Study Technology: Power of Choice

[Dulloldfart]

In several places online I have seen people say they were forced to accept something Hubbard said, and that this is "Study Tech." I'm not challenging that such happens, but it isn't study tech, even if someone says it is!

From Hubbard's lecture EDUCATION, 25 October 1956:

Now, it's a sure test of a teacher whether he knows his stuff or not, the number of data which he insists on everyone assimilating without question. If he insists that a great number of data be assimilated without further analysis or question in any way, shape or form, we know this boy doesn't know his business. He's scared. Somehow or another he feels that nobody must be permitted to examine these data. So he's doing something else. He's doing something else.

Now, educationally, it is absolutely necessary for the teacher to preserve the power of choice of the student over the data which he is taught. And if it is not in agreement with the experience of the student, and will not be found to be true in the environment of the student, he permits the student to examine
this and say so, and operate accordingly. Only in this wise would you have anything used or useful.​

That lecture is part of study tech, on the courses, or at least it used to be.

I know the Method 4 word clearing HCOB says if you disagree with something Hubbard wrote you have a prior misunderstood, but that is just a rote (stupid) explanation. If a sup or word clearer ran that on you then they didn't understand what Hubbard said about power of choice in my quote above.

Paul

 

[Feral]

But Paul, the 1956 Hubbard wrote that, he was a much kinder man interested in the restoration of self determinism than the 1965 Hubbard.

You know if one studies the early writings, particularly part a & B of the SHSBC you can find material contradictory to almost ALL of the established CofS. The early Scientology was virtually the dichotomy of what it later became.

David Miscavige is merely continuing the tradition.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

But Paul, the 1956 Hubbard wrote that, he was a much kinder man interested in the restoration of self determinism than the 1965 Hubbard.

You know if one studies the early writings, particularly part a & B of the SHSBC you can find material contradictory to almost ALL of the established CofS. The early Scientology was virtually the dichotomy of what it later became.

David Miscavige is merely continuing the tradition.

So? Wisdom lies in doing that which you find for yourself is sensible & compassionate. It does not lie in playing follow-the-leader wheresoever he may go.

"Good Ron" warrants acknowledgement for what he said that has validity. "Bad Ron" warrants acknowledgement so others won't mistakenly do as he has done.


Mark A. Baker

 

[ULRC/S]

I don't believe "study tech" is actually study tech at all.

Study tech is actually a very good study CORRECTION tech, if a student jams then it comes into play and can be very effective.

But it says nothing about how to study - that depends a HUGE amount on the teacher and/or the teachings the student is trying to assimulate.

Regards, Allen

 

[Lermanet_com]

This is where most of what we LIKED about study tech came from...
A Schoolteacher in Virginia...

Some of the relevant pages are stuffed into this directory for your illumination.

http://www.lermanet.com/exit/studytech/

 

[Terril park]

In several places online I have seen people say they were forced to accept something Hubbard said, and that this is "Study Tech." I'm not challenging that such happens, but it isn't study tech, even if someone says it is!

From Hubbard's lecture EDUCATION, 25 October 1956:

Now, it's a sure test of a teacher whether he knows his stuff or not, the number of data which he insists on everyone assimilating without question. If he insists that a great number of data be assimilated without further analysis or question in any way, shape or form, we know this boy doesn't know his business. He's scared. Somehow or another he feels that nobody must be permitted to examine these data. So he's doing something else. He's doing something else.

Now, educationally, it is absolutely necessary for the teacher to preserve the power of choice of the student over the data which he is taught. And if it is not in agreement with the experience of the student, and will not be found to be true in the environment of the student, he permits the student to examine
this and say so, and operate accordingly. Only in this wise would you have anything used or useful.​

That lecture is part of study tech, on the courses, or at least it used to be.

I know the Method 4 word clearing HCOB says if you disagree with something Hubbard wrote you have a prior misunderstood, but that it is just a rote (stupid) explanation. If a sup or word clearer ran that on you then they didn't understand what Hubbard said about power of choice in my quote above.

Paul

Right on Paul!

Its even more fundamental. HCOB 15 may 1963 ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS BULLETIN 1

"A thetan has things beyond matter, energy, space and time which can deteriorate. His power of choice, his ability to keep two locations separate,
his belief in self and and his ethical standards are independant of material things."

 

[Veda]

Hubbard's lofty expressions regarding freedom of thought occur within the context of Dianetics/Scientology, the only hope for Mankind (1950), and the only hope for the spirit of Man (1952).

In 1951, those opposed to Dianetics were judged to be low toned, and - in any thinking society - would have no rights of any kind. These low toned/"anti-Dianetic" people were to be rehabilitated (made pro-Dianetics), or isolated from the rest of the population, or disposed of.

By 1955, appeared the 'Manual on Dissemination of Material', which contained some early hints of the Scientology to come: Intolerance for criticism, ruthlessness, secretive compartmentalization, selected misleading presentation of Scientology to specific persons and publics.

Unfortunately, the mind is predisposed to focus either on the negatives, a few examples of which are cited in this post, or on the positives, some of which are cited earlier in this thread.

Off hand, I don't have a solution to that.

Except to suggest that one activate the "third eye," above the lower two, to gain an additional perspective.

 

[Dulloldfart]

This is where most of what we LIKED about study tech came from...
A Schoolteacher in Virginia...

It's a nice sound bite Arnie, but not true at all.

Paul

 

[tookmeawhile]

That's one of the numerous problems with scientology. It can be like the bible. You can find a quote for just about ANYTHING you want; pro or con. Same with ron's "tech"; you can find just about anything about anything and back it up with a "quote from ron" to prove it is correct or wrong, etc. In this case, at least in the 80's and later, ron FORCED you to accept his data or you were in lower conditions, expensive review, etc.

Even if ron didn't have any data over a particular subject, scio management AND ron interpreted this as "nothing important - move along" such as asbestos.

I'm not saying the data about studying and using your own self-determinism to decide whether you should reject it or accept it is wrong. (Not the ol' throw the baby out with the bathwater trap.) I'm just saying don't quote ron as thee OT with the answers AND that this was really his intention. His intentions are obvious - just look at scio's products. Quoting ron on something that appears to be good, sound data and therefore implying that all of his data is good but we mere mortals are misapplying it or we're SP's or have MU's, etc.

Just because Ron made a good point (not original) about accepting or rejecting data doesn't mean ALL of his study tech is right. A lot of it, IMO, is good but a lot of it is stupid and useless, too. I'm so glad that ron said I have the choice to accept or reject his data. Think I'm gonna reject some more right now.

 

[Feral]

So? Wisdom lies in doing that which you find for yourself is sensible & compassionate. It does not lie in playing follow-the-leader wheresoever he may go.

"Good Ron" warrants acknowledgement for what he said that has validity. "Bad Ron" warrants acknowledgement so others won't mistakenly do as he has done.


Mark A. Baker

What do you mean , "so?"

"So" it is relevant to the statement of observation in Paul's OP.........:confused2:

"So" it is relevant and explanatory to the dichotomous nature of Hubbard's writings.

"So", it is a cautionary note that should forewarn unwary travelers to ignore the clearly marked path "out" of the labyrinth and "into" the total freedom offered.

And "So" on....

 

[Kutta]

Sorry DOF, but it just won't wash with me to quote anything at all by LROn, cos any such quote can be countered by some other. KSW would seem to obliterate your quoted stuff by him. And in my experience, in practice, which matters most, there was no choice at all. Could any students in org course rooms get away with analyzing or critiquing or disagreeing with anything they read on HCOBs? Maybe you handled such disagreements differently when you were a sup. Did you? Or did you try to get to the bottom of a supposed MU? I'd be interested to hear. All respect to you notwihstanding.

 

[Dulloldfart]

That's one of the numerous problems with scientology. It can be like the bible. You can find a quote for just about ANYTHING you want; pro or con. Same with ron's "tech"; you can find just about anything about anything and back it up with a "quote from ron" to prove it is correct or wrong, etc. In this case, at least in the 80's and later, ron FORCED you to accept his data or you were in lower conditions, expensive review, etc.

Even if ron didn't have any data over a particular subject, scio management AND ron interpreted this as "nothing important - move along" such as asbestos.

I'm not saying the data about studying and using your own self-determinism to decide whether you should reject it or accept it is wrong. (Not the ol' throw the baby out with the bathwater trap.) I'm just saying don't quote ron as the OT with the answers AND that this was really his intention. His intentions are obvious - just look at scio's products. Quoting ron on something that appears to be good, sound data and therefore implying that all of his data is good but we mere mortals are misapplying it or we're SP's or have MU's, etc.

I quoted what I did to make the point I did. Any further inference and generalization is the reader's.

Paul

 

[Dulloldfart]

Could any students in org course rooms get away with analyzing or critiquing or disagreeing with anything they read on HCOBs? Maybe you handled such disagreements differently when you were a sup. Did you? Or did you try to get to the bottom of a supposed MU? I'd be interested to hear. All respect to you notwihstanding.

What I did when a (rare) student said, "I don't agree with this Hubbard statement" was to try and put myself in his shoes. I wouldn't handle it rotely at all. If it seemed to me that Hubbard's statement was acceptable, I would try and find out why the student wouldn't accept it. It might be an m/u; it might be missing data; it might be something else. On the other hand, if someone didn't accept Hubbard's Silver Surfer Marcab racetrack fantasies I wasn't going to make a song and a dance about it.

I don't mean a student had to agree with *me* either!

Paul

 

[Mark A. Baker]

What do you mean , "so?"

"So" it is relevant to the statement of observation in Paul's OP.........:confused2:

"So" it is relevant and explanatory to the dichotomous nature of Hubbard's writings.

"So", it is a cautionary note that should forewarn unwary travelers to ignore the clearly marked path "out" of the labyrinth and "into" the total freedom offered.

And "So" on....

To me it is obvious that playing "follow the leader" is fool hardy. One should always practice the thoughtful art of heresy, i.e. be selective about what one chooses to adopt for oneself. Hubbard's writings being mutually contradictory provide all the more justification for what I take as being an obvious conclusion.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Boojuum]

Study tech missing

I always took the M4 "Anything you disagree with?" question to be a probe for mu's not a demand for some type of credo.

The mu information is fabulous. However, LRH missed a great deal of educational technology because he never taught anything but his teachings. If he'd spent any time at all in a public classroom (aside from his claimed Harvard lecture) he'd have been able to share a great deal more insight into what public education is up against. It's ironic that the Apple School/Delphi/Applied Scholastics/etc. grew out of a very selective view of education.

The comment on mass and gradients is interesting but by no means complete.

Again, it's LRH's insistence on limiting solutions that condemn him. Paul's quote is interesting in that it shows that LRH could be insightful.

Reminds me of the comment that good liars need to have very good memories.

 

[x-x]

You know if one studies the early writings, particularly part a & B of the SHSBC you can find material contradictory to almost ALL of the established CofS. The early Scientology was virtually the dichotomy of what it later became.

It seems to me that LRH re did the Bridge at least 3 times. His work stands as a monument of genius.

However, you are right Kevin. I wonder at the emphasis on looking after the body in The Way to Happiness, vs the attitude in '52 which was "don't look after the body".

I wonder in fact how much of the later work was written by Ron at all. TWTH is a very useful book, I have had good reactions from people I have given it to. I wonder if it was written to a project from Ron. I think Ron kicked quite a few goals technically in later years, particularly in 1978, but he probably didn't have time to do all the writing. If you have ever held a post in Scientology you wonder how he did it, the answer delegation. Its all about separating the key data from the subject, and the man from the movement. He wasn't perfect, none of us are, I cut him some slack.

All those later HCOB's full of references at the top, you don't see that in the pre 70's issues. Most seem to agree that Scientology was fun times up to the eighties. I'm not saying it hasn't been since then but I would like to tweak it a bit here or there. However people's experiences are relative, some can be having a hell of a restimulative time while others are thriving, which seems to be the case with most of the guys I know on staff currently.

BTB's were scrapped but now we have something worse where the non-LRH stuff is mixed in. There is a scale of importance, you need to duplicate and understand axioms etc, little narratives by Ron or comments on other subjects are relatively unimportant and you can have your own opinions. The key data are consistent with logic, for instance in the PDCs you find that the tone scale comes from start change and stop. It is intimately connected with the basics of this universe.

Genius can be brought to dust by small men. Roteness seems to enter in, whether in how it is taught here and there, or in how it is received. Roteness is not duplication. I am all for x's leaving, when all they ever had was rote. Why? Its self determinism. However that is step one, step two is taking a second look at the subject based on comparison with other, thus we move you from identification to differentiation, higher on the scale.

Currently the theme of the month seems to be "other determinism" all this blame from the Xenophon cult. The way out of other determinism is the chapters on responsibility in Advanced Procedures and Axioms. Persistent blame that doesn't resolve is acting on a wrong why, like hate it is a route you don't want to spend too much time on.

Kevin, you are in the non-interference zone. We'll get you through one day with your self determinism restored.

I read a good reference on negative gain recently, I think if people are introverted into a process and havingness is down they may not see much results, whereas sometimes people around them do, as another poster commented. After giving this subject some thought, I think the chasing of perfection on this level is wrong in that absolutes are unobtainable, and that is auditing the case and not the pre-OT. Anyhow when my clear check was sorted it turned out to be a postulate I made that was stopping it. OTs are capable of quite a lot of fluctuation of case, lower on the Bridge people don't change much. I know you have gone to the dark side but I don't take it too seriously. It is the being we are interested in.

And the final contradiction, DM is currently getting the field to study the Scientology of the fifties, including all congresses and ACCs. Life really is complex, it is not black and white. Theta is nonlinear.

 

[Feral]

Hey x-x, sounds like your view of the CofS is evolving when I compare this to your earlier writings. But looks can be deceiving.

Kevin, you are in the non-interference zone. We'll get you through one day with your self determinism restored.

What could you mean by saying this to someone who spent 15 years on OTVII?

Even as a Scientologist's ad hom, this is a bit far fetched...

Why not simply say I must have missed something by failing to res-tudy my basics?

 

[Fairplay]

Hubbard method of education

There actually is a 'Hubbard METHOD of education'.
To start a school in Victoria, Australia, one needs to present the "Method" of education to the Registered Schools Board (Govt Dept.) and have the "method" approved.
A private school cannot be legally opened without the method being approved.

I presented the Hubbard method to the registered schools board (in 1988) and had it accepted by the the Govt. body as an acceptable METHOD.
One would need to understand that the study technogology is only part of the Hubbard method. One would need to read the various PABs and other writings to understand what the 'Hubbard Method' is.
There was quite a lot of information handed to the Registered Schools Board by myself about the method of education. The gentleman who worked there thought 'the method' was very sound. He alone presented the method to the governing Board (RSB) and the method was approved.
Once the school (now called 'yarralinda') was opened in Melbourne, several persons physically booted me (and several others) from the school premises for no other reasons but to "make a quick buck" and to destroy the Hubbard method of education.

I was (at that time of being usurped) dealing with other matters for the school with regard to insuring the school did not fall into the wrong hands, such as it did in any case.

Another point about this school is that the building was legally leased by me at the time that I was physically barred from entering my own premises by certain individuals.
As well, the 'not for profit' status of the school ( Legally Incorporated) was by law tied to me at this time.

The legal ramifications for me and for the school once the school was usurped and overthrown were of great concern for me.

Blah blah. Just another item in the long lost of illegal acts committed by some at the Melbourne church, Sydney advanced church and some members of their public. ...lynette PAB (Professional Auditor Bulletin)

 

[Lermanet_com]

It's a nice sound bite Arnie, but not true at all.

Paul

well, everyone has opinions....thank you for yours, Im writing this in hopes your dismissal does not discourage others from even looking at the materials that HERE
http://www.lermanet.com/exit/studytech/

seems your opinion is counter to Flag's because they (A wise arbitration at FLB) ruled in favor of a guy that ran a bunch of schools using supposed LRH STUDY tech... when he introduced those pages... he was deemed NOT liable for wise 10 percents for his chain of english schools in Hungary or somewhere... that story is also in the directory as a PDF but you would have had to read the stuff in the directory.

Of course after agreeing that he didn't owe those 10%'s they declared him an SP....and began fair gaming him

 

[SweetnessandLight]

There actually is a 'Hubbard METHOD of education'.
To start a school in Victoria, Australia, one needs to present the "Method" of education to the Registered Schools Board (Govt Dept.) and have the "method" approved.
A private school cannot be legally opened without the method being approved.

I presented the Hubbard method to the registered schools board (in 1988) and had it accepted by the the Govt. body as an acceptable METHOD.
One would need to understand that the study technogology is only part of the Hubbard method. One would need to read the various PABs and other writings to understand what the 'Hubbard Method' is.
There was quite a lot of information handed to the Registered Schools Board by myself about the method of education. The gentleman who worked there thought 'the method' was very sound. He alone presented the method to the governing Board (RSB) and the method was approved.
Once the school (now called 'yarralinda') was opened in Melbourne, several persons physically booted me (and several others) from the school premises for no other reasons but to "make a quick buck" and to destroy the Hubbard method of education.

I was (at that time of being usurped) dealing with other matters for the school with regard to insuring the school did not fall into the wrong hands, such as it did in any case.

Another point about this school is that the building was legally leased by me at the time that I was physically barred from entering my own premises by certain individuals.
As well, the 'not for profit' status of the school ( Legally Incorporated) was by law tied to me at this time.

The legal ramifications for me and for the school once the school was usurped and overthrown were of great concern for me.

Blah blah. Just another item in the long lost of illegal acts committed by some at the Melbourne church, Sydney advanced church and some members of their public. ...lynette PAB (Professional Auditor Bulletin)

Oy Vey!