, if you had a reply to this, this fellow said, "can" back again. So he says, "can" here at C and then over here at E would appear "can."

Now, the person at the left-hand side of these two lines would have had this experience: he would have said "can" and then he would have received "can." See? Same thing. That was a perfect communication. A perfect conversation.

Now, we have over here, this person would have received "can" and then would have sent "can." See that?

So it's plotted, actually, against time. Time, in itself, is the co-action of particles. Time has no more significance than the co-action of particles.

Theta is standing there—you might say, in all due respect, it's a nothingness—and fix itself in space and time and it's watching the parade of the co-actions of particles. And watching this parade, it then conceives itself to contain time, which it does not contain because it doesn't move.

All right. Then we have this graph here, C to E. We've got to get a duplication in order to get a message through. Somebody in San Francisco sends a wire and it says, "Dear Mr. Doakes, Arriving today. Joe." It goes into the Western Union Office —the customer plus the office we'll call "C" — and it arrives out in San Francisco. And if it's a perfect setup and nothing has happened and Western Union hasn't gone mad or something of this sort, why, what arrives out there is "Dear Mr. Doakes, Arriving shortly. Joe."

All right. He receives this out there at the Western Union Office, the wires have done the job, and they hand it to the person who is reading it. And if it's still going to be a perfect communication, he has to read and understand "Dear Mr. Doakes, Arriving shortly," or "Arriving today. Joe."

All right. Now let's say, let's say now that there was a bust-down in Kansas City. And as the message went through Kansas City, it cross-wired, in some fashion the teletype scrambled, and what we got was the message changed at that point—"Dear Mr. Doakes, You're going to die today. Joe."

Now, San Francisco then receives—what it should have received is "Arriving today. Joe," and what it receives in San Francisco—is "You're going to die shortly," something, or "You're going to die today." Bang! This would be a nonduplication.

And of course, we'd say that's an awfully haywire communication. Now, supposing we get another kind of communication ballup: What arrives in San Francisco is "Arriving shortly. Joe." And the fellow who reads it, Mr. Doakes, he's "What fog—huh?" So he reads the thing and it says to him, "Dear Mr. Doakes, Your wife is going to have kittens on the 21st." And he's real sure that he's just read this off of this Western Union blank. "Huh! Hmm!" You'd say the guy is crazy.

Well, supposing he receives off of it, "Arriving today," and Doakes looks at it and he says, "Today—let's see, that was probably sent yesterday and so he arrived yesterday so I don't have to think anymore about it. He's here in town now." You'd say, well, he didn't look far enough, he didn't read the dateline on the thing, he didn't know the date or something of the sort. And so he doesn't meet any planes or doesn't do anything or make any arrangements or anything. Joe turns up and is very amazed about this whole thing. Well, that's just slightly crazy. That's slightly no duplicate, see?

All right. That is a communication and its duplication. Now, supposing we sent some girl, she was raped five times when she was seven, twelve times when she was ten, fifteen times when she was fourteen, has been thrown in a Russian prison and handled there several times, and her baby brother died four times when she was three. In other words there was a slight mix-up on the Second Dynamic.

And Joe sends this message to her: "Dear Miss Used-up, I am wondering whether or not you couldn't send me my duffel bag, which I left at your house, by Railway Express. Joe." Well, this goes, Joe writes it, the words are all correct. It goes out on Western Union lines, it's received in San Francisco, it's all correct, it gets up to Miss Used-up and, by golly, you know what she does? Well, she forgets she received it, that's one thing. She looks at it. It comes in. She doesn't want that. And then she thinks that it's probably her husband's duffel bag which he has said to send, but it really wasn't a duffel bag that he meant, it was probably something that he was talking about during the war. And it's probably been an old telegram, and maybe it should have gotten there last week but the thing to do would be to send him his suitcase by freight—preferably boat through the Panama Canal. Real slow, particularly if it isn't Joe's suitcase. And this is what she got out of the message and the actions she took.

Why? Well, way down at the bottom of the scale, Second Dynamic, she can't duplicate. She doesn't dare duplicate. She just doesn't dare. And you could say to this girl, "How are you today?" And she would go back home and is liable to tell somebody, "You know... you know I... I saw Bill today and you know what he... " It wasn't Bill anyhow, your name is Oscar. And she says, "I saw Bill today and he insulted me. He said, "You are no good."

And you say, "Well, this is very erratic behavior." The hell it is. It's normal behavior. It isn't erratic behavior at all. The test of that is, is you can take a whole bunch of people who are just Homo sapiens, standard issue, Earth, and stand them up in a long line and say, "Now, I want you to whisper this message in turn, one to the next." And you go to the head of the line and you say to this fellow, "The Germans are here." And he turns around and whispers to the next guy and the next guy and the next guy and when we get down the line of about ten, fifteen soldiers we get at the other end of the line, "Chow can't be served." How did it get this? It's utterly impossible for any such twist to be put on a message in any communication line, unless you've got standard Homo sapiens in that line. And then it'll go in any direction you ever heard of.

If somebody comes home and tells you the plot of a movie, if you've seen that movie, you'd never know it. Now, you could actually index the state of case of an individual directly by just doing this. You go to see a movie and then they go to see the movie and they tell you about the movie they just saw. You know what you saw (let's say you're in a fairly good state and you saw this movie, you know what the plot is) and listen to their recount of it. Boy! You see, it'd be perfectly all right if they came back home airily and they've seen this movie called Hate on the Half Shell, played by Glenn Ford. And they see this movie and they come home and they tell you, "Well, I just went to see Hate on the Half Shell and the Seven Dwarves. And it was real cute. I particularly liked the part where all the birds flew out of the screen and said hello to the audience" and so forth.

They could do this: just romancing, just nothing, just romancing, and tell you an entirely fictitious movie. The difference is, would they know they were telling you an entirely fictitious movie? Well, they know they're making one up—well, that's fine. Nothing wrong with them at all. They're in real good shape. If they insist on telling you the plot of Hate of the Half Shell endlessly, they're really standard Homo sapiens. They will bore you by the hour, particularly movies you've seen which they're telling you the plot of. You protested five times at the beginning of the recital saying, "Yes, I saw that last week at the Bijou," and they go right on telling you the plot. Unstoppable.

All right. If the person is getting a little bit down the line, what they think they saw was Hate on the Moon Beams. And by the time they get home, why, Glenn Ford, who is the disreputable hero, they've got him retranslated into the fact that he was the gallant villain. They've got the roles kind of mixed up. And they tell you a different plot which places entirely different emphasis, but they believe utterly that this is what they saw on the screen.

Now, a person who's real bad off will come in and they will say to you, "Well, I saw this movie tonight and it was uh... uh... 'Hate'... 'Hate' 'Hate'… yeah, 'Hate' was the name of it. And it starred Snow White and it was about the murder of the seven dwarves." Only they don't know they're lying. They think that's what they saw. What's the difference in this duplication system?

One, the fellow is perfectly willing to duplicate it and perfectly willing to change it. Nothing wrong with that. He knows he's doing it. He isn't a machine doing it, he just is perfectly willing to shift and vary it and push it around any way he wants to.

The next fellow has it shifted and pushed and turned around for him by a machine and recounted on a machine basis. Far as he's concerned, that's all there is. He went and saw this movie and that was its plot.

People over here in this rodeo parade will. The Wonderful Circus of...Who was it? What is that book?

Female voice: Lao.

Lao, yeah. Lao. The Wonderful Circus of Dr. Lao, yeah. "Did they see the bear?" Yeah, about that bear. Was it a man? Was it a bear? At the end of the book, there's a commentary and so forth by the author as, "Was it a man and was it a bear?" and so forth, that the people saw. It just carries this red herring and shaggy dog, you might say, all the way through about the bear, the man and big arguments ensuing on what was seen in the parade.

Well, if you were to go over and look at any parade, why, you would turn to the spectators and look at them very expectantly and say, "And how did you like the elephants?" No elephants in the parade, see. "And how did you like the elephants?" You'll get a rather dazed look in the face of one or two, and one of them will say, "Gee, they were wonderful." You just put some elephants in the parade and, for them, they were in the parade, that's all. You're just operating on a machine and you throw into the machine whatever you like and it'll just stick right there. And you talk about the cowgirl on the purple horse, this exceeds the average. There are very few purple horses. So they'd think about this, but there are so many extraordinary things in the parade that they would think about this.

It's a horrible trick to play on people: to go up the street, entirely empty, there's been no cars on the street for a long time, and you say, "Good God, did you see that pink roadster?" The person will stand there and they'll look up and down the street and they will think. If they're real sane, they'll look at you. If they're not well off at all, they'll look up and down the street for the pink roadster. And if they're in horrible condition they will immediately know there was a pink roadster on the road. They just do an obsessive duplication of anything that you say.

If the pink roadster came along the road, they'd do an obsessive duplication of the pink roadster. Only, they afterwards, on a self-determined basis, probably wouldn't be able to fish up the right facsimile. See, the machine could be out of order, too, and they see the pink roadster and obsessively duplicate it. They're obsessed with this pink roadster, but by the time they push it out again, why, it's a green roadster. And if they're real bad off, it was probably an airplane wearing spats.

It's just this: the difference in communication, just the difference in people. Do they know they're doing it? Are they doing it in a self-determined fashion? See? Are they doing it? Or are they doing it on an obsessive basis, totally compulsory? In other words, self-determinism and other-determinism. Is their data based entirely on other-determinism? Or is their data based on their own determinism? Or do they base their data at all? When they're in real good shape, they don't base any data on anything. They just take it or leave it.

If it comes to making a couple of particles coincide or uncoincide, if they think it's important, they'll do it. They could remember everything under the sun and lie about it, too, or remember it or tell the truth about it or anything else. Enormous freedom and flexibility concerning this.

The world isn't quite bright enough, why, they'll make it brighter. And that, by the way, is about the only way the MEST universe ever got brightened up. Somebody says, "Well, we can do better than that. We've got a lot of freedom, we don't have to duplicate what we just saw. We'll do something else."

Now, another thing you'll notice, that some people are terribly inhibited in rewriting, you might say, the text of a book they're reading. Some people think they have read what they tell you they have read. Other people simply rewrite the text, entirely. They say, "Well, at that point the hero should have done so-and-so." So they just re-mock-up the story and that's what the hero did. That's all, as far as they're concerned. That's the story they read. That's because there's no restriction on them doing anything they like with that particular plot.

Somebody else, who has watched a lot of TV and been otherwise suppressed in his aesthetics, gets to a point finally where no matter how unaesthetic this particular plot was, when the hero did what he did, that's what he did and they can't change it. And then further on down the line they read this: "And the hero rushed into the camp on a horse and shot eight Of the Indians and rode off with a beautiful washwoman," or something. And they come up afterwards and they get the fact that the hero has just ridden into the camp of Bengal Lancers and shot all the lancers and rescued the bear. If they were just real bad off, you ask them to recount this story, they just can't do it. It's because they can't duplicate.

Let's look at some of this, now. Let's look at this nothingness right over here at the right. We got these four pictures, we got a nothing, a body, a body and a nothing. Everybody in the world knows that there's some hidden influence at work someplace. Well, it's right in or back of everybody else's head. I mean that's a hidden influence.

Now, that's the "cosmic consciousness" and so forth—that's it. No reason to look any further than that. And if you did, you'd probably run into just a bunch of nothings back of the collective heads of certain races and so forth. You can always go find out what makes herrings, by the way. It's a nothingness that manufactures herrings, but actually it's not really a real nothingness, it's a ridge.

Now, we've got this nothingness and a body, and a body and a nothingness. Now, let's put a communication over this line. Heh, heh, heh, heh! Try and do it.

You can't get an exact duplication on the line. And if a fellow hasn't enough fluidity to allow for this nonexact duplication, if he isn't free enough to recognize and appreciate and handle and say to hell with it—the nonduplicative factors concerning thetans and bodies, if he can't embrace this—in other words if his knowingness isn't up to a point where he knows all the time what he's doing, his communication system will get into enormous numbers of bogs and he will get into the maybe which lies squarely between something and nothing. How does he get this? How do these things get up into so many maybes?

It's deteriorative. This is a system that if somebody starting out without any assistance such as Scientology and so forth—he just could never, never lick it, that's all.

Here's a nothingness. This nothingness gives the orders to the body and it says to the body, "Say 'cat.' " All right, this nothingness says, "Say 'cat.' "

All right. This somethingness here utters the vibrations on air, "cat." This is then a something uttering "cat."

Now, the horrible part of it is, it's a nothingness that said to say "cat." So here, from—we'll just number these, the one all the way over here to the left, we'll call A, and this body we will—this first body, call B, and this next body we'll call C, and over here, we'll call that D. That's probably where Aristotle got his syllogism, come to think about it.

Anyway, we have A says, "Say 'cat.' " That's the impulse.

All right. This goes over this dotted line from A to B. It's a no-form, a formless thing, giving a direction to something with form. Well, what's received here? What is the message? "Say 'cat,' " no-form. Yeah, but this thing is receiving with form. So this nothingness kind of enters into the message. And this can't be a total duplication. So this B here—this person, this mass—has to say, kind of, "Say 'cat' " with no form. You know, there's a nothingness about saying "cat." So they'll wind up and do what most people will eventually do—start talking so nobody can hear them. See that? I mean, they've tried to put nothingness into the communication.

Well, they're supposed to say "cat," see, and they say, "ca... " you know, particularly if they're from some part of the world where they're very well educated, so on, on how to speak and so forth [mumbling]. Somebody says, "For Christ sake, speak up." And the fellow says, "Well, I'm talking perfectly clearly... [mumbling]."

If you notice, somebody with a long communication lag also runs on a great indefiniteness of speech, unclarity and so on.

All right. So A says, "Say 'cat."' Well, the actual message that goes over the line is: actual "cat," (no-form saying it). B says, "I'm a form. I'm a form." Boy, the body is nothing if not insisting on being a form, until it gets over to a point where it's insisting it's not a form anymore.

And so we got "cat" here. Well, you have B, then, saying "cat." Now, then this is received at C—that's okay, but of course it's "cat" kind of blurred. You know, because there was a no-form on the original line. So C receives this point—it's a body too, you see, and he says, "cat," said indistinctly, "cat" said blurrily, "cat" with a nothingness in it somehow coming from that somethingness. This is the main protest and so forth you get on communication.

But that's all right. B certainly said something to C because here you have a form with a form. Well, this would be okay if C as a mass received anything—which it doesn't. It doesn't do anything. What's running it is back here at D and the message is going to get back here. But it's gotten "cat," and then "cat" with not quite as much form as it should have received here as... You see, C, too, is not B. C will eventually get direction reversal, you see, because B is standing facing C and C is facing the other way—a mirror effect so that we get a direction reversal. A lot of people walk around, they have a face embedded backwards in their own faces. And so that's just it, it's just a duplication you don't quite receive that way. Actually C would have to be facing with his back to B in order to receive a complete, accurate duplication of it.

All right. So we've got "cat" here. The word "cat" then goes up this dotted line from C to D and we've got a form hearing "cat," which is received at D as "a form hearing 'cat."' But D is not a form, D can't be a form, so that we get "a form hearing 'cat'" received by a nothingness. Well, in order to duplicate it, D has to pretend that he is C. He has to pretend that he's interiorized or pretend that he has a form to get a perfect duplication of it. Otherwise, he doesn't get a perfect duplication. All communications, then, are warped to that degree.

All right. So he answers back and we get the same channel going from D. It's, whatever he says is no-form to C and then that goes as a form over to—the message plus form goes over to B and then, plus form, is received at A.

Now, let's take a look at dwindling spiral in terms of communication. Here we've got no-form received by B and all B can do with this is say, "Not quite form." He has a form, see, which goes across the space between B and C, is received over here at C as a form saying "cat" with not quite a form. That's part of the message already. Now, it goes up here and is received at D, and D has to receive the word "cat" with form. Mass, in other words, has been entered into the communication line. Matter, energy, has been entered into the communication line: masses. And so the original message now has energy connected with it and is received over here at D, and D to duplicate it or try to duplicate it perfectly, of course, would have to develop something like form. So the most available form is right there at C. But anyway, he stands here back Of the body C. D stands here and says, "cat" with some form.

All right. So he replies, "cat," but now he's replying, "cat" with form, with a little tiny bit of form—which is not perfectly acceptable, but it's almost acceptable to C. So now C has "cat" with form, which goes across this space over here to B. And now it's got much more form connected with it because it emanated through C, you see, and when it gets over here to B, now it's "cat" with form. And so it goes back up the line and gets to A on the return line and A receives "cat" with form. Aha. He has no choice, then, but to put a form there in order to duplicate it one way or the other. The least he'll do is to make a picture of a cat and so you get obsessive pictures coming in.

All right. And he'll turn around and he'll say back again "cat" (with form now), and it will go to B and it will get more form added to it and go over here to C and get even more form added to it, but the message itself will become less distinct and clear in terms of thought and will become more and more massive. And it gets up here to D and then the cycle goes back the other way again and what are we getting? We're getting repeatedly, every time we make this C to E cycle as it appears here on the graph, we get more and more mass being added to A. Inescapably, we get more mass added to A every time. A, a nothingness, trying to communicate through MEST using bodies for a communication system, cannot help but have more and more mass added to him. Eventually, the handiest way in order to get a perfect duplication is for A to say at last and for D to say at last, "We are forms. And being forms, here we are in a body, being a body, and knowing very well that we are not nothing. We know that better than we know anything. We know we're bodies." So you get the dwindling spiral—is the effort to duplicate.

Well, this only occurs when they lose their own orientation and knowledge of what they are. Thetan, as long as he can retain his knowledge of what he is, will go on forever. He could mock-up bodies and throw them away and duplicate any way he wanted to and so forth—as long as he didn't get confused or upset in some fashion or another about the plights and conditions of B and C. And as soon as he gets really upset about the plights and conditions of B and C and starts to feel sorry for them or something of this sort, then his sympathy will enter into it and he'll more and more solidly get to be a form. Then you will eventually find him: care of the body, care of the body, care of the body, that's all he can think about, all he can think about. You process him, body evaluates for him, body evaluates for him. "Did I see that? Well, the body... Did the body see that?" See? "Did I see it? Well, I'd only know if I saw it in case the body saw it. If the body saw it, why, then I could say that I have seen it too, but only if the body saw it first." And here we go: evaluation by the body.

Now, you process this boy without understanding some of these factors. You process him and you don't realize what he's doing. He's sitting there, chew-chew-chew, fool around, fool around, fool around, mess up the body, body, body, body, body, body, body. Well, the hell with the body! You're processing a thetan. Unless you can get a communication line—you don't have to get it from A, a thetan, to D, a thetan—but unless you can fix it up so A doesn't have to go through B in order to communicate with the world at large, as long as you can do that you can clear people. And when you're no longer doing that you're not clearing anybody or helping anyone. And if you go on playing tacit consent with, "care of the body, care of the body, care of the body, communicate through the body, through the body, through the body, use the body, use the body, the body is everything, the body machineries are wonderful, God help, God worship, everything is fine, the body, the body, the body, the body, the body"—if you let a preclear sit there and run this, he's being evaluated for, evaluated for, evaluated for, evaluated for: "I'm a body, I'm a body, I'm a body." The more you process him, the more he'll get to be a body—unless you run some nothingnesses into the process, unless you give some attention to this problem for what it is.

I ran you this morning—an hour's process. It contains exercises which are directly aimed at solving these communication problems. But let's look at some of the problems connected with this and find out, then, what get to be the obsessive intentions of one person against another. Let's take this graph, now, on the Third Dynamic. Now, what happens to interpersonal relations?

This nothingness, avoiding or ignoring his B relay point, trying to make C immediately duplicate on the misconception that C is only a body—to get a duplication. Any trouble he runs into, you understand, he'll get an obsession. If he starts to get into an awful lot of trouble with this and he starts insisting on it real hard, he gets obsessive about it.

All right. He's trying to communicate directly with C and he's ignoring B. In other words, he's a well-extroverted individual and he's trying to talk right over here to C straight without appreciating that C is actually a nothingness and he thinks he's talking to a somethingness. And the only way to get a complete duplication of it is to make a nothingness at C. And so obsessively he gets into a line whereby he—we'll call this A-B combination over here, body plus thetan, we'll just call this A-B—gets obsessed with the idea of making nothing out of C: ridicule, criticism, carping, actual overt injury or covert injury such as accident-prones practice, direct killing such as that practiced by that enormous cult in India which probably accounted for a million Hindus—the cult of Kali, the Thugs. Boy, that was really—they made nothing out of people with a passion.

And we get this continuous and continual effort, then, on the part of A to make nothing out of C. A has already gone down Tone Scale. He's way down Tone Scale. When he starts this nothingness process, he's got to communicate with another body—or with a body.

Now, to run through several cycles of this: After C has been called nothing and this has been reevaluated and knocked around and so forth and D is interiorized into this C mass, you will find C going around obsessively trying to reduce and make nothing out of things, although C is actually a something. He is trying to redegrade, he is trying to degrade even further, bodies plus thetans, although he is a somethingness. And so he himself, as a body, is starting to fall apart. He tries to pull it apart.

Well, he's assisted in this endeavor by the fact that he is actually D, which is a nothingness, trying to communicate with his body at C. So we get that impulse on the part of people: make nothing out of everybody. Every time you see a body, run it down, ridicule it, upset it, do something about it, try to foul it up, rattle it one way or the other. Just the fact that a body is standing there is enough.

All right. Now, you see this is a repetitive cycle as we go down the Tone Scale. Way up on the Tone Scale, this A is perfectly competent and capable to make, look at and knowingly duplicate what he looks at, just as himself without fixedly duplicating it. He's in no state of confusion so he's perfectly willing to make somethings. He is perfectly willing to have somethings around. He doesn't consider these somethings are terribly dangerous to him. He isn't, you might say, fouled up on his communication system. So he comes along and he looks at C, who is a mass—he's perfectly willing to make something out of C.

Now, we go on down the line and we find echoes as we drop lower and lower on the Tone Scale to a point where A, interiorized into B and totally unknowing, just totally unknowing, he is in a wonderful state here. He doesn't know that he's a nothing. He knows he's a body and so forth. Well, he can get down to a point where his total goal as far as the body is concerned is to get as something as possible—but that's even lower. A little bit intermediate there, after he's merely inside and he doesn't know what he's doing here, quite, he sees these somethings around and he is a something so he will go through a phase, there, of trying to make something out of everything.

Now, if he were to encounter some thetans, he'd think this was a shame, these thetans running around here being nothing. The thing to do with these thetans, of course, is to put them in bottles or interiorize them into energy or do something with them so they can be something, too. A perfectly mild desire on his part.

Now, we get way down Tone Scale where he can no longer make something out of C, he obsessively, then, has to become very massive himself. That's because all the time somewhere in the society around him, somewhere, things are trying to make nothing out of him. Well, he knows he's something. Now, he's convinced he is something.

This A—almost impossible for it to consider this, but it does—it considers that it is now something. It's now something. It's A plus B, thetan plus body, and there's something else around in the society—other people and so forth—they're at one or other lower grades of still making nothing. You see, the whole Tone Scale goes in these harmonics.

The impulse to make nothing rides down the Tone Scale a slight distance to the impulse to make something and then that pervades the Tone Scale for a slight distance down when we run into another impulse to make nothing and then we go a little bit lower on the Tone Scale and we get an impulse to make something and we go a little bit lower and we get the impulse to make nothing—and this is actually the purpose of emotions themselves. They just vary from making something and making nothing. Enthusiasm is an effort to make something, for instance. Anger is generally an effort to be something in the face of something trying to make you nothing and so on. They can be analyzed that way. It's not necessary to analyze them right now.

So we get this harmonic, nothing-something, nothing-something, nothing-something, nothing-something, clear on down the Tone Scale.

Well, it has different grades and different forms and different viciousnesses and different helpfulnesses and so on. And we finally get way down the Tone Scale, we're liable to find an A-B combination that's gotten down to a point where he just knows he can't make nothing or something out of anybody. He's just helpless in the face of any form or nothingness he faces, either way, and the only thing left to him, however, is this body B. And he as A, obsessively then, tries to make more and more and more and more mass out of B. You know? More and more mass, more and more mass, heavier, heavier, heavier, thicker, thicker, so forth. He gets very massive. He will dramatize in this fashion, too: People try to make nothing out of him, he will loom up and say, "I really do amount to something. I am somebody. There is no reason for you to discount me," and so forth. "You're just trying to run me down. I really am somebody and I'll prove it." And this is the source of, you might say, outrageous ambition. When a fellow sets out and against his own best interest and everything else decides to become widely known or he's got to succeed and so forth, he's got to make something out of himself, he already has found that he couldn't help other people very much.

Now, he'll go below that and he fails. He now has to withdraw from being viewed and he fails. That is to say, he couldn't make himself big enough or massive enough, and he quite commonly, in a span of several lifetimes, he'll get down into the idea after a while where he's got to make nothing out of the body. And he's liable to become terrifically thin, awfully thin, withdrawn in on all sides. He's trying to make nothing out of the body, but his motives by this time are so meshed and massive and degraded that he isn't clear about what he's doing at all. He's just trying to waste away and he'll kind of dramatize this on other people very covertly and so forth. Well, give him a little more cycle and—down the way—and he'll try to be making something out of himself again, but this time it'll probably be something very desperate and so forth. He'll get to a point, finally, where he gets obsessed with the idea that he's got to be a rock. See?

Well, it's just the dwindling spiral. The end of the spiral is of course the fellow withdraws and starts out all over again. The end of the spiral is marked by the fact that the fellow discovers that he actually is nothing. And then the spiral begins all over again and he runs this dwindling spiral.

Well, let's look at the MEST universe itself. This is interpersonal relationships, this lower graph. Let's look up here at these three things at the top —this nothingness, this energy and this somethingness—and let's find out that a thetan is not a piece of MEST universe space nor a duplicate of it. He is not a piece of energy. He is not a mass. He's none of these things. He's a nothingness.

All right. And we find him having to obsessively duplicate MEST universe space. Well, if he obsessively duplicates MEST universe space, he's got places where he's stuck in MEST universe space, because there are unalterable fixations in it. So that's his chief first problem, you know? The MEST universe space is obviously nothing. Well, it's nothing with a condition. And that condition is that there are locations in it which are unalterable.

All right. Now, we look over here to energy and the thetan tries to duplicate energy. Well, he can mock himself up to duplicate energy, that's all right. But he has a little difficulty doing that because the energy itself says that it's unalterable. It must pervade forever and so forth and the thetan doesn't quite like that idea. Pervade in the same form with the same masses with the same particles, forever? Oh, this doesn't sound very reasonable. And we find him over here and trying to communicate with the somethingness, mass and that sort of thing. He looks at a mountain and having looked at the mountain, you see, he would have to be willing to —he wouldn't have to mock himself up as a mountain—he'd have to be willing to mock himself up as a mountain in order for the mountain to give complete duplication, communication, back to him.

The least he will do is get, after a while, very obsessive on the idea of he must outflow only. You know, he can only outflow. He can't inflow. He doesn't dare inflow because he knows he can't be that somethingness.

After a while he rationalizes it. He says, "Well, I don't want to be that somethingness, there's something very bad about duplicating other people," and he gets all kinds of odds and ends this way, but it's—well, after a while he gets over here and he says, "I am something." He gets himself totally connected, totally associated with, identified with, masses. He says, "I'm something." So therefore space is no good, he can't duplicate that. He can't have any space.

So he runs back and forth this way. Here's your dwindling spiral in the terms of the MEST universe. This nothingness starts to duplicate space. Then there are unalterable positions in the space and so he gets fixes—he gets stuck in various places. And having done that, that is a characteristic that energy—there's energy connected with stucks and things like that. He'll accumulate energy and he'll start to duplicate energy rather exclusively—nothing but energy.

And then as he duplicates more space and more energy, he gets more and more stuck or solid and eventually he gets over here to where he's duplicating mass. And so he's got to be solid in order to duplicate the mass.

But if he's solid and duplicates the mass, he can't come back over here and duplicate space. Of course if he's mass, he can't duplicate energy either, because energy is very fluid material. And matter, massive objects and so forth, don't move.

So the effort to communicate with the MEST universe, then, poses these various problems and they're the consecutive problems of a static, an absolute nothingness. The only thing which would actually come within the definition of an absolute nothingness—no real location—starts to duplicate and eventually falls out of knowingness. He starts to duplicate and then piles stuff up and falls out of knowingness and shuts off his own knowingness and does various things. So he's not duplicating well.

Well, the second he stops duplicating well, why, he stops communicating well and after that when he duplicates some space, he'll duplicate the stuckness about it. When he duplicates some energy, he will duplicate its fixations and its fluidities and its things. Well, energy has to have particles in motion. Energy doesn't appear, disappear and then appear elsewhere. Well, a thetan can do that and it's one of his best characteristics. But energy can't do that, it has to run along in paths to get somewhere else. So he thinks he has to go along in paths to get somewhere.

And we get mass, and mass is fixed, which agrees with the fixed characteristics of space itself, so he can really get stuck. But that's only after he's lost his knowingness about communication and duplication. Actually if he knows what he's doing and he has a recognition of what he's doing as he goes along, he can duplicate any one of these things. He can duplicate them as many times as he wants to. He can communicate with anything he wants to. He can do anything he wants to.

Where it happens, though, that his experience starts to exceed his own knowingness, his experience becomes valuable and his knowingness isn't so valuable. And when he gets down to that point, then he starts to inherit some of the trap characteristics of the MEST universe. After a while he will be things obsessively without knowing that he is them. He will try to do all the things that the MEST universe does or be various things in the MEST universe in order to execute some sort of a design or pattern in existence. But the basic pattern of all difficulty is right here on this graph. There is no other difficulty than this graph.

This graph doesn't even tell you there's a tremendous liability about this. So what do you want to talk to people's faces for? That's one of the things. Why? That face can't hear a thing. If anybody is educated playing poker, it won't tell you anything either. And in this social world it tells you next to nothing. A Japanese face, for instance, engaged in social conversation just, well, is the least informative sort of a thing. It's not that it's immobile or fixed or blank. Oh no, it's quite animated. But it's always the wrong way to. That's not even constant.

Your problem with communication is a problem of misconception. An individual says, "I'm talking squarely and solidly to masses." No, if an individual knows he's using a mass to communicate through and relay a mass and so forth, this becomes a perfectly usable system. Nothing wrong with this system. He knows what its liabilities are. If he knows what its liabilities are, he knows his voice will eventually disappear, for one thing. Unless he what? Unless he puts some mass in. Because he's a nothingness making a voice talk, so he'd better feed some mass to the voice every once in a while. With his command line, why didn't he feed some masses?

Now, a person who has talked to his body an awful lot, that is to say, given lots of commands and lots of orders to his body, of course gets the body into a condition where it just starts to become nothing. It becomes more and more nothing, because a thetan is not without horsepower. And you get people going around and they're sick and they're lame and they're upset and the half of their head is missing and they have hollow spots in their stomachs and that sort of thing. Doggone it, don't you be so surprised that these conditions can exist. This thetan is just insistent on being duplicated, that's all. That was the last-ditch effort he made three million years ago, which he's retransplanted to this body: making nothing out of it.

Well, a body gets through its machinery and handlings and so forth, it gets very, very obsessed, oh, tremendously obsessed with the idea as it goes down the Tone Scale. That is to say, as its machinery picks up these various patterns, because it's just machinery—pick up these patterns, why, it will kick back against a thetan. The machines will kick back against a thetan.

You'll find people moving out of their bodies with a theta body. What's he got a theta body for? Well, that's just because he needed a body mass in order to duplicate this mass so he could accumulate it. You see, so he could communicate easily. So we have A is actually in B, and A is a separate mass. But these two masses are coincident. So we have one mass communicating with another mass, which makes a perfect body communication.

You could actually pray a thetan out of his head if you didn't booby-trap him with the idea that God was boss—if you gave him a lot of little gods which weren't senior to him at all. And you just put individuals out there praying to these little gods or talking to these little gods or communicating with them, not with the idea that he was doing anything in the world but actually putting them there. You know, not that they were going to do big favors for him or something of this sort. You could put it on the basis he was going to do some favors for these little gods and get it back and forth. In other words, make him communicate with nothingnesses one way or the other. Why, you'd get sudden and interesting responses from people. You'd get exteriorizations. You get all sorts of things.

But if he thinks the nothingness he's praying to is senior to him, he puts himself on the E end of the line and he won't be nothingness very long. Because there's too many somethingnesses around to jump him. You see, if he's consistently and obsessively on the E end of the line, "Our Father, who art in heaven..." that's putting you right on the E end of the line.

There's a great virtue in prayer just as long as you don't booby-trap praying. See that? Because it's a thetan, it's an effort to talk to nothing. All right, it's an effort to communicate with nothing—you dramatize this very often, it'll run it out.

Now, there's one more rather horrible remark to be made on this subject. Any one of you, somewhere on the track, has run into an elation, a tremendous elation—a gripping, wonderful experience. You wonder in Scientology whether or not you'll ever recover that experience. Sometimes these experiences are underlying the desire to be processed, somebody wants to regain that experience.

You'll never regain an experience. All you'll ever be able to do is create a new one. You can't regain any past experience. So that's a sort of a sour line to follow. But that elation—that's not to be discounted. Because there is an elation. No matter how much doctors tell you that euphoria is bad and that happiness is bad and that nobody must be excited or enthusiastic—that elation is quite real and is actually the thing which people hope they will again encounter and meet in life.

How is it created? Does it consist of energy? No.

There is no elation like the elation whereby a thetan has successfully made a nothingness, even if it's a qualified nothingness. If he's made a big enough nothingness about something, a period and a feeling of elation will follow. You see that? It tells you a lot of things if you understand that clearly.

It tells you why gangs of robbers work better than gangs of saviors. See that? Robbers go around making nothing out of people. Saviors try to make something out of people. Making something is junior to making nothing. And it's wonderful. You can get a lot of feeling out of making something. But believe me, there's nothing like making nothing.

You can hear an awful lot of boz-woz and monkey business about war, but the only thing wrong with war is that you had to "hurry up and wait." Nobody really ever too much complained about war in the actual action and combat, once he had gotten going. There was elation. And people who have been through a war and been in combat areas get starved ever afterwards from that elation, the craze to kill. Remarkable.

This is not recommending you go out and bump a lot of people off. I'm just telling you where the elation lays. If you made nothing out of a tremendous problem, bang! you would find an elation would ensue.

Okay.

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 600 26 MARCH 1954

DUPLICATION AND COMMUNICATION PAGE 2 4ACC-52 - 18.03.54

[[Category:Lectures]]
[[Category:Lectures 4ACC]]
[[Category:Lectures 1954]]