Scientology concepts that still "make sense" to you.

[Pooks]

And it works fine as long as you don't connect it with what the "D" means and how it ties to other concepts. It's those backing up concepts you might run into trouble explaining.

I'm sorry but what's wrong with: my husband, wife, partner, lover, girlfriend, hug, etc.

Whatever you call it, him or her, an english word will do, IMO.

Dennis

I agree with you Dennis, the "D" is a concept that I don't want to use as
it's part of the cult mindset. But like dev-t, it's convienient, especially if
you are talking with others that know what it means.

I'm so happy you are here on ESMB! I'm not sure you know how
important you are to me. You were very helpful to me, when I needed
an ear.

Hugs,

Patty P

 

[Lulu Belle]

Every language has "concepts" that don't translate easily into other languages. That is because language is a reflection of the culture where it is spoken, and different cultures have concepts that may not translate exactly into another culture.

I think there is a sort of "culture" among Scientolgists, and the same thing applies.

 

[tarbaby]

Every language has "concepts" that don't translate easily into other languages. That is because language is a reflection of the culture where it is spoken, and different cultures have concepts that may not translate exactly into another culture.

I think there is a sort of "culture" among Scientolgists, and the same thing applies.

Yet somehow people are able to make themselves understood through translation. It must be miraculous.

But I can see why you are reluctant to try to elucidate the term for those who have not had the proper indoc.

Perhaps someone else can take a shot at explaining the term in english. Though I think my explanation was accurate, I'd like to hear any other takes on the concepts and their related supporting theories.

Dennis

 

[Lulu Belle]

Yet somehow people are able to make themselves understood through translation. It must be miraculous.

But I can see why you are reluctant to try to elucidate the term for those who have not had the proper indoc.

Dennis,

Read the sign on the door.

It says "Ex-Scientologist Message Board".

I don't come here to explain Scientology - or "Scientologese" - to people who have never been in Scientology.

And, frankly, I don't need to be told that I - or anyone else for that matter - has to.

This thread is for exes.

This board is for exes.

If other people who aren't exes want to come here, that's their perogative.

But I have no obligation to deliver Scientology 101 to them.

And niether does anyone else.

 

[tarbaby]

Dennis,

Read the sign on the door.

It says "Ex-Scientologist Message Board".

I don't come here to explain Scientology - or "Scientologese" - to people who have never been in Scientology.

And, frankly, I don't need to be told that I - or anyone else for that matter - has to.

This thread is for exes.

This board is for exes.

If other people who aren't exes want to come here, that's their perogative.

But I have no obligation to deliver Scientology 101 to them.

And niether does anyone else.

No, you don't. And you have no obligation to back up your assertion that cult words have any applicability in real life either. But it would show that you know what you are talking about and are not making unfounded claims.

But hey, if you don't want to share your reasoning (or lack of same) that's your prerogative. I was just interested to see how you would show the term was actually useful. I believe that's what this thread is about.

Perhaps someone else, with a less exclusive view of the purpose of this board will share their perspective with those who haven't been subjected to the cult enviornment.

Or not. Whatever.

Dennis

 

[Flying Monkey]

Actually, I kind of cringe when I hear the Scientology lingo used. It reminds me of the "thought-stopping" mechanism it was designed to implement.

I believe it was Dr. Lifton who wrote about that when he wrote about totalitarianism. Great treatise if you can find it.

Essentially, if you adopt the habit of pigeon-holing/catagorizing with these catch-all phrases your brain stops searching for way ways to articulate what you're really experiencing.

Case in point: you have an obnoxious trouble maker working around you who gossips about everybody and is always looking for ways to piss people off, you call him an SP or suppressive.

Unfortunately, you have a good friend who loves and cares about you but keeps trying to talk you out of believing in LRH or CoS and goes to great lengths to get you out---the term SP or suppressive also applies.

Given this limited catagory, you may well come to think of obnoxious trouble makers and worried/concerned friends as one and the same. Policy would dictate that you handle an SP with the same formula so why would you differentiate when you've tagged both with the same name?

The same holds true for the term Dev-T. Dev-T can be used to describe some one who is lazy and a goof off and ends up failing to deliver on their part of a work load OR it could just be someone who's in failing health and doesn't deliver the goods on time because they're sick and under stress, even though they're trying as hard as they can.

When you slap a thought-stopping label on the end product and not on the intentions behind the delivery, you end up being callous and unfeeling for those who could use some empathy.

All along, these auto-responses for a wide variety of actions or behaviors tend to stop the brain from thinking through the situation and your ability to diagnose and discern with the appropriately descriptive words causes the mind to atrophy---not to mention the feelings attached to those defining terms.

I'm sorry, but pigeon-holing and catagories tend to choke the life out of free-thinking word association. I can't find any reason to resort to LRH's lingo when the brain is aching to describe things more succinctly.

 

[Lulu Belle]

No, you don't. And you have no obligation to back up your assertion that cult words have any applicability in real life either. But it would show that you know what you are talking about and are not making unfounded claims.

I did not start this thread to "back up my assertion" about anything.

It is a "hey, have you ever had this experience" thread.

Directed at people with a common reality.

 

[tarbaby]

Actually, I kind of cringe when I hear the Scientology lingo used. It reminds me of the "thought-stopping" mechanism it was designed to implement.

I believe it was Dr. Lifton who wrote about that when he wrote about totalitarianism. Great treatise if you can find it.

Essentially, if you adopt the habit of pigeon-holing/catagorizing with these catch-all phrases your brain stops searching for way ways to articulate what you're really experiencing.

<snip>

I'm sorry, but pigeon-holing and catagories tend to choke the life out of free-thinking word association. I can't find any reason to resort to LRH's lingo when the brain is aching to describe things more succinctly.

Now that is my point exactly, FM.

But I know it's hard to think in english when you have all of life explained away by thought-stopping labels and a Clockwork Orange model of human existence.

Dennis

 

[Lulu Belle]

Now that is my point exactly, FM.

But I know it's hard to think in english when you have all of life explained away by thought-stopping labels and a Clockwork Orange model of human existence.

Dennis

Some people speak more than one language.

 

[tarbaby]

Some people speak more than one language.

Yes, but I'm afraid that doesn't demonstrate the usefulness of the term.

Nevermind, Lu. Don't strain your brain explaining your claim. (rhyme unintended)

Dennis

 

[Lulu Belle]

Yes, but I'm afraid that doesn't demonstrate the usefulness of the term.

To you.

 

[programmer_guy]

I'll tell you another favorite of mine that doesn't seem to have an equivalent in wog speak.

DEV-T.

Well, some of us do at work (in a wog way). In engineering we break this down into several types (some examples):

1. This issue is low priority - I will attend to this later.

2. I'm not the person you should report this to. Report this to XXX.

3. Submit this issue in the bug-tracking software and let the project leader assign this to the proper person.

4. This is a design change that should be submitted to the Engineering Change Board before taking any action. Please write up an engineering change request.

5. This issue is not part of the functional specification for this product ABC. This belongs in the specification of product XYZ.

 

[programmer_guy]

Legitimate complaints are not now and never were "natter".

The original Tech definition still means *irrational* criticism and complaints.

Just because the non-Tech trained morons in the Sea Org who crazily define *any and all* complaint as "natter" never bothered to "clear their word", does not change the *technical definition*.

Michael A. Hobson
(Jay Random User on ARS and Warrior Mike in XSO)

It ain't just the Sea Org... it's the "tech" itself.

From:
HCO BULLETIN OF 8 FEBRUARY 1962

The person with complaints has MISSED WITHHOLDS. The person with entheta has MISSED WITHHOLDS. You don’t need policies and diplomacy to handle these people. Policy and diplomacy will fail. You need expert auditing skill and a British Mark IV meter and the person on the cans and that person’s MISSED WITHHOLDS.

EVERY blow-up you ever had with a pc was due ENTIRELY to having missed a withhold whether you were using a meter or not, whether you were asking for withholds or not.

----------------------------------------------

NOTE:
The capitalized words are NOT my emphasis - they are capitalized in that HCOB.

 

[programmer_guy]

Dev-T is not something that Hubbard originated. In a high pressure job, you can't get derailed by somebody so that you don't meet your deadlines on deliverables. Dev-T is something that I have to deal with quite frequently on the job.

The stuff about missed-withholds is too generalized and applied to every complaint. This is nonsense.


I agree with the concept of Dev-T.

I disagree with much of the stuff in the HCOBs on missed-withholds.

 

[TheSneakster]

Altered definition of "natter"

not important

 

[programmer_guy]

Are these the definitions you were thinking of?

From:

Technical Dictionary

NATTER, sometimes pcs who have big overts become highly critical of the auditor and get in a lot of snide comments about the auditor. Such natter always indicates a real overt. (HCOB 7 Sept 64 II)

OUT RUDS, are easy to spot. The person with an ARC break, won't talk or is misemotional or antagonistic. A problem produces fixated attention. Natter and 1.1 remarks means a withhold. (HCOB 15 Oct 74)

 

[Lulu Belle]

Well, some of us do at work (in a wog way). In engineering we break this down into several types (some examples):

1. This issue is low priority - I will attend to this later.

2. I'm not the person you should report this to. Report this to XXX.

3. Submit this issue in the bug-tracking software and let the project leader assign this to the proper person.

4. This is a design change that should be submitted to the Engineering Change Board before taking any action. Please write up an engineering change request.

5. This issue is not part of the functional specification for this product ABC. This belongs in the specification of product XYZ.

True.

But the concept of Dev-T, I really feel, is unique to Scientology.

People who exist solely for the purpose of jamming things up and wasting time and energy.

In business, people see specific examples of "off line, off origin" communication. Or time wasted by various inefficientcies.

But the overall "concept" of Dev-T doesn't exist.

They need more "conspiracy theory" training.

LOL!

 

[tarbaby]

contact assists

Anybody still belive in or use them?

Dennis

 

[Emma]

Nup. I don't think they work. I never did think they worked but I was conditioned to shut up and make "oh I feel better now thank you" noises.

Going for a walk works, but I doubt Hubbard invented that one

 

[lionheart]

Charge

Anybody still belive in or use them?

Dennis

I sometimes still use contact assists, if I've hurt myself. Placing the body part back does seem to intensify and then de-intensify it to some extent.

More generally the concept of "charge" still seems valid to me. These days I use a simpler approach (than scn) to discharge charged items. But for me there is no doubt that a person does have charge caused by polarities. Yes, polarities do seem to be a valid Scn concept in my experience.