I wish the guy who is making these comments would change his screen name. His comments are okay, but his screen name isn't. I have rules about responding to comments and I don't like to violate them. I'm making an exception here because I think some of the comments are good and I want to respond.
So dude, please do me a favor and change your screen name to something more acceptable.
Anyway, the comment was to this article, Scientology is Wisdom: Personal Integrity. The comment began: Thanks for answering, Grahame. My trouble with your example is that you're suggesting people learn by their own anecdotal experience, but anecdotal evidence isn't very good when it comes to medical treatments.
My article has absolutely nothing to do with medical treatment. When one has a physical problem then one gets physical (medical) treatment. My example involved something that addressed spiritual trauma. By concentrating on an example you are missing the whole point of personal integrity. I suggest you read Personal Integrity again.
Your comments on people learning is again missing the point. Personal Integrity is about a person observing for themselves and then having the integrity to stick by what they have observed.
Rosa Parks, the mother of the civil rights movement, had personal integrity. She observed something that was wrong and she had the courage to know and say what she had observed. Because of her and others like her the rights of all Americans were strengthened. If she had simply listened to the authorities of the time who "knew" that black people should be segregated from the "superior" whites, then she would have moved to her "correct" place on the bus and we would have heard no more of her and perhaps no more of the civil rights movement. But she had the guts to stand up to "authority" and say "No! I observe that this is wrong and I'm going to do something about it." That's what personal integrity is all about.
Your comments seem to want to invalidate "observation" by calling it "anecdotal experience". Read the story of the discovery of Penicillin and you will see how much the word "observe" is used. Observation is the essence of discovery and therefore the essence of learning.
On a much lesser scale than Rosa Parks, I have observed that everything I've done in Scientology so far has worked and made my life a thousand times better than it was before. I have observed that and I will stick by it because it is true for me.
The rest of your comment was about a subject I don't discuss (see my rules about comments). I don't discuss what it is or what it isn't, however I will say this: All levels in Scientology consist of a series of actions that one does. There are no "stories". One studies some theory, one studies some techniques, one practices the techniques and then one does it. At that point you can see if the theory bears out because you are doing it and seeing the results.
Scientology is not something you discuss. It is something you study and then do. And at that point Personal Integrity enters in again because when you "do," you should observe so that you will know if you got the predicted result or not.
When I have done the techniques of the Scientology Levels that I have completed I have observed that I have gotten the results without a doubt. I got those results to such a degree that my certainty of the truth of the theory behind those results is unshakable.
Thanks for your comments.
Showing posts with label Wisdom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wisdom. Show all posts
Sunday, January 04, 2009
Friday, January 02, 2009
Scientology is Wisdom: Personal Integrity
An important principle in Scientology is:
This quote is from a short article by L. Ron Hubbard called "Personal Integrity" which starts out with:
So what does this mean?
Let's look at a simple example: You are given a recipe and told that if you follow it exactly then you will produce the best cake you ever tasted. Do you now go around insisting it's the best cake in the world without ever baking it and observing for yourself whether it is or not? Not if you know what Personal Integrity is. If you wanted to retain your own personal integrity then you would bake the cake and take a bite or two so you would know for yourself.
In Scientology you are encouraged to observe the results of applying what you learn in Scientology to life, so that you can see for yourself if it works or not. That is something which people who are used to a religion based solely on faith and belief have a hard time understanding. (Not that there is anything wrong with religions based solely on faith or belief - I'm just using that as a comparison.)
Scientology is a practical religion that is not based on faith or belief. It consists of wisdom that you can actually do something with. E.g., You study how to do a touch assist, then you do one and you see for yourself if the person you helped feels better or not. It is that straightforward.
I recently received a comment that said: I've often been told that Scientologists don't have to believe in various bits of Scientology's writings. I was just wondering which bits you don't believe in.
My guess is that the writer has been talking to people who don't understand Scientology because you don't approach Scientology on the basis of "do I believe that?", you approach it on the basis of "when I use it correctly, does it work?"
I'll give you an example: The first time I did a touch assist I had no idea whether it would work or not. I studied how to do it, I practiced a bit then I went and did one. The woman I was helping had hurt her hand in a printing press. I went through the actions of the touch assist and at one point I asked her how she was doing, because I couldn't see that anything was happening. She said, "Nothing much, I didn't notice any..." then she stopped because she had been moving her hand and it didn't hurt her anymore. She was rather astonished. But the point of the example is that both she and I could observe that the assist had worked because the pain in her hand was gone - which is the end product of an assist.
That is how you are expected to approach Scientology: Study it, use it, see if it works.
So you can see that the comment about "bits you don't believe in" is like asking which bits of physics you don't believe in. Physics contains data that you apply and observe. To say something like, "Oh, I believe in gravity but not magnetism," doesn't make sense because gravity and magnetism are both things you can observe and having observed them you "know" you don't need to "believe".
I hope this helps clarify the meaning of Personal Integrity and clears up any misunderstandings people might have about it.
Nothing in Dianetics and Scientology is true for you
Unless you have observed it
And it is true according to your observation.
That is all.
This quote is from a short article by L. Ron Hubbard called "Personal Integrity" which starts out with:
What is personal integrity?
Personal integrity is knowing what you know–
What you know is what you know–
And to have the courage to know and say what you have observed.
And that is integrity.
And there is no other integrity.
So what does this mean?
Let's look at a simple example: You are given a recipe and told that if you follow it exactly then you will produce the best cake you ever tasted. Do you now go around insisting it's the best cake in the world without ever baking it and observing for yourself whether it is or not? Not if you know what Personal Integrity is. If you wanted to retain your own personal integrity then you would bake the cake and take a bite or two so you would know for yourself.
In Scientology you are encouraged to observe the results of applying what you learn in Scientology to life, so that you can see for yourself if it works or not. That is something which people who are used to a religion based solely on faith and belief have a hard time understanding. (Not that there is anything wrong with religions based solely on faith or belief - I'm just using that as a comparison.)
Scientology is a practical religion that is not based on faith or belief. It consists of wisdom that you can actually do something with. E.g., You study how to do a touch assist, then you do one and you see for yourself if the person you helped feels better or not. It is that straightforward.
I recently received a comment that said: I've often been told that Scientologists don't have to believe in various bits of Scientology's writings. I was just wondering which bits you don't believe in.
My guess is that the writer has been talking to people who don't understand Scientology because you don't approach Scientology on the basis of "do I believe that?", you approach it on the basis of "when I use it correctly, does it work?"
I'll give you an example: The first time I did a touch assist I had no idea whether it would work or not. I studied how to do it, I practiced a bit then I went and did one. The woman I was helping had hurt her hand in a printing press. I went through the actions of the touch assist and at one point I asked her how she was doing, because I couldn't see that anything was happening. She said, "Nothing much, I didn't notice any..." then she stopped because she had been moving her hand and it didn't hurt her anymore. She was rather astonished. But the point of the example is that both she and I could observe that the assist had worked because the pain in her hand was gone - which is the end product of an assist.
That is how you are expected to approach Scientology: Study it, use it, see if it works.
So you can see that the comment about "bits you don't believe in" is like asking which bits of physics you don't believe in. Physics contains data that you apply and observe. To say something like, "Oh, I believe in gravity but not magnetism," doesn't make sense because gravity and magnetism are both things you can observe and having observed them you "know" you don't need to "believe".
I hope this helps clarify the meaning of Personal Integrity and clears up any misunderstandings people might have about it.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Scientology and Christmas
Scientology is not a spin off of Christianity so Christmas is not a special day as such in the religion. However, many Scientologists are Christians or were raised in the Christian tradition so they celebrate it.
One of the great things about Scientology is the fact that you can be a Scientologist and a member of any other religion. Scientology is not an "exclusive" religion like the traditional western religions - In the west you are a member of one religion and no others.
Scientology follows the tradition of some eastern religions where you can be a member of as many religions as you like because the key thing in Scientology is wisdom. Scientology deals with things that an individual can "take or leave" because it is practical. You can try it out and see if it works or not. So, for example, you can try out the Study Technology that was developed in Scientology and see for yourself if it works or not. Meanwhile, you can believe in God, or not as the case may be, because Scientology doesn't have any dogma on that subject. It leaves it up to the individual.
So you can be a Scientologist (someone who uses Scientology in their life to improve their life and the lives of others) and you can also be a Christian and worship God in the Christian manner.
It's a new concept for the west, but a good one, because it promotes tolerance and harmony and isn't that what Christmas is all about?
One of the great things about Scientology is the fact that you can be a Scientologist and a member of any other religion. Scientology is not an "exclusive" religion like the traditional western religions - In the west you are a member of one religion and no others.
Scientology follows the tradition of some eastern religions where you can be a member of as many religions as you like because the key thing in Scientology is wisdom. Scientology deals with things that an individual can "take or leave" because it is practical. You can try it out and see if it works or not. So, for example, you can try out the Study Technology that was developed in Scientology and see for yourself if it works or not. Meanwhile, you can believe in God, or not as the case may be, because Scientology doesn't have any dogma on that subject. It leaves it up to the individual.
So you can be a Scientologist (someone who uses Scientology in their life to improve their life and the lives of others) and you can also be a Christian and worship God in the Christian manner.
It's a new concept for the west, but a good one, because it promotes tolerance and harmony and isn't that what Christmas is all about?
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Scientology is Wisdom: Secrets of the Universe
People have talked about the "secrets of the universe" for millennia. The implication is that there is some deep and esoteric knowledge about the universe that was somehow known in the past and is now either lost or hidden.
I don't know if that is true or not, but I will say that the basic truths about this universe are presented in Scientology. In their raw form they are a bit tough to understand, but when presented in the correct sequence with additional explanation they are not difficult at all.
So, Let's start with the Scientology Logics, which are described as
- November 2003 (contains the first half of the articles on the Scientology Logics)
- December 2003 (contains the second half of the articles on the Scientology Logics)
If these two are slow to open then another way to get there is to open up "2003" and then "November" or "December" in my "Blog Archive" section.
Once I have reviewed all the articles, you will be able to see them here: Scientology Logics.
Enjoy.
I don't know if that is true or not, but I will say that the basic truths about this universe are presented in Scientology. In their raw form they are a bit tough to understand, but when presented in the correct sequence with additional explanation they are not difficult at all.
So, Let's start with the Scientology Logics, which are described as
The Logics form a gradient scale of association of facts necessary toWhen I started this blog way back in 2003, I did a whole set of posts based on the Logics. At that time, Blogger didn't have tags so these articles are now hard to find. So, just for you, I am going back over them and adding tags, fixing some formatting and correcting some old dead links. It will take me a few days so, in the meantime, I'll give you some links to help you find them:
understand and resolve any problem. They are used to predict behavior and
clarify the entire field of thought. The Logics are a method of thinking and
could be called “how to think.” The basic common denominators of all education
may be found in the Logics.
- November 2003 (contains the first half of the articles on the Scientology Logics)
- December 2003 (contains the second half of the articles on the Scientology Logics)
If these two are slow to open then another way to get there is to open up "2003" and then "November" or "December" in my "Blog Archive" section.
Once I have reviewed all the articles, you will be able to see them here: Scientology Logics.
Enjoy.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Scientology is Wisdom
So what is "Wisdom" anyway?
Many people have the idea that wisdom is some set of obscure sayings that have a deep and profound meaning that only a chosen few can understand. Like the Zen "Sound of the one hand clapping".
That is not what wisdom means in Scientology. There is nothing in Scientology that is meant to be understood by only a "chosen few". The wisdom of Scientology is for everyone and can be understood by everyone. It will sometimes take a bit of work, but it can be understood and (more importantly) it can be used in life to improve conditions.
The definition of wisdom that I'm using is from the Encarta dictionary and is:
If you look at that carefully you will see that it not only covers "accumulated knowledge" but that the knowledge was "gained through experience".
The wisdom in Scientology is exactly that: Life has been examined and knowledge has been gained by making deductions based on what was observed and then trying them out to see if they work. The deductions that didn't work were thrown out and the ones that did work were kept and expanded upon.
Let's take an example. The book Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science tells you, step-by-step, how L. Ron Hubbard went about figuring out how the mind works and a therapy to handle psychoses, neuroses, psychosomatic ills, repressions, obsessions, fixations, etc., etc. He observed, made deductions, tried them out to see if they worked, kept them if they did, threw them away if they didn't and refined the workable ones until he had completely workable methods for improving the mind. He spend many years doing this. Now, sixty years later, millions of people around the world use these techniques to improve themselves and those around them.
That is an example of "accumulated knowledge" that was "gained through experience".
More on this tomorrow.
Many people have the idea that wisdom is some set of obscure sayings that have a deep and profound meaning that only a chosen few can understand. Like the Zen "Sound of the one hand clapping".
That is not what wisdom means in Scientology. There is nothing in Scientology that is meant to be understood by only a "chosen few". The wisdom of Scientology is for everyone and can be understood by everyone. It will sometimes take a bit of work, but it can be understood and (more importantly) it can be used in life to improve conditions.
The definition of wisdom that I'm using is from the Encarta dictionary and is:
accumulated knowledge of life or of a sphere of activity that has been gained through experience
If you look at that carefully you will see that it not only covers "accumulated knowledge" but that the knowledge was "gained through experience".
The wisdom in Scientology is exactly that: Life has been examined and knowledge has been gained by making deductions based on what was observed and then trying them out to see if they work. The deductions that didn't work were thrown out and the ones that did work were kept and expanded upon.
Let's take an example. The book Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science tells you, step-by-step, how L. Ron Hubbard went about figuring out how the mind works and a therapy to handle psychoses, neuroses, psychosomatic ills, repressions, obsessions, fixations, etc., etc. He observed, made deductions, tried them out to see if they worked, kept them if they did, threw them away if they didn't and refined the workable ones until he had completely workable methods for improving the mind. He spend many years doing this. Now, sixty years later, millions of people around the world use these techniques to improve themselves and those around them.
That is an example of "accumulated knowledge" that was "gained through experience".
More on this tomorrow.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Scientology is ...??
As I've been showing in a series of recent posts, Scientology is Solutions. By that I mean it contains solutions to common problems in life. See my recent posts for examples (Scientology is Solutions).
But Scientology is more than just solutions. It is something that underlies solutions, something that enables you to figure out brand new solutions for yourself, solutions to the problems you face in your own life and that no one may have come up with before. So what is that?
It is wisdom.
A simple word with several definitions. The one that apply here is, "accumulated knowledge of life or of a sphere of activity that has been gained through experience".
The wisdom that Scientology contains is knowledge that is fundamental to life. For example: What is the dynamic force that drives life? If you knew that, you could understand why people do what they do and why you do the things you do.
Other practical questions that Scientology answers are: What causes people to act irrationally? What causes psychoses, neuroses, compulsions, repressions and a whole long list of other mental problems that the human race is beset with?
On a more philosophical level Scientology contains answers to such questions as: What happened before the beginning? What is the highest purpose in the universe? What happens to a person after they die? What is your true potential?
In the next few days, I'll be writing articles on "Scientology is Wisdom", and I'll answer some of those questions.
But Scientology is more than just solutions. It is something that underlies solutions, something that enables you to figure out brand new solutions for yourself, solutions to the problems you face in your own life and that no one may have come up with before. So what is that?
It is wisdom.
A simple word with several definitions. The one that apply here is, "accumulated knowledge of life or of a sphere of activity that has been gained through experience".
The wisdom that Scientology contains is knowledge that is fundamental to life. For example: What is the dynamic force that drives life? If you knew that, you could understand why people do what they do and why you do the things you do.
Other practical questions that Scientology answers are: What causes people to act irrationally? What causes psychoses, neuroses, compulsions, repressions and a whole long list of other mental problems that the human race is beset with?
On a more philosophical level Scientology contains answers to such questions as: What happened before the beginning? What is the highest purpose in the universe? What happens to a person after they die? What is your true potential?
In the next few days, I'll be writing articles on "Scientology is Wisdom", and I'll answer some of those questions.
Monday, December 15, 2003
Scientology Logic 24
Logic 24 - The resolution of the philosophical, scientific and human studies (such as economics, politics, sociology, medicine, criminology, etc.) depends primarily upon the resolution of the problems of the human mind.
Which explains why philosophy has fallen into disrepute (being viewed by the common man as so much vacuous mumbo-jumbo), economics has created an almost slave society were the average family needs two bread-winners to survive, why politics has decayed into some sort of sporting event, why sociology seems to be a mere gathering of statistics, medicine kills more patients annually than an average war, criminology is a dismal failure that is unable to predict criminal behavior with any level of accuracy and psychology and psychiatry have become methods of selling drugs and torturing restrained patients.
Until now the problems of the human mind have never been solved. Now that Dianetics has solved those problems the humanities have a chance to be the solutions for man that they have long promised, but never managed, to be.
Which explains why philosophy has fallen into disrepute (being viewed by the common man as so much vacuous mumbo-jumbo), economics has created an almost slave society were the average family needs two bread-winners to survive, why politics has decayed into some sort of sporting event, why sociology seems to be a mere gathering of statistics, medicine kills more patients annually than an average war, criminology is a dismal failure that is unable to predict criminal behavior with any level of accuracy and psychology and psychiatry have become methods of selling drugs and torturing restrained patients.
Until now the problems of the human mind have never been solved. Now that Dianetics has solved those problems the humanities have a chance to be the solutions for man that they have long promised, but never managed, to be.
Friday, December 12, 2003
Scientology Logic 23 (continued)
The corollary to Logic 23 states: The human mind is capable of resolving the problem of the human mind. The borderline of solution of this science lies between why life is surviving and how life is surviving. It is possible to resolve how life is surviving without resolving why life is surviving.
This is another very bold statement which flies in the teeth of the failures and excuses of psychology and psychiatry. Those two fields have so dismally and completely failed to resolve the problem of the human mind that they now resort to drugs, shocks and surgery. They "know" that nothing can be done about it so it doesn't matter what they do. Their treatments add up to profits for them and brain damage for the patient.
The problem of the human mind not only can be solved but has been in Dianetics, the first workable science of the mind. The therapy is easy to administer and has been validated over a 54 year period. I recommend you find out about it.
This is another very bold statement which flies in the teeth of the failures and excuses of psychology and psychiatry. Those two fields have so dismally and completely failed to resolve the problem of the human mind that they now resort to drugs, shocks and surgery. They "know" that nothing can be done about it so it doesn't matter what they do. Their treatments add up to profits for them and brain damage for the patient.
The problem of the human mind not only can be solved but has been in Dianetics, the first workable science of the mind. The therapy is easy to administer and has been validated over a 54 year period. I recommend you find out about it.
Thursday, December 11, 2003
Scientology Logic 23 (continued)
In Logic 23 a postulate is put forward which could be easily passed over without realizing its importance. The postulate is: The human mind and inventions of the human mind are capable of resolving any and all problems which can be sensed, measured or experienced directly or indirectly.
This is a very bold statement. How many times in the past have we been told that some problem is unsolvable or that man will never understand some area of knowledge? This postulate shoots an arrow straight into the heart of the superstition, apathy and excuses which need to justify themselves by saying man will never know or will never resolve some mystery. It lays bare the intentions of the high priests of ignorance who wish to rule and profit from the currency of unknowingness in their pathetic kingdoms. It is also a direct attack on those who use the "you can never solve this problem" idea to trap men in lives of economic and social slavery.
The human mind and inventions of the human mind are capable of resolving any and all problems which can be sensed, measured or experienced directly or indirectly. I don't know if this is the first time in the field of philosophy that someone has said that man can know and can solve any problem he can be aware of, but I think it is the first time it has been stated so boldly and unequivocally.
This is a very bold statement. How many times in the past have we been told that some problem is unsolvable or that man will never understand some area of knowledge? This postulate shoots an arrow straight into the heart of the superstition, apathy and excuses which need to justify themselves by saying man will never know or will never resolve some mystery. It lays bare the intentions of the high priests of ignorance who wish to rule and profit from the currency of unknowingness in their pathetic kingdoms. It is also a direct attack on those who use the "you can never solve this problem" idea to trap men in lives of economic and social slavery.
The human mind and inventions of the human mind are capable of resolving any and all problems which can be sensed, measured or experienced directly or indirectly. I don't know if this is the first time in the field of philosophy that someone has said that man can know and can solve any problem he can be aware of, but I think it is the first time it has been stated so boldly and unequivocally.
Wednesday, December 10, 2003
Scientology Logic 23
Logic 23 - The human mind is a servomechanism to any mathematics evolved or employed by the human mind.
POSTULATE: The human mind and inventions of the human mind are capable of resolving any and all problems which can be sensed, measured or experienced directly or indirectly.
COROLLARY: The human mind is capable of resolving the problem of the human mind. The borderline of solution of this science lies between why life is surviving and how life is surviving. It is possible to resolve how life is surviving without resolving why life is surviving.
This can be a tough logic to get your wits around if you don't have a good concept of two things: 1) What is a "servomechanism" and 2) who creates the mathematics in the first place?
1) A servomechanism is a device that monitors the performance of another device and causes adjustments in the running of that device to bring it closer to an optimal performance.
2) The logic itself answers this one: Mathematics are created by the human mind.
To make Logic 23 more concrete let's take an example. We have to calculate the cost of items we are selling. The total is the cost of the item plus the sales tax which has a rate of 8%. We figure out a formula (mathematics) to calculate this as total = cost * 1.08. We use this successfully for some time then the state decides that the rate must increase to 8 1/4%. So we adjust the formula to total = cost * 1.0825. It's as simple as that. The human mind in this case evolved the mathematics (the first formula) and then acted as a servomechanism by monitoring the mathematics and adjusting it to make it produce correct results.
More on this Logic tomorrow.
POSTULATE: The human mind and inventions of the human mind are capable of resolving any and all problems which can be sensed, measured or experienced directly or indirectly.
COROLLARY: The human mind is capable of resolving the problem of the human mind. The borderline of solution of this science lies between why life is surviving and how life is surviving. It is possible to resolve how life is surviving without resolving why life is surviving.
This can be a tough logic to get your wits around if you don't have a good concept of two things: 1) What is a "servomechanism" and 2) who creates the mathematics in the first place?
1) A servomechanism is a device that monitors the performance of another device and causes adjustments in the running of that device to bring it closer to an optimal performance.
2) The logic itself answers this one: Mathematics are created by the human mind.
To make Logic 23 more concrete let's take an example. We have to calculate the cost of items we are selling. The total is the cost of the item plus the sales tax which has a rate of 8%. We figure out a formula (mathematics) to calculate this as total = cost * 1.08. We use this successfully for some time then the state decides that the rate must increase to 8 1/4%. So we adjust the formula to total = cost * 1.0825. It's as simple as that. The human mind in this case evolved the mathematics (the first formula) and then acted as a servomechanism by monitoring the mathematics and adjusting it to make it produce correct results.
More on this Logic tomorrow.
Tuesday, December 09, 2003
Scientology Logic 22
Logic 22 - The human mind is an observer, postulator, creator and storage place of knowledge.
The human mind by definition includes the awareness unit of the living organism, the observer, the computer of data, the spirit, the memory storage, the life force and the individual motivator of the living organism. It is used as distinct from the brain which can be considered to be motivated by the mind.
Usually when the mind gets a mention in the media or in a book it is to show how crazy it is. The subjects of psychiatry and psychology have been so obsessed with the study of deranged minds that it seems they have never looked at functioning, sane minds. Here at last, in Logic 22, is a look at the mind as something positive and vital to mankind.
The story of civilization has so often been a battle between the great minds and the deranged. So let's recognize the fact that, although things are far from perfect, the great minds are winning. If you compare the state of the world 1,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago or 3,000 years ago to how it is now you will see a steady improvement. For example in Hellenic Greece at the height of its "Golden Age" (5th Century BC) slavery was a normal part of society and so accepted that it was rarely if ever questioned. Although slavery still exists it is now an illegal and debased activity and the concerned institutions of our civilization fight against slavery.
The human mind has been able to observe, postulate, create and store more and more knowledge as the centuries have gone by. The knowledge we need to overcome the challenges that face us and create an even better civilization exists but we must use the other logics to evaluate the vast amount of knowledge we now have so we can select out the true from the false, the vital from the dross and the survival data from the destructive.
The human mind by definition includes the awareness unit of the living organism, the observer, the computer of data, the spirit, the memory storage, the life force and the individual motivator of the living organism. It is used as distinct from the brain which can be considered to be motivated by the mind.
Usually when the mind gets a mention in the media or in a book it is to show how crazy it is. The subjects of psychiatry and psychology have been so obsessed with the study of deranged minds that it seems they have never looked at functioning, sane minds. Here at last, in Logic 22, is a look at the mind as something positive and vital to mankind.
The story of civilization has so often been a battle between the great minds and the deranged. So let's recognize the fact that, although things are far from perfect, the great minds are winning. If you compare the state of the world 1,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago or 3,000 years ago to how it is now you will see a steady improvement. For example in Hellenic Greece at the height of its "Golden Age" (5th Century BC) slavery was a normal part of society and so accepted that it was rarely if ever questioned. Although slavery still exists it is now an illegal and debased activity and the concerned institutions of our civilization fight against slavery.
The human mind has been able to observe, postulate, create and store more and more knowledge as the centuries have gone by. The knowledge we need to overcome the challenges that face us and create an even better civilization exists but we must use the other logics to evaluate the vast amount of knowledge we now have so we can select out the true from the false, the vital from the dross and the survival data from the destructive.
Friday, November 21, 2003
Scientology Logic 12
Logic 12 - The value of a datum or a field of data is modified by the viewpoint of the observer.
To a hunter a rifle is good, to a duck a rifle sucks.
When a new idea is first put forth, no matter how true or obvious it may seem, it's originator is usually vilified by his peers and others because their viewpoint is so fixed. When Copernicus had the nerve to suggest that the Earth revolved around the Sun, his theory was attacked as heresy and at one point his book was withdrawn from circulation by the Inquisition so it could be censored. When Galileo had the gall to not only forward these outlandish ideas but even claim to be able to prove them by observation the Catholic Church (after forcing him to recant his claims) put him under lifelong house arrest.
From the viewpoint of the Church "observers" the data was not, as Copernicus and Galileo saw it, something that could assist the survival of mankind but heresy that would condemn mankind to eternal damnation (i.e., it inhibited survival), which was a complete reversal of the value of the data.
See "Galileo - Church controversy" for an idea of just how "impossible" the theory was from their fixed viewpoint.
To a hunter a rifle is good, to a duck a rifle sucks.
When a new idea is first put forth, no matter how true or obvious it may seem, it's originator is usually vilified by his peers and others because their viewpoint is so fixed. When Copernicus had the nerve to suggest that the Earth revolved around the Sun, his theory was attacked as heresy and at one point his book was withdrawn from circulation by the Inquisition so it could be censored. When Galileo had the gall to not only forward these outlandish ideas but even claim to be able to prove them by observation the Catholic Church (after forcing him to recant his claims) put him under lifelong house arrest.
From the viewpoint of the Church "observers" the data was not, as Copernicus and Galileo saw it, something that could assist the survival of mankind but heresy that would condemn mankind to eternal damnation (i.e., it inhibited survival), which was a complete reversal of the value of the data.
See "Galileo - Church controversy" for an idea of just how "impossible" the theory was from their fixed viewpoint.
Thursday, November 20, 2003
Scientology Logic 11
Logic 11 - The value of a datum or field of data can be established by its degree of assistance in survival or its inhibition to survival.
This logic brings us back down to the practicalities of everyday existence. So you have data? So what? Does it help us survive or not?
Obviously data on diseases such as SARS has a high value because SARS kills.
Unfortunately for many Americans the antics of your favorite sitcom characters does not have much value and (don't tell them this) the evening news is also pretty low on the value scale. If you doubt it then next time you watch the news figure out how much assistance or inhibition to survival what you are being fed actually has. Perhaps all you'll come up with is that watching the news brings you down - that's inhibiting to survival.
This logic brings us back down to the practicalities of everyday existence. So you have data? So what? Does it help us survive or not?
Obviously data on diseases such as SARS has a high value because SARS kills.
Unfortunately for many Americans the antics of your favorite sitcom characters does not have much value and (don't tell them this) the evening news is also pretty low on the value scale. If you doubt it then next time you watch the news figure out how much assistance or inhibition to survival what you are being fed actually has. Perhaps all you'll come up with is that watching the news brings you down - that's inhibiting to survival.
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
Scientology Logic 10
Logic 10 - The value of a datum is established by the amount of alignment (relationship) it imparts to other data.
How many times in history has a nation been losing a war when low and behold a high up commander is found to be in the pay of the enemy? Suddenly a thousand seemingly incomprehensible occurrences - lost battles, spies captured by the enemy, etc. - are explained. Suddenly alignment is given to all that data.
Another example is the idea that psychiatrists are really trying to help people recover. If we attempt to align other data in the field around that theory then we have trouble. Example: Electro-convulsive therapy (ECT) causes brain damage and most patients die after a few years. Example: mind-altering stimulant drugs such as Ritalin have been shown to cause brain shrinkage after prolonged use and studies have shown that over 90% of children taking Ritalin move on to street drugs. Example: Two side-effects of drugs such as Prozac, Zoloft and Paxil are psychosis and suicide and thousands of apparently pointless acts of murder followed by suicide have been perpetrated by people on these drugs.
Now lets assume the datum "psychiatrists are in it for the money" is true. Suddenly we see these other data come into alignment. ECT is a big money maker - easy to administer and it can be billed against insurance. When retirees hit 65 their medicare coverage increases and the amount of ECT they are given vastly increases. If a psychiatrist can keep a patient on his list and see them regularly, even though all he does is prescribe more drugs, then he can continue to bill their insurance and continue to get kick-backs in the form of expense paid trips to luxury resorts (for seminars of course) from drug companies.
How many times in history has a nation been losing a war when low and behold a high up commander is found to be in the pay of the enemy? Suddenly a thousand seemingly incomprehensible occurrences - lost battles, spies captured by the enemy, etc. - are explained. Suddenly alignment is given to all that data.
Another example is the idea that psychiatrists are really trying to help people recover. If we attempt to align other data in the field around that theory then we have trouble. Example: Electro-convulsive therapy (ECT) causes brain damage and most patients die after a few years. Example: mind-altering stimulant drugs such as Ritalin have been shown to cause brain shrinkage after prolonged use and studies have shown that over 90% of children taking Ritalin move on to street drugs. Example: Two side-effects of drugs such as Prozac, Zoloft and Paxil are psychosis and suicide and thousands of apparently pointless acts of murder followed by suicide have been perpetrated by people on these drugs.
Now lets assume the datum "psychiatrists are in it for the money" is true. Suddenly we see these other data come into alignment. ECT is a big money maker - easy to administer and it can be billed against insurance. When retirees hit 65 their medicare coverage increases and the amount of ECT they are given vastly increases. If a psychiatrist can keep a patient on his list and see them regularly, even though all he does is prescribe more drugs, then he can continue to bill their insurance and continue to get kick-backs in the form of expense paid trips to luxury resorts (for seminars of course) from drug companies.
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Scientology Logic 9
Logic 9 - A datum is as valuable as it has been evaluated.
The fact that things fall when you drop them was known to many generations of people but until Sir Isaac Newton evaluated it no one knew how valuable the datum (called "gravity") was. Once it was evaluated bridges and buildings could be better built and man could even figure out how to fly.
Another example - prior to Louis Pasteur if a limb was damaged then the only way to prevent it becoming infected and eventually killing the injured person was to hack it off. When Pasteur figured out that micro-organisms caused the infection and that the infection was spread by doctors with filthy hands, suddenly the value of cleanliness was realized because it could be evaluated with a datum of comparable magnitude: dirtiness spreads disease.
The fact that things fall when you drop them was known to many generations of people but until Sir Isaac Newton evaluated it no one knew how valuable the datum (called "gravity") was. Once it was evaluated bridges and buildings could be better built and man could even figure out how to fly.
Another example - prior to Louis Pasteur if a limb was damaged then the only way to prevent it becoming infected and eventually killing the injured person was to hack it off. When Pasteur figured out that micro-organisms caused the infection and that the infection was spread by doctors with filthy hands, suddenly the value of cleanliness was realized because it could be evaluated with a datum of comparable magnitude: dirtiness spreads disease.
Monday, November 17, 2003
Scientology Logic 8
Logic 8 - A datum can be evaluated only by a datum of comparable magnitude.
Once you think up some examples this logic is "obvious" but like so many things it isn't actually "obvious" until you understand it.
Your friend has just been on a mountaineering trip. "So Joe, how big was that mountain you just climbed?" Which answer makes sense?
- Answer 1: "Well, see this grain of sand? The mountain was much much bigger."
- Answer 2: "Almost as high as the Matterhorn"
Answer 2 makes the most sense because the Matterhorn and Joe's mountain are of comparable magnitude, whereas a grain of sand and Joe's mountain are not of comparable magnitude.
A less obvious example would be this: Bill is extremely sick and has a temperature of 102F. The doctor tells him to take an aspirin. This makes no sense because an aspirin is an answer to something with the order of magnitude of a headache not a raging fever.
Once you think up some examples this logic is "obvious" but like so many things it isn't actually "obvious" until you understand it.
Your friend has just been on a mountaineering trip. "So Joe, how big was that mountain you just climbed?" Which answer makes sense?
- Answer 1: "Well, see this grain of sand? The mountain was much much bigger."
- Answer 2: "Almost as high as the Matterhorn"
Answer 2 makes the most sense because the Matterhorn and Joe's mountain are of comparable magnitude, whereas a grain of sand and Joe's mountain are not of comparable magnitude.
A less obvious example would be this: Bill is extremely sick and has a temperature of 102F. The doctor tells him to take an aspirin. This makes no sense because an aspirin is an answer to something with the order of magnitude of a headache not a raging fever.
Thursday, November 13, 2003
Scientology Logic 7
Logic 7 - Gradient scales are necessary to the evaluation of problems and their data.
This is the tool of infinity-valued logic: Absolutes are unobtainable. Terms such as good and bad, alive and dead, right and wrong are used only in conjunction with gradient scales. On the scale of right and wrong, everything above zero or center would be more and more right, approaching an infinite rightness, and everything below center would be more and more wrong, approaching infinite wrongness. All things assisting the survival of the survivor are considered to be right for the survivor. All things inhibiting survival from the viewpoint of the survivor can be considered wrong for the survivor. The more a thing assists survival, the more it can be considered right for the survivor; the more a thing or action inhibits survival, the more it is wrong from the viewpoint of the intended survivor.
COROLLARY: Any datum has only relative truth.
COROLLARY: Truth is relative to environments, experience and truth.
This is one of the most important of the Logics. A gradient scale is a scale going from a theoretical minus infinity, through zero to a theoretical plus infinity. The scale is divided into small steps or gradients. An example would be if you were trying to decide which applicant to accept for a job. You would create a scale with perhaps -100 on the left, 0 in the middle and +100 on the right. You could divide the scale into steps of 1. The "absolutely perfect" applicant would be rated at +100 and the "absolutely unacceptable" applicant would be rated at -100. Now you evaluate the applicants giving them a number of positive points for attributes that you want and negative points for attributes you don't want. After doing this you will find your applicants somewhere on your scale and you'd choose the one with the highest rating.
Using such a method you avoid the errors of two-valued logic - "Is this applicant perfect for the job or not? No, then reject him." Using that method you will never find anyone because, as we learned from Logic 6, "Absolutes are unobtainable."
It also avoids the errors of single-valued logic - "Whoever we choose our fate is predetermined so it doesn't matter who we choose, Just pick anyone."
The two corollaries are also important. "Any datum has only relative truth." If I say "I live on planet Earth," that is true, and if I say, "I live in the USA," that is also true. Both statements have relative truth. How relatively true does a datum need to be? My answer would be look at the 2nd corollary, "Truth is relative to environments, experience and truth." If you want to visit me at home then, "I live in the USA" doesn't get the product, it's not relatively true enough for the environment it is being applied to.
Another example would be if you told me "I need six screws to fix this door." I give you six screws but they are all too small. So you say "I need six screws bigger than these to fix this door." So I give you six screws that are too big. Well, both requests were true but they were not relatively true enough to get the door fixed. Now you say, "I need six screws, two inches long and 3/8 inches in diameter." Now we have a fixed door.
Without infinity-valued logic and gradient scales decision making becomes more guesswork or luck than logic.
This is the tool of infinity-valued logic: Absolutes are unobtainable. Terms such as good and bad, alive and dead, right and wrong are used only in conjunction with gradient scales. On the scale of right and wrong, everything above zero or center would be more and more right, approaching an infinite rightness, and everything below center would be more and more wrong, approaching infinite wrongness. All things assisting the survival of the survivor are considered to be right for the survivor. All things inhibiting survival from the viewpoint of the survivor can be considered wrong for the survivor. The more a thing assists survival, the more it can be considered right for the survivor; the more a thing or action inhibits survival, the more it is wrong from the viewpoint of the intended survivor.
COROLLARY: Any datum has only relative truth.
COROLLARY: Truth is relative to environments, experience and truth.
This is one of the most important of the Logics. A gradient scale is a scale going from a theoretical minus infinity, through zero to a theoretical plus infinity. The scale is divided into small steps or gradients. An example would be if you were trying to decide which applicant to accept for a job. You would create a scale with perhaps -100 on the left, 0 in the middle and +100 on the right. You could divide the scale into steps of 1. The "absolutely perfect" applicant would be rated at +100 and the "absolutely unacceptable" applicant would be rated at -100. Now you evaluate the applicants giving them a number of positive points for attributes that you want and negative points for attributes you don't want. After doing this you will find your applicants somewhere on your scale and you'd choose the one with the highest rating.
Using such a method you avoid the errors of two-valued logic - "Is this applicant perfect for the job or not? No, then reject him." Using that method you will never find anyone because, as we learned from Logic 6, "Absolutes are unobtainable."
It also avoids the errors of single-valued logic - "Whoever we choose our fate is predetermined so it doesn't matter who we choose, Just pick anyone."
The two corollaries are also important. "Any datum has only relative truth." If I say "I live on planet Earth," that is true, and if I say, "I live in the USA," that is also true. Both statements have relative truth. How relatively true does a datum need to be? My answer would be look at the 2nd corollary, "Truth is relative to environments, experience and truth." If you want to visit me at home then, "I live in the USA" doesn't get the product, it's not relatively true enough for the environment it is being applied to.
Another example would be if you told me "I need six screws to fix this door." I give you six screws but they are all too small. So you say "I need six screws bigger than these to fix this door." So I give you six screws that are too big. Well, both requests were true but they were not relatively true enough to get the door fixed. Now you say, "I need six screws, two inches long and 3/8 inches in diameter." Now we have a fixed door.
Without infinity-valued logic and gradient scales decision making becomes more guesswork or luck than logic.
Wednesday, November 12, 2003
Scientology Logic 6
Logic 6 - Absolutes are unobtainable.
Everyday in the news, especially when one political party is attacking another, we are told that something is "absolutely" wrong. The Democrats/Republicans seem to think that everything the Republicans/Democrats say is absolutely wrong but to most people, when they stand back and don't take sides, it is clear that some of what both sides say makes sense and some doesn't. Neither is totally right nor totally wrong.
There seems to be a human tenancy to go to extremes, to see everything in terms of black and white when in fact there is no absolute black or absolute white but only (as we shall see while examining the next logic) shades of gray.
Everyday in the news, especially when one political party is attacking another, we are told that something is "absolutely" wrong. The Democrats/Republicans seem to think that everything the Republicans/Democrats say is absolutely wrong but to most people, when they stand back and don't take sides, it is clear that some of what both sides say makes sense and some doesn't. Neither is totally right nor totally wrong.
There seems to be a human tenancy to go to extremes, to see everything in terms of black and white when in fact there is no absolute black or absolute white but only (as we shall see while examining the next logic) shades of gray.
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Scientology Logic 5 (continued)
To follow up on yesterday's post: Beware of a field of knowledge that doesn't have clear definitions for its terms. You will often find that such a field is purposely unclear and the reasons are often for control, power and/or money.
A prime example of this is the field of psychiatry. What is the definition of "schizophrenia"? Most people will say "split personality" but that is not the psychiatric definition. Wikipedia defines it as "Schizophrenia is a psychiatric diagnosis denoting a persistent, often chronic, mental illness variously affecting behavior, thinking, and emotion." It goes on to broaden the definition to such a degree that it can mean any type of behavior you want it to mean. This indefinite definition was routinely used in countries such as Communist Russia to labelled dissidents as mentally ill so they could be locked up and electro-shocked to help "cure" them.
In the modern United States and Europe children are labelled as having "Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder" but the definition is so general that it covers normal childhood behavior and indeed the definition even states that the condition will go away as the child gets older. The result is millions of children taking mind altering drugs with the pharmaceutical industry making billions of dollars every year out of them.
So a field with unclear, imprecise definitions can be very dangerous.
Demanding "Action Definitions" for terms in a field is the solution to this. Action definition: one which delineates cause and potential change of state of being by cause of existence, inexistence, action, inaction, purpose or lack of purpose.. An action definition demands that "cause" be clearly stated. So for example in the definition of a medical condition such as measles one can name the cause as the measles virus, one can state the effect that cause has upon the body (produces spots, fever, etc.) and one can then state what will change the condition (the vaccine) by its effect upon that cause. There is no question, ambiguity or uncertainty when an action definition is used.
Action definitions would destroy the field of psychiatry because there are no causes in psychiatry. To determine if a person is schizophrenic a psychiatrist subjectively evaluates the person's behavior. There is no objective test to find the cause. No blood is tested, no x-rays are taken, no medical tests of any kind are made because there is no cause for the condition. The same applies to the entire list of psychiatry's mental illnesses. Sometimes they make up a cause, such as "a chemical imbalance in the brain" but there are no tests to show that such a condition exists.
If you have measles a medical doctor can take a blood sample and detect the virus causing the condition, he can give you a shot and kill the virus so you recover and don't have the disease anymore. In other words the treatment ends because the cause has been handled.
In psychiatry there is no test (because there is no cause), the psychiatrist makes a subjective determination and then prescribes one or more drugs which don't handle the cause and therefore have to be taken forever to keep the "condition" at bay. But a lot of money is made from the never-ending treatment by both the psychiatrist and the drug company.
So the moral of the story is, "demand action definitions."
A prime example of this is the field of psychiatry. What is the definition of "schizophrenia"? Most people will say "split personality" but that is not the psychiatric definition. Wikipedia defines it as "Schizophrenia is a psychiatric diagnosis denoting a persistent, often chronic, mental illness variously affecting behavior, thinking, and emotion." It goes on to broaden the definition to such a degree that it can mean any type of behavior you want it to mean. This indefinite definition was routinely used in countries such as Communist Russia to labelled dissidents as mentally ill so they could be locked up and electro-shocked to help "cure" them.
In the modern United States and Europe children are labelled as having "Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder" but the definition is so general that it covers normal childhood behavior and indeed the definition even states that the condition will go away as the child gets older. The result is millions of children taking mind altering drugs with the pharmaceutical industry making billions of dollars every year out of them.
So a field with unclear, imprecise definitions can be very dangerous.
Demanding "Action Definitions" for terms in a field is the solution to this. Action definition: one which delineates cause and potential change of state of being by cause of existence, inexistence, action, inaction, purpose or lack of purpose.. An action definition demands that "cause" be clearly stated. So for example in the definition of a medical condition such as measles one can name the cause as the measles virus, one can state the effect that cause has upon the body (produces spots, fever, etc.) and one can then state what will change the condition (the vaccine) by its effect upon that cause. There is no question, ambiguity or uncertainty when an action definition is used.
Action definitions would destroy the field of psychiatry because there are no causes in psychiatry. To determine if a person is schizophrenic a psychiatrist subjectively evaluates the person's behavior. There is no objective test to find the cause. No blood is tested, no x-rays are taken, no medical tests of any kind are made because there is no cause for the condition. The same applies to the entire list of psychiatry's mental illnesses. Sometimes they make up a cause, such as "a chemical imbalance in the brain" but there are no tests to show that such a condition exists.
If you have measles a medical doctor can take a blood sample and detect the virus causing the condition, he can give you a shot and kill the virus so you recover and don't have the disease anymore. In other words the treatment ends because the cause has been handled.
In psychiatry there is no test (because there is no cause), the psychiatrist makes a subjective determination and then prescribes one or more drugs which don't handle the cause and therefore have to be taken forever to keep the "condition" at bay. But a lot of money is made from the never-ending treatment by both the psychiatrist and the drug company.
So the moral of the story is, "demand action definitions."
Monday, November 10, 2003
Scientology Logic 5
Logic 5 - A definition of terms is necessary to the alignment, statement and resolution of suppositions, observations, problems and solutions and their communication.
DEFINITION: Descriptive definition: one which classifies by characteristics, by describing existing states of being.
DEFINITION: Differentiative definition: one which compares unlikeness to existing states of being or not-being.
DEFINITION: Associative definition: one which declares likeness to existing states of being or not-being.
DEFINITION: Action definition: one which delineates cause and potential change of state of being by cause of existence, inexistence, action, inaction, purpose or lack of purpose.
The 18th Century French philosopher Voltaire said very wisely, "If you wish to converse with me, define your terms." Logic 5 not only agrees with Voltaire but goes on to define how to define your terms.
Let's start with the obvious. If we have fuzzy definitions of what we are trying to reason about or solve then we are going to come up with fuzzy conclusions. Example: if a mechanic doesn't know what a carburetor is then asking him to change the carburetor on your car is going to end up with some interesting results, but none of them are going to include a successfully changed carburetor.
It may seem obvious that we need to understand the words we use, hear or read but how many of us actually use a dictionary when we are studying? My work often requires me to figure out the business rules of a particular area of a company or even of the whole company. I'm constantly bombarded with new terms and I have to ask for definitions from the people I'm interviewing. It's amazing how often I find they don't really understand the words themselves.
The worst example of this was when I was designing the new deal entry software for a particular business group. The deals were complex with all the possible variations that their sales force and lawyers could dreamed up. I spent months working out the business, the business rules and designing the application, then we spent many more months building it and integrating it with the existing systems. About a month before we were due to go into production almost the entire group was fired and replaced because they were doing such a poor job. While working with the new people I realized that the fired people had actually not understood the words they were dealing with everyday in their jobs, because they'd given me wrong definitions.
What this meant was that the new application was about 30% usable. 70% of the requirements were wrong because the people giving the requirements did not understand the words describing the business they were in. This also explained why they got fired: they didn't understand what they were doing and so they were doing a lousy job.
Not having a definition or having the wrong definition for a word is actually the most important barrier to study. Not only does it kill your understanding of what you are reading but it produces physical reactions - well known to every student, but until now assumed to be a normal part of study. This is fully covered in the Hubbard Study Technology.
References:
Study Trouble; Difficulty Learning and Retaining Things?
The Third - and Most Important - Barrier: The Misunderstood Word
The Basic Study Manual
Education & Learning
Applied Scholastics - Effective Education Solutions
As I said, it may seem obvious that you have to understand the words you are using. It may seem like common sense, but let me leave you with two thoughts: First from Voltaire: "Common sense is not so common." and second a question for you that (I hope) will bring about a new awareness of how important it is to fully understand the words we use - "What is the definition of the word 'is'?"
DEFINITION: Descriptive definition: one which classifies by characteristics, by describing existing states of being.
DEFINITION: Differentiative definition: one which compares unlikeness to existing states of being or not-being.
DEFINITION: Associative definition: one which declares likeness to existing states of being or not-being.
DEFINITION: Action definition: one which delineates cause and potential change of state of being by cause of existence, inexistence, action, inaction, purpose or lack of purpose.
The 18th Century French philosopher Voltaire said very wisely, "If you wish to converse with me, define your terms." Logic 5 not only agrees with Voltaire but goes on to define how to define your terms.
Let's start with the obvious. If we have fuzzy definitions of what we are trying to reason about or solve then we are going to come up with fuzzy conclusions. Example: if a mechanic doesn't know what a carburetor is then asking him to change the carburetor on your car is going to end up with some interesting results, but none of them are going to include a successfully changed carburetor.
It may seem obvious that we need to understand the words we use, hear or read but how many of us actually use a dictionary when we are studying? My work often requires me to figure out the business rules of a particular area of a company or even of the whole company. I'm constantly bombarded with new terms and I have to ask for definitions from the people I'm interviewing. It's amazing how often I find they don't really understand the words themselves.
The worst example of this was when I was designing the new deal entry software for a particular business group. The deals were complex with all the possible variations that their sales force and lawyers could dreamed up. I spent months working out the business, the business rules and designing the application, then we spent many more months building it and integrating it with the existing systems. About a month before we were due to go into production almost the entire group was fired and replaced because they were doing such a poor job. While working with the new people I realized that the fired people had actually not understood the words they were dealing with everyday in their jobs, because they'd given me wrong definitions.
What this meant was that the new application was about 30% usable. 70% of the requirements were wrong because the people giving the requirements did not understand the words describing the business they were in. This also explained why they got fired: they didn't understand what they were doing and so they were doing a lousy job.
Not having a definition or having the wrong definition for a word is actually the most important barrier to study. Not only does it kill your understanding of what you are reading but it produces physical reactions - well known to every student, but until now assumed to be a normal part of study. This is fully covered in the Hubbard Study Technology.
References:
Study Trouble; Difficulty Learning and Retaining Things?
The Third - and Most Important - Barrier: The Misunderstood Word
The Basic Study Manual
Education & Learning
Applied Scholastics - Effective Education Solutions
As I said, it may seem obvious that you have to understand the words you are using. It may seem like common sense, but let me leave you with two thoughts: First from Voltaire: "Common sense is not so common." and second a question for you that (I hope) will bring about a new awareness of how important it is to fully understand the words we use - "What is the definition of the word 'is'?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)