The best evidence I can think of is his own words, or as close to them as we can get in his books and tapes. There are millions upon millions of his words to judge the man by, spanning decades, that he considered should be preserved for all eternity. Are these works taken as a whole indicative of someone generally sane, or insane?
It is true that one normally judges a person by his deeds and not his words. But how important are the actions, the lives of Plato, or Bacon, or Newton compared to their written works? On the other hand, how important are the written works of Stalin, Hitler or other politicians nowadays? A hundred years from now--assuming that there will be a hundred years from now--what will the man be remembered for? A legacy of pulling together from various sources, however imperfectly, the basics of a spiritual technology that showed thousands upon thousands of people that something can be done about it? Or the countless miseries inflicted on the faithful by his Church? Or both? Or nothing at all?
I think you should judge him by his words and his actions. Taken together I think you can get a fuller picture with which to judge.
For instance, the FDA raid came from years of Hubbard actually claiming that Dianetics and Scientology could cure cancer, arthritis, paralysis, and all kinds of other diseases and conditions. And he was selling it based on those claims. And when the auditing didn't cure these things, he would just say that you haven't done enough.
Then, after the FDA raided, took the emeters and took him to court for years, he never once said, "Wait a minute. Maybe it doesn't cure these things. Maybe we should revise the results on which we are selling Dianetics and Scientology so that we aren't giving people false hope."
No. Instead he called the FDA a bunch of SPs and railed against Presidents Kennedy and Nixon, and started in on a huge conspiracy theory campaign and instilled it in his followers, covertly continuing to sell on the basis that it will cure diseases.
It's impossible to be black and white about it. We all have periods of sanity and insanity to a greater or lesser degree.
There are many different definitions he gave for sanity or insanity over the years. My favourite is the one about sanity being the ability to recognize differences, similarities and identities. I find that more useful than the more general ones like assisting pro-survival factors and inhibiting non-survival ones. If you don't like his own definitions, find some elsewhere. I find "The ability to tell right from wrong" somewhat limited though.
Instead of a definition, how about a standard?
After all, this guy is writing processes that go deep into people's minds, and as a C/S is in charge of their cases.
Do you want to turn your mind over to a person who says AND does things like Hubbard did? If you knew the juxtaposition of his words and deeds, would you really want to buy his services and subject yourself to them?
Are all his policies and bulletins and other works sensible, promoting general survival, correctly pointing out differences, similarities and identities? Of course not. But are a majority so?
How about his works from the 50s compared to his works from the 60s? The 70s? The 80s?
I think a wider analysis like that will prove more fruitful than a handful of eye-witness snapshots of times he showed a deep compassion for someone, a brutal contempt for another, a love or a paranoia.
I agree with a wider analysis. But, in the end, you have to look at the analysis and make a decision based on the preponderance of the results.
I think his work in the 1950's was generally more sane than his work from the mid-1960's on. If you cut the subject in half, 1948 to 1965, and 1966 to 1986, I think you will find that he went insane in the last half. And, as has been mentioned, the seeds for that insanity were evident in the first half.
And remember, Dianetics was supposed to create a Clear, or a well and happy human being. And Scientology was supposed to take you to states where nothing could strike you down.
These standards SHOULD be employed in evaluating LRH, and his work.
In the end, it didn't.
He was a complex man who affected a large number of people over a rich lifetime. "Was he nuts or was he OK?" doesn't cut it.
Paul
All right. But I think the better question is, "Given what I know about his words and his deeds, should I entrust my mind and life to a man who seeks to create these kinds of effects on me?"
For me, the answer is clear. It is a resounding NO.
That's why he hid his deeds, and presented his words. Because he was waging an onslaught on the minds and sanity of anyone who would submit to him.
And so, when you look at this from a wider perspective, and distill down everything we know, and apply the above standard, I think you
can ask: "Was he nuts or was he okay"?
Just ask your self if YOU would have behaved the way LRH did, and look at what YOU would have to be thinking to say and do those things.
Using these standards, I think that you can legitimately conclude that yes, LRH was nuts. And that
does cut it, as far as how much you should be willing to subject your mind and life to his control.
Any ideas?
WHAT???
