March 2, 1952

the "field"

To be very philosophical and metaphysical— each individual, within his own reality, puts, as it were, the imprint of that reality on objects that are reasonably stable. What I tell you has great stability. How you take it and interpret it will be the imprint you put upon it.

The same goes for the "field". I call it the "field" because I have no other name. Let us say that it is a relationship that is set up. It will do for you what you need to have done. It is a way of breaking the ice, of charting a path, that perhaps you cannot push through, or chart, or break, without a little extra push. It aligns your dynamics. Or, to put it differently, you can align your dynamics somewhat more easily, with little effort compared to the previous effort.

A man may pray. He may pray for money, influence, some trivial thing. The "field of God" might be analogous to this, using of course the ‘metaphysical’ position. If the "field of God" is available to the individual, he can actually modify his environment and his self-determinism. He can modify the future. He does this with prayer. This, of course, is a method of communication.

This "field", again in quotes, enables him to modify his future if the need arises, if he himself cannot do it. At any time when a great need arises, psychologically, the "field" is available. He latches on to it, as it were, aligns his dynamics and goes forward. Now, in any relationship, a group is set up, automatically, and if you are going to have a raise in tone, you actually have an approximation to a true group. With this approximation to a true group you can contact this particular "field". An individual prays to God. You have an approximation to a true group. Again, he can contact this particular "field"— of God.

For instance, in working with someone trying to enter a particular pre-natal engram— I’m being very technical now. There is heavy pain. There is great "fear" in the voice of the mother, or the father. There is pain in the mother itself. The person is very reluctant to enter this particular area. It may not be necessary. They don't know that, so they do it anyway. The 'field' will enable some of them to do this a little bit better than they did before.

Now there are two kinds of cases. There is the first case, that is wide open and honest, that genuinely knows itself and knows its present time problems and is able to communicate. The second case wants the auditor not to communicate with it, but with its environment, and to alter the environment, or to at least agree with the pre-clear's estimation of the environment and what should be done about it.

The first case wants change in itself. The second case wants the auditor to change the environment. It does this by bucket loads of sympathy, of control, and of some sort of "action", of course, in infinite variety.

In the first case the "field" is readily available. In the second case, not so much. It's there, but the individual will not latch on to it. That's a very, very simple explanation. In the first class case, the subject desires the auditor to use the techniques in order that the subject may monitor the past, resolve it, reintegrate, and achieve an optimum status. In the other case, the subject wants the auditor only to express mechanisms for the environment, to alter the environment, to praise the subject for his activities in the past and in the present, to hold their hand, and so forth.

Now, by "holding their hand", I mean that the person may insist that there must be anger, or agreement of some sort, even sex— all the way up and down the line. There is no definite desire to give up these previous thoughts, these facsimiles, these expressions of security. Only a desire to have the environment modified— by the auditor, not by the subject.

If you are of the first category, belief in the reality of the "field" is not necessary. If you are of the second category, some belief in its reality might aid you. There is no necessity of a warning signal, or a trigger, or a symbol of operation. If you really want to be aided, genuinely, you will be. If you ignore those fields that exist naturally in our space-time continuum, of course you won't be aided.

The "field" is of mechanical psychological origin, or to coin a phrase, "psycho-mechanical origin". There are other persons who are part of this particular "field". These persons might act as "transducers" for this "field". Now, that's a clue, that's a hint. If I point out to you that there is a clue or a hint, you will do more thinking than you might otherwise. I have done just about all the describing, mechanically, that I can. I can point out, from my reality, to yours, that the needs of the moment, the geodesics of life, of prayer, of an extreme requirement for survival are answered in a very large part by this "field."

Since the "field" is partially of psychological nature, I will tell you this: extreme counter-thought can nullify the "field" to a certain extent— not wholly, only partially. Facsimiles themselves have no effect upon the "field", but if a man acts as a whole unit, without any postulates affecting self-determinism, and desires fully and wholly to nullify the 'field', he can do so in his immediate vicinity. This happens all the time. How many low-toned persons have walked into a center, or an establishment, and not wanted any auditing to take place, not wanted anyone else to be aided? No help, no going up, only destruction, extreme fear— they radiate it. It permeates the rooms, the people— an extreme counter-emotion.


Ordinary prayer, as arrived at from a normal individual who is of high tone, does not necessarily depend on facsimiles. What is actually the nature of the facsimile? What is the individual's desire to use a facsimile? Can you throw a facsimile at God? What would happen if you did? What has happened to you, in the past, when you have prayed?

Now suppose you dropped your facsimile, with relationship to God— the pleading, the sympathy, the begging, the commanding, the anger, the oratory— and opened your heart, as it were, in a colloquial sense, and allowed your eighth dynamic full play. What happens then? Only you know.


Is this the basis of all your philosophy, this absolute rigor of the outsidedness of things? I might try to demonstrate to you how you actually feel about outside things that have rigor, if they exist at all. You throw at me the very common facsimile in philosophy, that "If things actually exist outside me they can affect me, whether I like it or not...." [and] "If there is an 'outsidedness' that has absolute rigor and reality, stability, solidarity, it is an absolute thing in itself...." [and] "This will affect me whether I care for it to do so or not, in some degree or another...." And I assure you, for me, this is a facsimile with all the implications.

The coordinated network that comprises your nervous system is, of course, segregated and compartmented, shut off— sacked— oh, it's all messed up— put it that way— with facsimiles about philosophy that you've heard all your life. Postulates, ideas, things thrust at you which you accepted in order to win an argument; to achieve control over another individual, control over his philosophy, or social system, and the satisfaction derived therefrom, as you might think I'm doing to you now.

But if you have this coordinated network— without the postulates— if you have this, you realize that most of the facsimiles concerning philosophy are only that. And that philosophy at its best is only an attempt to justify facsimiles. I use the word, 'philosophy' in its most abstract sense. How many philosophies have been structuralized, written down, integrated? Along comes another man and he tears them down. Why does he do so? Because of the simple fact that he is another man. Different facsimiles.

What do most mechanical structuralized philosophies that are taught today in colleges purport to do? If you've been to college, you should know this. To give a person a better understanding of the world, so he will coordinate all the information, all the data, all his thoughts? And how well do they do this? These philosophies originate from individuals, of course, from their facsimiles. They are based upon illusion— the illusion of facsimiles— the desire to believe other than that which is true, about God, about man, about purpose, about values.

Let's not argue about the semantic implications of the word "philosophy". In that case, I present to you what I have learned in school and have accepted as definitions. I've used those definitions to acquire an understanding of further definitions and have built up those into an entire mechanical system, which, in approximately twenty-five to thirty years, shall be destroyed by some other mechanical system, built on other facsimiles, other definitions, other postulates, other teachers, and other students, existing in other realities.

the development of "reality"

For me, there is only reality. And as I grow and progress and expand -- to be very lyrical, reality becomes sweeter and sweeter, more harmonious.

No. Two people can not have the same reality. A flat statement of fact: no.

Throw away all of your postulates concerning philosophy, logic, what you've been taught in schools, what you've learned from others concerning thought itself; use what you know to be thought, and you realize that no consistent reality principles exist from individual to individual

It is almost impossible for the average person to believe and understand that their little finger, their toes, their eyes, their mouth, their tongues and their skin— all of these things— are part of them; they were not put there to punish them, to control them; they were not put there to motivate other human beings, to destroy them, and so on. They cannot accept the idea that they are one person, a whole, a coordinated system whose only purpose is to enable this system to survive further.

They will not drop their postulates, their convictions, their beliefs that they are "different" in different respects; that their hand --again, a very old quotation "do not let your left hand know what thy right hand is doing." They will not let their eyes see exactly equal. They will not let their ears hear exactly equal. They sometimes won't even coordinate what they see with one eye and the other eye.

Take their thoughts: one man says, "I'm a Christian," and another man says "I am a Christian." They will not permit those thoughts to be coordinated. They refuse to be a whole person. And in doing so, of course, they destroy themselves very effectively. Now "why" did they do this? As an adult, again, what was the reason? "Why?"

Well, you start out from the beginning. Regardless of the source of life, a child is born into the world with a certain endowment, a certain set of data. This data is used as the child sees fit, in order to survive, basically.

At first, after birth, there is some communication, some very vague recognition of what value "meaning" and "motion" have. As the semantic growth matures, the individual learns more and more about sounds, about energies, about motions, spaces, times, what to do about them; how to affect the people around it, how to affect this "outsidedness" around it.

Now, suddenly, there comes a period where it needs, basically, an assistance from this "outsidedness". So what does it do? It grabs the most reliable data, according to the past— action and chance— random chance— according to the past, that has affected the "outsidedness", even if not in the direction of its need. It demonstrates this data to the "outsidedness", and the "outsidedness" moves and does things for it. The data then has reality; it has good value. It does things for it. And on you go.

Where is the reality for the individual, again to give you a bit of data, before he has demonstrated the validity of data?

the development of awareness

Before you were born? There was no time then. There was only existence. There is a time, in my particular existence, when the idea of pure awareness— whatever it be for you, for me it's a definite thing— existed. There were no objects available. There was only me, nothing else— just me. It was like a shell that surrounds you. There is no purpose. There is only continuum. There was, for instance, pain, or there may have been even before pain, again, just a continuum. You were aware, and that was all. This shell of awareness is coupled with the envelope of the senses. They have little or no meaning. Again, you have to have an "outsidedness" to have meaning.

At this particular point there was no awareness of awareness, there was only awareness. There is no reality; there is only me, and my awareness. Now, there was a changeover point, for me— again, this is only my reality— that occurred very early, where the idea, the apperceptiveness of thought, the apperceptic value came in, and that was awareness of awareness. This was monitored by the knowledge about objects, sensory equipment, and so on.

There might be certain common denominators that exist for all individuals of all species. I would say, in a very general sense, without being extremely explicit, that this awareness is a part of what you would like to call reality, using the word only in reference to communication between you and me.


The essential ingredient in change is the recognition of another reality and the acceptance of it. Nobody monitors your condition but yourself. If you put yourself in a situation that is so fraught with danger that you are liable to destruction— that is your responsibility. So are the damages you make upon your body.

In psychotherapy, and in faith, in any cult, in any sect that professes healing by any means whatsoever— nothing can affect you unless you let it do so. Nothing controls your condition. Insofar as you let it, yes. Insofar as you do not, no. If you give yourself faith, you can change. Or to put it the other way, with faith you have a change.

What does this do now to your mechanical structure? Your methods of operation? Your explanations of your behavior? Your purposes? Your goals?

What happened to this particular mechanical structure?

Here comes someone who holds up a new reality. He says, in the old days: "All of what you do is based upon a particular thing that occurred to you in the past, called an engram. Return to this engram, roll through it, and you have in your body a mechanism that enables you to discharge all the effects of the engram." How fast can you do this? Well, it depends upon the mechanism. There's your mechanical structure.

You accept the reality insofar as you want to, and do it, and you are aided. Then other realities impinge upon yours, as I accepted the first reality, and you give in again and again and again. No reference made, of course, to your monitoring ability, to your capacities for changing your own level. Only to the engram as a mechanical structure. No reference made to why you chose the engram in the first place.

What happened in the old days [i.e., "classical" dianetics]? You set up an engram as a thing, as a monster with various colors, shapes, and dimensions, capable of wrecking the entire human race, and of doing so quite successfully— filled with pain and sorrow that invariably conquered all, one and all, and drove you to this particular sorry state. Balderdash!

So now, a new reality. (Passing over all the various transitions of reality that have gone by.) Now comes someone else.

He says, "You are a unique individual capable of monitoring yourself to the Nth degree. You possess untold capacities, abilities. If you want to use them, I will give you a method, a mechanical structure to enable you to recontact and revivify, amplify, and live with these particular abilities, powers of your body."

You go about this particular structure. You point out to the individual "why" he did these things: the counter-emotion present, the counter-effort, the counter-thought. This is "why" he did these things. Now he is an integrated adult. He says, "O.K. They were present. I did these certain things from this particular store of data. Now what am I going to do?"

Take the second case: nothing! The first case: everything.

All this second person has done is to present a new reality. He again, to quote from old material, has held up a mirror. The individual has looked at himself; the mirror is his past.

Written on the mirror, through which he now can see, is this new reality, of the new future. The old one being, now, completely available. It depends entirely on him what he wants to select. If he has made a so-called prime postulate not to accept new realities, he again is the second category. It takes another prime postulate to accept them. But again, "why" does he want to do this? This depends entirely on the individual.

agreement and choice

Now usually a cigarette, pardon me, is a way of breaking communication. It enables you to control what you are saying so you won't offend someone else, so you won't hurt them, or vice versa, they won't hurt you. You agree not to communicate, but you also have agreed at the same time: "Look, I'm holding a cigarette, you're holding a cigarette, he's holding a cigarette, we're all friends in this together. We'll all not communicate. We'll all smoke up the room and support the tobacco companies. We're all going to poison ourselves, consistently, day after day after day after day, quite successfully."

Apply this to wars, to fights, to prejudice, to disease. It applies everywhere, to glasses, to no hair, to bad teeth, to ulcers— up and down the line. It applies everywhere. Without considering facsimiles as such, as separate incidents and events in space and time, that basic idea applies to everything.

First of all one says, "Well, look! All this counter-emotion around me. My mother hated me, my father beat me, my sister laughed at me, my teachers ignored me and sneered. I had to do something!" All right. But what about now?

What are you going to do now? Why should you continue? You're not in that status any more. Why, for instance, should you continue to be angry? Let's say at your wife, or your children. Or fearful of a boss, or an employer, or afraid of Russia? Who monitors your fear? Nobody else but you. And emotion is a state you bring about yourself. Yet, Russia is far away, nearly three thousand miles, and your employers and your teachers aren't here at the moment. And your mother is back in the past.

All these things existed in the past. They can't touch you now, only insofar as you permit them to do so.

Now you talk about unresolved emotional conflicts. Sure enough, you put out one emotion; someone else puts out another. You counter this with another. You play a game. And maybe you enjoy the game. It's a way of communication. It's fun. It's being human. "The essence of humanity", somebody says. Sure.

Again, get back to ulcers, and smoking, and bad eyes, and wars. This game of locking emotion with emotion and thought with thought, of disagreeing about realities and agreeing about realities that are substandard: all of it's a game.

Most of the things that are wrong with you, and that you have agreed to— almost every item that modifies you as an optimum human being— all of these things are illusions that you have accepted. They are nothing else. They exist only for you, because I and others looking at you cannot know what you feel, or hear, or think, or want to do. We can sense these things as you throw them out. If you let down your barriers we can get in, and communicate with you. We show you another reality. We show you the future. We indicate to you that you have ability you have long cloistered.

Again, this is all up to you, and I, as a total man, cannot break down your sanctity. I will not do so. Neither can any auditor. No man has the privilege, or the right, to raise another man unless that first man or second man agrees.

All these things are within yourselves. If this were not true you wouldn't listen; you wouldn't be here. You'd be someplace else. You'd laugh at me. You'd laugh at any reality. If it were not true, that self-determinism was the acme function of man, you would all either be a bird, or an animal, or a ditch digger, or a scientist. You'd all be the same. Like a wasp that makes her nest. You’d go through life with stereotyped activity; repetitious, reflexive, instinctive; with no goals, except this unchanging cycle, this unchanging pattern.

But this does not exist for you. You do have self-determinism, and you can change and you can alter, and you have, and you will. This is the very essence of being human.

Again, if this were not so, you'd all be some sort of semi-robot. Responding to the heat of the sun by seeking relief in the shade instead of building a shelter. Responding to the cold by running away into a cave, again, or hiding among yourselves, coordinating together instead of getting clothing, having crops, having tailors. All of these things are true. This, again, is the essence of being human. And let no man take it away from you. Even me.

If you wish to modify yourselves, if you wish to unfold this laminar of self-determinism, effected by facsimiles, as you've permitted it to do so, it is entirely up to you. I cannot change you. Neither can anyone else, nor any group. Only you.

the origin of our situation

"How did it begin?" I could explain it to you, for me, but it will take a great deal of time. It did not actually begin as an item before which there was no existence of it. There is a causal chain that ties it together with the very beginning of life up to present time. And this, in itself, has no beginning.

Now, I get very metaphysical here, because I have no other terms which to use— I am aware of an existence of origin but I cannot communicate with you in the sense of time. For instance— I have done this before with some people. Let's try it here.... You can be made aware, completely aware, of the stream of human achievement: all of your forefathers, of your ancestors, back as far as you like; you can feel their emotions and their efforts, their needs and desires, their activities. You can feel the legacies they have given to you. You can feel their heritage, as long as you want, as much as you want.

You are as fully aware right now as you ever shall be, unless, of course, you have mechanically destroyed with cancer or some other particular blockage of the blood, et cetera, these senses that come to you. They're available to you, right now, at this instant.

Now you can feel, if you wish, this enormous striving of past humanity. And you can feel their gift to you. And you can feel their goals. You can feel the modifications of the race as a whole. The subdivisions of the species in the race.

You can be very individual and say, "I am alone. I am a man existing by myself." Yet you have been dependent upon the past, wholly and completely, just as the future is dependent upon you. The future exists from here, not from there. You make up elements of the future continuously.

You have selected your particular species. You've decided upon your outcome. You can go back beyond this and sense the origins of life, of life forces, of dynamics, of purpose, of motivation. It has no location in time and space. Someone might say that it was a static. All right. It's a static. Only because it isn't in time and space.


How many men have decided the time of their death?

What is time, really? We have arbitrarily cut it into days, into sections that have symbols. Now we have agreed, from past resources, that these symbols, these sections, represent a certain span of activity. We have given ourselves, as it were, as a race, certain mechanical structures that determine our alteration in this particular time pattern. This, of course, is evolution. This is what happens when a young boy or a young girl goes into adolescence. Into old age. And finally into death.

But many, many, many people select a point much prior to this point— to this heritage— they determine when they are going to die, without letting these mechanisms take over. They do so, of course, by, well, cancer, tuberculosis, heart disease, you name it, diseases in general.

Now take the case of a man in India who has no food, not proper food, nor proper air. He has seen his grandfather die at the age of forty. He has seen his grandmother die at the age of fifty. He has seen his mother die one or two years after he was delivered. He sees men and women dying about him constantly, who haven't even reached the age of fifty. So as a child, or as an adolescent, or as an adult, he again selects his time. But here in America, and in Sweden, and in Norway, this acceptance of death at a particular time level is slightly higher, slightly longer.

How long can a man live, physiologically, with this particular mechanism? Look at George Bernard Shaw. Somebody yells, "Ah, heredity!" Heredity of what? What was inherited? His life wasn't inherited. His thoughts weren't inherited. Nor his diseases, nor his capabilities; but he inherited self-determinism. He inherited this particular endowment of selecting and of modifying, and that's all he inherited.

Again, how long do you want to live? I once determined that I would die at a certain very early age. Well, from heart disease: I knew this completely. I was perfectly aware of it. I was going to die. I was sure of it. I had 'fear' that I was going to die. I was afraid that I was going to die. I was afraid my heart was bad.

the use of emotion

Why do you cry for a man who is dead, or a woman, or a child, or a dog, or an ideal? Do you believe that the ideal or the object can be influenced by your grief? Of course you do. And do you in turn believe that you can be influenced by your grief, and again, of course you do. You feel better. You are relieved. This is normal for most people. If they cry they feel better.

This is an expression to somebody or something, perhaps one's self, a physiological thing, plus psychology, a mind-body relationship, that a tremendous point of affinity has been removed in space and time. Removed beyond contact and communication. Therefore, you have to express this so-called normal emotion.

These things are built into you. This is part of your structure, mechanically. Now, you have the ability to press the button. Who turned on the grief? You, or the other person who is dead? Now, if you have decided that it is necessary to turn on the grief, go ahead and do so. But if you have decided that this person died for a worthy cause, as a worthy agent having accomplished its purpose and goal in life, where the hell is the grief?

It depends on why this person died. A man dies of cancer or heart disease. If he dies below the age of a hundred and fifty, I think you should cry because he deserves sorrow. Here is another failure and there's enough identity and loss to express failure. Everyone else says to everyone else, "Here is a failure; I cry." But if this man dies above the age of a hundred and fifty of heart disease, or cancer, or some other cause, there's not so much grief necessary.

Look what I've done now. I've shifted your point of reality. I've taken a hundred and fifty years instead of fifty. Can you conceive of what an individual is like after a hundred and fifty years of life? Of activity? Of motivation? Of change? Of cause and effect? Why should you cry at that point?

Most of you express grief because of failure. You cannot integrate into yourself, as a person, the loss of affinity. Now, one gets very mystical and says, "Affinity is a thing. It's an object. It exists in space and time because I demonstrate it to be existing. I can feel it; I can perceive it; I can hear it. I know it's so."

Of course it is. But it is only an emotion, and you bring about emotion. It's also an effect, because you produce effects in other people. Beyond this, it is nothing. If you have a need for affinity, and you now no longer have affinity, cry. Your prop is gone.

Now this is a very, very heretic type of thought. Throughout all of our history, mostly, that is, the human race has cried because of death. It has recognized that here is a failure, here is a loss. Take a child who loves its mother. The mother is now dead. The child is an adult. The child cries. It thinks of all the times mother beat it, starved it, hit it, controlled it, lied to it, injured it— it thinks of all the times the mother was nice.

Why is the child crying? Because of the nice things? No more of the nice things? No more of the bad things? Why would you cry?

For me, emotion is a system; a state of being or not being. Emotion is a contact, a communication between all points of my body. Put it this way. A man is only so logical as he is emotional and thoughtful. If you divorce the mind from the body, and have "pure" logic, as it is called, you have a pseudo-type of thought. If you divorce the body from the mind and have only emotion, emotionality, again you have a pseudo-type of thought. But if you combine the two, combine them very well, you realize all of the functions of the mind and body.

You realize this particular grief, this reason for grief, or anger, or fear, or what have you. You have true logic. You have the logic of being human, and you have both emotion— carefully used, with no more effort involved, toward a goal— and thoughts tied in.

Otherwise, you have only mix-up, confusion, and dianetics. To explain to the unseen listeners— this is the reason for dianetics. The mis-emotion. Examine this, incidentally. If there were no mis-emotion, there would be no dianetics, because there would be no aberration— if the original theories are true.

illusion, society, and children

Question Why does a child fear being alone?

I didn't. My little girl didn't. When she wants something which she can't achieve she wants somebody there. Were you afraid of being alone?

QuestionDidn't you say at some point, "Aberration is an illusion the child accepts so as not to be alone"?

Yes, I recall. But a child is not alone. A child may fear being alone because there are no human contacts. In the general, most completely abstract way of speaking at the moment that I am capable of with you, illusion is necessary because one does not want to be alone— but there is no genuine "fear". Think of it now, without any postulates, if you can. Without any breakdowns on the abstraction, if you can.

The individual accepts illusion, as it were, only because the individual does not want to be alone. Now, "why?" Because you were born into the human race, and you have around you illusion after illusion that demands illusion in order to survive. If there were no illusion about you that demanded more illusion, what would you have then? And that, again, is up to you, to decide what you're going to have.

Consider the whole context of what I've said now; the individual being born into society, the illusions of society, of mama and papa. Suppose a child does not cry when it is hungry? It won't get fed on schedule unless the parents are very self-determined. Suppose a child does not have a fever when it has a disease? Suppose a child does not do this and that when it wants something? It won't get along very well. Yet its needs are to be answered if it is to survive.

Now let's look at parents who have illusions about children. They go back into their own childhood, their own infancy, and they examine how they felt then, and then they approximate this with the child, and so on. Take the mother who takes Vicks— I'd better not say this— a mother who takes some sort of a preparation, a salve, a fatty mass, and rubs it all over the child's chest and says to the child, "This will cure you of a cold, this will cure you of a cough, this will cure you of this and that and everything else."

The child accepts it. Sure enough! Because the cold, in the first place, was an illusion the child brought on itself. It accepts another illusion to break it down. This is magic. It's warmth and companionship. This represents mama, now, on my chest. Here's mama. Here one wants companionship, and how does she express it? She takes some fat and rubs it on you. Is this being human? Why did the child have the cold, in the first place?

I will say this. There are certain diseases that can attack the body, and the child can ignore them because they are something more than effect, and a cold is one of those things. But let mama say, "Oh, he's got a cold!"— crunch. But you didn't do so before. And let grandmother come in and say the same thing: "Oh, you poor child!" This is all very classical. You know all of this. It's been written down a dozen times. So what does the child do?

I did it regularly at intervals. I punished myself with colds whenever I had a vacation. At Christmas time. At Easter. During the summer. Or an afternoon that was free. Or on a weekend. I spent most of my time in bed with a cold.

So, to go back to my original statement, "not to be alone." "Why" not to be alone? Loneliness is an aberration of society. Without this particular aberration the whole statement falls apart, because there would be no illusion. No necessity for it. What is it, after all, to be alone?

For me, I will tell you. It is no communication. As a child it was no communication, because I was mechanically fed, mechanically bathed, mechanically warmed, but there was no communication. And nobody loved me. Now for a child, communication is pure companionship. Almost pure affinity. There is nothing else, because there are no types, no symbols, no artifacts. You pick a child up and hold it and give it love and that child and you are in full communication. Of course, I'm speaking of a very, very young individual, an infant. And I assure you that the infant will know it. You, of course, will realize this, if you haven't already.

But if you ever meet an aberrated man, if you ever meet another human being, who operates on illusion, I guarantee you that the individual accepted the illusion not to be alone. To explain to you precisely what being alone is now for me, this I cannot do. It's impossible. I'm sorry. But as a child you will know what it is.

You have already known it. As an adult, I don't think you can at the moment. Someday you shall.

I can so strip myself of communication and of the humanity existing within me that I am completely alone. I can, literally, isolate myself in space and time. But there is no emotion connected with this, because it isn't human. It's strictly mind, and strictly mind isn't human. A human has a body and a mind. Thus one might say that I am able to aberrate myself as profoundly as I wish, and I can. But I choose not to do so. This is the essence of having self-determinism.

Now, someone brings up the very, very catchy question, "What happens when a child decides to be alone? To continue in the sensation of being alone? Perhaps even to enjoy it?" And I cannot answer your question, because I don't know. I was not that way.

auditing and self-determinism

An auditing situation is rather unique. It's almost without parallel. For the average man to sit down with the other average man, which we all are, and say to him, "Here is a mechanism by which you can climb out of that particular pit that you have dug for yourself." "Here is the ladder." The guy has to talk. He now has insight. He removes his present time problems. You know what it is. He gets communication. He regains control. His control centers come into effect, and so on. It's all available to you. That particular method and technique works very nicely.

Now, there is one beyond this, and one beyond that.

It's a very hard thing to accept self-determinism, because it means that you become responsible. Very difficult. It was for me. And if you become responsible, in the full sense, brother, you're never the same again! If you have self-honesty, genuinely speaking, nothing else is necessary. You will be better come hell or high water, auditor or no auditor.

I would say, knowing many people, and having had some experience, that dishonesty— to revert from honesty— is not so much a concept as a mode of survival. And the pleasure in this particular type of survival is not pleasure at all. Give a man a chance and he will rid himself of it, if he has a high [emotional] tone with the auditor, with his goals, with the new reality. If he doesn't have this, he won't.

Now again, this is a very fascinating thing about auditing. Why is it necessary to have another nervous system present? To have the extra brain? The extra so-called theta? The extra so-called purpose? Why? It is also another reality. It is a hand that holds up this particular mirror and its reality.

It's very difficult, if not impossible, to alter your system without reference to a second system. Now, supposedly, this has been proven. Well, the less said about that, the better. But the reality of dianetics, of Hinduism, Catholicism, of Protestantism, and so forth— all of these things can be agreed upon and acted upon.

There are certain basic elements within every person because you are "mechanically" human. Structurally human. You have this heritage of the race. Utilizing these basic elements, together with the accepted techniques that seem to work on the greatest number of people, you rise on the [emotional] tone scale. This is a part of reality.


Mechanically, if it involves in effort the entire body and the mind, one would say that it is a prime postulate. The minor postulates, normally, do not involve the entire mind-body system. Only certain segregated locations. In the case of a prime postulate, one should also feel behind it a total acceptance. Now that is very esoteric; I'm sorry. Take it for what it is, a total acceptance of the decision, and need of the decision, to modify. Total acceptance. Yes, the responsibility, again in words, for what one is about to do.

Now there is another very interesting phenomenon. In aberration, and in the acceptance of aberration, you sometimes forget. Sure. You should. Because you do live and you are dynamic and you do change. But this prime postulate so modifies you that it continues in time. You have so modified your structure that the structure itself can't revert back to its original state of being. This is a prime postulate.

But if the person hasn't made a prime postulate; if he hasn't modified his being and accepted the new reality of his prime postulate— the responsibility for it— he can feel that it was not a total effort, and he will explain it to you later on, and he'll go right on doing the same thing.

Now here is a moot point in any psychotherapy. You can use as many mechanisms as you wish, but if the basic insecurity that is aligned with the aberration is not removed, or at least brought out into the open and discussed, you can't aid the individual at all. You can turn one manifestation off, but without removing the basic insecurity, the "unresolved postulates", the individual would develop something else, possibly a mental disease of some sort, a mental attitude that represented a disease, that avoided things.

You get at the basic insecurity, and he will progress as rapidly as he wants to. There will be certain necessary physiological changes.


There is only a certain limited amount of activity available— to me, as to everyone else. And I'm still 'bound' by the prime postulates I made when I became in this particular state. As I modify those postulates with new data as it comes into me— talking here is one of these things, this also has survival value for me, too— as I modify these things I shall modify myself.

From the front of my skull to the back, from the top to the bottom, to the bottom of my ganglia, there is no "sub-conscious" that I am not aware of. Every cell, every dendrite, every elementary basic abstraction from these particular cells that comprise thought, the whole web and network of my life is available to me. It is to you also if you wish to have it that way. But there is no fear. There is no insecurity. And I am completely coordinated with respect to time, and reasonably well coordinated with respect to space.

But remember this, I'm in a new reality. I have the old equipment with all of the old abilities no longer modified. As such I must feel my way cautiously. As I feel my way cautiously, I begin to modify my environment, to alter it— I'm doing that right now. I must be careful not to unbalance the environment around me to the point where it is almost unable to be put back together again. This could actually occur.

QuestionThen you're building up a new reality?

That's good. When I first, that Sunday night, 'emerged', as it were, I was going on pure purpose alone. No data, no facsimiles— pure purpose. But don't ask me what this is, because I cannot tell you. Only you will know it. There was a pure cause in me. Nothing else.

It was motivated only by the extreme explicit force of my full dynamicism. I had taken myself away from contact with all facsimiles, from all data except that necessary to contact people around me.

This is different from postulates. It is the very essence of life itself. Now there are two sides to life, for me, at the moment: the activity that takes place with me and others; and the motivating force behind that activity. What is it that holds together a set of molecules? One says it is magnetism, electromagnetism. What is this? Is it a force?

One says yes, because one agrees to it. How does one understand this force? Where do you get your data to understand it? You don't. There is no data, because it in itself is itself. I can go no further than that in explaining this to you.

It began for me at the movie, and following the last auditing session. It occurred, incidentally, objectively, in probably just about a three-hundredth of a second. But I was able to reach this, and to push myself away, or to elevate myself, or to raise myself, whatever you like, to the stratum where I am at the moment.

Now, of course, I went through a reconditioning state of a week in which I reviewed all of my postulates and ran out the major— well, not the major, all the material. Now at the moment I am aggregating new data actively. I continue to do this. As I do it I modify myself.

I would like to see how, to understand how I can become immune to the effects of a radiation blast. This is good survival data. I destroy my organs to a certain extent with radiation, and see how fast I can build them up. I understand this. I, as it were, conceive of it. I comprehend it.

I am beginning to very definitely modify my ability. I'm seeking more data. I find that certain portions of my body that were previously exposed to radiation are somewhat more resilient. This means, of course, that I have the ability, born into me perhaps, to gain immunity to radiation, up to a point. What this point is, I don't know. But I have caused certain small cancers to form, and I have healed them up. Some of these are in evidence at the moment.

I would like to know fully how to be immune to radiation, and for the past few weeks I have been carrying out a program to learn this. I know a great deal about it. Now if my extrapolation into the future, my sense of the future, is correct, it shall be necessary for me to know how to survive radiation. I know how to survive extreme heat, I know how to survive extreme sound, I know how to survive extreme gravity effects, other particular toxic substances. I know now, to a very large degree, how to survive radiation. I don't know all that I can know, of this I am certain. But I am quickly learning.

Question Do you have an internal reality on an actual prediction of things to come?

Yes. Its accuracy depends upon my needs. For you it would be a psychic phenomenon; for me, no. I believe there are persons who are more sensitive to the future than others. I am also certain there are persons who can definitely alter the future more than others. It is my opinion that they belong to a different species.

Question How many species in this room? One of each?

No. There are six, apparently. A little unusual. Usually there are only two or three at maximum. I use the word, 'species' in the biological sense. They are each aligned to a different basic species goal. Their group has a certain definite basic goal which they all contribute to. These goals are not in conflict; they are harmonious.

This, of course, is the way the race has improved itself. It is like a many-celled organism. This becomes almost a cell, a particular group of the race in time. As we grow and grow, we shall form true groups of species with the goals in sight. And eventually the entire race will be a group with the coordinated species working. First come the individuals and their aims. Second come the groups and their formation. And third comes communication. Beyond that I have no data.

illusion, life, the future, and change

You know, my friends, the acceptance of illusion brings with it— there is a thing in illusion itself which says, "I am different." Always, "I am different." That's why I made up the scarecrow story. No man is basically different, but each man is unique. Each has his own goals, his own group dynamicism.

If you accept the idea of life, you do not think merely of now. You think also of the past, and most assuredly of the future. There is in every man the acceptance of the future, as far as life is concerned. Otherwise he would not wish to die.

How can a man who is partially dead think in terms of what is being? How can a man who is partially dead conceive of motion? How can a man who is not a whole man conceive of a whole motion? Part of him is always at rest.

How can a man who has destroyed himself, cell by cell, year by year, have a living basic dynamic goal that is all life? And all cause? And no effect whatsoever for him? How can individuals who have not achieved the optimum state for them talk about realities of conception? Realities of motion and goals?

They cannot. They approach these with words. But the words are modified by their postulates, by their acceptance, by their aberrations, by their lunacy. One of you says he has a "subconscious" while he is saying "I have a conscious mind." "There is a part of me up there where I make a stage, and on this stage I have actors, and they work and they play." This is not optimum. I tell you this is not.

Now he wants to know right now how he can get away from this. He says to himself, "This being very cautious, going slowly, integrating data, being very touchy about it, how can I get rid of that? How can I go fast?"

You can. The technique is now in existence. Otherwise, I would not be here. Here's a fact— unless, of course, you turn off your eyes— or your intelligence, or your nose, or component parts of your body. In that case, it’s a "belief". You are in a case that if you build a structure, your speed of building and your quality of the building is modified by what you've decided about your brain. Your abilities, your body, and your future are most definitely experienced.

Now you have insecurity. And where did insecurity come from? The acceptance of the original illusion, what we called the service facsimile, and the reason for it, the postulates involved in accepting it. You get at those and you won't have any more case. It's wide open. You just spout data out. In a twinkling of an eye, you think more than you ever thought in twenty years.

Responses to questions

the heart chakra

There are centers of communication in the body that you would probably link in with psychic phenomena, but they do not actually exist in the heart as a muscle.


I still have a slight case of astigmatism. The only way I can cure that is to regrow the cornea. But I'm not in a position to do that at the moment. Now, the astigmatism has almost completely been allowed for in my viewing system in my brain. But it still exists to a very minor extent. And, again, I have to regrow the cornea in order to do this. I can't at the moment do that. There are other things more pressing. There are rings of growth in both corneas that have to be taken out. As far as I am concerned at the moment these rings of growth are compensated for enough not to bother about them. They aren't important. Now, I find I can, if I like, turn the sight down completely, or turn it up to my extreme ability to do so, and so on. Quite simple.

The field of vision for me, as you say it, is a portion of my brain where the impulses come in, the signals. They are translated and I accept them, in that I give them meaning automatically as they come in. Each little rod and cone connects to certain segregated points and "scanning", as you would like to say, yes, does take place. Now that scanning mechanism apparently can be shut off. Yes, very much.

Meaning is attached to the signals in a location about a millimeter away. This is a very involved and a very complicated portion of the brain, much more complicated than those places taking care of sound. It's very highly developed. Just beyond the optic nerve, there is a sort of filament that goes out like this, I use my fingers to give you the impression of it, and it goes around this particular location, this globe, this island. And in here the meaning is given. Now, there is a sort of a secondary effect that spreads from there that is integrated with all the other motions, and all the other signals....

The entire thing is so well coordinated and so smooth that actually it's extremely difficult to communicate it. There is no stoppage of effort upon the acceptances of the data and action on it. It's one continuous surge, one continuous motivation going out.

space flight

Now, anti-gravity is one thing, power is another. The machine necessary to convert mass-inertia into no mass-inertia takes an enormous amount of power. And suppose you set up an artificial gravity field, and suppose the artificial gravity field would tap the resources of power that my machine can tap. The earth has an enormous gravity field, and it is totally unnecessary in bulk and volume for my machine. I can use a much smaller gravity field, but it has to be controlled and directed.

Now, this may not be necessary, but it is definitely for me— (is that going? [looks around at tape recorder] thank goodness)— for me, a survival mechanism, because there is definitely a weapon in the world of which I have no immediate personal knowledge of its destructive effects. But I'll know very shortly. I know what bullets can do, what knives can do, what poisons can do, what cancer and so-called diseases can do, and I know what human emotions can do. I know what physical impact, heat, so-called electricity can do, ultra-violet, the spectrum itself, but I don't know what an A-bomb can do. I'm finding out.

< selected transcript ends >

Return to "Meetings and Conversations"

Return to "A New Reality"