on 17 October 2013
Well, Self Analysis and I are old buddies going back about thirty years. There are so many principles that I had forgotten about or had re-discovered in reading the book and doing the exercises.
Hubbard's Science of Survival emphasized concentrating on the pleasure moments in the person and in yourself. In Self Analysis, he gives the way of doing that. Going over the various kinds of recall, such as imagination, general incidents and such to better know ourselves was really a treat to read about and to remember.
The chapter on "On Our Efforts of Immortality" was very interesting as he describes life force as another kind of energy and its purposes and he echoes what he talked about in SOS - that life must procure pleasure and avoid pain. Good advice!
Another principle I enjoyed was the concept that many of our fears are really merely shadows and like the natives who catch fish with shadows, we usually mock up or others mock up these flimsy traps for us. All we really have to do is disagree and get some auditing.
Also the book helped rehabilitate what I liked about Self Analysis and its simple yet effective technique in bringing people up and not having to live with their painful or sorrowful memories.
on 22 April 2014
Self-Analysis by L. Ron Hubbard is a straight forward self-help-book, and indeed very useful for those who want to better their condition drastically. It is not sweet nor does it give false information, it actually does the complete opposite - it cuts through the lies, and leaves you with the right information to guide you. This book requires a lot of time and a lot of work, but this is not a bad thing - everything worth learning, one must take his time to learn.
I highly recommend reading this book if you want a better life for yourself, your family and loved ones.
"May You Never Be The Same Again"
- L. Ron Hubbard.
on 22 July 2013
The book is not just theory. It has a very large practical section where you do mental processes with yourself, and the result it nothing short of amazing. It also has a self-test in it, before and after. So one can find how good or bad one is off and monitor improvements as one goes along doing it. Very helpful I found the "Chart of Human Evaluation" which gives an extremely interesting tool to predict how others will be a friends, partners, colleagues, employees. I learned a lot about who I can trust or not. Very interesting part of it.
on 3 February 2012
This self-analysis goes against the very grain of Dianetics that states in all possible ways that an all-powerful auditor is needed for a pre-clear to become clear. What's more Hubbard has insisted all his life on the mock-up nature of the thetan and of the reactive mind that both record false representations of past events that block the possible initiatives of the individual in his everyday experience. How can an individual manage to analyze himself with that kind of opposition and resistance from a level of his mind that is entirely unconscious and blocked in that unconsciousness?
But I do not think this is the main problem of this self-analysis.
He does not enter the definition of the mind for the simple reason that his approach of the unconscious and subconscious levels of it he calls the reactive mind or bank does imply that self-analysis is impossible. Yet this definition of the mind cut up in two, the reactive bank or mind and the analytical bank or mind, is central to dianetics and is in fact the common ground of all psychiatric approaches: they all state an unconscious blocking level of the mind.
This has a drastic consequence on the fact that he does not even mention the analytical mind, hence he does not analyze the way the analytical mind works. He even uses words to cover it up he would not use in other books and lectures. It is thought and that thought is defined as computation and it is carried by the central nervous system, a concept that comes from the Russian and psychoanalytical approaches of man's psyche that he heavily and even unfairly rejects or mocks in books and lectures, particularly "Wuf-Wuf-Pavlov" and Freud.
Then he cannot understand, and explain, that the senses are only giving stimuli that have to be transformed into perceptions by the mind. He thus cannot - and does not want to - analyze the functioning of the mind (in the meaning of the real and virtual apparatus in the central nervous system and the brain that governs and controls the body and its relations and exchanges with its environment. He even is very short on the analysis of these perceptions as illusions if not delusions as he generally does in other books and lectures. These perceptions are what we are or may be conscious of and they are constructs of the mind, images, pictures, virtual (and real in this virtuality) as compared to the real things themselves. This problem is evacuated. Note he does not take into account the five senses and of course not the sixth one which is the mind itself as the meta-sense that analyses the stimuli of the other senses and that processes the abstract elements that come from the intellectual processing machine of the brain and from the emotional processing machine of the brain.
It is all the more evacuated because these constructed virtual perceptions depend essentially on language. He does not understand at all the trauma of the birth of a child for that child and the physiological needs he has to find a way to satisfy after getting cut off from the direct flow of nutrients inside the mother. He cannot understand the need to communicate to call for that satisfier and that satisfaction on the basis of the want and then the need and then the experience he goes through. He rejects language as being a late addendum in the child's experience and he rejects language as a terroristic tool imposed onto the child without his consent. That's in absolute contradiction with plain common knowledge and even his common belief in pre-natal engrams.
If a child, from the very instant of conception onward is to register in his cells at first everything in the painful situations that cause his total or partial unconsciousness, including of course the words that are uttered in that instant (and here Hubbard is obsessed with attempted abortions and with coitus during pregnancy, obsessed to a point that is absolutely male-chauvinistic since attempted abortion is attributed to the "Mama", though the words during coitus are generally attributed to the father), it is obvious language is not a late addendum and language goes back very far (it can be heard and recorded in the brain by the foetus as soon as the 24th week of pregnancy). At the same time it is his naïve belief in these engrams caused by prenatal moments of pain and unconsciousness in which some language that will necessarily be seen and experienced as negative later on when the child will be able to read the messages, that implies the negative vision of language.
He is only using language as the main tool for everything he does particularly auditing and he does not see language is a tremendous tool for the construction and the liberation of the mind that will enable the child to build his own intelligence, his own thought and thinking, his own mind itself that develops in that process. To see only the negative side of language, the fact that it in a way dictates the thinking of a person is one-sided and hence absurd. That explains though why he is constantly inventing new words or pulling and pushing some words from a standard meaning to an original meaning or from one syntactic function to another which is in no way asserted in the syntax of that language or that word. He realises in his discourse the hatred and resentment he feels against language and that leads him to a narrow-minded approach of language. And since it is heavily connected to pre-natal engrams we can wonder if Hubbard was not suffering of un-erased engrams from his own pre-natal experience that prevented him from seeing, or trying to see language the way it is, the way it grows, the way it expands, the way is enables people as much as direct and command their discourse, feelings, emotions and all kinds of reactions. To tell someone "I love you" is one of the deepest and strongest emotions you can imagine: it carries the utterer and the recipient as high as the most distant stars in the sky, just with these three words. That's the power of language. And the effect is the same even if the person the utterer is speaking to is an absolute unknown person. When Jesus said he loved someone, and he loved us all, he was literally carried up into the sky as far as heavens, and when we are told that by someone who is unknown, on the subway or on the street, except if we are completely afraid of other human beings, we are flattered and even boosted up in our mood.
This leads Hubbard to a primitive experiment he suggests to test the absence of force or power in words by uttering words with one's hand in front of one's mouth or dipping the ashes of one's cigar in the wavelength of the word ashtray. But if it were only naïve and primitive that would be harmless and funny, but he does not understand the power of words and he pretends that power is not of words but of authoritarian or violent actions that imposed the respect of the meaning of these words in the proper actions they require. Words are tremendously powerful because they can make you cry or laugh, be sad or experience pleasure. Words are the words of philosophy, religion, science, ideology and these govern the minds of millions of people and these enabled humanity to shift from animality to what it is today with the emergence of Homo Sapiens some 250,000 years ago. But he sees the past with black spectacles when he speaks of the "dark ages of unreason" and their "euthanistic methods" (p. 191) Either it is a metaphor for Nazism and other ideologies of that type and then it has no value whatsoever since it is pure language hiding history. Or it is what "dark ages" refer to and then it is a one-sided retrospective projection of a modern moralistic vision onto the past that has always and necessarily had a positive side, no matter how dark the other side may have been, because it is these dark ages that have produced our enlightenment and nothing comes from nothing.
The last thing I want to say is about education (page 66). "One can be educated, then, into a higher or lower level on the chart than his own aberrations call for". That is extremely reductive. I can imagine at least eight possibilities when taking into account the cognitive competence and motivation of the learner. An education can impair this cognitive competence and motivation permanently, an education can impair it temporarily, an education can improve it temporarily, an education can improve it permanently, an education can reinforce, permanently or temporarily, a low cognitive competence and motivation, and an education can reinforce, permanently or temporarily, the high cognitive competence and motivation. And I would totally disagree with what he says that the "tone" of a person is homogeneous at any taken moment (page 56). The cognitive competence and motivation of a learner can be low in one field and high in another, can be low in one chapter of one field and high in another chapter of that same field. There is no homogeneity in the cognitive profile of any learner. To state the reverse is to block the learner into failure. Arlette Chapelet should have told the church of Scientology that simple idea and she was not yet retired from her job in 1007, what's more in 2006 or 2005.
To conclude I will say that the thinking process of this book is both excessively metaphorical and subsequently syncretic replacing the analysis of intelligence, thinking and mental perception, not to speak of cognitive competence and motivation, with easy and totally unjustified comparisons. How can he compare the psychosomatic effects of any psychological approach (and by far not only the dianetic or scientological approaches) of diseases like arthritis, a heart condition or depression to the extremely destructive power of an A-Bomb? This is comparing birds and carrots or dandelions and dogs.
To compare is not to prove and to put one thing next to another does not in any way create a logical intrinsic relation between the two things. That's abusive rhetoric in the place of proper thinking.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU