Well, shouldn't be a surprise. That's always the sky-high goal of low-minded dolts.
The world is a complex place, filled with competing ideologies that can't all be right. To simplify it, suddenly realize that it was the lizard people all along, for example. Look at the faces of those who accept it, it suddenly all makes sense now! Take a…
Well, shouldn't be a surprise. That's always the sky-high goal of low-minded dolts.
The world is a complex place, filled with competing ideologies that can't all be right. To simplify it, suddenly realize that it was the lizard people all along, for example. Look at the faces of those who accept it, it suddenly all makes sense now! Take an observation from someone with an agenda, draw the line on your pegboard to another observation. step back and observe - it connects! The pattern is clear to see! Why didn't somebody think of that before?
Instead of a miasma of conflicting half-truths and probabilities, we have certainty. And certainty, as Hubbard often said, is truth. Combine that with the ability to draw patterns out of random data, a valuable skill from our hunter-gatherer days that often trips us up when faced with modern complexity, and the agony of indecision all goes away.
Sadly, the Scientologists are not alone in their passion to save the world from itself by simplifying it out of existence. Yeats' famous poem "The Second Coming" was written in 1919, long before Hubbard was making his foolish claims. "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity".
Plus, when Hubbard acted looney, my justification was the William James' writing titled "The Varieties of Religious Experience" where James notes loads of loonies were religious leaders.
So looney delusional megalomania goals of Hubbard, fine, in context.
Chuck, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive! (Shakespeare)
I was walking around with a copy of Isaac Asimov's "Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology", reading about the alchemical works of Isaac Newton and Cavendish's misogyny. You could make a decent rationalization that Hubbard was a kook but so was Giordano Bruno.
An inspired weirdo or a weird inspiration? Does wisdom fall from the mouths of fools or, as they say, in vino veritas? (In the wine we find the truth, or get them drunk to make them talk truly).
The ultimate test, no matter who came up with the idea, is does it work? In Scientology's case the answer is a resounding NO!
Well, shouldn't be a surprise. That's always the sky-high goal of low-minded dolts.
The world is a complex place, filled with competing ideologies that can't all be right. To simplify it, suddenly realize that it was the lizard people all along, for example. Look at the faces of those who accept it, it suddenly all makes sense now! Take an observation from someone with an agenda, draw the line on your pegboard to another observation. step back and observe - it connects! The pattern is clear to see! Why didn't somebody think of that before?
Instead of a miasma of conflicting half-truths and probabilities, we have certainty. And certainty, as Hubbard often said, is truth. Combine that with the ability to draw patterns out of random data, a valuable skill from our hunter-gatherer days that often trips us up when faced with modern complexity, and the agony of indecision all goes away.
Sadly, the Scientologists are not alone in their passion to save the world from itself by simplifying it out of existence. Yeats' famous poem "The Second Coming" was written in 1919, long before Hubbard was making his foolish claims. "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity".
Plus, when Hubbard acted looney, my justification was the William James' writing titled "The Varieties of Religious Experience" where James notes loads of loonies were religious leaders.
So looney delusional megalomania goals of Hubbard, fine, in context.
Chuck, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive! (Shakespeare)
I was walking around with a copy of Isaac Asimov's "Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology", reading about the alchemical works of Isaac Newton and Cavendish's misogyny. You could make a decent rationalization that Hubbard was a kook but so was Giordano Bruno.
An inspired weirdo or a weird inspiration? Does wisdom fall from the mouths of fools or, as they say, in vino veritas? (In the wine we find the truth, or get them drunk to make them talk truly).
The ultimate test, no matter who came up with the idea, is does it work? In Scientology's case the answer is a resounding NO!
Scientology gets the big no!
I love the "No OTs" song, for it just pulls the rug out from Scientology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyigdRxPOR4