A theory of Hubbard, Dianetics and Scientology.

[Voltaire's Child]

He was obviously quite competent in many respects. He created Dn as a self help methodology, originally, and people (regardless of whether one believes in its efficacy or not) really liked it. That's competence.

He then created the cult. He had no trouble doing that. He had no trouble amassing many millions- if not billions of dollars. That's competence.

And all that's without considering any possible efficacy to "the tech" which I'm also able to do.

 

[bluewiggirl]

He was obviously quite competent in many respects. He created Dn as a self help methodology, originally, and people (regardless of whether one believes in its efficacy or not) really liked it. That's competence.

He then created the cult. He had no trouble doing that. He had no trouble amassing many millions- if not billions of dollars. That's competence.

And all that's without considering any possible efficacy to "the tech" which I'm also able to do.

Fluffy, you know I love you.

He got kicked out of the navy for almost starting a war, he flunked out of college, and he was a horrible writer. The fact that he was able to write something that looked like what people wanted to hear does not make up for the rest of the miserable failures in his life. Making a cult isn't hard. People for the most part WANT to be led and WANT there to be someone who has all of the answers. And even with that knowledge it still took him a while to get off the ground, and still spent years running from one country to another to international waters to escape the consequences of his actions. I would say that's a little trouble.

If the tech works for anyone (and I will not argue that it seems to for some people) that is in no way an indication that Hubbard was a good, noble, or even competent person. There's plenty of resources you can look up if you choose to see where he got the ideas for the various parts of Dianetics and Scientology. Past lives were not a new idea, regression therapy was not a new idea, even the concept of having different minds wasn't new (id/ego/superego anyone?).

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Fluffy, you know I love you.

He got kicked out of the navy for almost starting a war, he flunked out of college, and he was a horrible writer. The fact that he was able to write something that looked like what people wanted to hear does not make up for the rest of the miserable failures in his life. Making a cult isn't hard. People for the most part WANT to be led and WANT there to be someone who has all of the answers. And even with that knowledge it still took him a while to get off the ground, and still spent years running from one country to another to international waters to escape the consequences of his actions. I would say that's a little trouble.

If the tech works for anyone (and I will not argue that it seems to for some people) that is in no way an indication that Hubbard was a good, noble, or even competent person. There's plenty of resources you can look up if you choose to see where he got the ideas for the various parts of Dianetics and Scientology. Past lives were not a new idea, regression therapy was not a new idea, even the concept of having different minds wasn't new (id/ego/superego anyone?).

I didn't say he was competent at everything but he knew how to create a self help methodology. He knew how to get people to follow him. He knew how to make money.

Don't judge all his books by Mission Earth- which is LOUSY. I'm NOT a fan of his books because I prefer Orson Scott Card and some other science fiction writers but even so, I've read a number of his pulp sci fi and western stories and some of his early books. They were NOT terrible. They weren't my cup of tea but some were actually good, if one likes that sort of thing.

I said NOTHING about goodness or nobility. And there's a REASON I didn't.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

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.

A "bastard"?, possibly. I never met him but have heard a lot of first hand accounts which attest to his "wide range of behavior". Many of his actions were clearly motivated by his own self-interst or without regard to the welfare of others.

Was he "incompetent"? No. He was immensely capable in some regards without question. Both he & the church confuse the areas in which he was more than competent with areas in which he was merely competent or even incompetent.

Hubbard had some genuine talents. He gained the direct assistance & loyalty of many other hugely talented, intelligent & capable people. They respected his very genuine abilities. It's a mistake to dismiss his abilities because of his obvious flaws.

Dianetics from what I can tell is a relatively well-intentioned attempt to create a religion that people would buy.

[n.b. Dianetics is actually the "non-spiritual" aspect. Scientology is the religion. ]

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.

Some would agree with you.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Fluffy, you know I love you.

He got kicked out of the navy for almost starting a war,

Not true. Mexico is quite accustomed to u.s. naval violations of there waters. Nothing remarkable there. The U.S. Navy is not know for consideration shown to others. Such interactions are not uncommon although they rarely come to public attention, either during or after the fact.

Many of his actions while in the service were erratic. Such behavior is inclined to attract attention & disapprobation from his seniors. By such actions he demonstrated he was unfit for naval command. Command ability is rare. In his case, the lack of fitness may well have been a reflection of his mental health rather than his competency as an officer.

Trust me as a former maritime ship's officer, there is a very clear distinction.

he flunked out of college,

So have a lot of successful individuals. Hubbard was not gifted with the skills requisite for a career in academia.

and he was a horrible writer.

Again it could be argued that many (if not most ) successful writers are.

I don't generally like his popular style of prose much. He wrote for a popular market not noted for literary discrimination. His stories are typical for the genre. They aren't timeless works of art but pulp fiction typically isn't. However, he was a very good popular communicator. He wasn't necessarily accurate or truthful but he got his points across to a broad public audience.


Mark A. Baker

 

[bluewiggirl]

I didn't say he was competent at everything but he knew how to create a self help methodology. He knew how to get people to follow him. He knew how to make money.

Don't judge all his books by Mission Earth- which is LOUSY. I'm NOT a fan of his books because I prefer Orson Scott Card and some other science fiction writers but even so, I've read a number of his pulp sci fi and western stories and some of his early books. They were NOT terrible. They weren't my cup of tea but some were actually good, if one likes that sort of thing.

I said NOTHING about goodness or nobility. And there's a REASON I didn't.

okay, mission earth was the one piece of his fiction that I tried to read through, so there's a chance that some of his older stuff might be to my liking. I will grant you that one.

 

[bluewiggirl]

Not true. He got routed out of the navy at the end of WWII. Most naval personnel did. How much of the military culture are you familiar with, particularly post-WWII? The time and people are truly "foreign" to modern attitudes. As to his routing out of the navy, he was put on medical leave first. His naval career was erratic. His actions demonstrated he was unfit for naval command. Command skills are rare. In his case his lack of fitness may well have been a reflection of his mental health rather than his competency as an officer.
...
Mark A. Baker

Would you accept "mentally ill" over "incompetent" in that case?

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

He was obviously quite competent in many respects. He created Dn as a self help methodology, originally, and people (regardless of whether one believes in its efficacy or not) really liked it. That's competence.

He then created the cult. He had no trouble doing that. He had no trouble amassing many millions- if not billions of dollars. That's competence.

And all that's without considering any possible efficacy to "the tech" which I'm also able to do.

Yeah he was obviously quite competent in a few respects, he was a skilled hypnotist and a master con man. That is something everyone can agree on.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Would you accept "mentally ill" over "incompetent" in that case?

Me? Absolutely. My hypothesis is he was Bipolar Type I.


With regard to your Battlefield Earth comment:

I don't think his early fiction to be very good either. I did enjoy "Ol' Doc Methusalh" somewhat. It's very stilted but amusing. I also suspect it may have been the inspiration for Heinlein's foray into the Lazarus Long opera. The late stuff is crap. I actually think they might be forgeries. If so they are not very good forgeries. They are too deliberate in attempting to recreate his "voice". Probably ghost written according to his notes and put out in his name. Whether he actually knew about & authorized it ... :confused2:


Mark A. Baker

 

[Zinjifar]

Lazarus Long existed *long* before 'Mission Earth' (which I have read) and can't possibly have had any influence from Ron.

I don't suppose it would help to mention that comparing Ron to Heinlein will not go well

Zinj

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Hi, BWG,

One book that's not half bad is "Fear". Also, I liked some of his pulps- not just the Sci Fi ones- he wrote Westerns. Had several pen names. But then again, I actually like pulps in general. Some were well written.

Dianetics was the self help thing. It was really grass roots when it came about though of course even then Hubbard was trying to expand it. It had no religious aspects. Scientology came about in 1953 and there you get the spirituality aspects.

As I said, I'd not mentioned anything about Hubbard being a good guy or well intentioned. I was only discussing his competence.

I also said I could and would possibly later discuss the efficacy of Dn and Scn. So I'll bring that up now. I have personally seen people get a lot out of Dianetics and Scientology auditing. I've gotten a lot out of it. My pcs have as well. The TRs really do help with the basics of communication. Another thing Hubbard did was tie his theories together to get some continuity. So the ethics stuff dovetails with auditing which dovetails with the TRs as well. The data series also interfaces similarly as does other "admin tech". Do I think everything about it is perfect and flawless? No. Absolutely not. But, yes, it is effective. That's why there are so many exes and other critics who are genuinely afraid of it and say it's dangerous. If it did not produce effects, it could not engender any dangerous situations- it couldn't be used that way, it couldn't have any such side effects.

 

[alex]

Lazarus Long existed *long* before 'Mission Earth' (which I have read) and can't possibly have had any influence from Ron.

I don't suppose it would help to mention that comparing Ron to Heinlein will not go well

Zinj

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.

 

[Zinjifar]

I'm just waiting for someone to suggest that 'Revolt in 2100' was 'inspired by Ron'

Naturally, there *are* many parallels. Heinlein was a Naval Academy graduate and an actual engineer. Heinlein was a *successful* SF writer with a very open mind towards 'religious' themes. 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)

But, it's preposterous to think that a Robert Heinlein when faced with the 'Cult That Ron Built' would have reacted with anything but revulsion.

Zinj

 

[uniquemand]

That might be true, but Hubbard was richer.

 

[Xclam]

Yeah he was obviously quite competent in a few respects, he was a skilled hypnotist and a master con man. That is something everyone can agree on.

Let us not forget his accomplishments as a poet and a singer.
"Thank you for listening, I write this just for you...". Beautiful.

Kha Khan's theory makes very much sense I think.


"I do not sing what I believe, I only give them fact, da dam di dum.."

 

[Zinjifar]

Speaking of Ron's 'poetry':

(From; Mission Earth #9; Villainy Victorious)

Oh, a soldier's life is the life for me;
Tuma-a -diddle; tuma-a-diddle, paw-pata
In camp and plain, I'm always free
To tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle, paw-paw~
No women ever spoil my view
With tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle, paw-pam
They're always wanting something new
Not tuma-diddle; tuma-diddle, paw-pam
For it is the men that I enjoy
To tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle, paw-pav.~
The best there is I find is boy!
Oh, tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle; paw-pam
The enemy I do not mind
If tuma-diddle, tuma-diddl4 paw-paw
Can go on in my behind
With tuma-diddle; tuma-diddle, paw-pa~
And if my bunkmates all are kind
With tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle, paw-pam
Surrounded by ten thousand (bleeps)
That tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle, paw-pa~
All passionate and hard as rocks
To tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle, paw-pazt~
Eager to slide in my buttocks
And tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle, paw-paw!
So (bleep), (bleep), (bleep) and (bleep) in me!
Tuma-diddle, tuma-diddl4 paw-pam
And let me (bleep) and (bleep) in thee
With tuma-diddle, tuma-diddk, paw-pam
Oh, what a love-ul-lee Arm-ee!
With its tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle;
OH! BOY!

Zinj

 

[clamicide]

perhaps...

Hubbard did a lot of 'one-off' quick writes....and it worked in fiction. Remember his descriptions of what he did while writing from tapes? And when it hit BIG in the non-fiction, I think he saw money and more importantly to him, acclaim. JMHO. I DO think he was trying to solve his own problems with it, but it was probably just typing out at hyperactive speeds like usual and submitted it because he just threw everything to mags for the cash, and when it got THAT much attention, HE had to pay attention to it--there was something that could set him up for life. Plus, the publishers saw that people bit. Again...Just my mental meanderings...

 

[bluewiggirl]

...I also said I could and would possibly later discuss the efficacy of Dn and Scn. So I'll bring that up now. I have personally seen people get a lot out of Dianetics and Scientology auditing. I've gotten a lot out of it. My pcs have as well. The TRs really do help with the basics of communication. Another thing Hubbard did was tie his theories together to get some continuity. So the ethics stuff dovetails with auditing which dovetails with the TRs as well. The data series also interfaces similarly as does other "admin tech". Do I think everything about it is perfect and flawless? No. Absolutely not. But, yes, it is effective. That's why there are so many exes and other critics who are genuinely afraid of it and say it's dangerous. If it did not produce effects, it could not engender any dangerous situations- it couldn't be used that way, it couldn't have any such side effects.

I think the real question is whether it's the right tool, not whether it is a self-improvement/mental manipulation tool in the first place. I can bang a nail in with a screwdriver, but I also stand a good chance of shattering the screwdriver and getting a shard of plastic in my eye in the process. I recently read Stacy Brook's explanation of her experience in Scientology (here: http://mnraid.org/forums.php?m=posts&q=987 but probably quoted a lot of other places as well) and it's made me rethink a little of how I see the actual tech within Scientology. There's a lot to be said for that kind of self centered regression therapy, but it seems a lot like trying to put in staples with a chisel for most cases.

I'm not going to bring up specifics of "THIS HERE IS BROKEN THEREFORE YOU'RE WRONG" because we both know that's not the point you were trying to make in the first place, but I am interested in hearing about which parts of the tech you find do the most good for people. Maybe that goes in another thread, or maybe it's already been brought up, but I am genuinely interested.

 

[Kha Khan]

Like all great men who try something bold, there are failures mixed in the successes.

By what measure could Hubbard possibly be called a great man? Compared to whom? The idea is ludicrous.

I believe Hubbards intentions were always good.

"Ye shall know them by their fruits."

How did something so good, (so good that it has held many of our attentions for so many years) also hold us to its flaws?

Sadly, the fact that Scientology has held our attentions for so many years says far more about us than it does about the value or worth of Scientology.

 

[lkwdblds]

excellent post!

I almost got trite about this. While it is true that Ron amalgamated a pretty big empire during his lifetime, he did spend a huge amount of time at sea, or in a few different "orgs", and writing. Many of us, who are critics of the man and the subject, are quick to point out that he was a power-monger, or that his "research" was extremely flawed. If he was only in it for the money and power, though, he could have completely cut and run in the early 70's (or earlier) and been a very rich man, and done whatever he wanted for the rest of his life. It seems that what he wanted, though, was to continue to work on his "tech". He might have been a delusional narcissist, but he seems to have been genuinely interested. Nobody spends most of their life working on something strictly as a con. Certainly, he was also a con-man! This is part of what made him so interesting, though, that he seems to have been "legit" in his actual interest in the subject.

Excellent post with several astute observations and conclusions!
lkwdblds