PDA

View Full Version : I Don't Have MU's- I'm Just Blowing Charge



Cadetification
24th December 2009, 04:01 PM
lol I remember once as a Sup I observed a student yawning copiously with tears running down her face. When I went over and of course dutifully asked her what word she didn't fully understand she told me, "I don't have an MU- I'm just blowing charge".

:ohmy::unsure::dieslaughing:

Boy, did I have trouble keeping my "TR's" in! I seriously just wanted to die laughing right there.

Buuut...technically...there IS something written about yawning etc. as blowing charge (auditor tech) and anyways, I never understood the whole "yawning=tired=MUs" thing, since when one person yawns it apparently makes other people, etc. So, I spot checked her and...

NOTHING. :ohmy:

So I said, "Ok, good, carry on with your studies".

3 Days later...:angry:

CRAM

Operating DB
24th December 2009, 04:05 PM
Typical cult insanity

EP - Ethics Particle
24th December 2009, 04:06 PM
lol I remember once as a Sup I observed a student yawning copiously with tears running down her face. When I went over and of course dutifully asked her what word she didn't fully understand she told me, "I don't have an MU- I'm just blowing charge".

:ohmy::unsure::dieslaughing:

Boy, did I have trouble keeping my "TR's" in! I seriously just wanted to die laughing right there.

Buuut...technically...there IS something written about yawning etc. as blowing charge (auditor tech) and anyways, I never understood the whole "yawning=tired=MUs" thing, since when one person yawns it apparently makes other people, etc. So, I spot checked her and...

NOTHING. :ohmy:

So I said, "Ok, good, carry on with your studies".

3 Days later...:angry:

CRAM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F80ZGtLMJdM

Kathy (ImOut)
24th December 2009, 04:47 PM
All that study tech was mostly crap, in my opinion.

nexus100
24th December 2009, 04:55 PM
Hubbard was smart enough to put a trap into everything. The more he wrote on a subject, the more elaborate the trap. His writings could be called "The Trap Series". When he realized there was an open door, he sought to close it. With study, he wanted your attention on you, not on what you were reading. Reading is just reading. There's nothing more to it. So to make it important he attached morality. YOU MUST READ CORRECTLY OR BE WRONG.

And audit correctly and eat correctly and live correctly.

Good God.

Kathy (ImOut)
24th December 2009, 05:03 PM
Hubbard was smart enough to put a trap into everything. The more he wrote on a subject, the more elaborate the trap. His writings could be called "The Trap Series". When he realized there was an open door, he sought to close it. With study, he wanted your attention on you, not on what you were reading. Reading is just reading. There's nothing more to it. So to make it important he attached morality. YOU MUST READ CORRECTLY OR BE WRONG.

And audit correctly and eat correctly and live correctly.

Good God.

Exactly - good God!

Mystic
24th December 2009, 08:42 PM
When someone understands scientology, they leave it.

Sandie
24th December 2009, 09:16 PM
You got that right!!!!:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

Papabear
24th December 2009, 09:30 PM
All that study tech was mostly crap, in my opinion.

Study Tech so fucked up my ability to understand a subject. It was a series of "invalidative" moments, particularly on course. When it came to my daughter I just told her what words meant as many times as needed, until she could look them up herself.

I used to get into word chains 100 plus long, what a waste of time when I could have been playing outside like children are supposed to. :angry:

Dulloldfart
24th December 2009, 11:25 PM
I used to get into word chains 100 plus long, what a waste of time when I could have been playing outside like children are supposed to. :angry:

You had a lousy sup. He didn't make sure you were using the right dictionary(ies). The best dictionary to use is the simplest one you can find that defines the word(s) well enough in that particular context. More complicated than that is overkill and a waste of time. Too much more than that is a catastrophe.

Paul

freethinker
25th December 2009, 03:11 AM
lol I remember once as a Sup I observed a student yawning copiously with tears running down her face. When I went over and of course dutifully asked her what word she didn't fully understand she told me, "I don't have an MU- I'm just blowing charge".

:ohmy::unsure::dieslaughing:

Boy, did I have trouble keeping my "TR's" in! I seriously just wanted to die laughing right there.

Buuut...technically...there IS something written about yawning etc. as blowing charge (auditor tech) and anyways, I never understood the whole "yawning=tired=MUs" thing, since when one person yawns it apparently makes other people, etc. So, I spot checked her and...

NOTHING. :ohmy:

So I said, "Ok, good, carry on with your studies".

3 Days later...:angry:

CRAM

WhenI was at the ITO for the KTL evolution I was on 6C. People were getting sick with something at that time and I was running a fever. I had an MU but coulcn't find it. A sup spot checked me on the word "would" (used to view the future from some point in the past). She didn't like my definition so she had me clay demo it. That was a tough one to clay demo. Then she refused to come back and check it. So my twin passed it and we moved on. I found My MU. It was another word.

I was twinned with a guy from Stutggart on 9A. All of the sudden he was slumping over, his nose was running;half unconciuos. I tried spot checking and got nowhere. Finally I said "What's your MU!" He flipped the page back and pointed to "cabin". Suddenly, he was wide awake, his nose stopped running and he was normal. So there is something to it.

nexus100
25th December 2009, 03:22 AM
WhenI was at the ITO for the KTL evolution I was on 6C. People were getting sick with something at that time and I was running a fever. I had an MU but coulcn't find it. A sup spot checked me on the word "would" (used to view the future from some point in the past). She didn't like my definition so she had me clay demo it. That was a tough one to clay demo. Then she refused to come back and check it. So my twin passed it and we moved on. I found My MU. It was another word.

I was twinned with a guy from Stutggart on 9A. All of the sudden he was slumping over, his nose was running;half unconciuos. I tried spot checking and got nowhere. Finally I said "What's your MU!" He flipped the page back and pointed to "cabin". Suddenly, he was wide awake, his nose stopped running and he was normal. So there is something to it.

You create it! Do students slump over in the library? When you decide words are superior to you, big trouble is on the horizon.

Out-Ethics
25th December 2009, 03:36 AM
Cadetification, it's your job as a Sup to push one-way thinking and allowing a student to yawn doesn't look good. It's amazing that in a Scientology course room it has nothing to do with understanding other than mouthing back what is considered the right answers or doing the rigid handlings if you are not. It all has to do with looking good and being happy. Don't believe me then look at every Gold shoot of a course room then go look at any course room to see if that mirrors it.

While there may be merits about Study Tech which wasn't an LRH creation but stolen from another (I forget who) the true purpose is to destroy any free thinking other than total slave-mind acceptance that Hubbard is the only way. Study tech = mind control of a group. And that's too bad because study tech, most likely, from it's original creator has workable tech.

Out-Ethics
25th December 2009, 03:45 AM
You create it! Do students slump over in the library? When you decide words are superior to you, big trouble is on the horizon.

Like getting M-9 and you stumble but you know there really isn't an MU. I would pick an easy word with few definitions and then get on with the M-9. I know when I don't understand something and when I do and it is very invalidating when you know there isn't anything there. That tech is BS because it states anything less than a natural reading voice with no stumbles the student has an MU. I've also seen students who could read very well in their natural voice and not ever stumble yet have huge MUs and unable to apply.

nozeno
25th December 2009, 04:31 AM
When someone understands scientology, they leave it.

It takes some longer than others.

Misunderstood words, I expect.

Cadetification
25th December 2009, 04:41 AM
Study Tech so fucked up my ability to understand a subject. It was a series of "invalidative" moments, particularly on course. When it came to my daughter I just told her what words meant as many times as needed, until she could look them up herself.

I used to get into word chains 100 plus long, what a waste of time when I could have been playing outside like children are supposed to. :angry:

My parents did the same thing. So much faster than "clearing" and getting into word chains. Especially when I didn't even want to be on course in the first place.

Cadetification
25th December 2009, 04:44 AM
Cadetification, it's your job as a Sup to push one-way thinking and allowing a student to yawn doesn't look good. It's amazing that in a Scientology course room it has nothing to do with understanding other than mouthing back what is considered the right answers or doing the rigid handlings if you are not. It all has to do with looking good and being happy. Don't believe me then look at every Gold shoot of a course room then go look at any course room to see if that mirrors it.

While there may be merits about Study Tech which wasn't an LRH creation but stolen from another (I forget who) the true purpose is to destroy any free thinking other than total slave-mind acceptance that Hubbard is the only way. Study tech = mind control of a group. And that's too bad because study tech, most likely, from it's original creator has workable tech.

Yeah, I realized that very quickly. It was a big deal because I was in one of the really big courserooms and RTC was always in and out and Gold was constantly in it taking pictures. It was pretty distracting for the students. :no:

Boojuum
25th December 2009, 05:07 AM
Amen DOF.

Clearing word definitions was a life-changing habit, a life-improving habit that was invaluable to me. One of the best things I got out of the CoS, without a doubt.

Are dictionaries used too much in CoS? Absolutely.

Did LRH go wacko over word clearing? I think so.

Did overuse of word clearing obfuscate the purpose of training? Yup.

Did overuse of word clearing introvert people unnecessarily? Yup.

Kathy (ImOut)
25th December 2009, 05:42 AM
Study Tech so fucked up my ability to understand a subject. It was a series of "invalidative" moments, particularly on course. When it came to my daughter I just told her what words meant as many times as needed, until she could look them up herself.

I used to get into word chains 100 plus long, what a waste of time when I could have been playing outside like children are supposed to. :angry:

I was keeping a notebook of the words I cleared when I first got in. If I'd continued that "habit", I could probably fill an entire room with notebooks of words I cleared. And honestly, I still had to re-look-up words after clearing them numerous times. Some words just don't stick in my head. Especially words that I don't use every day in my normal communication. And LRH used a LOT of those words.

Kathy (ImOut)
25th December 2009, 05:44 AM
You had a lousy sup. He didn't make sure you were using the right dictionary(ies). The best dictionary to use is the simplest one you can find that defines the word(s) well enough in that particular context. More complicated than that is overkill and a waste of time. Too much more than that is a catastrophe.

Paul

I was put into an easier dictionary while on SHSBC. But then it wouldn't have the "right" definition. It was all a mess.

And don't even get me started on having to "make up sentences" using the word. I hated that so much. Talk about wasting time - in session!!! :grouch:

HelluvaHoax!
25th December 2009, 05:57 AM
----snip----
And don't even get me started on having to "make up sentences" using the word. I hated that so much. Talk about wasting time - in session!!! :grouch:

With the massive amount of training that I did over the years, my friends and I sometimes had to break the seriousness up and did shit like this on course just for the hell of it and laughs...

STUDENT #1: So, use the word 'crepuscule' in a sentence that demonstrates it's meaning.

HELLUVASTUDENT: (first sentence) I do not know the meaning of the word crepuscule.

STUDENT #1: Good. Another sentence...

HELLUVASTUDENT: (2nd sentence) I looked it up but still do not know the meaning of the word crepuscule.

STUDENT #1: Very good. Okay one more sentence...

HELLUVASTUDENT: (3rd sentence) I have been using the word crepuscule in hundreds of sentences but still do not know what it means.

STUDENT #1: Excellent! How do you feel about the word crepuscule now?

HELLUVASTUDENT: (crazy fake smile) Great!

STUDENT #1: Okay, let's move on to another word then....

(we would be laughing our asses off and the supervisor would shoot us sharp looks which would make it even funnier)

Dulloldfart
25th December 2009, 11:35 AM
I was put into an easier dictionary while on SHSBC. But then it wouldn't have the "right" definition. It was all a mess.


I said "dictionary(ies)". I would use several, and suggested students did the same. Sometimes a child's dictionary will give an adequate definition of the word you want; sometimes only a two-ton dictionary would, and even then it had to be a specific one. Like there's a PL from 1964 or something and in the mimeo distribution it gives the weight of the paper it is to be printed on. I forget the actual term, but it isn't current usage any more for paper weight. That was only in one specific two-ton dictionary.

My general suggestion to students for general English words was to start with the smallest dictionary, and work your way up to college-level ones (and the OED) until you found the definition you wanted. Then once you had cleared that definition (WITHOUT getting into huge word chains), dump that dictionary, and clear the other definitions like a good little Scientologist, but do it in the child's dictionary, not the two-ton one. I didn't see any difference between 13 other definitions of the word you were clearing and any other word in the dictionary — it had nothing to do with the course you were studying and was only an arbitrary policy, so fuck it (I didn't express that bit aloud!).

Study goes much quicker that way. Word chains are complete dev-t. Some very short ones are unavoidable, but as soon as you get into long ones it's wrong and you need to get out of it. This assumes you have some kind of command of general English. Studying Hubbard in a language you're not fluent in is a disaster.

Paul

NeXTep
25th December 2009, 12:04 PM
I think that study tech and looking up words is one of the few valid pieces of tech in Scn, though I don't apply it religiously anymore but looking up words and trying to keep a balance theory and mass is sensible advice.

The main problem with Scientology and its study tech is that it was always assumed that the writings are 100% correct and that any disagreements always stem from MUs. Which of course made all the writings of LRH into absolute truths that could not be questioned in any way and thus the basis mind control was set. Study tech always assumes that the materials you are studying are absolutely correct, thus as a consequence one was lead to deduce that study tech could not be applied to any other texts than Scientology as they were assumed to be faulty.

Thus study tech as indoctrinated and applied in the CofS was of course applied to shut off any and all critical thinking.

Dulloldfart
25th December 2009, 12:11 PM
I think that study tech and looking up words is one of the few valid pieces of tech in Scn, though I don't apply it religiously anymore but looking up words and trying to keep a balance theory and mass is sensible advice.

The main problem with Scientology and its study tech is that it was always assumed that the writings are 100% correct and that any disagreements always stem from MUs. Which of course made all the writings of LRH into absolute truths that could not be questioned in any way and thus the basis mind control was set. Study tech always assumes that the materials you are studying are absolutely correct, thus as a consequence one was lead to deduce that study tech could not be applied to any other texts than Scientology as they were assumed to be faulty.

Thus study tech as indoctrinated and applied in the CofS was of course applied to shut off any and all critical thinking.

"Study Tech" includes both the Study Tapes (generally sensible apart from all the waffle), and 1970/1 HCOBs (including Method 4, which is as you describe). It's not all the same. The Study Tapes allow for errors in what you are studying, and "power of choice" over data. Method 4 doesn't.

Paul

NeXTep
25th December 2009, 12:37 PM
"Study Tech" includes both the Study Tapes (generally sensible apart from all the waffle), and 1970/1 HCOBs (including Method 4, which is as you describe). It's not all the same. The Study Tapes allow for errors in what you are studying, and "power of choice" over data. Method 4 doesn't.

Paul

Thanks Paul, you're right. You're a walking LRH library. :eyeroll:

Out-Ethics
25th December 2009, 05:18 PM
I said "dictionary(ies)". I would use several, and suggested students did the same. Sometimes a child's dictionary will give an adequate definition of the word you want; sometimes only a two-ton dictionary would, and even then it had to be a specific one. Like there's a PL from 1964 or something and in the mimeo distribution it gives the weight of the paper it is to be printed on. I forget the actual term, but it isn't current usage any more for paper weight. That was only in one specific two-ton dictionary.

My general suggestion to students for general English words was to start with the smallest dictionary, and work your way up to college-level ones (and the OED) until you found the definition you wanted. Then once you had cleared that definition (WITHOUT getting into huge word chains), dump that dictionary, and clear the other definitions like a good little Scientologist, but do it in the child's dictionary, not the two-ton one. I didn't see any difference between 13 other definitions of the word you were clearing and any other word in the dictionary it had nothing to do with the course you were studying and was only an arbitrary policy, so fuck it (I didn't express that bit aloud!).

Study goes much quicker that way. Word chains are complete dev-t. Some very short ones are unavoidable, but as soon as you get into long ones it's wrong and you need to get out of it. This assumes you have some kind of command of general English. Studying Hubbard in a language you're not fluent in is a disaster.

Paul

I always applied looking up a word this way too and suggested to students clearing words although students at times were slow to figure this out. Foreign language students or those with poor vocabulary were generally "fucked" because Hubbard used every word in the English language he could use. You could use M-7 on them but the problem is unless they looked up words and used them in sentences they could never get a full conceptional understanding. I would see students finish a course this way and attest that they didn't have MUs yet you could spot check and find one. Seems rather pointless to me.

Studying Hubbard was insane at times, he would at times also use words in a rare way or re-invent it or not complete a thought. At times it was like studying hieroglyphics. A student would get into a pretzel on figuring this out and of course as a sup you are not allowed to explain. The only thing you could do is have the student find an MU or demo it out. The student could get hung up on this for hours. It seemed like a very stupid and an inefficient way of handling. Very frustrating!!!!

Boojuum
26th December 2009, 08:04 PM
Looking up words is a powerful habit but what about the other 2 "barriers to study?" Only on rare occations did I witness the "too steep a gradient" phenomenon of reeling. The "lack of mass" element I guess sort of makes sense but seems mostly ritualistic with students moving paper clips and bolts around. I have never seen a student leap up from a clay table and say, "Now I've really got it." (so why were we doing it? ritual, ritual, ritual.

The problem with "study tech" for use in the cos is that it misdirects the attention of the student from learning through experience to learning by repeated focus on sketchy LRH policy.

In spite of LRH's comments that one learns by doing, the focus was on developing an arcane comprehension of the theory instead of doing something until you got it right. In many cases, I saw staff simply doing what they observed others doing AND spending a great deal of time looking up words.

On the other hand, after observing many, many college students and professors stumble through material with minimal understanding, I have to say that the strength of the "study tech" was best observed in watching a word clearer and student focusing on the details to the point of full comprehension. Really getting what an author is saying is a rarity in formal academic settings.