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.
Keying in the engram
Now this starts off with a really odd, unproven premise. That a child can carry an engram but it can lay dormant. Once keyed in, or triggered if you will, the child then suffers a degradation in physical health and a beginning of suffering headaches. These are very specific claims for which, again, as usual, there is nothing to back them up.
Some of the claims here become more and more unbelievable, "It may be that a patient is urgent in her insistence that her father raped her when she was nine and that this is the cause of all her misery. Large numbers of insane patients claims this. And it is perfectly true. Father did rape her but it happened she was only nine days beyond conception at the time." Even at the stage of one month the baby is still an embryo. How the fuck is a child, which hasn't even got a brain at this point in their development, supposed to hold a memory of a mothers sex with the father?
"Psychotic women often maintain, after they are awakened from a drugged sleep (and sometimes a hypnotic sleep), that they have been raped. Men occasionally maintain that the operator has tried to perform a homosexual act upon them while they were drugged." You know, I really do wish that this sodding book contained references to the material it is purportedly reporting as I can't find anything on this, myself.
"One is reminded of a case which has severe asthma. He had received it in a very severe birth engram; his frantic parents carried him to every mountain asthma resort suggested and spent tens of thousands of dollars in these jauntings. When this patient was cleared and the engram refiled, it was discovered that the restimulator for his asthma was clean, cold air! The only certainty in the environment approach is that a sickly child will recover when removed from restimulative parents and taken where he is loved and feels safe - for his sickness is the inevitable result of restimulation of prenatal engrams by one or the other or both his parents."
Lets examine this. Asthma is when breathing is made difficult due to a narrowing of the airways that lead to the lungs. This is due to a swelling or inflamation and has various triggers. Amazingly, one of those triggers includes cold air...
Yahoo Health - "Asthma affects people in different ways. Some people only have asthma attacks during allergy season, or when they breathe in cold air, or when they exercise. Others have many bad attacks that send them to the doctor often."
National Institute for Health - "Common asthma triggers include:
eMedicine Health - "Each person with asthma has his or her own unique set of triggers. Most triggers cause attacks in some people with asthma and not in others. Common triggers of asthma attacks are the following:
So, there is a physical trigger. Where one might argue that clean, cold air should be good for the body and soul, in some cases it is not and there is a logical, medical trigger which has been the subject of far more scientific research than the claims in Dianetics has.
Then we come to something very interesting. Hang on because this is a bit of a ride...
In the educational field, new data or enthusiasms may very well key out engrams by overbalancing the reactive mind in the light of a new analytical surge. If a man can simply be convinced he has been fighting shadows or if he can be persuaded to hang his fears on some indicated cause, whether that cause is true or not, e can be benefited. Sometimes he can be 'educated' into a strong faith in some deity or cult which will cause him to feel so invulnerable that he rises above his engrams. Raising his survival potential in any way will raise his general tone to a point where it is no longer on a par with the reactive bank. Giving him an education in engineering or music, where he can receive a higher level of respect, will often defend him from his restimulators. A rise to a position of esteem is actually a change of environment, but it is also educational since he is now taught he is valuable. If a man can be made busy at a hobby or work by personal or exterior education that it is good for him, another mechanism comes in to being: the analytical mind becomes so engrossed that it takes to itself more and more energy for its activity and begins to align with a new purpose.
The first few sentences describes quite adequately why a cult or religion is successful. Make someone believe in something and the problems will fade out of the picture. It is unfortunate that in these cases, the problems may not disappear, in fact may get worse; but the person doesn't care because the fears have been tagged, filed and are put on the side lines; even if the basis for this is completely untrue and unfounded.
This paragraph is, in fact, a very good explanation of why it is better to tackle the issues you are facing in life rather than trying to side line them with beliefs of things which are not true; ie. joining a religion or a cult. Which, incidentally, is exactly what you are doing by deciding to follow scientology; whether you call it a religion or a cult ... according to this paragraph, it is the same thing.
Also concerning is this...
"On the physical therapy level, anything as violent as surgery or exodontistry in the psychosomatic plane is utter barbarism in the light of Dianetics. 'Toothache' is normally psychosomatic. Organic illnesses enough to fill several catalogs are psychosomatic. No recourse to surgery of any kind should be had until it is certain that the ailment is not psychosomatic or that the illness will not diminish by itself if the potency of the reactive mind is reduced. Mental-physical therapy is too ridiculous, with the source of aberration now a science, to be seriously mentioned. for no thinking doctor or psychiatrist possessed of this information would touch another electrode for electric shock therapy or even glance at a scalpel or ice pick to perform an operation on the pre frontal lobes of the brain unless that doctor or psychiatrist is himself so thoroughly aberrated that the act springs not from any desire to heal, but from the most utter and craven sadism to which engrams can bring a man."
Claiming that toothache is normally psychosomatic is basically down to how a person takes care of their teeth. That is the only way that I can equate a mental process as having a bearing on the coming about of toothache to the, "normal," degree claimed. However, is failure to care for ones teeth a conscious or unconscious thought process? Debatable, certainly. Scientifically provable? Unlikely.
However, once something like toothache has come about, it is a physical condition resulting from the physical deterioration and while I do not dispute that it is possible to mentally condition to block out pain or for stress to prevent the mental ability to focus on blocking the pain, getting the mind to reverse the damage caused to bone tissue is not so easy. In fact, the best I can think of is to create an environment where the normal bodily healing will take place on its own accord.
Again, we are basically back to the anecdotal evidence of the person in hospital who's recovery is affected by how they feel.
Also unfortunately, Mental-physical therapy is not ridiculous because the source of aberration is still not a science; and so long as this book continues to offer no actual science or research, that situation will continue.
The last sections claims that the process of electro convulsive therapy and pre-frontal lobotomy is the work of sadists rather than a genuine desire to improve the patients well being. This is a very nasty and deliberately directed venom of hatred. It only takes a look through history and even the present day, to find numerous examples of where a medicinal practice was carried out because of the belief that it was doing good; where all research and reasoning led those of their professions to believe that they were doing the right thing.
That later and improved research and experience proves that this isn't the case, is inevitable in a great many instances, not only in the field of psychiatric medicine, and to ignore this in judgement of what was done in the name of psychiatric science is a dangerous game indeed; inciting hatred of an entire branch of science and the people who become involved for the belief that they are improving the lives of people; for reasons which hold little water in the cold light of day.
I do not doubt that there are likely individuals who will inevitably bring shame on the practice, as there are in any field; religion included. However, to paint the entire science with the same brush is nothing but lunacy in my opinion.
You don't even need to restrain your examination to the field of medical and psychiatric research to find numerous examples of people doing wrong when they believed that they were doing right. Hindsight is always 20:20.
Not only that, but one has to question the involvement in dianetics. Is this nothing other than another example of people doing the wrong thing while believing that they are doing the right thing? It is a very valid question to ask, especially because of the lack of any actual evidence, research or reference contained in this work.
Some of the claims here become more and more unbelievable, "It may be that a patient is urgent in her insistence that her father raped her when she was nine and that this is the cause of all her misery. Large numbers of insane patients claims this. And it is perfectly true. Father did rape her but it happened she was only nine days beyond conception at the time." Even at the stage of one month the baby is still an embryo. How the fuck is a child, which hasn't even got a brain at this point in their development, supposed to hold a memory of a mothers sex with the father?
"Psychotic women often maintain, after they are awakened from a drugged sleep (and sometimes a hypnotic sleep), that they have been raped. Men occasionally maintain that the operator has tried to perform a homosexual act upon them while they were drugged." You know, I really do wish that this sodding book contained references to the material it is purportedly reporting as I can't find anything on this, myself.
"One is reminded of a case which has severe asthma. He had received it in a very severe birth engram; his frantic parents carried him to every mountain asthma resort suggested and spent tens of thousands of dollars in these jauntings. When this patient was cleared and the engram refiled, it was discovered that the restimulator for his asthma was clean, cold air! The only certainty in the environment approach is that a sickly child will recover when removed from restimulative parents and taken where he is loved and feels safe - for his sickness is the inevitable result of restimulation of prenatal engrams by one or the other or both his parents."
Lets examine this. Asthma is when breathing is made difficult due to a narrowing of the airways that lead to the lungs. This is due to a swelling or inflamation and has various triggers. Amazingly, one of those triggers includes cold air...
Yahoo Health - "Asthma affects people in different ways. Some people only have asthma attacks during allergy season, or when they breathe in cold air, or when they exercise. Others have many bad attacks that send them to the doctor often."
National Institute for Health - "Common asthma triggers include:
* Animals (pet hair or dander)
* Dust
* Changes in weather (most often cold weather)
* Chemicals in the air or in food
* Exercise
* Mold
* Pollen
* Respiratory infections, such as the common cold
* Strong emotions (stress)
* Tobacco smokeeMedicine Health - "Each person with asthma has his or her own unique set of triggers. Most triggers cause attacks in some people with asthma and not in others. Common triggers of asthma attacks are the following:
* exposure to tobacco or wood smoke,
* breathing polluted air,
* inhaling other respiratory irritants such as perfumes or cleaning products,
* exposure to airway irritants at the workplace,
* breathing in allergy-causing substances (allergens) such as molds, dust, or animal dander,
* an upper respiratory infection, such as a cold, flu, sinusitis, or bronchitis,
* exposure to cold, dry weather,
* emotional excitement or stress,
* physical exertion or exercise,
* reflux of stomach acid known as gastroesophageal reflux disease, or GERD,
* sulfites, an additive to some foods and wine, and
* menstruation: In some, not all, women, asthma symptoms are closely tied to the menstrual cycle.So, there is a physical trigger. Where one might argue that clean, cold air should be good for the body and soul, in some cases it is not and there is a logical, medical trigger which has been the subject of far more scientific research than the claims in Dianetics has.
Then we come to something very interesting. Hang on because this is a bit of a ride...
In the educational field, new data or enthusiasms may very well key out engrams by overbalancing the reactive mind in the light of a new analytical surge. If a man can simply be convinced he has been fighting shadows or if he can be persuaded to hang his fears on some indicated cause, whether that cause is true or not, e can be benefited. Sometimes he can be 'educated' into a strong faith in some deity or cult which will cause him to feel so invulnerable that he rises above his engrams. Raising his survival potential in any way will raise his general tone to a point where it is no longer on a par with the reactive bank. Giving him an education in engineering or music, where he can receive a higher level of respect, will often defend him from his restimulators. A rise to a position of esteem is actually a change of environment, but it is also educational since he is now taught he is valuable. If a man can be made busy at a hobby or work by personal or exterior education that it is good for him, another mechanism comes in to being: the analytical mind becomes so engrossed that it takes to itself more and more energy for its activity and begins to align with a new purpose.
The first few sentences describes quite adequately why a cult or religion is successful. Make someone believe in something and the problems will fade out of the picture. It is unfortunate that in these cases, the problems may not disappear, in fact may get worse; but the person doesn't care because the fears have been tagged, filed and are put on the side lines; even if the basis for this is completely untrue and unfounded.
This paragraph is, in fact, a very good explanation of why it is better to tackle the issues you are facing in life rather than trying to side line them with beliefs of things which are not true; ie. joining a religion or a cult. Which, incidentally, is exactly what you are doing by deciding to follow scientology; whether you call it a religion or a cult ... according to this paragraph, it is the same thing.
Also concerning is this...
"On the physical therapy level, anything as violent as surgery or exodontistry in the psychosomatic plane is utter barbarism in the light of Dianetics. 'Toothache' is normally psychosomatic. Organic illnesses enough to fill several catalogs are psychosomatic. No recourse to surgery of any kind should be had until it is certain that the ailment is not psychosomatic or that the illness will not diminish by itself if the potency of the reactive mind is reduced. Mental-physical therapy is too ridiculous, with the source of aberration now a science, to be seriously mentioned. for no thinking doctor or psychiatrist possessed of this information would touch another electrode for electric shock therapy or even glance at a scalpel or ice pick to perform an operation on the pre frontal lobes of the brain unless that doctor or psychiatrist is himself so thoroughly aberrated that the act springs not from any desire to heal, but from the most utter and craven sadism to which engrams can bring a man."
Claiming that toothache is normally psychosomatic is basically down to how a person takes care of their teeth. That is the only way that I can equate a mental process as having a bearing on the coming about of toothache to the, "normal," degree claimed. However, is failure to care for ones teeth a conscious or unconscious thought process? Debatable, certainly. Scientifically provable? Unlikely.
However, once something like toothache has come about, it is a physical condition resulting from the physical deterioration and while I do not dispute that it is possible to mentally condition to block out pain or for stress to prevent the mental ability to focus on blocking the pain, getting the mind to reverse the damage caused to bone tissue is not so easy. In fact, the best I can think of is to create an environment where the normal bodily healing will take place on its own accord.
Again, we are basically back to the anecdotal evidence of the person in hospital who's recovery is affected by how they feel.
Also unfortunately, Mental-physical therapy is not ridiculous because the source of aberration is still not a science; and so long as this book continues to offer no actual science or research, that situation will continue.
The last sections claims that the process of electro convulsive therapy and pre-frontal lobotomy is the work of sadists rather than a genuine desire to improve the patients well being. This is a very nasty and deliberately directed venom of hatred. It only takes a look through history and even the present day, to find numerous examples of where a medicinal practice was carried out because of the belief that it was doing good; where all research and reasoning led those of their professions to believe that they were doing the right thing.
That later and improved research and experience proves that this isn't the case, is inevitable in a great many instances, not only in the field of psychiatric medicine, and to ignore this in judgement of what was done in the name of psychiatric science is a dangerous game indeed; inciting hatred of an entire branch of science and the people who become involved for the belief that they are improving the lives of people; for reasons which hold little water in the cold light of day.
I do not doubt that there are likely individuals who will inevitably bring shame on the practice, as there are in any field; religion included. However, to paint the entire science with the same brush is nothing but lunacy in my opinion.
You don't even need to restrain your examination to the field of medical and psychiatric research to find numerous examples of people doing wrong when they believed that they were doing right. Hindsight is always 20:20.
Not only that, but one has to question the involvement in dianetics. Is this nothing other than another example of people doing the wrong thing while believing that they are doing the right thing? It is a very valid question to ask, especially because of the lack of any actual evidence, research or reference contained in this work.
Contagion of Aberration
It starts well ... "Disease is contagious. Germs, travelling from one individual to another, wander through an entire society, respecting none until stopped by such things as sulfa or penicillin"
Then, it makes another unfounded statement .. "Aberration are contagious. Like germs they respect none and carry forward from individual to individual, from parents to child, respecting none until they re stopped by dianetics."
As children, part of our education is on the conditions of germs, we learn about penicillin; this is text book stuff. The first paragraph is automatically supported by the knowledge that the reader will probably already have and trust. The second paragraph, however, has no such automatic support and to this point in the book there is still no firm detail or proof of how dianetics is supposed to achieve this. If I was being cynical, I would believe that there is a concious attempt for the credibility of the first paragraph to be used to support the (to this point) unfounded assertions of the second.
The contagion of aberrations requires thought. 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"
It doesn't make sense until you evaluate that a moment of "unconsciousness" isn't actually being flat out on an operating theatre table; back to page 61 we go ... "Moments of 'unconsciousness' when the analytical mind is attenuated in greater or lesser degree, are the only moments when engrams can be received."
So, if you were angry for some reason and bump in to me, then the actual result of this on me will be that if my guard is down, I could also become angry at being treated in that way. If I were aware of the boundaries I might thus be angry with you, but I wouldn't carry that anger forward in my dealings with others; I would keep it in its place.
I think I'm getting the hang of this.
So when statements come along the likes of, "But it does mean that it is utterly inevitable that aberrated parents will in some way aberrate their children" what it means is that aberrated parents will cause engrams in their children. Why were the words messed up here?
There comes a problem with the following, however, "If some society believed that fish-eating brought on leprosy it is quite certain that this false datum would find its way into engrams and sooner or later someone would develop a leprosy-like disease after having eaten fish."
Much of society has continued on the basis of data. I believe I might have penned before on the fact that much of mans history and discoveries have, through the ages, been disproven and replaced on a number of occasions. We also have the realms of positive reinforcement cloudying the water here ... one person performing remote reiki on peoples pets believing that it works; the partner asks about the pets that died but this being brushed off by the individual, using only the cases where the animals recovered as proof that reiki worked to reinforce their own belief that reiki works.
The critical thing here is that the power of the mind in affecting the body is still, at this point, in the realms of anecdotal evidence as we still have no scientific research to back this up. Maintaining a good sense of self and being able to maintain a focus on reality is the purpose of many other, and in some cases many times older, teachings. Dianetics doesn't actually have a monopoly on this result. One of my favourites is, "Lack of planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on mine." which is again demonstrating the barrier between one person having issues and not letting them affect me.
The issue of the false datum about fish does not answer the questions of how many per head of population would be affected. Also, how many would only believe that they had the disease and that that they had symptoms, but actually have no disease or demonstratable symptoms of any relation in physical reality?
Unfortunately, the book takes another odd turn, "Primitive societies, being subject to much mailing by the elements, have many more occasions for injury than civilised societies. Further, such primitive societies are alive with false data. Further, their practice of medicine and mental healing is on a very aberrative level by itself."
To any society, including ours, data is only as true as we have the proof and evidence to substantiate the claims. Once the proof and evidence is up to a certain high standard it is said to be scientific proof. This is something which the book itself has failed to produce.
The practices of medicines in primitive societies tends to be of the earth. Even our advanced society has found itself turning against our own synthetic concoctions for the more mundane infections and are returning to solutions which come from nature. True, a primitive society won't have a sterilised surgical environment and anaesthetics, and thus one of their tribe suffering a bad mauling or badly broken leg, will have a low chance of survival.
As to how false data involves in this, however, I am not so sure. Also in our modern society with car accidents, kitchen knife accidents, fire hazards, chemical burns, aircraft safety and all the rest of it; I actually believe that if we call it by the numbers, the primitive societies have it better in terms of accidents suffered.
It could easily be taken, therefore, that primitive societies even though they have false data; don't know that this data is false and therefore continue on because their belief in the data being true results in no engrams and thus no aberrations as a result of this belief. Similarly, if we conclude that our own society has progressed from that path but that there are still things we do not know, then our own advanced society is actually in that very stage ourselves ... our problem is that we don't know that the false data is ... in fact ... false. Therefore we consider ourselves to be unaberrated. It it only when we later recognise data as being false that we can suffer aberrations as a result.
Sadly, the book further degenerates in to colourful examples, but these lead to something which I regard as a philosophical gem...
"A society which practices punishment of any kind against any of its members is carrying on a contagion of aberration. The society has a social engram, society size, which says punishment is necessary. Punishment is meted. The jails and institutions full. And then one day some portion of the society, depressed in to zone 1 by a government's freedom with government engrams, jumps up and wipes the government out. And a new set of aberrations is formed from the violence attending the destruction. Violent revolutions never win because they begin this cycle of aberration. A society filled with aberees may feel it necessary to punish. There has been no remedy other than punishment. The provision of a remedy for unsocial conduct by members of the group is of more than passing interest to a government for a continuance of its own corporal practices; adding these to the continuing aberrations of the past seriously depresses the survival potential of that government and will someday cause that government to fall. After many governments so fall, its people, too, perish from this Earth."
To a fair degree, it is just like reading Ghandi all over again, only in different words. This is not new thought process here ... but it is symbolic and very telling of the state of the human being, that despite this recognisable knowledge and proof existing of its practice ... that society continues to follow the path of violence and dismisses any non-violent solutions because they do not have the same entertainment value that violence carries.
The chapter finished by focusing on a clear person doing something that needs to be done; indeed what is written appears to rely on a clear having such a nature of person. However, even if there was a planet full of cleared people who would naturally behave in such a manner, there are plenty of other elements on the planet which are perfectly easily capable of entering engrams in to the clear. I have already commented on how difficult it is for the clear to remain so. It only takes a bad hair day and that is the end of that. We are human.
As of yet, there is nothing presented which takes account of that, rather unfortunate, fact.
Then, it makes another unfounded statement .. "Aberration are contagious. Like germs they respect none and carry forward from individual to individual, from parents to child, respecting none until they re stopped by dianetics."
As children, part of our education is on the conditions of germs, we learn about penicillin; this is text book stuff. The first paragraph is automatically supported by the knowledge that the reader will probably already have and trust. The second paragraph, however, has no such automatic support and to this point in the book there is still no firm detail or proof of how dianetics is supposed to achieve this. If I was being cynical, I would believe that there is a concious attempt for the credibility of the first paragraph to be used to support the (to this point) unfounded assertions of the second.
The contagion of aberrations requires thought. 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"
It doesn't make sense until you evaluate that a moment of "unconsciousness" isn't actually being flat out on an operating theatre table; back to page 61 we go ... "Moments of 'unconsciousness' when the analytical mind is attenuated in greater or lesser degree, are the only moments when engrams can be received."
So, if you were angry for some reason and bump in to me, then the actual result of this on me will be that if my guard is down, I could also become angry at being treated in that way. If I were aware of the boundaries I might thus be angry with you, but I wouldn't carry that anger forward in my dealings with others; I would keep it in its place.
I think I'm getting the hang of this.
So when statements come along the likes of, "But it does mean that it is utterly inevitable that aberrated parents will in some way aberrate their children" what it means is that aberrated parents will cause engrams in their children. Why were the words messed up here?
There comes a problem with the following, however, "If some society believed that fish-eating brought on leprosy it is quite certain that this false datum would find its way into engrams and sooner or later someone would develop a leprosy-like disease after having eaten fish."
Much of society has continued on the basis of data. I believe I might have penned before on the fact that much of mans history and discoveries have, through the ages, been disproven and replaced on a number of occasions. We also have the realms of positive reinforcement cloudying the water here ... one person performing remote reiki on peoples pets believing that it works; the partner asks about the pets that died but this being brushed off by the individual, using only the cases where the animals recovered as proof that reiki worked to reinforce their own belief that reiki works.
The critical thing here is that the power of the mind in affecting the body is still, at this point, in the realms of anecdotal evidence as we still have no scientific research to back this up. Maintaining a good sense of self and being able to maintain a focus on reality is the purpose of many other, and in some cases many times older, teachings. Dianetics doesn't actually have a monopoly on this result. One of my favourites is, "Lack of planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on mine." which is again demonstrating the barrier between one person having issues and not letting them affect me.
The issue of the false datum about fish does not answer the questions of how many per head of population would be affected. Also, how many would only believe that they had the disease and that that they had symptoms, but actually have no disease or demonstratable symptoms of any relation in physical reality?
Unfortunately, the book takes another odd turn, "Primitive societies, being subject to much mailing by the elements, have many more occasions for injury than civilised societies. Further, such primitive societies are alive with false data. Further, their practice of medicine and mental healing is on a very aberrative level by itself."
To any society, including ours, data is only as true as we have the proof and evidence to substantiate the claims. Once the proof and evidence is up to a certain high standard it is said to be scientific proof. This is something which the book itself has failed to produce.
The practices of medicines in primitive societies tends to be of the earth. Even our advanced society has found itself turning against our own synthetic concoctions for the more mundane infections and are returning to solutions which come from nature. True, a primitive society won't have a sterilised surgical environment and anaesthetics, and thus one of their tribe suffering a bad mauling or badly broken leg, will have a low chance of survival.
As to how false data involves in this, however, I am not so sure. Also in our modern society with car accidents, kitchen knife accidents, fire hazards, chemical burns, aircraft safety and all the rest of it; I actually believe that if we call it by the numbers, the primitive societies have it better in terms of accidents suffered.
It could easily be taken, therefore, that primitive societies even though they have false data; don't know that this data is false and therefore continue on because their belief in the data being true results in no engrams and thus no aberrations as a result of this belief. Similarly, if we conclude that our own society has progressed from that path but that there are still things we do not know, then our own advanced society is actually in that very stage ourselves ... our problem is that we don't know that the false data is ... in fact ... false. Therefore we consider ourselves to be unaberrated. It it only when we later recognise data as being false that we can suffer aberrations as a result.
Sadly, the book further degenerates in to colourful examples, but these lead to something which I regard as a philosophical gem...
"A society which practices punishment of any kind against any of its members is carrying on a contagion of aberration. The society has a social engram, society size, which says punishment is necessary. Punishment is meted. The jails and institutions full. And then one day some portion of the society, depressed in to zone 1 by a government's freedom with government engrams, jumps up and wipes the government out. And a new set of aberrations is formed from the violence attending the destruction. Violent revolutions never win because they begin this cycle of aberration. A society filled with aberees may feel it necessary to punish. There has been no remedy other than punishment. The provision of a remedy for unsocial conduct by members of the group is of more than passing interest to a government for a continuance of its own corporal practices; adding these to the continuing aberrations of the past seriously depresses the survival potential of that government and will someday cause that government to fall. After many governments so fall, its people, too, perish from this Earth."
To a fair degree, it is just like reading Ghandi all over again, only in different words. This is not new thought process here ... but it is symbolic and very telling of the state of the human being, that despite this recognisable knowledge and proof existing of its practice ... that society continues to follow the path of violence and dismisses any non-violent solutions because they do not have the same entertainment value that violence carries.
The chapter finished by focusing on a clear person doing something that needs to be done; indeed what is written appears to rely on a clear having such a nature of person. However, even if there was a planet full of cleared people who would naturally behave in such a manner, there are plenty of other elements on the planet which are perfectly easily capable of entering engrams in to the clear. I have already commented on how difficult it is for the clear to remain so. It only takes a bad hair day and that is the end of that. We are human.
As of yet, there is nothing presented which takes account of that, rather unfortunate, fact.
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.
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.
Emotion and the Dynamics
This section appears at the outset to be returning to the dynamics and zones with respect to emotions and the minds control over them. It is, however, where the book is trying to draw some stark lines.
"Emotion seems to be inextricably connected up with the actual force of life. That there is a life force no engineer could doubt. Man and medicine usually look at the pitcher and forget that the pitcher is only there to hold milk and that the milk is the important quantity." The first printing of this book was 1993 so it is hard to think that the book could have been created without the knowledge that the fields of medicine have been aware of bedside manner for some considerable time. That the very fact that even I am aware, and voluntarily chose the comparator of the patient who has lost the will to live, must say something for a widespread acceptance and awareness of the milk within the pitcher.
If there is one thing coming clear from all this, it is that it is possible for someone to achieve the state of being clear and not even come close to dianetics. It is entirely possible for a person to be perfectly at ease with themselves, their lives and be at balance and not have even read this book. Also, that clear is, in itself, a transient state; not one which is achieved and then you move on; it is a very precarious state and unless you lived in a bubble, I dare say that an event could move someone from clear by the very next day. Indeed it could be possible to consider that even being IN a bubble could move you downwards from being clear.
I think that is an important concept for me to have got straight in my head.
The chapter itself, though, attempts to explain these things through a number of dramatic examples and required me to re-read them before eventually concluding that they did not actually draw a conclusion.
The chapter finished with the emotion of laughter, which it describes as not actually an emotion but a relief from emotions. That is, actually, laudable and has considerable anecdotal history behind it.
"Emotion seems to be inextricably connected up with the actual force of life. That there is a life force no engineer could doubt. Man and medicine usually look at the pitcher and forget that the pitcher is only there to hold milk and that the milk is the important quantity." The first printing of this book was 1993 so it is hard to think that the book could have been created without the knowledge that the fields of medicine have been aware of bedside manner for some considerable time. That the very fact that even I am aware, and voluntarily chose the comparator of the patient who has lost the will to live, must say something for a widespread acceptance and awareness of the milk within the pitcher.
If there is one thing coming clear from all this, it is that it is possible for someone to achieve the state of being clear and not even come close to dianetics. It is entirely possible for a person to be perfectly at ease with themselves, their lives and be at balance and not have even read this book. Also, that clear is, in itself, a transient state; not one which is achieved and then you move on; it is a very precarious state and unless you lived in a bubble, I dare say that an event could move someone from clear by the very next day. Indeed it could be possible to consider that even being IN a bubble could move you downwards from being clear.
I think that is an important concept for me to have got straight in my head.
The chapter itself, though, attempts to explain these things through a number of dramatic examples and required me to re-read them before eventually concluding that they did not actually draw a conclusion.
The chapter finished with the emotion of laughter, which it describes as not actually an emotion but a relief from emotions. That is, actually, laudable and has considerable anecdotal history behind it.
Psychosomatic Illness
It has taken me quite some time to pick up this book again. The disappointment of journeying a fifth of its pages and not picking up any solid results caused me to rethink why I was spending my time reading it. I remembered that I'm reading it in order to analyse it and determine why I am missing its message.
Here we go again.
The FIRST FUCKING PARAGRAPH no less...
"Psychosomatic illnesses are those which have a mental origin but which are nevertheless organic. Despite the fact that there existed no precise scientific proof of this before Dianetics, an opinion as to their existence has been strong since the days of Greece, and in recent times various drug preparations have been concocted and sold which were supposed to overcome these sicknesses."
You can not prove psychosomatic illness. You can merely disprove a physical cause. That's it.
Not only that, but if Dianetics claims it has scientific proof ... OK, where is it? I don't see any in this book so far.
This is then followed by more unsubstantiated facts and figures.
I take a moment to bring to the fore some of the writing, "That all illneses are psychosomatic is, of course, absurd, for there exist, after all, life forms called germs which have survival as their goals." I bring this forward because there has been the argument that in Scientology the belief is that all illnesses are the result of the mind. The writing here, clearly recognises that not all illnesses are as a result of the mind. Indeed page 132 does give a clear picture on this subject.
On its passage in to the next page, however, things do become slightly muddier. "Treatment for accidental injury, surgery for various things such as malformation inherent in the body on a genetic basis and orthopedics, which actually can be classed under both, remain properly outside the field of dianetics, although it can be remarked in passing that almost all accidents are to be traced to dramatization of engrams and that Clears rarely have accidents." Discussion of this last sentence really does need to be backed up with figures from scientific study, which, of course, are conspicuous by their absence.
Perhaps one of the most contradictory and firm statements does come on page 133 "For example the common cold has been found to be psychosomatic. Clears do not get colds. Just what, if any, part the virus plays in the common cold is not known, but it is known that when engrams about colds are lifted, no further colds appear - which is a laboratory fact not so far contradicted by 270 cases."
With a quick search, that paragraph was blown to hell with numerous references at the bottom for you to get stuck in to. The common cold is not psychosomatic.
"At the present time, Dianetic research is scheduled to include cancer and diabetes." Good grief. All I can continue to ask is WHERE THE HELL IS THIS BLOODY RESEARCH!!!
I did a search but all I could readily come up with was more of the same of a Why We Protest discussion about Scientology beliefs and this discussion about Scientology publication, "Clear body, clear mind," which all seem to fly in the face of the previous assertion, "That all illneses are psychosomatic is, of course, absurd."
I can't find any actual note of any scientology research facility or actual papers which have been reviewed and accepted by international peers. If they've got a proper medical research facility, it seems to not be on any radar.
On the subject of alteration of physical sensory performance by hypnosis, this is held up to the reader as, "So with the various senses. Here we have simply the spoken word going in to the mind and causing physical function to change." which completely ignores the anecdotal evidence of people losing their sight and their hearing improves to compensate; that the human body is actually capable of the higher range of hearing but that the conscious mind simply isn't paying any attention to it ... that an individual with perfectly functioning eyesight can walk in to a room with a particular object, but they still don't, "see," it. The differentiation between hearing and listening is thus explained by dianetics, as a function of engram alteration rather than difference of concentration.
It is an interesting hypothesis to which, you've guessed it, there is no substance or research to back it up.
Another bold claim with no reference is this... "Mental tone makes body tone go down. Body tone, then being down, makes mental tone go down. This is a matter of inverse geometric progression. A man starts to get sick and, having engrams, he gets sicker. Clears are not subject to this dwindling spiral. Indeed, so entirely superficial is this horrible stuff called psychosomatic illness that it is the first thing which surrenders and can be alleviated without clearing."
The situation itself is nothing new; it was brought up much earlier on in the book with me bringing up the example of a person in a hospital lacking the will to live. What is different here is the claim that clears do not suffer from this and that it is a situation which it is so superficial that it is alleviated easily. Now, how you go about giving someone who has lost the will to live, a reason to live, is not something which I would call a situation which is easily recovered from, by any stretch of the imagination. Also, there remains no independently validated research which confirms that clears do not suffer from this.
Indeed, if a person has engrams, then they are not clear. So this actually highlights a flaw in the entire process; that once the state of clear has been achieved, it is something which is actually easily lost. It does make me ponder the actual value of the effort required to become clear in the first place. This is something I need to consider further as I read on.
Unfortunately, the rest of the chapter continues on these lines, perhaps at its height the unsubstantiated claim on page 146 that a clear is not easily made ill.
Here we go again.
The FIRST FUCKING PARAGRAPH no less...
"Psychosomatic illnesses are those which have a mental origin but which are nevertheless organic. Despite the fact that there existed no precise scientific proof of this before Dianetics, an opinion as to their existence has been strong since the days of Greece, and in recent times various drug preparations have been concocted and sold which were supposed to overcome these sicknesses."
You can not prove psychosomatic illness. You can merely disprove a physical cause. That's it.
Not only that, but if Dianetics claims it has scientific proof ... OK, where is it? I don't see any in this book so far.
This is then followed by more unsubstantiated facts and figures.
I take a moment to bring to the fore some of the writing, "That all illneses are psychosomatic is, of course, absurd, for there exist, after all, life forms called germs which have survival as their goals." I bring this forward because there has been the argument that in Scientology the belief is that all illnesses are the result of the mind. The writing here, clearly recognises that not all illnesses are as a result of the mind. Indeed page 132 does give a clear picture on this subject.
On its passage in to the next page, however, things do become slightly muddier. "Treatment for accidental injury, surgery for various things such as malformation inherent in the body on a genetic basis and orthopedics, which actually can be classed under both, remain properly outside the field of dianetics, although it can be remarked in passing that almost all accidents are to be traced to dramatization of engrams and that Clears rarely have accidents." Discussion of this last sentence really does need to be backed up with figures from scientific study, which, of course, are conspicuous by their absence.
Perhaps one of the most contradictory and firm statements does come on page 133 "For example the common cold has been found to be psychosomatic. Clears do not get colds. Just what, if any, part the virus plays in the common cold is not known, but it is known that when engrams about colds are lifted, no further colds appear - which is a laboratory fact not so far contradicted by 270 cases."
With a quick search, that paragraph was blown to hell with numerous references at the bottom for you to get stuck in to. The common cold is not psychosomatic.
"At the present time, Dianetic research is scheduled to include cancer and diabetes." Good grief. All I can continue to ask is WHERE THE HELL IS THIS BLOODY RESEARCH!!!
I did a search but all I could readily come up with was more of the same of a Why We Protest discussion about Scientology beliefs and this discussion about Scientology publication, "Clear body, clear mind," which all seem to fly in the face of the previous assertion, "That all illneses are psychosomatic is, of course, absurd."
I can't find any actual note of any scientology research facility or actual papers which have been reviewed and accepted by international peers. If they've got a proper medical research facility, it seems to not be on any radar.
On the subject of alteration of physical sensory performance by hypnosis, this is held up to the reader as, "So with the various senses. Here we have simply the spoken word going in to the mind and causing physical function to change." which completely ignores the anecdotal evidence of people losing their sight and their hearing improves to compensate; that the human body is actually capable of the higher range of hearing but that the conscious mind simply isn't paying any attention to it ... that an individual with perfectly functioning eyesight can walk in to a room with a particular object, but they still don't, "see," it. The differentiation between hearing and listening is thus explained by dianetics, as a function of engram alteration rather than difference of concentration.
It is an interesting hypothesis to which, you've guessed it, there is no substance or research to back it up.
Another bold claim with no reference is this... "Mental tone makes body tone go down. Body tone, then being down, makes mental tone go down. This is a matter of inverse geometric progression. A man starts to get sick and, having engrams, he gets sicker. Clears are not subject to this dwindling spiral. Indeed, so entirely superficial is this horrible stuff called psychosomatic illness that it is the first thing which surrenders and can be alleviated without clearing."
The situation itself is nothing new; it was brought up much earlier on in the book with me bringing up the example of a person in a hospital lacking the will to live. What is different here is the claim that clears do not suffer from this and that it is a situation which it is so superficial that it is alleviated easily. Now, how you go about giving someone who has lost the will to live, a reason to live, is not something which I would call a situation which is easily recovered from, by any stretch of the imagination. Also, there remains no independently validated research which confirms that clears do not suffer from this.
Indeed, if a person has engrams, then they are not clear. So this actually highlights a flaw in the entire process; that once the state of clear has been achieved, it is something which is actually easily lost. It does make me ponder the actual value of the effort required to become clear in the first place. This is something I need to consider further as I read on.
Unfortunately, the rest of the chapter continues on these lines, perhaps at its height the unsubstantiated claim on page 146 that a clear is not easily made ill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
