A theory of Hubbard, Dianetics and Scientology.

[lkwdblds]

Yes, I think his "flaw" could be stated as having such a degree of self confidence that he neglected to follow his own advice.

Casewise, organizationally, and in interacting with others.

To me,the flaw you mentioned is a brilliant observation. It summarizes the problem with LRH and why the movement didn't go further than it did. If one was told to summarize LRH in one sentence, your first sentence would be the best of all possible choices!

On your next post following this one, you comment that you believe he did use the scientific method and you list a lot of examples. I would like to add one example no one has mentioned yet, that example being the Axioms. How much more scientific can someone get than developing a set of axioms as the basic foundations his new subjects, Dianetics and Scientology?
lkwdblds

[Voltaire's Child]

Excellent post with several astute observations and conclusions!
lkwdblds

Uniquemand and lkwdblds;

I concur. I've made the same observation a time or two. If all Hubbard wanted was the money and power (notice I say "All", meaning yes, he wanted money and power, just not exclusively) he had tons of material to rest his laurels upon long before he stopped writing and revising Scn stuff.

[lkwdblds]

It has always seemed to me that Hubbard starts off as an incompetent bastard and slowly degenerates into a tragic figure wrapped up so tightly within his own mythology that he can't escape. I very much believe the claim that Hubbard started a religion on a bet, but that doesn't mean he went out of his way to create a mean or crazy religion. Dianetics from what I can tell is a relatively well-intentioned attempt to create a religion that people would buy. At some point, I believe Hubbard started buying his own press, got lost in a reality that he had created and somewhat, dare I say it, mad with power. By the time OT III was written he was already in a really bad way.

I don't know how that theory would sit with practicing freezoners, but based on the materials available to us it seems to fit pretty well.

Who, other than yourself constitutes the "us" to whom the materials gathered seem to fit pretty well.? I'm just curious, no big deal.
lkwdblds

[lkwdblds]

Nothing tragic about Hubbard, only the lives of others that he consumed.



I think that rather than start a religion, he wanted to be taken seriously as a scientist instead of a mere peddler of tales.

IIRC, Arthur C. Clark did some stuff re geosyncrous sattelite orbits. Asimov wrote science text books. His friend Parsons in addition to his Crowley ties was a big name in rocketry. Hubbard later said that he also knew some physicists. Who knows to what degree that is true - I don't recall him naming any - but there was definitely a scientific air to some of the circles he travelled in. I think he wanted to prove himself their superior.

Dianetics he characterized as the "modern science of mental health" then followed it up with "science of survival".

Even Scientology was first heralded as the "science of certainty". He seems to have later assumed the guise of religion as an expedient fall back position, and seeing the many benefits it provided stuck with it.

The whole religious angle seems to have started with a wink and a nod, and doesn't appear to me to be a main goal until much later.

Parsons started the company Aerojet General in Azusa, CA. He was a big figure in the aerospace and a very legitimate top scientist. I believe he was a graduate of Cal Tech.......lkwdblds

[Mark A. Baker]

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.

That's true. However it overlooks the fact that author's often have an idea for years before writing it up. They also often have stories lying in storage for lengthy periods prior to publication. First reference to publication of "Ol' Doc ..." is 1947. That was just after Hubbard's active period of naval service in WWII.

I certainly don't claim to know "who influenced what by whom". Heinlein was certainly a much better writer than Hubbard. Still, there are clear references, particularly in his later fiction, to Hubbard's works by Heinlein and some similar themes in some of Hubbard's stories to works by Heinlein.


Mark A. Baker

[Searcher Again]

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?

........I never felt abused or exploited until I got out and saw the bigger picture of what really occurs in the CofS thanks to the Internet. The pieces of the puzzle or game that didn't fit while in, came to fit when out.

.......I am thankful that I got myself involved with this particular Organization as who knows what would have happened joining up with another.


....... Could be dead now or still paying financially for a hope and a dream.

[Mark A. Baker]

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)
Zinj

For "Stranger ..." the more likely influence was Hubbard to Heinlein. It was written over an extended period of time. Heinlein admitted dropping the project for a period of some years during that time. The period that the book was in the works coincides also with the period wherein Heinlein likely experienced auditing from Hubbard.

The book is noted for having marked a significant shift in Heinlein's work by literary critics. Many of the ideas which thenceforth regularly recur in Heinlein's fiction. They are not dissimilar to themes which routinely arise in the auditing of pcs.

No smoking gun, but Heinlein liked to keep people guessing about things. He figured it sold books. Another point in similarity between the two.

Of course, Z, you are free to believe that since "Hubbard = BAD" nothing good could possibly arise from his influence. :D


Mark A. Baker

[bluewiggirl]

Who, other than yourself constitutes the "us" to whom the materials gathered seem to fit pretty well.? I'm just curious, no big deal.
lkwdblds

Casual to moderately serious critics with an internet connection.

[lkwdblds]

Casual to moderately serious critics with an internet connection.

Thanks for the answer. When you can ask a person a simple question and get a straightforward and truthful answer that indicates the responder is sane! The only advice I have (this is a joke) is with a trait such as this, do not go into politics, based on all indications you won't get very far if you do.
lkwdblds

[uniquemand]

Look at that body, lkwdblds: she can do anything she wants.