Hubbard-style Word Clearing.

A place to post and debate the Church of Scientology.
User avatar
Demented LRH
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Location: New York City, NY, USA
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Hubbard-style Word Clearing.

Post by Demented LRH » Sun Feb 03, 2013 1:07 am

pelagic wrote:Hi Demented LRH,

I don't think anyone really understands those terms. You get a general idea, but each time you go back to it your idea shifts. This is why you are not allowed to discuss things in Scientology. You are meant to think everyone else gets it and it is only you who has trouble understanding it. That is part of what keeps you coming back, the idea that you will fully understand it.

Have you ever read any of Ken Ogger, The Pilot's work? The book Super Scio has the best explanation of the whole track, theta and the like that I have read. It is much more condensed and understandable that anything the old fraud ever wrote. Specifically I am talking about the section Cosmic History. Here is the link.

http://freezoneearth.org/pub/Super%20Scio.pdf

If you like that sort of thing, it is an interesting read, once you get through the fist few sections. If you tried to understand the whole track, time track of theta, Philadelphia Doctorate Course etc, it is very refreshing to read an actual explanation of it. As opposed to trying to nut it out from Hubbard's lectures.

I think the difference between thetan and soul, is in Scientology the you are a thetan, in other religions and you have a soul. What the diff? A soul can't exteriorize with full perceptions or levitate an ashtray. Also in Scientology a thetan is god, or gods are thetans. Scientology aims to make you a god.

Something that never made sense to me was the M.E.S.T universe. The idea is that the physical universe we live in is made up of Matter, Energy, Space and Time. Einstein had already proven that matter and energy are essentially the same thing. Dr Hubbard the Nuclear Scientist Engineer should have know that.
Hi,
my wireless connection is not very good, I was not able to open the PDF file; I will try again tomorrow.
The Freezoners have plenty of data about the track, although I am not sure that they follow the Tech up to the letter. For example, they have more than 40 OT levels, which is a significant departure from the Tech.

The MEST universe makes no sense to me, Hubbard made too many mistakes, you already uncovered one of them, but there is plenty more.
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.

User avatar
Demented LRH
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Location: New York City, NY, USA
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Hubbard-style Word Clearing.

Post by Demented LRH » Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:07 pm

Hubbard‘s definition of the word “beingness” that he invented is also idiotic.

“Beingness: the assumption or choosing of a category of identity. Beingness can be assumed by oneself or given to oneself or attained.
Examples of beingness would be one’s own name, one’s profession, one’s physical characteristics, one’s role in a game -- each or all these could be called one’s beingness“.

http://scientologyanswers.wordpress.com ... -glossary/

The word “identity” is not in the Scientology dictionary, so we have to use its definition from an ordinary dictionary.

“Identity: 1. The condition or fact of being the same or exactly alike, sameness, oneness; 2. The condition or fact of being a specific person or thing; individuality”
Webster’s New World Dictionary.

No matter how the word “identity” is defined, the word “being” or its equivalents such as “is”, “are”, “were”, etc., will always be present in its definitions.

Hubbard’s word “beingness” is also a slightly modified word “being”, which means that the word “beingness” is used to define itself, which is a gross logical error called vicious circle. In other words, it is impossible to correctly define the word “beingness”.
The examples of the use of this word given in the Scientology dictionary are not related to the word itself.
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.

User avatar
Demented LRH
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Location: New York City, NY, USA
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Hubbard-style Word Clearing.

Post by Demented LRH » Mon Feb 04, 2013 5:02 pm

The term “grant beingness” is so moronic that I do not even know where to begin criticizing it. Nevertheless, I’m going to give it a try. Just be patient and go along with the flow of my text.

“Grant beingness: to let someone else be what he is. Listening to what someone has to say and taking care to understand them, being courteous, refraining from needless criticism, expressing admiration or affinity are examples of the actions of someone who can grant others beingness“.

http://scientologyanswers.wordpress.com ... -glossary/

I’ll begin with a general observation. Suppose, you have a sentence with the words that are known to you. Unless it contains some unknown mathematical symbols, you should have no trouble understanding it. An exception from this rule would be an idiom: you could have a complete understanding of its words, and yet its meaning might elude you.

Now, let’s take a look at the Hubbard phrase “to grant beingness”. The words “to” and “grant” are known to practically all native English speakers. “Beingness” is a crappy Hubbard word that he defined in his own idiotic way. Now, let’s see if the phrase “to let someone else be what he is” could be inferred from the words “grant” and “beingness”.
It appears that “to grant being” means “to grant identity”. But identity is something that a person already has, so the word “grant” is redundant as far as identity goes.

The inability to make a transition from “grant” and “beingness” to “grant beingness” should not be surprising at all -- as I have shown earlier, the word “beingness” is incorrectly defined, and, therefore meaningless.

There is one more option left, which is to treat the sentence “to grant beingness” as if it were an idiom. This is not something that crazy Hubbard had in mind when he designed his word clearing procedure, but we will explore this possibility.

I’ll begin analysis of this idiotic idiom with the phrase “to let someone else be what he is”. Could anyone be prevented from being what he is? To answer this question, an experimenter should have a complete knowledge of what a person subjected to his experiment is. But in order to have such knowledge, he should stop preventing the subject from being what the subject is. Here is where the gross logical contradiction lies -- the experimenter does not have complete knowledge of what the subject is, so he cannot possibly know what he must do to let the subject be himself. A smart 12-year-old is capable of avoiding of making this logical error. But Hubbard, being a fuktard, fell into the logical trap that he set for himself.

“Listening to what someone has to say and taking care to understand them”.
This looks good in theory, but in practice you might run into a person whose knowledge of certain things is far greater than yours, so you might not be able to understand him. The definition does not say how you should grant beingness to a person in this case, which shows that the definition is incomplete.

What does the phrase “needless criticism” means? It could mean two things:
1. There are instances when you should criticize a person, and there are instances when you should not criticize him. But the definition does not say how to make a distinction between these two cases, so it is impractical and incomplete.
2. You should not criticize a person under any circumstances. This is plain stupid because, for example, some scientific theories are correct, while the others are incorrect; if the subject is presenting an incorrect theory, the experimenter should tell his what is wrong with his “scientific discovery”.

I could go on and on explaining why this definition is a piece of shit, but that would take too much time and effort.
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.

User avatar
pelagic
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:55 pm
Location: Fishing where the fish are
Contact:

Re: Hubbard-style Word Clearing.

Post by pelagic » Tue Feb 05, 2013 7:26 am

My favorite is truth. These definitions are from the Technical Dictionary of Dianetics and Scientology, free download:
http://ebookbrowse.com/technical-dictio ... d293664968

truth: Truth is the exact consideration. Truth is the exact time, place. form and event.
consideration: a thought, a postulate about something.

Therefore, truth is exactly what you think it is.

On a side note: I can't find it now, but one link I used when I opened the technical dictionary prompted by browser (Chrome) to say the document was in Russian and it offered to translate it for me!

User avatar
Demented LRH
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Location: New York City, NY, USA
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Hubbard-style Word Clearing.

Post by Demented LRH » Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:44 pm

http://scientologyanswers.wordpress.com ... -glossary/

Here is another example of Hubbard’s infinite stupidity.

“Charge: harmful energy or force contained in mental image pictures of experiences painful or upsetting to the person, which is handled in auditing”.

To start with, there is no such thing as “harmful energy” -- the energy is a neutral quality, every physicist and engineer knows that.

The words “energy” and “force” could be used figuratively, as in the expressions “energetic person”, “force of nature” and many others. However, even when these words are used figuratively, it is assumed that the processes that they describe could be measured or at least observed (for instance, forces of nature are observable qualities, they include earthquakes, tsunami, volcanic eruptions, etc).

A force and energy purportedly contained in a mental image picture cannot be measured or observed, which makes it nonexistent quality. Obviously, Hubbard saw things differently, but he was mentally fucked-up, and could not think straight.
=========================================

When I look back at my short-lived encounter with Scientology, I grudgingly admit that my highly developed intellect did not save me from the Dianetics trap. I know now that if a person lacks knowledge in certain areas, his intelligence, no matter how developed it might be, is not enough to save him a downfall. Prior to my exposure to Scientology I knew very little about psychology. It took my just a couple of days to come to conclusion that Dianetics works; I am sure that this happened to majority of the Scientologists.

Luckily for me, I was schooled in various philosophical doctrines, which prevented me from accepting Hubbard’s “philosophical works”. He got D- from me for his “philosophical discoveries” because I could compare them to the works of the famous philosophers. Unfortunately, very few Scientologists have this kind of background; no matter how intelligent they are, they still see Hubbard as a very sophisticated philosopher.

But there is a remedy for those who still believe in Hubbard the Philosopher -- they should study the works of real philosophers to see that Hubbard is no match for Wittgenstein, Carnap, Russell, Bridgeman, Kant, Aristotel, Plato, Bohr, Spinosa, St. Augustine and many others.
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.

User avatar
Wieber
Posts: 10387
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Hubbard-style Word Clearing.

Post by Wieber » Tue Feb 05, 2013 5:59 pm

Demented LRH wrote:To start with, there is no such thing as “harmful energy” -- the energy is a neutral quality, every physicist and engineer knows that.
Hubbard actually made such a comment in one of his lectures that was quoted as a source article in one of their magazines. He then used it as a justification for using force mainly on staff members and stated that people needed to get used to force so they didn't become the effect of it when it was used on them. Anyway that's what I got from that particular piece.

If someone else recognizes that they might be able to provide a reference.

In a different lecture he also talked about magnetic personalities and stated that ability to control electricity was behind that.

Demented LRH, if you had read more of L. Ron Hubbard's stuff and listened to more of it you would have more to deconstruct.
“Think wrongly if you please, but in all cases think for yourself.”
Doris Lessing

Image

User avatar
Demented LRH
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Location: New York City, NY, USA
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Hubbard-style Word Clearing.

Post by Demented LRH » Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:33 am

^^Wieber, by the time I turned against CoS I knew very few Hubbard definitions, no more than a dozen of them. Most of this stuff is completely new to me, I am learning it now. I chose to criticize the Scientology definitions because I want to help current Scientologists understand what is wrong with their “religion”. This is extremely boring and tredious job, but I felt that I have to do it.
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.

User avatar
Demented LRH
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Location: New York City, NY, USA
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Hubbard-style Word Clearing.

Post by Demented LRH » Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:45 am

http://scientologyanswers.wordpress.com ... -glossary/


Let’s talk about the truth. I will be using the definition of truth that pelagic provided.

“Truth: Truth is the exact consideration. Truth is the exact time, place, form and event.
Consideration: a thought, a postulate about something“.

There is the word “postulate” in Hubbard’s definition of the word “consideration”, so I will begin the discussion with it.

“Postulate: a conclusion, decision or resolution made by the individual himself to resolve a problem or to set a pattern for the future or to nullify a pattern of the past. For example, a person says, “I like Model T Fords. I am never going to drive another car”. Years later, no longer consciously aware of this postulate, he will wonder why he is having so much trouble with his Buick; it is because he made an earlier promise to himself . In order to change he has to change that postulate”.

Hubbard’s English is horrific, it is almost as if he was a semi-literate person, but I will let that go.

The word “postulate” is used in physics as an equivalent of “law of physics” or “law of nature”. Usually, when a word is redefined, there is a good reason for that. Hubbard had no reason to redefine the word “postulate”, he could have used the word “decision” instead; but he, probably, wanted to impress his followers with a word that sounds so scientific and philosophical.

Half of the definition is correct; here is the correct part -- “a conclusion, decision or resolution made by the individual himself to resolve a problem”. But the second half is plain silly. Let’s take a close look at it.

“to set a pattern for the future or to nullify a pattern of the past”.
A decision does not set a pattern or nullify a pattern.

“Decide: 1. to end (contest, dispute, etc) by giving one side the victory or by passing judgment; 2. To make up one’s mind”.
Webster’s Mew World Dictionary.

No wonder why Hubbard’s example of making a postulate is an exercise in stupidity.
What kind of trouble does the person have with his Buick? Hubbard does not provide specifics because there are none. Does this mean that the person has difficulty driving Buick because in the past he made a postulate to drive Ford only? Any psychologist would tell you that once a person learns to drive a specific model, he will have no difficulty driving another model, unless his motor skills are lost because of a neurological disorder.
Does this mean that his Buick is functioning poorly? Well, in the case he should blame the used cars salesman for his mishaps, not himself for forgetting making a postulate.

Even if part of a definition is correct, the bad part outweights the good one thus making the whole definition faulty -- this is one of the basic rules of formal logic. Therefore, Hubbard was unable to give a correct definition of the word “postulate“.

Now, I move to Hubbard’s definition of the word “consideration”, which is “Consideration: a thought, a postulate about something“.

Because the word postulate is incorrectly defined, I have no choice but to shorten the definition to the this form; “Consideration: a thought about something“. This definition is weird, albeit it is logically correct.

This is what we have:
“Truth is the exact consideration. Truth is the exact time, place, form and event.
Consideration: a thought about something”.
These two definitions could be merged in one.

“Truth is the exact thought about something. Truth is the exact time, place, form and event”.

This leads to a serious question about Hubbard’s mental illness. Even a 4-year-old knows that the thought is immaterial, while the time, place and event are measurable material qualities. A thought cannot be a material event under any circumstances, unless a person who asserts the opposite is gravely mentally ill. It is known, for example, that some forms of schizophrenia are characterized by inability to make distinction between real events and mental images of unreal events (hallucinations).
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.

User avatar
Demented LRH
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Location: New York City, NY, USA
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Hubbard-style Word Clearing.

Post by Demented LRH » Wed Feb 06, 2013 3:45 pm

http://scientologyanswers.wordpress.com ... -glossary/

I am going to continue my critique of the Scientology dictionary until I debunk all major Hubbard concepts.

“Reality: that which appears to be. Reality is fundamentally agreement -- what we agree to be real is real”.

Who are “we”? Apparently, Hubbard was referring to a group of people who agree on something, which is the reality for them. But another group of people may have opposing views. Does it mean that they live in a different reality? The definition says nothing about the cases where people have opposing views on certain things. In case of mutually exclusive realities, does one reality overrule another, or are they on an equal footing? This matter is not addressed in the definition, either. The definition of reality is incomplete at best, which makes it idiotic and unusable.

For example, there are cosmological theories whose authors came to conclusion that the universe, which is currently in the state of expansion, in the future will enter the contraction stage. But there are also other theories whose authors think that the expansion stage will go on forever. Obviously, these views are mutually exclusive. But there could be only one reality unless Hubbard can expand and contract the universe at the same time.
===========================

“Suppressive person: a person who possesses a distinct set of characteristics and mental attitudes that cause him to suppress other people in his vicinity. This is a person whose behavior is calculated to be disastrous. Also called antisocial personality”.

The key word in Hubbard’s definition of “suppressive person” is the word “suppress”

“Suppress: 1. To put down by force, subdue; 2. To keep from appearing or being known 3 To abolish by authority; 4. To keep back, restrain, check (to suppress a laugh) 5. To check or stop (a flow, excretion, etc.) “
Webster’s New World Dictionary.

The only Webster’s New World Dictionary’s definition that fits Hubbard’s description of suppressive person is 1 -- To put down by force, subdue.
But it is highly unlikely that Hubbard had this definition of the word “suppress” in mind when he wrote about suppressive persons.
The original definition of suppressive person is meaningless and idiotic. Later this phrase was used to characterize anyone who was critical of Scientology and CoS. Thus the phrase had acquired a new meaning, and became properly defined as an idiom.
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.

User avatar
Demented LRH
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Location: New York City, NY, USA
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Hubbard-style Word Clearing.

Post by Demented LRH » Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:42 pm

http://scientologyanswers.wordpress.com ... -glossary/

It seems that the infamous Scientologist, Turtlez, is back. He should be able to defend the Scientology dictionary from my attacks; unless he prefers to chicken out as he always does.
=================

“Exteriorization: the state of the thetan being outside his body with or without full perception, but still able to control and handle the body. When a person goes exterior, he achieves a certainty that he is himself and not his body”.

As I have shown before, the word “thetan” is incorrectly defined and, therefore, such entity does not exist. Nevertheless, I am willing to take a look at the definition of “exteriorization”.

If one does not have a full perception, he does not know where he is located, so there is no way of telling whether he is “inside” or “outside” his body. A thing (soul or something like that) does not have bodily perceptions because, by Hubbard’s definition, it is not the body. But if it does not have bodily perceptions, then it does not know whether it is sitting inside or outside the body even if it has what Hubbard calls “full perception”, whatever that means.

This definition shows how absurd the exteriorization concept is, and why it does not word -- a person who claims that his soul has left his body is hallucinating.
=======================
Case gains: the improvements and resurgences a person experiences from auditing; any case betterment according to the pc”

Resurgences of what? The phrase is incomplete, which makes it nonsensical.
“Improvement” and “resurgence” are uncorrelated, it is possible to have one without the other. For example, a person can experience resurgence of pain in his left shoulder, which is a bad thing, and at the same time his blood pressure may be dropping down to normal levels due to unrelated factors.

Hubbard implies that if pc says he is feeling better, his general conditions also improves. But this excludes a hypothetical case of a pc feeling happy during the auditing session, while his cancer continues spreading. Why would he feel happy while his health deteriorates? Beats me! But die-hard Scientologists are notorious for saying crazy things.

This definition is meaningless because it omits very important details that could have made it workable; it is also self-contradictory
==============
Twisted words are used to express twisted concepts. Words like the lice -- they more you have, the harder is to get rid of them. But if you shave your head, you can get rid of them at once.

I shaved my head when I came across the research paper written by the NYU scientists who proved once and for all that the engrams do not exist.

When I was a Scientologist, I was interested in Dianetics only; I knew approximately 80% of the Dianetics vocabulary. Outside the Dianetics field I knew very few terms; the ones that I knew were “thetan” (oddly enough, I do not remember reading or hearing the word “theta”), “dev-T“, “as-isness” (I truly hated this awkward word), “static”, “ARC triangle”, “postulate”, “SP”, “PTS”, “sec check”, and that would be all.

Now I find the idiotic words like “beingness”, “grant beingness”, “havingness”, “reality” and other shit in a Scientology dictionary and wonder what it feels like using them on regular basis.
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.

User avatar
Demented LRH
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Location: New York City, NY, USA
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Hubbard-style Word Clearing.

Post by Demented LRH » Fri Feb 08, 2013 1:39 pm

http://scientologyanswers.wordpress.com ... -glossary/

“Charge: a harmful energy or force contained in mental image pictures of experiences painful or upsetting to the person, which is handled in auditing”.

The words “energy” and “force” imply existence of mass; otherwise, these quantities cannot be measured.

In medieval times scientists believed that the thought was some kind of liquid stored in the brain, they called it flogiston. They believed that it has a mass, and the force that it exerts on the brain could be measured. No such liquid was discovered, and the idea was abandoned in 19 century.

Hubbard picked up this old idea and tried unsuccessfully to put it in a modern form. He actually though that a mental image picture of painful experiences (engram) has a mass that could be detected. Someone quoted at ESMB the Hubbard works with description of the engram weight. The idea was so stupid that we all were having a field day with it.
============================

“Floating needle: a rhythmic sweep of the needle on an E-meter dial at a slow, even pace back and forth, back and forth. A floating needle means that the charge on a subject being audited has dissipated, and is one of the indications of a process being complete”.

The phrases “rhythmic” sweep and “slow, even pace” are highly subjective -- what seems rhythmic to some may seem arhythmic to others; what seems slow, even pace to some may seem fast and uneven to others. No wonder why different auditors interpret the needle motion differently. I know at least one case of a person being sent to RPF and two days later being sent back to AHSO Foundation because the first auditor thought that she had withholds, while the second one concluded that she was not withholding anything.

“Back and forth” is unscientific expression because it does not provide specifics of the movement. A correct expression would be, for instance, the following, “the needle, while moving to the right, should reach the 50 mA mark, and on its movement to the left should go beyond the 45 mA mark” (here, mA stands for mil-Ampere ).

This is the most disturbing part -- as I have shown earlier, the word “charge” is incorrectly defined; nothing in the subject is getting dissipated, and the desired effect is not produced. Do not let the “floating needle” effect fool you -- the E-meter readings are meaningless, the purpose of having them is to part the pc with his hard-earned money.
===============================


“E-meter: a specially designed instrument which helps the auditor and preclear locate areas of spiritual distress or travail. The E-meter is a religious artifact and can only be used by Scientology ministers or ministers- in- training. It does not diagnose or cure anything. It measures the mental state or change of state in a person and thus is of benefit to the auditor in helping the preclear locate areas to be handled”.

In his infamous Dianetics book (book 1) Hubbard wrote that Dianetics is not a religion, which means, among other things, that the E-meter is not a spiritual device. Obviously, Hubbard contradicted himself, which is so typical of him.

Now, I am going to reveal one of the biggest Scientology secrets that the Church does not want you to know -- the E-meter is an uncalibrated Wheatstone bridge.
For more info on the E-meter and Wheatstone bridge follow these links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-meter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheatstone_bridge

The word “uncalibrated”, when applied to the Wheatstone bridge, indicates that its resistors are chosen incorrectly.

When a disconnected Wheatstone bridge is calibrated, V = 0 (see the Wikipedia picture).

During the measurement of a current or resistance, the apparatus’ needle reaches a mark on the dial and stays there moving ever so slightly.

But when the Wheatstone bridge is not calibrated, it produces so-called floating needle effect when a person holds the cans.

This is a fucking deception designed to fool the unsuspecting Scientologists.
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.

User avatar
Demented LRH
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Location: New York City, NY, USA
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Hubbard-style Word Clearing.

Post by Demented LRH » Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:42 pm

http://scientologyanswers.wordpress.com ... -glossary/

“Affinity: the degree of liking or affection or lack of it. It is the feeling of love or liking for something or someone”.
Hubbard

“Affinity: a natural liking or sympathy; esp. a mutual attraction between a man and a woman”.
Webster’s New World Dictionary.

Hubbard tried to redefine the word “affinity” but ended up with completely unworkable definition. Affection or lack of it -- what does it mean? Lack of affection would be either indifference or contempt or hate. Any of these terms is an opposite of affinity. Being an idiot, Hubbard produced a self-contradictory definition.
================================

“ARC triangle: a triangle which is a symbol of the fact that affinity, reality and communication act together to bring about understanding. No point of the triangle can be raised without also raising without two other points, and no point of it can be lowered without also lowering the other two points”.

Reality cannot be raised or lowered because it is neither a feeling nor an understanding of something. In fact, no amount of affinity and/or communication can change the reality because it is independent of these qualities.
I have shown earlier that Hubbard’s definition of reality is false and should not be used.

The Scientology word “affinity” is also incorrectly defined, which leaves only one point, communication, in the “ARC triangle”. The whole triangle had degenerated to a single point because of Hubbard’s idiotism.
========================
“Dwindling spiral: a condition characterized by continuous worsening, decreasing or shrinking”.

This definition shows that Hubbard’s linguistic skills were extremely poor. According to the norms of the English language, one must specify the entity with the worsening conditions. A correct phrase would be “a condition characterized by continuous worsening of patient’s health“.
====================
“Invalidate: refute, degrade, discredit or deny something someone else considers to be fact”.

To start with, the word “degrade” is not used in reference to a fact; apparently, Hubbard did not know its meaning. A fact cannot be discredited, either -- it is either accepted or not

The phrase “something someone else considers to be fact” is rather strange, but logically acceptable. However, the introduction of the word “invalidate” is unnecessary because it does not add anything new to what is already known.

“Invalidate: to make invalid; deprive of legal force”
Webster’s New World Dictionary.
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.

User avatar
Demented LRH
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Location: New York City, NY, USA
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Hubbard-style Word Clearing.

Post by Demented LRH » Sat Feb 09, 2013 10:19 pm

http://scientologyanswers.wordpress.com ... -glossary/

“Analytical mind: that part of the mind which one consciously uses and is aware of it. It is the portion of the mind which thinks, observes data, remembers it and resolves problems”.
Hubbard

“Mind: 1. Memory, recollection or remembrance; 2. The thinking and perceiving part of consciousness, intellect or intelligence”.
Webster’s New World Dictionary.

This is an exceptionally rare event -- Hubbard’s definition of analytical mind does not contain logical errors. His all other definitions are illogical.
However, what Hubbard dictionary defines as analytical mind all other dictionaries define simply as mind; the term “analytical mind” is not used outside Scientology, which makes it an oddity. The word “analytical”, when applied to the mind, is a logical redundancy, although it is not a logical error.
=====================================

“Reactive mind: that part of the mind which works on a totally stimulus-response basis, which is not under a person’s volitional control, and which exerts force and the power of command over his awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and actions“.

Every psychologist and physiologist would tell you that the entire mind works “on a totally stimulus-response basis” -- a person responds to constant changes in the environment. This characteristic is not unique to Hubbard’s reactive mind, and should not be used in its definition.

The fact that a person has freedom of choice is indisputable. It is impossible to predict one’s actions with 100% certainty, although is possible to estimate the probability of a particular response to changes in person’s environment.

But Hubbard suggests that there are responses to environmental changes which are completely predictable because the person cannot exercise his free choice in certain circumstances. However, our idiot failed to provide empirical data supporting his hypothesis. In fact, the experiment showing that Hubbard’s hypothesis is false is fairly easy to perform -- the experimenter could ask the subject to repeat after him any number of phrases or even to perform any number of harmless tasks, and the subject will do everything expected from him, there is nothing that would “exert force and the power of command” on him and prevent him from doing what he was asked to do.
=====================================

“Engram: a recording made by the reactive mind when a person is “unconscious”. An engram is not a memory -- it is a particular type of mental image picture which is a complete recording, down to the last accurate detail, of every perception present in a moment of partial or full “unconsciousness””.

Hubbard uses quotation marks around the word “unconscious”, which is an indication that this word is not used in its regular sense. But what does it mean? There is no definition of it, which makes the definition of the word “engram” flawed.
Things get even worse when Hubbard uses the phrase ‘partial or full “unconsciousness”’ without defining the states of partial and full “unconsciousness”.

One either remembers events or does not remember them, there is no other choice. Recording of a mental picture is a memorization of event that corresponds to it. But Hubbard says that such recording, under certain circumstances, is not a function of the memory, which is absurd. If this recording is not a memory then it cannot be recalled, no amount of auditing can cause a recollection of it.
Hubbard made elementary logical errors due to his stupidity and unfamiliarity with the rules of formal logic. Here the rule is very simple -- there are only two mutually exclusive states, memorization of event and absence of memorization of event; a state that is neither the memorization nor the lack of it is incorrectly defined and, therefore, does not exist.
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.

User avatar
Demented LRH
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Location: New York City, NY, USA
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Hubbard-style Word Clearing.

Post by Demented LRH » Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:36 pm

http://scientologyanswers.wordpress.com ... -glossary/

“Mental image pictures: three-dimensional pictures which are continuously made by the mind, moment by moment, containing color, sound and smell, as well as other perceptions. They also include the conclusions or speculations of the individual. Mental image pictures are composed of energy, have mass, exist in space and follow definite routines of behavior the most interesting of which is the fact that they appear when someone thinks of something”.

All three-dimensional objects can be touched, weighted, moved and measured. So far no one was able to measure or weight a mental image picture because it does not have a mass and size -- it is not a part of the material world. Because it does not have mass, it does not have energy. All these basic facts are known to everyone except for Hubbard the Imbecile. He was saying crazy things without realizing how ridiculously he sounded.
=============================================

“Overt: a harmful act or a transgression against the moral code of a group. When a person does something that is something contrary to the moral code he has agreed to, or when he omits to do something that he should have done per that moral code, he has committed an overt. An overt violates what was agreed upon. An overt can be intentional or unintentional”.

This definition begs an interesting question -- what happens if, after initial agreement with a moral code, the person disagrees with it? Then he no longer has an overt!

Scientologists who violate the Hubbard moral code have overts. But anti-Scientologists who disagree with the Hubbard moral code do not have overts.
If you do not want to have overts, become a critic of CoS.
======================
After Book 1 was published, the psychologists saw clearly that definitions of reactive mind and engram had major logical flaws and were completely unworkable. Then came a confirmation the form of empirical study done by NYU psychologists who demonstrated the engrams do not exist.
Here is another confirmation of the fact that the engrams are unreal:

“Catapulted from obscurity, Hubbard decided in the summer of 1950 to prove in a big way that his new "science" was for real.

He appeared before a crowd of thousands at the Shrine Auditorium to unveil the "world's first clear," a person he said had achieved a perfect memory. Journalists from numerous newspapers and magazines were there to document the event.

He placed on display one Sonya Bianca, a young Boston physics major. But when Hubbard allowed the audience to question her, she performed dismally.

Someone, for example, told Hubbard to turn his back while the girl was asked to describe the color of his tie. There was silence. The world's first clear drew a blank.

"It was a tremendous embarrassment for Hubbard and his friends at the time," recalled Arthur Jean Cox, a science fiction buff who attended the presentation.

http://www.lermanet.com/scientologynews ... lat-1a.htm
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.

User avatar
Demented LRH
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Location: New York City, NY, USA
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Hubbard-style Word Clearing.

Post by Demented LRH » Wed Feb 13, 2013 8:19 pm

“The next step was improving our understanding of small, common words. We used a five-inch-thick dictionary written by LRH that contained any common word you could think of, words like “it”, “the”, “yes”, “no”, “up”, “of” and “out” “
Jenna Miscavige.

What kind of word clearing is this? I have never heard about this shit before. Has anyone undergone this idiotic procedure?
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.

Post Reply
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Return to “Opinions & Debate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests