The Part Played by the Analytical Mind (500719)

Date: 19 July 1950

Speaker: L. Ron Hubbard

---

← Back to Main Index

We have been hearing in the professional lecture a lot of talk on the subject of the actuality of the parts of the engram. That is, the precision statement of the parts of the engram. This falls in very fortuitously with the second lecture to the night course. The argument, I understand, wages hot and heavy. There wasn’t much reason for it to do so, because they were introducing a basic error.

Now, I want to talk about first the analytical mind, not engrams. That’s not the name of an entity, that’s the name of a part in an analogy. We have an analogy which says there’s the analytical mind, the reactive mind and the somatic mind. That’s an analogy. Never confuse an analogy with a reality.

We can’t lay our hands on one part of the physical organism and say, “This is the analytical mind.” We can’t say, “Now, it has this and this and this and this structurally.” No more can we say, “This is the reactive mind.” We are speaking in terms of function. In the days when no one could define an electron we still had mathematical formulae about electricity. We could measure current flow although we did not know what was flowing.

In the same way in Dianetics, we have a functional analogy. And by understanding this functional analogy we can arrive at answers and achieve results which have not hitherto been attained. This analogy, of course, is always subject to modification at such time as we discover the actual structural parts.

Those parts are not known, they are not known to neurology or psychology or any other “ology” today. Nothing is known about structure save perhaps functions in biology. It’s quite remarkable that we can classify various things in biology without being able to describe in many instances their precise function or how this occurs.

The analytical mind in this analogy is postulated as that part of the brain or nervous system or body, since it may be the whole body. And it may be the prefrontal lobes and it may be the spinal column and the Greeks once upon a time said it was the stomach.

The analytical mind contains certain potentialities. These potentialities and functions are easily recognized in anyone studying this subject. The analytical mind thinks. It observes, poses and resolves problems relating to the organism, and resolves those problems to enhance the survival of the organism. You find this in the book—the same words as a paraphrase.

Now, the reactive mind, of course, is distinguished by the fact that although it thinks, it thinks wholly in identities. The analytical mind thinks in differences. For instance, to the reactive mind, under certain conditions there would be no difference between this microphone and the table.

The analytical mind not only sees the difference between this microphone, this microphone and this microphone, but it sees the difference between this table and all the other tables here in the offices. Differentiation. When that differentiation begins to break down we get identification and then misidentification of objects with objects which are not actually the same objects at all.

At the highest end of sanity is differentiation, complete differentiation, and the analytical mind’s measurement of the differences, in terms of minuteness of difference. A cigarette to the analytical mind is similar to but it is not another cigarette.

Although these two cigarettes look exactly alike, the analytical mind in its highest function would not confuse them even though they seemed to an observer to be identical in appearance. They occupy, for one thing, two different pieces of space so they can’t be the same cigarette.

The reactive mind does not conceive such differences and it does not think. It’s simply—one cigarette to the reactive mind might be tobacco which would mean Virginia which, of course, immediately goes into King James or King George which means political history but this has a great deal to do with religion, so tobacco equals cigarettes equals religion. It would follow with great ease this chain of bad logic. Identification.

The analytical mind can achieve the resolution of problems in terms of differences. As long as it recognizes differences it can think, it can make computations to arrive at new conclusions. When it ceases to make these differentiations, of course, it makes errors. The condition of the shut-down analyzer, as we call it.

Not to confuse you, but it might be possible by a chemical to join up all of the hook-ups in this analytical mind in such a way that every datum in it was equal to every other datum in it. Now, if you could do this or if it could be so thoroughly short-circuited that every datum in it equaled every other datum in it, you would, of course, have a madman. Somebody would say to this madman, “Go down and get in your car.” And this might be easily interpreted to mean that he should cut his throat. You would have no difference.

Incidentally, as a clue to this, one of the prime aberrative phrases in the society is “it doesn’t make any difference.” This gets into the engram bank and things get very bad. “Everything is the same” in the engram bank, impinges itself upon the analytical mind and we get this jammed-up association.

Another thing is “There is no time,” “I have no time,” “You have no time.” Such commands as these take the time difference out of the mind and so in terms of time jam up everything together and again we have insanity.

I’m demonstrating to you that there’s a distinct difference. It is not the difference, however, of thinking that we use functionally here to differentiate between the analytical mind and the reactive mind. The reactive mind is a collection of recordings. The analytical mind is a collection—one might say a multiple computer, a collection of computers, which reaches back into its own standard bank, selects out data, computes on this data and resolves its problems and puts them into effect. That’s the function of the analytical mind.

Sitting over the top of the analytical mind is “I,” awareness of awareness. “I,” let us say, is composed of—let’s just assume a figure—a thousand attention units. So, at the optimum you would have the computations going off perfectly in the analytical mind, all the loops computing perfectly.

A little less optimum, we would have loops which required inspection. The data might not be quite right and one might not quite be able to trust it. So one could put an attention unit on this computation loop. Now, he has a dozen computation loops working and he starts inspecting these computations.

Furthermore, there seems to be more danger in the environment than he can rightly take care of just by paying attention to it all. So he sets up attention units to care for various dangers which might be in the surrounding area. This condition would then continue when some of the environment mistakenly gets into the organism.

The environment moves into the organism and is stored in what we’re calling the reactive bank. Now, that is the outside world moved inside. But the analytical mind is receiving things through perceptic circuits. Therefore, whether it looks outside or whether it looks inside, an attention unit might see much the same thing. So we have an engram go into restimulation. A few of the attention units are immediately attracted to this engram because it’s a source of pain and danger. They can sight such a thing and then they can put into action the command of the engram. The more excitement this engram receives, the more restimulation, the more attention units would become devoted to it, the more the command would be carried forth, until at last you have the psychotic where one thousand attention units are watching two or three engrams and the outside world has no bearing on the situation. He is inside an engram 100 percent, or two or three engrams in a bundle. So you see the psychotic doing this wonderful stunt of perceiving nothing but the engram. He hasn’t even got an “I” anymore. “I” has disappeared, “I” has sunk out of sight.

If we postulate “I” as a thousand attention units, you can see that in the normal course of computation even on an optimum mind there would probably not be more than five or six hundred of these units serving immediately to observe the particular thing on which a person was concentrated. Many of the others would be off getting material out of the banks, they would be remembering, they would be doing this, that, so on. So when we take engrams and put them in there and start knocking off fifty units to each engram, to watch it, to observe it, to act upon its commands, we’re getting into a situation there where “I” is getting a bit thin.

In view of the fact the normal person on this computation probably doesn’t have more than fifty or sixty attention units composing his “I,” we see that the narrow margin there between that normal and psychotic is really quite dangerous.

However, because of a person’s command of the situation and the actual great strength of the mind in resisting danger, threat, so on, we get a condition there where it’s actually very seldom the mind goes quite psychotic, unless we have an engram kicked in so hard and so suddenly that all at a jump, so to speak, the rest of the attention units vanish from sight. There we have a psychotic.

The problem in the rehabilitation of a psychotic is restoring attention units to “I.” The problem in clearing an individual is restoring attention units to “I” The line of thought which will achieve, I believe at this time, the greatest amount of advance for Dianetics would be that line of thought which seeks to find methods to free most rapidly attention units for “I.” You will notice this taking place during clearing. It’s quite marked, it’s unmistakable. More and more attention units are coming up until we find . . . [gap] . . . psychosomatic illnesses, so on, we restimulate this—that’s what we’d get. Toward the end of the case, having freed so many of these attention units, this passes out with one recounting. We recount it once, very easily reached, recounted once, it’s erased, it’s gone. Others, particularly the locks which the engrams would hold down, those locks just at a glance go away—whooo, they’re gone. The marked recoveries which some people make just on this straight line memory technique—about which you will hear more—evidently simply pulling into view and pulling back to “I” the attention units which are held up in locks in the case.

You can actually turn off Parkinson’s disease about three cases out of five in fifteen or twenty minutes with this attention unit thing. That sounds incredible but a doctor, a psychiatrist, is doing it over in New York right now. He’s an expert on Parkinson’s disease. He has found Dianetics—that’s all he knows about Dianetics is this straight memory technique. He knows nothing else and he is getting results. He is freeing, in other words, enough attention units out of the late locks in a person’s life to actually fortify the mind to a point where it can automatically reject aberration and psychosomatic illness.

I have no correlated information other than his files. I don’t know that these cases will stay out of restimulation more than two or three months, since that’s the oldest case he has on this technique. But I do know that the attention units do get restored.

All right. Now, we have the analytical mind as—one might say that we could postulate it as a series of computing loops. Some people say it’s working on Boolean algebra. Certainly I can run enough mathematics to demonstrate that it does achieve answers and that answers can be achieved on data by the use of Boolean algebra-Boolean algebra may be complex in its long equations but it’s awfully simple to explain. It solves all of its problems on this order: yes greater than no, yes less than no. See how that is?

There’s no “maybe” in this. It sums up whether or not the data yes is greater than no. So the loop then turns out yes. Then we add up yes, yes, yes, no, no, no, no, no, yes, yes and we get the answer to the problem: how many yeses and how many noes.

Now, this leaves out the evaluation of a datum, which is an important step in Boolean algebra, weighting. But this is what the loops are computing on, supposedly. Now, on this simple method of computation (which I won’t confuse you with, I’ll just mention it in passing), we get something that looks like this [drawing on blackboard].

Now, over on this side we have “right” and “survival.” Over on this side we have “dead” and “wrong.” Actually you can equate this little gimmick up here I’m drawing you in the most complex mathematical formula you ever want to see in your life.

It would give a graduate mathematician hours of headache to figure this thing out but it’s very simple. Here is neither right nor wrong. Anything right goes this way—anything wrong, that way.

Now, we put an arrow up here and we call this thing—that’s an infinity, that’s a zero—we call this contraption here the front board in the mind. “I,” awareness of awareness, inspects a board in the mind. We can postulate by analogy this is the board that it inspects. This board is fed by several thousand such computational boards, you might say, which “I” doesn’t inspect, but which it would have to put a unit on if the mind was aberrated. All right.

So, here we have a problem. Question: The hunter comes in. He lays down his gun. He knows the gun is loaded. He is very hungry and his wife has quite a temper. So he goes through this action and all of a sudden, as he lays the gun down in his room, it occurs to him that that gun is still loaded, so to lay it down like that is a couple of units wrong. But at this moment he hears his ever loving wife’s not quite melodious voice calling him to dinner in no uncertain terms. She’s waited some time. And so now he postulates the problem, “Well, have I got time to unload this gun?” The problem is laying the gun down loaded. Should it be unloaded? Now, we’re going to get a right-wrong answer on should the gun be unloaded? Well, it’s wrong to lay it down loaded, so the gun should be unloaded. Therefore, he should unload it.

I better fix up this problem so it’s exactly yes or no: Is the gun to be left unloaded? Now, it would be right if it were to be left unloaded that much, but wifey is calling—her voice is worth four units. And he’s very hungry—that’s worth two more units. So it’s wrong to stop there and unload that gun. But all of a sudden he hears his little kid down the hall and the datum feeds through—”Mischief—he got into my fishing tackle and stuck himself in a fish hook last August,” that comes through. And he hears his little kid down the hall, and it’s immediately “to hell with the wife” and so forth, he comes all the way over here—he unloads the gun.

He’s doing problems on the basis of how red is a red bicycle? Weighting, just little weights of “Is it right to do this? Is it wrong? How?” If you got completely right, if anybody on earth got 100 percent right, he would hit the incredible absolute here and you could postulate this metaphysical principle that everybody would become immortal and the universe would last forever. Nobody could be 100 percent right on any problem. If he is dead as an individual, he’s been wrong. So if he gets killed off, he’s wrong, that’s all Let’s do it on a long-term computation now See, the weighting of the data would be how many of these lines [tapping on blackboard] the weight took up. How close do we get to a good right? Actually a grammarian who set up the Hegelian theory of grammar—it wasn’t Hegel who invented grammar but it was Hegel who said that there are absolutes in the world—so that we got words like “accurate,” so we couldn’t say “very accurate” or “not quite accurate.” That’s bad grammar.

You don’t say “very right” or “wronger.” But there is a lot in this. There are no absolutes. If we follow Aristotle we have to say, “There is right and there is wrong” We follow engineering logic the way it’s been done, we would say, “There is right and there is wrong and there’s maybe, which hangs between them.” This is multivalued logic.

By the way, there is monovalued logic, which is the will of God, just one line: “Anything that happens, don’t think about it. That’s God, he said so, so here we are.” That’s monovalued logic.

Two-valued logic, Aristotelian: everything is right or it’s all wrong, one or the other, no halfway points.

Engineering logic: right, wrong, maybe. And with this multivalued system of logic you have an infinity of rights and almost an infinity of wrongs.

Fellow loses his job so he decides to take his last five hundred bucks and buy some oil stock, which makes his wife leave him, which makes him take to drink so that nobody will hire him, and he starts to get hungry, and he’s too proud to solve this problem although he’s a drunkard and here he is, starved to death. Now, that would be a long-term computation on this individual.

Now, we go the opposite direction, of course, and he does all these things right, why, he winds up here. He never winds up here at infinity as far as I know, but as far as his life span is concerned, his single life span, he can wind up here. If a fellow were pretty well right all his life, he would probably wind up his threescore and ten and die a bad, libidinous old man.

Here’s what we’re talking about now when we talk about survival value. Now, let’s just substitute—keeping this board in mind here, taking it down just a little bit—let’s just substitute something else on here, [drawing on blackboard] Let’s make it “pain,” make it “pleasure.” Now, as we deal with an organism here, that organism, unless it avoids sources of pain and reaches toward sources of pleasure, it isn’t going to survive well. It has to do that because too much pain gets over here, it’s wrong, it’s dead.

Actually, social mores to the contrary, there really couldn’t be too much pleasure. There could be immoral pleasure which means that the pleasure was such that it brought pain to the organism, which is to say, it’s lots of fun to get drunk but it’s certainly hell on your stomach.

Any act which is immoral today has at one time or another brought pain to the society in which that act was performed and so became immoral. By social aberration some of these acts have been booted forward to us today in the form of blue laws and all sorts of things, but at one time they were actually harmful.

All right. We take this organism and we find out that the analytical mind is doing a beautiful computation on the subject of how many data are right, how many data are wrong. It can do the most intricate computations on this subject. The analytical mind can out-compute any electronic brain that anybody will build for a long while to come. But on the subject of its data it doesn’t do too well on a digital basis, but it doesn’t do too badly because it sits down and builds an electronic computer . . . [gap] . . . complex problems, enormously complex problems. And these problems are of such a sort that to build a robot which would drive a car two blocks through traffic would require probably a moving van of parts. But look at the morons that can drive a car two blocks without wrecking it. I admit there aren’t many of them.

Here we have, then, this analytical mind doing these computations, making these nice adjustments, observations and so forth. Actually, as it makes these adjustments and observations, it sums them up into muscular reactions and it directs the action and it files them down in the somatic mind as a learned training pattern.

You drive a car two blocks without getting into an accident, after a while you can drive a car without any number of attention units up here at “I” In other words, one attention unit can sit down on this somatic mind, the physical mind, at this time to keep that thing going. A lot of people do it. It’s automatic response.

This is a stimulus-response mind. But it’s set up on a highly analytical basis. Red stoplight—now, think of the number of actions which it requires to stop the automobile at a precise place and then when it starts up again, watch the light, light goes off, reaction goes into effect, gears and so on, on forward again. Learned training pattern, pretty complex.

The reactive mind says, I’m dead, I’m dead, I’m dead, oh my God, I’m dead”—the engram says. All right. That can also feed into the somatic mind and back into the muscular system—psychosomatic illnesses. Or it can feed up here and go into the analytical mind. But it’s just a record that says, “I’m dead, I’m dead, my God, I’m dead.” Got two circuits. If it can’t turn on this circuit, it turns on this one. If it can’t carry out what it’s doing, it causes pain. This is just one of these simple switching systems. And this circuit is the main circuit, this calls for action, action to the analytical mind and via a bypass circuit back down in here again, or it calls for pain, one or the other.

A person either does what an engram says or it hurts. There is no further argument about it. There’s no thought connected with this. It does what the engram says or pain is received. Supposing the engram says, “I’ve got to go to the store but I don’t know whether I’ve got to go to the store or not, I guess I won’t go to the store.” You’re liable to get a chronic psychosomatic illness out of things like this, because you can’t do what they say, it’s impossible. So we wind a person up in vacillating decision. Well, the reactive mind after a while will settle for vacillating decision on the thing and the pain will sort of ease off. But if the reactive mind says “Run like hell,” and the guy stands still, then this one starts to get keyed in, see? [taps on blackboard] Pretty soon, bing, he’s got to run. This is going into the endocrine system, the muscles and everything else. But this is a record. And this record is built upon this basis. This we said was the organism. Now, let’s call it the cell, a single cell, monocell. All it knows is written right here. [taps on blackboard] This is all it knows. It only has one vector and that’s toward survival and when it loses on that vector it’s dead.

So, on a pain surge it comes this way. When it’s attracted by pleasure it comes this way If it fails, it dies. That’s its sole computation; it doesn’t figure any further than that. If this cell gets over here into being wrong, in other words, if it just is hurt, that’s all, it’s wrong. Because a cell is a very, very delicate mechanism, easily killed. As far as pleasure is concerned, it merely wants to be in its salubrious area, that’s all, for it to grow.

The analytical mind goes a long way further than this. This is identical thinking. Anything that is pain is death, anything with pleasure is immortality. That’s a cell. By the way, it can have a memory. Yeah, it has a memory to this effect: “Whatever white comes into my environment is pain, therefore, I must avoid whatever is white.” That’s the way it is thinking.

This is the trick. You take a colony of mobile cells and you blow nicotine at them—smoke at them. You can repeat this experiment in various ways and you’ll get them moving away from the nicotine. They move away from it. Now, put something in there that resembles the same smoke and they will move away from it. Then we culture them one generation and what do we find? We find that the next generation moves away from steam, which is not painful, but they’ll move away from it. You get the idea? They learn once. They never forget. They never unlearn anything. It only takes one lesson to teach them.

On a cellular level where life is very perilous indeed, this is probably very necessary. But it sure as hell raises the devil with the analytical mind when it gets up on the upper strata.

Now, the analytical mind, obviously no fool, since it eventually in the course of I don’t know how many thousands of years could go back and with the thoughts of various men down through the times on up to present time all of a sudden turn around on these cells and reverse the whole process and solve it. It can run the organism. That’s a Clear.

Now, when you get A here [drawing on blackboard], here’s A, it has the same memory as A prime. It’s subdivided into A prime, now we have A prime prime, it still has the same memory as this. As far as A prime prime is concerned, it is this cell, complete identification.

A prime prime prime: this cell has the personal identity of this cell. Any (quote) memory (unquote) (which is to say, any lesson taught by pain) that is in this is also in this and this and this [taps on blackboard] through consecutive generations until it is broken by a generation of the organism; which is to say, throughout a man’s body this condition obtains throughout his lifetime. But when he has children, his analytical memory does not go through into the children. There is a genetic pattern which goes through into the children but that’s all on the cellular level.

Now, there is the proposition. That’s what the cell knows, that’s what the cell does. And the analytical mind does a differentiative computation, the reactive mind does an identity computation, and when the analytical mind starts to do an identification along the line, it starts to fall right hand in glove with the reactive mind; thereafter does nothing but react.

Now, to make this much simpler, here we have the analytical mind which is an able mind, it can compute, it can do lots of things. The way a baby learns is by mimicry. You will find out that mimicry is the most important training mechanism that the analytical mind has. It’s the most important learning mechanism.

How does one learn? He learns through mimicry. If you look at apes—apes have, to some slight degree, mimicry. That’s all they have. Men are wonderful mimics. As long as a man is mimicking and knows he is mimicking, that’s all right. The second he begins to mimic and doesn’t know he’s mimicking, that’s not quite so good. And when he mimics to the extent of being Grandpa all his life and Grandpa is dead—yeah, he’s crazy to that degree.

You see what I’m getting at here? We’re talking about valences. How does a man learn to shoot a bow and arrow? He looks at a picture of a man shooting a bow and arrow. He could also read how to do that, but he’s learned his English by observation. He’s learned his reading, now he can translate it out, he composes the thing and he takes the bow and arrow.

How do we shoot a bow and arrow? Somebody is shooting a bow and arrow, somebody else watches him and he puts his feet in the same position, and takes this thing up; and actually if you say to him, “Shift into the valence of that man that’s firing the bow and arrow,” he can do it a lot easier—if he’s loose in his valences he can flick through it.

Acting—telling actors to do what this other fellow was doing or be the other fellow for a moment, just be the other fellow. So you have—he’s just shifted valences on these people, only you get a valence merely by watching a person. Valences are handy things to have until they become reactive mind stet valences. At this moment a person becomes willy-nilly somebody else, as far as his actions and mannerisms are concerned, and has an awful hard time being himself Do you see the three degrees? He is unable to differentiate between himself and the other person, so that he is the other person. That’s psychosis, that’s somebody being Napoleon, Or he bears a similarity to somebody else—bears a similarity to Grandpop in that, so-and-so, he likes his coffee hot and he does have this funny limp that nobody’s quite been able to trace. But we find out that Grandpa had a limp because Grandpa, let’s say, was shot in the Spanish-American War, We go along this line. Now, that’s being in a mild valence. Then we get over here to the natural function of the analytical mind which is completely differentiative. Now, as it can bob in and out of valences it becomes more and more able as a mimic.

It can mimic most anybody and it could still very solidly remain itself while it’s mimicking. That’s an optimum condition. That means that you could watch somebody step into a tractor, start pushing and pulling on the levers of the tractor for a few minutes, then merely, without even observing very closely, step into the tractor, shift into the other guy’s valence and drive the tractor.

That’s the way man’s constructed to learn. So, we have mimicry as one of the abilities of the analytical mind. Understand that the reactive mind has no ability to mimic. It merely says “Mimic!” and after that the fellow has to. But the analytical mind is what does the mimicking.

Now, the next thing that we run into in this line is a problem in demon circuits. The analytical mind can set up demons. There’s nothing to setting up a demon. You say, “Well, let’s see, I’m awfully bored, what am I going to tell this fellow?” You set up a synthetic demon circuit and you will talk to him, only you say what the demon says. That’s all. Just a couple of your own computational loops just carrying on a very able conversation with him and you don’t pay any attention to it, you just set it up. That’s a fact.

As a matter of fact, I’ve met people who do this a terrific amount of the time. Only I’ve often suspected “I” wasn’t present. When you have demon circuitry, it’s of great use. It’s of definite use, demon circuitry.

One sets up these loop computers—anytime one says to one of these computers, “Now, let’s see, I’ve got to figure out this problem, I want to do this new billiard shot. How the devil would you do this billiard shot? Well, I’ll think about it after a while,” He sets himself up automatically a couple of loop computers, circuits. It goes ahead and figures how you do the billiard shot. The next day at three o’clock while he’s drinking coffee, all of a sudden his mind is blank for a moment and into the flat plate of his mind springs the idea, “Why, of course! You give it a five bank . . .” [gap] You get the answer then which is set up. This is circuitry. It is done by the analytical mind, it is one of the ways the analytical mind operates. There’s these two chief functions. But now let’s take some of the abilities of the analytical mind, a separate and individual analytical mind.

This analytical mind, let us say, has a potential IQ of 190. It’s quite eleven. It has this on the line of building beautiful buildings, gorgeous buildings. It really can address itself to architecture. It’s quite clever. It has the talent and it has the dynamics in order to build this beautiful building. And working in its optimum state the fellow can go out and build a building. Then we get an engram which says, “You can build the most beautiful buildings in the world.” Well, it’s like playing an organ which has a stop which won’t go in. You can’t push the stop out of sight anymore.

This engram in the reactive bank—this is the reactive mind coming over here [tapping on blackboard]—throws back the circuit and it holds the ability to build buildings out, stet, 100 percent of the time. And this poor fellow now has an obsession on the subject of building buildings. He goes on and he builds buildings and builds buildings and builds buildings.

The only trouble is this thing has pain along with it and the answer to this engram—“I can build the most beautiful buildings in the world” (says one side of the engram), “You cannot, you’re just a drunken bum,” is what the other side says. So he’s got a manic, see, on the subject of building buildings—this is a manic. And one of these days somebody shifts his valence (ptock!) on the engram; he goes over and he says, “After all, I’m just a drunken bum and I never realized it till now.” Well, he’ll knock back and forth in this engram. The more it’s restimulated, the less analytical mind there is present to build buildings.

Just the existence of this engram all by itself reduces the analytical mind’s ability to build buildings. Now, let’s take this engram out and let it play along on the organ keyboard the way it should and we find that he can build beautiful buildings when he wants to, he likes to build beautiful buildings, he enjoys it, but he also likes to sail yachts. He also likes beautiful women and he has a very, very good time reading Rabelais. In other words, he’s got a full keyboard he can work on now. He can do any one of these things and he happens to have a talent for building buildings, so he goes on and builds them.

Let’s say he has a basic desire—that’s the big thing, basic personality, basic purpose—to build buildings, construct and so forth. He’ll do so. But let’s say this luckless guy with the great ability to build buildings has an engram which tells him that he has to be the world’s greatest polo player. He happens to be rather short in the legs, he’s short of breath, his athletic coordination runs on the order of one half of a second reaction time. So this poor guy is now the world’s greatest failure at polo. But it’s all he can do. This is polo. So life is filled with a chain of broken polo mallets and bored polo ponies. So we take that engram out and he doesn’t have to play polo anymore. And you would like to see some of these fellows that I’ve knocked manics out of. And I suppose there are a lot of them out there today who had maybe an engram that said, “I’ve got to be the world’s greatest salesman” or “You are the world’s greatest salesman, that’s all you can do is sell” and actually this guy was amply and adequately fitted to, I don’t know, play a zither. And so he had to go out and sell, sell, but he was always failing at selling.

Maybe he had another engram that said, “You can’t sell anything to me anyway. Salesmen are all bums.” So he has this background. He has the basic purpose that tells him to do one thing and the engram gives him a manic that he has to do something else. He is the failure of this world: the fellow who is forced one way and has talent another way, and so on.

You let this whole thing flatten out and let the analytical mind take care of it and figure it out for you, and the guy goes off and he’s happy as a clam and successful at what he’s doing and so on. I want to demonstrate to you, however, that it was not the reactive mind doing any thinking that made this fellow be a bridge builder.

Now in this setup here, we have four dynamics—we can postulate four dynamics. Here is one, two, three, four. The analytical mind isn’t laid out like this—we don’t know how it’s laid out so we can put numbers on a square just as easily as any other way.

This is his personal dynamic. Let’s say that’s natively fairly strong. Natively second dynamic pretty good. Third dynamic pretty good.

Fourth dynamic very good. Now we get this guy, got an engram here that says, “I’ve got a secret. It’s a very valuable secret and it will save the world.” You hear this with great frequency in institutions about having to save the world. Somebody’s got this secret, but the United States government is after him and somebody else is after him. This would be a paranoid reaction. And everybody—”they,” vaguely—going to get him if he doesn’t do this and so on. And the poor guy has just got number four—he would like to do something—number four gets completely exaggerated out of shape. Or we get the religious zealot who says, “We’ve got to have a good solid jihad here, boys, and Christianity has to disappear off the face of the earth because there’s only one god.” As far as he’s concerned, he’s on a three, not a four. He’s for his group but he’s going to save the world.

It’s a type of zealotism that is simply the reactive mind pushing one of these dynamics out of line. And it pushes it up and exaggerates it and because of the rest of the engrams, it’ll cave in the rest of the abilities of the mind. We have a paranoid.

When one is out of shape we have somebody who is selfish. When this one is pushed out of shape we have somebody who is a nymphomaniac or a satyr or something else. When this one gets pushed out of shape, this is somebody who’s got to carry the word to the boys on the Congo and he’s got to devote his whole life work to it, even if he gets eaten up the first stew pot that comes along. Here he is. He’s working for his group. And here’s number four, the poor guy who has the secret that everybody wants to get away from him because he’s got to save mankind from this awful menace—number four. But these are all analytical mind stops, every one of them is a key of the analytical mind. And the only ability there is the analytical mind ability.

The reactive mind here has nothing in it but a record, a record. Now, the analytical mind when it faces that record gets into a situation like this. You understand now about the analytical mind having the ability.

Let’s take a jukebox as a crude, crude thing. And it’s got a bunch of records in there and the needle and the arm and the motor and so on—all of these complex things, the speaker and the electricity and so forth—they’re all devoted to doing something. And supposing we had a jukebox with records, and it just kept feeding records to the jukebox.

Well, that’s all it does, that’s all it’s supposed to do—but it takes a lot of equipment to get that music out of that record.

Well, of course the analytical mind can do a lot more than just play the record. It can play and compose and reform and store its own records. In addition to that, it’s like a whole manufacturing plant with one jukebox sitting in the center. Now, let’s turn the whole machine over to a jukebox which plays a record.

The thing has nothing on it but bumps on wax. It can’t think, it can’t play. You could take a phonograph record—you can take this record right here, hold it here in the hand and wait for a long time before you heard anything coming out of that record. That’s an engram, that’s all.

Now let’s take the analytical mind. The basic strata of the analytical mind composes an identity, which is to say, it’s strictly the cellular level mind, that’s all—that’s cells, that’s the original organism and so forth. It eats, it goes toward food, it goes away from pressure, it tries to procreate. Basic stimulus-response mind, that’s all.

Actually, it can better be divided off in here, I’m calling it a somatic mind, [drawing on blackboard] Here’s your reactive mind, here’s your analytical mind, here’s “I.” Now, this is a storage bank. Out goes the analytical mind during unconsciousness, the perceptics start recording and they are stored here as recordings.

We knock a guy out, knock him in the head and say, “I hate Stalin, Stalin is going to kill me,” and we store it in there. It may lie in there completely inactive. It’s nothing, it’s just a voice and pain, but for various perceptics—that’s all. But after a while, this particular slot, a record like the jukebox, something fetches it out of the bank of records. The something which does so is a similar experience observed, very similar experience, on this level of the analytical mind.

The analytical mind has an experience. Now, here’s your standard bank, let us say, over here. It’s got certain things in it—this is the first time this thing gets restimulated. And people are fond of asking, “Can you give engrams to Clears?” Well, you could give an engram to a Clear but you’d have a hell of a time restimulating it for this reason: The analytical mind as it exists in an uncleared state, possessed of engrams, is never completely awake or alert. That is to say, if there are a thousand engrams in the bank—which would be a small number—with all their attendant locks, some of those are very mildly in restimulation, so you could never have a moment when you have 100 percent optimum alertness of the analytical mind.

The reason why is that any engram which is keyed in here into the analytical mind has a little tab on it. And it says “analytical mind unconscious.” Now, maybe that only takes down the power of the analytical mind as an organ or as an entity just that much. But it’s still not optimum.

Now we say that there’s two that are a little bit kicked in. And usually there are fifty or sixty or a hundred that are mildly kicked in. And it’s down further and further, so in a conscious, normal, awake state the individual is in a position where he can get an engram keyed in. You see how that would be?

He doesn’t have to be slightly unconscious to have an engram restimulated because he is slightly unconscious, you see? Now, it helps a little bit if he’s all worn out. But all of a sudden he walks into the office one morning and everybody looks sour. And he goes into the boss’s office, the boss says, “You’re fired, here’s your pay. I’m giving you a dishonorable recommendation. I’m going to make sure that you never get a job again anywhere.” The guy doesn’t know what he has done. He goes into a state of confusion. The boss says, “I’ll tell you what you’ve done. You’ve bungled up everything, you bungler!” That’s a lock. It’s nothing much. [gap] The engram has now been keyed in and after that it sits up there, up front like these new jukeboxes do, they have records on ready. Now, this thing is restimulatable, restimulatable at any time. It doesn’t need a new tough experience, a good solid lock to key it in. No key-in is necessary now.

The thing carried with it a headache and it said, “I can’t get a job anyway, I’m a failure, I’m no good, I bungle everything,” which was the comparable phrase. So now the fellow thinks, “Oh well, I bungle everything.” And he starts to do something and he bungles it and somebody gets mad at him and they’ve heard him say this so they say it back to him again—they say, “You bungler, you bungle everything,” and the thing will (snap) key in. Every time anything happens whereby he fails now the least little bit, and the thing has a headache in it, why, he gets sad and apathetic and so on.

He’s got an engram in charge. The engram’s keyed in and it is functioning. It’s operating at this moment. All right. The thing destimulates and restimulates alternately from there on out, once it’s been keyed in, because it’s always sitting there ready to go. It’s always on ready.

Now, one single perceptic in the person’s environment—like this engram down here had the breaking of a plate in it, the one single perceptic is somebody breaks a plate and all of a sudden the fellow thinks, “I am a bungler,” see? The analytical mind runs down here, runs into the computation. One perceptic, he’s a bungler.

Maybe it also had a train whistle. So when he’s got a train whistle going around the curve—he hears a train whistle, the train whistle means he’s a bungler. Why? Because every time a perceptic in this engram restimulates, it says right then the rest of its record. The way you could get this jukebox running is, well, you drop one perceptic contained in it and you get the whole record.

Whole record had to do with the train whistle, the breaking plate, Mama screaming, Papa saying something, so on. There’s the whole engram. So we drop in the whistle, the broken plate, the word “bungler,” a woman’s scream—any one of these things is the nickel in the slot and this thing goes on and plays its tune.

Only it’s playing its tune only because the analytical mind exists. In neurosurgery you can take some sections of the mind, which may be switchboards or the analytical mind itself, and you can cut it up in such a way that the engrams no longer have any way to play it. It’s something like taking the jukebox and because it had a bad record in it, tearing out the speaker, breaking up the motor, short-circuiting the line, blowing all the fuses in the system.

Now, of course that record isn’t going to be heard anymore. Well, that’s good solid neurosurgery. And that is precisely what happens, and if you investigate the prefrontal lobotomy case, you’ll find out that the fellow can’t be restimulated anymore along certain lines. Of course, the insidious part of it is is they don’t know which circuit to cut, so they may cut it in such a way that what repressed the restimulation and what fought against it, that’s all gone now. So the guy is in 100 percent all records playing in the box simultaneously.

You see, it’s a sort of a shotgun technique. Well, it worked, I suppose. But it’s not selective. But this is very selective. Oh, this is a beautiful rig. A perceptic comes in, this record is on ready here, we drop a train whistle in the slot, the guy is a failure as a salesman, he’s a bungler. All right, bing bang there it goes. Whole record runs off.

Well, it’s so sad, man. I’m going to give you a manic on the subject of being a salesman now.

Now, unfortunately, let’s say, Papa and Mama had an argument about whether the baby would be born or not. And Papa said, “You know, he will probably be the greatest salesman that ever lived. He will be able to outsell anybody in the United States or the world. Nothing will be able to stop that baby. I know it. Nobody could change my mind or make me think otherwise.” Well, that thing happens to contain the pound of a fist on the table. And it contains as well the hiss of a gas jet and it also contains the mild protest, “Oh, I don’t think hell be that good.” So, “I don’t think he’ll be that good” or “I don’t think” or “I” or something of the sort, is liable to cut in here on this line and restimulate that thing. Very unpredictable. He hears the hiss of a gas jet and this manic on the subject of selling, let’s say, it kicks in. (ptock!) Supposing the guy couldn’t sell at all, it wouldn’t have anyplace to kick. But he’d have to. But he can’t. But supposing he was potentially a very great salesman. Now, this thing kicks through, he’s a manic. Now, let’s take out this record completely. When he wants to sell, he’s a manic. When he doesn’t want to sell, he’s not a manic. He can select it.

It’s like taking the jukebox and tearing its selector switch off when one throws these engrams in. It could be this engram in restimulation which says he’s the greatest salesman in the world, it could be this engram in restimulation which says he’s a bungler and no good. Just hit or miss. Or both could be playing simultaneously.

Now, to show you how one of these engrams work, let’s say we have this phonograph record playing on the other side of the door. Let’s change our analogy here. Let’s take a fellow by the name of Bill and let’s say he is the analytical mind—Bill. All of Bill is an analytical mind. That’s all, no reactive mind. And the reactive mind is on the other side of this door and has a phonograph record. Well, Bill, let’s say, has got an office staff around— attention units—and he hears something or other, a rattle or something over there. There’s been a cup broken, which sounded like a dish breaking or something, and this restimulated that record in there and it starts playing. And so the thing that happens is—the broken crockery, Bill sitting here says to one of his attention units, “Go on over there and see what that is. There’s something working over there, got a message through here that says, ‘cells, et cetera, et cetera, are in pain.’” “Uh-huh. All right.” So his assistant goes over and he opens the door and this record says right out loud, “You’re a bungler.” The guy, of course, wilts a little bit and he says, “It’s a funny doggoned thing.” And the thing says it again, “You’re a bungler.” And the guy turns around and says to Bill, “It says you’re a bungler.” Well, about the time Bill starts to say, “The hell I’m a bungler!” this gadget back there shoots out a little bit of sleeping gas. So Bill can’t think quite so good and the attention unit stands there and keeps looking at this thing. And pretty soon Bill says, kind of groggily, “There must be a lot of trouble over there.” That’s unconsciousness coming in because this thing’s got an unconscious perceptic that knocks out the organism and its feed supply.

So, he sends over a couple more attention units. Now, if Bill really wants to get psychotic he not only sends all of his assistants down there but he goes down there himself. The closer he gets to this thing, why, the more gas he gets. And finally everybody is standing around listening and it says, “You’re a bungler, you’re a bungler, you’re a bungler.” “Who’s that?” “You’re a bungler.” So, we get the situation whereby the attention units are attracted back to the engram. But now supposing this engram wasn’t saying “You’re a bungler,” supposing it was saying “Wachatabi, wachatabi, wachatabi.” Nobody up here in the attention unit bank knows anything about Japanese. So they go back and they open the door and it says “Wachatabi.” They slam the door again, “Some dumb fool down there is saying ‘Wachatabi.’” Nobody knows. All right. Yeah, that’s the restimulative characteristic. Every once in a while somebody says “Wachatabi” out here in the environment and somebody says, “Watch your tabby,” awful pun. But somebody says, “Watch your tabby,” and this thing goes “squeak, squeak” and one of your attention units goes over and opens up the door and looks in and it says, “Watch your tabby, watch your tabi, watch your tabi.” Attention unit comes back and says, “It’s ‘watch your tabi’ not ‘watch your tabby.’” Well, the analytical mind behaves about that way toward these engrams.

Now, let’s supposing that in the reactive bank we have a lot of grief. Supposing it’s just cats yelling. You restimulate cats yelling—too many cats yelling and so forth, and after all a guy’s foot starts to hurt if he hears too many cats yelling. He doesn’t quite like cats yelling. But at the same time he doesn’t want to commit suicide—because it didn’t say so. That’s the difference.

Now, this thing down there, it’s a booby trap. It’s set up and it has in it unconsciousness, it has pain, it has perceptics—all the perceptics present, that’s all it’s got. It doesn’t have anything more than that. That’s all it’s got.

These three things are identities. Everything in here is identical to everything in here is identical to everything in here because it’s just a record after all. The only thing which will differentiate one part of this from another part of it is the analytical mind that walks down on it.

Now, it so happens that the analytical mind can respond to commands. All right. It responds to commands. So it goes down there and the command is in the engram. He walks over toward the door there, he opens the door, and it says, “I am very tired.” So all of a sudden unconsciousness comes in, the thing’s restimulated. Bill—the analytical mind attention unit says, “You know, it’s a funny thing but he says it’s very tired. Yeah, very tired.” And so he says, “Hell! I don’t feel tired.” And at this moment this thing turns on some more sleeping gas. Bill says, “Yes, I do feel tired.” And then he’s more comfortable. He’s got to agree with this thing, that’s what it’s trying to do. Because the original personnel in the engram was trying to get some form of agreement.

Now, that’s aberration. That’s all. It’s just a statement of condition. It could say, “You’re no earthly good.” That’s just a statement of condition. We’re not terribly concerned with that sort of thing. These aberrative phrases, they may be very terrible, they may have somebody down here climbing lampposts to find out why the green lizard on top keeps spitting at them. But that’s just an aberration. It’s not important in an engram—it’s aberrational phrases. But the next thing we have in the thing with which you’re very familiar are the action phrases: bouncers, denyers, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Now, the engram gets restimulated. This is to say, here’s Bill. The assistant goes over to the door, he opens the door and something says, “Get out!” The assistant backs off and says, “It says ‘Get out!’” He goes back over to it again and it’s a funny darn thing but it doesn’t say anything till he gets close to it and then it says, “Get out!” So he gets out. And in this way one attention unit can keep on idling off a restimulated engram. He gets close to it, it says, “Get out!” He moves up from it again and he just keeps on doing this. We’ve got an idling attention unit. [gap] “No, I’m going to stay here!” So, attention unit goes down, it says, “Get out.” So he goes back again. Another attention unit going with this guy, it says, “Stay here.” So he’s stuck. Because as he gets close to this thing it drags him in. It knocks out his analytical power, too. It deintensifies the unit, so to speak.

Now you’ve got one of them idling back and forth this way on “Get out.” And you’ve got one of them standing here because it said “Stay here.” You take the analytical bank and know the number of commands in it—these are director commands, action commands—bouncers, denyers, misdirectors, holders and what’s the last one?

Male voice: Groupers. And groupers. A grouper is really a honey. And these are the action commands. They cause—these units, and memory itself actually, is going up and down the track. Units go down the track, they furnish the data. They furnish the data to the other loop, the other computational loops and so forth.

Their normal course of activity is to go down the track into the standard bank and come up to the analytical mind computers, [drawing on blackboard] When they go down the track here and wind up in the reactive bank, they were looking for data to resolve a problem out here, to find it.

Actually, the problem was interior instead of exterior; they go look at the problem out here and they do what’s said. If they don’t, pain turns on, so they have to do it. All right. So it goes ahead on this basis. And these are action phrases.

The analytical mind’s doing all this. Remember, it’s just a phonograph record that’s playing there.

Now, the next thing that we get out of this thing—and this way we tie up and agitate, by the way, an awful lot of circuits; an awful lot of attention units in the bank get tied up on these action phrases—the next thing that happens is we get valences.

Now, this thing has a command in it. “I,” you see, would normally give the command, normally do the observing and would normally say over here to a series of loops, “Be like Oscar while you’re driving a tractor.” So, all right, the individual (a whole organism, not just the analytical mind) is like Oscar and drives the tractor.

As long as he’s driving the tractor he’s Oscar. That goes in finally into just this little box down here and it’s an automatic setup mechanism and only the action part of him is Oscar and his own mind is floating free. Maybe there’s only three or four attention units devoted to being Oscar there. But there’s a carbon copy set up and there it is.

Now, supposing one is doing just plain mimicry. He, for instance, wants to—well, let’s take a hunter up in the north woods and he makes a moose call He goes into the valence of a moose, you might say, because he makes a moose call And you’ve often heard a hunter say, “Now, how’s the best way to hunt for a moose? Why, you just think of yourself as a moose and then you do what they do, and you wind up with mooses,” or is it “meese”? And so there’s valences. But now here’s what happens in the engram circuit: here’s our analytical mind with attention units. All of a sudden there’s this ruckus, something restimulates the engram bank, he walks down toward the door, opens the door. And it says, “You’re just like Oscar,” Another one says, “Stay here.” Another one says, “Come back.” As a matter of fact this “Come back” can be very interesting because it will peel off, little by little, attention unit after attention unit till there’s finally a whole lot of attention units standing at that door looking and obeying this now, “You’re like Oscar.” Well, there’s nothing for this analytical mind to do but set up an Oscar valence 100 percent because obviously survival, the one-two identity survival computation, says “Oscar.” After all, one is surviving on the outside world so when one gets Oscar, we got to be like Oscar. That sets up a valence.

Now, this thing also has this mechanical idea of every engram has three or four valences. There are three or four people there by a switchover: “You’re just like your mother,” so on—valence shifters. Or “You can go elsewhere, for all of me.” Or “If that had been you, you would have been killed.” Or “If that had been me, I would have been killed,” or something of the sort. So we get this computational problem which has to set up a valence which isn’t in any valence because every valence is you or me. Naturally, we could only set up then a synthetic valence. Well, the analytical mind is very competent, does this all the time. So the engrams are in restimulation, the analytical mind didn’t differentiate readily, as long as it failed to know about them, on the subject of engrams. So it obeyed them inside and it obeyed them outside. It’s the exterior world getting interior. So the guy would set up a valence. The analytical mind would set up a valence, meaning a full-dress mimicry of one of the valences in engrams. That clear?

The next one is demon circuits. Let’s take the most villainous demon of the works. In the outside world we have something that tells the fellow he’s got to control himself. Maybe he is starting to yell and there are some wild animals close to hand and he’d tip it off and bring the wild animals down on his fellow huntsmen. So they say, “Control yourself, be quiet.” “I” receives this command. It is not particularly engramic, even if he’d be slightly wounded, if he doesn’t have something real engramic for it to sit on. That’s a perfectly reasonable remark. They might even say, “You’ve got to control yourself now, there are wild animals around,” and the guy would lie quietly till the wild animals came by. Survival mechanism. But let this outside world get inside. The attention units are attracted to the door. You open the door and this thing says, “You’ve got to control yourself. I’m going to tell you what to do. And after this, by God, you do it.” Let’s say it runs into that. And they come back and they tell Bill, “Hey, there’s somebody else aboard.” So the analytical mind sets up a circuit. It puts another “I” in here. There’s a piece of computer in there. You might say that the stuck attention units get in there. And you’ll sometimes have a sonic circuit on the subject. Only it isn’t saying, “You’ve got to control yourself, I’m going to tell you,” so on. It may tell the guy how to control himself, it may dictate his every action. It may even make him feel that unless he does control himself he’s going to be in bad shape all the time, that he’s liable to explode any minute if he doesn’t control himself, all depending on the commands with which it’s set up. But in addition to this you ask the person to get rid of a “control yourself” mechanism and because it’s so obvious in the society that a person has to control himself, he thinks that picking up the “control yourself” mechanism would be picking up “I’s” and erasing “I’s” ability to control the organism.

Whereas this thing is a parasite; it is not “I” controlling the organism. It’s a false “I” erected in the circuits. And it actually can get sonic. It actually can get sonic, like one of those the other day, the sonic one—”Come up to present time.” It was a hypnotist, evidently, who had installed this circuit and he’d just put it in artfully on a sympathetic basis so he’d had an engram there all the time sitting there which had a full circuit set up. So that hypnotist was always sitting in there telling him just what to do, because it says, “You will remember all this in present time.” Of course, present time was progressive so the engram just came right on along with it. So he was always there and there was always a control circuit going along with this circuit, do you follow?

Well, that is a demon. It doesn’t set up anything else but this, on the thought level. This is what it sets up on the thought plane. That’s all it sets up on the thought plane. And the only thing that puts this into action is the analytical mind. And the only thing it uses is the ability of the analytical mind.

I say the only thing that puts it into action is the analytical mind, I mean makes it possible for it to go into action. Actually the perceptics kick the record in and the record starts playing on a cellular level. That bypasses it. All right. Now we have the fact that the analytical mind, by conscious and unconscious circuits—circuits it isn’t paying any attention to but can regulate at need such as heartbeat, rhythm, all sorts of things, fluid flows in the body, voluntary, involuntary muscles—it regulates everything. The thing is all set up, rigged up to regulate the body. But it rigs it up; nobody pays much attention to how fast his heart is beating or how much he’s sweating. Actually you probably would have a hell of a time playing too much hob with the temperature mechanisms of the body and so on. But all this is postulated and is discovered to be under analytical control since you can take an individual and reach those controls and interfere with those controls just by talking to him specifically on command. Very strange thing that you can practically stop a man’s heart just by talking to him. That’s right. But you either have to do it on a Clear with his consent and he has practiced until he can do it—in other words, did you ever see a little kid learn how to wiggle his ears? Well, it takes a little while to find the muscles that wiggle the ears.

The same thing with the analytical mind and fluid flow. So you can reach into the mind and you can say, “Your heart will now beat slowly”—to an hypnotized amnesia-tranced person, “Your heart will now beat slowly, your heart is beating slower and slower. Your heart’s beating slower and slower,” and you can kick down his heartbeat rate to a degree. Furthermore, you can stroke his arm, “All the blood is flowing out of your arm now,” and you can finally get a fellow whose hand is as white as if bled, you might say. If it’s a good amnesia trance subject, his hand is white, bloodless and cold.

This experiment is not an unusual one—as a matter of fact it’s very well known to hypnotists, the limiting of blood flow in various parts of the body. The Hindu, as a fakir, can slit a vein in his wrist, let us say, and make it bleed. He’s got autocontrol on this, you see. The analytical mind—he just says “Bleed” and it bleeds; “Don’t bleed” and it stops bleeding.

There were a couple of Hindu fakirs about 1928 when this principle was not known in this country who went up to Johns Hopkins5 and practically drove everybody crazy in Johns Hopkins. Then a few of our own hypnotists said, “Whoa, now wait a minute. I should be able to do that to myself,” so they did.

The analytical mind can control fluid flow. On a lesser basis, I suppose like you would learn—you know, the analytical mind has to learn how to think in childhood; it has to learn vocabulary, it has to learn all sorts of things, but we’re treating it now as a mind which has observed and learned—would have to learn even more (like a child learns how to wiggle his ears) in order to control something, for instance, like the thyroid or pituitary. But on a postulate, it should be able to, because a hypnotist working on a subject, by handling solely the lower stratas of the analytical mind, can actually do tricks with the glandular system. It’s pretty easy to demonstrate—turn them off and on, so forth.

Of course, he does it in rather weird ways. He says, “It’s very, very warm in here. It’s very hot in here,” or “You feel very energetic. You’re getting very energetic.” Well, I don’t know how he’s kicking in the thyroid and what the circuits would be to kick it in, but the guy can then feel very energetic. He’s got an overload of thyroid going into the system. Now, “You’re very sleepy, very tired,” the other regulator mechanisms are going in. [gap] Just in terms of cellular control, it would actually make a Wurlitzer look simple. Cellular control, growth control—controls; there are a hell of a lot of them in the analytical mind. You stop and think of the number of parts of the pituitary, think of the number of glands, all that sort of thing.

In a cleared state a person could kick back these mechanisms into himself if he wants to play. No particular reason to, but you can take a person who is hypnotized, it’s the same thing—you’ve merely gained access to the lower stratas of the analytical mind and the somatic mind, because it’s got to have reasoning and analytical power to understand the words. And you can say, “Your nose will now begin to run. And it will run a great deal for one half an hour. But at 10:31 it will cease to run.” This is very interesting because it kicks it into the circuit, you wake the guy up and his nose starts running. Now, his nose doesn’t start running with a slight dampness; it’ll run a torrent He’ll fill up handkerchief after handkerchief with nasal mucus. Not a very lovely thought, but it is awfully interesting to watch. So he fills up handkerchief after handkerchief but at 10:31 (ptock!)—he isn’t looking at a clock, but it stops just like that. There is handling fluid flow. I mean by fluid flow everything in the body, you could handle practically anything.

The engram has a high priority. The cells say, “Ha, this is survival itself. Yes, sir! We’ve really got a mechanism here that works, works splendidly! Always has worked, no reason why it won’t keep right on working. After all, we’ve always been Republicans, why not keep right on being Republicans,” that being the general gist of its logic. And it’s got a phrase in the engram which says, “Your nose is run-ning. It keeps on running all the time. Why don’t you hold it?” And you get this poor guy going around for thirty years with his nose running. You’ve seen them, that’s chronic sinusitis. But it wouldn’t have any pain content with it unless we matched up—and who doesn’t have one in a normal state—an engram which has as one of its pain perceptics irritation of the mucus membrane of the nose.

Well, this engram would lie dormant just so long. One of these days it gets kicked in. Its verbal content has to do with the husband leaving the wife or something and the victim of the piece has the spouse leave. But they’ve always had a little bit from one engram which says, “Your nose runs all the time, hold it.” Because that’s got a holder in it and this guy heard this all during childhood; it was in the prenatal bank because he had an older brother who was being told the same thing. This is in chronic restimulation, so his nose has always run a little bit.

Now, mucus membrane, irritated in this other engram, restimulates the other engram, so now we’ve got two engrams acting on the nose. Now let’s say, “It is running, therefore, it must be infected”—supposing we have this learned phrase in an engram, this guy is starting to get in bad shape.

A few bacteria come in. The way you got to set this thing up now is to keep that bacteria alive, don’t kill it, because this approximates the conditions of survival, and by God we’ve got to survive, yes sir!

Well, the way to survive is to have a running, irritated nose which is infected—combination of three engrams. That’s a psychosomatic illness in its mildest form.

In a somewhat worse form you find it in a young lady who was here day before yesterday who has been on crutches ever since she was a very small child, about three years of age. A very beautiful young lady. She got polio when she was about two and a half years of age and it affected her legs to some slight degree. But she had an engram, all up and down the bank, the same engram. Papa was an ally but Papa’s standard phrase was, “I can’t stand it, I can’t stand it, I can’t stand it. The tension is a great deal, I can’t stand it. The nerves, tension is terrible, I can’t stand it.” This was Papa. From one month up to the moment she left home he said this continually. Everything Papa said was law; she’s on crutches.

The polio, of course, also latched on to an engram in the bank which contained actual leg injury prenatally. The fetus is very easy to injure in the legs. A blow in the abdomen, like running into a table or something of the sort, will cause a fetus’s legs to cave in. After all, the fetus’s knees are clear up here. And sometimes they can poke them so hard the knees of the fetus will go through or break the fetus’s jaw. There are a lot of repair facilities, they fix it up, but the engram is there.

Now, two and a half years of age, something gets restimulated that way. There’s some bugs in the neighborhood and these things latch on. God knows what they are, streptococcus or something of the sort. The next thing you know she’s got some kind of an infection in an area. And then somebody comes around and says, “Well, she’ll probably be crippled. She’ll never be able to walk again, even if she does pull through this.” She’s sent to an isolation home. And in the isolation home she hears the words, “Poor thing, she’s trapped”—nice holder. And then Papa’s first remark when she comes home half-starved with malnutrition, “Look, my God, her legs are like pipestems. I can’t stand it,” which keyed in everything else down the track, wap! Chronic poliomyelitis.

This is on the somatic level, because this is the other half of the engram, it has a reverse side. If this goes in, if the analytical mind and the body obey the commands of the engram, that engram won’t inflict the pain which is in with it. Inflict the pain, the body’s supposed to obey one way or the other. But supposing these commands are very contradictory and it says. “I can’t stand it.” Well, that’s a very hard command to obey, but it contains pain in the legs, too. What are you supposed to do at this point? “Now, you’ve got to stand it,” Mama was saying all the time, “You’ve got to stand it.” Contradictory proposition, so whichever way she turned she got the pain. “I can’t stand it.” “Got to stand it,” the circuit said. She had to go one way or the other. Well, so she got pain.

This is the other half of the thing. The thing says, “I’ve got to run. I’m afraid I’ve got to run.” So the fellow feels fear and runs, no pain. But supposing this engram keyed in simultaneously with his being fed the damnedest biggest piece of chocolate cake you ever wanted to see, and he liked chocolate cake.

Now, is he going to run with this piece of chocolate cake sitting in front of him? No, he’s going to stay there and eat the chocolate cake. But because the engram is kicked in (drone of plane overhead), which may have to do with an airplane flying overhead—and of course I’m getting engrams all the time from these damn diesels—something like that keyed the thing in, “I’m afraid I’ve got to run.” His natural response is, of course, to start running but there’s the chocolate cake. So he stands there and eats the chocolate cake but he eats the chocolate cake like this, see, like on a run, nervous twitch in his legs. His legs feel funny. “What’s wrong with you, Willy? You must be just nervous.” Mama helps him out usually, (laughter) And you can do this, by the way—this is one of the few experiments that are very positive on animals. You can take a cat and ring a bell and hit the cat. You hit the cat and ring the bell, and you hit the cat and ring the bell, and hit the cat and ring the bell, and hit the cat and ring the bell. And you let the cat go and you ring the bell and the cat goes, whooot—gone! You bring the cat back and you hit him and ring the bell, and you hit him and ring the bell, and you hit him and ring the bell, and then you let him go. Whooot!

Okay. Now we bring him back and we don’t let him eat for a couple of days and then we set out a great big plate of sardines. That’s survival, pleasure. Cat’s hungry. We set him down here and the cat gets a nice big whiff of the sardines and then we ring the bell.

Now we get right back on our first draft again. [drawing on blackboard] This cat is hung up on “maybe.” He’s not right, he’s not wrong. He’s maybe. But he’s right on one and he’s wrong on the other—what is he going to do? So he eats the sardines but he doesn’t enjoy them very much. That’s what’s known as anxiety.

This is the way, basically, all engrams work. Now, I’ve told you about this basic mechanical proposition here, giving you as close as possible the one-two-three of the mechanics of them. You know this derivation, you’ve read it in the book; I wanted to go over it with you here so you would be able to set up a little circuit which thinks like an engram.

The engram can’t spell, it can’t think. So you set up a circuit on the thing which outrageously puns and thinks literally on everything. Now get this: he rode a horse and he rowed a horse. If the record playing says, “He rode a horse,” it isn’t spelled. The attention unit from the analytical mind goes down and it would just as soon interpret this thing on the basis of “he rowed a horse,” That’s what it says!

To the pilot it doesn’t say, “He’s no earthly good.” That doesn’t mean that “I don’t think he’ll really succeed at anything,” which is what it was supposed to mean. It says “He can’t do anything on the ground”— “He’s no earthly good.” When it gets to crutches and walking and so forth, the engram says “I can’t stand it.” Well, it sort of adds up to “I can’t stand up.” or something of the sort in that vague fashion. But it doesn’t mean that “I’m unable to bear this.” It merely means “I can’t stand up,” or “My legs are tired,” You see how that engram goes? In such a way all these engram commands . . .

We have in our language, at best, very poor communication symbols, very poor. They have never been worked out. The French language, the German language, they say one thing and they mean another, the literal definition of the words.

In Germany, for instance, if we wonder how a Hitler could suddenly take the nation over, it would be very simple. All one would have to do is fix it up so everybody would obey authority. In Germany when you say, “He’s a good boy,” you’re actually saying, “He’s an obedient boy,” Am I right? That means he’s a good boy. That means “We approve of you. You’re a good boy, we approve of you,” The tone says, “We approve of you,” but the literal meaning of the word says, “You’re an obedient boy.” So approval means obedience, obedience means approval. That’s pleasure, that’s survival. So it’s built in on a rock-bottom proposition, very tough into the national culture of Germany: “You’re an obedient boy,” In France we have a situation there of “I have an evil, I have an evil in my head,” The word evil is very homonymic. Then we wonder why the French sometimes worry about religion, “I have an evil in me,” There’s quite a bit there back in the old days that could have been brought up. The language, in other words, which says one thing and means literally quite another is a very unsafe language to have around.

The worst offender of them all, at least I think—and of course I don’t know very many languages, but as a matter of fact I only know English to talk it, know something of these others—Japanese. Japanese— very homonymic. Two Japanese talking to each other on the street would probably have a very rough time of it unless they could watch each others mannerisms and gestures. As long as they can see these things they’re perfectly confident what the other is saying. Because they leave off their articles and they leave off their—well, as far as articles are concerned, none; and as far as their pronouns, undifferentiative. You merely understand there’s a subject on this sentence. You use verbs in various ways, you label them as a verb and they’re very homonymic over into nouns.

This language can really be thoroughly misinterpreted. When you’re talking to a Japanese you have to make yourself very clear on the subject of your mannerisms and your gestures. Worse than that, their written language is Chinese—actually Chinese characters, borrowed over, renamed and then if you want to know how to pronounce it in Japanese, they have little symbols up in the corner—that’s one of the reasons they have bad eyes, is this little tiny, tiny character which has many lines and strokes to it, and right up here in the corner, almost microscopic, is the pronunciation of it, so that you can pronounce it in Japanese and it means that in Japanese.

In order to differentiate, they have thousands and thousands of characters which they use because their own language won’t differentiate. We wonder why they went nuts and bombed Pearl Harbor when they knew they couldn’t win. There’s your reason. Language has been unsafe in this world for an awful lot of boys who are now pushing up daisies in the various forgotten battlefields of this planet.

Now, there is some idea of the reactive mind and how you must look at this thing. If you start to compute on the basis of “What does this mean?” on an understood basis, if you start to think that way about engrams, you’re going to miss bouncers, denyers and everything else. It’s what does it mean literally?

What was this one on a valence shift?

Male voice: “Beat it”? “Beat it,” excellent one. “Beat it,” and you look for a bouncer and you look for the attention unit to bounce when it gets down to the word “beat it” and it doesn’t bounce, because “beat it” means to hit it. Bounce would be to, well, “scram,” perhaps, but not “beat it,” Actually you could say by “beat it,” which is understood to mean go away, you could actually have it as a holder. And I have found it as such. You come in against the engram and the attention unit is supposed to be in against the engram, which is very interesting. And as you run across various engrams in the bank and as you listen to them parade in front of you, you will see very readily what is meant by literal translation.

One of the phrases that a fellow experienced more relief on than you could possibly figure out that he would experience was on this single phrase, “It’s too horrible to be borne,” Now, this didn’t mean that it was too much to carry. It meant that it—which is interpreted by the fetus in the bank as itself— it was too horrible to be born.

Well, his mother used to tell him, “Why were you ever born?” This gave him the idea after a while that he was too horrible and he went around in a small squirrel cage on this subject. See, the horrible viciousness of engramic puns.

Don’t make a mistake, either, of believing when you’re going in up against demons that you’re going to find something in a sheet or something of the sort. It is a piece of the analytical mind. Don’t wonder when somebody is explaining to you on and on and on and on and on about why you should never go back into the prenatal area with him until you have cleared up first the painful emotion on his case, because “that’s the thing that has to be taken care of,” “It’s this emotional situation that has to be taken care of. If you take care of this emotional situation I’m sure you’ll be able to get me down the time track much better afterward, you know that,” It’s a demon circuit which is running on this single computation: Papa saying, “You must do what I tell you. We’ve got to solve the emotional situation,” And then, of course, he adds right after that: “You’re too emotional and you mustn’t show your emotions,” So this engram says that the fellow has got too much emotion, which means he’s about ready to explode but he can’t let it explode because this is kept—”because we can’t get the engrams postpartum which are emotional engrams because we must control the emotion, but we’ve got to get them because we have to take care of the emotional state, and besides we’ve got to control ourselves in general, but I’ve got to control you, the auditor,” This whole situation can get very complex with some patients. That’s why you must never listen to a patient’s computation. If he tells you what’s wrong with him, you agree with him wholeheartedly and send him someplace else. We have Standard Procedure now which, if followed, produces results. When you know your tools and you follow what you’re supposed to do when you’re supposed to do it, you’ll get results. It may take you quite a while on some patients, but you’ll still get results.

Female voice: The actual way the reactive mind interprets the phrase—I mean there are some phrases that are ambiguous even on a literal . . .

Mm-hm.

Female voice: . . . depends on the lock and the other engrams that have keyed in on that same thing?

Yeah. And it may be of interest to those interested in general semantics that the first time these phrases get interpreted in the bank, those first definitions are the ones which are liable to be used by the reactive mind.

This is of no great importance to therapy beyond just an observation of how language works. The child is told that something is a nasty word that he must not say, but this nasty word is contained in the engram, which sort of puts its color now on this engram. [gap] Don’t think for a moment that life is lived on a reactive level.

The analytical mind is actually quite an emotional organ. The whole being is rather emotional. If he were not emotional he would not be able to enjoy anything. And if you’ve ever looked around you, you should realize that an awful lot of people are incapable of enjoying what they are doing.

They feel the unreality of the existence about them. That’s strictly mechanical on the basis of lost attention units, of distraction and so on. But the analytical mind which is riding along still goes on its own computation and in a cleared state is very emotional. The mind freezes up.

Supposing it’s got engrams in it which say, “You have to be emotional, you have to be emotional, you have to be happy. You just have to be happy all the time. Don’t go around here being sad. You’ve got to be cheerful. You’ve got to be well. You’ve got to stay well. You can’t be sick.” And now we try to send this person down the track and they say, “But I’m so happy and cheerful”—they’re still sick—“I don’t need any treatment.” You’ll run across them.

Male voice: Say, Ron, in relationship to exactly this thing one of the patients that came in this morning one of the professional patients, is a gentleman who has a computation as follows in the control circuit: “You’ve got to be yourself,” and “Be patient and be yourself. If you re patient, you’ll be happy.” Result: the man has been a patient in mental institutions for twenty years now with a manic-depressive psychosis, cyclic manic. He’s been happy as a patient Second male voice: Does this problem of semantics show up in regional usage of language?

Oh man! But don’t think that the country is laid out heavily with one dialect only in one place of the country. Although the person may have moved to New York and now speaks New Yorkese, that person may have been born (gestated, you might say) in West Virginia.

Now, what you get there, you may get all this completely covered over and suppressed with a university education, let’s say, and maybe we have all these strange colloquialisms. Now, the auditor as he goes into this case doesn’t realize that he’s going to hit colloquialisms of another region. And he starts in there, I don’t think of any reactive phrases at the moment but I think of some of their expressions in that area, somebody’s “juicing” a cow.” There’s plenty of difficulty in this line. Furthermore there’s the difficulty of time. In the society we have a current slanguage, a colloquial chain which goes along. It changes. I think the society does that to save its own sanity, particularly this society which is young. It really manhandles its language. Colloquialisms, slangisms—and when we get through with them they get exported to England.

When they get through with them they send them to Australia. During the war we had slanguage in Australia which was of 1925-26 vintage. They learned awful quick. We did a direct transplantation down there.

I hit a bouncer one time back about, I guess—it was birth, about 1908. And I hit this bouncer, so I started feeding this fellow, “‘Get out.’ What is the bounce—give us a bouncer.” He can’t think of any bouncers. “Well, let’s see, ‘Run away,’ ‘I’ve got to go now,’” anything I could think of.

I started missing it and missing it. And of course all the time I was testing the thing I was pulling the fellow down on the engram with phrases adjacent to this bouncer, pulling him back into it again, so he’d come into the engram, which was “a cute little thing.” And “cute little thing.” Then I’d try to get the bouncer again. “Cute little thing.” He’d bounce and then “cute little thing,” I’d bring him down. And I finally hit it with “skiddoo.” “Twenty-three skiddoo.” That was the nurse giving backchat to the . . . “Don’t give me any backchat,” by the way, is a wonderful preventer of people getting early on the track—that’s backchat. You’re not supposed to get any backchat. These incredible computations—as you go through this work, why, you’ll probably laugh yourself silly over some of the computations there, forgetting the fact that they’re serious. But they are terribly serious, untouched in the society as they are. And from time to time, that is from generation to generation, the colloquialisms get into the engram and then you will find the engrams themselves contaging by dramatization, 100 percent dramatization. (Recording ends abruptly)