View source for Rationale Of Create Series (1MACC 591120)

'''Series:''' 1st Middle-American ACC (1MACC)

'''Date:''' 20 November 1959

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

----

← [[Lecture_Index_1MACC|Back to Series]]

Thank you.

And here we are at the tenth lecture day, so it must be lectures nineteen and twenty, huh?

You know if the accounting departments could do arithmetic as well as I do, they wouldn't have any trouble.

All right. Now, let's see, how are you doing?

Oh, dear. You're doing all right.

He's doing fine. You're doing all right.

Not so good.

Doing terrible. Oh, that's a staff member. Excuse me!

Now did you find out anything… Boy, you're doing all right, aren't you?

Did you find out anything about confront and create?

Audience: Yes.

Did you? Find anything about their relatively different actions? Did you do that?

Audience: Yes.

Okay. Good enough.

Now, I'm going to give you the rationale back of this Create Series. Pretty important for you because you'll probably be processing these processes for a long time, and there's a very, very, very great deal to know about these processes.

Whenever I take months to dream up processes, they're usually standard for a long while.

If you'll notice there are a bunch of component parts here which have been around in Scientology for a very long time but haven't been assembled before. Did you – have you noticed that?

Audience: Yes.

That is usually the earmark of a peak or a plateau – gone back and picked up the gains of years.

Now, one of the first, most spectacular processes in Scientology, as opposed to Dianetics – Dianetics having to do only with the treatment of the pictures in the mind, "Dia nous." And you very often think there's no difference between these two things. Actually there's the same difference as between anatomy and theory.

"Dia nous," means, Greek, "through mind," and Dianetics is addressed exclusively to one universe, exclusively. The whole shape, size and form of Dianetics is covered in The Original Thesis, Dianetics: Evolution of a Science – Dianetics: Evolution of a Science covers it a little wider than Dianetics, it gives you some theory of rationale of how you work out problems – and Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.

Now, the second that we started moving out of that into Science of Survival, we had already escaped what you could do with pictures and we were doing with characteristics, patterned characteristics. And the Tone Scale, and so forth, actually, although it was born in Dianetics it has been carried out in Science of Survival. And in Dianetics you could have no such Tone Scale as you see with a plus and minus scale. And that wouldn't be possible at all, because the factor of the source of life does not occur in Dianetics. Do I make myself clear?

Audience: Yes.

Now that is an anatomy and Dianetics is quite successful and is itself. Now, naturally it gets included into a wider horizon that includes more universes than the universe of the mind. Instantly and immediately Dianetics would be included into something else, and so we have Scientology including Dianetics.

But, Scientology is its own rationale, and Scientology was born the day I found the source of minds and had isolated the source of minds, and looked it over, and so on, in some other way than yogi-pogi, swami-guri, you know. They all had ideas of walking and doing other things, and so on.

Oddly enough, I myself well realized I wasn't a body but I never added in this fact into any scientific regimen which is a very, very humorous fact, I mean, that – that's a funny joke.

A fellow goes on and he works and works, you know, to try to find out… Well, it's just like, you know, somebody working and working to find out what a body is. Medical doctors do this all the time. They're always cutting up dead bodies and so forth. They're always working with bodies and that sort of thing, but they seldom recognize that they're a body, you see, and if anybody is a body, the current medical doctor is one.

And – this is a very funny joke on me – I go along as long as I did, and you know, look at bodies, and look at minds, and wander around and sit in corners of rooms, and get kicked in the teeth, and chewed up and so forth. And go sit on the back of some armchair and sigh about it, you know. And then go back and pick the body up, and go through all this, really not reactively at all, but quite knowingly, you know, and then sit around and wonder what the source of life was. Very silly, you know.

But I got out of this silliness when I found whole track phenomena which was covered in 1951, the results of which are more or less sparsely covered in the only publication on the subject, really, aside from Have you Lived Before This Life? which isn't comprehensive but the whole track was scouted in 1951 and is represented today in your publication, History of Man.

Now, it took about a year to knock that thing together and by the time I got the thing knocked together it became very obvious, extremely obvious that you're going to have an awful time clearing anybody of this much stuff.

Well, in the process of doing this, I ran into all sorts of odd phenomena concerning death that called Darwin a liar! Evolution and all this kind of thing. Yeah, I found evolution, and I go back before evolution and find space opera! And I find another evolution, and back before that find some more space opera of some kind or another. Yeah, what kind of evolution is this?

So, we had to discard the accidental theory of "somebody put a bunch of mud pies together and life arrived as spontaneous frogation. That the accidental mixture of several chemicals might represent the biochemist's brain but didn't represent life."

"Any item which behaved as we clearly could observe in studying whole track phenomena, like this thing called a person, behaved; well, it certainly wasn't with us." See, this is a weird one.

As far as our technology was concerned it just wasn't around. You look in vain. We look into Hinduisms and mysticisms and other things like that. Lamaism, oddly enough, came as close to it as anything else. But who was up there to tell us that Lamaism was closest to it? Of course, it's an awful long way from it. The study of – Lamaism is squirrel Buddhism. That's what it is. That's what it is. They carted it back off a little higher into the hills, and something like that, and made up some kind of a mess-up on the teachings of Gautama Siddhartha and found out some other things.

And one of the things that utterly ruined them (I almost said a naval term there – now none of the ladies are supposed to laugh on that one) was that they evidently kept running into the detachability of existence, and they couldn't quite figure out how to detach this existence. Of course, this was actually one of the goals of Buddha, and he was supposed to have sat under a Bodhi tree and done a bunk, I mean, gotten exteriorized.

One day he sat down under a Bodhi tree and found out he wasn't him. See? That made him a Clear.

Now, if that's as easy – if it's as easy to make Clears as that, then we find he didn't research very far because I could make a Clear out of most anybody under these circumstances.

And even the cops or gangsters could make a Clear out of anybody over these circumstances by taking a Webley 38 or a Smith and Wesson or Colt or something like that, and doing R2-45. That exteriorizes most anybody!

Now, the way the Lamas got there was to sit and meditate. We've had somebody sitting and meditating, I guarantee you, our research has included it.

As a matter of fact, when I was a kid, I used to wonder what they were talking about. I couldn't figure out what they were talking about. I just listened to them in India and China and so on. I couldn't figure out what they were talking about! It was just so much pea soup as far as visibility was concerned.

And what crossed it up was – is I knew I wasn't it. You see? You see? And they were talking about being exterior, so I couldn't figure out what you were supposed to be exterior to! And therefore it sounded like a lot of balderdash to me that these guys were trying to take themselves out of themselves. That's how stupid and inarticulate I was about the whole thing.

The guy could sit on my left shoulder, you see, and listen to all of this conversation, and occasionally use my ears. And they were talking about being out of yourself. This worried me no end! How the ruddy dickens did you get out of yourself?

Later on I realized what I was up against because making somebody exterior isn't good enough. When you exteriorize them, you exteriorize them very often in a mind and you get all sorts of nonsense, old Fac One bodies, and so forth go along with them. The mystics call this an astral body. You'd call it, actually, no more, no less than a stuck facsimile or a combination of facsimiles. It isn't a body at all.

Of course, you turn somebody loose with a Fac One gun and he'll make a lot of Fac One bodies. See, all he does is plaster heavy force all over somebody and after that this person carries this as a ridge, you see. And when the thetan moves around this other stuff moves with him.

Actually, those things can be very upsetting. I moved in and out of one one time, and there was a tablecloth near at hand, and I evidently had had a body that I – you know, one of these kinds of bodies, an old Fac One type of body – that had been extinct for Lord knows how long and I'd forgotten all about it, you know, and one fine day I put out my hand and it's got five electronic claws, you know my hand! You see? And it hasn't anything to do with this body, put out five electronic claws and I'll be a son of a gun if it didn't stick to the tablecloth, and I started to pulling it away and I moved the tablecloth. It upset me no end!

And I realized the thing worked on postulates, and I simply said, "Let go of the tablecloth" and went phewwww! You know? If you ever get caught that way, just remember it works on postulates.

So, anyhow if making a Clear is simply the basis of bopping somebody out of his ruddy head there's nothing to it! Because if people don't respond to "Get three feet back of your head" they will respond to "Try not to be three feet back of your head." And if you fail in all else, you can try R2-45.

Now, here's the – here's the gen on this. This is what caused the trouble, not getting people out of bodies.. That didn't cause any trouble, it caused no trouble at all. What caused the trouble was very simple. It's they didn't appear in this universe! That was a brand-new one on me. How the dickens can he not appear in this universe?

One of these confounded pieces of nonsense. We had it made, you see. Actually in 1952, we made more Bodhis than you could count; Buddhas, under the Bodhi tree. We just made more Buddhas than you could count.

Anybody that's been out of his head has filled the full requirements of Buddhism. That gives you then the total peak of research along this line because Buddhism never realized what made these minds, energies and universes. He didn't know that that was that thing generating, you see. So he's still looking for life source and nirvana and all that sort of thing.

But much to my dismay the bulk of people kicked out of their heads feel they've lost something. And the bulk of people kicked out of their heads feel something else: they feel they aren't in this universe because they're looking at facsimiles. They are too thoroughly stuck in minds to be able to see when they're simply removed from a skull. They take the mind with them.

Now, if I hadn't known all about Dianetics at the same time this was happening, I would have been very baffled, but the individual goes out of his head and winds up with a picture of a hospital bed and a few other things that he shouldn't have, and that aren't apparent to your naked eye. Or it's all black. And you sneak him out of this blackness and he all of a sudden sees the pattern of his coat and goes half mad. Goes back into the blackness, goes back into the head and so forth.

Well, of course, the instant he did see the pattern of the coat, he had fulfilled the requirements of Buddhism, for a Clear. It didn't matter how brief because there's no time span stated on it. But it scared him stiff!

Every once in a while some fellow carelessly backs out of his head, doesn't bring his mind along with him, looks around and "My God!" Sees a wall!" Oh, horrible!" Bang! Back in his head. You see. Scares him half stiff.

Well, that's basically what I didn't know. I didn't know that people would do this. Therefore, most of the work then of 1952 on this subject went up the spout, see. How to exteriorize people.

Well, you exteriorize people, they get restimmed on a moment of loss, death, they take their minds along with them, and this is a terrific answer.

Now, don't look – overlook the fact that some small percentage, ten, fifteen, twenty, twenty-five percent of the people around maybe, or maybe only a half a percent or, I've never counted noses on it, but it's maybe somewhere between twenty-five and a thousandth of a percent, that's for sure, move out of their heads, see the room, and say, "Well, what do you know!" you know, and they're Clear and stay that way! See, don't forget that this does happen. And also don't forget that an individual has sufficient control of facsimiles run on Dianetic processing that all of a sudden he says, "Well, what do you know!" And doesn't have to make any more of them. And don't forget there's a certain percentage of people that can do that if audited with enough altitude! Enough confidence! Got the idea? See, so Dianetically there's a road to Clear. If you've got enough altitude as an auditor, if you get somebody who is easy enough to run, who is not on a substitute of a substitute of a substitute. You understand?

You get some guy that's looking at the straight pictures, you audit a few pictures, you say, "For God sakes, is that what these things are? Ha! I'm making the things!" (only basically and earlier they never told me this), and you've got a Clear on your hands.

Another guy, you say, "Be three feet back of your head. Look around. What do you see?"

He says, "I see the room."

You say, "Fine, let's move around the room. Let's take a look at it. Let's pat the body on the shoulder. Fine."

The guy says, "Okay."

Now, not always will he remain outside but a certain percentage of the people would and you've got an instantaneous Clear! Now, let's not forget that one! Let's not get so sweated up about what we're doing that the real easy ones always get missed! Do you hear me?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Some of these cases run like baby carriages, you know.

And you feel sometimes that if you don't have auditor calluses over a case, that you aren't doing your job. Well, I'll tell you, if you take one of these cases that could just go whewwww! see. Run a few engrams, whooo-whooo-whooo-whooo." Well, what do you know!" you know." Gee-whiz! What? What engrams? Oh, fine! Put them there and bring them back! Ha-ha! Ah, that's what's been kidding me along. Well, what do you know about that!" You've got a Clear. Let's not forget you can do that because you can do that.

And let's not forget exteriorization. You say to somebody, "Be three feet back of your head." He says, "Fine."

You say, "What are you looking at?"

He says, "I'm looking at the room."

You say, "Good. Go over and pat the wall" and he does. Move him around a little bit, old Route One. But you've got a Clear! Only you've got a Theta Clear. So, don't forget that that happens. See, there are some few cases that are so close to this they're practically naturals.

Now, there's a golf champ right at this moment, an American golf champ who is over here, who, looking at his body you wouldn't think he amounted to too much. But he lays into a tough course that he hasn't had anything to do with, you know. And knocks himself out a championship sixty-five, see, boom! Bah! I can tell you something, knowing something about these super athletes, he isn't in his head!

You take a pistol marksman, a nationwide pistol marksman or something like that, some bird who has terrific accuracy in the handling of force.

And you take somebody like maybe old Babe Ruth, or somebody, you know, some real champ along the line, and you say, "Well, why aren't there more champions?" Well, there just aren't more Clears, that's all.

And this boy, if you gave him the Axioms to read – we've actually done this with some of these athletes – give him the Axioms to read, "Oh!" he says," is that what that's all about! Sure, sure, sure!" You know, cognite! Cognite! Cognite! Cognite!" That's right! Oh, yeah. Well, I didn't know that! But, that's true! Yeah! That's right!" Bang-bang-bang! Blows the bank up!

It's fantastic to behold.

One of these fellows was having explained to him one time what a thetan exterior was. And he pulled the same stupid gag that I'd been pulling for years, you know.

He listened to him and listened. He tries to get some kind of – and he can't figure out what the guy is talking about. He finally pulls a long blue spark." Oh," he says, "what you're talking about – yeah, whenever I hold a rifle – you mean, when I, when I get down back of the sights, you know, and steady the hands up and steady the gun up and fire it, that's what you're talking about! That's right!" Guy hadn't been in his head for years! Now there the circumstance existed in nature but nobody knew how to ask questions, and sometimes if you ask the question of the guy who is in this circum-34 stance, he didn't know what the hell he was talking about or you were talking about. Because, you'd say something like, "Well, you know, you get out of your body, and you do this, and you do that." And the guy would say, "You do? You get out of your body!" A brand-new thought: "Somebody is in his body!" And they just get to puzzling over this, and it just doesn't make sense in any direction. Got the idea?

So, they occasionally, very, very rarely, just as rare as there are great golf champions and that sort of thing, or just as few Babe Ruths as there have been in the world, you know, well, they're – they're Clears. Get the idea?

Now, these birds are at varying levels of ability, varying levels of ability to handle force, varying levels of exteriorization and so forth, but they actually don't come into the category of moving out of their heads and seeing a hospital room. See, they're not stuck-up, or hung up. You see that?

Audience: Mm-hm.

All right. Now, Scientology has to handle then, source of universes, not source of life. That's a fantastic misnomer, unless you say life is a life form. But, a thetan creates universes, and any universes there are are created by a, or several, or many thetans. It's an elementary proposition.

Now, you say, "This assaults the idea of God and the Supreme Being" and that sort of thing. Oh, I don't know. You may get good enough sometime to create a universe all by yourself and if you did, you'd be God! Got it? I mean you're in the same order of magnitude but boy, you'd sure have to do some awful fine selling, and you'd sure have to have an awful hypnotized lot of thetans in order to bring it off! That would be God. God doesn't fall outside of these classifications or ramifications at all.

Now, somebody is liable to come along and try to make a slave out of everybody, and say, "Well, each one of you have a small spark of God in you."

Well, if he said it straight it'd be, each one of you could probably blow up to this kind of a stature in some area if you weren't careful. In other words, you could get promoted up to this kind of a stature and you could be God.

Now, if he said that, why, he'd be factual. But telling you that you're a part of a divine being which is hovering over, and looking over your shoulder and keeping your conscience and so forth, is obviously a slave mechanism.

You listen to my remarks about Christianity, I'm very sorry if they assault anybody but the truth of the matter is, I despise any organization or activity which specializes in slavery, and I don't care whether that's communism, or religionism, or politicalism. I don't care whether it's something Hitler's doing or the Pope's doing or anything else. You understand?

Audience: Yes.

If it's not good for people, I'm agin it! That's an awfully flat statement. But I don't believe infanticide, arsenic, you know, a lot of things I don't believe in. And it's just a personal peculiarity.

But you should never get wound up on – that I'm against this, that or the other thing specifically, it's just all covered in that one line. I just don't believe in things that aren't good for people and it's an oddity in this time and place. That's all. And, if somebody down here is starting a political party which is going to take all… Everybody says, "Well, he must be against unionism if he's against communism and socialism." See.

And, well, that's total identification. Unionism has done a heck of a lot for guys. I remember when ships crossing the Pacific and calling in the ports of Australia had crews they paid forty dollars a month to and they were fed rice and fish – white men were – and they were living like pigs down in their forecastle. Well, it's been nothing but unionism that has lifted the crews of merchant vessels out of this category to a point of where they can have decent rooms and decent food and aren't worked all day and all night, and kicked in the teeth. See? It's been nothing but unionism's done that.

What I object to is the guy who comes along and takes something beneficial like unionism and collective bargaining, and turns it into some kind of a cockeyed political weapon by which he tries to convince all the people in the union that they ought to be slaves again! And I'm agin that! That looks like a dirty trick to me! And again, that's a peculiarity of mine.

So, just – if I don't think it's good for people, I'm agin it, that's it!

I'm not against psychiatrists or anything else. As a matter of fact, I feel the poor psychiatrist has got to be fished out by us someday. He'll both be so far back down the corridor, in such a deep padded cell, that we'll hardly be able to get him out into the light of day. Because they go mad quite easily. And when they start shotgunning us, they're acting just like any psycho who would kick you in the teeth if you tried to process him. See?

Well, just because psychiatrists are off the beam is no reason they ought to drive people that we could salvage out, further off the beam, so our job is harder to salvage out. That's all I've got against psychiatry. You got that?

Now, your various limitations in processing are the fact that there are many things which seek to reverse this process. Not just in the society, you know. But there are things in the mind that seek to reverse the process which you are doing.

A person has become enamored with being a slave. He looks upon himself as a victim, he's a professional victim. And that's the toughest one that you can possibly get there.

And the professional victim, when you start to process him, he instantly starts blowing his stack if he gets any better, because you've taken his profession away from him.

The beggars with leprosy that you see in some countries, so on, sitting there, would be the last people in the world to avail themselves of your helping hand. They have become enamored with that particular beingness.

And the way they become enamored with that beingness is very simple. They become hit so hard so often that to survive at all they have to make up their minds that they like it. That's the only way they can possibly move out of that category, or endure at all.

In view of the fact there's no other release than that one, why, don't particularly think that one is strange or peculiar. They decide at last that the thing they really like to be, that causes no strain, or pain, that they enjoy a great deal is being a leprous beggar on the streets of Venezuela. See, they think that's a beingness! Huhhhhh!

But the funny part of it is, you can trigger that liking being a victim so quickly in processing somebody. It's very often not more than a dozen commands of "What would you like to create?" or "What would you like to confront?" or some such command, you see, that triggers them right out of being that, and they hate it!

So, it's the most nebulous state of being to remain in a state of being a beggar. See? That's very difficult to do.

Now, oddly enough, if you hit somebody and hit him and hit him and hit him and hit him and bring it to bear upon him that he has hit people and hit people and hit people and then get him to hit people and hit people and hit people, and get this overt act – motivator sequence going anyway it can be gotten going, he will wind up loving hitting people or loving being hit, which has nothing to do with love! He doesn't like anything, actually.

But this is the only mechanism he has, short of processing, to make life endurable! And when he's been totally overwhelmed, he says, "I like it."

And you'll sometimes see children giving you this, and you won't – you just don't dig what this is all about. They seem to think this is fantastic. This child says he likes something. And don't argue with it. No reason to argue with the child. The child has found out that he couldn't possibly endure it! So, he gave up and reversed his mind on it and said he liked it.

It's a very unstable state. You process him any distance at all and he hates it, and starts coming up scale on this thing.

Now, that is not true of everything everybody likes! That's the next mistake that you could make there. People can like things! But, what you're looking at is the low scale, aberrated beingness. An inversion of the ARC triangle, a utilization of one peculiar, particular factor in order to make life endurable. In other words, a person has come into terrific, out-of-phase emphasis on one thing "He likes being hit over the head with a hammer!" That's, you say, crazy.

Well, somebody says he likes ice cream. Obviously he has been overwhelmed with ice cream. No, that doesn't follow at all. The rationale isn't the same on all likingnesses.

Now, fixed beingnesses that a person likes which are highly degraded have fixed it up so nobody could find out what man was all about. Because he looked – you looked at man who was sick, and you looked at man who was well, and the sick man said he liked being sick and the well man said he liked being well. And everybody said well, man is peculiar and just gave it all up.

See, you never learn from man what man was all about. Oddly enough, you almost never learn from yourself what man was all about. Because there you were, you see, in one state, and he obviously was in another state, and then you insufficiently examined your state. So, you didn't know what you were all about.

Well, the final standoff in processing and so forth is that you are trying to regain a state where a person's own abilities can function and where a person can function.

Now, you'd have all sorts of limited degrees of being able to function. See, you'd have a lot of these things that just – well, he couldn't quite function in another society, so he'd function in this society or something. Various levels at which he could function, you see.

Until you break his opinions of what he can function in, he's not going to function any different than what he's functioning in right at that present moment. So, you're changing beingness basically by changing capability.

Well, capability is regulated by willingness. That is the thing. A person is willing to do something, why, they can do it. But a person is unwilling to do something, he won't do it. In other words, their willingness to do has a lot to do with the consequences they may think occur as a result of doing something. It has a lot to do with their adjudications, and so on. It becomes an extremely complex subject. Very! A subject we don't have to know very much about.

Their ability depends upon only one basic ability, and that is their ability to create. All abilities depend on the ability to create!

A person who is holding down a job as a janitor has to create that job every hour of the day to do a good job as a janitor! Furthermore, to keep from wearing himself out on his creativeness, he has to kid himself that he doesn't have to create it. At the same time he's busily creating it, he just says, "I'm going on doing my job as a janitor." So, you have the atmosphere of survival.

Well, now, he can confront the things connected with being a janitor. That's what he can confront. To get him to be anything more, or get him to aspire any higher – not that there's anything wrong with janitors, I wish we had a few good ones in HASIs. We very often do have, sometimes not.

But his confrontingness is evident. But running confrontingness isn't the whole answer, and so confrontingness has to go back to creativeness, or creatingness. But between create and confront you have pretty well the whole answer. Pretty darn well the whole answer.

Now, the original processes way back contained a very successful process called Creative Processing. It's covered in Scientology 8-8008, and is pretty good stuff, except that, as you cause the preclear to create he may run into the second factor of automatic slips on the cycle of action.

He gets a bank swollen up on him because any time you improve one picture in a bank, you improve them all, because a bank depends on the person's ability to create pictures. You improve the person's ability to create pictures, and all the beheadings, and the drownings and everything else improve, too. That's the trap.

Now, we improve his ability to create, we're going to improve the ability of pictures, aren't we?

Audience: Yes.

Well, they're going to slip on the cycle of action, so therefore the more he creates on certain subjects and objects, the more destruction gets run in on the thing, or the more plus – minus randomity.

We get him to create something, it does a slip over here and we've now got plus and minus randomity, one or the other, or both.

We run "Create, create, create." And the next thing you know the person is going dzzzzzzzz." I'm dead" or "I've got to kill them" or "I've got to kill me" or something of the sort, et cetera. Got the idea?

In other words, you get him started creating. He's already prevented himself from creating.

Now how did – why did he do that?

Well, such civilizations as Arslycus depended entirely upon enslavement of a thetan into creativeness. He was made to create! Well, he could only be made to create because he himself had made others create. And there's enforced creation all over the bank.

Now, his argument against this very early on the track was to set up a series of postulates which only processing would eventually undo, that if he creates too much, and he doesn't like it, why, something will get destroyed. He had arguments on the subject of creating too much.

Just as the Bank of England would be very upset about somebody who could mock up one pound notes. If the guy mocked up perfect one pound notes, the Bank of England would think up some method of dimming down his creativeness.

Now, there's the basic bar and barrier on the track. And to fish somebody out, it is necessary to improve his ability to create without consequence. And you can make a strong mark underneath that particular classification.

A person has to be able to create without consequence!

If he can create without consequence then he will be able to create, then he will be willing to exert more of his capabilities! But he will not be able to exert more of his capabilities if he cannot create without consequence! If he has consequences that nail down his creativeness, then he won't create. Therefore he won't do a better job. Therefore he won't improve as a case. Therefore he won't make his body look better. Therefore he won't improve his marriage.

He knows what kind of a marriage works! A horrible, brickbat, frying-pans-out-the-back-door sort of a wife is absolutely necessary, you see, to a calm, quiet, orderly marriage!

Now, she knows what kind of a husband is necessary to a marriage. Absolutely! She's got him absolutely taped. He sits home all day in his stocking feet and never does a tad of work. And that's a safe kind of a husband to have. In spite of all the randomity that occurs around it, this person is not willing to have, or do, or make a better existence than that because there is too much consequence connected with doing so!

This kind of an existence you could make and get away with, but don't make that kind of an existence!

Right in the middle of London they're building some of the most beautiful stores you ever wanted to see. They're gorgeous. It's going to take years before the public ever goes in them. There was a beautiful shopping center from a British public standpoint up on Notting Hill Gate, along the gate there. That was an absolutely gorgeous shopping center. Little tiny shops, fish stores that you slipped all over the floor on, and absolutely slimy sidewalks in all directions, and very narrow, and too much traffic and you couldn't move through anything, you couldn't get anything done. But the stores were there, you could buy anything in them, and everything was all covered with dust. The place was jammed as a shopping center.

Now, they've swept it all out and put in great big beautiful stores. Well, somebody is trying to create! Good! But it's sure going to take a while before anybody really patronizes it.

There's an interesting fact!

Now, your – your creativeness monitors your havingness. Because you will have but very little more than you can create, see. One way or another, if you feel like you can create some part of this thing, you'll have it.

Therefore, we see somebody with an old, wrecked car. Well, that car doesn't run, the tires all go flat and the battery is never able to start it, and so forth. Give him a good car! I dare you! Man, he's going to be unhappy with that car. He's going to run that into walls, and flatten the tires, and let the battery go out. And you say, "That boy is certainly doing terrible things to that new car."

No sir! He's making that car at a level he himself could have. And he knows what kind of a car he would make, you see, which is just a little bit worse than the car he could have. See, he'll have just a little bit better than he could make, because that kind of puts enough ceiling on it so he won't mock it up carelessly or unmock it carelessly, see. Gets it all taped one way or the other.

Therefore, a thetan will not have a cleaner, clearer mind, or a weller, better body than he himself feels it would be comfortable to create.

That's a fantastic thing!

He is able to create, his ability to create never dims but his willingness to exercise it monitors the living daylights out of it. That's fantastic when you begin to look it over.

Therefore, you could change a fellow's postulates, you could move him all around, you could shift his bank left, right, and center. You could change him, shift him, make him well, anything you cared to do in Dianetics.

But until you have changed the attitude of the source of universes toward those universes, he won't create a much different universe than he's been creating before.

You, of course, could come along and shift his universes! Hardly even ask his permission.

Auditors used to do this in Dianetics all the time. Run out some series of pictures, and this fellow could walk! Guy says, "Wow, you know, look what I did."

Yeah, that's right, "Look what the auditor did." The pc had nothing to do with it.

A few days later, as an auditor was telling me the other day, you know, the pc lands up in the hospital with ulcers. Somebody speeded the mock-up up, so he's got to slow it down. He's been overwhumped.

Without making him willing to do more in life, we remodel life. The way to make him more willing would be… Oh, there are several ways: You could get his overts off. You could do this. You could do that. But you'd have to change the willingness of the creative source. And that creative source is you! It may be you via a circuit. It may be you via a mind. It may be you via this physical universe and your body and a circuit and a mind. See!

I don't care how many vias are on the line, it's still – not necessarily you, I'm talking about the highly generalized you, as you speak to a pc, see. It's not a different id, ego, on the left side of the ventricle, you see, which is wound up by the censor, which looks in a looking glass and sees something through the eyeballs. It's all a bunch of balderdash that's been kicked up. It's too darned simple to hardly confront.

There's a guy, and that's it. And he has capabilities, and these basic capabilities are to create, and to continue created.

Now, the funny part of it is, is after he's created something, he can look at it. He can combine it, associate it, recombine it, do this, do that and so forth, but each time he does that he's creating a new combination of forms, terms, relationships or something of the sort, and continuing in creation old forms, types, sizes and shapes of relationship. You got the idea? But he's creating!

And we're right up now at the top of the Axioms. That's why we're dealing with OT processes. We're right pushing the top!

And right on down to Axiom 10, you have trouble. Below Axiom 10, there's no trouble. You could probably undo the things below Axiom 10 but down to Axiom 10, you start to shake any of these things up very much and you shake up the rest of the situation, and you get back to the Create Series whether you would or not.

Well, now, the Create Series has tremendous liabilities. Why?

Because, so help me, he's still creating the first thing that he ever created! He's obsessive on the subject of creativeness. And if there's anything wrong with a thetan, that could be stated down to be totally wrong with a thetan, it's the fact that his creativeness has now become totally obsessive, and almost never self-determined!

There's nothing wrong with – creativeness but there's a great deal wrong with obsessive creativeness, and that's pretty different.

A fellow going on and creating and not even knowing he's creating? Why, he's nuts! And yet, that's what makes a mind, that's what makes a body, and that's what makes a universe. He knows nothing about that he's doing any of these things. He couldn't take any responsibility for it at all.

Why? Because he already knows the consequences of making them so he's going on making them because the consequences of making them are so great that he'll slide over here, and he's liable to get into serious trouble if he – even if he found out himself he was making them, you see. He'd get into trouble. So he – although he goes on and makes them, he doesn't let himself find out!

And demons, and dragons and things that go boomp in the night are always appearing before him, and around him, and things are going haywire, and zraaahhh, and so on, and after a while he gets so confused that he can't really occupy ability level or do anything particularly and he's just kind of fogged up, and – and then he says, somebody must be fogging him up. By golly! That's sure right, he is!

But, he's not going to find it out, with you just coming along and saying to him, "Well, you're creating everything and it's all your fault, and it's just your obsessive creativeness that's gotten us all in trouble and…"

I'm afraid that would not be the proper approach. But, there is a proper approach and you're doing it right this minute!

Now, you're running Creativeness, and then taking the edge off. Because as far as functions of life is concerned in seniority there are just these two things: Create and Confront.

You say, "Yes, but the cycle of action says create-confront-destroy." No, destruction is simply a new creation against an old one. So, there is no destruction. Even though things lie around in flinders, it's only there because of creation. Both the creation of the thing originally, and the creation of a force which destroyed it. Now, that's – that's the score.

You've got create and confront, and that's all you've got. Confront is survive. Continuous confrontingness is continuous survival. That's it.

Your track then is run out, squared around, done this, done that, the liability is taken off the case, all this kind of thing occurs one way or the other, by a person cogniting on this or that, or looking it over and reassessing his values, and stopping the automaticity of it all on the subject of create and confront. And if you've got create and confront out, most of the other postulates will fall out, and only one thing has to be rehabilitated strongly after that, as an individual thing, and that's postulates. The making of postulates has to be rehabilitated, but that's a kind of a creativeness, too.

You wonder why you don't make postulates anymore, well, you just made postulates, made postulates to a point where they slide on the cycle of action, and apparently go over to destroy.

The only two points of the cycle of action then you're interested in are create and confront. All right.

Therefore, the commands that would run create and confront are very simple commands, and they're very easily run, and they're very easily handled on a case. The most extreme method of handling this would be by the following method.

An assessment, a very good assessment which has to do with any item that drops, as you've learned to do on any of the dynamics, see, that had to do with it. This assumes, of course, the person's got a clear needle on overts before you – before you start that.

All right, assessment – he's in session by the time you do an assessment. All right. Now, you do an assessment, you pick out that one thing there that drops, and you run on that one thing, "What part of a (blank) would you be willing to create?"

Now, I'm going to give you the extreme form, not the form you have to use, but the most complex form of this." What part of a (blank) would you be willing to create?"

With the alternate question, "What part of a (blank) would you be unwilling to create?"

Now, that takes some of the randomity off right at the beginning. Now, this is an extreme version, you don't need this much, but there it is, see. And that for a case that got very easily confused, it would probably be what you would have to use.

Now, you do have to, with most of the cases that you're going to audit, run a dichotomy on Confront. Now you scare up a lot of splinters. Let's lay the splinters back again, and put the mind in shape, see.

Now, why do those splinters come about? Here's an object, and this object comes along here and then it runs awhile in time, and then it's destroyed. Well, you start to run Create, and you bring into being the first impulses creating this object, you're going to run over here and get into its splinters. And then you're going to take this object again, in some other cycle, and you're going to take this object again, and you're going to get some more splinters, and more splinters, and more splinters, and they keep running over here, and running over here, and after a while the guy goes "Wog-wog-wog. What-what's this all about?"

I think a lot of you have had a subjective look at this thing, or should have had by this time. Right?

Audience: Right.

All right, he goes "wog-wog-wog! What are all these splinters about?" And he'll so on and so on and so on.

Now is the time to find out what he's got, so you run an alternate question, "What part of a _____ could you confront? What part of a (blank) would you dislike confronting?"

Now, that for sure would lay it in the grave, see. It's going to slide over the rest of the way onto destroy and it gets all the splinters out of road, and it lays it all in the grave, and it gets it all set and moves it back here on the track and gets it into its obsessive persistence which is what's basically wrong with it in the bank. What's wrong with the bank is obsessive persistence of mock-ups.

So, the guy gets it back, moved back, squared around, gets it center cycled again, gets various impulses connected with it off, with this alternate question. Which is just, "What part of a (blank) could you confront?" And "What part of a (blank) would you dislike confronting?" Now, that – that – just one-two, one-two, one-two, one-two.

And you'll find occasionally, you'll pick up a case that's been confronting very heavily and he gets along the line, and he's ripe for that right at the beginning. You get noplace till you could run, "What could you confront? What would you dislike confronting?" And that's one of your black cases, your cases that are all messed up or so stuck on the needle and you don't seem to be able to do anything with the case, and you can't get anyplace. You still better break down those overts, however.

You could bust right into a case with this, get at – the case somewhat straightened out right then, and then do an assessment, don't you see. It's as though somebody has already run Create on him in some way. Well, you clean that up regardless of what it is, and then get it over.

And what you do basically is this, you restimulate the bank selectively and flatten it out.

Now, the Create is very therapeutic all by itself, but it also artificially restimulates the bank in any form or version that you care to restimulate it. You don't wait for the pc to walk outside and get restimulated, and you don't depend on the pc walking in restimulated on the proper buttons in order to clear him. You got it? You just pick up the case and restimulate it artificially with running Create on anything you think has to be run, and that could be all of the subjects and items which would carry right on out to OT.

We don't even care whether the tone arm went up, down, or when you shifted the process, or anything else. That we don't care about because you're going to run it some more. You're going to run this confront on it for a while, you see.

And you say, "How long?" Well, I'd say run a couple hours of Create, or a day of Create or something like that, and then follow it through with as much Confront as is necessary to settle a needle down to Clear, or somewhere near it.

And you say, "Fine, we've got all that keyed out very nicely. Now, let's go right back and run the same restimulative button and bring it up here, and get the whole joint spinning again."

What are you doing? You're running the – you're running the ashtrays out from underneath the busted ashtrays. You got the idea?

Audience: Yes.

Because in every piece of matter there's a bunch of busted ashtrays. See that?

Now, you could selectively take anything you wanted to then, and run it up into a point where the bank was just in flinders! Yeah, but what's in flinders? And you start reassembling the ashtrays. You reassemble them with Confront.

You artificially restimulate anything you want to restimulate with Create. You find any disability in the bank is expressed by a disability in creation. Apparent disability in creation, actually only an unwillingness to create.

You make that guy buck right straight up against that unwillingness to create. And he says, "Well, I've got you, the second you asked me to create this. Quite a long time ago I learned what to do about that. Ha! Ha! Here I lie, getting deader and deader and deader. And everything is going to pieces more and more. And look at the dishabille which you're causing." Right – fits right into his victim valence – bang!

All you've got to do is run Confront, you know: confront-not confront; confront-not confront; confront-not confront, see.

Plus and minus randomity starts flying off." Hey, what do you know!" The bank straightens out, and everything starts to look clean, clear and slick as a whistle, and he starts running into lives that are stuck, and minus randomities, and starts running into this and that, and straighten all that out. And starts going back on the track, and things start fitting back into place again, and he has realizations of one kind or another, and he's got postulates flying off. And he's just doing fine.

When he got that pretty well straightened out, and he's feeling real good now, and he said, "Well, it's just fine and I think you should end the intensive, I've never felt better in my life," you go right back and run the same item on Create!

The next thing you know, he'll be able to create it without consequence! Furthermore, he will know, and remember now why he put consequences on creating it in the first place.

And he'll say, "well those circumstances don't fit the circumstances I'm in anymore, because they don't!" And he'll say, "I'll change my mind. You've got me."

I know of no other way to make an OT. Because all of them, you're going to run into the same mechanism.

Take your old Lies Process. Well, that's Create, isn't it? You try to make a new man, and he starts to die on you. The same mechanism, isn't it?

Audience: Mm-hm.

You keep running into this phenomenon, and I finally isolated it as the principal phenomena that is keeping cases from advancing or going to Clear where it appears on any given subject.

It's a Step 6 phenomena, every picture in the bank, the better it gets the better all the pictures in the bank get.

Well, Confront damps off the liability of that. You can take any Step 6 phenomena and damp it off with this Confront, alternate dichotomy on Confront. The Step 6 stuff can be knocked right straight out.

And so can the stuff stirred up by Create, and the increased abilities to create, and so forth. You can run those out again with Confront.

Now, there's a shotgun process and version of this which is very simple, which I've already given you, but I must mention. And that is you start in and run the case something on the basis of: "What could you create? What would you dislike creating?"

And then, "What…"this is the pattern, "what could you confront? What would you dislike confronting?"

Two dichotomies. Right now you're simply running one side of Create which is all you need to do with the cases you've got to hand.

Do an assessment. Run one side of Create, run that into a superrestimulation. Run the Confronting on the same object. And you're selectively restimulating and then running the restimulation and consequence off that. You can go all the way.

Now, you tell me how fast you can do this. You tell me how well you can do this. And I will tell you how long you will have to do this. But as far as making merely an OT or something low like that, why, you needn't worry too much about that. Because if you carried this out all the way, why you'd make God, and know more about Christianity than the Pope.

Thank you very much.

RATIONALE OF CREATE SERIES PAGE 16 1MACC-19 - 201159

[[Category:Lectures]]
[[Category:Lectures 1MACC]]
[[Category:Lectures 1959]]