My past involvemen with Scn: Hindsight is 20/20

[Claire Swazey]

I'm so glad I wasn't imbibing anything when I read that, Infinite.

 

[DoneDeal]

Re: My past involvement with Scn: Hindsight is 20/20

He was pulpy. That's not necessarily an insult as there were very cool books and stories to come from the pulp era. If pressed to give a letter grade, I'd have to average it out. So it would come to...what, a C+ or B- maybe? With some pieces getting a B+, some even getting a D.

I know that many other critics are a bit less sanguine about Hubbard's writing quality.

So, what would you guys say about that?

It's an unfortunate deal with me that I enjoyed ron's writing.

I know you don't want to hear this...but Hitler had some best selling words too...his clan wanted to change people bodies for the greater good....ron wanted to change minds for the greater good....so it comes down to viewpoint for me.
I think we humans are moving along just fine. Some will lose...some will win.

Regarding the writing, ron was a nut and a half or so. Battlefield Earth I enjoyed for sure....kinda enjoyed the ten volume thing too.

didn't think so much of his ghost story, murder deal....kinda liked Final Blackout.

I do have an old pulp fiction book sittin around somewhere that has a story of his about earth in the distant future being pretty decayed and forgotten about by the planets we humans settled...was a good read.

In hindsight his attitude did show in his books. Part of the crap I'm trying to eradicate from my mind.

Heinlein smoked him thoroughly...lol Had a far better attitude about us humans.



ron had to start a religion "book store operation" to sell his words, or so he thought...what a waste of decent talent.
ron certainly had a voice..and it was loud and clear and confusing. And he obviously could produce.

One sci fi writer I really didn't think alot of was Asimov. But his Foundation Trilogy stays in my mind.

He had a scenario in those books where some "leader" caused a bunch of people, encyclopedia work I think, to work in a certain direction...and then on a certain date he allowed a film to be shown where the efforts of all those people were just a "show" of some sorts...lol...and now were gonna start the real deal. Kinda funny..reminds me of Woody's Sleeper for some reason...


Anyway..art is fun. But unless your the artist it don't pay the bills...pain in the ass being an end user. We all gotta learn Java to keep up I figures.

Be like Adam Selene.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Sir...I'm not starting a fight..but you need to retract some of your words.

For someone who is 'not starting a fight' you are certainly making harsh & untruthful accusations.

Mind your manners.

... Saying Heinlein was heavily influenced by ron is extremely irresponsible... ...

I didn't say 'heavily influenced'. I said 'influenced'. Understand what is said before you purport to criticize it.

The fact is in some of Heinlein's works there ARE several interesting references to Hubbard & scientology. But I'm not an expert on the works of Heinlein or the man himself. I've read most of his major novels at least once, as well as a large number of his short stories. When he came out with "Number of the Beast" I realized a lengthy survey of world science fiction was required in order to actually understand his book and undertook to do exactly that. (Personally, I suspect he did that as a joke and in order to boost sales of older books. It fits with his cynical humor and authorial self-interest.) But sci-fi lit is not something that has been especially important in my life. I've read a lot; but then I read a lot period, not just sci-fi.

... Why would you promote this lie?

Ummm ... because its not a lie. It's true.

The whole Lazarus Long sequence is a thinly veiled reference to past lives. "Time Enough for Love" is essentially a lengthy dianetic session to locate and relieve a past life secondary which is the root to LL's depression. The prime difference being that the 2000 year old man has the same body, although different lives, throughout and is being asked to recount all the events of his life in order to locate and release the cause of his severe depression.

Moreover, Heinlein makes it clear in one of the later LL novels (probably "Cat Who Walks Through Walls", won't swear to it being that novel though) as to who exactly was the inspiration for the character Jubal Harshaw in "Stranger in a Strange Land", as well as several other characters from diverse novels. The way he does that is really quite funny and not at all subtle IF you know the references. Quite worthwhile reading just for the alternate view of Hubbard that the work provides. But yes, Heinlein left lots of references to Hubbard in his work and more than a few themes common in scientology.

The legend is that Hubbard audited Heinlein around the time that he was working on "Stranger ...". I don't know if that is true, but given all the oddities associated with the history of that book's writing, the clear Hubbard references and scientology themes contained therein, as well as the comments about the story found in his later works, it is quite plausible.

Sorry to burst your idealistic bubble about Heinlein. They were colleagues & friends at one point. Just because you happen to admire one and dislike the other doesn't invalidate the real mutual influence each had on the other.

Moreover, Heinlein wasn't the only one. Several other prominent sci-fi authors had involvement with Hubbard and dianetics at some point in their lives.


Mark A. Baker

 

[DoneDeal]

For someone who is 'not starting a fight' you are certainly making harsh & untruthful accusations.

Mind your manners.

I didn't say 'heavily influenced'. I said 'influenced'. Understand what is said before you purport to criticize it.

Mark A. Baker

Yes you did...your sentence was this...

"Also, one of the top sci-fi authors of all time was influenced by scientology. Robert Heinlein. By reports he was even audited by l.ron hubbard personally. Judging by some of his novels, its easy to see certain themes recurrent. That is not to say he considered himself to be a scientologist, quite evidently he did not. But clearly he was influenced by it."

By reports? even audited by ron? clearly was influenced?


See...the deal is you can't prove any of that. none of it...if you can please do so.

You won't be able to as it was another twist of reality to make ron look more important.

Mind my manners? Your the one spreading the nonsense...even after you said the other day.."I've been out 30 years and couldn't care less about this stuff" lol.

It's quite a stretch to say Heinlein was influenced by ron by using his awesome books as examples....that's only a thought of yours...not provable.

I say your trying to promote scn using celebrities. And don't worry about my bubble, I got a mirror. Do you?

 

[Lone Star]

Re: My past involvement with Scn: Hindsight is 20/20

Battlefield Earth is a classic, the movie even more so.

Dude ....I totally agree!

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Yes you did...your sentence was this...

"Also, one of the top sci-fi authors of all time was influenced by scientology. Robert Heinlein. By reports he was even audited by l.ron hubbard personally. Judging by some of his novels, its easy to see certain themes recurrent. That is not to say he considered himself to be a scientologist, quite evidently he did not. But clearly he was influenced by it." ...

Oddly enough I fail to spot the words 'highly influenced' anywhere in the remarks which you quoted.

You really need to be more careful in your accusations. You're showing yourself out as someone who doesn't have a clue what he's saying and is utterly adamant about it.

Be careful what facts you run around denying. You'll make a liar of yourself. In this case you happen to be quite wrong. And you've nothing to support yourself in your beliefs beyond your own prejudice and evident lack of familiarity with the material you 'defend' despite your fanboy status.

As to proving it. I don't need to. They are Heinlein's books. He wrote them the way he did for good reason. He lay out the themes & characters drawing on the experiences & ideas which occurred in his life. Hubbard was a part of that. So was auditing. Personally I don't much care whether or not Heinlein & Hubbard were good buddies. Nothing to me either way. I'm not a particular 'fan boy' of either. I have no axe to grind, nor any emotional baggage in loving Heinlein or hating Hubbard. The fact is that at one time they were friends. It's an historical record. Heinlein has acknowledged it himself.

As to the Hubbard & scientology references, go read the books. He totally gave the show away in one of his last books (as before most probably "Cat ..."). If you have any familiarity at all with dianetic procedure, as opposed to just being yet another scientology critic lurking on the board, then "Time Enough for Love" is easily recognized for what it is. Especially after a person's read Heinlein's own literary cross-reference to the various character names as he gives them in the later novel.

Heinlein wasn't in the least bit subtle in his remarks, although he did bury them in places where they were easily over-looked. Since you evidently seem to need to have things spelled out for you (like a 2x4 to the head) in order to grok, be on the lookout for any references to the name Dr. Lafayette "Lafe" Hubert and any other identities in Heinlein's books to which he may correspond. Also, be sure to note the defining characteristics of the character Jubal T. Harshaw, and possibly one or two others.

And, no, I'm not going to argue the point with you further or give you added needed lessons in comparative literature. If its important to you to see the relationships among the characters and themes of Heinlein's later books then you'll go read the books yourself. If it isn't, that's your choice. I'm not the one who gives a rat's @ss either way. I'm just a guy who makes a point of understanding what it is I'm reading.

Now go away and do your reading before you make any more lame accusations.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Gottabrain]

Yes, I was getting flamed, so I used it. Anyway, some people have liked that essay.

Those of us who actually experienced the RPF or audited repairs of those who had been on it were severely offended and some appalled. Not all who were upset made written comments. You even entitled the thread "The Rehabilitation Project Force" - so it would be the first thread anyone sees who looks it up on exscn and they could then think the RPF is wonderful unless they read way, way down the thread to understand it was a parody and not really about the RPF. Your thread diverted Newbies from our testimonials. You described a magical place of wonderful rehabilitation that is nothing like the real thing. Yes, I was disgusted and hurt. So were others.

You never experienced it and our first requests were extremely polite, but you continued anyway and when the requests became more adamant, you called it "being flamed" and told us (who know much better than you the effects of the RPF and how hurtful your joking was) that we "were wrong".

I would take every other terrible experience in my life BUT the RPF and repeat them 10X each if I could trade that for not having ever done the RPF, which you insisted over and over again was a great thing to joke about. I am NOT wrong about your callous, uncaring attitude toward those of us affected.

I don't believe the title you gave the thread was any accident, either. It diverted others from reading or watching our vids and testimonials of the REAL horrors of the RPF.

I didn't ever brush you off. That other time, I answered several of your posts in that thread, explaining myself repeatedly before that.

A minority of people were "hurt" by what I wrote.

Besides you, this consisted of two people who had written a great deal of stuff about me for years. Others had a different view. Nobody was singled out or named, it wasn't written with anyone in mind.

So you admit you knew you were hurting the very people who had experienced the RPF or audited those on it and continued anyway. This is not the "compassion toward those affected by the RPF" that you "explained" to us that you have. Rather, the opposite. Your two lukewarm supporters certainly were never on the RPF, either and I don't call that a majority by any math I know.

And you still have not apologised or even revised the thread title to be less misleading.

You didn't have to offer any more justifications or excuses. Your words and actions did not match the "compassion" you claimed to have. What you said and what you did and the effect it had completely contradicted each other. What you did was hurtful to those of us who were affected and undermined our testimonies.

I'm not trying to stop anyone. I have never told anyone they have no right to criticize Scn. In fact, as I said, I've championed that right both on the forums and to OSA when they came to handle me and on the FZ lists. I've also repeatedly said here that I think it's great that people criticize Scn and I often join in. I've criticized Hubbard and the cult many times here. I even said some things in the thread op here.

Read the thread op again. Have I said anything about Scn being a religion? No. I only said that I did like much of the auditing, that I opine that auditing doesn't hurt anyone though its beneficial effects aren't anywhere near what's touted and don't seem to last, and that I liked some of the courses, and some were boring.

This is something I see a lot of people saying on the forum. That they may've liked some of the lower level stuff but they don't want anything more to do with it, or that they wish they never heard of it. It's an ongoing issue that's often being discussed. And I'm discussing it. You've mentioned many things that are nowhere to be found in the thread op

You say you've championed the rights of ex's or the harms done to us but you have actually never done that except in a very lukewarm way, Claire, and in the example above, you did the opposite. Most people you flame with are fully out ex's and several do not post or seldomly post or have even left because you do not care about or respect our feelings or opinions and have said cruel things. The above is an example - a major one - so apropos to your claims of being such a wonderful humanitarian for everyone's rights. RPF auditing harmed me. It was a living hell all the way through. I don't see your trying to undermine my testimony or others' testimony of what actually happens as compassion at all.

Your posts on this thread touched on the thread op very little and were mainly about other matters, often personalized. You know what that's called on the boards, right?

I believe it's apropos. I am showing that you are not the humanitarian or the other things you claim to be and whatever you may call it, I call it showing a contradiction in your statements and actions. You say you are against the abuses, but yet you recently went out of your way to hurt those on this board who were abused on the RPF or personally know others who were.

You can try to get rid of me on this Board, too, Claire, but your efforts may just backfire.

 

[DoneDeal]

Oddly enough I fail to spot the words 'highly influenced' anywhere in the remarks which you quoted.

You really need to be more careful in your accusations. You're showing yourself out as someone who doesn't have a clue what he's saying and is utterly adamant about it.

Be careful what facts you run around denying. You'll make a liar of yourself. In this case you happen to be quite wrong. And you've nothing to support yourself in your beliefs beyond your own prejudice and evident lack of familiarity with the material you 'defend' despite your fanboy status.

As to proving it. I don't need to. They are Heinlein's books. He wrote them the way he did for good reason. He lay out the themes & characters drawing on the experiences & ideas which occurred in his life. Hubbard was a part of that. So was auditing. Personally I don't much care whether or not Heinlein & Hubbard were good buddies. Nothing to me either way. I'm not a particular 'fan boy' of either. I have no axe to grind, nor any emotional baggage in loving Heinlein or hating Hubbard. The fact is that at one time they were friends. It's an historical record. Heinlein has acknowledged it himself.

As to the Hubbard & scientology references, go read the books. He totally gave the show away in one of his last books (as before most probably "Cat ..."). If you have any familiarity at all with dianetic procedure, as opposed to just being yet another scientology critic lurking on the board, then "Time Enough for Love" is easily recognized for what it is. Especially after a person's read Heinlein's own literary cross-reference to the various character names as he gives them in the later novel.

Heinlein wasn't in the least bit subtle in his remarks, although he did bury them in places where they were easily over-looked. Since you evidently seem to need to have things spelled out for you (like a 2x4 to the head) in order to grok, be on the lookout for any references to the name Dr. Lafayette "Lafe" Hubert and any other identities in Heinlein's books to which he may correspond. Also, be sure to note the defining characteristics of the character Jubal T. Harshaw, and possibly one or two others.

And, no, I'm not going to argue the point with you further or give you added needed lessons in comparative literature. If its important to you to see the relationships among the characters and themes of Heinlein's later books then you'll go read the books yourself. If it isn't, that's your choice. I'm not the one who gives a rat's @ss either way. I'm just a guy who makes a point of understanding what it is I'm reading.

Now go away and do your reading before you make any more lame accusations.


Mark A. Baker

lol...and yet you have nothing to show but attitude in reply.

I've read all of RAH's books. He was fabulous. Is.

now mind you...tween the conversation tween you and me....I'm the only one one who pointed out some reference regarding ron and Robert.....I'll let you look for it above.

You on the other hand have just an opinion,

I simply want readers to know your full of it regarding the RAH lie that is "implied" inside the stupid church.. That's my opinion...but mine includes a reference not just an imply.

Your turn.

 

[Gottabrain]

The fact is in some of Heinlein's works there ARE several interesting references to Hubbard & scientology. ...

Moreover, Heinlein wasn't the only one. Several other prominent sci-fi authors had involvement with Hubbard and dianetics at some point in their lives.

Mark A. Baker

Maybe I can help here.

In the 60s, there was a very small group of prolific sci-fi writers, no more than 15 of them, that wrote for the mags at the time. They all knew each other, worked together, were friends. Heinlein and Hubbard were two of them. Asimov was also in that group.

I had a Heinlein book that thanked Hubbard in the preface. Might still have it around. Hubbard also thanks Heinlein in a few places.

Heinlein & Hubbard definitely fell out of contact with each other, though. Mark, I don't know anywhere Heinlein mentions Scientology (I believe he and Hubbard had a falling out from each other around that time), but some of his works indicate that he has at least had discussions with Hubbard about Dianetics.

Not so sure about a Dn session, but it's possible.

Heinlein's last few books seem a bit of a mess to me. Lots of disjointed references to previous stories and concepts; I was disappointed. It seemed he was writing a bit symbolically though, but that may or may not be true. I couldn't follow all of the inferences so there may well have been some made to Dn or Scn. If you could find these (re-reading Heinlein is not so bad, Mark... ) it could prove interesting.

 

[Infinite]

..

Another writer influenced by Scientology was William Burroughs.

 

[La La Lou Lou]

..

Another writer influenced by Scientology was William Burroughs.

One day I will have to read him. I have a feeling there was a hell of a lot of him in his work.

He did have a strong personal voice.

Artists to my mind are the real architects of change, and not the political legislators who implement change after the fact.
William S. Burroughs


Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/william_s_burroughs.html#ixzz1ocb47rec

 

[Infinite]

One day I will have to read him. I have a feeling there was a hell of a lot of him in his work.

He did have a strong personal voice.

Artists to my mind are the real architects of change, and not the political legislators who implement change after the fact.
William S. Burroughs


Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/william_s_burroughs.html#ixzz1ocb47rec

IMHO - Burroughs is always worth a read, even just to dip into from time to time. If you ever have the time and are in the mood for a binge on that sort of stuff, reading Burroughs and Kerouac in tandem provides a laser-like but fleeting observation of the human condition. Many of their original thoughts are echoed in the unlikeliest of forums.

 

[La La Lou Lou]

IMHO - Burroughs is always worth a read, even just to dip into from time to time. If you ever have the time and are in the mood for a binge on that sort of stuff, reading Burroughs and Kerouac in tandem provides a laser-like but fleeting observation of the human condition. Many of their original thoughts are echoed in the unlikeliest of forums.

Might just do that when I feel like my next binge. I do tend to consume many units over the limit all at once. Literal overload.

 

[SpecialFrog]

As to the Hubbard & scientology references, go read the books. He totally gave the show away in one of his last books (as before most probably "Cat ..."). If you have any familiarity at all with dianetic procedure, as opposed to just being yet another scientology critic lurking on the board, then "Time Enough for Love" is easily recognized for what it is. Especially after a person's read Heinlein's own literary cross-reference to the various character names as he gives them in the later novel.

Referencing Hubbard and Scientology is not the same as having your art influenced by the practice or philosophy of Scientology.

I wouldn't exactly call Matt Parker and Trey Stone "influenced" by Scientology.

And really, past lives aren't exactly a Hubbard invention.

 

[La La Lou Lou]

Referencing Hubbard and Scientology is not the same as having your art influenced by the practice or philosophy of Scientology.

I wouldn't exactly call Matt Parker and Trey Stone "influenced" by Scientology.

And really, past lives aren't exactly a Hubbard invention.

I would say the same about Neil Gaiman, there's spirit and stuff in his work, but he could have got that from anywhere.

There are great Communist artists, Roman Catholics, Pagan, feminists, pacifists, political and religious artists motivated, informed and influenced by what they believe. But the Ron thing, is do a survey find out what people want and make that. So you end up with light brown wallpaper based art. But you have to hand it to him he really understood great music and literature. All that ranting about democracy giving us trashy novels, then he says to survey and give them what they want!!!!!!

 

[Claire Swazey]

Re: My past involvement with Scn: Hindsight is 20/20

Referencing Hubbard and Scientology is not the same as having your art influenced by the practice or philosophy of Scientology.

I wouldn't exactly call Matt Parker and Trey Stone "influenced" by Scientology.

And really, past lives aren't exactly a Hubbard invention.

Great post.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Re: My past involvement with Scn: Hindsight is 20/20

Gottabrain,

I’m not trying to get rid of anyone on this board. I have and neither did have any grand conspiracy or agenda. Believe it or don’t, it’s off topic here.

If you want to discuss some other thread, do it there. As far as the title of this thread, the title and thread op are about “my past involvement with the cult…” etc and that’s obviously all it is.

If you want to discuss anything with me on this thread, then it should be about the thread op or the posts of others appearing on this thread.

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Every single person here has their own individual take regarding their past involvement in Scn.
<SNIP>
But it did me no harm.

I wish Lisa McPherson were here to say the same.

I wish people like Hanna & Larry who went through years of chemical imbalance while in scn could say the same - or even some people who post here that agreed to go off their meds with serious consquences. And how many others ?

While scn didn't "ruin" me personally I feel one might want to look at a somewhat larger picture of what happens to those around them, too. Can we honestly say we saw no one harmed? I can't... maybe some can say that with a straight face.

Even if one can't do that.. one might want to take a look at what is involved in plowing around in the mind of another under the guise of "religion" sans any documented proof of being able to do any good - or really repair what one inadvertly stirs up. Would it be fine if, say, Methodists did the same kind of stuff scn does and called it their right to "religious freedom"?

I'd have to say there is a bigger picture than the personal experience any one did - or didn't have - in or with scn.

Some people go through a war with no ill effects. Does that mean war is OK for everybody?

 

[olska]

I wish Lisa McPherson were here to say the same.

I wish people like Hanna & Larry who went through years of chemical imbalance while in scn could say the same - or even some people who post here that agreed to go off their meds with serious consquences. And how many others ?

While scn didn't "ruin" me personally I feel one might want to look at a somewhat larger picture of what happens to those around them, too. Can we honestly say we saw no one harmed? I can't... maybe some can say that with a straight face.

Even if one can't do that.. one might want to take a look at what is involved in plowing around in the mind of another under the guise of "religion" sans any documented proof of being able to do any good - or really repair what one inadvertly stirs up. Would it be fine if, say, Methodists did the same kind of stuff scn does and called it their right to "religious freedom"?

I'd have to say there is a bigger picture than the personal experience any one did - or didn't have - in or with scn.

Some people go through a war with no ill effects. Does that mean war is OK for everybody?

Excellent post. Thank you.

I wasn't "harmed" by scientology either.

Neither was I harmed by heroin or methamphetamine, guns in the hands of teenage gangsters, the teachings or practices of the Klu Klux Klan, war (well that's not quite true -- I lost important family in WWII), or any of a long list of various kinds of quackery and potentially dangerous practices.

So I guess since I didn't suffer, I should just mind my own business and never speak about the true nature or dangers of any of these, yeah?

and when I see other people actually promoting and recommending such beliefs and practices, I should just shut up and mind my own business and not concern myself with what might happen to others who dabble in the kind of quackery that has been documented as harming others, yeah?

and when I see others making light of, or joking about the harm that has befallen others, I should just write it off as their own fault (they pulled it in), shut up and go on my merry way, yeah?

I mean, if I dare to criticize or warn others of the dangers of the beliefs and practices that, through my own observation or the reports and testimony of others, I have seen to be potentially harmful to one's health and well being, then that means I'm just an intolerant curmudgeon who should be scolded into silence, yeah?

Ok, got it....

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Excellent post. Thank you.

I wasn't "harmed" by scientology either.

Neither was I harmed by heroin or methamphetamine, guns in the hands of teenage gangsters, the teachings or practices of the Klu Klux Klan, war (well that's not quite true -- I lost important family in WWII), or any of a long list of various kinds of quackery and potentially dangerous practices.

So I guess since I didn't suffer, I should just mind my own business and never speak about the true nature or dangers of any of these, yeah?

and when I see other people actually promoting and recommending such beliefs and practices, I should just shut up and mind my own business and not concern myself with what might happen to others who dabble in the kind of quackery that has been documented as harming others, yeah?

and when I see others making light of, or joking about the harm that has befallen others, I should just write it off as their own fault (they pulled it in), shut up and go on my merry way, yeah?

I mean, if I dare to criticize or warn others of the dangers of the beliefs and practices that, through my own observation or the reports and testimony of others, I have seen to be potentially harmful to one's health and well being, then that means I'm just an intolerant curmudgeon who should be scolded into silence, yeah?

Ok, got it....

^^^^ Exactly !

And, gosh, I surely do hope your post is enough on topic of the thread for you not have to reminded to stay within the strict confines laid out by the OP ( that all MUST follow? )