I disagree on that somehow. While Korzybski defined sanity, and infinity valued logic, and all the other terms you state, the very specific definitions on outpoints as far as I know are Hubbards, such as added time, etc.. and that´s the true value of data series.
We shouldn´t go from one extreme to credit everything to Hubbard and then to discredit everything from him. He added and developed on existing data, and was able to gather workable systems and digest them easily for the layman, wether he did it for a hidden agenda, doesn´t change the fact, that there is many workable parts and pieces of tech.
Same on Dianectis, true many ideas are to be found in abreactive therapy, here and there. But Dianetics IS a workable therapy, no doubt.
I agree that Hubbard did delineate the various "outpoints" and "pluspoints".
Also agree that one of Hubbard's "best" abilities was in taking a larger often confusing subject or field, sifting out the fundamentals, and communicating clearly in a way others could easily understand. He sure did that with the concept of "static" (for me, and others I know). But, he also usually ADDED his own spin to it, and included "additives" or distortions of his own.
But, for me, I obtained MUCH more value reading Hayakawa's book, Language in Thought in Action, than I ever got from the "Data Series". I reiterate, Hubbard renders the subject quite unworkable for most people, because of his distortions and additives stemming from the notion of an "ideal scene". He confuses in what way any person should "grade data". I ofen ran across this talking to evaluators at Flag and INT Mgmt (people USING the Data Series on their post).
The concepts of "levels of abstraction", "the map is not the territory", "words are NOT objects", and "no thing exists by itself, but instead in a context of relationships" had amazing benefits for me in sorting out my own "conceptual universe of meaning and significance". These ideas opened up doors of self-awareness, that far over-shadowed anything I ever obtained from the ideas in the Data Series. Hubbard LEFT OUT so much of value, and as usual, seems to only have written up for others what was useful to HIM.
The single concept of "the map is not the territory", when pushed to the limits of self-knowledge and self-examination, did FAR more for me than everything else I ever studied and "applied" in Scientology. I am being entirely honest. And, I can guarantee, that I did not take my Scn studies lightly. In my experience, most people are entirely wrapped up, at an effect sort of way, in their own created mental world of meaning, definitions, significances, associations, and relationships between these things. Most people DO confuse the map with the territory, terribly and incessantly, forever viewing reality and experience through a universe of WORDS and significances. Hubbard NEVER brings out the self-awareness aspect of general semantics, where a person can become AWARE of his or her own levels of abstraction, to the great benefit of the person. I wonder why that was? Probably, because it helps any person become free of entrapping beliefs and notions. Scientology doesn't bring about "self-awareness", as it discourages "introversion" in all forms, but instead enables the creation of a person, quite unwilling to examine self in any questioning manner, with a trumped up false sense of artificial "certainty".
It is quite vital to examine Huddard from the viewpoint of, "what did he leave out"? WHY did he leave THAT out? Hubbard studied many things, and he was a very bright guy, BUT having studied some of his sources myself, it is obvious to me that he INTENTIONALLY left out things of GREAT value, again, seemingly for his OWN (selfish, ego, power) PURPOSES.
In an interesting sort of way, Hubbard often breathed sense and understanding into certain areas, but for me, I found MUCH value in going back to THOSE original areas, reviewing the subject with the added assistance of Hubbard's simplifications in the area, and then largely abandoning Hubbard's weasely versions, and keeping the EXPANDED versions of the orignal subjects I know had.
A perfect example is the concept of the "static", and how it creates via considerations and postulates. THAT idea simplifed a great deal for me in the area of Hindu thought. After going back and reading some of that stuff, it now makes MUCH more sense, and I enjoy it more, BUT I have largely abandoned the details Hubbard worked out in Scientology. Hubbard made my perception and experience of life richer, as have MANY people, but for me he now remains as only a VERY SMALL part of my own influences.