| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
meangradin
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 5:55 am Post subject: "The New Grammar" by L. Ron Hubbard |
 |
|
| A friend just gave me this book (he is not in to Scientology). Has anyone read/studied this grammar before? It's part of the "key to life " series. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RACETRAITOR
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Burn it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mi Yum mi
Joined: 28 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Who would admit to having that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Read it with a critical mind. Don't let popular sentiment prejudice you. Take the sentiment into the evaluation and decide for yourself if it is a justified sentiment.
Even if you reject the book in the end, you may find something of value in it. You needn't marry a world view to learn from it. Moreover, we do not only learn from what is correct. We learn most from the contradiction, both implicit and explicit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
meangradin
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am a little surprised by the "who would admit to having that" statement. I am not endorsing or pushing this book, but rather was surprised to find a grammar text book written by Mr Hubbard. A quick google search listed some very positive (non Scientologist) reviews.
From a quick skim, he seems to argue that grammar is needlessly convuluted, and seriously misunderstood by academics, who can't seem to agree on a unified system of grammar.
One interesting thing I did read was his suggestion that "linking verbs" are only "intransitive verbs" (with a confusing name).
Does anyone have an opinion on this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RACETRAITOR
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omkara wrote: |
Read it with a critical mind. Don't let popular sentiment prejudice you. Take the sentiment into the evaluation and decide for yourself if it is a justified sentiment.
Even if you reject the book in the end, you may find something of value in it. You needn't marry a world view to learn from it. Moreover, we do not only learn from what is correct. We learn most from the contradiction, both implicit and explicit. |
Popular sentiment? You mean the one that L Ron Hubbard was a crazy cult leader and that Scientology is just a poorly constructed science fiction fantasy?
If you can find anything of value in one of Hubbard's books, chances are you can read a better explanation of it elsewhere. Like all religious nuts, 95% of what he said was insane, and if you really want to pick through the remaining 5%, remember it's your soul for the next 1 000 000 000 years. The only reason for writing stuff like this is so that outsiders will see that Scientology isn't just about space aliens and intergalactic wars. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I understand that. I'm not sure what's in the scientological scheme; yet there may be some value in understanding it.
One may do well to read "Mein Kamph." This does not mean that one need become a Nazi.
The question is, is it worth the time to read the book?
I did not know that this book was literally about grammar. Should we exclude a book simply because we have problems with the author?
Having an open, objective mind is not an easy position to keep. Nor is appropriate and objective criticism an easy thing to do.
How many of our reads are really objective? Should we exclude books on hearsay alone? I distrust popular opinion as a final judge on what I should read.
However, I do take into account popular opinion and then ask why it is so as I read. That's all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RACETRAITOR
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omkara wrote: |
I understand that. I'm not sure what's in the scientological scheme; yet there may be some value in understanding it.
One may do well to read "Mein Kamph." This does not mean that one need become a Nazi.
|
I see your point and agree, although Scientology books are all written to brainwash cult members. It really is safer to read analysis of those books rather than the sources themselves.
Trust me, there is no value in Scientology, unless you have money to burn, no family members to alienate, and you are extremely gullible.
| Omkara wrote: |
I did not know that this book was literally about grammar. Should we exclude a book simply because we have problems with the author?
|
L Ron Hubbard devoted a lot of his writing to "out there" grammar. His idea was that if he came up with enough code words, his customers would feel belittled and assume there was more wisdom in his words than on the surface, so they would struggle to strain out any knowledge in his writing possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deadman
Joined: 27 May 2006
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omkara wrote: |
| Moreover, we do not only learn from what is correct. We learn most from the contradiction, both implicit and explicit. |
Well said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
meangradin
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| One thing that is obvious from reading the introduction is that it takes that 'us" versus "them" attitude you routinely see in cult like communication. Specifically, grammar is confusing because "professors" don't understand what they are teaching; they have misunderstood the very nature of the "word." Futhermore, he seems to stress the importance of homynms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RACETRAITOR
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| meangradin wrote: |
| One thing that is obvious from reading the introduction is that it takes that 'us" versus "them" attitude you routinely see in cult like communication. Specifically, grammar is confusing because "professors" don't understand what they are teaching; they have misunderstood the very nature of the "word." Futhermore, he seems to stress the importance of homynms. |
Hubbard was huge about people not understanding single words. If you read one of his texts and didn't understand what he was trying to say, the auditors or whoever was watching you would tell you "Which word don't you understand?" Then you'd have to research the definition of the word, and read the passage again. You'd have to keep doing that until you got it. Never mind if the idea behind it was illogical, he said that all misunderstandings came from not understanding a single word in a sentence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
