Were we stupid to join Scientology?

[Gib]

. . .
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 want to point out to you that Hubbard never discovered anything, all he did was reword or plagiarize past discoveries and make hisself "source" per KSW when he really went for it. I make this comment based on your statement and TP's statement thinking Hubbard is "source".

As you 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."

One may ask themselves why I said what I did. It's hard to follow, but I actually made the proof on my Research & Discovery tread called on post no. 107:

"Interesting tread by Caroline in 2011 over at OCMB on the connection by Hubbard, Campbell & Heinlein:
http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=39380
http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=39380&start=15
Caroline points out per the COS own website how Hubbard researched stories to write at the NY Library. Don't forget up above Hubbard told Heinlein the books to read:
http://writer.lronhubbard.org/page44.htm
Dean William Allen Wilbur wrote several books on rhetoric, one was English Rhetoric for his GWU course which Hubbard took. Another is called Modes of Imagination in English Rhetoric.
http://www.amazon.com/imagination-English-rhetoric-William-Wilbur/dp/B00086TZQQ"

http://www.forum.exscn.net/threads/dean-wilbur-rhetoric-hubbard-dianetics-sicientology.38446/page-6

Hubbard's own words and even posted on the current COS website"

http://writer.lronhubbard.org/page44.htm

an excerpt and here Hubbard admits he did not do discovery or the sole exploiter of research, but he did do research to write stories or give lectures:

Hubbard:

"In defense I instantly protest that I am neither the discoverer nor the sole exploiter of research. But I do believe that I have found an entirely new slant upon an ancient object."

I give thanks to Caroline for helping me to connect dots.

One has to remember that any body of work based on others, why most legitimate scientists or philosophers or journalists will give footnotes as references or source material.

There are never any footnotes in any of L Ron Hubbard books or lectures, he just talks a good story, oh the rhetoric.

 

[Gib]

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

Thanks Rog,

I'm wondering if you remember those appendix's and did they influence you? Have a reread of them and let me know.

Do you think they would have had an influence back in the day?

 

[ILove2Lurk]

I want to point out to you that Hubbard never discovered anything, all he did was reword or plagiarize past discoveries and make hisself "source" per KSW when he really went for it. I make this comment based on your statement and TP's statement thinking Hubbard is "source".

No argument from me. Never implied he was "the source" necessarily.

In fact, Hubbard's creative processing might have an earlier ancestor in the 1890's in something called guided imagination.

The running of recently departed, dead and discarnate, souls who have attached themselves to a convenient body or family member, as a form of therapy, was practiced by Dr. Carl A. Wickland and his wife in the early 1900's. Documented in the book, Thirty Years Among the Dead (1924).

I'm currently reading a door-stopper history book about Aristotle, Socrates and Plato and their influences throughout the development of Western civilization. I see plenty of ideas from the distant past that Hubbard probably borrowed from to build his "modern and scientific" 1950's version of philosophical thought.

Hubbard was a combiner and synthesizer of ideas and techniques.

No argument from me.

 

[RogerB]

Thanks Rog,

I'm wondering if you remember those appendix's and did they influence you? Have a reread of them and let me know.

Do you think they would have had an influence back in the day?

Here is a little surprise for you, Gib . . .

My route in was based on research and studies of psychology and "applied psychology" in pursuit of improving athletic performance . . . as I've mentioned before on ESMB, I was involved in the research as a subject and team member of Forbes Carlile the famed Australian swim coach (and for yous who think Carlile should have an "s" in it, this is the guy not the town!)

I saw an advert in a newspaper pitching the "The American College of Personal Efficiency" having courses in "Applied Psychology."

I trotted along, and heard about the ARC Triangle et al and spent a lot of time doing TRs and the "Upper Indoc" TRs up to, what is it, TR8 or 10?

The next thing I did was pure Scientology processes from things like COHA and from the PABs as they were released . . .

I did not read or get involved with Dianetics until I did my HPA in April 1960 . . . and did not read DMSMH until I was on my "Extension Course" as part of the by correspondence by mail to complete my HPA requirements.

In my early days, CCHs were BIG!

So to answer your question . . . no part of DMSMH had any influence on me whatsoever in respect of getting into Scn . . . and to be honest I don't remember much of anything of it that I read, except only, the basic principle it expounded.

Although I do remember it was a bloody long drawn out, boring, dreary thing to read!!

Rog

 

[Terril park]

No argument from me. Never implied he was "the source" necessarily.

In fact, Hubbard's creative processing might have an earlier ancestor in the 1890's in something called guided imagination.

The running of recently departed, dead and discarnate, souls who have attached themselves to a convenient body or family member, as a form of therapy, was practiced by Dr. Carl A. Wickland and his wife in the early 1900's. Documented in the book, Thirty Years Among the Dead (1924).

I'm currently reading a door-stopper history book about Aristotle, Socrates and Plato and their influences throughout the development of Western civilization. I see plenty of ideas from the distant past that Hubbard probably borrowed from to build his "modern and scientific" 1950's version of philosophical thought.

Hubbard was a combiner and synthesizer of ideas and techniques.

No argument from me.

If one does a google of "separating from discarnate beings"
there are numerous examples of schools of thought, 28000, hits. The first page dosn't contain a Scn ref.

 

[DagwoodGum]

Although I do remember it was a bloody long drawn out, boring, dreary thing to read!!

Gawd, wasn't it though? I didn't ever bother with reading it as I found it painful to try to morph my mind into a state where I could follow Hubbard's thought processes. I finally had to read it as part of my class 4 with dianetics training package. I merely skimmed through it applying what I knew of Evelyn Wood's Speed Reading. I passed all my checkouts just fine. I had read Fundamentals Of Thought, 8-8008 and Creation of Human Ability as my first reads as I found these available at my local library. Those were the exact points where I was hooked initially. I was actually searching for a distilled synopsis on mans discoveries of the mind to save me considerable time and legwork having come from Rosicrucian-ism where I was a member of AMORC.
I had been desperate to break free of my Catholic traditions having been force fed them by my family from an early age. So it just now occurs to me that having my face shoved down into the excrement of Catholicism and its adherents prepared me with the very desperation that gave me impetus when I leapfrogged from Catholicism into the awaiting clutches of Scientology. So thanks to Catholicism and my years spent morphing into the unrecognizable in their schools, I became a Scientologist. Now I remember realizing this during my early years as a Scientologist.

 

[DagwoodGum]

If one does a google of "separating from discarnate beings"
there are numerous examples of schools of thought, 28000, hits. The first page dosn't contain a Scn ref.

Performing your search I found this one site that I may pursue that looks interesting: https://www.clarity-of-being.org/dark-force-entities-dealing-with.htm
I always felt that entities would lose their grip and be naturally blown out just by raising and purifying my frequency and that it would be counter productive for me to feel compelled to deal with them individually or on their terms.
Thanks

 

[phenomanon]

Here is a little surprise for you, Gib . . .

My route in was based on research and studies of psychology and "applied psychology" in pursuit of improving athletic performance . . . as I've mentioned before on ESMB, I was involved in the research as a subject and team member of Forbes Carlile the famed Australian swim coach (and for yous who think Carlile should have an "s" in it, this is the guy not the town!)

I saw an advert in a newspaper pitching the "The American College of Personal Efficiency" having courses in "Applied Psychology."

I trotted along, and heard about the ARC Triangle et al and spent a lot of time doing TRs and the "Upper Indoc" TRs up to, what is it, TR8 or 10?

The next thing I did was pure Scientology processes from things like COHA and from the PABs as they were released . . .

I did not read or get involved with Dianetics until I did my HPA in April 1960 . . . and did not read DMSMH until I was on my "Extension Course" as part of the by correspondence by mail to complete my HPA requirements.

In my early days, CCHs were BIG!

So to answer your question . . . no part of DMSMH had any influence on me whatsoever in respect of getting into Scn . . . and to be honest I don't remember much of anything of it that I read, except only, the basic principle it expounded.

Although I do remember it was a bloody long drawn out, boring, dreary thing to read!!

Rog

We did pretty much the same lineup going.,only thing is I got in earlier than you. Dianetics was dropping off the program by 1954, the year co-incidentally when cos was founded. Things had gone quiet on Dn when Hisself lost the copyrights.
Sigh
I did a whole lotta hours of fooking CCHs. They were the only process my Auditor knew how to deliver. 1956. lol!
COHA is the best! Still love some of the processes.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

Gawd, wasn't it though? I didn't ever bother with reading it as I found it painful to try to morph my mind into a state where I could follow Hubbard's thought processes. I finally had to read it as part of my class 4 with dianetics training package. I merely skimmed through it applying what I knew of Evelyn Wood's Speed Reading. I passed all my checkouts just fine. I had read Fundamentals Of Thought and Creation of Human Ability as my first reads as I found these available at my local library. Those were the exact points where I was hooked initially. I was actually searching for a distilled synopsis on mans discoveries of the mind to save me considerable time and legwork having come from Rosicrucian-ism where I was a member of AMORC.
I had been desperate to break free of my Catholic traditions having been force fed them by my family from an early age. So it just now occurs to me that having my face shoved down into the excrement of Catholicism and its adherents prepared me with the very desperation that gave me impetus when I leapfrogged from Catholicism into the awaiting clutches of Scientology. So thanks to Catholicism and my years spent morphing into the unrecognizable in their schools, I became a Scientologist. Now I remember realizing this during my early years as a Scientologist.

yeah...

I read DMSMH once early on and several attempts at a second reading have bogged

Again as I said recently, someone did a really bright thing putting "The Oririginal Thesis" on the HAS course as it gives much of the meat of DMSMH w/o all the hot air. Which is forgivable because the hot air made DMSMH a best seller.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

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.

Lord I hate ruffling the feathers of the greatly admired and deeply respected Pheomenon.

Yes there are loads of things I've learned much from those who went further

Garbage is stuff like people who were never overboarded HOWLING about overboarding.

Those who were sometimes file mild objection but they would think themselves whining weenies to carry on about it.

It's safety record was fine; one broken collarbone and a few scrapes and bruises. All us vets did much tougher stuff in basic training and how many vets do you ever hear bitch about BCT?

Luv ya fondly!

Did you know Wing Angel?

 

[Gib]

We did pretty much the same lineup going.,only thing is I got in earlier than you. Dianetics was dropping off the program by 1954, the year co-incidentally when cos was founded. Things had gone quiet on Dn when Hisself lost the copyrights.
Sigh
I did a whole lotta hours of fooking CCHs. They were the only process my Auditor knew how to deliver. 1956. lol!
COHA is the best! Still love some of the processes.

thanks you two, you and Roger.

So you and Rog got in after the Dianetics 1950 release and were not part of the dianetics but part of the beginning of scientology. Interesting. So you were not part of the "clear" as depicted in dianetics?

The only info I have been able to find on the development or story of dianetics, from personal accounts, is the Heinlein/Campbell letters from the Heinlien archive.

You two ought to read them.

 

[RogerB]

We did pretty much the same lineup going.,only thing is I got in earlier than you. Dianetics was dropping off the program by 1954, the year co-incidentally when cos was founded. Things had gone quiet on Dn when Hisself lost the copyrights.
Sigh
I did a whole lotta hours of fooking CCHs. They were the only process my Auditor knew how to deliver. 1956. lol!
COHA is the best! Still love some of the processes.

Ya . . . It was when Hubbs dreamed up the HPA Val (for Validated) which meant ya'd learned to do CCHs on top of all his 1952 onward Scn stuff.

But to be honest, my Dear Phenom, Hubbs lost my respect and trust BIG time in late 1969 when he introduced "Standard Dianetics" and he made the big song and dance about we "auditors 'huh'," "who dropped out the very valuable Dianetics that should have never been dropped out" !!!! He was blaming his faithful troops for what he actually had told us to do/not do.

I have posted on this point earlier, and indeed cited the passages from 8-8008 where he actually decries and puts down Dn as now "only used by psychs who also practice shock treatments" . . . .

It was from that moment on that I held everything he said suspect to be checked, cross checked and verified.

Little did I know at the time (1969) that he's lost the rights to Dianetics back when the original Dianetics Foundation went bankrupt (due to Hubbard's mismanagement of monies).

R

 

[George Layton]

Lord I hate ruffling the feathers of the greatly admired and deeply respected Pheomenon.

Yes there are loads of things I've learned much from those who went further

Garbage is stuff like people who were never overboarded HOWLING about overboarding.

Those who were sometimes file mild objection but they would think themselves whining weenies to carry on about it.

It's safety record was fine; one broken collarbone and a few scrapes and bruises. All us vets did much tougher stuff in basic training and how many vets do you ever hear bitch about BCT?

Luv ya fondly!

Did you know Wing Angel?

Don't insult Veterans by claiming the basic training in any way compares to what hubbard put people through. Basic training is not an exercise of anyone's sadistic tenets.

 

[phenomanon]

Lord I hate ruffling the feathers of the greatly admired and deeply respected Pheomenon.

Yes there are loads of things I've learned much from those who went further

Garbage is stuff like people who were never overboarded HOWLING about overboarding.

Those who were sometimes file mild objection but they would think themselves whining weenies to carry on about it.

It's safety record was fine; one broken collarbone and a few scrapes and bruises. All us vets did much tougher stuff in basic training and how many vets do you ever hear bitch about BCT?

Luv ya fondly!

Did you know Wing Angel?

Yes.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

Don't insult Veterans by claiming the basic training in any way compares to what hubbard put people through. Basic training is not an exercise of anyone's sadistic tenets.

ARE YOU A VETERAN MAGGOTBRAIN?

I am.

Specialist Fourth Class United States Army William Birdwood US51968348 Reporting SIR!

We are the unwilling led by the incompetent.
We do the impossible for the ungrateful.

And if you have anything against insulting those who stand in harm's way that Liberty might live you might start by diminishing your own egregious unfounded and abusive conduct against a homeless veteran who slept on a concrete sidewalk again last night

thank you

Say...

You any relation to my friend Greg Layton who was I&R for a while at FCDC?

 

[Clay Pigeon]

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

Yes. In many ways of course. Tha's why I'm here and not there. Co$ $UXXX!!! Disconnection rots. etc etc

And in other ways no.

The best of Ron's work is groundbreaking, seminal, historic and likely to be enduring

And it's fun!

 

[screamer2]

Yes. In many ways of course. Tha's why I'm here and not there. Co$ $UXXX!!! Disconnection rots. etc etc

And in other ways no.

The best of Ron's work is groundbreaking, seminal, historic and likely to be enduring

And it's fun!

Uum... Did I miss something? "groundbreaking, seminal, historic and likely to be enduring"

Only in infamy, my friend. Only in infamy.


Edited to add

This may have been what I missed:

Clay Pigeon said: ↑
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

 

[Clay Pigeon]

Uum... Did I miss something? "groundbreaking, seminal, historic and likely to be enduring"

Only in infamy, my friend. Only in infamy.

Groudbreaking, seminal, historic, enduring, liberating, therapeutic, inspiring, transcendent, protean

And FUN!!!

 

[phenomanon]

thanks you two, you and Roger.

So you and Rog got in after the Dianetics 1950 release and were not part of the dianetics but part of the beginning of scientology. Interesting. So you were not part of the "clear" as depicted in dianetics?

The only info I have been able to find on the development or story of dianetics, from personal accounts, is the Heinlein/Campbell letters from the Heinlien archive.

You two ought to read them.

Where did you get the idea that I wasn't "part of dianetics"?
That would be a wrong idea.
I was very much into dn.
What I been sayin' is that dn morphed into scn very early on. Dn was great, and fun for those of us who could 'run' it. So many peeps couldn't find engrams.
!952 in Phoenix was about a rift between the dn'ists and this new subjec, scn.
Why, yes, I was into the Clear thing as depicted in dianetics".

 

[phenomanon]

Where did you get the idea that I wasn't "part of dianetics"?
That would be a wrong idea.
I was very much into dn.
What I been sayin' is that dn morphed into scn very early on. Dn was great, and fun for those of us who could 'run' it. So many peeps couldn't find engrams.
!952 in Phoenix was about a rift between the dn'ists and this new subjec, scn.
Why, yes, I was into the Clear thing as depicted in dianetics".

OH! Maybe you weren't even referring to me.
Nevermind.