The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

[Elronius of Marcabia]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU MEAN BY THE STATE OF "CLEAR" AND WHAT YOU MEAN BY THE WORD "EXISTS" There is nothing to stop someone from coming forward and stating that theoretically a state called "CLEAR" exists in this Universe. The person could create a list of attributes which HE DEFINES as constituting the state of CLEAR and by doing this he can then assert that he proved that the state of CLEAR is THEORETICALLY possible.

Probably part of the definition would contain an example along the lines which Hubbard used when he talked about a calculator which had a "held down seven". The number seven was always added to all computations without the operator knowing it and hitting the clear key on the keyboard would not unstick the seven key due to a hidden mechanical error which existed in the machine. When someone figured out that the calculator had an error built into its hardware and the error was fixed, the calculator would then always give the correct answer based on the data being fed into it. By using this example, Hubbard postulated that a CLEAR would work like a calculator with no held down keys and would always return the correct answer based on the data which was fed in.

Hubbard compared the mind of a CLEAR to the mechanics of a calculator with no held down keys HE OR ANYONE ELSE CAN ASSERT THAT THE HUMAN MIND CAN BE CLEARED IN THIS WAY AND AS A RESULT, WE CAN CONCLUDE THAT THEORETICALLY A STATE OF CLEAR IS POSSIBLE. HOWEVER, SOMEONE ELSE MAY INSIST THAT BECAUSE NO SUCH PERSON HAS EVER BEEN PRODUCED, THE STATE OF CLEAR DOES NOT EXIST, AT LEAST NOT ON EARTH. We here on Earth can't speak for the whole Universe so my final answer to your last question above would be as follows:

WHILE IT IS THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE FOR THE STATE OF CLEAR TO EXIST IN THIS UNIVERSE, TO DATE NO ACTUAL CLEAR HAS BEEN PRODUCED ON EARTH SO THE STATE OF CLEAR DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXIST ON EARTH AT THIS TIME. IT MAY OR MAY NOT EXIST IN THIS UNIVERSE BUT TO DATE NO ONE KNOWS IF IT DOES OR NOT.
Lakey

This is an old argumetation on the existence of God or Clear, since I can't prove something does'nt exist, does'nt exist, it's a draw ?

so much for knowing anything by this way of thinking time for a beer and BBQ

What about engrams ? nevermind I can't prove the non existence of something I say does'nt exist
if ya aint spiining yet you hav'nt been reading along

 

[AngeloV]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

This is an old argumetation on the existence of God or Clear, since I can't prove something does'nt exist, does'nt exist, it's a draw ?

so much for knowing anything by this way of thinking time for a beer and BBQ

What about engrams ? nevermind I can't prove the non existence of something I say does'nt exist
if ya aint spiining yet you hav'nt been reading along

LOL. By the same argument, it is POSSIBLE that somewhere in the universe pigs fly, unicorns frolic and geese lay golden eggs.

 

[Gizmo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

This is an old argumetation on the existence of God or Clear, since I can't prove something does'nt exist, does'nt exist, it's a draw ?

so much for knowing anything by this way of thinking time for a beer and BBQ

What about engrams ? nevermind I can't prove the non existence of something I say does'nt exist
if ya aint spiining yet you hav'nt been reading along

What I enjoy in discussion about this ( mythical ) clear is that old Ron hisself defined it. For most all of scn it boils down to what Ron hisself says it means, what it is - he devised his own dwefintion of words as he went along ( clear included ) & his word was gospel.

Well, until we get here & some people go all Bill Clinton on us & go into this well it depends on the definition of clear. WTF, old Ron hisself dome gone & defined that time & time & time again.

Wait a minute, wasn't it old Ron hisself who with great emphasis said to call tech 'earlier" or "outdated" was suppressive? Did I make that up or is not also part of the tech ?

Now old Ron hisself said he was the Source ( or was it sauced ? ) and he said what things were & he said what clear was not .
& old Ron hisself said clear had be attained before OT.

Looks like there is whole lot of slippin & sliding around these parts to establish for all what clear really is according to what somebody TODAY says it means. Hmmm.

Gravity exists wjther I see it or not. carbon monoxide exists whether I see it or not. Same for air ( well. OK,, those who live in LA can see the air they breathe )

This " It ain't there for me so it ain't there, period " mantra reminds me of one of my freshman teachers who suggested those who limit the world to their own knowledge are doomed to live in a small damp dark place.

I'd agree that it may well be possible for this " state of clear " to exist, but, - and this is a big but. in the last 60 years nothing in dianetics or scientology gives any indication that either of those technologies ( that was generous! ) has shown any grasp of how to get there !

Being there could be - as stated by old Ron hisself - a natural clear or even a last lifetime clear, doesn't that in & of itself indicate that clear could well come from something other than the discoveries of hisself?

I think so. Perhaps scn did miss the boat & now there are many many other things that might open that door - worth a look see ?

 

[Elronius of Marcabia]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

LOL. By the same argument, it is POSSIBLE that somewhere in the universe pigs fly, unicorns frolic and geese lay golden eggs.

yup and my name is Jack and I'm now ready to buy those magic beans

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

This is an old argumetation on the existence of God or Clear, since I can't prove something does'nt exist, does'nt exist, it's a draw ?

so much for knowing anything by this way of thinking time for a beer and BBQ

What about engrams ? nevermind I can't prove the non existence of something I say does'nt exist
if ya aint spiining yet you hav'nt been reading along

Your post sucks. Your dubbing in things which I never said. I said that no Clears exist on Earth. Then I said that know one on Earth knows at this time if they exist elsewhere.

Comments on your post.

#1. Where did you get the word argumetation?
#2. You claim that my statement ended in a draw but I admitted to Gib that in my opinion no Clears have ever existed on Earth. I admitted to GIb that I don't know anymore than that so I declined to give my opinion about something which I don't know. That is the Gospel truth but you are ranting an raving and making assertions about things that I have nothing to do with. I suspect that no clears exist elsewhere, the odds are against it but Gib was looking for a yes or no answer on a question on which I have no answer.
#3. Your comment, so much for knowing anything by thinking reveals some truths about you. You could sit and think about it the rest of your life and you would not know any more than you do now whether there are Clears in other parts of this Universe.

Many wise men in history have made the following statement: "The first act of knowing anything is to know that you don't know." Unfortunately, you appear to not have attained that first step of learning and knowing. This is illustrated by your comment made in #3 above. I have a new policy where once I realize that someone has not achieved that step, it is no longer worth reading their posts and attempting to communicate with them. The easiest way of doing that is to use the IGNORE button on ESMB. I will be exercising that opinion on you and those who "think" as you do.
Lakey

 

[Elronius of Marcabia]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Your post sucks. Your dubbing in things which I never said. I said that no Clears exist on Earth. Then I said that know one on Earth knows at this time if they exist elsewhere.

Comments on your post.

#1. Where did you get the word argumetation?
#2. You claim that my statement ended in a draw but I admitted to Gib that in my opinion no Clears have ever existed on Earth. I admitted to GIb that I don't know anymore than that so I declined to give my opinion about something which I don't know. That is the Gospel truth but you are ranting an raving and making assertions about things that I have nothing to do with. I suspect that no clears exist elsewhere, the odds are against it but Gib was looking for a yes or no answer on a question on which I have no answer.
#3. Your comment, so much for knowing anything by thinking reveals some truths about you. You could sit and think about it the rest of your life and you would not know any more than you do now whether there are Clears in other parts of this Universe.

Many wise men in history have made the following statement: "The first act of knowing anything is to know that you don't know." Unfortunately, you appear to not have attained that first step of learning and knowing. This is illustrated by your comment made in #3 above. I have a new policy where once I realize that someone has not achieved that step, it is no longer worth reading their posts and attempting to communicate with them. The easiest way of doing that is to use the IGNORE button on ESMB. I will be exercising that opinion on you and those who "think" as you do.
Lakey

ok

 

[Gib]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Gib, you amaze me with some of your questions. Case in point, in December of 2014 you ask me, "My original question: Why does the COS still sell the book Dianetics?. The key word in your question is "still". Therefore you are asking why do they still sell Book #1 in 2014. I answer you as best I can and qualify my answer as only my opinion.

Lakey, I pointed out in my post http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...he-Apollo-1973&p=985301&viewfull=1#post985301

It's the 3rd paragraph, that I quoted from David Mayo. Hubbard even admitted to Mayo:

"as he told me, that this idea tended to leave him open to the charge that the claims he had made in DMSMH and elsewhere concerning the "state of clear" were fraudulent."

That tells me Hubbard lied in Dianetics saying that he cleared people and saying what attributes a clear would have, he lied to sell a story, what Hubbard wrote is fraud at the time, and Hubbard knew it.

Why does the present COS still sell the book? Because they have no choice, but it is fraud, it is a lie. And I suppose the COS still believes in the shit.

I dunno, do you see what I'm say'in? That's all I was ask'in.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Lakey, I pointed out in my post http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...he-Apollo-1973&p=985301&viewfull=1#post985301

It's the 3rd paragraph, that I quoted from David Mayo. Hubbard even admitted to Mayo:



That tells me Hubbard lied in Dianetics saying that he cleared people and saying what attributes a clear would have, he lied to sell a story, what Hubbard wrote is fraud at the time, and Hubbard knew it.

Why does the present COS still sell the book? Because they have no choice, but it is fraud, it is a lie. And I suppose the COS still believes in the shit.

I dunno, do you see what I'm say'in? That's all I was ask'in.

Gib, IMHO you have stated a plausible opinion. It makes some sense and is worthy of consideration. I think you make a leap of logic when you interpret the material from Mayo's 3rd paragraph. It's not a wild quantum leap of logic, but it just seems to me that you are assuming a bit much about Hubbard's motives and intentions.

Look Gib, I don't have all the answers, you have a plausible theory which you have formed by piecing together things which you have read. I believe that your theory has some merit. You asked me for my opinion and I have done my best to be honest with you and give it to you. I have a little bias and believe my opinion has more basis than yours because I was in the Sea Org for 2 years and studied scientology for over 30 years so I should know more about it than you do but it is possible that I have misinterpreted things and that your opinion is superior.

Not too surprisingly our opinions differ quite a bit but they also have several areas of agreement. I respect your opinion, and I do see how things could be that way. I am not 100% in full agreement with you at this time but that might change. I don't think my opinion is more important than yours or anything like that. Can't the two of us just accept this state of affairs. Eventually, I may lean more towards your opinion or vice versa. We should agree to send each other updates if either of us has a change of mind and then move on to a new topic, at least for now. If major changes occur, we can always return to this topic in the future.
Lakey

 

[Elronius of Marcabia]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

What I enjoy in discussion about this ( mythical ) clear is that old Ron hisself defined it. For most all of scn it boils down to what Ron hisself says it means, what it is - he devised his own dwefintion of words as he went along ( clear included ) & his word was gospel.

Well, until we get here & some people go all Bill Clinton on us & go into this well it depends on the definition of clear. WTF, old Ron hisself dome gone & defined that time & time & time again.

Wait a minute, wasn't it old Ron hisself who with great emphasis said to call tech 'earlier" or "outdated" was suppressive? Did I make that up or is not also part of the tech ?

Now old Ron hisself said he was the Source ( or was it sauced ? ) and he said what things were & he said what clear was not .
& old Ron hisself said clear had be attained before OT.

Looks like there is whole lot of slippin & sliding around these parts to establish for all what clear really is according to what somebody TODAY says it means. Hmmm.

Gravity exists wjther I see it or not. carbon monoxide exists whether I see it or not. Same for air ( well. OK,, those who live in LA can see the air they breathe )

This " It ain't there for me so it ain't there, period " mantra reminds me of one of my freshman teachers who suggested those who limit the world to their own knowledge are doomed to live in a small damp dark place.

I'd agree that it may well be possible for this " state of clear " to exist, but, - and this is a big but. in the last 60 years nothing in dianetics or scientology gives any indication that either of those technologies ( that was generous! ) has shown any grasp of how to get there !

Being there could be - as stated by old Ron hisself - a natural clear or even a last lifetime clear, doesn't that in & of itself indicate that clear could well come from something other than the discoveries of hisself?

I think so. Perhaps scn did miss the boat & now there are many many other things that might open that door - worth a look see ?

I suppose it is possible clear exist Gizmo, the thing that cracks me up is if you have to go to other universes to find it's possible existence

then you have an argument that is so thin that its close to the level 0 position clear has on Poohbbards grade chart.

I don't believe the existence of Clear is what needs to be established anyway, it really is The Engram which is the structure of a Reactive mind
and a Clear is one without a Reactive mind.

So its late in the chain to discuss clear or its existence.

But I realise some people have a huge investment in the idea of clear not only mentally but emotionally and financially and even socially
and they get pissed sometimes when anyone even gets close to the idea that "Clear" is a gold plated phony of an idea.

This is where all the slip sliding on the definition comes in, Hubbard said it was 14 karat solid gold and thats what they bought



rather than admit its worthless tin they kinda backslide to 10 Karat gold then, cutting losses protecting that investment.

Eventually the old "I got wins and gains on that level" not exactly 14 karat gold, and it sure aint any EP on the grade chart
but its better than idea that its a worthless con job

The other thing that bugs me with scientologists claims of OT exist because paranormal stuff exits as if its proof of OT
no its just paranormal stuff period and it happens with or without Scientologys lables and always has.

Hubbard would have taken credit for the Sun coming up in the morning if he thought he could get away with it

Oh shit wait a minute he did cause over matter energy space and time, I guess the sun coming up fits into that

 

[Gib]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Gib, IMHO you have stated a plausible opinion. It makes some sense and is worthy of consideration. I think you make a leap of logic when you interpret the material from Mayo's 3rd paragraph. It's not a wild quantum leap of logic, but it just seems to me that you are assuming a bit much about Hubbard's motives and intentions.

Look Gib, I don't have all the answers, you have a plausible theory which you have formed by piecing together things which you have read. I believe that your theory has some merit. You asked me for my opinion and I have done my best to be honest with you and give it to you. I have a little bias and believe my opinion has more basis than yours because I was in the Sea Org for 2 years and studied scientology for over 30 years so I should know more about it than you do but it is possible that I have misinterpreted things and that your opinion is superior.

Not too surprisingly our opinions differ quite a bit but they also have several areas of agreement. I respect your opinion, and I do see how things could be that way. I am not 100% in full agreement with you at this time but that might change. I don't think my opinion is more important than yours or anything like that. Can't the two of us just accept this state of affairs. Eventually, I may lean more towards your opinion or vice versa. We should agree to send each other updates if either of us has a change of mind and then move on to a new topic, at least for now. If major changes occur, we can always return to this topic in the future.
Lakey

fair enough, for your overall response, and I'll agree.

BTW, as underlined in red above:

I was in for 26 years, read all the books, listened to most of the lectures. And I do know real live several OT8's.

So I guess I'm a little biased as well, but I base my information from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

My conclusions, these folks are nice people, and I'm proud to have them as friends, but they are just normal people who think they are clear & ot, or think they have sublimity or sublime.

In the future, maybe we will communicate.

 

[Elronius of Marcabia]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

my comments in bold

Your post sucks. Your dubbing in things which I never said. I said that no Clears exist on Earth. Then I said that know one on Earth knows at this time if they exist elsewhere.

I never quoted you and changed your words, simply said "my" thoughts.

Comments on your post.

#1. Where did you get the word argumetation?
it was simple typo, I think most people got that.

#2. You claim that my statement ended in a draw but I admitted to Gib that in my opinion no Clears have ever existed on Earth.

I made no claims as to what you said period, your words stand undisturbed in your post.

I admitted to GIb that I don't know anymore than that so I declined to give my opinion about something which I don't know. That is the Gospel truth but you are ranting an raving and making assertions about things that I have nothing to do with.

Again I made no assertions as to what you said, and if you thought that I was ranting and raving ok, but you were wrong.

I suspect that no clears exist elsewhere, the odds are against it but Gib was looking for a yes or no answer on a question on which I have no answer.

ok

#3. Your comment, so much for knowing anything by thinking reveals some truths about you. You could sit and think about it the rest of your life and you would not know any more than you do now whether there are Clears in other parts of this Universe.

yeah that was my point about the kind of argumentation that I described not you.

Many wise men in history have made the following statement: "The first act of knowing anything is to know that you don't know." Unfortunately, you appear to not have attained that first step of learning and knowing. This is illustrated by your comment made in #3 above. I have a new policy where once I realize that someone has not achieved that step, it is no longer worth reading their posts and attempting to communicate with them. The easiest way of doing that is to use the IGNORE button on ESMB. I will be exercising that opinion on you and those who "think" as you do.

Ignore me if you like, I'm sure your not the first or the last


I see now I made a mistake in quoting your remarks in the entirety as a way to indicate
my remarks were about subject of arguing clear, apologys to you and the board for my hasty
click quote and make my comments


Lakey

 

[Gizmo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I suppose it is possible clear exist Gizmo, the thing that cracks me up is if you have to go to other universes to find it's possible existence

then you have an argument that is so thin that its close to the level 0 position clear has on Poohbbards grade chart.

I don't believe the existence of Clear is what needs to be established anyway, it really is The Engram which is the structure of a Reactive mindand a Clear is one without a Reactive mind.

So its late in the chain to discuss clear or its existence.

But I realise some people have a huge investment in the idea of clear not only mentally but emotionally and financially and even socially
and they get pissed sometimes when anyone even gets close to the idea that "Clear" is a gold plated phony of an idea.

This is where all the slip sliding on the definition comes in, Hubbard said it was 14 karat solid gold and thats what they bought



rather than admit its worthless tin they kinda backslide to 10 Karat gold then, cutting losses protecting that investment.

Eventually the old "I got wins and gains on that level" not exactly 14 karat gold, and it sure aint any EP on the grade chart
but its better than idea that its a worthless con job

The other thing that bugs me with scientologists claims of OT exist because paranormal stuff exits as if its proof of OT
no its just paranormal stuff period and it happens with or without Scientologys lables and always has.

Hubbard would have taken credit for the Sun coming up in the morning if he thought he could get away with it

Oh shit wait a minute he did cause over matter energy space and time, I guess the sun coming up fits into that

" The Engram" seems to be the fact you assume to be in evidence. Am I correct ?

In any event, other than in the hallowed halls of scn & dianetics can you offer any independent research that showa any scientific proof an engram even exists ?

Do you recall in the early 50's when some doctors took a look at dianetics & said no such thing as an engram?

Old Ron hisself shut down ANY outside independent in any thing he " accomplished " with his vital for the universe
"tech".

I agree with you, one would have to establish the fact of " The Engram " before considering what Ron hisself called " clear ".

No engram, no clear.

Or proof of existence of " The Engram ".

Many more modern - and effective - methods tend to look more at the creation of the future than dreg up the past as scientology & pyscharity continue to insist is the right way to "cure" the mind, etc, etc, etc.

 

[Elronius of Marcabia]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

" The Engram" seems to be the fact you assume to be in evidence. Am I correct ?

yup, no engrams no clear per Hubbards theory, clears happen at basic basic which is an engram.

In any event, other than in the hallowed halls of scn & dianetics can you offer any independent research that showa any scientific proof an engram even exists ?

none that I'm aware of

Do you recall in the early 50's when some doctors took a look at dianetics & said no such thing as an engram?

Yeah I do recall reading that

Old Ron hisself shut down ANY outside independent in any thing he " accomplished " with his vital for the universe
"tech".

Yeah and he changed the definition of engram to I believe, moving the goal posts was a Hubbardian M.O.
he liked to call research in the vein of a noted ex named Jason Beghe "show me a motherfuckin engram"


I agree with you, one would have to establish the fact of " The Engram " before considering what Ron hisself called " clear ".

No engram, no clear.

Or proof of existence of " The Engram ".

Many more modern - and effective - methods tend to look more at the creation of the future than dreg up the past as scientology & pyscharity continue to insist is the right way to cure the mine, etc, etc, etc.

 

[Gizmo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I get amused with the adherents to the teachings ( pontification ) of old Ron hisself. The ( stolen ) study tech was ( by some even now ) is considered as essential.

Never mind that Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Vanderbilt, Hilton, Mellon & on & on truly great people that contributed so much - even Gandi & all those guys. Study tech ? Nary a one. Study Scientology ? Nary a one.

The world has done very well without that little cult called scientology. Yeah, it has it's adherents - apparently always have & maybe always will ( just on a very much more minor scale than it is used to ).

What strikes me as, well, odd is that some people who say they have left the cult still cling heartily to the teaching of the cult as if they are important - even vital - to life.

Surely there is an explantion for that. Maybe it is as simple as some lack confidence in themselves and must have a guru to lead them & in these "cases" it is apparently RON they hold in that role.

There is no real answer to
" Ron said it.
I believe it
and that settles it " !

Just nowhere to go with that until people learn to think for themselves.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I get amused with the adherents to the teachings ( pontification ) of old Ron hisself. The ( stolen ) study tech was ( by some even now ) is considered as essential.

Never mind that Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Vanderbilt, Hilton, Mellon & on & on truly great people that contributed so much - even Gandi & all those guys. Study tech ? Nary a one. Study Scientology ? Nary a one.

The world has done very well without that little cult called scientology. Yeah, it has it's adherents - apparently always have & maybe always will ( just on a very much more minor scale than it is used to ).

What strikes me as, well, odd is that some people who say they have left the cult still cling heartily to the teaching of the cult as if they are important - even vital - to life.

Surely there is an explantion for that. Maybe it is as simple as some lack confidence in themselves and must have a guru to lead them & in these "cases" it is apparently RON they hold in that role.

There is no real answer to
" Ron said it.
I believe it
and that settles it " !

Just nowhere to go with that until people learn to think for themselves.

To me, the shame is that early on, perhaps in the early to mid 50's, Hubbard's movement did have the potential to make a major contribution for the betterment of civilization. Hubbard did have some abilities which could have been put to use in a constructive way which would have benefitted society.

He had the ability to sift through an enormous amount of writings and teachings and select out the most important items and sort them as to their relative importance. To this day, I have not found anyone even close to being able to match Hubbard in this skill.

Instead of putting his talents to use only for the benefit of mankind, he choose to focus on making a ton of money and smashing his name into the history books. He was the master of Self Aggrandizement. There came a point in the 50's when his movement attracted some very brilliant people and they were focusing on various pieces of tech which, some of which were workable. Hubbard allowed these people to carry on for a while, but if and when they began to build up a following of their own or challenge his popularity or importance in any way, real or imagined, he would off load them and take all the credit for their work.

Finally, in 1965 when he issued KSW {Keeping Scientology Working} #1, he told the ultimate lie which doomed his movement to failure. He claimed that he personally had discovered or invented ALL of his own tech. He claimed that he had received over 100,000 suggestions about new or improved tech wrote that only about 20 of those had any long term value and even among those, none were fundamental or basic. Those claims are bold faced lies!

By publicly writing these horrific claims and then compounding his lies by insisting that KSW #1 be the first page of every Scientology Course and that it had to be read and checked off each time a person started a new course, he ensured the failure of his movement. It took quite a while before his organizations began to crumble but once the internet became available to the public at large, the demise of his church has been greatly accelerated. Hubbard never saw it coming.

As I said in my opening remarks, it is a shame because there was workability in some of his early tech, mostly discovered or invented by others. Had he embraced those others, credited them for their achievements and flowed money and power to them, there is a chance that his movement might have grown, become mainstream and perhaps improved the condition of man. Instead he choose to plagiarize the work of all the other contributors, claim it as his own and then concentrate on becoming rich and famous. Ultimately, his lies and dirty deeds are coming to light and destroying any reputation that he might have had. That, in turn is causing the group he founded to shrink instead of grow.
Lakey

 

[Gizmo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

To me, the shame is that early on, perhaps in the early to mid 50's, Hubbard's movement did have the potential to make a major contribution for the better to the culture of Earth.
Hubbard did have some abilities which could have been put to use in a constructive way perhaps, to benefit society.

He had the ability to sift through an enormous amount of writings and teachings and select the most important items out and sort them out as to their relative importance. To this day, I have not found anyone even close to being able to match Hubbard in this skill.

Instead of putting his talent to use only for the benefit of mankind, what he really cared about was making a ton of money and smashing his name into the history books bigger than anyone else. He was the master of Self Aggrandisement. There came a point in the 50's when his movement attracted some very brilliant people into the fold and they came up with various pieces of tech which had workability. Hubbard allowed these people to carry on for a while, but if and when they became to build up a following of their own or challenge his popularity or importance in any way, real or imagined, he would off load those people and take all the credit for their work.

Finally, in 1965 when he issued KSW {Keeping Scientology Working} #1, he told the ultimate lie which doomed his movement to fail. He claimed that he personally had discovered or invented ALL of his own tech. He claimed that he had received over 100,000 suggestion about new tech developments which could be made and he claimed that only about 20 of those had any long term value and even among those, none of the 20 were fundamental or basic.

By public writing these false claims and insisting that they be the first page of every single Scientology Course, and also be offloading all those people who had contributed tech to him, he ensured that his movement would fail. It took quite of bit of time before his organization began to crumble but since the internet became available to the public at large, the demise of his church has been greatly accelerated. Hubbard never saw it coming.

As I said in my opening remarks, it is a shame because there was some workability in his early tech, mostly discovered or invented by others. Had he embraced those others and credited them for their achievements and flowed money and power to them, there is a chance that his movement would have grown, become mainstream and perhaps improved the condition of man. Instead he choose to plaiarerize the work of all the others, claim it as his own and then concentrate one becoming rich and famous. Ultimately, those truths are coming to light and destroying any reputation that he might have had and our also causing the group he founded to shrink instead of grow.
Lakey

[ bold above added by me ]

Please see my siggy line for my opinion of the " workability " of that particular little cult.

Also in my opinion, it seemed that Ron did read much of others & seems at the time he either was unable to duplicate or was stoned, or, when it wrote it down he was stoned. other option, he had mental issues.
Reading some of his sources what those people said & what Ron got out it just don't jive.

Same for what others handed him they had been piloted & proven to "work" BUT he invariable "edited" it into something that didn't work. Many examples of that & some post who post on ESMB have some first hand knowledge of that stunt.

Ron will achieve his place in history -----forgotten.

 

[Student of Trinity]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

[Hubbard] had the ability to sift through an enormous amount of writings and teachings and select out the most important items and sort them as to their relative importance. To this day, I have not found anyone even close to being able to match Hubbard in this skill.

This surprises me. You seem like an intelligent guy; but nothing I've read by Hubbard has ever given me the impression that he had read and understood any significant ideas from anyone else. I've read quite a few sentences by Hubbard that claim, or even just imply, that he has expertly weighed tons of previous thought; but I've never seen any sign that he actually did more than skim through a couple of volumes of the Durants' coffee-table book series. In the few places I've found where Hubbard says anything specific about something I know myself, his statements are idiotic.

I admit I have only actually read a small fraction of all that Hubbard wrote. Can you give any examples of writings and teachings that Hubbard sifted and sorted? How do you know he did a good job in identifying what was important in them?

 

[Gib]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

" The Engram" seems to be the fact you assume to be in evidence. Am I correct ?

In any event, other than in the hallowed halls of scn & dianetics can you offer any independent research that showa any scientific proof an engram even exists ?

Do you recall in the early 50's when some doctors took a look at dianetics & said no such thing as an engram?

Old Ron hisself shut down ANY outside independent in any thing he " accomplished " with his vital for the universe
"tech".

I agree with you, one would have to establish the fact of " The Engram " before considering what Ron hisself called " clear ".

No engram, no clear.

Or proof of existence of " The Engram ".

Many more modern - and effective - methods tend to look more at the creation of the future than dreg up the past as scientology & pyscharity continue to insist is the right way to "cure" the mind, etc, etc, etc.

Ron had an answer for his fallacy of "engram", it's called going earlier similar to past lives, now as Ron says "now we are into spirits, thus it's a religion".

oh my, what a tangled web that Ron wrote.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081020204856AA2jTpa

kimo sabe, Gizmo.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

This surprises me. You seem like an intelligent guy; but nothing I've read by Hubbard has ever given me the impression that he had read and understood any significant ideas from anyone else. I've read quite a few sentences by Hubbard that claim, or even just imply, that he has expertly weighed tons of previous thought; but I've never seen any sign that he actually did more than skim through a couple of volumes of the Durants' coffee-table book series. In the few places I've found where Hubbard says anything specific about something I know myself, his statements are idiotic.

I admit I have only actually read a small fraction of all that Hubbard wrote. Can you give any examples of writings and teachings that Hubbard sifted and sorted? How do you know he did a good job in identifying what was important in them?

You're question is too broad. You have written hundreds if not thousands of posts about Hubbard and scientology and a lot of them make a lot of sense. How can you do this if you have so little familiarity with the subject? You are sort of asking me to give you examples of writings and teachings that show that Newton knew something about physics. It's not a fair question because I would have to take hours of my time to compile an extensive list for you, and then when I do that, various posters now posting on this thread will bash me and discredit all my examples as if I believed in them and was defending them when actually I only listed them in response to a question someone asked me.

That's how it goes around here these days, someone asks me something about Hubbard or his tech and when I answer them, and list a few examples the next thing I know, all those examples I cite get bashed as being garbage and I get bashed for believing in them. My point is that just by listing them, many automatically go on the attack by assuming that I am promoting them but that is usually not the case.

As a courtesy to SOT, I will offer a few examples but you may have to Google them to get more data about them.

#1 The Axioms of Scn starting with "Life is a static, a life static has no mass, no motion, no wave length, no locatiion in space or time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive". There are a large number of Axioms and the book, "The Phoenix Lectures" does a good job of listing them and discussing the first ten or twenty.

#2 would be the definition of the word communication. People majorlng in communication in college end up learning about the mass media and how to advertise on TV, the radio and more recently the internet. It is about using various tools to get messages out to the public, probably to sway people's minds and/or pocketbooks. Hubbard takes a different approach as follows: "Communication: the consideration and action of impelling an impulse or particle from source point across a distance to receipt point with the intention of bringing into being at the receipt point a duplication and understanding of that which emanated from the source point."

#3 Another example would be the definition of space. Standard dictionaries define space in terms of matter, energy and time. They then define time in terms of space, matter and energy and they define matter in terms of energy, space and time. In other words, matter, energy, space and time are all defined in terms of each other sticking all 4 definitions into a circular loop, each definition being defined in terms of the other 3. Hubbard makes an attempt to get out of the loop and says, "Space is a viewpoint of dimension." If you combine Hubbard's definitions of life and of space, you can pull out of that circular loop. You can conceive of a life unit containing no matter or space itself, having a point of view outside of space and from this point of view, the life unit is able to view space and in so doing is able to create space by viewing dimensions and differences in dimension as they change back and forth.

I'm not arguing that this is true or not true but I feel that it is at least a starting point which enables mankind to look beyond the loop as stated in our dictionaries.

#4 My final example is "The Factors" which Hubbard came up with in 1953. The Factors starts out with, "Before the beginning was a Cause and the sole purpose of the Cause was the creation of an Effect.", next is "In the beginning and forever is the decision and the decision is 'to be'. next is, "The first act of beingness is to assume a point of view and from that viewpoint extend out points to view called anchor points and thus is space created." and the factors go on from there with 24 or so factors in all. I don't know where or how Hubbard came up with this material but I like it.

These are 4 answers to your question SOT. I know hundreds more by heart but am not going to waste my time listing them. Now I am going to sit back and wait for the attacks on me to begin. If things go true to form, I will be attacked for listing these items in response to SOT's request plus all the examples I have given will be trashed and called total garbage. Have at it guys, I am waiting for you to carve me up and spit me out. Also, hopefully I will receive a more intelligent reply from SOT.

DISCLAIMER: The fact that I took the trouble to list these items does not mean that I believe in them whole heartedly, all it means is that I listed them in an effort to be courteous to SOT, someone I feel deserves a response.
Lakey

 

[Student of Trinity]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

These are examples of things Hubbard wrote, but what I wanted was some indication of what stuff it was, by other people, that Hubbard sorted and sifted and prioritized. I want to be able to compare Hubbard's version to the original, in order to see just how good a job Hubbard did at understanding and re-organizing the original ideas. Comparing Hubbard only to Hubbard's own claims about what other people did (or failed to do) is just giving Hubbard a free pass.

And I'm afraid these particular first examples that you picked are some of the very ones that I consider to be idiotic. "Space is a viewpoint of dimension" is not a brilliant breaking of the definitional loop. It's meaningless. What the hell is 'dimension', apart from being a certain property that spaces have? What is a viewpoint? How can space, in general, be a viewpoint? At the very least I would have thought one should say something like, "Space is the set of all possible viewpoints." Seriously, mistaking this effort by Hubbard for any kind of insight is like watching an awkward student driver stall the vehicle while trying to turn a corner, and calling them Mario Andretti.

Likewise Hubbard's so-called 'Axioms' are ridiculous. Quite apart from what they might or might not mean, they are simply not axioms at all. Axioms are supposed to lay out the few undefined terms that one proposes to use, and specify what relationships are to be assumed between them. The whole point is to have only a few axioms; if you have to assume a lot of things without explanation, then why should anyone pay any attention to what you say? It's all just assumed.

Quantum mechanics has five or six axioms. Euclidean geometry has five.

First Axiom: Things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another.
Second Axiom: If equals are added to equals, the wholes are equal.
Third Axiom: If equals be subtracted from equals, the remainders are equal.
Fourth Axiom: Things which coincide with one another are equal to one another.
Fifth Axiom: The whole is greater than the part.

Those are what real axioms look like. Hubbard's "axioms" are different.

I'm sorry, but if the Axioms and the definitions of space and communication are prime examples of Hubbard's genius, then they only serve to confirm my previous impression that the man was a glib ignoramus, and not even particularly intelligent; merely cunning in knowing what kind of BS he could get away with, with some kinds of audience. If you accepted this kind of work by Hubbard as some kind of genius, then I'm really and honestly not just being anti-Hubbard, but am simply telling you the plain, bitter truth: you got taken.