I say 'Dianetics' is basically regressive hypnosis.

D

Deleted member 51

Guest
my definition of the word would be getting agreement. But that doesn't happen in a auditing session as I explained.
That is a terrific example of rhetoric - changing the actual meaning of a word to force it to fit what you wish or convince others it means something else, then using the word repeatedly. Thanks. You’re good at this rhetoric stuff.
 
D

Deleted member 51

Guest
Neither do I and while I'm happy to accept that some (perhaps many) people were hypnotised that does not mean all were ... I made a point of staying in present time while being audited perhaps because I didn't need or want the auditing in the first place. I was happy as I was and just went along with having some (not much) auditing because I had no choice due to wanting to go "clear and OT" (lol!) ... I ended my interest in doing that after I did OT3.

I had the absolute minimum auditing throughout. I had life repair (which I enjoyed). They tried to do the drug r/d and a few other things (inc sec checks!) but gave up in the end and let me move onto the OT levels (I didn't even do the clearing course due to attesting natural clear).

The whole thing is and was an unfunny joke.


:)
There isn’t anything hypnotic about Life Repair or the Grades, IMO. Plus as you said, you made a point of staying in present time.

Even with a pro-hypnotist, very few people go fully under where they’ll crow like a rooster when told. :LOL:

The more common hypnotic state is very light and you can pull yourself out of it if you wish. It’s kind of like a semi-dreamy, relaxed state, like just before sleep. One’s normal mental barriers are down. It’s a state when someone is more accepting and so more impressionable.
 
Whenever the word "hypnotism" is used, the discussion stalls when different meanings of the words "hypnotism" are used, often without these meanings being stated.

For example, I would define hypnosis as placing in suspension, or deactivating, the (watchful, discriminating, sometimes "noisy") conscious mind and allowing access to the unconscious mind, either to retrieve some content from the unconscious mind, or to insert some content into the unconscious mind. There are, of course, degrees of this suspension or deactivation.

Yet the word is also used with other variations of meaning, by some at times. An informal use of the term might be when a guy meets a girl, and is enchanted by her, and says, "She has me hypnotized."

A comparable example would be the problem with the word "brainwashing." There are different definitions for the word.

When George Romney, during the 1968 presidential campaign's primaries, visited Vietnam, and later complained that he had been "brainwashed by the generals" he meant that he had been deceived and manipulated by the generals. This, in contrast to the better known "brainwashing" of Red Chinese/North Korean "thought reform."

Scientology Inc. sought (and seeks) to deceive and confuse on both the topics of "hypnotism" and "brainwashing." With regard to (the slang term) "brainwashing," Hubbard, inadvertently, made it easy to side-step these attempts to deceive and confuse by providing his own definition: "Asserting and maintaining dominion over thoughts and loyalties," and added, "through mental healing."

A booklet with this definition for "brainwashing" on its cover was spotted, as early as the mid 1960s, as the "blueprint" for Hubbard's Scientology movement. Apparently, Hubbard knew what he was primarily doing.

However, there were many secondary actions that were not, by themselves, "brainwashing," just as there are actions in Scientology that are not, by themselves, "hypnosis," by any reasonable meaning of the word.

So people argue.

Then there is self hypnosis, done by a person on himself. For example, Hubbard, in his 1946/1947 Affirmations, which were confirmed in court as both Hubbard's and hypnosis, were done while Hubbard was asleep by way of natural sleep or by drugging, with the aid of a sound recorder playing back, to a sleeping/drugged Hubbard, commands such as:

"Your psychology is advanced and true and wonderful. It hypnotizes people. It predicts their emotions, for you are their ruler."


The adjective "hypnotic" is also used, often informally, and most people have a pretty good idea what that means.

For example, when, in 1978, Hubbard decided to downgrade the meaning of the word "Clear," almost overnight and with little explanation, other than he had just noticed that there were lots and lots of (somehow) previously unrecognized "Clears," Scientologists, en masse, were electrified with excitement, and instantly agreed.

Years later, David Mayo, who had been living with Hubbard at the time, and had been his assistant and personal auditor, wrote that it had been "PR and marketing considerations that led Hubbard to decide that certain people were 'Clear' at a certain point."

Observing the behavior of Scientologists during this period made it difficult for me to continue to ignore the hypnotic power that Hubbard had over his followers.

Back to the word used as a noun:

Phineas Fogg, in the opening post, describes what he means by "hypnosis":

"Dianetics is hypnosis of a certain, very narrow, type, i.e., 'regressive hypnosis' and there are now those who specialize in past lives."



Well, the hypnotist was (the remote) Hubbard, through his materials, and you, and others, were the (innocent) go between.

(Hubbard massively evaluated but, per the Auditor's Code, auditors were told not to evaluate in session. And, of course, Case Supervisors also evaluated in accordance with Hubbard's pervasive evaluations.)

Were you there during the Dianetic Clear frenzy, or perhaps during any of Hubbard's other "discoveries" which, almost instantaneously, were greeted with excited agreement by Scientologists?



Thoughtful people can disagree on this. :fencing:

There are many types of auditing, and auditing situations, other than (1950) Book One Dianetics, or (1963) Dianetic incident running, or 1969 Standard Dianetics R3R, or (with bells & whistles added) 1978 New Era Dianetics R3R.

These can be done inside a Scientology org, upon an indoctrinated ("hatted") Scientologist, or outside a Scientology organization upon a non-indoctrinated non-Scientologist.

Usually, people receiving auditing, are inside the Scientology environment, and have received some Scientology "education," which Scientology itself calls "indoctrination" and also training.

Yet, I know from first hand experience, that auditing can occur outside, on a non Scientologist, and also outside on someone who has been alerted as to Scientology's devious and tricky :bait:(and sometimes crazy :panic: ) aspects, yet is still curious to experience at least some of Scientology's many processes.

Back to the specific topic: A shared understanding of the meaning of the word "hypnosis" would be helpful.
I was on the Hubbard Standard Dianetics Course in the late 60s, which was, in 1968, the new Upgrade from the old HDA, and so I used the R3R in use at that time.

In the hypnotherapy sessions I attended, as an observer ( with the consent, of course ) not everyone responds to the technique, whereby they go into a trance and are in total surrender to the therapist, but a number do, and the same is similar in Dianetics, some of my PCs were in that same state, which I would call a 'reverie' that place between awake and asleep, where one can blot out the world and respond to an Auditor's or Therapists command. Some PCs didn't really do this, ( or not as much because the Auditors don't use the hypnotists tools to get them there, but some do in Dianetics merely by closing their eyes and the words 'this is the session' is enough to put them there as they are that suggestable) and I felt they were just in present time recalling things, not really going deep into recall, like someone in a reverie state would. But, where I did see the similarities of 'reverie' which I prefer to call it, I saw no difference between regressive hypnotherapy and Dianetics, for those subjects and PCs wherein that reverie/trance state did occur. None, really. the patter differed some,and the therapists have more leeway in their ability to help the subject navigate through the trauma being recalled.

After comparing both, it is clear to me that Scientology auditors, despite their training, because they are confined to rigid patter, are a kind of machine, there is no real interaction between PC and Auditor like there is between a therapist and patient, and as such, Dianetics is inferior.

Not only that, given that, in my view, and my knowledge of electronics, relying on meter reads can lead one astray in the session, since the 'tech' on meter reads is based on Hubbard's inability to resist the novelty of them ( such as a floating needle plus "VGIs" being the end goal of a session or not ending a session when the PC has 'VGIs' but no F/N., that could be damaging. in a therapy session the therapist is not confined to such arbitrary constructs ) and this could be damaging to the individual. I suspect Hubbard concluded that the end goal of a session was VGIs and a 'floating needle' because the novelty of a floating needle was irresistible. The fact of the matter is, there is NO evidenced, and not substantiated by scientific peer review, that an F/N has significance of any kind. IN fact, per the concise description, I never really saw one. I mean, on an electrical level, what is an F/N? Well, it can only be one thing, depending on whether one is measuring voltage, amps, or resistence, let's go with voltage, as the needle moves to the left or right, in order for it to 'float' based on the precise description, the brand would have to exude a sine wave. Sine waves do not occur very well in nature, and when they do, in my view, they are a fluke of nature. The whole business is arbitrary, and Hubbard found the idea irresistible to peg it to a 'end phenomena' of a session. In fact, in Hubbard's 'admissions' ( see the pdf floating around somewhere ) Hubbard describes how his theories are strong hunches, and there is no mention of confirmation of his 'discoveries' via the peer review process. It's all Hubbard's musings, as he is 'source' etc. This is now how science works. There is nothing Scientific about Dianetics or Scientology.

Whatever therapeutic value it imparts, it does so because the process of confiding in human beings about one's innermost thoughts, recollections, etc, is going to have a therapeutic value, no matter where such is done and no matter what the circumstances are, it's a generic thing, and Dianetics does not have a monopoly on it. In fact, the very term 'engram' was stolen from psychotherapy. well, FWiW, that's my three cents ( used to be two, but, you know, inflation :) ).
 
There isn’t anything hypnotic about Life Repair or the Grades, IMO. Plus as you said, you made a point of staying in present time.

Even with a pro-hypnotist, very few people go fully under where they’ll crow like a rooster when told. :LOL:

The more common hypnotic state is very light and you can pull yourself out of it if you wish. It’s kind of like a semi-dreamy, relaxed state, like just before sleep. One’s normal mental barriers are down. It’s a state when someone is more accepting and so more impressionable.
I"m not at all concerned, nor implying, what one might call 'parlor hypnosis ' or 'stage hypnosis' what I'm referring to here is 'hypnotherapy'. No parlor tricks, which have no therapeutic value, whatsoever.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation.
I"m not at all concerned, nor implying, what one might call 'parlor hypnosis ' or 'stage hypnosis' what I'm referring to here is 'hypnotherapy'. No parlor tricks, which have no therapeutic value, whatsoever.

We've discussed this many times before over the years so forgive me for being a bit flippant ... I'm aware that some people believe that 'only intelligent people can be hypnotised' ... and TBH I neither know nor care if auditing is hypnotic or not, I do know that I was not hypnotised by it.

Parlour tricks were only mentioned by me (above) as a joke.

I observe people walking around daily in a state of what appears to be semi hypnosis presumably due to the way they choose to live their lives and what they allow to affect them, so I suppose auditing done in a comfortable and calm environment especially when the recipient is tired (as staff and many scientologists often are) could well produce a similar result.

:)
 

Veda

Well-known member
We've discussed this many times before over the years so forgive me for being a bit flippant ... I'm aware that some people believe that 'only intelligent people can be hypnotised' ... and TBH I neither know nor care if auditing is hypnotic or not, I do know that I was not hypnotised by it.

Parlour tricks were only mentioned by me (above) as a joke.

I observe people walking around daily in a state of what appears to be semi hypnosis presumably due to the way they choose to live their lives and what they allow to affect them, so I suppose auditing done in a comfortable and calm environment especially when the recipient is tired (as staff and many scientologists often are) could well produce a similar result.

:)
Gurdjieff and others regarded the average person as being in a state of semi-consciousness. Full consciousness would be a state of enlightenment.

Hubbard, in his sales and dissemination "tech," instructed that Scientologists should take advantage of this in spreading the word to suggestible persons.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation.
Gurdjieff and others regarded the average person as being in a state of semi-consciousness. Full consciousness would be a state of enlightenment.

Hubbard, in his sales and dissemination "tech," instructed that Scientologists should take advantage of this in spreading the word to suggestible persons.


That viewpoint is (in part) the reason I find it so hard to accept that scientologists were so easily "hypnotised" (if they actually were). The very first concepts we were taught and drilled in were to do with "being at cause" and "controlling our environment" ... "confronting" (bla de bla de bla) and yet it seems many were quite happy to be controlled and sent into a semi hypnotic state when in session.

What is that all about?

:confused:

I just do not understand and doubt I ever will but as we all know there is very little in scientology that truly adds up or makes sense and the bits that do are either already obvious to all and sundry and/or are available elsewhere.

Also, I believe full consciousness is normal and anything less than that is a degradation, but hey, I'm quite happy to accept that I must have a low IQ due to my inability to be hypnotised by an auditing session if it makes anyone happy.

Whoops, I slipped into flippancy again ... I can't seem to take much about the cult seriously and haven't been willing or able to since I got out. I suppose I should have ceased to contribute to ESMB long ago really but I'm very fond of some members here and would genuinely miss the interaction even though I'm well aware that I add little of actual value.

;)
 
We've discussed this many times before over the years so forgive me for being a bit flippant ... I'm aware that some people believe that 'only intelligent people can be hypnotised' ... and TBH I neither know nor care if auditing is hypnotic or not, I do know that I was not hypnotised by it.

Parlour tricks were only mentioned by me (above) as a joke.

I observe people walking around daily in a state of what appears to be semi hypnosis presumably due to the way they choose to live their lives and what they allow to affect them, so I suppose auditing done in a comfortable and calm environment especially when the recipient is tired (as staff and many scientologists often are) could well produce a similar result.

:)
Right. But good points, though it wasn't me who said 'only intelligent people can be hypnotised' in fact, I was kinda thinking the opposite, that people who are easily suggestable are those who are not fully in present time, to use a Scientological expression, but, really I just don't know. I find it a fascinating subject, though. I was in Scientology from '66 - '75. Got on A,R.S usenet for a spell round about 2000 - 2002 and that's a bout it. The ARS now is a wasteland. I don't believe I can be hypnotised, and Dianetics, for me, was tip toeing through the tulips, so to speak, I got nothing out of it, nor do I feel I need it. I'm more into meditation, and sitting in silence, I get a lot more out of that, and it's free.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation.
Right. But good points, though it wasn't me who said 'only intelligent people can be hypnotised' in fact, I was kinda thinking the opposite, that people who are easily suggestable are those who are not fully in present time, to use a Scientological expression, but, really I just don't know. I find it a fascinating subject, though. I was in Scientology from '66 - '75. Got on A,R.S usenet for a spell round about 2000 - 2002 and that's a bout it. The ARS now is a wasteland. I don't believe I can be hypnotised, and Dianetics, for me, was tip toeing through the tulips, so to speak, I got nothing out of it, nor do I feel I need it. I'm more into meditation, and sitting in silence, I get a lot more out of that, and it's free.

I have no idea whether I could be (willingly) hypnotised by a professional hypnotist or not ... I only know watching ads on TV or hearing certain things repeated constantly or being audited didn't and don't hypnotise me.

The intelligence thing was first thrown around years ago on the old board by someone (Arnie) who was absolutely adamant that auditing was hypnotic and apparently wanted full agreement ... it was supported by various opinions and articles easily accessible via google, I recall it had something to do with an intelligent persons ability to concentrate (though I may have recalled that incorrectly due to not being able to concentrate, lol).

I too get a lot of inner peace (for want of a better term) from just sitting or being in silence as I work and relax especially when surrounded by nature.

:heartflowers:
 

marra

Well-known member
For auditing to work the pc must be "interested in own case and willing to talk to the auditor".

It seems to me that hypnotism involves fixing a person's attention to such an extent that they become suggestible.

If a pc is "interested in own case" then they will fix their attention on whatever the auditor directs them to, in a similar way to someone watching an interesting TV program, reading a book, listening to music etc.

The question is: Does a pc fix their attention to such an extent that they go into a trance and become highly suggestible? The OP says he has seen pc's do this. I have never seen this or experienced it despite giving and receiving hundreds of hours of auditing.

Maybe it has happened somewhere, sometime but it may be too much of a stretch to say dianetics is regressive hypnosis.
 

Hatshepsut

Well-known member
Gurdjieff and others regarded the average person as being in a state of semi-consciousness. Full consciousness would be a state of enlightenment.

Hubbard, in his sales and dissemination "tech," instructed that Scientologists should take advantage of this in spreading the word to suggestible persons.
I think that many folks who were not over-identified with anything, and who were just 'being', got bored with Dianetics. It slogged. I mean some are more invested in their creations..... more 'IN" the time stream than others. We see this in infants. Some babies are ever so loosely tethered while others feel trapped by some trauma, and don't feel their new situation is safe at all.

I never understood in Dianetics why few came up with between lives stuff in auditing. I mean, students and PCs took a year off to go to St Hill to learn about the GPMs and all. It's all kept unconscious or something while you are being 'cancelled' and made part of a new conglomerate.? No memories would apply as the new 'grouping' of souls in fresh as a daisy as it 'identifies' as John Smith.


To me, separating out and knowing WHO you really are was crucial in Dianetics. It's where you step back and say "Ooooh, that's not me.....I'm me....and I've been holding all this together, creating it, the flash where problem and solver are one.

It generally seems to be taboo to know who you really are. A state of general hypnosis is the constant fare.
 
Last edited:

Marko Ex

Active member
Whenever the word "hypnotism" is used, the discussion stalls when different meanings of the words "hypnotism" are used, often without these meanings being stated.

For example, I would define hypnosis as placing in suspension, or deactivating, the (watchful, discriminating, sometimes "noisy") conscious mind and allowing access to the unconscious mind, either to retrieve some content from the unconscious mind, or to insert some content into the unconscious mind. There are, of course, degrees of this suspension or deactivation.

Yet the word is also used with other variations of meaning, by some at times. An informal use of the term might be when a guy meets a girl, and is enchanted by her, and says, "She has me hypnotized."

A comparable example would be the problem with the word "brainwashing." There are different definitions for the word.

When George Romney, during the 1968 presidential campaign's primaries, visited Vietnam, and later complained that he had been "brainwashed by the generals" he meant that he had been deceived and manipulated by the generals. This, in contrast to the better known "brainwashing" of Red Chinese/North Korean "thought reform."

Scientology Inc. sought (and seeks) to deceive and confuse on both the topics of "hypnotism" and "brainwashing." With regard to (the slang term) "brainwashing," Hubbard, inadvertently, made it easy to side-step these attempts to deceive and confuse by providing his own definition: "Asserting and maintaining dominion over thoughts and loyalties," and added, "through mental healing."

A booklet with this definition for "brainwashing" on its cover was spotted, as early as the mid 1960s, as the "blueprint" for Hubbard's Scientology movement. Apparently, Hubbard knew what he was primarily doing.

However, there were many secondary actions that were not, by themselves, "brainwashing," just as there are actions in Scientology that are not, by themselves, "hypnosis," by any reasonable meaning of the word.

So people argue.

Then there is self hypnosis, done by a person on himself. For example, Hubbard, in his 1946/1947 Affirmations, which were confirmed in court as both Hubbard's and hypnosis, were done while Hubbard was asleep by way of natural sleep or by drugging, with the aid of a sound recorder playing back, to a sleeping/drugged Hubbard, commands such as:

"Your psychology is advanced and true and wonderful. It hypnotizes people. It predicts their emotions, for you are their ruler."


The adjective "hypnotic" is also used, often informally, and most people have a pretty good idea what that means.

For example, when, in 1978, Hubbard decided to downgrade the meaning of the word "Clear," almost overnight and with little explanation, other than he had just noticed that there were lots and lots of (somehow) previously unrecognized "Clears," Scientologists, en masse, were electrified with excitement, and instantly agreed.

Years later, David Mayo, who had been living with Hubbard at the time, and had been his assistant and personal auditor, wrote that it had been "PR and marketing considerations that led Hubbard to decide that certain people were 'Clear' at a certain point."

Observing the behavior of Scientologists during this period made it difficult for me to continue to ignore the hypnotic power that Hubbard had over his followers.

Back to the word used as a noun:

Phineas Fogg, in the opening post, describes what he means by "hypnosis":

"Dianetics is hypnosis of a certain, very narrow, type, i.e., 'regressive hypnosis' and there are now those who specialize in past lives."



Well, the hypnotist was (the remote) Hubbard, through his materials, and you, and others, were the (innocent) go between.

(Hubbard massively evaluated but, per the Auditor's Code, auditors were told not to evaluate in session. And, of course, Case Supervisors also evaluated in accordance with Hubbard's pervasive evaluations.)

Were you there during the Dianetic Clear frenzy, or perhaps during any of Hubbard's other "discoveries" which, almost instantaneously, were greeted with excited agreement by Scientologists?



Thoughtful people can disagree on this. :fencing:

There are many types of auditing, and auditing situations, other than (1950) Book One Dianetics, or (1963) Dianetic incident running, or 1969 Standard Dianetics R3R, or (with bells & whistles added) 1978 New Era Dianetics R3R.

These can be done inside a Scientology org, upon an indoctrinated ("hatted") Scientologist, or outside a Scientology organization upon a non-indoctrinated non-Scientologist.

Usually, people receiving auditing, are inside the Scientology environment, and have received some Scientology "education," which Scientology itself calls "indoctrination" and also training.

Yet, I know from first hand experience, that auditing can occur outside, on a non Scientologist, and also outside on someone who has been alerted as to Scientology's devious and tricky :bait:(and sometimes crazy :panic: ) aspects, yet is still curious to experience at least some of Scientology's many processes.

Back to the specific topic: A shared understanding of the meaning of the word "hypnosis" would be helpful.
See this as well(many here may already be familiar with this): Hubbard on Hypnosis
 
D

Deleted member 51

Guest
That viewpoint is (in part) the reason I find it so hard to accept that scientologists were so easily "hypnotised" (if they actually were). The very first concepts we were taught and drilled in were to do with "being at cause" and "controlling our environment" ... "confronting" (bla de bla de bla) and yet it seems many were quite happy to be controlled and sent into a semi hypnotic state when in session.

What is that all about?

:confused:

I just do not understand and doubt I ever will but as we all know there is very little in scientology that truly adds up or makes sense and the bits that do are either already obvious to all and sundry and/or are available elsewhere.

Also, I believe full consciousness is normal and anything less than that is a degradation, but hey, I'm quite happy to accept that I must have a low IQ due to my inability to be hypnotised by an auditing session if it makes anyone happy.

Whoops, I slipped into flippancy again ... I can't seem to take much about the cult seriously and haven't been willing or able to since I got out. I suppose I should have ceased to contribute to ESMB long ago really but I'm very fond of some members here and would genuinely miss the interaction even though I'm well aware that I add little of actual value.

;)
You may not post often, but you add a lot to discussions. :yes: Maybe as we age, we see things differently again and again, but you brought up some strong arguments with the hypnosis idea here that you hadn’t mentioned before and I don’t think I have a good answer.

For some reason, imagination is a huge part of hypnosis. So are relaxation and trusting the auditor/therapist/practitioner. But if you never allowed yourself to get caught up in the past life or clear the planet fantasies, but instead stayed alert and in the present, then it wouldn’t apply to you.

As you know, I was never a public Scientologist, but only in the Sea Org. For me, I had a Scientological sci-fi version of life superimposed on nearly every decision I made. I was looking at life through a weird, distorted lens. That created a sort of cognitive distortion. Any disagreements, regrets or other ideas I experienced alone at night were buried and eliminated in my day Sea Org work where the whole sci-fi idea was again reinforced by the group.

So maybe it was more a group hypnosis, or a combination of both. I don’t know. What you wrote makes sense, though. I just remember going through professional quit smoking hypnosis, it felt almost the same as when I was in the Sea Org.
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
That is a terrific example of rhetoric - changing the actual meaning of a word to force it to fit what you wish or convince others it means something else, then using the word repeatedly. Thanks. You’re good at this rhetoric stuff.
you don't really understand rhetoric, nor have you examined it. That's ok, other people have. It's getting agreement and that's all what Hubbard did, or try to do.

6.4 Rhetorical Appeals: Logos, Pathos, and Ethos Defined – A Guide to Rhetoric, Genre, and Success in First-Year Writing (csuohio.edu)

This a excerpt from the link, notice the word agreement.


Rhetorical Appeals
Rhetorical appeals refer to ethos, pathos, and logos. These are classical Greek terms, dating back to Aristotle, who is traditionally seen as the father of rhetoric. To be rhetorically effective (and thus persuasive), an author must engage the audience in a variety of compelling ways, which involves carefully choosing how to craft his or her argument so that the outcome, audience agreement with the argument or point, is achieved. Aristotle defined these modes of engagement and gave them the terms that we still use today: logos, pathos, and ethos.

Don't you think Hubbard constantly tried to get people to agree that they can go clear thru Dianetics auditing and then later Scaientology auditing..

That's all what Hubbard did, was try to get people to think they can go clear and then think they can go OT. It's not hypnosis nor Crowley black magic.
 

Veda

Well-known member
....

Don't you think Hubbard constantly tried to get people to agree that they can go clear thru Dianetics auditing and then later Scaientology auditing..

That's all what Hubbard did, was try to get people to think they can go clear and then think they can go OT. It's not hypnosis nor Crowley black magic.
Most fundamentally, Hubbard tried to get people to think they could Survive! with his (monogrammed) system of (mostly off-the-top-of-his-head) psychology. That's the big fat "button" used by Hubbard since 1950.

If you want to get a sense of what Survive! is, go down to the ocean, or to a swimming pool, or get in a bathtub, and have someone forcefully hold your head under the water for a few seconds. You'll experience the Will to Live which Hubbard renamed the dynamic principle of existence: Survive!

From what was spotted as Hubbard's "blueprint" over fifty years ago:

"It is pointed out in many early Russian writings that this is a survival mechanism. It has already been well and thoroughly used in the survival of communism."

This is pure Pavlov and reminiscent of Darwin.

As far as I know, Pavlov's dogs were not motivated by rhetoric.
 
D

Deleted member 51

Guest
you don't really understand rhetoric, nor have you examined it. That's ok, other people have. It's getting agreement and that's all what Hubbard did, or try to do.

6.4 Rhetorical Appeals: Logos, Pathos, and Ethos Defined – A Guide to Rhetoric, Genre, and Success in First-Year Writing (csuohio.edu)

This a excerpt from the link, notice the word agreement.


Rhetorical Appeals
Rhetorical appeals refer to ethos, pathos, and logos. These are classical Greek terms, dating back to Aristotle, who is traditionally seen as the father of rhetoric. To be rhetorically effective (and thus persuasive), an author must engage the audience in a variety of compelling ways, which involves carefully choosing how to craft his or her argument so that the outcome, audience agreement with the argument or point, is achieved. Aristotle defined these modes of engagement and gave them the terms that we still use today: logos, pathos, and ethos.

Don't you think Hubbard constantly tried to get people to agree that they can go clear thru Dianetics auditing and then later Scaientology auditing..

That's all what Hubbard did, was try to get people to think they can go clear and then think they can go OT. It's not hypnosis nor Crowley black magic.
I understand it perfectly well and recognize it when another, like yourself, bombards a site with esoteric meanings and paints a broad umbrella over completely different thIngs to present “one answer to everything” and “one cure for everything.” I see perfectly well your relentless, repetitive claims with posts piggybacking on disrelated threads and your overuse of the word in your lame efforts to promote it to others and elevate yourself as the Guru of Rhetoric.

I haven’t missed your ad hom insults and demeaning comments to me and others in your promotion and efforts to eliminate dissenting views from your Rhetorical Cult of Belief.

You may be out, but you still clutch to the “one answer for everything” illogic of Scientology and you’re wrong. Rhetoric was only one aspect of the huge maze that is the Scientology cult. You’re obsessed with it to the point of reducing and eliminating your ability to rationally consider any other aspect of the Scientology cult experience and you seek to minimize and rationalize the abuses that others have clearly documented that are exposed here and on other sites. Your Cult of Rhetoric, the Answer to Everything is a fraud.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top