Post by H-Zence on Jun 30, 2005 16:09:37 GMT -5
Here's a link for y'all: www.ronthephilosopher.org/
This site claims that L. Ron Hubbard (the founder of Scientology, for those of you who didn't know) is a great philosopher.
An excerpt for ye who so desire:
Long before the advent of either Dianetics or Scientology, those at all familiar with L. Ron Hubbard had come to expect he would eventually make a remarkable entrance into the philosophic realm. That entrance, largely conceived through the course of an extraordinary week in early 1938, is remembered today as Excalibur. In the simplest terms, the work may be described as a first philosophic statement. Previously (and as we shall see in forthcoming articles) he had traveled far and established much as regards a philosophic foundation. Yet here, at the age of twenty-six, came his earliest formal summary, “to align my own ideas,” as he modestly termed it, “for my own particular benefit.” Given all the manuscript eventually inspired, however—two copies were actually stolen by agents of foreign intelligence services who wished to appropriate those ideas for political ends and only sections remain—such a description seems hardly enough.
Thoughts?
This site claims that L. Ron Hubbard (the founder of Scientology, for those of you who didn't know) is a great philosopher.
An excerpt for ye who so desire:
Long before the advent of either Dianetics or Scientology, those at all familiar with L. Ron Hubbard had come to expect he would eventually make a remarkable entrance into the philosophic realm. That entrance, largely conceived through the course of an extraordinary week in early 1938, is remembered today as Excalibur. In the simplest terms, the work may be described as a first philosophic statement. Previously (and as we shall see in forthcoming articles) he had traveled far and established much as regards a philosophic foundation. Yet here, at the age of twenty-six, came his earliest formal summary, “to align my own ideas,” as he modestly termed it, “for my own particular benefit.” Given all the manuscript eventually inspired, however—two copies were actually stolen by agents of foreign intelligence services who wished to appropriate those ideas for political ends and only sections remain—such a description seems hardly enough.
Thoughts?