Golden era productions

87

88

12 FEBRUARY 1958

Don't think anything has happened beyond the fact that he has the consideration that he's outflowed too long in that direction and will not do so anymore. Get the idea? It's basically considerations, even though it's mechanical. But these considerations add up to this mechanical phenomenon. You got it?

Now, I've told you why fields get black. The reverse phenomena of total automaticity, total cave-in of mock-ups, and sometimes invisible fields, are a reverse flow—too much inflow. You'll see there are various phenomena that go along with too much inflow. They haven't all been cataloged. But we easily see the outflow phenomena of too much outflow—that's black or gray.

You shake that up by running a flow process like Help. Shake it up. Do well with it on the E-Meter, just run the needle idle—you got it made.

And if the individual seems quite cranky and antagonistic. . . Actually antagonistic, not that he's answering—he's still—you know, he's still answering the question, but his answers are antagonistic. You know that's not an antagonistic preclear. But he is not answering the question and he is being antagonistic to you, that's an antagonistic preclear. Got it?

So he's being antagonistic to you, the session is going haywire, he appears to be out of session, he appears to be nervous, appears to be some other way—it's havingness that's the trouble, not flows. You understand?

Anaten, it's flows. Now, anaten also proceeds from ARC breaks and is a surrender on the break line. But it remedies by flows. It comes from an ARC break and remedies by flows, so long as you're running Help. That's why Help is a valuable button.

But the preclear gets agitated, upset, seems to be out of session, irrelevant, hard to control, so forth—you can always remedy havingness.

Now, we don't care what Remedy of Havingness you do, just do one that the preclear can do and be real about it. Okay?

I think, by the way, this handles the majority of problems that you will run into in clearing people.

You learn anything on it?

Audience: Mm-hm.

All right. Thank you.

A LECTURE GIVEN ON 12 FEBRUARY 1958

What is the mechanical definition of a postulate? A postulate is something not connected with mechanics.

That's it.

Male voice: All right, can I rephrase the question?

Yes, you may.

Male voice: Define a postulate?

Well, a postulate is an idea, origination, intention emanating from a thetan which, when continued, becomes a consideration. Doesn't even necessarily belong to you. You know, "I have a postulate" does not mean "I originated a postulate."

Male voice: Okay, thanks. I can't define that.

No, that's the definition of it. Look it over . . .

Male voice: Well, it's . . .

. . . before you crack on it. Look it over.

Male voice: Well, it says what it is, but it doesn't say . . .

Come on, what do you want?

Male voice: I want to be able to answer this question of students who ask me, that's what I want.

What is a postulate? A postulate is a postulate.

Male voice: I agree.

It's an origination, an idea, a thought emanating from a thetan.

Male voice: Okay. How would you define an "action postulate?"

An action postulate?

Male voice: Mm-hm.

Now you've invented one. It would be a postulate which—the end product of which was action, of course. A mass postulate, I suppose, if you wanted to go into that—you would find it was mass and so on.

But now you're talking about the effect of a postulate, not a postulate, see? The thing which is pursuant to a postulate is the thing, not the postulate. And you actually have just gotten across the whole field of Buddhism, Christian Science—everything. The basic differences between Scientology and these things are many, but the most easily elucidated one is this: to a Scientologist, mass is; to a Christian Scientist, it's the postulate.

Male voice: Okay.

Got it?

Male voice: Thank you.

89

90

12 FEBRUARY 1958

You betcha.

Male voice: Regarding—oh, quick thing on this: One of the definitions we had was a postulate is a decision regarding beingness, doingness or havingness. That was one of the old definitions.

Yeah, that's very good.

Male voice: But regarding these flows, little by little . . .

But it's for sure an origin from a thetan.

Male voice: Oh yeah.

Yeah, but of course, that would—is a sloppy definition because it would make everything a postulate.

Male voice: Yeah.

But you have to say, then, it's an idea or a thought or an intention emanating from a thetan. Yeah.

Male voice: Okay. On these flows, little by little, some of my memories are coming back on when we used to run them. And it seems to me that when we would run a flow, we would find that in a flow-type arrangement we would normally start out where a flow could only be run a very little way and then it would stick, and then you'd have to go to the other side, or another side . . .

Yeah.

Male voice:. . . and as you continued, you could go longer and longer and longer and longer on any one flow and eventually you . . .

That's right.

Male voice: . . . process would work up to the point where you could go an indefinite period on any leg without. . .

That's right.

Male voice:. . . sticking it up again. All I've developed here is an easy rule that fits with an E-Meter.

Male voice: Yeah. Okay. The question, now, is how far should you go on this Help? Should you just get it so that it is free on each one or should you try and get it up to the point. . .

No, I've given you . . .

Male voice: . . . where it'll stay free for a while?

I've given you the safe limits. I've given you the safe limits, that's all. Any time you free up the needle, you're all set.

Male voice: Okay.

Now, you can run it longer and longer and longer and longer, so that at first it has to be a flip-flop, you know? You run one question, bridge; one question, bridge; one question, bridge. Then you could run two questions, two questions. And then, having noticed which way that the flow was stuck, having isolated it because of his comm lag—he's taking awful long time to answer the direction it is flowing. If he's stuck on an outflow, then he's taking a long time to answer an outflow question. Get the idea?

"How could you help another person?" See, he's taking a long time to answer this. Now, "How could another person help you?"

He says, "Well, I just—that's easy, another person could help me. He could polish my shoes, dust my hair." You know? And he tries to answer four or five times for every question you ask. Well, you for sure have run into the direction there that is trying to flow back at him. And you'll get into a total automatic that way.

HAVINGNESS, ANATEN, FLOWS IN RELATION TO CLEARING: Q&A PERIOD

But you can run it longer and longer till finally you can build it up, run it an hour on each leg. And there is the smooth way of running Help. I should have covered this last week, but then I should have covered this whole subject years ago.

Male voice: On this question of postulates, seems to me that it's—for example, we were looking at this the other night—it's fairly feasible to be able to mock up some money . . .

Uh-huh.

Male voice: . . . provided there's some sort of an agreement. For example, one can postulate a preclear and have some money.

Right.

Male voice: Or you could postulate being in a certain area where preclears look as though that's where they are and you would get some money. This level of postulate.

Sure, but that's the postulate by agreement.

Male voice: Yeah. Well, then there's the next one, which is just postulate some money.

Yeah, that's right.

Male voice: And this is the level.

Female voice: This is the one we just did.

Male voice: And we were looking at, well, which is a postulate? Is it a postulate consideration? Is it a postulate with agreement?

Well, I should . . .

Male voice: There should be something above that where just—money.

That is why I did not find—did not define a postulate as a direct thought or origin, because you can postulate by a billion vias or a dozen scales.

Male voice: The most usual one seems to be postulate by agreement.

Yeah, well that's common at this time. Roman didn't do that at all. The police don't do that—they don't postulate by agreement.

Male voice: Well, they don't postulate.

Oh yes, they do. They say, "You're guilty." And then they carry the rest of it out by force and weight.

Male voice: How can anyone below "Lines"postulate?

They can.

Male voice: Dyuhh!

This is one of the most amazing things. A garage mechanic—this is the liability of being aberrated—garage mechanic hurts his hand. Auditor audits him. In the process of running out the engram, we find the point where he decided to hurt his hand. He said, "If I change that differential, I'll mangle my knuckles like I always do." The postulate was unfortunately effective, but he had no control over it.

And oh, we've run into that lots, haven't we? It's fabulous! It's horrible. This government down here is postulating, "Well, we go to war with Russia. Well, we go to war with Russia. Well, we go to war with Russia." Fortunately, there isn't much Russia.

Yes?

Male voice: On this matter of flows, when the—is this what changed when the person can run a flow longer in one direction, is that he has increased his ability to create on the subject therefore he can maintain the flow longer because he's creating more of it rather than relying off of some— something contributing to him?

You're very correct. It relates to creation.

91

92

12 FEBRUARY 1958

Male voice: So then when you can run Help, for example, till he could run a long ways or indefinitely in one direction, then you could say he could create help.

Yes, for sure. Yeah, that's right. Very good.

There is no finite flat point on Help. I don't know how far it'd go. It might go all the way to Clear. You know, it just might keep on going. Then eventually it'd probably run out and fall out as just pure survival postulates. That'd be it. But it's not been done, and the mechanism of "Mock it up and keep it from going away" has created them.

Yes?

Male voice: It's a question on Connectedness. If a preclear can't repair his havingness and the command is used, can we alter it as to the way it was originally introduced: "You make that object connect with you"?

Oh yes.

Male voice: Good.

That is, of course, a different version of it, but when we say Connectedness, we're talking—we're paying you a compliment of talking about a family of processes. And they include a tremendous number of processes. I don't know how many of them there are. I haven't even bothered to count them. It would take some doing.

Male voice: Well, I'm very—mostly interested in—uh — repairing the preclear's havingness.

Yes, all right.

Male voice: With the present command, he cannot repair the preclear—the preclear's havingness.

Oh, I would not say that. I wouldn't go so far as to say that bluntly.

Male voice: Well, I mean, he doesn't get too much of a lift out of it. That's why . . .

All depends on where he is. All depends on where he is.

Male voice: Yeah.

If you want a repair of havingness out of Connectedness, then you have to run a version that will repair the havingness of the preclear. I'm not being sarcastic or anything—I mean, that's true.

Male voice: Yes.

And I know that preclears at different parts of the scale respond to different commands. And it's a job somebody's got to do one of these days of finding out exactly where on the scale each one of these processes repairs havingness, you understand? We just simply take the broadest one that is most likely to do so and do the least damage, which the preclear can do.

Now, "You make that object connect with you" is all but impossible for some preclears.

Male voice: Yes.

And if carried out to the fullest, would result in a yo-yo. You'd be pulling him out and in—out of his head, don't you see, to really obey the command.

The best of the Connectedness processes is, oddly enough, "Look around here and find something you could have." That's the best Connectedness process. Of course, then we go on off into Trio, and the last part of Trio is not a Connectedness process, oddly enough.

It's interesting—the wilderness of the mind. These vast stretches of blank.

That answer your question?

Male voice: Yes, it does.

Good. Yes?

HAVINGNESS, ANATEN, FLOWS IN RELATION TO CLEARING: Q&A PERIOD

Male voice: As a preclear, I had rather peculiar phenomena this morning on Creative Processing. When watching the auditor and mocking up in various places with my eyes open, the auditor disappeared and another person seemed to be in his place, or other clothes seemed to be there.

Right.

Male voice: What is that? Is that fixing. . .

That's a flip on terminals. This was covered in the 1st—no, more importantly in the 2nd ACC, under the heading of "ghosts." People walk around with other people with them all the time. And the second you started to come upscale on this, a terminal appeared, and you got the same Reality Scale I was just talking about, and you start to move up into "Terminal," only—I mean, on this particular subject. You see, anybody can be down on any given subject. And as you came back up the line, before you got the real terminal, why, you got an unreal one. Now, if the thing that showed up was another auditor from some other place . . . Was it?

Male voice: No, it wasn't.

It wasn't.

Male voice: No.

Well, if it had been some auditor from some other place, this still applies. You would have—you would have had this: You would have just run out a "stuck" on the time track.

Oh, there's some wild phenomena that will greet the eye on this sort of stuff. On some of these processes, the whole physical universe has gone askew. The corners of the room suddenly go out, and the other two corners come in, and the floor will go out of plumb and just stay that way! You know, the guy sits there and he looks at all this, you know, with his physical body's eyes.

Another one, a much more common one—it squares around on the same process, so you don't have to worry about it, it's just phenomena—another one, he's mocking it up and you say, "Well, mock up something and make it a little more solid," you know? "Mock up—in front of that body, mock up a pole and make it a little more solid," you know? And he does. And he looks at the pole, and the pole has blanked out the back end of the room. In other words, he can't see through his own mock-up, and the actual room area back of it has disappeared, and the auditor has disappeared back of the mock-up. You get the idea? All right.

Now, if you had an obsessive mock-up going on that was being made real solid, and it's—got triggered (snap) and you came up past that, then it would appear. Got the idea? And it would appear in lieu of or in front of what you were really looking at.

The only time you want to worry about blackness—as a person, not as a case or in auditing—is when it obscures the environment. In other words, a screen has gotten so huge that the environment is obscured.

One famous case: A guy—every time he looked at his wife, he saw this huge black screen—I mean, just as you're looking at the wall there—this huge black screen right in front of his wife. It scared him. He was scared. He was a shaken boy when he came to me and said, "What can we do about this?" Oddly enough, I did it with Creative Processing. We found out what part of his wife he could mock up until we mocked up the whole wife, at which moment we had no longer any screen.

In other words, we did a direct terminal address to this, where as a matter of fact it was a problem in postulates. We could have said, "How could your wife help you?" We would have run into a champion comm lag. See, and

93

94

12 FEBRUARY 1958

he eventually would have answered this. And then we'd say, "Well, how could you help your wife?" just to get that off, you know?

And he'd say, "Oh, I could help her in lots of ways. I could buy her fur coats, I could buy her chocolates, I could kill her, I could shoot her."

By the way, have any of you run into the inversion whereby you get propitiation which goes into destruction, which then goes into help? Hm? Well, there's a point of worship in there you should notice. Just as propitiation fades out and as destruction comes in, you will get worship—obsessive worship.

The deification of women: I imagine if you'd have taken any knight of the Middle Ages and run him on Help—"How could you really help a damsel?"

Why, he would have answered it something like this: "Well, I could rescue her from a dragon. Ah, yes." And big comm lag. "I could rescue her from a black knight. I could—I could—well, I could build a temple to her. Yes, and I could—I could write poetry which made everybody understand she was a goddess."

And you say, "Boy, this is—this is getting too pure, this is getting too wonderful. And the process obviously is flat. From the viewpoint of the Middle Ages, you see—I mean, that was where we're supposed to be."

Trouble is, the next command would have been, almost in the same tone of voice, "Well, I could have thrown her to a wild boar. I could have torn her head off and dried it carefully so that I could hit people over the head with it." And then he might have gotten emotional about it: "And I could kill her!"

"How could you help her?"

"Well, I could kill her!" See? "I could strangle her!"

I guess those dames back in those days, they weren't too smooth, they . . . (laughter) You girls back in those times had it too good. You spoiled it. Because the general attitude of worship was an attitude of unreality, and when anybody took a square look at a girl, he generally ran her through with a spear or something. You get the idea? I mean, the habit pattern followed this, and you got all these wild tortures right alongside with this tremendous worship. You get the idea?

And sometimes you improve somebody on the eighth dynamic, you say, "How could you help God?"

"Oh." He's an atheist, you see? And he'll go right along, the next few answers—atheism, atheism, "God doesn't exist," you know, and so on. And then eventually he'll come up to saying, "Well, I could worship him. I could pray to him. I could burn votive offerings. I could burn my wife to him."

And he'd go on up the line and then, "Well, I could tear up all the Bibles. I could tear down all the churches. I could convince everybody he doesn't exist. I could destroy him, destroy him, destroy him, destroy him, destroy him." And then finally, "I could give some sermons telling people about God."

See, there's this weird inversion. And if you look on this and see how easily it flips on Help — it's just the power of the button, you see? It flips quick. An auditor has to look fast to see this phenomena. But don't forget that all of this phenomena is heavy enough to be heavily dramatized by the preclear in his lifetime. You're looking straight at crime, so forth. You're looking at a tremendous number of behavior patterns.

Yes?

Male voice: I was—suddenly snapped to something on the way over this morning—that Help would be a real fast valence-buster run on a five- or six-way bracket. The individual would be . . .