If the Data Series Ruled the World

[nexus100]

I hope you find somebody who can understand you.

.

Honestly, I'm not trying to be obtuse. I can't state my viewpoint any plainer. We'll just have to disagree.

 

[Alanzo]

I know that the first analysis that I did was on getting Scientology Study Tech in India. It was not even in Data series format but followed the basic concepts as I understood them. It was written as a Daily report to LRH. There I proposed not to promote Scientology as a religion in India.

That "Daily Report" got approved by LRH and issued as Aides Order 263 in 1974. I don't think it was ever followed by Scientology management. Today Scientology is being promoted as a religion in India and nobody much cares for it. It is a total failure there.

.

That's a very interesting story.

An old boss of mine, Helmut Flasch, an Austrian, set up one of the first missions in India. His wife, Helen Chen, from Taiwan, helped him.

Two very intelligent and helpful people.

Too bad they got a bum steer on the whole thing.

 

[Vinaire]

That's a very interesting story.

An old boss of mine, Helmut Flasch, an Austrian, set up one of the first missions in India. His wife, Helen Chen, from Taiwan, helped him.

Two very intelligent and helpful people.

Too bad they got a bum steer on the whole thing.

I don't think I was much of a success as a Programs Chief as there was too much evaluation of the evaluation itself.

To me, the activity of evaluation that was supposed to be very simple, was made very complicated. The eval used be rejected if it did not agree with somebody else's ideas.

The same policy can be interpreted in many different ways. Ultimately, the viewpoint at higher authority used to win.

.

 

[Vinaire]

Honestly, I'm not trying to be obtuse. I can't state my viewpoint any plainer. We'll just have to disagree.

So, what do you mean by "data does not exist?"

I see data. What you write is data. And that is per the plain definition of data.

.

 

[Alanzo]

I don't think I was much of a success as a Programs Chief as there was too much evaluation of the evaluation itself.

To me, the activity of evaluation that was supposed to be very simple, was made very complicated. The eval used be rejected if it did not agree with somebody else's ideas.

The same policy can be interpreted in many different ways. Ultimately, the viewpoint at higher authority used to win.

.

I think you were probably very successful.

It was the group you were in that was idiotic and very unsuccessful.

 

[Vinaire]

I think you were probably very successful.

It was the group you were in that was idiotic and very unsuccessful.

Well, I went to RPF from the Program Chief's post if that what you think as success.

Then I went back to being a Word Clearer and then the Admin Cramming Officer. I enjoyed those posts, though what I used to do, used to raise lot of eye brows of those in authority. I was constantly in trouble, ultimately landing in RPF again, and from there getting fitness boarded out of Sea Org.

Maybe that can be counted as another measure of success.

.

 

[Alanzo]

Well, I went to RPF from the Program Chief's post if that what you think as success.

Then I went back to being a Word Clearer and then the Admin Cramming Officer. I enjoyed those posts, though what I used to do, used to raise lot of eye bows of those in authority. I was constantly in trouble, ultimately landing in RPF again, and from there getting fitness boarded out of Sea Org.

Maybe that can be counted as another measure of success.

.

I think so!!!

You were trying to do original, effective work in a cult.

Think about it.

 

[Vinaire]

I think so!!!

You were trying to do original, effective work in a cult.

Think about it.

I am still doing that original and effective work .

Reacting to the cult is becoming quite cultish here. Look at LH.

.

 

[lionheart]

I am still doing that original and effective work .

Reacting to the cult is becoming quite cultish here. Look at LH.

.

<sigh>

 

[Voltaire's Child]

For vinaire and fluffy,

I bet the two of you could do just fine without ever using the data series for the rest of your lives.

Or at the very worst if you do end up using a particular facet, you think the thought that you learned that particular thing by observation, studying numerous materials over your life and drawing your own conclusions on what you saw and read.

Rd00

Sure I could. I could do fine w/o using any Scn. But if something works ok, then I don't worry about not using it.

 

[Zinjifar]

Sure I could. I could do fine w/o using any Scn. But if something works ok, then I don't worry about not using it.

Once people get used to carving the turkey with an axe, it's hard to get them to use a scalpel After all; it works

Zinj

 

[Vinaire]

Once people get used to carving the turkey with an axe, it's hard to get them to use a scalpel After all; it works

Zinj

That can be easily fixed.

.

 

[Vinaire]

Well there seems to be a lot of reaction to the terminology, which Hubbard used. I don’t care what scope or purpose Hubbard gave to Data Series.

I would like to examine what scope and purpose I can give to Data Series and salvage what is useful. I know that was not the original purpose of this thread but what the heck… I like to think for myself rather than just react to the past.

To me DATA is a representation of REALITY; and DATA ANALYSIS is the analysis of reality as it affects one. To me, reality is what one views, feels and senses. Reality is what is inflowing through one’s perceptions. It is what one is experiencing.

My take on Data Series is what I said here:

Post # 69

.

It is my observation that as one agrees more to something, the more it becomes real to one. And I am not brainwashed by Hubbard.

It is simply a matter of putting more attention. Those who deny this because of their reaction to Hubbard are indeed brainwashed by Hubbard in a reverse manner. I would like hear from them how my observation above is not true.

.

 

[RogerB]

Nicely Stated

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinaire View Post
Well there seems to be a lot of reaction to the terminology, which Hubbard used. I don’t care what scope or purpose Hubbard gave to Data Series.

I would like to examine what scope and purpose I can give to Data Series and salvage what is useful. I know that was not the original purpose of this thread but what the heck… I like to think for myself rather than just react to the past.

To me DATA is a representation of REALITY; and DATA ANALYSIS is the analysis of reality as it affects one. To me, reality is what one views, feels and senses. Reality is what is inflowing through one’s perceptions. It is what one is experiencing.

My take on Data Series is what I said here:

Post # 69

.
It is my observation that as one agrees more to something, the more it becomes real to one. And I am not brainwashed by Hubbard.

It is simply a matter of putting more attention. Those who deny this because of their reaction to Hubbard are indeed brainwashed by Hubbard in a reverse manner. I would like hear from them how my observation above is not true.

Vin,

A nicely stated set of correct observations!

Roger

 

[nexus100]

So, what do you mean by "data does not exist?"

I see data. What you write is data. And that is per the plain definition of data.

.

Definition of data from Dictionary.com: Factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.

I am saying "data" is not fact as a universal. What you see is not what anyone else sees, per Einstein. At the point where operations really slow down, as on earth, what you see seems solid, factual, and comparable to what everyone else knows as true, as fact.

But it is not. You are seeing something absolutely different from anyone else in this universe. My opinion is that the "Data Series" is unworkable as it requires some level of agreement to function. And agreement is an individual's idea of reality, not of fact.

I am attempting to use dictionary definitions for my words, Vinaire. Are you using different definitions?

 

[Alanzo]

It is my observation that as one agrees more to something, the more it becomes real to one. And I am not brainwashed by Hubbard.

It is simply a matter of putting more attention. Those who deny this because of their reaction to Hubbard are indeed brainwashed by Hubbard in a reverse manner. I would like hear from them how my observation above is not true.

.

If I agreed with the State of Clear, as defined by L Ron Hubbard, then what you are saying is that it would become more "real" to me.

But would the state of Clear, as defined by L Ron Hubbard, become more real in actuality?

No.

And while my belief in the state of clear as defined by L Ron Hubbard might be called data, in actuality, it would be non-factual data, or false data.

Why would it be false - even though I agreed and agreed to it?

Because in real life - in actuality - no person would have the traits that L Ron Hubbard said a clear would have - including those who were declared Clear by Ron himself.

So your definition of reality as AGREEMENT is meaningless and leads to mistakes in analyzing data. It leads to a person calling something a reality which is actually a delusion.

Reality exists completely independent of our agreements.

One should seek to determine if data is true or real as best one can, before one allows one's self to agree with it.

The Data Series, indeed Scientology, has no effective way to help determine if data is real or factual. The Data Series can only determine if data supports or contradicts an ideal scene which one holds in one's mind, which ideal scene itself can be a delusion.

An objective reality exists outside of our agreements.

The more one tries to incorporate data from this objective reality, the better off one is in life.

And the better data evaluator he becomes.

 

[Vinaire]

Definition of data from Dictionary.com: Factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.

I am saying "data" is not fact as a universal. What you see is not what anyone else sees, per Einstein. At the point where operations really slow down, as on earth, what you see seems solid, factual, and comparable to what everyone else knows as true, as fact.

But it is not. You are seeing something absolutely different from anyone else in this universe. My opinion is that the "Data Series" is unworkable as it requires some level of agreement to function. And agreement is an individual's idea of reality, not of fact.

I am attempting to use dictionary definitions for my words, Vinaire. Are you using different definitions?

How about this first defintion from Dictionary.com:

datum –noun, plural data  1. a single piece of information, as a fact, statistic, or code; an item of data.

The most general defintion of DATA is "anything that one can be aware of."

I think that this general definition of DATA is applicable in case of DATA ANALYSIS. Why are you excluding it? You seem to be following some pet theory.

A piece of opinion is DATA too.

One can analyze anything that one can be aware of.

.

 

[Vinaire]

If I agreed with the State of Clear, as defined by L Ron Hubbard, then what you are saying is that it would become more "real" to me.

But would the state of Clear, as defined by L Ron Hubbard, become more real in actuality?

No.

...

The basic flaw in your argument is assuming the word "actual" to be something absolute. "Actual" is what is actual to a person.

For majority "actual" seems to be something in their reality that agrees with physical oservations. And in their reality, the physical universe is the absolute. They invalidate their own reality because the reality of the physical universe is overwhelming. They can lose a lot of things they are attached to by disagreeing with the physical universe. But the truth is that the physical universe reality is relative, and not absolute, like anything else that is existing.

Nexus, seems to be taking the physical universe reality as absolute.

Is that so with you too? Is that how are you defining the word "actual"?

.

 

[Vinaire]

...

And while my belief in the state of clear as defined by L Ron Hubbard might be called data, in actuality, it would be non-factual data, or false data.

Why would it be false - even though I agreed and agreed to it?

...

Here some understanding from Idenics might benefit you.

Assignment of "true" or "false" comes from the viewpoint of an identity. The same data may appear as "true" or "false" depending on the viewpoint, or identity, one is assuming at that moment.

Most people regard the viewpoint offered to them by the physical universe as "objective" or "absolute." They use this viewpoint for the ultimate assignment of "true" or "false" to a datum.

This is okay in most cases just like Newtonian mechanics is okay in most cases. But it is not absolute.

Just as there are cases where Newtonian Mechanics is just an approximation with a perceptible error, similarly, the "objective" may serve in certain cases only as an approximation with perceptible errors.

Einstein made us realize the limitation of Newtonian mechanics. Similarly, a proper understanding of the VEDAS makes us realize the limitation of the physical viewpoint.

Hubbard postulated the state of Clear. He may not have been able to attain that state himself or with others. So what? There is no State of Clear, until somebody feels that he or she is clear. And then it is only true from their viewpoint. What more is there to discuss about it?

There may be a state, called Clear ("clear of all bugs" in the computer sense), or a state very close to being clear. Who am I to say there is no such state?

Such a state may not exist from your viewpoint. Okaaaay. So.... what are you trying to accomplish?

Are you trying to make other people think like you do? Then what is difference between you and Hubbard?

.

 

[Vinaire]

...

So your definition of reality as AGREEMENT is meaningless...

My definition...? You are just using the same stock phrase that LH or other rabid critics use.

Don't let me label you as "functionally illiterate."

Didn't you read what I wrote above about reality? Go and read it again.

Okaaaay!

.