Comparison of Book Editions

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Yep, 'tis so. And the real deal is that it demonstrates Hubbard's warped mind that he would decry and attempt to destroy and/or deny a workable tech to people (and not to say probably, actually lie about the issue) because of his peccadilloes.

Then the dog flips again to blame us for his action when he wants to use that which he had shat on!

R

Yeah, it's quite telling, isn't it? And this is in his reportedly "good" period of the early 50s when he was supposed to have been at his most OT. It would be good to have a big list of the thoroughly EVIL things he did, like this, just to conteract the "Hubbard was wonderful" line.

Paul
 

RogerB

Crusader
Hi Rog, my 1967 version has this passage the same as the 1970's version.
Is it possible to make the thumbnails bigger as they are not legible.
Click on them and they open in a separate window or tab . . . then you can further expand them with a click and + cursor . . . they then are perfectly legible.

Otherwise it is a bitch of a job to upload to Photobucket and then upload to ESMB . . . . is easier to attach as done here.

R
 
Yeah, it's quite telling, isn't it? And this is in his reportedly "good" period of the early 50s when he was supposed to have been at his most OT. It would be good to have a big list of the thoroughly EVIL things he did, like this, just to conteract the "Hubbard was wonderful" line.

Paul

Throughout his life in accordance with his med records, relationships, etc., he showed a high degree of instability & mutability, along with both irrational anger & the ability to charm and reason with others. He could be brilliant, charming, & more than commonly erudite. He could also "turn" in an instant and exhibit extremely irrational or anti-social behavior. He was in many ways a "poster boy" for the more common form of bi-polar disorder. No doubt this contributed to his fear of psychiatry. Later in life his condition apparently overwhelmed him. Quite sad really.


Mark A. Baker
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Rog — hadn't Hubbard lost legal control of Dianetics in some way for several years in the 50s? I remember reading about that somewhere. Maybe something about Don Purcell (?) owning the rights (I'm not sure what rights exactly) for several years and then giving them back to Hubbard. It would make sense (to his way of thinking) to denigrate Dn in that case if he couldn't personally get money or power from it.

Yeah, here: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/townsend/5.htm. Excerpt:
In April 1952 the Foundation finally went bankrupt. Its assets were bought by Purcell. These included the sole right to the name 'Hubbard Dianetic Foundation' and the publishing rights and copyrights on all the Foundation's publications, including 'Dianetics-Modern Science and Mental Health'.

Hubbard had meanwhile transplanted the Hubbard College to Phoenix Arizona, where he established Scientology. This seems to have been a conscious decision to abandon the Dianetics field for the moment.

...

In late 1954 Purcell decided he would give up Dianetics and he would switch his support to the breakaway group, Synergetics. He agreed to return the Dianetic copyrights and publishing rights to Hubbard.
Paul

This, five days ago, did it for me concerning Hubbard. For years I had been giving him the benefit of the doubt, to some extent allowing him his "complexity." Now my view is similar to that of the cynical critic, that all along Hubbard was only following the prime directive from his Affirmations of smashing his name into history, through the broken lives of anyone in his way.

I haven't changed my mind concerning the usefulness of some parts of Scientology, merely about Hubbard's motives. Far from complexity, I can see a singlemindedness of purpose. It makes some things much easier to understand: he basically didn't give much of a rat's ass about anything else.

Paul
 

RogerB

Crusader
This, five days ago, did it for me concerning Hubbard. For years I had been giving him the benefit of the doubt, to some extent allowing him his "complexity." Now my view is similar to that of the cynical critic, that all along Hubbard was only following the prime directive from his Affirmations of smashing his name into history, through the broken lives of anyone in his way.

I haven't changed my mind concerning the usefulness of some parts of Scientology, merely about Hubbard's motives. Far from complexity, I can see a singlemindedness of purpose. It makes some things much easier to understand: he basically didn't give much of a rat's ass about anything else.

Paul

:D It's been fermenting for those five days, has it? :D

It is a bit of a shocker when you put this kind of info together and see how deceitful, stupidly destructive of tech and good works, he was.

My first Bong!! with Hubbard and his tech was '63 when he denied own goals, then later in '64 said they existed and "the" (note, not his) invalidation of them caused upset and was an error . . . . but he did nothing about repairing or addressing the area!

My goof, though in retrospect I am glad I made it as it brought me to where I am, was in assuming he knew more than me because of the earlier materials I'd read. And so I stayed in to get the steady stream of "discoveries."

His next shocker to me was when he reversed himself on Dianetics; with the release of Standard Dianetics and the blaming of auditors for dropping out the tech! (as above in this thread).

That evinced colossal deceit and fraud to me . . . a colossal example of lying and wrong targeting blame.

When he first re-addressed Dn in late '63 with the release of R3R, that didn't catch my attention much as it was a reasonable refinement of the tech, and he didn't criticize and blame others for his action.

But the shit he pulled in blaming others for the "dropping out of Dn" was unconscionable. But more so was his attempt to destroy and deny a workable tech to folks by his utterances I cite in that edition of 8-8008 . . .

R
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
:D It's been fermenting for those five days, has it? :D

It is a bit of a shocker when you put this kind of info together and see how deceitful, stupidly destructive of tech and good works, he was.

I was thinking of starting a thread to do exactly that, my friend. But I couldn't be bothered. :)

Paul
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire

Yeah, but it would be more a thread listing out examples like the Dianetic one here showcasing his thorough selfishness in regard to tech, whatever its source — not so much evil purposes as lifelong genuine (but mostly hidden) depraved indifference glossed over sometimes with his signature charismatic charm (fake). When sufficiently nauseating, the thread could then be thrust into the face of the fawning "Ron, My Hero" crowd.

Paul
 

AnonKat

Crusader
Yeah, but it would be more a thread listing out examples like the Dianetic one here showcasing his thorough selfishness in regard to tech, whatever its source — not so much evil purposes as depraved indifference. When sufficiently nauseating, it could then be thrust into the face of the fawning "Ron, My Hero" crowd.

Paul

To be objective He sold his rights because he was down on his luck
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
To be objective He sold his rights because he was down on his luck

I don't see how that makes a difference. He first praised Dianetics, then when he could no longer make money from it he nullified it, then when it was back under his control praised it again. That is despicable.

Paul
 

AnonKat

Crusader
I don't see how that makes a difference. He first praised Dianetics, then when he could no longer make money from it he nullified it, then when it was back under his control praised it again. That is despicable.

Paul

he did the same with the Volney Mathison Meter

Volney G. Mathison (also known by the pseudonym Dex Volney) was an American chiropractor, writer, and inventor of the E-meter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volney_Mathison
 

AnonKat

Crusader
Yes, indeed. Well spotted. Maybe you could do the thread. :)

Paul

He made best with what he had at the time nothing wrong with being a good bussinesman. Lately I have been pondering why invalidating his second marriage.

he did buy a boat did he out of the blue ?
 

dchoiceisalwaysrs

Gold Meritorious Patron
To be objective He sold his rights because he was down on his luck

Dear Jenni,

The materials you have are INVALUABLE!

Do NOT let the church of Scientology have them!

They will likely destroy anything that would put Hubbard in a bad light and use every information they can extrapolate to damage the reputation of Don Purcell, your father and anybody who was active at the foundation and stayed with Don Purcell.


This letter gives a different outlook at those times: http://www.lermanet.com/cisar/carto/rxxx.htm


Thank you.

AnonKat I suggest you read the "letter" in the link. . It appears Ron was an appetite over tin cup business man even in the early 50s.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Copy of a post I just made on another thread, regarding DMSMH:

Well, being that kind of guy, I just ran a comparison of the first real chapter of the book, Chapter 1, The Scope of Dianetics. I say ran as if it was automated in some way: I tried that and it didn't work, so I ended up eyeballing it, which I'm pretty good at.

There was only one change in word, although there were maybe 6-10 corrections in terms of deleted commas; substituting an em dash for a comma, or parentheses for commas; capitalizing or italicising words. The comma deletions changed the meaning slightly, I would say in the direction of better interpretation. The capitalizations etc. were mainly in the direction of greater grammatical correctness. For example, "zombyism" in the 2007 edition and "zombie-ism" in the 1978 one (although Google gives 10,600 hits on "zombieism" or "zombie-ism" and only 642 on "zombyism" so maybe David Miscavige should be RPF'd over that one).

So the one significant change:

1978 edition:
4. Dianetics gives a complete insight into the full potentialities of the mind, discovering them to be well in excess of past suppression.

2007 edition:
4. Dianetics gives a complete insight into the full potentialities of the mind, discovering them to be well in excess of past supposition.

-----

I really don't feel like going through the whole damn book. Based on my thorough look at the first few chapters of Scn 8-8008, though, as I wrote up before, I would assume the 2007 edition is nearer the mark in terms of matching what Hubbard intended when he dictated the book than the older versions of DMSMH.

Paul
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
I still see posts from people saying how the original books were just fine and DM's changes of them for 2007 involved worsening them. My response has to be Dox or STFU.

I have not seen one single comparison of the actual texts of the two sets of books apart from the ones I have noted on this thread. I know DM has chopped whole words or sentences out of PDC tapes, but that is a different area. This topic is the 2007 books.

TL;DR version: as far as I can tell from actually eyeballing the damn things, the 2007 versions are closer to the Hubbard original dictation than earlier versions, even if it was DM that did it.

Paul
 

Gadfly

Crusader
I still see posts from people saying how the original books were just fine and DM's changes of them for 2007 involved worsening them. My response has to be Dox or STFU.

I have not seen one single comparison of the actual texts of the two sets of books apart from the ones I have noted on this thread. I know DM has chopped whole words or sentences out of PDC tapes, but that is a different area. This topic is the 2007 books.

TL;DR version: as far as I can tell from actually eyeballing the damn things, the 2007 versions are closer to the Hubbard original dictation than earlier versions, even if it was DM that did it.

Paul

And while that very well might be true, and I don't doubt that it might be, I really don't care one iota. Crap is crap with or without a comma . . . . :confused2:

In the overall scheme of things, is it an important or "good thing" for DM's book versions to be closer to the Hubbard's original dictation? Knowing Hubbard and his subject, as I see it, the FURTHER distorted the books are from the original, well, all the better.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
I prefer the truth of the matter to be known.

Paul

I do too, but in the overall scheme of things, and compared to other far more important aspects of Scientology, to me, this is minor and insignificant.

It would be like a prisoner arguing with another prisoner about whether the metal bars of the prison cell are actually 2" apart of 2 1/8" apart. Who cares? One is still in a prison! :omg:

See? Little picture and big picture. :confused2:
 
Top