Lone Miscavige Theory (part 2)

UNLOCKING LOGIC

I have found a way now to unlock this subject. This is a breakthrough which is no small win. If by it a formidable and almost impossible subject can be reduced to simplicity, then correct answers to situations can be far more frequent and an organization or a civilization far more effective.

The breakthrough is a simple one.

BY ESTABLISHING THE WAYS IN WHICH THINGS BECOME ILLOGI- CAL, ONE CAN THEN ESTABLISH WHAT IS LOGIC.

In other words, if one has a grasp of what makes things illogical or irrational (or crazy, if you please) it is then possible to conceive of what makes things logical.

ILLOGIC

There are 5 primary ways for a relay of information or a situation to become illogical.

  1. Omit a fact.
  2. Change sequence of events.
  3. Drop out time.
  4. Add a falsehood.
  5. Alter importance.

These are the basic things which cause one to have an incorrect idea of a situation.

Example: “He went to see a communist and left at 3:00 A.M.” The omitted facts are that he went with 30 other people and that it was a party. By omitting the fact, one alters the importance. This omission makes it look like “he” is closely connected to communism! When he isn’t.

Example: “The ship left the dock and was loaded.” Plainly made crazy by altering sequence of events.

Example: “The whole country is torn by riots” which would discourage vis- iting it in 1970 if one didn’t know the report date of 1919.

Example: “He kept skunks for pets” which as an added falsehood makes a man look odd if not crazy.

Example: “It was an order” when in fact it was only a suggestion, which of course shifts the importance.

There are hundreds of ways these 5 mishandlings of data can then give one a completely false picture.

When basing actions or orders on data which contains one of the above, one then makes a mistake.

REASON DEPENDS ON DATA.

WHEN DATA IS FAULTY (as above) THE ANSWER WILL BE WRONG AND LOOKED UPON AS UNREASONABLE.

There are a vast number of combinations of these 5 data. More than one (or all 5) may be present in the same report.

Observation and its communication may contain one of these 5.

If so, then any effort to handle the situation will be ineffective in correcting or handling it.

USE

If any body of data is given the above 5 tests, it is often exposed as an invitation to acting illogically.

To achieve a logical answer one must have logical data.

Any body of data which contains one or more of the above faults can lead one into illogical conclusions.

The basis of an unreasonable or unworkable order is a conclusion which is made illogical by possessing one or more of the above faults.

LOGIC

Therefore, logic must have several conditions:

  1. All relevant facts must be known.
  2. Events must be in actual sequence.
  3. Time must be properly noted.
  4. The data must be factual, which is to say true or valid.
  5. Relative importances amongst the data must be recognized by comparing the facts with what one is seeking to accomplish or solve.

    NOT KNOW

    One can always know something about anything.

    It is a wise man who, confronted with conflicting data, realizes that he knows at least one thing-that he doesn’t know.

    Grasping that, he can then take action to find out.

    If he evaluates the data he does find out against the 5 things above, he can clarify the situation. Then he can reach a logical conclusion.

    HCO POLICY LETTER OF 11 MAY 1970

    Data Series 2

    LOGIC

    In the 1970’s L Ron Hubbard developed a system of logic which he issued as the Data Series that can be found in what are called the Management Series volumes, volume I to be exact.

    These volumes are still available at any Scientology bookstore or various internet bookstores or can downloaded from various sites in various e-book formats and even available in some public libraries.

    Yet instead of using this system of logic many Scientologists resort to what is called “Occam’s Razor“. A system of logic devised during the middle ages that discounts anything but the simplest explanation for something.

    For example a major calamity occurs and the usual simple “explanation”  given at the time is that it was God’s will or things just happen.

    A good system of logic to use if one wanted to hide the truth or circumstances behind say the assassination of a president by paring away as if with a razor any complexity that may detract from the simple explanation that the assassin acted alone because of some mental flaw or aberration.

    In other words just another “lone nut” making his way into the history books written by “historians” who idly record events and never bother with the circumstances.

    Case closed!

    But to quote Phaedrus:

    Things are not always what they seem; the first appearance deceives many; the intelligence of a few perceives what has been carefully hidden.

    More pertinent to the discussion. The simple explanation given for Miscavige’s rise to power within Scientology’s hierarchy was that by his force of will alone he was able to overwhelm any and all opposition to his leadership.

    Case closed. No further discussion allowed.

    Ironically many Scientologists compare David Miscavige to Adolph Hitler. A comparison I have mockingly said “gives evil a bad name”.

    True there are subtle comparisons that could be made but the fact is that Miscavige so far hasn’t been responsible for the deaths of millions of people nor attempted to build “a Reich that would last a thousand years” over their dead bodies.

    Besides the historical parallel based on the “lone Miscavige theory” falls flat when one considers the historically documented fact that Hitler didn’t act alone and was assisted greatly by the Thule Society in the beginning and later by his coconspirators within his inner circle. Not to mention financial and industrial interests including Wall Street.

    The fact is that no one holds power alone and as the old saying goes  “no man is an island”. Even if Miscavige was removed tomorrow. Nothing much would change because the perversions of Scientology policy and technology that allowed his rise to power would still remain in place.

    Probably why L Ron Hubbard himself said in HCO POLICY LETTER OF 28 OCTOBER 1974 Data Series 39 WHO-WHERE FINDING:

     

    You may now and then see an eval that winds up with a Who. Very rarely you also find one that winds up in a Where. Sometimes you find an “evaluator” who only finds Whos or Wheres.

    If this puzzles you when you see such “evals” or if you land in that situation yourself while evaluating, remember this:

    AN “EVAL” THAT ONLY HAS A WHO OR A WHERE AS ITS WHY IS

    INCOMPLETE.

    What has happened is this: The “evaluator” does an outpoint count only for Who or Where. He does not then really investigate or dig up the real data on that Who or Where but lets it go at that. He says-WHY Dept 1 not functioning. WHO: Director of Personnel. IDEAL SCENE: A functioning Dept 1. HANDLING: Shoot the Dir Personnel.

    Such evals do NOT raise statistics. They do not work. Because they are not complete !

     

    By eval is meant an evaluation of what is called the situation using the Data Series.

    Yet despite what Ron or LRH says it seems that many Scientologist as I said prefer to use Occam’s Razor instead while claiming to have “evaluated” the “situation” which as far as I can tell has never really been established. Going so far as to assert a who and a why are the same because it again is the simple explanation.

    This concept is usually promoted by former Scientology International Base or Int Base staff who seem to have a personal vendetta against David Miscavige and therefore can not view the scene objectively.

    Yet because they are former Int Base Staff their view is accepted with some “authority” which is wielded against others such as myself who don’t accept this simple explanation or more accurately what can be considered an idee fixe or fixed stable datum commonly known in Scientology as a service facsimile. The basis of which is to use it assert one’s rightness over what they consider the other person’s wrongness.

    One sees this in what Scientologists flippantly call the “wog world” when the official story is disputed by those dismissively called “conspiracy theorists”, “crack pots” etc.

    Even going so far as to label them “paranoid” or “delusional”. True some are  “paranoid” or “delusional” but not everybody who suspects a conspiracy is. In fact history has proven otherwise.

    Worse those who don’t accept the mass perception called “reality” are turned over to the tender mercies of “mental health professionals” to have their perception of “reality” forcefully readjusted or given what in Scientology became known as a “Severe Reality Adjustment”.

    A “technique” like Occam’s Razor which is not part of any Scientology  doctrine and could only be called “Black Dianetics”.

    A discussion I  will take up in another blog.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s