What's new

Did Hub have any original, good, ideas?

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
Unfortunately, Hubbard needed to start a dishonest and ruthless cultic organization to "smash his name into history."
Actually, yes, it could be called : LRH Axiom no 1

He certainly partially succeded as he got his name smashed in Wikepedia and all over the internet
not the way he planned it though, in spite of his tremendous PR OSA dept...and withouth any control over it.

God Internet bless us!
 

Gib

Crusader
I agree ... because no matter how it's prettied up by his supporters he was a mentally unstable individual (a documented fact) with delusions of grandeur ... both before he wrote DMSMH (which was the real start of his campaign to save the world ... make as much money for himself as he could) throughout his life and right up until the day he died (also a documented fact)

He was cunning and he was clever, and he was certainly an 'original thinker' but he was also as mad as a hatter from start to finish.

Completely bonkers.

Had we known then what we know now (about hubbard) things would have been very different.
I tend to think of "delusions of grandeur" as Hubbard's sublime writing, namely achieving the state of Clear and then OT as grandeur, tapping into the sublime thru writing.

That's sublime writing, that's what Hubbard tried to achieve, the grandeur of Clear and OT, but in the end he failed as he told Sarge.

I think Hubbard believed his own shit to the very end of his life, and tried all along to get us to believe as well, or make it go right. And yes, we was guinea pigs all along.

I think Hubbard is an asshole for telling Sarge and not issuing a policy letter or briefing such as a RJ lecture stating he failed and everybody should go home to their family and friends.

And I think DM knows this and is a con artist not just following LRH playbook.

http://theliterarylink.com/sublime.html

"Longinus, writing in the classical historical tradition says that the sublime implies that man can, in emotions and in language, transcend the limits of the human condition."
 

pineapple

Silver Meritorious Patron
9781602061156_p0_v1_s260x420.jpg


PDF copy of Coue's book, cited above by Veda. Very short, 27 pages. Very interesting.
http://www.mind-your-reality.com/support-files/self_mastery_autosuggestion_coue.pdf

 

RogerB

Crusader
Ya, Emile Coué was the book Alan and I cut our "self improvement" teeth on in the 1950's . . . it was very big in Oz in those days . . . but it did not do me much good as the idea of dumping a self hypnosis thought in on self simply inflicted what Alan refers to as a "piling more on top of" tech that simply adds shit on top of what is . . . and leads to mass.

Rog
 

Veda

Sponsor
-snip-

I think Hubbard believed his own shit to the very end of his life, and tried all along to get us to believe as well, or make it go right. And yes, we was guinea pigs all along.

I think Hubbard believed more of his own stuff towards the very end, but, during most of his life, did not believe a fair amount of what he said and was - consciously - manipulating or "playing" Scientologists much of the time.

Hubbard even lied to his closest confidants. There are many examples of this.

I take Sarge's account with a grain of salt. He was a true believer and Hubbard knew it.
 

ILove2Lurk

Lisbeth Salander
I take Sarge's account with a grain of salt.
Curious. Could you explain a bit more?

The part that stuck with me when I first heard Sarge's story was the "suicide emeter."
For me, asking someone to build a device to "off" yourself is pretty conclusive evidence
that there's something seriously wrong. That's all I needed to know. The rest of the story
would be moot after that. Speculation.
 
Last edited:

Veda

Sponsor
Curious. Could you explain a bit more?

The part that stuck with me when I first heard Sarge's story was the "suicide emeter."
For me, asking someone to build a device to "off" yourself is pretty conclusive evidence
that there's something seriously wrong. That's all I needed to know. The rest of the story
would be moot after that. Speculation.


Attempting to commit suicide with a homemade, juiced up, e-meter is as likely to leave the person horribly burned but alive, as it is to quickly kill the person. Unless Hubbard was completely non compos mentis he would have realized this.

Perhaps Hubbard was completely out of it. In fact that seems likely, in which case his, "I failed" comment is ambiguous and means no more than, "I'm unhappy."

To Sarge, however, "I failed" meant, "I failed to achieve OT and build a Bridge to free all Mankind," or some such.

Ample evidence - spanning decades - indicates that Hubbard was primarily doing something else - and not what Sarge, and other loyal minions, believed he was doing - so, if "I failed" means anything, it means something else.

I agree with your comment that the main take-away from Sarge's account is that Hubbard was incoherent towards the end, and the rest is speculation.
 

ILove2Lurk

Lisbeth Salander
I agree with your comment that the main take-away from Sarge's account is that Hubbard was incoherent towards the end, and the rest is speculation.
Humor me and I'll give you some pure speculation.

Hubbard was very physically ill on and off from about 1968 to his death in
1986 (ages 57 to 75). Much more so than most people his age. He suffered
from multiple bouts of pneumonia yearly at one time (admitted in a letter),
heart attacks, strokes, pancreatitis (taken to hospital in early '85 for a very
bad attack . . . could not walk by himself), among other things.

From age 64 on, he exhibited early signs of dementia or senility. I'm not a doctor
so I can't exactly describe it . . . but he had it. Something going on there. (From my
readings of afaceinthecrowd, cowboy, and others.) He suffered from an uncontrollable
temper and rages as he got older.

He wished to die in 1985 and attempted to take his life in November, so we're told.
In 1986, he volitionally withheld proper medical treatment at a hospital for a stroke
or two, so he would die.

My crazy speculation is that his pancreatitis attack could have just as easily been a
pancreatic cancer symptom and he knew the end was near. (Could have metastasized
to his brain too.) Consequently, there would be little reason not to drop the body a little
early. Also make sure no autopsy was done, lest it invalidated his tech, and that any
evidence was cremated immediately.
Oh, well. Unnecessary speculation, LOL. :shrug:

What's done is done.
 

Dave B.

Maximus Ultimus Mostimus
Hubbard was one of the most original thinkers of the 20th century, and had an original take on nearly every subject he wrote about. He did not exist in a vacuum, so his ideas were often launched by something someone else wrote or said. Everyone would have been better off if he'd just stuck to speaking and writing books rather than launching a religion, like a Manly P Hall maybe.

Original thinker? I don't know about that.

I do appreciate his ability to apply the scientific method to and sort out a lot of "Eastern" data. As he said, cut out the mumbo-jumbo and get to what are the important parts. He did a good job of that.

Most of what he said is his take on older data that he had clarified. For example, I'm reading Zen for Americans, originally published as Sermons of a Buddhist Abbot in 1913 by Rev. Soyen Shaku (translated by D.T. Suzuki) - check it out and see if don't recognize a lot of it, lol.

The worshipful attitude some folks have about Hubbard cracks me up, as we know $cientologists can be quite gullible. "OMG! Hooooooow did heeeee dooooooo it??? "

Clue by 4: It's explained in the front of R&D volume number 1. Great job too. Too bad that as has been mentioned he was such an egotistical control freak and went off the rails.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
Humor me and I'll give you some pure speculation.

Hubbard was very physically ill on and off from about 1968 to his death in
1986 (ages 57 to 75). Much more so than most people his age. He suffered
from multiple bouts of pneumonia yearly at one time (admitted in a letter),
heart attacks, strokes, pancreatitis (taken to hospital in early '85 for a very
bad attack . . . could not walk by himself), among other things.

From age 64 on, he exhibited early signs of dementia or senility. I'm not a doctor
so I can't exactly describe it . . . but he had it. Something going on there. (From my
readings of afaceinthecrowd, cowboy, and others.) He suffered from an uncontrollable
temper and rages as he got older.

He wished to die in 1985 and attempted to take his life in November, so we're told.
In 1986, he volitionally withheld proper medical treatment at a hospital for a stroke
or two, so he would die.

My crazy speculation is that his pancreatitis attack could have just as easily been a
pancreatic cancer symptom and he knew the end was near. (Could have metastasized
to his brain too.) Consequently, there would be little reason not to drop the body a little
early. Also make sure no autopsy was done, lest it invalidated his tech, and that any
evidence was cremated immediately.
Oh, well. Unnecessary speculation, LOL. :shrug:

What's done is done.

One thing is certain ... whatever was ailing him wasn't going to look very good 'for scientology' if the truth was allowed to get out.

The rumour about how hubbard died has always made sense to me ... ie that a height challenged individual kept the old man away from mainstream medics towards the end and perhaps had him confined to the motorhome and filled full of drugs to make the task easier ... all done for 'for the greater good' of course (lol) while also keeping the people that genuinely cared about hubbard pacified, quiet, and eventually complicit.

I feel not the slightest bit sorry for the hideous old con man but sincerely hope that Karma is sharpening her nails and planning something extra special for the little charmer that then forcibly took over the cult and (as taught by hubbard) also stage managed the whole mess in typical cult fashion.

I bet hubbards last clear thought was interesting.

I also wish certain people were able to disclose what they really know. Perhaps they will find a way to get the truth out one day.
 

ILove2Lurk

Lisbeth Salander
Original thinker? I don't know about that.
I'm currently reading a wonderful book -- The Cave and the Light: Plato Versus Aristotle,
and the Struggle for the Soul of Western Civilization
-- and I'm finding many of the same
ideas back there also. It's fascinating.

Seems like the concept of perennial philosophy or wisdom -- the idea that all of the world's
religious traditions and spiritual practices share a single set of truths or origins going back in
time forever -- might have something to it. Repeating and resurfacing again and again.

To my simple mind, seems like Hubbard compiled many ideas from ancient times and the more
recent spiritualism and psychology of the 1800's and early 1900's, then rewrote and reformatted
them with the popular commercial spin of the day: exact science and engineering.

He also attempted to take various "knowledge" in the soft sciences (psychology, sociology, political
science, religion, ethics, et al.) and copyright them (a first perhaps?), so he could own them and
monetize them for his own benefit forever.

I'm no expert, but the more I read the more I see many ideas back there in time being recycled.
 

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
But the original question...

Hubbard's good ideas?

There's plenty.

Differentiate between analytic thinking in differences and similarities and reactive thinking in identities.

TR's 0-4

The Comm Cycle

CCH's 1-4

The Itsa maker line

The book Self Analysis

The Chart of Human Evaluation

Any other brave soul want to step down into the ESMB stoning pit and name some more?
Tell you what, Birdy, you provide non-Scientology documentation that shows anyone in the real world has used and found any of this useful. No anecdotes, no stories, nothing from TrueBelieverLand -- only pure non-Scientology documentation showing any of this exact "tech" has any use outside of Scientology.

You know why you won't find any such documentation? Because people in the real world have better ways of doing things. Hubbard may have created his "tech" (or at least copyrighted it) but it isn't valuable or even useful in the real world.
 

Koot

Patron with Honors
@Koot ... are you suggesting that it's OK to acknowledge that scio most certainly IS a con as long as the wording contains no hint of sarcasm?

Why would that be?

We're not discussing washing powder here, we're discussing something that has destroyed many families and lives and continues to do so.

Many exes were restrained mentally, verbally and spiritually for many decades (even with the people closest to them) and it's a well known fact that that kind of suppression can be harmful to a person overall ... people here post according to ESMB rules only (which are few and very fair) and most seem to feel better as a result.

Your flippant (and often sarcastic) one liners are sometimes quite funny/pertinent but don't waste too much time trying to control the narrative, because you haven't got a hope in hell of succeeding.
I am certainly not trying to fix, change or alter to my way of thinking anybody. When I get a few tons of shit dropped on my head I will spit a bit. None of the bad situations that many have endured are Scientology. YES, org staff many times are pure evil at times. I am not justifying any of their actions and condemn them with the rest. The COS is not Scientology. I don't care how many copyrights or trademarks they have.
 

Koot

Patron with Honors
If an individual honestly evaluated the history of Scientology, as well as comparing the claims made over the years to the actual results obtained, I don't see the relevance of how "overtly and acerbically vocal they are". Why would that matter?
It only matters to me when in a "conversation" with me. I can respect a viewpoint. I was not there for their situations.
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
Attempting to commit suicide with a homemade, juiced up, e-meter is as likely to leave the person horribly burned but alive, as it is to quickly kill the person. Unless Hubbard was completely non compos mentis he would have realized this.

Perhaps Hubbard was completely out of it. In fact that seems likely, in which case his, "I failed" comment is ambiguous and means no more than, "I'm unhappy."

To Sarge, however, "I failed" meant, "I failed to achieve OT and build a Bridge to free all Mankind," or some such.

Ample evidence - spanning decades - indicates that Hubbard was primarily doing something else - and not what Sarge, and other loyal minions, believed he was doing - so, if "I failed" means anything, it means something else.

I agree with your comment that the main take-away from Sarge's account is that Hubbard was incoherent towards the end, and the rest is speculation.
I know a bit about Sarge Gerbode because I once met and had a conversation with him at a party in East Grinstead; I also corresponded with him briefly when I had some criticisms of his book (Metapsychology), which he answered politely and with good grace.

I don't think Sarge was particularly into the "space opera" aspect of Hubbard's work; his interest was more in the lower bridge, which he did have some faith in, and how it could be expanded and improved upon. He was also a big fan of Carl Rogers and his person-centred approach to therapy.
 

ThetanExterior

Gold Meritorious Patron
Hubbard’s former lover, PR Agent and now qualified psychologist Barbara Klowden Snader (Barbara Kaye) described him as “a narcissistic personality”, “a manic depressive” and “paranoid”. She said that Dianetics and Scientology were his attempts to cure his own mental problems.

In that light, I would think that his statement to Sarge that he'd "failed" would mean he'd failed to cure his own problems. He was obviously still physically and mentally ill despite telling the world he had the answer to every problem - physical, mental or spiritual. His lies had been exposed and he knew it.
 

Veda

Sponsor
I know a bit about Sarge Gerbode because I once met and had a conversation with him at a party in East Grinstead; I also corresponded with him briefly when I had some criticisms of his book (Metapsychology), which he answered politely and with good grace.

I don't think Sarge was particularly into the "space opera" aspect of Hubbard's work; his interest was more in the lower bridge, which he did have some faith in, and how it could be expanded and improved upon. He was also a big fan of Carl Rogers and his person-centred approach to therapy.
That's a different Sarge.
 
Top