A Thumb Nail Sketch of L Ron Hubbard

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
All I have to add here is that I have seen the orders LRH put in to a book club when he was on the ship and was relaying all his needs and wants to St Hill. He would order half a dozen books or more each time. Anything and everything to do with philosophy or the social sciences or history. Anything that could even remotely relate to Scn.

I was FBO at Saint Hill for 18 months in 1974/5 and again for 18 months around 1980. Every couple of weeks Irene Thrupp, Hubbard's personal secretary — and a charming lady — would bring approved PO's regarding purchases for him that would be paid for by cheques I wrote on the local FBO #2 account. This included some books every now and then. I don't remember there being crates of books, maybe a few a week. I can only remember one title, that stood out at the time I think because I had read about it in a newspaper only a week or two beforehand. It was a large glossy book with lovely illustrations all about dragons.

I would love to be able to help by listing all the titles he got, but, sorry.

The books would be delivered to Saint Hill and shipped to Hubbard from there, presumably via External Comm's regular comm lines to the ship in 74/75 and wherever he was in 1980.

I wondered at the time about the legality of paying for Hubbard's stuff, since he said he didn't get any money from orgs and all that, but the total amount over all that time probably averaged maybe £100 a month. He paid subscriptions to a few associations and clubs (maybe the Royal Automobile Club, not a nightclub) and sometimes sent in extra money as a donation, but it was like £5, a gesture only, never anything substantive.

Paul
 

fisherman

Patron with Honors
Ol'Face,

Thanks for taking the trouble to give me the post numbers. I Started at #2026 and got up through #3600. I also read the "Power of Source" thread. Your posts filled in many gaps for me and I appreciate that!

I've read most everything out there on Scientology and what you've written is the most incisive and fair narrative I've encountered. And by "fair" what I mean is true and level, in a cabinetmaker's sense of those terms. You present an idea, offer pertinent evidence and studiously avoid over-working conclusions. Such compact narrative is always persuasive because it's usually true.

Your views of Mary Sue Hubbard shed additional light while confirming what I gathered elsewhere. I think it's safe to say that without MSH (or equivalent support) Mr. Hubbard would likely have self-destructed. It's seems apparent that no one knew this better than Hubbard himself. Hubbard was determined to "smash his name into history" and understood his personal limitations well enough to enlist others to help in that project.

I also agree with your assessment that Hubbard was keenly aware DSMH would make him a "one book wonder." He knew the publishing world well enough to see that! The schemes and mechanisms he put in place subsequent to DSMH scream his intention to springboard to wealth and prominence. Your comparison to Elmer Gantry is especially well founded.

I imagine that inside Gantry's tent it's impossible to comprehend the totality. Fortunately, the passage of time gives us necessary hindsight. Here in 2010, I suspect Mr. Hubbard's motives and methods are entirely revealed. And truly, I've not seen a more convincing picture of them than in your own posts!

What I may never understand is the continued veneration of "the tech." I don't say that in any vindicative way, I simply don't comprehend an attraction that seems paradoxical. And Lake, I really do hope you'll forgive me for raising this.

I notice two streams of opinion regarding LRH-tech. One presents the tech as recapitulated "garden variety common sense" while the other claims the tech is arcane, unique, and "built on the backs of giants" as Alan wrote.

Here is my paradox:

1.) If the tech springs from garden variety common sense, visible over the centuries, and growing in places outside Scientology -- you wouldn't expect it to attract such a vigorous defense.

The wisdom behind "a penny saved is a penny earned" has existed for eons. Would there be any sense to thousands of Internet pages defending Ben Franklin, because he said it so well? If Pol Pot offered similar advice, "never waste a bullet" I wouldn't spend much time vaunting Pol Pot over Franklin, or even Betty Crocker. Not because he's right or wrong, but because there's no point to it.

Plato's "theory of forms" is top-notch epistemology-tech, but I wouldn't fight over it. It's not the only model for idealism.

2.) If the the tech is unique or some legitimate refinement "built on the backs of giants" -- why is that so hard to demonstrate?

Charles Darwin's thoughts on evolution derived from previous ideas about "the great chain of being" (and Darwin would tell you so). Karl Marx's "dialectic materialism" is a re-write of Hegel's "dialectic historicism" (and Marx would tell you so). Aristotle's democratic impulses are a reaction to Plato's totalitarianism (and Aristotle would tell you so).

"Greatest good for the greatest number" was coined by 19th century Utilitarians to summarize 3 generations of thinkers, James Mill, Jeremy Bentham, & John Stuart Mil. Any of these men could easily tell us how they added or subtracted from each other. And a roomful of later Utilitarians could just as readily identify these origins and backgrounds.

Maybe most important is the fact that (long after these men have died and gone) even a poor student like me can see and describe these lineages from the actual writings and from historical documents.

So,

Why is it impossible for Hubbard (or anyone else) to offer a clear delineation of what formed the "tech"? Mr Hubbard described himself as "the great organizer" of history's intellectual constructs. Why can't the Great Organizer tell us which ideas he organized? Why is it that no-one else can relate the lineage the Great Organizer organized? Not guess at it obliquely, but tell us straight out in the way Marx talks of Hegel. How organized could the Great Organizer have been?

The paradox remains. If the tech is common sense, there's little point in expending energy defending the rudimentary ideas of a criminal who hurt people. If the tech is brilliantly built "on the backs of giants" -- that edifice should stand up to far closer scrutiny.

Please allow me a tangential aside:

Philosophy is NOT subjective or fuzzy. It's the rigorous application of logic to a question. When the philosopher is finished, his path is pretty clear to follow. It may wind, but it's usually clear. Theology is a little different but even poor Thomas Acquinas committed himself to torturous disquisitions in logic, trying to bridge science and God. Rigor? You want rigor? "Summa Theologica!" :thumbsup:

I don't see anything akin to rigor in LRH's tech or his writings. What I've encountered is soft-headed and contradictory.

Also, Hubbard plays a trick that I find offensive. LRH name-drops "superstar philosophers" like Socrates and Kant to associate his own notions with "real thinkers." That's a dirty way to abuse people's good faith. Call me a snob, if you like, but when Hubbard departed this world and arrived wherever he was going -- I hope Thomas Hobbes beat the crap out of him. :coolwink:

So I will end there. I learned an awful lot from Lake's thread and your posts in particular. I'd like to come by and visit the ship sometime, but I'll be on guard for snaggle toothed pirats, hurling Peter Drucker's books at each other and listening to opera. Y'all sound dangerous! :)

fisherman
 
Last edited:

afaceinthecrowd

Gold Meritorious Patron
Fisherman,

Aye, me bucko. Be carrin' yar cutlass when ye come...we be most dangerous ‘buclklers indeed!:coolwink:

I admire and appreciate your energy, intellect and inquisitiveness re: El Ron and Hisself’s edifice.

I’ve got some comments re: your paradoxes and wonderfully insightful post.

I am wrote out for the day so it’s gonna be tomorrow or the next day before I get back to you.

My narratives are truly a collaborative effort with, and because, of folks like you…thanks a bunch. You, and so many others, are helping me and I appreciate that more than you know.:yes:

Face:)
 
Last edited:

fisherman

Patron with Honors
Ol' Face & Lakey,

There's a conundrum that motivated my previous post I'd like to explain.

I spent five or six hours, yesterday, reading the "Aboard the Apollo" thread and sauntered through about 1500 posts. All that time, I was impressed by the level of discourse and dazzled by the range of topics discussed. What struck me more than anything is my own consternation. I'm not quite sure how to express this, but, simply put,

I didn't detect any hint of intellectual inferiority to LRH. To the contrary, in numerous areas, the level of education and experience surpass Mr. Hubbard. Here's what I found y'all discussing with more cogency than I've detected in Mr. Hubbard's writing:

Organizational structure and management, covering Peter Drucker, Edward Demming, Terrence Deal, etc.
Marketing and management (including Lakey's timeless ideas on creating customer value).
Capital investment and business finance.
Classical music and opera. Signifances in pop music.
Personal investment and household economy, with references to Thomas Paine.
Pedagogy, formal vs practical.
Child rearing and development, Aspergers Syndrome, Dr. Spock, forms of discipline, corporal punishment.
Historic Meteors and astronomy.
Psychology, personality disorders, aberrant narcissism.
Classic television, theme song origins
Automotive design, performance, quality control, and history
Leadership, personal performance, group psychology and motivation.
World demographics and income distribution
Civil Liberty, Constitution, 1st ammendment, establishment, ACLU
Banking, credit defaults, monetary policy,
On and on and on and on...

It's not my intention to flatter, but I could extend this list interminably. And while I have no special fondness for LRH, it's also not my goal to knock him arbitrarily. It's always my intention to describe what something looks like, on its face, from an outsider's perspective.

What flummoxes me here (and has since 2007) is that so many ex-scientologists appear to have intellectual gifts superior to LRH. Face describes Mary Sue as better educated and manifesting greater acumen. I don't doubt it. Robert Vaughn Young's involvement in scientology has likewise surprised me.

My perplexity is rather simple. I find myself reading intelligent, incisive commentary on diverse sophisticated topics from folks like yourself and then come across something like Hubbard's "Science of Knowledge" or "History of Man." The disconnect is staggering. I just don't have a level of cognitive dissonance to bridge that gap.

When those same perspicacious posters laud a brilliance in Mr. Hubbard that I can't demonstrate in any text I've found, it's very confusing. Let me put it this way: If we were all at a party together (and I knew nothing about Scientology) I would naturally gravitate toward Lakey and Face's corner and make an effort to avoid Mr. Hubbard, just on the basis of conversation.

Of course, your experience of LRH is greater than mine, but from what evidence I can assess, I just don't see where LRH had an intellectual "leg up" on those that surrounded him. I'm not trying to belittle LRH, this is honestly how it looks to me.

fisherman
 
Last edited:

lkwdblds

Crusader
Wow! Classic great posting and the beginning of an index for the Apollo '73 thread!

Ol' Face & Lakey,

There's a conundrum behind my previous post that I'd like to explain.

I spent five or six hours, yesterday, reading the "Aboard the Apollo" thread and sauntered through about 1500 posts. All that time, I was impressed by the level of discourse and dazzled by the range of topics discussed. What struck me more than anything is my own consternation. I'm not quite sure how to express this, but, simply put,

I didn't detect any hint of intellectual inferiority to LRH. To the contrary, in numerous areas, the level of education and experience surpass Mr. Hubbard. Here's what I found y'all discussing with more cogency than I've detected in Mr. Hubbard's writing:

Organizational structure and management, covering Peter Drucker, Edward Demming, Terrence Deal, etc.
Marketing and management (including Lakey's timeless ideas on creating customer value).
Capital investment and business finance.
Classical music and opera. Signifances in pop music.
Personal investment and household economy, with references to Thomas Paine.
Pedagogy, formal vs practical.
Child rearing and development, Aspergers Syndrome, Dr. Spock, forms of discipline, corporal punishment.
Historic Meteors and astronomy.
Psychology, personality disorders, aberrant narcissism.
Classic television, theme song origins
Automotive design, performance, quality control, and history
Leadership, personal performance, group psychology and motivation.
World demographics and income distribution
Civil Liberty, Constitution, 1st ammendment, establishment, ACLU
Banking, credit defaults, monetary policy,
On and on and on and on...

It's not my intention to flatter, but I could extend this list interminably. And while I have no special fondness for LRH, it's also not my goal to knock him arbitrarily. It's always my intention to describe what something looks like, on its face, from an outsider's perspective.

What flummoxes me here (and has since 2007) is that so many ex-scientologists appear to have intellectual gifts superior to LRH. Face describes Mary Sue as better educated and manifesting greater acumen. I don't doubt it. Robert Vaughn Young's involvement in scientology has likewise surprised me.

My confusion is rather simple. I find myself reading intelligent, incisive commentary on diverse sophisticated topics from folks like yourself and then come across something like Hubbard's "Science of Knowledge" or "History of Man." The disconnect is staggering. I just don't have a level of cognitive dissonance to bridge that gap.

When those same perspicacious posters laud a brilliance in Mr. Hubbard's that I can't demonstrate in any text I've found, it's very confusing. Let me put it this way: If we were all at a party together (and I knew nothing about Scientology) I would naturally gravitate toward Lakey and Face's corner and make an effort to avoid Mr. Hubbard, just on the basis of conversation.

Of course, your direct experience is greater than mine, but from the evidence I can assess, I just don't see where LRH has an intellectual "leg up" on those that surrounded him. I'm not trying to belittle LRH, this is honestly how it looks to me.

fisherman

Fisherman, I was going to lay some pirate talk on you! My Brother who is extremely brilliant as a linguist, a comic and in dialects used to bullbait people at CCLA in "Pirate tongue". His best work was bullbaiting Charlie Rush, a drummer from the Apollo All Stars, speaking phrases from Treasure Island as spoken by Long John Silver, played by Wallace Beery. I do not think that poor Charlie could ever get flat on this bullbait.

Your above post is so "from the heart", such a validation to me, Face and many of our cohorts and so brilliant and incisive that I am going to forego MOST of the pirate speak.

An Index and/or a Table of Contents for the Apollo Thread! Heaven knows we need one or both of those items for our thread, so Fisherman, if you wish to put page references for each of those topics, I will not stop you from doing so. If we did that, I might look into printing out the thread contents, editing it and publishing it. I did not realize how much we on the thread have covered. One thing I always say is that whatever we do, we do it at a professional level.

Now, with the serious things stated, I would like to entertain a bit and do some of my Brother's Pirate Bullbaiting dialogue. With my almost photographic memorty, I know virtually all his favorite lines.

Reuben Lakey bull baiting Charlie Rush in a heavy Pirate Diealect from TREASURE ISLAND" BY ROBERT LOUIS STEVENSON"

Thar we were off the coast of Tortugi when a Spanish Man o'War appeared on our portside bow. Mates were already droppin like flies from Malary and we had problems enuff but the Spanish vessel fired a salvo across our Missenmast. A group of Spaniards boardeed us and one lunged at me with his steel but my blade was already drawn and I cleaved him to the brisket with my first lunge.

Long John had a peg leg for one of his feet and wore a patch over one eye and he had a pet parrot by the name "Pieces of Eight" always sitting on his shoulder. Long John explains, "This peg leg, he shows his wooden, I lost me foot off the coast of Tripoli in the service of King George the 4th, God rest his soul, this "deadlight" pointing to his bad eye, lost me eye off the coast on the Spanish Main, fighten pirates for the Crown.

Later, he talks about this treasure map and tells his crew, "Mates there be gold on this island, I tell ye, more gold than ye coudl ever imagine. We'll be rich, rich I tell ye. When we get back to England we'll be riding in coaches as if we were Lords in Parlee-ah-ment, The parrot would call out "Pieces of Eight, Pieces of Eight" and Long John would pull out his pirate gun and point it at the bird's head and tell hims to shut up or he would blow the birds brains out. And so it went, and after a full month of this, Charlie came close but I do not think he ever quite got it flattened.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNd3p4l8rXE&NR=1

Lakey
 
Last edited:

lkwdblds

Crusader
Some more comments on Fishermans post!

Fisherman, your glowing tribute to our Apollo '73 thread and your comparing me and Face to LRH has caused me to do some thinking. I have thought about this deeply before. Here are some of my thoughts and it is very hard to do but I am going to be totally 100% honest with you and my self. I am not going to be overly modest but just brutally honest.

Lakey versus LRH head on man to man. - Just plain and simple, I am not in his league as a being, not even close.

Scholastic Brilliance versus Brilliance to get things done in life. I have some brilliance, as does Face, as do you. LRH was (is?) very smart, even scholastically, he is able to separate out similarities from differences. He is a fine writer, a second tier writer and not a great master but a good solid professional writer. I've never done a lot of writing before until I started this thread. I always believed I was gifted in writing and now I have proved it. Still, I do not know if my imagination to come up with things to write about is as fertile as his. I doubt it but there is a chance I could.

I could probably outdo LRH in math and science tests, hold my own or edge him in history and English tests, do as well with music as he did, etc..

The big thing however is being able to START things, motivate people, and get them to follow you and build a group, an organization, a worlwide movement. Regardless of how our test scores and knowledge compare, he was amongst the very top people on Earth in these areas, perhaps the top 5 or 10 people of the 4 billion living when he was in his hay day. Me, I am in the lower half of the population, maybe the lower 33%. To be good at this, one has to have charisma to a tremendous degree and also needs to have something called Ethics Presence. John F Kennedy had those qualities, Yvonne Jentzch had them, L.Ron Hubbard had them and Lakey does not have them. Plain and simple, that is the bottom line.

That conclusion goes hand and hand with that big cognition which I had in my last auditing in 1993 at AOLA. I am not cut out to be an Executive Director, but I am the perfect man to be a right hand man, an advisor and a confidant to the E.D. Few could be better than me at being a confidant to a really stellar being. I never have worn that hat in this lifetime and I am now 70 but it may still happen, I still have a youthful mind and my health is improving now and is pretty good.

Our thread may produce more polished and professional writings than LRH produced but that doesn't put me in his class as a being. I will concede the following point, it may be possible for me and perhaps 6 other of the top posters on this thread to combine, start and lead a stronger group than LRH alone was capable of doing. I have in mind who these six would be but if I name them and leave other top people out, it may cause bad feelings so I won't do it. I will say that Carmelo would be one of the six and Face another but that is as far as I will go.

A THINK TANK If we were all between 25 and 30 and had financial backing and 6 to 10 of us decided to start a think tank with the goals similar to the goals of Scientology, I would say, watch out Planet, here we come!
Lakey
 
Last edited:

Leon

Gold Meritorious Patron
I have known three university professors who were also dedicated Scientologists - all crossed over from the CofS into the Freezone as soon as they found the freezone back in the mid-80's BTW. None of them was in any particular comm with any other, in fact they were from different universities across the country. Each one had to keep the fact of being a Scientologist a close secret for professional reasons. Each was in the field of Science and did primary research and development in their area.

And what was for me the MOST intetresting thing was that each one independantly of the others used to use some sort of telepathy or knowingness to pursue their research. One made a huge breakthrough by just getting into personal telepathic comm with a chunk of borehole core. The chunk of rock itself. Said the rock spoke to him and told him what he wanted to know, he then investigated in that area and discovered what he'd been told by the rock. The discovery made it into international journals at the time.

The other two did similar things - getting into close comm with their knowingness in their field or whatever you call it, and used that as a basis for making their discoveries and then constructed repeatable experiments to make the original comm look like a "discovery".

I suspect that many other researchers in history have done similar things and have been "led" to their discoveries in similar ways.

Science and Scientology are a lot closer than we sometimes might think.
 

Kookaburra

Gold Meritorious Patron
Kookaburra,

Thanks again from me! :clap:

The "true fact" that Hubbard "made it up as he went along" is apparent but not easy to substantiate. You may have contributed more than you realize! For example, you wrote,



That's fascinating to ponder!

It seems Ron Hubbard was the numero uno "copy-pasta" artist of his time, scripting scholarship to pass himself off as a superior intellect! It's surreal that on the occasions he described himself as the "great organizer" LRH was admitting this. I wonder if LRH's admirers have defended his sagacity more staunchly than Hubbard would himself.

Hubbard's subterfuge was easier to pull off in the era before computers, when writers had resources that wouldn't be obvious or available to the average person. Obviously, the Internet has changed that!

The large outstanding question is whether ANY "great organizer" like Mr. Hubbard -- someone skimming secondary source materials on everything from Socrates to Freudian analyses -- could really produce anything of merit. Is it really possible to digest, weigh, and evaluate complex material at such a rapid pace? Is it possible to recognize and extract only the most valuable information? Is it possible to be certain you attained the most valuable information from secondary sources when you haven't read the original works?

Here's a provocative list:

Tolstoy's "War and Peace" is 1,443 pages, "Anna Karenina" is 817 pages. Dostoyevsky's "Brothers Karamazov" 985 pp, "Crime and Punishment" 629 pp, "Idiot" 615 pp, "Devils" 756 pages. Cervantes "Don Quixote" 940 pp. Melville's "Moby Dick" 638 pp. Plato's "Dialogues" 1606 pp. Aristotle, "Basic Works" 1487 pp. Hegel's "Philosophy of History" 457 pages of dense german syntax, "Philosophy of Right" 376 pp, "Phenomenology of Mind" 808 pp. Machiavelli's "Prince" 285 pp. Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason" 256 pp. Shakespeare "Riverside Complete Works" 1,923 pp. Then add Charles Dickens, the Bible, etc. etc...

How did Hubbard do it? When people make claims, I try to look at them in practical terms. The books listed only fill a 3' foot shelf and STILL encompass A LOT of reading! And, A LOT of reflection! I've read these texts at least twice and came away with different views on each occasion. How did LRH manage to glean ONLY the most quintessential ideas? How did he do this without reading the original works?

My skills are admittedly average, but I do recognize that there is absolutely NO WAY I could summarize, distill, or synthesize, what I've learned from these works. The only common feature I could coherently identify is that they all employ words! On a practical basis, I don't see how any "standard issue" human being could process the quantity of material that Mr. Hubbard claims; let alone discover any comprehensive answers to "the riddle of life."

And now, here's a "flip-side."

If LRH is correct that IT IS possible to gather the most profound knowledge by skimming civilization's greatest literature, what does that say about the literature itself? Or the quality of the answers it contains? IF it's really possible to answer substantive existential questions by thumbing through "Nicomachean Ethics" why did Aristotle use so many words? Why didn't Aristotle put those profound answers on the FIRST PAGE?

Aristotle, Thomas Acquinas, William Shakespeare, Dostovesky were pretty sharp guys! How is it Mr. Hubbard was able to distill their wisdom in so many fewer words than they could themselves? Was Mr. Hubbard a more descriptive or economical writer? Than Shakespeare? That doesn't seem plausible.

In sum. The scope of the works Mr. Hubbard claimed to have mastered are either:

1.) So complex that distilling their singular quintessence is impossible using Hubbard "quick-scan" methods. Or,

2.) Mr. Hubbard's "quick scan" techniques correctly distill this wisdom more effectively than the authors could themselves; opening to question the substantive value or superficiality of that wisdom.

So here again, maybe I've gone tl;dr! If so, it's because Kookaburra offered this stunning new evidence:



Thanks again to Kookaburra and Lake!

Fisherman

Fisherman, check out the works of Alistair Crowley and compare them to Scientology, especially the PDC lectures and basic Scn theory up to the mid 60's.

It's the one place a Scientologist would never look for the source of Scn.
 

fisherman

Patron with Honors
What fascinating commentary from everyone!

Lakey, I think we're all blessed with brilliance but I don't know how to rank that endowment. I can only examine claims, performances and skill-sets within a narrow criteria. Can I justifiably say, "Winston Churchill was the world's greatest peacemaker" -- compared to who and by what criteria? Greater than Ghandi? Jesus? L. Ron Hubbard? It's Mr. Hubbard that plays tricks with subjective evaluation by manipulating his audience's insecurities. We're all susceptible to this, even outside the context of scientology.

For example. My best friend is a gifted finger-style guitarist and a very smart man. At times though, he criticizes himself for lacking my academic experience. I always stare in disbelief and say, "GOOD LORD, David! You're brilliant and I'm just a guy whose read a lot."

Oddly, my friend has a very respectable college degree, but he wasn't a serious student. David magnifies my abilities because he's sensitive about his own. He doesn't compare me objectively to someone like Will Durant (I'd lose), he subjectively gauges me against his own sensitivity. Have we found his "ruin"?

Was this Hubbard's trick? Pretending "brilliance" in different areas; provoking and preying on people's insecurities?

Turning this around, since my friend's musical gifts are utterly superior to mine, can I declare him the greatest guitarist ever? Is that a valid criteria? David is brilliant, but he isn't Segovia. Making objective claims about David's musicianship because he's better than me and -- "Oh, I'm so impressed" -- doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

This is how I believe people evaluate Hubbard; measuring him by very personal and highly subjective criteria. Hubbard, "sounds really smart," he "invented a religion," my friend says "she got something from him," LRH "reads more than my Uncle Jimmy" and the perennial: "I got wins."

Unfortunately, criteria of this kind isn't valid for much of anything. Furthermore, I think Hubbard intentionally manipulated his followers human tendency to rationalize by imposing a hierarchy of knowledge and wisdom where none can exist.

In real life there are no nicely painted "leader-boards" or comprehensive "OT levels" -- simply because there's little value to such subjective comparisons. When my buddy and I play music at children's events, we perform "Little Red Wagon" and the "Wiggles" songbook. At grown-up parties, our sophisticated audience wants to sing along; belting out "Brown Eyed Girl." The next time Muriel Anderson or Christopher Parkening joins us on those gigs, how much more brilliant will we all be?

Throughout the "Aboard the Apollo" thread I noted considerable intelligence and creativity, but I couldn't possibly rank the posters whose comments impressed me. If I attempt to compare CarmelOrchard's child raising insights to Ted's comments on Demming and Drucker, who would I score more highly? If both offered courses on "human potential" whose would I choose?

Attempting that is a silly game, but it's one Mr. Hubbard plays quite a lot. Hubbard tells us, "read this book, listen to that lecture, go to auditing and move up the leader-board." It might be nice if the world worked that way, but it doesn't. Wisdom and knowledge is simply too diverse to catalog or bottle.

Here's the best example I can think of:

Lakey, you make diligent and honest assessments of yourself. My guitar partner is like that and it's a rare quality. My friend David is fearless in self-reflection and quick to correct what he finds undesirable. So let me ask this: agreeing with the Oracle that Socrates was the wisest man because Socrates understood he "did not know" -- if Lakey and David are two men I consider closest to this ideal "know thyself" -- where do I place them in the hierarchy of brilliance? Do I rank you above or below Ted's MBA, CarmelOrchard's Child Psych, Hubbard's vocabulary? I know my answer! :)

You also wrote

The big thing however is being able to START things, motivate people, and get them to follow you and build a group

Is this right? The group-dynamics video (with the dancing kids) that I watched in your thread suggested otherwise. The video demonstrated that the leader's role is quite narrow. It claimed that the SECOND person to join a group and the first cadre of followers create and establish success or failure. It's an excellent video showing fascinating parallels to early scientology. Is the one able to "start things" the most brilliant? No.

And you wrote:

Lakey versus LRH head on man to man. - Just plain and simple, I am not in his league as a being, not even close.

I'm sorry, I just don't buy this. Hubbard had a larger vocabulary and Lakey has superior customer service acumen. Which should we value higher and what would be the point? I'm sure you're "in his league" just like the other shipmates in your thread.

May I offer a further illustration?

Picture Mr. Hubbard as part of a panel discussion. Not a "knock-down debate" -- just a polite panel discussion. Invite LRH to select the topic from ANY subject of HIS choosing. Now ask your shipmates "Aboard the Apollo" to select five knowledgeable people to join the panel. Choose anyone with expertise in the topic, doctors, lawyers, pols, scientists, laypersons -- anybody. Would the five panelists be awestruck into silence at LRH's superior wisdom? Or would the discussions run along somewhat predictably as they usually do? Would the audience depart feeling LRH outshone the other panelists by a significant margin? Would they talk about LRH's brilliance all the way home in the car? Would the video get 3 million Youtube hits?

Answer this accurately and you'll pretty much have the truth!

Leon, you raise a very important point. There are clearly individuals blessed with an enthusiasm or intuition for their field that raises them above their peers. I've noted individuals with "a magic touch" in in academic fields, medicine, mountaineering, field-craft, art, cooking, music and numerous others. None of the instances I can think of had any connection to scientology. I think we're all gifted in some way and some people are able to expand on that.

Kookaburra, thanks for the reference and again your latest contribution! To be honest, I did some research on Crowley's influence. My suspicion is that Crowley may be the ONLY author that Hubbard studied thoroughly and referenced throughout his lifetime. I wrote about that here:

http://wiki.whyweprotest.net/Scientology,_Satanism,_Left-Hand-Path

So, there's more "food for thought." I certainly grant that Mr. Hubbard was talented and exceedingly clever. But I've known individuals who started and succeeded in building enterprises larger and more illustrious than scientology. These individuals (and more importantly their teams) were also bright and exceedingly clever.

On balance, I don't necessarily see Mr. Hubbard as intellectually "lesser" but I also don't see evidence of his being "greater." I just can't find any objective indication of Mr. Hubbard's intellectual superiority over Lakey, or Mary Sue, or Face, or Will Durant, or Ted, or Immanuel Kant, or CarmelOrchards, or Robert Vaughn Young, or, or, or,

fisherman
 
Last edited:

afaceinthecrowd

Gold Meritorious Patron
Okay...I'm gonna take the bait

Fisherman,

I think I’m gonna have to work through responding to your post in several installments…there are so many excellent and well stated questions in your post and, due to circumstances beyond my control, I will not be able to spend the time over the next few days.

I think part of your accurately stated paradoxes stem from—perhaps—that you have not studied and “experienced” the subject of Scn to the extent that Lakey and so many others here on this board have. Needless to say, there is a wide variance of opinion amongst all here. That’s partly probably because Scn is, in my view, in actuality not a philosophy at all.

Istitutional Scientology is an ad hoc, helter skelter, well organized chaos, of which the books are just the tip of the iceberg and, surprisingly, not as “slick” as much of the rest of the materials. It’s like a large raggedy net of ideas, concepts and “one-liners” that seeks to somewhere within the mesh have something for everyone. There is probably not a person alive that wouldn’t find a few things in all of El Ron’s materials that they would agree with or hold to be true from their own perspective, and I find that as most remarkable. Once in the net, all points ”filter and flow” towards the center or core concept—Operating Thetan.

The fabric of the net is, in part, intertwined principles of rudimentary and pop psychology, stage hypnosis, philosophy, Spiritualism, Occultism, Eastern Religions, Sci Fi and anything else that has capability to grab, hold or fix the interest and attention of some folks’ mind and spread a patina of credibility.

Majik, I think, was probably the most important fabric of the net for El Ron. However, from my perspective, there is more—and possibly the most— important fabric…metaphysics.

Over a 20 year period, starting in the mid ‘60’s or so, to varying degrees I had the distinct pleasure of getting to personally know and interact with many of the “old timers”; the big names to the small names; the “Tech” Guru’s to the working-class “Techy’s” to the weird wannabees; the Admin Stars that actually new what they were doing to the cotton pickin’ crazies that El Ron was continually posting in high positions of power and letting them run amok, as long as “the stats were up”. Being on Cl IV org staff during the very important “boom” years of the latter ‘60’s and then, in the SO— wherein I was privy to a plethora of information, reports and data that few So and Scns had access to—along with all the chats and experiences I had with Scns of every stripe and color from around the world lead me to realize in the mid-’70’s that there were two distinctly different Scientologies…and the they were in opposition to each other and were being held together by force, deception and greed.

You see, Scientology is also “a state of mind” and “indulgence in illusions and paranormal sensations”, fostered by one mans prodigious gift to entertain and mesmerize. The many contributors and unwitting collaborators were folks born with what some may term as different or having a “loose screw” but what I—being one of them—would term, as Carlos Casteneda said so poetically, "A Separate Reality’.

These are the folks that made Scn in the early days, and what made it tick while El Ron was alive, and what still makes it tick, albeit sickly, today is not the subject itself so much as the nature of the majority of people that were involved during the various eras, especially the first 30 years.

What is this separate reality?

I honestly don’t know precisely, but I can tell you about what it is for me, and I am confident that some of my words below will “resonate” far better descriptions from many of the folks on this board.

Who am I? I know that there are parts of me that aren’t, in essence “me”. Sometimes I know more of “me” than at other times. When I’m more “me”, it “feels” better, natural… things make more sense…however, it’s transient, random. How can I be more “me” stably, confidently, permanently.

What am I? I sense, feel, experience…I know…that my essence is more than that of mere flesh and bone. I transiently feel bound by some mysterious force, by ropes or chains that chafe and frustrate me. I know I am perceive and am capable of so much more but I just can’t “figure “It” out. I sense, feel, experience…I know…that there is so much more to all of “This”. Somewhere there must be answers…the answer…I want to, I need to, I must, find that “somewhere”. What do I do to find the answers? What are the right questions to ask?

When did “It” all begin? When did all “This” start? When did I begin to be me? When did I start? Is there and end? If there is an end, when will that be? When will I know the answers? Will I ever know the answers?

Where am I? Where is “This”? Where is “It”? Where did I come from? Where am I going? How do I know where to go? How will I know when I get there? Will I know when I get there? Where is “This” going? Where is “It” going? Where do I start? Have a already started and just don’t realize it and, if so,

Why don’t I realize it? Why am I? Why am I here? Why is “This” here? Why is “It” the way it is? Why do I have these questions? Why can’t I find the answers? Why can’t I “see” “It”…Why can’t others “see” ”It”? Why do I “see” and “feel” what I “see” and “Feel”? Why am I different? Why? Why? Why???

In all five of the “W” questions above you can also supplant “I” with ‘We”.

Many of these folks—including Ole Face here—had had “experiences, perceptions, feelings, whatever, that were out of the “ordinary” before ever contacting Scn. In ‘50’s, ‘60’s and ‘70’s—especially the ‘50’s to mid ‘60’s—they had in effect, few “places to go”. There was no internet, there was no “Information Age”, there was no “Star Wars generation”, “Harry Potter generation. Following on the heels of a global war marked by the most graven savagery, the world was day-in, day-out on the brink of nuclear holocaust.

Scn became a “Community” for these folks, these “back yard", "shade tree", amateur and very bright born meta physicists. Within that community, “Neighborhoods” were established and they had folks that they could interact with, “cross pollinate”, commune and have fellowship with and were no longer isolated and alone. They went from being “outsiders” to “insiders”. Out of these Neighborhoods and Community came White Scientology. It was loose, open and relatively free. However, during this same era, El Ron was conjuring and concocting, unchecked, knitting together the fabric of Black Scientology.

I never…and I doubt most of these folks ever…bought into El Ron The Galactic Guru; El Ron The Genius of All Geniuses; El Ron The Never Wrong.

So, what did I buy into and why?:confused2:

You’re quite the angler, Fisherman. I was gonna conclude my Readers Digest” treatment on the Apollo ’73 thread with why I got “in” and why I went to Flag to work with El Ron but, alas, your lure is too enticing and I’m gonna snap it up. Set your drag and harness ‘cause I’m gonna “run with it.”:coolwink:

I’ll break surface in a few days.:yes:

Face:)
 
Last edited:

Leon

Gold Meritorious Patron
Jeez, the quality of intellect has just shot up into the sky and gone ballistic over these previous two posts.
 

afaceinthecrowd

Gold Meritorious Patron
Fisherman,

I forgot to include in my narrative re: "El Ron's Scientolgy" that Gustave Le Bon's Crowd Psychology works are, in my view, helpful in understanding Institutional Scientology.

Face:)
 
This is a nice piece of work, Lakey.:yes:

An excellent observation, Panda.:thumbsup:

El Ron did not have “faith” or believe much in Hisself’s own “Tech”, especially from ’66 or so forward. During that era, El Ron decreed that:

Big League Sales was the Senior Tech over ARCU, Tone Scale, TWC, BDH, ect., ect..

PTS/SP Victim/Witch Hunt was the Senior Tech over Gr O-IV & 5 % 5A.

Intell and Attack was Senior Tech over the fundamental essays and principles of Scn.

On and on and on the examples are rife.

The majority of the “Tech” that was released after “66 or so was El Ron’s attempting to “hotwire” the existing “Tech” to handle various “Case Phenomena” that Hisself deemed as impediments or problems of others to Hisself, in poorly defined or generalized categories pertaining to Hisself and Hisself’s hidden goals, needs, wants, desires, compulsions, etc. I see most of the “Tech” from this period as a spiritual/metaphysical placebo at best, and the inculcating of spiritual/metaphysical “parasites” at worst.

I have covered some of my take on the period up to ’66 and forward on the Apollo ’73 thread. Up until ’66 El Ron was in the “thick” of things, so to speak, and via ACC’s, Congresses, SHSBC, etc. and a steady and substantial stream of correspondence from the field, Hisself was literally being “spoon fed” “White Scientology” by legions of bright, dedicated and decent folks. With KSW, Sea Org, Apollo, SO #1 line, Ethics, etc. El Ron cut Hisself off from the “pool” of creativity, common sense and potentials. Left to Hisself’s own isolated devices and faculties El Ron did as Hisself always did—El Ron winged it and “Free Wheeled’, “Soloed” and “C/Sed” Hisself off into oblivion.

By de facto, this hotwiring manifested as “short circuits” that have “fried” many a person, probably fried El Ron in the end and will, ultimately, fricassee the practice of institutionalized Scn.

During the ’50 to ’66 and the ’67 to ’86 era’s there were periods of time that one of El Ron’s sons, ultimate insiders, were among the top “Tech Terminals on the Planet”. I got “in” after Nibs was gone, but I knew of him and a little bit about him from the materials and “old timers"…Quentin I knew, personally. Thanks to Bent Corydon and Dennis Erlich we have insight into Nibs’ and Q’s views regarding El Ron and the “Tech”. These are great and important contributions to the body of knowledge and I, personally, wish thank both Bent and Dennis for their courage in making this information available. I knew both Dennis and Bent…not well…but enough to be confident that they are both smart and decent straight shooters. Q was a very bright kid and, as he matured, he more and more spoke his mind and had an insightful, accurate and sometimes cutting wit to him which endeared him to most, save his father. There is much to be gleaned and learned from story of Nibs and Q.

Having said all that, from my experience in personal service to El Ron, there is no doubt that he was exceptionally bright, driven and possessed a number of talents in the “gifted” range. Unfortunately, El Ron never lived by, nor conducted Hisself’s affairs accordant with, the cobbled and collaborative “philosophy” that poured forth via Hisself’s fingers and mouth. Following “The Rules” was for Us, the Homo Saps. The story of El Ron during the two eras I have delineated is one of increasing loathing, isolation, individuation not only of and from Us but from Humanity itself. Had El Ron actually sought to follow the basic principles that all of Us were trying to live with and by, the Story of Scientology would be one of a bona fide—albeit somewhat “out there” and quirky—New Age Religion, instead of a heartless and manipulative greed-based demonic cult.

El Ron, in actuality, was a walking, talking and writing parasitic spiritual/metaphysical placebo…Mystic’s “Tulpa”, if you will.:coolwink::confused2:

Face:)

Nice write up.
 
Some thoughts of mine on what I think of L Ron Hubbard:

# He was never a Scientologist and never followed its tenets. He was always a devotee of Aleister Crowley’s philosophical system and did whatever he wilt. His purpose was the attainment of power and dominion over others. And money.

# He purposefully set up his own religion with the intention (among others) that it would blast his name and fame into eternity.

# He did this by attempting to unravel the mystery of the human condition. He wanted a system which would undercut and make irrelevant all other religions, philosophies and psycho-therapies. His intention was that these should be demystified, and that the tools to fully unlock the human enigma - not only conceptually but in terms of practical, individually do-able experience - should be in the hands of the common man. He certainly did not achieve this fully, but he did make more progress than any other person before him ever did. His attempt at achieving this resulted in what is, in my opinion, his biggest and hopefully most lasting contribution to humankind.

# He copied a lot from Crowley’s teachings and from that of the magical traditions, taking as a template the grade chart with levels to be attained and the idea of having a very BIG hurdle that had to be crossed to attain the highest states - the Abyss in magical tradition, the Wall of Fire in Scientology. ‘OT’ was presented the equivalent of Magus or Ipsissimus.

# He was a compulsive liar. He manipulated people by controlling their opinion of him. He did this via the telling of lies. Truth and Lies were of equal value to him; he used whatever he deemed appropriate to the prevailing circumstances.

# He stole useful ideas from wherever he could, made them his own, and incorporated them into his teachings wherever he chose.

# He was utterly convinced of his own rightness and his own right to do as he pleased. He considered himself to be seperate from and above all other mortal humans. He was not ever answerable to any human requirements or demands, showing neither any obedience to the laws of the land nor to any human moral codes. “Do as thou wilt” was his only creed.

# He knew best. Better by far than any other person. This made him a poor student - per the Scientology study datum: the biggest barrier to learning is the idea that one already knows it all - well, he knew it all already, or could discover it better than any other person had ever done or ever would do.

# He protected his own interests by surrounding himself with thugs and using them to do any dirty work he considered necessary. This included getting rid of any so-called enemies or disobedient followers or people who were seen to be in competition to him.



I could extend this list as long as I liked I suppose, but for me they all pale in comparison to item 3 above:

# He did this by attempting to unravel the mystery of the human condition. He wanted a system which would undercut and make irrelevant all other religions, philosophies and psycho-therapies. His intention was that these should be demystified, and that the tools to fully unlock the human enigma - not only conceptually but in terms of practical, individually do-able experience - should be in the hands of the common man. He certainly did not achieve this fully, but he did make more progress than any other person before him ever did. His attempt at achieving this resulted in what is, in my opinion, his biggest and hopefully most lasting contribution to humankind.


For me, all the bleatings and complaints that there are about him stem from people who failed to make adequate progress in this one item. And this is a reflection on themselves as individuals more than it is a failing on Hubbard’s part. The idea that was promulgated that you could just pay your money and have a Cadillac-ride to OT is so transparently idiotic that anyone who bought into it had only themselves to blame. You were always entirely resposible for your own experience of Scientology; no exceptions.

Item 3 conflicts with other items.
You say he was a liar. so why do you believe what he wanted you to believe in item 3.
You say he wanted to demystify religion and philosophy etc, yet he came up with the mystery sandwich OT levels, esp 3, the *mystery* of it being probably more important
than the actual content.
He promoted mystery and the total *inacessability* of truth, answers or solutions, by claiming that noone had been able discover what they (we) needed to save ourselves, only HE could do that.
You say he wanted it to be in the hands of the common man. He did not. He wanted it to be in HIS hands so that he could control all man, common or uncommon.
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Another superior post, Fisherman!

What fascinating commentary from everyone!

Lakey, I think we're all blessed with brilliance but I don't know how to rank that endowment. I can only examine claims, performances and skill-sets within a narrow criteria. Can I justifiably say, "Winston Churchill was the world's greatest peacemaker" -- compared to who and by what criteria? Greater than Ghandi? Jesus? L. Ron Hubbard? It's Mr. Hubbard that plays tricks with subjective evaluation by manipulating his audience's insecurities. We're all susceptible to this, even outside the context of scientology.

For example. My best friend is a gifted finger-style guitarist and a very smart man. At times though, he criticizes himself for lacking my academic experience. I always stare in disbelief and say, "GOOD LORD, David! You're brilliant and I'm just a guy whose read a lot."

Oddly, my friend has a very respectable college degree, but he wasn't a serious student. David magnifies my abilities because he's sensitive about his own. He doesn't compare me objectively to someone like Will Durant (I'd lose), he subjectively gauges me against his own sensitivity. Have we found his "ruin"?

Was this Hubbard's trick? Pretending "brilliance" in different areas; provoking and preying on people's insecurities?

Turning this around, since my friend's musical gifts are utterly superior to mine, can I declare him the greatest guitarist ever? Is that a valid criteria? David is brilliant, but he isn't Segovia. Making objective claims about David's musicianship because he's better than me and -- "Oh, I'm so impressed" -- doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

This is how I believe people evaluate Hubbard; measuring him by very personal and highly subjective criteria. Hubbard, "sounds really smart," he "invented a religion," my friend says "she got something from him," LRH "reads more than my Uncle Jimmy" and the perennial: "I got wins."

Unfortunately, criteria of this kind isn't valid for much of anything. Furthermore, I think Hubbard intentionally manipulated his followers human tendency to rationalize by imposing a hierarchy of knowledge and wisdom where none can exist.

In real life there are no nicely painted "leader-boards" or comprehensive "OT levels" -- simply because there's little value to such subjective comparisons. When my buddy and I play music at children's events, we perform "Little Red Wagon" and the "Wiggles" songbook. At grown-up parties, our sophisticated audience wants to sing along; belting out "Brown Eyed Girl." The next time Muriel Anderson or Christopher Parkening joins us on those gigs, how much more brilliant will we all be?

Throughout the "Aboard the Apollo" thread I noted considerable intelligence and creativity, but I couldn't possibly rank the posters whose comments impressed me. If I attempt to compare CarmelOrchard's child raising insights to Ted's comments on Demming and Drucker, who would I score more highly? If both offered courses on "human potential" whose would I choose?

Attempting that is a silly game, but it's one Mr. Hubbard plays quite a lot. Hubbard tells us, "read this book, listen to that lecture, go to auditing and move up the leader-board." It might be nice if the world worked that way, but it doesn't. Wisdom and knowledge is simply too diverse to catalog or bottle.

Here's the best example I can think of:

Lakey, you make diligent and honest assessments of yourself. My guitar partner is like that and it's a rare quality. My friend David is fearless in self-reflection and quick to correct what he finds undesirable. So let me ask this: agreeing with the Oracle that Socrates was the wisest man because Socrates understood he "did not know" -- if Lakey and David are two men I consider closest to this ideal "know thyself" -- where do I place them in the hierarchy of brilliance? Do I rank you above or below Ted's MBA, CarmelOrchard's Child Psych, Hubbard's vocabulary? I know my answer! :)

You also wrote



Is this right? The group-dynamics video (with the dancing kids) that I watched in your thread suggested otherwise. The video demonstrated that the leader's role is quite narrow. It claimed that the SECOND person to join a group and the first cadre of followers create and establish success or failure. It's an excellent video showing fascinating parallels to early scientology. Is the one able to "start things" the most brilliant? No.

And you wrote:



I'm sorry, I just don't buy this. Hubbard had a larger vocabulary and Lakey has superior customer service acumen. Which should we value higher and what would be the point? I'm sure you're "in his league" just like the other shipmates in your thread.

May I offer a further illustration?

Picture Mr. Hubbard as part of a panel discussion. Not a "knock-down debate" -- just a polite panel discussion. Invite LRH to select the topic from ANY subject of HIS choosing. Now ask your shipmates "Aboard the Apollo" to select five knowledgeable people to join the panel. Choose anyone with expertise in the topic, doctors, lawyers, pols, scientists, laypersons -- anybody. Would the five panelists be awestruck into silence at LRH's superior wisdom? Or would the discussions run along somewhat predictably as they usually do? Would the audience depart feeling LRH outshone the other panelists by a significant margin? Would they talk about LRH's brilliance all the way home in the car? Would the video get 3 million Youtube hits?

Answer this accurately and you'll pretty much have the truth!

Leon, you raise a very important point. There are clearly individuals blessed with an enthusiasm or intuition for their field that raises them above their peers. I've noted individuals with "a magic touch" in in academic fields, medicine, mountaineering, field-craft, art, cooking, music and numerous others. None of the instances I can think of had any connection to scientology. I think we're all gifted in some way and some people are able to expand on that.

Kookaburra, thanks for the reference and again your latest contribution! To be honest, I did some research on Crowley's influence. My suspicion is that Crowley may be the ONLY author that Hubbard studied thoroughly and referenced throughout his lifetime. I wrote about that here:

http://wiki.whyweprotest.net/Scientology,_Satanism,_Left-Hand-Path

So, there's more "food for thought." I certainly grant that Mr. Hubbard was talented and exceedingly clever. But I've known individuals who started and succeeded in building enterprises larger and more illustrious than scientology. These individuals (and more importantly their teams) were also bright and exceedingly clever.

On balance, I don't necessarily see Mr. Hubbard as intellectually "lesser" but I also don't see evidence of his being "greater." I just can't find any objective indication of Mr. Hubbard's intellectual superiority over Lakey, or Mary Sue, or Face, or Will Durant, or Ted, or Immanuel Kant, or CarmelOrchards, or Robert Vaughn Young, or, or, or,

fisherman

Another superior post Fisherman, you are on a roll! Okay, I'm human, if someone intelligent and with your credentials suggests I am equal to LRH in certain areas which are important, I'll accept that. I'll take whatever admiration I can get! I do no I am more honest than he was and to me honesty is one of the biggest assetts a person can have.

I do see your point that if LRH came on ESMB incognito, and debated 5 top poster for this or the Apollo thread, he would not win the debate hands down. More than likely, one or two of us might outshine him However, winning small debates of ESMB does not equate one for on with the beingness of a being.
Lakey
 

afaceinthecrowd

Gold Meritorious Patron
Fisherman, your glowing tribute to our Apollo '73 thread and your comparing me and Face to LRH has caused me to do some thinking. I have thought about this deeply before. Here are some of my thoughts and it is very hard to do but I am going to be totally 100% honest with you and my self. I am not going to be overly modest but just brutally honest.

Lakey versus LRH head on man to man. - Just plain and simple, I am not in his league as a being, not even close.

Scholastic Brilliance versus Brilliance to get things done in life. I have some brilliance, as does Face, as do you. LRH was (is?) very smart, even scholastically, he is able to separate out similarities from differences. He is a fine writer, a second tier writer and not a great master but a good solid professional writer. I've never done a lot of writing before until I started this thread. I always believed I was gifted in writing and now I have proved it. Still, I do not know if my imagination to come up with things to write about is as fertile as his. I doubt it but there is a chance I could.

I could probably outdo LRH in math and science tests, hold my own or edge him in history and English tests, do as well with music as he did, etc..

The big thing however is being able to START things, motivate people, and get them to follow you and build a group, an organization, a worlwide movement. Regardless of how our test scores and knowledge compare, he was amongst the very top people on Earth in these areas, perhaps the top 5 or 10 people of the 4 billion living when he was in his hay day. Me, I am in the lower half of the population, maybe the lower 33%. To be good at this, one has to have charisma to a tremendous degree and also needs to have something called Ethics Presence. John F Kennedy had those qualities, Yvonne Jentzch had them, L.Ron Hubbard had them and Lakey does not have them. Plain and simple, that is the bottom line.

That conclusion goes hand and hand with that big cognition which I had in my last auditing in 1993 at AOLA. I am not cut out to be an Executive Director, but I am the perfect man to be a right hand man, an advisor and a confidant to the E.D. Few could be better than me at being a confidant to a really stellar being. I never have worn that hat in this lifetime and I am now 70 but it may still happen, I still have a youthful mind and my health is improving now and is pretty good.

Our thread may produce more polished and professional writings than LRH produced but that doesn't put me in his class as a being. I will concede the following point, it may be possible for me and perhaps 6 other of the top posters on this thread to combine, start and lead a stronger group than LRH alone was capable of doing. I have in mind who these six would be but if I name them and leave other top people out, it may cause bad feelings so I won't do it. I will say that Carmelo would be one of the six and Face another but that is as far as I will go.

A THINK TANK If we were all between 25 and 30 and had financial backing and 6 to 10 of us decided to start a think tank with the goals similar to the goals of Scientology, I would say, watch out Planet, here we come!
Lakey

Lakey,

Yep, we dogs is to old to go huntin', trash diggin' and car chasin' anymore. However, a Metaphysically themed titty bar sure is somethin’ the world could use right now. If y’all wanna do a JV, I volunteer to do the due diligence phase and the “head" huntin'…err, so to speak.:D

In honor of you, we could call it, “Lakey’s Lair”.:coolwink:

Face:)
 

fisherman

Patron with Honors
Lake, I admire your candor and share your conviction in honesty. I also enjoyed your pierat stories!

Your analogy of LRH visiting ESMB incognito is superb! I have no idea how LRH would fare in that situation. As you say, "holding one's own" on ESMB may not equate to greatness. Nonetheless, a great man, with a great plan for society ought to be able to communicate it. If LRH failed to get that message across in these gentle surroundings, I'm not sure how "great" he would be, starting afresh, presenting it to a broader audience. I'm really glad you thought of this analogy!

Paul, Sorry for failing to respond earlier. What you wrote about the procurement process is highly revealing. I can't help but hope your memory dredges up a few titles! You wrote:

This included some books every now and then. I don't remember there being crates of books, maybe a few a week. I can only remember one title, that stood out at the time I think because I had read about it in a newspaper only a week or two beforehand. It was a large glossy book with lovely illustrations all about dragons.

Ol' Face, I'm backing off the drag and letting you run!! Please take your time. A good fisherman is nothing if not patient! You write beautifully; with a narrative flair that is wonderfully engaging. I love the hectic brush-work in your painting of the players and forces converging in the 1960's! It's a most convincing portrait! This is marvelous:

The fabric of the net is, in part, intertwined principles of rudimentary and pop psychology, stage hypnosis, philosophy, Spiritualism, Occultism, Eastern Religions, Sci Fi and anything else that has capability to grab, hold or fix the interest and attention of some folks’ mind and spread a patina of credibility...

...You see, Scientology is also “a state of mind” and “indulgence in illusions and paranormal sensations”, fostered by one mans prodigious gift to entertain and mesmerize. The many contributors and unwitting collaborators were folks born with what some may term as different or having a “loose screw” but what I—being one of them—would term, as Carlos Casteneda said so poetically, "A Separate Reality’...

If there's anything left be told about scientology, it may be the truthful story of these converging forces. That carnival excitement of burgeoning popular movements is embedded in American culture. The exuberant creativity and larger than life aspirations of first disciples seems almost genetic to our heritage. These brash episodes often spring from forces unique to a specific historical period and rarely last more than a few generations.

Whether or not that's true for scientology, I'm excited to discover whatever detail you're able to add!

Lashed to my fighting chair and standing by! :thumbsup:

fisherman
 
Last edited:
Humanity Soup

to reintroduce myself, for the purpose(s) of this discussion:

I was born in 1950. I got involved with Scientology in 1968, and left the formal Co$ in 1976.

My wife was born in 1945, and got involved with Scientology in 1963. she left with me in 1976.

My wife's ex husband, PCS (initials) was born in 1931. He got involved around 1950. he left around 1981.

A former girl friend of mine, MEW (initials) was born in 1926. She got involved in the mid 60s. I don't know exactly. MEW was (still is) an archaeologist. She and I, both did drugs (grass and acid) prior to Scientology. She left around 1980.

A close female friend of mine, SF (initials) from the mid 60s to present was born in 1945. She and i got involved along with about 20 other friends at the same time in 1968. She left around 1978.

PCS was at college in Florida, and not happy with life when introduced to Dianetics. It changed his life. The core principles of Book One have not changed in the last 60 years. ie. running (reliving) incidents, repeater technique, earlier similar, the file clerk. PCS and I still use the concepts when we audit. The damn book has longevity. I never thought that it was particularly well written, but the concepts are as true for me today as when PCS was first audited in 1950.

Hubbard was born in 1911. To PCS, Hubbard was an adult. PCS was a college student. There was natural respect for someone older and wiser, who had, additionally saved PCS's bacon.

My wife held national records in the breast stroke. She swam for Dick Smith in Phoenix. She was 18. Upon her introduction, Scientology did quick miracles with her. By this time the framework of the organizations was in place, and Hubbard had a respectful following.

MEW got involved with Scientology after a marriage fell apart. She was OT when I met her. She was quite in command of her life. Some of that is definitely a reflection of the workability of the auditing that she had gotten.

My friend, SF, and I, for years before we heard of Scientology, would sit for hours at a time, several times a week, just looking at one another - not talking. Similar to, but better than TR 0 from Scientology. As beings, we would get huge. When we got involved with Scientology, the momentum was just really getting into gear. We were just kids.

Both of us had our personal issues. By 1971, those issues were behind us because of Scientology auditing. My girl friend, MEW, said at the time (before she was my girl friend) that I went down to LA, "a boy," and returned "a man." The Solo Grade 6 Course and the Clearing Course are probably the most valuable things I've done for myself, that I know of. There is no way on Earth that I could have ever come up with them independently at my age then. The whole effect was most impressive.

In all of these examples, LRH is older and gets our "free pass" because of our personal wins.

Now here is where I'll diverge from simple personal histories.

These are my personal views on what happened. Each of you readers may buy my ideas or reject them, this isn't a sales pitch.

I see us all as spiritual beings. Drugs (grass and acid, other psychedelics) had popped lots of us out of our heads.

We are all connected. MEW and I could verbally agree to meet at noon at the Scientology center. We would both arrive within a minute or two of each other at 3. This was long before cell phones.

As early as when I was in 6th grade, I could turn to the exact page in a dictionary for the word I was looking for.

My wife and I often answer phones without Caller ID, knowing exactly who is phoning.

The Beatles sensed that they were connected to everyone. I think I read that in Playboy interview.

My feeling is that LRH got the right combination for Book One (DMSMH) close enough to the truth from the great ether of our connectedness. Just as SF and I got TR 0 better than right prior to Scientology, he got older knowledge, and put it into writing and practice.

MEW, as an archaeologist, told me of groups in Attic Greece that had processes that rendered the students more able much like the power processes did for the preclears of the 1960s.

I remember auditing a preclear, Larry Dahlquist, on the death of his father, the day before. The feeling I had was that of being "home" as a being. Auditing was the most natural activity for me. Much like the Beatles have been musicians for millennia, I have audited forever. it is a part of me.

As the processes of Scientology reached their magic on a critical mass of people, the Scientology rumor line was deadly accurate. PCS's sister phoned him telling him she'd heard he was leaving one center, and going to another before he had even decided to do it.

When we Scientologists across the world really connected, you could walk into any center or org and feel welcome and safe (except probably Flag).

The rumor line was so good that even in 1969, as a lowly staff member, I knew lots of dirt on LRH.

What I wanted for myself, I got, ie. Clear and auditor training. Both commodities are valuable to me today.

My thinking is that the quality of connectedness was too close of an approximation to the earlier oneness that we had all shared well prior to the physical universe. Alan Walter called this universe the Heavens Universe. When that universe broke apart, it was a traumatic event. The mass exodus of tens of thousands from the Co$ in the 80-82 period is, as I see it, a harmonic of the Heavens Universe break up. Many roles were relived as new, but were rooted in an age old event. As each of us individuated from the group consciousness, we started the process of dissolving the one time harmony. It's Camelot one more time.

I had seen it in the Haight Ashbury in 1968. The Summer of Love in the Haight went quickly to meth and harder drugs. My girl friend and I were at The Beatles' movie, Magical Mystery Tour. Fifteen minutes after we bought our tickets, and were seated, someone was killed (murdered) in the line we had just been in. Love had turned to hate in less than three years.

The story is rooted in spiritual beings and our ability to connect and harmonize and, conversely, to individuate and attempt manipulation, domination of and / or become subjugated by others.

 
Last edited:
My thinking is that the quality of connectedness was too close of an approximation to the earlier oneness that we had all shared well prior to the physical universe. Alan Walter called this universe the Heavens Universe. When that universe broke apart, it was a traumatic event. The mass exodus of tens of thousands from the Co$ in the 80-82 period is, as I see it, a harmonic of the Heavens Universe break up. Many roles were relived as new, but were rooted in an age old event. As each of us individuated from the group consciousness, we started the process of dissolving the one time harmony. It's Camelot one more time.


Oooooh! Ouch! :nervous:

Well, that explains THAT! :omg:


Mark A. Baker
p.s. consider this post a follow-up to our recent conversation. :clap:
 
Top