 
Subject: FZ Bible 9/9 LEVEL 1 TAPES (repost) 
Date: 1999/07/01 
Author: Secret Squirrel <squirrel@echelon.alias.net> 
   Posting History    
 
FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST
 
LEVEL 1 TAPE TRANSCRIPTS (SHSBC LECTURES) 9/9 (repost)
 
**************************************************
 
Contents 
 
1 Contents + Appendix HCOPL 10 Oct 61 Problems Intensive
2 SHSBC-18  renumbered  20  22 Jun 61  Running CCHs
3 SHSBC-21  renumbered  23  27 Jun 61  CCHs-Circuits
4 SHSBC-46  renumbered  50  29 Aug 61  Basics of Auditing
5 SHSBC-64  renumbered  68  10 Oct 61  Problems Intensive
6 SHSBC-65  renumbered  69  11 Oct 61  Problems Intensive Assessment 7 SHSBC-295 renumbered 324  15 Aug 63  The Tone Arm
8 SHSpec-17 renumbered 379  21 Apr 64  Problems and Solutions
9 SHSpec-42 renumbered 405  13 Oct 64  Cycles of Action
 
Based on the modern clearsound academy cassettes plus 6 of the 8 lectures were also checked against the old pre-clearsound cassettes (omissions marked ">"). 
 
Note that two of the tapes posted by Zenon in the FPRD cassettes are also often included in level 1.  These are:
 
SHSBC-61  renumbered  65  3 Oct 61  The Prior Confusion
SHSpec-12 renumbered 374  19 Mar 64  Flattening a Process
 
Note that two of the Freedom Congress lectures are also
included in the modern level 1 academy cassettes.  We will
be doing these as part of the complete Freedom Congress
later this summer.  They are
 
FC-4  5 Jul 57 Basic Theory of CCHs
FC-15 7 Jul 57 CCH: Steps 1-4 Demo
 
A complete list of Freedom Congress, SHSBC, and all other tapes
can be found in Pilot's tape master list available at fza.org.
We recommend it for use in keeping track of tape renumbering.
 
**************************************************
 
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE 
 
Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology
Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.
 
The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of
Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists.  It misuses the
copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.
 
They think that all freezoner's are "squirrels" who should be stamped out as heritics.  By their standards, all Christians, 
Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion.
 
The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings
of Judiasm form the Old Testament of Christianity.
 
We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according
to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.
 
But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews,
the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old 
testament regardless of any Jewish opinion.  
 
We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion
as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures
without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.
 
We ask for others to help in our fight.  Even if you do
not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope
that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose
to aid us for that reason.
 
Thank You,
 
The FZ Bible Association
 
**************************************************
 
 
CYCLES OF ACTION
 
A lecture given on 13 October 1964
 
SH Spec-42 renumbered 405 13 Oct 64  Cycles of Action
 
[rerecorded by Pubs WW]
 
[Checked against the old pre-clearsound academy cassettes,
material missing from the clearsound version is marked ">"] 
 
 
[applause]
 
> We'll take a better look at 'em afterwards, we just got
> 'em in down here.  They're for a salon exhibit up in 
> Gwendon(?). Encyclopedia Brittanica exhibit.  
>
> You've been complaining - several complaints - they're all
> about photography, you just never seen any of my pictures.  
> [laughter]
>
> I thought it might be good today (?). Reg did.  Its all his fault.
> 
> How are you today?
> 
> Audience: Fine.
> 
> I just got a good compliment.  The photofinishers that finish 
> off this color work just said they've never seen any pictures
> like this before and they finish for professionals. The guy was
> just on the phone giving me a big rave about this thing one way
> or the other. Of course he doesn't know the trick - he doesn't 
> know the trick about it.  You see "I" [emphasized] take the 
> pictures. [laughter]
 
What's the date?
 
Audience: 13th of October.
 
13th of October. Well, that's a good day. You're very
lucky. The 13th fell on Tuesday this week, didn't fall on
Friday.
 
> First here lets have a little introduction.  Some people
> stand up and take a bow please. New students: Don Richardson.  
> And Wilbur Hubbard.  And Frank Bannister.  And Crad Lipsitz.  
> And Les Verity. And somebody who came back after wandering 
> across the broad world - a retread - stand up and take a bow - 
> Joselyn Hansen.
 
All right. Today's lecture is 
> not about pictures.  It's
about cycles of action. Cycles of action. And you'll find this 
very fundamental material. And it's quite good for man and beast. You can put it in tea or coffee, take it without taste; doesn't
leave any aftereffects in an auditing session, can be
rubbed on horses, dogs, is only sixpence the bottle. And
you ought to buy some. I think it'd be a terribly good idea.
 
It's not that I am particularly cross on this particular
subject of cycles of action. Nobody has been throwing their
hands up in horror over the idea of completing one. And
it's a relaxed moment when it doesn't happen to be a
crisis. So this is one lecture which is given when there is
no crisis to prompt it. That makes it peculiar in the field
of lectures.
 
The crisis, by the way, is getting your auditing question
answered. And then some of the some of the wildest goofs
I've heard in a long time.
 
"Well, how are you today?"
 
"Uh ... I just got my car back."
 
"Thank you."
 
But this, of course, does too apply to some degree to a
cycle of action. A cycle of action cannot go on unless all
the elements of the cycle of action being used are common
to the cycle of action. Do you follow me?
 
In other words, you can't have a cycle of action that goes
from white to black, you see, to gray to black. Do you get
the idea? A cycle of action would rather have to go from,
let us say, black to gray to less gray, to less gray, to
less gray, to less gray, to more white, to more white, to
more white, to white, don't you see? Then, possibly, if you
wanted a complete cycle of action, less white, less white,
less white, less white, slightly gray, grayer, grayer,
grayer, black.
 
Now, what do we mean by a cycle of action? This is probably
one of the things that would be the most puzzling word here
to collide with: cycle. Because cycle is applied in many
different directions. There is one you ride. Also, there's
types that have motors in them. There are wheels that go
round so that the cycle of a wheel is the point that the
point of a wheel returns to.
 
In other words, you've got a wheel and you've got a point
at the top; the wheel goes all the way around, and when it
has returned to the top, why, it has completed a cycle. Do
you see? I'm just showing you there's various confusions
about this word. You didn't laugh at the right joke, so
that's all right ... But the upshot of this cycle of
action is that it has many odd and peculiar connotations
and is therefore rather difficult to understand or collide
with. You follow that? You could have a wheel that turns
all the way around and comes back to the same place, see?
 
Now, a story cycle of action that began in the field of
modern story writing, and so on, would be a story something
like this (this is a very modern story, you see): And
there's a bum standing on a corner and he is totally
degraded and he has just lost his job, you see? And his
wife that he wasn't married to has run off with another
man, you see? And he's standing there and he gets an idea
that he might be able to pick himself up out of it and go
have a cup of coffee, you see?
 
So he goes and has the cup of coffee, and it's cold and
it's very bad coffee. And he reaches in his pocket and he
finds out there's a hole in his pocket and the nickel he
had, you see, has - lost. And so he is ejected from the
place, but not even dramatically. He's simply told to go
with considerable contempt, don't you see?
 
And we find him back on the same corner, in the same
position, in the same mood, worrying about the same thing.
That is modern story writing.
 
If anybody wants to steal that plot and sell it with their
writing, they're perfectly welcome to do so.
 
Now, I remember when this modern school first started up.
By the way, the modern school has now become very antique.
It's so old now that a lot of people have heard about it.
When it first started up, they had a story, "Big Brother," and it wasn't even in English.
 
But they had a tremendous fixation on the idea that a story
had to start and end at the same place in the same
situation. And they were trying to give an appearance of no
change. So that was what they understood by a cycle that
nothing changed. And you'll find now and then, you go to
some arty movie made by somebody down in France who didn't
have any money and didn't have any film either. (And
frankly, they'd have been much better off if they'd shot it
with an empty camera!) But you'll occasionally see these
things; you'll pick them up at foreign theater stands, you
know, and it'll be something like this. And it'll always
begin and end at the exact same place.
 
So cycle has gotten into the field of art. And cycle is in
the field of mechanics - as different from engineering - as a
completed revolution. Cycle in the field of art, meaning no
change of time, or everything came back the same way, don't
you see? And in mechanics, it is a total revolution.
 
Now, in engineering and physics, it means something else
again. It means the motion between the ending of one wave
and the beginning of the new wave. And I think you'll find
out that that is probably a better expressed definition
than the usual engineering definition, but that is it. You
take the end of the last wave, which is the beginning of
the next wave, and it goes on through then to the end of
that wave, which is the beginning of the next wave. And
that would be a cycle.
 
And you have that expressed in radio, you see? Radio. All
discussions of wavelengths. You have it in discussions of
color, and so on. And that's really what they're talking
about; they're talking about a sweep.
 
Now, there is an old, old, old, old definition on this
which, by the way, we are indebted to in Scientology,
because there's a philosophic aspect to the word cycle. And
they didn't directly call it a cycle, and pardon me if I
seem to be a bit lyrical on the subject, but it is in the
Hymn to the Dawn Child, in the unwritten Veda (which has
been written and then, therefore, called a type of Veda).
But it's in the oral tradition, you might say (to borrow a
musical term), of India.
 
And it's the Hymn to the Dawn Child. I've forgotten whether
it's the fourth or the tenth Vedic hymn. But it expresses
that there is a nothingness, and then there is a form
gradually takes place, and then this grows and this ages
and then this decays; and then this goes into a nebulosity
and winds up in a new nothingness. Now, that is not a
quote; it's just an effort to interpret that particular
action for you. It's a very short hymn, by the way, and
it's quite interesting. And it is really part of your 
technology in Scientology.
 
You see, there have been billions of statements by
philosophers and more of them are wrong than right, but in
sorting out the field of philosophy - this is sometimes what
confuses people.
 
I remember explaining Krishnamurti to somebody or other, a
very dear old friend, who said, "But - but Krishnamurti said many of the things that you're saying in Scientology." I
said, "Give me a book by Krishnamurti."
 
So she handed me a book by Krishnamurti and I went down the
line and there, there was one about time that was a direct
statement, that same statement that we use in Scientology.
See, it was right there, and she showed me that, and she
says, "Look it there; Krishnamurti said that." I said, "Well, where is the bold face?"
 
And she said, "What?"
 
"The bold, the italics, the underscore."
 
And she said, "Well, there isn't any."
 
And I said, "All right. Let's count the number of
statements on this page, also about time, which aren't
true - none of which have any emphasis, any different
emphasis than this one." And we counted them up, and there
were 132 incorrect statements about time and one correct
statement about time. So I don't think Krishnamurti said
anything we said.
 
See? And I taught her the lesson of the evaluation of
importance: Importance assigned to a datum is as important
as the datum. And you'll find that in our Logic's. In other
words, there can be many truths.
 
Not comparing poor old Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti is mad at
us; by the way, because one of our boys went out to India
one time or another and next confounded thing you know, he
had all of Krishnamurti's group out in India studying
Scientology, and I don't think Krishnamurti has ever
forgiven us. But that's - happens to be the truth.
 
> The boy is Johan Kemblehoff (?), you ought to talk to
> him some day.
 
Anyway, you get the evaluation of importance here, see? The
evaluation of importance of a datum can be as important as
the datum, and sometimes more important.
 
You could have fifty thousand monkeys writing on fifty
thousand typewriters for a long time, and sooner or later
one of them is going to write E = MC2, see? And then
somebody could come along and point out, "Look, those
monkeys are as smart as Einstein." No, they couldn't be as
smart as Einstein, for the excellent reason that when this
was written, it was not assigned a relative importance to
anything, you see? So its value was not estimated, so
therefore it wasn't peaked up.
 
And although there are a great many truths in Scientology,
some of these are peaked, you see? They're in bold face,
you know, and they've got big underscores underneath them.
Cycle of action is one of them. And it goes back to the
early Vedic hymns.
 
Now, out of this - out of this we get a great deal of
workable, or applied, or applicable wisdom. In other words,
we can get very, very full application out of this thing.
This thing will work all day and all night. And the cycle
of action is, of course, a plot of incident against time - if
you wanted to get a definition here - the way we are using
it, you see? It's a plot of consecutive incident against
time, a plot against time.
 
Now, of course we're in the advantageous position of
knowing the source of time, and knowing what time is. Since
we got R6, we have known a lot more things than we knew
before. And we know that time is a commonly held
consideration which is a great, big, cracking, enormous, 
GPM which has got a lot of root words with an end word 
connected to it called time.
 
Therefore, it's an agreed-upon progress and we're all
making this time and moving it forward.
 
And as a result, from person to person, although the
incidents plot against time, you see, at - I better say, plot
against time: at zero seconds, the door is opened, see; at
zero plus two seconds, the door stands open; at zero plus
three seconds, somebody enters the door; at zero plus five
seconds, somebody is walking; at zero plus six seconds,
somebody sees a chair; at zero plus seven seconds, a motion
is made toward the chair; at zero plus eight seconds, the
person sits down. Do you understand, now, when I say
plotting incident against time? You see? In view of the
fact that we're all in a present time - see, of course,
couldn't be anyplace else, because there isn't any. You
see? Everybody wonders "How do we move along forward in
time?" Puzzled me for a long time. Well, of course, it's
very simple to move along forward in time, because nobody
is going anyplace, you see? That's the whole trick back of
time, see? But the incident, don't you see, which is
plotted forward appears to be a plot against time. And it's
the incident, or consideration of the incident, which plots
the time.
 
And you'll find that old people (that is, old humanoids)
very often have their days go by whiz, whiz, whiz, you
know? They just no more than get up in the morning and they
go to bed at night, you know? And it's just bzz, bzz, bzz,
bzz, bzz!
 
This is a commonly held consideration. You go around and
talk to some of them and they will tell you, "Well, you
know, there used to be a lot of time in a day, but there
isn't anymore, you know?"
 
In other words, the incident, or interest, or future, you
see, is gone to lead them forward in time - so therefore, you
see, they have no consideration of time. The incident plots
very bang! you see? Well, there's only a couple of things
happen in the day, you know? All right. Now, we take a
little kid, maybe five, six years old, and the day to him
is absolutely interminable! Like little Arthur, the other
day, was telling me he didn't have anything to do and that
he wasn't doing anything. And this was just for fun (I
think it was the other evening), I rattled off to him what
he was doing, and what had happened in the last five
minutes in his life.
 
And he didn't consider this very much. You see, his
tolerance of incident was very high. But he sort of laughed
about it, and then he still complained that he just didn't
have anything to do; I didn't make much of an impression on
him.
 
But he had run in and out of the room three times, the dog
had taken off one of his shoes and he'd put it back on
again, he'd stolen the dog's bone, the dog had gotten the
bone back, he had found one of his toys and thrown it down,
and then he'd gone in the other room and inspected his
rocks, and ... In other words, it was all this incident.
My Lord, man, the incident which had taken place, you see,
in those last few minutes. And he still didn't think he was
doing anything; he was doing nothing, you see?
 
What he meant to say was he was doing nothing in which he
was interested in doing, so therefore time was passing
interminably to him. you see, under a very heavy incident
impact.
 
You could be more philosophic about it and reduce it down
to tolerance of incident - not tolerance of motion but just
tolerance of incident. How much incident does somebody
want? You find out after the war - World War II, amongst my
friends and so forth - I found out that life was suddenly
moving very slowly for all of them. Life was very dull,
see? They couldn't pick themselves up at all, and so forth.
Change of pace was so fantastic, you see? From
hurry-scurry, hurry-scurry, bang, thud, crash, bing, gop,
bow, dzz, zrrp, woo, bee, theet, tha, out bung, bang,
incident, rut, row, boom, bow, crash, all of a sudden, why,
they settled down to what had been, just before the war, a
normal existence to them, you see? And this normal
existence of just this short span of years, regardless of
their own considerations, seemed awfully slow. See, it just
seemed like nothing was happening at all.
 
And therefore, what had happened? Well, their tolerance of
incident had increased. Even though it was bad for them in
numerous cases, they still had gotten up to confronting
r-r-r-r-r-r-r type of incident, don't you see? And then
all of a sudden, they don't have that much incident. So
time, oddly enough, started to do funny things for them. It
either went terribly slowly or it went by very rapidly. You
see, because if you'd learned to plot your incident and
time together, in other words, if you measured your time by
the amount of incident occurring, and then you didn't have
any incident - see, figure it out - why, you obviously wouldn't
have any time. You follow that?
 
That's really what happens to old people. They had the
house full of people, and they're this and that, and their
responsibility to so-and-so; and there was Jackie coming
back from school, and there was this and that and then the
other thing; and all of a sudden, everybody goes off and
gets married or does something, and there isn't enough
incident, you see? So therefore the day is going whsht,
whsht, whsht, whsht! You got the idea? Amount of incident.
 
You can't say, you see, that the more incident there is - you
see, it doesn't come down to an engineering proposition of
the more incident there is, the more time there is, or the
less incident there is, the less time there is; nor can you
say in reverse, you see, that the more incident there is,
the less time there is. You see, these things don't add up.
 
Well, why don't they just exactly add up and equate? Well,
you're dealing with a false commodity in the first place,
see, so it's never going to add up. But it's the
consideration of it; it's a consideration.
 
Now, we did a lot of this with randomity and that sort of
thing, but that is not as full an explanation as I'm giving
you here today. But it's the consideration: Does a lot of
incident make a lot of time or does a lot of incident make
no time?
 
Now, you're going to have somebody around with a lot of
incident happening in his vicinity, and he just suddenly
starts saying - like I do occasionally, you know - "There isn't enough time for this incident to happen in," see? I start
getting an emergency on five or six fronts simultaneously
while I am doing my research, while somebody is calling on
me for a new bulletin, don't you see? And this is too much
incident. So I say, "Well, there isn't enough time." You got the idea?
 
So I grab myself by the scruff of the neck, you see,
and - you could get the consideration you are manufacturing
the time. All you have to do is "Well, I could confront
being that busy." That's all you actually have to do. My
consideration for this: "Well, all right. I can do
something about it," see? And instantly, you've suddenly
got enough time! If you say, "No, I can't do anything about these incidents because of the time," of course you haven't got enough time. You got the idea?
 
And you can actually practically monitor the amount of time
you had by simply changing any consideration you have about
how busy you want to be, or how much you can handle.
 
Sometimes you can play tricks on yourself this way, see?
You can say, "Well, I wanted to be busy, busier than I was, and I sure got my wish!" And the next thing you know, why,
you've got enough time, you see?
 
So it's the consideration of how much incident makes how
much time that gives or subtracts time from one's
existence. And that's pretty deep and pretty profound, and
I'm afraid that nobody has ever said it before in the field
of philosophy, but it's quite shaking, if you really take a
look at it. It's how much you decide you can tolerate, see?
How much you decide you can confront, or whether or not you
are deciding the other way to.
 
Now, this is all compounded by, also, the very difficult
situation that you can get up to a point
of where you can consider time long or short without
measuring it against incident. Then, you see, by gradient,
higher tone, you could get up to a point and you say,
"Well, this is going to be a long day," and it'll be a long day, see? "Well, night will be here in no time," and it'll be there in no time. You practically just turn around and
blink and somebody is calling you to supper. But we're now
talking of - in a fairly high-toned action.
 
Normally, you're in a position where incident is, to a
marked degree, monitoring your consideration of time. But
actually, it's quite the reverse; as you get up, it's your
consideration of incident which is monitoring time. And
then as you get up above that, it's simply a consideration
of how much time there is or isn't.
 
I don't know, I think you could get high enough toned as a
thetan to consider that a million years was no time, and
find yourself a million years up the line. You follow this,
see? Or consider that evening was a couple of years away
and just sort of almost live a couple of years before
evening. You get the idea, see?
 
So there are three points here that we could consider,
three different attitudes: Where the person is the total
effect of time and he's habituated to the incident
monitoring his time. But it's a certain speed of incident
monitoring his time, don't you see, that he's just gotten
used to - just habit, you know? He's always led a busy life
and therefore his time is - he's the effect of that much
time. He's always led an easy and rather wasteful life, so
that's his consideration of time, don't you see? And when
that pace changes, and so forth, he'll get a reverse
consideration of the situation, see? But that's all in the
field of being the effect of time, you see? One is just
total effect: one never does anything about the incidents,
one never lessens or increases the amount of incident, one
never changes his opinion about the incident, one doesn't
even know that incident has anything to do with time, don't
you see? You got Homo sap; there he is.
 
All right. Now, let's go upstairs a little bit, and let's
get into a level of release, or something like this, and
one recognizes in some way or another that - well, two
different considerations take place. One, "If I get busy,
time will go by faster." And the other, reverse
consideration can also be held, "Well, if I don't do
anything, why, time will go by faster." You can also hold
that reverse consideration just as easily as the other, but
the first one I mentioned is the commonest.
 
And you sort of get the idea that you could monitor the
amount of doingness, and you can get into a point of how
much incident you can confront. And you can monitor your
time by willingness to confront incident, willingness to
confront the amount of action in your vicinity.
 
You've been living in South Peoria amongst the growing
sycamores, or whatever they have in Peoria, and life has
been drifting by at an 1890 horse-and-carriage pace, and
you all of a sudden get on a train or a plane; you go to
New York City. The taxicab drivers alone are sufficient to
change your ideas of time, you see? Well, you see, that's a
change of pace.
 
Now, Homo sap would regard that, you see, as simply
shocking. You know, he'd just probably voice the fact that
he had been affected. That would be his total handling of
the situation, you see?
 
Somebody who's upscale a bit higher could make the
consideration, you see, well, he's willing to confront New
York. And when he goes back to Peoria, well, he's willing
to confront Peoria, see? (South Peoria. I won't malign
Peoria itself.) You see? He's willing to confront that
amount of incident. Well, I'm back home again here, and
this is the space in which I live," and so forth. And he'd
find his time would stay in much better balance.
 
Now let's take him upstairs above - the state I just
mentioned would be someplace between Release and Clear.
Now, let's take him up someplace to where he's moving into
R6 or something like that, and he'll start getting the
spooky notion that he doesn't have to depend upon the
exterior incident to measure his consideration of time,
see? So he's simply up into a point where he's saying,
"There's lots of time," see, or "There isn't any time," see? He's waiting for a train: no time, see? No time is
elapsing, so of course the train arrives almost at once,
you see? And ... as far as his consideration is
concerned, you see?
 
And he's at a big party and everybody is having a marvelous
time and he's having a marvelous time, and so forth, so he
just changes his consideration to the fact that it's a long
party. And it is. Do you see?
 
So there are actually these three stages of reaction. Of
course, there is a reaction below that I should mention,
which is just unconscious. But of course, unconsciousness
is not a reaction; it's an isn't.
 
Now we could probably go above that and we get up into OT
and so forth, and we probably could get a pan-determined
attitude toward time, which would monitor the time of
others. Now we're talking pretty - we're talking pretty,
pretty swami. See, I mean, this is a little bit out of the
range of reality, so forth. But it would be by - instead of
self-determinism, we're moving over into pan-determinism,
and moving over to separately other-determining, see? Doing
an other-determinism, see? And you get up into that zone,
why, no telling what you could do, see?
 
You have an example of it in fairy tales, of the bloke that
comes along and waves the magic wand over the sleeping
princess, and everybody sleeps for a hundred years. No
little child ever thinks to ask, "What happened to the
armor and so forth of the guards and the other people
around in the castle?" Don't you see? That one, Sleeping
Beauty, is almost a perfect example of pan-determined time,
see?
 
He said, "There's going to be no incident in this joint for a hundred years," see? There wasn't.
 
When you get up that high, you don't even have to give your
postulates in correct English, you know?
 
So then there is a zone above that, but of course that's
done on the basis of communication.
 
And I don't care whether the communication has much
distance in it or not; you're now speaking in the realms of
telepathy. And you're speaking in the realms of a telepathy
powerful enough so that your consideration is able to
induce a reality in the other person, and that's pretty
high voltage telepathy.
 
You can see this, however; you can see this in lower
experimental phenomena in the field of hypnotism, in the
field of mesmerism, early stuff back there when they were
still experimenting with it, a hundred years or more ago.
They knew more about it than they do now; they've forgotten
most of that technology.
 
But you could tell somebody, you see, you can tell an
hypnotized subject that this has been the span of time,
don't you see, or not been the span of time. Although I
don't know that these blokes ever thought of doing that,
particularly. But they'll get a lot of incident, and they
will think a lot of incident has happened and a lot of
things have gone by, and that they've been out a long time,
and their considerations with regard to this would be
entirely shifted, don't you see?
 
But that, of course, is making somebody the total effect of
a direct communication; it isn't pan-determined up on the
upper stages. I'm just showing you that it can be represented
experimentally down in the very, very low gutters of the scale.
 
You can cause incident to occur on a projected basis, in
ways that the modern hypnotist has entirely forgotten. I
was quite appalled to find out how little is known in the
West, really, about hypnotism. I think Charcot must have
studied in India, and Mesmer, and so forth.
 
But this experiment is a fascinating experiment: You put
another being into a rapport, which is a total bing-bang,
you see, with regard to it. And it isn't just a physical
rapport, because that other being feels and thinks the
thought and feeling of the body of the person who has him
mesmerized.
 
Mesmerism is quite different than hypnotism. Later boys
have mixed these two terms, you see? You can do this
fantastic thing. Somebody can be put into a mesmerized
state, and then put your hand behind your back (when you
really get out the bottom, why, people will say, "Well, do
you believe in hypnotism?" you know? It isn't anything you
believe in - I mean, it's just an experimental activity) and
you can pinch yourself in the back, and the person who's
mesmerized, even though their eyes are closed and so forth,
will leap convulsively. And if their back is examined, your
fingernail marks will appear on their back. Quite interesting.
 
In other words, you can produce a physical pan-determinism,
you see? See, you've determined their determinism. And that
is also in an experimental zone.
 
This, of course, is quite unethical to play around with
amongst the poor bloke Homo sap, walking already up to his
neck in muck and trouble, don't you see? And somebody
mesmerizes him or hypnotizes him and upsets what little
sense of value he has left, because the only thing the poor
bloke has got is his own self-determinism, don't you see?
The only thing he's got left is that tiny, tiny spark of
power of choice, don't you see? Well, when you overcome
that, you just throw him into a total effect; then that mud
just goes down right up over his head, see? But I'm just
giving you an example, just to communicate the idea that
that is a low harmonic on an upper state with regard to the
telepathy of time and incident, see?
 
So at a very, very high level - at a very, very high level,
not making anybody pushed into the mud or something like
this, you get somebody thinking it's a long day, and
everybody in the city begins to agree that it's a long day,
you see? You get the idea?
 
You could also have this sort of thing going on; it doesn't
even have to do totally with time.
 
It'd be "the actions we're engaged in are happiness
producing actions," see? That consideration could be added
to the cycle of action, you see; it's a happiness-producing
action. And everybody working around there, they'd think
they were doing time, you see? Well, you could produce the
opposite effect of "the actions in which we are engaged are misery-producing actions," you see, and everybody would
feel miserable and feel like they were forming overts by
doing any action at all. And we've got a lot of that in
this society in which we live, which is changing people's
attitude toward time.
 
And the prime criminal in this is the newspaper - the press
of Fleet Street. It's all scandal and it's all bad and all
the employers are bad, and everybody is bad, and there is
nobody good, and nothing happy has happened at all, and
your actions are not producing any happiness, and the
worker is totally walked on and stepped on and ought to
shoot everybody in his tracks, don't you see, because he's
being made to work, you see? You get the idea?
 
You're spreading, then, on a pan-determinism basis - but on
very finite, low-grade communication lines, you see, the
idea of a worthless series of incidents. So therefore, this
will do something to people's time. And the amount of
doingness of a society is tremendously dependent on whether
or not they are being told that their cycle of action - or
whether they believe or agree - that their cycle of action
should proceed or shouldn't proceed.
 
And so we move over into the field of the word action, now.
Action. We've got cycle of action. All right. We got cycle.
You know what that is - all right, let's take up action.
 
So an action is simply a motion through space having a
certain speed. Its speed could be fast or it could be slow,
it could move across a lot of space, it could move across a
sixteen-millionth of a millimeter, see? But it would be an
action.
 
Now, there's a lot of bad connotation to the word action in
the field of literature. Action stories are supposed to be
bad stories, you see? This word in the field of psychology
has gotten to be a nasty, spit-in-the-spittoon sort of word.
 
All these civil-defense blokes in the United States are
carefully trained that if anybody gets
active during an atomic bombing, they should instantly be
incarcerated. I know that sounds psychotic; and it is.
 
And the psychological (ha!) assistance of civil defense
(ha!) which has been organized in the United States at this
particular time has been carefully trained to take any
individual who is in action and put him out of action fast,
with a cop or a straitjacket or something, see? And that's
what he's trained to do.
 
I asked the embarrassing question, "Well, what if the
fellow was engaged in trying to put out a fire?"
 
"Well," they say, "that would all be done by the local authorities, so that doesn't come into the problem."
 
And I found out that a local authority, a local authority
(you'll have to cut that off the tape) - a local authority is
not a being, which was quite interesting to me. But a being
is anybody who isn't a local authority. And if a person
isn't a local authority and he is active, or in action or
is proposing action, or any of these other things, then the
job of the psychological assistant, of which they're
breeding lots of them, and the psychiatrist and anybody
else (and the cop on the beat is supposed to turn over this
person, also) - he's supposed to be instantly gotten out of
the way and strapped down and bang! See, there must be no
action.
 
It's sort of interesting to me that this word action, which
is primarily and purely simply something which denotes
motion and could be said to be, perhaps, volitional motion
or intended motion, could become a bad thing, you see? So
there's all sorts of conflict going on about this. Of
course, if a fellow, you know, on a soccer team, or
something like that, who is supposed to stop the ball from
going in some particular direction, just stood there and
didn't move over in front of the ball, why, he'd be
terribly booed, don't you see? But in some other part of
the society, you see that's inaction; inaction, there, is
bad, you see? But in some other part of the society, action
is bad, you know?
 
And psychiatry has this so bad that they think a person is
cured when they become inactive, and that's one thing which
you, as a Scientologist, have never been able to understand
about psychiatry. You think I'm kidding you, or something
like that, you know? But that's merely a misalignment of
their intention; there's something wrong there, see?
 
If this fellow is active and he's got something wrong with
him - he's had a label hung on his chest or something like
that, and he's active - then he is unwell and must be
restrained, and that is the real action behind an electric
shock and a prefrontal lobotomy. It's the action in which
the person is engaged which is the criteria of what
treatment he gets. So a well person is then a catatonic
schizophrenic (a very fancy word which means somebody just
lies still, stiff, and never moves).
 
So in the field - in the mental field, this word action is a
very bad word; very, very bad word.
 
It fits along with agitated, frenzied, disturbed, see?
These are all the same - same thing. See? So, we've gotten
this word pulled down here amongst a bunch of brothers it
doesn't go with.
 
And this has thrown the whole field of mental healing,
so-called, in the Western world at this particular time,
for a loop. You get the idea? It's not whether or not he
went back to his job and did his job. It's whether or not
he was active. And you, talking to a psychiatrist, wouldn't
make any sense at all, because he'd say "active," meaning crazy, and you'd say "active," meaning constructive. See, so you wouldn't be talking the same vocabulary, because of
their abuse of this word action, see?
 
So, you must realize - you must realize - that the prevention
of motion is fairly prevalent, particularly in
mental-healing circles. The prevention of motion. And
therefore, there is something marvelous about the state of
inaction.
 
Now, we are not the only people to comment on the subject
of action or inaction, but certainly - although we follow far
more traditional areas, such as "man is a spirit, he's not
a dog," that sort of thing - realize that in the field of
mysticism, one of your main complaints about mysticism and
one of the bad bugs that there is in mysticism is the image
of the wise or totally elevated individual or the finely
refined individual as a totally inactive one. See? That's
your little point of argument. You say, "Hey, wait a minute." 
 
You see, a fireman putting out a fire could be totally calm
and collected. He could go about it with a completely
apparent effortless efficiency, you see? Well, that's very
high toned. But a fireman who would sit and regard his
navel would be crazy! You see the difference? So, you as
Scientologists have seen this for a long time. Now, you've
even coined a word; I didn't coin this word. You've coined
quite a lot of words, you know? Amongst you, I hear you say
them, I see them in auditors' reports; they become
prevalent, and so forth. So very often, I start to use
them. And you've got one called a mystic mystic, you know?
A mystical mystic. I've heard this word bang around inside
organizations and so forth, the mystical mystic. And it's a
case; it's a case type. It's a commonly Scientology
agreed-upon case type.
 
"This person is a mystical mystic."
 
And they'll process that person in accordance. And by that
they mean that the person will be totally reasonable about
anything that happens in their vicinity, but not do
anything about it; and see nothing but good in anything,
including murdering babies. You see? It's this
unreasonableness which you're protesting - the mystical mystic.
 
But that's borne out of the fact that running alongside of
a great deal of wise wisdom, some awfully bad wisdom has
been carrying forward on the basis that all you would do,
if you were really elevated, is you would sit on a mountain
top and regard your navel and not look at the world, or not
look at anything, engage in nothing, participate nowhere,
be effective nowhere at all, engage in no action of any
kind, be totally detached, nothing to do with you, be
completely aloof, and so forth. And you ask a lot of people
what an OT is and they'll describe that. See? An OT is much
more likely to be a ball of fire.
 
But, of course, this is a self-protective mechanism. People
would like to believe this. We have somebody in England who
is absolutely frantic every time you mention the idea of
OT, and has even come up to me and said, "Please, Ron,
don't release these techniques. Please, please, please
don't go in that direction. My God, it'd be worse than the
invention of the atom bomb. You realize what is liable to 
happen if you set these people loose!" and so forth. And he's really worried! Or he was; maybe somebody got to him, because 
it's been a few months ago and there have been a lot of 
Scientologists around. You can't ever tell what will happen 
to somebody's character in that case. But they probably got 
him talked out of it.
 
But there, his fear is that somebody would become powerful
or strong, which is fear of somebody causing a lot of
action, or somebody getting very active, see, which almost
fits back against the psychiatrist's definition. His fear
of action.
 
"Well, what's somebody liable to do? Uhh-uhh-uh!" Of
course, your best answer to that was "Well, the best
solution to that is for you to become OT, too." There's no
reasoning with such a person; just give them ... "If
everybody's gonna become wolves, you better not remain a
rabbit!" It's a very good sales campaign.
 
But it has very little to do with the facts of the case,
because the level of responsibility rises and rises and
rises, don't you see, along with it. They lose sight of
this sort of thing.
 
Now, the idea of action, then, is all sullied up and messed
up: whether or not things should go forward or not go
forward, you see; whether or not time should advance or not
advance; whether or not incidents should take place or not
take place - just as a general principle, not "should some
incidents take place and some incidents not take place?"
Well, that's a sane consideration. But you get this insane
attitude toward it which is simply "no incidents should
take place" or "all kinds of incidents should take place." 
 
And then a person eventually pulls out of that into a lower
grade of "Well, it's all going on and it has nothing to do
with me." And I'm afraid Homo Sapiens is walking into that
particular category right now at a very, very fast rate of
speed. "It's all going on and it has nothing to do with me. I can do nothing about it," and so forth. You see a
declining society normally holds this. And a society which
has a bit of zip left in it, a society which is still
rising and so forth, well, everything has to do with
everybody. You know, they'll say, "Ho, ho, ho," and they take a lot of responsibility for that sort of thing.
 
Well, you take early nineteenth-century America. I imagine
somebody would have walked miles to convince Joe down at
Dog Hollow that he was dead wrong to vote for President
Fillmore. You know, just really work at it, you know? It
had to do with him and it had to do with them. Well, the
modern think "Well, what can I do about it?" don't you see? "It's life, can't do very much about it."
 
You get a hot, roaring campaign issue whereby a people
really does feel challenged or attacked and so forth,
they'll get up and start saying, "Well, it does have
something to do with me." They have to be pushed pretty far back before they begin to say that. Something like that is
occurring right at the present moment in the United States.
 
And a lot of people are just going to go along with the
tide; a lot of people are starting to fight.
 
The end product of that, Lord knows what that will be. It
might not be in 1964, but certainly you will see the end
product of it by 1968. Driven too far, see? So even the
fellow who says "It has nothing to do with me" at last has to admit that it has something to do with him.
 
I remember, I was trying to convince somebody that the
atomic bomb had something to do with him. I think I've told
you this joke before, but I finally moved it on down, I got
on down to his wallet and his social security card. And all
of a sudden, realized that that would be affected if a bomb
went off in his vicinity, and he became very concerned
about atomic fission, see? I just kept cutting the
gradients doves, getting closer and closer to him, until he
finally got associated with it.
 
But even killing his children didn't have anything to do
with him. "Well, your children are liable to be killed off, don't you see?"
 
"Oh, I don't ..." Nothing to do with him!
 
So, you can approach a person closely enough with action,
and he'll retreat, retreat, retreat; and when he can't
retreat any further, you get the cornered-rat effect, you
know? He'll turn around and go the other way.
 
Politicians are always making this mistake; they always
misestimate the moment. And they'll see this supine
population that is taking everything that is shoveled out
to it. It's being charged 110 percent of all of its income;
it's being made to stand and bow every time a policeman
goes by, you see? All this. And they see this totally
docile population, and they say, "Well, we can do anything
we please," you see? And they do the "anything you please." And all of a sudden they do one too many "anything's," you see, and all of a sudden they get the cornered-rat effect, see?
 
All of a sudden it does have something to do with the
population, and then there's no controlling it at all,
because these people are rather irresponsible, and their
control of action is so foreign to them - they've forgotten
how to control action, don't you see? - that their actions
just go brow! It's like a barroom brawl. You really, in a
barroom brawl, you never really can identify who started
the fight or who's against you or who's for you, don't you
see? Just everybody starts slugging everybody.
 
It's very interesting to be in the middle of a barroom
brawl. I have been, in some of the less seemly places of the 
world, and emerged with a whole skin. But it's very interesting to see one blow up. Well, this is amidst a bunch of drunks, 
and they're all happy and cheerful, "Who'd care less" and "Have another drink, Bill," you see?
 
And all of a sudden one says, "There's two heads on a
dime," or something.
 
And the other one says, "There ain't two heads on a dime." 
 
And "Yes, there is two heads on a dime; I'll show you, you see?" 
 
"Well, you can't show me," and all of a sudden, wham! See? 
 
All these people that have been sitting there supine, and
so forth - bottles are flying through the air. These two
fellows start to fight, these two, these, these, these
fellows fight those - you'd never know who's friends of
whose, or anything of the sort.
 
You'd say the best thing to do in a case like that is to
back up into a corner and barricade yourself with a table,
but let me assure you that that is very unsafe tactics,
because somebody else will have the same idea, and he'll
fight with you for the table.
 
So action also gets the bad connotation, and a thoroughly
bad connotation it can get, because it can produce pain! It
can produce destructiveness, pain and so forth. So when
somebody is overly concerned about being hurt, they're
pretty nuts, you know; they think you only live once and
they think they've got to preserve the body to the ultimate
degree. They think pain is something that nobody can
confront, and they certainly can't confront it because they
got so many overts on it, something like that.
 
When people cannot confront pain of any kind, and so forth,
you will find that they also are refusing to confront
action. And when they cease to confront action they cease
to confront incident and they won't advance a cycle of
action, and their sense of time goes completely bad.
 
I didn't say that psychiatry and psychology and so forth
had backed themselves - and medicine - had backed themselves
into this exact position, because I didn't have to. I think
you could understand that clearly. The only thing a doctor
can ever tell you is "Be quiet," you know, "Take it easy." Don't you see? It's rather bad advice! He's given the
patient a longer time of illness; whether the patient is in
bed more weeks or not, illness is now going to move along
longer for the patient, don't you see? What if he said
"Well, you can lie there in bed if you want to, but let's
get some things that interest you and let's get some of
this and that, and so forth, and you better have some
people come in to see you and so forth and so on. The guy
would have an idea that time is passing very quickly, and
this has a remarkable effect upon healing. See? It takes so
long to heal, and if you've got a lot of time passed, then
you'd heal quickly, wouldn't you? You get the various
considerations, how they entangle here.
 
So there's these various upsets, then, on the subject of
action, the avoidance of action, and then there is, of
course, a pugnacity will set in where it's all got to be
action, or it's got to be destructive action. For
instance, Hitler should have had some processing. He had it
all won up to the point where he had to have more action.
We're not quite sure why he had to have more action, but of
course he went into a faster level of action than he could
confront or anybody else could confront, and that was
destruction.
 
So when you get more action than you can confront, you
normally get destruction. And this also gives the cycle of
action a bad name, because people think that a cycle of
action inevitably ends in decay and death. And it's at that
point that we depart from the Vedic hymn of the Dawn Child.
They assumed that it was all going to decay and die. Do you
see how that doesn't necessarily represent a cycle of
action at all - that it's all going to go on newly, newly,
newly and then peel off and then die, don't you see?
 
But we're taught this on every hand. Every flower
apparently is designed this way; buildings are designed 
this way, and so forth. And you have so many examples 
of a cycle of action ending in disaster and the
completeness of disaster being the total end of the cycle
of action, that it makes people quite unwilling to complete
a cycle of action.
 
They say, "Well, if I completed a cycle ..." I'll show .. give you a very direct application of this: "If I
completed a cycle of action on the preclear why he'd be an
old, decayed corpse." Do you see what he's cross-associated here? See?
 
So a cycle of action, philosophically, and in the physical
universe, is very often looked on as something which goes
from birth through growth to a momentary stability, through
decay to death. And that is so built into the physical
universe that it is a barrier to people completing a cycle
of action.
 
And somebody is worried about this sort of thing when they
never seem to be able to complete a cycle of action on a
PC. Never flatten a process, never really go through the
auditing cycle and so forth. They are up against something
there which prevents their arrival; they mustn't arrive;
they mustn't get to that final point. They're afraid to get
to that final point, so they will go bzoodle!
 
So something could be wrong with their concept of the idea
of a cycle and something could be wrong with their concept
of the idea of action. But certainly, the cycle of action
is not being completed with regard to what they are trying
to do. And you, in supervising the case or in trying to
handle this situation and so forth, can actually beat your
brain to a fine feathered froth, trying desperately to
figure out "How do I get this guy to complete this cycle of action?" You call in Joe and you say, "Now, look. On
auditing this PC - auditing this PC - get your auditing
question answered! Your auditing question answered! I mean,
you got that now? Now, what have I just said to you?"
 
"Auditing question answered. Oh, yes, of course. I know
that. Yes, yes. Uh-huh-uh." Of course he also is saying
back there, "It has nothing to do with me," see? Oh, yes. So you see this session the next time and you see, "Well,
Pete, how have you been today?" "Uh ... the trees are
pretty, aren't they?"
 
"Thank you very much."
 
You say, "Look, look, even on two-way comm, for God's
sakes, get the PC to answer something that has some
relation ..."
 
"No, ha ... Oh, of course. Yes, I know that. Yes, I know that." 
 
But you see this cycle of action: cycle out maybe, action
out maybe, destruction and death being the end of all
cycles of action - we mustn't arrive. So the best way not to
arrive is never follow a cycle of action. See? Always just
follow a random action that has nothing to do with
completing any cycle of action.
 
And when you run into that too much, those are the things
which you will find wrong with the auditor: something wrong
with cycle, something wrong with action, and the other
thing which I mentioned earlier, that the individual  - 
confrontation of incident.
 
Well, for instance, you know, an easy-running PC can very
often upset some auditors because they change so rapidly,
and the auditor, he no more than gets grooved down into
auditing whatever the command was, and the process goes and
gets flat, and here's a new incident, see? You've got two
conditions, then: either the tone arm action has been run
out of a process and it is continued, see, because one
can't confront the incident, see, of a change in the PC to
this degree; or on the other hand, one stops running the
process when there is still a lot of tone arm action going
on, because "We know what'll happen if we complete the
cycle of action: we'll kill the PC. Obviously, so we better 
not kill any PCs. Ron says not to kill PCs, so ..." 
 
Anyway, you see that very often you are trying, in trying to 
get auditing accomplished, and so forth, you very often are 
trying to get it accomplished against this thing called a cycle of action; and we mustn't have a cycle of action on the part
of the person, and yet auditing depends on the cycle of action.
 
So it's all this rather long series of considerations which
I have been giving you which complicate the auditing cycle.
And it can be avoided by not getting the auditing question
answered; it can be avoided by not acknowledging the PC,
see? It can be avoided by, well, not asking any question at
all - that's also a solution, you see? It can be avoided by
never really getting the PC in session so that you start
auditing the PC, don't you see? One could go to the extreme
and decide that it's all over anyway, so that it doesn't
matter what one does now. You see? A whole bunch of
considerations can occur around it using these various
elements of which I've been talking to you: considerations
of cycle, considerations of action and considerations of
the whole cycle of action, which is the fact that it's
liable to end up in death and destruction. So, all of these
things will compound and will show up in an auditing session.
 
Now, where you've got somebody with these points very
astray and adrift, and who either has got to have too much
motion from the PC, or has got to have too little motion
for the PC, because his confrontation of the amount of
incident, see, is off - when these things are awry, then you
have trouble with this thing called the auditing cycle. And
the auditing cycle is simply nothing but the broad auditing
cycle of a session: we sit down and we start a session and
you get the PC in session, and we run the session, and then
we run it on through and we end the session. And we
continue a series of sessions until we finally have the
process that we're running flat, don't you see?
 
Or this PC has come to us to be audited for his lumbosis
and we cure his lumbosis, and that's the end of the
situation. See, that's the broad - the big one.
 
But that really isn't an auditing cycle, technically;
that's a session cycle, or an intensive cycle, don't you
see? That's the cycle of the case, and so forth. What we
mean, very precisely, when we say auditing cycle, is simply
your TR O to 4. That is very severely, precisely, an
auditing cycle, in the finest, purest meaning of the word.
It is simply the Pete-Bill, "Hello," "Okay," you know? I mean, he says, "Do birds fly?"
 
"No."
 
"Thank you." See?
 
And the auditing cycle which goes on the bigger perimeter
of "Do birds fly?" "Uh ... hm! You know, I used to watch flying birds when I was a boy. Tsh! Yeah, I used to have a
lot of fun watching flying birds ... a boy."
 
"Oh, yeah? All right, all right. Now, do birds fly?"
 
"Uh ... yeah. Yeah, they sure do."
 
"Thank you."
 
See? See, that's really all there is to it. But when you
get to throw in the number of cognitions a PC can get, the
number of changes a PC can experience, the complexities of
various processes right up to R6 - what you've got to do in
order to do this  -  this auditing cycle is still very
dominant. But it is so overwhelmed and surrounded by the
tremendous complications of the auditor's action that if he
hasn't got it down right he can't audit. Do you see that?
He just going to be all thumbs!
 
What's missing is the auditing cycle. And if he hasn't
gotten an auditing cycle in by the time he's studied up the
line pretty fair, well, there's just something wrong with
these points I've taken up with you today in this lecture.
He's got some wild considerations with regard to this.
 
He can't confront incidents, or he's got to confront too
much incident, or, you know, his concept of time is out, or
his cycle is out, or his concept of the death and
destruction of the situation is out; he's got the wrong
idea of action, you see? It'll lie somewhere in that direction.
 
And if you then cleaned that up with the individual, you'd
find all of a sudden that he found these other processes
very easy.
 
He's always having trouble, let us say, with a complicated
process: He's saying he has trouble with a complicated
process, whereas he's not having trouble with a complicated
process at all.
 
I've seen you use the most complicated processes anybody
ever dreamed of, don't you see? And the only thing I've
ever seen you have any trouble with is the cycle of action.
See, that is the cornerstone on which all such actions take
place. It'll be those various elements, and it'll be those
various things.
 
Now, I haven't answered one question in this lecture - is,
although cycle means various things in various departments
and so forth, what does it mean in Scientology? And I
haven't said what it meant in Scientology. And it just
means "from the beginning to the conclusion of an
intentional action"; that's what cycle means, in
Scientology. As far as we're concerned, it's the beginning
to the conclusion of an intended action. Intended, see?
 
Has to be a higher-toned definition than your other
definitions. And you can consider it in these other
departments, too, at the same time. You see, it's perfectly
all right. But it has something to do with the tone of the
person who is using the definition.
 
"A cycle of action is the moment when my mother looks at me to the moment she whips me." See? That's an
other-determined definition, see? As we move the definition
on up. it's from the beginning to the end of the intended
action. That's a very loose, wide definition, but it could
be that.
 
The only other thing I'd leave up in the air is how could
possibly one go about straightening up these various things
with somebody? Well, I'll give you a very complicated
process, and so forth, that I would thoroughly recommend,
to take care of this, and that's just itsa on these
subjects. And you'll find out that, within the limits of
all levels, would be the most embracive of these. 
 
Okay?
 
Audience: Mm-hm.
 
Thank you very much.
 
[End of Lecture]
 
