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.