I'm Writing A Linguistic Analysis of Scientology Speak

Dianetics/Scientology Speak has been revised over the years but I do believe I am looking at a first edition copy of:

SCIENTOLOGY 8-8008
By L. Ron Hubbard
copyright 1953

(Summation of the considerations and examinations of the human spirit and the material universe completed between 1923 and 1953 A.D.)

THE FACTORS

1. Before the beginning was a CAuse and the entire purpose of the CAuse was the creation of effect.
2. In the beginning and forever is the decision and the decision is TO BE.
3. The first act of beingness is to assume a viewpoint.
4 The second action of beingness is to extend from the viewpoint, points to view, which are dimension points.
5 Thus there is space created, for the definition of space is: viewpoint of dimension. And the purpose of a dimension space and point of view.
6. The action of a dimension point is reaching and withdrawing.
7. And from the viewpoint to the dimension points there are connection and interchange. Thus new dimension points are made. Thus there is communication.
8. And thus there is light
9. And thus there is energy.
10. And thus there is life.
11. And there are other viewpoints and these viewpoints out-thrust points of view...
************************************************** *******************

It goes on and on like that. Yeah, anything BUT an english scholar.
*************************************
FYI - this is in the forward by 'The Editor'

In addition to Sigmund Freud and Commander Thompson, Hubbard has credited the following persons as source material:

Anaxagoras
Aristotle
Roger Bacon
Buddha
Charcot
Confucious
Rene Descartes
Will Durant
Euclid
Michael Faraday
William James
Thomas Jefferson
Jesus of Nazareth
Count Alfred Korzybski
James Clerk Maxwell
Mohammed
van Leeuwenhoek
Lucretius
Isaac Newton
Thomas Paine
Plato
Socrates
Herbert Spencer
The Vedic Hymns
Voltaire

In that order.

Lastly - Dianetics has been re-written many, many times.

And I hate to sound like a broken record skipping all around this forum - but the idea originally came from a book by Korzybski called Science and Sanity.

Well, it's a fairly typical example of a Shibboleth, isn't it?

Like a lot of things in Scientology, it's almost clever that it's introduced for one reason: 'Scientology is different from Psychology and other sciences and therefore needs its own words', but also serves another purpose: To create and strengthen group identity.

It's one of many things in Scientology that makes you wonder if it was introduced with the hidden agenda of making a more effective cult. (Another example is the vehement opposition to psychology and psychiatry.. the very things that tend to help people OUT of cults)

Well, it's a fairly typical example of a Shibboleth, isn't it?

Like a lot of things in Scientology, it's almost clever that it's introduced for one reason: 'Scientology is different from Psychology and other sciences and therefore needs its own words', but also serves another purpose: To create and strengthen group identity.

It's one of many things in Scientology that makes you wonder if it was introduced with the hidden agenda of making a more effective cult. (Another example is the vehement opposition to psychology and psychiatry.. the very things that tend to help people OUT of cults)

Originally Posted by MongoLloyd

Well, it's a fairly typical example of a Shibboleth, isn't it?

Like a lot of things in Scientology, it's almost clever that it's introduced for one reason: 'Scientology is different from Psychology and other sciences and therefore needs its own words', but also serves another purpose: To create and strengthen group identity.

It's one of many things in Scientology that makes you wonder if it was introduced with the hidden agenda of making a more effective cult. (Another example is the vehement opposition to psychology and psychiatry.. the very things that tend to help people OUT of cults)

A Shibboleth is a single word and Scientology has tons of them. So many, in fact, that I suspect it's a de facto validation of the Sapir-Worf hypothesis. The hypothesis is that language shapes thought, that certain thoughts are more easily brought up in certain languages. I think that with the use of so many specialized Scientology terms, Scientologists have their minds more easily shaped (brainwashed, if you like) into the form that Hubbard desired.

The late senator SI Hayakawa wrote a great anlysis of Sci speak and the dangers of their semantics
"From Science-Fiction to Fiction-Science." Hayakawa, S.I., et al. A Review of General Semantics v8 (n4) pages 280-293, 1951.

·

Originally Posted by MarcabEmpress

The late senator SI Hayakawa wrote a great anlysis of Sci speak and the dangers of their semantics
"From Science-Fiction to Fiction-Science." Hayakawa, S.I., et al. A Review of General Semantics v8 (n4) pages 280-293, 1951.
·

1951? Scientology didn't quite exist then, did it?

Originally Posted by MongoLloyd

1951? Scientology didn't quite exist then, did it?

Scientology as it is today did not, but Dianetics was released in 1950.

There is a hypothetical example and translation in the first critical book, "Inside Scientology":
Inside Scientology/Dianetics - A Letter in Scientologese

There is also the thread that was posted recently about knowledge reports, but I can't find it. Does anyone have a link?