The Intentions of L Ron Hubbard

All right, you laid out the case.

But what do you say about the procedures and rules of evidence that are followed in a criminal court of law to convict a person of 1st degree murder, rather than manslaughter, for instance?

The difference between murder and manslaughter is difference of intent, and to determine which is which, one must prove intent.

Is that only conjecture, too?


The evidentiary requirement in u.s. courts is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That would allow for conjecture which meets that legal standard. :)

Why is it that you are so intent on asserting that you can completely know the state of Hubbard's mind? Frankly I suspect the truth is that, more realistically and like the rest of us, most days you have doubts about your own. :whistling:


Mark A. Baker
 
Hubbard was a narcissist. To come close to understanding his intentions and actions it is necessary to examine the narcissist case.

"There is only one way to please a narcissist (and it won't please you): that is to indulge their every whim, cater to their tiniest impulses, bend to their views on every little thing. There's only one way to get decent treatment from narcissists: keep your distance. They can be pretty nice, even charming, flirtatious, and seductive, to strangers, and will flatter you shamelessly if they want something from you."

There is a great deal more at http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/

I will be amazed if the reading therein doesn't blow some charge or at least answer a few questions about Hubbard.


No argument with this. My prior post was expressing my curiosity over the oddity that in all the time that Mystic had worked with LRH he had only experienced evidence of his consideration for another once.


Mark A. Baker
p.s. One of my favorite T shirts: Only You Can Prevent Narcissism!
 

Mystic

Crusader
And mine is that you can't as you can not possess the entirety of knowledge of his state of mind necessary to conclude fully and exactly what his intentions were. In the absence of full knowledge of Hubbard's state of mind, which you can not have, your conclusions constitute conjecture as to what that state of mind might have been.

I outlined the case. The point was not to persuade you that your views are necessarily incorrect so far as they go. The point was simply to lay out for you what that case is that you had claimed not to understand it. :)

Go and sin no more. :p


Mark A. Baker

Once one is capable of penetrating the darkness of mind, yes, one can see a "state of mind". As far as some "conclusion" is concerned, that's just another piece of mind.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
The evidentiary requirement in u.s. courts is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That would allow for conjecture which meets that legal standard. :)

To further refine my point: you can know the intentions of others to a degree that is considered highly workable for your own purposes.

For instance: You yourself are not deciding whether Hubbard should be put to death. You are simply deciding whether you should trust the guy, and let what he says influence your life in any way. You can use the same techniques and reasoning tools that courts use to put people to death, but only to make decisions about your own life.

Those who would put off making these decisions about their own life because "we can never know another's intentions" will end up trusting Hubbard's advice for them when that advice was meant to enslave them.

That's the problem with your point, Mark. It leaves a person needlessly undecisive when he needs to be decisive. It leaves him stuck in a "maybe" and a "not know" for no good or valid reason.

Why is it that you are so intent on asserting that you can completely know the state of Hubbard's mind? Frankly I suspect the truth is that, more realistically and like the rest of us, most days you have doubts about your own. :whistling:

Mark A. Baker
I never did assert that you can completely know. I asserted that you CAN KNOW. And above, I refined that assertion to say that you CAN KNOW TO A DEGREE FULLY ADEQUATE FOR YOUR OWN INTERESTS and DECISION MAKING.

Do you disagree with that?
 
To further refine my point: you can know the intentions of others to a degree that is considered highly workable for your own purposes.

More accurately: you can BELIEVE YOU know the intentions of others to a degree that is considered highly workable for your own purposes.


That's the problem with your point, Mark. It leaves a person needlessly undecisive when he needs to be decisive. It leaves him stuck in a "maybe" and a "not know" for no good or valid reason.

What makes you think you ever need know the intentions of another? All you ever need to determine are what are your own. Trust or don't trust. The choice is yours.

It's you who is playing Hamlet and basing your decisions on your perception of someone else's views.


Mark A. Baker
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
More accurately: you can BELIEVE YOU know the intentions of others to a degree that is considered highly workable for your own purposes.

It's more than just a belief, because you have actual evidence, Mark. You are using these terms like belief, conjecture, infer, etc. with expanded meanings not found in the dictionary.

What makes you think you ever need know the intentions of another? All you ever need to determine are what are your own. Trust or don't trust. The choice is yours.

It's you who is playing Hamlet and basing your decisions on your perception of someone else's views.

Mark A. Baker
I've laid out my reasoning on why I disagree with your impotent approach to gaining knowledge of LRH's intentions for one's own purposes.

It is important to have a way to find out LRH's lies. It is important to understand what he was actually trying to do, rather than what he was saying that he was trying to do.

And what the hell does Hamlet have to do with this?

Is that another big, smelly red herring you are offering me?

Mmmmmm. Smells good!
 

Pepin

Patron with Honors
It's easy to find people who say that we can never know L Ron Hubbard's intentions. He can be criticized for having created one of the most abusive mind control cults ever devised, yes, but "we can never really know whether he intended to do that or not".

I think he may have had some intention at first to be bold, try and be the hero and help people. I think he may have even done as he said "threw himself into the wall of fire". His naval record would suggest such recklessnes.

I think arrogance and greed took over afterwards.:splat: :bwahaha:


So when L Ron Hubbard lies about being a war hero, blinded and crippled in combat, and then lies about how he used Dianetics to heal himself from his war wounds - when the facts show that he never saw combat in WWII - and then he makes that claim in every book he wrote on the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology, publishing and re-publishing that story, over and over for 36 years

It's called "SPIN" :mindblow:

He probably figured nobody could discover the truth in military records. Then when scientology got so big, it was too late to recant.

In one of those ancient B/W movies, he suggests that Scientologists apart from him were making things up for scientology. :wasntme:
He said "THEY have come up with new words"

And suggests that the orgs apart from him were taking on a life of their own. In the end, he may have been a victim of his own creation.
Possibly the paranoia of his own postulates caught up to him.
 
Last edited:
I think he may have had some intention at first to be bold, try and be the hero and help people. I think he may have even done as he said "threw himself into the wall of fire". His naval record would suggest such recklessnes.

I think arrogance and greed took over afterwards.:splat: :bwahaha:

Ron was a true warrior alright, staying up for days, all tweaked out of speed, and reading science fiction comic books, just to provide mankind a bridge to total freedom. A lesser man would have weakened and choose an honest means of making a living, but not Ron, he was a warrior through and through.

Yep Ron created a pay for pray religion based on ridiculously cheesy science fiction for the betterment of mankind, but then arrogance and greed got the better of him.

What a shame
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Your words were "needlessly undecisive". Mine is what is known as a "literary allusion".

Mark A. Baker

This is showing my ignorance of Shakespeare, but did Hamlet base his decision upon his perception of someone else's views?

Was this his Achilles' heel?

Or was he just a wishy washy crazy mixed up rich kid in his early twenties who would rather be confused than confront his own life?
 

Mystic

Crusader
Well, like Willie the Shaken Spear, you could smoke another bowl and then see what you think or do not think.
 

Lohan2008

Gold Meritorious Patron
He intended to do that

It's easy to find people who say that we can never know L Ron Hubbard's intentions. "we can never really know whether he intended to do that or not".

I've never been able to understand this argument.

I totally agree; just have a read of his earlier Fantasy work, in it his characters lord over everyone else and delighting is others suffering.
Do any of El'Rons appoloagist EVER read any of his writings ??

It is a matter of historical record that El'Ron was a practicing BLACK magician.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Well, like Willie the Shaken Spear, you could smoke another bowl and then see what you think or do not think.

The mind certainly brings us to weird places. I like Hamlet's weird place and King Richard II's place also.

The play is quite clear that he'd reached his 30th year.

Mark A. Baker
Looks like I'm gonna hafta read it if I am ever going to understand the intentions of L Ron Hubbard.
 
Looks like I'm gonna hafta read it if I am ever going to understand the intentions of L Ron Hubbard.

Hubbard's intentions were quite clear, everything the man ever did was to benefit himself. Hubbard talked a good game of Dynamics and such, but with Hubbard the only Dynamic he was concerned with was himself. Not that they is anything wrong with only caring about yourslef, but don't try to act as if it was anything more than that.

All you can try to understand is the intentions of the flimflam artists making excuse after excuse for a pile of shit like Hubbard and why they so desperately cling to his con game ... or why they try so hard to convince others to get dragged into playing Hubbard's con game with them.

It's fine if they are willfully stuck in Hubbard's con game. Some people like to play on-line fantasy games to escape reality, others rather play Scientology.

The problem arises when they try to act as if Hubbard intended it to be anything more than just a game.

Or if Hubbard's fantasy states of Clear and OT in his game of Scientology were every achieved .

It's a game fellas ... you might as well be playing Dungeons and Dragons, or what other brand of Geekdom is popular right now, it's far less expensive and far less time consuming than Scientology, and the results will be fall less damaging to your mental health.
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
I love Dungeons & Dragons! Can I play the Ranger with a Vorpal Weapon (+5) and Plate Mail of Etherealness (+5)?

I prefer to be Chaotic Neutral.
 

bluewiggirl

Patron Meritorious
I love Dungeons & Dragons! Can I play the Ranger with a Vorpal Weapon (+5) and Plate Mail of Etherealness (+5)?

I prefer to be Chaotic Neutral.

If you're gonna be a Ranger we should go with 3.5, since they got totally nerfed in 3rd ed and 4th is an abomination unto gaming.

/me breaks out her elven rogue/shadow dancer
 
Top