From: ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology is good??
Date: 7 Nov 1992 21:34:33 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca
Summary: Who knows?
Keywords: out-gradient, cognitions, [P]ersonal [V]alue, [I]ntelligence, [D]ynamic, less-mature

In article <1992Nov3.070358.1297@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>In article <1d225bINNje7@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov1.214705.10664@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>>In article <1cuo1nINN6bd@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Oct31.124541.9787@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>Jonathons' "wins" with his friends deleted...
>>>>	OH!  Please, please, tell us how.
>>>It'd be somewhat out-gradient for me to get into that.  I've been working
>>>with these friends of mine for quite some time now.  Although one has already
>>>had a lot of cognitions, the other night was a very interesting one for the
>>>other who is normally very closed-minded about such things.

>>	Fair enough...  But please talk about the equation
[stuff about the equation PV=I*D^x deleted...]

>I only know of what is described in the book, Dianetics: The Modern Science
>of Mental Health.  There may be other references which will answer your
>question, but I am not aware of them.  (I have not read everything.)
>You might try calling your local Scientology organization and asking them
>if they have anything more detailed for you.

	O.K. is "Dianetics: The modern Science of Mental Health" the
book I should read?  Nuts! I paid $1.99 for "Dianetics".  :)  
	
	I might try giving the local orgs a call.

>>	BTW, the terms "out-gradient" and "congition" are not
>>defined in the glossary of the book "Dianetics", from the context
>>of your post I assume "cognition" means realisation and "out-
>>gradient" is refering to some "auditor-patient" privledge.  Am
>>I correct?  Please elaborate...
>Those are common Scientology terms.  They should be defined in the basic
>Dianetics & Scientology dictionary.  (I don't have anything to quote
>from on these, sorry.)
>A standard dictionary gives a fairly good definition for gradient.
>Out-gradient would simply be where a gradient is not followed.

	What is it with scientologists and dictionaries?  Oh well,
from "The Concise Oxford Dictionary"

	_gradient_ n. 1. amount of slope, inclination to the 
	horizontal, in road, railway, etc.; inclined part of 
	road etc.  2. (rate of) rise or fall of temperature,
	pressure, etc. in passing from one region to another.

this makes sense to me, not a very general definition, in my
opinion, though.  To me gradient will always be:
  
  grad f = (partial of f w.r.t x,partial of f w.r.t y, partial of f w.r.t y)

where f is a scalar function of x,y and z.  So an "out-gradient" would be
some vector u!=grad f ('!=' means "not equal to").  Lets return to
the origional quote:

Jonathon says:
>>>It'd be somewhat out-gradient for me to get into that.

refering, of course, to my plea for Jonathon to talk 
about his wins with his friends(see above).

	According to a, IMHO, good definition of out-gradient it would
be not equal to the directional derivatives(slopes) of some scalar function
for Jonathon to talk about his wins with his friends...  Whaaa?  This makes 
no sense  at all.  Therefore, Jon and I are talking about two different 
things.  

	Please give me YOUR definition of gradient, Jon!


	Now on to "cognition".  My "Concise Oxford" says:

	cognition n. (Philos.) action or faculty of knowing.
	perceiving, conceiving, as opposed to emotion and
	volition; a perception, sensation, notion or intuition;
	hence or cogn. ...

Pretty close to what I said... realisation, wouldn't have been easier
to agree with me on this one!

>>>>>Everything else aside, Scientology is usable and will produce good results
>>>>>when applied correctly.
>>	Send me the information I have asked for, with descriptions
>>of the experiments, of course, and let me begin to see if at least
>>this one aspect of Scn is usable, we can then go on from there...

	I'm still waiting for the data.

>Specifically, you are refering to Dianetics.  There is a distinction.  The
>kinds of things I was mentioning as to why I believe Scientology is good
>are not found in Dianetics books.

	In which books are they found?

>Jonathon
>Barbera


Richard Nistuk      Fourth year physics student at U.B.C.
ph36@unixg.ubc.ca  (soon to be nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca)





Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.religion.kibology