V-50 Session 1

Good evening ladies and gentlemen.

It’s my pleasure to welcome you to the first session of what we call the V-50 Lectures.  My goal in this course is to present you with what I hope you will find to be a great expansion of your useful knowledge.  Practical knowledge that will enable you to understand the nature of the most difficult problems confronting both you and society at large.  Knowledge that will enable you, as an individual, to begin building workable solutions to both your principal problems as well as the principal problems that confront all of society.

My goal is to successfully transmit to you a maximum amount of knowledge with a minimum time investment on your part.  The more productive one becomes, the more he or she will value his or her time.  Time, of course, is your scarcest resource.  The more you value your time the greater will be the value you will acquire from V-50.  Now, I cannot give you any more time.  We each have the same twenty-four hours a day, but I can give you more value for your time investment.  In fact, giving you your time’s worth is the unique part of the V-50 guarantee which reads, “If, after hearing every session of this nineteen session course in its entirety, you do not agree that you received both your time’s worth and your money’s worth, your tuition will be refunded in full”.

Now all of us are in the position of having less time than we have money.  This means that if you can get your time’s worth, then you will have also gotten your money’s worth.  And please note that this guarantee is not one that you will get from, let’s say, a university or a college professor.

There are many people, I suppose, who look upon a guarantee as some kind of a gimmick.  And I would be the first to admit that many times that this is the case.  However, in the case of the V-50 guarantee, this involves the application of a principle.  Our position is simply, if one has the confidence in the quality of his product and the value of his product, then one can assume the risk to fully back that product with a guarantee.  And so, if you attend all of the sessions of V-50, and if according to your standard of values, not mine, but yours, if you do not honestly believe that you received both your time’s worth and your money’s worth, then walk up to me at the final session, look me straight in the eye and say, “Mr. Snelson, I didn’t get my time’s worth” or “I didn’t get my money’s worth”.  One or the other or both and there will be no questions asked of you.  You will not have to explain to me why you’re requesting a refund.  The check for the full amount of the V-50 tuition will be in the next day’s mail; if not the next day, then shortly thereafter.

Now it is my hope that, when you walk out of this room this evening, you will look forward to returning next week and the following weeks to the continuation of your investment and what you will find to be a unique product, unique, uni, one, one of a kind, a unique product called the V-50 lectures.  However, at this point, as I begin this lecture, with the exception of the V-50 graduates present, you’re all quite likely to be in the position of not quite even knowing what you’re doing here this evening.  Since we do not advertise, how did you even hear about V-50 in the first place?  Well, it seems that this friend of yours, or an associate, or a relative, has been badgering you to get down here and enroll in this course.  And quite frankly, some of our V-50 graduates are not always too subtle on the subject.  You might have been approached with,

“Listen, do you still want to be my friend”?

Or a classic question, “Would you still like to be my mother”?

A question that many of you will have in your mind is, well, you know, what am I getting into?  What’s it all about?  And so I’m going to initiate an answer to this question by first telling you what you are not getting into.  I’ll present a few quick disclaimers explaining what course V-50 is not and then we can concentrate the rest of the time on what it actually is.

First of all, V-50 is not a new fanatical movement.  It’s not even an old fanatical movement because there’s no movement to join.  This is not a political movement.  It’s not a religious movement.  The goal is not to find converts who will go out and sacrifice for some glorious cause.  You will not be asked to make donations.  The goal of V-50 is not to foster opposition to anyone or any group.  You will not be asked to go march in the streets or go on strike or, I’ll say, burn down banks or blow up airports.  The goal will not be to indoctrinate you.  And you will not be expected to accept the principals that are being presented here on blind faith.  You will find this is not a right wing political movement.  It is also not a left wing political movement.  It is not even a middle of the road political movement.  It’s not left of center or right of center or not even left of center but leaning slightly to the right or any of this.  Well, if it’s not political, what is it?

Well, V-50 is the opposite of politics.  And the opposite of the political method of approaching problems will be demonstrated to be the scientific method of approaching problems.  I’ll demonstrate these are opposite concepts, the political method and the scientific method, and I’ll explain why.

V-50 demonstrates how to build solutions to man’s problems through the application of the method called the scientific method.  This is a method of building solutions to problems.  It’s a method that some of you already have some understanding of, especially if you have a background in the sciences. However, in V-50, I’m going to demonstrate how to build solutions with the scientific method, how to build solutions in areas which, up to this time, we have not considered it possible to apply the scientific method.

For those of you who, at this point, put yourself in the position of not really understanding what science is or the scientific method is, I’ll be discussing this in some detail, in particular, in lecture #3.  In either case, whether you already understand it or you do not understand it, it’s a method that I will explain, not only what it is but how you can apply it to all domains of knowledge as a total concept.  The scientific method itself doesn’t have to be…it’s no great mystery as to how it operates.  At a later session I will explain how these four steps operate, what they mean, their relationship to each other.  Can we efficiently apply this concept, not only to the physical sciences, but with comparable success to the entire social structure as a total method of solving problems?  And this is what we will explain how to do.

It’s only been a little over three centuries now since the illustrious Isaac Newton applied the scientific method to discover the universal law of gravitation, the three laws of motion. What is the direct result of Newton and his followers applying the scientific method to the physical sciences?  The result, well, man has progressed from a mere stagecoach technology to a rocket ship technology in just three centuries.  That’s why, in V-50, I’m going to demonstrate how to apply Newton’s method, the scientific method, to discover solutions to our principal social problems.

You will find that there is one principal area of knowledge where man’s track record of success has flourished for the past three centuries.  This domain of knowledge is called the physical sciences.  And so I’m going to carefully examine the origin, the source, of this unprecedented record of achievement within the physical sciences.  What is the actual method of science that generates all of the progress and the success?  What is the method of scientific procedure that leads to the production of useful products?  You name it: refrigerators, computers, pop-up toasters.

Now, to be sure, it’s possible to learn something about the scientific method outside of V-50.  If you have an academic degree in the physical or biological sciences, you’ve already been exposed to the scientific method.  However, V-50 is going to expand the usage far beyond the narrow usage of the scientific method applied simply to the physical sciences and, to a lesser degree, the biological sciences.  In later sessions of this course, I’m going to answer such questions as, well, how can the scientific method be successfully applied to solve the problems of increasing crime?

What’s that got to do with the scientific method?  How can the method be applied to build schools wherein the students’ potential for intellectual achievement is enhanced far beyond present expectations?  How can the method of science be applied to build a more mutually rewarding relationship between parents and their children?  What’s that got to do with the scientific method?  How can the method be applied to build a more productive and successful business?  How can this method be used to build a social structure in which the individual’s potential to achieve constructive goals will flourish?  And so, in V-50, I’m going to demonstrate how to apply this method called the scientific method far beyond the domain of the physical sciences, as I said, as a total concept applied to everything, applied to all knowledge.

Now as soon as I call the means of solving the problem scientific, I must offer an even stronger disclaimer as to what V-50 is not.  By the second half of the nineteenth century, the achievements of the physical sciences were so spectacular, it was becoming popular to climb upon what you might call the scientific bandwagon.  Charlatans in legion numbers were quick to cash in on the popular image of the physical sciences.  Outright swindlers discovered that they could easily sell their latest swindle simply by labeling their totally fraudulent product scientific.  Well, the number of total frauds that have been perpetuated in the name of science in the past century is staggering.

Well, since fraud in the name of science is so common today, it is in the interest of every thinking person to acquire the knowledge of how to make a clear, precise distinction between two things: true science versus pseudo-science.  If any of you are fortunate enough to live in southern California, as a native Californian, born here in southern California, it’s been my own experience that there are more quacks and swindlers per square acre, per acre, in southern California than any place I have ever seen, any place I have ever visited.  A somewhat dubious claim but I would say southern California, if nothing else, leads the nation in quackery.  As a matter of fact, we live at the center of “quackdom”, if any of you noticed.  During lectures 2 and 3 of V-50, I’m going to explain how to make a sharp distinction then between the true sciences and the false sciences.

Course V-50, itself, has been innovated and developed by a professor of physics and mathematics, Andrew J. Galambos.  Prior to founding the Institute in 1961, Galambos taught physics, mathematics, astronomy at half a dozen different colleges, universities here in the United States.  And so, in V-50, Galambos demonstrates for the first time how to successfully solve this problem of using the tool called the scientific method to discover solutions to the social problems.

And this then brings to mind another common question that will be asked by people hearing about V-50 for the first time; a very common question.  You may have asked this question of one of the graduates of this course.  Well, if the ideas of V-50 are so important, as you seem to claim, then, if they’re that significant, why aren’t they making headlines?  Why haven’t I read about this previously to this time?

Now, there’s a very simple answer to this question.  Important ideas, significant ideas, don’t make headlines.  Ladies and gentlemen, it is a fact of history, the more important an idea, the more significant an idea, the more profound the scientific discovery, the less likely it will ever make a headline.  To illustrate, the scientific discoveries of this man, Isaac Newton, one man, that made possible the subsequent discovery of more knowledge, more useful invention, more useful technology, than any man who has ever lived anywhere at any time.  Alright?  Did the magnificent discoveries of Newton ever make one headline?  Have you ever seen the name of Isaac Newton in a headline anywhere?  You say, well, of course not, I mean the fella’s been dead, what, for two hundred years now or several hundred years or however long it is, three hundred.  Who knows but a long time.

Well, did Newton ever make any headlines when he was living?  Not one. Did his discoveries ever make a headline?  Not one. Can we then conclude what he did was insignificant and unimportant?  Or is that false?  It’s been over three centuries since Newton disclosed his major theories.  Neither Newton nor have his magnificent giant discoveries ever made one headline anywhere at any time.  The question is why?  It’s important to know why.

What is the principal purpose of a newspaper headline?  I’m sure you know if you think about it.  To sell newspapers.  In order to sell a lot of newspapers, you must cater to the general public.  You get the attention of most people through what is called sensationalism.  Look at the average headline:  a rampaging flood kills 500, an air crash kills 350, a bank manager kidnapped, screen star found dead, a war breaks out in the Middle East, Mafia chief found murdered, etc..  Not only does the important idea not make a headline, but the more the idea will benefit the individual, the more it will enrich his life, the less likely he will have ever heard of the innovator and even less likely will he understand the innovator’s innovation.

And to demonstrate this point, I will ask you a question.  I will direct the question toward those hearing this lecture for the first time.  I would like to know if you can identify, anyone, identify what this is.  I’d like to see a show of any hands if anyone can tell me what this is or who the innovator is.  For those of you who may have a little difficulty seeing this in the back of the room, I’ll come to another slide which will be a little bit larger.  Does anyone know what this is?  Or who the innovator is?  I have one person in the back of the room.  Alright.

I see most of you seem to be having some difficulty with this.  .Let me simplify this a bit.  There, is that better?  Those in the back of the room may see this a little better.  Can you tell me what this is?  I see one hand, two hands, another gentleman, a third gentleman in the rear.  Anyone else?  We have three people now.  Have any of you spotted an error in this?  Ladies and gentlemen, what you see on the screen is one of the greatest accomplishments, achievements, in the history of mankind.  It has had a major impact upon on your life.  All of you are richer because of this.  And yet, most of you, with the exception of three people, say you don’t know what this is.  If you knew what it is, you would know who the author is.

Well, these equations do have a name.  They’re generally called Maxwell’s equations.  This is the basis of one of the more valuable theories ever developed, called the theory of electromagnetic wave propagation.  These equations have led to the development of a familiar product you’ve heard of called television, radio, radar.  Now that I mention the name of James Clark Maxwell, how many have heard of this man, James Clark Maxwell?  That may be several dozen of you now.  So you’ve heard of Maxwell.

Alright.  When did Maxwell first disclose his work on electromagnetic wave propagation?  Over a century ago in the year 1854.  Alright.  If Maxwell’s equations have been around for over a century, and if they’re so important and so significant, then why is it that most of you in this room have never heard of Maxwell and maybe three of you understand these equations?  However, the proof of this would be can these three, who said they know what this is, assuming they did identify it correctly, can you come up here and explain it to the class or explain it to someone who has enough knowledge to understand your explanation?  Or can you articulate it on paper?  Or can you expand upon the work of Maxwell?  That would be one of the best tests of comprehension – you add to the work of Maxwell.

Well, and incidentally, I don’t bring this up to insult any of you if you’ve never heard of Maxwell.  That is not the purpose of bringing it up.  The purpose is to make a point.  Have I made a point?  This is one of the greatest achievements in the history of man.  Most of you in the room do not understand it and most of you have never even heard of the innovator.  Why?  Because important ideas don’t make headlines.  This is one of the most important ideas ever conceived by the human mind, Maxwell’s equations.  They do not get the attention of very many people.  The more important the idea, the less it will be known.

And, of course, even beyond that, can you see…let’s put up one of these equations again.  Can you see these equations in a headline?  How many newspapers will it sell?  And so, one of the points I’m making, ladies and gentlemen, a major point is Maxwell’s equations have never made headlines. They probably never will make headlines but they have, nevertheless, changed the world in a large, significant and fundamental way.  And in a like manner, ladies and gentlemen, the theories of Professor Galambos have never made headlines.  They probably never will make headlines.  But like Maxwell’s equations, they too will change the world in a large, significant and fundamental way.  And furthermore, like Maxwell’s theories, most people will never understand the theories of Professor Galambos.  Most people will never understand what is in V-50. They will never understand it.

But, ladies and gentlemen, I have some outstandingly good news for you.  And that is, it is not necessary to obtain mass comprehension of a theory in order to broadly apply it.  Maxwell’s equations have been applied all over the world with only a handful of people understanding this theory.  Most electronics engineers do not understand Maxwell’s equations.  Most electrical engineers do not understand Maxwell’s equations.  And yet, have we applied this concept of television and radio and radar all over the world?  Certainly.  Does the general public understand these equations?  No.  Do we have widespread ignorance on the subject?  Yes.  Does this present a problem?  No.  That’s the good news.  It doesn’t present any problem at all. We apply it on a broad basis, worldwide.

The good news that I’m going to be demonstrating is how it’s possible for you, the handful of people in this room, to apply the theory disclosed in V-50 to begin solving the principal problems of society.  And beyond that, if you can first solve more effectively your own problems, than this will be an indirect benefit to others and it will have something to do with solving the problems of society at large as I will explain in the full context of this theory.  I will demonstrate in a later session that every major solution to every major problem was first innovated by a lone individual who, in turn, communicated his innovation to a handful of interested people who then implemented the solution for everyone’s benefit.

If, in order to implement any major solution to any major problem, it would first require an understanding of how the problem was solved on the part of the general public, do you know what that would mean?  It would mean you could not solve any problem or implement any major solution to any problem, ever.  When you begin to recognize that only a few people are involved in solving every major problem, then you can lose much of your frustration connected with the problem.  For example, how are we going to get these ideas across to the general public in order to get them implemented?  And so, the good news will come with your recognition that you can’t get them across to the public ever because the more important it is, the fewer will be the number of people who understand it.  The good news is it isn’t necessary for everyone to understand it in order to implement the solution.  That generalization applies to all, the implementation of all major solutions to all major problems.

Well, what are some of the principal problems that we’re confronted with today that affect all of us directly or indirectly?  What are they?  Well, the same problems I suppose that fill every daily newspaper with monotonous regularity.  You read about the threat of war, riots, runaway inflation, famine, poverty, the kidnapping of the day, the bombing of the day, the murder of the day, a war breaks out, the war escalates.  I think one of the most effective ways in which you can reach a very high level of depression, is to read the daily newspaper or watch one of these news broadcasts.  Is there anyone here this evening who has ever listened, let’s say, twenty minutes of news at random on maybe KNX or KFWB news?  Take any twenty minutes during any twenty-four day, listen for twenty minutes, is there anyone in this room who is ever happier at the end of the twenty minutes than you were at the beginning?  It doesn’t happen.  It’s never happened to me.  And you’re aware that the same catastrophic problems have plagued societies since the earliest beginnings of civilization.  We have a six thousand year record of history, as you know.  Is there any record that these principal problems have been solved at any time in history? Not only are the problems not solved, but they grow steadily worse.

Let me ask you this question.  Is it possible that perhaps, maybe, our technology of problem solving of itself, per se, could in some way be defective?  Is that possible?  Is it possible that when it comes to solving man’s disputes harmoniously, that maybe we don’t know what we’re doing?  Is that possible?  No, it couldn’t be.  Well, we’ve had tens of thousands of years to figure out what we’re doing wrong.  Instead of solutions, the problems are magnified.  Do you think the wars can continue to increase in their destructive magnitude indefinitely?  Do you think we can afford World War III?  World War IV?  What do you think the shape of this planet will be after World War IX?  Poor.  You don’t have to worry about World War IX.  There won’t be World War IV.  There won’t be World War V.

Alright, where have we failed?   Why have we failed?  I’m going to discuss the source of the failure that has resulted in the present social crisis.  In order to illustrate the nature of the crisis, I’m going to make a comparison of the progress achieved within the three sciences.  First of all, we will divide all knowledge into three broad categories: the physical sciences, the biological sciences and the volitional sciences.  As you know, the physical sciences include the body of knowledge concerning inanimate matter.  For example, what’s the nature of familiar categories such as solids, liquids, gases?

Biological sciences encompass a body of knowledge concerning animate matter.  What’s the nature of living things such as plants, animals?

The third science deals with the remaining body of knowledge, man’s relationships with his fellow man.  This third area of knowledge has been called traditionally the social, so-called, sciences.  However, we prefer to call this third science the volitional sciences for reasons which will be explained later.

This chart will give you a visual comparison of the progress among the three sciences.  Ladies and gentlemen, a simple chart illustrates the source of the entire social crisis.  I’m plotting on the vertical axis progress.  On the left, we have the physical sciences, in the middle, the biological sciences, on the right the social, so-called, sciences.

Can you detect any problem just by looking at this chart?  Our present social crisis stems from the fact that the principal progress has been achieved in the physical sciences.  It’s in the physical sciences that we’ve made the great discoveries of the various laws of nature: laws of motion, law of gravitation, laws of thermodynamics.  The success, then, of the physical sciences in the past three centuries has been so rapid that the second and third sciences have been left far behind.

What has happened is this.  The greater the success of the physical sciences, the greater the crisis.  In the second science, biology, we have made some progress but the degree of progress there does not begin to rival that of the physical sciences.  And even the progress that has been achieved in biology, please note that is a direct derivative of the earlier and greater progress of the physical sciences.  Would there even be a science of biology without, for example, the earlier progress in physics, the science of chemistry, which is a branch of physics, also mathematics, the microscope technology, the scientific method itself.  All of this comes from physics.  And so, there wouldn’t be a science of biology without the earlier achievements of the physical sciences.

Finally, we come to the subject of the third science, the so-called social sciences.  What is the extent of the scientific progress?  Have we come up with any true scientific solutions to man’s continual inhumanity to his fellow man?  Have we done this?  Man’s relationships with his fellow man have not been too harmonious.  It’s all in those dry history books.  We have a six thousand year, unbroken record of mass murder, torture of innocent victims, destruction of property, arson, fraud, embezzlement, vandalism.  Someone did some research recently on the actual number of years that man has been without war during the past 3550 years.  Let me ask you what you think.  Of the 3500 years, do any of you think we’ve been at war, let’s say, for at least a thousand of the 3500?  Do any of you think we have been at war somewhere on the planet for at least a thousand?  How many think it’s at least a thousand?  Alright.

Do any of you think that we’ve been at war on the planet for the past 3500 years for, let’s say, at least 2000 of the 3500?  Thank you.

Well, do any of you think that we’ve been at war somewhere the past 3500 years for at least 3000 of the past 3500?  Some of you are pretty pessimistic.

Well, I don’t know who actually did the research on this. I’d give them credit if they had announced themselves.  Quite frankly, I wouldn’t waste my time with this.  But, anyhow, they came up with the following statistic.  Of the past 3550 years, exactly 286 have been without war.  That means that we have been at war, on the average, 92% of the time.  If you averaged it out for a twenty-four hour day, we’ve been at war somewhere for the past thirty-five centuries, twenty-two out of twenty-four hours a day.  Clearly, something is failing.  The question is what?

Well, for one thing, the social technology has totally failed to resolve man’s disputes peacefully.  Look at the dismal record of failure after failure.  A common belief that the social technology has progressed is nothing more than an illusion.  There is no observational data to support this incredible myth.  And yet, what if you were to go out and take a survey?  What if you were to ask the average man on the street or ask the average business man, the professional in medicine, law, education, science?  You say, “Excuse me.  We’re taking a survey.  The question we have is do you believe that the social technology, that the structure of society, has progressed since the days of the caveman”?

And what would the overwhelming response by?  Well, certainly, of course, we’ve progressed since the days of the caveman.  The question is ludicrous.  Of course we have.  Would that be the most common answer?  Yes.  Don’t believe me?  Try it.  Take a survey.  Say, “Excuse me. I’m taking a survey”.  That’s why you have to start out that way.

Alright, I ask this question.  Where is the observational evidence?  A scientist requires observational data.  A quack does not.  That’s one of the differences between a scientist and a quack.  Well, in general, you will find that, in answer to the question why is the belief so common that the social technology has progressed, you will find that people get two things confused.  Progress in the physical sciences versus progress in the social, so-called, sciences.  You know, we have a tendency to look upon our ancestors as being quite primitive.  You know, they lived in a primitive social structure because, well, for one thing, they didn’t possess any automobiles.  They didn’t have airplanes, electricity, television, air conditioning, no Dial soap or Ban spray deodorant.  Alright.  What is the source of all of these comforts of the 21st century?  A source, as singular, the physical sciences.

Automobiles, electrical energy, television sets.  These are products of physics.  Dial soap, Ban spray deodorant, Pepsodent toothpaste, these are products of chemistry which is a branch of physics.  I might emphasize, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that your teeth are brighter and you smell good, and don’t you wish everybody smelled good, or gooder, as the case may be, to coin a phrase or a word, the fact that people smell much better than their ancestors is not any indication that the social technology has progressed.

You know, two thousand years ago, the efficient way to get rid of any enemy was with sword and spear.  By the time of two centuries ago, we had progressed far beyond that.  The efficient way to get rid of any enemy was with rifle, bayonet and canon.  By the time of just three decades ago, we had gone far beyond that and the efficient way to get rid of any enemy was with rifle, canon, machine gun, mortar, TNT, attack bombers, tanks, torpedoes, landmines, submachine guns, aircraft carriers and so forth.

Today, we use all of the weapons of thirty years ago.  Plus we have intercontinental ballistic missiles with hydrogen warheads, zeroed in all multiple hydrogen warheads at that, zeroed in on all of the principal cities in case things get rough.  Well, you can increase the kill ratio of each soldier.  You can increase his leverage to destroy.  But is this an indication that the social technology has increased?

Let me ask you this question.  Are we in a better positon today, in 1977, to prevent war than we were two thousand years ago?  Or six thousand years ago?  You know the answer.  And I run a great risk in even bringing up the subject of war since almost everyone will assume that, even if it’s a problem that might possibly affect them, there is nothing, if ever there was a problem that they could do nothing about personally, it would have to be the problem of war.

Well, I will demonstrate in this course that our inability to prevent war is a larger problem than even the most concerned individuals might think.  In fact, later I will demonstrate that there is a direct connection between the failure of the social structure and social technology to prevent war and the failure to prevent crime, the failure to prevent inflation, the failure to prevent widespread unemployment, the failure to prevent vandalism, juvenile delinquency, and all kinds of major problems that affect us directly or indirectly.  I will demonstrate it is all connected.  In short, I will demonstrate that all of these failures have a common origin and we must identify clearly the nature of this common origin or there will never be a solution, ever.

On the other hand, if one claims that our social technology has progressed, where is the evidence?  If one claims, well, haven’t we made a little progress?  Where?  Again, a scientist requires observational evidence. Where is it?  Where are the scientific solutions to our man-induced catastrophes?  Where are they?

And before I discuss the present social crisis in a little greater depth, it has been my experience over the years that a great many people resent any discussion of a crisis.  Many will claim that they already know about the crisis, that they’ve known about this for a long time.  They don’t want to hear about it.  They don’t want to think about it.  And yet, most people will realize that you cannot a problem, that is a real problem, simply by ignoring it.  When your house is on fire, you can choose to ignore it, but this will not squelch the flames.

So, ladies and gentlemen, the nature of our present social crisis is never a pleasant subject, but it is essential that we carefully identify both the nature of and the source of the crisis or we will never find a solution, as painful as it may be.  The negative approach is not to think about it.  The positive approach is to identify the cause and then innovate a cure.  Now the term crisis, as you know, is used commonly in medicine.  It involves the turning point in the course of a disease where it becomes clear as to whether the patient will do one of two things: recover or die.

In this case, the patient happens to be our entire civilization.  The outcome, I believe, will be determined within the next five decades, perhaps even sooner, the next quarter of a century.  Will the patient recover or die?  Will our civilization survive or perish?  Must we follow the dinosaur into oblivion?  So far, the dinosaurs have done much better than we have in terms of the length of their existence on this planet.  We’ll have a long way to go to even equal what the dinosaurs did in terms of their longevity as a species.

What do you think the population of a planet Earth will be by the year 2000 AD?  Several billion?  Or a handful of miserable survivors?  Or zero?  Isn’t there anyone in this room who can identify any law of nature that will assure and guarantee man’s survival indefinitely?  Do you know such a law of nature?  I don’t.  All of you in this room are fully cognizant of the fact that we now have developed the physical technology capable of literally destroying every last man, woman, and child on this planet.  And yet, people still ask, well, how can you be so certain that there won’t be any survivors?  Well, there might be some.  Maybe a few bush men, living in the bush, might survive.  Or some aborigines living in a cave somewhere might make it perhaps.  It’s possible.  But it would take tens of thousands of years for future survivors to again reach our present level of technological achievement.

For example, let’s say a few aborigines make it out in the jungle someplace or isolated areas.  How long do you think it would take these aborigines to build tape recorders starting from their present level of knowledge?  They do not even understand the concept of what we would call zero or positional notation in mathematics.  How long do you think it would take them to build tape recorders?  Or the bush men?  Starting from their Stone Age level of knowledge?  I’ll tell you, a long time.

The probability of a thermonuclear war increases each day as more and more nations gain control of these weapons.  If, for no other reason, the greater the number of political states that control the bomb, the greater the risk of a nuclear war, the greater the risk of an accident occurring that might just trigger off a war.  How many of you read that on several occasions our SAC bombers have accidentally dropped some H bombs out of the bomb bay doors?  How many are aware that this kind of thing has happened?  Yeah.

You say, “Well, it was just an accident.  It didn’t go off”.

To be sure.  This is serious.  Then, of course, the argument is, well, accidents can happen.

That’s the point.  Even without that, imagine the volatile situation that will result when Italy gets the bomb, West Germany, East Germany, Cuba, Japan, Egyptians, the Israelis.  And we’re on the threshold of outright lunatic terrorists getting control of these weapons.  How many of you are aware of the fact you can learn in college physics, you can learn how to make atomic bombs and H bombs?  How many know that this knowledge is available?  These are physics students!  And it’s only a question of time before some of these terrorists have access to these weapons.  It’s only a question of time.  What are you going to do then?

People say, “Well now, wait a minute.  For one thing, a political leader would have to be totally insane to launch a nuclear attack”.

I agree.  He would have to be totally insane, but do you think that we can safely assume that all political leaders are sane?  Is that a safe assumption?  Was Adolph Hitler sane?  He would have taken every German with him to defend the glory of the Third Reich.  The late Chairman Mao,  Mao Tse Tung, has boasted that in a nuclear war China could lose 300 million people and be victorious.  What do you think of that?  Here’s a man, after 300 million of his countrymen are obliterated, that’s a 100 million more than the entire population of the United States, after 300 million of his fellow Chinese are wiped out, he claims victory?  This is a victory?  It sounds like the statement of a lunatic to me although I’m not here to pass judgment on the sanity of the late Chairman Mao.

There are many people who have confidence that our national defense program will protect us from nuclear attack.  Ladies and gentlemen, I’m sure some of you must already recognize, today there is no national defense in this country.  Are you aware of this?  We’re vulnerable to attack.  People worry about, oh, what are we going to do when the Red Chines get intercontinental ballistic missiles zeroed in on every one of our cities?  Well, they don’t need ICBMs to detonate H bombs in the LA Basin.  Why would they?  They can bring H bombs into the LA Basin in crates.  They can be smuggled in, buried in the ground, hidden in deserted warehouses set off with timing devices, radio signals.  Do they have the means of doing this if they want to do it?  Certainly.

“Yeah, well, we could probably capture seven out of ten coming into the LA Basin and only three go off”.

You know what three H bombs would do for the LA Basin?  It would clear out all of the smog for one thing and just about everything else.  And you don’t need to be 50 to know that the H bombs we have these days make, for example, the atomic bombs that were used on the Japanese in World War II look like firecrackers.

The point I want to make in this connection is that the ability to retaliate with a nuclear attack must not be confused with defense against nuclear attack.  There is no defense.  All we can do is retaliate.  As far as I’m concerned, there’s little consolation in the knowledge that, if everybody in the LA Basin is wiped out tomorrow, then goody-goody, everybody in Peking and Moscow will be obliterated shortly thereafter.  Is this any consolation to you?  It is certainly not to me.

The fact that we may have the ability to destroy any potential enemy fifteen times, and they may only have the ability to destroy us ten times, what difference does it make?  Or maybe, as other people say, “Oh, no, no, they’re ahead of us”.

Alright.  So they have the ability to destroy us fifteen times and we only have the ability to destroy them ten times.  Whether we’re ahead on offense or behind, when you have that much overkill, it really doesn’t make much difference.  After you’re killed the first time, any number of additional times, from two to infinity, is academic.

Alright, question.  What is my purpose in discussing the crisis because you don’t need this course to know that there’s a crisis.  Why should I take your valuable time to discuss a subject that, to a greater or lesser degree, you already have some knowledge of?  It’s certainly not to frighten you.  I’ll leave that to the professional rabble rousers, scare mongers and alarmists which are running loose in this country.  This is not alarmism.  Alarmism never solves any problem.  The purpose is not even to alert you to the fact that there is a crisis.  You already knew that.  The purpose is to precisely identify the fundamental cause of the crisis.  That’s what we’re here for this evening.  What is the cause of this crisis?  Because if we fail to accurately articulate the specific cause of the crisis, then our failure at the correction of the crisis will be a foregone conclusion, a certainty.

And so, how did we get ourselves into this incredible mess in the first place?  The crisis is reaching its zenith.  The survival of the species may already be questionable.  I have this question for you.  What failing has led to a social crisis in which the entire species is in jeopardy of extermination?  If we can accurately, with precision, answer this question, this will give us a key, a guideline, to the solution.  But what if we cannot correctly identify the source of the failure?  Then the failure will continue and the crisis generated by the failure will continue to increase in its severity.

And so, I’m going to identify several of the principal causes that have led to the social crisis.  However, it will not be possible for me to prove conclusively, in the first lecture alone, that all of these represent the various causes that have led to the crisis, but they will be fully demonstrated in the full context of this course.

Alright.  Here is, then, is the first failure that I will discuss.  It is the failure to identify correctly cause and effect relationships outside of the physical sciences.  In the history of the physical sciences, as I’ve indicated, the discoveries of one man, more than anyone else, have enabled us to greatly expand our comprehension of cause and effect relationships in nature.  This man, of course, is the incomparable Isaac Newton.  For example, the cause of the ocean tides, is finally described by Newton’s discoveries.  A tide is an effect that anyone can witness but what is the cause of a tide?  Well, Newton’s law of gravitation explains that the tidal phenomena is caused by the force of the moon and the sun’s gravitational attraction.  And once understanding the cause, you can predict the exact moment in time when the tidal peak or the tidal depression will be reached.

However, before Newton’s explanation of cause and effect, what was the explanation for this?  There were many fantastic explanations for the cause of tides.  There were many who believed that, well, the tides are caused by some demon who lives in the sea.  Perhaps the mythical god Poseidon is behind this.  Or maybe Neptune, god of the sea, is responsible for this.  When Neptune inhales, the oceans rise.  When he exhales, the oceans fall.  What other explanation could there be?  These were common explanations given for the tidal phenomenon.  And it was not understood until Newton came along and clearly articulated cause and effect.  Now we know Neptune has nothing to do with it.  You already knew that, didn’t you?

During the time that Newton was making his great discoveries in physics in 1665, 1666, let’s look at our ability to understand cause and effect relationship in the second science, the biological sciences.  What did we know about cause and effect at the time Newton was accomplishing his works three centuries ago?

For example, what if the country is being ravaged by the bubonic plague?  Well, anyone can witness the effect.  Death is everywhere.  Few families are left untouched.  People ask what could cause such an incredibly great catastrophe?  Many will conclude there can only be one explanation for the cause.  Witches, known agents of the devil, perhaps warlocks, are spreading the Black Death among our people.  A solution?  Since we cannot burn the devil, we will do the next best thing.  What’s that?  Anyone?  Burn witches.  Excellent suggestion.

The result?  Hundreds of thousands of men, women, children are convicted of the charge of being a witch or a warlock, the warlock was the male counterpart of the female witch. A sentence, after usually being tortured, they would be tied to a stake and systematically burned alive.  Now the question we might just ask today is did the authorities who sentenced these unfortunate people to death for being witches or warlocks, did they correctly understand and identify cause and effect?  Was the Black Plague actually caused by witches or by something else?

I’ll disclose to you a true incident that happened in the city of Milan, Italy in the year 1630.  There was a man who was a scribe by profession.  He was coming home one evening from his work and he had a lot of sticky ink covering his hands.  And this was before the days of Boraxo and other modern cleaners.  And as he was coming home, he was walking along next to this wall and he was just scraping his hand as he walked, scraping his hand on the wall to try to get some of the sticky ink off of his hands.  And it just so happened two old women were looking out of their windows and they noticed this man just running his hand along the wall.  And these two women agreed.  This man must be the agent of the devil who’s spreading the plague across our beloved city of Milan.  And, of course, being good citizens of the community, they immediately reported him to the proper authorities.  When questioned, the scribe explained, “Well, you see, the ink on my hands.  And with the wall, you understand”?

And he was told, “You are lying.  Confess”.


Now ladies and gentlemen, what do you do with a man who absolutely refuses to tell the truth?  There are ways.  The man was tortured.  But, unfortunately, he didn’t even know what the charges were that were brought against him and so he didn’t even know what to confess to.  Finally, upon inquiring from the jailer, he found out the charge and when subjected again to torture beyond endurance, he finally confessed everything that was suggested to him. And being subjected to repeated torture to get the names of his accomplices and co-conspirators, the poor man, finally in desperation, he named everyone he knew in the city of Milan.  These unfortunates were in turn tortured beyond endurance until they named everyone they knew.  These, in turn, were arrested and tortured until they named everyone they knew.  And this went on and on and on until the death toll was incredible.

Finally, good news.  A poor apothecary, we would of course call him today a pharmacist, this poor apothecary was tortured into confessing that it was actually he who had made the magic ointment that the scribe and the others had used to spread the plague throughout  Milan.  And he was, of course, slowly put to death with the most refined and sophisticated torture of the time.  His entire family was driven from the city.  His house was demolished and a great monument was erected on the site of his house as a warning and a lesson, an admonition to others.  This can happen to you if you don’t shape up.

All of the details of the trials, with even explicit descriptions of the torture and the effect upon the victim, has been fully documented by the authorities and is available still for those who wish to go into the sordid details.  Incidentally, if you don’t know this particular incident in Milan in 1630, how many of you know that such things have gone on in our past and I’m not making all of this up?  You’re aware that these things have happened – burning people alive at the stake and those kinds of things.  Incidentally, they burned children at the stake.  Did you know that?  They would sometimes burn babies at the stake.  I’m not making this up.

Alright, I have a question for you.  What was the underlying cause of all of these needless torture, suffering?  What was the cause?  One of them was no comprehension of cause and effect in the second science, biology.  What was the true cause of the plague?  Was it witches?  Was it devils?  How many of you really think it really was the witches?  Now be honest.

I’ve got some good news for you.  Two hundred and sixty-four years after the poor apothecary was cruelly executed, his house was destroyed, his family driven into poverty and exile, two hundred and sixty-four years later, the man was fully, completely vindicated.  The poor fellow was innocent after all and all of the others too. Isn’t that good news?  Do you feel better now?  He was innocent.

Two hundred and sixty-four years later, what happened?  That was the year 1894, when the bacteriologist, Kitasato, in Japan, I believe Kitasato was a student of Robert Koch.  Kitasato in Japan, another bacteriologist, Yer-sin, in Switzerland, independently discovered the cause of the bubonic plague.  And when they look through their microscopes, they didn’t see any devils, no witches.  They saw for the first time the true cause of the plague, the microscopic bacillus pestis.

And I might illustrate that an even greater tragedy happened two centuries earlier than this incident that occurred in Milan.  Certain people got the idea that, and these were the same people who believed in burning other people alive at the stake and so forth to solve their problems, they also somehow got the idea that cats were evil agents of the devil.  And so they launched a crusade throughout much of Europe to destroy all of these evil cats.  It turned out to be one of the most successful European crusades in history and they obliterated most of the cats from the face of Europe.

I will give you one guess as to what followed.  When the cat’s away, the rats will play and play they did.  The rats took over Europe. And as many of you know, the rat carries the flea that carries the bacillus pestis that is the cause of the bubonic plague.  You see, you don’t have to just get bitten by the rat.  It’s enough to get bitten by the flea.  That can introduce the bubonic plague into your system and do you in.

And the plague that followed this crusade to destroy cats resulted in the death of somewhere in the general magnitude of one quarter of the population of Europe and one third of the population of England and Scotland.  That will give you some appreciation of the catastrophe that can follow the inability to comprehend cause and effect, applied to all domains of knowledge.  In other words, to put it more crudely, another way of stating it is you simply don’t know what you’re doing.  These people didn’t know what they were doing.

Now, one might ask, “Well, this is all very interesting Mr. Snelson, but I mean what does the torture of some poor, innocent scribe way back in 1630 got to do with me?  Besides, this is America, not Italy.  I’m not even Italian.  Even if you are Italian, this isn’t Italy.  And this happened a long time ago”.

Ladies and gentlemen, our understanding of cause and effect today in the social domain is no more accurate than was our earlier belief that witches caused the plague.  Can you accurately identify the cause of our social catastrophes with the certainty and the accuracy that Yer-sin and Kitasato identified the cause of the plague?  Can you do this?  What is the cause of war, rioting, economic depression, famine, poverty, mass unemployment, inflation?  Ladies and gentlemen, in this course called V-50, I will use the scientific method to demonstrate and prove that today’s authorities, today’s experts, so-called, have no more accurately and correctly and rightly identified the true cause of these various problems that affect all of us than did the authorities in Milan accurately identify the true cause of the plague.  What happened in Milan does affect you since the identical failure to clearly understand cause and effect today pales the destruction of the plague that destroyed millions.  The same failure to identify cause and effect has led us to the brink of the ultimate catastrophe, the destruction of the entire species Homo sapiens.  And that affects all of us.  If Homo sapiens perishes, that means you’re not doing too well, unless you’re from some other species.

So several centuries ago, due to man’s blind acceptance of superstition, total superstition, he blamed witches and devils for the plague.  Today, due to the same, identical, totally blind acceptance of superstition, we are blaming the wrong thing for the cause of war, riot, poverty, unemployment, inflation, etcetera ad nausea.  We consistently blame the wrong thing, the wrong people.

During this lecture series, then, I will carefully identify with precision the true cause of all of these calamitous disasters.  Whatever conclusion is reached, it must stand the harshest and most rigorous test ever conceived by man.  That test is called the scientific method.  It is the scientific method that will be used to test the rightness of everything in this course.

Which brings me to a discussion of the next failure.  It’s the failure to apply a scientific method successfully outside of the physical sciences.  Almost everyone who has been exposed to one course in science has probably heard of the scientific method.  However, it is the exceptional individual who understands this method. It is the even more exceptional person who understands how to apply it.  I will devote much of Session 3 explaining how to apply the scientific method as a practical method to build solutions to our principal social problems.

The scientific method will also be explained to answer one of the most profound and important questions of all time, namely, what do you do when you make an error in your thinking?   First of all, how do you identify when you’ve made an error, an intellectual blunder and, secondly, how do you correct the error?  Well, we have failed to apply this error correction method technology of the physical sciences outside of the physical sciences.  I will explain how to accomplish this, applied to the social structure to the volitional domain, here in V-50.

The next failure that has led to the present social crisis is the failure to apply precision semantics outside of the physical sciences.  Man has failed to apply semantic precision to the fundamental terms, the fundamental concepts that form the entire structure of society.  To illustrate, let’s look at three important terms:  freedom, crime, justice.  What is freedom?  How do you achieve it?  What is crime?  How do you prevent it?  What is morality?  And how do you maintain it?

Ask a dozen people at random to define these terms. Will they agree?  Ask a dozen Ph.D.s at random to define these terms.  Will they agree?  Ask all of you in this room to define these terms.  Will you agree?  What do you think?  Would you agree that most people, if asked, would claim to be for freedom, against crime and for justice?  Would you say most people, if you ask them, would say I’m for freedom, I’m against crime, and I’m for justice?  Most people, including yourself?  I think so. You would find few people who would take exception to that.

And yet, when you ask them to define these very terms, there will be little agreement.  When you try this, you will get as many different answers as there are people answering the questions.  And even if you should get some agreement as to what these concepts precisely mean, then you most certainly will not get any agreement as to how you achieve them.  If any of these people attempt to actually achieve freedom or prevent crime or maintain justice, and they’re all talking about different concepts, that means they are all going off in different directions and it’s only a question of time before they will collide.

Let me ask you this question.  What if there is no agreement in physics as to the precise meaning of these terms: gram, meter, second?  There’s no agreement, for example, as to how much a gram weighs, what is the time duration a second will last or how long a meter is.  Someone will say, for example, “Well, this is the length of a meter”.

Someone else, “No, no, no.  A meter is from here to the wall”.

“No, no, no.  A meter is from here to that wall”.

Someone else says, “No.  A meter is from here out to the street”.

Someone else says, “No.  A meter is from here to the Los Angeles City Hall”.

“No, no, no.  You’re wrong,” someone else says.  “A meter is from here to the moon”.

“No, it’s from here to the sun”, someone else says.

“No, no.  It’s from here to the nearest star”.

“No, it’s from here to the nearest galaxy”.

And then someone else, “You’re completely wrong because this is a meter”

Someone else, “No, no, no.  It takes a microscope to see a meter”.

“No, no, no.  It takes an electron microscope to see a meter”.

I realize you got the point much earlier than it took me to give this illustration.  But it is the reason I made an elaborate discussion of it.  I want to increase your sensitivity as to the absurdity of trying to build anything if there is that much disagreement in the physical sciences with respect to these fundamental terms as to what they precisely mean.  If there was this much disagreement, do you think we could actually get from the earth to the moon?  With this much disagreement on the fundamental terms?  If there was this much semantic imprecision in physics, this much semantic disagreement, you would have total chaos and you would not even have a science in the first place.

Alright.  If all of you can see that it is absolutely essential to build the physical sciences upon a foundation of precision semantics, then is it not equally clear that in order to build a true social science, that it, too, must be built upon a foundation of semantic precision?  As a matter of fact, no precision semantics, no science.

A question, then, that must be answered is what precision semantics should we use?  What definition of freedom, justice, crime should we use?  If you had the time, could you devise a million different definitions of freedom?  And then one more?  Certainly.  Could you come up with ten million definitions of freedom, every one different?  Could this be done, assuming you had the time? Certainly.  How many definitions of freedom can you come up with?  Or crime? Or justice?  Well, if one had an infinite amount of time, you could work on an infinite number of definitions for each one of these terms.

Alright, here’s an interesting question then.  How can you approach the problem of selecting what one might call a right definition, or a correct definition, in the process of building a semantic foundation for a science when the number of definitions you can have for any definition approaches infinity, a number of definitions for any term approaches infinity?  How do you know when you have a right one?  That’s a problem you must be able to solve.  Because who’s to say that one fellow’s definition is any better than another’s?  As early as the second half of this lecture this evening, I will begin solving this problem, a problem related to semantics.

Now it is important that early in this course I emphasize that I am not running a popularity contest.  And as connection, I do have some good news for you.  And that is you do not have to take a liking to my personality in order to acquire a great value from this course.  If you should come up with a conclusion after only a half session of this course, that this fellow Snelson, he’s just a bit obnoxious or even repugnant to me – although I hope it doesn’t go so far as you come to the conclusion that I am abhorrent or abominable, but even if it does, nevertheless, you can still derive a major profit from this course called V-50.

And if V-50 is the beginning of a theory that will build solutions to our principal social problems, I’ve mentioned poverty, inflation, crime, unemployment, economic depression, even international hostility, much more, problems that we have not been able to solve for the last six thousand years, if there is knowledge in V-50 that will save both you and our civilization from total destruction, then the fact that maybe you dislike me, for whatever reason, or you think the room is too warm or the room is too cold or you think the lectures are too long or you think they’re too short or you think the lecture is moving too slowly and you’re way ahead of me or you can’t keep up with me or you think maybe I’m talking down to you or you don’t like the way I dress or what have you or why aren’t his sideburns longer or why is he wearing a tie, all of these things completely miss the point.  If V-50 is a product that offers more solutions to more major problems than any course ever presented, and I claim that it will and it is fully backed with a money back guarantee like no other course ever presented, then all these other concerns are really quite trivial.

In the first sentence, as a matter of fact, of “What is V-50?”, and we have these available, these brochures, around the table, if you would like one, in the very first sentence of “What is V-50?”, the first statement is:  “The V-50 lectures are designed to give you the greatest expansion of useful knowledge with the shortest investment of time”.  I mentioned this.  “To acquire value from V-50 then, it will require an investment on your part, not a sacrifice, but an investment in the acquisition of useful knowledge”.  And so, if you possess the patience to make this investment, I claim the returns on your investment will be paramount.  They will be giant.

Before we take a break, the last thing I’m going to discuss will be the prerequisites for this course.  By that I mean the prerequisites necessary for you to acquire value from V-50.  There are three.  They are:

  1. Intellectual curiosity. What does this mean?  Well, the intellectually curious individual is genuinely interested in the acquisition of new knowledge for his own personal profit and enjoyment.  If a person is intellectually curious, you don’t have to beat him over the head with new knowledge because he goes after it.  He thirsts for new knowledge.  He wants to know.  He must know.  He must learn. This is the first prerequisite because, before you will ever know anything on any subject and understand it, you must first want to know and want to understand it and there is no exception.  If you are not interested, you will not understand it.
  2. A second requirement, or a prerequisite, involves the ability of the individual to make what are called rational value judgments, rational thought processes. And what this means specifically, in terms of especially the physical sciences, I will be discussing next week in this room, Lecture #2.  I will go into the nature of a rational thought process, what this means and how to achieve it, as a total concept applied, not just to the physical sciences, but to all knowledge.  How can you test any view or any position on any subject anywhere at any time for rationality?
  3. A third prerequisite is called intellectual honesty. This involves the ability of the individual to arrive at conclusions through only the employment of rational thought processes. If you’re intellectually honest, the conclusions you reach are not based upon tradition, emotion, authoritarianism, dogmatism or what have you.

In order to illustrate the nature of intellectual honesty, I’m going to conclude the first half of Lecture #1 with a true story, a short story.  And I would like your cooperation to illustrate a point.  I would like to know how many of you have heard of the world famous scientist by the name of Cesare Cremonino?  Or, as his name has sometimes been pronounced, Cremonini?  How many hearing this lecture for first time have heard of Cremonino?  If it will helps his dates were 1550-1631.  Does that help?  No one?  Alright.

Well, if you go back to the beginning of the 17th century, Cremonino had a reputation throughout all of Europe as being a great scientist, a great scholar.  Alright.  How many of you have heard of a contemporary of his, the 17th century scientist by the name of Galileo Galilei?  How many have heard of Galileo?  Presumably, most all of you.

One day, specifically in the year 1609, Galileo happened to hear of a device called a telescope that was actually devised by a Dutch maker of eye glasses, one Hans Lippershey.  And without the benefit of any plans, Galileo heard that there was a telescope.  And so he took a long lead tube and, at each end of this tube, he put a simple lens and, within a short time, he fashioned himself a telescope.  And you could focus this telescope on the distant ships in the harbor and they would appear much closer.

And one evening, Galileo points his long lead tube toward what was the most prominent object in the sky that night.  It happened to be the moon.  And as he pointed this long lead  tube toward the moon, he witnessed one of the most amazing, exciting things that he had ever seen.   Because there, with the magnification of this long, lead tube, you could actually see that there were mountains on the moon.  And quite excited about this, Galileo, of course, invites his friends and associates to look through the tube.  And they look through the tube and what do they see?  Why, it’s just as Galileo said.  There are mountains on the moon.  This is fantastic.

Well, of course, the statement that Galileo had actually seen mountains on the moon was very soon to reach the ears of Cremonino and his associates.  And he sends back word, “This is absolutely absurd”.  As a matter of fact, Cremonino points out to Galileo, “Look, Galileo, it is common knowledge that all celestial bodies are perfect spheres. And if they’re all perfect spheres, how could the moon possibly have mountains?  Galileo, your assertion is ludicrous”.

Alright, ladies and gentlemen, how did Cremonino know that the moon was a perfect sphere?  Well, he, Cremonino, was an expert on Aristotle.  He knew Aristotle forwards and backwards and sidewards.  In fact that is what it meant to be a scholar at this time.  You were an expert on Aristotle and Aristotle was looked upon as the alpha and omega of all knowledge.  If it wasn’t Aristotelian, it wasn’t knowledge.

How did Cremonino then know that the moon was a perfect sphere?  That was easy.  Aristotle said so.  Aristotle, in fact, had said that all celestial bodies have a perfect form.  A perfect form was a sphere.  The moon was a celestial body.  Therefore, it has a perfect form.  Therefore, it would be impossible for the moon to have mountains.

Well, to this brilliant chain of reasoning, Galileo calmly turns to Cremonino and he says, “Look, Cremonino, you know, you don’t have to take my word for it.  Here, see for yourself.  Look through the tube”.

To this challenge, Cremonino responds, “No.  I don’t have to look.  Furthermore, why should I look?  And even if I do look and I do see mountains on the moon, there could only be one explanation Galileo.  You, sir, would have enchanted me.  You would have bewitched me”.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is called, guess what?  Intellectual dishonesty.  He doesn’t have to look.  He has blindly accepted Aristotelian dogma.  Do you think it’s any different today?  Yes.  It’s different today.  It’s worse.  I would say there is more intellectual dishonesty today, more deeply rooted, than at any time in history for reasons which I will explain later.  However that is true only in those parts of the world where the people are the best educated for reasons which I will return to later and, in particular, on the lecture on education.

Well, the final conclusion to this true story, Galileo also invited, of course, other people to look through this tube of his.  And they looked through the tube and it’s just as Galileo says.  There are indeed mountains on the moon.  You can actually see them.  There they are, if you look.  And as more and more people looked through Galileo’s tube, more and more of them began to doubt and question Aristotle’s generalization that all celestial bodies were perfect spheres.

Well, in order to save face, Cremonino had to come up with an explanation for this apparent exception to his sweeping generalization.  So Cremonino goes to Galileo and he says, “Well, Galileo, after some reflection, I will concede that your observation that there are mountains on the moon is correct.  But, Galileo, what you failed to observe is that covering this mountainous and irregular surface of the moon, it just so happens there is an invisible ocean of ice.  And this invisible ocean of ice forms a perfect sphere which, of course, cannot be seen”.

Well, Galileo, of course, was the master of all intellectual discussion.  And not to be outdone by this fellow Cremonino, Galileo says, “Well, Cremonino, your statement is correct.  There is indeed an invisible ocean of ice that surrounds the moon.  But Cremonino, what you have failed to observe is that on top of this invisible ocean of ice, there rests invisible mountains of ice that are ten times higher than any of the mountains you can see.  Not nine times but ten”.

I have this question for you.  Who won the argument?  Or who was right?  The fact that almost all of you have heard of Galileo and none of you have heard of Cremonino answers the question who was right.  As I will explain next week, in the long run, those who are right will rise to the surface and be clearly visible.  And those who are wrong, in the long run, will sink to the depths of perpetual oblivion and be permanently forgotten.

How many of you have heard of Cremonino?  I mean, it’s a major research project to find out the fellow ever even existed.  I did not make this story up.  Both Cremonino and Galileo were faculty members at the same university.

And so, ladies and gentlemen, I will leave you with this challenge at the conclusion of the first half of Session 1. Guess what the challenge is?  You guessed it.  I’m asking you to look through the tube.  Not of course to see if there are mountains on the moon but to see if the problems of the world will be solved with superstition or with science.  How they can be solved with the same science that has built the physical sciences will be disclosed in this lecture series in great detail.  As early as the second half, I will begin demonstrating and building solutions to these problems, as early as the second half of Lecture 1.


Continuing now with the second part of Lecture #1, I’m going to continue a discussion of the failures that have led to the present social crisis.  Another failure that has led to this crisis is the failure to integrate, that is, tie together the sum of the social problems.

I’d like to present to you with a list of twelve major problems that adversely affect all of you directly or indirectly:

1.      Increasing threat of war 7. Increasing pollution
2.      Increasing crime 8.  Increasing energy crisis
3.      Increasing inflation 9.  Increasing low quality education
4.      Increasing poverty 10. Increasing racial conflict
5.      Increasing unemployment 11. Increasing job dissatisfaction
6.      Increasing population 12. Increasing theft of invention

Alright, the question is can you identify the connection between every one of these problems?  For example, what is the connection between problem one, increasing threat of war, and problem twelve, the increasing theft of inventions?  Let’s say a man’s invention is stolen.  What’s that got to do with suddenly finding ourselves, the entire nation, involved in a war?  What does problem three, increasing inflation, got to do with problem seven, increasing pollution?  What does problem two, increasing crime, got to do with problem eight, increasing energy crisis?  What is the common connection between any one of these problems and all the rest?

In the past, we have failed to correctly identify the connecting link that will unify all of these seemingly unrelated problems.  We fail to accomplish outside of the physical sciences what Isaac Newton accomplished within the physical sciences three centuries ago.   If you go back prior to Newton, there was, at that time, before Newton, no clearly established connection between the various independently developing branches of the physical sciences.  There was no connection between the phenomenon of light and the concept of mechanics.  Now we knew a little bit about light and we knew a little bit about mechanics, but we didn’t know there was any connection.  There was no connection known between motion on earth and the motion of the planets.  In fact, it was generally believed among scholars that earthly phenomenon obeyed a different set of laws than did celestial phenomenon.

Newton discovered then a few basic principles that are so large, large in their scope and magnitude, that they represent the single greatest step that has carried us forward in our quest for useful knowledge.  With the discovery then and application of a few fundamental principles, Newton brings it all together.  He demonstrates that all of this previously disconnected knowledge is connected.  He explains that everything in the physical sciences is related in a rational way to everything else in the physical sciences.  Integrate means to bring together into a whole.  And so, Newton’s magnificent achievement is the grand integration of the physical sciences.   The Newtonian integration then is the intellectual foundation of our entire modern world of technology.  We journeyed to the moon on a rocket powered vehicle that was launched with Newtonian integration.  And so, the physical sciences were integrated three centuries ago.

Since that time, the knowledge we have learned in science has been used for two conflicting goals.  One to build and the second to destroy.  One certainly does not have to possess genius to contemplate the advantages that would accrue to the world if the knowledge of the physical sciences were employed for the single purpose of building.

The solution to this seemingly impossible problem has something to do, not with our getting smarter in physics, but rather with our getting smarter outside of physics.  First of all, how did we get so smart in the physical sciences?  That required an intellectual integration.  Therefore, what is required to get smart outside of physics is the same thing.  An intellectual integration applied to the entire structure of society.  Freely translated, when we get smart enough to destroy ourselves and we are not yet smart enough to prevent it, then we have reached the ultimate crisis

Because we failed in the past to integrate the social sciences and make a true science out of them, please note I have social  “science” – because we failed to integrate the social structure to make a true science in this domain, we have not been smart enough to prevent our own destruction.

The foundation of the integration of the third science, called the science of volition, will be disclosed in the V-50 lectures.  I will demonstrate that it is not possible to completely solve any of these dozen problems individually.  I will demonstrate it is all or nothing.  Either they will all be solved or none of them will be solved.  A solution will be, essentially, a product of a grand social integration.  The solution looks and will look something like this.

When you have an integration of the third domain of knowledge that we call volition, then you have accomplished something.  At that point, you are smart enough to prevent your own destruction, but much more than that, and I will come to that momentarily.

Another failure is this: a failure to apply the positive strategy of the physical sciences to build solutions to our principal social problems.  Assuming that one is, in fact, sensitive to the many problems of society, then what?  What should you do?  What is your plan of action?  What is your strategy?  Is your approach positive or is it negative?  And what’s the difference between positive and negative?

Ask any person, for example, who assumes a posture, “Well, I only want to think positive and I don’t want to think negative”.  Ask this person to define positive and to define negative.  Can they articulate the goal, assuming one has thinking positively as a goal?  What’s the difference?  In the coming sessions of V-50, I will demonstrate that in the physical sciences, when we have been confronted with difficult problems, the approach to the solution, the strategy, has been positive.  In contrast, when we’ve been confronted with difficult problems with respect to our society, the approach to the problem, the strategy I will demonstrate, has been almost exclusively negative.  The approach has been what I call symptom fighting.  We have been inundated throughout all history with these symptom fighters.  And to use a popular medical analogy and cliché, we must learn to cure the cause of the illness and not just fight the symptoms.  For six thousand years, all we have been doing is fighting symptoms.

Well, these symptom fighters never seem to be able to cure the disease that causes the symptoms in the first place.   And the mistake that the symptom fighter makes can be found in his strategy; namely he fights.  He joins groups called committees or associations or congregations or societies or parties.  To do what?  To fight.  To fight what?  Whom?  Well, to fight the things that are wrong.  To fight the people that are wrong.  To oppose those who are wrong.  To oppose injustice.  To fight tyranny.

These action groups may be very active.  They may even make a lot of noise.  They may even make headlines.  But are they discovering any solution to the problems they’re fighting?  I will prove a major point in the sessions ahead in V-50 and that is this, and this is a difficult concept to understand, it may be a concept that is not well received in the first session of this course but it will be proven in later sessions completely.  We still have to also define proof.  That will be in Lecture 3.  The word prove is in almost everyone’s vocabulary but what does it mean?  What is a scientific proof?  What does that mean?  Can you articulate it?

The point I will make is this: there has never been a single solution to a major problem, throughout all history, that was ever discovered by fighting the problem.  You can fight what is wrong.  You can fight what is right.  In either case, you lose.  It is not possible to fight your way to a positive, complete solution to any problem.  To fight anything is a negative strategy and, as I will demonstrate, it is an impotent strategy.

In contrast, what is the strategy of the physical sciences?  What strategy would you employ if your goal was to get from the earth to the moon?  Well, you fight the main force that is holding up your progress.  Just what is the main force holding up your progress if your destination is the moon?  All of you know. What is it called?  Gravity.

Well, the symptom fighting has been going on for thousands of years in the social area and it’s tantamount to trying to get to the moon by fighting or opposing gravity.  You could have a hundred thousand or a hundred million screaming demonstrators. They could march against gravity.  They can all yield “Down with Gravity” placards.  But the demonstration will fall upon deaf ears.  Now, of course, if anyone were to actually march against gravity, riot against gravity, most people would look upon them as lunatics.  But if the very same people go on strike against or march against or fight against what they believe to be some great social evil, not only are they not called lunatics, but they will be looked upon as heroes making a great sacrifice to fight for the cause in which they believe.

Well, in the full context of V-50, I will prove that fighting the things you dislike, even when the things you dislike are, in fact, wrong, wrong yet to be defined, next week I’ll define wrong, to know what is wrong implies that you first know what is right, even when you’re fighting something that is wrong: injustice, tyranny, bigotry, inflation, crime, intolerance, whatever it may be, fighting any or all of these will be no more productive than fighting gravity.  I say a statement not always well received but it will be proven in the full context of this lecture series.

If your goal is to reach the moon, there is a rational, positive strategy that will achieve this worthy destination.  But you will never get there through demonstration or fighting your way to the moon.  Here’s a tape recorder on this table.  Can you fight this tape recorder into existence?  Can you oppose it into existence?  Can you demonstrate it into existence?  The answer, of course, to all of these is no.  It’s not how it is accomplished.  You can’t riot it into existence.  You can’t bomb it into existence.

The mere fact that people fight symptoms is an open admission to failure.  If you innovate a cure, then there are no longer any symptoms.  The only time you have continued symptoms is when you have failed to find the cure.  And I might point out that the single lone individual who discovers the cure is worth more than all of the symptom fighters combined and that is an understatement.

What if your goal is to find a cure for cancer?  Well, the fact of the matter is, one man who innovates and discovers a true complete total cure for cancer is worth how many who have no cure for cancer?  One man who knows how to totally solve the problem is worth how many who don’t know how to solve it?  One man who knows what he is doing is worth how many who do not know what they’re doing?  One man with a workable, total solution to the problem is worth more than an infinite number of people with no solution.  And that’s more people that will ever exist.

Alright, if we cannot solve our many social or societal problems by simply fighting the symptoms, if fighting of itself is both a negative and an impotent, futile, ineffective strategy, as I will demonstrate, as I say that is not an easy point to have to accept, it has to be demonstrated, but if all of this is ineffective, the fighting, then what is a positive strategy that will lead to a permanent cure and the ultimate remission of all of the symptoms?

Well, here again, this illustration.  This is a graphic view of what must be built to achieve a solution to our manmade social catastrophes.  We must demonstrate how to apply the knowledge building, solution building strategy of the physical science to the third science of volition.  And by accomplishing this goal, this very interesting thing does happen.  You do become smart enough to prevent your own destruction, and furthermore and beyond this, it is only when you are smart enough to prevent your own destruction that you can also be smart enough to solve the lesser problems; namely increasing crime, increasing inflation, increasing poverty, increasing unemployment, increasing population, increasing pollution, increasing energy crisis, increasing racial conflict, increasing job dissatisfaction, increasing theft of invention, and on and on.  You  name it: vandalism on the increase, etc..

It used to be, to show you how quickly we’re going down the drain, when a burglar burgled your house, he would take what he would get and walk off with it.  Nowadays, not content with this, they may burn your house down and try to destroy everything that they don’t steal.  And this becomes more and more common every day, doesn’t it?  And you have destruction for the sake of destruction.  It just means that you’re closer to a total catastrophe.

I’m going to demonstrate that the alternative to all of this is a total solution.  The alternative will be demonstrated here in V-50.  And it must be a total, complete solution or there will be no solution to any one of these problems ever.  I will prove that it is impossible, impossible – that will be defined in a later session also.  Possible versus impossible.  Very important concept.  How do you know the difference?  Most people do not understand this concept.  Most people cannot distinguish between utopian and practical.  Ivory tower and workable.  They have no criterion for this.  It’s very important.  I’ll explain it later.

It will be a total solution or no solution.  During the first half of tonight’s lecture, I stated that the approach that will be used to build solutions in V-50 will be then the same approach that has been used with such great success in the physical sciences.  It is essential that we carefully identify the factors that have led to the success of the physical sciences.  And one of these factors is so simple that the significance of it has not been fully recognized.  Without this important essential, it is impossible to build a science.  The essential is called semantic precision.  And where we have achieved the most advanced level of progress, namely the physical sciences, we have also achieved the most advanced level of semantic precision. And this is not an accident.  The progress of the physical sciences is a direct derivative of an intellectual foundation called semantic precision.

In physics, for example, the important term, force, has only one, single, precise meaning.  And since there is only one definition of force in physics, it will be clear to anyone who studies physics what the term force precisely means.  Every physicist means the same thing by term force.  One thing and one thing alone.  They possess a common language.  The foundation of this common language is called semantic precision.

I’m now going to examine some of the terms that apply, not to physics, but to society and to the social structure.  The term freedom, for example, is in everyone’s vocabulary.  But is there a precise single meaning to the term freedom that’s commonly used and commonly understood?  What if I were to ask all of you attending this lecture this evening, attending this lecture for the first time, to define freedom? What do you mean when you use the term freedom, on the assumption it is in your vocabulary and you have used it.  Would we find any agreement if we ask all of you to write out the definition and then read every definition?  How much agreement will there be?  Little.

And yet, you will find almost everyone is openly an advocate of freedom.  There are few who will admit to being advocates of slavery surely.  On the contrary, most people are on the freedom bandwagon.  This includes Albanians, Englishmen, Germans, Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Socialists, Communists, the American Legion, the Kiwanis Club.  I even read, some five years ago, the Begonia Society is coming out for freedom.  And I did not make that up.

Ask any of these people this question –

“Are you for slavery”?


“Are you for freedom”?

“Oh yes, of course”.

In every country you will find activist groups demanding more freedom, demanding liberation.  That comes from the Latin libre, meaning free.  There are people marching for freedom, demonstrating for freedom, striking for freedom, rioting for freedom, burning down banks for freedom,  blowing up schools for freedom, throwing bombs into crowded theaters for more freedom.  What if you were to stop one of these self-proclaimed, so-called, revolutionaries for freedom, stop him just as he is about to throw, let’s say, a Molotov cocktail through a department store window.

And you say, “Excuse me.  We’re on coast to coast television here.  Before you burn down this department store, you’ve stated that your only interest in doing this is freedom.  My question, for those at home watching television, is just how do you define freedom?  And what is your estimate of the number of department stores that will have to be burned down before we can have freedom?   Or how many airports will have to be blown up before we can have freedom”?

Ask any so-called freedom advocate to define his admitted goal and what is the result?  He’s usually lost.  If he’s not speechless, he might come up with some vague answer which, upon close examination, is imprecise.  It could be internally inconsistent, perhaps circular, or for many other reasons, not clear.  And when he realizes he’s been exposed as one who does not know what he is talking about, he might put forth a classic defense mechanism, a cliché you have heard many times.  He blurts out an indignation, “Well, that’s only semantics”.  By the time you have completed Lecture 3 of this course I will demolish the cliché, “That’s only semantics”.

Well, if an individual claims to be seeking freedom, and he claims that freedom is his destination, then I think a fair question is what is freedom?  If he cannot precisely define the term freedom, then how does he know what his destination is?  The obvious answer?  He doesn’t.

If his concept of freedom is vague, then it follows that the goal will be equally vague.  Assume that his destination is instead the Hawaiian Islands.  He will have a difficult time reaching his destination if he’s ignorant of the fact that an island is surrounded by water, if he’s ignorant of the principles of navigation, if he’s ignorant of geography.  Do you think he will make it?

Let’s say the navigator is totally ignorant of the principles of navigation and you set out in a sailboat, or even an ocean liner, for the Hawaiian Islands.  What is the probability that he will reach the Hawaiian Islands?  Not too awfully good.   As a matter of fact, how many of you have enough knowledge of the principles of navigation to know that, if the navigator has zero knowledge of the subject, you could have Australia as a goal, the biggest island on the planet, an entire continent, and you could miss Australia.  How many recognize this?  It’s a fact.  There’s a very good probability you won’t even make it to Australia.  You might not even survive. You’ll be going around in circles.

Alright.  It is just as irrational for one to believe he can obtain a destination, freedom, without first understanding what freedom is, where it can be found and how to get there as it would be an irrational belief to believe you could get to the Hawaiian Islands, or any other place, without understanding what an island is, where it can be found, and how to get there.  The principle is identical.

Well, we have to rectify this then.  For purposes of illustration, I would like your cooperation in answering a few questions.  I would like to see a show of hands of those of you who are advocates of slavery.  I’d like to see a show of hands.  Now be honest.  You mean to say there’s not one person in the room who is an advocate of slavery?  I will close my eyes.  Alright, thank you.

Now I would like to see a show of hands of those of you who are opposed to slavery.  How many of you are opposed to slavery?  Alright.  Thank you.

Now I would like to see a show of hands of those of you who have not quite made up your mind whether you’re for slavery or opposed to it. Let me see a show of hands.  I see a few people.  Thank you.

Finally, I would like to see a show of hands of those of you who absolutely refuse to raise your hands.  There are several people.  Thank you.

I sense most of you are opposed to slavery.  Let’s see if we can put some precision into the concept of slavery.  Let’s see if we can identify with precision exactly what you are opposed to.  First of all, what actions must be taken in order to enslave a volitional being?  For purposes of illustration, let’s assume that our goal is to enslave as many people as we possibly can.  What are the means that we must employ to accomplish this objective?  What do all slaves have in common?

“Well, they have all lost something”.

“But what”?

“Well, they’ve all lost their freedom”.

“Oh, well, what does that mean”?

Well, it means that they have all lost control of the derivatives of their life.  Now let’s consider three familiar slaves.  One, the Egyptian slave of 4,000 years ago building the pyramidal tomb for the pharaoh.  Two, the Roman slave of 2,000 years ago building the amphitheater called the Coliseum for the emperor.  And three, the African slave in America of 200 years ago building the plantation for the plantation owner.

I will identify the two principal derivatives of life over which the slave has lost control.  All forms of slavery have one single origin.  The slave has lost control of the tangible or intangible derivatives of his life.  The intangible derivatives of life include actions, thoughts, beliefs, ideas, innovations. For example, the actions of the Egyptian, Roman, and African slave are restricted to those set forth by the slave overseer or slave master.  You see, if the slave is dissatisfied with his situation, it will not really do him very much good to give notice to the slave master, saying, “Mr. Slave Master, things just don’t seem to be quite working out in my favor.  Therefore, I’m giving you notice.  I’m leaving by the end of the week.  Good-bye and good luck”.   Yeah.

The slave’s actions are controlled without his permission.  Is this observable?  Clearly.  Then we have the tangible derivatives of life: food, clothing, shelter, furniture, tools. The tangible derivatives of a slave’s life are also controlled, like his actions, without his permission or consent.

Now for the sake of illustration, if your goal is to enslave as many individuals as you possibly can, what is the problem that you must completely solve?  It is this.  How can you gain control of the individual’s tangible or intangible derivatives of his life?  How can this be accomplished?

And since most individuals do not like to part with the derivatives of their life for nothing, in the end you will have to seize control or, in other words, just take away these various derivatives of life without the permission of the owner.  If your goal is to be a master of slaves, called a slave master, then all you have to do is figure out how to gain control of the derivatives of the slave’s life.

On the other hand, please note carefully, if the slave can ever solve the problem of how to retain permanent and total control over the derivatives of his own life, once he can solve this problem, he is no longer a slave.  In fact, he has been liberated – liber, Latin for free.  Once a slave gains total control over the derivatives of his life, tangible and intangible, he has been liberated.

Let’s now look more carefully at this category called the intangible derivatives of life: actions, thoughts, beliefs, ideas, innovations.  In particular, consider the most important derivative of a man’s life called innovation.  Certainly one of the most magnificent innovations in music, perhaps the most famous symphony ever written, Symphony No. 5 in C Minor, a derivative of the life of Ludwig von Beethoven.   One of the giant innovations of the physical sciences is the first law of motion, a derivative of the life of Isaac Newton. All of these intangible derivatives of life: actions, thoughts, beliefs, ideas, innovations, take the form of what can be called property.  All the property that comes in the form of an intangible derivative of life has a name.  We call it primary property which includes actions, thoughts, beliefs, ideas, innovations. These derivatives of life, that come from your life, are said to be your primary property, if they are derived from your life.

The new design of a superior suspension bridge is a primary property of the engineer who designed it.  One of the most famous paintings of all time was completed in the year of the death of Galileo which was also the year of the birth of Isaac Newton, 1642, a painting some of you are familiar with by the Dutch master, Rembrandt van Rijn, called “The Night Watch”.  Next time you’re in Amsterdam, you can see the original at the museum.

“The Night Watch” is a derivative of the life of Rembrandt.  Therefore, it is his primary property.  When primary property is converted to tangible forms of property, you have the tangible derivatives of life, as I indicated – food, clothing, shelter and so forth. All of these tangible derivatives of life – automobiles, houses, pop-up toasters, tables and chairs, take the form of what is called secondary property, the tangible derivatives of life.  Please note these tangible forms of property represent the traditional view of property.  It will be explained later why these forms of secondary property represent the least important forms of property.  And so, property then comes in three forms: primordial property, primary property, secondary property.

Your property begins with your birth and we call that primordial property, the biological derivative of life, life itself.  But please note at the moment of birth, all you have is your primordial property.  You come into this world in the very most extreme state of poverty.  Your only suit is the well-known birthday suit.  And your entrance to this world, ladies and gentlemen, like it or not, is anything but grand.  But you are the owner of one thing, your primordial hide, so to speak, your primordial property.  You are the owner of your own life.

The next property that is a derivative of your life, of course, is called primary property, the intangible derivatives of life.  And that is then converted into the next form of property, secondary property.  And every item of secondary property must first take the form of primary property.  Before you can acquire even so much as a simple table or chair – these do not exist in nature.  There is not a tree that produces chairs or tables.  Someone must conceive of an idea of a table or a chair since these are not products of nature.  Therefore, before you could ever have any form of a finished piece of secondary or tangible property, you will first have primary property, the intangible, in terms of the idea, the concept, the plans.  Primary property, then, is the foundation and basis of all progress.

Now this brings me to a discussion of the formal definition of property.  The historical concepts of property have all had one thing in common.  They have been imprecise.  They failed to correctly identify with precision the origin of property.  Property has one source: individual volitional action.  Individuals create property.  They generate property through production.  Individuals bring property into existence.  Please note, property does not even exist in raw nature.  Automobiles, television sets, houses do not exist in nature.  These products are first innovated in the form of primary property and secondly produced in the form of secondary property.

The concept of property that Professor Galambos has developed is unique to his theory.  His definition of property is not an economic definition of property.  It is not a political definition of property.  In fact, both the Galambos concept of property and the definition of property, introduced for the first time a scientific concept of property and a scientific definition of property.  What the term scientific means I will explain in Lectures 2 or 3.  Here, then, is the formal definition of property: Property is a volitional being’s life and all non-procreative derivatives thereof.

Now the word non-procreative is included in the definition of property to point out that, even though children are a derivative of life, they are not the property of another.  Children are not the property of their parents.

Ownership, then, of primordial property would be called slavery.  In other words, if by that you mean, if you own the primordial property of another, that would be called slavery.  If you simply own your own primordial property, that clearly is not slavery.  Now, of course, if you do not own your primordial property, your own life, then it would be difficult to conceive of owning any other form of property.

Now I stated that most people, if you asked them, will tell you that they are opposed to slavery.  But can they identify with precision exactly what they are opposed to in the case of slavery?  Or what if your goal is the reverse, your goal is to optimize slavery.  You would like to enslave as many people as you possibly can.  Again, I ask how would you do that?  Well, now that I have introduced you to a precision definition of property, you can identify the precise action that must be taken to enslave an individual and here it is.

How to enslave an individual?  Seize an individual’s property or control an individual’s property.  And this could be even further simplified by recognizing that, when you have seized another person’s property, you, at the same time, have control of his property.  The seizure of property, then, is tantamount to the control of property.  I will now give you a precise definition of slavery.  Slavery is the control of the individual’s property without his permission or consent.  You don’t even need to add the word consent.  It’s just for emphasis.  Now when you go home this evening and they ask you, well, what did you learn down there tonight, you can answer, “Oh, one of the really neat things we learned was how to enslave someone with precision”.

We have been giving pretty much a traditional view of slavery.  This involves, perhaps, a man held in chains.  If he doesn’t keep pace with the assigned workload, some brute of a slave master, with shoulders this broad, comes over and slashes across the slave’s back with a cat-of-nine tails.  The poor slave stumbles, falls to the ground.  The slave master comes over, kicks him in the gut.  “Get up you filthy dog”.  That’s kind of the Hollywood version of slavery.  You know, very dramatic.  But inadequate.  This is a narrow and restricted view of slavery.  It’s important to recognize that you do not have to be chained up in order to enslave or be a slave.  You do not have to be chained up in order to be a slave.

For example, if a thief steals your automobile, you have been enslaved by the thief.  The thief is now in control of your automobile.  You have lost your control of your automobile.  The thief now enjoys the use of your automobile.  At the point in time when the thief gains control of your automobile, please note he gains control of you and you are serving the thief.  But is your service to the thief voluntary or involuntary?  You are involuntarily serving the thief.  Involuntary servitude is also called slavery.  Therefore, all thieves are enslavers.

A thief is simply anyone who steals property from another.  A thief controls the property of the owner without the permission of the owner.  I will present you with, now, a precise and accurate definition of stealing.  Stealing is the seizure of an individual’s property without his permission or consent.  A much simpler way of saying it is stealing is the taking of an individual’s property without his permission.  One becomes a thief by stealing the property of another.  One becomes an enslaver by stealing the property of another.

For example, what if your goal is to enslave as many Negroes as you possibly can.  How would you accomplish this?  Steal their property, since there is no other way to do it.  On the other hand, what if your goal is to enslave as many Caucasians as you possibly can?  How would you go about doing that?  Steal their property, since there’s no other way to do it. Ditto Orientals.  Ditto anyone else.

I will now introduce a, perhaps, seemingly strange question and that is, ladies and gentlemen, is there really anything wrong with stealing another individual’s property?  Is stealing right or wrong?  What do you think?  Do you think we should have a lot less stealing than we have today?  Or do you think we should have a lot more stealing?  Or do you think we have just about the right amount of stealing?  What do you think?  Or I will introduce you to this trilogy and you tell me what you think:

  1. Stealing is always right.
  2. Stealing is always wrong.
  3. Stealing is sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

What’s your view?  Which one of these three represents your view?  Would you like to know my view?  Alright.  I will state emphatically, without any equivocation.   My view?  One of those three.  What’s yours?  One of those three.  But which one?  And which view is the right view: number one, number two, or number three?

Well, to further illustrate, assuming that….incidentally I will answer this question in Lecture #2 – but what if a thief, who has just stolen your automobile, announces, “Well, I don’t want you to think I’m selfish.  As a matter of fact, I’m willing to share your automobile with other people in the community.  In fact, anyone who wants to use your automobile, all they have to do is put their name on the waiting list.  We treat everyone fairly and equally here.  As a matter of fact, sir or mam, you can even use the automobile.  Just put your name on the waiting list.  We’ll give you equal, fair treatment”.

The thief is now sharing your automobile with others in the community.  Even you can use from time to time.  Alright?  Is the thief no longer a thief when he shares your automobile with others?  Or is he still a thief?  Perhaps, if he shares your automobile, we could at least call him a good thief.   A bad thief, then, would be one who keeps everything selfishly for himself.  A good thief would be one who shares the loot. Incidentally, how many of you would rather have your automobile stolen by a good thief?  How many would rather have it stolen by a bad thief?

Alright, let’s look at the three relationships that exist between an individual and his property.

  1. A man controls none of his property.
  2. Aman controls all of his property.
  3. Aman controls some of his property but not all.

Alright, let’s look at the first example, a man controls none of his property.  This is impossible to attain because, under the worst of conditions, a man may retain control of his thoughts and ideas.  And if not all of them, then some of them.  And even a galley slave has to eat food and drink water.  And when he is swallowing the food and the water, he surely must have control of it.  There are really only two possibilities.  Either a man controls all of the derivatives of his life or he controls some of them but not all.  Either an individual controls all of his property or he controls some of it but not all.

The next question is, if an individual does not retain control over all of the derivatives of his own life, then on what basis is it right for another individual to gain control over any of those derivatives of the individual’s life without permission?  On what basis is it right for A to control the property of C without the permission of C?  When is it right for A to steal from C?  If C, let’s say, produces a useful idea with his own mind, his own imagination, then when is it right for A to take the innovation from C without the permission of C?  Now, whether A appoints himself or he is appointed by others to take away C’s property without C’s permission, when is it the right thing for A to do?  When is it the wrong thing for A to do?  What is right, what is wrong with respect to any action or any subject?  Is it possible that there might be what could be called a scientific answer to this rather interesting question, what is right versus what is wrong?  And, if so, what would that mean?

Suppose, for purposes of illustration, that an individual’s property is taken away from him without his permission in order to help pay for the funding of building a baseball stadium?  Was this action right or wrong?  Does this action involve stealing?  Does this action involve slavery?  And even if it does, could this not be an example of good stealing, good slavery?

To illustrate, let’s pretend that somewhere on this planet there’s a nation in which the national pastime involves watching grown men hit balls with sticks.  Alright, if watching other people hit balls with sticks is that popular, to the point it has become, let’s say, the national pastime, then, is it not right to take away property from a property owner, without his permission, in order to build a stadium wherein even more people can congregate to watch even more grown men hit even more balls with even more sticks?  Does that not follow?

Another illustration.  Assume we have three neighbors, A, C, and B.  One day, A happens to read in the newspaper that they’re selling out a lot of stereophonic systems to make way for the new four-channel, quadrophonic systems.  So they’re going to dump all of these obsolete binaural, or stereophonic systems.  And so, he picks up a 200 watt Macintosh amplifier, stereo amplifier, brand new, for $42.  He gets the most advanced Yamaha receiver, stereo receiver, for $75 new. He gets a $500 stereo cartridge for $49.  I didn’t make that up.  They do have $500 cartridges.  That’s for the aficionado of the stereophonic sound, so-called high quality sound, high fidelity.  He gets the 48” woofers and the whole deal.  And he just can’t contain himself. The prices are so good.  He spends $1000.  He’s got a beautiful system even though it’s only stereo.  And he really enjoys it.  And also C has soundproofing so that neither A nor B ever hear a whisper, even though he’s got it cranked up to a 100 watts per channel, peaking at 150 watts.

One day C decides to go skiing at Mammoth.  While he’s gone, A climbs over C’s fence, smashes in the back door, carries all of his stereophonic equipment over to A’s place, sets it up and it sounds great.  Best system he’s ever heard.

Alright.  Now, ladies and gentlemen, either using your own definition of stealing, or the one I have introduced, namely, the taking of an individual’s property without his permission, either using this definition of stealing, or your own if you prefer it, would you call A’s action stealing?  How many would call A’s actions stealing or theft?  Does anyone say it’s not stealing?  All of you would say, essentially, it’s stealing.  Or you have no opinion.  Or you’re too tired to raise your hand.  Or you might have some other opinion.  Anyhow…

Alright, case two.  A does not just climb over the fence, smash in the back door and carry off the stereophonic equipment.  A, instead, goes to B, knocks on B’s door and says, “B, is it alright with you if I take C’s stereo”?

And B says, “Oh sure.  Go ahead and take it.  I never liked that guy anyhow”.

Now A, with the permission of B, but not C, takes C’s stereo.  How many would call that stealing?  Alright.  Would anyone say at this point it’s not stealing because B said it was okay?  Alright.  Thank you.

Case three.  A says, “Well, let me check this out a little bit more”. So he goes around the neighborhood, knocking on doors.  “Is it alright with you if I take C’s stereo”?

“Oh sure, go ahead and take it.  No problem.  If there is any question about it, I’ll put it in writing”.

Now, A, with the permission of the vast majority of people in the neighborhood, takes C’s stereo without C’s permission.  How many would call that stealing?  Would anyone at this point say it’s not stealing because the neighborhood said it was okay?  Alright.  One person.  Anybody else?

Alright.  A says, “Let me check this out a little bit more”.  So he goes all over North America, knocking on doors.  “Is it alright with you if I take C’s stereo”?

“Oh sure.  Go ahead”.

And an overwhelming majority of the people say it’s okay.  Now A, with the overwhelming majority of people saying it’s okay, takes C’s stereo without C’s permission.  How many of you would say that’s stealing?  Alright.  How many would say at this point it is not stealing because the overwhelming majority of people in a great land mass area, all of North America, said it was okay?  No one?

Finally, last case.  He says, “Well, I’m really going to check this out”.  So A asks every single individual on the planet, “Is it alright with you if I take C’s stereo”?  And every single individual says, “Go ahead and take it” except one.  Can you guess his name?  Outstanding.  C, of course.  Every individual says go ahead and take it except C, the owner.  How many would say that’s stealing?  How many would say, well, at this point, the only person who is dissenting is the owner of the property.  Therefore, it must not be stealing.  Anyone take that view?  No one?  You sure?

Let me ask you this.  What if instead of $1000 worth of stereophonic equipment that’s taken without C’s permission, what if it was one thousand silver dollars?  Would the principle still be the same?  Certainly.  What if, instead of one thousand silver dollars, it was one thousand $1 Federal Reserve notes taken without C’s permission?  Is the principle the same?  The value might be different.  Just out of curiosity – it’s got nothing to do with tonight’s lecture, I don’t care – how many of you would rather have one thousand silver dollars than you would one thousand $1 Federal Reserve notes?  Why?  A dollar’s a dollar, isn’t it?  And not only that, look how cumbersome it is to carry these around in your pocket, these silver dollars. Wouldn’t you rather have the paper?  Maybe you know something I don’t know.  Anyhow.

Assuming that an individual’s property then is taken from him to help pay for the construction of a baseball stadium, is this action right or wrong?  If this action does establish slavery, then could this not be an example of right slavery?  Or is it wrong slavery?  What do you think?  Should we have a lot less slavery then we have or should we have a lot more slavery or do you think we have just about the right amount of slavery?  Or, again we have another trilogy:

  1. Slavery is always right.
  2. Slavery is always wrong.
  3. Slavery is sometimes right, sometimes wrong.

Did I give you this one?  I don’t think so.  What’s your view?  My view?  One of those three, unequivocally.  I often thought that would be a good name for a newspaper, The Daily Equivocator.

Let’s say a chemist invests twenty years of his life developing a superior, low cost synthetic fabric.  After the formula is perfected, it’s taken without his permission, without the permission of the chemist who developed it, sold to a textile firm for $500,000, without the chemist’s permission.  Has the chemist been enslaved?  Has his primary property been stolen?  If this is slavery, is this right slavery or wrong slavery?  If millions of people now benefit from the mass production of this superior fabric, even though the innovator gets no money for it, even though he doesn’t get credit for the innovation, millions of people do benefit from the fabric, does this not result then, perhaps, in good slavery, especially if the only one who is out is the innovator?  And he’s only one person.

Which of the following examples of taking away property without permission of the owner involves slavery, involuntary servitude, stealing?  Which do not?

  1. A handsome, well-dressed young man takes $5000 from you, without your permission, to purchase a new automobile to provide him with badly needed transportation to and from UCLA.  Is that involuntary servitude?  Slavery?  Stealing?
  2. A middle-aged father, with tears in his eyes, takes $5000 from you, without your permission, to help pay for his six year old blind daughter’s eye operation. Is that involuntary servitude?  Slavery?  Stealing?
  3. A man dedicated to serving the community takes $5000 from you, without your permission, in order to help finance the construction of a school for homeless orphans. Is that involuntary servitude? Slavery?  Stealing?
  4. The good citizens of the community vote on and pass a measure, taking $5000 from you, without your permission, in order to help support airports and parks. Is that involuntary servitude?  Slavery?  Stealing?

Please note I said the good citizens of the community voted on and passed a measure taking $5000 from you without your permission; not to be confused with the bad citizens who don’t even vote.  Well, a good citizen is one who votes.  A bad citizen is one who does not vote.  Does that not follow?  Has it not been said?

Well. It’s observable, if you look, in the last analysis, there are two possibilities.  Property leaves your hands with your consent or without it.  That covers all possibilities.  It’s taken voluntarily or involuntarily.  That covers all possibilities.  Either the service is voluntary or it’s involuntary.  And there’s really only one individual capable of answering this question with any finality.  Guess who that is?  The owner of the property.  Others may think they know, but, if it’s your property, you ought to know.

Which of the four cases involve involuntary servitude?  Which do not?  I’ll let you answer the question.  One might ask, however, does it make any difference what the rules are for taking away property without the permission of the owner?  Perhaps it does make a difference.  And it may very well be, ladies and gentlemen, that involuntary servitude and slavery is highly constructive and beneficial to mankind and the entire problem of the past has been we haven’t had enough slavery.  Did you ever think of that?

Or is it that we’ve had too much slavery?  Or is it that we’ve got the right amount? Which is it?  The trilogy:

  1. Slavery is always right.
  2. Slavery is always wrong.
  3. Slavery is sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

How can we be certain if what we have been told is right on any subject?  Well, one thing is observable.  If your goal is to optimize slavery, the problem you must solve is how?  How can I get control of the other fellow’s property without his permission?  That is the problem you must solve.  If you can’t solve that problem, you can’t enslave him.  But I’ve made no qualitative statement on the rightness or the wrongness of slavery.  My view – one of those three.  What’s yours?

One of the things, however, I will have accomplished by the completion of Lecture 3 is to demonstrate something unique to the Galambos theory.  I will use this method, the scientific method, to accomplish a seemingly impossible task.  And that is, how can you use the scientific method to determine which is the correct view, which is the right view?  Let’s take, for example, the trilogy again, is what I meant to put up there.  How can you take the scientific method and use that to determine which is the correct view?

  1. Stealing is always right.
  2. Stealing is always wrong.
  3. Stealing is sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

If you could do that, what would that imply?  You have figured out how to apply the scientific method outside of physics to volition.  Galambos figured this out; how to do it.  And I will explain to those of you who are interested in learning how to do it as a total concept applied to everything, not just physics.  Because, if we don’t apply this out of physics, it’s goodbye and good luck for the whole species.

Now if we had never gotten smart in physics in the first place, there wouldn’t be any crisis you realize.  If Newton had not integrated the physical sciences, there wouldn’t be a crisis.  Because, see, you can go on indefinitely trying to kill people off with bows and arrows and spears and these people procreate faster than you can kill them off.  I mean, how many people can an outstanding spear thrower spear in one day?  A hundred people?  You know, if one man can, with a spear, kill a hundred people in one day, that’s impressive.  That is impressive.  And yet, it’s not good enough.  The people procreate too fast.    When one man can push a button and wipe out a hundred million people plus, then you have the leverage to destroy the species.   So once you integrate physics, you must soon integrate volition or it’s goodbye and good luck.  It’s that simple.

How can we use the scientific method to determine even before that if that is a correct or right definition of stealing?  How many definitions of stealing can we devise?  That’s one of them.  How many others can you think of?  A hundred trillion?  Yes.  Plus one more?  Certainly.  With an infinite amount of time, you can work on an infinite number of definitions of stealing, no two alike.  Alright?  How do you know that one is any good if you can have an infinite number of definitions of stealing?  Ditto any other term.  How do we know, for example, that this is a useful definition for property when you can have an infinite number of definitions of property, no two alike?  These are questions we will answer in the first three sessions of this course, certainly by Lecture 3.

Now if it is observable that the only way in which you can enslave an individual is to take away his primordial or primary or secondary property, and, if freedom, whatever it is, is the opposite of slavery, then does it not seem reasonable that freedom could possibly have something to do with the protection, or the rendering secure, of the individual’s primordial, primary, and secondary property?  Could freedom have something to do with the rendering secure, the derivatives of the individual’s life?  I mentioned earlier that everyone will claim to be for freedom, but what do most people mean by freedom?  Freedom to most people represents the condition that will exist when their own views prevail over all others, when the rules are made by the people I think ought to making them, when they’re interpreted and enforced by the people I think ought to do this.  That’s what most people mean by freedom.

This is not Professor Galambos’ definition of freedom.  Galambos’ definition of freedom is a derivative of this definition of property: “Freedom is a societal condition that exists when every individual has full, one hundred percent control over his own property”.

Now one of the most common reactions to this definition of freedom, when it’s first introduced in Session 1 of V-50, is that this concept of freedom would appear to be utopian or that it would be impossible to attain.  Now whether or not freedom, as it is defined, is utopian or attainable or possible or impossible is not a subject I wish to pursue this evening. However, I will return to this very important subject in Lecture 3 which is how can you make a precise distinction between the practical versus the utopian, the possible versus the impossible?  It is very important to know how to do that.  Without a discussion of the subject, whether this is possible or impossible, practical or impractical, utopian or what have you, without that discussion, you might ask is this even a desirable goal let alone an attainable goal?

I would like to make a comparison between freedom, stealing, and slavery.  I’ve given you the Galambos definition of freedom – a societal condition that exists when every individual has full, one hundred percent control over his own property.  Or another way of stating it is this: when every individual possesses liberty.  And an individual possesses liberty when he has total control over his primordial, primary, and secondary property.  When everyone possesses liberty and there’s not one slave, then the societal condition is called freedom.  Those are logical equivalents.  Or everybody has one hundred percent control over the derivatives of his own life called property.

Let’s compare the Galambos definition of freedom with the definition of slavery.  Slavery, the control of the individual’s property without his permission or consent.  How are these related?  Well, you can see, that they are opposite concepts.  As a matter of fact, they are essentially 180° out of phase.  They are as opposite as any two concepts can be.

Furthermore, what is the means to the achievement of slavery?  Stealing – the only way you can enslave an individual is to steal his property.  If you steal incidentally, his primordial property, when you do that, what’s that called?  When you steal an individual’s primordial property, that’s called murder.  You can apply the trilogy to that, too.  Should we have maybe a lot more murder or a lot less murder or do we have just about the right amount of murder?  Or:

  1. Murder is always right.
  2. Murder is always wrong.
  3. Murder is sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

My view?  One of those three.  What’s yours?  Maybe we haven’t had enough murder.  Or too much.  Who knows?

The means to slavery is stealing.  Taking away property without permission of the owner.  But is stealing right or wrong?  Is slavery right or wrong?  In Lecture #2, in this room, this will be your opportunity to look through the tube at a major subject, one of the major, giant subjects of all time.  The subject is so large, it is so important, practically no one is interested in it.  The more

important the subject, the more significant a subject, the fewer will be the number of people interested in understanding it.  The more trivial the subject, the greater the interest.  It’s always that way, but it doesn’t matter.  That’s not an impediment to build solutions.  So don’t worry about it.

I hope all of you will be interested in the subject that I will discuss next week in Lecture 2.  The subject is how do you know you are right?  How do you know who to believe on any subject anywhere at any time, no exceptions?  How can you distinguish between right and wrong?  Is it possible to make this determination on any scientific basis?  I will begin Lecture #2 with a discussion of how do you know you’re right in the physical sciences?  We start there.  Is there a technique or method in the physical sciences that enables you to distinguish between a right idea versus a wrong idea?  If there is, then the next question is can the same method be successfully applied outside of the physical sciences?  What is the right idea versus the wrong idea outside of physics?  For example, when are the actions of an individual right?  When are they wrong?  How can we arrive at a scientific standard, a scientific standard of right versus wrong when the question, for example, involves volitional actions that result in stealing?

  1. Stealing is always right.
  2. Stealing is always wrong.
  3. It’s sometimes right, sometimes wrong.

And how can we get a similar answer to the question of stealing?  Always right, always wrong, sometimes right, sometimes wrong.  How can we terminate the guesswork?   I will solve this problem in this room next week.

It is a seemingly impossible problem to solve, at least on any rational or scientific basis.  Nevertheless, I will disclose a scientific standard of rightness that, not only can determine what’s right in physics, but one that can determine what is right outside of physics, a standard of rightness that will be applied, ladies and gentlemen, to all knowledge, regardless, the physical sciences, the biological sciences, and the volitional sciences, a total concept of making this determination of what is right versus what is wrong.

Now I realize you have many questions.  You will find the majority of your questions will be answered in the lectures to come.  And since all of your questions may not be answered in the lectures, we have programmed in the V-50 three discussion sessions.  You can see them listed on the schedule as DS1, or discussion session one, discussion session two, discussion session three.  And we will have something like five, maybe six, hours set aside for questions and answers, to give you people an opportunity to ask questions.

Next week, in this room, Lecture #2.  If you know any intellectually curious people who have the desire to look through the tube, you may bring with you new people next week.  They can enroll at the door, purchase a three session guest ticket.  I look forward to you assuming the posture of one who will continue looking through the tube.  I thank you for your investment this evening and I bid you goodnight.

© Sustainable Civilization Institute 2010