Talk:Reactive mind
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Looks pretty good. Terryeo 10:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Problem with verifiability
There is a problem with this:
"What can it do? It can give a man arthritis, bursitis, asthma, allergies, sinusitis, coronary trouble, high blood pressure and so on, down the whole catalog of psychosomatic ills, adding a few more which were never specifically classified as psychosomatic, such as the common cold." - L. Ron Hubbard, What is the Reactive Mind? [1] which is sourced to http://tuberose.com/What_is_the_Reactive_Mind.html
Is there are proper citation for this paragraph? Was this an essay by LRH? Was it a chapter of a book? When was it written? Is it copyrighted by the church? I don't care if it is being presented as a convenience link to information available elsewhere, but I want to know where the elsewhere is. How do I verify the authenticity of this quote? Because all our additions need to be verifiable. Vivaldi (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- It's from Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health. I'll add the reference to the article. wikipediatrix 16:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- The link to tuberose.com isn't a personal site, but a business site (apparently). Why not include the link and the citation to Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health?Terryeo 19:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] What you to do a reactive mind
The article presently says, "E-meter to work on removing one's engrams and ultimately, destroying one's reactive mind." but may I suggest "Discharge" rather than "Destroying" because "discharge" is easily linked and used while "destroying" would be more difficult to substantiate. Possibly couldn't be substantiated from primary sources, though possibly some secondary source opinion might use the word "destroy" rather than "discharge". In any event it is less original research to use the word which turbroc com uses, "discharge".Terryeo 20:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] anon edit 65.143.42.117
The recent edit, [1] which runs on and on without the least hint of any factoid, reference or citation and states, We now know that the brain's neuronets, in fact, do act like Hubbard's "engrams".' should simply be removed. No source of information is given, "neuronets" are not defined, the statement is placed early in the article. It has little logical lead in and no reference for what appears on the surface as outlandish original research. Terryeo 20:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)