Page 1 of 19 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 190

Thread: A theory of Hubbard, Dianetics and Scientology.

  1. #1
    Patron Meritorious Kha Khan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Marcab Confederacy
    Posts
    976

    Default A theory of Hubbard, Dianetics and Scientology.

    I want to share a theory I've contemplated for awhile. I think the following may be true; I haven't made up my mind.

    I think that Hubbard may have been well-intentioned when he wrote Dianetics and started the first Dianetics organization. But I think three or four things happened.

    First, I think the success of the book Dianetics surprised even Hubbard. It really was a fad, and quite popular for awhile. It was taken seriously, and he got some of the respect and adoration that he so desperately needed and believed he deserved. But it was a one shot. Lightening in a bottle. Not unlike those one hit wonder singers or rock groups who spend the rest of their lives singing the same song, their one hit, at state fairs. I would love to know what the sales figures for Science of Survival were compared to Dianetics. Perhaps with Dianetics Hubbard avoided being a never was, but thereafter he was certainly on the road to being a has been.

    Secondly, I think when Hubbard lost control of the first Dianetics organization (was it the Wichita Foundation?) it really affected him, and really fed into his paranoia. (Just because one person was maybe out to get you doesn't mean that everyone else in the universe is out to get you for the rest of your life.) Never again would he lose control of an organization. Never again would he lose control of his writings, his intellectual property, or the "tech."

    Thirdly, and most importantly, I've long believed that he developed (with good reason) a Nietzschean disdain for how pathetically weak his followers were. What disgusting sheep they were. People were "recalling" the act of conception... from the perspective of the sperm or egg? Really? WTF? Dear Friedrich, isn't that someone who is just begging, just begging, to be taken advantage of? To be used, exploited, fleeced and then discarded? Hmmmm, if I can convince them that they are "recalling" the act of conception from the perspective of the sperm or egg, maybe I can convince them that they are infested with... the spirits of invisible space aliens... who were blown up with atomic bombs.... by an evil Lord Xenu. Yeah, that's the ticket. Let's make a game of it. The game being, let's see how much unadulterated bullshit and abuse I can convince people to swallow.

    The only crime for a con man (or for some who believe they are intellectually superior) is to fail to take advantage of a mark.

    Fourth, and this is related to the third, Hubbard's true nature could not be denied. Pure self-actualization.

    In the end, it is like the story of the Scorpion and the Frog. The story is about a scorpion asking a frog to carry him across a river. The frog is afraid of being stung, but the scorpion reassures him that if it stung the frog, the frog would sink and the scorpion would drown as well. The frog then agrees; nevertheless, in mid-river, the scorpion stings him, dooming the two of them. When asked why, the scorpion explains, "Hey, you knew I was a scorpion, what did you expect?"

    What amazes me is how many times people were stung by the scorpion, but kept coming back for more. And, judging from many posts by Ex (lol) Scientologists here, still are.

    I'm curious. Did anyone ever think that if Hubbard hadn't exploited, used and abused you, you would have had to find someone else to do the job?

    Has anyone exhibited symptoms of submissiveness or masochism in other aspects of their lives?
    -- Reading Marty's blog since 2009 so you don't have to.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." -- Hunter S. Thompson.

  2. #2
    Crusader lkwdblds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Orange Country, CA
    Posts
    5,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kha Khan View Post
    I want to share a theory I've contemplated for awhile. I think the following may be true; I haven't made up my mind.

    I think that Hubbard may have been well-intentioned when he wrote Dianetics and started the first Dianetics organization. But I think three or four things happened.

    I agree that at first he was well-intentioned. I believe he audited people out of a clinic he set up in Hollywood and got good results and that people wanted to get more auditing and kept asking him more about it. He wrote Dianetics in response to the many requests for more info he was receiving.

    First, I think the success of the book Dianetics surprised even Hubbard. It really was a fad, and quite popular for awhile. It was taken seriously, and he got some of the respect and adoration that he so desperately needed and believed he deserved. But it was a one shot. Lightening in a bottle. Not unlike those one hit wonder singers or rock groups who spend the rest of their lives singing the same song, their one hit, at state fairs. I would love to know what the sales figures for Science of Survival were compared to Dianetics. Perhaps with Dianetics Hubbard avoided being a never was, but thereafter he was certainly on the road to being a has been.

    Of course, the success totally surpresed him. He was hoping for a modest run of 5000 copies of the book which would establish him a little bit in something other than writing stories for pulp magaizines. He thought the medical and psychiatric industries might take an interest in him as a serious researcher. When the book took off, eventually selling 150,000, I believe, he reacted as you state he did. He had no idea that Dianetics would be his only hot seller and quit writing pulp and cancelled an expedition his was planning under the Explorer's club to devote all his time to Dianetics. He was still well intended. I just recently saw the Sales figures for Science of Survival, and I think it was only about 3,600 copies or something in that range. I can not remember where I read it and have have posted a couple of incorrect things from memory recently so take that with a grain of salt.

    Secondly, I think when Hubbard lost control of the first Dianetics organization (was it the Wichita Foundation?) it really affected him, and really fed into his paranoia. (Just because one person was maybe out to get you doesn't mean that everyone else in the universe is out to get you for the rest of your life.) Never again would he lose control of an organization. Never again would he lose control of his writings, his intellectual property, or the "tech."

    This seems totally plausible. He finally got control back after about 5 years but that did not ease his paraoia but made him even more resolute to not let it happen again.

    Thirdly, and most importantly, I've long believed that he developed (with good reason) a Nietzschean disdain for how pathetically weak his followers were. What disgusting sheep they were. People were "recalling" the act of conception... from the perspective of the sperm or egg? Really? WTF? Dear Friedrich, isn't that someone who is just begging, just begging, to be taken advantage of? To be used, exploited, fleeced and then discarded? Hmmmm, if I can convince them that they are "recalling" the act of conception from the perspective of the sperm or egg, maybe I can convince them that they are infested with... the spirits of invisible space aliens... who were blown up with atomic bombs.... by an evil Lord Xenu. Yeah, that's the ticket. Let's make a game of it. The game being, let's see how much unadulterated bullshit and abuse I can convince people to swallow.

    He seems to have definitely developed a disdain for for his followers. I do not believe he had this disdain at the very beginning. I feel he seriously believed in pre-natal incidents and he often talked about demon circuits and entities in his early 50's lectures and there seemed to be no disdain present at that time.

    Perhaps, some of those who were present with LRH, such as Tiger Lilly could shed light on where and when he developed this disdain. By the way, I read Tiger Lilly's award wining essay on the Freezone website, just recently, and that may be where I got the sales figures for "Science of Survival".

    I never understood, at the time, early 70's, why those who quit their jobs and joined the Sea Org, such as myself, were treated with disdain instead of being treated like we were all the elite in a noble brotherhood. I THINK YOU HAVE HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD HERE. Something caused him to develop extreme disdain for most of his followers. IT ALSO UNFOLDED THAT HE DID NOT WANT ANY "SECOND IN COMMAND" THERE WAS NEVER TO BE ANOTHER PERSON IN SCIENTOLOGY WHO WAS TO SHARE ANY OF THE LIMELIGHT WITH HIM. If one began to emerge such as John Mc Master, he was quickly busted and cut loose from the organization. I think the unwillingness to tolerate anyone else as a Scientology Celebrity is LINKED with the disdain he developed for his followers. It seems that the trait of not sharing the limelight was always there but that the disdain was not there at the beginning and later developed.

    The only crime for a con man (or for some who believe they are intellectually superior) is to fail to take advantage of a mark.

    Fourth, and this is related to the third, Hubbard's true nature could not be denied. Pure self-actualization.

    In the end, it is like the story of the Scorpion and the Frog. The story is about a scorpion asking a frog to carry him across a river. The frog is afraid of being stung, but the scorpion reassures him that if it stung the frog, the frog would sink and the scorpion would drown as well. The frog then agrees; nevertheless, in mid-river, the scorpion stings him, dooming the two of them. When asked why, the scorpion explains, "Hey, you knew I was a scorpion, what did you expect?"

    What amazes me is how many times people were stung by the scorpion, but kept coming back for more. And, judging from many posts by Ex (lol) Scientologists here, still are.

    Hubbard was "street smart" and knew he had to deliver some real or perceived wins to people and his tech could not all be smoke and mirrors. He had a talent of sifting through writings and isolating and ordering the key principles which led people and societies to success. He was also adept at packaging this reformatted material into a form that people would respond to.
    I think these abilities plus his initial well intionedness turned out to be the keys to whatever success he achieved. People stuck with him because they felt, unshakeably that he had helped them. Hubbard was one smart scorpion!!


    I'm curious. Did anyone ever think that if Hubbard hadn't exploited, used and abused you, you would have had to find someone else to do the job?

    No, not me.

    Has anyone exhibited symptoms of submissiveness or masochism in other aspects of their lives?
    I did not do that. Being submissive to Hubbard led me to react opposite to what you suggest and to decide never to be submissive to another person.
    lkwdblds

  3. #3
    Gold Meritorious Patron alex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,955

    Default

    Elizabeth NJ was the first, Wichita KS, the second, Pheonix AZ, Then off to Cuba, or was Cuba after Wichita....then Saint hill? Saint Hill is really the first place that "stuck".

    Like all great men who try something bold, there are failures mixed in the successes.

    I believe Hubbards intentions were always good. Sometimes the amount of time and effort needed to accomplish what he envisioned, were beyond him.

    And its ours now to do with as we will.

    No, I am no machochist. Perhaps even the opposite at times, and I seldom give in to authority with out a tussle. Nor do I feel in anyway exploited or abused by Hubbard or his product. Individual people associated with it? Yes at times...

    The people I have talked to that knew Hubbard personally and were in close proximity to him for years, all paint a different picture of a man than is the common characterization of Hubbard in critical circles....A man of great dreams, hard work, good intention, and also personal flaws that carry forward in their effect in scientology.

    It is easier to deconstruct the "intentions" of a dead man, than to confront the mix of genius and failure that is scientology. How did something so good, (so good that it has held many of our attentions for so many years) also hold us to its flaws?
    Last edited by alex; 14th August 2009 at 05:26 PM.
    thoughts are real, its the things you think that are the illusion

  4. #4
    Fool on the Hill Voltaire's Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    In censorship-land ..but not for long
    Posts
    16,511
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hubbard had good and bad intentions at the same time.

    He had them from Day One. (read Dianetics in Limbo and you'll see what I mean)
    I am truly into myself, yes. And I'm just as interested in other people. When I'm not thinking of one, I'm thinking of the other.

  5. #5
    Gold Meritorious Patron alex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,955

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fluffy View Post
    Hubbard had good and bad intentions at the same time.

    He had them from Day One. (read Dianetics in Limbo and you'll see what I mean)
    Good book. Good insight into Hubbard, and into scientologists.

    http://www.clambake.org/archive/book...s_in_Limbo.txt
    thoughts are real, its the things you think that are the illusion

  6. #6
    Sponsor Veda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    11,743

    Default

    "There was a difference between the ideals inherent in the Dianetic hypothesis and the actions of the Foundation in its ostensible efforts to carry out those ideals. The ideals... as I saw them, included non-authoritarianism and flexibility of approach... The ideals continued to be given lip service, but I could see a definite disparity between ideals and actualities."

    Dr. J.A. Winter, who wrote the Introduction for 'DMSMH', from his 1951 book, 'A Doctor's Report on Dianetics'.

    From a 1986 Interview with early (1950) Dianeticist, Richard DeMille:

    http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/S...ws/demille.htm

    Chapter 5 from 'Bare-Faced Messiah':

    http://www.xenu.net/archive/books/bfm/bfm05.htm

  7. #7
    Gold Meritorious Patron alex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,955

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Veda View Post
    "There was a difference between the ideals inherent in the Dianetic hypothesis and the actions of the Foundation in its ostensible efforts to carry out those ideals. The ideals... as I saw them, included non-authoritarianism and flexibility of approach... The ideals continued to be given lip service, but I could see a definite disparity between ideals and actualities."

    Dr. J.A. Winter, who wrote the Introduction for 'DMSMH', from his 1951 book, 'A Doctor's Report on Dianetics'.

    From a 1986 Interview with early (1950) Dianeticist, Richard DeMille:

    http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/S...ws/demille.htm

    Chapter 5 from 'Bare-Faced Messiah':

    http://www.xenu.net/archive/books/bfm/bfm05.htm
    That pretty much sums up the scientology conundrum.
    thoughts are real, its the things you think that are the illusion

  8. #8
    Crusader lkwdblds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Orange Country, CA
    Posts
    5,524

    Default Very good post, one comment

    Quote Originally Posted by alex;284563
    [B
    I believe Hubbards intentions were always good. Sometimes the amount of time and effort needed to accomplish what he envisioned, were beyond him.

    It is easier to deconstruct the "intentions" of a dead man, than to confront the mix of genius and failure that is scientology. How did something so good, (so good that it has held many of our attentions for so many years) also hold us to its flaws?[/B]
    Alex, very fine post, good points, fine summary. I just highlighted two paragraphs I wanted to comment on.

    When you say sometimes the amount of time and effort needed to accomplish what he enviosioned, were beyond him. Things ended up working out that way but there were extenuating circumstances.

    He originally felt the business tech in the USA was good, those with degrees from college in business or accounting knew their stuff. He then had bad experiences with professional business men and accountants when he brought them in to work in his Orgs. AS A RESULT, INSTEAD OF WORKING ON THE TECH WHICH HE HAD PLANNED TO WORK ON, HE HAD TO TAKE A SIDE PATH AND DEVELOP HIS OWN TECH ON RUNING AN ORGANIZATION. I think this is how things became too much for him to handle although he made a valiant effort to develop all these other techs such as management, promotion, ethics, debugging and data evaluation study tech etc..

    MAYBE THAT IS WHY HE DEVELOPED DISDAIN FOR HIS FOLLOWERS as Kha Khan asserts . In his mind, the followers could not get anything right on their own and he had to be derailed from the research he really wanted to do and develop these other techs.

    One of the techs that he did not master was how to delegate authority and responsibilty to other people. He claims to have mastered that tech but in practice he did not have a handle on it. Just look at it, he virtually redeveloped every single tech extant on Earth. He felt nothing on Earth, the medical, the government, movie making, advertising, bookkeeping, whatever, was all no good. You take something like bookkeeping and accounting. He did not like the double entry form of accounting and felt it was suppressive. He could have easily delegated the task of developing an accounting system to others, yet he spent his own time developing a single entry system. I THINK HIS REFUSAL TO SHARE THE LIMELIGHT WITH OTHERS PLAYED HEAVILY IN HIS INABLITIY TO SUCCESSFULLY DELEGATE.

    It all ties together, his high abilities to reasearch, reformat and repackage data, his initial well intendedness, his early attempts to delegate using Earth technologies, his inborn refusal to share the spotlight with others, his self imposed necessity of pulling off his research in the areas he loved to develop technologies to replace the false technologies of Earth and then the disdain he developed for his followers as a result of the above chain of events.

    Your closing paragraph is strong and makes a good point.
    lkwdblds

  9. #9
    Crusader ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marcabian Institute of Psychiatry
    Posts
    6,404

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alex View Post

    It is easier to deconstruct the "intentions" of a dead man, than to confront the mix of genius and failure that is scientology. How did something so good, (so good that it has held many of our attentions for so many years) also hold us to its flaws?
    As it is easier to fabricate a glorious myth around a dead con man as we have seen the cult do in the case of Hubbard. Hubbard never did anything which was not self-servicing, he was a con man who built a cult to service him. Lets not revise history to make it out to be more that it is.
    Yes lurkers you are not alone, everyone thinks Scientology is creepy, it's not just you

    http://www.mediacurves.com/Religion/...logy/Index.cfm

  10. #10
    Hang On Sloopy Cat's Squirrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,481

    Default

    If what Pilot says is true, he did reach a high state of awareness around 1952-54 and later fell away from it .

    I think some of the Tech from that halcyon period may have been channelled, but his ability to access similar off-planet data went into decline later on as he succumbed to the temptations (power, wealth etc.) the success of Scn brought him.
    "You're either a stranger or a prisoner. That's the choice."

    - Michael Ventura

Page 1 of 19 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. HUBBARD ADMITS DIANETICS BOOK IS A FRAUD.
    By HelluvaHoax! in forum Evaluating/criticising Scientology
    Replies: 128
    Last Post: 27th August 2012, 04:08 PM
  2. Failures of Dianetics and Scientology
    By uniquemand in forum General Scientology Discussion
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 21st November 2010, 07:31 PM
  3. Dianetics R3R(A) Theory - What's Right and What's Wrong and Why?
    By Dulloldfart in forum Scientology technology
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 20th May 2009, 09:49 AM
  4. Dianetics/Scientology Clear and OT Benefits
    By Nash Rambler in forum Evaluating/criticising Scientology
    Replies: 108
    Last Post: 15th March 2008, 11:31 AM
  5. Scientology - Theory vs. Practice
    By Little Bear Victor in forum Scientology technology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2nd September 2007, 01:29 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •