My Take On L. Ron Hubbard

[Johnd]

This is a question from a recent IQ Test. Questions like this test a general understanding of world events, and of similarities and differences.

27. Which one of these people do NOT fit in with the other four people? Note this is not a trick question.

D

I sympathize with those who still find SOME benefit, some bit of goodness, something useful gained from their massive investments in scn, that there's a baby somewhere in the bathwater. It's hard to admit you blundered so miserably. It was for me.

But this--at least in many cases--seems sort of like saying nazism wasn't so bad because of the Autobahn and the volkswagen. Thanks Adolf for highways and economy cars--we'd still be on horseback without you. Or finding some flecks of gold in a salted mine and defending your decision to invest your life savings in a devastating con. And I sympathize because I did something like that.

Keep the car, keep the gold, but it's time to admit that it really was overwhelmingly a disaster. A write-off. You are capable of having profound experiences quite on your own without owing anything to anyone or to any know-it-all ideology. Dump the lingo. Dump the smug certainty. Dump the adulation of source. Dump the obedience and dump scientology.

Just my 2 cents.


john

 

[Claire Swazey]

Anyone who spends years in CofS and is able to turn around later and criticize Hubbard and admit that he fucked up, lied, etc- has made tremendous strides in their personal development.

Nobody should crap all over that. Venture an opinion- yes. But crap all over it? No.

 

[Jquepublic]

D

I sympathize with those who still find SOME benefit, some bit of goodness, something useful gained from their massive investments in scn, that there's a baby somewhere in the bathwater. It's hard to admit you blundered so miserably. It was for me.

But this--at least in many cases--seems sort of like saying nazism wasn't so bad because of the Autobahn and the volkswagen. Thanks Adolf for highways and economy cars--we'd still be on horseback without you. Or finding some flecks of gold in a salted mine and defending your decision to invest your life savings in a devastating con. And I sympathize because I did something like that.

Keep the car, keep the gold, but it's time to admit that it really was overwhelmingly a disaster. A write-off. You are capable of having profound experiences quite on your own without owing anything to anyone or to any know-it-all ideology. Dump the lingo. Dump the smug certainty. Dump the adulation of source. Dump the obedience and dump scientology.

Just my 2 cents.


john

IMO, much if not all of what works in Scn came from other sources anyway. And some of it does work. Not as stated, IMO, but I've experienced and I've observed relief and insight from some of the steps of the lower grade chart, and from this or that rundown.

I suppose like everything else it's a situation where YMMV.

 

[Helena Handbasket]

Yup. Except for the fact that opting for one stupid myth over another stupid myth seems silly, when you can just study science.

... and the myths of science.

Even science doesn't agree with science. They can't agree on whether light is a particle or a wave. Young's double slit experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment kinda proves that it's both (and neither).

The Big Bang theory (the theory, not the TV show), Einstein's relativity, and quantum mechanics all say one thing, but the SQK theory http://www.etheric.com/LaVioletteBooks/Book-SQK.html (which I like) says another.

About the Big Bang theory (the TV show, not the theory): I'm either proud or embarrassed (I haven't decided which) to say I understand all of what they're talking about.

Helena

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Even science doesn't agree with science. They can't agree on whether light is a particle or a wave. Young's double slit experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment kinda proves that it's both (and neither). ...

Bad example. Physicists are in full agreement. It is neither.

The ideas, 'particle' and 'wave' are human mental conceptions used to apprehend the world around us. As such they are abstractions and there is no reason to believe that light IS either, although it has been observed to possess and indeed be characterized by properties associated with BOTH.

Light is something which we commonly describe by referring its observed properties to the mathematical abstractions of the wave and the particle, but which is in fact something else entirely.

See quantum electro-dynamics theory for a more complete description.

The mistake is in believing that the physical universe necessarily complies with the way humans commonly choose to think about it. That is not only not necessarily so, the results of 20th century physics has been that it is quite apparently necessarily not so.


Mark A. Baker