Dean Wilbur Rhetoric Hubbard dianetics sicientology

[Gib]

I want to point out something for underground folks that have family or friends still in.

This letter from Hubbard to Dean Wilbur is on the Church website. The BIC linked it.

So one is free to talk about it, it's safe. And one can use Rhetoric to ones advantage once one gets there wits around it a bit, and I don't necessarily mean using it, but educating in it and maybe a crack in the bubble will form.

I did a little survey of folks in my neighborhood and none really knew of rhetoric and ethos, pathos & logos. And I'll bet lots of folks in do not know either, especially the young crowd.

Here's what I did to good effect to get out of going on course or be bothered with. I'd get questions like why aren't you on course? And I say I'm studying some philosophy like Aristotle Rhetoric. And I say Hubbard learned it, so I decided to learn it. You know, Ron did say to always look to source writing. And also Tone 4 is expansion of viewpoint. And I'm having wins, this stuff is cool.

For that matter, any book on philosophy would be safe. One couldn't bring home a book on psychology or psychiatry, or Steve Hassan book, or NLP, etc. Those would raise eyebrows and possibly lead to a KR.

One just has to be creative.

 

[degraded being]

.
.
Do we all use rhetoric?

 

[imSPecial]

.
.
Do we all use rhetoric?

yes. started when you were trying to get one over on your parents, etc. then theres more analytically attempted rhetoric that includes things like speech and debate, working a crowd for sales. but then there's more serious rhetoric that delves into mind games and trickery, hypnosis, subliminal stimuli. more sinister stuff.

ps: what does the flower underneath your avatar mean? thanks.

 

[eldritch cuckoo]

Do we all use rhetoric?

Rhetorically, yes.

Or was that a rhetorical question...?

 

[mockingbird]

I do not want to answer for Gib but the answer to do we all use rhetoric requires clarification . The term has several definitions . One is the methods used by some schools or thinkers or a class of methods to influence . The broadest definition is any act that influences or is meant to influence . All human interactions have some degree of influence - intentional or not . They are not all sinister or to control . You might tell a crying child you love them and give them a hug - because you love them . It can result in persuasion that makes the child believe you love them and it may be , and often is , true that a parent loves their child very much .
That is a persuasive act . Even if not by direct intent . Many other acts are less obviously persuasive but even asking "How are you ?" , has some degree of persuasion. Influence is on a spectrum for sure and many of the factors are well described in rhetoric as Gib has introduced us to what is called classic rhetoric. It is well worth studying and I highly recommend investing the very slight effort required to study the concise and relevant excellent short references he has found for everyone .

I must confess some time ago he recommended rhetoric as a subject and I was still digging through stuff on hypnosis and mind control and reading exes bios at the time . I just was finishing a brief study of fallacies and barely touched critical thinking . I went to a book store and looked at a book on rhetoric that had been written by a PhD or professor for people at a college or grad school level and he had a lot of the original terminology as it was used and went into incredibly minute detail on the life and times of rhetoric's original users and the terms they used and how our current ones are different . His book was brutally hard and I decided not to buy it upon realizing it would be an arduous read . I mistakenly thought any study of rhetoric would be this hard and decided to put it on the back burner .

But Gib acted puzzled that I was saying rhetoric is a tough subject - it really only was as presented by that author . Fortunately , Gib persisted and kept saying this is useful and can be understood . Then Gib posted links and I went " Well , I should at least look at one or two these as sometimes a link is easier than a five hundred page book - I'll take a quick look " . I am glad I did as the material is very easy and simpler than many other things I subject myself to studying .It also besides helping decipher what Hubbard did and for what intent - also is relevant for understanding how we influence each other ( ourselves) how to effectively communicate ideas and how to persuade or not persuade each other as we see fit . You always persuade in communication - even if only for people to listen and let you finish your communication . You also may not want them to hate or distrust you and influence plays a part in that . Now having read some of the great stuff Gib shared I have formed some opinions but do not want to jump ahead or reveal things he may be preparing to reveal so I will step aside for the moment to let him tell his story his way .

 

[Helena Handbasket]

If rhetoric is the problem then what is the antidote?

I think maybe the antidote is trash talk. By saying the other guy is ugly, stupid, and not fit to give orders to a waiter, you tear down pathos, logos, and ethos all together.

Since joking & degrading is just a (mild) form of trash talk; perhaps the reason for the J&D PL is to keep people from un-rhetoricking the rhetoric.

I'm starting to see lots of examples of people "taking over" using rhetoric -- and I don't like any of them! All my life I've hated people who demand things be their way and then get it, especially if it's at my expense. They expect your compliance or a reason why not, and often you can't come up with a reason why not (not that they would accept whatever reason you came up with!)

But the bottom line is you don't need a reason why not; you simply don't if you don't want to.

One technique is what I call the "FDR" -- when given a statement or asked a question, respond to it as simply as possible without responding to the deeper subject matter. For example, "people are starving in the inner cities" "that's right".

Helena

 

[Gib]

.
.
Do we all use rhetoric?

yah, that's what I realized as well and as Face has so astutely communicated several posts up:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...sicientology&p=1007560&viewfull=1#post1007560

"Whether or not someone has been "formally schooled" in Rhetoric, we all have--at one time or another--sought to usethe right language (words), proper style (timbre), correct timing (cadence) and measured emotion (drama) and audience rapport (instinct) to "win over", convince or appease another or others...Even a 3 year old is--to one degree or another--already discovering, developing and practicing with their rhetorical skills, talents capabilities or limits or lack thereof, IMHO. "

Rhetoric has basic truths, and Aristotle observes this and forms a organized body of knowledge called Rhetoric = logos, pathos & ethos + 5 canons + logical fallacies. Isn't it nice we have a means to organize our thoughts.

Classical Rhetoric 101 Series
An Introduction
A Brief History
The Three Means of Persuasion
The Five Canons of Rhetoric – Invention
The Five Canons of Rhetoric – Arrangement
The Five Canons of Rhetoric – Style
The Five Canons of Rhetoric – Memory
The Five Canons of Rhetoric – Delivery
Logical Fallacies

Hubbard says to Dean Wilbur in 1936, 5 years after he left GWU:

But I doubt in the extreme that I ever would have carried on had it not been for your very sane treatise on the world at large which you labeled “rhetoric” and which was nothing at all but culture, as alone and isolated upon a regimented horizon as a steamer’s plume of smoke against the horizon.

so hubbard remembers this and it sticks in his head. The world is Rhetoric & Culture.

Rhetoric = the art of persuasion = appeals to Ethos (credibility), Pathos (emotions) & Logos (logic)
Culture = "Culture (/ˈkʌltʃər/, from Latin: cultura, lit. "cultivation"[SUP][1][/SUP]) is a concept based on a term first used inclassical antiquity by the Roman orator Cicero: "cultura animi" (cultivation of the soul)"

Hubbard then creates his own body of knowledge & culture. Calls it scientology but it's actually hubbardology. Uses Ethos, pathos & logos all over the place in his writings to persuade & influence.


As Mockingbird pointed out, one justs needs a superficial understanding. And that's all I have, I am no expert at Rhetoric, just learning as well.

 

[Gib]

If rhetoric is the problem then what is the antidote?

Black Rhetoric or de-ethos (discredit), de-pathos (not sure of this one) and/or de-logos (point out the ilogics, logical fallacies critical thinking).

as far as ethos, that's why scientology mandate is to protect the image of LRH. All the books are discrediting LRH.

as far as de-logos, people do that here all the time.

 

[ILove2Lurk]

What they haven't pursued is another Guru to tell them what "It" actually "Is" and what they are supposed to "Grok" . . . .

I guess that means I shouldn't use Face as my one-stop-source Guru anymore?

 

[degraded being]

If rhetoric is the problem then what is the antidote?

I think maybe the antidote is trash talk. By saying the other guy is ugly, stupid, and not fit to give orders to a waiter, you tear down pathos, logos, and ethos all together.

Since joking & degrading is just a (mild) form of trash talk; perhaps the reason for the J&D PL is to keep people from un-rhetoricking the rhetoric.

I'm starting to see lots of examples of people "taking over" using rhetoric -- and I don't like any of them! All my life I've hated people who demand things be their way and then get it, especially if it's at my expense. They expect your compliance or a reason why not, and often you can't come up with a reason why not (not that they would accept whatever reason you came up with!)

But the bottom line is you don't need a reason why not; you simply don't if you don't want to.

One technique is what I call the "FDR" -- when given a statement or asked a question, respond to it as simply as possible without responding to the deeper subject matter. For example, "people are starving in the inner cities" "that's right".

Helena

Yeah, some people have an amazing level of entitlement about how their words and ideas should be accepted and responded to. The way it is expressed can be very subtle.

 

[Gib]

Yeah, some people have an amazing level of entitlement about how their words and ideas should be accepted and responded to. The way it is expressed can be very subtle.

for sure,

but this tread is about Hubbard doing that!!!!!!!!!!! (And not other people doing that)

Can you give an example of Hubbard doing that?

or Hubbard doing one of the three means of persuasion or one of the ethos, logos or pathos?

I can think of one off hand, here's one:

"an auditor is senior to a clear"

This is Hubbards use of ethos, or credibility to persuade one to train to be an auditor.

Here's another:

People who are auditors are but the most intelligent people on earth, or whatever Hubbard said. This is another use by Hubbard using Ethos to persuade.

 

[mockingbird]

To my mind rhetoric is in truth a natural phenomena and any attempted solution will be more rhetoric . ANY persuasion is rhetoric . Honest , dishonest intended or unintended . It is as unavoidable as thought or emotion or behavior . It accompanies all three . ALWAYS . I explained this to a friend a few weeks ago and she said "Oh , maybe I should just move to a cave and never talk to anybody " . This is why the Spartans discouraged speaking with any more than the very fewest words possible - to discourage persuasion . They knew and disliked rhetoric as study of it by educated men was common in their place and time . Here are a few quotes to show how they dealt famously with it :

in an account from Herodotus, "When the banished Samiansreached Sparta, they had audience of the magistrates, before whom they made a long speech, as was natural with persons greatly in want of aid." When it was over, the Spartans averred that they could no longer remember the first half of their speech, and thus "...could make nothing of the remainder. Afterwards the Samians had another audience, whereat they simply said, showing a bag which they had brought with them, 'The bag wants flour.' The Spartans answered that they did not need to have said 'the bag'; however, they resolved to give them aid.

• After invading Greece and receiving the submission of other key city-states, Philip II of Macedon sent a message to Sparta: "If I invade Laconia you will be destroyed, never to rise again." The Spartan ephors replied with a single word: "If" (αἴκα). Subsequently neither Philip II nor his son Alexander the Great attempted to capture the city.

both quotes from a Wikipedia article that briefly explores this topic :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconic_phrase

Look the solution to all vulnerabilities made by ignorance of our minds is the same :education .This is why this subject is vital - it is unavoidable as a practical matter . The subjects critical thinking , Socratic debate and logical fallacies all connect and overlap on this as they all seek to use reason to overcome flaws in reason .
I found that knowledge of fallacies if pursued with discipline and applied to many , many claims and ideas knock out or reduce rhetoric's influence to a degree . The genetic fallacy knocks out believing or not considering a claim based on the source - it is the opposite of ethos . The whole group of fallacies known as appeals to emotion knock out pathos . There are many fallacies that knock out logos along with skepticism , scientific method and critical thinking practices as a whole if pursued very thoroughly .

I have pursued skepticism to such a degree that I believe I always have thousands of incorrect ideas that need critical examination with the right evidence and methods to be exposed . Including improved critical thinking and removal of or at least awareness of biases. By the way I told her not to avoid life to not influence it - just be nice . For a higher degree of taking responsibility I suggest learning how you influence others to not be harmful and how they influence you to not be exploited or influenced into doing evil . The links Gib provided are adequate to rapidly aid in moving one's understanding in my opinion .

 

[mockingbird]

As for examples of Hubbard using ethos , logos and pathos - he did it routinely thousands or millions of times . It is in all the doctrine constantly , he told stories as a rhetorical method . It focuses attention and directs it too . It is a delivery mechanism for indoctrination in which other ideas can be hidden and act as - embedded commands . I could go on for months about that . Once an ex knows ethos , logos and pathos - even a little almost the entirety of Scientology can be found to contain them . If you are learning this you could write a journal and just list them - if you remember hundreds of parts of Scientology doctrine verbatim or very near it as I do . You can reexamine any doctrine you have weird impressions of or are fascinated by or find captivating . Those are the parts that have rhetoric that is affecting you or at least confusing you .To undo it simply reverse the method of hiding influence and reveal it . That cannot be told to enough exes - the things you are concerned about or have stuck are held in by hidden influence - use this to remove it .

 

[Commander Birdsong]

I think the old rhetoric book probably had early ideas about of discursive formations.

That is what Hubbard was good at and that is why he is able to catch people in the web of Scientology and stay stuck there.

The postmodernist like Foucault starting in the 1970s and Derrida pointed out this capacity in our language.

I even saw it discussed and identified somewhat in Gramsci's "Prison Notebooks."

Gramsci was exploring the thinking of his fascist guards who support a line of reasoning which they were devoted to even though it was doing them in.

Discourse within Scientology and discourse about Scientology, at least it seems to me, are not commensurable.

We exes use the same Scientology words as they do but they cannot see what we mean by them.

Personally I think the way to break Scientology's hold on a person is through language, but I don't know how to do that.

But Hubbard certainly did know how to catch and keep someone within in a web of words and ideas which has no escape.

The Anabaptist Jacques

taj, as we clergy know there are firm protocols forbidding poaching of flocks. if a person comes to you wanting an outside opinion of scientology or jehovah's witness or RCC, fine say what you will. other than that, one is to respect others religious choices...

 

[JustSheila]

CB, with what church are you clergy? TAJ never mentioned being clergy.

And religious freedom means anyone can comment on it or have an opinion about it. You are suggesting otherwise.

 

[Commander Birdsong]

CB, with what church are you clergy? TAJ never mentioned being clergy.

And religious freedom means anyone can comment on it or have an opinion about it. You are suggesting otherwise.

i'm sure you will be pleased to learn that when i was lawfully ordained in the autumn of 1970 while a volunteer at the berkeley free church under the tutelege of the legendary warrior priest dick york the legal ordaining body was the universal life church so i was a liscenced SP before i even started the HAS course

after far ranging study and practice i have denominated myself as a judeochristian universalist

 

[Gib]

taj, as we clergy know there are firm protocols forbidding poaching of flocks. if a person comes to you wanting an outside opinion of scientology or jehovah's witness or RCC, fine say what you will. other than that, one is to respect others religious choices...

off topic,

can you specifically give examples of Hubbards use of Rhetoric = ethos, pathos & logos.

Any one of the 3 means of persuasion.

 

[Gib]

CB, with what church are you clergy? TAJ never mentioned being clergy.

And religious freedom means anyone can comment on it or have an opinion about it. You are suggesting otherwise.

off topic, don't feed, this tread is not about CB but Hubbard's use of Rhetoric.

 

[Gib]

As for examples of Hubbard using ethos , logos and pathos - he did it routinely thousands or millions of times . It is in all the doctrine constantly , he told stories as a rhetorical method . It focuses attention and directs it too . It is a delivery mechanism for indoctrination in which other ideas can be hidden and act as - embedded commands . I could go on for months about that . Once an ex knows ethos , logos and pathos - even a little almost the entirety of Scientology can be found to contain them . If you are learning this you could write a journal and just list them - if you remember hundreds of parts of Scientology doctrine verbatim or very near it as I do . You can reexamine any doctrine you have weird impressions of or are fascinated by or find captivating . Those are the parts that have rhetoric that is affecting you or at least confusing you .To undo it simply reverse the method of hiding influence and reveal it . That cannot be told to enough exes - the things you are concerned about or have stuck are held in by hidden influence - use this to remove it .

That's a general sweep MB.

Can you give a specific use of Hubbard using one of the 3 means of persuasion?

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Rhetoric means different things at different points in time.

The word has some negative connotations now due to it being associated with advertising and political persuasion.

The word sometimes refers to spin rather than style and passionate persuasion.

The Greeks, of course, put a lot of emphasis on rhetoric and made it a large part of education. As did Cicero and the Romans.

The difference as I see it is that the old emphasis was demonstrated in Winston Churchill and the new emphasis was demonstrated by Bill Clinton.

One used the power of words to reinforce and make a convincing argument while the other manipulated words to obfuscate meaning or hide actions or intent.

Hubbard was more of the latter. Although he did not so much obfuscate meaning as reinvent meaning and entrap followers into a seeing things one way by altering the meaning of the words.

So if you disagree with a Scientologist assessment of something then you are simply not confronting evil.

And if you don't do as ordered you are not taking responsibility.

The words and the reality they create and reinforce build a web that keeps the person in Scientology especially if he wants to be ethical, responsible, or even a good person.

The Anabaptist Jacques