Scientology ethics: Justifying genocide

Inspired by a discussion under my previous blog post, I came to realize a possible root cause for the unethical behavior of the Church of Scientology and within its ranks.

The unethical conduct of the Church of Scientology is well documented in books, articles and films. The unethical conduct of individual members has also gotten some attention in the media. Scientologists would have personal knowledge of falsifying statistics, embezzlement, undue pressure and duress, disregard of health, sordid treatment of children or other unsavoury acts in the name of “The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number of Dynamics”.

The self-centric world view

The self-centric world view

Let’s take a look at this central concept in L. Ron Hubbard’s “Ethics system”. First we need to understand what the “dynamics” are:

“There could be said to be eight urges (drives, impulses) in life. These we call dynamics. These are motives or motivations. We call them the eight dynamics.

The first dynamic is the urge toward existence as one’s self. Here we have individuality expressed fully. This can be called the self dynamic.

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 third dynamic is the urge toward existence in groups of individuals. Any group or part of an entire class could be considered to be a part of the third dynamic. The school, the society, the town, the nation are each part of the third dynamic, and each one is a third dynamic. This can be called the group dynamic.

The fourth dynamic is the urge toward existence as mankind. Whereas the white race would be considered a third dynamic, all the races would be considered the fourth dynamic. This can be called the mankind dynamic.

The fifth dynamic is the urge toward existence of the animal kingdom. This includes all living things whether vegetable or animal. The fish in the sea, the beasts of the field or of the forest, grass, trees, flowers, or anything directly and intimately motivated by life. This could be called the animal dynamic.

The sixth dynamic is the urge toward existence as the physical universe. The physical universe is composed of matter, energy, space and time. In Scn we take the first letter of each of these words and coin a word, MEST. This can be called the universe dynamic.

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.

The eighth dynamic is the urge toward existence as infinity. This is also identified as the Supreme Being. It is carefully observed here that the science of Scn does not intrude into the dynamic of the Supreme Being. This is called the eighth dynamic because the symbol of infinity “∞” stood upright makes the numeral “8 .” This can be called the infinity or God dynamic.” (Fundamentals of Thought)

Then we need to understand what Hubbard would label the most ethical action or the “optimum solution”:

“the solution which brings the greatest benefit to the greatest number of dynamics.” (Notes on the lectures)

According to Hubbard, the optimum solution in any given situation is determined not by the greatest good for the greatest number of people involved but for the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics. In one fell swoop he puts every dynamic at equal value. Your first dynamic is equally important as your family. Your family is of equal value as the whole of Mankind. Your school is as important as all life. And God is of the same value as yourself. Right there you can see a serious incompatibility with several major religions.

Most non-scientologist would balk at this and go “Objection your honor!” Most scientologists would buy into this hook, line and sinker. Because it is uttered by L. Ron Hubbard.

Putting the first dynamic on par with your family, your country, Mankind, all of life, the physical universe, all spirituality or God himself makes for a rather egotistical religion. But watch for the scientologists pitch in with comments on this blog post with “but, it’s all about you BEING your dynamics” and other esoterics to justify how this somehow, in some way could possibly be justified as sane. It should make for interesting discussions.

When Hubbard would refer to The Third Dynamic, he wouldn’t normally be talking about your soccer team, your astronomy club or your country. He would refer to Scientology. To him, Scientology was the only real Third Dynamic – on par with Mankind and God. And Scientologists are led to believe that it is so all-pervasive in its goodness that it empowered all the dynamics. This is why we see so many scientologists sacrifice their families and themselves to the greater cause of this “über-third dynamic”.

But without philosophizing too much, let’s simply put this “optimum solution” to test. In determining if some action is beneficial or harmful to a dynamic, we’ll give the action a -100% to +100% impact on that dynamic. A score of -100% would be the destruction of that dynamic, while a +100% would be a maximum positive effect (such as escaping death in gruelling situation). For any minor effect, we will use ±0.1% for convenience. The numbers are rough estimates that I am prepared to defend quite easily. In the examples below, you are in a family of 4, so you are 25% of your 2nd Dynamic.

Action 1D 2D 3D 4D 5D 6D 7D 8D Total effect
1: As a Scientology Executive, should I exploit my work force? +20 +10 +50 -0.1 ~+80% = Yup!
2: Should you protect Scientology by infiltrating the US Government? +10 +5 +50 -0.1 ~+65% = Of course you should.
3: Risk losing your job by reporting non-critical embezlement in the company? -5 -1 +1 ~-5% = Turn the blind eye.
4: You own a whaling company. Should you hunt down and kill all blue whales? +20 +10 +50 -0.1 -1 -0.1 -0.1 ~+79% = Kill-spree!
5: Risking your life (10% chance) to save a stranger from certain death? -10 -2.5 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 ~-12.5% = Walk away.
6: Letting half your sailing crew die to save yourself +100 +25 -50 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 ~+75% = Go for it!
7: Letting your whole sailing crew die to save yourself +100 +25 -100 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 ~+25% = Still good. Jump the ship!
8: As a Nazi concentration camp guard, should you kill jews? +100 +25 +0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -33 ~+92% = Nothing should stop you 😦

Every Nazi could make use of Hubbard’s “optimum solution” to justify genocide.

I could go on and on, but you get the idea. Scientology ethics is self-centric and egotistical and totally off-balance.

Before someone start objecting that some of my examples are in fact against some law, I should point out that according to Hubbard those laws would simply be contrary to the optimum solution. The laws should be removed or amended to comply with the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.

It’s not that I would argue against the concept of the dynamics themselves, but to put them at equal value is nothing short of insane.

We’re not talking about some fringe part of Scientology, like Xenu, the OCA test, David Miscavige beating his staff or false marketing here. We are talking about the very core of Scientology – its very ethics – upon which all of auditing, study and administration hinges. We are looking at Hubbard’s “optimum solution“. In fact I think we are looking at a root cause to much of the evil perpetrated in the name of Scientology.

61 thoughts on “Scientology ethics: Justifying genocide

  1. “Risking your life (10% chance) to save a stranger from certain death?…12.5% = Walk away.”

    Your calculations are based on nothing more than total number of individuals, with all individuals having equal value across the dynamics. So how would you calculate the following:

    Risking your life (10% chance) to save A KNOWN TERRORIST (as opposed to “a stranger”) from certain death.

    In the above, wouldn’t the benefit to your dynamics have to be more than the way you calculated – which was just the percentage of individuals affected?

    In other words, the optimum solution is not just a comparison across the dynamics of total numbers of people affected. It’s how much benefit or harm is being done to each dynamic affected, with the best solution being the one that gives the most benefit (or least harm) for the greatest number of the dynamics affected. That’s my understanding.

    1. I base the calcualtion on the average value of a person toward that dynamic. As for a stranger, you simply wouldn’t know if he was a terrorist or a saint, and so you would have to calcualte him to be an Average Joe. But this would be mere knit-picking of course and not really related to the point of the OP.

      1. Would your calculations for a known terrorist be “average”? It’s not knit-picking to evaluate harm and benefit by taking into account such data – and without so doing, you aren’t actually applying the optimum solution but your alteration of it.

        1. I don’t know why you brought up a known terrorist into this discussion. None of my examples included a known terrorist. And that you could manufacture examples that would make Hubbard’s ethics ring true does not in any way refute the OP.

          1. I brought it up as an example in order to show that the basis for your calculations – i.e. all individuals having equal value – is faulty. The actual basis of the optimum solution is a comparison of benefit/harm – and that would make a big difference in a solution that involved some unknown stranger versus a known terrorist.

            1. These are general and average examples. Of course examples will vary from these. But an average calculation is just as non-faulty as any other calculation.

            2. Actually, any less average example (like your Known Terrorist) is more faulty as it is statistically less likely to occur.

  2. ” In one fell swoop he puts every dynamic at equal value.”

    Sorry, I don’t buy this conclusion. I never understood what he was saying, in this way. Still don’t. The 1st dynamic is important to the extent that it is the basic building block of the first 4 dynamics.

    The concentric circle illustration demonstrates that on its face that the dynamics do not have equal weight. And I never heard Hubbard say they have equal weight. At best, it is only a justification.

    Some of your examples are not bad, but they are pretty much lacking in perspective. A Nazi, for example, needs to do a Doubt formula. If he does it honestly, he will not be a Nazi for long. Life can put one in a position of having to decide whether he would best try to help , to abandon any particular dynamic.

    I don’t know how the simplistic “Equal weight” interpretation got started, but it is wrong. Don’t forget the idea of the dynamics way prdates the development of the Ethics system. To the extent that Hubbard may have subscribed to that interpretation, perhaps he had start4d to use it as a justification for his own wrong actions.

    1. From *Fundamentals of Thought*:

      There is no thought or statement here that any one of these eight dynamics is more important than the others. While they are categories (divisions) of the broad game of life they
      are not necessarily equal to each other. It will be found amongst individuals that each person
      stresses one of the dynamics more than the others, or may stress a combination of dynamics as more important-than other combinations.

      “The purpose in setting forth this division is to increase an understanding of life by placing it in compartments. Having subdivided existence in this fashion, each compartment can be inspected as itself and by itself in its relationship to the other compartments of life. In working a puzzle it is necessary to first take pieces of similar color or character and place them in groups. In studying a subject it is necessary to proceed in an orderly fashion. To promote this orderliness it is necessary to assume for our purposes these eight arbitrary compartments of life.”

    2. “A Nazi, for example, needs to do a Doubt formula.”
      You or I would say this. But that is as relates to the dynamics that you and I share outside the Nazi group. Only a Nazi who would not throw his life away for der fuhrer would need to do a doubt toward his Nazi’ism. At least that’s my understanding.

      1. Sure, that’s just the point. A person would have to have enough awareness of the overall dynamics of life. Otherwise s/he would not be thinking with them and his ethic level would be correspondingly low. Stupid is as stupid does. I think education in the concept of the dynamics could maybe a person’s level somewhat. However, the CoS example may argue against that. However, tis better to light one candle, than to curse the darkness.

        1. I think one should better pay attention to other PEOPLE rather than other DYNAMICS. I think the Dynamics construct can get in the way of that.

          1. I think the two are inseparable. It is the thinking of the person applying the concept that can be faulty. What Hubbard might have dubbed “figure-figure” instead of seeing things as they are. As they are, the first 4 dynamics ARE “people”. Human beings. If one only works “in his head” rather than with his whole being including his heart, he will miss the mark. It’s not just the idea of the Dynamics that gets misapplied., it’s true of any intellectualization that removes the human element that will cause problems.

            1. It may be hard to accept that Hubbard had this completely assbackwards. As I say, this sure seems to explain a lot of the shit done in Scientology, including the stuff done under Hubbard’s command or directly ordered by him.

            2. It’s not hard at all to accept if it’s there. I’m saying I haven’t heard it in the few lectures I’ve heard, or the issues I’ve read. I’ve never been a big Hubbard PL reader, so you could be right. That it is applied the way you say by many scientologists is self-evident. As far as I’m concerned it’s an incorrect, two dimensional interpretation that does not reassure me about the human race in general. It’s linear and not holistic. (or Whole-istic) It’s the same-old, same-old stupidity and rigidity displayed by people in many areas. One could cite Republicans, Democrats, Communists, Christians, Muslims, etc etc. They are all ignoring the realities represented by the concept of the Dynamics, instead sticking to their rigid dogmas. The pesticides, for example, are justified by “the company is creating jobs”, without looking at the overall greater harm. That’s the other side of the greater good – the greater harm. I think most Buddhists would say its an example of “wrong livelihood”. (earning money by dealing overt products)(harmful/destructive products). Like, say, weapons.

              I can’t make it any plainer than that. It has nothing to do with my having any difficulty accepting that Hubbard was wrong about something. Maybe he was wrong in how he used and applied the concept. It would n’t be the first thing he misapplied. He obviously misapplied his own basic theories about Ethics. This may be another example of that. But I am talking about the basic theory of the Dynamics, as a way of compartmenting life to look at it’s different aspects which he stated long before he codified his “Ethics”. It expanded my way of looking at life and gave me a tool to think with which included ideas about how to determine what is good and what is better or worse.

              You can dismiss what I’ve written with the tired old rubric of “it’s hard to accept that Hubbard…etc”, implying I have difficulty with that, but you’d be better off responding to the actual examples and statements I have been making on the subject, rather than, perhaps, trying to dismiss me that way. And perhaps providing your own examples of how Hubbard misused the concept of the Dynamics. Like any other idea, it can be misused and misapplied to suit ones own ends. Hubbard may well have done that, s he did with the concepts of PTS and SP. Doesn’t mean I or you or the rest of the world can’t use it properly, in “Ethical” ways.

            3. I am not contesting your understanding of Dynamics (although you may have to sell the benefits better than what you have done so far). I am contesting Hubbard putting them at roughly equal value. And Marildi has already accounted for the fact that Hubbard did indeed view it that way. You may wholeheartedly disagree – which is fine, even comendable. But do you have any documentation that contradicts what I and Marildi has pointed out? And if so, it would actually make Hubbard’s view contradict itself – and I am not sure which is better.

            4. In the section from FOT that marildi posted, is this: “While they are categories (divisions) of the broad game of life they are not necessarily equal to each other.” He refuses to evaluate whether they are of equal weight or not, and explicitly states that different people view and weight them differently. I don’t need to sell them, I simply stating how i view them and use them. Since we’re talking about ALL of Existence, I don’t think it’s much of a compartmentalization. It breaks Existence down into rather broad categories monitored by the ideas of survival vs non-survival, or constructive vs. destructive, helpful or harmful. of course what Hubbard says about them gives you leeway to disagree with me. People may be working on the problems I’ve mentioned, but are enough people working on them? Perhaps the people not working on them in some way need to have their horizons expanded to include a broader view of Existence and Survival. People tend to take the Universe and Existence for granted. The sun will rise as it always has and so on. That’s not necessarily true, if “people” destroy enough of the environment we’re all goners.

            5. We apparently agree to disagree, then. I don’t see where you’ve refuted my position.

              I’d like to add that the drawing of the Dynamics clearly does not give them “equal weight”, because for example, the 8th Dynamic encircles and contains all the others. This also can lead to terrible consequences, including genocide, as when some group considers it to be the “The Will of God “(or Allah) that unbelievers can be, or ought to be, exterminated. They believe the 8th Dynamic has the ultimate “weight” when it comes to making decisions. Every system that weights one Dynamic too heavily over the others has been a disaster. From extreme Individualism, to Communism, to God Almightyism. In view of that, I’m not sure the “equal weight” theory is not the more benign one of them.
              My point basically is that it is a system that tries to include al of Existence in it. We have plenty that do not. I guess you already know I’ not much of an adherent of “systems” and “policies” in the first place.

          2. I also think the Dynamics are a good construct because it is likely to broaden the way a person thinks about life and the universe. There are Dynamics beyond PEOPLE. There is the entire animal kingdom, and plants as well. i have heard that if bees are eradicated, we would suffer greatly and maybe not survive ourselves, bees are so essential to producing the foods we eat. Yet “people” are involved in manufacturing and selling pesticides that apparently wipe out bees wherever they are used, and have already caused the death of millions of bees in some countries. Neglect or destruction of other Dynamics can be a seriously wrong business. This was Hubbard’s argument vis-a-vis nuclear war. which was seen as a real threat back in the 1940s/1950s. NOw, it appears peaceful use of nuclear power has it’s own perils, witness Fukushima and the spreading plume of radioactive water poisoning the Pacific ocean.
            In short, I think the construct of the Dynamics can make people more aware of the interdependence of all life and the environment, too.

            1. Yet people are doing lots to handle all the situations you point out, and without any knowledge of Hubbard’s artificial construct of Dynamics. Just to point out the oddity of the Dynamics, can you see which is the odd one out?

            2. I think if you presented the idea of the Dynamics to many of those people who are working for the greater good, many of them would say, “That’s good! I never thought of it quite that way but it pretty much right.” If you think of Scientology as comprised of data that each person already basically knows, you’ll have it. So those people you are talking about, in my view do already have the concept of the Dynamics, whether they have consciously phrased it that way or not. They don’t need to “hear of it”. It’s already in them.

            3. I tend to think of the wholeness more than such a compartmented view. But that may just be my way of looking at it. But as I said, I am not against The Dynamics per se – only Hubbard’s insane attempt at putting them rughly at equal value. And then his further insanity of putting Scientology above them all.

            4. I think the concept of the Dynamics puts into words some things that are otherwise often not implicitly stated or taught They may be instinctively “known” or “felt”. Who teaches about the interdependence of Life and the Universe? Buddhists do, among others. Example: the concept of “Right Livelihood”. But that is based on the idea of “Karma”. The concept of the Dynamics is expressed in terms of “Survival’, which is a lot more accessible and understandable than “Karma”

              I’m not arguing that Hubbard did not misuse the concept for his own ends, or that his thinking about it did not become skewed. He may well have, and it may well have been. All that tells me is that he could be as self-centric as anyone else, looking for ways to justify himself. That takes nothing away from my own contemplation of optimum survival, which may not agree with HUbbard’s at all, because then he may have been contemplating his own goals, not mine.

      2. To the extent that all 3rd dynamics are part of the 4th dynamic, they are all shared by you and me, including Nazis and KKers etc. Call it a house divided. What is the solution to that? If there is one…

  3. <b>”I could go on and on, but you get the idea. Scientology ethics is self-centric and egotistical and totally off-balance.”</b>You’ve done a good job with this.  Several good points.  From my travails with religion, I feel that the salient point, the one that I’ve quoted here, it the point that I can take away and use in life.  To take life a little less self-centric everyday is good advice.  That’s my new vector for now.  I am trying to be more civic minded and a little less self involved.  Today I was downtown at the State Capitol Building.  While researching some business facts and taking care of some registrations, etc., I found myself in the “state museum” and was intrigued and humbled by people who have been featured and honored.  What I noticed that they all had in common was that they contributed mightily to others in the way that they lived.  On the other hand, religion generally tends to inflate the ego.  Studying too hard about one’s “eternal soul” is or can be a life swallowing activity.  At least that is the way it seems to me.  Meanwhile, if any of you need help getting a pothole fixed in your street in Phoenix, give me a call.  I’ll direct you or walk you to the “correct terminals!”

  4. yeah you nailed it, myth busting beliefs with science is fun

    this is a dalek’s moral code

    really glad hubbard wasn’t born later working on artificial intelligence with this mass destruction algorithm, or building self driving cars lol

    explains his calculations in science of survival where he proposed you could fix the world by a genocide of everyone below tone 2.0, he was well below 2.0 for much of his life going into hiding so he’d have to include himself in that group

    let’s extend this to the galactic scope since we’re talking about scientology, this system is not just ego centric, it’s species centric, the first 4 are the scope of one species so that math skews the destruction of other species way out of balance

    if aliens land on earth i hope their decision tree has nothing to do with scientology or we’re done for

      1. What is amazing to me is that Hubbard Cammy up with such concepts without even rudimentary checks of logic before publishing them as fact. Any ordinary person with the slightest interest in logic could pick this very concept to bits and he could have moved on to improve the concept. But no. He had to be superiorily right, I guess.

        1. How logical is it to accept the group think that has been passed around by critics about “Hubbard advocating genocide”?

          What he said was this:

          “It is only necessary to delete those individuals who range from 2.0 down, either by processing them enough to get their tone level above the 2.0 line — a task which, indeed, is not very great, since the amount of processing in many cases might be under fifty hours, although it might also in others be in excess of two hundred — or simply quarantining them from the society.” (SOS)

          Process or quarantine – those were the only those two recommendations. Even “delete” (which some critics like to mention in order to push people’s buttons) is clarified by the context as meaning to quarantine.

          If “any ordinary person” wasn’t being too literal – intentionally or unintentionally – I think it would be clear that Hubbard was simply making the point that processing is the solution.

          1. You took that out of the context. I will include the Whipple context so that the readers can better judge for themselves:

            “The sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the tone scale from the social order would result in an almost instant rise in the cultural tone and would interrupt the dwindling spiral into which any society may have entered. It is not necessary to produce a world of clears in order to have a reasonable and worthwhile social order; it is only necessary to delete those individuals who range from 2.0 down, either by processing them enough to get their tone level above the 2.0 line — a task which, indeed, is not very great, since the amount of processing in many cases might be under fifty hours, although it might also in others be in excess of two hundred — or simply quarantining them from the society. A Venezuelan dictator [Juan Vicente Gómez] once decided to stop leprosy. He saw that most lepers in his country were also beggars. By the simple expedient of collecting and destroying all the beggars in Venezuela an end was put to leprosy in that country.”

            1. Here’s the basic definition:
              the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

            2. I don’t think beggars or lepers actually fit any of those 4 group criteria, but I don’t disagree with you, based on the broader definitions available

            3. I really don’t see any need to defend Hubbard on the subject. Given enough power, would he have implemented such a solution? Given the way Sea Org management talks and conducts itself, it seems entirely possible to me. Here’s a modern example: AIDS was originally spread throughout the US by one individual who worked for an airline and flew about the country engaging in promiscuous unprotected sex. He spread it knowingly, being bitter about having contracted it himself. He actually told some of his victims after having sex with them, that they were now infected.
              Given enough power, would someone like HUbbard have embarked upon a program of rounding up and exterminating homosexuals? It seems entirely possible.
              But nonetheless, I don’t have to agree with him, and his use or misuse of the concept of the “greatest good” in that way. I might think it is better to look for other solutions.
              I think humanity’s problem in general is the inability to recognize the difference between the map and the territory. This leads to the misapplication of various concepts which are not in themselves wrong. The wrongnesses are added or created by the people who misapply them. To suppress or argue against ideas in a blanket fashion rather than investigating them is Orwellian in itself.

            4. Val: “Given enough power, would he have implemented such a solution? Given the way Sea Org management talks and conducts itself, it seems entirely possible to me.”

              Sincere question – specifically what did the Sea Org do that makes you think Hubbard would implement that extreme solution?

            5. OK, “the Sea Org” is a generality. Are OSA, Sea Org? Perhaps not. But the way “fair game” policies are applied, and the treatment of so-called “SPs” outlined in the Ethics book, permit the destruction of people who are categorized as such. What HUbbard might have done in the situation I presented is al speculation since it never happened. But if Hubbard could envision it, so can I, right? Some of the Trump supporters apparently could be behind such solutions. They are on record as having said so.

            6. Yes, OSA is Sea Org. But I know of nothing in the Ethics book that talks about “destruction” of SP’s.

              Marty used to quote some of OSA’s orders, which included the quote “ruin them utterly,” but by the context I always took that to mean ruin them professionally – which is bad enough but it isn’t murder. Furthermore, I am pretty sure that this type of OSA order was in the context of some people or organizations that were seriously trying to ruin Scientology.

            7. Those are interesting reads, but they are largely hearsay, and probably projection. As marildi likes to point out, it is all too easy to cherry pick segments and snippets and extrapolate those into conclusions that could well be false. That is an all too common pastime of humanity’s. Circumstantial evidence can be found for almost any conclusion. To me, it mainly confirms the subjectivity of humans and their our tendency to project the socially unacceptable, rejected contents of their own psyches.

              I may speculate about how Hubbard may have acted if he were the Dictator of a country, but that doesn’t make it true.

            8. Hubbard was not “advocating” that anybody be killed. He used the lepers solution to make a point about handling a portion of a group that were a threat to the whole group – but in that same context, the only thing he was actually advocating was that those below 2.0 should be processed.

              For chrissakes, The WHOLE BOOK is devoted to the tone scale and how to process people at all levels on it.

              Even in that same chapter, a few pages later (after he describes each tone level) he again makes it clear that people below 2.0 are to be PROCESSED:

              “The auditor should be warned not to employ any authoritarian methods in processing. We in Dianetics are only interested in raising people on the tone scale. The auditor should be careful not to enturbulate persons below the 2.0 line any further than tthan they already are, but should be as non-directive as possible.”

            9. That’s why I added the additional context, including:

              “We in Dianetics are only interested in raising people on the tone scale.”

            10. marildi, the Sea Org seems to be very oriented towards results at any cost, “the ends justify the means” kind of thinking. I think the severity of the CoS has come about by the seepage of SO attitudes downward, until they have taken over the originally friendly attitudes that were more common. I assume these severe attitudes were promoted by Hubbard.

            11. There are a lot of individuals and groups that are oriented towards “the ends justify the means,” but that doesn’t mean we can assume they would all commit genocide, even though some of them might.

              I don’t know of anything done by the Sea Org that is anywhere near that extreme, which is why I asked you to be specific about what you were basing your opinion on.

            12. There are credible personal stories, like Scott Campbell’s account of being PDHed on the Freewinds, I believe it was. That is not an outright killing, but it comes pretty close. There are personal accounts on Marty’s blog over the years, of the application of “black dianetics” and what was it called, “reverse scientology”(?) on people. I seem to recall reading a quote of hubbard in which he was angrily suggesting that ‘reverse processing’ be applied to someone he considered an ‘enemy’ Sorry, I no longer attempt to keep a list of references for these things.

            13. marildi, I thin it is good that you are presenting the more benign side of interpreting HUbbard. That has been neglected these days, with what Marty calls the “ASC” being the very vocal squeaky wheel.

            14. I myself have witnessed staff members taking policy to a their own extreme, and I have no reason to doubt the stories you mentioned – but I don’t think they were directly linked with any of Hubbard’s orders. Even in Marty’s memoir, there is nothing like that – and he was privy to what was going on in GO and OSA activities

  5. Hubbard made a statement about a group being like a living organism in that it is an entity that is essentially “alive.” Currently, there is a scientific theory supporting that viewpoint with experimental evidence.

    What are called “morphic fields” are energetic phenomena created by any group, which greatly influences that group. This validates the relevance of any 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th dynamic or 7th dynamic group – as a group. (And perhaps 6th dynamic “groups” as well, since some philosophies consider that, at least in a sense, everything is alive).

    In the 7-minute video below, Rupert Sheldrake describes how “members of bonded groups” are connected by morphic fields on the order of magnetic fields. Thus the ethics of a situation has to be calculated on that basis – not on what mathematical fraction of a group is directly involved. As Aristotle said, “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”

  6. *I think Geir that there is more factors in the formula and there is more ingredients in the recipe of the ”optimum solution” than one. My personal opinion is therefore that the far better definition of the most ethical action or the “optimum solution” in the real life contexts would be following>“the solution which brings> as much benefit as possible to the greatest number of dynamics (benefit factor or ingredient) + as low harmfullness as possible to the greatest number of dynamics (harmfullness factor or ingredient) + as low waste of the resources as possible (cost factor or ingredient). If you apply this formula of the ”optimum solution”, there will be other results.

    *My second personal opinion is that there are much more ”dynamics” than 8. The dynamics you mentioned Geir are ”urges to survival” on the material universe plane. The next dynamics are the ”urges of survival” on the spiritual universe plane (dynamic of ethics, aesthetics, organization, reason, improvement, games, truth and creation). These dynamics are analogous, but on a higher (second) ”octave” than the first ”octave” of dynamics. It is the symphony of the creations of the whole existence. If you add these dynamics into your calculations, your results you get will be another.

    1. I think that the algoritm of assessment and calculation of the benefit of any action could be following>1.define clearly the action that is made (for example build the sport stadium), 2.look for the number of potentionaly concerned people (for example 100 000), 3.look for potential benefits and harms on every dynamic of a sample person (for example benefits could be +100, harms -0,1), 4.consider if the resources are sufficient (for example yes=1, we have 50% of resources=0.5, no=0)

      Calculation then will look smt like this: Action: I will build the sport stadium for my city, 1D: 1(me)x100(benefit for me)+1.(-0.1-harm for me)+ 2D: 4×100+4x(-0.1)+ 3D: 100 000 (potentialy concerned people) x 100 (benefit for each person) + 100 000x(-0.1-harm)+….+….x percentage of our resources= The potential effect of the action…then compare the result of this action with the other possible actions and you will know what action is more ”effective’

Have your say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s