Putting LRH on a pedestal

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
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.

I thoroughly enjoyed it when I first heard some LRH album (not sure which one). It was a definite improvement on trying to stay awake during a very dull admin tape play late at night after not enough sleep, yet again.

Paul
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
I thoroughly enjoyed it when I first heard some LRH album (not sure which one). It was a definite improvement on trying to stay awake during a very dull admin tape play late at night after not enough sleep, yet again.

Paul

Paul, you're starting to frighten me...
 

Tanstaafl

Crusader
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.



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.

Fair enough Mick.

Just out of my own curiosity have you had any wins from receiving or delivering Scn tech?

Some of his writing I plain dislike. Other pieces, e.g. Slaves and Masters of Sleep, Typewriter in the Sky, Mission Earth (first 5 or 6 anyway) I think are damn good.

Don't know much about photography, but I think the self-portraits look pompous and self-important.

I think the tech is light years ahead of any other psychotherapy I've come across, but where are the OTs? :melodramatic: :melodramatic:

If there had been no promise of OT maybe many would look at Scn (not the Church) very differently. When you start talking about OT states you are rekindling powerful purposes and better deliver!
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
I thoroughly enjoyed it when I first heard some LRH album (not sure which one). It was a definite improvement on trying to stay awake during a very dull admin tape play late at night after not enough sleep, yet again.

Paul

The first time I heard 'The Road to Freedom' was while we were picketing L. Ron Hubbard Way in 1998.

Mark Ebner was parked at one end of the blocked off street with his VW blasting 'Shaft' and, halfway down the street, the Little Fake Schoolhouse was retaliating with 'Road to Freedom'. I suppose it was supposed to 'thetan' us into a cloud of vapor...

I thought it was entertaining, in a bizarre kind of way. I especially liked 'The Worried Being'.

While looking for the playlist off the record, I ran into *this* site:

http://www.ronthemusicmaker.org/music/melyr.htm

It says:

This is a Mission Earth album piece – first album – ‘Joy City.’

“Now this is a very tricky piece, and it’s got a lot of gimmicks to it. But first off I’m going to play you an organ arrangement of it, just to show you that it goes together as a piece of music.”


I was pretty excited at first, thinking they would include info on *all* the songs Ron included in 'Mission Earth', but, no such luck.

What I had wanted to see was this gem, from ME #9 - 'Villainy Victorious':

(No title, as far as I know)

Oh, a soldier's life is the life for me;
Tuma-a -diddle; tuma-a-diddle, paw-pata
In camp and plain, I'm always free
To tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle, paw-paw~
No women ever spoil my view
With tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle, paw-pam
They're always warning something new
Not tuma-diddle; tuma-diddle, paw-pam
For it is the men that I enjoy
To tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle, paw-pav.~
The best there is I find is boy!
Oh, tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle; paw-pam
The enemy I do not mind
If tuma-diddle, tuma-diddl4 paw-paw
Can go on in my behind
With tuma-diddle; tuma-diddle, paw-pa~
And if my bunkmates all are kind
With tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle, paw-pam
Surrounded by ten thousand (bleeps)
That tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle, paw-pa~
All passionate and hard as rocks
To tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle, paw-pazt~
Eager to slide in my buttocks
And tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle, paw-paw!
So (bleep), (bleep), (bleep) and (bleep) in me!
Tuma-diddle, tuma-diddl4 paw-pam
And let me (bleep) and (bleep) in thee
With tuma-diddle, tuma-diddk, paw-pam
Oh, what a love-ul-lee Arm-ee!
With its tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle;
OH! BOY!


But, no such luck :(

Zinj
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
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.


The PR machinery of the church isn't primarily to blame.

It was Hubbard himself who put forth the idea that he was the world expert in every field known to man.

Just read KSW.

It was he and he alone that found the path out of eternal oblivion. It was he alone who "rose above the bank".

As usual, he is the source, all right.

Of all the bullshit in Scientology.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Zinj quoted:

What I had wanted to see was this gem, from ME #9 - 'Villainy Victorious':

(No title, as far as I know)

Oh, a soldier's life is the life for me;
Tuma-a -diddle; tuma-a-diddle, paw-pata
In camp and plain, I'm always free
To tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle, paw-paw~
No women ever spoil my view
With tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle, paw-pam
They're always warning something new
Not tuma-diddle; tuma-diddle, paw-pam
For it is the men that I enjoy
To tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle, paw-pav.~
The best there is I find is boy!
Oh, tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle; paw-pam
The enemy I do not mind
If tuma-diddle, tuma-diddl4 paw-paw
Can go on in my behind
With tuma-diddle; tuma-diddle, paw-pa~
And if my bunkmates all are kind
With tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle, paw-pam
Surrounded by ten thousand (bleeps)
That tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle, paw-pa~
All passionate and hard as rocks
To tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle, paw-pazt~
Eager to slide in my buttocks
And tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle, paw-paw!
So (bleep), (bleep), (bleep) and (bleep) in me!
Tuma-diddle, tuma-diddl4 paw-pam
And let me (bleep) and (bleep) in thee
With tuma-diddle, tuma-diddk, paw-pam
Oh, what a love-ul-lee Arm-ee!
With its tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle;
OH! BOY!
That is good stuff.

Did they re-publish this in "Ron, The Poet"?
 

Veda

Sponsor
I thoroughly enjoyed it when I first heard some LRH album (not sure which one). It was a definite improvement on trying to stay awake during a very dull admin tape play late at night after not enough sleep, yet again.

Paul

The first LRH music album was in the early 1970s, and was titled, 'The Power of Source'.

The musicians were the 'Apollo Stars', and it was actually sold to an independent record label by Sea Org Class 8, and Apollo review auditor, and exec, John Ausley.

Ausley, after leaving the Sea Org, had some interesting insights, expressed in his (mostly comedic) writings, and also found - from interviews - in the book, 'Messiah or Madman?'
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
The first LRH music album was in the early 1970s, and was titled, 'The Power of Source'.

Yes, I remember that one. But it was way before someone thought it necessary to inflict "Source Nights" on wiped-out staff.

Paul
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
Fair enough Mick.

Just out of my own curiosity have you had any wins from receiving or delivering Scn tech?

No.

Any "wins" I had were the results of my growing up, becoming a better person and seeking to help others. Not Scientology.

Some of his writing I plain dislike. Other pieces, e.g. Slaves and Masters of Sleep, Typewriter in the Sky, Mission Earth (first 5 or 6 anyway) I think are damn good.

Some of his stuff is readable and enjoyable - I enjoyed "Fear" and the "Ol' Doc Methusalah" series. Mission Earth was, IMO, total rubbish along with Battlefield Earth and merely proved that Hubbard had no idea how to write anything other than drawn out pulp-ese. This is a man who thinks that a long book is, de facto, a good one.

Don't know much about photography, but I think the self-portraits look pompous and self-important.

Agreed. You can get a good idea of what Hubbard thinks is "good" art by looking at WIS and the early book covers - he approved them. His taste makes early soviet "worker" art look subtle.

I think the tech is light years ahead of any other psychotherapy I've come across, but where are the OTs? :melodramatic: :melodramatic:

Never mind the OTs - how many troubled people has Scientology helped compared with standard psychotherapy?

If there had been no promise of OT maybe many would look at Scn (not the Church) very differently. When you start talking about OT states you are rekindling powerful purposes and better deliver!

No, you are peddling fantasy, not "rekindling" anything.

Rowling made her money selling a fantasy, she didn't try to set up a religion to get everyone on to broomsticks.
 

Tanstaafl

Crusader
Any "wins" I had were the results of my growing up, becoming a better person and seeking to help others. Not Scientology.

Got it.

Some of his stuff is readable and enjoyable - I enjoyed "Fear" and the "Ol' Doc Methusalah" series. Mission Earth was, IMO, total rubbish along with Battlefield Earth and merely proved that Hubbard had no idea how to write anything other than drawn out pulp-ese. This is a man who thinks that a long book is, de facto, a good one.

LOL, I didn't like Fear and Old Doc, but I thought the first 5 or 6 volumes of ME were a ripsnorter. It just overran after that.

You can get a good idea of what Hubbard thinks is "good" art by looking at WIS and the early book covers - he approved them. His taste makes early soviet "worker" art look subtle.
This subject interests me because whilst evaluation of art is largely subjective, I think a fair amount of agreement can be reached on where a certain piece of art sits on the tone scale. I don't like where much LRH's art sits.


Never mind the OTs - how many troubled people has Scientology helped compared with standard psychotherapy?
"Never mind the OTs"! :ohmy:
Jesus, that's what so many of us got into it for!

I don't know anyone who has received standard psychotherapy so I can't comment.


No, you are peddling fantasy, not "rekindling" anything.

Judging by the harsh reactions of many and their apparent feelings of betrayal, I believe that it is more than just fantasy.

Rowling made her money selling a fantasy, she didn't try to set up a religion to get everyone on to broomsticks.

Shit. I better return that Nimbus 2000 and get a refund! :mad:
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Sarge Gerbode was a qualified and practicing psychologist when he came into scn. In his book " Metapsychology" he comments that he was getting better results using scientology than psychology.

The ten year legal battle between COS and Mayo had as one result Gerbode
re writing the subject as "Metapsychology". Gerbode worked with Mayo in the AACs, and funded the legal battle. Mainstream psychology has become quite liberal, even having seminars on Shamanism. Even looking at meters.

If you look at the success stories I've been posting on the relevent FZ thread, you'll see that beginning auditors and their PCs are doing pretty well.

A psychologist though is dealing with bigger problems. Their clients would be uniformly PTS or false PTS. ie not doing so good. If one accepts that type 2 as per scn has past life connotations it would need a pretty liberal therapist to handle that. And yes some therapists will go that route.
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
Got it.



LOL, I didn't like Fear and Old Doc, but I thought the first 5 or 6 volumes of ME were a ripsnorter. It just overran after that.

to each his own, I guess

This subject interests me because whilst evaluation of art is largely subjective, I think a fair amount of agreement can be reached on where a certain piece of art sits on the tone scale. I don't like where much LRH's art sits.

well while I don't think the tone scale is worth anything as a concept I do agree with Hubbard's art sitting in a bad place. To me it is apparent that the man had no idea at all about how to paint well - now, of course, most people do ot paint well, that's what makes it exceptional to see. But Hubbard decided that he had it all worked out. And the results are painful to see.


"Never mind the OTs"! :ohmy:
Jesus, that's what so many of us got into it for!

I know, but I was merely pointing out that not only does scientology not produce OT's, it doesn't produce much else either.

I don't know anyone who has received standard psychotherapy so I can't comment.

hang on you said
I think the tech is light years ahead of any other psychotherapy I've come across, but where are the OTs?

If you don't know anyone, how would you know if "the tech" is light years ahead or behind?


Judging by the harsh reactions of many and their apparent feelings of betrayal, I believe that it is more than just fantasy.

Huh? That doesn't follow - people who get conned, get angry. It's pretty simple.


Shit. I better return that Nimbus 2000 and get a refund! :mad:

LOL!
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
I know, but I was merely pointing out that not only does scientology not produce OT's, it doesn't produce much else either.

Scientology produces Scientologists, if you define that as people who think Scientology produces something valuable.

They actually exist, although, except for Scientology, which produces Scientologists, they're usually unable to point to *other* products.

On the bright side, the only *consistent* product of Scientology is *Ex-Scientologists*.

Admittedly, in order to do that, they have to have first produced the Scientologists, but, there's a better than 90% success rate in converting Scientologists into ex-scientologists.

It would all be a silly Hubbard-Go-Round, if it were'nt for the collateral damage.

Zinj
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
Sarge Gerbode was a qualified and practicing psychologist when he came into scn. In his book " Metapsychology" he comments that he was getting better results using scientology than psychology.

The ten year legal battle between COS and Mayo had as one result Gerbode
re writing the subject as "Metapsychology". Gerbode worked with Mayo in the AACs, and funded the legal battle. Mainstream psychology has become quite liberal, even having seminars on Shamanism. Even looking at meters.

If you look at the success stories I've been posting on the relevent FZ thread, you'll see that beginning auditors and their PCs are doing pretty well.

A psychologist though is dealing with bigger problems. Their clients would be uniformly PTS or false PTS. ie not doing so good. If one accepts that type 2 as per scn has past life connotations it would need a pretty liberal therapist to handle that. And yes some therapists will go that route.

Hey Terrill,

Very interesting and it got me thinking (never an easy task - lol) and I was wondering about something.

I am not trying to compare Scientology and Psychiatry or Psychology. The thing that struck me in what you said is the population that is aimed at by the respective disciplines.

It strikes me that there is a small area of demographic where they tread on each other but in the main those who need and seek out Psychiatric/Psychological help are not the type of people that Scientology is seeking. And vice versa.

Given that sort of self selection then it seems obvious to me that a) Psychiatry and Psychology are going to have far more "bad results" because the majority of the people they take on are, by definition, already in need of professional help. b) Scientology will have far less of them but when it does they will be 'worse' because they will have been people who would have not expected to end up needing psychiatric care. In short while Scientology does not handle psych cases - it does create some.

Just some random thoughts..
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Hey Terrill,


Given that sort of self selection then it seems obvious to me that a) Psychiatry and Psychology are going to have far more "bad results" because the majority of the people they take on are, by definition, already in need of professional help. b) Scientology will have far less of them but when it does they will be 'worse' because they will have been people who would have not expected to end up needing psychiatric care. In short while Scientology does not handle psych cases - it does create some.

Just some random thoughts..

I am no expert here. The mainstream are dealing with the most difficult cases. Mostly with no real good tech. But please correct me anyone if this is not completely accurate.

You show no reason why scientologists might need psychiatric care. Or that it creates such.

In fact you validate the generality of councelling.
 

Tanstaafl

Crusader
to each his own, I guess

Definitely. One thing I have found very frustrating is a number of Scns (not all though) who have a "fundamentalist" attitude. Granting beingness is supposed to be the highest of abilities and yet there is the mocking and degrading of other practices and beliefs. :duh: Big beings can afford a little humility.

Psychs are pilloried as if they are all the same in motives and practise. Now that's what I call A=A=A. I'm all for stamping out abuses in psychiatry but it's the self-righteous attitude I don't like. As if no-one in Scn had at least one lifetime in which they committed comparable overts. :eyeroll:

well while I don't think the tone scale is worth anything as a concept I do agree with Hubbard's art sitting in a bad place.

I think the tone scale is useful. It's useful as a guage in unmetered auditing; it's useful if you want to bring people uptone or downtone; it's useful as a general predictor of other traits - although I wouldn't trust it to the extremes of Science of Survival and the Chart of Attitudes.


I know, but I was merely pointing out that not only does scientology not produce OT's, it doesn't produce much else either.
I've seen what I regard as significant positive changes in people. However, this is more noticeable in trained tech staff than in PCs. It's all pretty subjective and, ironically, OT abilities demonstrated is the one thing that could make it objective.


hang on you said: I think the tech is light years ahead of any other psychotherapy I've come across, but where are the OTs?

That's a fair comment. :eek: I admit that I've spent more time reading about this kind of stuff than practising it or meeting people who do practise it.
It's clearly not easy to quantify "benefits" from psychotherapies. Perhaps the handling of phobias is the most easily demonstrable. I would just say that I've seen big changes in people (from Scn) that are more impressive than anything being claimed for Freudian or Jungian psychoanalysis, for example, and that the results come relatively quickly.


If you don't know anyone, how would you know if "the tech" is light years ahead or behind?

See previous para.


Huh? That doesn't follow - people who get conned, get angry. It's pretty simple.

I agree with that. However, I believe that we are spiritual beings and that we have our own purposes. I also believe that Scn is sufficiently close to the truth that it stirs up basic and self-suppressed purposes. Should a person rekindle a powerful basic purpose of their own, through contact with Scn, and later fail or have their hopes dashed, then the magnitude of their reaction (or, the degree to which they are pissed off, if you like) is far greater than a feeling of being conned.

Cheers

tanstaafl
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
I am no expert here. The mainstream are dealing with the most difficult cases. Mostly with no real good tech. But please correct me anyone if this is not completely accurate.

You show no reason why scientologists might need psychiatric care. Or that it creates such.

I was not saying that - I was referring to the fact that when Scientology does screw someone up - and there is ample evidence that it has done so with a fair few type 3s - it creates a psychiatric patient where there was not one before. Please note I did not say that every Scientologist needs psychiatric care, in fact I believe I said that most Scientologists come from the pool of people that would not be candidates for it.

In fact you validate the generality of councelling.

I have parsed this out every which way I know how and it doesn;t make sense. Would you expand it a little?
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
Definitely. One thing I have found very frustrating is a number of Scns (not all though) who have a "fundamentalist" attitude. Granting beingness is supposed to be the highest of abilities and yet there is the mocking and degrading of other practices and beliefs. :duh: Big beings can afford a little humility.

I have to say that I find fundamentalism (in any arena) to be far away from "big being" behavior. Alas. Your point is correct I think.

Psychs are pilloried as if they are all the same in motives and practise. Now that's what I call A=A=A. I'm all for stamping out abuses in psychiatry but it's the self-righteous attitude I don't like. As if no-one in Scn had at least one lifetime in which they committed comparable overts. :eyeroll:

To quote the bible
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Not that I have a lot of time for the bible but this quote seems apropos to me - and I am not aiming this at you, Tanstaafl, at all. I am aiming it at all the smug gits in the orgs who stand around and watch as their friends and families get abused, thrown out, disconnected from - and they do NOTHING.

Screw Psychiatric abuse - why can scientologists not see the abuse being done under their noses and in their name? How come they do nothing about it? Until they start doing that then, AFAIC, all the talk about Psychiatry is merely an attempt to throw people off looking at what they are doing.


I think the tone scale is useful. It's useful as a guage in unmetered auditing; it's useful if you want to bring people uptone or downtone; it's useful as a general predictor of other traits - although I wouldn't trust it to the extremes of Science of Survival and the Chart of Attitudes.

We will merely have to agree to disagree :)


I've seen what I regard as significant positive changes in people. However, this is more noticeable in trained tech staff than in PCs. It's all pretty subjective and, ironically, OT abilities demonstrated is the one thing that could make it objective.

true - but I think you need to take the chain of thought a little further. The fact that the ultimate "abilities" supposedly being led up to cannot actually be manifested as objective realities would seem to indicate that the subjective "abilities" are merely artifacts of persuasion, rather than realities.


That's a fair comment. :eek: I admit that I've spent more time reading about this kind of stuff than practising it or meeting people who do practise it.
It's clearly not easy to quantify "benefits" from psychotherapies. Perhaps the handling of phobias is the most easily demonstrable. I would just say that I've seen big changes in people (from Scn) that are more impressive than anything being claimed for Freudian or Jungian psychoanalysis, for example, and that the results come relatively quickly.

Well.. people tend to turn to psychiatry and psychology because they are suffering. People tend to get into Scientology because they are looking for ways to better themselves.

Someone who gets into Scientology does so, for the most part, to achieve the higher abilities. A lot of people who get into counselling do so to avoid killing themselves.

They are completely different ball games - now, as I said I think there is a small area of crossover.

AS for the "results" - hmm. "Wins" are not results, merely expressions of joy and good feeling. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. So where are the tested results showing demonstrable improvement in people's lives? Improvements above and beyond what would be expected of someone becoming older and wiser? Where are the wonderful writers and engineers that, after 50 years, Scientology would be creating? The Jesuits do better than that and they don't claim to have a 'technology'.


I agree with that. However, I believe that we are spiritual beings and that we have our own purposes. I also believe that Scn is sufficiently close to the truth that it stirs up basic and self-suppressed purposes. Should a person rekindle a powerful basic purpose of their own, through contact with Scn, and later fail or have their hopes dashed, then the magnitude of their reaction (or, the degree to which they are pissed off, if you like) is far greater than a feeling of being conned.

Cheers

tanstaafl


naah, I don't think so. But our views are different.
 
Top