Agreed.

Agreed, at least one.

It’s instructive to consider the topics LRH didn’t think were worth pontificating on, and didn’t occur to him at all.

He wrote little to nothing on love, compassion, empathy, mindfulness, equanimity, suffering, and forgiveness.

A former scientologist has only to look at the writings of whom Hubbard claimed to be a reincarnation of to see all of these essential topics on our human experience expanded upon brilliantly.

Wow. Thanks so much✨💖✨

Thank you.

You are welcome. Do you live in Thailand?

And thank you very much Richard for your suggestion. I’ll check into it.

Thank you very much George. Will check it out.

Gene, typically Hubbard would have had several sources for his knowledge of Korzybski – the sort of thing that people around him were reading, even if he wasn’t. From what I can tell he relied a lot on picking up ideas from what was being discussed in his circles of sci-fi friends and acquaintances and, later, among the more intellectual of the followers who gathered around him at places like Saint Hill (there was apparently a circle that included Charles Berner, and his wife Ava, who later said that Hubbard didn’t come up with anything, it all came from those around him).

There’s definitely a clear account I’ve seen, that Sara Northrup was a student of Korzybski’s General Semantics and helped Hubbard in his understanding – I roughly quoted what I remember of her comment on him not being the type to work through books himself. That may have come after he was introduced to the author and subject, but probably contributed to the background that he used to produce his own supposed “axioms” and “logics,” for instance.

Hubbard learned Korzybski’s General Semantics not by reading “Science and Sanity” like I did as a 13 year old (one of the toughest reads ever) but was taught by his friend my early childhood hero Heinlein who was heavily into GS.

Heinlein’s short story “Gulf” inspired both Hubbard and I to learn GS (which Hubbard based Dianetics on).