Hubbard's Sources!

A place to post and debate the Church of Scientology.
peter
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2001 11:17 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Hubbard's Sources!

Post by peter » Fri May 30, 2008 8:41 am

Possible origins for Dianetics and Scientology by Jon Atack

Source
The key concept in any argument relating to Hubbard's plagiarism is that of "source". In the early days, Hubbard expressed a debt to other thinkers. For example, there are a number of references to Freud and Breuer in his 1950 lectures. However, on 7 February 1965 Hubbard published the Policy Letter "Keeping Scientology Working", where he said: "Our technology has not been discovered by a group. True, if the group had not supported me in many ways I could not have discovered it either." What is it about LRH that made him Source? His technology - the Grades, the OT levels, all of his discoveries. Nobody else - nobody - ever discovered it."
http://home.snafu.de/tilman/j/origins6.html

Soderqvist1: It seems to me that Jon Attack has misunderstood it!
L. Ron Hubbard was not a source of discovery; he was a source of compilation!
Metaphorical speaking; it just like that you are standing in front of a meadow and you see that it is lot of beautiful things there, and you start "research" that meadow and you "discover" that its is lot of flowers, some is beautiful and some is not, and you begin to pick flowers you like, after a while you have a bouquet of flowers in you hand, and you know that you are the source of that particular compilation of flowers, because you have done the hard work of waste and regard, and you call your bouquet Scientology!
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/P ... cale=se_SV

Primary Axioms
The principal achievement of Dianetics lies in its organization. Almost any of its parts can be found somewhere in history, even when they were independently evolved by the writer. There are no principal sources, and where a practice or a principle is borrowed from some past school the connection is usually accidental and does not admit any further use or validity of that school.
http://www.ronthephilosopher.org/phlspher/page20.htm

The Factors
(Summation of the considerations and examinations of the human spirit and the material universe completed between A.D. 1923 and 1953.)

Axiom 35
The ultimate truth is a static.

Axiom 23
The static has the capability of total knowingness. Total knowingness would consist of total ARC.

Axiom 24
Total ARC would bring about the vanishment of all mechanical conditions of existence.
http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/P ... index.html

Scientology Fundamentals By L. Ron Hubbard
the philosophic root of Dianetics and Scientology, the core truth upon which all is based, could hardly be simpler: “The spirit is the source of all,” Ron tells us, “You are a spirit.”
http://www.ronthephilosopher.org/phlspher/page42.htm

User avatar
ZenuEtrawl
Posts: 674
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:12 pm

Post by ZenuEtrawl » Fri May 30, 2008 9:09 am

Where is the second quoted section from?

I'm wondering about some of the omitted credits. I don't see Aleister Crowley, John McMaster, Otto Roos, David Mayo, or any number of other people who deserve a lot more credit than Euclid or Francis Bacon do. A lot of that list impresses me as empty name dropping.

As for the impression given to the average scientologist, I think that Atak's not entirely off the mark, because they see KSW and such all the time, and quotes like the ones you gave relatively rarely. I think that LRH was a very closeted compiler.
Image

peter
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2001 11:17 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by peter » Fri May 30, 2008 1:24 pm

ZenuEtrawl wrote:Where is the second quoted section from?
Soderqvist1: it is from the Magazine Ron The Philosopher, The Rediscovery of the Human Soul.
You can click here and see the front cover, and you can also click on the table of contents of Ron, The Philosopher, and then on the label The Original thesis, page 2.
http://www.ronthephilosopher.org/phlspher/index.htm
I'm wondering about some of the omitted credits. I don't see Aleister Crowley, John McMaster, Otto Roos, David Mayo, or any number of other people who deserve a lot more credit than Euclid or Francis Bacon do. A lot of that list impresses me as empty name dropping.
Soderqvist1: I don't have anything to say about that one way or the other!
As for the impression given to the average scientologist, I think that Atak's not entirely off the mark,
Soderqvist1: He is not entirely off the mark, but he was/is mistaken regarding that detail!
because they see KSW and such all the time, and quotes like the ones you gave relatively rarely.
Soderqvist1: how do you know that Scientologists are ignorant regarding that?
I think that LRH was a very closeted compiler.
Soderqvist1: yes he was a compiler whatever we like it or not!

peter
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2001 11:17 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by peter » Tue Jun 03, 2008 12:50 pm

Soderqvist1: I have 5 books by Michael Shermer the Executive Director of Skeptic Society, I have read "why People Believe weird Things", "The Borderline of Science", "How we Believe", and now I am on his fourth book; "The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule." He has a new theory of Ethics, which he calls "the Provisional Theory of Ethics, and I have seen some part of his idea which do align with basics in Dianetics and Scientology!

The science of Good and Evil chapter 7 page 187:
For Millennia, philosopher and observer of human behavior have noted that we have a tendency to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Pleasure and pain encompasses many things, from pure physical to ethereal states. We may find pleasure in a kiss or in an idea. We my experience pain in a slap or in an insult. Happiness is a good synonym for pleasure, and unhappiness is a good synonym for pain, and thus we my state that one of the fundamental drives of human nature is that we strive for greater levels of happiness, and avoid greater level of unhappiness. My Colleague, social scientist and moral philosopher Jay Stuart Snelson, expressed this sentiment well in his "win-win principle"; "Always seek gain through the gain of others, and never seek gain through the forced or fraudulent loss of others!

Chapter 6 Page 158: Absolute Morality
As defined earlier Morality involves right and wrong thoughts and behaviors, in context of the rules of a social group. Page 159: here yet another problem is averted by fuzzy logic, where shades of probabilities allow us to assign fractional values to moral answers that are more or less likely to be applicable. Page 162: Jeremy Bentham 's principle of the "greatest happiness for the greatest number". Specifically, I found his quantitative utilitarianism attractive.


Bart Kosko
Kosko’s most popular book to date was the international best-seller Fuzzy Thinking , about man and machines thinking in shades of gray.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Kosko

Michael Shermer
http://www.skeptic.com/
The Primary Axioms
It has been noted that there is a gradation in the scale of survival. Gains toward the ultimate goal are pleasurable. Failures toward the final defeat are sorrowful or painful. Pleasure is therefore the perception of well-being, or an advance toward the ultimate goal. Pain, therefore, is the perception of a reduction toward the final defeat. Both are necessary survival factors. For the purpose of Dianetics, good and evil must be defined. Those things which may be classified as good by an individual are only those things which aid himself, his family, his group, his race, mankind or life in its dynamic obedience to the command, modified by the observations of the individual, his family, his group, his race or life.

As evil may be classified those things which tend to limit the dynamic thrust of the individual, his family, his group, his race or life in general in the dynamic drive, also limited by the observation, the observer and his ability to observe.
http://www.ronthephilosopher.org/phlspher/page24.htm

Ethics and the Dynamics
An optimum solution to any problem would be that solution which brought the greatest benefits to the greatest number of dynamics. The poorest solution would be that solution which brought the greatest harm to the most number of dynamics.
http://www.lronhubbard.org/human/dyn2.htm

Soderqvist1: for the sake of consistency, can you accept Shermer' s proposition of provisional Ethics meanwhile reject Hubbard's proposition when they do align?

StormBringer
Posts: 1564
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 2:48 pm

Post by StormBringer » Tue Jun 03, 2008 7:05 pm

LRH forgot to include Orwell on that list.
After watching 1984 the other day I think he took his framework of control from that movie.

Atheist

User avatar
Whitedove
Posts: 946
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 8:39 pm

Post by Whitedove » Tue Jun 03, 2008 7:11 pm

StormBringer wrote:LRH forgot to include Orwell on that list.
After watching 1984 the other day I think he took his framework of control from that movie.

Atheist
I am reading that book right now and I definitely had the same tought.
Some parts of the book are so similar to $cientology, its creepy.

For ex-$cientologists who have not read the book, I am highly suggesting it to you. It gives you a good (creepy) idea what the world would be like if it was run by $cientology. Not the exact same but you can connect the dots pretty easily.
We are still masters of our fate. We are still captains of our souls. - Winston Churchill

StormBringer
Posts: 1564
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 2:48 pm

Post by StormBringer » Tue Jun 03, 2008 7:12 pm

After you are done with the book watch the movie.
It is stunning watching the ralies and how worked up people are getting.
The actors did an excellent job with this movie.

Atheist

User avatar
Whitedove
Posts: 946
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 8:39 pm

Post by Whitedove » Tue Jun 03, 2008 7:31 pm

StormBringer wrote:After you are done with the book watch the movie.
It is stunning watching the ralies and how worked up people are getting.
The actors did an excellent job with this movie.

Atheist
Thanks. will do!

Is the movie available in a store or online or both?
Its ok...found it online :D
We are still masters of our fate. We are still captains of our souls. - Winston Churchill

peter
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2001 11:17 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by peter » Wed Jun 04, 2008 7:16 am

StormBringer wrote:LRH forgot to include Orwell on that list.
Soderqvist1: I will make an order on that book too!
After watching 1984 the other day I think he took his framework of control from that movie.

Atheist
Soderqvist1: I do not doubt that thought control exist in scientology, only an inobservant person can miss that!
But the question here is where does it come from? You seem to suggest that it is Hubbard himself after he has seen that movie! How do you know that it is he, not someone else? Suppose for the sake of argument that I am a strong believer in the proposition below!

The Dynamics
Every individual is made up of a central thrust through existence. This drive, this thrust through existence, is survival. It is the effort on the part of the organism to survive. We call the urge toward survival a dynamic. As this urge becomes enturbulated (put into a state of agitation or disturbance) or influenced by outside forces, it is either suppressed or it is diluted with other people’s purposes. That is to say, other people force their purposes on the individual. In either way, the dynamic itself becomes to some slight degree enturbulated. The dynamic goes toward succumb in the exact ratio that it is enturbulated. It goes toward survival in the exact ratio that it is clean and clear.
http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/SH2_2.HTM

Personal Integrity By L. Ron Hubbard
WHAT IS TRUE FOR YOU is what you have observed yourself and when you lose that you have lost everything. Nothing in Dianetics and Scientology is true for you unless you have observed it and it is true according to your observation. That is all.
http://www.aboutlronhubbard.org/eng/wis3_4.htm


The Factors
(Summation of the considerations and examinations of the human spirit and the material universe completed between A.D. 1923 and 1953.)

Axiom 35
The ultimate truth is a static.

Axiom 23
The static has the capability of total knowingness. Total knowingness would consist of total ARC.

Axiom 24
Total ARC would bring about the vanishment of all mechanical conditions of existence.
http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/P ... index.html

Scientology Fundamentals By L. Ron Hubbard
The philosophic root of Dianetics and Scientology, the core truth upon which all is based, could hardly be simpler: “The spirit is the source of all,” Ron tells us, “You are a spirit.”
http://www.ronthephilosopher.org/phlspher/page42.htm
Soderqvist1: How did he trick me away from it?

StormBringer
Posts: 1564
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 2:48 pm

Post by StormBringer » Wed Jun 04, 2008 4:25 pm

peter he would of read the book not seen the movie.

I can not say that he got his ideas from reading 1984 but there are very strong similarities between the ideas from 1984 and the way he ran Sea Org.

As for the quotes I have alot of problems with the conclusions he lays out.
First if you can call it a cental thrust (this is a very large brush he is using to paint with) it would not be survival it would be safety. Creatures have a tendency to seek conditions that create the greatest safety. There is a differnce between that and survival.

As for what is true because you have observed it is a farc. I am near sighted enough that a large dangerous creature could be withing striking distance of me and I would be unable to see it, is it then not true?
The idea behind this what is true is to make you believe that you see a problem and you believe it is true because it has been shown to you. Once you believe it then they can show you how to fix it and how only their way will work.

Is there ultimate truth? have you seen it?

23 is just babbling

24 is just wrong and wishful thinking. It is back to the magical thinking. The world can be what we see so there must me something magical actually running it. And if you believe everything we say we will show it to you.

Again spirit, have you see it?

The universe is never going to care what any of us think. It created us we did not create it.

Atheist

peter
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2001 11:17 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by peter » Thu Jun 05, 2008 12:15 pm

StormBringer wrote:peter he would of read the book not seen the movie.
Soderqvist1: Noted!
I can not say that he got his ideas from reading 1984 but there are very strong similarities between the ideas from 1984 and the way he ran Sea Org.
Soderqvist1: Sea org is a special case; my proposition was intended on public, which is Scientologists in general.
So can you show me how facts from "1984" is used by Ron in order to control public?
As for the quotes I have a lot of problems with the conclusions he lays out.
First if you can call it a central thrust (this is a very large brush he is using to paint with) it would not be survival it would be safety. Creatures have a tendency to seek conditions that create the greatest safety. There is a difference between that and survival.
Soderqvist1: Why do they seek out safety if not for survival?
A fox is only running for his dinner, meanwhile the rabbit is running for his life! They both have survival as goal, but their method to do so is totally different. The fox makes a thrust forward in order to catch the rabbit, but the rabbit is running like hell in order to reach safety! In average, the rabbits are little faster that the foxes, because their genes are propagated into the next generation, and thus the slower ones end up as food to the foxes. The tale about the foxes and rabbits are the eminent evolutionary Biologist Richard Dawkins' brainchild, he is one of my intellectual heroes! Thrust is significant when it comes to humans, because animals adjust them self to the environment, meanwhile humans adjust the environment to themselves, that is called civilization!



As for what is true because you have observed it is a farce. I am near sighted enough that a large dangerous creature could be within striking distance of me and I would be unable to see it, is it then not true?
Soderqvist1: it is a farce because you put it in a farcical way!
"What is truth to me is what I have seen", that dictum do align with my personal philosophy!
It is not commutative, because it doesn't say anything about unseen phenomena!
There are a lot of ideas in our society, and I cannot make heads or tail of them if I don't observe them.
To put it trivially in order to hammer home my point; I don't remember if I have milk or not in my fridge to my breakfast tomorrow, but I know that I can open the door to the fridge and "see for my self" if there is milk there or not! Or to use Alfred Korzybski's old dictum, "I don't know, but let's see"!
The idea behind this what is true is to make you believe that you see a problem and you believe it is true because it has been shown to you. Once you believe it then they can show you how to fix it and how only their way will work.
Soderqvist1: it seems to me that someone has forced something upon you! That person is guilty to an overt product!
Is there ultimate truth? have you seen it?
Soderqvist1: yes!
If every sentence in system P is derivable except G, meanwhile sentence G seems formally undecidable, and
Sentence G states that "I am not provable" it follows that; system P is consistent, if G is not derivable within P.
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem

Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach
All consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undecidable propositions ...
Gödel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth; no matter what axiom system is involved.
http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html
23 is just babbling 24 is just wrong and wishful thinking. It is back to the magical thinking. The world can be what we see so there must me something magical actually running it. And if you believe everything we say we will show it to you.
Soderqvist1: I don't know if axiom 23 and 24 is truth or false, but you seem certain that they are not!
Again spirit, have you see it?
Soderqvist1: Nope!
Absence of proof is not proof of absence!
I don't know if there is any such thing, or non-thing called spirit!
The universe is never going to care what any of us think. It created us we did not create it.
Soderqvist1: you seem very certain about these things, but I for one am more humble in my inferences; that I simply don't know!
I have a good quote here!
"The trouble with people is not so much with their ignorance as it is with their knowing so many things that are not so." — William Alanson White
I have edited this message because of typos!

StormBringer
Posts: 1564
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 2:48 pm

Post by StormBringer » Thu Jun 05, 2008 2:40 pm

peter good quotes.

To put it simply I do see the universe as needed a goal.

and yes scientology forces itself on people.

Will the rabbit run towards other rabbits or away from other rabbits when the fox is following?


Atheist

User avatar
Ladybird
Posts: 5630
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 10:22 pm

Post by Ladybird » Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:23 pm

StormBringer wrote:Will the rabbit run towards other rabbits or away from other rabbits when the fox is following?

Atheist
I would quote Soderqvist too, but his argument is tl;dr.

Atheist hits the heart of the matter.

You see a lot more rabbits than foxes in the cult of scientology. The rabbits always run back to their "friends" and try to hide, and can be counted on to point their fingers at each other in the form of "knowledge reports" when the question comes up (as it often does) "Who let the fox in?"

This pic is so off topic, but I found it relevant to how scientologists handle their dead:

Image
[i]"There is nothing as wild in the books of Man as will probably happen here on Earth...it will happen and be allowed to happen simply because all this is so incredible that nobody will even think of stopping it until it is far, far too late"~LRH[/i]

User avatar
Whitedove
Posts: 946
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 8:39 pm

Post by Whitedove » Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:45 pm

Ladybird wrote:
StormBringer wrote:Will the rabbit run towards other rabbits or away from other rabbits when the fox is following?

Atheist
I would quote Soderqvist too, but his argument is tl;dr.

Atheist hits the heart of the matter.

You see a lot more rabbits than foxes in the cult of scientology. The rabbits always run back to their "friends" and try to hide, and can be counted on to point their fingers at each other in the form of "knowledge reports" when the question comes up (as it often does) "Who let the fox in?"

This pic is so off topic, but I found it relevant to how scientologists handle their dead:

Image
Thats awful Ladybird :(

Still very true. I personnally have NO trust in my ex-husband as regard to our children (he is still a very hard core $cientologist). Ok, they are grown up (and NOT in $cientology) but I just want to share something that always cause me distress every time I think about that.
Let say one of my kids was with their dad, I dont know, go to a trip or something (which I doubt would happen) but you never know. Well, if while on the trip something would happen to the kids, I swear I dont know if he would tell me. I know the police would let me know but my ex-husband probably would not tell me unless absolutely necessary. Of course, I would know eventually. Thing is how can I trust him with our children? It happened when they were little and he had them 1 every 2 weeks (that is when he would take them which frankly I'm glad he didnt too often) but I would worry constantly when they were with him because he has this idea of 'they are not PTS so nothing will happen to them' :shock:
It was very distressing for me every single time they were with him. I wouldnt go through that again.
I know it sounds silly but believe me it is not. A mother's instinct is to protect her children yet I found myself with someone with whom I didnt feel my children were protected.
do I make sense?
We are still masters of our fate. We are still captains of our souls. - Winston Churchill

Hubbard's Mushroom
Posts: 8290
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:02 pm

Post by Hubbard's Mushroom » Thu Jun 05, 2008 5:08 pm

"the cult follows Hubbard's written policy, like programmed
robots....
Time to travel down memory lane...
and go back to November 1994...
before the raid.. from the Washington Post Newspaper,
written by Richard Leiby who during the case found a dead
rabbit on his lawn with no head... (he has young children)...."

- Arnie

Post Reply

Return to “Opinions & Debate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests