A theory of Hubbard, Dianetics and Scientology.

lkwdblds

Crusader
One of the best quotes about LRH I've ever read!

Yes, I think his "flaw" could be stated as having such a degree of self confidence that he neglected to follow his own advice.

Casewise, organizationally, and in interacting with others.
To me,the flaw you mentioned is a brilliant observation. It summarizes the problem with LRH and why the movement didn't go further than it did. If one was told to summarize LRH in one sentence, your first sentence would be the best of all possible choices!

On your next post following this one, you comment that you believe he did use the scientific method and you list a lot of examples. I would like to add one example no one has mentioned yet, that example being the Axioms. How much more scientific can someone get than developing a set of axioms as the basic foundations his new subjects, Dianetics and Scientology?
lkwdblds
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Excellent post with several astute observations and conclusions!
lkwdblds

Uniquemand and lkwdblds;

I concur. I've made the same observation a time or two. If all Hubbard wanted was the money and power (notice I say "All", meaning yes, he wanted money and power, just not exclusively) he had tons of material to rest his laurels upon long before he stopped writing and revising Scn stuff.
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Who is us?

It has always seemed to me that Hubbard starts off as an incompetent bastard and slowly degenerates into a tragic figure wrapped up so tightly within his own mythology that he can't escape. I very much believe the claim that Hubbard started a religion on a bet, but that doesn't mean he went out of his way to create a mean or crazy religion. Dianetics from what I can tell is a relatively well-intentioned attempt to create a religion that people would buy. At some point, I believe Hubbard started buying his own press, got lost in a reality that he had created and somewhat, dare I say it, mad with power. By the time OT III was written he was already in a really bad way.

I don't know how that theory would sit with practicing freezoners, but based on the materials available to us it seems to fit pretty well.

Who, other than yourself constitutes the "us" to whom the materials gathered seem to fit pretty well.? I'm just curious, no big deal.
lkwdblds
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Jack Parsons started Aerojet Gerneral in Azusa, CA

Nothing tragic about Hubbard, only the lives of others that he consumed.



I think that rather than start a religion, he wanted to be taken seriously as a scientist instead of a mere peddler of tales.

IIRC, Arthur C. Clark did some stuff re geosyncrous sattelite orbits. Asimov wrote science text books. His friend Parsons in addition to his Crowley ties was a big name in rocketry. Hubbard later said that he also knew some physicists. Who knows to what degree that is true - I don't recall him naming any - but there was definitely a scientific air to some of the circles he travelled in. I think he wanted to prove himself their superior.

Dianetics he characterized as the "modern science of mental health" then followed it up with "science of survival".

Even Scientology was first heralded as the "science of certainty". He seems to have later assumed the guise of religion as an expedient fall back position, and seeing the many benefits it provided stuck with it.

The whole religious angle seems to have started with a wink and a nod, and doesn't appear to me to be a main goal until much later.

Parsons started the company Aerojet General in Azusa, CA. He was a big figure in the aerospace and a very legitimate top scientist. I believe he was a graduate of Cal Tech.......lkwdblds
 
Methuselah's Children which is the first instance of Lazarus Long came out in 1941, and "Ol' Doc Methusalh" (which is what Mark was referring to not BE/ME)
came out in 1953 so it may well be the other way around.


That's true. However it overlooks the fact that author's often have an idea for years before writing it up. They also often have stories lying in storage for lengthy periods prior to publication. First reference to publication of "Ol' Doc ..." is 1947. That was just after Hubbard's active period of naval service in WWII.

I certainly don't claim to know "who influenced what by whom". Heinlein was certainly a much better writer than Hubbard. Still, there are clear references, particularly in his later fiction, to Hubbard's works by Heinlein and some similar themes in some of Hubbard's stories to works by Heinlein.


Mark A. Baker
 
I'm curious. Did anyone ever think that if Hubbard hadn't exploited, used and abused you, you would have had to find someone else to do the job?

........I never felt abused or exploited until I got out and saw the bigger picture of what really occurs in the CofS thanks to the Internet. The pieces of the puzzle or game that didn't fit while in, came to fit when out.

.......I am thankful that I got myself involved with this particular Organization as who knows what would have happened joining up with another.


....... Could be dead now or still paying financially for a hope and a dream.
 
There's little doubt that 'Stranger in a Strange Land' strongly influenced Ron, although, it's worth pointing out that Michael Smith's 'Tech' actually *worked* (at least within its fictional confines)
Zinj

For "Stranger ..." the more likely influence was Hubbard to Heinlein. It was written over an extended period of time. Heinlein admitted dropping the project for a period of some years during that time. The period that the book was in the works coincides also with the period wherein Heinlein likely experienced auditing from Hubbard.

The book is noted for having marked a significant shift in Heinlein's work by literary critics. Many of the ideas which thenceforth regularly recur in Heinlein's fiction. They are not dissimilar to themes which routinely arise in the auditing of pcs. :whistling:

No smoking gun, but Heinlein liked to keep people guessing about things. He figured it sold books. Another point in similarity between the two. :)

Of course, Z, you are free to believe that since "Hubbard = BAD" nothing good could possibly arise from his influence. :D


Mark A. Baker
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Thanks

Casual to moderately serious critics with an internet connection.

Thanks for the answer. When you can ask a person a simple question and get a straightforward and truthful answer that indicates the responder is sane! The only advice I have (this is a joke) is with a trait such as this, do not go into politics, based on all indications you won't get very far if you do.
lkwdblds
 

Veda

Sponsor
To me,the flaw you mentioned is a brilliant observation. It summarizes the problem with LRH and why the movement didn't go further than it did. If one was told to summarize LRH in one sentence, your first sentence would be the best of all possible choices!

-snip-

Hubbard followed his own advice quite a bit. However, not the the "advice" that was publicized, or that Scientology would usually like to have identified with its founder. There's an ample amount of amoral, immoral, Machiavellian, megalomaniacal, and just plain evil "advice" expressed in his writings, but you won't find it in books donated to libraries, or on display on some wall, or hanging in big plastic letters in front of an Org.

Scientology is built on the overt(visible)/covert(behind-the scenes) paradigm. The stuff that Hubbard took seriously was not that which he put on display for the naive faithful, or unsuspecting 'raw meat'.

To be perfectly blunt: Hubbard preferred that his followers be stupid on the topic of himself and the core-doctrine of Scientology, while, at the same time, being dominated by him and by that core-doctrine.

I would prefer not to comply with that particular bit of 'Command Intention'.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
I'm curious. Did anyone ever think that if Hubbard hadn't exploited, used and abused you, you would have had to find someone else to do the job?

........I never felt abused or exploited until I got out and saw the bigger picture of what really occurs in the CofS thanks to the Internet. The pieces of the puzzle or game that didn't fit while in, came to fit when out.

.......I am thankful that I got myself involved with this particular Organization as who knows what would have happened joining up with another.


....... Could be dead now or still paying financially for a hope and a dream.

No because I was not exploited used and abused. Or, rather, I was, to an extent, at the mission I was at but it wasn't Scientology.

And, no, I wouldn't have found someone else to do that. I'm not some frail person with an abused woman syndrome happening. That's insulting.
 

Abaddon

Patron
Many of the ideas which thenceforth regularly recur in Heinlein's fiction. They are not dissimilar to themes which routinely arise in the auditing of pcs.

"The profession of shaman has many advantages. It offers high status with a safe livelihood free of work in the dreary, sweaty sense. In most societies it offers legal privileges and immunities not granted to other men. But it is hard to see how a man who has been given a mandate from on High to spread tidings of joy to all mankind can be seriously interested in taking up a collection to pay his salary; it causes one to suspect that the shaman is on the moral level of any other con man. But it is a lovely work if you can stomach it." - Robert A. Heinlein (1973). Time Enough for Love

I wonder what was going through his mind when he wrote that. :whistling:
 

Kha Khan

Patron Meritorious
No because I was not exploited used and abused. Or, rather, I was, to an extent, at the mission I was at but it wasn't Scientology.
People have been telling themselves that for how many years now?

And indeed, how many years even before Hubbard dropped his body?

"Yes, the Church of Scientology treated me and/or people I knew like shit for 30 years, but it wasn't Scientology!" Then what the hell was it? And if that wasn't Scientology, then when has Scientology ever been practiced or applied? Has the official Church of Scientology never actually practiced or applied the true religion of Scientology?

How were you exploited that wasn't Scientology? That wasn't pursuant to the HCOBs and HCOPLs that Hubbard himself wrote? That wasn't due to the rigidly hierarchical, no feedback, no questioning, structure established by the HCOBs and HCOPLs?

Isn't the source of all non-falsifiability, all the rules about not questioning or challenging anything -- KSW No. 1 -- Scientology?

Isn't "fair game" Scientology?

Isn't disconnection, and the threat of disconnection to keep people in line, Scientology?

Isn't the vaunted justice system -- which has no right to a jury, no independent judiciary or decision makers, has never worked or been just, and which has always been perverted by utilitarian, Kha Khan, "greatest good for the greatest number of the dynamics" calculations that favor those (including alleged rapists and and child molesters) who contribute large amounts of money to the Church -- Scientology?

More fundamentally, isn't the ends justifies the means, "greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics" rationalization for any action that benefits the Church, no matter how it effects others, or how immoral it is per mere "wog" morality -- Scientology?

Isn't the illegal PC doctrine Scientology?

Isn't the "blame the victim" PTS doctrine Scientology?

Isn't the paranoid demonization of evil "psychs" Scientology?

Isn't the doctrine of freeloader debt, and its use to frighten Sea Org members, Scientology?

Isn't the doctrine that the only purpose of a lawsuit is to harass Scientology?

The only way that the abuse wasn't "Scientology" is if you conveniently define Scientology as excluding anything that is abusive.

Or does none of the above count as Scientology that is relevant to the discussion because you personally were not a victim of these particular Scientology doctrines?

Because of KSW No. 1 and other doctrines, Scientology may be the most textually fundamentalist and rigidly hierarchical religion on the planet today. (Name one religion that is more textually fundamentalist and rigidly hierarchical.) Such top-down, hierarchical systems are tailor made for exploitation and abuse.
 
Last edited:

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
@Kha Khan; good question. My view is that if it's in the books or the taped lectures it's Scientology. In other words, I'm in favour of tech and against policy.

LTRH also specifically warned his audience against taking his opinions too seriously (he said once, "boy I've got some wild opinions").

I don't trust the HCOB's, which repeatedly cancel each other out especially since not every signature purporting to be LRH's was in fact his.
 
Last edited:
@Kha Khan; good question. My view is that if it's in the books or the taped lectures it's Scientology. In other words, I'm in favour of tech and against policy.

I don't trust the HCOB's, which repeatedly cancel weach other out especially since not every signature purporting to be LRH's was in fact his.

I guess you could technically be in favor of the mind control, just not what Hubbard did with the mind control, but then we are no longer talking about Scientology.
 

Kha Khan

Patron Meritorious
Actually I would take issue that Hubbard didnt approach things scientifically.
KSW No. 1, and particularly step 3 ("Knowing it is correct.") is the antithesis of the scientific method.

The entire point of KSW No. 1 is to avoid any questioning of or challenge to Hubbard's theories. They worked by definition. Per KSW No. 1, if some Scientology procedure didn't work, it was because you didn't apply it correctly. (Or, as we later learned, because you were an SP, were PTS, etc., etc.) By irrebutable, irrefutable definition.

Somebody say that a Scientology procedure is not working? Consider that it might really not work, or something might be better? Xenu forbid! No! "Jump down their throats!" Remember that?

Hubbard hypothecised things, then experientially gathered data to support it. (Or not).
Two points.

First, while Hubbard may or may have not done this in the early days, he certainly did not allow anyone else to do it. Or at least anyone who was not under his control. That is not science. Forbidding and precluding independent review, study and verification is not science.

Secondly, Hubbard gathered data to support his theories. He did not gather data to falsify them.

Yes, he did it without peer review, double blinding and all the accoutrama of the currently academically acceptable fashion.
To describe double blinding and particularly peer review as mere "accoutrama" and "fashion" is to demonstrate that one does not understand the scientific method even if one can quote Wikipedia.

One key to science is independent replication of results. That others will conduct the same experiment or study, under the same conditions, and see if they obtain the same results. Anything like that was anathema to Hubbard because he couldn't stand to be proven wrong, to be (in his mind) "humiliated."

One of the primary indicators of scientific fraud, or poor scientific design or reasoning, it when others try to replicate one's results and are repeatedly unable to do so. No wonder Hubbard forbid independent review, study and verification of his theories and methods. No wonder KSW No. 1 is the first policy in every Div. 2 course.

But his work in mental hospitals, (which would not be allowed these days)
What work in mental hospitals? Is there any evidence, other than Hubbard's own ramblings (perhaps in the same lecture in which he talked about the train stations on Venus or implant stations on Mars) that he ever actually did work in mental hospitals? That, regardless of what would be allowed today, that at any time during Hubbard's adult lifetime any mental hospital would allow a college drop-out to "work" on patients in its mental hospital?
 
Last edited:
What work in mental hospitals? Is there any evidence, other than Hubbard's own ramblings (perhaps in the same lecture in which he talked about the train stations on Venus or implant stations on Mars) that he ever actually did work in mental hospitals? That, regardless of what would be allowed today, that at any time during Hubbard's adult lifetime any mental hospital would allow a college drop-out to "work" on patients in its mental hospital?

4 billion years ago Hubbard claimed to have witnessed the evil psychs from the Maw Confederacy brainwash people by smashing super cooled glass plates into their faces, and in some case pour cold water on them while doing it. Hubbard must have been working in mental hospitals 4 billion years ago in order to witness this ... or maybe he was a patient :whistling:
 

Kha Khan

Patron Meritorious
@Kha Khan; good question. My view is that if it's in the books or the taped lectures it's Scientology. In other words, I'm in favour of tech and against policy.

I don't trust the HCOB's, which repeatedly cancel weach other out especially since not every signature purporting to be LRH's was in fact his.
Three observations.

First, I've never seen a definition of the "religion" of Scientology, even as distinguished from the official organization of the "Church of Scientology," that excludes HCOBs (and I assume you would also exclude HCOPLs). That seems to be yet another attempt to define anything that is morally reprehensible or otherwise objectionable as being somehow "outside" Scientology and, quite frankly, awfully convenient. And certainly not how Hubbard or anyone else would define the religion of Scientology or its scriptures.

Second, aren't you throwing out the baby with the bath water? While auditing is certainly discussed in the tapes and books, aren't the explicit instructions, steps, lists, etc. given only in HCOBs? Could you really do any Scientology auditing (i.e., other than Dianetic auditing based on the book Dianetics) without the HCOBs? How would you do the TRs course, the prerequisite to all Academy auditing training, without the HCOBs on TRs? Even if you could scrape something together on auditing from only the books and tapes, would you really want to? And would you honestly assert that such auditing was really proper and appropriate "Scientology?"

Third, isn't much, if not all, of the perverted justice system -- which has no right to a jury, no independent judiciary or decision makers, has never worked or been just, and which has always been perverted by utilitarian, Kha Khan, "greatest good for the greatest number of the dynamics" calculations that favor those (including alleged rapists and and child molesters) who contribute large amounts of money to the Church -- set forth in the book Introduction to Ethics? Isn't the ends justifies the means, "greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics" rationalization for any action that benefits the Church, no matter how it effects others, or how immoral it is per mere "wog" morality -- set forth in the book Introduction to Ethics?
 
Last edited:

Kha Khan

Patron Meritorious
And, no, I wouldn't have found someone else to do that. I'm not some frail person with an abused woman syndrome happening. That's insulting.
My question was not sexist, and certainly didn't suggest that there was some "abused woman syndrome happening." It was directed to everyone regardless of gender.

I asked because something made us different. Something made us susceptible when others were not. Something caused many of us (to my understanding, not you) to accept abuse and, quite frankly, eat shit for a long period of time when others would have walked away, and indeed did walk away.

And something held us in despite the fact that the vast majority, if not all of us, were not subjected to physical force (or at least no physical force at all times). That while some were held hostage by the disconnection policy, not all of us were.

What made us different? What (and yes, damn it, I'll say it because it is true) made us weak? Or at least weak compared to emotionally healthy individuals who much, much earlier said (at least to themselves), "You know what? This is bullshit!" -- and walked out the door.

I recall a fairly recent original post by a young woman in the New Member Introduction section where the person described how she left after several weeks or a couple of months at most. It was followed by a comment to the effect that the young woman learned in a several weeks or a couple of months what it took the commentator 30 years to learn.

Oh, and don't think of my question as insulting. Think of it as tough love. :coolwink:
 
Top