Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology From: pilot@hiddenplace.com (The Pilot) Subject: Super Scio Archive - POST16.txt Date: 4 Dec 1997 14:00:22 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- POST16.txt SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 16 - Early DEC 1997 PILOT POSTS ========================================== Contents: subj : Super Scio - HOLLYWOOD WINTER WONDERLAND subj : Super Scio - ABOUT DARMA (JENNA ELFMAN) subj : Super Scio - World Takeover (answering Anonymous) subj : Super Scio - More on Sea Org Under Pressure subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering Homer about Thought subj : Super Scio - Self Auditing CofHA (answering Azeric) subj : Super Scio - Thanks for the Compliment (attn Robert) subj : Super Scio - Sophie's Choice subj : Super Scio - Answering Joe on S-Nots Stats subj : Super Scio - Book Includes OT Drills (Answering Robert) subj : Super Scio - Computerized E-Meters ========================================== subj : Super Scio - HOLLYWOOD WINTER WONDERLAND HOLLYWOOD WINTER WONDERLAND There has been some talk of holding Lisa MacPherson vigils in front of the Scientology Winter Wonderland on Hollywood Boulevard near Mann's Chineese. Don't be foolish. Don't interfear with kid's Christmas fun. Their parents will hate you for it, no matter how well you justify it. Anything you do around any Christmas setups must be in keeping with the spirit of Christmas. It must be fun and especially it must be fun for kids. Space aliens are a big hit with kids. They love them. Especially alien's with ray guns. Imagine 3 aliens, a set of ET brothers, wearing costumes with the names XEMU, XENU, and XENN stenciled on them and singing christmas carols in front of the display. Lots of fun for kids. Nothing that anybody in their right mind could object to. Nothing that anyone could even complain to the police about. They can't even say that they are being made fun of unless they want to bring out the secret scriptures. And nobody getting sick or going psychotic from watching those irresistible X men, three in name because the Scientologists can't even figure out for sure what the evil rulah's name was. Why am I encouraging such a nasty trick when I really do like Scientology tech? Because I think that that the crazy secrecy and the fanatacism about the horrible OT 3 incident is one of the things that makes the organization psychotic. Bringing it into view would be a healing action, just like getting a preclear to face something that he has been non-confronting. Seeing this space age version of the 3 wise men bringing joy to children and not making anybody sick will force many OTs to back up and rethink the premises that they have been operating on. We three beings from Marcab are ... bearing gifts, we travel afar having escaped from Xenu's mountain following yonder star Merry Xmas, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - ABOUT DARMA (JENNA ELFMAN) ABOUT DARMA (JENNA ELFMAN) Yes, Jenna Elfman is the new Scientology Celebrity who is staring in the Darma and Gregg sitcom on ABC wednesday nights. I love the show. I love the idea of Scientologists watching it (attracted by Jenna). Because it is a totally "New Age", "Mixing Practices", Freezone sort of show. I love it because if any current Scientologist lived Darma's life, they would be in Ethics within minutes. Scientologists in general really like New Age stuff because it is close to their own ideas. But the org hates it because its competition. They stamp it out furriously with the "mixing practices" rules. They have lost many people to Zen or whatever. So the Scientology public is loving this show, and ethics is having shit fits but they don't dare do anything because Jenna is a CELEBRITY and they MUST handle with kid gloves or else its the RPF for them. Do you see how neat this is? They are caught between two policies, each with dire penalties. Celebrities are sacrosanct and mixing practices is the devil incarnate. Jenna herself is a beginner. She has hardly done anything except beginner's level services such as the communications course (which she really liked) and she is at celebrity center where they are coddling her. She knows nothing of the OT stuff or the crazy policies or abuses. There is an interview with her printed in Celebrity magazine issue 307 which came out recently. She is very pro Scientology, but all she knows is some very nice beginners stuff. Here is a quote: "My success has come from Scientology, from learning to be a responsible human being. Forget about trying to be right. Help somebody. Give love. Give admiration. You can't lose by giving admiration and communicating, you absolutely cannot". Now these are good sentiments. Love, admiration, and communication really are wonderful things. And that is what Scientology should be about. And that is what I believe it once was about and should return to. Of course the Sea Org would say that she is spouting "theedie weedie bullshit". They would rather scare people into morgaging their homes with horror tales of implanting and psychs and the awful dangers of new age and squirrel tech. Just from the way that she plays her role and her skill at holding yoga positions and things like that, I suspect that she has come from a new age background herself. I would expect her to run into trouble fairly soon. I suspect that she would already be in trouble except for her celebrity status. This is not a Kirstie Allie recovering from drugs or a John Travolta being helped to recover from his girlfriend's death. People who joined Scientology for reasons like that were always the most fanatical and the least capable of evaluating the organization. The people who joined because they were seeking truth and had already fooled around with other practices were always the least tractible and the most trouble for the organization because they did have high ideals and alternative standards to judge things from. That may be the real reason for the tough rules on mixing practices and the constant dead agenting of any other metaphysical system. Its not just stomping out competition but also suppressing a potential source of revolution. So I would say that you should be very nice to this girl. Don't attack her or put her on the defensive. She seems smart and of good intentions. Maybe she should be sent some things, like the Reformer's home page, to help wake her up. But gentle, not rabid stuff. Get her to look around, to ask about what is happening with other people, to see how things really are, and to begin really thinking about what is going on. And support the show. Encourage them to show even more new age culture. Perhaps even write them suggesting how nice it would be to have David Mayo or Alan Walters on as a guest star. Or even Shirley MacLain or Carlos Castenadas. Its like waving a red flag infront of a bull. Let's get some popcorn and enjoy the action. With love and admiration, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - World Takeover (answering Anonymous) WORLD TAKOVER (ANSWERING ANONYMOUS) On 21 Nov, 97, Anonymous asked on topic "For the pilot" > Hi Pilot, > > On ARS I read all about the plans of the CoS and it's management > to overtake the world. My questions are: Management tells the ordinary Scientologists that this business of the CofS wanting to take over the world is just the "enemy line" meant to dead agent the CofS. I suspect that Int Management and the SO do have ideas like this, but many of the members would object. Any talk of taking over the world is always excused as meaning that the ideas and tech will spread over the world and take it over in the sense that Christianity took over the western world. The active membership likes the idea of the tech spreading all over the world. Many of them would object strenuously to the idea of any kind of a physical takeover. Even the loyalists would have nightmares if they thought that the local Ethics officer or Sea Org reg might be given power over the local city government. So if there are intentions like this at the higher levels within the Sea Org (and I think that there are), they are careful never to let them be pinned down or proven because it would drive off a lot of the membership. > 1. Do you think that this compares to similar groups in that > sure they state this stuff, but how real is the threat to any of us? Unless you have a war machine like Hitler's, the threat to us is trivial. > 2. Doesn't current CoS activity do more damage in the long run? As a generality, I would say yes. But I'm not sure exactly what your question is here. > 3. Do you think the German Government is overreacting to Scientology? Definitely. I think that it is very wrong for them to persecute Scientology as a religion. That makes things worse and puts Germany in a bad position. They might have defensible reasons for being leary of the Sea Org as a political organization. They should limit themselves to that. I really don't like it because the persecution strengthens the loyalists. It gives them a real example of needing to unite and support command intention because otherwise the evil goverments (under control of the evil german psychs) will have us all shot. The German situation almost makes this bullshit seem real. How many German Scientologists who were tempted to bail out and join the freezone have turned around and decided that they have to support the orthodox organization in its hour of need? If the German government had attacked and exposed the Sea Org and the corporation only and shown truth to the ordinary Scientologists while continuing to be nice to them, they would have hastened the rush into the freezone. The whole thing seems like a fiasco. Nothing good in it for either side. But maybe it helps the CofS more than it hinders it. > Also please put your pgp key on a keyserver. You can submit it > via anonymous remailers. Its at the end of each copy of "The Scientology Reformer's Home Page" which is up at the various websites. Note that the top level index pages are done by the individual hosts. None of them has thought to extract the key and make it available separately, possibly because nobody has asked up until now. I posted things like the reformer's home page and reform Scientology now / the org's grades are out, in HTML, including the PGP key at the end, and posted them to this newsgroup. It is the volenteer hosts who picked them up and put them onto their web sites. Note that even if your browser doesn't let you copy a segment of a web page to your clipboard, you can always save the entire page and use a text editor to copy the PGP key at the end. I've been assuming that anyone capable of installing PGP would also be up to pulling a key off of the end of a webpage or extracting it from a post. I've attached it to this post, but you should compare it to one that is up on the web to be sure that it hasn't been doctored on its way to you. > My Hat's mad Really? Have you tried giving it electroshock? I had a baseball cap once that thought it was a Marcabian Fedora. One jolt of the good old 120 volts fixed it up nicely. Best, The Pilot - -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6 mQCNAjOXMNYAAAEEAOmWNw5YRwWJTiAAuRUVjsIOwQgWAxcj5gV1/oIrE6RpabWq qWsItc20hdH5oWOtmWNp8Ds/dGXdZqIUeLQIyBlzCChayk0nwBO2o/3lQFNaMVDV L4/vqfoNM0YYwQwl3768G/jxR0hW+wecMgySpDi53WQ+lq17JAaiYNA/uGaNAAUR tBt0ZXN0aWQgPHRlc3RpZEBub3doZXJlLmNvbT4= =vY8g - -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- ========================================== subj : Super Scio - More on Sea Org Under Pressure MORE ON SEA ORG UNDER PRESSURE On 21 Nov, 97, grahameb@aol.com (GrahamEB) responded to my post "Super Scio - SEA ORG UNDER PRESSURE" with the following - > I believe, pilot, that you are right. My bet is that Starkey will make > the move."I am relieving you of your command." I do not think Marty, > the two Mikes, Epstein, or Leserve have the balls or backbone to do > it - but Norman Starkey is another matter. The Trustee of the LRH > Estate. Of course, MSH, now there is salvatation and a brand new > beginning. Or a real new beginning, Princess Suzzette or Princess > Dianna, with Norman and the two Mikes as the powers behind the > thrones and with DM moved aside to a titular ceremonial but powerless > post under total watch. > > Graham Berry Do you know anything about Norman Starkey? I don't, and it bothers me. I either know or know about or at least have little rumors and stories concerning most of the big names. He is the exception. Is he a good guy or potentially a worse tyrrant than Miscaviage? I think that one of the key factors is the high up technical staff, especially in Florida and California. They may be close to revolt. A word from someone they trusted, such as Mary Sue or even Dianna, and a majority might back a play for control. The CofS barly survived the Galatic Patrol and Mayo technical revolts. They bled profusely from those. And that was with Ron still alive and supposedly overseeing things. Many stayed because they wouldn't desert LRH. Imagine if Ron hadn't been there and the choice had been between Mayo and Miscaviage. Remember that the membership thought that they were choosing between Mayo and LRH. The real choice that they were making was not apparent to them. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering Homer about Thought ANSWERING HOMER ABOUT THOUGHT On 28 Nov 97, "Homer W. Smith" responded to my earlier post on " Super Scio Tech - CHAKRAS" The double > > are his quotes of my earlier post. > > Eating and Sex have somehow a dichotomious nature. One is used to > > intake the creations of (an)other(s), making the form from something > > into nothing, the other is creating from nothing into something, > > when scarcity occurs. > > LRH said eating DEATH sex. > > Without eating there would be no death, and without death > there would be no need of sex. > > Eating doesn't just refer to animals eating animals, but to > any form of destruction. A volcano overruning a village is a form > of eating. > > Phoenix Lectures I believe. Yes, he talked around the ideas in 1954 and I do remember something about death in the various discussions. But it didn't end up on his final version of the scale. Its still an interesting point to consider, but it didn't fit into the pattern I was working out in the Chakras post. > > >Know > > >Think > > >Look > > >Symbols > > >Emotion > > >Effort > > >Sex > > >Eat > > LRH made a distinction between THOUGHT and THINKING. > > A thought ("a pink elephant") is a creative outflow of postulates > images and ideas. > > Thinking is a figure figure about a thought and as such comes > way below looking, emotion and effort. Good point. But there is something missing here. Besides thought as a creative postulate (at the top) and thought as figure figure (at the bottom), there is also constructive consideration and thinking about things. I'm sure you must do this all the time. Constructive figure figure that leads to something rather than going around in circles. LRH talked about doing that all the time, evaluating things, sorting things out, visualizing various ways of handling things, considering things, speculating about things, and so forth. But there is this dead agenting that he does on the area. Act instead of thinking about it. Don't look before you leap. Just dive in. Early on I think that he was just trying to get people to move off of stuck points. But later it might be to keep from being questioned. > Symbols refered to the Orientation Point - Symbol theory, when > people were no long able to think about (figure figure on) things as they > are, they took to figure figuring with a substitute, namely symbols. > The word became the item. > > Thetans shift over into becoming a symbol when they try to get > others to think about (figure figure) about them. Now that's a really interesting point. I sort of fell into it naturally without actually having thought of this idea. I really wanted OSA and the RTC to be thinking about and figure figuring on the stuff that I put in the Super Scio book. I do have a goal to do something about the orgs and I wanted to rock the boat and maybe wake some people up rather than just running off into the freezone. So of course I was inspired to pick a symbol that would be of great significance to CofS OTs and use it as my handle. I did have other reasons for my choice, but I probably would have discarded any prospective choices that didn't also have this effect of getting the CofS to go into a figure figure. > Homer > -------- I also thought that the following from your post of 28 Nov 97 was very smart. > > Robert at what point is a person done with running > > GPM's and what might the next area too be adressed > > be, > > Practice creating new ones. > > Homer I think that Robert is really running some kind of postulate / counter-postulate masses rather than what I think of as GPMs. So I practiced mocking up a postulate and mocking up a counter postulate to it and holding them there together. Just something simple like, "time to get out of the chair" and "no, lets sit some more", and then kept both ideas going at once. Feels like running black and white or some high powered energy drill. Really shakes up something very basic and early on the track. I'm still playing around with this one, but its really something. If I can flatten it successfully, I'll put it in the book because its really easy to do and seems to turn on a lot of horsepower. -------- Speaking of which, I'd better get back to working on the book. Toughest writing I've ever done. I keep going over it again and again looking for holes and potential trouble spots or ways to take some area a bit further. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Self Auditing CofHA (answering Azeric) SELF AUDITING C OF HA (ANSWERING AZERIC) On 20 Nov 97, azeric asked on subject Self processing gains - > I have a copy of Creation of Human Ability. The processes are to be run > by an auditor on someone, but I have done some of the processes solo and > have liked them. I don't think I'll get restimulated or stuck in > something because I am not using any process that might deal directly > with some charged incident. I was wondering if anyone else has had > success running the processes in this book solo ? Yes they can be self audited. These processes are from the 8th American ACC (Advanced Clinical Course) given in 1954. Ron was always telling the ACC students that the self auditing rules didn't apply to anybody who trained in the subject, it was only for public PCs. When I trained on level zero (right after taking the communications course, there was no other prequisite in 1966), I self audited the grade while listening to the tapes and they rehabilitated the grade EP that I got from that in my next review session. Aside from that, I had only had a few hours of auditing (reviews) at that time. Shortly thereafter, I was sitting around reading CofHA and decided to run Route 1 on myself. It was really neat and worked well. Of course the perceptions were vague and mostly imagination with only a few bits of real perception. But it probably set me up for the big keyed out OT state I hit in the following year after getting a few hours of processing up through grade 5A (one process per grade). It was the most powerful state I've ever been in (unfortunately unstable) including violation of physical universe laws in front of witnesses. And I had no withholds in those days about self auditing because it was only forbidden if you were in the middle of an HGC intensive (mustn't mix major actions). So if anything had ever given me trouble, I would have had no qualms about brining it up on a review. Nothing ever came up or read on an emeter about overrun or incomplete actions on any of those OT drills (or on the doctorate course stuff which I self audited the following year). And I did things sloppy as all hell. It just doesn't create the same degree of trouble as getting audited by somebody else because you are taking responsibility for your own case instead of handing it off to an auditor. - ------ In another post of Nov 20, azeric asked on subject "For 'The Pilot': What is your opinion of Knowledgism?" - > I am interested in spiritual gains. I looked at the Knowledgism web site > and they had some processes listed. I understand the founder, Alan, has a > background in sceintology. Have you examined his processes or writings > at all? As you have an extensive tech background, what is your opinion of > it? In general I like Alan and I have a good opinion of what I have looked at so far. But I have not studied Knowledgism extensively. I'm not sure which processes he has up on the website currently, but the processes of his that I have seen or tried out seem to be well done and in accordance with basic theory. Scientology in the 1950s laid a broad basic foundation. Modern orthodox Scientology only followed up on about 10 percent of that broad base and in 1965 Hubbard closed the door on the possiblity of others in the CofS following up on the remainder. Alan is often working with different areas than the ones that I am following up on or the ones that CofS does have in use, but his ideas fit well into the overall pattern. His biggest potential outpoint is that he is working so very hard to distance himself from Scientology that he may have discarded too much. He was a very highly trained old time Scientologist who ran a large mission network and now he wouldn't even mention the word Scientology (he only refers to it as "a former practice"). This is not a problem for me because I look at his works as additions rather than seeing them in isolation. The lighting in our homes required Faraday's formulas and Edison's work on DC and Tesla's work on AC and somebody to put these all together into a workable hybrid. That joking post that I put out about "Keeping Electricity Working" was not all that farfetched. Edison tried to dead agent Tesla to the degree that he actually put on demonstrations of electrocuting cats with AC and called it "tesslarizing" the cats, the argument being that AC was dangerous and DC was the only safe current to use. Westinghouse and General Electric eventually made peace and shared the patents for both systems between themselves and developed the modern super system which is the result of "mixing practices" and works ten times better than either system individually. Edison gave wonderful things to mankind but he would have killed all other research in the field if he'd been allowed to. The same could be said about Ron. I think that it is a very big puzzel and we need all the tech finders that we can get. Good Luck, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Thanks for the Compliment (attn Robert) THANKS FOR THE COMPLIMENT On 20 Nov, VoltR@ctinet.net (Robert Ducharme) posted on subject "Re- Super Scio Archive... (PILOT please note)" > Ralph, > > Thanks a lot for thinking of us and posting the Pilot series. I have to > hand it to this guy, he certainly is prolific as well as being > understandable and knowledgeable. His stuff makes for very good and > entertaining reading. I just wish he'd come out of the closet and start a > new free zone movement. I think he'd have a lot of followers, even amongst > the more snobbish elite. If an election were to take place for leader of > the free zone hypothetical world org, he would certainly get my vote. > > I'd vote for Alan for Div 6 and Div 2 sec, Christine for H.A.S. (freezone > equivalent) and E.O., Ralph for Qual Sec, Enid for Tech Sec, L.G. for > traveling musician and P.R. man, Heidrun for H.E.S. or O.E.S., Homer for > Guardian, and the rest could fill various tech posts. The AM man could be > our live demo of what can happen when tech is allowed to go too far amok. > ;-) Koos? Well, enough said. > > Robert Thank you, I found this quite flattering. Unlike some other people, I did notice that you said "HYPOTHETICAL" and took this to be a toung in cheek characterization of the various people on A.C.T. The mention of Koos should have clued everyone in. I do expect to come out of the closet eventually, but that would let various people at the CofS sleep better. As to movements, I think more in terms of many free individuals catching a common target in a cross fire rather than having troups marching in ranks. Gordon Dickenson's science fiction novel "The Tactics of Mistake" illistrates this principle. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Sophie's Choice SOPHIE'S CHOICE On 29 Nov, nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) asked on subject "Sophie's choice" > Should I learn to be OT or learn to be an auditor? > > Post your suggestions. > > Sophie (Scientologist and proud to be on the Bridge) If you "learn to be an OT", the main skill that you will learn is how to flow big bucks to Flag and how to be in compulsive agreement with command intention. And maybe some other nifty tricks like how to write knowlege reports or disconnect from friends and family. If you learn to audit, you will actually be learning to work with the mind and able to do things. I never saw any real manifestation of OT abilities from anyone who was not highly trained as an auditor. Sometimes the manifestations come about through training alone without any upper level materials. A class 4 auditor who has managed to train without having his ability to think and observe destroyed by crush ethics or overboard CSing is probably the the most advaced case state that is ever produced by the orgs in modern times. I say class 4 instead of class 6 or 8 only because trying to go further in the course room leaves more time to pull in the common malady of getting trained by force and ceasing to think. Class 4 gives you enough skill to read the tech volumes and listen to the BC tapes on your own and that is the way to study them while learning to think in the subject instead of learning to parrot standard tech. And you can do class 4 at an outer org that might (if you are lucky) actually have a good instructor instead of a sea org flunky who is not even trained on the levels that he is supervising. So the only real way to learn to be an OT is to learn to be an auditor. Actual understanding and ability are much more important than any certificate that they can give you. ARC, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Answering Joe on S-Nots Stats ANSWERING JOE ON S-NOTS STATS On 20 Nov, Joe Harrington replied to may post titled " Super Scio - S-Nots Course Stats" with the following question - > I assume the 3280 figure does not include those who finished > solo NOTS and went on to OT8? No. It includes all the OT8s too because they also have to pay for and redo SNOTS. The newsletter I was quoting from included a success story from an OT 8 who had gone back and done the SNOTS certainty course and was having wins from finally doing Nots right or something like that. Pathetic really. I don't think that many of the OT7 or OT8 completions are going back for this. Too much overrun and wrong case whys and paying for the same thing over and over again. This golden certainty business may cost them half of their remaining OTs. > Do you have an estimate on the number of OT8 completions? Unfortunately not. My guess would be about a thousand. > NOTS came out in 1978. Not including those who completed OT8, this > averages out to about 173 completions per year, over the last 19 years. > This is a rather dismal figure for an organization that claims "8 > million members". > > Joe They didn't let anybody complete until the mid 1980s (after Hubbard died if I remember right). Then it was only a few until they released OT8. They they started letting people attest so that they could sell them OT 8 on the ship. So about a thousand completed OT 7 all at once. Since then they let a few complete occasionally. Enough to keep up the enthusiasm. Many are still incomplete on S/NOTS and not auditing because they can't affort to pay for the next 6 month check at flag. They know how to audit it but they are not allowed to for economic reasons and are bogged. The stat is not just dismal, it is completely in the toilet. And an OT 8 completion has not even done any real OT drills yet like the old OT 7s did. So they are PreOTs who haven't even gotten started really. It has been a progression of less and less tech for more and more bucks. Of the old OT 7s, none of the untrained ones ever had any OT ability worth a damn, but sometimes the trained auditors who did these levels would have a brief flash of OT powers. Thats all long gone now. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Book Includes OT Drills (Answering Robert) THE BOOK INCLUDES OT DRILLS (Answering Rober Sepehrt) On 27 Nov 97, "Robert Sepehr" asked on subject "to PILOT" > I just had a question on the new book. Does it cover ground on > going past Clear? It neatly sidesteps the issue by starting out with OT drills immediately. The modern approach would require much too much training before a beginner could start self processing. Its fine if you are already trained as an auditor, but if you're not, the runway is too long because you would need to be able to fly ruds before you can start auditing. Even a CofS trained solo auditor does not have the skill to do a CS53 on himself if it is needed before the ruds will fly for the first time. A class 4 could do that on himself but a pure public solo auditor just isn't up to it. So the method must allow for running over a high TA and out ruds. And grades processes are the most difficult to audit solo. The OT drills are the easiest. In the 1950s they used OT drills on beginners. They never flew ruds and generally didn't even use an e-meter. And the 1950s is when we had the most occurances of keyed out OTs and dramatic super phenomena. But they pretty much bypassed the person's case and didn't do much about problems, overts, ARC breaks, and so forth. So the results were very unstable. The solution is to use the old style approach of high horsepower OT style objectives (almost all OT drills are objective processes done by the thetan rather than by using the body) to build horsepower and gradually introduce subjective processing such as the grades processes. Since the OT drills (such as those in Creation of Human ability) are objectives, they will run over out ruds and with the TA out of range. The book covers everything on the grades, but it takes its time, because it is the more difficult skill and the case already needs to be doing well to push through the grades style abberations. Things like implants are not brought up until about three quarters of the way through the book because they are mostly motivatorish distractions. The person needs to know about them (the book pulls no punches) but there are much more powerful processes done earlier. The book is designed to be done in a light and sloppy manner on a first pass, because that is needed to give you enough skill and understanding, and then followed with a thorough second pass that should give stability and high horsepower. In self processing, the person is taking responsibility for his own case instead of handing it off to an auditor, so many of the liabilities and potential difficulties fall away. A self processor will naturally skimp on things which are too difficult and the mind's protection is at maximum so there is little danger of any real trouble. With a small lineup of processes, this might leave the person without gains because none of them happen to hit right where he is sitting or address the particular areas that he is a bit more able to handle. The book contains thousands of processes. Some will bite. Some of the OT drills will fly. All he needs is one brief flash of true exterior perception and the whole case changes by an order of magnitude. I expect that most people will hit theta clear (about the level of old OT 6 or what may someday be new OT 12) a some point during the first pass. At a minimum, I expect that once somebody has gone through the book completely, even in a half assed manner, they will know enough and have enough confront and awareness to self audit anything in orthodox tech or freezone tech or the Super Scio book or metaphysics in general. Really being able to keep the ruds in means training through grade 3, and it takes about half the book to reach that point. But you'll have a ton of OT drills under your belt by that time. Since a true ext/int rundown (exteriorization/interiorization) is not possible until late in the book (again it takes too much training), and since OT drills are being worked early on, a way to sidestep ext/int difficulties was needed. Luckily, the 3rd ACC (Advanced clinical course) has ext/int drills which cool down the phenomena and let the person audit past exterior safely. So these are introduced early. They are very easy. Too bad that the orgs tossed away most of the tech. Real physical objectives are also used. Almost all of these were originally developed in the 1950s as OT drills and then a physical variation was made because the auditor couldn't tell if the PC was doing the command or not. One trick I came up with is to do both, the physical drill first and then the theta version. It works orders of magnitude better than doing either drill by itself. It pretty much covers everything the CofS is running and orders of magnitude more. Lots of stuff from the 1950s. Lots more where I saw holes that were missing in the tech (such as a grade on the subject of protest or a level on handling energy). The main trouble is that it is fast, like route 1 and 2 in CofHA rather than the long discussions and examples given on the SHSBC tapes. I'm trying to say everything that the person will need to know, but there is little repetition. Imagine route 1/2 extended out to a thousand steps and upgraded with everything we know now from hindsight. The way that the CofS is handling cases, they might need 30 OT levels to cover the kind of stuff that's in the book. My big wonderment is how many people will have the determination and perseverence to study and work on their own. There are books avilable on every subject under the sun and yet few people will make the effort to learn anything by themselves. So I think that a lot of people will want somebody to hold their hand, at least initially. Also, the book does not cover how to process somebody else. That is best taught in an organization. And it would require explaining a lot more data. I'm pushing hard to get it out before Christmas or at least before New Years. I'm skipping answering a lot of posts right now for that reason. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Computerized E-Meters COMPUTERIZED E-METERS On 20 Nov 1997 12:18:57 +1100, fjc@thingy.apana.org.au (Frank Copeland) wrote: > Of course it would mean spending money (lots of it if they want > the job done right) to develop. The hardware would be much more > expensive; they couldn't do their present trick of selling $25 > worth of parts for $3000 and I doubt even the most dedicated > $cientologist will shell out $50,000 for a PC plus D/A (digital/analog, > not dead agent) converter and a bit of Visual Basic software. > Not to mention all the auditor training hours they couldn't charge > for anymore. To this, ralph@atnet.at (Ralph Hilton) responded on 21 Nov - # The initial work has already been done, but not by Scientology. I was # collecting data on various systems before I moved here from the UK but # shelved the project of investigating further for the moment while # establishing here. # # Ralph Yes, I'd thought of the idea too (mentioned briefly in Super Scio) and probably anybody with some computer savy has thought of this. The hardware could be super cheap. The cans connect to a wheatstone bridge (nothing more than a few resistors and other cheep junk, the expensive part is the needle dial and battery and neither one is needed here). Then an analog to digital converter is used to change the signal into something that the computer can deal with (computers are digital, needle dials are analog). An A/D chip costs about a dollar. You put this on a super simple printed circuit board that plugs into the printer port on the PC. That lets the PC read the AD converter almost directly without having to serialize the signal (necessary if you plug into the COM port). That's a trick used by some of the COMPROBE or make your PC into an Oscilliscope type attachements to cut way down on the hardware. Probably a 2 inch by 3 inch printed circuit board in a plastic box that plugs right onto the printer port and has a jack to plug the cans into. Might cost ten bucks to make. Then comes tons of programming. Win95 might shoot you in the ass. Visual Basic is as slow as molasses and might not be able to poll the A/D converter fast enough. So you need some assembler language in a DLL to handle the hardware and only use VB for the fancy display, or do that in Visual C. Or go for bare bones PCDOS and manipulate the bitmap yourself (often easier than crapping around with visual basic). But the software is one time development. No manufacturing cost. And you can do all sorts of super stuff. Choose from different style displays or needle behavior (quantum button on or off at the click of a mouse), multiple display windows (regular dial and magnified auto centered read), and even instant replay capability. Include a TCP/IP socket and an ISDN concurrent digital/voice connection and the client could pickup the cans at home (on his PC) and his processor could watch the needle reads on his own home computer while he processes over the phone and their computers are linked over the internet. But of course you'd have to sell this for fifty bucks or so (including software) and let the person put it on their existing home PC. So I guess that that would screw the org out of its six grand profit on each quantum meter. So that makes the idea qualify as "denying income to the orgs". I forget whether that is a crime or a high crime (suppressive act). I hope that Ralph or somebody does this one. It would be a real boon. Eventually I'll do it myself if nobody else does, but that might be quite awhile. Best, The Pilot ========================================== The following trailer was used on all of the above posts - ------------------ 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 #16 and posted to ACT. The posting archives are also available on The Pilots Home Page. - ------------------ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAgUBNIYPP8sIt3ZgVQbNAQGPDwP/VeZMKEV/zOb7Eca5J0dDJgmBXmrR2VWI EMro7CJevri0IwS+DHXIjra+FaEw5p9OqJH6bJ8j0MOiYMlfH4o3DcTdq82GLsJt 4TwBqPqrxhArXs+BTfHdsvvZZH/dQF/XWm+ah31+grsFGsX/yFTYyVN40UgvmV6z 0zZMoycB1XQ= =pf94 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----