counter create hit DIANETICS: THE ORIGINAL THESIS (FILIPINO) (English and Finnish Edition) - Download Free eBook
Ads Banner
Hot Best Seller

DIANETICS: THE ORIGINAL THESIS (FILIPINO) (English and Finnish Edition)

Availability: Ready to download

Hard to Find book


Compare
Ads Banner

Hard to Find book

30 review for DIANETICS: THE ORIGINAL THESIS (FILIPINO) (English and Finnish Edition)

  1. 5 out of 5

    Collin

    Not only does this book offer nothing scientific, offers nothing but taking Hubbards word that it is all true, but it is also one of the most poorly written works I have ever had the misfortune to read. The style seems designed to be confusing, requiring one read certain paragraphs over and over and over again in the hopes of understanding. He shifted the definitions of some words, but doesn't tell you that he did so until well into the work, so you have to go back and read it all over again in t Not only does this book offer nothing scientific, offers nothing but taking Hubbards word that it is all true, but it is also one of the most poorly written works I have ever had the misfortune to read. The style seems designed to be confusing, requiring one read certain paragraphs over and over and over again in the hopes of understanding. He shifted the definitions of some words, but doesn't tell you that he did so until well into the work, so you have to go back and read it all over again in the context in which he intended. This book is short. Really short. But there were some late nights I was reading this where I was stuck on one paragraph, and one night in particular where, in my frustration, screamed, "What are you trying to tell me you dead bastard?!" I wish I was making that up. No doubt the Scientologists who might read this will figure me to be just some ignorant wog who couldn't handle the might that is LRH's word. Or that I'm some Psych trying to cause trouble. I would like to make these points, then: His later books, including ones that were even shorter than *this*, were much easier to read. There's just as much bullshit, but it's bullshit one can understand. And also, I would ask you this question: how much of the first book is kept in later readings? Like, for instance, when you get to A Handbook for Preclears? When engrams turn to facsimiles? From your mental problems not being your fault to totally being your fault? What? It changed?! Then why are you told to buy Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health when in the end virtually nothing is kept? Why not compile a new book with all the accurate information? Think on it.

  2. 4 out of 5

    Chris Shank

    I read this book in conjunction with interviews I am conducting for Awakenings: Felt Benefit In Personal Values (www.awakeningsproject.wix.com/awakenings). In addition to reading Original Thesis, I have met with staff at a Scientology church, have undergone an Oxford Capacity Assessment (“Free Personality Test”) at their site, and I look forward to interviewing a few Scientologists for my research soon. First, let me establish something. There is no denying that Hubbard was a genius. I know he’s I read this book in conjunction with interviews I am conducting for Awakenings: Felt Benefit In Personal Values (www.awakeningsproject.wix.com/awakenings). In addition to reading Original Thesis, I have met with staff at a Scientology church, have undergone an Oxford Capacity Assessment (“Free Personality Test”) at their site, and I look forward to interviewing a few Scientologists for my research soon. First, let me establish something. There is no denying that Hubbard was a genius. I know he’s derided by many who don’t take his religion or methodology seriously, and vilified by those who consider his ideas a grave threat against humankind or a specific belief system, but that doesn’t discount the fact that his prodigious literary output and complex ideology are tremendously orchestrated and deeply ramified into a very well thought-out system. I have no doubt he was an extremely informed person, and he wrote intelligently and assiduously in order for people to take him seriously as a religious Czar. He desperately wanted people to think of his work as scientific, though it mostly strikes one as innovative, and I believe that it was his innovation that brought him his enormous success. He clearly created more than he relayed, and if his Scientology is scientific—in the sense of being verified by other leading scientists or presenting hypotheses that are testable for definite verification—then science is in some serious trouble. But as it stands, I think Hubbard did the right thing in declaring his Scientology—a label probably intended to evoke respect for dispassionate research and reportage, which it is not—a ‘religion.’ Religions require faith, and Scientology most certainly requires a LOT of faith, but religion does something very specific that science doesn’t do: it speaks to what a person wants, and provides a sense of direction and meaning for one’s life that is based on an emotional connection with the content of that faith. Science more closely deals with impersonal data, calculation, and ‘detached’ intellection; religion more closely deals with passion, instinct, and volition. I personally think that both science and religion are pursuits of every human being in varying degrees, though many systems of behavior or thought often represent more one function than the other; therefore both are legit. So, Scientology as a religion is not a bad thing in all cases, although the idea of a ‘new religion’ is humorous in most people’s mind as an absurdity or an anachronism. I can’t really speak to the type of person Hubbard was because I haven’t done enough research—even though he might strike one as a slime-ball in his interviews, and I haven’t interacted enough with his metaphysics which account for the origin and destination of life, though I generally distrust its extremes; but I do think the practical results of his Dianetics seems to have done a lot of good for many, and has been reported to have transformed individuals and communities for the better (http://www.scientology.org/how-we-hel...). For all its oddities and possible snares for authority-seeking types of individuals, its results are still impressive, considering alone the massive amount of followers it has attained over the years. Hubbard cooked up something novel, expansive, and fully planned to last. It’s clearly a knock-off of psychoanalysis with a few new tricks and a religion’s-worth of cleverly minted and repurposed terms, but it looks like something different on the surface, and for those who don’t know yet what they believe in, it certainly offers something substantial. You’ll sooner reach the bottom of most world religions combined, with regard to their central texts, than you will the total, staggering volume of Hubbard’s works alone which include written and audio recordings on a wide range of topics including literacy, mental health, personality assessment, metaphysics, business administration, and addiction. Reading through his works would truly amount to a lifetime reading plan for most people, which introduces a fairly serious risk to the naïve in commencing the perpetual chain of obligatory reading material which is sure to end in an extremely provincial understanding of the world through the exclusivity of reading habits that is required to commit to finish Hubbard’s nearly interminable opus. In other words, if someone starts down that road and later decides it’s not the right path, they may find it’s a long way back; so I imagine most would rather just keep their head down and keep reading, whether it still seems cogent or not—it’s better than starting over. Dianetics [Dia—“through”, nous—“soul”]: The Original Thesis begins with the primary axioms on which Hubbard founded his practices. The first axiom, which is the primary drive of humanity, is: “Survive!” This he calls the “Dynamic” which is divided into multiple expressions, or “dynamics”, which include self, one’s life-partner and family, one’s social groups, the extended community/nation/world; and in later books he further includes non-human categories of animal, the physical world, the spiritual world, and finally, infinity. Hubbard teaches that for each person these drives to survive and expand the support network for one’s survival derail when attempting to navigate traumatic experiences which create an unhealthy dependence on the ‘reactive mind’, and so the original Dynamic must be reinstated by a rigorous and guided process of placing the more highly evolved and sophisticated analytical mind back in charge through a psycho-therapeutic operation called auditing. Auditing is the cooperative effort of an auditor and a participant to go back (‘return’) to birth (‘the basic’) and prenatal memories to neutralize the harmful and unconscious reactions to negative memories (‘engrams’) in the ‘reactive mind’. These engrams are memories of dangers which continue to influence an individual, but which no longer represent real threats. The primary goal of auditing is to prompt the ‘pre-clear’ (the participant who cannot access clear analytical reasoning) to remember trauma in the womb and to bring them to desensitize themselves to those experiences through overexposure. “What,” might you ask, “could be a prenatal memory that is traumatic?” Well, that would be the attempted abortions that nearly every baby boomer has experienced, according to Hubbard. To be fair, he does state that there may be other postpartum trauma that impairs an adult and causes ‘dramatizations’ or outbursts which hamstring their functions, health, and happiness in later life; but he is very adamant on the point that the primary engrams to be disarmed are those caused by prenatal abortion attempts and birth itself. The auditing process is an intense and closely guided therapy session of reactivating those fetal memories in order to neutralize them. He defends the possibility of being able to consciously return to fetal memories by reasoning that the human brain is recording events and storing experiential data at all stages of its development, even during its unconscious moments. It seems logical that everything sensed by the brain is at least partially recorded in life, but the few objections I have to his ideology would be, 1) a baby’s brain is still developing and continues to do so into adulthood along with its sensory, mnemonic, and interpretive functioning which serves and constructs a sense of what we call ‘consciousness’ and can’t be expected to construct meaning and record data to fit into discrete categories that can be sequentially accessed later for clear interpretation by an individual or an auditor, 2) a baby’s brain is as selective about what it records and how it records as is the adult’s, so it seems nonsense to suppose it indiscriminately records everything that happens to it in anything but shorthand or extremely fragmented hieroglyphics suitable to early stage of growth, 3) if conscious returns to unconscious impressions were always possible, it would imply that all sensory recordings on the physical plane during an adult’s sleep could be later reconstructed just as easily, like air currents or sounds during REM cycles, and 4) if conscious returns to birth and pre-birth could be reached, why wouldn’t reaching them be an experience far more common than it seems to be now? If Hubbard is right, then everyone who existed before 1950 should be categorized as a pre-clear, which is roughly a billion-billion people (give or take a few billion Neolithic homo sapiens) who were intellectually impaired and lost in the non-Hubbardian darkness. I do tend to give some credence to what I consider to be scientifically conducted experiments and peer-reviewed research in recreating alleged birth trauma and helping individuals to cope through exposure to what is believed to be perinatal memory of sorts (see the work of Stanislav Grof and Christopher Bache). Probably this amounts to more of a sympathy and admiration for the courage to both develop beta therapeutic techniques which might be helpful to people, and to stand with their new ideas against the tsunami of scientific evidence that might seem at times to fly in their face. However, though the concepts of Dianetics intrigue me, I think it is at bottom mostly neologistic craftiness and shifty formalism. But still, I don’t think Scientology is all bad, or better yet, I don’t believe it is all bad for all people. It is my belief that Hubbard to some extent probably had the good of others in mind. Reading over his principles and methods I get the feeling he may have been working miracles among the disturbed, and who knows, his most faithful adherents may have been the breeding grounds for psychopathy, and I don’t mean that in a hateful way. Even his subtle reminders throughout his works that those who have been ‘cleared’ of mental ‘aberration’ would no longer be obsessively introverted (“introversion is not natural nor is it necessary to the creation of anything”) might be a signal that his focus was on the compulsive type whom he probably even had to ward off from an over-interest in even his own ideas (“so long as he is interested in his own reactive mind [one of the fundamental principles of Dianetics and auditing], he has engrams [corrupted thought]”). All decriers of what is widely considered eccentric religious belief like Scientology have to ask themselves if they are sincerely ready to know what the world would be like without religion. If all religions of the world were turned upside-down and shaken, what neuroses/psychoses would fall back into general society without the guardrails and/or systematic suppression of superstition, shaming dogma, unquestioned authority, and congregational pressure to conform? Speaking for myself, I’d be afraid of what would shake out. Especially out of the Scientology domain. And yet, I truly hope that those who are ready to become “prey to a freedom that is no longer chained-up” would find the courage they need to break out. So, it seems to me that there is some value in Dianetics as a self-help tool. Even coming to terms with shock of the ‘exile’ of existence in general—through the emotional bath of a phantasmagoric and semi-hypnotic, free-associative exploration of the themes of pain, birth, thought, memory, dreams, and primal reflexes through the contrived rigors of auditing—appears to be beneficial to some degree, and quite possibly the whole success of Dianetics hangs on this the catharsis and relational support of auditing. Considering for a moment the sole impact of the first axiom of Dianetics which lays out one’s primal and primary function of “Survive!”, Dianetics initially appears valid; and moving a few steps further it continues to ring true in explanations about how the survival of self grows more ‘dynamic’, healthy, and happy when it includes the welfare and survival of others and one’s environment. This survival of self and others is the basic message of Scientologists’ oft-distributed book, The Way To Happiness by Hubbard, which is an extremely simplistic, bordering-on-banal, code of ethics that monotonously pecks into one’s head the message: “Your survival and wellbeing must include the survival and wellbeing of others or you’re not going to thrive.” Who can argue that these seem positive and sensible messages for our world? Of course, good ideas often are the Trojan Horses for incubating bad ideas, but that’s sort-of-but-maybe-not-really beside the point. I realize I am attempting to sum up a religion, and it must be remembered that I only read Dianetics: The Original Thesis containing Hubbard’s tiny germ of original thought which I understand was greatly revised, expanded, complicated, tangled, transmogrified, and ruptured into Dianetics: The Modern Science Of Mental Health. Well anyway, for what it’s worth, Dianetics at its rudimentary core, distinct from its later expressions and Scientology framework, gets my vote to stay around as long as it can. Until it ruins some poor bastard. In which case, thumbs down. And also (this is probably as good a time as any to say this) the film The Master, which intentionally parallels the life of L. Ron Hubbard, is brilliant. R.I.P. Philip Seymour Hoffman. Oh, and Hubbard too.

  3. 4 out of 5

    Eric

    Couldn't finish the book because it was entirely too boring. I don't know how scientologists do it...

  4. 5 out of 5

    Håvard Bamle

    Dianetics is admittedly a pragmatic theory of health, based only on workable axioms... it is an alternative science. The seductive theory is supporter by heaps of anecdotal evidence. But published in 1950 by a single author - a science fiction writer - there is a lot that doesn't hold up to any established science, lacking the scientific principles of ockhams razor and retestability. The axioms it claims are also highly dubious. It is utterly speculative, and though there could be significant co Dianetics is admittedly a pragmatic theory of health, based only on workable axioms... it is an alternative science. The seductive theory is supporter by heaps of anecdotal evidence. But published in 1950 by a single author - a science fiction writer - there is a lot that doesn't hold up to any established science, lacking the scientific principles of ockhams razor and retestability. The axioms it claims are also highly dubious. It is utterly speculative, and though there could be significant correlation, there is no causality in its therapeutic effects; if there is, it is placeboic. Dianetics is a self-sustaining ecosystem of ideas, each providing evidence for the other in a circle. Even "the original thesis" cannot be stated without reference to several other branches within the dianetics family.

  5. 5 out of 5

    Kiersten West boro

    Lol My brain is melting out of my ears Is there an engram for that?

  6. 5 out of 5

    AA

    Hubbard's experience as a science fiction writer is apparent in designing a belief system as documented in The Dynamics of Life. While he includes many technical/sciencey sounding terms and concepts, they're really just a series of claims and an invented system that isn't backed up by peer reviewed research as true science would. Time after time he makes bold claims but offers no verifiable evidence supporting them outside of the examples at the end of the book which can't really be confirmed wi Hubbard's experience as a science fiction writer is apparent in designing a belief system as documented in The Dynamics of Life. While he includes many technical/sciencey sounding terms and concepts, they're really just a series of claims and an invented system that isn't backed up by peer reviewed research as true science would. Time after time he makes bold claims but offers no verifiable evidence supporting them outside of the examples at the end of the book which can't really be confirmed without talking with a number of parties that are conveniently not available to cross exam. One claim is that a child has formed his/her general purpose by age 2. This is highly unlikely since he/she has no education and little experience with the world. Most kids change what they want to be when they grow up a number of times. Another claim references that some people do not dream​. This is simply untrue. Everyone dreams whether they remember it or not. Without REM sleep a person couldn’t store information or process the events of a day. This shows his ignorance of the stages of sleep and what happens with brain waves at those stages. The driving theory of the book is the claim that "engrams" occur at pivotal painful moments in life and are stored in the "reactive mind." These are allegedly the source of most problems and can only be removed by "auditing." He essentially fabricates a concept to explain memories and emotional pain which he says are tied to physical pain. He claims that everyone has a birth or pre-natal "basic engram" which must be reached by an auditor to eventually "clear" the person. ​This seems to run counter to his basic claim that a person's drive in everything is to Survive. How can there be a birth "engram" if birth is necessary for survival? The very act of birth is the essential first step to Survive. A logical fallacy in the system of auditing, if accepted at face value, is that he says the auditor can't have the same "engram" that the person they're auditing has or it would be restimulated in them and they would become more and more aberated and go crazy. Since everyone allegedly has a birth and/or prenatal "engram," how could anyone ever clear their birth "engram?" It would set off a recursive loop of stimulating the "engram" in the auditor and they wouldn't be able to help the other person. If Hubbard was the first auditor, who cleared his "engrams?" As I understand from the book, a person can't clear their own "engrams;" they need an auditor. His examples of the "reactive mind" storing data about attempted abortions while in utero are very far fetched. Especially since an unborn baby does not yet know language, there would be nothing meaningful that could be processed from any sounds heard. He claims that in one example the unborn baby was stabbed 18 times with an orange wood stick at 3 months after conception which was allegedly discovered during "auditing." The baby would die or be permanently disfigured and maimed. Even an adult would be severely injured. The examples he includes like this are so far fetched as to discredit the concept and reveal it as nothing more than a false belief system. ​He claims that “abortion attempts are extremely common.” When he released the book, it was 1948 at the beginning of the post war baby boom with enormous population growth. This is strong evidence that abortion attempts were not "extremely common." This also doesn't take into account the much more conservative morals of the 1940s & 1950s and the stigma associated with abortion. ​Before Hubbard created "auditing" it wouldn’t have been possible for people to get rid of "engrams" and according to him they should have become more and more "aberrated." This cannot be categorically stated for all of humanity. Many people throughout history lived ​fulfilled, productive lives before he ever came up with the theory. For those who have allegedly been helped by auditing, one thought is that​ it may seem helpful to the person by giving them reasons to tie their troubles in life back to an event, person, or situation whether it actually occurred or not. Think of the concept of the movie Inception. A skilled persuader could convince someone that something happened whether it really did or not. Once the person latches on to the alleged event, it could allow them to resolve why they’ve had a particular difficulty and lay blame on it. It doesn’t mean it actually occurred. If the person believes it occurred, perhaps that could be enough. Stylistically, the writing is very tedious and was a chore to get through the book. The numerous footnotes defining terms were distracting as well. The book masquerades as a way to help people but seems to be nothing more than a product of the author's imagination. I would only recommend reading it if you are interested in a study of how to create a belief system. This could possibly be helpful in writing science fiction/fantasy to establish how people in the fictional world believe and operate.

  7. 5 out of 5

    Janice

    This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. First of all, I want to say it was very hard to give it a 2 star review. Considering the note at the beginning basically came across as if you don't understand something it is because you failed to understand or look up the words bothered me. (I mean, there are ideas out there that no amount of vocabulary can help us understand.) However, I did power through to the end and I made a personal rule that 1 stars would be reserved for books I could not finish. The book is very very repetitive. In addi First of all, I want to say it was very hard to give it a 2 star review. Considering the note at the beginning basically came across as if you don't understand something it is because you failed to understand or look up the words bothered me. (I mean, there are ideas out there that no amount of vocabulary can help us understand.) However, I did power through to the end and I made a personal rule that 1 stars would be reserved for books I could not finish. The book is very very repetitive. In addition, he defined multiple common words, but only did so in the glossary. So, in the instances where context indicated he may be using an uncommon definition, one would have to go to the back of the book. There were times I felt like I could read the same paragraph multiple times and still not understand what he said (even if I knew all the words). Maybe the intro made me start in a poor mood because I did not appreciate being told I was too stupid to look up words (when you feel the need to define very common words). Maybe it was the fact that they said to presume attempted abortions in everyone of the "current" generation, which I was appalled at. Going into anything with assumptions is going to taint the experience and how you view it. It is definitely not scientific, including no references. And before anyone says it was self help book, I have read many of those that still contain references to the relevant studies or texts. That said if you are curious about the belief systems based on his works and have a strong will it can be done. I plan to power through the other two books in this series out of my love for studying other beliefs more than anything else.

  8. 5 out of 5

    Peach Von Cat

    While a thin book with large print, it took me 3 entire months to clumsy my way through the round-a-bout arguments. Sentences repeated themselves in new words throughout the book and some chapters could have stood to be omitted entirely. The first hint that this would be, what I like to call a “try hard book”, was the note in the beginning on “how to read this book”. I give it three stars purely for creativity. The idea behind two entirely different minds and the linking of conditioned behaviors While a thin book with large print, it took me 3 entire months to clumsy my way through the round-a-bout arguments. Sentences repeated themselves in new words throughout the book and some chapters could have stood to be omitted entirely. The first hint that this would be, what I like to call a “try hard book”, was the note in the beginning on “how to read this book”. I give it three stars purely for creativity. The idea behind two entirely different minds and the linking of conditioned behaviors from experiences actually comes together in a way that, honestly, does sound appealing. Dianetics, from what I could ascertain from the intro, seems to be anti mental health, anti-gay, and in some more hidden ways anti-women. Essentially anything that isn’t considered an inherent property. I also found it incredibly interesting that experiences like failed abortions could impact individuals. Being 2018, it did take me a moment to understand what the social implications of that being included in this book were, so I found it to be very interesting.

  9. 4 out of 5

    Alex Pinnock

    I understand that this book took a lot of work as far as restoration was concerned and for that I sincerely thank the publishers. Dianetics the original thesis is a brief introduction into the study or Dianetics, the book itself is rather short and can be read in less than 2 hours. The book covers the primary axioms and the dynamic principle of existence in addition to engrams, auditing and Hubbard's first description of the clear. I would recommend this book for anybody studying Dianetics who w I understand that this book took a lot of work as far as restoration was concerned and for that I sincerely thank the publishers. Dianetics the original thesis is a brief introduction into the study or Dianetics, the book itself is rather short and can be read in less than 2 hours. The book covers the primary axioms and the dynamic principle of existence in addition to engrams, auditing and Hubbard's first description of the clear. I would recommend this book for anybody studying Dianetics who wants a thorough overview of the subject. A great precursor to the more detailed and comprehensive "Dianetics".

  10. 5 out of 5

    Grace Hoover

    Reading through this book was a struggle, but interesting in that the red flags pointing to cult like behavior control are clearly written in the text. I'm thankful I was able to read it by borrowing it so that I didn't have to put one penny into the bank account of an organization that has so many deep rooted issues. If you want to look into the texts of Scientology this book is a good example of their beliefs. Other than that it's not worth reading as it doesn't say anything of value and prete Reading through this book was a struggle, but interesting in that the red flags pointing to cult like behavior control are clearly written in the text. I'm thankful I was able to read it by borrowing it so that I didn't have to put one penny into the bank account of an organization that has so many deep rooted issues. If you want to look into the texts of Scientology this book is a good example of their beliefs. Other than that it's not worth reading as it doesn't say anything of value and pretends to be a scientific book with no sources.

  11. 5 out of 5

    Doug Wolf

    I saw commercials on TV for this book for decades, one day, I decided to dive in. On the surface, Hubbard makes a compelling argument for his self help method, but, it doesn't take long before it starts feeling a little creepy in the "come join my cult" sort of way, and this was before I learned of the "church" of scientology. Then it got mega creepy.

  12. 4 out of 5

    Nate Horn

    This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. This book is one of Hubbard greatest works. The Original Thesis has great things that some of his other books have but was organized in a better way. Very easy to read and hard to put down. His original discoveries in Dianetics were profound.

  13. 4 out of 5

    Theresa

    One of the worst books I've ever started - I did not finish it! Only bought it because I was strongarmed into doing so by a brainwashed cult member in 1975.

  14. 4 out of 5

    Radmila Mijovic

    The stuff I read...🙄

  15. 4 out of 5

    Nandini Goel

    "The Dynamics of Life" by L. Ron Hubbard provides an introduction to the study of Dianetics. Dianetics is a word coined by the author which can be defined as an exploration into the most fascinating realm on earth - human mind and spirit. The purpose of dianetics to pass man across the abyss of irrational, solely reactive thought and enter him upon a new stage of constructive progression towards the ultimate goal, immortality. (The basic instinct that drives all living organisms is that of survi "The Dynamics of Life" by L. Ron Hubbard provides an introduction to the study of Dianetics. Dianetics is a word coined by the author which can be defined as an exploration into the most fascinating realm on earth - human mind and spirit. The purpose of dianetics to pass man across the abyss of irrational, solely reactive thought and enter him upon a new stage of constructive progression towards the ultimate goal, immortality. (The basic instinct that drives all living organisms is that of survival. Thus, the ultimate goal is immortality and the final defeat is death.) It also works on deleting from the existing mind those physically painful experiences which have resulted in aberration of the analytical mind. The brain is divided into three main sections by the author, namely, physio-animal section, analytical mind and the reactive mind. The physio-animal section contains the motor controls, the sub brains and the physical nervous system in general. It controls all voluntary and involuntary muscles. It controls all metabolic activities of various parts of the body. Analytical mind is a sort of analyser in animals. Reactive mind lies between the physio-animal mind and analytical mind. This is the first post of emergency command in man. The reactive mind consists of a collection of experiences received during an unanalytical moment which contain pain and actual or conceived antagonism to the survival of the animal. These are known as engrams. An engram is severe in the exact ratio that it is conceived by the organism to have been a moment of threat to survival. The character of the threat and the “perceptic”(sensory) content produce the aberration. A number of engrams with similar perceptics in an individual produce a complex aberration patter which nevertheless has for its parts individual engrams. Engrams are of two types: floaters and chronic. Floater is an engram which has not been restimulated in the individual during the lifetime succeeding it. A chronic is an engram which has been more or less continuously restimulated so that it has become an apparent portion of the individual. A chronic begins to gather “locks.” A floater has not accumulated locks since it has never been restimulated. A lock can be conceived to be joined to an engram in such a way that it can be reached by the multiple scanners of the analytical mind which cannot reach the engram. It is a painful mental experience. A preclear is someone who is receiving Scientology or Dianetics auditing on their way to becoming Clear. Clear is a person who has attained the state of highest possible rationality through auditing with the help of an auditor. An auditor is a person trained to better people through Dianetics counsellor. The auditor must always treat a preclear in a certain definite way which can be outlined as the “Auditor’s Code”. The auditor should himself be cleared. Otherwise, he will find that many of his own engrams are restimulated as he listens to the engrams of his preclears. This restimulation may cause his own engrams to become chronic, victimizing him with various allergies and delusions and causing him to be, at best, extremely uncomfortable. He must act towards the preclear exactly in the way that the preclear as an organism would desire that his own conscious analytical mind would react to and consider the organism. A cheerful optimistic presence encourages the preclear through his most painful experiences. The auditor must be courageous, never permitting himself to be intimidated by either the aggression or hostility of the preclear. The tone scale, is a scale which denotes numerically, first the status of an engram in the reactive mind, next its erasure or reduction and provides a measure for sanity in an individual. Values on the scale and their equivalent status are as follows: 1) Zero: equivalent to death. 2) From 0 to 1: Emotional bracket which may be denoted as apathy along its graduated scale from death to the beginnings of apathetic resentment. 3) From 1 to 2: Range of antagonism, including suspicion, resentment and anger. 4) From 2 to 3: Boredom denoted by minor annoyance. 5) From 3 to 4: Emotions which range from carelessness to cheerfulness 6) Four: Denotes a person who has achieved rationality and cheerfulness. Now, one might question that what is the need of the auditor? One can himself be the preclear and the auditor. Well, the preclear’s dynamics are less than the engramic surcharge. The auditor’s dynamics are equal to or less than the engramic surcharge in the preclear. The sum of auditor and preclear’s dynamics is greater than the engramic surcharge. With the help of an auditor, the preclear can exhaust his engrams and reach a tone of four. Dianetics is an interesting subject which can help humans heal their painful experiences with the help of self-realization. Regards Nandini Goel

  16. 5 out of 5

    Carl Opel

    There was a time when I searched for answers that I believed could be anywhere, books were just one avenue. When something appeared to have an answer to one of life's questions, I read it. This was one of those books as were many others from various religions. While I'm not religious, my reasoning at the time of reading this and other books was simple: "You don't know if you don't read it." So I found out!

  17. 5 out of 5

    Jason Sta. Maria

    This is not just the introduction of Dianetics, this is also a way of how to understand the real meaning of Dianetics and every bit of Auditing. It is truly a book of beginning. In my own opinion this was the very first book that you have to read when you want to start on Dianetics.

  18. 5 out of 5

    Michelle

    Ask me.

  19. 4 out of 5

    Cullen Haynes

    Absolute rhubarb...however one has to give the guy stars for creativity.

  20. 5 out of 5

    Kwagoner43

  21. 4 out of 5

    Stephen Buck

  22. 5 out of 5

    Milla Q

  23. 5 out of 5

    Lars Borud

  24. 5 out of 5

    Dave

  25. 5 out of 5

    Leah Chalmers

  26. 4 out of 5

    Paul

  27. 4 out of 5

    Arthur Chappell

  28. 5 out of 5

    Warren

  29. 5 out of 5

    Billy Candelaria

  30. 4 out of 5

    Kaj Samuelsson

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.