Clearing Archive Roboposter
roboposter at lightlink.com
Sat Mar 7 12:06:02 EST 2015
Ken Urquhart writes a regular column in the magazine International
Viewpoints called 'IVy on the Wall', and we bring here some of his
articles devoted to looking at Jon Atak's book 'A Piece of Blue Sky'.
These articles can also be found at
This one is from International Viewpoints (IVy) Issue 53- August 2001
See Home Page at http://home8.inet.tele.dk/ivy/
IVy on the Wall
By Ken Urquhart, USA
Forecasting the Whether
Chapter Six in a Consideration of 'A Piece of Blue Sky', by Jon
'Part II: Before Dianetics, 1911-1949' covers a very large
part of Hubbard's life in a disproportionately small part of the whole
book; that this Part is dedicated almost wholly to Hubbard's misdoings
in this period without mentioning much that is commendable is worthy
of note. However, I don't propose to make an issue of this, since
there is enough well-documented and serious material in this Part
to outweigh any but the most exceptional well-doing - and I have
no idea of what well-doing there actually was that would find a place
in this context. Since the author makes no mention of any search
for redeeming behavior we can't be sure that he desired to find any.
I want to make clear at the outset that it is not my aim to destroy
a case against Hubbard. Jon Atack does not so much make an effort
to discredit Hubbard in these chapters as present a case that
speaks for itself. His presentation, of course, is slanted towards
accusation, but I will not attempt to deny that what Jon says was
going on is untrue, or to make it less reprehensible than it
is. Nor will I attempt to argue that LRH was somehow right to do it,
or that some later perfection justifies all. I will maintain that
Jon's approach omits factors that truth and justice require us to
consider, regardless of any unreality Jon might have regarding those
Hubbard's first sinnings
Part II consists of six chapters, entitled respectively: `Hubbard's
Beginnings,' `Hubbard in the East,' `Hubbard the Explorer,' `Hubbard
as Hero,' `His Miraculous Recovery,' `His Magickal Career.' The last
chapter gives detail of a part of Hubbard's life that he withheld
information about or glossed over, later. The other five chapters
all expose lies or exaggerations put out by Hubbard about his own
history. Many of his untruths became part of the false, supposedly
legendary persona that he and the C of S attempted to create
to bolster his position as Source and Founder of Dianetics and
The persona was part of the marketing package.
Jon shows specifically how many of the aspects of the false persona
were contrary to the documented truth. He says, of Hubbard's early
exaggerations of his teen and young adult years: 'Hubbard did
not confine his creativity to his fictional work. He reconstructed
his entire past, exaggerating his background to fashion a hero, a
superhero, even. Although Hubbard wrote many imaginative stories,
his own past became his most elaborate work of fiction.' (Ch.1,
p.45). I don't think anyone who looks at these chapters could
Add to this a quote from someone who knew him: 'Hubbard was certainly
an enthralling story teller.' (Ch.1, p.48). And, 'Hubbard
was already writing in his teens, struggling to generate fiction.
His journals are packed with attempts at pulp stories. Even his diary
entries were obviously written for an audience, suggesting that even
then Hubbard's distinction between fantasy and reality had blurred.'
Two other quotes are revealing and characteristic: 'As ever, we
are faced with a germ of truth embedded in its exaggeration. The habit
of a lifetime.' (Ch.3, p.68); 'As usual, the story was tailored
to fit the circumstances. Hubbard had cut his cloth to fit a man of
greater stature than himself.' (Ch.4, p.76). The latter point
is correct and well stated as it applies to Hubbard as a social entity
We can conclude that just about anything laudatory that Hubbard or
the C of S has put out about his childhood, youth, earlier career,
war service, and the development of Dianetics, is either outright
untruth, an exaggeration of a truth, or an enforced focus on selected
truth. Hubbard was no war hero, for example; he lyingly
whined to the Veteran's Administration repeatedly to get and to
his military disability pension.
Jon's chapter on Hubbard's involvement with Jack Parsons leaves
no doubt that Hubbard seriously and deeply dabbled in satanic
practices. Hubbard's business dealings with Parsons evidently forced
Parsons to go to court against him. Jon also states that Hubbard
married Parson's former mistress on August 10th, 1946, but he doesn't
give the source of that information. If it is a genuine and
document, why are we not told that it is so?
How damning the evidence?
The story revealed in this sifting of the facts of Hubbard's life,
and his claims about his life up to 1949 show a character no man of
substance would be happy and proud to have his daughter ally with
Was Hubbard so, and only so, throughout all of his life? I do
not believe so. Is it logical to assume, as I believe Jon Atack
assumes and wants us to assume, that because LRH's behavior in his
years up to 1949 was as bad as it was then nothing he produced later
could possibly be of any superior quality or value? If it were so,
then the Christian churches would have to expunge their tradition
of two thousands years in revering the actions and words of St Paul
on the grounds that his earlier cruelty to Christians can only make
him unacceptable. LRH was not St Paul, and so far as I know, was never
on a road to Damascus; nonetheless, bad behavior in one period of
a man's whole life does not have to negate the good. Post hoc,
ergo propter hoc is an elementary fallacy in logic. Jon would argue
that the bad behavior continued. I accept that some of it did but
would not change my position; Jon would assert that Dianetics and
Scientology were products of the bad behavior and nothing else -
and on that we would have to agree to disagree. This disagreement
is what these Considerations are all about.
Process of maturing
Hubbard was born in 1911. He evidently arrived with equipment
that suited him to deal with life by creating, magnifying, and
a reality about himself that others would interest themselves in,
be impressed by, and would subject themselves to. This is not
only not in itself necessarily evil, it is not so uncommon. In
fact, it was, in my opinion, very much part of the Victorian male's
outlook. The Victorian male got away with whatever he could get away
with by appearing so convincingly to be what he made himself appear
to be. And the Victorian culture not only let him get away with it
but was happy to not look too closely behind the facade as long
as the facade kept the dirty linen hidden in the cupboard. The
convincingness of the performance was justification enough for its
acceptance. The tentacles of that time reached out and touched L.Ron
Hubbard; they were not willing to let him go, yet. And he believed
that the convincingness of his performance was good enough for him
to wish its acceptance into being.
I feel that Hubbard did not come to terms with this aspect of his
approach to life.
Hubbard was born with or developed a taste for pulpish fiction. [I
myself have not read his early fiction or science fiction. I don't
read much fiction, and science fiction is not to my taste.
I started to read 'Battlefield Earth', and found that its
action moved satisfactorily quickly but one-third through the book
I felt I just couldn't stand to have one more short sentence with
little words hit me on the head.] He used his ability to create
fiction, as Jon has stated, to create the fiction he wanted to create
about his own past. And he used the style of pulpish fiction, and
his ability to create a facade, in his serious writing in
Dianetics, Modern Science of Mental Health, for example. Its
prose, its presentation, its assertions, are deliberately cast
in a way that Hubbard felt made him sound like a scientist,
an engineer, a pioneering researcher, a man of deep learning, and
a great humanitarian.
His work would have had wonderful dignity if he had been able to
it as it was, rather than to present it as part of a facade he
thought it necessary to create in order to gain acceptance, respect,
and acknowledgment. In personal contact, and in the privacy of his
study he could have the personal discipline necessary for simple and
powerful honesty. When it came to his public persona, however, he
could not resist the temptation to impress the world and to play to
his own gallery.
Since I believe that Hubbard had lived before, and will live again,
I believe that he was on a path, that he had been on that path for
a while, and is continuing on it into the future. I believe that
the seeming failures to open himself completely to be what he really
is behind his facade or facades, he has been working to open himself;
he hasn't got to the end of that part of his path yet.
Lastly, here, the matter of the black magic: I do not find it
that a man destined for what I and a number of people consider great
work in the realm of spirituality would explore, on his way to greater
enlightenment, the dark side of spiritual reality. Who is to say that
it wasn't a case of Life putting temptation in his way, he taking
the bait but only long enough to see through it and to see the other
direction that was open to him, and to then get into his stride on
his fated path? The Victorians used to say (Anthony Trollope said
it, anyway, often): 'You cannot touch pitch and not be defiled'.
Given his predilection for creating a fictional facade and his
taste for pulpish fiction, it is reasonable to accept that a certain
amount of what he learned in black magic remained with him. But you
have only to read the Axioms of Scientology to know with great clarity
that he could and did on occasion rise above all considerations of
facade, pulp, or black magic.
Here I believe that Hubbard did learn much of the lesson Life required
him to learn, or at least a great part of it. I don't doubt that he
will learn more.
Crime, sin, or violation?
I do not accept that the violation of a suburban, middle-class
is in itself reprehensible. However, I agree with the middle-class
viewpoint that fraud is a crime and lying is a sin.
When a person believes another's claim that the other can bring him
or her all kinds of promised benefits, for which he/she pays good
money but then receives none of the benefits and is treated shabbily
into the bargain, he/she is entitled to scream Fraud! When that person
looks into the background of the principal and key figure in this
perceived fraud, and finds that that figure has lied about himself,
the person can feel very justified.
I am not saying that L.Ron Hubbard committed criminal fraud (or
that he didn't), or that he callously set out to defraud or to
deceive. He was unable to live his public life without creating
a facade. Parts of the facade were that:
he had developed ways to help everyone
relieve emotional, mental, and spiritual pains, disabilities, and
remedy lack of ability;
he had created an organization capable of fulfilling
this astonishing claim for every person that came for it (excluding
Supposing his first claim here to be true, the second obviously was
not. His critics have experienced the latter and from that extrapolate
that the first claim is also false. I myself do not consider the first
claim to be altogether false. It has truth in it; to this truth
added the marketing he could not resist. He compounded the false
in the marketing with the failure to deliver wholly, exactly,
and universally, the results he himself could obtain himself or
through his direct supervision of auditor and organization. This was
a problem he did not succeed in resolving, because he was not honest
enough with himself to know that he was failing.
Given the chance to lead a loyal, joyful, and powerfully effective
band of supporters, he chose instead to present them as a carnival
There were many who benefited hugely from the services they bought
and received at organizations remote from Hubbard. There were many
who felt disappointed and betrayed. The latter he failed. He set
up for charges of fraud because he had not been honest with them -
he tried to involve them in his self-deceit.
A spiritual context
Although it often seems as though a large portion of society
has no interest in anything beyond the material, I believe it is true
that all individuals exist on several different levels, including
the spiritual. One who believes he has no existence on a spiritual
level exists on a spiritual level as a being who doesn't believe he
exists as a being. This person chooses not to be aware of what is
beyond the material.
I believe that Hubbard had great awareness of the spiritual but it
took him a while in that lifetime to recognize it and act accordingly.
That he trod the path he trod in order to come to that recognition
is not shocking to me. The significance of his path is simply that
it was his path. It would be real nice if his path had been as
as he made it out to be, but that he went through what he went through
and lied about it is not to my mind reason to invalidate his path
or where he came to. I believe that out of what he came to he gave
us some unique and excellent tools that help us move forward and
upward, and my view is that we are free to forgive him his weaknesses
and failures. Who can deny that without weaknesses and failures a
human being might never reach a point where she/he could produce
His major failure, in my mind, was that he held himself aloof from
the people who did not or could not respond actively to his methods,
and held himself aloof in ways that made those people wrong and
reinforced his arrogance and antagonism towards them. On the whole,
he was not ready for the job for which he sought the pay. On a high
spiritual level he was undoubtedly capable of it, but his power of
operation from that high awareness could not embrace control of his
lower, more material urges - and they uncompromisingly perverted
the purity of the spiritual.
Here I must clarify that although I say 'people who did not or
could not respond actively to Hubbard's methods' I don't place
any blame on them or infer that their states of `case' were so low
and so awful they placed themselves beyond reach (and I certainly
do not aim such thoughts at Jon Atack in particular). No, we are all
free to move in whatever direction we think is best for selves and
others, and are right to follow our own instincts. Hubbard himself
had the direct responsibility to see that his message reached those
who could hear it, to tailor his message honestly to those that needed
adjustment in his message, and to see that the help he intended for
people in general did arrive at its destination. My contention as
regards Jon Atack is that his criteria in `exposing' LRH are flawed
in that they arise out of a culture's restricted view of existence,
Jon being a product of that culture.
It is a very, very sad thing that those who went into Scientology
organizations to find the relief and expansion promised them not only
did not always find it but were also sometimes badly abused for their
pains. They sought, and should have found. They asked, and should
have been cared for.
I have experienced LRH in his metier, the supervision of sessions
and the extrapolation therefrom of further and general directives
for auditors and case supervisors. I saw him operating and with the
most genuine care, and with high enjoyment of his own certainty and
virtuosity. I perceived the results he could obtain on people in
whether as auditor or recipient. It is to me a tragedy that people
such as Jon Atack and many others never experienced the value of
outflow on this level, and that Hubbard fooled himself into believing
that he could force a world-wide organization into practicing
at his level consistently -in addition, into believing that if
the organization didn't deliver at his level, he would somehow save
the day. He was brilliant at saving the day, but not big enough to
do it on a whole planet in one lifetime.
He let down a lot of people and will answer for it. I don't believe
he meant to. I believe he wasn't fully aware of all the effects he
Delayed demonstration of value
I do not mean to minimize any of the hardship that those who met with
disappointment and abuse experienced. The unfortunate fact is that
a bear entered the farmyard, and it was the lesser animals in the
yard that got hurt. Those who could deal with the bear came out of
their skirmishes intact. The hens are still cackling in the henhouse,
the wethers still bleating in the fields.
The bear came in at what was perhaps not the best time. He strutted
and roared in a very rude fashion. He rushed here and there, upsetting
numbers of apple-carts. He got himself a very bad reputation
and mostly amongst those who never had the chance to hear his softer
voice, feel his tender touch, bathe in the warmth of his smile, his
friendliness, and his space.
It will take some time before the whole farmyard can acknowledge,
as it will some day, that even though the bear caused so much trouble
(some of which persists), things are much better than they were before
he pushed his way on to the top of the dunghill, that despite the
roars and the ridiculous prancings, despite the bullying, he brought
Life's challenge to L.Ron Hubbard:
Learn to operate from your high spiritual awareness
to embrace the realities of Planet Earth in such a way that your
and powerful energy always promotes solution and joy in being.
Life's challenge to Mankind:
Wake up. Grow up. Be open to changing the way you
look at life and act in it. Look beyond the apparent obvious. Question
your assumptions. Challenge your limitations, internal and external.
Watch what you agree with. Step outside of your box. Refuse to accept
misery and suffering as beyond your control. Learn to handle abuse
from others. Live, and live more. Live happily with yourself and with
your close ones and with your companions, neighbors, associates,
and fellows. Take a little peek at your potential - believe what
you see. Believe in yourselves. Move forward as far as you can move,
get used to it, and move forward again. And again.
May God guide us to more generosity of spirit rather than to less.
copyright: 2001 Kenneth G. Urquhart.
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Mar 7 12:06:02 EST 2015
Send mail to archive at lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer at lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
More information about the Clear-L