• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Memory and understanding using Co$ techniques.

AgeGap

Master Poster
A
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
2,447
I have a colleague who wanted to know some stuff. I got him the info and he wanted to know what one of the words in it meant. (The word was apheresisWP.) He then said one of the three reasons why somebody would not remember a piece of text is the lack of understanding of just one of the words in said text. Other reasons were lack of mass and another one that I have forgotten about. As this sounded a bit strange I asked him where he got the info from. Answer: Scientology. They send him e-mails and he has read some stuff about it. I am no fan of Scientology and this scares me, if only for his sake.
Does anyone know where these three rules came from and if they have any validity?
 
Just a wild guess on my part but I think the answers to your two questions are 1) LRon made it up and 2) No.
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
Just a wild guess on my part but I think the answers to your two questions are 1) LRon made it up and 2) No.
Click to expand...
I gotta ask. Hubbard knew he wrote a book of fiction didn't he. It was some twisted followers of the book that turned it into a cult. Or did Hubbard set out to start a cult?
 
Last edited:
Thanks Gord but I was wondering if he stole it from somewhere, he has done it with other stuff. If I had the original stuff I could show it to my workmate. I will show him clambake/xenutv but I really wanted the specifics. You could be right though.
 
AgeGap said:
I have a colleague who wanted to know some stuff. I got him the info and he wanted to know what one of the words in it meant. (The word was apheresisWP.) He then said one of the three reasons why somebody would not remember a piece of text is the lack of understanding of just one of the words in said text. Other reasons were lack of mass and another one that I have forgotten about. As this sounded a bit strange I asked him where he got the info from. Answer: Scientology. They send him e-mails and he has read some stuff about it. I am no fan of Scientology and this scares me, if only for his sake.
Does anyone know where these three rules came from and if they have any validity?
Click to expand...

Pulling this up from my not-always dependable memory banks--let's see if I'm right:

I think L Ron read Korzybski's General Semantics which contains similar notions.

I think he had an instinct for power, but no new intellectual ideas of his own, except maybe ridiculous ones he got when he was plastered on...whatever.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_semantics

I'm not entirely wrong, but I refuse to read Dianetics or whatever to really check.

from the wiki:

In 1952, General Semantics was pilloried in Martin Gardner's influential book, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. L. Ron Hubbard claimed that his work was based partly on general semantics, but the compliment was not returned. Writing in Etc: A Review of General Semantics, in the fourth quarter of 1951, Hayakawa said, "The lure of the pseudo-scientific vocabulary and promises of Dianetics cannot but condemn thousands who are beginning to emerge from scientific illiteracy to a continuation of their susceptibility to word-magic and semantic hash." ("Dianetics: From Science-Fiction to Fiction-Science," pp.280-293.)
Under the supervision of psychiatrist Dr. Douglas M. Kelley, U.S. medics in World War II used General Semantics to treat over 7,000 cases of battlefield neuroses in the European theater. Kelley is quoted in the preface to the third edition of Science and Sanity. The development of neuro-linguistic programming owes debts to general semantics.
 
Gravy said:
He set out to start a religion. Here's one version of how that happened. I don't know enough about him to know if he ever believed his own woo.
Click to expand...
2 out of 3 of those wern't written by Hubbard though. Unless this is wrong
Hubbard first introduced Dianetics to the public in April 1950, in an article published in the May 1950 issue of the magazine Astounding Science Fiction.
Click to expand...
I can see how AFTER Dianetics was twisted into scientology. Wasn't the first COS started in December 53? After Hubbard's article in 1950 he seemed to take more of a sci-fi religio twist but I am not convinced that is what he intnded from his first article. Thanks for the link Mark.
 
calebprime said:
and it's suggested in their study technology to always look up words you don't understand:
Click to expand...

Correct. I own Hubbard's History of Man, and this is listed on the page before the foreword:

IMPORTANT NOTE

The only reason a person gives up a study or becomes confused or unable to learn is that he or she has gone past a word or symbol that was not understood.

In studing Scientology, be very, very certain you never go past a word you do not fully understand. If the material becomes confusing or you can't seem to grasp it, there will be a word just earlier that you have not understood. Don't go any further, but go back to BEFORE you got into trouble, find the misunderstood word or phrase and get it defined.


I believe that's Hubbardspeak for: if you don't understand what you're reading, it's not because I'm attempting to explain an incomprehensible mess of a hypothesis utilizing near-incoherent writing skills. It's because your vocabulary is poor. :D

Btw, this book tells us that we evolved from Piltdown man. Yes, the one you thought was a hoax. Shows what you know.
 
This is another one of those common-sense, applicable things that is interspersed with complete nonsense. And even though it's good to make an effort to understand words, this is also another way of controlling behavior, and making the recruit ready to accept the idea that any apparent failure of Scientology is really his failure for not understanding it properly.

Even though Scientology isn't a religion, this is reminiscent of the 'True Christian' idea.
 
I think you are supposed to look up words you do not understand in a scientology dictionary, not in Merriam-Webster. They dissent in some regards.
 
I guess checking the dictionary often will distract everyone enough so that they won't notice they are reading nonsense.

I often memorize texts without understanding all the words. It's called poetry and that's why it exists- so you can sing-song the Iliad when you don't have a written copy.
 
hipparchia said:
I guess checking the dictionary often will distract everyone enough so that they won't notice they are reading nonsense.

I often memorize texts without understanding all the words. It's called poetry and that's why it exists- so you can sing-song the Iliad when you don't have a written copy.
Click to expand...

I think it was more related to studying, as in aquiring knowledge, not so much to enjoying poetry. Although i think to fully appreaciate poetry it is sometimes useful to have a rough idea about it's meaning, with the possible exception of arias in the opera. They are usually better if you don't understand the texts.

In studying though i found that using a dictionary and in the last years occassionaly wikipedia to clarify the meaning of terms is rather useful. I know it is a method used by scientology and therefore suspect, but as an analogy: I always thought that refusing to use a wheatstone bridge because scientology has e-meters is an overreaction.
 
Last edited:
I was just talking about the method of Scientology and how it is more distracting than helpful in some cases.

And I did check what a Wheatstone bridge is.
 
blauregen said:
I know it is a method used by scientology and therefore suspect, but as an analogy: I always thought that refusing to use a wheatstone bridge because scientology has e-meters is an overreaction.
Click to expand...
That for me is where the danger lies. They will give you a few common sense tips and you think, "okay, cool up to now". Next thing is they hit you with. "Look how good that was, just imagine how much you can achieve with all our other crap!"
I hope you can see my predicament. I do not want my colleague to be ensnared. Thank you all who have posted.
 
If you watch the 2007 OT Summit that's all over the internet (try youtube), Miscavige spends ages going on about "misunderstoods" and how they can ruin the understanding of whole pieces of "tech". The upshot being that they can sell you minor revisions of the same book (and associated books to help you understand the words) over and over.

He mentions the "word clearing" explained in those links above too, with a knowing wink and wry laughter from the audience implying that they've all had to struggle with it.

Think "Emperor's New Clothes" - Hubbard's stuff is gibberish, but if you can convince yourself otherwise, you will start to "get" it and mutually reinforce what it "really" means in auditing and talk with other members. You can then join the ranks of those who talk a lot but say very little indeed, and recruit more poor unfortunates to do the same nonsense that you had to.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom