Vinaire
Sponsor
The photographer was my mom's younger brother. He is still alive. He is quite a personality even in his old age.
.
Understanding "ARC", What It Really Is All About
- Thread starter Gadfly
- Start date
The photographer was my mom's younger brother. He is still alive. He is quite a personality even in his old age.
.
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
And here I am with my brother 60 years later... NOW (2009) during a recent trip to India, and very happy to see him...
.
Was he still smiling after you told him he owed you a brand new car?
Mark A. Baker
Vinaire
Sponsor
Was he still smiling after you told him he owed you a brand new car?
Mark A. Baker
Damn, why didn't I think of that!
.
lkwdblds
Crusader
Compare Mother Teresa to a TV Evangelist
Contrast these two forms of supposed unconditional love being made in the guise of helping others and form your own conclusions which scenario is more representative of "love". Oh yes, Mother Teresa did not charge a fee for her work.
Lakey
Contrast these two forms of supposed unconditional love being made in the guise of helping others and form your own conclusions which scenario is more representative of "love". Oh yes, Mother Teresa did not charge a fee for her work.
Lakey
uniquemand
Unbeliever
Very nice OP. I'd missed this one. I'd also like to make a clarification. I think Hubbard made an error on the "R" side. I don't think one has to agree to a communication in order for it to be understood, excepting that they have to agree that the communication exists. Agreement with the communication can create a sense of shared understanding, but does not alter reality in any measurable way. I would suggest the change from "reality" to "comprehension", in line with some of my mentors.
This would be a minor point, but part of the cultic nature of scientology is that there is a rigid enforcement of "reality": the Church insists that you agree with their operational goals, their tactics (that they let you know about), their policy, and every word that Hubbard says. If you don't, there are Sec Checks, False Data Stripping and other Ethics and Qual actions awaiting you, until you are FORCED into agreement with the given point. This destroys critical thinking and erodes a person's identity until a shell is left that is the characteristic flunky critics refer to as a "ronbot" or "rondroid". This is further enforced with the policy series "Keeping Scientology Working", wherein the only acceptable reality proposed, reinforced and enforced is the one proposed by Hubbard. No other sources are acknowledged as valid, including the parishioner/trainee. All of this stems from Hubbard's apparently minor misunderstanding of reality, and his desire to enforce his personal reality on the entirety of the known world, come what may.
This would be a minor point, but part of the cultic nature of scientology is that there is a rigid enforcement of "reality": the Church insists that you agree with their operational goals, their tactics (that they let you know about), their policy, and every word that Hubbard says. If you don't, there are Sec Checks, False Data Stripping and other Ethics and Qual actions awaiting you, until you are FORCED into agreement with the given point. This destroys critical thinking and erodes a person's identity until a shell is left that is the characteristic flunky critics refer to as a "ronbot" or "rondroid". This is further enforced with the policy series "Keeping Scientology Working", wherein the only acceptable reality proposed, reinforced and enforced is the one proposed by Hubbard. No other sources are acknowledged as valid, including the parishioner/trainee. All of this stems from Hubbard's apparently minor misunderstanding of reality, and his desire to enforce his personal reality on the entirety of the known world, come what may.
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
I think this reflects an m/u. I see nothing in the communication formula which implies that 'reality' means acceptance as absolutely 'true'. The 'reality' reflects the context in which a communication is received. The communication formula does not imply 'acceptance as true' except as it may relate to the given communication. One of the dramatizations of scientology staff generally, and the Sea Org in particular, is the idea of an 'enforced reality'. That of course defines one form of a clear ARCX.
If you get shot on a battlefield, then warfare is the 'reality' of the particle received. If after 'dinner & drinks' she asks to 'see your etchings' then intimacy is the 'reality' of the message subtext. If an instructor says 'open the book' then the textbook appropriate to that specific course is the 'reality' implicit in the message. Thus a lack of 'reality' will result in a failure to understand a communication. It doesn't imply that the parties to the communication necessarily accept some aspect of the communication as possessing truth beyond the message.
It is this use of 'reality' which is specialized to scientology. It should not be confused with non-scientological uses of the same word.
Mark A. Baker
uniquemand
Unbeliever
Then it's a crashing m/u in the Church. 
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
Then it's a crashing m/u in the Church.
Yes, it is. There are many such.
Mark A. Baker
Gadfly
Crusader
I just reread my OP and had trouble following it. :confused2:
I wanted to clarify a few points.
People attach all sorts of meaning to the word "understanding". On the big scale it has connotations such as "extending understanding to others", "being understanding of the foibles of others", and "planetary understanding".
For me, the word has the most value when it expresses ideas such as "tolerance" or "compassion". But that is NOT how Hubbard uses it.
As a noun, it simply means the state of "grasping" or "making sense" of some idea(s), situation(s) or event(s). Intellectual understanding is closely tied in with significances, associations, meanings and relationships of ideas to actual events.
When Hubbard states that a goal of Scientology is the "bring to understanding the peoples of the Earth", what does he mean? Well, most people read something in to the statement, something that is not actually there, and ASSUME that Scientology will somehow enable people to "get along better", to "exist in harmony", or to better grasp all things (in some "good way"). What it really means is that the aim of Scientology is to load all people with Hubbard's ideas, and to bring about some insane degree of mass planetary agreement with Scientology "data". Simply, the aim is to get the peoples of the Earth to agree and think within the Scientology paradigm. Of course, THAT would be a nightmare.
So, taking "understanding" simply to mean some "grasping or cognition of data", which I think most can agree with, even Scientologists, this is how I see it. I will examine each of the three points.
Communication of some form is necessary to understand something. Either communication with actual events and situations, or communication with reports, observations, statements, claims, assertions or analysis of actual events and situations. So, I have no problem with "C" existing as a necessary component of understanding. Of course, observation and direct experience can be faulty, and when one or two steps removed, depending on written or verbal reports of others gets tricky and involves its own problems. Once past the basic need to be there and communicate "with the data", one enters into the realm of the CONTENT of the data itself, and this can get very messy because now often come all of the opinions, assertions, claims, beliefs, attitudes, lies, deceptions and contrivances.
Affinity seems to also be necessary and involved. But, that does NOT at all mean that you need to "like" something to understand it. Affinity is best understood as "willingness to be in the same space as something". So, while I may not like, admire or appreciate the genocide of Nazi Germany, the mass extermination of Tibetan Buddhists by Chinese communists, or the use of Fair Game by organized Scientology, I CAN examine and understand these things simply by being willing to be close to the actual events and situations, or close to information about these actual events and situations.
This is a major flaw that I noticed in many Scientologists. Many simply could not fathom how anyone could understand something TRULY unless one LIKED IT. That is entirely FALSE. The notion of affinity being HIGH does NOT infer or assume any sort of "liking" or "love". It is a false idea that it seems Hubbard and the Church found convenient to allow the followers to mistakenly assume. I can be willing to be in the same space as detailed reports on rape statistics on some city, have no "feelings" one way or the other, have no aspect of liking or disliking, and simply BE THERE AND OBSERVE. To "be there and observe", which IS a vital aspect of understanding and knowledge, one MUST be WILLING TO BE IN THE SAME SPACE AS SOME REALITY OR DATA ABOUT REALITY. But, there is no requirement of any sort to "like" or "love". THAT is entirely erroneous. In fact, liking, or disliking, actually COLOR unbiased observation.
The key component is "R", and this involves "agreement". Again, one need NOT at all agree with some event, situation or reality to "understand" it. I can understand the history and events of the Spanish Inquisition, learn all about the extensive brutalities committed by the Catholic Church, yet completely NOT "agree" with any of it on any level.
But in truth, what you are agreeing with are the events themselves. To understand or even know anything you MUST be willing to at least agree with the FACT of the events, situations or occurrences. You might not agree with the legitimacy of the theories asserting that the Great Pyramids were built by aliens who "floated the massive stones into place using anti-gravity devices", BUT you DO agree with the reality of the Great Pyramids, and that they are surrounded with some form of mystery (unknown aspects of their creation and/or purpose). And, you can agree with the fact that there are various theories about the pyramids, and you can become familiar with these theories, while NOT agreeing or disagreeing. One can simply observe theories as having varying possibilities or probabilities. THis whole "agree or disagree" thing gets far too much mileage. That is probably because WHAT largely "agrees or disagrees" is a human ego. THAT is a whole other subject. What would happen if a "being without an ego" were to agree or disagree? And, would such an entity have any concern at all about agreeing or disagreeing? :confused2:
So, yes, to be involved in ANY reality, one MUST agree with its existence or occurrence. After that there comes all sorts of valuations, judgments and opinions ABOUT the thing itself. People too often confuse THAT aspect of it all - they confuse the thing itself with the judgments about it.
For example, many German people may have not "liked" various aspects of Nazi Germany, but they were FORCED to "be in the same space" with many of the ideas, over and over, with no choice, and they either had to come to agree with the ideas or pretend to agree. Many came to "understand" in the way they were encouraged to.
Many people come to understand things under duress, and obviously, affinity on the Tone Scale is out the bottom in these cases. But, they can and do come to agree and understand nonetheless.
The two primary variables are "reality" and "understanding". These cover an infinite range of possibilities. In truth, there are no two people anywhere who have the same "reality" on any event anywhere at anytime. It is not possible. Of course, when it comes to controlling people, exactness of "agreement" is not necessary - you need only be in the ballpark.
An "understanding" is simply, with all the additives taken away, some way to "grasp" some event, situation of piece of data. Sorry to bring this up again, but it IS an Einsteinian universe, meaning that the laws of relativity apply at every level, and what any person sees, experiences, and especially agrees with and understands, has a GREAT deal to do with the arbitrary state of the observer (you or me). Ideally, an "understanding" would/should be free of bias, arbitrary judgments, fixed ideas, preconceived notions, opinions and emotional slant, but in fact, THOSE are what actually define a great many "understandings" for many people.
Sadly, the "understandings" of most people involves arbitrary notions about all sorts of things. For example, a Muslim fanatic "understands" completely, knows within his heart of hearts, and BELIEVES that all westerners are "heathens" and "agents of Satan". Too often, as in this case, "understanding" involves feelings and belief in a great many things. It has NOTHING to do with a calm observation of events and situations from a position based on an intent to "observe honestly without bias". Just as a Jehovah's Witness "understands" that in the Final Days there will ONLY remain 144,000 souls saved standing with God.
What is largely going on is that "understanding" depends almost entirely on the "R" part of the triangle. People "understand" what they "agree with". Of course, people can agree with anything, and as history easily shows, more often than not, what people often agree with and "understand as true" is of the nature of absurdities and lunacies.
There are as many possible "understandings" about a single event (such as the bombing of Hiroshima) as there are grains of sand on all the beaches of Earth, because ANY "understanding" depends on "from where any person looks" (viewpoint) and can involve a great many different and varying degrees of judgments, opinions, connections of data, and evaluation of importances. Understandings are JUST LIKE opinions - or assholes - everybody has one. The same with "reality" and "agreement". They ARE involved in understanding, but in the end, they are like any aspect of temporal, ever-changing reality - they are arbitrary. The notions of A, R, C and U are given FAR too much exagerrated importance in Scientology.
I do agree that there is a use for A, R, C and U in auditing where assists can be conducted to resolve upsets or "breaks" in a person's affinity, communication, reality or understanding. But, as a tool for the organization, as a tool for indoctrination, and as a tool for manipulation, its use SUCKS!
What matters is that someone can USE ARC to bring about some desired agreements or understanding in another. The mechanics of it are neutral. It is what gets filled into the locations of "agreement" and "understanding" as content that makes all the difference.
Scientology indoctrination functions with a carefully, well-planned application of ARC in many regards. The whole purpose is to garner AGREEMENT about a great many things, and to bring about exact "understanding" in the minds of the followers. Of course, ARC could just as well be applied to any ideology or religion as a way to instill specific "ideas" into the minds of members. Hubbard was no dummy whatever else he may have been. He noticed what goes on all of the time, as far as ARC goes, codified it, and worked it integrally into Scientology. In the end it is ALL about MANIPULATION and THOUGHT CONTROL.
The battle on Earth has always been about and over the IDEAS of Man. He who can control THAT controls the whole shebang. Hubbard provided a TOOL to effectively mold and instill "understandings". He provided a tool to condition and nurture "agreements". It is very beneficial to understand how ARC operates, NOT to use it, but ONLY to have it in ones arsenal to DEFEND against scammers and manipulators of all sorts.
When someone says, "I feel so much ARC for you", it is a distortion of the actual meaning. It is a form of Scientology slang. It either means "I agree with you" (which involves NO indication of truth), or "I like you".
To sum things up.
Some minimal agreement is necessary to "understand" anything, where this is understood to mean that one must at least agree on the "fact" of some event, occurrence or situation. For example, if one had no knowledge of what happened to Paulette Cooper, if one didn't at least agree on the actual events and timeline, one could not have ANY "understanding" of that series of events. But any agreement with goodness or badness about what was done to her by the Church of Scientology comes AFTER the basic agreement of the actuality itself.
One need not like, love of have any affinity at all for something to understand it. None! Of course, again, one must be at least willing to contact some body of data, and be willing to exist in the same space as something else, so that one can BE THERE and OBSERVE. It is ONLY the definition of "affinity" as "willingness to exist in the same space as something else" that is necessary. It might be true that from the view of a "thetan" affinity exists as "willingness to be in the same space as", whereas to a human ago, affinity might appear and be experienced as "liking" or "disliking".
Some basic communication is necessary, if only with the events, situations or data about some actuality.
All of the bullshit starts when the communication lines get filled with arbitrary judgments, false "facts", assumptions, and values, as they are in Scientology. More bullshit continues when the AFFINITY is contrived, when the "love bomb" is enacted to grease the lines of communication, and when "likingness" is used as a GIMMICK to trick you into happily being in the same space as others and certain data. The bullshit goes into overdrive when the encouraged reality, what you come to agree with, is based on phony facts, lies, deceptions, misrepresentations and arbitraries masquerading as "basic truths".
I can find NO personal use for ARC, as it seems to ONLY involve some form of manipulation. I NEVER use it. Can someone give me a valid and useful, non-manipulative version of it? Outside of auditing. In interpersonal human relations?
I do find a use for simply mocking up LOVE for all that is (MY version of "affinity"). And, with no desire to USE mocked up affinity as a way to trick any person into increasing communication with me so that I can get him or her to "agree" with me about something, so as to bring about some "understanding" in his or her mind. People should be FREE to come to their own understandings. The planned intentional use of ARC prevents that.
Please, I would like anyone to show me a NON-MANIPULATIVE use of ARC.
Also, as a "formula", ARC=U is horrendously stupid. ARC does NOT "equal" understanding. A, R and C are related to "understanding", but they do NOT "equal" it. And, once a person has a basic willingness to be there and observe (affinity) and communication in some area, agreement (as "reality") is the KEY component of what any person comes to "understand".
I suspect that Hubbard placed these four ideas into "formula", because it made it appear "mathematical" and possibly "scientific".
+++++++++++
I wanted to clarify a few points.
People attach all sorts of meaning to the word "understanding". On the big scale it has connotations such as "extending understanding to others", "being understanding of the foibles of others", and "planetary understanding".
For me, the word has the most value when it expresses ideas such as "tolerance" or "compassion". But that is NOT how Hubbard uses it.
As a noun, it simply means the state of "grasping" or "making sense" of some idea(s), situation(s) or event(s). Intellectual understanding is closely tied in with significances, associations, meanings and relationships of ideas to actual events.
When Hubbard states that a goal of Scientology is the "bring to understanding the peoples of the Earth", what does he mean? Well, most people read something in to the statement, something that is not actually there, and ASSUME that Scientology will somehow enable people to "get along better", to "exist in harmony", or to better grasp all things (in some "good way"). What it really means is that the aim of Scientology is to load all people with Hubbard's ideas, and to bring about some insane degree of mass planetary agreement with Scientology "data". Simply, the aim is to get the peoples of the Earth to agree and think within the Scientology paradigm. Of course, THAT would be a nightmare.
So, taking "understanding" simply to mean some "grasping or cognition of data", which I think most can agree with, even Scientologists, this is how I see it. I will examine each of the three points.
Communication of some form is necessary to understand something. Either communication with actual events and situations, or communication with reports, observations, statements, claims, assertions or analysis of actual events and situations. So, I have no problem with "C" existing as a necessary component of understanding. Of course, observation and direct experience can be faulty, and when one or two steps removed, depending on written or verbal reports of others gets tricky and involves its own problems. Once past the basic need to be there and communicate "with the data", one enters into the realm of the CONTENT of the data itself, and this can get very messy because now often come all of the opinions, assertions, claims, beliefs, attitudes, lies, deceptions and contrivances.
Affinity seems to also be necessary and involved. But, that does NOT at all mean that you need to "like" something to understand it. Affinity is best understood as "willingness to be in the same space as something". So, while I may not like, admire or appreciate the genocide of Nazi Germany, the mass extermination of Tibetan Buddhists by Chinese communists, or the use of Fair Game by organized Scientology, I CAN examine and understand these things simply by being willing to be close to the actual events and situations, or close to information about these actual events and situations.
This is a major flaw that I noticed in many Scientologists. Many simply could not fathom how anyone could understand something TRULY unless one LIKED IT. That is entirely FALSE. The notion of affinity being HIGH does NOT infer or assume any sort of "liking" or "love". It is a false idea that it seems Hubbard and the Church found convenient to allow the followers to mistakenly assume. I can be willing to be in the same space as detailed reports on rape statistics on some city, have no "feelings" one way or the other, have no aspect of liking or disliking, and simply BE THERE AND OBSERVE. To "be there and observe", which IS a vital aspect of understanding and knowledge, one MUST be WILLING TO BE IN THE SAME SPACE AS SOME REALITY OR DATA ABOUT REALITY. But, there is no requirement of any sort to "like" or "love". THAT is entirely erroneous. In fact, liking, or disliking, actually COLOR unbiased observation.
The key component is "R", and this involves "agreement". Again, one need NOT at all agree with some event, situation or reality to "understand" it. I can understand the history and events of the Spanish Inquisition, learn all about the extensive brutalities committed by the Catholic Church, yet completely NOT "agree" with any of it on any level.
But in truth, what you are agreeing with are the events themselves. To understand or even know anything you MUST be willing to at least agree with the FACT of the events, situations or occurrences. You might not agree with the legitimacy of the theories asserting that the Great Pyramids were built by aliens who "floated the massive stones into place using anti-gravity devices", BUT you DO agree with the reality of the Great Pyramids, and that they are surrounded with some form of mystery (unknown aspects of their creation and/or purpose). And, you can agree with the fact that there are various theories about the pyramids, and you can become familiar with these theories, while NOT agreeing or disagreeing. One can simply observe theories as having varying possibilities or probabilities. THis whole "agree or disagree" thing gets far too much mileage. That is probably because WHAT largely "agrees or disagrees" is a human ego. THAT is a whole other subject. What would happen if a "being without an ego" were to agree or disagree? And, would such an entity have any concern at all about agreeing or disagreeing? :confused2:
So, yes, to be involved in ANY reality, one MUST agree with its existence or occurrence. After that there comes all sorts of valuations, judgments and opinions ABOUT the thing itself. People too often confuse THAT aspect of it all - they confuse the thing itself with the judgments about it.
For example, many German people may have not "liked" various aspects of Nazi Germany, but they were FORCED to "be in the same space" with many of the ideas, over and over, with no choice, and they either had to come to agree with the ideas or pretend to agree. Many came to "understand" in the way they were encouraged to.
Many people come to understand things under duress, and obviously, affinity on the Tone Scale is out the bottom in these cases. But, they can and do come to agree and understand nonetheless.
The two primary variables are "reality" and "understanding". These cover an infinite range of possibilities. In truth, there are no two people anywhere who have the same "reality" on any event anywhere at anytime. It is not possible. Of course, when it comes to controlling people, exactness of "agreement" is not necessary - you need only be in the ballpark.
An "understanding" is simply, with all the additives taken away, some way to "grasp" some event, situation of piece of data. Sorry to bring this up again, but it IS an Einsteinian universe, meaning that the laws of relativity apply at every level, and what any person sees, experiences, and especially agrees with and understands, has a GREAT deal to do with the arbitrary state of the observer (you or me). Ideally, an "understanding" would/should be free of bias, arbitrary judgments, fixed ideas, preconceived notions, opinions and emotional slant, but in fact, THOSE are what actually define a great many "understandings" for many people.
Sadly, the "understandings" of most people involves arbitrary notions about all sorts of things. For example, a Muslim fanatic "understands" completely, knows within his heart of hearts, and BELIEVES that all westerners are "heathens" and "agents of Satan". Too often, as in this case, "understanding" involves feelings and belief in a great many things. It has NOTHING to do with a calm observation of events and situations from a position based on an intent to "observe honestly without bias". Just as a Jehovah's Witness "understands" that in the Final Days there will ONLY remain 144,000 souls saved standing with God.
What is largely going on is that "understanding" depends almost entirely on the "R" part of the triangle. People "understand" what they "agree with". Of course, people can agree with anything, and as history easily shows, more often than not, what people often agree with and "understand as true" is of the nature of absurdities and lunacies.
There are as many possible "understandings" about a single event (such as the bombing of Hiroshima) as there are grains of sand on all the beaches of Earth, because ANY "understanding" depends on "from where any person looks" (viewpoint) and can involve a great many different and varying degrees of judgments, opinions, connections of data, and evaluation of importances. Understandings are JUST LIKE opinions - or assholes - everybody has one. The same with "reality" and "agreement". They ARE involved in understanding, but in the end, they are like any aspect of temporal, ever-changing reality - they are arbitrary. The notions of A, R, C and U are given FAR too much exagerrated importance in Scientology.
I do agree that there is a use for A, R, C and U in auditing where assists can be conducted to resolve upsets or "breaks" in a person's affinity, communication, reality or understanding. But, as a tool for the organization, as a tool for indoctrination, and as a tool for manipulation, its use SUCKS!
What matters is that someone can USE ARC to bring about some desired agreements or understanding in another. The mechanics of it are neutral. It is what gets filled into the locations of "agreement" and "understanding" as content that makes all the difference.
Scientology indoctrination functions with a carefully, well-planned application of ARC in many regards. The whole purpose is to garner AGREEMENT about a great many things, and to bring about exact "understanding" in the minds of the followers. Of course, ARC could just as well be applied to any ideology or religion as a way to instill specific "ideas" into the minds of members. Hubbard was no dummy whatever else he may have been. He noticed what goes on all of the time, as far as ARC goes, codified it, and worked it integrally into Scientology. In the end it is ALL about MANIPULATION and THOUGHT CONTROL.
The battle on Earth has always been about and over the IDEAS of Man. He who can control THAT controls the whole shebang. Hubbard provided a TOOL to effectively mold and instill "understandings". He provided a tool to condition and nurture "agreements". It is very beneficial to understand how ARC operates, NOT to use it, but ONLY to have it in ones arsenal to DEFEND against scammers and manipulators of all sorts.
When someone says, "I feel so much ARC for you", it is a distortion of the actual meaning. It is a form of Scientology slang. It either means "I agree with you" (which involves NO indication of truth), or "I like you".
To sum things up.
Some minimal agreement is necessary to "understand" anything, where this is understood to mean that one must at least agree on the "fact" of some event, occurrence or situation. For example, if one had no knowledge of what happened to Paulette Cooper, if one didn't at least agree on the actual events and timeline, one could not have ANY "understanding" of that series of events. But any agreement with goodness or badness about what was done to her by the Church of Scientology comes AFTER the basic agreement of the actuality itself.
One need not like, love of have any affinity at all for something to understand it. None! Of course, again, one must be at least willing to contact some body of data, and be willing to exist in the same space as something else, so that one can BE THERE and OBSERVE. It is ONLY the definition of "affinity" as "willingness to exist in the same space as something else" that is necessary. It might be true that from the view of a "thetan" affinity exists as "willingness to be in the same space as", whereas to a human ago, affinity might appear and be experienced as "liking" or "disliking".
Some basic communication is necessary, if only with the events, situations or data about some actuality.
All of the bullshit starts when the communication lines get filled with arbitrary judgments, false "facts", assumptions, and values, as they are in Scientology. More bullshit continues when the AFFINITY is contrived, when the "love bomb" is enacted to grease the lines of communication, and when "likingness" is used as a GIMMICK to trick you into happily being in the same space as others and certain data. The bullshit goes into overdrive when the encouraged reality, what you come to agree with, is based on phony facts, lies, deceptions, misrepresentations and arbitraries masquerading as "basic truths".
I can find NO personal use for ARC, as it seems to ONLY involve some form of manipulation. I NEVER use it. Can someone give me a valid and useful, non-manipulative version of it? Outside of auditing. In interpersonal human relations?
I do find a use for simply mocking up LOVE for all that is (MY version of "affinity"). And, with no desire to USE mocked up affinity as a way to trick any person into increasing communication with me so that I can get him or her to "agree" with me about something, so as to bring about some "understanding" in his or her mind. People should be FREE to come to their own understandings. The planned intentional use of ARC prevents that.
Please, I would like anyone to show me a NON-MANIPULATIVE use of ARC.
Also, as a "formula", ARC=U is horrendously stupid. ARC does NOT "equal" understanding. A, R and C are related to "understanding", but they do NOT "equal" it. And, once a person has a basic willingness to be there and observe (affinity) and communication in some area, agreement (as "reality") is the KEY component of what any person comes to "understand".
I suspect that Hubbard placed these four ideas into "formula", because it made it appear "mathematical" and possibly "scientific".
+++++++++++
Last edited:
Idle Morgue
Gold Meritorious Patron
I must say that I am so sick of LaFATSO BLUBBTURD's definitions. ARC / What about just common sense on how to treat someone? Good manners? Do we really need to study this shit??
The CULT of Scientology does not even know what that means??? The staff are enforced to be nice to you and once they have your money - The FAKE niceness wares off very quickly.
The CULT of Scientology does not even know what that means??? The staff are enforced to be nice to you and once they have your money - The FAKE niceness wares off very quickly.
Similar threads
