Quite simply all you can ever do is INFER based on another person's actions. His private mental state remains private. Additionally, the process of inference injects the inferer's own mental state into the process. What results does not wholly or accurately reflect the targets intentions but does include something of the active agents. Rather like quantum mechanics there is no objective outside observer or an unaffected observation.
I think you are adding a lot to the concept of INFER that isn't there.
From Dictionary.com
INFER
–verb (used with object)
1. to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence: They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.
2. (of facts, circumstances, statements, etc.) to indicate or involve as a conclusion; lead to.
3. to guess; speculate; surmise.
4. to hint; imply; suggest.
–verb (used without object)
5. to draw a conclusion, as by reasoning.
Origin:
1520–30; < L inferre, equiv. to in-
in- 2 + ferre to bring, carry,
bear 1
More generally, it is a false idea to think that an individual possesses exactly ONE intention, especially over an active professional life which encompassed the better part of 40 years of public activities. Hence, "his intention" is a bit of wool gathering.
I never said that he had only one intention.
In fact, I gave the example of his lying about his WWII experiences and using those lies to sell Scientology, as well as the fact that he published and re-published those lies over and over for 36 years as evidence that he had the intent to commit fraud.
FRAUD
–noun
1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.
3. any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.
4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.
Origin:
1300–50; ME fraude < OF < ML fraud- (s. of fraus) deceit, injury
From Reference.com
"Fraud, in law, willful misrepresentation intended to deprive another of some right. The offense, generally only a
tort, may also constitute the crime of false pretenses. Frauds are either actual or constructive. An actual fraud requires that the act be motivated by the desire to deceive another to his harm, while a constructive fraud is a presumption of overreaching conduct that arises when a profit is made from a relation of trust (see
fiduciary). The courts have found it undesirable to make a rigid definition of the type of misrepresentation that amounts to actual fraud and have preferred to consider individually the factors in each case. The misrepresentation may be a positive lie, a failure to disclose information, or even a statement made in reckless disregard of possible inaccuracy. Actual fraud can never be the result of accident or
negligence, because of the requirement that the act be intended to deceive. The question of commission may depend upon the competence and commercial knowledge of the alleged victim. Thus dealings with a minor, a lunatic, a feeble-minded person, a drunkard, or (in former times) a married woman are scrutinized more closely than dealings with an experienced businessman. A lawsuit based upon actual or constructive fraud must specify the fraudulent act, the plaintiff's reliance on it, and the loss suffered. The remedy granted to the plaintiff in most cases is either compensatory (and possibly punitive)
damages for the injury or cancellation of the contract or other agreement and the restoration of the parties to their former status. In a few states of the United States both damages and cancellation are available. In certain suits based upon a contract, fraud may be introduced as a defense. "
In the case of his lying, over and over in this way, it is conclusive proof that he intended to commit fraud.
Why he was never convicted of it, I do not know.
He certainly should have been. And, if there was ever a failure of law enforcement to protect the public from Scientology - it sits right there.
Additionally and directly to the person of L.Ron Hubbard, LRH showed signs of what may well have been varying degrees of mental instability throughout his life. The idea that some single over-arching "intention" translated across the huge range in his mental states throughout his life is ludicrous.
That thing you call ludicrous above was never argued by me.
If a court can hear evidence of pre-meditation to discern whether an act was manslaughter or murder, then why is it impossible to provide evidence that someone's intention was to commit fraud?
Ultimately, what you derive is individual conjecture. Conjecture which to a greater or lesser degree may describe something about LRH depending on the intellectual honest & integrity of the conjecturist. Nonetheless it is all conjecture.
That, simply put, is the argument. Now do you understand?
Mark A. Baker
p.s. You are certainly free to believe whatever you may wish about LRH's (or any others) intentions. Just don't confuse your beliefs on that matter as reflecting thereby the unstained & complete truth concerning LRH's (or anothers) intentions.
CONJECTURE
–noun
1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.
2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.
3. Obsolete. the interpretation of signs or omens.
–verb (used with object)
4. to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure reliability.
–verb (used without object)
5. to form conjectures.
Origin:
1350–1400; (n.) ME < L conjectūra (< MF) inferring, reasoning, equiv. to conject(us) ptp. of conjicere to throw together, form a conclusion (con-
con- + -jicere, comb. form of jacere to throw) + -ūra
-ure; (v.) late ME conjecturen (< MF) < LL conjecturāre, deriv. of the n.
I fully disagree that it is conjecture - as in "the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof."
My whole point is that you CAN have sufficient evidence for proof of LRH's intentions.
To call it conjecture and to say that it is an invalid conclusion simply because an intention is an inner phenomenon is to deny the fact that evidence can be sufficient to show intention:
- The person can demonstrate a long pattern of behavior that brings about the object of his intention.
- The person can say, "My intention is to..."
- The person can set up a situation ahead of time in order to make something come about - especially if they repeat that situation over and over.
All these things above show intention. And they are valid sources of evidence to show intention.
Only the obfuscators, prestidigitators and self-deniers believe that intention is never able to be discerned. And I'll bet it is possible to discern their intentions, as well!
