Redundancy, vagueness and redundancy
Behind the front desk in the Church of Scientology lies a simple quote, proudly displayed:
Personal sentiments regarding Scientology aside, that is a problematic quote, and certainly not something that should stand as the introduction to a church.
To start off, Hubbard used "life" three times in two sentences - an issue of redundancy. Redundancy is a tricky issue, as it is often mistaken for emphasis. For example, some public speakers are taught that repetition is crucial when giving a speech, as it plants an idea in a listener's mind. While it is true that I will only think of waffles if I hear someone repeat "waffles" multiple times in quick succession, there is little to gain from it. Repeating a word makes it stand out - yet the intention is to plant an idea, not just a word. Repeating "life" is supposed to cause readers to associate "Scientology" with "life," yet the careful reader will see how little the two are related based on the quote.
Which brings me to the next dilemma: vagueness. Just as redundancy brings nothing new or useful to the table, being vague prevents listeners from absorbing any useful information. Saying that Scientology "is the one thing senior to life because it handles all the factors of life" gives the reader nothing to work with - and instead creates questions. What does it mean to be "senior to life"? Older? Wiser? Better? How does Scientology handle "all the factors of life"? What are these factors? How is the latter half of the statement related to the prior half? Is this non-sequiturial? Is that a word, Tanner? Perhaps!
Without accusing L. Ron Hubbard of getting lost in the modern dilemma of narcissism through seemingly meaningless quotes and self-promotion, this statement is riddled with issues - more likely used to sound somewhat official, without needing any explanation.
The reason I bring this quote to your attention, kind reader, is to warn you to keep your wits about you. In language, credibility comes from the content of the words - not the speaker. If you read something fishy by someone authoritative, do not give them a free pass! Analyze the language itself, ignoring the speaker.
While it is harmless to throw in a "very" or two to emphasize something's nature, or even to struggle with concision and occasionally leave a loose end in a story, be cautious when reading influential material. If you are buying a new car, would you blindly accept everything said by a salesman? If you listen to a politician at a debate, noting his use of circumlocution and can count how often he says "rigged" or "fake news," are you going to question his veracity or accept him as is?
Keep your wits about you, out there in the world!
Image courtesy of an anonymous visitor
"Scientology is a science of life. It is the one thing senior to life because it handles all the factors of life."
- L. Ron Hubbard
Personal sentiments regarding Scientology aside, that is a problematic quote, and certainly not something that should stand as the introduction to a church.
To start off, Hubbard used "life" three times in two sentences - an issue of redundancy. Redundancy is a tricky issue, as it is often mistaken for emphasis. For example, some public speakers are taught that repetition is crucial when giving a speech, as it plants an idea in a listener's mind. While it is true that I will only think of waffles if I hear someone repeat "waffles" multiple times in quick succession, there is little to gain from it. Repeating a word makes it stand out - yet the intention is to plant an idea, not just a word. Repeating "life" is supposed to cause readers to associate "Scientology" with "life," yet the careful reader will see how little the two are related based on the quote.
Which brings me to the next dilemma: vagueness. Just as redundancy brings nothing new or useful to the table, being vague prevents listeners from absorbing any useful information. Saying that Scientology "is the one thing senior to life because it handles all the factors of life" gives the reader nothing to work with - and instead creates questions. What does it mean to be "senior to life"? Older? Wiser? Better? How does Scientology handle "all the factors of life"? What are these factors? How is the latter half of the statement related to the prior half? Is this non-sequiturial? Is that a word, Tanner? Perhaps!
Without accusing L. Ron Hubbard of getting lost in the modern dilemma of narcissism through seemingly meaningless quotes and self-promotion, this statement is riddled with issues - more likely used to sound somewhat official, without needing any explanation.
The reason I bring this quote to your attention, kind reader, is to warn you to keep your wits about you. In language, credibility comes from the content of the words - not the speaker. If you read something fishy by someone authoritative, do not give them a free pass! Analyze the language itself, ignoring the speaker.
While it is harmless to throw in a "very" or two to emphasize something's nature, or even to struggle with concision and occasionally leave a loose end in a story, be cautious when reading influential material. If you are buying a new car, would you blindly accept everything said by a salesman? If you listen to a politician at a debate, noting his use of circumlocution and can count how often he says "rigged" or "fake news," are you going to question his veracity or accept him as is?
Keep your wits about you, out there in the world!
Comments
Post a Comment