Alteration of Scientology Materials Report



Alter-is of LRH Materials in Published Church Materials
Misapplication of Scientology Materials


Introduction to Scientology Ethics Book


Life Orientation Course Materials


Division 6 Course



Researched & Written by


Gene Zimmer

Clearwater, FL 33763



Introduction


The situation described in this report is especially significant because Scientology public and staff in orgs and missions all across the world are using an incorrect definition of the Second Dynamic as a basis for various Scientology methods and processes.


When a basic definition is changed, such as the “second dynamic” in this case, then what any PC or student is “doing” with their mind changes when the process is now ”applied” with a different understanding of basic terms. Exchange by Dynamics does not result in the same “process” if one uses “creativity” as the definition of the Second Dynamic instead of “sex and family”. In fact, WHAT the person will be “doing” will change as the definition changes. The results are different. The EP cannot be the same because the person is “doing” something different. This is true for anything done using Scientology where a correct understanding of the “second dynamic” is required.


MAA’s have been steering public and staff to use the “new” definition of the 2D.


There is no minor thing and anyone in charge of the application of Scientology processes in any org should be concerned about what is happening under their jurisdiction. Please read on. This is a KSW violation of severe magnitude.











SECTION ONE

Section One


The quote below is taken from the most recent printing of the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book. This quote also appears in the LOC pack, and in a basic course pack (the name of which I do not recall). Apparently it is also appearing now in other publications.


Please read the paragraph below. Ask yourself if it makes sense, and if it aligns with the rest of extant LRH data in the related areas.


The SECOND DYNAMIC is CREATIVITY. Creativity is making things for the future and the second dynamic includes any creativity. The second dynamic contains the family unit and the rearing of children as well as anything that can be categorized as a family unit. It also incidentally includes sex as a mechanism to compel future survival.


Break it down into sentences and consider each of them.


The SECOND DYNAMIC is CREATIVITY.


Creativity is making things for the future and the second dynamic includes any creativity.


The second dynamic contains the family unit and the rearing of children as well as anything that can be categorized as a family unit.


It also incidentally includes sex as a mechanism to compel future survival.


Ask how each line can be that way, and ask how each line could not be that way. Pull out the Data Series and apply the various ideas to these statements. Compare these statements with all other extant LRH references on the second dynamic and creativity.


If you notice or realize that the first two sentences are totally false, that the last two alter the pure meaning of the second dynamic, and shouldn’t exist in print as legitimate LRH materials, close this report, because there is no need to read any further. Then take immediate actions to get the false data canceled and the books reprinted with correct LRH data.


If you somehow think, consider, maintain, believe or remain convinced that the above sentences “make sense” in any way, and are consistent with all other LRH data on the second dynamic, then please continue reading the report.











SECTION TWO

Non-Contradictory Definitions of The Second Dynamic


The definitions given here are taken from LRH books and issues. I have recently re-read over 15 LRH books. I also sat down with all the OEC, Management and Technical Volumes, Tech Dictionary, Admin Dictionary, What Is Scientology, and the Volunteer Ministers Handbook. I have searched and read every index listing for “second dynamic”, “dynamic”, “sex”, “family”, “procreation”, “create”, “creativity”, and “creation”. A sampling is given below of definitions from many different sources that consistently define the second dynamic as sex, family and/or the continuance of the race.


There were NO definitions found in any reference that define it as given in the LOC pack and new Introduction to Scientology Ethics book. In fact, there was not one reference even remotely close.


There are a few non-definition type cases where the second dynamic is discussed in relation to the idea of creation or creating, and these are discussed in another write-up included in this report.


THE SECOND DYNAMIC – is the urge toward existence as a sexual or bisexual activity. This dynamic actually has two divisions. Second Dynamic (a) is the sexual act itself and the Second Dynamic (b) is the family unit, including the rearing of children. This can be called the SEX DYNAMIC. (Fundamentals of Thought, Chapter Four)


AXIOM 55. SURVIVAL EFFORT FOR AN ORGANISM INCLUDES THE DYNAMIC THRUST BY THAT ORGANISM FOR THE SURVIVAL OF ITSELF, ITS PROCREATION, ITS GROUP, IT’S SUB-SPECIES, ALL LIFE ORGANISMS, MATERIAL UNIVERSE, THE LIFE STATIC AND, POSSIBLY, A SUPREME BEING. (Advanced Procedures and Axioms)


2. Survival through Children (includes sexual act). (Advanced Procedures and Axioms)


2. Sex and family (future generations). (The Creation of Human Ability)


The SECOND dynamic is SEX. This dynamic has two sections, 2s and 2c. The first section is sex itself, the sexual act, anything relating to the physical action of sex. The second section is the urge for survival through children, the product of sex. This dynamic also includes a portion of the family since the family as a unit affects the rearing of children. (Handbook for Preclears)


THE SECOND DYNAMIC – is the urge toward existence as a sexual or bisexual activity. This dynamic actually has two divisions. Second Dynamic (a) is the sexual act itself and the Second Dynamic (b) is the family unit, including the rearing of children. (P.A.B. No. 83)


The second dynamic is the urge toward survival through sex, both the act and the production and raising of children. (Introduction to Scientology Ethics – Previous Edition)


The Second Dynamic is the urge toward survival through sex, or children. (Scientology 0-8)


Second, the urge to survive through sex in the procreation of children. (Scientology 8-8008)


Second dynamic has two divisions – first – Sex as an act. Second – Children and the family, the future. (Notes on the Lecture)


Second Dynamic – Sex and Family (Notes on the Lecture)


THE SECOND DYNAMIC is the urge towards survival through sex or children. This dynamic actually has two divisions. Second Dynamic (a) is the sexual act itself and the Second Dynamic (b) is the family unit, including the rearing of children. (Notes on the Lecture)


DYNAMIC TWO is the urge of the individual toward ultimate survival via the sex act, the creation of and the rearing of children. It includes their symbiotes, the extension of culture for them, and their future provision. (Dianetics)


DYNAMIC TWO is the urge of the individual toward survival through procreation; it includes both the sex act and the raising of progeny, the care of children and their symbiotes. (Dianetics)


The Second Dynamic is divided in two parts.

The first part of the Second Dynamic is the sexual act, which is as itself for itself. That includes sensation, pleasure, pain and other things people get out of it.

The second part of the Second Dynamic is children, care and raising of. (The Second Dynamic book)


This is the column devoted to the second dynamic. This dynamic would normally be called sex. In Dianetics, one considers sex to be divided into parts; the sexual act; and the product of sex, children. (Science of Survival)


Dynamic Two is the urge of the individual to survive through his progeny. The second dynamic has two main sub-divisions, the sexual act and the creation of children and their rearing. (Science of Survival)


The second dynamic is the urge toward existence as a future generation. It has two compartments: sex; and the family unit, including the rearing of children. (The Scientology Handbook, chapter The Dynamics of Existence)


Creating the Second Dynamic Lectures – A dynamic is an urge toward existence in an area of life. The second dynamic is the urge toward existence as a future generation. It has two compartments: sex, and the family unit. (Description: The Scientology Handbook)


THE SECOND DYNAMIC – is the urge toward existence as a sexual or bisexual activity. This dynamic actually has two divisions. Second Dynamic (a) is the sexual act itself and the Second Dynamic (b) is the family unit, including the rearing of children. This can be called the SEX DYNAMIC. (The Volunteer Minister’s Handbook)


The second dynamic has two compartments: one is sex and the other is the rearing of children. This dynamic is man’s urge toward survival as a future generation. On the first dynamic he is an individual. But by sex – procreation – he creates other individuals and future generations. This is an urge toward survival through children. (Personal Values & Integrity Course pack)


THE DYNAMIC OF SEX embraces the procreation of progeny, the care of that progeny, and the securing for that progeny of better survival conditions and abilities in the future. (Dianetics: The Original Thesis)


2) Children (How to Live Though an Executive, glossary)


On the second dynamic, family and sex, we have gotten into a winning position. We know the answers to marriage, children, and sex. (HCOPL 23 June 1960; The Special Zone Plan)


The dynamics are: One, self; Two, sex; Three, group; Four, mankind; Five, life; Six; the physical universe; Seven; thought; Eight, universal thought or infinity. (Dianetics: The Original Thesis)


On the second dynamic, the individual is conquering future MEST wherein theta is assured a line of conquest into the future. It requires for this both the sex act and children. If one is to assure the future conquest of MEST, then it is necessary to insure that one’s children can conquer MEST. (Notes on the Lectures, chapter Group Dianetics)


* * *


That is a fairly extensive listing of the LRH DEFINTIONS of the Second Dynamic, but there are plenty more if you want to take the time to look further.


It should be noticed that among all of these definitions not one of these ever comes close to describing the Second Dynamic as "creativity”. There are no LRH comments that suggest even slightly that the second dynamic “includes any creativity”, and every extant definition, in fact, specifically refers only to sex, children and their care.


In quite a few of the definitions LRH calls the dynamic the “sex dynamic”. From this it is clear that this dynamic has much (or all) to do with sex. There is no way that the following two statements can be true at the same time:


The SECOND DYNAMIC is CREATIVITY. (bogus version in new Ethics book)


The SECOND DYNAMIC is SEX. (Handbook for Preclears)


Unless we are supposed to dispense with all logic and reason, and accept or believe that:


Sex = Creativity (which is a falsehood)


Simple logic rules give us:


If A = B, and A = C;


Then, B = C


Or,


If One Dollar = Four quarters, and


One Dollar = Ten Dimes;


Then, Four Quarters = Ten Dimes


That is simple two-valued Aristotelian logic. If you are not familiar with that, then look it up in the Tech dictionary or review any simple text on logic. The following two statements are also mutually incompatible because they directly assert contradictory things:


It (the second dynamic) also incidentally includes sex as a mechanism to compel future survival. (bogus version in new Ethics book)


THE SECOND DYNAMIC – is the urge toward existence as a sexual or bisexual activity. (FOT)


The second dynamic cannot include sex as a minor factor (“incidentally”) and at the same time be an urge to exist as a sexual activity. The two statements cannot both be true at the same time. Of course, thetans can conceive, imagine, assert and believe that these two ideas are consistent, but in fact, they are not.


Comments


LRH clearly defines the second dynamic as having very much to do with the activities of sex and family. He consistently refers to it that way, and weighs the definition heavily in that direction time after time, yet the “new” definition relegates sex to some minor and unimportant role. The definition of the word “incidentally” is “aside or apart from the main subject”. LRH makes it very clear that SEX IS THE MAIN SUBJECT of the Second Dynamic. A review of the above references makes that very clear. Sex cannot be both “the main subject” and, at the same time, “a minor aspect” of the main subject. The two ideas are wholly inconsistent and incompatible to any fairly observant and rational person. The second dynamic doesn’t “also incidentally include sex”. The second dynamic IS sex. That is, unless we ignore or cancel all of LRH’s earlier writings in the area. It sadly seems that many Scientologists have chosen to disregard all forms of logic and somehow have made it so that these conflicting facts no longer conflict. These data cannot agree or align yet thetans have somehow mentally forced them to do so in their apparent goal to make sense and ensure consistency of anything and everything.


Since the definition in the new Ethics book (and the LOC pack) is the ONLY example of it, and since there are numerous examples along the very different lines of sex and family, it makes complete sense to throw out the version in the new edition of the Ethics book. They cannot both be true because they describe very different things. The words and concepts involved refer to different things, situations and realities.


The wording of the new version in the Ethics book, even after discarding the first two sentences about “creativity” still leaves the reader with a different understanding in sharp contrast to the many examples given above here. Sex drives the second dynamic, and it alone propagates the life forms of any species. Sex is NOT some overall “creativity”, the second dynamic is NOT creativity, and saying so and putting such into print, besides being false, can only cause a student difficulty in understanding and application.


OF COURSE, MOST INTELLIGENT PEOPLE CORRECTLY IGNORE THE NONSENSE ABOUT “CREATIVITY” AND USE THE ALREADY EXISTING DEFINTION AS “SEX & FAMILY”. THE REAL TROUBLE CAN COME FOR NEW PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO TRY TO MAKE SENSE OF THIS FALSEHOOD RIGHT FROM THE START WITHOUT ALREADY KNOWING WHAT THE SECOND DYNAMIC ACTUALLY MEANS AND CORRECTLY REFERS TO.


Please go ahead and conduct a survey if you doubt this. Most people choose to ignore the nonsense about “creativity” and simply think with and apply the ideas of the second dynamic as sex and family as they have for years. But it shouldn’t be necessarily for anyone to have to selectively filter out bogus data from real LRH data when one is reading “approved” LRH material in Scientology books or courses.


Sex applies equally to cells. Obviously, there is much less “family” and “rearing of children” for a cell or for many types of lower life forms such as bacteria, viruses, amoebae, paramecia, hydra and so on. While plants and trees definitely have a reproductive function that propagates the species, they wouldn’t be said to have much of a family life. They sure don’t have or exhibit much of anything resembling “creativity”. The second dynamic of these life forms makes sense only when one views it primarily as a sexual or procreative activity to put a future race there. All of the above LRH definitions make total sense when applied to lower life forms. When one tries to apply the new version from the Ethics book though, to such examples, one is left with a very different set of ideas. Try to align the concept, “The second dynamic is creativity”, with the second dynamics of cells, amoebae or plants. The idea is ludicrous. Yes, you can align the idea of the “creation of a future race”, but that is very different than “any creativity” or “creativity”. In fact, the “creation of a future race” is simply one example of many possible creations along all of the dynamics. Creations and creativity are NOT limited to the second dynamic. That is a loony idea. But trying to make sense of the words written about the second dynamic in the new Ethics book and aligning it with all the other extant data on the dynamics cannot help but result in loony ideas. Of course, as most people probably do, if you simply disagree, pass by it, ignore it or fail to truly understand the concepts involved, then the reader will have no problem at all.


This new definition is less able to clarify and explain activities of life, because it has changed the very meaning of this category of life as previously defined by LRH.


Words and ideas mean things and are supposed to refer to real things. At least, that is what I choose to assert. All the above definitions are consistent and refer to observable phenomena that are real and existent. The new definition means and refers to an entirely different set of things and events not necessarily involving sex, families or children at all (and sex only “incidentally” when it does).


We could talk about the way certain beavers build dams to create slow moving lake systems, since this activity involves “creativity” and falls under “any creativity”. This, technically speaking, would therefore qualify as a “second dynamic” activity, because it involves and falls within the purview of “any creativity”. Of course, that is ludicrous, but thetans can conceive of anything to make sense, whether it truly is or isn’t. That is a good part of the real problem here. People are choosing to make sense of nonsense. Making sense of nonsense, sadly, is a very common human “ability”.


The entire section in the LOC pack and new Ethics book on the second dynamic has been altered and added to, distorting what LRH originally meant and referred to. There are also additives, distortions and alterations of meaning in most of the definitions of the other dynamics in the same books. Words and phrasings are used, and ideas implied, that LRH would never relay or condone himself.


All cases where these “new” definitions of the Dynamics have appeared should be canceled in due haste and replaced with already existing correct references to the Dynamics (there are many).

Sections Where LRH Associates the Concept of the “Second Dynamic” with the Concept of “Creating”


Below are examples of LRH quotes where he mentions sex in some relationship with creating, creation or creativity. He never comes even close to ever suggesting that “the second dynamic is creativity” or “the second dynamic includes any creativity”, but this apparently hasn’t prevented someone from coming up with their own weird ideas about it and publishing these errant ideas in the new Introduction to Scientology Ethics book and in other publications.



At the highest MEST point of the tone scale, 4.0, one finds monogamy, constancy, a high enjoyment level, and very moral reactions toward sex; but one also finds the sexual urge acting to create more than children, and so comes about a sublimation of sex into creative thought. (Science of Survival, Book One, chapter 18)





It must have required a considerable mental gymnasticism to have combed everything down to sex . . . (P. A. B. 92 A Critique of Psychoanalysis)



It must be recognized that simply because two words occur in close proximity within the space of a sentence does NOT mean that the ideas represented by these words are closely related or identical. The bank has a tendency to make everything equal due to identification. People on Earth have a horrible tendency to confuse things together that do not belong together conceptually or do not observably relate in actual life. Of course, a large part of that problem is that far too many people think instead of look and thereby never get out of their heads and instead wallow in a never-ending and complicated interrelationship of significances (ideas, concepts, abstractions).


In P.A.B. No. 11, LRH writes:


THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF THOUGHT IS AN EFFORT TO OBSERVE SOMETHING WITHOUT LOOKING AT IT.


The useless “thought” is the thinkingness that results from enturbulated and condensed effort (as one passes down the Know to Mystery Scale), and it is a substitution for an ability to predict (P.A.B. 8). It is quite true that endless significances and confusions of meaning characterize typical human thinking. The good or positive “thought” is that related to analytical thinking, reason, logic, postulates and Theta (pure thought). These are each a different thing by the way, and covered extensively by LRH in his materials.


Please bear with me here because it is necessary to understand how unrelated concepts can be made to appear related, even when they are not, and how the human mind goes about doing this.


Most people confuse Darwin’s ideas of “natural selection” with “survival of the fittest”, simply because both ideas were part of his theory. Each involves a different concept, referring to different functions and activities, yet people equate the two through identity type thinking because they are related. Some people claim socialism and communism to be equal. They have similarities and are related, but they are not the same at all. The second dynamic is related to creativity, but it is most definitely not equal to creativity.


Interestingly, I picked up a newspaper today, and the writer, talking about the need for increased airport security due to terrorist threats wrote:


“Airlines face a Darwinian process that favors the efficient.”


Darwin’s theory was put together to explain the origin of the various species. The name of his famous book is “The Origin of Species”. The theory doesn’t explain that at all, but most people believe that it successfully explains where the various species came from. But, the writer in the example above isn’t talking about the evolution of anything. He is referring to the idea of “survival of the fittest”. It means that the airlines will need to adapt to the current demand of the environment, become more able (i.e. fit), and that those who do so will survive and win. In this case, becoming fit means becoming more efficient. Those who don’t will fade away and die. The idea of “survival of the fittest” is not the theory of Darwinism, although his theory contains that concept as part of it. The “Darwinian process”, in fact, is not “survival of the fittest”, yet some people incorrectly use the terms to mean this. The Darwinian process is actually that process spread over a tremendous amount of time where 1) accidental genetic mutations result in changes in life forms, and 2) where some of these new life forms are better able to survive in their respective environments. By the way, this is simply a theory, although many esteemed college professors will claim it to be a fact and believe it with a near religious fervor.


This is just another example of poor thinking, and poor definition of ideas and concepts. I can pick up any book, magazine, or watch any TV reporter, and within 30 seconds find obvious errors in the writer’s ability to observe and connect ideas. This phenomenon is rampant and goes on everywhere at all times. This is especially true of the “higher” educated “professionals” in the world of liberal arts education, including the fields of philosophy, political science, economics, journalism, psychology, sociology, anthropology and more. The world is very idiotic and LRH concurs:


One of the things about study itself is that there are a great many things around that are false and you could study a lot of false things and therefore become disabused of studying because you had studied something false.


The thing here is that most people haven’t taken the time to closely examine the world involving these fields, like I have, and therefore don’t really know what LRH is saying. In other words, unless you actually look at, study and investigate the writings in sociology you cannot possibly know how nutty their ideas and theories are. You can believe things because LRH says so, BUT you will never ever know for yourself unless you observe it for yourself.


There are a GREAT MANY false ideas, theories, assertions, and beliefs. Part of the problem though is that most people first, are so poorly educated that they cannot confront these subjects, much less understand them, and second, are too low toned to be able to differentiate between the legitimate and false data even when they do become “educated”. Please don’t take this as undue criticism. Almost every subject on Earth, based upon the investigations of the “brightest” folks on the planet, is largely filled with biases, false data, poor observations and invalid theories, yet each is presented as a FACT or TRUTH. Confusion is the norm here and not the exception.


I look around the world and see idiocy every second of every day, and correctly so. People are people and they chronically confuse ideas with facts. They chronically confuse different things with similar things and identical things. The reactive mind is nothing but making unequal things equal (identification; A=A=A).


I am guessing that the same thing was done here leading to someone’s confusion of ideas and placing the distortions of meaning in the new Ethics book. The second dynamic is related to (or associated with) creativity. There are similarities and relationships. But, the second dynamic is not creativity as an equality or identity statement. This is a classic example of a violation of simple Data Series basics where things not equal are stated to be and made to be equal, when they in fact are not. From Data Series 1R, The Anatomy of Thought:


Sanity is the ability to recognize differences, similarities and identities.


Two or more facts or things that are totally unlike are DIFFERENT. They are not the same fact or same object.


Two or more facts or things that have something in common with one another are SIMILAR.


Two or more facts or things that have all of their characteristics in common with another are IDENTICAL.


Of course, possibly LRH wrote the new definition in a fit of insanity. But I personally doubt that. And if he did, well then he shouldn’t have, because it contradicts everything he has ever said elsewhere in a tremendous number of places.


Please understand that the top level FACT about all this is that the data referred to here are contrary and inconsistent with all extant LRH data in the same related subjects. That is the senior datum about all this. The senior datum is not that, “LRH wrote it”, or that, “it is in an LRH book”. Those two statements may be true, but they are not the most senior fact about all of this. The second dynamic definition is FALSE, because any aware and intelligent person can (or should) clearly know it to be so by honest observation and study. Well, maybe I am being too generous, but to me anyway, any sane person should be able to see that clearly. At least an honest person will know this to be true if they don’t play mental games with themselves, invalidate what they know to be true or compromise their own reality. And if LRH did write it, then the question is not, “how does it make sense”, but “why would he write something so weirdly at odds with everything else he ever wrote in the area”?


How it came to be in print, who wrote it, and so forth matter little in terms of determining the legitimacy of the data. Even if LRH did write it, well, then he should not have. But because I consider LRH to be one of the most aware, observant and intelligent fellows to ever walk the Earth, I personally doubt he wrote it. The other option is that someone altered LRH material and that is how this “data” came to appear in the new Ethics book. Whatever the reason or WHY, it should be quickly removed. It is exceedingly nonsensical.


ANALYSIS


I now go through each of the quotes given at the beginning of this section and detail how each one is incapable of adequately explaining the new definition of the second dynamic.



At the highest MEST point of the tone scale, 4.0, one finds monogamy, constancy, a high enjoyment level, and very moral reactions toward sex; but one also finds the sexual urge acting to create more than children, and so comes about a sublimation of sex into creative thought. (Science of Survival, Book One, chapter 18)


Let’s start by looking at the definition of the word sublimate.


Sublimate – to divert the energy of (a sexual or other biological impulse) from its immediate goal to one of a more acceptable social, moral, or aesthetic nature or use.

The reader should realize that the concept of “sublimation” is a psych idea. It was originated and used by psychs – specifically Freudians. Do your own research. Study the word, it’s history and it’s derivation. See the attachment following this section. It means what it means. “Creativity” from a Scientology viewpoint involves the very stuff underlying all existence on every dynamic. It stems from THETA and thetans. The concept of sublimation involves purely biological urges, and has nothing to do with theta or “thought”. The ideas are wildly different.


In this view the energy of the second dynamic as the sexual urge is diverted. It’s not changed or metamorphosed into another form of the same energy. Also, the definition of “sublimate” correctly identifies the impulse or energy as biological. Sex is almost totally biological. Take a thetan out of his body, completely, and he will yawn at the sight or thought of sex. Put him in a body, and it becomes “gimme gimme gimme”. As LRH correctly observes and states, “a thetan without a bank has completely different responses” (KSW Series Number One). True, so one does.


Sex is Sex is Sex. It is a biological urge or impulse heavily ingrained into the GE lines of all life forms to ensure the propagation and continuance of the body form of the species. Thetans have an abundance of charge on this area. They have an abundance of significance attached to this dynamic. And up until the distortion of meaning in the newest version of the Ethics book, the words of LRH correctly communicated and explained his very accurate observations in this area of life.


When I sit down and write a song or develop a new web site, both very clear examples of creativity, these have nothing to do with sex or biology. I am not “channeling” or “diverting” or doing anything with or to my sexual urges.


My creative actions stem from my ability to create as an invisible, but aware Theta Being. So do yours. Also, LRH wrote the above while researching Dianetics. The comment is true as far as it goes, but Scientology went much further and investigated aspects of creativity rooted in the invisible realm of Theta and not just those limited to the visible world of MEST and biology. I do not channel my sexual energy when I write a song. He confirms this when he says in Scientology 0-8:

None of the postulates and early discoveries in this research outlawed any concept concerning the human soul, or divine or creative imagination. (Chapter: A Description of Scientology)


From a viewpoint of Theta this description is largely insufficient. LRH qualifies everything he states above in The Science of Survival by prefacing it with “at the highest MEST point of the Tone Scale” (4.0). When a person goes up to 8.0 and creates Aesthetics, sex is basically gone from the equation. The being is here using creative imagination and not a sublimated biological urge of sex. In fact, most anything he creates with thought is done with creative imagination and not with diverted sexual energy.


The reason I take the time to destroy any idea that this quote is a suitable intellectual or logical justification for the nonsense in the new Ethics book is because a few people have told me that this datum helped them understand how the second dynamic could be named “creativity”. They didn’t understand anything really, but deluded themselves. These people tricked themselves by accepting a stream of logic that is illogical. The process of accepting illogics is a tremendously common practice with human beings. (Data Series)


Yes, you CAN sublimate the energy of sex, the biological aspect of the 2nd dynamic to higher forms of creativity, of thought, of the 7th dynamic, and channel this along ANY of the other dynamics. This is as far as LRH has ever stated it (Science of Survival). This is the ONLY way the notion of creativity can relate at all to the 2nd dynamic and the other dynamics and make sense. The way it is presented in the new Ethics book and LOC is false, inaccurate, and can only cause the reader to develop false ideas and confusions.


This reference is not a suitable explanation for the newest definition of the second dynamic, although I am quite sure many people have incorrectly accepted it to be so.


Thetans in mutual agreement created and maintain the entire physical universe as their playing field (reference: PDC tapes, The Phoenix Lectures). They did so utilizing their inherent creativity. So much of a thetan’s creative actions have nothing to do with sex. Anyone trying to use the above quote to somehow support the idea that the “second dynamic is creativity” and “includes any creativity” needs some extensive word clearing, probably KTL and PRD, Method 1 Word Clearing, the PRD, and possibly more. Or possibly they simply just need a good hard smack on the back of their heads.


LRH writes, “This dynamic would normally be called sex.” Is there some reason that things are no longer “normal”, and we should abandon that usual tradition and begin calling this dynamic “creativity”? I suspect not.



As with anything on any dynamic, a marriage must also be postulated into existence and kept created or it will not be there and survive. A marriage, while related in some way usually to sex, though not always, is actually a group. For any group to exist, its members must actively and continuously create it. This quote says nothing about any link, relationship or equality between sex, the second dynamic and creativity. It just says what is true for anything to exist on any dynamic – it must be postulated and created.


I have been told by some that this quote helped them understand and make sense of how “the second dynamic is creativity”. Again, this is more self-trickery and deluded thinking. This quote shows simply that creativity is necessary to make anything. There is no limitation of creativity to the second dynamic or unusual connection of importance between a marriage and creativity.


There is no equality between the second dynamic and creativity. That is a false statement of identification. The statement, “the second dynamic is creativity”, is not true.



The above phrase has been used by some to excuse, through some weird concatenation of logic, the validity of this new definition of the second dynamic.


Sex is only one kind of creation. There are many types of creative impulses. The urge to create and survive as a group is a creative impulse (third dynamic). The urge to create and survive as one’s business is a creative impulse (third dynamic). The urge to create and survive as a well-landscaped garden (5th dynamic) is a creative impulse. The urge to create and survive as one’s paintings or art is a creative impulse (7th dynamic). I could supply a near infinite number of examples, because creativity underlies all existence. Creativity is senior to and encompasses the second dynamic. In fact, creativity includes the second dynamic. The second dynamic does not “include any creativity”. The idea is ass backwards. Completely so!


Sex is not even within the active control of a Thetan and is simply an automatic biological urge. It has little to do with the active creativity of an aware thinking being. Just because sex is one type of creation, and sex is a major part of the second dynamic, does not somehow make it necessarily follow that “the second dynamic is creation”. That is such an absurd connection of ideas. It is very poor thinking. It is errant logic. But besides that, it simply is false because it does not describe the actual relationship of observable things.


The above quote does not in any way state or imply that “the second dynamic is creativity”.



It must have required a considerable mental gymnasticism to have combed everything down to sex . . . (P. A. B. 92 A Critique of Psychoanalysis)


LRH here contradicts the idea that sex is sublimated into creative thought, which is inherently a false psych idea, and comes right out and says that people create themselves. Their ability to create does not stem from sex, and it surely does not belong in the second dynamic. Anyone who has been around Scientology awhile knows that LRH contradicts himself at times. I can have that, understand that and deal with it. If you want to claim and demand that LRH doesn’t ever contradict himself, then you are choosing to place your beliefs above simple observation of facts. He contradicts himself at times. When he does contradict himself you need to examine all of the related data and choose that data which align best with the rest and with what you observe yourself to be true.


Just as “it must have required a considerable mental gymnasticism to have combed everything down to sex”, so must it have required a considerable mental gymnasticism to have combed all creativity down to the second dynamic. What Freud did with sex, in error, by making it all-inclusive, someone also did here with the second dynamic. The second dynamic has been redefined as the dynamic that contains the source of all existence - creativity. That is simply not so. That is such a false statement and idea. Worse of all, the idea does not correctly describe what goes on in real life.



Notice that LRH doesn’t say that sex is a lock on creation or creativity, but that it is a lock on the joy of creation. It is a lock on the emotion or feeling any person experiences when creating anything. Most people feel exhilaration when they create. Sex is a lock and perversion on that feeling of exhilaration. It is quite a leap of meaning to go from this to “the second dynamic is creativity”. There is no sane way that the ideas expressed in the above quote can lead to the idea that “the second dynamic includes any creativity”.


There is not any extant LRH reference that can suitably explain the definition of the second dynamic in the latest version of the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book. The only explanations are:


  1. LRH wrote data directly in severe contradiction with everything else he ever wrote about the same topic,


  1. Someone else altered the definition of the second dynamic based on their own confusions with other legitimate LRH references, or


  1. It was intentionally altered to confuse and screw people and Scientology up.


There are no other explanations. I am not in a position to investigate to discover the actual truth of the matter. You, the reader, are in a position to do so, and should. But first the reader needs to understand that the “data” is false and not in alignment with extant valid LRH data.


THAT is the senior datum about all of this.

FREUD ON SUBLIMATION

Reconsiderations

Volney P. Gay



"One of the most common criticisms of Freud is that his theory cannot satisfactorily account for religion or artistic creativity. Gay's revision of Freud's theory using Gibson' s theory of perception al lows the Freudian concept of sublimation to function in a positive way that squares with artistic creativity, religion, and common experience. Gay has made a significant contribution to psychoanalytic theory and to the understanding of human creativity. "


" I found this book very interesting to read. It synthesizes and discusses an amazing range of evidence from the philosophy of Kant to the physiology of perception of Helmholtz, the linguistic theory of Lacan and Ricoeur, art history, religion, etc., all applied to Freud's theory of sublimation. It is clearly the work of a mature scholar."-- Harold Coward, University of Calgary


This book is the only full-length treatment of the relationship between aesthetic truths and psychoanalytic discoveries-- of art, artists, and a new concept of sublimation. It provides a radical and unique study of the concept of sublimation and proposes a modest replacement for it. In the first third of the book the author

reviews critically the psychoanalytic sources of the concept of sublimation. In the second third he shows how the concept developed from Freud' s nineteenth-century notions of perception. In the last third he revises a concept of sublimation using a contemporary theory of perception. In the final chapter he examines four works of literature: short stories of John Cheever, a Japanese novel, portions of Hamlet, and sublimation and perversion in Orson Welles' Citizen Kane.


"Dr. Gay's book brings together fruitfully several lines of argumentation: aesthetic theory, hermeneutics, psychoanalytical practice and criticism, and good sense. It ought to fill an important gap in the relevant literatures, but particularly in expanding our purview of Freud on sublimation and our ongoing project of determining an adequate contemporary aesthetics. The value of Gay' s work is that it relates these two issues in ways that are mutually illuminating. I would have expected such a contribution from the author, whose previous books have been solid contributions. The scholarship is sound: it is in fact superlative, with a wide range of materials cited carefully." -- William G. Doty, The University of Alabama


"This is really a very fine book. Philosophers, psychoanalysts, students of the arts, and religious studies scholars will all find something of interest. I know of no study that re-works Freud on sublimation and art so thoroughly and makes such a commanding use of Heinz Kohut's psychoanalytic theories of the self to this end." -- Don Browning, University of Chicago


A volume in the SUNY series in Religion


Harold Coward, editor


374 pages September 1992

paperback ISBN 0-7914-1184-2

hardcover ISBN 0-7914-1183-4

State University of New York Press

90 State Street, Suite 700

Albany, NY 12207


For more information contact SUNY Press at info@sunypress.edu

For Current Prices and Ordering Information See Order Form

Return to home page

The TRUE Meaning of the Word “Creativity”


“Creativity” is formed from the root word “create”. Both the word “creation” and “creating” are also formed from the root “create”. The concepts are closely related.


If anyone wants to understand what “creativity” really means and relates to, then it would be best to read references by LRH on these related words, such as “create”, “creating” and “creation”. Doing so will make it abundantly clear that it is a gross error to call or define any Dynamic as “creativity”, whether it be the 2nd, or the 7th.


The concept of “creativity” is a fundamental concept of Scientology. It underlies, encompasses, and is senior to the Dynamics, all life, and even all existence. In Fundamentals of Thought, chapter Two, Basic Principles, LRH clearly states:


In very ancient books it is written that from chaos came birth, from birth there was growth, when growth was achieved there was then a gradual decay, the decay then ended in death. After death there was chaos.


Scientology expresses this more briefly. THE CYCLE OF ACTION IS AN APPARENCY AS FOLLOWS: CREATE, then SURVIVE, then DESTROY; or Creation, Survival, Destruction. First there is Creation. Then this is followed by Survival. Then this is followed by Destruction.


The ACTUAL CYCLE OF ACTION is as follows: CREATE, create-create-create, create-counter-create, no creation, nothingness.


CREATE = make, manufacture, construct, postulate, bring into beingness = CREATE.


Create-create-create = create again continuously one moment after the next = SURVIVAL.


Create-counter-create = to create something against a creation = to create one thing and then create something else against it = DESTROY.


No creation = an absence of any creation = no creative activity.


There is CREATING AND KNOWING ONE IS CREATING. There is CREATING AND NOT KNOWING ONE IS CREATING.


In other words, the entire cycle of action, from the smallest to the largest, from the tiniest atomic particle to the largest galaxy, is made up of nothing but various versions of creating. Notice that SURVIVAL itself is a special case of continuous creation. So is destruction. Please notice and realize that “create” underlies and is senior to survival or surviving. Creating is what one does to survive. Read again what LRH says above.


You can go and read more of this chapter, but the obvious simplicity is that every part of any cycle of action involves creating. Every thought, idea, condition or reality anyone experiences anywhere first and foremost involves creating and creativity. It also involves one’s awareness because one can either know or not know one is creating. Creativity is very basic, and far above and underlying all life and existence, however you choose to define and understand these things.


Survival and the concepts about the Dynamics, as parts of a single primary Dynamic (the overall urge to Survive for anything or anyone), directly involve nothing but creativity. Why? Because SURVIVAL is nothing but create-create-create (see above).


Survival exists where there is a continual creation of something.


That’s the long and the short of it. Obviously, since the overall Dynamic of survival is broken down into 8 sub-sections known as the Eight Dynamics, each must also possess a similar “create-create-create” for each Dynamic to survive and exist in any form or condition. In other words, for anything to exist on any Dynamic in any form requires continuous creation. What do any of us use to do this? We use our inherent “creativity”.


“Creativity” is the source of all creation, and the source of survival as create-create-create. Creativity is about as close as you get to a thetan.


In diagram form this would appear as:


CREATIVITY
(ability to create)

|

|

|

create-create-create

equals
SURVIVAL

|

|

|

splits up and manifest as cycles of action in each Dynamic area

|

|

|


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

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

1D 2D 3D 4D 5D 6D 7D 8D


(Note: D = Dynamic)

LRH says in Chapter III of Dianetics, The Goal of Man:


The goal of Man, the lowest common denominator of all his activities, the dynamic principle of his existence has long been sought.


TIME, SPACE, ENERGY and LIFE have a single denominator in common. As an analogy it could be considered that TIME, SPACE, ENERGY and LIFE began at some point of origin and were commanded to continue to some nearly infinite destination. They were told nothing but WHAT to do. They obey a single order and that order is “SURVIVE!”


THE DYNAMIC PRINCIPLE OF EXISTENCE IS SURVIVAL


The goal of life can be considered to be infinite survival. Man, as a life form, can be demonstrated to obey in all his actions and purposes the one command: “SURVIVE!”


The methods of survival can be summed under the headings of food, protection (defensive and offensive) and procreation. There are no existing life forms, which lack solutions to these problems.


LRH goes on to say in Chapter IV, The Four Dynamics:


From the survival dynamic, in this fashion, were evolved four dynamics. By survival dynamic was meant the basic command, SURVIVE! which underlay all activity. By dynamic was meant one of the four purpose divisions of the entire dynamic principle. The four dynamics were not new forces; they were sub-divisions of the primary force.


It will be seen immediately that these four dynamics are actually a spectrum without sharp division lines. The survival dynamic can be seen to sweep out from the individual to embrace the entire species and its symbiotes.


Life, the atom and the universe and energy itself are included under the symbiotic classification.


(Note: Life became the 5th Dynamic, and the MEST universe became the 6th Dynamic in the later writings of Scientology.)


I could not locate any definitions or even uses of the word “creativity” by LRH in any book or issue. It is not listed in any subject or book index.


Here are definitions taken from a few dictionaries.


Concise Oxford Dictionary


creative adj. 1) inventive and imaginative. 2) creating or able to create. + + creatively adv. creativeness n. creativity n.


Random House Webster’s College Dictionary


creative adj. 1) having the power or quality of creating 2) resulting from originality of thought; imaginative. 3) Facetious. producing deceptive or fraudulent information, etc. creative bookkeeping. [1670-90] -- creatively adv. creativeness n.


creativity n. 1. the state or quality of being creative. 2. the ability to create meaningful new forms, interpretations, etc.; originality. 3. the process by which one utilizes creative ability. [1870-75]


Oxford American Dictionary


creative adj. 1) having the power or ability to create things 2) showing imagination and originality as well as routine skill, creative work. creatively adv. creativity n.


Simply, “creativity” is the ability to create.


That is, unless you choose to accept or believe the definition in the new version of the Ethics book. Then creativity is the second dynamic. But it’s not the second dynamic!


Interestingly, and quite contradictory to the second dynamic definition in the new version of the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book, the definition of the seventh dynamic in the latest version of the same book is given as:


It (The Seventh Dynamic) includes one’s beingness, the ability to create, the ability to cause survival or survive, the ability to destroy or pretend to be destroyed.


So, we now have, in the same book and in the same section two conflicting datum. The second dynamic is defined to be “creativity” and to “include any creativity”, and the seventh dynamic also defined so it “includes the ability to create” (which is nothing less than creativity). So somehow the second dynamic includes the seventh dynamic which includes the second dynamic which includes the seventh and so on forever. Of course this is sheer lunacy, but that’s what it says. Try to demo it. You may go insane. Trying to make sense of nonsense is not good for thinking beings. Of course, thetans can make sense of just abut anything and have been doing so for a near eternity.


While I didn’t spend the same amount of time checking all references for the seventh dynamic as I did for the second dynamic, a quick check shows up the same situation for the seventh dynamic definition in the new Ethics book. There are NO existing references that discuss and define the seventh dynamic in this way. It is also an alteration and most likely somebody’s own weird ideas on the subject that they are passing on to others.


The Seventh Dynamic – is the urge toward existence as or of spirits. Anything spiritual, with or without identity, would come under the heading of the Seventh Dynamic. This can be called the SPIRITUAL DYNAMIC. (Fundamentals of Thought, chapter The Dynamics)


VII: THE THOUGHT DYNAMIC concerns the urge of the individual to survive as thought. (Dianetics: The Original Thesis)


The phrase “the ability to cause survive” doesn’t even make any sense and is grammatically incorrect. This phrase is not some older archaic usage of the English language but is simply very bad English. Where does LRH say anywhere that the seventh dynamic includes “the ability to destroy or pretend to be destroyed”? While it does make sense in alignment with other things LRH said or wrote, he never stated it this way. Like the arguments I have made about the second dynamic, beingness must be assumed on any dynamic to create and have on any dynamic. It’s not that it’s not sort of true, but LRH never said or would say it like it is written here. IT IS NOT BY HIM – obviously and clearly. I don’t need “evidence” or “proof” to know that or to not know that. It is obviously not by him, and any intelligent and aware thetan should see that as so.


The author(s) write, “Thus there is an effort for the survival of life source”. I beg anyone to please refer me to any actual pre-1985 (when he was still alive) written LRH material where he states this or says this in a tape. Theta, thought in its “pure” form, and thetans cannot do anything but exist. They are eternal beings. LRH would never state that the “life source” is trying to survive, or possesses or needs any effort to survive. Yes, the life source does exert efforts to survive along each of the dynamics, but no, the life source does not exert an effort to exist as itself. That is ludicrous. It is so very much not something LRH would say because it is not true. I suspect somebody has been playing in the cookie jar.


The source of life and the source of everything cannot do anything but exist. There are efforts to survive on and through the various dynamics, and there are all the various related emotions, thinkingness, counter-efforts, etc. relating to attempts to survive along these dynamics. But there is no effort for theta itself to survive as theta or as life source. The notion is absurd. Refer to the theta-MEST theory in basic LRH books and issues. Life results as theta involves itself in the attempt to animate and conquer MEST. Once theta involves itself with MEST, life results, and life manifests along each of the eight dynamics. Life is subdivided into the eight dynamics as a convenient way to analyze and understand “life”.


In Scientology 8-8008, LRH says:


The principal of survival was never intended to embrace theta itself for this has, of course, immortality and does not even necessarily move in MEST time.


The Creation of Human Ability, section R2-59 Survival:


As a thetan is immortal, he cannot do other than survive.


Obviously, these statements by LRH directly contradict the idea that:


“Thus there is an effort for the survival of life source”

This is also in the new version of the Ethics book and it is false data. It can only confuse someone if they take it seriously and attempt to think with it.


While we are on the subject of totally nutty stuff in the Dynamics section of the new Ethics book (it is basically all nuts), please take a look at the latest definition of the Sixth Dynamic. It states:


The sixth dynamic is the urge to survive of the physical universe, by the physical universe itself and with the help of the physical universe and each one of its component parts.


This is utter nonsense! Who wrote this? It was surely not LRH. The above sounds like some weird extrapolation from the United States Declaration of Independence (i.e. “of the people, by the people and for the people . . .”). The MEST universe has absolutely no urge to survive as itself or for anything else. It does not and cannot exist independently of Theta and thetans. If the reader doesn’t know that then please read all the LRH books, especially The Phoenix Lectures, and do the PDC course.


The 6th dynamic is an INDIVIDUAL’S urge to survive as the physical universe, by actual LRH definition. Any single dynamic or the dynamics taken collectively belong to a thetan. Please get the distinction. It is very severe and great. The only thing that has an urge to survive anywhere ever at any time is a thetan or Theta. This is so obviously simple that it is scary that such lunacy can surface in a purported LRH book as LRH data. You might think, and it surely may appear that the MEST universe exists “out there” all on it’s own, in a sort of modern materialistic sort of way. But, in fact, postulates are senior to mechanics*, and per the Factors, all that is was postulated into existence by me and thee. End of story.


* Considerations take rank over the mechanics of space, energy and time. Considerations are senior to these things. The reason we have space, energy, time, objects is that life has agreed upon certain things, and this agreement has resulted in a solidification. And so our agreed-upon material is then quite observable. (The Phoenix Lectures, chapter four)


Just who do you think “life” is? Again, only thetans can agree. MEST and “stuff” do not agree, think or anything else. The physical universe behaves in accordance with MEST laws that you and I agreed with and still agree with. We agreed the entire MEST universe into existence, we agree upon its continuance (survival, create-create-create), we agreed on solar systems and planets, we agreed on life forms and how they behave, we “agree” each of our dynamics into existence, and we CREATE the details of their survival on a day to day basis.


From The Creation of Human Ability, section called A Summary of Scientology, LRH states:


Man, therefore, has an inverted view. Whereas, considerations such as those he daily makes are the actual source of space, energy, time and forms, Man is operating so as not to alter his basic considerations; he therefore invalidates himself by supposing another determinism of space, energy, time, and form.


MEST comes from considerations. It derives from the considerations made and agreed with by you and me.


Again, a full study and research into the extant material by LRH on the 6th dynamic will show this definition to be absurd. It is FALSE DATA. It can only confuse the reader. I will give an example, but leave it to you and whoever else is supposed to guarantee that Church materials are legitimately by LRH to perform the full research and verification.


VI. THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE DYNAMIC is the drive of the individual to enhance the survival of all matter, energy, time and space. (Dianetics: The Original Thesis, chapter The Dynamics).


Any Dynamic is an URGE TO SURVIVE of an INDIVDUAL in some area, at least that is so when we are dealing with any human being. Yes, birds seem to have an “urge to survive”. But since the subject was written to be applied by thinking human beings, I suggest it is best to understand it that way. Additionally, LRH correctly defines it that way in the above reference. The dynamics are simply LRH’s convenient way to break up life so one can look at and make sense of it all. A Dynamic is not a “thing” like objects or MEST or the entire MEST universe. MANY people simply forget about the “to survive as” part and call the dynamic by the name of the thing or area the being is attempting to survive in relation to. There is much Scientology slang. The second dynamic is the “urge to survive as a future race”, using sex and family as the means. It has become common to drop out the idea of “urge to survive as” and use the term “second dynamic” to indicate one’s spouse or significant other. (My 2D just got a new job; My 2D is so hot; I will marry my 2D next week; His 2D was a never-ending parade of promiscuity.)


Most Scientologists conceive of the 6th dynamic as “the physical universe”. It is not the physical universe. There is a physical universe, but the 6th dynamic is solely and only one’s URGE TO SURVIVE AS OR THROUGH IT. If you ask most Scientologists, “what is the fifth dynamic”, they will answer, “life forms”. It is not life forms, but the urge to survive as or through life forms. I don’t mean to beat a dead horse, and I am not being unfairly picky, but the definition of the sixth dynamic in the latest version of the Ethics book exhibits the same sort of confusion and incorrect association of ideas.


Just the notion that any dynamic is the “urge of the individual to survive as” something, alone, makes the “new” definition of the second dynamic incompatible and incorrect. Any one dynamic is not a thing, but an “urge to survive as” something, and therefore it is incorrect to state, “the second dynamic is creativity”.


THE DYNAMIC PRINCIPLE OF EXISTENCE IS SURVIVAL (DMSMH)


The concept of the “dynamic” originated in early Dianetics research. It is clearly defined over and over as an “urge to survive as” something. It is not something. By this fact alone the second dynamic cannot be “creativity”. At best it could be called the urge to survive as creativity, but that would also be incorrect.


Per LRH in Dianetics: The Original Thesis:


Basically simple, complexity is introduced amongst the dynamics by individual and group irrationalities.


Complexity has surely been introduced into the definitions of the dynamics in the new edition of the Ethics book, by an individual or individuals and hopefully the group will not enact further complexities or irrationalities and thereby prevent these incorrect definitions from being summarily canceled and swiftly replaced. The types of possible irrationalities that could allow and further the original complexity of the fact of the false definitions are covered extensively in this write-up.


LRH says at the end of chapter Two in the Fundamentals of Thought:


FOR EXAMPLE, a man has a job. He works at it. That is to say he creates-creates-creates a job throughout the days, weeks and years. As long as he makes a job, the job exists.


FOR EXAMPLE, a man is sane. He gets the idea (creates the idea) that it would be better to be insane. He starts to go insane (having created it) . . . .


CREATION IN THIS WORK may be thought to exclude God. We are here considering only those things which man or man as a spirit can make or manufacture or think.


Any person can work, make or produce anything on any Dynamic, whether it be one’s personal health, a relationship, a family, a job, a business, a city or a nation. He does it by creating. Each of us does this by bringing about SURVIVAL of something by continual creation, or in other words, by “create-create-create”. Everything you see and everything you do is nothing other than the product of creating. It is also true that much of this creating has crossed over into automatic functioning, and the bank is also nearly completely automatic. But the entire MEST universe is also on “automatic”, and you put it there for yourself every second of every day.


A person does it (creates) utilizing his or her inherent “creativity”. “Creativity” is part and parcel of that which brings about SURVIVAL. “Creativity” manifests along each Dynamic because one must create to bring about the survival of anything on any Dynamic. If people did not intentional and causitively create on each Dynamic, then they would not have anything on each of those Dynamics. One must create for anything to exist, including the entire physical universe. If one didn’t (unconsciously and automatically) create the MEST universe moment by moment, it wouldn’t exist for you.


In actuality, the thetan is knowingness, total in a cleared state, who yet can create space and time and objects to locate in them. He reduces his knowingness only to have action.

It does not mean either that space, energy or time are illusions. It is as one knows it is. For one makes, by a process of continuous automatic duplication, all that one perceives. (Creation of Human Ability, section SOP-8C: The Rehabilitation of the Human Spirit)


The ability “to create” existed LONG before the physical universe, before any concept of survival, before the Dynamic principle, and before any idea of the Second Dynamic. So, how could the Second Dynamic be “creativity”? It can’t. It isn’t.


The Problems of Work, chapter 3, Is Work Necessary?


Life is basically a created thing.


It is logically impossible for “creativity” to exist as the fundamental ability of Theta, which it truly is, and for it to also exist simultaneously as a thing unique only to or belonging primarily to the Second Dynamic.


“Creativity” cannot be limited to any single Dynamic because the act of creating is essential to the existence of anything on any Dynamic. But, in addition to it being logically impossible and conceptually inconsistent, it is simply NOT TRUE that the Second Dynamic is “creativity”. It is a simply a fact of what is, that “creativity” is not the Second Dynamic.


Making things and making things for the future occurs equally on every Dynamic. In fact, nothing would be here at all, much less flourishing with viability, without active creating.


The creation of a future race is simply one of many types of creations necessary to keep life going. There is nothing more significant about the creative activities on the second dynamic that necessitates placing the concept of “creativity” within the Second Dynamic as some type of quality belonging to that Dynamic. That is ludicrous.


P. A. B. No. 85 The Parts Of Man (Also in FOT)


Sex has been overweighted in importance in old psychotherapy, a practice more or less disgraced at this time. Sex is only one of numerous creative impulses. An anxiety about sex, however, occurs when an individual begins to believe that there will not be a body for him to have during the next lifetime. The common denominator of all aberration (mental derangement) is cessation of creation; as sex is only one kind of creation and a rather low order of it, it will be seen that unhappiness could stem from various cessations of creation.


LRH reiterates that sex is only one type of creation. The activity on the second dynamic is only one type of creativity. Creativity, or the making of things for the future, exists on every dynamic equally. It seems someone confused the concept of “making bodies for the future”, accomplished by the mechanism of sex, with making anything for the future. I suspect this is how these differing ideas became incorrectly related and connected in this new definition. That is a case of incorrect identification of quite unrelated concepts (A=A=A).


LRH says about a post in HCO PL 22 May 1959 CENTRAL ORGANIZATION EFFICIENCY:


Once the basic purpose of a post or department is known, only two things should then be necessary:


  1. Self-determined and responsible continuous creation of department and post, and

  2. Holding the communication lines rigidly in place. (bold print by me for emphasis)


Defining self-determinism as it applies to departments and posts is very easy - - it is the willingness to decide and act in a causative manner toward the traffic and functions of that post.


Obviously to survive on a post, to bring it into a viable condition, and to make it expand, one must continuously create. In other words, one must apply “creativity”. Continuous creation equals survival, by definition. LRH is usually very consistent.


This is equally true for any Dynamic. If you want to have personal health on the First Dynamic one must decide and act in a causative manner so as to control one’s physical exercise, nutrition, and rest. You must create health. If one wants to have a clean and upstat personal space (First Dynamic) one must continuously create it or PUT IT THERE. This is equally true for all aspects of every Dynamic in any of its manifestations. To have anything you must create it and thereby put it there.


In The Second Dynamic Book, LRH says in the chapter entitled Marriage and Sex:


A sound marriage, then, consists of putting together a thetan association without overts and withholds, created into existence, continued for the mutual perpetuation and protection of the members of the family.


A group cannot exist unless it continues to be created into existence by the members of the group.


There must be a continued wish to continue to postulate the group into existence. If those factors are present, then the group can survive, whether it be a family, a company, a government, or something larger.


That’s how you make a group.


The above is about creating and postulating a marriage into existence, but as LRH clearly and correctly states, that’s how any group is made. One creates to make a third dynamic. But also, that is how anything is brought into existence and maintained on any Dynamic.


CREATE = make, manufacture, construct, postulate, bring into beingness = CREATE.


Create-create-create = SURVIVAL (continuous creation)


It’s just more of the same stuff. The activity of creation is necessary on any Dynamic, and in any area of Life. To bring about survival in any area and along any Dynamic one must continually create. “Creativity” is the ability used to bring about the act of creating and therefore the survival of anything.


The Second Dynamic is what it always has been up until this weird change of meaning defining it as “creativity” altered that. The Second Dynamic is a special case of a group, a smaller group than any other Third Dynamic, a group nonetheless, but because it involves so many important and unique activities, sex and family is given it’s own Dynamic. The things and activities described, as sex, family and procreation, stay the same no matter how anyone tries to alter definitions and significances in the area. The problem is that changing definitions in any area changes how the thetan understands and views these things.


Also from the chapter entitled Sex and Marriage, LRH states:


Therefore the family is an actual group.


It is very tightly knit as a group.


LRH writes in the Fundamentals of Thought, at the end of the chapter entitled The Reason Why:


These four elements, freedom, barriers, purposes and power of choice, are the guiding elements of life. There are only two factors above these, and both of them are related to these. The first is the ability to create (creativity), with, of course, its negative, the ability to uncreate; and the second is the ability to make a postulate (to consider, to say a thing and have it be true).


CREATE = make, manufacture, construct, postulate, bring into beingness = CREATE.


Create-create-create = SURVIVAL


In fact, again, LRH very clearly states that the highest ability you can conceive is creativity, because this includes the ability to create and to postulate. The abilities to create and postulate are pure basement level fundamentals. These abilities underlie everything else. These things bring entire universes into existence. They are of a different quality and magnitude of importance when compared to any single Dynamic or all of the Dynamics taken together. It’s a matter of “apples versus oranges”, and involves very different characteristics and qualities of thing. There is a very real difference in magnitude of importance involved in all this. “Creativity” and the “second dynamic” are not even in the same ballpark! To equate them is truly crazy.

Interestingly, the beginning of The Second Dynamic book states:




“The Second Dynamic is the urge toward survival
through sex, or children. This dynamic actually has two
divisions. Second Dynamic (a) is the sexual act
itself and Second Dynamic (b) is the family unit,

including the rearing of children.”


INTRODUCTION TO SCIENTOLOGY ETHICS


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


This quote is clearly stated as taken from the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book, obviously before the definition was altered and degraded in the newest version. Other references in other books mention the idea of “putting a future race on the time track” or “creating a future line of genetically similar organisms”. The fact that sex and family is the mechanism for “creating” a future race does not somehow magically alter the “creativity” of the Second Dynamic, as a specific case of “creativity”, into some generalized total “creativity” of all Life and existence.


The Second Dynamic does NOT include “any creativity”, and any such idea should be quickly removed wherever such ideas are written and published.


HCOB 25 Aug 1982 JOY OF CREATING


“The greatest joy there is in life is creating”.


(Notice: There is no mention of this having to do only with the second dynamic. Unless we are to think that the greatest joy comes from sex and the rearing of children.)


There is absolutely no way that it makes sense to say:


The SECOND DYNAMIC is CREATIVITY. Creativity is making things for the future and the second dynamic includes any creativity. The second dynamic contains the family unit and the rearing of children as well as anything that can be categorized as a family activity. It also incidentally includes sex as a mechanism to compel future survival.


The above paragraph is FALSE. The following paragraph is true.


The SECOND DYNAMIC is NOT CREATIVITY. Creativity IS making things (some for the future), and the second dynamic includes various examples of creativity associated with the family, sex and the creation of the future race. The second dynamic involves the creation (and survival) of the family unit, the rearing of children AND sex.


The second dynamic does not “incidentally” include sex. The second dynamic is at least one half made up of SEX. LRH actually calls the second dynamic the “SEX DYNAMIC”. Here are two LRH quotes.


This can be called the SEX DYNAMIC. (FOT)


The second dynamic has two main sub-divisions, the sexual act and the creation of children and their rearing. (SOS)


incidentally adj. 1. Apart or aside from the main subject; parenthetically. 2. By chance.


LRH makes it very clear in very many places that the second dynamic very much involves sex and goes so far as to call it the SEX DYNAMIC. It is minimally at least half made up of sex. It is simply incorrect to describe the second dynamic as “incidentally” including sex. Sex cannot be “apart or aside from the main subject” and also be the main subject at the same time. Earlier and correct LRH definitions place sex in a primary, and not incidental, role in the second dynamic. The new definition is very much out of sync with the rest of what LRH has said on the subject. In fact, there is not a reference in existence anywhere that comes even close to saying that the second dynamic is creativity. Even if the powers that be want to keep this in print, for some absurd reason, why would anyone bother to use this one single isolated definition, when there are hundreds of other examples that consistently define it as sex and family?


And people are using it. Staff at the FSO are directing people to this definition and encouraging them to think with and apply this definition.


It actually scared me that this could be written and get published, distributed, and accepted without question or concern. To me it seems that far too many people are asleep at the wheel. I don’t mean to be overly critical, cute or snide. I think this is deadly serious and up until now, for whatever reason, nobody has perceived this for what it is. Hopefully someone will now.


It should concern you, the reader, also. What LRH defines himself in many references, in basic books written by him when HE WAS STILL ALIVE, directly as the “sex dynamic”, or as “sexual urge”, or “sexual impulse”, now has been reduced to something of “incidental” relevance. The manner in which it is explained here alters LRH’s actual original definitions and meanings, and shifts the importance, relative weight and significance of the various concepts involved. I will repeat that:


It alters LRH’s actual original definitions and meanings, and shifts the importance, relative weight and significance of the various concepts involved.


LRH states in the chapter entitled The Parts of Man, in Fundamentals of Thought:


Sex is only one of numerous creative impulses.


That IS TRUE, but this doesn’t mean in any way that all creative impulses reside within the Second Dynamic with sex being only one of them. It means that various creative impulses flow through every Dynamic, with the impulse of sex being only one of many of them. The fact that there is a creative impulse known as sex in the second Dynamic is irrelevant.


In the same book, in the chapter entitled Causation of Knowledge:


AXIOM 10: The highest purpose in the universe is the creation of an effect.


And in Scientology 0-8, from The Factors:


  1. Before the beginning was a Cause and the entire purpose of the Cause was the creation of effect.


I would hope that nobody interprets this to mean that the entire purpose of all existence, the CREATION of an effect, derives from the CREATIVITY of the Second Dynamic. But if “any creativity” is included in the Second Dynamic, then this must somehow be true. BUT THAT IS NUTS! I guess someone could conceive that the “creativity” of the Second Dynamic channels itself to and through the Seventh Dynamic, and then as the “creative ability” of Theta then diverts and channels itself through each of the Eight Dynamics so as to mock-up the various universes, planets, life forms and so on. That is obviously nuts and almost “New Age” with the “channeling” concept, but one WILL, out of necessity, develop weird ideas when trying to make sense of this wacky definition and when trying to align it with extant legitimate LRH data.


Per LRH (Ability Issue 74 Tech Volume IV page 354):


“The spirit is the source of all creation. You are a spirit.”


This simply reaffirms the idea that creativity is far above everything else. There is no possible way the new definition of the second dynamic makes actual sense, though it seems that MANY people seem to have somehow applied incorrect “thinking”, and enabled it to “make sense”. Too many imbue it with a legitimacy it simply does not possess. This has been going on, unnoticed, quietly agreed with, and quietly disagreed with by many since the early nineties when this definition first appeared in the LOC pack.


Scientology 8-8008, chapter entitled The Beingness of Man


Creativeness could be found to exceed existence itself; by observation and definition it is discoverable that thought does not necessarily have to be preceded by data, but can create data. Imagination can then create without reference to pre-existing states, and is not necessarily dependent upon experience or data and does not necessarily combine these for its products. Imagination could be classified as the ability to create or forecast a future or to create, change or destroy a present or past.


Creativeness is the same thing as creativity. LRH clearly states here that it is above existence itself, and since the Dynamics are each PART of existence, there is no way that “creativity” could be the Second Dynamic as stated in the new definition and also be “above existence”.


LYING is the lowest form of creativity. (Fundamentals of Thought, chapter two)


It seems somebody was applying that sentence when they wrote the new definition of the second dynamic because it is a lie. Or, shall we believe that lying is some low form of the second dynamic? Oh, I know! When a husband cheats on their spouse, they often lie to cover their tracks, so since lying is a form of creativity, and since men lie to their spouses to have sex with other women, then the second dynamic must also be creativity! That’s an example of completely absurd logic, but it seems that similar absurd logic must have led to so many people accepting this screwy new definition as sensible.


LRH clearly states in many places that the Second Dynamic is made up equally of SEX and FAMILY.


Sex is not some “incidental” thing used as a mechanism to compel future survival. Future survival of the race or GE line is the entire purpose of the 2D and the activities of SEX, FAMILY and the REARING OF CHILDREN bring it about. The Second Dynamic is 50% sex and 50% family and the rearing of children. THAT’S IT!


The Second Dynamic does not contain “any creativity” besides that involving sex and family. The above statement that it does is patently FALSE. And no arguing executives, convinced Word Clearers, threatening Ethics Officers, steering Qual Cramming Officers, senior management edicts, or HCO declarations can make it otherwise. Sure, the idea can be forced on others, and sadly, it seems almost everyone will happily accept it, but even so, it will not be true. It will never be true, although many people may accept it as true. Those are two very different things.


Somebody, possibly, seems to want to take the “sex” out of the second dynamic, or at least intends to greatly minimize its importance and relevance. But, intentions are irrelevant and I won’t even bother to pretend to be able to guess why anyone did what they did here. Really, it’s not important – THAT it occurred is what is vitally important.


I suggest that this get corrected quickly, because it is leaving in its wake a tremendous amount of confusion, disagreement and entheta. Every person who has read this has either been confused, has disagreed, or has accepted some self-created weird concatenation of logic to have it “make sense”.


If you did a survey, and were able to actually get the majority of the staff and public to answer honestly, you would discover something very interesting. But it would be vital to first encourage them so they weren’t feeling obliged to answer a certain way by being “politically correct” (saying things and acting certain ways because they’re “supposed” to and not because it is what they see, believe and know to be true). What would such a survey discover? Many people have had a problem with this definition of the second dynamic, whether it is of confusions or disagreements or both. How this could occur, and remain unnoticed for so long is a question I urge you to ask and get fully answered.

The Second Dynamic “Includes Any Creativity”?


The SECOND DYNAMIC is CREATIVTY. Creativity is making things for the future and the second dynamic includes any creativity.


The above sentence is taken directly out of the most recent version of the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book.


Random House Webster’s College Dictionary


include v.t. 1. to contain or encompass as part of a whole. The meal includes dessert and coffee. 2. to place as part of a category. 3. to enclose.


Definition 1 is correct.


any adj. 1. One, a, an, or some; one or more without specification or identification. If you have any witnesses, produce them. Pick Out any six you like. 2. whatever or whichever it may be: at any price. 3. In whatever quantity or number, great or small; some: Do you have any butter? 4. every; all: Any schoolchild would know that. Read any books you find on the subject. 5. (following a negative) at all: She can’t endure any criticism. -- pron. 6. an unspecified person or persons; anybody; anyone: He did better than any before him. 7. a single one or ones; an unspecified thing or things; a quantity or number: We don’t have any left. - adv. 8. in whatever degree; to some extent; at all: Do you feel any better? - Idiom. 9. any which way, in any manner whatever; indifferently or carelessly.


Definition 4 is correct.


Concise Oxford Dictionary


creative adj. 1) inventive and imaginative. 2) creating or able to create. + + creatively adv. creativeness n. creativity n.


Random House Webster’s College Dictionary


creative adj. 1) having the power or quality of creating 2) resulting from originality of thought; imaginative. 3) Facetious. producing deceptive or fraudulent information, etc. creative bookkeeping. [1670-90] -- creatively adv. creativeness n.


creativity n. 1. the state or quality of being creative. 2. the ability to create meaningful new forms, interpretations, etc.; originality. 3. the process by which one utilizes creative ability. [1870-75]


Oxford American Dictionary


creative adj. 1) having the power or ability to create things 2) showing imagination and originality as well as routine skill, creative work. creatively adv. creativity n.

Simply, “creativity” is the ability to create.


The phrase “includes any creativity,” means “encompasses any and all creativity”. The second dynamic definitely does not encompass any and all creativity. This is true by simple observation. Looking at the plainly visible facts of reality contradicts this statement. It is a sorry state of affairs when purported LRH “data” contradicts directly with simple facts that are directly available to any sane and fairly observant person.


Creativity is making things for the future. I can accept that phrase, although I will never accept it as a legitimate part of the definition of the second dynamic. Let’s look at examples of “making things for the future”. The reader should also do this drill, and make out your own list to get adequate reality on this for yourself. Do the drill and please don’t just react or argue.


A few examples of “making things for the future” might include:


Writing a song

Painting a picture

Building a house

Building a bridge

Building a electronic eavesdropping device

Coloring Easter eggs the night before Easter

Painting the walls of a room

Preparing a room for a new baby

Designing a new software program

Running for office as a county official and mounting a campaign

Planning a promotional campaign

Implementing a promotional campaign

Changing the electronics on a guitar to change the sound

Adding new hardware to a computer

Sexual intercourse (that succeeds in fertilization)

Planning a vacation for a husband and wife

Studying a course

Going to college

Doing one’s job well

Doing one’s job poorly

Writing a poem

Getting a poem published

Going on a bookstore tour to promote the book of poems

Cutting a lawn

Manicuring one’s nails

Getting one’s “hair done”

Exercising 1 hour at the gym

Designing a planet buster bomb

Using a planet buster bomb

Designing and building a time machine

Delivering a sermon at a church service

Performing a marriage

Getting married

Working out an investment plan with a financial counselor for a friend

Receiving auditing

Building a fence

Tearing down a fence

Planning and attending a picnic with one’s children

Planning and attending a company picnic

Setting up a new administrative system

Conducting a training seminar for a group of employees

Implementing a bonus program as part of a staff pay plan

Recording a song

Recording a video of a group playing a song

Buying a puppy dog for a child

Planting seeds in a burnt out forest area

Building a plant to remove heavy metals from seawater

Installing a Jacuzzi


Each example above can belong to one or more Dynamics depending on the exact circumstances. For example, writing a song, could be solely a first dynamic activity if one does it and never performs it to anyone. It would be also a third dynamic activity if it were done while one was working as a staff writer at a song publishing company. It would include a second dynamic aspect if a man was inspired by, wrote it for and sang it to his wife. If the song is admired and