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."
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.)
"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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)