Author: Hubbard, L. R.
Document date: 1950, 1 December
Document title: Groups
Document type: lecture transcript
Event: Professional Course
Location: Los Angeles, California
Document ID: 5012C01B
Description: Hubbard discusses his early ideas of the dynamics; defines big theta, God and worship of man as a god.
Dianetics keeps coming along a line of advance which was codified about 1938.1 Everything which has come away from that point has had a consistency, oddly enough. That is to say, it was workable at any moment from there on.
When the processing came out and processing techniques started to evolve, the advance was just in the interest of making it faster and easier and not requiring as much brilliance, perhaps, in the auditor. The techniques that kept coming were refinements; however, the reason these new techniques kept taking place was because the philosophic echelon kept advancing. There is an actual correlation there.
Now, the prediction of new techniques is a very simple thing. Anybody who knows his Dianetics can take just a glance at a technique–he won’t even have to test it or anything else– and he will know whether it will hold together. There is that strange consistency about this body of knowledge. It keeps on advancing, and just because one gets to milepost 135 on this road is no reason why milepost 15 should have vanished. I attest by that that it must be a fairly solid road. I hope that it will keep on evolving out in that direction.
Every once in a while, however, I get a protest about the fact that it keeps on advancing. As a matter of fact, it is advancing faster than a body of information really should, but so are the times advancing rather rapidly. Certain urgencies in this make it necessary to go on and to bring the new technique which is in the research department and the technique which is being used very close together.
There are actually refinements in advance of what I have been talking about. They are still a trifle nebulous but I want to give you just a taste of those to show you what I mean by an advancing philosophic echelon.
It is a fact that it doesn’t matter what numbers you put on these dynamics as long as they are more or less in the same order that they are numbered. One can very easily, for instance, begin with number one as big theta. Let’s use big theta, bluntly, in terms of God (of course, there would have to be a comparable magnitude there)–that would be number one. Number two could be considered, and number three could be considered little theta, which is the pure thought line and is a segment of big theta but is not the side of the picture. It comes down then to number four, life; number five, mankind; number six, groups; number seven, the family; and number eight would be the individual. One dynamic is not, as far as the dynamic within the individual is concerned, particularly of more importance than another.
Now, one could say that the end product of all this was the individual; and one could look in the opposite direction, as people have looked, and say the end product of all of this was the real big theta, which is plus little theta–in other words, God. Here is your infinite number. It depends on which way this thing goes. There is something wrong, always, with assigning numbers of order. However, these things are in an orderly progression in that list.
Then there is the question of what comes after the individual, or what comes before God, in this. There is some slight evidence being worked on at the present moment that the individual who is here as an individual in this life was many times an individual in the past. There is an early-lives project going on right now. We keep telling people that these early lives are dub in and so forth, but the point is that we don’t know yet, completely, and until we have a lot of validation material one way or the other we won’t be able to tell. It is not necessary, evidently, to run those early lives–but if one does get into one he had better run out the death of it, otherwise it will restimulate!
For centuries the question has been asked, “Who made God?” There seems to be a fixation on the idea of “Who made?” That is not pertinent to the problem. The manufacture of, the manufacturer of God–these are not really parts of the problem at all. There might be other big thetas in dimensions and in terms. As far as big theta is concerned, little theta combining with and going into harmonics with, and so forth, may not be all the purposes of the big theta.
Maybe this progression goes out in a wheel fashion. Maybe other progressions go out from God, which are little thetas out there and there and there doing these various things. An infinity of progression is possible.
The reason you consistently get the assignment of four dynamics is simply that those are the dynamics intimate to man who is alive. Those are the life dynamics. As such, that is a relatively low order of magnitude of observation, because life is little theta plus. Little theta plus– that’s life. 2
Little theta plus, for instance, would be the first bracket. Little theta plus is your future and your family. Little theta plus would be the overall composite of the group. And as far as mankind is concerned there could be little theta plus again. In other words, those are life; but then life itself is little theta plus. Then as we begin to expand out on this, of course is, and little theta is little theta, and big theta combines these two.
We are actually not going out on a very orderly progression of magnitude or combinations. We are going out in terms of trinities. The individual, little theta and make a trinity, and it builds up into the bigger one of the family, the individual and the unit of life itself. Now we go out on the next dynamic and we get three more and three more, only they are enlarging magnitudes, each one of which has a substitution of the last one in it.
There are all kinds of mathematical patterns which can be offered to explain this. There is not one, as far as I know, that cannot have holes found here and there where it is not quite as orderly as it ought to be. But no hole so far found was a hole of error which invalidated the past system. All it did was make more workable and make a little bit bigger the present system. It is a problem of filling in unknowns, rather than a problem of shooting out errors.
As we go up this line we find that we could regard the individual as being the most intimate connection to big theta which we will know. In other words, we could consider the individual as an actual segment of God, and a very close one. We could consider, for instance, as one religion does, that the closest we get to a knowledge of big theta is in the individual himself.
Therefore man could very well worship man as a god; part of man is God. Now, this is also expressed in terms of the soul, the spirit. There are any number of these concepts. The individual is very important because he is a basic unit that holds the rest of these things together, but he exists interdependently with all the other individuals.
As we look over the problem we cannot say “Now we are going to deliver to you the ultimate truth which man will ever know and everything he could possibly reach in the way of knowledge.” This has been the big mistake in the past.
As we go up this line we find that we could regard the individual as being the most intimate connection to big theta which we will know. In other words, we could consider the individual as an actual segment of God, and a very close one. We could consider, for instance, as one religion does, that the closest we get to a knowledge of big theta is in the individual himself. Therefore man could very well worship man as a god; part of man is God. Now, this is also expressed in terms of the soul, the spirit. There are any number of these concepts. The individual is very important because he is a basic unit that holds the rest of these things together, but he exists interdependently with all the other individuals.
Hubbard, L. R. (1950, 1 December). Groups. Professional Course, (5012C01B). Lecture conducted from Los Angeles, California.