Putting LRH on a pedestal

Amadeus Einstein

Patron with Honors
You know, I never got the whole idea of making LRH out to be a much larger-than-life character. The PR machinery of the church went into overdrive, exaggerating or distorting facts in order to promote the idea that there was nothing he couldn't do or be a professional in.

Just look at publications like the Ron mags or the book "LRH: A Profile" for blatant examples of what I mean.

I think the one piece of writing that took the biscuit was either a magazine or a promo piece I saw a few years ago. It was going on about LRH's artistic or musical prowess and this S.O. member who wrote it said that LRH's performance had been even better than [whichever famous name it was].

I wonder what training in the arts/classics this writer had in order to make such an evaluation? This just tells me that someone saw fit to write some BS to promote LRH without knowing jack about the subject.

Maybe in some parts of the world people are impressed by this stuff but I'm sorry to say as a cynical Brit it had the opposite effect on me.
 

Tanstaafl

Crusader
AE - you're certainly not the only cynical Brit on this forum! :eyeroll:

People smell a rat when something seems too good to be true. Portraying LRH as a genius in every field he touched is over the top and counter-productive.

I used to justify the excessive focus on LRH as a necessary evil to keep in standard tech, as standard tech is what LRH says it is. But what is done is bordering on worship. The constant acks and applause for LRH at events made me feel very uncomfortable. One at both the beginning and end of an event is fine but how do these people expect to become OT if they can never consider themselves as comparable terminals to LRH - at least, potentially.

I still feel a good deal of admiration for LRH despite recent changes in my assessment of the man. I've benefited greatly from studying Scn and I appreciate him communicating that data whether he is the original source or not.

However, I think his music is absolute shit. That's not a problem for me - if you can't deal with apparent contradictions and paradoxes in this life then you're in serious trouble!

Cheers

tanstaafl
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
LRH = Aleister Crowley = Swami Vivekananda = Shankracharya = an identity.

How much do such identities matter?

If one can only ignore the identities and enjoy the knowledge and the pleasure of solving puzzles and getting rid of ignorance then one can truly have some fun.

Why do people get stuck on identities, especially those that get into limelight?

Ah, that is an intersting question to meditate on.

.
 

programmer_guy

True Ex-Scientologist
tanstaafl said:
The constant acks and applause for LRH at events made me feel very uncomfortable.

Now just imagine that you are ordered to INITIATE and LEAD the applause at the end of some SHSBC classes.
How would you have felt about that? Just curious.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
Applause to LRH

I may just go along with the flow without assigning much significance to it. My attention would be on the course materials.

.
 

Tanstaafl

Crusader
Now just imagine that you are ordered to INITIATE and LEAD the applause at the end of some SHSBC classes.
How would you have felt about that? Just curious.

I've never enjoyed that particular privilige. To be honest, I think I would have considered the whole thing insane and tried to tone the whole thing down to a business-like ack of Ron. Alternatively, I might just have told them to F-off. Who knows? It amazes, and depresses, me how much cult-like behaviour I have rationalised in the past. :duh:

Nuremburg rallies, mass implant incidents from the track, Scn events: all mindless masses.

I take it you were in this situation, PG? How did you react?
 

programmer_guy

True Ex-Scientologist
tanstaafl said:
I take it you were in this situation, PG? How did you react?

Yes I was... as an HPCSC intern at old ASHO. I didn't like it and that's why I did a lousy job at it. AND I was a dedicated full-time staff Scientologist at that time. When I was a Scientologist I could agree with doing this when some new "break-through" occured. But being forced to do this every day? I didn't like this at all. There was no freedom in this (i.e. do it when you want to).

Maybe they should have payed more attention to the CDEI cycle rather than just give lip service to it.

To me, it was about us and our "wins"... not for LRH to be regarded as a god.


Best regards
 
Last edited:

Tanstaafl

Crusader
Yes I was... as an HPCSC intern at old ASHO. I didn't like it and that's why I did a lousy job at it. AND I was a dedicated full-time staff Scientologist at that time. When I was a Scientologist I could agree with doing this when some new "break-through" occured. But being forced to do this every day? I didn't like this at all. There was no freedom in this (i.e. do it when you want to).

Maybe they should have payed more attention to the CDEI cycle rather than just give lip service to it.

To me, it was about us and our "wins"... not for LRH to be regarded as a god.


Best regards


Thanks for that, PG. I totally agree.

I wonder what LRH himself would have made of it? There's no policy on this AFAIK, just narrow-minded fanatics who prey on people's admiration for LRH, and exploit potential feelings of guilt or being "the odd one out".

I was once in the ITO course room and we were asked to give our wins. Christ, people were really struggling to come up with things and seemed very uncomfortable. I said that I hadn't had any and got some strange looks, but no-one looked into finding the why.

Cheers

tanstaafl
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
I was once in the ITO course room and we were asked to give our wins. Christ, people were really struggling to come up with things and seemed very uncomfortable.

I started supervising in LA in 1986, in the Sec Checker School at NWC. Later, this activity was merged into ITO. I don't recall exactly when, but the enforced "wins session" got dropped because "there was no policy covering it".

Now that you mention it, maybe the real reason it got dropped was because there were so many instances of no-one originating good wins, and it made the subject look bad.

One other point is that sometimes--rarely, fortunately--one of the more fringey students would launch off into their own perspective of things, and deliver an odd little speech full of verbal tech and strange ideas. Which was condoned most of the time in a win, but when the verbal tech was wrong (here, "wrong" = contrary to what Hubbard said) I found it hard as a sup to keep my mouth shut in addition to cringing with everyone else. Plus it pointed up that the student--MY student--obviously was riddled with mu's or false data; i.e. I wasn't doing my job!

Paul
 

programmer_guy

True Ex-Scientologist
Paul said:
One other point is that sometimes--rarely, fortunately--one of the more fringey students would launch off into their own perspective of things, and deliver an odd little speech full of verbal tech and strange ideas. Which was condoned most of the time in a win, but when the verbal tech was wrong (here, "wrong" = contrary to what Hubbard said) I found it hard as a sup to keep my mouth shut in addition to cringing with everyone else. Plus it pointed up that the student--MY student--obviously was riddled with mu's or false data; i.e. I wasn't doing my job!

As a course sup, I had that same experience.
 

Amadeus Einstein

Patron with Honors
I still feel a good deal of admiration for LRH despite recent changes in my assessment of the man. I've benefited greatly from studying Scn and I appreciate him communicating that data whether he is the original source or not.

However, I think his music is absolute shit.

Agreed on both counts.

It is not until you have received some classical music training that you realise just how amateurish his compositional efforts are. Studying Bach etc. might not be everyone's cup of tea but it gives one a reference point against which to compare.

I remember one Source Night we had to sit through the entire album of songs released in the late 90's that LRH allegedly wrote. I received some hostile stares from some of the other staff when I suggested that these songs had probably been written by the Golden Era musicians based on bits of LRH's assorted poems and other writings. It was as if the staff were most anxious to believe that LRH had written, arranged and scored out the whole album from scratch. A friend and I were fidgety and inattentive throughout and agreed afterwards that the music was rubbish. Imagine being on post until 11:00pm and then having to listen to an hour of this stuff and pretend to have enjoyed it.
 

Tanstaafl

Crusader
Agreed on both counts.

It is not until you have received some classical music training that you realise just how amateurish his compositional efforts are. Studying Bach etc. might not be everyone's cup of tea but it gives one a reference point against which to compare.

I remember one Source Night we had to sit through the entire album of songs released in the late 90's that LRH allegedly wrote. I received some hostile stares from some of the other staff when I suggested that these songs had probably been written by the Golden Era musicians based on bits of LRH's assorted poems and other writings. It was as if the staff were most anxious to believe that LRH had written, arranged and scored out the whole album from scratch. A friend and I were fidgety and inattentive throughout and agreed afterwards that the music was rubbish. Imagine being on post until 11:00pm and then having to listen to an hour of this stuff and pretend to have enjoyed it.


You have my sincere sympathy. If that had been me when I was on staff I would have been desperately trying to come up with explanations as to how they could not be LRH compositions.

A friend was on the Purif at Saint Hill with a guy who wore a Zappa t-shirt around the org. I'm sorry to say that, even as a huge Zappa fan, I wouldn't have had the nerve. :eek:
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
You have my sincere sympathy. If that had been me when I was on staff I would have been desperately trying to come up with explanations as to how they could not be LRH compositions.

A friend was on the Purif at Saint Hill with a guy who wore a Zappa t-shirt around the org. I'm sorry to say that, even as a huge Zappa fan, I wouldn't have had the nerve. :eek:

I was a huge Zappa fan before Scientology. Then when I heard "Joe's Garage", I decided that Frank Zappa made fun of everyone but himself, and I disowned him.

Now I like him again.
 

chipgallo

Patron Meritorious
The rationale for putting Hubbard (or anyone else) on a pedestal is covered in a book called "How to Live Though An Executive," which is sold through orgs. I have my doubts that the book was written by LRH. There is invented terminology that is far out, even for him. It isn't written in any style that he used through the years. I guess it could be an attempt to justify what was happening with the photos and busts and such, but my recollection of the publication date is that it was written before much of that phenomena occurred.
 

Tanstaafl

Crusader
I was a huge Zappa fan before Scientology. Then when I heard "Joe's Garage", I decided that Frank Zappa made fun of everyone but himself, and I disowned him.

Now I like him again.

I know what you mean. I knew that there was something very wrong in feeling or thinking that I should or should not like something or should or should not laugh at something. If you are just being you then you like it or you don't, or you laugh at it or you don't.

I took a good look at this and asked myself whether Zappa was an SP. I decided that he was not. Sure, he could be low-toned but then he was, among many other things, a satirist and commentator on modern western culture. That would also pretty much sum up my analysis of Trey Parker and Matt Stone.

So, I double and triple checked that I wasn't being "reasonable" and then, being happy that I was not, decided that I would never again worry about anyone else's considerations about art.

However, I didn't fully resolve the question of whether an SP (if there is such a thing - Scn doesn't seem to apply gradients to SPs) can produce profound and theta art.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
The rationale for putting Hubbard (or anyone else) on a pedestal is covered in a book called "How to Live Though An Executive," which is sold through orgs. I have my doubts that the book was written by LRH. There is invented terminology that is far out, even for him. It isn't written in any style that he used through the years. I guess it could be an attempt to justify what was happening with the photos and busts and such, but my recollection of the publication date is that it was written before much of that phenomena occurred.

Amazon.com:

How to Live Through an Executive (Hardcover)
by L. Ron Hubbard (Author)

No customer reviews yet. Be the first. Availability: Available from these sellers.

10 used & new available from $3.04

Zinj
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Amazon.com:

How to Live Through an Executive (Hardcover)
by L. Ron Hubbard (Author)

No customer reviews yet. Be the first. Availability: Available from these sellers.

10 used & new available from $3.04

Zinj

It's my understanding that HTLTAE was not written by LRH, but by someone whose name escapes me. He was an early Scio, the son of a bigshot in the movie business....what was his name???
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
AE - you're certainly not the only cynical Brit on this forum! :eyeroll:

I still feel a good deal of admiration for LRH despite recent changes in my assessment of the man. I've benefited greatly from studying Scn and I appreciate him communicating that data whether he is the original source or not.

I have no admiration for the man at all. I have some regard for his abilities as a blagger and story teller but that about covers it. And that regard doesn't outweigh the contempt I feel for the fat fraud.

However, I think his music is absolute shit. That's not a problem for me - if you can't deal with apparent contradictions and paradoxes in this life then you're in serious trouble!

Cheers

tanstaafl

true. But Hubbard said he was a great musician and that he knew the basics - in fact if Annie Broeker is to be believed (not a given, I grant you) Hubbard thought he was THE very first musician.

yet his music was total rubbish. His writing was pulp (but at least sell-able) and his photography was no better than a holiday snap taker.

AS far as I can see he had one area of exceptional talent - the ability to sell the big lie.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
I

true. But Hubbard said he was a great musician and that he knew the basics - in fact if Annie Broeker is to be believed (not a given, I grant you) Hubbard thought he was THE very first musician.

That's right. Way back on the track, his name was "Arp", and he INVENTED music!
 

chipgallo

Patron Meritorious
Ha ha. In the Amazon reference, somebody made the classic typo of calling the book "How to Live Through An Executive." NOT. The korrect titel of the buke is "How to Live Though An Executive." Ya see, the core assumption is that if you are an executive, you ain't gonna live long. This here tome will show ya's the ropes, give you a Tercom and some terminals to snap and, bingo, yer Gonna Live Though An Exec. Prolly still won't get yer laundry done but that's another topic.

I've sniffed around and here is a reference on the authorship [see http://www.answers.com/topic/how-to-live-though-an-executive]
"However, as with several of Hubbard's works, credit for the work has changed over the years. The first edition of the book states, "The manuscript of this book was prepared by Richard DeMille who helped in the development of the communications system herein set forth". This statement was deleted from subsequent editions, and Hubbard is given sole credit as author."
 
Last edited:
Top