Scientology and Objectivism

Greetings, fellow SOLOs! Its been a little over 3 years since I've had the opportunity to browse objectivist material on the internet. Law school is a grueling experience that I wouldn't wish upon my worst enemy nor advise my best of friends to pass up. Bitter sweet to say the least. ALAS! I have my life back...I can spend hours on end with a hot cup of coffee and my favorite objectivist website...and I'm sure nobody cares too much about all of that so on to my question:

Does anyone recall anything written or said by Ayn Rand or any other objectivist commentator about L. Ron Hubbard or his "Scientology" religion? From what I've read, Hubbard and Rand were pitching their religion/philosophy at about the same time (Hubbard a little earlier) and I was curious whether there was ever any interaction between the two groups. I do not know the first thing about Scientology or its followers and I am not suggesting that there are any similarities between that religion and objectivism. I am simply fascinated by all of these wealthy hollywood actors/actresses jumping feet first into a religion developed by a fat man on a boat. I figure an objectivist explanation might be the most rational.

Also, I wanted to say how amazing it is to browse SOLOs website (and read through the forum posts) after having spent an hour or so reading through ARI's website. It really is like night and day. The enthusiasm for life jumps off the pages here...SOLO really is an appropriate identity for you folks. I very much appreciate you all.

Thanks in advance for your responses..

Post 1

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 12:43pm

First off congratulations Lymann, I admire anyone who has the strength of character to apply themself to such an intense study of law. And I'm glad you'll be capable of joining us here

As an Objectivist I'm envious of their marketing (this also goes for that other COS Anton LeVay's Church of Satan). Scientology has managed to successfully market themselves to some of the higher profile actors in hollywood (Juliette Lewis, Tom Cruise, John Travolta, the living Presleys and many other's I'm not even directly aware of or do I know well enough to list). But of course you already knew that, as for implications of this you have some of the more high profile people (especially Tom Cruise as of late) using their success as a platform to get their ideas out into the public eye, and since so many are so high profile the entertainment media usually pussyfoots around the issue and thus scientologist ideas manage to penetrate mainstream consciousness with little contest. I'm not aware of much of their ideas but from what I can tell that's also according to plan, they apparently stay very secretive until you reach higher levels in the hierarchy.

I see this as a group of people simply effectively milking the system but some of the ideas they are stating have many negative implications. I have a strong opinion on their denouncement of psychiatry and psychiatric medication due to the fact that I live with a schizophrenic Fiancee. I've seen what being off her meds does to her (it's not pretty). I've also seen what it does to other people who aren't as capable as she is of operating in normal society (or don't have as good of a support system from their families). The fact that though the field is still young and making improvements, a man like Tom Cruise making a statement like that could discourage a person who actually needs help in that sphere from getting it is very scary to me.

Since from what I've read the two "COS's" and the original Objectivist movement (NBI, the collective) rose to prominence around the same time so I think for the most part they didn't spend a great degree of time critiquing each other (The Church of Satan seems to be the only one to break this rule, they have given partial endorsements of Ayn Rand herself and Objectivism in recent years). But if anyone else knows more about it than me (if you're reading this Miss Branden I think this would make a great holding court question) I'd like to hear it myself.

---Landon

Post 2

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 3:24pm

Lyman, it is good to hear from you after such a long silence. Be sure to join the SOLO Florida list if you have not done so already.

Since you say you know so little about Scientology, I recommend this site to get up to speed on their nonsense:

http://xenu.net/

Once you compare their ideas to Objectivism, you will see their stark differences.

You are correct that the ARI and SOLO also have remarkable differences. You will not find a livelier group of Objectivists on the Web. Prepare to make some fast friends here and to engage in some passionate discussions!

Post 3

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 5:33pm

What little I know about Scientology is not negative. I have a CD of scientologist music called The Joy of Creating. It is uplifting music with happy voice-overs telling you that you make your own world.

Hubbard claimed that embyos and fetuses learn. I believe that. Before our daughter was born, I spent a lot of time talking to her.

Objectivism touts its popchart legends. Scientology has John Travolta. Catholicism has Mel Gibson. Objectivism has... has...

Post 4

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 5:57pm

Michael,

If you believe embryos and fetuses can learn then learning must have nothing to do with the brain in your belief system. Good to know that I don't really need this gray matter to get by in life.

Sarah

Post 5

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 5:58pm

Michael... two words.

STEVE DITKO!!!

Ok now that I got that out of my system I have to agree with you, I'm not degrading the talent of Scientology's unofficial spokespeople (to be honest I was looking forward to war of the worlds before Cruise prompted me to boycott it), that specificly is my problem... it's jealousy.

We don't have many people going out of their way to keep Objectivist issues in the news, since the first major split the official leadership hasn't had the same recognition factor as Rand herself, and the fact that the leadership is so contested doesn't help very much...

On top of that Objectivist and Objectivist friendly entertainers... well hell there aren't very many, there are some musicians, some fine artists, and some novelists, most of which are just selling their work to other Objectivists. Some radical rethinking of how Objectivists approach art needs to happen.

---Landon

Post 6

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 7:55pm

Working on it... :-)

The hermit has left the cave...

(Edited by robert malcom on 7/17, 7:57pm)

Post 7

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 7:56pm

Sarah House wrote: "If you believe embryos and fetuses can learn then learning must have nothing to do with the brain in your belief system."

Learn about the development of an embryo. Brain tissue begins rapidly.

They learn the pattern of their mother's voices and therefore they learn the patterns of their native languages before they are born.

You really do not believe that the brain only appears suddenly and completely when the cord is cut.

Post 8

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 7:58pm

Thank you Robert...

Inching his way out himself.

---Landon

Post 9

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 8:08pm

Uh, we have Rush, thank you. ;)

And I believe Barbara's book had a whole list, which, as she pointed out, needs updating...

But it's probably better that there isn't a Tom Cruise or such, that way it's not "I'm an Objectivist because Tom Cruise is an Objectivist...". Though I wonder how many people he's turned toward scientology?

Post 10

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 8:34pm

Michael,

I know brains don't pop into existence as soon as the cord is cut, but embryos certainly aren't little learning machines. Late-term fetuses are a different story. The line gets blurry between 'newborn' and 'fetus' when you look at them functionally. The key here is late term. A fetus doesn't develop the ability to hear until about the end of the second trimester. Even then learning tends to be limited to habituation; extremely simple learning, but learning nonetheless. But as far as the Baby Einstein crap... well, that's exactly what it is: crap.

Sarah

Post 11

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 11:11pm

Luke,

Thanks for the link. The author of that site is pretty bitter/emotional. Know anything about him/her? Recovering scientologist? I remember a PBS special a few years back about how the scientologists have "men in black" that will make you "disappear" if you turn against the church. They utilized citizens arrests and all kinds of crazy stuff to enforce their church rules. I think the webmaster of that site had a few men in black visit them. I don't think I've even heard christians refer to the koran as "drivel."

Post 12

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 12:24am

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/ People wanting to know about scientology can read a lot here

Post 13

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 4:09am

Joe Maurone wrote: "Uh, we have Rush, thank you. ;) And I believe Barbara's book had a whole list, which, as she pointed out, needs updating..."

Yes, I have Barbara's book, of course, but I could not think of anyone listed in it without opening it. Rush is almost tolerable as noise. I posted the lyrics to Freewill here, so I am not totally antithetical to their "music." That is the reason why an objective appraisal might include the judgment that their lead singer is horrible and ruins whatever "musical" qualities the group had. "Objectivist" lyrics do not make objectivist music.

Joe Maurone wrote: "... it's not "I'm an Objectivist because Tom Cruise is an Objectivist...". Though I wonder how many people he's turned toward scientology?

Well, that does raise the doublethink question: A: If a philosophy is useful, does that make its practicioners successful? B: Are popchart icons a measure of the success of a philosophy? What if we lived in a world of creatures whose intelligence was so low that they could not understand what we are saying. We would be talking to ourselves and each other.

This came up in another context: How much can a carpenter possibly make tops in New York City? We earn only as much as we can produce. You can only work so hard and so long and the work only has so much value. Even if you make the finest wooden artifacts for the top of the market there is some arbitrary upper limit -- as opposed, say, to being a real estate agent in Manhattan, which has its own upper limit, and so on.

The point is that if you look at what people on SOLO do for a living, you see that while each of us enjoys the stars out of life, we are only so "successful."

Also, nature distributes her gifts evenly, you might say. I gave a favorable movie review to The West Wing. One of the criticisms that I had was that listening to the commentaries, the "creators" of the show and the actors sounded like total idiots. (Exception to be noted later.) What I realized was that the production of a television series requires skills perhaps different from being a philosopher. More to the point -- in the cases of Tom Cruise or Mel Gibson -- actors are usually people who do well at memorizing the words of others. Actors who think things through, whether Ronald Reagan or Martin Sheen, tend to be rare.

I thought of writing a story set in a negative utopia where everyone had memorized the princples of Objectivism, but no one understood them... sort of like what I experienced when I suggested that Robinson Crusoe needed money for the same reasons he needed morality. Neither money nor morality depend on other people. They are personal -- not social -- virtues.

Post 14

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 7:29am

I have no strong opinions on "fetal learning" but I have a little story to tell about my now 9 month old daughter.

When my wife was pregnant, every morning I leaned over and whispered "good morning baby". When the baby was born, she was of course crying up a storm, and they brought her over to a little wighing station or whatever,and she was kicking up a fuss. I leaned over and said my first words to her, "good morning baby", and she immediately stopped crying, and seemed to look in my direction.

This is just an anecdote and proves nothing, but I like to think she recognized my voice and word pattern and was soothed by it somehow.

(Edited by Steve Zarwulkoff on 7/18, 7:31am)

(Edited by Steve Zarwulkoff on 7/18, 7:31am)

Post 15

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 8:20am

Michael M; "Yes, I have Barbara's book, of course, but I could not think of anyone listed in it without opening it."

Did you really have difficulty remembering Alan Greenspan, Nathaniel Branden, Reagan advisor David Henderson, Tibor Machan, Robert Bleiberg (deceased) the founder and publisher of Barrons, John Hospers, Murray Rothbard, Ed Clark, Robert Poole, Edward Snider, George Reisman? -- some of the people I listed and discussed in what is today the woefully incomplete Epilogue to The Passion of Ayn Rand.

Barbara

Post 16

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 8:23am

Landon, I am just now reading this, and I agree that it would make a good question for Holding Court. I shall discuss it there soon.

Barbara

Post 17

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 9:10am

Barbara Branden wrote: Did you really have difficulty remembering Alan Greenspan, Nathaniel Branden, Reagan advisor David Henderson, Tibor Machan, Robert Bleiberg (deceased) the founder and publisher of Barrons, John Hospers, Murray Rothbard, Ed Clark, Robert Poole, Edward Snider, George Reisman? -- some of the people I listed and discussed in what is today the woefully incomplete Epilogue to The Passion of Ayn Rand.

Except for Alan Greenspan, none of them has the household name recognition of Tom Cruise -- which is what we were discussing. Maybe that is a false standard. Maybe "society" (falsely reified or not) is made by people who do not appear on Good Morning with Regis Letterman or The Oprah Springer Show or whatever it is that "most" people entertain themselves with.

Personally, I have touted the party line whenever it was appropriate. I write a monthly column for the ANA Numismatist magazine and it is pretty easy to recommend the Mises Institute to those readers. I recommend the works of Ayn Rand in my writing for engineers and business people who are always open to the information in those cases when they have not already heard of Ayn Rand and/or Libertarianism.

From my point of view, I have done as much to advance the cause of freedom as Tibor Machan, Murray Rothbard, Ed Clark, and John Hospers. I never heard of David Henderson, Edward Snider, or George Reisman. I also never heard of Robert Bleiberg and I accept that as criticism of my not being in the cultural mainstream -- where Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman hold court.

Now that your hackles are up, let's look at Rothbard. What did he do? I mean, who, outside of the choir read his sermons? Working on a paper about 19th century banking, I paid for his A History of Money and Banking in the United States: The Colonial Era to World War II and it was sophomoric. In that book, he thickly larded a thin platter of historical allusions -- cited second hand -- with a heavy dollop of anti-government rhetoric. Granted that I used his citations as way-markers, the bottom line is that my research will be superior to his ... and I'm just a guy with a keyboard.

Post 18

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 9:39am

"From my point of view, I have done as much to advance the cause of freedom as Tibor Machan, Murray Rothbard, Ed Clark, and John Hospers."

Did you found the Libertarian Party, the CATO Institute, and run for president?

Post 19

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 9:59am