December the 18th, 1952, first afternoon lecture. 
 
 And this afternoon, I want to take up some of these processes and 
 demonstrate them quite directly. I noticed that uh.. your professional 
 practice has been.. or your application of this material has been materially
 assisted by TIME magazine. Uh.. TIME magazine is run by a Catholic, I think
 he is, or something, and I think it's on the.. on the uh.. the magazine is
 published, and.. by licence of a papal bull. And uh.. a fellow by the name
 of Luce runs this magazine; and 1 merely want this to be on a tape for the
 record for posterity. If this fellow ever turns up for processing he's to be
 thrown in the clam. And put there very heavily and very strongly and left to
 go about his way. 
 
 The last person that was thrown violently into the clam lost all of 
 his wisdom and molars. That's right, that's what happened. 
 
 Uh.. the general state of affairs in the world and Scientology are 
 much better than' you would ordinarily suppose, because there's only one
 thing that this world.. one thing that this world uh.. is proof against, and
 that is complete silence. And this world is not good at picking up anything
 - on the ether waves, or by rumor, and so when they start to yap-yap, do you
 know that a vicious and scurrilous attack is made upon any subject 
 practically under the sun that you get the other 50% vector immediately at
 work? So where we have yap-yap of this character, no matter how cheap the
 publication, no matter how little read or respected, such as TIME magazine
 uh.. even that, if you can get any magazine that is in disrepute to put you
 on the pan uh.. you can of course uh.. expect a great deal more interest
 growing out. And one of the things with which I'd been concerned.. after a
 while I realized that I'd over-reached the news story level. I never 
 released a news story on any of this - never. Now it has become what? Front
 page news. Why? Because it makes lame kids walk again, because it makes 
 people who have been in continuous pain well again? No, no. Oh, no, no. No,
 this is Earth, 1952 AD. After the Death. It's now on nineteen hundred and
 fifty-two years of negative time track. It says right there on its dates.
 
 That'd be wonderful, somebody blowing in here from someplace and 
 examining some of these customs. No, you wouldn't find it in there because
 it'd make somebody well or pick some girl with a postpartum psychosis up, or
 something like that. No, no, you wouldn't find that. 
 
 But, if we can just beat up a few more marshalls - and uh.. if I can 
 just scrape acquaintances with alleged millionaire oil promoters uh.. who
 throw everything in bankruptcy left and right and so forth, well, we'll get
 there, we'll get there. 
 
 And uh.. I want to call your attention to this.. this datum - Book 
 One, SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL, it's human evaluation. It actually still stands as
 a unit and is the one text I'd done that covers human evaluation. Therefore,
 when you look across there, it tells you the kind of information something
 will pass on. And as we look across there we find out if they pass on this
 kind of information or that kind of information, these other manifestations
 straight on across the column will pursue. And if you have ever had any 
 experience with this - as many of you have, I know - you have then seen it
 as.. as a constant. That's very very quiet. 
 
 Now, all you need to do, if you ever turn up any place, in order to 
 know the tone or know how to hit a society, if you want to hit a society
 hard, is just know what is being published in its public prints. It is NOT
 different - never kid yourself from this - it is NOT different from the tone
 
 -29- 

 level of the society. It IS the tone level of the society, because that's 
 very closely monitored. It is monitored by such things as advertisers, and
 such things as sales of copies, and if there was no pecuniary thought in it,
 if it were a government paper.. a government should always put out several
 papers if a government goes into publication in any way, and they should be
 at various tone levels. And you'll notice this is the case when your 
 government takes over the newspapers of a country - they'll put out the 
 cheap one and the.. the sensational one and they'll put out the conservative
 one and so on; they'll do all these things in contraposition to one another.
 
 You want to know the tone level, you pick up its papers. Because at
 the fine, far distance on this, it'll all boil down, a newspaper has to have
 readers. Whether it's paid for by advertisers or by a government, or by 
 pennies or nickels or quarters or dollars across a newsstand, it survives 
 only so long as it is read. Doesn't matter whether it's bought or not. And
 it is read as well as it matches the tone scale of a society. And you do not
 need to conduct any vast door-to-door survey here, there and everywhere on
 this subject - what is the tone level of the society to which I'm appealing
 -- you don't need to. Look at the newspaper. Look at the.. what releases the
 daily bulletins. 
 
 You go to Russia, you say, "Well, the Russian paper doesn't 
 represent the Russian people; it is not representative of what the Russian
 people are thinking." Oh, no. It is. It is. They haven't even conducted a 
 survey. They're putting out four-five papers, and uh.. one paper has to run
 to a thousand editions to get it all over Russia. Oh, no. The other papers
 only run to one edition, and uh.. another one doesn't even sell out half an
 edition I mean it's almost this extreme. Now their readers keep pounding 
 them around and the editor is as successful as he is read. And as a result,
 even in a police state... 
 
 You.. never get fooled on this. I mean, the United States Government
 has been blind on this subject. When I was in Intelligence, we.. it was 
 making a continual uh.. mistake in trying to evaluate the Russian or German
 people, particularly the German people, by telling everyone they didn't 
 believe in their government, that they did not believe what was in those 
 papers, and you'll go there and there'll be people in countries of that 
 character who will tell you, "No we don't believe these papers," and uh.. 
 they're just trying to be polite. That's all. A newspaper is as well read as
 it matches the tone scale of the society. Therefore you have someone in any
 kind of a culture of any character - that's of ANY character, ANY culture -
 you have a method of finding out what their tone scale is in general, and by
 finding that out, what you can expect from that culture. It follows right 
 through - SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL tone scale chart. 
 
 The only error you can make is stepping above or below or saying, 
 "It must be something else." You see? I didn't believe that chart myself 
 when I first made it up. It was made up by, you might say, logic and uh.. 
 inductive reasoning. And uh.. made it up on.. on the pure theory of theta,
 MEST and ARC, that was all, and said, "It probably falls this way," and it
 added up very nicely and very smoothly - do a better job of it now with the
 other material which has accumulated, but uh.. I don't think any part of it
 would change. I've looked it over very recently and I was surprised. And I
 didn't.. didn't do anything with this chart. It wasn't out in print, wasn't
 anything happening with this chart at all. It was just sitting there in my
 dining room, pegged down on a side table. And what do you know, one day I 
 went over the chart and suddenly picked up a datum off this chart and 
 applied it to the real universe. 
 
 -30- 

 And this datum was this: It said that a person would not communicate
 with me; under the most ordinary circumstances this person would not 
 communicate with me. In the course of conversation, in the course of 
 correspondence, in the course of this sort of thing I was running into a 
 continuous communication block. It said right straight on across that chart,
 as you looked it up, a lot of other characteristics which weren't nice. They
 were BAD characteristics. And I said, "Well, you know, this chart must be 
 off then uh.. must be off. Look.. look at.. over here. That person's 
 incapable of that." Do you know that within the next thirty days, that 
 person was suddenly exposed into the light and my God! Every one of those 
 additional items were true with magnitude. Hrhrhr! I hadn't believed my 
 chart and it caused considerable trouble - because I hadn't believed that 
 chart. 
 
 Another one showed up and another one showed up and another one 
 showed up, and each time I pulled this foolish, foolish thing. I would go 
 ahead on what I amusingly called instinct or something of the sort and I'd 
 say, "Well, that doesn't apply on the chart, or this doesn't apply on it or 
 something!" And I'd read across the line, it says, "Brutal treatment of 
 children. Sex as punishment," uh.. and so on, or anything across the chart 
 level. 
 
 "Oh," I'd say, "that couldn't be." One character particularly 
 couldn't be, and this fellow had been very good in Dianetics, been very 
 good. He did have uh.. three or four of those manifestations across there 
 that indicated that if in the remaining columns, if he pursued those things 
 out he would practically be an outright murderer as far as associating with 
 him was concerned. And what do you know -- he almost made the grade. Without 
 being prompted even vaguely. It just worked out that way. He just put the 
 right pieces in the right spot at the right instant to come very close to 
 causing a sudden demise. You.. it was so bare- uh.. boned that it was.. must
 have been on a conscious level. Fascinating! 
 
 So, we've got psychometry available for any society. Therefore it 
 gives you psychometry for a city in which you would dwell, or the people. 
 Gives you a good psychometry for them and uh.. it's.. they listen to what 
 they hear at their own band of the chart, homo sapiens does, and very seldom
 listens to any other band of the chart. He'll listen to a slightly lower 
 band and so forth. 
 
 Hut uh.. you.. you will find.. you will find that your preclears 
 will respond to the type of mock-up which you find in the daily newspapers. 
 As the chronic level of mock-up. Fascinating. Now you want to know, you want
 to know what kind of a mock-up to use: look at that old SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL 
 chart and look at your preclear and so on. You'll find out that this is the 
 mock-up he is dramatizing most, so it must be just above and below this band
 that you must hit in order to change his location on the chart. And it 
 becomes an exceedingly uh.. interesting little operation. 
 
 Here's somebody.. here's somebody who has a BAD reputation. And uh..
 he's got a very bad reputation one way or the other, and you say, "Oh, no. 
 He's a good boy at heart," or.. or something of this sort. You just look 
 around, and you spot him on your.. your chart there. And uh.. don't 
 continually dream optimistically about a preclear and.. and.. and so on. 
 
 It says on SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL, for instance, "Sex as punishment" 
 was a level of the chart. And that is a certain point of the chart. And that
 causes a lot of howling. Yeah. And the way you'd.. the way you'd go on and 
 correct this situation is a very simple thing. You would just uh.. take your
 
 -31- 

 SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL chart, peg your preclear on it, and then go right straight 
 across the chart, and hit above and below on each one of these subjects with 
 mock-ups on various dynamics. It's quite a therapy. 
 
 You could put somebody on the E-meter and you would find this very 
 smooth. And by doing this, you won't fall into the rut of simply putting 
 yourself on the chart all the time and giving the preclear mock-ups which 
 would benefit you or that you like. Because as you come up tone scale, you 
 will find yourself going higher and higher up the level and your interest 
 more and more something else. And one day you wall be dishing out - to be 
 very technical - mock-ups which uh.. won't fit the case - won't fit the case 
 at all. 
 
 And uh.. you'll, for instance, go along airily and then all of a 
 sudden the preclear's bogged down sort of and you don't know quite why this 
 is, and you'd say, "Oh, well, it's probably something that we didn't hit in 
 the course." No, that's not the case. It's just the case that you have gone 
 up tone scale to a point where you aren't thinking obsessively about sex all 
 the time, or you're not thinking about various other types of sensation. 
 
 Here's your preclear down there in the tar pit, practically 
 fossilized, and uh.. his state of case demands mock-ups above and below his 
 level of the chart and at that level, predominantly, you see, at the level, 
 but immediately above and immediately below. You don't have one of these 
 charts, do you, around, do you, John? Anybody got one of these charts right 
 here? Well, here we go, here we are. 
 
 Now let me.. let me show you something about this thing. Handling of 
 truth. Let us take somebody 1.5. This chart is uh.. sometimes uh.. has little 
 misspellings on it, I see it once in a while. I seldom.. I never see this 
 material before it goes into print. Uh.. it says 1.5, "Blatant and 
 destructive lying," under handling of truth. Courage level says, 
 "Unreasonable bravery usually damaging to self." That's what it says! 
 "Assumes responsibility in order to destroy." Well, actually your 1.5 is a 
 pull-in. 
 
 I'm going to give you another column for this is why I'm talking 
 about it. I started out talking about TIME magazine, got back into my 
 subject. TIME magazine will be a forgotten thing possibly.. possibly 
 someday.. someday its total claim to fame. Amusing. If one lets himself think 
 in those terms then it becomes very amusing. By the way, you can't let 
 yourself think in those terms though. Go very long, you just completely 
 separate from reality. And reality's hard enough to keep in contact with. 
 
 I'm every once in a while fishing around with my big toe to discover 
 a point in this universe. And I look around and look around and then I'll sit 
 down -- I have done this -- and I'll sit down and think, "Now let me see, oh, 
 wait a minute now, aaaaah yes. Ah, come on, you know of something interesting 
 someplace. And there.. there.. it.. it's true, uh.. there is.. there are 
 several interesting things in this universe. You hit this universe any place 
 you see and you can come on in the rest of the way." 
 
 And there's a statue - a white, white marble statue - in a fountain 
 which doesn't run; it's the statue just sitting therŪ in front of uh.. the 
 Naval Park. Uh.. right down on the waterfront at Havana. You know that 
 statue? Sits there. It's beautiful, it's just beautiful. It's.. it's...shape.. is
 just.. just a flow of grace. How anybody can make that out of marble, I don't 
 know. Maybe it isn't out of marble; it looks more like alabaster. And that is 
 a wonderful touch point. And uh.. you get to thinking of something like that, 
 
 -32- 

 not the Taj Mahal particularly, uh.. you get to 'thinking of anything like
 that, and you can make your contact back. Why? Because interest follows 
 through with effort. Interest goes into effort. 
 
 Now we remember that as you saw your charts drawn, here you with -
 40.0 to 0.0 as a line lying on its side - we had a stand up of wave lengths
 that demonstrated that the theta band, the perception band, that is, is way
 up. That's the aesthetic band, not the theta band - there is no theta band.
 Adjacent to theta, aesthetic. On down through the various perception bands -
 wave lengths, you know? Any one of those wave lengths was present. In other
 words the 1.5 is capable of an aesthetic of sorts. He can actually contact a
 wave length, or not contact it. Of course he doesn't contact it anywhere near
 as much as somebody higher on the chart does. But he is capable of a wave 
 contact on aesthetics. You get.. you get the.. for instance, the uh.. the 
 aesthetic of the Nazi's Storm Troopers. They had an aesthetic. A very 
 interesting aesthetic. Uh.. they uh.. were in a.. various categories of uh..
 uniform, their uniformity, uh.. the very extravagant ritual which they 
 established, all of which was below and behind the scene. They were all out
 on the subject, in other words they were big volume 1.5, and that bigness of
 volume managed to embrace the aesthetic band for them. 
 
 You.. you'd make a mistake if you said somebody was short on 
 aesthetics because he was at some position on the tone scale. Every position
 on the tone scale contacts that wave length one way or the other. And yet 
 these fellows, these fellows had a.. a fabulously horrible function and uh..
 so on. You wouldn't think for a moment that such people would have such a 
 thing. I've just chosen them as the horrible example. Even they. 
 
 Now uh.. you'll say a 1.1, uh.. this girl.. this girl couldn't 
 possibly be destructive in any way to anybody because, the truth be told, she
 loved him because he was an artist. Oh, that's true. And she was 1.1 and she
 just loved him to his death. And if he was there very long, why, hmm - he 
 wasn't an artist anymore. You can just bet your bottom dollar. That's your
 1.1. That - and yet.. yet you hear this person chatter. Now have you ever 
 seen somebody chattering about the arts that just sort of made them obscene?
 You just look at this person's, quote, 'appreciation of music', and you just
 say, "Brrrrr!" Uh.. they seemed - anything they touch in the line of the 
 arts. And yet they seem to be quite appreciative of it. Well, that's that 
 fact, that at any band on this chart, you get any wave length. Well, a wave
 length is a perception. A perception of one kind or another, a characteristic
 perception. Eyes for instance will gravitate to a certain perception. And 
 what we're getting here is the various harmonics of affinity that we're 
 looking at and we can get each one modifying the wave length of the aesthetic
 band. And as a net result you will find an aesthetic, you will find an effort
 and you will find a regard for anything else, for perception or anything else
 - any one of these perceptions, you might say -- at EACH one of these levels
 on the tone scale. And that means that telepathy can exist at any level of
 the tone scale. 
 
 It is a tune-in, rather than going up scale or down scale to. I want
 to make that quite clear to you. Don't evaluate on the quality. Just realize
 that we have these things there, that's all. And the there-ness of these 
 items and articles is uh.. all you're interested in. 
 
 So, we're running mock-ups. I could have called this talk "How to run
 mock-ups according to charts, attitudes." 
 
 We have then, 'complete cowardice' here it says at 0.5, 'complete 
 cowardice' is his courage level. All right, let's just look at this, let's
 
 -33- 

 run it by the chart so we don't get too far off the groove, want to give him
 mock-ups around on this and that. 
 
 And we've got a person in grief. I know many people in grief, by the
 way, who.. who think they are probably 1.5's. They're not. Because they're 
 holding on so hard; they've collected so much. And there are people actually
 in apathy who are still holding on to all kinds of MEST - ruining it. Just 
 wrecking it completely but holding on to it. And at grief.. you would be 
 surprised what a person will hold on to in grief. And they hold on again at 
 1.5, and they hold on again at 3.0. Now grief by the way is.. is .75, not .5.
 There's been a correction on this chart. It's a harmonic you see, of 1.5. And
 apathy is .375 - relatively unimportant except just to understand that. 
 
 Now, we're running mock-ups. We run up mock-ups that demonstrate 
 being aesthetically cowardly. How would you.. how would you run a mock-up on
 somebody who's being aesthetically cowardly? Utter cowardice, very aesthetic.
 
 Voice: A beautiful thing to run away from. 
 
 LRH: Mm-hmm - sure - or put them in a church. Beautiful church, with
 haloed windows, and get them praying devoutly. You know that that really.. it
 comes under the.. has an emotion that goes with it. It's beautiful sadness. 
 And that's right. You'd mock up all these various things - anything - things
 happening to beautiful things, afraid things would happen to beautiful 
 things, and so on. How do.. how do you fit an emotion into these things? 
 
 Well, there's two ways: One, you simply put the emotion into it and 
 feel it back, that's one method. That's.. that's one way you go about it. 
 Another one, you put the mock-up text one way or the other. You just ask 
 somebody to mock up a figure and then you can put various emotions in the 
 figure and move the figure around with various emotions on it, till he gets 
 these emotions clearly. 
 
 Had somebody last night who had a.. a terrible dwarf that had no 
 neck. He kept mocking this thing up. And I was making him get the dwarf 
 feeling.. feeling the beauty of life, and so on. At first he said, "NO! You 
 couldn't possibly do that with this dwarf. It's a strange kind of thing," 
 and.. and so forth, and I couldn't persuade him to change his mock-up. He was
 stuck with it.. it was his mock-up. 
 
 Well, he had to do something with his mock-up, so uh.. the next thing
 you know, why, we had.. we had this dwarf in a state of uh.. enthusiasm. And
 uh.. we had this dwarf in a state of all sorts of things. And finally we got
 it loosened up and running around and he could change the mock-up easily. It
 should interest you that the mock-up was persistent because he couldn't alter
 its motion. 
 
 So how many kinds of mock-ups are there? That you could run on homo 
 sapiens? Well, a long time ago I did a map. It's a good one.. serve you very,
 very well. You think there's a lot of mock-ups on this map? Look at it. 
 Yards! So we go back into it again, and I would recommed to you - uh.. we're
 trying to publish uh.. again Book One of SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL under a title 
 called 'Human Evaluation'. Derek Ridgeway of London is trying to get this 
 out. It takes them a long time, but they eventually get there. And it becomes
 a pretty good little handbook for mock-ups. 
 
 You can go through this thing, and you can look these things over and
 it says, "He'll do WHAT?" And "He'll do so-and-so," and so on. Well, that 
 means such-and-so will be done to him, because he invites those things being
 
 -34- 

 done to him, and so on. 
 
 Well, if you just keep tearing up and down this chart here, it'll 
 suggest an awful lot of mock-ups to you. Oh, a terrific number. Just loosen 
 him up, practice, and so on, and breaking him out of the rut he's in. That's 
 your main difficulty. 
 
 This man has a chronic position on the chart. Well, locate it. Maybe 
 this chronic position on the chart uh.. is somewhere here in the vicinity 
 of.. of 2.0. This guy is obviously in.. in antagonism. There's an aesthetic 
 for antagonism. There's sight for antagonism. There is uh.. sound for 
 antagonism. He will do certain things with all of these things, but we're not 
 worried about what necessarily he'll do with them; we'll just look across 
 this chart here and we see, "capable of destructive and minor constructive 
 action." 
 
 All right. Now let's mock up a big car. Now let's take a sledgehammer
 and now let's smash it. Now let's fix its rear light. Do that a few times, a
 fellow'll say, "You know, that's kind of like me." He'll look puzzled. Why..
 why, this would come close to home. 
 
 We.. we're taking that in the most literal possible sense: it's 
 destructive, but capable of some minor constructive action, see? And there we 
 go into this, we have.. you say, "All right. Now let's repair a light switch. 
 Now let's mock up a light switch so that you can repair it. And now let's 
 just tear the room to pieces around it, and let's tear the roof off, and 
 let's tear the basement out from underneath the house. And let's throw all 
 these things out in the street. Now put all that debris behind you. Now let's 
 take a screwdriver and take one screw out of the light switch and let's 
 finally get the light switch repaired," and we can make sure that that's 
 just.. just the light switch sitting there repaired. 
 
 You'd be surprised at what happens when you start hitting the guy in 
 his own tone level. It becomes fascinating to him, and he'll break out of the 
 rut. Because what you're dealing with actually is not a mechanical flowing 
 gimmygahoojit called an electronic computer. GE's got one; I've been 
 interested in examining it lately. Fascinating gimmick. I never had.. never 
 had done any what the GE would call 'thinking', and uh.. by throwing in some 
 attention units into the area, we.. I started some thinking processes going 
 on. Oh, no! "Now I will think!" So away he runs - fabulous. "Now I will 
 think." Nothing happens of course! 
 
 And by the way, pertinent to that, just give you a little note here 
 on that. Uh.. the future is a 'will have'. What is called future, by which 
 you would mean future time, also could be called 'will have'. It's a 'will 
 have'. Now, when you get all people in agreement, and tick-ticking off, 
 everybody in agreement with everybody else, the 'will have' component alters, 
 and becomes uh.. very standardized, so that a person can't very well control 
 his 'will haves'. So he has to think about having all the time. He thinks 
 about having in the future and his thought is mainly concerned with thinking 
 about having in the future. 
 
 Of course, he.. he will think when he gets very sad and upset and 
 quite neurotic about.. think about what he has had in the past. Some people 
 will just stick on the track, you see. And do you know why they do that? 
 Because they can't think a 'will have' on the future. And that's why a 
 psychotic evidently goes back down track. And a very important datum! Why 
 does a psychotic go back in time? Well, he has to go back to a 'had' because 
 there is no 'will have'. 
 
 -35- 

 And a person's activity on the tone scale - this very tone scale here
 - could be said to be: "How much 'will have' is he capable of imagining?" 
 That's all, and as less and less 'will have' is capable.. is there, less and
 less 'will have', he gets more and more reassurance for himself or 'I have'.
 There's where you get ownership very heavily, you see. He's come down to a 
 level of ownership. And then he says, "Well, I don't have now, or if I do 
 have now I couldn't possibly have done it, so the past is the only place I 
 knew I had." And in trying to contact something in the past!that is good, he
 contacts something that is very, very bad. And if he's in terrible condition
 about all this, it takes these other conditions before he really starts 
 getting ridges caving in on him. Of course, what he had, his 'hads' in the 
 past, cave in on him with a crush. and that cave-in follows through - 
 dramatizing, computing psychotic - his 'will haves'. 
 
 Now you just get a preclear to examine his 'will have', and I'll be a
 son-of-a-gun if you won't find it to be a deposit of energy! Why? Because so
 much thought has been devoted to it, and there's this little law connected 
 with all this, very good little law: What one devotes energy to, he will 
 have. That to which one devotes energy, he will have. And then because it's a
 dichotomy, that to which one devotes energy, he won't have! Particularly if 
 he agress with what he finally obtains. Then of course he won't have it, so 
 that's a secondary consideration that sets in. 
 
 That to which one devotes energy he will have. Why? Well, let's look 
 at this in its most mechanical form. Energy packed into space becomes an 
 object. And so energy packed into a space becomes an object; factually, that
 is the way you make an object. 
 
 So when you think in just terms of "will have, will have, will have, 
 will have," one is devoting time to 'will haves' - devoting time to future. 
 We find out that the saner the person is, the more capable he is of sighting
 forward into the future. And actually a very sane person is living waaaaaaay
 up in the future. He's very happy about the whole thing, quite excited, 
 enthused and so on. Way up. And as the world caves in on him and takes away 
 more and more and more, he starts thinking more and more and more into the 
 present, and finally he's thinking for the present. And he.. you can't think
 for the present by the way, you have to think for just a split se.. second 
 ahead because of the activity of the mind. You.. you got to think of the next
 minute at least, in order to be there. But the second you slide away from 
 thinking about the present, you think about the past, and when you start 
 thinking about the past, God help us all. 
 
 Because when you think.. can only think about 'hads', what have you 
 done? Let me draw you a picture of that. Here's uh.. the past, and here's the
 present, and here is the future. This is the Chart of Have. Chart of 
 Havingness. We'll dignify it with a title, even though there isn't very much
 here. And here we have, coming across here, a time track. The preclear can be
 located at any moment here, at position PT. And position PT is regulated by 
 an agreement of co-havingness. He got it by something else, got it by the 
 other person - everything is sound, he has the sound -- co-havingness goes on
 all the time in behavior. 
 
 Then there's another spook thing. You know I told you that every.. 
 every once in a while in these lectures, in going so fast, I.. I sort of work
 like putting it all on a tape recorder and then reeling it off. Not that tape
 recorder. And once in a while I get enthusiastic about something or something
 and the thing will skip a couple of turns on the reel. That actually is what
 happens. Uh.. just too much data and one becomes quite impatient about 
 jamming that much data into MEST time and it just gets.. so we get slices and
 
 -36- 

 so on, and once in a while you... you just miss it completely. 
 
 I told you once in these lectures that there was a cute theory, oh, 
 awfully cute theory that somebody was going to think up - ooh, sweet, very 
 sweet theory. And it's going to have to do with the fact that - well uh.. 
 let's see, "Those people back in 1952 were wrong." Uh.. they all start out 
 this way, particularly anyone to whom they owe their all. Anything they know 
 they always have to qualify the statement. Do you want to know what a man's 
 source is, or what a man's fair opponent is or who is holding down his MEST 
 that he ought to have, why he's qualifying statements and tearing them to 
 pieces with these peoples's names. 
 
 All right. When we have this condition... Let's.. let's.. let's look 
 at another condition. We got a whole big universe here. And somebody's gonna
 say, "Now look, these thetans..." They.. they could start a cult on this, so 
 I'm gonna spike this cult right now. If you guys remember it, it's spiked. 
 But uh.. they say they have these thetans and they wandered into this 
 universe and so on and that was the theory there used to be. Actually.. 
 actually what it was is: "You were once an atom and you're graduating up the 
 tone scale. You are graduating up scale and uh.. you are actually developing 
 and you're getting bigger and bigger and the fact that the presence of the 
 ridges demonstrate adequately that uh.. uh.. one is really just a large atom 
 with electronic rings. This.. this is backed up by Lucretius, and also uh.. 
 Pope Pius or somebody, and with a papal bull, which of course is different 
 than philosophy because a papal bull's true." Uh.. the uh.. NEST universe 
 definition of truth. It's true. 
 
 So we have to go back here and look over the track in the past and 
 trace forward how Man is getting "bigger and bigger and more and more 
 developed, and you are developing up toward galaxy size. But at the moment 
 that is a natural thing, that's what you'll eventually do, come up toward the
 size of a galaxy and the thing for you to do - and they were very wrong back 
 there in 1952 - is to collect a lot of MEST and a lot of ridges because 
 that's what moves you up in size and at length gives you greatness. 
 
 And it happens that the galaxy is a sort of a parent, and a galaxy is
 a parent, and out of this galaxy is born small galaxies. And these little 
 galaxies are born with more or less the same sentience that they get from the
 larger galaxy. And then the small galaxy develop, and of course the smallest'
 of galaxies is an atom. And some of the atoms succeed, and they develop.. and
 they develop on and at length become animals. And then the animals at length 
 become thetans powerful enough to be men. And then these develop further and 
 then there are thetans that are sort of solar systems. They get that big, you
 see. And then there are thetans which are as big as an entire galaxy and that
 can have little galaxies and we can start the cycle over again and that's 
 really the way it was. And that's how they're wrong back there in 1952 and 
 that's why you should collect a lot of MEST and be shot with electronics and 
 a lot of other things, you see." 
 
 You know that somebody could sell that?! Tremendously salable 
 commodity. Mmmm! Why, it matches up with a 180 degree vector of this 
 universe. Obviously he can't have all this stuff so that's the best reason he
 must have it. Uh.. he's got all this demonstration of havingness - it's time.
 So there you go. 
  
 Somebody else'll come along and try to explain that the reason our 
 time runs concurrently is our havingness of electrons, which themselves are all
 -- monitored by the larger body or the larger beingness or brain of the galaxy. 
 
 -37- 

 In short, bretheren and sistern, we're going to run Into a lot of 
 squirrels before we're through. 
 
 Now that.. that's.. that's theory. Uh.. you.. you'll find somebody
 buying that little galaxy theory one of these days. They'll probably go down
 to Fairhope or Wichita or someplace and.. I betcha what (bet you what)! I 
 betcha they get a five-page write-up in TIME magazine!  
 
 Okay. We got a present time here, and present time is established by
 co-havingness - not by cohabitation, as the Freudians believe. And this 
 co-havingness here is just an agreement that at this time, at this instant,
 this much IS! That's.. that.. that's what you're agreeing to. You say, "Now
 look, right now that's in that state of repair, and that's in that s.. 
 position and state of repair," and so forth. No, not present time then, 
 because present time - oh hey, this whole thing goes out of gear, doesn't it?
 Isn't that terrible. Let's see what else is changing. Oh, thank God. We 
 have.. we have a change going on over here on the tape recorders. There's 
 less tape on one and on the other and what do you know, we use that in this
 room to tell how long the lecture is. 
 
 Of all the havingnesses in, this room which are used for time, none of
 them is reliable except that tape, because it spins and gets less and less on
 one reel and more and more on the other reel. See? 
 
 That's uh.. fascinating. All right. There's present time. If I want
 to know what present time, is, I have to look over at the tape recorder. 
 Usually I turn on my own time mechanism. My own time mechanism doesn't work
 too well. 
 
 Hey, you know, here's a wonderful gimmick! Do you know that you could
 probably convince everybody that 24 hours had gone by and they didn't know 
 it? You know, there.. there's a wonderful way of doing this. Everybody thinks
 that, well, they would wake up with another date, but date's got nothing do
 with it. 
 
 You just say, "Do you realize.. did you have a moment yesterday, an
 instant yesterday when you felt sort of suspended or fust an Instant when 
 something went like that? Did you feel that? Ohhh, you did. Just for a moment
 there - if you think it over you can probably pick up such a moment... Well,
 you know, what happened was.. is this entire solar system stood still for 
 that length of time, and of course standing still without any change of 
 position there was no motion, and people who had one foot raised, naturally
 couldn't fall down because there was no gravity during that period, because
 there was no motion. 
 
 So there couldn't be any energy flows or interchanges or magnetic 
 waves or anything else to influence them, and the fact of the matter was that
 this is demonstrably true because nobody noticed it! And it would take every
 single being we.. we have present, would have had to have experienced it to
 put it in a situation where nobody noticed it. And so therefore it obviously
 happened! Why did it happen? Because it happened to everybody. And how could
 we prove this, because there isn't ANYBODY who saw it happen!" 
 
 And the way we do this.. this is for.. this comes, by the way, from
 associating with this GE thinking computer, wonderful gimmick. 
 
 And so you see, what happened was that there had to be certain major
 changes made in the orbital action of the roody rods in this universe. And 
 the thetan who is the monitoring agency of this universe of course has to 
 
 -38- 

 suspend action to that length and he just zeroed time here for an instant. 
 Then of course everything stopped - nothing could possibly have deteriorated 
 because nothing went on. And this co-havingness was.. of course, wouldn't be 
 thrown out of balance, it couldn't be, because the thetan - he had 24 hours' 
 worth of work to do, and he did it, and finished it off and then everything 
 went on. But of course as far as they were concerned they were just in 
 continuous motion all the way along the line anyhow- as far as they were 
 concerned. And as I say we have the adequate proof of this because nobody 
 noticed it!" 
 
 The scholastic used to prove things that way. The Germans.. you'll 
 find in old German philosophic texts the most d1ssertating dissertations that 
 prove themselves along that line. I'm.. I'm sure TINE magazine would approve 
 of that theory. Do you suppose they'd put that on page one! Let's elect 
 somebody to be the greatest scientist of all time. And let's have him advance 
 a theory.. let's think of a good theory. Oh, yes, it has to be that he found 
 another science wrong, so that would be Planck. He finds Planck wrong and he 
 finds out that the quantum.. the quantum theory of nuclear physics is wrong. 
 Now.. now.. that's.. that's the way you start it in this society. "The 
 quantum theory is wrong." All right. "Now he found the quantum theory wrong, 
 for the good reason that..." - let's see, let's find a good reason that would 
 fit in about the same tone scale. 
 
 Oh, "Atomic bombs have to be manufactured, they're not 
 instantaneous." Do you follow that? Well, I don't. But uh.. that's a good 
 theory. Now we can start in from there and then demonstrate conclusively that 
 the quantum theory is wrong because of the complete non-existence of atom 
 bombs, and therefore, the quantum theory is wrong. Now we can further prove 
 that gravity really doesn't exist and prove all these other things don't 
 exist, and in view of the fact that we can prove all this, that's apathy, 
 because nobody wants anything to exist in apathy. 
 
 There you are. That's the whole thing. So don't make this kind of a 
 mistake on havingness. Don't make this kind of a mistake on havingness that 
 you.. you just see it as havingness that then therefore wipes everything out 
 because believe me your desire to have and your desire not to have aren't 
 foisted off on you. You.. you have those, and they're not illusory. When some 
 people want or don't want, they want or don't want with exclamation points on 
 some things! If you don't believe this, back a U.S marshall up against the 
 wall and put a gun in his stomach. He'll beg. 
 
 Now, present time then, is just this existence and.. of havingness 
 and your agreement on it. And your future? All is present time on the idea 
 that we must have a rate of change. Rate of change is as mathematics, known 
 as calculus. Calculus is a very interesting thing, it's divided into two 
 classes. There's differential calculus and integral calculus. The.. 
 differential calculus is in the first part of the textbook on calculus and 
 integral calculus is on the second part of the textbook on calculus. 
 
 Uh.. as you look through the book, you'll find in the early part of 
 the book on calculus, 'dx' over 'dy'. A little 'dx' and a little 'dy' and they're
 over.. one above the other on a line, predominates in the front part of the 
 book, but as you get to the end of the book you'll find these 'dx' and 'dy's' 
 have been preceeded by a summation sign, or are equating to a summation sign, 
 and the presence of this shows that we are in the field of integral calculus. 
 
 Now I hope you understand this because I've never been able to make 
 head nor tail out of it! It must be some sort of a black magic operation 
 started out by the Luce cult. Uh.. some immoral people who are operating in.. 
 
 -39- 

 up in New York city at the Rockefeller Plaza. Con.. thoroughly condemned by
 the whole society. 
 
 Anyway, their rate of change theory - I.. I've never seen any use for
 that mathematics by the way. I love that mathematic because it - I.. I asked
 an engineer one time, who was in his sixth year of engineering, if he'd ever
 used calculus. And he told me, "Yeah, once. Once I did," he said. 
 
 "Uh.. uh.. when did you use it?" 
 
 "Well, I used it uh.. once uh.. lemme see, what did I use it on? Oh,
 yeah, yes, something on the rate of change of steam particles in boilers. And
 then we went out and tested it and found the answer was wrong." 
 
 Calculus.. if you want to know, there is room there for a mathematics
 which is a good mathematics, and it would be the rate of co-change, or the 
 rate of change when something else was changing, so that you could establish
 existing rates of change in relationship to each other. And for lack of that
 mathematics, nobody has been able to understand present time! You just can't
 sum it up easily. Or, let us say, for lack of an understanding of what 
 present time was, nobody could formulate that mathematics. 
 
 So actually there's a big hole there that could be filled and it's 
 trying - ca.. the thing called calculus is trying to fill that hole right now
 and it can't. But the rates of change - it comes closest to it. I think it 
 was one of Newton's practical jokes. 
 
 Uh.. here we have.. here we have calculus as trying to measure a rate
 of change. Well, if we had something that was really workable and simple, it
 would be formed on this basis: The present time and gradients of time were 
 gradients of havingness, and as one havingness changed, you could establish a
 constancy of change for other related havingnesses. But because the basic 
 unit of the universe is two, you would have to have a rate of change known 
 and measured for every rate of change then estimated. The mathematics won't..
 I mean a mathematics won't operate in this universe unless it has 
 simultaneous equations. If you have two variables, you must have two 
 equations with which to solve those two variables. In other words you have to
 compare one to the other simultaneously. Ohtherwise you just get another 
 variable. 
 
 Of course people laughingly do this; they.. they take an equation
 with two variables and then they solve it. And then they.. you say, "What you
 got?" 
 And the fellow says, "K." 
 You say "Now just a minute. You got K, huh? Well, what is K?" 
 "Well, K we have established arbitrarily as being..." 
 
 You say, "Why did you work the equation out in the first place? You
 had a K, didn't you?" 
 
 So present time's advance into the future -- rate of change. Present
 time's advance over here to the right is indicated by the arrow, is sort of
 apparent to people, but they're in it all the time so they have a feeling of
 travel. And let's take this time track now and see what does happen. We'll 
 draw this time track 2 here, and below it we find another arrow, but it' 
 track. And what's changing here? What's changing is the rate of havingness.
 
 -40- 

 And we get this track coming back here to PT, and the track is proceeding out
 that-a-way. Now, what is the track? The track is the rate of change of 
 havingness. And what is the rate of change? The rate of change of havingness
 is what we agree to be a rate of change of havingness. 
 
 People's intolerance for speed and people's intolerance for slowness
 are themselves an effort to maintain a constant rate of change. And in view 
 of the fact that these people -- as I just commented some facetiously, your 
 desire to have and your desire not to have are real and they are actual - 
 both - and give the universe the backbone of reality and actualities which 
 universes have. You want them there, for lack of something better to have 
 there. 
 
 That's earlier talk; unless you gave the preclear a good reason to 
 have something else he would continue to have exactly what he has. You give 
 him interest enough, however, and he'll want something else, see how that is?
 But he's got the MEST universe. That doesn't mean he's satisfied, that means
 he doesn't have anything else to want. If he doesn't have anything else to 
 want, he won't have anything else. 
 
 So if he just uh.. has this and it's a certainty and not enough
 imagination or thought to produce anything else except immediately what he's
 got, you're not going to get a shift. Not even a vague shift, time. 
 
 So we have over here on track 2 what is happening here. And this is
 why they keep showing time in vectors, is this rate of change. And of course
 we see that its rate... 
 
 Now, the dynamics, the eight dynamics demonstrate amongst themselves
 an interdependency which is covered in writing best in -- of the works that 
 I've done on this - in Book One. It's just the viewpoint of what's good. 
 Viewpoint establishes what's good. Viewpoint establishes what's bad and we 
 get these interrelated viewpoints and we get from these then an 
 interdependency. Not one of these dynamics can exist without the other 
 dynamics existing. And so you see that? 
 
 You're looking right at the heart of the problem called 'time'. 
 Unless these stay in agreement one with another, they can't co-exist, and if
 one of them steps out without an able support from all the rest, and steps 
 out of line, you're liable to get a collapse of all those dynamics. 
 
 We find that the thetan in a good state is actually all dynamics. 
 Therefore he can be a universe, and that he turns up missing in this one due
 to the complete uh.. plethora of thetans around, it doesn't seriously damage
 this one, because he is not removing from it an integral portion of its 
 energy. He's removing something else that has nothing in mass, and that's an
 idea. 
 
 He is a capability and a zero of mass, and his havingness is a time 
 monitor. That is to say, he has or doesn't want. And you could keep taking 
 thetans out of this universe and nothing would happen much to the universe 
 because you really aren't upsetting these because you're subtracting what? 
 You're subtracting 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8! It's the only way you can get out, it's 
 the only way you could add anything to his universe is by adding 
 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8 to it. 
 
 In view of the fact that your thetan is a balanced eight dynamics,
 when he is subtracted, he subtracts almost exactly equal - don't.. you don't
 have to ever worry about this, I mean this just happens to work out -- he 
 
 -41- 

 subtracts almost exactly equal quantities on all eight dynamics. That's why 
 he has to be well up tone scale to get out. Now what do you know! He has to 
 be balanced on these dynamics, otherwise the imbalance freezes him in. Think 
 of that for a moment. So he's got to be up Into a level of practically pure 
 thought. And the reason he can be up into pure thought is he's not going to 
 take any MEST with him, believe me, and he's not going to withdraw on that. 
 
 Let's take a look at - whet's a balanced equation, then, for this 
 universe? Any stability in this universe contains as Its balances the rate of 
 change of the eight dynamics' interdependencies. The eight dynamics are all 
 interdependent in any stability equation in this universe. And you get any 
 equation in this universe that demonstrates its stability and you've got all 
 eight dynamics present. One way or the other, you've got them present. And 
 their stability means that they're present in a stable or balanced form. Now 
 you start to unbalance one of these things, and of course nothing is going to 
 happen at all. If you don't unbalance it by subtracting 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8. An 
 exact balance from it. See? 
 
 You can take out of this stability what, let's call a beingness, a 
 quantum of beingness, if there could be such a thing. You could take this out 
 all the way along the line and if you took it out wrong, or tried to take it 
 out wrong, you'd blow the whole shootin' match. In other words, you tried to 
 take it out down tone scale you'd practically blow the universe up, and when 
 the boys try to go out the bottom of the scale with apathy and all that, the 
 rest of that thing, by golly they blow up cultures, cities, so on - 
 everything goes to pieces, because they're trying to move out of the universe 
 with their hands on all this MEST. 
 
 The rich man tries to go to heaven; of course he can't go to heaven 
 on account of those ridges, they won't let him through the eye of the camel! 
 All right, let's take a break. 
 (TAPE ENDS) 
 
 -42-