A very serious alteration in DM’s 2007 GOK book re-writes has come to my attention. I suppose the subject matter should come as no surprise. I worked very closely with the compilers of the 1998 edition of Introduction to Scientology Ethics. In that edition the definition of the Second Dynamic was as on-Source as could be. It read as follows:
“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 family activity. It also incidentally includes sex as a mechanism to compel future survival.”
Ironically, there has been some chatter in the field for years protesting that this very definition was an off-Source alteration.
In fact, that definition was the final word on the subject of the second dynamic by L Ron Hubbard. It was clearly stated in his writings concerning World Out of Comm (WOOC) Eval from which the Key To Life and Life Orientation Course were compiled.
It also happens to be consistent with LRH’s entire body of work. One can go back as far as Science of Survival to see that the second dynamic entails a higher form of creativity than merely sex. For instance, “At the highest MEST point of the Tone Scale, 4.0, one finds monogomy, 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.”
I have had a good measure of success in helping couples improve their long term relationships by educating them on the fact that there is something more purposeful and constructive to the Second Dynamic than merely the biological impulse to forward the species.
In fact, I was working with a person on the subject of Ethics when I discovered the fact DM had in effect cancelled CREATIVITY from the Second Dynamic. Here is his brave new definition in the 2007 GOK Introduction to Scientology Ethics book:
“The Second Dynamic is the urge toward existence as a sexual 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.”
For those who agree with DM and insist that the Second Dynamic is exclusively concerned with sex, it is entirely your right to abide by your chosen understanding. However, I invite you to do as Ron suggests and test what you learn for workability. Examine your dynamics and their interaction using both definitions. See for yourself which works best to align them toward your long-term goals and purposes. See which one forwards the survival and well-being of the greatest number of your dynamics.
Incidentally, before posting this I confirmed my suspicions, and recollections, with a number of people intimately involved with LRH tech compilations, including the compilation of the 1998 Ethics book, Key To Life, and Life Orientation Course.
Moving On Up a Little Higher 
Thanks very much for the data on this matter. This definitely has been a big button/subject for dear leader and an area of suppression for many staff, both currently in and out of Mestology.
Well, that changes everything, doesn’t it?
What you say aligns with LRH’s early definition in COHA:
“The second dynamic would be that one of the persistence of admiration in many forms in one’s
own and the other’s universe. This admiration could take the form of sex, eating, or purely the
sensation of creation such as sex and children. In the physical universe it would be that light
emanation similar to sunlight. “
I’m glad you clarified this point Marty. Prior to the 1998 edition of the Ethics book, definitions of the 2D almost seemed a bit incomplete to me; never really made total sense. The 1998 edition, however, made complete sense; and it answered for me where creativity fit in to the picture…as an artist I’ve seen it in myself many times.
By the way, the 2-d book was always a great source of reference for matters concerning the 2-D. I thought it a great public disservice that it was removed from the org bookstores for being “non-standard, yet not replaced by Bridge produced substitute. The 2-d is such a big button with the public a book such as this would have been a really hot seller for sure.
Marty,
In fact this creativity as the Second Dynamic is also addressed in an LRH lecture from Nov 20/52, Assessment of PC-The Dynamics, Be, Do, Have as well as the references you’ve given.
“…the truth of the matter is that the creation of one’s own universe gives one the sensation of creation and can have far more joy in creation than the creation of children through the sexual act. There’s an urge in that direction, but it’s the urge toward creation, it is not the urge toward just one sex or something of the sort. This urge toward creation gets all wound up in an act, which is no more and no less than an energy flow.”
Interesting.
The definition change did come as a bit of a “reality adjustment” for me as the definitions were pretty set during LRH’s lifetime. Part of the hurdle facing the acceptance of any “new” definitions is the “there is no hidden data line” datum. And also, given the time track of changes post LRH, “propaganda by re-definition of words” appeared to be in use against scientologists and Sea Org members.
So what is a KSW kind of guy to do?
I think those that worked on the RTRC lines need to do a data dump of everything they know, as openly as possible. Further, the opening up of the LRH archives and notes to interested scholars\practitioners would also go far in re-establishing some credibility as to what is “LRH” and what isn’t.
That said, the above definition aligns with some realizations\thoughts I have been having recently. LRH discussed 3 levels of addressing cases, ie: thought, emotion and effort. These could roughly correlate to analytical, reactive and somatic minds. He posited a 4th one, aesthetics, and an aesthetic mind (in Science of Survival, if I recall orrectly), but I have never seen any further public elucidation along those lines. I surmise, however, given the large body of LRH data that is “Golden Era” only, on the subjects of Cine, Lighting, Music etc, that this was an area of research in his later years that has not been publicly released. If that is true, then I can see an organic connection in the progression of the definition. I am just saying that I think there is a lot of missing data about this, and I would love to see the vacuum filled from some credible sources.
Unfortunately, the popery of RTC (Reverse Technology Center) discounts immediately any credibility from that quarter. I hope to see more postings about this (LRH research and comps) in the near future.
Jim,
Right. Great reference. There are other lectures along the same lines. Sorry can’t give the citations at the moment. But, it is throughout the tech.
Tom,
On this particular point, the 2D as creation of more than just children, that data has been there from the early days really. You can see above references to it in S.O.S., early lectures, C.O.H.A..
Books are sort of ‘the words’ but the lectures are ‘the music’. Full study of the subject helps tremendously and one’s own extrapolations and applications are critical. It’s knowing how to know, it’s a route, a means, not the destination. The beginning, from it’s real beginning and the exact considerations and the rest is what we create and agree upon or not.
The 2D as creation, whether sensation, children, a nice garden, paintings, lakes, the dripping wet funk from the East Bay Grease of the Tower of Power, or that little curl of hair on the forehead of your honey, is a joy and we should splurge on it!
From Robert Dam’s website:
Survival through self-family-group-mankind – makes sense.
Survival through self-creativity-group-mankind – not so much.
That makes building a house or starting a company a second dynamic activity!?!? Well, that definitely does not make sense.
And if you take the quote from HCO PL 11. August 1967 SECOND DYNAMIC RULES “We are also aware that those org staff which are overactive on the second dynamic seldom prosper” it becomes even more evident that the new definition of the second dynamic could not be LRH. Because, how can a person be overactive on creation and creating things for the future?? And how could creativity possibly make him seldom prosper??
…Oh, another point about the 98 version Ethics book…at least I think it was in this edition…or it may have been the new vol 1 at the time, but the addition of the Confusion formula for a group (as opposed to an individual) was a godsend! I think all Class V staff members breathed a sigh of relief when that came out.
Exerpt:
Id, ego, and super-ego are the three parts of the psychic apparatus defined in Sigmund Freud’s structural model of the psyche; they are the three theoretical constructs in terms of whose activity and interaction mental life is described. According to this model, the uncoordinated instinctual trends are the “id”; the organised realistic part of the psyche is the “ego,” and the critical and moralising function the “super-ego.”
Marty,
I respectfully disagree with you on this topic. I see the Creativity definition being used by Miscavige as a justifier for forced abortions and strong restrictions on the sexual activity of all Scientologists.
The dynamics are the game we’re playing at this time in these bodies. Yes, we aspire to play a higher game as thetans, but as bodies the MOST important survival concept is having children or at least contributing to the flow. Without children there is no future for this game!
Creativity and aesthetics are closest to theta in wavelength and so belong in the 7th dynamic. Creativity is crucial to our identity as spiritual beings, without it we would just be mimicking MEST.
I’m sticking with the definition in the 1975 Tech Dictionary which was “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.”
I believe this definition maintains the dignity of the sex act in all forms and for its own sake as well as emphasizes the importance of contributing to the future generation.
I believe that the omission of the “bisexual” reference allowed the suppression of
homosexuals.
In terms of workability, I think you have to acknowledge that most people are happier when they are sexually active, especially when they don’t have someone judging what they’re doing. I also think that people can have a lot of charge on “not having kids” sooner or later in life that doesn’t go away easily. Having kids is part of living a complete life on all dynamics.
Marty,
As you know, LRH defined terminology in various books, tapes, HCOPLs, HCOBs, etc..
The only accurate definitions are ALL OF THE DEFINITIONS written by LRH personally.
When the Tech Dictionary was issued back in the 70s (a project supervised on the Apollo by my friend Cynthia) it accumulated ALL of the definitions she could find for every term defined by LRH, siting the original LRH source definition, in context. LRH references were solicited from the staff and field of every Org in the world as there was not central database of all LRH material available at that time.
I’d love to see an updated version of this done, as LRH was still writing after the compilation of that book. The same goes for the Admin Dictionary, which needs to be similarly updated. (Didn’t Ken Delderfield and his wife do that project?)
Unfortunately, these projects can’t be trusted to the DM squirrels. 😦
Anon, over literalness is quite the blinder.
Tom, the beginning of the data dump can be found at http://www.scientology-cult.com. I’ve written some articles there on the Tech Comps area. Definitely a lot more could be said and will over time. One thing that needs to be stressed is that LRH had people helping on compilations and research from the earliest days of Dianetics and that continued throughout his life all the way up through NOTs.
I’m going to be the stick in the mud and say this isn’t true for me, for a couple of reasons:
There are creative urges on every dynamic, and assigning them to one dynamic minimizes importance of sex and family in this time and place. This has been used to suppress the sex and family 2D urges of staff and public, especially SO, by attempting to sublimate 2D urges into 3D ones, collapsing the 2D entirely. In some cases, the 2D has involved family of choice, and I think in the upper bands, it can become more about family of choice.
When I pick clothing for the day, that’s at least a minimally creative effort, but it’s a 1D effort, unless I’m dressing for work, then it’s 1D/3D (but not 2D, one hopes), or if I’m dressing for a night with my husband, then it’s a 1D/2D.
If I’m involved in, say, a cat shelter, and I write a song for a benefit concert for fundraising for that shelter, I see that as a 1D/3D/5D form of creativity, but not a 2D one.
I could go on….
Old Cuff, There’s been a Dictionary Project ongoing since 1995. RTRC actually compiled one version of the new Scientology Dictionary that was bumped aside for GAT. The glossaries in the 2007 editions of books were provided by the Dictionary Project. If this project ever got completed (unlikely, given DM’s constant Q&A and indecisiveness in search of the unobtainable standard of “perfection”–LRH says is goes “quantity, quality, viability” whereas DM says it goes “quality, quality, quality, no end product”), it will likely be a superb product. It could have come out years and years ago. Don’t hold your breath.
Sorry Marty, I have to disagree with you on this one.
I’m all for creativity on the 2D.
However, this falls down on a KSW point as it doesn’t hold up against the verbal tech check list – not on one single point.
Sex is what differentiates this dynamic specifically from the others in terms of it being what it is.
Actually (in my humble opinion) Miscavige has done the opposite of what you say by making sex (and marriage and children) an unimportant part of the 2D. Now you can be in the Sea Org, or go on course full time and CREATE! Who the hell needs marriage and children? (an INCIDENTAL part of the dynamic). I say that the new definition way more aligns with Miscaviges purposes.
LRH may have made further notes about the 2D and I get the esoteric aspect of the sublimation of sex to creative thought – way upscale, but I have seen no instructions to alter the basic and fundamental purpose of it and won’t buy it until I see it in writing.
If we all start throwing sex out the window and label it an ‘incidental’ part of this dynamic, well, there goes the human race.
It’s like saying that the body is an incidental part of the 1st dynamic! “To hell with the body! We’re spiritual beings!” (yeah and see how long the body lasts when you stop taking care of it).
I don’t buy it and won’t until I see LRH’s paw print on it.
Clearly, we’re mostly on the same page, though I see creativity also in the other dynamics. I also agree with you on the omission of the word bisexual, especially since what sex we happen to be this time isn’t necessarily related to our preferences as a whole.
Clearlymistreated
In SOS he already talks about creativity. Have you ever observerd how creative homosexuals are ?
Elton John, Freddy Mercury etc..
‘In relatively high-toned beings, the very upper range of man and above, the impulse is to produce something out of nothing: one can only cause a creative effect by causing nothingnesses to become something.
‘The body’s single effort to make something out of nothing is resident in sex.- PAB 14, On Human Character.
If sex/procreation is seen as merely a harmonic of this dynamic then we have a view which is more inclusive of the thetan and not just this composite entity we call humankind.
Anon (almost feels like talking to myself). Consider this building a ghouse is Creativity for the Architect. It is his babby so to speak, but not so for the builders. I think sometimes the lines get blurred. I get your point. An entrepeneur is playing “Games” very able, very uptone. It is his livelihood as well as his selfexpression, It may even go up to group if he feels like a “father”to his employees. If the company is “green” minded it goes up to the fourth and fifth dynamic. Alsoio if a builder could have a choiche between a recycling greener company to work for over a more poluting one and he chooses to build houses for the greener company for his livlihood he is working for multiple dynamics. I pondered about the 6th dynamic. It could include maintaining historical things like the Colloseum or even the Hollywood Guarentee Building. Than a mear construction worker working for an envirement friendly building renevation company could have a solution for 7 out of 8 dynamics. If he believes in God and his company would alsoo specialize in renovating churches it can be stretched to the 8th ? Or is this wishfull thinking on my part ?
PS
But Marty (after my initial HE&R on the subject)
My disagreement comes with the greatest and deepest respect that we can all freely communicate and share opinions without calling each other out-ethics scum bags!
So I love you all the more for it!
“the MOST important survival concept is having children or at least contributing to the flow. Without children there is no future for this game!”
I agree with the contributing to the flow part. adoption of orphans is better for the planet by the way. that does not mean you want to create your own. Its a choiche
“Having kids is part of living a complete life on all dynamics.”
Dissagreed. A painters “baby”s are his paintings. After all wich three groups were stranded on the prisonplanet ?!
Yeah, apparently the 2D is a pretty big button with dm, too.
“Your body is your temple”
Yes, and I think of that section of Fundamentals of Thought where the apparent cycle of action is “Create-Survive-Destroy”, and he goes on to say that the ACTUAL cycle of action is Create, create-create-create, create-counter create and then no creation (cessation of creation.)
This clearly applies to more than one dynamic.
The lesson of post-modernism, is, for me, “context matters”. So the full time, place form and event of this definition in context, is important. Scientology as a body of data was posited as “stable data” with which to align confusions. If you start changing that ‘stable data’ you are going to being in to the present those confusions that you used it to align.
So, if you are going to shake people’s stable data, you better be ready for the ensuing confusions to come your way.
IMHO, my prefered definition (as an artsist too) comes from Creation of human ability, chapter “This is Scientoloy, Science of certainty”:
“The second dynamic would be that one of the persistence of admiration in many forms in one’s
own and the other’s universe. This admiration could take the form of sex, eating, or purely the
sensation of creation such as sex and children. In the physical universe it would be that light
emanation similar to sunlight.”
Other than Sea Org members (and I’m not expecting you to ‘name names’ here), how common is it for staffers to have children?
(BTW, saw the Four Corners doco last night. Tommy Davis is the gift that keeps on giving. He’s either in your face or stunned like a rabbit in a headlamp… Poor sausage…)
On the Tone Scale Chart of Human Evaluation, Column P (sexual beavior/attitude towards children), for Tone 4.0 it states “Sexual interest high, but often subliminated to creative thought”.
In SOS 2007, it states: “”At the highest MEST point of the Tone Scale, 4.0, one finds monogamy, constancy, a high enjoyment level, and very moral reaction toward sex, but one also finds the sexual urge acting to create more than children and so comes about a sublimination of sex into creative thought”.
If there was an alteration of definition, it was not consistently applied.
It would be a full time job, and very useful, to track all the alterations made in the 2007 editions, comparing it with earlier editions.
Just a simple question, Marty:
how come LRH left the Tech Dict Definition in that Dictionary as it is?
From another point of view one can think and study and do whatever he pleases in getting a better and a “finer” definition which though was not given by LRH directly in the Tech Dictionary for reasons he and others would understand better.
I have avidly read them all, and even hit the paypal button, as this kind of information is extremely relevant to my interests.
Thanks
All those definitions fit together, taking into account the interaction of the 3 universes, as described in “This is Scientoloy, Science of certainty” (Creation of human ability). Have a look 🙂
Theo, Like the Ethics book, the Tech Dictionary was a compilation by others. LRH did not write it. You can check with Dan Koon on its history. It has been scheduled for update since the day I got into Scientology in 77.
Ah Marty..what a relief. I had wondered what happened to that definition and was beginning to think I’d imagined it. Creativity! Now that’s a dynamic I can get behind. I’m feeling spunky already…
Sam, the notion of using the expanded definition to denigrate the family never even crossed my mind. You’ll never see LRH’s paw print on it (nor on any of the many alterations being entered into the scene) till DM is manacled and hauled off, if even then. So, interesting times ahead as more are spotted and reported upon.
Tom, I am not attempting to shake anyone’s stable datum. I am simply reporting fact.
“…and asanas are our prayers.” 🙂
Speaking as someone who’s heard that from my yoga instructor time and time again.
That’s true, we do create groups, and it’s our energy continuing to create them that causes them to continue to persist.
Marty, I get your point and thank you for posting. I simply happen to disagree that creativity is the domain of solely the second dynamic.
Fortunately, now that I’m not in the CofS, I don’t have to agree with LRH all the time. 🙂
“In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act.” —George Orwell
And what powerfull prayers they are.
Mine swears that the agility of your spine determines your body age.
why do people say of great things that they have created: “It’s my baby” ?
Unfortunately, one of the problems of living by the literal words of someone is the interpretations and counter-interpretations can then become policy and used to make others wrong.
Scn wasn’t supposed to be about making others wrong because that decreases their space.
Nevertheless, someone who was recently in has told me that the changed definition was used to make that person wrong about that person’s choice of relationship while on staff (not SO).
That kind of make wrong was unfortunately one I went into agreement with, screwing up my second dynamic until I sorted it out again after leaving Scn.
Just facing the order of magnitude of how much my space collapsed is something I’ve been working on lately. I can’t imagine what it was like for some of the people in the SO….
Dierde. I once commented on music could sometimes aspire to the 8th dynamic.
I think that thetans are not as thetans heavily oriented toward sexual activity. Sex appeared quite late on the track and, from my recollections, was intended as a control operation to further procreation. It took the creative impulses of a thetan and narrowed them to a narrrow band of wavelenghts. It was heavily implanted using implant techniques which I won’t post on an open forum.
I think one must really go back into basics to understand the nature of the 2nd dynamic. It is about creation and admiration. I know that the issue “Pain and Sex” was quite unpopular in some circles. Current society is quite dependent on procreation for its existence.
I know that many people now do not run OTII fully and skip the later parts of it. Some attest to it in a couple of weeks. The amount of charge left on cases at OT2 and OT3 in order to reg them for OT4 and 5 is one of the greatest crimes of the CofS in my opinion.
Oh brother. I can’t even think with the 2007 definition. I try to think with it and my mind turns to a train wreak.
SEE! It’s stuff like this I’d love to forward to people I know still on lines, but they’d immediatlly see it as an attack and cut comm.
*sigh* Well, I appreciate the info, Marty. And interested to learn more about such alter-is. Now I gotta go find a copy of the old 97′ version of the ethics book! Anyone selling? 😉
OK Marty, maybe I am not getting something or maybe you didn’t pay attention to my question.
My question was how come LRH left the sex/children/family definition in the Tech Dictionary for years and years and so many re-prints? Even if he didn’t compile it, how did he allow such a definition to stay there for so long?
Is maybe sex and family a more basic and “coarse” concept that most people can understand and appreciate to start with?
And from there on, one can move into creativity and sublimation of sex as one moves up in higher understandings and higher knowledge of life? It’s also as pointed out above in SOS and the chart of human evaluation, what happens at 4.0.
However, a stable datum does not have to be the correct one but it’s kept there in agreement by majority.
I can only speak for where I was, Orange County during what was apparently its heyday. Staff did indeed have children (and baby showers), we had stable nannies, parents got parent time (though generally not always), and the org contributed to their schooling costs at a Scn school.
I can’t speak to the quality of care as I wasn’t a parent, but based on what I’ve heard about the Childcare orgs in the SO, what we had was tons better. However, the ultimate word would have to come from a person at OC who was a parent, which I was not.
So far as I’m aware, no one was discouraged from having children, but financial realities being what they were, it’s possible some couples decided not to have kids because they couldn’t afford them.
When I first heard some of the stories of how kids were treated in the SO, I frankly didn’t believe them. Eventually, I realized that I just happened to work at an org where the ED (John Woodruff) was a father and happened to value children, and the local policy stemmed from his values and those of other execs.
Deirdre, I don’t think LRH is saying that the 2D is the only dynamic that deals with creativity. I think it’s meant to say more that creativity is what comprises this specific dynamic, but does not limit it to only 2D activities. Through that 2D create you get a family, children, a life with your spouse, etc. I think creativity plays a part in all dynamics, there have been many great examples of those in the comments here (a song, building, group, etc) and those certainly do express our creativity. Just as it does in our 2Ds by creating a baby or a family.
Cat,
I could find some music for each dynamic, but one that always says 8th dynamic to me is Mozart’s Exsultate Jubilate.
There’s any number of songs about the 1D and 2D, but once you get outward from that, it’s harder to find examples that speak specifically to other dynamics. Even most music in advertising tries to rope in the 1D and 2D even though they’re trying to get you to agree to their 3D ideal scene.
At the risk of being sexist, let me say that women seem to know better than men that there is more to the 2D than just sex.
However, I believe that creativity is an underlying aspect of all the dynamics, not just the second.
Also, as a thetan without a body, I would still have the desire to communicate with another who I could trust, who would have similar goals, and who would interact freely with me. I would call this a second dynamic, whether Ron said so or not.
QuietDisobedience, good point.
Theo, I don’t have a better answer for you. Anyone who purports to know what was going through LRH’s mind at any given moment is yanking your chain. There were outstanding orders (policy) that COMPILED books be updated with LRH’s evolution of writings. I am just reporting the fact that he defined it as he did in 1978, and added my two cents that it seems completely consistent with my understanding of his whole body of work.
I never had a problem with the new (and latest) definition of 2D being CREATIVITY. However, it seems LRH’s intention was that in the basic books — and at the new public level — using “sex and children” as the definition of 2D was the goal.
Did LRH write anywhere that he wanted this new definition (as written in LOC) to be used in every other instance of defining the 2D for new public?
To me, that seems to be the outpoint.
Another point. It seems to me also that using Creativity as the def of 2D in entry level compiled books is not “teaching Scientology at a level that it can be understood” as in the Code of a Scn. So personally, I’d think it would be appropriate as one definition in the Tech Dictionary, but perhaps not in the “Basic Dictionary of Dn & Scn”, WIS, etc.
But by saying the 2D is creativity, it implies that creativity only belongs there, when clearly it doesn’t.
I get the whole how creativity becomes family thing, really I do, and I can see higher harmonics of it, especially given this line from the seventh dynamic definition currently in use on learn.scientology.org: “It includes one’s beingness, the ability to create, the ability to cause survival or to survive, the ability to destroy or pretend to be destroyed.”
It’d be clearer in my mind to say that creativity was a 7th dynamic activity that manifested itself in the 2nd dynamic as children and family (or family of choice), but then we’re back to something approaching the tech dict definition of 2D.
Marty, ok. Thanks. It looks like Sex has gotten it’s place in the Dynamics and it’s here to stay! LOL! I can understand the creativity thing better now though than I would have at the time I got into Scientology. Pretty basic and real definition in the fullest sense of the word “real”. Beyond that I can understand sublimation of sex into creativeness as I could unerstand creativeness being the basis of that dynamic. It’s a matter of Qs, how one looks at life, how deep has he gotten into understanding certain things that others still consider in a given way. I think some R is missing here for some people, including me, so I am giving it some thought and maybe I could read some refs.
Sorry Marty, but I just can’t see this.
We have:
1st Dynamic – self
3rd Dynamic – groups
4th Dynamic – mankind
5th Dynamic – living things
6th Dynamic – MEST
7th Dynamic – spirits
8th Dynamic – infinity
These appear to be groups of things that one can exist as. There are in ascending order of ‘quantity’ (for want of a better term).
So, it seems entirely logical that between the ‘self’ and ‘group’ dynamics, we have a Dynamic comprising the family unit and production thereof. Thus we would have the progression Self-Family-Group-Mankind etc.
Hubbard may well have intended for this Dynamic to be redefined, but how can we prove this?
And surely this would also have entailed the rewriting of many HCOBs and HCOPLs where ‘Second Dynamic’ clearly refers to sex or family. ‘Out-2D’ meaning ‘actions contrary to creativity’ just doesn’t make sense to me.
And I like things to make sense. 🙂
Axiom142
Someone called Gene Zimmer compiled a 200 page report on all of LRHs comments on this area. I have a friend who tried giving this to staff at St Hill and London.
I have a roughly 100 page addition to the tech Dict. compiled by an old timer. It has nearly an extra page on the second dynamic.
Note that the dynamics are an arbitrary division of life for the purposes of easier thinking and examination. Thus the definitions in Tech Dict taken from Fundamentals of thought have stood us in good stead and give a
pretty simple statement about a specific area of life most are involved in. OK the word
” Bisexual ” is a bit ambiguous.
This was revised under DM to :-
” The SECOND DYNAMIC is CREATIVITY. Creativity is making things for
the future and the second dynamic includes any creativity…”
This then gets into complexity.
Creativity of course applies on ALL dynamics.
All existence is creativity.
All life, the universe, everything is creativity, per our basics.
All life is 2D???!
I go with those who consider this new def a justification of the suppression of the 2D in the SO etc.
And he has in 2007 reverted to the original FOT def leaving out the word ” bisexual”. Not
sure how the current FOT looks?
If the additional tech dict defs are wanted I can copy and mail to someone who could put them in a web based form. They consist of LRH quotes and presume thus can’t be attacked by copyright. But IANAL Nor facile with computers.
I think discussions of Truth may top Sex and Politics among us for liveliness!
Life — it’s fast; it’s hot; it is sometimes brutal; it has a full range of emotion. unFair paraphrase.
So I will pipe in here and add my 2 cents worth. Without actually citing references which I can if needed, it kinda looks like this.
Gradients are necessary to evaluate problems and their solutions.
Truth is relative to the environments, experience and truth.
A postulate is as valuable as it is workable.
Group tabulation of what has been done will be valuable as long as basic principles are not altered.
“A philosophy can only be a route to knowledge. It cannot be crammed down one’s throat. If one has a route, he can then find what is true for him. And that is Scientology. ” LRH
You can usually find older copies of LRH books on eBay. I’d avoid Amazon unless the person’s clear about the edition they’re selling.
In a perfect world there would be no orphans. Therefore, in a perfect world everyone would be heterosexual.
My two cents
The Tech and Admin dictionaries contain dated and sourced definitions from each time period. The definitions LRH used changed over the years and it’s vital to locate the one that was being used in each context. This has to be a tricky issue to get right when making a glossary for a compilation text such as the ItSE that includes issues from various time periods. I would be happy to see the ’78 WOOC Creativity definition for the 2D included in a future Tech dictionary. However, as it stands the wording can be misread to make it appear that all creativity belongs to the 2D. It’s not necessarily a good choice for the ItSE glossary.
I was going to write “screw this subject”. But, that would not be very creative.
Rats. Now I am all confused.
Which way to Qual?
🙂
I tend to think in the same terms as Old Cuff as I believe all the definitions are correct.
Li Po and Ralph referenced COHA which is the one I most relate to in terms of the second dynamic.
Margaret mentioned something about new public definitions. I don’t know what LRH’s intentions were in this regard but I do know that using the earlier definition in the 2007 book is going to create a conflict of data for the new person.
DM has replaced the individual with high tech audio visual dissemination. In the video on the dynamics, the second dynamic is defined as creativity. Yet, in the ethics book he goes back to sex. This is inconsistent defining and will add unnecessary confusion.
Since the Ethics book is a compilation and my ’89 version states a simpler version of what is in the 2007 edition, I don’t find this a heinous act. I agree, that there are broader definitions of the second dynamic which gives one depth of viewpoint but the earlier definitions were true as well. The main thing that stands out is incosistancy in defining the word.
Even in my edition of the Ethics book, it mentions LRH making more advances in research since the ’68 version came out and that those changes have been added to this edition ‘(89). Unfortunately, it will be hard to document whether the changes in the definition to “creativity” was one of LRH’s orders or another update originated by the compilations team.
This DMs definition may the 2D of an amoeba!! but not a human being, i.e. thetan plus body, or of a THETAN (soul). And I’ve known since popping out of the womb I was not that mess of blood & bones;)
In fact, sex by itself is nothing without the person there. I never wanted children in general, as a general drive to survive in and of itself, but I considered procreation with a person if I met someone with whom creating a human family aligned.
As it turned out, my progeny is music, movies, books and other creations toward a hopeful future on Earth and beyond.
Yes, this is also in Science of Survival, isn’t it? The sublimation? Made ME feel normal 🙂 —>
“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.”
I think I agree, if I’m duplicating Marty’s article correctly. I don’t think the 2D being only sex is a complete definition, because we all know there’s more to it than that. But ALL creativity on all dynamics can’t fall under the second dynamic either. Writing a song can’t be a 2D activity (unless you’re writing it for your 2D partner). I take the definition from FOT, posted esrlier in this blog, and combine that with the Chart of Human Evaluation and I get that the 2-D is sex, but at a higher tone level that urge is sublimated into something higher, but this sublimated creation still has something to do with the 2D as we know it. For example, just “being in love”, that wonderful exchange of admiration is definitely a 2D activity, but doesn’t always include sex. What about going out for dinner, or an old married couple holding hands? It’s definitely 2D create, but not necessarily sex, although there could be that also. Even mocking up a home together is a 2D create, but certainly not sexual.
The best 2D I ever had didn’t include very much sex. We were exterior all the time and used to play OT games as exterior beings and communicate telepathically and laugh all the time at the ridiculous game of being in the MEST universe. The sensations of this kind of ARC were incredibly intense, way beyond sex. Sex would have been a step down, as far as sensation goes. We didn’t get to the point of having kids but that was in the mock up, for sure. It was definitely a 2D.
On the other hand, the dynamic can get very mesty. What’s that PDC lecture where LRH says the highest sensation for a humanoid is a glass of beer and an orgasm?
There are different levels of create on all dynamics depending on awareness level and tone level.
I love creativity! Either it is on yourself, your partner, kids or other dynamics. Just love and cherish them, flow them power and love.
We all know once we stop creating on any of our dynamics, it will die. That is not a pretty thing do and nor is a pro-survival action.
CREATE, CREATE AND MORE!!! 🙂
(I tried posting this earlier this morning with no success, so forgive me if a duplicate shows up).
Here’s my question: if the second dynamic is strictly sex and children, how does a thetan without a body have a second dynamic? Do we have no second dynamic when we are operating as only ourselves, no bodies? Wouldn’t the more restricted definition of the second dynamic (sex and children only) make it impossible for a being operating without a body to survive on all dynamics?
I have never read any LRH where he assigns to thetan+body a higher condition than thetan operating as simply a thetan.
Secondly, one can “be creative ” on any dynamic, just as one can “be oneself” (first dynamic) on any dynamic. One can also “be a member of a group” on the fourth dynamic, or a member of the human race on the 5th dynamic.
Theo I just read part 1 of your writeup, it’s stunning. It’s good that you and Misha are exposing this area at the same time. DM has held his translations up continually as one of his best points but it’s actually a cover for how much suppression is in this area.
Create create create – every dynamic!
The dynamics are arbitrary compartmentalizations. Everything in the world is creation at all times.
But, the special creation on the sex dynamic, in regards to magical portals one can open, and creation of the universe, etc. was important to Crowley and the Occult and there might be some connection there.
“Tantric Sex
———————
Tantric Sex is meditative, spontaneous and intimate lovemaking Through it you learn to prolong the act of making love and to channel, rather than dissipate. potent orgasmic energies moving through you, thereby raising the level of your consciousness. Tantra transports your sexuality from the plane of doing to the place of being. There is no goal in Tantric sex, only the present moment of perfect and harmonious union. Tantra teaches you to revere your sexual partner and to transform the act of sex into a sacrament of love.
Tantra teaches that lovemaking between a man and woman, when entered into with awareness, is a gateway to both sexual and spiritual ecstasy. In India, traditional Tantrikas spent many years under the guidance of a spiritual teacher and engaged in elaborate yogic rituals to purify and master the body and mind. These practices were intended to awaken the powerful psychic energies through which the adept could enter into higher states of consciousness When a disciple was deemed ready he or she partook in sexual rites with a partner.
Through the sacred act of love, they sought to merge the dual nature of their sexuality into an ecstatic union. Through this came the harmonization of their own internal masculine and feminine polarities and a realization of the blissful nature of the Self.
The people who know Tantric sex techniques, and practice them, consider Tantric sex a vehicle to higher consciousness. Sexuality is one of the biggest blind spots modern cultures have. That fact alone makes sexual practices very important to the transformation of the individual and society. Tantric sexual practices occur with eyes wide open, with ritual and communication and honoring of the male and female essences.”
hehe Marty – I like your bluntness.
Isn’t there some LRH reference that states that the dynamics are arbitrary divisions, something to that effect. Does anybody know?
Lunamouth, bright observations.
Margaret,
I think this concept of this dynamic, as opposed to a somewhat literal def, is a good example of a lot of the subject. It’s fine to take a stable datum, which the 2D as ‘sex, and the rearing of children’ is, but to understand that the ‘dynamic’ is broken down to the individual dynamics, and is actually theta as manifested in what is, and so defining absolutely any dynamic is not possible and is at best an approximation with language of what is, is the level of grasp needed to fully appreciate what this thing is all about.
Succinctly, neat little packages on this are a means of getting a comm across. Experience personally brings it on home.
Anon, yes, this `literal`thing is not where this is at. It`s conceptual. At the level of theta. `Grok`.
Clearly,
It is often mistaken, this `bisexual` thing that LRH was somehow part of the `rainbow coalition`. It is NOT `bisexual` as in switching back and forth.
“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)
In 2005 Gene Zimmer wrote an article on the new definition to the 2D.
http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/alter/gene_zimmer_2d_altered.html
AnonKatDaddy,
The dynamics aren`t in isolation. It is the Dynamic, viewed in its manifestations. So, of course one relates to another. They are part and parcel of the Dynamic; life force, tenacity to living, elan, theta manifest.
Thanks for the giggles.
I’m sure we can find you a, uh, cramming officer.
Sam,
Read on. You`ll see his pawprint all over this. What`s more, you`ll see what you`ve wrought, along with us all; creation interwoven in it all.
This is not a minimization, it`s an expansion. And that paw is unmistakable. It is soooooo familiar, and with reason.
Ax, sublimation is the key. That entails becoming less of, and slave to, the MEST universe. Try it, it is true liberation.
David,
In North America we call a sausage a wiener. Like, a dick. A pecker. A fudd, a putz, a dink.
Ralph,
Spot on. In the vernacular, sex without love is empty. Love, the finest of wavelengths, has aesthetics as its quality. It`s right up there. Sex, if it is just rubbing pee-pees is MEST sensation. When it is a creative manifestation of aesthetics and at that level, love, well, there are the fireworks, there are the beautiful babies, there are those warm moments. There is the next part of all of life.
marildi,
YES! It`s in DMSMH. It`s the Dynamic.
To all those offended by today’s post, I ask whether you put much, if any, effort into the little drill I suggested (i.e. really examining your dynamics by both definitions). I would find it a shame if you only reacted as I think you’re denying yourselves a whole lot of potential immediate and future gain. But, like you, I am only exchanging my point of view.
I like the 98 definition. Seems to be more correct and I can think with the concept of creation being a part of the 2D. It’s like the expression that something or someone “is one’s baby” (figurative). Anyways, makes sense to me.
To be clear, Marty, I wasn’t offended.
There’s more to the dynamic than sex per se, obviously, and I think beebercat put my position more concisely than I did.
That said, I think the larger creativity definition isn’t true for me. I think creativity exists across all the dynamics.
Marty I think you are spot-on. I believe DMs greatest crime has been his systematic assault on creation on the second dynamic. The denial of family time for members of the SO in the eighties, banishing ED Int’s kids, suppressing couples from creating children and this one is such a huge crime that there are thousands of couples that will never have the infinite joy of holding the most precious gift in their arms. Later on (and while at Int he third partied and attacked me while trying to date with two different people at two different times, the latter using many resources at his disposal to create a wild rumor about me that spread like wildfire) ordering people to divorce while sending Shelly off to be “programmed” a-la Tidman, by the way Marty she was in the ranch with Russ Andres and Mike Sutter for almost a year after her attempted blow to be with her husband Jim – hi Jim! This from my humble view is DMs greatest crime and his biggest tool of reverse Dianetics and I was one of the ones who got off easy, there were individuals that endured the worst 2D assaults like ED Int – he litterally sold his soul to the devil and he forfeit his future as well as the future of his children. Yes he has attacked creation and I could see why he would have an obsession to alter LRHs definition of 2D. From my knowledge, DM is very twisted when it comes to the 2D, he is etremely aberrated – physically sick too.
“It is often mistaken, this ‘bisexual’ thing that LRH was somehow part of the ‘rainbow coalition’. It is NOT ‘bisexual’ as in switching back and forth.”
Jim,
Here’s some etymology on the word:
bisexual
1824, “having both sexes in one being,” from bi- + sexual. Meaning “attracted to both sexes” is from 1914; the noun in this sense is attested from 1922.
Online Etymology Dictionary
(dictionary.com)
What’s your theory on why LRH used this term and what he meant by it? (The original reference, I believe, is from PAB 83 [8-May-1956] which later became a Chapter in “Fundamentals of Thought” called “Conditions of Existence”). Early versions of the FOT book included the term “bisexual” but they were removed in later editions.
The Introduction to the book (as written in earlier PAB 82) states in part “Containing much material new to Scientologists, the book [FOT] forms a compact but broad survey of the subject”.
So why do you think LRH would write “sexual or bisexual activity” if he wasn’t acknowledging the possibility that an individual’s 2D could include sexual attraction to both genders?
Great point Joe Howard,
I think the point of quantity, quality and viability is consistently missing throughout Scientology.
Let us look at making auditors. We don’t see quantity. We see excessive quality (pretended quality) and no real vialbility in this Golden Age of tech.
Wouldn’t it be great if students started auditing rapidly and were not so worried if they flubbed, but then were trained into being better and better?
I think you would see a better Scientology.
Alex
There is a reference somehwere, (can’t remeber where) So I WILL give my opinion about it anyways. Lol.. LRH said something along the lines about some course ( HQS or PE courses maybe) where people would talk about the definitions until they made sense or they were in agreement on them.
( Something like this.)
LRH wrote a lot about the 2-d. People should study and talk about it and come to their own conclusions. What is true for you is true no matter if LRH said it or not.
ARC,
Alex
No offense taken, at all, Marty. I think it’s been a great discussion.
Also from FOT “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.”
Have you ever actually been able to divide a person into 8 boxes? Call them dynamics, call them urges, call them boxes.
Nope — can’t do it.
They are arbitrary, as LRH has said, and USEFUL demarcations about a full life.
One can look at his/her life and say — whoa — way out of balance on this one.
Not JUST in the SO – how about corporate big wigs who haven’t seen their kids except fast asleep?
My biggest joy is being able to incorporate what I did learn while involved with scn and revisit it without the incredible pressure from a PART of my 3rd dynamic to impose upon me — their perspective.
And tell me that MINE was wrong.
And I echo Sams point — how great to be able to discuss our various insights and perspectives without being sent to ethics. OMG — THIS is creating.
Wh
I don’t have time for a lengthy reply but I maintain the “New” definition of Creativity is (and has been) an incorrect — or at least an Added Innaplicable — definition for years.
While I can’t confirm or deny that LRH wrote the Creativity definition due to not being privy to the data, I can say it doesn’t work for me.
Here’s some food for thought. The definitions of the dynamics have to do with existence in the physical universe at this time. They are urges “toward” survival. Well, we all know, thetans don’t need to work at surviving. So if we wanted to incorporate all later research on OT phenomena and higher states LRH has spoken/written then we couuld simply say, “The definition of the dynamics is ‘BE’.” and leave it at that. Hardly a workable definition for the man on the street.
Also, all of the dynamics have been described in terms of beingness, not doingness. This new definition came in and changed one dynamic into a doingness. And don’t get hung up on semantics — I’m talking about Self, Family, Groups, Mankind, Life, MEST, Spirit, Infinity. They’re forms of existence.
They make sense in that concentric circle drill you do as a new person. It moves from one circle to the larger circle and it’s easy to get the concept of how these things get bigger and bigger until you reach the allness of all.
Now, whatever LRH said about Creativity and how it applies to the 2nd Dynamic aside, these definitions work and need no interpretation to decipher. Throwing something out like “Creativity” definitely does.
Also, when I look at these definitions of dynamics they’re at about, what, Scientology 1? Definitely above Scn 0, but not up in the airy levels of OT for sure. They’re super basic datums to help a person dissect life. I’m sure there could be an OT level definition for all of them, but that certainly doesn’t seem necessary as it would only be applicable to those that don’t need it. 🙂
I guess what I’m trying to say is, the early definitions have been repeated in various forms for years in different books, publications, bulletins, policies, etc. This new definition of Creativity may or may not have been written by LRH but I know of no reason why it should be used to retroactively change things elsewhere. We don’t do that with technical terms, we don’t do that with processes, we don’t do that with policy, etc. So why would we do it with this super basic definition?
I think the stated intent of AVC was great, but re-writing things to fit a later mentioned description of a clearly defined term should not be used as a reason to re-define it. It could be used to clarify, sure. But not to re-define.
I’m with the others above. The definition of Creativity was date-coincident with the spike of intervention into the 2nd dynamic of Scientologists. Never before did anyone seem to care about my dealings in the bedroom. But after that they sure did. And now it’s become a dog’s breakfast of interest and action taken against those that don’t apply the Creativity definition.
It is used to justify no-create on the 2nd dynamic and destruction of it, which is irony in itself.
Marty brings up the point of more to the definition in the earlier Ethics book, that’s all. The fact is LRH did right what he wrote in the PAB’s and his spoken words are on tapes. Those are part of the definition of the 2-D. If you don’t like the definition that’s OK but is not the point.
The question should be how COMPLETE of a definition of the 2-D should be included in the basic book which is a compilation of LRH’s work with regards to Ethics.
Before all the Hype and PR of the GAoK there was an understanding that the books were an intro into the subject and one would do courses and get trained if one desired the Full understanding of the subject.
Now that the PR is these books are hailed as the total Knowledge on the subjects then they should not leave out such vital parts of LRH’s descriptions from the definition.
LRH made it very clear what activities belonged in what dynamics in a wonderful reference: Assessment by Dynamics. It is in vol 7. I can not remember the whole title. Sorry about that.
Anyway, the 2D is clearly a creative activity in so many ways. But the phrase “any creativity” does not jive with the above reference or common sense.
I resolved this conflict by concluding that the “any creativity” definition was squirrely. Am I wrong about this?
My admiration is unlimited…. I was working with Marty, I am the person that he was working with and this is blockbuster, it’s blockbuster because it transforms what was a second dynamic of just family and a 2-D to limitless horizens.
I do want to say, at the risk of further busying Marty, that at no point in my 11 years as a Scientologist on-lines did I ever have the good grace to meet with someone like Marty. You will never be the same. I spent several days with him and if anyone wants to know what the real Scientology will do, I can tell you this: It can save your life. There is absolutely no one in my entire life that did for me what Marty and Christie and Mike did for me recently. I didn’t know that that level of help was available. You know, there are some defining moments in a person’s life…. I am so grateful I have these people in my life. 🙂
Sorry — Christie it should be. 🙂
OC Org, back in the late 70’s through the early 80’s, had a nanny unit in the home of one of the execs. One frazzled, overtaxed nanny, lots of small children, including babies. Filthy. Disgusting. If anyone from the outside had seen it they would have called social services or the health department in a heart beat. The children of staff, at the least the ones “cared for” there, were often dirty, usually barefoot and under-dressed for cold weather, and always seemed to have dirty faces, messy hair (the kind that looks like it’s been slept in and not brushed for days at a time) and crusty noses. It was not true for every child but became a stereotype of staff kids.
And this was a big, booming org in an affluent area.
I could never reconcile the way these children were apparently neglected with any part of what I believed scientology to be.
“Lunamouth?” DOH!
Marty,
Wow, seems to be some charge on the 2D (whatever that is.)
Some of the reactions seem to be BPC on DM using the creativity definition as a justifier for collapsing the sex lives and chance to procreate of SO members.
Isn’t part of Scn. studying the materials, looking at your life and seeing if they improve conditions or expand awareness?
Any artists in the house may agree that periods of intense creative activity such as writing music, a novel, painting, making sculpture seems to absorb the need and desire for sex. Isn’t this is a direct example of sublimation per the SOS chart?
There was an earlier post that mentioned the numerical scale of the dynamics, that they are an ascending hierarchy. And that creation as an action, as a verb, doesn’t fit with that model.
This is getting abstract, but I see creation as the engine driving all dynamics. Creation (as shaped by one’s postulates along the various dynamics) is what connects the first dynamic, to the other dynamics. Creation powers everything.
Another poster mentioned the 2D creation def as applicable to a thetan sans the meatsuit. So a thetan exterior creating can have a second dynamic. (What about a thetan creating something by self for self? Nevermind.)
Okay I’m getting punchy.
What this thread indicates is a need for a FORMAL ORGANIZION, as in brick and mortar, chairs and tables, where real, open scholarship of LRH materials (all materials.)
There’s some wicked capable techies here, imagine getting everyone together under one roof.
Marty,
Was there a HCOB 26 Aug 82 by L. Ron Hubbard called “Pain and Sex”?
( Sorry, I had put this question under the wrong article ealier )
Ditto
Your arguments are flawed in so many ways using orphans to push the 1,1 line of the church about homosexuality. Therefor I am going to own you Scientology Style.
If you really belief Thetans are beings without any family conection and that the connection to your mom in the MEST universe is no different from the milkman on a Theta Level and you lived many lifetimes in women AND mens bodies you would not reply to me with the dogmas of monolitic faiths. If you consider the Thetan a spirit independent of its body than by deffiniton It is the Thetan that falls in love with another Thetan. So Bisexuality and homosexuality are a result of the Thetans independence from its body. This means homofobia stems from the implants with monolitic faiths. If the act sex is an Implant than a thetan that is “clear”of this Implant can fall in love with either man or women bevcause it does not fall inlove with the MEST body but with the BEING itself.
I am awaiting your rebuttal
“AnonKatDaddy,
The dynamics aren`t in isolation. It is the Dynamic, viewed in its manifestations. So, of course one relates to another. They are part and parcel of the Dynamic; life force, tenacity to living, elan, theta manifest.”
Jim Logan. I know. A Dynamic is in essence dynamic in nature. Otherwise they could have be named pilars. Pilars of Soecïety maybe refering to the material universe.
Back to Basics everyone.
Johny Cash:
Without love I am half human
Without love I’m all machine
Without love there’s nothing doin’
I will die without love
Without love I am an island
All by myself in a heartbreak sea
Without love there’s no denyin’
I am dyin’ without love
For there is nowhere I can run
And there is no hiding place
Sticking out like a sore thumb
By that gloomy look upon my face
Without love I’m incomplete
Without love I am not whole
Without love I’m barely on my feet
I am dyin’ without love
For there is nowhere I can run
And there is no hiding place
Sticking out like a sore thumb
By that gloomy look upon my face
I am dyin’ without love
My City Library has some older LRH books in Dutch.
Elizabeth that was beautiful.
Because they FEEL it is. When a Thetan is in a mans body it can not bare children therefor you will mostly witness men saying “It’s my baby”and not onley about great things they created it can even be about objects that they restaured like a car.
As someone who has been married for over 30 years, it takes a LOT of create-create-create to keep the 2D going…so this definition makes complete sense to me!
I’ve never had much use for the definition of 2D as sex. Sex is a verb, the other dynamics are nouns. By this logic, you could say part of the 1D is the urge to eat.
I view the 2D myself as the urge to survive through a relationship and a family unit. To me, that fits with the idea of the dynamics as expanding circles. Not that one dynamic is more or less important than another, just that they incorporate more and more until ultimately we get to Source, at Eight.
And “bisexual” is defined as “of or relating to both sexes”. It’s an example of a word which has been hijacked to predominantly mean something other than it was originally intended. Just as gay people in the 50s were merely happy. Along the same lines, the Random House Dictionary notes that transgender wasn’t a word until the early 1990s.
because, thanks for this.
Revenimus,
Hi!
Very interesting topic…
I tend to agree with beebercat…
The dynamics are the field to play a game. The 2D is a matter of two thetans in the game.
A 2D is not just only sex & children, but on my understanding on the subject, even creativity on the 2D must include another thetan, both with a meat body or not.
ARC
HCO BULLETIN OF 26 AUGUST 1982
PAIN AND SEX
(Note: This HCOB probably won’t increase my popularity but I would be very remiss if I did not pass on an important discovery.)
There are two items in this universe that cause more trouble than many others combined.
One is PAIN.
The other is SEX.
One should know more about these things.
They may have applications but they are used by destructive beings in great volume to cave others in.
Despite the false data of Freud, psychologists, psychiatrists and other criminals, they are not native to a being. They are only artificial wavelengths. They have exact frequencies that can be manufactured. A being or a machine can synthesize either one.
Pain becomes a lock on a being’s abhorrence for misalignment of his own
electrical flows. It is a lock upon unconsciousness which shuts off knowingness. Sex is a lock on and perversion of the “joy of creation” which involves a whole being and expands him, but by using just one wavelength, sex, this can be perverted and he contracts.
When pain enters a scene, a being withdraws, contracts and can go unconscious. When sex enters the scene, a being fixates and loses power.
Destructive creatures who do not want people big or reaching—since they are terrified of punishment due to their crimes—invented pain and sex to shrink people and cut their alertness, knowingness, power and reach.
Go into an asylum or a prison and look at the increasing institutional population and know what you are looking at. In the main, these are pain and sex addicts, decadent and degraded and no longer capable. They were sent on that route down through the ages by the psychs and here they are still in the psychs’ hands! And do they get well or go straight? Oh no. Whether in prisons or insane asylums they just get worse. And the psychs in both places rub their bloodied hands as they turn their products loose again upon the remaining population! It’s no accident. And the stocks in-trade of psychs are PAIN and SEX. They will even tell you it’s “natural” to steal!
To compound their felony—if that is possible—they tell you it’s the body doing it. Another crashing big false datum on top of all their other lies.
These are data which emerged from recent thorough research of the whole track. This is not theory or some strange opinion. It is provable electronic fact. The waves are just synthesized.
They are the most-used tools in the campaign against beings in furthering the general goal of those creatures whose sole ambition is destruction. The universe does not happen to be either destructive or chaotic except as such obsessed creeps make it.
Windhorse –
I second that! It’s liberating to read something like this and simply not have to decide on the spot whether to agree or disagree. To be able to take what is true for one, and to reject or “wait and see” about the rest, is the way scientology was supposed to be when we started on this journey, and is really the only way scientology itself will be survive in the long run.
In the absence of individuals or a group to enforce the tech, it’s value comes down to how useful one finds it in life. Wasn’t it really intended to be thus?
Many times I’ve read something that I couldn’t quite agree with, or just couldn’t see how it was true, only to see it demonstrated for me in life at some point later. I only noticed the “truth” at that future time because the idea of it had been suggested to me and at least partially examined by me at some point prior.
Learning can be a long curve.
I totally agree with you Marty… The second Dynamic as creativity is so fantastic, it is so rewarding for spiritual being.. that goes very much along with the fact that is is postulated every day…
Remember that to get to that full concept people need to be very hight tone…
For example I tell you I had a friend that told me he was creating on the second dynamic because he was plaiyng his trumpet and he was creating…. nothing what so ever involved with his partner no t even a beautiful intention to share…
There are too few 1st dynamics around… trying to be the 1st dynamics desperately… they cannot possibly conceive creation on another flow…
Be a CREATOR
I wouldn’t overevaluate that “HCOB” too much. This is what Pierre wrote about it, with which I can comfortably agree: http://www.upperbridge.org/8thsin.html
Cat Daddy, the song’s actually written by Nick Lowe. Like many Nick Lowe songs, it was made more famous by someone else.
I don’t know if it was the implanting with monolithic faiths that caused it so much as the implants surrounding bodies: how we were “supposed to” love.
Frankly, I don’t care what one or more people do sex-wise so long as it’s consensual. I know happy gay couples. I know happy triads. I know happy poly arrangements.
“They [pain and sex] may have applications but they are used by destructive beings in great volume to cave others in.” (From “Pain and Sex”)
Simple: don’t be one of those destructive beings who caves others in by judging them about their sex practices.
lunamoth, we had some overlap in time at OC, so I’d love to talk to you about it. Not just on this issue. My email address is deirdre@deirdre.net
I can’t speak for the conditions as I wasn’t a parent or even in that division, but as far as nanny/child ratios, it was a lot better than what I’ve been hearing about the SO orgs, where there were 30 kids with one person “caring” for them, no supplies, and no space.
The idea that one would take the urge to survive on one dynamic and sublimate it over into another dynamic violates the whole purpose of dynamics, which is to break the subject of life down into subdivisions for better understanding and workability. It also forwads the idea that if one is “truly elevated” one would not have a 2D, but would be creating the “2D” on some other dynamic.
In the Scn Handbook and on the Scn website the 2D is simply defined as “creation”, and states that all creation falls under the Second Dynamic. This can’t be LRH, because it furthur confuses the issue by making these subdivisions into a big mush. But it would suit Miscavige perfectly, as he would love for everyone to give up all their dynamics and become his slaves.
“The system of dynamics is a method of subdividing the theta of an individual to show how much theta he has available in any one sphere of activity.” SOS
Be sure all sexual thoughts to purge,
And sublimate that 2D urge.
The 2D has been redefined,
To leave out sex of any kind.
Since kids and sex are cancelled now,
Miscavige must explain somehow.
Creation is the new 2D,
It’s “newspeak” in Scientology.
Deirde well stated.
Deirde thank you for setting me straight.
So if I go take a look into the RPF wich is now factally A PRISON I find PEOPLE THAT ARE……
Vitek, your comment, or at least the link that it promotes, goes over the line in terms of diversion from the subject. But, I post it so that I might comment on it and its source in hopes that some people might listen and avoid the pitfalls of following into another priesthood. Pierre Ethier’s essay would be rejected out of hand by anyone who has even casually read the Data Series, let alone a DSEC grad. Pierre has the gift to take events, altered though they be, with a grain of truth and then through insinuating himself into a position of having some hidden knowledge or authority, weaves in conclusions dressed as fact to seriously mislead. In that regard, he is very much like Vaughn Young. Pierre starts from a falsely self-constructed platform of having been some powerhouse tech terminal within the Church. I’ll tell you how powerhouse he was. I never even heard his name until I started hearing from several of his pc’s who wanted reviews, all in the past year. Having said that Vitek, if you can “comfortably agree” with him, more power to you. But, I suggest you learn to observe and evaluate for yourself.
Beebercat, loved your poem!
Actually, sex is generally used as a noun.
It’s used as a transitive verb in sentences like “I’m going to sex my cats now,” but that doesn’t have anything to do with the sex act, merely the potential for same.
Given that, the noun/verb argument doesn’t hold the water you might think.
To DM, creativity is “straight up and vertical” which is why it may feel like sex to him but the “run away train with no brakes” does not end in an orgasm.
Hehe, had to say it. 🙂
Jim, I hear what you’re saying. But at the entry level, descriptions of the dynamics communicate better when kept simple. That’s my take on it at least.
Ann,
The series of references is called “R2-C SLOW ASSESSMENT BY DYNAMICS” and yes, the related reference(s) are from Tech Vol VII, and are dated 17-Oct-63 Issue I & II and 31-Oct-63. These HCOBs are from pp. 329 – 344 (in the new Tech Vols). They do indeed layout in detail the specific activities/areas of each dynamic, and as one would expect, the Second Dynamic deals with family/sex/children, and the Seventh Dynamic deals with spirituality/ARC/Art/Creativeness.
D, Why do we fill out a form by filling it in? Sex is an act; it’s a doing thing. The other dynamics just ARE. And the biggest difference is that you don’t ever have an urge to light a cigarette after contemplating the fifth dynamic. At least I don’t …
Padre de los Gatos.
I understand and applaud your need for justice when you see injustice; your courage is high and your cause noble.
But there are just things that you can’t know about Scientology from reading the Internet. You literally can only know it by sitting in a session with an auditor and untangling the knotted fishing line of an eternity’s misjudgements and regrets.
But, and this is the weird part, you might discover that all that baggage you’ve been carrying around for so long isn’t really even yours. And then you might get a little annoyed at those who gave it to you to carry and said it was yours.
LOL. Thank you.
Watch out for Pavlov’s and Wunt’s and Freud’s cronies on the way to qual. They may have all those rats!
Huck, nice.
Disambiguation (Huckleberry)
Thank you for your kind words but I tottaly dissagree with that HCCO.
I totaly disagree with the generalization that all inmates are sex and pain addicts too. A great portion maybe but they are alssoo to be found outside prison in every day life.
Innocent men can be imprisoned too being falsley accused or locked up by an oppresive regime. And the sex thing gets a little obsessive.
And all the Psychs are criminals ? jeezz talk about obsessed
Vitek, Having known Pierre for many years, I very much agree with Marty’s assesment of Pierre’s style and approach. If there are any pearls of wisdom in Pierre’s writings, its probably where he most closely borrows from red on white. He himself is not source material.
We as thetans choose who we love. If an uptone thetan met a lover from many lives ago, and both were of the same gender, I think that thetan would decide to not have a 2D with this other thetan and just be great friends. I think that’s most prosurvival and therefore most uptone.
Of course, I don’t care nor do I evaluate, that was just my two cents
See lunamoth….Even the best of blog masters at times exhibit the same malady as lil’ ol’ me!
Theo, As for why LRH didn’t have the definition of the 2D changed after he wrote the despatch to the WOOC Team that gave the definition, here’s my thought: he didn’t think of it.
LRH’s job did not include figuring out every single ramification of something he happened to write on one day. He wasn’t this all-powerful, all-knowing being, you know. He was L. Ron Hubbard. At the time he was totally into the KTL and LOC compilations. His attention was rarely on the effects that something new would have on existing tech.
But, now that I think of it, I can almost guarantee you that a copy of that dispatch to the WOOC Team also went to the Book Comps Unit whose job it would be to include that revised definition in a later edition of the Tech Dictionary.
So, see, actually LRH did take responsibility for seeing that it would have been corrected. R Comps has been working on the new Scn Dictionary since at least 1995 when RTRC started the job.
Well thanks for posting anyway Marty. I didn’t think you would.
Well, I don’t want to squeeze this in here; But I don’t know where to put it?? Flat out i agree with your assessment Marty.
In the game of Life. There are eight dynamics. Behind that, is a body and a Thetan. We get that. But behind that; is near nothingness.
I don’t think a Thetan is a sex.
I don’t think an ‘awareness of awareness unit’ is much of a “Being”. Has no wave-length, no mass.
But it does have very specific characteristic, basic characteristics, from which we build from, every dynamic non-exclusively.
(Forgive me, no Refs. Creativity; Opinion; Choice.) (Dang I hate not being able to “google” Source!!)
Sorry, Marty. I’m not a staunch follower of Pierre Ethier, by any means. Nor am I yours. Yes, data evaluation, I’ll get round to that in some time. Till then I’ll use as much common sense as I can gather. And I’ll read all the official materials since around 1981 with suspiction for clear reasons. The HCOB on pain and sex is simply suspicious to me. IMHO Pierre has some good points in that essay and I ain’t seen here any rebuttal of them here, only general comments on him.
Urps… That was suppose ta be w/ reply to Marty above to Theo.
“is near nothingness.” (I add here; contradictory or conflicting “nothingness” returns to an obvious all-ness of everything as a basic-basic, thus persistence.)
Of course, I don’t care nor do I evaluate, that was just my two cents
You are contadicting yourself. If you did not care you would have said nothing.
@ Anonymous. That would mean you would limit yourself and be less free. It is about About TOTAL freedom right? Than as a spiritual being BE free and HAVE freedom.
You are stuck on the limited viewpoint that we are our bodies. Think outside the box.
When you are in a Family or a Group you can, an Uncle , a teacher or a Nanny creating a safe and healthy enviroment for children to grow up in.
The third Dynamic taking care of the second Dynamic.
You do evaluate. You are sticking uptone labels on this wich means you stick lower t.one labels on the other .
FREE your mind.
That’s the thing, Cat Daddy:
You’re not 100% free and you never will be until you get rid of your body. By choosing to control bodies with GENDER, you’re choosing to follow that game of limitations. 🙂
(Also, I really don’t care. I like to talk, that’s all, but what I meant was this stuff isn’t an issue to me. Heck, I went to Folsom Street Fair in SF recently!)
Well,I had a nice converstation with you Amonymous.
Mohandas K. Gandhi:
“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err.”
Marty:
I don’t know that I’m disputing that LRH defined the second dynamic as CREATIVITY. It’s just that It’s not stated that way in any LRH recorded lecture I’ve ever listened to, any HCOB I’ve ever read or any LRH book I’ve ever read or any LRH PL I’ve ever read. I know it’s the way that the second dynamic is defined in the Life Orientation Course. But I haven’t seen the SOURCE. You’re saying you have. Fine. What I’m saying is that I haven’t.
So, since the “expanded definition” of the second dynamic is so radically different than it was previous to 1979. I *want* to see the actual LRH on it. I want to know exactly what LRH had to write or say about it.
What I’m hoping for is the Source to back up the information in the “based on the works of L. Ron Hubbard” publications. This is very similar to the Church issuing a confidential tape extract as the HCOB 7 March 1996 HANDLING A READ to back up the GAT cleaning a read drill. Or LRH himself issuing HCO B 5 April 1973 AXIOM 28 AMENDED. In other words, there’s an HCOB that covers the datum.
Then there’s the additional problem of “what era’s definition of the second dynamic do I use?” in such processes and procedures as Conditions By Dynamics, Exchange By Dynamics, process 14 on Expanded Grade II (Dynamic Assessment), process 15 on Expanded Grade II (Dynamic Straightwire). Determining what’s a “daffy” terminal on the Expanded Grade II processes becomes problematic if one modifies the definition of “second dynamic” to be simply CREATIVITY.
The redefinition also makes the DYNAMIC PROCESSING CHECKS (HCO IL 11 April 1962) and FPRD SECOND DYNAMIC FORM (HCOB 13 May 1985 FPRD SERIES 10-D) seem incomplete. Since a C/S can add questions to a sec check, but not delete them, does the C/S add “creativity” questions to FPRD 10-D or save them until the pc gets the FPRD ARTIST FORM (FPRD SERIES 10-G)? What does the “new” definition do to the application of FO 878 2 December 1985 SEA ORG MEMBER SECOND DYNAMIC SECURITY CHECK FORM, HCO PL 11 August 1967 I SECOND DYNAMIC RULES, FO 21 December 1978 3739 2D RULES?
Modifying the definition of the second dynamic to be “creativity” conflicts with LRH lecture material stating that CREATION occurs on all dynamics (Ref: Lecture 7 April 1959 THE DYNAMICS): “The whole of the dynamics, when we say survival, have to do with continuous creation. And man is continuously creating these dynamics — except the first — he IS it.” He then continues for about another page of transcript giving examples of how creation is on each dynamic.
Finally, and most importantly to me, modifying the definition of second dynamic to be “creativity” radically affects my understanding and application of R2-39’s description of dynamics as concentric spheres, or Ron’s sketch of the Dynamics in the Clearing Congress videos or Ron’s sketches of the dynamics accompanying his lecture DYNAMICS AND THE TONE SCALE (25 April 1978) found in the out-of-print THE SECOND DYNAMIC book. In the latter, the diagram specifically shows the second dynamic as “SEX AND CHILDREN”. The only dicey situation with me using this reference is that it is not publicly available.
Nevertheless, the actual cycle of action is CREATE – CREATE-CREATE – COUNTER-CREATE. So if you put a flower seed into a pot of soil, and water it, it starts a cycle of action, BUT ON THE 5th DYNAMIC. The creation is on the 5th dynamic!
If I take the sketches from the Clearing Congress, and add the 9th and 10th dynamics as given in the PDCs (5212C01 E-METER: DEMO), then my notions of a spatial arrangement of the dynamics still works for me. But if I were to add “creativity” to my 10-dynamic circular sketch, adding the 7 April 1959 description of creating on all dynamics would make CREATIVITY the eleventh dynamic. This to me is consistent with HCOB 31 October 1959 CREATE PROCESSES – DANGERS AND ADVANTAGES where Ron says that, in Scientology, the dynamic principle of existence is CREATE.
This has been the only way I have found to wrap my wits around a dynamic that is “creativity”.
Now, just to muddy the waters, but to be fair, there is ROUTE TO INFINITY lecture 5205C19 BEINGNESS in which LRH says “Then there’s the beingness of the second dynamic, the beingness in the sphere of creation, children, future, or (and get this one) illusions. That’s the second dynamic. Illusions comes in there. Constructive line comes in on the second dynamic.”
So I’m not saying Ron didn’t say it. What I’m saying is: isn’t there some data that accompanied the redefinition that aligns forty years of defining it one way with the redefinition? Inquiring minds want to know.
After my last post, I realized that “any creativity” should be looked at within context of “any creativity that has to do with creating the future.” That settles it for me. That makes both definitions workable.
I know this is a month later than your post but it’s another “ahha” moment for me.
“Eventually, I realized that I just happened to work at an org where the ED (John Woodruff) was a father and happened to value children, and the local policy stemmed from his values and those of other execs.”
This is how it went with me. The Mission Holder I started with was a super-theta being who had kids so applied policies that made having kids OK and workable while being on staff. Great really when you think about it. But we were very remote and out of reach.
The more she got coerced by Int management, the more it went bad until SHE had to leave because of it.
She PAID (not sold it to) two darlings of Int management to take over, who never could have kids and had at least two failed attempts to adopt kids (denied due to their inability to truly care for a child while on staff the way they were).
They took over and pretty quickly started pushing Int management schedules with no time with kids and that scene deteriorated pretty rapidly.
I imagine they turned around and ran on us the inval and eval THEY felt by being denied adoption.
They twisted the rules to fit THEIR agenda and so MY second dynamic had to suffer if I wanted to continue auditing and C/Sing, being on staff.
I really tried to make it all work to everyone’s liking but it just won’t work when you neglect dynamics like that.
I had no desire to live in a communal type of way where THEY decided anything on MY 2D. They were not part of MY 2D. They could not make the best decisions for any of my dynamics, as much as they tried to browbeat and invalidate me into thinking they could ~ so I quit that place!
Hi Marty. I’m so glad to see you’ve “seen the light”.
I am the person known as “Safe”.
I saw the light back in late 90’s and reported all kinds of C of M (C of S) altering Hubbards works, including the 1998 Intro to Scientology Ethics that you say you worked so close with the compilers of it.
I reported to C of M all the altering of Hubbards works, and I found a LOT. It fell on deaf ears, and my only payment for this was being attacked.
Here is what I wrote on the 1998 Intro to Scientology Ethics. I can’t imagine how much worse the 2007 version is, the 1998 version was bad enough!
Dear Public Relations of the Church of Scientology, (Robert)
* 1) Why is the Code of Honor, THE ethical code of scientology missing from the “Introduction to Scientology Ethics” book?
The Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary define the Code of Honor as;
CODE OF HONOR, 1. the ethical code of Scientology; the code one used, not because one has to, but because he can afford such a luxury.
* 2) Isn’t it ironic that this essential “Code of Honor” (previous called the “Code of Behavior”) is not in the ethics book?
* 3) Why isn’t “Ethical Code” defined in the ethics book?
ETHICAL CODE, an ethical code is not enforceable, is not to be enforced, but is a luxury of conduct. A person conducts himself according to an ethical code because he wants to or because he feels proud enough or decent enough, or civilized enough to so conduct himself. An ethical code, of course, is a code of certain restrictions indulged in to better the manner of conduct of life. (PAB 40)
– — Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary
* 4) Why isn’t the term “Ethical Conduct” defined in the ethics book?
ETHICAL CONDUCT, conduct out of one’s own sense of justice and honesty. When you enforce a moral code upon people you depart considerably from anything like ethics. People obey a moral code because they are afraid. People are ethical only when they are strong. (Dianetics 55!, p. 25)
Out of a 446-page “ethics” book, the above basics are nowhere to be found.
* 5) Don’t you consider this a major outpoint?
Ironically, not even the term ETHICS is defined in the glossary of the lastest ’98 “ethics” book. (It USED to be in the glossary of earlier versions.)
Though the ’89 CST dba “L. Ron Hubbard Library” version defined ethics in its glossary as ….
ETHICS: “that section of the organization whose function is to remove counter-intentions from the environment and having accomplished that, the purpose become to remove other-intentionedness from the environment.”
All earlier “by L. Ron Hubbard” versions defined ethics in its glossary differently as …
ETHICS: “Ethics is reason and the contemplation of OPTIMUM survival.” (The CORRECT definition)
Was this just an “oversight?”
The only word with ethics in the ’98 glossary is … “Ethics Authority Section”
Mostly, the book is about the 261 rules of the Church of Scientology, Inc. So it’s mostly a book on 3D MORALS.
So the book’s name is a misnomer, it should have been called “Introduction to Church of Scientology, Inc. Morals”
* 6) Why has the chapter called “The Table of Conditions” been omitted? (from HCO PL 14, March 1968, “Corrected Table of Conditions”)
It use to be in the reprinted 1985 By L. Ron Hubbard version but it’s not in any of the Copyright Church of Spiritual Technology, Inc. (dba L. Ron Hubbard Library) versions.
* 7) Why has the important chapter called “Safeguarding Technology” been omitted out of the ’98 “ethics” book? (HCO PL 14 February 1965, Keeping Scientology Working Series 4)
It starts of with …
‘For some years we have had a word “squirreling.” It means altering Scientology, offbeat practices. It is a bad thing. I have found a way to explain why.”
It is in the reprinted 1985 “By L. Ron Hubbard” version but it’s not in the ’98 Copyright Church of Spiritual Technology, Inc. (dba L. Ron Hubbard Library) version though it was in the ’89 LRH Lib. version.
* 8) Why has the Bibliography been omitted in the ’98 edition which should reference the source data in the entire ’98 book?
The 1985 edition said “The following materials by L. Ron Hubbard were used in the compilation of this work. They are listed in the order of their occurence.” Then it listed source HCOB’s and HCO PL’s.
* 9) Isn’t tracking source reference materials important anymore?
* 10) In the Copyright 1989 Church of Spiritual Technology (dba L. Ron Hubbard Library) version, why does shift the definition of bibliography to mean only a list of other L. Ron Hubbards books instead of a list of references that source the data in the book?
* 11) In the Copyright 1998 CST version, why was the chapter on “Bibliography” finally taken out all together?
* 12) Why were Knowledge Reports taken out of the chapter entitled “Types of Reports”?
The SOURCE document for this information is called “Staff Member Reports” HCO PL of 1 May 1965, Issue 1
o a) Why was the title squirreled?
o b) Why is the last report #21 “Knowledge Reports” OMITTED? The squirreled ethics book only lists 20 reports. But there are 21 types of reports.
o c) Why is half this entire HCO PL missing from the squirreled ’98 ethics book? It’s missing the entire section called “Cleaning the Files.”
* 13) Where does LRH authorize cut and pasting, and changing his works?
These are questions that I as a concerned scientologist (and I’m sure other scientologists once they find out) want to know.
Either there is a logical explanation for each of these 11 questions? Or else there is MAJOR squirreling going on within the organization.
I’ll be awaiting your answers.
Yours for no squirreling,
—
Safe
(Recipient of the Scientologist “Kha Khan” Award) 🙂
“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.”
– — Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas (Justice for 36 years)
“Freedom encompasses the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and provocative”. “Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.”
– — Lord Justice Sedley
Safe, Good work. I think the questions are the answers.
Dear Marty,
I always tell people to look at their own accomplishments first before criticising others. It really saddens me that you feel worthless as an accomplishment that an individual spent 20 years of their life doing nothing but helping others with auditing for NO PAY working excessive hours as a slave.
Catherine
LRH also said in a lecture, Homosexuality? easy to sure as the sneezes. A being makes a postulate before going into the next life, like; I want to be the greatest dancer! & Voila!, the female sexual identity says, I’m in charge, then they get born into a male body. Tantra also found MSM to be very destructive to lower Chakra points. Kirlean photography experiments in the 70’s proved this to be accurate.