View source for Collapsed Cycle Of Action (1MACC 591116)

'''Series:''' 1st Middle-American ACC (1MACC)

'''Date:''' 16 November 1959

'''Speaker:''' L. Ron Hubbard

----

← [[Lecture_Index_1MACC|Back to Series]]

Thank you. Thank you.

I come bringing goddesses.

Last time I looked it was November the 16th. And the last time I looked it was the 1st Melbourne ACC. Of course, things might have changed the last hour or two. Making OTs has its liabilities; time shifts sometimes.

They get to a point where they get very cocky and turn the clocks back or something.

I've been talking to you about the goddess Kali. And I'm going to show her to you. Here's the platform she stands on which is a dead man surrounded by poisonous snakes. See that? It's a dead man and he's lying there. And he goes like this, and then the goddess herself, oddly enough – this is a fairly good one – the goddess herself representing sudden death, goes like that.

And there's the goddess Kali, as worshiped at this moment in British India in a city founded by the British and doubtlessly very civilized by them. But after three hundred years they still have as their chief festival, the goddess Kali. There she is with dead men's heads! A dead man's head. Snakes. Usually as represented in a temple, why, there will be jackals and evil demons and so forth standing around about the goddess. And there she is of course with man prostrate.

The funny thing about this is ages and ages ago reputedly, why, she gave a hand to somebody or other… (Hm, I wonder if there isn't another piece of this goddess in there. Apparently is, probably a head missing in there someplace. A head in this hand.)

She gave somebody a hand during a revolution or something reputedly, the Divine Krishna or something. And he gave her afterwards the right to kill any men, or any man, or to destroy anything and everybody. And of course, the Indian now explains to you, "Well, it's just the goddess and actually that's a version of the Divine Earth Mother and…"

That's fine except I know more about his mythology than he does. Which is not unusual.

Worship of destruction. Now, simultaneously, of course, the basic worship of India is sexual creation. And you can't walk anywhere in India without seeing sexual symbols all over the place and so forth. They are busy worshiping that and this is their principal goddess amongst the people. Isn't that interesting?

This, many years ago, before they started downhill too badly – many, many centuries ago – was only the goddess of the thuggee, who as a murderer and a thief used to gather in bands along the principal roadways of India and guide a caravan to a nice, quiet place and then suddenly jump upon them in the middle of the night, kill everybody in the caravan. They even had ways of slitting the stomach so it wouldn't gather gases, and breaking the bones in a peculiar way, and then they'd dump them in a pit somewhere near the roadway, and they would simply disappear.

Then there was a huge market and the thugs took all of these stolen goods to this market and once a year would go down there and get back their share of the proceeds and so forth.

Now, creation being their basic worship, sexual symbols and so forth, creation in merely a body form, responding at once with the destruction of their principal goddess worship was Kali. Interesting, huh?

A country that has just jammed tight on the cycle of action. Now, it would be as much as anybody was worth to create anything in India. See?

All you would have to say is, "This is an original painting" and off with your head. Get the idea? These two things are tight, man. Tight.

Of course, the old John Company was fairly well – well understood by the British. The old John Company was very well understood. The British understood it to be a bunch of robbers and thieves that are keeping a whole country enslaved and they thought this was terrible and it ceased to exist back in the middle of the nineteenth century. It was the original white lord and master of India, and it took over, of course, from the Mongols or the Moguls which were left there from Tamerlane's invasion, and it was just a private company, as you know, and they took the place over and all they were interested in was, as an American would say today, "a quick buck." They were interested in a quick buck. And actually they were pretty well understood by the Indian. The Indian knew what they were all about. They simply robbed everything they could get their hands on.

Now, probably if any of you were part of the old John Company, you'd probably get up and say, "We stood for good order and discipline and we only slept with the Memsahibs and white women were all imported and we were pure and honorable and just and noble and so forth."

That may well be but the history of the company was sufficiently rapacious it actually kept it under control – kept India under control for the British for – well, it continued the original seventeenth-century conquests and it had almost a total monopoly for over a century.

When the Crown took over, the Crown said, "Justice." And the Crown said, "Better facilities." It said, "Less disease." It said, "Lower taxation."

The Indian couldn't understand this, so destroyed the British rule of India. Because here was what the Indian worshiped: destruction.

Of course, how – what better destruction could there be than a rapacious tax gatherer and somebody who didn't care how filthy the drains were, how much disease was rampant.

Well, you think that's all off the subject of Scientology, don't you?

Audience: No.

Well, it's basically this close in: is, there goes white civilization. And the eighty-thousand people who sleep every night without covers over their heads in the streets of Calcutta are the result of the combined aberrations of a race that got to a point where it could no longer produce without producing chaos. Where individual life and that sort of thing became almost worthless.

And although you're told the Indian is now pulling out of it, you're told this mainly by American and British missions, and so forth, that gather their contributions from that propaganda.

I don't believe they're pulling out of it. I believe they were let down. I never am supposed to make political comments particularly, but the few I do make – I see that they might have had a chance with a very, very strong European hand. They might have had a chance. But I don't think they've got much of a chance now. They are simply going to lie there and be eaten up by the commie. The commie will come in and eat him up and the commie has already started, he has already started feeling out their borders. Communist China is already making the little push in. And the roads followed by Tamerlane will be followed again, and there will be more starvation and death and misery and suffering in India than before. And that is the downward spiral.

And what you're looking at when you look at India is the future of England, the future of America and for that matter, the future of Australia.

Unless somebody picks up this spiral when it can be picked up, the next step down is the Messiah age. Where everybody in a wonderful mystic spin goes around reading minds and futures and nobody can confront any mest.

Now, it's that cycle of action which is indicative of a country's health, the condition of that cycle of action. How much destruction is posed against what creation? And if you can answer that one question about any country, you can tell practically everything else you want to know about that country, promptly. And when these two things are almost identical, hah, of course they've had it. Now, it's very easy to discuss the third dynamic. You can get a broad look at the third dynamic. It's not so easy to look at the individual, the individual person. But as things happen on the third dynamic, so they happen in the individual.

He starts out, he is perfectly capable of very broad, very good production. He can produce! He can make things. He can create things. Very early on the track he could create bodies just like that, bang! There weren't – wasn't any machinery in the bodies, didn't need any.

All right. Goes on to a point of where the bodies that are created inevitably die. Well, that sounds like a very funny mechanism. It's already happened that he's obsessively creating if a body goes through a cycle to destruction. Because all destruction is, is a continuous creation which is capped or surrounded by a new creation which mishmashes it.

In other words, there sits a decaying temple. We lob some six-inch shells into it and it becomes rubble. But something is still creating a temple, don't you see? The rubble is still there, only it's been over created. Don't you see?

Now, without the first creation being removed the destruction remains. You've got to get rid of the first creation. Therefore, if you want to treat a preclear rough like I'm treating some of them rough because I'm not bothering to take it easy on them; they scream, and throw down cans and so on. You just process "create," and create carries all the way through the cycle of action.

The cycle of action: create-survive-destroy is actually composed of create, create-create-create – continuous creation, and then a superimposed creation which brings about a destruction. Only it's not a destruction at all. The pieces are still there.

Now, to get rid of the rubble you'd have to get this obsessive creation off the line because the only reason the rubble can stay there at all is because it's based on a prior creation.

And as I have told you before, this is confused by source-point, distance, effect-point. Cause-distance-effect of the communication formula: that gets confused with it so that any source-point is a create-point, any create-point is a source-point.

One of the reasons you're anxious to find the source-point, and you are, is because you realize the rubble will start blowing up if you find it.

And you found one in Scientology and the rubble started blowing up whether you were running creation or not. Don't you see? You knew you were at source.

All right, therefore the rubble blew off because the – some of the obsessive creations were handled. But there's still rubble, still broken bits and pieces, until the exact moment that you address original creation.

Now the way to address original creation is to simply rehabilitate "willingness to create." And when that's rehabilitated then original creation appears and there goes the rubble.

But watch it, there would go the whole universe, too, unless there was somebody to put it back. Got the idea? See?

And you see a pc's body one day just get thinner and thinner and disappear in the chair, that's right. You're fortunately looking at a pc which you've brought up to being able to put a body in the chair. That's very fortunate for you. Of course, it would probably be very perplexing for the wife or husband when that pc goes home because the pc could materialize or dematerialize. Now, the only real method, the only actual method of causing anything to cease to exist is to stop creating it. That's the only method of getting anything to cease. You just cease to create.

And man is so obsessive on creation, he's totally lost sight of this and he doesn't cease to create something. He creates something new to destroy the old and of course that leaves him with any God's quantity of rubble. That leaves him with all the brick and mortar dust and the bullet splinters. That leaves him with the broken bones and the tombstones. Got the idea?

It also leaves him with physics. That's the total genus of physics. Physics has its original assumption – all subjects start with an assumption, except Scientology. Dianetics started with an assumption: "The basic principle of existence is survival." You see how close we're back on the groove though? Because we're talking about the same curve that that word survival occurs on. Don't you see? And we're right back on the groove, except we're just a little bit ahead of it. All right.

Now, obsessive creation could be said to be his only fault. But this leads into the assumption by the physicist of "conservation of energy." Now Lord knows what the physicist means by "conservation of energy."

I've asked professors, and I've asked them and asked them, "What do you mean? Look if there's conservation of energy then there must be conservation of space, conservation of mass, conservation of time. I don't hear anything of those in your textbook."

And they say, "What? Conservation of space, energy – waaw." You know. Of course, I just slid a shiv into them because it's a new principle they don't know anything about.

But conservation be damned! Why don't they just say, "persistence." And then they would have been close to truth, but they said "conservation" and then they didn't even define this very well, and it left them with a queer and peculiar jump-off. It left them dealing actually with "what is rubble?" That's right.

And as they go along the line, all their new inventions invent in the direction of making more rubble because they're dealing with nothing but rubble because their jump-off spot in the language is rubble.

The reason matter persists is because it's so alter-ised that nobody can find out where it came from. They hope. And the way it is made to persist is by continuous creation which is then out-created or over created and so destroyed.

And that new thing goes along and it is out-created, overcreated and that's destroyed, and boy, you're getting lots of rubble now. And then this rubble goes on, and this rubble goes on, and it goes on, and the new creation coming out over the top of that and tha – – . And after a while there is so much rubble lying around, everybody gets together and says, "Let's make mud pies out of the rubble." And says, "The only creation left is creation of mud, which is already here."

And what are you doing mocking up any new energy you don't need to create because the physical universe has already done the job complete, full, utter, consistent, and it's helping you out. So, therefore you don't need to create any more. In fact, you'd better not. Because if you did, why, if you started creating the ground Moscow stood on, well, there's liable to be none. No Moscow.

That's a horrible state of affairs, isn't it?

Why you – you're liable – you're liable to be down at Fort Knox and be looking at all that beautiful gold that's all stored away down there, and accidentally say to yourself, "Well, you know, I wouldn't mind creating all that gold – fooom." And the guards run in and run out, and the bells ring and so forth, and say, "Somebody stole all the gold." Nobody stole any gold. Some – body disbelieved this fact: "It is no longer necessary to create anything because we've got everything, haven't we. Particularly the wreckage."

Well, I'll tell you something. If you can create so well as to make the gold of Fort Knox disappear, you have to be able to create very well to conceive of the original creation of the gold of Fort Knox. See? You have to be able to create real well to do that, to conceive of it.

Well, if you can create that well, then theoretically you could say in the next few minutes, "Let there be gold with my initials stamped on it." And then the guards would run in and out and have an awful time because somebody had monkeyed with the gold.

Supposing it had "Australia" stamped on it instead of "US." Terrible state of affairs.

In order to make something persist it is not necessary, of course, to stand there and continue to create it forever. That's not necessary. It's only really necessary – you don't need this mechanism at all, that's the horrible part of it. All you have to say is that the creation will persist. And that's an entirely different plot than standing there creating-creating-creating-creating, then destroying what you're creating while you're creating it over here, and you're creating something over here and you're destroying it over here at the same time, and you have to remember to create here and so you forget that and you just keep doing that automatically while this…

Get the silly picture this would be? Huh?

Well, that's the way it's being done right now. I think basically it's lack of trust that does this. I think that you believe that somebody could out – unmock your creations. So, it's better to have an indecipherable system that nobody can get back to. Well, whatever rationale there was on it, obsessive creation comes about basically from mistrust. You create forever, and keep created forever a bad experience to remind yourself that bad experiences can occur. That's distrust, isn't it? That's distrust of self.

See, you made a mistake so you kept the bad experience there.

The funny part of it is all bad experiences erase only on the overt. They don't erase on the motivators. You can just forget motivators. You can! Just forget them! I've been working this summer hard along this direction. Finally, had to realize the horrible truth of the matter; that nobody can bust your nose, nobody can kick you in the shins, it's not possible without you doing it. Someplace, somehow, you had to set it up so that you would get busted in the nose and kicked in the shins, and you have to even cooperate to make sure that you continue to have a busted nose. It's the most fantastic piece of cooperation you ever saw. It's totally an overt. It's almost as if you didn't even get the other fellow to do it, you know, so that you would then be able to mock up a broken nose. See? You didn't get the other fellow to do it or anything. You just did it. You know?

And the proof of the rice pudding with curry sauce is trying to eat it. When you try to eat this one, you can process this process and you will find out exactly where it winds up.

"What overt acts have you done? "Now, you could say, "against Earth or against this system or against the galaxy, or against this universe, or against anything." It doesn't matter what.

"What overt acts have you done?"

And just watch the track fly apart. It's a total one-shot Clear. Motivators? Nothing to do with it.

You can evidently only be at effect-point by being practically total cause. How we stay in communication is the mystery.

Sometimes one gets to believe that we're talking to ourselves. But you can simply neglect the effect-point or the motivator. You can just forget them in processing. I've proved it conclusively and you can come right along and prove it yourself.

This guy is lying there with blood all over the pavement, you know, gasping in agony and so forth, and he's just been run over and flattened. Somebody came along afterwards with a truck and spilled tar all over him. Now, that's obviously a motivator. Obviously! Something obviously happened to him.

But only by believing something happened to him does it continue to happen to him. And that's the mock-up. By believing something happened to him, we make such an outrageous postulate, which isn't true, that it can happen. Got the idea? Only the apparency of it happens.

But now, as you know from old Dianetic days it took one awful long time to process out an engram. And if you just hadn't – didn't have the perfect knack and weren't going exactly right, you didn't process anybody to Clear.

Why? Because when you were running engrams, there was an accidental which was never mentioned. It wasn't sorted out until just a few months ago. There's an accidental in there. Did you run out the motivator or the overt? Did you run out enough motivator that the fellow at length ran out his overt?

Ah, but you say, there couldn't be any overt in a fellow who has been splattered all over the pavement, and there is blood all over the place, and then he's got tar dumped on him. See? This couldn't possibly be anything but a motivator.

Well, processed as a motivator, it just takes hours and hours and hours and hours. It takes as long as you accidently clip the overts.

If you wanted to process it fast, you simply walk up to the fellow, and you would say," What have you done to that car?" "What did you do to the pavement?" Got the idea? "What are you doing to that tar?"

Now, theoretically the guy will be on his feet walking.

And the whole of medicine is dedicated to convincing him he's been hurt. And that's merely because it's so popular; everybody wants to be a victim. So, man, do they support medicine.

They say, "Cut me up."

Why do they say," Cut me up?" Because it can't possibly be done.

Oh, you say, "Yes, and so on and so on."

Well, as a matter of fact, people are so tricked around on the thing, they believe it can be done and they've got the valences so shifted that they believe it's being done to somebody else while it's being done to them. And then they can feel pain. I know that doesn't make it hurt any less. The pain is real. The cut-ups are quite real. But the mechanics of how it got there are the damnedest things you ever saw. In some corkscrew way this fellow has to believe he is somebody else. Don't you see? And he is observing somebody else get cut up and feels so sympathetic about it that he hurts because he did it. You see?

So, he says, "This body – I am somebody else in this body." Not even the body is something else but, "I am somebody else." Of course, "The body is me" and all this sort of thing conies in here. It isn't even, "The body is I." It's as crude as, "The body is me."

And, "Therefore I have to keep the body from being hurt" and "The body can feel" – which it can't. And it's just the most weird put-together you ever saw when you watch the fact that a person can only be at cause-point; can't be anything else; corkscrew it around to where he can actually feel agony and then corkscrew it around further, so he doesn't know anything about it.

Why, it – that's wonderful, you know? Just how could this be?

Well, it just shows that a thetan can think of almost anything. That's what it proves, if it proves anything that's what it proves.

But by the time everybody is totally out of valence and protesting all on the wrong side, specializing in motivators, spinning themselves in gorgeously this way and that – they actually do get trapped. What do you know? The fantasy becomes the fact and then they don't know how they got that way.

And a country goes downhill and a people goes downhill until eventually everybody is saying whatever they say about Kali, here. Lovely creature. Inky black. That's so you can sink in. That's right. Rapacious.

There's a better one. This is merely the country – goddess as she appears in modern times. This is a right now Kali, you see? There's much better ones on the backtrack. And there's one in the British Museum on the second floor which is probably the old thuggee's Kali. It's very, very much better done.

For instance, the womb is totally cut out. Incapable, totally incapable of creation, you know, as represented by the womb cut out. And she is the ghastliest looking thing you ever wanted to see.

Whereas this one, why, they've got her pretty well bumped up here. But eventually, why, here they go. That's as close as they get to a thetan: is worshiping some abstruse goddess of destruction. And that's pretty remote.

And boy, don't think they can't feel pain by that time. You should see a psycho sometime stick a pin in his finger, "ki-yi, ki-yi, ki-yi." It's really agony, he's not pretending worse than somebody else. The further down they spin the worse the agony gets.

So, if the doctor really wants to hurt you, he knocks you out. That's right.

I have an awful time in this particular regard because anesthetics don't work on me but you have to go into agreement with what they're doing. You go back in the corner of the room and sit down while they're doing whatever they're supposed to be doing to the body the way they used to insist on it in the war. They could order you to – they order – order you to surgery, you see, in the war. And go back in the corner of the room and sit down, "Ah, for Christ sakes." And you're supposed to be unconscious and you can't feel anything and so forth.

A decade afterwards, why, we were having trouble blowing these things, you know.

For instance, after I got a bomb flash in the eyes, why, they were busy washing off my eyeballs every morning. That's right. I don't know what that was all about.

A much more sensible treatment was later indicated in auditing, if they'd just taken a big magnet or something of the sort and dragged it back and forth across my chest, and gotten some of the very tiny steel splinters out of me, and out from underneath the armpit, and out of my skull, why, I'd have been probably all set. I was having probably a lot of trouble unmocking steel splinters.

Matter of fact I evidently still have a lot of trouble because one came out of my throat not too long ago. Like to cut my hand to ribbons, you know? You put your finger under your collar, you know? You go like this and all of a sudden blood, you know? Blood? Where's that come from, blood? Reach in and pull out a long, steel splinter.

The fragmentation, types of fragmentation that they were using in World War II was quite, quite remarkable in the way it fragmented. It was high, very high velocity and it splintered up considerably. Wasn't made out of lead. They should have done something about it.

Well, there was this society, World War II, Korean War, nowadays with the atomic bomb. What are they doing? What are they doing? Huh?

Goddess Kali, here. Only they haven't got her built into a form yet. See?

Nuclear physicist, you know, he's sort of in the prior form, you see him in Life magazine and so forth.

If you ever saw any photographs of those guys, I hope nobody ever – nuclear physicist ever hears this tape, because, well, I'd just better not say they look like a lot of apes. They do. They're in the world's worst condition, those men. But they're sliding right on through. They're sliding right on down the line in a hurry.

Well, the further they get down the line, the more they can feel and part of the descent into the maelstrom is, "desire for sensation." And that's probably the only little trap that a thetan lays for himself, knowingly and wittingly, that starts pulling himself down the line.

He starts to figure out, "Let's see, how can I have some sensation?"

Everybody talks about how wonderful – this is an early track gag, "How wonderful this sensation is we are all feeling."

And the stranger comes in and says, "They're feeling sensation? I don't feel any sensation."

And they say, "Ah, it's a marvelous sensation! You just ought to feel it, you know?"

Of course, they don't feel a thing. It's just a gag, you know?

And, he comes in and he says, "There must be something wrong with me, I don't feel it," you know.

So he gets himself all mocked up and so forth so he can feel some sensation, not that he likes it particularly, but he – it's the thing to do. And oddly enough it wouldn't work on him if the day before he hadn't pulled the same gag on somebody else. See, he wouldn't twist himself up like this at all.

The first entrance into this universe and the companionship of thetans was an overt. And anything that's happened to a person ever since is an overt. It's an awful thing.

You either keep your head amongst all these overts and are able to differentiate between "What is an overt act, and what isn't?" or just "Everything gets to be an overt act." No matter what you do, "It's a sin against all dynamics."

Now, I'm not mentioning any names, but there are some organizations that have been here on Earth for a couple of thousand years that think of nothing else but trying to get you to realize that everything you do is an overt act.

Now, they feel if they can get it made, why, they've got it made. But there's only one compensation with it; is the nicer sensations, so-called, do last for quite a ways down the line. The nicer sensations go right along with the nastier ones.

Oh, early space opera. The pay was being able to be in a room that fills you full of sensation. You could be in this room for a day or so, you know. Come back from a long cruise, "Well, we'll let you have a crack at this sensation room."

Later on they give them seventy-two hour passes in Paris. It's just a spin on the same spiral.

Another two, three hundred years, if we didn't have anything to do with it, probably their pay would be "permitted to have an electric shock and be implanted." See?

People get sensations out of these things, quite remarkable.

Now, a "sweetness and light" case is an interesting case. This case, (quote) "likes anything." Anything! It's on an inverted destruction, you see. Particularly destruction of things. They love them, and so on.

Well, for instance, as bad off as I ever got along that line is I'm just nutty about a good fight. You know? Slightly nutty on the subject. Good fight, high game. And most people think I'm crazy, you know, if they think anything about it at all, for being so brave. Hasn't anything to do with this. Got nothing to do with it at all. It's just pretty darned exciting, you know. You get the idea?

It's the fashion today to be afraid. That's the effete fashion of today, is to be afraid. And if you go against this, and you are something else, then you're not in fashion, you're not in style, you see.

But I don't know, I'll always take the higher point on the Tone Scale if I've got to take any fad. Wouldn't you?

Audience: Mm-hm.

No, I think you, too, would find a scrap, and resisting overwhelming odds, and so forth, you'd find that that was very, very interesting. You'd think that was pretty good.

Well, that's merely because of the "threat of overwhelmingness" and a "victory against considerable odds" and actually so forth and so on. That game, by the way, goes at about 22.0 on the Tone Scale, not 2.2, 22.0 and sort of peters out as a game from 22.0 on down. About the highest or I'd say the lowest point of enjoyment of a game, is about 4.0 and after that it's all got to be sort of internal. It can have nothing to do with the other person. Sensations or games or something like that all start running down toward the first dynamic.

About the time you get to zero on the Tone Scale it starts to go into inversions. And you go back up the dynamics on inversions and go down the Tone Scale even further.

What I'm talking about is, is you could still conceive of considerable excitement, or being excited about doing something, you see, or getting a bang out of confronting something and standing up to it and realizing, you know, that you've done it.

Oh, as crude a thing as this psycho starts screaming around and he's going to cut your head off and so forth, and you stand him up straight, and you say, "That's it." And they say, "Oh," you know. And you tell them what to do, and they do it. And you say, "Wow, pretty good."

Or automobile is running wild down the street or something without a driver in it and you get on the running board and pull the brake or something you know.

You're doing something, you get away with it. Some surprises, some randomness in life. It doesn't much matter what it amounts to.

Well, it might be very hard for most of you to conceive of this but certainly from 2.0 on down there is no external sensation of any kind. It is all internal. It's all internal.

For instance, well, at grief – grief is almost totally self-pity. It's the wildest thing. Just try to get a person in grief to feel sorry for somebody else. They just feel sorry for themselves. So much so that I can upset people by turning on a synthetic grief, occasionally, when they are being audited, you know.

I see they're about ready to spill a grief charge, or something like that, I turn one on. How? Just look at them sympathetically. Lower and gentle the voice a little bit. You know, turn on the feeling of "feeling sorry for them," and inflow some "sorry for them" into them, you know, and so on. And it's sometimes just that little bit extra that's necessary, you see. They look up and "He's sorry for me," you know? Bowww! Get the idea?

Audience: Mm-hm.

But you can count on the fact that it's an in – introverted, not inverted, but it's an introverted emotion. One is looking in on self.

Now, a whole race can go this way. If you've ever seen a Japanese movie. Have you ever seen any Japanese movies?

Audience: Yeah.

I remember one Japanese movie. A soldier goes off to the wars and leaves his sweetheart, and she receives a report that he's killed. That's all in the first fifth of the first reel. The thing goes now for about ten reels. And all she does for the remainder of the picture is walk over circular bridges and sees his face in the water. You see? She – she stands under trees and hears his voice in the wind. You see? Just reel after reel after reel of this stuff, you know. Just goes on and on and on and there sits the audience crying quietly to themselves. You know? You'd expect they'd be all caved-in. Well, as a matter of fact they were tremendously uplifted. Leaving the theater, they'd actually been brought way uptone to grief.

Because the first time I ever saw one of these doggone things, I could hardly contain myself, you know? It would be a matter of putting a hot towel in my mouth, you know, to keep from disgracing the American race.

But as they go down to destruction, destruction itself appears to be the desirable end and goal. That appears to be desirable. And creation ceases to be desirable at all.

And don't be too surprised merely because it so jars against your point of view, to find some people around who only start to wake up and get alert and so forth, when they're presented with a method or act of destruction.

You see a bunch of people in the street, well they've all – like an accident happens, somebody falls off a bicycle alongside of a park, you know, and everybody has been sitting in the park bored to death. You know? Somebody falls off a bicycle, you know, and he appears to be hurt, and they all rally around. Just look at them, how cheerful they look sometimes. That's – that's right there man! That's okay. Kind of a weird way to look at it.

Now practices such as flagellance, and so on, destruction of bodies with whips, can totally take the place of sexual satisfaction. Destruction. There's no sex left in it at all, there is simply a beatingness involved.

And you get some very, very, very caved-in girl, and so on, why it's – this is by the way, down around insane category. The only way she could ever experience any pleasure is have her head knocked off. And here and there, there's some poor guy married to her. See? He has never got enough sense to knock her head off. See, one or the other. Either she demands to have her head knocked off – well, either knock her head off or get her audited.

And similarly there are husbands around who just can't stand it. This girl is going on, she's leading a straightforward, constructive life, she's trying to take care of the home, she's trying to do this, she's trying to do that. And she thinks something is terribly wrong with him because the highest level of wife he could accept is somebody who is gnawing on his leg about twenty-four hours a day. Get the idea? It would have to be somebody who was destroying him constantly and continually. Have to be totally overt destruction.

And she said, "Well, my marriage would break up if I even cast an eye at another man. I know! Just break up, just like that."

One fine day, she says, "The dickens with this guy. You know, he's dead in his feet." She casts an eye at the man next door or something like that and turns around and her husband's all cheered up. Yeah. So, she might go a little bit further than this and go over and visit a girlfriend, you know, and stay there till nine o'clock the next morning. Women will start doing this by the way, once in a while, and then come back and say she's been out with another man. Cheers him up no end. This is not usual.

But sometimes, sometimes acceptance levels of "what is sensation" and the idea of "what is necessary in the way of create-survive-destroy" are so different between a pair in a marital partnership that they just think each other's crazy. Just neither one can understand the other.

I had a fellow complain to me, his wife thought that she had a dreadful disease. And I traced this down. He was sitting there in old shoes and last century's overcoat, telling me all about this. His wife thought she had terrible diseases all the time and he's going on and on and on about it.

And I'd listen to this and I got a picture of his wife as being a totally psychotic person, you know. All the symptoms and so on. And he was just a research pc. And I said, "Well, send her in." I wanted to see this real nut.

And here comes in a good-looking, well-poised, healthy girl whose total crime was taking a bath every day.

He couldn't understand it! And he'd reasoned it all out that she must think that she had a terrible disease because she felt that she was dirty! And he knew this wasn't right – he hadn't taken a bath for years.

As you get these cycles of action different, you get it so different that you, here, going to India, you'd say, "Well, I just don't understand these people." That's right. You'd say that, perhaps, if you weren't a Scientologist, you'd say that.

And – Indian comes over here and he looks at Australians, the English, something like that, "I just can't understand these people, you know, they're crazy, you know!"

What they're saying basically is "They're too different on the Tone Scale for me to agree with."

Now about as far different as you can get on a Tone Scale is half a tone to get agreement. And you can get within half a tone of somebody's chronic tone, you've got agreement. And if you want to be at the command-point, you go a half a tone above his tone. You want to be at his effect-point, go a half a tone below. It works every time.

If you really want to turn on somebody's 1.5, for instance, act afraid. Got the idea? You'll really see his 1.5 go on. He gets into agreement with this instantly! He'll keep on being angry if you're angry usually, and so forth.

But if you become coldly antagonistic he folds up. Got the idea?

Well, the cycles of action match in much this same way. The distance between create and destroy. "What it is permissible to create" "What it's permissible to have survive" "What's permissible to have destroyed?" all match that Tone Scale one way or the other; they haven't been added into it yet, closely.

But you get a narrowing of the cycle of action between create and destroy as you go down the Tone Scale, down to about zero and then you start to get a flip. From about zero on down you start to get reversals and it starts to become rather incomprehensible.

In order to create somebody, you have to beat hell out of it. You see? That's the way to create things, you beat the living daylights out of something, you know.

The way to – the way to make chickens lay more eggs is to get out with a whip and hit them. That's right.

Do all sorts of weird things like this in order to accomplish various actions, only they're so reversed and so forth, that they don't quite work.

Now, the cycle of action of a body is fairly low scaled but bodies tend to start in the cycle of action immediately after they're destroyed. After a body is destroyed it tends to start in a cycle of action. You've got a linear run.

In other words, create-survive-destroyed body; new body, survives, is destroyed, and so forth. It's a linear run.

Well, as you look down from the longer lived mammals, you'll get the more intelligent mammals and so on. You go on down, you get into lesser and lesser life forms, you'll find that you come clear down to the mayfly which has as its total create-survive-destroy cycle, one day. See, the lives get shorter and shorter and shorter.

You could probably put together something that would give you relative intelligence of animals without regard to the societies that take purview over these various bugs and animals. You could probably put together a scale by the longevity of the beast, its relative intelligence.

Now, of course, this doesn't make man fit right at all. What's the matter with man?

Nearly all mammals are about six times their growth cycle – comprises their adulthood. In other words they live six times as long as it takes them to grow up. And man doesn't live anywhere near that. See, that's – it's pretty messed up.

So man, somehow or another, must be messing up his own cycle of action. See, he must be doing something here because he disobeys the laws applying to practically every other mammal.

Man, theoretically, should live something on the order of a hundred and twenty years. And he lives on an average right now, I think, about fifty-six, fifty-seven, I don't know what the actuarial figures are and they're not seventy. But he ought to live somewhere – an average of a hundred and twenty. Now that would put him in proper intelligence swing because just under him would be the elephant at about a hundred. I don't know what the age of an elephant is; I haven't talked to any elephants lately to find out how long they're living.

But you – you'd possibly be able to get this in line.

Some errors have been introduced here is about the best we could say about all this. These things are not running their basic, laid-out pattern, something is interfering with this basic, laid-out pattern of the create-survive-destroy on the original mock-up. Bodies ought to be living the period they should be living. That's for sure, because that would only be the original intention of the mock-up. See? So, something's cutting this back.

Well, the basic thing that's cutting it back, of course, is a thetan, his overts, the mishmash of the society and man's growing urge to destroy everything that creates in the Western society. His growing urge to destroy.

And that is getting very badly in his road and that's crossing him up. That's spoiling his looks. That's making his women old before their time. That's doing all sorts of things, you see.

Now, the very least we should be able to do with ease, the very least we should be able to do is to bring man's cycle of action up to somewhere around a hundred and twenty. We ought to at least be able to lay it down against its original pattern, its original apparent pattern.

So, a woman's seventy, she's a pretty good-looking woman. See? She'd just be getting into her prime. The boys would still be whistling at her.

Now, if we did that every insurance company in the world would go broke but I don't have any stock. I don't have any stock in insurance companies and I don't think you have too much either, so let's not worry about that.

The basic thing I am talking about is the shortening of the cycle of action, create-survive-destroy, shortening of it. Distance between creation and destruction and the inversions of creation and destruction as they eventually overtake man and his various civilizations. It overtakes them pretty fast.

Thank you.

Thank you.

THE COLLAPSED CYCLE OF ACTION PAGE 13 1MACC-11 – 16.11.59

[[Category:Lectures]]
[[Category:Lectures 1MACC]]
[[Category:Lectures 1959]]