View source for Getting Up Speed, Part II (2ACC 531117)

'''Series:''' 2nd Advanced Clinical Course (2ACC)

'''Date:''' 17 November 1953

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

----

← [[Lecture_Index_2ACC|Back to Series]]

This is the second part of the afternoon lecture. Giving these to you rather quickly so that we get enough in the brisket to digest here.

We have speed as the determining factor of the pc. And what do we mean by "speed"? Low on the Tone Scale, you get almost a complete stop. Once the person sits, he doesn't move very much, he talks rather slowly, and as we go up on the Tone Scale, we get faster and faster motion, and faster and faster motion. But all of this motion is controlled motion.

Now, we inverted from just sitting—it's very possible that a person goes into frantic and insane motions, which is not controlled. But as we go up the Tone Scale, we get faster and faster, until actually, at the top, we get speed as instantaneous.

Now, get the difference between instantaneous positioning—because one travels so fast between two places he's in two places at once, or meets himself coming back, (that's an inversion of it)—and being in one place stopped. You get the tremendous difference between these two points.

I wish to impress this upon you, because you're going to run into, when you go out of here, you're going to run into people who claim they are operating very, very quickly and who are talking very, very quickly and so on, who are not running on a positive speed, they're running on another speed. It's uncontrolled speed. They say they—"Oh, yeah, I get mock-ups, mock-ups. Oh yeah, I get them, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah."

You say, "What color are the buttons?"

"Oh, they're pink! Ha-ha! They went blue then. Ha! They're pink now! Yeah, yeah—green!"

Oh-oh. On terrific pieces of automaticity—almost anybody has some automaticity showing up with them because we're right now processing straight at some pieces of automaticity. But where we have this showing up on a frantic, hectic, uncontrolled speed, we're getting an automaticity running the person, so to speak.

But remember this: person's goofy, they're real crazy, unmistakably crazy. You want to understand that; I mean, let's not just say—see somebody who is just moving fast, and he's sort of on a hectically—say he's on a manic because he's moving very rapidly, he's talking very rapidly. He's trying to get a lot of things done very quickly and so forth—like your high-pressure supersalesman and that sort of fellow. No, he's running on positive speed; he's usually a pretty bright boy. We're talking now about when this goes off—anybody gets some of this automaticity, but when the entire preclear becomes automatically fast, they're real crazy, they disassociate.

They'll talk about… They look in all directions fast and they're doing a dispersal and their attention isn't fixed anyplace, and they look at a window and they say, "Well, now the window and the radiator and the desk—uh—when we all have—do you know, I think it isn't going to snow." And it's just about as reasonable as that; just no justification at all. It's really crazy, you understand.

So let's not look at just a manic—let's not look at a manic state and consider it sane. And reversely, please, let's not look at a person in fairly fast motion and immediately brand him as a complete goofball. Because a person in very fast motion doing an awful lot of things is not necessarily justifying all of his actions either. So, there's an inversion on speed, which is that you can get a nice charge out of a preclear (I don't recommend you run any such a button—I say "constancy," other buttons; button running is kind of passe), because you get this very nice reaction on an individual who is sitting around, he's sitting very carefully around and he isn't moving very much—you just get him to double-terminal "repressing insane motions." Nyowdodododoh!—right away, see. I mean, his automaticity suddenly starts up. He has machinery to repress motions because they might be crazy: "repressing crazy motions," and that sort of thing.

Almost anybody has got a tiny little bit of this, you see, because they have had to repress what their family considered to be "wild and uncontrolled motions." So that set in, to some degree, an automaticity.

But the big difference that we're looking for is the person almost stopped, up to the person being almost instantaneously.

Now, MEST language does not keep up—does not keep up—with a person who is running at a really high, acceptable level of speed in Scientology. Can you imagine anybody auditing at this rate of speed: "All right, get a mock-up of your father. Blow him up. Now, get a mock-up of your mother. Put her behind your back. Put them in front of your face. Put them over your head. Put them behind your back. Now blow them up. Now, be in the childhood home. Be here. Be in the childhood home. Be here. Inspect the childhood home very carefully next time. Be in the childhood home. Here. Home. Here. Home. Here. Home, here. Home, here. Home, here. Home, here. Home, here. Okay." Imagine somebody auditing that fast. I hope you'll audit that fast.

Because as you come up along the line, you monitor your auditing… Please remember this: Your auditing is not monitored by your own desire so much as it is monitored by leading the preclear slightly—always lead him slightly. You run him just a hair faster than is comfortable—just a hair faster. You wait for his "yup" and "uh-huh" but you give him the command on the "uh" not on the "huh," see that? You give him the command on the "y-" not on the "-up." And if you do that, he has a feeling of being under just slight duress, just slight pressure, which makes him quite alert—and which, by the way, speeds up his attention.

Now, by speeding up his attention, it is possible then to get him to look straight through ridges, straight past barriers, and you get a much wider scope of action.

The auditor who continues to audit at this rate of speed: "All right, now you got that mock-up? Mm-hm. Well… Mm, put it behind your back. Mm-hm. You got that now? Mm-hm. Well—uh—mm, put it over on the right side. You got that now? Mm-hm. You got it on the right side? Mm-hm. Well… Put it over on the left side." Preclear starts to slow down. The next thing you know, your preclear is incapable of running the stuff that he could run at the first part of the session.

A smooth personal relationship can be established by the most ordinary politeness—the most ordinary and routine politeness. I have, by the way, made another little test again. I test this every once in a while just to convince myself it's so because it seems so incredible to me that people can be shattered by something—the two "shuns": invalidation and evaluation.

Well, of course, you're actually evaluating for a preclear when you're moving him around. And that's all very well, because you're moving him around fast enough so that his speed is coming up swiftly enough, so he starts running at speeds which is self self-determinism; that's fine, that's fine.

But every once in a while I invalidate somebody during a session by simply giving him more than he can do, or evaluate for him—say, "Now, I want you to think about this and give me the answer in the next session." They're always much worse—always! I mean, I do this every once in a while, once in a blue moon.

Every month or two, I'll just take a little check on it, because I hope to find out someday or other some way that you can evaluate and invalidate against a preclear where it doesn't completely cave him in. But every preclear I've ever done this to has simply caved in. I'm very disappointing to people; I've tried to do it very lightly and it doesn't seem to matter how lightly I do it—crash! All right.

These things aside, slow auditing is the next big crime—it's a real crime. And that's why Step Is should audit Step Is—their speed is up there pretty good. And that's also why Vs should audit Vs, as long as they're Vs.

Of course if somebody sells himself on a step, and says, "Well, I'm that step" and tries to hold on to it desperately—it's been quite a contest getting techniques which really just take a scoop shovel and move him out of the classification he thinks he's in, and put him in another classification, but we can do that now.

But those things are all very well, but the most ordinary and routine politeness will carry you the rest of the way—no evaluation, no invalidation. Like, "Well, your mother probably cared for you anyway, you probably just didn't understand her"—something like that, you know? Evaluation and invalidation of his own decision and his own certainty. "Oh, I really don't think you are certain of that. It's quite obvious to me that you're not certain of that," and so forth. Well, you can shake somebody up this way a little bit.

But it doesn't seem possible that this is so, but you'll find it to be so: that the third crime on the list that's a real crime—a real crime—is auditing slowly. Now, a V will audit a V at a speed which is comparable to what the other V is running, so that's not too bad. But a V starts auditing a I, and the I starts to go crazy!

"Be there. (pause) You there?" (audience laughter) Hell! The I's there and been back and looked around and twiddled his thumbs and went up and took a look at the moon and came back down again and is waiting for the next command, and he's lost track of what you're trying to do—he's nuts, you see. Pang! There we go.

So the test which you use on cases is communication. Now, communication essentially is this, it is … Well, let's take and mock up a cube of space with eight anchor points and then somewhere in the middle of it draw a diagonal line, not parallel with the cube, but just a diagonal line, and name—inside this cube somewhere, just floating inside the cube—and mark one end of it "A" and the other end of it "B." Now we have a picture of the travel of a particle through space. Now, the travel of the particle is from A to B. It is not from A to B to A. The travel of the particle is from A to B, and that is basic communication.

Now, communication going both ways, both-way communication, is another line right alongside of the first line we drew inside the cube. Now, this first line—the upper, that is to say, the higher point of this little line—was called A, and the lower point B.

Now, we'll draw this other little line right alongside of the first line, and we'll put at the bottom of it A and the top of it B, see, so we'll put A' is the lower A, and B' is the upper A. And your communication then, will go A-B; A'-B'. A-B; A'-B'. And the people miss the second side.

A communication line has two channels, not one channel. If you insist on using one channel for a communication line, somebody just completely bogs—they just go batty.

That's probably what's wrong with Bell Telephone—they're always crowding that one line. There's probably more to that than meets the eye—we don't have to go into it very deeply to assume this—because look, you see, they use actually two lines for one wire and they're both in the same cable. That's—they just use that back and forth in an electronic flow. But there is still—there would be something—some improvement would take place if they had two lines.

Here we have a problem in repetition. All right. We say A to B. We send this particle from A to B. Then the same particle, the same identical particle, suddenly comes right back from B to A. Now, if you don't believe this is upsetting, try to be around somebody that talks like this: "Well, I guess you're going down to the store, aren't you?"

"To the store?"

"Yeah, to the store."

"Oh, to the store."

You say, "I don't feel well today."

And they say, "I don't feel well today."

Dzzzz! Then you start saying, "Well, I don't know, I kind of feel like I'm getting old."

And they say, "I feel like I'm getting old."

Mmmm. It's like yelling into a well or something.

There's some—the greatest advancement that was ever made by psychology was a machine which repeated everything you said into it a fifth of a second later. And people talking to that machine used to get quite squirrely, and this was quite a development. There you're using the same particle flow, same particle pattern, and that essentially is "no randomity," you see. No, it's just—it's a question of randomity rather than the flow lines.

But a true communication goes A-B, A'-B'. Not A-B, B-A; A-B, B-A. Because a person has his own communication line, and when the other person starts using his own—the same line, why, you get a jam on the same line, just by contrary wavelengths. You start to work this out in electronics, you couldn't possibly see how you could get a reverse wave coming on the same wave. You'd have to alter the wave in some fashion or another, and as soon as you've altered the wave, you have actually a different pattern, so you'd have two patterns running on the same carrier wave—which is two waves, you see.

So your preclear actually could be marked on this little line we've just mocked up here as—not starting, see—he just A, A, A. And B—totally arrived—B, B, B. See? No flow, no motion. And then we get the fellow who has just left A, but he knows he'll never arrive at B. He's a message. He is not the cause of the communication, he is the communication. He has become the particle. And of course, you try to get flow lines out of this, it gets real silly.

And the more a person is unable to get to B, and the less he is able to start at A, why, the slower his communication gets. Because each time he has to check through all of the circuits to get himself back up here somewhere, approximating some phony A—A prime, prime, prime, prime, prime, you see—in order to follow a circuitous route to get through part of this line or parallel it. And he finally will arrive not at B—he'll finally arrive talking to somebody in the next block. I mean, he's just missing—missing any communication.

Well, this slows a line down because you—essentially you have a problem there in speed. Now, that's basically the problem of speed.

How long does it take a particle to get from A to B? Well, of course, it's the shortest… The shortest line in this case would be the fastest line. And if you really had a superinstantaneous line, why, a fellow would be at A and B simultaneously, so that's a real fast communication without a particle. That would be "super-telepathy." And about the only way telepathy really works, is you're just two points at the same time, meaning the same thing in two different places. When you do that, believe me, you get messages through.

Or you just put a point where somebody else is, and you're at the point where you are, and you get those two points pang! simultaneously, although they're at different places in space.

And the other one is a collapsed terminal: The person is a particle and he doesn't go from A to B; he says, "A is at B" and he says this all the time, "A is at B; A is at B." Now, this fellow, to communicate, thinks he has to be very, very close in. When they talk—such people talk over a long-distance telephone—they shout. They know they are talking from Boston to Los Angeles. And they'll stand at the phone or sit at their desk, and they can be heard five offices away just because they know they just can't arrive down there—that's impossible! See, so they just—fighting this impossibility.

When they come off the phone, you find hands wet, terrible strain, awful sweat, and complete certainty that they weren't understood at the other end. And they'll sit down and write a big letter about it, then they'd be doubtful if that got there. They'd be shaken for days, merely by trying to go beyond their level of distance.

And it's—you've seen this sort of thing happen. If you were on a longdistance or transatlantic switchboard for a while or listened to monitored transatlantic call lines—I've done that, lines going down to South America and so forth—you'd see what I mean.

The fellows who are very orderly and in pretty good shape and are getting something done abroad and all that sort of thing, these boys—oh, they just talk over the line, they're very sequitur and so on.

But these other boys that are yelling across the line and having an awful time and repeating four or five times—when the other fellow's heard all of it, the connection is perfectly good, you see—they're really in a frantic state. The things that they're saying are completely non sequitur, and the call itself concerns itself with some triviality or double-checkup of certainty, the like of which you would think any baby would be able to trust, but they're not able to trust it. So their line of trust, line of everything … Why? It's just a problem of speed; they can't arrive.

In this universe, it is synonymous … They get on this cycle: this is the cycle of creation, growth—of persistency in that state—and then decay and death, and that is the action cycle. So, from A to B, you have any action cycle you read about in Scientology 8-8008. All those action cycles actually fit from A to B.

Actually, A to B could be cut up in lots of little cycles, and you could put the inverted dynamics on from A to B. The closer he is to B, the more he is an effect, and the closer he is to A, the more he is cause.

A person who can start easily … Oh, by the way, this is an interesting test. A person who can start easily has third-dimensional visios with great ease. And a person who is finishing, or having difficulty about finishing, has flat visios. You can check it just that fast (snap)—you can tell just where he is on this A-B line.

Now you say, "Get the idea of starting something. Get a picture of you starting something," and for the first time in his life, he'll get a third-dimensional visio. This is very simple. "Now get a picture of you ending something," and it's flat. He'll think this is very peculiar indeed. It's not peculiar, it's just the fact that everything kind of piles up at B.

Well now, if he's at B and he's trying to be cause, of course everything he does flops back at him. You get that? In order to be cause at all, he has to be on his own communication line shooting things somehow out of B and they hit A and hit him at B. You follow that?

Now, the test of this is every time he—you get him to throw a mocked-up ball out in front of him and it keeps hitting him in the face. This isn't because he's been hit in the face with a baseball when he was a kid; it's just the fact that he's at B—he's arrived one way or the other.

You going to get this fellow out of his body? No, there isn't any depth, any distance, nothing of the sort—he's going to have a rough time of it. He needs space. He's short on space. He's short on comm speed. He's short on an awful lot of things.

Now, we get some silly combinations work like this: the body is just in horrible condition—oh, it's really caved in, ridges and everything else—just because the body's in horrible condition. This fellow's lived a heck of a life and he's been banged around considerably and so on.

Well now, let's take a look at A to B with regard to this, and we find out that as a thetan he's in the middle of some kind of a theta trap, and he's really high cause but every time he gets a particle out it hits this body which is immediately there, which is effect. And you get an instantaneous effect, and the fellow can't back out of his body because the body is so much of an effect, it's kind of a vacuum. And he's tuned up enough on this vacuum so he just keeps snapping back into the body. Such a fellow very often will get out of his head and bounce back in. You know, you'll say, "Be three feet back of your head," and he goes zup-up! He was out for an instant. You see that?

And some of them, when they've hit too many things too hard, can be quite powerhousey, but they hit too many things too hard. Their body's convinced that they're at B, they're in facsimiles at the rating of B, their speed levels are at B, and here we go, you see. The fellow is—he can't move; he can't cause his own motion. So he has trouble doing that.

And all of this is indicated by communication speed—not reasonableness of the communication. That's a very, very poor test—whether it's reasonable or not—for the good reason is, that there isn't any reason.

The—it's just like, the significance of the microphone is the microphone. Now, we do a lot of things for the sake of randomity. We have a microphone, it goes in and it puts some things on tape, and we use a voice to impel certain things into air, and it carries them along through; we do those things. That's a—that introduces a randomity. That is something to do, rather than the reason why we have a microphone. So again, we're back to motion of a particle as explanatory of something to do.

There isn't any reason to have any motion beyond the fact that there's motion. They used to kill writers in my day by sneering at "action for action's sake." You get some perfectly good writer and start beating him around about "Well, he was all right, but he wrote action for action's sake." Well, actually, there's no better reason to write action, than action for action's sake.

No, what they wanted was something deeply significant. Symptomatic of this was a story called Big Brother, it was written in, I think, Dial Press about 1930 or '31—'32, somewhere in that band, and Dial Press published this story. Honest, it starts slow, it moves slower, and it goes noplace—but boy, does it have significance! Gee, it's significant! It's so significant that you can think about it for hours without arriving at any slightest reason why it was ever written—real, real hidden.

Now, what makes a person's speed deteriorate? That is agreement—continuous agreement on certain speeds. And continuous agreement on these speeds brings about a condition of running at the speed of his environment. And if he can't run faster than his environment, he will pretty soon be running slower than it. He has to run a little faster than the environment to be cause—not much faster. It's not quite as bad as Lewis Carroll said it was. He says you run like the dickens just to keep up, and run like everything just to get anyplace.

Well, that isn't necessarily true; there isn't this much exertion, thank God. But if a person thinks he's just going to drop motion forevermore, and think a thought and all of a sudden be and blossom like a rose, he's going to have to at the same time desert this body and this universe and just sit on a pink cloud for a long time before he's really sure that it's sure. But he can simply walk back up the agreement track little by little, and shed a few of those extra balance wheels and cogwheels and throw out a few mainsprings that he was just sure he needed.

And the big trick in this is exteriorization.

Too often an auditor puts a great deal of concentration on a technique which exteriorizes. You know, he really gets to straining, like this is a big goal. Exteriorization is a big goal; as a matter of fact, it—in some cases, it's a bit of a trick. But the case starts pretty much there.

If you give anybody the impression that just by exteriorizing them, all is going to be well in their case forevermore and they will never have to be touched again and so forth, this is a little bit erroneous. Because if you just faintly exteriorize them after a great deal of trouble, they'll go back in—smack! See, you haven't shed enough balance wheels.

But the moment you exteriorize somebody, this is the single biggest leap that the case is liable to take. Why? You put him outside the environment of the body.

But actually—actually, I lately have been working on a couple of techniques which simply vanquish a person right where he sits. You know, you don't ever say, "Be out of the body," you just tell the body, "Disappear for a moment" and—it's an interesting technique line. I've been working on that—I haven't got anything thoroughly developed on it yet, but it has possibilities.

There's no real trick to exteriorize somebody. But you're asking somebody to move himself or you're trying to move somebody, you see, that is reluctant to move. He's probably at B or something, and you—of course, you get a person who is exactly at A and isn't anyplace else, and you tell him to be out of his head, and this comes to him as a great surprise because of course he's not in it.

You'll find out, very peculiarly, if he was working in a factory or something of the sort, he used to—managerial position or something—he used to sit down and shove off. Put his body carefully in the chair of the office and shove off and go sit on the factory roof someplace for a while, and figure it all out and be calm and happy about the whole thing, and then come back and pick up the body.

You'll also run into a bunch of people who are completely frantic about getting into the body. You see, they're trying to arrive. And they're completely frantic and they're very upset and they're saying, "You know, during operations and so forth, I'm never able to get near the body. I just can't get near it. And other times, it's almost as bad; I can only get within a couple of feet of it, usually."

"And this guy has trouble?" you say. Well, of course, they're on the—they're completely upset; their information is very poor indeed. They think that getting into a body is—that makes them be a body.

Well, I'd like to ask you how a thing which creates space can itself be energy. This is not possible! This is not possible for the thetan to be a piece of energy. He makes energy, but he can't be energy. Now, he can also say he's energy and that's lots of fun. Now he can be something—he can be an identity—but he can't be a thing! See, energy—something built out of energy; that's not possible.

And how a person manages to stay in a body—it becomes very puzzling to somebody who stays out of one for a while. "Ha-ha! How'd you ever get in that body? That's funny—very peculiar. You mean to say when they tell him to be three feet back of his head he isn't? What's the matter? Has he got chewing gum on him? Bubble gum? He couldn't have any bubble gum on him! It's incomprehensible. There isn't anything there to put bubble gum on." He's a spark, or whatever you want to call him. But he's causative—always causative. If the fellow's alive and even faintly warm, he's capable of more cause than a body ever will be. So, he's an individual.

So speed is what you ask if you've done anything in the session. That's how you ask if an auditor is progressing, if a case is progressing. It manifests itself in two ways: one, aesthetic of motion, and the other way, rapidity and sequence of communication.

There's something wrong with a case where these do—don't improve.

Now, speed and perception are, the way we can look at it here, almost the same thing; because you have willingness to let particles move. A person who's willing to let particles move can perceive and a person who is unwilling to let them move can't perceive. That's the long and short of perception. That's your people who are very deeply occluded very often—boy, they're still trying to hold still. See, they're trying to hold still like mad because they—it'd just be fatal, they figure, if they started moving in some direction; they'd just never come back. Something would happen that would be bad.

Well, the point is, then they start worrying about not being able to see. Well, they've got more barricades, barriers and machines to make them, that will stop flow and stop particles from bouncing around, than you could count during a session if you suddenly started counting them and treating them one by one.

Because they've got machines to prevent other machines from being touched, which prevent other machines from preventing, which protect the machines which mock up machines in case any machines are lost out. They're real thorough about this whole thing, you see.

Well, they caused their own slow. But a "case of slow" was ordinarily a very fatal disease in the old West. They used to very occasionally, they—the boys would get out there and somebody would develop a case of slow. And they'd bury him naturally in Boot Hill. He was a fifth of a second back of the draw, where the other fellow had already fired three shots—and that was a case of slow.

Well, it's not quite as deadly as that, what we're doing here, not anywhere near as deadly, but an auditor or a case that—an auditor who isn't auditing with great success and a case not progressing are both cases of slow. You can just add it up that way and it'll make sense to you.

And perception: a person whose perception is poor, is again, another case of slow. See, he just won't let those particles move. He won't put them out and get them back. That's the way a thetan looks. He actually has to put something there in order to receive something there. And he receives it on a different—if he receives it on a different channel as it comes back, then it's amusing to him. But if he just puts it out there on one lobe and gets it back on the same lobe, he's sort of spitting in his own eye.

Very often thetans have arrangements whereby they put out a beam, it makes a facsimile simply by taking a plaster cast, you might say, energy-wise—Lord knows how tinily thick, you know, just very thin—and they just make a cast of the environment and you call this a facsimile when they pull this back in. And they look at it instead of putting a viewpoint out and looking at the real thing. Nothing to it, they've just got a machine that makes it for them. They energize the machine instead of putting a beam on the environment, and then the machine puts the beam on the environment.

Every once in a while they forget about the machine and it runs out of energy, and then all of a sudden their occlusions start cutting in and then they don't know what they're doing. The machine can't make energy—they can.

So, we'll hear in this unit probably more complaints about "I get out all right, but I can't see." We'll hear that more often than "I can't get out." "I can't see," and "I just don't perceive very well," and that sort of thing. But the person will normally be saying it, "Well, I get out all right, you understand, but I just don't perceive very well, you know, after I get out." That's just a case of slow. Speed of particles—he doesn't want them to move.

Well, when a case starts this sort of thing, he's got himself stacked up into a facsimile, and what you just do is you just do an assessment and find out where he's stuck on the track and knock him loose from it and generate a few other things. Or you do the kind of drills that speed him up.

What drills speed him up? The technique which I gave you to do this morning is an excellent technique; no doubt about it whatsoever. It's really a very excellent technique. It has one drawback. Any technique which too thoroughly validates barriers—a drawback.

So I'll give you the other part of this technique. You understand Validation Processing—remember Validation Processing—what you validate has a tendency to come true? That was years ago, a couple of years ago. Well, it's true that you can validate the sixth dynamic, MEST, up to a point where you're in better shape than you've ever been. But all you've succeeded in doing is inverting the sixth dynamic.

That's real good, you understand, that—all of this holding on to the two back corners of the room and so forth is doing that. It's a long technique, and it works good, and a lot of people exteriorize on it in an hour or so, and it's a perfectly good technique. But remember what you're doing: you're inverting the sixth dynamic. You're getting a person up to a point where he can perceive MEST. He was below the level of being able to perceive it.

Now that you've got him able to perceive MEST, for heaven's sakes, take him on up the line. You're going to move him now into the fifth, fourth, third, second, and first. This stuff he can see again.

People who are wearing glasses are below the level—they're having a hard time seeing this on an inversion line. They think they're not putting it—perception there. You see, they expect it to kind of do 90 percent of the perceiving. And they put glasses on, and then they put glasses on the glasses, and glasses on their glasses and get fancy light bulbs and go see their obstetrician and in short, foul up completely.

You see, they're just insisting, "Look, we just have got to hold on to this stuff somehow!" And of course, the harder you hold on to it, the more it disappears.

I'll give you a little example of this—going to give you a good example of this. I want you to run this concept: How real that wall is. Just get that real determinedly, how real that wall is.

Good. Take a look at it. (pause) What did the wall do?

Male voice: It disappears.

To whom did it merely become more real? (pause) That's an inverted sixth.

Now, get an idea how imaginary it is—how completely unreal that wall is. (pause) Who'd it practically smack in the face?

Audience: Here. Here. Here.

That's what we know as an inversion, as an inverted sixth. Found in any case that that looks … You say how imaginary it is, how unreal…

Now, get again—get again, just get with great determination that it isn't there, that wall. Determine that it isn't there. (pause) Did it appear good and solid?

Audience: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Male voice: Mighty solid.

That's what's known as an inverted sixth. A person gets into that and they get—MEST waves start in reverse. Very often they start to put out flitter, out in front of them, and the flitter—their own flitter hits them in the face. Well, that very often happens.

The technique which you're doing right now is a terrific technique to invert, and that's why we're running it. But remember that "what ye validate comes true to some degree."

Now, early on the track a person can say, "I hate Joe" and Joe promptly and immediately dies, perishes and passes by the boards. This startles him into being less assertive.

So when we get into a proposition of an inversion, you can run this technique that we have there, you can actually run the thing for an awful long time and it'll keep you real good and stable in this universe. But you're validating a barrier, validating a limitation. And limitations are necessary to games. A game needs first, somebody else to play with, and second, barriers—even though they're rules or just mental limitations.

You can't have a game without having a limitation. You understand that? You ever try to play chess by yourself? You make a move and then you run around the other side of the board and make a move? This gets real silly. This is real dull. You have to be on both sides of the board and forget you're the other fellow, which is a sort of a "thetesque mitosis," or you just find another—somebody to play chess with you, and this provides sufficient randomity so that your interest in the game may possibly hold up slightly.

Now, if you work this a little bit further, you see that if you had somebody else to play with and you didn't have any game—the second we start making up a game we have to have some kind of a rule, so we have to introduce an arbitrary. This is one of the primary principles I ever encountered way, way, way, way back, fifteen years ago—a study of the introduction of an arbitrary.

What happens when you introduce an arbitrary factor into a problem? We have one plus one equals two. So we just introduce six into the problem. We have one plus one plus six equals two. Oh, let's take that six out and put it on the other side. One plus one equals sixty-two. No, it doesn't work over there. You can't get anything but a wrong answer when you introduce an arbitrary. In other words, no game ever produced a right answer. Do you see that? They just don't produce right answers unless you're trying to do the one thing that you can do in a game by artificial means, is recover and vanquish arbitraries so as to discover the rules of the game. Now, when you've got the rules of the game discovered, then you can unmake, to some degree, the position of people in games. You can shove them up the line into a higher echelon of game, and you can make a better game.

But it's pretty hard to make a new game while the old one is still in full roar with all of its arbitraries in. This they discover in atomic physics. They have what they call quantum mechanics, which is laughingly supposed to be a mathematics. And quantum mechanics runs like this: C plus Q plus 8.269 equals psi. And these are all factors that mean certain things.

You say, "Yeah, that's a very interesting equa—. What's this 81,269?"

The fellow says, "Well, I tell you impolitely what they call it; it's a "bugger factor.' " And he says, "This is a—well, you have to have that in there to get the equation to balance."

"Well, does it always balance when you do that?"

"Yes, except when psi is above two billion. And when it goes above two billion, then you have to have 1,873 in there instead."

And you say, 'Why? What—where does the figure come from, you know? Where does it—where'd you get that?"

And he said, "Well, it has to be there to balance." (He doesn't tell you anything about where he gets it, you know.) "Well, if you put that in, then you can make the equation say what you wanted the equation to say, and so you have a working equation so that you can work on atomic physics, you see?"

In other words, quantum mechanics is so far down the line that you even have to introduce arbitraries into arithmetic to get what is commonly supposed to be right answers. Now this is real weird! Yeah, we even have to take arithmetic and algebra to pieces and do something else with them in order to achieve any kind of a goal. Well, that's a game being added to a game being added to a game, and all we get at the end of that is an explosion. We sure take that watch apart.

Now, when you try to use anything to straighten out—we're not trying to straighten out anybody's mind. You want to disabuse yourself right there, right now, then—nobody has got any mind to straighten out. He's a spirit with a bunch of automatic machinery trying to run a body. And all we want him to do if he's going to hang around bodies is not be so susceptible to, and to know a little bit more about handling them. And when he knows this, and when he can do that, his own communication speeds are better, why, he's in real good shape, and as far as Homo sapiens is concerned, why, you've got a much better guy.

But we're not straightening out anybody's mind.

We take psychotherapy now. Let's take the most basic and the best advancements that have been made in a couple of thousand years: Sigmund Freud. It was only by introducing new arbitraries that he could create a new game called "Freudian psychoanalysis." We had to have all kinds of arbitraries. And if you want to see symbols, boy, just start looking at Freudian psychoanalysis and they just go on page after page after page: there's "id" and there's "bid" and there's "sid" and "did." It's gorgeous!

Now, you notice, is the closer we come to home plate the less language we're using. I mean, in all this talk I've been giving you, I've been using very common English words, extremely common. We're talking less and less in technical terminology.

Of course, when we have a technical terminology, it simply tells us there's something there to be solved, see. We don't know all there is to know about that because we have to call it something else than what it is. For instance, right now, we can put thought, emotion and effort together—we don't have to classify that, we know that's common English. Now, we don't have to reclassify it.

Now, but look at this: look, feel, effort, thinkingness. Is there a single arbitrary word in there? No, these things mean just exactly what they say there. Now, we just get the idea of a beam of lookingness, and we suppress it and we've got thinkingness. See, it's that elementary. If you do shoot off at odd angles and so forth, it's because again, this is getting so simple that there must be a deeper significance to it. And that's just what the trick—there isn't any deeper significance to it: cause, effect, attention, look, feel, mote, body, thetan.

All right, now we've got the question of anchor points, and we've got to take them over.

So, we mustn't validate, however, any type of barrier; we want to get him to a point where he can invalidate barriers. So that tells you that right after you get this stuff so hot that it'll practically go up in smoke just because you're looking at it, tells you we sure have to learn how to unmock. And that's a type of validation too, saying something isn't there. So we've got to get a preclear up to where it doesn't matter whether it's there or not.

There are people who have to walk—who when they walk, have to mock up the street in front of them. This is not undesirable. These people, when they get up that level are so capable they don't mind mocking up a few streets.

Down scale, a person gets into the feeling like he's the "only one," you know? That all this is being mocked up for him by somebody else who suddenly disappears.

I call your attention to the story Fear—it's quite a popular paperback these days in Great Britain, by the way. I had two novels in one book; one of them is Fear and the other is Typewriter in the Sky. And it came out in a paperback edition over there and it's been just having a fine time with sales records and so on.

But in Fear it talks about the—that's ten years after the fact of writing it—there's a little section in there that talks about the fellow being the "entity." Well, that describes this business of being the "only one." I recommend it to you if there's a copy lying around anyplace. Maybe I'll dig up a copy of it and write it up. Because that was a spontaneous description of the feeling of somebody I had run into in the field of investigation. And it was right fresh in my mind at the time I was writing that. And everybody was putting the world there for him, and the people—the second that he turned his attention away from the people, he knew what they did—they suddenly slumped over, see, and they stood there, see. Then when he looked around, they came to life and went into motion, and went into action, and pretended they were buying and selling and hauling and driving taxicabs and so forth, but if you peeked right around real quick, see, why, you'd find them all stopped again the second that you weren't looking.

And he'd go down a row of buildings, he would always suppose there were backs to these buildings, but you knew very well, all of a sudden you look real quick, and you found out that they're taking the block down that you had just passed and putting it up way up the line, so that you would see it when you went past there. And no backs to the buildings and no rooms back of the windows and nothing under the manhole covers—didn't know what, see. Everybody was putting it there and changing it just for you.

Well, you see the degree of effect that is? Boy, look at that as an effect, see? The world being put there for you? Boy, that's a lot different than walking down the street and saying, "Well, I'd better put some more paving blocks."

Why are you putting paving blocks there? You'd go on down the street anyhow, as far as you were concerned. You'd do an awful lot of things. But you put paving blocks there to be agreeable and you're off into the track of agreement again.

It always takes a certain amount of agreement to get along anywhere or do anything, to stay in communication with anybody. In other words, to have other players. Too much agreement and boy, you're a broken piece.

You find people who are deteriorating badly—they're just "Mm-hm. Mm-hm. Mm-hm. Mm-hm." They go walking down the street agreeing, kind of… (audience laughter)

Well, many people a little bit up the line, they've had a hard time with this, see, so they're saying, "Disagree, disagree, disagree, disagree, disagree."

And then we come to the Christian principle which is the one thing that was introduced into the society by Christianity. You will develop the idea as this course goes along that I'm not entirely Christian. Well, this is not true; it says right on my birth record that I'm a Protestant. And so I've taken that very literally and so forth, and I've been protesting ever since. (audience laughter)

And here we have "resistance to evil" as the motivator back of religion. Oh, boy! How MEST universe can we get?

We take this ashtray, and we take this ashtray: these two ashtrays can sit apart on the desk very happily, not in contact, not in conflict, and they would probably sit there for a long time. But all of a sudden we just say, "This ashtray now thinks that this ashtray over here is evil." (clank) Now we say, "This ashtray must resist."

Now, you just noticed this wall up here disappear when you said how actual it was and get real solid when you said it was imaginary. All right.

We say to this: "This ashtray must not approach the area of the second ashtray." And when you've got an inverted attention on it, here it goes—(clank) there it goes.

"Crime. You must fight crime." What's the best way to make criminals? Fight crime. Oh, yeah? Well, what's the best way in the world to make juvenile delinquency? Get all the kids fighting it. You'll have the next generation so darn delinquent nobody will be able to bail them out. They'll have to start penitentiaries for the two-year-olds. See?

You get the—get this resistance to evil. There is a Devil, and he is much more powerful than God obviously because we have to fight the Devil, and we could completely neglect God. He merely says, "Be good" and "Be nice" and so forth. "That Devil, he's real mean, see, and we're not quite sure what he's mean about, but it has something to do with fire. And fire is light, and so I guess the best thing to do is be a fireman so we can fight the Devil." And that's something peculiar. (I ran into a preclear one day who was being a fireman just so that he could fight the Devil, and he was a very bad fireman.)

Anyway, we get this principle of resistance to the Devil, and wind up as devils. See? (clank) There we go—clunch! And this is the principle of resistance to evil in the MEST universe, and this universe is a religious universe.

Now, one of the tricks is, they take the best spirit that happened along—that anybody is writing about in the last few thousand years—and you take the best spirit that happened along, and we find out that this spirit was crucified, couple of thousand years ago we're told, and they keep displaying his body on a cross! Rurrrhh! Isn't there something funny with this? They keep putting this body on a cross. So everywhere you look there's this body. Well that says—kids, that says, "You done it. You done it."

You'd be surprised the amount of sexual excitation, for instance, which is motivated by Christianity—terrific amounts of it. Because you mustn't have that too—you must resist that. And you see, that's—eating is the basis on sex, and that's dead bodies and so we're—(clap) here we go.

But here, for God's sakes, is a body. Why, they've done that in every religion that they've invented here on Earth: They've given a god a body, hoping that the thetan would simply move in and he couldn't get out. And that way you could keep bodies from being zapped. And it's a highly efficient system. But the only trouble is that sooner or later somebody's going to come along and bust it to smithereens. And I'm afraid somebody after that is liable to get zapped. But that's not your lookout or mine either, we're just victims, all, of the same thing—no responsibility for this.

The last period where there was any kind of a real renaissance on Earth—where things were really running good—they still had plenty of thetans on the loose. But the period before that when things were running but royally, they had lots of thetans on the loose. And just before that, in the Greek civilization, the place was practically monitored by thetans. Everybody said, "Please, can I spit?"

And the thetan would say, "Well, let's see," check over the altars, sacrifices and so forth, "let's see. Well, I'm not too sure. Not too sure about that. Now, my brother, you didn't put anything in—during his holiday, you made absolutely no gift." Crunch! Lightning bolts strike.

And now we're told that this is all myths and fairy tales, see? It's just going out of sight forever. I don't know what count they're going down for just now, but it's sure not the third.

Well, we won't talk about that particularly, because that of course, is on the lines of self-determinism, morals, ethics, responsibility for the society, deep significance of societies, deep significance of culture, deep significance. Actually, we're not interested too much in deep significance. We want to know the "wheres and why-fors" of life, and have a little more to each of us and roll along. And I'm afraid that things will all work out for the worst in this worst of all possible worlds; but that's somebody else's lookout, not ours.

If you are very motivator-hungry, though, and you got to thinking it over very hard, you'd find out that you would approach with grave misgivings any idea of turning loose a bunch of thetans on this society—grave misgivings. And the way to solve that is to run enough motivators on yourself till you're no longer motivator-hungry. That settles the moral aspect of it.

There isn't any great harm, however, results from this; but you will get people up the line to a point where they will pop back in the body. They'll be pretty cruel. They're up the line where they will pop back into the body, though. They're only up the line that far. If they're basically very cruel and very inverted on that, and they're very mean and sadistic and so forth, they'll do a high dive back into the body.

I know. I've worked some real lulus and so on, and you couldn't bail them out very far before they took another dive; unless you simply just bailed them out until they were pretty relaxed and thought the world was a pretty good place and people weren't so bad. And when you got them up to that state, what do you know, they stayed very stable. Why? Resistance to evil—they think a body is evil, they think people is evil, they start resisting the body, and the next thing you know, flip! in they go again. Okay.

We have then, resistance to evil as one of the prime motives of not Theta Clearing but "theta sticking." And we needn't study "theta sticking" beyond as it will assist us in Theta Clearing. But the body is essentially nothing, if not a good theta trap. And this theta trap is something we are solving. It's just another way for a thetan to get too much randomity for his own sake. Now, we can solve this and we are solving it. Okay.

Resistance to evil. He who thinks bodies are evil and thinks that everything is going to go to hell if anybody gets exteriorized and so forth, and bodies are evil and they ought to be fought, and the reason he wants to get out of his body is to kill somebody—it's very, very amusing: pop! in he goes again. It's no kind of a mechanism that is a punishment mechanism, it just happens to be built that way. He's just built that way; it just happens that way.

So it means that the worst people on Earth disappeared first. What do you know? A lot of you are going to have a lot of moral connotations with regard to this sort of thing. Does a person become a better being because of clearing and that sort of thing? Think about it, wrestle around with ethics, wrestle around what is ethical, what is unethical?

I tell you the only unethical thing I have ever been able to discover is for an individual to deny himself. And if an individual thoroughly enough denies himself, believe me, he's unethical because he'll wind up by denying himself and everybody else and everything across the eight dynamics, pang! So that's real unethical—also immoral.

And you'll find out the downgrade of everybody was when he denied his own strength, truth and power. And so you have to solve that. But it's a solution that comes rather easily.

There are even many people just say, "Well, is it right to be cruel?" And they will writhe around and they will beat their skulls in, and that's the answer they finally come up with.

Okay.

GETTING UP SPEED, PART II PAGE 2 2ACC-02B - 17.11.53

[[Category:Lectures]]
[[Category:Lectures 2ACC]]
[[Category:Lectures 1953]]