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

A Thumb Nail Sketch of L Ron Hubbard

Discussion in 'General Scientology Discussion' started by lkwdblds, Jul 26, 2010.

View Users: View Users
  1. TG1

    TG1 Angelic Poster

    That is a great observation, Panda. Thanks.
  2. lkwdblds

    lkwdblds Crusader

    One Reply to Leon and EP Both

    Kudos to you Leon and also to EP who wrote the post after yours. It is great to have the two of you add your magic to this mix. You guys are both strong in certain areas which relate to this OP and it is great that you are both here pitching in with your well informed comments.

    Leon, in your second to last paragraph, don't you mean, early in the last century and not early in this century? I hope someone such as Fisherman reads your post. I think you answer some of Fisherman's questions as to just how well read LRH was. As to those Affimations, it is good that Ron evolved positive thinking into the more potent concept of intention but the problem is that many of his intentions concerned primarily his own self aggrandizement and his own glory and gaining of power over others. He definitely seems to have some real second dynamic issues in the affirmations and these manifested much later into some poor policies written and enforced on Sea Org members regarding their Second Dynamics.
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2010
  3. Leon

    Leon Gold Meritorious Patron

    Quuote from the 'abreaction' reference:

    "though traumata of clearly aetiological significance were occasionally present, the majority of them appeared very improbable. Many traumata were so unimportant, even so normal, that they could be regarded at most as a pretext for the neurosis. But what especially aroused my criticism was the fact that not a few traumata were simply inventions of fantasy and had never happened at all"

    Two things are immediatelt apparent: Tghe preclear was not 'in session' and the auditors code is being violated by auditor not accepting the preclear's data. I wonder too whether the auditor went earlier when he should have or just stayed with this one incident.

    All told, this shows a failure in the practitioner and not in the technology. And jjudging by what one has seen of pscycho-analytic practice in books and movies, this degree of evauation, evaluation etc continues to thjis day.

    Basic Auditing and the Auditor's Code lie at the root of all successful auditiing in Scio. The critics of the subject never ever grasp that. They only look at the techniqes and condemn them as unworkable when they don't even know what to do with the techniques nor how to use them.
  4. afaceinthecrowd

    afaceinthecrowd Gold Meritorious Patron

    Chewin' my Nail

    This is a nice piece of work, Lakey.:yes:

    An excellent observation, Panda.:thumbsup:

    El Ron did not have “faith” or believe much in Hisself’s own “Tech”, especially from ’66 or so forward. During that era, El Ron decreed that:

    Big League Sales was the Senior Tech over ARCU, Tone Scale, TWC, BDH, ect., ect..

    PTS/SP Victim/Witch Hunt was the Senior Tech over Gr O-IV & 5 % 5A.

    Intell and Attack was Senior Tech over the fundamental essays and principles of Scn.

    On and on and on the examples are rife.

    The majority of the “Tech” that was released after “66 or so was El Ron’s attempting to “hotwire” the existing “Tech” to handle various “Case Phenomena” that Hisself deemed as impediments or problems of others to Hisself, in poorly defined or generalized categories pertaining to Hisself and Hisself’s hidden goals, needs, wants, desires, compulsions, etc. I see most of the “Tech” from this period as a spiritual/metaphysical placebo at best, and the inculcating of spiritual/metaphysical “parasites” at worst.

    I have covered some of my take on the period up to ’66 and forward on the Apollo ’73 thread. Up until ’66 El Ron was in the “thick” of things, so to speak, and via ACC’s, Congresses, SHSBC, etc. and a steady and substantial stream of correspondence from the field, Hisself was literally being “spoon fed” “White Scientology” by legions of bright, dedicated and decent folks. With KSW, Sea Org, Apollo, SO #1 line, Ethics, etc. El Ron cut Hisself off from the “pool” of creativity, common sense and potentials. Left to Hisself’s own isolated devices and faculties El Ron did as Hisself always did—El Ron winged it and “Free Wheeled’, “Soloed” and “C/Sed” Hisself off into oblivion.

    By de facto, this hotwiring manifested as “short circuits” that have “fried” many a person, probably fried El Ron in the end and will, ultimately, fricassee the practice of institutionalized Scn.

    During the ’50 to ’66 and the ’67 to ’86 era’s there were periods of time that one of El Ron’s sons, ultimate insiders, were among the top “Tech Terminals on the Planet”. I got “in” after Nibs was gone, but I knew of him and a little bit about him from the materials and “old timers"…Quentin I knew, personally. Thanks to Bent Corydon and Dennis Erlich we have insight into Nibs’ and Q’s views regarding El Ron and the “Tech”. These are great and important contributions to the body of knowledge and I, personally, wish thank both Bent and Dennis for their courage in making this information available. I knew both Dennis and Bent…not well…but enough to be confident that they are both smart and decent straight shooters. Q was a very bright kid and, as he matured, he more and more spoke his mind and had an insightful, accurate and sometimes cutting wit to him which endeared him to most, save his father. There is much to be gleaned and learned from story of Nibs and Q.

    Having said all that, from my experience in personal service to El Ron, there is no doubt that he was exceptionally bright, driven and possessed a number of talents in the “gifted” range. Unfortunately, El Ron never lived by, nor conducted Hisself’s affairs accordant with, the cobbled and collaborative “philosophy” that poured forth via Hisself’s fingers and mouth. Following “The Rules” was for Us, the Homo Saps. The story of El Ron during the two eras I have delineated is one of increasing loathing, isolation, individuation not only of and from Us but from Humanity itself. Had El Ron actually sought to follow the basic principles that all of Us were trying to live with and by, the Story of Scientology would be one of a bona fide—albeit somewhat “out there” and quirky—New Age Religion, instead of a heartless and manipulative greed-based demonic cult.

    El Ron, in actuality, was a walking, talking and writing parasitic spiritual/metaphysical placebo…Mystic’s “Tulpa”, if you will.:coolwink::confused2:

    Last edited: Jul 26, 2010
  5. afaceinthecrowd

    afaceinthecrowd Gold Meritorious Patron

    Thank you, Leon.:)

    Question: Wouldn't giving the PC "your item is" be a form of evaluation?

    Observation: I have had a very competent Psychotherapist "evaluate" for me...not as an "answer" or "cure" but as an aid to "looking" and "dismantleing". It has been very helpful to "opening things up" and "accurate, productive and useful" inquiry. I have had others "evaluate" for me and it has been helpful. I have also had others evaluate for me and it has been awful and cruel. Competence and "consider the source" are very applicable to this, I beleive. Also very important is "intent".

    There are several valid initial primary research methods that El Ron could have, and Scn could to this day, involve themselves in to give "The Tech" more validity, acceptance and creedence in the world. However, El Ron and the CofS are too self rightous and paranoid to ever do this. El Ron couldn't, and Hisself's alter-ego construct can't, have being wrong about anything. Hisself sought, and Hisself's construct seeks, to make all others wrong.:coolwink:

    Last edited: Jul 26, 2010
  6. lkwdblds

    lkwdblds Crusader

    Thanks for coming through for me Face!! You have written some incomparable metaphors here, stuff that HelluvaHoax could learn a thing or two from and I quote, "Ron winged it and "Free Wheeled", "C/Sed" and "Soloed" himself into oblivion." How clever is that piece of writing and yet it is absolute truth, just ask Otto Roos!

    Then there is this quote from above as well,

    "By de facto, this hotwiring manifested as “short circuits” that have “fried” many a person, probably fried El Ron in the end and will, ultimately, fricassee the practice of institutionalized Scn."

    Again, truth combined with clever similes. So, Fisherman and other scholarly researchers, take hee! Institutionalized Scientology, led by DM is headed for the ovens to be fricasseed.

    Thus spaketh "AFaceInTheCrowd", the Will Rogers of Scientology Philosophers who is at heart just a good down home Southern country boy who is a "straightshooter and calls 'em as he sees 'em."
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2010
  7. fisherman

    fisherman Patron with Honors


    As requested! :)

    As usual, you've attracted superb commentary with your thread! It's great to see knowledgeable posters delving deeper to explore what made Hubbard tick. The message boards have often resisted such attempts.

    BTW: It's never been my goal to "score" Hubbard's scholarly aptitude against some abstract standard. It's Mr. Hubbard that raises this point. When I study someone, I try to understand what they say and take them at their word. Next, I look for what shaped those views and then search for disparities that might be illuminating.

    Hubbard's "ranking" as an "intellectual" isn't something I'd look to, if he hadn't promoted it. Frankly, I can't think of even one "great thinker" who portrayed themselves as... "a great thinker!" ;-) That Hubbard made such a point of this, is fascinating in itself.

    Hubbard portrayed himself as a renaissance man of superior intellectual gifts. The evidence doesn't support that. LRH was NOT a self taught intellectual like Eric Hoffer or Samuel Gompers. Hoffer and certainly Gompers fit your "man of action" description of Hubbard as, "hands on guy who liked to get deeply involved in society and live life rather than concentrate on reading about it." However, unlike Hubbard, poverty drove these men to long hours studying the classics as a means to equalize their economic and social standing.

    Hubbard was a very different cat! Hubbard's middle class upbringing afforded him educational opportunities that he failed to take advantage of. Swavely Prep School has a long history and a fine reputation. Hubbard squandered his acceptance to Swavely at a time when very few people in the country could even consider that level of education.

    What, if anything, does that tell us about the man? Why does Hubbard reject the "ivy halls" and later exert so much effort to portray himself as "learned?" Why didn't Hubbard tap the anti-intellectualism that is always "vogue" in American society and simply deride the "eggheads?" Why does he "play it both ways?"

    Furthermore, why did Hubbard make long lists of "great authors" he felt indebted to? That's not common among well educated individuals, it's kinda freshman undergraduate behavior, "I are smart! Look at all the hard books I read!" What, if anything, does this tell us about LRH the man, not LRH the myth?

    Delving into such qualitative questions is more instructive than attempts to pidgeon-hole singular viewpoints. Your idea to look into the curriculum at Swavely and Woodward would help in this. Knowing what books, classes, and assignments Hubbard gravitated toward in his formative years might reveal details yet to be explained.

    Along these lines, Kookaburra's information is VERY interesting,

    Fascinating! Why would Hubbard join a monthly book-club? Specialty book clubs identify worthy titles for a general readership. That's a great service for the general public, but not especially useful to scholars and intellectuals. A historian doesn't buy a lot of popular histories. "Story of Philosophy" made Will Durant a best-selling book club author, but I doubt he was one of their better customers! It's just a different audience.

    Does Kookabura's information tell us anything? I don't know, that's the puzzle! Did LRH join a book club for reasons that have nothing to do with this discussion? Were the books purchased for show? Were they shelved in E. Grinstead or sent to the ship? Did he join a book club for appearance sake? As an automated reminder to everyone that "Ron reads heavy books?" Kookaburra offers a fascinating tidbit we can only speculate on.

    Whatever the reality, it's generally agreed that Hubbard was clearly obsessed with "image control." How Hubbard maneuvered his reading to promote himself is a more fertile question than the quantity of books he digested.

    PandaTermint strikes gold along these lines with this comment,

    IMO, Panda "nails" the essence of why so many have been persuaded that Hubbard was a well-read intellectual, when that's simply not true. Drawing on Panda's point, I suspect many judge Hubbard based on an arbitrary personal standard that can't be right nor wrong. They say something like, "Well, my Uncle Jimmy reads a lot and Ron read more than Uncle Jimmy, so..." That equation is logical insofar as it goes, but it's entirely subjective. Everyone has a different "Uncle Jimmy" and an opinion of Ron.

    What's astonishing to me is Hubbard ALWAYS comes out ahead in this equation, because he NEVER says or writes anything that can be objectively assessed. Hubbard NEVER "gives you a hook to hang your hat on." Hubbard is oblique, ALWAYS! He uses non-substantive phrases like "Kant didn't solve it..." "Keynes didn't understand..." "Socrates never finished..." Hubbard's wording implies he knows something but NEVER supplies anything remotely verifiable. I think Hubbard played VERY intentionally on this subjectivity.

    Isaac Rabl recognized this when he reviewed "Dianetics" for Scientific American,

    As Panda BRILLIANTLY points out, Hubbard "reflected as much as he projected" -- and simultaneously! Hubbard is just too slippery to let anyone pin him down. Hubbard is whatever we want him to be.

    When I studied what Hubbard wrote about philosophy, I tried to get around this, by comparing Hubbard to Will Durant. Instead of comparing Hubbard to MY idea of "well-read" -- it seemed unbiased to compare Hubbard, to HUBBARD'S ideal of a "well read scholar." Reading Hubbard's comments on Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, etc., I asked myself if Will Durant would consider LRH to be "well-read" on a qualitative basis. The answer is no.

    Hubbard could not be considered a renaissance man endowed with superior intellectual gifts, based on Hubbard's own idea of what that means. Hubbard does not compare favorably against Hubbard's own standard of intellectual prowess, Will Durant.

    Taking this just a little farther, I don't believe Will Durant considered himself a particularly "original" historian or a profound intellect (compared say, to his collegue, Hannah Arendt). Durant would never have placed himself in the top ranks of illustrious thinkers, so I don't see how we can put Hubbard there -- using Hubbard's own standards.

    The logic here isn't meant to be conclusive. It's an excercise to bring focus to a subjective topic. We need tools like this to avoid getting hooked into authoritative judgements that are false! Like this one!

    I can't find sufficient evidence to substantiate Ken Ogger's claims. I do see evidence to support AFaceInTheCrowd's marvelous depiction:

    As AFITC's says, "Ron winged it and "Free Wheeled" (an "incomparable metaphor" as Lakey says). This is what I meant writing that Hubbard doesn't really plagerize. Hubbard doesn't tarry long enough with other writers to plagerize them. Hubbard uses other writers to riff and "free wheel" with his own ideas. After all (as LRH said), "Socrates never solved ethics" -- Ron Hubbard did!

    I'd love to comment on all the intelligent ideas in this thread, but this is getting tl;dr -- even for me! It's really great to read the many viewpoints coming from all directions! That can only broaden everyone's understanding.
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2010
  8. Infinite

    Infinite Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller


    Lets consider your original assertion that I was addressing:

    Its not engrams specifically but abreaction therapy that is the basis for Hubbard's plagerism in regard to Dianetics. You then moved your position in this regard to one of: well, abreaction may well have been the genesis for dianetics but the practitioners were not "in session" - what ever that means - or otherwise doing it right. Ironically, you quote the very paragraph which shows the reason why practitioners accept abreaction as one of several useful tools but, ultimately, why it is unhelpful over the long term:

    Abreaction leads to the creation of fanatasy events. Scientology auditing, with its endless "running out" of these abreactions - termed engrams - only leads to the reinforcement of the fantasy while the hypnotic-like state engendered by auditing, supplements this misguided approach to "clearing" the PC.

    In terms of the wider picture, and specifically in relation to the "tech", I assert that there is a strong case to be made that, once Dianetics was rubbished in 1950, everything else Hubbard did in relation to it was not to fine tune the model but, rather, to force compliance with it: in effect, squeeze square pegs into round holes. It wasn't long after "Sonia Bianca/Ann Singer", Dianetic's first clear, so obviously floundered in 1950 before a public audience, that the concept of it being the PC's own fault that Dianetics didn't work became a part of the "tech". Thus, it became standard operating procedure that, should one gain no benefits from or even suffer as a result of dianetics, it is the recipient's own inabiltyto understand.

    Dianetics is the only "science of the mind" that blames its "patients" for not getting better.
  9. lkwdblds

    lkwdblds Crusader

    Fisherman - I've got a liittle bonus surprise for you!

    Fine post, Fisherman, very fine post! I really enjoyed reading that; to me, the real joy of panel discussion groups is to mutually exchange information with truth seekers who want to expand their understanding. This invites both posting pertinient information and then receiving back information in return.

    If everything you receive back just mirrors your own views and is only agreement and reinforcement, it gets B000000RING. What is really fun and where you learn things is to be challenged or disagreed with by a wisened poster. Then there is the capacity to change, to see that someone else's take in an area is equally valid or more valid than yours and then TO ADMIT THAT HIS POINT OF VIEW MAKES MORE SENSE THAN YOURS (of course this step is optional).

    Mr. Hubbard did not have that trait, he insisted that his viewpoint was always correct. I used to have tremendous resistance to admitting I was wrong, most people do but I blew away that consideration.

    Yvonne Jentzsch encouraged her staff, of which I was one, to seek out people more upbeat than ourseves and as smart or smarter and surround oneself with those people and they will lift you to their level and then together you can lift one another even higher. I found this to be good advice and have practiced it since the 1970's. Its working on the Apoollo '73 thread.

    And now, Fisherman, the surprise I promised you which will aid you in your research to put together a perfect mosaic of who Hubbard was. Kookaburra Private Messaged me that Hubbard oredered his mail order books, always right before he was scheduled to deliver a lecture or a series of lectures. He would do a quick study of these tomes in the days prior to the lecture to prep himself to be more self assured and more knowledgeable while he was delivering said lectures. This is a present to you from Kookaburra via me. It is right along your line of research so enjoy it.
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2010
  10. fisherman

    fisherman Patron with Honors


    Wow!! That's quite a gift! Thanks to you and kookaburra! :happydance:

    Direct corroboration that Hubbard "made it up as he went along" !!!

    Seriously, this is pretty huge! Others have pointed to Hubbard's rapid skimming of secondary sources and Hubbard himself recommended this as a solid technique for writing fiction. However, firsthand evidence that LRH used this method to develop Scientology materials is rare.

    Kookaburra's information isn't conclusive, but it certainly helps undercut the notion that Hubbard's ideas were the result of a long process of distillation.

    I will enjoy this! Thanks again! fisherman
  11. Thrak

    Thrak Gold Meritorious Patron

    That too is what makes the most sense to me. Sometimes I see people refer to ElRon as a master hypnotist with every word carefully written for an exact purpose. The only thing he was a master of was bullshit and he was quite good at that.
  12. Rmack

    Rmack Van Allen Belt Sunbather

    An outstanding evaluation.
  13. Leon

    Leon Gold Meritorious Patron

    Some thoughts of mine on what I think of L Ron Hubbard:

    # He was never a Scientologist and never followed its tenets. He was always a devotee of Aleister Crowley’s philosophical system and did whatever he wilt. His purpose was the attainment of power and dominion over others. And money.

    # He purposefully set up his own religion with the intention (among others) that it would blast his name and fame into eternity.

    # He did this by attempting to unravel the mystery of the human condition. He wanted a system which would undercut and make irrelevant all other religions, philosophies and psycho-therapies. His intention was that these should be demystified, and that the tools to fully unlock the human enigma - not only conceptually but in terms of practical, individually do-able experience - should be in the hands of the common man. He certainly did not achieve this fully, but he did make more progress than any other person before him ever did. His attempt at achieving this resulted in what is, in my opinion, his biggest and hopefully most lasting contribution to humankind.

    # He copied a lot from Crowley’s teachings and from that of the magical traditions, taking as a template the grade chart with levels to be attained and the idea of having a very BIG hurdle that had to be crossed to attain the highest states - the Abyss in magical tradition, the Wall of Fire in Scientology. ‘OT’ was presented the equivalent of Magus or Ipsissimus.

    # He was a compulsive liar. He manipulated people by controlling their opinion of him. He did this via the telling of lies. Truth and Lies were of equal value to him; he used whatever he deemed appropriate to the prevailing circumstances.

    # He stole useful ideas from wherever he could, made them his own, and incorporated them into his teachings wherever he chose.

    # He was utterly convinced of his own rightness and his own right to do as he pleased. He considered himself to be seperate from and above all other mortal humans. He was not ever answerable to any human requirements or demands, showing neither any obedience to the laws of the land nor to any human moral codes. “Do as thou wilt” was his only creed.

    # He knew best. Better by far than any other person. This made him a poor student - per the Scientology study datum: the biggest barrier to learning is the idea that one already knows it all - well, he knew it all already, or could discover it better than any other person had ever done or ever would do.

    # He protected his own interests by surrounding himself with thugs and using them to do any dirty work he considered necessary. This included getting rid of any so-called enemies or disobedient followers or people who were seen to be in competition to him.

    I could extend this list as long as I liked I suppose, but for me they all pale in comparison to item 3 above:

    # He did this by attempting to unravel the mystery of the human condition. He wanted a system which would undercut and make irrelevant all other religions, philosophies and psycho-therapies. His intention was that these should be demystified, and that the tools to fully unlock the human enigma - not only conceptually but in terms of practical, individually do-able experience - should be in the hands of the common man. He certainly did not achieve this fully, but he did make more progress than any other person before him ever did. His attempt at achieving this resulted in what is, in my opinion, his biggest and hopefully most lasting contribution to humankind.

    For me, all the bleatings and complaints that there are about him stem from people who failed to make adequate progress in this one item. And this is a reflection on themselves as individuals more than it is a failing on Hubbard’s part. The idea that was promulgated that you could just pay your money and have a Cadillac-ride to OT is so transparently idiotic that anyone who bought into it had only themselves to blame. You were always entirely resposible for your own experience of Scientology; no exceptions.
  14. Thrak

    Thrak Gold Meritorious Patron

    If the human race was more or less a single entity then ElRon would be a cancer cell and scientology itself a virus of minds.
  15. Kookaburra

    Kookaburra Gold Meritorious Patron

    I'd just like to clarify this. Hubbard did indeed order lots of books while he was on the ship. He did this on a regular basis.

    Using them for info right before lectures was speculation on my part, based partly on the kinds of books he ordered, partially on lecture content. I observe in taped lectures that he gives lots of examples using obscure data. Things like the magic charms of an African witchdoctor of a particular tribe, and so on. Things that make him appear to have vast knowledge about everything, yet the sort of things that the average or above average person would never know or remember. So I put two and two together...he used the books for these obscure 'facts' to throw into lectures.

    There is one other point...I did hear or read some data from Nibs that LRH used to do exactly that before congresses in the 50's. He would go through books looking for material right before the lectures. I've been looking for that reference. I'll post it when I find it.
  16. lkwdblds

    lkwdblds Crusader

    I check list your fine post paragraph by paragraph


    I agree with everything your say! He did make some significant contribution to mankind as you state in item #3. With the talents and abilities which he had, if his motivations had been more humane and less greedy, just think how much farther he would have gotten and how much more good he might have done.

    It is ironic that the internet came along and completely exposed him so that the goals as stated by you in #2 above have no chance whatsoever of coming to fruition. He thought he was so smart and so infallable and that he could see deeply into the future and by doing so, avoid the pitfalls and mistakes of other humans who had goals similar to his.

    His inablitilty to see the emergence of the Internet, which came into its own only a measely 10 years after his death was ultimately the undoing of his plans. Whenever he mentioned computers in his writings, starting around 1950, he would always put them down and make fun of them. I remember the saying, "A computer is pyschotic, it has no memory." By another of his metaphors, "What you resist you become.", lied his Achilles heel and his downfall. Probably because he did not invent it, he only poked fun at computers and never explored the possiblity of what they may be capable of doing. He did not become a computer but his reputation and credibility were destroyed by computers. The process which enabled this to occur was the systematic exposure of all of his lies. Every major lie he told publically has been brought to light and had the light of truth shined on it.

    Per his own discourse, the Physical Universe will always seek out a person's weakest area and exascerbate it so as to keep that person at effect. IT IS POETIC JUSTICE THAT HUBBARD, WHO ALWAYS POKED FUN AT COMPUTERS, WAS UNDONE BY THE EXPOSURE OF HIS VAST STOREHOUSE OF LIES BEING FULLY EXPOSED BY COMPUTERS VIA THE INTERNET. THE LIGHT OF TRUTH HAS BEEN SHINED BRIGHTLY ON NEARLY EVERY ONE OF HIS IMPORTANT LIES AND HAS REDUCED THE STATURE OF HUBBARD'S NAME AND LEGACY ACCORDINGLY. Rather than having his name chisled into History in stone, as a Great Man, which he so desparately desired, he will live on in History, more as a footnote figure in it as the founder of a 20th Century religion. The story of how that religion will survive has yet to be written and as the religion goes so will go Hubbards legacy.
  17. lkwdblds

    lkwdblds Crusader

    Thanks for clearing this up!

    Thanks, Kookaburra, for taking the time to expand on this and clean it up. It appears to be pretty important data in our analysis of Hubbard and I appreciate your clearing up these points.
  18. fisherman

    fisherman Patron with Honors


    Thanks again from me! :clap:

    The "true fact" that Hubbard "made it up as he went along" is apparent but not easy to substantiate. You may have contributed more than you realize! For example, you wrote,

    That's fascinating to ponder!

    It seems Ron Hubbard was the numero uno "copy-pasta" artist of his time, scripting scholarship to pass himself off as a superior intellect! It's surreal that on the occasions he described himself as the "great organizer" LRH was admitting this. I wonder if LRH's admirers have defended his sagacity more staunchly than Hubbard would himself.

    Hubbard's subterfuge was easier to pull off in the era before computers, when writers had resources that wouldn't be obvious or available to the average person. Obviously, the Internet has changed that!

    The large outstanding question is whether ANY "great organizer" like Mr. Hubbard -- someone skimming secondary source materials on everything from Socrates to Freudian analyses -- could really produce anything of merit. Is it really possible to digest, weigh, and evaluate complex material at such a rapid pace? Is it possible to recognize and extract only the most valuable information? Is it possible to be certain you attained the most valuable information from secondary sources when you haven't read the original works?

    Here's a provocative list:

    Tolstoy's "War and Peace" is 1,443 pages, "Anna Karenina" is 817 pages. Dostoyevsky's "Brothers Karamazov" 985 pp, "Crime and Punishment" 629 pp, "Idiot" 615 pp, "Devils" 756 pages. Cervantes "Don Quixote" 940 pp. Melville's "Moby Dick" 638 pp. Plato's "Dialogues" 1606 pp. Aristotle, "Basic Works" 1487 pp. Hegel's "Philosophy of History" 457 pages of dense german syntax, "Philosophy of Right" 376 pp, "Phenomenology of Mind" 808 pp. Machiavelli's "Prince" 285 pp. Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason" 256 pp. Shakespeare "Riverside Complete Works" 1,923 pp. Then add Charles Dickens, the Bible, etc. etc...

    How did Hubbard do it? When people make claims, I try to look at them in practical terms. The books listed only fill a 3' foot shelf and STILL encompass A LOT of reading! And, A LOT of reflection! I've read these texts at least twice and came away with different views on each occasion. How did LRH manage to glean ONLY the most quintessential ideas? How did he do this without reading the original works?

    My skills are admittedly average, but I do recognize that there is absolutely NO WAY I could summarize, distill, or synthesize, what I've learned from these works. The only common feature I could coherently identify is that they all employ words! On a practical basis, I don't see how any "standard issue" human being could process the quantity of material that Mr. Hubbard claims; let alone discover any comprehensive answers to "the riddle of life."

    And now, here's a "flip-side."

    If LRH is correct that IT IS possible to gather the most profound knowledge by skimming civilization's greatest literature, what does that say about the literature itself? Or the quality of the answers it contains? IF it's really possible to answer substantive existential questions by thumbing through "Nicomachean Ethics" why did Aristotle use so many words? Why didn't Aristotle put those profound answers on the FIRST PAGE?

    Aristotle, Thomas Acquinas, William Shakespeare, Dostovesky were pretty sharp guys! How is it Mr. Hubbard was able to distill their wisdom in so many fewer words than they could themselves? Was Mr. Hubbard a more descriptive or economical writer? Than Shakespeare? That doesn't seem plausible.

    In sum. The scope of the works Mr. Hubbard claimed to have mastered are either:

    1.) So complex that distilling their singular quintessence is impossible using Hubbard "quick-scan" methods. Or,

    2.) Mr. Hubbard's "quick scan" techniques correctly distill this wisdom more effectively than the authors could themselves; opening to question the substantive value or superficiality of that wisdom.

    So here again, maybe I've gone tl;dr! If so, it's because Kookaburra offered this stunning new evidence:

    Thanks again to Kookaburra and Lake!

    Last edited: Jul 29, 2010
  19. afaceinthecrowd

    afaceinthecrowd Gold Meritorious Patron

    Aw shucks, are very kind.:touched:

    You give me too much credit.:redface:

    After my brain re-alignment metaphor, strangely—along with simile, allegory, analogy and parable—is pretty much how I “think…how I “sense” and make “since” of things…like a fish going home to spawn…no matter what the dangers, discomfort and unknowns I can’t stop, I must go forward on a path that is not manifest, yet apparent…it’s all I know how to do…it’s all I can do.

    El Ron and Scn have no use for people like me...we are the refuse, we "pulled it in", we are "stuck in some kind of restim" and need to go "pick up another body".:coolwink:

    Some of my favorite Will Rogers quotes:

    "Even if you are on the right track, you will get run over if you just sit there.

    Everybody is ignorant--only on different subjects.

    It's great to be great, but it's greater to be human.

    So live that you wouldn't be ashamed to sell the family parrot to the town gossip.

    The worst thing that happens to you may be the best thing for you if you don't let it get the best of you.

    A man can learn only two ways, one by reading, and the other by association with smarter people.

    I never met a man I didn't like."

  20. Thrak

    Thrak Gold Meritorious Patron

    It makes sense that he was trying to create this image of being the most interesting man in the world. That would serve him for what he was trying to do.