What's new

Avoiding Flames-Terminology and Referent

uniquemand

Unbeliever
When discussing Scientology, its terminology, and the experiences people have had with the use of techniques described by Hubbard, flame wars often erupt. This is not unique to discussing Scientology, but is a common pitfall we all can fall into, even if we intended otherwise prior to reading what someone else wrote, if it upsets us enough, or if we're not aware of the principle described below, taken from my post on another thread comparing Scientology to other esoteric subjects. It applies to any topic under discussion. The flame wars might be an amusing indulgence, but they can also deter people from following an otherwise interesting topic.

***Gets up on soapbox***

Scientology's OT Levels are comparable to exorcism or "micro-exorcism". First, the person is indoctrinated (solo course), then they are asked to invoke and call the demon/bt (bring it out, call it to mind, address it), then expel it, etc., though the methods differ based on doctrine. Occult traditions have rituals for this purpose. Psychology has a different understanding of what is being expelled or eliminated, but they also address the same phenomenon in people who are seen to have "multiple personalities" (Disassociative Identity Disorder), or who "hear voices", feel "compulsions", etc.

Understanding what causes the phenomena is obscured by the common problem Korzybski referred to as mistaking the map for the territory. Thinking about your feeling, for example, that you must wash your hands or suffer anxiety in terms of it being a BT or demon influencing you might be useful, but believing that it "is" a demon or BT is a different thing, entirely. Similarly, thinking about it as a sub-personality or projection may be useful, but insisting that it "is" one takes on characteristics of irrational attachment.

Whatever terms you use, the phenomena are real (feeling compelled, perceiving a change in your character, experiencing emotion which feels foreign to you, etc.). Getting caught up in word-choice is frustrating for those who are trying to understand and discuss the object of a reference, rather than discuss the merit of a particular set of terms or the systems that use them.

This point is nuanced, and the "Q & A" that ensues often eclipses the discussion. It is a pervasive pattern in many threads, both here and in many academic fields or religions, politics, anything where people mistake their terms for the objects they refer to. I really wish people would recognize this and stop it, but this requires a learned discipline. Seems an inherent flaw of language and seems exacerbated by specialist training, rather than improved by it.

I've seen people refer to "thought-stopping techniques" in many places, and it's true that words/jargon can be used this way, but tripping people up on terminology is also a thought-stopping technique. Before engaging in this, I BEG YOU to ask yourself this question: "did I understand what that person was referring to?". If so, is challenging their word-choice going to clarify their point? If you didn't, was that a word you have an emotional reaction to? Can you address their point, or is derailing it for the sake of emphasizing the rightness of your terminology vs. theirs more important?

*** gets down off soapbox***
 
When discussing Scientology, its terminology, and the experiences people have had with the use of techniques described by Hubbard, flame wars often erupt. This is not unique to discussing Scientology, but is a common pitfall we all can fall into, even if we intended otherwise prior to reading what someone else wrote, if it upsets us enough, or if we're not aware of the principle described below, taken from my post on another thread comparing Scientology to other esoteric subjects. It applies to any topic under discussion. The flame wars might be an amusing indulgence, but they can also deter people from following an otherwise interesting topic.

***Gets up on soapbox***

Scientology's OT Levels are comparable to exorcism or "micro-exorcism". First, the person is indoctrinated (solo course), then they are asked to invoke and call the demon/bt (bring it out, call it to mind, address it), then expel it, etc., though the methods differ based on doctrine. Occult traditions have rituals for this purpose. Psychology has a different understanding of what is being expelled or eliminated, but they also address the same phenomenon in people who are seen to have "multiple personalities" (Disassociative Identity Disorder), or who "hear voices", feel "compulsions", etc.

Understanding what causes the phenomena is obscured by the common problem Korzybski referred to as mistaking the map for the territory. Thinking about your feeling, for example, that you must wash your hands or suffer anxiety in terms of it being a BT or demon influencing you might be useful, but believing that it "is" a demon or BT is a different thing, entirely. Similarly, thinking about it as a sub-personality or projection may be useful, but insisting that it "is" one takes on characteristics of irrational attachment.

Whatever terms you use, the phenomena are real (feeling compelled, perceiving a change in your character, experiencing emotion which feels foreign to you, etc.). Getting caught up in word-choice is frustrating for those who are trying to understand and discuss the object of a reference, rather than discuss the merit of a particular set of terms or the systems that use them.

This point is nuanced, and the "Q & A" that ensues often eclipses the discussion. It is a pervasive pattern in many threads, both here and in many academic fields or religions, politics, anything where people mistake their terms for the objects they refer to. I really wish people would recognize this and stop it, but this requires a learned discipline. Seems an inherent flaw of language and seems exacerbated by specialist training, rather than improved by it.

I've seen people refer to "thought-stopping techniques" in many places, and it's true that words/jargon can be used this way, but tripping people up on terminology is also a thought-stopping technique. Before engaging in this, I BEG YOU to ask yourself this question: "did I understand what that person was referring to?". If so, is challenging their word-choice going to clarify their point? If you didn't, was that a word you have an emotional reaction to? Can you address their point, or is derailing it for the sake of emphasizing the rightness of your terminology vs. theirs more important?

*** gets down off soapbox***

In good discussions I think this area of *what is being referred to and what the referent means to the participants* is worked out in progress and it is enriched along the way so that people see things from different perspectives. I think the board has been pretty good lately, although of course anyone else may not agree with that. There used to be quite a few "discussions" sometimes on very abstract topics using abstract, vague terms which nobody saw any need to specify or clarify,
which bothered me for their sloppiness. But that doesn't seem to happen much now. However, I think you may be talking about something in the same general area of the use of language as I am, but with a different focus than my example.

When I used the term "sloppiness" above, I was referring only to discussions that were started with a purportedly focussed title about an area or topic of interest. In other threads which are genearal chit-chat sloppiness doesn't bother me.
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
In good discussions I think this area of *what is being referred to and what the referent means to the participants* is worked out in progress and it is enriched along the way so that people see things from different perspectives. I think the board has been pretty good lately, although of course anyone else may not agree with that. There used to be quite a few "discussions" sometimes on very abstract topics using abstract, vague terms which nobody saw any need to specify or clarify,
which bothered me for their sloppiness. But that doesn't seem to happen much now. However, I think you may be talking about something in the same general area of the use of language as I am, but with a different focus than my example.

When I used the term "sloppiness" above, I was referring only to discussions that were started with a purportedly focussed title about an area or topic of interest. In other threads which are genearal chit-chat sloppiness doesn't bother me.

Yes, I've seen improvement, here. I do feel that, very often, I find people questioning my use of a term instead of discussing the phenomenon it was used to describe.

Example: Biofeedback is very useful when determining whether a person is still interested in running something.

Typical response: So you are advocating using Hubbard's proven fake lie detector?

Example analysis: This typically leads to a discussion of the failings of e-meters, the history of Hubbard's abuses, and someone private messaging me that I am a fool because a) that is bullshit or b) you don't lay pearls before swine. What it does not lead to is a discussion of the merits of using biofeedback (which could be someone blinking, their pulse increasing in rate, their pupils dilating, galvanic skin response, EEG, MRI, fMRI, flushing of their skin, sudden urination, sweat starting, etc.) to determine whether someone could benefit from another look at something. BTW, the term "running" would typically incite an argument about whether or not loaded terminology is evil, and whether it is appropriate to use such terms on this website. What it would not lead to, typically, is a discussion of whether or not a person having another look at something might benefit them.

The same point applies to discussions of any given term. If I put things in "materialist terms", then "spiritual types" (you know who are) discount the discussion as being unenlightened, limited, or worse. What they don't do is examine the concept and discuss it in their own terms (which would be fine with me), or in my terms (which would be fine with me).

Of course there are exceptions, but I wanted to make this point. I think it is valuable for people to consider, I know it has been valuable to me.
 
Yes, I've seen improvement, here. I do feel that, very often, I find people questioning my use of a term instead of discussing the phenomenon it was used to describe.

Example: Biofeedback is very useful when determining whether a person is still interested in running something.

Typical response: So you are advocating using Hubbard's proven fake lie detector?

Example analysis: This typically leads to a discussion of the failings of e-meters, the history of Hubbard's abuses, and someone private messaging me that I am a fool because a) that is bullshit or b) you don't lay pearls before swine. What it does not lead to is a discussion of the merits of using biofeedback (which could be someone blinking, their pulse increasing in rate, their pupils dilating, galvanic skin response, EEG, MRI, fMRI, flushing of their skin, sudden urination, sweat starting, etc.) to determine whether someone could benefit from another look at something. BTW, the term "running" would typically incite an argument about whether or not loaded terminology is evil, and whether it is appropriate to use such terms on this website. What it would not lead to, typically, is a discussion of whether or not a person having another look at something might benefit them.

The same point applies to discussions of any given term. If I put things in "materialist terms", then "spiritual types" (you know who are) discount the discussion as being unenlightened, limited, or worse. What they don't do is examine the concept and discuss it in their own terms (which would be fine with me), or in my terms (which would be fine with me).

Of course there are exceptions, but I wanted to make this point. I think it is valuable for people to consider, I know it has been valuable to me.

I have this sort of not completely worked out hypothesis that in such discussions the terms themselves are all "pared down" (or could be pared down) to what exactly the terms mean to the participants and when that is agreed upon people find out that they agree or disagree on the points being made.

I get what you are saying about a term being reacted against and not being able to get on with the point of discussion because of that. The examples you gave seemed like stark illustrations of that. OTOH it is as you say a very nuanced thing and IMO people do manipulate the nuances at a subtle level sometimes. Knowing this, either in a very aware sort of way, or a more instinctive way, people are cautious not to get trapped into giving some sort of support or crdibility to an idea even as they try to oppose it, by being too tolerant of how others use words. i.e. to sort of, argue "on my own terms". If the discussion happens in a reasonably friendly way, as I said in the first paragraph, the terms themselves may become the topic, for a greater or lesser time and while that is happening, or after that, agreement may be found - or not. I think a scientology perspective is that agreement can always be found, and it is implied that if it is not, a failure has happened. This idea is also quite widespread in the non-sci world too, I think. Sometimes I think the sucesss, or at least end point of a discussion is to see that there cannot be agreement between opposing ideas. (Sounds so bloody obvious!). If the terms have not been fully understood (what they mean to me *and* the other parties) then the discussion might not truly be ended.

I am wary of any hub cult terminology, on the grounds that any single word is asscociated with things that are not part of the discussion but somehow connected as "background". Not to mention the nonsense factor of a lot of it.
 

Auditor's Toad

Clear as Mud
This post really got boring very quickly. Anybody got Cliff Notes?

When discussing Scientology, its terminology, and the experiences people have had with the use of techniques described by Hubbard, flame wars often erupt. This is not unique to discussing Scientology, but is a common pitfall we all can fall into, even if we intended otherwise prior to reading what someone else wrote, if it upsets us enough, or if we're not aware of the principle described below, taken from my post on another thread comparing Scientology to other esoteric subjects. It applies to any topic under discussion. The flame wars might be an amusing indulgence, but they can also deter people from following an otherwise interesting topic.

***Gets up on soapbox***

Scientology's OT Levels are comparable to exorcism or "micro-exorcism". First, the person is indoctrinated (solo course), then they are asked to invoke and call the demon/bt (bring it out, call it to mind, address it), then expel it, etc., though the methods differ based on doctrine. Occult traditions have rituals for this purpose. Psychology has a different understanding of what is being expelled or eliminated, but they also address the same phenomenon in people who are seen to have "multiple personalities" (Disassociative Identity Disorder), or who "hear voices", feel "compulsions", etc.

Understanding what causes the phenomena is obscured by the common problem Korzybski referred to as mistaking the map for the territory. Thinking about your feeling, for example, that you must wash your hands or suffer anxiety in terms of it being a BT or demon influencing you might be useful, but believing that it "is" a demon or BT is a different thing, entirely. Similarly, thinking about it as a sub-personality or projection may be useful, but insisting that it "is" one takes on characteristics of irrational attachment.

Whatever terms you use, the phenomena are real (feeling compelled, perceiving a change in your character, experiencing emotion which feels foreign to you, etc.). Getting caught up in word-choice is frustrating for those who are trying to understand and discuss the object of a reference, rather than discuss the merit of a particular set of terms or the systems that use them.

This point is nuanced, and the "Q & A" that ensues often eclipses the discussion. It is a pervasive pattern in many threads, both here and in many academic fields or religions, politics, anything where people mistake their terms for the objects they refer to. I really wish people would recognize this and stop it, but this requires a learned discipline. Seems an inherent flaw of language and seems exacerbated by specialist training, rather than improved by it.

I've seen people refer to "thought-stopping techniques" in many places, and it's true that words/jargon can be used this way, but tripping people up on terminology is also a thought-stopping technique. Before engaging in this, I BEG YOU to ask yourself this question: "did I understand what that person was referring to?". If so, is challenging their word-choice going to clarify their point? If you didn't, was that a word you have an emotional reaction to? Can you address their point, or is derailing it for the sake of emphasizing the rightness of your terminology vs. theirs more important?

*** gets down off soapbox***
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
I was a interdisciplinary studies major. My focus was identity formation and the effects of trauma.

I did, however, start out as a English major, way back in the mists of time.
 

Reasonable

Silver Meritorious Patron
When discussing Scientology, its terminology, and the experiences people have had with the use of techniques described by Hubbard, flame wars often erupt. This is not unique to discussing Scientology, but is a common pitfall we all can fall into, even if we intended otherwise prior to reading what someone else wrote, if it upsets us enough, or if we're not aware of the principle described below, taken from my post on another thread comparing Scientology to other esoteric subjects. It applies to any topic under discussion. The flame wars might be an amusing indulgence, but they can also deter people from following an otherwise interesting topic.

***Gets up on soapbox***

Scientology's OT Levels are comparable to exorcism or "micro-exorcism". First, the person is indoctrinated (solo course), then they are asked to invoke and call the demon/bt (bring it out, call it to mind, address it), then expel it, etc., though the methods differ based on doctrine. Occult traditions have rituals for this purpose. Psychology has a different understanding of what is being expelled or eliminated, but they also address the same phenomenon in people who are seen to have "multiple personalities" (Disassociative Identity Disorder), or who "hear voices", feel "compulsions", etc.

Understanding what causes the phenomena is obscured by the common problem Korzybski referred to as mistaking the map for the territory. Thinking about your feeling, for example, that you must wash your hands or suffer anxiety in terms of it being a BT or demon influencing you might be useful, but believing that it "is" a demon or BT is a different thing, entirely. Similarly, thinking about it as a sub-personality or projection may be useful, but insisting that it "is" one takes on characteristics of irrational attachment.

Whatever terms you use, the phenomena are real (feeling compelled, perceiving a change in your character, experiencing emotion which feels foreign to you, etc.). Getting caught up in word-choice is frustrating for those who are trying to understand and discuss the object of a reference, rather than discuss the merit of a particular set of terms or the systems that use them.

This point is nuanced, and the "Q & A" that ensues often eclipses the discussion. It is a pervasive pattern in many threads, both here and in many academic fields or religions, politics, anything where people mistake their terms for the objects they refer to. I really wish people would recognize this and stop it, but this requires a learned discipline. Seems an inherent flaw of language and seems exacerbated by specialist training, rather than improved by it.

I've seen people refer to "thought-stopping techniques" in many places, and it's true that words/jargon can be used this way, but tripping people up on terminology is also a thought-stopping technique. Before engaging in this, I BEG YOU to ask yourself this question: "did I understand what that person was referring to?". If so, is challenging their word-choice going to clarify their point? If you didn't, was that a word you have an emotional reaction to? Can you address their point, or is derailing it for the sake of emphasizing the rightness of your terminology vs. theirs more important?

*** gets down off soapbox***

Good Point. This is why I stopped having discussions here and now stick maily to Haiku
 

Mystic

Crusader
I was part of the IRC channels discussing this fkn satannic cult beginning back in the mid 90s. Man o man, talk about flame wars, sheesh! This was live chat and the channel rule was no banning for content, only ban for attacking the channel itself trying to close it down.

Over the years the flaming has calmed a bit, particularly as that Scientology cult gets more and more buried .


 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
The point is that there is a difference between a term and its referent. Instead of balking at a term, let's discuss the referent.
 

thetagal

Patron
Thanks.

You are not an English Major are you?

Hi. I'm posting here, but not sure I'm in the right place--had to log in and now this is what shows up.

Just wanted to make the point that the "quote you become what you resist" although quoted that way a lot leaves out some important words. "You become what you resist...if you lose." :eyeroll:
 

PTS

Elliott
The only people that I have disconnected from at ESMB are the folks who start or perpetuate flame wars. It's boring, infantile, and I have zero desire to witness it. Flame away all you want, just not on my screen.
 
Top