From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Subject: Re: PV equation (was Re: e-meter)
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
	<schafmei.724373174@sfu.ca> <1992Dec15.181442.4631@memstvx1.memst.edu>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:18:59 GMT
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

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).

*** FLAME  ON ***
The fact that you are able to write that "it's fairly well explained
right in the book" when it bloody well isn't can only be taken as proof
that Scientology training with 100% certainity turns your brain into
mush!

This is true.
*** FLAME OFF ***

Sorry about that outburst, below I address the three problems I have
with your interpretation of the PV-equation.  Finally, I address the
Scientology ban on "verbal tech" and its possible utility to supress
critical thinking within the CoS.

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.

   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.

   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.


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?

   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...

   [[ As I've said before, I find it just plain stupid to propose that
      the "potential value" of a human being can be computed by some
      sort of equation -- and in particular one with only three terms.
      It is the sort of thing I would aspect from the materialists that
      deny the spiritual nature of man -- not from someone who claims
      that to have developed a "science" that is beyond materialism. ]]


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.

   What you are doing IMHO is some vigorous handwaving, followed by an
   arbitrary defintion that you believe makes sense.  Thats faith, not
   science.

   [[ By "handwaving", I refer to the fact that your entire justification
      for reaching the conclution that _your_ interpretation of this
      equation is correct, is the sentence:  "If you'll reread the entire
      section over and clear the words you'll find that the PV equation
      says basically ..."

   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.

   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.


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?

All this is starting to make me think that Scientology is based upon
more sophisticated mind control techniques than I thought.  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..

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!
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.

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)?
--
Meta-disclaimer: A society that needs disclaimers has too many lawyers.
 
- gisle hannemyr  (Norsk Regnesentral)
  OSI:   C=no;PRMD=uninett;O=nr;S=Hannemyr;G=Gisle (X.400 SA format)
         gisle.hannemyr@nr.no                      (RFC-822  format)
  Inet:  gisle@ifi.uio.no
  UUCP:  ...!mcsun!ifi!gisle
------------------------------------------------