





Top 100 CDs as low as $8.99 

 





 Message 807 of 56350 for search alt.clearing.technology

   » Return to search results help 

 

FZ Tech Lover 2/7 Level 0 Tapes  

Author:   Secret Squirrel <squirrel@echelon.alias.net> 

Date:   1999/03/24 

Forum:   alt.religion.scientology  

      

 

more headers  author posting history   

  







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



2. 149 163 May 24,1962 E METER DATA: INSTANT READS PART II



A Freezone Bible Supporter



Here is a complete set of Level 0 Academy tapes as a

companion piece to the level 0 pack posted earlier this

year.



Much Love,



Tech Lover





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





LEVEL 0 CASSETTES - CONTENTS



SHSBC Lectures - (old & new lecture numbers shown)



   Old New DAte



1. 148 162 May 24,1962 E METER DATA: INSTANT READS PART I

2. 149 163 May 24,1962 E METER DATA: INSTANT READS PART II

3. 290 319 Jul 25,1963 COMM CYCLES IN AUDITING

4. 291 320 Aug  6,1963 AUDITING COMM CYCLES 

5. 296 325 Aug 20,1963 THE ITSA LINE

6. 297 326 Aug 21,1963 THE ITSA LINE (CONT.)

7.   5 366 Feb  6,1964 THE COMMUNICATION CYCLE IN AUDITING





These are the 7 tapes that are in the modern clearsound

version of the Level 0 academy lectures.  The first two

(on the E Meter) were not in the old level zero academy

cassettes, the remaining 5 were checked against the old

tapes and omissions are marked ">".



There was also one case (marked "#") where a paragraph on

translating line plots was omitted from the old cassettes

(probably because of confidentiality) but is included in the 

new clearsound versions. (SHSBC-319)



There was also one case (SHSBC-320) where some material was

edited out of the clearsound academy version but was left

in the clearsound SHSBC version, so that even the modern

clearsound tapes do not quite match in the two versions

that are currently being sold.



Since even the old versions of these tapes have omissions,

it would be of great help if somebody could check these

transcripts against an early set of SHSBC Reels.





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



FREEZONE BIBLE MISSION STATEMENT



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



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







E METER DATA: INSTANT READS



PART II



SHSBC 149 renumbered 163



A lecture given on 24 May 1962



[Based on the modern level zero cassettes.  It was not

not included in the older pre-clearsound cassettes

and has not been checked against older versions]





Thank you.



24 May, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, A.D. 12.



All right. Now, you seem to be considerably interested in

what meters do, and you seem to be having an awful lot of

trouble, one way or the other. I was going to talk to you

about Goals Assessments in this particular lecture, but I

won't. I will talk to you definitely about meters.



You know, you can get into more holes full of complication

than anybody could easily dig you out of in a long while.

You get complicated. And if you just would stop figuring

and start looking ...



I remember when, one time, got a motorcycle off the boat,

and I was straightening the motorcycle up and trying to get

the thing to function out in Camden, New Jersey. I was

trying to get this motorcycle going, so ... Lights

wouldn't light, you know, and so we kept throwing a switch,

and so forth. And it was just at that time this first

cliche - first time I had put out this cliche, and so on; it

was "Look, don't think," see, which was very funny.



And this little Francis-Barnett British motorcycle had a

very complicated Lucas light system -  headlamp and

everything else. And it was very complicated, very hard to

get apart. All kinds of wires and condensers, and all sorts

of things.



So I started taking it apart, and took the bulb out and

took the wires apart and unhooked everything. We had parts

that were lying around a good square yard. And then I

happened to look down at the battery, and the terminals

weren't connected. We had all the job of putting it all

together again. It would have taken about one minute to

have put the terminals on the battery.



That was a marvelous example of "Look,-don't think."

Because I'd sure done a lot of figuring right there on that

motorcycle, you see, and the net result was dismantling the

works.



You get doing this, and you get to figuring out what this

is and the significance of that, and the complications of

something else, and so on. And I know what you're up

against, because ...



There's a textbook called "Dutton's" which teaches

navigation, and it is the textbook used by the United

States Naval Academy at Annapolis. It's their key book on

the subject. And no doubt about it, it's a marvelous

textbook. There is no doubt whatsoever that "Dutton's" is

just absolutely wonderful as a textbook. Not a single datum

of any kind on the subject of navigation that is not to be

found in "Dutton's." They modernize it, also, every

year - it's marvelous! You open it up, and sentence by

sentence they machine-gun you with exact pertinent data

with no amplification or further definition of any kind

whatsoever. They don't bother to tell you it's a textbook

on navigation of ships from here to there. They simply

start in telling you "This is the earth and the sun and the

planets and the alidade-amplitude angle dihedral in

betwixt...." "A barograph is an instrument used to measure

barometric pressure. It is read at two o'clock, four

o'clock and eight o'clock." I don't know; what do you read?

You read its directions? What do you read? You read the

manufacturer's label on the bottom of it? What do you do?

Well, "Dutton's" never bothers to inform you about that.

They're above all that, you see? Unfortunately I

collided - on a restudy of earth navigation - I collided with

"Dutton's" back in the middle thirties, hard, you see?

There was everything there but an understanding. See?



There was no understanding of what this was all about

whatsoever, but there sure were hot data. Man, every datum

in it was hot.



But there was never any side amplification, such as "You

must always precisely locate the exact position of a

battleship." See? See, it never says, also, that it is

sometimes disastrous not to locate the position of a

battleship. Your imagination is never invited. It is a dry

feast of bare bones. It drove me stark, staring mad. I

never learned how to navigate from it.



Finally got a book that - I think Mixter's Primer of

Navigation, or something like this, and read this book, and

it didn't treat it very seriously, and it was very happy

about the whole thing, and I dug up a few data from that.



Actually, though, I thought it would be easier to go back

and evolve the whole thing, so I did.



Some time in '44 an admiral was walking around on the

bridge, and I was calculating something or other, and he

says, "Well, I see," he says, "that you - how is this?" He'd

just flown in, you know, from stateside. He wouldn't be

there long because it wasn't very safe where we were. And

he said, "I see" - he said - "But - but how is this? You're using

Commander Weems' new textbook on aerial navigation." And it

puzzled him because it was just now in print in the States,

and we couldn't possibly have connected that fast. No, I

had accidentally evolved it as a simple method of

navigation, and somebody else had evolved it.



That was all. But it didn't come from "Dutton's," but I

imagine it's now part of "Dutton's." And I imagine nobody

can savvy it now. I mean, I imagine that's totally, totally

lost.



But this is a method of losing information, is you just

give a bunch of machine-gun data and expect everybody to

hew the mark on that exact data, and it's never amplified,

you see? So we have lots of examples of that particular

character.



It is the importance of a datum that must be weighted.

Weighted. You weight the importance of a datum. And you are

so accustomed on this planet -  you are terribly

accustomed - to studying unweighted data.



Somebody opens up Krishnamurti, and he shows you three

places in this book of Krishnamurti's whereby it's exactly

parallel to exactly what we say in Scientology, so

therefore Krishnamurti is Scientology. And poor old Peggy

Conway - I showed her one day that these were totally

unweighted data. They had no importance assigned to them

whatsoever, but were there with equal importance with about

three or four thousand other datum. These other data were

all there of equal importance, and they were - some of them

were really wild data. See" So they were all equally

important. in other words, there was no selection of

importances.



And people keep forgetting this. They think all data are

equal, and it's as big a mistake as to consider all people

are equal or anything else is all equal. Because it's

pretty hard to get an equality. Mathematically it's

impossible to get an equality. You take an apple out here

off a tree, and if you had another apple which is exactly

the same size, shape, age, skin thickness, pattern of the

skin, everything else, you'd say, "Well, that apple is

equal to that apple." No, they're not equal. They're not

occupying the same space. How could they be equal? All the

characteristics of one apple would have to be equal to all

the characteristics of the other apple, and they're both

occupying different positions in space, so they can't

possibly be equal.



Now, in order to study ... I've heard this phrase "learn

how to study." I've had it thrown at me in very fine

universities, very fine schools, and so on. "Learn how to

study," they say, and then they sit back. We should

remember this: that there are several ways of laying out

data. One is to lay it all out with equal weight with no

amplification, no other explanation, nothing to assist

understanding; we just machine-gun out a whole bunch of

data - brrrr, see? That's supposed to be real good. Your

technical-scientific writer of today is educated to do this

and sometimes criticizes the writings of Dianetics and

Scientology because it doesn't do only this.



All right. Now, there's another way of handling this stuff,

and that is to throw it all out with tremendous

obfuscations. You sort of interlard it with "Of course, you

boob, you couldn't understand this anyway because it's all 

so complicated." And they do that in various ways.



With footnotes: "Refer to Jervis Crack, page 39," you see?

Of course, that book hasn't been available for the last

century. So you've had it, you see? Well, what they're

doing is doing a priesthood type of action. And most of the

professors writing in modern university, and so on, are

guilty of that. They're trying to create a priesthood.



Now, the reason navigation sprung to mind, and the reason I

talk about navigation, is they're exclusively devoted - not

this "Dutton"; it's of another kind - but the navigator

himself is devoted to the development of a priesthood. It

is not for nothing that the early navigators of the South

Pacific were a priesthood. And they were the reigning

priesthood of Polynesia. Well, those birds, with a hole in

a coconut shell and that sort of thing, navigated

themselves all over the place. Quite interesting how they

did it, but it was a priesthood. And they surround this

with a bunch of magic, and they surround it with a bunch of

nonsense of one kind or another.



Well, a chemistry professor is just as guilty. He gives you

a whole bunch of nonsense.



But the reason a navigator springs to mind: if you were to

go on a bridge of a naval vessel that had a navigator and

to ask him how he was finding his position ... He won't

have you shot because that's illegal. Instead of that, he

will either ignore you with a contemptuous sniff or utterly

overwhelm you with a bunch of irrelevant bunk. That man is

totally dedicated to the protection of a cult. Navigation

is what makes him important, and if every fool knew how to

navigate he wouldn't be important anymore. And that'd be that.



The textbook "Bowditch" on this subject... I'm choosing an

esoteric field - navigation - not that you're interested at all

in navigation but just because it's far enough afield that

it won't confuse the issue.



Bowditch was a fellow up in the New England states who

decided that celestial navigation should be

decelestialized. So he did a bunch of tables and things of

this character, and he went out on a China trip; and out of

his little manual, which was about quarter of an inch

thick, he taught even the cook to navigate by star sights.

It was marvelous. He taught everybody on the ship. He was

teaching everybody up and down the New England coast how to

navigate out of this little, tiny book.



You should see that book today! Ha-ha-ha! It's also

published by the United States Navy, and it is that thick,

it's that high and it's that broad. It's the most marvelous

thing for keeping a passageway door open you ever saw.



But it has everything in it that has nothing to do with

navigation, and it has tables developed which nobody has

used for ages. And his original tables, I don't think, are

even in it anymore.



And yet it's called "Bowditch."



See, the whole thing has been obfuscated. Whole thing has

been masked.



That is the way somebody swells up his importance. He makes

himself very important: He's one of the twelve men in the

world that can understand Einstein. Oh, I don't know. If

there was anything there to understand, I think that more

than twelve men could have understood Einstein. I took one

of the twelve men in the world who could understand

Einstein, and I went around to him to have him explain it

to me, as the associate editor of the college paper, in a

short article. (I was making friends in those days.) I

wanted him to give me a short article for this college

paper so that I could explain Einstein to the student body.

He was very insulted. He was very upset, but his - I wrote an

article.



But years afterwards, I was talking to a friend, and he was

a pretty good scientist. He was good enough to be kicked

out of the government; he was one of the sixty-four that

were released for doing their duty. And he said, "Theory of

relativity? Well, let's see. Mass equals MC 2 well, let's

see if we can't do ... I wonder if it couldn't be

explained rather simply."



And so we boiled it down and told it to a kid, and he

understood it perfectly. There wasn't much to this. Except

what? The vast importance of the person. See? Somebody is

using this as a cloak of rare bird feathers, you see, so he

can stand before the idol and tell everybody how important

he is, see?



Well, these methods of communication of thought, methods of

communication of data ...



Now, we're in an interestingly peculiar field, because the

data that is being communicated is in actual fact totally

new data that everybody already has. That makes it very

peculiar data indeed.



Now, there's no language that embraces this because

language comes after the fact - before the fact, rather -  of

the data. And so you get a few terms mixed up in it. It's

nothing compared to medical terms or other fields.

Nevertheless, it has the frailty of having new terms. But

you have to have new terms, otherwise everything you

described would be a whole package.



I could probably dream up an example and say, "Well, the

combined impulses derived from force and duress in the past

which have become forgotten but which are capable of

impinging themselves upon the individual ..." Wouldn't

you like to say that every time you said "reactive mind"?

That would be pretty grim, wouldn't it?



So naturally, you get conversant with this, you start

developing a bit of a shorthand. But the shorthand mustn't

itself be terribly obscure, and most of our stuff is not

obscure. We don't invent words where we don't need them,

but we do invent words where we shouldn't be confused.



Now, we lack a complete dictionary. That we should

have - there's no doubt about that - so that you could look up

any phrase and understand it better. We've been in the

throes of making up a dictionary for years. I had the notes

on my desk recently - just a few days ago - to start

recompiling the thing.



Trouble is, it's costly. That's the only thing that's wrong

with a dictionary. You'd have to put two or three people on

it for several months to really knock a dictionary

together, because you'd have to listen to every tape on

which every word had ever been defined at any time and put

all the definitions down for a single word immediately

following it, and then that would be a worthwhile

dictionary. Would also he quite a worthwhile textbook.



But it happens to be a labor. It's mostly labor: listening

to tapes, taking down every definition; looking up all the

textbooks, taking down every definition, you know; writing

each word on a piece of paper, and then writing each

definition that has ever been defined for it, because

they've been defined several times.



Well, we - that is a barrier. There is no doubt about that.

But. what 1 try to do, the way I try to teach you this, is

teach you one very simply and try to give you the weight of

the datum - you know, how heavily this is weighted in

comparison to other data, see?



I tell you, "This one is important," see? And then because

there are quite a few important datum, I very often make

the mistake of not saying to you that there's a lot of data

along this line that's not important, see - that don't amount

to anything; they're merely interesting. Well, I tell you

that - even that too, occasionally. That's an awful lot of

bric-a-brac and phenomena.



Well, what happens is that I give you a datum that's

important, and you very often pick up a piece of

bric-a-brac that's right next door to it that is

interesting, see, and you get the two things confused. You

know, this other one is fascinating. There's no doubt about

it. You start fooling around with things in the mind and

there are fascinating things. The floor of the 'ead is

strewn with them, man. I don't know how you can live in there.



See? There are many fascinating data - they are terribly,

terribly interesting. Why, if I sat down and wrote

everything I knew about needle phenomena or phenomena which

could be disclosed by a meter, my God, it'd be something on

the order of four or five million words! I know

tremendous lot of oddities  - fantastic things that you can

do - all of which amount to a hill of beans. They're just of

no importance at all. Amongst all of that, there are only a

few important data and they are boiled down into that

savagely condensed book E-Meter Essentials.



Now, that is an example, by the way, of a terrific

boildown. The instant read, however, is not described in

that book. It is now described in the second edition, but

in the original edition it's not described.



Now, obviously, it should also be part of my responsibility

to tell you what's not important.



But look, but look: that's four or five million words, see,

compared to a few hundred. That would be a job, man!



And you want to know about teaching you some of this stuff

.. What is utterly, staggeringly fantastic, you see, is

trying to guess what you're going to do wrong next. And I

tell you, man, that would keep somebody awake all night if

he really worried. You know? I worry about it enough. But

trying to guess which way the mistake is going to go ...

Because, you see, it can go into any of those unimportant

channels. See? And they're just infinite in number.



Now, right now you're riding the hobbyhorse of the interim

read; the prior and interim read, because the word latent

read is forbidden, you see - I mean, the subject of latent

reads we're not interested in. I've omitted saying that

there's such a thing as a prior read, see? Well, it is also

forbidden. See? A prior read is as bad as a latent read.

You only want an instant read.



But what is an instant read? It is that read which takes

place immediately after the expressed thought. Now, if you

sum that up as a definition, you will see that it

precludes - that it is thoughts that impinge, not words, on

the reactive mind. It's thought, not words. You may express

them in words, but they impinge in thought. The reactive

mind doesn't actually react to words. The words translate

through symbolism into thought, you see? You got the

symbols of the words, and then that melts down into

thought. The reactive mind responds to the thought impulse.

So you can have a lot of thought impulses in one thought.



"Have you seen any gorgeous, good-looking, luscious,

marvelous, sensational women lately?" How many reads would

you get? Man, that's up to you and the gods.



Now, because you are thinking the thought, and if you read

this as a straight thought through, the reactive bank, at

first - only at first - will impinge on every thought contained

in the major thought. So you get a whole bunch of prior

reads. And then it finally grooves in that this is what

you're talking about, see?



The major thought is "Have you seen any women lately?" see?

"Have you seen any gorgeous, beautiful, luscious, you know,

women lately?" That's the big thought. And it'll register

as "Have you seen any beautiful women lately?" as well as

"you" and "seen" and "gorgeous" and ... Get the idea?



Well, the funny part of it is, is you can groove in the

major thought or the minor thought.



"Have - you - seen ..." See? You're going to get reactions by

this time. That's a sort of a punctuated reading of

something. You're going to get action, action, action,

action, and then action on the thought.



Well, you saw an example in the demonstration I gave you

last night of a prior read, and I threw it away and asked

the pc again because I couldn't tell if it was a read or

not a read. I just threw it away. I didn't pay any

attention to it. It was the one time in the session when

that occurred, that something fell on the middle of the

last word. Obviously invalid, but it showed that it might

have been instant; it all depended. So I just checked it

again. But that only happened - in a whole hour of session,

only happened once. See how rare that was? Now, you got the

packaged thought. Now, if you repeat that thought through

to the pc, you have restimulated the thought majeure,

see - not the thought mineure, the thought majeure. We

could have a lot of fun if we were really, fish-end tails,

white tie, you know, type of subject treatment, you know,

on the subject of Dianetics and Scientology, you know? And

you would be learning about the thought majeure, you see,

and the thought mineure. Oh yeah, we could be fancy. Don't

let me kid you.



Actually the trick of communicating the whole subject of

the human mind with as few words -  new words - as we use is

quite a trick. That is actually one of the big things that

we got, you know? We don't have to go four years to study

Latin so that we can abuse it.



No, the thought "You seen any beautiful women lately?" is

inherent in your statement, and so most of the time you

simply read it - and "you" almost always will get a reaction,

by the way, and so on - whatever it is.



All of your interim spots may get a reaction, but you're

only interested in the reaction which occurs with the last

word - the end of the last word. It's not after you stop

speaking, it's when the whole thought is completed.



Therefore, you'd never use more than one clause, but you

can even get away with using several clauses and still get

a reaction - lot of phrases and clauses, and so forth.



But it may take you two, three or four reads to ring it in.

That is one of the reasons you read a goal three times: it

might fall interimly, might fall randomly. But you want to

get the thought expressed. The thought has got to be

expressed through to the pc. So you could never read it

really successfully less than three times aloud to get the

whole thought, that's all. The whole thought delivers through.



Most of the time, oddly enough, the whole thought does

deliver through and react. But just that once in the hour's

session, you see - well, we got some other interim reads, but

only one interim read came so close to the end that a

fellow could have made a mistake.



Indistinguishably close, halfway through the last word.



Well now, the point is this, is the pc's thinkingness isn't

turning on the read. It's the pc's reactingness which is

reading. So there's no understandingness of any kind

consulted on an E-Meter read. It is all stimulus-response.

There is no understanding of any kind. It's as though the

reactive bank can listen and react. Oddly enough, it can.



It is the auditor to the reactive bank, not the auditor to

the analytical mind to the reactive bank.



That always gives you a latent. read. You got an

instantaneous proposition here. Doesn't matter how

mysterious it is or isn't. It's just, you've just got an

instantaneous proposition. It's, you read the thought, and

it reacts in the reactive mind. And honest, the pc can be

doped off, nine-tenths unconscious, goofed off, everything

else, and it will still read. I've seen a pc sitting there

practically snoring and everything reading. I made several

tests on this. I was flabbergasted! You could have said to

him, "Women, women, women." You got react, react, react,

see, just this nice pang! pang! pang! - three instant reads,

nice strong ones. And you could have said, "What did I

say?" And he'd say, "(snort) What? What's this? What? I

don't know. What did you say?" He didn't know, either. See

how crazy that is?



Until you actually explore that, it still looks to you as

though you say something, the pc analytically hears you and

then reacts to what you said, and it is not that cycle at

all. That is not the cycle which takes place. I don't care

to elucidate even what cycle takes place rather than invent

knowledge, but that cycle does rat take place. See, I can

tell you which one doesn't take place.



You say it and he reacts. What reacts? Reactive mind. And

that's got to contain timelessness and not-knowingness in

order to get a reaction. If you don't have timelessness and

not-knowingness, you don't get a reaction on the meter.

It's as simple as that. If he thinks of something in order

to get a reaction, you always get a latent read; you don't

get an instant read.



Oh, you want black magic? There it is. The reactive mind of

most people is black enough.



Look at the GPM sometime.



But of course, you have all of your latent reactive

thinkingnesses of former identities are stacked up there

like Genghis Khan's pyramid of skulls. There's plenty of

them. And all of that combined thinkingness and

reactingness and so forth has amounted to a GPM. So it'd be

wonderful and marvelous that it didn't respond. But

remember it - it, I said. It, not the pc.



Actually, this is technically incorrect: "How did the pc

respond on the meter?" The pc never responded on the meter!

It did. It did. And when it responded, it did it

instantaneously, exactly, peculiarly, at the end of the

thought majeure.



I'll hang you with one just so you can feel upstage. So if

you're at some party sometime where there's nothing but

professors, you could say, "Well, we mostly deal in the

thought majeure." But there is this weirdity. Now frankly,

you think sound travels at eleven hundred feet per second,

and so forth, and such. And undoubtedly there are lags

developed in here because of sound, and so forth, but

remember, I don't know that. See, this is to some degree an

invented piece of knowledge.



And we could calculate it out and say that the auditor's

length of time to pour out to the end, plus the length of

time of his voice impulse to the pc's ears, plus the length

of time to the reactive bank, plus the time consumed in

restimulating the electrical responses of the reactive

mind, plus the lag of the E-Meter would be how long it took

for the read to read instantly.



Now, I don't know, maybe we could sit on one mountain top

and have an E-Meter lead from Mont Blanc over to Mt. Punk,

or something of the sort. And we yodeldeehoo, you see,

across and ask some restimulative question and see how long

it takes, and measure the electrical current and measure

the amount of time in the air; and maybe we could do a lot

of things like this and maybe we could learn a great deal.

And I'm sure if some professor liked to mountain climb, he

would spend the rest of his life establishing that fact.

However, we're more interested in the subject majeure

rather than the subject mineure. Anyway.



So, the main thing we're interested in is the thing reacts

instantly, and it reacts instantly at the end of the

thought. And, of course, it will react to interim thoughts.

You say, "Have you, you swine, damaged any pigs lately in

this session?" See? Well, now you're throwing yourself a

curve if you add "in this session" because it's a clause

after the thought. The modifying clause coming after the

thought fumbles the whole thing up. So you should say, "In

this session," and then you should drop the interjection

"you swine," and you say, "In this session, have you

damaged any pigs?"



Now, this is the liability of reading a meter. Supposing

the pc has an item called pigs. Now you'll get into one of

the world's most marvelous tangles, because it's reacting

on the word "pigs," and you don't know whether it's acting

on the thought majeure or the thought mineure.



You don't know which is which. And that's the only time you

can really get tangled up.



Say the pc's goal: "to catch catfish." And you're trying to

test out the way to list it. Now, "Want to catch catfish,"

you know, "Who or what would not want to catch catfish?"

"Who or what would not oppose catching catfish?" "Who or

what would oppose catching catfish?" will all react on an

instant read just like the goal, won't they? Isn't that

horrible? That's very confusing, because then you can't

tell which is the right phrasing to line up on unless you

read them two or three times to groove it home, at which

time, oddly enough, the goal will no longer react as the

goal but will only react as a thought majeure. And that's a

little test that you ought to make just to convince

yourself, show yourself what it is.



Take some highly restimulative interimly-worded sentence - I

don't care what it is - that as a major thought adds up to a

whole, that you know would be hot on the pc. He's got some

old item that's still in, see? Some kind like this. Put

that on the end. And then you will see, after you have read 

it about three times, that it only acts on the thought majeure 

and will not act on that item. But the item will act separately.



You can take the item out of the sentence. Even though it

occurs to the end of the sentence, you can take it out

of - it's just marvelous, you know? -  and you can set it out

there all by itself, and you say, "Pigs, pigs." First time,

it doesn't react; it's cautious, see? "Pig." Now you say,

"Pigs, pigs, pigs, pigs." After that, "Pigs, pigs, pigs,

pigs, pigs."



You put it back in the thought majeure: "In this session,

have you injured any pigs?" No read.



This is mysterious, man. Of course, it might read the first

time as just an additional "pig," but then groove it in

again - groove it in again. "In this session, have you

injured any pigs?" No, it won't react. Mysterious!



Now, the mysteriousness of it is, is below the

unknowingness there is a terrific power of retention in the

reactive bank. It is another one of its characteristics. It

has fantastic continuity, fantastic survival. Otherwise it

wouldn't be here. And what is put into it then acquires

this characteristic of fantastic survival. So you have

time, not-knowingness and survival. So what you pour into

it will continue to react.



The delicacy of its operation is another astounding thing.

If the goal is "to injure pigs" - that's the actual goal - 

and the wording which you have on the list is "to injure a

pig," at first "to injure a pig" will react and will then

cease to react, and will react and it'll splutter and

monkey around, and you won't quite know what you're doing

on the thing, and all of a sudden the pc - you can never

change it for the pc - the pc is liable to say, "Oh, well,

that's - that ... that's to injure pigs." Pang! It's a 

marvelous precision. This is an old study in Dianetics, is 

the fantastic precision with which this thing will do it. 

"To injure pigs," that's fine. it'll react from there on 

out. See? But "To injure a pig" - sporadic, not in.



Don't also think that total retention is total wisdom. It

isn't. So you get this kind of a circumstance where if

you're a tiny bit offbeat you won't get the reaction.



Now, oddly enough, you can get a generalized thought which

is close enough in to get the reaction, and that's where

you get your What questions from. That's why you actually

ought to fish for your What question. "What about wrecking

cars? What about stealing and wrecking cars?" The pc

unfortunately used the word "swiping cars," and you're

trying to get on "stealing cars," and my God, you never get

a What question.



Last night we had a word. If I'd used any other word than

that exact What question, if I hadn't used the word conned,

it wouldn't have reacted. The pc said it so that must be at

the base of the chain of the overt. Your clue must be taken

from the pc.



Now, you can play ducks and drakes with this thing. You can

throw it all over the place, and so forth, as long as a

central pin stays there to hook in and identify. You got to

have something that will identify. You got to have a

thought that associates, and so on.



Well, you're doing an interesting thing. You're taking the

whole of an overt act, which was all in terms of action

anyhow, and you're putting it in terms of English, which it

might not even have occurred in, and that thought embraces

the action which took place which was the overt.



Oh, my God! Nobody would be able to build a machine that

did it. That would be utterly incredible. And yet the

reactive mind can do that much of a stretch.



But "What about stealing a lot of cars? What about stealing

cars? What about stealing and wrecking cars?" Bang! On

another instance the pc said, "Well, I swiped a - a scooter."

And you say to him, "What about stealing children's toys?"

You know? BBC, you know, type of response. Nothing happens.

See, you have to sound out your What question.



Now, you can alter it this far: "What about swiping toys?"

That'll be dead on. That's okay.



But you altered the doingness, you see? And the thought of

the doingness shifted. You have to keep that pretty well

the same, don't you see? And you have to have at least some

associated object, to make this thing react, but it will

react every time.



The odd part of it is, why does it react after "toys"? Why

does it go "toys," see - "toys" click.



Why? It's the total thought. All I can tell you is it does.

And if you have a question which reads "What (tick) about

(dirty needle) stealing (tick) toys? (fall)," you ignore

everything but the fall.



You don't do another blessed thing with a prior read. You

just skip the lot. If it doesn't fall at the instant you

said " s.. ." See, "toys," "toys" (fall). If it falls at

"t - " (fall), it's not an instant read.



Don't tell me why the reactive mind does this. I couldn't

care less. Just take it from me that it does. Then it

cleans up and everything squares up and the pc feels better

and it falls apart. It's almost as if it's drawn itself a

complete plan of "how you take me apart." Most fantastic thing.



All you had to know about the whole thing from beginning to

end was exactly - you had to be able to look and observe.



Interim reads are so common that if you tried to pay any

attention to an interim read on "Have you tried to

damage - in this session, have you tried to damage anyone?"

Suppose you're asking such a question, and it fell on

"damage" - you knucklehead! The worst you could do -  you saw

me do it one time on an earlier session; I wrote "damage"

over in the margin. I knew it would be a hot Prepcheck

question, but ignored it for that because it didn't fall on

"anyone - ." See? It's just a curve of the e and then the

action. See, "In this session, have you tried to damage

anyone" - uhp! There it goes, right on that e, see? Not

earlier, not later, but right on.



Marvelous. Why it works this way, God knows.



You know, I think even people with the big-thetan theory

would - would doubt - would doubt it. It's too incredible. But

that is the fact. And you'll find out this pans out every

time. You find out if you clean off that instant read at

the end of the thought major, you'll be all set. And if you

start monkeying around with the interim reads of the

thought minors, you are going to fall on your 'ead every time.



Now, you very often will get into severe trouble putting

together goals. "To go out and pick potatoes and sometimes

have a girl in the potato patch." Man! And it falls on "to

go out," and it falls on "and pick potatoes" and "to have a

girl," and it falls on "potato patch." And there's no

instant read after "patch." After you've said it three

times, there is no instant read after "patch." Well, I'd

say it has something to do with the goal, probably, in some

version or form or another, as it will eventually arise.

And I'd get all the invalidations and the missed withholds

and suppressions off of listing.



That's another one I should take up with you. I'll take it

up with you right now. When I say "listing," I don't mean

items. When I say "Take it off the subject of listing," I

don't mean take it off the items of listing. When I say

"listing," I just mean listing. You say, "Is there any

missed withhold on listing?" See? "Have you suppressed

listing?" "Have you invalidated listing?" "Have you ever

committed an overt with listing?" That's the way you phrase

it, see? That's listing. Listing. It is a subject. You

could even say "goals listing." And when I tell you "items"

or "individual items," why, then, I mean a goal or an item

or a straight line.



"Is there any item on this list which has been invalidated?

Thank you. Is there any item on this list on which there is

a missed withhold?" Too complicated a phraseology, you

can't get across the thought majeure easily, so you say,

"Is there any item on this list which has been

invalidated?" Say it the second time. And you get your

click. Marvelous to behold; you'll get your click, and you

clean that click off.



There is the subject of listing, and then there's the

subject of goals, there's the subject of items in general;

all of these things are different things that you can do

things with, you understand?



Now, in this rundown of the goal, if you don't get your

instant read on the end of the goal by the third time

you've read it, it ain't it. And you certainly better

ignore it. But very possibly -  not positively at all, but

very possibly -  potatoes have something to do with this

goal, or maybe it's girls have something to do with the

goal. Of course, we can't guess.



Now, I've even gone so far, experimentally, as to try to

pick out all of the various words that have reacted and put

a goal together for the pc. Doesn't work. Evaluates for the

pc and throws the whole thing into that. The pc will give

it to you eventually. You get all the withholds off the

subject of listing, all the withholds off the subject of

auditing, all the withholds off the subject of items,

goals, that sort of thing, any overts that might have

occurred in this direction - just explore around, get them

all over - and all of a sudden you say, "Well, are there any

more goals?"



"Oh, yap, yap, yap, yap, and yap, yap, yap and yap, yap,

yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, 'To lay girls in the open.'"



All right. You're nulling on down. There was your potato

patch. See? Only this one will go "open" (bang!), "open"

(bang!), "open" (hang!). You see your read? instant read,

instant read, instant read every time.



It does not matter how many reads you get that are prior to

the instant read. You ignore them.



Please believe me. You just ignore them. it does not matter

how many reads you get after the instant read. Ignore them.

But you must put across your thought majeure to the pc. And

if you got the thing all participially occluded, why,

prepare to stand there for several reads before it'll

finally embrace.



But oddly enough, no matter how complicated it is - I don't

know, I think you could probably get a fall on Uncle Tom s

Cabin where it says "The End"; you get your instant read,

you know? But you would have had to have read it to the

reactive mind fifty or sixty times, and I don't think

anybody could stand that.



So, that stable datum - get used to that stable datum, live

with it, and you won't have any trouble on the thing. And

God almighty, never ignore one. Teowuwtsw! Never ignore one.



On the subject of rudiments, middle rudiments, something

like that: "A little while ago when I was talking to you

about that goal, did you get an ARC break?" And it goes

zumph-zzm - ARC break, goal - zzzm-zzzumph, you know? "A little

while ago when I was talking to you about that goal, did

you get an ARC break?" Now you'll notice there's less

randomness in it. "A little while ago when I was talking to

you about that goal, did you get an ARC break?" Clank! You

put the thought majeure across, and it now is impinged, and

it will react. But why did it take so long? That's because

it's so complicated.



You would have gotten your instant read like this: "In this

session, have you had an ARC break?" Clank! See? Simple:

fast. Complicated: takes you a while. A complicated thought

majeure takes a lot of pounding before it is finally

embraced and will give you an instant read.



Now, you say, "In this session, have you told a half-truth?

Untruth?" see? That package question possibly leads you

astray, because there you are using a packaged bunch of

instant reads. Actually, you're shorthanding "In this

session have you told a half-truth? In this session have

you told an untruth? In this session have you tried to

impress me? In this session have you tried to damage

anyone?" See? Oddly enough, you could package the whole

thing together and use the interim reads. Oddly enough,

only that one will go down; particularly after the third or

fourth or fifth session with the pc, because the reactive

bank is now grooved into that thought majeure. They're very

obliging. A pc who is under control really responds.



This is all rather incredible. Why does the reactive mind

react? Why does the E-Meter work? Well, I won't be so

stupid as to try to force on you the same orders that the

six hundred had at Balaklava. (Which is some sort of

musical instrument they didn't play well!) There's this type

of think about this: I could say to you, the instructors

could say, everybody could say to you, "Now, look! When it

gets an instant read, read it! Now, you don't have to

understand it.



Just - when it gets an instant read, read it that way.

That - that's it!" See? And you say, "Yeah, but why does it

read that way?" see, and so forth. You've got a perfect

right to ask that question, see? Got a perfect right. Why

does it only give an instant read? And why can you groove

in a thought majeure? And why does it sometimes read on the

thought mineure? See? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Like little

Arthur says, see? You've got a perfect right to say that.



And I got a perfect right to tell you "I don't know!" It

just does! This is a whole set of fortuitous accidents

based on direct lookingness and on no figureness. There's

very little think involved with this thing, you see?



The E-Meter itself, I think, was a Decca voltmeter which a

guy held both sides of, and it reacted, in its most

primitive state. I think it was Richard Saunders at

Elizabeth, New Jersey, was monkeying around with this. He

wanted to show doctors that there was a response, and he

knew they would look at meters. So he pinched the living

daylights out of a pc, you know -  made him black and blue,

you know - while they were holding on to this thing, and then

told him to recall it and got the same response on the meter.



Well, fortunately today we're not dealing with that level

of insensitivity on the subject of meters, because think of

how you'd look at the end of session.



But this was picked up one way or the other or

independently gone at by Mathison. I gave a lecture,

described what kind of an instrument we really had to have.

Mathison went home and he breadboarded one up. It

functioned remarkably well for its original state. It was

very limited. Pcs went off the top of it and went off the

bottom of it with the greatest of ease. I think they

possibly still do on Mathison's.



But anyway, time went on and around Washington, why, I

eventually thought it would be a good thing to have this

one, and Don Breeding and the rest of the boys got

scratching their head over this thing, and old Joe Wallace,

and so on. And they kept hanging things together.



And then they'd do a perfect one, you know, and then they'd

scrap it because they could do one that, you know, behaved

electronically better, you know? And I'd take a pistol out

of my desk and hold it on them and make them build the

first plan.



And then they'd put fifty on the line or twenty-five on the

line, or something like that, and come back and tell me

that if they just eliminated the ruddy rod and put a couple

of condensers there that it'd work much better. And I'd

say, "No, you don't. You build the original one," see?



And they built some of these other ones, and they responded

perfectly electronically, but they did not respond

mentally. This meter responds mentally. Anybody alters that

meter, it's practically over our dead body because it's

just empirically worked out. It's marvelous that it works

at all.



But, do you know, people give you explanations for the

working and for the circuit and for this and that about

this thing. They're talking in their hats. They're talking

through their hats. They can give you all of the stuff, and

so forth, but that stuff all got assembled in there on the

basis of just breadboarding something.



Now we've developed theories as to how this thing works.

Now we've developed all kinds of things. There's a magnetic

thing in here that swings that.... We're dependent on James

Watt, Edison, all the modern electronics guys, transistors,

everybody else, on all of their know-how, but this hung

together makes an E-Meter. Why? I don't know.



We've got a doctor's meter. Costs several times what one of

these things cost. Reg got me one.



We played around with that thing. It doesn't work. We don't

know what it does, but it does something else. The needle

goes by so fast, you can't even see it go. We've learned

exactly nothing from it, which I think is marvelous, except

this one fact - you all knew that - that's doctors are frauds.

But we have an example of this: they've tried to copy our

E-Meter, and they just haven't gone anywhere with it. They

couldn't tell anything with this thing. It's marvelous! And

we got it, and I'm glad to have it! It's not a wasted

instrument. There is the peak of medical electronics.



Now, why does it work? Why does the reactive mind do this?



What you figuring for? For God's sakes, the thing is laid

out on a red carpet. This is how it works, this is how it

reacts and this is how you use it. Oddly enough, it's

invariable - utterly invariable.



Now, one of these days you're going to get Clear, you're

going to get very bright, you're going to figure out

exactly why an E-Meter responds this way, exactly what

wavelengths the thetan operates on in order to put a

reactivity together, exactly how many condensers fit

together amongst the ruddy rods. You understand? And how

you can all do it on thought transference and set up an

E-Meter on a table and read President Coolidge's reasons

why he wouldn't run, you see? Read through time.



Yes, by all means get in that shape! Yes, by all means get

that design. When you do, write me a letter. I'll publish it.



There's more phenomena around this subject - not just this

meter - than you could easily count up on an IBM Comptometer,

and there's an awful lot of particles in one of those.



Now, where do we got the figure? Where's the think?



Reg's engineer, who is a sharp apple - you see him around

here once in a while - he has a hard time with this, man. It

violates all of his principles of electricity and the body

and everything else. This thing is a ghost instrument. He

concluded the other day that, well, there's nothing else to

register there but thinkingness, or what did it? or how did

it? or something.



It wasn't that he was baffled that this reacted against the

mind, because that's rather common.



He's baffled about other things. He always thought it

worked on the amount of sweat, and then he suddenly

realized that you can't sweat and unsweat that fast. So

there must be something else involved here, and a lot of

things. But you walk up to most guys and they'll tell you

it's sweat - measures sweat. All right. Good. Measures sweat.

I don't know what that's got to do with it either. It

doesn't measure sweat. It measures think.



But there's a lot of boys can put these meters together

that don't measure think. Oddly enough, you can put the

commonest type of Wheatstone bridge together and give it no

damping, and the thing oddly enough will register even

think. So there's nothing very mysterious about it.



The mind is hung together electronically, it's hung

together with electricity. There are standing waves,

standing masses, in it which are timeless. These things are

drifting along in present time - and it obeys all of your

electrical laws and impulses.



But remember something: the human being is the author of

this universe and he's also the author of all the

electronics in this universe. Actually, there are flows and

currents in the human mind that have not yet been

discovered in electronics. See? That a junior subject can

now study a senior subject is, of course, a weird joke. But

it can, which is quite peculiar.



Now, you're not interested in why an E-Meter reads really,

unless you want to do some research in that particular

line - beyond this one thing: a thetan is an electric eel and

it measures electric currents. That's about as close as I

care to come to it myself. I never speculate on this.



But you talk about oddball, offbeat data on the subject of

the E-Meter. Why does the meter go tickity-tick, back and

forth, with an exact pattern every time when a person wants

to leave or go away or blow out of his head, or so forth?



The theta bop. The study of the theta bop could be very

long and very involved. I can tell you numerous ways to

produce a theta bop. Lots of ways. "Did you ever think of

leaving anybody?" You get a theta bop, you see? "Did you

ever think of dying?" You get a theta bop.



"Try not to be three feet in back of your head." You get a

theta bop. Shoot him with a .45, you'll get a theta bop. I

mean, it's an interesting thing. Well, we get the

coordinative action then, and one of the ways that you

could deduce or surmise that people could exteriorize and

what exteriorization was and how people leave their bodies

at the time of death and that sort of thing can be traced

with a theta bop.



What do you want to trace it for? Why don't you just learn

how to get out of your head and see how it is and get back

in again. See? You don't have to figure these things out

because you're on the main road anyhow. You don't have to

go at it with a bunch of logics and substitutes, because

it's there to look at. So you can go around picking up

pebbles all over the road. You can get them in your shoes.

You can fall in the ditch. You can run into milestones and

culverts and bridge abutments and the neighbor's fence. You

can do all of these things, but let me call to your

attention that there is a main highway, and you can go down

it at 110 miles an hour.



And it's the instant read; prior reads don't count; latent

reads don't count. Just instant reads, that's all. And the

instant read will abide by the major thought that you're

putting across to the pc and, oddly enough, will occur

exactly as though somebody over there had been informed

when you were going to stop talking. Probably the OGPU or

the NKVD. I don't know, they have an intelligence service

involved.



You can be very mysterious about the whole thing, but the

funny part of it is, it becomes terribly simple. And when

you look at it in that way, when you clean up everything in

this way, E-Metering becomes very odd.



Now, if you're so involved in prior reads and so involved

in latent reads and so involved in why it reads, and if you

also have a number of invalidations of the meter and also

suspect that it doesn't work because it hasn't worked on

you - you see, one day it didn't read when you knew it should

have read - why, naturally you're going to have a hell of a

time with a meter.



So break it down to that simplicity. Look at the only

important read that is on the machine and you've got it.



The only other thing I can tell you about a read is when it

goes more than one simple read, it is a dirty needle and is

measuring, somewhere on the track, a missed withhold.



All the goals and items that you want have a single tick.

The only reaction you will get on a proven goal item - single

tick.



Double tick? Then the whole goal or item is a missed

withhold. Soon as you get the missed withhold off, it'll no

longer read. Missed withholds are always more than one

tick. You never have goals and items finally proven out

with any other pattern.



I have seen some prove out with a rock slam. I've seen some

prove out with a rock slam. But laterly, I have realized

that there wasn't much of a list every time that occurred.

If there'd been a little bit more of a list, they would

have proved out with a tick. It's all right as a goal, but

I see these things months and months afterwards when

they've settled down, and they all prove out with a tick.

You understand? That's all you're really interested in with

a meter.



Now, you talk about speeded rises, speeded falls, slowed

rises, slowed falls - yeah, but those are all instant reads.

Now you're talking about out rudiments. Now you're talking

about reading the significance of the thought majeure, but

it's still an instant read. It is merely a change of needle

pattern. So there's significances about what this read is

and what that read is, and I've just rattled them off to

you. See?



There are no more than that, you see? The dirty needle is

always a missed withhold. That's a double-tick arrangement.

Any change of needle pattern at the instant you're finished

is an instant read. And that goals and items when they

check out, if they're valid, turn out to be single ticks.



Frankly, you could get along with just the data which I've

given you in this lecture, and if you applied that and

didn't go scrambling around the road for a bunch of new

data, why, man, you'd have all the rudiments in, you'd be

sailing and everything would be fine. 



Okay? 



Audience: Yes.



I don't say stop thinking. Think all you want to. But don't

stop looking.



Thank you.









--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

view for bookmarking

text only  mail this message to a friend

Sponsored by Fatbrain.com {*}  post reply    << prev · next >>  

subscribeto alt.religion.scientology 

return to search results 



 

 





SHOPPING ·  Yellow Pages ·  5¢ Long Distance 

Free Stuff  ·  Trade with Datek  ·  GET IT NOW @ NECX 

FREE downloads! ·  Auctions & Classifieds  

  

 

Home  ·  Communities  ·  My Deja News  ·  Power Search  ·  Post  

 





About Deja News  ·  Ad Info  ·  Our Advertisers 







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 1995-99 Deja News, Inc. All rights reserved. 

Conditions of use  ·  Site privacy statement reviewed by TRUSTe  



