The Sole Source Myth

G

Gottabrain

Guest
Where the Axioms Came From

Veda,

I always love your posts. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Peter Soderqvist

Patron with Honors
Hilbert had an idea that all cakes should have a recipe so every cake could be baked, but Godel has pointed out for Hilbert that there are more cakes than recipes. It is truth that G is a cake nobody knows how to bake, because the Godel sentence G states that; "This sentence is not provable". If all other sentences in system P has a theorem, this system P is truly consistent, but incomplete if sentence G is not derivable within P.
 

liberated

Patron
So first he says he got a lot of this stuff from other sources, then he implies he's Buddha, Source, etc...
Wow.
If you ask the Dalai Lama (who is supposed to be a reincarnation of the Buddha of Compassion) if he's a deity, a 'god', a messiah, a 'source', etc...his answer is always "No. I am only a teacher".

When anyone marches onto the scene claiming to be the Maitreya, the new messiah, the 'source'...it's a sign that they are, in fact, not.
 

Peter Soderqvist

Patron with Honors
The KSW1 states that L. Ron Hubbard is the only one, which can develop technology in order to set Man free!
It seems that it doesn’t matter how intelligent other contributors are, because they can only destroy tech. We can only at best carry out his instructions. Do such a claim make any sense? No! His claim is meaningless anyway; because Man is definitely not impressed by its result, public stays away from it, Scientology is a sinking Ship nobody can save, because it was based on lies and deceit from the beginning, or what was it Hubbard said in his letter to his wife 1938; “Life is a grim Joke!” Scientology is just that!
 

Deb Lee

Patron
they took other sources out

Fluffy, ron was not the 'source' for Dianetics. As for scientology, even he admitted source material of probably a dozen or so different people back in 1951 in 'Science of Survival'. You are quite possibly the biggest apologist for Hubbard who I have ever come across. You seem to have even made it something of a lifetime purpose. Why is that? The guy was a megalomaniac spaced out on drugs.

Yeah, and I heard they took the other sources out from the new books, like Freud, Jesus, Artistole, etc, etc.
 

Deb Lee

Patron
oh wow

The Book titled OHASPE

contains accounts of millions of "drujias" (spirits) being transported to earth in "vessels"..
and the basic outline of what Hubbard foisted upon us as incident II...

OHASPE is supposedly a book written using automatic writing from the archangel gabriel.. (c) 1893

In the fine print of OTIII was this warning.. anyone who did not see body thetans, would have to redo all their previous levels at their expense..

O wow, thanks for the link!
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Wow.
If you ask the Dalai Lama (who is supposed to be a reincarnation of the Buddha of Compassion) if he's a deity, a 'god', a messiah, a 'source', etc...his answer is always "No. I am only a teacher".

When anyone marches onto the scene claiming to be the Maitreya, the new messiah, the 'source'...it's a sign that they are, in fact, not.

Sure. But I do know that the lamas who are purported to be reincarnations of earlier wise men and lamas do say that they are such.
 
After all that I sort of concluded that there are a truths that scientolgy can not encompass and falsehoods that it can not detect.

Godel's work ONLY applies in FORMAL systems of logic. Fundamental questions of "consistency vs completeness", which have profound character in formal systems, are too "subtle" to be of major consequence in informal settings.

Common human thought & general philosophy outside those areas dealing with formal logic are not sufficiently rigorous for Godel's analysis to apply. Such informal thought systems have too many other difficulties associated with meaning & implications which overwhelm the question.


Mark A. Baker
 
Sure. But I do know that the lamas who are purported to be reincarnations of earlier wise men and lamas do say that they are such.

They are called "tulkus" and are considered incarnations, or avatars, of an earlier accomplished individual. They need not be unique in that multiple different tulkus may exist simultaneously of the same prior teacher.

Both of the terms "guru" & "lama" have the same basic meaning: i.e. teacher. The difference lies in that "guru" comes from sanskrit and reflects the Hindu traditions, whereas the word "lama" originates in tibetan and is used principally among Tibetan Buddhists.


Mark A. Baker
 

Blue Spirit

Silver Meritorious Patron
"Science of Survival"


Yeah, and I heard they took the other sources out from the new books, like Freud, Jesus, Artistole, etc, etc.

I looked the other day in my wife's Basics Books (not mine:omg:) and there is

no page of Acknowledgement as there is in my 1975, 1976, and 2001 editions.

"Credit in particular is due to: Anaxagoras, Aristotle, Socrates, Plato,

Euclid, Luretius, Roger Bacon, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, van Leeuwenhoek,

Voltaire, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Rene Descartes, James Clerk Maxwell,

Charcot, Herbert Spencer, William James, Sigmund Freud, Cmdr. Thompson,

William A. White, Will Durant, Count Alfred Korzybski

and my instructors in atomic and molecular phenomena, mathematics and the

humanities at George Washington University and at Princeton".
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
I looked the other day in my wife's Basics Books (not mine:omg:) and there is

no page of Acknowledgement as there is in my 1975, 1976, and 2001 editions.

"Credit in particular is due to: Anaxagoras, Aristotle, Socrates, Plato,

Euclid, Luretius, Roger Bacon, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, van Leeuwenhoek,

Voltaire, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Rene Descartes, James Clerk Maxwell,

Charcot, Herbert Spencer, William James, Sigmund Freud, Cmdr. Thompson,

William A. White, Will Durant, Count Alfred Korzybski

and my instructors in atomic and molecular phenomena, mathematics and

the humanities at George Washington University and at Princeton".
Yes; Anaxagoras, Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, Euclid, Luretius, Roger Bacon, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, van Leeuwenhoek, Voltaire, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Rene Descartes, James Clerk Maxwell, Charcot, Herbert Spencer, William James, Sigmund Freud, Cmdr. Thompson, William A. White, Will Durant, Count Alfred Korzybski and Hubbard's instructors in atomic and molecular phenomena, mathematics and the humanities at George Washington University and at Princeton all filed a Class Action lawsuit to prevent the CofS from continuing to sully-by-association their good names. :D
 

liberated

Patron
Both of the terms "guru" & "lama" have the same basic meaning: i.e. teacher. The difference lies in that "guru" comes from sanskrit and reflects the Hindu traditions, whereas the word "lama" originates in tibetan and is used principally among Tibetan Buddhists.


Mark A. Baker
Right on, Mark...couldn't have said it better myself. :coolwink:
 

liberated

Patron
Could someone please tell me: is it or is it not true that LRH attended George Washington U and Princeton?

If so, was he just 'sampling' courses ('sitting in' as a visitor) or was he actually a full-time student at George Washington U and Princeton University? Did he graduate with legitimate degrees from George Washington U and Princeton?

Just curious...
 

Veda

Sponsor
One of the big lies... was that LRH was the sole source of dianetics and scientology.

The sole-source myth was useful in creating demigod status for Hubbard; an image of a towering genius, an image that could be used to extract obedience, reverence and money.

We have an abundance of documentation and testimony on LRH’s plagiarism from sources inside and outside of Dn and Scn. For example,

LRH biographies by Bent Corydon, Jon Atack, and Russell Miller

Possible origins for Dianetics and Scientology by Jon Atack
http://home.snafu.de/tilman/j/origins6.html

Hubbard and the Occult by Jon Atack
http://www.spaink.net/cos/essays/atack_occult.html

Alan’s summaries of development of auditing and study tech on this message board:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=33

John Galusha’s technical contributions as described by Mike Goldstein:
http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/26600/2872.html?1096663876

....

Thanks for posting this. It's information like this that really helps break down the illusion of Hubbard as "Source".

This whole thread is a very important thread.

....

The recognition of multiple sources is vital to unlock the different dynamics - as a being regains their own viewpoints (Sovereignty) - they progress up to recognizing other viewpoints - then granting beingness and value to those viewpoints (Omni-Sovereignty) - then being able to co-create with others without diminishing each other.

The killer of Scio is the crushing and making nothing of a staff member or followers viewpoints and super-imposing LRH or DM or whomevers viewpoint over the top of yours.

The reason people are stuck in Scio and places like the SP Hall is they have no viewpoints left of their own.

Even if you were to go in and save them - they would not want your help as they cannot align their conditioned viewpoints to yours.

The path out is fairly simple - it is the recovery of your own viewpoints - then helping others recover their own viewpoints.

Thus there can never be a dominant viewpoint - at best at the highest levels it can be a co-create - and lets face it the greatest love affairs are co-creations. :happydance:

Alan

....

The first few pages of the 'Sole Source Myth' thread established - loosely - its template: primarily informational, with concentration on those parts of Scientology that are commonly presented to new Scientologists, and which could reasonably be considered "positive" in nature.

The "positives" of Scientology are what usually attract a person, and often keep a person involved. A thorough examination of these "positives" and their actual origins can have a freeing effect.

An examination of sources for other aspects of Scientology can be found scattered throughout ESMB, and perhaps there should be other threads that consolidate information on "negatives" - such areas as Xenu http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=89707&postcount=1, http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=79144&postcount=141, http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=72944&postcount=3, Brainwashing
http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/books/brainwa1.jpg, http://www.xenu-directory.net/practices/brainwashing1.html,
and other non-publicized http://www.xenu-directory.net/practices/rpfsrpf.html, hidden http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=100417&postcount=47, denied http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=153723&postcount=12, or confidential parts http://www.xenu.net/archive/go/ic_conts.htm of the subject and operation of Scientology.

Could someone please tell me: is it or is it not true that LRH attended George Washington U and Princeton?

If so, was he just 'sampling' courses ('sitting in' as a visitor) or was he actually a full-time student at George Washington U and Princeton University? Did he graduate with legitimate degrees from George Washington U and Princeton?

Just curious...

Here are Hubbard's grades from his brief time at George Washington University. He flunked Physics:

http://www.xenu-directory.net/documents/hubbard-gwu.html

P.S. I hope that this thread won't be derailed from its original purpose of exposing the 'Sole Source Myth'.
 
Top