I broke down and ordered a used copy on amazon so that I can have it handy- to battle fool if nothing else. Ive also been cataloguing the schools of thought he stole the ideas from. I may have to leave it outside on the back porch.

Kat

Richard, that’s some of the weakest of Hubbard’s pablum. He must have pulled that out, on a day he was under the weather from his alcohol and drug abuse.

The scientific research into false memories still shows those are spurious. And still, no one can actually remember specific details like verifiable dates, languages they spoke, etc.

My understanding is that on OT 8, Hubbard attributes a lot of past lives to BTs, meaning the individual didn’t actually live them – and has wasted time in Scientology supposedly recalling them. That’s essentially concession that past lives are mostly, if not entirely, a spurious phenomenon, essentially what the scientific research shows.

If there’s anything going on at all, it’s probably a phenomenon of collective or species memory, like the Akashic Record – which is a better theoretical model that explains how multiple people could access memories of the same past life, and is at least interesting. Hubbard would almost certainly have known of it, but was much too egotistic and self-centered to consider any notion of common, collective humanity

Peacemaker,
I have no issue with pointing out the craziness in Dianetics, although I know that some still have strong ties to the book that started it all.

I will state for the record that I completely disagee with his assertion that actual medical issues are linked to emotionally distressing “memories” or emotional traumas that occurred in the last- that is THE most dangerous fallacy of the entire thing.

First, I thought the entire book was complete dreck- I try to be polite by saying I didn’t care for it, but the thing is nearly unreadable from first sentence to last.

The claims that Hubbard makes throughout are just moronic- and dangerous. Trying to treat an actual illness through “auditing” is a completely irresponsible and truly crazy thing to claim. I have a particular hatred for this premise after what happened to my husband. Anyone who has a brain in their skull should know that mental illness and physical illnesses may have some linkage, and that psychosomatic illnesses exist, but to claim to cure organic illnesses is abhorrent.

The Engram situation- first, he took the idea from others then stole the term, he also gives different definitions in the same book- couldn’t he keep it straight?

He claims that everything is scientific but never gives actual data- just stating something is scientifically sound doesn’t make it so. Scientific research is backed up with data that can be recreated independently- he gives absolutely nothing- no facts, numbers, double blinds, zero, zip, nada- yet couches it in a scientific tone that belies the utter crazy. This in and of itself makes his claims fallacies.

I also can’t get past his co-opting different schools of thought and relabeling it. While reading it, my mind was labeling- Descartes….Freud….Jung….Freud again, oh my- Darwin…Gaulton…wait- there’s Maslow and Kierkegaard…Titchener .etc- he even threw in Wundt to a degree. Did this man ever have an original thought?

Claiming to have the answer to infinity/past lives and how the trauma affects present- whaaat?

Claiming that “bad” memories are planted in the womb- this one is particularly bizarre

Claiming that “clear” is an actual state without any scientific proof (or even any evidence at all)

Claiming that self auditing is dangerous- ??? Under what theory is self reflection and meditation dangerous

Claiming that your IQ will increase, you will have perfect recall, you can be free of allergies, arthritis, bursitis etc – sorry- had to repeat this one just for emphasis

I hated the whole thing and it was torture to read. (I swear I almost broke out in intellectual hives) I will go to the library so that I can give you specific examples of the areas where he actually contradicts himself and give you more inconsistencies.

You-I will gladly answer- fool, not so much. I am reluctant to even re-read the damn thing for the passages you want. I will not have the retched thing in my home, so my quotes will likely be off.

FP, you haven’t addressed any of the inconsistencies and fallacies that I’ve most recently brought up in discussion, so Kat has some reason to be suspicious. But but to be fair, I think she should provide a least a couple of specifics, if only in bullet-point form – and I’d also like to see her do so, because I’m interested to know what she particularly noted from her perspective.

Unless you’ve gotten around to responding to me and I haven’t yet seen it, let me re-frame one of the issues I think you’ve dodged – using bullet points.

So as I’ve cited, Hubbard in a number of instances early on wrote that women having roles or positions equal to men, was wrong and a sign of the deterioration of structures in society, which is sexist and also meets the definition of misogyny as “ingrained prejudice against women” (OED). You’ve claimed that women taking executive and staff roles in Scientology, shows that Hubbard wasn’t misogynistic. It seems to me that there are only two things that can logically be concluded from those pieces of evidence:

* That Hubbard’s perspective changed, without his acknowledging that he had been wrong in earlier works, or

* That the rise of women in Scientology management, that largely took place after Hubbard ceded day-to-day control, was in contravention to his teachings, and part of what ideological loyalists (like yourself, FP) consider to be the departure from orthodoxy and deterioration of the CofS under the regime that took over

Which is your explanation?

** And here’s the related bonus question: Under Hubbard’s theory that “thetan” spirits “pick up” new bodies with the knowledge and experience of past lives available to them, why should it make any significant difference whether a thetan is incarnated as male or female, as he says in those writings about the roles of men and women?

The Cabbage knows it’s all BS, he is the main spewer of lies now that hubbard has had his deserved demise.

I hold him wholly responsible for everything he puts out. He DOES know.

Any SO Exec who knows the truth of how hubbard died, knows there are not more OT levels, knows the bridge is BS – those guys I have no empathy for.

The ED of the local org? Nope. He’s a poor sop who is stuck in, believing. Random staff calling to twist my arm into donating? Nope.

I also hold Pat Broeker responsible. That SOB was with Hubbard when he died, I sat and watched him on stage spew his BS about the OT levels and the big long number etc… HE KNOWS. (and it was hearing and seeing HIM that settled down the huge doubt that the death had created in me) He knows, he left, and he’s been out there living a life in Europe or something, while Scn has gone on and sucked in hundreds/thousands of people who then have given up their lives and billions of dollars.

Pat has NO excuse. He owes it to the world to speak out. He’s free and thousands of SO members are not.

I’m UTR… but if I had information that could do real damage to SCN I’d be shouting it from the rooftops, consequences be damned. I’ve got stories, but nothing that could do anything at all to stop Scn.

I just can’t rip up those still in and believing. As I’ve said before… just a bit ago…that was me. Even my story of the Hellish Trauma I endured that then popped me out in one fell swoop – broke 40 years of conditioning in a heartbeat…. that… wouldn’t touch the cult. I don’t tell my stuff in detail because of what I have to lose and the fact that telling it would do bugger all to aide bringing down the cult.

…….
Thanks for chatting!

🙂

Fool- admit that Hubbard was misogynistic and I will discuss anything you wish to discuss. If you cannot do that we have nothing to say since it proves that you cannot see any other view but your own and are completely uninterested in my points. and that would just be a waste of time, like arguing with a wall (which seems to be have the same emotional intelligence as you do)

Actually there is more kindness expressed to women – and children- by Hubbard than your flaming desires to hurl women into the workaday world usually as a checkout operator at Walmart. But then psychologists and communists want to break up the family unit (it’s good for “business”), force children into kindergartens all day and forego the much better and wonderful personal care that mothers give to children.

Ha! “Speaking of bad information” – so you take a squirrel version of Scientology (“Knowledgism” which was Alan Walters “creation” I believe) with its wonderful idea of keeping entities as slaves to perform automatic functions so that one can sip Martinis on a beach while they are doing all the work, as a valid criticism! So a rabidly squirrel and diametrically opposed version of “Scientology” is ok to quote eh? God help you and all those who believe this nonsense.

Which women that Hubbard worked with have complained about his so-called and re-defined “misogyny?

Well as was honestly mentioned by that lady who worked directly with Hubbard only recently (before you jumped on the bandwagon here) there were lots of sniveling and snide comments about Hubbard working with young girls until the lady stated that there was never any thing in Hubbard’s behavior that warranted such, in fact the complete opposite. And so the snide comments all went quiet. Is Scientology a male-only domain then?

If you want to carry on trying to bend the definition of misogyny into what Hubbard states above then you do realize that most people here will see you for what you are – just an ardent critic with some sort of personal agenda.