A Flaw in Study Tech

[Vinaire]

Good, so you agree with TAJ that standard Hubbard Study Tech is flawed, as you altered it so that it would work for you. We all knew that's what you've been trying to say this whole thread!

Why is agreement and identities more important than truth and knowledge?

This must be some Western fixation.

.

 

[ThisFenceHurts]

Why is agreement and identities more important than truth and knowledge?

This must be some Western fixation.

.

Had to balance the Eastern fixations on nirvana

 

[uniquemand]

Truth is relative to the data being examined. It doesn't exist independently, it is a relationship. Knowledge is the same. Essentially, they are derivatives of experience. IMO, attachment to concepts of truth or knowledge is just as dangerous as fixation on agreement and identities.

Truth sounds good, though! Run with it!

 

[Vinaire]

Agreement is actually identification with another person’s reality. A sudden agreement or identification is hypnosis. We can establish a reality for another by getting them to agree without friction on a gradient. This is what happens in Scientology

The fact is that one can see another person’s reality without going into agreement with it. This is detached observation (looking without thinking).

Furthermore, one can improve greatly by looking without thinking at one’s agreements and identifications on a gradient, discarding them, and thus achieving greater simplicity.

.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Agreement is actually identification with another person’s reality. A sudden agreement or identification is hypnosis. We can establish a reality for another by getting them to agree without friction on a gradient. This is what happens in Scientology

The fact is that one can see another person’s reality without going into agreement with it. This is detached observation (looking without thinking).

Furthermore, one can improve greatly by looking without thinking at one’s agreements and identifications on a gradient, discarding them, and thus achieving greater simplicity.

.

I rest my case on how Study Tech can screw up a person's thinking.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[nexus100]

Agreement is actually identification with another person’s reality. A sudden agreement or identification is hypnosis. We can establish a reality for another by getting them to agree without friction on a gradient. This is what happens in Scientology

The fact is that one can see another person’s reality without going into agreement with it. This is detached observation (looking without thinking).

Furthermore, one can improve greatly by looking without thinking at one’s agreements and identifications on a gradient, discarding them, and thus achieving greater simplicity.

.

I don't believe one can fully understand another person's reality without agreeing with it. Something is as real as one is willing to be in the same space. So to truly "get" what someone else means you have to be in that space where they are. That means full agreement with that viewpoint.

That full agreement, which amounts to understanding, does not mean one has to stay in that space. Once the other reality, the other person's space, is understood, one returns to one's own space, one's own reality. In effect one has "grown" by now being able to be in both realities.

Unless you're willing to get over to the other reality you'll still be seeing things from your reality without full understanding. No matter how much you think you get it, you don't quite. Every person and situation is different, because the space of that viewpoint is different. This can make understanding rather exhaustive unless you are careful to fully get the other person. And, of course, others don't always want to be understood for their own reasons.

 

[ThisFenceHurts]

Agreement is actually identification with another person’s reality. A sudden agreement or identification is hypnosis. We can establish a reality for another by getting them to agree without friction on a gradient. This is what happens in Scientology

The fact is that one can see another person’s reality without going into agreement with it. This is detached observation (looking without thinking).

Furthermore, one can improve greatly by looking without thinking at one’s agreements and identifications on a gradient, discarding them, and thus achieving greater simplicity.

.

The difference between you and I is that I am not afraid to agree with anyone because I am not scared of identifying with another's reality. I am not scared of thinking. You say it as if it is a bad thing to think. Death is pure simplicity. Is that what we are shooting for?

 

[uniquemand]

Nothing wrong with agreement, unless it is compulsive. Nothing wrong with identification, unless it is compulsive. Nothing wrong with truth, unless you can't bear to look at it. Nothing wrong with knowledge, unless it prevents you from looking "in a new unit of time".

Stop arguing, start listening.

 

[Vinaire]

Nothing wrong with agreement, unless it is compulsive. Nothing wrong with identification, unless it is compulsive. Nothing wrong with truth, unless you can't bear to look at it. Nothing wrong with knowledge, unless it prevents you from looking "in a new unit of time".

Stop arguing, start listening.

It is a matter of how one uses the terminology. I am using "agreement" in the sense of compulsive attachment, such as, one is in agreement with the physical universe.

Agreement is not duplication.

.

 

[Sock1]

If you are just talking about looking up words in a dictionary I would agree. But Study Tech is not just the looking up of words. Any study manual tells the student to do that. The Study Technology states and operates according to the idea that a misunderstood word is the only reason a person becomes confused or is unable to learn.

It is stressed over and over that it is the only reason.

Study Tech eliminates any other approach to understanding. When a person operates on that idea they may find themselves with a decreased capacity to understand and use language.

Looking up words is fine. but Study Tech poisons learning by instilling the premise that it is only definitions that matter. It fixates the student's mind and ability to assimilate. This is not an ommitted, it is the golden rule of Study Tech.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Ok, not just an omission.... that misunderstood words are the only reason. Ok. I never did totally agree with that so I guess I should agree that there's a flaw in study tech... or I'm missing something.

I want to get to the bottom of this so …. It does seem to me a fairly abrupt dead end, that a misunderstood word is the only reason.

It's surely the easiest thing to check for and I've found it very often to be the case. Usually, nearly always, when I come to the bottom of the page and just have a blank beyond a certain point, I can go back to the last thing that made sense and there's a word right in there I'm not sure of. Once that's cleared up I can begin to see the concepts again more clearly. Now, I rarely pass a word not understood with out noticing it and looking I up usually as it only takes 3-4 clicks now... but the only reason a person would stop studying or get confused or not be able to learn? Seems like there ought to be something like a Green Form. An abbreviated form for study. It could have a item:

E-1. Has disagreement with materials -_______

E-2. Has specific point of disagreement -_______

but how would that work? I don't remember any time in school that I had a test score changed because I disagreed with the answer in the materials. I think study needs to be of the materials as is. Whether one agrees with them or not. There are Green Form items that could work though, and other things such as:

G. Doesn't know purpose and value of materials -_______

H. “Knows” it already -_______

I. Fails to appreciate parts and their relation to whole -_______

etc.
Sock

 

[Vinaire]

I think the possible flaw in Study Tech is not warning that a definition being looked up could be faulty, or the materials being studied could be faulty.

That possibility becomes greater as one dives deeper into any subject.

.

 

[ThisFenceHurts]

I think the possible flaw in Study Tech is not warning that a definition being looked up could be faulty, or the materials being studied could be faulty.

That possibility becomes greater as one dives deeper into any subject.

.

So, in this thread, are you challenging the OP's premise? His logic? His conclusions?

OP says study tech is faulty because it does not lead to understanding and use of things such as metonymy and synecdoche.

Do you disagree and assert that study tech does lead to understanding and use of such things as metonymy and synecdoche?

If your answer to the above is that study tech does not lead to understanding and use of such things as metonymy and synecdoche, would you consider this a flaw?

If your answer to the above is that study tech does lead to understanding and use of such things as metonymy and synecdoche, please give us an explanation of how you feel it succeeds in this.

 

[Vinaire]

So, in this thread, are you challenging the OP's premise? His logic? His conclusions?

OP says study tech is faulty because it does not lead to understanding and use of things such as metonymy and synecdoche.

Do you disagree and assert that study tech does lead to understanding and use of such things as metonymy and synecdoche?

If your answer to the above is that study tech does not lead to understanding and use of such things as metonymy and synecdoche, would you consider this a flaw?

If your answer to the above is that study tech does lead to understanding and use of such things as metonymy and synecdoche, please give us an explanation of how you feel it succeeds in this.

I guess my interpretation of Study Tech is very different from other people's interpretations who are fixated on agreements and identities. My interest has always been in finding out the truth and developing the knowledge that produces desirable results.

I am not interested in boosting or degrading the image of Hubbard or Scientology. It is okay with me for others to have whatever image they want to have of Hubbard, Scientology, Study tech, etc.

My primary interest is in
(1) Examining what is there.
(2) Testing it out for workability.
(3) Refining it for greater applicability.

This is what I did with Study Tech in Scientology. This is what I am still doing with rest of the data in Scientology. The KHTK documents are the product of the simplification of the complexity in Scientology. The following is a feedback I got on KHTK #1 LOOKING on The Scientology Forum:

I did all exercises of KNOWING HOW TO KNOW SERIES # 1.

Noticed gradients of change on the following subjects :

Increased awareness of Looking as a skill all by itself.

Increased tendency to be looking instead of thinking.

Increased awareness of my environment.
Extroverted, released from enturbulation, more in present time.
More alert and conscious of me as myself executing the activity of Looking.
More at cause over Lookingness and Attention.
Drill promotes causativity towards environment.

Looking at things with no effort, more relaxed.
Better understanding of the thought process.
(Mind can loose a lot of time on figure-figure)

Feeling of release because I didn´t had to make an effort to find things in the mind,
no pressure to find a response.
Also not supressing automaticities but looking at them orients oneself
on the correct direction towards as-is-ness ( I used to try to supress all the
automaticities of my mind, allways with bad results ).

I had a tendency to concentrate all my attention in the matter at hand
with almost no attention left for anything else and feel it´s better
distributed now.
During all my auditing I used to submerge (on purpose) into thinkingness after session
with the purpose of deepening the cognitions I just had not knowing that it was
introverting me back into the bank.

Going back into thinking instead of looking was a "beautiful" way to avoid confront
and always ended moving in circles and into complexities.


Can´t find anything wrong with this...... making an effort to find something even if nothing
naturally comes to mind.....................

Could this exercise help higly enturbulated people ?
Probably yes, with the help of a guide.

Maybe looking at the mind could lower havingness, or some people with already low havingness
may not want to get rid of their problems, but going back to look at the environment is
a possible solution if that were the case or some other havingness process.

Well, this is as far as I can go now.

This is the kind of stuff that really makes me happy.

.

 

[ThisFenceHurts]

Why didn't you answer the question? What your interest in study tech is has nothing to do with the original post. I just want to know what your opinions are of study tech as it applies to metonymy and synecdoche. Just a simple, on-topic answer. I still have no idea what your answer is.

 

[Vinaire]

Why didn't you answer the question? What your interest in study tech is has nothing to do with the original post. I just want to know what your opinions are of study tech as it applies to metonymy and synecdoche. Just a simple, on-topic answer. I still have no idea what your answer is.

My answer is: "I have no opinion as I haven't looked at it."

.

 

[ThisFenceHurts]

My answer is: "I have no opinion as I haven't looked at it."

.

Ok, that's cool.

In all seriousness, what is the point of posting in this thread, then?

 

[Vinaire]

Ok, that's cool.

In all seriousness, what is the point of posting in this thread, then?

I don't know. Maybe I shouldn't post.

.

 

[ThisFenceHurts]

My point being you attacked the conclusion without even taking a look at his support.

You mentioned earlier in the thread that you though discussion should lead to education. How does that happen when you won't even look at the other guy's support?

 

[Vinaire]

My point being you attacked the conclusion without even taking a look at his support.

You mentioned earlier in the thread that you though discussion should lead to education. How does that happen when you won't even look at the other guy's support?

I know what he is talking about. I have no opinion on it. I am not interested in playing any games.

.

 

[degraded being]

I know what he is talking about. I have no opinion on it. I am not interested in playing any games.



cough, splutter!