Daily Archives: July 21, 2010

An Independent sex scandal? Here’s the bigger issue

Marty posted a blog entry yesterday which I thought was very interesting… and just a little bit ominous. It’s called Second Dynamic, and while its heavy usage of Scientologese obfuscates the meaning a bit, the gist of it seems to be that someone that Marty recommended as an auditor or Scientology counselor has been screwing around (in the sexual sense) with the people Marty sent, and he doesn’t like it.

Personally, I believe that if two consenting, available adults want to put a smile on each other’s faces, well, more power to them. If someone is taking advantage of the intimacy that Scientology confession (auditing) brings, that’s not such a good thing. I think we can all agree: Auditing someone for the express purpose of getting them into bed is wrong. Although it’s certainly an easy way to find out what they like.

But the independent boff-fest that Marty alludes to isn’t what caught my eye about this post. I’m wondering how closely Marty’s views of relationships parallels that of the Church, and if so, what that means. If Marty believes as L. Ron Hubbard teaches, than it would seem that many of the same abuses we see in the Church will happen in Marty’s Independent movement.

If you’re familiar with the Scientology concept of dynamics, you can skip this paragraph. Scientology divides things into dynamics: The first dynamic is you; the second dynamic is either your spouse, your family, sex, or your urge to procreate, depending on which one best fits the example at hand; the third is a group (i.e. your Church, your place of employment, etc.); 4th is mankind, 5th is the rest of the planet, etc. Hubbard taught his followers to choose actions which do “the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.” That’s one way the Church keeps the cash rolling in. If you have $50,000, you can buy a flashy new Mercedes and help your first dynamic, or you can keep driving your old Ford Escort and donate that money to build an Ideal Org, which will help the fourth dynamic. That’s why Scientologists give so much on the Church: They are helping the greater good.

This belief is also largely responsible for the large number of divorces in Scientology. If your partner complains that you spend your money on the Church rather than a second honeymoon, you can justifiably accuse them of prioritizing the 2nd dynamic over the 3rd and 4th (and in Scientology, that’s a bad thing). If they persist, they are holding back your spiritual growth and the salvation of Mankind. Now you have to decide which is more important – being married to them or helping to salvage mankind. And you know the answer, don’t you? Your partner doesn’t agree, so it’s time to do what L. Ron Hubbard told you to do: Handle or disconnect. They won’t be handled? Then it’s time for divorce court. “Sorry, baby, you’re the love of my life, you’re the most beautiful person I’ve ever met, you make me feel great, but that’s all first and second dynamic stuff. I’ve got to do the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.”

So where does Marty stand on this? It’s hard to tell from this blog entry. He says, “The Second Dynamic is one of eight dynamics; it is no more or less important than any other one.” That’s a hopeful sign, although as far as I know, it’s against LRH policy. But he also seems to be saying that you should ignore those urges of the heart — or of the libido:

My advice is that no matter how strong the passion, no matter how strong the “electricity”, you’d best remember that the Second Dynamic is only one of eight dynamics. If you are so hardwired to the body that the second is all that seems to matter, then you ought not be making decisions on the second dynamic. You ought to be using the many tools that can help span your attention and raise your tone so as to become aware of all your dynamics. If you are going to get into a relationship you are in for trouble if you don’t take care to be sure the prospective relationship aligns with the rest of your dynamics. If it does not you are guaranteed trouble. If it does, you’ve got it made.

In other words, think with your head, not with your dick, (begging your pardon, ladies), and pick someone who wants what you want out of life. Sounds like good advice. But one could also read that to mean that one should not make any decisions based on affairs of the heart — only decisions that take into account all dynamics. And that’s dangerously close to what L. Ron Hubbard wanted his followers to do. And the whole point of Independent Scientology is to live by the teachings of Hubbard, is it not?

So what happens when an Independent wakes up and realizes that Hubbard was full of crap? Will their Independent spouse be understanding and tolerant? If your spouse “no longer aligns with the rest of your dynamics,” are you “in for trouble,” as Marty says? And how do you deal with that trouble? Hubbard says “Handle or disconnect.” Does that mean we’ll see just as many divorces among the Independents?

A couple of other points:

Marty goes on to say “Promiscuity is a 1.1 trait, pure and simple.” (1.1 is the tone level of “covert hostility” – what you and I call passive aggression.) See, it’s stuff like this that really bothers me. This is no different than L. Ron Hubbard saying that insanity is an intentional urge to harm or destroy.

People are promiscuous for a number of reasons. Sometimes it is a psychological disorder – a reaction to sexual abuse as a child. Sometimes it’s a form of self-sabotage. But as often as not, people are promiscuous for the simple reason that they like sex. And if their partners are single, consenting adults, then where’s the harm? It’s certainly not covert hostility. The only way I can think of that covert hostility comes into the picture is if you bang your partner’s best friend as a form of revenge. Technically, if it’s just one friend, it’s not promiscuity. Six friends, maybe… actually, that’s not promiscuity so much as stamina.

Regardless, oversimplified and dead-wrong psychological evaluations – like “Promiscuity is a 1.1 trait, pure and simple” – are one of the things that make Scientology so scary and evil. People believe Hubbard about stuff like this because it’s easier than thinking, and it’s just plain wrong.

Marty also paraphrases from a note he read, written by Hubbard near the time of his (LRH’s) death: “[LRH] quite explicitly stated that the entire problem with breach of monogamy (beyond the physical risk of STDs) is the breach of trust and the lies connected with it.”

Now, Hubbard would know a thing or two about breaching monogamy; he was married three times, once to two women at the same time, one of whom was the girlfriend of the guy in whose house Hubbard was staying.

But I have to wonder – is this really some great piece of wisdom to Marty and the Independents? Did it really take LRH 80+ years to figure out that the real crime in an affair is the lying? And do Scientologists really need Hubbard to point that out to them? Hell, I had that one figured out when I was six. I know Scientologists are conditioned not to think for themselves…but sometimes the depth of it can be shocking, even to me.

Read Marty’s original blog entry here: Second Dynamic