Chapter 2: The Reactive Mind

"Once more into the breach, dear friends, once more..."--Henry V

After a lengthy hiatus, here is the next installment of my critique of L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics. This chapter discusses the reactive mind, the source of all our psychological problems. In this section, Hubbard provides a better definition of engrams and discusses some scientific "tests" that have been done confirming his theory of the reactive mind.

After a short description of cells, including the curious assertion

In the finite realms and for any of our purposes, man could be considered to be a colonial aggregation of cells and it could be assumed that his purpose was identical with the purpose of his building blocks.

It appears that Hubbard believe man's cell obey the same drive that man obey. Does that mean that when there is a time when man is more driven by sex than personal survival that his cells have the same motivation? We're already off to a strange start. You might have noticed that there is talk of "finite realms". Hubbard elaborates,

It was understood perfectly that this was a study in the finite universe only and that the spheres and realms of thought and action might very well exist above this finite sphere.

This is Hubbard saying that the results of his Dianetics studies only consider the known universe, and there may be unknown and unknowable factors which could affect our minds. This is a fair claim to make and a similar one to that which science makes. Scientists only claim to deal with the rational, material world.

Hubbard then considers the reactive mind, which

managed to bury itself from view so thoroughly that only inductive philosophy, traveling from effect back to cause, served to uncover it.

After this philosophizing was over, Hubbard could then test subjects for presence of the reactive mind. He states

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 the first time Hubbard tries to provide us with evidence for his claims. Never mind telling us HOW he experimentally determines the presence of the reactive mind, he found it in 273 people. It must be true!

By now, you must be writhing with anticipation. What is the reactive mind? Well, the reactive mind, present in ALL people, is just another name for our "engram bank", the repository for all the engrams we acquire. What's so bad about having an engram bank?

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.

That's right. The common cold is all in your head, caused by engrams. I guess that explains why it is so hard to treat. All of us who do not practice Scientology have no way of exorcising our engrams and curing our colds. Hubbard reiterates,

And it is the only thing in the human being which can reproduce these effects.

I cannot emphasize enough how radical this claim is. The cold, proven to be caused by rhinoviruses, among other things, is claimed to be caused by the infestation of engrams and ONLY the infestation of engrams.

After repeating at least twice that " If there ever was a devil, he designed the reactive mind", Hubbard assures us that cleaning out our engram bank will alleviate all those ills listed above. Hubbard insists

These are scientific facts. They copare invariably with observed experience.

At this point, I would like to remind my audience that there is no such thing a proof by assertion.

Even though he does not state how he came upon these facts in any meaningful way, Hubbard gives us some enumerated scientific facts which he claims are clinically proven.

1. The mind records on some level continuously during the entirely life of the organism.
2. All recordings of the lifetime are available.
3. "Unconsciousness," in which the mind is oblivious to 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. [Hubbard defines charge as "harmful energy or force accumulated and store in the reactive mind, resulting from the conflicts and unpleasant experiences that a person as had." I think this is the same as an engram.]

I would like to point out that "facts" number 3 and 4 seem to be in direct contradiction as written.

Hubbard proceeds to describe the "experiments" to test whether "unconsciousness" is the single source of aberration.

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 give him, it can be recovered. This experiment should not be carelessly conducted because you might also render him insane [emphasis Hubbard].

While Hubbard is telling us that we should not double-check his experiments because they are dangerous, there is a more interesting question hidden in this statement (even more interesting than why Hubbard just suggested we hurt people). How many people did Hubbard render insane by perfecting this process? Also, does this explain Tom Cruise? If only it were that simple.

Hubbard then proceeds to express his distrust of hypnotism. He calls is a "laboratory tool" which "serves as a means of examining minds and getting their reaction". A "wild variable", hypnotism is inconsistent and often leads to undesirable results. However, Hubbard compares many of the maladies from the reactive mind to things that can be experienced while hypnotized. While interesting to read though, this would make this post many pages longer, so I will refrain from going into detail about the comparison. Hubbard asserts that hypnotism can be used to make the subject mimic the maladies of repressions, compulsions, neuroses, psychoses, schizophrenic insanities, paranoid-schizophrenic insanities, manic-type insanities, depressive-type insanity, and hypochondria, admitting there are more.

After the discussion on hypnotism, there is a curious note on the bottom of the page.

An injunction here. These are tests. They have been made on people who could be hypnotized and people who could not be but who were drugged. They brought forth valuable data for Dianetics. They can be duplicated only when you know Dianetics, unless you want to actually drive somebody insane by accident. For these suggestions do not always vanish. Hypnotism is a wild variable. It is dangerous [emphasis Hubbard] and belongs in the parlor in the same way you would want an atom bomb there.

Ignoring the strange reference to the atomic bomb, it is very telling that Hubbard warns us against reproducing his experiments yet again. This time he says that only those trained in Dianetics can successfully carry out his experiments. This is a great tactic for someone trying to make his claims unfalsifiable.

Hubbard now turns to discussing the reactive mind in detail. If you remember the discussion of the analytical mind from my last post, you will recall that the analytical mind stores all memory. What the reactive mind does is replace the analytical mind during times of unconsciousness. The problem is, the reactive mind is not as good as the analytical mind in doing the job of remembering.

The reactive mind is very rugged. It would have to be in order to stand up to the pain waves which knock out other sentience in the body. It is not very refined. But it is most awesomely accurate. It possesses a low order of computing ability, and order which is submoron, but one would expect a low order of ability from a mind which stays in the circuit when the body is being crush on or fried.

Even though the reactive mind is "most awesomely accurate", it stores engrams instead of memories. It is here where Hubbard finally supplies up with a workable definition of engram, 82 pages into his book.

The word engram [emphasis Hubbard], in Dianetics is used in it severely accurate sense as a "definite and permanent trace left by a stimulus on the protoplasm of a tissue." If is considered as a unit group of stimuli impinged solely on the cellular being.

If the trace is definite and permanent, why can this not be seen by a microscope (and since when did "severely accurate" mean slightly less vague than before?)? For example, why can a doctor not compare the cells of a patient before and after being anesthetized for surgery? Hubbard must explain how we could detect these engrams.

Instead of delving into how engrams are detected, Hubbard makes more assertions about their nature.

In all laboratory tests on the engrams they were found to possess "inexhaustible" sources of power to command the body.

How would you even test such a thing? There is much need for detail. Also, what does it mean to "command the body" regarding an engram. Does an engram use a source of energy different from adenosine triphosphate?

Instead of providing us with the detailed explanation of the methods needed to understand his experiments, Hubbard explains the three types of engrams.

First is the contrasurvival engram [emphasis Hubbard]. This contains physical pain, painful emotion, all other perceptions and menace to the organism.

The second type of engram is called the prosurvival engram. It is

the most aberrative since it is reinforced by the law of affinity which is always more powerful than fear.

This is the engram which hypnotism preys on. The third type of engram is the painful emotion engram.

It is caused by the shock of sudden loss, such as the death of a loved one.

Hubbard in no way discusses how these engrams differently affect the protoplasm of a cell which would be necessary for us to truly understand the difference between these engrams. Hubbard needs to take us to the cellular and chemical levels, something I do not believe he is qualified to do.

While there are many pages left in this chapter, little of it is new or sensible. I will hit the highlights.

The most interesting claim that Hubbard makes at the end of this chapter is his assertion of how the reactive mind works. In a normal memory, our mind is able to distinguish relationships between objects. This is how we make associations. We learn to associate stoves with hot and water near outlets as bad this way.

But not the reactive mind! That's so beautifully, wonderfully simple that it can be stated, in operation, to have just one equation: A=A=A=A=A.

That is, in a memory from the reactive mind, everything is equivalent. For example, if you were unconscious and someone played a video about a birthday in the background, you might remember the cake is the candles is the song is the child is the presents is the guests. Don't worry. It doesn't make any sense to me either, but I am fairly certain this is Hubbard's assertion. Also note, this is the second equation Hubbard was written. This one was slightly more meaningful albeit odd.

As the chapter concludes, Hubbard asserts

If man had not invented language, or, as will be demonstrated, if his languages were a little less homodynamic [containing homonyms] and more specific with their personal pronouns, engrams would still be survival data and the mechanism [the primal reason for engrams, simple-minded association] would work.

That is, Hubbard asserts that engrams started harming mankind because they learned to talk. "The proof of any assertion lies in its applicability," Hubbard say. While I do not agree with this statement at all, I would at least like to see him try to fulfill it.


Words Defined: pillory, inductive, engram bank, arthritis, bursitis, sinusitis, coronary, Caligula, Gauls, myopia, schizophrenic, manic-depressive, neurotic, dipsomaniac, fuse, charge, hypochondriac, engram, memory, Alfred Korzybski, key-in, restimulation, predisposition, restimulator, loose, cohabit, dramatization, lock, mange

I often wonder what you think when reading through the words defined. You must wonder in what context some of them appear.

Next: Chapter 3: The Cell and the Organism

Note: All quotes are from
Hubbard, L. Ron. Dianetics. Los Angeles, CA: Bridge Publications, Inc, 1986, unless noted otherwise.

Continue Reading...

Book 2: Chapter 1: The Analytical Mind and the Standard Memory Bank

In this chapter, Hubbard discusses one of the three divisions of the human mind. The reactive and somatic minds are put off until later so Hubbard can focus on the analytical mind. He also discusses the nature of human memory.

Hubbard defines the analytical mind as the "computational mind" or the "egsusheyftef". Yes, Hubbard invented that word. I think it might be Ewok. Anyway, the analytical mind is the part of the brain that does the calculating. Hubbard compares it to a computer. In fact, "it can and does all the tricks of a computer," whatever that means. Surely he does not mean my mind can connect to others wirelessly (telepathically) and share thoughts on the lolcats Bible translation (I had to find a way to work this into the post. Sorry.). Hubbard must mean the brain is good as sorting and interpreting data.

The analytical mind is not just a good computer, it is a perfect computer.

Ok, so it's GREAT at sorting and interpreting data. I have already addressed the issue of the analytical brain being perfect back in Chapter 2 of Book 1. It is silly to assume anything with moving parts is incapable of making a mistake even under optimal conditions. Wear and tear over time tends to break anything down.

What is new in this chapter is Hubbard's explanation of human memory. I should point out at this time that I am not a neurologist so I really do not have a good understanding of how the brain works regarding how it stores memories. I will lay out Hubbard's claims and leave some interpretation to those who are more knowledgeable. I will point out that Hubbard offers no evidence for any of these claims.

Since the analytical mind is perfect, any error in logic comes from improper data. Therefor, it is important to know where this data comes from. According to Hubbard, there are three types of data: percepts, memory, and imagination. The most important of these is percepts (which I suppose is short for perceptions). These are the data which the brain receives from our senses.

When our body senses something, it is stored in its entirety in "memory banks". These memory banks have "an infinite capacity" (I have heard the actual capacity of the mind to be several terabytes. I would put a link something about it if I could find something reptuable.) and similar to the analytical mind itself "the standard memory banks are perfect, recording faithfully and reliably[emphasis Hubbard]". Hubbard notes, however, that there are times when data is not collected. This is during "moments of 'unconsciousness'". Hubbard gives us a definition of unconsciousness.

Unconsciousness throughout this work means a greater or lesser reduction of awareness on part of the "I"--an attenuation of working power of the analytical mind.

In other words, the mind collects data except when it doesn't [sometimes I wonder why he bothers to define words when leaving them muddled would be more beneficial to his cause.]

You might be wondering where errors in logic and memory come from if our brain computer operates flawlessly and data is always stored perfectly for all individuals. Well "aberration" is attributed to insufficient and erroneous data. Since a well-formed brain is incapable of making a mistake, bad input is the only option.

After this discussion of memory, Hubbard directs his efforts again to the analytical mind, claiming

the analytical mind can influence the heartbeat, the endocrines (such things as calcium and sugar in the blood, adrenaline, etc.)[Goodbye diabetes!], selective blood flow (stopping it in the limbs and starting it as will) [No more viagra!], urine, excreta [Goodbye incontinence?], etc. All glandular, rhythm and fluid functions of the body can [emphasis Hubbard] be at the command of the analytical mind.

This might sound terribly outlandish, that the conscious mind can take control of these functions, but Hubbard assures us,

This is a matter of laboratory proof, very easy to do.

It sounds as if Hubbard is implying that laboratory experiments are always simple. Ridiculous.

Hubbard also claims muscles can be controlled by the analytical mind. He insists this is true for ALL muscles including the heart and sphincters on all organs. Why would any healthy individual even want that control?

Hubbard closes be talking about how the analytical mind cannot be the cause of psychological errors since it works perfectly for everyone, all the time. He asks, "Where is the error?" I would refer him, and you, to pages 1-614 of his book.

I hope you all enjoy this shorter post.

Words Defined: prefrontal lobes, unconsciousness, concourse

Next: Chapter 2: The Reactive Mind

Note: All quotes are from
Hubbard, L. Ron. Dianetics. Los Angeles, CA: Bridge Publications, Inc, 1986, unless noted otherwise.

Continue Reading...

For those of you following my Dianetics summary

I found an online copy of Dianetics here. It is slightly different from my edition in that there is a summary in the front. I thought I'd share this exciting find. Look for my take on Book 2: Chapter 1 in the near future.

Continue Reading...

Chapter 5: Summary

Hubbard presents a condensed version of the last four chapters complete with a mathematical equation for the potential value of an individual.

The summary with a description of the four dynamics for survival: sex, self, mankind, and group. As I have just written about them here, I will not go over them again.

Hubbard then lists the "fundamental axioms of Dianetics". It would be worth reproducing these in full, but they cover 4 pages. I will instead quote the important ones and briefly address most the others, reminding you of my previous interpretations in brackets.

The Fundamental Axioms of Dianetics

Man's "dynamical principle of existence is survival." [This was an unsupported assertion.]

There are four dynamics to survival: sex, self, mankind, and the group. [These were said to fit some "equation" that was never presented. It is my belief that Hubbard mostly likely found these to be a solution to a thought experiment (I use experiment very loosely here.) and not scientific equations.]

The absolute goal of survival is immortality or infinite survival.

[This again is just an assertion.]

...the purpose of perceptions, retention, concluding and resolving problems is to direct its own organism and symbiotes and other organisms and symbiotes along the four dynamics toward survival.
...
The dynamics ["the tenacity of life and vigor and persistence in survival"] are inhibited by engrams, which lie across them and disperse life force.

Intelligence is inhibited by engrams which feel false or improperly graded data into the analyzer ["the analytical mind"]

[The definition of engram was very muddled and the existence of engrams was asserted, not proven.]

The analytical mind thinking is terms of comparisons; the reactive mind "things only in identities"; and the somatic mind "places solutions into effect on the physical level. [arbitrary definitions]

Engrams cause aberrations.

Psychosomatic ills are caused by engragms [which are the only source of aberrations].

[Proof is needed.]

Engrams are only received when unconscious.

The engram is a moment of "unconsciousness" containing physical pain or the painful emotion and all perceptions, and is not available to the analytical mind as experience.

[See above brackets.]

And most interestingly,

The potential value of an individual or a group may be expressed by the equation

PV=ID^x

where I is Intelligence and D is Dynamic.

The worth of an individual is computed in
terms of the alignment, on any dynamic, of his potential value with optimum survival along that dynamic. A high PV may, by reversed vector [Vector is defines as "a physical quantity with both magnitude and direction, such as a force of velocity". The phrase "by reversed vector" is meaningless.], result in a negative worth as in some severely aberrated persons. A high PV on and dynamic assures a high worth only in the unaberrated persons.

This equation is what I would like to focus on for the remainder of this post as there are a number of points to address. First of all, there are no units mentioned in which to measure any of the variables. What are potential value, intelligence and dyamic measured in? Engrams? More importantly, what is x? It is an entirely undefined variable. Is x the worth a man or species? If it is, why does worth only increase dynamic and not intelligence, or are there missing parentheses? Also, how does high PV make worth both negative and positive according the this equation? Which variable accounts for aberrations? This equation is beyond meaningless. It's only purpose on the page is so Hubbard can point to it and say how he's scientific because there is a mathematical equation in his book. It's pathetic, scientifically pathetic.

Words defined: analyzer, attenuate, vector

Next: Book 2: Chapter 1: The Analytical Mind and the Standard Memory Banks

Note: All quotes are from
Hubbard, L. Ron. Dianetics. Los Angeles, CA: Bridge Publications, Inc, 1986, unless noted otherwise.

Question for the Reader: I would like to take this moment to ask if you, the reader would like to see anything different from these posts. The next chapters are much longer than these of the introductory book, and with the next semester starting soon, I will not be able to keep up the pace and detail of these previous posts. Also, I believe Dianetics has amply demonstrated it's absurdity. The following chapters are much more detailed, and it seems it will take me some research into neurology and psychology to be able to fully address Hubbard's claims. I guess what I am asking is, are you enjoying these summaries, and do you think it's worth my time to continue? There is still a long way to go. Thanks for sticking with me!

Continue Reading...

Chapter 4: The Four Dynamics

Hubbard discusses the four motivations for mankind's survival: "self, sex, group, and mankind". He explores the history of the search for these factors, expounds their details, and tries to defend his assertions with talk of the "equations" governing these dynamics.

Hubbard begins this chapter with a reference to the "original equations of Dianetics" which sought to explain man's survival in terms of only a man's consideration of himself. However, this theory was found to be unable to account for all of man's actions towards survival, and since "a theory is only as good as it works" [This is arguably the smartest sentence Hubbard has ever written. It's a shame he did not apply it more rigorously.], Hubbard decided to revise his hypothesis. This next quote gives insight into Hubbard's reasoning.

Survival in personal terms was computed until the whole activity of man could be theoretically explained in terms of self alone. The logic looked fairly valid. But then it was applied to the world. Something was wrong: it did not solve problems. In fact, the theory of survival in personal terms alone was so unworkable that it left a majority of behavior phenomena unexplained. But it could be computed and it still looked good.

What is Hubbard actually computing? From what he says, I gather that what he is doing is more of a thought experiment. For example, if man's instinct is only for his personal survival, then why would he help someone who is homeless? This is not a computation but it might be the kind of example Hubbard is talking about. Also, what does it mean to saw that "the logic looked valid" in the case of Dianetics. We, as the ones being sold Dianetics, need to know to see what the logical steps were in leading to these claims. Without being able to follow Hubbard's steps, the reader can only trust that Hubbard is neither lying nor deluded, a bad position in which to be.

Hubbard then looked a survival in terms of man's desire to preserve the group (tribe, family, etc.). Again, "it looked good but it left a majority of observed phenomena unexplained". And again, Hubbard provides no examples of these phenomena. Then Hubbard considered the species where he found

it could be computed that man lived alone for the survival of mankind. But when addressed to the laboratory--the world--it did not work.

Needless to say, there are again no examples. Note the increase in the amount of scientific sounding language as Hubbard provides less and less evidence. We should not worry about the lack of evidence because it was all "computed" with "equations" and then "tested" in a "laboratory", but we are not allowed to see the results or the methods of testing.

The fourth dynamic Hubbard tested on its own was sex which was also found to be inadequate to explain all of human behavior. However, when combined with the other three dynamics, all of man's actions could be explained.

A new computation was made on the survival dynamic. Exactly for what was man surviving? All four of these factors--self, sex, group and mankind--were entered into a new equation. And now it was found, a theory was in hand which worked. It explained all observed phenomena and it predicted new phenomena which were discovered to exist. It was a scientific equation, therefore!

Hubbard seems to have an astute understanding of what a scientific equation should do. It much explain all observed phenomena to which it pertains and should be able to make predictions. However, these equations also need to be demonstrated to do that, not just asserted. Supposedly, Hubbard has a mathematical equation which depends on only four parameters which explains all human activity as well as makes predictions about it. If we put aside the questions about how to quantify self, sex, group and mankind, there is still the question of what the equation would actually output. As amazing as this claim is, it is still baseless and therefore meaningless.

After repeating the four dynamics (not for the last time), Hubbard asserts "that these four dynamics are actually a spectrum without sharp division lines." That is sex, self, group and mankind are all the same thing like x-rays, gamma-rays, infrared, ultraviolet and microwaves are all parts of the optical spectrum. In that case, Hubbard's equation from above really old depends on one variable. So which is it? Are they four distinct variables or one variable with arbitrary designations along a spectrum? It really cannot be both. Also, if these four dynamics are on a spectrum, how do they bleed into each other. Examples are desperately needed in this case.

Even though the dynamics are all part of the same spectrum, Hubbard assets they are in competition with one another. It is the balance between these dynamics that is important in individuals.

The equation of the optimum solution would be that a problem has been well resolved which portends the maximum good for the maximum number of dynamics...[Hubbard repeats this sentence in different words three times.]...The survival conduct pattern is built upon this equation of optimum solution. It is the basic equation of all rational behavior and is the equation on which a clear functions. In is inherent in man.

Apparently we, the aberrated, are not working with "the equation of optimum solution" (a phrase I will now use instead of the phrase firing on all cylinders). Honestly, I don't know what the phrase "equation of optimum solution means". Shouldn't we be solving the equation to find the optimum solution instead of guessing the optimum solution and building an equation around it? It seems to me that Hubbard is doing the equivalent of fitting a polynomial function to a curve he sketched. A high enough order polynomial will fit any equation to any desired accuracy. In the same way, adding more dynamics would allow more freedom to fit whatever "equation" he has. However, I think this is giving Hubbard too much credit. By this point, I believe there are no "equations". Hubbard is merely pondering how he things the world works and his jotting it down on papers. Afterwards, he is adding his "proof". Also, I think Hubbard states that the "equation", which is inherent in man, is different between the aberrated and the clear which contracts it being inherent in man. This is the kind sentence that will break a robot's brain.

The last page and a half of this chapter is little more than gibberish insisting that these dynamics are in some sort of balance and that the aberrated individual has irrationalities which muddle the "equations". I will quote a representative passage in closing:

This is entirely a matter of: does it work? Even on an unaberrated basis there are times when one or another of these dynamics have to be dropped from the computation of some activity or other and indeed, few problems are so entirely intense that they must take into account all the dynamics. But when a problem achieves such intensity, and time is not an important factor [I don't know what time has to do with anything here.], serious errors can follow the omission of one or another of the dynamics from the factors considered.

In other words, sometimes we include all four dynamics. Sometimes we don't. Sometimes when we don't, we really wish we had done so. Also, clears function on the equation of optimum solution unless some dynamics are dropped. Then they don't, but when they don't, we wish they hadn't dropped them.

I hope I was able to unmuddle (I can invent words too!) this chapter. Underneath the chapter title, I have the word infuriating written to remind me of how confusing this chapter was to decipher. The more I read of this book, the more claims Hubbard makes with less and less reasoning. It's enough to fry a neuron.

Words Defined: gregarious, altruistic, sylvan, Jean Jacques Rousseau [I would like to point out that when Hubbard cites a person, he does not tell the reader anything that would enlighten them as to the point of the reference. For example, Rousseau is merely defined to be a "French political philosopher and author".] , The Dianetic meaning of symbiote ["any or all life or energy forms which are mutually dependent for survival. The atom depends on the universe, the universe on the atom."], portend,

Next: Chapter 5: Summary [Don't get too excited. this is only the summary of book 1 of 3. I'm only about 1/9 of the way through Dianetics by number of pages, 1/5 by chapter, 1/3 by book number, but 8/11 by patience/interest.]

Note: All quotes are from
Hubbard, L. Ron. Dianetics. Los Angeles, CA: Bridge Publications, Inc, 1986, unless noted otherwise.

Continue Reading...

Chapter 3: The Goal of Man

The goal of man is to survive. This is the goal of both the individual and the species. Man derives pleasure from his survival and in pursuing his survival, avoids pain. In this chapter, Hubbard expounds these ideas as well as graphs man's potential as a function of time.

Hubbard begins by discussing what the answer to the question What is the goal of man? (Hubbard also calls this man's dynamic principle.) must explain. In his words, man's dynamic principle of existence

would explain all phenomena of behavior; it would lead toward a solution of man's major problems; and, most of all, it should be workable.

Hubbard confuses me from the start (not a good sign) with this requirement. First of all, why should we believe that man or mankind has an ultimate goal? Also, if man does have a goal, why does it have to be singular. Can he not have several goals? And why should we assume it would explain "all phenomena of behavior"? Can man not behave in ways that either ignore or work against these goals? I do agree that that if man did have a goal and we knew what it was, it would aid us in solving some of mankind's problems or at least aid in explaining some of them. As to the goal of man being workable, I'm not sure I know what that means. Perhaps he means, like a solution to an equation in physics, it needs to have some basis in reality. I agree if that is the case.

In order to motivate his solution to this problem, Hubbard tells us a little about the universe. In doing so, he makes some rather odd assertions. The first,

All things in the finite universe, whether known or as yet unknown, can be sensed, experienced or measured.

is quite a claim. First Hubbard asserts that the universe in finite (to be fair, he could just be restricting his claims to the known/material universe) which is still a matter of scientific debate. This is nothing compared to the insistence that all things in the universe "can be sensed, experienced or measured". There is no way to prove this claim either true or false. If something is not able to be experienced, we'd never know about it. Pretty obvious. However, there may be things (such as dark matter) which we are able to infer but not experience directly.

Hubbard then turns to defining the elements of the universe.

The finite universe contains time, space, energy and life [emphasis Hubbard]. No other factors were found necessary in the equation.

First of all, what equation? I don't see any equations in this chapter, and Hubbard sure doesn't describe any. I'll agree that the universe does seem to contain what Hubbard insists. However, I cannot say that is all the universe contains, and I'm not sure why Hubbard can.

Continuing with his trend to assert his "truths", Hubbard insists the four element mentioned above all "obey a single order", to survive. That is,

The Dynamic Principle of Existence is Survival [formatting Hubbard].

Now that we have defined the purpose of all that exists in the universe, we can turn to the purpose of lowly man. His purpose is (as you might suspect) to survive. In fact, "the goal of life can be considered to be infinite survival", and what is remarkable is that man's only motivation is to survive.

In order to accomplish this survival thing, man (or any organism, or even life itself) must be able to adapt to new environments. Hubbard does not use the word, but he is, in essence, talking about evolution. Organisms need to evolve in order to survive. Why he chooses to avoid the term, I do not know. Supporting my claim, Hubbard states

The naturalist and biologist are continually resolving the characteristics of this or that life form by discovering that need rather than whim governs such developments.

It seems that this time Hubbard brings out the scientists as poof of his point. I'm sure he will put them away again until his thoughts happen to sync up with real research again.

Now that survival has been established as the mechanism for explaining all of man's actions, Hubbard breaks down survival into is composite parts, pain and pleasure. To Hubbard, pain and pleasure are forces with pain being a repelling force and pleasure being an attracting force. Pain comes from times when man is reduced in his potential. Now, this potential is not purely abstract. Hubbard has provided us with a representative graph of man's potential over time. Let's take a look.



As you can see, this graph plots survival potential as a function of time. This plot is representative of a species which is having moderate success at either increasing survival rate or life span. The graph works for many different scenarios. It's a trend for individuals, species, and life in general. It also applies to both the mental and physical potentials with the mental curve predicting the physics curve.

The time axis is just that, time. The potential axis, however, is a measurement of the mortality of the subject of the graph. It is shown on a "geometric progression" because it is infinitely difficult to obtain immortality (I suppose by the same reasoning, it should be infinitely easy to obtain death or extinction, but death being a repulsive force might negate some of that?). I suppose that Hubbard just does not realize that the choice of scaling says nothing about the data contained within, and as there are no units on the potential axis, the choice of scaling is just confusing.

The "zones" on the plot arbitrarily point out places along the continuum of potential. Hubbard admits they are "very unprecise, but nevertheless descriptive" [I know, it's imprecise].

Zone 3 is one of general happiness and well-being. Zone 2 is a level of bearable existence. Zone 1 is one of anger. Zone 0 is the zone of apathy. These zones can be can be used as a tone scale.

The zones also can be represented with decimals. A person can be in zone 3.8, some sort of euphoric state. I think when Hubbard says the zones are a "tone scale" that he means they increase in some sort of regular fashion, but I'm not positive that's what he means. Also, how does one quantify happiness or apathy? Where do these numbers come from?

Dianetically (If Hubbard can use the word, I can too.), we can measure our day-to-day metal state by these tones/zones and "in the course of a single day an aberree may run from 0.5 to 3.5, up and down, as a mental being". I believe Hubbard is simply stating that people's emotions changed during the course of a day and sometimes, like during either a tragic or euphoric event, that change can be very large. The difference between what he said and what I think he means is that he made up some numbers to go with the sentiment.

The mental state is not the only characteristic which gets quantified. Zones apply to

the mental state on an acute basis and the mental state on a general, average basis, and the physical being on an acute basis and the physical being on a general basis.

Dianetics, however, focuses on the mental tone scale and ignores the physics. Why? Hubbard doesn't say.

Now that we have learned how Hubbard measures people, you might be wonder what the difference between a clear and an aberree are in this tone scale. Well there is quite an enlightening quote to answer that question:

A clear is usually found varying around tone 4, plus or minus, in an average day. He is a general tone 4, which is one of the inherent conditions of being clear. A norm in current society, at a wild guess [emphasis mine], is probably around a general tone 2.8.

WHAT? At a WILD GUESS? I thought Hubbard had been RESEARCHING this Dianetics thing. If he does not know what the average person is, the CONTROL, he does not know ANYTHING about his precious tone scale. Honestly, I think I would be justified in throwing the book away at this point. You, reader, would also be justified in stopping here if all you wanted was a good reason to ignore Dianetics. If however, you want to see just how much Hubbard abuses both science and the English language stay with me. It gets better (or worse).

Ok, after a few deep breaths, it's time to continue. After illustrating that his levels are both meaningless and arbitrary, Hubbard proceeds to tell us more about the survival dynamic. In another example, he writes

The survival dynamic [emphasis Hubbard] actually resides within the organism as inherited from the species. The organism is part of the species as a railroad tie might be said to be part of a railroad as seen by an observed on a train, the observer being always in now--although this analogy is not perhaps the best.

Then why include it? If the analogy is inadequate, choose a new one. Don't confuse the reader by creating crappy examples.

Hubbard now turns the discussion to the driving forces behind survival: pleasure (shredding this book) and pain (reading this book). To avoid turning this post into a novella, I will just briefly summarize this portion of the chapter. Pleasure is good. Pain is bad. Most of mankind's suffering has come from a suppression of pleasurable things. In fact, is was responsible for the Dark Ages.

Apparently, the above graph also provided evidence for the theory of survival suppressors. These are things which, you guessed it, suppress survival. This includes other organisms, time, the sun, and whatever else might try to kill you or your species. Hubbard notes that there are times when an organism's own actions will either indirectly or directly lead to its own demise. This may not be suicide but the result of depleting resources or some similar action. Hubbard states,

Such things are not intended by the suicide to be suicide; the life form has run up against an equation which has an unknown variable, and the unknown variable unfortunately contained enough value to overload the suppressor. That is the "didn't know the gun was loaded" equation.

As I have asked before, WHAT? There is a didn't-know-the-gun-was-loaded equation? Why not show us? And apparently there are unknown variables inside said equation that "overload the suppressor". I cannot tell if Hubbard is suggesting a mathematical relationship between survival and knowledge of the environment (which would be sensible but most likely impossible to define well) or if he is just trying to sound scientific (my money is on the latter).

After a short reminder of the importance of symbiosis, Hubbard launches into a nonsensical definition of necessity ending in

Driven [emphasis Hubbard]: that is the key to the error [I do not know to what this error refers.]. Driven, things are driven. Necessity drives. Pain drives. Necessity and pain, pain and necessity.

I don't know what to say to that so I will let you interpret that as you see fit (We're getting close to the end of the chapter. I promise).

Hubbard then proceeds to make a scientific claim.

It chances to be a scientific fact that man is a self-determined organism to the outermost limit that any form of life can be, for he still depends upon other forms of life and his general environment.

Well scientific facts require scientific proof. Let's what what's there. Well it looks like Hubbard puts this proof off until later (yet again) but he assures

This is only a scientific fact because it can easily be proven.

Again, nonsense. The difficulty of a proof has nothing to do with its veracity. Look at the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. It's quite difficult but still a mathematic (or scientific) fact.

The close of this chapter again considers pleasure and pain, noting that an abberrated man can "be made to perform like a marionette" which Hubbard equates with being more animal-like.

I would like to end this chapter with Hubbard's words, again asking for proof of their veracity.

If some of these basics of Dianetics were only poetry about the idyllic state of man, they might be justified in that, but it happens that out in the laboratory of the world, they work.

Words Defined: metaphysics, mysticism, militate, procreate, dynamic (here Hubbard admits to making up words, stating, "In order to establish nomenclature in Dianetics which would not be too complex for the purpose, words normally considered as adjectives or verbs have occasionally been pressed into service as nouns."), zygote, tone scale (a scale which shows the emotional tones of a person), debauchery, odor (as in repute; esteem), stigma, pagan, bacillus, Pasturella pestis, symbiotic, specious, affinity, Leucippus, stoic, Bund (a street in Shanghai), idyllic

Next: Chapter 4: The Four Dynamics

Note: All quotes are from
Hubbard, L. Ron. Dianetics. Los Angeles, CA: Bridge Publications, Inc, 1986. The above figure is located on p. 32 of this edition.

Continue Reading...

Chapter 2: The Clear

L. Ron Hubbard discusses the goal of Dianetic therapy, to become clear, and how it relates to our senses. Hubbard also discusses the activities of the mind in both clear and aberrant (unclear) individuals.

This chapter begins explaining what it means to be clear.

A clear can be tested for any and all psychoses, neuroses, compulsions and repressions (all aberrations) and can be examined for any autogenetic (self-generated) diseases referred to as psychosomatic ills. These tests confirm the clear to be entirely without such ill or aberrations. Additional tests of his intelligence indicate it to be high above the current norm. Observation of his activity demonstrates that he pursues existence with vigor and satisfaction.

To reiterate, Dianetics will cure all my mental ills (except those excluded in Chapter 1),make me smarter (Tom Cruise?), and make me happier. Sounds like a good deal.

Hubbard then proceeds, assuring us that these claims are testable and will work for all individuals with a fully-functional nervous system. Nearly the entirety of the rest of the chapter is devoted to the attributes (or as I see them, superpowers) of the clear individual and how they differ from us aberrants.

The first is our perception. Perception and our senses vary in quality from one individual to another. This, according to Hubbard, is due to aberration.

I will stop now to give you Hubbard's definition of aberration as it is an essential word in this chapter. It was briefly defined in the How To Read This Book section. I will include the full definition from the glossary as it is much more enlightening.

aberration: a departure from rational though or behavior. From the Latin, aberrare, to wander from; Latin, ab,away, errare, to wander. It means basically to err, to make mistakes, or more specifically to have fixed ideas which are not true. the word is also used in its scientific sense. It means departure from a straight line. If a line should go from A to B, then if it is "aberrated" it would go from A to some other point, to some other point, to some other point and finally arrive at B. Taken in its scientific sense, it would also mean the lack of straightness or to see crookedly as, in example, a man sees a horse but thinks he sees an elephant. Aberrated conduct would be wrong conduct, or conduct not supported by reason. When a person has engrams, these tend to deflect what would be his normal ability of perceive truth and bring about an aberrated view of situations which then would cause an aberrated reaction to them. Aberration is opposed to sanity, which would be its opposite. This the most fundamental level of aberration: "If the food smells good, go away from it!" This is directly against the survival intention of the organism.

With this very broad definition in mind, we can now consider what is means to have the attributes of a clear, wanting to stay near all that good-smelling food.

While a person may be afflicted by a "wild quality and quantity of perception" as the result of his or her abberations, the "clear gets a maximum response compatible with his own desire for the response." That is, the perceptions (and senses) obey the clear's will. As an example Hubbard cites musical taste.

Violins play melodies, not monotones, bring no pain and are enjoyed to a fine, full limit if the clear likes violins as a matter of taste-if he doesn't, he likes kettledrums, saxophones, or, indeed, suiting his mood, no music at all.

If I understand this correctly, Hubbard is implying that the instruments that clears like sound better to them than the ones they do not. Is that not the same for all people with normal hearing, regardless of engram infestation? I know that I enjoy the sounds of guitars more than the sounds of flutes. It is of no fault of either the flute or the flautist. It is a matter of taste. As a result, I also listen more closely to the guitar, concentrating on the subtleties of what is being played. From that, I derive enjoyment. How is that different from what Hubbard is suggesting? He says that clears will find that the instruments they enjoy sound better to them. Perhaps that is why they enjoy it in the first place.

While Dianetics supposedly improves all senses, Hubbard focuses on vision and hearing. He says,

One of the incidental things which happens to a clear is that his eyesight, if it had been bad as a aberree, generally improves markedly, and with some slight attention will recover optimum perception in time.

In face, eyesight supposedly improves so quickly that those treated with Dianetics often have to rapidly change their prescription to keep up (some sort of super healing). I would like to see some research/data confirming this. Of course Hubbard says Diantetics will not cure the physically injured eye, but will correction vision which is lost due to the "psychosomatic principle". I believe this is supposed to include generic nearsightedness and farsightedness. However, I would not be surprised if the psychosomatic principle did not cover such a common malady.

Regarding hearing, Hubbard claims that Dianetics can make calcium deposits disappear. While he does not blame calcium deposits for all hearing loss, he does not state how else Dianetics improves hearing.

From here, the chapter becomes a little muddled as Hubbard turns to memory and imagination. Memory, which Hubbard calls returning, can be improved so well in a clear that that every sense is involved. Say, when you were a child, you had a wonderful birthday party. According to Hubbard, you could remember the colors, textures, smells, sounds, and even the tastes of the birthday cake as soon as you get rid of those pesky engrams. In his words, a person "can reexperience incidents which have taken place in his past in the same fashion and with the same sensations as before." I do not know what it means to reexperience something "in the same fashion". Perhaps when you are remembering that birthday, you will become a child again in you mind. You will think like a child and act like a child throughout the entirety of the returning experience unable to analyze the situation from an outside perspective. I think that might qualify as reexperiencing a memory in the same fashion as before.

Hubbard takes an opportunity at this point to point out his dislike for hypnosis even making sure to distinguish his vocabulary from that of the hypnotists. It is returning, not regression and reliving, not revivification. Hubbard claims that hypnotism is entirely explainable under the tenants of Dianetics. Therefore it is not used in Dianetics as a mechanism for returning. Hubbard promises to explain later.

This return, Hubbard insists, is a new phenomenon, different from "the more usual recalls". The difference again being that when most people remember something from their past, it is done imperfectly with a limited number of senses. A person either remembers the smell of the cake or what it looks like. If the person remembers both the smell and the sight, he or she might not recall how it tasted. Dianetics claims to be able to restore all these senses and even provides a way to test this claim.

It is quite simple to test recalls according to Hubbard. If one will ask his fellows what their abilities, he will gain a remarkable idea of how widely varied this ability is from individual.

So to test recalls, we take a survey. I don't know how this survey tests anything. I imagine the answers range from "I think I'm more of a visual person" to "Oh yeah, I remember EVERYTHING! Where's my car key?" Hubbard seems to spend a lot of effort trying to convince the reader that people remember things differently from person to person. An informal survey tells us next to nothing about the mechanisms of memory no matter how many different ways it is stated.

After reciting the types of recall Dianetics offers ("visio, sonic, tactile, olfactory, rhythmic kinesthetic, somatic, thermal organic, and...emotion"), Hubbard considers imagination, "the mind's method of envisioning desirable goals and forecasting futures". Apparently, "a clear mind uses imagination in its entirety". This is presented as being very similar to recall in that "entirely" means that all senses are involved to the fullest extent. Thus, through Dianetics, picturing yourself on the moon could be complete with the pain the near absolute zero temperature as well as your blood boiling away from the lack of air pressure (if you forgot to imagine a spacesuit). This type of imagination is different from what Hubbard calls "creative imaginition", "the possession by which works of art are done". This kind of imagination is present in all people, in varying degrees, regardless of abberations.

As the chapter closes, Hubbard considers man's rationality, the "most important activity of the mind" because it is "the primary, high-echelon function of that part of the mind which makes him a man, not just another animal". I think most would agree with Hubbard's emphatic assertion of the importance of man's rationality. However, according to Hubbard, all unclear individuals are, to varying degrees, irrational. Therefore, rationality "can be studied in a clear person only". From this, Hubbard insinuates that a clear person would be perfectly rational, making no errors in judgment as long as they were give all correct data to consider. Hubbard insists, "the sentient portion of the mind, which computes the answer to problems and which makes man man, is utterly incapable of error [emphasis Hubbard]." That is, the computing part of the brain NEVER makes a mistake, EVER, for ANYONE. To support this claim, Hubbard compares the brain to a calculator stating that it will produce the correct answers time and again as long as it is presented the right information to consider. Does Hubbard not realize that sometimes parts break in both the calculator and the brain?

As crazy as this notion is, that the brain NEVER makes a mistake, Hubbard tops it by asserting "the basic purposes of that mind and the basic nature of man, as discoverable in the clear, are constructive and good...", and then concludes, "Man is good." According to Hubbard, abberations also contain little bits of evil in, so a clear is good. For a man who is obsessed with defining his words, it is surprising that he left "good" undefined, rendering his assertion meaningless. Are clear more likely to help the poor? Are they proactive about being good? Do they just not do bad things? Do they feel like they are "good"?

Hubbard insists that "later there are experiments and proofs for the these things and they can be measured with the precision so dear to the heart of the physics scientist." An experiment showing that clear people are better? How would good be quantified? A proof that results in "clear=good" right before the Q.E.D.? I hope that's in this book. And why single out the scientist for requiring proof? Everyone who reads this book should be thinking, "Oh yeah? Prove it" after every single claim. Hubbard has a lot of work to do in the proof department.

Words Defined: tactile, psychic, brace and bit, stimuli, pallid, cordite, ocular, olfactory, thalamus, present time ("the time that is new and becomes the past as rapidly as it is observed"), in kind, coach-and-four, encyst, signal, self-determinism

Next: Chapter 3: The Goal of Man (Hint: It's to survive.)

Note: All quotes are from
Hubbard, L. Ron. Dianetics. Los Angeles, CA: Bridge Publications, Inc, 1986. The above figure is located on p. 32 of this edition.

Continue Reading...

Chapter 1: The Scope of Dianetics

In this first chapter, L. Ron Hubbard discuses what "a science of mind" must entail and then describes how Dianetics fulfills these criteria and more.

Hubbard begins by taking a quick glance at the struggle man has had explaining mental illness. His examples include shamans, ancient Greek hospitals and Roman gods. More importantly, Hubbard discusses a dark time in early medicine when patients diagnosed with mental disorders were often lobotomized noting "they are brought forth only to demonstrate the depths of desperation man can reach when confronted with the seemingly unsolvable problem of deranged minds."

It is indeed sad that the preferred solution to many mental disorders was to destroy the prefrontal cortex of the afflicted. Hubbard blames man's decision to commit such atrocities on the pace of modern science, stating "for the physical sciences, advancing thoughtlessly far in advance of man's ability to understand man, have armed him with terrible and thorough weapons which await only another outburst of the social insanity of war."

While it is true that modern technology had led to the creation of terrible weapons, it seems unfair not to acknowledge the beneficial advancements of science. If we only look at the the technological advances relating to the study of the human mind, we see MRI and CT scan machines as well as myriad new pharmaceuticals, each of which have had a tremendous effect in aiding our understanding of the brain.

Hubbard continues by comparing the mind to a jigsaw puzzle, making many unsupported and confusing statements about times in history when different people were able to see and/or arrange different pieces of this puzzle. After the metaphor, Hubbard presents us with the purview of Dianetics. Supposedly, Dianetics is a science of mind and according to Hubbard, a science of mind must contain (I will address them one at a time):

1. An answer to the goal of thought.

I'm not quite positive what this is supposed to mean, but if pressed to answer, I would say that Hubbard means that a science of mind needs to answer the question, "Why do we think?". I agree that is a very important question and should be under the jurisdiction of "mind science".

2. A single source of all insanities, psychoses, neuroses, compulsions, repressions, and social derangements.

This seems like a tall order. To think that all these maladies have a single cause seems quite optimist (if not crazy). There is no a priori reason to believe all mental disorders should arise from the cause. We know that fever, bacterial infections, viruses, and social interaction all have tremendous effects on the brain. Also, there could be many causes of the same series of symptoms. For example, the common cold can be caused by more than 100 kinds of rhinoviruses. I know it's not a mental disorder, but if is a bodily malady.

3. Invariant scientific evidence as to the basic nature and functional background of the human mind.

Sounds good.

4. Techniques, the art of application, by which the discovered single source could be invariably cured; ruling out, of course, the insanities of malformed, deleted or pathologically injured brains or nervous systems and, particularly, iatrogenic psychoses (those caused by doctors and involving the destruction of the living brain itself).

Here, we see Hubbard is restricting the scope of "mind science" to psychological maladies. I would argue that "malformed" has a very broad definition which might cover chemical imbalances, but I think Hubbard most likely is referring to an error in normal brain growth.

5. Methods of prevention of mental derangements.

Sounds good.

6. The cause and cure of all psychosomatic ills, which number, some say, 70 percent of man's listed ailments

Setting aside the lack of citation for the statistic, I will agree that studying psychosomatic ailments should be an integral component of any science dealing with the brain.
Before Hubbard summarizes how Dianetics meets these goals, he makes an interesting remark regarding the precision necessary for his science to be successful.

A science of the mind, if it were truly worthy of that name, would have to rank, in experimental precision, with physics and chemistry. There should be no "special cases" to its laws.

I found this interesting because chemistry and physics to not pretend to know Truths (yes, with a capital T). Physics seeks to make a series of ever-more-precise approximations to what we observe in nature and there are exceptions to some of the rules. Newtonian mechanics goes to quantum mechanics in the very small and to general relativity in the very large. To claim to know Truth without exception is not science (I suppose if some omniscient being were to dispense Truths, that could suffice, but how could we be assured of its omniscience?).

At this point, Hubbard enumerates what it is that Dianetics actually does.

1. It is an organized science of thought built on definite axioms (statements of natural laws on the order of those of the physics sciences).

2. It contains a therapeutic technique with which can be treated all inorganic mental ills and all organic psychosomatic ills, with assurance of complete cure in unselected cases.

3. It produces a condition of ability and rationality for man well in advance of the current norm, enhancing rather than destroying his vigor and personality.

Sounds a little like an Enzyte commercial.

4. Dianetics gives a complete insight into the full potentialities of the mind, discovering them to be well in excess of past supposition.

5. The basic nature of man is discovered in Dianetics rather than hazarded or postulated, since that basic nature can be brought into action in any individual completely. And that basic nature is discovered to be good.[emphasis mine]

Since when is it the job of science to make moral judgments on its findings? I'm looking forward to the scientific proof that the basic nature of man is "good".

6. The single source of mental derangement is discovered and demonstrated, on a clinical and laboratory basis, by Dianetics.

7. The extent, storage capacity and recallability of the human memory is finally established by Dianetics.

8. The full recording abilities of the mind are discovered by Dianetics with the conclusion that they are quite dissimilar to former suppositions.

9. Dianetics brings forth the nongerm theory of disease, complementing biochemistry and Pasteur's work on the germ theory to embrace the field.

10. With Dianetics ends the "necessity" of destroying the brain by shock of surgery to effect "tractability" on mental patients and "adjust" them.

11. A workable explanation of the physiological effects of drugs and endocrine substances exists in Dianetics, and many problems posed by endocrinology are answered.

12. Various educational, sociological, political, military, and other human studies are enhanced by Dianetics.

13. The field of cytology is aided by Dianetics, as well as other fields of research.

Instead of addressing each of these claims now, I will wait until they come up later chapters. If you read the above claims, you will have no doubt realized that Dianetics seems to be quite an earth-shattering system if is does all that is claimed.

Words Defined: shaman, consecrate, Goldi (a people from East Siberia), sanitaria, Aesculapian (relating to healing), Bedlam (a hospital), tome, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, Herbert Spencer, psychosis, neurosis, compulsion, repression, pathological, psychosomatic, biochemistry, Louis Pasteur, tractable, endocrine, cytology

Next: Chapter 2: The Clear

Note: All quotes are from L. Ron Hubbard's, Diantetics unless otherwise noted.

Continue Reading...

Still not to Chapter 1 yet!

As I mentioned yesterday, I am going to be writing about Dianetics for a while. I am going to take it slowly for my sanity and for yours. A chapter every day or two should be fine. Anyway, there is a section called "How to Read This Book" that is ripe for commentary so here I go...


Ah, the first sentence. "Dianetics is an adventure." Well I sure hope so!

This section of the book claims that Dianetics is the result of "exact research and careful testing" and seems to be designed as a sort of therapy (That I am seeking therapy is assumed in this section). Apparently, Dianetics will help you learn about yourself and "some of the things you will find may astonish you, for the most important data of your life may be not memory but engrams." What are engram? Well L. Ron was kind enough to put a definition at the bottom of the page:

engram: during moments when the conscious mind is suspended in operation--by injury, anesthesia, illness such as delirium--there is a more fundamental level still in operation, still recording; anything said to a man when he is unconscious from pain or shock is registered in its entirety; it then operates, on the return of consciousness, as a positive suggestion, with the additional menace of holding in the body the pain of the incident.

So...what is an engram? There seems to be a little story instead of a definition. If I had to guess, I would say that an engram is supposed to be that "more fundamental level". (In my previous post, I noted that L. Ron told me, the reader, that if I did not understand something it was because I did not know the definition to a word. He would provide definitions for the hard words so I wouldn't be so confused. What do I do if I don't understand his definition? I guess I'll keep reading against Hubbard's wishes.)

Hubbard then goes on to state that "you will find as you read that many things 'you always knew were so' are articulated here. You will be gratified to know that you held not opinion but scientific facts in many of your concepts of existence." This sentence is a little scary to me. It screams confirmation bias, but it may not be that bad. I'll have to read more before I can really weigh in on that.

There are some amazing passages in this section. I will mention again (and probably hundreds of times) that Hubbard told me, the reader, that if I did not understand a passage, it is my fault for not understanding the vocabulary. Well in this section, he also states that

This volume has made no effort to use resounding or thunderous phrases, frowning polysyllables [frowning?-me], or professorial detachment. When one is delivering answers which are simple, he need not make the communication any more difficult than is necessary to convey ideas.

I agree with the second sentence emphatically, but if there is such a large effort to use colloquial terminology, then why the warning at the beginning that any confusion on my part will be due to my poor vocabulary? Is my vocabulary going to be so bad that even when you shy away from "frowning polysyllables", I will still be scratching my head? I guess there is nothing really deep here. I just find it amusing...like the next passage:

And so bear with us, psychiatrist, when your structure is not used, for we have no need for structure here; and bear with us, doctor, when we call a cold a cold and not a catarrhal disorder of the respiratory tract. For this is, essentially, engineering, and these engineers are liable to say anything [what?-me]. And "scholar" you would not enjoy being burdened with the summation signs and the Lorentz-FitzGerald-Einstein equations, so we shall not burden the less puristic reader with scientifically impossible Hegelian grammar which insists that absolute exists in fact.

Okay, that was quite a passage. After some nonsense about engineers saying, well, "anything", Hubbard lists some interesting concerns. He seems to be worried that scholars will not find his work rigorous enough. I would also like to point out that that a summation sign is not a "burden". It means "add this stuff up". How hard is that to understand? As for the Lorentz equations, I hope to learn why those would be necessary in this book in the first place. Perhaps engrams travel near the speed of light. Oh and "scientifically impossible" grammar? Does that not just mean a scientifically impossible idea, more commonly referred to as nonsense? This passage however, employs an interesting tactic. Hubbard realizes that the scientific community is not going to find this work as enlightening as he does, so before he receives criticism, he offers the explanation that the criticism is only because because he lacks the proper formalism. It has nothing to do with his reasoning of lack thereof. It also provides the less-astute reader with a handy reason to dismiss and scientific criticism.

I think that is all the time I am going to spend on preface material, but before I wrap up, I would like just provide a list of the words Hubbard defines in this section. I will not include his definitions unless, like engrams, it was particularly strange. It might be enlightening to see what Hubbard expects will confuse his readers. I will provide a similar list for every chapter.

Words defined: terra incognita, engram, articulate, catarrh, Lorentz-FitzGeral-Einstein equation (just that they are "mathematical equation in the field of physics"), Hegelian ("after Hegel"), dynamic principle of existence (survival), aberration, postulate

Next: Chapter 1: The Scope of Dianetics


Note: All quotes are from
Hubbard, L. Ron. Dianetics. Los Angeles, CA: Bridge Publications, Inc, 1986. The above figure is located on p. 32 of this edition.

Continue Reading...

Project in the Works

I recently purchased a copy of L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics from a used bookstore. My goal is to present a chapter-by-chapter synopsis/analysis of the book. For those of you who do not know, Dianetics is the book behind Scientology. If you don't know what Scientology is, go ask Tom Cruise. Anyway, as I opened the book, an "Important Note" caught my intention. I will quote it in full as it is quite interesting (these are pages viii and ix in my edition).

Important Note

In reading this book, be very certain you never go past a word you do not understand.

The only reason a person gives up a study or becomes confused or unable to learn is because he or she has gone past a word that was not understood.[emphasis Hubbard's]

The confusion or inability to grasp comes after [emphasis Hubbard's] a word was not understood. Have you ever had the experience of coming to the end of a page and realizing that you didn't know what you had read? Somewhere earlier on that page, you passed a word that you didn't understand.

Here's an example. "It was found that when the crepuscule arrived the children were quieter and when it was not present, they were much livelier." You see what happens. You think you don't understand the whole idea, but the inability to understand came entirely from one word you could not define, crepuscle [emphasis Hubbard's], which means twilight or darkness.

If, in reading this book, the materials become confusing or you can't seem to grasp it, there will be a word just earlier that you haven't understood. Don't go any further, but go back to before [emphasis Hubbard's] you got into difficulty. Find the misunderstood word and get it defined.

And on the opposite page...

Footnotes and Glossary

As an aid to the reader, words that are sometimes misunderstood have been defined in footnotes where they occur in the text. Words sometimes have several meanings. The footnote definitions give in this book only give the meaning that the word has as it is used in the text. A glossary including all the footnoted definitions is included at the back of this book. Other definitions can be found in various dictionaries.

I found it interesting that the Hubbard expects the book to confuse me. Personally, I would think that it is not a fault of the readers for a fault of the book if it is incomprehensible. I guess we will see if it is as bad as the introductory note suggests.

What stood out to me, besides L. Ron's desire to provide me with about 200 definitions (just a quick estimate from looking at the glossary,) was the phrase " The only reason a person gives up a study or becomes confused or unable to learn is because he or she has gone past a word that was not understood." That is NOT the only reason a person becomes confused. Sometimes what the person is reading is nonsensical or poorly reasoned. People are unable to learn because their teachers are unable to present material in an intelligible manner, and sometimes people give up because what they are doing is no longer worth their time or effort. If life were so easy that a dictionary could cure all confusion, I would carry a copy of Webster's Dictionary in my pocket.

Personally, I think it is insulting to insist that any confusion I may arrive at in the text is because of some lack of vocabulary. I think that if I included that segment in a physics paper, I would be laughed at and rightfully so. The book begins by making sure the reader blames himself/herself for all confusion. I look forward to seeing what else is my fault.

I should note that I do not promise to be entirely unbiased while critiquing this book. After all the recent publicity revolving Scientology and especially the South Park episode, it's hard to think of L. Ron Hubbard or Scientology without going into a little bit of a laughing fit. I will try my best to maintain my composure and consider Dianetics on its own.

Next: How to Read This Book

Note: All quotes are from
Hubbard, L. Ron. Dianetics. Los Angeles, CA: Bridge Publications, Inc, 1986, unless noted otherwise.

Continue Reading...