What is Rhetoric?

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
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?"
.

Yes, that's the problem I also have with the "everything is rhetoric" argument. That there are so many obvious examples of "persuasive" entrapment gimmicks used in Scientology that have nothing to do with rhetoric. I have also mentioned some in previous posts.

Here's another: Sleep deprivation. The individual's resilience, their free will and resistance to obeying a guru's "commands" is gone. So naturally they robotically comply and do unspeakable things to others and themselves. Where is the rhetoric in that?

Another: Incarceration. Having big ethics security goons escort one to an RFP gulag where the windows are barred and there are guards posted at the single exit door. And where even if the escape their prison, they are still inside a large desert compound surrounded by walls and inward facing barbed wire--and there are more guards, locked gates, surveillance cameras, motion sensors and other security personnel with walkie talkies and chase vehicles at the ready. And if they can somehow escape all that, there are entire goon squads that will immediately mobilize in a "BLOW DRILL" to stake out bus stations, train stations, airports and other likely places the escapee might be hiding. And beyond that the cult illegally breaches the escapees charge card data to see where they are spending money for food, hotels, gas or travel--so that additional thugs can be immediately despatched to go surround, capture and return their quarry back to prison. And if all those extreme methods of coercion, stalking, intimidation and terror don't work, then other goons are flown around the country to the homes/businesses of the escapees family and friends, because that is likely where they have gone for help to avoid re-capture. All that is pretty "persuasive", right? SO WHERE IS THE RHETORIC?

Another example: How about tricking people into using their own imaginations against themselves as a persuasive indoctrination/entrapment technique, even when there is nobody within miles to use rhetoric on them? That's infinitely more "persuasive" than listening to Hubbard's lies. When a Scientologist takes themselves into a "solo NOTS session" and searches for 75M year old implanted aliens and then miraculously finds hundreds of thousands of them and audits each of them to the state of "clear"(whereupon they exteriorize and cease harassing the Scientologist), WHERE IS THE RHETORIC?

Another: What about using the "pleasure/pain" principal and inflicting pain on the individual when they don't obey? The very real pain could be psychological terror and/or physical--such as being beaten and kicked bloody by the cult leader. WHERE IS THE RHETORIC?

There are many dozens of examples of Scientological "persuasion" that have nothing to do with rhetoric. The attempt to persuade otherwise is, itself, rhetoric.

.
.
 
Last edited:

Riddick

I clap to no man
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.
yah, I know, I'm not a writer or a good grammar person, for some reason it doesn't stick with me, I've had this problem from my early ages from kindergarten, grade school, high school, college, I always got bad grades in those subjects. I only got good grades in science and math.

I've cleared thousands and thousands of words using scientology tech of word clearing. I always wanted to do KTL and the primary rundown to fix the problem, for afterall Hubbard said if you learned words and can speak you can be successful.

I can't see words and grammar like other people can, I've tried, the same is in music writing, I don't understand, but I like music.

But I can see how things work mechanically and engineering like, although I'm no expect.

So, I don't understand why some people can't see what is the problem with let's say a plumbing issue. They see a leak and call a plumber and spend big bucks for nothing really, a small fix. They just can't see how it's put together that a leak happened.

When I started on the path of Rhetoric, it was only because Hubbard wrote a letter to his Dean Wilbur and said his English Rhetoric guided him.

What I learned by reading lots about Rhetoric is that it is how people think, sort of, or how one can be persuaded..
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
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.
That may seem true, but it's not. Lower level auditing may provide what you say, but it's the rhetoric to keep some of us going up the bridge to total freedom for wanting to become clear and OT.
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
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?
Here's what is funny, I don't know if you have read the original dianetics book, but Hubbard and his cowriters claimed it wasn't rhetoric but yet it was, if one reads carefully, if one has a understanding of rhetoric one will see.

His cowriters were John Campbell and Dr Winter, although later on both Campbell and Winter denounced Dianetics.
 

TheSneakster

Well-known member
What happens in auditing (mainly lower levels) is due to brain endorphin (or other neuro-transmitters) effects.
Well, Arnie Lerma claimed that when he was alive. He specifically claimed that auditing was addictive because - according to him - just being hooked up to an operating e-meter causes endorphin release. Endorphins being a naturally produced opioids, he just assumed they are addictive substances. Medical science has yet to establish whether or not there is such a thing as opioid addiction.

What a pity he never produced any experimental verification of any of his theories.
 
Last edited:

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
.
What I learned by reading lots about Rhetoric is that it is how people think, sort of, or how one can be persuaded..
.

QUESTION: When Reid Slatkin and Bernie Maddoff ran the Ponzi Schemes and billions were lost, they showed investors fake bank documents with annual returns averaging est. 24% annually. No such accounts existed and no returns like that were in fact being produced.

Was that rhetoric or fraud? Do you equate the words rhetoric and fraud as identical?

.
 

TheSneakster

Well-known member
Just like Hubbard! Why should anything related to Scientology be verified?
Bill, I have never once cited any of Hubbard's Scientology or Dianetics claims as a verified scientific fact nor have I used any of them as a point of argument since I first became involved in the Scientology Internet Propaganda war back in 1993.

Your reply is not a rebuttal to my point of argument: programmer_guy made a medical science claim that is not backed up by any medical science.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
.

Bill, I have never once cited any of Hubbard's Scientology or Dianetics claims as a verified scientific fact. . .
.
Your signature line boasts that you are an "Indie Scientologist", which brings up an interesting question. Even though you are apparently not claiming that the "modern science" (of Dianetics/Scientology) is a science--do you still nevertheless believe that Hubbard's "discoveries" and "tech" produce CLEARS or OPERATING THETANS?

It would be a fascinating paradox if you didn't believe that Scientology was a science and also didn't believe that Scientology could deliver what it has promoted/sold for the past 71 years---yet still proudly called yourself an Indie Scientologist. How would that work exactly?

Scientology's entire purpose is to create Operating Thetans (who have miraculous powers and "total freedom"), and one of the "sub products" necessary to do that is to first create Clears on the freedom factory's assembly line. If Scientology can do neither of those, what would be the purpose in being a Scientologist? The clay demos, student points and jumbo completion certificates?

.
 
Last edited:

guanoloco

As-Wased

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
.

Just like Hubbard! Why should anything related to Scientology be verified?
.
.

Good point.

In my experience, the only two (2) things in Scientology that get verified are:

1. That someone says they "feel good about it". These scientific affidavits (also known as mandatory Success Stories) are analogous to a tourist having their passport stamped when traveling through foreign lands en route to Oz where they can finally be granted their most coveted ruin-handling wish/postulate.​
2. Not that their bank clears, but that their check clears.​

Those are, essentially, the only two things happening within Scientology. All of Scientology's books, codes, creeds, policies, courses and auditing levels are exclusively dedicated to making those two things happen, and the cult regards everything else as DevT.


.
 
Last edited:

Bill

Well-known member
Bill, I have never once cited any of Hubbard's Scientology or Dianetics claims as a verified scientific fact nor have I used any of them as a point of argument since I first became involved in the Scientology Internet Propaganda war back in 1993.

Your reply is not a rebuttal to my point of argument: programmer_guy made a medical science claim that is not backed up by any medical science.
Yes, you are right, my reply WAS NOT a rebuttal to your point... How clever of you to have figured that out.
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
Well, Arnie Lerma claimed that when he was alive. He specifically claimed that auditing was addictive because - according to him - just being hooked up to an operating e-meter causes endorphin release. Endorphins being a naturally produced opioids, he just assumed they are addictive substances. Medical science has yet to establish whether or not there is such a thing as opioid addiction.

What a pity he never produced any experimental verification of any of his theories.
The problem with Arnies theory, and he was all about the emeter, was what you state. I never agreed or voiced it on ESMB. My view on it is that the emeter was only a logos appeal, even from the get go with Volney Mathison.

It's not like every scientologists was hooked up to the thing for many hours. The only people hooked up to it for many hours are the ones that have done the OT levels, but even then, they only did short sessions before they were blown out doing some BT session.

In my eyes, which I fell for, was the emeter was a logos, logical appeal, that scientology worked. See, the meter reads, must be true. Here's what's funny, you had to read, and word clear and demo all of Hubbards bullshit for misreads, false reads, etc.

Complete waste of time, nobody went clear or OT or has returned from past life.

"Logos is an argument that appeals to an audience's sense of logic or reason. For example, when a speaker cites scientific data, methodically walks through the line of reasoning behind their argument, or precisely recounts historical events relevant to their argument, he or she is using logos "
 
Last edited:

Riddick

I clap to no man
Does this look familiar?

View attachment 12539

= persuasion.
 

Type4_PTS

Well-known member
Here's what is funny, I don't know if you have read the original dianetics book, but Hubbard and his cowriters claimed it wasn't rhetoric but yet it was, if one reads carefully, if one has a understanding of rhetoric one will see.

His cowriters were John Campbell and Dr Winter, although later on both Campbell and Winter denounced Dianetics.
Again, I acknowledge that the Dianetics book was full of rhetoric, but when he includes abreaction therapy which he lifted from the psychs how is that rhetoric? He made many fraudulent claims in the book and Dianetics never created Clears as described in that book, but some people feel they experienced some real benefits beyond the placebo effect.

Same thing with some other lower-level services like the Communication Course where some people felt it helped them. Sure, it acted like cheese in a mousetrap, but it wasn't rhetoric.
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
Again, I acknowledge that the Dianetics book was full of rhetoric, but when he includes abreaction therapy which he lifted from the psychs how is that rhetoric? He made many fraudulent claims in the book and Dianetics never created Clears as described in that book, but some people feel they experienced some real benefits beyond the placebo effect.

Same thing with some other lower-level services like the Communication Course where some people felt it helped them. Sure, it acted like cheese in a mousetrap, but it wasn't rhetoric.
you were part of the Boston org, I assume you read Hubbard and policies and books and HCOB's and got auditing. Can you give examples of Hubbards use of pathos, ethos and logos?
 

Riddick

I clap to no man

Type4_PTS

Well-known member
you were part of the Boston org, I assume you read Hubbard and policies and books and HCOB's and got auditing. Can you give examples of Hubbards use of pathos, ethos and logos?

I could...

The HCO PL's were full of rhetoric and even back then I noticed some strange things which he incorporated into the policy letters that had nothing to do with the particular policy but were there to make readers realize how wonderful he was or to draw out some emotional reaction.
I'd have to pull up some issues on the net to give specific examples and I'm not in the mood to read any of his stuff. LOL
So yeah, the HCO PL's were full of rhetoric, but some of the administrative policies laid out genuine procedures that helped the organization run, and the purpose of them wasn't to persuade, it was an actual administrative policy or procedure, so I wouldn't characterize those as an instance of logos. You seem to want to see everything he ever wrote and every word he spoke as instances of rhetoric, and I don't agree with that.
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
I could...

The HCO PL's were full of rhetoric and even back then I noticed some strange things which he incorporated into the policy letters that had nothing to do with the particular policy but were there to make readers realize how wonderful he was or to draw out some emotional reaction.
I'd have to pull up some issues on the net to give specific examples and I'm not in the mood to read any of his stuff. LOL
So yeah, the HCO PL's were full of rhetoric, but some of the administrative policies laid out genuine procedures that helped the organization run, and the purpose of them wasn't to persuade, it was an actual administrative policy or procedure, so I wouldn't characterize those as an instance of logos. You seem to want to see everything he ever wrote and every word he spoke as instances of rhetoric, and I don't agree with that.
I don't care if you agree with me, you just don't see it yet.

 

Type4_PTS

Well-known member
I don't care if you agree with me, you just don't see it yet.


I've given you some pretty clear examples of things that don't constitute persuasive speech (or writing) and you've done nothing to refute what I wrote.
 
Top