FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

LEVEL 2 ACADEMY LECTURES 01/15 again

**************************************************

LEVEL 2 TAPES

CONTENTS:

01 SHSBC-62 ren 66 4 Oct 61 Moral Codes: What is a Withhold? 
02 SHSBC-63 ren 67 5 Oct 61 Sec Checking: Types of Withholds 
03 SHSBC-72 ren 76 26 Oct 61 Security Checking: Auditing Errors
04 SHSBC-75 ren 79 2 Nov 61 How to Security Check 
05 SHSBC-100 ren 104 16 Jan 62 Nature of Withholds 
06 SHSBC-117 ren 117 14 Feb 62 Directing Attention
07 SHSBC-113 ren 119 20 Feb 62 What Is a Withhold?
08 SHSBC-131 ren 135 3 Apr 62 The Overt-Motivator Sequence
09 TVD-4A ren 149 2 May 62 TV Demo: Prepchecking, Part I
10 TVD-4B ren 150 2 May 62 TV Demo: Prepchecking, Part II
11 SHSBC-142 ren 151 3 May 62 Craftsmanship: Fundamentals 
12 SHSBC-151 ren 159 22 May 62 Missed Withholds 
13 TVD-7 ren 161 23 May 62 TV Demo:Fish & Fumble-Checking Dirty Needles
14 SHSBC-206 ren 235 1 Nov 62 The Missed Missed Withhold 
15 SHSpec-26 ren 389 2 Jul 64 O/W Modernized and Reviewed 

Like most levels tapes, these are SHSBC (St. Hill Special Briefing
Course) lectures. The original numbering has the TV demos (TVD)
numbered independently and restarts the numbering from 1 again
in 1964 (designated SH Special instead of SHSBC). The clearsound
renumbering combines these (SHSBC + TVD + SHSpec) into one
continuous set of numbers shown as "ren" above.

These are based on clearsound and were checked against the
old reels in most cases (as noted). Omissions are marked ">".
Most omissions are of introducing new students etc. but there
were significant omissions of technical material in item 07
"What is a Withhold". Also, item 13 (TVD-7) had significant
omissions in the old reels, marked "#", which were restored in
the clearsound version.


**************************************************

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

**************************************************


MORAL CODES: WHAT IS A WITHHOLD

A lecture given on 4 October 1961

Tape# 6110C04 SHSBC-62

SHSBC-62 ren 66 4 Oct 61 Moral Codes: What is a Withhold? 

[Clearsound, checked against the old reels.]

(95 min)

======== BEGIN LECTURE ========

Okay. 

> My what a quiet crowd today. Well, a little applause for
> her. (applause) 
> 
> I'll put that down on my bill, Suzie. (laughter)
> 
> MSH: (unintelligible)

> Okay. We have a new student today, Carl Wilson from Riverside,
> California. Stand up Carl! (applause).

> I'm glad your here.

This is the 4th - 

> of what?
>
> Audience voice: 4th ...

4th of October.

> I wasn't thinking so much about the day. I wanted to make
> sure you had your adjustment on the mike because I'm bringing
> it a little bit closer.
> 
> Now if I can remember all this - I mean that seriously ...

By the way, Special Briefing Course, Saint Hill - if I can remember 
all this, I'll give you the whole rundown on overt-withhold and how 
it got that way, and then you will be much smarter cookies. I mean 
that. If I can remember all the put-together, how it goes together. 
Because, let me tell you, it's complicated - very, very complicated.

Told you some time ago, this is very apropos to a Class II auditor; 
this is part of Class II auditor skills. This should be known and 
known very well. This should be understood. And if you're ever going 
to make anything out of a Security Check, if you're ever going to get 
any advances with a Security Check, you'll have to know this sort of 
thing.

It is not enough to be able to sit there and say, "Well, have you 
ever raped anybody? No? Well, have you ever raped anybody? Good. Have 
you ever raped anybody? Good. Have you ever raped anybody? Good." 
Keeping TR 0 in, of course!

That has very little to do with Security Checking. Security Checking 
is not a repetitive command. You ask the question, you get the answer 
and you get off the withhold.

But what's a withhold? What is a withhold? Well, yous just about to 
find out. And it's a good thing, too, because I'm saving your bacon 
in the nick of time. I come in here, I find Mary Sue tearing your 
scalps off on the subject of it, and what have you been up to? Of 
course, she must have found somebody auditing on this basis:

"Well, have you ever done anything to a fellow staff member?"

"Well, yes. I heard that Joe went out with Bessie."

Oh, no. Now, your first order of business as an auditor is to get an 
answer to the auditing command. And will you tell me how that is an 
answer to an auditing command? "What have you done?" "I heard that 
.." He hasn't done anything. How can it possibly be a withhold?

I'd put another question: "Have you ever ruined people maliciously by 
gossip?" Clang, clang, clang! Yes. Correct, they have.

Do you know people will make up withholds just to get other people in 
trouble? And you're going to sit there and let them do it? And you're 
going to hear people saying things - people that have heard things 
about people who heard things, and they understood that something, 
and they knew that so-and-so - and you let them get this off as a 
withhold?

Well, what auditing time are you wasting? Well, you're wasting your 
own time and you're wasting the pc's time. And basically you have 
demonstrated that you don't know what a withhold is, but that is 
excusable up to this moment. One hour and a half from now it begins 
to be a crime. See, it's not a crime for the next hour and a half, 
but an hour and a half from now, the cat will be out of the bag. Only 
in this particular instance, it is a rather big cat, about leopard 
size, that is leaping out of a rather big bag, because this is one of 
these jackpots that we hit every once in a while in Scientology.

You know, you pull the lever expecting to get out a couple of 
quarters, and florins, shillings, sixpences, so forth, cascade out on 
the floor for a half an hour. I mean, that's the sort of a thing 
which has just occurred here. And those of you who haven't been to 
Las Vegas can ask those who have what I meant.

What's a withhold? What's an overt act? It's important to know these 
things.

Mr. Doakes sits down in the auditing chair - because you, of course, 
being a pc, don't pay much attention to auditing - he sits there and 
he says to you, he says, "Well, I have robbed banks, uh ... murdered 
women, uh ... strangled babies, uh ... embezzled it, yes. I uh ... 
ruined marriages, I did this and I did that," and you don't get a 
single knock on the needle.

Oh, you say, this person is not Security Checkable. Aha! But from 
this moment on you're going to see that there is no such thing as a 
non-Security Checkable person. Because you're going to say that this 
pc you had is not capable of registering on the meter, because 
obviously these are tremendous things. They're social transgressions 
against your code of sociality to a point where, God almighty, he 
should be shot, put in a straitjacket, given a pill by a medical 
doctor - most horrible things happen to him. Why? Because, look, he's 
robbed banks and murdered women and so forth, and you don't get a 
single knock on the E-Meter.

You say, "Well, the man is conscienceless, therefore he has no 
withholds." Aha, and that's right - against your moral code, he has 
no withholds, because they were not transgressions to him.

Now, your task in doing a Security Check is to get off withholds. But 
what is a withhold? What is a withhold? Now, you could say grandly, 
"It is what the preclear is withholding." You could say, as we have 
been saying about an overt act, "What is an overt act? An overt act 
is what the thetan thinks is an overt act. Therefore, if I do not 
think I have committed an overt act as I strangle this person or 
that," you see, "then I have not committed an overt act," you see?

No, those are not adequate replies, and those are not adequate 
definitions, and those are not adequate answers, and they do not add 
up to useful, workable definitions in the field of auditing. I think 
you will agree with me that you, yourself, have been puzzled about 
this.

How is it that one person gives you some kind of a stuff and it's not 
a withhold, and yet says, "Well, I ... I looked down the road." You 
know, it's clang! You know, you got clang!

And you say, "What did you do? What is that?"

"Well, I looked down the road," and it cleared.

And you say, "Well, what kind of a withhold could this be?" you know? 
"There must be more to it." And of course you immediately exceed your 
function as an auditor, which is to clear the meter. If "looking down 
the road" cleared the meter, that was a withhold.

Now, what puzzles you is that you're fixed on a moral code, or lack 
of one, which is yours, circa now. And you consider that the pc that 
you are security checking only has withholds if they are 
transgressions against the moral code which you consider a moral code 
now. And therefore you just make fantastic numbers of mistakes. See 
what I'm talking about?

All right. Now, let's take this criminal. Aha, this criminal. And 
we've got him on the meter, you know, and we say, "Well, have you 
ever ..." You know what a criminal should be security checked at: 
"Have you ever robbed a bank?" Clang! you see, you would think, boy, 
that's going to go clang! you know, because we know he's robbed a 
bank. He's actually been in Joliet, and Columbia University and other 
prisons - obviously he has. And you get not even a twitch of the 
needle. And he looks at you blandly and says, "Yes, I have robbed 
banks."

Well, you see, what is astounding you at that point? There's only one 
thing that is making you astonished: is that he has said something 
that is a transgression against what you think is his moral code. You 
see? And therefore you go on security checking him against your moral 
code, and that isn't the code he lives by. And he is not free of 
withholds. He has tremendous numbers of withholds, but only against 
the moral code he lives by.

Did you ever hear the moral code of a criminal? "Thou must not squeal 
to the cops." "Thou must not peach." You could write up a long one 
all about how "after you've robbed the bank you must equally share, 
except if somebody didn't help you rob the bank very much, and then 
you should cut his throat." "Not to kill a cop" could be against that 
moral code in some societies.

So that you ask the question from the bearing of your current moral 
code, and you say, "Have you ever killed a policeman?" And there's no 
fall. You're checking on the wrong moral code. You're checking a pc 
who has a different moral code.

The question should be "Have you ever had an opportunity to kill a 
policeman and failed to do so?" Clang! See, it's against his moral 
code not to kill a cop. Other criminals wouldn't speak to him. Do you 
follow this?

In a prison, you'd have to security check along these lines: "Have 
you ever failed to keep a guard in the dark as to what was going on?" 
See? "Have you ever cooperated with prison authorities?" "Have you 
ever told the truth to any official?" "Have you ever spoken to a 
screw kindly?" Because it's against the moral code of the prisoners, 
and they have their own moral code.

You can say "all pcs have withholds," but these withholds are not 
necessarily against your moral code. So we add to it, "all pcs have 
had moral codes against which they have transgressed." And when you 
locate the moral code against which they have transgressed, you will 
then get off the withholds of the case, and only then will you get 
off the withholds of the case - only then.

A withhold, then, is an unspoken, unannounced transgression against a 
moral code by which the person was bound.

Now, how many moral codes are there? How many moral codes have there 
been? I'd say circa right now, there is probably a different moral 
code for every group, each one, large or small, in every city, 
county, country, continent of earth. There's probably five hundred of 
them for every language there is on this planet, and there are fifty 
thousand languages on this planet.

I'll give you a moral-code question to a Zulu: "Has anything ever 
been lying around loose that you didn't steal?" Clang! "Who didn't 
you tell that to?"

"I didn't tell my father. I wouldn't dare. He would beat me." Because 
it's moral for a Zulu to steal. Interesting, isn't it? So not 
stealing is his withhold, and you think his stealing would be his 
withhold. So you ask for a stealing withhold and you don't get any 
response, and you should have been asking for a not-stealing 
withhold.

Therefore it is incumbent upon the auditor to have some idea of moral 
codes. What's a moral code? We'll get into that in a moment. But how 
many more moral codes do you think there have been? Now look, if 
circa right now there are possibly a hundred or five hundred of them 
for every language on earth - let's be moderate about it - and there 
are fifty thousand languages on earth, that gives you quite a few 
right here in present time, right? All right, let's go back on the 
track. How many moral codes do you think there have been on the whole 
track in the last two hundred trillion years? How many moral codes do 
you think there have been? It is some unimaginable number. You could 
start up in the corner of this wall and start writing - after you put 
down one, then just start writing zeros in tiny microscopic writing 
clear from that side of the wall, clear to the other side of the 
wall; go back to the beginning, write it all the way across again, 
and then when you've filled the whole wall down to the bottom, then 
you put it twenty-first power. That would be quite a number. That 
would be quite a number. Now, that is an awful lot of moral codes.

So, what's the anatomy of this? What is a moral code? It is that 
series of agreements to which a person has subscribed to guarantee 
the survival of a group. And that is what a moral code is. It's that 
series of agreements to which a person has subscribed to guarantee 
the survival of a group. That's what it is.

All right, I'll tell you an old short story. This is the most 
vignette sort of thing. There was a couple of fellows and they heard 
there was a buried treasure. A galleon had gone up on a reef down in 
the South Pacific, or down in the Caribbean. And they heard this 
galleon had gone up on a reef, and that just before it sank, they 
threw a tremendous amount of gold into its bronze guns, hoping they 
could come back for it later, and put the tampions on the guns. And 
the galleon sank, and these great, belled cannon were still down 
there filled with gold. So a couple of men got together, and they 
picked up a native boy, and they - as a crew - and they sailed away, 
and they dived and dived and dived and dived for this old galleon's 
cannon.

They had agreed 100 percent what they would do with the gold. They 
had agreed completely what they would do with the gold. They would 
split it equally, and the shares would remain on board the ship until 
they were taken to a certain point, and at that point a banker and 
trucks would come down to pick it up and it would be transported 
properly to Switzerland. And they had agreed utterly and completely; 
they knew exactly what to do. And they had agreed also not to 
squander it and not go getting drunk, and not go doing this and not 
go doing that, until it was all safely cared for and they were back 
in their own country. They'd agreed what to do about the bills of 
their trip. They had it all taped.

Well, they found a couple of cannon, but they reached their arms down 
the muzzles of the cannon and they couldn't find any tampion. And 
they went ashore after many days. Their supplies were running out, 
everything was going to hell. And the supplies were running out, and 
what were they going to do? They hadn't found any gold.

Well, they had an agreement for everything except failure. They had 
no agreement as to what they were going to do if they failed, so they 
began to wrangle about it after the fact. And they got more and more 
wranglous and more and more wranglous, and finally one of them picked 
up a dirk and sank it in the other one, and the other one 
simultaneously lopped off the other fellow's arm with a sword. And 
they had an awful time because they didn't have any agreement at all 
what to do in case of failure.

And about that time, as one of the fellows was dying, he looked back 
at the boat, and these guns that they had already hauled up on deck, 
the backs had evidently fallen out of them, being rolled around by 
the native boy, and the native boy was throwing handfuls of gold into 
the sea.

But they had no agreement on failure. And you'll find out that man 
has learned down the track, in weird ways, that where he has not 
agreed upon codes of conduct, or what is proper in eventualities ... 
He has agreed: Where he has agreed, he survives, and where he has not 
agreed, he doesn't survive. And so, people, when they get together, 
always draw up a long, large series of agreements on what is moral 
(that is, what will be contributive to survival) and what is immoral 
(what will be destructive of survival).

Now, moral, by these definitions, are those things which are 
considered to be, at any given time, survival characteristics. A 
survival action is a moral action. And those things are considered 
immoral which are considered contrasurvival.

But remember, this is for any group in any special circumstance. And 
here you have a group of two men going out to find gold or a whole 
nation being formed after the conquest of the land from some other 
race. It doesn't matter what the size of the group is: They enter 
into certain agreements. Now, the longevity of the agreement doesn't 
have much to do with it. It could be an agreement for a day, an 
agreement for a month or an agreement for the next five hundred 
years.

There's a Constitution in the United States that is an agreement. It 
was an agreement made by thirteen states as to how they would conduct 
their affairs. Wherever that Constitution has been breached, the 
country is now in trouble. There mustn't be any income tax, the first 
one said. Well, they managed to muck that up, and they managed to 
muck up another one, and another point, and another point, and 
another point. And each time they have busted up the agreement, why, 
they're in trouble.

Well, why are they in trouble? Well, that's because there aren't any 
other agreements than the basic agreement. You don't have modified 
agreements. If the agreement didn't exist in the first place, you 
can't keep patching it up and expect any great, lasting success. But 
what I have just said is to some degree a matter of opinion, because 
moral codes either leap full-armed from the brass tablets of Moses as 
he walks down from the rain and the mist saying "Thou shalt not sell 
pork to thy neighbor. Sell it to a stranger if it is tainted."

You didn't know that was one of the Commandments, did you? But I've 
mentioned it before that it happens to be there. There are about 162 
of the Ten Commandments. And they contain all sorts of interesting 
bric-a-brac. But that is just a moral code.

Now, perhaps that was fine, and everybody got along fine with these 
first 162 precepts or principles and so forth, and then somebody came 
along with a pitch and put a big curve into the line and altered the 
agreements and redefined it all, you see? And after a while nobody 
knew what was moral, so it got to be a confusion. And then everybody 
tried to enforce what was moral and what wasn't moral, but nobody 
could make up his mind. And the confusion got greater and greater, 
and then people departed from the group and dispersed. And these 
people, dispersing, entered into other moral groups and new moral 
codes were formed, which they then followed, more or less.

And eventually those moral codes, of course, got diluted and messed 
up. And time marched on, and what did we then find? All kinds of 
confusion would then enter in to what was moral and what wasn't 
moral. And the next thing you know, somebody would jump up and a 
group would get together and they would agree on a brand-new moral 
code, you see? And then that moral code would get all messed up 
somehow or another, and people would offend against it somehow, and 
then that group would disintegrate - because, of course, its moral 
agreement disintegrates, why, it (the group) disintegrates. And then 
that confusion is succeeded a little later on the track by these 
various group members, now members of other groups, forming up new 
moral codes which go into disintegration. You see?

So you've got a cycle there. And the cycle of action of civilizations 
is simply this cycle of action: It is an agreement on optimum 
conduct; a disintegration of agreement and optimum conduct; a 
disbanding of the group; a formation of a new group with the 
agreement on - new agreement on optimum conduct; a disintegration of 
that agreement; the dispersal of the group; the formation of a new 
group. Do you see the cycle? Now, that's the cycle of civilization. 
And that's the cycle of action.

The create-survive-destroy, in this particular instance, is, of 
course, they create a series of agreements and conducts of what is 
right and what is wrong. They establish what is right and what is 
wrong, what is moral, what is immoral, what is survival, what is 
nonsurvival. They establish this thing. That is what is created. And 
then this disintegrates by transgressions. And these transgressions - 
unspoken, but nevertheless transgressions - by each group member 
gradually mount up to a disintegration.

And the person who transgresses the most, quite commonly can be the 
person who is up there screaming the loudest that the others must 
follow the moral code. You look at the various Calvinist preachers 
and things of this character. Man, those fellows had a ball. Ten 
million withholds per preacher, you see, and they were screaming to 
the rooftops how everybody must follow the code. Of course, you get a 
disintegration after a point like that.

You see how this thing goes? So your "survive," of course, is as long 
as the codes or agreements continue in action. And then your 
"destroy" or your destructive confusion, of course, is what occurs 
when everybody has withholds, when everybody is going the other way 
to, token payment to the code but actually no adherence to it; 
everybody has withholds from everybody else concerning it. The group, 
of course, disintegrates on the basis that when you have overts, you 
have separation, individuation.

So the group disintegrates and you go into a new cycle now. Sometimes 
they stay disintegrated for a year, sometimes for hundreds of years.

There are countries on this planet right now whose moral codes have 
disintegrated, who haven't yet formed a new one. Several 
Mediterranean countries have done this right this minute. They really 
don't have a new moral code. Their old one is pretty doggone shot.

The white man, with "life, liberty and equality" as spread by Tom 
Jefferson and so forth, now, down in Africa, is experiencing the 
agony of having his moral codes, as natives, totally destroyed, 
completely. And everybody says, "Isn't this wonderful! Isn't this 
marvelous! Look, all we're doing for these natives," you see, and the 
natives are getting sicker and sicker and falling apart, and they 
can't handle themselves or anything else. And everybody says, "Isn't 
it wonderful what we're doing? Look, we're giving them washing 
machines. Of course, they don't have any electric power in their 
house, but we're giving them washing machines! And look at the 
marvelous things we're doing here."

Well, the marvelous thing they're doing, of course, is disintegrating 
the moral code of the tribe or the tribal unit, and bringing about a 
total disintegration of the individuals concerned with it.

Now, there is your general hue; there is the general state of affairs 
with regard to a cycle of action of civilization. Do you see how that 
went? You see how it goes?

All right. You in Scientology are involved right this minute in a 
certain mores. There is a certain moral code of one kind or another. 
Actually, it isn't completely formed yet. It is still in a state of 
formation. But one of the reasons why you find it difficult to 
process another Scientologist is not that his case is worse, but 
because you, when you flub, transgress against the moral code of 
"Thou shalt be a good auditor." That's it.

And because you are subscribing to a code of conduct that is 
survival, therefore, when you have overts against that code of 
conduct, it is the code of conduct by which you are auditing and 
progressing in life. So naturally, these things, then, take paramount 
importance in Security Checks. The last two pages of the Form 3, all 
of Form 6, when straightened out, will do more for a long-term 
Scientologist than anything else. Why? Why, he's been doing all these 
things in the name of helping people. "Well, yes," you say, "well, he 
has a perfect right to go nattering around about, 'Well, Ron has 
changed his mind again!'" you know? You think he has a perfect right 
to.

Well, I personally believe he has a perfect right to, don't you see? 
I'm not upset by this in any way. I've been shellacked by experts, 
you know? And I can stand up to a lot more hurricane than somebody 
sitting back in a corner nattering slightly about something or other. 
"Oh, well, these bulletins aren't in order, you know? And Ron should 
have gotten these bulletins in order," you know?

All right. But it just so happens, by the principles of the thing, 
that the very fact that he is thinking them is a transgression 
against something he apparently has agreed to. All right, the 
transgression is such that it holds his case up.

It is the current moral code, then, which is the most important to 
the case. It is the code by which the person is now living which has 
dominance over all other codes. So we get a practicing Scientologist, 
and so on, and the first thing that we've got to do with him is 
straighten out his transgressions against the group agreement: "Thou 
shalt be a good auditor." "Thou shalt not flub." "Thou shalt 
pronounce thy commands properly." Get the idea? And "Thou shan't get 
Scientology in trouble." You know? This kind of thing. Whatever these 
codes add up to, they are what they are, don't you see? They aren't 
so much what I say they are, they just are what they are. They're 
what you're forming up.

All right. Transgressions against those things, then, tend to make 
you feel like an outsider from the group of Scientologists, and to 
that degree you can receive no benefit from Scientology, don't you 
see? It's very simple.

It is not that the action is monstrous; it is the degree that the 
action removes the person from his group.

So that is the definition of a transgression. This has very little to 
do with our own moral code, only that we just, oddly enough, are 
suddenly - suddenly look and see what we're doing, you know? I mean, 
here we are, we're forming up a new series of agreements. They're not 
all completely formed yet, not by a long ways. But there they are. 
They're a new series of agreements. They're a way of life. There's 
"this is survival" and "that isn't survival." The fact that these 
things resolve life and take dominance and command over so many other 
moral codes and can actually run out now and change all other moral 
codes, of course makes this a fantastically powerful code by which 
we're operating.

I'm not now talking about the written Code of a Scientologist. I am 
talking about what YOU think a Scientologist should do and should not 
do. What YOU think he should do and not do, see? Not what I think he 
should do and not do. That is basically the moral code which is being 
formed up here.

Well, it's a very strong one because it has dominance over all other 
moral codes. You think it should be this way and it should be that 
way, or it shouldn't be this way and it shouldn't be that way. And it 
all is added up to you and adjudicated on what you consider survival 
and what's not considered survival. And of course we're in a position 
where we're dominant other [over] all other activities.

But let's not worry about that for a moment. That has very small 
bearing on this particular lecture. What I'm talking about is, what 
is a moral code? Well, a moral code is a series of agreements to 
which members of a group have subscribed to promote their survival. 
Now, that is a moral code.

And their transgressions are the degree that they have separated 
themselves from free communication with the remainder of the group. 
That is a transgression: the degree that a person has separated 
himself from free communication with a group. And that's all a 
transgression is.

Now, you say, "Well, a transgression: After all, he murders a member 
of the group. That's certainly a wilder transgression than this ..." 
Well, I don't know. He murders a member of the group and so they burn 
him at the stake or something of the sort, or assign him to being 
skewered with E-Meter cans in the public square. Something goes on. 
It actually is not much of a transgression. That is sort of a 
livingness, and groups do get enturbulated one way or the other.

But get this one: Murdering a member of the group and hiding his body 
and never mentioning it to the rest of the group - oh, oh, oh, oh, 
oh. Now he is pretending to be part of the group while no longer 
being part of the group, and it is out of that sort of thing that you 
get the disintegration.

So, he murdered a member of the group and everybody found out about 
it, and they all knew him. They saw him do it, and they skewered him 
with E-Meter cans in the middle of the square and told him, "Go thou 
and never get audited again, you dog." And so he went out and picked 
up another body. And one day an auditor runs into it in session and 
runs it out, see?

But he actually has not been separated from the group. The only 
person who can separate one from a group is himself, and the only 
mechanism he can do it by is withholding. He withholds transgressions 
against the moral code of the group from the other members of the 
group, and therefore he individuates from the group and the group 
therefore disintegrates. This should be very simple; this is very 
well taped.

Now, how does this all come about in the first place? Are there any 
other mechanisms back of this? Yes, there is the mechanism of 
coaction, the mechanism of coaction. The last time you were dancing 
with somebody you were indulging in a coaction. They were moving and 
you were moving and so forth. The last time you had a fight with 
somebody, you were in a coaction; yes, you were in violent 
disagreement with their actions and they were in violent disagreement 
with your action, but unfortunately, underneath all this, you were 
both fighting.

Now, I'll give you an example of a coaction of magnitude, if you will 
forgive the slight excursion into maritime affairs. I'll tell you 
anecdotes about the Phoenician navy pretty soon, but right now I can 
only tell you anecdotes about current ones that you would be 
interested in.

A ship is no good until it has braved some tremendous danger or 
indulged in combat. The crew is no good and the ship just isn't 
integrated. There's nothing to it.

You take these harbor launches that everybody goes home to the wife 
every night, and they come aboard, and so forth. Well, they fall 
apart. There is no group there to amount to anything.

But a ship, in essence, is a fairly isolated group and therefore 
gives us a good example.

And you recruit everybody up, and you've got all the proper number of 
ratings and men, and they're all at their proper stations, and 
they're all in the proper slots, and they've all been trained for 
their duties - and nothing works. It's so interesting. Nothing works. 
There is no more nightmarish nightmare than putting a ship in 
commission with a new crew. For the first month, or two or three 
months even, you are in a position where you don't know whether the 
guns are going to fall off or the keel is going to suddenly wind up 
down the stack. You just don't know.

The supplies never seem to get aboard, and the fuel never seems to 
flow freely to the engines or burners. Nothing seems to ever happen 
in the ship. Just nothing happens! Except a sort of a confusion. Some 
kind of a weird confusion goes on.

And then one fine day this ship is out and it meets a great storm. 
And this storm is battering away at force 8, 9, 10, and huge, raging 
seas are racing on every side of it and every man is braced, and down 
in the engine room they're trying to keep the screws turning over 
somehow or another, and the water in the bilges are [is] sloshing all 
around and somebody forgot to close a seacock. And the next thing you 
know, they're all being punished for their omissions.

And somehow or another they hold the ship together. Somehow or 
another they hold the ship together. And then the storm abates. And 
for some peculiar reason we now have a ship. This is a noticed fact. 
I mean, a lot of people who have gone to sea, and so forth, could 
tell you this fact.

It is true of a flight group. It is true of a military company. You 
never really see any organization hang together at all until it has 
been bruised, heavily and hard, and then you will see an organization 
hang together.

The reason business organizations are so hard to hold together as 
groups, and there are so many transgressions against their codes of 
operation, is centered totally upon the fact that they never get 
mauled. The boss gets mauled and the accountant gets mauled and 
somebody else gets mauled, but nobody ever takes the whole building 
and mauls it. There is no mutual danger to amount to anything.

One could be created. Instead of the manager taking it all on his 
back every time somebody writes him a nasty letter, if he got the 
staff together and read it to them and they had a chance to find out 
what was going on and discover what was under attack here or what 
wasn't under attack here, you might get a cohesed group and 
organization. Otherwise, no.

What is this? They have experienced the necessity to survive, and 
that is the whole summation of it. A group becomes a group when it 
has experienced mutually the necessity to survive. And that then 
makes a very strong group.

A ship going into action for the first time goes into it as a 
disintegrated series of agreements. It has no moral code, it has 
nothing. Why? Because nobody sees any necessity at all to survive. 
And then they take a rare shellacking. They've left a seacock opened 
and they forgot to test out the ammunition hoist, and a lot of other 
things weren't done on this ship. And all those sins start to catch 
them out. And they suddenly say, "We've got to survive around here, 
and we had better put it into high gear." And when they come out the 
other end, they're all friends, oddly enough. They've gone through a 
mutual experience of some magnitude and they're friends. And their 
friendship for one another expresses it in itself - of a knitted 
group which has its own mores.

You'll find out that every ship which has been long together with 
itself under any kind of - well, just mediocre, the most medi - it 
isn't leadership that makes a ship, it's lack of interference by 
leadership that makes a ship. And you'll find out that these boys 
will have developed a whole civilization of their own. They have 
their own jokes. You'll be walking down the deck of a strange ship 
that is lying in some harbor someplace and somebody will say, all of 
a sudden - turn around and he'll say (he'll look at another little 
boat in the water or something like that) and he'll say, "Ten feet 
tall." And everybody - every member of the ship's company that is 
near him - will laugh like mad, you see?

You're an outsider. You don't know what he was talking about.

Well, something has happened on the ship or somebody got razzle-
dazzled into some peculiar way and it somehow or another centers 
around this joke, "ten feet tall," and everybody knows this joke, but 
the outsider doesn't. Well, that's as much a part of their 
civilization as, all the ship's members know that when you go down a 
certain companionway and open a certain watertight door, you'd better 
for sure get your fingers the hell out of the road because it 
inevitably slams back. They all know that, but you're a stranger and 
you don't know that, so you get your fingers caught. But they have a 
whole technology, and it's just a group of men running one piece of 
machinery.

An oil rig, running out in the middle of Texas someplace or standing 
out on a Texas tower in the Gulf, something like this - the crews 
attached to that thing, after they've gone through certain 
experiences and so forth, cohese and become a group. And they have 
certain morals that are different. It runs different, place to place. 
But there's a certain pattern runs through it all. And the basic 
thing is you mustn't injure the survival of a fellow group member - 
common denominator of a transgression. And that's also, by the way, 
the common denominator of the code in the first place: You mustn't 
injure the survival of a certain group member.

Therefore, a manager has a tendency to be far more isolated from a 
group, or the leader of a group has a tendency to be far more 
isolated from the group, than group members. Why? Because he every 
now and then does injure the survival characteristics of a group 
member. No matter if he does it reluctantly, every now and then, on 
every side of him, he will find members of the group are absolutely 
insisting that Member X be expelled. Member Xs transgressions, in the 
cumulative sense, have gotten so antipathetic to other group members 
that they find that it is impossible to survive with Member X around. 
And who do they turn it over to?

Well, now, the leader of the group is not particularly aware of the 
transgressions of Member X because he doesn't live the same life as 
the rest of the group. He's a little bit isolated, don't you see? So 
he does an independent overt without a motivator. He dismisses the 
group member. He says, "Thou shalt be shot. Thou shalt be turned out 
to starve," or something.

So he tends to get all manner of overts against group members. And 
then he seldom tells anybody else in the group what exactly happened 
to Member X, because he thinks it'd be too enturbulative. He never 
posts it on the bulletin board, or something like this. "For the 
seventh consecutive time, Member X was found eating crackers in 
somebody else's bed and therefore is no longer amongst us, by popular 
demand." He never does anything like this, you see? He operates sort 
of on a constant withhold. And he can actually drive himself straight 
out of his own group. It's quite interesting. Ah, you get this in the 
isolation of command and so forth.

Now, this is so true that man has at length accepted the idea of 
isolation of command as a normal course of human events. It's not 
necessarily normal at all. But you see, there is one of your 
breakdowns.

Now, leadership is one of the frailties of a group, while at the same 
time being one of its greatest strengths. So that you change the 
leadership of a group, you can change, to a marked degree, some of 
the characteristics of the group. But if you change the group over to 
a leader who then violates or changes all the mores of the group, 
ahh, well, we've got lots of trouble now. We've got lots of trouble.

I have a case in point: There was a very successful company. You 
heard of Nick Carter and Diamond Dick and all the rest of these old 
pocketbooks - in their day, the comic books of the 1890s. Well, those 
were all published by a company known as Street & Smith. And it had 
become very, very wealthy over a long period of time, and it had its 
mores. Boy, did that place have mores.

It owned a whole square block - imagine it - in the middle of New 
York City, where a square foot is worth about a hundred thousand 
dollars. And it owned a whole, huge square-block building about four 
stories high that was the clammiest, most fallen-apart old building 
you ever heard of, and it had printing presses in it. And the 
building was so shaky that when these enormous presses started to 
roar, the whole building shook. You could hardly hold the inkwell on 
the desk, you know, up in the executive offices, and so forth.

And they had - they had just gone on for years. They had unpublished 
manuscripts of O. Henry - they had all kinds of things. I went into 
their vaults one day, and there were the originals of Ned Buntline, 
you know, and Annie Oakley and all of this kind of stuff. Fantastic.

And there were certain codes by which you couldn't speak to people 
and could speak to people, and certain precedences by which you went 
to lunch and did this and did that. And there were promotion 
precedences in every place, and it was a very hidebound old outfit. 
Well, after all, it had been in existence for the better part of a 
half a century.

And all of a sudden young Mr. Smith inherited it on the basis of 
death dues, you see? And he had a wife. And his wife believed that it 
was a nasty thing to publish things like that. Her friends wouldn't 
like it. But they would like such things as fancy women's magazines.

And so Mr. Smith Americanized himself to the degree of saluting the 
wife and saying, "Yes, sir." And at the time he took over - at the 
time he took over - there was a seven-million-dollar sinking fund in 
that company. Just the sinking fund! There were no strings attached 
to it. There were nothing. It just sat there and made money. 
Everything made money in all directions.

He took their high-power presses, which could spit out more dime 
novels and magazines than any other high-power press in America, and 
sold it to his nearest competitor. And then they could spit out more 
magazines than Street & Smith. And when he got through, he owned 
"Mademoiselle," all on the cuff.

And the company was gone and the building was gone and everything was 
gone. It's things like that, you see, which give rise and credence 
and get loyalty devoted to such things as socialism, communism, 
things of this character. Because they recognize that the leader of a 
group is the most capable of destroying the group.

The group might survive all sorts of storms and financial crises and 
crashes, but all one - well, just one thing has to happen, you see? 
The leader of the group goes bad, marries the wrong girl, who decides 
that her friends won't speak to her quite well enough if she is 
connected with printing blood-and-thunder magazines, don't you see?

I don't know what happened to all of that, but the staff dispersed 
all over the place. And you would see these people afterwards, and 
they'd be sitting around in a sort of a degraded fashion, you know? 
They were old Street & Smith people. They were never anything else. 
They were not new popular-publications people, you see? They were old 
Street & Smith people, because it was one of the oldest publication 
groups in America.

Now, you can answer the question "Why is it that the old soldier is 
always degraded?" Just hire an old soldier someday to mow the front 
lawn. You usually will have had it. They have a very bad employment 
reputation, old soldiers. Now, I'm talking about old soldiers: the 
sixteen-year man, the twenty-year man, the thirty-year man.

And you say at once, "Well, the army must have done something 
horrible to this fellow to bring about a total disintegration of his 
personality, and therefore the army is very bad training and 
therefore the army is degrading and therefore the military is very 
bad." And you can get a whole nation believing the military is very 
bad because every product of the military which they see, after the 
fellow has spent ten, sixteen, twenty, thirty years in the military, 
is the guy is walking around in a fog, you know? He's walking around 
in a daze of some kind or another, or he takes to drink, or he's 
unreliable and he won't do his job. And they see this sort of thing, 
so they say the military must be very bad.

No, they're looking at another phenomenon. It is the phenomenon of a 
group member who is no longer part of the group. That's the 
phenomenon they're looking at. He's a perfectly good soldier, but he 
has no group. How can he go on being a perfectly good soldier? 
There's no mores. Any mores that he has - "Thou shalt not tell the 
sergeant," you know? "Thou shalt sneak in after hours when thou dost 
not have a pass." "Thou shalt raise hell with the mess sergeant." 
"Thou shalt scrounge anything that isn't nailed down, providing - 
providing it doth not belong to thine own company." Tremendous mores, 
various kinds, you know? "Thou shalt raise hell with second 
lieutenants but be respectful to captains." All these kinds of 
things.

Well, this is the moral code by which he is living. And of course 
he's living by a moral code and he has no group connected with it 
anymore; he is degraded.

Is he degraded, actually, because he had overts against the army and 
his moral code? No. No. He is merely degraded because of this 
interesting phenomenon, which you must pay some attention to: If a 
person is no longer a member of a group, he feels automatically that 
he must have had overts against it and was driven out of it. Through 
no fault of his own, this group has ceased to exist, or he is no 
longer a member of it. Just the fact that he is no longer a member of 
the group makes him automatically - flick - believe that he must have 
had overts against the group.

You see, this is the reverse phenomenon. Now, you run into this every 
once in a while. As a matter of fact, you run into it rather 
constantly. Because the punishment or the result exists, people then 
believe the crime must have existed. Got the idea?

You'll see every once in a while some fellow whose wife has left him. 
And he will then believe that he must have been mean to her or that 
he is not a good family man. Maybe it had nothing to do with it 
whatsoever. Maybe there was a typhoid epidemic in the area and she 
died. But he gets this other sensation, you know? The other sensation 
is he's no longer a part of the group, therefore he must have 
offended. And you'll find people nattering and chattering about this.

One notable example, there was one girl I knew whose father died in 
an automobile accident exactly two thousand miles away, and she sat 
around all the time trying to figure out how she killed her father. 
How had she killed her father? Well, was it because she didn't answer 
his telephone call when he put a telephone call through to her? Was 
it because she didn't phone at the time of this? Was it because of 
this? Was it because of that? Was it because she had gone to this 
other city in the first place? Now, if she hadn't gone to the other 
city ... and so forth.

Well, all of this nattering, and that whole thing which the 
psychiatrist - ooh, this just drives the psychiatrist mad. He worries 
about this more than anything else. He sits up all night sometimes 
worrying about this one. If he finds this in a patient, he sits there 
and the perspiration just drips all over his white, somewhat smudged-
edged waistcoat. The person thinks he killed his father. And he'll 
just do everything he can possibly do, you see, to try to convince 
this patient that he didn't kill his father. And he doesn't know the 
mechanism connected with it, and actually we didn't either until just 
now, in the last few days here.

Well, his father's gone, so therefore he must have offended against a 
group called "son-father" or "daughter-father." See, that is a group. 
Daughter-father: must have offended against it because he's no longer 
a member of the group. And you might say this is the common 
denominator of people's degraded feelings. They are no longer a 
member of the group.

So you will very often be processing somebody who feels that he had 
tremendous overts - this is not in the majority - but you'll feel 
this is somebody who had tremendous overts against a group, and you 
won't be able to find them. And you won't even be able to - you won't 
be able to locate them on the meter, which is what I mean. No, the 
group is gone, it's not any longer there, and he's no longer with the 
group, so he figures it out, you see, that having suffered the final 
punishment for transgressing against the group, that he must have 
transgressed against the group. And what's worrying him is to try to 
figure out how he transgressed against the group rather than simply 
face the fact that he's no longer a member of the group. You got the 
idea?

An awful lot of people finished up World War II, or the Korean War, 
feeling degraded because they were separated from their military 
units. Well, they were separated from their military units. Well, if 
they'd gone through a lot of co-survival motion, see - if they'd gone 
through a lot of motion with other fellows in an effort to survive - 
then it cohesed the group. And of course, how did they leave the 
group? Well, they just left the group by being demobbed, that's all. 
(Naval terminology: they were "separated from service.")

Well, that was some action of some character in some personnel 
division someplace. And the fellow afterwards wonders if he shouldn't 
have been nicer to the squadron, you know, and he shouldn't have been 
nicer to the company, or if he shouldn't have been better to those 
people, and what did he do? And he'll sit around and grieve, 
actually, about the horrible things that he did do to these fellows. 
Well, he's integrating the whole thing against the fact that because 
he's no longer a member of the group, then he must have transgressed 
against the group. You see?

In other words, he does an identification of the punishment with the 
action. See, it's - only the action is necessary.

Now, what actions are actually necessary to cohese a group? Coaction 
in the direction of survival. If you have coaction in the direction 
of survival, with two or more people, you inevitably have a mores. 
It's tiny and it's not very explicit, but it's a mores. And it has to 
do with two people who went against many antisurvival forces. They 
coacted against antipathetic forces, so therefore they are a group.

And now one of the people dies or departs, and we have the other 
person then believing he must have transgressed against the other 
person. And sure enough, he does have transgressions, and you'll find 
out he's very, very happy to find out and get off his withholds and 
transgressions against the other thing, and it will blow at that 
time. But it's blowing for another reason. The reason you think it is 
blowing is because you've gotten off these little, petty, two-bit 
withholds, you know? No, no, he was very happy to have found he 
really did merit no longer being a member of the group. You got the 
difference?

See, he figures, "Well, it was justified. They were right, throwing 
me out, because look, I did have some withholds, see? I did have some 
of these withheld transgressions. So therefore, obviously, there it 
is." See, happy as a clam, you know?

So he's willing to be separated from the group. Up to that time it's 
unknown, it's unexplained. Did he have transgressions against the 
group, or didn't he have transgressions against the group? And the 
only evidence he has - he's no longer a member of the group, so he 
must have transgressed against the group. That's what the equation 
is. If the fellow is no longer a member of the group then he must 
have had action against the group.

You'll find out that the fellow who has a dogfight over France with a 
German pilot, let's say, and they go round and round and round and 
round, and they have this hell of a dogfight, and so forth, and they 
finally break it off and go home - do you know, there's always a 
little bit of an oddity between the two of them, so on. You know, 
they - every once in a while after a war, a couple of pilots who have 
had aerial duels, and so forth, will meet. And they meet like old 
pals, man. That is the group. But you see, just to that degree, they 
formed a group.

But what kind of a group was it? It was a group of tremendous 
coaction - contrasurvival. But each one is trying so forcefully to 
survive that their action is in agreement. It's an agreed-upon 
action: a dance of death in the sky. They're both firing at each 
other, aren't they? They're both flying airplanes, aren't they? 
They're both trying to survive, aren't they? They're both in the same 
sky, aren't they? They're both in the same time period, aren't they?

Well, they know they aren't a group. Each one knows the other is an 
enemy, and they know this positively and violently, that they are not 
a group. And so they can never explain why the dogfight hangs up. Of 
course, there are withholds against their own groups in there. If one 
didn't shoot the other one down, it's actually a sort of a 
transgression against his own group, just to that degree.

But if he has a dogfight, fails to shoot the other one down and 
then goes home and never mentions it, now he's actually got a 
transgression against his own group.

You get the degree of complexity with which this mounts up. Well, it 
mounts up on this basis, this basis: agreement. What is agreement? 
It's two people making the same postulate stick. Two or more people 
making the same postulate stick. That's what we mean by an agreement. 
Two or more people making the same postulate stick - an agreement.

Well now, what if they go into mutual action, and their mutual action 
is in the direction of survival? Oh, they've got the same agreements 
that they're trying to make stick, and now they're going through 
similar actions by which they're trying to make survival possible. 
Now, what have they got now? Ah, they've got coaction, and they have 
a confusion of one with another. They don't quite differentiate their 
own action, so they misown other actions in their immediate vicinity.

Fifteen men pulling on a rope trying to pull a seaplane out of the 
sea: Afterwards you say, "How much of each one's motion was 
responsible for the seaplane coming out of the sea? Exactly how many 
ergs of your motion was part of the recovery of the seaplane?"

Well, you try to break it down like that, he takes the easy course, 
you see? And he says, "Well, we did it. We pulled it out of the sea." 
He doesn't differentiate how much each one did pull it out of the 
sea. He just says broadly, "We pulled it out of the sea." In other 
words, it was fifteen men contributing unequally, some more, some 
less, to a line, and they would contribute unequally if they were 
just at different positions on the line, because the lines get bent 
and twisted around things, and people who are closer to bollards, you 
see, can't pull as well as people who are far from them. You get the 
idea? So, it's an incalculable mathematical problem. How many ergs 
did each one contribute?

Well, they all solved the problem by saying, "We did it." Oh, and 
they're very happy about this - " We did it. Our motion."

Now, you take some fellow who has been running an engine for an awful 
long time. He's pulling water or something up a hill into a 
reservoir, you see? And he runs this engine and he sees the pumps 
running, the water going up the hill, and so on. And he runs the 
engine and he runs the engine and he runs the engine. Well, why, 
after a while, when you talk to him, does he go kind of gurgle, 
gurgle," you see? Or like these engineers that I had, and so on, they 
start their motors. They start their motors before they begin to 
talk. They say, " Wrawr, wra-wr, wrawr," and then they get to firing 
off and they give you the sentence. It's quite interesting.

I don't think anybody would believe that. But I've got Peter as a 
witness. He's talked to them over the phone. It's quite marvelous. 
They start their motors and then they talk.

See, the coaction. In other words, their action of running the motor 
is undifferentiated by them with the action of the motor. So their 
action running the body and the motor's action in running the pump -
these are mutual actions. So you get coaction.

Now, you can go into this on havingness of motors and you can go into 
it on causes of things, and you can go into it in other ways, but you 
actually separate it best by just getting the fellow to get the idea 
of a mutual action with the motor. And all of a sudden he - up to 
that time he's been totally identified. His action was the motor's 
actions and the motor's actions were his actions, and so they had 
actions. They had actions. If the motor conked out and all of a 
sudden its coil went bad, why, he goes home and has a stomachache or 
something like this, you know? Their mutual action is too tied in.

And that is the source of an overt. Now, let's get around to what 
we're talking about here. That is an overt act - or, that is the 
source of overt acts. You have mutual action with something else, and 
you call it a group member, a mores, a moral code - anything you want 
to call it - you see that, but it's mutual action. And then you do 
something cruel to that with which you have mutual action, and of 
course you experience the somatic. And it's just as easy as that. It 
isn't any deeper than that. That is an overt act-motivator sequence, 
and that is its exact mechanics, and that's all there is to it.

Now, you wonder why I've been talking about mores and groups and 
group action and survival and all that sort of thing. Well, it just 
adds up to that fact. After you've had a tremendous amount of group 
coaction, you then embark upon a cruel action to what you have 
coaction with and you'll get the somatic. You must have had a cruel 
impulse toward coaction before you can get the somatic you administer 
to somebody else.

You take somebody with whom we have coaction and one day, for some 
reason or other best known to somebody else, you accidentally break 
his arm. You go around afterwards nursing your own. Why? Because your 
arm is his arm. And that's how that crosses, and that's what an overt 
act-motivator sequence is, and those are all the mechanics there are 
to it. There aren't any fancier mechanics than that.

There isn't any mechanic such as "Well, you should be punished 
because you have offended against another member of the group." No, 
that is the group dramatizing the fact I just gave you.

Religionists come along. Religionists come along. And these 
religionists, they tell you, "Well, do unto others as thou shalt turn 
thy other pig." I don't think that's one of the commandments, but 
it's something like that. They get this thing reversed.

In other words, they are forcing into existence something that 
already exists. See, they're saying, "Well now, you get mean, you gyp 
your fellow group member, and you're really going to suffer. You'll 
suffer in the long run." Oh, great. "Eighteen paternosters and three 
pieces of bread; that's what it's going to cost you, or you'll suffer 
from here on, you see?" They get paid for it.

There actually is nothing there to be paid for. A person who makes an 
overt act against something with which he has mutual action, of 
course, is incapable of differentiating what is his action and what 
is the other action. Fifteen men on a rope, one of them trips and 
butts the other one in the back, and then he has a somatic in his own 
back, you see, because he didn't know whether the force was his or 
the force was theirs, but he engaged in a cruel action.

Now, all overt-motivator sequences become very pronounced when cruel 
actions are maliciously engaged upon while withholding. One is really 
a member of the group, one is really coacting with the group, but one 
engages on a cruel action toward another member of the group and then 
tries to back out. Why does he try to withhold? He tries to withhold 
for just this reason: He tries to withhold because he doesn't want 
the effect of the coaction. See, he tries to individuate from the 
group when he does a cruel act because he knows that if he does a 
cruel act to something he has coaction with, then, of course, he's 
going to get it in the neck. So he tries to back out.

In other words, he disowns the coaction because he's trying to get 
rid of the motivator he will inevitably get. So he shoots a fellow 
group member, and having shot the fellow group member, he then seeks 
to withhold the fact that he has shot a fellow group member so as not 
to be liable to the somatics of coaction, which experience has taught 
him will always occur.

And we're just down to the basic fundamentals of nondifferentiation 
and identification, that is all. He identifies every group member's 
action with his own action, so therefore if he is mean to a group 
member, he of course is liable to get it, so he tries to escape the 
penalty of what is woven straight into group action amongst all 
thetans, and seeks to back out. And this will ordinarily coax him 
into withholding, too. So, withhold is part of a backout.

Now, if you ask him to recognize his coaction with that group member 
prior to his overt act, the overt act of course will blow. That's the 
mechanics of it, you see? You've got to get the prior action.

Now, of course, the more commotion and the more action and the more 
withholds and the more nonsense preceded his overt act, the more the 
overt act is going to hang up and the more he's going to try to 
withhold it. Do you follow that plainly? That's quite easy.

In other words, he can only suffer from his overt because of former 
coaction. He can only suffer from his overt because of former 
coaction. And that coaction is the most aberrative when it is mutual 
survival - mutual survival. And, of course, that means a disturbed, 
confused area. And it also - you will spot earlier and earlier overts 
against fellow group members as you're doing this, which is earlier 
and earlier efforts to back out.

Well, of course, he is involved in mutual survival, mutual action. He 
is involved with other people with mutual survival. And because he is 
involved with this mutual action, every time he has tried to back out 
of mutual action, he of course had sought to deny the mutuality of 
the action. And he thinks he can get off the overt-motivator sequence 
inevitability by denying it, you see? If he just denies it enough, 
then he's no longer part of that scene. So he individuates, you see, 
gradually out.

And you have to knock out his individuation totally before he can 
walk out. That is what is the most peculiar phenomenon about it all, 
you see? The action he takes to escape punishment is the action which 
then settles in the punishment. This is all very mechanical. There is 
nothing much to it. You'll see this thing unfold. You'll see this 
thing unfold left and right. It becomes very ... Well, you audit a pc 
and you ask him for a prior confusion. Well, you could ask him for a 
prior survival and you'd get about the same answer.

You're asking him for a former coaction. And of course you will find, 
every time you find a former coaction, it opens up the track a little 
bit more, so he finds a former withhold. And then you look earlier 
than that withhold, and of course you've found a former coaction 
again - usually a confusion, because it's a survival action against 
odds, a battle of some kind or another with these two people facing 
the world, or these ten people, or this race, you see - and you find 
him backing out a little bit more.

Then you get a little more coaction off the case by asking him what 
some earlier confusion was, and of course he remembers another 
withhold, another effort to individuate from the group. And these 
uncover just to the degree that you uncover prior confusions or prior 
survivals.

It's quite patent. In other words, you've got to get the co-motion - 
if you want to use that word - the co-motion which preceded the 
withhold. That doesn't mean the overt act that preceded the withhold 
so much as it means the co-disturbance which preceded his effort to 
individuate. And of course you'll get the withhold and the motivator, 
just right now. You get it right now. You ask for the coaction, and 
of course, that blows the mutual action he was involved in with 
another group member, and having blown that, you then can release the 
other. And it - and then he no longer withholds this fact about what 
he was trying to do to the group, so he's no longer trying to 
disintegrate from the group, so he can move on the time track.

Every time he has a withhold, he parks himself on the time track, you 
see? And he can keep parking himself and parking himself on the time 
track till the whole time track looks like just one big now. And that 
one big now is the reactive mind. And that's all there is to the 
reactive mind; it's the combined withholds which he has stacked up, 
which have all become part of now. But they're efforts to individuate 
from groups.

Well now, he really never has succeeded in individuating from any 
group he has ever belonged to. Isn't that fascinating? It doesn't 
matter whether he talked to a shepherd back in the old days, and they 
were talking there, and all of a sudden a wolf came "romping" over, 
operatically, and the flock scattered. And so the shepherd picked up 
a cudgel and went after the wolf. And he was just a gentleman passing 
by the way, but he picked up his sword and he went after the wolf, 
too. And they both got ahold of the wolf and they chased him over the 
hills and far away and made nothing out of the wolf. And then they 
came back and gathered up the sheep, and they shook each other by the 
hand and he went on his way.

All right. He made a group, didn't he? He made a group, and they had 
an agreement. The mores of the group is "Protect sheep. Kill wolves." 
That was their morals. That is what they were supposed to do.

Now, all right. He went along for a few years, and one day a shepherd 
drove all the sheep through his rose garden, and so he went out and 
put a sword through the shepherd. And he got it right in his chest. 
And, "Doctor, Doctor, I have this horrible pain in my chest. I just 
can't understand what this horrible pain in my chest is."

The doctor said, "Well, we - we look - we look upon that as advanced, 
galloping consumption. That's what that is. And you take this 
horrible black potion here, and it'll get you over it." And about 
eight, nine thousand bottles of black potion later, why, they bury 
him.

He formed a group with a shepherd and then he killed a shepherd. 
Wasn't even the same shepherd. Well, what's he done? He's done an 
identification of shepherds, in the first place. And then he's done 
an identification of motion with a shepherd earlier. You follow this? 
So he gets an overt act-motivator sequence.

But nobody has ever left any groups. The magicians: well, there have 
been magicians ever since there's been track. But magicians, from 
time to time, have expressed this in saying - they haven't come close 
to this at all. As a matter of fact, it's not a stable datum of 
magic. But they say, "A magician who starts in on one religion should 
not change his religion just because he's practicing magic." That's 
one of the rules of the game in magic. Mustn't change your religion. 
They know it's bad luck. They know people go to pieces on it.

Well, all they found out, just to that degree, is the fellow had 
subscribed to a religious group of some kind or another, and now if 
he goes and shifts his religion, why, he's going to get an overt-
motivator sequence of some kind or other he isn't going to be able to 
explain to anybody, and there he's had it - which is quite 
interesting.

This opens up an interesting door for Scientology, because if no one 
has ever left any group he ever belonged to, against which he had a 
transgression or an overt, why, that means that all new groups being 
formed are formed by transgressors. And then that follows, then, that 
if Scientologists could get off of that particular mechanism, they 
would form the first true group that has existed since the beginning 
of the universe. Isn't that interesting? Interesting vista suddenly 
opens up in that particular direction.

That's all rather beside the point at this particular moment. We're 
just talking about the mechanics of this thing. But that's true, that 
would happen.

Now, what is a moral code? A moral code would be agreements - a 
series of agreements - which had been cemented by mutual action aimed 
toward survival. And a transgression is an action against a person or 
being or thing with which one has a moral code or an understanding or 
a coaction.

Notice that we're trotting out Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental 
Health's SURVIVAL, in caps. Notice it's right back with us again. 
Because it is the action by which beings sought to survive that then 
brings about coaction on the part of those beings; which brings 
about, then, the development of a series of agreements; which then 
brings about the possibility of a transgression. And the 
transgression, withheld, is an effort to act against the coaction of 
the group without suffering the consequences. But the coaction, 
followed by a withhold, then parks the person right there.

You see, because that's not an action. Let me call to your attention 
that a withhold is a no-action after the fact of action.

You break the cookie jar and then you don't tell your mother. And 
you're processing this person and he's going along the track, and 
there he is, all of a sudden, and he's standing there in the kitchen. 
He's not looking at anything. He's not looking at anything.

Have you noticed the number of pictures which pcs have where they're 
not doing anything? Have you noticed this? They're not killing 
anybody, they're not breaking any bones, they're not robbing any 
cookie jars, they're not doing anything, see? There they were, just 
innocently standing there, just an innocent bystander.

They'll have a picture, suddenly, of a street; and there's absolutely 
nothing happening on this street. They'll have a picture of a 
kitchen; there's nothing happening in the kitchen. They will have a 
picture of a pot, and there's nothing happening with regard to the 
pot at all.

Well, what are these things? These are the points of withhold where a 
person has withheld his transgression against the group. And the 
transgression may lie minutes, hours or days before the picture. You 
just ask for the commotion which went on before that, and he'll give 
it to you, and you find the withhold, then the fact that he withheld 
it against the mores of the group, and the picture will spring, just 
like that. Very tight, close mechanism. There's nothing much to it at 
all.

So, you look for the prior confusion. The rule of the prior confusion 
comes out of this. So if the person is parked anyplace, he of course 
has a withhold at the point he is parked, but it is immediately 
preceded by a coaction or co-motion, for sure, and then an overt 
against that coaction and co-motion. And then the withhold. So it 
follows down consecutively in terms of time: 12:00, coaction, co-
motion, as a part of the group; 1:00, overt against this group; 2:00, 
parked - see, withhold against the group, the effort to move out of 
the group. I'm just giving you 12:00, 1:00 and 2:00 so you can see 
what I mean by consecutively in time.

So, we have childhood, coaction with a family; teen-age, overt 
against the family; young adulthood, complete upset with the family 
and awfully parked; withhold, won't talk to the rest of the family. 
You get the idea, see?

Well now, this goes as far as this: One can withhold one's self - and 
you mustn't overlook this in processing. That fellow who thinks he 
should have been drafted and join the army, and who didn't then join 
the army, will be found to be in possession of a withhold which is 
inarticulate unless you know this particular fact: He is withholding 
a body. You don't just withhold thoughts. You just don't withhold 
deeds. You can withhold a body. You can also withhold stolen goods. 
You can also withhold objects of various kinds or another, which 
really aren't stolen, but they're withheld.

But withholding self is the commonest one, because wherever a person 
has engaged in a dogfight, such as I spoke about a few minutes ago, 
he all the time was trying to bring about the death of the other 
person while withholding himself from death, which makes a disagreed 
unreality about the whole thing. There's no agreement there of any 
kind whatsoever.

If you ask somebody, "Get the idea of withholding your body. Thank 
you." "Get the idea of withholding your body. Thank you," he'll wind 
up in all kinds of dogfights and all kinds of activities of one kind 
or another where he was trying to do something. It's not a good 
method of spotting overts, but that would find a hell of a lot of 
overts. You'd find a lot of overts.

You say, "Get the idea of withholding your body. Thank you." "Get the 
idea of withholding your body. Thank you." And the guy would be 
parked right in a whole series of overts. They wouldn't necessarily 
resolve, because that isn't where he's stuck. He's stuck just a 
little bit later, in each particular case, because - if he's stuck at 
all - because withholding your body from a dogfight is a moral 
action. That is a moral action. It's immoral to depart from your 
squadron. But to do something which is against the survival of the 
squadron and withhold that is far more aberrative. Far more 
aberrative.

So, the transgressions against the group: Well, that's all this thing 
adds up to. That's all there is to it. That's all there is to an 
overt act-motivator sequence, that is all there is to taking one 
apart and that is how everybody is stuck.

Now, I'll give you - I've given you a Class II auditor skill, which 
is simply "Locate the prior confusion." Now, when you locate the 
prior confusion, of course, you're going to locate some prior co-
motion - motion with - and you will fall at once into an overt, and 
then you'll fall into the withhold. And you keep saying "prior 
confusion" and you'll just go bing-bing! See? You can force the pc's 
attention into the prior confusion, they come up to the overt and 
they'll hit the withhold - zoomp, boomp, bang! It's just a one, two, 
three, because that's the way it goes. Because they're held on the 
track by the prior confusion, apparently held on the track by the 
prior confusion, but only because they have a withhold later.

So it takes all three steps to park somebody on the track. It takes a 
prior coaction, then it takes an overt and then it takes a withhold. 
And when you've got those three things, you get a person stuck on the 
track, and that's all there is to it. And that makes up the reactive 
bank. And that is the anatomy of the reactive bank.

First there is coaction, then there are overts and then there are 
withholds. And then that compositely gives us, eventually, a total 
jam of time. And that total jam of time, totally buried, becomes the 
reactive mind, and that is the reactive mind. And that's all there is 
to the anatomy of the reactive mind. That's the lot.

Now, when you clear somebody, you, of course, clear those identities 
which the person has more or less teamed up with, and those 
identities and their now-I'm-supposed-tos and their particular 
withholds, and withholding these identities, and helping the - first 
helping the survival of the identity, then overts with or against the 
identity and then withholds with or from the identity. And that is 
the goals terminal that you are running, and that's the anatomy of 
the goals terminal, when you get right down to it. When you run the 
Prehav Scale, you run all the sides of this thing off.

Every engram a person has, has these "stucks" that has this sequence 
in it. This you will find every place. This is the pattern which is 
stamped all over the universe.

Now, I would be less than kind if I didn't give you a very broad, 
general process that anybody could run rather easily, but there is 
one which knocks this rather heavily. There is one which is rather 
amusing. There is a rather amusing experimental process about this: 
is you find something the person has identified with something, and 
you simply tell him to think of a mutual action with the one and then 
a mutual action with the other, and of course these two 
identifications will spring apart.

I'm giving you an idea. You find out, quite by accident or by being 
smart or something of the sort - you find out that the pc has horses 
and beds totally identified. So you say, "All right. Think of a 
coaction, or a mutual action with a horse. Good. Think of a mutual 
action with a bed. Thank you. Think of a mutual action with a horse. 
Good. Think of a mutual action with a bed. Thank you." And all of a 
sudden these two identifications will spring apart.

Don't get bugged off into this, because all of a sudden, fifteen or 
twenty other subjects will emerge out of that particular zone. Well, 
don't get him to thinking about those too. Just keep him with horses 
and beds. Oh, he'll be thinking about horses, women, beds. That's the 
first thing that'll appear on the thing. Well, if you Qed and Aed 
with him, you'd say, "Well, think of a horse. Think of a woman. Think 
of a bed. Think of a mutual action with a woman. Think of a mutual 
action with a bed." That's been suggested to him, don't you see, by 
the stuff that's coming up. Well, don't Q-and-A with it because the 
next thing you know, he'd think in connection with beds, laundresses, 
for some reason or other, you see? If you Qed and Aed you'd say, 
"Think of a mutual action with a horse. Think of a mutual action with 
a woman. Think of a mutual action with a bed. Think of a mutual 
action with laundresses," see? And this will keep on. And you could 
get about seven or eight hundred of these things, and seven or eight 
hundred pieces of the auditing command. It'd be seven hundred or 
eight hundred parts to the auditing command if you just kept this up. 
So you better not do that. You just better say, "Think of mutual 
action with a horse. Think of mutual action with a bed," and go on 
that way, and he will just give you more stuff that is tearing off of 
the bank, because, of course, you've found a point of direct cross.

That is not a very practical activity, but it's an interesting 
activity.

Here is one, however, which is very practical and is abroad, one-
command process and nothing else but. And that process is: "Tell me a 
group you are no longer part of," or any phrase, phrasing thereof.

[The old reel runs out at this point. However, you can hear him
lighting another cigarrette in the middle of the above paragraph,
as if he was planning to continue talking further, so we assume
that the lecture continued beyond this point. It is possible that
the end of the lecture was unrecorded and that the clearsound
version spliced in the ending "Thank you" from another lecture.
It is also possible that there is a missing section here on the
master which was edited out in the clearsound edition. Note that
this is one of the BC lectures where the mike is well enough
adjusted to pick up the Ron's cigarrette lighter sounds which 
occur occasionally throught the lecture (always edited out in
clearsound versions). This is a 1962 tape, when it was still
normal to smoke in the BC classroom.]


Thank you.

Audience: Thank you.


======== END OF LECTURE ========
