Dynamics out of balance
by Paul M. Foster
Let’s look at history.
The first principle worked out by LRH in Dianetics and Scientology was that life was attempting to SURVIVE! Right along behind this came the four dynamics of Dianetics and the eight dynamics of Scientology. These were the paths along with Man was seeking to survive. Throughout the late 40s, 50s, and early 60s, there was apparently room for all eight dynamics in Scientology. At some point between that time and the time I got into
Scientology (the mid 1970s), several of the dynamics got lost and it all became about the third dynamic.
Before I go any further, let me make a point here about ethics and administration. There are those (quite a few) in the Field currently, who would have us all believe that there were fundamental flaws in ethics and admin which forced the virtual exclusion of all but the third dynamic in considering the optimum solution to any problem. While this assertion may seem credible depending on the argument made, it is, in point of fact,
Someone recently made an analogy, and my apologies to that person, because I don’t recall who it was. But it was a very clever assertion. It was more or less along these lines: you can take an Ethics Book and stick it up
at the North Pole, and it will have no influence whatsoever on anyone. It will be completely inert. On the other hand, that same book (and the tech within) can have a good or bad influence, depending on who is using it and
for what purpose. This indicates that the flaws which cause the total worship of the third dynamic don’t spring from the techs of ethics and admin, but in their application by those who do not have the best of intentions.
When I came on staff in 1976, straight off the HAS Course, no one told me I’d be getting $10 or less a week, and have to have a “day job” in order to survive. Once I found that out, I hoped against hope that it would only be
a little while before we’d all be making good money at the Org and we could abandon our day jobs. It never happened. And I found out later that this was the case at almost every Org across the planet.
When I joined staff, it was made clear to me that I would need to make time to get my hatting in. I’m not sure how I was supposed to do that. Maybe at 2am in the morning? No, between a day job and my post time, there really
was no time for me to get trained in the tech for any post I might hold. And the furthest you could go up the Bridge in a Class IV Org (as they were designated at the time) was Grade IV completion (at the time, the Grades were run after Dianetics). And that was if you could be sessionable (um… right), if you could carve out the time (sure,
no problem), and if your student auditor made no significant mistakes on your case. Guess how often someone on staff for 2-1/2 or 5 years made it all the way to Grade IV. (By the way, there is policy that says various posts in the Org must have periodic ruds flown because of what they have to deal with on a day to day basis. How often do you think that happened?) And once you were done with your contract as a staff member, it was up to you to work out how you were going to pay for your Grades V, VI, Clearing Course and OT levels. (This was long before the idea of the Universe Corps which, when finally implemented in a very limited way, was subsequently sabotaged.)
Oddly enough, you would think that those in the Sea Org would have an easier time of it. In the Sea Org, there was no moonlighting. Moonlighting was obviated by the fact that you couldn’t even get into the Sea Org if you
had heavy or ongoing debts which might pull you off post. You were expected to devote full time to the Sea Org. And since Org policy also applied to Sea Org orgs, you would expect that the edict to get your 2-1/2 hours of
hatting/training/enhancement in every day would be an easy one to fulfill. You’d expect highly trained and processed Sea Org personnel everywhere you went. Not so. Why? Because Sea Org personnel enhancement was regularly cross-ordered and sabotaged. In fact, about the only way you might guarantee getting good solid enhancement time was to screw up royally and be placed in the RPF. And then at some point, the RPF became mainly a pool of people management could practice “Fair Game” on (contrary to LRH policy on the RPF).
I remember asking a Sea Org recruiter one time, if I wanted to join the Sea Org, but I also wanted to write the Great American Novel, could I do it? “Oh sure. Why, so-and-so SO member just finished writing a novel!” Or learn to paint. “Yep, so-and-so SO member just finished two paintings.” Or practice a musical instrument. “Oh definitely. So-and-so….” Right. I had my doubts, and now that I know a lot more about Sea Org life, I can pretty
much guarantee you’d never get to do those things in the Sea Org unless you worked at Gold or you could manage to do some some of that stuff on a vacation (if you could manage one of those).
The point of the above is that, if you were involved in third dynamic activities under contract to the Church of Scientology, (from at least the mid-1970s on) you might as well kiss your other dynamics good bye, at least
for a while. Currently, the Church is known to sabotage the first dynamic of staff, shred the second, demand total ascendency of the third, and has attempted to do everything it can to ensure that the fourth dynamic is never salvaged. The other dynamics? What other dynamics?
And none of this is particularly the fault of ethics itself or LRH policy. It is, sadly, the result of just the opposite:
1. Failure to know LRH policy.
2. Failure to follow LRH policy.
3. Failure to insist on LRH policy being followed.
4. Deliberate mis-use or misapplication of LRH policy.
5. Substituting something else for policy (like “Command Intention”) and insisting that is policy.
So much for history.
Now let’s look at something else:
“Optimum Solution: the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.”
That’s from the HCO Manual of Justice and before that from Notes On The Lectures.
In a number of places, Ron expands on this idea. The optimum solution doesn’t mean there will be no destruction on one dynamic or another. Some destruction may be necessary for the optimum solution. It doesn’t mean no one gets hurt. Causing harm to one or more people may be necessary for the optimum solution. It just means what it says: the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.
Note that Ron does not refer to this as the “perfect” solution. It is, instead, the “optimum” solution. There are no absolutes here. And conditions on the dynamics may change from minute to minute, year to year.
But here’s what the “Optimum Solution” doesn’t mean: The greatest good for thethird dynamic. The third dynamic is just one of many.
Now before I go on, I’ve also heard people say that no one dynamic is more important than any other, and that they all must, in that sense be in balance. This is questionable. Honor and personal integrity enter in here, and there may well be times where one dynamic must take precedence over others.
Imagine yourself on the deck of a ship in rough seas. You’re secured to the deck, so you you won’t get far from the ship, even though you may drown if the ship goes down. But not far from you is a ship mate, not secured to the deck. The waves are starting to come over the deck and your ship mate is in real danger of slipping overboard and drowning. At this point, there are two dynamics involved, the first and the third. The rest are completely irrelevant. You either do something quickly to save your ship mate, or you let him drown. You don’t have time to take out your Ethics Book or your iPad and calculate which dynamics might be affected and
how. You have to make an instant decision based on two dynamics.
Similar situations abound, mostly in the midst of emergencies. The point is that there are often cases where the importance of the individual dynamics cannot be equal, and some may be positively excluded from your calculations.
If you want to gain a greater mastery of the scope and relation of all the dynamics to you, I suggest you have someone assist you in running “Conditions and Exchange By Dynamics”. So far as I know this action can be
done off a meter, but the potential increase in ARC (and KRC) for all the dynamics is profound. Honestly done, you are likely to have numerous cognitions. I know I did.
In addition, it might be instructive to study the operation of the old time missions (franchises) of Scientology (pre-1982). My understanding is that many of them did not suffer from the same monomania of the third dynamic
that Orgs did. They were more pleasant places to work and staff got paid better. At least that’s my understanding. No one has done a full and exhaustive study of the subject. I do know that Orgs were excessively
managed by CLOs and FOLOs and missions weren’t. (One of many facts which might turn up in an eval of the subject. I am not forwarding this as the only factor or as a “why”.)
In any case, my point is that, in going forward we would be wise not to repeat the mistakes of the Church in our own affairs. Unfortunately, we’ve been given the chance to start over, to form groups and our own organizations in the Field. As we do so, we must keep in mind how Orgs and Sea Org orgs managed to get things wrong. (And a more thorough, searching evaluation than I’ve done is called for.)
Each dynamic is part of the impulse to survive. And in general, each must be given a reasonable weight, given the circumstances of any anticipated action. That doesn’t mean that the third dynamic wins all the time. It means that the third dynamic may or may not be the most important dynamic to consider in any given circumstances, and that the other dynamics should be considered as well. And it is your duty to be vigilant about your dynamics. Don’t let them be abandoned, sabotaged, or not-ised by others when operating as a group member. Give the third dynamic its due. But don’t let it constantly overshadow every other consideration. If your third dynamic is constantly being paraded as the most important, and your other dynamics are suffering, do something about it and give the reason why.