While working as a staffer at the Mission Office World Wide (MOWW) in East Grinstead during the early 80s, I was moving up the Bridge through study and student auditing. I blew staff before going Clear, so never had the opportunity to hear some of LRHs advanced materials.
However, Wikipedia has done a great job of amassing a great deal of his material, which you can find through this link: http://wikileaks.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=scientology+recording&go=Go
. I've been listening to them with fascination, and with relief - I'm glad I hadn't sacrificed any more of my life just for the sake of hearing them.
I have to say, while listening to these lectures, I am thoroughly impressed with Ron's genius. He was a wonderfully creative story teller, and the theories of mind and spirituality he outlines are cogent, cohesive, and compelling. Unfortunately for his adherents, also quite fallacious. What a masterful fraud he was!
MOWWstaffer (and anyone else),
What is it that you find fallacious? There're people who readily refer to LRH as a fraud, and to Scn as "a crock" but when I have asked, "What specifically do you mean, what do you find so "full of shit"?" I do not get any answer. No one says, "I do not believe man is a spirit". No one says, "I don't believe the reactive mind exists at all." All I get back is stuff like, "Xenu is ridiculous", or "You must be brainwashed", or "Hubbard just wanted to make money." Or I get stuff about, "Scientific theory requires the administration of a double-blind test under adequately supervised conditions with willing participants sampled randomly from a statistically significant population, with assignable standard deviations ... now excuse me." Or I get, "I believe in Jesus as The Lord and my Savior."
But no one yet has given me a specific which addresses the fundamentals such as the interactions of ARC (Affinity - Reality - Communication) or that mental mass can be dissipated, or the theory that an earlier similar incident pursued to the first such incident will resolve a chain of incidents. I really would like to know, because most of what I get leaves me with the impression that most simply think they know everything.
Having studied some science, I know that in order to disprove a theory one must actually look at it first, then find the flaw, and show the correction of the fallacy. It is not enough to say, "It's bunk." And I know that many a hypothesis has been corrected, and with the correction, has evolved into a theory, which has evolved into something useful. You may view me as "confrontational" but what I'm asking for is an amply fair question.