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.