Scientology Study Tech In The Real World

[RogerB]

In regular English maybe, but not in Hubbardingo. The HCOB that gives the different kinds of m/u, The Misunderstood Word Defined, I believe, includes "not understood" as one of the categories.

Paul

Yes, 'tis absolutely true . . . . and another good example of Hubbardarian sloppy bullshitted stuff that misses the mark and screws people up.

It is another very good example of his erroneous ways . . . . he routinely used misunderstood to refer to not/non-understoods and non-comprehensions in his lectures. . . . but then everything got lumped under his penchant for slangifying everything . . . so they were all simply referred to as "MU's" . . . he actually used that abbreviated term "MU" to refer to all that a student either didn't get or screwed up.

The man was such a bloody ham and a fraud!

He pinched the tech point from another, didn't really understand or comprehend it himself . . . and ballsed it up!

R

[Dulloldfart]

It is another very good example of his erroneous ways . . . . he routinely used misunderstood to refer to not/non-understoods and non-comprehensions in his lectures. . . . but then everything got lumped under his penchant for slangifying everything . . . so they were all simply referred to as "MU's" . . . he actually used that abbreviated term "MU" to refer to all that a student either didn't get or screwed up.

As a sup, I found it useful to have them all lumped together. I didn't find a lot of difference between "not understood" and "misunderstood." I know there is a difference academically, but functionally not so much. They can both leave a student foggy. Conversely, a student can sail past both and not be affected physiologically at all. I've seen many a bright shiny student who wasn't aware they were passing dozens of mu's a page (those small English words, for example).

As I've said before, I finally used the criterion of can the guy do what the course is about? "No misunderstoods" is both impossible and the wrong emphasis.

Paul

[RogerB]

As a sup, I found it useful to have them all lumped together. I didn't find a lot of difference between "not understood" and "misunderstood." I know there is a difference academically, but functionally not so much. They can both leave a student foggy. Conversely, a student can sail past both and not be affected physiologically at all. I've seen many a bright shiny student who wasn't aware they were passing dozens of mu's a page (those small English words, for example).

As I've said before, I finally used the criterion of can the guy do what the course is about? "No misunderstoods" is both impossible and the wrong emphasis.

Paul

Yes, all valid. And I certainly agree on the point re misunderstoods . . . folks can sail on happily oblivious to them . . . as I said.

Case in point: I debugged an intern at FSO in about 1983 who was in cramming on emeter drills. This girl, a friend of mine was in training to be a NOTs auditor and herself old OT7.

What was interesting was her difficulties in use of the emeter, which had been missed in each of the prior three times she'd done the emeter drills course . . . .wait for it . . . I traced back to her having been given a wrong definition of a coma (,) when she was about 7 or 8 years old.

She had been told by a teacher that a coma meant, "and," as in when you have a list of items: apples, oranges, bananas, plums, etc.

She thereafter did not correctly understand every sentence she came across that contained a coma. My brilliant coaching was required to reveal this . . . fact is, even Qual at FSO didn't or failed to find her why. It took me tracing her study sequence back through a series of indicators of "something missed" to eventually have her read aloud to me the manual's instruction for the basic drill she first screwed up . . . and I spotted she went past all the comas as though they were not there!

SHe had no clue she had an MU on comas.

conversely, she was very bright on the point of non-comprehensions and aware when such was present.

My observation of students is that the "unconsciousness" that turns on is not typically the result of going past a MU, but going past a not fully comprehended and in particular words, terms, symbols for which one does not have a full and clear comprehension of . . . for it here that the student fails to attain his/her objective/purpose for engaging in the study, i.e., to comprehend and be aware of what is being attempted to be learned.

That failure, in my observation, is what is behind the dope-off.

People who have MU's but do not know it don't do the dope-if trick

R

[Helena Handbasket]

My first PaulsRobot modules were straight Scientology procedures .... But the *idea* of a working computerized auditor is so anti-Hubbard (he says it is impossible)

I feel auditing by computer IS possible. I'm currently engaged in a long-term project to flowchart various processes, as a prelude for programming them into an automated auditing system.

Helena

[Dulloldfart]

I feel auditing by computer IS possible. I'm currently engaged in a long-term project to flowchart various processes, as a prelude for programming them into an automated auditing system.

Helena

Good luck.

Paul

[Student of Trinity]

I think I might dope off, too, if my reading took me into a coma.

[thetabird]

I'm just curious what all of you did with your books, tapes, cds, etc.?

[Gadfly]

I'm just curious what all of you did with your books, tapes, cds, etc.?

I sold and/or am still selling off all of that crap on eBay.

Got about $650 for a full 1993 set of OEC volumes with the Management Books included. Even sold the clear bracelet (got about $65), Scientology tie, my old Sea Org belt, and so forth. Some peope actually pay real money for the junk.

[Student of Trinity]

I've been thinking more about this question of continuing to use the term "Scientology" even after rejecting large amounts of Hubbard's teachings.

[S]uppose for the sake of argument that there does exist a coherent subject that is of value, and is also close enough to Hubbard's Scientology that it would be reasonable to call the refined subject Scientology after it. I'd want to ask, is it actually necessary to call the refined subject by Hubbard's name [for it]? Is the refined subject really so close to Hubbard's creation that it would be disingenuous to call it anything else but Scientology? Or would it not be just as legitimate to find a new name for the subject nowadays, even if one feels bound to admit that the Scientology of L. Ron Hubbard was an important source?

I noticed two equally reasonable (though almost opposite) responses to this:

What a thing is to be called ultimately is not especially important ... .

It's ... a question of honesty, and not merely expedience.

But on further reflection I still feel that the point should be pressed. Why keep on calling stuff "Scientology," when what one means by the term is no longer Hubbard, the whole of Hubbard, and nothing but Hubbard?

Paul points out that it would just be dishonest to call the stuff something totally different, if what it was were too closely based on Hubbard's Scientology. But one can still be honest in recognizing Hubbard's contribution, without using the S-word in particular. One could speak of 'auditing', or even of 'Hubbardian auditing'. Surely that would be just as honest and fair? Just use a finer-grained Hubbardian term, for a smaller unit extracted from his work, rather than his umbrella term for everything he did all lumped together. If you've broken California off from the USA, then by all means still call it California, instead of trying to pretend that it is now West Columbia or something. Just don't call it America.

If Mark believes that auditing, for instance, is valuable, then surely he could say, "I believe that auditing has value," just as well as saying, "I believe that the subject of Scientology has value." Mark argues that the term doesn't matter, so he feels free to use the provocative term "Scientology" to provoke discussion. Well, sure, in one sense terminology is arbitrary. But, in another sense, it isn't just neutral. Rightly or wrongly, different words have different effects on people.

And that's why I'm pressing the point. Rightly or wrongly, it's a matter of fact that the term "Scientology" has been co-opted by the Church of Scientology. Keeping on using that particular term helps them, and divides their critics unnecessarily, and those are real consequences.

In light of that, shouldn't there be a consistent effort by everyone who still finds some value in "the tech", or in later developments based on it, to find honest and effective alternatives to the term "Scientology"? A lot of these people are pretty ingenious folks. Surely they can figure out a way to do that. By doing this, they wouldn't have to change what they believe in any way. They could still speak out just as clearly about what they believe, if they wish to speak out about it. But they would be freed from having to say things like, "I support Scientology", and this would cut down on pointless verbal strife among CofS critics, and hasten the demise of the cult.

The general public is rapidly learning to hate Scientology. What that means is that they hate the CofS and all its cultish works. They generally don't know enough about the details of this stuff to be hating auditing, or the "ARC Triangle", or whatever individual items you consider to be of value. In effect, they simply hate the name, "Scientology".

Why not let them hate that? Why not simply throw this purely nominal Jonah overboard, and if you want to fight for auditing or ARC or whatever part of the whole that you find to be worthy, simply fight for them as such, rather than as parts of an admittedly corrupt whole, called Scientology?

For those who heretofore have supported "Scientology," without meaning that they support all of Hubbard, what I am suggesting is that they have a social obligation to voluntarily restrain their own freedom to use words as they wish, and instead use them in a way that best furthers the destruction of the cult, by finding accurate and honest alternative ways of saying what they think, without calling their beliefs "Scientology". Simply boycott that noun, and find other ways to refer to things you believe in. The way I see it, this is something everyone can do, and therefore should do, unless they really are true-blue Hubbardites.

Let this word "Scientology" be the touchstone, the shibboleth, the clear battle line. Those who refuse to give it up must be those who do more than value parts of "the tech", or respect some of Hubbard's contribution, for they could continue to do both those things without using Hubbard's full package label. If we press the point by distinguishing between parts and the whole, then those who still insist on maintaining Hubbard's term will be those who insist that Hubbard was essentially right, and that everything he did was essentially one whole, to be taken or left. That is the battle line. Why not let it be drawn clearly?

[Dulloldfart]

I've been thinking more about this question of continuing to use the term "Scientology" even after rejecting large amounts of Hubbard's teachings.<snip>

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthrea...l=1#post250351

is something I wrote on the subject that might be worth reading.

Paul