Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology From: pilot@hiddenplace.com (The Pilot) Subject: Super Scio Archive - POST15.txt Date: 20 Nov 1997 14:00:33 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- POST15.txt SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 15 - NOV 1997 PILOT POSTS PART 2 (The remaining posts for November are in post14.txt) ========================================== Contents: subj : Super Scio - Response to Oleg re Translation etc subj : Super Scio Tech - HOW TO SOLO AUDIT subj : Super Scio - Answering Bob about the FZ Sea Org subj : Super Scio - To Bagheera About Trolling subj : Super Scio - Forged Message subj : Super Scio Tech - CHAKRAS subj : Super Scio - To Homer About Charge subj : Super Scio Tech - RALPH'S NEW NOTS PROCESS subj : Super Scio Tech - More on AMs subj : Super Scio - Freezone Code subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering Steve & Sarah on Errors ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Response to Oleg re Translation etc RESPONSE TO OLEG RE TRANSLATION ETC This is in answer to various questions posted by "Oleg Matveev" On 10/1 Oleg asked - > Dear Pilot, > > What about publishing your book in Russian, for exx.? Hwo could we > handle such matter? > > ml > Oleg Yes, by all means. It would require that somebody or a team of people would have to do the work of translation for the sake of helping others. Since I do not speak Russian, I could not ensure the quality or accuracy. I allow people to copy and spread around my work freely as long as it is not for profit. If there was profit, I would expect the normal royalties of a book writer (not crazy exhorbinant cuts of others peoples business like the CofS), but I do not see this happening anytime in the near future. In the current battle, it has to be free because of the horrible behavior of the CofS. And it has to be broadly distributed (meaning the internet) to preven suppression. So it would be work without profit, or possibly the distant hope of receiving the normal royalties of a translator at some time in the future when things are better. I would expect that the Russian versions would be made available on the internet. The same goes for anyone wishing to translate the material into other languages. I would expect others to immediately cry warnings if someone should try to fool people by making an intentionally false translation. - ---------------- On 4 Oct, Oleg asked > Dear Pilot, > > In Sscio, you wrote: > > > WHAT ISN'T: The subject of Scientology did not spring out of thin > > air. Hubbard didn't come from some advanced Galactic Civilization > > to teach us poor yokels. This is a weird idea that has gained > > popularity on the dumb rumor line within the subject. Of course he > > jokingly says that he's not from this planet, but neither is anybody > > else according to Scientology theory. He certainly never says that > > the subject came from off planet. In fact he says the exact > > opposite. > > What do you think about Hymn of Asia? I think that ti is responsible > for "rumour line" that LRH was a reincarnation of Buddha etc. I also > have some old timers who truely believe that he WAS Buddha etc (for > exx., you can find many things on http://www.freezone.org, Sector 9, > Bull #19). > > I'd like to hear your comments about it... > > ml > Oleg Yes, Hymn of Asia is the place where everybody thinks that Ron said he was Buddah. This is the source of the rumor line. Except that he doesn't say it. In Hymn of Asia, he says that he IS the Metreya (there are various spellings, I forget which one he used). In some of the popular Buddist sects, they turn the original Buddah (Guatama Siddartha - again many spellings possible) from a man into a God that manifests as many people (or something like that) and that makes the Metreya into another manifestation of Buddah. There is even an article somewhere on one of the critical websites comparing Scientology to one of these Buddist sects and showing that there is very little alignment. The real alignment with Buddism only comes when you consider Scientology to be a sequal to Tantric Buddism (the Tibetan flavor). A Tantra is a drill or process. Some things like TR0 are cleaned up versions of Tantric drills (the meditation on a breathing object by means of the-sitting-face-to-face). Look at things like the yoga of the clear light (confront, being there) and the yoga of the psychic heat (almost identical to R1-12 in Creation of Human Ability) and their map of the between lives area (the Tibetan book of the dead). In this kind of a practical metaphysics, there are many buddahs. A buddah is simply somebody who has achieved enlightenment, a sort of OT if you will, with Guatama Siddartha having been the first. In this context (which I believed to be Ron's context and understanding, he shows much knowlege of tantric materials but little knowlege of Buddism as a religion), the Metreya is simply the next Buddah who is supposed to have been researching and building a better bridge. Not the old Buddah but whoever it is who figures out a better way than the eightfold path. Note that there are endless arguments possible about the various Buddist scriptures because the originals were destroyed when the Moselems invaded India. The earliest sources available are supposedly early translations into Pali, Chineese, Tibetan, etc. and all of them have radically different versions of the same basic books. Even something such as the Tibetan Book of the Dead is available in endless different versions, not just in English translation but supposedly in many variations in the "originals". On this basis, he was claiming to be the next Buddah rather than the previous one. - ---------------- On Oct 4, Oleg asked - > Dear Pilot, > > What was the essence of the policy "Only Accounts Talk Money"? Maybe it > would be useful for our freezone orgs... > > ml > Oleg That was basically the entire thing. Namely, that the registrars were not allowed to discuss money, only the cashier could do that. They were called registrars because they were to be like registrars in a university rather than being salesmen. They helped you choose between courses and enrolled you. In a university, the registrar would not even know the price of things. There were price lists that one could have. There were no wierd deals or high pressure sales. This seems like a good way to run a helpful school or academy. - ---------------- The self clearing book should be out before the end of the year. Best wishes, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - HOW TO SOLO AUDIT HOW TO SOLO AUDIT This is a brief "how to" for people who are already trained auditors but who never got to do a solo auditors course. Since I am going to assume that the reader already knows a great deal about auditing, this may be incomprehensible to people who do not already have some training in the subject. I am currently working on a self clearing book which will make no assumptions about prior knowledge of Scientology, it should be on the net before the end of the year. That one should be useful to both trained auditors and beginners alike. It will be an unrestrained attempt to reach from the ground all the way up to OT states far beyond what the org is delivering. But many trained auditors will also want to do the OT levels as delivered by the org. There are many trained auditors who have been sitting on the fence for a long time. They are hesitant to step back into an organization that is behaving very badly and will drive them up the wall with all sorts of stops and wrong actions. They are also hesitant to burn their bridges and walk into a freezone organization because they have been so heavily third partied against these people and are afraid that the tech isn't really there or is so badly "squirreled" as to be unworkable. In actual fact, a good class 4 auditor already has enough skill to go it alone and even to chart his own course safely. But because of the waves of PR and Secrecy, he doesn't know that. Simply reading an article like this is not a bridge burning kind of step. A loyalist can look it over and, if it seems fishy, simply excuse it away as "seeing what those evil squirrels are up to" so as to better defend the subject, and in that way avoid any serious trouble with Ethics. This gives them a chance to know before they go, to stick their toe in the water before they dive in. So here it is, a basic briefing on Solo for the professional auditor. 1. The Solo Course Almost everything on the solo course has already been covered in regular auditor training though class 3. It is there to teach untrained public various basic actions such as how to fly ruds. All that you are missing is the solo comm cycle and solo emeter drills. In solo, you hold the solo cans in one hand and work the meter and write on the worksheet with the other hand. The solo cans have less skin contact (only one hand) so you set the sensativity higher ( 1/2 or 2/3 of a dial can squeeze) and the TA will read higher (which is a false TA and can be ignored, use 2 cans if you want to see the real TA position). The solo comm cycle is very simple. Wearing your auditor's hat, you ask the question (silently) of yourself, and then you be the PC and answer it (again silently), writting the answer on the worksheet. Then you shift back to being the auditor and handle exactly as if you were auditing a PC. Your "acknowledgement" is simply recognizing that you have answered the question. The meter will instant read if you think the questions precisely. The solo e-meter drills consist of doing the ordinary e-meter drills solo on a one hand electrode. You would, for example, assess "what is your favorite fruit", thinking each one clearly and seeing if it instant reads. It is actually much easier than doing the ordinary e-meter drills because you have an internal comm cycle that is fully under your control. Perfect TR-1 is almost automatic. If you have already done ordinary meter drills, these will be easy and you can do them by yourself. That's it. That's all of it. Nothing else on the course that you don't know already. Just do everything else the same way as when you are auditing a PC. They don't teach you to solo L&N on the solo course. But they do on the Solo Nots course. And its nothing that you don't already know if you have done class 4. Except for a couple of bulletins which explain solo, as given above, you get the same HCOBs as you do on an ordinary auditor training course. The same bulletins as always on the subject of ruds, assessing, and so forth. 2. Basic Solo Actions The solo internship consists of doing some simple processes which you already know how to do. The most important are flying your own ruds and running self analysis on yourself (metered and in session). The ruds are exactly as you would do them on a PC. You ask yourself "Do I have an ARCX" and if it reads and you think that you do, then you handle it. If it doesn't read but you have one, you put in suppress and inval as always. If it reads but you know you don't have one, then you put in false. The beauty of it is that you as the auditor have absolute certainty as to whether or not the PC has an ARCX, so you have no doubts about whether to use false etc. and you will never misduplicate what the PC is saying. It is actually much easier than ordinary auditing. If they are dealing with untrained public, the solo CSes will send them to review for just about anything. But if they are CSing for a professional auditor, they have you run your own green forms and repair actions and will only send you to review (if ever) if you really make a bad mess of things. The green form and other correction lists are very easy to do solo if you can already do them on a PC. They don't even hat you up on this. They just assume that you can do it if you are trained to do it on a PC. 3. Going Clear Most class 4 auditors will find that they have already gone clear. The clear cog is often repeated in the materials and its such an everybody knows that most auditors have trouble realizing that it is the clear cog and wouldn't even bothering mentioning it as a cog in session because they've known it since they started training. It is simply that its you who is mocking up your bank and pictures. It is on pleanty of lower level tapes and is obvious from the axioms etc. But knowing it in theory is not the same as having it as a cog and being aware of it. You do have to see it for yourself. There are two important side effects when you really make it. First of all, you stop flinching from the pain in past incidents. Its not that your track is gone or that you don't have incidents or out ruds or whatever, its simply that your not afraid of a picture just because there was some pain at the time that it happened. Second, and quite important, is that you see that you are not your bank and you are not the product of your bank. You are at cause rather than effect. There is a lot of incorrect sales hype about the state of clear. It is simply being senior to the force in mental pictures. The grades (PTPs, overts, and ARCXs) go much more basic and can be run back to a time prior to the force and the pain and the implants to address the earlier abberated games that caused you to postulate being the effect of force. But you need to knock the stuff on the OT levels out of the way before you can get the grades to run early enough on the track. So don't invalidate the state of clear just because many abberations are still present. It is an important state and it lets you think without flinching from pains and so forth. If you haven't made it yet, you can either run painful incidents on a gradient until you can really confront force, or you can run implant platens until you get control over mocking up the items. If you have made it, you first step is to rehab and acknoledge it. Strip off any inval or false data if necessary. 3. Running OT levels The platens and materials are available on the internet. I wouldn't repeat the data here so you don't have to be afraid of getting in too much trouble by reading this. There are basically 3 categories of upper level processes. First there are the OT drills. These are like running Creation of Human Ability solo. Currently the only one like this is OT 1. It also includes the old (pre-NOTS) OT 5 and 6. These were all quickie levels consisting of only a small number of drills. The results were probably unstable for this reason. There are thousands more of these processes back in the 1950s materials and that would be the way to expand these levels and really make gains. Don't worry about mockup processes being forbidden. Ron put some on the old OT 5 and 6. Create is an item in some implants. So you shouldn't do too much creative processing before clear, but it shouldn't matter after clear. There are the ones with implant platens. These are easy to run. Much easier than flying your ruds. The current levels are the clearing course and OT2. Many other platens are available, both in the 1963 tech volume and in my Super Scio book. The tech on flattening an implant platen is given in the clearing course instruction booklet which is available on the internet. Read that first. The procedure is used on OT 2 as well as on the clearing course, so it can be done by a clear, but after clear many things just FN instead of reacting. You might also want to pick up the "Master of GPMs" and "Pattern of the Bank" transcripts which are available on the internet. This gives you a bit more data on GPMs. But the big disappointment is that the clearing course does not handle Actual GPMs. Its just a bigger more basic implant. The actual GPM research line seems to have been abandoned. Some clears think that there are no actual GPMs to be handled and others think that Ron planned on handling them on some super high OT level above NOTS. I took a stab at researching actual GPMs and wrote it up in chapter 3 of my Super Scio book which is available on the internet. When Dianetic clear came out and people started bypassing the clearing course, they began by doing the OT 2 platens. Then they would get the CC platens to check over on old OT 4. But I think that you might as well do the CC platens as part of OT 2 if you are dianetic clear. Just run them lightly, FNing through whatever will FN instead of grinding them to death like the CC students try to do. Note that you do run implant platens after clear. You sill need to confront the specific items. There are things like postulates and so forth which you made as a result. Although it is not in the OT materials, there is a 1963 bulletin which says that you should also get the postulates made at the time of an implant. Based on adding postulates to NED, I would suggest that you also add this as a step after flattening any implant platen (chapter of OT 2 or whatever). The third area is OT 3 and Nots. The materials are available. I think that Nots is a better approach and an easier gradient than OT 3, so I would be inclined to do that first and only use OT 3 to try and stir up some more when Nots flattens. I also think that there are some outpoints. See chapter 6 of my Super Scio book. 4. Running Everything Else You can pretty much run any process safely except for Dianetic repeater technique. That one is trouble and may drag an implant into restimulation. So Ron was right in saying that DMSMH style Dianetics should not be self audited. As soon as they moved beyond Dianetics in 1951-52, self auditing was quite acceptible and Ron encouraged trained auditors to use the processes on themselves. This continued until the 1960s. People trying to solo audit quickie grades got in trouble. So Ron told them to stop doing that. But actually, everybody got in trouble on quickie grades, so it was not a valid test. You will find that you can pretty much run anything successfully as long as the command directs your attention adequately. The only processes that may fail are general "two way comms" that do not have a specific target to Itsa, and you might sometimes have trouble with a prepcheck because the questions are a bit too vague. But it is not actually dangerous to try these. The easiest things to do are correction lists and simple muzzeled processes. There are thousands of processes. They work. They can be run solo. Have fun. May the tech be with you, The Pilot PS, I'm posting this to both ARS and ACT, but many of my tech and freezone related posts go to ACT only. ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Answering Bob about the FZ Sea Org ANSWERING BOB ABOUT THE FZ SEA ORG On Oct 11, "perlrabit" responded to my post on subject "Super Scio - Freezone Sea Org (attn Theta B)" > To Pilot and the person who wrote this: I was quoting Theta B's earlier post. > > > FREEZONE SEA ORG > > > > > > Yes folks, we are forming the Sea Org in the Freezone. A reformed Sea > > > Org in the Freezone where a difference in the sanity of the planet can > > > REALLY be made. > > Not a bright idea. A better idea is to do what you do extremely well. This might be what they are able to do extremely well. Different strokes for different folkes. > I think those who want this confuse purpose with motivation. That's what > happens when you assume the position. Whereas Motivation manifests as the > reason or emotion behind a goal in sight , the purpose tells you the way to > obtain it. There can be many ways to achieve the same purpose. Therefore, the purpose does not enforce a specific manner of implementation. The most it would do is limit your choices because you cannot use a method that invalidates the purpose itself. The purpose of freeing mankind cannot be done by making slaves out of sea org members because the means are hostile to the stated purpose. But group activity is possible as long as the freedom of the individual is not destroyed by the group. Motivation will determine how strongly someone will work towards a purpose. It also does not define method. It should not be the the determining factor in working with a group or going it alone. Method is its own separate affair. Ideally, one chooses the method that is the most productive for the individual in moving towards the desired purpose and within the limitations of the amount of energy (motivation) that the individual is willing to commit. Working alone versus as part of a group is not determined by the degree of motivation. An individual with low motivation might do better with a group that accepts that degree of commitment than he would alone. An individual with high motivation might be more successful as a loner. It can go either way at either motivational level. This varies depending on the individual and also depending on the choice of groups available. I would not limit or enforce this in either direction. > This was not a good idea at any time, an accident waiting to happen, fixing > a hole where the rain gets in, etc. Don't think one should handle the > oh-so-serious weight of the world when it's sitting on your shoulders, and > after all, someone else placed it there to begin with while you were > looking upward. Did you create it, or did you not? The crazy Sea Org mentality was a bad idea from day one. But many of the early orgs were nice and helpfull places. A good organization which encouraged and supported its members rather than invalidating them could lift somebody to greater abilities than they would have on their own. Just because the CofS Sea Org knocked individuals down and made them act worse than their normal condition does not mean that all organizations are bad. My early experience was with an uplifting organization. We thought that the Sea Org would be the same only better. Such an organization might truely be possible. Of course I'm a bit sour on organizations at this point. So I would have to see it to believe it. But I'm certainly not going to stand in their way, and I really hope that they can pull it off. > Once freed from the current mindset, all things once again become possible > and it's easier to evaluate the whole enchilda at a higher level--ride on > top of it using what works or go with something better. It appears that's > what your doing. Dreams manifest, though fought, in the end prevail (my > take, paraphased). Very nice statement. > Like the Pilot posts. > > Bob Good to hear it. I see room for both individuals and organizations of many different styles. The important point is to avoid trying to cast everybody into the same ridgid mold. Let people thrive where they personally can thrive. Let them change and evolve and move on as they need to. Freedom does not mean always working alone. It means the freedom to choose. It's not freedom FROM, its freedom TO. Many choices in an election is freedom. One choice on the ballot is a thinly veiled tyranny. Two identical choices is a more subtile tyranny. Many alternative organizations and solo routes that one can choose from is freedom. One and only one organization and only one right way is the tyranny that we call monopoly. Freedom Good, Tyranny Bad. Simple enough? Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - To Bagheera About Trolling TO BAGHEERA ABOUT TROLLING On Oct 22, 1997, bagheera ... >Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote: >> >> In art<62qurg$453$1@excalibur.flash.net>, alec writes: >> > >> >Ron Newman wrote in message <62m3jo$rjt@sdrn.zippo.com>... >> >>Do not post chain letters. Do not e-mail chain letters. >> >>I don't care *what* their contents are. >> > >> >Three posters now (Ron Newman, Tilman, and Deomorto) have posted to the >> >effect that this was a troll or a chain letter. What is there in the >> >Jeez: > > I just figured someone on ARS would know if it were true....I didn't >expect to be reamed for posting the damned thing. If you guys don't >know then just say so. I won't do it again, and I didn't post it >because the thing told me to pass it on. I have an enquiring mind, but >I guess I enquired with the wrong people. I beg your pardon. > > Bagheera I think that they were right in calling it a troll (I'll explain in a minute), but I don't want to see you shut up. The reason they slapped you down is that you posted it in such a way as to encourage the troll. This is like crying fire in a crowded theatre. It preys on peoples fears without any actual evidence and gets copied around. But there are real dangers and warnings too. If you don't know, then it is proper to ask rather than ignoring a potential threat. But you must ask in a way that keeps people from going into a panic and copying the damn thing around. You have to downplay the thing to keep others from reacting in fear and spreading it around, and you have to ask for an intelligent analysis of whether the thing is real or just bullshit. You have to do this strongly enough that anyone else who doesn't know will sit back and wait for an expert to comment on it rather than reposting the thing again to yet another newsgroup and spreading the panic. For old hands, its like watching a cattle stampeed or a lynch mob in action, that's why they react so harshly. As to why it is a troll - The most obvious indicator is that it gives absolutely no evidence or way to test the warning. It also presents things that any programmer would know in such a way as to scare people and mislables the thing as a cookie with the intention of creating panic. The AOL software is something that you install on your machine. Of course it accesses your disk drive, almost all programs do, and most of them search for what they need. The AOL software is used to connect your machine to a remote computer system via the phone lines. Of course it must pass information, otherwise how do you log on, configure the connection, or do any useful work. It is always possible for programs that you run on your machine to do bad things to your machine, and if they have communications access, they can broadcast bad things too. That is why we have virus protection software and a lot of suspicious programmers who keep their eyes open and continually poke at and monitor things. You either have to be an expert yourself or you have to depend on the experts to catch the bad stuff. The main thing here is that an insider who really had been involved in placing hostile stuff into AOL's code would have details and ways of testing it and a description of what it would do to you. And if AOL did pull such a trick (it is possible), some programmer would probably catch it pretty fast even if there wasn't any internal leak. And when they screamed about it, they would have details that you could check. I don't think very well of AOL and dislike having to defend them. But the post was pure dead agenting with nothing behind it but the intent to harm or to sit back and laugh as a wild rumor was copied around the net. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Forged Message FORGED MESSAGE The following message was not issued by me. I'm going to sign this post (my public key is on various webpages) so that you know that this one is authentic. I'm also going to sign the two archive collections (#14 and #15) that I'm putting out this time. If you get some dumb post that isn't in there, you'll know that somebody is fooling around. Note that I snipped part of the path line, only leaving the far end which leads back to the originating host (which seems to be an annonymous remailer). Hopefully this is just somebody trying to jerk Homer's chain rather than an OSA agent who'se too dumb to do a decent forging job. So I'm not going to worry about it. > Path: newsfeed.embratel.net.br!200.246.2.240!alpha.jpunix.com!m2n > From: Anonymous > Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology > Subject: Is Homer a? > Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 03:11:53 -0400 > Organization: m2n@alpha.jpunix.com > Lines: 5 > Message-ID: <8e569b9cf94366ee619e8991069b41bb@anon.efga.org> > NNTP-Posting-Host: 200.246.2.240 > Author-Address: anon anon efga org > Comments: This message was remailed by a FREE automated > remailing service. For additional information on this service, > send a message with the subject "remailer-help" to > remailer@anon.efga.org. The body of the message will be > discarded. To report abuse, contact the operator at > admin@anon.efga.org. Headers below this point were > inserted by the original sender. > Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@alpha.jpunix.com > > Just wondering! > > The Pilot The only thing I'm wondering is who sent this. The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - CHAKRAS CHAKRAS There have been some interesting discussions about the Chakras recently, started, I believe, by Lightnin George. I wrote a half dozen pages about them in chapter 10 of the Super Scio book. It is subsection 5 of part 10A < 28 of 32>. On Nov 14, Ralph Hilton (ralph@atnet.at) posted (Subject line of Re: Chakras) an interesting "EXPANDED STUCK FLOWS R/D" which primarily treated these as being blocked by BTs. I think that it would work, but I'm past the point of getting BT interfearance on this sort of thing. The flow assessment is nicely done, but the rundown doesn't go far enough in handling the person's own considerations on these flows. In my own experiments with these, I found that the protest button was critical (protesting something on the 2D causes the flow from the 2nd chakra to backup, for example). But I don't think that that is the whole picture either. Any flinch or charge in the area (including BTs, protest, ARCXs, overts, or whatever) probably plays a part in this. Homer has also suggested using ruds in this area. There was also an interesting suggestion by Nicolas - At 10:14 AM 11/14/97 -0500, Nicolas wrote: >I've read there are relationships between colors and chakras. I guess >there might be between musical notes, or tonalities, and chakras. It's >7 colors (including the white) 7 tones, 7 chakras. There are 8 chakras in the better systems (and some systems only identify 6). I ran into a girl once who had been drilling a system of 9 chakras. When I asked about them, they turned out to be the pattern of 8 plus a 9th position which was her own exterior position behind the whole system. She said that she'd had some success in psychically healing people. >Is it possible to consider a relationship between the Know to Mystery >Scale and the chakras: > >Mystery, first chakra - sexingness, Second-eatingness, the heart area >to neck - emotions, positive and negative, the Third Eye - lookingness, >the crown chakra - knowingness, the being exterior. That being different >energy levels and condensation, could that be workable? > >Love, Nicolas Damn good question. I've been seeing them as the energy sources for the energy related to each of the 8 dynamics. The April 1954 version of the Know to Sex (later Know to Mystery) scale is Know, Look, Emote, Effort, Think, Symbols, Eating, Sex (ACC data sheet, old tech vol 2 page 41). But just before this, Ron had put Eating below Sex instead of above it when he was first talking about the scale in one of the ACCs. The stomach chakra is not concerned with eating in most systems. It is concerned with emotions (fear for example, as in a terror stomach), and it is the root chakra which is related to eating (at the location of the end product of eating). So we need to shift eating below sex, which might be correct, it can be argued both ways. And we have to move thinking up to the seventh chakra, but I always felt that Ron had put thinking too low and degraded it (only looking at the inversion of figure figure rather than having high level thought on this scale). Since symbols relates to communication, we have to move that one up to the 5th position. Although the 3rd chakra is supposed to be the emotional chakra, the 4th also has emotional aspects (compassion etc.), and I feel that emotion does belong above effort, so lets leave emotion in position 4. This gives us a revised Know to Eat scale as follows: Know Think Look Symbols Emotion Effort Sex Eat I kind of like it this way. You would have to postulate (think of) something before you could look at it. You would have to substitute symbols for things before you started feeling emotional about them. Then the scale would invert. You would have compulsive sex just below eating. Then you'd fight about things, and get upset about things, and start dubing in (inverted symbols) and not-ising (inverted looking) and then figure figure type thinking, and finally mystery as the inversion of Know. No guarantees on this, but its worth considering. Now lets plot this and the chakras and the dynamics all together. Note that there are a lot of different chakra systems. I am using composite definitions which combine things from different systems. For example, one system might describe the heart chakra as representing courage (this is where we get the common idea that courage comes from the heart) and another might describe it as being compassion. I would say that the chakra includes both amoung other things. 1. Root chakra Energy related to the 1st dynamic, the body, Eatingness. 2. Sexual chakra (genital level) Energy related to sex and family and intimate personal relationships. Sexingness. 3. The emotional chakra or control chakra (stomach level) Energy related to the 3rd dynamic or your relations to other people, including heavy emotions (anger, fear), control, and more constructive activities including work and effort. Effortingness. 4. The heart chakra Energy related to the 4th dynamic (mankind, society) including compassion, courage, loyalty, leadership, justice, etc. Emotingness in the sense of the higher emotions or feeling for others. 5. The communication chakra (mouth or throat level) Energy related to the 5th dynamic (lifeforms). The distinguishing characteristic of living things rather than MEST is that they originate communication (Mest communications are relays of previous live originations). Communication involves symbols, hence Symbolizingness. 6. The perception chakra (eye level or a bit above) Energy related to the 6th dynamic or physical universe. Lookingness. 7. The thought chakra (top of the head) Energy relating to the 7th dynamic, thought or theta, postulates, etc. Thinkingness. 8. The crown chakra (halo above the head) Energy relating to the 8th dynamic, creation, etc. Knowingness. The 8th one is often collapsed to the top of the head, but this is a degraded position. The natural position is above. It may be that worshipping another source as god and abandoning your responsibilities as a part of god is what causes it to collapse. Instead of trying to force it back up above the head, you might handle incidents of it collapsing down just like we handle ext/int (the being interiorizing is the earlier begining to his attempting to exteriorize) and pay special attention to abandonment of causation and responsibility and wishing for somebody else to have been the one who created what you just made and regretted. The tricks for making GE anchor points visible and handling them also work for the chakras. Mockup copies of them around the body until the real ones become visible, etc. There are lots of interesting things that can be done with this. Have Fun, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - To Homer About Charge TO HOMER ABOUT CHARGE On Oct 10, 1997 "Homer W. Smith" responded to my earlier post on subject "Super Scio Tech - Homers Enhance/Ruin Process" > > It does seem like you're doing things to stir up charge. > > Possibly pulling in charge in the hope of getting answers > > as to why you are in the condition that you're in. > > > > Unfortunately, that doesn't work well. You need to reduce > > the charge, and then spot answers with a clear head. > > I disagree with your analysis. > > One needs to restimulate charge in order to blow charge. Not if the charge is already restimulated. If you can get it all keyed out, then you can selectively restimulate one thing at a time and blow it. That is the fastest way. It is slow going while a case is over restimulated. They have their attention on too much at once and there is little free attention left to look further in any area. So things run slowly and shallowly and the wins and cogs tend to be small. Once you get the case flying (mostly FNs at session start), they run fast and easy with big cogs and gains. Of course you restimulate them with each process, but they have nothing else in restim at the same time, so they often push to maximum depth (relatively speaking) on a few commands and pull apart something major. > For example, much of what is going on in my body is simply > suppressed sorrow, tears never cried. By stirring up and finding the > sorrows, they get cried and the body gets released to that degree. If the tears and grief are actually coming off and things are errasing, then this is fine. If, on the other hand, one is sitting there with an excessivly high or low TA and grinding slowly away at the area, then the best course is to cool it down first. Then you can come back at it with renewed strength, or undercut it, or hit the area from another angle of attack. This can easily make a speed difference of ten or even a hundred to one. > One is operating the ruin/enhance thing anyhow all day long, > by spotting the exact areas where it is operating the most at > odds with itself, one can then operate it consciously rather > than conpulsively. > > One gets up in the morning and feels floating dread and doom. > > By finding what it is about, one can operate the co opposed > flows and release it. I agree with your statement here but not with the specific process as it was presented in your earlier post. By getting Itsa on what is there, one can indeed reduce or blow the charge. By duplicating the energies in operation, one can re-exert control over them. But one can muck about with questions that restimulate more than they get you to Itsa. In which case one needs to rethink the process and come up with a better command. > One only blows charge by finding what it is about and > reoperating it. > > That is all I ever do. > > Telling me that there is some charge I had better not look at > is going to fall on deaf ears as the charge I am not looking at > IS the charge I should be looking at. Any charge I know about is > not worth looking at as it is persisting due to underlying charge > I am not looking at. There are 3 categories here rather than 2. I agree that there is no charge that you'd better not look at. But there is charge that you are capable of looking at, and when you look you can get Itsa and duplication and handle things. And then there is charge that is just too far out of reach, and all you do is stir it up without looking at it. If you can look at it, then by all means do so. But if your Itsa is cut in the area, then get the damn thing off your plate until you can look at it effectively. > > I have recently had fantastic success with a process for > > knocking out what one is attracting compulsively and > > trying to get away from. > > > MOCKUP A WAY TO HAVE MORE ____ > > "How could you make this worse?" > "Make more of it." > > Been posting this for YEARS, love. > > Making more of it is THE basic Adorian process. Yes, of course. The exact command as given can be successfully flattened as a repetative process. I've fooled around with a lot of this kind of processing. It goes all the way back to GITA in the 1952 materials. Generally this stuff functions like strain relief rather than running spectacularly. I was looking for an equivallent to "Mock up a way to waste ___". That one does flatten repetatively, often with a spectacular result. But it is aimed at a stuck flow in the opposite direction. So I finally came up with the "Mock up a way to have more ___". Note that it is just mocking up ways, repetatively, bang, bang, bang. If the particular target is charged, you should feel the ridge blow. Other variations are still useful for building up skill and confront and havingness, but this one is the one shot kick it in the teeth variation. > "The way out is the way in." The way out is either the way in, or the way through, or to jump sideways, depending on circumstances. Each has their place. Even the org is not so stupid as to try to get the PC "through" an overrun by overrunning him some more. For some things, backing out the way you came in is indeed correct. Then again, if you are moving forward successfully, you don't let yourself be stopped by things getting in your way. But if you have to cross one of the Great Lakes, you would be best off jumping sideways and changing the rules of the game. Build a cannoe instead of trying to keep walking forward into the lake. > "At first they said it wasn't true." > "Then they said it wasn't important." > "Then they said they knew it all along." > > It has always been the last ditch process to loosen up the thing > when it got real bad. Only failed on me once a few weeks ago when the > breathing thing was going out of control. > > Homer Certainly keep using whatever is keeping your head above water. But do try to reduce the restimulation and raise your horsepower. Things will go easier. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - RALPH'S NEW NOTS PROCESS RALPH'S NEW NOTS PROCESS On 19 Nov, 97, ralph@atnet.at (Ralph Hilton) posted on subject "NOTs" > According to Scientology 8-8008 NOTs is a limited procedure. It > validates negative aspects of case too much. > > From observation people who run it too long deteriorate. > But there is an appealing aspect to it in that its a fairly simple > procedure. > But there is perhaps a simple approach that addresses NOTs without > negating self. > One could hypothesize that the NOTs case is pulled in as a substitute > for lost beingness. > > Based on that hypothesis: > > 1. Locate a bt/cl/mass. > 2. Pose the question: "What lost aspect of my own beingness is that a > substitute for"? > 3. Spot the time and place of the dissassociation/ separating of that > beingness from self. > 4. Spot the beginning of the prior confusion to the separation. > > I haven't tried it on anyone else yet. > Running it myself I find the bt vanishes without any address to its > case. > > Anyone wanna be a guinea pig :-) > > Ralph This is brilliant. I'm alreay having cogs with it. Of course I've blown Nots stuff left, right, and center, running it to the S/Nots EP and then overrunning it endlessly thanks to the wrong why of thinking that Nots was the basic source of case. I discussed that a good bit in the Super Scio book. So I didn't look for a bt/cl/mass. Instead, I recalled blowing some back when I was running Nots to death. It left vacumes. This is why I got so frantic on trying to address the subject of split pieces of myself. When I first did OT3, I just knew immediately that it was a criss cross implant, we each fragmented and put pieces of ourselves onto each other as "BTs". The idea didn't bother me and I didn't worry about it and simply worked at blowing things. OT3 went to a nice EP. I was able to run Nots too, knowing about this business but ignoring it and making good progress. Then I went too far with the Nots processing. Vacumes left behind. Screwed up emptynesses and energy imbalances which I could hardly percieve but which were kicking me in the teeth. Without quite seeing it or what was going on, I became really bothered about this split self business. Went half crazy trying process after process and chronically getting sick on the stuff but just knowing it was the thing that had to be handled. The writeup on that is in chapter 6 of Super Scio. Finally I found the "point to the being you divided from" process and it worked easily and I felt better and began running out the splits that way. But I didn't see the relationship until you posted this process. The whole damn thing falls into place. I would suggest a step to be added, which should be done without prejudice (don't force something to be there if you don't spot something). See if you can spot the beingness of yours that was separated and have it "point to the being you divided from". Exmple: Under the impact of, let us say, a mass implant, I split off a piece which is my "godlike identity" and I end up as the remnant "human idenity". This split piece was jammed onto somebody else and someone else's "godlike identity" was jammed onto me, and I grab it at that time because I feel the loss and the vacume. Then I blow this thing of somebody else's on OT 3 or Nots and that's good but now the vacume is back. So maybe I suck in another BT to fill the hole. Or maybe I'm lucky and expand to fill the gap. It does seem like I was able to run quite far on Nots before this became a major factor. I can't say for sure whether this is runnable from the start or only shows up later. Wow. Much thanks. ============ In another post, Ralph posted the following question - > I don't perceive that anyone on Clear-L or who is running a "Clearing > tech" group is fully able to grant beingness to terminals of > comparable magnitude. Sometimes it seems to me that some actually > believe that there aren't any. Perhaps there are exceptions. I have > yet to meet one. I met a few in EST but never isolated the key factor > that Werner partially resolved and Hubbard didn't seem to get close > to. Nor, obviously, a way of translating it into Scientologese. > > I've been looking for a simple approach to this factor. Any ideas? It does seem to be a common denominator of tech finders who evolved through Scientology rather than on some other line. Note that it is common but not always present in gurus in other fields such as science or computers. So it is possible that Werner was simply getting the usual percentage of humble vs arrogant geniuses. In Scientology, on the other hand, it takes tremendous arrogance and certainty of self to even dare to question the most trivial thing that Hubbard said. So only the arrogant even begin to think for themselves. I'm probably just as bad on this line as Alan or Michael. But I think it is very dangerous. So I keep reminding myself of Hubbard and how he ended up. During the 1952-4 time period, he moved with a speed and depth that was just fantastic. But he got too full of himself and stopped listing to others. And eventually he just went solid. There are hardly any new ideas after 1954, it is mostly just refinement, better ways to run the same things, rather than further advances in basic theory. You can't go it alone. You've got to listen to others. You've got to accept others ideas as well as your own. We cover each other's weak spots. And the real game is to figure it all out and set ourselves free. It is not a game of one-upmanship. We shouldn't be competing for the staring role in "The Battle of the Service Facs". Thanks again, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - More on AMs MORE ON AMs I've been poking a little bit more at the AM (Animal Mind) stuff and Michael Mourer's writings. First, I'd like to point out that he has one very dangerous idea, and that is the belief that everything comes from AM Emote. That is worse than the CofS idea that all case and somatics after Clear comes from BTs. Michael's idea is worse because he makes even more grandious claims than the org does about Nots. Note that I do believe BTs exist. And I can spot something on these AMs too. But if you start assigning all cause to either of these factors, you're going to go into a tailspin, because you will mis-own every damn bit of case that you have left. But I don't want to shut Michael up or discourage anyone who is making gains with his stuff. I would simply suggest that they run it on whatever it runs well on and not make assumptions about other things coming from there as well. The original audited Nots messed up PCs. Most of the people who got it during that first year needed extensive repair. The big flaw was assuming that things came from BTs and running unreading items as a result. So if a person had a somatic, and they did not have a BT reading in the area, they ran a "BT" anyway (probably having the PC drag one in there or mock one up without meaning to). They probably still think that the somatic must be from a BT and there is just too much suppress to allow it to read. But they know that if they force the PC to run it under those circumstances, the PC will get worse. So they leave him alone. In practice, the guy will probably get rid of about ten percent of his somatics by doing Nots. You can't tell which somatic goes with what. Some headaches are out-int, some are from engrams, some are from overts, some are from BTs, some are from other screwups in energy, some are probably from screwed up chakras, some are probably from screwed up GE anchor points, some might even come from AMs, and of course the guy might actually have a hole in his head. You can't look at any manifestation and assume that you know what it comes from. The only stuff that I've been able to find which has that peculiarity of answering up to "animal mind" is on the emotional band. And its not all emotion, just some of it. I think that it comes from some kind of early implant that involves extensive fragmentation and self replicating machinery. But realize that its always you who is really doing it. One of the interesting perceptions I had while reading over Michael's stuff was an awareness of mocking up things which in turn mocked up things which in turn mocked up things and so on. I think that it applies to a lot more than just AMs. It is a very profound and useful insight. If I write a computer program which will in turn generate programs, or write a multi-threaded program which keeps generating new threads to handle things, or even write a self replicating virus program, the final programs generated are still my creation, and I work to fix and debug them and so forth even though I did not write them directly. In this case, I would generally be fixing the generator of the programs rather than the flawed results. It all still comes back to me in the long run. And it would be exceedingly slow to fix each copy, especially when the code generator is probably spewing them out very quickly. Instead you examine the copies a bit and then fix the generator itself. Hence my suggestion to permeate the whole damn thing and have it spot being made into an animal mind. It does work if you can permeate and intend well enough. If you can't, you'd probably be better off building up your muscels on other things until you can. But I still haven't spotted the earlier reason why this was mocked up in the first place. That would be the really powerful undercut. That might blow apart the entire emotional system (the tone scale will blow on handling the penalty universes, but not the underlying emotions themselves). - --------------- On Oct 24, Michael - amismm@aol.com (AMismm) replied to Alan on subject "A PC fighting for Survival" > You keep trying to equate it to The LRH stuff. The LRH stuff > addrresses only the emote of the of the AMs or the Emote of > what the PC thinks, incorrectly is him/her. Pretty extreme remark. Since looking at the wall is LRH stuff, the only possible interpretation is that the wall itself is an AM emote. The minimum proof would require walking through walls in front of witnesses, not just once but at will and on demand. These things do happen sporatically, so we know it can be done. Since nobody can demonstrate consistant repeatable cause over mest (like the physists do), we know that our theories are incomplete. And since Mest is fairly low on the scale, even that is not a guarantee of ultimate answers but simply the price of admission. Don't box yourself into a corner with grandious claims. Look what happened to Ron. Leave yourself room to percieve and manuver and handle as new factors present themselves. And note that most of the LRH stuff works exceedingly well in most cases as long as you don't try to solve everything with it or try to use it to control and enslave people. - ---------------- There is a very intresting remark a few pages into the AM manual. > Much later, again mistakenly, you thought you were all of the > thoughts, emotions, talk, effort and such emanated by your > created thought/energy structures. > > This was the end. > > Your spiritual death. I quite like this, although I'm reading it literally instead of the way that Michael intended. Contemplating this rehabbed the clear state for me. Take "created thought/energy stuctures" literally instead of limiting it to Michael's AMs. Consider it to be all the addatives, whether AMs or GPMs or game spheres or codes or problem/solution chains or ARCXs or anthing else including things that we haven't yet got a clue about. Consider that the being either thinks that he is that stuff or he separates from it and realizes that it is not him but simply something he projects. Separating from it and seeing it as different from yourself instead of confusing yourself with it is the state of clear and is another slant on the clear cog. In realizing deep down that you are mocking it up, you become separated from it instead of being it. It doesn't mean that it is gone, just like exteriorizing from the body doesn't mean that the body disappears. But now you can look at it and manipulate it instead of being stuck in it and at the effect of it. That is a nice new definition of clear. Being exterior to the bank. It means that you can think instead of reacting. This did happen for me when I went clear. Since then I always have a moment of free choice and decision before I react or dramatize something or have an ARCX or whatever. Often I will go ahead and ARCX (for example) anyway, because this doesn't handle the reason I'm ARCXing, but I always have the chance to look first instead of simply reacting. I think that most clears have this, but I don't actually know for sure. I'd be interested in hearing other's ideas on this. Michael does have insightfull things to say. If only he could stop hobby horseing about the AMs and broaden his viewpoint, he could be a really powerful researcher. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Freezone Code FREEZONE CODE In Message-ID: <3443c864.33396394@news.atnet.at>, Address@bottom.of.mail (Ralph Hilton) wrote: [snip] >Let me pose a question: > >Given that there are a group of people who want to practice the >technology of Scientology outside the CofS however ludricous that >might seem to some here what codes could they put in place that could >prevent their organization ever becoming corrupt in the way the CofS >has? > >I would suggest for starters: > >1. A practitioner would never write down or record anything stated by >a client that could be used for blackmail. > >2. That the technology and cosmology in use by the group should be >available for examination by anyone at a reasonable price. (What >constitutes a reasonable price would require discussion). I believe >that the success of a group dedicated to such work depends on the >competence and ethics level of its practitioners not on any secret >technology. > >3. That the group should never restrain individuals from leaving with >any form of spiritual or emotional threat. > >Those are just the ones that occur to me in the moment. A really good idea. On 14 Oct, Paper Tiger gave a nice discussion on including a point to eliminate the fair game and "its ok to lie to wogs" mentality. Since she didn't try to summarize it into a bullet point, I'll give it a try. 4. To treat non-believers and critics honorably and with respect. And I'd like to add a few more. 5. To accept the gains made by the client in any practice even if it disagrees with the practictioner's pet theories. 6. To refrain from correcting imagined errors which only exist on the basis of theory and are not apparent in the case one is handling. 7. To validate any gains that the client makes on his own. That last one is to push for getting people to grow rather than keeping them under one's thumb. Of course we should be sure to keep the most critical point of the orthodox auditors code. 8. To not invalidate the client's case or gains in or out of session. This is just off the top of my head. I'm sure that there are more. On to the next man. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering Steve & Sarah on Errors ANSWERING STEVE & SARAH ON ERRORS On Oct 12, Steve 'n Sarah (Tech@proweb.co.uk) posted a message on the subject "Pilot is in error/part one" The text was base64 encoded with the header missing so that it didn't automatically decode (I double checked, WinZip decodes it easily if you add a .b64 extension). This generated a lot of confusion, so Robert Ducharme (VoltR@ctinet.net) reposted the encrypted text asking for help and sur-ya@usa.net was kind enough to decode it for the newsgroup. To which "Steve 'n Sarah" responded with subject line "Apologies are in order (to you that is)" as follows - > Listen up. > > We sent a file (the wrong one) to clear-l which became garbled and you > merely decoded it and reposted. > You may have been identified as the originator of this post by some people. > Our sincere apologies for this (and some admiration for your technical > expertise). > Please feel free to point the error out and- if you so desire,to post this > message to clear-l to show that such misidentification > has occured.We will naturally confirm this via E-mail to anyone who wants > to know. > Sorry for the error. > > Steve G./Sarah H. I assume that they meant to post the message but picked up an incorrect copy (without the base64 header). So here is their message and my response. > The Authors of this document draw the attention of the pilot to the > following errors in the "SUPER SCIO" book. > We would like to point out that the Pilot's thinking is admirable in > most areas but has made some curious statements that violate well > known technical discoveries in the field. > We will examine areas that may need correction by quoting the pilot then > giving our view along with the technical quotations,where appropriate that > reinforce the view expressed. > The original book may be obtained from the 'clearing.org' > archives. > Comments may be sent to this list. (by "this list" I think that they mean Homer's Clear-l) > 1) From SS01a.txt (line 842) > > > The Cof$ is currently anti-homosexual.Homosexuals are currenly > > blocked from doing upper levels. > > This is a correct idea.The purpose of a family unit is to provide new > bodies for the future and homosexual 'family' units violate this concept. > If everyone became gay tonight,humanity as a species would cease to exist > in about 100 years,destroying the 1st,2nd and 4th Dynamics.These practices > are harmful to those Dynamics and there is no evidence that they assist > any of the others. > Homosexuality is a destructive act and the Churchies are right to > condemn its practice.On this point,Pilot seems to condone a destructive > act and is invited to explain. I don't see it as a destructive act. A number of other posters have already given excellent rebuttals to this one, so I will simply say that I audited many homosexuals (male and female) in the old days and they were, on the average, neither easier nor harder to audit than anybody else and had no special difficuties making gains. Since they can make gains with the tech, there is no reason for putting in Ethics (Ethics exists to get tech in). If it is an abberation, then it would disappear after enough auditing, if it is not, then it wouldn't. In either case, it is not for us to judge. If our goal is to set people free, then we must come to accept what they do with that freedom as long as they don't use it to destroy the freedom of others. > 2) From SS02b.txt (line 977) > > > The Mud universe is very solid,feeling like molasses.The goal of this > > Universe is to persist" > > It is suggested that the Pilot listen to SHSBC\316 "Errors in Time" which > is also NED cassette 4.On page 49 of the NED transcripts it is clearly > stated.. > > "Now I'll give you some idea of the influence of false track upon this > society;The Darwinian theory,which probably influenced Pavlov to the greatest > degree,is just an implant.That is an implant from man to mud.And it starts > out,oddly enough,with the goal 'to persist'......"; > > Pilot may like to review his entire cosmology since at least some of it is > now rather suspect.In fairness,no cosmological material will be reviewed by > us until a reissued version of the cosmology is available. Yes, I have heard the tape, and even tried to run the Darwinian implant in an R3R session during my OT preps many years ago (I discussed this in another post - see the posting archive on the Pilot homepage). Just because something is in an implant does not mean it is not also real. Helatrobus includes staircases for example. Implanters may use things that exist, or the implant may result in the subsequent actual creation of the thing implanted. And note that the implant says that we are evolving from mud rather than sinking towards it, it is a backwards datum. I do wonder about having found goals associated with various universes, but the goal "To Survive" really does seem to be associated with the current universe and it appears in the "implant" that leads one here and does represent the game of this universe, so it seems reasonable to assume that all of these later degraded universes have a goal suggested as one enters them. But I am not alone in spotting this Mud universe. Ron also mentions it as being the next one below us in one of the 1950s tapes. Note that the Cosmic History is presented as an approximation rather than perfection. I would be very happy to see others do a better job at it, but I would expect to see real work and a great deal of data aligned. In this case, I had collected material for years without having it in good alignment, and then suddenly it all seemed to fall into place and form a fairly cohesive whole. I gained a great deal of insight from putting it together in the pattern presented. It could still be twisted by my own non-confronts. I am far from perfect. But I do think that I'm past the point of getting mislead by some silly false track in one of the lesser implants. > The Authors would like to suggest to the Pilot that S/He has been less > than truthful about some (2-specifically) of the personal anecdotes > written in the book.It is not for us to refute the stories or to indicate > which ones are referred to,at this point since this may lead the identity > of the pilot being revealed but a refutation has been prepared and will > only be issued AFTER Pilot has revealed his/Her identity.At this point, > the Pilot is merely invited to confirm (or,of course,deny) > that some personal stories are less than 100 percent accurate and that > inaccuracies will be corrected when Pilot leaves 'Hiddenplace.Com' > and comes into the open. I actually have no idea about what you are referring to. There are a few omissions or even misleading impressions on trivial matters (nothing technical) done for the sake of protecting my identity. And it is possible that I misremembered something. But I was careful not to say anything false. But what I think is really the case here is that you have made an erroneous guess as to who I am. However, you are correct in recognizing that we should leave this matter alone until I reveal my identity. Playing guessing games is a good way to accidentally expose something or let OSA zero in by process of elimination. > To finalise on two happier notes. > > The Pilot has made a number of interesting statements about Commander > 'Snake' Thompson and we are pleased to announce that a search began in August > ,for both the book itself and personal details regarding the man.The results > of that search will be made available upon completion. This is good news. > Finally,in SS10a.txt,there is a lighthearted discussion of NOTS in Science > Fiction.The interested observer is directed to the STAR TREK:VOYAGER episode > in Season three (Flashback) in which the science officer is diagnosed as > suffering from 'Engrams'-Imagine his surprise when the memories under > analysis are discovered to belong,not to him,but to a discorperal parasite. Very good. The reference to Engrams would mean that they got the idea from Scientology. I didn't see the episode. > The authors took considerable pleasure in reviewing the "Super Scio" book > and,should a corrected edition become available,look forward to doing it > all over again.Until that time comes however,it is pointed out that > the serious scientist presents his research and invites criticism of such > with a view to refining his or her work.Pilot has done his job well,and > hopefully....so have we. > Another post will follow next week. > > Working Together:Gibbons & Hefver 1997 Yes, I do like constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement. I would not go to the major effort of re-issuing the book unless there was a significant amount of important corrections to be made. I did discover recently that in one of the chapters, I accidentally allowed the spellchecker to replace "motivator" with "motivate" so that the term overt/motivate sequence appears instead of overt/motivator. I plan to adjust my original comments about "Clear Baby" and "Captain Bill" in chapter 1, I have already mentioned these in internet posts. I have slightly more data on Hellatrobus and on Incident 1, but nothing that invalidates what is already in the book. And I have been coming up with more stuff, which I have been posting to the net, except for what is going into the self-clearing book which will be posted later this year. I don't see any reason to issue a second edition yet. It really needs much more techincal follow up by other people trying out the processes and platens first. Speaking of which, it doesn't seem to me that you have reviewed most of the book, but only chapters 1 and 2. I would be interested in your comments on chapter 4 for example. I can understand that you might not want to comment on platens or processes. But chapter 4 addresses basic auditing concepts. Could you introduce yourselves with a bit of background? I don't recognize your names. Even vague generalities will do if you have reason for avoiding specifics (as I do). May the tech be with you, The Pilot ========================================== The trailer used on all the above posts was - - ------------------ See the "SCIENTOLOGY REFORMER'S HOME PAGE" by the Pilot at http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~krasel/CoS/pilot.html or http://www.igs.net/~michaelv/scnreform.htm or The Pilots Home Page at http://super.zippo.com/~freezone/pilot/index.htm Get the Pilot materials (the 32 part SUPER SCIO book) at: ftp://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/pub/ss/index.html or from the Pilots Home Page or pick up the ss## files from Homer's archive at lightlink.com. All of this weeks posts will be collected in Super Scio Archive #14 and 15 and posted to ACT. The posting archives are also available on The Pilots Home Page. - ------------------ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAgUBNHRYussIt3ZgVQbNAQESfAP+NFZUth+pjJQDPi18r/WssQf/wkIw48R5 JKIjGOK4MQJIvT8uRzZPDCKhi/jAROau5BSweRgaQ/S2REIr1nsoyKxpohRkZ5re XvNDQVbQ3Q7KuvnHPSrrCthP0g3WcNBeUTdjkiSy5MdGE30m1mKKmzlPDzInuFzW E7HfPYSardU= =pEgZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----