ESMB is now closed to new registrations. Please go to and register there.


Er How Is Dat "Truth" Working For Ya?

Discussion in 'Scientology Technology' started by Maria Cuervo, Apr 17, 2015.

View Users: View Users
  1. Maria Cuervo

    Maria Cuervo Gold Meritorious Patron

    Here are some Hubbard quotes on Truth:

    On Acceptable Truth (a truth that gets a desired result)

    Hubbard writes:
    "never use lies in PR." Further, "Handling truth is a touchy business also. You don’t have to tell everything you know — that would jam the comm line too. Tell an acceptable truth.... PR becomes the technique of communicating an acceptable truth — and which will attain the desirable result." - PR Series 2

    On Workable Truth (a truth that is relative, a truth that works)

    Hubbard writes:
    "When we talk about truth, then, we are talking about something which is just relative to a problem or relative to another truth or relative to another fact within the limits of workability. How workable is it? Well, it has to be as true as it's workable. And that works the other way around. You say, 'How true do you want a datum?'

    You want it true enough to be workable. Now, you can say, 'I want this real true, good and true, very true...'

    You see, 'true' is exact; you're not supposed to be able to do that in the English language. When you say 'true,' you mean an absolute. Absolutes are unobtainable.

    All right, we'll say a real truth. Well, that would be a truth which would fit into the reference of your problem, somewhat on the order of 'This truth is workable to the degree that every time I work it, it works the same way. I use this truth to solve this problem, and every time I use this truth it works the same way. The result is within the reasonable limit of its application to this problem.'" - "Perception of Truth" Lecture, Logics 7-9 & 10-23, 12, Nov. 1952

    In the above two citations, the definition of truth being used is tech dictionary definition #2. The tech dictionary I am citing from was printed in 1978 and is the physical copy I used when in the cult. I have no idea how any of the citations are affected by reissue. If anyone has newer copies of these 'definitions' please post them!

    In this old copy of the tech dictionary, definition 2 of 'truth' states: "That which works. And that which works most broadly to that which it is applied. (PDC 19)"

    Both Acceptable Truth and Workable Truth, as cited above from the Perception of Truth lecture and the PR series, derive from/equate to the definition #2 tech dictionary entry for truth just quoted.

    From a 'Scieno' perspective
    To conceive of truth as limited to what is acceptable and workable is another way of saying truth is situational, since, after all nothing is really true except whatever is convenient to us right now, according to the interpretation that benefits us at the given moment, according to whoever is the local wonder currently in charge. In the above quote, truth is constructed to get a desired result, according to the situational perspective of whoever is supposed to tell the truth! It has no 'truth' of its own.

    On that logic, a pc could decide to withhold things in a session simply because whatever he or she had to say was not acceptable or workable or conducive to progress up the bridge! But of course acceptable truth and workable truth is only the definition allowed for CoS to use. It is only used by CoS in its dealings with 'everybody else'!! This definition allows it to control its followers and the outside spin. It's a one way street sort of thing. We (CoS) can use this definition but no one else is allowed to! Everyone else must give the exact truth. Acceptable truth for CoS. Full truth disclosure from everyone else!

    When applied to a follower or to the public, the other tech dictionary definitions of truth are used. This means either definition 1 or 3. Definition 1 states that "Truth is the exact consideration. Truth is the exact time, place, form and event. (PXL, p. 183)" Definition 3 states that truth "by definition - is what is. (Class 8 No. 4)"

    CoS does not consider itself to be bound by definitions 1 and 3. But Everyone else must conform to those definitions 1 and 3 first.

    From a 'non-Scieno' perspective

    As finite beings of course we never see absolute truth. But this does not mean we become cynical and authorize ourselves to intentionally use that natural deficit to our advantage with others (that is, get truth to work for us for our own convenience and personal gain). Truth is just truth. It cannot (or perhaps should not) be 'used' although sometimes it has 'effects', good or bad. To go by definition 2 means we use truth as bait, as a form of trickery to get a result we might not otherwise get. A spiritual movement is supposed to represent best efforts to nurture people's sincere desires and efforts to get beyond the baser instincts and vices in the material world. A church or spiritual group sets a horrible example by not seeking to itself follow the rules it lays down for others.
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2015
  2. cleared cannibal

    cleared cannibal Silver Meritorious Patron

    The search for truth is age old and the very reason religions came into existence . I believe all religions have some truth in them it's just that man has so perverted them that it is impossible to tell the truth from the lies. I got this realization when I watched Mel Gibson's"The Passion of the Christ".
    One of the disciples asked Jesus " How do we know what truth is?" I have forgotten the exact wording of Jesus but it was something like this. The truth is in you and I am here only to help you see it.

    Looking back I can see if I listened to my gut(the truth in me) it never has let me down. I really think this is what prayer does, help you find the truth within you. If Scn did what it said, it would be helping you find the truth within you but instead it tries to erase your truths and instill Hubbard truths,the truths of a mad man. With me it did succeed in erasing many of my own truths but it failed to instill Scn truths. The result was a very confused, depressed individual. I believe one needs internal truths to hold on to in order to survive and I was lucky to have, but it also made my recovery much easier because I didn't have to find and discard all that many Scn truths. I am still searching for truth or else I wouldn't be on ESMB, reading,praying, but hopefully I am doing it in a more sane, sustainable fashion. At least this way it doesn't cost as much.

    I think a lot of Mocking Bird's ideas can be condensed into this.
  3. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    A brief conversation about the overt/covert pattern of Scientology:





    L. Ron Hubbard, on "inventing facts," from an April 1955 'HCOB':

    "A datum is an invention which has become agreed upon and solidified... When it is thoroughly agreed upon it becomes, then, a truth.

    "The word 'lie' is simply 'an invention with a bad connotation'... Thus society frowns upon the invention of facts."

    Another notable quote, this from the loose-lipped 'PDC' lectures:

    "It's a trap not being able to prevaricate."

    And then there's the old reliable, 'TR-L', the Training Routine for Lying.

    And, of course, there's the first half of the Fair Game Law, "Trick and lie to."

    These things are as much a part of subject as the "auditing comm cycle," "ARC," and discharging tension by finding "earlier similars" (wording is Korzybski's), and these ingredients, along with others, combine - per the founder's design - to making Scientology.

    In Scientology, lying is only supposed to flow downward, with Hubbard, and his senior representatives - inside or outside the CofS - free to lie to other Scientologists, while Scientologists are expected to open their minds completely to inspection by those above them.

    It shouldn't be surprising that a 'Good Scientologist' is willing to lie to those he sees as below him: the "SPs," "DBs," "Homo Saps," and "Wogs," and also less "aware" fellow Scientologists.

    It's quite a system: an "applied philosophy" that make liars out of good people - lying to others, and also lying to themselves.


    One way for an "invention" (a lie) to become a "truth" is by means of a covert or behind-the-scenes action.

    For example, Scientology sends people into bookstores, in any given week, to buy Hubbard's books (often in bunches of 5) wholesale. They become "bestsellers" for that week.

    Then the books are returned, (returned the next week), or warehoused, or perhaps end up as landfill. But they are listed as "bestsellers," nonetheless, and that "bestseller" status become a "fact," or "true." It's "acceptable" because most people don't know any better.

    Another example is framing a person for a crime, thus giving the person a criminal record, with the criminal record becoming a "fact" or "true." Even falsely reporting a person and claiming the person has committed a crime - usually anonymously - may result in the person being "under investigation." Thus the person "being under investigation" becomes a "fact," or 'true."

    An "acceptable truth" has been created.

    "Never use lies in PR" is what Hubbard called "PR of PR," or "nicey nicey PR."

    It's that part of Scientology PR tech, placed on display, that shrouds the rest (less visible) part of Scientology PR tech.

    "Statements one makes can be curved. 'She had a birthday party', becomes 'The delinquents inner circle gathered yesterday for a sex orgy and pretended to the police that it was a birthday party. No one was jailed'."

    L. Ron Hubbard, 'PR Series 18'.

    "The only safe public opinion to head for is they love us and are in a frenzy of hate against the enemy... this means standard wartime propaganda is what one is doing... Know the mores of your public opinion, what they hate. That's the enemy. What they love. That's you."

    L. Ron Hubbard, 'Battle Tactics'.

    'Scientology PR tech' thread:

    Hope this is of some help. May contain some redundancy. :)
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2015
  4. everfree

    everfree Patron Meritorious

    Hi Veda. Since Hubbard was so bad at citing his sources like a real scholar, do you happen to have a specific citation for where Korzybski said that? One day I will get around to citing Korzybski's outlining of "non-Aristotelian, infinite value logic" as well as "association, differentiation, and identification" that Hubbard didn't bother citing when he mentioned them in his own writing.

    This is a great description of how it works which I have not seen expressed before in quite such terms, thanks.
  5. MrNobody

    MrNobody Who needs merits?

    Just addressing this small snippet:

    The idea of looking for "earlier similars" is not necessarily a bad one. One person I know stumbled from one abusive relationship into the next one, into the next one and so on, for all her life.

    I rubbed her nose in all those "earlier similars" again and again, until she began to recognize the pattern and learned not to stumble into them again. Nowadays, her stable, non-abusive relationship has lasted for approximately 10 years and is still going strong - so that were "earlier similars" put to good use.

    But Hubbard never even thought about putting anything to good use - that greedy piece of shit just wanted to make money.
  6. Hypatia

    Hypatia Pagan

    Even as quoted at best, it's situational ethics.

    But I just think they're liars. Elron was a liar.
  7. Maria Cuervo

    Maria Cuervo Gold Meritorious Patron

    More sources for the 'earlier similar' patter

    In the essay at the link, Atack outlines the way that Hubbard got the idea of chains of incidents, engrams, reminiscence therapy from Freud. There is another article, I think on the Ortega blog, where Atack refers to the theory of memory therapy again and says that Freud abandoned this approach.

    Atack quotes Freud: "What left the symptom behind was not always a single experience. On the contrary, the result was usually brought about by the convergence of several traumas, and often by the repetition of a great number of similar ones. Thus it was necessary to reproduce the whole chain of pathogenic memories in chronological order, or rather in reversed order, the latest ones first and the earliest ones last; and it was quite impossible to jump over the later traumas in order to get back more quickly to the first, which was often the most potent one."

    There is also a curious quote from Crowley:
    "There are two main methods of acquiring the Magical Memory as defined above. One is to train the normal memory to work backwards instead of forwards, so that any past action is presented to the mind after the manner of a cinematograph film set running in the reverse direction. (I never succeeded fully in acquiring the technique of this method.) The other is to deduce from present circumstances those which gave rise to them."--Crowley, Aleister, (John Symonds, Kenneth Grant, editors) The Confessions of Aleister Crowley (page 463) © 1979 John Symonds and Kenneth Grant
  8. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    Off hand, no.

    I'm not prepared to go hunting for it at this time.

    The idea of earlier similar is not original with Korzybski. See the chapter 'Origins of Dianetics' in the book 'Messiah or Madman?' for more information on Korzybski, and also Richard Semon and his 'The Mneme'. Also see the chapter 'Clay in the Master's Hands'.

    Of course, Freud predates all of these.

    A handy summation of Korzybski's ideas can be found in the below link. See under "Identification":
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2015
  9. everfree

    everfree Patron Meritorious

    No worries, I am in the same boat. One day, I think some people may enjoy playing "cite Hubbard's sources" game :)

    Freud of course discovered that later trauma rests on earlier trauma, and that the later trauma has to be reduced to get to the earlier trauma. I am not sure he actually used the phrase "earlier similar" however. I would love any citations that show that as well.

    Thanks for pointing me towards Richard Semon. I was familiar with Korzybski and general semantics before Scn, due in large part to Hubbard's friend Heinlein who had made it the basis of a novella (as did AE Van Vogt).
  10. Udarnik

    Udarnik Gold Meritorious Patron

    From that link:

    I'm of two minds about Korzybski. This is pretty much why.

    Why the hell does he think humans evolved this capability? The capability to generalize and develop meta-tags is at the core of our ability to reason and to note patterns. It also helps us weed out trivialities. Hunter gatherers, upon seeing a large, roundish object on a tree, didn't have time to go through their thought processes as if they were seeing an apple for the first time all over again. Likewise, the idea of "redness" as a color separate from the concrete example of red apple / red berry / red blood helped us to make other meta-tags such as density. It's at the core of our thinking process.

    The trick is to figure out when you are making a false generalization. That's easier said than done, and I'm not sure how far along that path Korzybski gets you. Some of his stuff just sounds like Laffy making, well, a false generalization based on a single example, or a too-narrowly defined case and calling it a general one.

    But Korzybski was definitely on Laffy's reading list, because he was writing for Campbell, and Campbell had an intellectual hard-on for Korzybski.