"lrhbare" - читать интересную книгу автора (Jacobsen Jeff)

and I hoped to begin a study on electrical brain stimulation -
hence the interest in Delgado. But since the revelation hit that
Hubbard borrowed rather than invented his theories, it seemed to
be a ripe and exciting subject to pursue.
The reason I thought this was an exciting topic was Hubbard's
insistence that he came up with his ideas by himself and that
they were as monumental a breakthrough from what came before as
was the discovery of fire to the cavemen. If it could be shown
that dianetics was simply a synthesis of previous ideas, then
Hubbard would be exposed as a huckster and fraud. And I don't
like hucksters and frauds.
Generally speaking, it is my contention that Hubbard did no
credible research of his own. Instead he distilled ideas from
books he had read, the few college courses he took, his own
experiences, and his very fertile and disturbed mind, and came up
with a mish-mash of bizarre theories which he wrote down in
scientific-sounding phrases and words.
The ideas Hubbard borrowed were generally bizarre ideas to
begin with, and his fertile, twisted mind altered and embelished
them to produce an even worse hodge-podge.
It is a mammoth task to try to piece where Hubbard took ideas,
since there is no definitive list of works he had read. He did
in the early years of dianetics credit some people such as
Korzybski, Freud, and some others, but Sadger, for example, never
shows up in any credit by Hubbard. Thus, one has to pick an idea
(from dianetics or some writing) and practice a little detective
work to see whether the idea originated elsewhere. Of course,
this bares me to criticism that I am simply reading dianetics
back into some work that just happens to sound like dianetics,
but in fact what I am trying to show is that almost none of the
ideas in Dianetics is new or unique, as Hubbard claims. My goal
is not so much to trace back to the definite source where Hubbard
took ideas, but to demonstrate that his "new" and "unique" ideas
are neither. But I think it is possible to show that Hubbard
absolutely stole ideas from some definite sources, such as Sadger
and some others without ever crediting their works. The examples
I have been able to uncover I am convinced are just the tip of
the iceberg. There are ideas, for example, from William L.
Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (which
coincidentally was first published in 1950) that I find markedly
reflected in the organization of Scientology. Were it possible
to get a list of what Hubbard read, I am certain that a very
large volume could be written comparing what he read to what he
wrote. It is most certainly clear that Hubbard was first and
foremost a synthesizer of ideas, not a creator.

Some of the sections in this booklet are the culmination and
conclusion of about 5 years' part-time research into Hubbard's
teachings. I wanted to put down what I had learned in order to
move on to other topics.