From: keith@balrog.dseg.ti.com (Keith A. Schauer)
Subject: Re: PV equation (was Re: e-meter)
Organization: Texas Instruments Information Technology Group    Plano TX
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:18:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.023948.4656@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>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:
>> 


[[ The story so far: ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk) has come across
   a really weird equatuion in "Dianetics", and want somebody to explain
   it to him.  The equation is:

                   PV=I*D^x
 
   and we later learn that:
      PV = potential value of an individual or group
      I  = intelligence (presumably IQ)
      D  = the "Dynamic".  This is a number between 1 and 4
           indicating where the individual are within 4 "dynamics".
      x  = the magnitude on which the person is surviving on the
           dynamic, it is a number between 1 and 10
 
   Mr. Nistuk's basic question is "How do you apply the equation?",
   to which Mr. Hardman gives the snappy answer "Insert the known
   factors and use standard algebra".  This doesn't seem to satisfy
   Mr. Niestuk, who keeps bringing up a strange thing called "units".
   Now -- let's return to the discussion...]]

[[ Its now part ?, with Gisle and John having another discussion]]


>
>   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.
> 

I don't think you get it.  If LRH doesn't compare himself (NOTICE, NO CAPITAL
H.  Is LRH a DIETY to you?) to other subjects, why does he compare his work
to 'chemistry and physics'?  Scientology is full of 'handwaving' as Gisle
so well put it.  Find equations in chemistry and physics that also don't mean
what they say or aren't meant to be computed.

Who is this scientist guy?  Does LRH not belive in math?  Does he just use
math to make himself impressive.  Maybe your stats are so up because the CoS
uses its own kind of math too.  Equality, not needed.  Addition, why bother.
Powers, only on our way to the bridge.  My guess is either LRH was incapable
of understanding science, thereby leaving his 'rigorous testing' in doubt, or
he was out to deceive.  Either invalidates Scientology to nothing more than
a personal belief.

If someone reads an equation, most people would expect that it holds true
under the rigors of mathematics.  I guess I have another question.  If LRH
writes for 'regular people' why is the equation 'written for an AUDITOR'.
Are auditors just regular guys, no training needed.  Isn't this out-gradient
to be in a book for beginners????


>>    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.
> 

Interesting, I'm glad to see that your editor is no longer dropping things.

Why don't you and Bill call in some of your tech weenies from the different
Sea Orgs to help.  Which one of you is wrong in applying the tech.  I hope that
this won't take you out of power, since it's such an elementary thing to learn
and use.  Does this mean that everything you've done since them is invalidated
because you passed up a MU?  How many years ago did you learn this?  How many 
other MUs have you passed?



-- 
Keith Schauer		Texas Instruments	Plain O, Texas
80 CB900 Custom		
DoD #0901		In an insane society, the sane man must appear insane.
			My company disavows any knowledge of my actions.