What's new

If the Data Series Ruled the World

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
We would have evaluators running around counting outpoints and pluspoints, pulling strings and finding situations, and assigning whys - but would they be better thinkers?

Could they reason out arguments and question evidence, and really live an examined life?

Would society be better off if the Data Series Ruled the World?
 

Telepathetic

Gold Meritorious Patron
We would have evaluators running around counting outpoints and pluspoints, pulling strings and finding situations, and assigning whys - but would they be better thinkers?

Could they reason out arguments and question evidence, and really live an examined life?

Would society be better off if the Data Series Ruled the World?

The old Scientology joke comes to mind,"How many Scios does it take to change a light bulb?"

If anyone thinks goverment is big now...oh boy!
 
The troouble with the data series is it can't account for humor.
Would a trained evaluator think that Moe was an outpoint but Larry and Curly pluspoints?

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
The troouble with the data series is it can't account for humor.
Would a trained evaluator think that Moe was an outpoint but Larry and Curly pluspoints?

The Anabaptist Jacques

Well, that obviously depends upon your ideal scene, doesn't it?

If your ideal scene is the Three Stooges working in efficient unison, reaching all their production targets, then Moe would be a pluspoint, while Curly and Larry were outpoints.

I would have assigned more outpoints to Curly than Larry, though.

In fact, Curly might be labeled "The Who" in such a scenario and declared an SP.

Larry would just be PTS.
 
I thought about this some more.
If Moe's haircut is the idea scene, then Larry's would be a major departure and Curly's would simply be an omitted.:violent:

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
Well, that obviously depends upon your ideal scene, doesn't it?

If your ideal scene is the Three Stooges working in efficient unison, reaching all their production targets, then Moe would be a pluspoint, while Curly and Larry were outpoints.

I would have assigned more outpoints to Curly than Larry, though.

In fact, Curly might be labeled "The Who" in such a scenario and declared an SP.

Larry would just be PTS.

Oh. A wise-guy eh?

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
One of the fundamental assumptions of the Data Series is that things are logical or illogical (pluspoints or outpoints) depending solely on what you were trying to accomplish (your ideal scene).

Is that true?

Does such a thing as inherent logic exist, without regard to context or what you are trying to accomplish?

Specific examples, please.

Anyone spewing generalities in this thread will be promptly declared and expelled.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Ron deliberately excised 'the nyuck nyuck Factor' from His 'Data Series' as a method of hypnotic mind control.

Zinj
 

Rene Descartes

Gold Meritorious Patron
One of the fundamental assumptions of the Data Series is that things are logical or illogical (pluspoints or outpoints) depending solely on what you were trying to accomplish (your ideal scene).

Is that true?

Does such a thing as inherent logic exist, without regard to context or what you are trying to accomplish?

Specific examples, please.

Anyone spewing generalities in this thread will be promptly declared and expelled.

Beethoven's romantic music would have been considered illogical to Hayden because it was not classical.

Tchaikovsky's music would have been considered illogical to the czar of Russia, not because of its quality but rather because of the music writer's sexual preferences.

Mendelsohn''s music would have been considered illogical to Hitler because of Mendelsohn's heritage.

alanzo, all of the women in this world are belong to you and me.

Anything else is illogical.

See how easy it is?

Man wants OT. Man sells car. Man sells house. Man sells dog. Man sells spirit. Men gets OT.

The logic is impeccable.

Rd00
 

Leon

Gold Meritorious Patron
One of the fundamental assumptions of the Data Series is that things are logical or illogical (pluspoints or outpoints) depending solely on what you were trying to accomplish (your ideal scene).

Is that true?

Does such a thing as inherent logic exist, without regard to context or what you are trying to accomplish?

Specific examples, please.

Anyone spewing generalities in this thread will be promptly declared and expelled.


This is not an inherent otpoint but a necessity. "Inherent logic" exists only as an abstract concept. In order to manifest it must, as you say, have a context. Just like the phrase "non sequitur" - it means nothing until there is a sequence of things with one that does not folllow.

The idea of illogic showing up areas of outpoint and deprture from the ideal scene is a good one but one needs a correct definition of logic (which Hubbard did not have) and a less laborious way of finding them.

Also the idea that all illogics are equal is crazy. Some are more illogical than others and should therefor be given greater weight in an evaluation.
 

Iknowtoomuch

Gold Meritorious Patron
It would be a huge mess.
The basic problem is the investigations or "invests" have Scientology whys. And they would be handled with Scientology ethics....lose lose all the way.
 

Telepathetic

Gold Meritorious Patron
One of the fundamental assumptions of the Data Series is that things are logical or illogical (pluspoints or outpoints) depending solely on what you were trying to accomplish (your ideal scene).

Is that true?

Does such a thing as inherent logic exist, without regard to context or what you are trying to accomplish?

Specific examples, please.

Anyone spewing generalities in this thread will be promptly declared and expelled.

You ask if Logic is inherent. That question would require that I know a lot more about myself than I do at this point in my life. Who am I really and where do I come from? I started out asking those questions as a young man and here I am over 50 years old still asking.My believe system has been shattered so I usually just sit and listen. It is sort of liberating though--not having to defend an idea.


In spite of this I would answer that no,"logic" is not an innate quality of the soul. It is my current belief that perhaps this, along with humor, is what we are here to learn. Perhaps it is within the earth's predatory system that we become unique ,in this fashion, from other beings form other systems.

For me it's simple. The only way to acutally know is to pop out of the body. I believe it is the only way, to experience another vibration;we seem to be stuck in this one frequency and we have little access to much.

Even when I write what I write I see the influence of others therefore my goal is to know for myself. So, even though I wrote ,"no" to your answer, the truth is I have no fucking idea.:D

Is my answer confusing enough? Am I expelled/declared? :yes:

TP
 

Telepathetic

Gold Meritorious Patron
It would be a huge mess.
The basic problem is the investigations or "invests" have Scientology whys. And they would be handled with Scientology ethics....lose lose all the way.

I agree

I don't see anything wrong with the data series per se. It isn't really used by rank and file Scientologist or they would have obviously figured out the con.

It's a tool that might be used to uncover the culprit,sometimes, so long as it isn't LRH, Scio. policy or DM or whoever is wearing the blue uniform at the time.

While I was in I a read a number of evals done by the obs missions and recommendations for the "outpoints" found. These had as much to do with our org as they did with the man in the moon.

This "tech" could,as I mentioned before, be useful but not within the ambit of the "church." So when originally asked about a world using the Data Series, I cringed at the thought. One must be free to take action on those situations or individuals causing the problem without the fear of repercussions, by the same token be free not to find a "who" or a "why". That will never occur in the "church" nor do I think in government or any organized group on planet earth.It will not happen because the mother fuckers usually causing the problems are the ones on top. The head on the pike will never be the real "who."

Ron can never be wrong, DM can never be wrong and Scientology in its present incarnation can not be wrong.:omg:
 
Last edited:

Carmel

Crusader
At least if the data series "ruled the world", people wouldn't be simply believing what they read or hear and/or going on half cocked about something, when they haven't looked at the full picture from several angles - that would be a pleasant change for sure. :yes: :coolwink:
 
At least if the data series "ruled the world", people wouldn't be simply believing what they read or hear and/or going on half cocked about something, when they haven't looked at the full picture from several angles - that would be a pleasant change for sure. :yes: :coolwink:

But the Data Series does rule Scientology to a large degree. Did you ever see an eval? No thanks. The presuppositions and premise are so open to arbitrary determination that the big omitted in the Data Series is Hubbard's perverted definition of ethics. For example, if ethics is for the greatest good, then individuals and minorities are expendable. That's why there are so many exes. With that presupposition no wonder he looks for a "who" as well as a why. Plus, it only accounts for one and only one cause to everything. No factors, just one idea--monoideaism, I believe it is called.

The Anabpatist Jacques
 

uncle sam

Silver Meritorious Patron
just another reason...

But the Data Series does rule Scientology to a large degree. Did you ever see an eval? No thanks. The presuppositions and premise are so open to arbitrary determination that the big omitted in the Data Series is Hubbard's perverted definition of ethics. For example, if ethics is for the greatest good, then individuals and minorities are expendable. That's why there are so many exes. With that presupposition no wonder he looks for a "who" as well as a why. Plus, it only accounts for one and only one cause to everything. No factors, just one idea--monoideaism, I believe it is called.

The Anabpatist Jacques

This post of Jacques's is just another reason to really like this guy--he carefully looks at something-thinks about it and them posts a well constructed opinion. Makes reading esmb - so easy. thank you
 

Human Again

Silver Meritorious Patron
At least if the data series "ruled the world", people wouldn't be simply believing what they read or hear and/or going on half cocked about something, when they haven't looked at the full picture from several angles - that would be a pleasant change for sure. :yes: :coolwink:

Like they do in the orgs where the Data Series does rule the world?
 

Carmel

Crusader
But the Data Series does rule Scientology to a large degree. Did you ever see an eval? No thanks. The presuppositions and premise are so open to arbitrary determination that the big omitted in the Data Series is Hubbard's perverted definition of ethics. For example, if ethics is for the greatest good, then individuals and minorities are expendable. That's why there are so many exes. With that presupposition no wonder he looks for a "who" as well as a why. Plus, it only accounts for one and only one cause to everything. No factors, just one idea--monoideaism, I believe it is called.

The Anabpatist Jacques

I agree with everything you have said here.

I've seen many evals, the wrong 'whys', and the falsely labelled 'who's'. All that stuff in orgs has made me so angry on more occasions than I could remember. I wouldn't want the data series to rule the world in a fit - mostly because it lends itself to being twisted and mis-applied beyond belief! (or at least I used to think that it was twisted beyond belief, when I was still in the org. Maybe the crew doing evals got what was intended and got it right, and it was me who had it wrong - I'm not about to read it all again right now to find out).

Despite that, I wouldn't be without what I took from the data series. When I first studied them, it helped me think of things, or see things in a different light. I took stuff 'on board' that I wouldn't be without. I've used it with situations with my kids, family, friends, in business, consulting, etc, etc. I value what I gleaned from that tech.
 
Top