LRH's Reading Habits and Sources

[fisherman]

Kha Khan,

I was honored by your cross-post to WWP and really appreciate your kind words! I apologize for not responding sooner. I always try write when I have time to do it carefully and this was my first opportunity.

While I've taken quite a few philosophy courses, my degree is in 'Intellectual History' -- an obscure name for the 'history of ideas', including philosophy. With your degree in Political Science, I'm sure we've traipsed over much the same ground! Wouldn't it be fun to go back and do it again? !! You wrote:

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.

Mr. Hubbard's superficiality is so transparent, that I'd guess anyone with a 'Poly Sci' or strong Liberal Arts background sees that almost immediately. Still, Hubbard presents himself very cleverly and his specific errors are not obvious until you start reading the material. Listening to him speak, I imagine he sounded fairly convincing.

I agree with your "one exception being Ron's reliance on Alfred Korsybski..." There's biographical information that Mary Sue was reading Korsbyski and sorta forced it on Hubbard. He wasn't interested until she started reading it to him out loud. As I recall the story, Hubbard ejaculated a "Wow, I can use that" kinda statement and they started reading it together. According to that account it was only one volume and I think "General Semantics".

I read some of "General Semantics" and it aligns closely with what Hubbard 'thinks' he's saying with regard to 'triple AAA' logic.

My understanding is that Korsybski's linguistic abstractions, 'riffing' on verb forms, "to be" "is" "is not" -- were pounced on by the pop-psychobabblists in the "Human Potential Movement" and taken to represent just about anything. I don't know if Ron used this bastardization of Korsybski to generate "as is-ness" but it's likely the origin of Werner Erhart's "IT". Maybe Korsybski is to blame for Bill Clinton's struggle over the definition of "IS" -- anything's possible!

Korsybski was a legitimate thinker, but a rather minor character in the scheme of things. If not for the 'Esalen' crowd I doubt anyone would have ever heard of him.

I found your comment regarding Hinayana Buddhism, very intriquing!

... 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?

My knowledge of 'eastern' thought is superficial, but I started looking through Will and Ariel Durant's "Story of Civilization" and couldn't help but wonder if this might be the 'real' source of Hubbard's "Buddhism". Volume III of the Durant's magnificent encyclopedia of thought is entitled "India and Her Neighbors" and includes these nine chapters:

The Foundations of India
Buddha
From Alexander to Aurangzeb
The Life of the People
The Paradise of the Gods
The Life of the Mind
The Literature of India
Indian Art
A Christian Epilogue
On the fall of India to the Moguls: “The bitter lesson that may be drawn from this tragedy is that eternal vigilance is the price of civilization. A nation must love peace, but keep its powder dry.” (p.463)

The Durant's "Story of Civilization" is an 11 volume encyclopedia and carries illustrations. I can't help but wonder if Hubbard's reincarnated 'red-haired' "Buddha" might be found in Volume III !! If you can find a copy of "Story of Civilization" I'd be fascinated to hear your opinion! I don't have the background to do this effectively.

Writers use a lot of abridged reference materials. I do, anyway. It's part of the craft. However, few of us build a religion out of the "Encyclopedia Brittanica". My 'working hypothesis' is that this is what Hubbard did -- using the Durant's "Story of Civilization" (and a few other works).

If you read through the chapter titles in all 11 volumes, it's not hard to imagine "Story of Civilization" as the basis of ALL of Mr. Hubbard's "scholasticism" and the primary source of his plagerism. Take a look at this 'ling' and see what you think!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_Civilization

You wrote:

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.

Based on your intelligent posts and your talent for traversing the 'wild and wolly' paths of both ESMB and WWP - I'd say your education stood you in good stead! That's pretty solid evidence of intellectual independence!

I'm a big believer in solid liberal arts education as the best foundation for pretty much anything. When you learn how much folly repeats itself in history, it's a pretty good innoculation. It may not 'work' in every situation, but it's the best we have!

And certainly, anyone can be drawn in by personal and emotional aspects. If that were not true, we'd have no art!

Fortunately, I was never 'in' scientology, but I recognize that at several points in my life, I might very well have been drawn to Mr. Hubbard's sweeping idealism.

My background is a bit similar to Vaughn Young's. When I accidentally stumbled upon Vaughn's interviews, I got fascinated to learn what attracted him to scientology.

At that time, I knew nothing about scientology and had no preconceived notions. I wasn't 'looking for answers' - I simply got hold of a copy of "Dianetics" and read it. When I didn't find anything particularly compelling, I concluded that a 'smart guy' like Vaughn would need to be 'reading in' meaning that I couldn't find. It seemed that "looking for an answer" had to be the 'hook' that made "Dianetics" sensible to those who admired it.

Out of curiousity, I started researching scientology and found my way to the message boards.

I don't have any animosity toward scientology as a 'literature' and feel that people should believe whatever they like. At the same time, I don't happen to see anything particularly compelling, attractive, or unique about scientology and find little basis on which to call it a 'religion'.

Now that I've learned of the abuses concurrent with the history of scientology, I do believe it's time to 'close the book' on the organization responsible. And, I hope those that have been hurt, will receive fair justice.

Thanks again for taking an interest in my efforts. I really do enjoy your posts! When I see Kha Khan on any website, I always 'click' to see what you have to say!

Best, fisherman

 

[Veda]

One minor note - the Sara quote in the opening post is from 'Messiah or Madman?', from a 1986 interview of Sara.

Amazon books won't link right now for some reason, so here's a link to the book (chapters list) from an old post (third down):

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=11732&postcount=1

The relevant chapters (to Sara and/or Korzybski, etc.) are:

Part Two:

Chapter 2 'Origins of Dianetics'
Chapter 3 'Dianetics, The Modern Science of mental Health'
Chapter 4 'The Kidnapping'
Chapter 5 'Sara Speaks, after 35 years of silence...' etc.
and Chapter 9 'Clay in the Masters Hands', the Lower Levels of Scientology'

 

[Ted]

The 'Equinox' circa 1911:

http://the-equinox.org/vol1/index.html

Following the above link I get a warning message that the site may contain harmful stuff to my computer.

When I go to the same link through Google I get no such message. Wassup wid dat? :confused2:

 

[Zinjifar]

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?

Well, thanks for an interesting discussion, both you and Fisherman. I've got one comment here.

While 'hinayana' is often considered pejorative, I can't say that I see it that way. I'd read it as merely 'small boat' buddhism as opposed to the 'mahayana' 'big boat', and I think those terms pretty accurately reflect the actual point of the difference.

While 'mahayana' proposes that the way to enlightenment is to take *everybody* up to enlightenment, that is also the excuse for secular and societal effort and organization. Hinayana, on the other hand is a *personal* issue and more clearly reflects a very personal spirituality.

So, my question wouldn't be why Ron would use a pejorative term, but, why he would pick a buddhist direction that's diametrically opposed to his *political* aspirations for Scientology. At least by the time Scientology superseded Dianetics it was *all* about 'saving the world'/Clearing the Planet and making Scientology Universal.

Maybe He was just confused

As to General Semantics; I suspect Ron was exposed to it through His acquaintanceships in the post-war SF community where Korzybski was a popular source of inspiration; especially for Heinlein and Van Vogt.

Zinj

 

[Winston Smith]

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.

I would posit that simply writing does not a good writer make. Yes, he had a willing publisher that would dutifully put in print his delusions, but that does nothing for me. As far as being a "very well read man," my perspective is he was a very accomplished con artist, making many think he was well read.

 

[fisherman]

Seek and ye shall find, this from:

John Atack, Blue Sky, Part 9 Chapter 1, 'The Founder'

Hubbard read voraciously, mostly pulp fiction. There is nothing to suggest that he studied any serious subject in depth. It is doubtful that he read much Freud, or Korzybski (he claimed Heinlein had explained Korzybski to him, though his second wife, Sara, says she did). He read popularizations. In a lecture on study he complained that the contemporary Encyclopaedia Britannica was too difficult for him, it was written by experts for experts, so he used the pre-World War One edition. In what appeared to be a joke, he said he intended to use children's textbooks in future. This parallels his self-confessed method of story research, described in a 1930s article called "Search for Research." He would read the Britannica entry, and then skim through any readily available books referred to in the entry's bibliography. The story had to be written in a couple of days, so research had to be fast. Whole sections of Scientology also seem to have been fashioned in this way. The original Dianetic techniques can be derived almost entirely from three short Freud lectures. Hubbard's statements about Buddhism also show a lack of study. In fact, he only started to incorporate what he believed to be Buddhist ideas in the early 1950s, after he had been given an extensive library of mystical and religious books. One of his staff read and summarized the contents. Hubbard displayed no specialized knowledge of any subject, except of course Scientology.

fisherman

 

[HappyGirl]

Based on his personal history and his writing, it's more likely that he 'cobbled' together the culturally fashionable ideas of his time.

In addition to the content of the book (The Holographic Universe) being generally mind expanding, I found these excerpts to be eye-opening in a completely different way. From page 10, talking about Karl Pribram, a neurophysiologist at Stanford University, and one of the two main architects of the idea of the holographic universe:

The puzzle that first started Pribram on the road to formulating his holographic model was the question of how and where memories are stored in the brain. In the early 1940s, when he first became interested in this mystery, it was generally believed that memories were localized in the brain. Each memory a person had, such as the memory of the last time you saw your grandmother, or the memory of the fragrance of a gardenia you sniffed when you were sixteen, was believed to have a specific location somewhere in the brain cells. Such memory traces were called engrams, and although no one knew what an engram was made of -- whether it was a neuron or perhaps even a special kind of molecule -- most scientists were confident it was only a matter of time before one would be found.

From Page 67 - In the 1950s Stanislav Grof, chief of psychiatric research at the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center and an assistant professor of psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, experimented with LSD:

One common experience was the reliving of what it was like to be in the womb. At first Grof thought these were just imagined experiences, but as the evidence continued to amass he realized that the knowledge of embryology inherent in the descriptions was often far superior to the patients’ previous education in the area. Patients accurately described certain characteristics of the heart sounds of their mother, the nature of acoustic phenomena in the peritoneal cavity, specific details concerning blood circulation in the placenta, and even details about the various cellular and biochemical processes taking place. They also described important thoughts and feelings their mother had had during pregnancy and events such as physical traumas she had experienced.

I’m sure LRH never read articles about this stuff in the 40s and 50s. I’m sure he came up with engrams and prenatals all by himself. He was such a genius, after all!

Montague Ullman is the founder of the Dream Laboratory at the Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, NY, responsible for many of the ESP dream experiments of the 1960s and 1970s. And who does this description of a manic depressive (from his dream experiments) sound like?!?!? From p. 64:

Ullman believes that certain aspects of holographic thinking are even more pronounced in manic-depressives. Whereas the schizophrenic only gets whiffs of the holographic order, the manic is deeply involved in it and grandiosely identifies with its infinite potential. “He can’t keep up with all the thoughts and ideas that come at him in so overwhelming a way,” states Ullman. “He has to lie, dissemble, and manipulate those about him so as to accommodate to his expansive vista. The end result, of course, is mostly chaos and confusion mixed with occasional outbursts of creativity and success in consensual reality.” In turn, the manic becomes depressed after he returns from this surreal vacation and once again faces the hazards and chance occurrences of everyday life.

(I'm quoting myself from this post: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=229406&postcount=27)

 

[fisherman]

HappyGirl,

Very interesting! A friend sent me this article on NDE that discusses the possibility that memory may reside outside the brain in the form of a 'radio' transmission (EMF). This is a credible study on a rather wild idea.
http://www.iands.org/research/impor..._lommel_m.d._continuity_of_consciousness.html

--------------------

Veda,

Thanks for catching the mistake in my OP. I checked my notes and found the quotation from Sara Hubbard is from Bent Corydon's, "Messiah or Madman", p 290

Here's the full quotation:

He flunked pretty badly in those courses. He was too erratic. He was too neurotic to sit down and study. He never went into anything in any depth. He would just pick up the jargon. He was a dilletante.

fisherman

 

[fisherman]

Kha Khan,

RE: "Greatest good for the greatest number"

It's taken me a few days to 'think through' the second half of your post.

In 1791, Jeremy Bentham's "Utilitarianism" (the original 'full strength' formula) was uncompromising. Bentham viewed "greatest good for the greatest number" as a simple formula that could be applied to any situation or organization. For Bentham, it was all about 'applied pragmatism'. For example, Bentham's octagonal prison design, called "Panopticon", placed the guards in the middle and the prisoners on the perimeter, because this provided the most efficient use of 'human resources'.

Bentham's "Strict Utilitarianism" is the one most often described in encyclopedias and popular works (like Durant's) because "Greatest Good For The Greatest Number" is relatively easy to understand. Not surprisingly, Hubbard's "Greatest Good For The Greatest Number Of Dynamics" is a 'carbon copy' of the 'textbook' version of Benthamitic Utilitarianism.

This (version 1.0) of Utilitarianism is so 'cut and dried' that many criticized Bentham as 'not a philosopher at all' - but more a 'management consultant'. Some philosophers ridiculed, "greatest good for the greatest number" as a mere 'popularity contest'. Nonetheless, early "Utilitarianism" makes a strong claim and is tough to entirely refute in strictly philosophic terms.

The strongest refutation is precisely the issue you raised - "tyranny of the majority". How do we know for certain the viewpoint of the minority, does not represent "the greatest good for the greatest number" ? Even Bentham saw this problem and 'backed off' his early stridency by suggesting he 'really' intended "greatest good for the greatest number" to be a 'measuring tool' rather than a strict basis for decision.

In other words, Bentham 'waffled' - suggesting "greatest good" should be used to determine the best course of action, so a 'reasoned exception' could be made to protect the minority. This doesn't answer the philosophic question and since 'exceptions' are a 'no no' in philosophy - Bentham's latter day viewpoint put him in all kinds of 'intellectual hot water'. Elie Halevy suggests Bentham may have softened in old age, (see "Growth of Philosophic Radicalism") but Bentham was a 'tough bird' and I think he was simply troubled by the inscrutible contradiction.

You wrote:

...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.

I can see how you might consider Hubbard's '8 dynamics' a tempering force on "the tyranny of the minority" - however, if you consider these points, you may conclude it doesn't quite hold up.

First, "Ron's addition" is not really an addition at all, since it's entirely what Bentham intended. Bentham very definitely meant "greatest good for the greatest number of - blank". "Panopticon" was Bentham's own application of "the greatest good for the greatest number of prisoners and guards". Other's examples include, "...greatest good for the greatest number of stockholders in a corporation", "... greatest number of 'animal and vegetable substances in a frigidarium", "greatest number of borrowers using money contracts". "Ron's addition" is not new or unique, it's Benthamitic 'standard tech'.

More importantly, even Bentham recognized Utilitarianism is best applied narrowly, to specific subjects. I think Bentham might suggest Ron 'squirreled the tech' by applying it to overly broad, generalized constructs. Utilitarianism doesn't equate well with metaphysics (for obvious reasons). If anything, I would say that Ron's connection of Utilitarianism to "Self, Family and Sex, Groups, Mankind, All Life Forms, Physical Universe, Spirituality, Infinity or Supreme Being" is another clear indication that Hubbard had little real understanding of philosophy.

Lastly, 'Practical Success' is the ultimate criteria for Utilitarianism and Hubbard's appending the 8 dynamics doesn't appear to have prevented much "tyranny of the minority".

All that said, it's possible I don't understand the terms contained in the '8 dynamics' sufficiently to see this as you do. But still, Utilitarianism is a 'practical philosophy' and I can't imagine Bentham trying to encompass these abstract concepts within its' framework. Bentham didn't believe in "spirituality" or "God" and that in itself, is something of an indication.

You wrote:

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.

I think you saw the contradictions rather clearly. I'm pretty certain you saw them better than Mr. Hubbard did.

To be honest, your education surpasses Mr. Hubbard's training by a long distance. I suspect you saw the philosophic contradiction he was incapable of recognizing. Mr Hubbard (to his credit) was a successful 'pound it out' fiction writer - with a 'trained ear' for weaving together disparate source material. It's always interesting, to me, that few emphasize the fact that Hubbard was never a journalist. Not once in his life did Hubbard write an objective article on anything. He was a fiction writer. Not surprisingly, you uncovered the 'discordant note' in the logic of a fiction narrative.


Best, fisherman