Who were the troika of the cult of Dianetics?

Discussion in 'General Scientology Discussion' started by Gib, Jul 7, 2017.

View Users: View Users
  1. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    As far as I can tell, the three who created Dianetics were L Ron Hubbard, John Campbell and Dr Winter. There is a fourth, but he was critically asking questions, and that would be Robert Heinlein.

    The information can be found in these two files found on the Heinlein Archives website, these files are not searchable on the internet since you have to pay for them, and it only costs a few bucks.

    1. personal letters between Hubbard and Heinlein. In these letters only a few are of note. The letters can be found here:


    2. personal letters between Campbell and Heinlein, can be found here:


    The majority of the letters are about Dianetics with Heinlein questioning every step of the way.

    Of note, is that both Campbell and Dr Winter left Hubbard's Dianetics. I would say Heinlein was the first critical thinker of Hubbard's ideas.

    Campbell and Dr Winter would actually be the first squirrels as well, LOL
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2017
  2. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    The very first edition of Dianetics had a introduction by Dr Winter, and there were four appendix's. One by John Campbell on the Scientific Method, another by Will Durant on Philosophic method, another by the Mind Schematic and Analyzer Schematic.

    Present versions of Dianetics do not include these appendix's. One has to wonder why?

    This pdf is a true version of the original Dianetics book

  3. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    the book Dianetics is dedicated to Will Durant, lets jump to the appendix borrowed from Will Durant on philosophy.

    This is Hubbard's and the troika's fist positioning or actually ethos, in using philosophy, or align it with Dianetics, to persuade to believe in what Dianetics is all about.


    Of course, later on scientology would be a "applied religious philosophy. :biggrin:
  4. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    Here is a letter from Will Durant, click on the links:

    Durant, Will (1885-1981) American historian. Typed Letter Signed on personal letterhead, 1p, 8½x6¼", Los Angeles, 10 Mar. 1979. Fine. Responding to a question regarding L. Ron Hubbard's dedication of his book Dianetics to Durant., Durant replies that the dedication was done without his knowledge or permission. "I knew nothing of Hubbard or his ideas. I asked him to discontinue use of my name; he ignored the request. I am too busy to take any action against him." Accompanied by the letter to which Durant is responding.
    Estimated Value $200 - 300.


  5. Boson Wog Stark

    Boson Wog Stark Patron Meritorious

    Durant's The Story of Philosophy was first published in one volume in 1926 and it was very popular. It made him rich. In those days a book on philosophy would hardly sell more than a book of poetry today, but this book was well written, clearly written, and meant for the masses instead of educated people only.

    Hubbard may have been inspired by that book to do a similar thing with psychology/therapy with Dianutty. I wouldn't be surprised if Durant's book was one of the few books Hubbard read on philosophy.

    Durant and his wife spent four decades writing the popular 11-volume The Story of Civilization, starting in 1935.

    So, Hubbard wrote Dianutty for the masses also, psychology/therapy everyone could do in the parlor. It was pretty much unreadable for the masses, including the educated, but they loved the idea of it and that you could do it at home, so it was popular for nearly a year. He dedicated it to Durant, hoping to steal the same audience, knowing Durant had a good reputation and was well respected and known.

    The dedication probably didn't matter much since it was Hubbard's pulp fans who who helped launch the Dianutty craze. But Dr. Winter's introduction in Dianutty probably helped legitimize the book quite a lot. I'm not sure I'd elevate him to troika level, but yeah, I guess you could throw in him along with the publisher. Another Dianutty troika might be Hubbard, Crowley and Freud.

    Obviously, not having heard any of his taped lectures, people thought Dr. Hubtard was well educated and a genius like no other. Before the last seven or eight years, I've run into people who never read Dianutty or more often tried but couldn't get past the first 20 pages or so, but they were still in awe that it was an important book.:duh:
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2017
  6. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    I actually came up with the title of this tread partly to poke fun at Marty, and partially because what I wrote in the first line is true, one just has to read the letters between Campbell and Heinlein. Dr Winter didn't just write the intro, he was involved when Hubbard was writing Dianetics along with Campbell. For instance, Campbell writes Heinlein and tells him engrams were first called "norns" and they decided on "engrams". In another letter, Campbell tells Heinlein we have to publish this book as soon as possible but the problem is "it's" all in Hubbard's head.

    How many people know Campbell and Dr Winter were probably the first auditors trained by Hubbard. And how many people know engrams were first called norns, but just recently I posted something about this on Tony O blog and found out comatose was also first used to describe engrams. :melodramatic: the play on words these fuk's used. If I had known back in 1987 when I first read Dinetics and had known norns was replaced with engrams, it's quite possible I would have said to myself, this book is bullshit and would have never got involved.

    I wouldn't call the trioka Hubbard, Crowley and Freud simply because Crowley and Freud were not involved in writing Dianetics, but I agree they influenced Hubbard.
  7. Gib

    Gib Crusader


    The Philosophic Method​

    Science seems always to advance, while philosophy seems always to lose ground. Yet this is only because philosophy accepts the hard and hazardous task of dealing with problems not yet open to the methods of science – problems like good and evil, beauty and ugliness,order and freedom, life and death; so soon as a field of inquiry yields knowledge susceptible of exact formulation it is called science. Every science begins as philosophy and ends as art; it arises in hypothesis and flows into achievement. Philosophy is a hypothetical interpretation ofthe unknown,… or of the inexactly known… it is the front trench in the siege of truth. Science is the captured territory; and behind it are those secure regions in which knowledge and artbuild our imperfect and marvelous world. Philosophy seems to stand still, perplexed; but only because she leaves the fruits of victory to her daughters the sciences, and herself passes on,divinely discontent, to the uncertain and the unexplored.

    Shall we be more technical? Science is analytical description, philosophy is synthetic interpretation. Science wishes to resolve the whole into parts, the organism into organs, the obscure into the known. It does not inquire into the values and ideal possibilities of things, nor into their total and final significance; it is content to show their present actuality and operation,it narrows its gaze resolutely to the nature and process of things as they are. The scientist is as impartial as Nature in Turgenev's poem: he is as interested in the leg of a flea as in the creative throes of a genius. But the philosopher is not content to describe the fact; he wishes to ascertain its relation to experience in general, and thereby to get at its meaning and its worth;he combines things in interpretive synthesis; he tries to put together, better than before, that great universe-watch which the inquisitive scientist has analytically taken apart. Science tells us how to heal and how to kill; it reduces the death rate in retail and then kills us wholesale in war; but only wisdom – desire coordinated in the light of all experience – can tell us when to heal and when to kill. To observe processes and to construct means is science; to criticize and coordinate ends is philosophy: and because in these days our means and instruments have multiplied beyond our interpretation and synthesis of ideals and ends, our life is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. For a fact is nothing except in relation to desire; it is not complete except in relation to a purpose and a whole. Science without philosophy, facts without perspective and valuation, cannot save us from havoc and despair. Science gives us knowledge,but only philosophy can give us wisdom.

    Will Durant"
  8. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    If we look at the big picture of scientology = the science of certainty = applied religious philosophy,

    we find, and the road map is the Grade Chart, why we find one does some dianetics auditing in the beginning, then the grades, then NED to achieve supposedly clear, then the OT levels and NED for NOTS, LOL, and then OT8 to find out we are not but wish to know who we are or some such nonsense. And too boot, no OT levels above OT8 are too be had, and even the old man said he failed and wasn't coming back.

    Games over, all you SO members can go home, staff can quit, public can quit, all can start a new life.

    Somebody please tell me where is the wisdom in scientology? LOL
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2017
  9. Terril park

    Terril park Sponsor

    How about Crowley Jung and Freud?

    Creative processing, aka visualizations, probably not
    Originated by Crowley but forwarded by him. Its an occult
    derived process that has become mainstream. Jung
    developed techniques with galvanic skin response meters
    and prepared lists. Freud influenced Hubbard, via
    Commander Thomson if not in other ways.
  10. Terril park

    Terril park Sponsor

    Will Durant writes so well!

    "Every science begins as philosophy and ends as art; it arises in hypothesis and flows into achievement. Philosophy is a hypothetical interpretation ofthe unknown,… or of the inexactly known… it is the front trench in the siege of truth. Science is the captured territory; and behind it are those secure regions in which knowledge and artbuild our imperfect and marvelous world. Philosophy seems to stand still, perplexed; but only because she leaves the fruits of victory to her daughters the sciences, and herself passes on,divinely discontent, to the uncertain and the unexplored."

    I'd say science[Dn, Scn] is in the process of trying to capture the territory
    but hasn't as yet fully succeeded. That there may be a path to do so
    could be considered a wisdom of scientology. The grades may be considered
    an indication there is something worth exploring in that path.

    The exporation has been achieved with many footbullets. List 1 R/Sers,
    much ethics and PTS info and delving into politics of shunning and
    who to shun being examples.
  11. strativarius

    strativarius Comfortably Numb

    Terril, what planet are you living on? Despite everything that's been written about scientology and dianetics over the past 25 years, you are still persisting in the belief that these are scientific?

    Exporation? (I think you meant exploration) The only things that have been explored are people's bank accounts.
  12. Terril park

    Terril park Sponsor

    Scientology is one of many schools of psychology. There is
    debate as to whether psychology is or isn't a science. Scientology
    has borrowed from the two most prominent authors in the field.
    Freud and Jung.

    My comments were more on the line that scientology is in
    the process of becoming a science rather than already is one.

  13. strativarius

    strativarius Comfortably Numb

    Sorry mate, but the statement that scientology is in the process of becoming a science, apart from being absurd to begin with, just makes me laugh. Scientology pretends to fall within the field of psychology. Allying itself with the ideas of Freud and Jung is just a disguise, an attempt to give it some form of legitimacy. I just wonder why you can't see that. IT'S A SCAM!!!!
  14. Tanchi

    Tanchi Patron

    Why would Scientology even preTEND? Arent they supposed to be so Anti Psych?
  15. pineapple

    pineapple Patron with Honors

    They have gradually become more anti-psych over the years. In the earlier stuff you'll occasionally hear LRH describe dianetics or scn as a school of psychology and he once in a while puts in a good word for Freud: "Freud worked sometimes," or "at least Freud realized there was an unconscious mind," etc. As mainstream psychology continued to reject or mostly just to ignore him, and "SP's" came to loom larger in his thinking, Hubbard's attitude toward the psychs became more adversarial, until by the late 60's they are seen as the primal implanters, going way, way back on the whole track.
  16. Terril park

    Terril park Sponsor

    The refrain of critics is that everything in SCN was stolen
    by Hubbard. The ideas of Freud and Jung predate Hubbard.

    Hubbard did not ally himself with the ideas of Freud and Jung.
    How could source do that! He did include Freud as one of many
    who inspired him in SOS.

    "Major sciences have paradigms, which are general theories that encompass many smaller theories, such as physic’s theory of relativity. However, psychology does not have any of these. Instead, it has levels of explanations that are used to explain phenomena. Thomas Kuhn (1990) said, because of this ‘psychology is a pre-science’. He meant that psychology had not quite reached the stage of being a science, but may do one day."

    What I've been saying.
  17. strativarius

    strativarius Comfortably Numb

    I'm kicking myself for having gotten into one of these pointless debates with you again, but in for a penny, in for a pound.

    Yes, so what's the problem there?

    Okay, so you've just contradicted yourself. What else?
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2017
  18. George Layton

    George Layton Silver Meritorious Patron

    Scientology is one of many schools of psychology.

    IF a person cannot come to terms with the fact that they are not so intelligent that they could have been fooled for so long a time.
  19. Terril park

    Terril park Sponsor

    Its Hubbard contradicting himself.

    He said he was source, and earlier said 50,000 yeas of thinking
    men were the source or at least inspiration.

    "Acknowledgement is made to fifty-thousand years of thinking men without whose speculations
    and observations the creation and construction of Dianetics would not have been possible.
    Credit in particular is due to:

    Anaxagoras, Thomas Paine
    Aristotle, Thomas Jefferson
    Socrates, Rene Descartes
    Plato, James Clerk Maxwell
    Euclid, Charcot
    Lucretius, Herbert Spencer
    Roger Bacon, William James
    Isaac Newton Francis Bacon
    van Leeuwenhoek, Sigmund Freud
    Voltaire, William A. White
    Cmdr Thompson (MC) USN, Will Durant
    Count Alfred Korzybski

    and my instructors in atomic and molecular phenomena, mathematics and the humanities at
    George Washington University and at Princeton."
  20. George Layton

    George Layton Silver Meritorious Patron

    Where are the case studies referred to in Dianetics?

Share This Page