Category Archives: Scientology


Project: Hubbard 1954: The Phoenix Lectures

This paper presents Chapter 18 from the book THE PHOENIX LECTURES by L. RON HUBBARD. The contents are from the original publication of this book by The Church of Scientology (1954).

The paragraphs of the original material (in black) are accompanied by brief comments (in color) based on the understanding from Buddhism.  Feedback on these comments is always appreciated.



It is utterly fascinating what you can do with a process which is apparently as permissive as the Opening Procedure of SOP 8-C. The exact details of the process are given in Issue 24G of the Journal of Scientology.

The number of case factors which are handled in 8-C is fascinating, because here you are processing straight toward simplicity.

We know that what is wrong with a person is his subjective universe. That has gotten into trouble. Now, in view of the fact that he could mock up a tremendous amount of space if he had to, he could mock up lots of energy, he could mock up objects, and he could do this any number of times, then why he’s lugging around something called “his universe” is a little bit difficult for a reasonable man to understand, and yet that is what people are doing. You get a sort of idea of somebody walking around with a great many clanking chains, old tin cans, old cigar butts, and so forth and calling these possessions. “His universe” looks like a kid’s toy box. If you’ve ever looked into a three-year old’s choicest possessions, that’s about the order of havingness the thetan pulls along with him.

He gives these things up with the greatest of reluctance, yet his total health, you might say, is dependent upon his ability to make, to have, new fresh things, and to do almost anything he wants to with them.

What is wrong with a person is his subjective universe. He is attached to certain considerations and lugging them around even when he can mock them up any time.

But, remember, it was always very, very difficult for him to get an object into such a circumstance that it was actually somebody else’s object. To procure an object which was somebody else’s is what he has to do in order to have that object. If we look at the four conditions of existence, the “Ises”, we discover just exactly why these things are so very valuable to him. They are so valuable because they mean to him a period when he was actually in communication with thetans as such, and he could blame them, and if he could blame them then he could have something. And if he couldn’t blame them then he couldn’t have anything — unless he duplicated himself, and so had another thetan to blame. This way he would get a persistence, he would get survival in terms of motion. Otherwise it would all seem completely motionless to him.

Now again all of these things are simply considerations, and in view of the fact that they are all considerations, we can get enormously baffled as to how considerations could be so important.

Remember they are only important because of the considerations which one held in common with others.

It would be one thing simply to change one’s own considerations all over the place, and it would be quite another thing to do this when one has a series of considerations which have been thoroughly agreed upon with others.

So the thetan, with his old cigar butts, torn playing cards, and clanking chains — you see he’s been in communication one time or another and the system of communication was all established and therefore he could have an other-determinism so true and so convincing that even he, would not be able to question its convincingness. Nobody could possibly question the validity of these objects he was carrying around.

It’s simply, then: he will have some way of blaming somebody else for having put that mass of energy there, and then that energy mass will persist. If he can’t blame anybody else, why it can too easily be As-ised and so disappear. Other-determinism becomes vital.

Now, when we look over this problem, we discover that an individual can go just so far down this line, and then he becomes himself disabled. He begins to count on other-determinism more and more and more heavily to produce his own survival. We can see this in terms of attention — an individual in this society without any attention from anybody else would not have much chance of surviving. An individual, just on the basis of food alone, would have great difficulty, but he’s gotten down to where those objects really have to be solid, and so we get this physical universe, and the particles of this physical universe are so beautifully lost, so completely confused, so misplaced away from point of origin that they can be subjected to a law in physics known as the conservation of energy: that energy cannot be destroyed, can only be converted. Anything that’s lost, misplaced, confused, can only be converted, unless you discover the point where it was actually manufactured.

This universe thus becomes valuable. It becomes valuable because we’ve gone to so much trouble to lose enough things that we then have a continuance of objects.

A thetan who has become upset about the various agreements in existence believes that he no longer can communicate with something. He is a nothingness; therefore, he has to communicate with a nothingness, he thinks. The communication formula places him at fault.

Here we have an individual who is living by the communication formula and yet cannot recover his own ability easily to follow the basic of communication, which is all things are on the same point. When you consider a consideration, you find out it doesn’t have any dimension whatsoever. And a thetan has no dimension. So, he’s gone to a lot of work, to make a universe that’s as heavy as this one. And he’s blamed it all on God, and he’s blamed it all in various directions, and he has made what amounts to a considerable investment. He has a big investment. And now he has gone so far that having made this investment he can no longer look at it, because he has to follow the communication formula. He cannot occupy the same space as an object. Two objects cannot occupy the same space. Therefore, he is not a thetan- plus-body. He is a body.

And once in a while we run into some materialist, in processing, and just the barest thought that he is something other than a body is completely, completely contradictory to him. It’s utterly assaulting. You’d think that you’d held a gun on the man and asked him for his money. He’ll become very excited. “I am a body. I know I am a body. That is all I am. I am one,” exclamation point, exclamation point. He gets real worried about it.

This person at the same time is likely to be the one who is most concerned with God. This is curious isn’t it? Well, he has to have an other-determinism. He has to avoid responsibility. His field of awareness will be relatively black, by the way.

That’s not a criticism of the individual. That is just the state he is in. Why is he in it? He knows two things can’t occupy the same space. Obviously if he is there, and the body is there, then he must be the body. That’s the most elementary thing we could possibly put together. This individual has himself mocked up as something and is being something so thoroughly that he cannot disassociate himself from it. So, you tell him to be three feet back of his head — and he can’t be three feet back of his head.

Hubbard thinks that the person is doing so because he wants these things to persist continually all the time in thorough agreement with others. The person accomplishes that by blaming others for it. This is how this universe has become solid for which he blames God. But this deteriorates his ability to communicate because as a nothingness he cannot communicate with somethingness. So, he comes to see himself as a body.

Now, we’re processing something which has four parts: (1) the thetan, (2) his machinery, (3) the body, and (4) the reactive bank. The reactive bank is a stimulus-response machine of some magnitude.

The body actually is something capable of collecting an enormous number of molecules and electrons and converting energy and doing all sorts of interesting things.

An auditor occasionally makes a gross error in that he processes any one of these things other than the thetan.

So, there are that many engrams? — well, does this so assault our sensibilities, that these things exist, that we must vanquish and make every one of them, one by one, disappear? Actually, what we want to do is improve the thetan’s ability to handle reactive banks.

Or an auditor comes along and he starts processing “the body”. The body, the body, the body. What kind of auditor would this be?

It would be an auditor who had to have something. This auditor can’t possibly have nothing, yet if he’s auditing he’s actually auditing a nothing. He’s trying to free a nothingness. And if he can’t conceive of a nothingness and has to go in the direction of a somethingness he will not actually audit the preclear.

Every once in a while, some preclear has such an observable surplus of thetan machinery that an auditor just can’t stand leaving that machinery alone. He just can’t stand it. He’s got to get in there and get all these mechanisms out of the road, get ‘em all mopped up and wiped out, and the next thing you know the thetan is very, very sad indeed. Look at all the years he’s spent blaming this machinery on somebody else. But when you’ve gotten through processing all this machinery, what’ve you done anyway? You’ve just processed some machinery. And it wasn’t sick!

So, we have these four major parts, but we are processing the thetan. He doesn’t have any mass, he can make space, he can make energy, and he can locate objects in space. He has very definite capabilities. Very positive, definite capabilities. And by the improvement of these capabilities we improve his ability to communicate, and so, improving his ability to communicate, we make him able to handle not just the reactive bank he’s mixed up with at the moment, not just the body he happens to be inhabiting or hanging around at the moment, and certainly not his bank of machinery. We make it possible for him to handle large quantities of things — other people’s machinery and anything. It’s very interesting what he can do. But he cannot possibly be hung up on the basis of “two things can’t occupy the same space”. He couldn’t be hung up on that one. Another thing he couldn’t be hung up on, if you’re going to separate him easily, is that it’s all other-determined. You see, if it’s all other-determined, then he would depend on other things to place him in space, and if he’s depending on other things to place him in space, he will sit there and “wait for the auditor to exteriorize him”. So our point of approach here is the thetan. Now, the easiest way to approach this is simply to make and break communication with the immediate environment.

Essentially a person’s thinking has become more mechanical. Auditing does not address mechanical thinking. Instead it addresses the person’s ability to handle mechanical thinking. The person is usually sitting there and waiting for the auditor to do something for him. The easiest way to approach this is simply to make and break communication with the immediate environment.

Environment is the physical universe, security, it’s right there, it’s solid. This is the space of the room, the floor, the ceiling, the walls, the objects there, and if we happen to be looking through these things, then it’s the walls in the next room, and up through the roof, the air about the house and down through, it’s the earth underneath the house. And environment means how far can this individual perceive with great certainty in the physical universe. And that’s what we’re interested in when we say environment. We don’t have the preclear in Chicago, for instance, and then because he is an inhabitant of Iowa, process him in the environment of Iowa. Now this sounds, this sounds too utterly stupid, that anybody could do this, but believe me, it has happened. And what would they be processing? They’d be processing a set of facsimiles.

There is an immense ratio between the amount of facsimiles or energy masses a person has, and his ability to communicate. The more energy masses and more facsimiles which a person has, whether white, or green, or purple, or whether they’re black curtains or actual apparent solid objects — we don’t care what these are — the more energy mass the individual has, the less he is capable of communication. A fellow runs a concept — and gets a flow past his face. He feels something moving past his face. Ah, we’ve got a case of energy masses. How did they get there? They got there by the thetan directing his attention in various directions, manufacturing energy the while — and you’re going to process this case as a preclear, this thetan in such a way that he sprays out new energy masses around his body? That would be a curious thing wouldn’t it? And you know there are processes that you could run — not any listed in Intensive Procedure — which would lead an individual to immediately mock up more, and more, and more and more energy masses in the vicinity of his body. You could actually artificialize his condition.

He’s as well off as he doesn’t have to have energy masses.

A preclear has to have energy masses to the degree that he believes he cannot create space and energy. That’s a direct index. So, we find somebody who has large floating ridges and that sort of thing and this individual is having just that much difficulty. No question about it and no exceptions. It doesn’t matter what manifestation he’s exhibiting at this particular moment; a person is as bad off as he has these energy masses which are not placed but are floating. You could say they are “floating” energy masses because — everywhere he walks he’s got them. Now he’s as well off as he can simply take or leave the walls and other items of the physical universe wherever he finds himself. He can take them or leave them, see them or not see them at will. He’s well off when he can do that.

A person has to have energy masses to the degree that he believes he cannot create space and energy. The more energy mass the individual has, the less he is capable of communication. The immediate environment provides stable data. He’s as well off as he can simply take or leave the walls and other items of the physical universe wherever he finds himself. This helps him align his considerations.  

What process would you tailor up in order to accomplish this? Well, you could simply have a preclear sitting in a chair and looking around the room spotting spots in one location after another. It’s a fantastic technique. It’ll do quite a bit for a preclear, just to have him do this. And actually, you are applying this further when you have him get up and walk around and PICK OUT the spots, and TOUCH them, and then at will, BREAK COMMUNICATION with them. And SOP 8-C is actually a gradient scale, and 8-C’s Opening Procedure is a gradient scale of getting this done.

There is an additional process that could go along with this. You could have him close his eyes and start checking off spots in the environment.

The case that has had his perception turn on very fully, and then promptly turn off and it has never been on since, has simply practically scared himself out of his wits. His perception turned on and that was too much Is-ness. It was too steep a gradient, he could see everything too clearly, and this made him nervous, it upset him, it has disturbed his thetan digestion, and made him very unhappy — and what is this? This is just simply a case of too much, and instantly he said “It isn’t”. He said “Not-is”. He took a look at all this environment and said, “Dull down. Get real dull. It better be unreal around here, it’s just too bright, it’s too loud,” and so on.

Well, what happens if we have this person sitting there in the chair with his eyes shut and we just have him look around and spot spots in the room, and a facsimile shows up? We just have him go on spotting spots in whatever he can see. We don’t suddenly stop and say, “Oh, you’ve got a lot of blackness. Let’s spot some spots in the blackness”. No, you just keep hounding him for some sort of perception of the room. That’s what you want. And he keeps spotting spots in the room and spotting them and spotting them and spotting them and spotting them. Just that and no more. Spotting them behind him, above him, below him. If you don’t watch him a little bit he’ll spot them all in front of him. You’ve got to direct his attention behind. A thetan has a 360 Deg periphery of vision. There is no “behind” or get thee behind me thetan.

Now, here we have in a thetan, then, a possibility that the moment he really saw the room he’d turn it off again. He’d flinch. And then you keep right on processing in the direction of the room. You see what this would be. They’d flinch, their perception would go off, and you just take it from there and have him spot spots in the room. So, he says his perception is all turned off — well, you just have him find something he can perceive. He says, “I think it’s a facsimile. I don’t know what it is, really. It doesn’t seem to me to be terribly real…” You just say, “Close your eyes. Now spot some spots in the room.” The preclear says, “I… what d’you mean close my eyes and spot…”

“Well, can you see anything when you’ve got your eyes shut there?” “No… of course not.”

“Well, why don’t you look around. Get an impression of anything?”

“Mmmm. Well, what do you know. It’s all black.” He never noticed this before.

You say, “Well, all right. How about this now — you say it’s all black — well, is there any place where the black is thinner?” Behind you for instance, or above you or below you? Do you make out anything at all about this room?”


“Well, as you’re sitting there with your eyes closed, do you know the location of anything in this room?”

“Yea, well, I know where my body is.”

In course a case like this will probably assert to you violently, if he wasn’t prepared otherwise, that he was a body, had always been a body, would always be a body, had never been anything else but a body, and that you live but once. And he would also tell you that during his study of Korzybski’s Science and Sanity he agreed with him entirely that two things could not occupy the same space. He’ll tell you all these things. It would be a very informative conversation if you let him proceed. You only let him proceed on such a conversation, by the way, long enough to keep two-way communication going, then you get him doing something.

“All right,” you’d say, “Well, do you know of the location of any object in this room?” And the fellow says, “Well, there’s a table right over there, I know that.”

“All right. Look at that table.”

Probably his eyes will pop open and he will stare at it — but you have him keep his eyes closed. You’d get an exchange something like this: He knows there’s a table over there, and you say “Spot some spots in it.”

He says, “I can’t possibly spot any spots in the table if I can’t see it.” “Do you know it’s there?”

“Yes, I know it’s there. I saw it when I came in.”

“Well, all right. Spot some spots on it.”

“But I’ll have to open my eyes.”

“Go ahead and spot some spots on that table.”

He finally does. And the blackness starts to get a tattle-tale grey around him, and then it flickers on and flickers off, and perception comes on and all of a sudden he’s aware of the fact that it’s all real, and then he convulsively shuts off all of his perception, and then he lets it turn on again, and then he shuts it off again, and then he flinches this way and flinches that way. Why? He knows it’s dangerous to look at things. He knows that. He knows, again, that it is dangerous to communicate. And he shuts it off before something else shuts it off. He’s there ahead of ‘em. But after it goes on and off and on and off a few times, it’s likely to be more and more upsetting to him for the time, because it’s likely to be getting more and more real. The room is likely to be getting more and more real, more and more solid.

Now you don’t let him completely fly out through the doors and the walls on this process and let him spot at unreal distances — spotting at a thousand yards, when a thousand millimeters would be much too great, and three millimeters is about what he can tolerate. So we keep him in the immediate environment, and we mean the physical universe when we say environment, and we mean objects that he’s fairly sure are there, and we just work him on that basis, and then, the first thing you know, the walls will start to disappear on him and then they’ll flicker on again and then they’ll flicker off, and it gets more and more real, and he gets upset about it and then he becomes calm about it and he goes through a lot of variations — and doing what? Just sitting right where he’s sitting and you don’t care where that is, spotting spots in the room whether the room is black, green, purple, or whether he’s got facsimiles that he’s really spotting or not. We don’t care what this preclear’s doing as long as he continues to spot spots. If he’s got a facsimile sitting there, and he shifts his attention on the facsimile he’ll go of it. He gets rid of some of this mass.

If he’s really just spotting into blackness, really changing his perception direction, you see, then Boooom, he’ll start looking through the blackness. If you have him look at the blackness and spot spots in the blackness you are validating these masses of energy which a thetan is as bad off as he has. What he’s witnessing with all these possessions and masses of energy is his own inability to really mock up something and have it belong to somebody else. That’s what he’s witnessing.

To accomplish this, you get the person to carefully observe his immediate environment and then have him close his eyes and visualize that environment as best as he can. He may sit in a chair and just look around observing one location after another. He may even get up and walk around and pick out the locations and touch various things there and feel them. The basic idea is to really become aware of his environment first using his physical perceptions. And then returning to the chair, closing his eyes, and visualizing mentally the whole environment in 360 degrees periphery of vision. The whole idea is to attain better coordination among physical and mental perceptions.

During this process long forgotten memories and startling facsimiles may show up. The person may acknowledge them but then he must continue with the process of improving perception of the immediate environment in as much detail as possible. He should not to get distracted by those memories and facsimiles and get involved with them.

In the beginning the mental visualization may just be spotty, turning on and then turning off. But with practice it would continue to improve and stay turned on. Finally, the mental visualization may become as good as the physical perceptions. The visualization may then start to increase to larger distances from him. But he must let it happen gradually and naturally.

Essentially, he is becoming aware of one spot, letting go of it and then becoming aware of another spot continually. He then learns to do the same thing with his facsimiles—spotting them and then letting them go continually. The physical environment acts as stable data to help him do that.

So there is that process. And out of this basic you get Opening Procedure of 8-C. But you can also do Opening Procedure of 8-C with the thetan, without moving the body. You could have the thetan touch things in the room. But actually, you don’t have him touch things and let go, you have him look at and look away. And you can carry through all the steps by more or less drilling the thetan in the room — preclear sitting there with eyes closed, and this becomes a tremendously workable procedure.

Actually, its most simple form is to just tell him to close his eyes, and if he knows of any object in the room at all while he has his eyes closed, spot spots in it.

Now the classic Group Processing example of this is a very simple one and that is “Three spots in the body, three spots in the room”. Have them spot three spots in the body, three spots in the room three spots in the body, three spots in the room, back and forth and at the end of this time, at the end of an hour’s group processing on perfectly green people, you’ll have four or five out of the twenty of them exteriorized — the usual run of people you run into.

8-C done with the body, however, and with no further tricks, its most elementary auditing commands as given in Intensive Procedure, is the only process—please mark this one down, please remember this—it’s the only process to use on the very, very low or difficult case. Let’s put that down, and recognize that when a very low level preclear comes in he has already determined exactly the processing he’s going to get. It’s down below Two on the Tone Scale, and what it takes to handle this case is Opening Procedure of 8-C, because in essence it is a purity of communication and is a very simple process to use, but that doesn’t mean that you don’t have to be an artist to use it.

A person’s attention is usually fixed on his body, and his considerations are usually fixed on himself. This is introversion and interiorization. The whole purpose of this process is to get his attention extroverted towards his environment, and his considerations exteriorized from himself towards the universe. This is the most elementary auditing process that you can do. This works with everybody.



What is wrong with a person is his subjective universe. His attention is introverted on his body and his considerations are fixated on himself. His thinking has become more mechanical. The easiest way to remedy this condition is simply make and break communication with the immediate environment. The procedure is as follows:

The person carefully observes his immediate environment. He sits in a chair and just looks around observing one location after another. He may even get up and walk around and pick out the locations and touch various things and feel them. He then returns to the chair, closes his eyes, and visualizes mentally the whole environment in 360 degrees periphery of vision. The whole idea is to attain better coordination among physical and mental perceptions and become more aware of his environment.

During this process all kind of mental stuff may show up, but he must not get distracted. The person may acknowledge them but then he must continue with the process of improving perception of the immediate environment in as much detail as possible. by those memories and facsimiles and get involved with them.

In the beginning the mental visualization may just be spotty, turning on and then turning off. But with practice it would continue to improve and stay turned on. Finally, the mental visualization may become as good as the physical perceptions. The visualization may then start to increase to larger distances from him.

Essentially, he is becoming aware of one spot, letting go of it and then becoming aware of another spot continually. He then learns to do the same thing with his facsimiles—spotting them and then letting them go continually. The physical environment acts as stable data to help him do that.

A person’s attention is usually fixed on his body, and his considerations are usually fixed on himself. This is introversion and interiorization. The whole purpose of this process is to get his attention extroverted towards his environment, and his considerations exteriorized from himself towards the universe. This is the most elementary auditing process that you can do. This works with everybody.



Project: Hubbard 1954: The Phoenix Lectures

This paper presents Chapter 17 from the book THE PHOENIX LECTURES by L. RON HUBBARD. The contents are from the original publication of this book by The Church of Scientology (1954).

The paragraphs of the original material (in black) are accompanied by brief comments (in color) based on the understanding from Buddhism.  Feedback on these comments is always appreciated.



Although you discover in examining existence that consideration is senior to all other things, you have in any preclear who is living in the physical universe, who is still associating with a body, an enforced mechanic. In other words, the mechanics of existence are enforced upon him consistently and continually. Therefore, mechanics are much more important to this individual than considerations. He goes on an inversion. He is found not really considering — he is not making a postulate and having something come true — he is trying to figure out who’s to blame — that’s one of the main things he’s trying to do. He’s trying to figure out when that ridge in front of his face is going to go away. He’s waiting until the auditor does something spectacular.

He’s doing a lot of things, but first and foremost he is contactable in the field of mechanics, not in the field of considerations. Considerations are prior to mechanics. This is obvious. But your preclear has gotten to a point where he is inverted on the subject and by his day-to-day living he is closer into contact with mechanics than he is considerations and yet there he is considering.

Well, he’s never going to recover from anything considering. He might figure he’s way out of the trap. He might think he’s way out of it, but as long as we approach the problem as really a purely mechanical problem of a set of convictions rather than considerations, we’ll be successful with the preclear.

Considerations are at the Theta end of the spectrum. Mechanics are at the MEST end of the spectrum. They are part of the same spectrum and they influence each other. Existence is made up of both considerations and mechanics. A person gets increasingly fixated as he goes down the Know-to-Mystery scale. Instead of considering he is operating more by convictions. He is prone to blaming others.

And the first and foremost of his convictions is that it is very aberrative to communicate. This he’s certain of. He may have lots of other certainties, but that one he’s actually very certain of and we discover that the only thing that is punishable in this universe is communication — non-communication is not punishable.

We discover that the inanimate object is not guilty. It was the animate object which was guilty. We discover that the driver who was going faster than the other driver was always to blame.

This, by the way, is not even vaguely true. It’s just the way people look at things to keep them turned around so that they don’t have to take responsibility and make everything disappear.

So, we discover, as we look over this problem, that our preclear is certain that if he communicates, he will be punished. He has communicated in the past. He has tried to talk to people. And he has met with the greatest contribution of psychiatry, for instance, the pre-frontal lobotomy. It would do just as much good to cut up some calves’ brains lying in the butcher’s window, as it would to cut up someone’s brain and psychiatry knows this. They know it very well. They have never made anybody well with pre-frontal lobotomies or trans-orbital leucotomies.

They go on doing it because a psychotic’s condition is desperate, and they compute that they of course have to be desperate in treating it. They have therefore nothing but solid failures behind them. That is not a condemnation. That is just the truth of the matter.

By the way, the only reason they do a pre-frontal lobotomy is — because people can often survive it. That is what is stated in the original case history on this.

Just as long as I’ve mentioned that subject, I might give you a little data on it. The first and original case history of this, and the only case history that’s quoted in psychiatry, is of an idiot blacksmith’s helper who approached the forge, and the forge exploded, and a crowbar flew through the air and drove into his right temple and came out at his left temple. And he survived this. You look in vain in that case history to discover whether anything happened to his idiocy. We find that no change occurred with regard to his idiocy. But a part of his brain had been removed and he did survive, and this is the sole authority to this day for doing prefrontal lobotomies.

In another case they did a pre-frontal lobotomy on a fellow, and they put him on display, and somebody asked him whether he noticed any change in himself as a result of the pre-frontal lobotomy. And he looked very solemnly and somewhat covertly around, and he said, “Yes. I’ve learned to keep my mouth shut.”

So that is the basic lesson anybody learns in this universe. They learn to keep their mouths shut, and it’s the wrong lesson. When in doubt, talk. When in doubt communicate. When in doubt shoot. And you’ll be very successful all the way along the line if you just remember that.

There’s no compromising with this. A thetan is as well off as he can communicate, and he’s no better off than that. And when a restraint comes upon his communication, then he starts to wind up and finish up and that is the end of him. So, our preclear sits there, and he is sure that if he communicates, he’ll be punished. Anything he says will be used against him. They’ve told him so for many lives. Anything that he cares to bring up — he knows that the person he brings it up to is going to make fun of it, going to dive on it, going to challenge him with it and so on. He’s certain of this, and that if he happens to impart any immediate secret of his existence, he knows it will undoubtedly be on the radio by four o’clock that afternoon. So, he will approach a session with considerable diffidence. He will not be sure what he should say. As an extremity of human duress which can be used to illustrate this, let’s take the case of a psychotic. This person had a terrible obsession. It was just a fantastic obsession. He would not talk because he knew that if he said anything, the person he said it to would carefully store it up and wait for the right time to use it against him. And this was all this person would tell you! This person would utter that sentiment in one way or another — it was a one hundred percent psychotic dramatization — but it lay straight across his communication line. This person was utterly insane, could not take care of the body or perform menial tasks or anything else, and yet this person would just go over and over that record — “Well, if I said anything you would store it up and you’d wait for the right time and you’d use it against me.” And then the person would clam up. Try to get him into communication again — he’d go through this same routine.

Well, let me assure you of something, a person doesn’t have to be psychotic to have that basic manifestation in this universe. They’re not even vaguely psychotic and they have it. They adjudicated their own sanity by knowing when to talk and when not to talk, and it starts to peel down to a point where they know. They know when not to talk, and when to talk. And then they know WHEN NOT TO TALK, you see, and when to talk. And then — silence. And that’s the way the cycle goes.

So, don’t for a moment suppose that Step 1 (Get into two-way communication with the preclear) is included as just a handy way to start a session. It’s processing.

Your preclear is accessible ordinarily on the Third Dynamic — groups. This is probably the last dynamic to fold up. They carry a social dynamic all the way through. Processing itself is a Third Dynamic situation, and so is aberration. It’s the thetan plus the body that can bring about an aberrative state. It’s the thetan plus the Sixth Dynamic, the physical universe, that causes a difficulty, and so on.

All right, we have then Two-Way Communication as Step 1 simply because it is the most difficult step. It is the most arduous step. And it is the step which was missed by everybody from the Aesculapians (Roman medicos) to the most recent psychiatry out of Wundt, Leipzig, 1869. Around that time in Germany they got started on the first idea that the mind could be approached on a scientific basis. That was the original premise of psychology, and a good one brought up by a fellow by the name of Wundt. There was nothing wrong with this. It was a good hunch. It has never been followed up by that particular field.

One of his convictions is that it is very aberrative to communicate because he will get punished if he communicates. So, he is very reluctant to talk freely in an auditing session. But the truth is that a person is as well off as he can communicate. Therefore, the first step in auditing is to get into two-way communication with the preclear. It is the most difficult step.

Scientific methodology was actually not, there and then, immediately classified, and if he had sat down and classified scientific methodology at that moment, he would have been all right. But what they did was unregulated, uncontrolled, wildcat experiments, fuddling around collecting enormous quantities of data, which data was supposed to amount to something one day. But that field was never able to do anything in the field of a two-way communication, never knew the parts of communication, and doesn’t to this day. They are more and more “The Only One”. They never solved communication, so they don’t go into communication. They don’t have Step 1.

When we come to psychoanalysis we find that in that field they used various methods — originally Breuer and Freud did — to produce a two-way communication, and then they went all out, and they decided, Gee, if you could just get somebody talking — but their first approach to it was the hypnotist’s and that is a very poor approach and not only a very poor approach, it’s a very inhibitive approach.

If you have ever had anybody as a preclear who had been hypnotized you would appreciate this, for instance, running 8D (8D: Standard Operating Procedure 8D, 1954. Primarily for heavy cases, the goal of this procedure was “to bring the preclear to tolerate any viewpoint.” See The Creation of Human Ability by L. Ron Hubbard.) Running this on “Where would a … be safe?” you could put in “hypnotist”. You’d get some idea of the aberrative nature of hypnotism.

In psychoanalysis they actually didn’t solve two-way communication. They got a system by which somebody simply talked endlessly, and talked, and talked, and talked, and there was no communication from the analyst. You may have seen the cartoon where one analyst is cheerful and he had been so every afternoon at quitting time, and the other analyst said, “My goodness. How can you be so cheerful sitting there all day long listening to those patients?” and the other said, “Who listens?” Psychoanalysis had this idea that if they could just make the person outflow, outflow, outflow, outflow outflow, this would solve it. It doesn’t solve it.

It’s TWO-WAY communication. What success psychoanalysis did have was just due to the fact that they did specialize in trying to get somebody into communication one way or the other. But they again didn’t have any idea of the anatomy of communication.

And we move on forward to various thoughts and philosophic endeavors on this subject and we discover that an individual very rarely is found in a good state of communication when he sits down on the couch and I don’t care who this person is, they’re just not in a good state of communication. They’re either obsessively communicating, or they’re inhibited — they haven’t got a good balance on this subject. And you take the most average preclear in the world, he’ll give you ordinarily just social responses. You say “How are you?” and he’ll say, “I am fine”, Forty-five minutes later the oddity is this person says to you, “I feel terrible”. You first got a social response, and then the preclear answered the question. The question sometimes, if you’ll notice it carefully, will come up as non-sequitur entirely, and, for instance, forty-five minutes after you ask him how he is he tells you. And the gap in between is filled with social responses. It’s just trained social response — a little machine. So that isn’t two-way communication with the preclear at all, is it? You’re talking to social machinery.

Well, you’ve done this all too often, much longer than you should have, in plain social activities. You went around to ask somebody about a loan or ask him about something or other, and you went on talking, and this person went on talking, and actually you were not talking to anybody and then you wake up with a great shock to discover that you have just been arguing with somebody, or been trying to make somebody be better, be nicer to you, be kinder to their neighbors or something of the sort, and after a long dissertation on the subject, and you think you’ve had a two-way communication with this person, he comes up with some completely disrelated remark, although he seems to have been agreeing with you. He seemed to have said “Yes, that’s fine, I’ll be a better boy,” or something of the sort. You just never reached an agreement, because the actual truth of the matter is if you’d reached an agreement with him he would have been a better person. You weren’t talking to anybody. You were talking to some social machinery. Well, that’s just in the social world.

How about an auditor? Should he be able to spot this? Well he should, but he would never spot it if he didn’t recognize that there was something very definitely there to spot, and that is: who’s talking? Are we talking to the preclear? Or are we talking to an education from Harvard? Are we talking to the preclear, or are we talking to Mama? It’s a nice thing to have a very, very high on the Tone Scale attitude toward preclears, but there’s one point there where the column (Chart of Attitudes) reverses, and that’s where it’s Trust at the top and Distrust at the bottom. When you’re working preclears, you keep with all the top buttons of the Chart of Attitudes except that one — you just reverse that column. It goes right straight across — Distrust is the top for an auditor as far as a preclear’s concerned, and it’s a remarkable thing how many times you can actually crack a case if you’ll just simply say, “How are you doing that?” or “What are you doing?” “Who is talking?” “Did you do that?” “Who touched the wall?” “How did you do that?” Once in a while you’ll find there’s a File Clerk (File Clerk: Dianetic auditor’s slang for the mechanism of the mind which acts as a data monitor. Auditors could get instant or “flash” answers direct from the “file clerk” to aid in contacting incidents) or something of the sort and he’s taking every response he gives you as a flash answer from the File Clerk. If he’s been trained in Dianetics he will sometimes do this to the exclusion of any answer himself. Well, these are social responses, and that is not a two-way communication. That’s two-way communication between you and a circuit maybe, or between you and a machine, but it’s not a two-way communication between you and the preclear, and it says specifically in Step 1 that we begin a two-way communication with the preclear. Well, how many ways could there be to start a two-way communication with the preclear?

One of the ways to do it is to talk about his problems. He’s fairly interested in these, and you get away from the social responses.

The hypnotist’s approach is a very poor approach because it is quite inhibitive. Also, simply getting a person to talk endlessly doesn’t solve it. A person usually gives trained social responses instead of communicating. One way to bypass the social machinery is to get flash responses. Here a “file clerk” type mechanism comes into play. Another way is to talk about his problems. He is fairly interested in these.

And he’s there because he’s being a problem, so we get step 2 as an assist to Step 1. Step 2: PRESENT TIME PROBLEM. But of course, Step 2 is more important than that. You sometimes miss on a preclear by processing him when he’s dog tired or he’s emotionally upset or something very bad has just occurred, and he wants to be processed so that he can run away from it, and if you don’t ask whether or not he has any Present Time Problems, you’ll miss sometimes, and have a whole session, or two or three sessions, wasted. I remember processing somebody who seemed to be rather frantic, and he finally came up with an astonishing fact. The case was not making progress, you see, and I got very interested in this and the person would not, just would not give me any clue. And I just kept pounding it and pounding it and talking about it any upset the person had in his current life — you know, yesterday or today, or something that’s going to happen tomorrow — I just kept talking about it, you see, and saying, “Is there anything that is occurring that I should know about,” and so on, because the behavior of the case just simply said that this case is so restive and so upset that he just doesn’t seem to listen to my auditing orders and he seems to be distracted all the time by something, and certainly this person is either completely off his base, or he’s really a psycho, or he has some very bedeviling Present Time Problem. And finally, the guy got the communication and gave me an answer. That processing session series was being very badly interrupted because he was being sued for divorce. He was being sued for divorce over the period I’d been processing him. And he would leave there and go down and talk to his lawyers and he wanted to keep this very secret, and he thought there was something very horrible about this, and so he wouldn’t even tell his auditor about it. Now, you see, he’s punished for communicating, and thus we get right back to that. He doesn’t impart the data about what’s going on because he’d be punished for communicating.

Occasionally you will run into someone for whom medicine could do something. The person has an acute illness of one sort or another and is so afraid of any possible treatment that would be offered to him medically, because medical treatment may not be particularly kind, that he has not told anybody about it.

This again will be giving him a sufficient Present Time Problem that he would not gain well in auditing and is the most important reason why you do not audit a person who should be getting a condition handled medically which can so be handled. But it is the fact that in this universe he is punished for communicating that makes this something to watch for and to see to it that a medical situation is handled medically before you do any auditing.

Step 2 is present time problem so we can use step 2 to help us with step 1. But there could be a problem the preclear may want to keep to himself. But you can guess from his behavior that there is something going on, which he is not telling you. It could be an embarrassing situation, or even a situation that requires medical handling.

In order for any gain or release to take place by reason of communication alone on any kind of subject there has to be a two-way communication, not one-way communication. Therefore, the neatest trick in the whole book of tricks of auditing is knowing how to start and continue a two-way communication. It is dependent in its skill on the auditor’s ability to grant beingness and actually talk on both sides of the conversation.

Communication is opened first and foremost by any sensory perception. Any sensory perception. Get the preclear to touch something — you have opened communication with the preclear. If you could take his hand and he could register the pressure of your hand on his hand, and this in the case of a semi-conscious person is very workable, you would be communicating with the preclear. A two-way communication doesn’t have anything to do with — and quite incidentally when it does — with words. It’s a communication. You’re there. He’s there. His trouble is inhibited communication, and the trouble you’re going to run into is getting a two-way communication started. Any perception can be used in a two-way communication. Just sight is enough. If he simply registers the fact that you are there in the room with him — if he’ll just look at you — that is a communication. If we define communication by: awareness across a distance, no matter how minute that distance is between the preclear and the auditor, we discover that starting a two-way communication is actually much easier.

Continuing with examples — “the worst it gets” type of situations — not that these are what you’ll be auditing — if you want to start a fairly perfect communication, of course, you would simply physically duplicate what the preclear’s doing. He’s lying still — you just lie down and lie still. You’d be surprised how odd this will seem to him after a little while. He’ll get real curious about you. He’ll go into communication with you. He picks up the stool and he heaves it at the door with a terrific crash. You pick up the stool and heave it at the door with a terrific crash. That’s a bottom-scale level of entrance into communication — mimicry — because of course duplication enters into the formula.

But if your preclear is sitting there in complete silence, do you think that if you pour out a great flow of words you’re going into communication with this preclear? No, because he’s putting out a communication already — silence. If you suddenly admit that as a communication, it will disturb him a little bit, and it’s likely to stir him up into a communication. If you will sit there silent while he sits there silent, sooner or later you’re going to go into communication. You can make a preclear enter into communication with you simply by doing whatever the preclear is doing.

A two-way communication can be started through any perception and not just through words. Any perception can be used in a two-way communication. In the worst case, mimicry may be used. You can make a preclear enter into communication with you simply by doing whatever the preclear is doing.

Now it’s necessary for you to turn around and have the preclear register a communication back. It’s just as important for the auditor to go into communication with the preclear as it is for the preclear to go into communication with the auditor, and the auditor can do it by mimicry because he knows how. It’s harder for the preclear to do it. Time spent at the beginning of a session just getting a two-way communication going until you really know you’re talking to the preclear and he’s talking to you is some of the best time you ever spent.

Opening Procedure 8-C is a considerable assist to this. Improvement of communication is the keynote of all auditing.



The first situation you may encounter in an auditing session is that the person is very reluctant to talk freely. Instead he gives you trained social responses. Improvement of communication is the keynote of all auditing. Therefore, the first step in auditing is to get into two-way communication with the preclear.

A person is usually interested in talking about his problems. That may provide the entrance point to establishing two-way communication. But there could be a problem going on in present time with the preclear that he may not be willing to talk about, such as a divorce proceeding, or a medical situation. His behavior will give you clues to this. The trick then is to grant beingness and actually talk on both sides of the conversation.

A two-way communication can be started through any perception and not just through words. In the worst case, mimicry may be used. You can make a preclear enter into communication with you simply by doing whatever the preclear is doing. Time spent at the beginning of a session just getting a two-way communication going until you really know you’re talking to the preclear and he’s talking to you is some of the best time you ever spent.



Project: Hubbard 1954: The Phoenix Lectures

This paper presents Chapter 16 from the book THE PHOENIX LECTURES by L. RON HUBBARD. The contents are from the original publication of this book by The Church of Scientology (1954).

The paragraphs of the original material (in black) are accompanied by brief comments (in color) based on the understanding from Buddhism.  Feedback on these comments is always appreciated.


AXIOMS (Part 4)

Having these Axioms, we are now particularly interested in this whole subject of truth and its actual use in auditing. We see immediately that any problem of any character or scope is the basic business of a Scientologist. If you have someone who wants to know about solutions, you had certainly better give him not a solution to a problem but the solution to problems, and that of course would be a basic and ultimate truth. Well, if you can describe a basic and ultimate truth, and describe it exactly, you have no problem at all in solving problems.

We see that failure to discover truth brings about stupidity. A person begins to believe he’s stupid if he can’t As-is.

We see that the discovery of truth would bring about an As-is-ness, by actual experiment, and thus we see that an ultimate truth would have no time, place or form. Whatever we had there would simply disappear if we discovered an ultimate truth. The ultimate truth is a perfect duplicate and therefore a Static. And, operationally, to achieve a Static would be to make a perfect duplicate.

We see that a lie as we understand it is an alteration of time, place, event or form, and that only lies persist.

We have to have a basic postulate, and then another postulate, before we get time. Two postulates. We can’t have time with one postulate unless it is the postulate that there will be time. That could be one postulate. But normally in operation we find that two postulates are necessary to achieve time.

Now which one of these postulates is going to persist if the two postulates deny each other: the second one is going to persist, because it is the time postulate.

Lying becomes an Alter-is-ness and becomes stupidity. In other words, we don’t discover where the thing is, we don’t discover exactly how it is, so we can’t unmock it, and there we are. The only thing that we can do with it possibly is to Not-is it or Alter-is it some more or do what a Black V does — just stir it around and hope it will disappear. He doesn’t As-is it. It doesn’t disappear.

Oddly enough, lying will develop into a stupidity. It also develops into a mystery — into this blackness which individuals are so upset about. It’s just an alteration of time, place, event or form after the fact of its having been created.

There would be two kinds of lie here. A mechanical lie does not lead to blackness. Mechanical lie: we mockup some space, and we put an object in that space and then we move it. The moment we’ve moved it we’ve lied about it. We’ve said it’s over there when as a matter of fact it was created in the first location. Now in view of the fact that there is only consideration this of course would bring about mechanically a lie. It doesn’t disappear, it doesn’t do anything peculiar simply by moving it around. The mere handling of energy does not bring about a stupidity. It takes another consideration than simply moving something to bring about an occlusion.

We are looking at the subject of truth and its use in auditing of the mind and subject clearing. If you are interested in truth, you must attain a viewpoint from which you can see things as they are. The ultimate truth is seeing things as they are without filters, because a lie is the filter made up of our considerations that we interpose.

Hubbard is assuming that if we get rid of all our filters (considerations), there would be nothing left to see. Everything will reduce to a Static. In other words, anything that could be considered (including the observer) will simply reduce to a potential state.

But that is just theoretical speculation. There is a universe out there. We postulate and devise hypothesis to explain that universe. Our understanding of the universe is as good as our postulates and theories duplicate the universe. Religions have always proposed different hypotheses and theories to explain the universe.

According to the best theory, the basic substance of this universe is energy that operates on its own impulse. It has a large spectrum from thought to matter. Time is the duration of that energy. This duration increases as energy condenses from thought to matter. A postulate is a thought energy that hardly has a duration. It does not persist if it duplicates the universe, but if it does not duplicate, it persists as an idea to be worked upon.

If two postulates deny each other, we may not know which postulate is the first and which is the second, but both are persisting as part of an anomaly in our understanding, which does not duplicate the universe. There is a lie underlying that anomaly. We have taken that lie for granted. It is an ALTER-IS-NESS or NOT-IS-NESS of some aspect of this universe. We discover it by following the anomalies in data. And when we discover it, the misunderstanding vanishes, and we duplicate the universe better.

When a person cannot even see the anomalies then it becomes difficult for him to discover the lie. He cannot AS-IS the situation. He is stuck with the lie. This develops into stupidity and mystery. That lie is an alteration and denial of time, place, form and event. ALTER-IS-NESS is a form of a lie, but it does not bring about stupidity, but NOT-IS-NESS does. A person NOT-ISES to justify some fixation, and that fixation is the cause of stupidity. Miracles are a form of mystery and stupidity because something about the universe is not understood, but it is explained away.

Now, anything to persist must avoid As-is-ness, and thus anything to persist, really to persist, must contain a lie. And we get the next Axiom:

IS-NESS that is persisting is being filtered through one’s considerations. It will be perceived more clearly if those filters are removed. These filters avoid AS-IS-NESS in order to persist. So, they are like lies.


Now what do we find here, in a problem? We find something which is persisting, the As-is-ness of which cannot readily be obtained and would be the definition of a problem. Now to solve that problem it would be necessary to get its As-is-ness. Well, how do we prevent something from being As-ised, in other words vanished? We introduce a lie into it.

There are problems in life. Some problems get solved. Others persist. The problems that persist are difficult to AS-IS. In other words, in these cases, it is difficult to see what is really there. Something is preventing AS-IS-NESS. That something is a lie and underlying that is a fixation.

KHTK AXIOM 39: Life poses problems for its own solution.


When the preclear is being a problem, we know very well that there’s a lie somewhere on the track that he’s trying to obtain the As-is-ness of. It’s not necessarily his lie, but it certainly is a lie. And under Axiom Forty we get:

An “unsolvable problem” would have the greatest persistence.

It would also contain the greatest number of altered facts. To make a problem, one must introduce Alter-is-ness.

In other words, this problem must have been moved and shifted and shoved around considerably to be unsolvable.

We come across problems that appear unsolvable. We have to start with some postulate to solve such a problem. If a postulate is letting us nowhere close to a solution, then that postulate is not the truth. We need to come up with a different postulate. Such trial and error may finally lead to overcoming some fixation and finding the lie. The truth would be the solution.

KHTK AXIOM 40: Any problem, to be a problem, must contain a lie. If it were truth, it would unmock.


Any time you Alter-is something you’ve got a problem on your hands.

This whole universe, then, is a problem. Therefore, this whole universe must contain a lie to go on persisting the way it does. It certainly does contain Alter-is. It certainly does contain a lie. It contains a variety of lies about its creation, and there are all sorts of things about this universe which cause its persistence, and all of those things boil down to the one fact that it must be based upon a lie and it must be very definitely altered.

Axiom Forty-one tells us that it was alteration which brought the preclear into a problem, thus we find any child who has moved extensively, who has had his home changed, who has been shoved around to various parts of the world, eventually becomes a problem, first to the environment and then to himself.

Any time you ALTER-IS something you add another wrinkle to IS-NESS. This may generate or worsen a problem. The universe is not a problem, but its altered view is. We postulate that it was created. We don’t know if that postulate is correct.

When we say that the universe is persisting, it is actually our view of the universe that is persisting. It comes down to examining our considerations about the universe for ALTER-IS. It is the ALTER-IS we are not aware of, which causes a problem.

KHTK AXIOM 41: That into which alter-is-ness is introduced becomes a problem.


It is a problem because it contains Alter-is-ness.

Your physicist is busily at work trying to unmock it but he is unmocking it by Not-is-ness. He’s using force to alter force, and because he keeps altering it, it all naturally just gets worse and worse. He will solve nothing with an atom bomb. He will simply make things go worse, more complicated, more confused, more dispersed. The atom bomb is a dead-end track and is folly, it is great folly.

If an atom bomb were introduced into a war the number of particles and the amount of MEST which would be altered, we would discover immediately, would have introduced a great number of lies into the situation, it would have deteriorated the society and everything else. If we were foolish enough, for instance, to atom bomb Russia, or if Russia were foolish enough to atom bomb the United States, enough confusion would have been introduced into the cultures of earth so that probably there would be no other choice but to sink into a barbarism, in the absence of an understanding of life itself.

MEST is a problem because it is an altered view of the universe. Scientology postulates that MEST (physical) universe produced by the Theta universe. This could be an ALTER-IS. KHTK, therefore, postulates that Theta-MEST is a single universe.

The physicist has been focusing only the physical aspect of the universe. He has been ignoring the innate impulse that underlies energy. The atom bomb simply releases this impulse in an uncontrolled, destructive manner. The same impulse is better controlled in the computer technology.

KHTK AXIOM 42: MEST (matter, energy, space, time) persists because its Theta aspect is being ignored.


Time states the untruth of consecutive considerations.

I call your attention to interest, as an interesting thing to observe. There are two classes of interest, and we want to know why we’re thinking about this in terms of time, and this is because time is the basic lie behind all lies. We believe there are consecutive moments. We see consecutive motions and this all very pleasant — we agree to this — and it’s only when we have masked them with some vicious intent that we really get a kick-back from the progress of time.

But we discover here in the matter of interest that we have two facets: one is “interested”, and the other is “interesting”.

A thetan is interested, and an object is interesting. A thetan is not interesting. He is interested. And when a person becomes terribly interesting, he has lots of problems, believe me. That is the chasm that is crossed. That is the chasm, which is crossed by all of your celebrities, anybody who is foolish enough to become famous. He crosses over from being interested in life to being interesting, and people who are interesting are really no longer interested in life. It’s very baffling to some young fellow why he can’t make some beautiful girl interested in him. Well, she is not interested, she is interesting.

Time denotes duration of energy. This duration increases as the energy condenses from thought to matter. As a result, less condensed energy appears to be in motion compared to more condensed energy. We incorrectly focus on the duration associated with matter (condensed energy) only as the characteristic of time.

It seems that as energy gets more condensed it becomes “interesting”. A less condensed energy appears to be “interested”. When a person becomes more “interesting” he has become more condensed in his considerations. Fixations come about as considerations become condensed. The person then becomes more of a problem.

Consecutive moments appear only because of the play of energy of different condensations. A shock in time is a sudden shift in the gradient of energy.

KHTK AXIOM 43: Fixation is the primary source of untruth.

Fixation condenses consecutive considerations thus generating untruth.


We have put it right in there again just to drive it home well. There’s no time in this Static. Time is a lie.

Time can be postulated by the Static but is only a consideration and thereafter a thetan gets the idea that he is persisting across a span of time, and he is not.

He is not persisting. Objects are going across time, and energies and spaces are changing, but he is not. At no time does he actually change. He has to consider he is out of his head before he can be out of his head.

A Step V, or Black Five, is quite interesting in this regard. He is always thinking the auditor’s going to reach in and pull him out of his head. He’s waiting for something else to do it! Of course, you could probably hypnotize him and tell him that he was, and he’d probably react in various ways, but he has to say, “I am now out of my head,” and then he will be out of his head. But “waiting to see” whether or not he’s out of his head is complete nonsense. The only way that he can get anything done, is to consider that it is done, or consider that that is the condition which exists.

Static is the potential state of the Theta-MEST spectrum. Theta is thought energy part of the spectrum. It has vibration. It is not the same thing as Static. This conflation between Theta and Static is the key error in the hypothesis of Hubbard.

Time is the duration of energy. It is extremely small for thought energy. Considerations do not persist unless they are anomalous with the universe and are waiting to be resolved. A Thetan is the sum total of persisting considerations. This persistence (fixation) becomes a problem when it is not resolved. A persisting condition of the thetan is fixation on the body. The only way not to be “inside the body” is simply not to have any attention on the body.

KHTK AXIOM 44: Theta is the thought energy aspect of the Theta-MEST spectrum that constitutes considerations.


Any time we fall away from Axiom One, which is repeated as Axiom Forty-four, we discover that we have less of a Static than before. In other words, we just place this Static, and it’s less of a Static. A thetan, then, can have a problem, just by being placed. Quite in addition to that he ceases to be quite as interested.

He himself, placing himself, can get away with it. This isn’t very hard for him to do. And he can perceive from this new place, and so forth, but as long as he is placed, he will be less than the Static. Just remember that. He is to that degree a problem.

When Theta is not Static, it is manifesting itself. In other words, its innate impulses are firing away. A thetan can have a problem only when it gets fixated and cannot resolve that fixation. He is then being more interesting than interested.

But if he can be fixated and un-fixated at will then there is no problem. He may be somewhat of a problem only during the period he is fixated.

KHTK AXIOM 45: Theta can consider itself to be fixated, at which moment it becomes fixated, and to that degree a problem.


A problem is to some degree MEST, MEST is a problem.

What is this MEST? We find that an interested thetan is a thetan, but an interesting thetan has become MEST. What is MEST? Well, it’s actually simply a composite of energies and particles and spaces which are agreed upon and which are looked at.

We have the difference between inflow and outflow. A thetan who is being interested is simply outflowing. Interested — outflowing. Interesting — inflowing. He wants the attention of others to flow in to him: interesting. That’s MEST. Attention of others flows to it. That doesn’t tell you that all MEST is is a series of trapped Thetans.

It says that it is a type of life which is being interesting, as opposed to something which is being interested in it.

Now, Number Forty-six: Theta can become a problem by its considerations, but then becomes MEST, is followed by this, that MEST is a problem, and will always be considered a problem, and is nothing else but a problem. MEST is that form of theta which is a problem. That’s all. Therefore, it is that form of theta which has a lie introduced into it. And so, of course, it is a problem.

When Theta is kinetic then, of course, it is energy of very low frequency, and there is corresponding space and time. But there is no matter.

As energy condenses, it starts to acquire properties that make it observable in terms of interactions. That makes it “interesting”. And that which is observing is the uncondensed thought energy. So, that thought energy is being “interested”.

Uncondensed energy can flow around very rapidly but condensed energy cannot flow or move that fast. That means problem is characterized by lack of motion and flexibility.

KHTK AXIOM 46: Theta becomes a problem by losing its motion and flexibility due to condensation.


Resolution of problem means reversing the process of condensation. It is lessening the rate of vibration. It is calming down. It is becoming less fixated and more flexible. That process is occurring in the field of computers and robotics; but it is very much in its infancy.

KHTK AXIOM 47: Theta can resolve problems.


Now that means that theta is the Static, and theta is the object? Yes, indeed. It can be both ways.

It all depends on which one is being interested and which one is being interesting. And we find that a preclear gets more and more solid the more interesting he becomes, and the more problem he becomes, the more problems he has and the more figuring he does on his problems, the more solid he is going to get.

“Theta as static” is the uncondensed energy. “Theta as MEST” is condensed energy. All energy is connected. The uncondensed energy can decondense the condensed energy. This is what happens when we help each other.

Energy get more condensed by being interesting and focused on itself. This is called interiorization. It decondenses by being interested in its environment and focused on others. This is called exteriorization.

KHTK AXIOM 48: Life is a game wherein Theta as un-condensed energy solves the problems of Theta as condensed energy.


That is a very, very important Axiom. That tells you why SOP 8C Opening Procedure works. It works because the main form of theta which we find desirable, which has mobility, which has freedom, which is happy, which is cheerful, which has all those qualities on the top of the Chart of Attitudes is an observer of problems and a solver of problems. So if you get somebody to simply look around the environment, he will cease to be a problem and will become the solver of problems. That’s all. Just looking.

Get him to look around and recognize a few problems and he will feel better. Somebody then who is worrying about himself constantly, well, he’s all mixed up in a problem and his affinity is at a closure with this problem. He’s having an awful time. Well let’s take this and turn it around the other way and let’s have him observe himself as a problem, and we get that part of the process which is “Problems and Solutions”. And naturally, if we asked a thetan to be a solution often enough, he would eventually become a Static. That’s all. If we asked him to observe problems long enough, he would simply become a Static. In other words, he would go out of it both ways.

A Thetan could become a problem, more of a problem, more of a problem, more of a problem, more and more and more and more and more and more — static. You see he could go “out the bottom”.

Or, he could go: less of a problem, less of a problem, less, less — static. He could go either way. So there’s no avoiding it, you’re going to survive anyway, and so are your preclears, but we’re going to have a better world doing it.

The SOP 8C works by getting a person to looking at the environment and getting interested in others rather than have attention on oneself and be interesting.

The key point is extroversion. One may even look at oneself from an extroverted viewpoint. He can do that by viewing oneself as a problem in the context of the present time environment and by not getting sucked into the mind in its past.

KHTK AXIOM 49: To solve any problem it is only necessary to become extroverted in one’s attention rather than introverted.


In other words, there isn’t a single piece of MEST in the world which isn’t to some degree lying.

Looking at that, then, we find that the only crime that you could possibly commit in this universe is being there. It doesn’t matter where. This is the only crime that you could commit. And this is all your parents objected to, and this is all the preclear objects to when you’re auditing him, and he growls at you. They add tremendous significances into this, but all they object to is being there. Now if you ran SOP 8C, Opening Procedure, and you ran it very, very definitely with that postulate: to get the fact that the wall is there. Get the fact that the chair is there, that something else is there, etc., you’d be likely to knock your preclear flat at some point. I am not advising you to use this form of Opening Procedure. It’s a violent process. If you get almost any preclear and just have him stand in the middle of the room, and say “get the idea”, to that empty space out in front of you there, “that it’s there”, it’s there, it’s there — his mother will show up and eight or nine of his wives and all sorts of other things will show up all the way down the line. He’ll have all kinds of people standing in front of him. They’re all “there”. But that’s the only crime a thetan can commit. It’s a lie, you see. That theta can be THERE is a lie, and that’s the only bad thing that anybody has ever done is to be there. Now, that’s all, actually, that the body is doing. He’s got a body and he’s visible. He is being there. And we must have introduced a lie. And the basic lie which is introduced is Time.

It is interesting to note that it is the second postulate which persists, because persist means time, and it’s the second postulate which introduces time, and this becomes elementary. Now let’s look at this one: let’s take this fellow who’s awfully sick. He’s terribly sick. Boy, is he a problem. He’s a problem to himself, a problem to his family, and a problem to his auditor. He is a problem. He’s terrific.

You know that he must have had an original postulate that he was well before he could make the second postulate that he was sick. And you know the postulate that he was sick must have denied the postulate that he was well, and so his original sickness was a falsity and he knew it at the time he made it — he actually knew it well. He knew — when he said he was sick that day to keep from going to school—that it was a lie. He knew it was a lie and he got a persistence of the sickness and now here he is eighty-nine years of age and all crippled up and we find out that the basic postulate was the fact that he was well. How could sickness ever get any power except through wellness?

Now we look underneath every lie to find out that it was the truth — the Static itself — which gave it power. The lie has no power itself because it is a perversion. Persistence has no power that is not based on the Static itself. So, we have the basic lineup at all times and in all places, that the lie is empowered by truth. Truth must have existed, and a good condition or quality must have existed prior to a bad condition or quality.

As we study the problem of goodness and badness in the world, we find out that we must be studying the second postulate, because that is all that persists.

Now let’s take a situation where something is persisting — and it’s good. We could say that that looks as if it must have been based upon a prior postulate which was bad. But you can’t make a prime postulate which is a lie. If you’ll just get the idea that there are no postulates, that you’ve made no postulates of any kind, that there are no postulates which have been made — now make a postulate. That would be a prime postulate. That postulate can’t be a lie. Now make a second postulate denying the one you just made. That’s a lie. Now which one of these two is going to persist? Of course, the second one. And it is going to get its power from the first postulate.

It would not matter what the prime postulate was. That is not the point, here. We’re not going on the basis of badness or goodness. A consideration is a consideration.

Now, do we mean reach back on the track, and find these postulates? — reach back and run it out with straight-wire? No, because there is no time, and all address to the past — every address to the past and every address to the future actually is validating a lie. There’s only now. There’s never been anything else but now. There’s a consistent change and a consistent series of postulates going on which give us a continuance of now, but the continuance of now is a lie.

You can move objects around, and that’s quite honest, that’s not bad. But we’re looking at two kinds of lie here, and we discover that when we are trying to make a condition change, we simply have to postulate, as though it exists in present time, the opposite condition. So somebody who hates the human race — he must have loved them desperately by prior postulate. There’s no hatred like that which can exist between two brothers or a nation torn asunder in war. Well, that’s because they loved each other so well, you see. And so they can hate with violence. But what is their hatred depending on but the fact that they loved each other? So if we have somebody hating madly somebody named Bill — we would say, “Now, get the idea of loving Bill.” Grrrrr, he’d go. “Now, get the idea of loving Bill.” Grrrr. “Get the idea of loving Bill.” Grr. “Get the idea of loving Bill.” “Well, he’s not too bad a guy.” We wouldn’t necessarily restore love, but we’d certainly run out the hatred for Bill.

MEST is the energy that is persisting because it is condensed and focused on itself. This is the situation with the body. Theta is activating the body through considerations, but these considerations come and go quickly. None of them persist.

But fixations persist. A person who is interiorized has his attention fixed on his body and on the facsimiles in his mind. SOP 8C is simply pulling the person’s attention away from himself and putting it on the environment. As you pull the attention away, these facsimiles show up.

What is actually being objected to are these fixations that are persisting. You may call them lies because they vanish once recognized. The anomaly is persisting in the present. Whatever lie that brought that anomaly is also persisting in the present. That lie brought about a change from the opposite condition.

By repeatedly postulating the original condition we can run out the lie, and the anomaly that has been persisting.

KHTK AXIOM 50: Theta as MEST must contain fixations which are lies.



The key error in Hubbard’s Theta-MEST theory is the conflation between Theta and Static. Theta-MEST spectrum is a spectrum of motion as stated by Hubbard. Static is the potential state of the Theta-MEST spectrum. Theta is thought energy part of the spectrum that has very low vibrations. It is not the same thing as Static. MEST is the physical energy part of the spectrum that has very high vibrations.

Time is the duration of energy. It is extremely small for thought energy, and extremely large for physical energy. Considerations do not persist, but objects persist. This is natural. Persistence of considerations is unnatural, which happens when considerations are anomalous with the universe and are waiting to be resolved.

A Thetan is the sum total of persisting considerations. The thetan becomes a problem when its persistence (fixation) is not resolved. A common fixation of the thetan is “fixation on the body”. Keeping attention extroverted is the solution.



Project: Hubbard 1954: The Phoenix Lectures

This paper presents Chapter 15 from the book THE PHOENIX LECTURES by L. RON HUBBARD. The contents are from the original publication of this book by The Church of Scientology (1954).

The paragraphs of the original material (in black) are accompanied by brief comments (in color) based on the understanding from Buddhism.  Feedback on these comments is always appreciated.


AXIOMS (Part 3)

These Axioms of Affinity, Reality and Communication are inherent in everything we are dealing with in Scientology.

They are of extreme importance and usefulness. If you want to find where a break in a communication line is coming from, why, look for some affinity that is off, and if you want to audit somebody who is having a rather rough time, then you had better audit them with considerable affinity. If you demonstrate enough affinity one way or the other, you will be able to overcome their communication reluctance.

It’s very important to understand that all these things are basically a consideration. We have to consider that they exist before they exist. We are covering on this track the considerations which Man has composited into an existence.

Man has decided that certain things exist, and he has agreed upon them very thoroughly and so they exist for all of men. And if he had never decided upon these various existences, they wouldn’t exist.

So we look at Affinity, Reality and Communication. We are looking at a long series of considerations which Man holds in common. These are not considerations simply because we in Scientology consider that they exist. We can do enormously important things with this information, this codification of the organization of this universe which has spanned a period of something on the order of magnitude of seventy-six trillion years, and to be able to bust it loose and knock it apart is quite an interesting feat.

In looking at the subject of affinity we see that the first thing to know about it is that it is a consideration, and then that in the ARC triangle the distance of communication is represented by affinity to a marked degree, and the type of particle.

They say that absence makes the heart grow fonder. That happens to be a lie, but you could postulate it that way and make it come out. You could also say that if you get two people far enough apart, they’re likely to get mad at each other. A country wars with another country as a result of being far enough apart to afford to get mad. Somebody very furious at you as long as they are on the other end of a telephone line — when you went around to see them, they weren’t mad at you anymore. That’s an inversion on the situation. You closed the distance, and so you achieved a better affinity. There are many ways that you could handle this but again basically it’s a consideration.

When you demonstrate affinity, you are basically telling the person that you can see things the way he sees it. This overcomes his reluctance to communicate. Thus, we may look at affinity, reality and communication objectively as very fundamental considerations that are applicable universally. Affinity represents the distance aspect of communication. When you close the distance, you achieve better affinity.


The whole subject of Reality is a baffling one to people who do not add into Reality Affinity and Communication. It’s not “This is my reality and that’s your reality”.

The person can postulate anything he wants to postulate, and he does have a personal reality. He could simply say, “It’s there”, or “That’s real”. Or he can have a facsimile appear which is more real to him than the actual universe around him — the psychotic to whom facsimiles are far, far more real than anything else that exists. Well these are two conditions which we don’t recognize as reality. On the one hand the person merely postulates a reality, and so that’s his reality and other people don’t agree upon it. The other is also a not-agreed-upon reality and that is an other-determined reality. Somebody’s given him a facsimile and has really impressed him with it, and so this looks more real to him than reality. In other words, we have complete self-determined postulation, and complete other-determined postulations, neither one of which is what we consider to be reality. Those are extremes.

What we actually consider to be reality is in the mean of these. That is: what do we agree is real. You and I agree that there’s a wall there — and there’s a wall there. We agree there’s a ceiling there, and there’s a ceiling there. That’s real, simply because you and I safely have agreed that that’s how it is. Now if somebody came into the room and looked at forty people sitting down and said, “What are you all standing up for?” why, you’d have rather a tendency to believe there was something wrong with this fellow. As a matter of fact, the society uses natural selection to take out of the line-up people who have too much personal reality and too much other-determined reality. If this person walked in and said, “What are all you people standing up for?” — if he did that consistently about a number of things and said, “What is that lion doing walking on the ceiling?” there would be a tendency for him to get locked up. In other words, he would be moved away from survival where he wouldn’t procreate. In other words, we’d move these people actually out of at least the genetic line-up. These are called the insane.

Now here we have in Reality a very embracive subject, because Reality is actually Is-ness. And unreality is Not-is-ness. An effort of trying to make things disappear with energy. Trying to make things disappear with energy was talked about amusingly in such places as the Bible and they used to say “He who lives by the sword dies by the sword” and somebody said once “Turn the other cheek”, and what these people were actually saying was: fighting force with force does not bring about anything like a perfect duplicate.

Maybe they didn’t know they were saying that. But using force to fight force brings about an unreality. Oddly enough using force to build force brings about a reality.

Continuous alteration gives us an Is-ness. A Not-is-ness — saying it doesn’t exist — gives us an unreality. So, there we have Reality and Unreality defined.

Now how could you use this principle of Reality in auditing:

Reality is basically agreement. A mechanical agreement is: for two forms to be exactly similar. In other words, one’s a copy of the other form. That’s mimicry, and we learn by mimicry, which is the lowest level of entrance to ARC, and is a very good thing for an auditor to know in any case. What we know then as reality is: the agreed upon apparency of existence.

People have their own viewpoint about things. That is their personal reality. It becomes a common reality only when there is a broad agreement on it.

You become real to another person when you mimic that person. In other words, you have entered that person’s reality by agreeing with him. With the establishment of this common reality you can get into better communication with him.

But this common reality may not be the same as the actual reality, which one perceives from the top of the Know-to Mystery scale (see Axiom 25). One moves away from the actual reality as a one comes down the Know-to Mystery scale.

However, as everyone rises up to the top of the Know-to Mystery scale there comes about a natural agreement.

KHTK AXIOM 26: Reality among people is based on what they agree upon. The actual reality, however, is perceived from the viewpoint of Knowingness.


And we find that those things which have become solid to us, very fixed, must have been agreed upon by others.

The anatomy of Reality is contained in Is-ness, which is composed of As-is-ness and Alter-is-ness. Is-ness is an apparency, it is not an Actuality. The Actuality is As-is-ness altered so as to obtain a persistency. Unreality is the consequence and apparency of the practice of Not-is-ness.

This agreement is part of the total As-is-ness of this universe.

If you ask a preclear for “some things you wouldn’t mind agreeing with,” or “something that you could do that other people would agree with”, and so on, you’ll notice a change in the case. Why? We’re improving his level of agreement. He is actually bound by certain considerations, and until he postulates otherwise, he will continue with those considerations. This is how somebody gets fixed into something.

The whole of existence in this universe actually is run very much like a hypnotic trance.

The worse off a group is, which is to say the less communication they have, actually the more communication can be forced on them, and you see a form of hypnotism there, but the interesting thing is that they must have been prepared by an enormous number of agreements before they got into that state. In other words, somebody else prepared them, so they didn’t care who they agreed with after a while. When someone of higher rank in a uniform, walks up to a soldier and says do something, the soldier will do it. Well, this is a form of hypnotism. You could get a group to agree first that you were simply standing there, and then the next thing that you could get them to agree to is the fact that they were listening to you, and then you would give them a few little things on which they would agree, and at some point you could tell them that the world was on fire, and the audience would rush out to find out or maybe they’d just sit there and burn.

Now what is this all about? Does that mean that anybody bringing about an agreement would bring about hypnotism? Oh, no.

The reason why, in Scientology, we do not bring about a hypnotism even in Open Procedure by Duplication, is that we are undoing the agreements which people have been making for seventy-six trillion years. We’re undoing these; thus, auditing makes a person freer, and freer, and freer.

Now, this fellow on the stage who simply gets the audience to agree and agree and agree and agree, and then tells them the place is on fire, isn’t really going in the direction of making them freer, is he? His intention for this is entirely different. It isn’t that an intention is above agreement, it’s that consideration is always above agreement, and he is trying to work them into a situation where they will accept what he says without question. In Scientology we’re not interested in anybody accepting what we say without question. We ask them to question it. We ask them to please look at the physical universe around you, please look at people, at your own mind, and understand thereby that what we are talking about happens to be actual. This is the series of agreements. These are. I could get people to agree with me about a lot of things and every once in a while, throw them a curve. I could quite imperceptibly introduce a false datum into the science, and people have done this sort of thing, but one can trace back in this development and see that what we’re doing here is laying out the map of what has happened in seventy-six trillion years of a universe.

Your agreements have finally mounted up to a point where you believe this universe is all here and what you’re agreeing to fortunately are the very things which you agreed to. We aren’t giving you new things, we’re giving you old things, and by understanding these old things which we have re-discovered, you become free.

What is this feeling of unreality that people get this unconsciousness and upset and forgetfulness and so on down the list of discomforts of beings. Actually, forgetfulness stems from an effort to make things disappear by pressing against them with energy. You can imagine that if we push against a thought hard enough and say it isn’t there while it’s still there, why, we will surely become forgetful. And if we push hard enough, we will become unconscious. But remember we had to postulate that we could forget, and we had to postulate that we could become unconscious before either of these things could happen. People toss around waiting to go to sleep, then they say, “I am going to sleep.” Well, inspect R2-40 and you’ll understand why the proper thing to do is to simply say, “I’m asleep.” “Well,” they say, “that’s a lie.” No, it isn’t a lie unless you consider that you’re awake. Now, if you said, “I’m awake, and now I am going to sleep,” why of course you wouldn’t go to sleep. The point here is that you could make at any moment a prime postulate.

A person’s IS-NESS is what he sees through the filters of his considerations. AS-IS-NESS decreases those filters. ALTER-IS-NESS increases those filters. NOT-IS-NESS is the denial of IS-NESS, which produces unreality. Things become more solid as one descends the Know-to-Mystery scale. Agreement from others simply keep one’s reality in place because it has approval from others.

KHTK AXIOM 27: One can have his own personal reality, but when it is agreed with by others it becomes a common reality.

We come to the formula of communication.


Now understand this word duplicate as copy, and we have perfect duplicate which means As-is. When we talk about a duplicate, we merely mean a copy. Copy, facsimile, duplicate, are pretty much the same thing, and when we’re saying perfect duplicate, we mean the object created again in its place, in its time, with its own energy. So, we send a telegram from New York City which says, “I love you” and it arrives in San Francisco saying, “I loathe you”. Something has happened there, that we don’t get a duplication. Well the more mechanical an individual becomes the less he can duplicate and the less he can make perfect duplicates — so he can’t As-is anything. He falls off to a point where he can’t make a copy. You say, “Go around the corner and tell Betty I love her”, and he goes around the corner and says, “Joe said uh… to tell you he loathes you”. In a line of soldiers, we whisper a message, “H hour is at 10 o’clock,” and when it goes through a dozen soldiers this way, we find at the other end that “We had beans for supper”. This is the inability to make copies. And this is a most disruptive thing, and the most important thing in communication. A workable statement of the formula of communication is simply: cause, distance, effect with a good copy at effect of that which was at cause. That’s all you really need to know about communication.

In an ideal communication the source and receipt-points mesh together like two gears. The impulse driving them is natural when it is aligned with everything around. Communication falls off when the source and receipt-points are not on the same wavelength (lack of duplication).

Distance between source and receipt-points comes about because of falling affinity. The intentions at the two ends are not similar and the attention is not fully there, Therefore, duplication and understanding suffer. The considerations at the two ends are not in harmony.

KHTK AXIOM 28: Communication is a co-action between source and receipt-points like two smoothly meshing gears, where the impulse passing back and forth is in complete harmony with the considerations and intentions involved.  


Any space, energy, form, object, individual, or physical universe condition can exist only when an alteration has occurred of the original As-is-ness so as to prevent a casual view from vanishing it. In other words, anything which is persisting must contain a “lie” so that the original consideration is not completely duplicated.

If Joe created something and then said, “Bill made it,” that’s a lie, so he gets persistence stemming out of a second postulate, the lie.

IS-NESS is persisting by its very nature. Its view gets corrupted when ALTER-IS-NESS is practiced. This corruption goes away when AS-IS-NESS is practiced. When other authorship is attributed to some change made then that lie persists. One may start to believe in that lie and lose one’s ability to change it back.

KHTK AXIOM 29: IS-NESS persists by its very nature, and so does any change to it. When other authorship is assigned to a change, one loses the ability to change it back.


If only partially viewed, its intensity, at least, will decrease.

This is very true. A thorough view will always make an aberration vanish whether it is done through auditing or through subject clearing.

KHTK AXIOM 30: The general rule of auditing is that anything which is unwanted and yet persists must be thoroughly viewed, at which time it will vanish.


Goodness and Badness, beautifulness and ugliness are dichotomies. Per KHTK Logic 7, a dichotomy may be represented on a scale that extends to infinity at either end. Any point on this scale shall have a relative value that may be assessed for consistency. Such a value is, of course, a consideration when assessed by a viewpoint.

An opinion is a view that may have been verified somewhat for consistency with other data but hasn’t been verified to be totally consistent.

KHTK AXIOM 31: Goodness and badness, beautifulness and ugliness, are alike considerations that may be consistent with other data but not fully verified.


It’s true that if you don’t As-is it and you’ve already said it’s going to be there, why naturally it will be there. But this is worse than that. You find somebody working and paying some attention to the work but never paying any attention to his machine. And you’ll find he has facsimiles of the machine just all stacked up everywhere. He’s never As-ised the machine. Or you find somebody who has always looked at lighted objects in dark rooms and has never looked at the darkness eventually seeing nothing but darkness when he closed his eyes. He’ll have a “black bank”, in other words.

Things in your environment that you haven’t paid close attention to get stacked up in your mind as facsimiles. But if you have observed them closely then they simply get assimilated in your mental matrix and become natural part of your thinking.

KHTK AXIOM 32: Things that are directly observed get well assimilated and do not have to be recalled.


AS-IS-NESS improves the IS-NESS. IS-NESS is persisting anyway; but when it is altered by force, then it becomes NOT-IS-NESS. NOT-IS-NESS persists more solidly, and it is difficult to undo. People who have obviously irrational fixed idea, are installed there by force (NOT-IS-NESS), Those irrational ideas are heavily justified and, therefore, cannot be undone with rational arguments.

KHTK AXIOM 33: When IS-NESS is altered by force, it becomes very persistent NOT-IS-NESS that cannot be undone easily.


This is essentially a repeat of Axiom 33.

KHTK AXIOM 34: (Same as Axiom 33).


A Static has no mass, meaning, mobility, no wavelength, no time, no location in space, no space. This has the technical name of “Basic Truth”.

As AS-IS-NESS is practiced, one climbs the Know-to-Mystery scale towards KNOWINGNESS. Total knowingness is the attribute of the universal viewpoint in which all data is totally assimilated. From this universal viewpoint one sees things as they are. This is the ultimate truth.

KHTK AXIOM 35: The ultimate truth is the knowingness of the universal viewpoint.



Neither truth nor a lie is a motion or alteration of a particle from one position to another.

A lie is a statement that a particle having moved did not move, or a statement that a particle not having moved, did move.

The basic lie is that a consideration which was made was not made or that it was different.

Hubbard defines postulate as “a consideration generated by oneself as a self-created truth”. But such a consideration is true only to the degree it is not only consistent with existence but also explains it. The primary postulate simply brings an understanding of existence, whereas, the second postulate is simply a NOT-IS-NESS that resists the understanding of existence,

KHTK AXIOM 36: A lie is a second postulate that is designed to resist the understanding of what is there.


All persistence depends on the Basic Truth, but the persistence is of the altering consideration, for the Basic Truth has neither persistence nor impersistence.

Now we come to something which is tremendously interesting because it is the proof of the fact that we have reached an ultimate truth and an ultimate solution. And that ultimate truth is itself very, very important to an auditor because that tells you whether or not Scientology is a total subject.

We could show this by a line representing knowledge, going upward from no knowledge as follows:


From no data to one new datum to eventually at top ALL data known.

But this is actually a circle. At the top is NO DATA KNOWN. Just before the top is ALL DATA KNOWN, and as we move to the top and then return to NO DATA we then move to the next point of ONE NEW DATUM KNOWN and so on around the circle to more and more, then ALL data, then again none:


You see that on this circle everything known, and nothing known are adjacent.

Well, we have reached that point in Scientology because we know that the ultimate truth, the ultimate solution, is the Static.

The solution to a problem is the As-is-ness of the problem, because by solution is meant: what will cause this problem to dissipate and disappear. With As-is-ness we have reached the solution to all problems. We have reached an ultimate truth. So that we know we have in Scientology a total subject.

The IS-NESS is persisting according to its nature. Basic truth is the objectivity of seeing things as they are. When all data is known it gets assimilated into a field of continuity, harmony and consistency. The ultimate truth is arrived at this point of knowingness. This point lies at the top of the Know-to-Mystery scale. It is called the Universal Viewpoint. One arrives at a solution only when one sees things as they are.

KHTK AXIOM 37: The basic truth is the objectivity of seeing things as they are.



He knows something happened, but he doesn’t know what happened. He can’t add it up. He can’t do anything with it. We call that stupidity.


Thus we see that failure to discover Truth brings about stupidity.
Thus we see that the discovery of Truth would bring about an As-is-ness by actual experiment.
Thus we see that an ultimate truth would have no time, place, form or event.
Thus, then, we perceive that we can achieve a persistence only when we mask a truth.
Lying is an alteration of Time, Place, Event, or Form.
Lying becomes Alter-is-ness, becomes Stupidity.
(The Blackness of cases is an accumulation of the case’s own or another lies.)
Anything which persists must avoid As-is-ness. Thus, anything, to persist, must contain a lie.

He says: “I am a man,” so he’s a man. That’s the exact consideration. He is not telling a lie until he has said I am a man — and then has masked or hidden the fact that he is a man, and says, “I am a woman”, Now the odd part of it is that he made a truth when he made the first postulate. And that which denied that truth then persisted. The second postulate always persists. I give you R2-40. The dissertation in R2-40 in the Handbook makes this much clearer. The second postulate introduced time. Persist is time — that’s all. Mortality, immortality — this is a matter of time. It’s also a matter of Identity, but it’s basically time. That which is persisting means that which is time-ing. And if you have assumed that after you made a postulate you then had something which permitted you to make another postulate, you’d have to postulate time there, wouldn’t you? It’s quite interesting. So that your second postulate then introduced time, merely because it’s the second postulate. You had to introduce time. You see, there is no time in the Static, natively. Time is just a consideration. All right. So, you introduce time. You get a lie. Now any time the first postulate is masked (this is mechanical by the way, this is the way it works) and you put a second postulate in front of the first postulate it’s the second postulate which persists, but it derives its strength from the first postulate.

Entered into the solution of this subject of Scientology and life was this datum, that stupidity is the unknowness of consideration. Well, then truth is the knowness of the consideration, isn’t it? Right back there we have that perfect duplicate. We found out that when you got the As-is-ness of anything, if you made a perfect duplicate of it it would disappear. So, truth is a perfect duplicate. But that’s a disappearance. Well, if that’s a disappearance then all you’ve got left is the Static. So that truth is the Static. And it follows through just as clearly as that. It’s a mechanical proof. It’s as mechanical as any kind of proof you ever wanted in any field of mathematics. It’s totally mechanical.

Now again a problem is a solution only when you get the As-is-ness of the problem. We get the As-is-ness of the problem, therefore what have we got left? We’ve got the As-is- ness of the problem and we have nothing left. Oh, but we don’t have nothing — we have a Static. So, we find out that the ultimate truth is also the basic truth, contains no time, no motion, no mass, no wavelength, and we find also that the ultimate solution contains no time, no motion, no mass, no length. So we come back to something which is not an imponderable: does and can one of these Statics exist? Yes, that too we can subject to proof, and we can subject it to proof immediately, instantly and easily. Nothing to it.

You just ask somebody who’s in not too bad condition to “Be three feet back of your head.” You can ask him to be anywhere, to appear anywhere in the universe, and he can. You ask him to manufacture space and energy, and he can. You can inspect actually whether or not this is taking place. And you’ll find out that it is taking place, and you’ll find out that Man is basically a Static. So, he doesn’t move. He appears. Therefore, we have this thing called the Static. We have the perfect duplicate — the As-is-ness. We have an ultimate truth and we have an ultimate solution. At this point in Scientology we have wrapped it up. There are a great many strong points on the track where there’s a lot of data hidden, and chaos and confusions and that sort of thing which we’ve by-passed, a lot of things which we haven’t described adequately — for instance I’m not even satisfied at this moment completely with our description of Affinity, but I can tell you this, that they are knowingly by-passed points.

The other evening (at two o’clock in the morning) I suddenly found that I had arrived at the edge of a cliff, looking at End of Track. There isn’t any more road out there, that’s all, because we’ve come back to the Static, and we have found out what this Static is, we can demonstrate its existence, we can demonstrate what it does, we can prove it and we can all agree upon that proof, and we can do wonderful and miraculous things with it. The forty processes contained in the Auditor’s Handbook* can do those things just like that.

When you know well this material and can apply it in the first few of these processes, you will be doing very, very well. * Auditor’s Handbook: 1954 edition of the book which, greatly expanded, became The Creation of Human Ability by L. Ron Hubbard. See book list in back pages.

For Hubbard, Static is a thing of faith like the “unmoved mover”. The problem with Hubbard’s logic is that the abilities of the Static are persisting. He is not accounting for that. He has not resolved the problem of the Static. What happens when there is no Static?

1: Stupidity is the unknowness of consideration. Truth is the exact consideration.
2: Mechanical definition: Stupidity is the unknowness of time, place, form, and event. Truth is the exact time, place form, and event.



Hubbard’s postulate of “Static” is similar to Aristotle’s postulate of “unmoved mover”. As is implicit in the name, the unmoved mover moves other things, but is not itself moved by any prior action.

In Hubbard’s case, his concept of AS-IS-NESS applies to everything except to the Static. This is inconsistent.



Project: Hubbard 1954: The Phoenix Lectures

This paper presents Chapter 14 from the book THE PHOENIX LECTURES by L. RON HUBBARD. The contents are from the original publication of this book by The Church of Scientology (1954).

The paragraphs of the original material (in black) are accompanied by brief comments (in color) based on the understanding from Buddhism.  Feedback on these comments is always appreciated.


AXIOMS (Part 2)

It is a remarkable thing that life itself can be codified in terms of Axioms. It has not been done before. The first time it was even attempted was in 1951 when I wrote the Logics and Axioms, which I did simply to give an alignment to thought itself. And as a matter of fact, copies of these Axioms were sent over to Europe and in 1953 I found them in Vienna fully translated into German. It’s quite remarkable. Over there they were terribly impressed simply because it had not been done before. Nobody had before codified life to this degree, and nobody had codified psychotherapy. And they were not impressed with whether the Axioms were right or wrong, it was only that nobody had done it before. In these Scientology Axioms we’re not quite doing the same thing. Those 1951 Axioms of Dianetics were quite complicated and these fifty Axioms we now have are nowhere near as lengthy, but their reach is greater, and they pack a great deal more punch.

Life has never been codified before in terms of axioms. This is something unique.

We come here to the interesting subject of a proof of ultimate truth. If we have reached an ultimate truth, then we have reached an ultimate solution, and who would ever suspect, really, that an ultimate truth or an ultimate solution could be subjected to mechanical proof. We have done just that. We have discovered the phenomenon of a perfect duplicate.


If you can bring someone to make a perfect duplicate of anything it will vanish. We have a perfect duplicate clearly defined:

A perfect duplicate is an additional creation of the object, its energy, and space, in its own space, in its own time, using its own energy. (And we could append to that “the considerations which go along with it”, because it couldn’t be anything but considerations.)

And: This violates the condition that two objects must not occupy the same space and causes vanishment of the object.

If you ask somebody to simply make a perfect duplicate of, for instance, a vase, just exactly where it sits, it will begin to fade out on him, and he can do that to almost anything.

Why doesn’t it fade for somebody else? This is quite remarkable. Everything in this universe is displaced or misplaced. When we talk about a lie, we really don’t mean that simply changing the position of something is a lie. We have to alter the consideration regarding it to make a lie. It isn’t really a lie that everything is so scrambled in this universe. It is scrambled. Just in the last moment or two several cosmic rays went through your body. Those were particles which emanated from somewhere and they arrived where you are — they had been enroute for a hundred million years. To get one of those cosmic rays to vanish we would have to find its point of creation, and we would have to make a duplicate of that ray at the moment of its creation, and then we would have to make a duplicate of having done so. At that instant that cosmic ray would vanish.

This is very interesting to the physicist, it’s very interesting to almost anybody, and it is demonstrable. You can do this. I asked an auditor one afternoon simply to “look to the garage wall over there” and to choose a very small area, and “find the atoms and molecules in the wall there, and put an attention unit” — a remote viewpoint — “next to each one, and follow it immediately back to where it had been created.” He was leaning on the fender of the car, and he did this — and he came off the fender of that car as though he had been shot. The object itself, this tiny portion of the object, had started to disintegrate. And he rushed over to it to hold it in place with his hands!

Why doesn’t the whole universe vanish? Well, probably on the very site of this building there was another building once and that building has been broken up and the bricks have been moved and part of it is out there in the street, and part of it is still in the ground below and part of it — maybe some brick dust — got on somebody’s suitcase who went to World War II, and part of it’s in Germany and it’s spread all over the place, and here are all these cosmic waves and rays going all over the universe — and to get each one of those at its moment of creation in the time and space, and to make a perfect duplicate of all this, would be quite a job. It’s not an impossible job. It requires an ability to span attention. You would get a physical object to disappear so thoroughly that everybody else would know it was gone.

You see that it isn’t true that an object sitting before you at this moment, or your chair, has always been in that position. Nor is it true that the materials in that chair have always been in that position, nor is it true that the atoms which made up the chair in raw material form were always in that particular ore bed or in that particular tree. So, you see it’s quite complex. This universe is scrambled.

That doesn’t mean you can’t make it vanish, however.

As we can produce this phenomenon, we know we have an ultimate solution. The perfect duplicate was the little latch string hanging out that opened the door to an ultimate truth. Well, what would an ultimate truth be? An ultimate truth is a static, and an ultimate solution is a static. In other words, an ultimate truth and an ultimate solution is nothing. Get the As-is-ness of any problem, make a perfect duplicate of any problem, and the problem will disappear. You can subject that easily to proof. So if you can make a problem disappear by simply getting its As-is-ness, then you’ve got the solution to all problems, or the ultimate solution. Well, the MEST universe itself is just a problem, and so if you could get its As-is-ness, it would disappear. It would disappear for everybody. Well, let’s study that and, and get that very well and get what the definition is there, in the Axioms and Definitions. This is the total solution, by the way, to the vanishment of engrams — what we were handling in Dianetics. The vanishment of ridges, of all energy forms and manifestations, all these can simply be accomplished by making perfect duplicates of them. That doesn’t mean that you should now make nothing out of everything or get your preclear to try to make nothing out of everything, but that it just can be done.

Making a perfect duplicate seems to be a mental exercise that is left to the person to figure out. There is no clear explanation given here on how to make a perfect duplicate. When duplicating a vase, you can make a mental picture of it, but how do you create its energy and space again? How do you create them in its own space and time? How do you use its own energy?

To do that you will have to repeat the exact sequence of actions that it took to make that vase, at the location where that vase was made using the same raw materials employed to make it. If you are just doing it mentally then you must at least know the techniques used in making that vase, the raw materials used, how those raw materials were obtained, etc. It comes down to fully understanding what one is looking at. With deeper understanding one’s viewpoint changes.

Hubbard is talking about a theoretical principle, the ultimate of which is having a viewpoint that can see in depth what is there. There is complete understanding. No anomalies exist in the reality of things. Any anomalies that come up are resolved quickly. There is knowingness as the viewpoint can grasp the oneness of continuity, harmony and consistency in everything.

KHTK AXIOM 20: Bringing a person to create a perfect duplicate causes the vanishment of any and all anomalies (discontinuities, disharmonies and inconsistencies).


We understand understanding a bit better when we see that it is simply the ability to get the As-is-ness of something. For example, we could say “I don’t quite understand this car. Don’t quite understand what’s wrong with it. It just won’t start.” And we walk around it and look at it and then we find out that we haven’t turned on the key. And we turn on the key. We’ve understood it, in other words. We have unmocked the fact that the key was not turned on and we have turned on the key (which actually is practicing Alter-is-ness). If we walked around a car and said “I don’t understand what this object is… I don’t understand what this object is … AH! it’s a car!” We would feel immediately relieved. We’d feel a lot better about the thing, but if we were to get its total As-is-ness there would just be a hole sitting there.

So understanding is As-is-ness and understanding in its entirety would be a Static and so we have the fact that Life knows basically everything there is to know before it gets complicated with lots of data, merely because it can postulate all the data it knows. All knowingness is inherent in the static itself. A thetan who is in good shape knows everything there is to know. He knows past, present and future. He knows everything. This doesn’t mean he knows data. This merely means that he can As-is anything and if he can As-is anything believe me he can understand it.

Man’s salvation I’ve said several times depends upon his recognition of his brotherhood with the universe. Well let’s misinterpret that just a little bit and say Man’s salvation — if you want to save him from the universe — would depend upon his ability to make an As-is-ness of the physical universe at which moment he wouldn’t have a universe, and this would be total understanding.

Understanding has three parts: Affinity Reality and Communication.

You can actually compose from ARC all the mathematics there are. You can combine ARC into mathematics. You can accomplish anything with ARC that you want to do. Symbolic Logic, even calculus, could be extrapolated from ARC.

Affinity depends upon reality and communication. Reality depends upon affinity and communication. Communication depends upon affinity and reality. If you don’t believe this try to communicate sometime with somebody without any affinity at all. Get real mad at somebody, and then try to communicate with him. You won’t. Try to get somebody to be reasonable when he is very angry and you’ll find out that his reality is very poor. He cannot conceive of the situation. He’ll give you some of the weirdest things. There is no liar lying like an angry man.

If you raise somebody’s affinity you will raise his reality and communication. If you raise somebody’s reality, you’ll raise his affinity and communication. And the keynote of this triangle happens to be communication. Communication is more important than either affinity or reality.

To understand is to get the AS-IS-NESS of something. Of course, there are degrees of understanding (AS-IS-NESS). Ultimate understanding is the Universal Viewpoint. The universal viewpoint is pure theta and not Static (potential) as Hubbard calls it.

In the universal viewpoint, all data is assimilated to become one. In other words, it becomes continuous, harmonious and consistent. It turns into knowingness.

Understanding has the aspects of affinity, reality and communication. They always go together in all circumstances. Communication, however, is the entrance point to understanding.

KHTK AXIOM 21: Understanding (AS-IS-NESS) has the aspects of affinity, reality and communication.


In other words, something is there, and we say it’s not there.

Someone is driving down the road like mad and there’s an enormous boulder lying in the middle of the road, and almost anybody, just before the crash, will say the boulder’s not there. And by golly it’s there. And this makes him feel he’s a weak thetan. He failed. And the funny part of it is that if he were to immediately As-is the boulder down the road, instead of denying it’s there, and if he could make this a perfect duplicate, the boulder would disappear.

He doesn’t do it that way. He sort of puts some energy up and pushes against the boulder, and says, “It’s not there, it’s not there. I deny it.”

Well, he’ll have a mighty thin understanding of the whole thing.

He doesn’t want to communicate with it, so he says it’s not there. He doesn’t want to have any affinity for it at all, so he says it’s not there. And believe me his reality cuts down. The practice of Not-is-ness reduces understanding, and that is what Man is doing constantly. He’s trying to avow that something that isn’t there is there, and he’s trying to avow that something that is there isn’t there, and between these two things, giving it no As-is-ness at all or new postulates of any kind, he’s having quite a time of it.

NOT-IS-NESS means denying what is there and assuming things that are not there. There is no communication with the reality and no affinity for it either. Therefore, the reality is very low. The understanding is, therefore, very much reduced.

KHTK AXIOM 22: The practice of not-is-ness reduces understanding.


Here we have a condition of existence which is As-is. That would be total knowingness. Well, if we had somebody who could say “As-is” to everything and trace all parts of everything back to their original time, location, and simply got them as they really were, we of course would have nothing left but a Static. We would have zero. We wouldn’t even have space.

If you wanted, by the way, to make this whole universe vanish, you would have to be able to span this whole universe. You would have to be as big as the universe. You could drill somebody up to the point where he could do that.

The state of AS-IS-NESS is a viewpoint that can see things as they are. In other words, it is totally objective. We call this the universal viewpoint. From this viewpoint, one is able to grasp the whole universe completely without any filter. One has total knowingness.

Total knowingness means knowing the oneness of continuity, harmony and consistency in everything. This doesn’t mean everything is reduced to zero. It is just that everything is perfectly aligned and there is no resistance to finding anything. It is not a static condition of mere potential.

KHTK AXIOM 23: A person has the capability of total knowingness of the universal viewpoint. Total knowingness would consist of total ARC.

Definition: The universal viewpoint views things as they are without filter. In other words, it is totally objective.


All mechanical conditions of existence. It wouldn’t bring about the sudden death of everything. It would bring about the exteriorization of everything. It would mean the vanishment of all space and all form. Mechanics.

Differentiate between a consideration — a postulate — and a mechanic. Be sure to get the difference between a quality such as complete trust, a quality such as full responsibility, in other words the qualities along the top of the Chart of Attitudes — and the mechanics. A person who is all out for mechanics, and won’t have anything to do with considerations, believes completely that considerations are of no worth and that mechanics are the thing (“You can put your hands on it, you can feel it, you can touch it”) — this person would have to be made thoroughly acquainted with the existence of these mechanics before he could As-is them sufficiently to reach a level where he would have the ability to consider. He has sunk below the level of mechanics.

That’s why 8C Opening Procedure, which acquaints the person with his immediate environment, works as it does.

Well, when we say mechanics, we mean space, energy, objects and time. And when something has those things in it we’re talking about something mechanical. That’s all that would vanish if you As-ised all of existence — just the mechanics — and you could turn right around and postulate them all back again too with great ease.

ARC shall bring about total understanding, and, therefore, the universal viewpoint of total objectivity. All fixation will be gone, and the mechanics will simplify greatly.

KHTK AXIOM 24: Total ARC would bring about the total objectivity of the universal viewpoint.


Affinity, in terms of mechanics, is simply a matter of distance. Affinity is basically a consideration, but it does represent itself mechanically. For instance, Total Knowingness goes down to Lookingness. You have to look to find out. Well that’s different from simply knowing without looking. We go down to Looking, now we go just a little bit lower than that. (This Know-to-Mystery scale is by the way an Affinity scale.) We go into Emotion, and then we no longer have knowledge by looking. We have to have knowledge by emotion. Do we like it — do we dislike it? There are particles in emotion: “I don’t like it” — in other words “I have some anger particles about it” or “I have some resentment particles” — and by the way a preclear has his reactive mind full of these emotion particles.

Now if I “have to feel it to know it is there”, I’ve gone immediately into Effort. And my affinity for something would be good if I could feel it and it would be no good at all if I couldn’t feel it. You get a Step V, a Black V, who is swearing by mechanics (and swearing at all life forms) and builds atom bombs and such things — and he tells you that he cannot contact life. He can’t contact this thing called the Static, therefore he “can’t believe in it”. This is very interesting. You ask him why, and he says, “Well I can’t feel it.” He’s twisting the snake around, so it’ll eat its tail. He’s proving it all upside down and backwards. He says he can’t get the existence of something he can’t feel. And the odd part of it is that we can measure electronically the existence of life. There is a little meter on which we ran some tests, and we can actually demonstrate that one individual can turn on in another individual at some great distance from him a considerable electrical current, enough to make this little machine sit up and sing. And the other person can turn it on at will, and the person on whom it’s being turned can’t stop it. Here is a manifestation that can be measured. We’ve done the impossible there too. We’ve done the impossible in many places in Scientology. You can’t measure a Static, but we’ve done so by having a person, at a distance, bring a mechanic into being.

When a person gets down to Effort on this scale then he’s into a level where he’s “gotta work”, everything has got to be work. He’s got to touch everything and feel everything before he can know anything. A person in the Effort band, by the way, as he gets to the lower part of that band, has facsimiles. He’s got mental image pictures. He’ll even do weird things like this: he will get a picture to know what’s happening to him. In other words, he’ll get a mental image picture of a past incident in order to get an idea. He gets the picture and then he gets the idea, he doesn’t get the idea and then get a picture. You want to watch that. Sometimes you’ll find a preclear who’s doing this. You’ll be saying “All right, get the idea of being perfect.” And your preclear will sit there and say, “I got it.” You want to ask him, “How did you do that?” That’s a wonderful question to ask a preclear at any time. “How did you do that?” And he’ll say, “Why, of course, just like everybody else. I got this picture and this picture came up and I looked at it and the picture said, ‘Be perfect,’ and it showed me a circle, and a circle — well, that’s perfect.” That’s how your preclear was doing that. He wasn’t making the postulate at all. He was waiting for a picture to come and tell him what it was all about.

Now we go down from Effort into Thinking, and we get our “figure-figure” case. This case is hard to get along with — he can’t work. Life is not composed of thought, particularly. It’s composed of space and action and all sorts of things. The Static can do all these things and is not necessarily “all pure thought”. Thinkingness comes in down the scale at the level below Effort. And it comes in as figure-figure-figure-figure-figure. Now a person can postulate without thinking about it, and if that’s what we mean by thought, that’s fine. But usually what people mean by thought is figure-figure. “I’ll just figure this out and I’ll get a computation and a calculation, and I’ll add it up to… now let me see… can you go to the movies? I don’t know,” — the kind of answer a little kid gets. “Now let me see. I’ll have to think it over. Give me a couple of days.”

We don’t know how all of this mechanic got into a postulate, but they’ve let it get in there. So that’s the level, Thinkingness.

Now we go downstairs from Thinkingness on this scale and we get into Symbolizingness. A symbol contains mass, meaning and mobility. A symbol is something that’s being handled from an orientation point — a point which is motionless in relationship to the symbol. It’s motionless, and the symbol is in motion, and has mass, meaning and mobility. “Where are you from?” “I am from New Jersey.” This fellow is telling you that he is from an orientation point called New Jersey. It’s motionless and as he runs around the world, he is always from New Jersey. He has mass, meaning and mobility. He has a name. When a person drops down the scale below figure-figure, he is into a point where he figures with symbols. Now that’s a condensation, isn’t it? Each of these was a condensation.

The next one down the line, below Symbols, is Eatingness. Animals eat animals. Animals are symbols and they eat other symbols and they think they have to stay alive by eating other symbols. This is real cute and eating is quite important of course and it can be a lot of fun, but here you have a real condensation. In other words, Effort got so condensed that it turned into an inverted kind of Thought, and that became so condensed that it packaged thinking — that’s what took place there — it became so condensed it became a Symbol. A word, for instance, is a whole package of thought. So packaged thinking is a symbol and packed symbols are a plate of beans.

Below that, when a person doesn’t believe he can eat any more, when he thinks he is not going to survive, he will go into the Sexingness band. If you starve cattle for a while they’ll start to breed, and if you feed them too well they’ll stop breeding. Quite irrational, but then who said any of this was rational? Cattle who are starved or lacking certain food elements will decide, well, we’ll live again in some other generation — and they’ll breed up a lot of calves. Of course, there’s nothing to feed the calves on but they haven’t paid much attention to that. In Arizona we have an interesting fact — we have some very beautiful cattle who have stopped breeding. They’ve just been too well fed. The way to get those cattle breeding again would be to simply start starving them. Freud by the way was so condensed he had to get way down there to that condensation level of Sex “in order to find out”.

Below Sex we have a new level of knowingness, the level of Mystery.

Mystery of course is the complete displacement of everything, and everything in a terrific confusion. The anatomy of Mystery is unprediction, confusion and then total blackout. First, he couldn’t predict some particles, and then it all seemed awfully confusing to him and then he just shut it all off and said, “I won’t look at it anymore”. That’s what Mystery is, and your Step Fives by the way are very, very concerned about Mystery. They’re very concerned about Thinkingness and trying to solve the Mystery. Well the Mystery is already solved in an ultimate truth. The ultimate solution of course is simply the As-is-ness of the problem. And the As-is-ness of a Mystery is simply the Mystery. That’s really all there is to it. There really is nothing to know back of a Mystery, except the Mystery itself. It’s just As-is-ness. But Mystery is the level of always pretending there’s something to know earlier than the Mystery.

To sum this up we have, under Axiom Twenty-five:

By the practice of Is-ness (Beingness) and Not-is-ness (refusal to Be) individuation progresses from the Knowingness of complete identification down through the introduction of more and more distance and less and less duplication, through Lookingness, Emotingness, Effortingness, Thinkingness, Symbolizingness, Eatingness, Sexingness, and so through to not-Knowingness (Mystery). Until the point of Mystery is reached, some communication is possible, but even at Mystery an attempt to communicate continues. Here we have, in the case of an individual, a gradual falling away from the belief that one can assume a complete Affinity down to the conviction that all is a complete Mystery. Any individual is somewhere on this Know-to-Mystery scale. The original Chart of Human Evaluation was the Emotion section of this scale.

Affinity is a matter of distance or similarity. Greater affinity means lesser distance and greater similarity. The Know-to-Mystery scale is an Affinity scale. It is a genius idea arrived at by Hubbard to describe what happens to the viewpoint of a person as he increasingly succumbs to ALTER-IS-NESS.

At top is Knowingness, which is the intuitive grasp of everything. There is oneness of knowledge. At the next level of Looking one has to look to find out. At the next level of Emotion, one knows things by his emotional reaction to them. At the Effort level a person depends on mental image pictures to think with. He must touch and feel things to know them. Thinkingness comes below the effort band as figure-figure. When a person drops down the scale below figure-figure, he is into a point where he figures with symbols. A symbol is a packaged thought. This is increasing condensation as one goes down the scale. Symbols condense into Eatingness, which is a dog eat dog kind of behavior indicative of fixations. Eatingness condenses into Sexingness where attention is fixated on future survival. Below that is the level of always Mystery where one is pretending there’s something to know earlier than the Mystery.

KHTK AXIOM 25: Affinity is a scale of attitudes which falls away from the objectivity of the universal viewpoint, through the interpositions of distance and subjectivity, to create identity, down to close proximity but mystery.

By the practice of ALTER-IS-NESS individuation progresses from the Knowingness of complete objectivity down through the introduction of more and more distance and less and less duplication, through Lookingness, Emotingness, Effortingness, Thinkingness, Symbolizingness, Eatingness, Sexingness, and so through to not-Knowingness (Mystery). Until the point of Mystery is reached, some communication is possible, but even at Mystery an attempt to communicate continues. Here we have, in the case of an individual, a gradual falling away from the belief that one can assume a complete Affinity down to the conviction that all is a complete Mystery. Any individual is somewhere on this Know-to-Mystery scale.



These axioms are a codification of life. One of the most wonderful axiom is AXIOM 25.