From anon@squirrel.owl.de Thu Aug 20 17:43:09 1998

Path: newscene.newscene.com!novia!newsfeed.nyu.edu!worldfeed.gte.net!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!news.alt.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news

Date: 21 Aug 1998 00:43:09 -0000

From: Secret Squirrel <anon@squirrel.owl.de>

Comments: Please report problems with this automated remailing service

	to <postmaster@squirrel.owl.de>. The message sender's identity

	is unknown, unlogged, and not replyable.

Subject: FZ BIBLE 4/13 ROUTE TO INFINITY TAPES

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology

Message-ID: <3b26691713d29fd7a6520ebfe0148a7b@anonymous.poster>

Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net

Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net

Lines: 526

Xref: newscene.newscene.com alt.religion.scientology:514953 alt.clearing.technology:62511



FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST



THE ROUTE TO INFINITY TAPES (TECH 80 LECTURES) 4/13



Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology

Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.



The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of

Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists.  It misuses the

copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.



The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings

of Judiasm form the Old Testament of Christianity.



We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according

to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.



But the Christians are not good and obedient Jews and yet

are allowed to have their old testament regardless of any

Jewish opinion.



We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion

as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures

without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.



We ask for others to help in our fight.  Even if you do

not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope

that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose

to aid us for that reason.



Thank You,



The FZ Bible Association



**************************************************





WAVELENGTHS OF ARC 

A lecture given on 19 May 1952

(original title "Wavelength and Tone Scale", T80-1D).





Okay.



Now, many people down through the ages have adventured upon

a technique which is known in psychiatry as having been

authored by a fellow by the name of - well, he calls himself

Krishnamurti. This Krishnamurti is out in Los Angeles or

someplace, and he has a technique which he calls "awareness

through action," some such thing. "Awareness of the present

through action" or "the present through action" or some

such thing.



And the idea has been around for an awfully long time that

all a fellow had to do was pay attention to present time

and he was all set! This was an inarticulated, unexplained

effort to get into present time.



You know, you walk into a mental institution, by the way,

and you just walk up to a certain number of patients and

you say to each one in turn - you say, "Come up to present

time." And you go over to the next patient and you say,

"Come up to present time." And out of every five or ten or

something like that, some fellow who has been crazy as a

bedbug up to that moment will say, "Gngh! What am I doing

here?" He's in present time.



One notable example of this was a young lady in an

institution. I think it was up in Michigan. A Dianeticist

went through the institution and was talking to the

psychiatrists and so forth and said, "Well, you see, it

works like this." And turned around to a young girl and he

said, "Well" (she was drooling and hadn't talked and didn't

talk to anybody and way out of communication) - he suddenly

said to her, "Come up to present time!" She shook her head,

swallowed a couple of times and said, "All right," and that 

night gave a speech at a party saying how glad she was to be 

there. She had simply come up to present time. She had a 

terrific case of acne and it went away in three days, and she 

stayed in present time and she was perfectly sane afterwards.



So just the suggestion to some people that there is a

present time they can come to, or a present time does

exist, occasionally seems quite sufficient to bring them

into a state of at least neurosis.



Now, don't for a moment, however, be deluded into believing

that the technique of getting into present time or being

aware of present time is any very high-level technique nor

any very high ambition.



The psychotic lives in and is aware of the past.



The neurotic lives in and is aware of the present.



And the very sane lives almost exclusively in the future.

He has to, of course, live in the future because he keeps

catching up with himself so fast! You know - Rrrrr! He's 

got to be in the next moment all the time, otherwise he's 

not anyplace! And it's just a headlong javelin throw down 

the time track when a fellow is in good shape.



Now, therefore, let's take this old, moth-eaten idea,

awareness of the present. Now let's make it workable for

the first time. Let's not say, "Well, the way to awareness

of the present is to every morning get up, and you take two

dumbbells and you knock them together - bop, bop, bop,

bop, bop, bop, bop - and you hear their noise, you see?

Then you put them down again and you're in present time."

Well, it makes money but it's not a good technique. You can

tell somebody that "Well, the way to really get sane is to

go out and mow the lawn. Yeah, go through all this physical

motion. That's the thing to do." "What you need are sports.

Go out and play tennis every day. Action, action, action!"

Or, "Work hard."



These are all rather - rather control-mechanism therapies, 

by the way. You tell somebody that if he exercises his arm

long enough like this, he will eventually get big muscles

and this is good and he will be healthy - of course, he'll

get an oversized heart, but his muscles will get bulgy.



Well, naturally, if you create enough facsimiles of

terrific effort you're going to get a bulge, because you're

going to turn the facsimiles into such heavy effort, you

see, that they turn into MEST itself! And gradually you

bulge all over, but you can't do anything. Ha! That's the

truth of the matter. That's muscles! Muscles! Very good

thing, muscles. I'm not sure what's good about them but

they're very good.



Now, production of awareness of the present by creation of

heavy MEST facsimiles is not a good technique, but let's

develop awareness of the present so that we can develop

awareness of the future, so that we can then go far enough

ahead so we don't have to be aware of the present. That's

really good.



By the way, you can go around and see the present and

compute on the present and have a good time with the

present and everything else, recombining it continually so

that you will have a better future.



Actually, the business of action is the business of

recombining the elements in the present or putting new

elements into the present so that you've got a future.



You ever run into anybody when they walk in an old, knocked

- down dilapidated house, they don't see the cracks in the

walls or the scratches in the floor or anything else? They

see this beautifully modernistically furnished apartment.

They say, "That's very nice. That's very nice.



You say, "What's very nice about it? Look at the cockroaches 

and so forth."



Well, when you say that, of course, you're in the present.

But this happy, cheerful person that's with you says,

"Well, these, these purple and green drapes, and so forth,

and we put the chow bench there and-very beautiful place.

Fine. Swell."



And by the way, the ultimate of that is for this person to

walk in and take a look at this, and all the cracks go pop!

the floor polishes, the drapes go wheww! And somebody else

walks in and they say, "My God!" You create an illusion so

solid that it comes into being!



Don't think there is any trick, though, to creating

illusion that comes into being. Any one of you continually

creates illusions which become being - any one of you does

this.



You say, "Now, let's see. I think I'll wash my car." Why do

you want to wash the car? Well, you want the - you've got

already the illusion of a clean car. You see? You say,

"Illusion-clean car." Now we'll take some MEST action in

the physical universe and. . . clean car. Of course, that

took physical labor. It doesn't matter whether you took

physical labor or you suddenly went out and you said, "I

want a nice clean car. Isn't that pretty?" Glitter, and

it's all clean. That's that. Really no reason why you

couldn't do that, but that's the reductio ad absurdum of

this.



Most people take it out by being very efficient with their

motion so that they create an illusion and make an

actuality out of illusion.



Take Hollywood, for instance. Hollywood films a play called

"Streetcar Named Desire", and it has all of these tenements

on New Orleans, and the fine ironwork, and it has the

various styles that are in use, and it has all these

various things and so on. The next thing you know, why,

somebody is building something someplace out in Keokuk and

it has some ironwork on it. And somebody designs a new

dress someplace, and it's the dress that they saw in "A

Streetcar Named Desire".



What was that movie? "Forever Amber". Here is Amber. All

right, Hollywood turns the crank on the illusion they have

created. Actually they had to build the illusion before

they could turn the crank on it, but it comes out as an

illusion. And the next thing you know, you look in all the

store windows and so forth and you see Forever Amber's hat.

The illusion is produced and then people accept the

illusion, and it becomes a reality the moment they agree

upon it. You see?



So future is the creation of a future illusion and the

working toward that illusion to make it a reality.



Some people drop off so that they just create future

illusions. And by the way, this must be very good, because

everybody is so down on it. They say, "Don't daydream.

Don't daydream! That's bad! What you want to do is work.

That's good. Muscles and so forth. Don't daydream."



But some people get hopeless about making the illusion into

a reality, and so all they do is dream the illusion. But

believe me, that is far in advance of never having an

illusion.



That person who only has present time - God help him! Look 

at him. You can look at this place here or look at some

similar place and you say, "Well, it has this factor and

that factor and this factor and that factor." Most of the

people putting this place together right now aren't looking

at it. They don't see this place this way. They've got it

all built!



You'd be surprised, but where you're sitting right now

- probably there's a building there.



Thought becomes matter, and matter can come out of thought.

And when your thought gets into bad shape and you're not

directing it well at all, it'll turn into matter

eventually, but the wrong way! So that when you try to go

in through MEST energy and action into the real universe

just as such - MEST action only, with no aesthetic, no art,

no dream, none of these things - you're just going to go into

the present, and that's not good enough. It's good enough

for a raving psychotic to be in present, but it's not good

enough for you.



Now, when you take the will to do action, and to that you

add aesthetics, shape, form, dreams, illusion, now you're

moving up into the real band of sanity. That is the real

band.



There's an old, old poem that says, "And the best of a man

is gone when the best of his dreams is dead." And it

finishes up to the effect that when the last of his dreams

is dead, he's dead too. And that's very true. But actually,

when the last of his dreams is dead, he's just moved into

present time only. That's a hideous place to be! So I just

give you the difference of goals.



The Krishnamurti goal, and so forth, would be the goal of 

now - if he could just get people into a neurotic state he'd 

be happy. We want people up here - whssh! - way up! And the 

way you get way up is to be you, and then be! be! be! all the 

way along the line.



So, let's examine, then, and find out what "be" is. It has

three component parts: affinity, reality and communication.

These three things together, by the way, can be

demonstrated to be mathematics.



Mathematics itself is based upon the interaction of

affinity, reality and communication. I won't bother to go

into that. But it actually is very simple.



For instance, you're trying to get figures and symbols to

agree, and you're trying to get a communication by the

whole operation between your mind and somebody else's. And

you are examining similarities and identities - in other

words, affinities. And you can interact with affinity,

reality and communication and you get mathematics. You also

get understanding; understanding consists of this. And you

also get, of course, higher-up beingness - be.



The gradient scale of be, then, is the gradient scale of

ARC. And a low, low level of ARC is survive, and a higher

level is beingness.



What do we mean then by ARC?



Affinity. Affinity could be defined as love, but that would

be a very poor definition for it. It means the tendency to

adhese or cohese to something else, or not to cohese to

something else. In other words, affinity doesn't mean love.

It means love, hate, apathy; it means anything along the

line that would have to do with describing an emotion. But

it's not quite the emotion either.



We have, then, a molecule in this piece of iron here, or

brass, and that molecule has a tendency to stay near

another molecule. What's that tendency to stay near? Well,

it comes under the heading of one has an affinity for the

other. And affinity runs down the tone scale till we'll

find two objects which won't stay together - they will move

away from each other. There are certain chemicals that do

this. They have a low affinity for each other, until the

affinity reaches zero. In other words, affinity can be

repulsive as well as attractive.



So, affinity is the relative identification or similarity

or differentiation amongst whatever you want to say it's

amongst. That's affinity.



You say, "One person has affinity for another." It would be

a specialized use of the word.



This word is taken, by the way, from the vocabulary of the

magician, about 900 A.D. He had no way to sum up love and

love. And he bridged it by saying "relative affinity."

Because there is the love of an individual for an object,

of a person - a man, for instance - for a man, which merely

means affection. There's the love of people, one for

another. And then there happens to be a second dynamic

connotation of the word, "love." And "love," of course, is

what they sing about down on Tin Pan Alley: moon, June,

croon, soon and love. Love. So, you don't get a plain look

at it. Actually, either love is a part of affinity, so it's

relative affinity.



Affinity is a relative thing. It runs all the way up from

actually being so close an affinity to something that you

are the thing, down to not being anything, much less being

in affinity with something. And it passes through the

stages of being repelled, hating, so forth. Those are all

relative affinities.



All right, let's take communication. You think that

communication perhaps consists of somebody saying yap, yap,

yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, or somebody writing down on a

Western Union telegraph blank. Oh, no. The most intimate

communication which you have is right now probably your

tactile sense. You touch something, that's communication.

Another sense of communication is sight, another one is

hearing. These are communications. The use of sound and

words are highly specialized communications. ALL perception 

is communication.



Now, there are various gradient scales of communication.

Communication starts in at the bottom of the tone scale

with no communication, goes up through perverted

communications, comes up to real communication or real

sight, comes on up the tone scale - we're all this way, by

the way, going through the MEST universe. You know, you

send a sound wave out and it hits somebody's ear. Here is

"I" and here is "I" and you go through the MEST universe

and you get from "I" to "I" by perception, you see?



Here's a person, here's a person. They hear each other,

they see each other. You're going through the MEST

universe. You're using energy waves, sound waves, all that

sort of thing. And it goes up through the tone scale up to

there and suddenly starts to bridge, and goes from person

to person without the MEST universe being in there.



And its first method of doing that is by emotion. You get

an emotional interchange of waves. Now, you've experienced

that. If you want to run back on the tone scale, by the

way - pardon me, run the tone scale down along the level and

just see if you can experience any time you've ever had

anybody's counter - emotion, you will find that the person

who hated you the most is a person who was just stuck right

on the track right there. An emotional wave was proceeding

from that person, and that emotional wave was aided and

abetted by the fact that you were resisting that person, so

it has actually gone up above what we normally consider to

be matter and energy and space and time and has gotten into

the band of an emotional wave. It really is a wavelength.

It's a pretty crude wavelength.



But you can feel that. If you think of somebody who hated

you, you'll find out that their hate's bunched up on you

someplace. You're actually getting a communication line

direct without intervention of sight, sound or anything

else. It's an emotional wave. It's still a wave action,

however.



Now you go up the line a little higher and you get into the

band of enthusiasm. You ever felt somebody else's

enthusiasm? You ever felt the contagion of enthusiasm? All

right, there is that. It is a communication. It is a wave

motion that people in pretty good shape feel easily. People

who are down though - they are low on the tone scale, of

course - never could tune in on enthusiasm; it's just a

little bit too high up. The wave is different.



And then we go way on up the tone scale to a figure that

looks like a point - that many zeros out, and we get the

wavelength of aesthetics - very, very high! [See Ron's

handwritten notes on the wavelengths of the tone scale in

the Appendix.] And yet not so high that we couldn't

duplicate it today with our electronics. But it's way up

there! That's aesthetics.



And you get a person as he drops down the tone scale, he

becomes less and less able to do aesthetics or appreciate

aesthetics. One of the most aberrative incidents you had in

your - in this lifetime, by the way, was running up to one of

your parents and saying "It's pretty," and they say, Well,

Junior, wash your hands for dinner." In other words, they

said, "Aesthetics - phhh! Aesthetics - nah. What you want to 

be is practical!" The use of "practicality" is very poor.



But do you know that the aesthetic wavelength and that band

immediately below it and above it and around the mid-band

of aesthetics - is practically a disintegrator wave; it just

thaws through all thought of a lower tone.



You can produce a piece of beauty or, if you please, an

aesthetic ugliness of such a magnitude that you just stop

people in their tracks! You can blow away and erase their

anger, hate, discomfort or anything else with an aesthetic.



But when you can generate an aesthetic that high, you are 

so high up the tone scale that you practically own them. 

And they realize it, and they say "Hmm! Ohhh!"



The way you really fix up a society is to kill all its

artists, like they do in the United States. They don't let

an artist exist in this country. One of the things they do

is they try to teach him in the university. You can't teach

the guy aesthetics; he has to come clear down here on the

band of the tone scale to get into MEST communication level

with somebody who is going to teach him about something

which is - whssht! - way up here! Can't do it. An artist

is an artist.

 And any one of you is an artist if you are up in that

band, if you can emanate that band. Nothing under the sun

will mold up faster than that band. It'll go into anything.



A story somebody mentioned to me the other night: a crowd

became very angry at an artist in some ancient

civilization; it became furious with this artist because he

had taken a slave and had made the slave pose so long and

so arduously that the slave had sickened and died. And the

artist had used him as a model, and the crowd grew very,

very angry and they were storming his doors and about to

tear the house down, when the artist simply walked out and

held up the picture he had made of that slave. And the

crowd stopped, and that stopped all the motion as far as

they were concerned and they went home. That was the

answer.



It's very hard to see this today, because they turn art

immediately into a commercial channel, quickly. Kill it!

Bring it down the line.



Do you know that it was against the law to do any artwork

in this country 175 years ago? That you could be whipped,

stoned? People like Paul Revere had to take it out by

saying "It's practical." And so they made silverware and

ironware and things of that character because it was

against the law for them to do anything else. Bluntly against 

the law! We've gotten a little bit better, so we must be 

coming up the tone scale a little bit in some respects. 

All right.



When you examine this band, this is a band of

communication. And there isn't anything very mystic about

it; it's about as mystic as sitting down and reading an

oscilloscope. There it is, and there are the wavelengths,

and that's that.



You can commit aesthetic waves in combinations so that they

will re-emanate on an aesthetic band. That's quite a trick.

It's done instinctively; it's not done much by rules and

laws. But if you wanted to get down to it, you could write

up all the laws that had to do with aesthetics.



Now, there's communication. And the highest level of

communication there is, is art, and the lowest level there

is, is a whip. And you can take your choice in a society of

whether or not it's going to be an aesthetic or a whip.



And all the past generations that we are in intimate

contact with took the whip! But they're still communication

lines.



Reality is another thing, and rather frightening to realize

that the only reality, the only reality you know in common

with other people is that reality on which you and they

have agreed. This is an old one in Dianetics, very old one.



We're all sitting here and all of a sudden this cat walks

in. We all saw a cat. We agree that thing is a cat. Fellow

walks up and he says, "That wasn't a cat, that was a

Cadillac."



You say, "It wasn't. It was a cat."



Well, it's a rather a pointless argument, because all

reality is established by is the majority opinion. One for

you to think about. All the reality there is, really, is a

majority opinion.



So you get into a minority on reality, and people start

really fighting you. They say, "He must be crazy. He

doesn't agree with us." Well, their reality might be

entirely a psychotic reality in that it was not good for

their beingness. They've all decided not to be, you see?

They say, "Well, we'll just - what's real here is

not-beingness. Nothing exists; that's real. We have all

agreed that nothing exists."



The United States right now is on the very astonishing

basis of "We have all agreed the atom bomb does not exist."

Ha! Well, it doesn't exist! There's only one unfortunate

thing about that, is they are not joined in that agreement

with Russia. The atom bomb would practically cease to exist

if everybody in the United States and everybody in Russia,

or even the majorities in both places, were in perfect

agreement that the atom bomb didn't exist. Or if they were

even in agreement that it was not a threat, it would cease

to be a threat. That would be a real thing, then, wouldn't

it?



(continued in part 5/13)