Being Reasonable (2 of 2)
Back to page 1
The following excerpts are from September and October 2000. The full, far more
heated, exchange is on Google.
Konchok Penday wrote (29 Sept 2000):
>> You have a very basic misunderstood.
>>There is NO SUCH THING as a reasonable $cientologist.
"Standard Tech" specifically
>>FORBIDS them from being reasonable in ANY
WAY AT ALL. They are required to be
>>VICIOUS . . . but NEVER to be
Freddie: Yawn. There is more than one definition of 'reasonable'.
It's true that the word is part of the Scientology nomenclature - but the
lady was quite
obviously using the common English meaning.
Before we continue we had better clear up the
word in dispute.
Here are the two applicable definitions. The first is the common English one
that Jane and I were
using. The second is a specialized piece of Scientology nomenclature that Konchok wasn't familiar with. If someone is
reading Scientology materials it is important that they know ~both~ meanings as
they are otherwise likely to come a cropper.
(1) using or showing reason or sound judgment; sensible. Example: "His
employees were impressed with the reasonable policies he adopted."
(2) characterized by giving or accepting faulty explanations. People who are
"reasonable" cannot recognize outpoints when they see them and so try
to make everything seem logical. Example: Don't get reasonable about
Those are from the 1998 copy of 'Introduction
to Scientology Ethics'. The first is the common English definition, the second
is the specialised Scientology one.
The word 'outpoint' above is also a specialized
Scientology word. Here is part of the definition from the same glossary:
any datum that is offered as true but which in fact is found to be illogical.
"I am a Swiss citizen," as a statement from someone who had a German
passport would be an example.
Freddie (FT)>>There is more than one definition of 'reasonable'.
Konchok (KP)> Sure!
> From Webster's New World Dictionary, 3rd Ed.:
> 1. able to reason
> 2. amenable to reason; just
> 3. using or showing reason, or sound judgment; sensible
> 4. a) not extreme, immoderate or excessive
> b) not expensive
FT>> It's true that the word is part of the Scientology nomenclature -
> Yes! It is!
> Per Phatso himself, $cientologists MAY *NOT* BE REASONABLE!
>> but the lady was quite obviously using the common
> As was Phatso in his policy on Keeping $cientology
Ahh, Konchok, Konchok, Konchok (shakes head slowly) . . .
surely you don't
really believe this!
LRH is using the word in those policy letters with a rather specialized
Scientology meaning. He uses it to describe someone who explains away things
that are wrong rather than taking effective action to correct them.
I would guess that you probably know this already (maybe deep down) and are
merely playing to the gallery. But if not, I would suggest that you read the
issues again and I think that you'll find that they will make a lot more sense
Jeepers creepers! I hope you didn't go through your entire Scientology
career thinking you shouldn't be reasonable (and here I'm using the normal
English definitions) !
Hmmm, (strokes beard) but . . . it might explain a lot . . .
> Using ANY of the definitions you like, $cientologists are *NOT* reasonable,
or they would NOT be $cientologists!
Konchok followed this up with a reference to the Technical
dictionary. However the definition was in the Admin dictionary.
FT>>LRH is using the word in the policy
letters above with a rather specialized Scientology meaning.
K> Yes? EXACTLY *WHAT* is that "specialised
Scientology meaning"? WHERE does LRH >define it. It is NOT in my
$cientology technical dictionary, and I have never seen it defined >anywhere by Phatso, which means that he MUST have been using one of the common English
>meanings of the word. "If it's not written, it's not true!"
In the policy called Keeping Scientology Working, the word is
enclosed in quotation marks.
[Closing the door on any possibility of incorrect
technology] is impeded by the "reasonable" attitude of the
L. Ron Hubbard. Keeping Scientology Working. 7 February 1965. Page 2.
It's important to understand how quotation marks
change the meaning of a single word in a sentence.
This quote is from a site entitled "Writing for Business and Pleasure".
Use quotation marks to:
3. Call attention to a word, phrase, or concept that is
unfamiliar to the reader or that is used in a nonstandard way, as in Based on
empathy rather than confrontation, "Rogerian persuasion" offers an
alternative to classical argumentation.
This is from a page called "Comments on Technical Writing"
Putting a word in quotation marks does not change its meaning. It implies to the
reader that you want to use a non-standard meaning of the word -- but the
quotation marks do not tell the reader what the non-standard meaning is. Do not
put words in quotation marks unless you are defining them or quoting someone
FT>>LRH is using the word in the policy letters above with
a rather specialized Scientology meaning.
>>He uses it to describe someone who explains away things
that are wrong
rather than taking effective action to correct them.
Konchock> "STAMP OUT VERBAL TECH!" You have just commited a "HIGH
No, no, no, no, no. I was just defining a word.
I think you
now need to restudy some of the Scientology materials with the understanding
that it's OK to be reasonable, even if we shouldn't necessarily be
I would particularly suggest that you take a look at the definition of 'tech' in
that context. And Method 7 word clearing.
FT>> I would suggest that you read the issues again
and I think that you'll find that they will >>make a lot more sense to you.
KP> He DOES?
> WHERE does he say that?
The definitions from the Scientology Admin Dictionary give the correct definition for the word as used in
the policy letter Keeping Scientology Working. Using that definition, then the sentence in KSW makes sense, if we use the common English
definitions then it doesn't.
Konchok > ... It's been so long since I thought about this
crap I had forgotten there IS a admin dictionary.
Two final pieces of dialogue:
1. Konchok> Using ANY of the definitions you like, $cientologists are *NOT*
reasonable, or they would NOT be $cientologists!
Freddie: If you had ever understood the word, that statement might
have had a bit more power.
2. Konchok> LRH invented a whole contradictory set of
meanings that were enforced in
an insane way.
Freddie: Funny! Apparently
you didn't know until the day before yesterday that he had invented a new
set of definitions!