Scientology and Rhetoric
Richard Ford
TR's are the first. This is the art of controlling the direction of a
conversation and thus controlling the mind of the target. A person
with good TR's may lead the conversation where they will simply by
repeating their own questions and ignoring threads put out by the
other person. This may seem a useful skill for a salesperson or
professional manipulator but it comes at a terrible price. THE PERSON
WHO CONTROLS THE CONVERSATION CAN NEVER LEARN ANYTHING.
In other words we only start to learn and grow as individuals when our
thoughts and conversations are led to places we have not been before.
If we remain fully in control of the conversation this will never
happen, and thus the Scientologist remains stuck within his old
pattens of thinking.
This is sometimes called 'moronology' because it can take the form of
a complete refusal to see the obvious even when it is under the nose
of the Scientologist. It is a form of willful ignorance and is mainly
dangerous to the person using it- although it can also result in a
form of mental exhaustion for the person pointing out the obvious.
A second defense mechanism is pretended ARC. This involves pretending
to be engaged in a conversation while secretly being detached from it
and remaining in a separate 'mental room' while planning what to say
next.
This has three main effects. Firstly, it means that the Scientologist
never truly listens to another person because they remain within a
secret chamber working out their responses based upon tone scales and
artificial tricks. This insulates the scientologist from the danger of
ever learning something new. Secondly, pretended ARC alienates the
scientologist from himself and other people. He 'mocks up' friendship
but does not feel it. This eventually results in an entirely fake
personality based upon nothing but self manipulation. This fake
persona has no life of its own and is easy for others to control.
The third effect of pretended ARC is mental exhaustion in the target.
The target (usually a non scientologist) knows that they have been
cheated on some level and have exchanged real friendship for a fake
product. This manifests itself as mental exhaustion and depression in
the target. Eventually this will result in the social isolation of the
scientologist and thus drive him deeper into the cult.
The third (and most dangerous) weapon is Rhetoric.
Rhetoric is essentially a question that is not a question. Not all
rhetoric is evil. I may ask a scientologist why the Church does not
simply employ their OT's to make the critics disappear. This is
rhetoric because I already know the answer (there are no OT's) but my
intentions are good.
Scientology rhetoric pulls together all of their self deceiving
manipulations into a deliberately misleading style of communication.
It can become very sophisticated and multi layered so I cannot explain
how to fully decode it here. It usually starts with an attempt to
create a false premise for the entire conversation so that it never
even strays close to the zone of truth.
For example.
You. "I believe Scientology is wrong for reasons A, B and C."
Them. "I am not sure which side you are batting on. How do I know you
are not an OSA plant?"
We should note here that the only way to deal with rhetoric is NOT TO
ANSWER IT. If you do answer rhetoric you will end up discussing
absolute nonsense and never get close to the truth.
A common example of this is to place you in the role of a word
clearer. The sceintologist will claim not to understand a word- if you
define it for him he will claim not to understand a word within your
explanation and so on. David Miscavige used to do this on TV and
became an international joke as a result.
The best answer to this form of dishonesty is simply to say "I do not
answer rhetoric"
LaserClam
> A second defense mechanism is pretended ARC. This involves pretending
> to be engaged in a conversation while secretly being detached from it
> and remaining in a separate 'mental room' while planning what to say
> next.
>
> This has three main effects. Firstly, it means that the Scientologist
> never truly listens to another person because they remain within a
> secret chamber working out their responses based upon tone scales and
> artificial tricks. This insulates the scientologist from the danger of
> ever learning something new. Secondly, pretended ARC alienates the
> scientologist from himself and other people. He 'mocks up' friendship
> but does not feel it. This eventually results in an entirely fake
> personality based upon nothing but self manipulation. This fake
> persona has no life of its own and is easy for others to control.
Sounds like someone who is being
covertly hostile, 1.1 on The Tone Scale.
Richard Ford
Yes. Scientology is very 1.1. Why do you think they find 1.1 nes in
everyone else?
john
"Richard Ford" <doorma...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:bb9883d7-9cb3-4860...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
Where did you learn this?
Richard Ford
> "Richard Ford" <doorman.f...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
I worked it out for myself- why do you ask?
Maureen
One could use the word, 'rapport'
> The target (usually a non scientologist) knows that they have been
> cheated on some level and have exchanged real friendship for a fake
> product. This manifests itself as mental exhaustion and depression in
> the target. Eventually this will result in the social isolation of the
> scientologist and thus drive him deeper into the cult.
Retrospectiely, it is what also converts his target. The repeated
bombardment
of the same 'taught methods' or, the 'use of the tech' is -meant- to
make vulnerable
the new recruit, and at the same time the new recruit cum member.
>
> The third (and most dangerous) weapon is Rhetoric.
>
> Rhetoric is essentially a question that is not a question. Not all
> rhetoric is evil. I may ask a scientologist why the Church does not
> simply employ their OT's to make the critics disappear. This is
> rhetoric because I already know the answer (there are no OT's) but my
> intentions are good.
This, (below) is a good one, with your own unique explanation. This is
hard to explain, and you've done well:
> Scientology rhetoric pulls together all of their self deceiving
> manipulations into a deliberately misleading style of communication.
> It can become very sophisticated and multi layered so I cannot explain
> how to fully decode it here. It usually starts with an attempt to
> create a false premise for the entire conversation so that it never
> even strays close to the zone of truth.
You are talking about how they communicate their teachings, in a
'misleading style of communication.'
'Misleading style' could be that of the 'patter,' or the repeated
rehearsal lets say, of a member changing every conversation to that of
something $cientology has taught them. And the regurgitation of
communicated terms into Hub-Speak.
It is sophisticated and multi-layered, in that there are thousands of
topics or conversations that could be dissected in effort to decode
the deliberately misleading style of communication. However, there is
a larger picture to redefine what you've just said here, and it is
seen repeatedly in the thousands of screeds Hubbard wrote. (If you
took a set of taped lectures and looked at the booklet inserts, they
all follow a general patter, without even looking at the content, or
topics.)
Here is a clue found in one Hubbo teaching that seems to fit a pattern
of the way of vetting that misleading style of communication - and
it's called 'stable datum:'
From:
http://carolineletkeman.org/sp/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=905&Itemid=194
Confusion, Abreaction, Reorientation (how about that for ARC?)
Hubbard on Stable Datum:
Excerpts from: Confusion and Stable Data, A Lecture given on 17 August
1956
"There's one rule in auditing this, and this is the best rule to
follow
in any case of confusion. You can do this for any datum, even any
datum or basic law or rule in Scientology: Mock up the confusion
for which chiropracty is a stable datum. " Never pay any more
attention to chiropracty, he'll just confuse you if you do. "Now
just
mock up the confusion for which chiropracty is a stable datum."
Just keep him doing this, you know, over and over. Move the
thing around. Make it -more- confused.
Do something with it to have him take under control that particular
confusion and all of a sudden, he'll say, "Well, I know Scientology
works better than chiropracty." You've been trying to convince him of
that for a long time. But every time you made him try to let go of it,
he got the confusion back.
And so you could say, "Mock up the confusion for which a planet is a
stable datum," and
you'll probably have the fellow rising quietly off the floor and
sticking against the
ceiling before much more time happens.
So any idea, no matter what kind of idea, is of coure as-isable or
removable from a
case as long as - and just always that wording - "Mock up the
confusion for which
(blank) is the stable datum."
We get mother out of the case by saying, "Mock up a confusion, now,
for which your
mother is a stable datum."
And we just keep at it and keep at it and all of a sudden, the person
doesn't care
whether mother is there or not.
"Mock up a confusion for which Mother would be stable datum" -
chiropractor, or
anything else you think up.'
> For example.
>
> You. "I believe Scientology is wrong for reasons A, B and C."
>
> Them. "I am not sure which side you are batting on. How do I know you
> are not an OSA plant?"
>
> We should note here that the only way to deal with rhetoric is NOT TO
> ANSWER IT. If you do answer rhetoric you will end up discussing
> absolute nonsense and never get close to the truth.
>
> A common example of this is to place you in the role of a word
> clearer. The sceintologist will claim not to understand a word- if you
> define it for him he will claim not to understand a word within your
> explanation and so on. David Miscavige used to do this on TV and
> became an international joke as a result.
>
> The best answer to this form of dishonesty is simply to say "I do not
> answer rhetoric"
Based on the example above, the way Hubbo teaches members about
'stable datum,' if you were to use A as a chiropractor and B as the
misleading style of communication, to begin interjecting confusion
with,, you will eventually arrive at C where a conversion of thought
brings a person to no longer think of himself as a chiropracter but a
$cientologist. Breaking this down to any conversation, or
$cientological goal, even on ars, you constantly see RR or others
filling in the B of any conversation with an intended goal or way to
increase confusion. Often the thoughts or ideas or what seem like
'feelings' are merely the interjection towards their 'intended
goal'
Maureen
Piltdown Man
Richard Ford <doorma...@googlemail.com> wrote...
> There are three major reality avoiding tactics within Scientology.
>
> TR's are the first. This is the art of controlling the direction of a
> conversation and thus controlling the mind of the target.
<snip>
> A person
> with good TR's may lead the conversation where they will simply by
> repeating their own questions and ignoring threads put out by the
> other person.
<snip>
> may seem a useful skill for a salesperson or
> professional manipulator but it comes at a terrible price. THE PERSON
> WHO CONTROLS THE CONVERSATION CAN NEVER LEARN ANYTHING.
I've often wondered: what happens when two Scientologists who both "CONTROL
THE CONVERSATION", thanks to TRs, try to have a conversation? Is it like
the insurmountable force meeting the unmovable object?
<snip>
> Rhetoric is essentially a question that is not a question.
No it isn't. You should word-clear "rhetoric".
<snip>
> The best answer to this form of dishonesty is simply to say "I do not
> answer rhetoric"
For maximum effect, you should add to that, in a very firm voice: "and I am
unanimous in that!"
john
I'm just wondering why you call anything 1.1 if you don't acknowledge it as
valid.