View source for SOP 8-C 1st Lecture (2ACC 531117)

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

'''Date:''' 17 November 1953

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

----

← [[Lecture_Index_2ACC|Back to Series]]

Okay. Second section of the November 17th morning lecture to the Second Unit.

We have this drill. All right, now I've given you the basic basics on this drill. I want to give you a little more and I want to give you why we're doing this.

You could take a preclear, by the way, and simply have him double-terminal blackness, each time "What is the significance of it?" and he'll line charge like the devil and won't get rid of his blackness, because he's got a machine that keeps making it all the time.

By the way, nothing is permanent unless he's got a machine making it permanent. You got the idea?

He can't send himself anyplace, really, just straight out, unless he says to something, "Now, you indicate that I am going there, and I go." So you find nearly everybody's got one of these silly machines that every time he thinks of someplace, he's there or has a facsimile of it.

After a while, he gets a machine that says, "Every time I think of it, I'll get a picture of it." And that accounts for these—the fabulous skill with which the thetan throws these facsimiles at himself and so on. He makes them and throws them at himself. The tremendous ability of a thetan is just beyond—oh, you can't describe it!

Well, now we have this list and it goes from this column over here on the Chart of Attitudes from the bottom to the top—just the emotional list. And we put that emotion into everything.

Now, how do we do that? We say, "All right. Now take a look at that case. Now let's put the emotion of 'slight resentment' in it." And then we put the emotion—"Now change that to the emotion of 'diffidence,' of not quite wanting to be there." Diffidence, you know, something—just something terribly faint, you see? That, of course, is the faintest one of cowardice. And—in other words, the faintest kind of emotions a person puts in there—nothing dramatic. You start him out and say, "All right, put terror in that case," see—he can't do it, so you made him fail. And the process to get him certain is just let him have wins, on a gradient scale, until at last he can win.

So we start over in this column, and we take the faintest variety of these emotions and we simply put them into anything and everything. Put them into the corners of the room, put them into screens, put them into drawers, floors, put them into the right foot, put them into the left foot, put them into shoes, put them into windows across the street. And just go on directly looking, with MEST eyes, at the object—or if exteriorized, simply looking at the material, exteriorized. But if he has any difficulty looking at it exteriorized, have him do it with MEST eyes.

All right. The reason why we're doing that is to regain the control of those anchor points which he mutually owns, and which comprise the barriers of the MEST universe. We're returning him into his first feeling of ownership, and then certainty they don't have to be owned, see? Those are the two stages.

Now, people who are way down have a feeling that they have to own something or it isn't theirs. Now this is an immediate—a direct statement that they can't create it.

If a fellow—I tell you, if a fellow could create a jacket, (snap) you know, another jacket, (snap) another jacket, (snap)—he sure wouldn't care how many people came up and took the jacket. He'd think it very amusing. As a matter of fact, early on the track he was very upset when people didn't come along and pick it up. But later on he got upset when people came along and picked them up. So he got the idea that although he had things which he had made scattered all over the universe—these things being held out against him—he yet didn't own the universe as well as he should, so he went out on campaigns of conquest in order to own what he didn't have to own.

A child, for instance, owns his hometown. You never ask him about it, but he simply does. If he's moved around too much, after a while he runs into enough people that convince him it's some other place, you see, and all of a sudden he doesn't own—he's moved to San Francisco, he doesn't own San Francisco. Why? Because he met some kids in San Francisco and they own San Francisco. It never—never occurred to him, you see, that anybody did own it until that happened to him.

Well, by doing this drill, one reverses being an effect into being a cause. One is causing things to feel, rather than being an effect of things which feel.

The basic terror in interpersonal relations comes about because one feels emotions from people. That's the basic. They just don't like that.

You can take somebody who is supercharged with hate, something like that, and may be all right if he's blasting it over to the right or left, but when he starts to blast it straight at you—wooww, no, no! That's real bad.

Now, the MEST universe is evidently mutually created, and it is the second universe. And we have three universes, and one is one's own universe, and one is the MEST universe, and one is the other fellow's universe. Now, the MEST universe is a mutual system of barriers on which we have agreed so that we can have a game. And one's own universe and the other fellow's universe are those things which moderate and monitor the condition of the MEST universe. But the MEST universe has gone along to a point where it, being a mutually agreed-upon thing, has decided, on its own responsibility, apparently—you see, I mean according to the thetan—that it can't be destroyed.

And you get every physicist coming along the line—this is really why your physicist is in horrible condition—his cant and his creed, the affirmations which he eats with breakfast, lunch and dinner, is conservation of energy. Morning, noon and night—conservation of energy, conservation of energy.

Well, as you go up scale, if a person can't destroy, he can't create. He's afraid to create endlessly if he can destroy nothing. So you get people trying to come back into their own, sometimes, with tremendous, chaotic, emotional splurges of destruction. They try to destroy, destroy, destroy. That's all they can think of. They're in an anxiety state which is horrible.

That's Hitler—that's his anxiety state. He—in order to create anything like Germany, he had to destroy endlessly in all directions, so that he could create something—he thought! Why, his intelligence service and German science had almost achieved the ownership of Earth. There was nothing like German chemistry. It was fabulous. And when I was a kid in engineering school, if a fellow wasn't able to read in original German, he might as well quit. Because nobody began to print anything like the number of reports being issued from Germany.

How many reports are you getting from there on science now? None. You go over, and everything is being made on an American pattern. Isn't that cute? Their whole economy is American. Because America is still at the level of creation—in terms of MEST objects—where it doesn't have to destroy everything before it can put something American down in its place. And I don't believe Germany was on that Tone Scale. But I believe Hitler and the clique which took over from an exhausted state, were. So they just had to destroy, destroy … This was the most asinine gesture of this century. They owned the world—the thinking world, the intellectual world, the mechanical world—all the worlds there were to own here on Earth, were being slowly, more and more, dominated by German equipment, German chemistry, German machinery, so on. And then all of a sudden, why, somebody has to break out a rifle. Yeah, utterly, utterly silly.

But there is the psychology—if we must use that word—of a criminal. Psychology is used because it's Homo sapiens' effort to make himself more complex. And he has gotten to a point where he has to destroy MEST, somehow or other, in order to own it.

I've read some accounts of pirate ships, where always the kids are led to believe that piracy was something very colorful. Well, it was colorful in terms of lots of motion. But their equipment told a story: It was as much as a ship's rigging was worth to be used by pirates for a month or two—as much as her hull was worth, her guns were worth—anything. She was a ruin—enMEST, enturbulated MEST. They had to mess everything up that they touched in order to have anything. Now, you see?

Now, you will see this—that's the mockery level of the Tone Scale, down there around 2.0 and so forth, that mocks everything that is higher on the Tone Scale. Because we've got a repeating cycle as it goes down. Everything is—goes down in reverse geometric progression. All right.

We've got up at the top of the Tone Scale this feeling, "Well, let's see. Let's make it run a little bit wrong so we can make it run right again." Good. More people are doing this with their bodies: "Let's see if we can make it run a little bit wrong, so we can make it run right."

Way up, the fellow says, "Now, there's a nice mock-up. Whssh! There's another nice mock-up. Now we'll take this mock-up which we have now and we put another mock-up there, and we'll get these two mock-ups interested in each other. That's good. That'll be good for so long. Now let's turn them around so they fight us. Oh well, we have to make somebody to be us." And here we go. "Now, we'll have to get some kind of destruction going here, otherwise we can't create unlimitedly."

Time is a wonderful mechanism of uncreation. Time uncreates, pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa—automatic destruction. "Nothing 'gainst time's scythe can make defence / Save breed to brave him when he takes thee hence." Well, Shakespeare's eleventh sonnet—you're pretty good this morning! Time is the great destroyer. And the thetan comes up against time, which he has set up and which he's agreeing with madly, and then he decides he'll let time do it. Not "Let George do it"—his motto should be "Let time do it."

And you know that you can very often get somebody who can't destroy a mock-up easily and just say, "All right. Now let time do it."

"Okay. It's gone."

You should wonder a little bit at this tremendous force time has. You say, "All right. Let it age a hundred years."

"Okay, it's gone." Time to destroy.

So we have, then, the automatic destructive mechanism in this society. Well, anytime he depends on any automaticity, he's—gets in bad shape. Because that's a dependence on something. And when it goes to a point where he can no longer be causative and no longer engage in motion, when you start salvaging him, why, these dependencies he has, these automaticities—depending on automatic machinery which he's forgotten about and depending on this and depending on that, rather than doing it himself—he's at the point where the motorcycle is taking him down the road, he is not taking the motorcycle down the road anymore.

And in order to make him take the motorcycle down the road, why, you just have to give him drills which makes him own and control motorcycles, not motorcycles own and control him. Simple, isn't it? (Completely irrespective of a couple of motorcyclists in this class; I've been using that for some time.)

The anchor points of the room—these anchor points here—are looked on as somebody else's anchor points by most people, do you see? He never recognizes that they belong to him. They belong to him and others, or everybody else, see?

And if we're going to create more causativeness on a case, we have to at least give him some sort of a lease on the space he's occupying. Otherwise, the space keeps catching up with him all the time, and we have this system of barriers here. You see, a game is composed of limitations, and limitations become barriers, and these barriers are such limitations to him that he just looks at it and he says, "Well, I know that stuff is real. I know it's real. It is real." And as a matter of fact, it's a lot realer than he thinks it is.

That's what's remarkable about all this MEST, it is much realer than any thetan thinks it is, and it isn't real at all. See, he's got to go up through the band of its tremendous reality, and only then he's getting up to a level of certainty where he can put up more barriers. Then you ask a thetan to dispense of all of his barriers? Oh, no! Hm-mm! There's things like privacy, there's things like this, things like that.

A lot of people are engaged totally in maintaining a distance. They use their words, they use their gestures and so forth, to maintain a distance. Such a case, you say, "All right, now what is your zone of occlusion?"

The fellow says, "What do you mean?"

And you say, "Well, how far don't you see away from you? Where can you put a mock-up up?" something of that sort.

"I don't know," he'll say, "there seems to be some kind of—if this is what you're talking about, there seems to be a sort of a shell out here, right out here."

And if you'll notice, it's just at his fingertips, see. He knows he can shove something away that close to him, you see? But something that's three inches further out, he can't do it. So his zone of occlusion is actually the motion of his arm. And you ask somebody to trace it out—it comes right straight in up against his back; he can't reach back there. That is not an ordinary case, that's a case that's pretty far down on causation. He can't, in other words, cause a repulsion or create a space wider than that. See, he's lost further ability to do so.

Space is a viewpoint of dimension. It doesn't exist without a viewpoint. The problem of space was not solved in physics and is not even defined in physics. This is—ordinarily and routinely says that it is a problem of psychology. And psychology didn't solve it and so, more or less, isn't here. Find psychology is a perishing (quote) "science" (unquote). Why? It had two basic things it had to solve in order to resolve the human mind, and one of them was time and the other was space.

Time is the co-motion of particles—planned co-motion of particles. That you're in agreement with other people on how these particles are moving is fabulous. I mean, that's—you agree that the particles move in such a way and they do. And you go on.

Of course these bodies are all in tremendous agreement. As long as you stick with a body, you stick with the agreement. You exteriorize somebody, bing! and some weird things start to happen—space starts to go wrong on him. Now, you start putting motion in people and you'll notice this—at least two or three people present will notice this—they start this exercise I'm giving you, they will suddenly see buildings lean toward them. Aaaaaaaah! And other strange things are liable to happen to the scenery. But the stuff always goes back again the way it should be. And you might not think it will, but it does.

Now, you run this scale, and then the second dynamic, and then these two, very important: disgust and ridicule. Almost anybody backs off from these. They'll run betrayal by the hour; they will say, "My parents and my thetan have betrayed me"—anything like that. "My parents have betrayed me. Life betrayed me. Everybody betrayed, betrayed, betrayed, betrayed, betrayed." But, by golly, they never come around and tell you, "You know, everything I look at ridicules me." I've never heard anybody say that in social conversation. "The whole trouble with my life is that everyone ridiculed me." Hm-mm. That's the deadly stuff. What is ridicule? It's somebody grabbing hold of one of your anchor points, claiming it and holding it away from you.

If you want to turn on the emotion of ridicule automatically with an individual, is just give him the idea of somebody grabbing his mock-up and rushing off at a distance, and then holding it so that it can't come back in again. And he'll get this nyaaaaaah-urk.

So he wants to be able to put ridicule—disgust and ridicule, for himself and for other things—in every tiny section of the environment.

I've had a preclear get so angry doing this, that although he's been completely unemotional about everything else in processing … He's just going along and life has been—he's just dutiful, obedient, you know, do everything you ask with no emotional changes, a little bit of interest, sort of a sweet, sad smile on his face the whole time. All of a sudden start putting ridicule in something, and have the guy get madder and madder and—he's putting it in! And get madder and madder: "Why this stuff? Ruff-rrr-rrr-rrr."

One exercise I hadn't done with an individual, and—I don't know, I did this with him and all of a sudden he says in a rage, he says, "If that stuff ridicules me anymore I'll bust it into little pieces." To most people, its very "stationariness," its very "held-outness," is in itself a ridicule. Okay?

So we have these items. You can also put, if you want to, betrayal. But that kind of has a tendency to sort of collapse it in on somebody. You can add it in if you want to, and see how it acts.

But the important one is the second dynamic. And when you get through with the rest of the emotional list, you just beat that second dynamic to death. And then, "second dynamic ridicule." It is a specialized emotion all of its own. Got that?

And that is the drill on which we will drill. Now, we've only got a couple of days to get this real good, see. Get this real good, so that anybody here can simply look across to a windowpane or something like that, and get its agony. You know? Real good, hot agony. And real good, hot pain.

Now, you try to exteriorize somebody … By the way, I didn't mention those, but pain, of course, is on that list. I think it's on the Chart of Attitudes, isn't it? Pain is at 1.8 on the Tone Scale, it should be on that. No, it isn't on the Chart of Attitudes. So add it in—pain. Pain, in all shapes and forms, such as aches and so forth: "Just make this microphone ache." You get the idea? "Now just make it ache a little bit more." And pain is condensations of lookingness.

Now, you'll notice as you run these—later on, you'll notice that all these emotions have to do with motion. Very early, you may have heard a 1951 tape, fall '51, on motion and emotion, which gives the fact that the fellow in apathy—you come along, he can put his hand on something, you move his hand and he'll leave his hand where you moved it to.

And the fellow in grief has a tendency to just flop about it and kind of hold on.

And the fellow in fear, which is covert hostility—about same tiny gradient in there, they're very close together—you come along and you push his hand away, and he'll say, "Yeah well, that's very interesting." And when you've looked the other way, he'll put his hand back again—when you've looked the other way.

And then you get the fellow in anger, and you come along and you start to move his hand … You can do this with a chair; dumping a fellow out of a chair is another test too. You just come up—it sounds very impolite and it doesn't make for good communication with a preclear, but it's a terrific assessment. Just walk in the room—just walk in the room and get the back of the chair and give it a push. What he does tells you he—where he's on the Tone Scale right now, and you just process him accordingly, and it saves you lots of time.

Anyway, anger: You start to grab the fellow's hand, and he looks at you meaningly and you don't move his hand! The harder you try to move his hand, the more it sticks.

Now, on resentment: You walk over and you start to move the fellow's hand and he flips his hand up toward you. And that's the first outgoing motion that you run into. That's at 2.0 on the Tone Scale.

And next is, with the resentment, now we get up to boredom. And the fellow starts—you move his hand, and he'll say, "What do you want to do? Why?" He'll engage in a controversy about it. But his hand, in the meanwhile, was sort of idle around the place, so on. He'll turn it over and look at it and put it back and move it around. There's motion there, but it's a sort of an eddy, like a stream goes around a steep bend, it leaves an eddy in up against the point.

And now we get conservatism and we reach over and we say, "All right, now let's move your hand," or something of the sort, and he'll say, "Well, yes. Now what's the significance of—why—where do you want me to move my hand to?" and so forth. Well, if you touched him a little bit too rough, he'd be very dignified about it, but he'd push your hand back. In other words, we've got a mobility and we've got choice.

In enthusiasm—the fellow's enthusiasm, we reach over and start to move his hand—"Yeah, well what do you want me to do with my hand, huh? You want it there? You want it there? Where do you want it?" He's doing it! You haven't got much to do with this.

That is motion and emotion. Now, you get this on beams. If you want to turn on the feeling of sadness as a thetan, put a beam against the wall, and then just slowly extend it. That's just—that's it. I mean—a writer, by the way, knowing this, or a cinematographer knowing this and so on, could actually kill America in its tracks to the motion on a screen. It's just the motion of people is exactly what's translated to the audience.

You could just have this thetan put a beam up here and then just slowly draw away. Just slowly lengthen the beam. And he gets the emotion of sadness out of that.

Now, by other speeds of withdrawal and so forth—these speeds are all comparable in comparison with MEST—we can get every other emotion on the band. It's just the speed with which he rushes up to it, the speed with which he draws back from it or the speed with which the beam vibrates. And we've got all of these emotions. Because we're in the field of feeling, and feeling is a condensed lookingness.

So, now you have this drill down? Real easy drill. Real easy. And remember "Old Man Gradient Scale" as we do this. Let's not make it too tough on somebody. And let's keep it building. Now it's your contest to find out: how high can it go? And you're going to be very surprised; you're going to take what you normally consider to be a human emotion, and this flabby, almost emotionless piece of machinery known as the body—the amount of emotion which can be taken out of a body even in a high state of ecstasy, so-called, is so flat as to be almost indistinguishable from complete flatness. And it's just how close can you get to zero, really, compared to how much … Now, you know how much emotion can be turned on by a body. And as a thetan, early on the track, you were obviously quite surprised by the amount of emotion which would suddenly generate from a body being blanketed.

By the way, the first ded on the track is a blanketing. And it is against, usually, the kind of body which the preclear has. And if the preclear is mixed up in his sexual relationships, it's against the other kind of body—the other sex. You see, he—the thetan first blanketed a male, you'll generally find he's a male thereafter. And if he first blanketed a female, he's generally female thereafter. And where he's got his sexual relations mixed up, he is in this life a male, but the first blanketing, female—so on. So he envies, very much envies, the opposite sex. You, by the way, find that turning up more often than you'd think in preclears.

As we run various emotions, we find out that they turn on much, much hotter than we thought these emotions could run.

Now, there's one more that we will—might as well run into this category, but run it in there last, please run it in there last—is light and electrical energy. Put light and electrical energy into MEST objects and bodies.

Now, let me give you a little word of warning and a little word about the ping meter. I'll have to demonstrate this ping meter to you someday, but I haven't got the—all I've got right now is the Mathison model, and the Hubbard-Mathison model is coming right up. I got ahold of this ping meter, and Volney got himself a very nice piece of equipment there. The only trouble is, went over it with the first class, and we were puzzling around about what was happening to it, and gee-whiz, this is very remarkable—very remarkable.

But—it's supposed to detect pain—it's the machine that cries for you. Put this little probe on some hurtful point in the body and the machine goes "Waaaaah."And you take it off, put it on some point that isn't in pain, and the machine says nothing. Interesting, isn't it? Only trouble is, it's detecting the only points in the body where the thetan is in communication, and pain is obviously the highest communication he can get on the body. And so if you turned around to take that piece of pain away, that would spoil a communication point.

But after you've massaged him or processed him over a certain area … For instance, a person took his prefrontal nerve up here and just cleaned it all up real good, see—took off all the screens and bric-a-brac and junk and just cleaned it up real fine so his forehead was in beautiful electronic condition, see. And put the ping meter on it—and felt wonderful, you see—he put the ping meter on, it goes, "Wah, wah, wah, wah, wah, wah, wah." According to the ping meter, he was in agony.

And, another pc there—I cleaned up the Assumption on him and all of a sudden got his face live. Whole face got real good and live and he felt good.

So you see what the machine detects is—actually, what it detects is points of communication. It's where is the thetan in communication on the body, where is the communication good on the body? And it's just designed for people too low-toned to react the right way. And the button was backwards, and the machine ought to be registering where you hit anesthesia. Wherever you hit anesthesia, the machine ought to cry and say, "You're dead." See? It should just say that, right out loud—"Dead. Dead. Dead." And really, it's a death meter, not a pain meter. As long as it's a pain meter, it's a life meter. So it's turned all around and it's got a switch on it now that's anesthesia, and you just turn the switch the other way and it'll register on pain. Also, he's putting the second meter on it. This thing is strictly terrific.

But it did this—it did this: the first meter which has ever demonstrated the fact—the first electronic equipment that ever demonstrated the fact that one human being can influence another human being emotionally. Because you put the ping meter on a dead spot on somebody's body and just leave it there, it won't ping. And you, as the operator, all of a sudden snap a beam through from the center of awareness of the individual to the ping meter—at the exact instant you snap the beam through, the machine goes "Waaaaah." And you put it all around on the body, and you just look at the body fixedly thetawise, see, keep snapping these beams through.

In other words, it is registering, incontrovertibly—I mean you could go over this and beat it to pieces, physics and everything else, and you'd still have to come up with the conclusion that one human being is monitoring another human being's electrical contacts. That gets real interesting, isn't it?

I said several times on the congress tapes, there is no actual interchange. I understand that is misunderstood a couple of times. A couple of people have spoken to me about it. For God's sakes, please get this straight. There's no actual wall here either, but it's good and solid and it sure registers on meters made out of the same stuff. But remember, a meter's made out of the same stuff.

Now, here we have done the incredible thing of getting a meter made out of just nothing more than this stuff, you know, which registers the fact that two life units can influence each other. Well, I throw that in on this processing—don't start using members of the class on this target. Don't necessarily refrain from it, but look out the window and pick up passersby. Because you actually can turn on various emotions in individuals with the greatest of ease. The greatest of ease.

In regard to that, I quite often and usually refrain from doing this. It'd be the easiest thing in the world for anybody, with a little drill, to simply take a crowd or an audience or something like that, and just fill them full of enthusiasm, you know? Just go fsshhew! The best ways to do it is just to throw back a handful of anchor points against the back wall, get it exactly the right location, make it your own space, wipe out all other anchor points there, see, and just drop enthusiasm, crush! This would be a magnetic personality.

So I am very sorry that we're taking up a first stage—our first instant of play here—that thing which is actually practically the total of personal magnetism. We solve more of these doggone things en route, that we all of a sudden remember that there was something called-—at one time or other talked about, called "personal magnetism." But nobody could contact it very easily, so everybody kind of abandoned it. And the best way to contact it, they used to say in the old days, was you sat with your feet soles pressed together and your—the outside of your thighs flat against the floor and your head held in a certain position and your ears wiggling at a slow beat, and if you sat that way for eighteen or twenty years you would then be able to control your emotions. You sure can! But it's not advisable.

And there were all kinds of systems. There's various systems, such as you take a certain pill and it does it. And there's other systems where if you get your handwriting analyzed, you will then be able to improve sufficiently so that you have personal magnetism of some sort or another.

This is the entire fight of the society: to be acceptable to one another. And yet the way to clear somebody—you could clear somebody just by running huge crowds agreeing with huge crowds agreeing with huge crowds themselves. It's interesting, isn't it? I mean if you just sat down and kept putting this up and putting this up and putting this up, putting this up, the person would get out of a slavish, propitiative agreement and come on up into an antagonistic agreement, and he'd actually run the whole Tone Scale in Mock-up Processing. Real slow method of doing it. Real slow.

That's much faster than anything we envisioned in Book One but it's too doggone slow, but it's a last resort. But that just gives you some sort of—because he has to be in agreement in order to have time, in order to have communication.

But the first thing he's got to have is anchor points. And the best anchor points to get back for you, right now, are the anchor points which comprise … When I say an anchor point, now, I mean any kind of a point, any kind of a particle, any kind of an electron or anything which anybody believes is an actual point. There is nothing more real than a real anchor point. It's tremendously real. It exists as much as anything will ever exist, and that exists as much as anything does exist, because it exists and it is a havingness type of existence. Let's not go off on the basis of "all is illusion," and we're just kidding ourselves that we see it. This is the reverse english, the inversion on the truth of the matter.

The fact of the matter is, is you're pretty doggone good—you can see it. We can make, out of a complete illusion, a complete reality. And that is the greatest gift a thetan has.

So we're trying to rehabilitate, then, the ability to take over, control, handle and alter the emotion and condition of any particle in the MEST universe or any space in the MEST universe. And remember that this is most handily worked, not segregated against the corners and points of the room or anything like that, but whole objects and whole spaces.

Take the street now, and from end to end (this you wouldn't start out with), from end to end on the street down there—a street full of cars and so forth, and three blocks long, this street is, that your preclear can see—now fill it completely from end to end with ecstasy. Pssshhhew! (snap) And you, as in the auditor, looking—if he was real good, would be able to look over there, and the taxi driver would start to get a sort of a noble look in his eye. That's right.

So, let's find out now with the easiest one we've got—this is still probably one of the most effective techniques we have. I mean, it's right up there on effectiveness because a person can audit himself, you see. I mean, he doesn't have to depend on somebody else to do it. He's trying to take out of the hands of things doing it for him, and take it on back to himself.

This is following and obeying this rule: that in order to remedy an automaticity, it is only necessary to make the preclear do it himself often enough to regain entirely his control over his ability to do so.

We take anything that's running automatically, we take the fellow with purple spots in front of his eyes, and we say, "Put five more spots there." Now, widely get him to a point where he's the one putting the purple spots there—which is the truth. He is the one putting the purple spots there. That he can, by—merely by making a postulate, "There are now purple spots in front of my eyes," pang!—he's seeing purple spots. He hasn't got himself hypnotized. I mean, that's his native ability.

What he wants to get out of is just because he says there are purple spots, they don't have to appear. He can say, "There are now purple spots in front of my eyes, but I don't see them." Okay, so he doesn't see them. "Now I see them." So he sees them. "Now they don't exist." So they're not there. See, this is real active.

Now, how do you mock up something somebody else can see? Well, believe me, that's way up the line. That's way far in advance of anything we're trying to do right now. So let's not worry about these odds and ends. Let's just simply look at MEST, and even with MEST eyes, and get the stuff to emote.

When you've got that, a lot of your preclears who will otherwise be a little bit rough as a case (and that is, they'd take some smooth handling by somebody who knew what he was doing, so forth), you find out they learn how to do this, they say, "Body, body? There's lots of emotion, I don't have to have a body for emotion."

There's one other factor that you can put into things. Put the feeling of beauty and the feeling of ugliness into them. Sometimes this registers with a preclear far better than some other emotions.

If anybody is starved for anything in this MEST universe, it's beauty. You can take the toughest, roughest boxer, the meanest, orneriest clown, the most debased thief, and beauty registers on him one way or the other. But it's very odd that when a person is very disgraced and very degraded, the one thing which instantly puts him to just sweeping shame, and just sweeps him back down the sewer in a hurry, is to be confronted suddenly with something beautiful. So there's a great deal to aesthetics which we mustn't neglect.

I wrote about it in 8-80, and you have the book—old 8-80—"beauty and ugliness." Now, although we were running it there with dichotomies, it has actually never slackened off on its importance.

You can ask some preclear and make him break right down and cry, "Where are you not being beautiful at this moment?"

Well, this is the first thing we're going to do. We're going to handle feelingness, so on. As far as SOP 8 is concerned, this is your fastest, smoothest approach on SOP 8-C because it'll hit anywhere up and down the range of case with which you're trying to operate here. It won't hit all the cases you will run into in the society; not until you've patched them up somewhat and done this and that with them.

I've seen people shriek when you ask them to do this. You say, "Make that feel a little resentful."

"What? Make that feel any way at all? It can't feel."

Well, that's really the truth of the matter, but you press it a little bit. You say, "Oh, well, go on and make it—make it—make it think a thought."

"It doesn't think!"

"Well, make it…"

"Well, it doesn't do anything. And nobody can do anything to it. And you should know that. What are you trying to do with me?" And have them get up and try to walk out! Real upset! And your bottom-rung cases get into that kind of condition.

We will take up—as soon as you've handled emotion adequately, we will take up with regard to that, thinkingness and lookingness with regard to that. And on some of the cases that have hung fire we find out that it's—they're so convinced that something should be able to look but mustn't look, and they're all hung up on viewpoints. MEST has viewpoints, so you have to be able to hang up viewpoints pretty good before you're very able. Okay?

Now what questions do you have to ask about all this?

Male voice: Is that related to the ability of personalizing? You see a little dog and you practically make him talk.

Yeah.

Male voice: I mean, you put into him …

The thetan does that. That's the best thing he does. A little kid does this all the time. A happy tribe, happy natives, across the world do this all the time. Everything is superpersonalized. But then they, by the way, they build it into an automaticity.

Male voice: Yes. It always answers.

Yeah, so … Any other?

Second male voice: Ron, like sec—, running the emotions on the second dynamic there, just how far shall we go? Like sexual emotions and things like that?

Hm.

Second male voice: The gamut of maybe puppy love or things like that?

Oh, sure. Sure. There's quite a wide band there. I just leave it to your imagination. I point out to you that there's a nostalgia comes into the second dynamic, too. And there's a high—sort of a high whine ecstasy that sounds like an airplane in a power dive. And there's a tremendous gamut of these emotions there.

You understand that these characteristic emotions, as they go down scale—you go from 40.0 down to 0.0, why, and -8.0, you've got your emotions going over and over and over. And most everybody is to some slight degree in the effort band, or below the effort band and in the thinking band. So it's of great importance.

Now, if somebody hangs up and he's having a real hard time in this class, just make him make the things think a thought, and you'll get along better. And put something else into them—effort. "Now put some effort into that microphone," see? "Now put laziness into it. Now put some effort into it." That's real low band.

Male voice: How about putting the minus Tone Scale into things? Hiding.

Well, all that emotion down that line is wooden—pretty wooden. I'd rather get a stronger emotion on the upper band. But that's a good suggestion. Good suggestion. Anybody can stretch that out that wants to. There's that old minus scale there. "Put a protective feeling in this table." And of course, there's one danger in that—that's what this stuff is: barriers to protect; to protect and to protect other things.

You can put minus scale in there and you can put the whole band from top to bottom if you want to—including effort, including thinkingness and so forth. But specialize in the Tone Scale as it goes from 0.0 on up the line, the second dynamic and ridicule. That pays off, very heavy. And disgust, which is about the same as ridicule.

Only you'll find out that if you start running much disgust, you'll find out the fellow is starting to be an effect slightly. This is a double-terminal process. This really belongs—if you want to know where it belongs in SOP 8, it belongs at V, really. Because it's a double-terminal proposition. It solves a person from discharging against emotions and being an effect of them.

But you're not trying to process him so as to run out a bunch of emotions, so he will discharge against these things. You're trying to make him do it independently so he doesn't discharge. And you're trying to give back to him the control without running a single thing out, and without any anything in the bank. You don't want to even worry about it. If he starts worrying about being an effect of it, well, you just overlook it and keep pushing to make him a cause on it.

You find many people, they say, "Well, I know how that stuff feels."

And you say, "How does it feel?"

And they say, "Well, it feels disgust."

"It does?" you say.

"Yeah. Sort of a disgust for itself and a dirtiness, yes."

Oh boy, climb the nearest fence, boys, here we go!

Okay. Any other questions about this?

Male voice: Yes, after you spoke about putting the second dynamic emotions into things, and spoke about disgust and ridicule, you mentioned, Ron, something about light and electrical objects.

No, light and electricity.

Male voice: Light and electricity.

Yeah.

Male voice: Putting it into …

Well, I'll give you an example. Put some light in that wall.

Male voice: Oh good. Thanks.

Well, do it.

Male voice: Yeah.

Got some light in it?

Male voice: Yeah.

Now put some electricity in it.

Male voice: Yeah.

Okay. Put some light in it now.

Male voice: Yeah.

Put some electricity in it.

Male voice: Yeah.

All electricity is, is light with effort in it. You get the idea?

Male voice: Yeah. Thanks very much.

Did it kind of flare up for you?

Male voice: Yes.

Good. Good. If you get real hot at this, you can short-circuit out E-Meters.

Okay. (You have to provide your own, though.) (audience laughter)

All right. That's the end of this lecture.

SOP 8-C: FIRST LECTURE PAGE 2 2ACC-01B - 17.11.53

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