For new people re. Clear

Riddick

I clap to no man
I think I partially answered that already.

My first books were Scientology 8-8008 and, then, the now out of print Phoenix Lectures.

These two links to old threads hopefully will answer your question as to how I became involved:

Link to the What I liked in Scientology thread

Link to the The Master Game thread

Edit: One additional link added.
ah, so you started with scientology and not dianetics.

For me I started with dianetics but the organization switched me to scientology. I too read Scientology 8-8008 and the Phoenix Lectures and many lectures. I thought at the time they were great and I was on the road to freedom. Those books and lectures persuaded me to think I was on the road to total freedom, metaphysical wise.

Here is the original Scientology 8-8008.


If you don't look at his Scientology 8-8008 from a rhetorical analysis, you will never get the con. Just say'in.



 

Riddick

I clap to no man
ah, so you started with scientology and not dianetics.

For me I started with dianetics but the organization switched me to scientology. I too read Scientology 8-8008 and the Phoenix Lectures and many lectures. I thought at the time they were great and I was on the road to freedom. Those books and lectures persuaded me to think I was on the road to total freedom, metaphysical wise.

Here is the original Scientology 8-8008.


If you don't look at his Scientology 8-8008 from a rhetorical analysis, you will never get the con. Just say'in.



If you fell for the rhetoric of what is scientology, you fell for the same thing I did,

 

Veda

Well-known member
I'm repeating myself now, and I can't seem to get through.

Certainly rhetoric is part of Scientology, but it's not the only part.

I prefer a slightly more complex and nuanced approach to analyzing the subject and operation of Scientology.

If old ESMB's internal search functioned (at least it does not for me anymore), you could review "all threads by Veda," but it does not function (as far as I can see), so you cannot.

If you spent some time reviewing what I had written there, I think you'd understand better.

What impressed me the most about Scientology, at the time, was that I did real things with some of the tiny parts of Scientology that I had studied. My mistake was in assuming that these tiny parts were representative of the rest of Scientology.


 

Zertel

Well-known member
Metered auditing sets scn apart from all other subjects and is the essence of scn. People have "cognitions, wins and floating needles" in auditing sessions which leads them to believe they are on a path to Total Freedom. Without metered auditing people could read and listen to everything Hubbard said and wrote and be no more influenced by his rhetoric than by studying any other philosophy or pseudoscience presented by a persuasive person.

People went up the "processing" side of the Grade Chart while reading or listening to very little of what Hubbard said or wrote. When they got to the OT levels they needed to learn how to solo audit with the e-meter. I think few people would have given credence to Body Thetans unless they were supposedly "verified" by meter reads regardless of Hubbard's rhetoric persuading people of their reality.

People get metered auditing until at some point they believe that no "incidents" from the past can affect them negatively in the present and they attest to Clear which is "verified" by the meter at the Examiner and then go onto the OT levels.
 
Last edited:

Riddick

I clap to no man
I'm repeating myself now, and I can't seem to get through.

Certainly rhetoric is part of Scientology, but it's not the only part.

I prefer a slightly more complex and nuanced approach to analyzing the subject and operation of Scientology.

If old ESMB's internal search functioned (at least it does not for me anymore), you could review "all threads by Veda," but it does not function (as far as I can see), so you cannot.

If you spent some time reviewing what I had written there, I think you'd understand better.

What impressed me the most about Scientology, at the time, was that I did real things with some of the tiny parts of Scientology that I had studied. My mistake was in assuming that these tiny parts were representative of the rest of Scientology.


I've read most of your posts on ESMB, I was Gib on ESMB. I guess what I am trying to say, is you have include Hubbard's rhetoric writing to explain dianetics and scientology but it needs more emphasis.

 
Last edited:

Riddick

I clap to no man
Metered auditing sets scn apart from all other subjects and is the essence of scn. People have "cognitions, wins and floating needles" in auditing sessions which leads them to believe they are on a path to Total Freedom. Without metered auditing people could read and listen to everything Hubbard said and wrote and be no more influenced by his rhetoric than by studying any other philosophy or pseudoscience presented by a persuasive person.

People went up the "processing" side of the Grade Chart while reading or listening to very little of what Hubbard said or wrote. When they got to the OT levels they needed to learn how to solo audit with the e-meter. I think few people would have given credence to Body Thetans unless they were supposedly "verified" by meter reads regardless of Hubbard's rhetoric persuading people of their reality.

People get metered auditing until at some point they believe that no "incidents" from the past can affect them negatively in the present and they attest to Clear which is "verified" by the meter at the Examiner and then go onto the OT levels.
thanks for jumping in.

Yes, I would agree the e-meter made it verified you might say, but I say as logos, or logic, ie lookee here, the meter reads. See it's true, thereby hooked as one might say.

You talk about public who never did training so will not be subjected to Hubbard's rhetoric. And training means reading and listening to Hubbard's rhetoric. But public do get a taste of Hubbard's rhetoric for they have to clear words using the technical dictionary to run a process.

For example they have to understand ARC and ARCX, PTP, Withholds, etc, to run any scientology auditing.

But, here's the kicker, there are many staff, and many sea org members who have not had a lot of auditing. But they are still members?

So how is this possible?

Because they read or listened to something Hubbard said that got them glued to Dianetics or Scientology.
 

Zertel

Well-known member
thanks for jumping in.

Yes, I would agree the e-meter made it verified you might say, but I say as logos, or logic, ie lookee here, the meter reads. See it's true, thereby hooked as one might say.

You talk about public who never did training so will not be subjected to Hubbard's rhetoric. And training means reading and listening to Hubbard's rhetoric. But public do get a taste of Hubbard's rhetoric for they have to clear words using the technical dictionary to run a process.

For example they have to understand ARC and ARCX, PTP, Withholds, etc, to run any scientology auditing.

But, here's the kicker, there are many staff, and many sea org members who have not had a lot of auditing. But they are still members?

So how is this possible?

Because they read or listened to something Hubbard said that got them glued to Dianetics or Scientology.
Rhetoric is certainly a significant part of the human and cult experience. The thread you started on ESMB generated a lot of conversation.

Hubbard might have been the best the world has ever seen at PRESENTING his philosophy/cult to the world using persuasive rhetoric but I doubt he could have SOLD it to as many people as he did without the e-meter. People would have rapidly come and gone. Maybe he could have put together a format with "levels of awareness" like Crowley and gained a core group of followers.

It's hard to visualize scn existing as it did and still exists without the e-meter. The e-meter made Hubbard and now Miscavige wealthy men.
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
Rhetoric is certainly a significant part of the human and cult experience. The thread you started on ESMB generated a lot of conversation.

Hubbard might have been the best the world has ever seen at PRESENTING his philosophy/cult to the world using persuasive rhetoric but I doubt he could have SOLD it to as many people as he did without the e-meter. People would have rapidly come and gone. Maybe he could have put together a format with "levels of awareness" like Crowley and gained a core group of followers.

It's hard to visualize scn existing as it did and still exists without the e-meter. The e-meter made Hubbard and now Miscavige wealthy men.
I totally agree. I guess what I am say'in regards the e-meter is that it is a rhetorical device, not in the sense of language, but physical means, stepping outside the box and a different view. The e-meter is like the magicians trick offering proof of concept. Wasn't Crowley into Magick.


I wonder if Crowley had the E-meter?


"Types of rhetorical devices
Although there exists plenty of overlap between rhetorical and literary devices, there’s also one significant difference between the two. While literary devices express ideas artistically, rhetoric appeals to one’s sensibilities in four specific ways:
  • Logos, an appeal to logic;
  • Pathos, an appeal to emotion;
  • Ethos, an appeal to ethics; or,
  • Kairos, an appeal to time."

It still and always will come down to no clears or OT's, LOL
 

onceuponatime

Well-known member
I agree the meter adds another level to Scientology and there's no way it would have gotten as far as it did without the meter. The meter adds a level of verification/confirmation that hooks people. Look, the meter read, it must be true! Scientology would not exist as it does currently without the meter.

Even people who don't get audited or trained still know that things work etc. Because the meter gives an apparency of scientific validity. It also takes only one session where things go right for you to believe in the meter, doesn't take doing the whole bridge.
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
I agree the meter adds another level to Scientology and there's no way it would have gotten as far as it did without the meter. The meter adds a level of verification/confirmation that hooks people. Look, the meter read, it must be true! Scientology would not exist as it does currently without the meter.

Even people who don't get audited or trained still know that things work etc. Because the meter gives an apparency of scientific validity. It also takes only one session where things go right for you to believe in the meter, doesn't take doing the whole bridge.
yep, the rhetoric is the pinch test.

Anybody here remember or know of that?
 

programmer_guy

True ex-Scientologist
yep, the rhetoric is the pinch test.

Anybody here remember or know of that?
The e-meter pinch test has nothing to do with rhetoric.
(However, I am not defending Hubbard's "tech".)

I can agree with your rhetoric position as a partial explanation about some things but it is not everything.
 
Last edited:

Riddick

I clap to no man
The e-meter pinch test has nothing to do with rhetoric.
(However, I am not defending Hubbard's "tech".)

I can agree with your rhetoric position as a partial explanation about some things but it is not everything.
The emeter pinch test is composed of simply pinching a person really hard to cause pain, they say ouch.

Then while holding the emeter cans, the auditor says recall the moment of the pinch, and the emeter needle swings.

This provides a sort of confirmation that the emeter will react to pain received and thus the emeter becomes persuasive, rhetoric device, it seems logical and true. Logos.

What is behind is that one needs to tell person what's behind this logic. And what's behind this logic of seeing a emeter swing on the pinch test, is Hubbard's word's. And rhetoric. He says pain is a engram.

This is really hard to explain.

The Emeter appeals to logic, or logos.


The logic is circular, in that the emeter seems to prove that the emeter will register thoughts, and that may be true, but in the end nobody has gone clear or OT.

It is much ado about nothing.
 

programmer_guy

True ex-Scientologist
@Riddick

I agree that there are no such things as Clear or OT.
I partially agree with you about some points on rhetoric.

However, I went beyond rhetoric to do a lot of reading on neuroscience topics to add to my knowledge.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: UTR
Top