A theory of Hubbard, Dianetics and Scientology.

[Voltaire's Child]

Hi, BWG,

One book that's not half bad is "Fear". Also, I liked some of his pulps- not just the Sci Fi ones- he wrote Westerns. Had several pen names. But then again, I actually like pulps in general. Some were well written.

Dianetics was the self help thing. It was really grass roots when it came about though of course even then Hubbard was trying to expand it. It had no religious aspects. Scientology came about in 1953 and there you get the spirituality aspects.

As I said, I'd not mentioned anything about Hubbard being a good guy or well intentioned. I was only discussing his competence.

I also said I could and would possibly later discuss the efficacy of Dn and Scn. So I'll bring that up now. I have personally seen people get a lot out of Dianetics and Scientology auditing. I've gotten a lot out of it. My pcs have as well. The TRs really do help with the basics of communication. Another thing Hubbard did was tie his theories together to get some continuity. So the ethics stuff dovetails with auditing which dovetails with the TRs as well. The data series also interfaces similarly as does other "admin tech". Do I think everything about it is perfect and flawless? No. Absolutely not. But, yes, it is effective. That's why there are so many exes and other critics who are genuinely afraid of it and say it's dangerous. If it did not produce effects, it could not engender any dangerous situations- it couldn't be used that way, it couldn't have any such side effects.

[alex]

Lazarus Long existed *long* before 'Mission Earth' (which I have read) and can't possibly have had any influence from Ron.

I don't suppose it would help to mention that comparing Ron to Heinlein will not go well

Zinj

Methuselah's Children which is the first instance of Lazarus Long came out in 1941, and "Ol' Doc Methusalh" (which is what Mark was referring to not BE/ME)
came out in 1953 so it may well be the other way around.

[Zinjifar]

I'm just waiting for someone to suggest that 'Revolt in 2100' was 'inspired by Ron'

Naturally, there *are* many parallels. Heinlein was a Naval Academy graduate and an actual engineer. Heinlein was a *successful* SF writer with a very open mind towards 'religious' themes. There's little doubt that 'Stranger in a Strange Land' strongly influenced Ron, although, it's worth pointing out that Michael Smith's 'Tech' actually *worked* (at least within its fictional confines)

But, it's preposterous to think that a Robert Heinlein when faced with the 'Cult That Ron Built' would have reacted with anything but revulsion.

Zinj

[uniquemand]

That might be true, but Hubbard was richer.

[Xclam]

Yeah he was obviously quite competent in a few respects, he was a skilled hypnotist and a master con man. That is something everyone can agree on.

Let us not forget his accomplishments as a poet and a singer.
"Thank you for listening, I write this just for you...". Beautiful.

Kha Khan's theory makes very much sense I think.


"I do not sing what I believe, I only give them fact, da dam di dum.."

[Zinjifar]

Speaking of Ron's 'poetry':

(From; Mission Earth #9; Villainy Victorious)

Oh, a soldier's life is the life for me;
Tuma-a -diddle; tuma-a-diddle, paw-pata
In camp and plain, I'm always free
To tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle, paw-paw~
No women ever spoil my view
With tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle, paw-pam
They're always wanting something new
Not tuma-diddle; tuma-diddle, paw-pam
For it is the men that I enjoy
To tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle, paw-pav.~
The best there is I find is boy!
Oh, tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle; paw-pam
The enemy I do not mind
If tuma-diddle, tuma-diddl4 paw-paw
Can go on in my behind
With tuma-diddle; tuma-diddle, paw-pa~
And if my bunkmates all are kind
With tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle, paw-pam
Surrounded by ten thousand (bleeps)
That tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle, paw-pa~
All passionate and hard as rocks
To tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle, paw-pazt~
Eager to slide in my buttocks
And tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle, paw-paw!
So (bleep), (bleep), (bleep) and (bleep) in me!
Tuma-diddle, tuma-diddl4 paw-pam
And let me (bleep) and (bleep) in thee
With tuma-diddle, tuma-diddk, paw-pam
Oh, what a love-ul-lee Arm-ee!
With its tuma-diddle, tuma-diddle;
OH! BOY!

Zinj

[clamicide]

Hubbard did a lot of 'one-off' quick writes....and it worked in fiction. Remember his descriptions of what he did while writing from tapes? And when it hit BIG in the non-fiction, I think he saw money and more importantly to him, acclaim. JMHO. I DO think he was trying to solve his own problems with it, but it was probably just typing out at hyperactive speeds like usual and submitted it because he just threw everything to mags for the cash, and when it got THAT much attention, HE had to pay attention to it--there was something that could set him up for life. Plus, the publishers saw that people bit. Again...Just my mental meanderings...

[bluewiggirl]

...I also said I could and would possibly later discuss the efficacy of Dn and Scn. So I'll bring that up now. I have personally seen people get a lot out of Dianetics and Scientology auditing. I've gotten a lot out of it. My pcs have as well. The TRs really do help with the basics of communication. Another thing Hubbard did was tie his theories together to get some continuity. So the ethics stuff dovetails with auditing which dovetails with the TRs as well. The data series also interfaces similarly as does other "admin tech". Do I think everything about it is perfect and flawless? No. Absolutely not. But, yes, it is effective. That's why there are so many exes and other critics who are genuinely afraid of it and say it's dangerous. If it did not produce effects, it could not engender any dangerous situations- it couldn't be used that way, it couldn't have any such side effects.

I think the real question is whether it's the right tool, not whether it is a self-improvement/mental manipulation tool in the first place. I can bang a nail in with a screwdriver, but I also stand a good chance of shattering the screwdriver and getting a shard of plastic in my eye in the process. I recently read Stacy Brook's explanation of her experience in Scientology (here: http://mnraid.org/forums.php?m=posts&q=987 but probably quoted a lot of other places as well) and it's made me rethink a little of how I see the actual tech within Scientology. There's a lot to be said for that kind of self centered regression therapy, but it seems a lot like trying to put in staples with a chisel for most cases.

I'm not going to bring up specifics of "THIS HERE IS BROKEN THEREFORE YOU'RE WRONG" because we both know that's not the point you were trying to make in the first place, but I am interested in hearing about which parts of the tech you find do the most good for people. Maybe that goes in another thread, or maybe it's already been brought up, but I am genuinely interested.

[Kha Khan]

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

By what measure could Hubbard possibly be called a great man? Compared to whom? The idea is ludicrous.

I believe Hubbards intentions were always good.

"Ye shall know them by their fruits."

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?

Sadly, the fact that Scientology has held our attentions for so many years says far more about us than it does about the value or worth of Scientology.

[lkwdblds]

I almost got trite about this. While it is true that Ron amalgamated a pretty big empire during his lifetime, he did spend a huge amount of time at sea, or in a few different "orgs", and writing. Many of us, who are critics of the man and the subject, are quick to point out that he was a power-monger, or that his "research" was extremely flawed. If he was only in it for the money and power, though, he could have completely cut and run in the early 70's (or earlier) and been a very rich man, and done whatever he wanted for the rest of his life. It seems that what he wanted, though, was to continue to work on his "tech". He might have been a delusional narcissist, but he seems to have been genuinely interested. Nobody spends most of their life working on something strictly as a con. Certainly, he was also a con-man! This is part of what made him so interesting, though, that he seems to have been "legit" in his actual interest in the subject.

Excellent post with several astute observations and conclusions!
lkwdblds