View source for Exteriorization - Theory and Demonstration (cont.) (3ACC 540111)

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

'''Date:''' 11 January 1954

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

----

← [[Lecture_Index_3ACC|Back to Series]]

What's the hidden influence? The hidden influence is an automaticity that he has selected out for his randomity. A fellow who is trying to survive and persist only and never destroy has, of course, selected out all of his unmockers as his randomity. So they, of course, are quite active.

Now, he feeds them energy. He doesn't give them direct attention. You notice in the earlier lecture I said "direct attention." An automaticity is never otherwise than given some kind of attention and it'll drain a guy dry of every energy he can put out or gather up or do anything of the sort. It'll just drain him dry. It's a vampire mechanism.

He says, "I'm not giving this unmocker any attention. I'm not! I don't want to unmock my mock-ups. I like mock-ups." See that? And yet by conduit and circuit and around Robin Hood's barn and over the hills and far away, he is feeding a terrific amount of energy to that unmocker. Of course, he's really not using energy at all, but his attention, by relay systems, is going to it – by an associative system, is going around here and actually empowering this thing which is destroying him.

A person is only destroyed by that which he himself creates. And this is a fundamental law. This isn't just a philosophic observation, as it might well be. The only ethical crime is to deny yourself. I pondered that a long time and finally automaticity and randomities and case solutions suddenly turned it up as a fact. Because you go back and dig Mama out of the grave and have her come up here and straighten him out. No. sir. By your auditing of his foibles, he straightened out, which told you immediately the only mistake he ever made was to deny himself.

So he sets up an automaticity and then he says it isn't his. That's self-denial and denial of self, see? And then he's a victim. Whose victim? His own victim. But he's feeding this stuff covertly around the other way. So the fellow who is making things disappear is, of course, unmocking – madly.

Now, let's get into another phase of this very rapidly and that is that this unmocking machinery – all of this gimmick stuff and so on – is based on the fact that there's more validity to nothing than there is to something any day of the week.

Processing a nothingness is actually more important to an auditor than processing a somethingness. If you had your choice between processing a nothingness and somethingness, you'd better process the nothingness, it's better to process the space around the mock-up and duplicate it than it is the mock-up. That's just a little general rule.

Of course you'll run into the guy's thirst for havingness and various other things, but you'll get further in the long run if you concentrate on nothingness than on somethingness, because the truth of the matter is, is functionally it's all composed out of nothingnesses. The amount of substance in the universe, even to a nuclear physicist, if all reduced down, wouldn't be much of a challenge to the head of a pin. It's composed of space. Do you see that?

So you process nothingnesses, you're processing the better part of the universe. And you process somethingnesses and you're just confirming this guy's search for something, and he'll search for something for a long time.

And now we want to turn on perception. All right, perception is stopped lookingness, isn't it?

All right. You can turn on the damnedest feelings of weakness in a preclear. You can just make him sicker than a pup processing nothingnesses, because his whole career he has been going on trying to find something. See that? His whole career is based upon finding something, isn't it? Amounting to something, being something, and never running into a nothingness of food – you know, having food and having money and so forth and his nothingnesses he chooses out on the bad side of the ledger. He wants no sickness. He'd be a hell of a lot better off if he just started out at the beginning saying he wanted no money. He would now be drowning in the stuff. Inverted universe, you see. But he's never really gone on a "no" basis of anything.

For instance, the medical profession doesn't even vaguely go out for "no sickness." They'd all starve and they know it very well. Their gags and stories they tell on each other, and to each other, are for the most part based on this sort of thing.

The only aberrative experience, for instance, Susie had in the hospital, was three doctors coming in about six, eight hours after she'd delivered and having a big confab – and talking about this terrific appendectomy that found this beautiful girl all rotten inside. And they held this conversation on, with a beautiful glee of insanity going on the thing. They instinctively were doing exactly what they would do in order to aberrate somebody and get somebody loused up and make somebody sick.

That was the only pain she held in suspension, was a pain in her side, and she couldn't understand where this pain in the side came from. And she was sufficiently blotto, you see, that some of this conversation went through. Because she resisted the presence of people to some degree, the way anybody will who's had an experience, you see? And simply the resistance to people would key this in and would suddenly get her confused and mixed up with something else. You know, it's happened to – it probably spun most preclears you run into.

But I ran this condition simply by getting the nothingness of doctors and getting an abundant nothingness of doctors. And we found out that getting an abundant nothingness of doctors was quite a job – to get enough nothingnesses of doctors.

All right. Now if you've noticed, every once in a while your preclear will see something – his perceptions will start to turn on and then all of a sudden they'll go off. And almost all of you had the experience of getting somebody's perceptions pretty good and then having him shut them off willfully and viciously and just to spite you. Well that isn't what he did. That isn't what he did. He ran into an automatic flinch. And you put that down, make it a technical term, an automatic flinch, and it'll suddenly describe to you what happens when this happens.

This fellow is doing an automatic flinch from hate. He's doing an automatic flinch from hot stoves. He's doing an automatic flinch from things that will get him into trouble. And he's set this up as automaticity. He's set an automaticity up "that will get me out of trouble before I get mired in too deep," see. "If I walk into this theta trap, why, this automaticity will get me the hell out of that theta trap before I can get trapped," see? And that's an automatic flinch. And when you do an automatic flinch too often, of course, the fact that you – just seeing a wall is stopping lookingness, you see that an automatic flinch is a shut-off of lookingness.

Every once in a while you will have the experience of a preclear will suddenly get this beautiful, solid, three-dimensional mock-up and go ping! Off it goes! He's scared.

The manifestation of the flinch is so thoroughly installed that the second he sets something up that is solid, that be sets up, he flinches from it because he knows, as well as he knows his own name (probably much better than he knows his own name), that be is the one who gets himself into trouble. So he sets up something to flinch from it. And he sets up something, the automatic flinch sets in and the mock-up disappears and off goes his perceptions. But it isn't something he's doing consciously or willfully.

What's happened there is an automaticity is turned on and the fact that he flinches is of course a dispersal in reverse. You get that? There's a dispersal around the mock-up, so he believes then he is afraid of it, merely because he pulls out so fast. And fear is pulling out, so he's scared. So you look in vain for any deeper significance to these manifestations. The fellow sees something and it scares him. He does an automatic flinch.

Now when a person sees something that is new, surprising or that he doesn't understand, he does an automatic flinch. It's an automaticity. So one of the things you can do is to go around and have him look – this is Opening Procedure in a body or exteriorized – have him go around and do this.

Have him go around and look at the ashtray and then suddenly say, "Uuhh! no, no, no, no." And go around and look at a corner of the room and say, "Uuhh! no, no, no, no." And do this damn fool automatic flinch, see. And you do it in its various forms, such as automatically letting go of something. You have him close his eyes and put something in his hands and have him let go of it before he can recognize it. See? And that's an automatic flinch. He's gotten to the point where he won't even look at something. And the other thing is to make him look through things.

And now I will give you a little tip here which we would call – you know it's quite remarkable, somebody says, "Scientology is a religion and that's going to be the end of this, and Scientology is – so on and so on." It's very, very silly. For the good reason that we've invaded the entire field of livingness. So of course there is the religion of Scientology, There is the science of Scientology. And you could get into almost anything.

Well here's, really, Elizabeth Arden Scientology. Now you want some Elizabeth Arden Scientology?

Female voice: Uh-huh.

Well, I wish I had a bunch of dime store mirrors here for you to practice on the next hour because you'd see something fabulous about this; but most of you girls have got mirrors.

All right, take a mirror out if you've got one there.

Got them? Tell me when you've got your mirrors.

Okay.

Now, just look in this mirror (and by the way we could make eighteen thousand billion dollars, I mean, just like a breeze by selling magic mirrors), [laughter]

Now, you look in this mirror, [laughter]

Female voice: Ooh! Automatic flinch. [laughter]

Yeah, automatic flinch.

All right. Now look in this mirror. (You can actually run out the automatic flinch this way. I'll show you that one first.) Look at it and flinch, [laughter]

Female voice: I did. [laughter]

Now look at it again and flinch, [laughter]

That's right.

Now look at it again and flinch, [laughter] Now look at it again and flinch, [laughter] Look at it again and flinch.

Female voice: Oh, God!

Good. Look at it again and flinch.

Audience: [sighs]

Look at it again and flinch.

Audience: [sighs]

All right. That's the first part of the exercise.

All right. Now the other one is much, much better and this is the one that we would use – for broadly.

Now you look in that mirror and see there your ideal self. Don't see your MEST self at all, see. See there your ideal self.

Female voice: Oh!

Don't pay any attention whatsoever to the image, just look at the image and actually see in its place your ideal self.

Now do another flinch.

Okay. Now look at it now and look at it very fixedly and see your ideal self. Don't pay any attention to your MEST vision of you at all, just see your ideal self in that mirror.

Audience: [various reactions]

Just see your ideal self in it.

Male voice: Has to be put there.

All right, put it there.

Male voice: What is it?

Just whatever you have to do to see your ideal self, just get the total fact that you're looking right straight at a mirror image of your MEST body's face, but see your ideal self at any depth you want to in the mirror.

All right. Now you guys practice it too. You see how to do this?

Female voice:… did your muscles really pick up?

Um-hm.

Female voice: Sure.

Oh, sure.

Female voice: Yeah, we get our face lifted – faces lifted, [laughter]

This is Elizabeth Arden Scientology, [laughter] Elizabeth Arden, very, very old and very knocked apart, lives right here in Phoenix at this time, by the way. If some of you were to get hold of her and just give her that as a prescription, you would turn her on again. All right. What does this do basically?

Female voice: Breaks agreement.

That's right. It breaks the agreement with the MEST universe on appearance. [At this point there is a gap in the original recording.]

Oh yeah, sure, sure. You look at things that aren't mirrors and assume they are mirrors.

Male voice: You mean this is the next… Female voice: You mean this is the next step?

Yeah, this is the next step, is look at things that aren't mirrors and assume they're mirrors and see your ideal self. See that's really busting it with the MEST universe. But the other is plenty good.

Now the rest of the trick – yeah, I'll just mention it briefly, it kicks you out of past bodies and that's how valuable that technique is. See it's a lot of fun to your preclear. You see how much fun that is?

Female voice: Yeah.

Well, that's real painless processing.

But don't be too amazed if you were to have him on an E-Meter and to see almost immediately the theta bop, which indicates a guy stuck in a body someplace on the track, see that theta bop turn on. Because he's got his track collapsed back to the point when he had what he considered an ideal body.

And we get into the problem of processing a beautiful woman. And that's a real tough problem, processing a beautiful woman – trying to exteriorize her. You get a woman that's even vaguely close to pretty or who has found that her beauty has given her conquests with men, something like that, and you start processing her and you start exteriorizing her – no, no, no! Somebody's liable to steal this mock-up and all kinds of other things are liable to occur there.

And you start to exteriorize them, they start to get frantic, something like this. Or they'll find fault with you. They'll decide that they are a body and they'll dodge around. You have to put the various emotions, which turn up as you try to exteriorize them, in the various walls and put them in false walls, that is walls that are out further or in closer than actual walls.

And the other part of this is, of course, is looking throughness. And if you look at something you validate its distance and therefore you validate hate. And when you look through things you validate love.

Female voice: Hm.

You validate love.

Did you ever notice a fellow who is angry – here's a little manifestation of it – a fellow who is angry is always saying, "Look at me."

Female voice: Yeah.

Yeah. And then they try to call it down on the track by saying, "He looked straight through me as though I wasn't there." And this is supposed to be something very, very sad.

Now, the man is always falling in love with the woman he puts there. And the woman is always falling in love with the man that she puts there. And they very, very seldom fall in love with the person who is standing there. And this leads to a great deal of emotional disturbance and divorce courts. Because we run into granting beingness at this point. They grant beingness to this other person.

It's quite effective, this granting of beingness. I have seen a harlot turn into a chaste woman with a tremendous personability, quite the lady, simply because somebody had granted her beingness to such a degree. And then this busted up and so forth and, boy, she went appetite over tin cup down the slot again. And I've seen some bum that wouldn't work and wouldn't do anything in life, turn into quite a beaver and be a terrific guy for the length of time that he was married to some woman who was granting him beingness. And so we run that little manifestation out with this mirror trick. And it's done with mirrors to get a lot of this stuff up, and that is the most direct procedure which I know, by the way.

Now you'll get a flip-flop on this mirror. The guy will interiorize into the body, which he's seeing in the mirror, if you make him concentrate on that body. So you want to watch for this. If the guy flip-flops he's just seeing his own face there.

There's a theoretical psychotic technique you could use in an institution, that you would put up a series of mirrors so the fellow would see himself Match-Terminaled in profile.

Real tricky, huh? And he would actually run out some of his worser characteristics. You just sit him in a box.

Now that is so far superior to electric shock or anything they are doing today that it would appear to be a major miracle to psychiatry. Just a couple of mirrors. We'll get some of the boys together someday and build some kind of a coffin arrangement on this before this Unit is over. We get some time and we'll test this out and I'll show you how it's done and show you how one is made.

There are about four methods of treating psychotics today, all of which obviate auditing of psychotics. And if you've seen a Scientologist get into bad condition, it's generally been because he's had to audit a psychotic.

I had a letter from a very pathetic lady who was auditing a young man and was doing all right in Dianetics for a couple of years and then started to audit this case, only she didn't add it up this way. The world sort of caved in on her and of course this fellow won't really kill her, but he keeps saying this all the time. He's lived with her now for eight months and she's in real difficulty and so forth. She's been auditing a psycho.

Well, she goes into communication with a psycho and of course she's unwilling to be the other end of the line. And an auditor who is operating under that much pressure on this comm line, who himself is not in excellent condition, of course can sooner or later expect to be fouled up. Which tells you why medicine and psychiatry haven't got a chance as professions. A man in those professions hasn't got a chance as long as he is without a remedy for what is happening to him, which is the C and E communication line. See, and he has no remedy for the C, E communication line.

Now, how would you audit a psychiatrist? Well, actually you wouldn't audit him with a subjective technique, you'd audit him with Opening Procedure – real carefully.

Now one other tip about Opening Procedure. It works with great ease as long as you pinpoint positions. You see that. And we'll call this pinpointing. And an auditor omitting pinpointing is not solving the main condition which is the trouble with some of his preclears and that is they're (quote) "buttered all over the universe." And it's this pinpointing itself which brings in an enormous amount of certainty. And as long as I'm rolling on this I'll give you the other one, just to bog you down, as a variation on Goals Processing. It's a plus and minus, that is to say, "What can you do?" and "What can't you do?" in brackets. And the others to others, of course, is "What can't somebody do to somebody else?" and "Give me some things somebody can do to you now" and "Something somebody can't do to you now." "Get somebody else now, give me three things which he can't do to you" and "Three things which he can do to you."

And "Get somebody else out there now and give me three things which you can't do to that person" and "Three things which you can do to that person."

And "Get two other people out there, now get three things the first can't do to the second" and now "Three things which the first can do to the second."

"Now get three things which you can do to yourself, three things which you can't do to yourself."

"And somebody else, three things which he can do to himself, herself and three things which he can't do." All right.

Now, that is an extension of Goals Processing and this, beware – beware your certainty on this, because people who are in bad condition believe anything could be done to them by anybody. There is the first time we have crossed terminals very neatly with Goals Processing, with brackets and with – well, there's something very important there, is the solution – direct solution of justice.

And you'll find there's an hour tape in the Second Clinical Unit on the subject of justice. I'm not going to repeat the subject, it's just that justice is important to people, very important. So, the solution of justice is solved by this little process I just gave you. And this is a process all by itself. It is unfortunately a subjective process, but it can be used objectively, just to say, a la Opening Procedure. "Now do some things which you can do," and that's as far as it goes on Opening Procedure, and actually is all that is necessary to process some cases, to break them up above the psycho line.

And you say, "Now give me a couple of things – tell me something that you can do in this room." And a person who is pretty bad off is liable to sit there for ten, fifteen, twenty minutes. They can do what you tell them to do, but something that they can do – to ask them to actually invent something that they can do. They might have regularly jumped off the bed and flown around the room and done all sorts of weird things, you see, but these were things they were doing rather than things they can do.

Now, by the way, you run an automatic flinch on some people, you'll turn them weak as jelly. Now, you get an automatic flinch from a nothingness of Earth. An automatic flinch from a nothingness of Earth, duplicate it, duplicate it, duplicate it, duplicate it. Not the best process in the world but it certainly produces some effects.

Well, Reach and Withdraw Processing is to a large degree successful simply because it processes out the automatic flinch. You get them to reach and withdraw from dangerous things.

And the other thing that – "things you can do and things you can't do" is a pattern of course to many of the other processes which we have, so you run it also on this basis: "Give me some things you can't get away from" and it crosses with the automatic flinch. "Some things you can get away from." You don't run that one double, by the way, you just run that one as it is. Run "can" and "can't do," and you would just get "things you can get away from at this moment."

For instance, look around the room right now and give me some things you can get away from.

Give me three things you can get away from.

Male voice: Now why isn't it done?

Hm?

Male voice: Why not ask can V?

Because it isn't the truth.

Male voice: Why not thought? I just can't…

Things you can and can't do is the truth. But it isn't the truth that you can't get away from something.

Male voice: Never. Yeah.

You could always get away from anything.

Oh yeah. I'd better put that in here as a little footnote to this morning's dissertation. Don't let me catch you processing contrary to truth. You see it isn't true that you can do anything you want in this society. As soon as you say "in this society," it ceases to be the truth that you can do anything you want. It ceases to be a society if it runs completely without arbitraries and without restrictions or limits, see.

And so you say, "you can and can't." "Things that you can do at this moment," "Things you can't do at this moment." There'd be consequences to many things that you did. For instance, if you were to run out in the street and tear all your clothes off, you would find consequences for the act. So can and can't is perfectly proper. But let's say things you can't get away from. There isn't any such animal. And you're actually telling a lie when you process with the preclear. So you keep these things on the highest level of truth that you can keep them on, that's all.

You run "Three places where you are not." Well, hell, you can run that endlessly because, believe me, fellow, you're not anyplace. You get that? You can be anyplace you want to decide you are, but you have to decide before you're there or your auditor has to decide you're there and tell you to be there – tell you you can be there. See?

If this were not true, your lot would be in a horrible situation. Your case would be unsolvable and this race and everything else about it would be unsolvable, if you

were anywhere, actually, finitely in the MEST universe. Because the MEST universe is a communication trap where all spaces are consecutive to all spaces. Where associative logic is a fait accompli, where everything is in communication with everything else. You are trapped in space. If you were in it, you would be trapped. But that's true of any trap. You are trapped only if you are in it. And if you aren't anywhere, of course, you can't be trapped.

Now the thetan solves this by materializing nothing. He even goes that far. He's so careful he won't even materialize a mock-up. He won't do anything that really tells him he's trapped.

It's a big trap, this universe. Some of your cases will come up with a sudden horror on this. A lot of your cases – any case that's down around V, VI, you can expect him to come through a terror, horror band at the realization that he is in the MEST universe and is trapped here. And this is a gigantic trap. It's a gigantic trap composed of black space, just to be gruesome. And if you were in it, your case would be unsolvable. But you're not in it, so you can go on forever saying, "Give me three places where you're not," "Three places where somebody else is not." Well, it's just the truth. They're not anyplace. An object – you can give me three places where that object isn't. Well, you assume the object is there merely because it's there by postulate. It's there, that object is there. And three places, however, where objects are not, well, that's all right, there is a place where it is. So you're telling the truth consistently even there. You see that? You're telling the truth.

Well, now a fellow asking this question, "Three places where you couldn't be in the future." Oh-oh-oh-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah. Process won't hold, won't do anything for the preclear because it isn't processing toward truth. There isn't anyplace in the future where he can't be. He could be anyplace in the future. Where he will be in the future is a different thing. So you say, "All right, give me three places in the future where you won't be tomorrow," "Give me three places where you won't be tomorrow," Oh, he can give you thousands of places where he won't be tomorrow. But there is a place where he will (according to his own agreement) be tomorrow.

And you can pick up a fellow's prediction and knowingness level on this process alone – where he won't be: present, past and future, in that order. Present, past, future is the proper order. The proper order is not past, present and future; it's not a consecutive thing. And you solve a case like that – he can give you some places where he's not in the present and he all of a sudden bogs on places where he's not in the past. He has a creepy feeling he's all over the past. You just give him some more places where he's not in the future and then you go to past again and you'll find some places in the past where he's not. All right.

He can find some places in the past where he's not, but he can't find any places in the future where he won't be. You just give him some more places where he isn't in the past and that solves the future. You got that one? The proper order is present, past, future and that's why it's that way in 8-C. It isn't there by accident.

Do you get that now? If the fellow – all right, let's say this preclear can't find where he's not in the past. He doesn't get this immediately. Well, you just give him some more "where he isn't in the present." You see how easy that is? Where he isn't in the present and then you get the future. And he can't find places where he's not in the future and he's having a hard time with that, just get some more where he's not in the past. And you'll find out very shortly that he'll be able to find places where he's not in the future. Present, past, future, that is the order. Okay?

We have covered, as usual, quite a little bit of ground, but you will find out very readily that we are practically covering the same ground every day and covering it with a different coat and a different hat and a different application level. And the thing that is – you're varying on, is application. That is being given to you in an advancing line and you're being given a little more advanced methods of application of this material every day.

But you aren't being varied on your basic theory. And you've gotten this basic theory practically everyday, over and over and over and over and over. But you should, sooner or later, begin to distinguish between these two things very, very readily. And you should be able to take basic theory and get all the processes you want out of it. What I give you here are tested processes which are very good.

By the way, did the auditor who used this "places where you won't be in the future," did he get that this morning? An auditor has been asking a preclear that, "places where you couldn't be in the future." Process toward truth and you win. And process toward falsehoods and you lose.

Male voice: Are all subjective techniques limited?

Mm-hm. All of them, because they treat one universe. You're going to wake up with a terrific shock one of these days, while being processed, to the fact that the other universe is not only in existence, but is habitable by you – the other fellow's universe.

Right now, you know that you can inhabit, to some degree, some kind of an arrangement you call your own universe and you don't consider that very sharp probably, but it's there. And then you know there's the MEST universe because we process that. And the other fellow's universe is something to you which is, to a large degree at this moment, I am sure, conceptual. It doesn't have dimension and so forth.

And one of these days you're going to wake up with a terrible shock. You're going to do Change of Universe Processing on somebody after he's exteriorized, and out he's going to go. And you say, "All right. Be your own universe, be the MEST universe, be somebody else's universe." And at that moment his case will bust into flinders.

"Be somebody else's universe." And he'll ponder it for a moment and he'll – round and…

"Well I got an idea, let's see, I'll mock one up." The schnook.

And you say, "No. Find somebody else's universe and be it."

"Well, where do I look for one?"

"Well, just go on and look for one."

"And well, how about somebody's head? How about that?"

"That'll do for a starter."

And he gets into a few people's heads and all of a sudden, there is one. What do you know? And then you just change processing, Change of Space. Change him from universe to universe to universe to universe to universe to universe, his own, the MEST, another fellow's; his own, the MEST, another fellow's; his own, the MEST, another fellow's. Bing. bing bing bing, bing, bing bing bing bing bing bing and, boy, things start to bust all over the place.

And he, all of a sudden, says, "Well there's one universe I can't inhabit and that's my father's universe. I won't inhabit it! You cant make me." Just do some more Change Processing. All of a sudden he says, "Well he had one too, so what. It's not a very good one. Moldy." And he'll get off of that and all of a sudden one day hell find Pop's universe, bing he's got it. And after that he has no familial difficulties. If you don't solve this one with the preclear all the way down the line, by the way, he'll keep on having interpersonal relationship difficulties.

That process is completely unlimited. The MEST process is only partly unlimited. Which is to say – you could call it an unlimited process if you want. But, what did you think to a guy about – after what I've told you this morning, if you kept a fellow looking at walls, huh? Just supposing you just kept a fellow looking at walls, hour after hour after hour after hour – feeling walls, looking at walls, being in walls, being in MEST universe space, just hour after hour after hour after hour and you never shifted it out. Well, you would be validating hate. Emotionally you would be validating apathy, ridges, hate – anything solid.

The MEST universe is a game, is a game, is a game, is a game composed of barriers, and the barriers are space, objects (such as walls or any other object) and time. And these are the barriers of the MEST universe, of which the most serious is time. And that is the game.

And a fellow gets to thinking after a while that he has barriers in his thinkingness. And you give some fellow this process of "Give me three things which you can't do now," and you start to knock out the barriers of thinkingness. And that is, by the way, a terrific process. All right.

Now, in your Group Processing today, and for the rest of this week, let's do as good a job as we can on standardized Group Processes, rather than using on the group… That's a little bit tough on your Group Auditor, but remember this: Your preclears have been getting variations in their auditing sessions and the Group Process is there to pull them up and stabilize them. So let's give them a predictability, which is the total message, a predictability in that Group Auditing session. Just have fun at it and everything, but let's give them a good, solid predictability because they haven't had one in their auditing session in many cases. Okay?

All right. And the Group Processes, of course, we have several of them. We have Short 8, we have Six Steps to Better Beingness and we have 8-C Group, which is listed right on your list there.

Now I pull on the group here, occasionally, processes for demonstration, just to drive home the point and give you a look at something, rather than a process which is very therapeutic.

I dare say there's a couple of you feel worse for my having processed you this morning. It's very possible, merely because I didn't carry it on very far, you see. You start processing nothingness of bodies and nothingness of walls, you're just as likely as not to have some preclear in a group suddenly chuck his cookies. That's death and dynamite.

Okay. Any questions? Yes?

Male voice: Holding onto corners won't restimulate that 8-C? Or how is it that he can hold on forever?

Oddly enough, the guy is so bad off that you're asking to do that, almost any kind of condition he's in, that it's way upscale. The MEST universe, in good contact with, is way upscale. It is so high above scale for most pcs that it's – when they cross the barrier, that is to say get to a point where they can tolerate the MEST universe, gee, they're in wonderful shape.

So as a consequence it is, as I said, a limited technique in it's furthest reductio adabsurdum, but is so fitting for your pc that you could do easily ten times as many hours of auditing on one pc of making him hold the corners of the room as you're ever going to put in on any pc. So for all intents and purposes you have an unlimited technique.

Now you can do automatic flinches from the MEST universe with a fantastic success. You can get automatic flinches from the back corners of the room.

Now get ahold of the back corners of the room. Now get ahold of them very securely now. Now make up your mind when you're going to flinch and flinch.

Now let's get ahold of two corners of this stove and make up your mind when you're going to flinch, and flinch.

Now let's contact a sound somewhere around and make up your mind when you're going to flinch, and flinch.

Hear that car out there? All right, make up your mind when you're going to flinch, and flinch from that sound.

All right.

Now, there's another process can be done only at night, which is a Group Process. You get three pieces of blackness within a radius of a mile which you wouldn't want to be or wouldn't want to be in. You can do it in the daytime too, but you find most preclears are not inventive enough to discover it.

And then you get three lights that you'd not like to have shining on you right now. And you go back and forth this way in a bracket. You get some lights in a Group Process. You get some patches of darkness, some pieces of darkness, just back and forth, back and forth.

You get how that would be? And by the way it turns on mock-ups like mad.

Okay. Any more questions?

Female voice: Is duplication of MUST objects an…

Second female voice: No, It's supposed to bean introversion.

A duplication of the MEST objects?

Female voice: Ob, no, pardon me. That's the second step.

No, that's an extroversion because you actually have the power to materialize a MEST object.

Female voice: Well, nothingness is extroversion and then the second step is supposed to be introversion. That's the way I understood it. Introversion-extroversion.

Mm-hm. "Looking in" is introversion.

Female voice: Oh. And the first step is introversion? The nothingness?

No, that's an extroversion.

Female voice: Extroversion – well then, the second step…

is the second one duplication?

Female voice: Yes. Of MEST objects.

Well, your second one goes into a subjective technique immediately that you carry it forward the way you're supposed to, because you'll find him out of the room. I won't let them duplicate things in the room very long. I have them duplicate things out of the room. And they are really – nine-tenths of your people are simply getting facsimiles outside the room and duplicating them and they're not outside the room. And the way that technique is done it amounts to an introversion on your technique.

You get why it is an introversion technique. It works out that way, that's all. I'll show you how that one's done.

Now take a look at the building next door, now get a duplicate of it.

Female voice: Mm-hm.

Okay. Let go of it and take a look at the building across the street and get a duplicate of it.

Female voice: Mm-hm.

And let go of that and look at the Westward Ho Hotel and get a duplicate of it.

Female voice: Mm-hm.

Okay. Now look at the Westward Hotel below you and get a duplicate of it.

Female voice: Mm-hm.

Now let go of that.

Take a look at Phoenix and get a duplicate of Phoenix.

Let go of that.

All your techniques – that's good, let's be where you were if this exteriorized you.

By the way, did anybody exteriorize on that suddenly? That's a very nice covert method of exteriorization. It could be carried on for quite a little while with tremendous results. And it'd be gradually, as most any technique does – I hate to say this because it disqualifies our basic definition somewhat and I don't want to confuse you, but almost any introverted technique turns eventually into an extroverted technique. By the way, that's a test of a good technique. Will this technique if carried out long enough turn from an introversion to an extroversion? Will it turn an introversion to an extroversion?

Your thetan is cause and is happy as long as he's cause and therefore is happy as long as he's extroverting. You could say extroverting is being cause.

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

Now, the son of a gun, he never thinks about himself, he never remembers to sleep or eat or do anything of the sort at all, he just goes on entrepreneuring. And here he goes and people keep telling him he's going to cave in, so he does some day, but that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that as long as he's an entrepreneur he's just going like a house afire. It's only when he runs into too many people telling him to slow down and agrees too many times with too many of his own automaticities to slow down.

See, it's people agreeing with your automaticities that cave you in about people. The people themselves have no power to cave you in. Nobody has got any power to cave you in, but they sure can use your own automaticities on you by agreeing with them. And so they put them out into the mass production basis.

They agree with them and that makes you right to have that automaticity, you see, so you throw it in action. They make you put your attention on your own automaticities and that kindles them. But if you didn't have them in the first place, you couldn't do it. If you didn't have the automaticity to go off and loaf, nobody could sympathize with you effectively on how tired you were. See, if your basic goal wasn't to make a lot of money and quit, if you didn't have that as a basic automaticity, then nobody could make you do it.

People cannot make you do anything. This works out by test. People can't make you do anything that you do not have a basic automaticity about, that you put there yourself. That's why they can say with some little shadow of truth, "Well, you did it and it's your

fault and you're to blame and you're bad cause." See, I mean that's how they could add this up, because you know sneakingly that it is, it's true.

Any other questions? Learn anything this morning?

Female voice: Oh, I'll say.

Audience: Yeah.

Well now, on processing, how about you guys concentrating on exteriorization and after lunch I'm going to take up some methods of and give you an example. So, let's go have a bite to eat.

EXTERIORIZATION: THEORY AND PAGE 2 3ACC-13B - 11.01.54

DEMONSTRATION (CONT.)

[[Category:Lectures 3ACC]]