The time now is Thu Sep 09, 2010 12:27 pm
All times are GMT + 2 Hours
|
| Author |
Message |
fisherman
Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Posts: 431
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:37 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Probity,
Thanks for the precise wording. The Scientology statement contains demonstrably false logic (data?)
| Quote: | | "That which is true for you is what you have observed to be true." |
As the leaves turn green, we observe "springtime is here". We DO NOT "observe" the sap rising in the trees or chlorophyll operating as a photo-receptor, but these processes are certainly "TRUE". The fact that we don't "observe" photo-synthesis has no bearing on whether the process removes CO2 from the atmosphere. Photo-synthesis is "TRUE" for any creature that breathes, whether it's observed or not observed.
Plant fossils prove that photo-synthesis was even "TRUE" during the time of dinosaurs; before the species we consider "MAN" inhabited the earth. Photo-synthesis is not dependent on human observation.
A non-scientific refutation of Hubbard can also be taken from the Enlightment ideals that underly our concept of 'universal human rights'. The roots of which draw from Aristote, Kant, Locke, Rousseau...
If a society (whether it's a tribe of ten or a nation of millions) establishes 'Freedom of Speech' as a 'Right', that right is "TRUE" -- a single individual's "observation," acceptance, or application of the right doesn't negate the universality of that right.
'Natural Rights' -- however they may be determined -- are "True"-- independent of time, place, or individual acceptance.
Rousseau perceived universal rights in "man's state of nature". Kant believed universal ideals like the "Golden Rule" could be established by 'pure reason' Thomas Jefferson 'summed up' the scope of Enlightenment thought when he wrote:
"WE hold these truths to be SELF EVIDENT, that all men are created equal, that they are ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable rights"
It is significant that it matters NOT, if the Creator is God, Nature, Evolution, or Xenu. Man was 'created', that's all. Whoever or whatever did the creating -- endowed man with 'unalienable rights'.
"WE" refers to the Declaration's signers, but in terms of Enlightment ideals, Jefferson also intends "WE" to signify that the society of mankind is the 'guarantor' of these Rights. The Creator 'endows the rights' and the Society 'declares them valid'. Those rights are therefore UNIVERSAL and not dependent on individual acceptance. (In this particular case, not dependent on the individual acceptance of King George of England).
An important philosophic support for this logic is that the universality of Natural Rights extends across time. Edmund Burke defended these as 'prescriptive rights'. For example:
A small tribe or society codifies a "Right to a Secure Hut". They write it down, shake-hands, whatever and go about their business. Once that happens the right exists and is "TRUE" for future generations. The right exists in potential and therefore exists in fact.
Come forward a few generations and look 'back' in the tribes history. Assuming nothing was changed "Right to a Secure Hut" existed as a "TRUE" fact in the past.
Anywhere on the continuum of this tribe's existence "Right to a Secure Hut" is "TRUE" independent of individual "observation" or belief.
There are other logical refutations of Hubbard's:
| Quote: | | "That which is true for you is what you have observed to be true." |
But these seemed germaine. Quite frankly, if you take a hard look at the Scientology statement you see a clear attack on the "human rights
tradition"
If "TRUTH" did depend upon the "Observer" or participant, a standard for "Universal Human Rights" would be impossible.
fisherman
Last edited by fisherman on Fri Apr 17, 2009 7:46 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dorothy
Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 802
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:59 am Post subject:
|
|
|
I seem to have been born with this idea that there was this elusive thing called "truth" and that it existed but you had to search really hard to find it. I believed in it, like I felt I knew it was possible to find it or to know it, and that it was somewhere "out there", in the ether. Personally for me it was somehow tied in with belief too but I knew that belief was a starting point and not an end point. So it was something you searched for your whole life and if you were really lucky you might come to know a bit of it.
Anyway then I get into scientology and they tell me that "what's true for me is what's true for me", ie, what I have observed, is the truth. Really? It was right in me all along? I don't have to look for it any more? I can just know truth because I can observe things? Yes- you had the power within you, all along, Dorothy, just tap your heels together and repeat "what's true for me...."
The real problem with this is the ensuing thought control and continuous conundrum in scientology that occurs when you actually try and apply it. Like saying to the Executive that you just observed being abusive for the 10th time, "what's true for me you sick f*** is that you are a f@#*ed-up person and should not be allowed within a thousand miles of any position of authority because you abuse it. Or what's true for me is that you people are not capable of clearing a room, let alone a whole planet of 6 billion people. Here's an actual observed truth: There is no "true for you" in any cult or organization based on Totalism. That's the joke of it. In scientology, "True for you" doesn't exist in any context that really matters. There is only what was true for LRH, and what's true for the robot who thinks he or she is duplicating and applying LRH exactly (to you). Yeah, when you go in session and run your past lives (which by the way, you are forced to run or you cannot go up the bridge), after your "past life remedy", where you have been made to repeatedly imagine incidents and eventually you start to think they are real, now you can have your "whats true for you". Great, how useful. But go ahead and try telling the OT 3 course sup that "BTs just aren't true for you" because you cannot see (observe) them, and see what happens. You will be handled to run them anyway and taught to believe that because your needle floated after you moved the BT away with your invisible hand that you created in your mind, that you have observed it working and therefore it must be true.
Loaded language- one of the eight criteria of mind control, when used in conjunction with "milieu control" and "doctrine over person" (two other criteria) make it especially potent. To me, the fact that the wonderfully marketable catch phrase "What's true for you..." isn't actually meant to be applied, is proof that yes, its merely part of the hook that holds the worm that catches the fish. And nothing more. And that's true for me.
_________________
Perspective: There are fewer Scientologists in the world than there are Rastafarians, who are primarily concentrated in the small Caribbean Island country of Jamaica. Source: http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
Last edited by Dorothy on Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:28 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fisherman
Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 7:30 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Dorothy,
You put this so very well:
| Quote: | | To me, the fact that the wonderfully marketable catch phrase "What's true for you..." isn't actually meant to be applied, is proof that yes, its merely part of the hook that holds the worm that catches the fish. And nothing more. And that's true for me. |
If the ultimate truth is to "know thyself" -- I believe those like yourself who survive scientology's horrific trial get about as close as is humanly possible.
fisherman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flippantmage
Joined: 22 May 2005
Posts: 335
Location: Reno, Nevada, United States
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:10 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| probity wrote: | | fisherman wrote: | Hubbard's "What's true for you, is true" is simply loaded advertising language. It is circumlocution and doesn't mean or say ANYTHING.
|
The Scientology home page delivers the concept in this format:
"That which is true for you is what you have observed to be true."
What do this mean to a budding Scientologist? If he (or she) is indoctrinated to anticipate a certain result from a Scientology process, and he observes (or is induced to believe he observes) the result, he is compelled to accept Scientology as true: hook, line and sinker.
Once this has happened, the Scientologist is a true believer.
Scientology is the belief of the beliefless and the faith of the faithless.
Actually Hubbard didn't come up with that idea, it is common among Solipsists. Solipsism is the idea that the only thing that can be verified is the self. Solipsists are the douche-bags who go around asking "can you prove you're real?". The quickest way to win an argument with one of them is to kick their ass and when they decide to call the authorities ask them if they're going to indict a figment of their imagination.
|
Last edited by flippantmage on Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:26 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nightsinger
Joined: 03 Oct 2006
Posts: 60
Location: near the swamp
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:21 am Post subject:
|
|
|
One famous solipsist is Shirley MacLaine. I remember reading one critique of her philosophy in college, which ended its final essay with 'If someone were to pin her by the neck to a tree in the middle of an empty field for three days maybe she'd stop believing she's the center of the universe.'
Reality checks check.
_________________
Meet people where they're at, and not where you think they ought to be.
These three things are for always: faith, hope and love. And the greatest of these is love. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flippantmage
Joined: 22 May 2005
Posts: 335
Location: Reno, Nevada, United States
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:25 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| nightsinger wrote: | One famous solipsist is Shirley MacLaine. I remember reading one critique of her philosophy in college, which ended its final essay with 'If someone were to pin her by the neck to a tree in the middle of an empty field for three days maybe she'd stop believing she's the center of the universe.'
Reality checks check. |
If a solipsist falls down in a crowded room, does he make a noise?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peter
Joined: 02 Mar 2001
Posts: 642
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:07 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| fisherman wrote: | Probity,
Thanks for the precise wording. The Scientology statement contains demonstrably false logic (data?)
| Quote: | | "That which is true for you is what you have observed to be true." |
Thanks for the precise wording. The Scientology statement contains demonstrably false logic (data?)
|
Soderqvist1: Your conclusion is fishy!
You seem to accept the suggested wording without verify that L. Ron Hubbard has said precise that, nor do you seem to bother about that it has no reference!
This is what he has said!
Personal Integrity By L. Ron Hubbard
WHAT IS TRUE FOR YOU is what you have observed yourself and when you lose that you have lost everything. Maintaining sufficient personal integrity and sufficient personal belief and confidence in self and courage that we can observe what we observe and say what we have observed. Nothing in Dianetics and Scientology is true for you unless you have observed it and it is true according to your observation. That is all.
http://www.aboutlronhubbard.org/eng/wis3_4.htm
Soderqvist1. According to my observation Hubbard’s “Third party law” seems to me unsound, that conclusion is only tentative, because I have not reed everything about it, and I have also posted it here!
http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=28645
Soderqvist1: L. Ron Hubbard has also said this!
From How to Study a Science (1965 ) by L. Ron Hubbard, Evaluation of Data
All these years, in which psychoanalysis has taught its tenets to each generation of doctors, the authoritarian method was used, as can be verified by reading a few of the books on the subject. Within them is found, interminably, “Freud said . . . .” The truly important thing is not that “Freud said” a thing, but “Is the data valuable? If it is valuable, how valuable is it?” You might say that a datum is as valuable as it has been evaluated. A datum can be proved in ratio to whether it can be evaluated by other data, and its magnitude is established by how many other data it clarifies. Thus, the biggest datum possible would be one, which would clarify and identify all knowledge known to man in the material universe.
Unfortunately, however, there is no such thing as a Prime Datum. There must be, not one datum, but two data, since a datum is of no use unless it can be evaluated. Furthermore, there must be a datum of similar magnitude with which to evaluate any given datum.
Data is your data only so long as you have evaluated it. It is your data by authority or it is your data. If it is your data by authority somebody has forced it upon you, and at best it is little more than a light aberration. Of course, if you asked a question of a man whom you thought knew his business and he gave you his answer, that datum was not forced upon you. But if you went away from him believing from then on that such a datum existed without taking the trouble to investigate the answer for yourself—without comparing it to the known universe—you were falling short of completing the cycle of learning.
http://www.geocities.com/paultabaka/misc/notes.html
Soderqvist1: let me take one proposition from Russell Miller’s Bare-Faced Messiah as my role model!
| Quote: | Ron would often refer to Thompson in later life, yet the Commander remains an enigma. He cannot be identified from US Navy records, nor can his relationship with Freud be established. Doctor Kurt Eissler, one of the world's leading authorities on Freud, says he has no knowledge of any correspondence or contact of any kind between Freud and Thompson.
http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/bfm/bfm01.htm
|
Soderqvist1: shall we accept Miller’s and Eissler’s proposition without further observation? I don’t, because I have found out for my self that their proposition is false to fact, and I can also point out my various observations, so other can see it, and so eventually accept my conclusion as valid!
Lecture: The Story of Dianetics and Scientology
Anyway; at the Library of Congress in Washington, DC, where they have all the books on everything, he started shoving my nose into an education in the field of the mind. Now, that's a very unusual thing to do, to take a twelve-year-old boy And start doing something with the mind. But he really got me interested in the subject But actually Commander Thompson had a very open mind on this, and he used to tell me, „Well, if it's not true for you, it's not true.“ And I found out that he got this from a fellow named Gautama Siddhartha.
http://carolineletkeman.org/sp/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1432&Itemid=240
Lecture: Dianetics The Modern Miracle
I was just a kid and Commander Thompson didn't have any boy of his own, and he and I just got along fine.
http://carolineletkeman.org/sp/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=727&Itemid=240
Soderqvist1: it is implicit that; if after a thorough investigation you have not observed anything of the sort, then it is not truth according to what you have observed! Jacques Schnier was one of Commander Thompson’s students too!
A Sculptors Odyssey By Jacques Schnier
Page 106 -107 Riess: The Buddhist View How important was that trip in your life?
Schnier: Yes. Now, if I said that after 1933, when I started my analysis, it would have been under the influence of [Joseph] Thompson.
Thompson was a Buddhist, and that's where I first became exposed to Buddhism in depth, real depth. Thompson shared with me a lot of his knowledge of Buddhism, and I went into it a little more than just the casual person who would read a little about Zen, and that's it.
Page 123: Riess: What was his attachment to Eastern philosophy?
Buddhism? Why did he know?
Schnier: He was a naval officer during World War I, and part of his years in the service were spent in the Orient, and that's where he was
exposed to Buddhism. I think he had a friend who was a Buddhist who had entered the Buddhist monastery. Be that as it may, he had studied it thoroughly. He was a deep thinker. He was constantly searching. He wasn't the type who sits back and is satisfied with just reading the morning newspaper.
Page 132 -133 Riess: The oral tradition?
Schnier: Yes. None of it was put down in permanent form until several hundred years later. Now there are several books that supposedly contain his teachings that for hundreds of years were handed down orally. And this comes from one of those books. So the Buddha said that it's in the nature of things that doubt should arise, and then he went on to say that it's a matter of not closing your eyes to these various systems. Listen to them. But then eventually you have to make a decision based on what you think is reasonable. The actual wording is this, "If, after observation and analysis, it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it, and live up to it." So he didn't force them to follow Buddhism, he wanted them to make their own decision.
http://www.archive.org/stream/sculptorodyssey00schnrich/sculptorodyssey00schnrich_djvu.txt
Soderqvist1: Some members regarding Commander "Snake" Thompson on the Ex-Scientology Message Board have also made such unfounded allegations as Miller and Eissler, and I have posted my rebuttals here!
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=5390
_________________
A simple explanation with few explanation grounds is to prefer, except when you need to hide your flaws! - Peter Soderqvist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
probity
Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Posts: 572
Location: Back to top
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 2:29 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| peter wrote: | | fisherman wrote: | Probity,
Thanks for the precise wording. The Scientology statement contains demonstrably false logic (data?)
| Quote: | | "That which is true for you is what you have observed to be true." |
|
Soderqvist1: Your conclusion is fishy!
You seem to accept the suggested wording without verify that L. Ron Hubbard has said precise that, nor do you seem to bother about that it has no reference!
|
I referenced the above quote as coming from the homepage of the Scientology website.
Scientology may have mangled the essence of Hubbard preciseness, but I'd appreciate it if you'd blame Scientology for that, not probity or fisherman!
My thread on this topic "Belief of the Beliefless, Faith of the Faithless" discusses the homepage of Scientology's website in more detail -
http://tinyurl.com/faithless123 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peter
Joined: 02 Mar 2001
Posts: 642
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:05 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Soderqvist1: probity, isn’t consistent with my post above to accept KSW meanwhile reject everything, which is not in accord with my observation? I don’t change anything in it, but it is possible for someone to start a new system instead, and go his own way, may I quote Scientologist Paul Tabaka!
| Quote: |
"If it is not written it is not true"
— that is, if it has not been written by Hubbard himself it does not belong under any activity directly associated with the legacy of his person or his name. That means, written by Hubbard himself — no matter who would put his name, no matter under what pretenses, to some publication (which might or might not have originated with him ; which might or might not have been reproduced faithfully, that is, without alterations). Some statements by others on this subject might or might not be true ; if they have not been made by Hubbard himself then they uniformly belong under the heading of "verbal data" (which is a technical term with quite exact applications). Any such statements must be fully verified before they could be for the long run accepted as valid.
(These statements here are "verbal data" by me and are true to the best of my knowledge. They do not, properly speaking, form part of the subject and should not be considered as representative of the subject beyond what can be found and verified in the original materials. Why such "fuss" ? Those data by Hubbard actually are very exact, the reader, even if sometimes stated in very plain terms). This is a principle generally (if sometimes less rigorously) applied to anybody's work, anyway, so there is little fundamentally new in such an approach. Want to criticise this work, the reader, please make sure that what you are about to criticise is not something that has not originated with the author. (Else, you are only hitting at some windmills, as in an old fable). If you might want to accept this work, whether some parts of it or the entirely of the fundamentals, please mind that what you are about to accept has originated with the author. Else, you might "go off on a tangent" (and end up in a ditch somewhere, as it happens on the highway, so to speak).
http://www.geocities.com/paultabaka/hubbard/USA.html
|
_________________
A simple explanation with few explanation grounds is to prefer, except when you need to hide your flaws! - Peter Soderqvist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
probity
Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Posts: 572
Location: Back to top
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 4:13 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
I need a clear restatement of this question:
| Quote: | | probity, isn’t consistent with my post above to accept KSW meanwhile reject everything, which is not in accord with my observation? |
Are you asking me if I agree with one of the following statements?
a. It is not consistent to accept KSW and meanwhile reject everything not in accord with my observation.
b. It is consistent to accept KSW and meanwhile reject everything not in accord with my observation.
I also need a clear restatement of this statement:
| Quote: | | I don’t change anything in it, but it is possible for someone to start a new system instead, and go his own way, may I quote Scientologist Paul Tabaka! |
And how about acknowledging "That which is true for you is what you have observed to be true" appears on Scientology's homepage and was correctly quoted from this authority?
_____________________
“The level of significance to which an observer or investigator tries to attune himself is chosen, not by his intelligence, but by his faith. The facts themselves which he observes do not carry labels indicating the appropriate level at which they ought to be considered.” E.F. Schumacher, A Guide for the Perplexed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caroline
Joined: 25 Oct 2003
Posts: 1536
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:18 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
I take it that loaded language is a mind control technique because of the underlying "automatically" understood message for the indoctrinatee that directs or influences subsequent behaviors. Scientology is riddled with this language. I laughed about Wieber's "aphorism workouts." Hubbard was famous for all these "stable data."
Fisherman, you're right about the advertising language. Hubbard even had to work out a philosophy to cover this. "Positioning" is the technique of formulating and implanting "instant opinion" that bypasses "human emotion and reaction."
| From HCO PL 30 Jan 1979 Marketing Series 5 PR Series 30 Positioning, Philosophic Theory by L. Ron Hubbard who wrote: | Although Madison Avenue has used "POSITIONING" for some years, it has not fully understood the actual philosophical background that makes "POSITIONING" work.
There is an excellent booklet called The Positioning Era put out by Ries Capiello Colwell, Inc., 1212 Avenue of the Americas, New York, N.Y. 10036. Copies of it are probably available from the company or the Marketing Bureau on Flag or Publications Organization US. It is an excellent booklet. It does not, however, give the philosophical background which, probably, is not generally known. Probably it was never discovered. I had to work it out myself.
[...]
Fast communication is most easily done by comparisons. When one asks "What is the book like?", he really is not trying to get you to describe the book. He means that he wants some comparison. He will be happiest with the answer if he is told that it is like another book with which he is familiar. It would take you a lot longer and involve you in a lot more arguments if you just tried to describe the book to him instead of comparing.
"What does it taste like?" is satisfactorily answered, "Like candy." That, if it has some shadow of truth and accuracy, is a perfectly satisfactory answer to the other person.
So we get a law which is this:
THE UNFAMILIAR IS RAPIDLY INTRODUCED OR COMMUNICATED BY COMPARING IT TO A FAMILIAR.
Joe knows nothing about practice boxing gloves and there are none there to show him and he will be fairly satisfied if he is given a familiar object, pillows, to compare them to, Thus, one can achieve a very rapid communication by observing the following law:
ONE CAN ACHIEVE THE APPARENCY OF FAMILIARITY, EVEN WHEN THE PERSON HE IS COMMUNICATING TO HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUBJECT OF COMMUNICATION, WHEN HE ASSOCIATES IT IN THE MIND OF THE OTHER WITH SOMETHING WITH WHICH THE OTHER IS FAMILIAR.
Positioning takes advantage of a fact that one can compare the thing he is trying to get the other person to understand with desirable or undesirable objects. Desirable objects are now more commonly used in advertising. Undesirable objects are more commonly used in propaganda. By comparing this unfamiliar thing or the thing he wants to sell to another desirable object or by comparing something he wants people to detest to an undesirable thing, he can achieve a rapid communication and comparison.
Further advantage is taken of the fact that one can position above a familiar object, with a familiar object, below a familiar object, at, to, against and away from a familiar object. This opens the door to an opportunity to establish an opinion of the thing one is seeking to communicate. You might call it an "instant" opinion.
For example, we know that an astronaut is a familiar, highly regarded being. Thus, we position a product above, with, below, at, to, against or away from an astronaut.
We know that people think angels are good, sweet and kind, so we position another something above, with, below, at, to, against or away from angels.
We know people loathe psychiatry, so we communicate something as being loathsome as saying it is below (worse than) psychiatry. We could also make people think something was good by saying it was against psychiatry, bad because it would bring them to psychiatry, or awful because it used psychiatrists (like the tax people).
A common use of positioning in advertising is to take a product which, by reason of advertising, is familiar to the public and is regarded by them as the leader in the field and then positioning a new, untried, unfamiliar product above it, with it, or just below it. Thus the new product gains a sudden spurt in sales by being compared to the leader.
In fact, in the field of advertising this has been the primary use of positioning, probably because no one had carried the idea back to a point of formulating the actual laws of it and thus broadening its use. They thought in advertising, evidently, that the basic theory of it was the "pecking order of hens" which means that the whole barnyard is usually found to have a top hen and a bottom hen and they peck each other in that order.
Apparently, from talking to ad guys, they thought that by putting their products in the pecking order against the top product they made their product higher or just with or just below the top hen. That's what the advertising people get for associating with such "experts" as psychologists.
POSITIONING can be seen to have far, far broader uses than "cola" and "uncola" ads when you study the above basic PL data. The horizon becomes very, very vast and all around because with it you can attain fast communication about the unfamiliar and can formulate "instant opinion."
When used in advertising, posters, write-ups, PR, propaganda, or any one of many activities, forceful and effective positioning requires certain requisites:
1. The selection and identification of the public or person one is trying to cause to have an instant opinion, desire or repugnance.
2. Work out whether you are trying to do a good or bad relationship to the familiar object you will find and what kind of an opinion, desire or repugnance.
3. Survey that public with questions which do not even mention the thing you are eventually going to use the survey for to find what they consider wonderful, popular, useful, etc., etc., or awful, terrible, etc., etc. You can survey for attitudes, objects, professions or anything else you have chosen that will even dimly compare with something you are going to use the survey to push.
4. From the majority answer of this survey, choose an object, profession, attitude, etc., etc., that they think is great or awful or whatever.
5. Get a bright idea of how to compare the thing you were trying to communicate to the familiar object, attitude, profession, etc., that they all firmly have an opinion on.
Do as many other surveys as you like of this same public you are trying to reach to get their attitudes in general or attitudes about what you found or even their general likes and dislikes, vocabulary, habits of dress, etc., so you can write copy and draw pictures that seem to be them or what they would say or do.
Do your drawings and write your copy.
If you have been clever, you will succeed in communicating forcefully and effectively and instantly at a glance something that was very unfamiliar to them previously. All the other rules of copywriting, art and design, impingement, etc., are dovetailed into this to make more of it.
By doing a lot of practice with this and drill, drill, drill, drill and getting experienced with it, you will suddenly find yourself able to use this in PR, advertising, marketing, and communication in general with an impact that will be very effective and very startling.
Hubbard, L. R., & Hubbard, L. R. (1983). The Organization executive course and Management series by L. Ron Hubbard: Volume 2. Los Angeles, Calif: Bridge Publications.
|
A good example of Hubbard's "positioning" directives is Battle Tactics" where he says,
| Quote: | You can win a battle even without legal and by PRO alone. You intend to win it without legal wherever possible.
The prize is "public opinion" where press is concerned. The only safe public opinion to head for is they love us and are in a frenzy of hate against the enemy, this means standard wartime propaganda is what one is doing, complete with atrocity, war crimes trials, the lot. Know the mores of your public opinion, what they hate. That's the enemy. What they love. That's you.
You preserve the image or increase it of your own troops and degrade the image of the enemy to beast level. |
It's very helpful to discuss Scientology on the philosophy, logic and language levels, and I appreciate everyone's input. Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dorothy
Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 802
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:45 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Probity wrote:
| Quote: | The Scientology home page delivers the concept in this format:
"That which is true for you is what you have observed to be true."
What do this mean to a budding Scientologist? If he (or she) is indoctrinated to anticipate a certain result from a Scientology process, and he observes (or is induced to believe he observes) the result, he is compelled to accept Scientology as true: hook, line and sinker.
Once this has happened, the Scientologist is a true believer.
Scientology is the belief of the beliefless and the faith of the faithless.
Actually Hubbard didn't come up with that idea, it is common among Solipsists. Solipsism is the idea that the only thing that can be verified is the self. Solipsists are the douche-bags who go around asking "can you prove you're real?". The quickest way to win an argument with one of them is to kick their ass and when they decide to call the authorities ask them if they're going to indict a figment of their imagination. |
That's right! He also did not come up with the following ideas either!
_ The greatest good concept. (greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics) This idea has been around as long as humans have lived in groups.
_ WTH "Try not to do things to others that you would not like them to do to you" (re-wording of the golden rule)
_ Granting Beingness- known as "unconditional positive regard" in eastern philosophies.
_ The Anti-Social Personality- stolen from psychology.
_ The reactive mind- stolen from Freud
_ Confronting your very own good and evil spirits (when you are exteriorized)- stolen from Buddhism
_ Looking someone in the eye when you speak to them (my parents and teachers knew this one)
_ Org boards, command channels, stats, etc. Have been around as long as there have been organizations.
_ Past lives. Known to psyches and eastern religions before Hubbard was born.
_ Study Tech.....
etc. etc. etc. you get my point.
That is why I get a bit miffed when someone wants to ban all of "scientology". They do not realize what it is that they are proposing to be banned.
Peter, when you quoted Tabaka:
| Quote: | (These statements here are "verbal data" by me and are true to the best of my knowledge. They do not, properly speaking, form part of the subject and should not be considered as representative of the subject beyond what can be found and verified in the original materials. Why such "fuss" ? Those data by Hubbard actually are very exact, the reader, even if sometimes stated in very plain terms). This is a principle generally (if sometimes less rigorously) applied to anybody's work, anyway, so there is little fundamentally new in such an approach. Want to criticise this work, the reader, please make sure that what you are about to criticise is not something that has not originated with the author. (Else, you are only hitting at some windmills, as in an old fable). If you might want to accept this work, whether some parts of it or the entirely of the fundamentals, please mind that what you are about to accept has originated with the author. Else, you might "go off on a tangent" (and end up in a ditch somewhere, as it happens on the highway, so to speak).
|
I believe you are pointing to one of the greatest contradictions that exists in scientology. Hubbard claims that there are no absolutes, with one exception, "standard tech". Keeping scientology working is completely absolute in scientology. If the result was good- it was standard tech. If the result was bad, somebody messed up. Scientology always works. It is scientology's "sacred science". There are no exceptions when it comes to "standard tech". Unless you have trained and audited in scientology, you might not be fully cognizant of the pervasiveness of this part of the indoctrination. RTC-Religious Technology Center- of which Davey Miscavage is C-O-B) are the keepers of "standard tech". Auditors must be perfect. If the preclear doesn't do well, it is the auditor and case supervisor's fault, never the tech. The tech is perfect 100% of the time, no exceptions. This is the ultimate "false dilemna" fallacy.
Also known as "false analogy', the "either/or" fallacy, the "black and white" fallacy and the fallacy of distraction. It is at the core of this particular cult's system of mind control. "Live free or die", "We would rather have you dead than incapable". This is why the RPF exists. Those who cannot live up to this standard, must live a concentration camp type of existence for years in order to make sure that their indoctrination "takes" this time.
_________________
Perspective: There are fewer Scientologists in the world than there are Rastafarians, who are primarily concentrated in the small Caribbean Island country of Jamaica. Source: http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Benny's Friend
Joined: 12 Jan 2008
Posts: 1464
Location: AKA Resistance is Fultile / AKA Patricia Curtis
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:11 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
What an enlightening thread! I don't want to break the momentum - just want to express my appreciation to those who have contributed such well-formed thoughts and arguments to this treasure trove of information. Thanks to all you big thinkers and please continue sharing your wisdom.
Dorothy, this post was especially meaningful to me:
| Dorothy wrote: | I seem to have been born with this idea that there was this elusive thing called "truth" and that it existed but you had to search really hard to find it. I believed in it, like I felt I knew it was possible to find it or to know it, and that it was somewhere "out there", in the ether. Personally for me it was somehow tied in with belief too but I knew that belief was a starting point and not an end point. So it was something you searched for your whole life and if you were really lucky you might come to know a bit of it.
Anyway then I get into scientology and they tell me that "what's true for me is what's true for me", ie, what I have observed, is the truth. Really? It was right in me all along? I don't have to look for it any more? I can just know truth because I can observe things? Yes- you had the power within you, all along, Dorothy, just tap your heels together and repeat "what's true for me...."
The real problem with this is the ensuing thought control and continuous conundrum in scientology that occurs when you actually try and apply it. Like saying to the Executive that you just observed being abusive for the 10th time, "what's true for me you sick f*** is that you are a f@#*ed-up person and should not be allowed within a thousand miles of any position of authority because you abuse it. Or what's true for me is that you people are not capable of clearing a room, let alone a whole planet of 6 billion people. Here's an actual observed truth: There is no "true for you" in any cult or organization based on Totalism. That's the joke of it. In scientology, "True for you" doesn't exist in any context that really matters. There is only what was true for LRH, and what's true for the robot who thinks he or she is duplicating and applying LRH exactly (to you). Yeah, when you go in session and run your past lives (which by the way, you are forced to run or you cannot go up the bridge), after your "past life remedy", where you have been made to repeatedly imagine incidents and eventually you start to think they are real, now you can have your "whats true for you". Great, how useful. But go ahead and try telling the OT 3 course sup that "BTs just aren't true for you" because you cannot see (observe) them, and see what happens. You will be handled to run them anyway and taught to believe that because your needle floated after you told the BT to go away, that you have observed it working and therefore it must be true.
Loaded language- one of the eight criteria of mind control, when used in conjunction with "milieu control" and "doctrine over person" (two other criteria) make it especially potent. To me, the fact that the wonderfully marketable catch phrase "What's true for you..." isn't actually meant to be applied, is proof that yes, its merely part of the hook that holds the worm that catches the fish. And nothing more. And that's true for me. |
_________________
THE MORE WHO SPEAK OUT, THE MORE WHO GET OUT. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dorothy
Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 802
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:24 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: | The prize is "public opinion" where press is concerned. The only safe public opinion to head for is they love us and are in a frenzy of hate against the enemy, this means standard wartime propaganda is what one is doing, complete with atrocity, war crimes trials, the lot. Know the mores of your public opinion, what they hate. That's the enemy. What they love. That's you.
You preserve the image or increase it of your own troops and degrade the image of the enemy to beast level.
(-L. Ron Hubbard) |
Wow, Caroline. That is just amazing. Thank you for posting this. It so clearly shows what scientology is doing in regards to their own PR activities, and especially what they have done with psychiatry/psychology, the "enemy".
It also points to their wholesale failures in the area. Public opinion of scientology is extremely low. Psychiatry/psychology continue to evolve, make new discoveries and thrive. The only success scientology has had, was in secret, clandestine meetings with IRS officials and throwing loads of money at the problem, hiring PIs and fancy Lawyers to harass critics.
Now critics are fighting fire with fire- and it is working. Real Lawsuits against scientology's actual abuses, Anonymous garnering much attention and helping to move public opinion against scientology even further.
Hubbard and his followers chose to wage a war- well I am glad that their war postulate is finally coming to full fruition. As scientology tries to make psychiatry the epitome of Human Rights abuse, reality sets in on them, and their own Human Rights abuses are fully exposed. They may have won their war against the IRS. They won't win this one. Their war against THE PEOPLE will soon be over, with them on the losing side.
_________________
Perspective: There are fewer Scientologists in the world than there are Rastafarians, who are primarily concentrated in the small Caribbean Island country of Jamaica. Source: http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
probity
Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Posts: 572
Location: Back to top
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:21 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Dorothy wrote: | Probity wrote:
| Quote: | | Actually Hubbard didn't come up with that idea, it is common among Solipsists. Solipsism is the idea that the only thing that can be verified is the self. Solipsists are the douche-bags who go around asking "can you prove you're real?". The quickest way to win an argument with one of them is to kick their ass and when they decide to call the authorities ask them if they're going to indict a figment of their imagination. |
That's right! He also did not come up with the following ideas either!
|
Actually, the above quote was misattributed to me in an earlier post, so I didn't come up with the above either! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
OCMB FAQ
FAQ
Search
Register
Last Hour
Operation Clambake
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
General Topics
»
Opinions & Debate
