AnonOrange
Gold Meritorious Patron
Hubbard stole the e-meter. The patent originator got fair gamed and Hubbard took the credit for the patent.
Last edited:
Hubbard stole the e-meter. The patent originator got fair gamed and Hubbard took the credit.
Soderqvist1: L. Ron Hubbard was to me a source of organization of knowledge, whatever its merit!
Soderqvist1: Volney Mathison was not first with E-meters, Alfred Korzybski in Science and Sanity (1933), have already mentioned that the Psycho-galvanometer is under investigation by Science. Btw, where have Hubbard said that; “you should not look for the Origins and development to Scientology outside Scientology”, or “you shall not study other systems”? Furthermore; isn’t rather common that Religious Leaders are saying that their own religion is the only way to god?
Fundamentals of Thought
Page 18: One is self-determined, then, in any situation in which he is fighting. He is pan-determined in any situation which he is controlling.To become pan-determined rather than only selfdetermined, it is necessary to view both sides.
the e-meter was a party gag back in the 1940s, before Hubbard added it to his scam
Hubbard didn't even come up with the word "Scientology"; he stole that too!
Soderqvist1: Volney Mathison was not first with E-meters, Alfred Korzybski in Science and Sanity (1933), have already mentioned that the Psycho-galvanometer is under investigation by Science.
this is a bullshit apologist answer.
No. It is a simple recognition of the dichotomy between the absence of absolutes and Hubbard's tendency to speak absolutely. LRH cautioned about absolutes almost as much as he spoke in them.
Some people "get" the distinction and the implications thereof. Others have a harder time with it. This may be complicated for them by their own personal experiences with the cult.
The first reference to using galvanic principles for the purposes of spirituality & communication of which I am aware was Thomas Alva Edison. He discussed it in the first edition of his autobiography of which Hubbard was certainly aware. Edison is one of the individuals Hubbard acknowledged as "having made contributions".
Edison's comments were in some ways similar to references to "bt's", a fact with which his family, being more traditional "orthodox" christians, was immensely uncomfortable. After his death they ordered that the book be edited and revised removing all such references from subsequent editions. The original volumes remained in circulation and can still be found to this day. I also seem to recall a reference that it had been re-issued more recently in it's original form, but that may not be true.
Shortly after leaving the Co$ in '81 and while I was on OT III in the "independent field" of the day, I ran across an original edition of Edison's book in a public library. It was an interesting read for many reasons but I was especially amused by the stuff the family hadn't wanted in print.
Mark A. Baker
Is it all based on one man’s work?
Credit in particular is due to:
“Anaxagoras, Thomas Paine, Aristotle, Thomas Jefferson, Socrates, René Descartes, Plato, James Clerk Maxwell, Euclid, Charcot, Lucretius, Herbert Spencer, Roger Bacon, William James, Francis Bacon, Sigmund Freud, Isaac Newton, van Leeuwenhoek, Cmdr. Joseph Thompson (MC) USN, William A. White, Voltaire, Will Durant, Count Alfred Korzybski, and my instructors in atomic and molecular phenomena, mathematics and the humanities at George Washington University and at Princeton.”
Scientology fundamentals By L. Ron Hubbard
But don't let me see any of them come sucking around here trying to horn in on my cash cow! - LRH
-snip-
Edison's comments were in some ways similar to references to "bt's", a fact with which his family, being more traditional "orthodox" christians, was immensely uncomfortable. After his death they ordered that the book be edited and revised removing all such references from subsequent editions. The original volumes remained in circulation and can still be found to this day. I also seem to recall a reference that it had been re-issued more recently in it's original form, but that may not be true.
Shortly after leaving the Co$ in '81 and while I was on OT III in the "independent field" of the day, I ran across an original edition of Edison's book in a public library. It was an interesting read for many reasons but I was especially amused by the stuff the family hadn't wanted in print.
Is it all based on one man’s work?
Although Dianetics and Scientology were discovered by L. Ron Hubbard, he wrote: “Acknowledgment 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, René Descartes, Plato, James Clerk Maxwell, Euclid, Charcot, Lucretius, Herbert Spencer, Roger Bacon, William James, Francis Bacon, Sigmund Freud, Isaac Newton, van Leeuwenhoek, Cmdr. Joseph Thompson (MC) USN, William A. White, Voltaire, Will Durant, Count Alfred Korzybski, and my instructors in atomic and molecular phenomena, mathematics and the humanities at George Washington University and at Princeton.”
http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part12/Chp36/pg0636-a.html
-snip Scientology propaganda link-
Hubbard didn't only plagiarize other subjects, he plagiarized his pretentious 'Acknowledgements' (to the great thinkers of history) !
See page 9 of 'Science and Sanity' by Alfred Korzybski ("To the works of"):
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=198036&postcount=142
lol I doubt Hubbard had any idea what Edison was up to, but it does make for nice revisionist history.
Hubbard according to at least some of his associates was familiar with Edison's book. On some occasions when he was citing other's prior contributions he directly mentions Edison. Whether he was referring to these ideas or others is not certain.
The book had been published originally around the time of Edison's death in the early '30s. He speaks of the possibility of using galvanic phenomena to communicate with spirits and also of his own pre-cursor ideas akin to modern concepts of "intelligent cellular automata".
Mathison was the developer of an actual gsr meter which became the prototype of the emeter. His work was significantly later. Whether he was familiar with and influenced by Edison's ideas, I've no clue. It is not at all unlikely given the influence of Edison & his ideas generally.
The fallacy of sourcing: it's not really a question of either/or. The answers are often multiple.
Mark A. Baker