knn
Patron Meritorious
Which one is the largest shift in meaning that was not re-defined later anyway (in HCOBs, lectures etc)?
I had to get this off my chest
- Thread starter PokerPlayer
- Start date
Dulloldfart
Squirrel Extraordinaire
PokerPlayer
Patron
The alterations are minimal? wouldn't even one alteration be enough? no matter what the alteration was?
Plus to me, it is more than altering it is telling me that LRH could not even publish a book correctly when he was, first and foremost, an Author. yea, yea, yea, the church says well he wasn't the publisher and so the books were wrong.
Well, why didn't he freaking check them out!!!
Want me to list my references on why I think LRH would have made sure those books were correct?
Hell, I was assigned lower conditions because I didn't clean the film projector correctly. Would I have been declared immediately if a book I wrote was published incorrectly?
I have been thinking of an example that would come close to this Basics thing outside the Church. Here is what I came up with but I am sure there is a better one:
Let's say the Supreme Court in the US decide to rewrite the "Declaration of Independence" stating there were errors in the original version. Now, what would the outcry be?
Veda
Sponsor
When Hubbard fled to Cuba with daughter Alexis, Richard DeMille accompanied him. It was in Havana, Cuba that Hubbard dictated (into a sound recorder), onto "little green discs," the rough version of what was to become 'Science of Survival':
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/miller/interviews/demille.htm
When the recording-discs arrived in the USA, Hubbard's editor, John Sanborn, took over the task of transcriber, and assembled the stream-of consciousness-dictation into sentences and paragraphs.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=137009&postcount=58
Sanborn left Scientology in the early 1980s, and his recollection of the inception of Hubbard's secretly authored "Russian Brainwashing Manual," and many other recollections, appear in 'Messiah or Madman?'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-Washing_(book)
It's likely that Miscavige became aware of Sanborn's comments, and became aware also that other (long since denounced or "erased") persons, such as Henrietta Hubbard, wife of son Ron Jr., had participated in the transcribing of various books.
From what I've seen so far (and I've not looked at all of them), the changes to these 1950s texts are not terribly significant. It's a matter of stylistic interpretation how one wishes to organize, in print, the spoken words of another. At the same time, there's no indication that Hubbard ever expressed any dissatisfaction with the old versions, or much cared about them. "Books," after all, were only a lead-in to the rest of the sea of Hubbardian verbiage.
Most of Scientology doctrine is to be found, not in 1950s books, but in HCOBs, HCOPLs, and other Hubbard writings, including a substantial amount of confidential writing (and I don't mean the "OT levels") which are the senior doctrine, and have been senior doctrine - functioning as a long established "hidden data line" - since the 1960s.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/miller/interviews/demille.htm
When the recording-discs arrived in the USA, Hubbard's editor, John Sanborn, took over the task of transcriber, and assembled the stream-of consciousness-dictation into sentences and paragraphs.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=137009&postcount=58
Sanborn left Scientology in the early 1980s, and his recollection of the inception of Hubbard's secretly authored "Russian Brainwashing Manual," and many other recollections, appear in 'Messiah or Madman?'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-Washing_(book)
It's likely that Miscavige became aware of Sanborn's comments, and became aware also that other (long since denounced or "erased") persons, such as Henrietta Hubbard, wife of son Ron Jr., had participated in the transcribing of various books.
From what I've seen so far (and I've not looked at all of them), the changes to these 1950s texts are not terribly significant. It's a matter of stylistic interpretation how one wishes to organize, in print, the spoken words of another. At the same time, there's no indication that Hubbard ever expressed any dissatisfaction with the old versions, or much cared about them. "Books," after all, were only a lead-in to the rest of the sea of Hubbardian verbiage.
Most of Scientology doctrine is to be found, not in 1950s books, but in HCOBs, HCOPLs, and other Hubbard writings, including a substantial amount of confidential writing (and I don't mean the "OT levels") which are the senior doctrine, and have been senior doctrine - functioning as a long established "hidden data line" - since the 1960s.
knn
Patron Meritorious
Minimal alterations of books are insignificant.
Most of these "books" are transcribed anyway so approximately as much worth as lectures. Hubbard made about 3000 lectures. A handful of books fades in comparison.
The most important book would be DMSMH. There were no corrections to that book.
Let's take Original Thesis. How could ANYTHING being altered in that book be significant? They added now a chapter "The Clear", so what? Hubbard didn't know what a Clear was until 1978.
Scientology 8-8008 is a summary of the PDC lectures:
We...we have, imagine this, just imagine this, we have a textbook printed in advance of a lecture. And there is a complete text on the material which I'm going to give you in the next three weeks. And it's called SCIENTOLOGY 8-8008. And it was a book which I wrote in England and which is being put through the mill there, and in view of the fact that the book was typed by a former BBC program typist, one of these people that takes it straight off the platter you know or straight over the air from some foreign station and puts it down, and as a result it was taken off the records and put onto stencils, and put into a mimeograph machine. And that right now is being completed over there and is being air expressed here for you and your use.
Now...uh...the subject and coverage in it is probably completely incomprehensible without the lectures, cause all it is is simply a machine gun bap bap bap on precise definitions. Just definitions, uh...phenomena and how you do it, comprises maybe two pages in this book. And well all the data is there and all the definitions are there. And so I'm going to orient these lectures against that book and as you take notes here, you will find that your notes will correspond with this book.
LRH, PDC #1
Why should anything matter written in that book? Even if it would matter, it's from 1952 and you would have to check whether definitions etc changed LATER.Now...uh...the subject and coverage in it is probably completely incomprehensible without the lectures, cause all it is is simply a machine gun bap bap bap on precise definitions. Just definitions, uh...phenomena and how you do it, comprises maybe two pages in this book. And well all the data is there and all the definitions are there. And so I'm going to orient these lectures against that book and as you take notes here, you will find that your notes will correspond with this book.
LRH, PDC #1
And so it goes on... There is no really important book in Scientology except DMSMH (because this is still the main hook book).
It's simply a complete fabrication that the Basics have anything to do with any breakthrough or major change.
If you have to choose which book to buy I would suggest 8-80, but I am not aware that they still run "black and white" and "beauty and ungliness" in the Church.
And again: It's a complete red herring because the major issue is that WHOLE OT LEVELS are not by HUbbard. You shouldn't worry too much about some corrected words in transribed "books".
Hatshepsut
Crusader
I guess next DM will declare that LRH was a technical error that should never have been there. Then we will have come full circle.
