To the 200 (300) million American people :
— there being some more than 200 million, one can discount the remainder, for the time being, as either some (very small number of) persons who go about trying to hoax everybody else — or some (many more) who have been deceived by the former sort, sometimes to the point of not being able to reason about anything at all beyond what they have been told by some newspaper or the like.
To Any Admirers of the American Way :
or, what has been known as the American Way ; this might be not always entirely clear ; so one can do no better, perhaps, than to examine the history of the American thought and the American institutions with a view to finding some constants.
Please obtain (or SAFEGUARD) ANY editions of the materials by the American engineer and writer L. Ron Hubbard (1911-1986) which are known to you as being AUTHENTIC, or likely to be authentic.
Was all this all right is not the point. The point is that this was (and is) powerful.
At least parts of it are entirely right by my own examination ; to the skeptic I could say, the parts of it which I have seen seemed right to me.
I cannot speak about the parts I have not seen (naturally).
"If it is not written it is not true" — that is, if it has not been written by Hubbard himself it does not belong under any activity directly associated with the legacy of his person or his name.
That means, written by Hubbard himself — no matter who would put his name, no matter under what pretenses, to some publication (which might or might not have originated with him ; which might or might not have been reproduced faithfully, that is, without alterations).
Some statements by others on this subject might or might not be true ; if they have not been made by Hubbard himself then they uniformly belong under the heading of "verbal data" (which is a technical term with quite exact applications). Any such statements must be fully verified before they could be for the long run accepted as valid.
(These statements here are "verbal data" by me and are true to the best of my knowledge. They do not, properly speaking, form part of the subject and should not be considered as representative of the subject beyond what can be found and verified in the original materials. Why such "fuss" ? Those data by Hubbard actually are very exact, the reader, even if sometimes stated in very plain terms).
This is a principle generally (if sometimes less rigorously) applied to anybody's work, anyway, so there is little fundamentally new in such an approach. Want to criticise this work, the reader, please make sure that what you are about to criticise is not something that has not originated with the author. (Else, you are only hitting at some windmills, as in an old fable).
If you might want to accept this work, whether some parts of it or the entirely of the fundamentals, please mind that what you are about to accept has originated with the author. Else, you might "go off on a tangent" (and end up in a ditch somewhere, as it happens on the highway, so to speak).
Why make this an all-American affair ? Of me to do so might be not otherwise justified than by an apparenct necessity. Somebody is presently trying to do the entirety of this work (and, perhaps, the entirety of the Humanity) in.
An exact magnitude of an exact quality of such a deed may be here left unmentioned, for the sake of keeping calm, overall ; also because there may have been no sufficient terms available in any human language to date.
Since this is an American author involved, it might be relevant to consider this work in the interest of the people most naturally interested themselves, that is, the 200 million Americans (allowing for some margin who for some reason or other, as mentioned above, might be "not there").
Not so much such considerations as somebody's being nationalistic or patriotic must be involved, as the time-honoured principle of any science ever, by some authors termed the organisation of knowledge.
WPT, Oct 07,
On Being Skeptical
This is mainly addressed to any scientist : or, better, anyone somewhat familiar with the developments of the 'scientific method' (a "something" which can be learned gradually provided one has accurate data to hand).
First, the distinction, let alone "opposition" between 'science' and 'religion' is a relatively new phenomena. There may have been some truth to such in some instances ; is the distinction necessary ?
One could offer that the distinction, let alone "opposition" is not necessary. Of any contrary propositions none seem worthy of consideration. (That such a distinction or opposition can be sometimes seen at present does not prove that it is necessary).
If some body want the human progress, this might one item worthy of some clarification. As of this writing, I for one do not know of any men of religion, or men of God, who actively oppose progress in science. And few may be the true scientists who would actively oppose some generalised 'religion'; some grumbling seen here or there usually stems from some narrow view on a very broad range of phenomena, historically present among the Mankind ; but one does not infer a general truth of or about something from worst extremes.
Throughout the most part of Man's history no "opposition" of any kind existed between 'religion or 'science' nor was there any notion present of any such a difference. Either denomination has ultimatly to so with some kind of knowledge ; one finds self, ultimately, operating between some such extremes as (a) some (possibly unspecified) belief and (b) some (relative) certainty.
The first axiom of Ron Hubbard's work in the 1940-50's has been : Survive !
That was "nothing new" (quotation marks). What was actually new : it was the statement which could be taken up for some new beginning, so to speak.
Is that acceptable. "Refute" it, 'philosopher', as much as you would. Any person is free to consider such statements for their own use. Sombody's will to survive does not depend on any outside Authority — methinks.
(It seems that that axiom could be only "refuted" in two ways : by somebody's ending his own life, or by somebody's trying to kill everything at all. Either sort of action can be considered as mad :the first sort does not usually admit of doubt, exceptions by way of some reason-based sacrifices excepted. The other sort does from all appearances exist : there are some veritable madmen, operating freely within the "civilised" societies, under many a guise).
The next question may be : is what followed from the first axiom consistent. It stands to reason that if the rest of the work is consistent with the first principles then the entirety ought to be considered — in reference to the first principles.
If it is not consistent with the premises then any errors could be pointed out : is there anybody who could read, out there ?
Any kind of reader could do well by distinguishing between brainless attacks and some attempts at analysis. Of the latter sort I, for one, have only seen one or two critical attempts that would not admit doubts regarding the actual intentions of their authors.
By my own examination Ron Hubbard's systems do hang together. The reader is free to conceive of my being misguided or mistaken ; the verification could only be done based on the actual material under consideration.
I am not proposing that my observations be accepted without verification. I am certainly proposing that the work here considered has already proved to have been influential ; that alone should warrant its careful examination lest mistakes occur, by way of either (a) some people's accepting untrue data or (b) some people's rejecting true data.
A Parable "Quit biting", one could tell the vampire, though rather pointlessly so, since both parties do fully realise that it is not in the nature of the latter to quit biting.
What can be expected from the vampire ? He would not only keep biting : he might even object to your protests against his doing so.
Now, I cannot say I am sure these my protests here would prove to be more efficatious than the sort of protest described in the parable. "It is a condition that confronts us, gentlemen, and not a theory", a statement attributed to T. Jefferson might apply ; there might be some half-chance or chances ; (maybe better than that but one does not really know).
On the Magnitude of the Problem
Ron Hubbard's earlier work was not religious, by any critieria (nor anti-religious, by any criteria, somebody's prejudice-based premises occasionally indicating some misunderstanding).
Such a statement of its aims had eventually been made : "A civilization without criminals, without insanity, without war, etc". This by my memory.
The statement is not presently found by a major search-engine (by me, Aug 08). However, this is the statement of the purposes. This could seem a "tall order" ; may the true scientist, may any person of any sense at all begin to question but for a moment : is that impossible ?
Any malthusian fallacies, any war-profit, or war material-profit connected ersons might (to an extent sincerely) believe such things impossible. Any progress-oriented persons might allow such things are not impossible, after all — no matter how many times had the greater majority already failed due to some crooks (or fools, usually).
A Parable Imagine, the reader, a bodyguard to an Emperor spots a would-be assassin aiming at his charge. The bodyguard attempts a shot at the would-be assassin ; however, some louse bites the bodyguard at the crucial moment and the Emperor is being hit instead.
Could one single louse bring about the fall of an entire empire ? Perhaps. Should it happen to be so, the louse would not know it — and that is the point of this parable.
As a matter of taste : the one single problem one encounters in the course of investigating this work (by Ron Hubbard) has been found to be some sorts of distaste occasionally present when discovering what is really going on. I wish I could quote his exact statement but I do not have it to hand.
This might happen to be true. I am not presently telling the reader that this work is valid (find out on your own). I am admitting that some distaste-related problems have been present in my own case.
May the reader excuse my parables on just such a count. Pray consider : if this work be valid : what would you think of people who would attempt to destroy somebody's work to some such purposes as have been stated ?
A Parable would some lice object against the destruction of their host ?
Had any such beast any articulate intelligence, they would most certainly object against the destruction of their host. Since they have not, ?