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.