Scientology and Schizophrenic Discourse
ewsnead
the Light of Modern Art, Literature and Thought," by Louis A. Sass. In the
chapter titled "The Language of Inwardness" Dr. Sass discusses the
impoverishment of language ordinarily experienced by schizophrenics,
specifically the poverty of the content of schizophrenic discourse. A huge
amount of verbosity may be encountered, yet little information is conveyed
to the listener because the language is either too vague, overabstract or
overconcrete. It also tends toward repetition and stereotype. Here is a
passage that he quotes as typical of this type discourse:
Chirps in a box. If you abstract yourself far enough from a
given context you seem
somehow to create a new kind of concretion. It isn't
something you have or see but
yet somehow. It's being fascinated by the generative process
of the mind. The
thing is to be caught in it, yet abstract from it. Both be
in it and out of it--revolving
everything around me. You explode like when the stars
explode. In the sky a plate
which burned bright. Symbol of all light and energy with me
contracted into this
plate.
Reading over some of Hubbards chaotic ramblings one can't help but to be
struck by the similarities in tortured syntax and frequent evasion of
publicly understandable semantic reference. Sass goes on to qualify this
unusual language as containing "empty philosophizing," "fruitless
intellectualizing" and "pseudo-abstract reasoning," all in a universe of
solipsism and tautology. He mentions the tendency for schizophrenics to
devise neologisms (quirky private language), in a "style of emptiness" as if
semantic understanding were being sacrificed at the altar of verbal
mannerism and deliberate confusion of its intended audience. The purpose of
this linguistic strategy is probably defensive. It enables one to
hermetically seal off one's inner domain from (unfriendly) intruders and
exercise sovereign control over this private realm. This is a fascinating
and very readable book for anyone interested.
Bob Dobbs
Others take it as tech, so they wind up in the same logicless strange-loops. For
them now it is a matter of ego protection - whenever confronted with a smarter
person, the clam simply speaks in a barrage of CofS jargon and counts themselves
the victor in a debate, as the other party cannot understand them. Confusing
others is a hidden kick of the majority of clams I have encountered. They get to
feel superior by either teaching you what they mean, or leaving you puzzled. I
can get the same feeling walking up to someone on the street and babbling
incoherently - when they walk away nervously, I can say - he couldnt handle the
truth, I am so smart.
Queso
yertletheturtle
should be put in one oneself, and that can have meaningful
benefit, but in practice, the church, as usual, twists beneficial
concepts for it's own hidden intentions.
Anyhow, very interesting post!
In article <957o0c$607$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
yertletheturtle <yertlet...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Like the biggest trap of "ethics is there until the tech can
> be gotten in". So if someone isn't fully indoctrinated,
> they can still fall back onto the concept that they just
> need to get in their ethics which means usually to insulate
> oneself even more.
>
> In article <3A772E2C...@yahoo.com>,
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
yertletheturtle
be gotten in". So if someone isn't fully indoctrinated,
they can still fall back onto the concept that they just
need to get in their ethics which means usually to insulate
oneself even more.
In article <3A772E2C...@yahoo.com>,
Bob Dobbs <the_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
ewsnead
words one might refer to it as a "dwindling spiral" that eventually results
in madness...
yertletheturtle wrote in message <957o0c$607$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Gerry Armstrong
<the_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Good post, good point. Hubbard's insular logic was a product of his denial.
>Others take it as tech, so they wind up in the same logicless strange-loops. For
>them now it is a matter of ego protection - whenever confronted with a smarter
>person, the clam simply speaks in a barrage of CofS jargon and counts themselves
>the victor in a debate, as the other party cannot understand them.
Incomprehensibility is proof of OT.
They live by this datum: A $cientologist always controls. There's one
hell of a rule for happy living which generates great confusion.
>Confusing
>others is a hidden kick of the majority of clams I have encountered.
Hidden? In most cases there's a stat involved. Their job is to confuse
and they're rewarded for it. But I think you're right, there's a kick
in cruelty for $cientologists. In fact, $cientology could be viewed as
a vehicle for folks to get kicks for cruelty.
>They get to
>feel superior by either teaching you what they mean, or leaving you puzzled.
And either teaching wogs (R) or confusing them confirms the
$cientologists' superiority. Isn't that nice for them.
> I
>can get the same feeling walking up to someone on the street and babbling
>incoherently - when they walk away nervously, I can say - he couldnt handle the
>truth, I am so smart.
I believe it was largely $cientologists' schizophrenic discourse
throughout my 1984 trial which led Judge Breckenridge to conclude:
[Quote]
The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and the
bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder LRH. The
evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar
when it comes to his history, background, and achievements. The
writings and documents in evidence additionally reflect his egoism,
greed, avarice, lust for power, and vindictiveness and aggressiveness
against persons perceived by him to be disloyal or hostile.
[Quote]
(c) Gerry Armstrong