Monday, October 27, 2008

Dianetics: The Original Thesis - Chapters Five and Six PLUS A Message


The opinions stated in this blog are that of the author, not that of Scientology, Dianetics, or Anonymous. The words Scientology, Dianetics, and other related terms are trademarked by the Religious Technology Center and are used here under the Fair Use Doctrine.


Firstly, I'd like to send a message to the Scientologist that has been commenting on my posts, as well as any that are also willing to come forward; I appreciate the fact that you're willing to discuss your beliefs, but I'd prefer that you provide an actual discussion, rather than posting once and not replying to my response. If you're willing to protect your beliefs, you might want to put a little bit more effort into it, without making yourself sound offensive. You haven't so far, which I applaud, but I hope that doesn't happen in the future.

Also, in regards to the request to balance the posts, I've come to a conclusion; I'm unable to reproduce the entire contents of the book, and as such am unable to seriously balance the opinions of yourselves and myself. My ideas are not copyright.

Finally, a response to one comment regarding a fallacy on my part. I realize that Dianetics was created before Scientology, and like you said, it should not have any link to religion. However, I'd like to offer the following viewpoint. The reason why I'm so irked at the lack of religious correlation is because Dianetics the methodology is the origin of Scientology the religion. Saying the two are entirely different beliefs is a fallacy because the act of Dianetics auditing on preclears, though somewhat different in its precise procedure, is also used on Clears that are auditing the reactive minds of past lives, such as those referenced in History of Man, particularly report areas for recently exteriorized thetans on Mar (p. 110), or Facsimile One, a control device invented by the Fourth Invader Force (p. 104).

So does this make Dianetics part of a religious belief or does this make Scientology not a religion? Well, Hubbard says Scientology is "...[neither] a psycho-therapy nor a religion" in Creation of Human Ability, but the current introduction video shown to new converts in Scientology orgs assures, "Since Scientology is relatively new, you may hear the question asked, 'Is Scientology a bonafide religion?' Let me assure you it is." So what is the real definition?



Chapter Five consists largely of a summation on the definition and character of engrams and what they are. Engrams are the contents - and simultaneously the anatomy - of the reactive mind, comprised of memories of traumatic, antagonistic experiences undergone at points when the analytical mind is inactive. These memories contain perfect knowledge of what is seen, heard, felt, etc. (called perceptics by L. Ron Hubbard) not detected by the analytical mind due to their being received during its inactivity, but when something happens to a preclear that maintains a level of similarity to an engram (a restimulator), then a dramatization of the engram occurs, leading to similar sensations of pain as were experienced on receipt of the engram. This affects the person's thoughts in such a way as to lower their ability to survive and mislead them.

Hubbard defines three types of thought: engramic, which is entirely reactive and instinctual; justified, which is the attempt by the analytical mind to identify actions take by the reactive mind as being normal; and rational, which is the aspired state of Clear. There are also two types of engrams: floaters, which are not restimulated, sometimes for the entire lifetime of the person; and chronics, which are continuously restimulated. As a chronic is stimulated, it begins to accumulate locks, which are the actual painful experiences caused by engramic restimulation. Removal of the first engram in a chain of locks will remove and relieve all locks in the same chain. Most of the time, this basic engram can range between two years of age to birth, and sometimes even before birth.

Now, before I get sued for postng the whole chapter up, lets move on to the much-shorter Chapter Six, regarding aberrations: the aches, pains, and trauma generated by engrams. There are two solutions to relieving them: removing oneself from the environment and all contained restimulators; or depleting all engrams from the reactive mind. It is possible in most cases to fully restore the mind, though there are a few possible exceptions (to be discussed in the next section).

Of the various types of engramic activity, the worst is that which confuses objects and events of the present time with those of the past; these open up an individual to constant restimulation and can cause an engram to become chronic. Removal of these and other engrams can be of much relief to various physical maladies.


I'd remark on the inability to perfectly remember a situation, but I already know the response I'd get; I've never taken any Dianetics therapy, and as such, my engrams are keeping me from achieving that talent. In all honesty, I would take a course if I was anywhere close to a Scientology org and had the money, but such is not the case. I believe the video I linked to above, however, is something else I could cite in any case. For now, however, let's assume that the mind does have total recall (except mine, of course).

So in order to properly cure the mind of its engrams, L. Ron has invented "a new sub-field entitled perceptics" to further define how painful memories are remembered in the reactive mind. As such, he has taken the organized structure of semantics and applied it to other sensations such as hearing and touch. In this book, he merely mentions touch, sight, smell, hearing, and 'organic sensations' of the interior organs, but he'll go on to create a full list of 57 perceptic sensations, right down to the saline content of individual cells in the body. You are supposed to remember every single one of these in engramic content while auditing.

Something else I've realized about L. Ron is that he likes to speak of his discoveries in analogical terms without really going into depth as to their true functions. To clarify, an analogy is a comparison between two things that are similar, but not exactly the same thing; you can't take one idea and apply the exact same principles to the other. Take his examples of the workings of the reactive mind. First he describes the analytical mind as being comprised of scanners, and engram - again, "as a further analogy and for demonstration only" - as being "a bundle of perceptics of a precise entire dramatic sequence implanted during unconsciousness which possesses specific percceptic keys..." However, he treats both of these analogies as though they are the actual, true function of the mind, most of all the second. If an engram isn't really composed of perceptics, then I don't know what it is because that's exactly how L. Ron describes it throughout the work.

The subject of hypnotism is brought into Dianetics for the first time in this chapter, comparing the process to that of an engram reciept. The trance-state is weakness of the reactive mind, and the hypnotic command can be considered a harmless sort of engram (unless it accidentally hits upon an antagonistic one). The 'engram' is created, and when the analytical mind is restored, the person seems to be normal until a restimulator (in this case, some sort of subliminal command) is introduced, at which point, the person does something unusual. Only when it is revealed that the command was created does it become relieved. Hubbard later goes on to say, "Laboratory experiment demonstrates that under hypnosis an individual's sensory extension may be artificially extended." This strikes me as odd because this is exactly what auditing is supposed to do - lengthen the awareness of a preclear's memory of past events - yet it is advertised and claimed as not being hypnosis. (By the way, the quote given earlier is yet another example of a claim made by Hubbard not backed up by any proof, lab records, etc.)

There is another mention of race as well, on page 44:
No aberration exists without its somatics unless it's a racial-educational aberration, in which instance it is compatible with its environment and so is not considered irrational.
What does this possibly imply? That those brought up in certain racial neighborhoods have engrams that the rest of us don't? That those brought up in any school except an Applied Scholastics school is being withheld in their own intelligence?

One of the sections that is most debatable in this chapter (and which later gets its own) is that discussing the prenatal engram, or that which is received while the person is still developing in the womb. The point at which a person ceases becoming a bunch of cells and begins to truly live is still being hotly debated, though Hubbard places it at about four months in utero. This is only the beginning of it, though; in Book One, he remarks on the person's ability to remember back to when they were a sperm and/or an egg (Page 158 of my 2007 printing of Dianetics: MSMH). It's also very convenient for L. Ron Hubbard that birth almost always results in becoming an engram; that way, everyone in existence is in need of Dianetic counseling.

Chapter Six concludes with yet another claim by Hubbard (pg. 56):
Removal of the somatic content of engrams, which is also necessary to obtain any other relief, can and does occasion glandular readjustment, cellular growth, cellular inhibition and other physiological corrections.

Saturday, October 4, 2008

Dianetics: The Original Thesis - CHAPTERS THREE AND FOUR


The opinions stated in this blog are that of the author, not that of Scientology, Dianetics, or Anonymous. The words Scientology, Dianetics, and other related terms are trademarked by the Religious Technology Center and are used here under the Fair Use Doctrine.


Well, after a long hiatus, I'm back, and I feel that I owe you (yes, all one of you reading) an apology for the massive delay. See, I've found myself a victim of two problems:

1) I have a life. This is not expected of most Anons, but it's true in my case, with college exams and everything.
2) I never thought I'd say this,'s hard to find faults in the rest of this book. The most I can do is offer a summary, which is really screwy on its own, but believable if you had the gullibility to not look at actual facts.

This does not mean that I have no progress at all in regards to Scientology research; I've been making headway with a psychologist/sociologist/criminologist professor, and I'll be asking him what he thinks about Scientology's criminal history - as presented in the Lawrence Brennan affidavit - sometime in the next few weeks. I've also greatly expanded my collection of Basics books, which is currently filled as follows. (All books I own are checked off with a /. All books I have coming are marked with a x. All others aren't marked at all.)

Dianetics: The Original Thesis /
Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science /
Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health /
Science of Survival /
Self-Analysis /
Advanced Procedures and Axioms
Handbook for Preclears x
A History of Man /
Scientology 8-80
Scientology 8-8008
Creation of Human Ability
Dianetics 55!
Scientology: the Fundamentals of Thought

The Problems of Work x
Scientology: A New Slant on Life
Introduction to Scientology Ethics x
The Way to Happiness / (Currently I have a version older than the newer one by a couple years, but from what I've seen, the illustrations and text should be the same.)
Clear Body, Clear Mind /

I feel a need to emphasize that the entire collection is worth $450 (Over $3000 for books AND lectures, which I' haven't been able to find on their own outside of leaks), and I've spent - so far - $34. Most of the books have been (or are being) purchased for $1. Some of them were even brand new, shrink-wrapped.

I am determined to continue my progress, with a short review of Chapters Three and Four combined in the following section.


Chapter Three covers "The Dynamics". As we've already learned, the basic dynamic of existence is to "SURVIVE!", but there are four other dynamics that this can be applied to: Personal; Sex; Group; and Mankind. These Dynamics are all equally important and on the same level as the Basic Dynamic.

It's funny how L. Ron talks often on how energy can be understood as a conscious form, despite the allegation that Dianetics is - in no way - a spiritual belief. To seperate it further, he enforces that spirituality is not part of the "Science of the Mind". The first part of Chapter Three is another example of this false supposition.
Energy may be considered to have taken many paths through eternity to arrive intact at the infinite goal. The why of that goal may lie above the finite line.

Meaning, of course, that the non/existence of God means nothing in this study. If this is the case, however, then why have no other religious bodies taken up and recommended Dianetics to their parishioners? Further still, why hasn't it accomplished anything for anyone outside the Church?

I might like to add that the only reason L. ron Hubbard claimed Scientology was a religion at all was so they could garner religious cloaking and earn tax exemption. Just thought I'd bring that up.

Another technicality the church of Scientology has failed to touch up on is the racism of its founder. One can find many quotes from Hubbard based on racist remarks, but it's what he says in his books that gives me the jibblies.
Conflict among species and individuals within the species is additionally a survival factor. Affinity for individuals and groups, races, and the whole of its species and for other species is additionally a survival factor, as strong or stronger than conflict.

This insinuates not only that some races are weaker than others, but having a preference towards a particular race can be a powerful ally in the long run. It can also be interpreted as saying that being a racist in particular can affect your ability to survive, and apparently this was good enough for Ron.

So LRH, in all his glory, shows that the ability to survive also depends on four dynamics on top of the basic one. These are...

1) Personal
Self-survival, neccessity and pleasure

2) Sexual

3) Group
All subdivisions of the species, from families to races

4) Mankind
What it says.

He would later outline four more dynamics, which will be outlined in later materials, which will total to the eighth Dynamic, that of 'Infinity' or the 'God Dynamic'.

Each dynamic has its own philosophy, so Hubbard rules that each is of equal importance, and that in an 'unaberrated' society, this is recognized as vaild. However, in an unaberrated person, one or more of the above may be stressed above the other. Any one or more of the dynamics can also work against an individual's survival, which is apparently normal and rational. WTF.

These conflicts can be very difficult for someone without aberrations until it becomes impossible for them to cope; so much so, in fact, that it leads to self-harm and suicide, as a result of his inability to correctly follow the basic command.

That's the bulk of Chapter Three. Chapter Four is even smaller, and regards "The Basic Individual".


This chapter deals with the idea of the basic individual, which is the basic state of unaberration " complete integration and in a state of highest possible rationality". But hubbard also states that, "A Clear is someone who has become the basic individual through therapy."

In the 2007 "Golden Age of Knowledge" Summit, David Miscavige mentioned Chapter Fourteen of this book as being important, as it featured 'the first ever definition of Clear". But Hubbard just told us what a Clear was, and this was in a section that was not removed from the book. Something fishy is going if we didn't know that already.

So the basc personality is comprised of the following: his basic dynamic; his dynamics; his intelligence; his motor skills; his "physiological and glandular condition"; and his environment and education. In my personal opinion, I see this description of an individual as very dehumanizing; there's no mention of likes, dislikes, needs, emotions, etc.

Oh, and here comes another common Hubbard-ism; RESEAAAAAAAAARCH.
It will be found by experience and exhaustive research, as it has been clinically established, that the basic individual is invariably responsive in all the dynamics and is essentially good. There are varying degrees of courage, but in the basic individual, there is no pusillanimity.

I smell pusillanimity. COS, in particular. Hubbard never really shows us any proof of the research, does he? So did he do any?

So the Basic Individual is the ultimate ideal. He is virtuous, and pretty much the best person alive. Well, I don't think we've met one yet that has come out of a Scientology office. Wow, they're sure doing their job!

Oh, yes, more hypocrisy.
Man is not a reactive animal.

If man is not a reactive animal, then why does he have a reactive mind? If he weren't such a thing, then he'd have no reactive mind!

L. Ron also comes up with yet another decent piece of spin in this chapter...
The most desirable state of the individual is self determinism. Such self-determinism may be altered and shaped to some degree by education and environment. But so long as the individual is not aberrated, he is in possession of self-determinism.

So an unaberrated person is self-determined. But everyone is aberrated, so there is no self-determined person in existence until L. Ron Hubbard comes along and gives us this news. He promises that his techniques will remove aberration and are the only way to do so. Those who join him eventually work for him for much of their lives, becoming devoted followers.

Sound self-determined? I don't think so.

Sunday, September 7, 2008

Dianetics: The Original Thesis - Chapter Two


The opinions stated in this blog are that of the author, not that of Scientology, Dianetics, or Anonymous. The words Scientology, Dianetics, and other related terms are trademarked by the Religious Technology Center and are used here under the Fair Use Doctrine.



Chapter Two is entitled "An Analogy of the Mind", and outlines a brief analysis of the anatomy of a human mind according to LRH, as well as a short description of what branch of dianetics is being discussed in this book overall. There are three parts of the mind: the physio-animal, which controls every physical aspect of the mind and is possessed by every creature; the analyzer, which is Man's more advanced version of the physio-animal section; and the reactive mind, which is essentially the inferior mind of an animal, though it exists as a sub-mind in Man.


Once again, the problems begin with the very first words...

It is not the purpose of Abnormal Dianetics to investigate or accurately reconstruct the human mind. The purpose of abnormal Dianetics is to delete from the existing mind those physically painful experiemces which have resulted in the aberration of the analytical mind, to erase from the body psychosomatic illnesses which are physical abnormalities and the physical manifestation of the aberration, and to restore in its entirety the proper working function of a mind not otherwise physically deranged.

So if the goal of Dianetics is to get rid of the memories of experiences, then how can you do it WITHOUT reconstructing the anatomy of a mind? You can't just hack your way into someone's brain without knowing where you're going, right? Yet this book is somehow the one that came first. How about that?

Also, bearing in mind the remark on psychosomatic illnesses, take a look at the very next paragraph.

Abnormal Dianetics embraces the various physiological aspects of psychosomatic medicine, including the glandular balance or imbalance of the organism as influenced by painful physical experiences.

But wait! According to Tom Cruise, "There's no such thing as a chemical imbalance." Does this void the word of LRH, or Tom Cruise?

L. Ron then begisn to list off a few of the sub-divisions of the "Modern Science of Mental Health", and they are as follows: Dynamic Dianetics; Child Dianetics; Educational Dianetics; Medical Dianetics; Judicial Dianetics; Political Dianetics; and Military Dianetics. However, this book is about the division entitled Abnormal Dianetics (as if it wasn't abnormal enough), although some of the others are referred to briefly in the future chapters.

Moving on, when an individual is acting against the basic dynamic (SURVIVE!), he/she is either incredibly stupid or aberrated. These aberrations come from data that has been recieved in the midst of a painfuil situation, especially when the person's analytical mind is not active. It is the purpose of Abnormal Dianetics to fix these aberrations.

At this point, L. Ron Hubbard begins to offer his 'analogy of the mind'. Let me say that again: his ANALOGY. Why couldn't he take the time to tell us exactly what is going on in the mind rather than give us examples that aren't quite correct but provide an example? Moreover, this was supposedly sent as a manuscript to the medical community, but I think they would rather desire specific evidence than general guesses like this.

Now L. Ron begins an explanation of the mind's workings (or his analogy, anyway). All creatures possess a 'physio-animal' mind, which is the physical existence of the mind and controls bodily functions. However, man's mind has evolved to become an incredibly complex 'analyzer', but the animalistic version of the mind still remains as the 'reactive' mind. When the analytical mind is unable to respond to a situation, the details of a situation are recorded completely in the reactive mind until the analytical mind returns again. When something happens in a person's environment that matches with the content of the reactive mind, it is restimulated and causes negative effects.

OK, I'd better stop before this sounds like an infomercial for Scientology.

All of this is presented as an analogy. Yet why is it all part of official Scientology terminology? They believe that the mind is analytical and reactive, and that the reactive mind must be removed in order to advance. Not as an analogy, but as fact! Are they reading hard enough?

Anyway. that's where the chapter ends, but I'd like to bring up a particular point on this segment. Scientology gets most of its followers as people who are lost and looking for answers to life's questions, such as "Will I ever be happy?" This segment is Hubbard's take on "What makes the difference between man and animal?" As such, it fits in with the religion standpoint quite well, especially when fighting against the 'evil psychiatrists' who consider man as an animal; anyone who has seen the Scientology Orientation film knows this as a fact. Of course, the fact that Hubbard was making all of this up as he went along makes it a bit impressive, despite the sheer sleaziness of it all. However, the further you get into the religion, the less believable it becomes, yet there are people that believe every word.



Lia-Ron Hubbard has a BS, MS, and Ph. D

BS = Bulls***
MS = More of the Same
Ph. D = Piled Higher and Deeper

Friday, August 29, 2008

Dianetics: The Original Thesis - Chapter One

Banner for Blog
Well, it's time for us to finally take the plunge and lose the cherry that we call our sanity. Here we go...


There are several axioms within the study of Dianetics...

SURVIVE! - This is the key command given to all things.






The rest of the chapter elaborates on the meaning of these axioms, which I will further discuss in the following section.


As soon as you begin reading, L. Ron throws his first brainwashing curveball. He never fails to mention that Dianetics is supposedly thoroughly researched, but always fails to support proof that he has, indeed, done any work. For example, the first sentence is this...

Dianetics is a heuristic science built upon axioms.

Here's where the brand spanking new glossary by the Golden Age of Knowledge comes in. Heuristic is defined as "using experimentation, evaluation or trial-and-error methods; involving investigation and conclusions based on invariable workability". Of course, this leaves a lot to be desired, such as a little thing called proof. Next, there's this little gem which once again confronts the disclaimer in the book's very own cover.

The only claim made for these axioms is that by their use certain definite and predictable results can be obtained.
"A claim? But L. Ron Hubbard did no such thing! This is fact!"

Is Xenu gonna have to choke a thetan?

Moving on, Hubbard talks about how Dianetics works in its organization and axioms, stating this in the process.

There are no principal sources and where a practice or a principle is borrowed from some past school, the connection is usually accidental and does not admit andy further use or validity of that school. Dianetics will work, and can only be worked, when regarded and used as a unity. When diluted by broader applications of older practices, it will no longer produce results. To avoid confusion and prevent semantic difficulties, new and simplified terminology had been used and is used only as defined herein.

Translation: "Oh, this is all my doing. I didn't steal traits of Dianetics from Freud or any others of the evil psychs. And if you do it any other way than what I tell you, you fail at life. And let's make up some new words as we go along! Engram, preclear, A=A=A=A=A..."

Hubbard explains that Dianetics is a family of sciences, but doesn't go further in explaining anything more than what he lays out in this book, which is the form of Dianetics that cures psychosomatic ills, or sicknesses caused purely by the mind. He doesn't enter into it here, but Scientology believes that %70 of all diseases is psychosomatic - including AIDS, according to Jenna Elfman.

Hubbard divides knowledge into two sections, Knowable and Unknowable. Here lies a cunning piece of work by Hubbard; he defines Knowable as all the information relevant to their studies, and unknowable as information not relevant. Not only does this place a major focus on Dianetics itself (and take it away from matters like family and friends), but it also attempts to seperate itself from Scientology itself by stating...

By thus splitting the broad field of thought, we need not now concern ourselves with such indefinites as spiritualism, deism, telepathy, clairvoyance or, for instance, the human soul.

I've done a bit of reading ahead in regards to Scientology's beliefs, and the thetan, or soul, is regarded in L. Ron's earlier works as the concept of "I", or one's self, which is discussed later in this book. Caught you again, Scientology.

So for all of the knowable data, our first axiom of Scientology applies. The first axiom is the now-infamous command, "SURVIVE!" According to Hubbard, by knowing this as the basic command of the universe, one can visualize it as the purpose of all energy of the universe.

The various kingdoms have this as their lowest common denominator, for animals, vegetables and minerals are all striving for survival.

I didn't know rocks strive for survival. I thought they were just...well, rocks.

So as the various minerals formed colonies, the colonies came together to form an aggregation, each colony taking on a different role for the greater good of the rest, and pretty soon they all became controlled by a central control system which would eventually become the mind. (That's funny; where does Xenu fit in all of this?) Since the mind is formed to control the aggregate body, and the goal of this body is survival, then the second axiom is "THE PURPOSE OF THE MIND IS TO SOLVE PROBLEMS RELATING TO SURVIVAL."

The greatest win in the goal of survival is living forever, "at its unimaginable extreme" as Hubbard puts it. The greatest failure is - of course - death. In between the two is simply existing, and there are many different amounts and variations throughout. (Seriously, where the hell is Xenu?) Hence, this forms a gradient from death to immortality, with success heading upwards and failure heading downwards. In order to achieve success, one has to solve problems and keep their assets around, or else face death. Thusly, "THE MIND DIRECTS THE ORGANISM, THE SPECIES, ITS SYMBIOTES, OR LIFE IN THE EFFORT OF SURVIVAL."

Taking a hint from Darwin, Hubbard proclaims that survival is the greatest test of an organism, and even if an organism's actions fail (Alright, I get it already; there is no Xenu in the Original Thesis. Wait for OT III.), it was still nonetheless motivated by the instinct to survive. Next axiom, please. "THE MIND, AS THE CENTRAL DIRECTION SYSTEM OF THE BODY, POSES, PERCEIVES AND RESOLVES PROBLEMS OF SURVIVAL AND DIRECTS OR FAILS TO DIRECT THEIR EXECUTION."

So in case you missed it, there's this contest of natural selection and we're part of it. Also, according to Hubbard, we're winning it on this planet. No seriously. See for yourself.

Man is the most siccessful organism currently in existence, at least on this planet. Man is currently winning in the perpetual cosmic election which possibly may select the thinker of the New Thought.

FINALLY WE GET SOME UFO JARGON. Not only is this incredibly creepy, it is also very much out of place in the context. At first we're talking about evolutionary history of the human mind, and now suddenly it's Xenu Time? And what is this "New Thought", anyway? Well, let's look it up in our handy-dandy glossary!

New Thought: literally, any of various philosophical and religious movements such as the New Thought movement (late 1800s) and its offshoots, holding that affirmative thought or the adoption of a favorable mental attitude results in beneficial changes in Man. Their workable optimisim was in contrast with the "old thought" of sin, evil and pessimistic resignation. Hence, "the thinker of the new thought," an individual or group that brings new, independent and constructive philosophic or religious insight or principles to Mankind.

Scientology deeply wants to disconnect Dianetics (pun intended, lulz) from its UFO-speak and religious status, but it's going to have a hard time if it keeps pulling stuff off like this. It's painfully obvious just reading the statement that something is not right about it fitting in with a "heuristic science".

Moving on, Mankind has evolved, and so has his mind, transforming into an 'analyzer', "which probably exists as his frontal lobe". You mean to tell me that you did all of this research, and you don't even know where the analyzer is? >_<>
The dynamic is variable from individual to individual or race to race.

That easily explains many of Hubbard's statements about black people ("Whuts'a mattah wid' you, hat?"), Chinese ("They smell of all the baths they didn't take...the problem with China is, there are too many chinks there."), and various others. They are inferior, therefore can't survive. Way to go, Mr. hubbard, you win our hypocrisy award!

So that gives way to the next axiom, "THE PERSISTENCY OF THE INDIVIDUAL IN LIFE IS DIRECTLY GOVERNED BY THE STRENGTH OF HIS BASIC DYNAMIC." And since each person's/race's success rate varies, we get the final axiom (Thank God and Raptor Jesus); "INTELLIGENCE IS THE ABILITY OF AN INDIVIDUAL, GROUP OR RACE TO RESOLVE PROBLEMS RELATING TO SURVIVAL."

Hubbard takes this opportunity to outline the 'fact' that wins toward survival are pleasurable, whereas failure isn't. Hence, according to him, pleasure is the sensation of winning, and likewise pain is failing. Then he throws another curveball.

For the purpose of Dianetics, good and evil must be defined.

Well, lucky for us, good and evil are impossible to define, so that means there is no Dianetics...wait...oh, God, he's going ahead anyway.

Good may be defined as constructive. Evil may be defined as destructive. (Definitions modified by viewpoint)

So wait a minute...if you must define good and evil in order to have Dianetics, yet these definitions must be modified by viewpoint, then that means each person must come up with their own version, meaning there is no unification, meaning that no one is following LRH the way he wants them to, meaning THERE IS NO DIANETICS.

Thankfully, we're done with this chapter, but we're far from done with the book. Having read it in itts entirety already, I can assure you that this is definitely a foreshadowing of what is to come. There are many segments of this book which are inaccurate and/or lulzy, but much of it is faked/forged/pulled out of his rear to such a degree that - if the reader weren't picky enough to notice the details - they would believe it. That's why Original thesis comes first on the list. Hubbard may have been a con man, and he may have become a psycopath in his later years, but nevertheless he was a complete genius, and he knew what he wanted so he used everything he could to get it.

Of course, what he wanted was money.



Hubbard is a racist and pathological liar, yet an all-too-worthy adversary. Prepare the lazerbeams.


Enturb user DontMindMe writes in with this.

Wow. Even the first sentence is wrong. "Dianetics is a heuristic science built upon axioms." One or more of the words "heuristic," "science," and "axiom" are being used incorrectly. Possibly all three. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on Dianetics, since it's his trademark, and he can do whatever the hell he wants with it.

Anyway, "heuristic" = "intuitive." As a noun, it means a rule of thumb. It does not mean what the Golden Age glossary says it means -- what they're defining is "empirical." Well, for more information about the word, here: Just so you don't get the wrong idea. Hey, it's like we're word-clearing! And now that I think about it, "heuristic science" is the definition of a pseudo-science, since it's based more on what seems to make sense and seems to work rather than any sort of rigorous examination.

Or maybe that's a bit too harsh.

Not at all, DontMindMe. Not at all.

Friday, August 22, 2008

Introduction to Dianetics: The Original Thesis

Let's start before the beginning.

There is a disclaimer on the very first page of the book, as soon as you open the cover. It's entitled "TO THE READER" and states...

This book is presented in its original form and is part of L. Ron Hubbard's religious literature and works and is not a statement of claims made by the author, publisher, or any Church of Scientology. It is a record of Mr. Hubbard's observations and research into life and the nature of man.

Neither Dianetics nor Scientology is offered as, nor professes to be spiritual healing, nor is any claim made to that effect. The Church does not accept individuals who desire treatment of physical or mental illness but, instead, requires a competent medical examination for physical conditions, by qualified specialists, before addressing their spiritual cause.

Let's play a game of "What's Wrong with This Picture?"

First of all, the book is NOT presented in its original form. In 2007, David Miscavige, the Chairman of the Board of the Religious Technology Center - essentially, the current Head of the Church of Scientology - authorized a dramatic overhaul of every book in the Basics collection, including this one. This means that the book I have is not the original representation of it. Scientologists would most likely argue that this is the book as Hubbard would want us to read it, but I'll get to that later.

Secondly, there's no evidence that the Church requires a medical exam like that before beginning, and even if they did, it'd be by their own staff under their own rules. Most of the time, they just randomly pick people off from the street. The rest of the points I'll come back to later on.


Another page before the true beginning of the book is entitled "An Important Note", and is nearly duplicated in every book in the Basics series, in a few different forms. The essential meaning of this section is to say that you should be careful in not going past a word that you don't understand, lest you not understand the rest of the teachings afterwards.

This is L. Ron Hubbard's kinder way of saying, "You don't like the way I say this stuff? Eff you, it's your fault! You read past a term that I made up on the fly, and didn't take another minute out of your life to flip to the glossary in the back of the book, read the definition (which I also made up), go back to before you read the word, and then finish reading? No wonder you're a suppressive!"

There's also a section on glossaries; there are two glossaries in this book, one based on L. Ron Hubbard's terms, and one based on general words. This little blurb in the beginning replaces a similar one on footnotes. I think this is the only good thing I can say about the "Golden Age of Technology" revisions; having once tried to read the original Dianetics, there have been pages where there were only five lines in a paragraph, and the rest is filled completely with footnotes, and some of the footnotes were of the most abysmally simple things!


The introduction is only a page long, and yet we can find plenty of inaccuracies. The introduction is written in 1948 (or rather that's the date given; I'm not trusting Hubbard's word even that far), and Hubbard spends a bit of time describing the events from 1932 to 1948 in gathering the information needed to form Dianetics. He starts working in 1932, discovers the Primary Law ("Survive!") in 1938, then proceeds to study it further until his wartime service begins.

At this point, Hubbard makes reference to "Certain experiences during the war", which is certain to be concluded as his infamous story of having been blinded in battle, being brought to Oak Knoll Hospital, and then using the powers of his discoveries to heal not just himself but four other wounded soldiers. This is, of course, utter bull; Hubbard's interim at Oak Knoll was due to ulcers, not enemy fire.

So Hubbard carries on research from 1945 onward, and things start piecing together in 1946. Via a "lump-sum disability compensation", he is able to refine the work even further. But wait; wasn't he able to cure himself? Why would he need disability compensation if he wasn't disabled? If the story was true, and he WAS blinded before curing himself, then that would nullify the need to get paid for the injury. Since the story ISN'T true, then I doubt the military would offer compensation to someone who got ulcers. (He was, by the way, dishonorably discharged from the US Military.)

So out of the past four years, he had twenty participants in his studies, and every one of them was apparently cured by his experiments. Notice how he never backs up his info by elaborating or giving references as to what happened. Very persuasive non-existant evidence, L. Ron.

Now let's thumb back to the introductory advisory paragraphs; "This book is...not a statement of claims made by the author, publisher, or any Church of Scientology...Neither Dianetics nor Scientology is offered as, nor professes to be spiritual healing, nor is any claim made to that effect."

Let's catch the Co$ in their little white lie, shall we? What follows is the concluding paragraph from the Introduction.

Dianetics has been found to successfully resolve migraine headaches, ulcers, arthritis, astigmatism, bursitis, stammering, glandular imbalance, asthma, allergies, and other psychosomatic ills. It has also successfully removed any compulsions, repressions, neuroses and psychoses to which it has been applied.

L. Ron Hubbard,

Oh, God. I can hear the Office of Special Affairs (Scientology's own FBI) crapping themselves. Is this a claim? A claim made by their beloved L. Ron Hubbard? It IS! And it's only the first of many, as you will soon see.

Of course, this isn't a claim that it's "Spiritual Healing" either, because they profess that Dianetics is a Science rather than an official part of Scientology (when in reality the two are wound tighter than Tom Cruise and David Miscavige, and those two are TIGHT).

Which brings me to my final point. This particular edition of Dianetics: The Original Thesis was released in 2007, 21 years after the death of L. Ron Hubbard in 1986. Meanwhile, the original version was published in 1951, a year after the release of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health and 35 years before his death. David Miscavige claimed that the book was missing materials due to the fault of either a transcriptionist or an editor, and that MSMH was the only book that came out the way LRH intended. Meanwhile, Original Thesis is advertised as being first handed around by LRH in manuscript form before being published.

Therefore, if LRH himself wrote this manuscript, and if he lived for thirty-five years after it were published without noticing anything, than there should be no reason for the Church to overhaul the book (or, considering the second point, any books) and force all the Scientologists to buy them AGAIN.


[NOTE: TL;DR stands for "Too Long; Didn't Read"; this is a special summary section for those who decide not to read through the lengthy text above.]

TL;DR: Scientology and Hubbard have lied several times, and we haven't even begun to really read the book yet.