A Flaw in Study Tech

[In present time]

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.

how is bill NOT discussing? unless any viewpoint that disagrees with you is an argument. you know how scientologists feel about poor wogs? well, that is how a lot of exes feel about the poor scios that are still sipping the lies. one day you might look back and realise, no one was arguing. they were informing. just keep reading, there is plenty of real information on this board to keep you busy for months on end.

 

[Gadfly]

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.

Peace.Aiki.

That is total horseshit.

If a person truly understands Scientology, in terms of its actual history, the endless deceptions, the lies, the pretenses, the manipulative control created by Hubbard, and the FACTS of how the continual abusive behavior stems directly from the orders and policies of Hubbard, then any sane and "wise" person cannot help but be negative and critical.

It is ONLY the dummies, the suckers, and the not-too-bright who are unable to find fault with Hubbard and with a great deal of the subject and practices of Scientology.

You make it sound like if a person understands any subject or topic that he or she will never be negative or critical. THAT is absurd.

I understand the nature and behaviors of Muslim fanatics. I am NEGATIVE about what they do.

I understand the nature and behavior of child molesters. I am NEGATIVE about what they do.

I understand the nature and behavior of abusive parents. I am critical about what they do.

Understanding and wisdom do NOT necessitate a lack of judgment, criticism or negativity.

There are a great many things in this world, that when fully understood should NOT be endorsed, supported and left alone without deserving fault-finding.

The notion that any and all fault-finding is only a fault of the fault-finder is pure Scientology nonsense.

Some ideas and the resultant practices are inherently nasty and deserve being attacked. Ideas found in Scientology, such as Hard Sell, the ruin-finding drill, intentional manipulative uses of ARC, excessive PR, lying, deceptions, the use of overwhelming lawsuits to silence critics, crush-regging, forced disconnections, SP declares, abusive OSA tactics, and many more, deserve to be ridiculed and attacked.

By the way, I always thought that the manifestations of the barriers to study were total nonsense. I learned to suppress yawns early on, because it was obvious to me that the yawning had NOTHING to do with any lack of ability to study. I still always got 100% grades on my tests! And I was always the go-to guy for twinning with the tough and slow students.

Sure, clearing words is useful, and balancing mass and significance makes sense (if one adds to the limited understanding given by Hubbard), but Hubbard's information as presented is NO sort of complete or adequate "study technology". It is a tool of control and indoctrination.

Hubbard setup his "study tech" as a tool of severe indoctrination.

The fact is that there can be much wrong with the subject materials themselves. How does one apply study tech to a Muslim fanatic or conducting lobotomies? One must and should ALWAYS be able to and encouraged to question the materials. THAT is disallowed within Hubbard's nutty framework of study.

 

[Aiki]

That is total horseshit.

If a person truly understands Scientology, in terms of its actual history, the endless deceptions, the lies, the pretenses, the manipulative control created by Hubbard, and the FACTS of how the continual abusive behavior stems directly from the orders and policies of Hubbard, then any sane and "wise" person cannot help but be negative and critical.

It is ONLY the dummies, the suckers, and the not-too-bright who are unable to find fault with Hubbard and with a great deal of the subject and practices of Scientology.

You make it sound like if a person understands any subject or topic that he or she will never be negative or critical. THAT is absurd.

I understand the nature and behaviors of Muslim fanatics. I am NEGATIVE about what they do.

I understand the nature and behavior of child molesters. I am NEGATIVE about what they do.

I understand the nature and behavior of abusive parents. I am critical about what they do.

Understanding and wisdom do NOT necessitate a lack of judgment, criticism or negativity.

There are a great many things in this world, that when fully understood should NOT be endorsed, supported and left alone without deserving fault-finding.

The notion that any and all fault-finding is only a fault of the fault-finder is pure Scientology nonsense.

Some ideas and the resultant practices are inherently nasty and deserve being attacked. Ideas found in Scientology, such as Hard Sell, the ruin-finding drill, intentional manipulative uses of ARC, excessive PR, lying, deceptions, abusive OSA tactics, and many more, deserve to be ridiculed and attacked.

There are no negatives in understanding. There is just clear understanding. Thus you can understand if something is good or not and also understand why? No need for drama.

Many things in the world which when fully understood should Not be endorsed, supported and left alone without deserving fault-finding? That can easily be seen as not much different to what scientology or Ron said. Interesting.

I agree with most of that sentence but the last bit called fault finding. So there you have it, m.u. right there I would say.

What do you mean by fault finding? That term is a scientology term result of overts/w/holds or m.u's.

It shows an outness in self not the others.

Of course from understanding you can see all kinds of outnesses and overts and crimes and stupidity.

If you do indeed fully understand then you would fully understand how to rectify those conditions. If you don't then all your left with is complaint and fault finding and probably upsets and overts which in turn give you more problems.

So for me it's not a matter of making LR wrong or right or scientology wrong or right for that's just another outness. Unfortunately normal behaviour isn't always wise behaviour.

The whole history of the church is full of drama and problems and w/holds and overts and fixed ideas and disaters and and and......No different to most any big organization on the planet. Lots suffer and have suffered as a result too. Just proves my point....lack of wisdom.

"Look what they done to me!" "We had better do likewise and punish and...." Mmmmm, sounds familiar.

Goes back to, well you name any era in the history of mankind. Not very wise behaviour I would say thus as human beings we aint too bright.

Peace.Aiki.

 

[Gadfly]

If you do indeed fully understand then you would fully understand how to rectify those conditions. If you don't then all your left with is complaint and fault finding and probably upsets and overts which in turn give you more problems.

Peace.Aiki.

That is nonsense. Just because you understand the nature of some problem, difficulty or situation does NOT imply or necessarily mean that thus, therefore, you also know how to SOLVE IT. That attitude is a direct result of buying into Hubbard's nonsense about "whys", Grade I, and so forth.

Though, granted, as I see it, I surely DO well understand the problem with Scientology on this Earth and the ONLY solution is to get it shut down in every country on the planet.

People do often commonly ASSUME though that the people who are pointing out the problems in some area do actually know how to address and solve those problems. The truth is that often they don't at all know how to solve the problems they are describing.

Hubbard pointed out various problems such as crime, war and insanity. Just about any idiot can spot those as problems. Hubbard came up with all sorts of "evals" and "whys", and "solutions" to the problems of Man - none of which have ever "worked". Hubbard was a noisy blowhard. But, also, while it is often easy to point out and describe "what is wrong", it is rarely as easy to solve what is wrong.

This statement is such preposterous BULLSHIT:

"If you do indeed fully understand then you would fully understand how to rectify those conditions."

That is such an abstract notion and generalized notion that can mean just about anything to anybody. I have no doubt that a Christian, a Muslim, A Rosicrucian, and a Scientologist would all agree with the statement, yet apply it entirely differently in some specific area. And they would argue about the "real solutions".

First, "if you fully understand" the nature of any situation is one HUGE IF. And, if a frog had wings . . . .

It reminds of of that idiot Tom Cruise, when he goes off making statements like:

"Us Scientologists understand how to better any condition, on any dynamic. Only we can grasp the nature of any problem and solve it for the betterment of all".

THAT is more of what I was talking about before. It is largely a claim. It is an assertion. It is an unproven statement that Scientology followers buy into, agree with, and BELIEVE - just like any other "true believer" who accepts some line of nonsense as true. In truth there is no greatly valuable "tech" of how to "better conditions" with Scientology.

If anybody had a clue about "what is wrong", at the deepest level. I would have to go with Buddha, and not with that joke of a human being known as L. Ron Hubbard. Buddha was onto something. Hubbard was just pretending to be. And understanding THAT will help solve the problem of Scientology as it exists today on this planet.

 

[Aiki]

That is nonsense. Just because you understand the nature of some problem, difficulty or situation does NOT imply or necessarily mean that thus, therefore, you also know how to SOLVE IT. That attitude is a direct result of buying into Hubbard's nonsense about "whys", Grade I, and so forth.

Though, granted, as I see it, I surely DO well understand the problem with Scientology on this Earth and the ONLY solution is to get it shut down in every country on the planet.

People do often commonly ASSUME though that the people who are pointing out the problems in some area do actually know how to address and solve those problems. The truth is that often they don't at all know how to solve the problems they are describing.

Hubbard pointed out various problems such as crime, war and insanity. Just about any idiot can spot those as problems. Hubbard came up with all sorts of "evals" and "whys", and "solutions" to the problems of Man - none of which have ever "worked". Hubbard was a noisy blowhard. But, also, while it is often easy to point out and describe "what is wrong", it is rarely as easy to solve what is wrong.

This statement is such preposterous BULLSHIT:

"If you do indeed fully understand then you would fully understand how to rectify those conditions."

That is such an abstract notion and generalized notion that can mean just about anything to anybody. I have no doubt that a Christian, a Muslim, A Rosicrucian, and a Scientologist would all agree with the statement, yet apply it entirely differently in some specific area. And they would argue about the "real solutions".

It reminds of of that idiot Tom Cruise, when he goes off making statements like:

"Us Scientologists understand how to better any condition, on any dynamic. Only we can grasp the nature of any problem and solve it for the betterment of all".

THAT is more of what I was talking about before. It is largely a claim. It is an assertion. It is an unproven statement that Scientology followers buy into, agree with, and BELIEVE - just like any other "true believer" who accepts some line of nonsense as true. In truth there is no greatly valuable "tech" of how to "better conditions" with Scientology.

If anybody had a clue about "what is wrong", at the deepest level. I would have to go with Buddha, and not with that joke of a human being known as L. Ron Hubbard. Buddha was onto something. Hubbard was just pretending to be. And understanding THAT will help solve the problem of Scientology as it exists today on this planet.

Ah, my mate Buddha? So you do aspire to wisdom then. I knew we were brothers

Peace.Aiki.

 

[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)

Well, there is the root of your problem. You have a false definition of Scientology. It was Hubbard himself who supplied the lie.

Scientology has never been about "knowing how to know". Any fool can see that investigating and applying other knowledge has always been strictly forbidden by Hubbard as "mixing practices".

Hubbard's regular attacks against "science", "proof" and "evidence" clearly demonstrates that Scientology is not about knowledge (or investigating knowledge) but only about duplicating Hubbard's dogma without question.

If Scientology were actually about knowledge, then all knowledge would be included and encouraged in Scientology. It is obvious to any but the most dense that Scientology's "knowledge" is limited to only what Hubbard claimed.

See? Back to Study Tech! You have this basic, fundamental "misunderstood" which has confused you from the very first. Scientology most definitely DOES NOT MEAN "wisdom".

Now you should finally be able to think clearly on the subject.

Bill

 

[Aiki]

Well, there is the root of your problem. You have a false definition of Scientology. It was Hubbard himself who supplied the lie.

Scientology has never been about "knowing how to know". Any fool can see that investigating and applying other knowledge has always been strictly forbidden by Hubbard as "mixing practices".

Hubbard's regular attacks against "science", "proof" and "evidence" clearly demonstrates that Scientology is not about knowledge (or investigating knowledge) but only about duplicating Hubbard's dogma without question.

If Scientology were actually about knowledge, then all knowledge would be included and encouraged in Scientology. It is obvious to any but the most dense that Scientology's "knowledge" is limited to only what Hubbard claimed.

See? Back to Study Tech! You have this basic, fundamental "misunderstood" which has confused you from the very first. Scientology most definitely DOES NOT MEAN "wisdom".

Now you should finally be able to think clearly on the subject.

Bill

Do I have a problem? Don't think so.

Scientology is as I said. Any data that has been included in it that doesn't belong should thus be discarded except for historical reference. No misunderstood.

There's scientology the subject and scientology the organization, two different things. Then there's another thing called the man who wrote it.

I'm pretty clear thanks.:wink2:

Peace.Aiki.

 

[Bill]

Do I have a problem? Don't think so.

Scientology is as I said. Any data that has been included in it that doesn't belong should thus be discarded except for historical reference. No misunderstood.

There's scientology the subject and scientology the organization, two different things. Then there's another thing called the man who wrote it.

I'm pretty clear thanks.:wink2:

Peace.Aiki.

You have a serious problem if you actually think Scientology = wisdom. You have a serious problem if you actually believe that "Scientology is as I (Aiki) said". Apparently, you haven't a clue what Scientology (the actual subject) is. You have some fantasy (held by some others who post here) that Scientology is something you get to define and that your definition takes precedence over Hubbard's very explicit statements and thousands of Scientologists'. And, you seem to actually believe that, when we discuss "Scientology" you get to pick and choose what we are talking about and what we are criticising.

This is definitely a serious problem that you have because you, safe inside your little bubble, haven't a clue what's going on.

When you define what "Scientology" is to you, that's Aikiology. Or, as I like to call it "Aiki™ brand Scientology". THAT ISN'T SCIENTOLOGY to anyone but you and, as such, is complete nonsense when inserted into any discussion here of the real Scientology.

And that's your problem.

Bill

 

[Aiki]

You have a serious problem if you actually think Scientology = wisdom. You have a serious problem if you actually believe that "Scientology is as I (Aika) said". Apparently, you haven't a clue what Scientology (the actual subject) is. You have some fantasy (held by some others who post here) that Scientology is something you get to define and that your definition takes precedence over Hubbard's very explicit statements and thousands of Scientologists. And, you seem to actually believe that, when we discuss "Scientology" you get to pick and choose what we are talking about and what we are criticising.

This is definitely a serious problem that you have because you, safe inside your little bubble, haven't a clue what's going on.

When you define what "Scientology" is to you, that's Aikiology. Or, as I like to call it "Aiki™ brand Scientology". THAT ISN'T SCIENTOLOGY to anyone but you and, as such, is complete nonsense when inserted into any discussion here of the real Scientology.

And that's your problem.

Bill

Really? I found scientologists, especially the church variety, were the ones who specialized in telling others what their problem is. Then tell you it's serious and definite and explain what you have is blah, blah, blah.

I don't have a problem thanks. I do have a view though. Opinions, shared via written communication. It's all good. :wink2:

I don't have a problem with my own views or yours. Or you for that matter either.

So is there someone else here with a problem?

Peace.Aiki.

 

[Bill]

Really? I found scientologists, especially the church variety, were the ones who specialized in telling others what their problem is. Then tell you it's serious and definite and explain what you have is blah, blah, blah.

I don't have a problem thanks. I do have a view though. Opinions, shared via written communication. It's all good. :wink2:

I don't have a problem with my own views or yours. Or you for that matter either.

So is there someone else here with a problem?

Peace.Aiki.

When you claim that "Scientology is as I say", then that is a problem. Your problem. You seem to be trying to discuss "Scientology" with the rest of us, but your "Scientology" has virtually no relation to the real Scientology. This leads to your complete disconnect from what is being discussed and what you say ends up being complete nonsense.

Now I've assumed that you wished to actually be a part of the discussion. Obviously, since this complete disconnect is "no problem" to you, I was mistaken. You obviously do not want to participate in the discussion and you don't mind that your comments end up being nonsense. Obviously, you just want to spout your ideas without any consideration as to relevance or reality.

So be it. I can live with that. That's what the ignore button is for.

Bill

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Really? I found scientologists, especially the church variety, were the ones who specialized in telling others what their problem is. Then tell you it's serious and definite and explain what you have is blah, blah, blah.

I don't have a problem thanks. I do have a view though. Opinions, shared via written communication. It's all good. :wink2:

I don't have a problem with my own views or yours. Or you for that matter either.

So is there someone else here with a problem?

Peace.Aiki.

Not a problem, just a moral dilemma.

Should I pretend as though your posts are thoughtful and insightful and validate you or do I speak honestly and tell you that what you say manifests so many levels of confusion of language, definition, and reasoning, plus a level of self-deceit that is difficult to watch.

It is sad really.

What is glue for you is glue for you and you are really stuck in your reasoning process.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Aiki]

When you claim that "Scientology is as I say", then that is a problem. Your problem. You seem to be trying to discuss "Scientology" with the rest of us, but your "Scientology" has virtually no relation to the real Scientology. This leads to your complete disconnect from what is being discussed and what you say ends up being complete nonsense.

Now I've assumed that you wished to actually be a part of the discussion. Obviously, since this complete disconnect is "no problem" to you, I was mistaken. You obviously do not want to participate in the discussion and you don't mind that your comments end up being complete nonsense. Obviously, you just want to spout your ideas without any consideration as to relevance or reality.

So be it. I can live with that. That's what the ignore button is for.

Bill

As the com with you isn't leading anywhere much then disconnect seems best I agree.

Peace.Aiki.

 

[Type4_PTS]

Emphasis (bolding and red color) added by me:

One of the debilitating effects of Study Tech is that it often decreases one’s capacity to use language in a fluid way.

This is because Study Tech puts such emphasis on the dictionary as the authoritarian reference for the use and meaning of words.

Study Tech assigns each word a territory and a boundary. Thus users of Study Tech often miss the purpose of language.

They can’t see the forest (language) because of the trees (words). This happens IN Scientology.

Users of Study Tech develop the tendency to emphasize the fixed meaning of words rather than the understanding of ideas. In other words, they become literal in their use of words, which limits their capacity to understand.

<snip>

I just came across some non-Scientology Study Tech, the originator of which promised that any adult can become fluent in ANY language in 6 months.

An interesting video, worth watching, especially if you have the desire to learn other languages:

[video=youtube;d0yGdNEWdn0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0yGdNEWdn0[/video]