And this is November the 19th — November the 19th, 1952.

You know, the subject of Scientology begins, really, at the point where Dianetics left off, if you want a sharper definition than we've had in the past. And Dianetics leaves off with genus Homo sapiens. Because frankly, I don't know a better process for genus Homo sapiens than Advanced Procedure and Axioms.

Actually, if you use Advanced Procedure and Axioms on genus Homo sapiens, you're liable to spring him. And don't use the Handbook for Preclears on genus Homo sapiens as pertains only to its chart — don't use that chart — if you don't intend to spring him. Because if you use the chart on a rising scale and you process flows on those concepts of that chart, you will have somebody getting outside of his body. And it might not happen in ten hours and it might not happen in twenty hours and it might not happen in fifty or it might not happen in two hundred, but he's going to do that.

Now, the technique I'm going to talk to you about today is a technique which must never be used on genus Homo sapiens under any circumstances if you're trying to keep him genus Homo sapiens, because it will inevitably and invariably make a Theta Clear, although it has nothing to do with Standard Operating Procedure — that's Standard Operating Procedure Issue 2, Theta Clearing.

Now, it so happens that we are operating on various levels. Truth of the matter is, is the first book, if followed closely, will actually coax an individual into handling sound, sight, perception; it gives him the desirability of being able to record and recall in terms of perception.

And it's a very, very interesting thing that that book uses, throughout, the mechanism of hypnosis reversed. It unhypnotizes individuals. Now, the unhypnosis principle — unhypnosis — would be getting a person out of agreement with the MEST universe.

Now, if you could just make a person disagree enough with the MEST universe, he'll feel much better. You wonder why it is that you run some individual — inflow, inflow, inflow, inflow, inflow, inflow — and all of a sudden as you're running all this inflow ... You see, inflow is agree. That is the reality corner of the ARC triangle: flow. Inflow and outflow. And outflow is disagree and inflow is agree.

There's a case which varies that, but that is when you are desiring to have somebody disagree and so on, you reverse the flows. But in essence, as you work with inflow and outflow, you are working with agree and disagree. Now, that is the R corner of the ARC triangle.

Now, as we get into this, though, we find out that inflow, inflow, inflow, inflow would be agree, agree, agree. And what do we look at in terms of the MEST universe? We find out that the MEST universe says, "Unless you agree, I'm going to inflow in on you with such tremendous velocity that you're going to hurt!"

And we get our definition of what invalidation is. And the definition of invalidation is "to overcome the force of the unit individual by exterior force sufficient to overcome the unit individual's force." That's invalidation. It has to do with force. When you say, "I invalidate you," or when you criticize or otherwise tend to invalidate somebody, you are actually depending upon heavy incidents, facsimiles, way back on the track somewhere, which will key in. And actually, there's really no difference between your saying, "You're no good" and the fellow being hit by a heavy electronic blast.

You wonder why these little words are effective on an individual. Well, the MEST universe and the conduct of beings within it has made it very, very easy to invalidate people. You key them in by a criticism or invalidation.

The lowest level, however, of not-use of force — of not wanting to use force — is not wanting to criticize. If you can just run that on an individual, you'll find him running apathy. He's not wanting to criticize. He does not want to use force. He doesn't want to criticize. He doesn't want to even do a verbal-level invalidation.

All right. The one perception, the one energy level which is not in space and is not very native to the thetan is sonic. And if you'll notice, the first book concentrates very heavily on the rehabilitation of sonic, and tries in various ways, and so on, to rehabilitate sound. Whether it succeeds in people's hands or not, in the usual book auditor's hands, is completely beside the point. The point simply is, it is directed at the thing on which you have no lids: your ears.

Now, you can control sight because you can shut your eyes. But you can't control sound. The MEST body is rigged — is rigged very exclusively — oh, it's a wonderful mechanism, it's beautifully rigged to be alarmed into action and so save itself by sound. Sound, if you will notice — it's apparent 360-degree perception. It's a 360-degree perception; it's on all the time.

Well, a person gets tired of it being on all the time, so they'll eventually shut it off. They'll shut it off on a recall basis. And sure enough, sound has been the thing which, here on Earth, keys the individual.

Now, he can handle electricity better than he can handle sound. That might be surprising to you, but he actually can handle an electrical flow. That is why your people always pick up visios before they get their sonic on.

Now, when it comes to this sonic, sound is dependent upon air, and Homo sapiens breathes air. That's quite unusual. You think that's usual. But an air planet is an unusual planet. And the whole track does not contain on it enough air planets to bother with. This is a freak. It's a freak. It has breathable air. Venus has methane propane for an atmosphere, and the air which you find on Mars is so scarce that you would have to take a very, very long breath of about an hour or so in order to get a good, normal Earth breath.

Fifteen pounds per square inch atmosphere pressure here on Earth, then, does two things: It gives the individual a feeling like he's walking in a sea. He loses his bounce, in other words. He always has these pressures being exerted against him, and what do you know? He expects them to be visible, and they're not visible, and this is very upsetting to him. He has never learned to see a sonic wave.

A sonic wave is quite low in terms of centimeters and it's a gross wave, and they used to try to say it was a different kind of wave. It is no different kind of wave; it's a particle interchange flow. And it travels at a very slow speed: 1,100 feet per second. And it is not in the (quote) visible (unquote) bracket. But there is no reason, by the way, why your thetan cannot learn to see sound. There's no reason why he can't learn that.

Of course, you see sound by hearing it. And so he has been assaulted here on Earth by this strange, strange perception which he can't see; therefore it's dangerous, because anything — anything ... Before he could either see it or couldn't see it; it was either black and dangerous or white and dangerous, and so he could classify it. But not sound. When light is present, you get sound; when darkness is present, you get sound; when twilight is present, you get sound; when red lights are on, you get sound. In fact, you get sound.

And the first book is directed toward sound in its most peculiar form: speech. And that is a very peculiar signal code. That's a fantastic code. And as you go up and down the time track with your preclear, you will find various methods of communication and nearly all of them more efficient than sound.

In fact, some of the people have an impulse toward music simply in an effort to control sound. Sound is a very gross wave. It's not very aesthetic, actually, and the fact that anyone can make music out of sound is just one of the most remarkable things imaginable.

Now, did you ever see a color organ? A color organ? They play on the keyboard of an organ, and it throws colored lights on a big screen. And you don't hear anything, you just see these colors playing. And that's very soothing. And as a matter of fact, it should really be a lot more popular. But it isn't popular with the musician, because the musician says, "Now, look, I can control sound." And the people looking at the musician and listening to the musician says, "Look, he's controlling sound." Fascinating.

So your virtuosity in playing, if directed simply toward a control of sound rather than the beauty of sound, will command more respect. Thus you see your modern Russian composers being so well accepted out in the world. And the composersky like Prokofiev, or whatever his name is, can put eighteen violins — put each one at a thin scream, and then throw that completely out of pitch, get diapason, then, against the bull fiddles and the horns and then have the entire reed section play another discord, and he's all set. And your modern listener can sit there and say — he certainly can't say it's beautiful, but he can certainly say, "Gosh! Look at that variety of sound under control."

And there's this level of appreciation. It's not a — really an aesthetic appreciation. Modern music has — that kind of modern music has a tremendous appeal just for that reason. And only a musician looks at it, and he says, "Now look, this is impossible to play, and as far as the very nice little things like counterpoint and so forth, they just don't exist in this stuff." Evidently, if you put your number ten down on the lower keyboard of the piano and stamp a few times, why, that's evidently good modern music. It's practically that horrible. Diapason — dissonance of various kinds and so on. But is it expert — very expert.

So you want to know what your preclear can least understand and least control — it's sound. Just that. Sound. And you ask him to receive this horrible thing: You ask him to receive all of his intelligence through the medium of a wavelength he can't understand. You ask him to receive his understanding in school — even here — through sound, through a wavelength of which he is basically unable to handle and is trying to escape from.

Now, if you want to know how powerful sound is or how tough sound is, I invite you to hold your hand up in front of your mouth at about this distance. Now, now do this, just as an exercise here. I want to show you something. Now say, "Get away."

Audience: Get away.

Now feel the force on your hand. "Get away."

Audience: Get away.

Now, isn't it a funny thing if you said to somebody, "Get away," something like that, he's liable to spring away, because if you — how much force did you feel on your hand? There's no force there. Isn't that interesting?

But heavy crashes here on Earth, and so forth, also contain sound. So the fellow gets the sound mixed up with the heavy effort of actual energy interchange, and he makes this colossal blunder of saying that a sound is capable of heavy effort.

You can go down in a subway, and as horrible as a subway, an underground, may sound to you, as horrible as it may sound and as dangerous as it might sound to you and so on, you could put up a decibel meter or a force meter — a force meter, not a decibel meter — giving you foot-pounds per square inch of pressure, and you could put it up in such a way that your subway train was banging straight at it, and what do you know? There's no force in it.

Now, what your being is afraid of is force. So you've got this horrible trick that's being played upon people. They obey sound. They obey what they cannot understand. Any time you want to make a god powerful, make him mysterious. There is a whole process that you could run on a preclear: unknown–known, unknown–known — as flows. And you'll find one of the first things that falls out is "The body and its functions is unknown to me." And I wish you'd make a note of that, because it's quite important as a process. Some cases won't break on springing them unless you run the unknownness of the body — how unknown it is.

And your medical doctor has achieved some knowledge of its function, some knowledge of the structure of this, and therefore he seldom gets ill. That should tell you something. There's no reason why a medical doctor shouldn't just be sick all the time, because he's in the midst of contagious diseases continually. But he doesn't have quite as unknown an unknown confronting him. He at least knows that he can know something about it, and when he says "the mystery of life," he doesn't mean the mystery of a tibia. He knows what he can do with the tibia. He can set it or break it or do most anything he wants to with it. He doesn't mean the unknownness of an appendix — he has some vague idea what the appendix is for or what it's not for. He argues a little bit, "Is it essential or isn't it essential?" but he can cut it out. He can do things with the appendix. And as a net result, his respect for this unknownness has decreased.

Now, this should work in terms of a psychotherapist. A psychotherapist, then, should say, "Well, now, I am not confronting an unknown." But the direction that psychotherapy has taken in the past has been to sort of say, "Well, it's a great mystery."

You take Jung with his druidism. You take Adler and so on, and these were further and further afield. And you'll find when it comes to the mind, that most medical doctors of this year of 1952 will actually advise somebody, if he is unhappy, to turn to religion. He knows that has some effect, again. But he's just shut of that problem. He isn't interested in that problem. He knows structure, and therefore he can stay well.

Now, what happens to your individual? The trouble with your individual is he's in agreement, agreement, agreement, agreement, agreement. On what line? Sound. Sound is what he agrees with. He doesn't agree with fire. Not anywhere near like he agrees with sound. And yet fire can actually hurt him. He isn't in an agreement with an electrical current the way he's in agreement with sound. No, nowhere near. In fact, the amount of obedience which you get from a flashing light signal is nowhere near the obedience you get with a bullhorn signal.

That should be interesting to you. I have swung in alongside a great big, lumbering merchantman that Svenskas or something were running, British convoys and so on, and been out there in Baker sector or back in the coffin spot (we used to call back in the flank — submarines used to come in from the starboard or port quarter of the convoy, because — they call that the "coffin hole") and somebody would be lagging, and he'd drift back and he'd drift back, and I'd call up the signal bridge and I'd say, "Send him a signal saying get on his course, close up with the rest of the convoy." And you'd — moment or two, you'd hear blacketa-blacketa-blacketa-blacketa-blacketa. But what he — the guy was getting way over there on that ship bridge was just flash-flash, fla-fla-flash­flash, fla-fla-flash-flash-flash. And he'd stay back. He didn't pay any attention to you. Although he was actually endangering the rest of the convoy because he's making you fall back from protecting the convoy in order to keep on protecting him. Once in a while, he'd get so bad that you'd just let him go, because you couldn't any longer protect him and protect the convoy.

But after the first time or two I had to do that, I said, "Something else has got to happen here," and I stole a bullhorn. Any efficient equipment that you got during the war you usually stole. And you'd see it being loaded on some freight train or something of the sort that was leaving the yard or someplace and going to someplace or other and — to some battleship or cruiser or something that was going to be built in 1958 and is probably still on the way, is still building. And you'd say, "Hm!" And then it would appear magically on your ship, and inspectors and so forth would come around and they'd say, "You know, that's a nice ruddy rod you have there." And look at you rather strangely wondering what on earth is a ship of this class doing with a battleship ruddy rod. And you'd say, "Yes, sir. It is, isn't it?"

Now, the point I'm making is, we stole a bullhorn. A bullhorn is a compressed-air horn; it throws an electric impulse into a compressed-air chamber and it is hearable at five miles.

If you were to whisper into a bullhorn out here on the block, lorry drivers and so forth would probably simply jam on the brakes or run into telephone poles or do most anything. It would just be a fantastic scramble, just to get that many decibels. Now, the bell of a bullhorn is many feet in diameter in order to get enough sound waves in vibration.

Well, I set that bullhorn up there before I'd been going very long; I set it up on the signal bridge. And I had a little speaker down on the bridge. And when the Svenska or whoever it was that had been plowing out of that convoy and so forth — I'd just call them by name. He might be four miles away across the open sea, and just call them by name and say, "The SS Stinkpot get back on course. Right now!" And if I had anybody on board that could speak Svenska or something, I'd have them write it down for me. How do you say, "Get the hell back where you belong?" And it would be "Kunglia Svenskas flottatus mussikars," or something of the sort, and you would shout this over the bullhorn — only you didn't have to shout it. And boy, you'd see that ship pick up speed and it'd steer right back onto its course.

Flashing light? They know all about flashing lights.

You'd think it strange there — the unknownness of a wave and the unknownness of source are more important, really, than the force of the wave. So that intention, thought, choice and — get this — cause, cause itself on its highest level, are themselves really more important than energy manifestations.

Now we fall way back of all of this, now, in terms of energy, in terms of perceptions, in terms of communication, flow characteristics, dispersals and all the rest of this, and what do we get? The unknownness or the knownness is above all else. That's an important thing for you to know.

In other words, at the level of the Q from which we're operating, the formed thought at the instant of its formation does not require time, space or energy. There is an intention, a desire to be cause, or a desire to enforce or inhibit, or to place in time and space, which is above the level of placing in time and space or of originating space and time in which to place energy.

We're operating — in comparison to energy, as we know it and as we manufacture it, we're operating in an echelon of no energy, no wavelength, and no space and no time. And we're operating in that echelon. And we're operating there very securely, by the way, as mysterious as that echelon might appear. We're operating there with great security. We know what we can do and what we can't do, and there — actually there is a process that you know very well which exists in that echelon, and that's Postulate Processing.

Postulate Processing and Rising Scale Processing are both of them above the echelon of space, energy and time. We can handle and operate in zero right now, or in infinity as the case may be. We are operating there and have been operating there for some time with great gaiety.

That should tell you something. It tells you this: that you create energy merely by saying so. Isn't that an interesting thing?

Now, you can look for all the mechanisms under the sun, moon and stars, and there are no mechanisms. You just say, "Energy" — there's energy. And it is the authority with which you can say, "There is energy" that there is energy. The hideous part of it is, it doesn't have an explanation. It just is. There is an isness and a beingness above the level of "spaceness," "energyness" and "timeness."

I want to drive that home to you. The unknownness, then, of something or the knownness of something can be more powerful than the space, the energy or the time of something.

Now, people in the past have been like somebody in an old-time .. . Supposing somebody in an old Sopwith Camel were to have gone up and fought — big German bombers here during the last war. Well, theoretically, he could have gotten up to some altitude, but he wouldn't have known what the devil he was doing. He would be so far below by the time he started to shoot that he would never accomplish anything.

So, in the past they've been trying to reach this cause — which is what we'll call it — the cause level of thought, without knowing that there are any stepladders in between. They just said, "Well, thought's all instantaneous and we all know it's instantaneous and it's instantaneous, and there's no energy connected with it, there's no space, there's no time — there's nothing like that; it's instantaneous and it's very mysterious and it's not the same order of energy." Boy, are — is that snarled up! Now, just look at that again. Look at the concept again, and you can see easily what's wrong with it. They say, "It is instantaneous, and it is not of the same order of magnitude as other energy."

I mean, anything wrong with that statement? In other words, the level of thought which they were discussing is instantaneous, but it has no comparison with other energy, but is transmitted and has a lot to do with other energy. And actually, the first echelon up here that thought deals with is other energy. And here you have this tremendous number of manifestations — facsimiles, secondaries, locks, ridges, flows — oh, a whole menagerie full of things which intervene there, all of which were what? Handled directly by thought and of the same order of beingness as that electricity in that light.

In other words, they just wanted to get up there to thirty-six thousand feet and they were trying to fly at thirty-six thousand feet with a kite or a Sopwith Camel or something. They just had no way to get there.

They would look at all these manifestations of sudden faith healing that's been known just, oh, way back across the ages. Faith healing has been known, known, known; if you just believe something hard enough it'll come true. And we have all these little handy jim-dandy laws and rules, none of which worked.

Now that's what was wonderful — you knew all this, and you couldn't make any of it work! And the reason it couldn't work is what stood in its road: high-frequency wavelengths, ridges, flows, engrams, the command value of sound, no understanding.

Actually, the amount of work which has been done in the field of eidetic recall is slight — terribly slight. And there was so much to be done that there's somebody over in the States now — read the first book, and he's still been plowing through on doing what? Without knowing anything about energy (he doesn't want to know anything about energy), he's still trying to get basic data on and classify perceptions. They call themselves the Eidetic Foundation. They're still trying to classify, in some fashion or other, perceptions — without studying energy. They're making, by the way, a basic mistake.

Because if you want to study perception, you have to — you get this — you have to study energy, because perception and energy are synonymous.

Now, you could study intention or causation only. Intention, causation — that category you could call the category of choice, of cause, of intention, prime thought. You could study that category, but don't try to say — and again, you can see how confused this picture was — don't try to say immediately, "Well, in order to study causation and intention and choice and all that, let's study perception." Let's study a no-energy thing by studying something else. Because there can't be perception without an energy interchange.

As far as the speed of perception is concerned, there is a speed of perception. The speed of perception is 1,100 feet per second in normal seventy degree Fahrenheit weather. It's sound.

A nerve impulse travels at the rate of about ten feet per second. That is the speed in the nerve channel in the body, more or less. If you chopped a dinosaur's tail, it took him a minute or two to find out about it. That was why he had to grow another brain in his tail. And it'd get up to his head, and by the time he turned around and moved the tail out of the way he didn't have a tail, so after a while he developed two brains. Had to. He had no choice.

Now, we have photons in terms of perception — we have photons. They're traveling at 186,000 miles per second. And I don't want to go on record with exact and accurate speeds and wavelengths, because I have no means of measuring these, beyond knowing that they are faster than they're supposed to be. They're above 186,000 miles per second when you get into high-frequency waves. And when you're studying extrasensory perception, you don't happen to be studying instantaneousness of thought; you happen to be studying high-frequency radio waves.

Now, let's take the other school of thought and see how they made a mistake. One school of thought says, "Thought is instantaneous, has nothing to do with energy; energy is materialism, and therefore the beingness and mind would have nothing to do with energy," you see, and then immediately come in to study perception; immediately come in to study communication and emotion and all of this. And after having made this basic truth, then never study it. Then just keep slugging away at energy. Energy interchanges. Energy that is — that reads on meters and it's just as finite; it's just thought using energy. And you never would have understood this upper category if you had said continuously that all of its manifestations in terms of perception, affinity, agreement were continuously and only instantaneous, because they don't happen to be.

They happen to be highly electronic, those manifestations, and we've got something up above that that manufactures electricity. Fascinating. And it manufactures all kinds and varieties of electricity, and it probably manufactured that electricity too. And it all belongs in the same band.

If we study cause, we cannot study energy. But we can study what cause does, and when we study what cause does we study cause's handling of energy, and that's what we're studying. Cause's handling or not handling of energy. And the cause is zero and the energy is very far from zero. It's very finite. It measures all over the place.

All right, let's look at it in reverse and let's take the materialist. The materialist says, "You're mud, you always have been mud, you are now mud, and all you ever will be is mud," and he gives no motivation of choice. Everything then became stimulus-response, and they put a rat in the maze .. .

Continuing this matter on cause and choice, November 19th, you have this then: You have a no-energy thing, which yet has the potentiality of creating and monitoring everything connected with energy, including space and time. And that is observably true, because when we use that postulate we get very fast processing. And when we don't, we don't get fast processing, we get slow processing.

I'm not berating people who investigated — as you might call it "investigated" — in the past the manifestations of thought; who hazarded guesses or whatever else was done in the past — I'm not berating these. The reason I'm talking about these people, the reason I'm talking about past research is I'm trying to drive it home so you as individuals, as practitioners, and so the field of Scientology, will never get into it a mistake which confuses these two things again.

You see, you had the idiocy of having two schools which were only two positions on a gradient scale. And each school could be a school only because it said the other school couldn't exist.

So you have the materialist. Here's your gross materialist who is damned left and right by a fellow who considered himself above such things. This materialist said you came from mud, you always would be mud and that mud was the cause of mud and mud caused mud and mud was mud. And the energies and so forth that had to do with mud kind of accidentally fell together and it all accidentally happened and it accidentally took place and we accidentally got an evolution, and then we accidentally naturally selected out a bunch of creatures, until .. .

And what do you know? The people who did these things, by the way, and came to these theories were limited in their training and education. Very few people doing anything in the field of the mind were grounded in mathematics or engineering. Engineering is a very definite type of discipline. It might or might not be good or bad to be a mathematician or an engineer, but when applied to any subject, they at least impose a discipline on the subject. And that discipline is very healthy.

The engineer in the past has made a very gross error, as has the mathematician in the past, evidently, by declaring the materiality to be it, and he handles it.

You get an electronics man — he's not interested, really, in the human mind. But you show him the human mind as an electronic instrument and he would get very interested in it, on the electronics end. He's pretty MESTy. He's pretty — pretty MEST character.

Now, your actuarial work was never done on the mind. Nobody ever got in there with a slide rule or a logarithm table. And they should have gotten in there with a slide rule or a logarithm table — they would have learned many things.

And one of the things they would have learned immediately is that natural selection will not compute actuarially. Mathematics demonstrate very conclusively that natural selection is not a governing principle.

Because you figure the number of chances of alteration and you figure the number of factors entering into a change or an alteration, you figure the number of alterations entering into one organism, then you figure the number of chances in the organism, and you get immediately a figure which is larger than all cells alive today on earth.

I mean, it's big — big figure. I mean, it's almost impossible to write. Write it something like: 10 to the 21506812 to the 86427 to the something or other — I mean, it'd be some number that, you'd have to write it in terms of large powers. Powers of powers of powers of powers — and there hasn't been that many chances, because there haven't been that many generations.

And actuarially, evolution on the hit-or-miss principle and the accidental explosion of an atom of ammonium or something, in a sea of ammonia, or — that accidentally combined into a virus form or — you know, I mean, this just didn't happen.

It couldn't have happened. I mean, it's one of those figures — it's one of those figures that defies the imagination. You say that couldn't happen for this reason, is we cannot find — actuarially, mathematically — we cannot discover a reasonable reason for natural selection. We can't find, then, that it happened by accident.

Mathematically, the numbers we get are much, much larger — if it were to have happened by accident — than the number of chances. And it's larger in another power number. It's big! It's just one of these fantastic . . . And, actuarially, you just refuse to accept something if it gets outside certain powers. You say it — then it didn't happen; it's unlikely. Highly unlikely.

We find out the chances of a rhinoceros growing a horn. Just figure that one. Figure it out by mathematics, and you find out no rhinoceros would ever have grown a horn, and there would have been several races of rhinoceri with horns on their tails and horns on their ears, and horns on their front feet and there would have been all sorts of chances in existence. And instead of all these chances in existence, we look at the fossils of rhinoceri and what do we find? We find the horn appeared as a tiny little bump on the bone of the nose. And then generation by generation got larger and larger and larger. And we found this happening on all rhinoceri. Hm. Chance, huh? Accident? Natural selection? Hm-mm. No.

If the anti-evolutionist — if the people who were still beating the drum for Adam and Eve — had gone out and hired themselves a good actuarial expert, the famous monkey trials which took place in Tennessee would have fallen flat on their faces, as far as the opposition was concerned. Evolution would not have been established.

Because it is much more probable that there was a forthright intention to form a mollusk, a man, a rhinoceros, a camel, a giraffe — much, much, much more logical. And it is within the bounds of an actuarial figure, because you have to assume that something else was happening if you cannot assume that it could have happened by chance. So we have intentional evolution. And that's a new one for you. That came up with Dianetics and is discussed, by the way, in the first book slightly, and so on.

Now, in the Axioms — in the Axioms we talk about counter-efforts, and the new thing being the mean of all the old counter-efforts. In other words, how many times has this being been killed in this fashion? That would be the number of counter-efforts which came in from that quarter.

Now, they sum up — they sum up. But over and above those, you get the recognition that death could arrive, and active and actual sensible planning to use those counter-efforts and employ them to the construction of the organism. In other words, this is planned evolution. Intentional evolution. And what entered into it was — the being was quite conservative, as you will discover. For instance, you take horses from the highlands — as Darwin points out — take horses from the highlands where they've grown long coats and put them down on the plains where it's very hot, and it takes them three or four generations to finally become convinced they're on the plains and suddenly grow short coats. They don't grow shorter and shorter coats, they just — they finally get convinced three or four generations, and they grow short coats.

Now, we take those horses and we put them back up in the mountains again, and they'll be up there three or four generations before they'll suddenly decide, "Well, this is all right, we'll make the change." And so suddenly they're growing long coats.

Now, we take a rabbit and we put him in the Arctic. And this rabbit hops around and is brown for several seasons. In spite of the snow, he stays brown. He says, "Well, it's no certain thing that this world is going to stay white. And I'm not going to make any fast changes." And so he doesn't. He stays brown. But all of a sudden one day he says, "Oh well, it's been this long, this many generations. All right, we'll be white again." And so he's white. And he's white in the Arctic.

Now, you take that rabbit — or you take an Arctic rabbit who is white, and white with the season — and take him down and put him where the seasons are half white and half brown. And he will change his coat in a few generations to a point where he matches the seasons again.

Now, let's take him on south — and these experiments, by the way, have been made — and he got down into the deserts where there's never any snow, and it takes him several generations. He doesn't get less and less white. You see, he just sort of says finally, he says, "Oh well, it's desert down here. Brown. Brown." He is brown.

Now, there isn't natural selection at work. Not even vaguely. So standing above all this is direction. But don't look for the direction to be outside this universe; that is to say, don't look for it to be on some far distant place, which is reaching you by some strange communication. When they say, "God is everywhere," that's perfectly true. He's also nowhere, which is what they never add. Because there isn't any "where" where the intention is concerned. When you get intention, you don't have location. You have something which can make location, not something which is located.

When you got somebody really thoroughly cleared, he would just be where he decided he was. And he would be there. He'd really be there too. He'd be there much more thoroughly than springing him out by just SOP.

You spring him out by SOP and he knows he's outside, and he knows he's here and he knows he's there, and all that sort of thing. You get him on up the Tone Scale, all he suddenly has to do is say, "Well, let's see" — pc's right there, and he says, "I'm on Mars." He's on Mars. He could also be at the longitude and latitude on Mars he wanted to be. Furthermore, he could patch up a whole universe and be anyplace in that universe he wanted to be.

Now, it's just intention. Intention makes location. Intention makes space. I'm going over this, just trying to drive it home a little bit, and sort of giving you a clue which might assist you — certainly would assist you in investigation — but which might assist you quite markedly in sorting out your own conceptions, which I believe possibly haven't been too clear on some of these things. And very often when you're trying to orient yourself with regard to a subject or a study in order to accomplish certain effects, you'll find yourself oriented in some other direction, and you're not quite sure where you're oriented.

Well, I'm pointing out to the fact that the materialist school, and the school of instantaneous thought and no materialism, were each one half right. And where they were each wrong was to say — the instantaneous school say, "There is no materialism," and for the other school to say, "There is no instantaneousness. It's all by accident."

There are many theories of the past that will surrender mathematically — and do they surrender! And what started me out on this particular channel was a singular discovery, a very singular discovery I made when I was a student in physics. And that was this: that there was no energy wavelength known to man, or computable, which could embrace and store thought. And that become [became] fascinating.

And there was nothing could embrace or store thought, if one followed out the cellular theory of the body. And that was a shocker. I fell onto it almost by accident. I was quite interested in the mind — India and all that sort of thing. And I probably, probably would have gone on being a — on the one side of the fence working away with electronics and never connecting it up with the human mind, and being on the other side of the fence a very good mystic. I'm a pretty good mystic, I'm a fairly good magician. And these things are very remarkable, in view of the fact of how I seem to condemn mysticism. The reason I condemn mysticism is so you won't trip and fall on your faces, not because I deplore or despise mysticism. Because it's, as I have mentioned before, full of booby traps. And it isn't that I know these booby traps and so I can avoid them; I went headlong on them too.

And so we look over — look over this field, and it was not really by accident, but I was sort of vaguely interested in the mind and so on. And I suddenly employed a datum I knew from the field of the mind in my work in nuclear physics. I was saying, "Now, let's see, we're trying to figure out some small waves," just in nuclear physics, you see? "How small a wave could you transmit — create and transmit?" That's create in terms of convert from some other energy form and transmit. Now, how small a wave would this be? Now, you know the Brownian particle principle? You actually do get — wavelengths of light are shining on particles which are smaller than particles of light.

Now, that's very fascinating. You can look in a little jar, something like that — it's a very simple principle — and you look in the jar and you will find some of the wavelengths coming through. This is not with a microscope or anything, you just look in a jar and you'll see — you'll actually see shafts of light coming through the water, if the water is even vaguely cloudy. And you'll see these shafts of light coming through the water and they'll be hitting particles in the water. And if you get your angle just right, as you look at this, with some sunlight on this jar or something of the sort, you'll see motes or something dancing in the water. They're tiny. That's as small as man can see, and that's smaller than most microscopes can see, because you see the light shaft diverted as it hits the particle.

Now, how small, then, can a — a particle can you see? Well, you can see a particle small enough to divert a light shaft. And how small is that? Well, most particles are so small that when you hit them with ultraviolet — ultra­ultraviolet light, the wavelength of ultra-ultraviolet is such that it leaves a trough bigger than the particle.

Now, you get the idea: You've got a wavelength romping along here, and let's say it's one inch in diameter. And it's going along one inch in diameter, and we suddenly say, "It's now going to hit a half-inch thing." Well, it won't. This wavelength — we're going to fit this half-inch thing in between these waves, and it's going to be pushed around, then, by this wave. And you'll find out mysteriously, the wavelength is too gross to do much to your half-inch thing. You'd have to get a force half-inch wave. And that would be something like radar. Radar will ignore something of that order, but — this is not in your common experience, but you can't get bigger waves to pick up smaller particles than they are, ordinarily, except with some kind of a principle like this Brownian motion, and so on.

All right. How small a wavelength exists? How small is energy? Let's answer that question. Nobody has answered this question. To this day nobody has answered that question. I keep finding smaller and smaller energy. And I said, "Let's see, the smallest thing I can think of is, well, let's see, ultra-ultraviolet oh, I don't know, that's pretty gross. Well, let's take ultra-ultraviolet and see how small it is. Let's see, but do I know one that is — some meter in the physical universe that would be small enough to really measure how small this is or how it does store or anything about it at all?" And I suddenly thought to myself, "Well, yeah, the mind can do that, cells can probably do that."

So, well, how do we do it with cells? Well, that's very easy, we got minds all over the place. Let's see if we get to work here and find out . . . And all of a sudden I said, "Boy, that human mind must store things that are awfully small. I wonder how small it does store?"

And scratched my head over this for a while and fooled around with it for a while and finally said, "Well, all right, we'll take the smallest conceivable wave here in terms of actuality. And we'll compute with that smallest conceivable wave in terms of actuality on the basis of cellular storage. Now let's find out how much a cell has to store for a perception."

And I figured this all out, and I figured it to the right and the left and up and down and back and forth and so forth, and I found out that if you got a hundred holes in a molecule and stored a thousand perceptions per hole, you had enough memory — if a person only recorded the gross things he perceived — you had enough memory to last a man three months.

I — "Whoa! Something's wrong with this. So let's go back over this thing again, and now let's figure the number of cells in the body. Well, let's see, and the number of protein molecules in the neurones and so on." That's a big number, by the way. It's ten-to-the-twenty-first power binary digits. Big numbers. "And we'll take a hundred holes in each one of those molecules and we will store a thousand perceptions in each one of these things, and then we will have enough memory to last three months.

"Well, men remember longer than three months; therefore, it's a smaller wave. All right, now let's just go up and let's take ten thousand holes per molecule and let's take ten thousand recordings per hole and let's figure out how long a man can go on that." Well, we found out a man can go a couple of years on that.

Rrruh! And then we found out something horrible. A cell subdivides and divides with its new mate, its memory bank. Just — just — ahhh! You train cell A to do something just take a bunch of cells in a laboratory jelly .. .

And I was — by the way, by this time I was driving the university nuts. I was over in the wrong departments all the time, and people would come in at midnight and find me messing around with their favorite concoctions and stealing typhoid germs off of them or something of the sort, and "What are you doing?"

"I'm physics department."

"Well, what are you doing over here? This is biology!"

"And when did you think that physics didn't have something to do with biology?"

"Well, it doesn't have." Big joke on them.

Now, over in the psychology department, I used to run rats through mazes and see what happened. And I found that — some interesting things about rats, and the main thing I found about rats is that you couldn't run men through the same mazes. I know. I tried. To put hot electrical plates and try to get some Homo sapiens to go across the electrical plate to get a girl, something of the sort — I mean, this really has to — when you start to experiment and research in that field, people consider you just a little bit outside the pale. Just a little bit.

Well, anyway, here I was confronted with a terrible mystery — and as a mystery, tackled it. Instead of finding the smallest possible wave by looking at the human mind, I found that the human mind must be doing something fantastic, because no known wave, no matter how small, served as memory. And this — and no matter how many ways I figured it, the materialist was wrong!

It was not a matter of cells, because you train cell A, and you get him all trained and then you let him procreate, and you be very careful to pick up the procreation cell. I mean, the one that's divided.

And now let's split that generation ... Boy, for a physicist who knows nothing, you see, about biology and something like the horrible — my namesake Ronald Ross. Old Ronald was over in India. And he was doing wonders discovering malaria. And he knew nothing about cutting up frogs. And — he couldn't have cut up a frog, and all of a sudden he was doing the anatomy of a mosquito. I mean, this is — under a microscope. Complete no training. He had his difficulties, believe me. Now, when you couldn't cut up a frog and get him to cut up right, think of cutting up a mosquito.

Well, I did this series of experiments and I did them several times and I kept working with this, and I was still working with it in 1938 when the world fell in on me and I got the common denominator in survival.

And the darnedest things will happen. You can still repeat these experiments, whether they work or not. You can take and condition cells. You can teach cells that nicotine — cigarette smoke — is quite dangerous and quite sickening, and then have the third generation know all about this by blowing steam at the third generation.

But let's blow steam at a generation which is not conditioned, and has never been taught that smoke is bad. They don't mind it. They don't mind steam. They're not upset about cool steam at all. It's just mist. But blow cigarette smoke at them and they know that.

Now, in other words, you've got two variables there that you can shift around: you've got steam, you've got cigarette smoke. Cells will fly away from — mobile cells — will fly away from the corner of the microscope slide, for instance, toward which you push a little tiny jet of smoke, nicotine smoke. And they go over to the other side. And you'll think it's taste or something; it's not. They evidently perceive this. They each — each one of these little tiny life forms has evidently a life of its own. Oh, fantastic work. Of course, if some person who was an expert in this work were to go back over it again, he'd have fits. He would just have fits.

One: the unreasonable assumptions and the crudities and grossness of experiment and all of this sort of thing. But here was a physicist working completely out of what he considered to be his field. He was working in the field of biology in order to study wavelengths. And the more you studied, the more you found out that the cellular theory was good as an analogy, but untenable in practice.

Very fascinating. "Man the mud" went by the boards. Man is mud — it had to go by the boards.

That man runs as a stimulus-response organism dependent wholly upon what's fed into him in order to feed something out, I was still clinging to a year ago — hopefully, hopefully. And it has now become susceptible to such easy proof that it can no longer be held to, even to agree with the world of so-called science. Because it's just so patent that — it's so patent that you are dealing with this nonwavelength location in time and space, and discover and locate time and space, and originate them, and matter and energy and so on — it's so patent that you're dealing with that thing, and it's so easy to prove you're dealing with such a thing, that you don't have to try to agree anymore on the other line. And the best proof, by the way, you have — which is processing.

Now, you find just a little bit of this processing with that assumption is very, very good, and processing nothing but heavy effort — slow — very, very slow. It's ratios of hundreds to one in processing.

When you assume something and it works out and you can make it work in the material universe, then you have really the only proof that exists for its existence — is does it work? Does it work? Because if Einstein tomorrow were to say, "The atomic bomb will not explode," it'd explode, because there you're talking in the field of the physical sciences, which go more or less by natural law.

And it's a very funny thing, but if Freud were to come to life and say, "Psychoanalysis does not work," and he really went on a campaign and demonstrated that it didn't work, it wouldn't work. Its workability level would fall way off. Now get the difference between those two fields.

Now, if we can close those together, and I tell you this process and I tell you how to do this process, and you went on doing this process, and I were to suddenly get on the soapbox and say this process does not work — I discredited it and I beat the drum and I hammered and pound it and tried to prove that it didn't work — it would go right on working.

You might work it a little bit warily — you'd say, "Well, it didn't do Hubbard any good, he evidently went mad," but that is what authority has to do with this whole picture.

And when you orient, then, your concept of these things, remember that you are dealing with a thing which is cause, which is above energy, and with a thing which is effect, which is energy in time and space on its manifestations. And that the effect is dependent for its continuance upon the continuance of the cause. And the continuance of the cause is to create an effect.

And when we say cause and effect, we are dealing on the one side with the highest-level spiritualism — any kind of upper nonenergy instantaneousism that there is. And we're dealing above any such point anybody ever dealt before. You're way up there.

This is an abstract beyond any abstract that man ever abstracted. First place, he even thought a static had a motion in it — he'd show you a static and it'd be something held in place by an equilibrium of forces. We've got a static. This is the first time, oddly enough, that a static has ever been postulated. There is some important points in this work which has completely escaped notice. One gets very anxious to get on with the preclear and all that sort of thing, but there's an interesting little point that's of interest to a mathematician. A mathematician looks at that and he says, "Oh, no," he says, "you're right. Yeah, we've never postulated a static before. Not a real static." That's a real static. No wavelength, no space, no time, no matter, no location of any kind. And regardless of what cause is in it, we say that is a static because it's — is a that. And we call that a mathematical symbol: theta. Now, we say this has the additional characteristics of being able to create matter, energy, space and time. Fascinating, huh?

Now, I don't care how wild you want to get with that one, that's really wild. And don't lose sight of the fact that it's wild. Don't think that I got this all buttoned up. I pushed this football up to that level and got it connected back to effect again and got the interaction of the two, and at the same moment you don't know all there is to know about that static.

We have, as our definition, that highest Q. What can the static do? In other words, we have defined what is cause. In the final analysis, what is cause? And that's cause. It's something without space, without time, without form, a true static which has the potential of creating, conserving, altering or destroying matter, energy, space and time.

And that is cause and it can become a noun with a capital C. That's Cause. Nobody has ever defined a god at that elevation. So don't lose sight of how high that elevation is. No god has ever been defined at that elevation. They have defined a god as being capable of making this universe. Somebody has occasionally thought maybe he made many universes. But nobody ever broke this down to a point of where he also imparted his ability to do this to everything he made, and so defined, in terms of God, the human soul.