From: Secret Squirrel <squirrel@echelon.alias.net>
Subject: FZ Bible Level 4 Tapes 01/12
Date: 12 Nov 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <b5d39825bf37f406431905f59965777d@anonymous.poster>
Sender: Secret Squirrel <squirrel@echelon.alias.net>
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net
Comments: Please report problems with this automated remailing service to <squirrel-admin@echelon.alias.net>. The message sender's identity is unknown, unlogged, and not replyable.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST
LEVEL 4 ACADEMY TAPES 01/12

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

ACADEMY LEVEL 4 TAPES - Contents

SHSBC = St. Hill Special Briefing Course
ren = as renumbered in the new BC cassettes.

01 SHSBC-299  ren 328 27 Aug 63 Rightness and Wrongness
02 SHSBC-300  ren 329 28 Aug 63 The Tone Arm And The Service Facsimile
03 SHSBC-301  ren 330 29 Aug 63 The Service Facsimile
04 SHSBC-302a ren 331  3 Sep 63 R3SC
05 SHSBC-302  ren 332  4 Sep 63 How to Find a Service Facsimile
06 SHSBC-303  ren 333  5 Sep 63 Service Fac Assessment
07 SHSBC-304  ren 334 10 Sep 63 Destimulation of a Case
08 SHSBC-306  ren 335 11 Sep 63 Service Facs and GPMs
09 SHSBC-305  ren 336 12 Sep 63 Service Facsimiles
10 SHSBC-307  ren 337 17 Sep 63 What You Are Auditing
11 SHSBC-308  ren 338 18 Sep 63 Saint Hill Service Facsimile Handling
12 SH Spec-73 ren 436  2 Aug 66 Suppressives and GAEs

Many but not all were checked against the old reels (as noted
on the individual transcripts.)

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

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 freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  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 Judaism 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

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

SHSBC-299 ren 328 27 Aug 63 Rightness and Wrongness

RIGHTNESS AND WRONGNESS

A lecture given on

27 August 1963

[80 minutes]

[Clearsound checked against the old reels.  Omissions marked ">".]


Thank you.

> It got up anyhow, I'm not saying how.  As soon as we get
> the back here, you'll see this room a little sound deaf, 
> much better for your auditing.

All right. What is this?

Audience: August 27.

27 August A.D. 13, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course.

> Bark, Bark, Bark.  One, Two, Three, Four.  Is that better?
>
> Here are a couple of new students I'd like to have stand up
> and take a bow.  David Aldrich.  And Bill Hansen.

All right. If I can get the text written on it, these two
new students will be getting a Scientology I process known
as Acquaintance with Saint Hill. We're making strides here
at an incredible rate of speed on a lot of things, and I've
been working hard on getting processes arranged as to their
exact uses and getting exactly what you can do with a case
and how to put a PC's tone arm exactly under the auditor's
control so the auditor doesn't have to worry about it and
so forth.

There have been quite a few breakthroughs of great
importance here recently. And all this stuff is going down
in bulletin form, and I thought this morning - I was sitting
there, I was thinking to myself, well, this morning, here I
should be putting it all down in a bulletin; I'll probably
go out there and put it down in a lecture, don't you see?
And then having put it down in a lecture, then I won't
bother to put it down in a bulletin, you see? Then you'll
all forget about it because it was just in a lecture, don't
you see? Horrible. So it left me in between, you see. So I
didn't know whether to give you a lecture on the subject of
what I was currently doing, you see, and what you needed to
know, or throw away the lecture and put it down in a
bulletin, and it left me in a terrible confusion. So I
guess the best way to resolve the confusion is just tell
you what I know about it and also write it down in the
bulletin. But you probably won't see the bulletin for a
long time, so you better get it here.

Very complicated. Are you sufficiently confused about it?
If I keep on this way, you see, you won't in a moment know
whether you're reading a bulletin or listening to a
lecture. And this is Russian technology, Russian
technology: how to convince somebody that black is white
and that he's somewhere else when he isn't.

It's Lubyanka Prison, I think, they practice this sort of
thing. A guy is walking down to an interrogation, a woman
dentist will step out from a secret door in the hall and
start examining his teeth. See, totally non sequitur. The
guy is trying to understand this, you see? And while he's
busy trying to understand this, something else
unpredictable happens to him, see? Guy's come in looking
tough with big rubber hoses, and so forth, and offer him a
cigarette and talk about his wife, you know? It's all th-
th-th-th-th-th, see? When he gets through, he doesn't know
what he is or where he is, so he joins the communists.

The use to which mental technology is put in this universe,
remember, is put that way and is put to the use it is put
to in this universe because people don't know what they're
doing, because there is no mental technology.

Now, if you stop and think about it for a moment, the
purposes of mental technology must consist of survival,
with its consequent domination, necessity to, and must,
therefore, thereafter, consist of being right and wrong. It
may be somewhat mysterious to you how these three things
fit together in a channel, but they do. This fellow is
trying to be right, trying to be right, trying to be right.
Why is he trying to be right? He's trying to be right about
the most aberrated things you ever heard of. He's always
trying to be right.

If you as an auditor look at this bloke who is suffering
from alcoholism or dope addiction or something like this, 
there's one thing that you can always be right about, see? 
It might be that it was made available to him while he was 
in high school and he was being blackmailed into it and he 
was this and that. And it might be this and it might be that 
and it might be something else, and it might be because his 
medulla oblongata has slipped - a lot of might-be's, might-be's, 
might-be's - but in actual fact all he's trying to do is be 
right. And if you want to be right about him, then you should 
realize that the reason he is drinking or hitting dope or 
something like that, or doing anything else he's doing, or 
cooking bad dinners or anything else - whatever else this 
person is doing which is apparently weird or contrasurvival -
is in actual fact his effort to be right. And you can always 
be right about somebody's aberrations when you recognize 
they're trying to be right. That is the lowest ebb of 
aberration. Sounds completely weird.

Well, that's because a thetan can't do anything else but
survive, and in order to survive you have to be right more
than you're wrong, so you get obsessed in being right. This
is elementary, my dear Watson. Do you follow that?

If you go out here and make a practice of being wrong,
wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, you're not going to survive.
See, if you're always going to be wrong: you go out here
and you get on a motorcycle, and you turn the petrol on and
you turn the spark on full, advance it all the way,
and - particularly one of these big boys - and kick the kick
starter, and so forth, you sail somewhat gracefully over
between the handlebars because the machine kicks back.
Well, if you consistently do this, why, you're apt to be
nonsurvival in the extreme. You follow this? So, actually,
right and wrong are the tools of survival ant nonsurvival.
In order to survive, you have to be right. In order to get
somebody else to succumb, they; have to be wrong. You
follow this?

You see, actually, no great military commander ever wins a
battle on anything else but the wrongnesses of the enemy.
And he compounds these wrongnesses up to a total attack
which really makes them wrong. So even they realize they
are wrong, and of course at that moment they no longer
survive. And the point you degenerate into succumb from
survive is the point where you recognize you are wrong.
That is the beginning of succumb - the recognition that you
are wrong.

Naturally then, if that is true - and that is true; that's
not sensible, it's true - naturally this follows, then, that
if a person is surviving at all, if they are "thetaning" at
all, no matter inside of what mass, there must be some
residual rightness, even if it's only an insistence upon
rightness. So rightness goes hand in glove, immediately,
with survival.

So this works itself back and forth into an aberrated
A=A=A. If the individual is surviving, he must be right. It
can even go to - if an individual is undertaking an action,
it must be a right action, if he is surviving. Do you see
how A=A=A this becomes. In fact, it becomes complete idiocy
from the lucidity of its begining because in actual fact
there was nothing for a thetan to worry about survival in
the first place.

See, he has to enter this lie into the scene before he gets
off into this other series of lies. He starts worrying
about his own survival. Now, we can well ask, "How does he
start worrying about his own survival?" Well, he worries
about the survival of something else and then identifies
himself with it. You see? He says, "This thing has got to
survive, and I am it, so therefore..." and here comes his
nest lie - and he needn't make this fantastic lie at all, but
they manage it - and that is "I am now worried about my
survival." And actually, it isn't until he takes that step
that he goes halfway round the bend. See, he's practically
finished now.

There is no reason at all, just because you have built a
bunch of sand castles and are protecting these sand castles
from destruction by the tide or naughty boys - there's no
reason at all that you can't go on protecting these sand
castles ad infinitum and safeguarding their survival. You
don't have to take the idiot step of becoming a sand
castle. See? It isn't until the individual takes that idiot
step of becoming a sand castle that he himself becomes
worried about his own survival.

But at the moment he becomes worried about his own
survival, he then enters into the necessity to dominate in
order to continue to survive. Best way to protect your sand
castles, of course, is to dominate anybody who would
threaten to destroy your sand castles. That's elementary,
isn't it? You have to be tougher than the other tough boys
on the beach, in other words. You have to dominate their
behavior to the degree of restraining them from destroying
the sand castles. This makes domination a necessity, if
you've already entered the game of survival. See, you don't
even have to have become a sand castle to start dominating.

Now, what happens now? What happens now? The game of
domination consists of being right and making the other
fellow wrong. And that is all the game consists of. There
isn't any other ... I mean, out of this vast universe, you 
finally shake out this one little, tiny, idiotic simplicity,
you know, and it all makes everything look silly, you know,
when you come to think about it.

Russia and the United States - the great game; Well, that's
silly! The game is silly. Russia has to dominate the United
States in order to survive; therefore, capitalism has to be
wrong; therefore, communism has to be right. The United
States has to dominate Russia in order to survive, so
communism has to be wrong and capitalism (capitalism?) has
to be right. What's wrong with this? Well, what's wrong
with this is there isn't any capitalism to amount to
anything. Ha! And there's practically no communism. That's
getting idiotic about that stage of the game, you see?
Anybody can see that one.

But let's go back to why does Russia have to dominate the
United States and why does the United States have to
dominate Russia. Well, that's because Russia is liable to
destroy everything in the United States, and the United
States is liable to destroy everything in Russia.

Now, let's look at this a little more closely.

Why are they liable to destroy everything in the United
States and Russia? Why is this liable to happen? I don't
think you have any more answer than anybody else does.
Exactly why? Well, that's because Russia is threatening to
destroy everything in the United States, and the United
States is threatening to destroy everything in Russia. And
that's why the United States have to be very careful not to
be destroyed by Russia, and Russia has to be very careful
not to be destroyed by the United States. You see, this is
very elementary.

You work this thing out. You don't need these Russian
idiocies pronounced at great length to explain the
international situation, to see, actually, what is taking
place. Yes, but Russia is devoting so much of her
production capacity to weapons and rocketry and other
things in order to dominate the United States, that
communism is failing. And the United States is devoting so
much of its production capacity - it actually amounts now to
three quarters of the total production capacity of the
United States and three quarters of the total engineers,
scientists and technicians of the United States are involved
in this effort - that it is destroying capitalism.

Because, you see, it "has to" in order to keep the effort
going, in order not to be destroyed.

Well, this is a typical game.

You start examining this game on the basis of survive,
dominate and right and wrong, and where's the right and
wrong come in - you start to examine it, or examine any game
on the basis of just these things: survival, domination and
rightness and wrongness. Examine the game and immediately
the rightness and wrongness that you see residual in it
appears to be pretty mixed up.

Well, the United States would be very wrong to destroy its
economic stability and prosperity in order to destroy
communistic economic dominance or prosperity, see? And
reversely, communism would be very wrong to destroy any
benefit residual in any communistic system, if there is
any, in order to knock out the capitalistic lines, you see?
She'd be wrong to do that, but she is doing it and she is
doing it on the supposition that she is right. And the
United States is doing all this on the supposition that it
is right. So you'll see that A=A enters into the situation
where rightness becomes wrongness. And people will defend
the most fantastic wrongnesses on the basis that they are
being right.

As you audit people, if you specialize in this particular
line as you audit them you will sometimes be appalled by
the justification of the person's own actions. You're
utterly appalled.

Gauze is armor plate compared to the argument that they
will put up, don't you see? I mean, they put up this thin
facade. "Well, you see, the reason I left my wife ...
reason I left my wife is because she seldom, uh ... very,
very seldom, uh ... was ever home, you see, to put out my
bedroom slippers. And therefore, I had to leave her."

"Well, why wasn't she home?"

"Well, she was working and supporting me."

And you say, "End of scene. Rmrmrm." And yet he will go
right on leaving, you see, and staying "left," and
perpetuate this action and defend it down to his last breath.

I can see it now, the hammer and sickle flying over the
White House, you know, and all of the arguments and press
releases that are coming out from the White House saying,
"Down with Russia," you see? "Down with Russia. We are
absolutely right to continue to support capitalism."

Then you'll say finally, "Well, what is capitalism?"

"Well, capitalism is all the workers are told exactly where
to work, and exactly how much they're going to get, and all
the property belongs to the government, and a capitalist
gives you a clenched-fist salute. That's what ... And we
are being right. This is a right action. And it's right,
what we are doing."

Well, maybe the actions were sensible. If you look down
along the line, you see, you'll see some sensible actions
have taken place, and this is what throws you. Because you
can see some sensible actions going forward through all
this, and you may understand some of this, but what you
don't understand is how right this is, or why they don't
recognize that the consequences of it are just wrongness,
and that they are actually being very wrong while they are
saying they are being very right.

You go over to Russia and say, "How come you got income tax
these days, bud? How come your workers all get different
rates of pay, and status symbols which seem to be entering
in here, and what's all this about some unions being
organized, and well, what's all this going on here? This
doesn't look like communism to me."

"Oh, yes, yes, yeah. Oh, this - this is communism. This is
communism. You see, a good communist - a good communist loans
money at interest. That's the definition of a good
communist. And we're perfectly right in everything we are
doing. And that is really correct communism."

And you look at this and it just becomes complete idiocy to
you. You don't see whether you are coming or going, you
see? What is all this about?

Well, you see this sort of thing taking place on the
international front. It's very, very easy to recognize at
that level of action. Very easy to recognize. But it's not
quite so easy to recognize when you see this skid-row bum.
He's just all soiled from having spent the night in the
gutter, you see? And you smell the canned heat on his
breath, you know? And there he is, you see? He's about
ready to hit the chutes. Now somebody tells you, "Why is he
doing it?" 

"He is doing it because it is a right action."

You say, "Oh, no!"

"Yes," you say, "he's being right. He is asserting the
rightness of being a skid-row bum and canned heat and all
the rest of that. And he's asserting that as a rightness.
And that is why he is doing it."

Well, you see, you've undercut the simplicity and you've
left a large zone of unreality, because the society itself
has worked out all kinds of rightnesses and, wrongnesses on
its own bat as to why he's a canned-heat eater, see? They
worked out this fantastic ... "Well," they say, "after
all, he probably had few opportunities in his youth." The
guys who want more appropriation for the university say he
never had a chance to get a university education, you see?
The milk producers who want to sell more milk said, "Didn't
have enough milk and there wasn't enough strontium 90 in it."

Everybody has got explanations for this, so you come down
to the final, last-ditch explanation, which is the right
one, and nobody recognizes the rightness of the explanation. 
He is asserting the rightness of eating canned heat. Why? 
Because everybody has always tried to make him wrong. His 
automatic response is to be right, so he has no choice but 
to eat canned heat. Get the idea?

Now, if he at any given instant says, "I am wrong to eat
canned heat," he'll collapse. He's finished. He may go into
a coma. He may even die. I mean, it's on that elementary
basis. It's a fantastically elementary situation.

What is it all about? Well, behavior doesn't necessarily
have everything to do with the whole track, you understand?
Behavior is behavior, and then people have tried to
aberrate it one way or the other and have tried to twist it
around one way or the other and mess it up and make people
do some other way, but the science of life still remains
the science of life.

The factors of life still remain the factors of life. And
if you were to delete all of the GPMs and incidents and
everything else, you would not have removed the basic laws
on which Scientology is built. That's interesting, isn't
it? Come to think about it, you get so involved in erasing
things. These simply enforce and exaggerate and destroy
freedom of choice. They destroy freedom of choice over the
exercise of the ability to be happy or powerful or normal
or active, or something of the sort. They destroy power.
They destroy freedom of choice. They destroy the ability to
be self-determined or to be pan-determined about things.
They make a person one-sided about everything under the
sun, you see?

And they simply use basic and residual law - unwittingly, 
by the way - to exaggerate certain things which then lead 
a person to enslave himself. And the basic mechanism of
enslavement is survival - the insistence upon surviving,
followed by the necessity to dominate, followed by, then,
the necessity to be right or wrong.

The necessity to be right or wrong then becomes as
irrational as the original postulate to survive. And these
postulates go downhill, and you will find in them the most
incredible situations you will find. You will blink - I told
you about this, you look for it. And one of these days you
are really going to blink at what somebody is doing in
order to be right. They just become totally concentrated on
the last way they can be right. This is how they can be
right! And everybody's working all around them, on top of
them, pounding them, publicizing them, kicking their head
in on the subject, and the more that people kick, why,
there it is.

Then the person will go more degraded. You'll see sometimes
a person who is only nominally degraded - they're a
politician or something like that, see? And you'll see this
person go downhill and become a covert criminal and slip a
little bit further and a little bit further. And you'll see
him out lecturing for the Salvation Army, protesting
against the very thing which they recently held to be
right. This individual has sort of died a death now. He is
talking about going to heaven. He's talking about being
dead. That is mainly what he's talking about.

You very often go into - you go into a church of one of these
older faiths, and you'll find the minister up there
haranguing and screaming, you know, about "the evils of the
demon rum," or something like that, to the congregation.
"Stay ye away from that pub, bud," you know? Yelling, you
know? And he goes back to his study, you see, and he takes
this little nip of medicine to fortify himself, you see, 
after the exertions of his lecture.

Now, these birds who are working this hard were working
inevitably and invariably in the field and area of death,
because they are right down to the point where you get an
aberrated rightness and wrongness; cessation of survival is
so threatened that it becomes imminent. It actually gets
dramatized before it happens.

And you'll see somebody turning against religion because of
the amount of hypocrisy in it.

You know, the guy is saying, "Well..." Well, the Roman
Catholic church probably lost its grip on the world which
it's trying to reassert now by killing off the Buddhist. I
beg your pardon, the better interpretation is that it's
only those in charge in Vietnam who are members of the
Catholic church. That actually isn't everybody. There are
some Presbyterians there, too, in the American troops, and
so forth.

I have opened up a chapter here which is leaving you blinking 
just a little bit.

I'm sure somebody is going to make the assumption sooner or
later, though, that if the only government in the world
being maintained in force actively by U.S. arms is a
Catholic government, that that government's turning against
another religion has something to do with something here
that we haven't quite put the finger on. And we add to the
fact that that same government is attacking the only other
organization on the face of earth who doesn't believe in
death forever, we begin to ask interesting questions. You
probably hadn't linked the attacks on the Buddhist up with
U.S. arms supporting the government of Vietnam, nor the
attacks of the FDA against the FCDC in Washington, D.C.

Yeah, everybody else is all right. Criminals, they're fine,
and so forth. Everybody's all right.

But it's just these two organizations on the face of earth
plus one other, the Theosophist, who talk about
reincarnation and who talk about coming back to life again
and who talk about these other things. And it's an oddity
that just in the last two or three years all three of these
organizations have been furiously attacked by the U.S.
government. Sort of an interesting puzzle, isn't it? Well
don't worry about it. We'll get there before they do. This
is just an interjected thing.

Now, they're evidently asserting a rightness about death. I
know it's mean of me, it's cabalist, it's rabble-rousing
for me to infer that the majesty of government is actually
being used to further some foul, religious end in some way
and to cause everybody to be dead. But I'm very interested
in the fact that the Church of England, of all
organizations, right down here in the form of a vicar (who,
I think, has had to move since). This bird - I'm looking at 
a face or two here who were present in this - was being 
very censorious about our giving death lessons to young
children. Story went around the world. What do you think
this guy does every time he stands up there in the pulpit?
It gives one to wonder, you know? He's talking about going
to heaven and all this sort of thing. He's giving death
lessons to little kids.

Diana came home from school one day crying. She was going
to a local school up here. She wanted to know if all this
stuff about poor Christ was true. And I gave her the hot
dope, and ... Well, as a matter of fact, I did. I was very 
reasonable about the whole thing. I said, "Native populaces 
have their religious beliefs, and wherever you are, you must 
remain tolerant of the current beliefs," and so forth, and 
she took this in.

But it's interesting that this bird down here is asserting
how wrong it is, don't you see, to give children death
lessons while he himself is giving them death lessons. Only
our death lessons are straight dope - this is what happens
with regard to death - but his are a darn lie. Somehow or
another, this makes him right. How does this make him
right? Well, you can just go round in circles trying to
figure out what's the rightness and wrongness of this, you
see? Why should a powerful state attack a truthful philosophy, 
you see? Why, you know, why some of the calmest and most 
decent people in Asia - the Buddhists - why are these 
people being attacked and shot down and their pagodas
burned and that sort of thing? Why? What ... ? And you
can go round and round and you can get real confused and
you'll get real upset.

Well, there's always one stable datum. There's always one
stable datum: Somehow, whatever they're doing - no matter how
mad the action may appear  - is undertaken by them to be right.

Now, you would actually have to get them on a meter or get
them to explain and put in a long, long itsa line on this
subject and get off the automaticities until they finally
told you the rationale. And the reason it isn't a rationale
is because A=A=A along the whole line. You just would not
be able to believe how or why this guy had to, you know,
[eat] canned heat.

You ask him a question, "Now, how does it make you right to
eat canned heat?" You say, well, he sure can't answer that,
you know, because - ha-ha! It's ruining him. Everybody has
been down on him. The "I Will Arise" and everybody else is
jumping him about this, and he's been talked to by all the
ministers and everybody. He's read about how the evils that
it'll do and so forth. So, heh-heh, he can't defend this
one so, of course, one would never normally ask that
question. So "How does it make you right to eat canned
heat?" See? Well, brother, only an auditor would be able to
adventure this far, because you're going to get a screaming
automaticity.

Well, it makes him right - "Eat canned heat? Well, that's 
.." Makes him right because rah-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da
and ta-da-da-da-da-da, and that makes him right. And
ta-da-da-da da, and that makes him right. And " ... eat
canned heat, and therefore, this makes that right and
it's - that right and that right, and so forth, and so on and
so on and so on and so on and ..." I mean, you finally get
through, this thing has practically wound itself around the
dial.

And you say "All right, now. Now, how does it make someone
else wrong?" "Oh, ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! So-so and so-and-so and
so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so and
so-and-so and so-and-so, and so-and-so and so-and-so and
my father, and so forth and so on.

And I parked my bicycle on the church steps there one day,
and that old minister came out and - and he actually had the
police take away my bicycle, and so forth, and he always
was lecturing on the lectures of drink, you see? The evils
of drink and so forth and so on - ha-ha! There you are. That
should - wait a minute. That isn't sensible."

And do you know, whether he has understood it very well or
not, he will, now have a very hard time eating canned heat.
See, here's sanitariums, the Keeler Institute; Keeley, I
think it is.

One has lie detectors and the other has alcoholism. I
always got them missed ... He's been there. He's been
treated. He's been biochemically injected, you know? He's
been psychoanalyzed. He's been everything you could think
of, see? They've given him stuff that when he eats canned
heat it makes him sick. He just goes right on eating canned
heat. There wasn't any stopping it because of this block - 
this block he had. And that intention is the strongest 
intention in the universe. There is no stronger intention 
than that at a mental level.

Above that, of course, you have the effort to dominate, and
above that level you have the effort to survive. These
things are very strong, but I'm talking about a mental
activity: a mental activity, a thinking activity, an
intentional activity - strongest intention. Survival - that
just happens, you see? Domination - that just happens. Those
are not intended things. You get down along the line of
intended, and it's right and wrong. And that's where that
lives.

This becomes very remarkable. We've got this teenage girl,
and she's running around and having an awful time. And
she's been arrested and lectured to and shown motion
pictures and been horrified and hit over the head and
defamed and threatened with kicking out of her home that if
she doesn't behave on the second dynamic, you see. And she
goes right on misbehaving and that sort of thing and so on
and so on and so on. Now, this is an actual case history.

I had one in my office one day. Changed her whole
life - almost accidental. One of the research cases that
furnishes data that leads to data of this particular kind.
She was just trying to make her parents wrong. She realized
it. That was the change of her behavior pattern, right
there. We didn't even touch in that particular case on her
trying to be right. She was just trying to make her parents
wrong. Well, obviously? how could you make them wrong?
Well, you could make them wrong by trying to make them
change their mind on what they insisted upon the most.

And the diagnosis of how do you make a person wrong is,
what does that person most insist upon? Therefore, if that 
person most insists upon this particular factor, then that 
is the one you must make them wrong on.

So the criminal tries to make the forces of law and order
wrong, you see? The diagnosis taken from the viewpoint of
the being involved is simply, what are these persons
insisting is wrong? What do these people insist is wrong?
And then make them wrong on it. It's a perfect Q and A,
see? What they say is wrong: make them wrong. You can't get
a closer identification than that, you see? Mother is
saying, "Be a good girl, daughter. Be a good girl,
daughter. Be a good girl, daughter. Be a good girl,
daughter." Daughter, getting more and more antagonistic
against the old lady - she knows now exactly how to handle
Mama. You make Mama wrong. How do you make Mama wrong? All
you got to be is not a good daughter. Elementary, my dear
Watson, see?

It isn't what aberration the individual is dramatizing.
It's what aberration does the individual dredge up in order
to make somebody wrong. That's behavior. See, it isn't the
accidental thing that you think it is.

So we've got a schoolteacher. And he says, "Children, you
mustn't chew gum. Children, you mustn't chew gum. Children,
you mustn't chew gum." Well, the characters that like him
the least are going to chew gum. Don't you see? That's how
to make him wrong. You can't destroy him overtly with 16
inch guns, but you can cave him in trying to make him wrong
covertly. And he'll sit around ant worry about those
children chewing gum. It does. It serves to cave him in,
too, a little bit, you know - a little bit, a little bit, a
little bit. He may even go away sometime and stop teaching
school and leave the children alone, you see? This is
fantastic.

So a government which is trying to conduct decent law and
order has worked against it, continuously, this factor:
that bringing about decent law and order is wrong. Now, a
government with that force pushed against it continuously,
endlessly, on and on and on, will eventually come to the
realization of exactly what keeping law and order is: It's
being as criminal as possible. See, it's been made wrong to
a point where it now identifies the right label with the
wrong action. It knows how to be wrong: to be a decent
government.

See, on this broader perimeter you watch this thing as it
works its way out. If you can see that, it gives you a
rather vast understanding of aberration. Now, whether or
not you can reach this aberration is not the subject. This
is simply, can you understand it? Not whether or not you
can reach it and do something about it with an E-Meter;
because this particular rationale, although it is very
true, happens to have been booby-trapped by some very
evil-intentioned characters on the whole track, who
implanted goals which contain - and items and implants 
and GPMs -  which contain in them right and wrong.

And you start running an individual very long on rightness
or wrongness, he is liable to collide with one of these
implants and it goes into restimulation, and the cure is
therefore barred. And you're unable to cure him of this
particular thing, because you can't audit him on the
process necessary to resolve that particular facet of
aberration. This is a barrier, in other words, that's been
installed. It is totally accidental that right and wrong
are there, and he is not acting the way he is acting
because he has that GPM.

Now get that through your head, see? He's not. That just
intensifies this action, but it doesn't bring about that
action. That action would, in any event, exist whether or
not there had ever been an implanter or not. But
unfortunately there have been some of these implants, so
you can't ordinarily say with complete security - oh, yes,
you can without any security, and often get away with
it - ask this little girl, "Now, how does being sexually
promiscuous make you right, and who does it make wrong, and
how does it make them wrong?" see, and get those two things
worked out, and all of a sudden she's completely reformed.
She isn't doing this at all. Oddly enough, she's no longer
able - this isn't necessarily making her well - she's just no
longer able to get the power into it that she had in it;
she's no longer this interested in it; she's no longer this
fixated on it. Because in any itsa line you will tend to
trigger out enough to deintensify the force ant power and
concentration of the aberration.

It's very interesting that aberration is very hard to
maintain. Let's say this fellow is - he's an accident prone.
He takes an automobile out and runs it into a brick wall;
and he takes an automobile out and he runs it off the edge
of an embankment; and he takes an automobile out and he
runs into another automobile; and he takes an automobile
out and he leaves it parked on the train track, and so
forth. And you let him come anywhere near this automobile
well, all of us have accidents to some degree, but he is
carrying it to excess.

And sooner or later somebody is going to notice the number
of accidents this character has.

And if you as an auditor noticed this and you were just
doing this job just for this thing in view - is just knock
out the number of accidents this character was having with
an automobile - you could first find out what he is having.
In other words, he might be having wrecks or he might be
having accidents, don't you see? You have to find out, what
is he having? That is necessary, because you sometimes are
very sure you know what the fellow is having, but that
isn't what he is having, see? He might be having physical
injury, see, not accidents at all. He might merely be
having physical injury. So you have to isolate that factor,
and that would be the stage of analysis.

This doesn't take very long, by the way. This is nothing
very laborious. This is more or less off the cuff.
Sometimes it's enough to listen to him on the subject of
these things, and he labels it several times for you, so
you just use it, you see? That's the ordinary off-the-cuff
assessment. Nevertheless, you have to dignify it with an
assessment. It's also the clarification of the auditing
command. You say, "All right. Now, how would an automobile
accident make you right?" or "How has it made you right?"
or any such thing as this. And you expect he's going to
have to sit there and fumble with this for quite a while.
Oh, no, brother! That is - if you've spotted it, that is
sitting right on top. That's the easiest itsa line you ever
had anything to do with - Brrrrrmrrrmrrr, and rrrrr - rrrr. 
And also rrrr-rrr-rrr-m-mrr.

All right. Now, you've got to keep this thing balanced
because you might run into a GPM, so don't leave him on one
side of it, see? You see, the GPM would say just right and
wrong.

You've personalized it, so it's "How would it make you
right?" and "How would it make them (or another) wrong?" do
you understand? Them wrong, you right. That is the way you
bias this thing. You understand, the GPM is totally - it
doesn't care. There's just a right and a wrong, so that you
could also play this thing the other way to, as far as the
GPM is concerned but not as far as the aberration is
concerned. Life is what has thrown this thing awry.

All right. So, we say to this fellow, then, when he runs
down and starts to catch his breath on the subject, and the
automaticities are out of the way - you have to sort of sit
back and wait for the automaticities to roll on this kind
of a process - you say to the individual, "How would it make
another or others wrong?" or "Who would it make wrong and
how?" I don't care how you put it, you see? But it's "who
wrong" out that way, you see, and "you right." That's the
way the question has to be designed. And if the question is
completely designed in this fashion, you will get another
rolling avalanche that will finally wind up with some
earlier life - that is, this life, usually - key-in, cognition,
of some kind or another. He'll find the first person he's
trying to leave make wrong on it. Very often this happens.

You don't have to direct it very much. He'll do most of his
direction on it. Then you turn around and you ask him
again, "Well, how would it make you right and how would it
make you wrong." Well, it tends to make a repetitive. type
process out of it. I'm not actually giving you a repetitive 
process. For instance, I'm looking at a student here that'll 
be going over to a Central Organization soon. There's two or 
three bad boys around that organization that have been raising 
hell with themselves and everybody else. It'd take, in actual 
fact, a good itsa line and two questions to resolve the whole 
ruddy mess. "How does borrowing money make you right?" And a 
half an hour later, "How does borrowing money make others 
wrong?" Now, it might not even be real to him, and he might 
have an awful time doing it, but that's the end of that 
behavior.

Now, this is processing actually below the level of recognition 
or cognition. You can dig this one awful deep with a pickax. 
You can also do some weird things to a case in changing its 
behavior going along this line. But too much of a good thing 
is too much of a good thing, and it's a hunt-and-punch process. 
In actual fact, contained in this is the answer to neurosis.

Neurosis could be defined as an antisocial action or an
anti survival action which is compulsively undertaken by
the individual. We just wrapped up the work of Sigmund Freud.

It's as elementary as that. You understand we didn't  - if
you don't intend to make the person happy, and don't intend
to make the person cheerful, don't intend anything except
just to fit the person better into the social framework,
and if that's all that mental therapy is for, why, you got
it wrapped up. I think it's faster than implanting.

Now, in the first place, the only condition for this sort
of thing is we have to be more capable of communicating,
perhaps. We have to be able to communicate to the person in
that we would have to listen to the person. We'd have to
listen to the person. We'd have to ask the person a
question. But we'd also have to get our hands on the person
in order to do that. The cowboy in the black hat has to get
his hands on the person to implant him too. And they also
have to do some communication, too don't they? And then
they create a hell of an ARC break, don't they? I think
they get twice as much aberrated behavior afterwards. I
don't think it's a solution. I don't think the development
of mental technology for the purpose of aberrating people
down to a level of powerlessness where they won't bother
us - I don't think that's a successful approach.

Well, let's just be practical. This has nothing to do with
decency or overt-motivators or anything else. Let's just be
cold-bloodedly practical, as cold-bloodedly practical as
these characters fancy themselves to be. I don't think that
it's valuable. I don't think it's valuable technology. It's
valuable to know about it, of course, from your point of
view. But as far as knowing how to implant people and
calling that a mental technology, or knowing how to give
somebody a transorbital leucotomy and calling that mental
healing, knowing how to shoot somebody with some weird
powder or something of the sort that makes them bounce
about in the middle of the floor for an hour or two, it
looks to me like all of those lines of action are unsuccessful. 
I don't think they're successful. They always have a hole in 
them, and the hole in them is that survival can futurely be 
threatened.

Suppose anybody ever undid it: I wish I had a nickel for
every implant station that's ever been destroyed. I've
known thetans to make a career out of it. In fact, I've
knows thetans to tilt a planet ten or fifteen degrees, with
the equivalent avalanches and glacial epochs and so forth,
or pull the air cover of a civilization just because it
went on implanting. In fact, there's a lot of things happen
because of this. Why? Because somebody was implanting. I
don't think it's a sensible solution at all. In fact, I
don't think it's a solution. I just think it's a
dramatization of rightness and wrongness. I don't think
there's any more intention about it than that.

Look at the amount of time and effort and energy expended.
Why, in any given day the appropriation of the U.S. armed
forces is probably less than the Marcabian appropriation
for the maintenance of implant stations. I think it's
expensive. I just think they do it because they are trying
to be right. I don't see any other reason for it at all.
They're trying to be right and make others wrong. That's all.

Now, you can add political significance just as you can on
Rusk's pronunciamentos: "NATO must be in accord with the
Franco-Berlin Wall unity because the ruddy rods are all on
the left side of the rifles," you see? "And therefore, all
us Turks must pull together with all us Hungarians because
the great entente of northern Rhodesia must be maintained,"
you see? Well, it's not quite as insane as that, but in
actual fact if you take it apart and examine it very
carefully, the aggregate sum total of it is insane. It is
not sensible. What's the end product of it? The end product
of it is no solution and a worsening condition.

Now, whenever you see this rightness-and-wrongness
situation where somebody is acting simply to be right and
making others wrong simply to make others wrong - you know,
there's no more action to it than that, no more reason to
it than that - whenever you see that, you'll see a worsening 
condition. Wherever that zone and area is, you'll see things 
worsening.

The young girl trying to make her mother wrong with sexual
misbehavior: that young girl is getting worse herself and
is making her family worse, don't you see? In other words,
it isn't that a status quo is being maintained. You're
getting a dwindling spiral out of this sort of a thing,
see? It's the last dregs of domination, this whole action,
you see? No matter how covert it is, it's still an effort
to dominate. It's like the guy lying on the ground with
four knives in him, he's still being right and the enemy is
still wrong. It's still his final effort, you see, to
dominate the enemy. And many of these methods of dominating
the enemy exist. And it's just an aberrated war which is in
progress.

Now, we look over this implant situation as an implantation
proposition, and we cannot really assign to it any
improvement of circumstances. If any improvement of
circumstances existed, it existed for such a short term as
to render it relatively useless. A short term on the whole
track might even go to a hundred thousand years. That's a
short term. That's no duration for an empire. They might
say, "Well, we've got it all licked here. We've got it all
solved," but they haven't. They've just got a lid on, and
you'll notice the situation deteriorates. The situation
gets worse, gets worse, gets worse.

So that any activity that enters in upon this type of a
rightness-wrongness solution - "We are doing what we are
doing simply to be right and simply to make somebody else
wrong" - any time any solution is entered which has that sole
rationale, you can then expect a continuous worsening, not
only of the person who is engaging in enforcing that
solution, but also the people in that person's vicinity. So
the whole thing becomes a dwindling spiral. This thing is
going to develop a leak sooner or later. It's going to blow
out at the edges, don't you see? Any such situation is
going to go blingo! someplace or another, because it isn't
a solution, it's a dramatization.

Now, you may not suspect it, but you are looking at the
final ranks not only of neurosis but psychosis. That is the
madman. That is the madman. He sees spiders on the wall.
Medical treatment consists of telling him there are no
spiders on the wall. This looks to me like one madman
handling another madman, both with the same solution. The
madman is saying, "I am being right and you are being
wrong," and the person "handling his case" is saying "I am
being right and you are being wrong." Because of this basic
agreement, you find many of these medicos winding up
themselves in the padded cells.

First place, they don't understand what they are doing.
They don't understand that their solution is just as crazy
as the patient's assertions.

Guy is having trouble thinking: cut his brain up. Can't
think. Well, ding, ding, ding, here comes the wagon, man!
This is nonsense, don't you see? I mean, there isn't
anything to be gained in this. I don't see anything
happening on the subject of medical mental healing but more
insane people. The insane population of the world is going
up, up, up, up, and the medical doctors say they've got to
have more people to take care of these insane and there
have got to be more buildings to take care of them.
Statistics are increasing. Statistics are going up.

There are more and more people going insane. And therefore,
we got to have more doctors to make more people insane.

You begin to look at this after a while - you say, what the
devil is wrong with a legislator who won't look over how
fast the statistics are rising on insanity, therefore, the
money we have been appropriating it for is being wasted?
Obviously, there is no proper solution to this, we obviously 
have the wrong people on the job. But they never do this 
because they're engaged themselves in a rightness-wrongness 
type of piece of nonsense, and most of government is how to 
be wrong convincingly. So the end product of the thing is 
no solution, don't you see? You want to know why they did 
this to you, or why you ever did something to somebody else.

Well, in the final analysis, the overt-motivator sequence
hinges, basically, simply upon this aberration concerning
survival - the effort to dominate - which falls into a
contest of "I'm right and you're wrong."

Now both sides are saying "I'm right and you're wrong," and
therefore, you get a double-clashing sort of a proposition.
You have A saying "I'm right and you're wrong"; you have B
saying "I'm right and you're wrong." You get a natural
commingling of their ideas. After a while they don't know
what the hell they're talking about. They don't know what's
right. They don't even know what they started out to say
was right, you see?

Now, a mental technology, so-called, which engages itself
upon the worsening of people, or making people wrong and
making themselves right as an exclusive activity, is not in
essence a very broad or a very intelligent technology. This
is hardly worthy of the name "technology," yet it does have
technology, don't you see? It certainly is not a mental
science which embraces very much understanding. There's
very little understanding involved in this thing. Something
like the psychologist or Pavlov: if you put a young man on
the table and make a dog bark, the young man slavers. (I'm
being sarcastic.) Well, I don't know. I'm tempted to say on
the subject, you see, "Well, I don't know. I look around
and I'm not having any trouble with slavering dogs. I mean,
why are we working on this problem?" It's as idiotic a
statement, you see, as their own conclusions.

Stimulus-response mechanisms and so forth. Why be
interested in a stimulus-response mechanism? And, that
tells us right there that somebody must be interested in
being right and making the other fellow wrong. Don't you
see? The stimulus-response mechanism - that's as far as they
ever advanced. Stimulus-response mechanism. Well,
stimulus-response be damned.

The consequences of the stimulus-response is what the
Scientologist is interested in. And that goes at once into
the overt-motivator sequence.

You move right on upstairs from stimulus-response, you see,
into a proper piece of technology. They seem to have
avoided that whole piece of technology. Why? Because
they're only interested in being right and making somebody
else wrong, don't you see? Now, a mental science cannot be
worthy of the name "mental science" if it keeps dramatizing
an unknown one of its parts. See? That outlaws anything
which continues to dramatize one of its parts, you see. It
outlaws it from the proper name of a complete understanding. 
You said a science; a science would be a complete understanding 
of something. Well, if something is dramatizing one of its 
parts, it certainly does not have a complete understanding 
of life.

Now, the sciences of life are difficult just to this
degree: You are living. See, you have a day-by-day
interrelationship with the laws of life. And to rise
superior to this, in any way whatsoever, is so phenomenal
as not to have happened ever before. It's one of these
tricks. It's by your own bootstraps, don't you see? And for
a while, if you know all the aberrative angles, you find
yourself batting about in the bottle like a bluefly; see?
Every direction you fly, you run into something else. If
you started analyzing your own behavior in a single day
according to the basics that you know, and if you had all
of them available in Scientology, you see - if you analyzed
your behavior throughout any twenty-four-hour period, you'd
find out, a short period of that time, somewhere along the
line, you were dramatizing something. In fact, you wouldn't
have to do very much analysis.

In fact, right now, all these people out in front of me are
dramatizing breathing. Automaticity: they think to stay
alive they have to breathe. You tell some doll that
someplace and his jaw would drop, you know? You say, "Well,
you can't live on X-nu because there's no air." There'd be
a lot of beings that would look at you awfully blankly.

"What you want air for? What's the air supposed to do?"

"Well, you know, air, you know, air - you got to have air,
you got to have oxygen." "What are you going to do on X-nu
that you need oxygen for?" They'd try to figure it out how
you're going to put it in bottles or sell it or you ...
Maybe you got a new fuel for rocket ships has to do with 
oxygen. Couldn't make ... 

They'd finally understand what you were talking about. They'd 
finally understand that you were peculiar. You get the idea? 
So a total cessation of the dramatization of the game called
life, you see, renders one, at first glance, in a very
confused situation, since he's trying not to dramatize its
various parts, you see, and yet he inevitably must
dramatize certain of its parts. And then he finally comes
to the conclusion, "In order not to dramatize life, you
climb away to a large cave on the side of a very bare
mountain and hope people will put crusts of bread outside,
while you sit and meditate and don't have anything
whatsoever to do with life."

Now, by not having anything to do with life you have now
rendered yourself free of dramatizing life. And oddly
enough, there's enough workability to that. You get away
from all restimulative factors and your restimulation dies
down, you see? Get less restimulated, you feel quite calm.
So you say, "Well, this is the way to do it. You don't be
any part of life." No. The real challenge of a science of
life is to know it and be able to live - be able to live
that life, you see? That's the real challenge, and oddly
enough, if you know all the answers you can always do that.
It isn't necessary -  because you know a half a dozen lies,
you see, that you think are answers, it isn't necessary to
go crawling off to some cave all by your lonesome, you see?
You can stand out in the middle of life and live life,
don't you see? The final challenge of a science of life is
does it produce life? Not does it produce death? When you
analyze this thing all the way on down, it'll leave you
kind of buggy at first. You get all sorts of weird ideas.
"Well, maybe I ought to stop auditing. Maybe I ought to
leave auditing. And maybe I ought to get back to my
knitting or whatever else I was doing," don't you see? "And
I ought to ..." something or other.

And then you suddenly realize that what you're trying to do
is drop part of what you were doing, you see, in order to
get away from what you were dramatizing in order not to
dramatize.

You can get into an awful confused state, man. You can sit
around for days trying to sort something out along those
lines. Well, that's all right.

It's enough to realize, however, that you are in a situation 
where it can be sorted out. And that's a remarkable situation 
to be in. Very remarkable situation to be in.

Myself, I've had to groove off the importance's of
existence - what are the important things? -  because time,
making a problem, you see, has made it necessary to
concentrate on certain importance's of existence and wrap
these various things up. Well, that's a very proper
solution to the thing, but it certainly isn't inactive.
It's flat out, man, flat out - activity going along at a 
very high rate. I notice that there's more and more of a
tendency - more and more of a tendency as one goes along the
line - to recognize more and experience more life. He doesn't
have to work so hard to experience life. That's one of the
things.

Person who can't experience very much has to work very hard
to experience something, and get all involved trying to
experience existence. Existence is all around them. Walk
down the street and they're experiencing existence. But to
convince themselves that they are surviving, they think
they have to stand under a truck. And that is another way
of going about it. They have to suffer impacts. They have
to be in there living. What is living to them? Well,
living, to them, you find to some degree is being right.
They have to be convinced that they are being right or
convinced that they are surviving or convinced they are
dominating some thing, you see?

And you take some king of olden times: Why, there he sat
upon his huge throne, and so forth, and all of his
courtiers are saying bog-bog and bow-bow and walking
backwards three quarters of the entrance hall, don't you
see, and bumping into the guards and messing it up. All of
which is simply designed to convince this fellow and
convince others that he is dominating, you see?

Well, I'd say he couldn't have had much of an impression on
people if he had to work at it that hard. That's simply the
mechanisms of domination. You find anybody who has to work
at it that hard, see, he's practically dead, man. He'd be
gasping most of the time.

You find some teenager, for instance, out here going to
dances and listening to music and diving and experiencing
all sorts of weird new thrills and sensations and so forth;
they're trying to convince themselves they're alive, don't
you see? They're half-dead about nine tenths of the time.
They're having a hard time of it.

But a science of life should bring about living.

Now, there is a level at which rightness and wrongness
ceases to be analytical or comprehensible. And when we
speak of aberration, it's when it drops below that point.
It isn't that trying to be right is wrong: It's obsessively
being right about something that's obviously wrong that
goes loopy. See, that's when that mechanism goes astray,
and the level of neurosis is only reached when the
individual is no longer able to select his own courses of
behavior, when he is obsessively following courses of
behavior in order to be right.

Now, everybody has a few of these. You can all try them on
for size. This fellow eats salads.

He hates salads, but he eats salads, and you just get on
this. "Is there anything you're doing that you really don't
like to do?"

And this fellow says, "Oh, I just don't like to eat salads."

You say, "Well, how does eating salads make you right, and
bow does it make somebody else wrong?"

Now, you're going to get into an interesting situation
where you're going to find out he has been already
overwhelmed on the subject of salads. This thing is going
to cross back the other way. It's a question of how was
Mother right in making everybody wrong on the subject of
salads, don't you see? And that is not a good processing
question. That's somebody else's aberration, so we're not
particularly interested in that.

So we just bring him up to that point and this thing will
snap. You've got a lot of these things, but by and large
they have no value. They have no value.

It isn't until a person reaches inability, weakness,
stupidity and other suchlike things as a way to be right,
that the dwindling spiral is entered.

Now, he's being right by being unable. When you see that
one loom over the horizon in any zone of behavior, you have
approaching neuroses if it's not there already. And when a
civilization goes all out for this, watch it, because it's
going to be dead tomorrow. The dust is going to be moaning
through its temples and the tumbleweed rolling down its
freeways, because that civilization has already entered in
upon the necessity to be unable in order to be right. The
way to make somebody else wrong, then, is to be nuts - 
incapable.

Now, a dramatization, any dramatization (entering in upon
this whole field of mental science), which brings about a
further disability is wrong for that civilization, no
matter how right that civilization thinks it is. And
anything which enters a civilization into more life, more
livingness, more ARC and so forth is, of course, by basic
definition, right for that civilization.

So, you see, it's also capable - this also renders itself
susceptible to understanding what one should do, as well as
knocking out neuroses. Now, anything that is mad in an
individual, at some higher level, was okay. All madness is
simply an exaggeration of some ability or capability; it's
some perversion or exaggeration of this.

Let us take in the lower rungs of it - well, let's take
sexual misbehavior of some kind or another. This, of
course, is a lower-harmonic enforcement of the ability to
create, see, way upscale. By the time you get this thing 
all mixed up and clouded up, and this way and that way, you 
get it down here, you got some sexual disability of some 
kind or another, and that is how the person is still being 
right about this upper thing, you see? So these things really
enter along this line. Way up here it was right - really
right - you see? And then it came down a little bit, and it
was a method of survival, and then it was a method of
dominating, and then it was a method of being right in
order to make others wrong. And then in that contest one
got enough overts - the communication line did a switcheroo
don't you see so what was right about it is now wrong about
it, but what is wrong about it is now right about it. And
we've got this thing all the way down to the bottom of the
scale. It's very recognizable where it came from, but it's
gone through all of this switcheroo, and down at the line
it's practically unrecognizable from its immediate state as
far as a person's behavior is concerned.

This fellow is an artist. He could paint. Let us say he
could paint a side of a house, you see, you know, with a
beautiful scene, you know. Prrrrrroooom -  nothing to it, you
know. And you find this fellow down there nursing a girl's
shoe, you see, to his chest, you know? And he hides this
all the time. It's a girl's shoe, and he sniffs it
occasionally, you know, and it gives him kicks, you see? 
I mean, it's more or less the same channel, but there the
upper-scale ability has become the lower-scale mockery.

And you get these lower-scale mockeries all the time get
the upper-scale abilities in trouble.

And once in a while you go around feeling ashamed of
yourself for having suddenly thought you could do something
about the United States or something like that because some
nut in the booby hatch is talking all the time about doing
something for the United States, don't you see? Well, the
difference is you probably could and he couldn't. There's a
slight difference of ability.

Now, when you look over this whole panorama of behavior and
what a person is trying to do, you enter in upon an ability
to understand much of the nonsense which at the present
moment you may only be protesting against. You just look
around on it. But this task is rendered very difficult by
the fact that the explanations so obscure the kernel of
insanity of the rightness-wrongness that it's very hard to
get at what they are really doing.

I don't know what the United States is doing today; maybe
it's having a revolution. But it's being right about
something. It's being right about something, and it's
making people wrong about something. We're not sure what it
is, but on a careful analysis or on an auditing level, we
could discover those two points. The moment we discovered
them, they'd all go unsnarl.

So a science of life actually is a science of examination
of behavior, and behavior is based upon lots of
ramifications, tremendous explanations in all directions,
but narrowed right on down to the middle, looked at in its
bare bones, it comes down to survival, dominate, rightness
and wrongness. That becomes the main line of behavior. I
hope sometime when you're looking at somebody who is
sitting there picking bugs off himself, one after the
other, cockroach here and a cootie there, let us hope you
don't jump back to keep them from getting on you. And let's
hope also you don't try to convince him that there are no
bugs there, because you are now playing the one game which
makes him make you wrong, and at that moment, you will cut
your communication line just like that.

So now he has only one purpose in view, and that is to make
you wrong and make himself right. And you can cave him in,
you can deteriorate him, you can put him further down
scale, but you can't bring him back up the line again. It's
impossible. Because you've taken the one step to cut the
communication line which could have made it all right. Do
you see that? So a dramatization of rightness and wrongness
is not the answer to a dramatization of rightness and
wrongness, and probably out of all the factors of a science
of life, that one you would have to know. Otherwise, you
would simply get trapped into the dwindling spiral of
everything you tried to do anything about anyplace. It is
the essential piece of understanding which is necessary to
keep you free of going the chute. Okay? 

Thank you.

[End of lecture.]



