V-50 Session 3

Good evening ladies and gentlemen.  Good evening.  Welcome to the third session of the V-50 Lectures.  During Session #2, I answered one of the most significant questions of all time, namely, how do you know you are right?  As I said, this question was first answered in the physical sciences.  But remember it was not answered overnight.  From the time of Archimedes, it took some two thousand years to begin to answer this question.

The physical sciences have been built upon an absolute standard of rightness: that is right which is both true and valid.  This knowledge of how one determines what is right on an absolute basis is the essential foundation of all scientific progress. However, ladies and gentlemen, this knowledge, by itself, is not good enough.  Now, if you understand what true means, if you understand what valid means, then I would say you have a deeper understanding of the source of knowledge then will most people.  But if that’s all you have, then you will not be able to build an advanced technology of refrigeration, electron microscopes, television, automobile engines, because something is missing.  There’s a major problem confronting you and that is you could make a mistake.  What you think is true may be false and what you think is valid may be invalid.  Even what the most careful observer may think is right could, in fact, be wrong.  It’s certain you will make many mistakes unless you are immune from error and that means, of course, you are infallible.  I won’t ask for a show of hands how many infallible people are here this evening on the assumption you’re all fallible.  That means you will make mistakes.  The people who make the greatest number of mistakes by profession are called scientists.  Because when the goal is discovery and invention and new domains of knowledge,   you’re pioneering and, therefore, you’re going to make more mistakes.

Well, the question is what does a scientist, working in the physical sciences, do when he makes a mistake, when he commits an error in judgment, when one of his experiments fails?  What does he do after making an error?  And before that, how does he even know that he’s made an error in the first place?  Because, you see, even the greatest genius may discover that what he thought was true is false, what he thought was valid is invalid. How do you identify an error and, secondly, how do you rectify an error?

Well, this brings us to a discussion of the single most important tool ever developed.  The value of this tool is so giant, it is so large, it is so paramount, it is so significant, very few people are interested in understanding it and, therefore, very few understand it.  The name of this tool has reached your ears long before you ever heard of V-50.  The tool is called, simply, the scientific method.

Now, at this point in time, there are two possibilities with respect to your comprehension of this method, the scientific method.  One, you understand the scientific method.  Two, you do not.  Of course that covers all possibilities.  Now if you do understand it, even if all of you understand it before I explain it, every one of you, I have this question for you.  Why is it still essential that I explain it anyhow, even if all of you understand it before I even discuss it, assuming that was true?  You know why?  Any of you think you know why?  Because, ladies and gentlemen, there is only one single way in which we can determine if you and I are talking about the same thing.  That’s if I explain it.  And then there’s two possibilities if you think you already understand it – we’re talking about the same thing or we’re not.  And there’s no other way.  There’s no shortcut for this.  I emphasize this because I said, in Session 1, we are inundated today with all kinds of quackery that is passed off as science.

If you do understand it, I will explain something you do not understand.  And that is how to apply the scientific method successfully for the first time to all domains of knowledge, not just the physical sciences but every domain of knowledge, as a total concept.

For those who do not understand it, I’m going to be demonstrating how the method works, how to apply it to building, for example, and this applies to all of you, for example, how can you apply the scientific method to build a more mutually rewarding relationship between parents and children, all the way from that level to building a more mutually rewarding relationship among the nations of the world.  It’s one of the things we will explain in this course.

Alright, just what is this method of science?  Ladies and gentlemen, you have no idea how frustrating it is to attempt to explain the significance of a concept that all of you have already heard about before you ever heard of V-50.  I’m attempting to share with you some of my own personal excitement over this method of science.  If anyone’s field, for example, is the physical sciences, and he or she is not excited about this scientific method, it would indicate to me that perhaps your comprehension of it is not as great as it might be.  Because if you had any comprehension of it, you would be excited about it.  It’s one of the most exciting things ever conceived by the human mind.  It’s the most important tool ever built.  It’s responsible for more progress, more achievement, more accomplishment than anything that man has ever achieved.

Remember what I said in Session 1?  The more important the subject, the more significant the subject, the fewer will be the number of people interested in the subject and, therefore, the fewer will be the number of people who understand the concept.  What, for example, does the average fellow think of when he thinks of the scientific method?  What does he think of?  That’s easy.  The average person never thinks of it at all, at any time, during his entire life.

Well, stripped of its, what you might call, academic or esoteric image, the scientific method, I would say, is used essentially by every thinking person in the world.  The scientific method is natural to man.  However, those who understand the method explicitly, rather than intuitively or, let’s say, implicitly, will find it to be a much more useful tool to build new knowledge.  And so, in our quest for new knowledge, it’s a natural place to begin our search.  The first step of the scientific method, it is so simple, almost everybody misses step one, and there are four steps.  The average fellow never even gets to step one.  Now let’s look at the four steps of this method.  I will discuss what they mean, their relationship to each other. As you can see, the first step is called observation.  Well, that takes a little explanation.

You see, most people are fortunate enough to have been born with eyes with which to see.  I’m afraid most people never really see very much.  And the reason they do not see very much is because they are not careful, sensitive observers.  They are not sensitive observers. And so they miss almost everything their entire life.  Thomas Edison made a point on the subject.  He said, “The eye sees a great many things but the average brain records very few of them”.  Indeed, nobody has the slightest conception of how little the brain sees unless it has been highly trained.  We must acquire what we call sensitivity.

Well, I like to point out, ladies and gentlemen, that just knowing where to begin in this procedure, step one, that is one of the most remarkable and important discoveries, all by itself, of all time, just knowing where to begin.  You begin by observing whatever you happen to be interested in.  Man’s observation of the universe, then, is the first step in the direction of new knowledge.  Observation, you might say, is the genesis of all knowledge and progress.  Starting with observation, the researcher accumulates microscopic, macroscopic, what you can simply call raw data concerning the universe.  He gathers facts.  He carefully records these observations. He might record the movements of the planets.  He may measure the rate at which objects fall through space.  And so, he collects this mountain of facts.  There’s only one problem, a very large problem.  And that is, facts per se do not make a science.  If you stop at step one, please know that at this point most people never make it to step one, but, if you stop at step one, you will have nothing but facts which is another way of saying you would have absolutely nothing or virtually nothing.  There is nothing more overrated than facts.

All of the accumulated facts in the world amount to nothing but confusion unless one thing, unless we can organize these facts in some rational way.  Because without organization, you will be inundated with an unwieldy conglomeration of facts that will completely obscure the view of the problem and the solution to the problem at the same time.  And so, we have to go on.  We have to ask, for example, well, how can these many facts, in some way, be simplified?  How can they be tied together?  Is there a connection between these seemingly unrelated facts and, if so, what?

This brings us to the entrance of step two of the scientific method.  We must discover a generalization concerning the facts that have been previously observed in step one.  Through the logical thought process called inductive reasoning, we formulate what is called a hypothesis.  A hypothesis is a sweeping generalization, or a mental process.  You associate the observational truth.  The facts are connected with a generalized statement called the hypothesis.  This generalization will be held to be true until an unexplainable exception is found that does not fit the generalization.  Then the hypothesis becomes the foundation of the third step of the scientific method.  That’s called extrapolation.  When you extrapolate, you simply extend the hypothesis into a new, an unexplored domain of knowledge where observations have not yet been previously made.  In other words, you make a prediction based upon the hypothesis of what will occur in an area of knowledge where we have not yet made any observations.

And so, here we have the simple steps of the method.   Step one – we observe facts, we collect data.  Step two – you look for a general statement that will relate the facts collected in step one.  That’s the formulation of the hypothesis.  And step three – we extend the generalization into an area where we have not yet made observations and that’s called extrapolation.  In other words, you make a prediction based upon the hypothesis with respect to some future event.

Finally, we have to have a means of checking our work.  We have to determine if we still live in the real world.  You can’t see very much from your ivory tower.  The view is cloudy.  Cloud Nine doesn’t get much results, the posture from Cloud Nine.  And so, that’s why the four steps of the scientific method are so important.  It gets you out of the ivory tower or dream world.

The fourth step of the scientific method is again observation, but this time the observation is not used so much to gather new data, but rather to test the hypothesis for truth.  The purpose of observation in the fourth step, then, is to corroborate the hypothesis, test the hypothesis for truth.  If the prediction does not come true, what does that mean?  It means there is a possibility that the generalization is faulty.  Well, you better check it out and find out what the problem is.  Since in physics we’re dealing with a science, it’s not enough that the hypothesis comes true a majority of the time or three-fourths of the time or 99% of the time.  That’s not good enough.  In the physical sciences, one standard will apply in order to continue accepting the hypothesis.  The prediction from the hypothesis must, must come true 100% of the time with zero failure.

You say, “Zero failure?  You mean no exceptions at all, not even a little exception”?


“No exceptions?  Well, that’s pretty hard-nosed, isn’t it”?

That’s right.  Physics is hard-nosed.  That’s how we make so much progress, being hard-nosed.  You don’t compromise.  You see, a man who doesn’t ever compromise, he’s looked upon as what?  You’re kind of hard-nosed aren’t you?  Is that right?

I might give you a clue as to how Galambos came up with the following definition of freedom:  “Freedom, the societal condition, exists when every individual has full, 100% control over his own property”.  Does this allow for exceptions?  Is the definition freedom exists when everybody has 99% control over his property and somebody else controls the other 1% without the owner’s permission?  No. It says one hundred percent.  It doesn’t allow for exceptions.

Now why is this essential that you do not allow for exceptions on this point?  Because if the goal is not one hundred percent, if the goal is not a society where everybody has liberty and there’s not one slave, if that’s not the goal, then what is the goal?  All of you know before I put on the slide.  The goal is slavery.  Either the goal is freedom or the goal is slavery.  That covers all possibilities.  Either you have liberty or you are a slave.  That covers all possibilities.  You have liberty when you have total control of your primordial, primary and secondary properties.  It’s not that I want it that way.  That’s the way it is.

The same is true in physics.  You cannot compromise.  If you want to be successful, it won’t work.  As I have given you this illustration, somebody might say, “Well, look.  Wouldn’t it be a lot easier to get to the moon if we reached 75% of escape velocity?  Wouldn’t things go easier that way?  We’ll build a vehicle that will reach 75% of escape velocity”.

Good luck.  You will not make it to the moon.  Can you compromise on this point?  No.  Is it because I want it this way?  No.  That’s the way it is.

Alright.  The same rigid concept must also apply to this theory and to volition if we intend to build solutions.  There is no other alternative.  As soon as you compromise, you’re finished.  And that is hard-nosed.  For a hypothesis to be held true, then, it must be continually corroborated.  The first observational failure that cannot be explained will present sufficient evidence to discredit the hypothesis.

Most people get the terms hypothesis and theory confused.  A hypothesis is, essentially, a proposal.  It’s a proposed generalization.  It’s an open invitation to any interested party on the subject.  You test the hypothesis for truth.  And when the hypothesis has been sufficiently corroborated, as it passes more and more tests for truth, an increasingly larger number of people will come to refer to that hypothesis as a theory.

Now the first person usually to refer to the hypothesis as a theory is the innovator of the hypothesis.  And a true story concerning Albert Einstein.  In 1919, they sent out two expeditions.  These were to be major tests of the rightness of Einstein’s theory of relativity.  And they wanted to view a total solar eclipse.  And so, they sent one expedition to Africa, another to South America.  These were to be, as I say, major tests on the rightness of Einstein’s theory of relativity.  This was 1919.

On the eve of the test, Einstein is visited in his quarters by several newspaper reporters. One of the reporters says, “Dr. Einstein, we understand the entire fate of your theory of relativity hangs in the balance tomorrow as a result of these tests.  Are you not concerned, sir, that these two expeditions might prove the entire theory of relativity to be wrong”?

And Einstein said, “Nein. Nein.  I know the theory is right.  The expeditions?  Well, that’s just to convince the rest of the world”. Which means what?  Einstein doesn’t need convincing in the four steps of the scientific method.  But who does?  We do. It’s principally for our benefit.  Incidentally, these two expeditions did turn out to be major corroborations of the rightness of Einstein’s theory of relativity.

Another major fallacy connected with this, I’d say it’s one of the very commonly accepted intellectual blunders committed by those people who do not understand science.  You hear this cliché all the time: “Well, I don’t know.  It sounds alright in theory, but it just can’t work in practice”.

Have you all heard this cliché? I’m sure you have.  Anybody who makes such a statement has immediately tipped you off to the fact he doesn’t know what he is talking about because, ladies and gentlemen, every theory works.  Every theory is pragmatic.  In order to be elevated to the status of theory, the hypothesis must be continually corroborated with zero exceptions, zero failure.  A theory is a fully corroborated hypothesis.  If you find exceptions, then you can remove it from the status of theory.  It is now reduced once again to a hypothesis.

One of the most important aspects of this method called the scientific method is that it’s a means of rectifying error, correcting blunder, that does not involve the employment of any form of coercion whatsoever.  You do not have to coerce anyone to make observations.  You do not have to coerce to make generalizations or to extrapolate or to corroborate.  None of this is necessary.

As a matter of fact, this is a point completely missed even by physics majors.  Here, ladies and gentlemen, on a historical basis, is the only non-coercive tool that has ever been used to rectify errors, that has ever been used to establish the rightness of ideas, the only non-coercive mechanism that is the ultimate test for absolute rightness, the only one.

In the physical sciences, you voluntarily rectify your blunders because you know you can’t make any progress, for example, by continuing to cling to, let’s say, a discredited premise or faulty hypothesis.  One failure that cannot be explained, you scrap it, good-bye and good luck.  You scrap the faulty hypothesis.  Furthermore, in the physical sciences, you don’t attempt to impose your blunders upon the community at large and make them suffer for your errors.  Unfortunately, in contrast, this has not been the case in the social arena because their rightness was never established by the scientific method or truth and validity.  In fact, any cursory examination of history quickly reveals that, in the social domain, in the social world, rightness not only was not established by truth and validity or the scientific method, it’s been established by one code essentially – might.  Might makes right has been the prevailing social code.  In fact, might makes right has been the custom throughout all history.

But, because something is a custom, does that mean that it’s right?  What if stealing is the custom?  Does that really make it right?  What if murder is the custom?  Does that make it right?  All that’s happened in history, one group of men have appointed themselves, or they have been appointed by others, and they establish the code of rightness for everyone else.  And this relative code of rightness has been imposed on a coercive basis.  We have to improve on this and we’re showing you how to improve on this.  If we don’t, it’s good-bye and good luck for the whole species.  That’s all.

This scientific method is essentially a discovery. It is, of itself, a product of trial and error.  You don’t walk into a forest and find the scientific method hanging from a tree.  Here it is folks.  One, two, three, four.  Go to it.  It doesn’t happen, does it?  There’s no such thing as a scientific method tree.  And I said, from the time of Archimedes to the time of Newton, it took some two thousand years to figure this out.  And there’s only one reason to use this method.  I can think of only one.  You know what that is?  It works.  That is also pragmatic.  When it works, that’s pragmatic.  That’s practical.  That’s workable.

But let’s examine what might happen, what results we can anticipate, if we deviate from this method.  Incidentally, the number of methods you can have, all different, in order to build knowledge, in order to discover what is right, how many methods could you have?  Could you have a million?  All different?  Sure. A hundred million?  All different?  A hundred billion?  A hundred billion squared?  If you had an infinite amount of time, you could work on an infinite number of methods, all different, could you do this?  No two alike?  That’s right.  Again, the same question I posed in the early sessions of 1 and 2.  Well, how do you know that this one is any good then?

Well, what if we switch, let’s say, steps one and two. Let’s keep all four steps fully intact.  We’ll just change the sequence.  And we’ll begin in step one with the formulation of a hypothesis. And then we’ll observe facts in step two.  Any problem with doing that?  That’s just a minor modification.  See any difficulty there?  Anyone?

Yeah, when you begin with a generalization and then you look for facts to support your generalization, the only facts you will see is guess which ones?  The ones that support your generalization.  In other words, your position is prejudicial.  You formed a generalization that is not founded first upon observational data. Because if you develop a vested interest in your generalization, you’re not going to see any facts that contradict the generalization.  And you reject every fact that fails to support your generalization.  That explains what we have done with all of the societies in the past.  I’ll be coming to that later this evening but we reversed the order.  Someone sits down and they design the social structure, only to find out that the individuals don’t fit into the system.  What do you do then?  The approach in the past has been, oh, you must be a misfit.  You will fit.  So essentially what happens, you’re cramming individuals into the system.  And that’s where all the violence and the coercion and the murder comes from.  All they’ve done is they’ve gotten steps one and two backwards.

What you must do first, and that’s what I’ll be talking about this evening, you must examine the nature of man and then design a system that is totally and completely consistent with his nature.  If you do not do this, it will fail and there’s no exception.  That’s what we’ve been doing.  We’ve got it backwards.  You observe facts first and then try to relate them.  Then you try to generalize.  Everything else will fail.  That applies not only to physics but to volition, to the social structure, to everything, biology, you name it.  It’s not that I want it that way. It’s the way it is.

Let me give you a still broader understanding of this method.  Incidentally, if it’s not quite clear to you, the nature of this or how to use it, be patient.  If anyone claims, for example, that he has maximized or optimized his knowledge of the scientific method, then he never understood it in the first place.  This is something you continue to acquire a deeper and more fundamental understanding of all of your life, as long as you keep thinking.  If you stop thinking, you might as well be dead.

Let me give you an illustration.  How did the Greek intellectual, Aristotle, come up with a generalization that I gave you last week: heavy objects fall faster than light objects?  You take a heavy object and a light object, drop them at the same rate, the heavy object will fall faster than the light object.  How did Aristotle come up with this generalization?  Was Aristotle a boob?  An intellectual lightweight?  Do you think he was?  Do you know what Aristotle’s failure was?  It is very important to understand this.  He didn’t understand this method.  That was his blunder.

Now the Greek scholars had a method but it was incomplete.  They would leave, essentially, the first step of the scientific method and then they would leave off the fourth.  And they would initiate their thinking process with step two.  The Greeks were great thinkers and they liked to pace around in their scholastic courtyards in their scholastic robes.  You know, kind of like the outfit you wore when you got your degree.  This is how you knew a man was a scholar, from his outfit.  You didn’t get him mixed up with a farmer or a stone mason.  This mas is a thinker.  You could look at his outfit.  I’m not joking.  I’m not exaggerating.

One of these great thinkers, one of the great thinkers of all time, you can see him pacing in his courtyard one day.  And with great powers of intellectual concentration, he came up with the following:  “Ah, I have it.  That’s it.  Heavy objects fall faster than light objects”.

Now there’s a bolt of lightning and a clap of thunder and it’s etched in stone for two thousand years.  Well, I have a question for you.  How do you know that, maybe, Aristotle, maybe he took a rock and a feather and released them at the same time, what happened?  Well, the rock came down much faster than the feather.  Or maybe he took a rock and a piece of papyrus; again the same results.  How do I know that he didn’t do this?  I have this question for you.  How could I be almost one hundred percent certain that he did not do this when I didn’t follow him around and watch what he was doing?  How could I be almost one hundred percent certain he did not do this?  I wasn’t there.  I never read any record, if it’s even survived, of how he performed this or how he came to this conclusion.

Aristotle was not a boob. He never would have made this blunder.  He was aware of a natural phenomenon called air resistance.  Ladies and gentlemen, I can think of one explanation for Aristotle’s conclusion.  Do you know what it is?  He never tried it.  How do I know?  Because, ladies and gentlemen, if you do try it, it’s clearly observable, you obtain an entirely different result.  Am I correct?

Not only that, please note there’s a fourth step to the scientific method.  You must achieve continued corroboration in the fourth step.  And I might further point out there are other things to drop besides a rock and a feather.  How about a one pound rock and a ten pound rock?  A one hundred pound rock and a ten pound rock?  Will that get decidedly different results?  Yeah.  Clearly.  They will fall at the same rate.  This is a major point.  This is a giant point in your understanding of the scientific method.  Aristotle never tried it.  Because if you do try it, you obtain entirely different results.

I didn’t bring any of this up to embarrass Aristotle.  Fortunately, for Mr. Aristotle, he did some other things because, if all Aristotle would have come up is Aristotle’s law of falling bodies, then you and I would have this in common.  We never would have heard of Aristotle.  Aristotle was a genius.  For example, he’s the father of modern logic.  It’s through his work that we have a formal knowledge of the subject of logic.  Or how does one go about determining if a conclusion is valid versus invalid?  That happens to be a rather large achievement.  As a matter of fact, as I have already explained, it is one of the two components of absolute rightness in physics.  For this accomplishment of Aristotle, he will be remembered in perpetuity.

But this demonstrates and illustrates clearly that logic by itself, validity by itself, is not good enough.  Here’s Aristotle, the father of logic, and look what a blunder he made.  The concept of validity by itself is virtually worthless.  That explains why a student can get an A in logic and lead a totally illogical life.  Ditto the professor of logic.  It must be integrated and connected with something else.  The something else is called the scientific method and the four steps.  Otherwise, it’s virtually worthless.  Not worthless, but it has limited utility.

Alright, returning for a moment to the subject of validity in connection with the scientific method.  This is a tool to test for both truth and validity.  Here is the grand ultimate test for absolute rightness.  Let’s look at the third step.  We extrapolate.  We make a prediction about some future, yet unexperienced, event or occurrence.  At this point, there are only two possibilities.  One, the prediction comes true.  Two, it does not.  Does that cover all possibilities?  Yes, it does.  Alright.  Once you get to step three, you can’t lose.  You can’t lose.

What if the prediction doesn’t come true?  Haven’t we wasted our time?  Not necessarily.  A story about Thomas Edison and his search for a proper filament for the electric lamp.  Do you know how many experiments they made, Edison made and his associates, looking for the proper filament for the electric lamp?  Quite a few.  Somewhere in the general magnitude of 25,000 experiments before they discovered carbonized bamboo filament; some years later replaced by the tungsten filament.  How many of you might have given up .long before 25,000 failures?  Would you be discouraged?  Who would be discouraged after only a thousand failures?

Sometime before they found out what they were looking for, one of Edison’s young assistants came to him and he was very optimistic.  He said, “Mr. Edison, I think we may have found what we’re looking for.  I want to try this out”.  Edison, of course, gave the young man his encouragement.  And he goes off and tries it out.  Sometime later, the young assistant comes back with a very dejected countenance and he says, “Mr. Edison, sir, I’m very sorry to say sir, that we have failed once again”.

Edison turned to his young assistant and he said, “Cheer up young man.  We’ve just discovered one more thing that won’t work”.

Think about that.  We’ve just discovered one more thing that won’t work.  Whatever the solution is, this isn’t it.  Let’s now find out what it is.  And that also illustrates the difference between the negative posture and the positive posture.  Edison looks upon even the failure as the augmentation of knowledge and that’s a proper posture.

The fourth step of the scientific method answers the all-important question, how does one go about proving something?  I want to make a statement there.  And I’ve already mentioned this.  You cannot, ladies and gentlemen, you cannot prove anything, on any subject, to almost all people almost all the time.  A common position someone will take after you’ve demonstrated a point, he will say, or she, “Well, you haven’t proven anything”.

For most people, that’s true because most of the four billion would not know what a proof is, a scientific proof, or what prove means if you hit them over the head with it a hundred times.  It’s a term in their vocabulary of which they have not the foggiest idea of what it means, in any scientific sense.  It’s in everybody’s vocabulary but what does it mean?

Well, I’ll explain that.  It a very simple concept once you understand the scientific method.  Essentially what it means is, when you have continued, unfailing corroboration in the fourth step of the scientific method, with no exception, no failure, a hundred percent continuing corroboration, that is what we mean by absolute proof.  We don’t allow for exceptions.

When you have, let’s say, millions of successful corroborations in the fourth step of the scientific method, no failure, could you, at this point, then stop testing in the future?  Could the next test fail?  Could you have a million successful corroborations in a row and then the next one fail?  Could this happen?  Yes, it could.  This is not a minor point either.  There is only one single way to find out and you know what that is.  What’s that?  Try it one more time.

However, in science, we do know this.  If you had a million corroborations in a row and no exception, the probability that the next test will be the first failure is, at best, remote.  And there is a concept in science, also called statistical probability.  Although it could fail, if we’ve had, for example, a million corroborations, maybe we’re testing Newton’s first law of motion and there’s going to be another test tomorrow, I can assure you I can go to bed that evening and I’m not going to lay awake, oh my God, what if the first law of motion fails tomorrow?  What are we going to do?  It’s had so much past corroboration, I’m not worried about it.  Could it fail?  Yes.  But I’m not worried about it at this point.

But that’s not the same as maybe only having one or two tests of something. We’re not quite as certain perhaps, even though the first two have not failed.  The only time you can actually stop testing in the fourth step of the scientific method would be once you reach an infinite number of corroborations.  However, for all practical purposes, that would take a long time, an infinite amount of time. And so you just keep testing.

This brings me to another intellectual blunder.  And one by one, we have to refute these intellectual blunders, all of which are impediments to the acquisition of what, in Lecture 14, I will define as education.  Not to be confused with what is called school.  You hear this cliché all the time, especially in the early sessions of V-50, when people are either thinking or stating to their friend who’s trying to get them enrolled, “Well, you know, Galambos and Snelson, they’re supplying all the definitions here.  Why you can prove anything with semantics”.  Have you heard this cliché?  Have you heard this?  I’m sure all of you have.  “You can prove anything with semantics”.  Is that true or not?

Ladies and gentlemen, the exact opposite is true.  You cannot prove one single thing with semantics.  You can’t prove anything with semantics.  The purpose of semantic precision is not to prove anything in the first place.  Its singular purpose is communication, to precisely identify the single, lone meaning of a basic, fundamental term.  And the only reason to use anyone else’s definition – you see, there’s two possibilities.  You use your own definition or you use somebody else’s.  That covers all possibilities.  And the only reason to use your own or somebody else’s is it works.  I can think of one reason to use Newton’s definition of force.  It works.  With Newton’s definition of force, you can go from the earth to the moon.  With his definition of force, you can build this tape recorder.  That works. If you don’t like Newton’s definition of force, use your own.  Then you can spend the rest of your life inventing different definitions of force and never come up with any two alike.

Now there’s another problem that arises in science.  It’s quite important to understand.  Incidentally, one thing I will mention.  When you continue to get that corroboration in the fourth step of the scientific method, that gives you, each time, a corroboration without failure, it gives you confidence that the facts you gathered were indeed facts.  It gives you much greater confidence.  It gives you greater confidence in the rightness of your generalization or hypothesis and your extrapolation.  In other words, every time you get a successful prediction coming true in the fourth step, it gives you greater confidence of the fact that you’re on the right track in steps one, two and three.

This problem arises in science.  Let’s say we have two theories, A and B.  And remember, a theory is a corroborated hypothesis.  Alright.  Say we have two theories that explain the same domain or territory of knowledge.  And they’re equally corroborated.  Which is the preferred theory, or which is the right theory, if we have a problem which is this, namely, they cannot both be right and yet they’re equally corroborated.  What do you do then?

Let me give you an example of this.  A very important historical example occurred when Galileo was trying to come to a conclusion as to an explanation of our planetary system and there were two principal explanations.  One was the Ptolemaic, or geocentric, view that the earth was the center of our planetary system and all the planets and the sun revolved around the earth.  The other was the Copernican, or heliocentric, position that the sun is the center and all of the planets revolve around the sun.  Now the difficulty Galileo’s confronted with is both of these, the Ptolemaic and the Copernican system, are essentially equally corroborated.  You can make quite accurate predictions of lunar eclipses and solar eclipses with the Copernican system, putting the sun at the center.  And you can make comparable predictions of comparable accuracy, lunar eclipses, solar eclipses, with the geocentric view, or the Ptolemaic position, with the earth as the static, fixed center.

Of course, today we say, well, what’s so difficult?  I mean everyone knows the sun is the center.  But they didn’t know it in the time of Galileo.  They didn’t know that then.  Alright.  The problem is, where they’re equally corroborated, but in this case, can they both be right?  Can both the earth be the center and the sun be the center at the same time?  Obviously, there’s a conflict.  It’s one or the other but it can’t be both.  You see that.  How does he know which one to choose?

This introduces a major concept in the physical sciences.  Some of you have heard it.  It is called, the selection process employs a technique called Ockam’s Razor.  Ockam spelled O-c-k-h-a-m after William of Ockham.  His dates: 1285 to 1349 A.D..  Razor, R-a-z-o-r, referring to a type of razor.

Ockham said in Latin, the translation I’ll give you, “Essentials or entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity”.  What this means freely translated is, if you have two more theories that account for the same territory of knowledge and you cannot make a decision as to which is the preferred one, then choose the one that is simpler or choose the one that has the fewer essentials.  And what this means is an essential is something in science you must accept without proof.  These are called postulates.  A postulate is an unproven assumption.  It’s an initial statement from which you can construct what might become a science or a theory.  A postulate, of course, must be tested for truth.  A theory, then, is simpler than another theory if it has fewer postulates or fewer unproven assumptions.

Now how do you know Ockam’s Razor is right?  How do you know that we shouldn’t be looking for the more complex theory or the more complex concept?  What we know in the history of physics, that the simpler one is the one that always, in the long run, turned out to be the correct one.  And incidentally, Galileo made the right choice for the right reason, Ockham’s Razor.  Without going into the difference between the Copernican and the Ptolemaic system, the Ptolemaic system, putting the earth at the center, was a very complex, difficult system. Whereas, the Copernican was a very simple system.  And that was the basis of his choice, Ockham’s Razor.

Well, with this in mind, I want to introduce a brief discussion of a major, another major, intellectual fallacy that must be refuted in order to progress in any area of knowledge.  The general acceptance of this fallacy precludes, it bars, an understanding of the solution to all of these perennial problems of mankind that we’ve talked about:  war, crime, riot, poverty, vandalism.  And the fallacy can be stated in the form of a popular cliché, another one all of you have heard, “Well, sir, you’ve obviously oversimplified.  Your solution is too simple”.  Heard this one?  It’s a major philosophical blunder.

The goal of science is never to complicate but it is always to simplify.  Progress in science is a measure of our ability to discover simpler explanations of nature.  We advance when we discover a simpler way of achieving more, a simpler way of explaining more.  To illustrate, here’s what I would call, certainly, a simple equation.  You say, “That’s a simple equation”?  You couldn’t have a much simpler equation. If there were fewer terms, there wouldn’t be any equation at all.  A simple concept, ladies and gentlemen, but nevertheless continues to explain more and more about our universe. However, because it is simple, does that mean that this equation, E=mc², is easy to comprehend or understand?  Is that easy to understand?  In general, the simpler a concept is, the more difficult it is to comprehend.  The simpler a principle, the more likely the significance will be totally missed.  The simpler an idea, the more likely the reaction will be, “Well, everybody knows that.  So what else is new”?

For this reason, most people cannot identify major solutions to major problems. In fact, I’ll give you this generalized statement on the subject. Every major solution to every major problem will be a simple solution or it will not be a solution.  You see, applied to the social structure, people have assumed that if you have a complex social problem, the solution, whatever it is, must be of comparable complexity.  Well, if you’re searching for the complex, you will overlook the simple.  And when you overlook the simple, you just overlook the entire solution.  Which is another way of saying you don’t know what you’re doing and you’ll never find the solution because it doesn’t lie in the complex direction.  It lies in the direction of that which is simple.

I started this course, Session 1, I said the origin of the entire social crisis can be explained in terms of this chart, that in the physical sciences we have become smart enough to destroy ourselves but in the social area, the third science, we’re simply not smart enough to prevent our own destruction.  And you will find that the level of the so-called social sciences is so primitive that you cannot prevent your own destruction.  That also means, at the same time, you will not be able to solve any of the other dominant, but lesser, social problems such as inflation, economic depression, increasing crime, poverty, low quality education, etcetera ad nauseum.

I did state also in Session 1 that there is a solution to these many social catastrophes.  That is simply, you figure out how to become smart enough to prevent your own destruction.  And when you’re that smart, and only when you are that smart, will you be able to successfully resolve the lesser problems such as inflation, depression, economic depression, crime, poverty, overpopulation, poor education, drug addiction, you name it.

Getting smart enough to prevent your own destruction involves the knowledge of how to build a true science in the third area of knowledge we call volition.  Another way of stating the solution, we must learn how to build a social structure that is based upon science instead of superstition.  And please note that I have not said anything about the necessity of tearing down what is wrong before you can start building what is right.  To illustrate, in order to build a new house, it is not necessary to tear down the old house even when the old house is in a state of total collapse.  Is that observable?  Build somewhere else.    You can even build next door.

If your goal is to build a house, then you will want to provide the necessary tools: hammers, saws, drills.  But tools alone do not make a house.  You have to start somewhere.  In the case of a house, the somewhere is called the foundation.  In a like manner, when building a science, you’ve got to start somewhere.  Before you can have a conclusion, you must first have a premise.  The original premises of science have a name.  They are called postulates.  And you were probably first introduced to postulates in your elementary Geometry classes.  However, it’s not too likely you were introduced to the significance of a postulate in your elementary Geometry classes.  I know I wasn’t.  As a matter of fact, worse than that, the only reason I was even taking Geometry is, earlier, they asked me, “Do you want to go to college”?.


“Alright.  Take Geometry”.

“Oh, okay”.

And that was the magnitude of my motivation to take Geometry.  Does this sound familiar?  I see some smiling faces, indicating you were there for the same reason.  It was a requirement.  And even if the instructor had been highly competent, I would have missed it anyhow because I was there for the wrong reason.  In fact, it wasn’t even until I was a sophomore in college that I even got any foggy idea of what mathematics was all about.

The postulates form the intellectual foundation of science.  No postulates, no science.  Alright, upon what postulates can we build a science?  If the science is going to survive, then the postulates, I think, should be true.  Does that makes sense?  A false postulate has limited utility.  Truthful means observationally corroborable.  However, you may have many truthful statements which can be used as premises, which can be called postulates.  You may discover in the long run that they are unsatisfactory.

Alright, which postulates are satisfactory for the construction of a science?  Those postulates which are not only true but, in addition, are sufficiently few in number so that the unproven assumptions, called postulates, can be minimized.  And minimizing the number of postulates, that’s the concept called Ockham’s Razor and that’s one reason why I introduced the subject. Remember, the postulate is an unproven, unproven assumption.  It’s not derived from any earlier premise.  It doesn’t even employ the process called validity.  You don’t even test a postulate for validity.  You test it for one thing, truth.  A postulate is accepted without proof.  It’s not even proper to state that a given postulate is valid since it’s not derived from any earlier statement.  A postulate is neither valid nor invalid.  However, in the long run, you can even prove an introductory, or initial postulate, through the four steps of the scientific method.  If you get total corroboration for a theory that has an initial postulate or two or three, indirectly you’ve proven it.

But the reason we have to have postulates in science is, if you keep trying to go back for something more fundamental, you reach a problem called circularity.  And you’re right back where you started from.  In order to avoid to circularity, you simply say, alright, we’ve got to start somewhere.  We’ll start here.  You just arbitrarily say we’ll start here.  And it either works or it doesn’t.  As simple as that.  If someone else doesn’t like the fact that you start here, then they can start somewhere else or….they don’t like it, try it some other way.

A postulate, then, must be true.  If an observational test refutes the postulate, of course, it’s not going to form the foundation of a theory.  Following the principle of Ockham’s Razor, we minimize the number of postulates.  In other words, if you attempt to build a science on a hundred different postulates, a hundred unproven assumptions, you’ve got a complex fiasco. Therefore, keep it simple.

Ladies and gentlemen, there has been a failure in the basic structure of society, as I have said.  The structures that we’ve built have been unstable.  In time, they collapse.  Next week, in this room, Lecture 4, I will identify why every society collapses, why everyone in the past has collapsed and why yours is collapsing around your ears.

A society is nothing more than an association of individuals who associate for only one reason and one purpose and that is to exchange something – property.  Individuals associate to exchange property.  Remember property is more than tables, chairs, pop-up toasters, hair dryers.  Individuals associate to exchange the use of ideas.  They associate to exchange friendships.  These, of course, are primary property forms of exchange.

A society will always be made up of individuals.  Society cannot think.  Society cannot act.  Only individuals can think and act.  We continue building our science by applying the first step of the scientific method: we make observations of individuals.  And since we do not have the time or the means to observe every individual, which today somewhere numbers in the magnitude of four billion people running loose on the planet, we observe only some of them. And after observing some of these individuals at random, we look for a characteristic that one hundred percent of these individuals, that we have observed, all have in common.

This brings us into the second step of the scientific method.  We formulate a hypothesis or generalization that includes a hundred percent of the individuals we have observed.  And from our careful observation of each individual, it is discovered that all individuals have a very important characteristic in common.  Every individual is striving for the attainment of a common goal.  This common goal you’ve heard of.  We call it, simply, happiness.

Of course, all of you have an intuitive understanding of happiness, that which pleases you.  Happiness will always be subjective to your frame of reference.  Happiness is defined as the algebraic sum of goods less bads, or goods plus bads, you get the same result.  In other words, your present happiness is simply a derivative of your contemplation of that which has happened to you in the past, good or bad, as you see it, plus what’s happening to you now, good or bad, as you see it, plus your expectations of what will happen to you in the future, good or bad, as you see it.

What you call good is simply any condition, event, action, situation, acquisition that you prefer.  And that which you call bad is that which you do not prefer.   When you’re seeking happiness, you are seeking what you consider to be good on a subjective or relative basis and/or you are avoiding what you consider to be bad on a subjective or relative basis.

It is important to emphasize that there is no such thing as a maximum to happiness.  Man’s appetite for happiness is never really satiated.  You no sooner attain one goal, you want another goal.  One fellow, for example, all he ever really wanted was one of these fiberglass outboard ski boats with a 100 horsepower Johnson outboard engine.  And he saves his money.  Finally, he gets his dreamed of ski boat.  He loves it.  He’s out there on the lake every day from sunup to sundown.

About the seventh day out, he’s skiing across the lake, flat out, with two beautiful blonde skiers behind him with their hair blowing properly in the wind, when, suddenly, without any warning, vvvrrom, going in the same direction he’s going.  And what just went by was one of these wooden hull jobs, not this puny, flimsy plastic, but solid, hardwood with a 500 horsepower inboard Chrysler engine.  And this guy is screaming across the lake with twelve blonde skiers, two brunettes and a redhead.  And suddenly, there’s a tremendous wave that comes by.  And in the wake of this, his puny little boat flips over.  As he comes up out of the drink he says, “Wow, did you see that?  That’s happiness.  If I could just have one of those.  That’s all I want.  That’s all I want”.  Sound familiar?  You’ve all gone through this all your life?   Of course.

You see, if maximum happiness were attainable, there would be no point in continuing your existence because all of your goals would be satisfied.  In fact, dissatisfaction is natural to man.  Dissatisfaction is a principal source of progress because, if man was always satisfied with his present condition, there would be no incentive to improve the condition.  You’ll find the major innovators, builders and achievers are also the people who have the highest levels of dissatisfaction.  They’re the hardest to please.

“Well, let’s improve on this.  We can do it better.  Let’s do it better.  There still can be improvement”.

There’s no end to this.  They always want it to be better and let’s improve and so forth. But these are also the highest quality people who achieve and build the most.   Conversely, the guy who’s the most easily satisfied is the guy who essentially doesn’t do anything all of his life because he’s too easy to please.  Anyhow, you are in a state or perpetual dissatisfaction, everyone to some degree or another, some just higher than others.

Alright.  Since we must have a starting place in the process of building a science, the science of volition begins with an assumed to be true, but unproven, generalization called the first postulate.  Now, ladies and gentlemen, I do not expect you to fall off your seat when you see the first postulate.  It’s only a sentence, a simple sentence.  I’ll try to explain the significance of it however.  Here is the first postulate to the science of volition – one sentence.  All it says is “All volitional beings live to pursue happiness”.

However, if this first postulate is going to form the foundation of a true science of volition, then the generalization must be true a hundred percent of the time.  The generalization must apply to all volitional beings.  That means it applies to you.  First of all, do you know of any exception to this generalization in your own life or someone else’s life? Someone asked me one time, “Well, I just read in the paper about this Trappist monk.  He’s just taken the vows of poverty.  He’s renounced all wealth.  Is he seeking happiness”?

What do you think?  Is a Trappist monk seeking happiness?  Sure.  Not unlike everyone else in the world, he’s acting in his own self-interest, as he sees it, on a completely selective basis.  He’s simply made a value judgment where he places a higher value on the acquisition of intangible, or primary, property than he does on tangible, or secondary, property.  In other words, he believes he will achieve greater happiness by increasing his primary profit, or wealth, in terms of knowledge, knowledge of nature or man or the universe or what he believes to be God, whatever.  When he takes a vow of poverty, he’s simply saying he prefers to acquire property in the domain of ideas or intangibles than he does in the domain of the tangibles, like Ford Thunderbirds or alligator shoes or yachts.

Now I can give you a much deeper understanding of what he’s doing.  He’s not taking a general vow of poverty.  What he’s doing is this.  He’s taking a vow of secondary property poverty with the expectation of maximizing or optimizing his primary property wealth.  That’s all. He’s just saying primary property goals are more important to me than secondary property goals.  That’s all.  That’s not a general vow of poverty.  The poverty he’s willing to accept is secondary property poverty.  He lives in a little cell with a chair and a bed, if that.

You say, “Well, what about the man who commits suicide?  Surely, he’s not seeking happiness”.

The man who takes his own life has made a value judgment.  He finds life so intolerable, he prefers death as a more profitable alternative to the continuation of his seemingly miserable existence.  Of course, as he sees it.  In other words, he sees greater happiness by willfully terminating his existence.  Part of seeking happiness is the avoidance of pain and displeasure.

Alright.  The first postulate is an example of a volitional absolute because this postulate applies to every person without respect to his age.  It doesn’t matter what your age is; you seek happiness, sex, it doesn’t make any difference, ethnic origin, religion, the time in which you live, the relative customs you follow, it doesn’t matter.  You pursue happiness.  All volitional beings do, all the time.

Absolute means what?  Independent of arbitrary standards of determination.  Whatever determination you make about it is irrelevant.  It applies anyhow.  Absolute means the same for all observers, whether you like or not.  Whether you understand or not, it’s irrelevant.  It’s the way it is anyhow.  I gave you the illustration of Pi. What if everybody in the room renounces Pi?  3.14159265….that’s ridiculous.  Pi is two.  It’s 2.000.  What if all of you say Pi is 2.000?  Well, that doesn’t change it.  You cannot change the ratio per se.  It stays the same whether you like it or not.  Whether you understand or not, it’s irrelevant.

Extrapolating from the first postulate, we can make certain predictions about every volitional action that every individual will take throughout the remainder of his life.  And essentially all it means is this.  Every volitional action you will ever take is executed in the pursuit of happiness as you see it.  I’ll give you a little clue about something to do with the solution.  You won’t understand it at this point, but just a little clue because we do have solutions.  The solutions will be in Lectures 9, 10, 11, and 12, the solutions to all these problems in principle.  How you implement it, Lectures 13, 14, 15, and 16.

If we can do this, ladies and gentlemen, if we can clearly demonstrate to society at large that it is profitable, and I’ll define profit in a moment, that it is profitable for the individual to limit his actions to moral actions – remember I gave you morality last week?  A moral action, any action that does not coerce or attack the property of another.  If we can demonstrate that it’s profitable to pursue moral actions, then the individual will choose a moral action in preference to an immoral action if he can see the personal profit in morality.  One of the solutions has got something to do with helping him see it.  In other words, we will not have to force people, for example, at gunpoint to choose a moral action in preference to an immoral action if they can observe the potential profit in moral action.  It will not be done with guns.  Whatever the solution is, you don’t do it with guns.  In fact, I’ll also prove there’s no such thing as a gun-run solution to any problem ever.  It’s impossible.   And I’ll define impossible later in this lecture also.  And this will not be accomplished by giving, for examples, lectures to the masses on morality because the more important the subject of the lecture, the greater will be the number of people who will be bored.  I’m serious.  The more important the subject, the greater will be the number of people bored.  So that doesn’t work.

One of the things I will demonstrate in this course, and prove using the scientific method as the standard of proof, is that if we’re talking about solutions to problems, the superior solution, the rational solution, the efficient solution, the practical solution, will always be, at the same time, the moral solution.  You know how many exceptions there will be?  That’s right – zero.  I’ll prove that in this course.

I stated the first postulate is a volitional absolute: it’s the nature of man to pursue happiness.  It’s the same for all volitional beings without exception, all observers.  In order to give you an even deeper understanding of man’s nature, I’m going to discuss other generalizations that apply to volitional beings.  You will find that all concepts of the pursuit of happiness are actually equivalent to the enjoyment of property.  Remember property, of course, is…we’re talking about the derivatives of life and I gave you a concept of primordial property, primary property, secondary property.  Primordial property is the biological derivative of life, life itself.  Primary property: ideas, thoughts, actions, opinions and so forth.  And secondary property: the tangible derivatives of life: food, clothing, shelter and so forth.  For a greater detailed discussion of this, I refer you to Session 1 and also 2.

Alright.  In what way can you enjoy property?  If every concept of the pursuit of happiness is equivalent to the enjoyment of property, you can enjoy property four ways:

  • You can create property.
  • You can utilize property.
  • You can acquire property.
  • And you can dispose of property.

This means it is observable that man lives to create primary and secondary property.  He lives to acquire primary and secondary property.  He lives to utilize primary and secondary property.  And he lives to dispose of primary and secondary property.  Why would you want to dispose of property?  Well, for example, after having consumed the banana, the peel has limited utility.  And therefore, in general, you wish to dispose of the peel. It’s your peel but who needs it?  So you throw it down a garbage tube.

It’s important to remember that enjoyment of property includes then more than just the enjoyment of tangible, secondary forms of property.  A man may enjoy the creation of useful ideas. He might be a musician who writes music, an engineer who designs rocket engines.

Alright, this brings us then to the first corollary of the first postulate.  A corollary is simply a restatement of a postulate.  It does not change the meaning of the postulate.  It states the generalization from a different point of view.  The concept will be identical.  Here is the first corollary of the science of volition.  It says all volitional beings live to acquire, guess what?  Property.  All volitional beings live to acquire property.  Not just some or most.  All individuals live to enjoy property.  The live to acquire property.  That’s not just my opinion.  Don’t take my word for it. You have eyes.  You look.  You test it.

Alright.  What can we learn from this?  Well, if it’s observable that it is man’s volitional nature to live to acquire primary and secondary property, and that is observable, that’s irrefutable.  That is irrefutable.  Thatt is fully observationally corroborable.  Alright.  Then I have this question for you.  What happens if you attempt to build a social structure that penalizes the individual every time he is successful in his creation, acquisition, and utilization of property?  What happens?  What happens if you attempt to establish a social structure that is alien to the production of primary and secondary property?  In other words, the more a man innovates, the more his primary property is plundered.  The more the amount of secondary property that he generates, the more his secondary property is plundered.  Ladies and gentlemen, when you attempt to establish this kind of a social structure, you are building something that is alien to man’s basic nature which is to acquire what?  Property.  No exception.

This will produce many individual frustrations, or so-called hang-ups, because the individual will find that he always has great difficulty adjusting to a society that is contrary to his basic nature.  So all volitional beings live to pursue happiness through the pursuit of property.  The greater each individual’s potential to acquire property, the greater the individual’s potential to acquire happiness. The greater his success at the acquisition of property, the greater his success at the acquisition of happiness.

Alright.  Let me give you a new definition.  It’s quite important.  It’s the definition of profit.  Profit is any increase in happiness derived through guess what kind of action?  Moral action.  Profit, any increase in happiness derived through moral action.  I bring this up to make a sharp distinction between two things, profit versus plunder.  A producer of steel seeks profit.  A bank robber seeks plunder.  I bring this up because people commonly believe, for example, that the only way you can make a profit is if somebody else suffers a loss.  Is that true?  That’s not true.  That’s easy to refute.  I go to the appliance dealer.  He says, “That will be $500 for the refrigerator”.

I say, “Fine.  That’s the one I want”.  So I give the appliance dealer the $500 and he gives me the refrigerator.  Alright.  If I’m happy with my refrigerator, have I made a profit?  Is that a moral increase in my happiness?  Certainly. He makes a secondary property profit on it, let’s say.  Is he happy with the exchange?  Yes.

Where’s the loser?  If in every exchange there is a winner and a loser, where’s the loser?  How do I know that I would rather have the refrigerator than the $500?  Well, if I would rather have the $500, I would keep it.  How do I know that the refrigerator man wants to sell me the refrigerator?  Well, if he would rather have the refrigerator, he would keep it, wouldn’t he?  But he places a higher value on my $500. He’s got a whole warehouse full of refrigerators.  I place a higher value on his refrigerator which I have, maybe, none, but other $500.  So we swap. Where’s the lose?.  Both sides have made a profit.

So I say it’s easy.  It doesn’t mean it always works that way.  But the statement, that in every exchange, there’s a winner and a loser is absurd.  Or that if one man profits, someone else has suffered a loss or there has been plunder.  This is, of course, ridiculous.  So, it’s easy to refute.

The first postulate does suffer from one important defect.  And that is, ladies and gentlemen, it’s universally accepted.  It’s so universal, nobody will really challenge it.  It’s so attractive even, for example, collectivists, accept it.   It receives implicit recognition in their writings.  Of course, they don’t accept it as a postulate.  But for this, and other reasons, it’s useful to restate the postulate in a form of a second corollary.  Here’s the second corollary to the first postulate.  It says, “Morally acting man seeks profit.  Immorally acting man seeks plunder”.

The first postulate says all volitional beings live to pursue happiness.  The second corollary says there are two ways you can pursue happiness.  You can seek profit or you can seek plunder.  That covers all possibilities.  The moral acting man seeks to acquire property exclusively through moral action.  The immoral acting man seeks to acquire property through immoral action.  So, the first corollary says all volitional beings live to acquire property.  The second corollary says there are only two ways you can acquire property:  morally or immorally; through the quest for profit or the quest for plunder.  That covers all possibilities.

I want to correct a few misconceptions concerning the first postulate.  The first postulate is a statement concerning the nature of all volitional beings.  First of all, it is not a hedonistic concept.  Hedonism is a doctrine that pleasure is the sole good in life.  It’s not man’s nature to be hedonistic, but it is his nature to pursue happiness through the enjoyment of property.  Some people have concluded from the postulate that we’re advocating a selfish concept. Here is a typical dictionary definition of selfish.  “Selfish: “Caring unduly or supremely for oneself, regarding one’s own comfort, advantage, etcetera, in disregard or at the expense of that of others”.

Well now, if one accepts the Webster Collegiate Dictionary definition of selfish, which I have just given you, than every selfish action is taken in the pursuit of happiness.  However, does every volitional action you take regarding your own comfort and advantage have to be in this regard or at the expense of another?  Of course not.  That’s ridiculous.  If I buy a refrigerator, is that in disregard, or at the expense, of the refrigerator man or conversely?  Of course not.  It’s absurd.

I’ll give you an illustration.  Oh, about ten years ago, I was driving home from a lecture in Los Angeles.  It was about 1 o’clock in the morning. And I pulled onto a street.  I came to a stoplight actually.  It was called Rossmore Boulevard which is the southern extension of Vine Street coming out of Hollywood.

And I’m sitting there, this was some years ago, I was driving my Morgan plus 4 roadster with the top down.  It was winter.  Of course, you have the top down.  Anyhow.  I was just about to turn right.  I happened to look out in the middle of Rossmore Boulevard, which is kind of a busy street.  It was a little dark intersection there, fairly dark.  And I look out in the street and I saw what appeared to be a woman lying right in the middle of Rossmore Boulevard.

Alright.  Put yourself in my position.  It’s one o’clock in the morning.  I look over there.  There’s a woman who’s out in the middle of the street.  I don’t know if she’s sick or fallen down or been hit by a car.  Busy street.  Alright, what do you do?  What would you do?  Just out of curiosity, let’s find out.   How many of you would have stopped to render her some assistance?  Let me see a show of hands.  Alright.  Thank you.  A substantial number of you.  How many of you would have just driven on without offering any assistance?  Let me see a show of hands.  No one?  Alright, now be honest.  What do you think I did?  How many think I stopped to render this woman some assistance?  Alright, thank you.  How many think I drove on and left her there in the street?  Alright, hold them up.  Get those names please, will you?

Well, to make a long story short, I parked the Morgan over there by the fire hydrant.  I got the red curb.  I jump out of the car.  And just about this time, a new Cadillac had pulled up and a well-dressed and a woman, the woman had, I think, a full length ermine coat on.  They got there about the same time I did.  The man asked me what happened.  I said, “I don’t know.  I just got here.  Let’s try to find out.  We’ll see if she can even speak or something”.

I said, “Hey lady.  Are you alright”?

She mumbled something about she’s alright but she had fallen and could we help her up to her feet.  I turned to this man and I said, “What do you think?  Should we help her up”?

And he said, “Well, yeah, let’s do it”.

So he took her by one arm.  I took her by another arm, you know, and we helped her to her feet.  She didn’t seem like she was doing too bad.  I said, “Hey, lady. Do you think you can walk”?

“Sure I can walk”.  And she just about crashed onto the pavement and we caught her.  The woman turns to the man and says, “Honey, she’s apparently drunk.  Let’s get out of here”.

So these two people drive off in the Cadillac.  I’m now standing in the middle of Rossmore Boulevard with this completely inebriated woman.  Cars are going by.  Some guy yelled, “Get out of the road drunk”.

So with some trepidation and concern and risk to myself, I get her over the curb, you know?  And I said, “Gee, lady.  Can I call you a cab”?

She says, “Yeah, call me a cab”.  And she pulls out all these change purses of plastic.  You can see through.  There’s about 47¢ in this change purse.

“Lady, you can’t get a cab these days for 47¢”.

I noticed her address, her driver’s license or something, there.  I looked up at the corner on the sign.  I could see the block number.  I figure, well, she couldn’t be more than a block or so away. I invest a little more time and walked her to the lobby of her apartment house there.

Why did I do this?  Was I taking a considerable risk in doing this?  Yeah. This woman could have sued me or something.  She could have been hurt. I might not have lifted her properly.  She could have sued me for hundreds of thousands of dollars and collected. Do such things happen?  Certainly.  So this was not without risk.  And I could have gotten run over by these cars.  What was worse even, the woman was wearing a dark coat.  She had a dark hat on.  Black coat, black stockings, black shoes, black everything on a black street.

Anyhow, why did I do this?  Why did I even take this risk?  I had other things I could be doing at this time of the morning.  I was seeking happiness as I see it.  I thought of leaving this, just driving on, this poor little old lady out in the middle of the street and not know whether she’s going to get run over or killed by the next car.  I would be worried about her all the way home.  I probably couldn’t even sleep that night.  I wonder what happened to the little old lady.  And so, my own selfish interest, I stopped to render some assistance to her.  That’s all.

One of the questions that people bring up has to do with the method, the means in which this presentation is given.  Many people get the reaction, for example, some people say, “The lectures are moving too slow”.

Others say, “The lecture’s moving too fast”.

Others say, “The lecture’s moving neither too slow or too fast”.

You pretty much get one of those three reactions.  I want to share with you one of the problems I have.  And I hope you have some sympathy for me in this connection because this is a really difficult course to present.  Because we have a heterogeneous group of people.  In the same class, I’m speaking, maybe, to a young woman in her early 20’s who may be a third grade grammar school teacher who is sitting next to a man who’s maybe a 40-year-old vice-president of a corporation who might be sitting next to a 19-year-old college sophomore who’s sitting next to a 30 year old housewife who’s sitting next to a 50 year old electronics engineer who’s next to a 70 year old real estate broker who’s sitting next to a Ph.D. in physics who’s sitting next to someone who flunked Kindergarten.

I’m in the unenviable position of having to be all things to all people.  But there’s a very large, practical problem. How can you be all things to all people when you’re teaching principles?  Because you cannot alter the principles to gain acceptance and popularity.  If it’s a principle, then it cannot be altered in the same place.

One takes the position, “Well, the lectures are just not moving.  I’m way ahead of you.  I wish the pacing would go more quickly”.

There are any number of graduates of this course who have, for example, an extensive academic background.  Like they might have Dr. as a title, whether they’re medical doctors or dentists or Ph.D’s in mathematics or engineers or what have you.  If you have Dr. as a title, that means, in general, you went to school for a long time, among other things.

And there are any number of people who tell you this, they’ll be happy to tell you, they really didn’t understand Lectures 1,2, 3 until they heard at least 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 and the workshop sessions.  And there’s much more in these first three sessions than may appear initially.  I want to stress also that you do not have to like the lecturer.  In case there’s any doubt, that’s me.  In fact, I may have mentioned this, maybe you don’t like the suit I’m wearing.  Why is he wearing a dark blue suit?  Or you think my hair is too short or the sideburns are too short.

Why doesn’t he have more hair and so forth.   Or you don’t like my personality.  Or some people don’t like my facial expressions.  Look at his facial expressions.  Somebody thinks I split too many infinitives or think I’m overconfident and so forth.

Don’t let any of these things obscure the main goal which is to present you with, ladies and gentlemen, a practical theory that will add to your potential to build greater amounts of primary and secondary wealth.  In other words, you can acquire a tremendous amount of wealth in this course and you don’t even have to like me.  It’s not even necessary.  As I said, I’m not running a popularity contest.

And it’s also common, I want to close on this point, I want to make a little point here first. We’re going to take a break pretty soon.  It’s common to confuse confidence in one’s views with dogmatism.  To illustrate, I have considerable confidence, remember these two items from last week, I have considerable confidence that when I drop this cannonball and this golf ball at the same time, they will fall at the same rate.  Alright, question.  Is my position on the subject dogmatic?  What do you think?

Dogma involves the acceptance of conclusions or opinions upon authority.  Alright, let’s consider two authorities in this subject of falling bodies.  One authority is Aristotle, whose opinion on the subject is that heavy objects fall faster than light objects.  And another authority is Galileo, whose opinion is that both heavy objects and light objects fall at the same rate.  If I accept Aristotle’s opinion that heavy objects fall faster than light objects, basing my acceptance of his opinion on nothing else than the fact that he said so, if I accept his conclusion on his authority alone, that’s called what?  Dogmatism.

But, what if I accept Galileo’s opinion that heavy objects and light objects fall at the same rate, basing my acceptance upon his opinion, nothing else but the fact that Galileo said so, if I accept his conclusion on Galileo’s authority alone, then what would that be called?  Exactly.  Dogmatism.  It’s the same.

Here, then, is a critical question.  How can we get away from the acceptance of opinions upon authority alone?  How can we scrap the dogmatic approach?  Do I have the means right here this evening to solve this problem?  How many say yes?  Yes.  How can I solve this problem?  Two word answer.  Try it.  I will once again drop the cannonball and the golf ball.  You may witness this.  Alright, question.  Statement.  A simple illustration, ladies and gentlemen, and be very careful that you don’t miss the significance of the illustration simply because it’s simple.

Now, is it dogmatic to accept Galileo’s opinion?  We still accept Galileo’s opinion of falling bodies, but our acceptance of our opinion is no longer dogmatic.  And what is the difference?  The essential difference is we have tried it.  I performed an experiment.  You participated to the extent that you watched the rate of the fall.  And if you want to try it yourself, I invite you to come up and drop the cannonball and the golf ball.  This is the same approach we will apply to V-50.  You should not accept my opinion on any subject until you try it.  You test it.  You observe it.   You corroborate it.  If you assume this posture, then you never have to fear being indoctrinated with a dogmatic doctrine.

If I should say in V-50, “Look.  Can you observe this point to be a fact of reality?  And you say, ‘Yes, I can independently observe it”.  Then accept it as truth, not because I say so but because you have independently tried it ladies and gentlemen.  You’ve tested it.

The first sentence of what is V-50, I started this course with.  It says the V-50 Lectures are designed to give you the greatest expansion of useful knowledge with the shortest investment of time.  I said in Session 1, the resource we possess that is in the shortest supply is our time.  One of the principal laws of physical science is the first law of thermal dynamics, also known as the law of conservation of energy.  Applied to volition, it’s stated in the following way, “You cannot get something for nothing”.

The first sentence does not read “The V-50 Lectures are designed to give you the greatest expansion of useful knowledge with zero investment of time”.  If you have children, for example, don’t assume you’re too busy caring for the children, for example, to invest your scarce time in V-50 lectures.  There are many illustrations I could give but, if you do have children, if all you get out of this course is the value you can pass on to your children, I claim that you have received value from one of the most significant investments you could ever make applied to your own children.

I know, of course, all of the reasons people will give for perhaps not wanting to continue this investment.  They’re too busy with their children or too busy with the kids playing on the baseball team or soccer, something. And yet, children who come from the best of families commonly have the greatest problems.  You know that, for example, there is more drug addiction among young people in the most affluent sections of Orange County and Los Angeles County?

There are reasons for this, which I will come to later. There are ways to avoid this, but this is not understood, in general, by either teachers or parents.  That is just one of the small spin-off values you get from this theory.  People can sharpen their precision.  That means their ability to think. You can apply these principles to your business. It has application to everything, although it is difficult to see the application in the early sessions.  If you’re skeptical, that’s a positive posture, if the skepticism is tempered with two things: rationality and intellectual honesty.  Skepticism is a healthy posture, but it must be tempered with intellectual honesty and rationality.

In the last analysis, everything you will hear in this course will have one standard to ultimately determine whether or not it’s true.  The scientific method, and in particular, the fourth step of the scientific method.  Namely, does it work?  It does.

I hope you continue looking through the tube.  The guarantee for this course, I’ve given to you earlier.  If you attend all the sessions, do not agree that you received both your time’s worth and your money’s worth, come up to the final session, look me straight in the eye and say, “Mr. Snelson, I didn’t get my time’s worth or my money’s worth”.  We will have a check made out to you, probably the very next day, for the full amount of tuition.  It will not bounce either.  This is not a gimmick.  I’ve already mentioned that.  The guarantee is an application of the principles.  And no professor of yours ever made a guarantee like that.


Continuing now with the second part of Lecture #3, I’ve already introduced the first postulate of the science of volition:  “All volitional beings live to pursue happiness all the time”.  I’ve introduced you to the two corollaries to the first postulate.  I’ll now give you the second postulate to the science of volition which says, “All concepts of happiness pursued through moral action are equally valid”.

What does this mean?  It means that all individual choices of what constitutes happiness are of equal validity if they do not involve coercion.  That means, among other things, you do not have degrees of morality.  You do not say that one man’s moral actions are more moral than another man’s moral actions.  A man’s actions are either moral or they are immoral by definition.  Remember a moral action is any action that does not coercively attack the property of another.  But also remember, simply because a man’s are moral does not necessarily mean they are rational because a man’s actions can be moral and not right if they are irrational.

Let’s consider the actions of two men.  Let’s say Smith devotes his life to research and the discovery of a cure for malaria.  Jones, on the other hand, devotes his life to loafing on the beach.  Smith owns a laboratory in which he does research.  Jones owns a beach upon which he loafs.  We’ll probably call it Jones Beach.  I understand there is such a beach some place around New York.  Is that true?  How many have been to Jones Beach?  Is it on Long Island?  Yeah.  I’ve never been there.  Have I missed anything?  Alright.  We have answers of yes and no.

Anyhow, in this respect, in this respect, the actions of both of these men are perfectly moral.  Since they both respect the property of others, their actions are equally moral.  But the question might arise, are their actions equally significant?  Are their actions equally important?  Some might say, “Well, that depends.  Who’s to say that a man who, let’s say, discovers the cure for malaria is necessarily more significant than a man who, let’s say, loafs on the beach?

Alright.  Which man’s actions are the most important?  What do you think?  Are the man’s actions more important who…how many would say the man’s actions are more important who is discovering the cure for malaria?  How many would say the man’s actions who’s loafing on the beach are more important?  How many would say they are equally important?  How many just don’t care? I couldn’t care less.

Well, you might consider this.  Let’s say you have just been cured of malaria.  I would hope there’s no question in your mind which man’s actions are the most important.  However, we will answer this question absolutely in Lecture #6.  I will give you the definition of absolute importance which will be one of the most important definitions in this course.  And you will be able to answer the question absolutely, not on a relative basis.

Anyhow, the second postulate implies don’t impose your will upon another individual in order that that individual can pursue happiness according to his own subjective values. You see, you can only pursue happiness according to your own subjective values when you have total control over the derivatives of your life called property.

Alright.  Now what value is a postulate?  Well, in physics, we employ postulates to expand our knowledge of the physical universe.  Physics is anchored upon a small number of fundamental postulates.  In a like manner, in the science of volition, we’re building on just two postulates and two corollaries. Following the principle of Ockham’s Razor, the number of unproven assumptions is minimized. There’s only two postulates in this theory.

Now certain other questions arise that should be answered.  This is a very important subject. Many people, when they are first exposed to this theory, when they see, for example, Galambos’ definition of freedom, a very common reaction to this, for example, is, “Well, that’s utopian”.  Or “That would be impossible to achieve”.

What does the average fellow mean by impossible? What does he mean when he says, “Oh, I think that’s impossible.  You can’t do that”.  Do you know what the average person means when he says something is impossible?  He means, freely translated, well, I don’t know how to do it.  Or I can’t conceive how anybody else can do it.  Therefore, it’s impossible.  I might point out that if everybody had this concept of impossible, we never could accomplish anything.  As soon as I suggest, for example, that you can apply the foundation of science to build solutions to all of these problems, like war and overpopulation, economic depression, poverty and so forth, this is a very common reaction.  The most common reaction, “Oh, that’s impossible”.  Or, “That’s utopian”.  And so forth.

Alright.  What is the difference between…I think I have this slide here somewhere.  I’m not sure exactly where it is now. Ah, you don’t need to see it.  The slide I was going to put up is what’s the difference between practical versus impractical, possible versus impossible, utopian versus practical?  It is very important to know how to make a very sharp line of demarcation between these: possible versus impossible.  Lord Utopian, as some of you know, was popularized by Thomas More.  He wrote a book in 1516 called Utopia and he depicts this island where they have perfected a form of regimented communism which is described as a perfect system.  Utopia means any place of ideal perfection.  A Utopian is one who believes in the perfectibility of society.  The only problem is man is not perfect.  And society is made up of individuals, all of whom are not perfect.

A system then is called, a social system, is called utopian if in order for it to work it would require changing the nature of man.  The problem is man cannot change his nature.  Just as there are certain laws of nature that govern the physical universe, there are laws of nature that govern man himself.  As far as we know, these laws are immutable, that is they cannot be changed.

Alright, then the question arises.  Are there things in the universe that are impossible or is everything possible?  Is everything possible?  What do you think?  Do any of you know of something that is impossible?  And if so, what?  Or is everything possible?  Well, I know something that’s impossible for you to do.  You will not be successful at the construction of what is called a perpetual motion machine.  In order to understand why you will fail at this, you must understand, first, the laws of thermodynamics.  And every perpetual motion machine will be in violation of one of or more of the laws of thermodynamics.  In order to understand physics, you must understand the laws of thermodynamics, one of the most fundamental concepts in the physical sciences.

Alright, man possesses a certain nature which is determined by the overall laws of nature and you can’t change it.  If in order to build a social structure that would require changing the nature of man first, you can’t build it.  It won’t work.  And so, we define impossible in V-50 as that which in order to be accomplished requires changing or repealing a law of nature.  Thomas More’s book is well titled.  Utopia comes from the Greek outopos which means nowhere or no such place.  In other words, it can’t exist in the real world.

Alright.  Then you might ask the question, well, how about this definition of freedom?  Is that utopian?  Well, you have to then ask is there any law of nature that would have to be repealed in order to build a society where everybody has liberty and there’s not one slave?  And the fact is there is no such law of nature that has to be repealed in order to do that.

If I were giving a lecture here, let’s say it’s 1900, we’re in the city of Orange, it’s 1900.  And I say, “Ladies and gentlemen, someday I believe some day, perhaps in a century, by the year 2000, I believe that it will be possible to get into a vehicle that can fly through the air, heavier than air machine, with sustained power-controlled flight.  I believe that we can get from Orange or Los Angeles to New York City in maybe as short a time as six to eight hours.  By the year 2000 and it’s now 1900”.

What would your reaction to that statement be?  “That’s ridiculous.  Listen, some of the greatest geniuses, why, Leonardo Da Vinci has tried to solve this problem.  Some of the greatest geniuses in history have tried to fly.  Why, if it were possible, man would have done this centuries ago”.

Of course, then you would have followed up with your number one argument.  You would have said, “Listen, if God had intended man to fly, he would have given him wings like the angels. Therefore, flying is impossible”.

What if I were to tell you that I believe that within, perhaps a century, by the year 2000, we can sit here in Orange and watch a little box in our living room and watch the New York Yankees playing the Brooklyn Dodgers in color with sound.  You can see the bat hit the ball, the stick hit the ball, and hear it at the same time essentially.  And they’ll send us all this information at the speed of light, 186,000 miles a second”.  What would your reaction be?

“Now I know he’s cracked.  Let’s get out of here”.

And you sprint for the parking lot and you drive off in your horse-drawn carriages.  And a few of you have the self-movers, automobiles.

Please note this took place even in a much shorter period of time than a century.  It doesn’t take any six or eight hours to get to New York.  You can get there a lot sooner than that today.  You know, if it were 1900, there would have been few people who could have even come close to predicting the extent of the technology of our decade, the 70’s.  Today, right now, we are confronted with problems, the solutions to which, seem just as difficult in 1977 as did, let’s say, the problem of manned flight or color television in 1900.  What are the problems today that seem hopeless to solve?  Destitution, war, crime, particularly war.  I mean, to even suggest that there might be a solution to the problem of war, you realize that’s a big risk because everybody knows what?  We’re always going to have wars.  We can’t do anything about that.  Would that be the view of most people?  Of course.  Well, if you’re willing to look through the tube, I hope it’s all of you, you’ll see that there’s a way to solve this problem and it starts with this course.  It’s all consistent with the scientific method, truth and validity.

That won’t be easy.  I like to make a distinction between two things: impossible versus difficult.  Was it difficult for the Wright brothers to fly?  Yeah.  That was probably, that may be the single greatest technological innovation up to this point in time.  If not the greatest, certainly one of the greatest.  It was not easy for the Wright brothers.  People were so convinced that it was impossible to fly, they didn’t even believe it with airplanes flying over their head.  I’m not exaggerating.  It took some five years before the American people even believed you could fly because they were totally convinced it is impossible. Even with airplanes flying around, they believed it was impossible.  A story coming out of Dayton, Ohio – you know, the Wright brothers were the bicycle mechanics from Dayton.  And this is a true story.  They were flying their plane after they came back from Kitty Hawk.  They were experimenting on Huffman Prairie, flying back and forth and so forth.  On one side of Huffman Prairie was a highway.  On the other side of Huffman Prairie was another highway plus a streetcar line.  One day, a Dayton, Ohio resident was riding on the streetcar with one of his out-of-town friends.  And they’re riding along and pretty soon one of the Wright brothers flies right over head.  And the out-of-town fellow says, “Wow!  What was that”?

The Dayton fellow said, “Oh, just them dern fool Wright brothers.  Both crazy.  Trying to fly”. Both crazy, trying to fly, as the airplane flies right over his head.  That’s a true story.

Well, freedom is an attainable goal. It will not be easy.  Difficult?  Yes.  Every major accomplishment was difficult.  If it isn’t difficult, it’s not called a major accomplishment or a major innovation, is it?  So make a sharp line of demarcation between possible versus impossible.  Impossible simply means you have to repeal a law of nature to do it.  Otherwise, it’s possible.  It’s just a question of learning how.

Let me give you a couple of short stories.  The first story assumes that there is only individual in the world.  If there is only one individual on the planet, and assuming he’s the only one that lives there and there was no one prior to him, can his actions be immoral or not moral?  Can his actions be immoral, if there is only one person?  No.  Because there is only one producer of property.  And, therefore, all the property that exists would be his.  Remember, property does not exist in nature.  Property is a derivative of volitional action.  And you cannot attack your own property.  You only attack the property of another.  If I pick up the tape recorder here and smash it to the floor into 47,000 pieces, I’ve not attacked my property.  I just broke the tape recorder.  But if I pick up your tape recorder and smash it, without your permission, that, of course, is immoral.

So the first story assumes one individual.  A man, we’ll say, is shipwrecked on an uninhabited island in the temperate zone, somewhere in the Pacific.  And this island has warm summers and cold winters.  And this man arrives in the summer.  Conditions for survival seem favorable.  He finds wild berries on bushes, an occasional turtle on the beach, he catches a hare now and then.  He doesn’t really need any shelter because it’s quite warm. Things work pretty well for the first summer.  But soon, along comes winter.  The temperature begins to fall sharply.  Soon it begins to rain and then snow.  Worse than this, he doesn’t seem to find any berries on the bushes anymore.  And he can’t find any more turtles.  He doesn’t catch any more hares.  And he begins to get quite hungry.  And within a short time, he’s dead.

That concludes my first story.  Not bad, huh?  I thought you’d like my story.  However, one might ask this question.  What killed him?  What killed this man?  Was he immoral?  No. He made a value judgment.  Ho chose to loaf in the summer.  He could have provided shelter.  He could have provided food for the winter.  What was this man’s failure?  He was irrational.  He failed to observe truth.

You say, “Well, maybe this guy was ignorant”.

Maybe.  That doesn’t alter the fact that he’s dead.

You say, “Well, maybe he didn’t know what latitude he was in”.

Alright.  Well, he could have found out by looking at the stars.  You don’t even have to be an astronomer to know that.  But without this knowledge, perhaps, he could have gotten a clue from the vegetation.  You don’t even have to be a botany student to know that the vegetation indigenous to the temperate zone is radically different from that of the torid zone or the arctic zone.  Do you have to be a botanist to know this?  No.

Not even knowing this, you might know that it is not unusual for the weather to change during the seasons on many parts of the planet.  And you might have quickly, for example, attempted to erect some type of shelter when you observed that maybe the weather was changing.  There’s no place on the planet where, for example, it’s 100 degrees in the shade one day and 60 degrees below zero the next.  Somebody interrupted in LA this semester and blurted out, “Oklahoma”.

I said, “No, not even Oklahoma”.

And he might have noticed, for example, that the leaves are starting to turn yellow and gold and so forth and that the leaves are falling.  I wonder if it’s going to be fall?  That’s where the season comes, the fall.  Falling leaves.  There’s even a song to that effect.  You shouldn’t have to be a genius to know all of this.  He was killed by his failure to observe reality.  His observation of truth was faulty.  He failed to employ valid reasoning processes to connect up the observable truths.  Had he done any of this, he might have derived the key to his survival.  One thing that killed him, he was insensitive.  In other words, he was not a careful observer.

The second story is a more complicated story.  In this story, there are two individuals.  Now, as soon as you have two individuals producing property, can their actions be immoral?  Yes, by attacking the property of another.  Please note the principle is the same.  As soon as you have two, from two to infinity, or any number of additional individuals to infinity, the principle is the same.  Their actions will be either moral or immoral with respect to the other fellow’s property; the other fellow’s property being the derivatives of his life.  Simple concept.

So the second story involves two men and they, too, are shipwrecked in the Pacific temperate zone.  They arrive together on the same island.  We will call these men, respectively, Robinson and Crusoe.   In Daniel Defoe’s story, Robinson Crusoe was one man but we’ll make two men out of this.  And Robinson and Crusoe both have very different backgrounds.  Robinson was a producer, a very innovative fellow.  He made things.  He worked for a living.

Crusoe, on the other hand was a, well, he was a bureaucrat.  And being a bureaucrat, he really didn’t produce property.  What he did was regulate those people who did generate property.  In other words, he made the rules for the people who made things.  But he didn’t really know how to do much other than that.  Well, anyhow, they both arrive in the spring.  There’s plenty of time to prepare for the winter.  And Robinson, a rational fellow, recognizes that soon it’s going to be cold.  He’s going to have to move very quickly in order to survive.  He begins eating berries that he finds.  He starts preserving the ones that he does not eat.  He begins construction of a shelter for the winter.  He gathers firewood.

Crusoe, on the other hand, what’s he doing?  Ah, it’s a beautiful day.  So he’s having a great time loafing out on the beach.  Every once in a while, he comes over to see what Robinson is doing and even a friendly remark now and then.  One day he says, “Say Robinson, I notice on your front door there now, it looks like it’s only about 5’6” high.  Now the code says, the building code says, the door must be at least 6’6””.

Robinson says, “Look.  I don’t need any smart advice from you.  On the other hand, if you’d like to pitch in and do a little work around here, there’s plenty of work to do.  But otherwise, don’t bother me with your stupid remarks”.

And Crusoe doesn’t bother Robinson much.  He spends his time on the beach having a good time.  Well, finally November comes and Robinson is sitting warmly by the fire in his new shelter, protected from the now quite cold November wind.  He’s got ample food, ample firewood and is enjoying himself by his fire.  Suddenly, Robinson hears [knocking on door].

“Who is it”?

“Who do you think it is?  It’s me, Crusoe”.

“Well, what do you want”?

“Well, let me in”.

“Well, what do you mean ‘let me in’?  What for”?

“Well, I want to come in.  It’s getting cold out here”.

Robinson says, “Look.  You know, you don’t live here.  This is my house”.

“What do you mean it’s your house?  Look, can’t you count?  There’s only two of us on this island.  Where else am I supposed to live?  And it’s getting cold out here”.

“Well, go live in your own house”.

“You know very well I don’t have my own house.  I didn’t build one”.

“Well, that’s your problem Crusoe.  Build one”.

“Well, it’s too late and, besides, I really don’t know how to do this”.

“Well, that’s your problem Crusoe.  But look, even if you don’t know how to build a house, you could have helped me last summer.  I know how to build one.  You could have helped me.  I would have told you what to do, but you didn’t ask for any advice.  You didn’t come around one time to offer help with anything.  So what do you want from me now”?

“I want to come in”.


“Well, I’ve already explained.  It’s getting cold out here.  I want to get through the winter”.  You can manufacture much of this dialogue.

Finally, Crusoe decides that he’s taking the wrong approach.  So he’s going to do a little heartstring pulling.  He sees a way he can make a little more headway.  So he says, “Hey, Robby, you’re not going to let me die, are you?   You’re not going to let me freeze to death?  It’s your humanitarian duty to let me in.  I’m a human being.  I’m just as good as you are.  Do you want me to die”?

“No, I don’t want you to die.  But, look, I didn’t put you in this position”.

“But Robby, I need food and I need shelter and I need these things just as much as you do.  And, maybe, I admit, I admit I didn’t have the wisdom and the foresight to maybe take care of these things but nevertheless you owe them to me.  It’s your humanitarian duty”.

Well, Robinson softens in both the heart and the head and he lets Crusoe in for the winter.  And they have a miserable winter together for two reasons.  First of all, they have half rations.  And Robinson, although he has ample supplies for himself, not enough for two people.  And now he’s got to share his rations with this fellow.  And worse than this, Crusoe eats more than Robinson and, while Robinson is asleep, Crusoe is eating more than half the food.  And I don’t think, I would hope, no one would come to the conclusion that this guy Crusoe ought to have more than half the food when he didn’t provide any of it at all.  Of course, the other reason they’re miserable, is one is a producer of property and the other is a regulator of those who produce property.  And these two types don’t usually get along too well.

Well, they have a miserable winter together.  But finally spring comes and they make it.  So Crusoe says, “Well, it’s been a great winter.  See you around”.  And he heads back to the beach.

Robinson says, “Wait a minute.  If you expect to live in this house come next winter, we’re going to have to add another room on to the place.  It’s clearly too crowded in here.  Or we’re going to have to have more food, more firewood”.

“Look Robinson, I don’t know how to do these things.  You’re good at it.  Alright, if you insist, I’ll help.  Just let me know.  I’ll give you a hand”.

But, as might be expected, Crusoe never shows up during working hours and Robinson, however, goes ahead anyhow.  Despite of this, he puts on another room, adds another room on, gets even more food, more firewood.  Soon November comes again, as it does each year, and Robinson is sitting comfortably by the fire when he hears a familiar rapping at the door.

“Let me in”.

“You know Crusoe, I’ve considered doing that.  But now that I think about it, I worked all summer long to get ready for the winter.  You’ve done nothing but goof off, loaf on the beach. I’ve changed my mind.  You can’t come in”.

But once again, Robinson gives in and they have another miserable winter together.  Finally, spring comes again.  Robinson says, “Look.  I’ve been burned twice.  Come next winter, if you again fail to help out, nothing will get you into this house”.

“Oh sure, I’ll help”.

But again, nothing changes.  Robinson works all summer.  Crusoe plays on the beach.  Come November again, a familiar rapping at the door.

“Let me in”.

“No.  Not this time.  Absolutely nothing will get you into this shelter”.

Crusoe says, “Well.  I suppose you think I didn’t do anything this last summer”.

“Yeah, that’s right.  You never came around and did any work one time.  I never saw you do any work at all”.

“Well, you’re wrong Robby.  You see, you may have thought I was loafing all summer, but I did do something this time.  I made a spear.  And if you don’t let me in, you will give me no choice.  I will be forced to kill you”.

Now that’s the end of my second story.  However, maybe we ought look at some of the possible endings.  Essentially, three possible endings.  One is Crusoe kills Robinson.  In which case, what are the options now facing Crusoe?  Two.  They are produce or what?  Starve, which means die.  Because Robinson’s productivity, the product of this productivity, will quickly be depleted.

A second possible conclusion is Robinson, in defense of his own life, kills Crusoe, in which case, Robinson, the producer, will continue producing and, in time, may be rescued from this island.  Or maybe he can rescue himself.

The third possibility is neither of them are killed.  Robinson doesn’t let Crusoe in.  Neither of them are killed.  In which case, what are the possibilities, the options, now facing Crusoe?  What are they?  Produce or what?  Starve, which means die.

Now let’s see if we can learn something from this.  And remember, when you have two people, you can generalize that for any number of additional individuals to all of society.  What if Robinson is successful in protecting his property from any attack by Crusoe?  Crusoe will then fail at stealing from Robinson.

What if Crusoe fails at appointing anyone else from stealing for him?  Of course, there’s only two of them on the island.

What if he fails at begging for property from Robinson?  What then is Crusoe’s source of property?  Remember property, by definition, does not exist in nature.  Land does exist in nature.  Land is everything in the way of natural resources that exist in nature.  The oceans are land.  Sunshine is land.  The mountains are land.  The air is land.  I gave you this corollary:  all volitional beings live to acquire property.  Crusoe is no exception.  Crusoe has exactly three sources from which he can acquire property.  One, he can produce property.  Two, he can steal property.  Three, he can mooch property or, in other words, acquire it as a hand-out.  That’s it.

Since Robinson is successful at the protection of his property, Crusoe cannot steal any property.  And since Robinson will no longer give any hand-outs to Crusoe, Crusoe will not be successful at mooching.  And there is no one else on the island to mooch from.  Finally, Crusoe is left with the two remaining alternatives: one, produce; two, starve.

Question.  At this point, for whom will most people feel sorry?  Will they feel sorry for Robinson who’s sitting comfortably by his warm fire, protected from the forces of nature and man?  He has an ample supply of food and fuel for the winter.  Or will they feel sorry for Crusoe who’s in the freezing cold, out in the freezing cold, unprotected from the harsh forces of nature, without food, without adequate clothing?

How many think most people will feel sorry for Crusoe?  How many think most people will feel sorry for Robinson?  Well, not only most of the sympathy be felt for this bum Caruso, who is a moocher and a thief, but, interestingly enough, Caruso is looked upon as the good guy and guess who is looked upon as the bad guy?  Robinson, please note, comes across as a selfish tyrant who in the end insists that Caruso must work for a living.  Can you think of anything more vicious than that?  It’s hard to, isn’t it?

Then those who feel sorry for Caruso, whom they see as a cold, hungry, disadvantaged, abused victim, put the classic question to Robinson, “Robinson, what are you going to do?  Let him starve”?

Well, ladies and gentlemen, if any of you are worried about Caruso, I have some very good news for you.  He will not starve.  Before he will starve, he will try his hand at production.  At first it might be painful for him because he’s never produced probably much of anything in his entire life.  But eventually he will get into the habit.  In fact, he will have a very large incentive to get into the habit of production soon.  And that incentive, of course, is called hunger.

And please note, Caruso will have optimum incentive to produce because he possesses liberty.

Now remember, Robinson is a producer, not a thief.  Robinson has not, and will not, steal anything from Caruso.  Therefore, Caruso has total control over the derivatives of his life: primordial, primary and secondary.  And please know, in those places in the world today where they do have hunger, where famine is a way of life, where starvation is common, say most of Asia and  so forth, India, Bangladesh, China, you name it, where famine is a way of life, do these people of Asia have liberty?  How many think they do not have liberty in Asia, in these places?  Do any of you think they do have liberty?  What is liberty?  Liberty you have when you have total control of the derivatives of your life, primary and secondary.

Well, the story here is different because, unlike Asia, Robinson and Crusoe both possess liberty.  They can retain a hundred percent of the derivatives of their life.  Therefore, each of them will have a great optimum incentive to produce what?  Property.  And before Caruso will starve, I claim he will produce.  That is, if he has liberty.

Let’s generalize.  When any individual possesses liberty, he will produce before he will starve, but then the question will arise, one, let’s look at all the concerns for this, one, what if he suffers an accident and can’t work?  Two, what if he gets sick and cannot produce?  Three, what if he gets old and cannot produce?  Four, what if he’s born feeble-minded and cannot produce?  You can add any number of additional contingencies.

Every one of these problems can be morally solved without stealing any property from anyone.  And we’ll present to you these moral solutions in this course.  Of course, the common reaction to the statement might be, “Well, everybody knows the unfortunates will starve unless property is stolen from the producers and given as a handout to the non-producers”.

Oh, that’s common knowledge?  Where did this common knowledge come from, that the solution to the problem of those people who have produced little or no property is to steal property from those who have produced more property?  If that’s common knowledge, where did that so-called common knowledge come from?  Where do you think?  Same source as when it was common knowledge that witches and devils are responsible for the bubonic plague.  Same source as when it was common knowledge that the planet Earth is the fixed, immoveable center of the universe.  Etcetera.  Same source when it was common knowledge that heavy objects fall faster than light objects.

What is this source?  It’s called acceptance on authority.  Acceptance upon blind faith.  Acceptance without thinking.  What does that mean?  It means the premises were not tested for truth.  The thought processes were not tested for validity.  There was no semantic precision.  All of this was not integrated with the scientific method.

Well, V-50 supplies the alternative to all of this acceptance on blind authority.  Well, one of the problems that might arise if we obsolete slavery – and look at slavery again.  What if we obsolete slavery?  Is that possible or impossible?  There’s no law of nature that says you can’t obsolete it.  Will it be difficult?  Yes.  Was flying difficult?  Yes.  Was going to the moon difficult?  Yes.  But not impossible.  What problems might arise if we obsolete slavery and everyone is allowed to retain his liberty, which means you’ve got control of your primordial, primary and secondary property, and when everyone has liberty and there’s not one single slave, then we have this societal condition: freedom.  That’s called freedom.  You’ve got liberty and everybody else has liberty and there’s not one slave, that’s freedom.

Well, what problems might this bring up?  What should we worry about?  Let’s assume a given individual has liberty.  We’ll assume the individual is a moral acting man.  And we’ll assume, one, he’s never burgled your house.  He’s never robbed you.  He’s never swindled you.  Never threatened you.  Never even bothered you.  Question.  Are any of the threats, are any of the following, threats in any way to you?  Are any of these threats?

  1. He produces more property than you do. Is that a threat?
  2. He innovates more useful ideas than you do. Is that a threat?
  3. He accumulates more property than you do. Is that a threat to you?
  4. He works harder than you do. Is that a threat?
  5. He offers his property for sale at a price you think is too high.
  6. He offers his property for sale at a price that you think is too low.
  7. His price is infinity, which is another way of saying he won’t sell at any price.

Are any of these a threat to you?  And if so, why?  If you do not like what this moral acting man is doing with the derivatives of his life, if you do not like what he’s doing with the property that would not even exist in the first place had he not produced it, what can you do about it?  What should you do about it?  What would you do about it?

There’s only two principal things you can do.  I’ll simplify it for you.  One, leave this moral acting person alone.  Or, two, enslave him.  That’s it.

Now once you decide, well, we better enslave this fellow, slavery being the control of his property without his permission, then there are two approaches you can take.  One, you can steal or control his property. You be the thief.  You be the slave master.  Or, two, appoint someone else to do the stealing for you, to do the enslaving for you and you can do this openly or in secret.  Appoint someone else to be the thief, openly or in secret, behind the victim’s back.  At this point, you are only an accessory to the crime.

Once it’s decided that the social structure will be built upon stealing – remember we gave you stealing, which is essentially the taking of a individual’s property without his permission, then there are four problems.  Once you decide stealing is a solution, we know that’s it, we know that’s it, it’s the way we’ve always done it, it’s a custom, you know, I got an A in the course at school that said this is the way to do it, therefore it must be right, especially since I got an A, anyhow, once you decide stealing is the means to slavery and slavery is a goal, then there are four problems you must solve at this point:

  1. Who should do the stealing? That’s one problem you’ve got to solve.  Who will do the stealing?
  2. From whom should we steal?
  3. How much should be stolen?
  4. What do you do if the victim refuses to give up his property or cooperate in his own plunder?

Those are the four problems you’ve got to solve, once you decide stealing is the means.  Well, during the solutions part of V-50, Sessions 9, 10, 11, 12, I will present a practical, workable alternative to the stealing which produces the slavery.  I will apply the scientific method to prove there is no such thing as an immoral solution to any social problem.  In order to build a right solution, it must be both moral and rational.

One of the derivatives of this course called V-50 will be, in the end, to totally and completely obsolete stealing and end slavery.  As a matter of fact, stealing has already been obsoleted in principle by this science called volition.  Stealing of property, as a means of solving man’s many problems, has been the custom throughout history.  V-50 will obsolete this primitive custom.

Now this concept of property, that I introduced initially in Session 1, is more universal than you perhaps can see at this point, through no fault of your own.  Remember, property includes every derivative of the volitional being’s life excluding his children.  The most important derivative of life being, of course, primary property: a man’s ideas, innovations, his knowledge, his actions.  This is the intangible form of property, the most important form of property, for reasons which should be clear later, if not now.

I stated that all social interaction can be explained in terms of one single concept, property.  All individuals associate for the singular objective of exchanging primary and secondary property.  The goal of science, as I said, is to simplify knowledge.  And since V-50 is a science, we’re simplifying our knowledge of the nature of man.  I’ve stated that the science of physics is the foundation of the science of volition.  Now look how easy it is to simplify the entire subject of physics.  Reduced to its simplest denominator, the entire scope of physics deals with one subject – the exchange of something.  What?  The exchange of what?  Energy.  The exchange of one kind of energy for another kind of energy.  The science of physics deals with the totality of energy exchanges.

In a like manner, the entire scope of the science of volition deals with one subject, the exchange of something, the exchange of what?  One thing – property.  The exchange of one kind of property for another kind of property.  The science of volition deals with the totality of property exchanges.

Continuing with the simplification, if you observe the nature of property exchanges, you will recognize that every single dispute that has ever taken place or ever will take place is a dispute over just one thing, property.

For example, the dispute may be over the utilization of natural resources.  It might be over the authorship of primary property.  It might be over the utilization of secondary property.  For example, what is a riot?  A dispute over property.  The rioter says, “I have a right to go on a rampage and destroy your property.  I have the right to hurl rocks through your windows”.

The owner of the house or store might say, “Wait a minute.  You don’t have a right to destroy my property, break my windows, destroy my house”.

You clearly have a dispute over what?  Utilization of property, don’t you?  That’s all.  That’s all it is.

The looter says, “I have the right to the color television set in your store window”. Smashes in the window, carts off the TV set.

The owner of the store says, “Wait a minute.  My store, my window, my TV.  You don’t have a right to my property except on my terms”.

What then do you have?  A dispute over what?  Utilization of property.

Someone else says, “I have a right to burn down your bank. This is in the interest of freedom.  The reason we don’t have freedom, we haven’t burned down enough banks yet”.  Or blown up enough airports.  Or bombed enough theaters.

You know, this is the most common excuse today for these lunatics.  “You know, this is for freedom”.  Hijack the plane for freedom and kill everybody on it.  Brilliant.

What is a war?  It’s nothing more than a major dispute over property.  The political leader of one country says, “This territory is our property.  We have a right to this territory.  Therefore, we are going to take this territory”.

Another political leader on the other side, they say, “Nope, this is our territory.  You can’t have this territory”.  They go back and forth.  Finally one says, “There’s only one way to settle this dispute.  With arms.  Gentlemen, we will attack at dawn”.  Which means, freely translated, “Gentlemen, you will attack at dawn.  Keep me informed”.  Please note, the ones who authorize the wars are seldom the ones who are out in the foxhole.

A war, then, is simply a major dispute over a major amount of property. Every dispute is a dispute over just one thing.  Alright.  Now what if you could do this?  What if it’s possible to build a social technology that will greatly reduce the number of disputes over property in the first place?  And, secondly, if we can build the social technology that will resolve the remaining property disputes without violence, without bloodshed and without war, then the result of this magnificent achievement, ladies and gentleman, has got much to do with achieving this, freedom, as I defined it.    And this is done through the construction of a right social structure wherein freedom will prevail.  And what is the right social structure?  Well, it’s built upon two concepts.  One, rationality.  The other, morality.

Well, we have this technology and it will be disclosed in the lectures ahead, how it can be built and implemented.  For those of you who are intellectually curious, which I hope is all of you, I’m continuing the challenge that I left you with at the first half of Lecture 1.  And you remember what that was, all of you, at least who heard Lecture 1?  That’s right.  It was look through the tube.  I sincerely hope you will meet that challenge.  And if you do, I promise you a very exciting time in this course.  For example, in Session 4, as I said, I’m going to explain, identify, the law of nature that explains why all civilizations have perished in the past, why our own civilization is going right down the drain.  I will not offer the traditional explanation.  That doesn’t even come close to identifying the cause of the failure of civilization.  So we have to make a scientific identification of the cause

Many might ask, well, that’s all very interesting, but, I mean, I don’t get it.  What has preventing the destruction of our civilization, or understanding why all civilizations have perished and why all present ones are perishing, what’s that got to do with me?  How will this affect my business and the augmentation of my business profits?  Or how will this affect my family life or my marriage?  Or how will this affect my career?  How will this help me get ready for this weekend’s company?  Or help me improve the ability of my kid to hit balls with sticks?  Or whatever is important.  Of course, the classic question, is how will this improve my love life?  And so forth.

Well, in order to understand any of this, it takes what’s called an intellectual integration.  In Lecture 5, I’m going to use the absolute standard of rightness to refute some of the common economic fallacies.  In less than three hours, I will refute what took four years in order to get a degree in economics.  It takes about three hours to refute what took four years to get a degree in economics.  That’s all.  Using the scientific method, truth and validity.

I will discuss the rightness of what is called democracy.  Is democracy right or wrong?  What is democracy?  What is not democracy?  I will take a subject that almost everybody endorses.  I, too, endorsed this at one time.  I got an A in the course that endorsed this.  What was your grade?  I will take the entire concept of anti-trust legislation, which is the so-called cure for monopoly, and I will do to the entire concept of anti-trust legislation, the entire monopoly myth, I will do to that concept what Galileo did to Aristotle’s law of falling bodies, namely, reduce it to a hopeless absurdity, reductio ad absurdum.

Lecture 6 is the lecture on intellectual leverage.  I will explain why it is that only a handful of people have to understand any major cosmological or technological innovation, cosmological dealing with the laws of nature, in order for the innovation to have a major impact upon the world, explaining why it’s not necessary for the masses to understand the laws of thermodynamics in order to land on the moon.  What I discussed in Session 1, you don’t have to understand Maxwell’s equations in order to have television available to the masses.  I’ll go into this with much greater detail.  I’ll explain that the masses do not have to understand what is called scientific epistemology in order to build freedom either.  More on this later. In other words, that will be the lecture on integration, intellectual integration will be a major session.  Lecture 6 is the last session open to new people.  In order to attend, starting with Lecture 11, everyone must be enrolled.  You can enroll at the beginning of Lecture 7 and then you can make arrangements to pick up the sessions you’ve missed, 1 through 6.

Lecture 7 will be the lecture on false alternative or “Would you rather have a broken arm or a broken leg”?  Alright.  Let me find out.  How many of you would rather have a broken arm?  How many of you would rather have a broken leg?  We’ll come back to this.  How many aren’t sure?  I’ll have to think about that.  Of course, how many don’t care?

We’ll go into concepts called friendship.  I’ll explain why most people do not have any friends at all.  I didn’t say you didn’t have any friends.  But what the average person thinks is a friend, I will demonstrate is nothing more than a mere acquaintance.  I’ll discuss what this concept means.  Friendship versus acquaintanceship.  I’ll discuss things in that lecture, for example, the racial conflict problem, pathway to a solution.  Lecture 8, what happened to the American experiment with freedom?  Has the experiment failed?  An introduction to a rational moral concept of government and so forth, right government versus wrong government.

Sessions 9, 10, 11, 12, during these lectures, I will discuss the solution to the problem of coercion in principle.  How can we use the scientific method, rationality, to build a moral solution to man’s principal social problems, a rational solution?  I’ll discuss the ecology crisis, pathway to a solution.  How can you build a more mutually rewarding relationship between parents and children?  How can you increase the probability that your child will mature into a productive, rational, moral builder of useful products, useful services?  How can you improve much and enhance the probability that, for example, let’s say, your kid, son or daughter, is surrounded by all of their peers, all of their friends, and every one of their friends, let’s say, or associates, are urging them to take the latest drug or pop the latest pill.  How can you improve the probability that your son or daughter can look all of these people in the eye, all of them, stand completely and totally alone, among all of their peers, and say, “No.  You are all cracked.  Goodbye and good luck”.  And walk away, totally and completely alone in pursuit of what is right over what is popular.  If your kid can do that, when he’s still a kid, I predict great things for your son and daughter when they’re adults.  That’s just one of the small spin-off derivatives you get from this course.  I’ll have much to say about parents and children later.  What’s the difference between a competent parent versus an incompetent parent?  What’s the difference between a competent child versus an incompetent child?

We’ll get into many other things in the solutions part of the course:  a rational approach to national defense, a rational, practical technology that continually diminishes crime.  We’ll get into justice.  What is the attainment of justice for all people?  Lectures 13, 14, 15, 16, this is the section of the course on strategy.  How do you implement the solution?  Thirteen will be on the subject of individualism, discussing the impotency of the individual, a concept not understood.  Lecture 14 will be on education and how to achieve it; the difference between school versus education.  In other words, Kindergarten to Ph.D. versus a concept I will discuss in Lecture 14 called education, not to be confused with school.  Lecture 15, how you reach the masses.  How can you reach the people who cannot think, will not think, and who refuse to think?  In other words, how can you reach most people?  Lecture 16, defects of the corporation concept that limit market success.  How to apply the methods of science to build a durable social structure where justice prevails, where the individual’s incentive to innovate and to achieve right goals will flourish.

I gave you the first law of thermodynamics.  That’s the law of conservation of energy.  Applied to volition, it’s stated as follows: you cannot get something for nothing.  V-50 will not involve a sacrifice of your time, a sacrifice of your money.  But it will involve an investment of your time and your mind and a small amount of secondary property.  I claim the returns on this investment will be, at the very least, giant, paramount; staggering on the low side.  But, of course, you have to experience that for yourself.

My final statement for this lecture is a brief statement of strategy; how we can do any of this.  Well, the principal functions of any true science is to build solutions to problems.  For example, how can you travel from, let’s say, Los Angeles to New York, from San Ann, or what have you, Orange, without getting blisters on your feet and without being exposed to the elements?  Answer?  Solution?  Build a stagecoach.  It’s faster than walking and it’s clearly more comfortable.

Problem. How can you get from Los Angeles to New York without getting blisters on your bottom?  Answer: build a railroad and passenger coaches.  It’s faster than the stagecoach and it’s clearly more comfortable.

Problem: how can you get from Los Angeles to New York in even less time and in greater comfort than on a railroad coach?  Answer, solution: build a jet coach.  It’s faster and more comfortable.

One might be tempted to say, “Well, that’s all very obvious.  I already knew that”.  Perhaps.  But the purpose of the illustration is to call your attention to the means employed, the strategy employed to do what?  Build the solution.  Note: you do not have to blow up stagecoaches or tear down stagecoach factories in order to build a superior transportation technology called a railroad.  And you do not have to tear down the railroad in order to build an even more superior transportation technology called the airplane.

True science, if it is science, involves always a positive strategy.  The goal of science is not even to refute what is wrong, but to build what is right.  The reputation of what is wrong is a secondary derivative of the primary goal and that is to build a positive solution.  It’s important to recognize that when Galileo is performing experiments with free falling bodies, ladies and gentlemen, from the Leaning Tower at Pisa, off the leaning side, the reason he’s up there on that tower is not to refute Aristotle, not to make an ass out of Aristotle and show what a big hero he is.  He’s up there for one reason: to scientifically demonstrate that, when you drop a heavy object and a light object, they will fall at the same rate.  That makes it, then, a positive concept.

So I encourage and invite all of you to continue looking through the tube.  We will be taking enrollments at the end of this session.  We will apply your guest fee to the tuition.  You know the ground rules.  I hope you make the right decision. If you know intellectually curious people, I’ve passed out to you these weekend sessions I will be here in Orange County, presenting Lectures 1-4.  Not in this room, but if you look on here, at the Sheraton Anaheim Hotel, up the road apiece.  Most of you know where that is.  Saturday, November 12, Session 1, 9:30 a.m..  Lunch break 1 p.m.  Session 2, 2:30 p.m.  On Sunday, November 13, Session 3, 9:30 a.m..  Same time schedule.  Lunch break 1.  Session 4: 2:30 p.m..  I will be there to present these lectures.

A week earlier, at my regular Los Angeles airport location, at the Quality Inn, I will repeat the same schedule on the weekend of November 5 and 6.  If you know of any intellectually curious people – how many of you know someone who is curious and who has a mind who has never heard a V-50 lecture?   A number of you do.  Encourage them.  They can come next week to Lecture 4.  They can come to the weekend sessions.  You can still hear everything live.  So if you know some curious people, bring them down.  It won’t hurt you to hear the sessions over again.  They probably won’t make it on their own.  So come with them.  You can hear it over again as my guest.  I look forward to seeing you all again next week.  I bid you good evening.

© Sustainable Civilization Institute 2010