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