Logic vs. Illogic – Practical applications in the art of thinking

I’m Mike Rinder and I’m really good with the Data Series and spotting outpoints.  Most people are really weak on using the Data Series, and so I want to give you some pointers.

I have been using the Data Series all my life and so you know I am good.  Look at where it has got me.

First thing to using the Data Series is applying the tech.  Spot situations in your environment and then work out the outpoints.  The KEY thing here is not to think logically.  In other words, you will see what the outpoint appears to be – what looks like it makes sense.  Well that is then NOT the outpoint, so you have to chose another one.  If you take the first one you thought of then that is idiot thinking.  Remember, LRH says to apply the Data Series you have to be an idiot.

The first outpoint you would normally come up with is one you would arrive at because of thinking LOGICALLY.  The Data Series has to do with ILLOGIC.  So to make sense of something you have to firstly recognize and reject any use of LOGIC.  So get rid of the first, obvious, logical seeming outpoint, and shoehorn in any of the others that don’t at first seem to fit.

Warning:  Do not try to explain how the non-fitting outpoint does fit.  By the time you have explained how it does fit it probably will fit which of course starts the whole vicious cycle over again of having something logical when what we are looking for is illogics.

This is all a lot easier to do in practice than it is to explain.

Here’s an example:

Marty Rathbun famously knocked me to the ground and tried to choke me to death, but several people who were there were able to pull him off me.

Compare to: Me and Marty later frolicking on his boat on the canal, making really theta-ful videos together, and posting ever-so-perspicacious articles on the internet about how bad it all is in the Church.

Contrary Facts, you say?


It’s Dropped-out Time and Omitted Data!

You probably thought that was Contrary Facts, but it’s NOT!  That would have been Logical thinking and so of course it cannot be correct.

You don’t know what happened in that Dropped out Time. You have Omitted Data.  Get it?  And do you see how, when I start to explain the outpoint it starts to become Logical and runs the risk of making sense?

You don’t know what happened to our relationship in between the two apparent contrary facts. Let’s just say it had nothing to do with the Stockholm Syndrome, and lots to do with money. It’s much better to go fishing with Marty and risk asphyxiation than to try and sell used cars in this economy. Plus, we’re media celebrities now.

Shows you how wrong and incompetent you can be, doesn’t it?

OK, here’s another one:

We’ve shown you in great detail by an overwhelming presentation of statistics and fastidious application of statistic analysis how the Church isn’t really producing any products whatsoever, and manages to gloss over that fact in their events.

Compare to: No presentation whatsoever of any stats or production by Rathbun & Rinder Inc., and yet we’re well qualified to tell you what the orgs SHOULD be doing, and how they’re lying and screwing everything up.

Added in-applicable natter you say?


The correct outpoint is:


Marty and I aren’t here to actually PRODUCE anything. We’re just here to criticize. Anything else is just not our hat! So flunk on you presuming differences were not identical, or something like that.

OK, I admit that was a trick question, but I did it for instructional purposes to show you how good I am at this sort of thing, and how incompetent you are.

So hang in there on every word Marty and I utter, and we’ll be happy to tell you the real scoop, and what to think about it.

And be sure to tell a friend, especially one who’s “on-lines.”

To end I’d like to give my undying thanks to my great friend and mentor, Marty Rathbun.  Had he not cared enough to bash my head into the concrete, I would never have been able to think so clearly.  Thanks Marty, for everything.

Mike Rinder.

Thanks for the great article Mike.  It’s nice having you here contributing to our site.  I think you missed a trick though.  There is one Logical outpoint that has to be viewed as being Logical, and is the only exception to the rule “that which seems Logical is in fact Illogical.”  I am referring of course to the fact that everything COB says is a lie.    To correctly apply the Data Series one must recognize that as the ultimate truth.  Only then can one truly think like an idiot.

But other than that, I think you have given us some great food for thought.