FIRST SESSION
January 20, 1952

Sunday, January 20, 1952:  Twelve of us are in the second-floor offices our group had rented near the University.  As in earlier meetings, we're sitting at a long table, drinking coffee, talking about what we'd been doing, what had worked for someone, what hadn't worked for someone else.  When N enters the room,  it's clear to everyone that a great change has come about.  As he joins us at the table, he begins to speak and, as one of us hurries to set up a tape recorder, Tom takes some hasty notes.  What follows is verbatim from those notes.  N is speaking:

I estimate one week to clear all postulates, two weeks to repair old injuries -- in two weeks I will feel much better.  I must eliminate the toxins of a lifetime.

I am using many efforts now, to move, to think, to breathe, to rehabilitate control centers.  I'm conscious of all these, and of all my musculature.

My major goals, in order, are to withdraw;

to go to the stars -- not necessarily by means of spaceships;
and to gain complete control of my adaptation of MEST to myself.

I have a split-second perception of the actuality of time -- there is a red-hotness, a bubbling...

basic cause... time is static.

I feel like a localized entity, with self-constructed tensions and balances.

I can dissolve what has been done with raw purpose from this MEST.
The sensations of MEST and THETA are two different sensations.

I have two types of perception -- sight, hearing, feeling, etc., as localized tensions.  If I coordinate these [two types] I perceive the entire universe of MEST.  There is also a web-like communication system.  THETA?  Dunno.

I perceive a certain slanted lattice-like structure.  It is the essence of motion.

and then the tape transcript begins:

Let’s try the experiment, as soon as Don sits down.

Don: Let’s see how this records… would you say a couple of words?

Abracadabra and gobble-honk [laughter]

Tom: Prime, hmmm?

Yeah – with a dirty mustache at that. That was the day I broke the back. You didn’t see me then – I wore a mustache – an adolescent periwig – […pause…]

All right, let's try the experiment. Everyone close their eyes.

Your object is to isolate yourself in space, isolate yourself in time, isolate yourself from the influences of energy. Now to do this, you have to listen to my voice. There's no counter-effort against you, only your effort to isolate yourself. Now you have to align your desire, your dynamics, along with what I tell you to do. [...pause...] I assume all of you are doing this.

Now attempt to feel the something inside your skull, an idea of a vibration— a moving, living, motion— something vibrating. It's like a tiniest whisper that exists throughout the universe. It's a perfect, coordinated metric system. It's a higher level than sense perceptions. It has to do with the key— Now keep trying.

There's no counter-effort present, no counter-emotion. Your efforts are all directed toward this particular understanding. Don't go back in your past history. Stay up in present time. [...pause...]

All right. Let's all open your eyes, now. Does anyone get the same idea, any type of perceptic whatsoever? Any feeling of motion?

Pat: A concept....

Tom: Definite feeling of that vibratory motion, but not localized.

Pat: I got the same here. I couldn't tell whether it was my blood stream, or muscles, or my imagination, or what the hell it was....

Well, it does exist. In any case, I feel that this is the basic manipulator, the lever by which we, as human beings, after our decision to become human, manipulate matter, energy, space and time. Along these lines of ebb and flow, of wax and wane, of cause and effect, we bring about the corruption and alteration of matter, energy, space and time into our local bodies, and we continue it.... Everything else is mostly chaotic.

What is not the result of life is, as far as we are concerned, chaos— at my present level of understanding. If there is a directional purpose for non-life "matter" as such, I don't know of it. Now this ties in with the idea that MEST, as such, is no such thing. By virtue of theta existence, MEST is brought into being, when and if desired. Thus how do we create a building? How do we create a rock? How do we create the sun? I don't know yet.

Gene: Then the material universe, as such, was created by theta?

Definitely. At the moment I would say so.

Gene: Do you place a beginning, in the sense of a point in time?

There's no such— it's meaningless.

Tom: What about galactic dynamics?

It's actually a higher life form, in some ways.

Pat: What?

Galactic dynamics.

Tom: You've seen pictures of the spiral galaxies....

Um-hmm. He's talking about the production of nebulae, the production of worlds and suns, destruction, grouping, forming, collections of energies, directions. I would say, off-hand— I can make a very good analogy— these things are higher life forms. But they're beyond our understanding at the moment. But again....

I have a whole new world to explore....

Now one of the major problems with which I have wrest, and have achieved some solution, is what to do with my own central activities and my environment. My basic purpose is, again, to withdraw. You consider this, now and in the future. What shall I do in the— near future? Perfectly normal. I shall knock off as many responsibilities as I possibly can.

Tom: Do you have any more knowledge bearing on what we were talking about a couple of months ago?

Self-coordination of protein?

Tom: No. On the international situation.

No. Static. The same. The situation hasn't altered. I told you I thought it would. To the best of my knowledge at the moment, it is reasonably the same, and you can expect similar predictions, and the—acme—of predictions will arrive in a very short time. The crisis that I spoke of is past.

Tom: Well?

That's enough.

Tom: No, I didn't mean, "Well, is there more?" I meant, "Was it well?"

I would say, it is neither. War is a very amoral institution. It doesn't decide anything— it goes nowhere— has no goal.

Pat: How about a brief summary of your awareness levels?

Well, physically, they extend all the way down to my bones, and they seem to want to extend below that. Now, by concentration of effort, I can go down below that level to a crystalline level, which is a new concept. I think protoplasm, as such, is a pseudo-crystalline structure and I can sense this. I cannot truly sense a molecular level or an atomic level.

Gene: This pseudo-crystalline— is that structure?

There are localized nuclei that tend to stay in the same position with time, at a reasonably static [location? ed.]. They can grow, by deposition, in protoplasm. Possibly this might be a way of acquiring energy for motion.

Gene: Are there any planes involved in these crystals?

Yes. They have some of the crystalline laws but it is strictly in a pseudo-sense: they have no hardness in that sense. They do have dimensionality. They do have local nuclei.

Gene: Does it have any direct connection with the framework, as an external or internal phenomenon, that you were speaking of?

No, it does not.

How long can you people maintain sustained communication? Very long? How many minutes? How many seconds? How many minutes can you communicate in present time?

Tom: With whom?

With anyone.

Tom: I'd say about twenty-five minutes.

Pat: That's a hell of lot longer than I could!

I have to learn a new technique, a new skill.... I feel very good about you all. Personally— everyone in the room— about the group...[pause]…Even the poor psychotics.

I feel that if I wanted to, I could generate affinity in almost a pure form. I can certainly communicate my reality to you up to a limited degree— but it is so new to me, give me time, please, to find out what happened to myself. I feel an intense desire to laugh and laugh and laugh. Howl!

Gene: As a physical manifestation of what?

I don't know, frankly. Relief?

Pat: Now this key you were talking about— This throbbing concept for conveying— Does it have anything to do with the key to release things?

It has to do with the direction of MEST. Alignment of purpose of MEST. In other words, the same. If I were to construct a lump of coal (it took MEST two hundred— twenty million years?) it might take me ten millionths, twenty millionths of a second, if I were to use the key. I can duplicate it. To duplicate an atom, instantaneously with time— possibly two or three millionths of a second as I know it. In other words, at will. The only inertia is the basic inertia of matter itself, which could mean my theta communication with it.

Pat: Could I ask the group here some questions?

Surely.

Pat: What questions do you have, Sarah?

Sarah: I don't have any— but I'm observing— thinking...

Pat: Think of one — think of one — you may never have another opportunity! [laughter]

Tom: He may withdraw!

Gene: When we were attempting to carry out the directions, the perception of this key, or this point of contact between theta and MEST, I experienced a perception of something that was not in my head; however, it was not spatially coordinated but was simply outside of me.

No. There's a lot of counter-emotion, counter-effort. There apparently are residual things in a room. One can sense past activities in here. Even before we were here— laughter and gaiety— and grief— they're actually still existing within the confines of this room.

Pat: By the same token, then, you should be able to sense our emotions, counter-emotions, and so on.

I can, to a large degree.

Don: The question I have is--more data on communication--various parts of the body— what tends to block it? Processes you go through to unblock it?

Very easy answer to that— very easy: self-determinism. I have answered your question. Pat has all the data you need.

Pat: We're all going to search for something that will help us so that we won't have to help ourselves.

Sarah: No, I want to help myself but I want to have the data to do it the fastest and the quickest way.

Tom: May I jump my turn?

Surely.

Tom: Ummmm....

Incidentally, emotion is actually a volatile. I can bring it on, literally, if I care to. I can throw it away. I can sustain it, interrupt it, and so on.

Tom: Do you remember how many hours you had of this type of processing?

By myself, about twenty. With Pat, approximately thirty, counting all the times we've been together. Actually, he processed me continuously from the time he saw me until just recently.

Pat: I'll start pushing buttons again hoping he'll process me.[laughter]

The presence of an auditor with new knowledge is in itself a theta characteristic. Incidentally, I've learned something new: how to create.

Pat: Yeah! Say, that's interesting. Go on!

I can sum it up: in school I was taught how not to create. I have now learned how to use my thoughts in creating. It's a different sensation from thinking. I feel as if I were a receptacle. Theta itself is a creative purpose. Pure creation. Pure cause. If (by analogy) I present to theta the problem, as a receptacle I receive the answer, but the answer is pure concept. It may take, I would imagine, a thousandth of a second for the concept to arrive and depart. Now, at the moment, I have spread most of my attention over my time track [...pause...] and there are certain problems which will have to be resolved. And there are certain problems which will be presented as if I were a receptacle, again, so I have not only myself to draw on. I have an apparent higher stage. Now this higher stage may have been invented by myself. I don't think it was. I am in full communication with my nervous system so I'm quite certain it was not. There are certain residual postulates left over that might indicate a trend in that matter, but I'm reasonably certain--within approximately ninety-five percent--that they are not involved.

But I am in communication with something else.

Now, you've all had flashes of intuitive answers at some time in your existence, possibly in your childhood. The feeling of bursting light-- water thrown on you— warmth— sudden fire in your brain— awareness that occurs in a split second: that's the same sensation. But it's true creating. You have to unlearn how to think socially. You have to unlearn the stupidity of our educational system. You have to get back your own reality which was taken away from you by your teachers. You agree to it, of course, in order to communicate. In doing so, you lessened your ability to create. If you gain back your ability to create, you re-create your own reality, your own communication and you communicate with yourself— [...pause...] A marvelous sensation, to be able to do that.

Tom: Creating sensations? Perceptions?

No. Even ideas. One of my problems now is to raise my intelligence, by creating new nervous matter, as a new receptacle. I was told this couldn't be done— but I am proving that it can be.

Pat: What relation does thought have to this system?

Thought permits it to happen.

Pat: About this concept that was presented— the individual is composed of counter-effort solely, which he uses as his effort.

Quite true.

Pat: Thought permits it to happen, from a static?

It has to, by virtue of its intermingling with MEST. The individual is composed of counter-efforts of MEST itself, as a chaos.

Pat: Oh, yeah. I follow you.

Joe?

Joe: Well, there are plenty of questions....

The best one you want to answer— if you, as it were, reintegrate yourself and come fully into the room.... Can you do that? Try? I don't think you're doing it yet.... Want to wait a while, hmmm?— We're willing to let you. [...pause...] I feel of all the people in the room that you are the one who would like to ask the most fundamental question.

Joe: Yeah— it involves control centers. It's a very simple question and I've known for some time that I probably had the answer....

What about them? What do you want to know? I can tell you certain things, basically. You can atrophy them, isolate them, can even destroy them— you can amplify them, actually drive them crazy in a sense, in that they lose their ability to coordinate. Rehabilitation of control centers is done mostly by getting rid of the emotion connected with the destruction, atrophication, amplification of the control center. Any shock of MEST directed against your body tends to lessen control of the control center, if you permit it. Now why do you permit it at all? Because you want to agree. Because basically your goal is to get together with other pieces of theta. In doing so you agree to some of these things because you have conceived this is the way to do it. Thus you lessen control of your own control centers. You shift the control and you atrophy them. To rehabilitate them, run off the emotion connected with loss of control or atrophication of control, or overcontrol, which happens also. I think you'll have to get rid of quite a bit of counter-emotion before you do that— that you have accepted. Does that answer your question?

Joe: That's it. Now— the question really is.... [...pause...]

Yes?

Joe: Well, the answer's right there.

Harry: The only question I can ask and will probably know the answer to very shortly myself.... But you interested me with your statement of your ability to sense counter-emotion--as a practical one in auditing.

I feel that I can easily analyze each case in the room. I feel— I give you this with a little regret— I don't like to feel, as a postulate of my own, that I should be this way— because of the affinity I have for all of you.

Pat: Is this on the basis of counter-emotion only?

Yes.

Pat: Nothing else involved?

No.

Pat: O.K. with me. I told you which way I wanted to go. I don't want to know the analysis. I want to know— is this right? Or am I wasting time?

Umm-hmm. It's right.

Pat: (interrupting Tom) — Self-determinism.

Tom: I keep digging deeper each time.... [laughter]

Pat: I'm sorry, I apologize!

You see, I'm in a very precarious position. I feel affinity and sympathy for all of you. That is to say, I can, and in fact I— desire— to help all of you. In doing so I lower my own tone. I raise yours. And the point is, how far can I lower it? How low can I let the water go, and still retain control of my own existence as such, and improve myself?

Pat: My request is that you maintain your own control, and the hell with us.

It's a very hard request— [...pause...] It's different now.

Pat: I would prefer it— for myself.

All right.

Tom: Yeah. I was wondering.... I don't know just how to phrase it— you can sense the counter-emotion. I can—-feel—-how you can sense that, very well, and I had to make a terrific resolve not to be self-conscious about it. Can you sense purposes?

Yes. Goals.

Tom: Am I on the— right track? I don't know what it is— consciously.

Yes. You are, basically. Your whole body, your very attitude, your manipulation of your body, your face, activities in past. Very definitely. Every person has his goals— no matter how atrophied they may be. And they still are expressed day by day, motion by motion, thought by thought, as in me. Of course there is an extreme beyond which I can't go. I seem to be able to sense goals, the purpose of your life, counter-emotion, counter-effort, from the standpoint of human counter-effort. Even basic desires seem to be expressed. You read a man's face as though it were a book. Really.

Pat: Rough life, isn't it?

Joe: Not at all.

Sarah?

Sarah: I haven't any questions. I'm just soaking things in. It hasn't got to the question stage yet.

Now, very shortly, as you communicate these things that have occurred to other members, to other people, there will be inquiries— profound ones.

Pat: The question is, what do you want to do about it? How do you want to handle the situation?

Too many factors involved. It's too hard to predict. I'll have to wait a while.... [...pause...] Incidentally, the final step of all is the rehabilitation of your control centers. Once you've done that, you're over the hump, I assure you.

Pat: I gathered that.

I think the easiest way to do that, for the majority of you, is to run off your counter-emotion. Run it off thoroughly, completely. Again and again and again. I even think it's possible with certain individuals to progress toward complete, direct rehabilitation of the control centers. I think last night, when I shifted and finally balanced out those two control centers, I actually, literally hit the hump and went over it. The last mountain was crossed.

Sarah: Am I correct in assuming that they should be equal?

Yes. Now there is a purpose even beyond that. I feel that as soon as I get "finished" with my reliving, rehabilitation, that there will even be a higher control center. Now, this is only supposition on my part.

Pat: Will this be in terms— supposition-wise— in terms of these two?

Somehow they are knit together. Knitted— literally knitted. By pure communication. Incidentally, it hurts when you get your control centers balanced out. Definite— pain. Very definitely. It's amazing [...pause...] The emotion itself can sometimes be translated into pain if you've got enough apathy on it. Deep apathy apparently produces a certain amount of physical pain. [belches] But it is a different type of pain. It's a dull pain; not a sharp tearing of the cells or a change of their location. [...pause...] There's not enough communication in the room at the moment. Come on, boys, wake up! [laughter]

Tom: Remember our multiple auditing?

It works very nicely. I think it should be carried on further.

Tom: What happens?

I would say that as receptacles you train your sights, as it were, on a common denominator. An individual can be aided in rehabilitating his control centers. There is a definite sensation for the individual with multiple auditing. However, counter-emotion plays an extremely important part. It is the essence of the game. You can ruin or make the session with counter-emotion.

Pat: Can I ask you for a scan of the session? From your point of view, what things did I do or not do which interfered with your processing?

In the last session? Nothing.

Pat: The session before?

You very definitely interfered several times— by agreeing too much or suggesting too much.

Pat: How about counter-emotion?

It's good. Very definitely. Excellently done. You have high skill in that regard, as far as I'm concerned. For another case, you might not; in my case, you did.

Gene: [inaudible]

The word "why" I think is a very unfortunate semantic misconception. The mere conception itself is unfortunately unsemantic. There's no such thing as "why".... How? Yes. Purpose? Yes. What does a child mean when the child asks "why?"

Pat: "How does it happen?

How does it happen? What is its cause? How does it work that way? As an adult, what do you mean when you say "why"? You want several things. First of all, you want satisfaction. You want realignment of your own goals. You want sympathy. You want agreement. You want to be reassured that you are correct, and if you are incorrect, you want to erect your citadel so you can disagree with the verdict. That's "why" as an adult.

Gene: [inaudible]

The content of "how" is again bound up with cause and effect and goals— Wherever there's cause— there's always effect, but there's not necessarily effect by itself— it's antecedent to where there's always cause and effect. Now, again, take a child. A child is in itself a cause. It says, "Why?" The effect of the answer will modify the cause of the child— if the child accepts what it thinks to be a cause. Actually this is no cause at all. This is an effect.

changing tape - some conversation lost

Pat: What I would like to do— I think this might be advisable— if everyone here would try to think of some damn stupid question somebody is going to ask him, and let's get 'em out.

Get as wild as you can.

Tom: Someone sent me a paper about theta perceptics. What would you say about "theta critters"?

I don't know yet. That's a genuine answer. His data and my data are two different things. I'm a different cause. A different segment. It may be that I shall view these same things.

Tom: Another stupid question— are we property?

Pat: Charles Fort, William Blake?

No, we're not property. At least not so far as I know. And that's a certainty. I know, in this case. We're not property.

Pat: Harry, do you remember all the questions that you had when you first read the first book?

Harry: Yeah, I remember a lot of them.

Tom: "What's across the bridge?" was one of mine.

View one of the activities of theta this way: It is to conquer--yes. Conquest--yes. It's also merely to act, and its action must be as direct as possible with the least distance involved as possible. Human beings use the least effort necessary to accomplish the goal. So does theta. Anything above this represents an overabundance which is superfluous.

Pat: I'll be darned!

It follows very nicely. A new concept for me also.

Pat: It's entirely new--entirely new.

Tom: Can you either repeat it or clarify it?

Pat: The relationship between theta and MEST, which has never been resolved until this particular time. Nothing in common.

Can you get the concept of theta as the least being with a directed purpose? If you can get that— [...pause...] Wait a while on that. I have more computations on that. I think in about a week I can answer more questions— more feasibly

Pat: Will you agree to answer questions?

Oh, surely.

Pat: Let's get real wild here—

Yes. These questions are too mundane.

Sarah: What do you intend to do with these new powers?

I haven't got any new powers.

Pat: All right, there's the answer.

They've always existed.

Don: What are you going to do with those you have— taken back, after having given them away?

Given away to what?

Don: Well--"self-determined" them away.

I haven't given away any powers and I haven't received any powers back. All I have done is recover the full use of my control centers. And I am at this moment, and will continue to do so for some time, reintegrating all of my purposes, goals, postulates, effects, causes, until I have rid myself of all my agreements to be, as it were, modified cause.

Gene: Can you use telekinesis?

No. Until I get down to the molecular level, no— the atomic level. However, I think telekinesis is a feasible possibility— based upon this vibratory effect. Now I have agreed with MEST, as it were, to modify myself as pure cause into some effect. I have taken the—least—amount to do this. Thus I am definitely curtailed. I shall continue to be curtailed. You'll all feel this sooner or later—the limitations of your particular "body".... However, I assure you it is a very magnificent machine. It has many actions and "powers" (put it that way) of which you have no knowledge at the moment. I'm quite sure there are several in me, perhaps two or three hundred, of which I have no knowledge consciously at the moment. I never learned to use them. By agreeing at an early age to be more and more socially human, I ignored them, thrust them aside. They are somewhat atrophied. I'm partially dead— even now— and I shall bring myself back to life in the maximum possible extent.

Wild questions! If some wide-eyed, harebrained female should walk in here—

Tom: Assuming past existences in MEST form--if that assumption is correct?

It is.

Tom: It's logical to assume future ones?

Umm-hmmm. There's a direct purpose. If you get this concept of "time" you'll realize that. You'll see how it coordinates. As soon as you actually get this concept (it will come to all of you), you will see that the future is not an enigma— but apparently I don't possess the power to travel into it to any marked degree. From time to time, yes. That is, from instant facsimile to instant facsimile— yes. But no marked conscious control.

Tom: Is it likely that in future existences you will lessen your self-determinism?

I don't know....

Tom: Well, that was what I meant.

Suppose an A-bomb exploded right in the pit of my stomach?

Tom: You suppose it.

It could happen.

Gene: Do you expect to retain conscious data of this life in a future existence?

I don't know.

Gene: Do you have any ideas on the concept of Brahmin adepts?

No.

Tom: All facsimiles are available to you?

The majority of them, yes. Back on the time track, there is, by analogy, a straight black line extending back to conception and beyond. There are one or two little bulges on the line that I have to go around yet. These can easily be resolved by the end of the week, I'm quite sure. All facsimiles, all postulates contained therein, which means time-cut by time-cut by time-cut, from the minimum to the maximum, all these shall be explored, and thus all facsimiles shall be available. Now, one of the problems which I shall have to solve is, "What will I do with my facsimiles?" I am, of course, modified by my past. How much can "theta" aid me? As a concept. I don't know the answer to that question yet. [...pause...] Wild questions! These are too technical.

Gene: How did you do it?

It all started in a movie. I'm quite certain about that now. It was the Christmas story— downtown— with Alistair Sim. I sat in the movie and I heard the spirits of Christmas Past, Christmas Present, Christmas Yet To Be. And there was Ebenezer Scrooge's grave, and there was I. For approximately thirty seconds I was wide open, in full communication with myself. And I literally saw God.

And I found Him. That is to say, Something. Tears came to my eyes— It was grief— regret— exaltation. For the first time in my life I genuinely asked myself, "Where the hell am I going?" And it was no place. I had become mostly effect, damn little cause.

So I stopped. The resolution was made then: be honest, above-board and open, and if this technique would work at all, to give it a chance. Quit playing, lying, patty-caking, avoiding, and so on. That's when it all started— a movie for me. I don't know what it will be for you. That's your own decision to make. You might say I had reached an epicenter? an apogee? an accident? I don't know. [...pause...] Nevertheless, that's what started it off. Then there were a few other items. [...pause...] My own home life increased the resolve. Pat’s returning here, again, and finally the application of these techniques. In each case there was, after each session, enthusiasm, then a letdown as I returned home, then a further resolve to be honest and to be self-determined. With honesty, I assure you, comes self-determinism. And the basis of honesty is communication. Without that—

Sarah: What kind of communication?

From the very basic physical level to the most abstract. I'm sorry to say it that way.

Pat: That's a gradient scale.

Tom: Counter-emotion has a lot to do with it. Will what decisions I make—

Suppose a man comes up to you and hits you in the pit of the stomach. What happens now?

Tom: I lose my wind.

What are you going to do about it?

Tom: Bend over and gasp.

Why?

Tom: I can't breathe.

Who said so?

Tom: I feel it.

 Are you certain about that? Do you have to feel it? Do you have to agree with the blow?

Tom: I don't know.

Have you ever seen anyone else hit in the pit of the stomach and bend over?

Tom: I did it.

Now, when I was in an automobile accident, I went into a state of shock. I went into a state of shock because I thought that was the way to best survive an automobile accident. Actually, I could have gotten up and walked away--immediately--after having been thrown to the street. But that was, for me, the way to survive an automobile accident, because of previous data, so I survived it--and got a grade A-1 facsimile out of it.

Pat: That, in other words, is an explanation for the reason why data itself is aberrative— various kinds have been accepted in various ways. One question that is sure to be asked: "What must an auditor do to enable the individual to proceed?"

Want to.

Pat: Now go through the rest of it.

Know his technique and ascertain his counter-emotion and rehabilitate the self-determinism of the individual.

Sarah: What counter-emotion should an auditor put forth?

Depends upon the case. In my case, I think Pat did very well, with a few mistakes. Apathy— raise them up just a little bit, a degree. Beg him— if you can get to him at all. If you can't— imitation, mimicry. If you can— grief. Up with grief— fear. Up fear— irritation, anger, rage, terror, say, "You God-damned bastard, you're wasting my time!" And so on, up the scale.

Sarah: In other words, keep your emotion just a shade ahead?

Just a shade, if you can.

Pat: What I was after more than anything else was the relationship of auditing technique or as knowledge or data, to a person's self-determinism. I think that a couple of days ago I interfered with your self-determinism to some extent.

Umm-hmmm. You did.

Pat: You came down.... If you could talk about the relationship?

Well, in general, most of the data Pat gave me I would have dug up for myself. But at all times you must in no wise make the person feel that you are agreeing or disagreeing. If he gives you data, accept it. You can sense, if he wants you to agree, agree. Now in my case he said, "Do you want sympathy?" "Charity?" No. Didn't want it. Didn't need it. At first I did. After a while I didn't. Again, rehabilitate self-determinism— on a very low plane— if you can do that, yes. High plane— yes. If data is requested, give it. If it isn't requested, don't give it. That's it. But be very careful not to suggest. If the person gives you regret or sympathy— a facsimile— by none of your actions ever suggest that you think it's a good thing or a bad thing. Merely accept it. The best auditing art, as Pat has said, is to say, "I just don't give a damn. I'm a neuter. I'm actually a disinterested party in the self-determinism of this person." If you don't, he'll latch on to yours, and he'll stay that way for twenty or thirty hours before he'll move. Of that I'm quite certain.

Joe: How do you align that with the fact that wanting to is the basis of...?

Counter-emotion is controlled better that way.

Pat: That's an interesting concept.

It is. The individual will sense it. Tom?

Tom: Yes, two questions. How about sonic, visio [recalls], etc.?

Visio is excellent. Sonic I can turn on or off at will— frankly, it's too noisy. [laughter]

Tom: You think you will gain, by realigning all randomity in past heavy facsimiles? By running effort?

Very definitely. I'll probably run all three of them, and I very definitely will gain.

Tom: Will that take very long?

About a week.

Tom: You can run more than one at once?

Oh, sure. After all, I'm going to go through the entire activity of a lifetime.

Tom: What lifetime?

Mine— at this particular present time. This particular lifetime. Now it is not necessary to go through, in my particular case, past lives and past deaths, unless I desire to do so. I don't know how much theta will be trapped back there, if such a concept is feasible— I think it is. I'll have to find out. I don't feel I want to return ‘back there’ until I have re-established myself perfectly— then I shall do so. Now these concepts of the early evolutionary changes, the original decision to be, to be human, to exist, they are as yet nebulous and vague. But they are there and they can be contacted. To what degree of excellence, I don't know. As well as a facsimile? I assume yes. I have at various times done this. That's as much as I can say. As much as I know.

Pat: One other question about auditing— a question which is going to come up, I think: how is it that an auditor can bring another person up higher than his own tone?

The auditor then becomes a servomechanism.

Tom: To do that the auditor has to agree to become an effect.

Yes. He has to want to. He has to agree to become, as it were, a part of the other person's effect. He has to agree to be caused-upon. And you , to a very marked extent, did that toward the last. I would imagine, in the last five hours of auditing, your actual verbalization took up less than five percent. In the first twenty hours, possibly twenty-five percent.

Pat: This has been pointed out a dozen times in processing, that you do assume control of the individual— to that extent, to just above that extent at which he might balk. What is the goal behind that technique? The goal is to help some specific condition, right here, now, fast— but you aren't necessarily rehabilitating an individual's self-determinism that way. This is another goal, and you can't do that until the individual begins to use his self-determinism. Low-toned people— how much self-determinism do they have? You act as a servo-mechanism but you do give up more and more control as you go up the tone scale. All the people we have been processing, and ourselves— egad!

Very good elucidation. Now, the wild questions— you still haven't asked them! Somebody's going to come in here and say, "I hear you've got a new type of person, a self-determined individual." I wish you would not spread the myth of my having two heads, five arms, a tail, a simian or non-simian approach, or what-have-you.... Incidentally, I haven't decided what I'm going to look like yet. [laughter]

Gene: What's the basis for determining that?

Pleasure.

Tom: It's variable, anyway.

Oh, yes. Variable to a marked extent. Just pleasure.

Gene: Will you get sick?

To the extent that I can resist disease, no. Now that's not an equivocal answer— it's a very honest one. I still believe there are bacteria that I can't resist. There must be. But many, many bacteria I can resist now that I could never resist before.

Gene: Can you learn faster than you could?

I think so.

Gene: Do you know more than you did?

No. I'm rapidly learning, however.

Gene: Are your reflexes faster than they were?

I think so.

Gene: Is your efficiency up?

I think so. [...pause...] What are you trying to prove?

Gene: I'm not trying to prove anything.

Yes, you are.

Gene: I'm just asking questions— thinking of all the questions which I can that a person might think of...

Tom: Do you have any idea to what degree we're limited in understanding by the logical structure of the English language?

The logical structure of the English language? [...pause...] Say it again— I don't think there is any.

Tom: Oh, yes. The Hopi language is structurally different—

Did you ever agree to the logical structure of the English language? Did you ever agree to the idea of be, is, am, not, are, want, need, desire, computation, apperception? Where is the logic to this? Does logic exist? Is there a structure which is well-defined and rigorous— that is absolute or even non-absolute? That is agreed upon? Yes, there is. Is that logic?

Tom: All right. The question needs to be rephrased. How much is our communication restricted by the form of the language?

Enormously. I'd say approximately ten percent of what I say is communicated. Same with you, of course.

Tom: How much can this be improved?

That's why you have counter-emotion and counter-effort. You improve immensely. For instance, I would eliminate many verbs. I'd eliminate quite a few participles and invent new ones. [...pause...] I'd speak in terms of emotion as a logic; mind-body emotion as a logic. Instead of sheer Is, Am, or Maybe, I would say to a child, "Were you right?" And he could answer, "My heart felt that I was right, and my lungs felt that I was right; I responded in the total effort that I was right." Now what's the word for that? Not right based upon law or punishment, or even agreement, but right based upon physical mind-body coordination. Is there a word to describe that kind of right? It doesn't exist.

Joe: One of the biggest questions is beginning to be answered. Your thinking evidently is on a totally different level.

It's well coordinated at this point.

Sarah: Is there any way that you can communicate, completely?

No. I'm sorry.

Tom: How about with another person at your level?

We'd still have the same difficulties, but we could probably overcome them to a very large degree.

Sarah: I'd like to go further.... Is your ability to communicate heightened or lessened at this point?

Heightened— and lessened.

Sarah: Can you explain?

I can, but I won't.

Incidentally, I just love beer. I can taste it— It's the most delicious stuff. That's not a suggestion. It IS the most delicious stuff. I had a mug of beer when I was sixteen, working in a red hot brewery. It was cold. It was in a copper container. It had just come out of the aging cask— and it was delicious. Just perfect. Absolutely perfect. I haven't tasted any beer since just like that. And that's where it's fun. That's where it's enjoyable— [laughter]

Tom: I've got a serious question here! [lots of laughter]

Sarah: How many people felt his delight in that beer?

Pat: I guess everyone did.

Yes....

Tom: You've heard of what [name witheld] is doing down in Texas? [...pause...]

No comment. I don't know exactly what he's doing.

Tom: All that I know is that I got a letter from him.

That's my answer to the question: "No comment." I don't know exactly what he's doing. [...pause...] If we have to set up a religion for some purpose, and no other method is feasible, can be applied, all right. I'll wear, as well as anyone else, a burnoose. [laughter] And even shave my head. I don't think I'll permit castration, though— that's going too far. [laughter] But I will shave my head.

Sarah: Here's a question that people will ask, maybe: How do the present day social arbitraries look to you now? [laughter] Some damn fool will ask it, surely!

Let's skip it! I'll spin in! [laughter]

Tom: How was it that it took— you resolved at this movie to do it— then it took thirty hours with Pat and twenty hours by yourself. Was there any structural... any— basic— difference between you and Pat, or Gene, or me, et cetera?

At what point?

Tom: At any point.

Pat: Oh, yeah. Good question.

I think there was. [to Pat:] Why did you select me? Now you answer that question, as an adult "why?"

Pat: Self-determinism--primary. You had more of it than anyone else. Two--you could feel effort. Three--there is this unknown quantity that you brought out in the auditing room, which I sense as you probably sense counter-emotion. Perhaps a sense of goals, too. There's a purpose somewhere back there that I talked about, plus this factor which you brought out in there about— before.

Well, that answered your question to a certain extent. There may have been some structural differentiation.

Tom: I wasn't asking why he picked you.

No, of course not. I hope he answered your question for you.

Tom: Well, I don't know the nature of this unknown quantity [...pause...] and if you don't want to communicate that, it's all right.

Pat: I can communicate it, but it won't make a great deal of sense to other people and I'm not sure if I'm even kidding myself. But... when I was in Wichita I got very low, extremely low on the tone scale. Extremely low. Way down. And all of a sudden, for the first time in my life, I sensed a goal, a purpose of mine; and I knew the relationship of other people around me, and I knew why (as he says, an adult "why") they were there and what part they were playing, and I have sensed that in coming up here. I sensed that when I first met him. And then, in the auditing room, he says, "Did you ever have the feeling that we've been here before? That we'd been through this before, we'd done this before?" His goals— one secondary goal: to the stars. Some of these just click. Anti-gravity.

There's still a purpose. If I go down and talk any more I'll just get too damn low again. There's something there. How much of it is mixed up with aberration, dub-in, ghouls, things that go "boomp" in the night--I don't know.

Tom: You mentioned a structural differentiation of some sort.

What is the total structure of a man?

Tom: I imagine you have more data on that than I have.

No. What, for you, is it? You tell me.

Tom: [pats thighs] This....

What else?

Tom: Soul....

Umm-hmmm. There's more. What else? [...pause...]

Tom: God, too.

You are, within yourself, the world. You are, within yourself, the space-time continuum. [...pause...] Now you asked me, "Was there a difference?" There probably was. I made my world different. I changed it.

Tom: Will there be people, do you think— are there people, who will never, no matter how willing they are, get to where you are?

I have no data on that.

Sarah: Do we seem like stupid children to you now?

That's a question everyone is going to ask me.

[ transcript ends ]

Return to "Meetings and Conversations"

Return to "A New Reality"