The Self-affirmations of L. Ron Hubbard

Veda

Sponsor
Any links to these things? Vids or dox?

See page 8, (b), "All originals and copies of documents commonly known as the 'Affirmations' written by L. Ron Hubbard."

(Hit 'Control' and 'F' and do a find on Affirmations, and it will take you there.)

http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/mutual-release-1986.html

As for the transcript of "Church of Scientology v. Gerald Armstrong," which is many volumes, you'd have to track that down yourself. It certainly is an interesting document.
 

Carmel

Crusader
I followed this thread as it was posted to, and these "affirmations" were one of the first things that I came across when I got on the net last year.

I've seen these 'affirmations' being referred to a lot on ESMB and referred to by some, as 'evidence' for this and that, quite a few times of late. They have also been quoted to me verbally as a "well of course........look at the affirmations" - kind of an irrefutable inevitability of outcome.

I'm not debating the authenticity of them, 'cause from where I sit (while I probably lean towards believing LRH wrote them), I'll never know. Nor am I interested in defending LRH in any way. However, the concept that affirmations made by someone early in their life, would stick with them for their entire life is another matter.

Given that these much quoted affirmations were in fact LRH's, and that maybe they did stay with him his entire life, the 'judgement' however that they did, and 'of course would have had to', is not a sound one, IMO. Anyone can and does change their tack through life - I don't agree with the exclusion of the possibility that LRH had opposing affirmations during different periods of his life (or even at the same time), and that his various affirmations changed as time went by. These "affirmations" are so often quoted as 'evidence' of LRH's "crimes", when they are not, and when it is apparent to people who have read the stories from the old timers on this board, that LRH wasn't totally 'black' ALL the time, and that he went through various stages in his life (including those stages where his insanities and psychosis were clearly prominent).

I do believe that we are who we are, and that we each have our own innate personality traits. I also believe though, that there are negative and positive aspects to each of our own individual traits. Some circumstances bring out the negative, and some circumstances bring out the positive. From my experience, it's never 'all' negative, nor 'all' positive for any of us, and we fluctuate depending on our circumstances. Some of us are certainly in a better place than some of the rest of us, but I don't think any of us get stuck' anywhere, where it's all negative, or all positive and with no diversity within ourselves (and certainly not for decades) - LRH wouldn't be an exception to this, IMO.

The concept that one's 'affirmations' at a given 'place' and time, couldn't and/or wouldn't change over the course of time, and the concept that one who was on a totally negative bent will forever remain that way, is one that I perceive as 'convenient' as opposed to one that is "a given".

God help us all if 'change' wasn't there for the taking, and if we were judged, hanged, drawn and quartered for a 'place' where we may have been some time in the past or for our 'intentions' at a given time in the past.

LRH did plenty that he should be answerable for, and did plenty that people have every right to knock him for - he created something that has ensnarled and harmed so many. IMO though, when it comes to LRH or anybody else, it's what one 'did' or 'does' that counts. Any and all intentions/affirmations, past or present, mean jack shit in the scheme of things. They don't necessarily result in action, and they are hardly a justification for a conviction.

I'm not arguing that what LRH 'did', wasn't or isn't justification for a conviction - to me it certainly was. The constant reference to his "affirmations" though, just about makes me puke, 'cause those "affirmations" weren't his crimes, and they aren't a correct picture of the whole person and/or all of his intentions.
 

Feral

Rogue male
<snip> The constant reference to his "affirmations" though, just about makes me puke, 'cause those "affirmations" weren't his crimes, and they aren't a correct picture of the whole person and/or all of his intentions.


You make some good points in this post, but I think you miss some too. I agree with what you say the affirmations are not, but what are they Carmel?

You're a techie, what is prime thought, or a prime postulate in relation to the later outcome?

What about 'intention is cause'?

Don't you think these affirmations indicate or show a rare glimpse of what the mans desires were?

Couple that with Mayos admission that Hubbard told him he had an 'insatiable lust for money and power' in the late '70s.

With all that isn't there enough anecdotal data to infer the his desires had not changed a great deal over his life?
 

Feral

Rogue male
Ron *was* a 'black magician', or, wanted to be. He did his 'affirmations' exactly like he wanted to.

I've suggested this before, but, I'll suggest it again. Ron wanted to conjure a demon, and did. It ate him. Ron is gone, the demon he conjured is still here; it's called Scientology.

Zinj


I like this Zinj, I might frame it.:thumbsup:

Except the part about the demon being scientology I agree totally. That the demon subsequently created scientology rings truer to me.

Scientology was wonderful AND terrible,typical of things conjured by demons.

(I read it to my wife, she thought you were going to say the demon was DM.)
 

Carmel

Crusader
Given that Feral and I are buddies, I'm gonna respond to his post, just as I would, if he and I were yakkin' on the phone! :coolwink:
You make some good points in this post, but I think you miss some too. I agree with what you say the affirmations are not, but what are they Carmel?
My post is in response to what I've seen on this thread. The points that I think you say I have "missed", have already been stated on this thread, several times over, as far as I can see.

The affirmations are what they are - no more, no less - they are only "some' affirmations among many though, no doubt.

You're a techie, what is prime thought, or a prime postulate in relation to the later outcome?
I'm a "techie" am I? Thanks for the label!

"Prime thought" / "prime postulate" or whatever - it does has relevance to my mind, but who is to say what LRH's prime thought or postulate was, over a 40 year span? It's you lot who are so adament that these affirmations were 'it'. You have a copy of affirmations from one source (Gerry Armstrong), seemingly written by LRH at one time in the 40's. Somehow, you assume that that was 'it' for LRH - his driving force, his impetus or whatever (and with the exclusion of anything else). WTF? How can you assume that these are the only ones he made or that these alone are the ones that drove him? Quite bizarre to do so, IMO.

What about 'intention is cause'?
No argument with that, but from where you and I sit, how the fuck would we know where LRH was at, and/or claim to know what his intentions were over a span of 40 odd years. To claim that we did would be bloody ludicrous IMO.

Don't you think these affirmations indicate or show a rare glimpse of what the mans desires were?
Partially, yes - completely, no!

Couple that with Mayos admission that Hubbard told him he had an 'insatiable lust for money and power' in the late '70s.
Not unlike many males I've been acquainted with.

With all that isn't there enough anecdotal data to infer the his desires had not changed a great deal over his life?
Maybe, maybe not, but that's not the point in question. Some of you guys string a straight line from when these affirmations were made, to when LRH died. You've made it all "cut and dried" and left little room for anything else. Some of you, even negate any rightnesses from the guy, because they simlpy couldn't have existed, given these affirmations - this is the 'think', and/or the thing that I object to.

I've just had a gutful of these bloody affirmations being used as 'evidence' that LRH was and always was a complete asshole, with only an effort to destroy. It's judgemental, narrow minded, exclusive and "convenient", IMO. I'm not denying anything here about LRH. I'm not denying that he acted on his lust for this or that. However, I am stating that I believe some of you have "altered importance" on these affirmations of LRH's, 'cause it suits or fits...just like ya want it to.

I'll ask you, Feral - Have you ever had desires, lusts, intentions, postulates, at a particular time, that you wouldn't want made public, AND ones that wouldn't truly describe what you wanted in life or where you were truly at? Maybe you haven't, but I know many who would have - that's my point!
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
<....snip>
The concept that one's 'affirmations' at a given 'place' and time, couldn't and/or wouldn't change over the course of time, and the concept that one who was on a totally negative bent will forever remain that way, is one that I perceive as 'convenient' as opposed to one that is "a given".

God help us all if 'change' wasn't there for the taking, and if we were judged, hanged, drawn and quartered for a 'place' where we may have been some time in the past or for our 'intentions' at a given time in the past.
<...snip>
I certainly agree with this; I shudder to think of anyone viewing me as unchanged from the way I was in my youth.

My youthful attitude towards life and others was so callow and puerile.

I have changed a great deal since those days. Re-reading a journal of my earlier years is like reading about someone else. The attitudes, aspirations and values are completely foreign to the person I am today.

Every now and then I'll meet someone from my earlier life and the one thing they uniformly say is, "You've changed!".

I always take it as a compliment.

I can't quite envision a straight line between The Affirmations and the latter-day Hubbard.

Doesn't anyone else think that it's possible that Hubbard also changed as the years went by? In my estimation, he seemed to change quite frequently; sometimes for the better, more often for the worse.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
I'll ask you, Feral - Have you ever had desires, lusts, intentions, postulates, at a particular time, that you wouldn't want made public, AND ones that wouldn't truly describe what you wanted in life or where you were truly at? Maybe you haven't, but I know many who would have - that's my point!

I agree with you and Panda.

There is an important point and that is that the affirmations were made prior to, or prior to most of tech being written. The tech was about changing conditions.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
The 'affirmations' are revealing in light of the actual mechanisms and results of 'The Tech'. Looking at real existing Scientology, Ron's *own* self-proclaimed 'intent' is jarringly inconsistent, but, when viewed in light of the 'intentt' expressed in his 'affirmations', it becomes totally consistent.

Zinj
 

Carmel

Crusader
The 'affirmations' are revealing in light of the actual mechanisms and results of 'The Tech'. Looking at real existing Scientology, Ron's *own* self-proclaimed 'intent' is jarringly inconsistent, but, when viewed in light of the 'intentt' expressed in his 'affirmations', it becomes totally consistent.

Zinj

"Revealing" may be, but of the 'mechanisms' within the CofS as opposed to the tech, IMO. While the testimonies of results of the 'church' aren't much chop, the testimonies about the results of the 'tech' are varied, and are a different matter.

As revealing that the affirmations may be, they aren't the be all and end all. Scientology was far bigger and far more diverse, than something which was simply a product of those affirmations, IMO.
 

EP - Ethics Particle

Gold Meritorious Patron
Ah youth...:melodramatic:

I certainly agree with this; I shudder to think of anyone viewing me as unchanged from the way I was in my youth.

My youthful attitude towards life and others was so callow and puerile.

I have changed a great deal since those days. Re-reading a journal of my earlier years is like reading about someone else. The attitudes, aspirations and values are completely foreign to the person I am today.


Every now and then I'll meet someone from my earlier life and the one thing they uniformly say is, "You've changed!".

I always take it as a compliment.

I can't quite envision a straight line between The Affirmations and the latter-day Hubbard.

Doesn't anyone else think that it's possible that Hubbard also changed as the years went by? In my estimation, he seemed to change quite frequently; sometimes for the better, more often for the worse.

"Revealing" may be, but of the 'mechanisms' within the CofS as opposed to the tech, IMO. While the testimonies of results of the 'church' aren't much chop, the testimonies about the results of the 'tech' are varied, and are a different matter.

As revealing that the affirmations may be, they aren't the be all and end all. Scientology was far bigger and far more diverse, than something which was simply a product of those affirmations, IMO
.

I find that Panda duplicated my thoughts as to what I wanted to say regarding myself as I read down this thread. Then Carmel finished off with exactly what I'd say about the damn "afirmations". :ohmy: :yes:

So I am thus rendered speechless!:eyeroll:

Or almost...:coolwink:
 
Last edited:

Veda

Sponsor
L. Ron Hubbard was thirty six years old when he wrote the last known installment of the 'Affirmations'. Not exactly a kid.

"Men are your slaves."

"Your writing has a deep hypnotic effect on people and they are always pleased with what you write."

"Your psychology is advanced and true and wonderful. It hypnotizes people. It predicts their emotions, for you are their ruler."


From Judge Breckenridge, summer 1984:

"As indicated by its factual findings, the court finds the testimony of Gerald and Joycelyn Armstrong, Laurel Sullivan...Omar Garrison, Kima Douglass, and Homer Shomer to be credible, extremely persuasive... In all critical and important matters their testimony was precise, accurate and rang true...

"The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder LRH. The evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar...

"The writings and documents in evidence additionally reflect his egotism, greed, avarice, lust for power, and vindictiveness and aggressiveness against persons perceived by him to be disloyal or hostile.

"At the same time it appears that he is charismatic and highly capable of motivating, organizing, controlling, manipulating, and inspiring his adherents..."


The cult of Ron lives on, and Miscavige is beginning to look like a transitory patsy:

http://www.friendsoflrh.org/COBvsLRH

That said, I still recommend stereo vision:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=187334&postcount=12
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Affirmations are a somewhat common occultic practice. I'm sure it's where Hubbard got the idea of postulates and setting postulates.
 

JustanotherEX

Patron with Honors
Affirmations are a somewhat common occultic practice. I'm sure it's where Hubbard got the idea of postulates and setting postulates.

Your post reminded me of an observation I made once. As you say, Lafayette didn't invent the "postulate". One need only watch a cat hunt a mouse to know that the cat quite obviously has an intent in mind. Examples down to the level of virii can easily be found.

The word "postulate" is, of course, just a "rebranding" of intent. (pick nits if you must)

What I find so exceedingly odd is how little time and effort is spent, after taking the pains to introduce the concept, to the processes of directly formulating effective postulates. I find it in many practices outside Scientology, but within I seem to observe that ones actions are directed away from such things, thus effectively removing the subject.

Affirmations are an exercise in such methods of directing intent. Interestingly, so is prayer.... and so many other things.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Your post reminded me of an observation I made once. As you say, Lafayette didn't invent the "postulate". One need only watch a cat hunt a mouse to know that the cat quite obviously has an intent in mind. Examples down to the level of virii can easily be found.

The word "postulate" is, of course, just a "rebranding" of intent. (pick nits if you must)

What I find so exceedingly odd is how little time and effort is spent, after taking the pains to introduce the concept, to the processes of directly formulating effective postulates. I find it in many practices outside Scientology, but within I seem to observe that ones actions are directed away from such things, thus effectively removing the subject.

Affirmations are an exercise in such methods of directing intent. Interestingly, so is prayer.... and so many other things.


I think you've really hit the nail on the head. I agree. I do think that in some cases, Hubbard was seeking to codify existing phenomena, though, this perhaps being one of them.

I think affirmations directly came from his dabbling in occultism. I've heard of other people doing that.

I agree with you about prayer, too.
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
The creation of a postulate is very heavily explored in the Admin Scale. It is the "ideal scene", toward which the rest of the scale is intended to be aligned.

It was the most useful part of Scientology I ever found, while R3RA was the most useful part of Dianetics I ever found.
 

JustanotherEX

Patron with Honors
I think you've really hit the nail on the head. I agree. I do think that in some cases, Hubbard was seeking to codify existing phenomena, though, this perhaps being one of them.

I think affirmations directly came from his dabbling in occultism. I've heard of other people doing that.

I agree with you about prayer, too.

This reminds me of some of the comments made by Junior about dear old dad taking pains to hide his actual sources of power.... but I have really never been quite sure of what to make of Junior. He was in a position to know though. But just how truthful was he?

Incidentally, despite a difficult beginning when I first arrived and was trying to piss the OSA off, I've no doubt we would agree on a great many things.

The creation of a postulate is very heavily explored in the Admin Scale. It is the "ideal scene", toward which the rest of the scale is intended to be aligned.

It was the most useful part of Scientology I ever found, while R3RA was the most useful part of Dianetics I ever found.

No matter what I say here, it will probably sound argumentative even if I don't wish it. But let me try anyway.

I surmise that IF the church had real and powerful technology for teaching people to effectively harness the power of their own intent, then it would lead to fulfilment, in part, of the promises made on the subject of clear, etc.

That doesn't seem to be the case at this juncture... Or does it? Here, let me try to make an object levitate... *looks at another person in the room & asks them to pick up an object... they do! asks them to put it down & they do!* Yep, my intent works just fine! lol Perhaps someone forgot to distribute the operators manuals for this universe? (humor.... but technically I DID CAUSE the object to levitate)

I'm not implying that what you learned was of no benefit to you, but did you gain any super-duper postulating power from it? That may sound like a dig, but it isn't intended that way. There are just some things that appear to have been a "shell game". The "technology" regarding "postulates" simply appears to me, at this latter juncture, to be one of them. A simple misdirection or obfustication of the simplicity of the matter. That's not to say people can't usefully employ those teachings, but that better exists, that's all.

As for simplicity? Well, things MUST be complicated or there is no game. That should give some people pause to think. Personally, I hope you are one of them.
 
Top