Were we stupid to join Scientology?

[Gib]

There's also some good stuff about this period in Vol 2 of Heinlein's authorized biography, "Robert A. Heinlein: In Dialogue with his Century: 1948-1988," by William H. Patterson, Jr. You can probably pick this up at the public library.
https://www.amazon.com/Heinlein-Dialogue-Century-1948-1988-Learned/dp/0765319632

Among other things, Heinlein in a quoted letter (to Campbell, I think) mentions attending a Dianetics event in 1953 at which A. E. Van Vogt and Ron Howes were present. Van Vogt was doing Dn but didn't follow Hubbard into scn. Heinlein says Van Vogt believed Howes to be the only real clear.

interesting, I'll have to check it out.

Have you read the Heinlein letters between Heinlein and Campbell?

Like I said many times, you can not research it on the internet those letters, you have to pay a few bucks to read them because they are copyrighted, but you can read them by paying a few bucks to do so.

 

[pineapple]

interesting, I'll have to check it out.

Have you read the Heinlein letters between Heinlein and Campbell?

Like I said many times, you can not research it on the internet those letters, you have to pay a few bucks to read them because they are copyrighted, but you can read them by paying a few bucks to do so.

No, I haven't. I googled Ron Howes and found the very passage in the Heinlein bio I was referring to. I've edited my earlier post to include a link to it.

 

[DagwoodGum]

There was only Dianetics when I 'got in'. All of us in Phoenix in the beginning years of 1950 had read the May issue of the book, DMSMH. were interested in the theory of the engram and the reactive mind. Dianetics was better than anything else I had going on in my life, so that should give you a clue as to why it wasn't stupid for me to join Scn. The first few coffeeshop sessions I had blew me away Those were in 1952. In Phoenix.

And who would have ever believed that a new "technology" of the mind for the unraveling of peoples case's could be or would be booby trapped so thoroughly so as to cause people harm? One would have been led to believe that one was over the edge of reason with such "paranoid thoughts" and that one had serious trust issues. So one couldn't obtain verification of one's suspicions until much later in time and by then the damage would have been done and by then it was done.

 

[Gib]

There was only Dianetics when I 'got in'. All of us in Phoenix in the beginning years of 1950 had read the May issue of the book, DMSMH. were interested in the theory of the engram and the reactive mind. Dianetics was better than anything else I had going on in my life, so that should give you a clue as to why it wasn't stupid for me to join Scn. The first few coffeeshop sessions I had blew me away Those were in 1952. In Phoenix.

In reading the very first book of Dianetics, the Appendix's were important. Do you recall reading them and having them influence you?

Here's the pdf of the first book you read:

https://ronsorg.ch/wp-content/uploads/Dianetics-The-Modern-Science-of-Mental-Health.pdf

Current versions of dianetics do not include the Appendix's.

It is my summation that you were not stupid, but rhetorically convinced. One has to to read the Appendix's and understand Rhetoric, to understand what I am saying.

 

[DagwoodGum]

In reading the very first book of Dianetics, the Appendix's were important. Do you recall reading them and having them influence you?

Here's the pdf of the first book you read:

https://ronsorg.ch/wp-content/uploads/Dianetics-The-Modern-Science-of-Mental-Health.pdf

Current versions of dianetics do not include the Appendix's.

It is my summation that you were not stupid, but rhetorically convinced. One has to to read the Appendix's and understand Rhetoric, to understand what I am saying.

One hell of a detour Hubbard sent us on being we were only to find out "we were or are, mocking it up"!?! Jeezus!

 

[RogerB]

Gib,

Phenom posted the note earlier in this thread the point that we all, and indeed all people, are influenced by the times in which they live. And this fact of life was very much the case for we oldies up and about and kicking in the '50's.

The whole talk of society in those days was on issues of psychology and interest in one's "mental health" and looking into the alternatives to mainstream life such as Rosicrucianism, Anthroposiphy, Yoga . . . and Alan Walter's bible of his youth, Émile Coué with his book "Self Hypnosis," Theosophy , Napoleon Hill and all those self help gurus like him . . . . you name it, it was all what pop culture was about in those days.

In the mid-'60's The Beatles taught us a little bit of weed and trooping off to India to find a guru was a good idea

 

[Tanchi]

Gib,

Phenom posted the note earlier in this thread the point that we all, and indeed all people, are influenced by the times in which they live. And this fact of life was very much the case for we oldies up and about and kicking in the '50's.

The whole talk of society in those days was on issues of psychology and interest in one's "mental health" and looking into the alternatives to mainstream life such as Rosicrucianism, Anthroposiphy, Yoga . . . and Alan Walter's bible of his youth, Émile Coué with his book "Self Hypnosis," Theosophy , Napoleon Hill and all those self help gurus like him . . . . you name it, it was all what pop culture was about in those days.

In the mid-'60's The Beatles taught us a little bit of weed and trooping off to India to find a guru was a good idea

It was romanticized, wasn't it?

 

[Clay Pigeon]

It was romanticized, wasn't it?

Ever so slightly...

 

[Clay Pigeon]

These days it seems to be generally recognised that emotions can get trapped in body tissues and there are massage techniques to release them. This is probably the explanation for OT III. Google something like "massage to release negative energy" to see what's available.

As for exteriorisation - I would say scientology doesn't guarantee an out-of-body experience but it does guarantee an out-of-money experience.

It tries to guarantee an out of money experience and often succeeds.

OTOH...

No mage has ever produced a system which has made an out-of-body experience so readily available to so many people.

That really is a biggie.

This board overflows with the worst of Ron's writing, often exagerated and embellished, often out of context and twisted...

He wrote some pretty damn bright things too...

"If you can just get someone to realize they are a spiritual being you are likely to get a miracle"

 

[Lurker5]

I think most who joined were idealistic and naive, too trusting and innocent. And good-hearted. And probably lost or disillusioned - and searching.

Stupid? Nah. The ones still in are that. That's what 'staying in' does to one's IQ.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

If you want to know more about the 50's, why you ought to want to more about the 1949 period involving Heinlein/Campbell/Hubbard in the letters
I mentioned on my Dean Wilbur tread. It costs a few bucks.

In there those letters are some fascinating info on the development of dianetics, or rhetoric of Hubbard, a blow by blow account between the 3. In the end, Heinlein tells Campbell he was right to wait and see if a clear and attributes could be had, for Campbell kept trying to sell Heinlein on dianetics and engrams. Campbell is most likely Hubbard's first trained auditor seeking the promise land of clear. Heinlein is the first critic or questioning soul of a human being.

In other words, Heinlein was right to question Hubbard and Campbell all along before the release of dianetics and basically said it's bullocks but because he was friends and had a business relationship with the two, he didn't say Hubbard was full of shit. Campbell did say Hubbard had it all wrong to Heinlein.

Don't take my word for it, Mr Birdsong or Clay Pigeon, (somebody who wants them to shoot at you), read the Campbell/Heinlein letters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_pigeon_shooting

You are going to write and post from your perspective Gibsie. So be it. In fact your Dean Wilbur material came as news to me and I hold it's pertinence to a serious examination of Hubbard's work in high regard.

And Heinlein is critic not enemy. His seminal work "Stranger In A Strange Land" draws strongly on Hubbard's ideas. Although Jubal Harshaw is not an a clef Hubbard figure like Lancaster Dodd it plain draws on Elron.

Since 1950 forward the debunkers have continuously ponied up one thing and another believing the deal is sealed on a quack, a charlatan and a grifter.

And it's still here

And there are those who love it.

 

[Bill]

This board overflows with the worst of Ron's writing, often exagerated and embellished, often out of context and twisted...
He wrote some pretty damn bright things too...

Look, when you have someone like LRH, who was very prolific, and who wrote about the spiritual side of things, you are definitely going to find some quotes that, out of context, sound quite deep and wonderful. That's true.

But just as the worst of his writings are out of context, so are, what you term, his "bright things". The full context is all of Scientology. All of it. All the abuses, all the greed, all the horrors, all the lies.

In its full context, LRH's "tech" should be avoided. Period.

If someone takes non-harmful bits out and does something with them, well, that's OK, but if that leads people back to LRH's bullshit, then it is very, very bad.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

You have your own polemic and your welcome to it's expression and as I've said several times I would not speak well of Ron's work anywhere your views could not be heard because I don't like seeing Co$ get someone's tits in a wringer either.

But it's not just a few bits here and there. IMHO The Best of Ron is voluminous

 

[Clay Pigeon]

I think most who joined were idealistic and naive, too trusting and innocent. And good-hearted. And probably lost or disillusioned - and searching.

Stupid? Nah. The ones still in are that. That's what 'staying in' does to one's IQ.

One of the promises in DMSMH was dianetics could turn idiots into morons

All the morons you find in orgs probably wouldn't have walked in if they weren't idiots

 

[Bill]

One of the promises in DMSMH was dianetics could turn idiots into morons

All the morons you find in orgs probably wouldn't have walked in if they weren't idiots

Well, don't tell anyone else, but I think we are in basic agreement.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

Gib,

Phenom posted the note earlier in this thread the point that we all, and indeed all people, are influenced by the times in which they live. And this fact of life was very much the case for we oldies up and about and kicking in the '50's.

The whole talk of society in those days was on issues of psychology and interest in one's "mental health" and looking into the alternatives to mainstream life such as Rosicrucianism, Anthroposiphy, Yoga . . . and Alan Walter's bible of his youth, Émile Coué with his book "Self Hypnosis," Theosophy , Napoleon Hill and all those self help gurus like him . . . . you name it, it was all what pop culture was about in those days.

In the mid-'60's The Beatles taught us a little bit of weed and trooping off to India to find a guru was a good idea

And two HUGE!!! things about the times were the 1949 Nobel prize for Medicine to he Portagay sawbones for prefrontal lobotomy

And...

The Bomb. In 1949 the godless commies light one up. And all of a sudden people looking for ways to rethink things got a freedom we have known before

 

[ILove2Lurk]

. . .
I've always maintained (though not so much on this message board) that anything in Hubbard's large body of work that's described and exists in reality or is a technique that is eminently workable and produces verifiable results will be independently discovered by others over time.

Now, I don't want to get into a big debate (flame war) about this. And I'm waaay to lazy to write up more than one example . . . but here's one.

Jordan B. Peterson, the clinical psychologist, current Internet sensation and best-selling author, gave a talk in 2002 entitled "Slaying the Dragon Within Us."

Here's a short excerpt from the talk about one of the world's top clinical psychologists and the "independently discovered" technique she uses and is getting results with:

Well, there's a woman named Edna Foa in New York, I think one of the world's top clinical psychologists and she's been dealing with women who have post traumatic stress disorder for decades. And she's found a treatment that works. And the treatment is this.
​

She has the women relive the event, in as much detail as possible, over and over in their imagination, with the accompanying emotion. And she's found, because she's done physiological measurement on her clients, that those women who allow themselves to get the most fully upset as a consequence of the reliving, get better faster and stay better longer.
​

The clinical evidence is absolutely clear. When you take someone to therapy, you're basically doing two things to them, well, three. You allow them to confess what's wrong with them. Because it's really useful to actually say what it is that's bothering you. It makes it clear and distinct. You help the person get their story straight. Because you have to have your story straight, right? You have to know where you're coming from and you have to know where you're going, because otherwise there's no structure for your life.
​

And the third thing is, if your path from point a to point b, is being blocked by something that you're afraid of, you better learn to confront it. Because if you don't, it will grow and expand until it turns into the kind of dragon that occupies your whole house. This is another representation of a story.​

Video of entire talk if you're interested

I'm only bringing this up because I feel anything worthwhile in the Hubbard tech will be independently discovered and promulgated (and probably monetized) by others in time.


PS: I sorta like Jordan B. Peterson. Some of his videos are pretty damn good. I understand why he's developing an enormous Internet and YouTube following.

 

[phenomanon]

It tries to guarantee an out of money experience and often succeeds.

OTOH...

No mage has ever produced a system which has made an out-of-body experience so readily available to so many people.

That really is a biggie.

This board overflows with the worst of Ron's writing, often exagerated and embellished, often out of context and twisted...

He wrote some pretty damn bright things too...

"If you can just get someone to realize they are a spiritual being you are likely to get a miracle"

THis board does NOT overflow with what you see as garbage. The writings of lrh that I see posted here are legitimate and true quotes. Only rarely is stg taken out of context. You have not read these materials. They were not on your training lineup. .
You have made the point that they were not on your Class 4, that doesn't mean that they weren't on the Class 6 Wall of Tapes, or the Class 8, or the FEBC.
Get real or GTFO.

 

[Terril park]

. . .
I've always maintained (though not so much on this message board) that anything in Hubbard's large body of work that's described and exists in reality or is a technique that is eminently workable and produces verifiable results will be independently discovered by others over time.

Now, I don't want to get into a big debate (flame war) about this. And I'm waaay to lazy to write up more than one example . . . but here's one.

Jordan B. Peterson, the clinical psychologist, current Internet sensation and best-selling author, gave a talk in 2002 entitled "Slaying the Dragon Within Us."

Here's a short excerpt from the talk about one of the world's top clinical psychologists and the "independently discovered" technique she uses and is getting results with:

Well, there's a woman named Edna Foa in New York, I think one of the world's top clinical psychologists and she's been dealing with women who have post traumatic stress disorder for decades. And she's found a treatment that works. And the treatment is this.​

​

She has the women relive the event, in as much detail as possible, over and over in their imagination, with the accompanying emotion. And she's found, because she's done physiological measurement on her clients, that those women who allow themselves to get the most fully upset as a consequence of the reliving, get better faster and stay better longer.​

​

The clinical evidence is absolutely clear. When you take someone to therapy, you're basically doing two things to them, well, three. You allow them to confess what's wrong with them. Because it's really useful to actually say what it is that's bothering you. It makes it clear and distinct. You help the person get their story straight. Because you have to have your story straight, right? You have to know where you're coming from and you have to know where you're going, because otherwise there's no structure for your life.​

​

And the third thing is, if your path from point a to point b, is being blocked by something that you're afraid of, you better learn to confront it. Because if you don't, it will grow and expand until it turns into the kind of dragon that occupies your whole house. This is another representation of a story.​

Video of entire talk if you're interested

I'm only bringing this up because I feel anything worthwhile in the Hubbard tech will be independently discovered and promulgated (and probably monetized) by others in time.


PS: I sorta like Jordan B. Peterson. Some of his videos are pretty damn good. I understand why he's developing an enormous Internet and YouTube following.

. . .
I've always maintained (though not so much on this message board) that anything in Hubbard's large body of work that's described and exists in reality or is a technique that is eminently workable and produces verifiable results will be independently discovered by others over time.

Now, I don't want to get into a big debate (flame war) about this. And I'm waaay to lazy to write up more than one example . . . but here's one.

Jordan B. Peterson, the clinical psychologist, current Internet sensation and best-selling author, gave a talk in 2002 entitled "Slaying the Dragon Within Us."

Here's a short excerpt from the talk about one of the world's top clinical psychologists and the "independently discovered" technique she uses and is getting results with:

Well, there's a woman named Edna Foa in New York, I think one of the world's top clinical psychologists and she's been dealing with women who have post traumatic stress disorder for decades. And she's found a treatment that works. And the treatment is this.​

​

She has the women relive the event, in as much detail as possible, over and over in their imagination, with the accompanying emotion. And she's found, because she's done physiological measurement on her clients, that those women who allow themselves to get the most fully upset as a consequence of the reliving, get better faster and stay better longer.​

​

The clinical evidence is absolutely clear. When you take someone to therapy, you're basically doing two things to them, well, three. You allow them to confess what's wrong with them. Because it's really useful to actually say what it is that's bothering you. It makes it clear and distinct. You help the person get their story straight. Because you have to have your story straight, right? You have to know where you're coming from and you have to know where you're going, because otherwise there's no structure for your life.​

​

And the third thing is, if your path from point a to point b, is being blocked by something that you're afraid of, you better learn to confront it. Because if you don't, it will grow and expand until it turns into the kind of dragon that occupies your whole house. This is another representation of a story.​

Video of entire talk if you're interested

I'm only bringing this up because I feel anything worthwhile in the Hubbard tech will be independently discovered and promulgated (and probably monetized) by others in time.


PS: I sorta like Jordan B. Peterson. Some of his videos are pretty damn good. I understand why he's developing an enormous Internet and YouTube following.

. . .
I've always maintained (though not so much on this message board) that anything in Hubbard's large body of work that's described and exists in reality or is a technique that is eminently workable and produces verifiable results will be independently discovered by others over time.

Now, I don't want to get into a big debate (flame war) about this. And I'm waaay to lazy to write up more than one example . . . but here's one.

Jordan B. Peterson, the clinical psychologist, current Internet sensation and best-selling author, gave a talk in 2002 entitled "Slaying the Dragon Within Us."

Here's a short excerpt from the talk about one of the world's top clinical psychologists and the "independently discovered" technique she uses and is getting results with:

Well, there's a woman named Edna Foa in New York, I think one of the world's top ​

PS: I sorta like Jordan B. Peterson. Some of his videos are pretty damn good. I understand why he's developing an enormous Internet and YouTube following.

 

[Terril park]

I Love to lurk said:-

"I've always maintained (though not so much on this message board) that anything in Hubbard's large body of work that's described and exists in reality or is a technique that is eminently workable and produces verifiable results will be independently discovered by others over time."

I agree. Scn, psychotherapy of the many kinds are the same class of thing IMO. Some of Hubbards ideas are probably mainstream nowadays. For example skin galvanometers are used
by psychotherapists. I know people who supply them. But then
they were researched by Karl Jung and Freud.