Here is an interesting tidbit sent in by one of our Special Correspondents.
They report that there is a “new issue” from “International Management” (interesting as this has long since ceased to exist, wonder why Dear Leader did not affix his name to it as he has assume the position of “Source of Lost Tech”?) regarding dictionaries.
The only way to see a copy of this issue is to go into a local org. It seems that copies are not available for the public, but they are shown to people in the org who are going on course. Now that is bizarre, what can they possibly be afraid of? Someone making fun of them?
The issue is Senior C/S International Bulletin No. 212, dated 30 April 2013, entitled “Recommended English Dictionaries for Org Academies.”
It lists the only dictionaries which are now allowed in the academy and which dictionaries are now specifically banned, including:
Webster’s New World Dictionary for Young Readers (which was specifically recommended by LRH in HCOB 13 Feb 1981 “Dictionaries”)
as well as ALL Thorndike Barnhardt dictionaries,
The American Heritage Dictionary and
All Funk and Wagnalls dictionaries.
As our Correspondent points out: “This is yet another blatant, if minor, alteration of the tech. I know there have been much worse alterations, but it demonstrates that Int Management’s continuing intention is to indoctrinate the flock into gradually accepting the idea that “Mi$cavige tech” trumps LRH tech.”
Anyone else who has any information about this I would be interested to hear. This is the sort of thing that shakes up the stable data of the sheeple. Something as apparently unimportant as this can be such a break in reality for them that it causes them to begin to doubt other things. This is the REAL reason they are not distributing this issue broadly. I am certain the plan is simply to “disappear” the old dictionaries and most will not question it. For those that do, there is an “issue” kept under lock and key. And no wonder Dear Leader doesn’t take credit for it….
UPDATE:
One of our readers just pointed out that David St Lawrence has had a copy of this issue posted on his blog Possibly Helpful Advice since June 2013! You can see it here.
That’s what happens when you are an unemployed blogger on the fringes of the internet — you just are not up with the rest of the world.
Thanks David, I feel a bit silly, but happy to know you at least were on the ball….
In 1971 I used to dissemenate like crazy. I’d bring in whole families to get regged and all my friends.
One friend, unbeknownst to me, brought a copy of Psychology Today with her. When she was walking around the Mission in New York, she would have the magazine so people could see it.
After we left the mission she called me the next day and said,”Brian, I will not join Scientology because I got dirty looks from people because of having this magazine. People have no right to edit what I read.”
She conducted her own experiment because she had heard that Scientologists hate Psychology.
This idiotic control of dictionaries reminded me of a lesser but similar bias of the written word.
Nasty looks towards unapproved and regimented thinking is not new in Scientology.
At that time I was doing Yoga excersizes, not meditating, and someone reported me. I went to ethics and was commanded to stop or I could not continue in my HQS course.
Mind control occured pre Miscavige. The seeds of authoritarianism is inherent in cults.
Well at least someone on TO’s site can make a shoop of that. Very very fitting – scary how fitting. PS Nice to know who you are. Do you know how Debbie Collins is and Diane McDonnell? Diane was CO PUBs when early LRH books were printed. When the basics came out I rightaway started investigating because of course I could not believe LRH would not have know there were misstakes in his books. She confirmed that she published exactly only what Ron had sidechecked and approved. My ‘KSW’ went in and I’ve been out ever since. There is no way I was going to waste my time writing anymore fricken dead-ended reports to no-one. I’ve never been back in an org since. Probably happened with 90% but who cares – we got our room & board and family with us.
Sad – very sad. I could say I lost everything leaving but then really I lost nothing that wasn’t lost already.
“I could say I lost everything leaving but then really I lost nothing that wasn’t lost already.” Beautiful, Cece!
I’m game. Two years ago, I and my partner had a bright idea: The North entrance sign to the RV park we live in says “Thousand Trails”. The 850 site park is full of tails especially if one spends much time in the spa. Well one nite we painted out the ‘r’ in Trails and it has been left that way ever since. Most people still read it the same. Only if one is in ‘PT’ they get a chuckle. In 2 years I’ve only met 2 persons who noticed anyway.
So anyway …. it’s probably not worth the trouble except for a good laugh for us.
At the front gate is an erasable notice board. One nite we wrote in ‘Saturday – Ranger car wash 1pm and Ranger going away party 8pm.’
Too much time on our hands 🙂
But what if someone has a misunderstood word in the middle of reading that order?
We should nic name the PAC area ‘North Korea Town’ with signs on 4 sides into it. We already have a ‘China Town’, ‘Korea Town’ ect. It would fit right in. I doubt anyone in there would notice.
Good one, Cece! I mean really, we should do that!
I’m surprised wikipedia has not been band. If one were to fully clear Black Dianetics one would have to check out the link to CSI vs Fishman court case. Oh No!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Dianetics
I remember being in OT III course room in St-Hill. As I am French and studying in English, I couldn’t understand the meaning of a word. The sup (many decades on that post and well educated person) showed me 5 or 6 different dictionnaries, so that I could grasp the concept. And it took all these various viewpoints to allow me to understand. What will students do in such a situation nowadays? Go past a MU? Brilliant solution!!! It’s completely weird. Dictionnaries are the base of educational evolution…
Florence,
Good point. I’ve had the same experience. Sometimes several definitions of the same word from different points of view help me arrive at a more full conceptual understanding and ability to USE a word meaningfully. This seems to be true especially when entering a new field of study or dealing with something unfamiliar or very nuanced. It can help to look up a word in multiple dictionaries. It’s not the last dictionary that clears it up; it’s arriving at the underlying commonality (concept) of all the definitions.
Clearing words isn’t about the right fairy god mother waving the perfect wand in front of one’s eyes (ie. looking in the perfect dictionary). Clearing words is purposeful mental work, as plainoldthetan said above.
I like dictionaries and usually have consulted LRH’s HCOB entitled “Dictionaries” when looking for one.
I have also found that, when studying any subject, it helps to find a dictionary which was published around the same time that the author wrote whatever one is studying. This is because definitions sometimes change over time due to usage, new words are coined and some words become obsolete. A definition for a word that was in common usage a few decades ago might be obsolete or even missing from current dictionaries.
Great job bringing this to light, Mike. And David, thanks for being the Keeper of the Tech.
Cat Daddy.
Just had to slip in a dig on the subject of Scientology and Scientologists, didn’t you?
Just can’t stop attacking us people can you?
What I said to Miscavige goes for you too, buddy.
just as a side comment. In the online DUDEN german dictionary the word „Scientology“ is defined. Websters online english „Scientlogoy“ is not found. But e.g. Jehovas Wittness.
You said it, Idle Morgue. This is just a gradient. I pick up that DM is also just chomping at the bit to be issuing his own MCOBs …….or maybe he would call them COBCOBs! 🙂
I think that he really, really wants personal recognition for all of the hard work he has put in altering LRH’s tech and he wants people to worship him for doing so.
But “the parishioners just won’t let go of Ron, damn it”.
Uh, Dave? I never worshiped Ron anyway. I only appreciate his work very much.
And I don’t appreciate your destructive alterations.
So, kiss my ass.
COB is liar, motivated by power and money. He’s probably:
1) Trying to hide something with the banded dictionaries
2) Getting some financial reward from the publishers of the recommended dictionaries
3) Getting his jollies from ordering around (controlling bodies)
Oh holy HELL Mike! Where to begin?
Well I was a W/Cer before the GAT 1 and I was the “perfection” girl as I was nicknamed after my glorious FLAG graduation speech, which I rewrote to glorify FLAG and all that at the Captain, Debbie Cook’s, request. I threw in the line, “I intend to be the reflection of your perfection.” Saying that to that crowd with Heber and a dozen Shinto priests in the front row was just the kicker that GAG 1 needed. UGH. Anyway. I have always LOVED dictionaries. I used to read them for fun.
I was a FANTASTIC W/Cer. I really was. Not because I could slam someone on the meter and “find” all their MU’s but because I actually cared that they understood. Truthfully I hardly used the meter at all. I used my eyes and ears and I knew the material so well I really did know where most people got tripped up.
I used to tell everyone of my students that “Dictionaries are your FRIEND.” and they would all laugh. But by the time they were done with me they believed that and actually used them.
I was given the best gift EVER by Catherine Bell. She gave me a second edition Webster’s Dictionary. It is huge and old and has the greatest definitions EVER in it. Words that we don’t even use any more are in there. It really is priceless. Somehow I managed to keep that in my possession all through the RPF and it was the only thing I HAD to find before I routed out.
I saved her BACON big time using my dictionary. Now she wouldn’t give me the time of day. That’s OK. I was doing my job. If you are lurking here Catherine, “Hi!! It’s your buddy Nora. Call me!”
When I saw this post it actually made my blood boil. And I don’t know why. I left the church over a decade ago. I am NOT a Scientologist and am not a proponent of any of the technology at all. But thinking that they would actually have the balls to tell people that certain dictionaries were banned made me beyond furious. This is just right out of Fahrenheit 451. I mean what is next? Are they just going to make everything into films? No written material at all? How much dumber are these people going to get? Maybe they don’t want the dictionaries in there because what happened so often, when I would W/C someone they would begin to doubt. Once you really understand the words you see that Hubbard was just a gigantic, blowhard, charlatan, who used $20 words to bamboozle and hypnotize you in to surrendering your own free will to a psychotic group that wants nothing but your money and to crush your soul.
Yeah that is probably it.
I will keep my dictionaries and my sanity thank you very much.
Do you mean the Actress
Yes, one in the same. I worked at CC Int for many years working with a variety of Celebrities, wanna be Celebs and regular folk.
IMO the Thorndike Barnharts were always a little short in proper information. And oh I was sooo excited to see that the big fat Random House that I bought when I was in a particularly kiss-assy mode years ago is still on the list.
But the rub is probably something like this–you can’t get INTO the courseroom without one of these approved dictionaries, and thank goodness, the book stores have several of them for sale so you can just route yourself over there and buy one immediately. Too bad the cost is 5 times more than if you ordered it or bought itin a bookstore. Happy shopping!
Laughter! “kiss-assy mode”! 2FF!
A great treatise on dictionaries and their history through policy can be found here http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/papers-scientology/hubbard_vs_dictionaries.html#otherdictionaryreferences
It shed some light on the early early inception of “losing” the tech in order to “find” it later.
The Wise Old Goat has one hell of site. I’ve spent hours browsing through it. I even exchanged e-mails with him about the early days at the Davis Mission and the PRD.
If you want to search a bunch of online dictionaries at once, http://www.onelook.com is a good site. It was started by an Aussie Scientologist, Robert/Bob Ware, in ’96, but has been run by others since ’02. Don’t know anything about Bob but he has a tech company at http://www.studytech.com.
Mike, I’d like to acknowledge you for how honestly and comfortably you admit an occasional error or oversight, or what you believe might have been so. Only strong, well-intentioned, confident people communicate like that.
Control, control, control. The RCS is relentless in its intention to monitor and control every aspect of life, every dynamic. Yes, Sheeple, just keep agreeing, and agreeing and agreeing to whatever HE says. Don’t question anything because HE knows best, always. HE is lighting the way on the path to your utlimate self-determinism so just keep your heads down and do exactly what HE says, always. There you go.
Control, Domination,Money,that’s my WHY.
Of course it’s another wrong target.
There’s been a “dictionary” in the works for years. But I guess that now with GAG2 one is no longer necessary. You will be spoon-fed “correct” definitions so the last thing you need to do is ?
Think for yourself!
I know some’s some old-timer tech people Class 8 and the alike and , “under the radar” and the are pissed. There are old-timer SEA ORG at AOLA and at ASHO, (Like Rene Nortin deep in the bubble). Some of them probably know what’s going on. They probably feel trapped and helpless. And pissed.
I’d like to see a revolt, a mutiny, as rising of “Loyal Officers” like in times long ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mvoc7GMRveY
Excellent rant GoVoluntary. I haven’t been shocked since the 3 swing fiasco, but this is yet another gross, squirrel alteration of the tech. This is another invalidation of the concept of an end phenomena for the individual. As an auditor I handled hundreds of bogged students and there is truly no telling what will achieve “full conceptual understanding” for that unique person. In a bad word clearing bog, I would always have the person bring their favorite dictionary and use as many as necessary, to achieve “full conceptual understanding”. The point is THEIR ep, their fn, their release, their cognition, not the one size fits all, stuff everyone into the same box mentality. With proper word clearing to ep, you get increasing command of language, improved thinking, communication, logic, sanity and IQ. Misunderstood words are the nasty little foundation for o/ws, irrationality, individuation, bickering, illogic, and service facs. This is not a small matter, it is an evil act of large proportion, to intentionally leave charge on words. Dm is the poster boy for what I’m describing.
I’m not surprised either, just annoyed at the stupidity and idealization of robotism.
I keep feeling I should look away and not pay any attention to all this, but like any spectator at a slow-motion train wreck, I just can’t. I guess I was “of the faith” too long to not feel like I’m still sitting in the diner car and/or shoveling in the coal car, even while watching from the outside.
“Mi$cavige tech” trumps LRH tech.”.. You have hit the nail on the head, that is what dictionary tech is all about. I mean, why not use the Oxford English Dictionary? It has the word Oxford in it, it must be better then ‘Funk and Wagnalls’.
Gat2 is going to separate the Miscavige minions from the Lroon dragoons. Then Davey will declare an amnesty to try to get some money, I mean bodies in the shop. The great schism has already arrived.
By Schisms Rent Asunder — it’s arrived.
The more I consider this, the more ridiculous it gets. Recommending basic dictionaries that a courseroom should have in good supply? Fine. Cautioning about some tendency or perceived deficiency various dictionaries might have? Useful, if not put forward as a sweeping generality, so as to negate what good might be there. (And the issue makes some very sweeping generalities which paint the subject in black and white, rather than the full color pallet that the subject deserves.)
But to say not only that the org shouldn’t provide these dictionaries, but should PROHIBIT a student from using them! Should not even allow them around?
A dictionary can be generally disappointing, but yet be the only one to state a definition in just the right way to help clarify a tough concept for a student. Due to cultural, educational and experience differences the selection of a “main” or favorite dictionary can be pretty personal. Some similar words can’t help but be somewhat circular, as in one of the examples in the bulletin. They’re dealing with SYNONYMS for Christ sake! Part of the understanding is the similarity, and also teasing out the differences.
I’m afraid that this sort of thing is not just DM, though. It’s a sign that DM was inevitable. “One tech to rule them all” is a pipe dream. DM didn’t invent the idea of cookie-cutter Standard Tech. He’s just gave it definite shape. LRH was smarter than that. But then he could actually get away with it because, after all, he was LRH.
DM is left with no choice than to dictate exactly what “Standard Tech” is and to thus try to replace the void that LRH left. That’s not to say that he’s not a sociopath. I have little doubt about that.
It’s just that this dictionary thing is a reflection of the necessity to make arbitraries stnick, because if people were empowered to be personally and individually responsible, you couldn’t enforce anything on them and the empire could crumble. That works for a while, until it gets so silly and so destructive that it crumbles anyway. This is just another late-Roman-empire example.
Well, that’s my rant and I’m sticking to it.
John
Failing short to produce his own dictionary, (which he promised years ago and said he had hundreds of people working on it and it was four feet high already0, he just decided to criticize someone else. It is part of his “CAN’T HAVE” dictionary program. Note the Church’s dictionary has been out of printing for so long one can only be found on occasion on the second hand or out of print market.
I remember someone, (It might have been Jon Atack) observing that much of the content of Scientology comes from Ron trying to crack his own case. Now DM comes along and changes the material trying to do the same producing, you guessed it, over-run.
Another huge outpoint is that it comes from “Senior C/S International”. Ray M, the original posted Snr C/S Int. hasn’t been on post for many years. Also, this is No. 213, so, what about the issues 1 to 212?
What do they say, when were they issued and by whom?
More lies, more troubles for Black Heart…
Issues 1-212, believe it or not, were issued before GAT 1 came out. I have two 3″ legal sized binders issued by the church with issues 1-90 in on and 91-108 in the other. Then I have “loose copies” of most of the ones from 109-170 in file folders. 170 was issued 13 June 1996. If anyone wants to trade issues with me, I’m really Jonesing for issues 170-212.
In the beginning the SCIBs were written by and issued under the signature of the (gasp) Senior C/S International. SCIB 1R was originated by Ray Mithoff and revised and reissued by Jeff Walker.
Asking what they say is kind of like walking the minefield you would encounter with a question like “what’s in the HCO PLs”. However , let me say this. My take on the SCIBs is that there were tech “situations” in orgs and in the field that required someone with tech altitude to address.
For example: It was discovered that FPRD has been taught wrong and was audited wrong for a decade. PCs were being horribly overrun on it, in that when going earlier-similar on a Sec Check question, the auditors had a tendency to go past the F/N and ask earlier-similar until the pc ran out of answers. Only then would they check the “evil purpose/destructive intention” question.
This was done so wrong and by so many auditors that a general correction for auditors was issued as a SCIB; and a correction list called the FPRD Rundown was issued as a SCIB to correct the preclears.
When GAT 1 came out, it was “considered” that “the tech was perfect” (besides, they weren’t written by LRH!) so the SCIBs weren’t needed any longer. So they were, in essence, cancelled.
Until they were resurrected to help Miscavige enforce his idiotic arbitraries, out-tech, and alter-is. Oh, yeah. And to cover up his crashing M/Us.
Not to be smart or anything, but when I saw stuff like this, I just walked away. (Honestly, one of the “decision points” for me was seeing one of the brightest most creative and alive people in the org staff be assigned “treason” by some stick-up-her-whatever female version of a dip-stick. That really did it for me.) Any bunch of idiots who follow orders without reason, without reasoning themselves, convincing themselves they are not capable of reason, is certainly not studying knowledge, or going Clear, or gaining in life, or increasing their understanding. I expect a man to be able to see logic. I do not like stopping the game to take responsibility for both ends of the comm line and showing an ‘opponent’ how to score a goal because the poor sot isn’t capable of doping that out for himself. I prefer a nice clean, “You hadn’t heard that?! What?! You live under a rock or something?!”
I got a copy of the Oxford English Grammar (1,000 pages), and it explains, right at the start, that it is relevant within the current time frame of language, and that usage changes. Fifty years from now, much of it may be outdated. The same applies to definitions of words. (An example is the British creeping usage “He is in hospital” when grammar indicates that a direct object takes a definite or indefinite article. “In hospital” actually is closer to Russian grammatical structure, which is a Slavic group, not the Romantic group which English belongs to – so I say “He is in the hospital” – Russians say “Pass salt,” very directly, not “Pass the salt” and there is not much use of the Romantic forms of future conditionals “If that were to occur” as it is perhaps considered ‘speculative and impractical’ yet your average Russian plans things out carefully. Fascinating language, Russian is. We have trouble with “who” and “whom,” which [are] merely extensions of “he” and “him,” while in [the] Russian language there [are] six of these forms or cases, and these [are[ constructed not just for personal pronouns, but for each object, and adjective – so you have six forms of “salt” depending on the grammatical usage which conveys the expression of cause and effect, and any modifiers such as “red, green” [are] in grammatical agreement with that.)
This is one reason – it seems to me – why demo kits are useful, and why clay demos are done. One bypasses the words, and arrives at the concepts. The balance of mass and significance probably goes all the way to the exchange of dimension points – even in communication, we deal in masses and particles. So it is important to maintain the integrity of one’s own universe, and maintain control over that exchange. We are talking about something, not some non-existent non-thing.
When it gets down to cases in life and living, you are not usually talking semantics in the absence of any mass (I’m being sarcastic). You are dealing with purposes. Many who have not pursued educations confuse “hypothesis” with “theory”. A “hypothesis” is more at “conjecture” while “theory” is something which has been shown to be functional but they’re not sure it applies in all instances, so it remains “theory” until it is clear that it can be upgraded to fact. In scientology, we are not dealing with “hypothesis,” but with functional “theory,” and with cause and effect. We want to go directly to exchanges of dimension points and masses. “Do you have an ARC break?” “It made me sad.” “OK. Was that a break in affinity, reality, communication, understanding.” “Affinity. I’d known them for a long time!” “Thank you.” [And so on to clear the masses and get the guy un-dependent, un-confused, un-sad, feeling better, and then check for the F/N which indicates that the dissipation of mental mass has occurred (mass is an accumulation of confused and ‘smished’ particles, but you have trouble convincing someone of that if they are below that threshold of integrity of universes and think it’s all ‘conceptual’ without real meaning – and ‘modern non-Scientologist philosophers’ have completely fallen off that cliff).]
So you need the dictionary to get the concept which you can then demo, if you need to see how the particles and causes and effects relate, in the reality of exchanges and accomplishments and actually as-is-ing. The placement of a comma or semi-colon or choice of this or that doesn’t turn a dog into a cat, and people who fixate on that are missing the point altogether (and that can be clay demo’ed, too, just in case some yo-yo doesn’t grasp it sufficiently well to apply it)…
Oh my, there’s so much to say, where to begin? The list of approved dictionaries along could induce Death by Dictionaries.
Scientology: We know what’s best for you.
My dictionaries? OED online, Collins (online, neat sound file BE/AE pronunciation feature), urban dictionary (great for slang), Wikipedia (great for context and scanning for associated words), Merriam-Webster (online), dictionary.com (very well-organised thesaurus), investopedia and FT for financial terms, and any other resource a search engine can turn up.
Some have said this is about money and possibly it is. But it’s also about controlling yet another aspect of Scientologist’s lives. Wait for the day when Calvin Kline becomes nonrecommended underwear, and Starbucks a nonrecommended venue.
Scientologists might just become the Amish of the 20th century (no offense to the Amish).
The “church” recommended dictionaries are not bad.They are just not the dictionaries I want to use.
Just what I was thinking. Next The Little Man is going to ban boxer shorts and underwire bras.
Little boots is taking the LRH out of LRH and replacing him with DMH.
Oh by the way 2 months ago was clearing a word in the course room per- how to clear
a word out of a cd. The Sup told me that I didn’t have to do that the definition is in the
glossary and that’s all I need.
This exactly the problem that taking verbal data from the Diminutive Dunce results in.
For my money, the best online dictionary http://dictionary.reference.com/ “Dictionary.com.” Full definitions with derivations. Words from multiple dictionaries (Random House Collegiate, Collins, and others) they have an add-on for browsers for quick look-up.Words often pronounced with human voice . They have huge web designed for the word obsessed.
Best place to buy paper dictionary: Amazon.com. Third-party sellers sell top rated used hardback dictionaries, sometimes for a buck or less.I’ve found their condition good for the price
DM has obviously read “Alice in Wonderland”. (Maybe as an audiobook, considering his lack of education.)
“Words mean only what we say they mean.”
By the way, the American Heritage Dictionary is one of my favorite books.
Not only is it extremely helpful, especially with regard to the derivation of words, and the history and lineage of world languages, its actually a fun read.
It has pictures too, and I crack up in checking various editions for the one they use to illustrate the word “contortionist”.
“Words mean only what we say they mean.”
Brilliant.
The quote, for those of you wondering, is from Through the Looking-Glass in the chapter titled Humpty Dumpty:
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
I notice that both issues are “by” RTRC, with credit in the lower left as “ab”. That would be whoever compiled/wrote the issue for issue authority. Any ideas about who “ab” might be? An old tech person in RTRC or the like? Dan Koon, you’re probably the most likely to be able to put it together.
If anyone cares to be very picky about it, the above mentioned dictionaries are not even the very best. The best are early dictionaries from ENGLAND. That is, if you speak English.
Oh well, just more wild stupidity!
Waverley Children’s Dictionary is the best. They are not for children now a days unless your “kid” is sitting in a University. They were printed in an 8 volume set. No longer in print but you can find entire sets on Ebay or volumes you can buy to put together a set. Many sets still found in Canada so shipping is not a big issue but even if shipped from the U.K., you can find a good deal.
They look like this:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Antique-Books-The-Waverley-Childrens-Dictionary-By-Harold-Wheeler-Vol-I-VIII-/321303782812?pt=Antiquarian_Books_UK&hash=item4acf32a59c
http://www.ebay.com/itm/8-VOLUMES-OF-WAVERLEY-CHILDRENS-DICTIONARY-HARDBACK-FULLSET-UK-FREEPOST-/380770497023?pt=UK_Collections_Lots_Books_EH&hash=item58a7b0b1ff
No surprise there Mike.
They’ve pretty much abolished the use of “wog” dictionaries by issuing “glossaries” with the “Basics”.
Never mind the above but you’ll be hard pressed to find the usual Scientology dictionaries like the Tech or Admin dictionary as these were found to be “off source”.
(Yeah right.
As if the Ol’man didn’t personally read the galleys himself and make definition notes to clarify certain terms used.
But anyhoo….)
They’ve introduced what was called the “Pilot Dictionary” for both Scientology Tech and Admin terms which in my opinion is a piece of shit.
But enough of mincing words.
In other words whoever actually seized control of the Church has introduced the PR tactic of the redefinition of words regarding the subject.
Not only that but they’ve edited as in redacted the Study Tapes to exclude any Scientology technical terms like GPM, R6GPMI, 3DXX, etc ostensibly for fear that the poor student may run into highly technical Scientology word chains or whatever yet they left all the highly technical terms used in Navigation, Photography (BTW does anyone know what a “bromoil” is?), Music and Philosophy that the Ol’man uses intact.
From dictionary dot com (link provided in this thread):
“a process for making an offset reproduction by first making a photographic print on paper with a silver bromide emulsion, wetting it, and then using it as a lithographic plate, the lighter parts of the emulsion tending to repel the oil base of the ink and the darker parts tending to hold it.” A “bromoil” is the physical result of the “bromoil process.”
Today I believe one would use the word “photolithography” and probably some improvements have been made, and AFAIK photo-sensitive (light sensitive) aluminum plates are used. It’s the same principle. Fine art lithography sticks to the oil / water practicality (grease, really, not oil). The idea has various industrial applications, and is used in nano-scales to lay circuits out on silicon wafers which become microchips – photo-masking something or another.
er…..thanks Carcha.
Now would you mind looking up “rhetorical question”?
This is why.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/274475/L-Ron-Hubbard
If I remember, the Encarta dictionary (both printed and electronic) had uncomplimentary things to say about Dianetics and Scientology. And maybe even Hubbard.
Bingo Mark and POT! Thankyou.
It’s funny how DM holds all hats and no hats at the same time. Senior C/S international is now replaced by LRH Technical Research and Compilations and authorized by AVC International. It’s kind of like Santa Clause.
Jaw drop. When you think it just couldn’t get any worse, then banning recommended dictionaries!
Mike. There is another Senior CS bulletin that follows the one announcing the dictionaries, laying out a program of implementing this new scheme. You should find it on the same PHA site.
It says these approved dictionaries are available from Bridge.
My assumption is they couldn’t get deals with some suppliers so they excluded them.
No other reason than controlling the market they have and making extra cash out of his so-called captive market.
Money. That’s the reason.
There is not a single thought in this new scheme that relates to usefulness or not of the dictionary. It is simple control of cash flow.
That’s my take anyway.
What’s really dumb is they’re talking about recommended dictionaries yet have an MU themselves on the word “recommend.” What they really mean is “approved” and “banned” or “disapproved,” yet they say “recommended” and “not recommended” or “nonrecommended.” The only place they’re being honest is “not to use.” It like saying you have a suggestion, but it is actually a hard and fast rule.
They don’t have an MU. It’s propaganda by redifinition of words, aka Newspeak or an aspect of thought reform. It is the gentle but firm moulding of the flock that will brook no insubordination.
“what can they possibly be afraid of? Someone making fun of them?“
Well actually Mike,…… yes.
Humiliation followed by embarrassment and ridicule is a tough way to spend your days.Poor bastards.
Back in the day the Funk & Wagnalls was one of the more popular Dictionaries and it defined Scientology as a “psychotherapeutic cult” etc. which most of us who had a sense of humor thought was pretty funny.
Maybe that is the definition that the Church is currently applying to itself 😉
For other obsessive-compulsives like me …
The American Heritage Dictionary (online) offers these terms and definitions:
Scientology
A trademark for a system of religious practice developed by American author L. Ron Hubbard (1911-1986), aimed at promoting mental and spiritual health by training adherents to overcome the aftereffects of past traumas, including those believed to have been experienced in previous lifetimes.
At http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=Scientology&submit.x=37&submit.y=16
engram (noun)
A physical alteration thought to occur in living neural tissue in response to stimuli, posited as an explanation for memory.
At http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=engram&submit.x=42&submit.y=26
JM
BTW my favorite dictionary is the AHD.
Well nothing surprising here about “engram”. Ron explains that the word came from biology in SOS.
My personal opinion its much better than the earlier descriptions like comatome or impediment and easier to remember.
Regarding the AHD.
The so called “logic” used to ban it from course rooms is hard to fathom.
AHD My favorite, too. I still have the one with which I did the PRD and many other courses. I find it a cherished friend. I have probably 20 dictionaries: several AHDs – one for every main space of my life; quite a few foreign language dictionaries, and many specialty dictionaries in music, mathematics, economics, and so on.
I must say, though, in this day and age I use internet dictionaries/word clearing much more. Love the way Dictionary.com is linked so you can follow a word chain. Online you can get more mass on terms with photos, diagrams, youtube videos, interactive models and so on. You can look up a word or topic and study as deeply or lightly as need or curiosity carries you. Even wikipedia is great for basic factual material – like the scientific name and atomic number of silver that I did today. Google images – a real treasure of visual info!
Kids in schools use online dictionaries on ipad, laptops, smartphones ROUTINELY. Even at the elementary level! University students world wide use these etools as commonly as paper towels. Young people may not know good study tech, but there’s no way they’re going to go back to the resource-limited, information controlled environment of yesteryear.
It’s ridiculous that David Miscavige thinks he can manipulate this arena.
Actually I use both a good dictionary and the internet.
Regarding the Church and/or Miscavige.
My feeling is at some point they’ll be blind sided by history.
There is no despotism that has been able to stand up to the free flow of information.
http://possiblyhelpfuladvice.com/?p=13697
http://possiblyhelpfuladvice.com/?p=13791
I did a two-part series on this problem called “Death to Dictionaries” back in June 2013. The actual issues from the church are in those posts.
The COB is obsessed with “glossaries” instead of “dictionaries”. The so-called “student hat dictionary” found in GAT II is just that: a glossary that give you only the definition the “church” wants you to learn.
Actually clearing words is hard and takes a long time and makes you responsible for what you’re learning and provides results usable outside the courseroom.
And Miscavige will be the first example of a “Scientologist” who doesn’t want to do anything “hard”. Or takes a long time.
The “student hat dictionary” is Miscavige’s attempt to solve HIS OWN STUDY PROBLEM. Which is that he finds actually clearing words the LRH way is hard and time-consuming.
So, in an effort to “take time out” of study, we have the brilliant solution of banning long-used and long-loved dictionaries, even to the extent of labeling them “not LRH-approved” (‘cuz they’re “dinky”).
Then adding the Oxford English Dictionary as MANDATORY courseroom props. If you’ve ever tried to look up anything in the OED, you’ll remember it takes FOREVER to clear the simplest definitions in that dictionary.
And in a Gestapo-like stroke, ORDERING COURSE SUPS TO BAN PARISHIONER DICTIONARIES, TO SHRED COURSEROOM DICTIONARIES, AND TO CONFISCATE PARISHIONER DICTIONARIES.
So now, courserooms across the globe no longer have the Macmillan Dictionary for Students (the “blue one”) but if I bring my own copy into the courseroom the sup will confiscate it!
And that is the dictionary I lived with all through doing the SHSBC! In fact, I WORE OUT ONE COPY doing the theory levels of the SHSBC and had to buy a new copy for my auditing space so I could clear words with my pcs on the practical levels (O & P). I used that dictionary while receiving my Method One word clearing!
Even worse, you can see from the actual church issues that the whole thing is a money-making scam anyway. Some of the mandatory dictionaries aren’t printed anymore! And you can only buy them through the church!
Thanks POT. I discovered your good work when a reader pointed out that you had already covered it on your blog, so I updated my post with a link to it.
I don’t mind. The more the word gets out the better. And my posts might not have made Miscavige’s head explode, but this one will. ‘Cuz it’s you, Mike.
Yes he is constantly solving his own problems which makes him all the more dangerous as people identify with an insane case . And the one size fits all philosophy creates what we see now in the church.
Yes, There are staff in the Church that feel it is just fine to STEAL someone’s book! “Confiscate” someone’s dictionary is STEALING.
A little crew from HCO pushed their way into Trey Lotz’s home and physically tore his framed certs off of his walls and left with them them! It’s called “home invasion” and “daylight robbery”. Little criminals!
Forget everything else that is a BIZARRE outpoint in this “Int Management” issue. It is commanding staff to STEAL.
What kind of outpoint is THAT!
+1 Plain Old Thetan.
P.O.T
I think you are right on the money with these statements:
“Actually clearing words is hard and takes a long time and makes you responsible for what you’re learning and provides results usable outside the courseroom.
“And Miscavige will be the first example of a “Scientologist” who doesn’t want to do anything “hard”. Or takes a long time.
“The “student hat dictionary” is Miscavige’s attempt to solve HIS OWN STUDY PROBLEM. Which is that he finds actually clearing words the LRH way is hard and time-consuming.”
Yeah, I find it sickly humorous that a guy who is basically too stupid to study is now the “source” and “expert” on training. A guy who couldn’t get through a Cl. IV internship without slapping His PC.
He Who Must Not Be Named, the Prophet of Scientology, Chairman of the Board Religious Technology Center Mr. David Miscavige is just to damned stupid to be a Scientologist.
Possibly they are banned because they give an unfavorable definition of Scientology or Dianetics….
Or a favorable definition of medicine or psychiatry. Or a true definition of the word “tyrant.” Or “cult” Or ..or…or
Imagine Scientologists wordclearing love or the wog definition of Sympathy, Or even better learn the definition of the wordthe word Compassion or Empathy.
The problem would not be wordclearing those. The problem would be getting mass and reality on empathy or compassion. Total blank. Glibness saves the day.
Maybe they can’t feel it, I mean not everybody feels these things but has to use their rational to deduct how others feel or think and such.
So who is the Senior C/S Int? Is there an IG Int?
Trey Lotz and Marty Rathbun. Held from above since the C of S has fallen into a sink hole.
For me, the best dictionaries to use are the Young Readers and the Websters Collegiate dictionaries that LRH recommended at that time.
I was told something like this in 2008 I think, by one of the Academy Sups at my Org. That some of the dictionaries were going to be banned. Not sure where he got that data. He had recently returned from training at Flag.
I suspect it might have something to do with clearing words in the Instant Reads Bulletins and FN’s and probably other stuff. It was becoming necessary to direct students to specific definitions to explain how “at the precise end” could mean “within the last syllable” to make it fit with what they were seeing in the EM9/9a films.
I haven’t seen too much written about the whole “instant read” fiasco that occurred with the release of the GAT. The original “E-Meter Reads” film was re-done – as I recall because it had some Declared SPs in it. When the new one came out, my fellow tech people and I at my org spent literally hundreds of hours watching the films, word clearing every single word in “Instant Read” and “Major Thought”, and drilling instant reads on video tape. I remember sitting in the film thinking “hmmm… bongos looks prior to me…” Then, that film was recalled and another version shipped which had different reads and we went back to endless hours drilling and watching films once again. I am not sure it ever got sorted out, last I could see no one in CofS, not even at Int since they sent a crappy tech film with obviously wrong reads, could even read a meter. I knew Flag was just as bad because I saw every single OOT get trashed on the “video line” for the metering program time after time after time.
Yep. You study the references which are perfectly clear. You do drills and see for yourself the meter reacting instantly. Then you watch the tech film and you suddenly have absolutely no f-ing idea what is happening. Good job miscavige. A shining beacon of RTC standard tech.
There were no declared actors in the EM-9 film. It was re-done because it didn’t match RTC’s standards on instant reads. Also, it showed an FN that did not match the “new” definition.
During GAT, the shortest time through the Metering program was a lady named Jolie Marsh, who took only 14 months to get a pass. Post-GAT, times of 5 or 6 months on the metering final assessment was not uncommon at Flag.
What! I did my PRD with a Thorndike-Barnhart. “Webster’s New World Dictionary for Young Readers” was always my standby dictionary.
Well then, off with his head! And route him to the New and Improved Student Hat to correct the horrible out tech of usinsg the Thorndike-Barnhart dictionary.
Down the Rabbit Hole they go; led by the Mad Hatter himself.
Mike wrote:
This is the sort of thing that shakes up the stable data of the sheeple. Something as apparently unimportant as this can be such a break in reality for them that it causes them to begin to doubt other things.
Heh heh.
Thought grenades: targeted explosions designed to break up the unexamined pathways and get people thinking again.
You dog.
Alanzo
Well then, I guess they’ve just inadvertently given us a list of the best dictionaries (the banned ones).
Webster’s New World Dictionary for Young Readers (which was specifically recommended by LRH in HCOB 13 Feb 1981 “Dictionaries”). This dictionary was my favorite and I still have it. If I was still a Sheeple studying on course and read this “new issue”, I would definitely be pissed and adding it to my list of doubts.
I would have to bet that all of these dictionaries have some kind of disparaging definition of the word “Scientology” list in them. Rather than handle the horrific PR that David Miscavige has developed for the Scientology religion over the last 30 years, they simply forbid Scientologists from reading the dictionaries! This is a great little example of how David Miscavige is handling things. Scientology’s repute and LRH’s repute are of no importance. What is important is if the sheeple thing Miscavige is doing a good job. If they are not allowed to see the “heretic” dictionaries, they can be kept unaware of what a shit mess he has made of Scientology repute.
Perfect comment. I had thought the same thing when I saw this. They have definitions that don’t meet the exacting standards of Dear Leader.
My “Thorndike-Barnhart Student Dictionary” (1997 edition) doesn’t even mention “scientology”. The “churchies” are big on the Oxford dictionary series. Kick back maybe? They sell them through Bridge.
Oh, there’s another angle, thank you, Ashaman. I know a guy who has been for years selling dictionaries to the orgs. He is a public person living in Sunland area, and he makes his living selling dictionaries. Provides the orgs with them. It could be that the church cut him out of the loop so that they could make all the commissions or kickbacks from selling books directly instead of going through him. I’d like to ask him if he’s still doing busienss with the orgs, but I’m persona non gratis now. I’ll see if a friend of mine can ask him and I’ll report back to you.
Roy, yes that is probably it. How about anyone who has one of the “banned dictionaries” look up the word ‘Scientology’ in it and report back to us as to what it says?
‘Money hungry cult operating on the fringes of the internet …………with a very short fuse’
I’d be curious to know which dictionaries are now “OK’d” by DM.
Yeah, unfortunately they didnt report that info. Which is why I was asking if anyone else had any data on this.
mr. rinder, i doubt that any dictionary will be good enough for dave-tech seeing as though dwarvenfuhrer keeps crowing about how awesome and complete the current book glossaries are. cheers!
Possibly Helpful Advice has a copy of that issue posted in his article of June 21, 2013.
Unbelievable and so odd that they keep it under lock and key. Makes ya wonder what else they are hiding.
actually, not so odd…it’s obviously because of those reasons you stated.
Thanks Bela. Should have thought to check…. But at least its available.
I have now updated my post with a link to Possibly Helpful Advice.
I think it’s important to post these things more than once and at different blogs. Not every one sees them. And, with all the people newly leaving the church on a daily basis, this is what they need to see.
but why?what could possibly be gained?Reassertion of authority?
You are trying to apply reason to a situation that is just crazy; that is why it does not make sense. We need to make sense of things and that is why we keep going over and over it, but there is no end in sight, it is just crazy!
I think you hit it on the head, that they are banned so as to reassert his authority and reestablish that DM is the “keeper of the tech and finder of lost tech.” And also maybe to prepare them for the day when no dictionaries are wanted other than the glossaries HE provides with the courses with the words defined the way HE defines them.
Yes, now the church can cancel (even if in a indirect way) HCOBs and their content. that’s the bottom line. As to the Young Readers Webster’s dictionary, it was the dictionary that as a foreign student helped me the most. I got a hell of many concepts out of it and it was simple and clear. True after a while i needed a bigger dictionary but, hey, that was recommended by LRH for a purpose, and it did serve its purpose with me.
Why?
See HCOB 23 AUG 1968 ARBITRARIES: “Any arbitrary entered into any line is a way to stop that line”.
Greta
Word. The Co$ appears to be dead set on the obliteration of Scientology.
Also… he is probably setting the sheeple up for something else… like eliminating ALL the dictionaries written by anyone who is not a Scientologist.
I talked to a sheeple yesterday and asked quite sincerely what in the world they are doing changing the tech. Also… now what was I going to do with my 2 e-meters. And she went on and on about the “lost tech” being suddenly found and finally her 30 years on the Bridge …. she will finally be able to get UP the Bridge. (She is still stuck who knows where and is starting the Key To Life course all over again.) She claimed to have been audited on the new meter and exclaimed how much more sensitive it was. ?? I say… who gives a shit, if it’s taken 30 years to get you to overweight and sick and broke… how is a new emeter going to fix that?
Even so… she has been sick for the past several months (PTS to DM and Co$?). She says it’s just a body thing. I asked her about a mutual friend of ours who has done everything on the bridge at least 2 or 3 times and is OT VII or OT VIII… not sure which… and he is now certifiably blind. I asked why, if he is now cause over MEST, is he blind? And why does he want to re-do all his courses? … Anyway… I asked good questions and there were only protestations along the party lines of why all this new lost tech will make everything go right from now on. And how wonderful the new emeter is and that it can be updated right over the internet… whew. She knows nothing…. only the party line. There is no arguing or pointing out-points.
None so blind as those who will not see… is an understatement. You can’t talk to them. Amazing.
I think she is still stuck in the awareness characteristic of HOPE, or is that DELUSION?
No dictionaries are perfect and none are totally bad either.
A student needs to use good judgment each time he or she looks up a word, as to whether the definition he is reading is a simple enough, yet thorough enough definition that delivers the most possible understanding with the least possible confusion.
When the one he is using doesn’t provide that for the particular definition he is looking up at that time, he should find one that does.
But there is nothing any more or less wrong with the above dictionaries as any other dictionaries, and to ban any of them is a complete arbitrary.
+1!
Dave —
I think you may have missed the important subtext connected to this issue. What you’re suggesting is that during the process of clearing a word, a student “think and consider” what the best definition is for the text being read. I’m sorry, but what are you thinking?! Do you have any idea what “thinking and considering” have done to the length of time for course completions over the past two decades? Read recent GAG II issues for clarification
Mr. Miscabbage has determined that Thinking, in whatever form it may take, is simply getting in the way of getting Scientology tech understood and applied. And frankly, there is no recent study that clearly shows a connection between thinking and understanding
Words are noted for getting in the way, when a student is trying to do the right thing, and complete a course by 2:00 pm Thursday. Spending time, clearing a word, in a dictionary that has simple straightforward meanings and the correct use of synonyms, is counter-productive. Instead choosing a dictionary, like the Oxford Dictionary, with it’s myriad definitions in one-point font, presents words and their respective definitions in such a manner as to dissuade a normal student from even looking at the fucking page. As a result, check-sheet times have diminished, and comprehension is no longer hindered with concepts like duplication and conceptual understanding (which have been determined to not come from LRH anyway).
No Dinky Dictionaries are out and large, ponderous and didactic dictionaries are in.
Sorry, Dave, but you need to get with the program.
Odd
Does anyone know the LRH reference to the effect that Scientology badly applied is nothing to defend?
What is the reason given for banning these dictionaries? Is it to protect the out-ethics degraded being cocksucking public from getting into long chains while word clearing? To set up for the release of the special dictionary?
He Who Will Not Be Named most likely did not like the definition of the word Cult.
Notwithstanding and more importantly the definitions of the words He uses most were likely incorrect because they did not have proper examples for c*^@sucker, mother^*@#er, or Hollywood Boulevard.
+1. LOL
Especially c*^@sucker, Coop. That’s a key noun, adjective and adverb and it’s vital that each part of speech is correctly delineated. Can’t have someone running off and saying, “Mom, I want to be a c*^@sucker, just like Mr. Miscavige when I grow up.”
Odd
John, It’s all about the Can’t Have.
I believe the purpose of banning “some” of the dictionaries is “INFORMATION CONTROL”! If the clubbed seals agree to this ban – then the gradient will be increased over time and pretty soon Captain Miscavige will be printing his own dictionaries which will control all definitions of every word.
It is all part of the mind control methods used to keep the clubbed seals – clubbed!
To add to my post above…David Miscavige will, over time, ban all “WOG” dictionaries and Scientologist’s will only be allowed to use “dictionaries” Scientology publishes.
Google: BITE – Cults and read about “Behavior Control”, “Information Control”, “Thought Control” and “Emotional Control”. If an Organization can control these – they can completely control people!!
Interesting that Scientology is working on banning Dictionaries. Pretty soon – they will ban phones and computers – anything that can give out information about the cult of Scientology will be banned!!
Poor clubbed seals! They have no idea what is being used on them to keep them trapped!
Yes, the BITE concept for cults goes a long way to explaining the nonsense of a “religion” controlling dictionaries.
Two other possibilities:
How do the “banned” dictionaries define Dianetics, Scientology, cults, and so forth?
Do supposed SPs work for or run the “banned” dictionaries.
Scientology may think it is exerting control and power. It is actually digging itself ever deeper into a hole.