Eight dynamics

[Infinite]

Well it seems to have sustained Hubbard, in terms of wealth and power and egomania (i.e case) gone wild, for a fairly good portion of his life. Lol.

And yes, that aside, as a self-defined philosophically-applied-religious-doctrine (as a component) it is without doubt, ultimately unsustainable.

It occurs to me Hubbard's notion of "8 Dynamics of Spiritual Being" was originally innocently realized/imagined, though ultimately subverted to serve his own mind.

Which resulted in an almost predictable fate of a painful mental demise.

mm&I

Heh!! True - he died a very wealthy man - but, as you say, quite insane.

I'm not sure if L Ron Hubbard did "innocently" realise/imagine/plagiarise the Dynamics, simply based on the way they are applied within his cult. If they had been applied in the reverse order, specifically, "what's in the best interests of the lower dynamics" then no one would ever have had to compromise their integrity/health/family etc., so as to assist the higher ones. Yet, how many times do we hear recanting Scientologists saying they committed detrimental acts "for the greatest good". I sometimes ask myself, would these people have ever participated in nefarious deeds were it not for Hubbard's dynamics?

The OP is quite right in that the Eight Dynamics are a spiritual aspect of Scientology, but my instinct tells me the Dynamics are more designed to assist the evil spiritual aspects than the good. And deliberately so.

 

[Gottabrain]

I felt like starting a discussion about the eight dynamics because I found it to be the ONLY thing coming from Hubbard, that actually sounds nice and has something to do with spirituality.
In fact, I was so surprised to learn that Hubbard came up with the idea of Eight Dynamics, that I searched the web to find out whose original idea was it:wink2:

Well the original idea is much better. It was from the Field of Psychology (which L Ron didn't want anyone to read for fear they would see his plagiarisms, as well as discover that many of the original concepts were much better than Hubbard's variations) Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. He wrote several books explaining in detail the difference and balance and the height of spiritual needs and what a fully spiritually actualized person would be like. He used outstanding historical figures as models for what characteristics a fully actualized person would have.

Here is Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs:

You'd have to read his original books to get into the the depth of the mans' research into human needs and how when these are satisfied, the social and then spirituality needs are met. It's quite deep. He also talks about out of body experiences and peak experiences (not always the same thing) which are moments/times of deep spiritual realization. Psych 101 does not do the man justice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

 

[Leon]

Please be so kind as to explain to me where you see ANY correlation at all between the eight dynamics and Maslow's hierarchy of needs. I'm mystified.

 

[Gadfly]

Please be so kind as to explain to me where you see ANY correlation at all between the eight dynamics and Maslow's hierarchy of needs. I'm mystified.

I am too.

The ideas of the dynamics, as "urges to survive along key aspects of life", is fairly simple. Also, the idea that these areas of survival relate to each other (i.e. exchange).

If somebody else had a similar theory, it would be OBVIOUSLY similar. I studied Maslow in college, and his views are NOT "obviously similar".

Just saying. :confused2:

+++++++

 

[Jump]

Regarding discussion of whether Hubbard's 'dynamics' were an original concept:

From a recent email from Jon Atack:

It sounds very possible, as Hubbard gathered pretty much all of his philosophical concepts from Durant. I'll let you know if I find out any more. Someone once told me that the Code of Honour derives from a Gentleman's Code; the tone scale is from the four humours; and the Study Tech may well have come whole cloth from the Eastman Kodak home photo course that Hubbard talked about in the lectures (he often gave away his sources - so he refers to Crowley ['my very dear friend'] in the PDC course, whence much of the material came. I presume you've read my article about his plagiarism. It's out there somewhere on the net.

I found some links:
Sources (Lermanet): http://www.lermanet.com/sources.htm
Hubbard and the Occult: http://www.spaink.net/cos/essays/atack_occult.html
More Occult: http://www.sweenytod.com/cos/huboccult1.html
The Hubbard is Bare: http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=930&Itemid=12

 

[Leon]

The tone scale frm the four humours?????? You mean the Phelgmatic and all those? That is so far fetched it is even funny.

Sure Hubbard plagiarised thngs. But to generalise and say it is all plagiarised? No. Much of it was his own, and that should be acknowledged.

 

[Gadfly]

The tone scale frm the four humours?????? You mean the Phelgmatic and all those? That is so far fetched it is even funny.

Sure Hubbard plagiarised thngs. But to generalise and say it is all plagiarised? No. Much of it was his own, and that should be acknowledged.

I agree. It is really a BIG stretch at times trying to find the "real sources" for various aspects of Hubbard's subject materials.

What is wrong with just accepting that he MADE UP, largely himself, or greatly expanded upon various earlier existing ideas, and came up with a great deal of the NONSENSE & STUPIDITY himself? :confused2:

+++++++++++++

 

[guanoloco]

Hey, does anybody recall reading this?

It was back before a major Mayo/BPL purge of the early '90s - here it is:

I remember reading about standing waves and the tone scale and how they were originally thought of in this manner.

Each full-step was a node, as in 0.0, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0. Each half-step was an anti-node as in 0.5, 1.5, 2.5 and 3.5.

On each node/anti-node were the major emotions with gradients in between. People tended to gravitate to the nodes/anti-nodes as chronic tone levels and the gradients were brief acute tone levels.

The reference was very specific to this material and I have never been able to find this since.

At any rate, this makes the tone scale a true scale.

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Dynamics? Why not have 10 or 12 or 20 ?

Maybe 17 would be the right number..

Or 7 because that is how many children Hubbard fathered?


There is point to the number of dyamics somewhere... isn't there?

Can somebody do better with dynamics than " Hubbard said it, I believe it,...."

 

[Gadfly]

Dynamics? Why not have 10 or 12 or 20 ?

Maybe 17 would be the right number..

Or 7 because that is how many children Hubbard fathered?


There is point to the number of dyamics somewhere... isn't there?

Can somebody do better with dynamics than " Hubbard said it, I believe it,...."

But, Hubbard DID explain WHY there were eight.

The numberical "8" tilted on its side, 90 degrees to the right (or left) is the INFINITY symbol! Amazing, huh!!!?????

I used to read that and say to myself, "how fucking ridiculous is that".

As if somehow the "magic of numbers", and the very inherent make-up of the universe involved the NUMBER 8 somehow relating to "infinity". God, what idiocy that was!

But also, Hubbard did state that the eight categories were entirely ARBITRARY, and was done and used simply as a convenient tool for labeling, discussing and addressing various basic segments of life. Most people can understand the "first dynamic" as "self", and the "second dynamic" as "a small group involving sex and family". The "self" is important for most people, as is sex (and family). They ARE major basic divisions of life.

Hubbard also commented that "9th dynamic" might be "aesthetics", and that the "10th dynamic" was "probably ethics".

I have no problem with an arbitrary system used to breakdown life into its major areas of involvement by human beings. THAT is what it is.

I suggest that you make up some arbitrary list of the most BASIC segments of life that each person finds interesting, important or gets involved in. What would YOU find them to be, and what would YOU label them?

Personally, I don't think Hubbard did a bad job. Though I do find that the 7th and 8th are somewhat additives in that they involve the "invisible" realm of the unmanifest that speaks through the illusions of MEST (dynamics one through six). Of course, as an area of interest and involvement, and as a possible "finer level of energy", the "7th dynamic" sort of makes sense.

Hubbard never said that they were anything other than arbitrary and convenient. Also, he did define the dynamics as "URGES TO EXIST AS" or "URGES TO SURVIVE AS", and NOT as the areas of life themselves. Many confuse THAT distinction.

I suspect that if anyone sits down and really tries to come up with some simple list of the MAIN areas of life, that each of us have primary interest in, that it wouldn't be much different. Try it.

+++++++++++++++

 

[Auditor's Toad]

OK. OK. I get it.

Hubbard thought there were some people who needed it pointed out they weren't their spouse....or job.... or all mankind.

Some people obviously appreciated that important - and essentail - information that they ran out anf joined the sea org to help this great man spread the world all over earth.

Bully for them !

 

[guanoloco]

I would say that the previous works are probably not copywrited and have had no interested party to attempt a lawsuit.

From Jon Atack's email yesterday:


Jon said he would let me know if he can identify that book.

/\/\/\BUMP, JUMP!/\/\/\​

 

[SweetnessandLight]

I felt like starting a discussion about the eight dynamics because I found it to be the ONLY thing coming from Hubbard, that actually sounds nice and has something to do with spirituality.
In fact, I was so surprised to learn that Hubbard came up with the idea of Eight Dynamics, that I searched the web to find out whose original idea was it:wink2:

Anyway, to me- as someone who was never involved in Scientology, but read so much about it in the past two years, and am a spiritual person in general- the division of self, sex and family (oh yeah, "creativity". Sorry Miscavige, please don't hit me), group, human race, different life forms, physical world, spirituality and finally infinity (may it not be Xenu-_-)-
it's all quite universal and seems almost as an attempt at..*gasp*..actual philosophy.
Of course me and Hubbard can never really agree on anything, and thus for me the dynamics could represent reality forms and not ways of survival.

But anyhow, what do you, as Ex-Scientologists, think nowadays about Hubbard's dynamics? Does it seem a bit "non-scientologish" or am I being optimistic?
And.. are the dynamics of any use during the 'way up the bridge' with the auditing and thetans and all that?

Sad, limiting, fragmented, schizophrenic...

It's an engineer's world view of cutting up the wonderful inter-related wholistic totality of life, the Universe and everything (inclusive of the known, the unknown, and the unknowable...now THAT'S philosophy ) into "manageable" compartments. It's just that, compartmentalization. It's kindergarten-think for a self-help movement or modern mental health system for those who don't think much!

That's what I think of it. Philosophy, it ain't!

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Hey, does anybody recall reading this?

It was back before a major Mayo/BPL purge of the early '90s - here it is:

I remember reading about standing waves and the tone scale and how they were originally thought of in this manner.

Each full-step was a node, as in 0.0, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0. Each half-step was an anti-node as in 0.5, 1.5, 2.5 and 3.5.

On each node/anti-node were the major emotions with gradients in between. People tended to gravitate to the nodes/anti-nodes as chronic tone levels and the gradients were brief acute tone levels.

The reference was very specific to this material and I have never been able to find this since.

At any rate, this makes the tone scale a true scale.

FREAKING ENGINEERS!!! I just want to paddle them all. This is no way to manage your or anyone's else mind or emotions, unless you are an Aspie! Stay out of mental health, medicine, social work and child rearing! Stick with building and repairing MEST!

 

[Gadfly]

Never forget these great words of Hubbard:

The eighth dynamic is the "infinity" or God dynamic, because the number eight tilted on its side is the infinity symbol!

That above was actually stated by Hubbard and involves an extreme absurdity of ANY sort of logic. But then, Hubbard rarely used logic, and instead, usually, he simply tossed out assertions and his moronic followers endlessly "make sense of it all". The above sentence very well displays the type of "research" and "thought" that went into MUCH of Hubbard's "subject material".

And, please, the notion of "survival as Infinity" or "surviving as God" is completely ludicrous. If anything, God emanates out through the various aspects of manifested existence and "things survive", but God (or Infinity) is a bit "above that" (or "below that").

I think Hubbard added the eighth dynamic because he preferred even numbers . . . . :confused2:

I think the notion of the dynamics would be MUCH more useful if the idea of "surviving as" or "existing as" were entirely removed. While possibly God "exists as" the "sun, stars and planets" (6th dynamic), outside of an overactive imagination, I doubt any human beings do. And, in the same way, just as God may "survive through" or manifest as "lifeforms", other than "having a body", few humans do.

Yes, we have INTERESTS in various living things (5th dynamic) - my dog, your cat, animals in the zoo, my gorgeous front lawn, my vegetable garden, etc., but to call this "surviving as" is ridiculous. It seems to me that once Hubbard looked around and noticed that just about everything was persisting through time (i.e. "surviving"), he went a bit overboard with this "survival is the basis of everything" nonsense. And, then he writes endless policies to "help" HIS group SURVIVE. As with so much, Hubbard may have wanted his followers to accept the dumb idea that SURVIVE was the basis of all life, so that he could get his herd to work VERY HARD at making HIS mock-ups SURVIVE!

I might have an interest in astronomy, enjoy walking in the mountains, but I really think that such INTERESTS and attractions have little or nothing to do with "an urge to survive as the 6th dynamic".

To me, Hubbard made up this list of the dynamics, and then all these people forever make everything FIT INTO HIS FRAMEWORK.

They are NOT areas of "urges to survive". Yes, you might have a biological urge to procreate on the 2D, but I truly doubt that people have ANY "urge to exist as some demented group like the Church of Scientology" (3D). Yes, some people enjoy a sense of community, but that is NOT the same thing as having some fundamental URGE that streams throughout the universe pushing to manifest as "groups".

At best the dynamics are an arbitrary categorization of areas of life that any person may or may not take an interest in. And, if you are really ABERRATED, yes, THEN you have URGES!!!! Lots of them. Along ALL of the various dynamics.

Finally, a path of spirituality should lead to a disentanglement with identifications and attachments, or at least an awakening to the fact that you DO identify with a great many things that you are not - every single thing on every dynamic. The notion of the dynamics might have a use in THAT regard, as a general grouping of the key areas where any human being can and does attach and identify with. Then, a valid use of auditing might be to help reduce and eradicate all the many various identifications along these areas of life. But, that isn't how Scientology works and that isn't what it does.

I could see how a way might be worked out to redesign some of Hubbard's techniques to do that, but THAT would have to be clearly spelled out as the GOAL. Instead of immersing a person MORE into MEST, with aims to "flourish and prosper", "expand control over the environment", and "win the game of life", one would instead, along a more traditional Buddhist approach, enter into this as a REAL SPIRITUAL PRACTICE that aims to reduce any person's attachments and identifications with all of the great many things he or she is NOT.

But, as it is, Scientology is a money-making scheme that PRETENDS to be a "spiritual practcie", and which instead, at best, is some over-hyped New Age self-help type of deal. With a great deal of "seriousness" and "desire to convert" added to the mix.

 

[guanoloco]

Never forget these great words of Hubbard:

The eighth dynamic is the "infinity" or God dynamic, because the number eight tilted on its side is the infinity symbol!

That above was actually stated by Hubbard and involves an extreme absurdity of ANY sort of logic. But then, Hubbard rarely used logic, and instead, usually, he simply tossed out assertions and his moronic followers endlessly "make sense of it all". The above sentence very well displays the type of "research" and "thought" that went into MUCH of Hubbard's "subject material".

And, please, the notion of "survival as Infinity" or "surviving as God" is completely ludicrous. If anything, God emanates out through the various aspects of manifested existence and "things survive", but God (or Infinity) is a bit "above that" (or "below that").

I think Hubbard added the eighth dynamic because he preferred even numbers . . . . :confused2:

I think the notion of the dynamics would be MUCH more useful if the idea of "surviving as" or "existing as" were entirely removed. While possibly God "exists as" the "sun, stars and planets" (6th dynamic), outside of an overactive imagination, I doubt any human beings do. And, in the same way, just as God may "survive through" or manifest as "lifeforms", other than "having a body", few humans do.

Yes, we have INTERESTS in various living things (5th dynamic) - my dog, your cat, animals in the zoo, my gorgeous front lawn, my vegetable garden, etc., but to call this "surviving as" is ridiculous. It seems to me that once Hubbard looked around and noticed that just about everything was persisiting through time (i.e. "surviving"), he went a bit overboard with this "survival is the basis of everything" nonsense. And, then he writes endless policies to "help" HIS group SURVIVE. As with so much, Hubbard may have wanted his followers to accept the dumb idea that SURVIVE was the basis of all life, so that he could get his herd to work VERY HARD at making HIS mock-ups SURVIVE!

I might have an interest in astronomy, enjoy walking in the mountains, but I really think that such INTERESTS and attractions have little or nothing to do with "an urge to survive as the 6th dynamic".

To me, Hubbard made up this list of the dynamics, and then all these people forever make everything FIT INTO HIS FRAMEWORK.

They are NOT areas of "urges to survive". Yes, you might have a biological urge to procreate on the 2D, but I truly doubt that people have ANY "urge to exist as some demented group like the Church of Scientology" (3D). Yes, some people enjoy a sense of community, but that is NOT the same thing as having some fundamental URGE that streams throughout the universe pushing to manifest as "groups".

At best the dynamics are an arbitrary categorization of areas of life that any person may or may not take an interest in. And, if you are really ABERRATED, yes, THEN you have URGES!!!! Lots of them. Along ALL of the various dynamics.

Finally, a path of spirituality should lead to a disentanglement with identifications and attachments, or at least an awakening to the fact that you DO identify with a great many things that you are not - every single thing on every dynamic. The notion of the dynamics might have a use in THAT regard, as a general grouping of the key areas where any human being can and does attach and identify with. Then, a valid use of auditing might be to help reduce and eradicate all the many various identifications along these areas of life. But, that isn't how Scientology works and that isn't what it does.

I could see how a way might be worked out to redesign some of Hubbard's techniques to do that, but THAT would have to be clearly spelled out as the GOAL. Instead of immersing a person MORE into MEST, with aims to "flourish and prosper", "expand control over the environment", and "win the game of life", one would instead, along a more traditional Buddhist approach, enter into this as a REAL SPIRITUAL PRACTICE that aims to reduce any person's attachments and identifications with all of the great many things he or she is NOT.

But, as it is, Scientology is a money-making scheme that PRETENDS to be a "spiritual practcie", and which instead, at best, is some over-hyped New Age self-help type of deal. With a great deal of "seriousness" and "desire to convert" added to the mix.

When I compare this to non-dualism it seems to make sense. However, I only understand this intellectually and not experientially as I'm not enlightened as in ego-death to any extent.

 

[pnut]

Gadfly, I'm completely with you on this. I remember when starting this thread, I stated that I thought the concept of the Eight Dynamics could be interesting to observe not as "ways to survive" but as ways to observe and\or experience the world
or life.

Philosophy, it ain't!

SweetnessandLight, I didn't really think it was philosophy. If I remember right, I said something along the lines of "it seems like an attempt at a philosophy".
As someone who've never read Hubbard's books, I struggled for the life of me to
understand where's the alleged 'philosophy' part of scientology supposed to be,
and..well..the Eight Dynamics were the only thing that fit somehow lol.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Gadfly, I'm completely with you on this. I remember when starting this thread, I stated that I thought the concept of the Eight Dynamics could be interesting to observe not as "ways to survive" but as ways to observe and\or experience the world
or life. ...

And how exactly is that different from 'surviving'? ...



Two rules of thumb:

1. A literal interpretation is usually an impediment to conceptual understanding.

2. Whenever possible choose conceptual understanding.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Jump]

Originally Posted by Jump
I would say that the previous works are probably not copywrited and have had no interested party to attempt a lawsuit.

From Jon Atack's email yesterday:


Jon said he would let me know if he can identify that book.

/\/\/\BUMP, JUMP!/\/\/\​

I think Jon is basically over the whole thing, Durrant and Scovel-Shinn were mentioned earlier. Jon said his article might be useful:
http://www.spaink.net/cos/essays/atack_origin.html
It has a lot of information, but I don't think its by any means definitive or complete, but it is rather long.

The area of historical development of systems and ideas is difficult because so many of that kind of book is now out of print and difficult to find, and have also been discarded by contemporary libraries. Also, much of Hubbard's background is in the secret satanic societies with closed libraries.

Hubbard's genius was in whacking something together with such enthusiasm, charisma and bravado (and creation of a system of persistent peer pressure) as to 'make it true' for many.

 

[Ulduz]

I always wanted to know what the 8-th Dynamic is. There is not much information about it other than it is called the Infinite. But God is also called the Infinite. It seems to me that LRH reserved this Dynamic for himself -- after all, he is the incarnation of Buddha. Perhaps, some day he will be called God Hubbard (move over, God Jehovah!)