Axiom 50. Theta as MEST must contain considerations which are lies.
We live in a world of lies, in a sense, since all MEST is a departure from static state.
We saw in Axiom 37 that when a postulate contradicts – lies about – a prior postulate, it is the second postulate that persists. If something persists, it’s a lie.
A little boy may decide that girls are bad, not proper company for boys. Then he grows older and falls in love with a girl. Now he is making a liar out of himself and his new consideration that girls are wonderful really persists. He identifies strongly with his beingness as a male, which is MEST, and there are other people who are girls or women and everybody has great fun, one hopes.
But it’s all lies. His liking for girls is a natural body instinct but it is needlessly enforced by his counter-reaction to his prior decision that girls are bad, and this aberrates it. The fact that he now loves girls denies his prior postulate that girls are bad which, by the way, belies an earlier consideration that girls are kids just like him - no important difference. If he is jilted in love and can’t get over it, he may decide that all women are bad - which denies his consideration that they are wonderful, which denies his earlier considerations that girls are bad, which belies his first consideration that girls are kids just like himself.
You can make the charge on being jilted vanish by making him get the idea that girls are bad, for that was his primary consideration that he denied when he fell in love. Get the truth, and the later lies evaporate, including his misery.
These persistences get all of their power from their first postulates. Another example:
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.
PXL, chapter 16, page 197
And it may well be that the prior love was an alteration of the fact that the brother, or the rest of the nation, were just there, in the same house or country. And this fact wasn’t persistent, particularly, not important or worth paying attention to because that was just how it was. Full acceptance, full understanding, no mental MEST. And then, for some reason, after some minor dissension perhaps, they decided they loved each other.
One may track back a concatenation of postulates by running engram chains and finding their basics, or by assessing ARCxs earlier similar. We do so in auditing today. In 1954, however, Dianetics and straightwire (recall processes) had largely been abandoned. Instead, Ron had discovered that one might simply re-postulate the prior postulate. Instead of running out a bad leg one could simply get the idea of a good leg, which the pc had as a non-persisting, naturally accepted condition before he got the engram.
Or suppose George has come to hate Bill and you came along and ask him to get the idea of loving Bill. Instantly George would get the idea, then he would hesitate for a moment and become angry with Bill once more. He would be sliding from the first postulate into the second. But as you repeated the command the charge would blow and there would be nothing to slide into.
Today we would call this a rehab. The prior postulate or condition is rehabilitated or recovered.
It’s a phenomenon you have no doubt experienced in life. For instance, if you try to tell a self-critical person that he is not as bad as he thinks, he may object violently. But often you can see him hesitate for a split second before he protests. He is getting the idea of his prior consideration that he is okay and then slides into the lie. If you continue to make him get the original idea he’ll eventually recover his prior affinity, whatever it was. George may not come to love Bill again but it would at least run out his hatred. (From PXL, chapter 16, page 198).
[Section 6 The Way to Remain Sane
Subject: Player’s Toolkit]
In the former section we’ve learned the basic elements of games and how setting a goal can align one’s efforts within the barriers and freedoms in the game. This last section deals mostly with how to do so elegantly, and, not least, to do so without losing one’s mind or getting lost.
The highest purpose in this universe is to create an effect. A good game has a virtually unlimited variety of possible Cycles of Action and this provides plenty of opportunities for playing creatively in a way that permits you to unfold your abilities self-determinedly, according to your tastes, and at a delicious level of randomity.
Let’s not spoil the fun for ourselves or others who are part of our personal set of dynamics – which of course includes everybody and everything. Let’s be knowledgeable and play The Game of Life intelligently and enjoy the heady spirit of play which becomes possible when we are being thetans about it.
Axiom 51. Postulates and live communication not being MEST and being senior to MEST can accomplish change in MEST without bringing about a persistence of MEST. Thus auditing can occur.
This may be the main difference between the better kinds of psychotherapy or meditation and Scientology: In auditing the pc is allowed to answer the question and itsa whatever comes up, i.e. to experience what he experiences and explain what it looks like to him. He will simply get a good acknowledgment - without getting a solution or an opinion about it or a personal experience of the therapist given either as a datum of comparable magnitude or used to highlight certain aspects of the experience of the pc. All of these function as alter-is-nesses or not-ises of the pc’s itsa.
This simple process of listening and acknowledging eliminates aberration. Nothing further has to be done about what the pc experiences in session. No solutions need to be found because when the pressed down sevens are viewed and disappear, aberration is gone and the thetan rearranges his thinking and acting accordingly, without further ado.
It should be added that auditing is a two-way communication where the auditor and pc originate cycles of communication alternately. The auditor originates questions and commands and the pc can originate whenever he feels like it, so it balances out all by itself.
Note that an acknowledgment is part of a one one-way cycle (see Axiom 28), which is composed of origination (by the cause point, e.g. the auditor), duplication (by the receipt point, e.g. the pc), acknowledgment of reception (by the receipt point). An answer to a question or execution of an auditing command would count as an acknowledgment, and acknowledgment of this acknowledgment - or answer (by the original cause point), e.g. by an ”Okay!” or a nod of the head. Two-way communication would require the receipt point in this one-way cycle to start a complete single cycle in the opposite direction, by originating a communication, thus becoming a cause point.
Live communication doesn’t necessarily create complete as-is-ness. In life it’s usually a continuous alteration of is-nesses, but greater understanding can come about, particularly if good TRs are applied, so that each cycle of communication really is completed – with complete duplication and answer – before something new is originated. In this manner more and more mental MEST is eliminated (Axiom 24); thus stupidity diminishes (Axiom 38) and the pc can become “a thetan about life”.
Obviously, bad communication and aberration below the watershed will create more MEST than it as-ises. Complete as-is-ness, on the other hand, is a cessation of ARC leaving just the static (Axiom 35). Truth is absent communication (Old Cuff, cited under Axiom 23).
Live communication is between two live beings, two thetans. It’s not good enough to communicate with a machine set up in a mind. Solo auditing is possible, though. Self Analysis works because the pc is “audited by the author”. This works because the auditing process releases more charge than it builds up, but Self Analysis won’t take the pc all the way. A few other processes work because they function on the principle of as-is-ness without an intention to change anything directly. These include Opening Procedure of 8C (look at objects and touch them; there is no intention to change them); R2-34: Description Processing (“How does it seem to you now?”); and R2-63: Acceptance processing (“Find something about ____ could you accept”).
Live communication, obviously, is an exchange of particles in space – cause point to effect point – and it does occur on bigger Cycles of Actions which produce time. So how come live communication can occur without producing persistence, how could it not be recorded on a time track?
We could define time as the absence of communication, because in the presence of communication you don’t accumulate any. You accumulate nothing ... in the presence of communication.
9th American Advanced Clinical Course, lecture #16a: Time. 550104
This quote refers to very good communication. If any part of the communication formula is missing – acknowledgment, duplication, an expected origination from another in two-way communication – there is absence of communication. Absence of communication implies that there is an idea that there should be communication, as when one doesn’t know what to talk about to the person in front of oneself, or when one is held up in the traffic when one should, one considers, be elsewhere or be moving on. It seems to take forever. But when actual communication does take place, whatever might otherwise have been recorded on the time track is as-ised as we go.
An auditing session does contain time postulates. It is scheduled and the auditor regularly notes the time on his worksheets, but for the pc physical time is irrelevant. Old cycles are being erased, with their time continua, and a lot of time may seem to have passed at the end of a relatively short session.
The auditor, having his TRs in, adds no alter-is-ness to whatever the pc brings up; further, he continues every process until it’s flat, which means that any charge that is restimulated can be thoroughly viewed, communicated and thus as-ised immediately. Such smooth communication cycles creates minimal alter-is-ness and minimal time and persistence. Besides, since the standard auditing routines are the same in every session, charge missed in one session will be restimulated by the auditing environment itself in a later session and can then be picked up and handled. The pc soon gets a very great familiarity with the auditing procedures - he understands them very well, and communicating with persons and environments that one understands will continuously as-is any and all mechanics involved (Axiom 24).
Auditing does create some persistence but it is very minor compared to the as-is-ness that takes place. We may enjoy our case gains in life, or we may tell our grandchildren about a great auditor we once had, and this is persistence since we remain aware that something has changed and who assisted us. But, typically, the pc has forgotten a lot of the auditing he has had because it as-ised quite thoroughly.
Auditing does help us to recover and create better relative truths, for session cognitions are new knowledge. We often cognite on what really happened and often we make more accurate evaluations or conclusions. These are actually new considerations which are closer to static and better stable data than the aberrated misunderstandings, fixed ideas and attitudes we had before. Today’s aberrated truths are yesterday’s lies about the false truths of yesteryear, and auditing unravels these and sets right the past so we can let go of it.
Auditing apart, we also meet live communication in life e.g. in the state of Flow (mentioned under Axiom 1) where the full attention of the thetan is directed to what he is doing. This is possible to the degree that he knows and can control what he is doing, his immediate environment and his tools. He is aware of them as he acts but has no added awareness of this awareness. He just postulates his actions.
When we said above that truth is absent communication we referred to the principle that total understanding causes the vanishment of all mechanical conditions (Axiom 24). In this case communication is not lacking; it has been replaced by knowingness with no ARC needed.
[... total ARC gives you no triangle ... We’ve got everything coincident with everything else, haven’t we ... So we have no triangle, which is all triangle ... ”
Theta is then operating from a relatively static state to solve the problems of theta as MEST (Axiom 49). Theta as MEST is in the universe in which he is playing; the havingnesses of his actions are present within his space, which is his beingness. But his purpose to solve the problem that he has posed himself is not very prominent in the form of mental MEST; it’s not apparent to the mind’s senses and yet it directs his activity (Axiom 39). He does know what he is doing.
I mentioned above that live communication is between thetans. Ron gives the following example in a couple of places: A man shoots somebody who dies. The bullet killed him, we say, but the live communication wasn’t really the bullet, it was the finger on the trigger. But it wasn’t the finger; it was the man who decided to pull the trigger. He was cause. But he only shot the guy because his wife had upset him this morning, so he was in an unbalanced state of mind, so it’s the wife who was cause. Except the baby cried all night and that’s the reason why the wife was upset etc., etc. etc.
We get into trouble if we try to backtrack causes this way. Where should we stop? By cause, as defined in Axiom 28, we mean: “The first adjacent living thing” (8th American Advanced Clinical Course # 22: The Factors). The man in the example is the living being, the thetan closest to the bullet, so we consider him to be the cause of the live communication. The wife is the living cause once removed so she is ruled out as the cause of the killing.
Energy cannot be cause. It’s the live being who has “...volition and potential independence of action” (cited from Factor 12). MEST doesn’t decide to do anything; it just goes on being there, obedient to natural law. It was the man who pulled the trigger. It was he who created the intention to do so; he who had a choice since a thetan can act independently of the present context and of what has happened before. He doesn’t have to be swayed by what the wife did because of the baby’s deplorable behavior. He can be a thetan about life and act self-determinedly instead of responding to prior causes, impulses from his own bank etc.
So we can change our lives without creating added and unwanted persistence. We can receive auditing and have case gains. What is the result? Nothing! At least nothing as far as that particular chunk of bank is concerned. It’s gone.
Axiom 52. MEST persists and solidifies to the degree that it is not granted life.
Granting life and granting beingness are used synonymously, but we need to distinguish two phenomena:
We can make room for another person and allow him to be who he is, do what he decides to do and have what he has. This is how we should behave to our co-players.
We can flow affinity on a one-way flow toward a piece of MEST, or a person, and so endow it with life. An idol or a child’s doll can seem to take on life when it is given attention, love and care. Practised on a person, e.g. a child, that person can become a “doll” or “robot” - almost too good-looking and amenable to be true - and in fact he isn’t; he has handed his self-determinism over to the greater ARC of the other person.
Auditors are used to the concept of granting beingness, i.e. to permit a pc to be what he is being and to experience – by ARC, his “user interface” – what he is experiencing without interfering. Beingness, understanding and life are synonymous (8th American Advanced Clinical Course # 27: Factors present in good & bad auditing, 541105). When we include others in our space we are willing for them to be; when we try to change them, to make the acceptable, we are refusing to have some part of them in our space.
However, we also grant beingness to MEST – which includes both physical matter and mental MEST – when we organize it and align it to our purposes. The extreme of granting beingness in this sense would be to grant life to a statue and have it wake up and walk away (ibid.), as happened to the Greek sculptor Pygmalion. Applying this to enmested humans – “normal” aberrees – we may copy professor Higgins who taught the shabby flower girl to be a fair lady. Was she better off for it? The thetan? Probably, but that would depend on what she did with her new mental mechanisms (training patterns and habits), whether she used them self-determinedly to grow or to became a robot. A robot would be under the control of its creator, his representative, ambassador, symbol or message, rather than self-determined cause (see discussions under Axioms 13 & 35, ref. R2-21: Granting of beingness; The Creation of Human Ability, page 53-57).
ARC is what gives understanding. It is the critical factor.
... how would we interpret this with ARC? We walk up to this wooden image, we talk to it so sweetly and so convincingly that it answers back.
The pc, when allowed to do and say whatever he decides is like a wooden image, a MESTified thetan who by ARC is woken up so that he can answer the question or execute the command. But in auditing ARC is used to contact the pc, who is the thetan, not his aberrations or his body - so it’s the thetan who comes alive. Nevertheless, if the pc is fairly low-toned he is likely to be somewhat overwhelmed by the ARC of the auditor. He may key out because of this and then, after a few days, slump back into his former state because his higher tone was dependent on the auditor and his ARC. The solution is not for the auditor to lower his ARC but to establish that of the pc.
If you try to speak to the reactive bank, or even to the analytical machinery e.g. by sympathizing with a person’s suffering and show how much you commiserate, the person you are talking to becomes more MESTy. If you ignore his aberrations and speak directly to the thetan, appeal to his basic rationality and zest for life – which may be quite impoverished at first – the being himself begins to emerge. This is actually the purpose of TR4. We ignore the comments, which are aberrated, and communicate, with ARC, on the subject of mutual interest to us which in session is the process being run and in life whatever the person is willing to talk about. Originations are not disregarded but handled since they are relevant to the pc, not a banky attempt to derail the process.
Locks, secondaries and engrams are MEST - so are aberrated attitudes, emotions, sensations and pains. If we try to handle them without involving the thetan we suppress his self-determinism by letting him have no say in the matter. It would be as if a stranger came into his home and started to rearrange his furniture, ignoring his wishes and protests.
Book 1 technology erred somewhat in this direction. The auditor cooperated with the file clerk and commanded the somatic strip (the time track), both of which are mechanisms of the mind.
You realize that Dianetic reverie is the thinnest upper level of hypnotism possible
8th American Advanced Clinical Course, lecture 20: Hypnotism; 541027
Hypnotism as usually practised puts the thetan into apathy but Book I auditing did not have this effect because it was deliberately aimed at restoring the pc’s self-determinism. The intention of the auditor made the difference. A strong one-way flow of ARC can act as hypnotism as suggested above (the overly loved and cared for well-behaved child).
Hypnotism gets its power from the content of the reactive mind. The hypnotist grants beingness to the MEST of the bank. He may use it to make the client stop smoking, eat less etc. and it can seem to work. The person changes his behavior because he has been convinced, but conviction is enforced, according to Axiom 25, and there are side effects. It’s his natural, unquestioned belief that is self-determined.
Now it is TRUE that one can, theoretically, animate inanimate matter. IF one lifts a match without manual contact, by “force of Will”, he MUST imbue it with some LIFE. If one cannot imbue with life he can’t handle objects or spaces. They DEFY him. Thus the Granting of Beingness. BUT, for our purposes the auditing of this extreme of NO LIFE is not then auditing. It is ANIMATING. Anybody can ANIMATE a pc. He can actually monitor his machinery with words alone. But auditing involves RAISING THE SELF-DETERMINISM (pan-determinism) of the pc. Maybe you could imbue with life and then raise THAT into self-determinism. Maybe you do. But that is NOT auditing as we understand it. It is NECROMANCY. (Though I will admit we all practice it somewhat).
Ability Major 5, 1955 early August, Technical Bulletins, volume II, page 246-247
Capital letters in the original text
A person with a high ARC can actually swamp a person with a low ARC. An affectionate mother can make a somewhat reluctant son – the thetan – go into apathy and actually into her valence, and he will do things because “mother said so” or “that’s what mother did” (8th American Advanced Clinical Course # 23: (Third lecture on) Two-way communication; 541101. & # 27: Factors present in good and bad auditing; 541105)..
An auditor, who should certainly have high ARC, can make a pc with low ARC go through 8-C touching walls, but if the pc is unable to be interested and play games he is likely to complain about the auditing and not brighten up. The auditor has actually turned him into an automaton, a robot going through the motions, and the pc in this case is capable of resisting. The auditor should not lower his ARC, of course, but get the pc’s up by two-way communication, making sure that the pc, too, can originate and acknowledge communications. Two-way communication goes both ways and without it no auditing can occur (8th American Advanced Clinical Course #23: Third Lecture on two-way Communication; 541101).
We may push a person’s buttons or trick him into agreement by appealing to his good sense (which may be enforced as part by his culture), but we practice it also to some degree when we raise a person’s tone level by placing ourselves a little higher on the tone scale, or when we manifestly expect him to do better than he would if left to his own devices, or we appeal to his ideals about what he should be like. This encourages him, and he may indeed
do better. This is not bad at all because he is likely to catch on and begin to be more causative, and so we increase his pan-determinism after all.
But the same means can be misused to make him attempt something of which he is not yet capable, so he has losses. Or he may be persuaded to do our will without really consenting, while he is momentarily enthused because of minor wins and more able. When he slumps down to his habitual level he may experience great failure or feel abused.
When you were a child, maybe somebody tickled you so you laughed. You wanted them to stop because it didn’t feel nice but they continued to tickle you and insisted that you must like it since you were laughing. You were, in some degree, animated by them. They granted beingness to the body laughing, not you. Or maybe at some other time, when you were sad, somebody made a humorous remark to cheer you up; you couldn’t help smiling and he mistakenly thought that you were happy again and that everything was okay - but it wasn’t. You just didn’t know how to communicate, what to communicate or how to be self-determined, so you were by-passed by your own automatic reactions. In one fashion or another it has happened to all of us, and we’ve all done it to others, too.
The pan-determinism in the parenthesis in the above quote refers to the fact that true self-determinism is applied to all of a person’s dynamics, not just the first. “Self-determinism” originally included all of a person’s dynamics because they are his, but Scientologists didn’t understand this very well and so the term pan-determinism was invented. It means precisely that: self-determined on all dynamics. You don’t allow your “personal interests” or “wants” to get in the way of your thriving and flourishing on your second dynamic, third dynamic and all the rest. You are actually perfectly capable of taking the viewpoint of any person, friend, foe or devil, and then act wisely. A pan-determined person doesn’t suppress his first dynamic, though. It’s just well aligned with the rest and seen in the perspective of the dynamic whole. In order to achieve this, however, we have to start out with the lower dynamics and expand upwards (see DAX 167, cited under Axiom 24).
Summing up: We want to address our pc and our fellow thetan in life, regardless of what weird aberrations he has clad himself. It is the live static, after all, who holds all his aberrations in place (Axiom 35). Only by addressing the thetan can we induce him to as-is or let go of whatever he needs to get rid of in order to become more able, more ethical and a more interesting co-player in life.
Auditing consists of DISCOVERING a spark of A-R-C and, by process AND A-R-C fanning it into a proud flame.
Ability Major 5, 1955 early August, Technical Bulletins, volume II, page 246-247
Capital letters in the original text