A Flaw in Study Tech

[Royal Prince Xenu]

I'm glad for you. I didn't! I always skated by on my ability to understand lectures or quickly glean important stuff from a book. But detailed study, full command of the subject, ability to put what I learned to USE? Math only, and that only to the limit where I had to work independently on a syllabus. At that point, I hit a wall, and rather than admit I didn't know what I was doing, I got thrown out of school for stopping attending class or turning in homework. This was completely remedied by "Study Tech", whether it came from Hubbard or anyone else.

Back in High School (pre-scn), particularly in mathematics, we had our own special term for "MU": Missing Building Blocks. Without the foundation underneath, we could not be expected to understand the trickier stuff on top.

Doesn't nayone else besides myself find it odd that the "father" of study tech couldn't find any appreciation for dy/dx [sic.] in Calculus and considered it to be Newton's idea of a pratical joke?

Doesn't anyone else besides myself find it odd that one of the world's first nucleur physicists never found any practical use for Calculus?

Well I guess when one has a universe to salvage they can't be too picky about their own study habits and study skills.

As for the courseroom in an org, I guess if someone was moving along on target but their student points were down and they wanted to get them up so that the course sup wouldn't be breathing down their back they could spend a lot of time word clearign and doing demos.

It could sure come in handy when the sup is pulling people up to the meter for word checks or when the sup is walking around with a clip board of pink sheets. If you are busy with that dictionary and demo kit chances are the sup is going to leav you alone.

Which reminds me - anyone ever notcie those new promo pieces where they show a course room of students doing the basics? Show me one frikkin' student in those photos that has a dictionary open or is fuddling around with demo pieces.

Rd00

In my text books it was [SUP]dx[/SUP]/[SUB]dy[/SUB]. Did you misquote or did hubbard really have it the wrong way around?

The reason it was [SUP]dx[/SUP]/[SUB]dy[/SUB] was because all of our text books in that era were set with IBM goldballs which couldn't do the super fancy stuff like: ʃ , δ. [SUP]dx[/SUP]/[SUB]dy[/SUB] was really supposed to be [SUP]δx[/SUP]/[SUB]δy[/SUB], but we got into the habit of writing "d" because none of the printed material could reproduce the character "delta", which may explain why I became more fascinated with font metrics and typography than with high-level mathematics...

The only real fly in the study tech ointment was the insistence Ron's word was gospel. That he was 100% correct 100% of the time. Thus you were not asked to analyze it and "see if it worked for you". The result? Mindless, zealous, selfish, extremist, Ronbots that operate on a data base that is biased and warped by his paranoid world vision whom are deluded into thinking they are saving the planet, thinking for themselves, and making a difference. Poor fools. Such a waste.

Mimsey

I well remember arguing about an MU that wasn't an MU. Once I finally understood what was actually meant, I took great delight in pointing out to the supervisor that the simple insertion of a couple of punctuation marks would save 99% of students from getting stuck at that point in the text. I wonder if that's been fixed in DM's mighty "re-write the basics" campaign? Probably not.

 

[Aiki]

Yes, for awhile, that is what many of us thought.

But, THAT was the PR, the lie, the claim, the assertion, and the LURE and BAIT that Hubbard set in front of you to pull you into the scam.

It was one of a great many PRETENSES that Hubbard waved in front of your innocently curious face.

You think so? I don't. It wasn't PR, A LURE or BAIT. It was a new subject. That's all.

Peace.Aiki.

 

[Aiki]

It's what comes after the last "know" that matters.
A subject....actually the 'Science' of knowing how to know, is what I think Mankind's Greatest Fiend called it. Anyway, the science of knowing how to know how to rip of billions. How to litigate objectors into oblivion. How to get people to spend thousand in hours and hundreds of thousand in cash exorcising space alien spirits etc. .

Nothing comes after the last know, that's the end of the sentence, definition.

What you say comes after would therefor be a different subject. Mmmmmm, let's see, we could call that the subject of how people misunderstand and mess up.

Peace.Aiki.

 

[degraded being]

You think so? I don't. It wasn't PR, A LURE or BAIT. It was a new subject. That's all.

Peace.Aiki.

Send me all your money now. This will benefit you.
Did you know naive people were found by scientists to be more intelligent than most other people. Send me all your money now. You have innate natural powers and goodness and sending me all your money now will uncover these.
I am the only human in 50,000 years of thinking Man to find out how you can avoid ruin of space opera proportions. Send me all your money now. I am a Nuclear Physicist. Send me all your money now.

 

[Gadfly]

You think so? I don't. It wasn't PR, A LURE or BAIT. It was a new subject. That's all.

Peace.Aiki.

Hubbard simply came out and SAID boldly, and with total Tone 40 force, that Scientology was the subject of knowing how to know. He simply DEFINED it to be that. Like so many of Hubbard's creations, he simply came out and POSTULATED it to be something (which it was not). And based on his firm belief in the mechanics of ARC, he figured that if he could get enough people to AGREE with the IDEA then it would become "true". He did this with a great many ideas within Scientology.

He just CLAIMED that it was this "subject of knowing how to know". He MADE THAT UP. It was part of his endless fiction.

He also said that Scientology can consistently and easily produce Clears and OTs. It can't and it doesn't - not by his own definitions of such things.

Though on one hand it is a system that causes people to "know with certainty" a great many idiocies and lunacies. There is no doubt that the Scientology indoctrination system, which is so very well thought out and executed, acts to get participants to KNOW a great many things. But just because somebody believes or "knows something to be true", does NOT at all mean that it is true.

Scientology causes people to accept certainties. Certainties are like opinions and assholes - everybody's got one. 300 years ago many people were CERTAIN that the world was flat and that if you sailed too far you would slip off the end. Various Muslim fanatics believe with total certainty that they will be rewarded with many beautiful virgins, drink and food if they blow themselves himself up in the name of Allah while killing many heathens.

Certainty! Phooey. Too often knowledge, knowing and certainty are gaudy fictions parading about as facts. THAT is true for a great deal of Scientology.

Knowingness as certainty is what Scientology IMPLANTS. It may be in a certain sense a subject of knowing how to know. But, the content of WHAT you often KNOW is TOTAL BULLSHIT!

 

[Aiki]

Send me all your money now. This will benefit you.
Did you know naive people were found by scientists to be more intelligent than most other people. Send me all your money now. You have innate natural powers and goodness and sending me all your money now will uncover these.
I am the only human in 50,000 years of thinking Man to find out how you can avoid ruin of space opera proportions. Send me all your money now. I am a Nuclear Physicist. Send me all your money now.

Found by scientists eh? Maybe many scientists are pretty stupid. If you believe naive equals more intelligent than most other people then it don't bear well for good discussion. I wonder how how you test 'most other people'?

I doubt there's much sane agreement on what intelligence is anyway.

Give all your money for anything is a choice. If you like the results you're happy and if you don't then you admit you were stupid. Simple really.

Peace.Aiki.

 

[Aiki]

Hubbard simply came out and SAID boldly, and with total Tone 40 force, that Scientology was the subject of knowing how to know. He simply DEFINED it to be that. Like so many of Hubbard's creations, he simply came out and POSTULATED it to be something (which it was not). And based on his firm belief in the mechanics of ARC, he figured that if he could get enough people to AGREE with the IDEA then it would become "true". He did this with a great many ideas within Scientology.

He just CLAIMED that it was this "subject of knowing how to know". He MADE THAT UP. It was part of his endless fiction.

Though on one hand it is a system that causes people to "know with certainty" a great many idiocies and lunacies. There is no doubt that the Scientology indoctrination system, which is so very well thought out and executed, acts to get participants to KNOW a great many things. But just because somebody believes or "knows something to be true", does NOT at all mean that it is true.

Scientology causes people to accept certainties. Certainties are like opinions and assholes - everybody's got one. 300 years ago many people were CERTAIN that the world was flat and that if you sailed too far you would slip off the end. Various Muslim fanatics believe with total certainty that they will be rewarded with many beautiful virgins, drink and food if they blow themselves himself up in the name of Allah while killing many heathens.

Certainty! Phooey. Too often knowledge, knowing and certainty are gaudy fictions parading about as facts. THAT is true for a great deal of Scientology.

Knowingness as certainty is what Scientology IMPLANTS. It may be in a certain sense a subject of knowing how to know. But, the content of WHAT you often KNOW is TOTAL BULLSHIT!

Yes he defined the subject. That's good. That's what the name of the subject means. Therefor you can say it's the study of wisdom. Now as many folk ain't too wise you can see the only problem there is or was. Simple.

I don't think most can differentiate even what knowing is. Thus many misunderstandings.

Results in strange conclusions.

Peace.Aiki.

 

[degraded being]

Found by scientists eh? Maybe many scientists are pretty stupid. If you believe naive equals more intelligent than most other people then it don't bear well for good discussion. I wonder how how you test 'most other people'?

I doubt there's much sane agreement on what intelligence is anyway.

Give all your money for anything is a choice. If you like the results you're happy and if you don't then you admit you were stupid. Simple really.

Peace.Aiki.

Happy and stupid is a possibility too. With or without the money.

 

[Gadfly]

Yes he defined the subject. That's good. That's what the name of the subject means. Therefor you can say it's the study of wisdom. Now as many folk ain't too wise you can see the only problem there is or was. Simple.

I don't think most can differentiate even what knowing is. Thus many misunderstandings.

Results in strange conclusions.

Peace.Aiki.

That is NOT what it "means". That is what Hubbard SAID it means. That was his ASSERTION. It was a CLAIM.

What it really is - is what Veda said it is:

If you want to fully understand Scientology, it will take some time.

Scientology is a dishonest and manipulative subject, but one that is decorated with twinkling truths.

You can separate the twinkling truths from the rest of it, but then it's not Scientology anymore.

YOU can say that Scientology is the study of wisdom - and to me, and to many others who have looked into the subject, that is an EMPTY claim. It is asserted by Hubbard and his followers that Scientology is a study of wisdom. The reality of Scientology doesn't and has never quite played out that way though. Real people and real events in the real world have never shown it to be aligned with any sort of advanced knowledge or wisdom.

I agree, many people are not too wise, but that fact doesn't bestow ANY value on the subject of Scientology.

So, WHAT is "knowing"?

 

[Aiki]

Happy and stupid is a possibility too. With or without the money.

Very True.

Happy and wise would be a good result of the study of such a subject.

To get there would probably take quite a lot of time and effort. Just shows where we start from:wink2:

Peace.Aiki.

 

[Aiki]

That is NOT what it "means". That is what Hubbard SAID it means. That was his ASSERTION. It was a CLAIM.

What it really is is what Veda said:

If you want to fully understand Scientology, it will take some time.

Scientology is a dishonest and manipulative subject, but one that is decorated with twinkling truths.

You can separate the twinkling truths from the rest of it, but then it's not Scientology anymore.

YOU can say that Scientology is the study of wisdom - and to me, and to many others who have looked into the subject, that is an EMPTY claim. It is asserted by Hubbard and his followers that Scientology is a study of wisdom. The reality of Scientology doesn't and has never quite played out that way though.

I agree, many people are not too wise, but that fact doesn't bestow ANY value on the subject of Scientology.

So, WHAT is "knowing"?

Unwise people looking into the subject of wisdom would obviously have a hard time understanding.

Add to that the originator of the subject although being cognizant of the idea and quite intelligent still had lots to learn, hence the research and new discoveries. Thus you have those being not aswise as they thought they were but wanting to be wiser addressing technology given by someone on the subject who of course wouldn't be able to give it in a completely wise fashion as yet.

Basicly a subject in it's infancy being developed.

Wiser ones would understand that.

The fact bestows the basic concept which needs to be understood before 'looking into the subject' so has great value. The name of any subject has great value from the viewpoint of understanding otherwise you are starting with an m.u. and thus concluding things like 'it's a scam, it's a blah, blah,'

The subject isn't a scam, how it's used is another matter.

Do you really want to know what knowing means?

Peace.Aiki.

 

[Bill]

What an amazing amount of pseudo-wise bullshit.

Unwise people looking into the subject of wisdom would obviously have a hard time understanding.

What a wise-sounding platitude - devoid of all meaning.

What you appear to be trying to say is that you "understand Scientology" so you are wise, anyone who doesn't understand Scientology isn't wise. That's a wonderful hustle. Who could argue against Scientology without, according to your criteria, self-labelling themselves as "unwise".

I see this delusion quite a bit from true believers. Scientology is maligned because critics are too stupid to realize Scientology's Truth.

Add to that the originator of the subject although being cognizant of the idea and quite intelligent still had lots to learn, hence the research and new discoveries. Thus you have those being not as wise as they thought they were but wanting to be wiser addressing technology given by someone on the subject who of course wouldn't be able to give it in a completely wise fashion as yet.

Basically a subject in it's infancy being developed.

Wiser ones would understand that.

I love this bullshit! Somehow, Hubbard, who was a liar, a con and a criminal, developed Scientology that even he didn't understand. The True Believers of Scientology are wise enough to "make it work" even when Hubbard completely failed.

Whatever you do, don't bring up the fact that no one, even the so very wise True Believers, has produced the results Scientology promises.

And, once again, you add your little mind-control hook: "Only the wise can see the Truth of Scientology. If you don't see how good Scientology is, you are just not wise enough."

The fact bestows the basic concept which needs to be understood before 'looking into the subject' so has great value. The name of any subject has great value from the viewpoint of understanding otherwise you are starting with an m.u. and thus concluding things like 'it's a scam, it's a blah, blah,' The subject isn't a scam, how it's used is another matter.

Do you really want to know what knowing means?

Peace.Aiki.

No, Scientology is a scam. The scam is built right into the subject. The fact that some of the lower-level processes seem to provide some benefit to some people is just part of the scam. You can't con people if you don't have some kind of bait. All good cons must appear to provide early signs of success or they don't work.

And, no, believing in Scientology despite all the lack of any of the promised miracles is not wise. I know you can't confront it, but continuing to be conned despite all the proof that it is a con is definitely the opposite of wise.

Bill

 

[Gadfly]

What an amazing amount of pseudo-wise bullshit.


What a wise-sounding platitude - devoid of all meaning.

What you appear to be trying to say is that you "understand Scientology" so you are wise, anyone who doesn't understand Scientology isn't wise. That's a wonderful hustle. Who could argue against Scientology without, according to your criteria, self-labelling themselves as "unwise".

I see this delusion quite a bit from true believers. Scientology is maligned because critics are too stupid to realize Scientology's Truth.


I love this bullshit! Somehow, Hubbard, who was a liar, a con and a criminal, developed Scientology that even he didn't understand. The True Believers of Scientology are wise enough to "make it work" even when Hubbard completely failed.

Whatever you do, don't bring up the fact that no one, even the so very wise True Believers, has produced the results Scientology promises.

And, once again, you add your little mind-control hook: "Only the wise can see the Truth of Scientology. If you don't see how good Scientology is, you are just not wise enough."


No, Scientology is a scam. The scam is built right into the subject. The fact that some of the lower-level processes seem to provide some benefit to some people is just part of the scam. You can't con people if you don't have some kind of bait. All good cons must appear to provide early signs of success or they don't work.

And, no, believing in Scientology despite all the lack of any of the promised miracles is not wise. I know you can't confront it, but continuing to be conned despite all the proof that it is a con is definitely the opposite of wise.

Bill

THANK-YOU BILL!

I am beginning to develop a lack of interest in trying to have any sort of intelligent conversation with Aiki. You said what I was thinking.

 

[Aiki]

What an amazing amount of pseudo-wise bullshit.


What a wise-sounding platitude - devoid of all meaning.

What you appear to be trying to say is that you "understand Scientology" so you are wise, anyone who doesn't understand Scientology isn't wise. That's a wonderful hustle. Who could argue against Scientology without, according to your criteria, self-labelling themselves as "unwise".

I see this delusion quite a bit from true believers. Scientology is maligned because critics are too stupid to realize Scientology's Truth.


I love this bullshit! Somehow, Hubbard, who was a liar, a con and a criminal, developed Scientology that even he didn't understand. The True Believers of Scientology are wise enough to "make it work" even when Hubbard completely failed.

Whatever you do, don't bring up the fact that no one, even the so very wise True Believers, has produced the results Scientology promises.

And, once again, you add your little mind-control hook: "Only the wise can see the Truth of Scientology. If you don't see how good Scientology is, you are just not wise enough."


No, Scientology is a scam. The scam is built right into the subject. The fact that some of the lower-level processes seem to provide some benefit to some people is just part of the scam. You can't con people if you don't have some kind of bait. All good cons must appear to provide early signs of success or they don't work.

And, no, believing in Scientology despite all the lack of any of the promised miracles is not wise. I know you can't confront it, but continuing to be conned despite all the proof that it is a con is definitely the opposite of wise.

Bill

Pseudo wise? Nice.

Devoid of meaning? Is there such a thing?

What I appear to be saying? If I "Appear to be saying" then something must be not understood.

Why argue? Argueing is unwise. Discussion is wise though.

A subject can't bring you anything except data only you can create 'miracles'.

Peace.Aiki.

 

[In present time]

Unwise people looking into the subject of wisdom would obviously have a hard time understanding.

Add to that the originator of the subject although being cognizant of the idea and quite intelligent still had lots to learn, hence the research and new discoveries. Thus you have those being not aswise as they thought they were but wanting to be wiser addressing technology given by someone on the subject who of course wouldn't be able to give it in a completely wise fashion as yet.

Basicly a subject in it's infancy being developed.

Wiser ones would understand that.

The fact bestows the basic concept which needs to be understood before 'looking into the subject' so has great value. The name of any subject has great value from the viewpoint of understanding otherwise you are starting with an m.u. and thus concluding things like 'it's a scam, it's a blah, blah,'

The subject isn't a scam, how it's used is another matter.

Do you really want to know what knowing means?

Peace.Aiki.

maybe you should just start your own philosophy, and steal from hubbard the parts you like, (well, it wouldnt really be stealing from hubbard because he stole them from others.) problem solved.

 

[Bill]

Pseudo wise? Nice.

Devoid of meaning? Is there such a thing?

What I appear to be saying? If I "Appear to be saying" then something must be not understood.

Why argue? Argueing is unwise. Discussion is wise though.

A subject can't bring you anything except data only you can create 'miracles'.

Peace.Aiki.

I'm sorry but I don't get what you are saying at all. You never quite address the problems under discussion and never quite say anything definitive. Your answers are vague and strangely zen like in almost meaning something without actually saying anything at all.

I feel like the Aiki comments are being made by an ELIZA personality.

Bill

 

[Aiki]

maybe you should just start your own philosophy, and steal from hubbard the parts you like, (well, it wouldnt really be stealing from hubbard because he stole them from others.) problem solved.

Nah, you can't steal wisdom.:wink2:

One basic misunderstood is that folk think a subject is an object and so treat it as such and even talk about it as such.

Not very wise

Peace.Aiki.

 

[Aiki]

I'm sorry but I don't get what you are saying at all. You never quite address the problems under discussion and never quite say anything definitive. Your answers are vague and strangely zen like in almost meaning something without actually saying anything.

I feel like the comments are being made by an ELIZA personality.

Bill

Fair enough Bill. Yeah I am zen like. Actually though that means I mean what I say and say what I mean, nothing vague about that.:wink2:

It's not me who never quite addresses the problems under discussion my friend for I have stuck to the subject of study tech and misunderstoods and reasons related to the adverse reactions to it.

I do remember studying things though when they then appeared to be not quite saying anything definitive and becoming vague and almost meaning something but not quite. Usually accompanied by a heavy feeling

Peace.Aiki.

 

[Bill]

OK, here is a perfect example of the fact that we are talking to the AIKI personality.

Nah, you can't steal wisdom.:wink2:

No one was talking about wisdom. Why introduce that into the discussion? We are talking about Scientology which is made up of many, many parts. True Believers take ("steal") the parts they believe work and pretend the rest doesn't exist or that it "isn't Scientology". There is no wisdom under discussion.

One basic misunderstood is that folk think a subject is an object and so treat it as such and even talk about it as such.

WTF? This has nothing to do with anything. What the hell are you talking about? Give SPECIFICS as to WHO you are talking about and WHAT those specific "folk" SAID. Your statement is high-sounding generalities.

Not very wise

Peace.Aiki.

Again with your thought-control crap. "Only the wise understand Scientology's Truth!" Pure, unadulterated crap.

Bill

 

[Aiki]

OK, here is a perfect example of the fact that we are talking to the AIKI personality.


No one was talking about wisdom. Why introduce that into the discussion? We are talking about Scientology which is made up of many, many parts. True Believers take ("steal") the parts they believe work and pretend the rest doesn't exist or that it "isn't Scientology". There is no wisdom under discussion.


WTF? This has nothing to do with anything. What the hell are you talking about? Give SPECIFICS as to WHO you are talking about and WHAT those specific "folk" SAID. Your statement is high-sounding generalities.


Again with your thought-control crap. "Only the wise understand Scientology's Truth!" Pure, unadulterated crap.

Bill

Bill, we are talking about a part of the subject called scientology. No many many parts but one part called study tech. So we have two things here, the overall subject scientology (hence the defining of it ie: study of knowing how to know ie: wisdom) Then we have study tech and thus the effects of the use of it. So being what the subject is about it must belong here. Straightforward.

Takes wisdom to understand anything so of course only the wise understand scientology. So maybe I should qualify it as only the wise understand without any need to be hypercritical or negative. Same applies to any walk of life or addressing any subject.

So I don't need to name names for I am not accusing anyone of anything just stating a fact. If we are being negative, hypercritical, etc. we are not being in a wise condition or state of mind.

Simple. Not wrong or right just simple. It's also understandable. So there are and were many folk in the church not being wise as well as out of the church. Very simple and straightforward.

LR (As I call him) had meny times of not being wise also. So what's new?

Connection to study tech? Well I personally see that the basic rules of such show you when you are not being wise and knowing those rules and knowing they are true shows you also when you are not being wise anywhere in life. So I would say that's quite a connection. It's not a twinkling star but more like a shining light

If you don't feel good when studying something is out.......in you. Simple. Same in life. Carry on past that point and you will get worse and thus go negative and blame this and that. Simple. Useful to know for those who want to improve themselves I would say. I would call them wise.

Peace.Aiki.