6612C13 SHSpec-84 Scientology Definitions -- [Part] III

Scientology is an extension of the work of Gautama Siddhartha, 2500 years
ago. Gautama sought to end the cycle of death and rebirth, by showing an
individual that he was a spirit, not dependent on bodies. We accomplished his
goal of exteriorizing people more successfully in 1952, but the wisdom of
Buddhism was enough to civilize three-fourths of Asia. It is the oldest and
biggest religion on this planet. It predates Christianity by 500 years.
"Probably the shreds of [Buddhism came] into the Middle East with [the] silk
and spice merchants, [who, following Alexander's ventures to India in about
333 B.C., discovered that there was a Europe and] made a trade contact with
Europe. This sparked a religious revival. "Buddha predicted that in 2500
years, the entire job would be finished in the West. That's in the Pali
Canons. Well, we finished it.... Buddha never pretended to be other than
just a man," and his movement, the first international religious movement, was
open to anyone. Buddhism "has moved, ... in its technology, not one inch
further than it was pushed in Tibet, until 1952," when we started
exteriorizing people. "The essence of religion [is the fact that] Man is a
spiritual being." All religions hold this in common, but "only in Buddhism
was this ever proven."

Any forward push like Buddhism runs into SP's who are afraid that if you
got better, you might knock them off or at least stop their games. "The basic
goal of psychiatry today is to wipe out religion. They say, 'Anyone who is
religious is psychotic.'" If they succeed in knocking out our church, they
will go after bigger ones. This is "really all that it's all about. As long
as religion brings solace to Man, ... as long as churches stand, in any way,
for the spiritual freedom of Man, psychiatry will not really be able to
progress." Therefore, psychiatry should not be allowed to wipe out a small
church, and then go on to a bigger church, and a bigger church, and so take it
all over.

The government "has no right ... to comment upon religious beliefs or
practice.... They are telling us that we must not do something we are not
doing." We are not treating the sick and the insane. There is no law against
increasing people's ability or intelligence, and that is all that we are
doing. "Psychiatry is demanding its right to kill or maim any human being,
after it states that he's crazy.... If they can do that, they can control the
planet, politically." But they will fail, because they can't complete a cycle
of action or choose a right target. There is no law against making people
better or more intelligent. Also, when someone tries to cut a pure theta
line, it tends to blow up against him.

"Our victory was the victory of the individual over 'Fate' and the
universe.... If we win, everybody wins." Crushing the opposition on the way
up is hardly worth doing.

INVERSION

"It should go one way, and it goes the other [way]. It inverts. It
collapses in on itself downward.... When a person is introverted, ... he
would look in on himself.... It's a reverse scale.... As one factor
progresses, the other factor degresses.... It goes backwards."

EXTERIORIZATION

"An action which I have just described ... as the history of Buddhism."
A thetan walks out of or exists out of a body. Exteriorization is "the action
of moving out of a body." Psychiatrists boobytrap this by claiming "that
insane people can exteriorize." In fact, if they do exteriorize, they are
sane while they are exterior. [See p. , above.]

INTERIORIZATION

People who are interiorized. "Interiorization is not the reverse of
this. [It] means 'going into it too fixedly and becoming part of it', [not
just 'going into your head']. You could interiorize into work [or into] most
anything." Exteriorization means the spirit moving out of the body.

RESTIMULATION

"The reactivation of an existing incident.... Some approximation of the
original incident causes it to go into play.... There is a point where it was
restimulated.... The restimulation is usually unknown to the person. If it
were known, ... he would immediately recover.... Unknown, ... it tends to
have an effect upon the [person].... By picking up restimulations, you can
knock out of action sn engram, without running it." It is as though the
engram sat over in locker A, undisturbed and not troubling the person. Then
one day, he passes a truck, and the engram drops out of locker A, and the
person doesn't know what it is. So he becomes the effect of it. If you
picked up the moment of its restimulation, it would drop back into locker A
and cease to trouble the person. "It is upon this fact that the whole subject
of releasing depends." The erasure that occurs is the erasure of these points
of restimulation.

DESTIMULATION

"'Destimulate' means to take away the restimulation. [It] does not mean
the erasure of the original incident." It is the knocking out of the point of
restimulation.

GENETIC ENTITY

Cytology, the study of cells, conceives of an endless stream of
protoplasm passing through time, with branch tracks that are bodies. Your
current body is supposed to have originated from a sea of ammonia. By the
process of reproduction, it is supposed to have dome down to PT. If that were
the case, then somewhere along the line, a blueprint for a body would have had
to enter the line. In the days of dianetics, a good way to account for past
lives was to say that they were incidents on the GE line. [Cf. A History of
Man.] The Darwinian theory is an explanation of this unending stream of
protoplasm. We find that this theory doesn't actually hold good. Man is a
spiritual being. You should be able to find the blueprint in the body. We
used to think that it showed up on the E-meter. Actually it doesn't. Only
you do.

FIRST OVERT

This "would be the first ... on a chain of overts." If a guy has an
impulse to commit a given overt, you could trace back down the chain to the
first one, and, theoretically, he would blow the impulse. [Cf. expanded
dianetics.] But "you should not try to process a specific type of
aberration.... It's quite fatal, ... because, in the first place, it's an
eval for the case." Also, it is a condemnatory, negative-type process. It
doesn't validate the person at all. You don't validate the person by finding
his nasty habits and trying to process them." The percentiles of successes
when specific aberrations are ... addressed ... is too low. [This procedure
is-] not successful, because [you are not validating] what's right with the
person.... You don't have to find out what's wrong with a person ... to make
him right." You just get the guy to be able to communicate. Then you get him
to look at his problems, and you find out that he has been resolving them by
committing overts. You get him over doing this. Then you find that he is
very ARC broken with life, and you get him over that. Then he gets to where
he discovers that he has a great "solution" to everything, "and every time he
has a bad break, he goes and lies down and is a horse, or something." But we
are not interested in his solutions, and "we're not treating him for that
reason.... All of these things are simply increasing the abilities of a
spirit, not 'healing' what's wrong with it."

ENTRANCE POINT TO THIS UNIVERSE


Classified information. Many times on the time track, one has been told
that he just entered this universe. It is a big swindle.

OT ACTIVITIES

"Those programs conducted by OT's to assist scientology."

ANCHOR POINTS (Gold Balls)

A body is constructed in a space framework. You can see these things.
At least, some people can. When a person has dark hollows under his eyes, it
is all the little gold balls grouped together under the eyes that have caved
in and gone black. If you could shift the gold ball framework of the body,
you could probably bend joints backwards, etc. Every once in awhile,
somebody's face is out of shape, or something, and you get him to pick up the
gold ball and put it back where it belongs, or something. Or you get him to
put a bunch of balls out there to remedy his havingness of that particular
ball. This is anchor point processing, from 'way back when. All of a sudden,
instead of lying against his face, the gold ball goes back where it belongs,
and the PC reasserts his sense of balance. His face will actually change
shape. This has to do with the structure of bodies and what the space is, in
which the body is formed. It is apparently one of the ways in which bodies
are mocked up. "I wouldn't look for them, if I were you. It's rather fraught
with disaster, in some cases." Gold balls are used in mocking up the body in
space.

FIRST AND SECOND POSTULATE

If you find the first postulate that was made, relating to a certain
situation, you can ignore the second postulate. About 1952, LRH tried to make
an end-all of this. He looked for the first postulate that one ever made, on
the track. [See pp. 14-15, above, on the first and second postulates.] We now
find that "it's not necessary to have that."

ENERGY

"A potential of motion or power." The modern physics definition is that
energy is small waves flowing. It is a force or a flow, or a potential force
or flow from something to something, or ability to accomplish work, or to
accomplish movement. A rather doubtful idea that we are taught to believe is
that if something moves from point A to point B:

1. You need energy.

2. You develop energy.

If you [really] know about the system of energy, you won't need huge amounts
of energy to move particles. If a person really understands something, he can
do remarkable things with it. Modern physics hasn't done that well with
rocketry. It is not very efficient. So energy is potential or actual motion
or force.

FLOW

Progress of particles, impulses, or waves from point A to point B, or in
any direction. There is a direction to it, which rather outlaws the idea of a
dispersal. A dispersal is not a flow. A flow has the connotation of being
somewhat directional. If something flowing off a mountain is getting wider
and wider, it can cease to be a flow and become a flood. Energy is a flow of
particles, waves, etc., in some direction. A flow is a limited and
directional progress of particles through space.

THOUGHT

Not to be confused with life and the spirit. A thought is a "spaceless,
positionless product of a thetan, containing meaning." The Greeks confused it
with life. The original mistake is in the word, "theta". For the Greeks,
"theta" meant life or thought. Thought is not life and it is not a spirit.

LAMBDA

Life, in the dianetic axioms [Dianetic Axiom 11]. It is an unused
symbol, today.

NOTHING

This "implies that the thing is, but is being 'not-ed'. You couldn't
not-is something that wasn't, in the first place.... It's an assertion
against fact."

COUNTER-EMOTION

"The emotion which greets the emotion." It is point A exerting an
emotion against point B. Emotion is normally something that has flow,
wavelength, and meaning mixed up with it. "Any emotion could counter any
emotion." So counter-emotion means any emotion that is countering an existing
emotion. When you take apart the emotion in a bank, you can pick out the
emotion and counter-emotion. A counter-emotion is the emotion that is used to
meet a situation and which does meet it. Counter-emotion is an interesting
study. It is related to politics and control of humans. For instance, the
counter-emotion to Hitler's rage, in Germany, was enthusiasm. The advertising
field is also very interested in counter-emotion. The advertising exec comes
up against it, because he tries to counter want with an emotion. But want
isn't an emotion, so there is no counter-emotion. [So you have to know what
emotion could create a desire for the product and counter that.]

MEMORY AND RECALL

There is "no difference between these two terms that's significant to the
auditor.... Recall, however, implies that you bring it up to present and look
at it. It has that connotation, whereas "memory" has the connotation that you
simply knew it had happened. [So the two terms have] two different
connotations." But they are very easily interchanged, because a person
doesn't have to bring things up to PT when he is clear. He doesn't do this
any longer. There are a lot of things that he doesn't bring up to PT to
recall them. He can recall them in detail and tell you exactly where they
are, without having them brought up into the present to review. To that
extent, the modern clear is far in advance of the Book One definition of
clear. "The reason one can't recall is totally contained in the fact that his
memory is totally surrounded by mass which prevents him from recalling." If
you got rid of all the mass of the mind, you wouldn't have anything to
recall. Correct? Actually, it doesn't work that way at all. When you get
the mass off, recall is easy. It is undue duress in the incident that
prevents recall. So the individual gets a picture of the incident to read it,
because he can't enter the incident where it is. The mental energy you used
in bailing out of a lions' cage would prevent you from remembering that you
had been in the lions' cage. Therefore, "amnesia" is the situation where a
person is "protecting himself" from so many dangers on the track that the mass
prevents penetration, because the part of the track for which he has amnesia
is so heavily charged.

CONFIDENCE

"An expression of trust." Degree of trust. Inflation is an expression
of no confidence in the government. Money is a symbolized idea that goes bad
when confidence in the issuer drops. That is why they put pictures of kings
and presidents, etc., on money. They try to associate [money and its
issuer]. Trust (and distrust) is composed of past experience. "Total trust
is looked on as total idiocy, but it is the only condition under which you can
exist." We didn't arrive through suspicion!

CERTAINTY

"The degree of willingness to accept the awareness of an isness." It is
a very conditional thing, since, in the first place, it is questionable
whether any mass has mass. A scientologist does not start out from, "Where
did the wall come from?", but just from, "Is the wall there?" And if it is
there, the scientologist can have certainty on it. It is possible to generate
uncertainty by asking, "What is?" Brainwashing is the trick of mixing up

certainties. To unconfuse someone, it is only necessary to have him regain
some certainties. A person ARC breaks if his certainties get shifted. An
education can be made hypnotic by qualifying everything, so that it becomes a
sort of generality, and definitely an uncertainty.

GENERALITY

"Any unspecific statement ... tends towards a generality. It's the
substitution of a plural for a singular, or ... a greater for a lesser." This
may or may not be intentional. Dispersed people talk in generalities.
Classifying anything comes under this heading. For instance, it is not really
"boys". It is "boy, boy, boy, etc." [Cf. Korzybski's General Semantics.]
Classifying is necessary, but it is very dangerous. Classifications occur in
the bank. "They" is always one person. You will always find out exactly who
"they" is, on a meter. The generality is the primary tool of the SP. It is
used to prevent reach, as in "Everything is all covered with germs, Johnny!"

SUPPRESS

To squash. To sit on. To make smaller. To refuse to let reach. To
make uncertain about his reaching. To render (liquefy by heating) or lessen
in any way possible, by any means possible, to the harm of the person and the
fancied protection of the suppressor. The SP often expresses generalities to
the suppressed person, thus surrounding him with generalities. The invention
of "germs" was a bit suppressive. The suppressive uses tricks and mechanisms
to prevent reach.

POSTULATE

To generate or think a concept. A concept is a think, a thought. To
postulate implies a requirement that something goes, stops, turns white, goes
blue, or remains blue. Or that it is something, or that it isn't something.
Or that some action is going to take place, etc. A postulate implies
conditions and actions, rather than just plain thinks. A postulate is
associated more with intention than it is with a thought. It has a dynamic
connotation.

HAVINGNESS

The feeling that one owns or possesses. It is possible to wear a coat
without having a coat. Mere possession does not make havingness.

CONFRONTING

"Ability to front up to." "Confronting" is derived from
"with-fronting". So there is a dim connotation that if you confront the door,
the door is confronting you. Co-action is implied, but this does not actually
exist, in our meaning of the word. Confront is the ability of the individual
"to face up [to], look at, stand up to, stand in front of, be near, see,
visualize, or otherwise perceive, something." By extension, if you can't
confront something, you can't handle it. Thetans have been steam-rolled by
confronting. Total confronting is not the total answer. There are times to
stand up and glare, and there are times not to. When a person can selectively
confront or not confront anything, then, of course, he has total power. These
do go together. When a thetan doesn't want to confront something, he tends to
mask it, to turn away from it, and it tends to make him an effect. If he
can't make an effect on it, it can make an effect on him. However, in fact,
to stand in front of an automobile going 60 MPH and to let it run over you,
just to demonstrate that you are not afraid of confronting it is assininity.

If you ask a person whether he can confront an automobile going 60 MPH
and he comm lags, you know that he is down into an obsessive confront and
feels that there is some sense in your asking him to do it. He has the idea
that there is something wrong with him if he won't go and do this. Willful
and knowing confronting or willingness to conceive the idea of or to confront or not to confront -- these concepts are all contained in the single idea of
confronting. If you felt that you had to be able to stand up to anything,
that would be "to confess that you couldn't stop anything from occurring."
I'm willing to confront putting my arm out to an automobile traveling 60 MPH
and having it stop. To that extent, I am willing to confront.

This is not conditional confronting. "What are the conditions under
which you would be willing to confront this?" is not a fair question. No one
wants to lead a life of ruin, though some have made it into a virtue [e.g. the
Stoics]. It is a philosophical booby trap. They persuade people that they
should be willing to live a life as dope-addicts, bums, and in total ruin, in
order to demonstrate that they can confront this kind of life. That is
suppression. It has precious little to do with sanity. But it is a terrific
process, in that the individual will come up to finding out what he is
obsessively confronting, as well as what he is willing to confront and what he
doesn't have to confront. One thing he might find out is that he doesn't have
to go on confronting forever. In fact, he is quite tired of standing there.
[So a desire to have a challenge concerning existence only relates to being
willing to engage in a larger game.]

As the power to confront or not arises selectively, an individual's
self-determinism arises accordingly. Very often, a thetan who never likes to
be moving explains the fact that he got run over by X, by saying that he was
perfectly willing to confront it. He is happy that he got run over by X,
because now he has had such an experience. He says, "Well, it was a good
experience, but I never want to do it again." When a person can control
things, he can selectively confront. When he loses that ability, he says,
"Well, at least I can confront it." The thought that you can't do anything
about anything is very humanoid and deadly. There is suppression at work, if
a person gets the idea that because he has the ability to confront anything,
he must therefore confront everything. This is an invalidation of his ability
to control and change undesirable aspects of the environment. This is SP
talk. It is very different from being willing to confront anything. It is
only when you lose the ability to handle a situation that you justify your
inability by the thought that you can confront the disaster that thereby
ensues.

"We've run out of time. I leave you confronting your sins. Thank you."