By Jeff Jacobsen more
1992
Source:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/05dcddaa17aab0e6
THE HUBBARD IS BARE
by Jeff Jacobsen
PO Box 3541
Scottsdale, AZ 85271
Copyright 1992 by Jeff Jacobsen
may be reprinted so long as it is kept in its entirety and not
edited.
Introduction
Review of Hubbard's Theories
The Murky State of Clear
Problems with the Engram Theory
Science and Dianetics
Hubbard's Sources
The Ideal Dianetics Society
Conclusion
For Further Reading
PROBLEMS WITH THE ENGRAM THEORY
1. CONDITIONING
Conditioning is an alternative explanation of people's
behavior to Hubbard's engram theory. I wondered why Hubbard
argued that there was no such thing as conditioning35
until I realized that if conditioning exists, then many
activities attributed to engrams could more rationally be
attributed to conditioning, and thus, people could receive help
elsewhere than from dianetics.
Hubbard even unwittingly provides a good example of
conditioning himself. A small fish in shallow, stale waters is
bumped and hurt by a larger fish trying to eat him. The small
fish got an engram from this occurrence (pain and momentary
unconsciousness being present). The small fish is attacked
again later in a quite similar manner, and the first engram is
"keyed in", thus reinforcing the first engram. From then on,
whenever the fish enters stale, shallow waters, he panics and
heads elsewhere, even when there is no danger present.36
This is very similar to Pavlov's experiments with dogs who
drooled at the sound of a bell that normally rang only when food
was provided. Yet Hubbard claims that Pavlov's dogs "might be
trained to do this or that. But it was not conditioning. The
dogs went mad because they were given engrams."37 From
Hubbard's own example of the fish, we can see that some things
described as engrams can in fact be better attributed to
conditioning. The fish story could work just as well without
pain and unconsciousness even being present, thus negating
engrams. Were we to continue following the fish around, he may
at a later time figure out that stale, shallow waters do not
always include dangers, and thus may return to those areas to
feed. Conditioning can thus be unlearned, whereas engrams
remain until audited out.
This is much more than a game of semantics. Conditioning
is a learned pattern of responsive behavior acquired from
repetitive stimulation of a certain type. Pavlov's dogs learned
that whenever they heard a bell that food became accessible to
them. They became accustomed to anticipating food at the sound
of the bell, so naturally they salivated at the sound of the
bell after a time, even when food did not always thereafter
accompany the sound (this works with humans, also). Hubbard's
engram theory applied to this case cannot account for such
behavior, since there was no pain or unconsciousness present
during these experiences, and thus no engrams were created.
Conditioning is a danger to Hubbard's engram theory because it
is an alternative explanation for certain behaviors. The fish
in Hubbard's above example need not have been knocked
unconscious or even been in pain to learn to avoid certain areas
where it regularly came in contact with an enemy. Pavlov's dogs
did not have engrams that made them salivate. Where engrams
don't exist, there is no need for dianetics.
Habits are also caused by engrams, according to Hubbard.
Habits "can only be changed by those things which change
engrams."38 Habits may be
considered a simple form of conditioning where a person
unconsciously trains him or herself to perform a certain
activity at certain times. A girl, for example, may twirl her
hair when she gets nervous. A grownup might bite his nails when
he is under stress. If habits are engramic, as Hubbard states,
then the only way to stop a habit would be through dianetic
auditing. But certainly common sense and life experience teach
that this is not the case at all. The girl generally outgrows
her hair twirling, and the man can train himself not to bite his
nails. There is no need for the engram theory to explain
habits, and in fact the engram theory is weakened by the
constant experience of people stopping habits without dianetic
auditing.
2. THE INTELLIGENT MORON
The reactive mind, says Hubbard, is moronic. It considers
everything in an engram to be identical to everything else in
the engram. "Recall that the reactive mind can think only on
this equation - A=A=A, where the three A's may be respectively a
horse, a swear word, and the verb to spit. Spitting is the same
as horses is the same as God."39
Remember this example, where the reactive mind cannot
differentiate between a verb, an animal, the deity, and an
expletive.
Remember also that the reason engrams cause problems is
that they replay past memories where someone is stating
something, and then the reactive mind literally interprets the
statement and causes the person to act on that statement. I
have previously mentioned the example of a child whose engram
stated "You've got to take it." This child grew up to be a
kleptomaniac because the reactive mind literally interpreted
this statement in the engram, although it was actually the
father yelling at the mother while raping her.
But there is a contradiction here. On the one hand,
Hubbard states that the reactive mind thinks in identities,
A=A=A. On the other hand, the reactive mind understands a most
complex concept unique to man, language. In order to understand
language, you must be able to differentiate between sounds, such
as "ch" and "th". You must be able to differentiate between
verbs and nouns. As anyone who has learned a second language
can attest, understanding a language is an enormous analytical
challenge, yet this is what is required of the moronic reactive
mind in Hubbard's theory.
Hubbard does not grasp this contradiction at all. He
skirts the issue to some degree, stating for example that you
should never name your son a junior (George, Jr. etc.) since any
engrams with"George" in them will be interpreted by the reactive
mind to apply to the junior when he grows up (although,
surprisingly, Hubbard named his son L. Ron Hubbard, Jr.). "I
hate George", for example, is incorrectly interpreted and
applied to the junior, "though Mother meant Father".40
But one can see in this case that the reactive mind could not
tell one George from another, although it could differentiate
between the "I" sound and the "G" sound, and also understood
which sound was the noun, which the verb, and which the pronoun.
It could not only differentiate the sounds into the three
words, it could comprehend that "I" meant the mother, "hate"
meant dislike intensely, and "George" meant the junior.
Now, let us remember the previous statement of Hubbard
where a horse equals a swear word equals a deity. Consider also
this other example, where "The reactive mind says 'NO!'
Arthritis is a baby is a pig grunt is a prayer to God."41
In this case a pig grunt cannot be differentiated between a
prayer, nor an animate object, for that matter.
According to Hubbard's theories there is a great gulf
between the analytical mind and the reactive mind. They are in
fact in different areas of the body, where the analytical mind
is in the brain and the reactive mind is "cellular". The
analytical mind is said to be a perfect computer, making no
mistakes and able to compute difficult items in split seconds.
The reactive mind is moronic and thinks that everything equals
everything else. If it could be shown that there was really
little difference between the two or that they were so
thoroughly connected that there was essentially no
differentiation between the two, then dianetics theory collapses
because its two major competitive components are revealed as in
fact one. And this in fact is the case:
• As has been shown already,
the reactive mind understands language, which is perhaps the
shining triumph of analytical thinking.
• The reactive mind also makes
decisions. It must decide one of five types of reaction to
an engram that it will command the body to perform.42
• It distinguishes in an engram
between the ally and the enemy, if there are two or more
people present.43
• It chooses which valence, or
which role, to dramatize from the engram.44
• It decides which engram to
restimulate if there is more than one engram with the same
sensual recording being restimulated.
For Hubbard to call the reactive mind moronic, and yet
declare that it can perform all these functions, seems to be
contradictory. Since Hubbard did not seem to perceive this
contradiction, he of course offered no explanation, so I offer
two possible ones that could be presented to try to save the
theory.
1) The reactive mind connects with the analytical mind and
utilizes some of its abilities.
2) The reactive mind is actually a part of the analytical
mind.
Either of these solutions is, however, actually a death
blow to dianetics. The whole point of dianetics is that these
two minds cannot communicate and are completely separate. Dianetic
auditing, where one spends hundreds of hours searching out
memories in the reactive mind, is touted as the only way that
memories in the reactive mind can be transferred to the
analytical mind and erased from the reactive mind. If #1 or #2
above were true, then this roundabout trip into the reactive
mind would not be necessary, since the two minds are already on
speaking terms.
I understand that this point is perhaps hard to follow,
but I have elaborated on it because I believe that if I am
right, then the dianetic theory collapses right at the beginning
of its explanation of how the mind works. If there is no gulf
between the reactive and analytical mind (if this dichotomy even
exists in reality), as dianetics posits, then there is no reason
for dianetics to exist, as there would be no need for auditing.
35 DIANETICS, p.193
36 DIANETICS, pp. 88-9
37 DIANETICS, p.193
38 DIANETICS, p.56
39 DIANETICS, p.243
40 DIANETICS, p.405
41 DIANETICS, p.323
42 DIANETICS, p.197-200
43 DIANETICS, p.463
44 DIANETICS, p.155 |