

MELBOURNE CONGRESS - PART 2 OF 8



RECENT DEVELOPMENTS ON OT

A lecture given on 7 November 1959

[Start of Lecture]

Hello.

Audience: Hi.

It's very warm out today.

Audience: Yes. Sure.

Summer's coming on.

Audience: That's right.

I get out of adjustment on that.

Well, I think probably I had better read you some of the good
wishes that you got today from around the world, as the first
gesture.

And here's from Saint Hill: "Have a star performance congress in
all respects. Love, HCO WW Staff, Saint Hill, East Grinstead,
London."

And here's "Welcome to Australia (stop). Best wishes for
successful congress. Staff, American College, Perth."

The -- tremendous numbers of them here, my goodness! My goodness!

"We all wish you a wonderful congress (stop). Excellent clearing
at -- the ACC. Signed, HASI and HCO New Zealand."

Oh my, there's just too many of these things, too many of them,
too many of them. Wow! Wow. Wow.

Oh, I have to read you this one. This is actually "unofficially"
from Spain. This is -- this is unofficially from Spain. This
little girl is the HCO Steno, HASI London, so she sent it through
for HCO London. "Ron. Very best wishes for successful, giant
congress at ACC. All our love, HCO London."

You know, you talk about "international boundaries." The people
who want international boundaries and borders had better not want
Scientology too. The truth of the matter is two of the star
performers in London are Australians. And I was on the telex the
other evening...

By the way, you know -- you know, you're awful close to London.
The space is just totally jammed in between on these new jets. I
came through so fast that I actually was getting baggage aboard
halfway around the world, you know. Some of the HASIs are now
connected together by teletypewriter, and all of them will be
soon, and you will be connected up with the rest of them by
teletypewriter soon, too. And then I look forward to all the
franchise holders being connected up by teletypewriter, and we'll
have it made.

Now, it's really remarkable. We count noses in the various HASIs
of staff nationalities, and it runs as high as 16 nationalities -
- that's right -- in a single HASI.

It doesn't matter where it is, but they just -- Australians are
there, and other nationalities are here, and so on. But they just
don't seem to get the idea that they're different.

Well, some recent developments have occurred technically in the
field of Scientology which give us the courage to go for broke on
OT.

There isn't time in a congress to describe all of these. They
will be taught on the 1st Melbourne ACC, complete. But it'd be a
very bad thing if I didn't give you a little peek in, wouldn't
it?

Audience: Yes.

That'd be bad show.

I know there are people here that don't know too much
Scientology. And I know there are going to be auditors afterwards
that will tell me, "Well, I brought so-and-so along and they
didn't know much about it, and so forth. And all you did was talk
tremendous technicalities, and you just talked over their heads
entirely, and they were very upset and so forth." So, if you want
to be a friend of mine, don't tell the auditor who brought you
that it was all over your head, huh?

But the tremendous developments always come back to tremendous
simplicities. The great points of progress -- not just in
Scientology but almost in any field or area -- are based on
finding new, more simple fundamentals which themselves illuminate
more areas of knowledge.

It's the simplicities that are scarce.

Now, you can get people out making atomic bombs, and figuring out
quanta, and missiles and bigger missiles and rarrr, and brrrr and
fixing it up so they land flags on the Sea of Dreams, and -- and
accidentally land in the Sea of Violence. All kinds of -- of
complexities exist in this world today. All kinds of
complexities, nothing more complex.

If there's anything more complex going to be thought up it's by
the "more progressive" scientists of Earth.

For instance, the last Lincoln car that was built in the United
States is a wonderful example. Lincoln's always been a pretty
darn good automobile. And the last one went on total automatic
and it's just got gadgets and gimmicks and thingamabobs and you
press buttons and they operate solenoids and doors open and
windshields flap up and little men come up and dust off the
radiator cap. And people -- people around Washington, are -- in
the organization and so forth, are always trying to get me to
turn in an old 1954 Capri I have. And so I tell them "I'll turn
it in any day that one of your new ones, you see (meaning the car
they just bought, the 1958 or 59 or something of the sort) can
beat it away from the stoplights and so on."

They haven't managed that yet, so I'm still stuck with this old
Lincoln. I finally took it to England so it wouldn't be out of
style.

But anyway, salesman came up and got ahold of me, and he says,
"You've got to come down and look at the new 1995 (or whatever it
was) Lincoln. And you just should be ashamed of yourself driving
that old car... Want to get this new, big, wonderful,
sensational..." So forth.

So, he takes me down, and unfortunately for him I walked through
the repair shops into the showroom! And here's nothing but 1959
Lincolns! See? Stacked up one on top of the other, so to speak!
And I said, "You haven't been able to sell any Lincolns this
year?"

"Oh, yes, we're selling Lincolns beautifully!"

I said, "What are all these Lincolns doing in here?"

"Oh, well," he says, "uh, ahem, come on into the showroom."

I said, "No. No. No, I'm interested in this Lincoln right here."

And I got in and slid under the seat and started to press switch
buttons. It has panels full of buttons, you know. I started
operating these panels, you know. Windows didn't open, doors
didn't open, hoods didn't fly up, you know, boots stayed shut,
lights stayed off. It wasn't operating.

It had gotten so mechanically complicated, had so many vias and
supercontrols, and little motors and so forth to go wrong, that
all you have to do at one of them is sneeze, you see, and
something stops operating.

You know, it's like these new -- these new missiles the same way.
They put them on the launching pad and they fill them up full of
fuel, and they blow up. They put a new one on the launching pad,
they get it full of fuel, but as they're disconnecting the
electric razor or something off of it, why, it blows up and so
on. And they finally manage to put it all together and back off
very carefully and get in and then push the button and it blows
up.

Well, now the funny part of it is that they think that by adding
greater and greater complications onto their mechanical basics
that they can get greater and greater performance. And that isn't
true at all.

When a communication line stops operating, just strip all the
gadgets and things off of it and just put the straight line back
and it'll start operating again. That's a truism mechanically.
And it's certainly true technologically in the development of
Scientology research investigation.

Now, by achieving a new, even more simple basic -- those amongst
you that were brought by the auditor and don't know much about
Scientology just don't pay any attention to the next thing I'm
going to say because it won't do you a bit of good. But the
auditors will understand it. It works like this: We could
probably go to the moon and erect any number of batteries of
flags with no oxygen masks or anything else by simply achieving a
few more simple simplicities in Scientology.

You see, the conquest of the moon doesn't depend upon
supercomplexities. It's much more likely to be achieved by our
arriving at supersimplicities.

Now, for instance, we've had a map of the back of the moon for
about five years. And the last map shot by the Russians when that
thing went around back there -- its photographic quality is very
sour, but it shows that they more or less did send something
around the moon. Everybody doubted it for a while, but they did
send something around because I've got a chart on my desk that
shows they're more or less correct.

The achievement of a simplicity is a greater goal in Scientology
than the achievement of a super-supercomplexity that nobody can
understand.

Now, the basics in Scientology can be explained to a little kid
and he'll get them right away if they're true. The truths, the
valuable truths, and the things that are really going forward in
Scientology are that easily communicated. And you can always tell
where we're just a little bit off the rails because a little kid
can't understand what we're talking about. And if that's the case
and it's gotten very complicated, we may be on the verge of a
simplicity but we haven't quite reached it because we haven't
achieved understanding.

You might say that all things worth understanding are infinitely
simple. And all things which are very, very difficult to
understand aren't worth studying.

Well, you take accounting. I'll give you an example, take
accounting. Now, if you don't think organizationally around the
world we haven't had trouble with accounting. In the first place
-- in the first place an Australian chartered accountant is at
total odds on how to do it (you wouldn't believe this, but it's
true) with a London chartered accountant; they don't quite talk
the same language. Their columns of figures add up just a little
bit different.

They get in a balance sheet in the London office and they read
the year's report and so forth on it, and they say, "Well, the --
eh -- he shouldn't have added that up quite that way. That's not
quite the way it's done." And down here I'm sure they do the same
thing. And an American accountant takes a look at the thing and
says, "Huh! Internal Revenue will never agree with that!" I mean,
just does that automatically, it doesn't matter what you put
down.

And you say, "No! No! We want this balance sheet for the
Association Secretary. We don't -- we want to know what the
organization did. Not -- not -- not what Internal Revenue thinks
about it."

"Oh, well, it's got to be for Internal Revenue."

And you say, "No. We want an accounting department that tells our
own executives and people what we're doing financially."

"Well, I don't care. Internal Revenue, Inland Revenue, and your
income tax and so forth."

You say, "Look, just -- just drop them all out the window, will
you? We want to find out what we're doing."

We actually have gotten to a point where if it gets -- if an
organization gets too big, we just set up a partitioned section
that does the kind of accounting the government wants, and then
just kind of forget them because somebody's got to keep us
informed. And government accounting has practically nothing to do
with what a businessman or an organization man wants, has nothing
to do with it. He wants to know whether he's solvent; the
government wants to know how much they can gouge him for.
Entirely different thing just as any businessman here will agree.

Well, we had to realize finally that accounting was stuck
someplace in the eighteenth or nineteenth century; it wasn't in
the twentieth century because the governments demand certain
things of you, and other people demand certain things of you, you
have to know certain things, and no accounting system extant was
giving us these things. And everybody was getting all tangled up
with accounting! And anybody can tell you, I am sure, that
accounting is a very difficult subject, very difficult!
Complicated! Well, it's just complicated enough these days so as
not to tell us anything.

So, every time we move into some zone of human activity we're
unfortunately confronted with a muddle and if we go very far into
that particular field we wind up having to straighten it out so
that we can get someplace, and that's kind of the way it's going.

And we had to sit down, of all things, and find out the
fundamentals of accounting. What is accounting? What does it do
and how do you do it?

And we finally wound up with an accounting system that does what
the government wants and does what the executives want and does
what everybody wants and doesn't take any time. It's all very
simple.

The government wants records, so all you do is file records and
you've got a system that they agree with. And you put the records
in file envelopes so that an executive can look up any person or
company that he's doing business with -- everything about the
person or company is in one envelope, not scattered around
anyplace; pick that up and he can look in there and he could read
it all off.

In other words, all we're doing now is assembling records and
filing them, and you can file records in a certain way so as to
give you any accounting answer that you want.

Nineteenth century said that you had to write it all down in
books, which is an alter-is. Well, you don't have to do that
because the government doesn't want you to keep books, they want
you to keep records. They look at your books, you know, they say,
"Ha, ha, ha, ha!" And you say, "Well, these are our books.
They're kept by our chartered accountants and so forth." And the
government says, "Yes, we know. Where's the records?" They know
you can alter the books, but it's harder to alter records, so
that's what they call for these days. So, it might as well be a
record accounting system, and that's what we've invented.

It turns out to be a very simple system, but it had everybody in
the organizations on their ear for just ages -- accounting.
Everybody going mad with accounting.

It's like that in any field of human endeavor. And when something
is so complicated that you can't understand it, then don't you be
criticizing you as not being able to understand it! Because
you've been taught that when you see something difficult or
incomprehensible that you can't comprehend, that therefore, you,
not understanding it, you must be stupid! And you've been taught
to criticize yourself as the first reaction to a complexity!
Isn't that right?

Audience: Yes.

Well, we've got a new look at this. We find out this is just an
operation. This is just a way to control people. Let's erect
something here that has glittering metal bars and balls and
transformers and dials and all sorts of things and then write a
textbook that has to do with the quanta of the inverse electrode.
Get the thing all computed out in compound calculus with
analytical figments, get it put into the local university as a
necessary subject if you're going to understand engineering,
prove it all conclusively. Nobody understands it -- "You're
flunked! You're stupid! We of the great priesthood understand it.
But you, you louse... Therefore, we are very great people. You
owe us a debt. Look at all the work we go to understanding this
thing."

Man, man has been falling for that one too many years. If you
can't understand it, one of two things is true: You haven't
looked through it to find if there are any simplicities in it
that you can understand, or it is incomprehensible. See, one of
those two things is true.

True enough, if there's going to be anything to a big machine or
structure or something, there will be some sort of a simplicity
on which it's based. And even though the thing does look imposing
at first glance, if it contains truth and workability and has
value, then somewhere in it there is a simplicity that you can
understand, and on that simplicity you can simply build the rest
of the mechanism and understand the whole thing.

It might be that you didn't do it in a second, but if it took you
two or three days, begin to suspect that there's something phony
about it. You see that?

Now, very often you'll come in late on a subject. The
simplicities have all been bypassed. In other words, the
simplicities are all taken care of, and somebody is using a
language which at this stage of the game is incomprehensible.
Now, that language means something or it doesn't mean anything.
So, the thing to do is to pick out some of the words that are
being used and find out if they are simple words in terms of
definition. And if you can understand those words defined, then
you can understand the subject. But, if you don't understand
those words -- if "telekinesis" is "the right bower of the
vortical curve put on by God," you say, "Well, that's -- I don't
know about that. I don't know -- Gee."

You're usually better off just by picking this subject up by the
scruff of the neck and going... Because there's some hocus-pocus
in it. Somebody is being quite unreasonable.

Now, I well remember in universities taking up the subject of
physics. And physics is comprehensible as long as you're dealing
with fundamentals, but some of the things they make out of the
fundamentals are quite fantastic. You get up into kinetics and it
isn't true. But oh, expansion of gases, for instance, something
about gases expand or how you balance two things on a lever's arm
or something of that sort. That's all comprehensible. And if you
understand that clearly and completely where they apply in
physics you can understand all of physics and it's an A-B-C
subject that even a little kid could understand.

Now, there's another method of obfuscating, a subject, one more
method of doing it. And that's to take a subject that's basically
simple and talk double talk on it so as to make it appear very
complicated even though it's very simple. And perhaps many great
truths have been lost to man that way. In other words, the truth
was there and then somebody came along and "explained it" and
somehow or another forgot to repeat the truth in the explanation.
This is another operation.

But if you, on close investigation of a specific subject -- like
looking up the definitions of its various words or something like
that, find that you can't understand it, certainly we can say one
thing absolutely -- that it isn't true for you. We could say that
absolutely. But the probability is that it isn't true at all.

Of course, complicated words, communication barriers of one kind
or another, specialized definitions and so forth, do occasionally
give you a complicated-looking word. But, if you look around and
you find the definition to that word and you find out that word
does describe something that is true to you now, well, there's
probably something there. But if you don't understand it, then
there's nothing.

Now, in research it's my job continuously to suspect
complications. Every once in a while, man, we'll find one that
looks like it's going right on up to the stars, you know, it's
just wonderful rationale; it just seems to work perfectly and so
on, but it's pretty complex. It kind of takes an expert to get it
crossways into his skull, you know, and he can still feel the
points jabbing him a little bit.

And you figure it out in long formulas, and then you have to know
this and that and the other thing and so on. Well, I'm too old a
hand at it by now -- I'll just carry one of these things down
about half a column and say, "Well, I guess we better look a
little bit further. Because I'd say about next Tuesday we'll find
the simplicity that makes this whole thing fall apart." And we
have just found some of these simplicities in Scientology
research that have made a whole lot of things that were evidently
a little bit complex fall apart.

Now, I still suspect a couple of the items in this new work
because I don't think I could explain them easily to a seven-
year-old kid. So, I'd say, "Well, I don't know, that's -- there
must be something wrong with them so there's something simpler to
know about them."

Once in a while these things look very good and go very bad. But
they only really go very bad if they're away from the
fundamentals that we have known for years and years and years.

Somebody's always coming along and telling you, "Well, Ron's
always changing Dianetics and Scientology. He's always changing
it, always changing it." The person that tells you that doesn't
know the fundamentals or simplicities of Dianetics or
Scientology. It's very simple -- the setup.

We're not changing that. We're trying to find something simpler
than the simplicities we already know. It's been working for a
long time. How does it work faster? How does it work better? And
you'll get shifts of emphasis on various types of processes,
shifts of emphasis this way and that.

Once in a blue moon -- I could say we make a mistake; I won't --
once in a blue moon I make a mistake; I take full responsibility.

But the difference is, is I'm not so anxious to save my face as
never to mention it. There are probably a half a dozen bloomers
on public releases over the past nine or ten years, and I made
every single one of them and corrected them afterwards and said
so.

One of those was a thing called Step 6. That's a bloomer of vast
magnitude. Just because myself and a half-dozen other people that
were on the research lines and so forth didn't run into the solid
bank phenomena, we went ahead and released it broadly. Just
because a number of people were cleared using it, why we thought,
"That's it." I did say at the time that it was only good for
about 50 percent, but I didn't calculate what was going to happen
to the 50 percent it didn't clear, and that was pretty grim.

You make a picture, a mental image picture, more visible and more
solid for an individual whose engrams are still live with big
claws. And this beautiful picture of the flowers in the field, it
gets prettier -- and prettier and prettier and solider, and the
blades of grass finally get so he could practically feel them,
you see? In the meantime there's something going further and
further and more solid into the back of his neck. At the same
time you improve the quality of any picture in a person's mind,
you improve the quality of every picture in the person's mind!

Now, the mental image picture -- the mental image picture is of
course, by rights the subject of Dianetics. And that people had
mental image pictures and that these pictures were the cause --
the recording of them, the cause of the continuance of pressure
or bad feeling or misemotion or something of the sort, we
considered that by desensitizing or erasing these mental image
pictures and taking the teeth out of past experience, in other
words, we could bring a person up to more optimum operation.

Well, that was fine. And, I demonstrated it time and time again,
did it often and -- and it was highly successful, and even today
you can take Book One and open it up, as I have had somebody do,
read the "canceller" or something on it, you know?

I've had a person, by the way, read a session to me out of Book
One. It's very amusing, you know? It's got places in there where
your -- the exact way you run a session, you know? Well, they
didn't memorize these things. They were using Book One to audit
with and they'd simply open Book One, you see, and read it off to
the preclear. "Now, I duh-duh-duh-duh-duh."

Well, you can do that and get somebody to -- on a couch and
"Close your eyes," and all the rest of it just as it says in Book
One. Return him to the incident necessary to resolve his case,
run him from the beginning to the end of the thing through and
through and through, make him reexperience the thing fully and
totally and so on, and get rid of his sciatica or baldness or
almost anything!

The things wrong with him tend to get right within certain limits
by the erasure of engrams. The only thing that happens wrong in
Dianetic clearing is the person suddenly runs out of havingness.
In other words, his whole acceptance level was horrible engrams.
And the only thing he could really have was gruesome, terrible,
horrible mental image pictures! And you erase two or three of
these, erasing the wrong ones, not the one that made him want
them, and he would just -- he just lost two or three perfectly
beautiful mental image pictures, didn't he?

And if you erase them wrong way to and so forth, people get upset
because they're possessions. They're possessions that can never
be replaced.

Now, engrams have teeth and claws and all sorts of things.

I had an attorney one time -- he said to me, "Oh," he says,
"you're that guy -- you're that Dianetics guy." I said, "That's
right." He said, "What's the good of that stuff?" He -- "Would it
be any use to me?" I said, "Well, how would you like to be able
to snap your fingers in front of a witness in a chair and say a
certain magic phrase and have the witness curl up in a ball and
roll on the floor?" "Aw," he said, "that would be terrific." He
said, "But you couldn't do that. Show me!"

I put him in a prenatal and he rolled up in a ball on the floor.
I never saw that man afterwards at a club or on the street for
what he didn't say, "How are you today, Dr. Hubbard?"

The horrible part of it is that a mental image picture will obey
the other fellow before it will obey his possessor -- its
possessor. One's own mental image pictures mind the other guy
better than they mind the person who has them because their
common denominator is other-determinism.

Now, where auditors have had difficulty making Dianetics work is
they think the preclear has some influence on his mental image
pictures. They think the mental image pictures do what the
preclear says. In other words, he says, "Go away. Come back.
Change. Turn. Run this way." See, they expect the preclear to do
it! The responsibility is being assigned by the auditor to the
preclear!

The reason it's a picture in suspension and is still there
hanging fire to the end of time is because the preclear has no
control over it. It's an other-determined thing!

There's this picture of a fellow being beheaded, you see, and the
pc, when he gets a little tired or something like that will
notice kind of, you know, that he has this picture of this fellow
being beheaded, you know? Has nothing to do with him. Thinks it's
something he read out of an old book. Maybe he saw it in the
movies. Sort of stuck there, you know?

He'll be sitting there, won't be thinking about anything, and...
Well, that doesn't bother him, and it has nothing whatsoever to
do with this horrible pain he gets across the back of his neck!

Well, everybody has mental image pictures, but some people have
found them so painful that they have gone mmmmmm and have
squashed them down to an invisibility. They either made them very
furry or quite invisible. And you say, "Close your eyes. What do
you see?" Such a person says, "Oh, nothing but this wide -- you
know, just nothing. Ha. don't see anything. No, nothing. Ow!"

And some other people have decided that the invisibility itself
was still too terrible, so after they've squashed their mental
image pictures down to an invisibility -- those that are
chronically stuck -- then they get some black paint and get it
all nice and black!

And you say, "Close your eyes. What do you see?"

"Oh, nothing. Just this blackness. Ha. Doesn't bother me --
cough-cough-cough-cough."

And some people, believe it or not, still feel so insecure that
they take the blackness and alter it to something else. And when
you start to -- run these people, you start to run the something
else. You get -- all of a sudden it's something else, like little
rockets or something like that.

"What do you see?" you know. "Close your eyes. What do you see?"

The fellow says, "I see these little rockets. Rockets going
across. That's all." Yeah, that's all. When you run that you'll
get blackness. And when you run the blackness you get
invisibility. And when you run the invisibility you'll get a
picture, and there's this headsman standing there with his ax.
The fellow is just -- his whole action toward it was not to take
responsibility for it, but to get rid of it in some outrageous
way that didn't get rid of it at all. And that's about all the
responsibility most preclears take for their mental image
pictures. You know -- squash!

You walk up to a psychologist, you say, "What do you know about
mental image pictures?"

"Oh, you're talking about Dianetics, aren't you? Well, they don't
exist. Oh, we knew about that years ago. Nobody has any."

You say, "Well, do you have any mental image pictures?"

"Nah. No, I don't." And he just... And you say, "Close your
eyes. What do you see?"

"Oh, just these little things going this way."

The general -- the general status of people's minds varies, of
course, according to their pattern of experience.

Joe here has not led the same life as Isabel. And so Joe has one
set of pictures and Isabel has another set of pictures. And then
these pictures are more -- have been more impressive to Joe, let
us say, than to Isabel, so Joe's pictures are more not-ised or
scrunched up or squashed or done away with, you see, than Isabel's.

So, Isabel has a picture of something or other that she can see;
Joe has a picture that he can't see. So, you get these variations
but you get the common denominator and simplicity that people
have pictures. People have pictures.

And the only people who could have pictures and not have them be
a total liability would be a Clear, because the difference
between a Clear and a person who is not Clear is not a total
absence of pictures, as everybody tries to define it. A Clear can
have pictures, but a Clear can do something about them! And the
person who isn't Clear can't! It's degree of other-determinism
effective on the individual, if you wanted to be very technical
about it.

And the Clear can determine his pictures. If he wants to see
again his being beheaded, whenever it was, he can mock it up, and
look at it and even put the pain into it and go the rest of the
way through the thing again. After he's gotten rid of a picture
he can put it back there again. That's definitely a Clear's
relationship to mental image pictures.

But, another person who isn't Clear is in this terrible
condition: that the pictures don't obey him. They obey anything
and anybody else -- particularly headsmen.

Auditors very often miss when they're very young in their career
and don't know their business. You know, they're just fumbling
around and trying to get there somehow. They miss this terrible
fundamental. And this fundamental is with us today in Scientology
as it's never been before. It's a fundamental.

It's degree of other-determinism effective upon the individual,
and it's represented in his own control over his pictures. But
that person learning to be an auditor who doesn't know his
business yet, actually believes that the preclear is being a bad
pc and is being upsetting and is being mean and is being stupid
and willful if he won't go ahead and handle his pictures. And he
keeps trying to get the preclear to handle his pictures!

And the only person that can handle the preclear's pictures is
the auditor -- that little simplicity there.

Now, as the auditor starts handling them, the preclear finds he
can start chipping in. And after a while finally comes up to a
point where he can determine something about the picture. And
when you're handling pictures directly that's the only thing that
happens, is the picture goes from totally other-determined to
self-determined. That's all that happens with pictures.

And in clearing people you are not trying to erase every picture
and every possession and every everything that the poor preclear
has. If you take away all of his aches and pains and all of his
mental image pictures, all of his own physical possessions and
his body, according to some people he would be very Clear! Well,
he isn't Clear; he was robbed.

The only thing an auditor can do in the final analysis is to
restore other-determinism into self-determinism. In other words,
he can make the pc able to control his existence rather than
existence controlling the pc.

Now, that tells us where we are in relationship to Wundtian
psychology which was invented in 1879 in Leipzig, Germany on the
premise that man is an animal that reacts on neurons and
synapses.

Once in a while an auditor hears a lecture by me and I tell them
about psychology. I define psychology, or tell them about
psychoanalysis and define psychoanalysis and tell them the facts,
you know -- brrrrrrrr -- and they're this and that and so on, and
so it all adds up this way and so forth. They think I'm kidding
them.

Then they go out to a meeting of psychologists, they go out to a
meeting of psychoanalysts or they read a few textbooks. And they
come back and they tell me I am very guilty of understatement.
It's much more so!

But, psychology believes that the individual must adjust himself
to his environment to be happy. Anybody that knows that subject
can tell you that's absolute fact. That isn't all! I mean,
there's more. But he has to adjust himself to the environment!

If a fellow becomes the effect of all dynamics, he would be
happy! Is there anything wrong with that? If a fellow becomes the
effect of everybody he knows, then they will all like him. Is
that true?

No. A fellow has to come over to a point where he can be cause
over his environment and the dynamics and so forth -- not
obsessive cause, but just be cause over these things in order to
have them in some relationship to himself that isn't harmful to
himself and others.

The only thing wicked about this universe or this world, the only
wicked thing would simply be this: That it is so other-determined
where each individual is concerned, that much evil can result
since evil itself would be just random chaos never determined by
anybody. And I'm sure that would be evil. I think anybody would
agree that would be evil. That's all anybody ever really objects
to is just chaos just going on, nobody doing anything about it
and everybody being subject to the chaos. And if a steamroller
gets its motor started somehow and starts down the road it just
runs over people. You know, that's the way it should be.

Well, if you followed through the basic goal of psychology you'd
have that kind of a world.

Well, that isn't a good enough goal or isn't a good enough level.
So, in Dianetics we had to find out what was it that kept a
person this convinced that he couldn't do anything about
anything. And it's simply the other-determinism character of his
mental image pictures. And all the mental image pictures are that
do him harm are the pictures of things that happened that he
thereafter couldn't do anything about. It's things he couldn't do
anything about. And the common denominator of all mental image
pictures that are harmful or overwhelm people simply is that --
he can't do anything about them. They're other-determined. So,
after a while, people turn around and say, "Well, God has charge
of them." Or they say, "Well, it's the Politburo has charge of
them."

And there are societies that have built things called thought
towers. Believe it or not, this is true -- thought tower. And
this thought tower was supposed to emanate messages into all the
minds of the people, and if they thought a thought against the
government or if they thought a thought that broke the law, then
the thought tower knew about it and would signal them a message
to report to the nearest police station to be brainwashed at
once. There have been whole societies operated on this thing.

The joke is, of course, the thought tower does nothing. See, the
swindle is that the individual turns himself in. And he turns
himself in to be brainwashed because he considers himself a
menace to the state thinking that badly. And of course, this is
whole track and space opera and isn't happening here on Earth --
is it? No, no. They're not doing that in Russia! No, no.

You know that people report back for their next electric shocks
when they've been sent to institutions? You know they never have
any trouble with it? They give this fellow an electric shock that
makes him real stupid. Just like that he'll report back for the
next one. And he gets the next one, it makes him more stupid. And
they tell him, "You've got to come for another one," so, he
reports back for the next one.

Well, the trick is the shock was of sufficient duress that he
couldn't do anything about it. He could have done something about
it right up to the moment, but then everything is brought to bear
on him to convince him that there is nothing he can do about it!
After that it becomes totally other-determined, doesn't it? So,
it itself operates as a mental image picture that makes him do
most anything he wants it to. And that's the basis of other-
determined control in any society! All you have to do is convince
everybody that they can't do anything about anything and you've
got total chaos.

How anybody can profit out of total chaos I don't know, but
people are around who seem to think they can. They seem to think
that they would best exist in a society of total chaos. There
are. Maybe it's true, maybe they can exist best.

I know there's certain types of worms and flies and things like
that that can only exist amongst corpses. I wouldn't go so far as
to say such people are of the same strain, breed and variety of
these worms and flies. I'd just say I wouldn't insist on it.

So, all these years of research, whatever attack line you find
research on, is the best way to convert other-determinism to
self-determinism. Because we find that when an individual is once
more captain of his destiny he doesn't do wrong things with it.
He only does bad things if he can't do anything about anything.
Then he has to do bad and ignoble things because he can't do good
things. But, given his choice, man is basically good.

All of us know strong men who are very gentle men. And little
weak men who are very, very treacherous. We, all of us, have had
this experience with people.

The fellow who is in terror or is afraid or feels that all kinds
of pressure can be brought against him is liable to do anything.

I don't know how espionage organizations operate at all to tell
you the truth, because they're filled full of people who are held
there in terror! And the man held there in terror is liable to do
most anything. And he seldom does anything that's good. But a man
who has some control over his own destiny, who can exert his own
determinism and feels that he can and knows that he can very
seldom does things which are harmful and evil to others.

You can see this and demonstrate it, but the basic goal is the
conversion, then, of other-determinism that should be self-
determinism.

Because you have this silly picture of an individual, himself,
mocking up pictures which he considers "other-determined" which
then influence him harmfully. And that's what a person's mind is
doing. That's what a person is doing. He actually is making these
pictures which affect him, but he doesn't think he's making the
pictures. And one of the most unpopular thing you can tell
anybody is, "You make your own pictures, you know."

"I don't believe you! No sir!"

That's one thing they know: These things appear and disappear
with no volition from self. They are not in any slightest degree
responsible for any picture they have in the bank. Consequently
your best, if most dishonest, dissemination line is, "You're a
victim. You're a victim of your pictures. And these pictures are
there and they've been implanted on you. And you can't do
anything about them and you're just a victim of them." And
everybody says, "You know, that's true!"

But once again our principal -- our principal gains have been
made in a field of such simplicity as the difference between
chaos and order is other-determinism and self-determinism. See,
that's totally simple. And other gains are -- that we have just
made on the route to OT are so simple right now that -- gee,
they're awful simple. They're so simple that all you do is utter
one of the commands to a pc and his head sort of splits. It's
almost that bad.

There are a few things that you could tell a people to think
about now that you -- both you and he will wish you hadn't. They
just start tearing the bank up in long strips and so on. Not --
it's not dangerous, particularly. He comes out of it.

The funny part of it is he's better off having thought them than
he was not having thought them. Get the idea? Because if there
was this much violence ready to turn loose in his mind just
because he thought a thought, look how other-determined his
thoughts were.

He daren't think this certain thought, therefore, all of his
thoughts are more or less controlled so as to detour around these
various thoughts.

And that one of improving people's pictures, improves the whole
bank and improves all the engrams. It improves all the self-det
-- other-determinism -- was such a barrier to clearing that I have
been trying ever since to move sideways.

Fifty percent of the people don't experience this because they
get rid of the pictures before they can bite them. But the other
50 percent half get killed with this phenomenon.

And what I have to announce to this particular congress is I
found the route through this Step 6 for the remaining 50 percent.
This phenomenon has been handled and we have the answers to it,
and again they are very, very simple answers so they have a ghost
of a chance of staying with us for a long time.

But, I'll tell you more about that in the next lecture.

Have we got a congress?

Audience: Yes!

Okay, thanks for being here.

[End of Lecture]
