Lecture: Creation
Author: Hubbard, L. R.
Document date: 1956, 7 November
Document title: Creation
Document type: lecture transcript
Event: Fifteenth American Advanced Clinical Course
Location: Washington, DC
Document ID: 15ACC-18
Description: Hubbard talks a progressive scale of creativeness that begins with lies, and progresses to the creation of masses, space, particles and thought. Discusses also a spectrum of worship that includes spaces and masses. Explains the "only difference between nuclear physicists and Roman Catholicism."
Now, what — what do we find as a common denominator of processing, then? Creativeness. Creativeness. Creativeness has a scale which begins with lies. Lies are the lowest level of creativeness.
The next scale above lies is, of course, the creation of a thought. Just plain creation of a thought, independent of other thoughts.
The next level above that is the creation of a mechanic. But people run them in reverse: They have to be able to create the mechanical adequately before they can create a thought. That’s just the way it stacks up.
The number of people who create thoughts are very few. H.L. Mencken, just before his death, wrote quite a dissertation on this. And his opinion of the ability of man to think an original thought was poor.
But for a man to create a thought, he evidently — if he’s fairly low down the line — has to have the idea that he can create a mass or a space or something. So the creation of masses, spaces, particles, so on, is actually below the ability to create a thought. You see, one gets starved for masses, spaces and particles and believes that these have in them a number of thoughts. They believe these things have in them a number of thoughts. And so they take the thoughts out of these masses. They remove the thoughts already extant in the masses of yesterday. Of course, they have to put them there to remove them, but that’s perfectly all right. They believe that these thoughts came from the masses.
They develop philosophies. Man is fantastic. He develops a philosophy like dialectic materialism. He says every thought comes from the collision of two forces. (Two or more forces he should have said.) By the way, that’s not even scientifically well written. You know? I mean, it has extraordinaries. Like why two forces? Why not three forces? You know? That kind of nonsense.
Of course, somebody with a scarcity of masses treasures the masses. And he says, “These masses are really something.” And he rather deifies them. And he says, “When you bump these two masses together, of course, you get a thought out of them; that shows you that they’re God.”
And the only difference between Roman Catholicism and nuclear physics is that the Roman Catholic has an easier idea getting some thoughts into space. In nuclear physics we get thoughts into space by banging together masses. But there’s no less deity involved. There is no less a worshipful attitude toward these masses that give up these beautiful reactions.
Every once in a while they turn around and tell you, if they’re not watching themselves too carefully or if they’ve had a drink, “Isn’t God wonderful!” You know, they turn the reactor on and let it react for a while, and they turn around to you, “Isn’t God wonderful!” Now, they got tired of having God in space and put him back in idol form.
That’s the truth of the matter.
Any race does this eventually. It gets tired of looking into space and ruining all of its havingness and puts their gods into masses. Actually, probably idolatry is much more healthy from a standpoint of body masses than a spatial religion. You got something real solid, you can walk up to it and lean on it, you know, and you can say, “Oh boy. Yeah, I know God heard me now; there he is.” See?
Savage people worship rocks, and so forth. And that’s pretty low- toned and pretty barbaric when they get down to worshipping rocks. But when you get down to worshipping rocks you can’t see, you’ve got the modern atomic physicist.
So anyway, these boys actually are copartners in the creation of any given instant. And the instants which were, just aren’t. It’s too simple though, of course, you see? It’s — have to make it more complicated. But the instants which were, aren’t: They didn’t go anywhere.
Now, if you understand this clearly, then you understand what is wrong with your preclear is his ability to create. Ability to create thoughts, his ability to create particles and masses in terms of the bank and certainly, observably, he is very deficient in being able to create walls that are as big as and solid as the room walls.
Hubbard, L. R. (1956, 7 November). Creation. Fifteenth American Advanced Clinical Course, (15ACC-18). Lecture conducted from Washington, DC.