Now you're talkin'!evil envious narcissistic sociopath . . . .
This is my 100th post. I don't want to waste by it telling some lame joke or issuing more of the inane waffle that I'm probably guilty of inflicting on you guys, but to use it to ask a serious question (or two questions, to be precise) that I would really like to know the answer to.
[1] Was L. Ron Hubbard simply a cynical opportunistic confidence trickster? (One word answers are not permitted!)
or
[2] Did he actually believe in the workability of the 'Tech'?
In support of [1] we have his famous quote (which I here paraphrase) 'The way to make a lot of money is to start a religion' or words to that effect, and in support of [2] we have the literally millions of words he either wrote, spoke or had comitted to tape, a vast number of which were concerned with developing, simplifying and refining the Tech.
In relation to the Tech, I'm thinking (to give just one example) about the page after page after page of psychobabble that he scrawled in relation to the Implant GPM's on OT II which I have in a pdf. It just goes on and on and on. Why? Why if he knew all along that the whole thing was an elaborate hoax did he need to spend so much loafing time on it and go into such minute detail? I was never at FLAG but I believe he had auditors audit him and someone had to C/S his folders I guess. Was all this just a sham?
As far as him being a confidence trickster is concerned, we have all read about the lies he told about himself, his childhood, his military career etc. and he evidently relied on disingenuity throughout and in all aspects of his life. Did Hubbard home-in on Parsons for example because he thought that people like him who believed in 'spiritual forces' in some form or another were especially gullible?
Anybody?
On the one hand, he was clearly a savant when it came to writing. Every account I've read of anyone who saw him write characterizes his ability as phenomenal. He apparently possessed the ability to produce complete, coherent prose almost instantaneously. On the other hand, he also appears to have taken an enormous amount of satisfaction from writing. He believed implacably in his own genius.I agree that Hubbard was both a charlatan and deluded. I think the explanation for his prodigious volume of writing is twofold.
Secondly, I get the impression that as much as Hubbard coveted wealth, he coveted power more. He derived extraordinary pleasure from the fervent devotion his followers gave him and from the sadistic control he wielded over them. He sought for and achieved a godlike status.
Furthermore, as time went on and he became increasingly isolated from the world, in the fantastic bubble he had created for himself, I think it very likely that he came to believe his own con. That is to say, just like the ancient thetans of his narrative, he became ensnared by his own game.
lol....wut?he is an endlessly puzzling and enigmatic figure strat...
no doubt he was something of a charlatan. in fact if you understand the conventions of literary devices you can easily discover that he confesses to constructing CoS to be a shop for the shearing of sheep in "Mission Earth"
.
I agree that Hubbard was both a charlatan and deluded. I think the explanation for his prodigious volume of writing is twofold. On the one hand, he was clearly a savant when it came to writing. Every account I've read of anyone who saw him write characterizes his ability as phenomenal. He apparently possessed the ability to produce complete, coherent prose almost instantaneously. On the other hand, he also appears to have taken an enormous amount of satisfaction from writing. He believed implacably in his own genius.
Secondly, I get the impression that as much as Hubbard coveted wealth, he coveted power more. He derived extraordinary pleasure from the fervent devotion his followers gave him and from the sadistic control he wielded over them. He sought for and achieved a godlike status.
Furthermore, as time went on and he became increasingly isolated from the world, in the fantastic bubble he had created for himself, I think it very likely that he came to believe his own con. That is to say, just like the ancient thetans of his narrative, he became ensnared by his own game.
This is my 100th post. I don't want to waste by it telling some lame joke or issuing more of the inane waffle that I'm probably guilty of inflicting on you guys, but to use it to ask a serious question (or two questions, to be precise) that I would really like to know the answer to.
[1] Was L. Ron Hubbard simply a cynical opportunistic confidence trickster? (One word answers are not permitted!)
or
[2] Did he actually believe in the workability of the 'Tech'?
In support of [1] we have his famous quote (which I here paraphrase) 'The way to make a lot of money is to start a religion' or words to that effect, and in support of [2] we have the literally millions of words he either wrote, spoke or had comitted to tape, a vast number of which were concerned with developing, simplifying and refining the Tech.
In relation to the Tech, I'm thinking (to give just one example) about the page after page after page of psychobabble that he scrawled in relation to the Implant GPM's on OT II which I have in a pdf. It just goes on and on and on. Why? Why if he knew all along that the whole thing was an elaborate hoax did he need to spend so much loafing time on it and go into such minute detail? I was never at FLAG but I believe he had auditors audit him and someone had to C/S his folders I guess. Was all this just a sham?
As far as him being a confidence trickster is concerned, we have all read about the lies he told about himself, his childhood, his military career etc. and he evidently relied on disingenuity throughout and in all aspects of his life. Did Hubbard home-in on Parsons for example because he thought that people like him who believed in 'spiritual forces' in some form or another were especially gullible?
Anybody?
It amuses me that John McMaster, the first "clear", was gay. And Hubbard had insisted in all his writings that gays were 1.1.
Hubbard could not accept this, and was always on at John about his orientation. I met John in Johannesburg around 1962, and he was a very nice guy, certainly not 1.1.
Mike
lol....wut?
Yes, that seems feasible GL.He was both, often at the same time. He was first a charlatan, then deluded into thinking that he was some kind of genius source-of-all-truth, then frustrated that it never worked on HIM, then wishing it did work on him, then bitter and milking it for all it was worth at his end of days.
Originally Posted by Queenmab321
I agree that Hubbard was both a charlatan and deluded. I think the explanation for his prodigious volume of writing is twofold. On the one hand, he was clearly a savant when it came to writing. Every account I've read of anyone who saw him write characterizes his ability as phenomenal. He apparently possessed the ability to produce complete, coherent prose almost instantaneously. On the other hand, he also appears to have taken an enormous amount of satisfaction from writing. He believed implacably in his own genius.
Secondly, I get the impression that as much as Hubbard coveted wealth, he coveted power more. He derived extraordinary pleasure from the fervent devotion his followers gave him and from the sadistic control he wielded over them. He sought for and achieved a godlike status.
Furthermore, as time went on and he became increasingly isolated from the world, in the fantastic bubble he had created for himself, I think it very likely that he came to believe his own con. That is to say, just like the ancient thetans of his narrative, he became ensnared by his own game.
This is my 100th post. I don't want to waste by it telling some lame joke or issuing more of the inane waffle that I'm probably guilty of inflicting on you guys, but to use it to ask a serious question (or two questions, to be precise) that I would really like to know the answer to.
[1] Was L. Ron Hubbard simply a cynical opportunistic confidence trickster? (One word answers are not permitted!)
or
[2] Did he actually believe in the workability of the 'Tech'?
In support of [1] we have his famous quote (which I here paraphrase) 'The way to make a lot of money is to start a religion' or words to that effect, and in support of [2] we have the literally millions of words he either wrote, spoke or had comitted to tape, a vast number of which were concerned with developing, simplifying and refining the Tech.
In relation to the Tech, I'm thinking (to give just one example) about the page after page after page of psychobabble that he scrawled in relation to the Implant GPM's on OT II which I have in a pdf. It just goes on and on and on. Why? Why if he knew all along that the whole thing was an elaborate hoax did he need to spend so much loafing time on it and go into such minute detail? I was never at FLAG but I believe he had auditors audit him and someone had to C/S his folders I guess. Was all this just a sham?
As far as him being a confidence trickster is concerned, we have all read about the lies he told about himself, his childhood, his military career etc. and he evidently relied on disingenuity throughout and in all aspects of his life. Did Hubbard home-in on Parsons for example because he thought that people like him who believed in 'spiritual forces' in some form or another were especially gullible?
Anybody?
When I started this thread I really didn't know the answer. The consensus is that he was both, and I'm happy to go along with that.well...
he believed in the workability of the tech
but...
by his own statement he thought he would be able to read other people's hands playing poker
this is a purely adolescent idea of "OT" and he was often adolescent
and yet he was also brilliant. just a real strange guy
and i'm kind of a strange guy too...