From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: PV equation (was Re: e-meter)
Date: 17 Dec 92 02:39:48 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <GISLE.92Dec16161900@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:
> In article <1992Dec15.181442.4631@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>> In article <schafmei.724373174@sfu.ca>, schafmei@fraser.sfu.ca (Chris Schafmeister) writes:
> 
>>> We still haven't had a clear definition of the 'PV' equation.
> 
>> It's fairly well explained right in the book you took it from.  I read
>> the thread and was completely confused after reading your ideas about
>> what is supposedly meant.  If you'll reread the entire section over and
>> clear the words you'll find that the PV equation says basically:
>>
>> The Potential Value of an individual is a product of the individuals
>> intelligence and their active pursuit of existence.
> 
> I should think that a "clear defintion" should _at_least_ name the
> units one should use to express "PV", "I", "D" and "x" quantatively,
> and how these quantities should be measured/estimated.  Since that is
> left out in the book, it is _not_ "fairly well explained right in the
> book".  The way it explained in the book it doesn't make sense at all
> (at least not within the framework of any accepted standard of algebra
> or logic).
>

    It wasn't intended that way.  You aren't supposed to use the equation
to come up with an answer like "4957 Survival Units".  Read it over again,
and quit trying to force it into the wrong frame of reference.
  
> 1) In the original thread, I cannot recall that any of the skeptics had
>    any "ideas about what is supposedly meant", so it is difficult to
>    guess what it was in our argument that "completely confused" you.
>    The way I remember the thread, the main argument presented by the
>    skeptics was that it was easy to prove (as several of us did, using
>    standard algebra) that the equation as it was expressed in the book
>    couldn't _possibly_ have any meaning.  One proof, for example, was
>    able to show that the equation could be used to get contradictory
>    results by computing the PV for the same data using different units
>    of measurement.
>

    Okay, but aside from the fact that what you describe IS NOT the
purpose of the PV equation, you were also trying to use an exponent
that was not intended as an exponent.
 
>    The thread died when I offered Bill a bet (my $8888 against his $1)
>    if he could show, using standard algebra, that the equation was
>    computable.  Bill declined the bet, stating that he didn't have the
>    time to put together such a proof.  The bet is still open if you want
>    to have a go.
>

   No thanks.  I agree with you that to compute this equation you need
some type of units, BUT thats not the purpose.

   The equation was written for an AUDITOR not a mathmetician.  An auditor
listens and computes, he doesn't sit and do math problems.

   Maybe you should read DMSMH over and pay special attention to the
first Chapter where LRH states very clearly that He is not using the
terminology of other subjects, and that the book was written to communicate
with regular people, not scientists.
 
>    So the skeptics as presented their proof, which as far as I can
>    recall -- nobody as challenged.  Until someone comes up with
>    a counterprrof, I would maintain that the silly equation has no
>    meaning whatsoever.  It is just another bit of pseudo-science put
>    in by LRH to impress those stupid enough to go for this sort of
>    pretence.
> 

    Hah.  Its not pseudo-science to impress the gullible.  Its a 
workable idea for use by the auditor.  Believe it or not, many people
have been helped by it.
 
> 2) John, do you really believe that the potential value of an individual is
>    only a product of the individual's intelligence and his or her active
>    pursuit of existence?
>

    Certainly. 
 
>    If so, it leads to some really weird conclucions.  From all the reports
>    I've heard, Adolf Hitler was supposed to have an intelligence that was
>    well above average, and I believe that he also must ve considered
>    "active" (some would say "ruthless") in his "pursuit of existence"
>    for his group ("Lebensraum" and all that crap...).  So applying the
>    PV equation (or rather your particular interpretation of it), we must
>    conclude that Adolf Hitler was a person with high "potential value".
>    Hmmm... must be something wrong with that argument...
>

  There is something wrong with your understanding.  I guess you just missed
the part that answers that argument.  Its right under your nose.  Read it
again.  PV can have a positive or negative vector depending on how it aligns
with the other Dynamics (Which is why you have the x, its NOT an exponent)

  Anyway, Hitler could have a very high potential value.  Unfourtunately
it happened to be negative.  Look about 1 inch below where the PV equation
is stated.  Clear the words.  I'm sure you'll find that LRH answered this
very question, and you missed it when you read it.  That type of thing happens
when you refuse to clear the words.
  
> 3) Your summary of what the "PV equation says basically" is incomplete.  You
>    are conveniently forgetting that the right and side of this equation also
>    contains a power term.

   No my friend.  There is no power term.  It appears that way, but the x
is meant to represent which particular Dynamic is being computed.  You aren't
supposed to use it as an exponent.
 
>    What you are doing IMHO is some vigorous handwaving, followed by an
>    arbitrary defintion that you believe makes sense.  Thats faith, not
>    science.
> 

    No.  What I am doing is telling you that you have misuderstood the PV
equation.  Thats neither faith nor science :-)

    BTW, the definition DOES make sense.  Just use the correct definition(s).
HINT:  All the words in the PV equation are defined, and their usage is
explained in the section where it says "These are the Fundamental Axioms of
Dianetics".

    Clear the words.  
 
>    Scientologist Bill Hardman backed his interpretation up with similar
>    handwaving ("anyone that has some sense will clearly see that...",
>    and came up with an explanation that _he_ believed made sense.
>    Unfortunately,  Bill Hardman's interpretation is  different from
>    yours.  In my not so humble opinion, it made even less sense, but he
>    had at least managed to include the power term (x) in his inter-
>    pretation.  You just pretend that the power term doesn't exist.
>

   It doesn't.  Its not a power term, it just designates WHICH dynamic.
 
>    Anyway, since your and Bill's interpretations differ, the famous
>    Scientology Study Tech (tm) must at least have failed one of you in
>    this case.
> 

   It does appear that way, doesn't it.  Actually I think one or both
of us have failed to apply the Study Tech.
 
> I actually think its amazing that we're having this discusion at all.
> Why can't Scientologists admit that LRH must had had a bad day when
> he penned the PV "thingy" and be done wih it?
>

    It is kind of awkward.  Not nearly so graceful as the Axioms and Logics
which were later evolved from the Fundamental Axioms.
 
> All this is starting to make me think that Scientology is based upon
> more sophisticated mind control techniques than I thought.

    Damn!  Found us out... :-)

    Conspiracy theory anyone?

    If Scientology IS based on mind-control techniques, that might tend to
explain why the US govt. and the CIA have been so interested in infiltrating
the Church. :-)

    All joking aside, there is no mind-control.  Scientology makes people
more able.  

>  Before, I
> thought that all the sillyness in LRH books was just pseudo-science
> and pseudo-rigor (i.e. that the man's obsession with footnotes
> containing dictionary definitions of strange words, and even of some
> not so strange words, was because that's how LRH and his readers
> believe that science should "look".)  Just like Hollywood dress up
> 21st century computer rooms with spinning tape drives and flashing
> lights right out of the 1950's, LRH stuff is dressed up to look like
> 1930's psychiatry textbooks (those Germans really loved footnotes!)
> But there may be a more sinister intention behind this stylistic
> quirk..
>

    Okay Gisle, if I start calling you an SP don't start claiming
your just being skeptical.  Skepticism is acceptable, but painting
Scientology as evil intentioned will get you absolutely no where.
 
> I don't think that all the LRH footnotes and the emphasis on "clearing
> words" (instead of more semantically significant units such as
> sentences) do much to help the student understand anything (except
> perhaps in a very fragmented way), but that may be the entire point!

    Perhaps thats why you haven't been able to grasp the PV equation.
Its really a VERY SIMPLE concept.  

> I,e.: the disruption provided by all the footnotes and definitions
> serves as a mechanism to distract the readers attention from the
> continuity of the main logic -- thereby _preventing_ the reader from
> spotting the gaping holes in the LRH's rethoric.
>

     Perhaps if you had cleared the words you would already know the
answers to why Hitler could have a high PV and what the x meant.
If you had, it would make sense.  I suggest that you stop refusing to
clear the words.   This is why:
  
    A.  You don't clear the words.
    B.  You don't understand it.
    C.  You feel individuated from it.
    D.  You commit overts against it.

> Can damage control is situations like this be the main rationale
> behind the explicit ban in Scientology against "verbal tech"
> (i.e. interpreting Scientology material for others)?

    No.  Also, your understanding of verbal tech is somewhat lacking.

Sincerely,
John Holifield