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

Okay. Now, second part of this lecture on November the 19th; continuing on cause and effect.

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.

What do we mean by an effect? We mean by an effect, energy operating in space and time; energy operating in space and time. That's an effect.

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, an effect, of course, can be a cause to a lower order of effect. You see how that is. Petrol goes into a lorry and is cause for the lorry's combustion. And so the lorry moves. But that petrol is actually a low-order effect, but it is being cause to an even lower order of effect. So we have, then, effect depending upon — the greater a thing is an effect, the more it is fixed in space, and the more solid it is.

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, the greatest effect of which we know would then be the most solid matter of which we have any information. And what do you know, when we get down to a solidity — a low-level solidity — when we get down to a solidity of matter low enough, we get another explosion. We get plutonium and even hotter elements. And they're an effect at the low end of the cause of effect, but they can explode and cause more energy.

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.

Now, this is no reason to suppose we're walking in a circle here. We're not. It's simply that you can compress energy down to too little space and in too much of an unstability and it'll expand again.

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.

Evidently there's an optimum space for energy, and that optimum space for energy, when exceeded by compression, will cause an explosion. But all you get out of that is more energy. You get an order of cause, yes, but it is a cause which is so far below what we're calling "capital C Cause" that you mustn't consider that here we have space and then there's energy in it, and it condenses and condenses and condenses and condenses and finally you get an object, and the object becomes more and more solid and more and more solid and more and more solid and more and more solid and finally gets to plutonium and then suddenly explodes, and that we're at the top of the scale again. We're not at the top of the scale. What starts us out at the top of the scale is something which has nothing to do whatsoever with energy except to create it, and also to create the space and time in which that energy can exist.

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.

Actually, the creation of the energy is what happens, and what we call time. Time is not a separate object or article. It is space and energy combining together in some fashion or another, and you get an enduring thing and that enduringness is itself time. Havingness is time.

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.

All right, now. The kind of cause in which we are interested when we're working with the human mind is not a — really a low-order cause. The higher level the cause with which we can operate, the better off we are.

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!"

Now, the truth of the matter is that at this moment, the word "Cause" with a capital C is at our highest Q and is the highest thing we know — that we know we know. And we know what it does. We can investigate that in various ways. And we find out that this cause makes certain effects, and we can validate these effects, and we can achieve very miraculous things with the mind by just doing that. But what've we got then? We're not studying an effect when we're studying a human being or a thetan. If we insist on studying only the energy manifestations in terms of flows, ridges, facsimiles, secondaries, locks and engrams — if we insist on studying that only for one universe only, when we're working with a thetan, we are addressing a low-level effect — a relatively low-level effect.

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.

Now, what we want to address is a cause. Now, it's true enough that your thetan is so immersed into MEST, at the moment you find this preclear, that he's in a body and thinks he is the body. Now we do that separation and he is a thetan and thinks of himself as energy and able to control and handle bodies. Now, you'd think this was good enough. In order to increase the force of this thetan, it is not enough simply to rehabilitate an energy unit as something able to handle more energy. That is not enough because it doesn't increase his force.

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.

From whence stems his actual force? His actual force stems from actual capital C Cause, which is without wavelength. So therefore our Postulate Processing is a goal. But very often the thetan will step out and will be too low on the Tone Scale, as a thetan, to do anything like just postulate changing. And we have to handle energy, energy, energy, energy, flows, ridges and so on; but we don't handle them any longer than is necessary to give him some confidence and get him into postulates. And the highest process which we have at this time is changing of postulates.

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.

Now, what do you address then? What do you address in the — handling the preclear? You address the highest level possible in terms of Cause with a capital C. You actually are doing a forcing operation yourself, to some degree. You are trying continually to get the highest level of cause you can reach. How do you restore a preclear's self-determinism? By reaching the highest level of cause which you can reach at that time.

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, if he's in a body, the highest level of cause that you will get is he will be able to process energy as it manifests and effects itself upon the body. That's the highest level that you will be able to get, in most cases, if you just treat him inside the body and so forth. Therefore, this requires you to run facsimiles, to handle facsimiles and so on.

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.

Now, Creative Processing comes in there, too, but it's addressed toward facsimiles. It's addressed toward facsimiles themselves. So that would be that level. Now, if we have him out of the body, we only have him handle energy in space and time long enough to get him up to where he can handle postulates. And we get him up to the upper scale and you have the Chart of Attitudes to do Rising Scale Processing. And Rising Scale Processing is simply to get the lowest postulate that you can get on this scale at the moment, and shift it upwards to a higher postulate. That is, it has nothing to do with running flows.

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.

The lowest postulate he gets on the scale of knowingness is: "I don't know." And you say, "All right. Can you get that idea: 'I don't know'? All right. You got that? Now, let's shift it up to — how high can you reach?"

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.

The fellow says, "Well, maybe I could know if somebody would tell me." "All right. Shift it up to that." Ptock.

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.

Now let's make him get the first postulate again and shift it up to that again and then shift it up to that again, and all of a sudden he doesn't want to get the first postulate anymore. He wants to get the upper postulate. "I might know if somebody could tell me," is now the lowest one he's getting.

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.

Now, you say, "Shift that up. How much higher can you get now?"

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.

'Well, somebody knows. Somebody knows, and I might be able to communicate with him. Somebody might. know all the answers."

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.

"Yeah, well, all right. Let's shift that up."

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.

And you'll finally get him up to a point where he says — way up the scale. If you were doing this straight on up, you would get him up toward "I know." Because what is the top level of this scale of Chart of Attitudes? What is the top level of each scale? That top level is simply this: It is a description of the manifestations of theta. They are descriptive manifestations of theta. And the highest of them is not "I am" — that's low; not "truth" — that's awfully low; not even "know." The highest level of them is "cause," across that whole top band. "Full responsibility" is well below cause, because full responsibility is only force — willingness to take responsibility for force — which I'm going to cover with you this afternoon. All right.

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.

When you're doing, then, Rising Scale Processing, the favorite one to hit would be the cause–effect. The favorite one, the one that you would favor more than all the others, would be cause and effect.

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.

All right. You process the preclear at the highest level you can get him above MEST, in the direction of theta. And the way you determine that is just with our good old Tone Scale. Same old Tone Scale. In Science of Survival it's sketched out from 4.0 down to 0.0, sketched out pretty well. Now we have from 0.0 down to -8.0 and we have — with the addition of the Chart of Attitudes, we have it going on up toward the theoretical 40.0. So we've just expanded this same Tone Scale. And if you want to know the basic on the Tone Scale, look at Book One, graph one, and that is the Tone Scale. And we've been working with that ever since. All right. Now, that's the simplest form of the Tone Scale and I call it to your attention, for your examination.

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."

By the way, any philosophy anybody ever had is on that little graph, if you want to look at it and figure it for a while. It's a tricky little graph; very simple and very tricky. All right.

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.

Cause has, as its first test — as its first test (which is why you see full responsibility as south of cause) — first test: "For what am I willing to be cause? For what effect am I willing to be cause on all dynamics?" Now that's your first question there, on cause and effect. "Am I willing to be cause of new space? Am I willing to be cause of objects?" (I mean objects just out of whole cloth.) "Am I willing to be — to cause perception to take place at a vast distance? Am I willing to cause energy to flow this way and that? Am I willing to create, conserve, alter or destroy along these dynamics?"

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.

Well, your highest cause, theoretically, will do any of these things and to be ethical — which it is, oddly enough. It's not, by the way, the bumbling, stupid, fall-all-over-everything thing that mud is. It's quite different than mud. If you examine cause, you'll find out it behaves quite differently than mud. Mud doesn't care who it splashes on or who throws it or anything. Mud just doesn't care. Well, cause does care. Criterion of cause in terms of theta is judgment-and its estimation. It has direction. It has purpose. It can figure a purpose all out and put it into effect.

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."

Now, we have, then, much lower on this thing: "Am I willing to be bad cause?" And you can put that down in your notebook, because it's quite interesting.

Audience: Get away.

"What am I willing to be bad cause on?" The fellow will say, "Nothing!"

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

You go, "Aw, now, wait a minute. No, you're willing to be bad cause on something."

Audience: Get away.

"What do you mean by bad cause?"

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?

"You know, this is very destructive."

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.

"Nothing."

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.

You've got a sick man if he says that. You've got a Homo sapiens. "What am I willing to be bad cause on?" A Homo sapiens is so unwilling to be bad cause that he has a thing ... Now, listen, you wouldn't believe that. When I tell you some of these things about Earth, you'll think I'm romancing. You'll think I'm telling you long, drawn-out stories and things when I tell you they have what they call a court of law that has nothing to do with ethics. Now, don't laugh. I mean, it's true. They have courts of law which have nothing to do with ethics but have only to do with arbitraries. I know, you think a society can't be that bad and still be a society, but it's true. They do have.

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.

These courts judge solely on the basis of whether or not it has been written down someplace, not on whether or not it's bad cause or good cause. And this whole thing is devoted to just answering this question: "You were bad cause, but was it justified — not by reason, but by something somebody wrote in a law book?" I know this sounds awfully scrambled to you and I'll just pass it over because I can see you're incredulous.

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.

The point I'm making here is that bad cause has to be justified. But look, let's look at this. Let's look at this for a moment. If a person is high enough up Tone Scale, he wouldn't have to justify his actions, would he? He could act without justification, because what does Cause with a capital C do? It acts without a prior justification. It requires no precedent for its actions. And an artist is as good as he can originate and communicates as well as he can re-form his originations into the communication levels of his audience.

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."

But don't get those two things confused, because they're not confusable. And when you're dealing with an individual as himself; you are essentially dealing with an artist, because he must be at least the architect of his own universe to be alive at all. He is as alive as he is the architect of his own universe. He is not as alive as mud tells him to be, and that is the final abandonment of all responsibility. "I'm just what mud says. That's all. That's all I am. I'm just what mud says. I have no responsibility for anything. I don't cause anything. I'm just Willy-nlly, stimulus-response, stumble around, falling flat on my face." Why, that's mud that does that.

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.

That's the stimulus-response theory, it's: Man is incapable of causing anything so therefore he is not to blame for anything. There was a bit of this in the first book. It adequately let people apologize for their crimes by saying, "It was done to me. I didn't do it." Therefore, the first book had a very wide appeal, if you look it over.

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.

Oddly enough, man is so scrambling for justice that when he can figure this out from this angle — when he's permitted to figure life out from this angle .. . Somebody just tells him, "Now, look. You can figure that out from this angle if you want to." Gee, he's relieved. Now, well, that's a fact. He comes way up Tone Scale! And you've got, a really, a quite superior being if he can just say, "Well now look, I . . ." Nothing else — you've given him this one phrase: "I have a right to blame somebody else for something." Now, if you can get him up- that high you've taken him quite a distance. Doesn't sound like very much of a distance, but believe me, it is!

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.

All right. Now, effect, then, is actually in terms of space, energy, matter. Effect is in terms of space, energy and matter. Now, theoretically, because we work with gradient scales, there is no such thing as an absolute cause. There could be more Cause with a capital C or less Cause with a capital C. So therefore, effect still could lie within the nonenergy-above-space spectrum. Effect could still be there as being the effect of a much more — higher cause. We could have, then, a god and demigods, none of which have anything to do with space, energy or matter. And the god would be the effect of the — I mean, he would be causing an effect on the demigods.

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?"

There's — actually, when you come to zero and infinity, there's plenty of room for a gradient scale. Your gradient scale depends essentially on having a gradient scale of something. And so when I tell you that there's a gradient scale existing in nothing, it should be very remarkable to you, but I — it is quite remarkable, but it also is very theoretically possible.

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.

But for our own — for our own benefit and for most of our processing, you can follow the fact that effect is, for our purposes, in the band of space, energy and matter. All right.

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.

I'll give you an example of an effect. Here's a low-level effect. You decide to strike a match. And so that decision is actually slightly in the future of your striking the match. Why? A very simple why: because you wanted an effect. Well, your cause must always be senior to the effect.

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.

Now we come to "Do cause and effect lie in a line continuum of time?" Mm, it's — very horrible happens here, is there isn't a line continuum of time; there merely appears to be. And prior cause is the biggest illusion possible in man — prior cause. He says, "There's prior cause to every effect; prior cause to every effect." He has to assume that there's a line continuum of time and he has to assume also that there's an infinity of priors in order, then, to have a reason. And out of all of this hodgepodge he gets what he laughingly calls "logic." And that is the basis of logic. Logic is the study of prior cause.

Flashing light? They know all about flashing lights.

And if you start "logically" following down any track, you will simply branch out and wind up either at a point of your own pre-choice or you will wind up all over the universe or some other universe, all by gradient scales. A logical approach is not very good with which to sort out the factors necessary for the solution of really good-sized problems. It's a rather bad factor. Intuition is as bad. Somewhere in betwixt, something sensible takes place. But logic, "as logicized," is something like a fireman who rushes up to the top of the ladder so he can rush back down to the top of the ladder again just to tell you that there's a top to the ladder.

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.

Logic depends on similarities and . . . An unending stream of similarities, if they are similar enough, can pass as logic. But any unending stream of similarities in imagined time strata can pass as logic. Logic assumes that time exists, and then it plots facts against time. And this is all very neat, and it makes for communication. And we've agreed that that's the way we can communicate and so we can communicate that way, but don't for a moment suppose we're communicating in terms of MEST. We're not!

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.

These thoughts are impulsing into an electronic mechanism, a voice box, and is — that is translating into sound waves and these sound waves are impinging in your eardrums and that agitates an electronic receiver of quite pleasant and intricate design and that impulses on in through a hearing system and winds up where? Impinged upon your energy as a thetan, and is there differentiated — and started here in static and wound up with you in static, with the whole MEST universe interposing in between. Now, there's no reason why communication has to be this indirect. As a matter of fact, a very low order, for it to be indirect.

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.

So logic — logic, you see, would assume that indirection. The human mind is a servomechanism to every logic, to all logic; the human mind is a servomechanism. It is part of the logic. It's part of every mathematical formula that has ever been written. And has to be. And what do you know? We find out that the time-space actuality of the human mind is zero, so we have put a zero in every formula. Everybody knows you can't equate with zero. That should amuse you, because it's a mathematical horror. The thought that a zero exists in an equation will drive most mathematicians stark, staring goofy. Some will compromise by saying, "Well, it's one over infinity." That's not true; they know it isn't. But they work with it once in a while that way.

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.

And here you've just said, obviously — and I can prove it to you again — the human mind is a servomechanism to every mathematical formula. Who wrote it? A man wrote it or a being wrote it. All right, if a man or a being wrote it, who's going to read it? A man or a being of some sort is going to read it. How is it employed? It's employed by men or being — and therefore, you're employed at all levels by a human mind. Human mind in its highest essence is a zero, compared to this universe. So we have a zero to every mathematical formula.

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.

Therefore, no mathematics is necessarily true at all, but it happens to form the life continuum on which we have agreed in this universe should be granted to fact. And so it agrees with an abstract parade of (quote) real (unquote) fact, and this "real" fact, then, is reducible by similarities and condensations into data which themselves add up to or don't add up to answers. Actually, that is not the way the mind thinks on its highest level at all.

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

The mind does not think mathematically. If it thought mathematically, you'd never get anything thought. To be convinced of this, you would have to know the subject of symbolic logic, or the German mathematics invented about twenty-six years ago, twenty-seven years ago, called topology. Wonderful mathematics — completely incomprehensible. Just a dream, just a love, a duck, as far as the German is concerned. That really floors them. Actually, topology solves a tiny portion of a problem to solve the whole problem. And sometimes by solving the tiny portion of the problem — the tiny portion only covers a ledger!

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."

Now, symbolic logic goes on for pages and pages and pages and pages and pages to accomplish what? Hm. To accomplish the number of thoughts or actions necessary to butter a piece of bread. Now, if you just add that up into mathematical symbolism and so forth, you'll find readily that nobody ever buttered a piece of bread, obviously. Nobody ever went through this many steps and yet all those steps are necessary to the solution of the problem. Symbolic logic is wonderful. So, you see, the mind doesn't think that way.

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, in view of the fact the mind doesn't think that way, how does the mind think? The mind thinks in desire to cause effect, in its highest level. On a lower level, it thinks — desire to prevent being an effect. On the lowest level, desire to be as pleasant an effect as possible. And below that, dead. Now, there's your more-or-less gradient scale of the thing.

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.

Now, if you worked out logic from this angle, you'll find out you get entirely different setups if you don't put time in there. There's no reason why this — see, in this universe, because we've agreed to it, it is one of the things we agreed to — that you can't decide now that you ate a steak dinner yesterday and go home and find the steak bone. We've agreed — we've agreed on this time span. You couldn't decide (because we've agreed to this in this universe) that you call a taxi a half-hour ago because you want a taxi this instant. And you say, "Well, I called a taxi a half an hour before, therefore, it's here," and sure enough, the taxi arrives. Only you're not supposed to do that in this universe. This universe has got to go by logical sequences. And that is one of the most maddening things to preclears, is they think it's all got to be done at once. They can't see why, if they postulate something, that it doesn't instantly come into existence. And if it doesn't instantly come into existence, as it should in their own universe, they practically go mad.

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."

Actually, the criterion of a criminal is just this. When he wants something, he wants it now. He doesn't want to go through the gradient scale of building it, working for it or obey the laws of this universe. He doesn't want to obey the laws of any universe. He says he didn't agree to this. You'll think he was fairly high toned. He sure isn't, not when the police get through with him. The police actually are serving the MEST universe, they're not serving the populace. They're saying, "Agree. You disagree, you're all sunk."

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.

And the criminal, the criminal will just fly all to pieces perhaps — as a child, he'd fly all to pieces because he just couldn't have that thing that second. He thinks of a hobbyhorse and he doesn't have a hobbyhorse, and he just says, "Boo." Then you can try to tell him, "Now, look, if you would go to work and get some laths and things like that and a little paint and so forth, you could probably build yourself a hobbyhorse," and so on. No, he doesn't want to do that. He's incapable of doing it, actually, because he's never adjusted to this time span. It actually is a lower-level anxiety. Because one could do it in one's own universe, one must be in the delusion that this is his own universe, and on that conclusion, that this whole universe is his but it's — but it must be being withheld from him, that he is going continually through a mutiny inside his own universe. And undergoing this mutiny in his own universe, must then and there experience a terrific revulsion every time he can't have simultaneously with desire.

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.

And of course his time span is in terrible condition. And you'll find people who have time spans that are in horrible condition, they can't do anything with time or anything like that, you'll find out they can't do anything with objects, either. Should tell you a lot. And also, they won't take responsibility for a single darn thing, and the reason why they won't — the reason why they won't is very simple, is they see no necessity for and have no employment of the gradient steps called energy. And they have an awful time with energy. They can't work. They can't employ. They will not estimate force. They don't like energy. So this can stem directly from having been hit with so much energy that they just abhor energy. And so they can become a criminal.

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.

If you process a criminal, process that: having to have things instantaneously and refusing to take responsibility for having had something. And slant it all toward energy. Now, here is your energy factor then. Your energy factor is a very interesting factor. If your being in this universe is well, it is because he can handle energy. If he can create his own universe, it will be because he can handle energy of his own creation in space of his own creation, and with that creation achieve matter, which in itself gives him the effect of time. But if he cannot handle energy, he can't be responsible, he can't have any time in this universe and he must resort — either criminality or insanity. In order to gain any time track, he has to steal, purloin. Then he only gets there by stealing and purloining because he cannot acquire in the normal sense. In other words, he can't go down here and work for a week, make some money, and then buy it, because that would be handling a gradient scale of energy toward the attainment of the object.

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.

And you'll find that many times, a process — a preclear has to be processed on this level: He believes he has to work for everything. And he believes he has to work for everything so thoroughly that he thinks he has to work for a state of being Clear. And just brace up now and take a good listen at that, because that's awful important; it's terribly important. He thinks he has to work to become Clear. All his life he's had to work. For everything he has ever attained, he has to work. He knows he has to work. He knows that's the rule of the universe. He hasn't maybe found out that the harder you work, even in this universe, the less you get. The really arduous, hardworking boys in this universe are not paid at all. They're slaves.

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.

So, to live in this universe prosperously requires an optimum adjustment of one's energy gradient scale and havingness to the needs and requirements for one's pleasure and maintenance. That's optimum. You put out as little energy as is necessary to gain as much as you need. And if you work more or less on that basis, why, even an engineer, you see — an engineer works solidly on that basis and that, for the mind, is conservation of energy. You get the mostest for the leastest output. And you'll never get something for nothing in this universe.

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

The criminal may attain a Rolls-Royce and mink coats and if he's a criminal in politics, he will eventually attain a firing squad or disgrace, invariably. But don't depend on this universe to hand out justice, because it doesn't. It will be some ethical, high-level being that will knock him off out of sheer impatience — if he's knocked off. Don't sit around and say, "Well, justice will catch up with them in the long run. Cause is elsewhere. Cause is elsewhere and there is a divine court of inquiry that has to do with the study of the ethic level of Homo sapiens which will eventually catch up to this guy." No, your philosophy doesn't happen to work in that direction. And one of the darnedest things that ever happened to your preclear was the first time he discovered this wasn't so.

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.

He kept sitting around, waiting for the lightning to strike Mr. Zilch. He knew Mr. Zilch was a crook and he kept expecting the lightning to strike and expecting the lightning to strike, and what do you know? It never struck! And Mr. Zilch became more prosperous and he went up in the world and he seemed to be very happy, and obviously Mr. Zilch was a bum and a criminal. And this preclear — practically any preclear you run into has got this datum unresolved. It's an unresolved problem. It's a big maybe somewhere on his track.

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.

Now continuing this lecture of the 19th of November on cause, effect and responsibility.

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.

Your key processes will centralize in toward cause and effect. Now, there are possibly better ways to meet cause and effect, better ways to get to cause and effect, very possibly. But I know of none nor do I know of any faster approach than the one which I mentioned in the first half-hour of this lecture, which you mustn't use on a Homo sapiens, because it'll blow him out of his head — and that is, process responsibility.

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.

Responsibility. Process it from — with brackets, overt act, motivator, just brackets, flows, postulates, mock-ups, any way you can mock up a mock-up about responsibility, and you will find your preclear will blow. If you ran it — I don't care how long you run it — if it is run with any degree of acumen whatsoever, you're going to get somebody moving out. And the reason why you're going to get somebody moving out is because you cannot — you cannot address this without directly addressing the subject of force and energy. When you address responsibility in the material universe, you address instantly responsibility: you address energy, you address responsibility; you address force, you address responsibility. And if you address force and energy by addressing responsibility, you're going to pick him up to a point of awareness with regard to energy — which of course also includes space — to a point where he'll be able to get out of the limitation of the space of his own body and he'll be outside. I won't say what condition he'll be in, but if you just start processing him and you just start running brackets on the joy of irresponsibility ...

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.

Brackets, you understand — you know what a bracket is. A bracket is: it happens to the preclear, and the preclear makes it happen to somebody else, and others make it happen to others. It's the various ways that actions can take place. Somebody does it to the preclear and the preclear does it to somebody else, and it's run on positives and negatives. All right. That is to say, it happens to the preclear or it doesn't happen to the preclear. The preclear makes it happen to somebody else, he doesn't make it happen to somebody else. Other people make it happen to other people, and other people don't make it happen to other people. And those are the angles of a bracket, and that's the way you run these things.

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.

There's a six-way. And there's also "restraint" can be run in there: trying to keep from doing it to somebody else and trying to keep from doing it to self and so forth. Restraint goes on that same line. Restraint also takes in "conform," takes in some very — other interesting buttons that you'll run into, but you'll run into them more or less automatically if you just hit responsibility.

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.

Get the joy of irresponsibility. Get the joy of responsibility. Start running Black and White, beauty and ugliness. The beauty of responsibility; the beauty of irresponsibility. The fellow says, "What do you mean, the beauty of irresponsibility?" It's the same thing as the beauty of going insane, and you say, "All right. Run the beauty of insanity."

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 .. .

"Oh, no. I couldn't possibly run such a thing."

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.

"Did you ever go on a vacation?"

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.

Fellow will say, "Yes."

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.

"Well, how'd you feel?"

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 .. .

"Mm, it felt good and happy and so forth."

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.

And you say, "Well, why did you feel that way?"

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.

"Well, I didn't have to do my ... Oh, I was no longer responsible, and therefore . . . Hm."

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.

"All right. Run the feeling you had when you went on your vacation. All right, get that feeling a little deeper. A little deeper. Get it a little more. A little more. Now let's run other people feeling how they go when they go on vacations. Now just run it a little more," and all of a sudden, you're getting the glee of insanity off of this fellow. What do you know? Very fast process.

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.

"Now, get the beauty of responsibility."

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.

And he'll say, "There is no beauty to it. It's very ugly. I don't like responsibility. I don't want anything to do with responsibility. Responsibility, blah, blah." Well, he might as well be saying, "I don't want anything to do with energy. I'm not going to move out of my head." He might as well say, "I don't want anything to do with force." He might as well be saying, "I don't want anything to do with objects." "Oh," he says, "you mean run 'I am to blame.' "

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.

Now let me show you responsibility on a Tone Scale. It starts out down here at the bottom — starts out down here at the bottom, way subzero, with irresponsibility. Now, because the thetan can go below the level of zero, you get on those lower bands with the greatest of ease — oh, with just great ease — you get insanity, the glee of insanity. And when you run a preclear sometime, he'll suddenly make this remark to you, quite spontaneously: "You know, there's some horrible glee connected with insanity." That doesn't mean that all joy is insane. There is a sane level for joy way up here someplace.

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.

But anyhow — oh, the biggest operation that they can pull on you in this society is: "You're working too hard. You should have some relaxation. You should get out and you should have an avocation." You can kill a man that way. What you're telling him to do is favor the joy of insanity, the glee of insanity. And this fellow's been awfully interested in his work, and that was his fun. That was his fun, to paint for twenty-three hours a day. And as long as people leave him alone, he'll stay in pretty good shape.

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.

But you — they watch this — what they've watched is another manifestation. The fellow paints for twenty-three hours a day and somebody sooner or later is going to say, "Ah, bait!" And then say it with all sincerity, "You're working too hard, dear. You're working much too hard, much too hard. Don't you think you ought to have a rest?" It never occurred to this fellow that he needed a rest. He could probably go on this way for the next forty years. But at that moment, this enters into his mind: "My, I am working hard. I ought to have a rest." What they've keyed in is the joy of irresponsibility, and he goes right on down Tone Scale from there.

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.

And then when he finally gets around to being diagnosed, why, somebody says, "And he works for twenty-three hours a day, and obviously the fellow has worked himself to pieces." Because the truth of the matter is that he was disarmed and unmanned by this "you better rest; you better take a vacation; you're working too hard," and all this philosophy, so-called, back on his track is keying in madly. And the truth of the matter is that that philosophy reduced his physical stamina to a point where he can no longer go on.

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.

And so, the horrible part of it is, the only thing you can do for him is to make him take a vacation. You see, that is the therapy when it gets to that state. But it starts at another point. "Oh, dear, you're working too hard and you're liable to burn yourself out." They say this to "boy wonders" until they finally do. This boy wonder is able to play chess up to the age of fourteen and beat anybody in the world, and then one day he said, "I'm tired." Well, if you ever have to rehabilitate a boy wonder, just start picking up — this fellow, he's now twenty-seven, he used to be a whiz-bang, he graduated from Oxford when he was eight or something — pick up this fellow and just get this: "Now, who first started in saying you had to conserve your energy and so forth, because you were liable to burn out? Who started telling you this?"

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.

"Oh, nobody — well, except my — oh, yes, yes. There was a very good friend of mine and so forth, and my father was worried about it and my mother was worried about it and then there's — oh, come to think about it, these other people were worried about it. Hey, was there anybody who wasn't worried about it? The only person who wasn't worried about it was me, until they got through with me. And now here I am today and I can't — not only do I feel kind of burned out, but I would no more look at a chessboard than I would blow my brains out. And if I did look at a chessboard, I probably would!"

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.

This is what happens to high-pressure, high-tension people. They are not operating, initially, from an aberration. They're just operating at high speed. But the first thing you know, this other operation gets worked on them. And another thing happens: They're running at a higher speed than the universe around them, so they keep colliding with the universe around them and they'll get stopped, stopped, stopped, stopped. And after he gets stopped enough, that's . . . What is stop? The gradient scale of stop is the gradient scale of decay, and final stop is destruction and death. So people kill them by stopping them.

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.

All right. Now, let's just take this gradient scale of blame. And boy, don't ever make a mistake on this scale, because your preclear is making a mistake on this scale. Here's 0.0. Now, up — this level is — this whole level is really "glee of insanity," "irresponsibility," "apathy," "done for," "don't want anything to do with it"; all of that level, it's — there's no question of blame down here at all. This is just irresponsibility, from -8.0 to 0.0.

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, let's start up the scale up here, and what do we find as a gradient scale? First, the first level we find is where we find an awful lot of Homo sapiens, particularly those with a completely occluded time track. We find them . . . This is not a condemnation; this is just what has happened — and that is, "It wasn't mine, I didn't do it and they were to blame." This is what he supposes. And all he's looking for at that level is something really to justify this attitude. And if he can find something that adequately justifies this attitude, he'll come up Tone Scale, not down.

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.

All right. So at this level is "they were." Now, oddly enough, just above that is the exact opposite flow: "I am to blame for everything that happened." He reverts — he reverses himself as he goes downscale. It becomes unsupportable to him to have himself to blame for everything, you see, because blame infers bad cause. That's the same as saying, "They were all bad cause and all there was, was bad cause," and above that level he is saying, "All right. I admit it. I was bad cause. I am to blame. I caused all these bad things. The things which I cause are bad. If I cause anything, it'll be bad. Any time I do anything, it just seems to wind up wrong." That's on that band.

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.

All right. Now, just above this level, is — this of course is "I was blame." And just above that here, we have "I was bad cause but they were bad cause, too." This probably could be figured out and juggled around for accuracy, but this is a good enough rule of the thumb. It fits the order of magnitude for which you want it. "I was and they were, too — bad cause." But we've got bad cause there, so we're still sitting here below 2.0 — there is no good cause on anything. And that's what's wrong with your people below 2.0. They say, "I can't have any fun because — the reason I can't have any fun is," and so on and so on, "is because I have to be responsible for."

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.

Well, now, that's a heck of a thing. The guy is saying — he's saying, "I can't have any fun, really, except the glee of insanity. I can't have any fun except insanity." That's what he's saying, because he's saying, "Those things for which I am responsible, I am so anxious and concerned about that I can't enjoy. I can't enjoy those things for which I am responsible." That's what he's saying.

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 get up above this level — your gradient scale is sort of going on a flop, back and forth. "I was blame" and "I was and they were, too." That's your propitiation level. That's generally along 1.1, something like that. "I was and they were — plus them."

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, let's get up above here to anger. Boy, that isn't unspecific at all. That's "You are!" It doesn't matter who "you" are on any dynamic, it's "You're to blame. You're bad cause. There is no good cause, you understand, and everything has to be stopped because it's all bad cause, and you did it." It doesn't matter whether "you" is a door post, a car motor, a sheet of paper, a piece of correspondence, a person, a dog — nothing. It says, "I have to stop everything. The reason I have to stop everything is everything is bad cause. And it's what I immediately address at the moment that's bad cause. We don't have to go back into time to look for bad cause. We know what's cause, and you are!" It's right now.

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.

And this is — 2.0 is: "I'm being responsible, and I'm going to force you to be, too. You sure you're being responsible? Now, you're probably going to be bad cause, but, if I force you to be, you might be good cause but only if I force you to be." Now, that's the level of responsibility at that point.

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.

Now we go up from there and we get into a little bit happier — we get up above that. "Some of the things I did were good cause." Let's get it to 2.5. At 2.5 it's: "Well, there probably isn't any good cause, and there probably isn't bad cause, either — there's tolerance. There's tolerance. Really, probably, nothing's to blame. Probably everything's more or less to blame. But it isn't very serious. There's just nothing to be worried about."

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, we get at — up here, as we go up to 3.0, it's "There probably is good cause if you examine it carefully to find out and make sure that it isn't bad cause. And it probably is shared equally by other people and by yourself, but you have to be rather careful about this to — in order to engage in action on it. And you can do all right if you're cautious," you see?

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.

Now, you get at 4.0 and he's saying, "Now, look. There's a lot of bad cause around here, a lot of bad cause around here. But you and I, we're good cause and we're going to get out there and we're going to pitch and if we all get together on this thing, we can make good cause out of it, you understand? And the way to make — be responsible for the whole thing is just to get in there and pitch and get a lot of forward motion and you get a lot of forward motion, you're going to get good cause out of this." You've got that angle. It's an enthusiasm toward good cause to avoid bad cause. But you understand that 4.0 has to assume that there's bad cause in order to continue toward good cause.

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."

And now we get up into the higher and more esoteric bands and we begin to see reason. Now, reason tells you adequately that cause is — bad or good — is a matter of viewpoint; and the higher you go, the more the criterion is to achieve an effect from pure cause which is not judged by bad or good, but is merely judged by "is it effective?" Is it effective? And so we drop bad and good out, up the band. We get into pure action at 20.0, and you sit around and try to talk to a man of action about what's bad and what's good, he's liable to be very bored. The only thing he's asking is, is it effective. Now, his criterion is, is it effective on - really — on this optimum equation; on the equation of the optimum solution: Is it less destruction on the dynamics than it — than it's constructive? Is it more constructive than it's destructive? Well, all right, let's go. It only has to be 49:51 to get him into action — 49 percent destructive, 51 percent constructive. He'll favor that, but he'll still engage in action at 50:50.

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.

Now, all angels have two faces, and when we go up above this level of about 8.0 on the Tone Scale, we have to start examining angels and find out what is the anatomy of an angel? Because that's kind of low level for a thetan — angel - because an angel is always flapping around and using up energy and doing this and that and so on. So, we find out all angels have two faces.

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.

In ancient times, gods were customarily sculpted with two faces, and the reason why you get tragedy — comedy. It's actually a symbolism of the two­facedness of gods. Any god is capable of wrath or a vengeance or bad cause, or a beneficence, bounty or good cause. He is capable of what people below him on the Tone Scale would consider good and bad. He doesn't consider either of them good or bad. He has no consideration of the two. But the people below the Tone Scale model him with two faces, because according to their viewpoint and according to their criterion, the things which he does are bad or good. And he wants to know whether or not they're effective. So they're not operating on the same communication channel at all, not even vaguely. And they're not liable to get into communication either. Which is why it seems so natural to people not to have a direct telephone wire to the switchboard in heaven, because they know they can't understand that level of cause anyhow.

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.

So we get the — angels have two faces, black face and a white face. Now, this is so heavily — heavily on the track that you will very often find it used in electronic implants. They make half a person black and half a person white. If you want to know what's wrong with your preclear sometime, you'll find out that at some high level on the Tone Scale, at some point way back on the track, he elected to be good only. And of course he put himself immediately below 8.0 on the Tone Scale. He just delivered up half of his force. And by golly, because he keeps watching force do bad things, he'll have to come to the opinion sooner or later that force is bad. The second he does, he goes below 2.0 on the Tone Scale.

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.

That is your power dive. That is a power dive. The fellow says, "I am only going to be good cause," he puts the throttle all the way up into the panel and pushes the stick all the way forward, because he's on his way. And you can pick up this point on the track with great benefit to your preclear. He decided only to be good. And he never bothered to define what "good" was — except that he did define what "bad" was, and "bad" was force. And sure enough, he looks at force — whenever you say "force" to him, he thinks in terms of whips, guns, stockades, stop motion, hold motion, kill, maim, force, blows, heavy. That's his idea of force.

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.

Actually, force is simply a sentiently directed energy. And wisdom, as far as the human mind is concerned, would be the level of cause. But thinking, thinking so-called, is the estimation of force. A person is as good as he can estimate force. He estimates the force necessary in the future. He estimates the force necessary in the present. He'll walk out of this room . . . You reach ahold of that doorknob there — what would you think of somebody who customarily walked across to that door, hit it on the wrong side, bounced off, hit the table, fumbled around, hit the table again, bounced off the other side, fished around, finally struck the doorknob and then couldn't get it to turn, couldn't get it — perfectly easy turning doorknob, and then suddenly came down on the doorknob, crunch! and pulled the doorknob off? Well, now, that's merely bad estimation of force. It requires a very nice estimation of force in order to get up, walk straight to the door, straight to that point in space and touch that knob with just the right amount of force to open it and pull the thing to you.

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.

How wrong can you get? How bad have you estimated the force? So that "wrongness" has as its basic definition, poorly estimated force. And when you have two athletes — you say one is the winner and one is the loser, you have said at the same time one was right and one was wrong. And two athletes are only as good as each can estimate force. But it might be an athletic tournament all arranged and beautifully arranged around tatting. Now, you just take tatting all by itself or embroidery work or something of that sort — that can be a contest. But the working of the needle in the execution of the design is an application of force. Force is a physical science definition of energy, amount and direction of. It's directed energy.

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."

Now, Homo sapiens — you just say the word, the only really explanatory word for the estimation of energy, you just say "force" to him — he jumps a foot. You say, "Well, you'll have to apply ..." What if you were talking to somebody and you say, "Well, you'll have to apply force to that problem." Why, he'd think you meant a hammer or something. You're going to bust this problem up. You say, "Well, now, you take this problem with your mother; you'll have to apply force to that." Sure enough, you will have to apply force to it. But just going and talking to her is applying force.

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?"

So you get how far off a person could shy if a person suddenly says, "Force is no good"? He will then say finally, "The condensation of force as represented by objects are no good," which immediately says . . . Because what time is, is the object. All right. He immediately says then, "Time doesn't exist." And he says all sorts of things the moment he says, "Force: no good. No force." Second he says that, he's a gone duck and he will behave accordingly under processing. He will behave accordingly. He will process as easily as he will use force.

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."

So you have to rehabilitate force with an individual. What is responsibility? Responsibility is the degree of willingness to handle energy and space. A man's degree of responsibility is his degree of willingness to handle energy and space. And it will include objects, it will include energy, it will include 1.5's idea of force — which is a club. It will also include the 4.0's idea of force, which is enthusiasm. It will include the 8.0 angel's idea of force, which is simply — well, let's say, oh, let's — "I'm on this side." "Why are you on that side?" "I'm on that side for randomity's sake."

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.

Where the person is on the Tone Scale is a gradient scale of two things. One is primary, the other is secondary. Primary is his desire to cause an effect. How much is he willing to effect? What is he desirous of effecting? Now, and the other one is, of course, how much MEST universe force in space, loose or condensed, is he willing to handle? And those two are exact. And how easily does a person get out of his body? He gets out of his body in proportion to the amount of force which he is willing now to handle. Now, that's just the open-and-shut gradient scale of the thing and therefore you cannot process a preclear on responsibility and irresponsibility without blowing him out of his body.

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.

Now, you get this level of responsibility: You have a preclear with a blank track. All right, you get assignment of cause. "All right, let's run all the people to whom you've assigned cause." That's not a very good process, by the way. But what do you know? He'll start to get visios, of all things. Of course he'll get visios; he starts to handle energy. In order to get a perception at all, you have to be willing to handle energy. So if perceptions are off, it's a direct index as to how much force this person's willing to apply. But get this: Don't try to estimate the effectiveness of this person by that, because this person may be low on the Tone Scale and be a magnitude of something else — the Q. And so you have very low-level, completely occluded persons who are willing not — not willing to take responsibility for anything, apparently, and so on, who can just cut the darnedest swaths in society. It's magnitude of cause. So unwillingness to handle force must be compared to magnitude of cause possible.

"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.

Now, you can get somebody — you can get somebody who's pretty badly occluded who has an enormous magnitude of cause and he's still moting, because there are an awful lot of forces he's still willing to handle. But in the main, he's occluded. Another person of his same level would be dead. You get the idea? It's how much force is he willing to handle? Well, how much force, potentially, can he create?

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 .. .

Well, let's say two preclears, and one is unwilling to handle 50 percent of his force and the other is unwilling to handle 50 percent of his force, and one of them can blow a building over with a sneeze and the other one can't walk downstairs. It would just be ability to create force. And that is a variable factor, person to person.

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?"

Now, it ought to be all nice and equal, but it isn't. That's one of the first things you learn in processing, that sometimes you're processing a — the main power station for London, and the other time you're processing some fellow who will — when cleared, will make a grasshopper's leg twitch. Horrible. I wish for the sake of Voltaire and some of the other people who have written in the past that all men were created equal and had an equal amount of theta and had equal potentialities, but it shows that there is a quantum in theta itself above the level 40.0, which is interesting. That's a clue. It's a clue. You'll see this in action.

"I'm physics department."

Now, all of our processes, then, sum toward and come back to cause–effect above space, space, energy, objects — all these processes. And when I'm talking to you about this particular process, I am talking about the main highway that drives straight through the preclear's ego, alter ego, libido, port lights, starboard lights, harbor entrances, ranges of mountains and so forth. It's a four-pass, express, thousand-mile-an-hour highway. And you want to be — I tell you this because you can orient your processing around this without going wrong.

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

Now, I'll give you a better process than I just gave you, just "joy of responsibility" and "joy of irresponsibility," and so on. There's a better, refined process on this, is: "What has one refused to take responsibility for that he himself has done?" Can you run this: "I didn't say it. I didn't see it. I didn't feel it. I didn't hear it." Hm, starts to look familiar on that one, doesn't it? "I didn't hear you." "I didn't hear you, Mother, that's why I didn't come in. Heh-heh." — little liar. Now, you'll run those in terms of concepts and feelings and you'll find some interesting things happening on the case.

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

Now, "desire to be effect." You have always three stages on the Tone Scale. Up here above 2.0 you can consider it crudely "desire"; and below that, below 2.0 down to about 1.0, you can consider it "enforce"; and from about 1.0 down to 0.0, you can consider it "inhibit." So you can always put desire, enforce, inhibit on anything. You can put that on a — put each one of those on a bracket. "When did you desire force?"

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

Now, when you're talking about force, look, you're talking about ARC. ARC is force; it's energy; it's energy flows. And a person can't perceive unless he is willing to handle energy flows. And what's the worst thing he could do? Well, religionists have said it down the track: If a person denied himself, he would do himself in. And you just find where this preclear's denied his own actions, his own perceptions; he's denied receiving them, denied saying them, and you will find major aberrated points.

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.

And I'll give you a little bit more than that and make it just a little bit stiffer. You will find the major aberrative points of his current lifetime on those buttons. When did he refuse to acknowledge his ownership of his own force? "I didn't perceive it," in any one of its brackets. "I didn't do it," in any one of its brackets. And what other two? Of course, to have force you've got to have location and time, so you say, "I wasn't there. I didn't go there. I went elsewhere," and "It was another time when." All of these (quote) lies (unquote) demanded by the family or social courtesy have been directed squarely at the individual — individual's denial of self.

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!

Now, conversely, if you can get an individual to admit or state that he didn't say something that he did, you can finish him. That's the fastest way to kill a man next to shooting him that I know. You could just work on him, just work on him until he would deny having done what he did, and just work on him, and finally, so he'll have peace or so he'll have something or other, get him to deny that he did what he did. Get him to deny that he said what he said. Get him saying, "Oh, I didn't mean that." Make him very angry and make him say something he didn't want to say and then say — force him then, to say that he didn't mean to say what he said. It'd kill him. Those are the major aberrative points.

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.

You find the person in a preclear's life who made him go through those gyrations and you'll find the main aberrator of this current lifetime. Who made him go through these gyrations? How many people did? Who was the worst one? Put him on an E-Meter and find out and then process it. And what's he doing all this time? He's saying — what he should be saying is, "This is my force. I am free to use force as I please." He's saying, "I didn't mean to use — this was my force but I didn't mean to use it." He is saying to himself — all the time he's making new postulates saying, "I don't know how to apply force. I don't know how to apply force. I don't know how to apply force. And oh, I don't know and, oh, I just do these things and I'm not quite sure why I do them or how I do them, but I do them and I just do them. And I just guess I can't trust myself anymore."

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.

Now, get that. What is trust, then? Trust is the same as competence. Trust: "I can trust myself to properly apply force." And when you find an individual no longer trusts himself, it's only because he has denied that his application of force was proper. And what do you know, it's always been proper. It's never been otherwise than proper, no matter what he did. Because he, at that time, had a computation which told him that this, by the limit of his understanding and ability, was the only course he had to survive. He has been trying his best all the way along the track.

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.

At any given instant a man is doing his best to survive. And when he has — can be convinced that he did wrong to survive, then he has to go back into the past and unhinge the past from his own ownership, and so every facsimile he's got is then, thereafter, free not to have an owner and to make him an effect. Only when he says, "I am not responsible for what I did" can he then have his facsimiles operating against himself. And facsimiles which are not owned are fully free to punish the individual. And only those facsimiles which are punishing the individual are aberrative.

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.