Love And Admiration In Scientology

Discussion in 'Evaluating and Criticising Scientology' started by mockingbird, Jun 17, 2018.

View Users: View Users
  1. mockingbird

    mockingbird Silver Meritorious Patron

    Love And Admiration In Scientology

    "A thing which is loved has to be trapped and caged, and a thing which is admired is a thing which you would like to see free."

    Lecture The Uses And Future Of Scientology Ron Hubbard (3 October 1953) Ron Hubbard



    For fun take love here to mean trap and admire to mean set free. Then reexamine these Scientology references.


    "To love is the road to strength. To love in spite of all is the secret of greatness. And may very well be the greatest secret in this universe."

    "Seeking to achieve any single desirable quality in life is a noble thing. The one most difficult—and most necessary—to achieve is to love one’s fellows despite all invitations to do otherwise."

    Article What Is Greatness ? Ron Hubbard

    "Don’t desire to be liked or admired."
    Code of Honor Ron Hubbard

    But the most valued point is admiration, and admiration is so strong its absence alone permits persistence. The Factors Ron Hubbard

    He said more in this lecture:

    "Admiration betokens in itself a kind of respect It borders on liking, admiring – it’s a much, much better word than love. Love all too often is a compulsive passion which devours the very young, and they go and starve to death and blow their brains out and pine and sigh and learn ridiculous dances. And this is love. They don’t even see the person to whom they have attached their sentiment They don’t even know that person is there. They’re „in love!“ Admiration, a heavy level of admiration, betokens a sort of respect If you really admired somebody – if you really admired somebody, you’d have to have some understanding of existence and some understanding of him or her. And believe me, it would have a lot more pleasantness and a lot more duration than this thing called „love.“
    Lecture The Uses And Future Of Scientology Ron Hubbard (3 October 1953) Ron Hubbard

    His definition of love actually fits narcissistic idealization. It is a kind of abuse of treating a person as a projection of a narcissist's desires. The narcissist doesn't recognize the other person at all and has to control them. It's the parent that forces a child to look perfect, act perfect and act as a tool to show the world the narcissist is wonderful. It is the child forced to sing or dance or be a perfect piano player with no regard for the child's happiness or desires.


    Hubbard was trapped by the unrealistic expectations his aunts and grandfather had. It was a kind of slavery for him. He learned that is how you control others, and practiced it his entire adult life. His admiration is actually allowing a person to have rights and be accepted as a genuine individual with rights.


    In his game he deserved all the admiration and everyone else deserved love. Because that was the relational system he grew up in.


    Daniel Shaw calls this system traumatic narcissism and sees it as going across generations and existing in cults.


    Regarding Hubbard's tone scale it actually represents his views on love and controlling other people.


    In the model of him as a malignant narcissist, Daniel Shaw would be even more exact and say traumatic narcissist, he would see being unable to control others and being controlled as total failure (-40) serenity of beingness (40) as controlling others entirely successfully with no limits while escaping his inner self by making reality bend to fit his delusions and thinking this would cure the ravenous hunger within while he placed sympathy(.9) below covert hostility(1.1) and fear (1.0) as a victim of traumatic narcissism hates both their abuser AND deeply hates themself for trusting and loving their abuser. They unfortunately feel that even if the abuse is outside their control that their trusting and loving their abuser is within their control and an evil act of betrayal of themselves by themselves.


    He said to never seek to be liked or admired. He felt he made himself vulnerable to being idealized and degraded by trusting and caring for others. He vowed to never make that mistake again. He couldn't form healthy attachments because his experience was betrayal by being treated as godlike or worthless. He had no middle ground.


    He said other remarks against families in particular.

    This is an excerpt from a taped conversation with Ron Hubbard in 1974 and his quotes affected very strongly.

    “The GE is a family man; the GE is lost without a family. It’s very strange, but Homo sap i.e. a family unit. The GE is built on that basis. It’s fascinating, fascinating. It’s not important to know it but a lot of your urges toward families and so forth are not thetan urges at all, they’re the GE. The GE can’t survive at all without a family unit. He’s just as dead as a mackerel if he isn’t a family unit, whereas your thetan is just dead as a mackerel if he gets too mixed up in family units.


    You can’t talk to GEs; they’re kind of psycho. And by the way, you can fall into this dreadful trap with a GE. You see, he uses the MEST universe with which to build. He’s gotten very, very bad off and he has to use MEST materials all the time.

    So, you get this situation here with the GE, and your GE is busy: build, build, build, build, and build. And, of course he’s got to have a family to build with.

    You get this terrific family thirst. And you get your GE surviving best and being loused up the most because of inter-family relationships. And your thetan, by the way, can much more easily go into a group. Families are not good groups; they’re bad groups.”

    GE is the Genetic Entity. The Scientology Tech Dictionary defines it this way: 1. That beingness not dissimilar to the thetan which has carried forward and developed the body from its earliest moments along the evolutionary line on earth and which, through experience, necessity and natural selection, has employed the counter-efforts of the environment to fashion an organism of the type best fitted for survival, limited only by the abilities of the genetic entity.The goal of the genetic entity is survival on a much grosser plane of materiality.

    2. Formerly referred to as the somatic mind. It has no real personality; it is not the “I” of the body. This is the “mind” of an animal, a dog or a cat or a cow.

    3. That entity which is carried along through time, that is making the body through the time stream, through the action of sex and so forth. End quote

    Hubbard's love is really slavery. He wanted everyone to experience his love. His admiration is freedom and he reserved it only for himself.

    Remember his two rules for happy living ?
    TWO RULES FOR HAPPY LIVING

    “1. Be able to experience anything.

    “2. Cause only those things which others are able to experience easily.” Ron Hubbard
    Those are rules for obedient slaves, not free people. Hubbard wanted slaves who had no idea that they were enslaved.
     
  2. yeah

    yeah Aberrated

    that last part 'cause only those things which others are able to experience easily"
    and

    'be able to experience anything'

    remind me much of the fcc rules for devices

    (1) this device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.
     
  3. Dave B.

    Dave B. Maximus Ultimus Mostimus

    The GE quotes are from the early 50's not 1974, either PDC or one of those early books, 8-8080808080880888 or whatever it is. History of Man?
     
  4. DagwoodGum

    DagwoodGum Conspiracy Analyst III

    Two things I found odd were that being Hubbard considered love some type of gooey obsessive craving so why were not those binding effects addressed in processing?
    Perhaps clusters bound together from love rather than electronic ribbons & such I used to ponder, but why was this not "handled" in some fashion?
    Because he could not comprehend it as a real essence of human existence I concluded.
    The other thing was that I found it odd that Hubbard focused more on "admiration" and even went so far as to describe it as a "particle".
    A particle?
    Instead of a feeling?
    Just odd I thought, but it showed the lack of depth he had when it came to comprehending actual feelings.
    He had to reduce them to something smaller such as "particles" of admiration.
    Bizarre man!
    Bizarre cult.