Duplication, Part II (7ACC 540719)
Series: 7th Advanced Clinical Course (7ACC)
Date: 19 July 1954
Speaker: L. Ron Hubbard
Now, we're going to talk about duplicates. And although I have talked to you a lot about duplicates (for a long time we've been using this word duplicate), a continuous hovering over and examination of the Formula of Communication itself and having to write it at some length in your Auditor's Handbook, some more data turned up on duplication.
And that data was simply this: I won't pretend to you that I knew every part of Scientology fifteen or twenty-five years ago. I won't pretend to you that I knew everything I am talking to you about fifteen days ago. Because, as I cover material and clarify it for people, a new simplicity turns up here and there and so forth and it becomes incorporated into it. As well as the fact, when I'm actually, solidly working on it and working with preclears to try to size up something, run it right, run it wrong and so on, new data turns up. It's what I do – research and investigation, codification and communication of the information relating to Homo sapiens, thetans, saints, sinners, cats, kings and coal heavers.
Now, an examination of havingness demonstrates to us that we are living in a duality of purpose and intent. The GE – the body – is sitting there because it has to duplicate because it can't duplicate. Now, let's follow this a little closer. It's sitting there because it has to but it can't, but it has to.
Now, there's a sort of an electronic gel that the body has around it which it uses as a sort of a focusing screen and if any of you have ever had this manifestation, you will know exactly what I am talking about: You have looked at some bright object and then have gone off with this same bright object planted squarely in front of you, but you were no longer looking at the bright object. You ever do this?
Well, you could produce this phenomenon with an individual. It's a little different than persistent vision. Now, persistent vision would work this way: You would look at a wall which had a bright window in it. You are inside the building looking at a wall and here's this window. And then you turn away from the window and you see the window everywhere. Or you get a little flash in front of your face and after that you've got a red spot or something, sitting in front of your face.
Now, that is persistent vision and that is simply the eyeballs doing this same trick. Now, this other one – blow it up into magnitude now and recognize it is not something which is isolated to the eyeball but something which is in this so-called electronic gel which surrounds the body to a greater or lesser depth.
Sometimes the body has practically none of it; sometimes it has a tremendous quantity of it. But it's sort of like an eyeball. All right.
An individual sees something and he gets a full color picture of it sitting in front of his face. You ever notice this one? All right. Maybe some of you meant that the first time.
And sometimes a preclear shuts his eyes and he can see dear old Grandpa lying right there in the coffin. And sometimes the preclear shuts his eyes and the auditor says, "Now, let's see. What are you looking at?" or "Go back to …" or something of this sort and lo and behold, here is a great big Fac One camera lens staring him in the face, you know.
Well, this is a registration in this electronic gel. Now, we'll just say electronic gel because H it's a consideration, too. It's just part of an anatomical structure. It's part of the anchor-point system and so forth.
But what is this doing? This is actually refusing to duplicate, so it gets a permanent duplicate. And when you run an engram, a facsimile, out of somebody, you could be running one or two things. Now, a thetan can actually manufacture one of these things. Because it isn't a duplicate, it will then remain as a piece of energy. It isn't a duplicate, you see – I mean, in the strict sense of the word.
What it is, is a facsimile. It is a copy. So right now, we had better, for some of our nomenclature, substitute the word "copy" where we before meant "making a duplicate alongside of it," as in Remedy of Havingness. See that? So that makes out Auditor's Handbook have a wrong line in it. It says duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it and duplicate it
Well, that's just fine, but it won't remedy havingness. The reason it won't remedy havingness is because if he really duplicated, it would simply vanish. See that?
Now, an individual who will not duplicate gets a persistence of these energy masses. So, he gets lots of facsimiles. But an individual who is perfectly willing to duplicate, of course, doesn't have any facsimiles.
Now, a thetan way back on the track thought it was a cute trick to make a copy of something. Well, you could always make a copy of something and stick it in your pocket and go on your way and look at it afterwards like sailors use pinup girls – I mean, same principle exactly. It wasn't a duplicate, it was a copy. It's a copy of the original.
And as such, you will find many thetans with lots of packages of copies – oh, tremendous numbers of copies of all kinds of things. Now, he actually uses the principle of copying to remember. Now here is copying and memory. An individual takes a copy of a book and that copy of the book persists, but the book itself gets burned up in some purge or something of this sort but he's still got a copy of the book.
Well, this is all very well as long as he's a thetan (he's operating just fine) and if every time he looks at it, he is willing to make a new copy. Of course, this tells you that he'd have to know about it and know its entire content all the time in order to see it.
There isn't any such thing as a persistency of energy. There's a persistency of energy in case one is unwilling to have a persistency of energy. Do you understand that? This is the reverse mechanism. This is doing something for your own good and so forth. Do you get this? Do you follow this?
Persistency of energy would come about one, directly on a postulate: "This is going to persist and resist all effects." You could do that just on a postulate.
Now, the individual inverts and he says, "This must not persist." Gong! There it is, see? But he's on a reverse postulate system already when he's doing that. So there's something wrong with his considerations. The basic error is with his considerations. You got that?
Now, the same individual, when he said he puts flitter out, he will find the flitter coming in. That's because this universe goes in reverse and he has simply agreed with the universe and he's copied the universe so long and so continually that when he says yes, he means no. And when he says no, he means yes.
When he says, "I want to live," he starts to kill himself. When he says, "I want to die," then he starts to live. See? This universe has got to be in reverse or, by golly, it wouldn't be here for three seconds.
You go around tampering with this universe, you know, and bad things will happen to it. I mean, all the buses of the Traction Company are liable to stop tractioning. You went out there overtly and you taught everybody Scientology and you got them to realize that every time they looked at a bus – because this would have to be on an agreement basis, you see – every time they looked at a bus that they were actually duplicating it. See, that's not true, either – it's a consideration. If you convinced people that every time they looked at a bus they were actually duplicating the bus in order to see at all and so on, there wouldn't be any more buses.
Now, this is the living truth of the matter. You see that? That's again got a compulsion in it. A consideration made freely can bring about any manifestation which you want brought about – any manifestation. You can consider that you want to look at, admire, enjoy, do anything you want to with an object and it will stay there. Why? Because you wanted it there. And that's why it's there, you see? But if you were to duplicate it – that specific, special consideration – a little while, it would do just like this object in the front of the room did under that test: it'd start to fade.
Now, somebody who is having difficulty with the reversal on the thing would have found it getting brighter – would have found it getting brighter, brighter, brighter, brighter, and would have seen more of the room, more of the room, more of the room, more of the room. And then they would have gone, if we'd kept it up – you can make this as a test in an individual session – they'd just go over the peak and then all of a sudden it'd start to fade. You see how that would be?
Now, what's the difference between a duplicate and a copy? I see some of you are looking puzzled. The reason this fades and the reason it becomes brighter is because somebody is already turning his considerations around before he puts them into effect.
You know, he's automatically turning his considerations around. He's already running on this kind of a basis: "When I want something, I know I won't get it," see. "When I want something to happen, I always have bad luck and the reverse occurs."
Well, everything he's doing is filtering through this kind of a consideration, So, he says a beautiful woman will now appear in front of him. He either gets nothing in front of him or some old witch. See? That's it. Boom! All right.
Let's look at this and recognize that we could take this word facsimile and if we could use it as a command or a verb, that would be fine. But it doesn't readily translate into that field. "Facsimilate it," I suppose you can say. Instead of "facsimilate it," which you could use, you could say, "Copy it." And, thereby, after the individual had had copy, copy, copy, copy, copy, copy, copy, copy, copy, copy, copy – push them all together and pull them in. That's perfectly all right. Nothing there.
But now technically – very, very technically, because we have embarked, no matter how confusingly, upon an anatomy of communication – duplicate, a perfect duplication would mean that you had the same space, the same mass, the same energy, the same time. You see that? Perfect duplication. So that if you set out with an obsession to make perfect duplications, you would wind up as the receipt-point on every source-point. You would wind up, every time you tried to communicate, with no space, if you were communicating on a duplication obsession.
Now, we haven't any other choice in this entire business of living than to have some nicely agreed-upon formula which we're operating on. Well, we're actually operating on the Communication Formula as stated in your Auditor's Handbook, plus this one factor – this definition of duplication which is in the setup for the later editions.
That is an addition. And that is that a duplication – a perfect duplication – would be the same space, the same mass, the same energy, the same time. And that would be the perfect duplication. Now this is then quite comprehensible to you.
If you were willing, you see, at any moment, to make a perfect duplication and you knew what a perfect duplication was, then and only then would you get a vanishment of your facsimiles. And so, this is quite important. We have just simply tumbled upstairs to how to erase an engram. Zoom, zoom, zoom.
How do you erase an engram? Well, you just duplicate it, that's all. And actually, you only have to duplicate it once when you get real hot. But for a while, while you're still nervous about it, you may have to duplicate it two or three times before it blows up in smoke.
Now all you make there, really, to do that is just a consideration and know that you have done so. Now a lot of your preclears will make the consideration and then sit back and hope something happens and expect to get challenged.
Well now, this is why you make copies. You said, "Well, I see a big horse here."
And the fellow you're talking to says, "I don't see any horse."
And you say, "Well," (mocking-up a horse) "there's a horse." That proved it, see? The obsession of "must convince them" and so forth comes in immediately into the field of these energy pictures.
Conviction is the highest manifestation, then, in terms of aberration. We must convince, we must be convinced and so forth. Proof. We must prove it. If you were to sit there – you want to practically spin a preclear or make him Clear. But practically any process, by the way, of an auditor that would spin a preclear, carried on long enough, would clear him. We've been proving that lately.
He just gets his tolerance up to a point where he can tolerate somebody doing this. Every time the individual says, "I'm here," you would say, "Prove it." Every time he made a copy of something you'd say, "Let's see it."
Female voice: Oh, no!
Oh, no, is right. Because that is, that alone, all by itself, is the highest common denominator which slid people into energy masses as we came on down the track.
Now, not knowing this particular factor – the difference between a copy and a duplicate – not knowing that there was a difference between a copy and a duplicate, we could have had a lot of freaky things happening with a case.
Well, as a matter of fact, just a little earlier than this we had enough accidental inclusions of this definition that we could get away with it. So, we were still working. And Scientology was working. But not knowing the precise definition of a duplicate makes one wonder how in the hell we ever got any result, you see. Because immediately we recognize that if you don't know that to make a complete duplicate you have to use the space, the mass, the energy and the time of the thing you are trying to duplicate (you didn't know that), and you went on making copies endlessly, what you would be doing would be going in the direction of persisting. You see, the object would then just become more and more and more persistent.
So, the cases that were having any trouble at all were those who were surviving like mad. They were into a matter of persistence the like of which we never heard of. Oh, they were just doing a terrific persist. So, they had black fields in front of them and energy masses around them and swirls and facsimiles and the electronic gel was liable to do almost anything – duplicate something and then just keep it duplicated for a long time. Only it didn't duplicate it at all. What it was, was a copy. So the thing would persist.
So you can say this: Anything that persists – persistency, you see, that's survive itself. That's very, very important to us, very important. You could say this: Anything that persists must have been a copy. A duplicate cannot persist – does not persist. And all we have to do to make something stop persisting is duplicate it.
Now, you will see people trying to do this with little children. Little children – says, "Boo-hoo," and Mama and the rest of them say sarcastically to the child, "Boo-hoo, boo-hoo." In other words, they duplicate it in such a way that the child is outraged. The child is up against the problem that his "boo-hoos" are just about to be unmocked, you see. And he doesn't like that.
He recognizes the intention behind this mocking. It's to unmock him. And so he doesn't like this, so he becomes antipathetic to duplication. But actually he's in a state of confusion. He has copying and duplication confused. Mama could go around and copy him al! she wanted to and if he were really smart, this would be a fantastic thing
that would happen to Mama. Mama would go down the hall and all of a sudden feel "boo-hoo," see.
If this didn't have any effect upon Junior, if Junior weren't unmocked by this mockery, Mama would be stuck with a copy. The fact that it had no effect upon Junior – he just went on boo-hooing and doing what he pleased – would demonstrate to Mama that this was a copy she was making. And a copy will always persist.
But if Junior's boo-hoos stopped, then this would seem to Mama as though she had duplicated him – unmocked his boo-hoos. And so, obviously, to her, the boo-hoos have not now persisted, so she won't feel "boo-hoo."
Well now, this would be incomprehensible if stated in the field of mechanics. And we have just broken free entirely of the field of mechanics, just like that – boom – suddenly, out through the blue. We've just broken free of the field of mechanics, because this is not mechanically renderable but intensely workable. It's a matter of consideration. You see, it's mechanically impossible, because two things in this universe cannot occupy the same space.
Now, we're liable to run into this package of considerations if we simply start running enough on somebody, "Give me something you wouldn't mind occupying the same space." And the fellow starts checking things over and checking things over. Well, that is directly into the teeth of the mechanics which go to make up this universe.
Two things cannot occupy the same space in this universe, that's all. That's its definition. If two things occupied the same space in this universe, they would disappear – both of them. If they occupied exactly the same space, they would have to be the same object. So the mere consideration that one is doing this starts pulling the universe to pieces.
Now, this was the handy, jim-dandy little secret that the thetans have been looking for, for 76 trillion years. "How do you unmock this damn thing?" Their war cry. "How do you unmock this universe?"
Well obviously, let two things occupy the same space. It's enough for an individual simply to say that two things – because considerations are always senior to mechanics – it's enough to let two things occupy the same space to have that thing start fading.
And its actual substance, if this is persisted in and you do an accurate occupation of the same space – which is to say, you have no reservation on the fact of your consideration – it would disappear. That's all there is to it.
Now, what happens to this engram bank that goes on persisting? And our boy is having a hard time with his Fac One and he's having a hard time with this and he's having a hard time with that and he's got a big black field except that it has little pinwheels that run in it occasionally or something weird occurs.
Well, he sits there and waits for something to happen to this black field because he has agreed with the physical universe on this one law. There's only one law he's agreed on thoroughly and 100 percent: Two things cannot occupy the same space.
And that is the law which holds this universe together and why people spun so badly in the field of general semantics, because this was their war cry: "We must have things not occupying the same space. People identify too much. We have to differentiate. We have to differentiate. We mustn't identify. In other words, we mustn't have two things in the identical space."
And Korzybski went to enormous extent to prove conclusively that nothing could occupy the same space as any other thing. If he had any message, that was it. Well, that message was interesting except for this: mechanically in this universe it is impossible for two things to occupy the same space, by definition. Because that is what holds this universe apart, you see. By definition, two things cannot occupy the same space in the physical universe.
And then we get mechanics. Then we can have space and we can have points and we can have things standing there forever. The only way you could get anything standing there forever was to refuse to let it be duplicated. So if we all stood around and said, "We have now agreed that we will never duplicate anything and therefore we will have a universe," you'd have a universe.
So, how do you make a new universe? Well, you and somebody else just agree not to duplicate. You mock-up a wall, you see, and then agree never to duplicate it. And you've got it. That wall will stay there.
Well now, as long as you're only in agreement with a couple of guys about the wall and so forth, you're all right – as long as you don't know Scientology, you're all right. But you come back a few days later after you've agreed with eighteen people about this wall and you say, "There will now be no wall here."
See, prior to this time you merely could have put up a wall and then you could have said, "There will now be no wall here" and that would have been all right, see. You'd been – perfectly good order. The wall simply would have disappeared.
You've agreed with all these other people. In other words, you have responsibility to other people who are depending upon this wall. So, at this time you come back and you say, "There will be no wall here." You're saying it with the reservation, "There will be no wall here and I mean this!" You're 1.5ing at it because you're mad at these other people and you're trying to overcome their postulates and so on. And you start postulating it out of existence. It doesn't go. So, you sit down and you say, "All right. I'll blow it out of the road with energy."
Oh, boy! Now, all you've got to do is pay attention to people's energy, not people's ideas, and you will have all the fights you ever want. If you will just pay attention to the force of the world and pay no attention to its ideas, you'll have a world. You'll also have a bank. You will also feel very sad and discouraged.
Now, here is the idiocy which any thetan coming into this world perceives rather quickly. Here are all these fellows standing in a trench and they're firing rifles at all these fellows – other fellows standing in a trench. Now, why are these two sets of fellows firing rifles at each other?
Well, he conceives that this is fun. They're doing it for fun. But if he examines them rather closely, he'll find out they're doing this because of orders, because they are supporting something, someplace, somewhere because there is something or other.
And they fight each other with energy. And so a war goes on and on and on. And every time they fight a war, the more energy they use, right up to the saturation point of where they have no playing field at all, you see, it's all in fragments – right up to the moment of the disappearance by fragmentation which still leaves pieces all over the place, you know. They are fighting each other's force.
Now, the funny part of it is, is I met some people during the war who were not on my side. And I talked to them. And this was an unfortunate thing because it unmanned them. This left them in the frame of mind of they didn't know what the hell cooked now. I was very startled about this not because I had any great confidence in my powers of persuasion, but just how easy it was to get these fellows into a bracket of considering things, out of the idea of force going both ways.
As long as these individuals would concentrate, one and another, upon the force flow (which is all I'm coming to), they were all set. But the second they confronted the ideas, then they didn't know from nothing.
The most horrible thing you could ever do to a set of troops is put them in a bastion and then don't give them enough force to fight and have them start to think, because they'll find out they couldn't possibly conceive how this war could be about anything. The memoirs of every World War I soldier would demonstrate this.
The World War II boys were not fat enough yet in the head to sir down and write memoirs and it's not far enough from the war yet. You have to be at least ten years from
the war, at least ten years (so that puts it up a little while), in order to write anything factually. Because less than ten years, there's still enough proof lying around so that everybody can prove you're a liar.
Now, here's the matter – your preclear is in there fighting flows. As long as he's fighting these flows and none of the considerations, he's a gone dog. And yet your preclear who is having a rough time persisting will not do anything but follow flows and force. He will have to do with force and flows. And he will process force and flows. And although I know some processes that make an individual perfectly at home with force, flows and everything else, these are not nearly as workable as you would suppose. Because, what is back of the force? The idea is back of the force. The consideration is back of the force. And until he changes some considerations, nothing happens. Now, the one thing he has to change his consideration on, if that bank is going to be gone, is duplicate.
Now, we have the difference between a copy and a duplicate – the difference between a copy and a duplicate, which is the same difference – a copy, a facsimile. Facsimile, you know, means copy. We can use the word copy when we're telling somebody to make another mock-up alongside of the mock-up or make another wall alongside of that physical universe wall and then remedy havingness, see, with it.
But if we tell him to duplicate it, fine. He thinks, up to the time when he really duplicates – he thinks right up to then that he's got to use energy. He's got to develop energy. He's got to take energy deposits and drag them down in order to duplicate and so we've got him developing, creating and using energy and as such, he will always be aberrated.
So what have we got to do? We've got to teach him how to duplicate just like I was teaching you today. We savvy now? The second he really can duplicate and knows all about it, he won't have any more reactive bank. Boom! He also will have no trouble whatsoever exteriorizing. Chances are, in some cases, there won't even be a body there to exteriorize from.
And so with this happy thought, kiddies.
End of lecture.
DUPLICATION, PART II PAGE 2 7ACC-24X - 19.07.54