Hubbard and Korzybski

caroline · **Posted:** Mon Feb 14, 2011 7:17 pm

Thanks Phobos.

Hubbard's 1952 review of Dianetics include statements about the relationship between Dianetics and General Semantics.

L. Ron Hubbard wrote:

The earliest stages of Dianetics (it might amuse you) came when a study of General Semantics indicated that there was some possibility that words themselves were very aberrative — just words. And the first effort of Dianetics, along the line of going back down the time track and so forth, was to clarify the definitions which people had of certain words, was to de-emotionalize words. That was its first effort. And by the way, to this day you can take a patient and work with a patient for many hours (maybe ten or fifteen hours), redefining words — just that — and then finding out where he heard this word first, where he learned it and so on, and then running him through the incident.

And you will find out every word he gets wrong, or every word he fails to hear when you are talking to him, occurred in an emotional incident or occurred at a time when he was punished for having defined it or misdefined it, like in school and so on.

That is still a therapy; I mean, you can still work with this therapy.

However, one parted company very, very swiftly with semantics on this basis: Semantics believes that words are labels and that you must differentiate between the object and the label. That is all very well, but words are actually descriptive code phrases of existing states or states of change or potential states of change. There is not just the label.

There is something more to General Semantics. They claim that words are undefined, that people cannot define certain words, and that when you talk in an undefinable term the other person can’t understand what you are saying.

And again, this is not quite right; it is very close. But what happens is a person gets an emotional charge surrounding a word and then and thereafter is incapable of facing the word as a definition. It becomes an emotional state to him.

You take a Republican talking about a Democrat: Republicans back in the thirties, you used to say, “Well now, Franklin Delano Roosevelt…” You got no further than that with an industrialist, or something, up in Wall Street — no further than that — and he would say, “That blankety-blank Roosevelt!” and he would start to explode.

And you say, “Why don’t you conduct a campaign to lick the Democrats along the line of the fact that this shouldn’t be a socialism, that American freedom, way of life and so forth . . . And you can then demonstrate that the policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt “
“That blankety-blank Roosevelt!” That is all you would get. And so the Republicans can’t win. But it isn’t because they don’t know what Franklin Delano Roosevelt means — they know what that means — but the subject has been surrounded with so much emotion that they won’t permit it to be used, even in their own minds, as a definition.

All undefinables have precision definitions. Every word in the English language is precisely defined, and every human being, if he is not terribly emotional about it, can get the definition for that word.

Voltaire, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, did a very good job of defining freedom, liberty, democracy. You go back through their letters, you find this definition repeated over and over and over. They are not undefinable words, but they are emotional words.[1]

So, there is an old therapy in Dianetics.

Hubbard, L. R. (1952, 25 February). Review of Progress of Dianetics and Dianetics Business. Summary Course, (5202C25A). Wichita, Kansas.

[1] Desensitizing “emotional" words is a basic feature in Hubbard's “study tech,” “word-clearing tech,” and a wide array of "corrective" actions. See, e.g., HCOB 7 November 1978RB Word Clearing Series 35RI Word Clearing Correction List.

Another example is Method 1 "word clearing," which when applied causes an emotional "re-wiring" related to former authorities on a very broad range of subjects. Below is the basic list of subjects, to which technical delivery personnel add items that deal with the specific preclear's life.

L. Ron Hubbard wrote:

Method One Word Clearing is the audited action of locating and clearing out of the way the basic word and meaning errors of the past. The value of doing this can be appreciated when one realizes that with Method One Word Clearing whole subjects and even entire educations that were not understood at the time can be recovered. It is a vital action for any student or preclear.

[...]

RELIGION ____________ THE MIND ____________
MINISTERS ____________ THE SPIRIT ____________
CHURCH ____________ BODIES ____________
COLLEGE ____________ SEX ____________
SCHOOLS ____________ THE INSANE ____________
SACRIFICES ____________ PSYCHIATRY ____________
SURGERY ____________ PSYCHOANALYSIS ____________
MEDICINE ____________ PSYCHOLOGY ____________
ELECTRONICS ____________ RITUALS ____________
PHYSICS ____________ RITES ____________
TECHNICAL SUBJECTS ____________ SHIPS ____________
DIANETICS ____________ THE SEA ____________
SCIENTOLOGY ____________ MILITARY ____________
THEOLOGY ____________ ARMIES ____________
THEOSOPHY ____________ NAVIES ____________
PHILOSOPHY ____________ STARS ____________
LAW ____________ HEAVENLY BODIES ____________
ORGANIZATION ____________ THE UNIVERSE ____________
GOVERNMENT ____________ PLANES ____________
WRITTEN MATERIALS ____________ VEHICLES ____________
TEXT BOOKS ____________ MACHINERY ____________
PRACTICE ____________ MOTORS ____________
SCIENCE ____________ ADMINISTRATION ____________
MUSIC ____________ HEALING ____________
ARITHMETIC ____________ ILLNESSES ____________
GRAMMAR ____________ SPOKEN WORDS ____________
THE HUMANITIES ____________ TAPES ____________

Hubbard, L. R. (1971, 30 June). Standard C/S for Word Clearing in Session Method One. The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology (1991 ed., Vol. IX, pp. 420-426). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

Hubbard claimed in the same issue that "a good job on Method One can give back a person's education and send his intelligence quotient up." These techniques do not "give back a person's education," or raise IQ, but instead act to replace former "authorities" with Hubbard, and his "superior" tech, viewpoints, prejudices, etc. Remember that the goal of Scientologists, as expressed by CSI in 1996 is not to "recover" one's former education, but to become "living embodiments of LRH technology." (Ref. GAT Brochure).

Cf. General Semantics & Education: http://www.generalsemantics.org/index.php/gslc/general-semantics-other-fields.html

caroline · **Posted:** Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:57 pm

I've assembled a collection of Hubbard excerpts on Korzybski, General Semantics, etc. in the "Sourcery" section. This collection shows Hubbard's continued attention on General Semantics, and hopefully helps clarify the significant role of G.S. in Scientology's formation and its scripture.

caroline · **Posted:** Wed Apr 06, 2011 7:09 pm

I thought I'd add this interesting letter to Senator S. I. Hayakawa, from the declassified FBI files. Hayakawa was a leading proponent of General Semantics and wrote a very useful critique of Dianetics in 1951.

Benjamin R. Civiletti, Assistant Attorney General wrote:

November 30, 1977

Honorable S. I. Hayakawa
United States Senate
Washington, D. C.

Dear Senator Hayakawa:

Your letter of October 18, 1977, has been referred to the Criminal Division. You attached a mailgram from [name blacked out] complaining of the "brutality" of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in executing search warrants against Church of Scientology premises in California and asked for our comment.

On July 18, 1977, the Federal Bureau of Investigation executed search warrants at three offices of the Church of Scientology in Washington, D. C. and Los Angeles. The warrants were based on information supplied by an official of the Guardian's office of the Church of Scientology who had been discovered using a fraudulent Internal Revenue Service identification. The informant detailed instances of thefts of copies of government documents and the subsequent endeavor to obstruct a grand jury investigation. Although the United States District Court for the District of Columbia found that the warrant was patterned after one approved by the Supreme Court in Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463 (1976), it found the Andresen case inapplicable to searches for evidence of an illegal conspiracy and suppressed the fruits of the search. In re Search Warrant Dated July 4, 1977, Misc. No. 77-0151 (D.D.C., July 27, 1977). The United States District Court for the Central District of California never reached the constitutional issue. Instead it held that the District of Columbia decision collaterally estopped the government from litigating

CC: [1/2 line blacked out]
Federal Bureau of Investigation

-2-

the constitutionality of the California warrants. United States v. Various Documents Seized from the Church of Scientology, No. CV-77-2565 (C.D. Cal., Aug. [8], 1977). The government has appealed both decisions.

Allegations of use of excessive force in the execution of the search warrants will be the subject of further litigation in the pending criminal matters should the United States prevail on appeal. Such allegations are also the subject of pending civil suits. Unlike the facts surrounding the issuance of the warrants, there is no information that has been made public concerning the execution of the warrants. Consequently, in accord with the long-standing policy of the Department of Justice, we regret that we can not comment substantively upon the allegations. However, we are confident that the government's actions in this matter will be vindicated.

Your enclosure is returned herewith.

Very truly yours,

Benjamin R. Civiletti
Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division

Enclosure

Civiletti, B., (1977, 30 November). Letter to S. I. Hayakawa. Retrieved on 6 April 2011 from http://usminc.org/FBIFILES/TWO/020023.pdf and http://usminc.org/FBIFILES/TWO/020024.pdf

caroline · **Posted:** Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:37 am

In another thread about clay demos and Hubbard's "dementia," I discovered the "smoking pencil" that demonstrated the connection between Hubbard's clay demo tech and Korzybski's labeling tech in Science and Sanity. I also mentioned that the first clay demo I did in Scientology was on the HQS (Hubbard Qualified Scientologist) course. The requirement to do a clay demo of a pencil still appears as a checksheet item on the current HQS Course in Indie Scientology.

HQS Checksheet wrote:

SECTION I:
STUDY TECH BASICS

[…]

16. HCOB 11 Oct. 67 CLAY TABLE TRAINING ____ ____ ____

17. HCOB 10 Dec 70RA I CLAY TABLE WORK IN
Rev. 25.7.87 TRAINING ____ ____ ____

18. CLAY DEMO: Do a clay demo of a pencil as described in
the bulletin. Show this to the Course Supervisor. ____ ____ ____

Independent Checksheets Foundation. (2011, 17 February). THE INDEPENDENT HUBBARD QUALIFIED SCIENTOLOGIST (HQS) COURSE. Scientology-cult.com. Retrieved on 25 July 2011 from http://www.megaupload.com/?d=PWWACZCG

The bulletin that describes the pencil is HCOB 11 October 1967 Clay Table Training. I'll post it here.

Hubbard wrote:

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 11 OCTOBER 1967

Remimeo

CLAY TABLE TRAINING

PURPOSE:
1. To make the materials being studied real to the student by making him DEMONSTRATE them in clay.

2. To give a proper balance of mass and significance.

3. To teach the student to apply.

The student is given a word or auditing action or situation to demonstrate. He then does this in clay, labeling each part. The clay SHOWS the thing. It is not just a blob of clay with a label on it. Use small strips of paper for labels. The whole demonstration then has a label of what it is.

On the checkout, the student removes the overall label. The student must be silent. The examiner must not ask any questions.

The examiner just looks and figures out what it is. He then tells the student who then shows the examiner the label. If the examiner did not see what it was, it is a flunk.

Clay table must not be reduced to significance by the student explaining or answering questions. Nor is it reduced to significance by long-winded labels of individual parts. The clay shows it, not the label.

The clay demonstrates it. The student must learn the difference between mass and significance.

For example, the student has to demonstrate a pencil. He makes a thin roll of clay which is surrounded by another layer of clay—the thin roll sticking slightly out of one end. On the other end goes a small cylinder of clay. The roll is labeled "lead." The outer layer is labeled "wood." The small cylinder is labeled "rubber." Then a label is made for the whole thing: "pencil." On checkout the student removes "pencil" before the examiner can see it. If the examiner can look at it and say "It's a pencil," the student passes.

It might also be noted that checkouts on bulletins must also ask for demonstrations. Use paper clips, rubber bands, etc. The examiner should ask questions that require an ability to apply. Give the student a situation and have him tell you how he would handle it.

Questions about what is rule "a" do not detect the glib student. Long-winded explanations on clay table put it back into significance, prevent the student from learning to apply, and prevent the student from getting the proper balance of mass, and do not blow confusion.

All checkouts must keep in mind that the purpose is application, not just getting a checksheet complete.

If clay table training is not brightening that student up, then the above is NOT being done. Someone is in such a rush that real learning is being put aside for the sake of speed.

This student has to audit with his materials. Don't let him fall flat by lousy checkouts and lousy demonstrations. A well done clay demo, which actually does demonstrate, will produce a marvelous change in that student. And he will retain the data.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

Hubbard, L. (1967, 11 October). Clay Table Training. Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology, (1991 ed., Vol. VIII, pp. 125-6). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

Here again is Korzybski's pencil example:

In Science and Sanity, Alfred Korzybski wrote:

CHAPTER XXV
ON THE STRUCTURAL DIFFERENTIAL

[…]

If we take something, anything, let us say the object already referred to, called 'pencil', and enquire what it represents, according to science 1933, we find that the 'scientific object' represents an 'event', a mad dance of 'electrons', which is different every instant, which never repeats itself, which is known to consist of extremely complex dynamic processes of very fine structure, acted upon by, and reacting upon, the rest of the universe, inextricably connected with everything else and dependent on everything else. If we enquire how many characteristics (m.o) we should ascribe to such an event, the only possible answer is that we should ascribe to an event infinite numbers of characteristics, as it represents a process which never stops in one form or another; neither, to the best of our knowledge, does it repeat itself.

In our diagram, Fig. 1, we indicate this by a parabola (A), which is supposed to extend indefinitely, which extension we indicate by a broken off line (B). We symbolize the characteristics by small circles (C), the number of which is obviously indefinitely great.

Underneath, we symbolize the 'object' by the circle (O), which has a finite size. The characteristics of the object we also denote by similar little circles (C′). The number of characteristics which an object has is large but finite, and is denoted by the finite number of the small circles (C′).

Then we attach a label to the object, its name, let us say 'pencil1', which we indicate in our diagram by the label (L). We ascribe, also, characteristics to the labels, and we indicate these characteristics by the little circles (C″).

The number of characteristics which we ascribe by definition to the label is still smaller than the number of characteristics the object has. To the label 'Pencil 1 ' we would ascribe, perhaps, its length, thickness, shape, colour, hardness,. But we would mostly disregard the accidental characteristics, such as a scratch on its surface, or the kind of glue by which the two wooden parts of the objective 'pencil' are held together,. If we want an objective 'pencil' and come to a shop to purchase one, we say so and specify verbally only these characteristics which are of particular immediate interest to us.

It is clear that the object is often of interest to us for some special characteristics of immediate usefulness or value. If we enquire as to the neurological processes involved in registering the object, we find that the nervous system has abstracted, from the infinite numbers of sub-microscopic characteristics of the event, a large but finite number of macroscopic characteristics. In purchasing a 'pencil' we usually are not interested in its smell or taste. But if we were interested in these abstractions, we would have to find the smell and the taste of our object by experiment.

But this is not all. The object represents in this language a gross macroscopic abstraction, for our nervous system is not adapted for abstracting directly the infinite numbers of characteristics which the endlessly complex dynamic fine structure of the event represents. We must consider the object as a 'first abstraction' (with a finite number of characteristics) from the infinite numbers of characteristics an event has. The above considerations are in perfect accord not only with the functioning of the nervous system but also with its structure. Our nervous system registers objects with its lower centres first, and each of these lower specific abstractions we call an object. If we were to define an object, we should have to say that an object represents a first abstraction with a finite number of m.o characteristics from the infinite numbers of m.o characteristics an event has.

Obviously, if our inspection of the object is through the lower nervous centres, the number of characteristics which the object has is larger (taste, smell., of our pencil1) than the number of characteristics which we need to ascribe to the label. The label, the importance of which lies in its meanings to us, represents a still higher abstraction from the event, and usually labels, also, a semantic reaction. (pp. 387-389)

Korzybski, A. (1933). Science and Sanity. Brooklyn, NY, Institute of General Semantics.

With Scientology, as with General Semantics in an oddly similar way, "the word is not the thing." Hubbard's clay demo procedure supposedly causes the student to balance the mass of the thing with its corresponding significance or meaning. The thing (pencil) is reduced to its grossest recognizable characteristics, each part (rubber, lead, wood) being represented by a separate blob or piece of clay, and each clay part given a unique label stuck to the clay part. Then an overall label is added to the demo, which is basically the overall statement being represented per checksheet requirement. The overall label for the lead, wood, eraser, etc., is "pencil."

Where a progression toward complexity is given a positive value in Science and Sanity, this is not so with Scientology. Hubbard always tended to encourage Scientologists to reduce things to their simplicity.

Hubbard wrote:

In some researches I have been doing recently in the field of study, I have found what appears to be the basic law on complexity.

It is:
THE DEGREE OF COMPLEXITY IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE DEGREE OF NONCONFRONT.

Reversing this:

THE DEGREE OF SIMPLICITY IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE DEGREE OF CONFRONT and

THE BASIS OF ABERRATION IS A NONCONFRONT.

[…]

Processing is a series of methods arranged on an increasingly deep scale of bringing the preclear to confront the no-confront sources of his aberrations and leading thus to a simple, powerful, effective being.

Hubbard, L. (1967, 18 September). HCOPL Complexity and Confronting. Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology, (1991 ed., Vol VIII, pp. 113-5). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

As the above suggests, Scientology processing seeks to "rehabilitate" the being from complexity to simplicity. Ultimately, the complexity of beings is "resolved" at the advanced levels by removing body thetans, the entities responsible for adding all manner of extraneous and unwanted complexity to their hosts. Operating Thetans are supposedly beings who have been returned to their native simplicity.

The cartoonish simplicity of "Operating Thetans" is reflected both in the training materials and in the regressive design features of DM's "Ideal" facilities such as Applied Scholastics International in Spanish Lake.

Solutions 14 wrote:

In searching for an image of a clay demo, I came upon this astute remark and drawing from another forum.

JackFrost2012 wrote:

Many Scientology courses (especially the Key to Life Course) include clay table work. The student is asked to illustrate ideas by modeling them in clay, a ridiculously simplistic approach to understanding abstract concepts. The real purpose of this exercise is to foster a kind of age regression, making the student more suggestible and hence more easily indoctrinated into the cult's worldview.

Retrieved on 27 July 2011 from http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1521464&postcount=56

Demented LRH · **Posted:** Thu Jul 28, 2011 11:45 am

Korzybski did not say anything about removal/treatment of engrams, I am not even sure if he invented the word “engram”. Hubbard grossly misunderstood the works of Korzybski and misapplied them.

Demented LRH · **Posted:** Thu Jul 28, 2011 1:39 pm

Dr Sacks explained to me why the "reactive mind" with its engrams does not exist. For more info see my thread, The Dianetics Fiasco, at WWP

Demented LRH · **Posted:** Thu Jul 28, 2011 4:18 pm

The Dianetics Fiasco
------------
Ex-Scientologists know that the reactive mind with its engrams is a figment of Hubbard’s overactive imagination fueled by large doses of barbiturates and other nonprescription drugs. On top of that Hubbard was suffering from mental dementia; in other words, he was a complete idiot. But practicing Scientologists who read my article may not know that and think that I am prone to exaggerations.

The best way to find out that engrams are not real is to ask a professional about them (by “professional” I mean a trained psychologist, not a Dianetics auditor). I did just that. I was lucky to have a conversation with a world renowned psychologist, Dr. Oliver Sacks. There is an excellent Wikipedia article about Dr. Sacks. The movie Awakening is based on Dr. Sacks’ autobiographic book, it stars Robin Williams as Dr. Sacks. Although he was born and raised in England, these days Dr. Sacks works at Columbia University in New York City. I live in NYC, too.

I met Dr. Sacks at one of his public lectures at Columbia Univ. After the lecture was over D. Sacks was taking questions from the audience. I asked him if he is familiar with Dianetics. The answer was positive. After that I asked him what he thinks about the reactive mind. Dr. Sacks said that he would like to discuss that topic with me after the seminar because majority of the audience is not familiar with Dianetics. We had a 30-minute conversation after the lecture.

Dr. Sacks explained to me in metaphorical terms why the reactive mind does not exist. He said, “A geodesist can draw a demarcation line on a piece of land, and everybody can see it. But it is impossible to draw a borderline on a body of water. Mind is like a river, it is impossible to circumvent one part of it and say -- this is reactive mind, and the rest is analytical mind. The mind is indivisible because it cannot be divided into parts by any empirical means. The mind in its completeness is either reactive or analytical. If it is reactive, then we all are screwed. But we are not -- we can function. This means that only analytical mind exists, there is no place for reactive mind.”.

In 1970s Dr. Sacks participated in scientific investigation of Hubbard’s Dianetics procedures done at Columbia Univ. “Dianetics is a sham, Ron Hubbard is a charlatan”, he said. Well, I knew that already.

“Only a WOG would ask why Clears wear glasses”, said David Howsen at one of his Scientology seminars at CoS of Los Angeles. The Scientology audience responded with laughter. I was the only person who was not laughing. I was out of Sea Org at that time, but I still believed in Standard Tech. I was wondering what the correct answer to this question would be, so I asked David, “What should I tell to a WOG who wants to know why Clears wear glasses?”. “Oh, tell him go f--- yourself!”, he said. The audience burst into laughter.

In his “pioneering” book, Dianetics, Hubbard promises to cure ALL psycho-somatic illnesses including psoriasis, aneurism, low blood pressure, and a host of other illnesses -- the list is half-page long. None of it is true; Hubbard was bullshitting the readers including myself. Now the ex-Scientologists are free form his crap. I want active Scientologists to join our ranks by leaving the cult behind.
Hubbard claimed that he used Dianetics to cure his war wounds. As his military record shows, he was not wounded at the war. The Old Scratch lied about his military record and about everything else.

peter · **Posted:** Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:14 pm

caroline wrote:

Fascinating, Peter. I don't know whether what Winter said is correct about Korzybski's "therapeutic" methods. However, Dianetics and Scientology auditors do pay close attention to mental content identified by "instant" E-Meter reactions. The timing of E-Meter reads is very important, although as it turns out, Hubbard did not discover why this is so.

Hubbard wrote:

AUDITING BY LISTS You are looking for an instant read that occurs at the end of the exact syllable of the question. If the question reads look expectantly at the pc. You can repeat the question by just saying it again if pc doesn’t begin to talk. (HCOB 3 Jul 71)

Hubbard, L. R., (1975) Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary. Los Angeles: Church of Scientology of California Publications Organization.

Here's Hubbard's explanation for why instant reads are taken up.

Hubbard wrote:

Now an E-Meter reacts only on the reactive mind. A Clear doesn’t react because he is able to be conscious. An aberree reacts because he can’t think without thought exciting the reactivity of the reactive mind. This, being composed of mass, energy, space, time and thought, responds to tiny electrical impulses.

If your auditing was not aimed at reactivity it would not register on a meter. Thus, you run what reacts because it reacts and is therefore part of the reactive mind.

The reactive mind responds instantly on data a billion years ago. How is this? Time in the reactive mind is out of order. So is Space. So is matter, so is energy. Pin a sign on the reactive mind: “Out of Order”. It connects wrong connections. Hence, the E-Meter.

What is wrong with the pc is not known to the pc. Therefore if a pc knows all about it, it isn’t wrong with him.

Hubbard, L. R. (1961, 8 June). E-Meter Watching Are You Waiting for the Meter to Play Dixie? The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology (1991 ed., Vol. VI, pp. 208-210). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

Carl Jung timed galvanometer responses in his word association experiments, and recorded some very interesting findings in Experimental Researches. (I believe galvanometers were not then able to record instant reactions.)

Jung wrote:

I. STUDIES IN WORD ASSOCIATION THE REACTION-TIME RATIO IN THE EXPERIMENT

GENERAL RECAPITULATION

637 A. In time-measurements, using a stop-watch, made with both educated and uneducated subjects, the average reaction time came out at 1.8 seconds.

B. The times of male subjects (1.6 seconds) are on average shorter than those of female subjects (2.9 seconds).

C. Similarly, the times of educated subjects (1.5 seconds) are, on average, shorter than those of the uneducated (2.0 seconds).

D. The quality of the stimulus-word exerts a certain influence on the reaction-time. The average shortest times follow concrete nouns (1.67 seconds), the longest follow abstract nouns and verbs (1.95 and 1.90 seconds). Educated men form an exception to this rule in that with them it is usually the concrete nouns that are followed by the longest times.

E. The quality of the reaction also seems to have a certain influence on the length of the reaction-time. The longest times occur with abstract nouns (1.98 seconds), the shortest with adjectives and verbs (1.65 and 1.66 seconds). Concrete nouns (1.81 seconds) are in the middle. Educated men here again are the exception in that their longest time occurs with concrete nouns.

F. The quality of the association has a distinct influence on the reaction-time. Internal associations command a longer reaction-time than external ones. Sound reactions generally show relatively long times because they are abnormal and owe their appearance to certain disturbances occasioned by inner distractions.

G. Those reaction-times that exceed the probable mean are for the most part caused by the eruption of intense emotions associated with individually important complex-images. The subject is mostly unaware of the reason for the prolonged reaction-time. Hence, too, long reaction-times can serve as a means of uncovering emotionally charged complexes, both conscious and unconscious. (Important in hysteria!)

H. Prolonged reaction-times tend to follow certain stimulus-words. About 83 per cent of these are mainly characterized by their affective value, whereas only about 17 per cent cause prolonged reaction-times on account of their difficulty or rarity.

638 Very frequently the dying away of the feeling-tone is shown and it extends to the subsequent reactions which are thereby disturbed (perseveration).

Jung, C. G. (1973). Experimental researches. [Princeton, N.J.]: Princeton University Press.

Soderqvist1: is this a possible answer to why the said timing of E-Meter reads is very important?

Wikipedia Unconscious processes and the unconscious mind
Some neuroscientific research supports the proposition of the unconscious mind. For example, researchers at Columbia University Medical Center have found that fleeting images of fearful faces—images that appear and disappear so quickly that they escape conscious awareness—produce unconscious anxiety that can be detected in the brain with the latest neuroimaging machines. The conscious mind is hundreds of milliseconds behind the unconscious processes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconsciou ... cious_mind

Science and Sanity Page 156
When we introduce explicitly the finite velocity of nervous impulses (on the average, 120 metres per second in the human nerves), we are able to reach a perfectly clear understanding, in terms of order, of the spread of impulses. Some 'infinite velocity' does not involve order. Conversely, by considering the order of events, we introduce finite velocities. We shall see later that 'infinite velocity' is meaningless and so all actual happenings can be ordered. The above is an important factor in our s.r.
http://www.rodsmith.org.uk/alfred-korzy ... 200356.htm

caroline · **Posted:** Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:47 pm

peter wrote:

Soderqvist1: is this a possible answer to why the said timing of E-Meter reads is very important?

Wikipedia Unconscious processes and the unconscious mind
Some neuroscientific research supports the proposition of the unconscious mind. For example, researchers at Columbia University Medical Center have found that fleeting images of fearful faces—images that appear and disappear so quickly that they escape conscious awareness—produce unconscious anxiety that can be detected in the brain with the latest neuroimaging machines. The conscious mind is hundreds of milliseconds behind the unconscious processes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconsciou ... cious_mind

Science and Sanity Page 156
When we introduce explicitly the finite velocity of nervous impulses (on the average, 120 metres per second in the human nerves), we are able to reach a perfectly clear understanding, in terms of order, of the spread of impulses. Some 'infinite velocity' does not involve order. Conversely, by considering the order of events, we introduce finite velocities. We shall see later that 'infinite velocity' is meaningless and so all actual happenings can be ordered. The above is an important factor in our s.r.
http://www.rodsmith.org.uk/alfred-korzy ... 200356.htm

Yes, Peter, I think we're "in the ball park." The galvanic skin response that registers instantly on emotionally charged content relates to people's "limbic" reactions. (IANAMHP)

Wikipedia wrote:

Amygdala hijack is a term coined by Daniel Goleman in his 1996 book Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ.[1] Drawing on the work of Joseph E. LeDoux, Goleman uses the term to describe emotional responses from people which are immediate and overwhelming, and out of measure with the actual stimulus because it has triggered a much more significant emotional threat.[2]

'"Anatomically the emotional system can act independently of the neocortex," LeDoux told me. "Some emotional reactions and emotional responses can be formed without any conscious, cognitive participation...because the shortcut from thalamus to amygdyla completely bypasses the neocortex"'.[3]

And it seems to me also that the "semantic pause" of GS avoids this "Amygdala hijack."

Milton Dawes wrote:

Structuring our Structurings

A structure exists as part of other structures. We can structure other structurings. From a psycho-grammatical viewpoint (1), a second structuring has the first as its object. As such, a second, or later structuring, cannot be the same as earlier structuring. Structuring our structuring provides us with one way to review, update, and improve earlier structuring. It allows an overview achieved through a semantic pause. Structuring provides us with one way to improve our creative impulses. If we recognize that a particular way of thinking about, understanding, and doing is not the only way, we are more likely to seek other ways, and to avoid habitual, unaware, unconscious responses when we encounter unusual and challenging situations. We live in a world of multidimensional relationships and multi-dimensional structures. We can use our intelligence more effectively when we 'see' things from multiple points of viewing.

Our maps have a profound influence on our attitudes and actions, the institutions and societies we create, our personal, societal, and international conflicts, etc. Mindful structuring can improve our mapping because when structuring, we create 'maps' with awareness of so doing.

We can evaluate our structuring in terms of its usefulness in helping us explain and improve our understanding of ourselves, situations, events, and ourselves-in-situations. We can look for degrees of mapping accuracy when applying our structurings to specific problems.

Dawes, Milton. ""Structuring" to make sense of our world." et Cetera. Institute of General Semantics, Inc. 2003.

Great importance is placed in Scientology on E-Meter "instant reads," what they signify and their application in processing.

L. Ron Hubbard wrote:

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 25 MAY 1962

Central Orgs
Franchise

E-METER
INSTANT READS

An instant read is defined as that reaction of the needle which occurs at the precise end of any major thought voiced by the auditor.

The reaction of the needle may be any reaction except “nul”. An instant read may be any change of characteristic providing it occurs instantly. The absence of a read at the end of the major thought shows it to be nul.

All prior reads and latent reads are ignored. These are the result of minor thoughts which may or may not be restimulated by the question.

Only the instant read is used by the auditor. Only the instant read is cleared on rudiments, What questions, etc.

[...]

You are giving the major thought directly to the reactive mind. Therefore any analytical thought will not react instantly.
The reactive mind is composed of:

1. Timelessness.
2. Unknownness.
3. Survival.

The meter reacts on the reactive mind, never on the analytical mind. The meter reacts instantly on any thought restimulated in the reactive mind.

If the meter reacts on anything, that datum is partly or wholly unknown to the preclear.

An auditor’s questions restimulate the reactive mind. This reacts on the meter. Only reactive thoughts react instantly.

You can “groove in” a major thought by saying it twice. On the second time (or third time if it is longer) you will see only the instant read at the exact end. If you do this the prior reads drop out leaving only the whole thought.

If you go stumbling around in rudiments or goals trying to clean up the minor thoughts you will get lost. In sec checking you can uncover material by “compartmenting the question” but this is rarely done today. In rudiments, What questions, et al, you want the instant read only. It occurs exactly at the end of the whole thought. This is your whole interest in cleaning a rudiment or a What question. You ignore all prior and latent reactions of the needle.

The exceptions to this rule are:

1. “Compartmenting the question”, in which you use the prior reads occurring at the exact end of the minor thoughts (as above in the pigs sentence) to dig up different data not related to the whole thought.

2. “Steering the pc” is the only use of latent or random reads. You see a read the same as the instant read occurring again when you are not speaking but after you have found a whole thought reacting. You say “there” or “that” and the pc, seeing what he or she is looking at as you say it, recovers the knowledge from the reactive bank and gives the data and the whole thought clears or has to be further worked and cleared. You can easily figure-figure yourself half to death trying to grapple with meter reads unless you get a good reality on the instant read which occurs at the end of the whole expressed thought and neglect all prior and latent reads except for steering the pc while he gropes for the answer to the question you asked.

Hubbard, L. (1962, 25 May) E-Meter Instant Reads. Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology (1976 ed., Vol. V, pp. 77-8). Los Angeles: Church of Scientology of California.

L. Ron Hubbard wrote:

Now an E-Meter reacts only on the reactive mind. A Clear doesn’t react because he is able to be conscious. An aberree reacts because he can’t think without thought exciting the reactivity of the reactive mind. This, being composed of mass, energy, space, time and thought, responds to tiny electrical impulses.

If your auditing was not aimed at reactivity it would not register on a meter. Thus, you run what reacts because it reacts and is therefore part of the reactive mind.

The reactive mind responds instantly on data a billion years ago. How is this? Time in the reactive mind is out of order. So is Space. So is matter, so is energy. Pin a sign on the reactive mind: “Out of Order”. It connects wrong connections. Hence, the E-Meter.

What is wrong with the pc is not known to the pc. Therefore if a pc knows all about it, it isn’t wrong with him.

Hubbard, L. R. (1961, 8 June). E-Meter Watching Are You Waiting for the Meter to Play Dixie? The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology (1991 ed., Vol. VI, pp. 208-210). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc

caroline · **Posted:** Sun Oct 02, 2011 3:08 pm

QFT:

Anakin Walker | September 30, 2011 at 11:45 am | Reply wrote:

Hi Marty,

I find it rather odd that independents have gone the route of questioning the management of scientology, but never go further than that. When scientologists refuse to look at the abuses in the church, we can easily see that this is a serv fac. However, when refusing to look at data about LRH, is this then not aequally a serv fac?

To me, the abuse have a “source.” LRH was source of scientology, and by his own standards, should be held responsible for his products–well, his product is the current management.

Also, you said it is not important whether LRH was an Eagle Scout etc. or not. To me it establishes the level of honesty of the man, which to my mind, is of MAJOR importance.

The entire premise of scientology is that it is the “only workable tech.” This, of course, keeps people stuck in it. But what do you make of the evidence that, for example, DMSMH, the “bolt from the blue” is a plagarism/squirrel version of the following:

Extracts from “Science and Sanity” written by Alfred Korzybski in 1933:

“It is quite remarkable that ‘mental’ therapy…is only successful when it succeeds in making the patient not only ‘rationalize’ his difficulties but also makes him ‘emotionalize’ -live through again, so to say, and evaluate anew-his past experiences. This process can be compared with a glass of water in which some chalky sediment lies on the bottom…the different ‘hurts,’ etc., may be compared to the water and the sediment. ‘Rationalization’ alone is like throwing away the clean water and letting the sediment remain. No improvement follows…. But if we mix up the water and the chalk, then we can throw out both and a clearing up will follow. The ‘living through’ of the past experiences is equivalent to this semantic stirring-up of meanings before eliminating the immature evaluations.”
–Chapter, “On Order”, page 148 of Science and Sanity, written in 1933

“All living material, usually called protoplasm, has, in some degree, the nervous functions of irritability, conductivity, integration…
“We notice also that the effect of the stimulus is not identical with the stimulus itself, a falling stone is not identical with the pain we feel when the stone falls on our foot.”
– Chapter, “On Order”, page 165 of Science and Sanity, written in 1933

“…we begin to check this…process of piling up ‘hurts’ on ‘hurts’…new ‘hurts’ in practice are usually related or similar to the old ones; they would ‘revive’ the older hurts. Accordingly he could not only ‘live through’ the older experiences but at once revive them, and after re-evaluation, eliminate the harmful effects.”
–Alfred Korzybski, from Science and Sanity

“Psycho-galvonic experiments show clearly that every emotion or thought is always connected with some electrical current.”
–Alfred Korzybski

The technology referred to by Korzybski is called “Abreaction therapy.”
The United States Navy used it during World War II in order to assist soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder by re-living the experience in a controlled environment.

The entire message of KSW1 is not “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it,” but is rather “scientology is the ONLY workable tech, I am the ONLY person capable pf developing workable tech, so if you do not follow my rules, you will all persih for eternity.” Yes, that is the message, and yes, that is the tone in which it is given. LRH created a culture of fear which permeates all of scientology. And he also lied. He was a master of PR, and he PRed himself so well that even those who have left the “church” dare not question him.

martyrathbun09 | September 30, 2011 at 1:04 pm | Reply wrote:

First, my Open Letter went right over your head and into the cheap seats while you were contemplating your cleat laces. You just did not get what I had to say, nor apparently are you getting what 80 percent plus are saying in the comments here. Second, you have misused the word plagiarism. I note you misspelled it too, so you might want to clear it up in a dictionary. Third, of all sources Hubbard drew from he probably acknowledged none as frequently and as unequivocally as Alfred Korzybski. Fourth, even though apparently you consider me unintelligent and gullible, I don’t feel the same way about you.

Marty, first time's an instruct:

OCMB post: Hubbard on Korzybski
OCMB post:Hubbard on Korzybski and Hayakawa

Lurk moar. :lol:

Hubbard and Korzybski

Who is online