Dear Dean Wilbur and Rhetoric and the beginning of dianetics and then scientology

Riddick

I clap to no man
Dear Dean Wilbur | Scientologists back in comm (wordpress.com)

If you read this letter to Dean Wilbur, you will discover some things. Here is a excerpt:

"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 here you have Hubbard saying the world is rhetoric and which was nothing but culture.

The culture (cult) of dianetics and scientology is actually rhetoric. the rhetoric of going clear and then OT, and in between going up the bridge.
 

Riddick

I clap to no man

Riddick

I clap to no man
If you read the link I provided above, lets begin. If you haven't STFU.

Let's begin with Book 1, or Dianetics the modern science of mental health.
 

programmer_guy

True ex-Scientologist
Yes, a person could use the notion of rhetoric to describe parts of Hubbard's pseudo-science.
But rhetoric is not 100% of it.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation.
If you read the link I provided above, lets begin. If you haven't STFU.

Let's begin with Book 1, or Dianetics the modern science of mental health.

Your attempts at using rhetoric here (AKA the art of persuasion) don't seem to be working, could it be that you don't understand it or how to use it effectively yourself or are you just trolling the board now for 'fun'?

:)
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
from the link I provided:

"Questions to ask yourself when re-reading your articles, sources, etc:
1. What is the thesis, what is the overall argument the author presents?
2. What did the author choose to study? Why?
3. What is the writer’s purpose? To inform? To persuade? To criticize?
4. Who is the author’s intended audience?
5. How does the writer arrange his or her ideas? Chronologically?
6. How does the writer use diction? (Word choice, arrangement, accuracy, is it formal, informal? Technical versus slang?)
7. Does the writer use dialogue? Quotations? Why?
8. Are important terms repeated?
2 9. What is the sentence structure of text? Are there fragments, run ons? Is it declarative, imperative, exclamatory? What effect does this have?
10. Does the writer use punctuation to create an effect? Italics, underlining, parentheses? Which marks does the writer use, and when?"

These are questions to ask yourself about Hubbard and Dianetics. Let's begin with number 1:

1. What is the thesis, what is the overall argument the author presents?

So what is the thesis of the book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health?
 

Type4_PTS

Well-known member
So here you have Hubbard saying the world is rhetoric and which was nothing but culture.

Hubbard said a lot of things over the years. He holds the Guinness World Record for number of published works by one author.

There is another record I believe he'll also hold once Guinness adds it as an additional category. "Most bullshit published by one author".

Just because he wrote something didn't mean that he really believed it to be true.

And yes, I did read that letter you linked to that Hubbard sent to Dean Wilbur, years ago actually.
 
Last edited:

Riddick

I clap to no man
from the link I provided:

"Questions to ask yourself when re-reading your articles, sources, etc:
1. What is the thesis, what is the overall argument the author presents?
2. What did the author choose to study? Why?
3. What is the writer’s purpose? To inform? To persuade? To criticize?
4. Who is the author’s intended audience?
5. How does the writer arrange his or her ideas? Chronologically?
6. How does the writer use diction? (Word choice, arrangement, accuracy, is it formal, informal? Technical versus slang?)
7. Does the writer use dialogue? Quotations? Why?
8. Are important terms repeated?
2 9. What is the sentence structure of text? Are there fragments, run ons? Is it declarative, imperative, exclamatory? What effect does this have?
10. Does the writer use punctuation to create an effect? Italics, underlining, parentheses? Which marks does the writer use, and when?"

These are questions to ask yourself about Hubbard and Dianetics. Let's begin with number 1:

1. What is the thesis, what is the overall argument the author presents?

So what is the thesis of the book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health?
thesis:

a statement or theory that is put forward as a premise to be maintained or proved.
"his central thesis is that psychological life is not part of the material world"
synonyms:
theory · contention · argument · line of argument · proposal · proposition ·
[more]
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
The thesis of the book Dianetics The Modern Science Of Mental Health was that any two people could "Clear" themselves by using Dianetic procedure as outlined in the book. just read it, find somebody else who read it, and just audit yourselves to "clear".
.
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
ok, the next question to ask yourself is, where are all the clears from the people having read dianetics back in the 1950's? Are there any, or was it just rhetoric?
 

programmer_guy

True ex-Scientologist
@Riddick
Yes, there is no such mental state as Clear (the rhetoric part). I agree.
But can a PC get a brain endorphin effect from auditing a C/S ordered AESP in a session? Yes.
Is the brain endorphin effect from rhetoric? No.

IMO, you should add some brain neuro-science reading to your rhetoric position/opinion.
I partially agree with you about the rhetoric but not 100%.
 
Last edited:

Riddick

I clap to no man
@Riddick
Yes, there is no such mental state as Clear (the rhetoric part). I agree.
But can a PC get a brain endorphin effect from auditing a C/S ordered AESP in a session? Yes.
Is the brain endorphin effect from rhetoric? No.

IMO, you should add some brain neuro-science reading to your rhetoric position/opinion.
I partially agree with you about the rhetoric but not 100%.
there was no C/S back in the 1950's when Dianetics was first published.
 

programmer_guy

True ex-Scientologist
there was no C/S back in the 1950's when Dianetics was first published.
That was not my major point.
There are 2 sides to it.
One part of it is the rhetoric that you go on-and-on about, (I partially agree with you on that.)
The other part of it is about brain neuro-transmitters in auditing (rhetoric is not necessary for that).
 
Last edited:
Top