Back to the NOTs Scholars Home Page
Gullibility Revisited
The following is an ex-Scientologist's reflections on a taped
lecture by L. Ron Hubbard called ``Engram Running'', and more
generally, on his personal experiences in Scientology. The author
wishes to remain anonymous.
Gullibility revisited--Part 1
(I ``re-study'' an old LRH tape that was in the bottom of my glove
compartment.)
A while ago I was in my car, about to leave a parking structure after
seeing a movie at the local multiplex. I felt a pleasant, post-movie
buzz of identification with the movie's hero. Then suddenly my mood
crashed a few stories into something much colder and nastier. Search
my pockets as I might, I couldn't find enough money to pay the parking
attendant. I recalled it cost two bucks. I had seventy cents. I
wondered what they did with people who couldn't pay. I started to
feel around in the front seat crevice. There were some coins there but
not enough. I checked under the front seat. More coins, but still not
quite enough. For the first time in years I checked in the bottom of
my glove compartment. There I found enough pennies and nickels to get
me past the parking attendant. Relieved, I took stock of what other
valuable things were there: Three probably expired double A batteries,
ancient sinus tablets, old vitamin capsules, a mystery key, tail-light
bulbs. And a cassette tape of a lecture by L. Ron Hubbard! I decided
it would be interesting to listen to it again, comparing my reactions
to it now to its effect on me years ago when I was a thrall of
hubbard's ``standard tech.''
The lecture was called ``Engram Chain Running,'' originally recorded in
1963 in Saint Hill, England (copyright 1988, L. Ron Hubbard Library).
I last listened to it several years ago, just before finally leaving
scientology, but I had heard it many years earlier, as part of an
auditor training course I did.
The lecture was ``technical.'' That is, it was not an introductory tape,
but a discussion of techniques to be used by auditors, so it was
intended for people who knew a bit about the basic ideas of auditing,
though the subject of the lecture was definitely not 'advanced.' Let
me first give a basic rundown of what the tape was about. "Trained'
former and current scientologists will have an easy time following me,
but those with little or no ``training'' (lucky you) may need some
help. Contact your local expert or feel free to e-mail me any
questions.
Lecture Summary:
It's 1963 and and 13 years after the birth of Dianetics, auditors
(therapists) can't seem to get preclears (patients, clients) to run
engrams successfully. (Engrams=recordings stored in the mind of
traumatic events containing pain and unconsciousness. ``Running
engrams'' means getting the patient by degrees to confront and recount
the content of the engram until the incident's ``charge'' is ``blown''
and the person experiences release from whatever unwanted effect was
supposedly coming from the engram. According to hubbard, engrams were
the true source of all mental difficulties; they caused chronic
psychosomatic pain, misemotion, inhibition, compulsion, stupidity, bad
judgement, bad memory, you name it .) Ron himself never had any
problem running engrams of course, and he's had a revelation about why
other couldn't. He's been remiss in communicating a basic principle
well enough: Engrams are not things in themselves; they exist as parts
of ``chains'' of similar incidents in the reactive mind. These chains
of similar engrams (example: being hit in the head) are arranged in
date order in the reactive mind on the ``time track.'' (Time track=the
consecutive record from earliest to latest of everything in the
person's past. According to hubbard it stretched back at least 350
trillion years and was motion picture-like, having a ``frame'' every
1/25 of a second.) The harmful effect the preclear wants to get rid of
comes not just from one incident, late on the chain, but from
all the engrams on the chain, held in place by ``basic'' (a
term meaning the earliest engram on a chain.) You can't just find an
engram and ``run'' it over and over and expect the preclear to
recover, because there are earlier similar engrams in
``restimulation'' (stirred up and making the preclear feel bad) that
need to be addressed. One has to go earlier and earlier until the
preclear reaches basic. Then if you have the pc confront and recount
the incident a few times, basic will ``erase'' and with it the whole
chain of later incidents. The preclear will recover after lots of
``chains'' have been erased. From ``examples'' given by ron, it seems
that ``basics'' usually happened hundreds of trillions of years ago.
Ron gives a new procedure consisting of ten or so steps that can be
used to run the preclear earlier and earlier until basic is reached
and the chain is erased. The key point: If the engram you're running
isn't resolving, find and run earlier engrams until you get to basic
on the chain.
The tape goes on for 77 minutes. That's quite a bit of talking. It
wouldn't take nearly that long to say what I just said in the
paragraph above, so what else did ron say? Maybe you're thinking he
must have given lots of examples from case histories to illustrate how
people were cured of unwanted conditions after erasing 'basics,' data
on case follow-ups showing that conditions didn't return, statistics
about dianetics results, that sort of thing. Well, not really. But he
did talk a lot more. For fairness' sake I'll summarize some of the
other points made in the tape that seemed important:
- ``Charge,'' ron says, is the ``electronic bing-bang that hits the pc in
the blonk....'' That's what he says. (Funny, I used to have what I
thought was an understanding of what he meant. Now it seems
ridiculous. The idea of past, submerged memories containing an
emotional ``charge'' that can possibly be contacted and released is of
course NOT ridiculous, but ``electronic'' charge?) Anyway, engrams have
``charge,'' which can affect the preclear adversely. Get rid of the
charge and the preclear improves.
- The preclear gets upset during auditing because of unaddressed
earlier charge
- Dianetics is terribly, terribly simple. You can only mess it up by
complicating it.
- Engrams can have earlier beginnings. This should also be checked for
when the going gets rough.
- Ron mentions the ``Helatrobus implants.'' (Helatrobus implants --
Seems that long, long ago, between 52 and 38.2 trillion years ago,
evil beings captured all other beings in the universe by blanketing
planets with radioactive clouds, and later pulling us up into the sky
with tractor beams, or, alternatively, trapping us in a
bubble. [That'll do it every time.] Then we were tortured with shocks
and other mayhem while being implanted subconsciously with pictures
and false goals designed to confuse us about our true past and
identity and make us easier to control. [No wonder you're such a
klutz.] Ron, bless his soul, somehow discovered and unravelled all
this in the early 60's.) Actually, at the time of the lecture, ron was
having the trainees at St. Hill run these 'implants' on each other
using special techniques. But when people tried it, they ran into
trouble for some reason. Ron's diagnosis: The Helatrobis implants were
there alright, but addressing them stirred up chains of very old
engrams. This upset the preclears. So ron had to revive dianetics so
that the engrams could be erased. But that still didn't work because
auditors weren't going earlier to basic, hence this
lecture. (Apparently this didn't work either. Ron went on in the 60's
to abandon Helatrobis and create new procedures after making
incredible new discoveries that finally explained why nothing had yet
worked.)
- Ron discusses another phenomenon called ``out-of-valence.'' This means
that the preclear is ``seeing'' the incident being run from a vantage
point ``outside himself.'' When the auditor encounters this, it
invariably means that there is an earlier, unaddressed part of the
engram being run.
- There are ``overt'' engrams (incidents in which the preclear harmed
others) as well as engrams in which the preclear received some sort of
trauma. These can be run too.
- Ron briefly discusses the ``overt-motivator sequence.'' (The idea of
this is that beings normally do something bad to others--an ``overt'' in
scientologese-- FIRST, then feel they need to justify it and so crave
and ``pull in'' something bad done to them, which now seems to the
supply missing ``motivation'' for the original overt and to prompt
another overt in revenge. The notion is akin to and probably derived
from ``projection'' in psychology and ``Karma'' in Buddhism and Hinduism.
The idea may have some value, but ron presented it as a near universal
principle of life, which it was'nt. This belief caused many
scientologists to become obsessed with chasing down the past life
overts that must have preceded unwanted conditions they were
experiencing in the present--imaginative overts like blowing up
planets, ``electronically'' trapping and implanting billions of beings,
etc. The over-emphasis on this concept also created the habit in many
scientologists of looking sheepishly inward for the causes of bad
things that happened or were done to them.) In the tape, ron says that
the overt-motivator sequence was ``installed'' in us beings by
implanters way, way back on the time track, but these implants are
much too hard to get to right now, so we're stuck, at least for the
time being, with the 'overt-motivator sequence' as a basic mechanism
of life. (Darn.)
- Ron also says the the only reason the preclear can't run engrams,
provided the auditor is using the procedure given here, is that the
person is too low on the ``processing scale.'' This means that the
preclear needs to have some preliminary scientology processes run
before he's ready to confront actual engrams like the ones during the
Helatroban period.
- Another reason is that the preclear can't duplicate well. This is
bad. It means you look at one thing and ``see'' something else. Of
course you can't see past-life engrams correctly if you can't
duplicate. The remedy is lots of ``lower level'' scientology processes.
- Yet another reason is that the preclear is a ``dub-in'' case. This
means that the preclear ``dubs in'' a false content rather than confront
the real content of the reactive mind. (I'll give an example to
illustrate: You're trying to run an engram during the time of the
Helatroban civilization, say 50 trillion years ago. Instead of seeing
real Helatrobans, you see weird, confused, dreamlike or even silly
this-lifetime images. Seems like it's your imagination. This is
dub-in, a low level phenomenon. You're not ready to run the real stuff
yet. You need lower level scientology processing to get you up to the
point where you can really see and feel your engrams.)
- Well, the preclear could also be too low on the ``effect scale.''
- Fundamentally, it's all different aspects of the same thing: If
the preclear can't run engrams, the person is being run ``too steep''
and needs to be ``prepared'' with lower level scientology processes.
- ``Basic-basic'' is the original engram, the first one ever. It holds
all later engrams in place. Trouble is, it's awfully hard to get to
and you have to spend a long time auditing out later stuff before
you'll be ready to confront it.
- Ron also talks about a number of other ``phenomena'' one can expect to
encounter while running engrams. Too much detail to go into here. The
authoritative-seeming rules and laws about what the phenomena mean
help to create a sense of credibility, but it's worth noting that no
mentioned phenomenon is ever backed up with data from case histories.
Dianetics fundamentals
The lecture is pretty much in keeping with the ideas presented in the
first incarnation of dianetics in 1950: The one source of all mental,
emotional and psychosomatic troubles is hubbard's great discovery,
*the 'reactive mind.'* Everyone has a reactive mind. In the reactive
mind are very precise recordings of all painful events in the person's
history, all very correctly 'filed' in date order. The recordings can
be either engrams (recordings of times of physical pain and
unconsciousness), secondaries (times of severe loss and emotional
upset), or locks (recordings of times when one felt some of the
discomfort from an unseen engram or secondary). These recordings are
subconscious, as opposed to conscious memories, which exist in a
separate, 'analytical mind.' One key characterisic of the reactive
mind is that it responds to the environment and not to the conscious
direction of the person himself. For example, you walk by a swimming
pool and get a choking feeling and want to get away. Instead of
enjoying a swim, you get the hell out of there. What's happened is
that the similarity of the present to a past engram has caused the
past engram (say of being held under water by a bully) to 'key-in.'
When the engram 'keys in,' you feel some of the pain and horror of the
original incident, as well as the urge to 'get out of there.'
According to hubbard, the reactive mind was originally a survival
mechanism meant to generate an instantaneous 'reaction' to get the
organism out of dangerous situations in which there was no time to
think. Trouble is that now the mechanism has lost its survival value
and creates all manner of terrible problems by overriding the
operation of the analytical mind. Instead of generating instant
survival impulses, it sends bad signals to the organism, makes it hard
to come up with good solutions, makes us stupid and forgetful, gives
us all sorts of crazy urges and inhibitions, gives us aches, pains and
illnesses, makes us feel bad and do crazy things, etc. Somehow ron
discovered that, without the interference of the reactive mind, the
analytical mind is capable of perfect memory, judgement, logic and
happiness. The solution is to 'clear' the preclear of the reactive
mind by using the special techniques of auditing--essentially having
the patient re-experience, confront and recount buried incidents until
there is some sort of abreaction. Because the reactive mind responds
to things outside of the preclear, the auditor can, by his questions
and commands, selectively 'restimulate' engrams that the preclear can
then confront. All of the the 'unconscious' recordings in the reactive
mind needed to be 're-filed' in the conscious analytical mind, at
which point the engrams would cease to have the power of command over
the organism. Eventually, after lots and lots of 'processing,' the
person reaches and 'erases' basic-basic, the linch-pin of the reactive
mind, all reactive content is gotten rid of and all is analytically
well. The preclear is now 'clear.' Early in dianetics, a clear was
someone who had erased the *content* of the reactive mind. In the
early days, hubbard had assumed the reactive mind mechanism was
organic 'hardware' and couldn't be erased. Later, clears would
actually erase the mechanism itself. How could this be done? Hubbard
had discovered the great secret of reactivity: The being, who
possessed vast creative abilities fully known only to hubbard, was
actually 'mocking up' the reactive mind on a level below his own
awareness. (Only ron knew why, but we had all started doing this
trillions of years ago.) When, after much auditing, the being finally
realized this, the reactive mind would vanish as the being would stop
creating it.
Dazzling, but evidence has never shown the ``reactive mind'' to be other
than a fictional villian.e
Much of early dianetics should seem familiar to anyone who has
seriously studied psychology and computer science. I unfortunately
had not when I first came in contact with Dianetics. Dianetics
incorporated a number of ideas from psychology: engrams, abreaction,
the subconscious, 'charge,' the value of talk therapy, some rules of
therapist behavior, etc. Hubbard added in some half-understood
concepts from Korzybski's General Semantics (the 'semantic reaction,'
'A=A') and Eniac-era computer technology (clear, key-in, bank,
erasure, electronic files.) Also interesting was what hubbard
discarded from his sources: 1) Uncertainty about the nature of the
mind. According to Hubbard the mind consisted of two compartments and
their natures were fully known. There was no more uncertainty about
what the 'mind' was; hubbard had discovered all there was to know. 2)
The need to back claims of success with actual evidence. 3) The need
to prove the workability of hypotheses. 4) The value of the
contributions of other thinkers. 5) Any need for dialog.
The reactive/analytical mind model would have been an elegant solution
indeed, if only it could have been gotten to work. Imagine being able
to 'cure' people of all unpleasant mental and emotional phenomena and
achieve flawless memory and intelligence just by having an auditor ask
exactly the right questions until the patient mentally erased and
'refiled' all information from the bad mind into the good mind. Had it
worked, ron would surely have been the greatest man in history. But
the model was wrong and it never worked.
My reactions then
An interesting fact is that I didn't pay as much attention to what
hubbard was saying in the lecture when I was a scientologist as I did
when I 'restudied' it recently. Then my attitude was that the lecture
was one of many where ron reiterated some basic ideas, but because it
wasn't the source for any procedure I would actually be using, I just
tried to understand the key ideas and went on. Actually the tape was
extremely boring and almost sleep-inducing. It was difficult to stay
conscious. The key ideas (outlined in 'lecture summary' above) were
already known to me from reading a few bulletins. The 1963 procedure
had already been replaced by a more streamlined, supposedly more
foolproof one, so I just sort of plowed through it, making sure I
didn't nod off in front of the watchful course supervisor.
My memory of it is a bit vague, but I seem to recall that a few
incipient critical thoughts did pop up. I didn't know what ron was
talking about when he mentioned the helatrobis stuff. But I didn't
think about it much. My job, as I saw it then was to understand what
to DO, to do it, and to observe for myself what happened. Only what
you observe for yourself is true for you. It occurred to me that ron
might not know exactly how long ago a trillion years was, that he
might not realize that 285 trillion years ago (a date mentioned) was
about 20,000 times greater than the current estimated age of the
universe. But maybe he was talking about an earlier universe. And
again, I had to reserve judgement on it as I really hadn't yet
'observed' whether or not it was true. I also hadn't observed most of
the interesting phenomena ron mentioned in the tape, despite having
run quite a bit of dianetics on people by that time. I figured that in
the early days ron had paid a lot of attention to things we didn't
need to worry about now due to advances in the tech. There was also
the tiny beginning of the thought, 'If dianetics was so effective, why
did it have to be extensively reworked in 1963, and again in 1969, and
again in 1978?' But this thought didn't live long. It was not my
business to sit there and think. In fact, in scientology, thinking is
a pretty low-level activity. On his 'know to mystery scale,' ron
placed 'thinkingness' below 'knowingness,' 'lookingness,'
'emotingness' and 'effortingness,' and just above 'symbolizingness,'
'eatingness,' 'sexingness' and 'mystery.' (page 118, Scientology 0-8,
originally printed in the early 50's, copyright 1976, L.Ron Hubbard)
It was my job to understand, exactly apply, and eventually, observe
and know. And that could take time, naturally. I was the ultimate
philosophical pragmatist, at least in my own imagination.e
I accepted the idea of past life incidents and implants. I accepted
their existence even though I had never 'observed' one for sure. This
needs explanation. By then I had 'run' plenty of past-life stuff in
session. I, unlike those pathetic 'low-level' cases, had little
trouble with engrams. Early on, I decided I would just let my
imagination 'run' and see what happened. Since the reactive mind was
not under my control, whatever I 'saw' or sensed was probably content
of the reactive mind, even though it seemed to be imagination. Smart
huh? To put it simply, I was imagining things and and then considering
that they were probably real. Kind of like painting a fake window on
the wall and then looking 'through it' to see if it's raining. How
does one do this and maintain any sense of personal integrity? Not
easily, but it can certainly be done. I--we--have a profound capacity
for self-delusion. Ron and other scientologists often facilitated and
encouraged it, ron by speaking for thousands of hours in his taped
lectures about the 'whole track' and the fantastic abilities of 'OTs,'
and other scientologists in their conversations about people they had
known in past lives, their superhuman experiences, etc. And people
were constantly giving 'wins' they'd achieved in auditing--this or
that hopeless condition gone, this or that mysterious 'thing' that had
been ruining a life now 'totally handled.' No one was permitted to
challenge the validity of anyone's past lives or wins in
auditing. That would have been 'invalidation,' a very serious offense
in scientology.
I myself had experienced a number of interesting things in auditing,
but I had certainly never experienced any lasting gain in ability or
personal happiness. I had had periods of feeling a lot better, but
these never lasted. I had even felt 'exterior' at times, but this
didn't last either, and I was no happier or more able as a result. I
figured I must have some pretty bad overts in past lives that were
preventing me from fully experiencing gain. At times I wondered about
why ron always seemed to be coming up with something new that
explained why previous tech hadn't worked, while at the same time
claiming that all earlier tech had worked just fine. This must have
crossed my mind as I listened to the tape long ago. But there was
always something new and very promising to try. I had *faith* that
things would eventually turn out well--a faith that overrode my often
contradictory thoughts. Even though Scientology is supposed to be
rooted in science and real results in the present, it required a great
deal of faith that, somewhere in the future, the truth of dianetics
and scientology would be manifest in the real world.
Next: Gullibility Revisited Part 2--My reactions now
Dave Touretzky
Last modified: Sun Jul 20 14:52:43 EDT 1997