Dianetics: The Modern Science Of Mental Health (2002) - Plot & Excerpts
The reviews here are largely based on the bipolar division into the scientology apologists, on the one hand, and the anti-scientology bigots, on the other hand. I consider myself neither.This book contains fabrications, inventions, unsubstantiated claims and outright falsehoods.It is the beginning of what, probably, started out as L.Ron Hubbard's conscious plan to start a cult based on himself, on his grandiose intellectual fantasies, and on his not-inconsiderable skills as a prose writer and armchair philosopher. This book is an example of all of those things.Dianetics is the embryo out of which scientology grew. It contains the nuts and bolts of auditing (the process of dianetic therapy) and the basic terms of what later became the cult - and religion - of scientology, although still in the secular guise of self-help procedures and a kind of do-it-yourself, mock-up psychotherapy whose aim is the alleviation of ALL non-physical ailments of man and of ALL psychosomatic illnesses, and the achievement of the (rather improbable but alluring and fascinating) state of "Clear": a kind of perfectly rational, clear-headed Randian/Nietzschean class of "supermen" who are entirely without any hang-ups or other "normal-human" problems.Such grandiose claims are, of course, without merit, but they are only one side of the coin.The other side of the coin - the one that fascinates me - is the story of "what could have been": namely, how great a philosopher and thinker L.Ron Hubbard COULD have been, had he only been less - well, greedy and evil, I suppose.The fabrication of physical "engrams" and the gnostic fantasy of the superhuman "clear" are only a twisted vesion of a true and perfectly reasonable philosophy hidden within the core of the book.There are glimpses of his greatness in the book. The first half of the book is a kind of continuation of the work of centuries of moral philosophy aimed at the gradual perfection of man, combined with the modern science of Social Darwinist and psychological approaches to human life and human consciousness. The result is a reasonaby interesting thesis about the functioning of the human body. I find it very convincing. The bulk of the document, the root, is solid. Only the tree that grows out of it is rotten and murky. L.R. Hubbard unfortunately doesn't stick with solid reality but enters into science fiction territory as soon as you can say "c-h-a-r-l-a-t-a-n"!The sad fact is that Hubbard was not content to stick within clear-headed thinking, and instead followed the more selfish and self-serving urge (common to all confidence men) to "spice up" his sound philosophical ideas (most of which, to be sure, he borrowed from others, like Freud and Spencer) with a lot of outrageous nonsense and cultish fanaticism, to make it more sellable and appealing to desperate readers looking for a quick fix. This makes the whole book feel like a missed opportunity.Of course, superficially the book was anything but a missed opportunity. After all, it spawned a whole religion and has sold millions upon millions of copies. But in the end, it is the sort of book that, in a hundred yeears, will be forgotten. It will never rank a great leap in human thinking, or achieve the sort of intellectual fame that Hubbard probably, despite all his BS, deep-down wanted. So Hubbard's story is more tragic than it appears. He COULD have been one of the most important thinkers of the 20th century. He had the brains and the writing skills and the charisma for it. Instead, he chose to be one of the most popular deceivers of mankind of the 20th century. That sordid business, to be sure, takes dedication. But it also means he missed the boat to greatness. He doomed himself to oblivion through a comet-rise to temporary fame. I find it a sad but compelling story. The tale spun by the history of what followed is the story of a tragic man who couldn't choose between fiction and fact, and chose to blend the two in the most ingenuous - and arguably evil - way possible. He wanted to be Mohammed or Moses for the 20th century. He also wanted to be the Tolkien of psychology and the beloved of the rich and famous. He learned all the wrong lessons from Aleister Crowley. He took only the beastly aspects of the man and emulated his selfish pursuit of fame, ignoring Crowley's love of truth. He wanted to be a creator of worlds. The fact that he almost succeeded is a mind-boggling feat. It is also a cautionary tale of the lure of power and the cost of fame. Such fame is a devil's bargain. Hubbard stepped into the world of dreams and fiction and purposefully destroyed his own reputation in exchange of a few gold coins - and a few million gleamy-eyed followers!But all of this does NOT negate the fact that Dianetics is a worthy book to study and read. It contains clever insights into the nature of the human condition. The combination of Darwinism and Freudianism is beautiful. It is the desktop writings of an almost-genius level of a thinker. It is ALMOST a science, it is ALMOST a psychology, it is ALMOST a philosophy of man worthy of the promised revolution of thought. And even though it is ONLY ALMOST all of those things, it still contains more than a few nuggets of real gold and philosophical insight - hidden within the steaming pile of malicious, cult-spawning manure. Recommended with the caveat: upon first encountering this pile of dung, watch where you put your spoon, and don't eat the manure. Set it aside and dig for the ice cream and creamy goodness within. It exists. It is good. It is sad. It is beautiful. Taste it. Feel it. "Build a better bridge!" to quote the very last words of the book. Learn from Hubbard, learn from Hitler, learn from Faust: when the devil comes, don't sell your soul.
I swear I tried to read this book. I plodded through the unnecessary definitions and steps of Dianetics. I learned that we should all be working to achieve "clear". Honestly, at first I thought the book was just going to be a rip off of Eastern religion with some nice buzzwords thrown in for followers to chant as their new mantras. I pretty much laughed my ass off, though, when the book told me that 70% of man's ills are psychosomatic. I laughed till I cried when I read that we can remove the vast majority of these ills by working toward "clear". I closed the book and walked away when I read that color-blindness is apparently psychosomatic and can be cured through the achievement of clear. My fiancee is color-blind. I informed him that he needed to work harder because he should have had that color-blindness cleared up by now. The book, from the small amount I could get through (which was still a chore), seems to say that we can eradicate most mental illnesses in ourselves by following the steps of Dianetics and achieving "clear", like we are clearing up our minds just as we would our skin or some nonsense. HOW THE HELL DID A SCIENCE FICTION WRITER GET A CRAP-TON OF PEOPLE TO READ THIS CRAP AND START TO FOLLOW THE WRITINGS AS A RELIGIOUS TENET? WHY DO SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE SO LITTLE RESPECT AND CONFIDENCE IN THEMSELVES THAT THEY ARE READY TO BELIEVE THAT THEIR DEPRESSION, BIPOLAR DISORDER OR PTSD EXIST BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T TRY HARD ENOUGH TO NOT BE DEPRESSED, BIPOLAR OR FREAKING OUT IN A FLASH BACK? THIS IS CRAP! CRAP!!!! I apologize for the yelling. I didn't get far enough into this ridiculous book to find out if schizophrenia was caused by a lack of discipline and motivation. But next time I meet someone who hears voices in their head, I'll be sure to refer them to counseling and not to some ridiculous piece of crap that does nothing more than plagiarize other religions, destroy the confidence of its readers/followers/sheep and convince people they need to spend their way into debt to fix themselves and be "clear". I'm using quotation marks because I think "clear" is stupid. I would be using air-quotes if this were an actual conversation. I normally give a book at least one star because it's a book and books are good. This one doesn't deserve a star. NO STARS YOU PIECE OF CRAP!
What do You think about Dianetics: The Modern Science Of Mental Health (2002)?
In a word: Tripe.In two words: Utter TripeIn three or more: Utter and Complete TripeA better title would have been "Dianetics: The Modern Science of the Mentally Unstable" or "Ways In Which I Show I Have No Idea What I Am Talking About" by L. Ron Hubbard. His science fiction was and always will be terrible, and I include this bunk in that pile, though to use the word "science" at all is overly misleading. At no point are the methods for these "scientific facts" ever mentioned or brought up. This Is Fiction. Through and through. Fiction. Written by probably the only person who's writing I like LESS than Stephenie Meyers'. Though I am ashamed to admit I even touched this book let alone read it I'm writing this as a heads up to anyone who might be curious: Read it if you're up for a good laugh but be prepaired to lose some braincells.
—Josh
This book sucks. I read it a 7 years ago when I was struggling to figure out my own faith, and this book didn't help, hurt, or nurture anything. It's just a useless jumble of facts that didn't connect for me and a very strange naming convention that makes every historical figure in this religion sound like something out of Battlestar Gallactica. Reading this is kind of like asking a four year old to explain the backstory to "The Phantom Menace". Having said all that, I still like "Jerry Maguire".
—Dwayne Ackley
Giving Dianetics 3 stars was a political move. I think most of the 1 star ratings are reactionally based on Tom Cruise and South Park rather than the books content. This aside, I probably would have given it 2 stars. It was long and not terribly exciting, but Hubbard was bringing something to the table.In short, this is just another type of psychoanalytic therapy. Countless equivalent models are well respected, used and offer great benefit. Granted there are a few untraditional concepts, but I really didn't consider the framework as a whole to be that "outside of the box".When reading Dianetics it's important to remember that THIS IS NOT SCIENTOLOGY, nor it's infamous and charismatic incarnation, the Church of Scientology. Auditing precedes, though is an essential practice of, this contemporary faith tradition. The confusion is on the order of saying a how-to guide on prayer is the same as religious fanaticism with all its violence, proselytizing, bigotry and the like.Do I agree with every word in the book? Certainly not. Would I ever participate in auditing as it's described in Dianetics? Most likely no, but there could be value in it. Is every page complete and utter rubbish? Admittedly, there were sporadic gems that I found very insightful. Do I recommend this book? Only if you're curious about Scientological practices or alternative psychoanalytic models.
—Nick
