A theory of Hubbard, Dianetics and Scientology.

The thing that messed up Hubbard's mind the most was when Don G Purcell bought the rights to it out of bankruptcy from Hubbard then refused to give it back to him when Hubbard asked nicely.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
The thing that messed up Hubbard's mind the most was when Don G Purcell bought the rights to it out of bankruptcy from Hubbard then refused to give it back to him when Hubbard asked nicely.

I doubt that's the actual circumstance. From what I heard, Don Purcell was about as dedicated a Hubbardist as you could find, but, after spending the money to rescue 'the tech' wasn't in some huge rush to allow the already bankrupt organization to just retread the *next* bankruptcy. And, of course, he *did* give it back to Ron. Probably with some ARCX, but, being a Hubbardist, he probably did blame himself.

Zinj
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
The thing that fucked up Hubbard's mind was HUBBARD.

Read his affirmations. These are long before the advent of Scientology.
 

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
I was actually about to pick out the ones in the list that looked more like they were aimed at lying than suppressing free speech, I'm glad i wasn't the only one who saw that.

It still leaves "leaving the church" and "smack talking a scientologist in good standing" along with a couple others.

Leaving the church is only penalized inside the context of the church for the most part.

Freedom of speech includes the right to not speak as one chooses I would think. People can come together and follow a certain set of their own rules about speech without setting aside free speech on the whole.
 

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
I disagree. It is a huge problem for scientology as it was written up by LRH and has been accepted uncritically by members of the Co$. Fortunately it is possible (and to be recommended) for individuals to eliminate inconsistencies & illogic originating in the materials from their own comprehension when studying either the Hubbard material or the material of others.

This of course is more work and requires a measure of intellectual honesty on the part of the student. However, the discipline of intellectual honesty helps to counter the lure of 3rd dynamic out-ethics to which so many are prone. :whistling:


Mark A. Baker

Hubbard also wrote that what he wrote SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED UNCRITICALLY!!

To do so is to only participate half way in the subject.
 

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
Alanzo, I am a person mildly autistic, but was taunted as being retarded as a child. It has no effect on me now, except for just a sense that maybe in the spirit of Eunice Schriver, it is not a word to jokingly label with.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Alanzo, I am a person mildly autistic, but was taunted as being retarded as a child. It has no effect on me now, except for just a sense that maybe in the spirit of Eunice Schriver, it is not a word to jokingly label with.

All right.

Well, the last thing I would ever think about you was that you were retarded. My "complete retard" comment is a rhetorical device only.

And since you have awakened my sympathy response for you, I will write here a "cognition" that I had yesterday while walking in the woods near my home:

Basically, what you and I think Mark are trying to say in this thread is that Scientology is only one example of a progressive wave of spiritual inquiry that uses meters and disciplined therapeutic techniques (I won't say hypno-therapeutic techniques) to mine the wisdom inside each of us and uncover solutions to our problems, thus ultimately freeing us as immortal non-physical beings from the trap of the physical universe.

Hubbard was only one man in a long line of men who attempted this exploration. And he did get a long way. But there is much more to do, and to think of Hubbard as the alpha and the omega in this endeavor is to fixate on the man and stay blind to the work. And to the miles left to go before we sleep.

I understand.

It's the work, not the man. It's the quest, not the cult.

Am I right?
 
Last edited:

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Freedom of speach is not freedom from consequence.

Yes, and one of the consequences of using a rhetorical device is that you get to highlight a particular aspect of the truth as you see it, and which your audience may also see. It may even drive home something to those who do not see the truth as you do, presently, but as time goes by, may come to include your ideas in their own worldviews.

That's one of the reasons I love the freedom of speech.

And the use of rhetorical devices that this freedom guarantees.
 

everfree

Patron Meritorious
Leaving the church is only penalized inside the context of the church for the most part.

That would be true if the penalty was no more Scientology auditing or training, but it's not limited to that. The actual penalty is "get every Scientologist to disconnect from person, including friends, family, employers, and landlords, compelling compliance on the part of those associates via threat of having the same thing happen to them.

And this from a church who unceasingly attempts to get a person to utterly immerse themselves within it, so that the "context of the church" encompasses every aspect of the person's life. In that context, such disconnection is an effort to "destroy the person utterly" if they speak.
 
I understand.

It's the work, not the man. It's the quest, not the cult.

Am I right?

More or less.

There is also the recognition that the work is neither wholly accurate or complete as given. Still there is much of value to be had from it. And for many it may even offer a "best point of entry".

Many paths, one mountain.


Mark A. Baker
 
That would be true if the penalty was no more Scientology auditing or training, but it's not limited to that. The actual penalty is "get every Scientologist to disconnect from person, including friends, family, employers, and landlords, compelling compliance on the part of those associates via threat of having the same thing happen to them.

And this from a church who unceasingly attempts to get a person to utterly immerse themselves within it, so that the "context of the church" encompasses every aspect of the person's life. In that context, such disconnection is an effort to "destroy the person utterly" if they speak.


That's still within the "context of the church".

For an analogy, during the dark ages excommunication from the catholic church was the worst sanction that the church imposed. They prided themselves on not soiling the church with blood through "capital punishment". However for most christians of the time excommunication was effectively a death sentence as it cut them off completely from any form of economic, civil, or charitable activities. No food, nor water good be given to an excommunicant. They were "fair game" in the eyes of the community and usually barred from any means of self-support.

Hence the subsequent struggle in western civilization to separate the secular from the sectarian. Strong churches are an anathema. :coolwink:


Mark A. Baker
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Leaving the church is only penalized inside the context of the church for the most part.

Good thing you added the 'for the most part' or your deliberately disingenuous statement would be a flat out lie.

If the 'Church's' malicious influence was limited to 'only inside the context of the 'Church'' much of 'Church' history would be very different and it would not be the *social* lesion it is. Just ugly.

Now, would you care to specify how much 'for the most part' is and where you see the dividing line to 'inside the context of the church'?

Zinj
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
Not to hijack my own thread, but....The best question I've heard asked about Palin is whether anyone would be paying this much attention to her if she looked like Margaret Thatcher. I suspect the answer might be no.

It is interesting to note that people paid attention to Margaret Thatcher despite the fact that she looked like, well, Margaret Thatcher.

Would people pay attention to BWG if she didn't look like BWG? Of course they would. Would certain males pay as much attention to BWG if she didn't look like she does? I would (breaking my arm patting myself on the back), but I can't speak for others. I'm not so sure.

Now you know why I have the Avatar that I do. :wink2:

We now return to our regularly scheduled programming....

Not that I was ever a supporter of hers, but Margaret Thatcher was far from unattractive when she was younger; she had good legs and used to model women's suits for the Daily Telegraph (a right-leaning British bropadsheet newspaper) at the start of her career in politics.
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
Hrm, well, I would pay just as much attention to BWG no matter how she looked, because she's a good organizer with a bright mind.

I don't pay attention to Sarah Palin EXCEPT to look at her. As soon as she opens her mouth, I start losing my ability to respect her at all.
 
Top