Hubbard and John W. Campbell, Jr.

A place to post and debate the Church of Scientology.
User avatar
caroline
Posts: 2315
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:29 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Hubbard and John W. Campbell, Jr.

Post by caroline » Mon Oct 03, 2011 8:42 pm

Image
L. Ron Hubbard and John W. Campbell, Jr.
Image retrieved 3 October 2011 from http://www.thewaythefutureblogs.com/wp- ... bardwb.jpg

I think that the Hubbard-Campbell relationship has not been given the attention it deserves, consequently this new thread.

According to science fiction writer Frederick Pohl, John W. Campbell Jr. was in "the presiding triumvirate who ran Dianetics/Scientology," the other two men being Dr. Joseph Winter and L. Ron Hubbard. (Ref. http://www.thewaythefutureblogs.com/200 ... rs-part-2/). (Also see Pohl's Me and Alfie, Part 6: John W. Campbell and Dianetics)

Campbell and Winter were listed among the trustees of the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation. (Ref. FBI Files.)

Wikipedia: John W. Campbell

BiographyBase: John W. Campbell

Enotes: John W. Campbell
In [url=http://www.xenu.net/archive/books/bfm/bfm05.htm]Bare-faced Messiah, Russell Miller[/url] wrote:Campbell first met L. Ron Hubbard at about the time he took over as editor. Ron provided a typically bombastic account of the circumstances: 'I got into science fiction and fantasy because F. Orlin Tremaine, at the orders of the managing director of Street and Smith, brought me over and ordered John W. Campbell Jr . . . to buy whatever I wrote, to freshen up the mag, up its circulation, and to put in real people and real plots instead of ant men. John, although we became dear friends later, didn't like this a bit.'[3]

_______________
3. Ron The Writer, Author Services Inc., 1982


Miller, R. (1987) Bare-faced Messiah: The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard. Toronto: Key Porter Books.
Hubbard wrote:It will probably be best to return to the day in 1938 when I first entered this field, the day I met John W. Campbell, Jr., a day in the very dawn of what has come to be known as the golden age of science fiction. I was quite ignorant of the field and regarded it, in fact, a bit diffidently. I was not there of my own choice. I had been summoned to the vast old building on Seventh Avenue in dusty, dirty, old New York by the very top brass of Street & Smith publishing company – – an executive named Black and another, F. Orlin Tremaine. Ordered there with me was another writer, Arthur J. Burks.[1] In those days when the top brass of a publishing company – – particularly one as old and prestigious as Street & Smith – – “invited” a writer to visit, it was like being commanded to appear before the king or receiving a court summons. You arrived, you sat there obediently, and you spoke when you were spoken to.

We were both, Arthur J. Burks and I, top-line professionals in other writing fields. By the actual tabulation of A. B. Dick, which set advertising rates for publishing firms, either of our names appearing on a magazine cover would send the circulation rate skyrocketing, something like modern TV ratings. http://writer.lronhubbard.org/page92.htm

The top brass came quickly to the point. They had recently started or acquired a magazine called Astounding Science Fiction. Other magazines were published by other houses, but Street & Smith was unhappy because its magazine was mainly publishing stories about machines and machinery. As publishers, its executives knew you had to have people in stories. They had called us in because, aside from our A. B. Dick rating as writers, we could write about real people. They knew we were busy and had other commitments. But would we be so kind as to write science fiction? We indicated we would.

They called in John W. Campbell, Jr., the editor of the magazine. He found himself looking at two adventure-story writers, and though adventure writers might be the aristocrats of the whole field and might have vast followings of their own, they were not science fiction writers. He resisted. In the first place, calling in top-liners would ruin his story budget due to their word rates. And in the second place, he had his own ideas of what science fiction was.

Campbell, who dominated the whole field of sf as its virtual czar until his death in 1971, was a huge man who had majored in physics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and graduated from Duke University with a Bachelor of Science degree. His idea of getting a story was to have some professor or scientist write it and then doctor it up and publish it. Perhaps that is a bit unkind, but it really was what he was doing. To fill his pages even he, who had considerable skill as a writer, was writing stories for the magazine.

The top brass had to directly order Campbell to buy and to publish what we wrote for him. He was going to get people into his stories and get something going besides machines.

I cannot tell you how many other writers were called in. I do not know. In all justice, it may have been Campbell himself who found them later on. But do not get the impression that Campbell was anything less than a master and a genius in his own right. Any of the stable of writers he collected during this golden age will tell you that. Campbell could listen. He could improve things. He could dream up little plot twists that were masterpieces. He well deserved the title that he gained and kept as the top editor and the dominant force that made science fiction as respectable as it became. Star Wars, the all-time box office record movie to date (exceeded only by its sequel), would never have happened if science fiction had not become as respectable as Campbell made it. More than that – – Campbell played no small part in driving this society into the space age. http://writer.lronhubbard.org/page94.htm

[...]

In these modern times many of the ingredients that make up “fantasy” as a type of fiction have vanished from the stage. You hardly even find them in encyclopedias anymore. These subjects were spiritualism, mythology, magic, divination, the supernatural, and many other fields of that type. None of them had anything really to do with the real universe. This does not necessarily mean that they never had any validity or that they will not again arise; it merely means that man, currently, has sunk into a materialistic binge.

The bulk of these subjects consists of false data, but there probably never will come a time when all such phenomena are explained. The primary reason such a vast body of knowledge dropped from view is that material science has been undergoing a long series of successes. But I do notice that every time modern science thinks it is down to the nitty-gritty of it all, it runs into (and sometimes adopts) such things as the Egyptian myths that man came from mud, or something like that. But the only point I am trying to make here is that there is a whole body of phenomena that we cannot classify as “material.” They are the nonmaterial, nonuniverse subjects. And no matter how false many of the old ideas were, they still existed; who knows but what there might not be some validity in some bits of them. One would have to study these subjects to have a complete comprehension of all the knowledge and beliefs possible. I am not opening the door to someone’s saying I believe in all these things: I am only saying that there is another realm besides dedicated – – and even simple-minded – – materialism.

Hubbard, L. (n.d.) An Introduction to Science Fiction. lronhubbard.org. Retrieved on 3 October 2011 from http://writer.lronhubbard.org/page92.htm; http://writer.lronhubbard.org/page94.htm; http://writer.lronhubbard.org/page97.htm

(Also published as Introduction to Battlefield Earth.)
[1] Arthur J. Burks. An American writer and Marine colonel: Enote bio

See also Burks' Yes, There Was a Book Called "Excalibur" by L. Ron HUBBARD

Burks said that he had known Hubbard off and on for six or seven years as of mid 1938. BFM Timeline.
lronhubbard.org wrote:IT WILL PROBABLY BE BEST TO RETURN TO THE DAY IN 1938 WHEN I FIRST ENTERED THIS FIELD, THE DAY I MET JOHN W. CAMPBELL, JR., A DAY IN THE VERY DAWN OF WHAT HAS COME TO BE KNOWN AS THE GOLDEN AGE OF SCIENCE FICTION.”

In addition to what is told of that day in Ron’s frequently quoted introduction to Battlefield Earth, let us provide the following: John W. Campbell was then twenty-eight years old, and not quite a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (He had failed to master the requisite languages, and so finally earned a Bachelor of Science degree from Duke University.) He had nonetheless proven himself a capable enough author of the genre with a spaceship driven epic, appropriately entitled The Machine series. In suggesting Campbell had originally resisted publishing L. Ron Hubbard and Arthur J. Burks, however, Ron is touching upon a highly significant point of science fiction history, i.e., Campbell was not initially that force majeure behind the genre’s golden age; it was the far less scientifically minded F. Orlin Tremaine, who had then held an editorial directorship over Street & Smith’s Astounding, and had indeed invited LRH and A. J. Burks into the fold because he wished an infusion of character-driven stories. Or as Ron himself explains, “he was going to get people into his stories and get something going besides machines.” Then, too, in describing himself as initially diffident and, actually, “quite ignorant” of that science fiction realm, Ron is touching upon another highly significant point: that is, what initially fueled that golden age was not, as is so frequently argued, a John Campbell vision of brave new technological wonders penned by a stable of techno-authors from MIT and Cal Tech. No, what fueled the new science fiction was the same stuff fueling all great pulp fiction – which is to say, all we have thus far examined in “this business of writing.”

Nevertheless, and despite all inherent differences, L. Ron Hubbard and John W. Campbell soon set forth beneath the banner of a new science fiction. The first LRH offering, and not one Campbell would have necessarily published had F. Orlin Tremaine left him unfettered, was entitled “The Dangerous Dimension.” In contrast to the typical Campbell setting amidst gleaming spaceports off the rings of Saturn, that most startling “dangerous dimension” opens in the utterly prosaic office of Yamouth University’s Professor Henry Mudge. Nor do we find the usual ranks of simmering beakers or curiously blinking contraptions. Rather, here is nothing more exotic than a “snowdrift of wasted paper” and strewn texts from shelves of arcane metaphysics. What ultimately emerges from that heap of “limp-leaved” texts is a tale of purely intellectual exploration, or what Tremaine had previously described as “thought variant.” In this case, it seems Professor Mudge has stumbled upon a mathematical door to a “negative dimension,” and has only to think of some distant location in order to physically transport himself. That he cannot control his thoughts, finally proves his undoing and so raises the recurring LRH theme involving failures to harness technological advancement.

[...]

By the same token, however, the friendship was real, and many an LRH letter tells of dinners at the Campbell home in the wastes of New Jersey, and lengthy lunches over plates of a “horrible ham” garnished with slices of pineapple. Campbell was additionally among the first to sense what Dianetics represented as the means by which we might venture into that greatest unknown of all, the universe of the self. Then, too, it was Campbell who, inspired by later LRH research, began calling for stories, not set in a distant future, but a prehistoric past – which, in turn, has arguably led to all we now celebrate as a new golden age of science fiction with tales from galaxies far away and a long, long time ago.

CSI (n.d.) The Golden Age. lronhubbard.org. Retrieved on 3 October 2011 from http://writer.lronhubbard.org/page74.htm;http://writer.lronhubbard.org/page76.htm; http://writer.lronhubbard.org/page84.htm
lronhubbard.org wrote:The Shaping of Fear

Eventually, those surrounding LRH would tell several apocryphal tales regarding his authorship of Fear: how the work had virtually possessed him, how it had first been conceived over barbecued steaks on John Campbell’s New Jersey lawn, how Ron had furiously rewritten the work on a midnight train from Connecticut. None of it is verifiable, and the best description of how he came to author a tale of which so much would be said is found in his letters to friends from the third week in January 1940.

CSI. (n.d.) The Shaping of Fear. lronhubbard.org. Retrieved on 3 October 2011 from http://writer.lronhubbard.org/page79.htm
lronhubbard.org wrote:Among the more revealing notes on this business of writing, and of particular significance to anyone who has faced a fickle editor, is Ron’s “How to Drive a Writer Crazy.”

Although undated, it would seem to fit the infamously difficult John W. Campbell – forever bombarding authors with contradictory ideas and frightening more than a few into mental paralysis, “by showing his vast knowledge of a field,...especially on subjects where nothing is known anyway.” In either case, what Ron describes is not merely amusing; it is also the ruin of many a young literary talent.

CSI. (n.d.) How to Drive a Writer Crazy. lronhubbard.org. Retrieved on 3 October 2011 from http://writer.lronhubbard.org/page73.htm
_____________

In a 13 May 1942 letter to Heinlein, Campbell suggested that Heinlein relay some highly personal information about Hubbard to USN officer A. B. Scoles for recruitment purposes. Campbell said that Hubbard was temporarily confined to Sick Officers Quarters, angry and bitter and afraid; he suspected Hubbard's anger and bitterness was due to him being "among those licked" at sea in the battle of the Java Sea, allegedly because Allied air power had not given "adequate coverage." It is quite clear that Hubbard had BSed Campbell about his war wounds, the action he saw, his CE degree, and his pilot's license. (Heinlein archives: CORR218-3). Hubbard similarly BSed Heinlein with the same claims.

Campbell also claimed certain knowledge of Hubbard having spent six weeks in a Navy psych ward:
In a 1953 letter to Jerry Pournelle, John W. Campbell Jr. wrote:Let's stop using the term "psychology" as we have and stick to the, term "professional Psychiatry" - a legally existent entity, which I can discuss in terms of the facts, of it's practices.

The practicing psychiatrist is rushed; during the war, Hubbard learned to hate the profession violently, because of the practices actually used in fact. Theory be blowed; after being knocked down by some decidedly rugged experiences - he was in the fracas from the beginning, war on Java when the Japs landed, and finished only after V-J day - the Navy psychiatrists did in fact treat him to a six week quickie process.

If you have any delusions that that six-week quickie bears any resemblance to what you're talking about - believe me; it very genuinely doesn't.

It consists of some very violently authoritative statements as to what's the trouble with you, and if you want to get out of this institution, you darned well better admit that these things are wrong with you, right now, and do it the way you're told to. Sure - I know that isn't what you mean by Psychiatry. But somebody must have, or they wouldn't have done it!

Campbell, J. W., Chapdelaine, P. A., Chapdelaine, T., & Hay, G. (1985). The John W. Campbell letters: Vol 1. Franklin, TN: AC Projects.
[quote="In the July 1999 edition of the Heinlein Journal, Heinlein biographer William "Bill" H. Patterson Jr."] Heinlein kept in touch with his friends. L. Ron Hubbard was stationed in the Pacific, but toward the end of the war he wound up in Philadelphia and was a participant in Heinlein's think tank.

(...)

Also in 1950,
Campbell began publishing the series of Dianetics articles by Heinlein's close friend, L. Ron Hubbard, after they had been rejected by the Journal of the American Medical Association. While writing the Old Doc Methuselah stories, and after serving as a magickal assistant for one of Aleister Crowley's most promising American disciples, Jack Parsons, in The Babalon Working, Hubbard developed a "new" theory of the mind based on his observations (and, some say, secret doctrines of Crowley's Ordo Templi Orientalis, or "O.T.O.") rather than on psychiatric theory. Hubbard's "Dianetics" was to be a "scientific" replacement for the pre-scientific Freud. Dianetics monitoring, using a psionic device called the E-meter (psionics devices -- machines that interacted directly with the mind -- were Campbell's new passion in the 1950's), became something of a fad in the science fiction community, but Hubbard was running into stiff resistance from the convention-minded medical community, who were inclined to become nasty about Dianetics monitors practicing medicine without a license. Heinlein had told Hubbard in conversations in Philadelphia during World War II that a religion could successfully front anything in the U.S.

Hubbard followed Heinlein's now ten-year old advice, abandoning Dianetics. The Founding Church of Scientology opened in January 1955 in Washington D.C. and in New York. Heinlein's advice to Hubbard had allowed him completely to bypass the medical opposition; for the next fifteen years, Hubbard's principal bêtes noirs would be the Internal Revenue Service (but Heinlein was right: the IRS was never able to prove Scientology a fake religion under U.S. law, and they eventually gave up after being defeated in decision after decision).

Patterson, B. (1999, July) "Robert A. Heinlein: A Biographical Sketch" Heinlein Journal No 5.
[/quote]

_____________

Other sources:

Campbell, J. W., Chapdelaine, P. A., Chapdelaine, T., Hay, G., Asimov, I., & Van, V. A. E. (1985). The John W. Campbell letters. Franklin, TN: AC Projects.

Berger, A. I. (1972). The magic that works: John W. Campbell and the American response to technology.
Abstract: http://journals.cambridge.org/data/firs ... stract.jpg

Ashley, M., & Ashley, M. (2000). The time machines: The story of the science-fiction pulp magazines from the beginning to 1950. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

___
Edit: Added links.
Last edited by caroline on Thu Oct 06, 2011 3:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST TRAINING ROUTINE – TR L
Purpose: To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1. To train the student to outflow false data effectively.
Commands: Part l “Tell me a lie”.

User avatar
caroline
Posts: 2315
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:29 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Hubbard and John W. Campbell, Jr.

Post by caroline » Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:35 pm

Wikipedia entry for [b]Psionics[/b] wrote:History and terminology

B. P. Wiesner and Robert H. Thouless first proposed the term "psi" in 1942 as a more general term to include both extrasensory perception and psychokinesis. The original terminology proposal divided psi into psi-gamma, for cases of cognition, and psi-kappa, for cases of action. These terms were later modified into "passive psi" and "active psi".

In 1952,
John W. Campbell proposed the term "psionics", from psi (‘psyche’) and the ending -onics from electronics (machine), which implied that the paranormal powers of the mind could be made to work reliably.

Retrieved on 4 October 2011 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psionics
[quote="In the July 1999 edition of the Heinlein Journal, Heinlein biographer William "Bill" H. Patterson Jr."] Hubbard's "Dianetics" was to be a "scientific" replacement for the pre-scientific Freud. Dianetics monitoring, using a psionic device called the E-meter (psionics devices -- machines that interacted directly with the mind -- were Campbell's new passion in the 1950's), became something of a fad in the science fiction community, but Hubbard was running into stiff resistance from the convention-minded medical community, who were inclined to become nasty about Dianetics monitors practicing medicine without a license. Heinlein had told Hubbard in conversations in Philadelphia during World War II that a religion could successfully front anything in the U.S.

Patterson, B. (1999, July) "Robert A. Heinlein: A Biographical Sketch" Heinlein Journal No 5.
[/quote]
In a letter to Mrs. Curtis dated April 26, 1953, John Campbell wrote:Dear Mrs. Curtis:

I know that you, Mark Clifton, Judy Merril, Ted Sturgeon and a number of other science-fiction authors are very much interested in the practical application of the
psionic powers. As you know, I am too.

Many people have been, for many years. Some pretty bright people, with fairly good minds. As a matter of fact, there's been much more human mental effort devoted to the
psionic field than there has been to the physical sciences — if you take into account the total of the last 10,000 years. And we must, in this consideration, because the awareness of psionic powers existed before there was any physical science, the mystics worked at the field before anyone tried to get the physical sciences going.

The remarkable thing is, then, that so much effort has yielded so little! It's true that a few individuals appear to have achieved some results — but the results have been of little use to anyone, including even the possessors thereof. There appears to be some factor at work that makes the business somewhat more complicated than we realize. Its probably that the conservation of mass-energy applies, and that it's hard work to use
these powers, making it come out easier to use ordinary means for most circumstances.

It is also evident that the powers are not going to be attained in any reproducible form by the attack on the problem that the
mystics have used. I don't say that the goal is invalid; I do hold that the means to that goal that have been used in the past are not usable. The problem is not going to be solved by the "flash of genius" route, because while that method will, and in fact has at various times, given the use of the powers, it does not give you understanding of them.

You, as a biological organism, can synthesize only certain very limited, special proteins, however. If you as a human being knew the laws by which you as an organism do the job, on the other hand, you'd be able to synthesize an unlimited variety of highly useful new proteins and other chemicals.


I understand that Ron developed some psi abilities. Could be. However I'll guarantee this; with the knowledge I now have, I could apply laws that would block his psi powers, or the law's powers of any other person...unless that person knew the basic laws he was using so well he could modify his method to circumvent my interferrence.[sic].

Until I can develop the basic laws of
psionics, it is futile to seek to use them in this society; the counter-blocks are much simpler than the methods of using the powers. The result is that my effort to demonstrate them would be blocked by any skeptical person, and my accomplishment would be useless.

[...]

You want help in gaining understanding of the
psionic forces, and it appears to you that I'm warning you against investigating. I'm not.

I'm suggesting that this study, like any other, yields more useful results if you build up to it, understanding in full each step you make as you make it.

Here we've been discussing "fear." Are you ready to tackle
telepathy — which involves transmission of emotional concepts — when you can't yet define what fear is? Suppose telepathy linked you one-to-one with the other individual; could you unscramble yourself again — when you don't know what "you" is? Can you accept complete rapport with another individual — when you can't define the differences between yourself and that other individual enough to re-separate your two beings? Or would you suddenly discover that having established full contact — you were forced, thenceforth, to be one mind in two bodies?

On the other hand, suppose that I had learned to define "I" in full — and I established rapport with you. You'd be nicely stuck with being unable to separate out your personality and beliefs from mine; I wouldn't be.

You want telepathy, huh?

Campbell, J. W., Chapdelaine, P. A., Chapdelaine, T., Hay, G., Asimov, I., & Van, V. A. E. (1985). The John W. Campbell letters. Franklin, TN: AC Projects.
Ashley wrote:L. Ron Hubbard, who had been contributing regularly to the adventure and mystery pulps for the past five years now entered the science fiction fold. ‘The Dangerous Dimension’ (July 1938) caused some discussion amongst readers on the grounds that it was more fantasy than sf–just the type of controversy Campbell liked to stimulate. It was, in fact, one of the first psi-power stories that Campbell would buy, since it dealt with a professor who, through mentally using a mathematical equation, could translate himself through space. Hubbard developed this more in a short novel, ‘The Tramp’ (September–November 1938), about a hobo who develops superior telepathic and telekinetic powers. (p.111)

[...]

L. Ron Hubbard, who had done so much to warn of the perils of all-out war in ‘Final Blackout’, at last returned to the sf field in 1947 with ‘The End is Not Yet’ ( Astounding, August–October 1947), a more upbeat story about a group of nuclear scientists who manage to thwart a conspiracy to provoke a nuclear war between the superpowers.

There was now a scientific basis for the creation of mutants and monsters and sf writers would make the most of it over the next decade. The theme linked closely to the mental superman concepts that van Vogt and Kuttner had been creating in Astounding–in fact Kuttner had started on the telepathic mutant concept with his Baldy series before the Hiroshima bomb. It meant that the immediate postwar sf concentrated heavily on considering mutations, both physical and mental. It was from here that one can date the emergence of stories about
scientifically-induced psi-powers, which would dominate the field in the fifties. (p. 187)

Ashley, M., & Ashley, M. (2000). The time machines: The story of the science-fiction pulp magazines from the beginning to 1950. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST TRAINING ROUTINE – TR L
Purpose: To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1. To train the student to outflow false data effectively.
Commands: Part l “Tell me a lie”.

User avatar
Demented LRH
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Location: New York City, NY, USA
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Hubbard and John W. Campbell, Jr.

Post by Demented LRH » Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:07 pm

I read somewhere that Campbell was kind of a CEO of CoS -- he was in charge of the cult’s financial and managerial activities while Hubbard was doing his “research”. It seems to me that the info that Caroline provided supports this contention. It would mean that Hubbard was unable to act as a top-level CoS manager
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.

User avatar
caroline
Posts: 2315
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:29 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Hubbard and John W. Campbell, Jr.

Post by caroline » Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:13 pm

Enotes has a very informative page on John W. Campbell, et al.
Enotes wrote:The most famous example of the type of speculative but plausible science fiction that Campbell demanded from his writers is "Deadline," a short story by Cleve Cartmill that appeared during the wartime year of 1944, a year before the detonation of the first atomic bomb. As Ben Bova, Campbell's successor as editor at Analog, wrote, it "described the basic facts of how to build an atomic bomb. Cartmill and ... Campbell worked together on the story, drawing their scientific information from papers published in the technical journals before the war. To them, the mechanics of constructing a uranium-fission bomb seemed perfectly obvious." The FBI descended on Campbell's office after the story appeared in print and demanded that the issue be removed from the newsstands. Campbell convinced them that by removing the magazine "the FBI would be advertising to everyone that such a project existed and was aimed at developing nuclear weapons" and the demand was dropped.[16]
__________
[16] Through Eyes of Wonder, by Ben Bova, pages 66-67

Retrieved on 5 October 2011 from http://www.enotes.com/topic/John_W._Campbell
From The Time Machines about the same incident:
Ashley wrote:Campbell had earlier written in Astounding that it was Astounding 's patriotic duty not to provide scientific details in stories for the potential use of the enemy, [1] but in practice he was more than happy to print stories using state of the art concepts that were demonstrably available to the public. He often flew close to the wind on this, by having guided missiles in Murray Leinster's ‘The Wabbler’ (October 1942) and radar in George O. Smith's ‘Calling the Empress’ (June 1943).

The matter came to a head with the publication of ‘Deadline’ by Cleve Cartmill (March 1944). It is not an exceptional story–it tells of an agent's attempts to stop an atomic bomb's detonation–but during the course of the story Cartmill detailed just how an atomic bomb could be created. Military Intelligence descended on Campbell and Cartmill, charging them with violation of security. Cartmill proved that all his facts were drawn from public libraries and eventually the scare was over. Devotees have always remained proud of this moment when science fiction caused such a stir, as it seemed to move it one more rung up the ladder of respectability. (p. 167)
__________
[1] 1. John W. Campbell, ‘Too Good at Guessing’, Astounding SF, 29 (2) April 1942, p. 6.

Ashley, M., & Ashley, M. (2000). Ashley, M., & Ashley, M. (2000). The time machines: The story of the science-fiction pulp magazines from the beginning to 1950. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. . Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Ashley asked that his readers "consider the effect upon magazine sf of the war and in particular the unleashing of atomic power."
Ashley wrote:CHAPTER FIVE
Unleashing the Atom
The War Effort


Before exploring the post-war surviving magazines it is important to consider the effect upon magazine sf of the war and in particular the unleashing of atomic power.

For decades scientists had dreamed of harnessing the power of the atom, and science-fiction writers had considered its potential both in peace and in war. Future war had also been a strong theme in science fiction. With technology advancing rapidly to support the war effort, science-fiction fans realized that they were witnessing their dreams becoming the nightmares of reality. The development of helicopters, jet planes, radar, guided missiles, rockets and ultimately the nuclear bomb was all accelerated during the war, and though much was kept secret, that only made it all the more amazing when these inventions were suddenly released upon humanity.

Hitherto most science fiction had tended to glorify war, marvelling at the wonders of science rather than the impact upon the human race. The most significant anti-war novel to appear in the sf magazines hitherto was ‘The Final War’ by Carl W. Spohr ( Wonder Stories, March–April 1932), a former German artillery officer. Spohr wrote from the heart in decrying the futility of war and showing how, with advanced weaponry, the next war would be the suicide of mankind.

It was not until the rise of Hitler, particularly after he assumed the presidency of Germany in August 1934, that writers began to consider the inevitable consequences of fascism, but even then it was still treated as distant and something that might yet be avoided. Once war erupted, however, censorship barred writers from exploring scientific developments in detail, though they could consider their consequences. We have already seen the conclusions of allout destruction in
L. Ron Hubbard's ‘Final Blackout’ and the nuclear stalemate in Heinlein's ‘Solution–Unsatisfactory’. (p. 165)

Ashley, M., & Ashley, M. (2000). The time machines: The story of the science-fiction pulp magazines from the beginning to 1950. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST TRAINING ROUTINE – TR L
Purpose: To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1. To train the student to outflow false data effectively.
Commands: Part l “Tell me a lie”.

User avatar
caroline
Posts: 2315
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:29 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Hubbard and John W. Campbell, Jr.

Post by caroline » Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:34 pm

Following up on F. Orlin Tremaine, whom Hubbard named in connection with Street and Smith and John W. Campbell. (See OP.) According to Enote's bio on Campbell, "In late 1937, F. Orlin Tremaine hired Campbell as the editor of Astounding."
Enotes wrote:F. Orlin Tremaine (January 7, 1899 - October 22, 1956) was an American science fiction editor.

Tremaine became the second editor of Astounding Science Fiction in 1933 following the magazine's purchase by Street and Smith when William Clayton went bankrupt. Tremaine remained editor until 1937, when he was succeeded by
John W. Campbell, Jr.. Upon leaving Astounding, Tremaine was appointed Editorial Director of Street and Smith for a year. He then formed his own company and produced the short-lived science fiction magazine Comet Stories. Prior to editing Astounding, Tremaine had worked as an editor on several other magazines, including Brain Power (1921-1924) and True Story (1924). [...]

Retrieved on 5 October 2011 from http://www.enotes.com/topic/F._Orlin_Tremaine
Street and Smith was acquired by Condé Nast Publications in 1959. (Wikipedia: Street and Smith)

Frederick Pohl: Astounding Years 30–37 BC:* Street & Smith(*Before Campbell)

Michael Ashley: The History of the science fiction magazine
INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST TRAINING ROUTINE – TR L
Purpose: To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1. To train the student to outflow false data effectively.
Commands: Part l “Tell me a lie”.

User avatar
Demented LRH
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Location: New York City, NY, USA
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Hubbard and John W. Campbell, Jr.

Post by Demented LRH » Thu Oct 06, 2011 12:18 pm

I find it hard to believe that Campbell, being a sci-fi writer himself, took the OT data seriously. The CoS provided an opportunity for him to become rich, and he jumped on the Dianetics train without hesitation. Apparently he knew that, as a manager, Hubbard is complete zero, so he put himself in charge of CoS. Hubbard was always surrounded by the crooks who were using his idiotic Tech to enrich themselves at the expense of CoS flock.
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.

User avatar
caroline
Posts: 2315
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:29 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Hubbard and John W. Campbell, Jr.

Post by caroline » Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:55 pm

In this lecture, Hubbard talks about John W. Campbell's contribution to DMSMH, and instructs auditors to tear it out of the book. I thought this was interesting, as it illustrates the authoritarian nature of the auditing relationship.
Hubbard wrote:Pcs audit, whether they're asleep or awake, and you'd expect no response from a pc of any kind whatsoever while you were doing a Goals Assessment on the pc after you've gotten the goals. He doesn't have to say anything. Nothing in the Auditor's Code that says he has to say anything. There is no pc's code. you can tear that out of Book One. I didn't write it in the first place. Written by John W. "Astounding" Campbell, Jr. who, the older he gets the more astonishing he is. And so on.

There is no pc code. The pc doesn't have to behave. There is no behavior factor involved. And you ask this pc for some goals. Well, he's supposed to come up with some goals, and if he doesn't come up with some goals, you hit him or kick him or do something with him and make him come up with some goals. You understand?

Pc has no responsibility for the conduct of a session. That's it. And don't expect that a pc does have any responsibility for the conduct of a session because he doesn't. You're the auditor. You're supposed to know what you're doing. You're supposed to know what he's doing.

Hubbard, L. (1961, 10 August). Question and Answer Period: Goals Assessment, Behavior of PC. Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. Lecture conducted from Sussex, England.
Here's another section of DMSMH that Campbell wrote. Notice he calls himself a "nuclear physicist" and credits the formulation for the Dianetics "scientific methodology" in part to engineers at Ma Bell.
John W. Campbell wrote:Appendix II
The Scientific Method


The Scientific Method is based solidly on definite rules, but is none the less, like the American Way of Life, something that must be lived to be fully understood. The United States has a Constitution, but the American Way of Life is far more than that; so the Scientific Method is, while based on certain readily cited rules, far more than those rules.

For one thing, the Scientific Method implies zestfully, gleefully attacking, with every available weapon of logic, every possible logical loophole in—your own structure of logic and theory. It requires that a man tear into his carefully built theory with the vim, vigor and spite of his worst enemy. It implies that a scientist's best friend will review his work starting with the premise that it's all wrong, and do his best to prove it's wrong.

For the intellectual triumph, the warm glow of victory in science, comes not from producing a new theory—but from producing a new theory that stands up, and is useful, even when the most knowing make deliberate attempts to find a flaw.

The Scientific Method is behind the testing of Navy armor plate. The production of a perfect piece of 16-inch armor plate is routine and gives no special satisfaction. But the production of a slab of 16-inch armor plate with a 16-inch armor-piercing projectile with its nose buried in that armor, a plate bulged, distorted, but unpierced and unbroken—that is triumph and satisfaction. We don't test the 16-inch plate ,with machine-gun fire, or with 6-inch projectiles. Test it with the heaviest, deadliest weapons you've got; then, and only then, do you have something to be proud of.

So with a theory.

There are rules for argument that lead to the building of a theory; they can be condensed to three key, critical points, the sense of which is clear. The problem in application is the subtlety with which violations of those rules can creep in. The critical rules are:

1. Argument by appeal to authority is of no value whatever.

2. The observation, not the observer's report, are the important data.

3. No theory, however well-established or long-held, can stand in the face of one relevant, contradictory fact.

The first of those rules is the one that is most often violated, usually quite unintentionally and without realizing it. Everybody knows that appeal to authority is no sound way to argue a case, even if the authority happens to be right. Yet so subtle can appeal to authority be that it is exceedingly easy to miss noticing its insertion; the preceding sentence, for instance, deliberately exemplifies one type of very easily missed "appeal to authority," actually the most common of all such appeals. "Everybody knows," "of course," "naturally" and similar phrases are the slipperiest customers in that respect. "Everybody knew" the world was flat for a long, long time, and "of course" the Sun went around the Earth, as any fool could plainly see. And common clay and the precious ruby have nothing in common—nothing, that is, except the same elements in somewhat different proportions.

But even the less subtle appeal-to-authority that is stamped with the Great Name is a source of immense amounts of trouble. It was not Aristotle's fault that, for nearly a thousand years, science was stopped still by consistent appeal to Aristotle; he didn't claim he knew all the answers—the scholastic arguers did. Even today, in an age which has some understanding of the scientific method, Great Name arguments show up—except, of course, that the Great Name himself has become a Great Name by most carefully refraining from using that method! The sentence, "Einstein says that nothing is faster than the speed of light; it is theoretically impossible," contains two arguments by appeal to authority, and sounds so learnedly scientific that anyone might be taken in by it. Saying a thing is "theoretically impossible" is, actually, appeal to the authority of present theories. But a theory is not a fact—it's an intelligent set of opinions, and no more, as any scientist realizes. So far as the Great Name argument goes, those are easy to spot, and their value comes into focus very quickly if you simply substitute the arbitrary name "Joe Doakes" for the Great Name. The corrected, scientific-method sentence above —so far as argumentative value goes—would read, "Joe Doakes says nothing is faster than the speed of light; in his informed opinion it appears impossible."

Scientifically, there is no difference whatever between the two statements, so far as evidential value goes. The evidence-statement on the subject would read, "Einstein suggested, and physical experiment appears to prove, that nothing is faster than the speed of light; current physical theory, which seems to fit most of the observed data, indicates it is impossible."

That is, admittedly, a much less solidly satisfying sort of statement. It sounds weak, uncertain of itself or anything else. And it is the sort of statement—the sort of thinking—that went from the first small scientific evidence of the atomic theory in 1800 to atomic fission in less than a century and a half. It is the scientist—who operates on the principle that he doesn't already know all the answers—who is out looking for new and better answers. A man who thinks in terms of "This is the answer. I know this is true. That is impossible, because it disagrees with what I know," does not have to do research. He already knows the answers. He is in no danger of making new and disturbing discoveries that might upset his certainty of mind. The scientist, on the other hand, operates with the certain knowledge that he is uncertain; he is never disappointed, for new data is constantly being found—he's looking for it—that shows that he was, indeed, a bit mistaken.

The non-scientist, who likes to work with Truths and Certainties and think in Absolutes, the method of uncertainties and probabilities seems stifling, an impossible method of operation. It is so impossible that it produces, in a single century, electric light and power, radio, television, atomics, the entire science of organic chemistry ranging from dyes to synthetic drugs, automobiles, airplanes—practically an entirely new civilization.

By realizing that no theory is final, complete, or perfect, a new concept is admitted: a theory is good so long as it is useful. It is, naturally, a very pleasant thing if the theory also happens to be true, but that (shocking though the thought may be to the layman) is not at all necessary. The really important question is not, "Is it true?" but "Does it work?" If it works, we can use it and pretend it's true; if it is true, that's an added bonus.

This reasoning, which seems to some specious and downright dishonest, is the only method so far found that produces results. Look about you: every product that has been touched by machines in its production is a demonstration of the observed fact that, by provisionally assuming a theory is true, concrete, useful results can be obtained. And that by maintaining a willingness to discard or modify that theory at the first sign of failure, progress is made.

For if a theory is good only when it works, then the first time it fails to work—the first fact it encounters which does not fit—the theory must be discarded, and a new and better one found. Only someone who insists that a theory is Truth would hesitate to discard a theory that didn't work. And a scientist never insists that a theory is Truth; only that it is useful.

When an apparent contradiction appears, however, the most careful checking must be instituted. First: check the interpretation of the theory. The basic concepts of the theory might be right, and the application of those concepts wrong. The reinterpretation of the theory may explain the new fact. Second, and actually simultaneously, remember that the observation, not the observer's report, is the datum, and repeat the observations. The observer may have been wrong. Men can't see beyond the violet or below the red; quinine makes a man's ears ring, so he hears sounds that aren't there, and no man can hear sounds above 20,000 cycles when they are there. Under ultraviolet light, the human eyeball glows slightly, so that one sees a mist of light that isn't there, but since we can't see ultraviolet light itself, an observer will not see the source of ultraviolet that is there. Always check the observations; the observer may be wrong. But actual observations, facts, are never wrong.

One source of a lot of misunderstanding is the difference between theoretical impossibility and factual impossibility. That is best illustrated, perhaps, by the old story of the man who telephoned his lawyer, explained a legal contretemps, and was told, "Don't worry about it; they can't put you in jail for that!" The client replied, "I'm calling from the jail."

A slight change on that might demonstrate reverse aspect. Make the troubled caller a circus owner; this time we'll say the lawyer replies, "That's serious. I'm afraid they can put your elephant in jail for that."
In each case, theory is in conflict with physical fact; in each case, as it invariably must by the very nature of things, theory, not fact, breaks down.

But all of this is, in essence, a discussion of the scientific method of argument, of thought. There is, at the root of it all, the scientific technique, the final test and proving ground of all scientific thinking. Ideally, the scientific method follows seven steps:

1. Make a series of careful Observations.

A. These observations must be repeated, and are acceptable as observations only if many people following the prescribed techniques can duplicate the results.

B. Variations of the prescribed techniques must be tried to eliminate the possibility that the observed results might be due to a factor other than that intended. As a gross example, suppose it is reported that a magnet will attract objects. Demonstrations show it does attract and lift iron balls; that is Step A above. Now variations of the experiment show that the magnet attracts iron but not copper, silver, etc. The observed effect—attraction—is real. Variation of the original experiment is needed to show the actual limits of the effect.

2. Combining all relevant data, from all relevant experiments, formulate a hypothesis.

A. The hypothesis must explain all observed data.

B. It must not demand as a consequence of its logical development, the existence of phenomena that do not, in fact, exist.

C. But it should indicate the existence of real, hitherto unobserved facts.

3. Using the hypothesis, predict new facts.

A. A logical structure broad enough to explain all observed, relevant phenomena will necessarily imply further phenomena that have not yet been observed. Use this mechanism to predict the existence of something which, under previous theories, would not exist.

4. Perform an experiment and make observations on these predictions.

5. As a result of the experiment, discard the hypothesis, or advance it now to the status of "Theory."

6. Make further predictions, further experiments, and collect more observational evidence until a contradictory relevant fact is found.

7. Discard the old theory, take the new total of observational data, and form a new hypothesis.

8. See Step Three.

This process seems, at first glance, a completely circular, going-nowhere system. It isn't; the 50-passenger airliner flying by just overhead testifies to that. Notice that each time round that cycle the new hypothesis shows how to get new data, new experimental evidence, new information. The process is not circular; it's an expanding spiral, and each sweep around it covers a broader and broader field of understanding.

But the most important step of all—the one that took men longest to make once the idea of organized knowledge was started—is Step Seven. "Discard the old theory . . . and start all over again." It's hard for men—who are basically conventional, status-quo animals! ... to give up the comfortable familiarity, the nice, easy routine, of that Old Time Theory, to embark on a completely new system that calls for a total revision of all their thoughts. It's so easy and comfortable to believe that the old theory is Truth, and doesn't and won't ever need changing, even if it doesn't work all the time. Like an old pair of shoes, it is comfortable, and familiar, even if the holes are apparent.

The true scientist is in a somewhat different position. He starts off with any theory and finds it useful only so long as it works. If it no longer works, it should be discarded, and a new, better one fashioned.

And that is an old, comfortable familiar theory that you can settle down into, and stick with for life. Expect change; you can be sure you won't be disappointed.

John W. Campbell, Jr.
Nuclear Physicist,
Author of The Atomic Story

NOTE: Formulation of this Scientific Methodology was contributed in part by the engineers of "Ma Bell"—the Bell Telephone research laboratories—to whom thanks are extended.

Hubbard, L. R. (1950). Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, a handbook of dianetic procedure (25th printing June 1981 ed., pp. 505-11). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.
INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST TRAINING ROUTINE – TR L
Purpose: To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1. To train the student to outflow false data effectively.
Commands: Part l “Tell me a lie”.

User avatar
caroline
Posts: 2315
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:29 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Hubbard and John W. Campbell, Jr.

Post by caroline » Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:44 pm

Hubbard claimed elsewhere that Snake Thompson taught him to hypnotize cats. In this lecture while discussing how he audited animals, Hubbard talked about processing a cat to behave aggressively toward John W. Campbell:
Hubbard wrote:And I brought a cat up along the line once. Old John W. Campbell Jr. and so forth was really the source of this because he hated cats and he used to kick this cat, and this cat was a nice little calico cat, and so forth. So I just simply processed the cat up to a point where the cat, every time John W. Campbell, Jr. would sit down, would go over and tear his shoe laces open, you see? And then if John made a motion with his foot, why, the cat would just score his ankles up gorgeously. And finally that cat had him in full retreat.

Actually, I brought the cat up to a point where the cat would obey commands which is almost impossible with cats and so forth. It came when you whistled and do various tricks along this particular line. It had very good recognition level and so forth. Very, very—self—determinism of that cat just went up through the stars. But it was just run on a reach and withdraw basis, and I got the cat to reach more, and got the cat to reach more, and got the cat to reach more, and got the cat to reach more, and finally the cat was coming uptone all the way.

Hubbard, L. (1965, 27 April). Awareness Levels. Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. Lecture conducted from Sussex, England.
Gerry's "stable datum" when dealing with these materials: "Whenever Hubbard says and so forth in his sermons, assume that whatever precedes and whatever follows is filled with lies."
INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST TRAINING ROUTINE – TR L
Purpose: To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1. To train the student to outflow false data effectively.
Commands: Part l “Tell me a lie”.

User avatar
Demented LRH
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Location: New York City, NY, USA
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Hubbard and John W. Campbell, Jr.

Post by Demented LRH » Thu Oct 06, 2011 7:04 pm

It is a common misconception about Einstein saying that nothing could move faster than the light, and Campbell had subscribed to it. But Einstein said something else, which is that his theory is applicable to the processes that occur with the speed of light or slower. This does not imply that the speed of light cannot be exceeded. In fact, recent discovery at CERN shows that certain type of neutrino can move faster than light.
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.

User avatar
caroline
Posts: 2315
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:29 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Hubbard and John W. Campbell, Jr.

Post by caroline » Thu Oct 06, 2011 9:45 pm

Here's a couple more references to "Ma Bell" (Bell Labs) in connection with the "scientific method" and the beginning of Dianetics.
Hubbard wrote:Now, it was perfectly all right in the sloppy discipline of 1876 and 1955 - wherever psychology is operating - to simply say, "Well, we apply the scientific method." The first definition in print on the scientific method is long after Professor Wundt. And it is long, long after people had used it threadbare and is not an accurate or correct statement.

The scientific method which is used today was discussed with the engineers at
Bell Laboratories - Ma Bell - at lunch hours, until they had finally decided what they were doing. Here we let somebody decide what he was doing instead of deciding what was so. And we found out that the scientific method, in their understanding, was so-and so and so-and-so. But in discussing it for a few lunch hours they had established a brand-new scientific method. They had made a better definition out of it than had existed before. And that scientific method which they then defined ran this way:

They take a theory or a datum which predicts where new data will be found, which when looked for will be found to exist in fact. In other words, scientific method is a system of prediction used by entering on this basis: Well, something may be so. Now let's see if any data exists to demonstrate it. Why, then, this theory has some validity and possibly will predict some more data. Now we'll go look for that new data and
find out if it exists anyplace, and if that exists this theory is getting pretty good. And we'll see if it predicts some more data. And if it predicts some more data, by golly, that's getting pretty good. And if it doesn't predict all the data that we did find, then there's something wrong with the theory, so we get a new theory. See. And we refine the theory and go ahead from there.

Now, that actually is a refined statement of the scientific method as of 1950. And if any invention is connected with it, it is the engineers at
Bell Labs. Now, you'll find people who every once in a while will tell you, why, the scientific method is all written up in - oh, there's a big mention of it or something. You go look at that publication. Yes, yes, yeah. It's written up. Says "the scientific method," and then skips it.

In other words, the discipline in this field called science did not match the word called science. The discipline did not match the word called science. Because science means truth. It is taken from the word scio - s-c-i-o - which is "knowing in the fullest sense of the word." That's quote-unquote. Scio means "knowing in the fullest sense of the word."

Hubbard, L. (1954, 4 May) Be, Do Have Straightwire. Fifth American Advanced Clinical Course. Lecture conducted from Phoenix, Arizona.
Hubbard wrote:But anyway, here was Dianetics. Done in an ivory tower and applied without ever naming it, to an enormous number of people, actually, by myself and codified, as far as I could tell, so that it was perfectly understandable. I understood it People got well and this was fine, and so I didn’t think there was any more to it than that I wasn’t calling it a science at the time. It didn’t have a name yet I had to cook up the name one – late one Saturday night when somebody kept insisting it was a science and if it was a science it had its name. So I sat back and I thought real hard, and I remembered something about Greek and I remembered that "Dia, that’s 'through' – 'through,' dia. And that’s through, through – yeah, that’s right ‘through mind.’ That’s all there is to it. "Dianetics," I said, "is the name of this science. And you’ve heard of it of course." He, of course, said he had, being from Bell Labs, not from RCA Victor.

Hubbard, L. (1953, 30 September). The History and Development of Dianetics. First International Congress of Dianeticists and Scientologists. Lecture conducted from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Hubbard drops some black PR on a Ma Bell employee who is supposedly designing a "strategy machine" for admirals in the navy...
Hubbard wrote:The United States government today is degree happy, totally degree happy; where's a matter of fact up at "Ma Bell" the big IT&T laboratories, it's very amusing you see somebody there and oh, he's designing a strategy machine that is going to figure out all the strategy for the admirals in the navy, and you say, "What's your degree?" And he says, "I have a degree I'm" - you notice everybody calling him "Doctor" you know? And he says, "I have a degree" and kind of brushes it off quickly, you know.

And you say, "No, no. What are you degreed in?"

He says, "English."

It's very amusing, it's very amusing to see the government being taken in by this.

Hubbard, L. (1957, 30 December). Cause and Effect. Ability Congress. Lecture conducted from Washington, DC.
INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST TRAINING ROUTINE – TR L
Purpose: To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1. To train the student to outflow false data effectively.
Commands: Part l “Tell me a lie”.

User avatar
Demented LRH
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Location: New York City, NY, USA
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Hubbard and John W. Campbell, Jr.

Post by Demented LRH » Fri Oct 07, 2011 1:53 pm

"They take a theory or a datum which predicts where new data will be found, which when looked for will be found to exist in fact."

Hubbard's description of a scientific method shows that he was a complete idiot -- the scientists already know where new data will be found within the boundaries of an experiment; they test their theories to see if the outcome of an experiment is predicted with sufficient degree of precision.
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.

User avatar
caroline
Posts: 2315
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:29 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Hubbard and John W. Campbell, Jr.

Post by caroline » Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:29 pm

In a letter to John W. Campbell (1 December 1940) Heinlein wrote that he didn't think Campbell used "the same scientific-method approach in socio-political subjects that [Campbell] use[ed] in the physical sciences." Heinlein thought that Campbell had a "tendency to generalize on insufficient, or unverified data" but that he thought their "fundamental social evaluations and objectives" were much the same, "close enough to be reconciled and compromised." (Heinlein archives: CORR218-1)

Correspondence between Campbell and Heinlein late the following year included discussion of how Campbell would serve in the war effort. On 17 December 1941, Campbell wrote to Heinlein that "the optimum application of [his] efforts would seem to be somewhere in the propaganda line." (Heinlein archives: CORR218-3) In a 21 December 1941 letter to Campbell, Heinlein suggested the possibility that "there might be a spot for you in the national research program," although it would be "kinda rough on Street & Smith for [Campbell] to go into research." (Heinlein archives: CORR218-3). Campbell responded on 29 December 1941, saying he wanted to make his position and abilities clearer. In this letter, he discussed his tendency toward synthesis, and his intense interest in research, while calling himself "not a detail man," and stating that he'd "make a poor researcher." (Heinlein archives: CORR218-3). Campbell expanded on his research methods in a letter of 8 January 1942, which was misdated 8 January 1941. (Heinlein archives: CORR218-3).

Heinlein was quite overt about his own abilities and intentions in the field of propaganda, particularly through his science fiction stories. This was encouraged by his navy friend Lieutenant Commander A.B. Scoles, who in a letter to Heinlein on 14 January 1942 suggested that it would be a good idea for Heinlein to write "an article to be published in all the science fiction magazines bringing out the need" for ideas that would help forward their experimental work in airplane technology. (Heinlein archives: ANNA201a-9)

Hubbard of course, claimed he was the expert at synthesis. In this PDC lecture, he talked about how he brought together Eastern and Western knowledge:
Hubbard wrote:In 1894 an old guy that was doing a lot of work on this, a fellow by the name of – not on this; he was just doing work – Freud uh… announced his libido theory. The electronic data which has now led to all kinds of electronic equipment, the formulas that have led to modern electronics, the A-bomb – whether or not these are an advantage, they do demonstrate an advance – were in existence in 1894.

Coincidentally in 1894 then, was the science of electronics and its basic theory. And, in the field of mind, the libido theory.

And in 1952 in that field, just taking that as a field of development, we have the atom bomb and we have the libido theory. No advance. That is not healthy.

Now you’ve watched… you have watched the sudden fusion of Western – mathematical thinking, organization, logic and electronics, suddenly fuse with – not
Sigmund Freud, or the Greek philosopher – fuse with the data which was left in India about 8200 years ago, and which lay dormant and which was figured out this way and confused that way and was relatively unanalyzed. It was from that body of data that Christianity came; it was from that body of data that many other things occurred. But it was a tremendously valuable mass of material.

All right, it lay there unevaluated and, of course, was a field of tremendous richness from the standpoint, not of investigation of ‘it’ – more men have gone mad per square inch trying to investigate ‘it’ than any other thing I know.

I was sitting there tonight trying to pretend that this had been a very brave voyage of adventure because it had been so dangerous and there’s so many men fall on their faces doing this. As a matter of fact it has not been a very dangerous voyage. But uh… the point is that an awful lot of men have fallen on their faces in the last century trying to hit this track. Uh… amongst them were
Nietzsche, and with him the German nation. Amongst them were Schopenhauer; uh… amongst them were Aleister Crowley. They were all trying to hit this track and they were overshooting, undershooting, round and round; because they were looking at it as ‘It’ and trying to analyze ‘It’ as itself. And trying to apply to ‘It’ its own peculiarities of logic and formulation. And it had no such evaluation.

Needs a dichotomy to work something out. Two things must come together to work something out.

So there was that big body of data and all of a sudden we ran into it with electronic material and Western logic, plus the Western belief that it could be done and it wasn’t complicated.

I ran in ahead of the data this business that all things are basically simple, and had this background of other material. And then I completely neglected that other background of material except where it would cross accidentally once in a while.

And I knew these two fields I… I don’t know anybody else in this century or the end of the last one who had these two backgrounds; background in mysticism and uh… occultism – metaphysics, theology, hokus-pokus, voodoo, mumbo-jumbo, magic, spiritualism uh…and so on, who took a rigorous course of Western orientation. You study civil engineering and it is about the roughest discipline there is, clinically because it says it’s there and it’s there and that you will only solve it if you recognize that it’s there and so on.

And that put one on the track of agreement and a lot of other things. So these two things crossed: This tremendous body of information in the Eastern oriental sphere and this tremendous body of collected information in the occidental, the Western world. And those two bodies of information had never been studied one to the other. I don’t know why nobody from that area about which I have any knowledge whatsoever, in India or the studies thereof, ever thought it worth his while to step out of that field and try to study something else. And I don’t know anybody in engineering who would do anything but get down and swear and spit and get very thoroughly upset at the slightest mention of the word ‘mysticism’.

You go into Bell Labs [1] now and the toughest, terriblest curse that they can lay on anything is "That has something to do with the spirit or ‘mysticism’." It sounds mystical to them and so forth. That is their ultimate for imprecision.

Now, all of a sudden these two bodies of knowledge went together with a dull crash; monitored by something above that then, it was possible to codify in terms of MEST the capabilities of theta. And that is the trick here: How do you codify in terms of MEST a capability which really is only a small part MEST? And that’s been quite a trick putting it together and codifying it.

Hubbard, L. R. (1952, 13 December). Development of Scientology: Characteristics of Living Science. Philadelphia Doctorate Course. Lecture conducted from Philadelphia, PA.
[1] Related re Bell Labs.

Here's another example of Hubbard's ability to synthesize:
FBI Files wrote:During the early part of 1956, HDRF, Silver Spring, Maryland, was circulating a pamphlet entitled "Brain-Washing, A Synthesis of the Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics." According to the book, psychopolitics is the "art and science of asserting and maintaining dominion over the thoughts and loyalties of individuals, officers, bureaus, and masses, and the effecting of the conquest of enemy nations through mental health.'"

Retrieved on 7 October 2011 from http://www.xenu.net/archive/FBI/fbi-12.html
INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST TRAINING ROUTINE – TR L
Purpose: To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1. To train the student to outflow false data effectively.
Commands: Part l “Tell me a lie”.

Don Carlo
Posts: 12113
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:20 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Hubbard and John W. Campbell, Jr.

Post by Don Carlo » Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:43 pm

It's false that LRH was the first to try to combine science and mysticism (and even then he only created a pseudo-science/spiritual-fraud mish-mash).
Throughout history and even today mysticism has attempted to gain scientific validity by borrowing from all branches of science various laws, theories, jargon, formula, etc. These are then incorporated into the literature (for example) to give the reader the feeling that what is being discussed is "scientifically sound" and thus valid.
From a MUCH better article on mysticism and science than anything LRH wrote, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism
Last edited by Don Carlo on Fri Oct 07, 2011 8:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
caroline
Posts: 2315
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:29 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Hubbard and John W. Campbell, Jr.

Post by caroline » Fri Oct 07, 2011 7:10 pm

Don Carlo wrote:It's false that LRH was the first to combine science and mysticism.
Throughout history and even today mysticism has attempted to gain scientific validity by borrowing from all branches of science various laws, theories, jargon, formula, etc. These are then incorporated into the literature (for example) to give the reader the feeling that what is being discussed is "scientifically sound" and thus valid.
From a MUCH better article on mysticism and science than anything LRH wrote, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism
Although that's probably the basic claim, I'd say Hubbard was not successful in combining science and mysticism. The alchemical principle and work of "reconciliation of the opposites" implies the attainment of a higher synthesis, which is not to be found in Scientology. What does exist in Scientology is junk science and spiritual fraud.
INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST TRAINING ROUTINE – TR L
Purpose: To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1. To train the student to outflow false data effectively.
Commands: Part l “Tell me a lie”.

Don Carlo
Posts: 12113
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:20 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Hubbard and John W. Campbell, Jr.

Post by Don Carlo » Fri Oct 07, 2011 8:39 pm

I'm re-wording to reflect your point. Thanks, Caroline.

Post Reply
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Return to “Opinions & Debate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests