What is Rhetoric?

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
Ever wonder why Hubbard called the Sea Org staff members the most ethical people on the planet. It was for establishing ethos, one mean of persuasion. He also established a EO, Ethic's Officer, in each Mission and Scientology org.
.

ANSWER: No, never wondered.

Because when i was in Scientology I did not wonder about that, for a simple reason—because I was a Scientologist. Scientologists don't wonder—they know!

After exiting Scientology, I also did not wonder why Hubbard said that. Because I left upon discovering that Hubbard was a pathological liar.

.
 
Last edited:

Riddick

I clap to no man
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
one of the emotional appeals used by Hubbard was "did you help"
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
one of the emotional appeals used by Hubbard was "did you help"
.
You're right!

Quite fortunately, people who never studied the subject of "rhetoric" also know that.

They call it "guilt tripping".

.
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
The very first emotional (pathos) appeal was any two people could clear themselves and relieve themselves of psychosomatic illness. That was Dianetics in the 1950's. But it was also a logos and ethos appeal.
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
I hope some of you people click on the items you can click on. I don't respond to catcalls.
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
If you use rhetoric for not truth, it will get you, that's the bad rhetoric known as not telling the truth so help you god.
 

Type4_PTS

Well-known member
I hope some of you people click on the items you can click on. I don't respond to catcalls.

Hey Riddick, I really like your signature. Great use of rhetoric! :coolwink:

I feel like you're simplifying the relationship though between Scientology and Hubbard's use of rhetoric in some of your postings. Yes, he uses rhetoric. But to say "it's all rhetoric" doesn't provide enough information for someone to understand the subject. It's like saying that
"all buildings are the product of construction". A true statement, but it doesn't give one a deep understanding of the subject. One needs to know much more in order to have more than just a superficial understanding of it all.

If I were to start my own cult then yes, I'd want to master the use of rhetoric. But there is so much more one needs to know in order to be successful in that endeavor. Had Hubbard mastered the subject of rhetoric but if that was all he knew I believe he would have failed miserably when it came to his cult-building skills.
 
Last edited:

Riddick

I clap to no man
Hey Riddick, I really like your signature. Great use of rhetoric! :coolwink:

I feel like you're simplifying the relationship though between Scientology and Hubbard's use of rhetoric in some of your postings. Yes, he uses rhetoric. But to say "it's all rhetoric" doesn't provide enough information for someone to understand the subject. It's like saying that
"all buildings are the product of construction". A true statement, but it doesn't give one a deep understanding of the subject. One needs to know much more in order to have more than just a superficial understanding of it all.

If I were to start my own cult then yes, I'd want to master the use of rhetoric. But there is so much more one needs to know in order to be successful in that endeavor. Had Hubbard mastered the subject of rhetoric but that was all he knew I believe he would have failed miserably when it came to his cult-building skills.
yes, my sig line is rhetoric but truthful rhetoric, there is also something known as deceit rhetoric. This wiki explains it:


You said:

"But to say "it's all rhetoric" doesn't provide enough information for someone to understand the subject. It's like saying that
"all buildings are the product of construction". A true statement, but it doesn't give one a deep understanding of the subject. One needs to know much more in order to have more than just a superficial understanding of it all."

From the wiki article posted, one doesn't need a great understanding of a subject to persuade, and Hubbard was a master of that:

"Because the ancient Greeks highly valued public political participation, rhetoric emerged as a crucial tool to influence politics. Consequently, rhetoric remains associated with its political origins. However, even the original instructors of Western speech—the Sophists—disputed this limited view of rhetoric. According to the Sophists, such as Gorgias, a successful rhetorician could speak convincingly on any topic, regardless of his experience in that field. This method suggested rhetoric could be a means of communicating any expertise, not just politics. In his Encomium to Helen, Gorgias even applied rhetoric to fiction by seeking for his own pleasure to prove the blamelessness of the mythical Helen of Troy in starting the Trojan War.[10] "

I hope you get that? Ever wonder why Hubbard recorded everything and we as students of his new science of the mind (Dianetics) and later students of a religion known as Scientology, A Applied Religious Philosophy,

had to listen to him, or read what he had to say? It was all rhetoric, persuasion. And deceitful, nobody went clear, or OT or has returned from past life using Hubbard's teachings, nobody, in the end it is all rhetoric. Hubbard even told Sarge he failed. And there is still no proof of anybody involved with Dianetics or Scientology having returned from death.

Ask more questions, I can go on. Like how do we know Hubbard learned about rhetoric? Or who was the first person to discover Hubbard had it all wrong?
 

programmer_guy

True ex-Scientologist
Hey Riddick, I really like your signature. Great use of rhetoric! :coolwink:

I feel like you're simplifying the relationship though between Scientology and Hubbard's use of rhetoric in some of your postings. Yes, he uses rhetoric. But to say "it's all rhetoric" doesn't provide enough information for someone to understand the subject. It's like saying that
"all buildings are the product of construction". A true statement, but it doesn't give one a deep understanding of the subject. One needs to know much more in order to have more than just a superficial understanding of it all.

If I were to start my own cult then yes, I'd want to master the use of rhetoric. But there is so much more one needs to know in order to be successful in that endeavor. Had Hubbard mastered the subject of rhetoric but that was all he knew I believe he would have failed miserably when it came to his cult-building skills.
Yes, rhetoric is only one part of Scientology. :)
 

Riddick

I clap to no man

Xenu Xenu Xenu

Well-known member
In Scientology one is told that it is not your fault and you are not to blame. You feel vindicated and affirmed. You are now sold on Scientology. In a matter of months you are told that you are responsible for your own condition and that is how it will remain.

The old switcheroo never gets old in the cult.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
What happens in auditing (mainly lower levels) is due to brain endorphin (or other neuro-transmitters) effects.
The deceitful rhetoric is Hubbard's pseudo-science "explanations" about what is happening.
It is both of these two items.
.

Why do i have this sinking feeling that we are about to learn that endorphins are also rhetoric? LOL

.
 

marra

Well-known member
Hey Riddick, I really like your signature. Great use of rhetoric! :coolwink:
But poor use of spelling/grammar.

No longer a Scienologists. Should be Scientologist.

Read & Listened to Dianetics and Scientology complete library of Hubbard's teaching's. The word "teachings" doesn't require an apostrophe.

Trained and completed to Grade 0 auditing and training, did lots of other course's and auditing, The word "courses" doesn't require an apostrophe.
 

TheSneakster

Well-known member
Rhetoric is what usually takes place in this venue in place of actual discourse.
 

Type4_PTS

Well-known member
yes, my sig line is rhetoric but truthful rhetoric, there is also something known as deceit rhetoric. This wiki explains it:


You said:

"But to say "it's all rhetoric" doesn't provide enough information for someone to understand the subject. It's like saying that
"all buildings are the product of construction". A true statement, but it doesn't give one a deep understanding of the subject. One needs to know much more in order to have more than just a superficial understanding of it all."

From the wiki article posted, one doesn't need a great understanding of a subject to persuade, and Hubbard was a master of that:

"Because the ancient Greeks highly valued public political participation, rhetoric emerged as a crucial tool to influence politics. Consequently, rhetoric remains associated with its political origins. However, even the original instructors of Western speech—the Sophists—disputed this limited view of rhetoric. According to the Sophists, such as Gorgias, a successful rhetorician could speak convincingly on any topic, regardless of his experience in that field. This method suggested rhetoric could be a means of communicating any expertise, not just politics. In his Encomium to Helen, Gorgias even applied rhetoric to fiction by seeking for his own pleasure to prove the blamelessness of the mythical Helen of Troy in starting the Trojan War.[10] "

I hope you get that? Ever wonder why Hubbard recorded everything and we as students of his new science of the mind (Dianetics) and later students of a religion known as Scientology, A Applied Religious Philosophy,

had to listen to him, or read what he had to say? It was all rhetoric, persuasion. And deceitful, nobody went clear, or OT or has returned from past life using Hubbard's teachings, nobody, in the end it is all rhetoric. Hubbard even told Sarge he failed. And there is still no proof of anybody involved with Dianetics or Scientology having returned from death.

Ask more questions, I can go on. Like how do we know Hubbard learned about rhetoric? Or who was the first person to discover Hubbard had it all wrong?
No doubt that Hubbard used rhetoric throughout his writings and lectures but it wasn't all rhetoric.

If you start at the very beginning with the Dianetics book, yeah, it's filled with rhetoric, and filled with deceitful claims, but it also includes a squirreled version of Abreaction Therapy, originally created by Sigmund Freud. How can you characterize that component of it as rhetoric?
 

Type4_PTS

Well-known member
nope, in the end it is deceitful rhetoric.

Is coercive communication utilizing threats considered to be rhetoric?

As an example, you're walking down the street and some thug comes up behind you, puts a gun to your head, and says
"Give me your wallet NOW or you're going to die!"

Another example: You're sitting across from the Ethics Officer in a CoS and he says:
"Riddick, your Ethics folder is huge and as a consequence, I've prepared a CSW for your SP Declare this morning which is going to mess you up for trillions of years. However, If you upgrade your IAS status to Patron with Honors that would demonstrate that you're really not an SP and I would put the CSW through the shredder. What would you like me to do?"
 
Top