The "dynamics" as they are known in Scn and the freezone -- whether the four human dynamics of Dianetics, the eight of Scn, or the 16 backed by the 64 goals discovered in an implant by Ken Ogger -- are nothing more than an arbitrary construct. I realize that might sound like a radical statement to some people, but it's true. The dynamics are arbitrary, and they were apparently deliberately built. Obediance to these dynamics is part of the anatomy of a being's disability. Okay that was the second radical statement. It means that the dynamics act as an aberration. These statements might sound radical to some people for the simple reason that the Co$ teaches the dynamics as positive guides. That's a partial truth and a partial lie. Like any great lie, it is a mixture of truth and lies. Please don't get the idea from that second statement that the life indicated through dynamics should be ignored, or that a person should go on a rampage of destruction against survival on any or all dynamics. Hardly. Going ape and swinging on a vine over to assuming the oppgoal is never the way to go. The positive, creative actions involved in survival are good. But their very definitions are the problem. Having your mate be a 2nd dynamic instead of a first for example is almost inviting the husband or wife to become an oppterm instead of a part of "me." More on this later... Instead what needs to be done is to dig oneself out from under the fixed points of view laid in by these dynamics. For they are an "implant", whether by willing agreement or forced reality. An important thing to remember about them is that they have the effect of canalizing a being's point of view into narrow channels; and also they have the effect of reinforcing GPMs, which are tagged to and channeled through, specific dynamics.
The truth is that a being is everything around him. There is nothing a person can encounter that is not that person. I realize that statement seems to conflict with other data that a being is a Nothing. The resolution of this apparent conflict lies in the characteristics of the life static, which when viewed has the appearance of an infinite nothingness. An "infinite nothingness" is both everything and nothing. Working back down from that higher truth it can be seen that any being can be said to be not any matter-energy-space-time, and all those things -- and here's the important part -- at WILL. So that leaves us with a thetan/spirit/being which is a nothing that can BE everything. This is the real pan-determinism. Pan-determinism consists of BEING everything. LRH put forth the idea of pan-determinism being a broad sweep of control and responsibility. That is a partial truth, but it fails to get to the bottom of the matter. True pan-determinism is high ARC BEING all terminals in a game. And if you are something, of course you can control it. But in a normal person this beingness has been divided into fragments. Part of the anatomy of that fragmentation is the division of beingness into the broad classes called by us the dynamics of survival. This division makes it easier for a being to abandon an area because it can be viewed as not "self". This makes it easier for a person to narrow themselves down into only being the first dynamic. It also makes it easier for one dynamic to be set against another. It also makes it easier to create GPMs because the terminal, the oppterm and the goal itself are all parts of the being who is having the GPM. These parts are often at least partially defined by the dynamics. It's sort of a game of "let's divide me against myself."
These ideas can be disturbing. A person doesn't like to think that they are creating their own opposition, by splitting off and abandoning part of themselves. There are also some people who cannot "have", cannot allow themselves, the thought or idea that at the very highest levels of static and Native State they are everyone else. This disturbs them mightily, as if they were violating some powerful agreement made long ago. But denial is useless in the face of truth, and this truth explains much. Examples:
The need to run other flows in session than zero, one and two. If you weren't also part of other people then why would it be necessary to audit "others to others?"
There is such a thing as auditing over the telephone with the auditor holding the cans and seeing the processee's reads show up on the meter before him. Forget the usual puerile jibberjabber about telepathy, this works because the auditor by getting into ARC with the PC is actually experiencing the PC's case. That's telepathy alright, but not telepathy as it's usually explained. Telepathy is normally explained as a type of communication. Bosh. That's right, I said "bosh." All communication is for, is to establish duplication, which is a mutual beingness. Communication is affinity on a via. That's all it is. And in processing over a telephone the spiritual distance between auditor and PC vanishes, and whatdoyouknow! The PC's case is seen reacting on the meter whose cans are held by the auditor! Robert Ducharme and others are doing this with great success. But what would make that work if one wasn't on both ends of the phone?
There is such a thing as auditing one person, and having another person receive case gain from it. This happened to John McMaster when he was at Saint Hill. He had a bad break in affinity with his father, and when John ran out the problem on his end in England, his father in South Africa cleaned up on it too! This is from Homer's archives, JM-1, a taped lecture given by John on 12/1/84:...various wonderful things happened. Like I told you the circumstancesTelepathy is an inadequate and misleading word. It only implies communication across a distance. A second being is cleared of an ARCx because the first one ran it out? How can that be unless they are the same being at some level? After all, this action implies MUTUAL CASE.
under which my father had insisted that I came to Saint Hill.
Now, during one of these sessions, to tell the truth, you know the
goal to tell the truth, and running the Service Facsimile, you have got
to be able to communicate to be right, sort of thing, I looked at the
situation between my father and me. And I was able to take almost
complete responsibility because I understood, apparently, so much more
than he did, but I did not know whilst I was living in the same
environment, that I understood so much more than he did. I just assumed
he understood and so I had been irresponsible in assuming that he knew
more than I did because he was an older man. Fact of the matter is he
And as I took responsibility for those things which happened
between us and I blew all my own aberrations on it and the charge on it,
a wonderful thing happened. It was in one session when I realized what
I had done to bring about the situation between my father and myself.
And all of a sudden, out of the blue, as long as it take to get a letter
from Durbin, South Africa to Saint Hill, Sussex, England, there was an
airmail letter for me, from my father saying, "Dear John, I am so glad
that you have found such a worthwhile thing to do in such a troubled
And I just thought, my word, how wonderful, that there is this
telepathic communication, because I hadn't written and told them
(LRH barely touched upon this phenomena of beings who are one at a higher level back in 1952, then abandoned it. He speaks of this in Lecture 20A of the Hubbard College Lectures (HCL-20A) of 10 MAR 52, also issued as the third cassette of the Time Track of Theta series. This has also been called the History of Man Lectures I believe. Read or listen to that lecture.)
Another example in the 2nd dynamic of sex and children: anyone who has experienced a marriage has had plenty of times when they just knew what their partner knew or thought or wanted. And it wasn't as if the information flew across the room either -- they just KNEW it. Isn't this BEING your spouse?
Another example is in the "group mind" which often occurs in groups, even groups of apparent strangers.
Another example is in the communion among BTs in clusters, and other composite situations. How can these beingnesses function as one in spite of their oneness being a 3rd postulate/not-is/use of forced affinity -- unless they were ultimately/originally one anyway?
All of these examples above point at the truth, a truth that in the past has been badly represented in some cases, misrepresented in others, and flatly denied in still more. The usefulness of this truth is that is assists us when we take a fresh look at the composite structure of ourselves and recognize both abandonment and misownership. The dynamics are just another way we use to separate ourselves into individuated little bits. A wife and husband should each regard the other as a part of themselves, rather than a second dynamic separated from self. Always remember that separation is a lie. It was a lie to separate into thetans, it was a lie to separate the thetans by dynamics, it was a lie to split off denied pieces of ourselves when we placed them on others, it was a lie not to recognize the prior assignment of other beingness in pieces of others which we had accepted as ourselves in present time. And even though they have come down the track through theta lines long separated from our own, it was a lie not recognize ourselves in cows, starlings, mosquitos, trees, rocks, planets and galaxies.
Name a dynamic -- there you are. But don't canalize yourself into looking at the universe through only those dynamics. Free yourself from those narrow channels. Look at anything. It is yours. It is you.
back to index