Scientology Study Tech In The Real World

[RogerB]

In regular English maybe, but not in Hubbardingo. The HCOB that gives the different kinds of m/u, The Misunderstood Word Defined, I believe, includes "not understood" as one of the categories.

Paul

Yes, 'tis absolutely true . . . . and another good example of Hubbardarian sloppy bullshitted stuff that misses the mark and screws people up.

It is another very good example of his erroneous ways . . . . he routinely used misunderstood to refer to not/non-understoods and non-comprehensions in his lectures. . . . but then everything got lumped under his penchant for slangifying everything . . . so they were all simply referred to as "MU's" . . . he actually used that abbreviated term "MU" to refer to all that a student either didn't get or screwed up.

The man was such a bloody ham and a fraud!

He pinched the tech point from another, didn't really understand or comprehend it himself . . . and ballsed it up!

R

 

[Dulloldfart]

It is another very good example of his erroneous ways . . . . he routinely used misunderstood to refer to not/non-understoods and non-comprehensions in his lectures. . . . but then everything got lumped under his penchant for slangifying everything . . . so they were all simply referred to as "MU's" . . . he actually used that abbreviated term "MU" to refer to all that a student either didn't get or screwed up.

As a sup, I found it useful to have them all lumped together. I didn't find a lot of difference between "not understood" and "misunderstood." I know there is a difference academically, but functionally not so much. They can both leave a student foggy. Conversely, a student can sail past both and not be affected physiologically at all. I've seen many a bright shiny student who wasn't aware they were passing dozens of mu's a page (those small English words, for example).

As I've said before, I finally used the criterion of can the guy do what the course is about? "No misunderstoods" is both impossible and the wrong emphasis.

Paul

 

[RogerB]

As a sup, I found it useful to have them all lumped together. I didn't find a lot of difference between "not understood" and "misunderstood." I know there is a difference academically, but functionally not so much. They can both leave a student foggy. Conversely, a student can sail past both and not be affected physiologically at all. I've seen many a bright shiny student who wasn't aware they were passing dozens of mu's a page (those small English words, for example).

As I've said before, I finally used the criterion of can the guy do what the course is about? "No misunderstoods" is both impossible and the wrong emphasis.

Paul

Yes, all valid. And I certainly agree on the point re misunderstoods . . . folks can sail on happily oblivious to them . . . as I said.

Case in point: I debugged an intern at FSO in about 1983 who was in cramming on emeter drills. This girl, a friend of mine was in training to be a NOTs auditor and herself old OT7.

What was interesting was her difficulties in use of the emeter, which had been missed in each of the prior three times she'd done the emeter drills course . . . .wait for it . . . I traced back to her having been given a wrong definition of a coma (,) when she was about 7 or 8 years old.

She had been told by a teacher that a coma meant, "and," as in when you have a list of items: apples, oranges, bananas, plums, etc.

She thereafter did not correctly understand every sentence she came across that contained a coma. My brilliant coaching was required to reveal this . . . fact is, even Qual at FSO didn't or failed to find her why. It took me tracing her study sequence back through a series of indicators of "something missed" to eventually have her read aloud to me the manual's instruction for the basic drill she first screwed up . . . and I spotted she went past all the comas as though they were not there!

SHe had no clue she had an MU on comas.

conversely, she was very bright on the point of non-comprehensions and aware when such was present.

My observation of students is that the "unconsciousness" that turns on is not typically the result of going past a MU, but going past a not fully comprehended and in particular words, terms, symbols for which one does not have a full and clear comprehension of . . . for it here that the student fails to attain his/her objective/purpose for engaging in the study, i.e., to comprehend and be aware of what is being attempted to be learned.

That failure, in my observation, is what is behind the dope-off.

People who have MU's but do not know it don't do the dope-if trick

R

 

[Helena Handbasket]

My first PaulsRobot modules were straight Scientology procedures .... But the *idea* of a working computerized auditor is so anti-Hubbard (he says it is impossible)

I feel auditing by computer IS possible. I'm currently engaged in a long-term project to flowchart various processes, as a prelude for programming them into an automated auditing system.

Helena

 

[Dulloldfart]

I feel auditing by computer IS possible. I'm currently engaged in a long-term project to flowchart various processes, as a prelude for programming them into an automated auditing system.

Helena

Good luck.

Paul

 

[Student of Trinity]

I think I might dope off, too, if my reading took me into a coma.

 

[thetabird]

I'm just curious what all of you did with your books, tapes, cds, etc.?

 

[Gadfly]

I'm just curious what all of you did with your books, tapes, cds, etc.?

I sold and/or am still selling off all of that crap on eBay.

Got about $650 for a full 1993 set of OEC volumes with the Management Books included. Even sold the clear bracelet (got about $65), Scientology tie, my old Sea Org belt, and so forth. Some peope actually pay real money for the junk. :confused2:

 

[Student of Trinity]

I've been thinking more about this question of continuing to use the term "Scientology" even after rejecting large amounts of Hubbard's teachings.

uppose for the sake of argument that there does exist a coherent subject that is of value, and is also close enough to Hubbard's Scientology that it would be reasonable to call the refined subject Scientology after it. I'd want to ask, is it actually necessary to call the refined subject by Hubbard's name [for it]? Is the refined subject really so close to Hubbard's creation that it would be disingenuous to call it anything else but Scientology? Or would it not be just as legitimate to find a new name for the subject nowadays, even if one feels bound to admit that the Scientology of L. Ron Hubbard was an important source?

I noticed two equally reasonable (though almost opposite) responses to this:

What a thing is to be called ultimately is not especially important ... .

It's ... a question of honesty, and not merely expedience.

But on further reflection I still feel that the point should be pressed. Why keep on calling stuff "Scientology," when what one means by the term is no longer Hubbard, the whole of Hubbard, and nothing but Hubbard?

Paul points out that it would just be dishonest to call the stuff something totally different, if what it was were too closely based on Hubbard's Scientology. But one can still be honest in recognizing Hubbard's contribution, without using the S-word in particular. One could speak of 'auditing', or even of 'Hubbardian auditing'. Surely that would be just as honest and fair? Just use a finer-grained Hubbardian term, for a smaller unit extracted from his work, rather than his umbrella term for everything he did all lumped together. If you've broken California off from the USA, then by all means still call it California, instead of trying to pretend that it is now West Columbia or something. Just don't call it America.

If Mark believes that auditing, for instance, is valuable, then surely he could say, "I believe that auditing has value," just as well as saying, "I believe that the subject of Scientology has value." Mark argues that the term doesn't matter, so he feels free to use the provocative term "Scientology" to provoke discussion. Well, sure, in one sense terminology is arbitrary. But, in another sense, it isn't just neutral. Rightly or wrongly, different words have different effects on people.

And that's why I'm pressing the point. Rightly or wrongly, it's a matter of fact that the term "Scientology" has been co-opted by the Church of Scientology. Keeping on using that particular term helps them, and divides their critics unnecessarily, and those are real consequences.

In light of that, shouldn't there be a consistent effort by everyone who still finds some value in "the tech", or in later developments based on it, to find honest and effective alternatives to the term "Scientology"? A lot of these people are pretty ingenious folks. Surely they can figure out a way to do that. By doing this, they wouldn't have to change what they believe in any way. They could still speak out just as clearly about what they believe, if they wish to speak out about it. But they would be freed from having to say things like, "I support Scientology", and this would cut down on pointless verbal strife among CofS critics, and hasten the demise of the cult.

The general public is rapidly learning to hate Scientology. What that means is that they hate the CofS and all its cultish works. They generally don't know enough about the details of this stuff to be hating auditing, or the "ARC Triangle", or whatever individual items you consider to be of value. In effect, they simply hate the name, "Scientology".

Why not let them hate that? Why not simply throw this purely nominal Jonah overboard, and if you want to fight for auditing or ARC or whatever part of the whole that you find to be worthy, simply fight for them as such, rather than as parts of an admittedly corrupt whole, called Scientology?

For those who heretofore have supported "Scientology," without meaning that they support all of Hubbard, what I am suggesting is that they have a social obligation to voluntarily restrain their own freedom to use words as they wish, and instead use them in a way that best furthers the destruction of the cult, by finding accurate and honest alternative ways of saying what they think, without calling their beliefs "Scientology". Simply boycott that noun, and find other ways to refer to things you believe in. The way I see it, this is something everyone can do, and therefore should do, unless they really are true-blue Hubbardites.

Let this word "Scientology" be the touchstone, the shibboleth, the clear battle line. Those who refuse to give it up must be those who do more than value parts of "the tech", or respect some of Hubbard's contribution, for they could continue to do both those things without using Hubbard's full package label. If we press the point by distinguishing between parts and the whole, then those who still insist on maintaining Hubbard's term will be those who insist that Hubbard was essentially right, and that everything he did was essentially one whole, to be taken or left. That is the battle line. Why not let it be drawn clearly?

 

[Dulloldfart]

I've been thinking more about this question of continuing to use the term "Scientology" even after rejecting large amounts of Hubbard's teachings.<snip>

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...ce-Scientology&p=250351&viewfull=1#post250351

is something I wrote on the subject that might be worth reading.

Paul

 

[Student of Trinity]

Yes, a very relevant thread. Even Mark was willing to suggest the term "open source gnosis" as a new umbrella label. I have to say that I myself find that term infinitely more appealing than "Scientology". So much less baggage. It combines ancient and modern, instead of being stuck in 1950.

What I'd like to know is whether maybe now is the right time for a new ESMB consensus (insofar as that is not an oxymoron) on the S-word. If most folks here were to agree, purely as a matter of linguistic convention, to let "Scientology" refer strictly to all-or-nothing Hubbardism, then I think that could do very little harm, and might do some real good.

 

[Dulloldfart]

What I'd like to know is whether maybe now is the right time for a new ESMB consensus (insofar as that is not an oxymoron) on the S-word. If most folks here were to agree, purely as a matter of linguistic convention, to let "Scientology" refer strictly to all-or-nothing Hubbardism, then I think that could do very little harm, and might do some real good.

Start a poll and see.

People will call themselves "Scientologists" if they want to, whatever is said or decided on ESMB.

But it's a black or white label. Either you are or are not. The term "three-quarters Scientologist" isn't used, although it could be and maybe should be as absolute Hubbardism is probably believed by very few (Piltdown Man* anyone?). Personally I considered myself one in 2006 but haven't for a few years. There wasn't a definite cross-over point.

*Piltdown Man is referred to by Hubbard in the 1952 book History of Man as a reality, although it was a hoax. The 2007 edition is unchanged in this respect.

Paul

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I've been thinking more about this question of continuing to use the term "Scientology" even after rejecting large amounts of Hubbard's teachings.



I noticed two equally reasonable (though almost opposite) responses to this:





But on further reflection I still feel that the point should be pressed. Why keep on calling stuff "Scientology," when what one means by the term is no longer Hubbard, the whole of Hubbard, and nothing but Hubbard?

Objection: the word scientology as defined in the tech dictionary does not conform to the usage which you, and many critics prefer; i.e. whatever hubbard says it is.

That is a pragmatic definition used widely among critics of all things scientology and derived from the practice and practical usage of Co$ institutions, especially the Sea Org. But the important thing to remember is that however 'true' it may be in terms of operating practice of the church that meaning is NOT consistent with how the technical materials of the subject of scientology define the term scientology.

That is: your proposed definition is a false meaning which is not consistent with how the subject was actually defined, however descriptive or popular it may be.

The fact is that the word scientology already has a definition as most of the members of this board have been made aware. The use the word to refer to anything Hubbard may have said is a non-standard use mostly motivated by emotional reactivity and the failure of many to distinguish between the tech as it was actually defined and the tech as it was practiced within the church. Fundamentally those are not the same.

Redefining the word so it is not consistent with its historic definition but suits the common prejudice of this community serves to isolate the users of this board and adds to confusion in mixed discussions of the subject of scientology.

... If Mark believes that auditing, for instance, is valuable, then surely he could say, "I believe that auditing has value," just as well as saying, "I believe that the subject of Scientology has value." ...

If you look at my posts, you will notice that MY standard practice is to refer to the 'subject of scientology', or occasionally lower case 'scientology'. I tend to avoid use of a capitalized 'S' reference to scientology except where the rules of punctuation require it. I reference the institutions of the church by reference to 'Co$', or the church of scientology. In other words, my practice is to differentiate between the different aspects of scientology as they exist in practice and avoid the confusion inherent in lumping all possible meanings into one term. In general differentiation in meaning is preferable to combination as it leads to less ambiguity.

Your suggestion as made would have the effect of increasing the prospect of overall confusion, and not that of eliminating it, by substituting the meaning preferred by one sub-group to that of the established meaning as determined in the technical materials of scientology .

But you would know this if you had actually studied scientology tech materials at some time and not simply familiarized yourself with the subject as it is discussed in online boards. Would you make the similar error of redefining string theory or qed based on popular conceptions of physics on the internet as opposed to the formal discussions which are a part of the physics academic community?

... Mark argues that the term doesn't matter, so he feels free to use the provocative term "Scientology" to provoke discussion.

It's a scientology-relatec board established for the purpose of discussing scientology. I fail to see how the use of the word is provocative. What is 'provocative' is that some people are unhappy with what they believe my views to be. That is more a reflection on those individuals than it is a reflection of some implied 'radical nature' to my views. People who are innately angry may perceive the lack of anger in others as an affront, but that does not make it so.

... Well, sure, in one sense terminology is arbitrary. But, in another sense, it isn't just neutral. Rightly or wrongly, different words have different effects on people. ...

It's not a matter of 'right' or 'wrong'. It's a question of individual life experience. That is not subject to a definition by consensus.

... And that's why I'm pressing the point. Rightly or wrongly, it's a matter of fact that the term "Scientology" has been co-opted by the Church of Scientology. ...

No, they have not 'co-opted' the term. In a very real sense they own it.

The word is derived from the writings of l.ron hubbard, the FOUNDER of the church. Hubbard defined the word in the technical materials of the subject of scientology. These works are published by the church. The copyright of these materials was owned by hubbard and is presently owned by a variant institution of his 'mother church'. Apart from a questionable transfer of copyright from mary sue to the church, there is no question of 'co-option'.

The word scientology has been defined. It does not mean what you evidently want it to mean. Any attempt to redefine it in the manner you wish simply adds to the existing confusion. It does not serve to clarify. I suggest that you acquire an (old) copy of the scientology tech dictionary and study the definitions of the term as they are laid out in that standard reference book, i.e. standard for the subject of scientology. That is how the word has been defined and how it is most widely to be understood. Any other meaning is derivative, not primary.

My suggestion of adoption of the term 'open source gnosis' is NOT intended as a replacement for the word scientology. It is a suggestion for a generic term which is to apply to the extended and expanded body of philosophy which encompasses scientology and similar mental/spiritual disciplines. Open source gnosis would include not only generic scientology, but conceivably other spiritual practices and disciplines as well; e.g. knowledgism, idenics, etc..


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... The term "three-quarters Scientologist" isn't used, although it could be and maybe should be as absolute ...

FWIW, I have seen some individuals refer to themselves in some such sense. What I believe to be least commonly used is the idea that 'scientologist' implies complete acceptance of all of hubbard's ideas. That is not supportable in the tech dictionary definition. Few individuals I've known as scientologists agreed with that meaning or considered themselves to be in total agreement with Hubbard. A very tiny few have. Mostly the idea exists in the prejudice of others.

I see no point in a redefinition of the word to a meaning which is apparently unsupported by written historical or technical references and has what I've seen to be the least common actual occurrence.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Veda]

In 1996, David Mayo wrote, "I am not a Scientologist now and have not been one for many years."

Yet, perhaps David Mayo, Hubbard's former personal auditor, Class XII, and former Senior C/S International, had a misunderstood word on the definition of "Scientologist," in the 'Scientology Technical Dictionary'.

 

[Student of Trinity]

"False definition" is a contradiction in terms.

 

[Dulloldfart]

The word scientology has been defined. It does not mean what you evidently want it to mean. Any attempt to redefine it in the manner you wish simply adds to the existing confusion. It does not serve to clarify. I suggest that you acquire an (old) copy of the scientology tech dictionary and study the definitions of the term as they are laid out in that standard reference book, i.e. standard for the subject of scientology. That is how the word has been defined and how it is most widely to

Actually, although these might be the "official" definitions, they look like PR and bullshit to me.

SCIENTOLOGY, 1. it is formed from the Latin word scio, which means know or distinguish, being related to the word scindo, which means cleave. (Thus, the idea of differentiation is strongly implied.) It is formed from the Greek word logos, which means THE WORD, or OUTWARD FORM BY WHICH THE INWARD THOUGHT IS EXPRESSED AND MADE KNOWN: also THE INWARD THOUGHT or REASON ITSELF. Thus, SCIENTOLOGY means KNOWING ABOUT KNOWING, or SCIENCE OF KNOWLEDGE. (Scn 8- 80, p. 8)

2. Scientology addresses the thetan. Scientology is used to increase spiritual freedom, intelligence, ability, and to produce immortality. (HCOB 22 Apr 69)

3. an organized body of scientific research knowledge concerning life, life sources and the mind and includes practices that improve the intelligence, state and conduct of persons. (HCOB 9 Jul 59)

4. a religious philosophy in its highest meaning as it brings man to total freedom and truth. (HCOB 18 Apr 67)

5. the science of knowing how to know answers. It is a wisdom in the tradition of ten thousand years of search in Asia and Western civilization. It is the science of human affairs which treats the livingness and beingness of man, and demonstrates to him a pathway to greater freedom. (COHA, p. 9)

6. an organization of the pertinencies which are mutually held true by all men in all times, and the development of technologies which demonstrate the existence of new phenomena not hitherto known, which are useful in creating states of beingness considered more desirable by man. (COHA, p. 9)

7. the science of knowing how to know. It is the science of knowing sciences. It seeks to embrace the sciences and humanities as a clarification of knowledge itself. Into all these things-biology, physics, psychology and life itself-the skills of Scientology can bring order and simplification. (Scn 8-8008, p. 11)

8. the study of the human spirit in its relationship to the physical universe and its living forms. (Abil 146)

9. a science of life. It is the one thing senior to life because it handles all the factors of life. It contains the data necessary to live as a free being. A reality in Scientology is a reality on life. (Aud 27 UK)

10. a body of knowledge which, when properly used, gives freedom and truth to the individual. (COHA, p. 251)

11. Scientology is an organized body of scientific research knowledge concerning life, life sources and the mind and includes practices that improve the intelligence, state and conduct of persons. (Abil Mi 104)

12. knowledge and its application in the conquest of the material universe. (HCL 1, 5203CM03A)

13. an applied philosophy designed and developed to make the able more able. In this sphere it is tremendously successful. (HCO PL 27 Oct 64)

14. an applied religious philosophy dealing with the study of knowledge, which through the application of its technology, can bring about desirable changes in the conditions of life. (HCO PL 15 Apr 71R)​

Paul

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Actually, although these might be the "official" definitions, they look like PR and bullshit to me. ...

Definition is necessarily promotional. Establishing definitions is an essential feature of promoting study and discussion of any subject. The definitions you extracted are the official definitions by which all scientologists have had occasion to study and familiarize themselves with the subject.

Introduction of other definitions are a bit of 'added inapplicable'. What appears to be 'bullshit' to you is also 'added inapplicable'. That is not to say your opinion is unwarranted or that I may not agree with you, at least in part.

What matters for purposes of wider discussion is that the term has been defined. Individual personal opinions about the definitions are of no particular importance except to the individuals whose opinions they represent.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Dulloldfart]

Definition is necessarily promotional.

Huh? I remember a debate about proscriptive definitions versus descriptive definitions, but not one involving promotional definitions.

To be continued. I'm going to bed now.

Paul

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Huh? I remember a debate about proscriptive definitions versus descriptive definitions, but not one involving promotional definitions.

To be continued. I'm going to bed now.

Paul

As before, in order to promote a topic one must have a definition for that topic which can be understood. Conversely, it is also the case that in defining a topic one has made it possible to promote the consideration of that topic through the process of encouraging open discussion. This is true whether one is promoting or defining scientology, free market economics, or coca cola.

Thus the act of definition is innately tied to that of promotion.

Nighty Night.


Mark A. Baker