Русская версия

Site search:
ENGLISH DOCS FOR THIS DATE- Conditions of Existence (Part 2 of 7, PAB-83) - PAB560508

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology
Via Hubbard Communications Office
Brunswick House, 83 Palace Gardens Terrace, London W. 8
8 May 1956
by L. Ron Hubbard, Ph.D., C.E.
Continued from PAB 82


There are three conditions (circumstances, qualities) of existence (apparency, reality, livingness).

These three conditions comprise (make up, constitute) life. They are BE, DO and HAVE.

THE CONDITION OF BEING is defined as the assumption (choosing) of a category of identity. It could be said to be the role in a game and an example of beingness could be one’s own name. Another example would be his profession. Another example would be his physical characteristics. Each or all of these things could be called his beingness. Beingness is assumed by oneself or given to oneself, or is attained. For example, in the playing of a game each player has his own beingness.

THE SECOND CONDITION OF EXISTENCE IS DOING. By doing we mean action, function, accomplishment, the attainment of goals, the fulfilling of purpose, or any change of position in space.

THE THIRD CONDITION IS HAVINGNESS. By havingness we mean owning, possessing, being capable of commanding, positioning, taking charge of objects, energies or spaces.

The essential definition of having is to be able to touch or permeate or to direct the disposition of.

The game of life demands that one assume a beingness in order to accomplish a doingness in the direction of havingness.

These three conditions are given in an order of seniority (importance) where life is concerned. The ability to be is more important than the ability to do, the ability to do is more important than the ability to have. In most people all three conditions are sufficiently confused (chaotic, baffling) that they are best understood in reverse order.

When one has clarified (brought order into) the idea of possession or havingness, one can then proceed to clarify doingness for general activity, and when this is done one understands beingness or identity.

It is an essential to a successful existence that each of these three conditions be clarified and understood. The ability to assume or to grant (give, allow) beingness is probably the highest of human virtues. It is even more important to be able to permit (allow) other people to have beingness than to be able oneself to assume it.


As one looks out across the confusion which is life or existence to most people, one can discover eight main divisions, to each one of which apply the conditions of existence. Each division contains a cycle of action.

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

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

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

THE FIRST DYNAMIC — is the urge toward existence as one’s self. Here we have individuality expressed fully.

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.

THE THIRD DYNAMIC — is the urge toward existence in groups of individuals. Any group or part of an entire class could be considered to be a part of the Third Dynamic. The school, the society, the town, the nation are each part of the Third Dynamic and each one is a Third Dynamic.

THE FOURTH DYNAMIC — is the urge toward existence as mankind. Whereas the white race would be considered a Third Dynamic, all the races would be considered the Fourth Dynamic.

THE FIFTH DYNAMIC — is the urge toward existence of the animal kingdom. This includes all living things whether vegetable or animal. The fish in the sea, the beasts of the field, or of the forest, grass, trees, flowers or anything directly and intimately motivated by life.

THE SIXTH DYNAMIC — is the urge toward existence as the physical universe. The physical universe is composed of matter, energy, space and time. In Scientology we take the first letter of each of these words and coin a word MEST.

THE SEVENTH DYNAMIC — is the urge toward existence as or of spirits. Anything spiritual, with or without identity, would come under the heading of the Seventh Dynamic.

THE EIGHTH DYNAMIC — is the urge toward existence as Infinity. This is also identified as the Supreme Being. It is carefully observed here that the science of Scientology does not intrude into the Dynamic of the Supreme Being. This is called the Eighth Dynamic because the symbol of infinity stood upright makes the numeral “8.”

The earlier science Dianetics included Dynamics one to four. Scientology embraces Dynamics one through seven as known territory, scientifically demonstrated and classified.

The difficulty of stating the exact definitions of the Dynamics is entirely verbal. Originally the Dynamics read “the urge towards survival as—.” As the science developed it became apparent that survival was only an apparency and only one facet of existence. Both the cycle of action and the three conditions of existence belong in each Dynamic.

A further manifestation of these Dynamics is that they could best be represented as a series of concentric circles wherein the First Dynamic would be the center and each new Dynamic would be successively a circle outside it. The idea of space adjoining enters into these Dynamics.

The basic characteristic of the individual includes his ability to so expand into the other Dynamics, but when the Seventh Dynamic is reached in its entirety one will only then discover the true First Dynamic.

As an example of use of these Dynamics one discovers that a baby at birth is not perceptive beyond the First Dynamic, but as the child grows and interests extend can be seen to embrace other Dynamics. As a further example of use, a person who is incapable of operating on the Third Dynamic is incapable at once of being a part of a team and so might be said to be incapable of a social existence.

As a further comment upon the Eight Dynamics, no one of these Dynamics from One to Seven is more important than any other one of them in terms of orienting the individual. While the Dynamics are not of equal importance, one to the next, the ability of an individual to assume the beingness, doingness and havingness of each Dynamic is an index to his ability to live.

The Eight Dynamics are used in Scientology communication and should be perfectly learned as part of the language of Scientology. The abilities and shortcomings of individuals can be understood by viewing their participation in the various Dynamics.


There is a triangle of considerable importance in Scientology and understanding of it gives a much greater understanding of life, and an ability to use it.

The A-R-C triangle is the keystone of living associations. This triangle is the common denominator to all of life’s activities. The first corner of the triangle is called Affinity. The basic definition of affinity is the consideration of distance, whether good or bad. The most basic function of complete affinity would be the ability to occupy the same space as something else. The word “affinity” is here used to mean love, liking or any other emotional attitude. Affinity is conceived in Scientology to be something of many facets. Affinity is a variable quality. Affinity is here used as a word with the context “degree of liking.” Under affinity we have the various emotional tones ranged from the highest to the lowest and these are, in part, serenity (the highest level), enthusiasm (as we proceed downward towards the baser affinities), conservatism, boredom, antagonism, anger, covert hostility, fear, grief, apathy. Below apathy affinity proceeds into solidities such as matter. Affinity is conceived to be comprised first of thought, then of emotion which contains energy particles, and then as a solid.

The second corner of the triangle is Reality. Reality could be defined as “that which appears to be.” Reality is fundamentally agreement. What we agree to be real is real.

The third corner of the triangle is Communication. In human relationships this is more important than the other two corners of the triangle in understanding the composition of human relations in this universe. Communication is the solvent for all things. It dissolves all things.

The interrelationship of the triangle becomes apparent at once, when one asks, “Have you ever tried to talk to an angry man?” Without a high degree of liking and without some basis of agreement there is no communication. Without communication and some basis of emotional response there can be no reality. Without some basis for agreement and communication there can be no affinity. Thus we call these three things a triangle. Unless we have two corners of a triangle, there cannot be a third corner. Desiring any corner of the triangle, one must include the other two.

The triangle is conceived to be very spacious at the level of serenity and completely condensed at the level of matter. Thus to represent a scale for use one would draw a large triangle with a high part of the scale and succeedingly small triangles down to a dot at the bottom of the scale.

Affinity, reality and communication are the basis of the Scientology Tone Scale which gives a prediction of human behavior as contained in the book Science of Survival, obtainable from the HASI.

As has already been noted, the triangle is not an equilateral triangle. Affinity and Reality are very much less important than Communication. It might be said that the triangle begins with Communication which brings into existence Affinity and Reality.

The most primitive Scientology definition of Communication is “Cause-Distance Effect.” The fundamental manual of Communication is Dianetics, 1955!, obtainable from the HASI.

If you would continue a strong and able communication with someone there must be some basis for agreement. There must be some liking for the person and then communication can exist. We can see, then, that simple talking and writing randomly without knowledge of this would not necessarily be communication. Communication is essentially something which is sent and which is received. The intention to send and the intention to receive must both be present in some degree before an actual communication can take place. Therefore one could have conditions which appear to be communications which were not.

Original with Scientology, as are all these concepts, the A-R-C triangle understood is an extremely useful tool or weapon in human relationships. For instance, amongst the A-R-C triangle laws a communication to be received must approximate the affinity level of the person to whom it is directed.

As people descend the tone scale they become more and more difficult to communicate with, and things with which they will agree become more and more solid;

thus we have friendly discourses high on the scale and war at the bottom. Where the affinity level is hate the agreement is solid matter and the communication… bullets.

(Continued in PAB 84 on page 421.)


It is important for all auditors to know a few don’ts in conjunction with the do’s recently discovered. Havingness has been isolated as the entering wedge for any and all cases. It has been discovered that when havingness was concentrated upon, in various processes, intelligence quotient gained and personality bettered. The “Terrible Trio” as described in a recent PAB is easily the best opening wedge in a case at this time. There are, of course, some additional havingness processes under test but none of them have to date been thoroughly validated as has the “Terrible Trio.”

Primary auditing “Don’ts” whether for staff auditor or for the professional auditing room all concern themselves with a conservation of havingness in the preclear in the early stages of auditing as well as the later ones. Some very astonishing things have been discovered. This follows:

  1. Taking an inventory or prolonged two-way communication in opening a case have been discovered to reduce havingness sufficiently to worsen an occasional case. If immediately after the inventory two-way comm a scientometric battery was given, it would be found that the case had reduced in IQ and personality qualities. Therefore, we can assume that in some cases prolonged two-way comm and inventory at case beginning have dropped the case level, and although the case was then run many hours on havingness processes, all that happened was that the case regained the lost ground and so the final scientometric result showed “no change in case,” although the case had reduced and had come back. Therefore the rudiments should be established rapidly without too much talking delay and a direct havingness process should be entered upon at once. In the case of a very pressing present time problem it is, of course, a benefit to reduce the problem thoroughly by getting problems of comparable magnitude. This, in itself, in a way is a havingness process.
  2. The “Terrible Trio” run outside rather than in the auditing room has been found, in five separate cases, to produce a collapse of case. The introduction of so much space into havingness reduces havingness faster than it is built up. Therefore, the “Terrible Trio” should be run in the auditing room. Not-Knowingness about people and separateness processes, oddly enough, seem to be runnable exteriorly without involving this factor.
  3. Lying processes such as “Tell me a lie about that wall” are not always havingness processes. It is left to accident which side of the counter-creation is being run by the preclear so that at times the process gets gains and sometimes does not get gains. Running “Problem of comparable magnitude” assures that one is running the creation which is countering the survival of the preclear. This is in no way dangerous. But creative processes in general are not necessarily havingness processes unless they are run “against the preclear,” which is to say unless they are run as counter-creations to the creations of the preclear. “Invent something to restrict you” would be superior to “Tell me a lie about that wall.”
  4. The auditor should be particularly careful to inquire into how or what the preclear is doing. The “Terrible Trio” has failed on occasion, but when the case has been looked into by another auditor, it has been discovered that the process was not understood by the preclear and was not “the least” by the auditor. An example of this was a case which was permitted to run the “Terrible Trio” for many hours without gain which, on investigation, demonstrated that the preclear was assuming that she could have objects similar to the objects she was looking at if she bought them and on this via she was continuing the process. The auditor did not talk with the preclear enough to understand what the preclear was actually doing with the process. One must not forget that golden maxim “Find out what the preclear is doing with the command.”


Remembering the old dichotomies, it becomes obvious that if havingness is so important in auditing, negative havingness would also have its role somewhere in processes.

It could be said to be true that withheld communication is the single and sole reason for the accumulation of ridges and barriers. However, who withholds this communication? For the principle for withheld communication to exist, it must have been initiated originally by the preclear himself. If we run communications being withheld from a preclear we hit a reduction in havingness or draw a blank. If we run the preclear withholding communication from another, we tend to profit. It is not necessarily true that havingness will gain immediately and automatically by running out the communications the preclear has withheld, for a good deal depends on how the preclear is doing the process.

Havingness could be said to be the result of withheld communication. Just as too much communication will as-is any havingness, so withholding communication will accumulate havingness. This is a sort of an automatic accumulation mechanism. It is true that a thetan can simply mock up masses — there is no reason why there should be a modus operandi accumulation of masses beyond the fact that there is one: withheld communication.

When a person has too little havingness he tends to conserve what havingness he has by withholding communication. You will discover that only low-havingness persons fail to acknowledge or engage in good communication. Should a low- havingness person acknowledge or originate too frequently his havingness would be reduced accordingly. He is restrained from communicating, then, by the sensations consequent to a reduction of his havingness.

Well below the level of communication as such, we have restrained havingness. This is a sub-order of withheld communication. An individual who refuses to let other individuals have things is himself apt to reduce his own havingness accordingly. The mechanism whereby this takes place is a very interesting one. We recall the “winning valence” aspect of cases. We find in Book I that the individual losing is apt to assume the valence of the person who won.

The “winning valence” is a synthetic valence. It is not actually the personality of the person who won. It is the individual’s mock-up of that person which is diminished or augmented by other people’s opinions and by one’s own postulates.

Let us conceive the following circumstance: A little baby with a habitually angry father has many times on the approach of the father stated more or less to himself, “He can’t have this body.” Yet father in the final analysis wins. The baby grows to assume, at length, the valence of father. This is a synthetic valence. It is not father’s actual personality. It is the personality the baby has observed the father to have. This synthetic valence is salted with the baby’s “can’t have” postulates. In other words, this winning valence of father is corrupted by many can’t-have postulates which were not father’s. In view of the fact that these postulates consist of forbidding the father to have the baby, the assumption of the “winning valence” of father results in the assumption of postulates that the person cannot have himself back. He is trapped by “can’t haves” of his own manufacture.

Just as the baby was the cause of his own effect and just as he suffered from this, so do all winning valences forbid the return to identity, since somewhere in the anatomy of the winning valence is the individual’s own postulate that the winning valence cannot have the individual. Thus we have the continuous struggle on the part of people to “be themselves” which trouble is of little avail.

On the basis of this rationale, some tests have already been conducted, but the matter is in no wise completed. This is then given as an advanced look-in on some forward research.

Selecting categories, which is the Eight Dynamics, and selecting them as they seem to be put forward by the preclear — introducing as little arbitrary selection by the auditor as possible and leaving it up to the preclear — one asks what these categories can’t have. One does not stress “from you” but he certainly doesn’t stress what the individual himself “can’t have” for to do so would be to make the individual postulate against himself.

Let us suppose that the preclear’s a man and that the category “women” has been chosen. The auditing question would then be “Tell me something that women can’t have.” On the male preclear, of course, “Tell me something that men can’t have” would also be runnable, since the truth of the matter is the preclear is not a male but has a male body.

On early tests it does not seem to be reductive of havingness to run this process. If this were so I would guess that the process would have to be alternated with such a process as the “Terrible Trio,” but this has not yet been necessary.

If we are trying to return the preclear to himself it would seem that “can’t have” would best assist the reassumption of one’s own identity by the above rationale.

Let me know how you progress with this.


All qualified auditors should now be running a Basic Course in Scientology. It has been found on test that these courses, through supplying stable data to a student, align many of his confusions and so give rise to an increase in IQ (Intelligence Quotient) and an improvement in the personality traits. This is the way to get a better world and also would give rise to a great deal of interest in your area in the subject. If you have not started your Basic Course you should get moving on this right away.