View source for Energy - Exteriorization (5ACC 540507)

'''Series:''' 5th Advanced Clinical Course (5ACC)

'''Date:''' 7 May 1954

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

----

← [[Lecture_Index_5ACC|Back to Series]]

Okay. I want to give you a summary of the application of the definition to exteriorization, and this application should be very, very much a part of an auditor's repertoire.

You are looking at something which is not what it is when you are looking at somebody who is interiorized. It is not what it is. It's a form-energy production unit in a mass of energy. Kind of strange. It is in a mass of energy and yet is an energy production unit; the thetan is an energy production unit. What, then, is he doing in a mass of energy. If he can produce energy, if he can cause energy to come into being, why is he sitting there in the middle of it? It tells you, then, that he must never ... he must have lost the idea of thinking of himself as an energy-production unit; he must be thinking of himself as an energy preservation unit. That's the first little error he is making.

This person is as energetic as he can produce energy; that's all the energy he'll ever have. I don't care how much he eats; I don't care how much he makes himself athletic and goes around and pumps the barbells and all the rest of this balderdash.

I saw a little fellow once, about 110 pounds, pick up a grand piano and shove it out of a burning house. He never pushed a barbell in his life. Of course, when he got out on the lawn; he wondered who brought the piano out. He just produced enough energy at that moment and overcame enough gravity and threw enough postulates out the window so that the piano would dematerialize in the living room, and rematerialize in the front lawn. And he says, "I wonder who brought that piano out?"

Now, if he had arduously trained himself so as to eat Wheaties, why, he would have, of course, left the piano right where it was.

Now, the athletes who come up and exist and continue in the society are actually pretty good thetans. They're pretty good thetans, but they're thetans. And being thetans they are, of course, capable of production of energy.

No coach has ever really thought to ask himself; "Why is it that I get two or three athletes here who are just red hot? Everything is easy for them. They can run the bases and hit the ball and carry the pigskin or do most anything that they're supposed to do in this particular line of action and the result is championship."

I tell you, he goes out... his talent scouts go out and they try to find other people who can do this. These boys, they find them, they bring them in, they train them, they groom them, they feed them Wheaties, they do anything you can think of in order to bring up their energy coordination level – their "energy coordination level." The whole society is fixated on the idea of "If you can coordinate energy, then you will get along."

And yet if it happens, only one or two great athletes will appear in a generation, if they appear at all. This is incredible. Out of 150 million people, out of roughly 75 million men, you get one in a generation who can coordinate energy well. So you should ask yourself; "Maybe he isn't coordinating energy?" He isn't; he's producing it. Nobody ever ate himself into a championship. As a matter of fact, it's highly doubtful if anybody ever uses the energy which they consume at the table; this is doubtful.

Now, you'll find your preclear as bad off as he's stuck on the peak of the curve, which is survive. And here you get an energy coordination unit; he's holding onto the energy and spacing it and placing it. He isn't producing any of it, and he isn't destroying any of it; he's just holding onto it.

The final reductio ad absurdum is to be at the peak of this curve and simply be holding on so massively and so strongly that one is about the size of a grain of sand, completely solid. And that would be survival.

So your person who is nailed down in his head has abandoned the production of energy in favor of the coordination of energy, just like that. And he will sit there and coordinate energy on and on and on and on and on, as long as you care to process him, unless you process him off that peak and in two directions: one toward create and the other toward destroy. If you would process him off that peak, why, he will be in good shape.

But as long as you are agreeing 100 percent with his (quote) "survival goals" (unquote) his case will remain relatively static, and he will remain nailed down in his head.

One of the things you should find out is what are his survival goals, and just with malice aforethought knock them straight out. If all of his goals are survival goals, and none of his goals are creative goals or destructive goals, you've got trouble on your hands.

One of the things to do with a case would simply be knock out all the survival goals which a person had, for everybody and everything. You'd say, "Well, it would result, then, and he would be completely antisocial; he'd be dead against doing anything for his family; he would be in a remarkable state of no responsibility." Well, you'd only assume that if you assumed that you as an auditor were a hypnotist.

You see, only a hypnotist, or his less respectable cousin psychiatrist, could... Yes, the hypnotist at least doesn't take his knife to the preclear's brain; he isn't that desperate yet. When he gets that desperate he gets to be a psychiatrist. He has the complete other-determinism command over his subject or patient, you see. And having this complete other-determinism command, therefore the patient responds stimulus-response to exactly what the hypnotist wants him to respond to.

Now, get the slight difference between this and what an auditor is doing. An auditor doesn't say, "Now, I am going to strip out all the antisocial commands and leave, then, just a vacuum." He doesn't say, "I'm going to strip out all the survival goals of this individual and then just leave a vacuum." You see, the preclear has something to say about it.

The odd part of it is, is having stripped out the (quote) "survival goals" of a preclear, the auditor quite often will discover that all he has done is knock off the compulsion of the survival goal. And having knocked off the compulsion, the person now has much greater survival goals than he ever had before. You're not dealing as an auditor with a predicted, black and white result, see? You're not dealing with this type of result. You're not saying, "Now look, this fellow is a package; he is just sitting there. And if we take so many cubes out of this package, that will be minus that many cubes." It's not a mechanical, arithmetical problem.

You take a few cubes out of this package, you'll find out that you have twice as many cubes as before. Your goal is essentially a creative goal; your goal is not a survival goal.

That's why when an auditor starts in right down the groove of "Care of the body, care of the body. Let's treat all the psychosomatics. Let's make the fellow feel happy. Let's let him live forever, live forever, live forever, live forever." He's not only a bad auditor; his preclears don't get well. Why don't they get well? He's just fostering all the survival goals of the preclear.

Therefore, the treatment of psychosomatic illnesses, as an auditor will discover after he's been in practice for a little while, is a waste of time -just that, a waste of time. In order to treat the psychosomatic illness, it is necessary to bring the thetan up to the level of being able to create and destroy before the thetan will alter the condition of the body.

You can, of course, knock out and repattern, coordinate enough energy to change the condition of the body. That's treatment, direct treatment, of the body and psychosomatic ills. You can do that. It's very spectacular when you do. But you don't make anybody well doing it.

What is well? Well, if you just threw the word well out and put in the word free you'd have it. That would be, in essence, a better definition of what you're trying to do.

Here you find this fellow nailed down. One of the barriers which he's dealing with is simply the barrier of a twisted leg or a psychosomatic deafness or something; that's one of the barriers he's dealing with. And if you said, "Well now, let's make this fellow free," then you'd have an anatomy of what's wrong with him. Freedom could be refined... defined as a condition resulting from the relative absence of barriers. That would be freedom. What is the degree of freedom which an individual can attain? He, of course, could attain something like absolute freedom which would be no barriers of any kind.

The whole symptom of boredom is bound up in this matter of barriers. An individual who has had too many barriers thrust in front of him is, of course, bored. The person who is bored is surrounded by barriers. Boredom is a symptom of "There's no use trying to be free." So you get boredom and psychosomatic illness tending rather to go together.

But, of course, when the freedom is so restricted that it becomes painful – which is psychosomatic illness – an individual can get interested in the fact that he is restricted way beyond tolerance now. He has an immediate, active problem. So his boredom may even be waved aside by bringing in the barrier tight enough so that it hurts. Well, where he isn't in actual pain, you just release that pain just a little bit, move the barrier out just a little bit, and you'll throw the preclear where? You will throw him into boredom; he's bored without his broken leg. It's a fact. You can process out psychosomatic illnesses and process an individual right straight into boredom. And he gets upset with you as an auditor. A twisted leg was at least interesting. All right.

No amount of bad theory is going to make anybody well. And unfortunately no amount of the use of rote processes is going to make anybody well. You could sit down with a rote process and just chew on it and chew on it and chew on it, no comprehension of what you're doing. Yes, you're going to alter the case somewhat. You're going to alter it but not really, because there was a particular ingredient missing. You didn't have much of a direction for your process. You didn't quite know which way it was going or what factors were altering. And in the absence of that knowledge your case, of course, didn't progress very much.

That is why we would be very happy to certify people who had simply read 14-G, 16-G, 24-G, 28-G – be very happy to – if they could process people. Their understanding, however, is insufficient.

And one of those things that they fail on every time is simply this: They think the application of a rote procedure with no distinction in its application will bring about a miracle. In other words, without determining what the miracle will be and without understanding the rules of the road which leads to the miracle, they aren't going to produce one.

There are times to stop asking and times to start asking, and these should be related to what your preclear is doing and the condition he's in. It requires observation. A good auditor does a fast job; a poor auditor does a very slow job these days. A bad auditor does a destructive job.

Your first goal, then, is not illness; your first goal is freedom. And as long as this goal is carried forward, you are going to be a good auditor.

You should ask yourself, then, "Do you want other beings to be free?" That is one of the biggest stumbling blocks to an auditor. An auditor whose own case is not in the most excellent condition imaginable – he'd hardly dare face that problem: "Do you want freedom for these people?"

Well, look how mean and destructive and wicked they are; look how vicious and terrible they are.

The funny part of it is, individuals are vicious to the degree that they are enslaved. If you want a really vicious society, find one where slavery is its mode of operation. That will be a vicious society.

Such a society was the Roman Empire, and it too has come to pass away.

An auditor who is unwilling to restore freedom to an individual is an auditor who is actually unwilling to make anybody well. Because making somebody well must include making somebody free, and actually making somebody free makes somebody well.

So an auditor who doesn't sympathize with this goal, who doesn't know this goal, who hasn't any real way of monitoring where he's proceeding because his knowledge of it is too slight, will bring about disastrous results in cases.

The auditor may be telling himself and the rest of the world that his motives are crystal pure and so on. And as far as he knows consciously they are. But it just so happens that he just has bad accidents with preclears. Just about the time the fellow is about to get well, the auditor somehow or other kicks the edge of the bed, or the door which he left open slams in the wind or... There's always something there. He's a little bit late for his appointment, and he is just monitoring it down the line as much as he can to escape the inevitable consequence of setting somebody free.

This auditor would be much better advised to employ methods which produce outright slavery on the part of a preclear. There are such methods – many, many such methods; many more of them than there have been methods to make people free. If his goal is slavery, apathy, greater obedience in terms of must compulsively obey on the part of the preclear, then he's going to make a sick preclear.

That is why nineteenth-century psychology, psychiatry and analysis failed in the society. That's why they failed. Because it would have been necessary, to have made anybody well, to have set them free, and you will not find anything about this as an ethic or a mode of conduct in those fields of (quote) "healing" (unquote). And you really have to put big quotes around that word.

If they have not the goal to set men free, then they will not heal. That's all there is to it; it's as simple as that. You take psychoanalysis. Its primary modus operandi was to bring about a transfer of the patient to the analyst. Let's enslave him utterly. Let's even get a superimposed personality here. Let's build the barricades. That's their first mode of operation.

How about the field of medicine? I would like to just introduce that for a moment. The medical doctor with his insistence upon healing by being quiet, by taking it easy, by sitting around and resting, by putting people in stiffer casts – I wonder if medicine really ever makes anybody well. Or does it simply substitute much more insidious ills for those obvious ones they take away? I'm afraid the latter is the case. Does medicine ever make anybody well? Well, as long as we say "body," we could say, well, all right. But if we have to say "people," we have to include the thetan. And medicine is much harder on a thetan than an ill body was hard on a thetan.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the world would get along much better without medical doctors. I won't go that far because they have a use. So do carpenters. So do plumbers. But they certainly, because of the goals of their own healing, deserve no higher level than that – carpenters, plumbers. In fact, there was a carpenter one time got much more famous than any medical doctor.

Now, where is our ball-up with an auditor? Where's the jam that he (1) doesn't get preclears easily, and (2) doesn't do much for them when he does? Where's the ball-up?

It's on that point of freedom. Is he willing to free his fellow being? If he's not, his fellow being will not get well. If he is not willing to free his fellow being, he won't even procure preclears. Look at the horrible trick that's been played upon this auditor. He has an indistinct, unknown sort of an impulse to keep everything pinned down and trapped. He can't quite account for this impulse but he has it. He doesn't even articulate it. And he is given into his possession tools which set men free. He will restrain himself from using those tools simply by not procuring preclears. If he got hold of a preclear, he'd set somebody free, wouldn't he? So he'd better not.

An auditor has a rough time of it auditing if his own case is not in fair shape. But what is his case anyhow? His case is essentially his understanding. We see that cases make remarkable advances by the processing of affinity, reality and communication. Do you know that affinity, reality and communication, when used in their purest sense, will compound to have derived from them all mathematics? Do you know that all mathematics may be derived from that triangle? That is human experience above the level of mathematics, since mathematics can be extrapolated from affinity, reality and communication. We won't go into how that is done now. It's not even a mathematician's rough trick. It's not even fantastic. I mean, anybody who understood arithmetic could follow it down the line and do it. Well, mathematics are symbolized understanding, and they are an articulation as in the case of any language. All language is built out of ARC, and mathematics is just another language.

And the basic reason behind languages is that man desires understanding. If he didn't desire to understand, he'd never go to all the trouble of making up communication systems as complex as language.

Well, his effort to understand is measured, to a large degree, by his feeling that he doesn't understand. And if a fellow doesn't understand, then he has to make an effort to understand and he has a hard time of it. If a fellow understands, he understands, that's all.

Now, understanding is compounded of affinity, reality and communication. When an individual's understanding is great, his ARC is way upscale. And when an individual's ability to understand is small, his ARC is accordingly small.

What are you processing in a case? You find you get remarkable results in processing ARC. You're processing ARC, that's what you are processing. Well, therefore you must be processing somebody's understanding. It's a mechanical, easy, permissive approach, rather a miracle in itself that such an approach can be – just ARC and other such processes.

So the understanding of an individual works up this way to this great truth: that a man's freedom depends upon his comprehension and understanding of the fact of brotherhood with the entire universe. A man who would have great understanding would have also a brotherhood with the entire universe. He would also have such nebulous qualities as charity. Why? Because he has a tolerance of viewpoints.

An auditor, simply by knowing a few things about his own impulses, could turn from a bad auditor to a good auditor.

It's a great shock to somebody sometimes to run Be, Have and Do Straightwire, and to find out that in spite of their apparent charity their most deep-seated conviction is that they wouldn't let a starving baby have a boot in the teeth. They can't let anybody have anything.

Well, run that in terms of freedom. "How much freedom can you let people have?" Because that's how much understanding you are willing to give them. Because freedom and understanding and a brotherhood with all the universe are pretty much the same thing – pretty much the same thing; they add up to this.

If you truly understand, then you will be truly free. Therefore, it isn't good enough to run a mechanical process and expect a preclear to get well if you as an auditor don't understand what that process is based upon. Because the preclear won't get well, because you'll find some way not to free him, since your own understanding of it will be too poor to convey the process. Too poor? Your understanding too poor? We could say it in the same phrase: Your willingness to set him free is too poor. You have too little interest in setting him free to do it right.

Actually, how much processing do you need to understand? Darn little. Actually, very little.

You're an energy production unit, not an energy coordination unit. And as an energy production unit, you should pay very, very close attention to this fact, that you are an understanding production unit. The ultimate in energy would be the ultimate in understanding. And the ultimate delivery of the greatest amount of energy would depend upon the ultimate understanding of freedom.

(end of lecture)

PAGE 6

5-ACC.29 ENERGY – EXTERIORIZATION 7.5.54

ENERGY - EXTERIORIZATION PAGE 2 5ACC-29 - 07.05.54

[[Category:Lectures]]
[[Category:Lectures 5ACC]]
[[Category:Lectures 1954]]