The Dianetics Fiasco

Discussion in 'Evaluating and Criticising Scientology' started by Demented LRH, Oct 14, 2011.

View Users: View Users
  1. Demented LRH

    Demented LRH Patron Meritorious

    Ex-Scientologists know that the reactive mind with its engrams is a figment of Hubbard’s overactive imagination fueled by large doses of barbiturates and other nonprescription drugs. On top of that Hubbard was suffering from mental retardation; in other words, he was a complete idiot. But practicing Scientologists who read my article may not know that and think that I am prone to exaggerations.
    The best way to find out that engrams are not real is to ask a professional about them (by “professional” I mean a trained psychologist, not a Dianetics auditor). I did just that. I was lucky to have a conversation with a world renowned psychologist, Dr. Oliver Sacks. There is an excellent Wikipedia article about Dr. Sacks. The movie Awakening is based on Dr. Sacks’ autobiographic book, it stars Robin Williams as Dr. Sacks. Although he was born and raised in England, these days Dr. Sacks works at Columbia University in New York City. I live in NYC, too.
    I met Dr. Sacks at one of his public lectures at Columbia Univ. After the lecture was over D. Sacks was taking questions from the audience. I asked him if he is familiar with Dianetics. The answer was positive. After that I asked him what he thinks about the reactive mind. Dr. Sacks said that he would like to discuss that topic with me after the seminar because majority of the audience is not familiar with Dianetics. We had a 30-minute conversation after the lecture.
    Dr. Sacks explained to me in metaphorical terms why the reactive mind does not exist. He said, “A geodesist can draw a demarcation line on a piece of land, and everybody can see it. But it is impossible to draw a borderline on a body of water. Mind is like a river, it is impossible to circumvent one part of it and say -- this is reactive mind, and the rest is analytical mind. The mind is indivisible because it cannot be divided into parts by any empirical means. The mind in its completeness is either reactive or analytical. If it is reactive, then we all are screwed. But we are not -- we can function. This means that only analytical mind exists, there is no place for reactive mind.”.
    In 1970s Dr. Sacks participated in scientific investigation of Hubbard’s Dianetics procedures done at New York University (NYU). “Dianetics is a sham, Ron Hubbard is a charlatan”, he said. Well, I knew that already.
    “Only a WOG would ask why Clears wear glasses”, said David Howsen at one of his Scientology seminars at CoS of Los Angeles. The Scientology audience responded with laughter. I was the only person who was not laughing. I was out of Sea Org at that time, but I still believed in Standard Tech. I was wondering what the correct answer to this question would be, so I asked David, “What should I tell to a WOG who wants to know why Clears wear glasses?”. “Oh, tell him go f--- yourself!”, he said. The audience burst into laughter.
    In his “pioneering” book, Dianetics, Hubbard promises to cure ALL psycho-somatic illnesses including psoriasis, aneurism, low blood pressure, and a host of other illnesses -- the list is half-page long. None of it is true; Hubbard was bullshitting the readers including myself. Now the ex-Scientologists are free form his crap. I want active Scientologists to join our ranks by leaving the cult behind.
    Hubbard claimed that he used Dianetics to cure his war wounds. As his military record shows, he was not wounded at the war. The Old Scratch lied about his military record and about everything else.
    There is another type of articles extremely critical of Dianetics whose authors concluded that Dianetics auditing is a form of hypnosis.

    Lewis J Roberts, Hypnosis and Dianetics, Journal of Hypnotism, 1952

    The Anderson Report -- Scientology and Hypnotism, published in 1965 by State of Victoria, Australia.
    There are other articles as well, but these two could be easily found on the Internet.

    Some type ago I read an article on hypnosis (this article has no relation to Dianetics); it says that 2/3 of the earth population cannot be subjected to hypnosis, while the remaining 1/3 could be hypnotized. This explains why not all recipients of Dianetics auditing have experienced hallucinations caused by it. But certain individuals did hallucinate; and I have some of their stories.

    Jarrod (this is not his real name) was an aspiring sci-fi writer who had a misfortune of joining Sea Org. When his superiors learned that he is a writer, they declared him PTS (this is standard procedure for the writers and journalists who join the cult). Jarrod received the auditing designed to turn his into a “normal” Scientologist. Soon after that auditing Jarrod saw a thetan who was sending ants to his apartment. Jarrod asked the thetan to stop sending insects to his apartment, and the creature obeyed.
    Bill received Dianetics auditing prior to Hubbard’s death. When Bill was attending Hubbard’s funeral he received telepathic message from the Founder saying, “Go OT, go OT!”. Month later when Bill woke up at night he saw unidentified monster standing next to his bed.

    Before becoming a Scientologist Jason had a hobby of reading books on demonology. Dianetics auditing caused him to see all kinds of demons late at nigh -- dancing demons, demons walking in circles, flying demons, etc.

    Kate was a Sea Org member who recalled an episode from her past life during an auditing session. In that episode she was raped by a demon ( a creature with horns and hooves) The episode was so real to her that she remained scarred for the rest of her life.

    When I was slaving at EPF two of my coworkers were afraid to go to sleep because of a strange creature they called an “OT”. The dormitory door had a lock which would be closed after 10:pM But that was not enough to stop the OT -- it would walk through the door at approximately 2:AM and stop in the middle of the room. OT was wearing some kind of a hood covering its face. There were 10 people in that dormitory, 8 of us were sleeping soundly at night, but these two were too nervous to rest. I decided to help them and told them to wake me up when the creature appears.
    They woke me up at 2:30 AM. The light was dim, but I could see everything. 7 people were asleep at their bunk beds, there was no one in the middle of the room. “Where is OT?”, I asked them. “He is right in front of you”, said one of them. I got up and begun walking towards the door. “Where is he now?”, I asked. “He went through the door, he is on the other side”, said the guy. I unlocked the door and stepped into the corridor. It was empty, as expected.

    Some Scientologists believe that they can exteriorize. But their account of events is different from the accounts of the others present at the place of alleged exteriorization.

  2. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    I think this paragraph is full of shit:

    “A geodesist can draw a demarcation line on a piece of land, and everybody can see it. But it is impossible to draw a borderline on a body of water. Mind is like a river, it is impossible to circumvent one part of it and say -- this is reactive mind, and the rest is analytical mind. The mind is indivisible because it cannot be divided into parts by any empirical means. The mind in its completeness is either reactive or analytical. If it is reactive, then we all are screwed. But we are not -- we can function. This means that only analytical mind exists, there is no place for reactive mind.”

    Personally, I got quite sick of Hubbard's use of metaphors in Scientology to confuse and deceive adherents, and this guy does exactly the same thing. The mind is "like a river"? It is impossible to circumvent one part of it? The mind in its completeness? :duh:

    If one accepts what this guy says, then there is no "conscious mind" versus a "sub-conscious mind". I don't see that as being true at all.

    I will give a few simple examples. I suspect that we can all agree that the "creative imagination" is quite different from "a memory", which is quite different from "concentration". These are each an "aspect" of any mind. They ARE very different in function. Nobody is going to confuse using one's concentration to observe a large woodpecker on a tree outside of your home with sitting on a couch and imagining what you will do tomorrow at the zoo with your children.

    Hubbard makes it clear that he was describing some sort of FUNCTIONING, and he took some efforts to explain that he was NOT describing "structure", as far as the "reactive mind" was concerned.

    I doubt many people will disagree with the notion that some people experience severe traumas in their life, and the largely "subconscious memories" or "energy imprints" or "residual stress" or "bio-electro-chemical residues" of these past experiences linger on and affect the person in the present.

    And, when people "relive", "return to mentally", or "contact the incidents" through some form of therapy, some of these people improve or "get better".

    Hubbard's model of the "reactive mind" was one such attempt to describe and understand THAT phenomena. Of course, Hubbard was a complete ass in how he presented the idea, how he viewed it as the ONLY "truth on the matter", and how he segregated himself away from the entire rest of the "mental health community". And, various aspects of his model were a bit ridiculous (power of words in engramic commands, all of the cute characters like the "file clerk", etc).

    I am not defending Hubbard's model or the workability of such methods. I am simply pointing out that the above quote is fulll of shit and is NOT a good basis to "expose the flaws of Hubbard".

    There are many theories, models and frameworks that have evolved to try to "understand" what is happening with such occurences of past traumas and the effects these past events have on a person's mind, emotions, and behavior.
  3. Demented LRH

    Demented LRH Patron Meritorious

    If one accepts what this guy says, then there is no "conscious mind" versus a "sub-conscious mind". I don't see that as being true at all.”

    That is exactly his point – there is no such thing as conscious mind and sub-conscious mind. These notions are used mostly by Freud and his followers, but other psychologists reject them. For non-Freudian psychologists mind is just am artificial construct that defines certain physical activities and nothing more.
    Dr. Sacks was using more than metaphors in our conversation, but I though that this information is excessive because it contains terminology not familiar to everyone. His point is that it is impossible to divide the mind because it is impossible to device an experiment showing that such division exists.
    Hubbard borrowed his ideas of reactive mind from Korzybski. But the Korzybski idea about the reactive mind is currently obsolete, and not a single psychologist uses it now (this is not to say that all his ideas are wrong – he made his contributions to linguistics and other fields)
  4. Demented LRH

    Demented LRH Patron Meritorious

    Few more words about conscious mind and sub-conscious mind – it is possible to define person’s physical activities that correspond to them, including the recall of so-called suppressed memories. But such divisions are arbitrary and unnecessary because they do not add any new information.
  5. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    Every concept in your mind is an "artificial construct". Cripes. But then if you actually STUDIED Korzybski, and those who have followed with the studies of General Semantics, you might know that.

    ANY "model of an atom" is an "artificial construct". The theories of gravity are ALL "models" and fundamentally "artificial constructs".

    While there might not "be" a conscious mind or a sub-conscious mind, there are most certainly aspects of any human mind that FUNCTION in that manner. Just as there are not "really" atoms swirling around a central nucleus, or "electron energy clouds vibrating" at a certain distance from a "nucleus" (as defined in various scientific models), there most certainly are "things" there that "function" somewhat in alignment with the models.

    Just because someone can't devise (with an "s") an experiment does not mean that such a division of mind doesn't exist. It simply means that nobody can devise such an experiment. I don't judge the limits of reality on whether some Earth scientist can devise an experiment or not. :duh:

    Also, some would say that the act of division, of separating reality into compartments and categories, and of "focusing on details", is wholly a FUNCTION of a mind, and that this separation doesn't actually exist "in reality". But, that is another discussion.

    I never gave a hoot about Korzybski's notion of a "reactive mind", but his theories on "levels of abstraction", "identity thinking", "incorrect associations of meaning" and MUCH more very well examine and delineate HOW any conceptual mind functions.

    One could just as well say that "there is no conceptual thinking mind" because "all division of mind is incorrect". There is no doubt that, for anyone who takes the time to LOOK and examine, that the human mind FUNCTIONS in one way to create concepts, meanings, significances and associations of such things. And THAT is only one small part of what any mind can and does do. But, if we abide by the above statement, we shouldn't even waste our time with such concerns, because it is "impossible to divide the mind because it is impossible to device an experiment showing that such division exists". Phooey.

    Concepts are "models" of some aspect of "reality". The notion of a "reactive mind" and many similar notions, aim to explain, examine and help understand the mental, emotional and physical BEHAVIOR of some aspect of a human being.

    Just as an "atom" or "electron" doesn't really "exist" as conceived by any scientist past or present in any of their "models" or "equations", such "ideas" help us understand the world around us. Some ideas do so better than others.

    Personally, I have experienced (many) positive things from Dianetic auditing, and I have observed MANY others benefit from "dianetic assists" aimed at resolving this-lifetime losses or traumas. There are so very MANY things markedly wrong with Hubbard and Scientology, in its theories and practices, besides "Dianetics", that to me, it is sort of a waste of time going after "dianetics". But, to each his own. You will not EVER convince a person that "dianetics is stupid" when someone has personal beneficial experiences of such. But such people CAN be convinced that Fair Game is stupid, that "forced disconnection" is stupid, that "continual lying and manipulation" is stupid, or that "OT abilities have NEVER been shown to exist".

    I suppose some people enjoy discussing Dianetics and how "modern psychologists and psychiatrists" might discuss it. There are a great many things for any person to become "interested in". "Aiming interest" is another aspect of any "mind".

    Hubbard had MANY "figments of his imagination". At least the "reactive mind" had some correlation to something even slightly "real". That is not so with a great many OTHER figments of Hubbard's imagination (such as his Hubbard's personal history, Hubbard's "achievements", OT abilities, the state of Clear, the goals of Scientology, etc.).
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2011
  6. afaceinthecrowd

    afaceinthecrowd Gold Meritorious Patron

    Firstly, a belated welcome from me to ESMB. :thumbsup: :clap:

    Interesting information from your discussion with Dr. Sacks...thank you for sharing it with us.

    As of yet, to my knowledge, there is nothing close to a uniformly accepted “Standard Model” of the Mind.

    Having known, interacted with and personally seen El Ron in action your characterization of El Ron as "suffering from mental retardation" and a “complete idiot” is most inaccurate, unsubstantiated and, in my view, completely wrong. El Ron had deep character, personality, mental and psychological flaws but not the ones that you have flatly stated.

    I am not and El Ron apologist, defender or fan…just read some of the over 30,000 words I have posted on ESMB about my life and times with El Ron.

    I am glad you are out and here and I look forward to hearing more of your “Take” on Scn. :yes:

    I thought “Awakenings” was a wonderful flic, and Williams and Di Niro were terrific together.


    Face :)
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2011
  7. Lurker5

    Lurker5 Gold Meritorious Patron

    :bump2: :thumbsup: :wink2:
  8. Auditor's Toad

    Auditor's Toad Clear as Mud

    And, for fans of dianetics, I continue to ask - a mere 60 years down the road and God only knows hiw many tens of thousands of hours hours of auditing later - where is ONE "clear" ?

    C'mon, 60 years and NO PRODUCT yet in sight. Isn't that what we'd call a tad gullible?
  9. Gadfly,
    I think maybe you are confusing the metaphor with the concept.

    I'm sure that there was more to what the Dr. said than what was explained in the first post.

    Also, I think you are using too narrow a paradigm.

    Just by claiming the mind has many functions is creating the paradigm operates like a computer or some central box or center that has spokes that does certain things.

    Mind the mind has only one function and we only see certain ranges of that function. I guess the metaphor I'm using is the lightwave band, or whatever it is called, where we can only see one portion of it and it manifest itself to us as different colors.

    I think understanding of the mind is in an infantcy stage.

    The Anabaptist Jacques
  10. NCSP

    NCSP Patron Meritorious

    "The mind" as opposed to the brain is itself a metaphor. Unless you want to talk about the physical action of chemicals and electrical impulses, you're speaking in metaphors, symbols. Some metaphors help us to understand our motivations and behaviors better, and those are useful -- Freud's ideas are powerful metaphors, Sacks' ideas were as well. Not coincidentally, both are exceptionally good writers.

    Some metaphors are weak or absurd, and don't help us understand anything. Hubbard's ideas are lazy and derivative of work he didn't understand, and, not coincidentally, he was a dreadful writer.

    There is no "grain of truth" in Dianetics or Scientology. Hubbard was a loquacious idiot with delusions of grandeur.

    This is why I urge people who are out of Scientology to read good books: Plato, Montaigne, Freud, anything that's stood the test of time. Not because they're right, or even "workable": that's something Hubbard taught you to expect from philosophical or speculative works, and it's something that every intelligent person knows is a ridiculous expectation. They continue to be read because of the strength and originality of their vision, and the grace with which they communicate it.

    A great thinker gives you possibilities, not absolute solutions. Ideas, not techniques. One who does the latter is either intellectually dishonest or fascistic.

    It's my conviction that anyone reading the work of a really great writer (in fiction or nonfiction) can only come to see Hubbard for the pathetically inadequate thinker he was. If they can't, they may well be lost causes.
  11. :clap::clap::clap:

    Although I disagree about the mind and the brain being the same thing.

    The Anabaptist Jacques
  12. NCSP

    NCSP Patron Meritorious

    I didn't mean to imply that. The brain is a physical object; "the mind" is an abstraction whose workings we describe with symbolic language.

    Thanks for the applause though! That post was a bit more withering than I intended. I'm generally tolerant of other people's ideas -- I even like kooks. But it baffles me that, 60 years on, we still have disagreements about Dianetics. That book is ridiculous nonsense, full stop. I can see someone being taken in by it as a kid, but for God's sake, it's not even charmingly kooky. It's just garbage. I mean, I understand that it's not reasonable to expect everyone to be widely read, but sometimes I just want to shake people and tell them to read a goddamn book.
  13. Cool.

    I was a very uneducated person when I got in Scientology. And I stayed in until I got an education.

    Specifically, what made me see through Scientology was reading Plato.

    The Anabaptist Jacques
  14. Jachs

    Jachs Gold Meritorious Patron

    Any particular part of Plato that was a defining moment?
  15. NCSP

    NCSP Patron Meritorious

    That makes me so happy! I've thought for a long time that Plato would be ideal in helping someone see through Hubbard. Not so much because of any specific ideas, but just because it's so good. How can someone continue to hold LRH in high regard after reading something so well-argued, gracefully written, and intellectually honest? Hubbard often hides his poor thinking in gibberish. (He's not unique in this.) Plato, though, is crystal clear without sacrificing any of the complexities of what he's writing about. And the dialogues show real thinking in action, not the absolutist dictates of Hubbard. Plato is seduction; Hubbard is rape.
  16. NoName

    NoName A Girl Has No Name

    Yeah, I'm interested. Finally a topic I'd be able to explain to my in friend :D
  17. Book VI and VII of the Republic.

    Book VI is the divided lines, Book VII is the Alleghory of the Cave.

    Can you imagine returning to Scientology after that?

    The Anabaptist Jacques
  18. NoName

    NoName A Girl Has No Name

    Even my in friend agreed with me when I called the book tedious, disjointed, and painful to read.


    That's the only "Win" I can write up for reading Dianetics.
  19. Plato has lasted for 2,500 years because of his beauty of thought and style.

    The Anabaptist Jacques
  20. NoName

    NoName A Girl Has No Name

    I started explaining some very basic things about the divided line. I told him that even if his initial reaction to it is like mine (hard to comprehend, hard to believe) that it's the sort of thing that I couldn't let go of until I started to understand.

    I didn't even remember the cave until you brought it up. That's fucking brilliant! I will definitely use that one.

    As an aside, read the book (don't watch the movie) Bridge on the River Kwai. And pay particular attention to what the survivor offers as an explanation to the engineer's behavior at the end. The moral of the story is, don't get attached to a bridge built for a wrong reason.

    Now who can read that an stay in?

    Time to blow up a fucking bridge!


Share This Page