Third hour this afternoon, December the 4th, continuing this third
 talk on spacation. Going to go over this again very rapidly, very, very 
 briefly and very rapidly. We are talking about, in this universe, a series of
 agreements as follows: 
 
 One, there is an origin point, unknown but understood. You've not 
 located that origin point, you just say all this space somehow or other comes
 from an origin point. Now that is the first point of confusion about the MEST
 universe, is that there's space all around and it must be coming from 
 someplace and so on, which is not the case. Then there's origin point one and
 that could also be origin point "I". And that is the viewpoint of dimension,
 and that is the definition of space: Viewpoint of dimension, of the 
 individual. And he looks around and he can assign viewpoints. The handiest
 way to do this is, of course, to simply mock up anchor points, mock up 
 dimensions. 
 
 And then the third thing we're dealing with is anchor points. Now an
 anchor point is that point which origin "I" assigns so that he can have 
 dimension and motion. Now he has either assigned it or just agreed upon it,
 or agreed that he will assign to these understood things. It says: That is a
 room. A room has eight corners, therefore there are eight anchor points to a
 room. Every time you go in a room now you know this, there will be eight 
 anchor points and you will accept immediately the anchor points which 
 everybody around accepts as this room's anchor points. Is that understood?
 That's good. Now we've made you dependent. 
 
 So, there's origin I and that is a viewpoint from which one can 
 perceive anchor points, and these anchor points actually assign dimension or
 boundary to space. And these anchor points are called anchor points because
 they're actually used as electrodes or terminals as on an electric motor. 
 Whenever there is motion, one holds the anchor point and perceives the 
 motion. It's very simple. He also perceives the anchor point, holds and 
 perceives the anchor point and then sees something changing without those 
 anchor points moving. You get a.. at sea and you give some ensign a 
 maneuvering board problem; you've got a picnic on your hands, because you're
 telling him to use as origin points the center of a board which.. it's an 
 abstract center which has no real reality, which is probably moving. 
 
 And then you say, "Now look, here are three or four anchor points.
 Those will be the ships in the problem and these anchor points are all in 
 motion. Now this is a maneuvering board problem. When will the anchor points
 coincide and crash? Or when will they rendezvous? How far do they have to go
 in order to get any...?" That's a maneuvering board problem. That's very 
 rough stuff. 
 
 Now, if he doesn't have an instructor who merely wishes.. if he.. 
 most instructors, you see, merely wish to obfuscate, and if he doesn't have
 an instructor who wishes to obfuscate, the instructor will point out to him,
 "Look, it doesn't matter how fast that origin point is moving. It is static.
 It's right there in relationship to the outermost limits of the graph." 
 
 One of those graphs, simple looking affair, but uh.. you've got 
 anchor points which don't move and they're not moving at such and such a 
 postulated rate, well, who cares? Who cares how much they're not moving? 
 They're anchor points. And if you'll just take the center of the board and
 the limits of the board, and then figure out everything else on the board as
 points in motion in relationship to these anchor points, he's all set. 
 
 Rut if he goes at it in reverse and tries to.. to figure it out that
 the anchor points are in motion, and the origin points are in motion too, of
 
 -89 
 

 course he has nothing to tie any motion to, so no motion can occur and he 
 can't see how any motion could possibly occur and he'll just sit there with
 his mouth open. 
 
 That would be the same thing if I told you the two forward.. forward
 corners of this room - if you believed it - the two forward corners of this
 room uh.. were moving four miles an hour to the right except the right-hand
 forward corner which occasionally went in a circle. And those were the only
 two points that you could perceive anywhere around. 
 
 Now you were supposed to tell the velocity of something that was 
 between those two points. I just.. just wouldn't.. just be horrible. But you
 could do it because you've got one point and you could possibly plot the 
 other point. You could stretch your minds to do this sort of thing, but it'd
 be an awful job. 
 
 Now, anchor points, then, are assigned or agreed upon points of 
 boundary which are conceived to be motionless by the individual. He's on a
 train. He looks up and down. Somebody walks down the aisle of the train; he
 knows somebody's walking down the aisle of the train because he holds the 
 forward end of the car as one anchor point and the after end of the car as 
 another anchor point and the individual, who is in motion, has a shifting 
 dimension, from one to the other of these two things so somebody can walk. 
 
 But let's look out the window. And there we see the countryside 
 flying by like mad. Sure, it's the countryside flying by like mad. You have
 to explain to a little kid how the countryside is not flying by. The 
 countryside is motionless; the train is what's in motion. He knows this from
 past lives and so forth, but a little kid can get awful kinda fooled on this.
 And every once in a while he'll sort of grit his teeth and say, "All right,
 it's actually doing that - but it doesn't look that way." So actually the 
 countryside is flying by with relationship to the two anchor points, the 
 forward end of the car and the back end of the car. Those are what's 
 motionless and the countryside is flying by, of course. 
 
 Now if you say every telegraph pole there is an anchor point and 
 those anchor points are shifting, then you can conceive that the train is in
 motion. You can even sit in the train then and feel the train rushing forward
 and the countryside sitting still. But it's quite a trick. But you can do 
 that with great ease. 
 
 A race driver does this with facility. He goes so fast that even he 
 knows he's in motion, because the track is shifting so fast with relationship
 to the bonnet and the shoes of the car that he.. he could feel that. Why? 
 He's got an up-and-down vibration and sideways and so forth. 
 
 If you want to really drive a fast car, get one with small wheels 
 built close to a track; that's a very fast car. If you want to drive a slow
 car, get one with great big wheels and a big powerful motor, and with.. it 
 rides awfully easy. And that's really a slow car. 
 
 What's this got to do with miles per hour? It has nothing to do with
 miles per hour except in relationship to anchor points which the driver isn't
 perceiving. You see? Uh.. that's very interesting. 
 
 In some countries they tell you they have very fast railways. That's
 because their trains go over rough tracks, terrible tracks; they're built 
 rather close down and the countryside isn't ever observed. But what is 
 observed is the way you bounce around in that car - boy, is it taking off. 
 Furthermore, everytime the engineer starts one of them up he goes it from 
 
 -90- 
 

 zero throttle, full throttle - BOOM. And you go crash across one car and 
 crash the other way and you know that thing is driving. You know that thing
 is really going. 
 
 But let't take something with 120 lb. rails, built well up off the 
 ground and let's take it at 120 miles an hour down the track. Thing isn't 
 moving, obvious. You sit there, have a whisky soda, something of the sort, in
 the parlor car. Finally railroads became so despairing about people believing
 trains didn't move fast that in most of those very fast trains, back in the
 parlor car they have a speedometer. 
 
 All right, then what.. what is.. what is this whole business motion?
 Well, let's get right into the second stage here. 
 
 What's matter? Matter is not simply condensed space, it's relatively
 unoccupiable space, and the solider matter is, the more you have postulated
 that it is unoccupiable. And when you get out as a thetan you're travelling
 on a high wave length, the first thing your preclear may do is slam into the
 ceiling. And then he realizes suddenly that he does not have mass, and the
 second he realizes he doesn't have mass he goes on through the ceiling. 
 
 Sometimes he has to fish around for a little while to find the wall
 of the ceiling in order to.. to come back through it and use it as an anchor
 point. He has to practically repostulate it in order to get back into the 
 body, and when he gets out and first realizes this, of course all time and
 space scrambles to him, scrambles all over the place. The reason why is he
 has lost what most people are holding on to madly as the last anchor point.
 
 I call this, the point of origin is in the body - well, let me extend
 that a little bit for your clarification. The only anchor point he has is the
 body, that he can be sure of. His level of certainty has diminished and 
 diminished and diminished throughout life. He's become so dispersed, any 
 other anchor point has been found to be so reliable, that they disappear if
 you sneeze at them. And this unreliability of anchor points has finally 
 brought him down to the fact that when he pinches himself, he know's it's 
 real. He knows he's not dreaming because he can pinch himself and get a 
 sensation. This is the same thing as saying, he knows he can perceive his 
 body because he has not been chased off that as an agreement. 
 
 See, he agreed to all these anchor points, and then other people 
 broke the agreement. They kept taking anchor points away from him. So the one
 thing they haven't taken away from him is his body and he has this body then
 as an anchor point from which he cannot be robbed. 
 
 So his reality consists of anchor points to the body and other anchor
 points around are kind of vague. He doesn't perceive them very well because
 he knows other people haven't agreed to them. Why? They've taken them away
 from him, haven't they? So when we start perceiving, or as this person starts
 perceiving, he'll perceive the body more and more and more and the 
 environment less and less and less until we get the dwindling spiral which
 finally leads not only past the normal homo sapiens, but on down to a six and
 a seven case level of Standard Operating Procedure. 
 
 And this person doesn't even know it's real by an anchor point of the
 body. A seven has lost the body as an anchor point. No longer has the body as
 this anchor point, so he cannot be sure where he is because he knows the body
 isn't real either. 
 
 But as a person goes down the tone scale, down the tone scale, down
 the tone scale, his environment contracts on him. The lower emotions are 
 
 -91- 
 

 contracted environments, less motion capable, more solidity, harder to move
 through. A person can actually feel this. You get.. run him through a moment
 of shock, he will feel the environment close right in on him and become 
 practically no-dimensional. 
 
 He's abandoning every anchor point in the environment because he's
 saying, "It can't be actual. It can't be actual." That's the same thing as
 saying, "It can't be happening. I don't want this motion. I've tried to stop
 the motion itself, in order to stop the motion, all I can do is abandon the
 anchor points and that will make the motion stop." 
 
 Only that doesn't make it stop either because he's still got the
 body. And he's got the body and the motion continues in relationship to his
 body as an anchor point and so he feels the whole environment contracting
 down and he'll finally abandon the body as well in order to stop some motion
 which he conceives to exist beyond his control and beyond his ability to 
 withstand the perception. 
 
 All right, this gets right into motion, anchor points, dwindling 
 anchor points. You'll find that individuals who move the least have the 
 fewest clear anchor points. You will find that the ability of an individual
 to tolerate speed depends completely upon his ability to hold anchor points.
 And his ability to hold anchor points depends only upon his belief in his
 ability to hold anchor points. And anchor points come down to being 
 postulates. 
 
 How do you remedy this situation then? How do you rebuild this 
 ability? You just have a person start postulating anchor points, dimensions
 to space, that's all, and contract them and expand them and contract them and
 change them around and then put in new dimensions and change the old 
 dimensions and then age the dimensions you have and then decrease the 
 dimensions. And then decrease the space and expand the space again and 
 scramble then the anchor points. 
 
 Have the anchor point that is over to the right move and be the left
 side anchor point and so forth. Turn the space upside down backwise to. 
 Interchange these points and then throw in a whole bunch of random points.
 Then throw all these random points together in a pile, thereby collapsing the
 space. Make some matter out of it and then bring those anchor points back out
 again and move them around as anchor points. 
 
 Now take these anchor points and set them way out somewhere and then
 fill that space full and then defy the laws of space in the MEST universe
 (which laws of space have to do with our agreement on how much space can hold
 in relationship to oneself) and start dumping into that space things it 
 obviously cannot hold and have it remain the same size and just keep on doing
 this, then empty that space again and then dump things into this space. Now
 empty this space and throw them to places where there is no space, and bring
 them back into places where the space is much too small for them and have
 them fit very adequately. 
 
 Shift the anchor points around again, throw the anchor points away.
 This starts in on a gradient scale. Take one point and move it around, and
 then take two points and move the two points around and then move them close
 together and then further apart. The first thing your preclear will find - if
 he's down around five and so forth - don't pick this up if you don't do it -
 is, the first time he tries to hold two anchor points in relationship to each
 other, they'll snap together and go zero on him. 
 He'll try to put two points out there and they'll keep going snap. 
 -92- 

 The distance between them will collapse. Not only will they snap together, 
 but they'll snap back onto his body. Of course they will, because his point
 uh.. anchor point is his body. So in order to be sure of any anchor point he
 naturally has to bring it back and feel it on his body, If he doesn't feel it
 on his body, it isn't an anchor point. 
 
 Eventually get him to perceive an anchor point at some distance from
 his body. And then perceive two of them and be able to hold them apart and 
 shift them around at will. Be able to move them farther away and closer up.
 Shift them around all locations possible, these anchor points. Change the 
 character of the anchor points. Make them different. 
 
 The next thing you know you've clicked out the belief he must have
 that the anchor point must be furnished him, and he will find out suddenly,
 "Gee, what do you know, heh, I'm.. I'm the viewpoint of dimension." 
 
 Now the second step of this merges straight on into force and it goes
 into the first level of force, which is sensation. Sensation has a lot to do
 with ARC - ARC, it gets pretty crude when you can define it as ARC. At first
 it is merely sensation. It is rather undifferentiative. It is still a flow;
 the ridges on it are quite minor, and then the ridges start to get heavier as
 the person comes down the tone scale. 
 
 So the first thing you do on a mock-up drill is to put something out
 there and put an emotion into it and then feel the emotion. Because that's 
 what a person does all the time, 24 hours a day. There's no sensation coming
 off of anything except what sensation he puts into it and pulls back off of
 it again. Just as he neglects continually to postulate his anchor points in
 space for the sake of automaticity and interest to himself, so does he 
 neglect continually to perceive this little step. In order to see something
 and feel about it, one has to project onto it the generally agreed upon 
 feeling about such things. And one projects onto it this generally agreed 
 upon feeling about such things and then perceives back off of it this 
 perception, and the first step he wishes to enter his awareness is "I 
 perceive a sensation emanating from." 
 
 Now he's got to have space in which to do that because it's emanating
 FROM and you can't have anything emanating from anything unless you've got 
 some space there first. You can't have anything emanating to anything unless
 you have some space there first, too, 
 
 Now what's the drill? What's the drill? You just put things out there
 and you just take the emotional scale and the emotional scale from 40 to 0.0
 as will be covered, is the zeros of MEST and the 40.0 is space. Now matter is
 really a 0.0 and 40.0 is space. So what does this coincide with? It coincides
 with the action cycle. At 40.0 you have start, intermediate you have change,
 at 0.0 you have stop. At the top of the emotional scale you have space, at 
 the middle of it you have action, at the bottom of it you have matter. And 
 this coincides with an experience: emotional experience, with the top of it
 being serenity and then, about 20.0, on a very high exhilaration, then 
 exhilaration dwindles off and we get.. we just skipped enormous array of 
 emotions, by the way, and we skip right on down into what the homo sapiens 
 and low level beings in general experience as emotion, which is enthusiasm,
 caution, boredom, antagonism, anger, fear, grief and apathy. 
 
 And as we go down that, we're going down the action cycle. We're also
 going down the creation, change and destruction cycle. And all those cycles
 are coincident cycles. So your preclear will be able to perceive only at the
 lowest levels at first, usually, and he will only really be able to perceive
 at a certain 
 
 -93- 
 

 height. This is the only way I know of swiftly changing the emotional tone 
 and therefore the position of the preclear on the tone scale is to shift his
 position on the sensation scale. 
 
 That sensation scale and the emotion scale can be considered to be 
 coincident scales: that is, to have him put anger onto an object and feel its
 anger, to put fear onto an object and feel its fear, to put grief onto an 
 object and feel its grief, to put apathy onto an object and feel its apathy.
 Now what would that be doing? That would be moving your preclear in order 
 right on down the tone scale, wouldn't it? And if you went through that order
 and you said, "Now put some antagonism on this object. Put some anger on it.
 Now put some fear on it and perceive the fear, now put some grief on it and 
 perceive the grief. Now put some apathy on it and perceive the apathy. And 
 you just went through that cycle in that order from 2.0 down each time as the
 drill, you're agreeing completely with the MEST universe. You're agreeing and
 therefore he will on go down the tone scale. 
 
 But now if you just vary that and then make it slightly random and 
 then vary it upwards and then make it random and then vary it upwards again,
 why, you'll eventually be able to boost him up because really what you're 
 doing is changing postulates. You'll be able to boot him up to exhilaration.
 
 The fellow who goes initially and immediately into serenity, very 
 fast into serenity, without realizing what he does for emotion has simply 
 backed off from experiencing sensation. He has mistaken serenity for 
 sensation. I mean this.. he's mistaken this sensation of backing off from 
 sensation for serenity. 
 
 Down a little lower on the tone scale, of course, a person is fixed 
 in what they feel. Just like a piece of MEST is fixed with what you felt. You
 put this MEST out on the table and it's on the table. You know a table is 
 there because everybody feels that table. And you agreed that you are 
 everybody, so there you are out there and you feel it. 
 
 Now, you can put something on it and take an emotion off of it. But 
 that is a little hidden step and est people very successfully hide that from
 themselves and they'll be quite startled when they suddenly find out that 
 their emotional a.. volatility is considerably increasing and also that their
 complete and utter slavish dependence upon the NEST universe as such is 
 itself decreasing. 
 
 Why, they never saw the like of this, it's very strange. They.. 
 they.. they.. they feel better. That's the only way they'll say it. Probably
 won't even explain it to you at all exactly why this is. But up to this time
 they've said "MEST universe will deliver sensation to me." 
 
 The reason a guy gets down to apathy is he's no more willing. He 
 thinks he has to receive the sensation without putting the sensation out. And
 the more he believes this, the less force he employs; and the less force he 
 is willing to employ, the more he will do this; and the more he does this, 
 the less real sensation there is for him; and he gets into the null of no 
 sensation lower band, which apparently is just flicking around sort of grief
 and apathy and maybe a little fear. Once in a while he becomes annoyed and he
 said, "I was in a rage the other day." 
 
 You know a real good rage is an interesting thing to behold. If a 
 fellow started postulating rages on something he could probably bust 
 agreements which other people had hanging on it. Let's say he levered a rage
 at the window and everybody has still got hold of that window, and it's a 
 window, and they've all postulated and so forth, there'd be such a kickback 
 
 - 94 - 

 from the window that they'll say rumph, and the window will go kablam - 
 there'd be no window. This is how you produce sudden shocks in MEST. 
 
 All right, what then is the first.. first requisite on this motion?
 Space. And what is the first requisite of motion? Is that you can shift 
 postulates about anchor points. That's the first requisite, that you can 
 shift postulates about anchor points. That gives you real anchor points and
 that then you can observe something shifting in relationship to anchor 
 points. 
 
 Now the essential step there is of course to perceive that something
 is changing in relationship to the anchor points. You postulate it's here,
 and then you postulate it's there and then you postulate it's over here. What
 are you doing when you're doing that? You're saying, "It's here, it's there,
 it's here, it's there, it's here, it's there, it's here, it's there." Look at
 that thing vibrate. 
 
 Now, this apparently and obviously requires time, doesn't it? Because
 what did you say? Time? What's time? Well - time - well, you've got a watch,
 haven't you? Says in the old axioms, a single arbitrary is time. Uh-huh, this
 MEST universe for homo sapiens has as its arbitrary time. Because he'd made
 time an unknown thing which can be given.. experienced only secondarily, and
 he's sort of agreed that this is what it is. 
 
 Now in order to have motion you've got to put into existence two 
 anchor points, and you've got to have a!shift of dimension. Well, when you
 have two anchor points, you can say those things exist without dimension, but
 that isn't very handy. 
 
 So let's put something with its own dimension there and certain 
 solidity so if somebody runs into it they'll know it's there. Let's make sure
 that's there. Now when we get something shifting there let's say it has a 
 certain unenterability and let's get it shifting real good, right to the 
 left, left to the right, right to the left, left to the right. Now let's get
 that going real good. Now we got that. 
 
 All the time, by the way, we're sitting there watching it and being
 very surprised, very, very surprised that uh.. and affected and amused by all
 that action that's taking place that we don't have anything to do with it.
 We're not doing that, no, no. We're doing that with complete agreement, so we
 put an object there. 
 
 Now what's this object? This object is a particle. It has an 
 unenterability of a certain dimension of the space which we're 
 dimensionalizing and that is a particle. That's very simple. This particle
 could be a sheet, a cube, a lightning bolt, anything you want to put it 
 there. Hut let's say a particle. And let's get this particle being first, 
 second, third, fourth, so that there's an order of position. 
 
 Now we could go first, second, third, fourth, just agreeing that 
 there's an interval of sh.. shift. Unless we've got a solid agreement on an
 interval of shift, unless we've got that one, nobody will ever see anything
 travelling at the same speed, and we couldn't have that. 
 
 So let's get that thing and then you can shift it to one, two, three,
 four, as positions. And then you could shift it to positions as I'm going to
 write as follows up here on the board, and your shift of positions would be
 first one.. positions one, two, three, four - notice this is in relationship
 that you're seeing it, by the way, to those two anchor points up there. 
 
 - 95 -- 

 And uh.. so then we could.. we could do this change, we could do this
 change, this uh.. in two ways. We could say one, two, three, four, or we 
 could say one, two, three, four, or we could say one, two, three, four, or 
 one, two, three, four, or one, two, three, four. And that last one, two, 
 three, four all piled up on each other there would make it look like it was
 standing still, or that it wasn't there, which it isn't in the first place.
 
 All right. So you ever see anything do this? You ever see anything 
 vibrate broadly and then narrow and speed its vibration and then narrow and
 speed its vibration until it's practically standing upright and vibrating 
 like the dickens? 
 
 Well, now it's.. it's going to shock you sometime to find out how 
 fast you really think because you don't think measured against time. And when
 you think your time against MEST time as such, running a clock or something
 in the MEST universe, you're going to be flabbergasted to find out that 
 you're thinking brrrp. And you've just thought out this whole book. Or you 
 say brumm and there it all is. Oh heck, you.. you can do that and you've got
 a condition.. you've got a condition.. you can go brrrp and you've got a 
 condition. Well, you've got a condition - that's very interesting, isn't it?
 You've got a condition. There it is. Very interesting. 
 
 You want to sit there with nothing else to pick up your interest? 
 Time is for the purposes of interest. Time is made to interest one. So we get
 time to be a particle, a motion, an object. Now look it, don't.. don't.. 
 don't get too slippy on this. Time is not, definitely not, at any moment, 
 anything as silly as a change of motion in space. That is not time. 
 
 To say that there's time and then to describe an action of space and
 particle and your postulates and then say, "Well, there's time" is to put out
 a weird sort of a thing that some kind of an unknown thing that goes on that
 we don't want to know anything about. So that compares immediately to 
 something on the automaticity scale. Not wanting to know in order to produce
 randomity. Time is.. is the object, call this particle an object. Sounds 
 awfully strange, doesn't it? Time is an object. Call this particle an object,
 call anything which becomes solid as a result of that as an object, call any
 energy flow which is a whole particle or made up of particles, whichever way
 you want to look at it - call that whole energy flow an object, or call any
 section of it an object. But let's kind of use the word OBJECT. There's a 
 good reason for this. It's an object; because you can change a person's time
 sense and time beingness and alter his time just with objects. 
 
 So let's divide this thing up for clarity of thinking in order to 
 compare it to experience as an object.. objects. Let.. let's.. let's class..
 let's forget about the clocks and their hands going around in circles for a
 moment and see this as an object, and the chair as an object and the place as
 an object and so forth. And there is a lot of change of space matched up in
 each one of these things on which you're agreeing like mad. It's really.. 
 you've got no idea how bright you are. Why, you're so bright that you can 
 keep all these postulates running simultaneously. That's brilliant! 
 
 Well, let's.. let's.. let's take a look at this now and let's take a
 whole lot of objects. Let's take a great big pile of objects. Let's not do 
 anything with the coordinate points, the anchor points for those objects. 
 Let's just take that great big pile of objects. Now unless you come along and
 do something about them or unless they're motivated to have something done to
 them, or unless internally something will happen to these objects, there's no
 change. 
 
 - 96 - 
 

 And if you were to walk in there according to the MEST universe time
 of 1200 and take a look at that pile of objects and you were to walk in there
 in the year 2000 and take a look at those pile of objects and there was no 
 change. You were there in 1200, and when you went in there at 2000, you were
 there at 1200. Well, when you went in there at 1200, you were there at the 
 year 2000. See, it doesn't matter a doggone. It doesn't matter when you came
 in that area, that space, and examined the objects; if there's no corrosion,
 no loss of the object, you've always got the same time. You never have 
 anything else, but the same time for those objects. 
 
 You have a change of object out in the environment beyond this space
 by which you can judge whether or not... you've got an alteration of anchor
 points, postulates shifting for your own interest, out here in the anchor 
 points of the environment, and you've got this big pile of stuff there. Now
 you say it went from the year 1200 to the year 2000 not because they changed
 - no change. You.. they had just duration. There's no change; that's 
 duration, that's also matter. All right. 
 
 But you could go out here in the environment and you could go around
 and.. and you get.. you.. you.. you postulate you've got a Ford and you 
 postulate you've got a building, you postulate you've got a moustache, and 
 you postulate you now have a family. And you got this and you got that and 
 you got this and you got that and you got this and you will have this and you
 won't have this and something else this and that, and so forth, and this 
 whole cycle goes along for an awful long time, and then you come back and 
 take a look at this room. There's no change, but you know it's been a long 
 time. Not because anything happened in the room, but because something 
 happened on a broader set of anchor points. Only when you make a broader set
 of anchor points for observation and include that room in them, is there any
 change in that room. 
 
 Timelessness is an apathy and time itself is an apathy. Timelessness
 merely means something that endures across long spans of time. That's silly -
 something that endures across long.. one is a long span of time. 
 
 The Egyptian pyramids obviously have changed. They are not timeless.
 You could measure the amount of change of the Egyptian pyramids. People came
 along and took that nice marble facing off of them and built doorsteps and 
 privies and things out of them, and did different beautiful things with them.
 That's a fact, they did, and the desert sands came up and hit them and 
 corroded them and blew them away. There are big nicks in them and the space
 of the.. space of the Sphinx has all corroded; there's been a change there.
 We know they are changed. But if those things existed as the day they were 
 built with the same condition as the day they were built, we'd walk back 
 there and it might as well be the 3500 years ago as now. 
 
 The more solid apathy is.. you see, apathy can be this no motion 
 apparency. It's an all motion which has no space to operate in, all 
 postulated, all collapsed on itself. We have, then, an object. 
 
 We've got duration. We have duration. Mostly because another guy, 
 some poor little weak guy can't come along and take a look at them and say,
 move this way, move that way, move this way, move that way, and they get all
 changed. No, sir, these exist on changeless postulates. They've been agreed
 upon so hard and so thoroughly and so carefully that nobody can come up and
 in a few little weak postulates alter them. There's no time there. Things 
 would stop. 
 
 Now if that existed, only on its own anchor points, there'd be no 
 time. The place might as well be empty on its own anchor points. It's empty
 
 - 97 - 
 

 on its own anchor points; it's full of matter on its own anchor points, you 
 still have no sensation of time, until you put a particle in there. 
 
 So let's just forget about this slippy, stupid word TIME, let's 
 forget about that and let's get change of position. Now that's theoretically
 the definition of it. And the only reason we're interested in this is not 
 interested in it from a physics standpoint even remotely. They've been too 
 long running around in that squirrel cage. Going round and round and round, 
 space is time is MEST is a particle is space is time is MEST is a... I mean 
 we're.. space, time, energy, these three things are related. Related, hell! 
 There's no difference except in terms of experience. And the second we put 
 these things in terms of experience we can handle the problem in processing.
 And that's all we're interested in. You just say, anytime time factor comes 
 up, you just say have and have not, and you've got it. Sounds awful simple, 
 but, boy, the case is just ripped to pieces on this one. 
 
 Essentially, by test, if you will treat an engram which is held in 
 present time as something which a person still will have or is trying 
 desperately to have not, you have the essential ingredient of time and it's 
 present time for him. And that's what brings your engram into present time. 
 
 Your engram is in present time because the person still wants it and 
 hasn't got the actual object, so he takes the picture of the object. Guys are
 always packing around little pictures. They can't have the object itself, so
 they've got a picture of the object. That's a facsimile and all that a 
 facsimile is, actually.. they know they can't have the object, they haven't 
 got sense enough to make it again right there; besides this would overrule 
 the law of scarcity and so.. so they.. they.. they.. they carry this little 
 picture of the object around and that's permitted in the MEST universe. 
 
 But all of a sudden you'll.. you'll open up the preclear's track a 
 little bit and you'll take a look and for heaven's sakes here is.. here is 
 8000 B.C. and 5 trillion years ago and so forth all there together. Well, 
 he's had enough change that he more or less estimates - because of what? 
 
 Planets alter. The havingness of a sun, determined by some prior set 
 of postulates, the havingness of a sun is scheduled. And the havingness of a
 sun is scheduled. The sun is as long as it has, as far as a.. as a.. has 
 what? Has change. And if it doesn't have any change it might as well not be 
 there, because it isn't going to emanate any light or isn't going to do any 
 other thing as far as you're concerned. You can readily tell the kind of 
 matter that isn't supposed to emanate so you.. you say it won't emanate and 
 it doesn't. 
 
 Now, let's.. let's be very specific about this, then, in terms of 
 energy. Now I don't care which one of these energies is which. There's two 
 energies. 
 
 I mean, just might as well go round the other way and call the minus 
 the other one and so on. There's the have and have not energy. And there's 
 stuff which you approach and that says, "Have me." It really does sort of 
 say, "Have me." You can.. you've got an idea that that's the kind of motion
 that should be in this environment and those space coordinates and so you, 
 "Have me." It has.. sets right there. That's very good. 
 
 Now there's the kind that says, "Don't have me" and these two things
 get together and they go flick flick flick flick flick flick flick across and
 you get randomity. 
 
 Let's take the animal kingdom. The animal kingdom rushes around with
 
 -98- 
 

 two thoughts in mind: "I've gotta have" and "I don't want to be had." That's
 all; that's what appetite is. 
 
 Your engrams break down immediately into those two classifications: 
 the engrams "I've gotta have" and the engrams "I don't want to have". So 
 there's two haves. There's a "have" engram and a "have not" engram. The 
 trouble is, with a have not engram the fellow has lost his ability to have 
 not. He no longer is able to say "I won't have it." And so of course anything
 he says, "I won't have it" to, why, that's gotta say "l have.. have not." And
 it will back off and then stay in suspension. 
 
 It's right there; he can't run it either because it's.. it's ready to
 punch him a11 the time. He says, "I don't want this," therefore he says, "I'm
 not responsible for this, so therefore it keeps hitting me and I keep 
 creating it, but it keeps hitting me and here it is right here and it's 
 knocking hell out of me and therefore I don't want it." And the harder it 
 hits him the more he says "I don't want it," and the more he says "I don't 
 want it," of course, the more it's a have not. And the more it's a have not
 the more it kicks him because he.. he owns it less, so we have a standpoint
 that's horrible. 
 
 So you have big fish flying around in the ocean and they say, "Gotta
 have, gotta have, gotta have, gotta have." And all the little fish fly around
 in the ocean and they say, "Have me not, have me not, have me not, have me 
 not." And the more they say "Have me not," the more the big fish say, "Gotta
 have, gotta have, gotta have," till the fisherman comes along and he says, "I
 gotta have" and there goes the big fish. At that moment the big fish has 
 changed his postulate and suddenly says, "Have me not, have me not, have me
 not, have me not." 
 
 So we.. we get a system of interdependencies along the dynamics. You
 ought to trace that out just for your own edification. It's the cycle or 
 series of "have me's" and "have me not's", plotted against the cycle of 
 creation, destruction, plotted against the cycle of action, plotted against
 the cycle of sensation which finally wi.. and plotted against the cycle of 
 experience. All these things plot together and you find out time is an 
 object. Now there's two kinds of objects, there is have objects and have not
 objects. 
 
 Now what to you find in the preclear? The preclear is always saying,
 "I had, if I had only had, if only I had not had," he's putting it in past 
 tense. Oh, it's not in past tense though, isn't that horrible? He's still got
 a facsimile sitting right there in present time all the time he's saying that
 it's in the past, and the more he says it's in the past and he doesn't want
 it and.. and so forth, and the more he regrets it, the more he's upset about
 it, why, the more he's got it because he hasn't got it. 
 
 So he can move his whole engram bank right up into present time by 
 simply saying all the time, "Well, if I'd only had, the trouble was I had."
 He's saying "had, had" and pretending that such a thing as "had" exists, and
 then all the time going on in complete agreement that he's in present time,
 and then saying, well, "had" really exists. 
 
 You'll find this person's incapable of handling time. There's a way 
 to handle time. The way you handle tube is to handle objects. If you handle
 objects, you've handled time. That's all, too simple. That's because time is
 a word which talks about the interrelationship - you see, we aren't quite on
 time when we say object; but time is an interrelationship of beingness, 
 action, and object, and the interrelationship of beingness, action, and 
 object become themselves time. 
 
 -99- 

 Uh.. you're going to flounder with this for a while; there's hardly a 
 homo sapiens alive that can grab on to time. You can make time happen brrrr, 
 or you can make time happen pocketa, pocketa, pocketa, practically at will. 
 
 Do you know in the last instant before you hit bottom, that a lot of 
 time can occur? It's the degree you're trying to have that makes a lot of 
 time. Just get that - the degree you're trying to have is what creates time. 
 So you've got this urge to have. 
 
 Now you go around you find these fellows who in.. oh boy, are they in 
 bad shape, are they way down tone scale and in horrible condition. It sums up 
 under one.. one heading which has two parts, and that's.. they have this 
 idea: "I will have and I won't ever get." He's going to be punished and he's 
 not going to get any good out of it. It's in terms of havingness. 
 
 His future is in terms of havingness. If you cut off a man's 
 havingness he has no future. I mean, if you cut off all of his havingness his 
 future's done and that is the one condition about death - as far as the 
 current lifetime and combination of homo sapiens, thetan and so forth, it's 
 the end of havingness. About the only thing he ever has that he's really sure 
 of - he's got a body. And he knows he will have the body and so he sort of 
 sticks on a time track. And he sticks on it like mad. He does everything he 
 could do to stick on this time track, and it's a very slippy job. Actually 
 trying to stay on a MEST time track for a person who's fairly aberrated is 
 like walking a very, very high tightwire with greased shoes. 
 
 You get your psychos and so forth. A psycho will come around and he 
 will hand you a moment, and you try to take a phrase away from him and he 
 will finally give it to you. And I've had them reach in their pockets for it 
 and hand it over. Phrase is an object. 
 
 People who are pretty well down tone scale, words and symbols are 
 objects, they're not thoughts anymore, they're objects. And these people are 
 so literal with words. You.. you tell them rrrrr and so on and so on and so 
 on, and you give them this idea and he says, "Now wait a minute. Now what 
 word did you use?". 
 
 And it's just as though they were sorting over a pile of rubble, you
 have suddenly changed a word. It offends them somehow. The.. you.. you use 
 maybe a colloquialism or something like that, and, boy, they're upset about 
 this. It's really hit them. 
 
 You wouldn't be so upset with them if you realized that you had 
 probably driven a bullet into them or something of the sort. The thought is 
 the object because the person is in such bad shape that they can only think 
 as an object. They are an object and their thoughts are objects, and they are 
 objects, and they're getting more objects every minute, and they'll get 
 pretty upset about it after a while because they realize that they're on 
 their way out. 
 
 Now what's havingness. Havingness. Have and have not. Positive- 
 negative terminals, so you get this positive- negative randomity as explained 
 by the interaction between haves and have nots. So you get this in the 
 political scene. Let's just apply it in one time; that would be the most 
 familiar thing to you. 
 
 There are the haves and there are the have nots, aren't there? And 
 they fight all the time. And the big joke is that the have nots are really 
 the haves and the haves are really the have nots. The haves have no liberty, 
 they condensed all their space and the have nots have got freedom because 
 
 -100- 
 

 they haven't got any space. They're not troubled by objects. 
 
 The haves are trying to keep having, that is, hold on to, and the 
 have nots are trying to procure. So your progressives are usually found down
 along the level of the revolutionaries, or is that up along the level of the
 revolutionaries? 
 
 That rich man tries to buy duration, tries to buy duration, and he 
 gets duration all right; he turns into MEST. That's why the rich man can't go
 through the eye of the needle: his ridges. These ridges are haves, and a 
 person has ridges to the direct degree that they are upset about have and 
 have not, in direct ratio; and they are stuck on the time track to the degree
 and the exact degree, and their time is unable to be handled to the degree,
 that they are upset about have and have not. 
 
 They can have or if they could get the idea that they will have in 
 the future, all of a sudden their track will free up and they'll run like 
 gazelles on it. But they're sitting there with the idea they can't have but
 they have had but they're trying to hold on to, and you can get ahold of them
 and put your foot against their chest and pull on the ridges and have them 
 snap back and go booong. And you try to pull out the tractor beams, and get
 alongside of that and so on and they go bing-bong and go right back into 
 place again. 
 
 You can't take anything away from this person. You're trying to run
 an engram. You're trying to get him to.. get rid of a little energy. He isn't
 going to be able to do it. He can't get.. do it because he can't have, can 
 he? Well, therefore, he's got to hold on to it, hasn't he? And those.. those
 things are all have nots, aren't they? So he can't touch anything that 
 doesn't want to be had because he can't use any force, can he? Because he 
 hasn't any space to orient against, and you say, "Run out that engram." 
 And he'll say, "What engram?" 
 Well he.. and you think, "Christsakes!" 
 
 The fellow keeps walking around all the time saying, "I've got to get
 rid of it, I've got to get rid of it. Well, I've just got to get rid of it. I
 wonder why I worry all the time about knitting needles, knitting needles, 
 knitting needles? I've got to get rid of it." And he's just walking around.
 He looks like he's in a prenatal and there he is. 
 
 You start to ask him to give up this prenatal, he'd probably start 
 reaching and looking through his pockets when you start talking to him about
 an engram. He uh.. he.. he'd be unable to conceive that he was dramatizing,
 that's why; it's cause and he's effect. 
 
 So way up at the top of the tone scale, the individual is cause and
 as he dwindles down from beingness through action to having, he becomes more
 and more an effect of what he has. 
 
 That person's span of life is freest where they have the least and 
 expected the most, and became most stultified and ruined the time when they
 finally procured. And their instant of procurance is their instant of no time
 from there on. Your one-five who was holding on, holding on, holding on like
 mad, he's holding on to the arthritis, holding on to Little Bessie, holding
 on to this, holding on to that, isn't going to get loose of anything and so
 forth, and he's going to destroy it, but isn't going to.. no motion, no 
 motion, no mo.. what do.. what do you find in this person? Boy, anything that
 comes near him, just hits up against the body like a magnet. It goes spoing
 
 -101- 
 ----- 

 thug. You run down, you get rid of this engram, you run this one-five through
 this engram, you run him through this engram from one side to the other all 
 the way through the thing. You say, uh.. "Well, let's go through it again." 
 They go all the way through the thing again, and you say, "How's it feel?" 
 
 "No change." 
 
 "Let's go all the way through it again..." You're not going to get 
 anyplace with this, that's all. 
 
 You've got to get into this to a point where they can change. You've 
 got to find someplace they can change, because they haven't got any time and
 they haven't got any time because they own all possession. And it's all have
 not possession. And if they got all this have not possession and some have 
 possession, they have to hold on to the have possession and that makes them 
 hold on to the have not possession. And the first doggone thing you know, 
 what's the first thing a one-five tells you? He says, "I've got no time. I 
 have no time for that." And you'll see him sitting there at his office desk,
 hour after hour after hour. I mean, "I haven't got any time for it. I'm 
 awfully rushed, I'm so busy." He'll look at you rather sadly and sigh 
 wheezily, "I have no time for anything." There he is - he's got no time for 
 anything. That's perfectly true. He's got no time; he's just so upset on the
 idea of time, his haves and have nots are so intermingled and balanced he 
 can't do anything about it. 
 
 From there on down he tries to get rid of possessions. A one-one 
 tries to kick possessions away and get the hell out of there because he knows
 he's in death. Now a one-one will destroy possessions covertly and try to get
 rid of them, push them aside, they won't leave him. He hasn't enough command
 value to do that. Your one-one, he starts to kick this engram through and he
 will sort of reach down to the side and move it over to the side and say, 
 "Yeah, I'm all rid of that. Yep, yep, I ran that. I ran that" - the end of 
 the session he takes his foot off of it and it goes spoing and he's got it 
 again. 
 
 You say, "What's the matter with you today, I thought we ran that out
 yesterday." 
 
 "Oh, we did." 
 
 Huh? There it is. 
 
 Their time. What happens to a one-one's time? Boy, time is the
 master. Everything is an effect. He's an effect to everything. 
 
 Well, now maybe you'll understand this a little better on this scale.
 On this scale, 40.0 is beingness. This is in terms of experience. 40.0 is 
 beingness. Now there can be beingness and individuality above 40.0 but space
 is one trick of beingness. And beingness in this universe is space anchor 
 points coordinates. And that is beingness. And the most beingness a person 
 could be would be determined upon the most space the person could embrace. 
 Free space postulated. Now you find your big rancheroos out in the West. They
 owned one hundred eighty-five thousand square miles and so forth, they were 
 big men them days. Yeah, they sure had an idea of beingness. Space! Nothing 
 on it at all. 
 
 You go out there, you also find that the biggest liars that ever 
 lived probably come from spaces, big spaces like that. Out in space in your 
 space crews and things like that, the guys who are really free and have lots
 of space. They wouldn't know what the heck you were talking about, if you 
 
 -102- 

 said, "What is the truth of this?" 
 "Truth, there is no such thing." 
 
 Now, we get 20.0 is action. And action is energy. Energy. But the 
 funny part of it is that 0.0 gives an interdependency of objects and 
 beingness which amounts to action. It is very hard to get into.. very hard to
 get into action without an object. Just get.. try to get into action. 
 
 By the way.. way, one of the ways a fellow dramatizes this when he's
 a little kid, he says all the time, he's saying, "If I only had the gun and 
 mask and so forth of Red Rider, then I could be..." And he gets much older 
 and he has the wherewithal to buy all the guns and hats of Red Rider you 
 could possibly imagine, but what does he do? He's.. all of his childhood was 
 spent trying to get dressed so he could play a part in the play. And all of 
 his adulthood is spent trying to get dressed. He's forgot that there's any 
 part left in the play. He isn't prepared for anything anymore. 
 
 So time is an object really. It's an interaction between beingness
 and object that gives you action. And so it takes a full forty-to-twenty 
 interrelationship in order to give us activity and energy. And out of this we
 get force and the production of force, and all of the other things in which 
 we're interested. 
 
 Now this lower scale here is S.E.T. related to experience. E.X.P.,
 and that experience is the human experience and in human experience space is 
 beingness. Action is energy, and object is time. And if you want to process a
 person who has no time, process if.. in that s.. way. If you want a person to
 increase his energy, you have to address his beingness and his object, in 
 other words, his space and his object. 
 
 So instead of processing too much space, energy and time as such, you
 could process beingness, action and object. Or instead of processing, as you 
 have in the past, thoughts, beingness, object, abject, so on, so on, trying 
 to get at it like that; you can process directly space, energy and object. 
 Space, energy and time, because this time is just have-have not, that's all. 
 
 You can process that directly and in that wise you can straighten a
 preclear out and make him run like a gazelle, but you have to rehabilitate 
 force in order to do any of it. And force of course is the middle ground, and
 the way you get force is space and particles, which are objects. And that is  
 the way it is done. 
 
 I'll give you the mock-up drills in tomorrow afternoon's lecture. 
 Tonight we'll be covering the axioms. 
 
 Let's get a bite of supper. 
 
 (TAPE ENDS) 
 
 103-