serious question about ARC breakdown and word clearing
lmng...@myrealbox.com
WORD CLEARING
Mr. Hubbard did not originate the method of improving understanding by
using a dictionary to look up misunderstood words; I truly believe
that this has been going on as long as there have been dictionaries.
I specifically recall learning this method in 3rd grade, and my
grandmother later explained that she also learned to do this a child.
My grandmother was a child long before Mr Hubbard was a writer.
It was only after I became exposed to scientology through a housemate
that I heard of this being referred to as "word clearing". Merely as
shorter way to say "looking it up in the dictionary".
now, on to my question:
ARC - specifically REALITY
I'm trying to grasp the concepts of ARC and ARC breakdown, and my
dictionary ( Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 11th Edition,
copyright 2003, over 1600 pages) does not in any way define "reality"
in terms of "agreement". I'll go to the public library next week and
try several more dictionaries, but I doubt that "reality" will change.
As far as I know, that is the cool thing about "reality": it is
neither derivative nor dependant but it exists necessarily.
I know that all analogies break down under critical analysis, but let
me try a simple historical example to illustrate the meaning of the
word "reality". Before Galileo, a majority of literate europeans
agreed that the earth was flat. (ignore for a moment that literate
europeans were outnumbered by the illiterate ones at that time)
Millions of people agreeing that the earth was flat did not make it
so. In reality, the earth has been round for its entire history. By
this example it is ridiculous to say that "reality" is whatever we
agree it to be. This did not prevent people from communicating.
Galileo's claim that the earth was not the center of the universe
certainly did not improve his affinity with the catholic church.
Absent their affinity and reality (disagreement concening the earth's
place in the universe) they certainly did "communicate". If they had
not communicated - "passed ideas back and forth and had those ideas
understood", they would never have concluded that the other side was
wrong.
The idea that there can be no communication if there is no affinity is
another problem, but I would prefer to resolve the "reality" issue
first. you know, not going past a word or concept until it is
clearly understood and all that.
Hartley Patterson
>
> WORD CLEARING
> Mr. Hubbard did not originate the method of improving understanding by
> using a dictionary to look up misunderstood words; I truly believe
> that this has been going on as long as there have been dictionaries.
You have misunderstood 'misunderstood words'? The concept is well
explained by Hubbard. He claimed that not understanding *any* word in a
text would result in the reader not understanding the whole of it.
This is easily verifiable nonsense.
> Before Galileo, a majority of literate europeans
> agreed that the earth was flat.
That is a myth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
Galileo's heresy was to support the claim that the Earth was not at the
centre of the Universe. His disagreement with the Church was not as
simple as commonly supposed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
I had no trouble understanding ARC. I even think it makes sense!
'reality' in scientology has a special meaning that is not in the
dictionary. That's one of the ways 'misunderstood word' doesn't work -
dictionaries can be wrong and all are incomplete.
--
"I just might be the angel at your door"
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk
A medieval spreadsheet and enturbulating entheta.
lmng...@myrealbox.com
<hpt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> lmng...@myrealbox.com:
>>
>> WORD CLEARING
>> Mr. Hubbard did not originate the method of improving understanding by
>> using a dictionary to look up misunderstood words; I truly believe
>> that this has been going on as long as there have been dictionaries.
>
>You have misunderstood 'misunderstood words'? The concept is well
>explained by Hubbard. He claimed that not understanding *any* word in a
>text would result in the reader not understanding the whole of it.
That is why I am looking up "reality" in the dictionary. I do not
understand his use of it in context.
>
>This is easily verifiable nonsense.
what is verifiable nonsense? that my grandmother used a dictionary
when she did not understand a word long before Mr Hubbard recommended
it? and that I did the same before I ever heard of Mr. Hubbard? Or
that people have used dictionaries to enhance and promote
understanding as long as there have been dictionaries?
Lets forget who first came up with the idea if everybody agrees that
looking things up in the dictionary is a "good idea" . Does anyone
think that looking up words in the dictionary is a bad idea?
>> Before Galileo, a majority of literate europeans
>> agreed that the earth was flat.
>
>That is a myth.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
>
My apologies.
Thank you for correcting the historical time frame of flat earth.
The earth was already round by the 1st century.
It was flat during early classical antiquity.
>Galileo's heresy was to support the claim that the Earth was not at the
>centre of the Universe. His disagreement with the Church was not as
>simple as commonly supposed
Disagreement. Specifically with regards to reality.
Yet he and the church did in fact communicate ( tranfer ideas to each
other) sucessfully. If they had not transfered ideas to each other,
how could each be so sure that the other was wrong?
>I had no trouble understanding ARC. I even think it makes sense!
I'm still working on the "R" part. Will take up "affinity" later. I
will say at this time, that I do communicate with and understand
certain people who I do not like and who do not like me.
>
>'reality' in scientology has a special meaning that is not in the
>dictionary. That's one of the ways 'misunderstood word' doesn't work -
>dictionaries can be wrong and all are incomplete.
>
Hubbard said to look words up in the dictionary. That is what I am
doing. Are you suggesting that I should not look words up in the
dictionary?
Steve Martin did a comedy sketch where he made up special meanings for
words when speaking to a young child who then went to school and asked
"May I mambo dogface to the banana patch?"
As a comedy routine it was funny. I was informed that by studying Mr.
Hubbard's teachings I might become more proficient and effective.
Seriously. For comedic entertainment I might spend dozens of dollars
to buy a used Steve Martin book or tape. ( Mitch Hedburg is funny too)
For serious self improvement I would not spend 100s of dollars only to
become the butt of some cruel joke based on fake word meanings.
Does it get worse from here? Should I be looking for other self-help
programs instead?
Hubbard said to stop at any misunderstood word.
Now you are telling me that "misunderstood word" doesn't work?
While it might not be practical for my 1600+ page Merriam Webster
dictionary to be complete (nor any general purpose dictionary in large
scale production for that matter) I am skeptical that I will find a
widely accepted dictionary to define "reality" to be whatever we
agree. I will go to the public library this week and check several
other dictionaries.
I'm just barely getting started, and I'm not having a good feeling
about these contradictions in the very earliest steps.
Thanks in advance for anyone who has practical, helpful advice.
ida...@aol.com
This isn't practical advice however your posts reminded me of
something Senator Hayakawa said :
I am thinking rather of the fact that those who are helped
by dianetics will necessarily be kept at a low level of intellectual
and emotional maturity by the nonsense they have absorbed in
order to be helped."
S.I. HAYAKAWA
Ida C.
"You must have crossed the river to tell the crocodile he has bad
breath"
Chinese Proverb
Jens Tingleff
Hash: SHA1
lmng...@myrealbox.com wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 02:30:19 -0000, Hartley Patterson
> <hpt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> lmng...@myrealbox.com:
>>>
>>> WORD CLEARING
>>> Mr. Hubbard did not originate the method of improving understanding by
>>> using a dictionary to look up misunderstood words; I truly believe
>>> that this has been going on as long as there have been dictionaries.
>>
>>You have misunderstood 'misunderstood words'? The concept is well
>>explained by Hubbard. He claimed that not understanding *any* word in a
>>text would result in the reader not understanding the whole of it.
>
> That is why I am looking up "reality" in the dictionary. I do not
> understand his use of it in context.
>
>>
>>This is easily verifiable nonsense.
>
> what is verifiable nonsense? that my grandmother used a dictionary
> when she did not understand a word long before Mr Hubbard recommended
> it? and that I did the same before I ever heard of Mr. Hubbard? Or
> that people have used dictionaries to enhance and promote
> understanding as long as there have been dictionaries?
Possibly "He claimed [..] the whole of it." from above is easily verifiable
nonsense?
>
> Lets forget who first came up with the idea if everybody agrees that
> looking things up in the dictionary is a "good idea" . Does anyone
> think that looking up words in the dictionary is a bad idea?
I think that doing nothing but looking up words in a dictionary is a bad
idea. While I'm quite good at looking up words in a dictionary, and have
been since I was a child, I do not think that it's the only process by
which I can learn.
"Word Clearing" does not appear to me to be anothing more than another
control mechanism. A control mechanism by which Hubbard makes any
disagreement/complaints about the rubbish he wrote a problem - a problem of
the person who disagrees/complains.
When Hubbard wrote about volcanos in Hawaii 75 million years ago, the reason
that normal people disagree with him is *not* that they're unable to
understand any of the words, it's the fact that there were no volcanos in
Hawaii 75 million years ago.
http://www.spaink.net/cos/essays/forde_volcanos.html
What Hubbard wrote is nonsense - a conclusion that no-one can reach using
"study tech" and "word clearing." "Study tech" and "word clearing" are
simply ways to force agreement with Hubbard, no matter what is being
presented.
[...........]
> While it might not be practical for my 1600+ page Merriam Webster
> dictionary to be complete (nor any general purpose dictionary in large
> scale production for that matter) I am skeptical that I will find a
> widely accepted dictionary to define "reality" to be whatever we
> agree. I will go to the public library this week and check several
> other dictionaries.
?Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.?
Philip K. Dick (a proper science fiction writer :-) :-) :-) :-) )
Trying to make sense of L Ron Hubbard is - in my humble opinion - a dead
end, since sufficient portions of what he wrote was nonsense.
Best Regards
Jens
- --
Key ID 0x09723C12, jens...@tingleff.org
Analogue filtering / 5GHz RLAN / Mandriva Linux / odds and ends
http://www.tingleff.org/jensting/ +44 1223 211 585
"My first year as a woman, and I'm getting hot flashes!" 'Mrs Doubtfire'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFfRC4imJs3AlyPBIRAhsUAKDc5/fkkJ2fHCLqfm6RBezhSOwO8ACg7giG
zoUN53B69XTYxLY5N+wvbHA=
=JiLW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hartley Patterson
> what is verifiable nonsense?
that Word Clearing is a panacea, THE solution to understanding text.
> Disagreement. Specifically with regards to reality.
> Yet he and the church did in fact communicate ( tranfer ideas to each
> other) sucessfully. If they had not transfered ideas to each other,
> how could each be so sure that the other was wrong?
The Church was not seeking a quarrel with Galileo, but when his latest
book appeared to be making fun of the Pope...
> Hubbard said to look words up in the dictionary. That is what I am
> doing. Are you suggesting that I should not look words up in the
> dictionary?
from The Official Scientology and Dianetics Glossary:
http://www.scientology.org/gloss.htm
"reality: the solid objects, the real things of life; the degree of
agreement reached by two people. See also ARC triangle."
The first is the normal meaning, the second a special meaning in
Scientology, and there is your connection with 'agreement'.
Looking up 'reality' in any number of dictionaries is of no help to you.
The meaning you seek exists only within Scientology, and even a
dictionary style definition won't help you understand the context. The
two definitions above are not separate, rather they are two views of the
same thing from different directions. Try 'mest universe' in the same
Glossary.
> Does it get worse from here? Should I be looking for other self-help
> programs instead?
I wouldn't recommend 'Dianetics' to anyone as a self-help program. While
it does contain some interesting ideas it is full of pseudoscience.
Plus, it leads to a nasty cult that is fixated on money making and is
run by people who know everything but understand nothing. But then I
don't believe any single book contains all the answers.
> I'm just barely getting started, and I'm not having a good feeling
> about these contradictions in the very earliest steps.
Life is full of contradictions. Beware of gurus that say otherwise! :-)
Hartley Patterson
> This isn't practical advice however your posts reminded me of
> something Senator Hayakawa said :
>
> I am thinking rather of the fact that those who are helped
> by dianetics will necessarily be kept at a low level of intellectual
> and emotional maturity by the nonsense they have absorbed in
> order to be helped."
Goodness. I wish I'd said that. Thank you!
banchukita
And I could also say that C, R and A mean Connection, Rootedness and
Awe,
and tell you these three states of consciousness together are the keys
to
Peace but then that would be C+R+A=P and you would have new memes to
chew.
I made up the above in about 15 seconds some years ago, and am
reposting it to show that when you want to derive meaning from
something, you will. So be careful where you focus your efforts to
derive meaning. It's a lesson from Robert Anton Wilson's Illuminati!
Trilogy.
(there was also the post about ARC + KRC = R. CRACK, or religious
narcotics, but that's another story...)
-maggie, human being
Zinj
jens...@tingleff.org says...
<snip>
> I think that doing nothing but looking up words in a dictionary is a bad
> idea. While I'm quite good at looking up words in a dictionary, and have
> been since I was a child, I do not think that it's the only process by
> which I can learn.
>
> "Word Clearing" does not appear to me to be anothing more than another
> control mechanism. A control mechanism by which Hubbard makes any
> disagreement/complaints about the rubbish he wrote a problem - a problem of
> the person who disagrees/complains.
>
> When Hubbard wrote about volcanos in Hawaii 75 million years ago, the reason
> that normal people disagree with him is *not* that they're unable to
> understand any of the words, it's the fact that there were no volcanos in
> Hawaii 75 million years ago.
>
> http://www.spaink.net/cos/essays/forde_volcanos.html
>
> What Hubbard wrote is nonsense - a conclusion that no-one can reach using
> "study tech" and "word clearing." "Study tech" and "word clearing" are
> simply ways to force agreement with Hubbard, no matter what is being
> presented.
Yes, and, Word Clearing is a perfect example of the mundane and
harmless and even 'practical' seeming 'Tech' that is really an
integral part of the worst of the hypnotic/compulsive/critical-
thinking-destroying 'system' that Ron Built.
What could possibly be wrong with 'looking up misunderstood
words in the dictionary?'
To start with, the 'indicator' for the Misunderstood Word is
being bored or *disagreeing* with whatever assault on reason the
victim is currently being forced to read and accept.
Any disagreement *indicates* that the reader has an 'MU' and he
must stop what he's doing to 'find his Misunderstood Word'
before he can proceed.
It's a thought stopping mechanism that's backed up by a negative
reinforcement 'stick' straight out of behaviorism.
Because, Word Clearing Costs money. The 'message' is unspoken
but obvious (to a non-clam anyway :)
'Agree or Pay Until You Do Agree'.
Is what you're reading nonsensical? It can't be; it was
'sourced' by L. Ron Hubbard, so, if you're thinking it's
nonsensical or even (gasp) *wrong*, it's you that is wrong, and,
you must *fix* your misunderstood.
The 'student' quickly learns not to question, and to allow the
dumping of loads of steaming codswallop into his thinking
*unprocessed* or filtered.
Looking Up Words in Dictionaries; how could *that* be bad?
Through the magic of Hubbardism, it becomes an evil control
mechanism.
Non Scientologists also use dictionaries, but, because they
don't do so compulsively or under the whip, they do *not* look
up every new or unclear word, but, to a large extent learn to
*interpret* the meaning from the context, which leads to a much
deeper comprehension of what is written.
But, 'deeper comprehension' is the *last* thing that Scientology
wants. It wants rote 'duplication' and acceptance. Deeper
comprehension of the poisoned gruel would lead to recognition
that 'This is codswallop' and rejection.
Zinj
--
You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think
Piltdown Man
lmng...@myrealbox.com wrote...
<snip>
> Lets forget who first came up with the idea if everybody agrees that
> looking things up in the dictionary is a "good idea" . Does anyone
> think that looking up words in the dictionary is a bad idea?
If you're serious, it seems to me you've got stuck on a seriously
misunderstood word, namely "word clearing". Word clearing isn't the advice
"if you don't understand some word you come across, it might be a good idea
to look it up in a dictionary". On the scale of painfully obvious advice,
that ranks somewhere alongside "if you want to stop your shoes from falling
off, it might be a good idea to tie your laces".
Word clearing, as defined by Hubbard (and since he made it up, and it
doesn't exist outside the belief system he created, his definition is the
only one that counts) is something else entirely. It starts from the claim
that the only reason (not a possible contributing factor, no, the *only*
one) someone doesn't understand something is that they've gone past a word
they didn't understand while reading about it. They needn't even have
realised they didn't understand this word. This claim is so idiotic in so
many ways it doesn't bear going into. This supposed problem then has to be
"cleared" using very specific methods, laid down by Hubbard. Success is
guaranteed, since these methods are infallible. Hubbard said so, after all.
So if it doesn't work, that means you're doing it wrong, not that Hubbard
was just talking out of his arse.
<snip>
> Hubbard said to look words up in the dictionary. That is what I am
> doing.
But *why*, for heaven's sake, are you doing things that "Mr." Hubbard said?
Why is he some kind of authority figure to you?
<snip>
> I was informed that by studying Mr. Hubbard's teachings I might become
> more proficient and effective.
You were badly misinformed then.
<snip>
> I'm just barely getting started, and I'm not having a good feeling
> about these contradictions in the very earliest steps.
>
> Thanks in advance for anyone who has practical, helpful advice.
How about you give up studying nonsense made up by a charlatan out for
money, and take up some real subject of learning instead?
banchukita
lmng...@myrealbox.com wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 02:30:19 -0000, Hartley Patterson
> <hpt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > lmng...@myrealbox.com:
> >>
> >> WORD CLEARING
> >> Mr. Hubbard did not originate the method of improving understanding by
> >> using a dictionary to look up misunderstood words; I truly believe
> >> that this has been going on as long as there have been dictionaries.
> >
> >You have misunderstood 'misunderstood words'? The concept is well
> >explained by Hubbard. He claimed that not understanding *any* word in a
> >text would result in the reader not understanding the whole of it.
>
> That is why I am looking up "reality" in the dictionary. I do not
> understand his use of it in context.
"Reality alone exists - and that we are. All the rest is only a dream,
a dream of the One Mind, which is our mind without the 'our'. Is it so
hard to accept? Is it so difficult to assimilate and to live?" - Why
Lazurus Laughed by Wei Wu Wei
>
> >
> >This is easily verifiable nonsense.
>
> what is verifiable nonsense? that my grandmother used a dictionary
> when she did not understand a word long before Mr Hubbard recommended
> it? and that I did the same before I ever heard of Mr. Hubbard? Or
> that people have used dictionaries to enhance and promote
> understanding as long as there have been dictionaries?
>
> Lets forget who first came up with the idea if everybody agrees that
> looking things up in the dictionary is a "good idea" . Does anyone
> think that looking up words in the dictionary is a bad idea?
>
Onlly when you're paying for it to be used as a mind-stopping
technique. See Zinj's post below.
Or when you use it like you do below, when someone wrote Galileo when
they ovbiously meant Copernicus.
No, the point is to stop at the word until you agree with whatever
Hubbard wants you to agree with. When you're paying beaucoup bucks by
the hour, you are motivated to agree. After all, your salvation's at
stake, not just your MESTy bank account. Or so they say.
> While it might not be practical for my 1600+ page Merriam Webster
> dictionary to be complete (nor any general purpose dictionary in large
> scale production for that matter) I am skeptical that I will find a
> widely accepted dictionary to define "reality" to be whatever we
> agree. I will go to the public library this week and check several
> other dictionaries.
>
> I'm just barely getting started, and I'm not having a good feeling
> about these contradictions in the very earliest steps.
>
> Thanks in advance for anyone who has practical, helpful advice.
Go bowling. Have coffee with a friend. Talk. Read books by authors
other than LRH.
Dance. Your mind is already free. You're not 'aberrated.' That is the
myth!
-maggie, human being