Gib ( a poster at ESMB the Ex Scientologist Message Board)  has showed me and many others something I only recently realized the full significance of and feel warrants its own thread .
He showed that Hubbard both studied rhetoric and sent a letter to Dean Wilbur who literally wrote the book on it a very telling letter about it.
Records show Hubbard was a student of the Dean who specialized in this subject .

The pertinent quote is :Do not allow this to upset you in any way. Put it down that I am a rebel, a nonconformist, anything. Some of these days I am going to set down these things in a book, and your rhetoric, very battered now, will be open on the desk beside me when I write it. L Ron Hubbard

The entire letter is at :https://backincomm.wordpress.com/201...r-dean-wilbur/







Now , there are several reasons this is important to me . I knew form his own affirmations and many tapes and HCOBs that Hubbard made a long study and practice of hypnotism for many years. Of this I have no doubt. But Gib showed in making his insane cult doctrine there was another element Hubbard knew well and incorporated intentionally all along .

Rhetoric , and specifically in the form the Dean taught . Here is a small collection of quotes from a very simple site Gib was kind enough to find and share :

Defining rhetoric :

  • The art of persuasion, and the study of the art of persuasion, and An individual act of persuasion.
  • In the work we'll do in our rhetorical analysis, there are 2 parties to be concerned with:The rhetor: the party that is attempting to persuade, andThe audience: the party that is the target of persuasion.
    "Of the [modes of persuasion] provided through speech there are three species: for some are in the character of the speaker, and some are in disposing the listener in some way, and some in the argument itself, by showing or seeming to show something" --Aristotle, On Rhetoric, 1356b (trans. George A. Kennedy)
    In other words, Aristotle argues that there are three elements to the art of persuasion:
  • ethos: The rhetor is perceived by the audience as credible (or not).
  • pathos: The rhetor attempts to persuade the audience by making them feel certain emotions.
  • logos: The rhetor attempts to persuade the audience by the use of arguments that they will perceive as logical.

We call these three elements rhetorical appeals. It's not necessary for every act of persuasion to make use of all three appeals. Often, however, there is some element of each. In academic writing, ethos and logos are given more respect than pathos. An essay that relies primarily on pathos, with little use of ethos or logos, is unlikely to be perceived by an academic audience as persuasive.

Page history last edited by George H. Williams 2 years ago

"Part 1" of the Norton Field Guide to Writing covers the concept of "Rhetorical Situations" (1-17).
Whenever we write, whether it's an email to a friend or a toast for a wedding, an English essay or a résumé, we face some kind of rhetorical situation. We have a purpose, a certain audience, a particular stance, a genre, and a medium to consider--and often as not a design. All are important elements that we need to think about carefully. (1)
This concept is usually covered in English 101, and you can review "Part 1" if you need to refresh your understanding. In what follows below, we're going to cover what are called the "three rhetorical appeals."
[h=What is Rhetoric?]2[/h] Before we can understand the ways in which the rhetorical appeals work, we must first understand what rhetoric is.
Definition There are many commonly-used definitions, but for our purposes "rhetoric" refers to all of the following:

  • The art of persuasion, and
  • The study of the art of persuasion, and
  • An individual act of persuasion.

In the work we'll do in our rhetorical analysis, there are 2 parties to be concerned with:

  1. The rhetor: the party that is attempting to persuade, and
  2. The audience: the party that is the target of persuasion.

We will consider ourselves to be a 3rd party: the observer. We're not being persuaded. We're not persuading. We're just observing the interaction between the rhetor and the audience.
Three Rhetorical Appeals
"Of the [modes of persuasion] provided through speech there are three species: for some are in the character of the speaker, and some are in disposing the listener in some way, and some in the argument itself, by showing or seeming to show something" --Aristotle, On Rhetoric, 1356b (trans. George A. Kennedy)
In other words, Aristotle argues that there are three elements to the art of persuasion:

  • ethos: The rhetor is perceived by the audience as credible (or not).
  • pathos: The rhetor attempts to persuade the audience by making them feel certain emotions.
  • logos: The rhetor attempts to persuade the audience by the use of arguments that they will perceive as logical.

We call these three elements rhetorical appeals. It's not necessary for every act of persuasion to make use of all three appeals. Often, however, there is some element of each. In academic writing, ethos and logos are given more respect than pathos. An essay that relies primarily on pathos, with little use of ethos or logos, is unlikely to be perceived by an academic audience as persuasive. Below, each of these appeals is explained in more detail.
Seldom is any one statement an example of only one appeal.
"I have to tell you that if you don't stop smoking, you're going to die, " said the doctor to her patient.
This statement combines all three appeals: End quote

The full link is :http://georgehwilliams.pbworks.com/w...orical-Appeals









Now there are several things to stress first Hubbard did indeed use that book on rhetoric when he wrote all his works and knowing the methods makes seeing how the con was made much easier . Plainly he knew what fallacies were and so liberally applied them to his victim's minds .

Gib has also smartly pointed out Hubbard never taught rhetoric and only very late in the game used the data series as a very poor substitute for logic to undo the mental paralysis his contradiction based double bind hypnotic mind control induced for decades . Plainly his piling hypnotic commands based on confusing his victims with contrary doctrine resulted in very obedient but thoroughly confused and dense and submissive slaves who were useless for decision making in the intelligence activities he needed some of them to perform .

Reportedly another wrote the data series to help fix this and Hubbard did not point out piling more contradictory commands on top would only make matters worse as that was how he deepened the trance in the first place. That is why OEC/FEBC , the BC , Class VIII and all that other training is useless for making competent anything because if the commands take you get an idiot slave robot . If not you should see the contradictions and not accept them or Hubbard as making any sense and reject both utterly. Without the trance to hide contradiction from your conscious mind his insane cult doctrine should look insane and meaningless as technology.

The fact rhetoric contains combined methods of persuasion and Hubbard studied and obviously used it shows very strong proof he knowingly combined practices and I feel hypnotism , psychology and earlier cult methods were all combined into a mad stew and that is why Scientology is so hard to break out from and explain as it is dozens or perhaps hundreds of methods combined so knowing a little about one or two does not take away the confusion and harm from all the rest .

I hope this is of some use .