Exteriorization - Theory and Demonstration (3ACC 540111)
Series: 3rd Advanced Clinical Course (3ACC)
Date: 11 January 1954
Speaker: L. Ron Hubbard
And this is the second morning lecture of January the 11th, 1954.
The reason we're doubling up this way is because we have a lot of instruction to cover and the instruction itself is of two varieties. One, of course, is basic law and the other is its application. So you find me repeatedly talking about, first, basic laws, theory, and then you find me talking about application. Now, these two things are not today too far apart, so it's very easy to put these two things together.
Now, it's about time we got into some basic material. I want to first give you a nice brace of processes which are themselves, very, very productive. And one is… I want to inform you, over there, I wanted to tell that, you know of course, that I told you earlier, I want to point this up: you know that any process in 8-C can be reduced down to Opening Procedure, done by walking a body around. You realize that, don't you? You better, because Opening Procedure is a very good process in walking the body around. And for lower-level cases which are evading you, subjective processing is not very productive.
You should realize that subjective processing is very often quite beyond the preclear and very often you will be handling something in Creative Processing or mock-ups or something of the sort and your preclear keeps shifting the subject and you're having a rough time with communication and a rough time staying in there and he's having a rough time doing it, you know? And he's kind of bouncing like we used to call it in Dianetics. Oh no. You're just running subjective processing on somebody you better not be running subjective processing on. So let's take a definition there. Subjective processing is that processing which is done in the fellow's own universe. Objective processing is that processing which is done in the MEST universe or in other people's universes.
Subjective processing is too introverted for an awful lot of people and you could, theoretically, subjectively process somebody right into the grave. You could do that. And you know what a subjective process is. That's just something done on a fellow's own universe. And that's getting mock-ups and Match Terminaling and moving postulates around and, oh, there's lots – any of these processes whereby he sits still and… Let's say he's just sitting in the middle of the room exteriorized and doing mock-ups and this and that (in other words overhauling and manhandling his own universe) or he's in a body doing mock-ups or Matched Terminals or something of the sort. These things are subjective processes.
Well now, you have to realize that after you go so far down the line with a case, a subjective process fails. There are certain case levels – an awful lot of case levels – where you don't really gain anything by subjective processing, quite on the contrary, you lose things after a while.
Now, any case will stand up to quite a few hours of subjective processing almost regardless of what condition it's in – almost any case. And that's what we call a limited technique. It's limited by the number of hours it can be done.
Now, Dianetics, almost totally, was a limited technique. It could be done so many hours and then after that, why, you'd hit the peak of improvement and then you'd start to slide off. Many factors were contributing to this, one of the factors would be poor or bad communication auditing.
So, where you have communication difficulty – this is the criteria when not to use a subjective process, is when you're having bad communication difficulty with the preclear. The preclear keeps asking you what you meant or what you want or he doesn't know if he could do that or he begins to reminisce or something of the sort and his lines of communication are not the best. The auditor finds himself sitting there trying to get a word in edgewise and trying to get an auditing command through and finds himself arguing with the preclear, one way or the other. Under any of these conditions, subjective processing should be put aside in favor of something which is strictly an objective process.
Now, oddly enough, there are a lot of sitting – still techniques which are objective processes. So let's not overlook the fact that almost anything you can do can be done with Opening Procedure. Anything that can be done on a subjective process can be done by moving the guy around.
Now, remember, too, that you can move a thetan around as well as a body. And Opening Procedure broadens markedly the moment you realize this. You exteriorize somebody and then thereafter you're really doing some form of Opening Procedure, see? You're moving him around, moving him around the room.
And you can take a thetan – any thetan, exteriorized, is in pretty shaky condition when you first get him out and if you do a lot of Opening Procedure on him, why, you'll get yourself in pretty good shape.
Now, you can also exteriorize a thetan – this guy is in pretty good shape; he does good mock-ups, he's got everything. And then you exteriorize him and he's apparently in good condition, but he's not quite sure about the room and about where he is and where he isn't and all of that sort of thing. And you're having a little rough time with him there. Well, you'd be a lousy auditor if you didn't realize that you've stepped the tone of the preclear down.
Well, thetan plus body could operate pretty well – you know, good orientation. He knew where the body was and the body knows where other things are. Now you exteriorize him and he doesn't know where things are.
Well, of course, you're just now operating a thetan independently without any great dependence upon the body, except for the communication line that he's getting from the body – and the sooner he jettisons this one, the happier he'll be, by the way. You just remember that you're doing a breed of Opening Procedure on this person.
And you're really – then you should be able to just understand this. I mean, lights should flash and bells ring on you, right now. This drill of "be in pleasant and be in unpleasant places" is actually moving somebody around, you see. And that's really the definition of Opening Procedure, is moving somebody around.
Now, one of the best techniques you can run on him is just the way it's laid down there in Opening Procedure, but as a thetan. You exteriorize him and you say, "All right. Now pick a place to go," instead of just "Be here" and "Be there." "Now pick a place to go." "Now make up your mind you're going to go there."
Well, the odd part of it is, is you may find this is too tough for him. Boy, we've really got something here, haven't we? This is too tough for him. Well, doggone it, it sure is awful easy when you're walking the body around the room, isn't it? There's nothing to that. And yet we exteriorize him and it's too tough for him.
Well, that's why you get into Step la. You clear up a lot of his thinkingness exteriorized. And when you've cleared up his thinkingness, exteriorized, why, then you can do some Opening Procedure. And that's why it says, "Step lb: If exteriorized, send him to pleasant or unpleasant places."
Now, you could just develop that Step lb as Opening Procedure, after you've cleared some of his thinkingness up. But if you find it's too tough for him, why, you drop back a step. And the way you drop back a step is to clear up some of his thinkingness.
Now, it's still an objective process to have a thetan, exteriorized, telling you three places where he is not. See, that's an objective process: "Give me three places where you're not." That's not a subjective process. The difference between a subjective and objective process comes up again on another definition: That which extroverts the attention is an objective process, by definition and that which introverts the attention is a subjective process. So we get extroversion-introversion.
Now, Six Steps to Better Beingness, by the way, is designed as a sandwich. It's an objective and subjective process, extrovert-introvert, step by step. See? Step 1 of Six Steps to Better Beingness is extroversion, Ten Minutes of Nothingness. "Look outside of you and find nothingness," see? And Step 2 is an introversion-extroversion. At least the last time I looked at it, that was the way it was.
All right. You can design a lot of processes on this basis of extroversion-introversion. And if you give the person as much extroversion as introversion or more extroversion than introversion, you're going to sail along and your case isn't going to do a sag.
But if you give this character a lot of introversion and very little extrovertive processing – you know, never call his attention to anything outside himself – he'll eventually slump. His communication changes will get slower and slower and slower and slower and slower. And when communication changes are slowing, slowing, slowing, slowing, slowing, you just check up with yourself and find out whether or not you aren't introverting this fellow's attention, because here we have the whole problem of attention. Just whether or not his attention is going outside or going inside.
Now, all his life the MEST universe and people around him have been keeping themselves in a state of sanctity by simply saying to him continually, "Put your attention on yourself." Now, you as an auditor can sit there and compound the felony, compound the invalidation.
These people who invalidate themselves, these people who are easily invalidated, have been put – said, "Put your attention on yourself." Fellow walks into a brick wall and bumps his head. Of course, the brick wall said to him, "Put your attention on yourself, fella." And this is introversion.
Now, this universe batters a guy at 360 degrees all the way around and it tends to make him much smaller. All right. If the universe tends to make him much smaller, then you'd better tend to make him much bigger. Which tells you that he has some of the smallnesses to clean up internally, which is his subjective processes, and an awful lot of them to clean up extrovertively. See, he's got – oh heck, they're 99 to 1. He's got a lot more to clean up in the grand sphere than in the petite sphere.
Now, there have been more philosophies that tried to hit this than you can count. There's the yang and the yin, there's the microcosm and macrocosm and so on. All they're talking about is whether the attention is outward or the attention is inward.
Now, the basic attention – you notice everything goes down to attention, finally. The second you get into flows, you're into attention. Attention is very important: applause, eating, all the rest of this – attention, attention. What gets wrong with a little kid, you see him around, you can usually break it down to attention, anxiety for. And it's very easy.
All right. Well, let's see this, then, as looking outward or looking inward. And people are trying to make other people look outward at them or not look outward at them and they're trying to manhandle other people's attention. The upset of self-determinism is this upset of attention. People try to introvert the attention to keep them from being dangerous.
Now, the basic process on this is just like this and you do this process right now. Now put your attention on the front wall. Now put your attention on top of your head. Now lift your attention around and put it on the back wall. Now put it on top of your head. Now put your attention on the floor. Now put it on top of your head. Now put it on the ceiling. Now put it on top of your head.
Now do the remaining exercise with your eyes closed. Put your attention on the floor. Put it on top of your head.
Now put somebody else's attention on the floor. Now put their attention on their face. Now put their attention on the floor. Now put it on their face.
All right. Throw them away. And get two other people. And have one of these put the other's attention on the ceiling.
And then on the person's own face.
And then on the ceiling.
And then on the face. Now throw that away.
And you put your attention on the floor.
Now put it on the top of your head.
Now put your attention on your inner world.
Now put it on the walls of the room.
Now put it on the inner world.
Now put it on the walls of the room.
Okay. Now grab ahold of the two back anchor points of the room.
Okay. Present time.
End of session.
Now you see what I mean by attention, hm? Become very clear to you? Now, that's all we mean by extroversion-introversion. And you must realize that some of these processes put a person's attention madly on the inner world and some of them put them on the outside world. Now, when you tell somebody, "Give me three places where you are not," you jolly well put his attention on the exterior world, don't you? And if you just let him say, "Well, all right. Boston, New York, San Francisco." And you say, "Give me three more places where you're not." And he says, "Oh, North Pole, South Pole and the Moon."
And you say, "Now, give me three more places where somebody else isn't."
And he says, "Oh, here, there" and so on and so on – he's getting it. Like hell he is! Because the process isn't being done. What's the process?
This is covert; most auditing is. The process involved here is making that fellow look in the direction of, and find out whether or not he is there. And when he does this skip, jump, zip, zip, he isn't extroverting, and that's all you're trying to make him do. You're trying to make him kind of look in a different distance and kind of look at Chicago and sort of look at the South Pole and get an idea where that South Pole is.
You also can make him look for the South Pole and then change the location of the South Pole. There's a big variation on that. Because as long as you make him look toward where the South Pole actually is, you're making him agree with the universe, and this one we must avoid wherever possible.
Then you say, "All right. Now, let's get whether or not you're at the South Pole."
And "Okay. Okay. I'm not at the South Pole," he says.
"All right. Now, put the South Pole over in the middle of France and get whether you're not in the South Pole now."
Nothing. Just making him less dependent, just weaving in to the technique another technique, which is simply this: the MEST universe has been telling him where directions are for an awful long time, and it's about time he told the MEST universe where directions are.
So he says, "The South Pole is northwest of here,"
Now, if he can work this up to a point of where he'll get that and he'll get complete belief on that – he's totally convinced, as far as he's concerned. He's totally satisfied that the South Pole is just northwest of Brooklyn – why, he's perfectly happy. As a matter of fact, he'll get happier and happier and happier about it.
You say, "All right. Now, where is your childhood home?"
And he looks around and he finally spots it and he gets it due west. And by the way, this technique is a little bit advanced. You understand, you run this on somebody who's pretty low-toned and he'll go zzzz.
In the first place, the test is, is does he know which direction these things are rather instinctively from where he's sitting? And if he knows which directions they are from where he is sitting, why, then another proposition is indicated. But if he doesn't even vaguely know whether that hometown is out in the next block or not or whether it's north or south or – he's all disoriented and so forth – you're just going to disorient him further.
But there's a lot of adaptions for this. You make him tell the MEST universe where it's located, rather than the reverse. And it's still an extroverted technique merely because he's looking out. And that's your total definition: he's looking out instead of looking in.
Now, you see the difference between these two techniques?
All right. Now, I'm going to give you another little two-minute run here. All right. You all set?
Female voice: Uh-huh.
Now put your attention on your body.
Put it on the walls of the room.
On your body.
On the walls of the room.
Now put your attention on your body and find no body.
On the walls of the room and find no walls.
Attention on your body and find no body.
Attention on the walls and find no walls.
Attention on your body… and find the body in a different place and no body there.
On the walls of the room and find them at a different distance and find no walls there.
On your body in a different place and find no body.
On the walls of the room at a different place and find no walls.
Now put your attention on your body and find no body.
Attention on the walls and find no walls.
On your body and find no body.
On the walls and find no walls.
Now put your attention on your body and find a body.
On the walls of the room and find some walls.
Attention on your body and find a body.
On the walls and find walls.
Now get the nearest tactile or pressure to you that you can contact there.
All right. Okay.
End of session.
Feel groggy? All right. Grab the two back anchor points of the room.
Now, if you're not really touching these two back anchor points of the room, reach in from the outside of the room and touch them.
Okay. End of session.
Now, you see this point a little better about extroversion-introversion? That's all I'm trying to demonstrate to you. Hm? See that real clear?
Now, you can extrovert on nothingness and extrovert on somethingness and introvert on nothingness and introvert on somethingness. So we've added "something" and "nothing" here to our process. See that?
Now, did any of you get a little perception jump while we were doing this?
Audience: Mm-hm.
Well, we're using mainline material, you might say, and so therefore you can always expect, in a majority of cases, you get a perception jump on such things.
Now, you understand that I haven't given you here a process to be processed particularly on preclears. It isn't necessarily a process that you would use on some preclear or wouldn't use. I've given it to you to demonstrate the directions of attention. But you can use it on preclears. This is not something we call "Process 865 – humph." And the reason we don't is because it's too mainline, it's too much theory to have a number. It's just straight theory application. That's just straight theory: extrovert-introvert attention.
And once you started giving everything that came out of straight theory a name or a number, this would become an inexhaustible series. You've got lots of them the second you're on that groove. You've just got too many of them.
Now, look how many ways we can do this.
All right. Now, get your favorite hate in front of you. Now look straight through it.
Now get it in front of you, elsewhere, and look straight through it to something beyond it.
Did it disappear?
Female voice: Uh-huh.
Well, you look straight through it, now.
All right. Let's get it somewhere else and look straight through it to something on the other side or nothing on the other side of it, but look at something beyond it.
Did it disappear?
Female voice: Briefly. And then it came back. Briefly and comes back.
Well, put it out there again and look through it again. Okay. Throw it aside.
Now put it out there again and have it look straight through you and find nothing.
Throw it away. And put it out in front of you and have it look straight through you and find nothing now.
And throw it aside. And have it look through you now.
Now throw it away.
Now put your attention on the back of the room and find no wall there.
Attention on the body and find no body there.
Now find a body there.
And put your attention on the two back anchor points of the room.
And give me some places where you are not.
Okay. End of session.
Well, some of you might have had difficulty looking through this and one or two might not have been able to get something there.
Well, let me show you that hate is "stopped lookingness" and that to see at all, you have to stop lookingness. The whole trick of perception is stopping your lookingness or stopping your smellingness at a certain thing, you see, at a certain distance. That's quite a trick. And there is the soul of perception, just in those few sentences. That is perception.
Now, you wonder why somebody goes blind or can't see as a thetan. Well, confound it, he stopped his lookingness, long enough and often enough, to where he has an automaticity that stops his lookingness. And believe me, it finally stops it on blackness or no-seeingness. And that's all there is to lack of perception. There isn't anything more difficult than that about fellows who can't see.
Now, I'll give you an example.
Look at the front wall of this room here.
Now try and tell me that you didn't let your lookingness stop at the front wall.
Audience: Yeah.
Well, what do you suppose happens to somebody that stops his lookingness for 76 trillion years? He never concentrates on starting his lookingness. He gets to a point after a while where he expects his attention to be attracted. In other words, his lookingness becomes an effect.
And as soon as it does, it will collapse. He ceases to be cause, he becomes an effect and the communication line puts him on the "E" end for perception. Unless he's on the "C" end of the communication line, the Cause end of the communication line, he can't see as a thetan, or he sees something haywire. You see that?
Seeing something haywire is worse than not seeing because he's got an automaticity there, an additional automaticity, that puts up something else to stop his lookingness. It'll put up new pictures. See, it'll stop his lookingness. Now, he's stopping his lookingness.
Now, you can run, and turn on and turn off perceptions like mad just by running this as an automaticity. Now, I can go over this again. I'm very patient. I'll tell you again how you solve an automaticity.
Anything that is happening to the preclear, evidently without his consent, you make the preclear do. This at once makes him be the other thing and makes him cause where he has been an effect. It reverses the communication line and makes him another beingness. You see that now? The law governing it is, anything the preclear is doing that's not under his control is remedied by having him do it.
This fellow has an eye twitch – this is the most flagrant case I have on record. An auditor who knew this had a person come to him with an eye twitch. You know, the fellow is going like this, the way they do – you know, a tic. This is the easiest thing in the world to solve. His auditor knew this.
He processed the case for a couple of hours and the fellow went away with his eye twitch. And I noticed the fellow going down the stairs and I said, "What the hell is this all about?" Fellow came in to have his eye twitch removed. That was all he was interested in.
And although it's not particularly good auditing simply to dive in at some obvious point, neither is it bad auditing. Somebody comes in, you know, and he wants to be missing his eye twitch.
So I said to this auditor, "Why didn't you remove the eye twitch?"
And the auditor didn't take the dodge of "Well, I was just going forward toward Theta Clearing, the way we're supposed to do." He didn't even take that road out. He says, "I – well, really," he said, "I tried to track it down, and I-I-I'm sure it's in birth." Heh-heh-heh-heh.
So I says, "Oh my God."
I said, "How about Sunday morning coming in and I'll give you a stack of tapes and you can go all over it again."
Well, he did it with great benefit. He came back to me with the brightest face you ever saw and he says, "You know what?" He says, "The eye twitch was an automaticity, wasn't it?"
"Good." Well, we had made our point.
How did he solve the eye twitch? By making the guy twitch his eye, of course. This is Q and A, this is all such things. There's nothing to that. That's just that. You just…
He would have had the guy sit there and twitch his eye fast and twitch it slow and decide to twitch it and decide not to twitch it and decide to twitch it and decide not to twitch it – and he even could have mocked-up somebody and had the preclear make his eye twitch. And then he could have had an eye twitch and find out who it was acceptable to or he could have done a lot of things with this eye twitch, see, without going into birth. And it was about a ten-minute or fifteen-minute job to turn off this eye twitch.
This, by the way, is the big one that in a completely alien field to us, psychiatry, if you can turn off a tic – they call it tic dolorosa. And if you can turn off tic dolorosa, my God, those guys break out the altar cloth and bow down before Buddha. They do, just bing, because that is something it says in all their textbooks just can't be done. Well, we're really getting there when we can do this.
Now, there's all kinds of automaticities and sometimes it takes quite a little while to solve them. I told you about this fellow with his blush. But an auditor that wouldn't recognize an eye twitch wouldn't recognize automaticity.
Well, so this preclear gets a dog, see. And the auditor sits there and says, "Give us a dog now."
And the preclear gets a dog.
And the auditor says, "All right. Now put the dog behind you." "Now move it across the room." "Now put it on the roof." "Now put it someplace else." "Now do this, now do that with it" and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on.
And if the session ran off just the way I said and you were instructing this auditor, you would say, "What's the matter? Aren't you interested in solving the case?" Because you didn't ask him what the dog was doing. You didn't nag him. You didn't say, "All right. Now, you got the dog? All right. Now move the dog up to the corner of the room."
Okay. He did that. The preclear says, happily, "Yes."
The auditor isn't auditing, really, who doesn't say, "Now just how did you do that?"
To hell with how many times you ask him that. Sure, it keys-in all of his automaticities and everything, to ask him how he does something and so forth. So what? You can solve that now, so you don't have to be afraid of turning the guy on and off.
So he says, "Well, yeah, I just put the dog out in front of me and moved him up to the corner of the room."
And you say, "That's all right, then." You're just going to drop the subject – oh no, you're not.
And you say, "And what did the dog do?"
"Oh, well, that's beside the point. He went out that door and in this door and across and jumped over the light fixtures. Oh, but I got him up here in this corner of this room."
Now, you can or can't – it doesn't matter whether you do or not, particularly – handle every automaticity that comes up, but you sure better know what's happening on this case. And if this is what happened and your object is to cure this guy of something or other or your object is to square him around and square his mock-ups around and get him under control, then you have the dog do the same course, more or less, that the dog did automatically.
And if the preclear can't accomplish this, you at least alter the course of the automaticity. You let the dog fly around the room and give it a kick once in a while or something of this sort to change its course slightly, until at last he can get it under control. Can you see that?
And if it doesn't come immediately under control in something on the order of fifteen, twenty, thirty seconds of this sort of thing, bing, I mean, you're just into a much deeper, more basic automaticity. You're not down to basic-basic on such a chain. And if your purpose is to chase automaticity, then chase it.
But you just get the guy to do what he's doing, that's all, only you make him do it, see? Now that, in essence, is putting him under his own direction. And his case is off and his abilities are off, only where they happen without his consent.
This fellow says, "All I get out of life is just – I know, it's just – [sniff] just bad luck. I-I build a service station and it burns down. And I-I-I-I-I marry this girl and she runs off with my partner. And I-I-I-I-I-I have a baby and the baby turns out to be green with purple spots. And I-I-I-I-I-I get – I go down to the store and I get a ten-dollar bill and it turns out to be a one-dollar bill. And this is just the way life goes."
Well, really, honestly, he's not doing it to himself, but it's very peculiar that it keeps happening with such consistency. And anything that happens with consistency you'd better add up as survival pace. And this is an automaticity. He's trying to change his luck or some such thing. Well, how do you make him change his luck? Just handle it as an automaticity.
Well, you can handle this up on a Creative Processing basis. You can handle it with ease if he can be creatively processed. And then you have him be bad luck. And you have him curse himself into bad luck. And you can do such things as have him put his hat on the desk and then turn around and covertly knock it off as he turns and then curse a devil or a demon or something for having knocked it off or blame you for knocking it off.
Now, I ran one guy like this who always had bad luck, he said, on just this basis. I mean, he put his hat on the corner of the desk and then had him turn in such a way as to knock it off and then curse me for it. And I had him do this several times and all of a sudden he says – big light dawns – he says, "You know," he says, "that's really what I do." He said, "How did you know that?" he says, "I – that," so on.
"Yeah," he says, "these things happen" and so forth. And he's – "Gee," he says, "you know, I kind of remember when the service station burned down, I – you know, I know that linseed oil rags and so forth, laid in the pile, and I carefully kept that pile of linseed oil rags alongside of the barrel of naphtha."
And he said, "Eventually, it caught on fire." He says, "By golly. You know," he says, "sometimes a fellow's left hand doesn't know what his right hand is doing. Hm! I wonder how many other things I'm doing like this?"
Well, he got quite spooked, so he had to be processed a little bit more – on what? On putting his hat on the desk and knocking it off covertly and then blaming me for it. And then blaming the chair for it. And then changing his mind and blaming the corners of the room for it. And then blaming his shoes for it. And then finally blaming himself for it, bitterly. And then, finally, just doing it. His luck changed.
A man sows the seeds of his own luck, there is no question about this. It also is true that strange and peculiar things can happen to somebody every once in a while without
being a complete automaticity. Strange things do happen. But when they get consistent, uh-uh, he's got it set, he's got it rigged.
Now, you see something about processing. What the preclear is doing automatically, you make him do it. And you can have him do anything. Any automaticity can be worked out with automatic processing and there's where your – Opening Procedure rather – there's where your ingenuity may come in.
Now, let's take havingness and work it with the body or work it with the guy exteriorized. Now, actually Burke was doing this the other day and he was plowing around with it and he was having very good luck. It doesn't exceed our definitions and is a process which is a very interesting process, particularly the way he was doing it.
He had somebody pick up a couch, both ends of it, and then step back from it and feel degraded. And then pick it up and get "Oh, all this lovely mass, it's all mine," and then step back from it and feel degraded.
And he went on picking out other pieces of stuff in the room. And the fellow went from the couch, in backing up and feeling degraded, down to a match head. The guy finally was perfectly content to pick up a match head and feel that and exteriorize from the match head, that is to say, and you know, back up from it, and feel degraded. And the fellow's concept about mass and havingness was quite changed.
Now, the case that is difficult to exteriorize has mass trouble and every time the case tries to exteriorize, their knowingness goes to zero. They exteriorize, but their knowingness goes to zero for an instant and they come back in and they don't know about it.
Now, there's many a preclear that you've exteriorized that you ask him at the end of the session, after he's reinteriorized – you say, "Well, now, how did you get along while you were exteriorized?"
And the fellow tells you, "I don't know that I was out."
Well, while he was out, he was perfectly certain he was out. Well, you kicked back in this automaticity of having a body, which is mass, and it blots out his knowingness. And so we get a knowingness-diminution problem. See that? His knowingness goes down while he's inside the body. And that's the way it really is.
Degrading – just because one steps out, you know, exteriorizes from mass – you know, you exteriorize somebody from some mass and he feels degraded, is the inversion. That's inverted. The original on the track, the earlier moment, is feeling degraded because he's gotten into some. So you have to run it both ways to get both ends of the communication line.
Now, what is an inversion? An inversion is a swapped communication line. Things swapped ends, that's all. So when the fellow outflows, he inflows. That's an inversion. You know, you say, "Put some emotion in the wall" and he can feel the emotion hitting him hard in the face but not going into the wall. He's getting it backwards. You know, when you tell him to put something out there, it hits him here. Well, that's just a turned-around communication line.
There's a demonstration process – not a good process, but it's a demonstration process – whereby you just make the guy be two ends of the communication line. You just swap a communication line in front of him. You just have him mock-up or have a piece of string in front of him and call it a communication line (it's just this literal) and have him be on one end of it and then on the other end of it. And you'll just take a fellow with a yardstick or something and make him reverse the yardstick in front of his face. He doesn't know anything about communication tines. He starts feeling mighty funny, mighty soon, because communication lines are actually lines. And most people are on the line, not at C or E. They consider themselves particles. They're symbols, particles, they are a piece of mass.
All right. Let's take a look now at hate in this universe and you'll see what I'm driving at. Hate, or any ridge – and all of them contain, to some degree or another, hate – is necessary to stop somebody's perception. An individual gets so he doesn't like things very well and that's what he feels is wrong with him. He doesn't like living. He hates it or he's in apathy about it. Well, apathy is a ridge, hate is a ridge, boredom is a ridge. And you've got a whole series of ridges there that are various emotions and the central pinpoint emotion is hate.
So he looks at that wall over there and he stops his lookingness at the wall. And after he's looked at the wall enough, by golly, he doesn't feel good about life. He doesn't feel good about life at all. Well, what's the point here? He's actually dramatizing one of these undesirable emotions, by looking at a wall. So long as he expects the wall to attract his attention, he wants to be the effect of the wall, then he winds up by having to stop his looking. And he winds up blind after a million years or two.
Well, now, there's nothing wrong with looking at walls. One of these drills which puts his attention out on the walls of the room, for instance, simply shows him that he can look at the wall without going blind. And this is something new, he's trying to… And so a lot of people get an awful lot better just by walking over and patting a wall. They can perceive a wall and they're not struck dead. They feel if they really saw the wall that they really would go blind. Well, now, the truth of the matter is, they have to stop their looking to see. You have to stop smelling to smell. You have to stop hearing to hear; you have to stop sound to hear. That should be quite obvious to you. You have to stop perceiving to perceive. And so we get on the handsomest set of maybes you ever saw.
Now, you as an auditor, knowing this, should be able to turn on almost anybody's perception. How do you get him to do it? Well, you have him see things and look through them, of course. And then have something else on the other side look trough things at him.
The most reliable process is that process which specializes in nothing, in looking throughnesses and in nothings, because the only machines that are actually going to cause you a lot of trouble are the unmockers. Two kinds of machinery, the mock and the unmock. Two kinds of automaticities, mock-up; unmock. And the poor fellow who has decided never to unmock anything anymore, of course, is getting everything unmocked automatically because he's simply selected that automaticity out for his randomity.
You understand that? The fellow who decides that he's going to live and let it all be there and he's going to preserve everything and he's not going to waste things… The one big booby trap in Lao-tzu's The Way, by the way – the Tao, is economy; everybody must practice economy. Oh boy. That means you're going to save everything, heh-heh. Just let's all slit our throats. Because the second you say that, then you choose out for your randomity the unmockers.
All the machines you ever set up within your beingness to make things disappear are chosen out by you as your randomity, as your enemy. If you're having trouble understanding randomity, just substitute enemy for it and you've got a better understanding of it, if a less exact definition.
So what happens? If he wants to make everything survive and persist forever, he has immediately canceled out and not taken any further responsibility for all those things which he has that automatically destroy things. So he's set up all of his unmockers as his enemy. He's got a lot of unmockers, believe me. He's got just as many unmockers as he has mockers-gadgets, machinery to get rid of things which he has set up.
Now, he's got a machine (nearly everybody has a machine) that says, "Well, no – if I mock-up something and forget about it, this will unmock it." You know, he's left this mock-up outside the cave or something and he runs over it one day. And he bumps into it or another mock-up bumps into it and he decides this is cataclysmic, that his memory is not reliable or something. And he decides for the sake of the game to set up a little machine that, after he has forgotten about a mock-up, it will be unmocked. And that's an unmocker.
Now, life goes along and a lot of things get destroyed and he decides that everything has got to persist now. He's just chosen out that automaticity – you see, an automaticity isn't necessarily a randomity until you really make it so. And then the fellow says all of a sudden one day, "Everything is going to persist now. We're going to save everything and everything is going to continue. And we're not going to change things and…" Oh boy. At that moment, all of his unmockers become his enemy.
So he tries to put up a mock-up and, of course, it disappears. And he says, "Oh, my, my, the gods are afflicting me," with his belly full of rotten whale. "The gods are afflicting me because they're unmocking all of my mock-ups."
That's what we call a God trick, by the way – unmocking somebody's mock-ups. They say, "What? Your mock-ups are being unmocked? Oh, you poor fellow. I guess God has got it in for you." One thetan does it to another, he goes around and knocks the other guy's mock-ups kicking, you know, or steals them or something of this sort. And then he sympathizes with him for having lost them and tells this other fellow how afflicted the other fellow is. The God trick. They dramatize that in churches and so forth. Well, you see that trick, by the way? You'd better know it in passing just as a glance; never mention it again: the God trick.
You run into some thetan, he's got some nice mock-ups there and so you eat them up or make them disappear or something and then he hasn't his attention on them. And then you say, "You poor fellow, you poor fellow. God is afflicting you. I heard of a fellow whose mock-ups disappeared like this and he found out later that he had offended the great deity Spazwaz. And Spazwaz, you know, occupies all space and eats up mock-ups."
And the other fellow said, "Oh, woe is me."
He now has a hidden influence. And the hidden influence and the invisible barrier are dramatized by people who wear glasses. Also by anybody who uses eyeballs to look through. You know, he never looks at the eyeballs. He looks through them all the time and tries to pretend he's not looking through an eyeball. And after a while, of course, he has this wonderful and interesting thing occur. His attention inevitably falls on the eyeball because it's become such a strain to continue to overlook the eyeball.
So you get the invisible barrier. But the invisible barrier and the fact that it can exist rather gives a fellow the idea that something else can exist, which is to say, a hidden influence. So he looks for deeper significances beyond everything. He never takes anything on the flat plane out there, where it's completely visible, he looks for some deeper significance.
Now, the fellow who has unmocking machines going which unmock all of his mock-ups, and which mock-up blackness so that he won't have to look at the mock-ups and so forth, has gotten into this situation: Everything is unmocking around him. So he says, "Some hidden influence is doing this to me." And you as an auditor are sitting there auditing him and he keeps expecting you to mysteriously vanquish and banish this item called an unmocker. He expects you to solve the hidden influence that's making his life go haywire. You see that? Hm?
Note: This lecture and demonstration is continued on the next disc.
EXTERIORIZATION: THEORY AND PAGE 2 3ACC-13A - 11.01.54
DEMONSTRATION