Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology
From: pilot@hiddenplace.com (The Pilot)
Subject: Super Scio Archive - <6/9> posts of July 97
Date: 25 Aug 1997  14:00:17


POST6.TXT

SUPER SCIO TECH:  PILOT POSTS OF JULY 1997

(other posts from July are in POST7.txt)


========================

Contents (Headers):

Subj : Super Scio Tech - Looking over DMSMH from Hindsight
Subj : Super Scio Tech - GROUP MIND INCIDENTS
Subj : Super Scio Tech - SUGGESTIONS FOR HOMER
Subj : Super Scio Tech - Spaceation
Subj : RE: Forgiveness Processing (Super Scio Reply)


========================


Subj : Super Scio Tech - Looking over DMSMH from Hindsight


LOOKING OVER DMSMH FROM HINDSIGHT


The antis will probably complain that this is unscientific
and therefore worthless.

The freezone will probably say, "who cares".

The orgs will probably consider it sacraledge.

And everyone else will probably think that its a big
waste of time.

But I felt that it really needed to be done, and it has
aided me in getting various things in perspective.  And
so here it is.  As Christ would say, let those who can
hear listen.

The question is how much of DMSMH (Dianetics the Modern
Science of Mental Health) would a modern Dianetic auditor
toss out the window as being mistaken guesswork.


---------------

A great deal of Dianetic auditing has been done since the
release of Dianetics the Modern Science of Mental Health
(DMSMH).  The modern dianetic techniques bear little
resemblance to those used in the book.  A few things have
been officially recognized as mistakes, but most things
are considered simply to be new "discoveries".

Based on our subsequent experience, the original book turns
out to be mostly wrong, or at best, a shaky collection of
half truths.  But Scientology still hangs on to basic
definitions and conclusions that were drawn from this wrong
data.

Here I am going to review DMSMH from the viewpoint of a
modern dianetic auditor.  I will try to avoid using any of my 
own non-standard-tech research in this evaluation.

The only reason that a modern Class 8 would not write such
an analysis is that they work hard to make Ron always right
and twist things around to avoid criticizing his early work.
It is this mental twist that I'm trying to get rid of, both
for them and for myself.

The modern dianetic techniques (Routine 3R etc.) do produce
results (although maybe not as much as advertised) and the
original book generally just produced interesting phenomena.

For those of us who have had success with modern dianetic
techniques, we need to re-evaluate our basic premisis and
stop carrying excess baggage and wrong data forward from
this inspiring but poorly researched early book.



AN ANALYSIS OF DMSMH


The Dianetic therapy described in Dianetics the Modern Science
of Mental Health (DMSMH) was obviously not researched and
tested thoroughly before the book was released.

But the Dianetic boom itself, and subsequent use of the techniques
given in the book can be used as research data to validate or
invalidate the theories given in the book.

In the past, most evaluations of this book have used a black or
white approach where either it was all good (because some results
were produced) or it was all bad (because some things failed).
Let us instead consider the entire thing to be a series of
theoretical ideas of which some were subsequently validated in
practice and others were found to be false.

I believe that what we really had was a series of bright ideas 
proposed by Ron that were based on a very limited number of
experiments.  He drew broad conclusions from isolated instances.

Unfortunately, the book was full of sales hype and exaggerations
and was presented as a finished and validated practice rather
than a series of theoretical propositions which needed to be
researched.

The Dianetic boom came about because there were things in the
book that were correct and easily demonstrable.  But the boom
collapsed because there was too much that didn't work.  

The typical story of the early Dianetics practicioners was that
they would begin with tremendous enthusiasm generated by the
fantastic phenomena that they found when they applied the
techniques.  But things would not carry forward as expected,
and so they would blame themselves for the failures and
restudy the book or take a course with Hubbard.  Finally they
would realize that it was the book rather than themselves which
was inadequate and abandon the subject in disgust.

But the book was not an absolute which was true or false in
its entirity.  It was built on guesswork, but it was brilliant
guesswork.

So let us look at some of the ideas that were proposed and
see what we can make of them based on hindsight.


1. The existance of Engramic recordings of incidents, including
sonic as well as visio and including events that take place
while one is unconcious.

This one has been validated endlessly.  You can easily throw
someone into an engram and dredge up the most facinating array
of data.  This is the reason for the Dianetic boom.  Almost
anyone who read the book and understood it well enough to
apply the techniques correctly soon had a PC running
through an incident in a dramatic manner.  So they told their
friends that it worked and the friends got their own books
and it all expanded like wildfire.

Even Miller's critical work recounts numerous people who joined 
the boom because they had run through a vivid engramic experience
with the techniques.

Before I ever walked into an org, I got a copy of DMSMH and
read it.  Then I put my mother on the couch and explained 
to her about how we could run through incidents burried in
the subconcious to relieve hidden stress.  She was game to
try it.  So I asked her to move to the moment when I had
walked into the living room to get her to try doing a
session and then told her to move through the incident 
recounting it as she went through it.  And she gave me what
sounded like a literal replay of every word and gesture I
had used.  She did, however, seem to be almost in a hypnotic
trance, which I took to be Dianetic reverie (you never see
this with modern Dianetics).

Satisfied that she could run through an incident, I then
asked her to tell me the first thing that poped into her mind
when I snapped my fingers.  Then I asked "How Old Are You"
and snapped and she answered "17".  I said good, move to
when you were 17 and she let out a scream.  There was a
fire and she had climbed out of her second floor bedroom
window onto the lower roof that extended over another wing
of the house.  She had panicked and run screaming across
the roof and fell through a skylight onto a table in the
room below and passed out.

I was impressed.  Obviously Dianetics worked.  Except that
this was only one of the many ideas in the book.  This one
was valid, but some of the others were not.  This was a
situation that I was not prepared for, namely that we had
a series of unconfirmed hypothesis rather than a tried and
true science.


2. The ability to come up with accurate data by running
through incidents Dianetically.

This one is half true.  An amazing amount of data can be
pulled into conciousness by repeatedly scanning through an
incident.  Often it is found to be correct or mostly correct,
but occasionally its not quite right or even blatently wrong.

What appears to be happening is that you get better data
than you would by simple recall, but it is nowhere near perfect.


3. The idea that at some level we all have perfect recordings
of everything we have experienced.

This is a nice idea, and it could be true, but I can't see
where it has ever been proven.  It is also an idea that is
very hard to disproved since you can always say that more 
needs to be done to achieve full access to these recordings.

We do see improvements in people's ability to recall things,
and we even find that the ability to recall sounds, tastes,
smells, etc. can be improved, but none of this is absolute.

We can, however, state with certainty that a "clear" does not
have perfect recall even in the current lifetime.


4. The idea that prenatal incidents are recorded as engrams.

Here again we are on shaky ground.

We know from modern Dianetics as used in Scientology that the
person himself (the thetan) does not sit there in the womb
as the body grows.  The most common experience seems to be
one where the thetan hangs around the mother for awhile and
enters the body just before birth.

Modern techniques use a lighter style which is closer to 
recall type processes and the person finds his way back down
chains of incidents.  Doing this, the person tends to slide
back into past lives rather than into prenatal incidents.

So we do not have enough modern data to evaluate whether or
not these prenatal incidents are real.

The only technique which ever brought up a significant number
of prenatal incidents was repeater technique.  Here the PC
says a phrase over and over again until he falls into the
incident where the phrase was recorded engramically.

The early Dianeticists observed a great deal of interesting
phenomena while playing around with this.  But as far as I
know, there was never a serious effort to validate or
invalidate the incidents that were being dredged up.

To the best of my knowlege, modern clears and OTs do not
have any significant recall of the prenatal area.  And
the general supposition is that they were not in the body
at that time anyway.

If there are prenatal incidents, then we are dealing with
a different mechanism than the thetan's own engramic recordings.
The 1952 speculations were that it was the Genetic Entity's
recordings, and the modern idea is probably that it comes
from BTs who were in the body before birth (but there is
so little discussion of confidential data that its hard to
say what is currently thought about this).

This would have to be researched to determine if these
recordings are accurate and to determine what is doing the
recording.

The only thing here that we can say with certainty is that
Ron found a wild phenomena and built a lot of incorrect
speculations around it and that we still don't know to this
day exactly what the real truth is in this area.


5. The idea that a later incident can gain force from an
earlier incident.

Here I'm going to carefully avoid mention of related ideas
such as errasue and chains and basic incidents and try to
deal with this concept in isolation so that we can look
over the other points separately.  Ron bundles many different
concepts together here and I wish to raise the point that
some may be true but not necessarily all of the ideas.

If, in running a later incident, an earlier incident is stirred
up (restimulated), then the later incident begins to draw
force from the earlier one and become more severe instead
of getting better.

This is valid and is easily observed in modern dianetics.

I don't think that this idea originated with Ron, but it
is a key point that is often missed in the psychiatric
field.  The normal disproof of incident running as a therapy
is by showing that the patient sometimes gets worse 
instead of better by running through an incident, and
these shallow refutations never try to find an earlier
underlying incident which can be run successfully.


6. The idea that these engrams are arrayed in chains
which are anchored in "basic" engrams.

Here I think that the idea is oversimplified and slightly
off.

There are engrams which can be run successfully and ones
which can only be handled by tracing back to earlier
similar engrams until you do find one which can be 
discharged.

DMSMH is primarily concerned with earlier similar content
and modern dianetics discards this in favor of earlier
similar somatics (pains, sensations, emotions, and attitudes).
Interim techniques such as 1966 style simply used a vague
"locate an earlier similar incident" type command that
could go either way, and this is even used in modern
dianetics in special circumstances.

The modern technique seems in general to work better, but
all methods of going earlier had some success.  This
implies that every engram is on dozens of chains, including
chains of the various somatics in the incident and various
aspects of the incident's content.

If it was the mear fact of an earlier similar engram existing
which prevented discharging the incident, then you would never
be able to run anything because there would be so much pulled
into restimulation.

So we have to back off a bit on this idea and take a more
practical approach.  Which is to say that sometimes running
an engram restimulates an earlier one so you have to run that
one instead, rather than assuming that these things are arrayed
in some permanent fashion.

I would like to continue using the word "basic" to refer to
an incident which can be discharged, but I wish to discard any
notion that these "basics" are the first times that anything
happened.

If any of our ideas about past lives are correct, then the
anount of earlier incidents that exist are great enough to
imply that we have almost never run the first time that
a particular pain or experience happened.  And yet we can
often successfully run and discharge "basic" engrams.

It may be that the person either simply faces something or
doesn't quite confront it and thereby becomes restimulated
by the earlier incidents.  So we work earlier and undercut
the current incident and also get the added benifit that
we are addressing something that is more remote from his
current existance and therefore is easier to face.  

When we hit one that he can face without pulling in earlier
restimulation, it runs and discharges and we then consider
that it was a "basic" incident.  But there is no reason
to assume that if we had run this at a different time, when
the person was in better or worse shape, that we would have
hit the same basic incident.  And on a general basis, we
observe this in case supervision, where there is a recognition
that a case on Dianetics can run shallow or deep.


7. The idea that these engrams "errase".

What we observe in running dianetics is that an incident
can be charged up and difficult to face, or it can be
discharged and easily confronted.  In other words, it is
capable of bothering the person, or it is incapable of
bothering the person any more.

There is the idea that the incident is a picture which
vanishes upon errasure.  But you can always visualize
that picture again.  All that has changed is that the
person is not compulsively creating the picture and it is
back under his control.  And there is a later statement
by Ron, around 1958, where he considers that most of the
person's pictures are not being compulsively created
all the time, but only the ones that are currently
restimulated.  My own observations are that this is
correct.

The book also contains a statement that there is no recall
of pain outside of these engrams and that it is the pain
which errases and can no longer be recalled.  I certainly
have not found this to be the case.  But, since pain is
generally undesirable, once an incident is under one's
control, one is not particularly inclined to summon the
pain back up again except perhaps as an exercise or for
a point of research.

So nothing actually errases.  It is simply discharged and
ceases to affect the person.  It comes back under his control.
However, it would be reasonable to keep calling this "errasure"
on the basis that the "charge" is being errased.  As far
as I can tell, these incidents don't "charge up" again after
they have been run out properly, so calling this an errasure
would seem to be appropriate.  

But I am playing a word game here, redefining the term to match 
the phenomena.  The original idea of errasure as explained in 
the book is not really correct.


8. The role of unconciousness in engrams

DMSMH considers that being unconcious is a key factor in
these engrams.  It is part of the definintion (a moment of
pain and unconciousness).

Later dianetic techniques consistantly worked better by 
simply running any stressful incident and ignoring the
question of whether or not the individual was actually unconcious.
This was justified by explaining that there was always a
bit of unconciousness present when the person flinched
at anything.

Furthermore, the results improved significantly when 
the running of engrams was balanced by running incidents
of giving an "engram" to another person (in other words,
run the incident of hitting somebody else as well as running
the incident of somebody hitting you).  These "overt engrams"
run successfully in the techniques.  But it should be
obvious that you are not normally unconcious while hitting
somebody else.

I suppose that we could say that anything which is not
fully confronted is to some degree unconcious.  But we
are redefining the word in this case.  The DMSMH book
did not use the word in that sense.  It said "unconcious"
and (obviously from the examples) it ment truely physically
"unconcious".  On that basis the book was totally wrong.

With hindsight, a better explanation would be to say that
things which you don't face can feed into the "subconcious"
(or "reactive mind" or whatever you want to call it) and
can thereby affect you.  And that one way of handling this
is to face up to the incidents now by means of incident
running techniques.  This would apply to anything that
was done to one or that one has done to another or even
that one has seen people doing to each other with the only
provisio being that the person did not face up to it at
the time.


9. The idea that engrams are basic and that secondaries and
locks build up on them.

Modern Dianetics still has this idea, but I don't see that
it has ever been proven.

Things that seem trivial or light incidents that appear to
have effects all out of proportion to the severity of the
incident might well be drawing their power from earlier
heavier incidents.  I think that we have seen this enough
in practice to consider it to be proven.  

But this doesn't prove that an engram is always heavier than
a secondary or "lock" nor does it prove that a lock or
secondary might not be basic.

If the Scientology ideas about theta are correct, then the
early basics could not be engrams because the thetan would
not have been subject to force at the begining but would
have to have gradually decayed to the point where he could
be hit.  Therefore the early basics must be "locks".

If it was originally this way, then it still might work
this way at least sometimes.

Let's take a hypothetical example.  Is it that the person 
decides that Volkswagon's are ugly and then gets hit by
one (because he doesn't want to see them), or is it that the 
person gets hit by a Volkswagon and then begins to think 
that they are ugly because he has been hit.  I think that 
it can go either way, and I think that we have observed it 
happening either way in auditing.  

Might not disconnecting from a friend launch one into a 
series of secondaries and engrams which build up on top
of one's regret at such an action?

But here I am speculating.  My point is not to say which
way it is, but only to point out that we do not have any
proof in either direction and that therefore the book's
assumptions are unfounded.


10. The idea that one comes "up-tone" to cheerfulness
as an incident runs out.

We have seen this one in practice.  We assume that as long
as the person feels apathetic or angry or whatever, there
is more that must be run either by continuing to go through
the current incident (if it is discharging) or by going
earlier to an underlying incident.

We rarely see "clockwork" progressions from emotion to
emotion as we run something out, but we do see that this 
general rule is important and does work.

There is a great deal of later material on the tone scale,
but that is not in the Dianetic book and can be set aside
for the purposes of this discussion.

Note that this indicates that if the person is still worried
or upset or angry about the contents of an engram they have
run, it means that the incident was left unflat.  On this
basis one might guess what incident Ron left unflat on his
own case (listen to the RJ 67 tape).


11. The idea that illogical associations can develope between
different things in an incident.

I think that we do see this in practice.  The person is
beaten up while Beethoven's fifth symphony is playing on
the radio and then sometimes he begins to dislike the
symphony.

And I think that we also see a widow taking a dislike to
red sports cars when she has seen her husband run over by
one.  In this case there is no pain and unconciousness,
just a severe loss.

But nothing shows that the majority of factors in an
incident become associated in this manner.  To go a bit 
further, I think that we can show that it does happen 
occasionally, but that it does not happen usually and
that it is certainly not all embrasive.  One or two
factors in an incident may become irrationally associated,
but certainly not everything in the incident.

Here I believe that the book is addressing a significant
phenomena, but the slant on it is far too sweeping and
generalized.
  

12. The idea that one dramatizes an engram when it is
restiulated (keyed in).

I think that I have seen this occasionally, but it is rare.

My own experience was that I would get nervous or fearful 
without a direct cause and that I could later look back
and find an engram that was the real source of the fear and
which was keyed in by something in the environment.  But
as far as I know, I never actually dramatized the content
of an engram with the possible exception of turning on
a somatic (pain, etc.).  Please note the difference between
an emotional reaction and the actual dramatization of contents.

Turning off a psychosomatic pain by means of running
engrams does not necessarily mean that the pain came about
because the engram was restimulated.  The pain might also
turn off because confronting the engrams acted as a way
to practice confronting the pain.  But maybe I think this
because most of the engram running I recieved was after
I went clear and that might change things in this regard.

Again we have an occasional phenomena that is blown out of
proportion.  We do see the restimulation due to earlier
engrams causing a person to be disturbed or avoid things,
but we do not see true "dramatization" very often.


13. The idea that engramic "command phrases" act like post
hypnotic suggestions.

Again we seem to be looking at a rare phenomena.

I did once (and only once) blow a somatic on myself by finding
a command phrase that was holding it in place.  As far as
I can tell, this is the only command phrase that ever affected
me in this lifetime.  Of course I'm ignoring the matter of
whole track implants, but even there it only seemed like I
was obeying the things in rare instances so that it was a
minor rather than a major factor.

Engrams and implants do have their effect in making one flinch
at various things or distorting one's thinking, but the major
effect seems to be in avoiding things or becoming upset
about things that have heavy force associated with them rather
than a simple minded obedience to orders given during
painful incidents.

We do know that post hypnotic suggestions can be implanted
by means of hypnosis, and we can probably assume that the
use of pain and drugs in the hypnotism can beef up the power
of these commands considerably.  This is the logic by which
Ron drew his conclusions about engrams.  But we don't really
have much data about the long term behaviour of post hypnotic
suggestions.  My own impression is that these things wear off
fairly rapidly and you wouldn't find somebody continuing to
obey orders a decade later whether those "orders" are
chance phrases within an engram or post hypnotic suggestions.

Of course there is brainwashing / conditioning, and most of
the data on that is kept top secret by the governments who
engage in this.  But all indications are that they use far
more than simple verbal commands.  The hints that we see in
various movies imply the use of tailored painful false
experiences in combination with drugs and hypnosis.  And even
here I have my doubts about the long term effectiveness. 

The popular spy movies have legions of conditioned plants
living as ordinary citizens and waiting to be triggered by
conditioned command phrases, but this may be just as inaccurate 
as the old rocket to Mars type science fiction stories.  We
do have space ships, but they are pretty far from the simpleminded
fictional ones.  And we do have conditioning and brainwashing,
but it might be a mear shadow of the fictional presentation.

If, for example, "the control of Candy Jones" is an accurate
account, then they were only able to use her as a courier
(not doing anything very repugnant) a number of times before
she began to shrug off the conditioning.  This might be the
best that they can do unless they get their hands on a psychotic
who wants to kill everybody anyway for his own reasons.  And
in that case they are simply encouraging the person's own
abberated desires rather than creating a new abberation.

So I don't think that you'll find abberations steming from
command phrases.  At best they would stir up or reinforce
existing abberations.  So in this respect also the book
is wrong, and modern Dianetics pretty much ignores the subject
of command phrases.


14. The idea that you run secondaries late on the track (unlike
running engrams where you try to get as early as possible).

This was done to relieve chrage from the case so that the PC
could find earlier engrams more easily.

I think that we have seen this work in practice.

But modern rundowns handle secondaries in the same manner as
engrams.  This primarily shows up in Scientology rundowns
which use dianetics, such as the ext/int rundown.  In these
procedures, the standard approach was to run recalls followed 
by secondaries and finally followed by engrams with all of
these being run on either 3 or 4 flows.  Occasionally the
secondary chain drops into an engram before it errases, but
usually not.

So here we have an approach which does work, but later 
alternate approaches might be better.  In other words, again
we have a practical idea which is not all encompassing.


15. The idea that all psycho-somatics stem from secondaries 
and engrams.

Obviously false if we use the original DMSMH definitions.

Overts (harmful acts) are just as likely to bring about a
psycho-somatic as are engrams.  The modern Dianetic technique
handles this by running overt engrams as well as incidents
which happened to the person.

Modern Scientology has other sources for psycho-somatics,
one example being Nots.

We call these somatics for short and they represent any pain,
sensation, emotion, or attitude that does not have a current
physical source.

If we survey all of modern Scientology and Dianetics, it
should be obvious that no more than 20 to 30 percent of a
person's somatics could come from engrams that have been done
to him.  And this is assuming that we currently know all the
answers, which I believe to be highly doubtful.  So the real
percentage is probably far lower (maybe 10 percent).

No matter how we look at the numbers, the success ratio of
aleviating somatics in 1950 must have been extremely low.

Therefore there must have been a lot of wishful thinking and
quite a bit of justification in the form of "we haven't
managed to find the right engram yet".

The extreme mistake was to think that when you found the
source for one person's headache, you had found the general
source of all headaches.

In practice, the causes currently known in Scientology would
include the following:

a) the pc goes to a baseball game and gets a headache because
he was once hit over the head with a baseball bat.

b) the pc has a headache because he used to hit his brother
over the head (overt).

c) the pc has a headache because he sympathized with somebody
whose head was crushed under a falling safe (flow three).

d) the pc has a headache because the thetan interiorized forcefully
and smashed into the head (ext/int rundown).

e) the pc has a headache because mother used to have headaches and
she died and he wants to bring her back. (life continuum).

f) the pc has a headache because he used to use them as an
excuse for staying out of school.  (justifier)

g) the pc has a headache because it solves a problem

h) the pc has a headache because of entities

i) the pc has a headache because he is flinching at communicating
with his head (maybe he has decided that bodies are evil or that
his head is ugly or whatever - grade 0 from where could you 
communicate to a ... type processes).

j) the pc has a headache because he has some kind of theta machine
that is hitting the head for some reason (maybe to remind him
to go to the store - see 3rd ACC & other early references on
mental machinery).

k) the pc has a headache to gain sympathy.

l) the pc has a headache to make others wrong.

Here I already have a dozen different potential reasons for a
headache.  And there is no indication that there aren't another
dozen reasons we haven't figured out yet.

We have always beefed up our success ratio by using assists that
don't try to find out the source of the somatic but simply cool
it down temporarily (such as a touch assist or pushing the somatic
into the walls etc.).

And modern Dianetics might sometimes work by accustoming the
person to confronting and mocking up pain and force rather than
by actually finding the actual source of something.

I have had a handful of times where I experienced a true magical
dissapearance of a somatic on running an engram.  I consider those
to be the cases where an engram was the correct source for the
somatic.  

But most of my gains while running Dianetics were in the form
of something lessening or becoming easier to turn off or handle.
This I attribute to the fact that the incident running can
act as an exercise in confront and cool something down in that
manner even if the true source was not an engram.
  
Obviously, engrams are only the tiniest part of the picture.


16. The Dianetic techniques

The overall idea was that one could run through an incident
multiple times, gradually raising one's confront of it, or,
if necessary, find an earlier incident until the "charge"
could be relieved.  This does appear to work as a general
approach.

But the original techniques included many things which were
inherited from hypnosis.  Things such as installing a "canceller",
etc.  My own experience with the book before going into a
Scientology org was that it did tend to encourage some sort
of trance state.  Furthermore, Ron himself had them change
from having the PC lying on a couch to making him sit up
in a chair to reduce the likelyhood of inducing a hypnotic
trance (this is on an early tape of 1950-51, but I forget which
one).

And practices for locating engrams, such as repeater technique,
tended to throw the person in over their heads in an incident
that they had little perception or understanding of.

In general the techniques were difficult for the auditor, and
rough on the PC, and didn't work very well.

In comparison, all the later incident running techniques are
light and easy and simple.  Modern tricks such as locating
incidents on an easy gradient, getting the date and duration,
searching for an earlier begining, and so forth, are major
advances which show the original methods to have been crudely
researched and poorly worked out.

And you do not see any trance like behaviour with modern Dianetic
techniques, which, in my opinion, makes them much safer.


17. The Dianetic phenomena: holders, bouncers, and denyers

A holder keeps a person stuck in an incident.

A bouncer causes him to bounce out of the incident.

A denyer makes the incident seem unreal or non-existant.

All of these are described in the Dianetic book and attributed
to command phrases.  For example, an engram might contain the
phrase "I can't stay here" and therefore the person bounces out
of it.

I think that this command phrase behaviour was observed occasionally
when tossing people into incidents by means of repeater technique.
The incidents would be overcharged, outgradient, and unreal to
the person and the early Dianetic techniques did tend to be
hypnotic so that the PC was liable to follow orders given in
the engram when he was in the middle of running it.  But this
doesn't mean that he was following those orders in everyday life.

You almost never find this command phrase behavior in modern
Dianetics and Scientology.  But you do see manifestations of
holders, bouncers, and denyers on occasion.  These do not stem
from the commands given in engrams.  They come from the persons
action in response to things that they don't want to face up
to.  People get stuck in things, or flinch away from them or
pretend that they are not there.  It is a valid manifestation
of mental charge.

The mistake is in thinking that this behaviour comes from
engramic command phrases.  That puts a wrong slant onto the
Dianetic view of human behavior.  Later Scientology handling
consists of raising the person's confront of things so that
they don't flinch from them.  But the question of why does
a person handle things by flinching or whatever might be a
lucrative line to persue in future research.


18. The role of engrams in everyday life

Here I am generalizing, because there is a lot in the book which
analyzes behavior in terms of engrams and there are many conclusions
drawn about society etc.

Based on number 15 above, engrams are only a minor source of
behavior.  And the various factors such as command phrases did
not turn out to work to the degree predicted although the phenomena
of denying or bouncing away from hot mental areas does seem to
occur occasionally.  Therefore, all the broad conclusions that are 
based on a theory of engrams exclusively are obviously wrong.

Some of these ideas have been revisited from a Scientology 
perspective which includes things such as overts and justifications
etc., but that is its own subject.  As far as the Dianetics
book goes, we pretty much have to toss it and restart from
scratch.


19. The idea that a stimulous-response Reactive Mind underlies
all abberations.

So much of the book has already gone out the window based on
the above discussion that it should be obvious that there was
insufficient data at that time to support such a sweeping
conclusion.

Reactive stimulous response behaviour can be shown to exist.
But I think that we can see very easily in Scientology that
most abberations are not reactive in nature.  How many overts
are an unthinking reaction and how many are concious?  I think
that anybody who has experience with running grade 2 should
find the obvious conclusion that most are concious rather than
reactive.

Furthermore, although we can trace some reactive behaviour back
to engrams, this does not prove that all reactive behaviour
comes from engrams.  Just because some houses are made of wood
does not mean that all houses are made of wood.  

Therefore I think that the above statement is an unfounded
excessively generalized conclusion.

The correct statement would be along the lines of recognizing
that there is an unthinking stimulous response phenomena which
forms part of the picture of human behaviour and abberation.
The person has unthinking reactions and some of them stem
from engrams.

But I do believe that we could state that all abberations
stem from some kind of mental "charge".  That is almost
inherent in the definition of abberation (in other words,
a distortion has been introduced).  But that is not to say that
all of this mental charge is reactive nor does it prove that
the charge all stems from engrams.

We could, from a Scientology perspective, point out that the
person ceases to think in areas that are too heavily charged.
But that is not quite the same as this picture of a "Reactive
Mind" fed by engrams.


20. The idea of a "Clear" who is free of all abberations.


Obviously, from Scientology theory, the idea of a one lifetime
"Clear" attained by running the basic-basic prenatal incident
of this lifetime, resulting in perfect recall, computer like
computational capabilities, and other super abilities is
totally false.

If such a state exists, it could certainly not be attained
by running the technique described in DMSMH.  Is there any
Scientology auditor who could honestly believe that Ron could 
have made a "Clear" without ever running an overt or pulling a
withhold or running a past life incident?  I think not.

That means that there were no "clears" when the book was
written and therefore the state was hypothetical, an ideal
to shoot for rather than a verified result.

Was there any basis for this ideal?

Actually yes.  If the mind is distorted by mental charge,
then removing that charge should produce a cleared condition.

As to the theoretical attributes, these can be hypothesised
on the basis that anything which is attainable on a one of a
kind occurance must be an inherent capability of the mind
which could become universal if all abberations were removed.

In other words, if one person can have a photographic memory,
then this must be a property of the mind and it should be
theoretically available to everyone if they were not abberated.

This does actually make a nice theory and a good target to
aim for.  But it is a theoretical ideal rather than a cast
iron truth.

When we enter Scientology theory into this, we find ourselves
in a totally different landscape.  We run engrams to raise
the PC's confront of force.  We ask for postulates made 
at the time of the engrams.  And we get the person up to
the point of controlling his mental pictures and being at
cause over mocking them up at will.  And from this something
really does happen, and we call that the state of Clear.

And it is a wonderful state.  One's mind is no longer twisted
by the distortions of forces long gone.

But it is not the "clear" of DMSMH.  And it is not freedom
from all abberation.  And it is not total recall or total
conciousness or some kind of superman condition.

Efforts to twist the modern state of clear so as to match
the theoretical ideal given in DMSMH is nothing more than
sales hype.  It is a nice state.  Why not let it be what it 
is and stop the bullshit?

---------------

This analysis is, of course, only a lick and a promise.  A
thorough chapter by chapter review should really be done.

Furthermore, a detailed compilation and review of actual
experience with modern Dianetics in the handling of cases is
needed.  The current attitude is fanatical and assumes that
the technology is flawless rather than examining each individual
point in detail and determining which components are extrememly
workable and which are actually inhibiting the results.

Every scientific breakthrough has been followed by decades of
review and refinement.  It is not enough to say "it works".
The original light bulbs and DC generators "worked" but they 
were a poor and shabby product compared to the tech that lights
our homes today.

As to independent scientific reviews, that would be nice but
is currently impossible.  There is a war on, engendered by the
fanatical attitudes of those who currently run the subject.
Everyone on both sides of the fence has too much of a vested
interest in either proving it all wrong or proving it all absolutely
correct.  No science can take place in such an atmosphere.

And there is the problem of needing qualified reviewers.  There
are almost none in existance.  The org can't produce them 
because of the fanatical viewpoint and the lack of adequate
scientific training among the bulk of the membership.  And
outside "experts" do not generally know the subject well enough
and are rarely qualified to review it in a true sense.

A zepplin expert has no authority in reviewing airplanes.  He
would have to learn the subject of heavier than air flight
first.  Imagine that you have a very poorly designed airplane
which just barely flies.  Now you bring in a zepplin expert
(who is truely competant in his field, it is a quite complex
one) who doesn't believe in heavier than air flight and he wants 
to solve the plane's problems by adding balloons to the wings 
because that is what is obviously wrong to his eyes.

There have been a handfull of people who have trained both in
psychology and Dianetics/Scientology (if I recall correctly,
Ray Kemp was one) but they have been placed in an impossible
position and generally end up hiding in the freezone.

And there have been a few psychologists who do investigate
past lives or out of body experiences.  These would at least
be capable of investigating the subject without prejudice.
But they themselves are often attacked by the bulk of the 
"authorities" in the field.

Note that the lack of proper laboratory validation does not
disprove a theory.  The Quantum Mechanics double slit experiment
remained a "thought" experiment for decades before the laboratory
techniques caught up.  And most of Einstein's "experiments"
were "thought experiments" rather than laboratory tests.

We have phenomena here which are mind boggeling and in serious
need of thorough scientific research and analysis.  But the
outside "experts" wouldn't look and the Scientology "experts"
wouldn't think.  I can only pray for a time when this area can
be looked at without prejudice or fanaticism.


---------------

In conclusion, there is surprisingly little that can be salvaged
from the book.  Its best work was in providing an ideal to
shoot for and popularizing the idea of a theoretically perfect
mind distorted by abberations which could be alleviated by
confronting the right things.  It identified one out of a
long list of abberative factors and resulted in a long search
for others.

It does contain some useful basic concepts, but those are better
stated from a Scientology perspective.

We could really use a modern Dianetic home co-audit book that
was a bit more accurate.  That would be the one to mass market.
DMSMH would then remain only to provide professionals with a
historical perspective.

At one time, the ponderous and outdated "Science of Survival" was
regulated to the back shelves and replaced in practice by Ruth 
Minshull's "How to Choose Your People" which became the popular 
public book about the tone scale.  This had very good results
and resulted in much more application of the tone scale data.
Of course the fanatics have seen to it that the Minshull books
have long been gone from the org's bookstores.

I wonder how many people will be able to read the above without
starting to rant at me one way or the other.  Sometimes I feel
like a Gulliver who wants to scramble the eggs instead of breaking
them at either the top or the bottom.


Best 

The Pilot

Note: I am putting this post into both ARS and ACT because it
may be of special interest to CofS lurkers on ARS, but the technical 
posts that I feel are mainly of interest to the freezone are 
only going to ACT now.

========================


Subj : Super Scio Tech - GROUP MIND INCIDENTS


GROUP MIND INCIDENTS:

This is highly speculative.  I have been thinking about this for
awhile in an attempt to understand the org's cultish mob behavior.
It is especially promenent in the Sea Org.  One ex-SO member
described it to me as "when they wave, you wave".  This was not
as strong in the early days, there was a lot of room for individuals
and much less "group think".

Maybe I'm streatching too far with this one and it could simply
be explained on the basis of mass agreement, but the effect is
so strong that I think that there is a distinct possability
that some kind of a "group mind" effect can come into play,
a bit like the "collective unconcious" that appears in some early
psychoanalitic theories.

If there is such a thing, what might it encompass?  My first
thoughts are of mob behaviour, mutual exchange of BTs, and 
"sympathetic" vibrations of emotions in a feedback effect.

In a group mind, the thetans are not merged but they are
temporarily packaged by the mutual attraction exceeding the
normal repulsion.

The main bar to telepathy might be fear of absorbtion or overwhelm
by a group mind.

It seems to me that there were early whole track practices which 
tried to regain native state by intentionaly merging into a group 
mind which would be god.  It was a misguided attempt to rejoin 
native state.  You joined these things willfully (not forced by 
implants) and then found yourself overwhelmed and couldn't disconnect.  
So you built walls.

There is lots of sci fi about telepathic societies with this
group mind stuff kicking people around in various ways.  Often they
purge or attack individuals who wouldn't blend into the group
mind.  Maybe these are hints of real burried recall.

Fear of talking to groups could be fear of this group mind
stuff.  You stand there at the focal point of all those intentions
and postulates and you might get overwhelmed and taken over by
the group.  But you don't usually invoke one of these things unless 
you begin to push hate and fear buttons.

The heavy emotional reactions may have group mind incidents as
basics.

I can seem to spot an old incident of a crowd chanting "all is one", 
wanting to become it, wanting to invoke god, a frightening religious 
ritual.

----

The cheering "hip hip hurray" can sweep you up and pull you
into resonance if you go into agreement.  Its the sympathetic
doingness, cheering together, yelling "zieg heil" or whatever
that does it, not just listening to a speaker.

Occasionally in a church when you have the people chanting a 
litany together or singing, you will get a bit of a group mind
effect.  But in this case its usually mild and uplifting.  Sit in 
on an Easter sunday service sometime and see what you can percieve.

Its strongest when everybody sings together as a unit.  Not
so strong in professional productions where there are many
different parts.  That gives you awareness of being a individual
participating in a group.

Playing in an orchestra or as part of a team with individual
roles may to some degree proof you up against this group mind
syndrom because you are drilling holding your own position as
part of a group effort.  You learn to sing your own line or
move in your own direction as a contributing part of the group
effect rather than submerging into the mob.  

This makes "chineese school" (the class reciting things together)
and group sing-alongs slightly scary.  The org is pushing this
effect sometimes with large "musters" and group participation
at events.

But I've never felt this effect in real group processing.
Although everyone does the same commands, the commands encourage
individual cognitions and differentiation of individuals.
But you can get a group mind effect in these shallow bits of
group processing that they use at the begining of events if
you have everyone do exactly the same thing without any
commands that create individual variations.

If you tell everyone to look at the right corner of the room,
you get a uniform group action.  However, if you tell everyone
to look around the room and find something that they like,
you get individual actions which undo the group mind effect.
So you're safe as long as you don't run uniform group actions
exclusively.

If you tell the group to stamp their feet on the floor, 
everyone does it their own way, some faster, some slower,
some lighter and some with more force, etc.  The effect
always seems chaotic and cheers people up.  But if you were
to have everyone stamp their right foot, and then stamp it
again, all together in unison, you would start building up 
this group mind effect and loss of identity and volition.

Applauding is not really dangerous in this regards.  People
clap faster and slower and can whistle or cheer or stamp
their feet individually.  Group waves at sporting events
where the rows of spectators stand up and down in sequence
are just fine, giving the individual the fun of group participation
without having everybody do the same thing at the same time.
Again, this aids individual differentiation because you have
to time your moment for standing and not stand up at the
same time as the row behind you does.

There was no problem with this in the old style of applauding
completions at the org as long as they didn't insist that
everybody always applaud or look happy.  But when they started
with the "hip hip hurray's" towards Ron's picture, they 
began stirring up this group mind effect because everybody is
cheering in unison.  Its very bad and quite hypnotic.

-------------

This hypnotic group mind effect is created by group activity
in unison.  It is broken by group activity with individual
differentiation where the individual has to conciously do
something different than the rest of the crowd.  Unfortunately
it is not broken by applause or having everyone stamp their
feet because those can be done either way (they don't force you
into the effect, but they don't force you out of it either).

Let's say that you're still in good standing at the org, and
you get announced or otherwise have the opportunity to control
one of these group dramatizations.  And lets say that you don't
want ethics on your back, but you do want to make a little
push towards undoing group hypnosis instead of contributing
to it.  

The thing to do is to stop the crazies from giving their usual
"hip hip hurray" by saying "lets do something really nice for
Ron" and then introducing anything which causes individual
differentiation from the group effect.  Simply dividing the
audience into 4 groups and having them hold different notes
(forming a chord) while singing "thank you Ron" would force
each person to hold separate from the composite.  Another 
good one would be to have everyone "imagine something really
nice and flow it towards Ron", but don't you dare tell them
what to mock up because its having them each imagine their
own different thing that makes them all unique.

These kind of things will get you the "together yet different"
effect which breaks group think.

Four part harmony is ideal since the majority is almost never
in unison, and yet they are all working together and in
agreement.  

--------------

One of the basic lies is that you have to be like everyone 
else so as to like and be liked by everyone else.  The tight
coupling of affinity and agreement within the ARC triange does
exist but it is a basic abberation rather than an underlying
natural law.

One of the beauties of working in an orchestra is that it shows
you that people can be quite different while participating in
a satisfying group effect.  Violins, drums, and trumpets are
all radically different from each other and yet they can
play together very nicely.

Once you've swallowed the group think lie of having to be the
same as everyone else, you then get fed the next horrible lie
which is that the only way to be different is to go into
opposition.  The lie is that you can only retain your individuality
by fighting, and this leads to building up GPMs.

You're alone and isolated in a human condition because you're
fighting off these group minds that exist at the next layer
up (everybody creating reality together, etc.).  But those group
minds are an abberation.  At the vary top, there are many
individual lines, the same yet different, which are not in
opposition to each other but instead delight in the flux of
shifting harmonies.

If the fragmentation theories have some basis in fact (see
Super Scio chapter 6A "Divide and Conquor", and Ron's HCL lectures,
and some of Allen Hacker's materials), we may sometimes fragment
in ways that leave "holes" which we want to fill, a bit like
an incomplete electron shell.  Instead of putting ourselves
back together, we join with others, both in packaging implants
and in these group minds in an effort to fill the vacumes.

If so, excessive running of Nots without balancing it by regaining
fragments of yourself (with "point to the being you divided from"
as discussed in Super Scio) might leave behind excessive vacumes
which would encourage group mind formation at the higher levels
of the org.  I'm just guessing here, but it might explain a lot.

And there is the possiblity that Ron's identity submerged totally
under the continual impact of standing at the focus of group
think.

Don't bet your money on this theory, its layed on very shakey
ground.  But please do try to break those group drilling patterns,
because something sure does happen with them and the end product
seems to be along the lines of Nazi Germany.


Best,

The Pilot

Note: I label posts like this one "Super Scio Tech" so that 
people who are not interested can skip them easily.  Sometimes
these only go to ACT (freezone), but some (like this one) also
go to ARS because they might be of interest to CofS lurkers.

========================


Subj : Super Scio Tech - SUGGESTIONS FOR HOMER


SUGGESTIONS FOR HOMER


Dear Homer,

I think that you have been a very posative force on the net, providing
a space for communication, maintaining an archive of knowledge,
making your own materials available, and continually pushing and
questioning others to get them to think, to communicate, and to
publish their own materials.

This is an essential action and I do hope that you will continue
despite the occasional tantrums, critical comments, and koosical
threats.

On that basis, you deserve some help and support in your own quest
for truth, so I will throw my own two cents in on the ever popular
discussion of what to do about Homer's case.

First off, let me acknowlege that you are wearing a tech finder's
hat and working exclusively on the basis of self CSing as well
as solo auditing.  I do the same.  You expect a process to "indicate"
before you run it.  I expect the same.

This is not impossible, although most loyalists and even many
freezoners will disagree.  It is simply extremely difficult because
all of the responsibility is on your own plate and your determination
to find truth has to be stronger than any restimulation that you
run into.

In other words, you have to want the answers so bad that you will
walk stright into heavy restim without flinching.  I do this all
the time.  And occasionaly I get kicked in the teeth.

----------


Sometimes you have to give up on an area temporarily.  Things can
go solid and trash your Itsa line.  In that case, you do things
that you know are destimulative for you personally.  Getting a
breather so to speak.  For some people this might be going out
and feeding the damn ducks (yes I read your comment about this),
that doesn't work for me because it reminds me that we are all
trapped in bodies.  But I will sit down at the piano, and that
does work for me.  I don't know what your useful destimulation
activities are, but I'm certain that there is something.  Learn
to use it in between each failed attempt to scale the mountain.

You can't keep pushing endlessly because that just brings more
and more mass into restimulation.  You take a shot at it, giving
your best effort, possibly even running it too long just to be
sure, and then you back off and catch your breath.  Try to
destimulate and restore some space and ability to Itsa, just as
much as you can manage even if you are still in bad shape.

You've got to terminate the figure figure and whatsit and free
up your attention so that you can think again.

Then, when all is quite, you look at it again and formulate a
new angle of approach and charge the mountain again.  Or you
work something else for awhile to build up horsepower or learn
more, but you always come back to that mountain eventually because 
it is unacceptable for a tech finder to do anything else.

But remember the axioms.  You charge it and then back off, and
then charge again and back off until you conquor it.  You do
not just keep pushing at the damn thing and going solid.

And as a tech finder, it is your responsibility to find ways
to destimulate yourself and drop the area temporarily no matter
how chronic and demanding the condition seems to be.  As a
self-CS, you need to find a successful way of backing off
temporarily to prepare for each new attempt.

----------

You recently mentioned that you are making gains on running
dichotomies.  I think that's great.  Don't let me derail you.
Carry on the process as long as it produces change.

Simply realizing what the items are as you go about your usual
activities is the highest scale form of listing.  This would
eventually start happening whenever I was digging up large 
numbers of items including researching penalty universes, 
implants, actual GPM platens, and spotting BT's items (what
they were being) on solo Nots.  I'd check these on the meter
later and they'd read and then FN.  Further along, they'd
just FN but I could get a read on their sequence in the
platen and their correctness, at least up to the point where
a platen would start persistant FNing, so they were valid
items.  Once you hit this point on an area, you don't really
need to use the meter anymore although its a nice validation.

I think that it means that enough charge is coming off that
the items can be itsa'ed directly.

One would suspect that simple dichotomies existed before
GPMs.  I came up with a large set in the agreements universe
"implant" (its not quite a true implant, see the description) 
which is in Super Scio 8B <20 of 32>.

Whether implanted or actual, there might (or might not) be
a sequence to the dichotomies.  You could try checking this
on the meter and see if they belong in some order.

I'm quite interested as to whether these things predate
game sphere's or develope as a consequence of them.  The
same goes for valences.  The simple rule of thumb is that
the heavier more significant factors develope later (GPMs
come long after simple problems).  So I think that the
dichotomies go earlier, but I wouldn't guarantee it.

----------

You have also talked of your great dispair.  Paul Bunyan
("Pilgrim's Progress") called this the "slough of despond".
I have been there a number of times, usually for a year or
two before I managed to pull out of it.

It is failed purpose.  For me it is being caught in the trap
and seeing no way out, dead forever hopelessness.

According to the "OT Orgs" policy, you simply rekindle the
failed purpose.  That's nice, but its like trying to empty
the ocean with a teaspoon.  But it does work to some degree, 
at least a few times.  Unfortunately, it fails if you keep 
hitting the same wall every time you get fired up and try again.

The only thing that really pulls you out is to actually make
some forward progress.  So you pull yourself together somehow
or other and keep trying.  A really good forward step and
suddenly you're moveing and the despair is like an old
bad dream, easily forgotten.


----------

As for some other angles of approach, I have some suggestions 
but as a self-CS, the decisions and responsibility are on your 
plate.


1. Don't Fixate on the Body

I would balance the intensive body/case handling with some
kind of OT drills or light recall of pleasure moments or
whatever so as to avoid validating the condition too much.

There are OT drills which will sort of work even if you have
zero reality or perception.  You must completely ignore the
issue of whether or not you are exterior and not try to prove
anything but simply take any vague win and end off on the
process (they can be run again and again).

You can look around the room with the body's eyes and spot
things you like to a minor win.  Then close your eyes and
look around the room (even if you have zero perceptions) and
spot things that you like to a minor win.  Don't push it,
stop on the win and do the process again on subsequent days.

You can find something large in your area, such as a mountain
and imagine that you are interiorizing and exteriorizing from
it.  You do this as a pure imaginary exercise without worrying
about having any perceptions or whether or not you are stuck
in the body.  Again, you stop at the mildest win.

You can find places where you are not.

Eventually you start getting little flashes of real perception.
Take these as wins and don't Q&A with them.

All of these work on a total bypass of ext/int on the basis
that the thetan was never really located in the first place so
that he is, to some degree, where ever he puts his attention.

This is all pretty much from the 3rd ACC.

  
2. Infinite Charge

You have occasionally made statements about having infinite
charge.  This is very real to me.  I have played around a lot
with infinite mockups.  These are commonly used in early implant
universes and there is a little bit of discussion about this
in Super Scio 5A <file 9 of 32>.  The infinite waves of blackness
at the end of incident 1 (truely infinite in its own space and 
time) are an example of this.

It is surprisingly easy to postulate an infinity.  It is much
easier to mockup a number line that runs to infinity than it is
to mockup unique "numbers" (each with their own symbol) from
one to a hundred.

To get control of a mockup, you must mockup multiple copies and
alter-is them slightly.  When you get enough, you will find that
you can turn it off and/or throw it away.  You mockup multiples
and then toss them and then do it again until you can causatively
turn the mockup on or off at will.  I got this by applying the
doctorate course tech to the infinities I was running into while
handling implant universes.

For infinite charge, you need to add some distinguishing
characteristic to the mockup, such as a color or taste or smell
or some other quality, whatever you can get.  You don't have
to actually see it, just feel that it is there.  Then you mock up,
lets say, an infinite redish charge, and an infinite greenish
charge, and an infinite yellow charge, etc., all concurrently, until 
you have enough parallel infinities to get some control over the 
compulsive mockup of an infinite charge.  Then you throw them all away 
and do it again until you can really have or not have an infinite 
charge at will.

If you can't "get mockups", you just imagine that these infinite
charges are there.  Just be sure to imagine multiple ones until
you have enough of them.

Of course this does not address the source of the charge, but it
will raise your horsepower and hopefully make it easier to address
the area without the charge fogging your perceptions.


3. The Incident

You have said that the incident is all around you in PT and that
you can't run track.

For this you can alternately spot something in the incident and in
the room.  Even if it is only the perception that there is charge
or occlusion to the right of you and to the left of you etc, but
be sure and spot things (Itsa) rather than putting your attention
on 'what the hell is that'.

The reason for alternating with spotting the room is to avoid
going unconcious from continually staring into an area of
unconciousness.  It is an alternation of repetatively pushing
your attention into it and then pulling back, like striking it
with a hammer.

If you start to get the thing losening up and you are finding
it easy to spot stuff, you can start spotting more things and
only spot the room when you feel that you need to.

If possible, spot the begining of the incident.

If it shifts back on the track, then spot it where it belongs.

If earlier incidents become visible, then spot those.

If higher realities or precipitating factors or pre-Mest or 
any other stuff, no matter how wild or inexplicable comes into
view, then spot that.

Always follow the line of the most available Itsa.  If you shift
to something and only spot one or two things and it fades, then
shift back to the stuff around you.

End on a win, but don't push yourself to exhaustion or try to
handle the entire condition with a single run.


4. Loss

One of the most likely causes for chronic illness is a devastating
secondary and life continuum.

These are very hard to run, are often bypassed in normal auditing,
and R3R type incident running rarely gets off all of the charge.

I believe that secondaries go much earlier on the track than
engrams (the godlike beings could lose things long before they
could actually be hurt or feel pain) and that the area is not at 
all handled by going clear or whatever.

The process I'm going to suggest here is from the 1st ACC.  I used
it once as an assist on a Class 6 OT.  When asked "who had that
condition", he mentioned his long dead wife, but he had already
been run on the death extensively and didn't think that there was
any charge left in the area.  The following process turned on
and ran out the most fantastic grief charge.  He was crying heavily
by the third time through the commands.

Run this on the point where the lost one most closely approximates
your current physical condition, or on the point where you are
confronted with their dead body, or on the point where you 
experienced a shock upon seeing the condition that they were in
and realized that they were going to die, or on the imagined
picture of their death that you mocked up when you were told
about it.

Run Alternately:

a) Mock yourself up in a body identical to theirs, right next to
them at that time, which duplicates their physical condition.

b) dissolve the body and turn into a free thetan in that space
and time.

Repeate.

Since you have mentioned that both your parents died when you were
young, both should be run.  If your Mother's death was false data, 
you would still run it based on what you thought happened at the time.

If anything turns on, especially heavy grief, you have to keep
alternating the two commands until it flattens.  These means that
its not a good solo process for beginners, but if you can keep
doing a command in the presence of heavy charge, then you should
be fine.  

There are other processes which are possible here.

Usually I would suggest starting into something like this by
running help first, but from the materials in your archives, it would
seem to me that you have already flattened that.


5. Breathing

Since you mention that breathing problems are part of the condition,
you might try mockups (or imaginings which could build up into
mockups) on things that affect breathing, on both a motivator and
an overt flow (clouds of stuff around you and you putting clouds
of stuff around others).

Here, bad air, poison gas, or various bad smells might be
very lucrative, especially things like the "stink of death".
  

6. Effort 

You have mentioned success with effort processing.

If you can run effort, you can probably upgrade it to tech 88
style attention unit running and get a more powerful result.

You do this by spotting the flow of incoming intention/attention 
units that form the effort and your counter flow of intention/
attention units that tried to stop the inflow and formed ridges.

Ron called them "attention" units, but from the description it
sounds more like "intention" units to me and there have been
some freezone writings which have been calling them that, so
in this case I do agree with changing the term (or rather, with
considering perception to be attention units and projection
to be intention units).

Another trick which can get more out of effort processing is
to find the effort behind the effort.  In other words, to run
the effort that you make to make the effort.  This is from
the HCL lectures.


7. Unflat Processes

Self auditors are especially prone to starting things and
leaving them unflat.  I make this mistake sometimes.  If you
do it too much, the bypassed areas accumulate and you start
having a rough time of it.

You could check if you have left processes incomplete and
finish them.


8. Other Factors

Tons of assists are possible (some are in Super Scio 4A <7 of 32>).

Auditing repair is a possibility if the condition was precipitated
by bad auditing.  The green form is very useful in this regards and
can be run solo if you are well enough trained and have a meter.

Out lists are fixed by doing an L4B rather than by running abuse 
(sorry Alan).  Of course abusive auditors, CSes, and Ethics officers 
are also a possibility and Alan's rundown would seem to be a good 
way of handling that.  If its both out lists and abuse, then you
handle both of course.

If you can spot and handle BTs easily, then blow them out of the
area because this will lighten it up a bit and make it easier
to handle, but don't assign source to them or the area will get
more solid.  They only contribute to the motion.  And if you
don't have awareness of these guys, then don't bother with that
approach because its not basic anyway.

If you get partial relief and the Itsa line opens up enough, you
can follow through with things that look for underlying factors,
whether incident running or handling GPMs or valances or games
or codes or whatever else that might have encouraged you to mockup
the condition.  But these things might not work if you don't have
enough free attention to Itsa the area.  They are best left for
times when you don't have something immediate that has to be handled.

And of course there are the grades buttons, especially overts.


9. Closing Comments

There are multiple whys under every condition.  Anybody can blow
through a single why using horsepower alone.  Even with multiple
sources, you usually only get momentary acute manifestations.

A chronic condition implys that there are an overwhelming number
of different whys, different reasons, different basics, none of
which undercut the others or blow them automatically (because
that would make them count as only one why).

Chronics are trouble because they accumulate more whys by the very
fact of their continued presence (they are available for use as
justifiers, serv facs, game conditions, etc.).  So you often
have to do more than just blowing the factor that percipitated
the condition.

But you don't have to blow all the whys to handle the condition.  
Just get rid of enough to shift the balance.


Hope this helps,

The Pilot

========================


Subj : Super Scio Tech - Spaceation


SPACATION

ralph@atnet.at (Ralph Hilton) wrote:

# Spacation seems to be a lost tech in the CofS. I run it regularly too.
# I have also found that adding it in to TRs gives quite a boost.

On Tue, 1 Jul 1997 11:23:11 -0400 (EDT), "Robert" <VoltR@ctinet.net> asked:

> Can you tell us the technique for doing this?  
>
> Offhand, I would imagine it would be done by holding eight anchor points in
> space while confronting, which was a technique suggested by our senior c/s
> Barbara Wilhite (Bowes) back in 1973, and which I didn't see the importance
> of at the time.  

On 1 July, Ralph replied:

# I find that too steep for most. I start people on holding the 2 back
# corners of the room while doing TR0. Then other pairs of corners. Then
# build it up to 4 then 8. 
# It seems to increase presence so that the person begins to create the
# space in which too confront rather than confronting in an
# other-determined space. Bullbait seems to flatten much quicker and
# more naturally too.
# It also seems to lessen any tendency toward robotic TRs.

This is a nice way of doing it, like intending the space on TR 8.

In 1968 I was doing this myself as a matter of course (without saying
anything about it) whenever I did TRs with anybody.  This was when I
was "keyed out OT".  One day I did this with another student who was 
in a similar keyed out state and he instantly flunked me for "putting 
him in a box".  He felt that I was forcing his space to contract to
the size of the room we were in.  I hadn't told him what I was doing.
When we discussed it, he said that it made him feel like he was
trapped.  After that I was careful to only lightly grab the corners
without makeing walls rather than strongly grabbing the space as a cube.

The doctorate course spacation technique is to start with a point and
extend a line from it.  Then extend the line into a plane.  Then
either thicken the plane into a cube or extend more lines and planes
from the corners until you make a box.  The senior variation is
to mockup your own space this way outside of physical universe space
rather than intending the existing space.  Mockups done in your own
mocked up space are supposed to be more valuable to you and more
benificial to run than mockups located in the physical universe.

Except for a few of us tech fanatics, spacation was pretty much
lost by the mid 1950s.  The last time I talked to somebody who
had done the "OT doctorate course", he had been advised by his
instructor not to try out the techniques given on the tapes because
that would be self auditing (even though Ron says on the tapes that
they can be successfully self audited).

Its nice to see that there are other people who liked this process
as much as I did.

Best, 

The Pilot

========================


Subj : RE: Forgiveness Processing (Super Scio Reply)


> From: sorenk@webtv.net (Soren Kirchner)
> Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology
> Subject: Forgiveness Processing
> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 22:11:52 -0500
> Message-ID: <5osmlo$at1$1@newsd-113.bryant.webtv.net>
>
> Most agree in the power of forgiveness:
> 
> Of what others have done to you
> Of what you have done to others
> Of what others have done to others
> Of what you have done to yourself
> 
> many believe that to forgive is a Godly thing to do and that it is at
> least liberating.
> 
> But HOW?   What is the process ?
> 
> My intention is to learn these processes apply them to myself and teach
> them in "The Forgiveness Workshop"
> 
> Anyone game for sharing the process of the actual "release" and let go?
> And please dont say, "let go..." without describing the process (steps)
> in letting go
> 
> Thank you and may God bless all of you!!!!!!!!
> 
> Soren Kirchner, Ph.D. 
> Innovation Resources 
> 11 South 12th Street Suite #402 
> Minneapolis, MN  55403
> 612.376.7886

This is the area addressed by Grade 2 in Scientology.  These are
called "overt" acts.

One of the points on this is that after comission of overts, the
person no only withholds the fact of what he has done but that
he also begins to withhold himself from action in general.

A simple but effective process used on Grade 2 is to run 
alternately:

a) What have you done
b) What haven't you said

You do not insist that the done be harmful.  Any admission of
action is acceptible.  Run in a repetative manner, the person
will come up to greater and greater confront of the things that
he has done.  Full confront and acceptance will bring about
a release.

For clearing up a specific overt, more steps can be done to
bring it into view and remove factors which hold it in place.

a) What was it
b) When was it
c) Is that all of it

The idea here being to get the complete time, place, form, and
event with enough detail to ensure sufficient confront of what
has been done.

Then you ask:

d) Who nearly found out about that

Because this can fixate the person's attention (worrying whether
or not "they" know of his overt) and bring about a persistance.
This can be followed by asking "Who else nearly found out about
that".  This is called a "Missed Withhold" in Scientology (meaning
that it was almost found out but has been missed).

Another thing that can be asked is

e) How have you justified that

Because the person also holds onto it by insisting that it
was justified.

If all of this does not produce relief, then look for an
earlier similar overt because the later repeates will hang
up on earlier times that he did the same thing.

A different point is that a "false accusation" can also cause
somebody to fixate on an overt, even to the point of leading
to his starting to commit it after being falsely labled as
a crimminal.

Another interesting point is that the person's real mental
charge on overts is based on his own moral code rather than
the rules of society.

It might help you if you can find a Scientology Academy level 2
auditor's training pack.  Sometimes these things show up in
used bookstores.


Good Luck,

The Pilot

========================
 
(This is the trailer that was on most of these messages)


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://www.ctaz.com/~misiunas/pilot/index.html

Get the Pilot materials (the 32 part SUPER SCIO book) at:
ftp://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/pub/ss/index.html
or pick up the ss## files from Homer's archive at lightlink.com.

Or search dejanews http://www.dejanews.com/ either for "Super Scio" 
or for all pilot postings to ARS or ACT using, for example:
    ~a (The Pilot) & ~g (alt.religion.scientology)

------------------