View source for Exteriorization, Knowingness, Reality (3ACC 540126)

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

'''Date:''' 26 January 1954

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

----

← [[Lecture_Index_3ACC|Back to Series]]

A lecture given by L. Ron Hubbard on the 26 January 1954

Well, this is January the 26th, 1954.

And this morning I'm going to give you roughly the same summary I gave you yesterday, here, for a short time.

I'm going to take up with you the elements with which we are dealing. I want you to know this about this problem: some of you are going to seize on to this with such avidness that we're going to probably have to take a pneumatic drill to get the fact out of you again. But the truth of the matter is, all you're dealing with is knowingness and postulates.

Now, you can make any number of postulates, which will combine into any number of things. Undoubtedly you could compound a universe made of this postulate: "All cats are gray – except green cats." And on that type of logic, just get along just fine and have that be logic. Well, it doesn't seem to have enough punch to it, so we would say, "The only peace is an explosion." We could get some kind of a fantastic thing there.

We could say also, "In this universe there is only matter and the beings in this universe move through matter only." See, no space in this universe as such, it's only a matter universe.

And we'd get a different series of things. Then we'd probably have different kinds of problems and we probably wouldn't have these essentials. But on the other hand, we probably would have a lot of these essentials.

Now, what we've done here with these upper echelon factors, with regard to this universe and beingness-livingness, rather – what we've done is single out those factors which were the most pervasive and which probably, by the way, apply more or less in the woof and warp of most universes. They probably do. We know they do in the MEST universe.

So we have livingness here, packaged in this fashion, slanted toward the MEST universe.

Now, this is not unreasonable, since you happen to be living in the MEST universe. You have a vested interest in it. Your concern, in spite of what you might think, is not to escape from this universe so much as to find out how to conquer it. If you have a feeling of escape, you're just on the withdrawal side of the cycle which wants you to go back in and charge again. And given the slightest opportunity to escape what you are now enmeshed with – given the slightest opportunity – you would simply come back and charge the MEST universe again. This is a sad fact, because all that would happen is you'd get enmeshed again. You see?

So, we've got this reach and withdraw on the part of theta as – actually it seems to be in the woof and the warp of theta itself, an obsession. It's the way it works. It doesn't matter whether you're in the MEST universe or whether you're in your own universe or somebody else's universe, you'll find out the component parts of action are reach and withdraw – not even arrive and depart. Of course, arrive and depart are just another way of stating reach and withdraw, but you don't have to arrive and depart to have fulfilled the effort to reach and withdraw. See, arrive and depart, that's sort of extreme.

So we have that as an action that theta seems to undertake wherever it is. But, of course, it doesn't have to do that at all. Theoretically, it could make a postulate that would say, "it went up and down" or we could make a postulate that says, "the only flows that will flow are one-way flows and there will never be a return on any one-way flow." Now, I don't know what kind of a universe you'd get out of that, but it's a postulate, you understand.

Now, what life has gotten concentrated on is a little package of postulates which work together and this workingness works out so that you have a thing called interpersonal relations and so forth. And you have a game, you have behavior patterned on this game and interpersonal relations.

But you understand that just because reach and withdraw exists and just because a lot of other things exist, that we still haven't escaped the fact that the upper echelon of livingness is knowingness and making postulates about it. You see that as a top-flight proposition.

Now, you can sometimes get a preclear to sit back and just ponder this – you know, think about it and sort of put knowingness somewhere around him or up above him, a pervasive knowingness with total communication. Just have him hold it as a concept and big chunks of energy blow off and he feels better. That's curious, isn't it? But that's – the truth of the matter is, is it's knowingness – knowing what? Well, just knowingness, not knowing anything. When you say, "What do you know?" you are compounding the felony, you see. That's the big trick: "What do you know?"

Well, knowingness is a sort of a state of livingness, it's a serenity. A little lower than serenity is courage. But the moment you get down into courage, you get into an interesting strata: that is the first resistance. And then there's a little bridge and that's right on the other side of courage and it's called pain. And this little bridge leads to the abyss of cowardice. "Courage" is a confident reachingness and "cowardice" is a fearful withdrawingness. See, we've got this pattern of reach and withdraw going through all these things.

Well, what is it, just as it's trying to make up its mind whether to reach or withdraw? It's pain. And you get the scattered confusion of particles which go about pain.

Well, the big obsession in this universe is that this is a funny universe, it has all of its spaces consecutive to all of its spaces, so therefore, it's a communication universe par excellence. At any given instant throughout the universe, if you were to stop all the particles, you would find them to some degree potentially communicating with all other particles in the universe. In other words, a consecutive universe – it's a terribly consistent universe. Its idea is total communication and its idea is stop all communications. See, if you got total communication, then it's stop all communications too. You might not see that at first glance, but you realize that if everything is communicating, that's just going to stop all communications or, at best, make a chaos. And so we have, in the Bible and other places, we have this universe being spoken of as a chaos – the "chaos of matter."

Actually, the "chaos of matter" is about as neatly patterned as any piece of cloth you ever saw drawn up. It's one of these very, very, very neat packages. The pattern, for instance, of a hydrogen atom is a very neat package. The pattern of hydrocarbons – very, very neat. The MEST universe itself is essentially a terribly nice piece of watchmaking. It's kind of dynamite because there's so much of it compared to the "muchness" of you. But, of course, there could be much more of you than there is of it, except that the MEST universe says, "You mustn't duplicate, don't duplicate."

If you look at something in the MEST universe because it's in communication, then you have to be it, you see, in order to perceive it perfectly. You have to be willing to be it anyway in order to see it. You don't want to be MEST, you want to organize MEST and, as a consequence, you get into a state of mind of no duplicate. But there's no reason why you, as a thetan, couldn't go out and just duplicate in all directions madly. Duplicate yourself, I mean, and be alive in eight selves simultaneously.

Well, you see the communication factors there? Well, the universe has a cycle and this cycle exists because time exists. We have two types of consecutive spaces: We have all these spaces in connection with all these spaces, you see, in any given instant. And then we have the spaces which were all connected a second ago and the spaces now. You see, space is a viewpoint of dimension. Every time you change the dimension points, you get a new space. By definition, you get a new space, you see? So that time consists of this consecutive chain of new spaces.

Every time a particle moves – I don't care how far it moves or it disappears and becomes a new particle (which is probably what happens) – every time that occurs, you have a new space, of course. A space is not a changed space so much as a different space. You get the idea of different spaces which are consecutive, why, then you have an idea of what time is.

Now, it's very easy to get this consecutiveness of all spaces, from one corner of this universe to the other, confused with the consecutiveness of the spaces which were, are and will be.

You know, after you've gotten your front yard all filled full of trash, it's probably a little bit arduous to empty it. Wouldn't you like some sort of an automatic mechanism that simply gave you a new front yard? All right. That's what the thetan does. He has a new front yard. Every split instant he has a new front yard. See that? He starts throwing away the old spaces full of junk. And he keeps throwing them away and throwing them away and throwing them away and getting new spaces and new spaces and new spaces – and this is, itself, time.

The origin of time is very easy to trace. Individual had an enormous amount of space around him and then he decided that was in yesterday or that it was someplace else or it was in some nonexistent spot – anyplace but here, he was tired of the junk. So he threw it away and he had a new space, then. So he took this new space and he filled it up full of junk and he decided he was tired of that and he threw it away.

Now, he met a friend who was doing the same thing and they decided they would throw their spaces away in unison, you know, and that would keep them in parity so they could go on playing checkers – one wouldn't be throwing the checkerboard into yesterday, when the other one was still trying to make a move.

There is a point of the track where this happened quite often. You know, the fellow would come along and he'd insult you, so you'd say, "Die yesterday" and he wouldn't have insulted you. And it's a very simple mechanism, but it's very confusing to people and they couldn't keep track of it, so they decided: "Let's all get together now and have our spaces thrown away in unison." And then they set this up as a big co-automaticity – everybody set up the same automaticity – and you had time. Simple. Which is the casting away of spaces and the creation of new spaces to muddy up.

So an individual, of course, as he begins to count on the past, why, he isn't making any new spaces for the future and he runs out of space. And you run into him and you'll find he's out of space. Fantastic. This is – very funny manifestations. They're not funny to him: he tries to throw a mock-up away from him and it'll go one inch or something. He hasn't any space to throw it into.

Now, you say, "Well, let's make some space." Well, it just keeps collapsing on him, that's all. He can't have space, he knows that. His acceptance level will not permit him to have space, everybody has chased him out of too many spaces and so forth. But the point is, he isn't making new space, so he doesn't, of course, have a tomorrow and he gets anxious then about the future. Well, he doesn't have a new space.

This is not complicated. You can make it awfully complicated. People have been making it terribly complicated for a long time.

And he sort of has an agreement that he has as much beingness as he can create space, so people get the Eighth Dynamic and space all tied up and God is in all the spaces. Curious manifestation, that a fellow would make space and then say somebody else owned it. That's really very curious. It's much more curious than you have permitted yourself to observe.

Give you an example of that: Just get the idea that the – now, carefully make space all around your body right now, just put out some dimension points and make space around your body.

Just make some space anywhere you can make some.

All right. Now say, "Somebody else owns this now."

Now make some more space, right around you.

Now say, "Somebody else inhabits this now."

You see, that's real screwball stuff, isn't it?

Did I knock somebody out here?

I see a number of yawns. Don't tell me this is a process that cleans up the Eighth Dynamic. "Oh, we don't want processes that clean things up like that, we need that Eighth Dynamic there. So lets not disabuse everybody of this."

But you see that as kind of silly? Just a little bit silly?

Of course, when this becomes obsessive, a person starts to spin in on the Eighth Dynamic. The only people that could make any space that you'd perceive are you.

Well, we get down, then, into energy. We've got some space, which are some dimension points (space being a viewpoint of dimension), and we get into energy.

Well of course, somebody who wants to be moved from one corner of a space to another corner of a space thinks he'd have to have some energy to do it. So he gets energy handling energy, which is a curious thing to do. This is a very curious thing to do. You yet don't realize how curious it is to have energy handle energy. That's very curious. That's something like freeing your hands by tying them securely. I mean that's one of these daffy ones. Yeah, but it's so usual!

You look around you and you see that you put some energy into a car tank in order to move some energy into the pistons to make the pistons move up and down to transfer some energy to the wheels to make the car go forward so that your body can travel from the corner of Yuma Street to Yap Street. That's very curious. What are you doing this for? Well, it's a game. People lose sight of this fact that the handling of energy with energy is in itself a game. And they begin to be victimized by energy when they themselves begin to consider that they are energy.

Individual finally begins to believe, "Look, I'm surrounded by all this energy, I must be it. I can't find anything of me here."

And everybody is standing around saying, "Well, if you're so darned smart, where are you?"

"Well, all right. Well, I'm here, but I must be this energy, so therefore I have to have energy to handle energy, because the only thing that will handle energy would be energy – unless you could make a postulate, you know, and make it go away or disappear or do something. Of course, we can't make postulates, we mustn't do that, so we'll have energy handle energy."

Funny. Well, anyway, it's weird that it would really cause people an awful lot of worry, but it does!

That's anxiety itself: "Where am I going to get the wherewithal to procure enough energy to move the energy which I already have in order to keep living?" I mean, this is about as sequitur, you see, as, "How am I going to get a concrete sidewalk to go in my ham sandwich?" You know, you really take a big look at this.

The amount of energy which a fellow has can influence his livingness to the degree that he postulates it can – no further – and he postulates it can, so he can have a game. But it's not true that your livingness ceases in the absence of energy.

And from condensation of energy, we get down to havingness. And individuals begin to believe they have to have. And boy, they think they have to have, You never saw a preclear so unhappy as that preclear who has just lost a lot of havingness. Somebody did him a favor and came along and took away four or five buildings and a lot of mass, left this fellow practically free. Exteriorized him, you might say, from an awful lot of MEST, got him out of a lot of trouble and gee, the guy is sad. He goes and has nervous breakdowns and all sorts of things. Well, it's just change of mass, too rapid a change of mass. He has to have energy to handle energy to get into trouble like that.

In other words, to get upset about loss, you already have to have made the postulate that you need energy to handle energy.

Well, take another look at the universe and we find out that it's a communication mania and its Cause to Effect is a communication line. And the communication line – the source of the communication line is always Cause and the end of the communication line is always the Effect. A communication line would just be one-way freight. It doesn't have to go two ways. When it goes two ways, you have a conversation. That has nothing to do with a communication. Communication is just a communication, it doesn't have to bounce.

A bullet can be a communication. Instead of saying "How are you, George?" and vibrating some air molecules in the vicinity of the fellow's ear and going through the energy – you have to have the energy process – you pick up a rifle and shoot him. Same thing, communication. Only, when you pick up the rifle and shoot him, he's more certain you have communicated with him.

Now, that cycle-of-action of Create-Survive-Destroy comes in there in time. Time – it's a plot against time. These consecutive spaces make a plot against time and this is the plot of time: Create-Survive-Destroy.

And an individual who is in communication across this plot of time creates something and if he communicates across time, why, of course his creation winds up with a destruction at the E. You could take those two plots, you see, that cycle-of-action curve and lay down alongside of it the communication line curve and you'd have the truth of the matter. He who communicates is dead, that's what that teaches you. That's what this universe tries to teach you, but it's not true! Because the cycle-of-action isn't true.

You know that you have to continuously create the thing which you are busily disintegrating? And when you have to continuously create the thing which you are busily disintegrating, it doesn't look to me like you have create and destroy very far apart. You've got to create it in a destructed state. So, fool ourselves quite a bit with that.

Well, a thetan, best thing he does is communicate and when he stops communicating, he's dead. And he never is dead, but he will start a new cycle when he totally stops communication – new spiral.

So, anything which communicates, it tends to parallel its Create-Survive-Destroy line and that which is continuously communicated with is eventually destroyed. If you don't believe that, look even at the pyramids. They're continuously communicated with the Sun and the wind and they are disappearing atom by atom. I don't know how long it will take for them to go, but it will be a long time, but they're still disappearing under this communication bombardment. Because communication plotted against time winds □p in destruction and the more it is plotted against time, the more destructive it is.

Let's take a communication system which requires five years from the moment the message is written to the moment the message is received. Oh boy! That's a destructive system – it just ruins morale.

Now, let's suppose you're out there in the gold rush and you've landed there in the middle of the gold rush and you're sitting there feeling happy and all of a sudden you receive a letter that says, "Tell me at once what to do with the remains." Signed Joe. Whose remains? Well, it's around the Horn or across the Isthmus to Panama to find out.

That's because there's a missing datum there. But supposing he even received the thing, "What shall I do with your wife's remains?" Or supposing he even received the thing, "What shall I do with the children now that your wife has passed on?" You could even get the information, "Well, she died in the last smallpox epidemic."

This letter, for God's sakes, the information is already months old! Whooh! Where are these kids in the meantime? A man starves to death in a few days. Well, Lord knows. It gives the fellow just that hopeless apathy of, "There is nothing I can do about it because it's too long gone."

So, a communication has as much fife in it as it is instantaneous. You just draw that curve and you see very plainly, the longer you stretch out a communication, why, the more death there is in it. And the faster the communication, the more life there is in it.

And because the MEST universe always imposes a communication lag, there is always a little bit of death in any MEST communication. It has as much life in it as there is life. It doesn't have as much life in it as there is MEST universe in it.

MEST universe does not impart any life to a communication – it takes it out. It's a deleting sort of a universe. And that's why you can plot that C to E communication line along with the Create-Survive-Destroy curve. I like to give you these happy thoughts this early in the morning.

The funny part of it is, see, that if you stop communicating, you're really dead. The goal is to make communication more instantaneous and less MESTy.

Well, let's take, now, this nothing-something problem and we see that the Theta – MEST Theory, originally, has not been greatly exceeded. Theta is a static, which is to say, it has no geographical position, it has no position in time. It has no position in the past, present or future, it has no mass, it has no wavelength, but it is capable of emanating wavelength. It is capable of creating space, energy; it is capable of locating things in space and time – capable of doing that.

And when you take a psychotherapy just on the basis of you let the individual locate things in space and time, you've got about as high as you can go in this universe without getting up into the techniques which you're using in Operating Thetan. There wouldn't be much higher in terms of a psychotherapy than just locating things in the past, in the present, in the future – it doesn't matter whether they are imaginary or otherwise. But if they were creative things, you would be better off. Can you see that? Past, present and future.

It would be better off to create things to locate in the past, present and future, rather than to take things which existed in the past, present and future. It would be more therapeutic, because it comes up closer to what theta does.

So you have this static opposed to a dynamic. Now, the dynamic may merely be postulated by the static, but that doesn't bother us at all. There's a theoretical total dynamic. There's an all-motion something – at least a postulated one. And this interplays against the nothingness of theta to give us the nothingness-something category. And we have this as a brace there of things that makes a dichotomy, but it is a dichotomy of a peculiar kind and it is one to which you should pay a great deal of attention.

In other words, a nothingness of this universe and a somethingness of this universe makes up this universe, for the thetan – a nothingness of it, a somethingness of it. And when you start processing, you go in the direction not of a nothingness of the thetan, you go into the idea of a nothingness of this universe, you see. You can err therapeutically by talking about a nothingness of the thetan. I don't know how you would call something that could do all the things a thetan can do a "nothingness" – in the total meaning of the word nothingness which means a non-entityness, which means many other things. It's a little thing there that you have to retranslate because, you see, nothingness has gotten a lot of significance attached to it which it shouldn't have. You know, "nothingness" – well, that means no good; "nothingness," that means you don't amount to anything; "nothingness," that means you're nameless; "nothingness" – yap, yap, yap.

In other words, theta tries to keep itself from knowing that it is nothing, tries to keep itself from knowing it is nothing. But what kind of a nothing is it? It's a potential something.

All right. An engineer will argue with you sometime when you're instructing and say, "A static? Hold on! Brum-brum. Static is all forces at rest."

And you say, "Yes, that's true, point of static."

"All forces in equilibrium bringing an object at rest," he'll say.

"Well, all right," he'll say, "that roll of paper there is at a state of rest and is therefore a static."

And you say, "Where did you study physics?"

"Well, it is!"

"But you never took astronomy?"

"Well, no."

"Well, how many directions and how fast do you think that piece of paper is moving at this moment?"

"Oh well, that's all theoretical."

"Now, wait a minute. You said there wasn't – that piece of paper was a static and there was something there, but is that piece of paper a static? That piece of paper, just by the revolution of the Earth, is rotating at a speed of one thousand miles an hour."

All right. You say to this engineer that that is moving at a thousand miles an hour and he recognizes that as true. Actually, it's moving in eight separate directions, just to be in the solar system. There are eight separate directions it's moving, so it's obviously not a static. It could be a static in relation to something else and then we get into relative truth and then we get into data and we're not much interested in either one.

So, a true static would bring you to the definition of a true zero. What would be an absolute zero? An "absolute zero" would have no geographical location, it would have no position in the past or the present or the future. It would have no mass, never could

have had any mass, hasn't any mass now and will never have any mass. Could never have had a geographical location, doesn't have a geographical location, will never have a geographical location. Can never have had any motion, hasn't any motion and will never have any motion – and that would be the definition of "zero."

Mathematics – now we've taken physics and kicked it in the teeth, let's take mathematics and kick it in the teeth and find out that they're working with this wild variable called zero. And they benignly put down these zeros and teach a little kid arithmetic and do all sorts of interesting things with zero and all the time wonder why their mathematics doesn't come out true.

What if they put N or X, irresponsibly, in every equation? One apple plus X plus one apple equals two apples.

And you say, "Now wait a minute, that's not right."

And the fellow said, "Well, there it is."

And you say, "Well now, what if that X – what is X?"

"Well, X represents something that we don't know."

And you say, "Well, I'll buy one apple plus one apple equals two apples. That's wrong, but it's right enough for our purposes here. But this one apple, plus X apples, plus one apple equals two, I will not buy unless – unless X is admitted to have no value at all and yet X says, by definition, that it could have any value you assigned to it – it has an indeterminate value."

Then you'd get something silly in algebra, immediately. It would look like this: X – the second you worked it out in algebra, you would say X equals 0. One apples plus no apples plus one apple equals two apples.

Well, you'd understood yourself to have said, "No apples ever. Never have been any apples in that zero. There is no possible quantity of apples could ever be injected into it, so therefore you have already exceeded by putting X in the equation, because you said there was a zero in the equation. Well, the zero is someplace, so that immediately that it went someplace, it became a variable. The second you put it down, it's a variable. So, zero is something which you can't even put into an equation and have the equation completely right. So, we get into the problem of absolute correctness and we find it doesn't exist by that reason. We can't work mathematics if we're going to keep on holding on to zero. They'll just have to put something else in there.

Now, it's peculiar that algebra has known this for many, many years. They've known all about this. They can make one equal two and everything else, by multiplying and dividing by zero. Well, if you can multiply and divide by zero, it must have some kind of a strange value, isn't it? But the algebra professors have uniformly put it on the blackboard as a gag-humor. They've never realized that they were looking straight into the teeth of, actually, the solution of mathematics, which demonstrated that mathematics had a relative truth, as long as they considered it relative and as long as it was applied relatively and therefore could never be used to work out abstracts. So, mathematics cannot work out abstracts and it doesn't. So therefore mathematics is nowhere near as good as the English language in working out the field of thought and behavior. So we have language itself being the only symbolic system which will work out behavior. Numbers and symbols themselves, arbitrarily assigned, will not.

All right. We get into the eight dynamics and we find out that we have actually compartmented our cycle-of-action, there's our cycle-of-action, It goes from Create through Survive to Destroy and it has eight parts. There's Create-Survive-Destroy on the Eighth Dynamic and Create-Survive-Destroy on the Seventh Dynamic and Create-Survive-Destroy on the Sixth and Create-Survive-Destroy on the Fifth and so on down to the First. And there are the eight dynamics.

And this – in Dianetics we were using this as "Survive!" because that's what life is fixated on. Well, it's Create-Survive-Destroy on those dynamics. And when you work the eight dynamics with the realization that they're a compartmentation of Create-Survive-Destroy, not a compartmentation of "Survive," it becomes much more workable as a process.

For instance, the creation and destruction of God. God can't exist for an individual unless he's creating and destroying him continually. An individual can't exist as himself unless he is creating and destroying himself continually. An individual who is trying not to destroy himself can't create himself and thus cannot continue to exist. An individual that is unwilling, horrified, upset or, in other words, balked on self-destruction, of course would be immediately balked on self-creation.

And we get the center of the curve, which is Survive. All you had to do to a society was to make it completely illegal to kill or be killed and you immediately exceeded the cycle. But it makes a civilization, it makes a game. The trouble with the game is, it becomes, itself, too much of a persistent game. The game itself then becomes a game because of a game, of a game, of a game, of a game, with no other action in it than existing. And you get down to mere existence.

Give you an example of this – let's get a terrifically practical application of this. We have a preclear who's been relatively unhappy and, well, let's have this preclear do something very peculiar. Let's have this preclear write his name on a little doll and put the little doll in a little cigar box and take it out in the garden and bury it. And then give himself a new name and move to an address and get another job. Do you know that that as a therapy is intensely workable?

And that is actually the drama of death and it's really no more serious than that. It's the sole modus operandi the thetan has left. He has a sort of an automatic Create-Destroy. He gets born, he dies and survives in between. He's got this mocked-up as his only out. Now, he keeps getting dispossessed of his havingness and so forth and he goes on this cycle, but it's the only way he feels he can continue to live.

This is not true at all. An individual does not have to go through this cycle of birth and death in order to survive. He would survive anyhow. He can't help himself but survive.

So, we get into ARC and, of the ARC, most important is of course C. R, however, because the only way we can co-have is by agreement, havingness enters into the R. And for the first time here in the last few months, we have had a crushing solution to reality. How do you solve that R on that triangle of affinity, reality and communication? Havingness Processing. You'll find out the individual's reality caves in to the degree that he loses and very often, to the degree that he gains.

You know how to really fix up somebody? Yeah, you could knock somebody into a level of unreality – this is not done, it's not as usual as the other method, but it's just as certain – you could probably knock somebody utterly unconscious by walking in and handing him a million dollars in gold bars.

Female voice: That's the nicest way I can think of to go unconscious, [laughter]

Nice way, that's true, but he'd – nevertheless, it would get – everything would get very unreal.

Female voice: Mm-hm.

I saw an example of this one time with an orphan who had never had anything but the asylum and he was taken in by a family and given a Christmas. And they gave him – they were rather well-off and they gave him a very, very nice Christmas. He went into a state of coma. He walked around, he didn't know whether he was going or coming.

Now you see, our imagination on how much we could have does not usually get exceeded; we throw it all off into the unreality. We say, "Oh, well, that's just imagination that I could have the kingdom of Persia. Oh, that's nonsense. That's just delusion and nothing like that would come true."

Now, a little kid believes he can have the kingdom of Persia and by the time he's sixteen knows he can't. Well, that's the difference between realities. The little kid, of course, has a tremendous reality on the world. He knows he could have the kingdom of Persia. And an older person knows that that would just be nonsense. You know, nobody would suddenly walk in and dump a million dollars in his lap or the kingdom of Persia or something like this – he couldn't acquire that fast, so…

But recognize what that is: that is unreality. See? I mean, we say, "Well, nothing like that would ever happen, that's an unreality," And a lot of your preclears are walking around slugged with having gained. You see that?

Female voice: Gertrude at the lunch wagon u awfully bewildered because somebody offered to finance her to the tune of five thousand dollars and a new lunch wagon.

Sure, well that would be very unreal. There must be something behind it, there must be other motives, there must be all kinds of things. I mean, we'd immediately get into a figure-figure-figure.

Now, when you're running loss, remember to run gain. Unreality, then, is an exceeded rate of havingness. That's a very, very interesting point. It's just exceeded, Less – lessened – I guess to be in proper English there, I should say, lessened and exceeded or reduced or exceeded rate of havingness. Actually, it's exceeded.

The person starts out with nothing and is in his highest knowing state, you see, at nothing and he works himself out to get a rate of expected havingness, which is nothing, and then this gets exceeded and there's his first unreality. It isn't the reverse – it isn't that he lost something, because he started in by not having anything, so he couldn't lose it. It must have been his first big gain that knocked him for a loop. And possibly the unreality of the entrance into the MEST universe is just that: this tremendous, sudden gain. It just – overpowers the individual and after that, he's in a horrible slugged-up condition.

Now, you give a psychotic too much sound or you give even a normal person too much sound and he'll go into a hypnotic trance. This is done by exceeding his havingness.

Now, everyone has a survival rate and that survival rate is really a rate of havingness, because it's a rate of time. And when you say rate, you say time, so this must be havingness, so this, in itself, is his reality.

There were some of the boys that kind of went off the deep end a year or two ago, used to run around telling everybody, "Well, that's your reality! I'm self-determined. I just said I was self-determined and that's your reality." Well, I look over the amount of havingness of these boys and their expected havingness and it was awfully, awfully small, it was tiny on the reduced side. And their reality wasn't very good.

But when a man changes around his rate of havingness – which is to say, he changes around his amounts, gains, terminals and so forth-plotted against the rate at which space is being manufactured, why, the amount of mass per the amount of space has a terrific effect.

Now, we've been sneaking up on that one for a long time. I call that to your attention. And the rate of havingness means simply the amount of mass per dimension of space and that would give you time. That would plot your time, so that a fellow could very easily have this room full of air and over the period of two months, he actually could have this room full of coal. Well, he wouldn't be unhappy about it. Well, supposing we got the room full of air today and at two o'clock got it full of coal. We would not be happy about that. We would come back in here and say, "What the hell are we going to use for a lecture room?"

But supposing this instant it became full of coal?

Male voice: Worse.

Well, that's what death is. "Death" is too much havingness or too darned little.

Well, out of this havingness and these other compounds, we get an arbitrary Tone Scale which will predict the individual's reaction. Part of that scale, but not the minus scale, is up there on the wall – Chart of Human Evaluation – we can predict behavior.

Well, one of the ways of predicting behavior is under havingness. How will a person act under havingness? Now, you can monitor a person's behavior with havingness, if you're in a position to take away and give them things, see?

I want to call to your attention… One time there was a fellow I knew, he was a mining engineer, he was a good friend of mine, he was educated – a classmate at GW – and then went out West and took a postgraduate course at Bozeman. And this boy was kicking around the mining camps and, all due respect to womankind at large, the better women do not hang around mining camps. But he decided to get romantic and he got married. And he married a woman straight out of the cribs, that is to say, she was for sale and had been for years. But, what do you know, fantastically enough, she made him a good wife and everybody was very fascinated with this. They went up in the mountains, he did a lot of prospecting for Anaconda Copper and they – looking over old properties and so on. And all went along all right, he was living a rather rough life and a lot of privation in it and a lot of loneliness and so forth. So, everything was okay.

He finally quit Anaconda Copper on the thought that there were some lodes that went out from a very famous mine, which had been closed down, which might still be active. Well, that was a very lonely part of the country, too, and he went down there with this woman and he prospected around and by golly, he uncovered the most enormous quantity of "five-dollar rock" and away he goes.

Well boy, he'd exceeded her rate of havingness. [laughter] Bang! And you talk about a mess! He was in more trouble, in less time, than he'd been for years. Interesting. Oh, she went completely haywire, I mean, just went off the deep end.

Well, what had happened there? He'd all of a sudden become well-off. He had about a half a million dollars in the bank. He, all of a sudden, was driving Cadillacs and she was able to wear fur coats and that sort of thing and it was just the end. She just went completely to pot! Went out, slept with anything that came along, just stole money, did anything.

What had happened? You see, you could look at that for a long time if you didn't know about behavior's influence – the influence of behavior by havingness.

Now, you get somebody else, he's been going along in life, he's been doing fine and they own these eighteen houses and they own their own string of polo ponies for the boy and that sort of thing and a yacht for the daughter and so forth. And by golly, some dog comes along and takes away this – eighteen houses and cuts these poor people down to about twenty-five thousand a year. And you'd say, "No! Twenty-five thousand a year? That's a lot of money." They all go to pieces, just go into rags and ruin. The boy goes bad and the girl goes bad and the old man gets arthritis and, etc.

Well, I've seen many a wife get a psychosomatic illness when the rate of havingness was exceeded – you know, it was increased too much. You know, they just lived fine in the old sod hut and now all of a sudden they've got this big beautiful home and all she can think about is how horrible it will be having to take care of it, completely overlooking the fact that she now has two maids. See?

So whenever this rate of havingness is violently upset on the individual, you get a marked change of behavior. And that behavior is predicted by how much rate of havingness was altered, which immediately plots exactly how high or how low a person moves on that Chart of Human Evaluation.

You can take a person at 3.0 and reduce his havingness markedly and suddenly – the ratio, you see, of space to objects – and bring him down to a raving psychotic. If you reduced his rate of havingness fast enough, he would be in awfully bad condition. All right.

Now, we could do the same thing. We could take somebody at 1.5 and we could increase his rate of havingness a little bit and all of a sudden find him riding at 2.5.

"We could take somebody at 3.5 and increase his rate of havingness remarkably and suddenly find him running at .5.

What we've got is the first thing we were talking about with this Unit, which is a change of survival pace. And I told you at that time – I can make it clearer now – that to shift the survival pace of the individual too wildly will shift him on the Tone Scale, downward.

So, you're looking for a process which will clear somebody in five minutes, huh?

Female voice: Yeah.

Well, there is one.

Female voice: Shoot them, [laughter)

And there's where memory goes, because there's where reality goes on past lives: it's a shift of the rate of havingness – remarkable fast shift.

When you find somebody actually remembering a death, well, he's sort of stuck on the whole thing and it gets real and unreal and so forth, it couldn't have been a very violent death. There are much more violent deaths there and they are utterly submerged, because the change of the rate of havingness was fantastically fast.

All right. He'll remember, then, his mild deaths. So we just don't run these past deaths to worry about it at all, we just don't bother with them particularly, because they're hot.

There sits your preclear, apparently in good condition, running along at a certain rate of havingness, able to get along, not going to change very much and so forth and so on.

Now, you could, by using a tremendously powerful technique, alter his rate of havingness in terms of his own bank-engrams and so forth – and so practically knock him out through the bottom. But, unfortunately, you would only knock him out through the bottom, he'd only go out through the bottom, he would not go out through the top. It's something for you to remember: the change of rate of havingness.

Exteriorization will sometimes produce this result upon the individual, but because it is true that a thetan doesn't have to have, it produces it much less often than you would normally suppose. And we'd say, "Be three feet back of your head" to somebody and he is, with perfect certainty, and he's all right and he's – everything is fine and he's quite certain he's there. And then he goes back into his body and doesn't know whether he was out or not. That's a curious one, isn't it? Well, when he went in, back into his body, you shifted his rate of havingness the opposite direction and worsened his memory.

The truth is, that to exceed the rate of havingness, which as I say, I'm not talking now about reducing. We've too long been stuck on this reduction of havingness as having been the only criminal. Loss, you see. Let's just do a flip on this thing. And his rate of havingness was exceeded when he was reinteriorized and so his reality is worse, having come back into the body, but it was better, having been exteriorized. You'll find that is routine, which kind of proves up our point here a bit.

Now, you see there that the individual who cannot and does not want to create or destroy something will get it in a tremendous survival condition.

Well, therefore, you get mock-ups in these three conditions. You are able to get the person – what he can have, things will fly in automatically on him. They'd usually be something poor, something not too bad. And what he can't have, they quite often will be something very good, that he can't have. And we get those things, if he can get something good enough, it will fly away from him automatically or something really poor enough. I mean, we've exceeded his rate of havingness there. And we're able, then, to disenfranchise him from some of this MEST havingness with which he's involved.

Now, energy can't remember, energy never has remembered, energy has no memory.

A piece of string tied on your finger tells you to remember and so does any piece of energy tell you to remember. Unless you already knew what you were supposed to get because you tied the string on your finger, unless you already knew, then you wouldn't know if you just looked at the piece of string. Well, in such a wise, energy works this way. And therefore, the recovery of memory on the full track, so on, does not depend

too much on simply giving back the fellow everything he ever had. This would drown him. So memory on the full track should be inspected on the other direction: let's knock out his cravings to have and, having knocked those out, we will recover his reality.

I've made tests both ways, by the way, and the latter way is the efficient way.

We find him then also in the condition where he gets a solid mock-up. Any time you see somebody getting a solid mock-up, he must be sitting on something that really has to survive. And that tells you that this MEST universe, which you see over here so solid, must be right in the middle of that Create – Survive curve. It's solid. And the body you're in must be right on that. It must be terrifically obsessed to be that solid.

Now, these axe the component parts with which we are dealing. I wanted to cover them again with you and cover them with a little wider length. Each one of these things – each one of these things has, of course, its own specific, precise definition. You should know those definitions.

There's one other item, is control. To control something you only need to start it, stop it or change it. And most of the exteriorizations which you run into which are difficult are because the individual believes he won't be able to control the body if he exteriorizes. You get him to start it and stop it and change it a few times and he will change his mind about being able to control a body.

How do you teach somebody to do something? You teach somebody to do something by making him start it, stop it and change it.

All right. Let's look over the main problem, then, and find out that it's time and that time translates into havingness and if this translates into havingness, then we have a problem of interiorization and exteriorization. It's not non sequitur at all, it's the accumulation of havingness occurs by being pounded from 360 degrees by the MEST universe waves. And this, accumulating, becomes mass and it has the thetan at the center of it and it makes him smaller and smaller and smaller. Well, he has to be able to exteriorize out of

any mass or interiorize into any mass, in order to be at ease and to play the game and, actually, to know.

Now, how do you increase his knowingness? You remedy his havingness. How do you remedy his havingness? Exteriorize and interiorize him out of anything and everything you can lay your hands on.

And there, for my money, is the track of the answer, which I have given you in this last hour. I've actually given you a complete review of Scientology. And the problems which you are facing in the preclear are no more than these.

Okay?

[[Category:Lectures 3ACC]]