|Lecture: Review Of The Theta-MEST Theory|
|Ron the Researcher|
Hubbard talks about how the Theta MEST theory came into being in September 1950, when he was talking about Political Dianetics. Connects this with his original line of inquiry in 1930 when he was looking for the energy of thought. Defines computation as understanding.
The Theta-MEST theory came into being very shockingly with the realization, one fine day, that I was standing on a stage and didn’t know what I was talking about. Everything was going along fine in Individual Dianetics; I had everything nailed down. The first and second dynamics were in good shape and we were getting along fine. Then one day I stood up on a stage in California to give a lecture on the subject of Political Dianetics. I thought it was all licked; we knew how to put states together and everything else. I stood up and started to talk, and then I said to myself, “Wait a minute. Do I know anything about this? Sure, that’s easy. Societies arrange themselves on the tone scale. But that is just descriptive! It doesn’t give you the dynamics of the society. What is the third dynamic?” That was last September. And by October I realized that I had become so engrossed in the first and second dynamics in Dianetics that I hadn’t followed the curve all the way back to 1930, and my original reason to enter the field in 1930 was simply that thought had not been isolated as an energy.
What is the energy of thought? My whole concentration in studying atomic and molecular phenomena was “Where in the field of atomic and molecular phenomena does thought lie?” And I very successfully discovered that it didn’t lie there and couldn’t lie there as far as I was concerned, because memory could not be stored by any known means. It was all right for somebody in Keokuk or Vienna to sit there and say memory is stored in punched protein molecules, and then go on with this tremendous extrapolation of how these energy waves are stored in punched protein molecules or something of the sort. As a matter of fact, that theory didn’t come out until later; that is a refinement.
The existing theories of 1930 were perfectly workable to anyone who did not know atomic and molecular phenomena. But the second that you looked over this specialized field of energy, you found out quickly that there was no form of energy small enough to act as memory storage and that the human body did not contain minute enough divisions to contain these things we knew as physical energy. Even when we tried to extrapolate on up the spectrum and postulate unheard-of shortnesses of wavelength and infinitesimal bits of energy—microergs and things like that—we still found out that the human mind could not do it by existing theory.
So instead of saying “We must now cancel out that the human being is an organism”—which has been the scientific method so far—we said, “There must be something else here that we don’t know about. There must be something operative other than standard atomic and molecular phenomena as it is related to the physical universe.” I went all the way back to 1930 and came on forward again. It didn’t take very long, because an enormous amount of data had been accumulated along the line which merely needed to be coordinated. As a matter of fact, it only took four days of very intensive discussion and thought on the thing to get back to where it had started originally and then bring it on forward and find the third dynamic.
The moment the third dynamic was located, it was understood that an organism—a social organism, a group—had its own energy. As soon as it was realized that a group had its own energy this could be demonstrated.
Then it was necessary to find out how this applied to the first and second dynamics. We went back to the first and second dynamics and they picked up remarkably through the application of the Theta-MEST theory. Suddenly types of processing that had been very difficult to communicate became easy to communicate. Furthermore, it was possible to figure out new ways of doing it by the application of the Theta-MEST theory. Most importantly, it resolved many of the problems on the third dynamic so that we knew something about organizations of man, even down to as finite a number as two—the auditor and the preclear They form a group. Why is it they can process each other at all? Why is it that processing requires an auditor? It does. By the Theta-MEST theory, you merely postulate that here you have a group and where you have a group you have a quantity of Theta which is interior or exterior to the group (we don’t care which). It nevertheless exists there as a group; it is demonstrably so.
Here we have phenomena which is not embraceable by the atomic fission boys. They can certainly raise hell with Hiroshima but they can’t take a single person out of a spin bin except in a coffin. This is the difference.
The primary difference that we are running into, then, is that we are working with a basic postulate which refines the humanities quite markedly and puts them into a predictable state of affairs instead of such an unpredictable state. Theta, of course, can be said to be an energy of its own universe which, when impinged upon the matter and energy in space and time of the physical universe, will create an organism known as life. That would be pretty basic as a definition; it is very simple. You can say the component parts of Theta which we now know are affinity, reality and communication. It seems to break down into these three manifestations.
When these three factors of Theta impinge themselves on MEST, we have computation, and until that happens we don’t have computation. It takes a uniting of Theta with MEST to bring about computation—which is to say, understanding.
— L. Ron Hubbard
Lecture 25 June 1951: Review Of The Theta-MEST Theory
|< Previous Article||Next Article>|