Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789
Results 81 to 85 of 85

Thread: Claire's theory on where L Ron Hubbard truly went wrong

  1. #81
    Clear as Mud Auditor's Toad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Bank of America
    Posts
    5,577

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Student of Trinity View Post
    My take is that the L. Ron Hubbard had a fair amount of intelligence, but was fatally spoiled as a child. He grew up vain and lazy. He also grew up good at spinning stories. If you've got those traits, the temptation to live in a fantasy world is very strong.

    So I think that in one sense Hubbard genuinely believed in his 'tech', and genuinely wanted to help people with it. But only in the sense that he lived in a fantasy world, in which he was entitled to be worshiped for saving humanity. I'm not sure he really believed in his fantasy with a cold, narrow gaze, the way a hard-nosed investor believes in the business he puts his money into. Maybe it was just a matter of insisting on playing pretend.

    I think that a lot of the content of Scientology was probably designed, at least subconsciously, so that Hubbard could maintain his fantasy despite being an intelligent and experienced guy. He really did command a warship, and he really did sell a lot of fiction. It's not easy to live in a fantasy world if you've done those things.

    But a fantasy universe of thetans who mock everything up is maybe slick enough to pull it off with. If that's your fantasy, then whenever your common sense starts to kick in, or you start to recognize that you're making stuff up, you can handle the doubt by saying, "Of course I'm mocking it up I'm Source!" If you keep that juicy thought in the back of your mind, you can quite comfortably laugh and wink about the foolishness of it all, and pretend convincingly that you're not pretending at all. A fantasy about how reality is just fantasy can look reality in the eye and not blink. Or at least seem to. That's how I imagine Hubbard could come across as a down-to-earth guy, when he wanted, and not as the megalomanical cult leader he really was.

    Anyway, that's my guess. Scientology is effective at helping people maintain their own delusion, because it was designed to help Hubbard maintain his.
    My cliff notes of this post : Hubbard was insane.
    scientology : a self-inflicted long slow suicide of the soul.
    When it comes to scientology just circle me in red.

    AT

  2. #82
    Silver Meritorious Patron LongTimeGone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Synthia View Post
    We're so sorry............... Uncle Elbert.


    Thank you Synthia.

    God bless you and all who sail in you.

    LTG
    Carter's law of Productivity. "The amount of work a person does is inversely proportional to the number of suggestions they offer."

    My Essay from 1995: http://www.xenu.net/archive/disk/NOTs/djcarter.htm

    Hubbard even fooled himself: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthrea...691#post618691

  3. #83
    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

    I personally think that a lot of the things he thought about mental mechanisms and about spirituality were pretty good. When he got into the Xenu stuff, though, he kinda lost me. I actually do believe in whole track and all that. But that and a few bucks will get you a latte. It's just my opinion.

    It does seem evident to me that all the tragedies and abuses in the cult, under Hubbard, under DM, stem from the idea that the group is more important than the individual maybe- but it's worse than that. If it was JUST the group being more important than the individuals (which would be horrid anyway. I mean, who was the group originally created for? PEOPLE!) you wouldn't get DM running around with his custom suits, expensive condo, millions of dollars, and all the things people have said that he amassed- it would just not be allowed. But it is allowed. He runs around like a king. And he's abusive. He doesn't just implement policies that are abusive, he actually physically brutalizes people. That's fucking insane.

    So it becomes evident to me that there is a fundamental lack of altruism that is missing from the whole thing. Some of the taped lectures are rather lovely and mention a bit of altruism here and there, but there never was any altruism there.

    Reading Dianetics in Limbo -which depicted events in 1951 and 1952- was an eye opener for me. Hubbard was irresponsible and selfish even then. So I really don't think the underlying concept of altruism was there even at the inception.

    I think that if you are going to have a group or an ology that is supposed to save the world, or even just help people feel better (both of which Scn has claimed) then it has to be altruistic. Any fees or funds collected should be minimal. Just enough to run things. The fact that there were millions of dollars floating around in both Hubbard's and DM's regimes is telling indeed.
    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.

  4. #84
    Silver Meritorious Patron LongTimeGone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Voltaire's Child View Post
    I personally think that a lot of the things he thought about mental mechanisms and about spirituality were pretty good. When he got into the Xenu stuff, though, he kinda lost me. I actually do believe in whole track and all that. But that and a few bucks will get you a latte. It's just my opinion.

    It does seem evident to me that all the tragedies and abuses in the cult, under Hubbard, under DM, stem from the idea that the group is more important than the individual maybe- but it's worse than that. If it was JUST the group being more important than the individuals (which would be horrid anyway. I mean, who was the group originally created for? PEOPLE!) you wouldn't get DM running around with his custom suits, expensive condo, millions of dollars, and all the things people have said that he amassed- it would just not be allowed. But it is allowed. He runs around like a king. And he's abusive. He doesn't just implement policies that are abusive, he actually physically brutalizes people. That's fucking insane.

    So it becomes evident to me that there is a fundamental lack of altruism that is missing from the whole thing. Some of the taped lectures are rather lovely and mention a bit of altruism here and there, but there never was any altruism there.

    Reading Dianetics in Limbo -which depicted events in 1951 and 1952- was an eye opener for me. Hubbard was irresponsible and selfish even then. So I really don't think the underlying concept of altruism was there even at the inception.

    I think that if you are going to have a group or an ology that is supposed to save the world, or even just help people feel better (both of which Scn has claimed) then it has to be altruistic. Any fees or funds collected should be minimal. Just enough to run things. The fact that there were millions of dollars floating around in both Hubbard's and DM's regimes is telling indeed.
    Precisely.

    If Hubbard REALLY CARED about mankind and if he REALLY had the answers to all of the world's problems, he would have made those answers freely available to everyone.

    It would be seen by all for what it is and the people would have kicked his door down to give him money; he wouldn't have to demand anything - it would lovingly be bestowed upon him.

    Instead he put himself and his organisation before anything or anyone and as you point out, there was no altruism and no winners.

    LTG
    Carter's law of Productivity. "The amount of work a person does is inversely proportional to the number of suggestions they offer."

    My Essay from 1995: http://www.xenu.net/archive/disk/NOTs/djcarter.htm

    Hubbard even fooled himself: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthrea...691#post618691

  5. #85
    True Ex-Scientologist programmer_guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    5,990

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LongTimeGone View Post
    Precisely.

    If Hubbard REALLY CARED about mankind and if he REALLY had the answers to all of the world's problems, he would have made those answers freely available to everyone.

    It would be seen by all for what it is and the people would have kicked his door down to give him money; he wouldn't have to demand anything - it would lovingly be bestowed upon him.

    Instead he put himself and his organisation before anything or anyone and as you point out, there was no altruism and no winners.

    LTG
    Yes.

    At this point in time, the CofS has the option of going "Open Source" (like some software) and become totally a service organisation.

    However, going "Open Source" implies willingness for people to go on offshoots that have, supposed, improvements. The CofS would then have to continually willingly compete by continually proving that their services (and "tech") are the best available (in both cost and benefits).

    This, all by itself, would quickly eliminate the RPF, lower ethics conditions, excessive (cave-in) word clearing, overly simplistic stats, and probably much more.
    The emphasis on finding and describing "knowledge structures" that are somewhere "inside" the individual encourages us to overlook the fact that human cognition is always situated in a complex sociocultural world and cannot be unaffected by it. - Edwin Hutchins
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hutchins

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789

Similar Threads

  1. Ron, got his facts wrong:
    By Lohan2008 in forum General discussion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 14th September 2009, 12:01 AM
  2. A theory of Hubbard, Dianetics and Scientology.
    By Kha Khan in forum General discussion
    Replies: 189
    Last Post: 25th August 2009, 07:31 PM
  3. Everything Hubbard said was WRONG, everything.
    By AnonOrange in forum General discussion
    Replies: 109
    Last Post: 4th July 2009, 08:22 PM
  4. 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, 08:49 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
  •