What's Hubbard to you?

[Veda]

This is, essentially, ad hominem. Why do you think that Hubbard's credibility is the issue? Take it as stipulated that Hubbard was crocked quite a lot, and that he would have said or done almost anything to achieve the goal you establish in (1) above. This doesn't mean that the "mental technology" developed was invalid. As Hubbard himself was originally willing to say, it's a two-edged sword. He even went so far as to call it EXCALIBER, for Thetan's sake. How CLEAR do you need him to make it? It depends on the intention of the person using "the Tech" as to how their efforts will bear fruit. In Hubbard's case, I think he actually achieved his goal, perhaps his name will be smashed into history (I don't think he cared much whether that was for good or ill, just that he be remembered). Perhaps not. Time will tell. Stipulated that Hubbard's intentions were to dominate and control others! Stipulated! Nonetheless, the technology developed can be used for "good", just as it has been used for "evil". It is up to the intention of the practitioner.

'Excalibur' was originally titled 'The One Command', and the subtleties of the "two edged sword" had little to do with the meaning of 'Excalibur', which was a sword endowed with power - very little subtlety.

This is relevant - extremely relevant - information. Not "ad hominem" at all.

People can look it over and decide for themselves.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=88325&postcount=50

 

[gomorrhan]

Of course it's ad hominem: you're discussing the person who wrote the subject (a lot of it), rather than the subject. By DEFINITION, that's an ad hominem attack. Although, in this thread, I guess that is on-topic, since we're talking about people's views concerning Hubbard. Dammit, I hate retractions!

 

[Reasonable Lady]

I confess to having edited my post in order to make it clearer just wtf I was talking about. I don't always notate it when I edit a post. I probably should.

Ok, no problem. To get back to the poll, I do think that Hubbard was brillantly 1.1. He fooled tons of people. That being said, it is no reason to throw out the useful pieces of the "tech" that he compiled.

RL

 

[gomorrhan]

The only part that I found useful was the part dedicated to helping a person free himself from the mental prisons he's created for himself (and the emotional ties that hold these prisons in place, typically). That's what I consider to be "auditing tech". Any other tech of the Church's I haven't examined closely enough to really comment much, other than the admin scale, which I liked (I found it closely aligned with the part of auditing that deals with the person's own goals). Like anyone else, I think Hubbard bounced around the Tone Scale. I don't think he was fixedly at 1.1, nor do I think he was fixedly anywhere. Sometimes he was below death in enemy games, sometimes he was blown out into the aesthetics band and beyond. People who knew him could comment more on this, that's just my take from reading him and reading others about him. That he could be 1.1, I have no doubt (fabian).

 

[Veda]

Quoting relevant passages from foundational writings is not an "ad hominem attack."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad hominem

 

[Tanstaafl]

The tech didn't create the cult.
The e-meter didn't create the cult.
Auditing applied by people who care about the person in front of them didn't create the cult.
ARC and assessing ARC breaks didn't create the cult.
The cycle of action didn't create the cult.
Finding truth in some of this didn't create the cult. It sure as hell baited it, but it didn't create the cult.
Even ethics and integrity and honour as concepts to an individual, a being, didn't create the cult.

You are failing to separate the truth from the bullshit, and are lumping all of it into the waste bin. That's a mistake. There is some of that that has value.

-snip-

That's a viewpoint I totally share.
However, we just aren't gonna agree on this one. This topic has reared it's ugly head several times and I haven't seen anyone express a significant change in their point of view.

On the brighter side, reading and posting on this subject and others like it on ESMB, has helped me enormously in A. understanding others' viewpoints and, B. (best of all) being able to accept or take on others' viewpoints.
That's a nice win for me and I'm still working on it.

 

[Veda]

The tech didn't create the cult.

-snip-

Scientology has been not only a cult, but a Destructive Cult, since the 1960s/early 1970s. And it's been that way due to its founder's design, his TECH: Tech Tech, Admin Tech, Ethics Tech, Fair Game Tech, Sea Org Tech, RPF Tech, RPF's RPF Tech, Bolivar PL Tech, Intelligence Tech, covert Ops Tech, LRH PPRO Tech, etc. etc. etc.

It's a package deal. And the package is called Scientology.

 

[Vinaire]

There cannot possibly be any way you and others ,who have some kind of denial about the monster LRH factually was--, have read the research into his life, seen the videos of Ex SO members who WERE THERE on the ship telling what really happened. We are not talking about 1 or two people here, much more corroborating evidence than that.

If you are not enslaved, then you are not reading all that is available to you, and trying to disprove it objectively. Good luck with that. There is only way to 'disregard' all the facts about LRH...it's called denial.

If you have read the books, seen the videos...then you must have one HUGE MU.

Please read the books again, watch the videos, read...look...

Whatever...

Thanks for being confrontational. That is a prerequisite to be a shit-disturber. But there is more to be learned ...

.

 

[Vinaire]

I listed specific acts that Hubbard committed.

I have asked myself, "How would I have to see other people, like that woman with the Dev-T cancer, in order to have her go die on the floor underneath an air-conditioner?"

"How would I see myself in relation to my staff who work 70-80 hours per week, those who have devoted their whole lives to me, and never set up any kind of health care for them, or any kind of retirement, and to take all the money for myself, and to kick them out, to have their families disconnect from them, and to even tell other Scientologists to apply Fair Game and use "R2-45" on them if they questioned me?"

How would I have to see them, what would I have to be thinking to act like that?

And "flawed" is definitely not the word I would use to describe him. I'd call Tom Cruise "flawed". In the same way I would use "flawed" to describe George Bush, but not Dick Cheney.

So, no, Vinaire. It isn't hatred.

It's observation of fact.

I was just checking to be sure!

.

 

[Vinaire]

...

Please remember that some people are so angry at the Church that they lose their critical thinking the other way, and become willing to believe any sort of nonsense if it is "critical".

Good point! Something to watch for...

.

 

[Vinaire]

That appears to be typical for you in responding from the short time I have been posting. You do EXACTLY what the church has taught you to do ... LRH would be proud of you.

Well done on being confrontational. I am proud of you.

.

 

[Vinaire]

(A note for anyone as ignorant as I, and who is lacking the energy to find a dictionary, tendentious means biased. Sentence - I really wish that Zinj hadn't used the word "tendentious". )
Most polls I've seen do not include an option that matches my thoughts on the matter. A "none of the above" or "other" would be helpful.
Was he brillant? I think that Hubbard was extremely clever but the only thing that was brillant about him was his ability to be brillantly 1.1. He fooled an incredible number of people.

RL

A dictionary is always at hand at www.dictionary.com.

The word "brilliant" would always appear different from different viewpoints despite the dictionary.

.

 

[lionheart]

Thanks for being confrontational. That is a prerequisite to be a shit-disturber. But there is more to be learned ...

.

Excuse me, but aren't you being "confrontational" as in the meaning of being "invalidative" in your reply Vinaire? And your last sentence is an invalidative evaluation

I think Hubbard was quite right and one should not invalidate a person in or out of session. And one should not evaluate or tell a person what to think while they are in session. Hubbard was spot on with those two lines of the code. Does Idenics have a similar injunction?

 

[Vinaire]

No, it would appear Alanzo shares mine.

That makes more sense!

.

 

[Vinaire]

That's a viewpoint I totally share.
However, we just aren't gonna agree on this one. This topic has reared it's ugly head several times and I haven't seen anyone express a significant change in their point of view.

On the brighter side, reading and posting on this subject and others like it on ESMB, has helped me enormously in A. understanding others' viewpoints and, B. (best of all) being able to accept or take on others' viewpoints.
That's a nice win for me and I'm still working on it.

That is wonderful.

.

 

[Vinaire]

Scientology has been not only a cult, but a Destructive Cult, since the 1960s/early 1970s. And it's been that way due to its founder's design, his TECH: Tech Tech, Admin Tech, Ethics Tech, Fair Game Tech, Sea Org Tech, RPF Tech, RPF's RPF Tech, Bolivar PL Tech, Intelligence Tech, covert Ops Tech, LRH PPRO Tech, etc. etc. etc.

It's a package deal. And the package is called Scientology.

Excellent viewpoint! But it is just one of many viewpoints.

One can often get stuck with a viewpoint. But it is much better to be able to view from all possible viewpoints.

.

 

[Vinaire]

Excuse me, but aren't you being "confrontational" as in the meaning of being "invalidative" in your reply Vinaire? And your last sentence is an invalidative evaluation

Sure! I like to experiment with different viewpoints.

I think Hubbard was quite right and one should not invalidate a person in or out of session. And one should not evaluate or tell a person what to think while they are in session. Hubbard was spot on with those two lines of the code. Does Idenics have a similar injunction?

I don't know. I am not a spokesman for Idenics.

.

 

[Vinaire]

Am I being stalked? Nah...

.

 

[Neo]

Am I being stalked? Nah...

.

Well, that's one viewpoint.

 

[Vinaire]

Well, that's one viewpoint.

.