This lecture is one that you'd better have.

I have a feeling – I have a feeling that something in this lecture will apply to you.

You know, the old-time mad scientist used to always be in his frock coat, you know, and so on and puttering around with the thisas and thats and getting his – it usually consisted of either an ape that he was transforming into a beautiful girl or a beautiful girl he was transforming into an ape or something of this character.

And we don't do that. We transform… [laughter]

Anyway, as I was saying… Anyway, we must get on with it. Okay?

Now, hey, what's this tub for here?

I don't know what all this equipment is.

This – pretty serious business that we're into now.

Is there a fire inspector in the house? Well, I'm glad of that. Now, where's the fire extinguisher here?

Just make sure that we've got everything all set here, [sprays fire extinguisher] It's okay.

It's okay I just wanted to assure you that if you caught on fire while I was doing this lecture, why, I'd be able to do something about it. It's probably empty now.

Well, this is a lecture on the things of Scientology.

There are things in Scientology – very, very definitely. There are numbers of them.

I'm going to talk to you now about a cycle-of-action.

The first genus of a cycle-of-action is found about ten thousand years ago in the fourth hymn of the Veda.

It's the Hymn to the Dawn Child.

Oh, you didn't think we went back that far.

Well, this is the one where we really go backtrack.

There's supposed to have been a legendary monk by the name of Dharma who did a number of things and is the ancestor of Buddhism.

And mixed up in there some place is this Hymn to the Dawn Child. This is very interesting.

I won't even bother to quote this thing to you, but what it says: that out of nowhere and nothingness something arrives and then persists and then decays and then goes back into nothingness.

Now that's, of course, in there with a hundred thousand other data and it just happens that after we discovered the cycle-of-action, we noticed this other one.

No, no. Come to think about it, I knew the Vedic Hymn first, out in India.

But the point here is that it gives us the cycle-of-action.

Only the cycle-of-action is much simpler than the Hymn to the Dawn Child, believe me.

It is simply this: Create-Survive-Destroy. Just those three things. Create-Survive-Destroy.

That is your apparent cycle-of-action in this universe.

Factually, it is not Create-Survive-Destroy.

It is create, create-create-create, not create or counter-create.

The cycle-of-action in its apparency, however, is Create-Survive-Destroy and is one of the integral parts of Dianetics and Scientology.

Here, you see, I have a piece of paper. It's just a piece of paper.

There is nothing on it. This piece of paper I shall now make into a boat.

I am now creating something called a boat.

I don't know whether this piece of paper will do what I want it to do.

It's a paper hat by now. A boat.

Now you have seen that I have created a boat.

And that is create. That is all there is to create.

I simply made something. All right.

Having made a boat, I wish to call to your attention a very singular fact.

It is surviving. There it is. It is surviving. There it is. It's lasting. There it is.

It's in the second part of a cycle-of-action. There it goes.

And factually, it would very much keep on going on and on and on and on from there on out.

What's it doing? Surviving. There it is.

That's all it's doing. Doing nothing else. It's merely persisting.

But we will assume that 895 trillennia have gone by, shall we?

Gee, you got old quick.

And now having assumed this, we will go into the third step, which is destroy.

What's happening to it? It's being destroyed, isn't it?

Don't mean to restimulate all of your naval victories. Just goes – there it is.

Rather restimulates the old poem: "The boy stood on the burning deck, the flames were about to kill 'im, but there came a thrilling rescue, in the last three feet of fillim. "

Well, there it goes. Nothing much left of that. Destroyed.

Create-Survive-Destroy. Right?

Now, all things in this universe tend to obey this basic law and mentally we obey this basic law if we don't know any better.

Man tends to Q and A or duplicate the physical universe to this degree in its various laws.

There is no reason why this particular cycle-of-action from a living being's point of view shouldn't go destroyed, survives, creates.

See, there's no reason why it shouldn't run that way.

First thing we get is survival. And out of survival we get a creation and a creation destroys or some other combination of these three elements.

That would simply be us making up our minds if we were totally free to make up our minds, but you'll find out the reactive bank isn't totally free to make up its mind and it assumes at once that if something is surviving, it's going to be destroyed.

It assumes that if you create something, it'll survive for a short time and be destroyed.

And this assumption is taken for granted.

So we have a pretty girl and there she is. And she lasts for a while and then goes poof.

Of course, in Scientology we have the good luck that every time I go to a Central Organization again, after I've been gone for some time, I wonder where all these beautiful girls came from.

And they were the old ladies I met there before.

Audience: [laughter, applause]

Aside from the actual beingness of life itself, the basic unit of life itself, all other things are agreed-upon ideas.

And all basic laws are agreed-upon ideas.

And so is it agreed upon that we have this cycle Create-Survive-Destroy.

But it's the woof and warp of existence.

You'll see it repeated all over the place, but that doesn't mean that it has to apply to you, any more than this O/W action which we have should apply to you forever.

Now, looking over here… You know, I hope I don't get in trouble with the stage unions.

I have to be careful of unions, particularly up in England.

There was a detective recently – there was 180,000 pounds worth of diamonds, I think, South African diamonds, that disappeared from a standing aircraft.

It had been standing on London airport and you could see – it was just standing there and the diamonds were still in it. And they vanished.

And you could see how the police would get slightly upset about this.

They wanted to know who did it.

And so they asked everybody on the airport if they had noticed anything.

And they evidently asked one of the porters too hard, so the other porters struck, instantly and at once.

Gee, wouldn't it be nice, you know, if you could just have strikes like that.

Somebody questions you too thoroughly and you could get everybody to strike.

Somebody asks you to pick up too heavy a box and you strike. Somebody does this, that.

Well, I don't have to worry about the unions down here, but if this were England, I wouldn't have dared drag this out.

As a matter of fact, I'll let you in on something.

Do you realize I have four of the most noted people in Scientology backstage here, setting up all this gear?

Four Association Secretaries. It's very, very funny though.

They were all going to come here, you know, and sit as VIPs down in the front row and be introduced.

And they're backstage working like mad.

No, a lot of people, porters being questioned about aircraft and diamonds, and stagehands being upset about somebody else moving a piece of equipment, are usually worried about a thing called control.

Control is a very interesting item.

And in Scientology we have articulated for the first time the various parts of control.

Also articulated what's bad control, what's good control – a number of things have been articulated concerning this thing called control.

But basically, in Scientology, you'll find out that it's the gradients of importance which is the contribution, not the item itself.

But in this particular case, the contribution is the balance of what control is.

People say control, control, and they don't know really what they're talking about.

Actually, they're talking about the cycle of control.

And like the cycle-of-action, control has three stages.

And one is start-change-stop. That's the cycle of control.

Start-change-stop. That's all there is to control.

If you don't know how to start an automobile, you won't ever get in trouble.

But the moment you start anything, you run into the problem of controlling it.

Because starting is part of controlling.

And by starting something, you then go into the next stage of changing it.

Inevitably, if you start something, you're now going to change it. Inevitably. There's going to be a shift.

Now, the difficulties which have occurred in this universe is you – I don't know why, I haven't interrogated you carefully –

but you have started an awful lot of things that you never bothered to change and you never bothered to stop which are now definitely out of control.

Which one of you invented police, huh?

Come on, let's get down to cases now.

Which one of you invented police, now? Somebody did here.

All right. They must have invented police because they needed a control in a population area. Isn't that right?

Well, who invented the counter-effort that prevents the police from controlling things?

Now, the police and I get along fine – I'm giving you an example.

The police, however, are in the interesting position of being asked to control a society that they have no real share in starting.

They are in the interesting position of controlling crime that they don't begin. Just look that over.

Can they really control crime if they have no start on the kids, for instance?

Their control must begin somewhere.

And it must have something to do with change.

And it must have an ability to stop.

So, lacking the starting or the changing, we get too many governments going in for just one thing: stop, stop, stop.

Watch it sometime. Stop. Think it over.

US Government, for instance, has tried to control business, but in view of the fact that it cannot engage in business and thus can't start any businesses, the only part of control left, free to it, is to change the business, which they're not free to do because the Constitution says they mustn't interfere there, so they can stop business.

It's the only part of the cycle left. Got the idea? Stop. Stop.

Did you ever know an obsessive stop person?

Some of you had some broad experience with them, I think.

They did nothing but stop everything.

It's quite interesting, but you've got to recognize that the cycle of control has three stages.

If you're going to police the conduct of a society, you must have some say in its basic and fundamental education.

You must also be able to alter its conduct and you must be able to stop its wrongdoing. Right?

That would then be a full police action of the society. Correct?

Now, things that are started can be changed from outside influences.

Here my left hand starts this ball swinging.

My right hand changes its course of action.

My left hand stops it.

So you can take the various parts of the cycle of control and attribute them to other items.

You know, other identities or beingnesses or forces can bring about these actions.

But when too many forces are involved in handling the cycle of control, you get out of that nothing but confusion.

All you get left is confusion.

Start, stop, change, stop. Get the idea?

Too many control factors.

Papa is controlling the children according to his system.

Mama is controlling the children according to hers.

And neither Papa nor Mama either like each other or agree on what is proper control.

What kind of children do you get out of this? You get confused children.

A cycle of control must be straight.

It must be just plain start something, change something, stop something.

If you want to teach somebody to drive, just remember this cycle of control. And it's quite remarkable.

You say, "Okay. Now I want you to start the car. Thank you. Now change its gears. "

The car isn't going anyplace.

"Change its gears. Good. Now stop the car."

All of a sudden they know how to drive it. It's never moved a foot.

But if you want to blow somebody's ridges to glory – I mean his automaticities of driving – make him drive the car for a little while with the cycle of control, see.

You sit in the seat alongside him and you say, "All right. Start the car." So he starts the car.

You say, "Good. Move the car forward."

That's changing it from spots A to B.

"Okay. Stop the car." All right. He stops the car.

All of a sudden, he's going to start going, blahh, booo, boom. Doesn't sound like much, does it?

But after you ask him to do this twenty-five or thirty times, all of his automaticities…

You see, he just jumps into the car and turns it on and throws it in gear and goes off down the road.

Car takes him to work, parks itself and he curses it because it got a ticket.

Standard modus operandi. Cars take people everywhere these days.

You take a new motorbike, take some kid, put him on a new motorbike.

The proper way to teach him how to run it is don't even let him start the motor but just make him coast downhill, start it and stop it.

Start it, change it a little bit and stop it. Start it, change it a little bit and stop it. Start it, change it a little bit and stop it.

All of a sudden, he'll be able to ride a motorbike.

Ninety-nine percent of the motorcycle riders haven't done this and are taken down the road by motorcycles.

The motorcycle is in charge of the person and you have accidents. Very simple.

But this law is the closest law there is to the physical universe.

This really follows the physical universe.

Cycle-of-action also follows the physical universe, but this cycle of control – if you want to handle the physical universe, you've got to pay attention to this cycle of control of start-change-stop, because the physical universe is in agreement with what it's in agreement with.

And why you built it that way, I don't know. But that's the way it's built.

All right. So much for it.

That's the second part of the anatomy of the mind in this lecture here.

And the next one has something to do – which is rather esoteric.

Very esoteric as a matter of fact. It is the physical universe as a part of the mind.

Physicists have for a long time agreed that it was necessary to resolve the problems of the human mind before you could know what the physical universe was all about.

You will find essays on this subject written in 1910, as early as that.

Nobody has taken the cue from it, but today in various parts of the United States, nuclear physicists use Scientology very hard in order to try to understand nuclear physics.

We have, matter of fact, developed several laws that are senior to nuclear physics.

One is the fact that zero is a variable.

Zero is the wild variable in nuclear physics, because it's a zero of what, where?

They just say zero, but it's a zero of what, where?

They're assuming that zero is an absolute.

And absolutes are unobtainable.

And the other one is a constant known as c.

And I don't know in what laughable moment somebody dreamed up this figure c.

But it varies for everything there is.

All you've got to find out is that c is a variable to realize that nuclear physics has a terrific time of it.

C is the speed of light and everybody knows what the speed of light is.

Except that's the speed of light – what happens to it when it becomes something else?

They say that's the speed of light. They're wrong. It's not.

Working on these basics, why, we have revolutionized a few – field of physics.

You don't hear much about that, because that's all secret. It's very secret.

It's very secret that the Russians are about to blow up the Americans and the Americans are about to blow up the Russians. This is a secret.

But I personally think you ought to be let in on it.

For a long time, various schools of thought have given various data to the physical universe or various status to the physical universe.

The physical universe was said by Christian Science to be an enormous illusion.

All is mind, infinite mind, so forth.

That is, all is illusion.

You merely believe that you see this wall.

You merely believe that you see me.

And believing that you see me, you see me.

And we get the reductio ad absurdum, not that Christian Science is absurd, but it's just a point of view of Peter Pan coming forward and saying, "Please, please believe in Tinker Bell so that she won't disappear."

Therefore, you'd have people rushing around also saying, "Please, please believe in the physical universe so it won't disappear. "

Well, doesn't that follow?

The next time you run into a bridge abutment with a car, remember to disbelieve in the bridge abutment just before you hit it.

The closest I ever came to that was unmocking a body in a car and mocking it up on a hillside during a wreck and I often wondered how I did that.

I mean to find that out someday.

We didn't know that I had done it until we tried to run the engram and there was no middle to the engram.

So you evidently can do peculiar things.

But that doesn't mean that it's a peculiar universe.

The physical universe from the viewpoint of a Scientologist is a very easy thing to understand.

Here it is. You have space. You have matter. You have energy. You have time.

Matter, energy, space, time, form and location.

The six things which make the physical universe the physical universe are just those.

Matter, energy, space, time are the principal ones. Hence, our coined word MEST.

Matter, energy, space, time, first letter of each, MEST.

Form and location add on to that as parts of the Sixth Dynamic, which is the physical universe.

Now form and location are, of course, inherent in matter, energy, space and time.

So you only need the four.

You need the other two for processing.

Well, what's matter? Well, that's it. [thump, thump] That's matter, [thump, thump]

Energy. Well, you've seen these things sparking around here.

You see these flames? You see this flame here? Hm? Isn't that a nice flame? Energy.

Feel the heat waves from it. Energy.

Space. You're sitting in space at this moment.

And if you weren't sitting in space, you'd be awfully crowded.

And time. Time is ... [tick, tick].

The only peculiar thing I've ever seen happen to time from my viewpoint-oh, I've seen some very peculiar things happen to time, but this was peculiar-it upset my auditor and it upset my jeweler.

Auditor says to me, "Look around and find something you can have."

I say, "Okay."

"Look around and find something you can have."

I say, "Okay." I'm looking at the couch, you know, and the ceiling and the walls and so forth.

"Look around and find something you can have."

And I said, "Well, what do you know? I think I'll have a moment of time. Well, I can have a moment of time."

It went psssst. All the clocks in the house stopped and this one stopped and wouldn't go again – at that exact instant.

You can probably do some very funny things with time.

But time, basically, is not just the change or interrelationship amongst particles.

It is itself. Time is.

Now, this is the common denominator to all things in the physical universe.

In Scientology we don't argue about "Is it an illusion?" "Was it built by the Masons?"

See, we've had – we're not interested in these questions. Not vaguely interested.

All we're interested in is the fact, it is. That's all.

Now look. You try to go off of this point any further than this and you've got trouble.

As you observe the universe, why worry about anything more than observing the universe? It is.

And you know, a lot of people look at the wall and they say, well, that was put there by creativeness and so on and built by Dun and Bradstreet and so on and so on and et cetera, et cetera, figure-figure-figure-figure-figure-figure-figure.

No, look, ladies and gentlemen.

The wall simply is. It just is. That's all.

The stage is. They exist.

Who cares where they came from? They're here!

Now, people can get quite allergic to the physical universe and get so they don't like it.

They run into enough bridge abutments and they say, "It hurts me."

Well, the experiment I was showing you yesterday, overt-motivator sequence, they sure must have hurt it first.

Now, as soon as you can realize that it is, your next most vital step occurs instantly: that it is there.

Now, that you can admit that it is there does an odd mental phenomenon.

You can have it.

And on your ability to have it or not have it, your whole life is built.

Some people have to have it by owning it.

Some people have to have it by governing it.

Some people have to have it by lording over it.

But these are all alter-isnesses.

They simply have it. They have it or they don't have it. That's it.

You have a Congress or you don't have a Congress.

You have a stage or you don't have a stage.

You get the idea? An open-and-shut situation.

Doesn't matter who built this stage or where it came from or anything of the sort. It just is!

And the next thing you can ask about it is "Can you admit that it is?"

Or in other words, can you have it?

Now of course there's a little more to havingness than that.

There are about 56, 80, 246 separate factors in this thing called havingness, all of which have to do with frames of mind with regard to things.

You go over to Ireland where people have been pretty badly starved down for a while and you ask a little clerk in Ireland, you say,

"Look around here and find something that you can have. Anything. Anything you can have. Find something you can have."

And she thinks and she thinks and she thinks and she worries and she looks and so forth.

And she looks around.

And she – this really grips the imagination at once, you see.

And looks and looks.

"Well, I could have something just like that if I could get it somewhere."

This thing called havingness. It is an odd and esoteric factor.

It has to do with one's attitude toward the physical universe.

And it is terribly important.

It is so important that until one's havingness is stable, he never gets a stable case gain.

That's an interesting fact.

Until one's havingness is stabilized, every new environment that he moves into, or every environment that he moves into throughout the day, will give him differences of havingness, which give him differences of case reaction.

And his case isn't stable.

He can't be himself all day long until his havingness is very stable indeed.

Now that is a new discovery.

What is a stable case? What do you mean by a stable gain?

Well, a stable gain will be a stable gain as long as one's havingness is stable.

So the physical universe must have an awful lot to do with the mind.

We can assume from this if it has this much influence on the mind that it must have an awful lot to do with the mind.

We wouldn't go so far as to say that one of the parts of the mind is the physical universe or that the physical universe is simply an apparency which occurs because you think you're looking at it.

The earliest physicists thought this.

But we would certainly say that you'd look awful silly without a physical universe.

Can you think of yourself without a physical universe?

I mean it'd look kind of silly, wouldn't it?

You wouldn't have anyplace to go, no place to be and you would be "no – when."

I know you're used to being nowhere, but think about this being no – when.

It'd be pretty grim, wouldn't it?

So that your ability to have has a lot to do with your ability to recognize time, because time is part of the physical universe and the physical universe moves through time consistently and continually.

And time is everything in the physical universe.

So we had better pay considerable attention to this thing called time.

Now, here is an interesting thing. Here is a string of balls.

And you wonder what's this silly thing got to do with anything, huh? Ooh, diamonds.

Anyhow, that's fixed so that smugglers, you know, can take it various places.

Anyhow, look-a-here. This we could call a time track.

Now, we would normally illustrate engrams, locks and secondaries or mental image pictures with this.

But I'm going to use it with you to illustrate the physical universe and time.

This one is a moment in time. Solid.

And then there's this next moment in time. And it's solid.

And there's this next moment in time. And it's solid.

And this next moment in time. And there it is.

And the next moment in time. And there it is.

And the next moment in time. And there it is.

And the next moment in time. And there it is.

And the next moment in time. There it is.

And the next moment in time. There it is.

And the next moment in time. There it is.

And the next moment in time. There it is.

And the next moment in time. There it is.

And all the others of them drifted into the past, didn't they?

Notice that? Interesting, isn't it? I'll show you this again.

Here's the moment of time you're sitting in at this instant.

Now look around you, the auditorium.

Look around. Anything solid around here?

Audience: No.

There's a fellow down there – one of the seminar leaders better give him something solid. Come on.

Something solid around here?

Audience: Yes.

All right. There it is. Ah, but it disappeared.

All right. Let's look around again.

Let's find something solid around here.

All right. That's this moment.

Okay? Is there something solid around here?

Audience: Yes.

All right. Now let's take the next one.

Look around. Find something solid around here?

Audience: Yes.

All right. Very good. Now look at this one.

This is the next moment in time. Is there something solid around here?

Audience: Yes.

All right. Now let's take this one.

Look around here and find something solid.

Audience: Yes.

Good. Good. All right. Let's take this one now.

Let's look around here and find something solid in this moment.

Audience: Yes.

All right. Good. Now let's find something solid in this moment.

Audience: Yes.

Let's find something solid. You got it? Huh?

All right. Let's do it again. Find something solid.

Audience: Yeah.

Good. Now find something solid again.

Audience: Yeah.

All right. Good. Find something solid.

Audience: Yeah.

All right. Find something solid now.

Audience: Yes.

All right. Find something solid.

Audience: Yes.

All right. Now do you remember all those moments that you found something solid?

Audience: Yes.

There they are and that's the time track. See?

Here would be your time track, see? Right here.

Saying this is now, there are all those moments you spotted that were solid.

Got it? Funny part of it is, you got a mental image picture now of each one of them.

You're clever. These photographers really think they do something.

But you process it all in your head.

I wonder how you do that.

If this was worked out in the process of photography though, your head would have to be the size of two warehouses.

Are you aware of that?

To get all the perceptions, color motion pictures that you get with all thoughts, postulates, sound and fifty-two other perceptions.

Oh boy, I mean Cinerama – poob.

You can do so much better than Cinerama that there's hardly any comparison.

I wonder that you even go to see it.

But go ahead. I wouldn't prevent you from going to see it.

Now, that's a time track. That's the consecutive moments of Isness.

That's what a time track is. The consecutive moments of Isness. Now look-a-here.

Let's supposing that each one of these little balls here that has a pattern is an 'orrible experience – going and paying your income tax, being run over by your mother-in-law.

It's an 'orrible experience.

Now look how the time track goes.

Here's a moment of time and an 'orrible experience.

And your second moment in time and your third moment in time. That's fine.

And your fourth moment in time and an 'orrible experience.

And your next moment in time and your next and an 'orrible experience.

And your next moment in time and your next moment – and a 'orrible experience.

Look at your time track.

You see what's wrong here is you don't want these.

So if you don't want these, there's no way for you to get from here into the future through the past.

You see, it's marked "detour. "

It says you want nothing to do with this, please. Road out.

So you have havingness, no havingness, havingness, havingness, havingness, no havingness, havingness, havingness, no havingness, havingness, havingness, no havingness.

And it winds up looking like this.

It isn't just a missing moment in time, because those things existed and you said they didn't exist.

Now, I'm not saying that a philosophy then – would follow naturally, that a philosophy which said no moments in time existed and all was delusion, I wouldn't say that would spin you in.

I'm not saying that's absolutely, certainly guaranteed to spin you in, because there are a lot of good Scientologists that have been Christian Scientists.

And I don't want to go fighting Christian Science.

But these other philosophies…

Well, I almost said something. I almost said, well, in Greek schools they used to teach us that time was made by Chronos and so forth.

And the little boys who didn't swallow this of course kept their track straight, but they sure got their bottoms warmed.

Here you have an example of this.

Now, if you're going to live, you've got to be able to have consecutive moments of time.

And if you notice how peculiar it is to restore consecutive moments in time or how simple it is to restore consecutive moments in time, you'd wonder how it's any kind of a trick at all.

But actually it is a considerable trick.

You'd think so, looking at some people.

Now, of course your individual havingness is good.

It's the fellow sitting on your left and right whose havingness is low.

But it works out like this: havingness is existence, the stagecraft of.

Now, you can exist in the absence of no matter, no energy, no space and no time.

I'll guarantee that – that you can exist in the absences of these things.

But if you fight these things and you don't like matter, energy, space and time and you resist matter, energy, space and time, you don't wind up in a no matter, no energy, no space, no time condition.

You wind up like this: dead in your ruddy 'ead, all wound up in a ball.

Now, we're going to run some Straightwire on this fellow.

All right, "Now, recall what you had for breakfast."

"I don't know. I forget."

"All right. When was the last time you kissed your sweetheart?"

"Well, I don't know. I seem to be in an incident here that has to do with ancient Atlantis. That doesn't belong here. "

"Well now, recall the last time you got paid. "

"Well, I'm at the end of my rope. "

The facts of the case are that your time track or your mental image pictures, of course, are copies of the physical universe as it goes by.

There's no reason to copy it, particularly, but you seem to want to do so, so go ahead.

Now, the difficulties which we run into in life… [electrostatic machine turned on]

I want to talk to you about problems.

Now, it's quite interesting that present time problems are the reason why cases don't move.

When a person has a present time problem, he is of course stuck in a present time which gets him totally involved and he can't have anything.

A present time problem is defined this way: It's postulate-counter-postulate. It's interest-counter-interest. It's intention-counter-intention.

You have two things which are opposed and when you get two things opposed…

See there? Each one of them is violently holding its own and its own position and won't budge.

That, by the way, is the source of power. Power is the ability to hold a location.

That's able to hold a location, so you get it going "snap-snap."

But here are two opposed intentions.

Let us see this big electrostatic machine as an ability here to hold an intention on the part of Mary and ability to hold an intention on the part of Joe.

And Joe and Mary, both of them, have equally tough intentions.

And never the twain shall meet. They don't like it.

So of course, they discharge at one another because they are holding fixed positions.

This is the basics of a problem.

You have these two wires here, and these two wires, of course, are in a situation where neither wire moves.

Neither wire changes and you get a discharge between them the moment that they're activated.

Actually, any two bodies held fixedly in space and opposed to one another have a discharge between them.

Call it a gravitic attraction if you wish to, but nevertheless that's what it is.

Now, when you have two problems – when you have a problem, you have two things very, very – see my hair? – you have two things extremely fixed and you'll get a discharge between them.

Actually, all you have to do is give somebody enough of a problem and you get some work out of them.

Do you realize this? Generation of power and so forth.

Two intentions opposed to one another will get a discharge between them. That's for sure.

But of course you possibly are one of those lucky people who have never had an argument.

Oh, you do, you have had some arguments? Did it look like that? Huh?

Which were you, the big one or the little one?

Of course, this is probably you arguing with your mother-in-law and you just keep going up in smoke.

That's what that amounts to. That's getting nowhere.

But you get a cross-discharge, one against the other. Okay.

Problems. Postulate-counter-postulate, intention-counter-intention.

We have America and the United States, the Americans and the Russians, and they have opposite intentions, they think.

And you're going – and you do already get discharges between them, don't you?

And someday, if they don't watch it, there's going to be enough discharge between them, not just to let it sit on the laboratory bench here but to blow up the whole ruddy shooting match.

Except of course South Africa, because I've got some signs poked out there that say, "Atomic fission not wanted. Do not fall here."

Now, look at this. They're holding fixed, opposite intentions, aren't they?

Now of course your biggest ability is to hold your position or location.

When you lose the ability to hold your position or location, you really lose your ability.

Do you realize that all that happens at death is somebody flies away from his location?

I won't go into that any too strongly here, but here is this idea of two counter-opposed intentions.

Now, suppose actually that these intentions weren't counter-opposed at all.

Supposing agreement occurred between these two points. What would happen then?

Well, if agreement occurred between these two points, the discharge would quit.

Because they'd say, look, we can hold opposite positions.

Well, we don't have to hold these fixed positions and therefore the discharge doesn't occur.

All power, however, derives from holding a fixed position.

So you either have power or you have peace.

But if you have too much power, it goes boom.

Now, these various parts I have mentioned to you about the human mind are just the human mind, but there are other parts of the human mind which are almost equally interesting to an individual studying this sort of thing.

For instance, the wavelengths of the human mind.

It's very interesting that these wavelengths of the human mind were picked up out of this book and they're being used by a government today to develop a machine to what?

Make men afraid. Wouldn't you know it?

They didn't ask me about it, but I know it was picked up out of this book, because they're using these exact wavelengths and because I myself have had two or three subterfuginous queries.

By the way, the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States these days call up my office in Washington to find out what's going on in the country.

Last time I was there, why, HCO Secretary phone rang – she was talking to me – she went in and picked up the phone.

And she went on, "Well, no, we don't have a list of it right here. Yes, I suppose we could send you something like that. Oh, yes, yes, of course. Thank you. Mm-mm-mm-mm. Well, call anytime. Call anytime."

I said, "Who was that?" You know.

She said, "Oh, that was just the Joint Chiefs of Staff calling."

And I said, "Well, how long have they been on our mailing list?"

"Oh," she says, "they're not, but they call us up every now and then."

I said, "For what?"

"Well, for scientific data."

You know, we actually don't have any scientific data to give them.

They just know who's boss now.

No, when you can answer as many questions as they've had as fast as we can, why, people begin to call up.

But they used this without our authority and I wasn't particularly fond of them doing this.

I thought this was a bum show.

The wavelengths of emotion are in the band of .024 centimeters.

That is the wavelength – this is just computed, merely computed. And that's human emotion.

And that goes above and below the point here of .024 centimeters.

The analytical thought – apparently, there's a wavelength of thought and it is approximately 1 – it's point 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 – 2 [.0000002] centimeters. It's very small.

And now we get up to aesthetics and we get point 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 zeros – 2 [. 00000000000000000000000002] – point, twenty-five zeros, 2 – is the wavelength of aesthetics.

Now you get up to the top of it and out of the roof entirely and you get either infinity or zero as the wavelength of human thought.

Those are the approximate, computed wavelengths of human thought.

And you can put those together on a scale and you can get some surprising reactions.

For instance, people can think emotionally by simply emoting, never thinking.

And if you measured their wavelength as they emanated this, you would find that they were in the emotional, not the analytical, wavelength.

Various things can be done with this. It hasn't been much developed.

Now, one other thing I'd like to take up with you here, that you might find of some interest, is a thing called a confusion and the stable datum.

Why do you have stable data?

Because you're confused.

Why do you get confused?

Because you have stable data.

This doesn't have anything to do with the laws of the universe. These are stable data, too.

But we're talking about the fellow who says, "All horses sleep in beds."

And why does he think all horses sleep in beds? Why?

Well, one day he got confused about it and when he was the most confused, somebody slipped him the stable datum or he figured it out himself and ever since that time, even though it…

Well, he actually was out in the stable and it was raining in the stable and there was a horse out there and she was foaling.

So he brought the horse into the house and put her in bed and – for some reason or other – and now the proper thing to do is to put a horse in a bed.

He solves his confusion, what to do with horses: well, you put them in beds.

You take all aberration – is under this heading – all aberration.

The guy gets a fixed notion about something and after that he figures out that this is what you do about it.

He gets a problem, he gets a solution.

He gets a problem that confuses him and what does he run into?

He decides that all this confusion merits a stable datum.

So he just makes up his mind that something is a stable datum.

Very interesting subject. It all comes under the heading of thought reaction to the laws of motion.

And the laws of motion are all quite fabulous.

And you wonder why I'm tearing up this piece of paper, don't you?

Got you curious – isn't it?

Put you in the mystery band, didn't it?

Now I want to – I want to give you an example of this.

I want to give you an example of this. Make sure this works right here.

There isn't anything very fancy about this.

I just want to show you a confusion and how you get a stable datum out of it.

And I think it might interest you.

Confusion and a stable datum. One of the things of Scientology.

All right. Here we go. That look confusing to you?

All right. Now, I want you to get it so it's not confusing.

We're going to do the same thing, only this time it's not going to be confusing.

Now we're not going to be confusing about it at all.

I want you to pick out one – one of these scraps of paper as it falls down and view the other scraps of paper from it.

Will you do that?

Now let's look that over carefully.

The scrap of paper – the scrap of paper involved here was a stable datum because all other pieces of paper are in motion only in relationship to that.

This looks in motion to you only because you're sitting still.

Now, if you rode this out on one of these pieces of paper, you would look like you were sitting still if these things fell infinitely.

You'd look like you were sitting still and all these other crazy pieces of paper were in motion. I'll show you.

You see, if you viewed all the other confusion from just one piece of paper, it would look like they were moving and you weren't.

Do you follow that?

Audience: Yes.

Do you see that clearly?

All right. Now, that's how any old aberrated datum can become a stable datum.

Let's take a look at it again.

Now, if you were that piece of paper there, you would have seen those pieces of paper over there falling, right? Hm?

Only you wouldn't have realized you were falling, too.

Now, if there were two things in motion, two pieces of paper in motion here, and they were just in motion in endless space and you were on one of these pieces of paper, would look like the other silly piece of paper was really going around you, wouldn't it?

See this? See?

It wouldn't look like this, would it?

That's what's really happening. It would look like this, wouldn't it?

Unless you were being shaken up and down and inertia was entering into it. But there you go, you see?

So apparently, apparently here, this piece of paper, you see, is the only one moving and the other one's motionless.

So you can be on a moving piece of paper any time you like and consider all the other pieces of paper are moving and you are sitting still.

Do you follow this?

All right. Now, one more time I want you to be on one of these pieces of paper and notice that the other ones are all still.

If you had a hard time to do that, get processed, because it means you're dead in your 'ead.

That's it. Thank you very much. And I hope that with these various parts of the mind…

There were twenty-four of them which I have covered with you here.

Now, you wouldn't have noticed that.

I will, however, make a list of them and make sure that you get them if your name and address is handy on our mailing list. Okay?

And I hope very much that you don't feel totally spun in by what I've been telling you. Do you?

Audience: No.

Well, if you do, just have some havingness. Thank you.