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

[Atalantan]

"Wow!, wow, wow, wow, wow, wow x 10." Steve Hall. 2011

Reading Steve Hall's account of 1979 in Scientology - before David Miscavige took over and "altered the tech" - and how excited Steve Hall was about the "tech breakthroughs" made by Hubbard in '79, reminded me of why I - around the same time - ceased taking Scientologists seriously.

Yes, enthusiastic people can be such a drag....

[Leon]

Good stuff.

Let’s take your reply in the sections that you have,

First one is OK. Second one – “other-determinism doesn’t only mean that one is doing it under duress. Merely adopting the viewpoint that “LRH knows best and even if I don’t understand it all nor agree with it all I will just do it the way he says” – this in itself is a MAJOR source of other determinism and many many people did their Scio in this way.

Hubbard certainl did get totally stuck in the endless trap of seeking out prior causes – no doubt about it. As you say, he never got free of his mind. And if one sticks to Scio as practiced by the CofS then it is guarranteed that one will never go free. But there is an immense amount of data given by Hubbard in the period up to about 1953 or 4 which, if he hadn’t ignored it, would have produced a very different subject altogether, even though still called Scientology. Where he got all the data and insights from is anone’s guess. I am sure that he himself never fully comprehended what he was writing or saying. Or his ego and his dark side swamped and submerged him totally. One needs to study the tapes of that period very thoroughly.

Third - you must recognise too that data and “tech” on entities being stuck to one’s body and mind-space predates Scientology. Apart from the Catholic Church’s exorcism rituals, which BTW are interesting because the process they use is one of getting the entity to identify and name itself accurately so closely parallels the NOTs technique; apart from that there is work by others e.g. Quatermain, Findlay and also Prof, Whiteman whom I met and had the chance to converse with. These are a few that I have come across, all of them predate Scio and all of them are fully aware of the liability of having entities as unwilling passengers. I don’t think Hubbard knew or followed any of these people though. Also the data is known (so I have been told) by the Rosacrucians (not AMORC but the real ones) and probably the Golden Dawn chaps. Croweley’s autobiography refers to them too.

So this is not new with Hubard, and neither is an appreciation of the value of handling the compulsive misidentification of self with them and vice-versa.

“You could also view the entire universe as life connected to life.” Sure you could. You could view it in an infinite number of different ways. But this leads nowhere too.

“Without these connections, there is truly nothing at all. Not what you create, but simply - nothing, nobody. Zero time, zero awareness, zero perception (nothing to perceive) zero space. Nothing. Not even you.” As, for example, we all experience every night during a period of dreamless sleep.


Last section: You are correct in saying that I have studied Scio more intensively than any other subject. But I have always studied periferal subjects too, wherever I could get hold of them. At present I’m busy with a study of New Thought writings. Thomas Troward I find particularly interesting.

One thing Hubbard taught and which I have not found anywhere else to date, is that the mind has mass, actual physical mass (and not the brain either) which is in a space of its own and which can yet be measured physically. Also his teachings of as-isness, that mental mass can be as-ised and that it then ceases to exist. I’ve not come across these aywhere else and they are fundamental to the whole subject. Other subjects tend for the most part to shift mental masses about into new and untroublesome patterns – but this is no more than re-arranging furniture really. The as-isness of mass – that is something special that he came up with. Or if he got it somewhere else then I don’t know where that somewhere is.


“Personally, I've found both Christian and Hindu tenets were far more comprehensive and spiritually enlightening than Scn. Some philosophers, like Kant, just knock me out. Plato changed my life.” Good on you! I got a lot out of Christianity on both the positive and negative sides. The others I just couldn’t get into much. Plato somewhat but not Kant or Eastern teachings.


Be well.

Leo

[Veda]

Yes, enthusiastic people can be such a drag....

Enthusiasm is wonderful. But a fool can be enthusiastic.

I witnessed a lot of that kind of enthusiasm - foolish enthusiasm - around the time that I started backing away from Scientology. There was lots and lots of it. But there wasn't much wisdom. There were plenty of foolish childlike people, who'd change their minds as quickly as they could read the newest announcement from Ron. They'd be super-enthusiastic about "a" on Monday, and then "a" would be canceled by Ron on Tuesday, and it would be replaced by "b," and then they'd be super-enthusiastic about "b." It was idiotic.

I suppose I should be accustomed to it by now, but it still seems remarkable to me that there are such people. It's even more remarkable seeing them, now calling themselves Independent Scientologists, and seeing that they've learned little or nothing in years and years.

[HelluvaHoax!]

I'm not discouraged at all. It's just that HH decided what there was for him in Scio - i.e. nothing at all - then he found that and now he complains about it. He confirms exactly what I said in my first post on this thread.

My apologies, I mistakenly thought I was expressing an opinion, but now I see that I was complaining. And without an approved CSW!

Let me fix that:

CSW

SITUATION: I was conned.

DATA: Ron did it.

SOLUTION: Since I cannot get my money or time back, I hereby request permission to talk about it so others don't get conned.

This is greatest good. Really, this time no kidding.

________ approved


_________not approved

[Infinite]

Whatever rolls you over, dude, I guess that would be "compelling evidence".

I did notice you didn't "DOX PLOX" for Synthia's "compelling evidence" that scientology is booby-trapped in some way.

Would you care to do that for me - produce the DOX, PLOX, for that "compelling evidence?"

Or would you rather sit back, sneer and snide about my posts? Good luck with that. But it would be OK with me too. I don't want to make you work or have to step out of your mental box.

You're trying to DOX me for something someone else said? Seriously, dude . . .

[Jump]

We're so sorry............... Uncle Elbert.

I'm not following much of this, but thanks Synthia

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

The problem with your theory, Claire, is L Ron didn't ever live an extravagant life, financially, despite the money.

He wanted to be better than Buddha, he wanted to be the one who discovered the deepest secrets of mankind. He wanted it so badly, he re-wrote his own personal history and tried to re-make his own personality.

Unfortunately, wanting something to be true doesn't make it true, no matter how many people are coerced or brainwashed into believing it is.

Living an extravagant lifestyle when you are micromanaging a cult, acting as it's prison warden, and on the run from law enforcement of just about every civilized country on the planet, is easier said than done, besides Hubbard's vices were his need to live out his delusional fantasies, feed his drug habit, and build a myth of himself being a great man, and forcing the slaves of his cult to forfeit their life's savings and abandon their families in order to fund a private navy to indulge his delusions may be considered extravagant by some.

[RogerB]

I don't understand your confusion.

Sec Checking was originally developed to detect "SP's" who were sent to join staff by anti-scn groups (government agencies, etc) and wreck scn. But some of these got themselves promoted to executive positions, and then they were able to make sure that other infiltrators were NOT effective checked. As these SP's got into higher and higher positions, they were able to promote their own kind into key positions (not that that doesn't happen in the non-scn world all the time). LRH's own Special Zone Plan used against him!

Originally, it was firm policy only to let trained, proven auditors take higher management positions. Later, this was changed as new recruits were divided into "tech" and "admin" and only the latter made it into senior management. IMHO if this change had not been made the church would not have been taken over.

Helena

No, not true.

The origins of sec checking are way before the notion of SP in Scn.

The first sec check goes back to things like the Joberg, circa 1961-2. It was a development of the think following the "Clean Hands Congress" tech of 1960 . . . this is the tech to do with getting off all your "overts" in order to have clean hands and thus make case gain. This then morphed into withhold and MWH tech circa '63 and emphasized with a vengeance in '64.

The original "tech" for handling "Security Risks" was the use of the Scientology List 1 assessed for R/Ss. That was around September '62.

[GreyWolf]

I think you hit the nail right on the head Claire. Alot of the TV preachers are the same way.

[guanoloco]

We're so sorry............... Uncle Elbert.

"Message to Garcia" guy...