Dean Wilbur Rhetoric Hubbard dianetics sicientology

Discussion in 'Scientology Technology' started by Gib, Feb 17, 2015.

View Users: View Users
  1. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    Here's to you Face, I hope you are doing well:

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    I made this post on Tony O blog

    https://tonyortega.org/2018/06/07/t...y-is-designed-to-entrap-people/#disqus_thread

    here's to you Face:

    Gib • 34 minutes ago
    Great stuff Chris Owen. McMaster eventually realizes he was to be part of "a crowd" known as scientology, but really loyal to LRH. That's what Nibs said too, Hubbard wanted loyalty.
    And what is scientology, but composed of writings by LRH, HCOB's, HCO PL's, books and lectures, advices, all are LRH, he must certainly wanted his name smashed into history. Note HCOB and HCO PL is Hubbard and not ScientologyCOB or SCO PL. Do as Ron says in the bottom line.
    McMaster said in a lecture after he left, IIRC, something like Ron said he wanted to turn square ball bearings into round ball bearing, or Ronbots.
    Interestingly, back in 1949 LRH tells Heinlein of his master plan, not yet fully developed, but Hubbard worked on it thru the years. Here's what he told Heinlien in a letter Mar 31, 1949:
    "Your request for the agentes techniques recalls me that this here area is shore revolutionary, pard. They just ain't ferget noth'in about Reconstruction. Down at the library, all the way back in the vault, are four full lengths shelves of books such as THE PSYCHOLOGY OF REVOLUTION, ERRORS MADE BY ROBESPIEPE, THE POWER OF THE RABBLE, LAWS GOVERNING LEVEE EN MASSE, HOME BOMB MANUFACTURE, ASSINATION AS A POLITICAL TECHNIGUE, etc. etc. for about three hundred big, authoritative volumes. And I never before seen a single one of them."
    It's in my tread at ESMB: http://www.forum.exscn.net/...
    What's important is this book THE PSYCHOLOGY OF REVOLUTION, easier understanding is the first book by Le Bon.



    People not involved and not listening to all of Hubbard's lecatures and reading his books won't understand, it's hard to explain. But Hubbard pretty applied Le Bon's works on how a crowd is formed and refined it to forming the crowd known as scientology.
    I know people don't believe me but I give it a try. If you listen to the you tube vid, you'll see how Hubbard used idealogy, purposes, etc to entrap. It also explains how in the hell could I get caught up in this group, how in the hell did I do the things I did or not take action against the leader or others. It's mind bending no doubt and unbelievable.
    3

    Reply

    Share ›
     
  3. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    Hubbard read Le Bon as I mentioned in this tread earlier, it's in the Heinlein/Hubbard letters of 1949 where Hubbard tells Heinlein he read Le Bon.

    Here's a nice write-up of Le Bon and if you were a member of scientology you'll see how these principles that Le Bon explained how groups or crowds or a scientologist is formed. I have no idea how other cults were formed, but only this so I cannot lump other cults together as a common denominator.

    http://brightlemon.com/blogs/how-persuade-crowd

    excerpt:

    "The main techniques to persuade a crowd are:
    affirmation
    repetition
    contagion
    exaggeration
    symbols
    ill-defined words
    but not(!)reasoning or logic"

    Any member of scientology can confirm this formula, you as a scientolgist were part of a crowd known as a scientologist.

    What is affirmation but success stories.

    Repetition - number of times over, repeating the message in promo, and now scientology TV, an endless loop of repetition, Letters out, repetition, etc.

    Contagion - happens, is supposed to, because of the above

    Exaggeration - every promo piece put out by Hubbard on the state of Clear, and then OT

    Symbols - yep, hubbard used lots of those

    ill-defined words - yep, look at the tech and admin dictionary

    but not reasoning or logic - yep, Hubbard covered that with his logic.

    And, of course, there are no clears, there are no OT's, there is no Bridge to Total Freedom.
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2018
  4. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    http://brightlemon.com/blogs/how-persuade-crowd

    excerpt:

    "1. Affirmation
    "Affirmation pure and simple, kept free of all reasoning and all proof, is one of the surest means of making an idea enter the mind of crowds. The conciser an affirmation is, the more destitute of every appearance of proof and demonstration, the more weight it carries. The religious books and the legal codes of all ages have always resorted to simple affirmation. Statesmen called upon to defend a political cause, and commercial men pushing the sale of their products by means of advertising are acquainted with the value of affirmation." — Chapter III, The leaders of crowds and their means of persuasion, Part 2."
     
  5. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    My post on Tony O blog:

    https://tonyortega.org/2018/06/21/o...e-been-asked-about-scientology/#disqus_thread

    "
    Gib • 15 minutes ago
    yes Tony, it's all part of Hubbard's rhetoric and sublime writing, The rhetoric of achieving clear and the sublime of being clear and OT (or operating thetan, which means cause over MEST, over life itself).
    in some parts of Hubbard's lectures and writings he talks about "gung-ho" groups.
    That's what he did, create a gung ho group known as "a scientologist" whether it be a public, or a staff member, or a sea org member, or a front group to create a gung-ho following.
    JMHO"
     
  6. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    My post on Tony O, for what for ever.

    https://tonyortega.org/2018/08/24/t...inced-us-this-planet-is-theirs/#disqus_thread

    "
    Gib • 12 minutes ago

    All these success stories by these people in Italy are simply sublime. The wiki provides a good explanation:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

    That's all what Hubbard did, tap into the sublime. The best write-up of sublime is by Edmund Burke, if you can get your wits around it, and a fascinating read.

    http://cnqzu.com/library/Ph...

    Once Born is correct, we were "you are promised specific, objective, verifiable benefits". Science is the motto by Hubbard as rhetoric or persuasion.
    But, that didn't happen, what we experienced was sublime thru Hubbard's writing, and he did keep it up.

    Many people on planet earth are exposed to sublime writing, ie the great movie, the next stock that will revolutionize the world, the next religion that will save mankind, the next political leader, etc. Some are true, some are not.

    Dianetics sublimed the state of "clear" or somebody going thru dianetics procedure would have perfect recall, no diseases, being cancer solved, being pain solved, a perfect human being, etc. .

    Hubbard / Scientology sublimed being OT, or cause over life, matter, energy and time, aka MEST in the scientology world.

    Every step and EP of the scientology bridge to total freedom is sublime literary. Just think being able to talk to anybody about anything, or being able to solve any problem and recognize the source of the problem, or moving out of fixed conditions, etc. These are all sublime and supposedly solved by Hubbard and dianetics and scientology,

    Of course, no clears or OT's exist, none have and none will ever exist, it's all a hoax in the most simplest term."
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  7. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    In listening to the latest Chris Shelton interview with Jefferson Hawkins, a great interview in my opinion, which explains "what did International Management" do at the Int Base, which is actually Shakespeare "much ado about nothing", LOL.

    That's all dianetics and scientology are, much ado about nothing, that is no clears, no OT's. LOL

    Here's Chris Interview and it's 2 hours long.



    In the end, both agree they wished to help people, and that's what kept them in.

    That's "sublime literary", google it.

    There are a few questions I would have asked Jefferson. one being did you study Hubbard's marketing and PR series on how to create a mystery sandwich in the 1980's Dianetics marketing campaign? And did you apply them?

    I'd ask those questions.

    But Chris wasn't a marketing guy so he wouldn't ask those questions.
     
  8. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    My latest post on Tony O, FWIW:

    "Tony Ortega Mod Gflded Kim • 3 hours ago
    Cite Marty Rathbun, who said he spent years trying to sift out what was good from what was bad, and in the end found there was nothing left. Everything that appears "good" in Scientology is simply the false hope of self Improvement that ends up taking you deeper into indoctrination and control.
    15

    Reply

    Share ›








    Gib Tony Ortega • 28 minutes ago
    That's correct Tony.
    I did a lot of TR's and the New Pro TR's at Flag. I forget now the marketing/PR/rhetoric/sublime promo for New Pro TR's but it's something like being able to confront and handle any communication cycle. The sublime part is to get rich! or make more money, and become a crowd member known as a scientologist..
    One day I noticed a couple talking, they were having a lovely conversation, looking into each others eyes, a love story and simple communication. They were wogs. I was dumbfounded, they never did the TR's, how can this be?
    Simple communication between the two with no hidden agenda. Hubbard's hidden agenda is to become a scientologists, someone who wishes to clear the planet all under his name and policies and HCOB's and advice's.
    Hubbard's PRO Area Control is to protect the image and name of LRH.
    And just like Mark Headly says, scientology is a magic show, or getting one to imagine to:
    "form a mental image or concept of"
    "

    https://tonyortega.org/2018/09/01/a...volume-as-commodores-messenger/#disqus_thread

    What Hubbard did was got us to imagine going clear and then OT, and then a cleared planet, and then target two the universe.
     
  9. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    I made this post on Tony O today, if anybody hasn't read HAyakawa review, it's worth reading.

    Share ›








    Gib chuckbeattyx75to03 • 4 minutes ago

    yep, SI Hayakawa reviewed Dianetics back in 1951. FYI, in the Campbell/Heinlein letters, Campbell mentions to Heinlein that Hayakawa went to a Dianetics center and met Hubbard.

    Hayakawa nails it:

    "I have long felt that there are dangers to the writer as well as to the reader in pulp fiction. It did not occur to me until I read Dianetics to try to analyze the special dangers entailed in the profession of science-fiction writing. The art consists in concealing from the reader, for novelistic purposes, the distinctions between established scientific facts, almost-established scientific hypotheses, scientific conjectures, and imaginative extrapolations far beyond what has even been conjectured. The danger of this technique lies in the fact that, if the writer of science-fiction writes too much of it too fast and too glibly and is not endowed from the beginning with a high degree of semantic self-insight (consciousness of abstracting), he may eventually succeed in concealing the distinction between his facts and his imaginings from himself. In other words, the space-ships and the men of Mars and the atomic disintegrator pistols acquire so vivid a verbal existence that they may begin to have, in the writer's evaluations, 'actual' existence. Like Willy Loman in The Death of a Salesman, he may eventually fall for his own, pitch."

    Note he says the writer and the reader. Bingo

    http://www.lisamcpherson.or...

    https://www.jstor.org/stabl...

    The rest of the review is quite a great read, some excerpts:

    "BUT in the book Dianetics, Hubbard does not write as a novelist. He is, he says, a scientist. He has discovered - nay, created - a new science of the human mind which, in one swell foop, renders obsolete the psychological gropings of Wundt, James, Pavlov, Kraepelin, Charcot, Janet, Freud, Jung," ------------LOL

    "The expository technique of Dianetics is straight out of science-fiction. First, there is the elementary device of taking for granted the existence of things which do not exist, and then making assertions about them ('As we approached the planet Venus, Captain Wolf throttled down his space-ship to a leisurely 8,000 m.p.h.'): 'The reactive mind is the entire source of aberration. It can be proved and has been repeatedly proven that there is no other, for when that engram bank is discharged, all undesirable symptoms vanish and a man begins to operate on his optimum pattern' (p. 52). There are innumerable references to 'research' and 'tests' which 'have been' performed: 'A series of severely controlled dianetic experiments over a much longer period demonstrated that the law of affinity, as applicable to psychosomatic illness, was more powerful than fear and antagonism by a very wide margin. So great is this margin that it could be compared as the strength of a steel girder to a straw' (p. 106). There are, of course, the vivid narratives (i.e., the 'case-histories') by means of which that which is assumed to be so is transmuted - and that is the function of the art of fiction - into that which is felt to be so. (Of these 'case-histories,' more later.) In addition, Hubbard has practically all the other science-fiction devices- references to unspecified 'laboratories' and 'clinics,' where zealous (and unnamed) teams of 'dianeticists' are busy refining the 'techniques' and the 'basic postulates.' Occasionally, he goes through the motions of distinguishing between 'fact' and 'theory' and abstemiously denying himself, as a scientist, the self-indulgence of proceeding on mere theories: 'It may well have been - and elsewhere some dianetic computations have been made about this - that the brain is the absorber for overcharges of power resulting from injury, the power itself being generated by the injured cells in the area of injury. "

    " But all this computing-machine mumbo-jumbo is only a small part of the incredible nonsense to be found in dianetics" -----------------LOL

    "HUBBARD'S Book, especially his 'case-histories,' is so rich in absurdity, so preposterously and awkwardly obscene (especially in the accounts of engrams acquired during parental coition), that one is tempted to quote on and on"

    "The fact that language can be used to adumbrate two (or more) areas of meaning at once is not in itself dangerous; indeed, it is this fact which gives language its richness and its power of creative suggestion. In Norbert Wiener's Cybernetics, the simultaneously electrical and psychological connotations of terms is peculiarly stimulating to the imagination. (It will be remembered that this book, too, enjoyed sales far beyond initial expectations.) But in Cybernetics the double-edged vocabulary is used with full consciousness of abstracting; in other words, Wiener never forgets - nor lets the reader forget - that the analogy is an analogy and that the genera to which mark III and Mark Antony belong are distinct and separate."

    "BUT EVEN the limited good that dianetics may do by introducing a single, narrowly-defined role-playing technique into interpersonal relations is probably more than offset by the damage it can do with its accompanying pretentious and nonsensical doctrines. I am not thinking here of the standard medical argument, that it may keep people away from better and more legitimate therapies, although this is no doubt true. (So many things keep people away from legitimate therapies anyway that I am not sure that one more patent medicine can matter much.) I am thinking rather of the fact that those who are helped by dianetics will necessarily be kept at a low level of intellectual and emotional maturity by the nonsense they have absorbed in order to be helped. The lure of the pseudoscientific vocabulary and promises of dianetics cannot but condemn thousands who are beginning to emerge from scientific illiteracy to a continuation of their susceptibility to word-magic and semantic hash."

    I wish I would have read Hayakawa review after I first read Dianetics, it may have put me straight.
     
  10. dchoiceisalwaysrs

    dchoiceisalwaysrs Gold Meritorious Patron

    Yes, having read Hayakawa might of helped. But... I do suspect El Con did read Norbert Wiener's Cybernetics which came out in 1948. Of course Norbert Wiener was just a dilettante who graduated school at age 11 and obtained a real BA in real mathematics at age 14 and a PhD at the age of 16 from Harvard. Soooo Hubbard was the 'man' lol.