Customer Reviews
Interesting theory, but completely pseudoscientific. - By: NoWireHangers, 05 Oct 2008 
I've been fascinated by Hubbard & Scientology for a long time but haven't read "Book one" until now. Well, now I have, & Hubbard's theory is an interesting one. Unfortunately, it's not true. It has been disprovenin scientific tests.
What strikes me most about the book is the confidence with which Hubbard presents his theory. He claims it's a proven science & refers to experiments. Still there's not one single source to back up his claims. The reader must take his word for it. This contradicts something Hubbard writesin the book: "A science that depends on Authority alone is a breathin the wind of truth & is therefore no science at all." About this, he is right. And Dianetics has not proven itself to be true. It is based only on Hubbard's claims, & is thus a pseudoscience.
Hubbard also writes some quite offensive things, such as that a society which accepts perversion, including homosexuality, doesn't deserve to survive. He also writes about certain "primitive" people, such as the Zulus, that the only reason the Zulu is notin the madhouse is that his tribe doesn't have any madhouses.
I recommend the books to those who want to understand what Dianetics is & what Scientology evolved from. Those who are looking for a self-help book that actually works should look elsewhere. Were it not for the Church of Scientology I doubt this book would have beenin print for the last forty years or so.
Garbage - By: A. Niamir, 29 May 2008 This book does not even deserve 1 star, as it is the smallest rating I can put I will just settle for it. This book contains no real knowledge, know real scientific facts, its like reading a sixties fantasy book which is trying to come across as little obvious as possible (basically just integrating a mild form of sci-fi into realismin order to promote it as almost being real). And this so called enlightenment is nonsense, I got more enlightenment from my nephew's "start to read" books. BUY OUT OF INTEREST, NO OUT OF ENLIGHTENMENT!
Not science - By: lexo1941, 12 May 2008 Dianetics is not a science. It was invented when its creator, L. Ron Hubbard, wanted to make a quick buck, so he ripped off a few very superficially understood concepts from psychoanalysis and, to disguise the fact that he'd done so, launched a major campaign of abuse & propaganda against psychoanalysis & its more reputable medical cousin, psychiatry. (Psychiatry is of course a science, though one with a spotted history; psychoanalysis is maybe not really a science, although it's far more interesting & contains far more valuable insights into the human soul than Dianetics does, probably because Sigmund Freud was, for all his faults, a basically wise & sympathetic person, whereas L. Ron Hubbard was a cynical & mean-minded huckster.)
The supporters of Dianetics & its utterly loopy offshoot Scientology make all sorts of claims for their pet therapies, but the uncomfortable facts remain: Scientology is supposed to produce superior human beings, but if that's the case, how come pretty much all famous Scientologists arein show business, notin science? Scientologists are meant to have perfect recall & vastly improved brain power, but if so, how come no Scientologist has ever won a Nobel Prize? The most gifted of them can supposedly move things with their brain power; how come they can't stop planes from crashing on live TV?
The answer is, it's all a con. It makes some people feel better because some people always feel better when they belong to a cult. The rest of us needn't bother about it unless our friends or loved ones get involved.
A handfull of good ideas tarnished by an ego that wanted to rule the world - By: P. Davies, 26 Apr 2008 You can't dismiss everythingin this book. Some of what is said is quite true. The fact is, the rest of the book is basedin paranoia, lies & ego. Basically L. Ron Hubbard wanted to live on after his death, well done!
The "basic language" is bald face lie - By: Kate Adie, 24 Apr 2008 That stuff about "basic language"? That's a bald-face lie. No sooner does Hubbard get going with whatever it is he's trying to do, than he starts mangling & making up words willy-nilly. Visual memories are rechristened "visio"; "evolute," a term that used to refer to the center of a curvature, serves as an entirely unnecessary synonym for "develop"; & sense impressions become "perceptics." Footnotes offer helpful definitions of commonplace idioms like "a far cry: only remotely related" & the sublimely tautological "present time: the time which is now."
