Pilot's repost Z62 - Answers on Hubbard and Tech
.
Pilot's repost Z62
Answers on Hubbard and Tech
From Post 43 - December 1998
On 21 Dec 98, boxingnut <
[email protected]> posted on
subject "Re FZA REPOST: The Pilot: About Clears etc."
[boxingnut:]
> Thank you very much for your honest postings, Pilot. I personally can't
> reconcile the tech having any validity after learning of Hubbards
> pathological lies.
[Pilot:]
This pathological liar business puts a bit of a wrong slant
on it. He was a writer, a story teller, who was paid by
publishers to spin tall tales.
Then he stumbles on something real. The
DMSMH phenomena are
real and easy to reproduce. Get some willing guinea pig and
do an age flash on them. Just "Answer with the first thing that
comes into your mind when I snap my fingers". Then "How old
are you (snap)". Likely as not, you will get an unusual answer
rather than their current age. If so, then you tell them "Move
to when you were ..." (the age they stated) and see what happens.
Be sure to send them through the incident a few times until
they stop freaking out on it.
Even [Russel] Miller's book [
Bare-Faced Messiah] has stories of
people who were impressed with the wild phenomena.
I think that Hubbard was impressed too. But he wasn't a
scientist, he was a story tell and a promoter. So he beefed
it up and exaggerated a bit and made a whole bunch of wild
assertions that were mostly guesswork.
A lot of the things in the book are wrong per later Scientology
theories. The engram chains do not generally run back to
prenatal incidents, for example. In the mid 1960s, when I
got into the subject, the book was considered outmoded and
inaccurate but was read for the general presentation of
stimulus-response and reactive behavior. Nobody in an
org would claim that it was completely accurate. Until
"Tech Degrades" and "Standard Tech" and other fanatical
ideas caused the Scientologists to engage in some kind
of double think wherein the book was considered accurate
despite its conflicts with later Dianetics and Scientology
tech.
I did a writeup on this once called
"DMSMH from Hindsight"
which is in the Pilot archives. [and also at
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?10103-The-old-days-Aboard-the-Apollo-1973&p=699487#post699487]
[boxingnut:]
> He just seemed to have been a user and con-man his whole
> life. I believe he was a spoiled child with a huge, overblown,
> and grandiose opinion of himself.
He did have a big ego. But so do I and lots of other folks.
To his credit, in the early days he encouraged others to
have confidence and certainty in themselves and did not
pretend to be the only source or the only one who was allowed
to think. Of course that changed later.
> His imagination was obviously very acute and it led to his
> success as a Science Fiction writer.
Certainly.
> His biggest thrill in life, it seems, was gaining peoples
> trust and confidence in order to control them.
I don't think so. Its hard to pin this down, but my feeling
is that his real thrill was in knocking peoples socks off
with wild ideas. The little kid who tells the others
something just to get their jaws to drop. Not a con man
but an attention hungry entertainer.
He said that admiration was the most valuable particle in
this universe. Not money but admiration. He wanted to
be famous and admired. He also warns against craving
admiration, possibly because he was already a slave to it.
> I can't separate the "tech" from the man.
I can.
What if Edison used to electrocute cats (true), would
that make the light bulb less workable?
> To me, if Hubbard has no credibility, then how can his
> discoveries be valid.
Newton had all sorts of wild alchemistic ideas. You could
put those in front of a modern physics doctorate review
board (without telling them that it was Newton) and they
would certainly say he had no credibility.
Think of Hubbard as promoting something which should
become a science rather than as the scientist in his
own right.
> And yes I did experience what I'd call positive effects during
> auditing and a number of the courses I did. I recall doing one
> process after some repair auditing while at ASHO. It was something
> about "touch that wall and this and that" and my whole perception
> of the world around me changed instantly. I was seeing everything
> in blazing brightness and colour and felt like I was on top of the
> world! It was my seventeenth birthday that day and I thought it
> was the best present I'd ever received. I couldn't stop smiling
> the whole day.
Exactly. The effect is marvelous and its easy to do. I put
a whole bunch of processes like this in the first 2 chapters
of Self Clearing.
The big secret is that these work on a self audited basis without
having to pay big bucks or getting your ethics in according to
the org's twisted standards.
> It wore off by the next day but it was one hell of a natural high
> while it lasted.
Of course. A few minutes of good processing and then you
have a good day or two. Then you need another similar technique
to move another step forward. And so forth. Which means
that you need to be able to do these yourself and have them
at your fingertips rather than buying a one-shot supposed
permanent handling.
> I just don't know the whole story with Hubbard. On the one hand
> I can't see him putting so much work into the subject if it were
> a total fraud. He could have scammed plenty of money with a lot
> less effort it seems.
Yes, I'm sure he could have.
> His whole previous life, if you believe books like Russell
> Miller's, was one series of cons, lies and exaggerations. He
> used people like kleenex.
Miller is accurate as to recorded facts but badly slanted.
Because of fanaticism, the org wouldn't talk to him. So its
a one sided view. I would love to see a really comprehensive
unbiased account of Hubbard, but everybody is so strongly
pro or con that what you get is extremes.
> I don't know if I believe in past lives anymore.
I went through a period of distrusting even that, wondering
if I was just mocking it all up, imagining things to remember
rather than actually remembering anything. Eventually I
proved it for myself (see
Super Scio) but my proof was
subjective and wouldn't prove it to you. Basically, I found
things in the history books which matched my recall. But
of course I could have looked at the history books first,
so it only proved it to me and not to other people. You
would have to do the same, and that would mean getting
enough accurate recall to come up with things that could
be looked up.
And the recalls are often inaccurate early on, being
distorted by charge and altered to fit what one is familiar
with. It was only a few years ago that I noticed the
gas lights in an incident I was running. Up until that
point, everything I'd run always seemed to have nice modern
electric lighting. Things like sitting in a tavern in
Constantinople with it lit up like a modern coffee shop.
Now I look back at the same incidents and the lighting
was terrible, torches or oil lamps or whatever, things
were horribly DIM indoors in the old days.
So you need to run lots of recall as a first step. And
then maybe you can prove it for yourself. I put an
easy solo technique in self clearing for this.
> I'm very cynical now. I snort whenever shows about ESP or
> UFO's pop up on the tube.
I have had some real ESP experiences.
And yet there is lots of BS and exaggerations and wild
guesswork in this area.
I have seen the exact same proofs used for Atlantis, UFOs,
and Hollow Earth (talk about off the wall ideas). All 3
were using the same source book (Donally's Ante-Deluvian
world* - a good compendium of wild data) to prove different
theories. My conclusion was that Donally had really proven
that there was something fishy going on but that you could
spin up a hundred theories about what that fishyness meant.
The same goes for Charles Fort's wild collection of data.
[*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantis:_The_Antediluvian_World]
> A number of people have mentioned to me that "one shouldn't
> throw out the baby with the bathwater". I'm not sure there
> is a baby.
Its hard to see it after its been thrown out.
> Maybe it's something more like a half formed mutant.
Now that is a possibility. But even that serves to indicate
that there is something here which must be researched.
> Maybe there is no diamond in the rough. Maybe there is.
> All I know is I'd never trust Scientology again and despite
> everything I've personally experienced, I can't endorse the
> tech either.
Well I certainly don't trust the orgs. And policy has let
me down much too often. I find that the tech has a much
higher batting average, but even there I do not accept
things without question, it is far from perfect.
> It seems like you have far more positive experiences with the
> subject than I.
That seems to be the case. I had the advantage of getting
involved before Standard Tech and I was at an outer org where
old hands were keeping up the traditions from the early days.
And I trained as an auditor right away, which means that I
never swallowed various stupid ideas promoted by the registrars
and so forth.
> I'd like to hear more from you. E-mail me if you'd like.
I prefer to keep discussions out in the open on the newsgroup
for the sake of the lurkers.
> Boxingnut
Best,
The Pilot
_______________________________________________
