Dianetics Revisited.

Discussion in 'L Ron Hubbard' started by guanoloco, Jan 26, 2016.

View Users: View Users
  1. Gib

    Gib Crusader


    yah, Hats. it's called security and for your protection. If you lose your CC, and somebody finds it and tries to buy something online, the site for security reasons wants the buyer to be the person who owns the card, who knows the billing address of the card.

    If you are so worried about your CC number being out there, you can do this. Register properly, get the file, you will receive a few emails. One will have an attachment. Open that and save the pdf to your hard drive, that's the file of letters all in date order. They are copies of the actual letters, scanned into a pdf format. Now, after you get the file, call your CC company and say you lost your CC can you cancel it and send me a new one with different numbers. Find out how long b/4 the new one comes and plan to not use a CC in the meantime.

    I first got the file with letters between Heinlein and Hubbard, based on Face saying a few times he wished he had read those letters in the very beginning and he would have not gotten involved. So after reading those letters, for some reason I was curious if there were letters between Campbell & Heinlein. Sure enough there was, I find these letters even more fruitfull with early information. I've never had any problems with my CC.
     
  2. Little David

    Little David Silver Meritorious Patron

    My bank's website will generate a one time use credit card number for online use. I use this when I'm using a site that is new to me. My bank claims the seller can't use that number again and will never know your original number.
     
  3. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    Campbell writes another letter dated November 29, 1949, it's 4 pages long (once again Heinlein had not responded to the last letter):

    "Ron has finally turned in the first article on dianetics; it will appear in the May issue, which is out in April---the first one that isn't already locked up in type and so on. It's about 16,000 words, and will run as one piece. It's titled "Dianetics: the evolution of a science", and is just about that. There'll be about 1000 words of introduction to proceed it.

    The lead-in on Ron's article is interesting---and you might be interested in the basic idea. Briefly, it is simply an engineering ideal of the ultimate, perfect computing machine. The things required of it."

    Campbell now lists out 17 points as explained in dianetics if you read that book and Evolution of a Science book. Campbell gives the analogy of the human mind being a perfect computing machine for the next 3 pages and then says a "clear" is the perfect computing machine.

    last line:

    "Bob, the psychologists---engineers---everybody---has been underrating the stupendous computational ability, and all-round ability, of the human mind by about 10( to 6th order) orders of magnitude!

    Next up will be Heinleins reply.
     
  4. Hatshepsut

    Hatshepsut Crusader

    What a watermark! I hope I got the same PDFs when I go onto the larger screen gadget in the bedroom. I 'll check now. This is exciting. I Iuvs reading other peoples mail. :biggrin:
     
  5. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    Heinlein finally replies back (letter dated 1 October 1949) to Campbells previous 8,6 & 4 page letters, Heinleins is 2 pages long:

    "Dear John,

    At long last, etc., I manage to write, by shoving aside work marked "Frantic!" I owe you a letter about six different ways."

    snips:

    "Your letter anent Hubbard's work has been read with great interest. I wish to the devil I could get more about this, in writing---in print. Ron has talked about a book for some time and has gone so far as to promise me galleys (I asked for carbons) but, if, as you say, it's still in his head, do what you can to get him to write it, or at least talk it into his soundscriber.

    You will appreciate that I must approach with scientific skepticism, albeit an open mind. If he is right, he has a discovery that makes the atom bomb look like peanuts."

    "I wanted very badly to send your letter on to Cal Laning (who is in Newport---the War College) and tell him to take a trip to New York to investigate."

    "I feel that Ron will be very chary about letting his work "fall into the hands of the military where it might be abused."

    "I know Laning well, better than I know either of you, which is saying a lot. snip...........Very well---attend this point closely: For several years Laning has been talking to me about how he wants to drop strictly military work, electronics, etc., and concentrate on the larger problems of psychology, with specific reference to the factors which make conferences, such as top-level international ones, work or break down. His idea is that wars should and could be prevented before they start---if only he knew about the psychological variables and how to handle them."

    "Nevertheless I contend that, since War III is now about as "inevitable" as it can get, risks must be taken if it is to be avoided. It will do none of us any good, neither the people of the United States, nor the human race, for Ron and his wonder-working method to be atomized (untried, unused!) in the first days of war. Show this letter to Ron if you wish, talk it over then tell me what I may do."
     
  6. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    The next letter in the file is dated 26 October 1949 from Heinlein to Campbell, it's one page:

    first there is 4 short paragraphs of shop talk, then this last paragrapgh:

    "I am much interested in getting an answer from you and Ron about the request contained in my last letter. What has become of Ron? I have not heard from him in quite a while. Of course, I know he is busy."
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2016
  7. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    Next letter is dated Thanksgiving 1949 (24 Nov) and is one page long from Heinlein to Campbell:

    "Happy Thanksgiving to all of you!"

    This is the only paragraph on dianetics:

    "Need I say that I have found every word on dianetics intensely interesting? I hope to get to New York in the course of 1950 to look into it further---can't tell you. In the mean time I eagerly await book, articles, letters, etc. Have you read Salter's "What is Hypnotism?" Quite short, worth your time, and, I think, sheds some light on the phenomena you and Ron are investigating. Please tell Ron that I have every intention of writing him soon, even though (by my records) he owes me a letter."
     
  8. Hatshepsut

    Hatshepsut Crusader

    I am actually surprised by the altitude that they assign LRH. He was definitely part of the 'club'. These two actually anticipated a treasure forthcoming. I don't think any of them made a lot of money in those days so having a clique of mutual admirers was soothing to say the least.:wink2:


    Robert and Virginia Heinlein in their trailer court 1947. I guess they were on the move a lot. The days of the old Airstream.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  9. ILove2Lurk

    ILove2Lurk Lisbeth Salander

    Thanks for the link. I had gotten the Hubbard-Heinlein letters a few years ago,
    but these were not on my radar.

    I paid for the file and got it in 15 minutes on my computer. Thanks again! :thumbsup:
     
  10. Little David

    Little David Silver Meritorious Patron

    Heinlein at one point considered LRH a "phony gentleman" but still believed his lies about being a wounded war hero, he let him live in his home after the war but eventually kicked him out:

    Shortly afterwards, Hubbard wrote to Heinlein. This letter was an clumsy attempt to mend their relationship which had broken down when Hubbard had caused trouble with Leslyn’s sister by proposing a mysterious “China venture” to her young nephews – a typical Hubbard fantasy whose content they found inappropriate. Heinlein wrote back:

    No, it was enticing a boy, a son of another veteran, to whom I had been left in locis parentis. When my sister-in-law called me – China – knives – guns etc – your goose was cooked with me.


    As a wounded veteran I am still obligated towards you and will help if I find you down. and out, but I no longer trust you. You may show this letter to anyone you wish.


    I think a lot of those ribbons on your chest, even if Polly doesn’t. You’re an authentic war hero, even though a phony gentleman. I’ll give you money to get you out of a jam, but I don’t want you in my home.


    https://scicrit.wordpress.com/2014/...iction-authors-experience-with-l-ron-hubbard/

     
  11. Hatshepsut

    Hatshepsut Crusader

    What a find! Little David :biggrin:
    I never could understand why Parsons was interested in magic. I am beginning to suspect that Ron had the cabability to 'run' people through some kind of enchantment. Reading this last letter of Campbell to Heinlein fawning all over Hubbard gives a bit of an icky feeling. I mean it's just a little too too. Somebody's wearing somebody else's head or vice versa.

    [​IMG]

    This part of a letter just browsed got me chorteling but good.

    Sept 15th 1949 to Heinlein

    "....be able to give some coherent outline of it. It's Ron Hubbard's work, the new science of human thought which he calls dianetics. ( Source: Greek for "thought")

    The material Ron has worked out is, I am absolutely convinced, the basic, root-source of the mechanism of human motivation. I did not know it before, but Ron has been studying the human mind, in an informal, free lance way, since he started reading Freud, Jung and Adler at about 12 years. He has, however included in his calculations and considerations a study of Christian Science, Catholic Miracle-shrines, voodoo practices, native witch-doctor work, and the witch methods of European tradition, as well as modern psychology's teachings. The point is that witchcraft is known to produce results---in some cases, under some circumstances. Precisely the same is true of modern psychology. Hypnotism also produces some results, but in a seemingly spotty, unpredictable manner. Evidently, then, each of these contained some grain of the whole, round truth; each was using some facet of the basic then-unkown science in a rule-of-thumb manner. But no one before Ron, apparently, had made a real effort to seek the real common denominator facts, integrated them, and made a science out of the many branches of witchdoctoring."

    Gosh. I didn't really wanna hear this.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2016
  12. Hatshepsut

    Hatshepsut Crusader

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2016
  13. strativarius

    strativarius Comfortably Numb

    I've just read (not for the first time) the very first reference to Dianetics in “Astounding Science Fiction” which appeared in the December 1949 issue on page 80, and I found it amazing to think that Campbell could believe that Hubbard (who was a regular contributor to the magazine) could, despite having no background or training in anything to do with the mind, come up with a radical new 'therapy' called Dianetics, as if out of nowhere.

    Perhaps Campbell didn't really believe a word of it but was hyping it up because he thought there might be money to be made. Just my $0.02.
     
  14. guanoloco

    guanoloco As-Wased

    I recently read a comparison between Dianetics and a Doctor's book comparing engrams and prenatals and valences and it was definitely Ron ripping it off. I cannot remember the source, possibly here on ESMB, but it would be great to pull that commentary into this thread.

    Anyone know what the hell I'm rambling on about?
     
  15. Hatshepsut

    Hatshepsut Crusader

    I missed that one. The search function on esmb does not work as well for me as a simple google search. Did this doctor use the word 'engram'? Are you saying this was written before 1949. Was it related to the thread on Korzybski?

    I actually cannot tell who is siphoning fron whom. (who) The letters sometimes seem like a script was pushed under Campbell's nose with which to impress. As editor of Astounding, Campbell could have written his own 'discoveries' in it.


    This was on the net under Possible origins of Dianetics and Scientology. There are 3 or 4 predating theorists listed in the paragraph.

    http://home.snafu.de/tilman/j/origins6.html

    .

    .
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2016
  16. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    Hey Strat,

    You may wish to start here http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?41326-Dianetics-Revisited&p=1086647&viewfull=1#post1086647

    and come forward to get a bigger picture. Hubbard was teaching Campbell how to be a dianetics auditor. Keep note of the timeline of the letters. There are many more letters I'll post to provide snips.
     
  17. strativarius

    strativarius Comfortably Numb

    Yeah, you're probably right Gib, I just read Campbell's blurb and that was my initial impression, although I realise it's not that simple. Thanks for the link btw.
     
  18. guanoloco

    guanoloco As-Wased

    Hats, man! This could be it. It's all there; however, I thought it discussed the subject reliving as a sperm just like Dianetics "sperm dream" sequence.

    This book by Froder would be a good one to compare to Ron's tremendous discovery and humble gift to mankind as the greatest friend he was.
     
  19. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    correct. The original dianetics had 3 appendix's. One written by Campbell, one by Dr. Winter, and another I forget now. I actually found a scanned copy and posted it here on ESMB, but I can't find it now. The purpose of the 3 appendix's is to add credibility to dianetics from other sources than Hubbard. In rhetoric, this is called ethos. In later scientology under the PR & Marketing series, this is called "positioning". Shoot, for example, all the fad vitamin new formula's on TV use the same ploy, they have an actor or Doctor explaining the wonders to be had, make it sound all so logical.

    Here's the appendix by Campbell as I copy it from the tread Caroline started over at OCMB, which kind of dovetails into this tread. Campbell is implying that dianetics is logos, or logic or science, and thus dianetics is a science of the mind..

    (what the DM COS doesn't understand is the appendixs purpose, he is in a catch 22 since Winters, Campbell and other big names at the time all left and said it was BS, so they are declared, and DM can not let this be known to the flock, Hubbard realized the same thing, hence PTS/SP/Fair Game, etc.. Hubbard could not let these people talk and had to come up with something sounding logical.

    Also of note, Tony O posted today about "The Basics" in which DM restored all the books and lectures to true source. Well, DM did not include the Appendixs from the original dianetics, and we know why now)

    http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=39380

    John W. Campbell wrote:Appendix II
    The Scientific Method


    The Scientific Method is based solidly on definite rules, but is none the less, like the American Way of Life, something that must be lived to be fully understood. The United States has a Constitution, but the American Way of Life is far more than that; so the Scientific Method is, while based on certain readily cited rules, far more than those rules.

    For one thing, the Scientific Method implies zestfully, gleefully attacking, with every available weapon of logic, every possible logical loophole in—your own structure of logic and theory. It requires that a man tear into his carefully built theory with the vim, vigor and spite of his worst enemy. It implies that a scientist's best friend will review his work starting with the premise that it's all wrong, and do his best to prove it's wrong.

    For the intellectual triumph, the warm glow of victory in science, comes not from producing a new theory—but from producing a new theory that stands up, and is useful, even when the most knowing make deliberate attempts to find a flaw.

    The Scientific Method is behind the testing of Navy armor plate. The production of a perfect piece of 16-inch armor plate is routine and gives no special satisfaction. But the production of a slab of 16-inch armor plate with a 16-inch armor-piercing projectile with its nose buried in that armor, a plate bulged, distorted, but unpierced and unbroken—that is triumph and satisfaction. We don't test the 16-inch plate ,with machine-gun fire, or with 6-inch projectiles. Test it with the heaviest, deadliest weapons you've got; then, and only then, do you have something to be proud of.

    So with a theory.

    There are rules for argument that lead to the building of a theory; they can be condensed to three key, critical points, the sense of which is clear. The problem in application is the subtlety with which violations of those rules can creep in. The critical rules are:

    1. Argument by appeal to authority is of no value whatever.

    2. The observation, not the observer's report, are the important data.

    3. No theory, however well-established or long-held, can stand in the face of one relevant, contradictory fact.

    The first of those rules is the one that is most often violated, usually quite unintentionally and without realizing it. Everybody knows that appeal to authority is no sound way to argue a case, even if the authority happens to be right. Yet so subtle can appeal to authority be that it is exceedingly easy to miss noticing its insertion; the preceding sentence, for instance, deliberately exemplifies one type of very easily missed "appeal to authority," actually the most common of all such appeals. "Everybody knows," "of course," "naturally" and similar phrases are the slipperiest customers in that respect. "Everybody knew" the world was flat for a long, long time, and "of course" the Sun went around the Earth, as any fool could plainly see. And common clay and the precious ruby have nothing in common—nothing, that is, except the same elements in somewhat different proportions.

    But even the less subtle appeal-to-authority that is stamped with the Great Name is a source of immense amounts of trouble. It was not Aristotle's fault that, for nearly a thousand years, science was stopped still by consistent appeal to Aristotle; he didn't claim he knew all the answers—the scholastic arguers did. Even today, in an age which has some understanding of the scientific method, Great Name arguments show up—except, of course, that the Great Name himself has become a Great Name by most carefully refraining from using that method! The sentence, "Einstein says that nothing is faster than the speed of light; it is theoretically impossible," contains two arguments by appeal to authority, and sounds so learnedly scientific that anyone might be taken in by it. Saying a thing is "theoretically impossible" is, actually, appeal to the authority of present theories. But a theory is not a fact—it's an intelligent set of opinions, and no more, as any scientist realizes. So far as the Great Name argument goes, those are easy to spot, and their value comes into focus very quickly if you simply substitute the arbitrary name "Joe Doakes" for the Great Name. The corrected, scientific-method sentence above —so far as argumentative value goes—would read, "Joe Doakes says nothing is faster than the speed of light; in his informed opinion it appears impossible."

    Scientifically, there is no difference whatever between the two statements, so far as evidential value goes. The evidence-statement on the subject would read, "Einstein suggested, and physical experiment appears to prove, that nothing is faster than the speed of light; current physical theory, which seems to fit most of the observed data, indicates it is impossible."

    That is, admittedly, a much less solidly satisfying sort of statement. It sounds weak, uncertain of itself or anything else. And it is the sort of statement—the sort of thinking—that went from the first small scientific evidence of the atomic theory in 1800 to atomic fission in less than a century and a half. It is the scientist—who operates on the principle that he doesn't already know all the answers—who is out looking for new and better answers. A man who thinks in terms of "This is the answer. I know this is true. That is impossible, because it disagrees with what I know," does not have to do research. He already knows the answers. He is in no danger of making new and disturbing discoveries that might upset his certainty of mind. The scientist, on the other hand, operates with the certain knowledge that he is uncertain; he is never disappointed, for new data is constantly being found—he's looking for it—that shows that he was, indeed, a bit mistaken.

    The non-scientist, who likes to work with Truths and Certainties and think in Absolutes, the method of uncertainties and probabilities seems stifling, an impossible method of operation. It is so impossible that it produces, in a single century, electric light and power, radio, television, atomics, the entire science of organic chemistry ranging from dyes to synthetic drugs, automobiles, airplanes—practically an entirely new civilization.

    By realizing that no theory is final, complete, or perfect, a new concept is admitted: a theory is good so long as it is useful. It is, naturally, a very pleasant thing if the theory also happens to be true, but that (shocking though the thought may be to the layman) is not at all necessary. The really important question is not, "Is it true?" but "Does it work?" If it works, we can use it and pretend it's true; if it is true, that's an added bonus.

    This reasoning, which seems to some specious and downright dishonest, is the only method so far found that produces results. Look about you: every product that has been touched by machines in its production is a demonstration of the observed fact that, by provisionally assuming a theory is true, concrete, useful results can be obtained. And that by maintaining a willingness to discard or modify that theory at the first sign of failure, progress is made.

    For if a theory is good only when it works, then the first time it fails to work—the first fact it encounters which does not fit—the theory must be discarded, and a new and better one found. Only someone who insists that a theory is Truth would hesitate to discard a theory that didn't work. And a scientist never insists that a theory is Truth; only that it is useful.

    When an apparent contradiction appears, however, the most careful checking must be instituted. First: check the interpretation of the theory. The basic concepts of the theory might be right, and the application of those concepts wrong. The reinterpretation of the theory may explain the new fact. Second, and actually simultaneously, remember that the observation, not the observer's report, is the datum, and repeat the observations. The observer may have been wrong. Men can't see beyond the violet or below the red; quinine makes a man's ears ring, so he hears sounds that aren't there, and no man can hear sounds above 20,000 cycles when they are there. Under ultraviolet light, the human eyeball glows slightly, so that one sees a mist of light that isn't there, but since we can't see ultraviolet light itself, an observer will not see the source of ultraviolet that is there. Always check the observations; the observer may be wrong. But actual observations, facts, are never wrong.

    One source of a lot of misunderstanding is the difference between theoretical impossibility and factual impossibility. That is best illustrated, perhaps, by the old story of the man who telephoned his lawyer, explained a legal contretemps, and was told, "Don't worry about it; they can't put you in jail for that!" The client replied, "I'm calling from the jail."

    A slight change on that might demonstrate reverse aspect. Make the troubled caller a circus owner; this time we'll say the lawyer replies, "That's serious. I'm afraid they can put your elephant in jail for that."
    In each case, theory is in conflict with physical fact; in each case, as it invariably must by the very nature of things, theory, not fact, breaks down.

    But all of this is, in essence, a discussion of the scientific method of argument, of thought. There is, at the root of it all, the scientific technique, the final test and proving ground of all scientific thinking. Ideally, the scientific method follows seven steps:

    1. Make a series of careful Observations.

    A. These observations must be repeated, and are acceptable as observations only if many people following the prescribed techniques can duplicate the results.

    B. Variations of the prescribed techniques must be tried to eliminate the possibility that the observed results might be due to a factor other than that intended. As a gross example, suppose it is reported that a magnet will attract objects. Demonstrations show it does attract and lift iron balls; that is Step A above. Now variations of the experiment show that the magnet attracts iron but not copper, silver, etc. The observed effect—attraction—is real. Variation of the original experiment is needed to show the actual limits of the effect.

    2. Combining all relevant data, from all relevant experiments, formulate a hypothesis.

    A. The hypothesis must explain all observed data.

    B. It must not demand as a consequence of its logical development, the existence of phenomena that do not, in fact, exist.

    C. But it should indicate the existence of real, hitherto unobserved facts.

    3. Using the hypothesis, predict new facts.

    A. A logical structure broad enough to explain all observed, relevant phenomena will necessarily imply further phenomena that have not yet been observed. Use this mechanism to predict the existence of something which, under previous theories, would not exist.

    4. Perform an experiment and make observations on these predictions.

    5. As a result of the experiment, discard the hypothesis, or advance it now to the status of "Theory."

    6. Make further predictions, further experiments, and collect more observational evidence until a contradictory relevant fact is found.

    7. Discard the old theory, take the new total of observational data, and form a new hypothesis.

    8. See Step Three.

    This process seems, at first glance, a completely circular, going-nowhere system. It isn't; the 50-passenger airliner flying by just overhead testifies to that. Notice that each time round that cycle the new hypothesis shows how to get new data, new experimental evidence, new information. The process is not circular; it's an expanding spiral, and each sweep around it covers a broader and broader field of understanding.

    But the most important step of all—the one that took men longest to make once the idea of organized knowledge was started—is Step Seven. "Discard the old theory . . . and start all over again." It's hard for men—who are basically conventional, status-quo animals! ... to give up the comfortable familiarity, the nice, easy routine, of that Old Time Theory, to embark on a completely new system that calls for a total revision of all their thoughts. It's so easy and comfortable to believe that the old theory is Truth, and doesn't and won't ever need changing, even if it doesn't work all the time. Like an old pair of shoes, it is comfortable, and familiar, even if the holes are apparent.

    The true scientist is in a somewhat different position. He starts off with any theory and finds it useful only so long as it works. If it no longer works, it should be discarded, and a new, better one fashioned.

    And that is an old, comfortable familiar theory that you can settle down into, and stick with for life. Expect change; you can be sure you won't be disappointed.

    John W. Campbell, Jr.
    Nuclear Physicist,
    Author of The Atomic Story

    NOTE: Formulation of this Scientific Methodology was contributed in part by the engineers of "Ma Bell"—the Bell Telephone research laboratories—to whom thanks are extended.

    Hubbard, L. R. (1950). Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, a handbook of dianetic procedure (25th printing June 1981 ed., pp. 505-11). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.





     
  20. Hatshepsut

    Hatshepsut Crusader

    I got to The Way the Future Blogs by clicking the ocmb link. I love it!

    Also
    http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=39380#p410050

    I've always been impressed with the depth of research Caroline Letkeman and and Gerry have shared. Especially the insights into the occult nature of some of the basics. I must confess though, I don't discount that folks have been bumping into hard to label phenomena. I also took umbrage with the pretense that solutions were there.....when they weren't available at all. Very expensive ones. Throughout history there have been very few of a unique caliber who have been the real miracle workers.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2016

Share This Page