ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at www.exscn2.net.



LRH's Reading Habits and Sources

Discussion in 'Evaluating and Criticising Scientology' started by fisherman, Oct 12, 2009.

View Users: View Users
  1. fisherman

    fisherman Patron with Honors

    Did anyone see LRH spend hours with a book? Find Marcus Aurelius "Meditations" in the bathroom? Shakespeare on the night-table? I can't find any references to LRH's reading habits in works like "Messiah or Madman" and "Blue Sky".

    It doesn't appear LRH was the avid reader he claimed to be. Based on his personal history and his writing, it's more likely that he 'cobbled' together the culturally fashionable ideas of his time.

    According to Sara Hubbard, LRH was impatient with scholarship and not a successful student:

    Hubbard claimed a profound education in philosophy, but that's not likely. Hubbard' dedicated "Dianetics" to the historian Will Durant, whose popular "Story of Philosophy" is probably the 'source' of LRH's 'education' in philosophy. LRH's references to philosophy only include 'thinkers' outlined in Durant's work and his indictments of philosophy never fall on anyone not included in Durant's book.

    Most significantly, LRH makes no references to original philosophic texts. At least, I can't find any. Given Hubbard's flamboyant ego, it's hard to imagine him mastering original texts like Plato's "Phaedrus" and NOT referencing them directly.

    This suggests that LRH was reading what everyone else was reading in his day. Durant's "Story of Philosophy" was a national bestseller from 1926 on! In the heady days of the 'roaring twenties' it was "hip" to be an "intellectual". 'Up and coming' men like LRH got their intellectual 'street cred' from H.L. Mencken's elitist commentary in "The Smart Set" magazine, F. Scott Fitzgerald stories, and...Will Durant! It' no surprise that "Dianetics" is dedicated to Will Durant, a brilliant scholar LRH would have liked to emulate.

    However, LRH does not cite Durant's "Story of Philosophy" with much accuracy. In his 1950 lecture, "Science of Knowledge" LRH says:

    Hubbard's two paragraphs are incorrect and very mis-leading.

    Immanuel Kant never 'teamed up' with Hume and Locke attempting "to delineate the basic laws of philosophy" -- not even metaphorically. I'm pretty certain no one was ever "frightened" by these three philosophers.

    Kant was born to a family of strict Pietists (Calvinism) and his father was a minister. Kant was a "sheltered academic" who sought to displace theology by grounding moral principles in pure reason. David Hume and John Locke were 'empiricists' distrustful of Kant's "metaphysical" approaches.

    In "Science of Knowledge" LRH goes on to say:

    This is so far 'off the mark' it's startling!

    Philosophy had a rather profound impact in the 162 years comprising the 19th and early 20th century. Radical changes in political structures, social organization, concepts of democracy, materialism, individual rights, jurisprudence, etc. were fostered by such thinkers as: Jeremy Bentham, James Mill, J. S. Mill, Arthur Schopenhaur, S. Kierkegard, Frederiech Nietzsche, Auguste Comte, William James, Ludwig Wittgenstein, E. Durkheim, F. H. Bradley...

    In those years, Bentham and J.S. Mill's 'normative ethics' had gigantic influence on the laws and institutions of England and America.

    Bentham's "Utilitarianism" coined the phrase "greatest good for the greatest number". How could LRH condemn the 'source' of "greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics?" The phrase, which Hubbard so obviously 'borrowed, is commonly used in textbooks, like Durant's, to describe the fundamentals of "Utilitarianism".

    Karl Marx and Charles Darwin also lived during those "162 years". It's hard to picture these thinkers, as LRH describes:

    Is this an apt description of such radical thinkers as Darwin, Marx, Engels and Trotsky ?? NO!

    But, according to LRH, the failed notions of these "162 years" became "a pivot point" and the "...reason Dianetics has suddenly come into this society..." In "Science of KNowledge" LRH staunchly proclaims:

    Presumably, philosophic 'epistemology' needed LRH, DM and TC to push Karl Marx aside and "clean this place up"!

    I tracked down quite a few of LRH's references to 'philosophy' and none that I found were accurate. What LRH really does, is use philosophy to 'name-drop'. He names a 'famous thinker' and then fabricates a convincing rhetoric to enlarge his point. LRH does this so consistently, it seems probable that he had very little knowledge of philosophy. I suspect LRH had a vivid imagination, but was not as well read as he claimed.

    Frankly, given LRH's active life, scholastic record and predilection toward 'mind altering' chemistry, I tend to doubt he read much of anything in depth.

    Caroline Lettke wrote that she felt LRH basically 'cobbled up' whatever ideas he found and I'm inclined to agree.

    fisherman
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2009
  2. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    :thumbsup: Great post! Great points. LRH WAS a "victim" of his times and of the various extant "streams of thought".

    On Korzybski, I did read the first hundred or so pages of "Science and Sanity", and LRH lifted a great MANY ideas from him. General Semantics is the beginning of the advent of "multi-valued" or "infinite-valued logic", as opposed to previous Aristotelian logic (two-valued logic; yes or no; 0 or 1; etc).

    These ideas "by LRH" come directly from Korzybski:

    absolutes don't exist
    gradient scales
    sanity related to the ability to differentiate
    sanity as the ability to tell similarities, identities and differences
    fixed ideas
    supply "examples" in study tech to make something real or not
    generalities always involves abstractions

    LRH did very much alter the data in some regards. But, the whole notion of the "Grade Chart" is based on gradients and "gradual change". I don't know if Scn could even exist if Hubard hadn't read and lifted many of Korzybski's ideas. Granted these ideas often morphed into something else.

    Korzybski envisioned a system of "therapy" where a person could get familiar with ones own conceptual universe, making known and becoming aware of the nature of concepts, abstractions and the nature of mental abstracting, definitions, fixed ideas, etc. Korzybski was brilliant in his analysis of "ideas" versus the reality these ideas represent or label or "map". A diligent application of general semantics can very much sort out a vague and hazy mind (common). Far too many people live and think with "ideas", failing to notice that the IDEAS are often so very NOT directly or well-aligned with what these ideas claim to relate to or describe. In other words, there is a gulf, often a very wide gulf, between the reality of specifics and actual events in the world of experience, as compared to the many IDEAS related to and about these things. From Korzybski's view, the two can NEVER match. I agree. All "ideas" involve a "mapping" of something. But, the map is NEVER the same as the terrain.

    Hubbard left all of that OUT! Lord knows that he surely did NOT want anybody examining HIS ideas while also comparing these ideas AGAINST and TO REALITY. I find that accepting the labels, definitions, nomenclature and concepts of Scientology works AGAINST sanity in certain ways. It just creates another mental conceptual system, often with ideas quite divorced from ANY observable realities (OT, Clear, Mecca of Technical Perfection, GAT, etc).

    Korzybski envisioned his sytem as a way to "sanity". Hubbard never used it for that, and in his Data Series, instead LRH measures all data against his concept of some "ideal scene" (an imaginary reality). A legitimate Data Series SHOULD teach a person to grade and evaluate "truth" (determine how well some report, statement or assertion aligns with reality), whereas Hubbard slants the whole subject towards "ideal scenes" and expansion of a group.

    People yap endlessly in Scn about "ideal scenes". What is an ideal? It is a non-existing POSSIBLE future reality. It is largely, at the moment, NOT REAL. To a large degree, ideal scenes are "fantasies". Not always, as there "can" be a clear statement of an ideal scene for some activity. But, things like "Clear" and "OT", asserted ideal scenes, largely do NOT exist, nobody has seen anyone with these states (other than just believing them to be true and exist), and these exist much more as IDEAS than as any actual achievable reality. Korzybski would have had a field day with THOSE ideas. Same as the definition of Flag as the "Mecca of Technical Perfection." This is a CLAIM. It is an ASSERTION. It is PR. It is a definition, that by honest observation is FAR off the mark. Hell, Flag, through the majority of its existence has had TECH MISSIONS to sort out and correct the "out tech". It has had such mission MORE of the time than not. The definition of Flag as a "Mecca" is the result of survey tech and PR tech, and has little to do with any related truth or reality. Applying concepts of general semantics to the subject of Scn can be very enlightening. Just begin looking for all those instances where Scn words, concepts and defintions do NOT well align with or describe actual REAL situations and events. There are many.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2009
  3. fisherman

    fisherman Patron with Honors

    Gadfly,

    Thanks for your comments! I guess we're all subject to the "streams of thought" running through our time.

    I read my first Hubbard lecture, taking a break from some unrelated research. I have a degree in philosophy, so LRH's incorrect references 'stood out like a sore thumb'. Oddly, even though I could see the errors, I was 'drawn in' to read more and more, expecting Hubbard to write something that would pull it all together and make sense. That never happened, 'there was no there, there'.

    My 'working hypothesis' is that Hubbard borrowed ideas, but never elaborated them in any depth. Whatever 'depth' we find is likely a a 'projection' of own own ideas -- an inference created to make sense of the non-sensible.

    I'm sure your right that Hubbard 'lifted' freely from Korzybski, but I wonder if Korzybski would recognize the depth of his ideas in Hubbard's writing? Or feel that Hubbard 'expanded on them'.

    On the whole, I don't see evidence of Hubbard 'expanding' on the ideas of any 'great thinkers'. I think Hubbard plagiarized superficial bits and we 'read in' the rest.

    Hubbard's plagiarizing seems most obvious when it comes to 'systems' like Korzybski's. The components of a 'system' are more recognizable, which may make the 'borrowing' appear more 'profound'.

    Scientology 'tech' was concocted in an 'age of systems' -- 'Management By Objectives', 'NASA', 'Alfred Sloan's GM', 'Political Science', 'Organizatioal Science', etc. Hubbard tapped into these "streams of thought" to construct a superficial 'system' of 'human awareness potential'.

    You mention "ideal scenes" -- all of that post-war 'systems think' was intended to engender an "ideal scene" of one kind or another. That was the 'current of the time'. In the midst of the 'Cold War' we hoped "systems" would bring certainty to an uncertain world. Sometimes, it did. But as you cogently point out:

    I think you're right.

    In 'post war' America, the human desire for "ideal scenes" - for a "system" that provides security - was strongly felt and articulated. Hubbard wasn't 'brilliant' he was listening to 'the echo of the age' and responding with successful 'product placement'. As did Norman Vincent Peale.

    fisherman
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2009
  4. Royal Prince Xenu

    Royal Prince Xenu Trust the Psi Corps.

    I think any of us could cobble together an ~ism or an ~ology that would seem workable--and just like any other that has been introduced in the past, it would be full of contradictions and rely on strict adherence by its followers.
     
  5. Zinjifar

    Zinjifar Silver Meritorious Sponsor

    Valid criticism, except that Zinjifarianism is immune to it, since it accepts no followers.

    Zinj
     
  6. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    I find that extremely doubtful. Very few people have put together a "system" that gets great amounts of followers. And, even with those that have come before (Communism, Christianity, Islam, Nazism, etc), most depended on severe amounts of force to obtain agreement and compliance. Most systems fail to garner happy, willing support, and often require "force" to "succeed".

    Putting together a unique system that atrracts many people is NOT easy. I recently read a book that slammed Judeo-Christian religions big-time. "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins (great book). He examines many religions. Scientology is the ONLY one listed where the author and creator of an entire religion is credited to one single man (Hubbard).

    You can like it or not like it, disagree with it or agree with it, find it superficial or find it "deep", but it is a rare thing indeed for a single person to put together an entire complex religion (with all the detailed adminstrative policies, detailed processes and drills, etc). I find that too many people fail to appreciate the magnitude of what Hubbard did. I am not saying that it was legitimate, or "smart", or intelligent or anything, other than that it took a GREAT deal of time, organizing skills, familiarity (even if general and superficial) with MANY subjects and topics, and in his own strange way - dedication. Or, maybe that was "obsession"?

    There were lots of bright people around during Hubbard's time. Few or none went out and put together entire religions, philosophies or political systems derived from the many extant ideas of the period.

    I do agree that almost ANY "ism" requires strict adherence by its followers to "succeed", and without that, little happens. How that happens involves some unique combination of "inherent attractiveness of the system" and "techniques of the system used to obtain agreement for and about the system". But, that is as true for the modern advertising of almost any product, just as it is for any religion, philosophy or political system.

    For example, take the writings and philosophy of Ayn Rand. She continually gets a small devoted following of poeple who find and just love her work (for a period of time). There is no big "push", no big organization setup to "disseminate" the works of Ayn Rand. To some degree there is something "attractive" to some people about her slant on things. But, little force, trickery or marketing is employed.

    Differently, take an example of modern fundamentalist Islam, where there is a very active recruiting organization, indoctrination centers for young children (madrasas), violence, intense physical training, and continual actions taken to form and create a "devoted follower". This example involves a system where the success largely continues because of the intricate and well-organized recruitment, training, monitoring and correction of attitudes and beliefs.

    It is in this second aspect that Hubbard really achieved! While there is no doubt that aspects of the philosophy and results are flawed, there is no doubt that Hubbard did CREATE a very well thought out organization, that does "get things done". It does also greatly involve "intricate and well-organized recruitment, training, monitoring and correction of attitudes and beliefs". The value and worth of what Scientology creates is quite debatable, BUT the C of S HAS beaten very formidable enemies (IRS), where all others have failed. I don't like the way the Sea Org and Churches are run, nor many of the LRH policies that the Church organization is patterned after, but there is no disputing, that in a certain regard, it does surely "work". As I have stated earlier though, just because something "works" doesn't make it valuable within a larger conext. Arsenic also "works". Government lies often "work". German gas chambers "worked". The spinning and misrepresentation of vast amounts of information by modern media often "works".
     
  7. fisherman

    fisherman Patron with Honors

    Gadfly wrote:

    Why does this impress you? Amway has a devoted and impressive following, magnificent organizational skill and annual sales of over $8 BILLION!

    That's roughly 26 times scientology's most likely annual revenue. That "second aspect" you describe is common to countless larger organizations, including ALL of the more common religious sects; Episcopal, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Congregational.

    ALL of those religious groups are FAR larger and MUCH better organized than scientology.

    I was employed by large 'national organizations' and don't see anything unique in LRH's handbooks of SOP's and Standard Policies. I just read 'OT8' Mary Jo Leavitt's 'Knowledge Report' and fail to see anything especially 'impressive' in her references to 'Hubbard Organizational Policy'. Aside from the 'scino-speak', it reads much the same as IBM's organizational policies.

    I appreciate your input, but fail to see anything unique in LRH's comparatively small organization.

    fisherman
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2009
  8. Royal Prince Xenu

    Royal Prince Xenu Trust the Psi Corps.

    What does Richard Dawkins have to say about "Raelians"? It's newer than $cn, and the material definitely f's with your head.
     
  9. fisherman

    fisherman Patron with Honors

    Don Carlo's comments on Will Durant and LRH, along with an excellent synopsis of historical method, are worth sharing!

     
  10. GreyWolf

    GreyWolf Gold Meritorious Patron

    What the hell? I can't join Zinjifarianism. What if I spend hunddreds of thousands of dollars to go Zinj? :whistling:
     
  11. fisherman

    fisherman Patron with Honors

    An interesting note on Mr. Hubbard's reading habits from 'Barefaced Messiah' p 315

    On page 316 of 'Barefaced Messiah', Mr. Hubbard's insistence that he graduated from George Washington University is intriquing. Wouldn't a transcript serve as better 'proof' of his diploma than his contribution to the University newspaper?

    Hiding out in Georgetown at the time of the 'Snow White' operation, Hubbard spends time in the Library of Congress reading 'occult' subjects. Barefaced Messiah p 341

     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2009
  12. JinLing

    JinLing Patron

    This is not about his actual reading, but i have a strong feeling that over all he said he could do a lots of things he couldnt. How about japanese for example? He wrote somewhere that japanese was a babylanguage that he learned in a few days or weeks or something, but ive tried to learn japanese myself and its a very complicated language, not only that its very different to my own, but also there is a lot of double meanings in japanese that is special for their culture and means something completely else than what it sounds like.
    And the writing? Three different ways of writing where one, the kanji, is alike the chinese writing with thousands of signs to learn that take a japanese years to get, i just dont believe that!!
     
  13. Winston Smith

    Winston Smith Flunked Scientology

    LRH could read? He sure couldn't write.
     
  14. fisherman

    fisherman Patron with Honors

    JinLing,

    That's an excellent point! There's a quotation in 'Bare-Faced Messiah' where Hubbard claims to have learned Japanese, but I wasn't able to locate it quickly.

    I wish I'd found it, because my recollection is that Hubbard's comment on learning the language contained a racial put-down. I'll try to confirm that.

    fisherman
     
  15. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    At page 6 of 'Sly', at the bottom of the below linked post is a list of 'sources' consulted by Hubbard or by others who aided him:

    http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=19183&postcount=1

    At the bottom of this link is a link to the 'Sole Source Myth' thread:

    http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=312836&postcount=5

    http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=315580&postcount=139

    The 'Equinox' circa 1911:

    http://the-equinox.org/vol1/index.html
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2009
  16. Boojuum

    Boojuum Silver Meritorious Patron

    I think he read a great deal

    I think we're reaching a bit here. LRH certainly touched on a number of subjects and from all the word clearing I had to do on his material, I'd say that he was a very bright and articulate guy. He wasn't an english professor or a philosophy professor but he did develop a fairly comprehensive organizational system. In fact, I can't think of many organizations that are as developed as his. He was able to look at his organization from numerous angles and I feel had a number of great things to say as evidenced from the volumes of volumes. I don't think his understandings were philosophic breakthroughs. I don't think his organizational insight is/was earth shattering.

    I feel that he speaks as a very well read man and I'll give him his due on that. His classical education is lacking but he had a number of fascinating ideas. Compared to virtually any manager or exec I've known, he was way ahead of the curve.

    On running his organization, I think he became terribly corrupt. This thread seems to need to prove that he wasn't a god. I think we've covered that pretty well but understand the need.
     
  17. fisherman

    fisherman Patron with Honors

    Veda,

    Thank-you for the links. I've started to study them in earnest. So far the most careful analysis of Mr. Hubbard's reading habits and sources that I've found is this article, "Ron The Myth" by Cisar:

    http://www.lermanet.com/cisar/wis/sources.htm#lrh

    Boojum,

    I appreciate your comments even though I'm unable to share your conclusions.

    Professors lose their careers over intellectual fraud. Mr Hubbard's intellectual fraud co-opted people's trust and destroyed them. That sham continues today everytime someone picks up a copy of 'Dianetics". "Dianetics" is claimed the perfection of 'philosophic epistemology' based on Hubbard's synthesis of "the combined truths of fifty thousand years of thinking men, distilled and amplified by new discoveries about man..." That's total quackery and very likely the most grandiose conceit ever penned. Shedding light on the false intellectual underpinnings of scientology may help others to see this sham for what it is.

    I concur with you, Hubbard "was a bright and articulate guy". But it's Hubbard that would disagree with us. Hubbard proclaimed himself the 'sin qua non' of all the 'great thinkers' that ever lived. The man who succeeded where all other 'great minds' failed. Hubbard, as you said, "...wasn't an english professor or philosophy professor" -- frankly, he wasn't even an especially competent student!

    I understand that many desire to give Mr. Hubbard some "benefit of the doubt" and if he'd been no more than a harmless old coot - I'd do my damnedest to join that effort. But Hubbard used his talents to hurt people. Even Ron said we must learn from the "daay-ta" of philosophy and Aristophenes encouraged us to "call a spade a spade".

    You wrote:

    Ron was a clever man. His entreprenuerial skills enabled him to capitalize on the public appetite for 'self help' that was prevalent in the post war era. Hubbard's improvisational skills allowed him to build a flexible organization to maximize that market. But really, there are hundreds of organizations FAR better developed than Ron's ever was, that have sustained legitimate growth over a far longer period.

    Ron was undoubtedly a captivating speaker, but the weight of evidence suggests he was not "a very well read man". The best study I've found is here:

    http://www.lermanet.com/cisar/wis/sources.htm#lrh

    Mr. Hubbard had drive, energy and talent. Unfortunately, Hubbard used those qualities for ill, not good. lkblds' superb summation from another thread is most apt:

    fisherman
     
  18. Boojuum

    Boojuum Silver Meritorious Patron

    How good is good enough

    Fisherman

    Thanks for listening!!! I guess it boils down to how good do we expect LRH to be. I've finally reached the age where I'm starting to forgive my parents. I'm also zeroing in on the certainty that no one's perfect. One of my hobbies is reading biographies. I noticed that each famous or fabulous or incredible person has issues, typically big issues. I give LRH a pass on intellectual curiosity. I also give him a pass as a reader and motivational speaker. This MB wouldn't exist without LRH's numerous interesting and insightful ideas.

    We can vilify him for his many misrepresentations, his greed, his sadism, his need to pay back, his parenting and lack of compassion. But he was a fascinating guy who lived a very full life.

    It's been very difficult to sort out the experience of Scientology.
    I look at the shakey philosophy propped up with axioms and logics for reasons that escape me;
    I eagerly read the stories of ex-members like myself who feel ripped off and abused and humiliated;
    I read the bad Scio press and see the empty orgs;
    I look at the ridiculous claims in the Scio flyers; and conclude that my deepest sense of trust was fully usurped by someone who either didn't care or was unable to show that he cared. He created an organization that will suffer greatly under the transparency of the internet age and will find that there's no place to hide. He created an organization that tolerates vicious sentiments, humilation schemes, neglect of family, "severe reality adjustments", gang bang sec checking, RPF's, incarceration, recruitment of minors, and routine coercion tactics to obtain money or slave labor.

    When I got in, the place was bursting with energy, young people, rich people, the beautiful, the funny, the types of folks we wanted to be like. People were joining up and glad to be involved. Nowadays, with better books and tapes and training, the local orgs seem nearly vacant. Where's the life?

    I think LRH got swept up in his own dust storm but many famous people have similar experiences with similar results. If I think of all the people I've met... I've met richer people, more reliable people, smarter people, more talented people and I think much more ethical people, but no one more interesting. But I suppose Ghengis Khan was pretty interesting too.
     
  19. Kha Khan

    Kha Khan Patron Meritorious

    Fisherman,

    First let me say this is one of the best and most enjoyable posts I've ever read about Scientology. And certainly the best post I've ever read about the philosophical background of Scientology.

    Unlike you, I didn't come to Scientology with a degree in philosophy. But I did come to Scientology with a degree in political science and a fairly decent grounding in political philosophy and religion.

    I always believed that, with one exception: (1) Ron did not read or rely upon any original sources; and (2) Ron relied solely on Will Durant's book The Story of Philosophy for all of the reasons you have stated. The one exception being Ron's reliance on Alfred Korsybski, which I believe Ron read in the original, even if superficially.

    Like you, I found much (but as stated below, perhaps not all) of Ron's understanding to philosophy and religion to be superficial. As an additional example, I recall Ron writing of his admiration for Hinayana Buddhism, which was sort of odd because the term "Hinayana" (meaning "the low vehicle", "the inferior vehicle", or "the deficient vehicle") is seen as a pejorative alternative to the term Theravada. Why would one express admiration for something but refer to it by the pejorative usage?

    Like you my education -- and the fact that I could recognize some of Ron's ignorance, superficiality and bullshit -- didn't protect me from getting involved in Scientology. But I think it did help protect me from getting in too deep (at least intellectually, as opposed to emotionally and socially). Xenu knows, I was in. But I was never so in as to be entirely lost. Some part of me always remained the skeptic, thank Xenu.

    I've thought a lot about this and disagree in one, but only one, respect. Like you, I was familiar with the work of Jeremy Bentham and J. S. Mill when I came to Scientology. I have to admit that when I read Ron's description of the dynamics, and his ethical doctrine of doing "the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics," I was honestly impressed. I've always thought that Ron's addition of the concept of the dynamics to the "greatest good for the greatest number" formulation of Utilitarianism was significant, and indeed an elaboration of some depth. It could be seen, at least in isolation from the rest of the Tech, and particularly the rest of the Ethics Tech, as a new and different solution to the Utilitarian problem of the Tyranny of the Majority -- e.g., the idea that torturing a relatively small number of Christians in the Colosseum was and is justified if it made a sufficient number of spectators sufficiently happy.

    Indeed, I was so impressed that I attempted to discuss it with Sea Org staff in the staff cafeteria at Big Blue. (I was never officially Sea Org but had certain access -- long story.) The result was me non-intentionally and innocently enturbulating the shit out of a number of Sea Orgers, and me getting kicked out of cafeteria.. (I was enthusiastically and respectfully engaging in massively verbal tech and "other practices" before I knew it was "wrong")

    One problem with Ron's "the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics" formulation was that it was completely inconsistent with the rest of the Ethics Tech, including but not limited to KSW, the condition formulas and the ever proliferating hard and fast rules in the HCOPLs, etc. It was like Ron never recognized the inconsistency of having both a "balancing test" (i.e., "the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics") and "bright line" rules not only as a part of the same ethical system, but supposedly applicable to the same, specific issues and set of facts.

    Finally, I'll note that I've seen Execs who have been confronted by a public with specific HCOPLs and HCOBs telling them that the Exec cannot do what he wants to do rely on a "greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics" argument to justify the Exec's position. Of course, if the public tried to rely on a "greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics" argument to "disobey" a HCOPL, HCOB, or other "bright line" rule, the public would be toast.
     
  20. Kha Khan

    Kha Khan Patron Meritorious