Good and Bad in Scn

[honeywhite]

That's because I don't say it's an Scn belief. All I say is, "This may—or may not—help you." And again, it's not like I'm heavy on it, I just give a mild tap in the right direction to my friends and colleagues, that's all.

http://www.upguitarhill.com/helpme/hp/hp.htm summarises my beliefs quite nicely, especially this: "Note also that I draw some of the information below, from a Philosophy called Scientology. This does not mean that I am a Scientologist which I am not. All that it means is that I have an enquiring mind and as such I am interested in different ideas i.e. from psychology, philosophy, literature, science, religion and etc., especially if these ideas contain value and can get limp sails fluttering again! I have found some neat solutions within the Scientology body of knowledge and as such give it credence simply for this."

The site has somewhat heavier beliefs than I do (such as the Reactive Mind, hearing about which didn't help me in the slightest, and the bunk about the Thetan Game)...and it draws from systems of belief other than Scn as well. I say I'm a bit of a FZer just because it's more convenient to say that than "Oh, I draw on every philosophy that's been invented, and even a few that haven't been invented yet."

I am not a shill, and I am not an addict. Least of all to amphetamine. I was responding to a JOKE posting, with... guess what... a JOKE.

I assumed this was a forum for philosophical discussion, with the only real "philosophy" espoused being "live and let die". Now I see that the only thing I'm liable to get out of it is ridicule and ad-homs.

I'm a Blanchardist as well (Ken Blanchard's One Minute Manager), a Christian (obvious, but see list of EIGHT—not 7—deadly sins), and a Johnsonist (Spencer Johnson's Who Moved My Cheese) if you wish to mock me in those areas too. I find philosophy helps me with my life. It doesn't have to help you with yours, but if you're a hard science freak and don't believe in philosophy, don't kill the moment for others, like me, that happen to enjoy eclectic ideas.

I'm a junkie for change, but there are others who are not, and it is a character flaw of mine that I tend to get impatient with those who are slow to change. And, unfortunately, I have a problem thinking on Universe (6th Dynamic) terms, especially the more "oogie-boogie"/metaphysical stuff (parallel universes and such), because honestly I think there's some stuff that's a little TOO advanced. Oh, yeah, and I'm bubbly as hell; I prefer to not think of myself as naive, because I know life is nothing but dog turd, but I say is it better to allow yourself to grow cynical, or is it better to let the shit bounce off you?

So there's my feelings about the matter.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Hmmm. What are the odds that honeywhite is real, versus some kind of Scientology shill pretending to be a naive outsider who is just honestly impressed with so much of 'the tech', while making a few perfunctory declarations that orgs are evil and pills are great? I could go as high as 10 to 1, in favor of the fake shill. Not too much higher, because maybe there really are people that naive. There can't be many, though.

A professed addiction to pills that make you feel great might be just what a clever but out-of-touch Scientologist would think of as a good piece of camouflage. Scientology's opposition to 'psych drugs' is so well known that it's a strong way of declaring, "I'm not a Scientologist, but ...". Yet it doesn't actually do much to discourage interest in Scientology, because it effectively implies that there's a ton of good in Scientology for anyone who doesn't want to be on pills.

It would be great camouflage, except that it's like a fluffy guy in a loud shirt popping a little green cap on his head. The stories about teaching lawyers with Study Tech, and being so impressed with the Tone Scale, are just too unbelievable. Normal people don't react to anything with that kind of gushing, let alone the gobbledegook of L. Ron Hubbard, and especially not after only a few weeks of experience.

They also don't totally ignore the strong arguments against things like Study Tech that honeywhite must have read here. Even if normal people don't necessarily accept arguments against their latest enthusiasms, they'll at least engage with them. Blithely walking past a serious criticism of something you've only known for a month or two, on a board full of people who have known the stuff for decades, is just bizarre. People who act like that are not people whose endorsements carry a lot of weight even if they are sincere.

Honeywhite's posts might really be an effective blow against ex-Scientologists, though. Rolling your eyes that hard might hurt.

You know, SOT, I got the same speculations when I first started posting to a critical forum. Cuz I was in CofS then. And I was even posting under my own name and said where I lived!!

Such speculations are maybe not so useful if voiced on forum. Just a thought.

 

[honeywhite]

You might find this helpful when working with the Lower Conditions:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?15214-THE-NEW-LOWER-CONDITIONS&highlight=Conditions

Ahh, I was talking about Higher Conditions. I think that if you apply the formula (or a somewhat modified version of it, if you like) for Power well, it'll be Power, Power, Power until someone fucks up royally. I don't even write them, I just use them as a mental guide, that's it.

What is everyone's problem with my thought patterns? I don't make other people do the Conditions. But if one of Hubbard's phrases goes through my mind when I think about the state of whatever I started, and it helps me pull whatever it is up by its bootstraps, isn't this classified as helpful?

"Find what caused the condition of Power and duplicate THAT," or some such. Really good advice. Sometimes hard to find out what it is, but once you've found out what caused the improvement, and keep doing that, I doubt it can be in any way detrimental.

 

[omnom]

Normal people don't react to anything with that kind of gushing, let alone the gobbledegook of L. Ron Hubbard, and especially not after only a few weeks of experience.

I would disagree a bit here. When you complete a course, your first new duty is to be rewarded with applause (pump you up a bit) and then write up your wins, while you're still euphoric. I've heard from people that this euphoria can last hours to months at a time. They eventually drop off, of course, or nobody would leave - if it worked as advertised, no more than 2.5% on average would ever leave an Org or the thought process behind it.

 

[Commander Birdsong]

I'm glad your study is more or less complete...maybe now you will go and and further explore more productive avenues of life and learning.

Welcome to the Board!

In my view, study tech was a squirreled version of operant conditioning, a form of education technology devised to instruct brain damaged and developmentally delayed individuals. (Never pass a word you don't understand!) There were several types and methodologies of learning systems which were developed out of this, and expanded to cover all people, even those with normal or high intelligence and cognitive abilities. These experiments were used, tried and discarded by the public education systems in Southern California. Been there, done that. Waste of time and effort, except for a very narrow focus of the population.

I think study tech might be helpful for some individuals with learning disabilities like dyslexia or dysgraphia, but it does not help to foster creative, deep thinkers or critical thinking, or divergent, lateral thinking skills, which is what we need most to survive and thrive in today's society. It's largely learning by rote, and conforming to outside standards. Not at all good for fostering creativity, critical thinking and problem solving skills, which is what I want in all my students who are capable of doing such cognitive work.

The tone scale is a made up false construct, trying to fit the complexity of the range and panoply of human emotional expression into an engineering model of "scale". It's a false construct, as well. It's bunk, and has messed up many lives, by trying to conform to it, by acting as if one were at a higher tone than one really is, or by judging others by it. Throw it out.

If thinking in terms of 8 dynamics helps you to compartmentalize life, and thus feel more in control of things and less overwhelmed, okay. Perhaps for persons who never before considered the well-being of the group, or the planet as a whole, this is a step up in thinking...I would say that there was something faulty in their socialization as young people if that is so, but then, that does seem to be true for many, sadly. Don't limit your understanding or experience of life and the Universe to 8 dynamics... don't categorize and pigeonhole everything in that way. It gives you a false sense that you understand everything more than you really do, and are more in control of life than you are, and thus don't have to think about things too deeply, explore ideas more, or learn a lot more about life, which is what it was designed to do. It makes for happy little Cult members. Discard it! Start looking a life as a whole, complex, inter-relational process...which no one really has a complete handle on. There are no perfect, fixed models for how life is. Everyone's perceptions color their experiences, and their experiences help to form their conceptions and perceptions of life, the Universe, and everything. Life is Complex. Let it be. Don't try to push the river on this. Be amazed and grateful about learning new aspects of it every day. Go watch some TED talks, if you think the 8 dynamics are the Be all and End all of everything!!

Doing locationals might be useful for treating someone who is in shock or feeling totally introverted and overwhelmed by life. Better yet not to get them into those states in the first place, which COS routinely does with it's members. If you need to touch the wall to really be there, chances are good that you should leave. That's not the right place for you to thrive. Hello! Your body and mind are telling you something...LISTEN!

If you "need something" to help you focus, it's probably a sign that you need to take a break, you are doing too much or straining too hard at whatever the task is. Unless a person has ADD or ADHD, or some other kind of minimal brain dysfunction, in which case professional help will be most useful in adapting to the requirements of schooling and a job.

Practical skills, knowledge and familiarity with using tools and resources is all good. So is walking daily! Ron didn't invent these, but tried to pretend that he did...that Con Artist!

When you work too much and become tired, you should REST. Really! This will protect your mental and physical health in so very many ways. Walking is great, walk all you want, but don't use it as a substitute for rest or sleep when you need it!

The TRs are bunk. More harmful than helpful in fostering real communication. Forget you ever learned them. Re-learn other more useful communication skills, like non-violent communication (Google it! ).

I do agree with you, that people need to learn how to do active listening, and practice it!

Onward and upward! Excelsior! I wish you well on your journey!

hi S&L!

it's nice having you for reader, you are so generous with your thanks and likes on my posts.

i'm sort of surprised someone who would like my writing would so resoundingly trash TR's. i ain't nobody's koolaid salesman and if TR's don't do it for you that's just th ay it is

but...

not only do i like TR's big time many many people who are quite disaffected with the organization and the subject in general speak well of TR's and the old HAS course

i think you might be willing to show our reality some respect and downgrade your statement from objective reality to personal evaluation

 

[Commander Birdsong]

Hmmm. What are the odds that honeywhite is real, versus some kind of Scientology shill pretending to be a naive outsider who is just honestly impressed with so much of 'the tech', while making a few perfunctory declarations that orgs are evil and pills are great? I could go as high as 10 to 1, in favor of the fake shill. Not too much higher, because maybe there really are people that naive. There can't be many, though.

A professed addiction to pills that make you feel great might be just what a clever but out-of-touch Scientologist would think of as a good piece of camouflage. Scientology's opposition to 'psych drugs' is so well known that it's a strong way of declaring, "I'm not a Scientologist, but ...". Yet it doesn't actually do much to discourage interest in Scientology, because it effectively implies that there's a ton of good in Scientology for anyone who doesn't want to be on pills.

It would be great camouflage, except that it's like a fluffy guy in a loud shirt popping a little green cap on his head. The stories about teaching lawyers with Study Tech, and being so impressed with the Tone Scale, are just too unbelievable. Normal people don't react to anything with that kind of gushing, let alone the gobbledegook of L. Ron Hubbard, and especially not after only a few weeks of experience.

They also don't totally ignore the strong arguments against things like Study Tech that honeywhite must have read here. Even if normal people don't necessarily accept arguments against their latest enthusiasms, they'll at least engage with them. Blithely walking past a serious criticism of something you've only known for a month or two, on a board full of people who have known the stuff for decades, is just bizarre. People who act like that are not people whose endorsements carry a lot of weight even if they are sincere.

Honeywhite's posts might really be an effective blow against ex-Scientologists, though. Rolling your eyes that hard might hurt.

getting a bit cranky in your old age SOT?

honey is no CoS shill

i haven't been "active in the church" for nearly 40 years but i gained much of enduring value from the experience. i can appreciate how anyone viewing from the outside might think it all "gobbletygook" (with hevy emphasis on gobbling). it must be studied on it's own terms and doing so without "drinking the koolaid" is quite a trick. but it can be done

 

[omnom]

What is everyone's problem with my thought patterns?

I think some of it is the forum you chose. I'm glad you chose this one, due to the amount of experience behind it, but it is primarily Ex-Scn folks. Some still use bits and pieces, and there tends to be a reasonable (for the internet, that is) amount of peace between different opinions.

If you're looking for blind validation, this might be the wrong place. If you actually want to discuss the issue instead of repeating "No, I'm not using it all, and it works for me!", you might have a better reception. If you're posting only to assert your opinion, and not looking for criticism, I'm sure there are forums that are better suited.

http://www.upguitarhill.com/helpme/hp/hp.htm summarises my beliefs quite nicely

Holy shit, is that the same guy that designed the Timecube site?

It appears to me, after reading your posts and your slightly changing story, that you're looking for some answers in life, and how to better yourself. You're relatively intelligent, and know it. In the formative years of adulthood. You know what's funny? That is the key demographic for Scn. If you haven't yet read Counterfeit Dreams, by Jeff Hawkins, I'd highly suggest it. He did some major marketing for Scn, and did some of the only real polling/demographic studies in the history of the organization, as far as I know. I know you keep saying that you're not "in" and won't be, but Scn/Dn/Applied Scholatics/Narconon/and-so-on are all delicately intertwined - you can see how the whole fleet operates under one admiral (pun definitely intended).

I hope you find what you're looking for, and hope that if you continue down the rabbit-hole of Scn/Dn/LRH that you are transparent and afford your "students" the same opportunity to review critical information so they can make an informed decision themselves.

 

[Student of Trinity]

Such speculations are maybe not so useful if voiced on forum.

Pleasant they might not be, but useful I think they could be. That's why I made them.

An actual Scientology shill, if that's the case, should know that they don't come across as credible. That way they might do more learning about the outside world, even if only in an effort to blend in better next time.

And for somebody who really has just discovered all this Hubbard stuff in two months, and just happens to think it's great, and isn't a Scientology sock-puppet at all, is it not helpful to learn that they sound more like a Scientology sock-puppet than a normal person? If I were in that position, I'd hate to keep sounding like something I wasn't, so I'd be grateful for the tip, and try to do something about it.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Hmmm. What are the odds that honeywhite is real, versus some kind of Scientology shill pretending to be a naive outsider who is just honestly impressed with so much of 'the tech', while making a few perfunctory declarations that orgs are evil and pills are great? ...

Given your own lack of direct knowledge of the subject amid many expressions of rigid viewpoint this is amusing. The same could be said of you.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Shakespeare
Hamlet, I,v

Mark A. Baker

 

[honeywhite]

I think some of it is the forum you chose. I'm glad you chose this one, due to the amount of experience behind it, but it is primarily Ex-Scn folks. Some still use bits and pieces, and there tends to be a reasonable (for the internet, that is) amount of peace between different opinions.

If you're looking for blind validation, this might be the wrong place. If you actually want to discuss the issue instead of repeating "No, I'm not using it all, and it works for me!", you might have a better reception. If you're posting only to assert your opinion, and not looking for criticism, I'm sure there are forums that are better suited.



Holy shit, is that the same guy that designed the Timecube site?

It appears to me, after reading your posts and your slightly changing story, that you're looking for some answers in life, and how to better yourself. You're relatively intelligent, and know it. In the formative years of adulthood. You know what's funny? That is the key demographic for Scn. If you haven't yet read Counterfeit Dreams, by Jeff Hawkins, I'd highly suggest it. He did some major marketing for Scn, and did some of the only real polling/demographic studies in the history of the organization, as far as I know. I know you keep saying that you're not "in" and won't be, but Scn/Dn/Applied Scholatics/Narconon/and-so-on are all delicately intertwined - you can see how the whole fleet operates under one admiral (pun definitely intended).

I hope you find what you're looking for, and hope that if you continue down the rabbit-hole of Scn/Dn/LRH that you are transparent and afford your "students" the same opportunity to review critical information so they can make an informed decision themselves.

I *am* transparent, and I'm willing to allow for philosophical discussion. I also look at things from a critical standpoint; I don't shove anything down anyone's throat. I use S.T. because it helps some people. There are others it doesn't help. I look at LRH's Purif, his views on psychology, and his cosmogony, and I have the same opinion of it as most people here do of Study Tech. Bullshit in other words.

The difference in my opinion is that study tech CAN produce results. You can look at someone's study skills before they learn the S.T., and after they learn it, and you may or may not notice improvement. Depends on the person. Similarly, you can teach them the A.R.C. triangle, and you can see if their relationships get better. However, there is no way "whole track" memories are anything close to real. There's plot holes in the Xenu story as big as cricket pitches. I know enough medicine to know that Narconon is useless and even dangerous.

I'm looking for debate more than criticism. All I want is a civil discussion, and for people to recognise the difference between fact and opinion. The only real modifications I made to my style was that I recognised the importance of the model and of practical knowledge, and that I use the check-sheet system because there's really no other way to put tasks in order of importance on a piece of paper. If you're running an organised course, I see possible value in pink sheets and in teaching the student to teach as well as learn.

----

EDIT: In fact, I fully recognise that AS/Scn/Dn/CCHR/Criminon/Narconon are heavily inter-related. I am writing a book on S.T. so that people interested in broadening their mind do in fact broaden it, and are not paying money to a criminal enterprise that shrinks minds instead. I don't want to see profits from the sale of a good book going to a suppressive organisation like the Cult. This is why I advocate those who wish to learn S.T. to buy manuals from eBay or from Amazon (used), or to read Clearbird's free version, instead of buying it from Bridge Pub.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

I *am* transparent, and I'm willing to allow for philosophical discussion. I also look at things from a critical standpoint; I don't shove anything down anyone's throat. I use S.T. because it helps some people. There are others it doesn't help. I look at LRH's Purif, his views on psychology, and his cosmogony, and I have the same opinion of it as most people here do of Study Tech. Bullshit in other words.

The difference in my opinion is that study tech CAN produce results. You can look at someone's study skills before they learn the S.T., and after they learn it, and you may or may not notice improvement. Depends on the person. Similarly, you can teach them the A.R.C. triangle, and you can see if their relationships get better. However, there is no way "whole track" memories are anything close to real. There's plot holes in the Xenu story as big as cricket pitches. I know enough medicine to know that Narconon is useless and even dangerous.

I'm looking for debate more than criticism. All I want is a civil discussion, and for people to recognise the difference between fact and opinion. The only real modifications I made to my style was that I recognised the importance of the model and of practical knowledge, and that I use the check-sheet system because there's really no other way to put tasks in order of importance on a piece of paper. If you're running an organised course, I see possible value in pink sheets and in teaching the student to teach as well as learn.

----

EDIT: In fact, I fully recognise that AS/Scn/Dn/CCHR/Criminon/Narconon are heavily inter-related. I am writing a book on S.T. so that people interested in broadening their mind do in fact broaden it, and are not paying money to a criminal enterprise that shrinks minds instead. I don't want to see profits from the sale of a good book going to a suppressive organisation like the Cult. This is why I advocate those who wish to learn S.T. to buy manuals from eBay or from Amazon (used), or to read Clearbird's free version, instead of buying it from Bridge Pub.

Fair enough. But remember we have been over these points many times with other posters over the last several years. You want a discussion on Study Tech, here is my view:

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.

Study Tech negates the use and existence of such figures of rhetoric as metonymy and synecdoche.

A metonymy is a figure of rhetoric in which the name of one object is put for some other object, the two being so closely related that the mention of one naturally suggests the other.

Examples of this are: “I read Shakespeare”; “Man shall live by the sweat of his brow”; “France would not consent.”; “Bayonets speak“; “This happens in Scientology”; “What does the Freezone believe?”

Scientologists whose fluidity of language is reduced by the use of Study Tech often dismiss a metonymy as “a generality.”

They have lost their taste and imagination in the use of language, relying only on the meaning of words instead.

This happens also with the use a synecdoche.

A synecdoche is a figure of rhetoric in which the name of a part is used to represent the whole, or the name of the whole is used to represent a part, or a definite number used to represent an indefinite.

Examples: “All hands were working”; “Ten thousand exes rejoiced.”; “The world condemns him.” Scientologists and exes often dismiss this expression of an idea too as simply “a generality.”

Both figures of speech are founded on the contiguity of two objects of thought.

This won’t be understood if the person emphasizes words and not language.

Study Tech adherents also have difficulty understanding or comprehending litotes.

Litotes are the reverse of hyperbole.

It consists in giving emphasis to an idea by using terms that convey less than the truth.

For example “Show thyself a man.” This means that the person speaking to is urged to put forth the noblest qualities of manhood.

Also, some litotes are denials of the contrary instead of a direct of a direct statement.

For example: “I do not think him a great man.” By emphasizing words and not language this will get missed in Study Tech.

Scientologists and exes who adhere to Study Tech often do not make these connections, as they emphasize words and not thoughts.

The adherents to study tech miss the ideas because they do not understand the use of language.

Now there are some who say they mixed Study Tech with other common sense tools.

But this is a flaw in their precsion of language.

Because if Study Tech is not applied exactly it is not Study Tech.

Study Tech is not just looking up words; it is a unified association of actions designed to compel a particular interpretation of a written statement.

But by ignoring language it misses its target.

When people say they use common sense this implies they could not have attained understanding through the use of Study Tech, thus Study Tech has failed.

The following is from the standard high school textbook used in high schools in the United States in the 1890s.

I will add comments in brackets to show how this differs from Study Tech.

From: Elements of Composition and Rhetoric by Virginia Waddy

1. Always note a new word, with a view to ascertaining its precise meaning and use. [Note how “precise meaning and use” differs from “full conceptual understanding.” The result is that one is a precise understanding and the Study Tech leaves the student with imprecise word associations.]

2. Make constant use of a dictionary. It is the practice of many great scholars never to allow a word to pass without an examination, if there is the least doubt about its origin, pronunciation, meaning, or spelling. [Some may say that this is the same as L. Ron Hubbard’s Study Tech. But the difference lies in the step one. One seeks out precision and the other seeks out association.]

3. Study Etymology It is useful to trace out the origin, composition, and primary meaning of words…

4. Seek good society. There is a great advantage to be derived from a frequent association with intelligent and cultivated persons. One who has that advantage will acquire a good vocabulary without great effort.

5. Read the best books carefully. Observe the selection and combination of words as illustrated by the best authors, if you would be profited by formal rhetorical rules. You must not, however, imitate your author in a slavish spirit.

6. The words of any composition should be pure, appropriate, precise, and simple.
[End of Waddy's book]

Failure to see the distinction and the result of these distinctions would be one of the consequences of using Study Tech.

When people tell me that Study Tech works if you are not slavish to it means that they themselves do not use Study Tech as a system.

They see flaws and they make adjustments.

But it is those adjustments that give the results, because it is apparent that Study Tech, per Hubbard, reduces the student’s capacity to understand language.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[honeywhite]

I have more to add on the bad side.

BAD:
- CCHR. What the FUCK do you have against psychiatrists? Oh, yeah, they're your competition!
- Criminon/Narconon. Absolutely UNSOUND theory! The Purif is INCOMPATIBLE with drug detoxification!
- Purif. As above.
- Hubbard's "scientific" theories on vitamins. He was not a scientist, he was not a psychologist, if he stayed within philosophy and education he might have avoided all the controversy.
- Most of the "rundowns".

I also do not believe the stuff about the reactive mind. However, it may hold some merit, but I don't think it's dangerous. May be true, may be false.

Have not yet read "Way to Happiness". Therefore, I can't speak as to its level of harm. What I have a problem with is that Narconon is based on the Purif, which is obviously bullshit, and that Criminon inmates correspond with Scnists, without being made aware that they are, indeed, Scnists. If W.t.H. was simply given away for free, no big deal probably.

 

[honeywhite]

Fair enough. But remember we have been over these points many times with other posters over the last several years. You want a discussion on Study Tech, here is my view:

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.

Study Tech negates the use and existence of such figures of rhetoric as metonymy and synecdoche.

A metonymy is a figure of rhetoric in which the name of one object is put for some other object, the two being so closely related that the mention of one naturally suggests the other.

Examples of this are: “I read Shakespeare”; “Man shall live by the sweat of his brow”; “France would not consent.”; “Bayonets speak“; “This happens in Scientology”; “What does the Freezone believe?”

Scientologists whose fluidity of language is reduced by the use of Study Tech often dismiss a metonymy as “a generality.”

They have lost their taste and imagination in the use of language, relying only on the meaning of words instead.

This happens also with the use a synecdoche.

A synecdoche is a figure of rhetoric in which the name of a part is used to represent the whole, or the name of the whole is used to represent a part, or a definite number used to represent an indefinite.

Examples: “All hands were working”; “Ten thousand exes rejoiced.”; “The world condemns him.” Scientologists and exes often dismiss this expression of an idea too as simply “a generality.”

Both figures of speech are founded on the contiguity of two objects of thought.

This won’t be understood if the person emphasizes words and not language.

Study Tech adherents also have difficulty understanding or comprehending litotes.

Litotes are the reverse of hyperbole.

It consists in giving emphasis to an idea by using terms that convey less than the truth.

For example “Show thyself a man.” This means that the person speaking to is urged to put forth the noblest qualities of manhood.

Also, some litotes are denials of the contrary instead of a direct of a direct statement.

For example: “I do not think him a great man.” By emphasizing words and not language this will get missed in Study Tech.

Scientologists and exes who adhere to Study Tech often do not make these connections, as they emphasize words and not thoughts.

The adherents to study tech miss the ideas because they do not understand the use of language.

Now there are some who say they mixed Study Tech with other common sense tools.

But this is a flaw in their precsion of language.

Because if Study Tech is not applied exactly it is not Study Tech.

Study Tech is not just looking up words; it is a unified association of actions designed to compel a particular interpretation of a written statement.

But by ignoring language it misses its target.

When people say they use common sense this implies they could not have attained understanding through the use of Study Tech, thus Study Tech has failed.

The following is from the standard high school textbook used in high schools in the United States in the 1890s.

I will add comments in brackets to show how this differs from Study Tech.

From: Elements of Composition and Rhetoric by Virginia Waddy

1. Always note a new word, with a view to ascertaining its precise meaning and use. [Note how “precise meaning and use” differs from “full conceptual understanding.” The result is that one is a precise understanding and the Study Tech leaves the student with imprecise word associations.]

2. Make constant use of a dictionary. It is the practice of many great scholars never to allow a word to pass without an examination, if there is the least doubt about its origin, pronunciation, meaning, or spelling. [Some may say that this is the same as L. Ron Hubbard’s Study Tech. But the difference lies in the step one. One seeks out precision and the other seeks out association.]

3. Study Etymology It is useful to trace out the origin, composition, and primary meaning of words…

4. Seek good society. There is a great advantage to be derived from a frequent association with intelligent and cultivated persons. One who has that advantage will acquire a good vocabulary without great effort.

5. Read the best books carefully. Observe the selection and combination of words as illustrated by the best authors, if you would be profited by formal rhetorical rules. You must not, however, imitate your author in a slavish spirit.

6. The words of any composition should be pure, appropriate, precise, and simple.
[End of Waddy's book]

Failure to see the distinction and the result of these distinctions would be one of the consequences of using Study Tech.

When people tell me that Study Tech works if you are not slavish to it means that they themselves do not use Study Tech as a system.

They see flaws and they make adjustments.

But it is those adjustments that give the results, because it is apparent that Study Tech, per Hubbard, reduces the student’s capacity to understand language.

The Anabaptist Jacques

That's what I'm talking about Jacques. Less on the ad-homs, more on the criticism of the actual subject matter. Thanks.

I understand where you're coming from completely—as I said, I write. I'm an Englishman. I live for litotes ;-) (except I had no idea that "show thyself a man" was one—that to me seems more like metaphor) but I can see how being slavishly devoted to the S.T. can narrow the mind in some ways, as well as broaden it.

I modified S.T. somewhat in my book—the physiological reactions to the three barriers to me sound less than credible, so I toned that down. I see the nuances, somewhat; I can understand the difference between "full conceptual understanding" as per H. and "precise meaning and use" as per W. The second point, I agree with the "some" that believe it's the same as H.—I see no difference there.

H. also placed importance on etymology, although he called etymology "derivation" (as some, mostly British, dictionaries do). I think both are right. Then again, it seems that education has gone downhill from the 1890s, if that is a representative textbook. Grammar as a subject has been sorely neglected. I agree that S.T. is not perfect—but anything is better than nothing, and GRAMMAR was not even taught at any of the schools I've been to! ('90s kid here!)

I wonder where you found the textbook by W.? I'd like to get my hands on it, it might prove as educational, if not more, than S.T.


----

EDIT: Found the textbook. I like it. Yes, I was looking for a civil discussion, not necessarily about S.T., but that's a good starting point. The philosophical stuff is way more interesting though, in my view. Both are good and bad at the same time, good more than bad. "Inadequate" is better than "nonexistent".

 

[secretiveoldfag]

Ahh, I was talking about Higher Conditions. I think that if you apply the formula (or a somewhat modified version of it, if you like) for Power well, it'll be Power, Power, Power until someone fucks up royally. I don't even write them, I just use them as a mental guide, that's it.

What is everyone's problem with my thought patterns? I don't make other people do the Conditions. But if one of Hubbard's phrases goes through my mind when I think about the state of whatever I started, and it helps me pull whatever it is up by its bootstraps, isn't this classified as helpful?

"Find what caused the condition of Power and duplicate THAT," or some such. Really good advice. Sometimes hard to find out what it is, but once you've found out what caused the improvement, and keep doing that, I doubt it can be in any way detrimental.

If it talks like a duck and walks like a duck...

Since I can't understand this I can draw a very clear conclusion.

Mind you, even if it is a duck, there's a [strike]misguided[/strike] person out there who needs some kind of help.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Pleasant they might not be, but useful I think they could be. That's why I made them.

An actual Scientology shill, if that's the case, should know that they don't come across as credible. That way they might do more learning about the outside world, even if only in an effort to blend in better next time.

And for somebody who really has just discovered all this Hubbard stuff in two months, and just happens to think it's great, and isn't a Scientology sock-puppet at all, is it not helpful to learn that they sound more like a Scientology sock-puppet than a normal person? If I were in that position, I'd hate to keep sounding like something I wasn't, so I'd be grateful for the tip, and try to do something about it.

I just think it can sometimes be a bit problematic or unhelpful to question the background of forum contributors. I know it was very unhelpful and occasionally rather upsetting to me.

It's a forum. It's not something where you're being asked for your debit card.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

That's what I'm talking about Jacques. Less on the ad-homs, more on the criticism of the actual subject matter. Thanks.

I understand where you're coming from completely—as I said, I write. I'm an Englishman. I live for litotes ;-) (except I had no idea that "show thyself a man" was one—that to me seems more like metaphor) but I can see how being slavishly devoted to the S.T. can narrow the mind in some ways, as well as broaden it.

I modified S.T. somewhat in my book—the physiological reactions to the three barriers to me sound less than credible, so I toned that down. I see the nuances, somewhat; I can understand the difference between "full conceptual understanding" as per H. and "precise meaning and use" as per W. The second point, I agree with the "some" that believe it's the same as H.—I see no difference there.

H. also placed importance on etymology, although he called etymology "derivation" (as some, mostly British, dictionaries do). I think both are right. Then again, it seems that education has gone downhill from the 1890s, if that is a representative textbook. Grammar as a subject has been sorely neglected. I agree that S.T. is not perfect—but anything is better than nothing, and GRAMMAR was not even taught at any of the schools I've been to! ('90s kid here!)

I wonder where you found the textbook by W.? I'd like to get my hands on it, it might prove as educational, if not more, than S.T.


----

EDIT: Found the textbook. I like it. Yes, I was looking for a civil discussion, not necessarily about S.T., but that's a good starting point. The philosophical stuff is way more interesting though, in my view. Both are good and bad at the same time, good more than bad. "Inadequate" is better than "nonexistent".

You can probably find some copies onlline through Alibris, ABE books, or Amazon.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Commander Birdsong]

Fair enough. But remember we have been over these points many times with other posters over the last several years. You want a discussion on Study Tech, here is my view:

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.

Study Tech negates the use and existence of such figures of rhetoric as metonymy and synecdoche.

A metonymy is a figure of rhetoric in which the name of one object is put for some other object, the two being so closely related that the mention of one naturally suggests the other.

Examples of this are: “I read Shakespeare”; “Man shall live by the sweat of his brow”; “France would not consent.”; “Bayonets speak“; “This happens in Scientology”; “What does the Freezone believe?”

Scientologists whose fluidity of language is reduced by the use of Study Tech often dismiss a metonymy as “a generality.”

They have lost their taste and imagination in the use of language, relying only on the meaning of words instead.

This happens also with the use a synecdoche.

A synecdoche is a figure of rhetoric in which the name of a part is used to represent the whole, or the name of the whole is used to represent a part, or a definite number used to represent an indefinite.

Examples: “All hands were working”; “Ten thousand exes rejoiced.”; “The world condemns him.” Scientologists and exes often dismiss this expression of an idea too as simply “a generality.”

Both figures of speech are founded on the contiguity of two objects of thought.

This won’t be understood if the person emphasizes words and not language.

Study Tech adherents also have difficulty understanding or comprehending litotes.

Litotes are the reverse of hyperbole.

It consists in giving emphasis to an idea by using terms that convey less than the truth.

For example “Show thyself a man.” This means that the person speaking to is urged to put forth the noblest qualities of manhood.

Also, some litotes are denials of the contrary instead of a direct of a direct statement.

For example: “I do not think him a great man.” By emphasizing words and not language this will get missed in Study Tech.

Scientologists and exes who adhere to Study Tech often do not make these connections, as they emphasize words and not thoughts.

The adherents to study tech miss the ideas because they do not understand the use of language.

Now there are some who say they mixed Study Tech with other common sense tools.

But this is a flaw in their precsion of language.

Because if Study Tech is not applied exactly it is not Study Tech.

Study Tech is not just looking up words; it is a unified association of actions designed to compel a particular interpretation of a written statement.

But by ignoring language it misses its target.

When people say they use common sense this implies they could not have attained understanding through the use of Study Tech, thus Study Tech has failed.

The following is from the standard high school textbook used in high schools in the United States in the 1890s.

I will add comments in brackets to show how this differs from Study Tech.

From: Elements of Composition and Rhetoric by Virginia Waddy

1. Always note a new word, with a view to ascertaining its precise meaning and use. [Note how “precise meaning and use” differs from “full conceptual understanding.” The result is that one is a precise understanding and the Study Tech leaves the student with imprecise word associations.]

2. Make constant use of a dictionary. It is the practice of many great scholars never to allow a word to pass without an examination, if there is the least doubt about its origin, pronunciation, meaning, or spelling. [Some may say that this is the same as L. Ron Hubbard’s Study Tech. But the difference lies in the step one. One seeks out precision and the other seeks out association.]

3. Study Etymology It is useful to trace out the origin, composition, and primary meaning of words…

4. Seek good society. There is a great advantage to be derived from a frequent association with intelligent and cultivated persons. One who has that advantage will acquire a good vocabulary without great effort.

5. Read the best books carefully. Observe the selection and combination of words as illustrated by the best authors, if you would be profited by formal rhetorical rules. You must not, however, imitate your author in a slavish spirit.

6. The words of any composition should be pure, appropriate, precise, and simple.
[End of Waddy's book]

Failure to see the distinction and the result of these distinctions would be one of the consequences of using Study Tech.

When people tell me that Study Tech works if you are not slavish to it means that they themselves do not use Study Tech as a system.

They see flaws and they make adjustments.

But it is those adjustments that give the results, because it is apparent that Study Tech, per Hubbard, reduces the student’s capacity to understand language.

The Anabaptist Jacques

light oats are fine with me, just stay away from the heavy corn

how did you become so erudite TAJ? someone unplug your rolling stones collection?

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

light oats are fine with me, just stay away from the heavy corn

how did you become so erudite TAJ? someone unplug your rolling stones collection?

I'm still plugged into the Stones.

Me went to college.

The Anabaptist Jacques