View source for Exteriorization - Lecture and Demonstration (3ACC 540112)

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

'''Date:''' 12 January 1954

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

----

← [[Lecture_Index_3ACC|Back to Series]]

And this is the second hour this morning of the 12th of January, 1954. And I hope you've digested – this is a much less formal hour – I hope you've digested now, psychotherapy. Now, that isn't too much to ask of you, actually. I hope you've digested it, because it should be pretty easy to do. And I hope you could now mock yourself up as a psychotherapist quite convincingly.

Now, what would you be trying to do? Now, just say this over to yourself, "Now, what would you be trying to do with this patient?" And sort of "How would you go about getting him to do this to a point where he could?"

You might get very specific, you know, and actually find some sort of an idea that he was trying to reject and couldn't. You know, I mean, do some actual analysis. You know, find out "Well, let's see, he's trying to reject ideas about his job or he's trying to reject ideas about this and that – he can't. All right, let's see how we can go about doing this." We could even write the ideas down on pieces of paper and push them across the desk, away, and write them down on a piece of paper again and push them across the desk again. You'd understand that we'd have an enormous number of ways that we could get him to reject and hold away from him ideas. You see that clearly? All right. Let's mock ourselves up as auditors and do some Theta Clearing, by the same process.

A person is going to exteriorize as well as he can get something to move away from him, that's a cinch. It's antipathetic to the thetan to move away from the body – slightly antipathetic to him. He's just as happy to have the body move away from him. As a matter of fact, he'd rather have the body move away from him or disappear.

And the method which is most favored by a Resistive V is just have the body disappear. He actually tries this, he sort of tries to eat it up from inside or something of the sort. He stays inside there and starts to eat the body up. He chews up its ridges and he chews away at the body and so on. He wants it to disappear. He's being terribly insistent upon the disappearance of a body, in other words. See that? He wants this thing to vanish.

Well, you can assist him. All of a person's unmocking machinery is sooner or later – that is to say, his unmocking automaticities – sooner or later turns against him. And there are just two kinds of automatic machines.

Now, when I say an automatic machine, by the way, I mean a machine, I don't mean anything else. It is something that runs on energy and it generally has mechanical parts. See? This is very fascinating, what the thetan does with these. But it runs on energy, it has to have fuel and it accomplishes a certain result.

Now, where does it get its fuel? Well, it gets its fuel from the individual himself, doesn't get fuel anyplace else.

Now, it can start to eat up ridges and mock-ups for its fuel, and will, just to the degree that the individual is moving these things in and eating them up.

Now, you wouldn't suspect a lot of the cases that are trying to (quote) "erase engrams" (unquote) as eating them. But that's what they're doing, they're eating engrams. They complain a lot about the fodder, but they eat them.

Now, in view of the fact that they're putting the engram there with their own energy, we get a very odd view. We could draw a graph of this, a picture of how this is, and we could put the thetan there as a bright spot of light and then we would have a facsimile there as a vertical line, somewhat near the thetan. And then we would put a wire, you might say, from this bright spot of light, around to the back of the facsimile to a little square box. And this little square box would be the machine making facsimiles. And now we would see that this facsimile, this vertical line, had come out of this little box on the power furnished it by the thetan himself. See that?

In other words, this bright spot of light empowers this little box with enough energy in order to come back and put out a facsimile, which facsimile moves in on the bright spot of light and the thetan (quote) "eats it up" (unquote) because he needs energy.

Well, where did the facsimile get the energy in the first place? The facsimile is entirely parasitic. Now, this parasitic quality, you will find mirrored in human behavior all over the place.

For instance, a military regime, such as a fascism, and the communist regime are, alike, parasitic upon the workers. And the reason these people "dote" so hard upon workers is because they want to be furnished provender. They have not varied even faintly from a crew of robber barons suddenly swinging in on a peasant countryside and setting up a castle on the hill and saying, "We're now going to protect you in some fashion or another against your enemies and you're going to pay us a certain amount of your provisions. And for that, you are supposed to be thankful to us."

It has not been beyond or above robber barons to split up their forces and build a castle on one hill and a castle on the other hill and put those two castles at war simply to get sufficient support from the peasantry – themselves remaining in a high state of war for public consumption only, just so there's enough danger in the environment to protect the peasant from, so the peasant will furnish provender.

Now, there's not too much difference in this than the very straightforward method of simply riding in with lances and armor plate into a farming community and gutting the granaries. But after you've gutted just so many granaries and after you have trampled underfoot just so many fields of wheat, you run out of countryside to gut and you become less well provided for. So this is an impractical solution and the practical solution is to set up a castle on the mount and extract it a little at a time – instead of wrecking next year's crop, why, get it in advance. You know, I mean, tell people that they owe it already and now raise it. Well that's, in its essence, "government." And government is parasitic upon workers.

Now, this is not beating the tom-tom for workers, but it rather, as you look at it, it seems a little bit more reasonable, some of the things that happen across the world.

Why – why do these governments fight? Why are they so combative? Everybody more or less realizes that the country which is internally threatened will find some reason or another to get an external enemy.

Hitler's regime was chipping around the edges and actually forced him to go into a rather wild attack on Europe. Whereas, as a matter of fact, politically he had Europe within his grasp. But he needed a war and he got a war.

Now, it wasn't true that Franklin Delano needed a war. He didn't need a war for the support of the American people. But operating in the operating climate he operated in, it probably seemed to him that a war was not too undesirable. So we have US destroyers out – long before Congress or the people have said anything about it – we have US destroyers out, actively engaged in combat and being sunk and sinking the enemy a year before any slightest move, as war, was made on the part of the American people or the Senate.

We had a very anxious government there, it was precipitating a war by a series of overt acts, without the consent of the people. This is not a criticism of the Democratic regime of 1932 to 1945, but it is just an outright condemnation of it. [laughter] I wouldn't be that covert on the subject.

These boys were not doing anything different than any politician does. A politician has very little to offer, he feels very insecure because he recognizes in himself a parasite. His activities are not constructive really, but they are regulative in some fashion. He recognizes this mainly by being inefficient and you see in inefficient governments that parasitic quality very paramount.

You take a European Government – there's a little more realism there on the part of the people. They know they are simply being looted and they expect to have to pay out so much to these people who are around looting them. And if they get some small proportion of the law and order which they wish they had, why, they are perfectly happy about it, but they don't take governments very seriously. They don't take soldiers or politicians very seriously. It's a surprising statement. In this country, they're taken much more seriously.

For instance, in England dear old Queen Elizabeth, right now, is living in an interesting climate. The British people look toward her for color and they are very pleased to have a colorful, well-mannered figure there, because it represents the government and it is itself a symbol. And they, oddly enough, are actually buying something for their tax money. There wasn't anything colorful about FDR. And as far as Ike is concerned, his after-dinner jokes were much better before he was president.

But we have a realism any time we get closer to an actual truth and if a people is perfectly willing to support a government merely because it's colorful – you know, support a household like that just because it's colorful – why, that's quite real, you know? You say, "Well, that's a good fact."

But when we get into the deep significances of why we have to have a central figurehead and why we have to do this and why we have to do that, that's really plowing in, that's getting into the effort band very badly.

In Spain today – we, in this country, have a feeling that the Spanish people have been disenfranchised in some fashion or another – they're actually quite happy, they're much better off than they've been for about forty years. You see, they know what it is to be looted and Franco is actually quite light-fingered. And they speak of him in a relatively disrespectful sort of way, "Oh, Franco – you know, we've got somebody up in Madrid named Franco. We see him in the pictures all the time because he subsidizes the newsreels." And that's about all there is to it.

And you say, "Well, rah, rah, rah, revolution" and this and that.

And they say, "Well, yes…" The only thing that got under their skin was the Junkers 52 bombed some of their major cities and there's big holes where buildings were. And that they didn't like. That was not according to the rule book – a foreign power coming in and bombing their cities – because they are very fond of their cities. Their cities are very old and have a lot of art in them and they're very – they like Spain, the Spaniards do, and this they didn't like at all. But they really don't hold this as much of an overt act against Franco. "Well, this is Franco, it's a government." It's at least stable.

And under the type of government where we couldn't make up our mind who was getting the loot – you know, the communist-type government they had before that and the socialist-type governments – they were very unhappy. You know, you couldn't quite tell who to pay off! Well, now there's no doubt about it, so you pay off the Guardia Civil, of course, and everybody is cheerful about it. But they're not taking that government seriously.

Now, I think Russia probably is taking its government terribly seriously because the Russian never was able to do anything else. The government doesn't operate in the effort band, he operates in the apathy band. For instance, we hear stories in Russia rather consistently – a bunch of peasants go into a barn and burn the barn down on themselves. Yeah, they do, I mean they have, they still do.

We get over into Germany, we find this same level of superseriousness about things. We find German youth today very perturbed, but it's the same German youth that Hitler had and the same German youth that Kaiser Bill had and the same German youth that early days of Bismarck had. The youth hasn't changed any. Here we have an attitude toward ruling powers based upon "How much is it going to cost, in terms of produce and effort on our part?" See, I mean, there is the real computation of it.

In this country, you have a different viewpoint. We feel that we own the government and so forth. Well, I don't know which is the more dangerous postulate, because they're both based upon this: any organization which can put itself up as parasitic upon workers or parasitic upon the production unit and then exist, apparently in authority, is simply following the pattern of automatic machinery. The worker actually creates the government and keeps it there. And he loses sight of this fact. He, in his own enmities and differences and upsets and quarrels, himself, breeds the necessity for government. And then he sets the government up and he pays it tribute and then the government has an excuse for being.

And so there is, in an engram bank, some excuse for being. The excuse is that "one has to remember and one has to be jolted into a recognition of dangers to be averted." One is actually paying tribute, via his energy output, to automatic machinery which takes care of him by not getting him into trouble and by getting him out of trouble and by banishing or unmocking trouble before it occurs. You see how this would be?

The fellow hands over the right to decide whether he's in trouble or not on the basis that he might not be able to decide fast enough. And he makes the mistake of deciding that an automatic machine will decide faster than himself. It keeps up a continuous scanning awareness of the environment, for instance. It polices and patrols the environment against sudden dangers and has the power to dictate action in an emergency.

We have no difference in this than a government with the worker and the produce and the army and the police force and the courts and so forth. And we even have the colorful engram, the aesthetic type-in other words, the English queen, see, the colorful engram, the colorful picture. These machines will furnish, then, amusement. They will furnish interest and they will furnish a symbol for beingness.

And when we look at a preclear as a complete government and worker society – as we look at the preclear as an entire social unit within himself – just look at him on the Third Dynamic, as a Third Dynamic, we find just about what he is doing. He has set up willfully, and perfectly willingly, a number of parasitic items which he thereafter does not himself control, with which he charges the responsibility of amusing him and rescuing him from danger. And he charges these things with that responsibility and gives them no further direct attention. But he feeds them continuous energy. Any energy output he has, immediately and automatically goes onto various lines which goes into automatic machinery.

And just as we get a monk-ridden Russia of 1912, so we get an automaticity-ridden preclear. Any energy, any thought, any idea, any attention he might give the environment, goes automatically and primarily into his automatic bank so that he himself becomes his own other-determinism. And all of this production becomes other-determinism, so that everything around him actually becomes other-determinism. And just as a government will find more and more things to police so that it can hire more and more police, so automatic machinery will find more and more danger so that it can have more and more energy.

You understand that he has granted beingness, then, to a thing which is now senior to himself and which can tell him what is dangerous. And so he gets the most peculiar ideas about what's dangerous.

Now, let's take what happens to automatic machinery. It gets set up, it gets depended upon and, at the moment it's entirely depended upon, it goes into disuse and decay. But the lines stay there and the entire makeup and pattern is stagnant. But if any sudden energy gets fed to it, the machinery, in a sort of a crumpled-up, chewed-up fashion will try to go back into operation again. So we get weird things happening in a bank.

Explained on this basis and understood on this basis, the preclear – as a social unit – a preclear will make a lot more sense to an auditor. He has set up enormous numbers of police and governing units to which he is furnishing energy continuously, all of which are senior to himself, all of which have the postulate in them that "they must resist all effects," all of which have the postulate in them that "they must either mock-up or unmock real or imagined dangers."

Now, he gets confused between all of this automatic machinery and the macrocosm – the greater machine, you might say. So he begins to fight shadows and just as politicians and peasants will go running around saying, "Down with glob-globism! And up with puff-wuffism! And today we're all Spoodledorfs! And tomorrow we'll be something else," so your preclear is on a continuous crusade against his own automatic machine – continuous crusade – and there is his internal world.

Crusade following crusade, each one leaving in its path the debris of old broken up automatic machinery and newly set up automatic machinery, which again may fix it so it never happens again. So we get his survival pace being more and more hectic and changing more and more.

For instance, he can't stay in one spot anymore. He has to move from one spot to another spot, he cannot be content wherever he sits, because there's a machine that tells him it's dangerous to sit there. He eventually becomes so thoroughly equipped with machines that tell him it's dangerous to sit there, all of which being contrary and otherwise, to which he has delivered any power which he himself has, that he's doing his remembering, his prediction, his action, his postulates and everything else automatically. And all of these things are his randomity. In other words, he's set them all out as his enemy, Of course, he can't predict what they're going to do next, so he's in a state of anxiety and continual nervous tension and fear and so on.

Now, the best person in this society is in horrible shape. It's fantastic to find somebody – the thought, for instance today, of finding somebody who is perfectly happy, who is content with what he's doing, is perfectly calm, who knows really what's going to happen tomorrow, who gets a lot of fun out of doing the things which he's doing and doesn't have a worry in the world – this character has gradually drifted back into mythology. You can look for him in vain.

This fellow by the name of Diogenes – a slave that went around trying to find an honest man, I understand. Actually, he was merely going around trying to find the answer. And your preclear will practically never lie in the category of this lost and mythical figure who was perfectly happy merely to be a pretense of being.

You know, to be happily pretending to be is very senior to arduously trying to be. Because of course, you're never going to be anyway. You can be by postulate. You can say, "I am so-and-so" and just let it go at that. And an hour or so later, why, you say, "Well, I change my mind now, I am somebody else." And a lot of people get a sort of a sneaky, horrible feeling that they aren't being sincere, you know, and that it's all kind of a wicked pretense the way they're going about this and this is very bad. Well, if they'll just increase that symptom up to a point of where they just know they're pretending, they're real happy.

Now, a little kid is beaten into agreeing with the past. You know, he doesn't tell the truth – pardon me, he doesn't tell something unless it really happened. Well, that in essence, is the damnedest thing that ever happened to anybody, that's really getting crowded in, so that you start running your preclear and he comes up with true incidents rather than imaginary ones. Well, that's about as unhealthy as you can get.

You mean, the only past you've got is the one which happened? Incredible! But you mean, if you say, "I went to Europe yesterday," you've got to have steamer tickets? Why, it's very nice to have a past which took you on a tour of Warner Brothers yesterday.

A fellow who is in good shape can sit down and contemplate the wonderful time he had yesterday out on Gary Cooper's ranch. He was in New York yesterday, see, he was not in California. But he can simply sit down and contemplate this and what a wonderful time he had. Now, he doesn't believe that he was there, beyond postulating that he was there so that he can enjoy it. See, he doesn't believe he was there – he can change his mind any moment and be in someplace else yesterday, it's a perfectly healthy frame of mind. But this, when set up automatically, becomes psychosis.

See, it's all set up automatically and then chosen out as randomity, "Where was I yesterday?" And the fellow has an automatic machine that tells him where he was yesterday. It's never going to tell him the truth any more than a politico is ever going to tell a peasant the truth – simply because it doesn't know. That's its first limitation. And so the fellow gets delusion.

Well, it goes down from only uttering the truth, down below that, to only knowing the truth as a delusion. In other words, the only truth is a delusion. A big delusion shows up, you see, and then that's true. But what actually happened, that isn't true anymore.

So it goes down from a totally postulated reality. And that's good enough to have a complete reality – you just postulate a reality exists and that's good enough. It goes down from then, as it enters into an agreement with the MEST universe, agreement with everybody else, that we will only say that what happened, happened. Only things we say happened really did happen, you know? The truth. That's what people define the truth as, God help us all. They define the truth as that, they give it that limitation. You know, that's fantastic, you come to think about it, that that is truth – whether or not you did what you said you did. That's usually the public definition of truth. That is not the definition of truth – that's very warped.

It goes down from there into – that is to say, MEST universe happening – the motion of the particles was the motion of the particles and that's the only motion the particles had. It goes from there into "the motion of the particles, yesterday, might have been otherwise, so we begin to doubt what happened yesterday." Because, what? We've set up the whole past as an automatic machine. Something mysteriously out there is going to remember for us and feed us the datum as to what happened yesterday. Why? Because we're no longer willing to cause what happened yesterday.

There's no reason why you shouldn't cause today what happened yesterday. There was a part of the track before – a very early track before time got all set into an exact motion, before everybody got very tightly agreed on everything. There was a part of the track where yesterday could just as easily be tomorrow and really happen, because that's just a matter of postulate. Time basically, of course, is just a matter of postulate and then becomes a matter of agreement.

So your preclear starts sliding down the rope on this same level. And in the early track, it was all right for somebody to say, "Well, I am now mocking-up this bear and this bear is going to eat all of your mock-ups and you and so forth."

And the guy says, "All right. You're dead yesterday, your bear is dead yesterday." And sure enough, there was no bear there to eat up the mock-ups, because he was dead yesterday, you see?

And you could tell somebody to die yesterday or "You are now in next week." And we get this science fiction – that's the impulse that's back of these science-fiction things – to postulate time. They try to time travel and so forth in order to get around and try to escape the ardures of an agreed-upon motion of particles.

Well now, every time you've set up the past to be an agreed-upon thing, that means it's no longer under your control, the past is no longer under your control. This is unthinkably obtuse, by the way, to have a past that isn't under your control. Now you have a past only if somebody else agrees you have a past. So we'd have people going around saying, "Let's see, what did I do last Tuesday? Do you remember where I was last Tuesday?" "Oh yes. Yeah. Oh, we were down around at the restaurant, weren't we?" "Oh yes, we really were at the restaurant yesterday" and so on.

Well, when you start Straightwiring somebody on actual incidents, you really do start breaking up this agreement with the past particles, because you start springing them with locks simply by locating the past. You locate it and find it nowhere positioned and so therefore, you become happy about it. But that has a limitation and it can be run too long like any other such technique to a point where it actually manufactures more agreement than before and you're agreeing much more thoroughly with the past.

Well, the prime trick that everybody pulls is to get everybody to agree to have only a past that they had. Why this is important escapes – it rather evades consideration – why it's important to have only a past.

Now, I guess you could work this out in a military line on this basis: well, this captain comes back and he said, "Well, we took the company over the hill and we met a whole lot of enemy over there and we had a big battle and so we killed them all dead and that section of the enemy troops is now gone." And he reports all of this, you see, without having decimated any of the enemy. And they consider, then, that other activities which are immediately taking place depend upon part of the enemy now being missing. And that part of the enemy is not missing and so there's a miscalculation.

Well, what band are you talking about, huh? You're talking about the effort band, aren't you. See? As soon as you get into the effort band, you got to have truth. How do you get a preclear into the effort band? You get him to agree with past particles – past particle motions. Because it's important! Because future calculations are going to be based upon past calculations and therefore a person has to "learn by experience." And therefore a person gets frozen into certain patterns which must never happen again.

And so be winds up by trying to prevent life. And a fellow by the name of Schopenhauer can write a book called The Will and the Idea where he proves conclusively that death is the only possible goal and it should be died as quickly as possible and all life should be blocked from going on further down the track. He proves this very convincingly.

I am sure there's many an individual, many a scholar, has read The Will and the Idea and promptly blown his brains out. And by the way, I'm very, very shaky on the title of Schopenhauer's books and the Germanic philosophy of that time. It's all a big blur of heavy effort. And every time I try to sort through it, it sort of feels like moving blocks of stone to one side and the other.

Now, in other words, the only solution becomes a solution of unmock everything. After a fellow has gotten into the effort band, into the truth band and a few delusions start to show up, why, his last resort is unmock everything. Well, of course, if he makes the decision to unmock everything like Schopenhauer did, the inevitable conclusion is he chooses it all out as his randomity and here he goes, here he goes. Everything becomes his randomity. And it becomes him against his bank, as well as him against the world. And we have everything his enemy.

Now, it isn't that everything and all things drift into paranoia. They sometimes drift into multiple paranoia. But this universe is an ace at making this. How there could be any other process of collapse, very hard to figure out. Because one is being pounded continually from 360 degrees if he believes in photons and depends upon photons and is in agreement upon photons and agreement upon reality and the mock-unmock actuality of existence. If he just agreed thoroughly upon this motion – the particles did move in that pattern, they are moving in that pattern, they move in that pattern – if he's agreed on this thoroughly, why, he has completely limited his ability to change any of it.

So you've got your preclear sitting there trying to change. How are you going to change him? He won't change, that's the one thing he knows he can't do. Why, he's in agreement upon all these particles and how these particles exist or they don't exist. And he knows they're hitting him 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year, from every quarter of the rainbow.

He knows that he is being pounded down smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller and that anything he has is Double Terminaled against anything else in the universe, that his mock-ups are discharging against Arcturus, and Arcturus is discharging against his mock-ups because it's all consecutive space after all. Flows-flows-flows-agreement-agreement-agreement-agreement-agreement. Well, this fellow has already made the decision that you've got to unmock everything and start all over again, somehow. And so he sets all of his unmockers into action.

Now, he'd get away with it except for this one thing – this is why you can't suddenly postulate you're Clear and be Clear – is you've already postulated that there are a lot of things aren't going to let you change and these are automatic machines, which to a large degree, are your government.

Now, you have the same problem of a preclear deciding to be Clear as you have of a worker out here suddenly deciding not to pay any income tax. The government is going to have something to say about that. And an individual to be Clear would just stop – try to stop feeding energy.

[At this point there is a gap in the original recording.]

After you have been processing him for a short time and he isn't getting any better any faster, you find out that he has been paying the wages of the police quite regularly.

And you say, "Why are you doing this?"

And he says, "Well, you have to do this until you can change."

Of course, you can't change unless you do away with all those police.

Well, he says that the police are too necessary.

So you get a circular aspect to processing which, if you don't know that it exists, the human being appears to be a very mysterious thing to you. He isn't doing it, that's the truth. Long ago or right now – you see, long ago and right now are the same period of time to a thetan. He isn't jammed on the time track, you understand, he's just observing particles flow and he doesn't move or age, but the particles do. And yet he gets himself so confused with particles that he believes he moves and ages, but he can move particles and he can move his viewpoint of particles.

All right, Then, as you start to take this fellow apart, why, you'll just start kicking in automatic machinery, which is inhibiting his being taken apart. Every time you start to unmock some of the machinery, why, he will help you out – he will set some of his unmocking machinery into action.

Every time he sets some unmocking machinery into action, of course, you get this, the fact that the bank starts running, madly.

Well now, what you validate comes true. That which you fear you become, that which you validate comes true.

Now, I told you about stopping sight. Now, some of the simplest exercises are the most effective.

If you'll look at the front wall now and postulate you're going to stop your sight on it.

Now look at it again and stop your sight on it.

Now stop your sight on it and make it bounce back to you.

Now, look at the front wall again and stop your sight on it and make it bounce back to you – your sight.

Make a picture of the front wall come back to you, see? Just move it back to you. Now put your vision on the front wall and make the front – stop your sight on it. Now put your vision on the front wall and make the front wall come back to you. [to student] Oh, you don't like this?

Female voice: No.

Splash. Smash!

Female voice: Yon can feel it! All right.

Now let's stop your sight on the front wall.

Now let's put the front wall back of the front wall – let's leave this front wall right here, but let's put a front wall on the other side of it, you know. Well, let's stop your sight on that other one.

All right. Now, let's stop your sight on the other one now.

Well, let's stop your sight on the other one and bring a picture of it back to you.

Now let's stop your sight on that other one.

And, let's be very critical and precise about where you stop your sight now. You've got that other wall on the other side of this front wall here and let's be very critical about stopping your sight on it exactly.

All right. Bring a picture of it back to you.

All right. Now let's put another wall – let's just forget about this wall and the other wall we set up and let's put another wall at the front wall of this room – let's put it up there about ten yards further away than this wall. Put another front wall to this room up there and stop your sight on it.

Now stop your sight on it.

And now stop your sight on it.

Now stop your vision so it doesn't see through that wall. Stop your vision so it doesn't see through that new wall there.

Now stop your vision again so it doesn't see through that new wall. Is it getting more solid?

Stop your vision so it doesn't go through that wall.

Now get how actual that wall is there because it stops your vision.

Get the fact that it must be there because it's stopping your vision.

Get how certain this is. I mean, it just must happen, because you are stopping your vision on it, you see? Anything that's stopping your vision, then, must be there.

All right. Now just neglect those walls and let's put a wall out there about a hundred yards and stop your vision on it.

And stop your vision on it again.

And stop your vision on that wall about a hundred yards – just with your MEST eyes. You don't think they're otherwise than operating automatically, do you?

Now stop your vision on that hundred-yard wall.

Is it getting some more solid? Should be.

All right. Stop your vision on that wall out there.

And stop your vision on it again.

Now get the fact that it must be there because it's stopping your vision. There, it's proven. That's true now!

Male voice: Mm-hm.

All right. Now just look through all of those walls and look through everything there is and see nothing but black space out in front of you with your MEST eyes.

I said "black space" but if you'll just look through everything, you'll see blackness. I don't have to tell you, you'll see blackness.

Now stop your vision on that blackness.

Now stop your vision on it again – way out there – a thousand miles or so. And stop your vision on it again. And again, stop your vision on it.

Now, get how true it is that you are seeing blackness. Stop your vision on it again.

Must be seeing blackness, it's blackness and it's stopping your vision, isn't it?

All right. Let's look all the way out there and get your vision stopped on the blackness.

Now get your vision stopped by that blackness again.

Now get how true that blackness must be, because it's stopping your vision, it must be there.

All right. Now look right on through it. Look right on through it.

Those of you having difficulty, then bore a hole – get an earth borer or a vision borer or something and send it out there and have it bore a hole straight on through so you can look through the hole and don't see blackness.

All right. Now stop your vision on the front wall again.

Female voice: Push it back.

Maybe you don't feel quite so big or tough.

All right. Now let's put a wall one foot from in front of your face.

Now stop your vision on it.

Stop your vision on this wall a foot from your face.

Now stop your vision on it with a characteristic.

Now stop your vision on it very solidly.

Now stop your vision on this wall a foot from your face and flinch from it.

Now stop your vision on it and flinch from it.

Now get how surprising it is that that wall is appearing there.

Get "This is a very surprising wall, how did it get there?" Well, get how phenomenal this is.

And there it is.

Female voice: Exactly.

Okay. Let's stop your vision on that wall a foot from your face again.

And let's stop your vision on it solidly. And now let's push it away with your vision.

Push hard on it with your vision – that wall a foot in front of your face – just push hard on it with your vision.

Now determine that you're going to move it away.

All right. Now determine that it's come back again and you're going to move it away. Now just look through it and see the front wall of the room. Look through it and see the front wall of the room, [pounding] Get how nice that front wall is.

Now get how nice it is of the front wall to tell you where you are. Now have it identify you and call you by name.

Okay. Did you learn anything about perception? Hmm? You get a little something about perception?

Well, now if you want to keep up that exercise a lot longer than I'm willing to sit here and run it, I mean, it's just for a demonstration – you could move a preclear straight into the effort band. And I dare say a few of you felt like you were being moved into the effort band.

Did you get that feeling?

Audience: Yes. Mm-hm.

Well, you see the idiocy of moving the wall that's in front of your face? You get that as actually an idiotic thing to try to do? To move that wall in front of your face? Well, it's gone right now – should be. It's gone if you looked through it.

Well, how do you look through it? You simply look through it by saying, "I'm now looking through it." That's awfully simple, isn't it?

Similarly, grabbing on to things and letting go of them, when done by effort (you know, you grab on to something and then you let go of the something, with effort), is equally idiotic. And you will find a great many preclears theta-wise will exteriorize, grab ahold of something and then try to let go of it.

How do they try to let go of it? They try to let go of it by unfastening the beam from it that they have attached to it. You see that? They try to unfasten it, as though it had fasteners or so on. They mock-up a hand or something and they close this over something and then they try, with motion, to free it off of the object which they have grasped. Well, this is fantastic and fabulous. Because the only way they'll get it off is just saying, "I am now letting go of it" or to feel straight through it.

One of the best ways to let go of anything is just to push right on through it, with a beam, as a thetan. You say, "Now, I'm going to let go of it." If you have an inclination to stick to it, why, just push through it and feel another somethingness just beyond it. It won't be there anymore. Because stopping effort is actually condensed stopping perception. You see, perception is just fewer particles than effort. Effort is a heavier mass of particles, that's all.

And so, you try to handle particles by pushing particles, you get the automaticity agreement on which the MEST universe is based: that particles move by pushing particles or by pulling particles or by particles influencing particles. And that's the only way you could set up the machine so it would keep on running, by the way. You could rack your brains in vain to find out how you would get something to run totally automatic and it would certainly have to move by its own volition, wouldn't it?

So if something were to move by its own volition, it could only move by its own substance and will and if its will merely consisted of particles and the laws of particles themselves, then it could only move or change by the laws of particles themselves. And so you get conservation of energy.

Conservation of energy would be, in itself, the end product of anything that was set up of particles, unless you came along and looked through it, having set it up.

Now, there's the fellow who can walk through a wall. You know, he just gets up with his body and walks through a wall. There's a fellow who can levitate, you know, he just goes off the deck. Well, he certainly had better get a good idea of how he's perceiving a body and a good idea of his perception agreements with others before he does this.

Now, people who aren't dug down into it or mired into perception agreements don't have any difficulty doing this. But those who have agreed and agreed and agreed and agreed and agreed that particles are particles, and only particles can move particles, thereafter themselves begin to act like a particle, which is to say, they don't walk through a wall. Particles don't go through walls, so therefore they can't go through a wall. Well, they've agreed they're a particle.

Another symptom of this is they have agreed that they are a symbol. Now, when you defined a symbol some time ago, you remember now, that a symbol was an idea which was enwrapped in a mass of energy which had mobility. Remember that?

Female voice: Mm-hm.

Well, that defines a particle, too, doesn't it?

Male voice: Quite amazing.

You say, "This is a particle of sodium." Well, sodium carries with it a certain idea, it has a chemical idea. It will do various things chemically. And then you can be very learned and come along and examine it and discover what idea is concealed within it. Now, this is very, very fine, I mean, it's sort of a cone inverting in order to study the fact that it is a cone. After you've set this particle of sodium up and you've agreed that it is sodium and you have agreed then, immediately, out of your own automaticity, that it has certain properties, then you go back and discover what properties the sodium has in order to separate the sodium.

Well, you get so arduously involved in particles acting on particles that you forget, very easily, that all you had to say was "There is some sodium, now it will explode." All you had to do was fix the idea of an explosion inside a particle and you would have had a chemical that would explode.

Or we fix a particle there which has the idea of – it has in it the postulate that it can absorb or put into solution other particles. You have a solvent in other words, this is a solvent particle. It doesn't have to have a position on the valence chart but, to put it in there thoroughly, it has to be in agreement with those things on which it's going to operate and act, at least temporarily, but it doesn't have to know more than that.

Now, what I'm trying to do with "y'all" is to give you a clear enough view, on a simple enough plane so that you'll actually unknow data and perform on basic law. You see that? And your letting – go process is letting go of data. I'm not, contrary to what you think, trying to fill your minds with data. I'm trying to demonstrate to you that a lot of the data which you have has a common denominator. By giving you various patterns and comparisons and so forth, you see here that a lot of data has a common denominator and therefore is kind of useless as a big class of stuff which has enormous importance and authority over you. I'm trying to give you authority over data, authority over symbols, rather than simply knock apart all symbols.

When you figure out the amount of bank you're feeding, automatically, in order to have the amount of stuff around you that you have and with the amount of things that you can agree with and so on, why, don't then ask yourself why you don't appear to be very powerful. Because if you've granted power to everything under the sun and it has never turned around and granted any power to you, at least you have a stuck flow. So, let's show you another very basic process.

Let's get the upper right-hand corner of the room up here, let's have it grant you power – you, a thetan.

Now have the upper left-hand corner grant you power.

Now let's have the floor grant you strength.

Now let's you grant the Sun power.

Now let's you grant these walls the ability to remain in the shape of a parallelepiped, which is what the shape is here.

Now let's grant the floor the right to be flat.

Let's grant the ceiling the right to be a ceiling.

Let's get the lamps – you grant the lamps the right to shine and light up the room.

Now let's do that one again. Let's grant those lamps the right to light up the room.

And let's do that again, let's grant the lamps the right to light up the room.

Let's do it again. And let's do it again.

Now let's grant those lamps the right to light up the room.

Now let's grant the lamps the right to light up the room. And forget that we have.

Now let's grant each one of those lights the right to light up the room – all four of them separately, one at a time – and then forget that we have, each one.

Do it again, in rotation.

Let's do it again.

Let's do it again.

Let's do it again.

Let's do it again.

Let's do it again.

Let's do it again.

Let's do it again.

And let's do it again.

Now let's grant them, one after the other, the right to light up the room for other people.

And continue it.

Now let's giant each one in rotation the right to light up the room for other people and then each time we grant it, then postulate that we've now forgotten it.

Just go around the four and start back at the first one again, go around.

Now let's grant other people the right to grant the right for the lamps to shine.

Pick out specific other people present.

All right. Now, let's pick out specific people present to grant you the right to grant those lamps the right to shine.

Male voice: Uh-uh.

Somebody says he wouldn't do it. Person after person.

All right. Now, let's you grant those lamps the right to shine and then forget you've done it.

Now grant the power company the right to put juice in to get the lamps to shine.

Now grant the mining company the right to dig up fuel for the power company to use to grant the lights to shine.

Now grant the Sun the right to deposit fuel in the earth for the mining company to dig up, to sell to the power company to burn, to grant the right for the lamps to shine.

Now grant the Sun the right to shine.

And grant Earth and the Sun the right to have space between them.

Now grant to somebody else the right to grant to the Sun and Earth the right to have space between them.

And just pick various other people, each one.

All right. Now pick out other specific people present to grant you the right to grant the Sun and Earth the right to have space between them.

You okay? Okay.

Note: This lecture and demonstration is continued on the next disc.

EXTERIORIZATION: LECTURE PAGE 2 3ACC-16A - 12.01.54

AND DEMONSTRATION

[[Category:Lectures 3ACC]]