Book 2 - Conclusion

There is more in Preventative Dianetics which has to be analysed, beyond my previous conclusion.

Some things like the potential for injury on an individual who isn't mobile, for example. It stands to reason that if someone presses against you while you are standing, it is yourself that is in control of the resistance. If you are lying on a bed, then you are effectively a sandwich between the persons hand and the bed. There is no difference in the pressure of the hand; the difference is in the resistive force. There is actually no difference in the amount of damage that a given amount of pressure will have on a body; the difference is the ability to offer no resistance to the force when standing.

Hubbard attempts to put forward the act of a mother, in the late stages of pregnancy, damaging the child when tying shoelaces or lifting heavy objects; even going to the stage of describing that a babies head could be crushed if the mother collides with an object like a table edge. Hubbard writes this as if these are everyday incidents which are responsible for the engrams in us all at birth; a matter of fact style of writing which is evident throughout the book so far which makes rare occurrences seem almost every day.

I ask you to consider the last time you knew of an expectant mother who had a deadly collision with a table, or lifted heavy weights or even tied her shoelaces. We know about these things already and the mother herself has a safety mechanism ... pain ... which stops her from doing these things.

Another statement is, "Attempted abortion is very common. And remarkably lacking in success." which is taken to imply both a demonstration as to the strength of a foetus to survive and also that there is a high degree of attempted abortion which is causing engrams in children.

Sadly, this is yet another instance where there are no scientific proofs, figures, studies, nothing to back up this assertion. In reality in the modern world, especially the world where people are likely to be considering this work, the face of abortion has changed dramatically. It is safer, legal, and I don't know of any, "failures," as such. Therefore it is easy to see that in our societies, failed abortion is quite a rare occurrence; we either have children carrying to full term, we have children still born, or we have children being aborted safely. Attempted abortion is more or less out of the window these days because there is more than adequate choice and support. Attempted abortion is nearly extinct in the developed countries; you either abort, or you don't.

We thus move on to the next assertion, "Morning sickness is entirely engramic, so fas as can be discovered, since Clears have not so far experience it during their own pregnancies." Let's take this page from the American Pregnancy Association, "More than half of all pregnant women experience morning sickness" What do we take from this? Even from the statistical standpoint, if both statements were true then roughly a little under half the mothers in the US are clear, without the support of Dianetics, and don't know about it.

To go further and investigate what medical science has to say on the causes of morning sickness, the NHS has this to offer...

The exact cause of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy (NVP) is unknown. However, a number of different causes have been suggested, including:

* increased oestrogen levels
* increased human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) levels
* nutritional deficiency
* gastric problems
* evolutionary adaptation
* psychological influences

The psychological influences are quoted as, "Although it is not a very popular theory, it has been suggested that NVP may be the result of the body responding to stress or negative feelings towards the pregnancy. Conversely, it has also been suggested that these psychological symptoms may possibly be the result of NVP." So while considerable research world wide with statistics and studies to back them up, has not got a solid conclusion, Dianetics is offering a conclusion based on ... oh yes ... as usual, despite the statement of, "The entire field has been a subject of considerable research in Dianetics," ... no research whatsoever is to be found or referenced.

The numbers are not adding up here.

At the very best possible way of supporting Dianetic theory at this point, we might conclude that as fluctuating human beings, we naturally pass in and out of, "clear," through our lives.

The unsubstantiated statements continue to pour one on top of the other until we hit another blinder, "A cleared mother needs no anaesthetic." Oh boy. According to the statements prior, we can conclude that half the women giving birth in the US are clear. So now we need statistics as to how many of them use anaesthetic.

The first statistic I came up with was for a segment of Australia where the NSW Department of Health said that the rates of women receiving spinals were 4.9% in 1999 and 6.1% in 2000. This is akin, according to Dianetics, to roughly 95% of all women in New South Wales, being clear.

I did face a problem here in that there are no accurate statistics available that I can find which are specifically for USA natural births. The statistics found world wide so far do throw considerable doubt on the Dianetics statements and once statistics do surface, providing that they are in line with the rest of the developed world, they will deliver a death blow to the unsubstantiated and contradictory statements that are being made in this book.

There is another question related to the research element. Returning to the claims that much investigation has been carried out in Dianetics; or subjects have been the subject of much research; to this we have the claim documented in Wikipedia that, "Hubbard always claimed that his ideas of Dianetics originated in the 1920s and 1930s. By his own account, he spent a great deal of time in the Oak Knoll Naval Hospital's library, where he would have encountered the work of Freud and other psychoanalysts." so that by the time Dianetics was brought to the world in the 1950's, it was based not on dianetic research, but on analysis of non-dianetic research. To this point there is no serious trace visible or accounted that I can find, which actually shows any investigative research on the behalf of dianetics itself. Narconon wasn't formed until 1966 and Criminon didn't fire up until 2000. Second Chance, 1995.

The fact remains that of all the organisations listed, there is no research body easily identifiable that would have generated the research listed herein. Also, there is mismatch between the language and assertions made in the book and the original publishing date of 1992. The details on abortion suggest that little has changed in the book since its original publication in the 1950's. If this is the case, then even the limited research done by Narconon wouldn't have even gone one step toward being counted as being the dianetic research so often quoted in this book thus far.

There remains ... no evidence of any specific dianetic research whatsoever ... without which, this book remains to this point, a collection of unsubstantiated personal beliefs.

Next up ... once I can summon the energy to waste my time on this ... Book 3 - Therapy

Preventative Dianetics

If you're following this, you'll guess it has taken me a good while to get over the unbelievable stuff written in Keying In The Engram. Well, here I am, trying to finish the job once more. We're now facing the end of Book Two, namely, "Preventative Dianetics."

We get to the bottom of the first page and it bloody well starts again. The basis of preventative dianetics is this; "If one knows the cause of something, he can usually prevent the cause from going in to effect." The example given here is that as we understand mosquitoes carry malaria, we can take steps to avoid malaria by stopping the mosquitoes. Fair enough.

The link is used to lend credence to the following statement, "Similarly, when one knows the cause of aberration and psychosomatic illness, he can do a great deal toward preventing them." Right. Let's take a look again at what I wrote concerning, "Contagion of Aberration."

On page 61 we receive the definition of an aberration - "Aberrations, under which is included all deranged or irrational behaviour, are caused by engrams. They are stimulus-response, pro- and contrasurvival." Thus from the readings to this point it can only be concluded that an aberration is not, in itself, contagious. Rather, the engram in an individual causes aberrations which affect a persons behaviour and this behaviour then causes engrams to be created in others and these engrams create aberrations in the, "infected," individual. That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is the definition of an engram also on 61 that states, "The engram is the single source of aberrations and psychosomatic ills. Moments of 'unconsciousness' where the analytical mind is attenuated in greater or lesser degree are the only moments when engrams can be received"

An aberration is caused by an engram and an engram occurs in a moment of unconsciousness. Also, engrams are the only source of psychosomatic ills.

Everything is down to engrams and the individuals ability to control them.

Right.

My understanding then tallies with a statement in the next paragraph. The cause of an engram is further referenced, "The engram is actually a very simple thing; it is a moment when the analytical mind is shut down by physical pain, drugs or other means, and the reactive bank is open to the receipt of a recording."

For a start, the wider concept of engrams doesn't stand up; as I wrote before. For time immemorial, human beings run on the belief of what they know in the here and now, is right. If later proof shows them to be wrong, then what they have believed is an engram. If the engram determines fate, as claimed in this chapter, then that adequately sums up the whole situation; everyone is living at the hands of their engrams, unable to know whether they have engrams or not, because no one actually KNOWS the truth ... many believe it but no one actually KNOWS it ... and there is no way to determine the presence or absence of an engram.

In fact, if I take the claims of the car accidents on page 221 to its logical conclusion, then so long as I drive my car and don't have or cause an accident, then I haven't got an engram. The moment I have an accident, it proves that I have an engram. But that doesn't rule out the very real probability that I had carried an engram and it chose that moment to surface and cause me to have an accident.

You know, here in deepest Sussex, I have a whistle. So long as I blow it every day without fail, no wild elephants will come near. So far, it's worked.

(there are no wild elephants in Sussex. Therefore it doesn't matter whether or not I blow the damn whistle. The reality here is that there is nothing present which will disprove my belief; so I consider my belief to be valid. This is a premise which I have seen throughout this book.)

An interesting concept is the freedom of information. It is this freedom which enables human beings to examine all the available facts and thus form their beliefs. If some facts are withheld or the individual is prevented from viewing all angles to an argument then it is impossible for them to form a balanced and just belief. If I had access to the fact that there are no wild elephants in Sussex, then I might conclude myself that there is no worth in blowing the whistle. The only result of withholding information, or preventing an individual access to information, is to try and influence their resultant belief. Therefore it is important to view any individual or organisation which practices such limiting behaviour, with suspicion.

"In the individual, the prevention of engrams is a very easy matter. Once the source of aberration and illness is known, one can prevent the source from entering a life." This is impossible. The very core of being, is of being aberrated. As discussed before, it is impossible for a human being to remain clear, therefore aberrations are present and the source can not be removed ... because the source is the human race.

This next few paragraphs prove my point...

"Taking the key-in first, there are two things which can be done to prevent it. The child can be given a calm and harmonious atmosphere which is not restimulative or, if the child appears to be restimulated despite kindly treatment, he can be removed to another environment which will be minus the two most certain sources - his father and mother - and which will contain a source of affection. The rest of whether or not a child is restrimulated, prespeech or post speech, is very simple. Is he succeptivle to illness? Does he eat well? Is he nervous? There can be actual physical things wrong with the child, of course, but these are quickly established by a doctor and they lie in the category of physical derangement.

Quarrels within the hearing of a child, loud noises, frantic conduct, drooling sympathy when he is sick or hurt: these things are some of the key-in catalogue. These make a child ill physically and aberrated mentally by keying in hie engrams. And nobody can say how many he has!"

This is basically talking about the repression of what is the human spirit. It is the pre-cursor to what we today talk about as wrapping a child in bubble wrap to protect it. However it is only by engaging in the rough and tumble that the child will learn about life.

And this is where my conclusion comes for this part of the book; the human species is aberrated by life; by design. If we imagine that we actually knew truth from falsehood, right from wrong and the planet has been cleared, then it would only last but a brief moment before life itself would aberrate an individual. It is an impossible state to achieve, even if it were believed to be desirable.

But we don't know the truth. We don't know what is right. We only believe that we know what is true; it is up to tomorrow to deliver judgement on what we hold as fact, and then a further tomorrow might upset that belief again.

This is because the human race does not hold the sum knowledge of the universe; and until we do, freedom from engrams is not possible.

Keying in the engram

Now this starts off with a really odd, unproven premise. That a child can carry an engram but it can lay dormant. Once keyed in, or triggered if you will, the child then suffers a degradation in physical health and a beginning of suffering headaches. These are very specific claims for which, again, as usual, there is nothing to back them up.

Some of the claims here become more and more unbelievable, "It may be that a patient is urgent in her insistence that her father raped her when she was nine and that this is the cause of all her misery. Large numbers of insane patients claims this. And it is perfectly true. Father did rape her but it happened she was only nine days beyond conception at the time." Even at the stage of one month the baby is still an embryo. How the fuck is a child, which hasn't even got a brain at this point in their development, supposed to hold a memory of a mothers sex with the father?

"Psychotic women often maintain, after they are awakened from a drugged sleep (and sometimes a hypnotic sleep), that they have been raped. Men occasionally maintain that the operator has tried to perform a homosexual act upon them while they were drugged." You know, I really do wish that this sodding book contained references to the material it is purportedly reporting as I can't find anything on this, myself.

"One is reminded of a case which has severe asthma. He had received it in a very severe birth engram; his frantic parents carried him to every mountain asthma resort suggested and spent tens of thousands of dollars in these jauntings. When this patient was cleared and the engram refiled, it was discovered that the restimulator for his asthma was clean, cold air! The only certainty in the environment approach is that a sickly child will recover when removed from restimulative parents and taken where he is loved and feels safe - for his sickness is the inevitable result of restimulation of prenatal engrams by one or the other or both his parents."

Lets examine this. Asthma is when breathing is made difficult due to a narrowing of the airways that lead to the lungs. This is due to a swelling or inflamation and has various triggers. Amazingly, one of those triggers includes cold air...

Yahoo Health - "Asthma affects people in different ways. Some people only have asthma attacks during allergy season, or when they breathe in cold air, or when they exercise. Others have many bad attacks that send them to the doctor often."

National Institute for Health - "Common asthma triggers include:

* Animals (pet hair or dander)
    * Dust
    * Changes in weather (most often cold weather)
    * Chemicals in the air or in food
    * Exercise
    * Mold
    * Pollen
    * Respiratory infections, such as the common cold
    * Strong emotions (stress)
    * Tobacco smoke

eMedicine Health - "Each person with asthma has his or her own unique set of triggers. Most triggers cause attacks in some people with asthma and not in others. Common triggers of asthma attacks are the following:

* exposure to tobacco or wood smoke,
    * breathing polluted air,
    * inhaling other respiratory irritants such as perfumes or cleaning products,
    * exposure to airway irritants at the workplace,
    * breathing in allergy-causing substances (allergens) such as molds, dust, or animal dander,
    * an upper respiratory infection, such as a cold, flu, sinusitis, or bronchitis,
    * exposure to cold, dry weather,
    * emotional excitement or stress,
    * physical exertion or exercise,
    * reflux of stomach acid known as gastroesophageal reflux disease, or GERD,
    * sulfites, an additive to some foods and wine, and
    * menstruation: In some, not all, women, asthma symptoms are closely tied to the menstrual cycle.

So, there is a physical trigger. Where one might argue that clean, cold air should be good for the body and soul, in some cases it is not and there is a logical, medical trigger which has been the subject of far more scientific research than the claims in Dianetics has.

Then we come to something very interesting. Hang on because this is a bit of a ride...

In the educational field, new data or enthusiasms may very well key out engrams by overbalancing the reactive mind in the light of a new analytical surge. If a man can simply be convinced he has been fighting shadows or if he can be persuaded to hang his fears on some indicated cause, whether that cause is true or not, e can be benefited. Sometimes he can be 'educated' into a strong faith in some deity or cult which will cause him to feel so invulnerable that he rises above his engrams. Raising his survival potential in any way will raise his general tone to a point where it is no longer on a par with the reactive bank. Giving him an education in engineering or music, where he can receive a higher level of respect, will often defend him from his restimulators. A rise to a position of esteem is actually a change of environment, but it is also educational since he is now taught he is valuable. If a man can be made busy at a hobby or work by personal or exterior education that it is good for him, another mechanism comes in to being: the analytical mind becomes so engrossed that it takes to itself more and more energy for its activity and begins to align with a new purpose.

The first few sentences describes quite adequately why a cult or religion is successful. Make someone believe in something and the problems will fade out of the picture. It is unfortunate that in these cases, the problems may not disappear, in fact may get worse; but the person doesn't care because the fears have been tagged, filed and are put on the side lines; even if the basis for this is completely untrue and unfounded.

This paragraph is, in fact, a very good explanation of why it is better to tackle the issues you are facing in life rather than trying to side line them with beliefs of things which are not true; ie. joining a religion or a cult. Which, incidentally, is exactly what you are doing by deciding to follow scientology; whether you call it a religion or a cult ... according to this paragraph, it is the same thing.

Also concerning is this...

"On the physical therapy level, anything as violent as surgery or exodontistry in the psychosomatic plane is utter barbarism in the light of Dianetics. 'Toothache' is normally psychosomatic. Organic illnesses enough to fill several catalogs are psychosomatic. No recourse to surgery of any kind should be had until it is certain that the ailment is not psychosomatic or that the illness will not diminish by itself if the potency of the reactive mind is reduced. Mental-physical therapy is too ridiculous, with the source of aberration now a science, to be seriously mentioned. for no thinking doctor or psychiatrist possessed of this information would touch another electrode for electric shock therapy or even glance at a scalpel or ice pick to perform an operation on the pre frontal lobes of the brain unless that doctor or psychiatrist is himself so thoroughly aberrated that the act springs not from any desire to heal, but from the most utter and craven sadism to which engrams can bring a man."

Claiming that toothache is normally psychosomatic is basically down to how a person takes care of their teeth. That is the only way that I can equate a mental process as having a bearing on the coming about of toothache to the, "normal," degree claimed. However, is failure to care for ones teeth a conscious or unconscious thought process? Debatable, certainly. Scientifically provable? Unlikely.

However, once something like toothache has come about, it is a physical condition resulting from the physical deterioration and while I do not dispute that it is possible to mentally condition to block out pain or for stress to prevent the mental ability to focus on blocking the pain, getting the mind to reverse the damage caused to bone tissue is not so easy. In fact, the best I can think of is to create an environment where the normal bodily healing will take place on its own accord.

Again, we are basically back to the anecdotal evidence of the person in hospital who's recovery is affected by how they feel.

Also unfortunately, Mental-physical therapy is not ridiculous because the source of aberration is still not a science; and so long as this book continues to offer no actual science or research, that situation will continue.

The last sections claims that the process of electro convulsive therapy and pre-frontal lobotomy is the work of sadists rather than a genuine desire to improve the patients well being. This is a very nasty and deliberately directed venom of hatred. It only takes a look through history and even the present day, to find numerous examples of where a medicinal practice was carried out because of the belief that it was doing good; where all research and reasoning led those of their professions to believe that they were doing the right thing.

That later and improved research and experience proves that this isn't the case, is inevitable in a great many instances, not only in the field of psychiatric medicine, and to ignore this in judgement of what was done in the name of psychiatric science is a dangerous game indeed; inciting hatred of an entire branch of science and the people who become involved for the belief that they are improving the lives of people; for reasons which hold little water in the cold light of day.

I do not doubt that there are likely individuals who will inevitably bring shame on the practice, as there are in any field; religion included. However, to paint the entire science with the same brush is nothing but lunacy in my opinion.

You don't even need to restrain your examination to the field of medical and psychiatric research to find numerous examples of people doing wrong when they believed that they were doing right. Hindsight is always 20:20.

Not only that, but one has to question the involvement in dianetics. Is this nothing other than another example of people doing the wrong thing while believing that they are doing the right thing? It is a very valid question to ask, especially because of the lack of any actual evidence, research or reference contained in this work.

Contagion of Aberration

It starts well ... "Disease is contagious. Germs, travelling from one individual to another, wander through an entire society, respecting none until stopped by such things as sulfa or penicillin"

Then, it makes another unfounded statement .. "Aberration are contagious. Like germs they respect none and carry forward from individual to individual, from parents to child, respecting none until they re stopped by dianetics."

As children, part of our education is on the conditions of germs, we learn about penicillin; this is text book stuff. The first paragraph is automatically supported by the knowledge that the reader will probably already have and trust. The second paragraph, however, has no such automatic support and to this point in the book there is still no firm detail or proof of how dianetics is supposed to achieve this. If I was being cynical, I would believe that there is a concious attempt for the credibility of the first paragraph to be used to support the (to this point) unfounded assertions of the second.

The contagion of aberrations requires thought. On page 61 we receive the definition of an aberration - "Aberrations, under which is included all deranged or irrational behaviour, are caused by engrams. They are stimulus-response, pro- and contrasurvival." Thus from the readings to this point it can only be concluded that an aberration is not, in itself, contagious. Rather, the engram in an individual causes aberrations which affect a persons behaviour and this behaviour then causes engrams to be created in others and these engrams create aberrations in the, "infected," individual. That makes sense.

What doesn't make sense is the definition of an engram also on 61 that states, "The engram is the single source of aberrations and psychosomatic ills. Moments of 'unconsciousness' where the analytical mind is attenuated in greater or lesser degree are the only moments when engrams can be received"

It doesn't make sense until you evaluate that a moment of "unconsciousness" isn't actually being flat out on an operating theatre table; back to page 61 we go ... "Moments of 'unconsciousness' when the analytical mind is attenuated in greater or lesser degree, are the only moments when engrams can be received."

So, if you were angry for some reason and bump in to me, then the actual result of this on me will be that if my guard is down, I could also become angry at being treated in that way. If I were aware of the boundaries I might thus be angry with you, but I wouldn't carry that anger forward in my dealings with others; I would keep it in its place.

I think I'm getting the hang of this.

So when statements come along the likes of, "But it does mean that it is utterly inevitable that aberrated parents will in some way aberrate their children" what it means is that aberrated parents will cause engrams in their children. Why were the words messed up here?

There comes a problem with the following, however, "If some society believed that fish-eating brought on leprosy it is quite certain that this false datum would find its way into engrams and sooner or later someone would develop a leprosy-like disease after having eaten fish."

Much of society has continued on the basis of data. I believe I might have penned before on the fact that much of mans history and discoveries have, through the ages, been disproven and replaced on a number of occasions. We also have the realms of positive reinforcement cloudying the water here ... one person performing remote reiki on peoples pets believing that it works; the partner asks about the pets that died but this being brushed off by the individual, using only the cases where the animals recovered as proof that reiki worked to reinforce their own belief that reiki works.

The critical thing here is that the power of the mind in affecting the body is still, at this point, in the realms of anecdotal evidence as we still have no scientific research to back this up. Maintaining a good sense of self and being able to maintain a focus on reality is the purpose of many other, and in some cases many times older, teachings. Dianetics doesn't actually have a monopoly on this result. One of my favourites is, "Lack of planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on mine." which is again demonstrating the barrier between one person having issues and not letting them affect me.

The issue of the false datum about fish does not answer the questions of how many per head of population would be affected. Also, how many would only believe that they had the disease and that that they had symptoms, but actually have no disease or demonstratable symptoms of any relation in physical reality?

Unfortunately, the book takes another odd turn, "Primitive societies, being subject to much mailing by the elements, have many more occasions for injury than civilised societies. Further, such primitive societies are alive with false data. Further, their practice of medicine and mental healing is on a very aberrative level by itself."

To any society, including ours, data is only as true as we have the proof and evidence to substantiate the claims. Once the proof and evidence is up to a certain high standard it is said to be scientific proof. This is something which the book itself has failed to produce.

The practices of medicines in primitive societies tends to be of the earth. Even our advanced society has found itself turning against our own synthetic concoctions for the more mundane infections and are returning to solutions which come from nature. True, a primitive society won't have a sterilised surgical environment and anaesthetics, and thus one of their tribe suffering a bad mauling or badly broken leg, will have a low chance of survival.

As to how false data involves in this, however, I am not so sure. Also in our modern society with car accidents, kitchen knife accidents, fire hazards, chemical burns, aircraft safety and all the rest of it; I actually believe that if we call it by the numbers, the primitive societies have it better in terms of accidents suffered.

It could easily be taken, therefore, that primitive societies even though they have false data; don't know that this data is false and therefore continue on because their belief in the data being true results in no engrams and thus no aberrations as a result of this belief. Similarly, if we conclude that our own society has progressed from that path but that there are still things we do not know, then our own advanced society is actually in that very stage ourselves ... our problem is that we don't know that the false data is ... in fact ... false. Therefore we consider ourselves to be unaberrated. It it only when we later recognise data as being false that we can suffer aberrations as a result.

Sadly, the book further degenerates in to colourful examples, but these lead to something which I regard as a philosophical gem...

"A society which practices punishment of any kind against any of its members is carrying on a contagion of aberration. The society has a social engram, society size, which says punishment is necessary. Punishment is meted. The jails and institutions full. And then one day some portion of the society, depressed in to zone 1 by a government's freedom with government engrams, jumps up and wipes the government out. And a new set of aberrations is formed from the violence attending the destruction. Violent revolutions never win because they begin this cycle of aberration. A society filled with aberees may feel it necessary to punish. There has been no remedy other than punishment. The provision of a remedy for unsocial conduct by members of the group is of more than passing interest to a government for a continuance of its own corporal practices; adding these to the continuing aberrations of the past seriously depresses the survival potential of that government and will someday cause that government to fall. After many governments so fall, its people, too, perish from this Earth."

To a fair degree, it is just like reading Ghandi all over again, only in different words. This is not new thought process here ... but it is symbolic and very telling of the state of the human being, that despite this recognisable knowledge and proof existing of its practice ... that society continues to follow the path of violence and dismisses any non-violent solutions because they do not have the same entertainment value that violence carries.

The chapter finished by focusing on a clear person doing something that needs to be done; indeed what is written appears to rely on a clear having such a nature of person. However, even if there was a planet full of cleared people who would naturally behave in such a manner, there are plenty of other elements on the planet which are perfectly easily capable of entering engrams in to the clear. I have already commented on how difficult it is for the clear to remain so. It only takes a bad hair day and that is the end of that. We are human.

As of yet, there is nothing presented which takes account of that, rather unfortunate, fact.

Prenatal Experience and Birth

We have, here, a repetition of what has become the massive theme of this book; statements which proclaim themselves to be fact and born as the result of research but no references are made to substantiate them.

Among the issues that I am having is this section on narcosynthesis... "A shot of sodium pentothal is given intravenously to the patient and he is asked to count backwards. Shortly he stops counting at which the injection is also stopped. The patient is now in a sate of 'deep sleep.' That this is not sleep seems to have missed both narcosynthesists and hypnotists. It is actually a depression on the awareness of an individual so that those attention units which remain behind the curtain of his reactive bank can be reached directly."

My problem with it is thus ... if hypnotists had missed the fact that this state was a depression on the awareness of the individual ... then what the fuck are they putting the person under for, if not to induce this state; where the foreground conciousness could be bypased. What would then be the purpose of putting the patient in this state? Or also the other side of that question, what did the hypnotists think they WERE doing and what were they trying to achieve?

You can see how, for me, none of this hangs together very well.

Even to this degree, you must believe in reincarnation and that we have all lived past lives and carry that experience and memory with us.

While reincarnation has not been disproved and is regarded as a valid part of many peoples beliefs, its supporters still have not answered successfully questions which I hold to be quite important...

*) How is it that many people that have been regressed, have claimed to be someone famous from history, such as Napoleon or Cleopatra, while still being alive together. It stands to reason that only one person alive at any one time, can legitimately claim to have been that person in a previous life time, and that no one else can validly make that claim until this person is, themselves, passed over. Not only that, but it should also follow that the new claimant must have not only memories of their lives as said historical figure, but also have memories of the previous person, themselves. This has not really been solidly answered.

*) How is it that a population expansion is generating new souls? If they are coming from other organisms such as plants, insects or other such, then why is the incident of regression accounts as non-human species so low?

- to that last point, in 1920 the global population was estimated at 2,000 million people. Today it is more than 6,000 million. In theory, two out of every three people being regressed to 1920 should have memories of being something other than a human being. If you go back to 1800 it was estimated as 1,000 million; five out of every six people regressed to this point should have been something other than human. None of the studies/accounts that I have read bear this out.

While I don't, personally, write off reincarnation as a valid belief, the argument and evidence for it is actually quite weak.

Thus, as a chapter of unsubstantiated statement which relies to a degree on the unsubstantiated statement before it; this is coming to be a castle of sand built on a foundation of sand. Even the following has a serious problem ... "Dianetics, as a study of function and the science of mind, does not need any postulate concerning structure, however. The only test is whether or not a fact works. If it does work and can be used, it is a scientific fact."

The statement is tantamount to saying that dianetics does not need proof that it works; that it works is proof enough. However, it is lack of study that has plagued the human endeavour from the word go and numerous things which have been the subject of so much study and effort have been proven to be wrong later on; sometimes the same subjects numerous times; that it is essential that proper scrutiny is given.

If a fact works, it may only work under certain circumstances and therefore if there is an exception to a rule then there is no rule. back to the drawing table you go and do more research to improve the understanding of the circumstances and engineering involved.

Ergo, even if a fact works, it can not be considered to be a scientific fact unless it has gone through considerable process. It is akin to a one size fits all policy which is actually worryingly lacking detail and ... you guessed it ... very worryingly lacking in research, reference and evidence. Merely stating that research has proved something actually means nothing in this context unless the research is referenced and made as available to the reader as the work itself.

Something can be stated as a believable fact by an individual; even by an organisation ... but not a scientific fact until considerable process and peer reviewed process has been undergone.

Pages 189 to 192 have to be read to be believed, but the circumstances used to try and convey the point that is trying to be made here are certainly hard to swallow.

It closes with this, "All these things are scientific facts, tested and re-checked and tested again. And with them can be produced a Clear, on whom our racial future depends." WHAT scientific facts? WHAT testing? WHAT checking? There is less baloney in an Italian sausage factory.

Apologies to the open minded reader, but this is genuinely how I feel at the closure of this chapter. It is unfortunate to be making this conclusion when reviewing a work by L.Ron Hubbard, but this is coming across like a science fiction work in which the reader is actually being asked to believe all the futuristic devices and social protocols therein described, as being facts in the present, as written. No proof, no references, no research, no nothing.

Emotion and the Dynamics

This section appears at the outset to be returning to the dynamics and zones with respect to emotions and the minds control over them. It is, however, where the book is trying to draw some stark lines.

"Emotion seems to be inextricably connected up with the actual force of life. That there is a life force no engineer could doubt. Man and medicine usually look at the pitcher and forget that the pitcher is only there to hold milk and that the milk is the important quantity." The first printing of this book was 1993 so it is hard to think that the book could have been created without the knowledge that the fields of medicine have been aware of bedside manner for some considerable time. That the very fact that even I am aware, and voluntarily chose the comparator of the patient who has lost the will to live, must say something for a widespread acceptance and awareness of the milk within the pitcher.

If there is one thing coming clear from all this, it is that it is possible for someone to achieve the state of being clear and not even come close to dianetics. It is entirely possible for a person to be perfectly at ease with themselves, their lives and be at balance and not have even read this book. Also, that clear is, in itself, a transient state; not one which is achieved and then you move on; it is a very precarious state and unless you lived in a bubble, I dare say that an event could move someone from clear by the very next day. Indeed it could be possible to consider that even being IN a bubble could move you downwards from being clear.

I think that is an important concept for me to have got straight in my head.

The chapter itself, though, attempts to explain these things through a number of dramatic examples and required me to re-read them before eventually concluding that they did not actually draw a conclusion.

The chapter finished with the emotion of laughter, which it describes as not actually an emotion but a relief from emotions. That is, actually, laudable and has considerable anecdotal history behind it.

Psychosomatic Illness

It has taken me quite some time to pick up this book again. The disappointment of journeying a fifth of its pages and not picking up any solid results caused me to rethink why I was spending my time reading it. I remembered that I'm reading it in order to analyse it and determine why I am missing its message.

Here we go again.

The FIRST FUCKING PARAGRAPH no less...

"Psychosomatic illnesses are those which have a mental origin but which are nevertheless organic. Despite the fact that there existed no precise scientific proof of this before Dianetics, an opinion as to their existence has been strong since the days of Greece, and in recent times various drug preparations have been concocted and sold which were supposed to overcome these sicknesses."

You can not prove psychosomatic illness. You can merely disprove a physical cause. That's it.

Not only that, but if Dianetics claims it has scientific proof ... OK, where is it? I don't see any in this book so far.

This is then followed by more unsubstantiated facts and figures.

I take a moment to bring to the fore some of the writing, "That all illneses are psychosomatic is, of course, absurd, for there exist, after all, life forms called germs which have survival as their goals." I bring this forward because there has been the argument that in Scientology the belief is that all illnesses are the result of the mind. The writing here, clearly recognises that not all illnesses are as a result of the mind. Indeed page 132 does give a clear picture on this subject.

On its passage in to the next page, however, things do become slightly muddier. "Treatment for accidental injury, surgery for various things such as malformation inherent in the body on a genetic basis and orthopedics, which actually can be classed under both, remain properly outside the field of dianetics, although it can be remarked in passing that almost all accidents are to be traced to dramatization of engrams and that Clears rarely have accidents." Discussion of this last sentence really does need to be backed up with figures from scientific study, which, of course, are conspicuous by their absence.

Perhaps one of the most contradictory and firm statements does come on page 133 "For example the common cold has been found to be psychosomatic. Clears do not get colds. Just what, if any, part the virus plays in the common cold is not known, but it is known that when engrams about colds are lifted, no further colds appear - which is a laboratory fact not so far contradicted by 270 cases."

With a quick search, that paragraph was blown to hell with numerous references at the bottom for you to get stuck in to. The common cold is not psychosomatic.

"At the present time, Dianetic research is scheduled to include cancer and diabetes." Good grief. All I can continue to ask is WHERE THE HELL IS THIS BLOODY RESEARCH!!!

I did a search but all I could readily come up with was more of the same of a Why We Protest discussion about Scientology beliefs and this discussion about Scientology publication, "Clear body, clear mind," which all seem to fly in the face of the previous assertion, "That all illneses are psychosomatic is, of course, absurd."

I can't find any actual note of any scientology research facility or actual papers which have been reviewed and accepted by international peers. If they've got a proper medical research facility, it seems to not be on any radar.

On the subject of alteration of physical sensory performance by hypnosis, this is held up to the reader as, "So with the various senses. Here we have simply the spoken word going in to the mind and causing physical function to change." which completely ignores the anecdotal evidence of people losing their sight and their hearing improves to compensate; that the human body is actually capable of the higher range of hearing but that the conscious mind simply isn't paying any attention to it ... that an individual with perfectly functioning eyesight can walk in to a room with a particular object, but they still don't, "see," it. The differentiation between hearing and listening is thus explained by dianetics, as a function of engram alteration rather than difference of concentration.

It is an interesting hypothesis to which, you've guessed it, there is no substance or research to back it up.

Another bold claim with no reference is this... "Mental tone makes body tone go down. Body tone, then being down, makes mental tone go down. This is a matter of inverse geometric progression. A man starts to get sick and, having engrams, he gets sicker. Clears are not subject to this dwindling spiral. Indeed, so entirely superficial is this horrible stuff called psychosomatic illness that it is the first thing which surrenders and can be alleviated without clearing."

The situation itself is nothing new; it was brought up much earlier on in the book with me bringing up the example of a person in a hospital lacking the will to live. What is different here is the claim that clears do not suffer from this and that it is a situation which it is so superficial that it is alleviated easily. Now, how you go about giving someone who has lost the will to live, a reason to live, is not something which I would call a situation which is easily recovered from, by any stretch of the imagination. Also, there remains no independently validated research which confirms that clears do not suffer from this.

Indeed, if a person has engrams, then they are not clear. So this actually highlights a flaw in the entire process; that once the state of clear has been achieved, it is something which is actually easily lost. It does make me ponder the actual value of the effort required to become clear in the first place. This is something I need to consider further as I read on.

Unfortunately, the rest of the chapter continues on these lines, perhaps at its height the unsubstantiated claim on page 146 that a clear is not easily made ill.

The Demons

For a science, Hubbard is using some very colourful and descriptive language to outline his selection of information that is taken from the world of the mystics, "No opinion will be delivered at this stage of Dianetics about ghosts or the Indian rope trick beyond the fact they are seen to be multicoloured pieces and the only ones we want are white. We have most of the white pieces and it makes a good, solid whiteness where there was blackness before." This kind of talk is positive about Dianetics but doesn't actually say anything. It is like being on a journey of goodness; you don't know anything about where you are going or why you are going there ... just feel the width of the happiness.

Hubbard then goes on to explain that, "A thorough examination of a number of subjects (fourteen) revealed that ever one apparently had a 'demon' of some sort. They were randomly selected subjects in various conditions in society." Now; if someone like me was left to conclude anything from this, it would be that everyone in society has demons in them. This is an example of how the writing leads to conclusions but doesn't actually state anything. A leading statement.

And the fourteen people? Never heard of again.

Hubbard, however, goes on to explain that the demons are actually the result of behaviour pattern changes that are the results of engrams. More colourful language is used to explain this; "An electronics engineer can set up demons in a radio circuit to his hearts content. In human terms, it is as it one ran a line from the standard banks toward the analyser but before it got there be put in a speaker and a microphone and then continued the line to the plane of conciousness. Between the speaker and the microphone would be a section of the analyser which was an ordinary, working section but compartmented off from the remainder of the analyser. 'I' on a conscious plane wants data. It should come straight from the standard bank, compute on a sublevel and arrive just as data. Not spoken data. Just data." Yeh. Right. Whatever you say Ron. What about a diagram with that?

It takes slow and considered reading to gain a loose grip on what is going on in this chapter. Even then, it doesn't make much sense. It almost endows engrams with conscious thought in themselves.

We move from here, to "Psychosomatic Illness."

The cell and the organism

Hubbard makes more use of anecdotal evidence here, in that a person functions better, analytically, when happy and less so when aberrated; less well still when mown down by a truck and unconscious.

This principle does not fully hold up. People can be so happy as to be uncaring and distracted; not feeling like wishing to analyse anything. People can be so down on life that it generates a keen interest, a concentration, in a subject which gains more analytical attention than it would if the person was in a content state.

The chapter is, like the others before it, full of statement of Hubbard's opinion but is lacking in any hard evidence.

Hubbard makes the point that even an individual cell will, under observation, behave in a manner which can be interpreted as deliberate, analyticised action. However, he fails to back up this point himself, thus contributing nothing to the behaviour of individual cells.

The chapter is full of statements of things that are, "scientific fact," but there is no proof or reference to support these statements. Without such proof, these, "facts," are unproven and can only be held in doubt, pending such proof. "This is not theory. This is scientific fact. It is strictly test tube." Then show us the tube.

That, unfortunately, wraps up yet another chapter of unsubstantiated observations based on anecdotal evidence, that the reader is expected to swallow. This chapter is, however, notably heavier on making negative statements and including a positive reference as to how Dianetics is the situations saviour.

Next up, "The Demons."

Self Analysis

What I really want to be doing is moving on to this book.

While I read Dianetics, I find its generalisations, lack of proof, no references and demand that the reader puts on hold any evaluative opinion, to be quite disconcerting and ... well, it is just damn scary so far. To this point it is completely devoid of respectable science and shows no hint of religion. It contradicts itself in a few places and seems to bend with the wind.

Self Analysis was suggested to me by Geir Isene, and seems to be the start of the actual journey. At the moment I feel that reading Dianetics is like reading a badly translated tour guide which is trying to do a bad sales pitch of selling the journey; when what I want to do is hit the trail, smell the air and take in the scenery.

A quick look at the next section states, "Several theories could be postulated as to why the human mind evolved exactly as it did, but these are theories and Dianetics is not concerned with structure." Then why waste a good portion of the book to this point, going through this only to dump it?

To my own mind, it does feel as if I have wasted a deal of good reading time. Dianetics is doing nothing to engage me in its message.

The reactive mind - part 2

More than three pages on Hubbard recounting various different post hypnotic suggestions follow, as if Hubbard himself is fascinated by the subject. As post hypnotic suggestion generally wears off in a few days for most people I am having difficulty understanding why such time is spent on the subject as the parallels between this and aberration are slim.

Hubbard's attempts to link aberrations to post hypnotic suggestion do not sit well in my mind. It would almost imply that the aberration was conscious in its own application.

Generalisations come in on top of this, "The mechanism, in our analogue of the mind is very simple. In comes a destructive wave of physical pain or a pervading poison such as ether and out go some or all of the fuses of the analytical mind. When it goes out, so go what we know as the standard memory banks." Some people would interpret this as focusing the mind; requiring concentrated attention rather than general attention. Individuals handle such situations differently. Just because general memory is not required under such a situation does not mean it is not present and can not be called upon. Indeed, is it not memory which is required for the analytical mind to evaluate any smells or sensations that are received during this time, and thus form a response?

And so the chapter continues for more pages, accounting small stories and painting what-if pictures that attempt to expand anecdotal evidence and make it in to something which it is not, in order to explain and support Hubbard's opinions and conclusions which still are not supported by any reference, factual encounter or ... well ... anything.

Can you tell yet that I'm getting tired of reading this?

Next up is the cell and the organism.

The reactive mind - part 1

After a considerable amount of unsupported opinion in the previous chapter, my mind is now turning against this book. In the absence of any form of proof or scientific evidence being offered to support its propositions, it is difficult to take its writings seriously; but press on I must.

Fortunately, at the start of this chapter, Hubbard spares us a detailed look in to evolution itself. Of this subject it does include, "We can add some chapters to those things," but obviously doesn't, as at this point what I have read leads me to conclude that there is nothing of any scientific substance within dianetics to add to the furtherment of any understanding of the human species and life on this planet. No supportable science at all to this point. But there is still 90% of the book to read and much could change with the turning of a page.

The observations of scientific facts continue, and are commented on by Hubbard in manner of the like, "The action of survival, if optimum, would lead to survival." Statements like this not only contribute nothing to the study at hand, but they are also patently untrue. An organism on the planet can operate at its optimum survival dynamic and still face an opposing force which is stronger, and thus the organism would fail in its bid for survival.

"The survival conduct pattern was discovered to be far from sterile and barren but was full of rich and most pleasant activity." Discovered by who; how; when; where ... and talking of where, then where are the references and documents to back up this statement.

You can see why I am having such a problem with this book. We are still dealing with one man's opinion; one man's interpretation of anecdotal evidence and failure to engage in the necessary science to solidify this interpretation in the world of fact.

"The human mind was discovered to have been most grossly maligned, for it was found to be possessed of capabilities far in excess of any heretofore imagined, much less tested." Again, who discovered it and what did they discover? What were these capabilities? These are questions which continued reading of this book must answer; and it must answer them with proven fact, references and scientific record.

"Two hundred and seventy-three individuals have been examined and treated, representing all the various types of inorganic mental illness and the many varieties of psychosomatic ills. In each one this reactive mind was found operating, its principles unvaried. This is a long series of cases and will soon become longer." Again, statement with no proof. No link to the research documents. It has been decades since this book was originally published and I don't think that it has ever been updated with these cases or the longer list.

The amount of unsubstantiated rubbish is now starting to anger me, but on I must go as there are plenty more pages in this chapter. From what I have determined, Hubbard had no laboratory, no mind imaging equipment, in fact nothing other than the e-meter. To be able to draw conclusions such as are contained here, on the mind, its function and dysfunction, needs the kind of scientific analysis and proof that just doesn't exist thus far.

Now, however, the book gets controversial. Page 75 lists the reactive mind, aberrated by engrams, to be responsible for the following ... "What can it do? It can give a man arthritis, bursitis, asthma, allergies, sinusitis, coronary trouble, high blood pressure and so on down the whole catalogue of psychosomatic ills, adding a few more which were never specifically classified as psychosomatic, such as the common cold. And it is the only thing in the human being which can produce these effects. It is the thing which uniformly brings them about."

Hubbard is classifying illnesses such as arthritis, asthma, coronary trouble and more, even the common cold, as being psychosomatic; a cause of an aberrated, reactive mind.

At this point, the book steps far away from established science fact and makes sweeping statements that completely undermine our medical science but offers no proof whatsoever, other than Hubbard's own opinion.

Hubbard's, "proof," in the next paragraph aligns the aberrated minds affect on the body as being the same thing which made, "Socratese think he had a 'demon' that gave him answers. This is the mind that made Caligula appoint his horse to a government post." In so much, Hubbard is offering mental instability and lack of sanity in judgement and action as the cause of physical aberrations in the body. The two do not go hand in hand and as such, this attempt at proof, obviously fails.

"Discharge the content of this mind's bank and the arthritis vanishes, myopia gets better, heart illness decreases, asthma disappears, stomachs function properly and the whole catalog of ills goes away and stays away."

Well, there you have it in black and white on page 76. The state of mind can cure the body of all ills. Medicine is not necessary. A massively sweeping statement that eradicates the need for medicine and associated branches of science in the stroke of a pen.

So where is the proof? You guessed it ... so far, there isn't any. We have gone from anecdotal evidence to a planet full of unemployed physicians within a matter of less than a hundred pages of text and not a shred of evidence, reference or even account of Hubbard's own experience of enacting the same.

To this point, this book could actually be considered harmful to human health.

Hubbard goes on to contradict himself. The, "banks," of memory are said to record all as input comes to these banks before the analytical mind comes to examine it. However, he is now writing that at times of unconsciousness, under the influence of anaesthesia, drugs, injury or shock, (occurrences where it is the analytical mind that is affected) memories are not then recorded. This makes no sense; it is either one or the other, but it is impossible to determine as no proof is offered of either claim.

Hubbard goes on to talk about there being a, "use," system protecting the mind from harmful memories; I agree with this, but even under these circumstances if Hubbard's earlier claims were to be born out, then all memories would have been recorded regardless of the state of the analytical mind, something which he has just refuted when the analytical mind is unconscious.

Hubbard then goes on to state the following (again, without reference)

"Clinical tests prove these statements to be scientific fact:
1) The mind records on some level continuously during the entire life of the organism.
2) All recordings of the lifetime are available.
3) "Unconsciousness,"in which the mind is oblivious of its surroundings, is possible only in death and does not exist as total amnesia in life.
4) All mental and physical derangements of a psychic nature come about from moments of, "unconsciousness."
5) Such moments can be reached and drained of charge with the result of returning the mind to optimum operating condition."

Hang on a moment. If number 4 is true, then as unconsciousness only occurs in death (according to statement number 3) there is no opportunity for mental and physical derangements of a psychic nature to occur in the lifetime of an organism. The only way that this could happen is if we had periods of death in our lives. The only other thing which could hold any possible answer to this is back to the belief in reincarnation where we would carry psychic derangements with us from one life to the next.

You see, Hubbard is contradicting himself. We have statement number 3 above that states that unconsciousness is only possible in death, yet goes on to state on the very same page, "If you care to make the experiment you can take a man, render him, 'unconscious,' hurt him and give him information. By Dianetic technique, no matter what information you gave him, it can be recovered." In order to enact this technique, you would have to kill the person concerned.

He also states, "Unconsciousness is the single source of aberration." Thus further enforcing the reincarnation postulation; one gains aberrations only from one life to the next and by following Dianetics, a person will thus spend their lifetime clearing the aberrations from the previous death.

That is how I am reading this. In order for dianetics to hold any water whatsoever to this point, the individual who is considering its pages must have a pre-existing belief in reincarnation for there to be any shred of possibility of credibility. Where no such belief exists, dianetics holds no water whatsoever.

Also, as of this point, I don't believe that science has yet sufficiently proven or disproven the case for reincarnation.

I thus, read on.

The analytical mind and the standard memory banks

Hubbard, in this chapter, splits the mind in to three parts, analytical, reactive and somatic. For some reason, the word, "egsusheyftef," is used as an alternative description of the analytical, or computational mind. Whether Hubbard is deliberately putting a word puzzle in the text to play with the readers analytical capabilities, I can't be bothered to put the time in to find out. I am more interested in the subject at hand.

Hubbard goes on further to describe the analytical mind. "The analytical mind is not just a good computer, it is a perfect computer. It never makes a mistake. It cannot err in any way so long as a human being is reasonably intact (unless something has carried away a piece of his mental equipment.) The analytical mind is incapable of error, and it is so certain that it is incapable of error that it works out everything on the basis that it cannot make an error." To me, that sounds like the definition of an arrogant person.

To go slightly further, "If a person says, 'I cannot add,' he either means that he has never been taught to add or that he has an aberration about adding. It does not mean that there is anything wrong with the analytical mind."

Again, no proof, no references, no nothing. I read this that, if the analytical mind made an error, then the cause is down to the data on which the mind made the analysis. I interpret this as follows; you know the kind of mental trickery that is deliberately set for us to come up with the wrong answer ... well I interpret Hubbards assertion in this as saying that a person who has no aberrations can never be caught out by such trickery; they will always catch the data and never return the wrong answer.

Unfortunately, there is no evidence of such a person and their being tested in such a manner.

Ah. Yes. In the very next paragraph, "For a computer is just as good as the data on which it operates and no better. Aberration, then, arises from the nature of the data offered to the analytical mind as a problem to be computed."

Like I said, unfortunately, no proof.

Then, Hubbard really does go off the deep end. A few pages of writing on how the memory systems work with no references, proof, nothing. Then Hubbard revisits a previously encountered statement, "Through the mechanisms of the life function regulator (which handles all the mechanical functions of living), the analytical mind can affect any function of the body it desires to affect. In excellent working order - which is to say, when the organism is not aberrated - the analytical mind can influence the heartbeat, the endocrines (such things as calcium and sugar in the blood, adrenaline, etc.). selective blood flow (stopping it in the limbs or starting it at will), urine, excreta, etc. All glandular, rhythm and fluid functions of the body can be at the command of the analytical mind. This is not to say that in a cleared person they always are. That would be very uncomfortable and bothersome. But it does say that the analytical mind can effect changes at desire when it skills itself to do so. This is a matter of laboratory proof, very easy to do."

Some control of the body by the analytical mind is possible; agreed. Other functions of the body are not, however, under control of the analytical mind; observations of blood flow in a person going hypothermic is just one example. Again there is no reference to the laboratory proof which is written about. Also of note is that, once again, there is no firm statement as to the abilities of a cleared person; in fact I would go as far as to conclude that Hubbard is deliberately stating that there are no guaranteed gains in this area from become clear.

It is also noted that Hubbard does not claim that a non-aberrated mind is capable of clearing other parts of the body of aberrations.

Hubbard concludes this chapter... "Sanity depends upon rationality. Here is optimum rationality and therefore optimum sanity. And here also are all the things man likes to think man should be like or, for that matter, what he has represented his better gods to be like. This is the Clear. This is sanity. This is happiness. This is survival. Where is the error?"

It would appear to me that the error in this analysis is definitely a result of the data being presented to the analytical mind. Just because someone is rational it does not follow that they are necessarily sane. However we have another snippit of what Hubbard defines the clear as being; rational and sane. Here, I believe Hubbard is implying that we, as people, define our gods as being made of the very aspects we aspire to, and in achieving rationality and sanity, we are fulfilling that aspiration.

Hubbard has described the reactive mind as being the villain of the piece, and that is up next.

Summary

The summary starts off by going in to zones, which don't adequately detail themselves in a manner which I can get a handle on. They are the zones of no hope, violent action, balance and high hope.

It then summarises the four dynamics and states that the reward of survival activity is pleasure and the "ultimate penalty of destructive activity is death or complete nonsurvival, and is pain."

There is a considerable balancing act going on here. There are times where an individual must sacrifice on one dynamic in order to progress on another. I have to admit to looking at the summit of complete success in all dynamics and think, "That's a difficult peak to climb. A lot of people are going to fall off the mountain face trying to get there." Also, unless you believe in reincarnation, survival on the first dynamic is impossible to achieve.

The chapter goes on to reasonably conclude that problems in the mind can cause drops in functionality, efficiency of memory, ability to reason, etc. however, these are lain at the door of engrams. "The engram is a moment of 'unconsciousness' containing physical pain or painful emotion and all perceptions, and is not available to the conscious, analytical mind as experience." This needs more evaluation.

Richard Wolfgang Semon appears to have coined the term, "engram." The best way I can describe what I am reading is that an engram is a reactive part of the mind; that the mind will automatically respond to stimulus. I translate this as being the fight or flight mechanism; programming which enables us to react instinctively to a situation without having applied conscious thought to what we are facing.

I can see how some programming, such as phobias, have negative impacts on our lives and are worth overcoming. However, there are some engrams which are necessary for survival. If I look up and see a girder falling towards me from some great height, I don't want to be standing there thinking, "Now where is the shadow and what are the odds of this actually hitting me." Man, I want to be running as fast as I can the hell out of there as quickly as possible.

On page 61 we come across the first equation. PV = ID to the power of x. Potential Value of an individual or a group equals the inteligence multiplied by the potential of the individual on a particular dynamic. x is undefined, but it could be a % sign, the type is that small.

This fails to take in to account as to WHO the potential value belongs to. Such as an individual with a high dynamic to survival of the species, would have a value to the society as a whole. An individual with a high self survival dynamic could thus do so at the expense of the community; survival of the fittest. That would result in a strong PV, but not one of benefit to all elements of society, unless your goal is to eliminate the weak and then it does become a positive.

So again, we have anecdotal evidence and unsupported conclusions which can mean different things according to your point of view.

The next chapter purports to educate me on, "The single source of all inorganic mental and organic psychosomatic ills."

The Four Dynamics

We're starting to get somewhere with the application of the word, "survival," to mean procreation, self preservation, betterment of the culture (presumably specific to the race or local community) and of the species. There is, however, a claim that this is a scientific equation and there is still no evidence or even account of any of the experiments and observations that the chapter so neatly summarises ... again the reader is expected to take many things as read; conclusions without proof or reference. Not so good.

An equation is something which balances; two sides becoming equal ... I can't see any equation here; and without proofs or references, there is nothing scientific about this.

As there are people who exist to gain on one dynamic (self preservation and procreation) at the expense of other dynamics (achieving the previous two by the detriment of the society and even the species) I look to the chapter to explain the relation between these dynamics.

It is recognised that these dynamics play off each other and that the clear takes, by conscience, the mixture of the paths between these dynamics which yields the optimum resolution. In conclusion, this is the behaviour that anyone would expect of an honourable and respectable person. Someone who has a personality aberration in one of these areas would be deemed selfish or having their own agenda and thus not worthy of high consideration by their peers.

So, nothing new here. In fact, a simple and time honoured premise covered in a considerable number of words.

Next is a summary, but a quick glance sees it is talking about, "zones."

The Goal of Man

Right. The first page is already causing an issue. The long story short is that a line is drawn between the things that cause aberrations in a human being. On one side are the spiritual and on the other, the measurable, the factual. At the bottom of page one is the statement, "All factors necessary to the resolution of a science of the mind were found within the finite universe and were discovered, sensed, measured and experienced and became scientific truth." Measured by who? Who determined what factors were necessary? What of all the things that are on the other side of the line, like belief. This chapter is going to have to pull a bloody stunner later on if it wants me to take it as read that the spiritual plays no part in the goal of man or the survival of the species.

There was an excellent series of lines in, "The Flight of Dragons," which was concerned at the core thread of the story line, that man was choosing logic over magic and that the world of magic had to use the last of its power to place itself in a protected place away from man, but that it was always needed. The Green Wizard says, "There was a time between the waning age of enchantment and the dawning age of logic, when dragons flew the skies. Free and unencumbered. Look down there Gorbash, at the troubled world below us. All mankind is facing an epic choice, a world of magic or a world of science. Which shall it be?"

Carolinus - "I propose we create the last realm of magic. The magic realm. Where all enchanted things might retreat before their age ends. If we consolidate our powers there will be enough magic left to create such a place. Sealed off from the rest of the world by the mists of invisibility."

Omadon - "You would defeat science and logic with a foolish retirement village?"

Carolinus - "Not defeat, my brother, enhance. The world though it does not realise it, can not do without magic. For example; man hears of the dragons invulnerable skin and lo, he makes armour, battleships, tanks . A fairy flies and furiously jealous man himself defies gravity with machines he will call aeroplanes. A magician looks in to his crystal and sees and hears half way across the world. Ah, says man, if only it could be so; and centuries from now he conjurers up miracles but calls them radio and television. If man is to surmount the insurmountable there must always be magic to inspire him. The world needs magic. Magic can never die."

"Go, and you may never return to the magic realm. For even now the great dome of invisibility grows over our world to protect its sanctity for all time; and no one on the outside may enter its boundaries save for the length of a dream, or flash of an inspiration. But it will stay, through the years the centuries and the ages; a part of man for all time and whenever man needs magic, we will be here."

Contrast this with the line from Dianetics, "It is not a new thought that man is surviving. It is a new thought that man is motivated only by survival." This, I can not agree with. It may be the goal of a few, but not the whole planet. Survival is the continuation of the species. The goal of man is further from this; betterment of itself. Once man has sired the next generation and secured their survival, then what is left? There are those who's goal is greed; the collection and execution of power. There are those with their fingers upon the button of nuclear destruction. These men would think nothing of bringing chaos and death to the human species and the majority of creation and evolution on this planet. No; survival seems to be an afterthought.

To my mind, to ignore the soul in the equation of the human race is to cheapen our very existence.

So it is at this point that I am well out of sympathy with the books unsubstantiated claims. However, I move on.

"Once survival was isolated as the only dynamic of a life form which would explain all its activities, it was necessary to study further the action of survival." "The thrust of survival is away from death and toward immortality." Immortality is a singular; of the individual person and not the species. Survival can be taken as one of two meanings, either of the species of the individual. The title of the chapter is of the species. The two can't cross in this without repercussions in muddying the waters.

This chapter crosses the definitions of the individual and the species so many times that it doesn't make sense.

Next up, The Four Dynamics. Hopefully we'll start to get to the definition of what the practice of dyanetics actually is; there are people out there who are practising it and hold it as key in changing their lives, and these people seem to be honest and hold kind hearts so there has to be something beyond these initial, confusing chapters.

So far

The conclusion of the first two chapters really doesn't amount to much. Considerable anecdotal evidence already exists concerning the state of the human mind and the effect of the soul on the body. The path to happiness is different for various people; if the goal is a happy, fulfilled life then dianetics is not the only system that will achieve this goal.

The goal, a least in the initial stages, is to become clear of all aberrations; overcome all things which cause you problems. It leaves me puzzled as to why all aberrations have to be eliminated; why can they not be comfortably controlled, like someone with a nut allergy who has a solid grip of their situation and doesn't feel suppressed by their situation?

Also, with no guarantee given that a clear will restore full vision, for example, a person with such an impairment will continue to be aberrated and never achieve clear. From what I have read so far, the achievement of clear is difficult to attain and even once achieved can easily be lost; the human condition is a perpetually fluid state.

However, the value to the individual of chasing this state of being can be considered a laudable goal; to want to be a better person is never an achievement that should be looked down on or made little of ... there are too many people in this world who never aspire to anything and will never achieve a smile on their face.

So, wanting to better oneself is a positive step forward; there is enough evidence to suggest a strong link between mental and physical well being and mental health is woefully underestimated in our modern society.

So far there is little in the way of what dianetics actually delivers beyond suggestive links. There is no evidence or reference to, at this point, research other than the socially anecdotal.

As to the effects of psychiatry ... who knows; it has certainly been responsible for some horrific treatments in its youth as it is relatively a very young science, but has transformed itself in the last twenty or thirty years ... now it is effectively a mirror to the soul, allowing the soul to examine and adjust itself. It still has a considerably long way to go and there is doubt as to whether psychiatry can ever achieve anything with the human mind which the mind itself does not want to achieve.

The Clear

In reading this chapter, the concept of clear becomes clear, but the purpose remains hidden.

To explain the position; it is maintained that a person suffering the aberration of colour blindness, as example, may be losing their vision of full colour perception not by the physical failure of a receptor component, but by an aberration of the mind or personality which adjusts the signal before it is evaluated by the concious mind.

"Violins play melodies, not monotones, bring no pain and are enjoyed to a fine, full limit if the Clear likes violins as a matter of taste." thus the line is drawn between the personal taste of the clear, or the uncontrolled aberration of the non-clear.

However, the text fails to answer the other side; the clear who's taste is not for the violin might well justifiably perceive the playing of the violin as a monotone which brings pain. There is also no account taken of situations like my own; where colours are more vivid when glasses are worn ... this is clearly a matter of physical issue rather than an aberration of the mind; otherwise the aberration would still be present when the glasses were being worn ... or otherwise my optician did not only examine the optical properties of my eyes during the examination, but also my mental aberrations and fitted allowance for them also in to my prescription. Wow; my optical prescription corrects not only my optical senses, but also my mental aberrations! Cool!

How is any individual to be able to ascertain whether a picture looks dull to them because of either optical dysfunction, mental aberration or personal taste; or even a combination of all three?

At this point, we are thus no further forward on the separation of clear from any of the other two controls (without medical intervention to ascertain the status of the physical.)

There, perhaps, is how we could begin to progress; once medicine has ascertained the physical status then if there is another method of separating personal taste from aberration then the difference between the three states can be ascertained. Yes?

At this point the book concludes, "Thus, the perceptions of an aberee (noncleared individual) vary greatly from those of the cleared (unaberated) individual." while I, personally, can only conclude (at this point in the reading) that without a reliable mechanism for determining whether an affect is down to aberration or personal choice, is one of any number of personal conclusions or beliefs; for without a separation mechanism, there is still no basis in fact for the conclusion. This may be where, "auditing," comes in, but I'm jumping ahead of the book on that point.

I thus read on.

A confusing argument on eyesight ensues, with the account that, "clears," have been known to buy five pairs of spectacles in quick succession after their eyesight naturally returns to near normal vision. What this has to do with being clear or the practice of dianetics, I am not sure. The implication is that the, "clear," mind actually instructs the optics to go against the easy way out; ie. the correction of the glasses. Personally, if I am to direct my eyes, I have to consciously control them and the amount of conscious muscle control I have is actually quite limited. The conclusion, while not outside the bounds of possibility, is nevertheless extremely improbable if it is to happen without intervention of conscious thought or at the least, directed subconscious thought to instruct and re-train the eye muscles.

It is not a hidden situation that glasses are present to correct a situation in the eyes; to relieve the symptoms; they are not a cure. If left to their own devices, the body is capable of resolving its own issues; this is not outside the bounds of expected natural behaviour. There are some conditions like my stigma in each eye, or the onset of occlusion, that I would not expect the body to self correct no matter what I believed; physical intervention would be the only actual cure.

So exactly what the eye and glasses section is doing here, I am not sure. I have definately noted that the wording used here attests to some clears but does not make a blanket statement that all clears will regain near normal sight.

We are still in muddy water territory here. The boldest claim so far is that, "With the removal of aberrations, repeated tests have proven that the body makes a valiant effort to reconstruct back to optimum." However here we have, once again, no actual reference to any research to back up this claim. The best we have is to come back to the anecdotal evidence that the well being of the mind has an effect on the body. There is nothing to align the effects of Dianetics with these processes; happiness and good feeling brought about by any means could thus cause the body to self-correct.

We then progress to the subject of hypnotism and regression. Hubbard writes of hypnotism as if it is a past art. "One upon a time, an art known as hypnotism used what was called 'regression' on hypnotized subjects, the hypnotist sending the subjects back, in one of two ways, to incidents in his past." The writing goes on to state that the clear can effectively regress without the need for hypnosis.

With no reports or accurate events cited, there is, again, nothing to substantiate this. A critical report from people about the techniques employed, throws a shadow over this being possible. From what I have read from various accounts, the processes of auditing, training procedures, etc. have themselves induced mental states the same as, or similar to, hypnosis. This, unfortunately, undermines the written claim.

Further undermining the claim is written on this subject in the book, "Wide awake, he can 'return' to moments in his part. Until asked to do so, he probably will not know he has such an ability. If he had it, he probably thought everybody could do it (the type of supposition which has kept so much of this data from coming to light before.)" which again fails to make the claim that all clears have such recolective abilities' in a world where some people are known to have varying degrees of recall, right through to people with photographic memories, there is still nothing so far which is promoting a clear as having any ability beyond that of the wide range of people in society who have beliefs and abilities at either end of the norm range.

So far, a clear is not coming up to be that special; just an average human being operating within normal parameters.

There is a very obvious example of implication here whilst not making specific claims. To go forward in part of the description of people who are capable of optimum recall, "These people, thinking about a ship, would see a specific ship, feel the motion of her if they thought of being aboard her, smell the pine tar or even less savoury odours and hear whatever sounds there were about her. They would see the ship in full colour motion and hear it in full tone audio.

These faculties vary widely in the aberree. Some when told to think of a rose, can merely visualise one. Some can smell one but not see it."

Very clever writing. It does not state that a clear will attain optimum recall, indeed makes no link between a clear and a person who has optimum recall. However, the described opposite of a clear, an aberree, is stated to have a wide variety of abilities in the faculty of recall. There is thus an implication of where a clear stands in terms of recall by giving a very clever statement where an aberree stands on the situation.

The writing thus describes the abilities of a person with optimum recall without making any link to that person being a clear, a scientologist ... anything. Against this, it is only to be expected that the average person will fall below this level, aberree or dianetics student.

That, by the way, is a conclusion made without resorting to the realm of an individuals strength of imagination. On that subject, however, later on we get a solid statement out of the chapter, "A Clear uses imagination in its entirety." It goes on. "The Clear has full colour-video, tone-sonic, tactile, olfactory, rhythmic, kinesthetic, thermal and organic imagination in kind." It then undoes itself by stating, "But creative imagination, that possession by which works of art are done, states built and man enriched, can be envisioned as a special function, independent in operation and in no way dependent for its existence upon an aberrated condition in the individual, since the examination of its activity in and use by a clear possessing it adequately demonstrates its inherent character. It is rarely absent in any individual."

The most I can draw from this is that a clear has better use of their imagination. There is little reference to the status of imagination in someone who is non-clear, but I do know that the power of my own imagination tends to vary with my mood. It is one of a number of conclusions that a person with a better self-image, no matter how obtained, is more free to indulge in stronger mental impact from their imaginings.

Now we get in to a meatier statement about rationality. "Rationality, as divorced from aberration, can be studied in a cleared person only." There is a following statement which matches this, but is not mentioned. In order to study rationality, the studying person must also be clear of aberration. This opens the whole can of worms. What is the definition of, "normal"?

There is a distinct lack of statements of what a Clear actually is. The reader can only conclude that a clear person is someone who is not aberrated. The chapter makes statements on observed effects of a positive mind on the body but stops short in direct links. Given what has been written about a clear in the past, I was expecting the chapter to say things like, "A clear will be able to remember everything that they see and hear," but it doesn't.

Rather than put everything in the clear, it is full of possibilities, maybees, anecdotal observations and the like. It gave this reader the impression that if I were to work towards becoming clear then there are some ways in which the body and mind might improve itself, but there are no guarantees; meanwhile the aberrated person will definitely not gain from these benefits.

This, I find to be not only wooly, but leaving me with questions; how about the people in hospital who are solid of resolution, good of heart and recover well; about the person who leaves the glasses off and re-trains their eyes ... the vast, vast majority of the people in the world are not clear and these things are happening to them. Although it is possible to take the position that they are unaberrated and just haven't been audited, I think that this, along with many argumentative positions that it is possible to take after reading this chapter, are actually quite unsound.

So, I am left with the conclusion that a clear person is one who is free of aberrations, but not quite so clear on what that benefit brings to the individual.

Next up - The Goal of Man. Feels like million dollar territory.

The Scope of Dianetics

The opening chapter lays the groundwork for what is to come.

The human race has looked for answers as to what the mind is, what the human is, but I would disagree with the degree that the book lays this down; "No quest has been more relentlessly pursued or has been more violent. No primitive tribe, no matter how ignorant, has failed to recognise the problem as a problem, nor has it failed to bring forth at least an attempted formulation." stating that armies and civilizations have perished for the lack of a, "science of mind." This, I can not accept. The human race looking for answers, yes. As to the perishing of civilisations, I would put that down to religious wars and human greed rather than a concious want of understanding of the self. Any attempt to put it down to an, "unconscious," want is, in my humble opinion, an argument that is on shaky ground. Survival seems to be the strongest and most common thread behind the human psyche, with a sense of self coming after the most critical needs of food in the stomach, a roof over the head and a warm fire have been secured.

The chapter takes issue firmly with the psychiatric treatment of old; techniques that were stopped a few decades ago like electric shock treatment and frontal lobotomies. I remember beginning some of my own counselling in the late 1980s, the building bore the scars of heavy duty electrical cabling, not that long removed. I know of people who were treated with electric shock therapy; it didn't work. Psychiatry has moved on but L Ron Hubbard died in 1986 and psychiatry no longer uses the techniques rightfully highlighted as barbaric in this chapter. To hold a valid stance now, Dianetics would have to re-evaluate modern psychiatry but I believe it is correct in the application of lobotomies and electric shock as being barbaric at the time. There is discussion about the, "crimes," of psychiatry and that is a deeper issue; certainly psychiatry is not without blood on its hands but each, "crime," would have to be investigated and as I have already highlighted, the organisations own word on what psychiatry did, holds little weight these days. Only facts can sort that issue out.

The science of the mind is therefore to deal with the person, the soul. It bears no link, according to this chapter, with the physical body. It lists, "The cause and cure of all psychosomatic ills, which number, some say, 70 percent of man's listed ailments." however there is no reference as to who the, "some say," are or any texts as to where this percentage actually comes from.

There is some anecdotal evidence that the state of the mind can affect the state of the body; commonly observed with people in hospital who have lost the will to live. I can accept this to a point. I have been close enough to various people to have knowledge of some fairly odd things, like a good friend of mine, who's word I trust; accounting one of his childhood playmates making the statement, in their teens, that he would be dead before he was fifty. Indeed, at the age of 49, in hospital, suffering from osteoporosis, that person never did see their fiftieth birthday. The question is validly asked, did the mind have thirty plus years knowledge of when the body would fail, or did the strength of the mind cause the bodies failure? A question to which we will never know the answer. We will never actually know whether osteoporosis was actually diagnosed as a child and an accurate of estimated life span given. We can postulate all we wish, but like the existence of God, we will never know the answer for a full, outright fact and it is things like this which do not help in clearing the waters of understanding.

The chapter ends with some fairly strong claims, the very mention of them leaves me with sincere doubts, that scientology helps various forms of human study and the field of cytology is specifically mentioned.

So, here we are with a repeat of my previous reading; statements which have no external references to back up the claims made; the reader being expected to accept them as fact. This is immediately not registering as a very scientific work.

I interpret what I have read so far as being that dianetics aims to bring self-understanding to the mind and, by that knowledge, better self control and access to the minds own abilities and freedom from becoming caught up in situations which are of the minds own making. If I remember of what is to come further in the book, the issue of two people talking through a persons troubles may actually be close to modern psychiatry ... I dare say I will find out in time.

As of yet, I see nothing which purports to deal with the health of the physical body, so that puts one anti-scientology claim on the sidelines; but only for the time being as the next chapter is on the Clear and will answer a number of arguments as to what benefits being, "clear," should bring to a persons life. This, I feel, will be a critical chapter.