Gadfly, Thank you for your well reasoned and sincere response. I appreciate it very much. As far as the 'seniority' aspect goes, I only meant it with repect to focus of attention. I find that focus on 'being' creates a lot more problem then focus on 'knowledge', such as, focus on the topic or subject.
.
Mmm? OK, I can see that. But,
focus of attention, especially when adding all sorts of "meaning" and "significance" to the mix has negative implications no matter how it might be done and "what" it may be directed at. In truth, as a mental construct, the actual "thing" it may be directed at is quite meaningless. The best "mental construct" or "model" is one that best defines and most closely delineates some legitimate observation of some external or internal event or situation.
I think the
context makes all the difference. We probably agree far more than either of us realize.
As I said earlier, yeah sure, the "data" is FAR more relevant and important than the "personality" forwarding or creating the data.
For example, while I HAVE checked into much of the information about Hubbard's past - his lies, his strange behaviors, his possible motivations - in the end I ONLY care about the subject data itself, and the PRODUCTS of Hubbard's IDEAS. I don't place much attention or concern on "the man". I haven't spent hours digging out stories or reports from others about what a jerk he was (or wasn't) in the "old days". From reading what he wrote, and noticing WHAT he created, well, simply, he is a dick. I don't CARE what others might report about him, not one way or the other. Granted, I have taken the liberty of associating (closley) the creator with what he created. I am free to make that judgment. "In their fruit ye shall know them." So, after looking at the fruit, a great deal of it is rotten, and I KNOW HIM! I do pay FAR less attention to people's claims, assertions, promises, statements and "feelings", than I do to HOW ONE BEHAVES WITH OTHERS IN THE REAL WORLD. I pay far LESS attention to claims of IDEALS than I do to REAL EFFECTS on REAL people in the REAL world. If more Scientologists did the SAME, instead of focusing on the PR of the CLAIMS, I suppose far fewer would be "Scientologists".
It is enough for me that, based on my own extensive observations, SOME of his "data" is useful, and that a great deal of it is either useless, incorrectly evaluated in terms of imortances or plain wrong. And that the application of the LRH data, no matter who applies it, and as long as it is applied "exactly as written", creates completely INSANE organizations and often nutty, strange fanatical people.
As far as information goes, I have much more concern with the validity of the "data" than I do with any concern or attention on the
person who created the "data". Though I do think that it can be a mistake to destroy all associations between the creator and the created - as there is often SOME or even large correlation between the two. Does the apple ever really fall far from the tree? I think not.
In a different context, in matters of "spiritual growth", a correct delineation of importance is necessary for a body of knoweldge that addresses the relationship of the "being" with any "knowledge". In this realm, the qualities and attributes of a "spiritual being" take far more relevance and importance than the various data and bodies of knowledge created or entertained by such a spiritual being.
Though, fixation on anything seems to be fundemantally detrimental to mental, emotional and spiritual growth and health. These things, spiritual growth and health, seem to depend on the
relationship between the creator and the created, between the observer and the observed. Where THAT which does the creating and the observing holds a bit of a higher importance and a more basic relevance in all-that-is. It is not that there is an exagerrated focus with that idea, but only that the statement best describes "the way it is".
There is that which does the mocking up (Being), and then there is the infinite realm of all the tremendous variety and sheer quantity of mockups (Knowledge). People often get stuck looking at some aspect of the universes of mockups (as the data or knowledge, or even "fact" of the universe), when the thing that matters the most, the thing largely hidden from view, and the thing that needs to be brought to view, uncovered and "rehabilitated" most, is THAT which brings all else into existance (Being).
I think there can be accurate statements of the way "it all works", on the most fundamental level, and such statements would/should include and encompass the
functioning of
that which
creates the details of ALL data and knowledge (as created things).
++++++++++++++++
and i guess i better google "do a bunk". no clue what that means. 
