View source for Labels - Justice - Identity (3ACC 540114)

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

'''Date:''' 14 January 1954

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

----

← [[Lecture_Index_3ACC|Back to Series]]

Okay And this is the afternoon lecture of January the 14th. And this afternoon, I would like to talk to you about some more beingness and its application in terms of communication.

You, after a while, are going to find out that there are only certain essentials that we're talking about and these essentials actually are Knowingness, Beingness, Lookingness, Emotingness, Effortingness, Thinkingness, Symbolizingness and Eatingness and Sexingness.

Now, I'm real smart. I can list those off very rapidly, but not because I wrote them down and took a look at them, because all I do is just run the span, just run the span and name its parts.

Now, I could go at it this way: no solidity, total ability, total potential, pervasion, looking to find out what one isn't pervading, down to emoting to prevent pervasion or to assist it, down to solidification so that you'll have something to pervade, down to thinking about it in case we don't have something to pervade. And then going down into condensed thinkingness and then thinking, which is symbolizations. And then we get that something to pervade with an idea in it, in other words, a Jive animal or something of this sort and we go immediately from there into appetite. And when we go from there into appetite, why, we seek further than that and we find out when there isn't enough food, why, people indulge in sex. Female voice: Hm?

That's absolutely correct. Your overpopulated areas of the world are those areas where there wasn't originally enough food.

Now you can take a family of mice – you know, once, psychology has contributed something. Never let it be thought that psychology is a dead loss. It is not a dead loss, it has contributed something. It has demonstrated that human beings are not mice, [laughter] But just in terms of any of the animal kingdom – this includes giraffes and human beings and any kind of animal. A GE is essentially an animal. He is an animal that's been brought up, in spite of itself, by a thetan.

Now, as we look over this situation, all we've got to do is shorten up certain essentials out of the food supply and they become very, very hectic about reproducing. Fascinating, isn't it? Well, it shouldn't be so fascinating. It should be very obvious to you that if you can't eat with this body, you better fix it up to have another one you can eat with and hope times will be better. You see that? I mean, the guy can slide along the track, then, to another period. It's very simple.

The first impulse towards sex actually begins with the individual at the moment he decides that he can't survive. That's the other test. That works as a technique. When you've got somebody who is pretty goofy on the subject of sex, well, you just find out places where he isn't deciding he can't survive or almost any kind of a technique you want to tailor up on the spur of the moment, which simply runs out and puts into his power the decision that he can't survive.

Now, the decision he can't survive is almost concurrent with the decision that he can't create and they're almost – they're together. So that "can't survive" comes first and "can't create" comes afterwards. Or "can't create" comes first and "can't survive" comes afterwards. It mainly depends on what subject he can't survive on or what thing he can't create, but the two come very close together.

So you see that somebody who has decided he can't survive will go into hectic sexual activity, quite ordinarily, in order to survive in the next generation. We're only talking now about animals, by the way. Don't make it an overall end of everything, because we've got sex sitting down there below eatingness.

When we talk about eatingness, we're talking about the whole Applause Scale, really. And when we say eatingness and sex, we're just making a highly specialized application of the Applause and Attention Scales, that's all. Attention is valuable, there are scarcities of that and applause is a substitute for attention and so on.

Well anyway, let's look this over and we find out that when you get applause supercondensed, you get Mr. Tiger – I like this picture because it sort of punches it up one way or the other. I got hold of this mock-up some time ago and I've been fond of it ever since, I don't know why. And I suppose there is no significance, which is what makes it significant.

But anyway, we get the idea of this tiger going through the woods and this monkey pelting a couple of old dead twigs at him and so forth. And the tiger, he doesn't mind that. He kind of snarls back and so forth and it makes a nice randomity. But then the monkey refuses to pay him any attention that is of an admiring or flattering kind. So having refused to pay him any attention of an admiring or flattering kind, Mr. Tiger decides that he is going to get some attention from this monkey anyhow, so he eats him.

Now, if the monkey had simply applauded sufficiently, the tiger never would have eaten him. And if it hadn't been for the fact that monkeys stopped applauding very early on the track, then tigers would not now be eating monkeys. But monkeys did stop applauding. They got stuck on the ridicule band and they stopped applauding and they insisted there was nothing to applaud. In other words, there was no good attention.

Now, that is simply defined as good attention. Actually, ridicule or betrayal or anything else is attention. And you'll find some character who's real bad off – they'll chatter straight out of their fundamental bank. They'll tell you – they'll tell you, "Well, just – you can ridicule mc or betray me or anything you want, just don't ignore me. Huub! Don't ignore me, please"

And the most awful thing that you can do to anybody is to ignore them. It's terrible. Sets up more appetite. If you want somebody to get to a point where he'd like to eat you, why, just ignore him long enough, see? Very simple.

All right. Now, let's look at this beingness proposition and we find out knowingness and beingness – and we have got two different kinds of an operation. Do you see that? We've got knowingness and beingness and those two things are kind of easy to confuse. They aren't the same thing. They really don't properly, as I've told you a couple times – every time I've put beingness on that scale, I've said, "It doesn't properly belong here, but we might as well throw it in here."

There isn't any reason to go into the two sides of this ledger, to amount to anything, but you can understand that beingness and an aliveness and a livingness and an awareness does cross with knowingness, but it isn't knowingness, you see? Knowingness is being aware. The bridge there is awareness. Beingness is being aware. Knowingness is being aware. And because they're connected by a bridge, you see, they can appear to be the same thing. They really aren't the same thing.

Beingness is the first tiny little entrance into energy and space, and knowingness is no entrance at all. Total knowingness is no entrance into space, objects or anything. But beingness – we've started to enter space and started to enter objects. So we're already on the dwindling spiral. Well, that's very fine to call it a dwindling spiral but really it only becomes a dwindling spiral below 2.0 on the Tone Scale.

Now, the truth of the matter is that almost any kind of livingness above 2.0 on the Tone Scale is intensely enjoyable. That is, the individual can't do anything else, but he enjoys it on the bulk of the scale.

He even has some slight enjoyment out of being bored. Did you ever have anything to do with a society which made its entire interest out of seeing how bored they could act? I think the aristocratic Roman society, toward the end of its days, was making really a big cult out of how bored could they act. The French aristocracy, just before "comes da revolution" – the French aristocracy were also doing this and so on. They were beginning to find out how bored they could act. You can always see when some society is passing down and about to hit 2.0, because they hit a strata of boredom. And then after that, all they can do is be antagonistic, they can't enjoy anything, really.

Well, if you were to look at this band of sexingness back up to knowingness and so forth and if you were to look at it from the band of, oh, 1.1 or 1.0 or .5 or something on the Tone Scale – because this, by the way, matches the Tone Scale, it's right on the Tone Scale. It's just a different way of grading, different way of stretching it out. I think 8-80 goes into that quite considerably. You've got a book that goes into that, tells quite a bit about it.

Anyway, somebody down there around .5 or 1.0 or something like that, he looks up at the rest of it and, of course, his evaluating factors are pretty well stuck in .5 and 1.0. So a fellow in .5 would evaluate enthusiasm as a sort of a grief expressed too loudly. And knowingness, a total knowingness to something at .5 would be of knowing all the things there are to cry about, see? So this is actually a condensing action: that he doesn't want to know all the things there are to cry about, so he knows less, which puts him further down on the scale.

Well, life has long since invented a method of clearing the ledger. They even – we are very, very clever. We can even clear police records. The Federal Boys institute down here in Washington, that has that big shack on Pennsylvania Avenue with hot-and-cold-running attorneys – by the way, that's the world's greatest paper chain. The motto across the door there – it isn't quite etched deeply into the stone yet – but the motto across the door of it should be "Pass the buck."

You go in there to try to find out about something that has to do with law enforcement or a crime or something – action and you say, "Well, there's been eighteen banks robbed and I've just found out about these banks robbed and so forth." They send you up to the second floor to tell somebody there. And you say, "Well, these eighteen banks have just been robbed and there's eighteen billion dollars have just been stolen."

And the fellow says, "Well, sorry. That's not quite in my department. It's next door there." They tell you about that.

And you go over to the next door and they say, "Well, you'll have to fill out a report."

And you say, "Well, the robbers are right this moment going down the end of the street. Why don't you do something about it?"

And they say, "Well, you put that in the report too."

And after you've made these reports and so forth, you keep going up floors and down corridors. They don't furnish scooters to go down the corridors, but they should. And when you finally get back to it, you've been referred back to the receptionist, who simply refers you to the door and nothing has happened. The most marvelous organization you ever saw and yet criminals are very frightened of it.

Of course, you do get some of these boys sitting out in their local offices, where they really don't have too much supervision. They've got a lot of tear gas bombs and a lot of things like that and they have a good time, every once in a while, if they can just prove to themselves that it's interstate, you know. They're not allowed to do anything unless it's interstate and then they can do something. Although the government has proven now that anything, even eating or spitting, is interstate traffic. But these guys will occasionally go out and have a heck of a time for themselves.

They do this every few years. They got mad at a fellow by the name of Dillinger, so a bunch of them got their pistols out and went down and stood outside a theater he was in – waited for him till he came out – and just shot hell out of him. I think they nicked a couple of ushers, too. But that was just a sort of an explosion from the boredom of it all.

Well, when police work gets on a big paper chain like this, there's only one thing it does well and that's keep everybody's identity nailed down. And boy, it does that more and more thoroughly. The less efficient a police organization is, the more it will dabble with identity. And when it's got identity completely nailed, you have no police.

That sounds funny because it sounds, you know, like, well, gee whiz, if they knew who all the criminals were in the country, why, gosh, gee, that would make law enforcement just grand and wonderful and, gosh, you could law enforce everybody then. Gee, gee, look at what you could do.

No, all you do when you've got them all nailed down is tax everybody. Nothing to do with law enforcement. The more a government nails down die individuality of its citizenry, the less justice the government must furnish, because it's easier for the government to find people's names and addresses in order to get the tithe – which is the real reason for police, I guess. I guess the first police were born when the first taxpayer refused to pay his tax. I don't think any police existed up to that moment.

Well now, you think I'm talking way astray, but the funny thing, isn't it, that actually today that you don't have the same sterling amounts of law that you had, for instance, a hundred years ago. They used to have cops a hundred years ago. You know, the guy would go out and he'd be looking for the criminals and he'd go find some criminals. But he might not find the right criminals, but ordinarily he did. In the first place, a police officer of a hundred years ago in New York City had to know, personally, practically every criminal in New York City.

That's funny. You'd say, "If he knew all the criminals personally, he'd lock them all up." Well, they've got them all in the files down in the FBI and they're not all locked up. But more criminals were locked up at that time than later.

These fellows used to go in and they'd look through the lineup – you went around and found a detective, he could tell you who all the criminals were in town and where they were hanging out and where to pick up somebody and where not to and so on.

How did he get this? Well, not by writing it down. He just knew it, you see, by his professional level. You know, that was his professional activity. He knew these people when they were hauled in. And in the morning, for instance, he'd walk down through the jail and he'd take a look at everybody they had locked up and ask them what they were in there for and ask some of the other boys. And he'd be on the beat there for three or four years and then all of a sudden, why, golly, anybody did a crime, he'd say, "I bet that's 'Louie the Duke.' Yeah, yeah, he left a crowbar outside the window and… Yeah, it probably is. Well, let's see, he usually hangs out down there at the Bide-a-Wee Saloon" and go down and pick him up. "Well, come along Louie" and here we go.

Also, there was less of a cleavage between the criminal and the cop. The cop was pretty degraded, so was the criminal. Criminal wasn't quite as much degraded as the cop, though. Well, nowadays, the cop is in apathy. And by golly, the newspaper syndicates had better look out because criminals are going into apathy, too, and they won't have anything to print.

The paper chain is getting better and better and better and better and better, but you look in vain for justice.

Now, you go into almost any law enforcement agency and say, "I have just this moment been robbed and my wallet stolen and I was knocked out and so forth." Boy, you'll just wish you never went near the joint. If you've ever had this experience, you just wish that you never closed terminals with that police station. Because by the time they get through with you, you're absolutely certain that you've robbed somebody, [laughter]

Female voice: Uh-huh.

Yeah, it's fantastic. Now, you want to sue somebody for something or do something like that, well, there's so much paper chain sitting there that you have to do something about it.

Now, typical of that is the notice that appears on the windshield of your car if you're overparked. There isn't anything even vaguely legal about it. You have not been served with a summons. It specifically states in every state constitution and every other doggone place that a fellow has to be processed by due processes of the law. And a due process of law specifically includes, in any code of laws we have in the United States, that a person be personally served with a summons. They don't serve anybody with a summons.

Now they leave us something or other on the windshield of your car, which can blow away or deteriorate. And somebody else might have borrowed your car and torn up the summons. And yet, do you know that if you don't reply to that in a very short space of time, they will actually issue a warrant for your arrest? On what grounds? Well, for having been served a summon and not having appeared.

But do you know how they do it? You know how they collect that and why they do it? It's very simple. Nobody wants to go down because it says on these cards that if you don't pay it within forty-eight hours, why, you should come down. If there's any protest about it, you should come down and arrange to set the date of trial. That's what it says there, if you look at these summonses. You have to set the date of trial.

What the hell are they talking about, the date of trial? In the first place, it's not legal for a city to charge for parking and it could be contested if anybody wanted to contest. In the second place, nobody has been served with a warrant. And in the third place, here is duress and that is extortion (that's its title). So there's practically no difference today between a criminal and a cop. The cop is engaging in extortion.

Well, he always has, to some degree, but not quite that flagrantly. You don't think that's flagrant because, well, that's just the way the society runs and it's only a buck, anyhow. And so you send in your dollar or forget about it. And next time you get your license, you'll find out they've got a warrant for your arrest, that now causes you seven dollars unless they serve it or…

This isn't law. That isn't law enforcement, it isn't justice. Because as the beingness runs down, the justice runs out. And you'll find your preclear as low on the Tone Scale as he conceives he cannot himself get or he himself cannot enforce justice.

There's a direct index between a person's ability to use or do his own justice or have it done for him and his well-being.

You ask somebody on this circuit – now, by the way, I'm going to run this on you here just for a second.

Now name three things you can do to somebody else.

Now name three things somebody else can do to you.

Now get some things you can't do to somebody else. [pause] Some things you can't do to somebody else.

Now get some things somebody else can't do to you. [pause] Some things somebody else can't do to you.

Is there anybody present who has not answered that last one with certainty yet? Haven't answered that last one with certainty?

Male voice: All I do is get a few.

Okay. That's right.

You answered it with certainty?

Male voice: Yeah.

Yeah well, what can't they do to you?

Male voice: They can't kick me out of my house. They can't rip my clothes off my back. They can't get me out of my head, [laughter]

Second male voice: I've tried at all those, but then when I get to thinking about it…

That is the justice index of the case, that question. And if you just run that on a preclear that long and if you're in direct communication with him when you ask him the last question, if you were to start a stopwatch, it will give you a direct time index on how long it'll take to Theta Clear him – direct index.

And I'll show you why that is. His individuality is one thing and his identity is another. And he is into the trap of trying to use identity as an insistence upon justice. "I am so-and-so, therefore, I am safe." And that's the neatest booby trap there is. Because the more he is a certain identity, the less safe he is. It's an immediate and direct departure from good sense. It's an inversion.

And he gets there by this: it's demonstrated to him continually that anybody can do anything they want to him.

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

And again, anything could communicate to you that wanted to. Duplicate it.

Now mock yourself up in a condition where anything that wanted to could communicate to you. And duplicate it.

Now mock yourself up in a condition where nothing could communicate with you if you didn't want it to.

Do that again.

Now, how many on the first one got dead bodies?

Audience: [various responses]

Sick bodies, sick bodies. What it is, of course, is a dead body.

Now, here is the boy who has gone into an identity. The most identity there is, is a dead body. That's unfortunately true. The most identity there is, is something which is completely motionless. And identity and motion are themselves a direct index. As the identity increases, the motion decreases till you get complete stillness.

Now, if you want a terrifically imposing identity, you just fix yourself in one spot very fixedly and you'll get an identity. Now, the more thoroughly you fix yourself, the more identity you'll get.

Now, that doesn't seem to hold true, because you think of a dead body as not having any right to use his name. Even though he has a name, still, he hasn't any right to use that name. But wait a minute. He has no right to motion. He has the right to a name but no right to motion.

And anybody can find him, anybody can communicate with him. For instance, as long as there's the slightest bit of life in an individual, he can protect or defend the body in some fashion. In other words, the body cannot be communicated with totally. For instance, damp might not be able to communicate with it. Earth might not be – dirt, these things can't communicate with it. He's protecting it to some degree, you see? He could still remove it into situations, one way or the other, where he has some protection.

But if that body is dead, immobile, then earth and rain and anything can get to any part of it, to the deepest part of its structure – mold. Animal runs along, it can run over it. And anything can touch it, in other words.

Somebody comes along after the battle, the body is lying there dead, why, they generally just pump a few bullets into him or whack him with a few swords or something of the sort. They quite normally treat bodies very disgracefully after a battle. They recognize this. Modern times, they plow them into trenches and send empty coffins home to the folks.

But there is the end product of MEST universe communication. Do you see that? And it's an identity. An identity tends in this direction.

Why does the FBI – now you – I fooled you. You just thought I was yapping about law and order. I'm not yapping about law and order. There isn't any law and order, that's what I'm yapping about. Why does the FBI want every criminal's fingerprints, everyplace in the land? So they can communicate with them, of course.

You see? So the better the fingerprint files, why, the better the communication. So when the communication is utterly perfect and they can reach him at all times and no communication whatever could be prevented in the FBI, then they think they have a good police system. They haven't got a police system, they got a death system, see?

And a society degenerates to a point where that system itself considers every citizen within it having no right to move without state permission and you have this along the iron curtain countries today. You have no right to move unless you have the permission of the state. You haven't any right to walk without permission of the state, really, because you're stopped and your papers requested every few blocks.

Interesting, isn't it? That's all on the basis of cutting down motion, cutting down motion. And the more motion is cut down, why, the less freedom there is. So this is other-determinism and other-restriction, which, of course, winds up in the no freedom of death. Death is the no-freedom level.

That's why we have the Tone Scale. The Tone Scale is really just the Tone Scale from life to death. Now, it so happens because of the thetan that there are levels below death, as you conceive it, but these are not communication levels worth a nickel. Because the truth of the matter is – and this will pick you up as your spirits sit there and sag, you poor people, having stuck you in a few past deaths – get this one: the only thing MEST can communicate with is MEST and you're not MEST.

So it must work out, on the basis of protection that you're doing. And if you're mobile at all – if you're mobile at all, it must be that you're capable of some protection. And the degree of protection of which you are capable is the degree of mobility which you can achieve with that MEST which you're trying to protect. See that? All right.

It could be said this way, like I was saying it before, which was why you got so depressed: that the MEST universe can, at any time, communicate with you directly. Well, it can communicate with thetan plus body pretty well, but it can't communicate with a thetan except as he chooses.

Now, the individual who steps out of the body and then can't see anything right is simply really exercising his methods of protecting himself. He isn't in communication with the MEST universe, because he conceives communication from the MEST universe to be dubious at best. You know, it has dubious value.

MEST can communicate with MEST. It's all very well to say the MEST universe is composed of consecutive spaces, so therefore any part of the MEST universe can be in communication with any other part of the MEST universe. This shouldn't make you unhappy.

You'd think it was a funny football field, where goal post one couldn't communicate with goal post two, because they were on two entirely different planes in two different towns. That would be a real silly game, wouldn't it? So if there are uninterrupted spaces between here and Jupiter or uninterrupted spaces between here and the next island universe, why, of course, there can be no game. It's just the game is pretty big and can get pretty vicious, but it's a big playing field.

But just as a football player can go over and sit on the sidelines, so can a thetan at any time go over and sit on the sidelines as far as the MEST universe game is concerned.

Now, what the thetan has been doing, he's rigged himself so that this can be a fairly covered-up fact so that he won't have to remember past lives so that he won't have to have any identity in those lives. Because he's really as immobile, he believes, as he has identity in those lives.

There's nothing wrong with remembering those lives. But the more identity you kick up for him in past lives, the less mobile he becomes, the more times he's stuck on the track, if he considers that an identity as a symbol is in itself valuable.

So we come back to the definition of a symbol. The symbol is an idea wrapped up in energy which is mobile which takes, of course, space. It's energy in space, but it has mobility, it definitely has mobility.

Now, it's an idea wrapped up in energy, so anything can communicate with it, of course. In the MEST universe, anything can communicate with a symbol – anything. The book down at the library can be thrown out back and a horse can see it. He doesn't have to be able to read to communicate with the book.

Well, he'd have to be able to read to communicate with the deep significance of the book, but we're not talking about significances, we're just talking about a book. And there's a book and a horse can look at a book. So can some dead leaves look at a book. Any shaft of sunlight or any drop of rain can communicate with that symbol.

So anything in the MEST universe can communicate with a symbol, really, except for this: except for the protective instinct of life.

Now, you think life is destructive, but it isn't life that you're fighting. Many people think they're fighting life and they are hard to live with to the degree that they think they have to fight life. They think that life is their randomity. They're as easy to live with as they haven't chosen life for their randomity and recognize rather clearly that this playing field itself is a liability.

Now, the only liability there is to this playing field is that it is consecutive spaces and can communicate from one corner of it to the other, consecutively. The only liability a thetan has: that he loses his ability to protect those masses or symbols which he is shielding from communication. See that? So he is as able as he can protect. There's nothing wrong with protecting and defending. An individual cannot possibly exist without some ability to protect.

It's a funny thing that there's one thing that isn't a dichotomy in all of this and this, too, works out very interestingly in terms of an interesting comment. You can, if you wish, run on a preclear "your problems" – you know, you say, the preclear's problem is this and the preclear's problem is that. We use it all the time, very loosely, because that's our frame of reference here in this particular culture.

But do you know that if you were to Double Terminal "my problems," you'd probably get no action? You'd get no big action. You just Double Terminal out there four times. You can try it on a preclear if you want. Because I'm telling you about it, it might or might not work on you, but you get four terminals, "my problems," and you just don't get much action out of it – nothing violent. But you put up "other people's problems" as four terminals…

Put it up there, four times. Try it.

I don't see a lot of sighs around here. Getting a little action out of those mock-ups?

Now put up "my own personal problem."

Now, which one had the most action connected with it?

Female voice: The other people's.

Male voice: It's a lot of things.

Yeah, a lot – lot of action on that "other people's problems," because that's all the problem you've got! There isn't any other problem than the other person's problem. This works out very basically from this business of protection, communication.

Now, by our definition, communication is any particle flow. That's communication. So we find out that a bullet or a Western Union telegram or anything else… As a matter of fact, a thetan doesn't much distinguish, mostly because good and bad are a matter of consideration. Well, he can start to consider that bullets are valuable communications and good communications and Western Union telegrams bad communications, even though they tell him he's won a million dollars in a lottery, you see? And we've got that – that consideration enters in there that fools a lot of people. They think there are contra-survival and pro-survival elements just because of the judgment they're utilizing and the frame of reference in which they are working out the immediate problems with which they're dealing.

If a bunch of boys get together to destroy a company of the enemy, believe me, they are not going to consider any beneficial fact a good fact. The only good facts they have there are destructive facts.

So they come up and they say, "Well, all right. Let's fix up some hand grenades so they have a one-half-second fuse and let's fix them with the enemy labels and leave them in the enemy's supply dump. That'll do for a few of them. And Jet's see."

And everybody would sit around. And after somebody had thought that one up, why, they'd congratulate each other, you know, "Ah, that's a good one, that is. That's real good" and so forth. Well, it's just a matter of viewpoint, a matter of beingness. It's what company or what army they belong to, what fact is good.

Now, they find this pile of hand grenades with one-half-second fuses in their own supply dump and a half a dozen of their boys use them. Now that's a bad fact, no good at all.

It's what they're protecting that makes things good or bad and what they're protecting against that makes the bad. And this breaks down to just the business of beingness. What are they being, specifically? What are they being? Are they being themselves? Are they being the enemy and so forth?

Now once in a while, some fellow sails in at a high tone and he looks over this game and he says, "Isn't that interesting? Those fellows are being blue shirts and these fellows over here are being green shirts. Hmm. Lot of nice guys on both sides."

And he'll say, "What you guys fighting for, huh?"

Well, they've got lots of reasons. Yeah, they have more reasons than anything else.

Well, this guy who is fairly high-toned won't interfere particularly with them fighting, but he's liable to point out to them how they could make a much better game out of it because it basically looks like a game to him, you see?

And he finds that the green shirts keep all their troops waiting for two years before they let anybody fight and this spoils the game. And the blue shirts do something else and that spoils the game.

And he said, "Gee whiz. You know something? I'm going to let you fellows in on something. You're geared, according to your time ratio, to have a game here and I don't find you doing anything. Why don't you have a game?" You know, that doesn't seem right to him, they don't have a game. All right.

Some other guy drifts in and he's in real apathy. He's been whipped. He knows he can't protect anything and he's just sure the green shirts and the blue shirts alike will turn on him. Even if he's a green shirt, he knows the green shirts will fight him. If he's a blue shirt, he knows the blue shirts will fight him.

And he goes in and he says immediately on this level, "Well, killing is wrong and everything is wrong and fighting is wrong and you shouldn't do that. And what you should all get is 'Beastianity' or something." That's strictly from a self-protection method. Because he knows he can protect nothing, he has to have no action.

So you get a mockery level of the Tone Scale, which is the mockery level of the high level on the Tone Scale. You see, they look alike at a first glance. You have to distinguish between the two and the distinguishing thing between the two is how much motion is being called for.

Some fellow who is talking very, very benignly but calling for no motion of any kind whatsoever or no action for any kind whatsoever, he's on the mockery band. But somebody could talk very, very benignly way on up the scale.

Now, a thetan is in good shape and having a good game on this percentage: he's using 50 percent of his activities as attacking and 50 percent of them as defending or protecting force. He's so composed that about 50 percent of his activity has to do with attacking and about 50 percent has to do with defending. And he'll have a good game and a well-balanced game and he'll go on and he'll have a lot of fun and lots of things will happen.

And the reason I give you this is because it's a figure that holds good in almost any sport, including war. That's a good average.

For instance, if you imbalance infantry and make them a 90 percent holding force, they're going to lose. Look at France. They made France into 100 percent holding force in the Maginot Line. You can't handle infantry like that, that's all there is to it.

Now, let's take a besieged castle. The odd part of a besieged castle is it has to do so much attacking. You say, "But it's besieged. It's ringed around by its attackers and it can't possibly do any attacking, because it's ringed around by its besiegers and so forth and that's sort of the definition of the game."

Well, if you look into history and the wars that had to do with siege craft and so forth, you'll find out that about the deadliest thing to sting would be some kind of a castle like that. Because if it just sat there and defended itself, it would fall.

The besiegers could sit there and their supplies could come in and they could get supplied and they could get squared around. And nothing would happen and everything would be very calm in the countryside and it could be plundered at will. And the people would just sit there in the castle, you see, and wait to be eaten up. And maybe the castle could defend itself, but there's no time limit on how long a besieger who has full run of the countryside can besiege.

So those castles became unbesieged, which themselves would spend about 50 percent of their time holding the castle and the other 50 percent just raising hell with the besieger.

How did they do this? They'd have sally ports. Small group of men slide out in the middle of the night and, the next thing you know, why, eighty baggage wagons go up in smoke. And then there's a small group of cavalry go out and they just cut the communication lines to pieces. Then the next thing you know, the besiegers are besieged on the other side and they're caught in between by a fairly sizable force, one way or the other. And boy, it got real random.

Siege warfare is an interesting study mostly because it has ceased to exist almost and appears to be an entirely new picture. But what do you know, our old pal – our old pal Hitler didn't know anything about siege warfare, he decided that you could neglect armed posts. He decided you could neglect forts. And he did with great success because he was fronting generals who didn't know how to use them.

And then as the war progressed, the boys realized what he was doing, so they started specializing in siege warfare and a few other things like that and "the great Wehrmacht were not." You know, they just disarmed points and that sort of thing and just cut his communications and everything else to ribbons. And so this huge machine depended entirely for attacking and no protection. Oh boy, it lost.

In any game of life, that'll happen. If in business you simply were to sit still and take only the inflow and never do an outflow, you'd starve in a very short space of time. So we

get this whole picture of balanced flows which this universe has so pat; outflow, inflow. And a good game is 50 percent outflow and 50 percent inflow.

Now, you get a preclear come along and the preclear will say to you, "You know, I outflow all the time and that makes it possible for me to hold off and defend myself one way or the other." Uh-uh. You won't find him in very good shape. We'd call this a stuck flow or something of the sort.

This fellow must have some ability to attack in order to protect. Just to protect, he has to attack. So the fellow who says, "I'm going to sit still the rest of my life and have peace" has just signed his own death warrant. You see why he has? He's still going to be in this universe.

Well, there's your problem with a preclear, is how much can he defend? The other part of the problem is, how much is he trying to? And that gets to be grim.

If Japan had not fallen when Japan fell, Japan could have won the war in the next wave because Japan spread herself all over the Pacific in such a way as to condense the US forces into a raiding force. Then it became elementary to roll up the Japanese from island to island. Became elementary. Why? Because Japan was spread all over the islands, of course.

Well now, all things being equal and atom bombs aside and if somewhat like manufacturing abilities had been more of a parity between the two, by the time the US had rolled up Japan back onto the home island, she theoretically would have left a very heavy raiding force, very compact, which could still have raised hell with the US forces.

And we could have gotten this: where first the US is spread all over the Pacific, Japan rolls them up with a raiding force, you see? Then the US is all compact now, so it rolls up all these Japanese spread all over the Pacific. Then the recurring wave of that, if it hadn't have been for the amount of destruction which was done, would have been simply for Japan to now be compact and come back and roll up all the forces that had left, see, having been buttered all over the Pacific.

So we get your give and take, back and forth.

Now, your preclear has gotten himself spread out all over the universe, one time or another, and he's still got fixed ideas about what he's trying to defend all over the track. And our problem with such a preclear who is (quote) "buttered all over the universe" is that this individual has recognized his failure to protect on practically every playing field with which he has a communication. And he's in communication with playing fields rather than knowing about playing fields.

He's in communication with other planets. He's in communication with all sorts of things – fixed. And you'll find such a preclear with enormous corded communication lines wrapped all around him and everything else. He's long on communication and very short on being able to protect and defend.

Well, when you look at the fact that his beingness – his beingness is as good as he can grant beingness to other things – if he has the idea he has to protect everything to which he has granted beingness or is granting beingness, if he then has to protect it, he isn't going to grant beingness to anything.

And so we get a pattern case and this is a pattern case. You'll find this case many times. He's buttered all over the place. You ask him "where he is not" or "where he's not thinking" or something like that and he has a difficulty in telling you – a great difficulty, great communication lags on the thing.

"Well," you say, "all right. Now, be the bed."

And he can't be the bed. It's the same thing, see. He has the idea that if he is anything, then he has to protect it and he knows he can't protect anything. And what you call an apathy case would be a fellow who not only can't attack but can't defend, either.

So we get this thing rolling up in this fashion. The fellow starts out about – he starts out all attack, 100 percent attack. And then he gets some things to hold and that breaks down gradually to it's 50 percent attack and 50 percent protecting the things he holds.

Now he gets so many things to hold he figures there's a scarcity of an ability to attack. He figures there's a scarcity of attention, you see. And he starts down to a point where he's only defending. Now he's gone up to about 100 percent defense and then that comes down the line to less and less defense. They're still his, but he's not defending them.

And this rolls on back to where he's only defending 50 percent of what he has and he's only defending 20 percent and 10 percent. And here's where you start into your apathy case par excellence. The next thing you know, he only has a body. And that's all he can grant any being to and that's all he can defend.

Well, boy, the thetan that only owns a body is in horrible condition. He won't be able to get mock-ups or anything else. He can't get a mock-up of things which are not his or things which will not potentially be his. So we get this problem of invested beingness, of communication, of identity pretty well wrapped up. You see that? See how it could deteriorate.

Now, it would start out, of course, at a higher echelon than I gave it. It'd start out just knowing about things and not attacking anything. And he'd have to split the universe into two halves, the blues and the greens, before he could really engage in any kind of a random game. His knowingness at that moment would have to drop to 50 percent. See that?

So actually, there is, really, just an intellectual philosophy that goes along right with this, is how would you lead a peaceful life? Well, there is a way to lead a peaceful life: know all there is to know about everything on the process of being able to be everything.

Now, you could know all there is to know about everything, in terms of symbols and data, but be unwilling to be anything and you'd be at the bottom of the scale because you'd be dealing exclusively in symbols, You wouldn't be dealing in real beingness.

But life has a mechanism which solves this. After a body is ditched, dead, why, the thetan says, "Okay. Now I'm on a no-ownership, no-attack basis." And he doesn't know much, but he's got some kind of a system and he just jettisons all this – you know, just cuts the communication lines as nearly as he can. And he grabs this next body and he says, "Now I have that force which potentially can attack everything and own everything" – pardon me. He says at first it can own everything – a little baby owns everything. And then he gets along to a point where he can attack everything – then he's into his teens. And then he goes from there into defending family. He's got a unit he has to defend, he can't attack any further and then he sort of starts to fall back and he can't even defend his family. And he gets back to a standard Homo sapiens.

There's your banker, usually, your drug clerk, your bus driver and so forth. He'd have a little bit of a hard time defending his body, truth be told. You ask him very closely about it, he'd tell you there were quite a few things that could knock in his body. Well, that's a funny state of mind to be in, you know. The body shouldn't be the last point of ownership.

All right.

BEINGNESS, JUSTICE, IDENTITY PAGE 2 3ACC-23 - 14.01.54

[[Category:Lectures 3ACC]]