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 nature...an 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.