View source for Randomity and Automaticity (Continued) (1ACC 531104)

'''Series:''' 1ACC

'''Date:''' 4 November 1953

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

----

← [[Lecture_Index_1ACC|Back to Series]]

14 53Cont 54 4 Nov 53 Randomity and Automaticity, Proc to Resolve,cont.

[This and the previous tape appear as a single lecture in the master list.]

Continuing this morning lecture, I want to give you the balance of this randomity processing.

It must be obvious to you that that which has been chosen out as an opponent will then attack the individual. Let's get the concept of resistance to evil as the great contribution of an organization of which you've not heard at all, called the Christian church. There's nothing between me and the Christian church because I don't resist them. But they teach resistance to evil.

There's a fellow by the name of - I don't know, I think his name is Sheen, or something. (There's no sheen to him though!) This guy last night was - had a - had a gorgeous lecture on. (Somebody turned it on by accident.) And this is a real character. The first - the first thing he does - he walked up to a blackboard and he wrote down what a nurse should have. And the first thing was a nurse should have an incision. And... You think I'm joking, but you could actually go get this tape. And the second thing a nurse should have was cheerfulness. And the third thing she'd have is a sense of the invisible. In other words, "Let's you and me play hidden influences, huh?"

Well, he gave a long lecture on this. And the reason she should have an incision is - he couldn't quite put this in but somehow or other... It doesn't have to be a physical incision you understand... And I'm surprised at this old boy, frankly, I'm surprised at him - at his age! I never ran into any nurses that didn't have. But anyway, not to make his spiritual guidance tawdry or more bawdy than it is... He goes on for some time with this.

It's remarkable that the fellow is applause happy. He is uncertain... Remember the applause scale in the recent charts, and so forth? The applause scale? Hungry for applause and - oh, no, he - he'll just get applause; it doesn't occur to him one way or the other that he won't - that's the top of the scale, toward the top of the scale. And then you run on down to: Certain he won't get applause. Well, somewhere along the line he gets uncertain about applause. Well, Sheen is dramatizing it, but madly. And it's very curious to sit there and watch the Tone Scale operating.

[Editor's Note: The charts referred to in this lecture have not been found.]

But it's no wonder that this boy has got a very good command of audience right now because, brother, he sure backs up the hearse-operations, blood, and so on, all in a pleasant tone of voice, just as though he was talking about flowers, and so forth. And he's hit the Christian acceptance level right on the nose: death, blood, suffering, suffering, blood, bandages with pus on them, so on. He - he's just - just cracking it right there beautifully. Just gorgeous to watch the Christian church in operation - just gorgeous to watch it in operation.

Resistance to evil. How the devil would you make the most evil culture you possibly could make? Point out that something is evil and make them resist it. That's the whole trick of the universe: resistance. Because that means matching wavelengths, which means entanglement. That is evaluation on what you should choose out for randomity. And, brother, anytime you choose some randomity, please choose something that is bright and fast. Don't consider any other kind of randomity is worthwhile at all.

A gentleman a couple of hundred years ago, five hundred years ago, a thousand years ago was entirely aware of this - "What, you cad! You dare cross swords with a gentleman! Flog him!" You know? "He wasn't well born. I don't dare stab him."

Well, that sounds silly. But the fastest way in the world they could have caused the deterioration of the state of being a gentleman was to have dueled indiscriminately. See? Choosing out for randomity people who weren't gentlemen. And as long as they were gentlemen and dueled only with gentlemen and killed only gentlemen, and would only deign on the field of battle to slaughter other gentlemen, and as long as this code continued and until Christianity got to it, the world was in a rather firm grasp, believe me. These fellows, actually, really didn't know that the peasantry existed. They knew it in a sort of a side way that there was another being around, sort of like you know there are mice in the world.

But to get the state of mind of such people would be rather difficult today because everybody is equal today. Oh boy! That - that's a real operation: resist everything. You finally wind up with everybody playing "the only one" and everybody's lonesome and nobody's got any friends. You see how that would work? Resistance to evil.

"Now, I'll tell you what's evil," the Christian church says. "The devil is evil!" He doesn't exist, you see. I mean, there is no being, an evil being, known as the devil, who has this and that. Well, that's what you resist; so that gets them to fighting nothing. Well that confuses the dickens out of them, and they said fight this and fight that and fight something else and then they finally said, "Fight your own original sin." Oh! Go back on the time track, in other words, and fight yourself.

Resistance to evil. And out of resistance to evil you get, actually, the entire pattern of modern aberration. You want to know - you want to know what modern aberration is all about: You get some preclear and they can't stand dirt. The idea "Oooh dirt! Nnh!" Yeah, you'll see them - every once in a while they get so bad off that they carry pieces of toilet tissue in their hands and touch doorknobs only with the tissue in their hand. You go around New York City where the space is scarce and you see this quite often: somebody opening doors with a piece of toilet tissue and then wadding the tissue up very daintily and throwing it away. That's resistance to germs, resistance to dirt - contamination. But notice how hidden it is.

Do you know, frankly I don't know whether a germ exists or not? I happen, unlike medical doctors, to have studied pathology. You go in on most medical doctors and talk about bacteriology and pathology and biochemistry and they say, very intelligently, they say "Huh?" That's the truth.

I almost fell flat one day. I walked in a place - I'd sent a couple of... I was in a port that didn't have any naval hospital and I had a couple of boys who were bad off bacteriologically and so I went over to see if there was a town doctor to take care of them. I went into this place and here was an old guy and he had a back room full of slides and microscope and stains and doves and all kinds of things. He was a bacteriologist as well as being an M.D. He was quite interested - quite interested in the problems involved. He immediately took slides and he took specimens and slides and he went back and examined them very thoroughly and pronounced his adjudication on the subject of bacteria by having looked at the bacteria. See how peculiar this was?

Do you know that you walk into any medical office anywhere in this town and you simply tell them, "I think I have whumpbitis," and the fellow will look at you and wonder whether or not the whump gland is swollen or something and then promptly shoot you with Formula 627 that just came in in the morning mail from Abbott & Company. They said it was good for this; he doesn't know whether it is or not. He'll keep on shooting people with this for the next two years until all of a sudden Abbott & Company says, "We've just found out it isn't any good for that." If he is sold on the idea of disease and if disease is caused by bacteria and if the bacteria is visible in a microscope, it would seem that the happiest and quickest way to find out if somebody had a certain disease would be to simply take a specimen of the blood or something of the sort and take a look at it. That's Pasteur in operation. Well, they don't do that. This old boy is a freak. He's sitting out in one corner of the world... He actually looks for bugs. I don't know whether bugs exist or not, but I know that if you - if a guy has an agreement that certain biochemical compounds will give him assistance, why, he evidently gets well from it. But I know if he's really convinced there's disease, he's a sick man. He's real sick.

A young girl ... It'll break your heart sometime, you see this pretty little girl and she comes in and she - she's real sick. And you noticed as she opened the door to your office that she used a piece of paper or she merely diffidently touched the knob. Look; notice things like that. She's just scared of dirt. She's scared of bacteria. She isn't going to touch; in other words, she doesn't dare reach - what? Something which she has been caused to resist and they've taught her to resist it.

So the next on resistance is, of course, an inhibition. And just below that, desire. In the next life you'd see this character gloriously wallowing in all the dirt they can find, wearing old and ragged clothes. See? See how the cycle works? So you teach people mental hygiene and safety. These - this particular bunch of kids that they're training today in schools are going to be worse off in terms of accidents. The number of accidents in America twenty years from now is going to be staggering because everybody has been taught to resist accidents. So you resist accidents, inhibit accidents and then you turn up wanting accidents.

How do you manufacture fifty million accident - prones? By arduously training all the schoolchildren in safety. You make accidents real scarce in their minds. There's plenty of accidents out there - anybody can have an accident. And you show them that the whole world is running on a sort of an automaticity and they can't do anything about it so they have to be careful.

How do you disenfranchise a thetan? You show him that he has to resist something because it's bad for him. This means he's not that powerful. How do we solve it? You have the kid be the accident and then have the kid be himself and be the accident and be himself; and so forth, till he gets all over the idea of fighting accidents. That's what you're trying to get him over. You're trying to get him over the idea of fighting and resisting as something bad because he thinks these are bad, you see. They're also taught that fighting is bad, you see. I mean, it's a real squirrel cage. They're taught an accident is bad and then fighting is bad; and so if an accident is bad then you've got to fight accidents, but you mustn't fight. And they're all caught in that - in that squirrel cage. And it results in automaticity so that you get people who can't think and who are excellent slaves.

How do you make slaves? It's not allowed today to use an electric shock machine on people who are normal in order to involve and engage them in slavery. That's not allowed today. It's only allowed to educate them into slavery. That's allowed. All right. That's not even bad, by the way. Whoever wants to make a whole bunch of slaves, that's perfectly all right, as long as they don't get me too involved in it.

And that's really all I've objected to for a number of years. And I think the only reason I came out in the open and started on the subject of Dianetics and Scientology was I told them there was going to be a war with Japan - I happen to like the Japanese people; I've never chosen them out for randomity; I spoke Japanese when I was a kid - and said the Japanese national character is such that if you push them so far and do so many things that cost them just so much face in the Orient, they will then have no other choice than to commit suicide by declaring war against the United States. They'll have no intentions of trying to win the war; they'll just commit suicide. And the wild abandon of a Japanese committing suicide is comparable only to a Malay running amok.

I had several articles in 1936, 1937, 1938 on this subject of: Japan means to conquer the Orient and if she can't do it she'll have to commit suicide. So the United States has to decide whether or not it is part of the Japanese empire, which is to the effect, does it approve of the Japanese empire and is it patting it on the back and working hand in glove with it? (This was perfectly easy, by the way, because the Japanese were practically enslaved by American ideas.) Or they have to turn around and say right now, before Japan gets it all built up into forty-five-thousand-ton battleships, "Naughty, naughty," and slap their wrists. So if they commit suicide now, all right.

But the years drifted on and Sumner Welles' company, Tidewater, kept selling oil and scrap iron to Japan to build more battleships; and when they got it all fixed up, why, they had a big war and that was all right too, but damn them, they got me in it. And I couldn't - this was too much insult. And I think, actually, that's the only thing I've got against war. They involved me in it, they involved my family in it, and so on. It's taken me years to try to patch up havingness, and so forth, as immediate result of this confounded, stupid war. I liked the Japanese in the first place and the next thing I knew I was standing on a bridge firing away with mad abandon at Japs. Silly! Whole thing was silly.

See, it was all right if somebody wanted the war and somebody could have a good time fighting it. I wouldn't have minded going out and shooting at a bunch of Japanese while a batch of Japanese were shooting at me just for the hell of it. But to give it all this significance and to mess up things and to make a bunch of slaves out of men by dragging them into the armed forces, so forth, this was real bad.

I was in the armed forces, by the way. I didn't have to go to that war. So again, that must be specious one way or the other because I was in the armed forces way, way, way before Pearl Harbor. But I knew it was on the time track so I thought I might as well be in - in a position where I at least said where I was going to be standing when I got shot. And I was! So you see what randomity is.

Now, there is resistance only because one has become an integral part of a culture. See? Being in a - an integral part of a culture - being a part of a culture, you see, and being dependent and interdependent upon this culture for one's general randomity in existence, one then finds oneself inheriting the enemies of the culture. The difference between this, as it goes on every day of the week, is occasionally somebody comes up and decides he's tired of inheriting all these enemies; he might as well - he might as well do something about it and - do something active about it - and then not get swamped just because he's doing something active about it. That would be the other thing.

The noble thing to do is to sacrifice and go down into the noble glory of having - having served all. You'll find many people run this, by the way. They - you get some preclear, so on, you're not going to get him two inches up the track until you get him the - over the idea of sacrificing himself for mankind. This is another piece of randomity; that's the play he's playing. It's an interesting play for him. But it - he gets playing down so far and then he finds out he's too close to the footlights and his pants are on fire.

Well, the solution of randomity is the solution of automaticity and one does this by beingness. That clear?

As you process this - I'm not going to give you right this minute the endless processes by which this can be done - but, actually, you should be able to figure them out from exactly what you've been taught here in the last - first few weeks. They're just endless. When you get that as the goal of processing, you've really got yourself a goal.

Now, one of the randomities you have to solve is the randomity between the thetan and the body. And what do you know, there is one - big one. The thetan has chosen, early on the track, bodies for his randomity. Now he wants them. What's the difference? Now he wants them and can't have them; now he isn't... Just that, now he isn't.

All right. And let's take up immediately, to wind this up, another technique which I spoke to you about yesterday and which I don't think you're doing to its fullest extent: Where the preclear isn't. Now, the reason I'm taking this up is I wish to impress upon you, if I possibly can, the fact that you, in pretty good shape, will have no idea whatsoever what some - what shape some preclears are in. It takes a lot of imagination sometimes.

Yesterday I said, "How far south do you have to go?" Well, you're liable to process some preclear for five or ten minutes on "Where aren't you in the past?" And you understand that it's "Where aren't you in the present time?" of course, and then "Where aren't you in the past?" and "Where aren't you in the future?" And these things would go together. And you process him for five or ten minutes and you get a little line charge out of him and then you find out that he isn't several places in the present and so he feels better. And you think you have done the technique. Oh, no, you haven't!

If you were to look into his mind you would find out that you had to play this parlay of "Where isn't he in the past?" "Where isn't he in the present?" "Where isn't he in the future?" For hours and hours and hours and hours - particularly, "Where isn't he in the past?" Because his certainty level as he first enters it is so low that he's only partially convinced he isn't. And only by trickery does he get any certainty on not being somewhere in the past because he thinks he's everywhere in the past if he's in pretty bad shape.

A case that's really occluded and doesn't readily exteriorize thinks he's practically everywhere in the past. And some Step I's after they have been neatly and nicely exteriorized and have pretty good perception still think that they're everywhere in the past. Well, that's just their postulates carrying them forward and they're not escaping - they - they've escaped the body's randomity but, what do you know they haven't escaped their own masses of randomity and can't even see them or look at them. They're hidden, but good.

So how do you bail them out of this? Exteriorized or interiorized, you're having a lot of trouble with a case, just figure it: He's spread over the past, he's spread over the present and he's spread over the future.

How long does it take you to beat this out? How long is this technique good for? It is a Straightwire technique and is good forever. It's an unlimited technique. And this will solve the trouble. Just giving it to you now here just so we can "ruin" all these beautiful cases - and we will ruin them now - he said sadly. People won't be walking around playing "the beautiful sadness of" in this class. But you've seen all these other things in demonstration except this randomity; I want to see - want you to see that demonstration as resolving automaticity.

Oh, and by the way, I've got to make one remark with regard to that. I just remembered something. I... And it's on the subject of forgettingness so I, of course, would park it. And that is when you run this randomity technique you're going to run into the inevitable consequence of knocking a preclear who's not in too good shape, knocking his memory into the well-known cocked hat. Because part of every automaticity is "forget it."

When you start to get him being the things which are attacking him and attacking the body and all the other combinations that can be run, you're attacking, immediately, straight into the heart of postulates which say "Forget." And so his memory will just go to pot on you, but fast. And he will come for his next appointment staggering, saying, "I - I ca-can't remember what I had for breakfast. I mis- I mislaid my - uh - I mislaid something this morning. I'm not..." If you want to know what's happened to somebody's memory is they have done just this trick: They have chosen something out for randomity and then afterwards have decided that it wasn't so bad and have tried to patch it up and their memory went to hell. Because they were processing themselves with their own actions in present time and they keyed in the automaticity in the postulate. That's what a bad memory is and that's all it is: a fellow's postulates catching up with him in the final analysis.

Well, but how did they catch up with him? He chose something out for randomity and then decided it wasn't so bad and so he sided with it too and tried to close the gap. Well, of course, he didn't even vaguely run it out and it keyed in the automaticity connected with all such subjects and all of those are sitting on "Forget."

The implant one gets between lives which tells him to forget is nothing; that is not even worth sneezing about. It could only work if some other factor were happening. That's true of all implants: They could only work if they fall across a natural consequence in the business of living. And this one about automaticity and randomity when you - when the hypnotist says "Forget" and the patient forgets, he is depending entirely, not upon implants, but upon this fact that when one chose some randomity and then didn't want the randomity, he forgot. And his memory just started to go to pieces.

Now, the index of memory is the index of how much randomity one has chosen out, first, and then been sorry for and tried to patch up, second. He forgets. That - that's all there is to it. So be sure that you know this because you're going to run into it. And if you don't know this, it will worry you. It'll sure worry your preclear!

Now, in running this other process, this is an unlimited technique, it is a Straightwire technique and in Clinical Procedure is the technique which you should use on every case that does not immediately respond at Level II.

You run Step I just - just like this, you know: "Be three feet back of your head," or five feet or whatever you want.

The guy says, "Uh-huh."

You say, "All right. Now be in the first corner of the room, second corner of the room."

He says, "Uh-huh."

And you say, "Now, be over the street."

"Okay."

"Now, let's duplicate the street."

"Okay."

"Let's blow it up."

"All right."

"All right. Let's be in the center of the sun."

"Okay."

"Now let's be in the Camden sewer system."

"Okay."

You see? I mean, this guy's working like a shot.

What's happened? Well, why does he suddenly work like a shot? Well, he was a Step I and when you exteriorized him his troubles blew up because he moved out of the body's automaticity. The second he's out of the body it's just... Now, he'll come back into the body or near the body and be operating with the body again. He'll have a tendency to communicate much more slowly and remember much more poorly.

But exteriorization is the technique. Don't overlook that. It's - that is the gimmick. Exteriorization, bang! He's out of the middle of the ridges.

Step II. He didn't do that immediately. He didn't be three feet back of his head. "Well, mock up your own body out there in front of you. Now get it turning it around. Mock it up again. Mock up two or three of them. Mock up three of them. Okay. Mock it up out there in front of you. All right, now be behind it."

He says, "Okay."

Now you have to drill him a little more carefully. But if you have to go to holding corners of the room, you haven't got time for it in the clinic. You understand? You just haven't got time for it. You can fool around with it in a drawing room and it's lots of fun, but it's too slow. Because what's wrong with this fellow? He's stuck on the time track. Now, you can run Change of Space Processing and get him unstuck on the time track.

By the way, you can run Change of Space Processing - "Be in the place where somebody died," and "Be here" - on a case that has some certainty on being around and you will actually spill grief charges which will materially affect the case.

You can also just sit down and run a secondary, but you haven't got time for that in a clinic. If you want to run a grief charge out clinically, why, just boot them to the place where the grief charge was received and boot them back again; and boot them around on Change of Space Processing until you've shed the grief charge if it's right there to be run.

And immediately one did "Mock up the body," exteriorized, okay, drills, fine. But you say, "Mock up the body. Mock up the body. Mock up the body. Mock up the body. All right. Now be five feet back of the body." He isn't? You go right straight into this process: "Where aren't you in the past?" "Where aren't you in the present?" "Where aren't you in the future?" And you give about five questions about the past for every one you do about the present and every so often one about the future. And you'll find out he's buttered all over the universe - ordinarily. And all you do is just centralize him and stabilize him. And then he - then get him certain he's in his head by moving him out of his head and moving him back in again; and then move him very gently out of his head; and then get him out of the areas of automaticity. And then just running drills.

And if he shows any tendency to be unstable while he is exteriorized, you give him this process: "Where aren't you, where are you?" Geographical location. Past, present and future.

How many hours will a Step V take of "Where aren't you in the past?" How many hours will he take? I don't know. I don't know how many hours he'd absorb, actually, because it starts on a geometric progression after a while. But I've had them so darned variable that I couldn't even make a clinical record of it. One fellow was just fine after about half an hour of it; another fellow was just swell after about five hours of it; another guy was just swell at twenty hours but taking more of it from another auditor I handed it over to do to him. I mean, how liberally - it's - you see, there's an infinite variety of case. And the variety is: How loused up is he about geographical position, past, present and future? How bad off is a case? A case is as bad off as he is disoriented. How worried is he about time? He is as worried about time as he cannot establish his geographical location.

Now, I'll give you a trick about this. You ask this fellow several times - let's take this real extreme case - and you ask him several times, "Where aren't you in the past?" You see, if he can't say, "I'm not somewhere in the present," you've immediately got to go into the past. But you should ask this question anyway.

You're hitting circuits right on the head and you'll plow the things out, and then another circuit will show up and you'll plow it out, and another one will show up and you'll plow it out and all of a sudden he's in good shape. But after you - you've processed him for fifteen minutes and he apparently is in good shape, why, you see him the next day and another circuit is there. It's because you didn't exteriorize him. See, he's back in the middle of the machinery.

What's a circuit? It's a thinking machine. So he's up against these circuits and they go into activation. So you just keep threading them out. Because every circuit depends upon a misconception of geographical position; two spaces have become one space. Now here's a trick. Give you this little trick. He - you ask him, "Now, where aren't you in the past?"

All he'll say, "I don't know. No, I don't know."

You say, "Well, where - where were you in the past during an operation?" (Well, if you've spotted him on the E-Meter as being stuck in this operation, this is - this is just dynamite, this technique.) You say, "Were you in the next room to the operating room during the operation?"

"No!" Certainty.

In other words, you sneak him in to take a look by having hini be in places where he couldn't have been, And you'll have to fish around with this case for some little time probably before you find that factor of where is he next to that he was never in. Sometimes the case will tell you, "Well, I might have been in there." So let's give him some other places that he couldn't have been in.

"Well, all right. While you were in New York City," (we'll get by dates now) "while you were in New York City in 1936, were you in South America?"

"No," he'll say.

"Were you in South America - were you in South America in 1939?"

"No. No!"

See? We just slip it to him very easy. Obviously they weren't in South America. Sometimes you'll even find a case even then if they're real batty, why, they, "I don't know, I might have been. At night when I went to sleep I used to - I get the idea that I was dreaming, and so forth, and I'm not quite sure."

Well, give them some place they're sure somewhere on the track. But remember that you're asking them to look where they aren't. And it's easy for them to look where they aren't, but it's hard for them to look where they are. And in this way you slide the whole time track off of them just as nicely and neatly as you please.

And if we'd had this technique when we were working with Book One, we'd have had so damn many Clears you couldn't have counted them. Because you just use that technique, all by its little lonesome to make Clears - MEST Clears who are not exteriorized. And you just go on hour after hour after hour after hour and you just shake the whole universe apart on somebody. Probably wouldn't have taken you twenty hours to make a Theta Clear. Of course, all you want, to do it, is to do it up to the point where you can slip the guy out of his body and he's on his way. Anything gets wrong with a case, give them that one.

Okay?

Call it a morning.

[End of lecture.]

1st ACC (4th November 1953) RANDOMITY AND AUTOMATICITY (CONTINUED) PAGE 11/ NUMPAGES 11

[[Category:Lectures]]
[[Category:Lectures 1ACC]]
[[Category:Lectures 1953]]