View source for Summary of Course to Date (3ACC 540119)

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

'''Date:''' 19 January 1954

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

----

← [[Lecture_Index_3ACC|Back to Series]]

A lecture given by L. Ron Hubbard on the 19 January 1954

And this is January the 19th, 1954, first morning lecture.

I want to give you a very rapid summary of the elements of the theory which you are supposed to know. It's very simple and you have had an awful lot of data.

Well, I like to go at this data every once in a while by giving you the central pins of this data to show what we're walking out from, because we are walking out from a held citadel, you might say. And this goes into this: knowingness – just knowingness. The fact that knowingness is not data and that knowingness is the top echelon, that knowingness is that which we're trying to achieve. And confidence, competence, certainty and all the rest of these things stem out of knowingness and these things are similar to knowingness.

Philosophy was not without good sense when it studied knowingness and it was with very, very bad sense when it departed from a study of knowingness. If you will read in philosophy, you will find that the main lines of philosophy make knowingness only one compartment and they cover that under epistemology. And right next to epistemology, they talk about ontology and they talk about rah-rahology and blah-blahology, bub-bubbology and yap-yapogy and it goes right on down the line. But they don't put knowingness first, last or anything else. And yet, every philosopher there is, is simply trying to know or trying to tell people what he doesn't know. And if they'd put epistemology up there and made a study out of it, they would have gotten somewhere with philosophy.

Funny part of it is, they didn't get anyplace. There have been an awful lot of things said by philosophers, but somebody said one rime, "There is nothing so absurd as cannot be found in the books of philosophers,"

The entire field of philosophy is actually a study of knowingness. And when we depart from that, why, we depart from anything sensible. We immediately depart from things that are sensible. We get into Kant's transcendentalism and where "Everything that is worth knowing is above the realm of human experience, so why try, you little pup, you?" That was just about his attitude, too – 1792 – put the brakes on almost any reasonable endeavor in the field of philosophy, I suppose because he'd made it so ridiculous that nobody else wanted to be associated with it.

You take Zeno's Apatheia – let's go way back in philosophy and we find out that Zeno wrote a little book called Apatheia. And he was very popular, he was one of the most popular men in the later Roman Empire days – fine, fine fellow. His philosophy went this way: "You can't win anyway, so why try?" That's right, that was the most favorite philosophy of the later Roman Empire.

And then we get to Schopenhauer and Schopenhauer is ramming around saying, "Well, there's only one way to defeat it and that's quit. Refuse to procreate, just go on and die, die quick, then you'll defeat the whole thing and then it will have lost." We do this double take on this and we find that he's over into some other compartment.

And here we go, left and right, and we get on up – the only fellow that really ever said anything sensible in this field that amounted to anything was Herbert Spencer. And Spencer said, "Well, there's the knowable and the unknowable and we'll take off from there." In other words, he introduced the compartmentation of problems. And we are rather indebted to Herbert Spencer for his method of approaching a problem rather than anything else. Then he went ahead and he wrote a formula which is not very workable.

But there is no such thing in philosophy as "not very workable." Things either work or they don't work. I mean, let's make an Aristotelian problem out of this and say that there's black and white, yes and no, two values – let's crunch on the thing and just be arbitrary as the dickens and see if we don't come up with something and sure enough we do, we do come up with something. We find that Man is trying to climb the ladder of knowingness and he has tried to climb it by philosophy and he's tried to climb it by mysticism and spiritualism and "this-is-this-is-ism" and "that-is-isms." But the final analysis demonstrates that he has made his greatest progresses in the field of knowingness alone. He has done modus operandi, you might say, on this MEST universe and all things are actually secondary to his knowledge of this universe – just as a purity, not as a knowledge of data. Science itself is a knowledge, it's a classified knowledge. And when we attack the problem with knowingness there at its highest echelon, we get solutions.

And so it is that we can take "know" and "not-know" and no matter how crudely, run them out of the preclear, we get him exteriorized. You got that? I mean, if we just turn around and take what we've already learned about philosophy and so forth and we just apply it straight to the preclear, we find out that immediately, crunch, we can exteriorize him if we specialize and just come down with a hard hand on know and not-know with the preclear.

Now, if you're looking for fancy techniques that will slide somebody surreptitiously out of his coco, you're not going to have to look any further than that, because it will do it.

I took a case that had been stumbling, stumbling, stumbling – going out and getting in, and effort and tin-cupping and tricky methods of exteriorization and finally I just made him Match Terminal "don't know," "I didn't know." "Match Terminal the first time you discovered you didn't know something" and back and forth, all kinds of bric-a-brac on the subject of not-knowingness. All of his operations turned up in a jump – he didn't know what happened during them. All of the puzzles that he had run concerning this MEST universe and its composition turned up and went poof! And with it went his fear. I exteriorized him, he exteriorized very stably with full perception. A very short time before that he'd been a completely black case.

All right.

Therefore, if we say that certainty and knowingness are themselves synonyms, if we can approach knowingness by saying it is certainty, we find out that the greatest mechanism that has ever been used against Man is to introduce uncertainty into his knowingness.

Therefore, we have a direct index for any individual as to what he considers his relative knowingness should be – not what his knowingness is, what his relative knowingness should be. He thinks his relative knowingness should be tremendous and his certainty is terrible, you know? That's because he's got to know so much and his certainty is terrible.

We get some other guy and we drag him out from behind a plow in one of the more barbaric tribes of Iowa and he does know what a clod is, it's something you hop. And we say, "Be three feet back of your head" and pang he does with perfect certainty. This guy is idiotically certain of the darnedest things, but he has no horizon of knowingness.

And we get some other fellow that's eighteen thousand times the guy and ninety thousand times as valuable and we say, "Be three feet back of your head" and he says, "What head?" Well, he knows there's so much more to know – the essential difference between these two people and it breaks down to certainty. So, knowingness itself becomes a relative problem and, as such, should be more understandable to you.

A fellow can go into the field of butterflies and suddenly realize that he doesn't know anything about the field of butterflies. Nothing wrong with this, but he can move right on into the field of butterflies and know something about the field of butterflies. But the first day or so that he's in the field of butterflies, he's the most uncertain of guys.

He doesn't know a Lepidoptera from an Aphrodite. His uncertainty is magnified many times, so he's quite uncertain.

Now, that's data-knowingness. It is more important to have the potentiality of knowing than it is to have the datum. These two things are quite significant in any case. Cases which have a tremendous potentiality of knowing are generally balked by society, not by blows but by denial of knowledge.

Some fellow thinks that if he went to the university and learned about a great many things, then he would be a very educated man and he'd be very knowing. Well, he might be a very smart fellow and he goes on up to the time he's fifty years of age knowing that he's not smart, because he didn't go to the university. This is an idiocy of itself. What he doesn't know is that in the university they don't know. He has taken the assumption that someplace, somewhere, somebody knows.

All right.

Looking at this field of knowingness again, we find something very, very interesting about Units such as yourself. And we wouldn't even approach this problem if we couldn't solve it, you see? Your cases flounder along for the first couple, three, sometimes even four weeks. You've just entered the field of butterflies and you don't know a Lepidoptera from an Aphrodite. And you feel then that you don't know and that there's a lot of not-knowingness in the air. See this? And so you have a less certain aspect for existence during that early period than you would ordinarily.

Any one of yous' cases, of course, would progress far better if you weren't entering a not-knowingness problem. But what do you know? Just as the fellow who enters the field of butterflies can know about butterflies and finally becomes the cockiest fellow you ever saw – somebody points out and says, "That's an Anistopholese."

And he says, "I'm very sorry, that's an Aphrodite."

And we get an immediate result then, through what? Through haying tackled the field of butterflies and brought himself through to a confidence about the data of butterflies.

Now, that's just in the field of data, you understand that?

All right. Let's get the difference, then, between your case as it progresses in this Unit and the case of the preclear which you process in a Clinic somewhere. He walks in off the street, you process him – three feet back of his head – he goes off and he's very happy about life. And you don't spend too much time with him. He finds out a lot of things, he thinks about a lot of things, he's in pretty good shape.

And you say, "Gee whiz. I wish my case would run like that."

Well, you're a slightly different breed of cat or you wouldn't be here. That's the long and short of it.

Your potential knowingness or thirst for knowingness must be much greater than that fellow you pulled in off the street. Must be. And to Clear you, "Be three feet back of your head," get certainty, get perception, that's all very well. Yes, that would increase your potential of knowingness, that would boost you way on up the line and leave you without any assembled data. And then what would you do? You'd start to run the same dwindling spiral that you got into when you first got into the dwindling spiral. And it's a spiral of not-knowingness.

You start ramming around, you run into a theta trap. What the hell is this? Never heard of this. But isn't that music beautiful? And here you go. And you aren't amongst our ranks anymore. Cute, huh? You're wiser than most.

There's the fellow who has great courage but still wants to know before he goes. Now, when you get into this theta trap, why, you say, "Oh, it's a theta trap – it's a pole-type theta trap, what do you know? Ha-ha! What do you know, pole-type theta trap."

"All right. Be three feet back of the theta trap."

"Okay."

"All right. Now, I'll put a spot of beingness three feet above the theta trap." "Now grant beingness to it very heavily." "Now be it."

"Well, this theta trap sure looks funny from up here."

You're not up against a wall of unknowingness. If you're going to continue to live in this universe, you have to have a lot of its data. Well, several of you have already adventured out and snapped back in and so forth, because of what? No more, no less, you ran into something that was strange and apparently, as far as you were concerned, quite unknowable. All right.

So let's just cut this problem across and realize that we're not – while we are almost the same as studying butterflies, we're actually tackling the problem at the darnedest level that anybody ever tried to tackle this problem, which is just simply this: The total mechanics of livingness. I'm not saying we're attacking it there, we're trying to attack it there – total mechanics of livingness.

Now, there's several boles in what we know. Let's not blind ourselves to the fact that there still exist certain holes.

We do not know, absolutely for sure, that the MEST universe is being placed there as an automaticity. This we do not know for sure. Everything seems to incline to that, demonstrably, but we don't have a final proof of this. It doesn't happen to matter if you can handle the MEST universe. Because if you can handle the MEST universe – that is to say, if you can go through a mountain without getting stuck and if you can have a couple of mountains fall on your body and yet go out and make or get another body without much disturbance, certainly the MEST universe doesn't kind of get to be the big problem it was. And if you can materialize at a far distance, why, the problem of distance itself doesn't become the bone crusher which it always was. You see that?

So that the final point in that will turn up someday. Someday we will know for sure whether or not – absolute certain – we make it! Or absolutely certain, "My God, there was a fellow named God after all and he's sitting up on Planet Eight." See? I mean, it'll be that type of answer. It won't be a bunch of balderdash which we stir up and mix up and so forth.

But that is knowingness in a category of data. Now, when we get potential knowingness, we get how much spread is this fellow willing to take on in terms of how big? In other words, how much knowingness does this fellow conceive to be knowingness, potentially? And that would be area knowingness, which is to say, he knows everything that's going on in this entire solar system or he knows everything that's going on, on 42nd and Broadway. See, an area of knowingness. Now, he's got just this little area or this big area and the next fellow comes along and he isn't satisfied unless he's got the whole potential of knowingness of the entire MEST universe from end to end and what everybody's got in his pocket on every planet, see? Now, that's his potential of knowingness.

So, he goes into area knowingness and he adds to that data knowingness. But he might be carrying along wonderfully with potential knowingness and his potential knowingness might be very great, but because of data knowingness – you see, absence of data knowingness – potential knowingness great and the absence of data knowingness great, too, so we get him uncertain,

This is, again, relative knowingnesses.

Now, if you're going to play a game, it's a good thing to know all the rules. The MEST universe is a game consisting of barriers. And when you get all the rules assembled as the rules are and as they exist, of course, you can play a much better game.

Did you ever run into a football player who didn't know any of the rules of football who played a good game of football? Well, you never ran into a football player who didn't know the rules of football in the first place. But the next thing we would get to that is a spectator of a baseball game who didn't know anything about baseball. It's a kind of a silly-looking hodgepodge to him.

Well, imagine being a player in a baseball game and not knowing any of the rules of baseball. Boy, you would be impressed every split second of the entire nine innings with your complete unknowingness. You'd finish up those nine innings feeling the most stupid person that you ever heard of but maybe with a little hope.

And that's approximately what you've been doing, life by life by life. You see, you play the nine innings and then wind up with a little hope: "Well, maybe next time." And each one is very convincing that you don't know the rules, because somebody is always inventing some new rules or some more rules that they say are the rules. And the entire passion of other players in this particular game is "hide the rules." Science has the single virtue of being a game called "find the rules."

So, where we get a little boggy is just on this knowingness. But remember, perforce then, we must be making a different type of Clear out of you. It's not that the state will be any lower eventually or it'll be any higher. As far as this guy in Iowa, you see, you pop him out of his head and he's perfectly Clear and he can do all sorts of things. He doesn't know how he's doing them and that's the big hole that would be left all the way along the line in his processing.

Now, don't mistake it, you've made him better than anybody has ever been made better. So it's no small gain that you've made there, but how about you?

All right, by the time you get out of your head thoroughly, completely, with a tremendous certainty and have nothing left kicking around inside the body that you're still trying to hold on to and no old mock-ups that you're trying to hide from you and this and that and so on, you've got a terrifically clean vista. You are the thing which has never occurred before: a wise thetan. And so it takes just a few weeks longer to make a wise thetan than it does just a Clear.

Now, here's what we're up against, then. We're up against knowing a bit before we go. It is actually a different type of clearing. You'll run into this when you're training people. You've just shown them all the things they didn't know and then you say, "Be three feet back of your head."

And they say, "What fog?" You see that? All right.

Theoretically you could approach this on the basis: as the person comes in, you just merely assume that he knows everything there is to know and you convince him that he knows everything there is to know and that he has the answers to everything. You can say, "Be three feet back of your head," he would be.

Only trouble is, he wouldn't have the answers to everything, because we have, again, at least two kinds of knowledge. We have data and then we just have knowingness – ability to know. But don't mistake it. The ability to know a datum goes through the route of finding out.

Now, you've been looking for "spontaneous prefrontalizing" whereby you suddenly and completely know all the data that there is to be known about livingness. Well, it's possible to do that, but it's unfortunate that you never will. It's too much fun finding out. And if you lost the game of finding out totally and completely, you would feel pretty lost, see? We always put a little more horizon.

Now, if knowingness is the top echelon, then you always would like to croche just a little bit further into knowingness so that you get up to potential knowingness. I can tell you in a breath what potential knowingness is: potential knowingness is that there's nothing. And when you'd know that with entire certainty, you would be a very, very, very wise person with not a damn thing to do. The ardures you go through to convince yourself there is something is, in itself, the game called MEST universe.

So, we're getting there. But we're getting there on a much higher level of certainty because we're getting there in terms of modus operandi as well as just beingness.

So when you step down one space from knowingness, you can get a beingness. There's nothing cockier, for instance, than a six-months-old pup. He has elected to be a terrifically cocky, confident character. And he goes around and he'll fight with any dog, he'll walk up to anybody to be petted, he will eat anything.

Well, you look at this character and, as a matter of fact, a little bit of nostalgic sadness always comes over you because you know very well what this state is, since you pretend to it every time you hit that age. And you know how many guys are going to boot him in the skull before he's very much older and how many meals are going to disagree with him. But the nostalgia is, is look at all the fun he's going to have finding out.

Therefore, data becomes at once happy material and regretted material. Now, when we cover this subject from that standpoint, when we cover a person from a standpoint such as that, a great clarity of what we are trying to do, a certain singleness of purpose, immediately emerges in our work.

The human mind was a storage vessel and computer for knowledge – Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health. You know, it didn't say it was knowledge. The thetan is himself knowledge. We're closer to it, you see? So that we fulfill the goals of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. we know the anatomy of the human mind, as a human mind. You're no longer working in the human mind, although occasionally you think you are. You're working in the high level of knowingness of the thetan. And, of course, his potentiality of knowingness is total.

As you get up the line, you'll have a harder time keeping yourself from knowing something than you will otherwise. For instance, every once in a while somebody gives me a wrapped-up present. I just have to construct a box around it and put an enormous piece of black space inside of it. I have to actually do a flinch and opaque the box in order not to know what's in it. And then I open it up and I'm so surprised. But, of course, there's always a little tiny lock shows up on it earlier. It's just the instant that black space was going on there, of course, I saw it, so that had to be occluded. Well, that blows when I open up the package.

Thetan is always doing this sort of thing. You have a little tiny black box or something of the sort and he's got it all rigged up that when he opens it, boy, will he be surprised. And a lot of your preclears have stashed all around their anatomy, you might say, these little boxes and little hampers and junk – just junk. They're afraid they'll get bored someday and they'll have this stuff to open and, boy, will they be surprised! As a matter of fact, that's one of the drills of 8-O: teaching a fellow how to surprise himself.

Well, when we get on the level of what we are doing and integrate from that level, we find that Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health, the mind was the vessel and computer of knowledge. All right, if it was the vessel and computer of knowledge, why, then we were studying a vessel and computer and so we did study a vessel and computer. And we know pretty much – practically all there is to know about that vessel and computer, weirdly enough. I mean, in terms of theory and practice, you can do an awful lot of fabulous things with that vessel and computer, using, you know, most any of the technologies which we have. Whether it stays that way or not is actually beside the point. We can cause an effect.

Well, anybody who is intent only on causing permanent effects that will never be changed and so forth is crazy. Do you see that? The fellow who is trying to cause a permanent effect which will never alter thereafterwards – he's slightly goofy. Any preclear is goofy only where he has tried to make a permanent effect which is now going to stay there forever. One of the most unadmired things there is, is to make a machine which will thereafter run. That's unadmired. You make a machine which will produce something and continue to produce something thereafter. You can Match Terminal that – Double Terminal it, concepts of it and resembling it – and you'll get an enormous amount of action. You get the same amount of action on logic – there's several of them: men will get the action to some degree on women and there are several stellar, sparky actions that are just right up there. And the action is as great as the concept is false. All right.

We have knowingness, then, as the top echelon of what we're trying to do and the synonyms for it are confidence, certainty, competence. But as we introduce these other words, we introduce other facets of knowingness. Now, let's take competence. Competence is no more than this: it is the ability to predict or move into line and predict the new position or new consecutive positions of two particles. That's competence.

If you don't believe that's competence, go through this simple drill sometime: Drive your car out on a flat somewhere where there's a lot of desert – you know, a lot of cleared space or a vacant lot and put up little flags (if you haven't got any desert space) and just weave your way in and out amongst these flags doing this: you predict where you're going to put the car before you even start to turn it in that direction. And you keep predicting you're going to put it there and then put it someplace else and then put it someplace else and put it someplace else and then you're going to put it someplace else and then you're going to change your mind and put it yet another place.

You have a tremendous competence. It's great, it's not slight.

When you have employed your competence in the past to injure your fellow man or to injure animals, you have regretted your competence. And there is where your competence went. With great competence you took this bone knife and slit somebody's throat, very expertly placed the knife blade exactly where it was supposed to go and slurrpp! Gone. And then you regretted your competence.

Actually, you saw the fellow sink before you and you had to duplicate sinkingness. And so you didn't duplicate the sinkingness and you've never duplicated it since, accurately and adequately, and so you still regret that tremendous competence. You aren't actually regretting competence at all, you see, it's just the fact that you didn't duplicate it. And in such a wise, we get this prediction of particles.

You can do this exercise, I said, by the way, you can do it with a horse, do it with a motorcycle. Again, you just make the postulate you're going to put the animal or the vehicle someplace and then put it there and then make up your mind you're going to put it in such and such a place and then change your mind and put it in another place. And after a while, the vehicle will start to do things vehicles aren't supposed to do. Your competence can just go up that high.

That would be the essence, by the way, of making a terrific jet pilot. You'd be surprised how much feeling there is in any individual that the vehicle or anything is itself acting. And an individual is as incompetent as he believes these particles are themselves self-determined.

Knowingness and competence. Of course, knowingness, that's sort of knowing where it is going to go and so we're into flows and energies and so forth. But this is the universe we live in. It is composed of flows and energies, so we certainly better have competence regarding them. If we're going to deal continually with particles, then let's be able to handle particles – not "let's just shun particles." All right?

I'm giving that a wider coverage this morning because, actually, we don't have too much summary on knowingness – not as much as we have some of the other material which stems from it.

Very rapidly, the elements which are most important at this time, just as a quick summary (I might have left one out here, but probably not), as a quick summary, the other elements that we have been studying are knowingness and then we have duplication. And "duplicate or not to duplicate, that is the question." And that's the only question there is, in terms of form. See, the second we put knowingness down into terms of form, in terms of flows, we first get into competence and then we get into duplication. We also with competence, by the way, get into convincingness and proof and other aspects of knowingness itself. But when we get down to just plain modus operandi – I mean, just bric-a-brac and mechanics and that sort of thing – we're immediately into duplication.

Exact communication is one which is exactly duplicated. A communication is as good as it is exactly duplicated.

So communication is a specialized thing which uses space and uses duplication. It is a certain way of making a cause become an effect. You see, it's a very certain, specialized way of making a cause become an effect. In just plain knowingness there are other ways of making causes become effects. So, then we have beingness which is space and we have doingness which is energy and we have havingness which is time. And then we have everything we know about beingness, of course, just as such, and doingness just as such, and havingness just as such, and space just as such, and energy just as such and time just as such.

But we have that coordination of these six elements. And that coordination is quite important because you can translate, in terms of experience, some of these things. And many a time you'll be looking blankly at a preclear, wondering what the devil he's doing, when it will suddenly occur to you that this individual's laziness has something to do with energy and you will begin to probe just a little bit on the subject and you will find that the individual, early in life, perhaps, was a lineman for an electric company, Oh-oh. And now he's lazy. Why, that's peculiar. And these two data are immediately and intimately related. And there is where the case crosses and there is where his cross-up is. He's worried mainly, and so are you, about his laziness. He can't work, he says and so on. And we find these two coordinated data and we clear it up and he starts working like a steam engine – he's just going in all directions. You just merely cleared up the fear of electricity across a line.

Well, that's just one example, and a rather crude one, of the application of these coincidences where we have beingness – space; doingness – energy, havingness – time.

Now, we have this individual who hasn't got enough time to assimilate data. And we immediately discover that this is a symptom of havingness. So there must be something wrong or aberrated, in some way or other, about some havingness or other about this individual. See, we could just process endlessly, in the terms of clocks, in the terms of study, in terms of examination. And we could just go on and plow, plow, plow, plow, plow and we wouldn't get very far in the case unless we realize this person is having trouble with time. All right, if he's having trouble with time – having trouble with havingness. Well, let's translate it immediately into havingness and do some Remedy of Havingness. Soon as we start remedying havingness, the person has enough time. See, it's so very simple. So, we've got that as the experience which is comparable to the MEST universe.

So we've got the parts of the MEST universe, of space, energy and time. And those are the component parts of the MEST universe. And those component parts in human experience translate over to beingness, doingness and havingness and as long as we remember this and use it, why, you're going to get a tremendous lineup.

The fellow says, "Well, you know, I…" his name, by the way, is Custard, and he's very pasty. Man's having trouble with beingness. Why? He's trying to be his name, immediate adjudication: he's trying to be his name. And this name is not a very desirable name and so help me, this fellow's not going to be able to be his name after all, unless he gets eaten. And this is idiotic, so the man must be having trouble with beingness, so he's having trouble with space.

So, all right. "Well, be the space back of your body." "Be the space of your body." "Be the space of the room." "Be the space back of your body." "Be the space of your body." "Let's find two spaces you don't object to having together." So we've got space and time locking together. All kinds of material immediately shows up. "Let's hold the two back anchor points of the room." Yeah, that's it, that one we could slug into with this fellow and chew, chew, chew, chew, chew, right along the line on that and we would get a remedy of his trying to be custard.

And we never touched his name. We didn't have to be specific at all. Now, you see, you can get very clever knowing this, as long as you remember the theory and the rules back of the game, to that degree.

Now, part of the rules simply say, "All right, your beingness is as big as you can occupy space," it says – it sort of says here on the MEST universe.

This isn't necessarily true in every universe, you see? But it's sure true in this universe. Your beingness is as great as you can occupy space. In other words, you can be as much space as you can occupy and that's all and that applies to the universe. And you can do as much as you have energy. That's a lie, by the way. You don't do because you have energy, but this universe says, "You can do if you have energy."

You see that again. It doesn't apply to every universe, but it sure applies to this one. I say it doesn't necessarily apply to every universe. You can sit back and think how it might apply to another universe and you'd probably come up with the same answer, but there might be some variations on it, but we'd certainly know that here that energy… so on. "Wheaties, the Breakfast of Champions" – this is how – so on. "You can do if you have energy." I mean, they dramatize it all over the place. This is balderdash. "You can do as much as you can create" would come closer to the truth, but the trouble with your preclear's doingness is energy. If he's afraid of energy: "Now, give me three energies which you are not."

This fellow won't go out of the house. We say, well, he's having space trouble. Well, he can't touch space. Well, he isn't doing anything. He's staying in one place. He isn't doing. He isn't moving around. Well, this requires energy and you'll run into this problem very often. If you didn't know this, you'd find this a very confounding problem – has to do with the walls being too thick or something of the sort. No, it just has to do with this: "Give me three energies which you are not, which you don't have to be afraid of at the moment. Three energies which aren't touching you at the moment" – almost any kind of a process – Straightwire or any other kind of a process which would get him into handling energy again and get him familiar with energy and get him over being afraid of it.

Now, we take this – I just gave you an example – havingness.

This individual has to have, has to have, has to have and he doesn't like anything he has. Well, you remember in the Doctorate tapes: anything you get in this universe you don't want, anything you don't want you get, anything that you agree with will disagree with you and anything… It's a rather sad picture, but that's when you get into flows. Well, you know that's the case, so that the fellow is getting into havingness, he's going to have a rough time of it, Then, must be something wrong with his havingness, so you remedy it. You can sometimes hit a specific example with Creative Processing, which immediately snaps him out of it.

For instance, havingness. I found that an individual one time couldn't have a school. He was very stupid, he thought. He couldn't have a school. Why couldn't he have a school? And we traced it back to his being expelled – you can laugh if you please, but he was six years old and he was expelled.

Well, he was expelled under terrific duress and they made a great deal of it and it meant as much to that six-year-old as it would mean to an admiral to be court-martialed. And he had just covered up the incident and buried it up and hidden it carefully and it was sitting there as an automatic machine that told him he couldn't have schools. And it also told him he didn't dare fight anybody, because that's why he was expelled. And he was in fear thereafter.

You, of course, are on shaky ground when you try to solve a case with one little button or something of the sort. But here we found the main trouble with this individual was havingness, because his time was all out. He couldn't start anything, that was the main trouble with him and so there he was. And the solution of that havingness materially advanced his case. All right.

Then we've got communication, which is the A-B line, and something that starts through space is B duplicating A or not duplicating A. And one end of it, the A or source end, we call Cause and the other end we call Effect. And we have a Cause-Effect graph and that is Cause-Effect.

Now, we turn that same graph backwards when we get a conversation and you'll find all sorts of peculiar manifestations occurring on this communication line. We find the individual who can't have space has A and B or C and E (A and B, just the nominative letters, they're actually Cause and Effect), we get C and E immediately together. Well, what's this tell you? This tells you if he has C and E together that everything he causes he'll be the effect of.

Holy cats. There's your overt act-motivator sequence, which has been so puzzling for so long. Individual cannot act because of the consequences. Well, what's this all about? Well, it goes back to a problem of beingness, then, simply must be a problem of beingness, because he doesn't have space. If he doesn't have space, he can't have any space between C and E and that's a necessary condition to communication. So we get overt act-motivator sequence, we get motivator hunger, we get all sorts of weird things. This fellow, for instance, every time he puts out a mock-up, it hits him in the face. Well, he can't put any space between two terminals, that's all, he can't put any space between C and E. He's cause, but he puts something out there and he becomes the effect of anything he tries to put out there. So he is the effect of anything he tries to cause, so he won't act anymore. And that's immediate result of just looking at that communication graph.

Now, we go into this whole band which goes down from Knowingness, Beingness, Perceivingness, Emotingness, Effortingness, Thinkingness, Symbolizingness, Eatingness and Sexingness. And we look at that whole band and we find out that there's more darn processes on that band and the funny part of it is, is we process somebody, he'll run through these condensations. And there's a funny way of checking a case that will interest you. There's an odd way of checking a case: Is he moving up the band or down the band as you process him? Is he becoming more interested in, or is he getting more pictures of, the upper or the lower manifestation on that band?

In other words, as we process his thinkingness for quite a while and all of a sudden he gets very interested in symbols. Oh, no. No, no. We're processing him south. We don't want to process him south. We'd better start processing him north. We've probably given him too much somethingness processes. We haven't given him enough nothingness to process. We've been validating symbols just by talking to him and analyzing words and so forth and we've driven him south. Well, he's getting further and further from effort. We want to get him up through effort and force, objects, way up the line up there.

Well, let's take the emotional band. I'm going to give you an example in a little while on some processing on the emotional band which is very interesting.

The straightwire-type process that you find in 8-C, negative orientation-type processing, is applicable to this whole band. "Give me three efforts which you don't have to make right now, just take one at random." "Give us three sexual manifestations you don't object to." The next half-hour will be spent with a preclear's having a hard time – but the next half-hour will be spent waiting for that preclear to come up with the answer or trying to assist him in coming up with an answer somehow or another.

Every once in a while you'll really put both feet in it. You'll wish, "For God's sakes, why did I ever ask that question?" Because you didn't estimate the person's position on the tone band, you gave him something which was too tough.

This preclear should have had Opening Procedure a lot more minutes, or tens of minutes, than you gave it to him. You said, well, you felt good that morning – the preclear didn't, but you felt good that morning. And you said, "Give me three kinds of sex that you don't object to."

"Three kinds? Let's see, one – no-no…" You're in for a picnic. You'll just have to work with him then. You've asked him the question. Well, by golly, if you've asked him the question, get an answer. All right.

You can take that whole band, then, and apply this type of Straightwire, you apply it in brackets and so on. But remember, as you're applying that type of Straightwire that it can get off into a subjective process. It gets off into a subjective process the moment that you start getting the rest of the bracket. See that? The rest of the bracket and here we go, it's into a subjective process.

So, every time you've run a subjective process for a while, let's run some nothingness.

All right. Now, let's look at the cycle-of-action of the MEST universe as one of the factors which we're dealing with and we find that it is Create-Survive-Destroy, which is in the Vedic – it was stated: birth so, so-and-so. Actually that cycle goes Nothingness-Create-Survive-Destroy-Nothingness. Nothingness is on both ends of the band, it's just understood to be. You see, it starts here at create and goes over to destroy through persist or survive. And you have understood at that moment, without stating it, that a nothingness was ahead of the creation and nothingness was behind it, but we've just always omitted to state that supposition.

Actually, the nothingness before and the nothingness afterwards are more important to you as an auditor than the Create-Survive-Destroy in the middle of the cycle.

Well, out of that we get cycles-of-action. We find this individual can't create anything. Well, if he can't create anything, it's probably because he can't destroy anything and he's probably bent upon surviving. We can run end of cycle on all sorts of things or run beginning of cycle to back his track up. And that's a cute little trick – you run beginning of cycle: "Now get something which you haven't created yet. Now get something else out there in a mock-up form which you haven't created yet."

The guy will wake up to the fact that he has to put nothing there, he has to start with a nothingness. Well, in the whole business of existence, you're always trying to start with a nothingness and are being confounded by the fact that there's so many somethingnesses around.

You're going to build this housing project and you've got it all drawn down on paper and you're just going to have a wonderful time building this housing project and, oh man, it's just tremendous there. You've just got all this nothingness and you're just filling it in, in all places, you see. And you're going out there and you're going to assemble new lumber and "Oh boy, this is going to be a beautiful housing project." And then you drive out to the place and find there's a tenement sitting on the ground you're going to use. "Well, that's all right, but you can tear all it down," you say, "and we still can start with a nothingness, you see?"

And they say, "Well, you can tear it all down but those two buildings over there and they're on a ninety-nine year lease."

You say, "How do we integrate those into our housing project?"

"Well, I don't know, you'll just have to."

Oh. You're already starting with a somethingness, so we can't run a clean cycle.

A clean cycle is always run from a nothingness through to a nothingness. The preclear's difficulty is that he can't run a clean cycle. Death is not a clean cycle. His tremendous effort to have death remain death is simply this effort to start with nothing so that he can create something cleanly, out of whole cloth, which will not be influenced by earlier structures.

The painter starts in with a piece of clean canvas and he's going to paint something. And he says, "You know, I'm going to start in with a complete nothingness – look at this beautiful piece of white canvas." And there's a letter there saying, "Dear Mr. Petty, This time we want a girl with slightly longer legs." See, he can't create it. That's the somethingness. The somethingness is the order. And no telling what he would do if he could start with a clean canvas, but he never does.

But once in a blue moon you'll go into a painter's place and you'll look around and you will find some particularly magnificent startling piece of stuff, you see? Oh, it's got verve and everything. Oh, it's just tremendous.

And you'll say, "What's that?"

"Well, I don't know, one day I just knocked it off, not for any reason or anything of the sort and never put it up for exhibition or anything, it's just there."

And you say, "That's terrific. That's got a lot of… "

"Well, I don't know, maybe they like it and maybe they don't."

He isn't anxious to sell that thing. That's the only one he ever started with a nothingness. He had no reason, no purpose to paint it, no significance about it. He just up and painted something. And that's very valuable to him.

Many a young writer is much better off than many an old dog who is a terrific craftsman, because the old dog is always starting with a somethingness and the young writer is terribly impressed with the fact of his own nothingness. So we get the élan and the dash and verve of a new writer's material and the tremendous perfection and rhythm of an old writer's material. It's tremendously perfect, there are no errors in it – there's no spark, either.

Then we have just plain nothing-something, as a basic. These are all just basics I'm giving you, just basics. There's something and nothing: betwixt the two they make a "maybe." And almost any something that you see was, theoretically, according to the Theta-MEST Theory, the halfway line between an absolute something and an absolute nothing. That was the Theta-MEST Theory: absolute something to absolute nothing. And you're hanging up somewhere between. You see, that wall over there really isn't a something and it really isn't a nothing. It's at least an idea and it's got space in it and you might not be able to find the electrons, but the space is there. And there's a lot of questions come up about it. Well, the reason the questions come up about it is because it isn't an absolute something.

Well, we falter by the wayside when we try to find this absolute something. It is not obtainable, not according to my experience. There is no matter which yet does not contain some space. I know of no matter which does not yet contain some space. I know of no real particle of energy – nothing that actually exists – I know of impulses, but I don't know of any particles.

Now, we're talking nuclear physicswise. And that's been awfully thoroughly investigated recently and, although the boys are pretty well off the track on a lot of things, that one hasn't seen any reason to vary. It just keeps getting proven more and more and more so.

But theoretically, according to the Theta-MEST Theory, there is somewhere an absolute somethingness. And it would be halfway between this nothingness and this somethingness that you get this kind of a MEST universe "maybe." And the reason why the MEST universe remains a maybe is because it is a maybe. You can't know the MEST universe utterly and absolutely with great certainty because it is a maybe.

And that's the Theta-MEST Theory. That isn't necessarily true or false, that is the theory on which we were proceeding a couple of years ago which brought up a lot of other stuff here. Still has validity, though, and it hasn't been supplanted. Still predicting data and when looked for, the data is found.

Absolute somethingness. What would that be? It would be something which actually had mass and didn't have any space between its mass, which actually did have particles. And boy, that would really be something, wouldn't it?

A pinhead of it here on Earth, theoretically, would weigh enough so that if it were dropped, it would pass straight through Earth. It wouldn't stop on the surface, it would

wind up at the core. The gravitic action of that pinhead would probably be greater than the total gravitic action of Earth and yet, theoretically, it exists. All right.

Something and nothing. Always – you can always make a process out of something and nothing and certainty. I don't care what kind of a process it is, it'll have workability. Just like you can always make a process out of something about time. And that's the next one: time.

You can directly process time in terms of particles and spaces. The individual is objecting to time and all you're interested in is what he's resisting about time, not his theory of time. He's either in apathy about having rejected some time or in fear of some time being rejected or just objecting to time in general. And that's always because something has occurred to him in terms of havingness which he doesn't like.

And so there's particles which are apart that he ought to have together and particles which are together that he ought to have apart back in 1066 and he's still trying to prevent the Norman charge or something at the Battle of Hastings. And here are all these particles starting to come up the hill and he's trying to get these arrows to go down the hill and it hasn't taken place yet, because he got killed at that moment. And you'll find him stuck right there. But do you have to look for that incident, really, or process it? No, you just get particles that he has to have apart and particles that he has to have together and particles he doesn't object to being apart and… "Now get two particles you wouldn't want together" is another variation of this.

A nuclear physicist always comes up with the answer very surprisingly and very pleased all of a sudden, "Two plutonium particles – don't want those together, they can stay apart just as far as they want." All right.

And from there we go on into the eight dynamics, which is just compartmentation of what we're trying to create, make persist and destroy and then we get into ARC and the Tone Scale. And they have not departed, ARC and the Tone Scale, just because we don't pay much attention to them.

As an example of that in the last lecture, "Give me three things you wouldn't object to communicating with," would be the proper way to get it. "Three things you wouldn't object to communicating with." "Three things that aren't trying to communicate with you." "Three things you're not trying to communicate with." "Three things you don't have to have any affinity for." "Three things that don't have to have any affinity for you." Such variations as that will process the guy up the scale and will actually change his position on the meter.

Now, the Tone Scale itself, as you will find there on the back wall, that is the most complete available Tone Scale.

Now, you're trying, essentially, to predict human beings.

In order to live with human beings, you have to predict them or predict MEST objects or predict spirits or predict something. You want to know what they are going to do. That's where people get hung up in this universe and the Tone Scale is a prediction of what people are going to do. It's unfortunately quite, quite accurate.

All right.

[[Category:Lectures 3ACC]]