A Note for those that speak Scientologese

Moderator: doubleVee

<<

Grundy

User avatar

Sticky Master

Posts: 1067

Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 7:41 am

Post Sat Apr 05, 2008 7:54 am

A Note for those that speak Scientologese

I had this message in reply to a post over at ESMB. What is your take?

(Deleted) wrote:I'm a Scientologist. So I talk Scientologese. Get used to it.


(Excuse me folks, while I speak to him in his own language.)

I am a scientologist too. I have had a lot of training. I have spent in the SO. I have 60 or 70 certs for training alone. Fully hatted as a supervisor in the Sea Org. Staff Status 3. OEC Vols 0 and 4. Trained both pre and post GAT.

I still consider myself a scientologist, and I still find value in many of the things I studied.

But not all people here are, have been, or want to be.

Now I know my comm cycle here isn't full of ARC, but is yours either? You insist on communicating with a lanquage that parts of your audience find offensive. Isn't it a basic principle that in order to effect understanding you must use affinity, reality AND communication.

Whether any individual's viewpoint may be valid or not, do not expect that your low-toned, out reality and enforced communication will result in the person or persons you are speaking to duplicating and understanding your communication.

See a cramming off for a cram on the ARC Triangle from FOT as well as POW. And maybe the study tapes as well.

Yes. You are right. I am not your C/S, E/O or I/C. I have no authority to order you to cramming. But if you were in my courseroom, you would have a pink sheet to do at least.

(Okay, I am done speaking in Scientologeze. You may all get back to your activitities.)

So, in the words of the average person:

DUDE!! Get over yourself. (I then tried to extoll him to try to be a little nicer)

************
Okay, lay it on me ....
<<

Tru2form

User avatar

Site Admin

Posts: 1204

Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:56 am

Location: Beijing, China

Post Sat Apr 05, 2008 12:46 pm

I know I'm supposed to be the even-handed semi-neutral moderator, but... *snigger*
Us rabbits? DO something? - Wind in the Willows
<<

WileyCoyote

Clear

Posts: 70

Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 8:09 am

Post Wed Apr 16, 2008 4:49 am

I find the notion of Scientologese both utterly fascinating... and utterly repulsive.

It's not that, in of itself, its "offensive". It's more what it represents.

It's very easy for a Scientologist to try and claim its like being a Frenchman and speaking French. Or maybe for a better parallel, like being a Catholic and speaking Latin. But there's a difference.

Scientologese was invented to block communication, not facilitate it. And to wrap a cloak of exclusivity around itself and its users that rather insidiously reinforces the "us vs. them" mentality and encourages the development of a smug sense of superiority to go along with it.

Just so this objection is fair, let me point out that I had an EQUAL problem with the fake exclusive language the original "Anonymous 1.0" people used (and STILL often tend to use between themselves), filled with "epic wins" and "lulz" and a hundred other terms they, in a pre-CoS-fighting period of their existence, thought were "funny", and which, as with Scientologists and Scientologese, gave them a big case of jollies when they could use the language right in front of outsiders and deliberately confuse the hell out of them because it DELIBERATELY resembles plain English, but "bent", thus encouraging outsiders to be completely confused by it.
<<

Grundy

User avatar

Sticky Master

Posts: 1067

Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 7:41 am

Post Wed Apr 16, 2008 5:16 am

WileyCoyote wrote:I find the notion of Scientologese both utterly fascinating... and utterly repulsive.

It's not that, in of itself, its "offensive". It's more what it represents.

It's very easy for a Scientologist to try and claim its like being a Frenchman and speaking French. Or maybe for a better parallel, like being a Catholic and speaking Latin. But there's a difference.

Scientologese was invented to block communication, not facilitate it. And to wrap a cloak of exclusivity around itself and its users that rather insidiously reinforces the "us vs. them" mentality and encourages the development of a smug sense of superiority to go along with it.

Just so this objection is fair, let me point out that I had an EQUAL problem with the fake exclusive language the original "Anonymous 1.0" people used (and STILL often tend to use between themselves), filled with "epic wins" and "lulz" and a hundred other terms they, in a pre-CoS-fighting period of their existence, thought were "funny", and which, as with Scientologists and Scientologese, gave them a big case of jollies when they could use the language right in front of outsiders and deliberately confuse the hell out of them because it DELIBERATELY resembles plain English, but "bent", thus encouraging outsiders to be completely confused by it.


Ohhhh, I so disagree.

As you might have noticed from my original post, I am NOT a person that thinks someone should speak scientologese just to speak scientologese.

HOWEVER

Any subject which is technical or purports to be technical has its own language.

If I talked to you the way I talk to people in my job, you might think you knew some words but you would be wrong because those words have technical meanings that are different than the normal usages.

Also, many words you would be hindered in understanding because you have never heard such gobbledygook.

Just because a particular field of study or group speaks in language specific to that group doesn't necessitate the premise that they are trying to confuse or exclude those outside.

Though this might be the net effect.

(Maybe you would understand my field. But there are others that would have the reactions as described above.)
<<

WileyCoyote

Clear

Posts: 70

Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 8:09 am

Post Wed Apr 16, 2008 8:04 am

Any subject which is technical or purports to be technical has its own language.

If I talked to you the way I talk to people in my job, you might think you knew some words but you would be wrong because those words have technical meanings that are different than the normal usages.

Also, many words you would be hindered in understanding because you have never heard such gobbledygook.

Just because a particular field of study or group speaks in language specific to that group doesn't necessitate the premise that they are trying to confuse or exclude those outside.

Though this might be the net effect.

If Scientologese was simply made up of new words, invented to describe new things resulting from Scientology Tech, you'd have a winning argument, I think.

But--and this is a point of view long espoused by people who have studied cult behavior and not just my personal opinion--things are a bit different when you take existing words and deliberately redefine them as part of the process of creating your language.

I mean is there a "technically necessitated" reason to redefine the word "Ethics" from what most of the world understands the word to mean ("the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation") to the cloaked and deliberately misleading meaning used by the CoS?

There are a ton of other examples. "Clear" is a good example. I suppose if it was simply being used as an adjective, it would be descriptive enough of what a Scientologist is trying to achieve, but its been bent into a noun and thus takes on new shadings of meaning that are completely (and probably deliberately) confusing to an outsider.

And there's that "ness" business, right? (hey, that's kind of a neat sentence, and in "standard English too!) I mean maybe its not that hard to decipher the meaning of "livingness" or "doingness" or other terms like that, but is it really valid to claim there's a bonafide "technically motivated" reason for those words to exist?

Ol' L. Ron had some perverse argument that this was all done to simplify things, right? The English language is messy, after all. But if you examine things a bit more logically, that make very little sense. If the one true meaning of "Clear" is "a condition in which a person is free of the unwanted influence of engrams, unwanted emotions or painful traumas which are not readily available to the awareness of present time", then how is a Scientologist supposed to refer to the things the rest of the world calls "clear" when they speak? Have thirty or forty other new words been invented to cover THOSE things? Is that really "simpler"? Especially when the Scientologist still has to be able to speak English ANYWAY and understand the context-sensitive nature of many of its words. So what's gained by steering your new made-up language away from concepts like "context sensitivity" when its a skill you are still going to need to communicate with the rest of the world anyway?

I won't even GET into the acronyms. We could be here all day.
<<

Grundy

User avatar

Sticky Master

Posts: 1067

Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 7:41 am

Post Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:07 am

I get what your saying, but I don't agree. Probably never will. But, hey. Nothing wrong with people disagreeing.
<<

Tru2form

User avatar

Site Admin

Posts: 1204

Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:56 am

Location: Beijing, China

Post Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:37 am

If Scientologese was simply made up of new words, invented to describe new things resulting from Scientology Tech, you'd have a winning argument, I think.

But--and this is a point of view long espoused by people who have studied cult behavior and not just my personal opinion--things are a bit different when you take existing words and deliberately redefine them as part of the process of creating your language.


Great points from both, but I think I'm with Wiley on this one.

I do believe that - however, I think this was done unintentionally. This is just my speculatino, but I just don't think he could have forseen what would happen when he started re-defining English terms. I just don't give Hubbard that much credit.
Us rabbits? DO something? - Wind in the Willows
<<

Grundy

User avatar

Sticky Master

Posts: 1067

Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 7:41 am

Post Wed Apr 16, 2008 4:10 pm

Tru2form wrote:Great points from both, but I think I'm with Wiley on this one.
I do believe that - however, I think this was done unintentionally. This is just my speculatino, but I just don't think he could have forseen what would happen when he started re-defining English terms. I just don't give Hubbard that much credit.


Now THAT I agree with. The speek tends to isolate the group, but I don't think that it was intentional. THAT is closer to my point. The CAUSE I think was to appear technical.
<<

WileyCoyote

Clear

Posts: 70

Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 8:09 am

Post Wed Apr 16, 2008 8:28 pm

Tru2form wrote:
If Scientologese was simply made up of new words, invented to describe new things resulting from Scientology Tech, you'd have a winning argument, I think.

But--and this is a point of view long espoused by people who have studied cult behavior and not just my personal opinion--things are a bit different when you take existing words and deliberately redefine them as part of the process of creating your language.


Great points from both, but I think I'm with Wiley on this one.

I do believe that - however, I think this was done unintentionally. This is just my speculatino, but I just don't think he could have forseen what would happen when he started re-defining English terms. I just don't give Hubbard that much credit.


I believe the concept is called 'language loading". There's not that much on Google about it, but one of the known experts is a guy named Dr. Robert J. Lifton--one of those "evil psychiatrists" who's a well known expert on brainwashing, or as Dr. Lifton apparently calls it "Thought Reform" (which is a much more subtle and insidious way to look at it).

The connection between Lifton's ideas (which were apparently written about brainwashing techniques used by the Chinese) and Scientology wasn't made by me though, but by Margery Wakefield, Robert Kaufman and Bob Penny, in "Understanding Scientology". This part in particular:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shel ... us-08.html

Not all of it tracks, for example I'm really dubious that there are all that many people within Scientology who "can't communicate" properly with outsiders if they want to, but most of the rest of the chapter makes sense, and my own spin on the reasons for Scientologese is still more centered around the notion of building that "us vs. them" mentality that's so darn useful, than it is to gain any real effective "mind control". But even if you discount half of it, the chapter is still interesting reading if you've never read it.
<<

The Chief

Clear

Posts: 98

Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:53 pm

Post Wed Apr 16, 2008 8:59 pm

Humans think in the language they most commonly use, and it is how they interpret and communicate ideas. The use of tone and the emphasis on right and wrong in that language and the meaning of each word relative to another can drastically effect how someone might think.

In the case of Scientology linguistics, it's a corruption of scientific and psychologist terminology. The very sound of the words is a kind of technobabble for the masses, designed to give credance to concepts that are utterly bollocks.

Hubbard was quite clever in that regard. By basing his cult upon a set of self help books he delivered the concent of the religion in its own, well defined language. Just a shame he forgot the religion part. Oh, and the fact that the books might as well be framed in the bullshitter's hall of fame.
<<

James McGuigan

User avatar

Ghost in the Machine

Posts: 396

Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:42 am

Location: Between Reality Tunnels

Post Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:39 pm

This is a newspeak announcement from minitru, upsubed from Big Brother.

Since atomic wars, and days of floating fortresses, the party has brought peace and doubleplusgood prosperity to you our people, but for the crimethink resistance and war with Marcabia.

Marcabia have allied themselves with Anonymous of the disputed territories. The war continues. Party members will join in bellyful protest against them during hate week. Forecast infiltration and subversion, but goodthink members will report facecrime to thinkpol. They will be sent to miniluv and joycamp.

Dayorder is unlisten to their duckspeak confusion. Crimestop before thoughtcrime. Goodthink to minitruthful telescreen of two minute hate. Writings of oldspeak to be placed in memory hole. Minitrue will replace with updated blackwhite newspeak.

Minipax with the support of miniplenty and your help, will speedwise ensure plussupplies for the war effort Forecast quotas are up, but surpluses will remain stable. Recdep would like speedwise rectify misprints of increased surpluses. Goodthink to unwaste time on ownlife and resistance will be doubleplusunwinfull.

Goodthink to speedwise clear misunderstood words:
http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-dict.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Newspeak_words

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength.
Freedom is a choice. Choose to be yourself, choose to speak your truth and do so with compassion. And above all else, choose to be not afraid. If I can't dance, its not my revolution.
<<

hidden

User avatar

Clear

Posts: 61

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 1:59 am

Post Tue May 27, 2008 9:45 pm

Scientologese?
Well, that certainly one way to put it :D
“You won't always be here. But before you go, whisper this to your sons and their sons - "The work was free. Keep it so."
~L. Ron Hubbard

International Freezone Association
http://internationalfreezone.net/
<<

TheWiseOne

User avatar

Clear

Posts: 126

Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 12:41 am

Post Tue May 27, 2008 9:59 pm

I think As-is is a great concept. Scientology terms are not like pharmaceutical drug names aka Vioxx. Many Scientology terms actually have a derivation, you remember why it was given that particular name. They weren't made just to sound fancy.
<<

dwest

User avatar

Clear

Posts: 130

Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:22 pm

Post Sat May 31, 2008 3:54 pm

TheWiseOne wrote:I think As-is is a great concept. Scientology terms are not like pharmaceutical drug names aka Vioxx. Many Scientology terms actually have a derivation, you remember why it was given that particular name. They weren't made just to sound fancy.

That is true of many groups, including what many would call cults. Those words are called "loaded words" by Lifton.

Some hold the theory that loaded words that have a meaning in the regular language and another in the group are actually more dangerous because they really separate a person from society.
<<

James McGuigan

User avatar

Ghost in the Machine

Posts: 396

Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:42 am

Location: Between Reality Tunnels

Post Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:31 am

But if the CoS where to truly confront and address the issues being presented, then maybe Anonymous might simply as-is itself.

Its the fact that there remain contradictions and significant differences between their "offical" truth and the "actual" truth, that allow Anonymous to persist.
Freedom is a choice. Choose to be yourself, choose to speak your truth and do so with compassion. And above all else, choose to be not afraid. If I can't dance, its not my revolution.
<<

SaintBastard

Pirate

Posts: 258

Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 5:50 am

Post Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:20 am

With what little google has provided me with in brushing up on what "loaded language" is, I am of the opinion that it is not what we think it is in this case. Scieno-tech-speak for all intents and purposes is a technical language of its own. I argue this because, it defines and encompasses definite technical ideas regardless of the accuracy or effectiveness of that technology. Keep in mind that technology does not just refer to gears, circuits, wavelengths and and the like but technology is also known and accepted to be a body of knowledge pertaining to a process or technique.

Loaded language on the other hand has to do with the reduction of the full gamut of life down to a double-handful of catch phrases and cliches which can easily be regurgitated as the end-all of debate... such as "we will never have a sane government until we clear the planet anyway" or any of the Logics and Axioms which Hubbard explicitly stated what he was doing with writing them down... I am paraphrasing here, but it is something along the lines of reducing life down the the most basic components.

Now, I for one call bullshit on this... years after the fact and now having some proper scientific schooling. If anything is useful in the axioms, its more of a beginners guide to spacial recognition, however they serve the purpose of filling in as rhetoric and in some ways act like the Tao in that you can gain a certain amount of insight by contemplating the phrases.

In all honesty, since loaded words and loaded language are already pretty much covered as a logical fallacy, I see no reason to include the "loaded language" of Scientologese in any category other than what it sits squarely in the middle of. Rhetoric.

The PTS/SP course is LOADED with rhetoric, from how an SP becomes an SP, his identification and "handling." Now, we might see this tech actually working if it was based on any actual fact, but what else would you expect from a group that is hell-bent on saving the universe, of which its elite core is a group of beings recently arrived to Earth. Like everyone, an SP's case can be solved by finding THE INCIDENT in which the SP took on the suppressive valence... IE the winning valence and the ensuing shit storm that got him stuck in it.

Scientologists have these bits of rhetoric bouncing around in their head when you are dealing with them. Critical of Scientology=SP. SP= lie, cheat, steal, incompetent, unreliable, dismissive of responsibility, remorseless, capricious and probably a few other things all of which = FUCKED UP CASE= bat-shit-crazy.

Now you will get any number of personal attitudes regarding the SP from person to person, but the large variance seems to be how they individually would treat the criminally insane. Anytime you prove that you are not criminally insane, there is some amount of rhetoric that is keeping them from seeing you as anything other than criminally insane... probably that you are lying or have a hidden agenda or want to put it in the butt.

Point being, there is a huge difference between rhetoric and newspeak technobabbel, but it is mostly a matter of perspective. To the un-indoctrinated, it looks like the person says one thing, but means another. To the initiate, it looks like they say something but the person they are talking to "has an incorrect definition."
The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it.

Frank Herbert

Return to Tech Debates & Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group.
Designed by ST Software