A Flaw in Study Tech

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

One of the debilitating effects of Study Tech is that it often decreases one’s capacity to use language in a fluid way.

This is because Study Tech puts such emphasis on the dictionary as the authoritarian reference for the use and meaning of words.

Study Tech assigns each word a territory and a boundary. Thus users of Study Tech often miss the purpose of language.

They can’t see the forest (language) because of the trees (words). This happens IN Scientology.

Users of Study Tech develop the tendency to emphasize the fixed meaning of words rather than the understanding of ideas. In other words, they become literal in their use of words, which limits their capacity to understand.

Study Tech negates the use and existence of such figures of rhetoric as metonymy and synecdoche.

A metonymy is a figure of speech in which the name of one object is put for some other object, the two being so closely related that the mention of one naturally suggests the other.
Examples of this are: “I read Shakespeare”; “Man shall live by the sweat of his brow”; “France would not consent.”; “Bayonets speak“; “This happens in Scientology”; “What does the Freezone believe?”

Scientologists whose fluidity of language is reduced by the use of Study Tech often dismiss a metonymy as “a generality.” They have lost their taste and imagination in the use of language, relying only on the meaning of words instead.

This happens also with the use a synecdoche.

A synecdoche is a figure of speech in which the name of a part is used to represent the whole, or the name of the whole is used to represent a part, or a definite number used to represent an indefinite. Examples: “All hands were working”; “Ten thousand exes rejoiced.”; “The world condemns him.” Scientologists and exes often dismiss this expression of an idea too as simply “a generality.”

Both figures of speech are founded on the contiguity of two objects of thought.

Scientologists and exes who adhere to Study Tech often do not make this connection, as they emphasize words and not thoughts. The adherents to study tech miss the ideas because they do not understand the use of language.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Leon]

Good post. Good observations.

 

[Mystic]

Darn good statement of how tulpa Hubbard's spewings fuck you up.

 

[Student of Trinity]

This is the kind of thing I was trying to get at by saying that Hubbard's emphasis on word clearing was like insisting people look at your painting either from twenty yards away, or from half an inch away, and never from six feet away. Insisting that any problems you have with a text must boil down to a misunderstood word is like saying that if you don't like a painting, it's because of one particular brushstroke. Or that if you don't like a symphony, it's because of one note.

Sure, one wrong word can totally slant your take on a text, if it's a crucial word. And one wrong note in a critical place can wreck an entire movement, and one stray daub of paint could dramatically change a portrait's expression. But those are extreme and unusual cases, not the norm. If someone seriously claimed that the only thing that can make music bad is single stray notes, you'd have to imagine they were tone deaf, to be so completely unaware of how much more is going on in a piece of music. If someone tried to criticize paintings entirely in terms of stray brushstrokes, you'd wonder if a brain tumor had damaged their higher visual processing.

Word clearing as an honest approach to learning is startlingly ignorant, but as a brainwashing technique, it's pretty slick. It lets people go through the motions of critical thinking in the clean little sandbox of a dictionary, well away from all the dirty tricks that can be pulled without any individual word ever having to play a critical role — surreptitious changes of context, straw men, bait-and-switch, and the like. It's the magician carefully showing the audience how very empty his hat is. It makes them feel they've been duly skeptical, and it distracts them while he slips the rabbit from his pocket into his sleeve.

 

[Good twin]

Thanks TAJ. Brilliant.

 

[Dennis]

Great insight TAJ. I always wondered why I concentrated on the details and totally missed the big picture... would luv to hear your observations on blunting of critical anyalysis and inability to enter the flow of conversations

Dennis

 

[AngeloV]

This is the kind of thing I was trying to get at by saying that Hubbard's emphasis on word clearing was like insisting people look at your painting either from twenty yards away, or from half an inch away, and never from six feet away. Insisting that any problems you have with a text must boil down to a misunderstood word is like saying that if you don't like a painting, it's because of one particular brushstroke. Or that if you don't like a symphony, it's because of one note.

Sure, one wrong word can totally slant your take on a text, if it's a crucial word. And one wrong note in a critical place can wreck an entire movement, and one stray daub of paint could dramatically change a portrait's expression. But those are extreme and unusual cases, not the norm. If someone seriously claimed that the only thing that can make music bad is single stray notes, you'd have to imagine they were tone deaf, to be so completely unaware of how much more is going on in a piece of music. If someone tried to criticize paintings entirely in terms of stray brushstrokes, you'd wonder if a brain tumor had damaged their higher visual processing.

Word clearing as an honest approach to learning is startlingly ignorant, but as a brainwashing technique, it's pretty slick. It lets people go through the motions of critical thinking in the clean little sandbox of a dictionary, well away from all the dirty tricks that can be pulled without any individual word ever having to play a critical role — surreptitious changes of context, straw men, bait-and-switch, and the like. It's the magician carefully showing the audience how very empty his hat is. It makes them feel they've been duly skeptical, and it distracts them while he slips the rabbit from his pocket into his sleeve.

I like your analogy of looking at a painting.

Another thing is that never in the 'study tech' do you ever have to compare and contrast one idea with another which I believe is the foundation of critical thinking.

 

[Kutta]

Another thing is that never in the 'study tech' do you ever have to compare and contrast one idea with another which I believe is the foundation of critical thinking.
__________________

My quote marks are not working. But I believe the above to be so very true.

 

[Alanzo]

One of the debilitating effects of Study Tech is that it often decreases one’s capacity to use language in a fluid way.

This is because Study Tech puts such emphasis on the dictionary as the authoritarian reference for the use and meaning of words.

Study Tech assigns each word a territory and a boundary. Thus users of Study Tech often miss the purpose of language.

They can’t see the forest (language) because of the trees (words). This happens IN Scientology.

Users of Study Tech develop the tendency to emphasize the fixed meaning of words rather than the understanding of ideas. In other words, they become literal in their use of words, which limits their capacity to understand.

Study Tech negates the use and existence of such figures of rhetoric as metonymy and synecdoche.

A metonymy is a figure of speech in which the name of one object is put for some other object, the two being so closely related that the mention of one naturally suggests the other.
Examples of this are: “I read Shakespeare”; “Man shall live by the sweat of his brow”; “France would not consent.”; “Bayonets speak“; “This happens in Scientology”; “What does the Freezone believe?”

Scientologists whose fluidity of language is reduced by the use of Study Tech often dismiss a metonymy as “a generality.” They have lost their taste and imagination in the use of language, relying only on the meaning of words instead.

This happens also with the use a synecdoche.

A synecdoche is a figure of speech in which the name of a part is used to represent the whole, or the name of the whole is used to represent a part, or a definite number used to represent an indefinite. Examples: “All hands were working”; “Ten thousand exes rejoiced.”; “The world condemns him.” Scientologists and exes often dismiss this expression of an idea too as simply “a generality.”

Both figures of speech are founded on the contiguity of two objects of thought.

Scientologists and exes who adhere to Study Tech often do not make this connection, as they emphasize words and not thoughts. The adherents to study tech miss the ideas because they do not understand the use of language.

The Anabaptist Jacques

"That's a generality!" seems to be the extent of most Scientologists skill in critical thinking. And, of course, if something is a generality the Scientologist must always conclude that it is false, and said by a suppressive person in order to try to destroy you.

The type of logic where a person makes a general conclusion after experiencing many related specific examples is forbidden by Scientologists when it comes to Scientology itself. If it's a general conclusion about "the psychs", or the IRS, or pharmaceutical companies, that is allowed.

But not for Scientology.

You can see registrar after registrar, in many different orgs and locations, over decades of time, reg people into financial difficulty and even bankruptcy. But to make the conclusion "Scientology bankrupts people" is a suppressive generality and an attempt to destroy Scientology, and must never be done. You can see it happening in front of you, but you are forbidden to integrate your experience and make a conclusion about it, because to do so would culminate in something suppressive.

So you can never conclude whether Scientology really works or not. You can never allow yourself to evaluate your experiences, tie them up with a final conclusion, and move on.

While writing this, I got the old feeling I used to get - the frustration of being a Scientologist and seeing things that should not be happening over and over again, in different times and in different places, and writing them up, over and over, and seeing them keep on happening no matter what I did. And never ever being able to just conclude and walk away.

General conclusions and decisions are very tightly controlled in Scientology. They are the things that Scientologists instinctively watch out for on each other, and write KRs for to get each other "handled on".

The entire Bridge exists to get you to put off your conclusions about Scientology, because you are not high enough on it yet to make a decision about what you see. If you are a critic, and not a Scientologist, then you do not understand Scientology well enough to conclude anything about it. If you have been in it for decades, then there was always something more to do before you were allowed to decide on it.

I have to believe that Hubbard crafted this "conclusion-suspension tech" on purpose, as he had so many lectures on "decision" and "postulates" and how causative they were. If he did do this on purpose, then it was a brilliant strategy.

It worked like a bomb on me for 16 years.

 

[Arthur Dent]

I just mentioned this is a post on another thread....Humanity is, fortunately, not a condition to be cured. Scn. simply banishes it from it's vocabulary which magically makes it non-existent. Presto-change-O! One of the very first things that "impressed" me in scn. was the language. But it makes you an elitist. In my many decades in I never considered that I was that... but it still gets you. Like any language, it isolates you and keeps you unto your own kind. That's the whole idea, isn't it?

I find I have to work daily and diligently on breaking out of the thinking/language mold. Most people "think" in their own language. I've worked with a lot of foreign language people and certain things do not translate.

 

[Kathy (ImOut)]

Great post. I thought my husband was just anal about the correct usage of words. LOL!!!

 

[Div6]

One of the debilitating effects of Study Tech is that it often decreases one’s capacity to use language in a fluid way.

This is because Study Tech puts such emphasis on the dictionary as the authoritarian reference for the use and meaning of words.

Study Tech assigns each word a territory and a boundary. Thus users of Study Tech often miss the purpose of language.

They can’t see the forest (language) because of the trees (words). This happens IN Scientology.

Users of Study Tech develop the tendency to emphasize the fixed meaning of words rather than the understanding of ideas. In other words, they become literal in their use of words, which limits their capacity to understand.

Study Tech negates the use and existence of such figures of rhetoric as metonymy and synecdoche.

A metonymy is a figure of speech in which the name of one object is put for some other object, the two being so closely related that the mention of one naturally suggests the other.
Examples of this are: “I read Shakespeare”; “Man shall live by the sweat of his brow”; “France would not consent.”; “Bayonets speak“; “This happens in Scientology”; “What does the Freezone believe?”

Scientologists whose fluidity of language is reduced by the use of Study Tech often dismiss a metonymy as “a generality.” They have lost their taste and imagination in the use of language, relying only on the meaning of words instead.

This happens also with the use a synecdoche.

A synecdoche is a figure of speech in which the name of a part is used to represent the whole, or the name of the whole is used to represent a part, or a definite number used to represent an indefinite. Examples: “All hands were working”; “Ten thousand exes rejoiced.”; “The world condemns him.” Scientologists and exes often dismiss this expression of an idea too as simply “a generality.”

Both figures of speech are founded on the contiguity of two objects of thought.

Scientologists and exes who adhere to Study Tech often do not make this connection, as they emphasize words and not thoughts. The adherents to study tech miss the ideas because they do not understand the use of language.

The Anabaptist Jacques

While I applaud this analysis, I have to respectfully dis-agree in principle, while admitting the laxities in practice to a large degree.

The premise of the Reactive Mind is A = A. What this is supposed to mean is irrational associations and identifications. The "test" of sanity being the ability to differentiate.

Word Clearing is SUPPOSED to enhance understanding by allowing a person to see that a word has come to have a meaning with which they are unfamiliar, or do not know. All too often, though, we see people REJECTING definitions, or inventing definitions so that thoughts align with their own fixed ideas, and they DO NOT HAVE TO LOOK. (This is the classic Service Facsimile mechanism. A fixed idea that PREVENTS inspection of an area or dynamic of life. The anons call it 'Epic Fail')

I don't think the decline of literacy and the promotion of ignorance is limited to the Scientology milieu. There is more than enough of that to go around in other areas as well.

The other issue is the "ARC Break" mechanism. This is the USE of generalities to ARC break others, enforce, inhibit, deny or suppress their affinities, realities or comm.

LRH gives examples such as "The People vs. John Doe". In this case, "the people' is a generality, and prevents the accused from actually being able to confront his accuser. He also points out that:
“musical chairs in life is the mechanism below ARC breaks in Grade III! To unstabilise gives ARC breaks! Whole staff can be put into a sad effect! This is the mechanism governments use. It’s the basic tool of the socialist. If he can just unstabilise everyone he can kill them with degrade. It’s a basic tool of the insane to maintain their own stability by unstabilising everyone else.”



Just sayin....

 

[Winston Smith]

The emphasis on word clearing, MUs, has tragic effect on Scn kids. If one has a good education in sentence structure (diagramming), grammar and syntax it is easier to read. (Also much easier to write!)

Kids who have not had proper education are deprived of essential thinking skills. Nowhere is this more glaring than the mindless "you have a misunderstood word" mantra of Scn course supervisors.

Public education these days is not much better. I will never forget spending six months diagramming sentences in 8th grade. It was pure torture, but I learned to read, write and think because of a certain English teacher who gave a damn about my future and my classmates' futures.

In Scientology there is no concern for really learning and Scn kids are criminally deprived of the tools for living in the real world. I am in awe of those Scn kids who rise above the oppression and become educated.

 

[OHTEEATE]

LRHand StudyTech

You know LRH did not invent Study Tech,right? It was presented to him by the Berners at St.Hill,and he stole it from them,and got rid of them with a quick declare and trip to the airport. Alan Walter told the story. He was there when it happened.

 

[Terril park]

One of the debilitating effects of Study Tech is that it often decreases one’s capacity to use language in a fluid way.

This is because Study Tech puts such emphasis on the dictionary as the authoritarian reference for the use and meaning of words.

Study Tech assigns each word a territory and a boundary. Thus users of Study Tech often miss the purpose of language.

They can’t see the forest (language) because of the trees (words). This happens IN Scientology.

Users of Study Tech develop the tendency to emphasize the fixed meaning of words rather than the understanding of ideas. In other words, they become literal in their use of words, which limits their capacity to understand.

Study Tech negates the use and existence of such figures of rhetoric as metonymy and synecdoche.

A metonymy is a figure of speech in which the name of one object is put for some other object, the two being so closely related that the mention of one naturally suggests the other.
Examples of this are: “I read Shakespeare”; “Man shall live by the sweat of his brow”; “France would not consent.”; “Bayonets speak“; “This happens in Scientology”; “What does the Freezone believe?”

Scientologists whose fluidity of language is reduced by the use of Study Tech often dismiss a metonymy as “a generality.” They have lost their taste and imagination in the use of language, relying only on the meaning of words instead.

This happens also with the use a synecdoche.

A synecdoche is a figure of speech in which the name of a part is used to represent the whole, or the name of the whole is used to represent a part, or a definite number used to represent an indefinite. Examples: “All hands were working”; “Ten thousand exes rejoiced.”; “The world condemns him.” Scientologists and exes often dismiss this expression of an idea too as simply “a generality.”

Both figures of speech are founded on the contiguity of two objects of thought.

Scientologists and exes who adhere to Study Tech often do not make this connection, as they emphasize words and not thoughts. The adherents to study tech miss the ideas because they do not understand the use of language.

The Anabaptist Jacques

You give no evidence whatsoever on which you base your conclusions.
I also consider them incorrect.

I've done maybe hundreds of hours of word clearing. My favorite twin was
a english lit grad or similar and her day job was working as an editor. We were well matched as study twins.

Most of the people I worked with were iether non native english speakers
or for reasons of bad education, or innate lack of ability, or both, not very literate. I had 100% success getting them through study difficulties as a word clearer. Or occasionally handling lack of mass. Much of this was method 7. [Hearing them read and when they stumble check for misunderstood and
clear it up]

Study tech might be likened as a crutch to make up for lack of education or poor ability. And it does work. Also note that when no longer young ones ability to learn is less than earlier.

However using study tech on a poem is something I never tried. I believe
that is usually done in english lit classes. It is said one really knows a language when one can enjoy poetry in it. One should be clearing words to full conceptual understanding. Method 7 dosn't really do that but is a gradient step in that direction.

Despite being pretty literate, UK Grammar school education, I've never really taken to poetry. Also am useless at learning languages and always was. Yet on travels to far off lands I'm amazed at those who in a few days can actually start talking with the locals. Guess we all have varying abilities in various tasks.

One thing I've notice is that most auditors are both pretty intelligent and literate. Note that Flag has a high drop out rate on training despite study tech.

Here is a thought experiment and a parallel. What would one have to do
to get someone of average intelligence and a poor education to get a degree in psychology. How successfull would such endeavors be?

 

[Student of Trinity]

What would one have to do
to get someone of average intelligence and a poor education to get a degree in psychology. How successfull would such endeavors be?

A good question.

Some people, who may even be very smart in a lot of ways, may just not be able to get a degree no matter how hard they try or what methods they use. It takes a certain level of talent for formal academic work to achieve a B.A. Is that 'average intelligence'? I dunno. A scraped pass B.A. in Psych isn't rocket science, but it's not grade school, either.

But okay, whether 'average' is good enough or not, there are definitely lots of people who could get a degree if only they had better education up to that point. What would it take to bring them up to speed?

Building their vocabulary would help some, sure. If you don't know enough fifty cent words, and how to use them correctly, you're going to have a hard time reading college texts, and a hard time writing term papers for passing grades. But that's certainly not enough. A walking thesaurus is not an educated person.

Diagramming sentences is also well worthwhile, and it would be good to master punctuation while you're at it. These skills are unnecessary for conveying simple ideas, but if you can't catch the nuances of implication that are distinguished by semicolons and colons, or follow a complex sentence with subordinate clauses, you're just not going to have enough game to handle university. Writing a complex sentence with correct grammar and punctuation involves some precise understanding of ideas; this is not just penmanship. But these are still rather low-level skills, on the level of dribbling a ball down the field. They're necessary but not sufficient.

If you ask me, the single best educational exercise is writing a précis. You read an article or essay or something of at least several pages, you figure out what it means, and then you summarize it in your own words, in much less space. Your précis should be maybe a tenth as long as the original, or even much less.

This means you're not simply paraphrasing (though learning to paraphrase is a start). You're going to have to leave out most of what the original says. But it's not enough to just pick a random 10% of the original and leave out the rest. You have to figure out what the main points of the original are, what the basic lines of argument are, what the crucial pieces of evidence are. And then you have to summarize these briefly, but accurately and clearly.

This is an acid test of how well you understand the original, and how well you can analyze and express ideas. If you get enough practice doing this, and can get the hang of it, then I think you're set for higher education.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

While I applaud this analysis, I have to respectfully dis-agree in principle, while admitting the laxities in practice to a large degree.

The premise of the Reactive Mind is A = A. What this is supposed to mean is irrational associations and identifications. The "test" of sanity being the ability to differentiate.

Word Clearing is SUPPOSED to enhance understanding by allowing a person to see that a word has come to have a meaning with which they are unfamiliar, or do not know. All too often, though, we see people REJECTING definitions, or inventing definitions so that thoughts align with their own fixed ideas, and they DO NOT HAVE TO LOOK. (This is the classic Service Facsimile mechanism. A fixed idea that PREVENTS inspection of an area or dynamic of life. The anons call it 'Epic Fail')

I don't think the decline of literacy and the promotion of ignorance is limited to the Scientology milieu. There is more than enough of that to go around in other areas as well.

The other issue is the "ARC Break" mechanism. This is the USE of generalities to ARC break others, enforce, inhibit, deny or suppress their affinities, realities or comm.

LRH gives examples such as "The People vs. John Doe". In this case, "the people' is a generality, and prevents the accused from actually being able to confront his accuser. He also points out that:
“musical chairs in life is the mechanism below ARC breaks in Grade III! To unstabilise gives ARC breaks! Whole staff can be put into a sad effect! This is the mechanism governments use. It’s the basic tool of the socialist. If he can just unstabilise everyone he can kill them with degrade. It’s a basic tool of the insane to maintain their own stability by unstabilising everyone else.”

Just sayin....

Actually, I think this helps support my post.

You say that word clearing is supposed to enhance understanding by allowing a person to see that a word has come to have a meaning with which they are unfamiliar, or do not know.

What word clearing is then, is comparing what the person thinks it means against what the dictionary lists as its meaning. In no case whatsoever does the dictionary definitions enter the realm of figures of speech or rhetoric.

The dictionary defines figures of speech, but it does not enlighten one as to the use of figures of speech with all other words.

It is the figures of speech that give depth to language and the communication of ideas.

This is not a criticism of the use of a dictionary; indeed, a dictionary is one vital element of learning.

But Study Tech, as far as word clearing goes, solely emphasizes the meaning of words.

It not only never address figures of speech, it negates understanding of figures of speech.

Why is that bad? Because a figure of speech is an intentional deviation from the ordinary application of words, with a view to making the meaning more effective. (And thus word clearing misses it)

Figures of speech add passion, imagination, and aesthetics to the communication of ideas.

A good use of figures of speech produces a meaning that transcends just the words; the meaning of the whole is greater and more aesthetic than the total of each individual word.

Take the following phrase from the Gettysburg address:

"...that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion."

You can word clear correctly per the tech each and every word including all those that came previous to this line, and you would not understand that by "last full measure of devotion" he means giving their lives in battle.

It comes from the rhetorical structure, not from the definitions of the word.

If you are looking at it now and see it, I would say that it is because of your familiarity with it, and not by word clearing it, that you understand it.

"Empty barrels make the most noise" or "The squeaky wheel gets the most grease" communicates something that cannot be understood by simply clearing the meaning of each word.

Also Study Tech never takes into account context. Never. It is just not in the Tech to do that. Study Tech, as far as word clearing goes, only addresses the meaning of words; not understanding or anything else.

As far as the Reactive Mind, I do not subscribe to the premises and judgments that support the existence of a Reactive Mind. In short, it is irrelevant to a discussion of the effectiveness and shortcomings of Study Tech.

If one accepts many of Hubbard's judgments and premises, then perhaps one might believe Hubbard when he says that naming a legal case "The people vs. John Doe" prevents the accused from actually being able to confront his accuser.

But this is pure nonsense.

In every legal case, in every legal case (not a generality) the person has a right and opportunity to confront and cross-examine any testimony given against him.

It is statements like this by Hubbard that discredits him.

And as far as the premises and judgments of Scientology go, that is subject for another thread that is soon to come.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[A.K. Myers]

One thing that most of you overlook, is the main flaw of $cientology
"study tech." They have their own dictionary. This is where the main
brainwashing takes place, as it assumed that anything in the dictionary
is automatically true. If study was merely based on Webster, this "tech"
might be able to aid understanding, but since it also includes $cientology
specific references, it also serves to slant ones thinking, based on lies
inherent in the reference books.

Hubbard said, "If it isn't written, it isn't true." What he neglected to say is
"Just because it is written, doesn't mean that it is true."

 

[Div6]

Actually, I think this helps support my post.

You say that word clearing is supposed to enhance understanding by allowing a person to see that a word has come to have a meaning with which they are unfamiliar, or do not know.

What word clearing is then, is comparing what the person thinks it means against what the dictionary lists as its meaning. In no case whatsoever does the dictionary definitions enter the realm of figures of speech or rhetoric.

The dictionary defines figures of speech, but it does not enlighten one as to the use of figures of speech with all other words.

It is the figures of speech that give depth to language and the communication of ideas.

This is not a criticism of the use of a dictionary; indeed, a dictionary is one vital element of learning.

But Study Tech, as far as word clearing goes, solely emphasizes the meaning of words.

It not only never address figures of speech, it negates understanding of figures of speech.

Why is that bad? Because a figure of speech is an intentional deviation from the ordinary application of words, with a view to making the meaning more effective. (And thus word clearing misses it)

Figures of speech add passion, imagination, and aesthetics to the communication of ideas.

A good use of figures of speech produces a meaning that transcends just the words; the meaning of the whole is greater and more aesthetic than the total of each individual word.

Take the following phrase from the Gettysburg address:

"...that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion."

You can word clear correctly per the tech each and every word including all those that came previous to this line, and you would not understand that by "last full measure of devotion" he means giving their lives in battle.

It comes from the rhetorical structure, not from the definitions of the word.

If you are looking at it now and see it, I would say that it is because of your familiarity with it, and not by word clearing it, that you understand it.

"Empty barrels make the most noise" or "The squeaky wheel gets the most grease" communicates something that cannot be understood by simply clearing the meaning of each word.

Also Study Tech never takes into account context. Never. It is just not in the Tech to do that. Study Tech, as far as word clearing goes, only addresses the meaning of words; not understanding or anything else.

As far as the Reactive Mind, I do not subscribe to the premises and judgments that support the existence of a Reactive Mind. In short, it is irrelevant to a discussion of the effectiveness and shortcomings of Study Tech.

If one accepts many of Hubbard's judgments and premises, then perhaps one might believe Hubbard when he says that naming a legal case "The people vs. John Doe" prevents the accused from actually being able to confront his accuser.

But this is pure nonsense.

In every legal case, in every legal case (not a generality) the person has a right and opportunity to confront and cross-examine any testimony given against him.

It is statements like this by Hubbard that discredits him.

And as far as the premises and judgments of Scientology go, that is subject for another thread that is soon to come.

The Anabaptist Jacques

1: Slang definitions and figures of speech are actively searched for and used, when necessary to achieve an understanding of what was written or said. And per the Word Clearing tech, the first definition that is cleared is the one that fits the context of the current usage.

The whole PURPOSE of word clearing is to facilitate communication WITH UNDERSTANDING from Cause to Effect. I have spent many hours searching for slang and idiom usages to achieve this goal.

2. In my humble opinion, this is a generality. Not every country has "due process" nor even a uniform series of laws. The idea here is not to get in to the hot topic of 'justice' vs "injustice" but just to point out that one single exception shatters the logic of that statement.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

One thing that most of you overlook, is the main flaw of $cientology
"study tech." They have their own dictionary. This is where the main
brainwashing takes place, as it assumed that anything in the dictionary
is automatically true. If study was merely based on Webster, this "tech"
might be able to aid understanding, but since it also includes $cientology
specific references, it also serves to slant ones thinking, based on lies
inherent in the reference books.

Hubbard said, "If it isn't written, it isn't true." What he neglected to say is
"Just because it is written, doesn't mean that it is true."

I'm actually addressing that in another thread I am preparing. Hubbard defines in such a way so that his later conclusions are correct because of his self-proclaimed earlier definitions. I'll have that new thread posted very soon.

The Anabaptist Jacques