View source for Some Manifestations of Preclears (5ACC 540413)

'''Series:''' 5th Advanced Clinical Course (5ACC)

'''Date:''' 13 April 1954

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

----

← [[Lecture_Index_5ACC|Back to Series]]

Alternate title: Universe: Manifestation

I'd like to take up with you, today, the special Data Sheet of the Advanced Course [See Advanced Course Data Sheet in the appendix of this volume] and go over once more some of the manifestations of preclears, processing.

You understand that SOP 8-C just as it is, just as it appears in Issue 24-G of The Journal of Scientology, is quite adequate for your book auditor. Remember that the process given here, which we're now calling Advanced Course Procedure, is for a very well trained auditor. It requires judgment, discernment, and it's dealing with the most basic basics of aberration and, therefore, it can be supposed that you could get a pc into trouble with this. You sure can. You sure can.

Let's say, for instance, that we run "Where Mama's universe is safe" for a short time and our pc starts coming down with a horrendous somatic - stomach somatic or something of the sort-and we go on running "Where Mama's universe is..." some more and some more and some more, and there's no letup on the somatic. Well, a lot of things could have happened. Of course, they shouldn't have happened, but they could happen.

All right. Let's take this process in the hands of some let's-change-it-all-around, run-it-backwards-while-standing- on-our-head auditor who doesn't know anything about what he's doing in the field, and his preclear says to everybody, "Well, yes, I had Scientology run on me and it didn't work. It made me awful sick, and that was all there is to it."

Well, I know that sounds snide and uncharitable, but it happens about twenty-four hours a day, the length and breadth of the land. Somebody comes along, gets a wild idea, runs it on some pc, makes him real sick, and says, "This is Scientology." Well, the hell it is. It isn't. Scientology is a process for bringing up the knowingness level of individuals and making them well. Scientology consists of processes which defeat the one thing which man has never defeated up to this time, and that's insanity and aberration.

All right. If the processes which are used are not those processes which have been codified, tested, and which are recognized as Scientology, then it isn't Scientology the fellow's running. It's experimental Scientology, and we should say so. If he's going to run something weird and incredible or very short of his understanding, he should tell the preclear. He should be honest enough to tell the preclear, "This is just very experimental. This is para-Scientology - very experimental." And so when we get into "Where things are safe," things like that, long-running process, brings up people to levels that you never saw people brought to before; at the same time, run wrong it can make a preclear ill. Now, let's not skip that one. You can start running it in such a way - such a sloppy way - that it will reduce a preclear's havingness down to zero. Well, this is very, very hard on a preclear who can't have anything in the first place. You run his havingness down to zero and sort of throw him out the window and say, "Well, huh, Scientology didn't work on that one." The auditor didn't work!

So that's why Advanced Course Procedure is Advanced Course Procedure, and why SOP 8-C is 8-C. Can't get in much trouble with 8-C. Of course you can, with 8-C, reduce somebody's havingness too, but not to the tremendous degree that you can with this.

You see, what could happen here, with running this type of procedure, is that you take some individual who is not even vaguely ready to have anything rough run on him - he's still groping around, he's not a "What wall?" case, or a "What universe?" case even... We had to invent a new case with the last Unit. There were so many people from Los Angeles here, we had to call it a "What fog?" case. But these individuals who are groping are not ready to have a desperate procedure run on them, really. They're not. They're fumbling around and stumbling around and falling on their faces. You try to give them a little command, like - well, you say, "Let's remember something real," if you used that on them. You'd say, "All right, now let's see if we can recall something real."

Fifteen minutes later, the guy's still fishing. You're going to run something tough like Universe Processing on him? Well, I'll tell you, his havingness is down to practically nothing already. And you just ask him to locate a couple of objects someplace and away he goes. He just feels nnnaah. He'll get sick at his stomach. He'll feel very, very, very upset indeed.

In the first place, when you say, "Let's find a couple of places where your mother is safe," he probably finds a couple of places where he wishes his mother was dead. You see, if it took him three minutes, two minutes or even twenty seconds to remember something real, he is not in good enough communication to be able to interpret and follow your auditing command. You see that? I mean, here's the most obvious thing in the world. If a fellow has got a tremendously long communication lag, his ingoing communication is just as long as his outgoing communication because it's going more or less on the same route. His reaction time would act something like this: he'd be driving down the road and somebody would say to him, "Look out for that truck!" "What truc..." Crash!

Now, people run along on the shallow patter of civilization. Somebody comes along - "How are you?" "I'm fine." So forth. They've got a bunch of very pat, short circuits. You see, they work. Somebody says, "Come to dinner" and something like that - they come in to dinner. They go back and forth. In other words, they do the routine things.

But the second that they get something which requires in itself an individualized interpretation, their communication lag is right there. Up to that time they're just operating as a civilized machine. That's all. They might as well have wires and coils on them. Somebody says hello to them on the street, they say hello. Somebody says, "That will be two dollars," they pay two dollars.

It's the most shocking thing in the world to get somebody who's fairly well upscale and say, "All right, now let's find somebody whose opinion of you you'd like to change."

"Oh, I couldn't do that. It'd interfere with his self-determinism."

And you say, "All right. Be his self-determinism."

And the fellow looks at you blankly and says, "What self-determinism?"

In largest measure in this society, we go around wonderfully safeguarding the sanity and reaction of machines. The guy is hardly there at all. All right. You take one of these cases and you start to run a process which requires interpretation, and we get immediate trouble because he isn't interpreting what you're saying at all.

Now, you have to be clever enough as an auditor (1) to recognize a communication lag when you see one, (2) realize that that means that the incapability of interpretation is very great, and (3) to know what process to apply at that moment.

The process to apply at that moment is probably something on the order... They're very simple processes. That's why everybody ignores them and overlooks them. It takes a simple process to resolve a complicated case. That is the little backwards factor in all auditing. You know, you don't take a screaming psychotic and give him an electric-shock and have him get well. Even the psychiatrist knows that if people were never electric-shocked in sanitariums, they would get out of the sanitarium, on the average, three weeks earlier. You know, the psychiatrists will sit right in their buckets of blood there, and tell you, "Oh, yes, if we didn't electric-shock anybody, everybody would get out of here sooner."

You say, "Why do you electric-shock somebody?" "Well, that's what you're supposed to do."

"Who said you were supposed to do it?"

"Well, do you know that if you didn't electric-shock them you could be tried for malpractice?"

"What do you mean? You mean, it doesn't do any good though?"

"Well, no. Keeps them from being so frantic."

You're dealing with the same kind of reasoning that you're dealing with on your worse-off preclears. Your preclears who are stumbling around have got everything identified with everything. They're actually incapable of free reason. They're identifying everything with everything. You ask them something reasonable, you ask them to make a determination that is reasonable, and oh, no! It's impossible. They identify this with that with something else.

Now, what is the basic mechanism of this? Well, we run into that over here when we go into Beingness Processing. Now, Beingness Processing is something which is very easy to run on somebody who's exteriorized, and is very, very, very rough on a case that is still interiorized. And you get somebody into one of these beingnesses (something he's being compulsively, obsessively) and, boy, if you ever saw identified thinking - glog! Let's ask him what he can be, and the first thing you know we find out that he can be a hat. And at this moment anything that sounds like reason to you shuts down. That's because everything is identified with everything else.

Well, sanity is differentiation, the ability to differentiate. The better a person can differentiate, the more rational, the saner, the more able, the more capable of motion he is. The better he can differentiate, the better off he is. The more he identifies, the worse off he is. So, identification is down toward solid matter. And as far as differentiation is concerned in space, it is up toward nice, clear, open space. It's just as simple as that.

So we get somebody down toward a hard object and - he does; you'll just see him do this very trick. This is the most phenomenal thing in the world that we could just reach into somebody's head and demonstrate all categories of thinkingness. We can. We demonstrate to him, for instance, that while he is being a heavy piece of energy he, of course, is not thinking well. This is obvious to him. And yet all of his life he has been hounding himself to get along the line - he wants to be a capitalist or he wants to be something, he wants to arrive, he's got to arrive, compulsively. Yet he doesn't dare arrive, because if he arrived at any moment he would find himself being one of these heavy pieces of energy of one kind or another and he would, of course, be as stupid as they come.

Here is your contest on people who are having a hard time, who are doing a lot of figure-figure-figure. They're trying to become something. They know they have to become something so they can be identified. And they're trying to become this thing, and while they're busily becoming this thing they know very well they'd better not become anything. So they finally fall into a sort of an in-between category where they keep saying they're going to arrive and they never arrive at all.

And this, actually, is a thinking-machine at work. A thinking-machine performs on this basis. It says, "Here are all the points we've got to arrive and all the reasons we mustn't arrive there." And that's all a thinking-machine is doing. It's "Look at all the past consequences: Every time I became something, oh brother, this was horrible. So therefore, I better not become anything. So the way I don't become anything is to figure-figure-figure." And yet, all the time he seems to be figuring on how he must become something. But this, you see, is an inverse thought process. He becomes inverted. He's been so afraid of becoming something for so long that now it reverses on him on a stuck-flow basis and he obsessively has to become something.

Anytime you try to process a very famous person or one who has succeeded very well in this universe, you run into this trouble. The individual for a long, long time dared not become anything. Well, that was bad enough. But now the flow has switched on him and he has to become something. A fellow has to be something important or something massive in the ratio that he is not dangerous to his environment.

The environment says, "Look, you're not dangerous to me."

And so he swells up, he gets heavy, he gets massy, he gets thick, and he says, "Yes, I am too. I am something. Look!" What a stupid trick.

Then the environment hauls off and really clouts him one. That's the trick of the MEST universe. It gets somebody to appear and then makes them try like the devil to withdraw. And it's just an appear-withdraw cycle.

You'll find many of your preclears withdrawing. You'll find many of them appearing. You know? You'll find people going around, they'll - if you're in a room with TV on, something like that - they'll go and stand in front of the television screen. You know, everybody else is trying to see the television screen and they're standing in front of it. And you finally have to point this out to them. They'll move slightly sideways. What are they doing? They're saying, "I'm there." "I'm there" - they're trying to appear in the universe. They're compulsively trying to appear. They'll do all sorts of things. For instance, they'll go down and run into your car or something like that. That sure says they're there. They'll drop things of yours and make large clatters and noises. Actually, little kids get obsessed this way. People start shoving them away and shoving them away, and finally the little kid has got to break things and scream and holler and do all sorts of things. All he's doing is saying, "I'm there. I'm there. I'm there."

Well, the manifestation of grief and apathy and so forth - fear, grief, apathy - that's an effort to get away, withdraw, disappear. Now you'll find somebody else who is a self-effacing person and everybody at the table has been served except one - this self-effacing person. And they just neglected to pass anything to this person. Actually, this person very often would sit there for a long time before they would offer any remark that would point out the fact that they hadn't been fed. They are always trying to wipe themselves out of the scene. In their worst state, very often you'll hear them say such things as "Oh, I know everybody hates me. And I'm sorry I'm alive. Forgive me for living" - this kind of a mock-up. It's just a manifestation of trying to withdraw, once having appeared, you see. You have to have appeared before you withdraw.

All right. Let's look at this manifestation. We find out that having appeared, they try to withdraw - they get into solid objects. This is easy as that. They try to withdraw, they're condensing attention. All there is there to do anything with is attention, and when they try to withdraw they condense attention. And they get pretty doggone dense. You also get stupid. Now, an individual trying to look is actually trying to get space, and an individual trying not to look is, accidentally - he doesn't realize it - but he's running into solid objects. So we get this manifestation continually.

All right. You start to process some very, very thin, spindly, retiring self-effacive preclear, and you try to get him to put forward one doggone thing. Release? If he's trying to withdraw all the time, how can he give up anything? He doesn't want all these things he's holding on to - that's why he's stuck to them. And so he's trying to give up these various items. You try to get him to give up an aberration. He can't. He's withdrawing so hard, he's withdrawing and trying to disappear so hard, that he's pulling everything in with him. And you say, "Give up one lock." How can he do that? He can't. It's stuck right there.

Actually, all you have to know about psychoanalysis is psychoanalysis was the effort to get an individual to release one concept or aberration, at least. That was the whole goal really: just get him to release something. That's it. Now, they rarely succeeded because they just went on pointing out faults, faults, faults until their patient withdrew, withdrew, withdrew, withdrew, and when they got him down to complete, solid apathy, why, then they could make him write out the rest of his bank account, and that was all there was to it.

Where we have a problem in inability to give up, we have a problem in withdraw - somebody's withdrawing too hard. And somebody's getting more dense; they're getting thicker, more compact and so on. Well, of course, there are many cycles of this. As a person tries to appear, he just gets ahold of a lot of objects and slaps them together and he is the object. And then he tries to get out of being the object and he makes it more dense, which is quite heartbreaking to somebody.

All right. We get this preclear; we find out, then, that he's actually, by the time he's done this, he's getting more stupid all the time. And we try to get him to get one lock! You work on him; you work on him hard. You say, "Now, look-a-here, let's see if we can't remember a time when your mother said something derogatory to you." Let's say we're just straightwiring him, old style. He can remember those times. But, do you know, not a darn thing happens to the memory. It doesn't blow. It doesn't relieve. He could remember it hour after hour after hour and nothing would happen to it. Now, this is your extreme case.

A light lock - it won't relieve. Why won't it? Because he knows he can't get rid of anything. He hasn't enough space, you might say, to throw anything into.

Well, what would be the answer to this person? Well, let's test such a person. Let's go out and find such a person and discover how he reacts with a light technique. Not Universe Processing - this is too tough for him. He, of course, can't release any of these spots. Let's remember that if he has a long communication lag, he needs a light technique. And the longer the lag, the lighter the process. It's just an inversion: the longer the communication lag, the more he is out of touch with existence, why, the lighter the process it's going to take to get him back there. Of course, that tells you, of course, it's going to take more time, because you're using very light processes. So what? You'll find out that the fastest method of doing it follows that formula: the worse the case the lighter the process. And you'll actually save time by doing it.

You see, you could use desperate measures on him for five years without ever achieving any kind of relief But you could use light measures on him for maybe five hours. And if they were light enough you would actually have entered the case and have done something for the case.

Now, let's take a look at this case and find out if there's anything to this condensation factor, you know, withdrawing from the world and the space factor of expanding into the world. Are there anything about these two things? Yes, we find this person who's withdrawing, who's getting more dense and so forth, is actually getting more stupid. We can just examine that - the longer the communication lag, the less the IQ.

This person is in a thinking machine, they figure-figure-figure, they do all sorts of things - no action; it's all figure. And the figure always ends up to failure, one way or the other. You find these people doing quite irrational things when they get really bad off into this category. Well, our processes here say that that person must be out of space - it's possible he doesn't have any space.

All right, let's look this over and see if that's true. And let's take Opening Procedure and let's tell this person to locate a spot in space. We'd get an argument. He doesn't look up and find something like halfway between these two chairs or find something in the middle of the room or a spot up next to the ceiling. Oh, no. The second he puts his attention on any kind of space, it goes over onto an object, bop. And this person will argue with you. Why do they argue with you? Because every time you try to put their attention on space, it starts up their thinking machine. That's the automatic way of starting a thinking machine. Put the person's attention on space - bang! - in goes the thinking machine, because it's the handiest object to the thetan. Attention on emptiness - their attention goes to something. When you try to put their attention on nothing, their attention goes to something.

So we have this person walking around. We actually could have... Sometimes a case like this rather... breaks up rather easily with this Opening Procedure process. We take somebody; he starts locating these things. He has an awful time at first and finally gets better. He may, you know, not let on to you that he's having an awful time; you just sort of have to look at this. And you find out he's better and better at this. After a half an hour of it he can spot places in space.

Well, fine if he can spot places in space, now we could find out where some viewpoints would be safe. But if we didn't bridge that step of getting him to locate spots in space, we wouldn't do a doggone thing for the preclear. Quite on the contrary, we would probably wind up by plowing him in and make him sicker than a dog. Now, all of your mechanisms of avoidance - and this is without exception; this is one of those blanket things - all of your mechanisms of avoidance are a simple manifestation of you try to put the person's attention on emptiness and their attention goes over onto somethingness. So they don't spot a spot in space, they spot a condition. You say, "Where would your mother be safe?"

Supposing you got real careless as an auditor. Supposing you just let it all go to hell. And you sat down to audit somebody; you didn't know what their communication lag was; you hadn't examined them at all, investigated them; you didn't try to establish any kind of talk with them, communicate with them. You just started in; you just bullheadedly said, "Well, we're just going to plow on through with this case." And you said, "Well, give me some places where your mother's safe." Your pat answer is, of course, "Well, my mother would be safe anywhere where my father were guarding her." That's the most obvious manifestation in the world. What did you do? You told him to put his attention on a spatial spot - "Where would your mother be safe?" - and, of course, he went immediately onto a thinking machine, which gave him a condition. That just told you instantly this fellow can't spot spots in space.

So what would we do with him? We'd run Opening Procedure. If you kept on trying to get him to spot spots in space, I tell you you could sit there probably for ten hours just making the preclear worse. Because he's figure-figure-figure- figure-figure-figure-figure-figure. And when you get all through figure-figure-figure-figure-figure, you've probably moved his position in his thinking machine and you've gotten down here prematurely into the fourth step, Beingness Processing. And you've gotten him to be even more solid objects than he was being before. Every time you said, "Find a spot," he went into a solider object. You said, "Find a spot," he became a solider object. "Find a spot." And if you were examining him closely you would find out that he was being garbage cans and stoves and chimneys, and he was being anything solid he could think of. He was just snapping through this thinking machine, one right after the other, finding all these spots and positions where he had become things or where things, you might say, had won in the race for survival. And he just keeps flicking through the machine. You're not doing anything for him there.

But supposing we went at it the right way. And we said to this individual ... You know, we didn't make any preparation, we were careless that day. And we said to him, "Where would your mother be safe?"

"Well, she'd be safe anywhere where my father..."

You say, "Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha, here's a condition!" Okay. Right there, you'd use some Opening Procedure. Or you'd have him locate at least some objects in the room and then see if you couldn't get him to locate some spots in space in the room. You'd find out that would be quite a struggle there for a few minutes. And when he's finally able to do that, he says, "Look, space doesn't bite. I can move out into it. I can get it more expansive." And only until he learns that space doesn't bite will he release a lock, because he will only then have space to release a lock into. He can't throw anything away; there's no place to throw anything. It's like somebody in a New York apartment.

Now, where's our percentage with auditing, then, a preclear on heavy processes? Well, it just isn't any percentage at all; it's a complete liability. The worst that would happen, of course, is that you would make him desperately ill, possibly ill enough to send him to a hospital. And the least that would happen was that your case would just remain bogged. There are tremendous - actually tremendous - lots of data to back up what I'm telling you. I'm not just talking out of thin air.

All right. Let's supposing you didn't straighten out the fellow's communication lines at all. He had a long communication lag and somehow or other you were sleepy that day and you didn't detect it and you didn't notice that he had a long lag. After all, you'd been auditing him maybe for two or three days and he hadn't had a long lag for two or three days. And today, of course, he wouldn't have a long lag either, would he? Oh-oh! Well, he could have sort of slipped on a mental banana peel sometime since the last time you saw him and have landed straight into one of these beingness spots. You know? Heavy mass. And his communication lag was very good the last session you gave him. Oh, he was doing fine. And you didn't happen to notice that he had about a fifteen minute lag when he reported to you.

All right. We say to this person, "Give me a place where your mother would be safe."

He thinks to himself, "Grrrr, I wish the old crock were dead, or something of the sort. Well, let's see. Grrr-grrr. She'd be good and dead there. She'd be good and dead there. She'd be good and dead there. Oh, I'm not feeling well." Only, he didn't tell you he was doing this.

Anytime you get a communication lag, you get a communication perversion. Did you know that? Anytime you get a communication lag, you get a communication perversion. It's going through too many lines. The reason he has a communication lag is because he can't duplicate. If he can't duplicate, naturally, anything that gets through the line at all is going to come out differently. So when you give him an auditing command, he does something else. I mean, it's just open and shut. Fellow has a fifteen second communication lag, you give him an auditing command, it's a lead-pipe cinch he's going to do something else. He's going to think he's doing, too, what you said, which is the cute part of it. He's sitting there, he knows he's being so obedient, he knows he's doing just exactly what you said. But you didn't say what he heard. See the liability there?

And again we come out onto this basis of space. Space is a viewpoint of dimension. You don't have any space unless you got a viewpoint.

All right. Let's take this case that's very, very occluded. Why is he occluded? He hasn't got any space. Why hasn't he got any space? Well, it's because he doesn't have a viewpoint of dimension. Well, why is this? And let's get into the very, very deep, supersignificant part of all this right now, huh? He is unwilling to have so many viewpoints in so many places that he has given up his own. He's sitting there setting an example of no viewpoint to try to blind everybody else. One of the things he's doing. But he so thoroughly objects to having so many viewpoints that he's herded himself back and corralled himself into blackness.

Now, I'm sorry if that touches somebody's toes; just shift your foot a little bit. But the truth of the matter is there's nothing vicious about this; this fellow may have had a lot of things happen to him. Here's the mechanical action: He's down the street... he's walking down the street. It's a nice day. He feels perfectly okay. And he goes around the corner and he sees a little kid who is just off the curb and somebody comes along - California driver - comes along, runs over the little kid, crushes his head in; there's blood and brains all over the place. He gets a sudden feeling of complete unreality. That's his immediate reaction - frozen horror and then complete unreality. He's trying to run on the postulate "It didn't happen. Time is back there." That's the first thing he's trying to do. But the actual action is, he's trying to withdraw his attention from it. He has to, because there was the driver of the car - he doesn't want that viewpoint. There's the little kid - he sure doesn't want that viewpoint. And yet that sort of thing can happen in this society. All right, what's the answer? There's two viewpoints he doesn't want. Now, let's take seventy-six trillion years' worth. How many viewpoints doesn't he want? "Well," you say very practically, "now look, we can get right straight at the truth of this thing, and we can just run on down the line as nice as you please. And all we'll do... all we'll have to do here is run a process, which runs like this: All right, now give me some viewpoints you don't want.'" That doesn't happen to be the truth. The truth is he wants every viewpoint he has. It happens to be an aberrated solution. And that is the aberrated solution: "I don't want that viewpoint."

All the errors on the line, if added up and put together and cataloged, possibly could make an awful lot of books. But let's find out what the primary error is. You could say the primary error was to make some space in the first place. But aside from that, the real primary error, the entrance point, the threshold into what we call aberration... That could be insanity, neurosis, inability to think fast, inability to paint although you want to. Aberration: the blocking of goals, the impotence of existence - what would the threshold be? It would be right there: "I don't want that or those viewpoints. I don't want that viewpoint." That's the threshold of it. Because immediately, there goes the guy's space. When his space goes, there goes his differentiation. Just for a moment his space went. Well, it's just for a moment, and now it's in a picture. How does he get the picture in the first place?

Well, the picture is inverted. You see, it would be awfully dull if you went along all these years looking at pictures, so sooner or later you began to withdraw your attention from the pictures. Well, in view of the fact that you were putting the pictures there, your effort to withdraw - energywise - your attention from the pictures, of course, condensed them and brought them right in on you. All you had to do was decide to withdraw from any view and you brought the view in on you. That's all there was to that.

So as an individual gives up, doesn't want, refuses to have, negates against viewpoints, so, he runs out of space. Because the mechanical action of space in the first place is simply a viewpoint of dimension. And that is space and there isn't any other space than that. And so we get the problem of when he doesn't want these viewpoints, naturally, he has struck at the reason there is space. You got how grim that is? He says, "I don't want that viewpoint. I want to see everything look pretty out that-a-way over there. I don't want those viewpoints over that way." As soon as he starts to object to a lot of these viewpoints, why, he's in trouble. Well, if we tried to run this process on this basis - "Give me some viewpoints you don't want" - you find your preclear would make tremendous progress for minutes. Boy, he would be right in there chewing, pang-pang-pang, pang, pang, pang - thud! And he hits the thud because it isn't true. 'Viewpoints you don't want" - you have asked him to take a second echelon, the second echelon. You've assumed that the viewpoint existed and then that it was to be negated against. And that is the very action which the MEST universe undertakes to trap somebody.

By asking him viewpoints he didn't want, you then ask him a lie. In the first place, the viewpoints didn't exist for him unless he postulated their existence. Viewpoints he didn't want - well, why don't you say, postulates you don't want. It's just as thoroughly short-circuited as that. So you can sometime - just to demonstrate it to yourself - run that process that way on somebody. Get somebody you don't like - get a psychiatrist. And say, "Give me some viewpoints you don't want." And just start running those and running those and running those.

And, you know, he'll really see some truth in what you're saying. He'll really see that you've really gotten there, and then he'll go home and get sick - or he'll get sick right there. He's liable to chuck his cookies. You've just asked him to collapse everything on him, that's all. Viewpoints he doesn't want - he has to keep postulating, "I don't want that viewpoint. I don't want that viewpoint. I don't want that viewpoint," and he'll suddenly run out of space. It's just as elementary as that. You've asked the guy to make the postulates which will put him at the bottom of the barrel. And he, of course, obligingly makes the postulate.

Now, of course, "Where would your mother be safe?" - the truth of the matter is, it's perfectly fine for your mother to be safe. That's perfectly all right. You could have the whole universe on the whole track in all particular directions perfectly safe, and you could be as happy as a clam. In other words, it isn't necessarily true that you have to make everything on the track vanish in order to survive. You see, that's an aberrated solution. Everything could exist, everything could survive and so forth, and you could survive too. And the ordinary operation is that an individual gets so mad at so many things on the track that he decides so many of these things mustn't survive that he has completely lost touch with the idea that some of them might possibly, by some stretch of the imagination, be permitted to survive without completely caving him in. Well, whenever we get into... whenever we get into a completely aberrated statement which we're asking a person to make over and over and over as a postulate, why, of course we get dire results in a preclear.

There's a little axiom that goes with this: A process is as good as it approximates actual truth. It's as good as it approximates truth. Truth of the matter is, everything can survive. When we run an individual along the line, then we find out this is safe, that's safe - boy, for a while there he's wild-eyed about this and that. And finally he said, "Well, what happens? Does Mother disappear?" Does it finally come true that she dies in her tracks the way he wants her to during one period of the process? No, no, she's just going on happily, and he finally... Her universe is over there, his is over here, and so what! He's happy. Doesn't influence him particularly. He's perfectly comfortable about this situation. And for the first time he can relax, and he can like somebody. Or he says, "Well, what do you know! Something else can survive besides myself and I can be perfectly cheerful about it."

You remember this computation I was talking about in the PABs? And by the way, if you don't have the PABs, you ought to amongst you get what copies you do have and look over them because there's a lot of very valuable material in them which leads up to this type of processing. There's a lot of tricks in them. But here's the "only one." This guy who's the "only one" has been withdrawing from view, withdrawing from view, and then he decides hell appear again. Of course, when he appears again, he's withdrawn from all viewpoints. When he appears again, why, he says, "I'd better be the only one." And after a while, why, he becomes the "only one."

In other words, "Nothing can survive but myself." Well now, look, on a communication basis what can this fellow communicate with? He can't. Because everything else must not survive and he must survive. Well, just on that we don't get a duplication. And if we get no duplication on this, we'll get no communication, so he goes out of communication with the rest of the universe. Sure, he can be the "only one" - a rock down at the crossroads. Nobody ever notices it. No advantage in it whatsoever.

Remember there are eight dynamics. There isn't just one. The way the thing collapses is the person withdraws from the outer periphery of spaces to which he's acclimated. He withdraws and he finally gets down to the point where "only one" can survive. Well, you start asking him "Other viewpoints you don't want"; you start asking him, "Well, give me some places where your mother would not be safe" - you're just paralleling this "only one" computation. You're just asking and inviting the fellow to wind up as the "only one" on the track. And, of course, in the process of becoming that he will get sicker than a pup.

The only reason any universe is here at all anyhow is because somebody is looking at it. So why not let somebody else look at it and keep the space stretched, huh? Now, that sounds very elementary and highly theoretical and so forth. But the best test of such a thing is, is space a viewpoint of dimension? Does this work dynamite? Yeah, just get somebody, as I said - a psychiatrist or somebody - and run this on him for a short time. "Viewpoints you don't want."

Oh, he'll get happy about it, he'll have somatics, and finally he'll wind up with his field completely black, utterly occluded, out of touch. And as far as his body is concerned, it is so entirely dependent on other viewpoints than its own, just to keep space there, that it'll be real sick. So does anyone on the route toward "only one."

But how do you make an "only one"? Viewpoints he doesn't want. "I want to be the only viewpoint of space."

What? You mean you want to be the only fellow who's holding the MEST universe out there, corner by corner? You want to do it all by yourself? Well, go ahead. You can. I'm sure you can. Dull, though. Now, we ask somebody, "Where are viewpoints safe?" Mm. This is a different question. You see, we're not strictly dealing with a dichotomy here. Get this out of your mind if you had it there. That's not strictly a plus and a minus. One is fact and the other is fancy. Which is fact? Viewpoints and things safe - that's fact. And viewpoints and things not safe - that's fancy. When you got those two things uncrossed, why, you're in fine shape. But it's not a dichotomy. Just, one happens to be true (that things are safe and do survive), and the other (that they don't) is utterly false. And you're up so close to the threshold of processing aberration itself that, of course, you'd better pay some attention to the truth of the case.

Now, you can actually make people sick by processing this wrong. The only way you'd process it wrong would be to process it in the direction where there would be less space. When you say "Viewpoints you don't want," you're immediately saying less space, less space, less space, less space, less space, less space, here we go.

You see, we just process it the other way - space is safe, space is safe, space is safe, more space, more space, more space, more space, more space, more space. We should understand that as the highest level of action in the mind: if it has a viewpoint, it's got space; and if it doesn't have a viewpoint, it doesn't have space. And when it negates against certain viewpoints and doesn't want them anymore, it doesn't have that space.

Now, there's many a preclear walking around without any front to his face. Or if he does have a front to his face, it isn't his. And that's because Mama has stood there in front of him and Papa has stood there in front of him, and the boss and the general and the privates and other senior people. And they've said, "We don't like this viewpoint." Well, of course, he missed the boat. The proper answer in that case is "Well, what you standing there for then?" Obvious rebuttal.

But instead of that, why, he took exception to this, and he says, "I don't want that viewpoint. I don't want that viewpoint. I don't want that viewpoint." To what? To the front of his own face! A point out here about four feet from his face - and he's saying, "I don't want that space. I don't want that space." Pretty soon he hasn't got any. See, he said there must be no viewpoint out in front of that. That's the continuous postulate which he's made all the way along the line: "There must be no viewpoint out in front of my face. Mama's viewpoint must not be in front of my face. Papa's viewpoint mustn't be."

And do you know what the end product is? The preclear himself flies out on an inversion and is two or three feet in front of his face. He's "running" the body from a point in advance of his own face. He has resisted it so hard that it's finally inverted, and the lines he used for resistance actually pulled him into the position. He set up space there that one mustn't have, and it became such forbidden space that he finally stepped into it.

"Be very careful," said Simple Simon's mother, "how you step into the pies." And this fellow was very careful how he stepped into that viewpoint. Well, when we got a problem in no space, we have a problem in negated viewpoints. All right, whose viewpoints was it that were negated against? Well, the E-Meter is a happy one on that - tell you right away. It will actually tell you a lot faster than the preclear can.

Here's a little experience on that. Had a preclear; he was doing very fine. Doing swell. We weren't using an E-Meter. And all of a sudden his case took a tremendous bog - just over a period of about five minutes. So I went and dragged out an E-Meter, put him on it, and you know what I... I'd been processing the wrong universe. All other universes stemmed from this other universe. Well now, he never mentioned it. But the E-Meter went into the most rigid stick you ever saw in your life. From any slightest swing or bop or anything, it utterly froze - you know, a real stuck.

The E-Meter swings widely - that tells you that there's charge, action and flow and that's very significant. And it sticks. You want to get accustomed to looking at a real stuck meter. A real stuck meter - if you practically slapped the preclear, the needle wouldn't move. I mean, they're so busily engrossed in thinking about some incident in which they're stuck, that the needle is just stuck, that's all. Those two manifestations you look for.

Well, here's this terrifically stuck thing, and what have we been doing? We've been trimming around the edges of a solid mass. All we've been doing is taking these things off. The guy had utterly forgotten, completely forgotten, that when he was eighteen he'd gotten married and he'd been married for two years. This girl was gone! His first marriage, according to him, had taken place when he was twenty-five.

Aw, this was a real rough one, see. I mean this character had just disappeared from view. And, of course, the case wasn't resolving at all, because really that was all that was wrong with the case - he was just so madly avoiding these years, so tremendously avoiding that person's viewpoint that just nothing existed along that line. And that nothingness was the kind of a nothingness whereby he was pulling everything in on him. So he was stuck right at that period and pulling everything else on top of him. And an E-Meter just simply said so, just like that. Doesn't require a fancy E-Meter to tell you that: one of those little 53s with the tone handle and so forth will do just fine; they're quite light, easy to pack around. And they'll tell you everything you want to know. They'll stick with the best of them.

All right. When we have this process, then, Advanced Course Procedure, we are processing as close to definitions as possible. This has always been true in the Advanced Course - in these Clinical Courses. We process as close to definitions as possible. And when we're right on the button with definitions, we see that space is a viewpoint of dimension, we of course have the basic of any universe. Of any actually created universe, the basic is that there must be somebody there to be the central viewpoint of it.

Well, whose postulates would hold in that universe? Of course, the person whose viewpoint it was. That person's viewpoint would hold. Therefore, we have the god concept.

Now, the other things that are manifest here that aren't mentioned on this data sheet - down here we see the Know to Sex Scale is something that you could use for diagnosis and hasn't been gone into here very thoroughly. Now, here we have know, look, emote, effort, think, symbols, eating and sex.

Well, you know there's a curious manifestation on these thinking machines. The mind will flick over from space into whatever level the person is in. You tell them to look at space and they will flick immediately into that level on that condensation scale. See, Know to Sex is a condensation scale - that's how much more condensed it is. And their mind will flick over, straight across on that. For instance, you say, "Look at the space" - the fellow would think of sex. "Look at the space" - he'd think of eating. Now, that's theoretical. But since I mentioned this last time, I conducted a little test on it that seems to hold good. "Look at the space" - and the fellow goes into that band where he's stuck.

You say, "Look at the space," and he thinks of working. He's in the effort band.

"Look at the space" - he gets emotional. He says, "Ah, isn't that beautiful" or, "Oh, gee." He sighs or something of the sort. He hits the emotional band.

And you say, "Look at that space," and he looks at that space. He's in pretty good shape.

And you say, "Look at that space" - he knows all about that space. And that would be the top level. Now, this is a scale of condensation - Know to Sex. And the more a person has withdrawn from existence, why, the more dense you could say the individual had become, the less space he has and the further and more he will identify. He gets real stupid down there toward the bottom.

Now, there's one point, in addition to this, that you must know about this Data Sheet. And that is over here on Beingness Processing. Beingness Processing has many uses, many things can be done with it. It's listed as four here, on page 3. And we find that you could have a preclear who wasn't exteriorized be one thing right after another and actually move him out of - after that - being those things. You could do him some good with this process.

You see, he isn't being a body; he's being something else at the same time. But this process is not at this time intended for somebody who is interiorized. Now, notice it follows here the third. And it says what you do with the third is that you keep running Universe Processing and then SOP 8-C and Universe Processing and SOP 8-C and Universe Processing until you've got the guy exteriorized. So let's not confuse this Beingness Processing with an earlier Beingness Processing where you're still running the guy interiorized. It's not intended to be run that way in this Advanced Course Procedure.

The reason it isn't is because the other takes quite a little time. It's useful, but this other is more useful - Universe Processing. So the way this is written here it's intended that after the person is exteriorized, the first thing you ask him to be are spaces. You see, you've run 8-C on him; he's already located where he's not, and so forth. Well, let's just give him a space drill. Now, what is the patter for that drill? This is, by the way, an old process. This is a 1st Unit process. It's right there. I mean, we've been doing it for a long time. He's exteriorized; he has some certainty where he is. Now we ask him to be the space of the room, the space of the body, the space of the building, the space of the room, the space of the body, the space of the building, the space of the room, the space of the body, the space of the building. See? And we ask him to be other spaces, just like that. Repetitively, quickly, one after the other: "Be the space of the body, the space of the room, the space around the room, the space around the building, the space of the building, the space of the body, the space of the building, the space of the body, the space of the building, the space of the body, the space of your own universe, the space of the MEST universe, the space of somebody else's universe, the space of your own universe, the space of the MEST universe, the space of somebody else's universe." And that one you mustn't omit on that one, because very often a person's perceptics will turn on like the Great White Way. Three universes - you ask him to be the spaces of universes and so forth. You just chase him around doing this.

Now, just for fun, you start asking him to be this and be that, not in an effort to trap him, you know, to discover what things he can't be, but just to demonstrate to him that, look, he's freer than he used to be. He can look at things because he can duplicate them, he can be them, so therefore he can communicate with them, so he needn't be afraid of them. Now, there's a natural process.

And we run back and finally, after we've done a lot of this other, you see - "Be the space of the room," and so on - if at any time while you're running this fourth process ... This is important because it's not on here. Any time when you're running this thing, if the fellow starts to fog up on you or get sticky or something of this sort, just run some more Step I of 8-C. You know, ask him a lot of places he's not, some people he's not, where some people are not, and just sharpen him up a little bit.

And there's another little process that I run on them very continuously, to sharpen them, while I'm running Beingness Processing: "Take a look. What do you see? Duplicate it. Duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it. Throw it away. All right. Let's find a nothingness. Duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it. Throw it away. All right. Now let's take the room and let's duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and throw it away."

This is patter. I mean, this is just the most routine patter in the world for an auditor who has somebody exteriorized. There's two things an auditor does continually. I mean, every once in a while he just throws it in just for the hell of it; it's a good thing to do. You know, just a real good thing to do. His preclear is exteriorized; he's drilling him on something; he's running him here and there and so forth - just all of a sudden say, "Okay now, what you looking at? Okay, duplicate it. Duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it. Now, all right, throw those duplicates away. Now find a nothing. Now duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and throw it away. Okay, give me some places where you're not." Those are the two things you do, see - "Places where you're not," "Duplicate it." "Duplicate somethings; duplicate nothings. Duplicate somethings; duplicate nothings." "Places where you're not, places where you're not, places where you're not, places where you're not." Makes him look.

You'll find out that by salting down all of your processing - and particularly Beingness Processing - with this one, why, you get a long way along the line with your preclear. It sharpens up perception. Perception is, in essence, a communication. Isn't it? Duplication is the essence of communication. Well, if it is, you'd better give him duplication drills. Otherwise his perception will stay low. You can change the dickens out of somebody's perception by duplication drills, if he's exteriorized.

Now, if he's still in the body, of course, he's probably pushing around the body's universe. He's probably making the body do all these things rather than doing them himself. So that's the difficulty there. And if he's not exteriorized yet, you just take this third step up here and you just run it back and forth - "Things that are safe" and so forth - until you've got him exteriorized. SOP 8-C.

SOP 8-C, Step I and then some Universe Processing, and Step I and some Universe Processing, and all of a sudden you find out the guy isn't progressing so well; take him right straight back to the first step - try to establish two-way communication with him again - and then give him some Opening Procedure with particular attention to spotting places in space. Now grind on along the line again. Maybe after you've done that maybe he's exteriorized. Somewhere along the line he's going to exteriorize. You can't tell quite where, but if you notice that, that will go into an exteriorization proposition; the fellow will exteriorize.

"Places where viewpoints are safe" - it will occur to him many times that he doesn't want viewpoints here and he doesn't want viewpoints there and so forth. You just ignore it. You just keep getting places where viewpoints would be safe.

It's of interest in all of this process to use MEST universe space. Here's the common agreement ground on all of these universes. And I give you that caution. I told you that yesterday; tell it to you again today: try to get that weight over there on the MEST universe space. Try to get him looking in MEST universe space, pointing into MEST universe space, rather than searching around into other universe spaces. The MEST universe is sort of a crossroad.

And again in Beingness Processing, remember it's being spaces and being objects - whatever it is - after the person is exteriorized and you salt that process down with a lot of "Where are you not?" And you give it, at the same time, "Duplicate, duplicate, duplicate, duplicate."

With those things in view you should have no difficulty with these processes. The rest of the steps are self-explanatory. And they're also written up in here.

But no amount of processing or processes will overcome this one fact: auditor observation. You look at the preclear. Here in Advanced Course Procedure, we have the most effective processes that we know. They're good, they're fast. But they're only as good as the auditor will look at his preclear. They're no better than that. Because they can be run out of time, out of phase, in the wrong place. They could even be run with exactly the right patter but exactly the wrong time and actually make the preclear quite upset.

They produce rapid results in the view of how far you're trying to go with a case. You know, they get such tremendous distances that you're liable to overlook the fact that twenty or thirty hours of processing with Universe Processing is very well invested.

Okay.

(end of lecture)

UNIVERSE: MANIFESTATION PAGE 2 13.4.54

SOME MANIFESTATIONS OF PRECLEARS PAGE 2 5ACC-11 - 13.04.54

[[Category:Lectures]]
[[Category:Lectures 5ACC]]
[[Category:Lectures 1954]]