Loyalists of The Tech

'Actually' these aren't my assumptions, but, they *are* the assumptions at the core of Scientology. Ron said so.

A. Got a reference? I don't recall seeing one myself.

B. Ron saying something doesn't make it true. :)

C. The above assumptions are not at all necessary to the subject of scientology, hence they do not form a logical foundation for the subject of scientology. They can not therefore be used either to validate or invalidate the subject, but only an individual's beliefs about the subject.


Mark A. Baker
 
In fact; Scientology is pure blather either way, but, without these assumptions it's a priori blather.

Zinj

Just saw this quote:

Scientology and its tech belong to the people and belong to the people who use it. L. Ron Hubbard may have been a crossroads of truth and communication but he tried to act as creator, which was a total misassignment of cause and creation which of course, naturally, was highly detrimental to his own case and his own bank and his own progress and to the growth and proper development organizationally. - Ron De Wolf

It's from the following interesting site linked to earlier elsewhere: http://gathering-minds.net/atributetorondewolf


Mark A. Baker
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Just saw this quote:

Scientology and its tech belong to the people and belong to the people who use it. L. Ron Hubbard may have been a crossroads of truth and communication but he tried to act as creator, which was a total misassignment of cause and creation which of course, naturally, was highly detrimental to his own case and his own bank and his own progress and to the growth and proper development organizationally. - Ron De Wolf

It's from the following interesting site linked to earlier elsewhere: http://gathering-minds.net/atributetorondewolf


Mark A. Baker

Wow!!!
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
What is the concept that we are essentially spiritual/ non material in nature?

LET'S PLAY SCIENTOLOGY JEOPARDY!

ALEX TREBEK: "Here is today's Daily Double! The answer is... The concept that we are essentially spiritual/non-material in nature."

CONTESTANT: "What are things a registrar says when a nearly bankrupt scientologist claims they need material things to survive?"
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
LET'S PLAY SCIENTOLOGY JEOPARDY!

ALEX TREBEK: "Here is today's Daily Double! The answer is... The concept that we are essentially spiritual/non-material in nature."

CONTESTANT: "What are things a registrar says when a nearly bankrupt scientologist claims they need material things to survive?"
:lol:
 

Gadfly

Crusader
But, Scientology *is* a 'creation', not a 'discovery'.

Zinj

I don't see that this is true at all, not as a sweeping generality. Hubbard did a great deal of "digging, culling, and organizing" of pre-existing information. Hubbard couldn't exist without a HUGE amount of other, earlier information, views and data.

I see that it is more of a "discovery" - finding and dealing with what was already there. And, LESS of a "creation", where he would have just "made shit up". Yes, he did do SOME of that. I think that his ideas of "ARC" and "KRC" are unique and original. I can't find or figure out where he got THOSE from, though they might exist in some related form. The Condition Formulas, from a certain viewpoint, can be very useful to take seriously and apply (out of the context of an insane Scn organization and KSW-influenced belief framework). I have never seen anything like them, as to where Hubbard could have gotten THOSE ideas from. They can be taken too far within a group, and from a severe ethics and justice angle, but simply as tools to "better some area of life", they have more than a little use to an honest, unbiased and sincere participant.

Dianetics, as a subject, with its engrams (energy remnants of actual experienced events of the past), recall, and "going over repetitively to destimulate" fit RIGHT IN with the then-current 1950s mindset, zeitgeist, paradigm and theories on psychotherapy, the mind, dealing with trama, "bringing the unconscious into consciousness" (Jung), etc. Hubbard absorbed all of those extant ideas, and yes, very much did ADD TO, embellish, and create specific names and details, BUT the general ideas were NOT his at all.

The notion of a "non-material spiritual source for all" goes way back, many thousands of years with the Hindu Vedic texts. That is not at all "original" with Hubbard.

The concept of "cycles of action", which is very key in SCN, derives from the ancient Vedic notion of "birth, decay and death". The pre-existing idea was that all manifestation, in any form, from the smallest to the largest, follows through the same endless cycle. Hubbard did NOT "create" that idea. It is a HUGE idea in SCN, and appears as "start-change-stop" and is the basis of CCHs, objective processes and some legitimate theories about "control" (NOT the "bad" kind).

I can go on and on with examples. There are MANY that show Hubbard did NOT "create" as much as he organized and reworded. Another? How about his policies on "reason", "logic", and "sanity" - the Data Series? He took almost all of this from Korzybski's writings on General Semantics (mainly his book, "Science and Sanity"). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice the connections, but one MUST be both familiar with the Data Series AND with Korzybski's (and related GS) writings. In my experience, both Church members AND critics are often NOT sufficiently familiar with either subject or field to notice or understand this fully. Not with actual Scientology writings, AND not with the many varied theories and ideas that Hubbard used as the basis of his own ideas.

Again, Hubbard was immersed in, soaked up and realigned in his own way MANY extant and popular ideas of the time that he existed in.

For example, I have read a few key authors of General Semantics. But, I also have studied the Data Series. I get something from both. I can see where each got it right and where each got it wrong. Being contacted with both, for me, is BETTER. My understanding is deeper as a result.

Hubbard didn't make up the ideas of "leaving the body", "exterior perception", "theta-MEST" (dualistic version or interpretation of reality), "getting into Present Time", or "being responsible for ones own condition". He most surely DID make up various words and labels to define already existing things and phenomena, and there is no doubt that a large degree of the indoctrination and CONTROL exerts itself through the pompous Scn NOMENCLATURE. He DID create a "language" and abbreviations that ONLY Church members can understand. It acts to seperate them out from the rest of humanity.

I think that people sometimes give him too much credit, and those who actually have the opinion that all Scientology is "created" by LRH from his imagination fell for exactly what Hubbard claimed all along - that he was a brilliant creator. Granted, I feel that he DID do an amazing job in some regards. But, like any flawed human being, and being the "big being" that he may have been, he really FUCKED UP BIG TIME in many regards - in addition to doing an amazing job in many other ways. I see the extremes of both sides in him, as evidenced by his behavior and what he "created". I can see amazing good and horrendous bad in the personality and "results" of LRH.

Maybe I will write an essay on exactly how the Data Series derives directly from the ideas of General Semantics (down to terms, and key concepts). Sometimes it seems to me, from reading posts here, that some (or many) people simply have never closely studied what Hubbard did and didn't say, and what ELSE was said by other authors whom LRH freely borrowed from. And, then there is what the ORGANIZATION DOES with this LRH data! THAT is something else entirely, and a complete subject unto itself. And while the two ARE related, the subject and the organization that is based upon the subject, various ideas of LRH's CAN be known, and applied without any involvement with any Scn organization, "command intention" or other stupidity. And yes, I know very well, that certain writings by Hubbard are grossly flawed and very dangerous in themselves (there are MANY).

There is a viewpoint in "art" that has been agreed with by some great creators.

The bright artist hides his influences well!!!!!! (most others see him or her as just "so amazingly creative", because others can't notice the influences that the artist hides so very well)

Hubbard had MANY influences. These influences directly morphed, by the actions of his own creative imagination, into many of his various "ideas" of Scientology. Too many people fail to notice that, much less understand the degree and magnitude to which this occurred in Hubbard's "creation" of Scientology.

Granted, the whole OT III scenario IS pretty creative as an exercise in imagination (though even THAT relates in some way to extant theories on elementals, demons, entities, cooties, aliens, elfs and other "hidden sources of inexplicable occurences").

Also, there is something quite "creative" about taking what is there, mixing it all up, and coming out with some "new" nearly unrecognizable subject or body of data. Musicians and composers do it. It is rare indeed for someone to come along and CREATE completely - make something entirely original, being unrelated to all else that has ever been! Probably not possible . . . .

Hubbard looked around and organized a great many observations and extant data. He even says that this is what he did (before his ego got too big). In that regard, he didn't so much "discover" as he "uncovered" what was already there - or believed to be there by certain people and groups. The biggest thing he truly "created" was a "ruthless, detailed system of ultra-control", that while disgusting as it is and what it is based upon (exact LRH-authored policies), still in a certain regard remains unaffiliated with a good deal of the actual legitimate or non-offensive "data".
 
Last edited:

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
I don't see that this is true at all, not as a sweeping generality. Hubbard did a great deal of "digging, culling, and organizing" of pre-existing information. Hubbard couldn't exist without a HUGE amount of other, earlier information, views and data.

I see that it is more of a "discovery" - finding and dealing with what was already there. And, LESS of a "creation", where he would have just "made shit up". Yes, he did do SOME of that. I think that his ideas of "ARC" and "KRC" are unique and original. I can't find or figure out where he got THOSE from, though they might exist in some related form.

The point is that, despite whatever 'culling', researching or 'organizing' Ron did, the *product* was Dianetics/Scientology and *that* is the *creation* of an organized 'subject' which is Dianetics/Scientology regardless of how fanciful, dubious or actually existing the 'data' is or was.

Nobody else could 'discover' Scientology because, until Ron's creation of the organization of data, it didn't exist.

Zinj
 

Gadfly

Crusader
The point is that, despite whatever 'culling', researching or 'organizing' Ron did, the *product* was Dianetics/Scientology and *that* is the *creation* of an organized 'subject' which is Dianetics/Scientology regardless of how fanciful, dubious or actually existing the 'data' is or was.

Nobody else could 'discover' Scientology because, until Ron's creation of the organization of data, it didn't exist.

Zinj

I agree. :D
 

Terril park

Sponsor
LET'S PLAY SCIENTOLOGY JEOPARDY!

ALEX TREBEK: "Here is today's Daily Double! The answer is... The concept that we are essentially spiritual/non-material in nature."

CONTESTANT: "What are things a registrar says when a nearly bankrupt scientologist claims they need material things to survive?"

They wouldn't accept me as a contestant. I kicked them out and remained in good standing.
 

Chess

Patron with Honors
Anyone who bought the PR stories that the CoS put out about Hubbard over the years, needs to do their homework on the man. I would also recommend reading Hubbard’s “Admissions” as this gives a true look into the mind of the madman that created this “Tech.”

John

My take on this comes from my experience trying to survive in dangerous environemnts. I've had some Officers in the army I wouldn't give you two cents for; but in certain circumstances when things got out of hand and when the 'real world' far, far away from the know it alls & experts is about to teach you a genuine lesson in your own abilites - well... who do you follow?
If a screaming lunatic foaming at the mouth. knee deep in bodies is still standing at the end of the day - maybe it might be a good idea to observe what he was doing or did. Then go about your business. Writing someone off because he's nuts but had the balls to communicate is a personal choice but carries with it the liability of being cannon fodder.
The CofS is damaged goods no doubt, but I look around and see similar organisations wearing expensive suits and driving nice cars while the average Joe goes along with a life very much affected simply by money flows or where his next meal is coming from.
To do nothing is to end up with nothing - ask any third world resident. Perhaps this may be all part of a wild, unbeliveable hoax - believe that, well enjoy your beer.
The tough times are truly ahead if one simply wishes or is convienced one must be lead or shown how to do everything, sitting back is a sure way to wind up in someone else's methodology. Apparently truth isn't for everyone. I'm not saying Hubbard every had a monoply on that and this point that some believe he should have discovered all by himself and required no help - blah! He had lots of assistance but the PR machine of a single leader got in the way.
I reckon the horrible truth is that we have discovered suddenly that we found ourselves in a "mind fuck war" and don't know how to handle it, especially as a group. I'm a little sick of so many experts and authorities but am generally cautious of those that thrive and feel good on doing nothing but finding fault. The ability to research is paramount but even more so is the willingness to try, that gets blunted real easy hey?
 
My take on this comes from my experience trying to survive in dangerous environemnts. I've had some Officers in the army I wouldn't give you two cents for; but in certain circumstances when things got out of hand and when the 'real world' far, far away from the know it alls & experts is about to teach you a genuine lesson in your own abilites - well... who do you follow?
If a screaming lunatic foaming at the mouth. knee deep in bodies is still standing at the end of the day - maybe it might be a good idea to observe what he was doing or did. Then go about your business. Writing someone off because he's nuts but had the balls to communicate is a personal choice but carries with it the liability of being cannon fodder.
The CofS is damaged goods no doubt, but I look around and see similar organisations wearing expensive suits and driving nice cars while the average Joe goes along with a life very much affected simply by money flows or where his next meal is coming from.
To do nothing is to end up with nothing - ask any third world resident. Perhaps this may be all part of a wild, unbeliveable hoax - believe that, well enjoy your beer.
The tough times are truly ahead if one simply wishes or is convienced one must be lead or shown how to do everything, sitting back is a sure way to wind up in someone else's methodology. Apparently truth isn't for everyone. I'm not saying Hubbard every had a monoply on that and this point that some believe he should have discovered all by himself and required no help - blah! He had lots of assistance but the PR machine of a single leader got in the way.
I reckon the horrible truth is that we have discovered suddenly that we found ourselves in a "mind fuck war" and don't know how to handle it, especially as a group. I'm a little sick of so many experts and authorities but am generally cautious of those that thrive and feel good on doing nothing but finding fault. The ability to research is paramount but even more so is the willingness to try, that gets blunted real easy hey?



If your argument is "follow the survivor" or "do what the survivor does on a battlefield" I don't think it holds much water. Hubtit did not even survive too well in the navy did he? Didn't he try to squirm out of it by claiming disabilities? And regarding survivors: Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao many others were survivors. Are you saying we should follow people like that or have some respect for them. Better that people grow their own balls and understand who the madmen are, and who should not be listened to.
 

Chess

Patron with Honors
If your argument is "follow the survivor" or "do what the survivor does on a battlefield" I don't think it holds much water. Hubtit did not even survive too well in the navy did he? Didn't he try to squirm out of it by claiming disabilities? And regarding survivors: Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao many others were survivors. Are you saying we should follow people like that or have some respect for them. Better that people grow their own balls and understand who the madmen are, and who should not be listened to.


No not all. I've learnt the hard way you can't make it on your own. But if there is a good looking way in amoungst some crazy stuff why not have a look at it and take it on board if it works. Being a "hero" is one of the biggest PR mind traps and "follow the leader tricks" (Simon says) there is. War and conflict are no fun and the best way to survive one is don't be there in the first place, ever seen what a bullet does to a human body? All the leaders you mentioned above didn't get to the positions they did by a ticket they found in their ceral box. Perhaps as you say understand the madman and don't listen to them is a very good way to avoid trouble. It follows then that constant alertness and constant willingness to fight back holds more water than people give it credit for or practice for that matter - it does in my book - but boy you gotta be on the ball and be prepared to make a few mistakes to follow that.
To equate my beliefs and attitude that I would follow/agree to the likes of mass murders is opposite to why I put a uniform on. However, I'm just as adroit with an automatic weapon as I am with an emeter - both survival tools when the circumstances warrant it in my book.
I don't quite see how the above mass murders quoted above were survivors though - unless of course you equate being in charge for a decade or two and creating mass opposition to your beliefs that your species sees you as some sort of disease that needs eliminating. Interesting topic survival - and exactly what is it and means to the individual, it gets to the heart of the matter pretty quickly.
Thanks for the discussion.
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Snip.....

Also, there is something quite "creative" about taking what is there, mixing it all up, and coming out with some "new" nearly unrecognizable subject or body of data. Musicians and composers do it. It is rare indeed for someone to come along and CREATE completely - make something entirely original, being unrelated to all else that has ever been! Probably not possible . . . .

Hubbard looked around and organized a great many observations and extant data. He even says that this is what he did (before his ego got too big). In that regard, he didn't so much "discover" as he "uncovered" what was already there - or believed to be there by certain people and groups. The biggest thing he truly "created" was a "ruthless, detailed system of ultra-control", that while disgusting as it is and what it is based upon, still in a certain regard remains unaffiliated with a good deal of the actual legitimate or non-offensive "data".

Gadfly, this is one of your vintage tour de force postings! I really enjoyed it and agree with everything you say in this one. Again you sum up an incredible amount of data and though your post is quite long, it is short considering how much material you covered.
Lkwdblds
 

bts2free

Patron with Honors
Okay, I've read the entire thread, and there are many great points and some not so great. But what the hell. We're all allowed to believe whatever we want or not.

Here's what I've concluded about all this though:

1. Somehow Hubbard claimed to be "Source" of this "religious" philosophy/science/movement/"Religion" - Scientology.

2. A lot of the things you find in Scientology were taken from earlier discoveries/sources and repackaged by Hubbard and gang.

3. This was all being done in the times of, "let's do things faster and easier" or "do it yourself," as well as "self help." Just look at the "Buy Nows" and "lightning fast" Scientology promo. No thanks, I'll take the Vedic Hymns or Buddhism over that, thank you.

4. Per accounts, Hubbard assigned wrong "Source" for Scientology, when there were others on board who were also making technological breakthroughs in Scientology, but Hubbard somehow stole the spotlight from these guys. Weren't these people trained by Hubbard and used his techniques to come up with these breakthroughs, or was it by their own scientific research based on other non-Hubbardian techniques? What were Hubbard's research techniques anyway? Who knows.

5. Where is the research/documentation that goes along with all of these spiritual breakthoughs in Scientology so that anyone can see a+b+c = (breakthrough). It's not provided because we all had to take Hubbard's word for it in the HCOB's. And these are apparently breakthoughs that will save us all from ultimate demise and free us from the big "Trap."

6. How do we know which Scientology "Tech" was created by the guys, who I guess could be trusted, and weren't madmen like Hubbard was? Who were these guys? Were they spiritual scientists who had a spiritual research technology that nobody in all the endless, trillions of years never had?

7. Black Magic and Voodoo probably have aspects of it that "work," and possibly very useful in some cases, will I be sifting through those subjects for workable technology for use in my life? No.

Scientology is like the MacDonald's of philosophies IMO. There's always a much better and more quality burger out there. But like at Mickey D's, who cares where it came from or what's really in it, it tastes great! Of course, Scientology even has it's own Ronald.
 
Top