DIY History | Transcribe | Hevelin Fanzines | Renascence, v. 1, issue 1, August 1950

Transcribe
Translate

Renascence, v. 1, issue 1, August 1950

Page 4

DIANETICS - REVIEW WITH RESERVATIONS
By Kenneth MacNichol
Scarcely ever in publishing has so much smoke appeared with so little fire as has followed the announcement of L. Ron Hubbard's forthcoming book, Dianetics, a coined word defined by the author as a "new science of thought"; more specifically, a therapeutic technique for the treatment of various types of neuroses nd actual insanity.
Because Hubbard is an excellent science fiction author, and especially because JWC, the capable editor of Science Fiction went overboard for Dianetics, most of the furore, so far, has been among the scientificfans. The book is not yet published at the date of this writing. One long article by Hubbard has appeared in Science Fiction with two editorials by JWC who also contributed a long article in a day-old issue of the fanzine Rhodomagnetic Digest. To date that's the lot; therefore the reservations. Culled from only this scanty material, these following comments may demand some further study.
JWC says that Hubbard "discovered" the "principle" that the human mind (but just what is this "mind"?) records each least happening that the individual has ever experienced. Hubbard states bluntly that experiences have been "recovered"—recalled to conscious memory—that date as far back as four days after conception. Maybe. The "discovery" would not seem strange to East Indian mystics who have been teaching the some doctrine for thousands of years. They would not agree that this mysterious "mind" is peculiarly a brain-function. It is an inherent quality, they would say, inseparable from all "matter", but more particularly manifest in the living cell. Since the primal cell, including human ova and sperm, is potentially immortal, back, then, goes "memory" to the earliest manifestation of life on earth: even, perhaps, a bit further. Yoga practices also offer a little more evidence than Hubbard provides.
Hubbard seems to approach this functioning of the "mind" with a strictly mechanistic theorem. The analogy is drawn between his presumed "memory bank" of the "dianetic records" and the relay-series "memory" of any mechanical computing machine. The analogy, perhaps, is unfortunate. Man is not a machine; not a robot. Protoplasm, whatever else it may be, seems to be chemical in function rather than mechanical. "Nerve  impulses" or "nervous energy", volt-meter-measurable within strict limitations, is surely not exactly either AC or DC electrical current. We may know more about it, say, a hundred years from now. Today we know practically nothing except a few references not defined by such names. Such unproved and unprovable theories as Hubbard provides can only foul the picture; contribute nothing to understanding.
And Hubbard's idea of the "optimum mind" which is the "normal mind"—the same mind—is confusing. The conception is easily accepted that most people do not, and cannot use, more than a minimum selection of the vast resources possible for human mentality. But, then, if it should prove to be true that mental activity is, actually, a psycho-somatic function, the "optimum mind" of an idiot must forever remain idiotic, a contention that JWC admits readily unconscious of the contradiction. No possible therapy can ever change that condition. True sanity forever remain impossible for such a "Mind". No matter why, the optimum function of such a mind is just idocy, and no more. Extend the continuum to somewhat higher intelligent levels. Then what may be observed? Only the presence of a larger number of questions requiring answers before any such "optimum mind" conception could be accepted. To what extent, for instance, does "brain structure"—or psycho?somatic structure—vary in various individuals? Just what relationships actually exist between brain-structure—or body-cell-structure—and abservable functional consciousness at any level? Nobody knows factual answers to such questions. Therefore this "optimum mind" as the "normal mind" exists only as a concept in the mind of Mr. Hubbard; a useful fiction, possibly, but a fiction nevertheless.
Hubbard's article, almost facetiously written, at times displays a regretable verbal tendency to confuse "mind" with "brain", or with various possible manifestations of functional consciousness. He does seem to be aware, hhwever, that "mind", translated as operative activity, may not be a by-product of brain. And there are, very surely, many "levels of consciousness" that seem to have little or no connection with brain, and not ordinarily recognized as manifestations of "mind". Does brain command stomach to secrete gastric juice? Does "Mind" give orders to heart-muscle-cells to pulsate with proper timing? Is brain or "mind"—the Freudian concept—directly concerned with the selection of complex chemical elements from the blood-stream presently reconstructed and secreted as hormones by the endocrine glands? No—but something or other quite consciously operative is happening here; phenomena for which Dianetics, this new Science of Mind, seems to provide no satisfactory explanation. But "sanity", per se, very notably, has also, among other meanings, some endocrine, some bio-chemical, connotations. Knowledge, in this field, is extremely limited; no "sane" conclusions are possible at all.
Dianetics, rather curiously, as in the mythological Freudian concept, also seems to divide most mental operations into the classic "conscious" and "unconscious"—almost meaningless terms defining only, if anything, the things we "know" and, perhaps, the things we know but don't know that we knowffi that it, until these latter things are revealed to "conscious mind" (recalled) by psycho-analysis, or the technical methadology of Dianetics. The "conscious", says Hubbard, is always conscious of the "unconscious" (unrecalled experience) in some degree; can become fully "onscious by means of dianetic directives. Freudian psychiatry makes the same statement which, one suspects, isn't quite good enough even though the theory, as such, may sometimes be productive of useful results. Sometimes, it may be observed, but seldom, and very often, no useful results at all.
JWC (but perhaps not Hubbard) makes the direct statement that the recall of experience, which may have happened on a strictly non-verbal level, can only be valuable for therapeutic results when the "engram"—supressed memory lacking a more exact definition—is recalled on a strictly verbal level. "The exact wording must be recovered", says JWC; "that, and only that, will serve". 
If there were no words connected with the experience, that "I was able to recall my own birth in detail"—"it included the words of the doctor and the visual impression of him." Not, perhaps, altogether impossible even though the "remembered" sounds would, much later, require translation into language with a content of meaning; Not impossible, but certainly rather unlikely. If it had happened that the doctor spoke Urdu, or some other language unlearned by adult JWC, would the words be remembered with any exactness? Would any meaning attached to the words be made clear?
Mr. Campbell has had much experience with a good many capable and imaginative writers of science fiction who are certainly able to "recall" or reconstruct very vividly a great many things that never actually happened. He has also written some excellent fictions. That he was born seems self-evident. That his "engram" of that incident is a mirror of factuality may still be open to doubt. As a scientist he would recognize the lack of sound evidence; the possibility of misinterpretation. Is there in existence any phonograph record reproducing exactly what that doctor may have said? Any video record or any photograph to show what was being done on that momentous occasion? Such statements are interesting, but scarcely cnvincing.
Dianetic theory states that "pain, and only pain, can
(Continued Next Page)

Saving...

DIANETICS - REVIEW WITH RESERVATIONS By Kenneth MacNichol Scarcely ever in publishing has so much smoke appeared with so little fire as has followed the announcement of L. Ron Hubbard's forthcoming book, Dianetics, a coined word defined by the author as a "new science of thought"; more specifically, a therapeutic technique for the treatment of various types of neuroses nd actual insanity. Because Hubbard is an excellent science fiction author, and especially because JWC, the capable editor of Science Fiction went overboard for Dianetics, most of the furore, so far, has been among the scientificfans. The book is not yet published at the date of this writing. One long article by Hubbard has appeared in Science Fiction with two editorials by JWC who also contributed a long article in a day-old issue of the fanzine Rhodomagnetic Digest. To date that's the lot; therefore the reservations. Culled from only this scanty material, these following comments may demand some further study. JWC says that Hubbard "discovered" the "principle" that the human mind (but just what is this "mind"?) records each least happening that the individual has ever experienced. Hubbard states bluntly that experiences have been "recovered"—recalled to conscious memory—that date as far back as four days after conception. Maybe. The "discovery" would not seem strange to East Indian mystics who have been teaching the some doctrine for thousands of years. They would not agree that this mysterious "mind" is peculiarly a brain-function. It is an inherent quality, they would say, inseparable from all "matter", but more particularly manifest in the living cell. Since the primal cell, including human ova and sperm, is potentially immortal, back, then, goes "memory" to the earliest manifestation of life on earth: even, perhaps, a bit further. Yoga practices also offer a little more evidence than Hubbard provides. Hubbard seems to approach this functioning of the "mind" with a strictly mechanistic theorem. The analogy is drawn between his presumed "memory bank" of the "dianetic records" and the relay-series "memory" of any mechanical computing machine. The analogy, perhaps, is unfortunate. Man is not a machine; not a robot. Protoplasm, whatever else it may be, seems to be chemical in function rather than mechanical. "Nerve impulses" or "nervous energy", volt-meter-measurable within strict limitations, is surely not exactly either AC or DC electrical current. We may know more about it, say, a hundred years from now. Today we know practically nothing except a few references not defined by such names. Such unproved and unprovable theories as Hubbard provides can only foul the picture; contribute nothing to understanding. And Hubbard's idea of the "optimum mind" which is the "normal mind"—the same mind—is confusing. The conception is easily accepted that most people do not, and cannot use, more than a minimum selection of the vast resources possible for human mentality. But, then, if it should prove to be true that mental activity is, actually, a psycho-somatic function, the "optimum mind" of an idiot must forever remain idiotic, a contention that JWC admits readily unconscious of the contradiction. No possible therapy can ever change that condition. True sanity forever remain impossible for such a "Mind". No matter why, the optimum function of such a mind is just idocy, and no more. Extend the continuum to somewhat higher intelligent levels. Then what may be observed? Only the presence of a larger number of questions requiring answers before any such "optimum mind" conception could be accepted. To what extent, for instance, does "brain structure"—or psycho?somatic structure—vary in various individuals? Just what relationships actually exist between brain-structure—or body-cell-structure—and abservable functional consciousness at any level? Nobody knows factual answers to such questions. Therefore this "optimum mind" as the "normal mind" exists only as a concept in the mind of Mr. Hubbard; a useful fiction, possibly, but a fiction nevertheless. Hubbard's article, almost facetiously written, at times displays a regretable verbal tendency to confuse "mind" with "brain", or with various possible manifestations of functional consciousness. He does seem to be aware, hhwever, that "mind", translated as operative activity, may not be a by-product of brain. And there are, very surely, many "levels of consciousness" that seem to have little or no connection with brain, and not ordinarily recognized as manifestations of "mind". Does brain command stomach to secrete gastric juice? Does "Mind" give orders to heart-muscle-cells to pulsate with proper timing? Is brain or "mind"—the Freudian concept—directly concerned with the selection of complex chemical elements from the blood-stream presently reconstructed and secreted as hormones by the endocrine glands? No—but something or other quite consciously operative is happening here; phenomena for which Dianetics, this new Science of Mind, seems to provide no satisfactory explanation. But "sanity", per se, very notably, has also, among other meanings, some endocrine, some bio-chemical, connotations. Knowledge, in this field, is extremely limited; no "sane" conclusions are possible at all. Dianetics, rather curiously, as in the mythological Freudian concept, also seems to divide most mental operations into the classic "conscious" and "unconscious"—almost meaningless terms defining only, if anything, the things we "know" and, perhaps, the things we know but don't know that we knowffi that it, until these latter things are revealed to "conscious mind" (recalled) by psycho-analysis, or the technical methadology of Dianetics. The "conscious", says Hubbard, is always conscious of the "unconscious" (unrecalled experience) in some degree; can become fully "onscious by means of dianetic directives. Freudian psychiatry makes the same statement which, one suspects, isn't quite good enough even though the theory, as such, may sometimes be productive of useful results. Sometimes, it may be observed, but seldom, and very often, no useful results at all. JWC (but perhaps not Hubbard) makes the direct statement that the recall of experience, which may have happened on a strictly non-verbal level, can only be valuable for therapeutic results when the "engram"—supressed memory lacking a more exact definition—is recalled on a strictly verbal level. "The exact wording must be recovered", says JWC; "that, and only that, will serve". If there were no words connected with the experience, that "I was able to recall my own birth in detail"—"it included the words of the doctor and the visual impression of him." Not, perhaps, altogether impossible even though the "remembered" sounds would, much later, require translation into language with a content of meaning; Not impossible, but certainly rather unlikely. If it had happened that the doctor spoke Urdu, or some other language unlearned by adult JWC, would the words be remembered with any exactness? Would any meaning attached to the words be made clear? Mr. Campbell has had much experience with a good many capable and imaginative writers of science fiction who are certainly able to "recall" or reconstruct very vividly a great many things that never actually happened. He has also written some excellent fictions. That he was born seems self-evident. That his "engram" of that incident is a mirror of factuality may still be open to doubt. As a scientist he would recognize the lack of sound evidence; the possibility of misinterpretation. Is there in existence any phonograph record reproducing exactly what that doctor may have said? Any video record or any photograph to show what was being done on that momentous occasion? Such statements are interesting, but scarcely cnvincing. Dianetic theory states that "pain, and only pain, can (Continued Next Page)