ARC, Time, Life and Universe (7ACC 540706)
Series: 7th Advanced Clinical Course (7ACC)
Date: 6 July 1954
Speaker: L. Ron Hubbard
OK, I'm going to give you a talk about ARC. Component parts, interrelations, so forth. I don't claim that this is the last word in anatomy on the subject of ARC, but it's awful close. First there is a consideration that there is A, a consideration there is R, consideration there is C. Actually if you want a consecutive series of considerations, it'd go, consideration that there is distance, and then a consideration that there is some mass, and then a consideration that there is a communication. If you wanted exactly a consecutive series that would up into time itself, that would be it. But above ARC is the consideration that there is ARC. And everybody must have considered this, otherwise he wouldn't now find himself in ARC with things. This is one of those self evident, self proving of a-priority, a-posterior, pragmatical statements with deductive inclinations.
Now ARC stands for affinity, reality, communication. Actually, the fact that it's a triangle is traditional, rather than factual. It's not really a triangle, it's actually a straight line. But let's call it a triangle just because it traditionally has been called a triangle, not for any other reason. And let's remind ourselves that this ARC has distance in it, and it's also got mass in it. It also has energy in it. And we say it's like this. A fellow sees all, knows all, is all, and then he has ARC. And he gets his ARC by cutting down his knowingness by the creation of some space, further cutting it down with the creation of some energy, and then further cutting it down by the creation of some mass and then saying, "What is that mass?" And then he gets into communication because he's done all this, with somebody else who's created some energy, some space, some energy and some mass. And they probably swap anchor points somehow or another, you see, and each one claims that the other one's anchor point is his, and then you've got communication.
You've got two beings in communication. There are three possibilities here. One, that everybody is everybody, is only one person, after all, and that individuation has taken place by the postulate to individualize and that this is duplication itself and we are all one and this is all Nirvana. This is a high possibility, but not a very reasonable one, since it doesn't work very well. And then we could say in addition to this, that no, no beingness was actually necessary before livingness took place. You see, we could just say that was the case, there was no prior condition. And then we could say that there were a whole lot of individuals who, from one time and another, decided to make some space and some energy and some objects, and they got into communication with each other and they're still in communication with each other. And this one seems to be much more workable.
Well, the point of assumption on Scientology is that point. We just assume that they were individuals and they made some space and some energy and some objects and got into communication with each other, and we just assume that point and take off from there. Might as well. We could also say with James Jean, there was an explosion of a thetan which made a lot of other thetans. Only this would be too, too much in the tradition of science, which is to say, stupid, to go along with. Although, some fellows will occasionally find the explosion of some larger body which made a whole lot of smaller identities. They'll, they'll find this as an incident on the track.
The actual evidence supporting any one of these things is unimportant, because the energy would have been, pardon me, the evidence would be in the form of energy, and energy depends upon the consideration. So if energy depends upon a consideration, then energy carrying a record wouldn't tell us very much, would it? But it all happened right now, anyhow. So it doesn't matter. However we want to look at it. It seems to work better though, by taking a bunch of individuals and they got into communication with each other.
Alright. Their communication then, got into this kind of a consideration, which made the game. The game called universes, any kind of a universe, it seems to depend on this game. And we have the, the formula of communication. And that formula is source point, distance, effect point. As source point we have what we call cause, and at effect point we are at source, pardon me, receipt point we have effect. So we could say the formula of communication is cause, distance, effect.
Now we don't happen to care what put anything on at source point from this standpoint. We don't care what is at cause point in the communication formula, because we elect cause point. Never lose sight of that, and you will never find yourself getting into this dizzy one. The fellow who killed a guy out hunting. What killed the fellow? Well the other fellow, the law says. But the fact of the matter was, it was a bullet that killed him. Well what, what's, what's cause in this killing? Well obviously the bullet.
Well the bullet couldn't have gone anyplace, so it must have been the powder. Well was it the powder or the firing pin? Well, there's a cap in between the firing pin and the powder, so it must have been the fulmen in the mercury cap. But this couldn't have gotten anyplace without the barrel, so actually the barrel was cause. Well, that's not true because there was a trigger there, and it was the trigger which twitched which is to testify that there was, causing all this other reaction and that is what drove the bullet through the air and the bullet hit the fellow.
Well, was it the bullet which killed the fellow, or was it the shock wave which killed the fellow? Let's pick up effect for a moment and we will see well, it was probably the shock wave that killed the fellow. So the shock wave was actually the cause of the fellow's death, it really wasn't the bullet. Well, really it was the bullet because that came from the gun, and the firing pin and the trigger and there's the fellow who, who fired the gun. Well alright, it was the guy who fired the gun that cause the death of the other hunter. Now this is obvious, but if we trace it back a little bit further we find out that he was very upset that morning. And he was very upset because his wife had nagged him all night long. Well therefore, actually it was his wife wasn't it, that caused the death of the other hunter, because she put him into a nervous state and so forth.
Well actually this is not the case, because it was the baby that cried all day yesterday that caused the wife to be so upset that she nagged the fellow all night long, so that he went out the next morning hunting and he was so nervous that he, he accidentally fired the gun in such a way that it killed a man. Where's cause here, god damn it? Alright, well actually the whole thing about it is, is the society itself depressing the economic strata of the status is quite often discoverable to, to be very, very suppressive to the nerves of babies. You see, you don't have enough nurses and you don't have enough economic this and that to build enough homes and so forth, so naturally the baby couldn't be put in a room by itself where it could be quiet and was right out there, in the nervous family, and it was actually the economic condition of the whole thing that killed this other hunter.
Well that's really not the case at all. The economic situation was caused by a fellow by the name of, of, I almost said a nasty word there; there was an economic decline had been caused in the country by King Franklin. And King Franklin was a, was a mean, mean fellow and he, he wanted to disturb everybody's havingness by splitting it up and giving it to everybody else who didn't have any havingness, and this created a situation where the entrepreneurs in the society, the capitalists, were no longer able to finance sufficient enterprises to give people enough jobs. And actually the via; that it wasn't Frank, Franklin's idea, it was the fact that capitalists gave up when confronted by this, and they caused the death of the hunter.
No, no that isn't really what happened at all. What really happened was that, that the whole thing is based on this. You see, god giveth and god taketh away. In other words, to hell with the whole problem.
Well, what are we doing when we do that silly lineup, huh? What are we doing? We're trying to find prior cause, prior cause, prior cause, prior cause, prior cause. We're try to, try to run back to communication cause points. Well now, let's look at this communication point, and it says, cause, distance, effect. You have to elect the cause, and cause elects the effect. You elect cause, and cause elects effect. There has to be a consideration at a cause point for a communication line to function. Well what that consideration is, we don't care. But any complex communication system is built of many C distance E's.
Look at a telephone system throughout a city and we discover that the C distance E's are multitudinous, tremendous numbers of them. There we have the problem of our preclear lying right before us, and he is saying, "What is cause, what is effect, what is cause, what is effect?" And finally he gives up and gets on the eighth dynamic and says, "Well, it's just god who giveth and taketh away," and we've abandoned the whole problem and we can't find out where the cause is and where the effect is. We get a black five and he starts rummaging around and he's looking for cause points and he's in his case, and of course he can find them by the billion, naturally. He can find billions of cause points.
He can find billions of communication lines, billions of separate units which, composited, make a whole communication line. You see how this would be? He could take a cause distance effect, cause distance effect, cause distance effect, cause distance effect, and look at the first cause up here and the last effect down there. And then he could say, "Well, let's see, there, there must be some, some prior cause because look, this cause which we've just located here is prior to a whole bunch of sub-causes. So therefore, there must be a prior cause to that," and he just goes on this way and he will actually ransack his bank, he will ransack existence and so forth, to try to find that cause point. This is the search for god.
Now the only reason Scientology ever won anything at all is because there was never any search in it for the cause point. People kept coming around, "Why did we start surviving?" they wanted to know. And I would say, "Well, it's just kind of like this, you know? Read the first page of Book One." And they, they were not satisfied with this answer. Well, that's because it's an assumption point. One refused to go on looking for causes for the universe. One was interested however, in how the universe was operating. And the totality of this research has been on this basis. How is this universe and life within it operating? How was it operating right now, not then. So we win.
Alright, prior cause, prior cause, prior cause will never get anybody anyplace. You have to elect a cause point. Now we'll see his preclear being processed by 8-C, start him this way. You say, "Go over and touch the chair." He does. You say, "Who touched the chair?" Long comm lag, and then very brilliantly, "My hand did." You understand, you asked who touched the chair. "My hand did." Few more drills, little more drilling, few more, few more. Alright, and you say, "That spot on the wall, go over and touch it. Now, who touched the spot on the wall?" Long communication lag, "My arm did." "OK, does your arm do this sort of thing often?" and so forth. "Yes it does. It gives me a lot of trouble." And that's the truth of the matter, you see. Arm's liable to shift gears when it's not supposed to and all sorts of things. Of course you can't do anything about an arm. You can't locate any causes. Yeah, everything's kind of irresponsible, and you can't take responsibility for anything because you see, things are liable to do almost anything. Here's prediction entering in, you see?
Alright, little more drill, little more drill, little more drill, "Go over and touch the top of the couch." He does. "Who touched the top of the couch?" "I did." Bang! Well, actually the case has made a terrific progress. Why? They have managed to elect a cause point. That's all, they've managed to elect a cause point. That's why we call it straight wire, we want somebody to string a straight wire between cause and effect; straight one, one span. We don't want them to string cause, cause, cause, cause, cause, cause, cause, effect, effect, effect, effect, or something of this sort. We don't want to get a bundle of wire that looks like an old Ford coil trans; old Ford coil yanked apart by some kid. We don't want this, we want one wire from cause to effect. We want them to elect cause and locate the effect.
And so our people recover to that degree that they are able to declare the cause point. Not necessarily admit to themselves that they are the cause point, but at least to declare cause point. You would be surprised at the jump in the case when this preclear was able to say, "My finger touched that chair." She didn't say, "My finger," she said, "The finger touched the chair." Well, she's located something that did something. Why, this is fascinating. And so, the bundle of wire, the tangled coil starts to come apart and the preclear's then able to get better and better.
Now cause, distance, effect. Cause is simply source point. It would of course include a consideration; intention is a part of consideration, it would of course include this. Actually, the intention is what was intended in the action, as different from an election of a cause point. So the attention is, intention is not as important as the election, just that, the election of the cause point. A person elected that an impulse or particle was going to cross a distance and arrive at an effect point. And they knew who and what and how it was done. They knew they did it.
Regardless of what their intention was, if the individual is unable to locate what it is, then they become guilty. They start in with this sort of an action. Everything that I cause, I become the effect of. See, they didn't locate an effect point and nominate it, and locate a cause point and declare it. What they did was cause something and then somehow an effect took place and the intention was missing out of it but the effect was something which was undesirable, and so they tried to interrupt the flow of the particle and they get all mixed up, which is to say, just that, their communication lines start to go wobbly.
The next thing you know, a person will declare that he is the effect of everything he causes, that he will be the cause of anything he effects, which is not necessarily true. A lot of lines can add up, you see, to effect something else. And that C and E are on the same point, in other words. They're on the same spot, and as long as they're on the same spot you have a jammed track, you have jammed communication, you have no space. Where you get the phenomenon of no space you get C and E almost simultaneous. Whatever he causes, he's the instant effect of.
Now the funny part of it is, this fellow walked out and did some hunting, he fired his rifle. As it would hit the other fellow, why the hunter who fired the shot would feel the pain in his own chest, even though he wasn't standing over there receiving the bullet. He's the effect of whatever he caused, you see? Alright. Guilt is he, he receives the bullet in his own chest and then maybe he's so wobbly in his wits that he knows he fired it. He, he got the bullet in his chest. Well the fact that he got the bullet in his chest is enough to inform him clearly that he must have fired it at himself. It must have been something which he did which caused that bullet to hit him in the chest. And so he finally puts it up to the mythical sprites that exist in the land, or latterly to god, or even later than that to the saints in the church. And he puts himself into this kind of a situation, that if something happened to him, he must have deserved it.
Now if something has happened to him , it's just enough for something to have happened to him, to know then that he was guilty of something. Well, this is just another way of reversing and upsetting and inverting this communication line. Cause, distance, effect. Alright, what's duplication?
Well, there's another corner of this triangle that we should take a very, very close look at, and we find out that a perfect communication requires duplication as part of it. Attention and duplication are parts of this communication picture. Without attention you don't get any C distance E at all. And as attention declines, so C distance E becomes more and more involved. A person less and less is able to elect a cause point or be at the effect point. Well we have the, the problem of reality. What is reality? Reality primarily is what you say it is. As long as you know you're saying it, you can say anything is real and it will be real, as long as you know who's saying it's real.
Then there's your next type of reality and by the way, here you get your mass. The mass is this reality factor. It's the particle that is traveling between C to E, and this is reality. Alright, you have an agreed upon reality. Two of you are there and there is a duplication, you have then agreed upon the reality of the situation. Actually you had to consider that you were in agreement with the fellow, before a reality could take place. Therefore, a slight from a friend is far more important than one from an enemy. A betrayal from one very close to you is much more important to you than getting beheaded by a detached individual that you weren't friends with. In other words, you had to agree that there was going to be an, you had to consider there was going to be an agreement, before you could get much in the line, or much charge in the communication line.
Alright. We have this problem then of the reality you postulate and then the agreed upon reality. And now you have another kind of reality, the reality which the other fellow postulates and is effective upon you. You didn't agree to it right then. That's other determined reality, only we don't call it reality, we call it hallucination and delusion. Now, while you yourself, by mock-ups or considerations of one kind or another, could bring into being a reality twice as daffy as this delusion that we just mentioned. But what do you know, it wouldn't even vaguely be aberrative. You know who made it. You know where it came from. You know what's the cause of this. And if we see somebody else making an illusion and we can elect the cause of this particular reality with which we're not agreeing, we still don't find it aberrative. It is only when we can no longer elect the cause, that we, and get the effect, get the effect; we can't elect a cause, you see, yet we get the effect; that we have, hallucination and aberration and other things.
Well, right in the middle ground there, the agreed upon reality, we get a good, solid solidity. As solid as the universe itself. That's good and solid, that agreed upon stuff, and therefore, it's a very senior reality. To somebody who can't mock-up something which is satisfiedly solid for himself anymore, then this stuff is real real.
Now this then, seems to run a sort of a gamut and we get the greatest reality when we get a duplication. And here at the R corner of the triangle we get the factor of duplication taking place on agreement. And agreement is the duplication, but reality includes in it something of mass, but not much. We have to look for affinity to get mass entirely. The degree of duplication is established at the affinity corner of the triangle. And here we find mass, the form of the energy which takes place and goes between these two lines. There we find the considerations of what it is. Affinity goes right straight down into effort, and right there we find at that corner of the ARC triangle, the Know to Sex scale. Right there, totally and entirely. And we call that the affinity corner of the triangle. Not because it's just composed of affinity, but because that's simply traditionally what we've been calling it. There's no reason to change our minds about it just because we found effort was below emotion.
So there's your energy masses. Now, whether or not these masses duplicate is over there at the R corner of the triangle. At the affinity corner or the triangle, are the characteristics of mass, also having to do with the speed of the communication. We have C distance E all right, but do we have C distance E in a hurry? Or C distance E very leisurely? And that is established by affinity. And you will find out that even in this universe, under these considerations, that the speed of a particle will establish its mass and characteristics. They haven't found this out yet in the physics laboratories just because they don't know Scientology.
You can demonstrate this with photographic film. The speed of light, speed of a proton in free space may be one hundred and eighty-six thousand, something like that, miles per second. That very well may be. But remember, that's a proton. The speed of a cosmic ray is quite something else. That's slow. I don't know what a cosmic ray is, I've forgotten these tables. Never read 'em in the first place, but I've forgotten them anyhow. And I'd say a cosmic ray, just looking at one go by, is about twelve miles a second, something on that order. Anyhow, you have to pick this stuff up when you don't know these tables, you have to look, and that's, that's very bad. But that's an entirely different speed, isn't it? So when a cosmic ray hits, and boy they run through your body all the time, they're going through space all over the place, they make explosions. And by golly, they, they'll burst there with a couple of billion velocities. You know, bang.
I think they even measure their cyclotron's power these days with the, with the number of impulses as measured by cosmic rays. It's quite interesting. But there's a different speed? Well what's different there, the particle itself different? Well I don't know, stop one sometime and take a good look at it and find out whether or not its characteristic is different from proton. Yeah, there seems to be a mass difference between these two things. Most important, there's a speed difference between these things. Oh, now don't tell me that the mass difference is the speed difference. It's true. It's just the consideration alone on the affinity corner of the triangle which causes the amount of mass, that's all. And that amount of mass is established by the speed.
That's very funny, but you get large masses and they don't go fast. You know, maybe the, maybe they don't go fast merely because they consider they're not going fast. Well, let's make an experiment. Let's get the idea, let's get somebody get the idea that he's not moving fast. Let's just have him make that consideration and let's get him to get this consideration very, very solidly and see whether or not he gets fat. Clinical experiment, you ought to make it. Theoretically he would. All you have to do is get him to make the consideration that he isn't moving fast. And he'd then get more massy.
Well alright, then the slower we go why, the more ponderous it is. Well maybe it is in reverse, too. Maybe a thing moves slowly between C to E because it is ponderous. You know, maybe because it's big, 'cause it has mass. Maybe, maybe it goes from C to E slowly, simply because it has mass. Maybe this is the reason, or maybe that's just an inversion. Huh? Maybe this is the reason following the fact. This packet by the way, which just comes in from England, is ten times the size of a little air letter that just came in from England. We got up, they, they all came on the same airplane alright, and they came at the same velocity from England alright, but let's look at something else here. Let's say that this one package contained an automobile. Well that of course would become more, come more slowly from England because it has more mass. Or does it become, come more slowly from England just because people think it has more mass and therefore should go more slowly? Well that's very possible, isn't it? Maybe if you changed your consideration about mass, maybe you could make it come faster than the little air letter. Well don't tell me you'd get into teleportation here. But I think that would the basic mechanic fact of teleportation.
Alright, speed then, the speed factor is the mass factor. We can just say that, just for lack of something else to say at the moment. And so we have ARC intimately related. We have communication, with its duplication taking place at R and its mass of the particle or impulse going through its speed of impulse, taking place at A. The duplication at R, the mass at A. The C corner is simply C distance E. We could add all this up and it'd be very, very simple then to work, wouldn't it? Hmm? Would be very simple to work, wouldn't it? Be nothing to it. Well maybe there isn't anything to it. Maybe it is very simple to work. Well, it's up to you to find out. OK.
ARC, TIME, LIFE AND UNIVERSE PAGE 6 7ACC-14 - 06.07.54