What's new

Dianetics Question

AnonKat

Crusader
Dianetics Question - Psychosomatic Illness

Posted By SOJOA on WWP


http://forums.whyweprotest.net/291-scientology-discussion/dianetics-question-71180/#post1313819

I found this part and Im really confused.

There is an axiom here which is well not to slight in working a patient:
ANY CHRONIC PSYCHO-SOMATIC ILLNESS HAS AT ITS SOURCE A
SYMPATHY ENGRAM.
And another:
A REACTIVE MIND WILL NOT PERMIT AN INDIVIDUAL TO BE ABERRATED
OR CHRONICALLY PSYCHO-SOMATICALLY ILL UNLESS THE ILLNESS
HAS SURVIVAL VALUE.


What does he mean that an illness has a survival value? Is he claiming that the reactive mind will only cause a psycho somatic illness because its linked to our survival? If thats the case then why does the bridge claim that you can releve yourself of all physical illness?

Before commenting obviously he claims alot and its all crap, acknowledged. I just want to know wtf this means.

Anyone with CoS background?
 
Last edited:

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
One definition from the Technical Dictionary:

SYMPATHY ENGRAM, . . . 2. a sympathy engram would go something like this: A small boy, much victimized by his parents, is extremely ill. His grandmother attends him and while he is delirious soothes him and tells him she will take care of him, that she will stay right there until he is well. This puts a high “survival” value on being sick. He does not feel safe around his parents; he wants his grandmother present (she is a winning valence because she orders the parents around), and he now has an engram. (DMSMH, p. 107)

"Valence" here means something like an identity that someone can assume.
An "engram" is a mental recording of an incident containing pain and "unconsciousness" (meaning reduced analytical thinking ability; it doesn't have to be full unconsciousness in the usual sense), and a real or fancied threat to survival.

-----

I'm only quoting, not endorsing!

Paul
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
First of all, seeking to derive sense from this sort of stuff is a dodgy endeavour in that it means, in part, buying into the whole delusion.

What is meant here is that the psychosomatic illness adds value to the survival of the aberrated individual. For example, an asthmatic may be able to derive greater consideration because of the illness - more attention from parents, sympathy from friends, as well as an excuse to avoid unpleasant physical exertion. Because the individual is aberrated due to the reactive mind being present and "in charge", they don't realise that the asthma condition is a part of "the trap" which prevents their inner thetan from realising its full potential. Instead, it supports the reactive mind's actions of inhibiting the release of this potential which, of course, Scientology will help with.

Giant rolling bollocks, for sure.
 

AnonKat

Crusader
One definition from the Technical Dictionary:

SYMPATHY ENGRAM, . . . 2. a sympathy engram would go something like this: A small boy, much victimized by his parents, is extremely ill. His grandmother attends him and while he is delirious soothes him and tells him she will take care of him, that she will stay right there until he is well. This puts a high “survival” value on being sick. He does not feel safe around his parents; he wants his grandmother present (she is a winning valence because she orders the parents around), and he now has an engram. (DMSMH, p. 107)

"Valence" here means something like an identity that someone can assume.
An "engram" is a mental recording of an incident containing pain and "unconsciousness" (meaning reduced analytical thinking ability; it doesn't have to be full unconsciousness in the usual sense), and a real or fancied threat to survival.

-----

I'm only quoting, not endorsing!

Paul

http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/what-is-psychosomatic-illness

Psychosomatic means that a physical condition is caused or greatly influenced by psychological factors. The psychosomatic approach to health views illness as a form of communication between the conscious and the unconscious mind through the body. The psychosomatic approach sees Illness as a person’s way of adapting to an environment. It is a message that communicates a need for change. However, very few people interpret their illness as a form of communication or symptom of a deeper problem that needs to be dealt with. The most common solution today is to ignore the message and try to get rid of the symptoms.

Examples of psychosomatic illness include:

1. Illness as a socially accepted way of avoiding something unpleasant.

2. Illness as a subconscious mechanism of defense. There are many situations that people would rather avoid rather than deal with.

3. Illness as a cry for love, attention and warmth. When people get sick, they get attention, love and warmth from family members or friends.

4. Illness that signals a purpose crisis. There is a point in time when people begin to ask the question - What is the purpose of my life? Unable to answer this question, some people turn their illness into their purpose in life. Everything begins to revolve around it.

Hubbard did read up on the Psychology of Psychosomatic Illness LOOK at this TECHNIQUE. Bodythetans much. And your clip paul to take the problem and place it above your head. Below you etc. But with everything Hubbard confined it and discouraged people to question the how and why of his techniques.

One of the techniques that can be used when working with psychosomatic illness is to ask the person to imagine his/her problem. See if he/she can give that problem color, shape or movement. If the problem would look like something, what would it look like? Place it in a chair in front of you and ask the illness the following questions: What is it that you want to communicate to me? What is the point of my problem?

Listen to yourself without any judgment and notice the first thing that comes to your mind. What is it trying to communicate to you? Do not censor your answers.

When I asked one of my clients to place the problem in a chair, after a few minutes she had her eyes wide open. She saw her family member. She quickly confessed that her family member is a source of stress in her life, and that her health problem was a way to deal with this stress.

WOW LOOK The Basis premisses of PTS , SP and PTS is in the Above answer.
 

AnonKat

Crusader
DMSMH Book Three, Chapter 9, Part 2. In the 2007 English version it's on page 420.

Paul

Paul can you dig up your Youtube clip I can't find it. :) You know picture the problem above your head and such. :)

One of the techniques that can be used when working with psychosomatic illness is to ask the person to imagine his/her problem. See if he/she can give that problem color, shape or movement. If the problem would look like something, what would it look like? Place it in a chair in front of you and ask the illness the following questions: What is it that you want to communicate to me? What is the point of my problem?
 

programmer_guy

True Ex-Scientologist
There has been a lot of study in the WOG world about psychosomatic disorders but to equate this subject with the notion of engrams as described in DMSMH is in IMO going too far.

This notion of "engrams" (recording memories while totally knocked out) was effectively refuted in a study done a long time ago.

http://www.spaink.net/cos/essays/engrams.html
 

AnonKat

Crusader
There has been a lot of study in the WOG world about psychosomatic disorders but to equate this subject with the notion of engrams as described in DMSMH is in IMO going too far.

This notion of "engrams" (recording memories while totally knocked out) was effectively refuted in a study done a long time ago.

http://www.spaink.net/cos/essays/engrams.html


But what about not being knocked out ? I know the definition of being unconscience is well You can go through life sleeping

In Dianetics and Scientology, an engram is defined as "a mental image picture which is a recording of an experience containing pain, unconsciousness and a real or fancied threat to survival. It is a recording in the reactive mind of something which actually happened to an individual in the past and which contained pain and unconsciousness ... It must, by definition, have impact or injury as part of its content. These engrams are a complete recording, down to the last accurate detail, of every perception present in a moment of partial or full unconsciousness." [1]

The term engram was coined in 1904 by the German scholar Richard Semon,[2] who defined it as a "stimulus impression" which could be reactivated by the recurrence of "the energetic conditions which ruled at the generation of the engram."[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engram_(Dianetics)
 
Last edited:

AnonKat

Crusader
Dianetics categorizes negative experiences into "engrams", "secondaries", and "locks".

Have you read DMSMH? If you haven't then I suggest that you do so.

Well I can I did read parts of it on an online PDF with the whole book. Mostly to verify claims made.

Can you for this thread the give definitions of those 3 thinbgs you mentioned
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
This notion of "engrams" (recording memories while totally knocked out) was effectively refuted in a study done a long time ago.

http://www.spaink.net/cos/essays/engrams.html

No it wasn't at all. Read the experiment. One person was rendered unconscious, and pain was administered, and a 35-word text was read to him. The text of the passage was not subsequently recovered. From the summary: "It describes an experiment in which a passage selected from a physics text was read to a subject placed in an unconscious state by administration of sodium pentothal. During a period of almost six months, dianetic auditors were unable to recover the passage. Thus, the engram hypothesis was not substantiated by this experiment."

Now, I'm not a particular supporter of Hubbard, or Dianetics. But to generalize this one experiment into some kind of blanket "No person who is unconscious records what happens — sounds, sensations, pains, etc. — to him on any level" is not justified, in my opinion.

Paul
 

programmer_guy

True Ex-Scientologist
No it wasn't at all. Read the experiment. One person was rendered unconscious, and pain was administered, and a 35-word text was read to him. The text of the passage was not subsequently recovered. From the summary: "It describes an experiment in which a passage selected from a physics text was read to a subject placed in an unconscious state by administration of sodium pentothal. During a period of almost six months, dianetic auditors were unable to recover the passage. Thus, the engram hypothesis was not substantiated by this experiment."

Now, I'm not a particular supporter of Hubbard, or Dianetics. But to generalize this one experiment into some kind of blanket "No person who is unconscious records what happens — sounds, sensations, pains, etc. — to him on any level" is not justified, in my opinion.

Paul

That study did make a valid point as far as whether anyone was interested enough to investigate further.

Please provide a link to scientific studies on this that prove otherwise.
I will read them.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
But to generalize this one experiment into some kind of blanket "No person who is unconscious records what happens — sounds, sensations, pains, etc. — to him on any level" is not justified, in my opinion.

Paul

The point is that Ron's 'Engram Theory' says that *all* unconscious input is recorded. All that's necessary to refute that is one example where it's not. That's not a generalization.

If the theory was that 'sometimes unconscious input is recorded', it wouldn't be enough to show one case where it was not.

Oh, and part 2 of Ron's 'Theory' is that Dianetics Auditing can *retrieve* such 'engrams'. So, even retrieval by other means wouldn't support Ron.

Zinj
 

Mystic

Crusader

:hysterical: This is just typical Hubbard spew. It doesn't have any meaning beyond that. You can sit around all day and invent "meanings" to it. So what? Then all you've done is some of your own spew. When you work away at "understanding" it and finally say, "Oh, now I understand what he's saying," Voila! You've gone the exact step intended by this freak Hubbard entity, self implantation.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
:hysterical: This is just typical Hubbard spew. It doesn't have any meaning beyond that. You can sit around all day and invent "meanings" to it. So what? Then all you've done is some of your own spew.

I think that's called 'Dub In' and, when faced with a mystery sandwich, is necessary to give it any calories.

Zinj
 

AnonKat

Crusader
The point is that Ron's 'Engram Theory' says that *all* unconscious input is recorded. All that's necessary to refute that is one example where it's not. That's not a generalization.

If the theory was that 'sometimes unconscious input is recorded', it wouldn't be enough to show one case where it was not.

Oh, and part 2 of Ron's 'Theory' is that Dianetics Auditing can *retrieve* such 'engrams'. So, even retrieval by other means wouldn't support Ron.

Zinj

I know I know,. It is not that back than psychology (wich he used too) had all the answers. It is not an exact Sciense and neither is Scientology FAR FROM IT

It's a Theory and it seems to work for some people. I am actually reading up at psychology from around that time or earlier for that purpose
 
Top