Scientology & the 8th dynamic


Anti Matter

by Travers Harris

During my experience on the Flag Ship with LRH he published the orders of the day starting with an article he wrote and other tit bits from others.

He insisted that some important news be published from the outside world to keep us in touch with what is happening there.

I would imagine that DM forbids this to keep the staff ignorant or from reading Facebook articles against the church.

So it was not the policy of LRH to keep the crew of the ship ignorant.

The following article would not be forbidden by LRH but he would have encouraged it, and it’s not about mixing practices it about major scientific discoveries.


LRH did not enter the field of the 8th Dynamic which he referred to as the God Dynamic, so, Scientology covers Dynamics 1 to 7 only.

With the discovery of quantum physics around 100 years ago it has replaced the current materialist science and relegated that science to the DOGMA heap.

Unfortunately because of the mindset of the current materialist scientific establishment they refused to acknowledge anything of a spiritual nature as they dogmatically say it is non-scientific. If you cannot see it, taste it or measure it, it does not exist, so anything outside of materialism is rubbish. That includes such things as Theta and Thetans.

However today, based on the new science of quantum physics, a new branch of spirituality has been created. And today there are quite a number of Scientists who have joined the ranks of the new science.

One of these Scientists, Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, has done incredible research into the field of biology and has acknowledged the participation of spirituality into the behavior of animals. He has also discovered that when a girl is impregnated that there is a spiritual participation in the formation of the body and organs of the newly forming baby. This is about the 8thDynamic and how the God Dynamic is involved in CREATION.


How did structures appear that weren’t there before? Neither Platonists nor Aristotelians had any problem with this question. The Platonists said that the form comes from the Platonic archetype: if there is an oak tree, then there is an archetypal form of an oak tree, and all actual oak trees are simply reflections of this archetype. Since this archetype is beyond space and time, there is no need to have it embedded in the physical form of the acorn. The Aristotelians said that every species has its own kind of soul, and the soul is the form of the body. The body is in the soul, not the soul in the body. The soul is the form of the body and is around the body and contains the goal of development (which is formally called entelechy). An oak tree soul contains the eventual oak tree. (Rupert Sheldrake)

According to the biologist Sheldrake, based on his experiments and research, when a female conceives, the genetic structure within the body does not have the information within it for form making. There are at this stage no brain cells, heart cells or any other type of cells in the sperm or ovary that the sperm has fertilized to form a body. The genetic structure for form making does not exist. There is also no genetic structure to build arms or legs.

What happens is that a field appears at the place where the organ will appear and within these fields there is a blueprint or memory which contains the knowledge for form making. The field also appears around the entire infant which has the blueprint for forming the body. These fields are not visible and are outside of space and time (non-local). Spiritual healing was in the world for thousands of years but a few hundred years ago with the introduction of modern science, materialist healing gradually replaced spiritual healing.

Now everything in the universe exists within a field including the universe itself and it is responsible for the creation of the universe. Einstein called it “The Mind of God”. Everything within the universe, such as galaxies, planets, humans and animals exist within their own field and there are fields within fields which surround the organs within the body. These fields contain the blue prints of creation.

So this IS the 8th Dynamic. The question then arises: WHO is the source of this infinite creation. Well Christians call it God, Idealist scientists call it Consciousness, Materialist scientists call it “Bullshit”, and LRH called it the 8th Dynamic or Infinity

39 thoughts on “Scientology & the 8th dynamic

  1. In my view, science has to do with “Seeing things as they are.” The job of science is to remove inconsistencies through better examination of a phenomenon. This means removing fixed ideas, such as, “The earth is center of the universe.”
    Anybody can postulate anything, but that postulate is real only to the degree it is consistent with the rest of reality. For science, CONSISTENCY is the key.
    There are lot of hypotheses floating around. Only a few are upgraded to the level of theories. Those few can be shown to be consistent wirh reality through clearly demonstrated experiments.
    Here are some of the KHTK postulates for Metaphysics:

    KHTK Postulate M-0: The Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in the world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul, or Ātman within or without.

    This postulate may appear self-contradictory to some, but it is another form of saying, “There are no absolute certainties.” We cannot be absolutely certain that self or soul is permanent.

    KHTK Postulate M-1: Underlying all reality there seems to be a primordial field, which when disturbed by a primordial energy, gives rise to awareness.

    The undisturbed primordial field is the theoretical ground state for this universe. The primordial energy is what generates disturbance in this field.

    KHTK Postulate M-2: Awareness dominates the metaphysical level, similar to the way electromagnetism dominates the physical level.
    KHTK Postulate M-3: Awareness seems to oscillate between looking and perceiving.
    KHTK Postulate M-4: At the metaphysical level, the accumulated knowledge seems to act as inertia.
    KHTK Postulate M-5: Accumulation of knowledge shall express itself in the increasing frequency of the wave of awareness.
    KHTK Postulate M-6: The direction of awareness is expressed as attention.


  2. What the biologist Sheldrake is saying is consistent with the following KHTK postulate:

    KHTK Postulate M-1: Underlying all reality there seems to be a primordial field, which when disturbed by a primordial energy, gives rise to awareness.

    The genetic information for the formation of a new life entity comes from the primordial field when that field is disturbed in a certain way by the primordial energy. It is that disturbance which manifests itself as awareness. The genetic code is formed by this awareness.

  3. The questions “WHO,” “WHAT,” :WHERE,” and “WHEN” are also created as part of the creation. So wondering if there is an absolute “WHO” is answered right there.

      • Well, the answer is that any ‘who’ is also created. There may only appear a fractal of who’s.

        PS: The KHTK Postulates for Metaphysics are currently being updated with new realizations.

  4. “This is about the 8thDynamic and how the God Dynamic is involved in CREATION.”
    Thank you for this article. Seems He who shall not be named screwed this up too. I don’t have the reference to hand but when the basics came out ’06? I was enthusiastically told by my X that the 2D is now the creation Dynamic and Sex is dropped out of the definition? All verbal & bull anyway so did not research but if so – another mind f**k.

  5. I was a chemistry/physics major back in the 60s, entering college quite sure that science would explain everything and at the end of my degree there would be no mystery — just understanding. The atheists professors extolled with conviction what they seemed to think was a description of mechanisms behind how everything worked. It was all very robotic, and when we were bogged down looking at the exchange of electrons between atoms to form molecules, etc. we felt that we were getting to the nitty gritty, but for me it all ran out of gas when I stepped back and looked, not at the formation of salts, et al but at what a human being is and does. Even assuming that blood and brains could be described in physical terms this all fell drastically short when it came to the mental/subjective question.
    In the physiology class I asked a question about memory. As an example I said that if the professor didn’t know my favorite color and then I told him what it was — in one moment he didn’t know but then he did, what had changed in his brain/mind/psyche. With a straight face he actually said that probably an acetate had changed to a more oxidized form. It was a nonsensical answer based on nothing at all, but I suppose the teenagers present were impressed.
    Having no frame of reference other than conventional science and being as materialistic as the boneheaded professors, I remained as ignorant as my instructors — as an atheist myself at the time nothing made any sense. I wouldn’t have listened to anyone smacking of a spiritual/metaphysical/magical approach — and to give credit I had to have the quasi-scientific entry door of dianetics to make me pay attention. Having gone through that door (as well as buying DMSMH, I actually read it) I was gobbling up everything that Hubbard wrote and then I crossed a major (for me) threshold when I came to the bit about thetans/mental image pictures, etc.
    Once I’d been converted to the spiritual/metaphysical paradigm everything became simple (you know you’re on the right road when everything simplifies). Previously, I’d had a friend who had a cyst on his brain that had pushed the latter to half its capacity but he had no symptoms: no loss of memory, no change of motor actions, no speech slurring, nothing.
    If you sawed your computer in half would it still work? But while my friend was mystifying the doctors he wasn’t mystifying me. The reason why “experts” can’t figure out how the brain works is because it doesn’t! It’s like asking why my refrigerator doesn’t show television pictures. It’s not what it does; all it does is keep food cold. When one considers that even in one lifetime the thetan takes non-physical photos every fiftieth of a second — containing 360 degree oriented images complete with visual, audio, olfactory, emotional, etc. — full sense in fact, and to the scientist it’s all done by a piece of gristle in the skull the size of my fist switching chemicals. The thetan can even see things it hasn’t seen — it’s called imagination. Is that just chemical rearrangement? Absurd.
    In addition to the fact that there is no way conventional science can explain how a universe can be initiated when it’s already been said that matter cannot be created or destroyed they have to keep running into dead ends if they won’t include the magical dynamic. The physical sciences have contributed wonderfully to the way we live (life expectancy and efficient food and creature comfort production) but half of life’s experience (as well as half of life’s explanations) is missing if only the one-eyed materialistic structure is considered.

      • Pied — you’re right. We know that there can be severe results when that kind of thing takes place. I shouldn’t have said the brain does noting: I should have said it doesn’t do what conventional science thinks it does.
        How it all fits together I don’t know.
        Clearly a child’s way of thinking is different from that of an adult so if it was just the thetan a baby would be as smart and communicative as a grown-up. Obviously it isn’t.
        How the thetan, coming through the birth of a body, remains immature for a while I suppose has to be partly explained by Hubbard’s “forgetting” sequence.
        Maybe it’s all supposed to be mysterious so that we can maintain our game.
        After all, there has to be a game — otherwise the thetan experiences its negative emotion of boredom which might be the only negative emotion to affect serenity.
        Do I know what I’m talking about? No, not really.

    • I enjoyed reading your comment Leonard. Particularly liked your term “the magical dynamic”, definitely sums it up.

  6. Great piece Leonard Bolton.
    It shows how an exclusively materialist world-view requires belief in unproven assumptions, and wilful neglect of problems, perceptions and reasoning that make it patently clear that the materialist paradigm is woefully inadequate and incomplete, and is a hindrance to understanding what it is to live, be aware and be human.
    The essence of real science is to take into account and consider all facts, reasonings and possibilities in order to discover answers that do explain and can be proven. So to be a materialist and consider this to be anything but a belief is the ultimate example of cognitive dissonance.

    • Yes, the materialist viewpoint is woefully inadequate.

      But the assumption of a magical dynamic is woefully inadequate too because it doesn’t explain anything.

  7. I read Robert Monroe’s 3 books. He figured out how to leave the body and exteriorize fully. It started in an unplanned way, but he really treated it as an adventure and later worked out ways to teach others to do the same.
    As he practiced more and more, he could clearly see other beings but also those who had no bodies. He saw, as LRH also describes, that very many of them were in bad shape.
    As an adjunct to your comment about the form assisting or setting the blueprint for the body, one interesting trip he went on, he ended up near a dried out lake. What fascinated him was that he could see 100′s of little fish ‘beings’ waiting for water to come back and fill up the lake. They were there in this non-physical form. He called this realm ‘sub-space’ which is a cool name for it.
    He describes the world around us as fully occupied by lots and lots of life in sub-space.
    An interesting incident occurred once when a visitor cruised by, from ‘out-of-town’, so to speak, and who wanted to know what’s up down there, on Earth. Monroe took him on a bit of a tour, and while pointing out all the people way down below, running back and forth on the streets of New York, he could discern those who were leaving flats and catching cabs, with bodies, and those who were doing the same, but on automatic, without bodies, in some way continuing an existence as if they still had bodies.
    I guess, if you are out of the body, some distance away, fully aware of what is occurring, you know, for yourself, that you are not a body. The scientists and creationists and atheists can all say what they say, but for you, the subject is done and dusted.

      • From a perspective, you could say so. To the person who is ‘out of the body’ it is absolutely real. There is a ton of data to support this. But the counter is, of course, is this something else?

        Another twist may relate to this true story: 10 remote viewers are given coordinates that actually have no scientific meaning, they are told separately, and independently to go to the site of the coordinates and say what they see. They all described the same location. So what is that?

        At least, it’s interesting.

      • What a hypnotized person sees is also very real to him, so I do not buy the “being real” argument.

        About that true story that you are talking about, can you refer me to it? I don’t want to be gullible here.

  8. I’m thinking that someday we will also understand electricity better and that will have much to do with life. A Scientist can not operate with a fixed viewpoint and there are many sane persons exploring these areas. I love the TED talks.

  9. As to the theta/mest theory that has been mentioned, the talking heads in universities could make things so much easier on themselves if they could just take one small step — consider that memory isn’t physical.
    The trillions of moveable pictures that people carry around with them, called experience, can’t possibly be represented in atomic form. LRH (I’m paraphrasing) said that given the number of recorded perceptions each atom would have to have many “holes” to contain it all. Makes no sense no how.
    And it’s all random access. I can say to any of you what’s it like at your front door? And bang, you can instantaneously bring your front doorway up into conscience and you can look in any direction from it or to it, and you can do this in any place you’ve ever been with many senses present. How do you do things like store the smell of petrol or roses, the taste of cheese and chocolate, and all the many tunes and sounds you know. Effortlessly brilliant we all are.
    A professor might argue with my view of memory but memory is simple compared with the most magical thing of all — appreciation. How do these intellectuals explain the ability to appreciate — even a computer can’t do that. A computer shuffles numbers and hurtles through 0s and 1s but it has no cognizance that it’s booking a hotel room, finding the price of cars or making a date on line. We have to look at the result of the search to give it meaning. To a computer everything is meaningless.
    And the irony is that a poor professor doesn’t appreciate his own ability to appreciate — he doesn’t know THAT he is — so he is in the condition of treason to himself. No wonder he is a materialist. He appreciates everything but himself.
    It’s hard to see the intelligentsia’s problem. I had the excuse that I was a clueless teenager when I was bogged down only in scientific facts but a lot of them have been figuring in the same blind alley for decades. If they have to admit that there is no conceivable way that a universe can come into existence by materialistic/physical means then why is it so difficult to admit that it has to therefore be metaphysical. And if that is metaphysical then why not everything else?
    People, particularly “clever” ones, are strange.

    • I am a Nuclear engineer and I have the following objection to Theta-Mest theory:
      The THETA-MEST THEORY states:

      “Scientology is essentially a study of statics and kinetics. If anything, it is more exact than what are called the physical sciences, for it is dealing with a theoretical static and a theoretical kinetic which are at the opposite ends of a spectrum of all motion.”

      This statement is fine because the same fundamental characteristic must apply to all points of a spectrum. THETA (individuality) is as much a consideration as MEST (matter, energy, space and time) is. Both THETA and MEST are manifestations of considerations.
      However, THETA-MEST THEORY also states:

      “It is now considered that the origin of MEST lies with theta itself, and that MEST, as we know the physical universe, is a product of theta.”

      This statement is inconsistent because it assumes that one end of a spectrum produces the other end. According to my understanding:

      MEST is not produced by THETA as assumed in Scientology. Both THETA and MEST are equally “aspects of existence”. Nether THETA is senior to MEST, nor MEST is senior to THETA.

      • That’s because you have changed the quotes and are overthinking it. Where does it say “Both THETA and MEST are equally ‘aspects of existence’?”
        It’s really simple, there is Matter/Energy/Space/Time (aka the physical universe) and there is Theta (a static that has the ability to perceive and postulate). The former has a “static potential” but would likely destroy itself in the process of being/having one, thus no absolute zero attainable by physical means (Black holes maybe but we aren’t sure just yet) and the other is a static which can get “degraded” per postulating and “picking up” mass, etc. There can be more than one static by the way as there is no space or time binding them other than what they consider.
        Also there is cause and effect. Basically, think of the Big Bang where/when there was nothing physical – no space, no time, to matter no energy. This was a static as there was “nothing” and then there was something. What came before that something? A static. So a static would naturally have to give rise to a non-static (MEST) situation, so that would make anything that is static senior to MEST.

    • In my opinion, memory has both metaphysical as well as physical aspects. Memory does not exist in atomic form, but it exists in the field of space.
      Awareness is not something “subject”… whatever that means. Awareness can be observed objectively. Therefore, the awareness of memory, appreciation, etc, can also be observed.
      The ability to observe objectively, as opposed to “subjectively” does not translate as meterialism. It translates to mindfulness. I do agree that science is missing the dimension of mindfulness to some degree. But that connection is not very far off in the future.

  10. Absolutely fascinating comments. Thanks in particular to Travers, Leonard and greenonwhite. LRH made it quite clear, as well, during his “A filmed interview with L.Ron Hubbard” video (with his characteristic nonchalance), that “…the soul, is wearing a mind, which is wearing a body…” LRH was clearly (to us less materialists, at any rate), aware of the “creator” in our midst, and made extensive mention of the act of “creation” as the prime ability of the soul or “thetan, Indeed, where Dianetics had focused primarily on the laborious auditing of painful incidents on the time track, Scientology was developed to speed up thetan “recovery” using the much faster methods of “creative processing”. Essentially using the imagination, to bring about actual change in the mental & MEST universes.
    John Kehoe, in his book and seminars on “Mind Power”, also uses organized training to permit one to change ones universes through the creative use of ones imagination.
    IMHO, LRH, laid it all out quite succinctly in his Dn & Scn AXIOMS, and “The Factors.”
    Further, imho, the most important AXIOMS of all, would be Scn AXIOM 28, followed by the AXIOMS on Duplication, which, if NOT clearly understood, (misduplicated), merely continue the broad confusions called “materialism”.

    • In my opinion, ‘soul’ is a pattern, just like ‘mind’ is a pattern, and ‘body’ is a pattern. They are simply at different levels of patterns.

      • vinaire, it is therefore apparent that you are indubitably just a pattern 🙂

  11. This posting is timely for me, since I’m listening to the second Factors lecture, where LRH talks about the 8th dynamic.
    This is from the Factors lectures 24 March, 1953. page 56 of the transcripts;
    “And the Eighth Dynamic is infinity. This could be called God. But if you call it God, remember that, by classification, you’re talking about the supreme beings because there doesn’t happen to-we’re not going to engage in an argument on the point. I should make my position very clear.
    For instance, Christ and the great teachers -there have been six or eight of them in the past. Boy, they came into this Earth here so loaded down with truth, they could hardly walk. Now, I’m very definitely in there pitching where these boys are concerned, very definitely. And with the fellows that came along and did something with those teachings and messed them up and used them for control mechanisms and that sort of thing, I’m not on good speaking terms with that second classification. So that’s my position on religion in case anybody wants to get in an argument on it.
    The Eighth Dynamic would have to include, perforce, God and the Devil in order to be infinity. If somebody comes along and tells you, “God is all, ” boy, he means God is also that jail down there. He means God is also that automobile accident that just happened down the road. And God is the Republican Party and God is the Conservatives! It’s interesting.
    “God is all,” so therefore he must be God-Devil. It’s one of the oldest maxims of magic that all angels have two faces, a good face and a bad face.

  12. The most consistent and obvious observation has always amazed me In how it is not seen (ignored,not confronted): that on the physical plane one can see a pattern (DNA, plant genetics etc). Yet, the materialists omit the most obvious next question: When has anyone ever seen something that exists based on a pattern or plan without an Author (orAuthors)? As if the cars,buildings, etc., they see every day are the result of meaningless,chaotic happenstance? For me, this simple disconnect of logic has led me to question the “brilliance” of modern materialistic science. For all their ingenuity, they betray themselves as morons. Thanks for sharing this Sinar.

  13. From ‘The Route to Infinity’ tape #6 (21 May 1952), “God is everywhere…he isn’t watching you…you are it.”

  14. Richard Feynman did a series of lectures at Cornell University in 1964. Asked the question as to whether light was a “wave” or a “particle”, he said unequivocably that it was a particle. The audience member with the question on the nature of light asked about the scientific quandary over this. Feynman responded that that was simply a confusion from the early days of quantum theory, and it was resolved – light is a particle. Feynman’s work in the area of quantum electrodynamics is presented in his lectures and a book summarizing them.
    I recommend several tapes from L. Ron Hubbard on the topic of the make up of energy and matter in space, giving time. The first one is from the 16th ACC, Auditing Techniques: Solids, 31 Jan 57. The next is from the 17th ACC, Outline of a Modern Intensive: Question and Answer period, 19 Mar 57. The third is a tape, Thinnies, from the 18th ACC, 1 Aug 57.
    “Thinnies” is a term LRH coined to describe the phenomena of the past, compared to the present. A “mental image picture” a “facsimile” is a thin version of the present. The process at that time to get a reality on this was Then and Now Solids.
    “Remember all the complicated mechanism that we’d had to dream up and postulate and throw into existence in order to take a picture of anything and then keep it and then file it and then do this and that with it and all that sort of thing?
    “Well, that’s all shortcut if you just consider that they’re thin universe areas one has been in. And that one has a mechanism that thins it down and present time is just a solidification of a continuing solid. And then you do away with all ideas of pictures, unless this is a picture. And that’s why a person could re-experience the whole cockeyed thing though. The whole universe was still there.” 31 Jan 57 tape lecture.
    Perhaps the “field” in quantum field theory is just exactly as described in Scientology – a field of particles, dimension points, created by Statics, shared, interchanged and “solid” because we say they are, and other than that, they aren’t.

  15. Thanks for this post, I’m glad to see these issues being raised. Well said, that genes do not contain all the information for form making. Take it from one who has worked in biology for many years that genetics can predict such things as the colour of a flower, but does not explain how a flower comes to be there in the first place. Genes are chemical templates that define the many different proteins produced in a cell; in turn, the proteins influence the way this cell may develop into a whole organism. But genes by themselves do nothing – any more than software can do anything without hardware to run it on.
    Developmental biologists now speak of interactions between genes and fields. They might think of these fields as primarily physical, determined by such things as gravity and light. But once again, a field must first exist before physical forces can have any effect on it. Space, and fields within space, depend on a source outside the material universe.
    In lectures of 1951 when he introduced the term ‘static’, LRH was already considering it as the storehouse of information that builds bodies and provides us with memory, outside of space and time. Mahayana Buddhists call this static the ālaya, a dimensionless storehouse that contains all potential form. A static is also voidness, hence the much-quoted aphorism that “form is void” from the Heart Sutra.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s