Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology From: pilot@hiddenplace.com (The Pilot) Subject: Super Scio Archive - <9/9> posts of Aug 97 Date: 25 Aug 1997 14:00:20 POST9.TXT SUPER SCIO TECH - PILOT POSTS OF AUGUST 1997 (other posts from August are in POST8.txt) ======================== Contents (Headers): Subj : Super Scio Tech - Some Advanced Processes Subj : Super Scio Tech - R Palteks Directional Rundown Subj : Super Scio Tech - re Fallen Angel Subj : Super Scio Tech - The Animal Mind Tech Subj : Super Scio Tech - To Paul Sheer re Suppressive Subj : Super Scio Tech - Solo Grade 2 Question Subj : Super Scio - Reply About Confidentiality (was To Pilot) ======================== Subj : Super Scio Tech - Some Advanced Processes SOME ADVANCED PROCESSES Here are some very powerful processes (OT drills) that I figured out recently and have been using with great success. 1. THE SOURCE DRILL Spot an object in the environment, put enough theta into it to get an answer (as in the TR8 ashtray drill), and ask it: "Who Is Mocking You Up". There will generally be many "answers" which you will percieve as feelings, telepathic images, awareness of intentions, and lines radiating off in various directions. Acknowlege each answer and keep asking until you have all the answers that you can get from a particular object and then select another object, etc. You do not expect the object to answer as if it was a being, but you may sometimes get a flow from somebody who is mocking the object up. If the object starts answering you as if it was itself a being, you probably have hit a BT in the object and should handle him with Nots or some similar technique. This is not what you are looking for on this process. What you want to do is endow enough life to pull an answer back from an inanimate object. This is how you trace lines of control and causation back to their source. Note that asking "who is mocking it up" does not work well because you tend to sit back in your head and try to figure out who is mocking the object up. What you want to do is actually reach into the space of the object (with TR1) and pull back an answer from it. Hence the need to personalize the object even though you know that there is usually no actual conciousness there. You will often get old intentions and postulates from manufacturers, designers, and assembly line workers. These are light and weak and release easily. Most of the stuff lying around is not really being held very tightly. Even the theoretical owner is not doing much to keep it there or stay in control unless it is a favorite piece of Mest. But there are exceptions. If you do this on somebody's fine new car, the strength of the postulates and intentions will just about knock you over. There is no way that you're going to end those cycles or take over control of the object. If you do a few of these, you'll get a good feel for the difference between old postulates left on circuit and active present time connections. This process can also be run on a condition if you have already handled most of your case whys and blown off any entities in the area. This lets you spot and knock off other peoples postulates to have you in the condition (either to put you there or to keep the condition in place). Other people sympathizing with a condition do, to some degree, mock up the condition and make it persist even though they don't really mean to do that. It can lock up on their own games and valences. You might also find, for example, that your mother wanted you to wear glasses to keep you out of fights or that a doctor wanted you to have a particular disease that he knew how to treat so that he could cure you successfully. One of the things about a chronic condition as opposed to an acute one is that the chronic condition will accumulate other peoples postulates over the course of time in addition to your own original whys for mocking up the condition. This makes it harder to blow unless you use this process as a final step. 2. THE ENERGY DRILL We have to a large degree concentrated on creation and on mass and havingness. This is important. But there is a flip side to the coin. Energy comes about through destruction rather than creation. Of course something has to be created first before it can be destroyed. And there is no sense in destroying your finest creations. We don't burn down nice houses to keep warm, instead we burn black coal or whatever. Note that I am using the popular definition of destroy rather than the physics one. All of our energy comes from destruction. Cars run on a series of tiny explosions. The Sun destroys matter. Our bodies destroy food. You run creation to have mass, and destruction to have energy. Direct mockups of energy never work very well, which is not to say that it can't be done, but the results are disappointing. If you concentrate exclusively on create, there is a tendency to have less motion rather than more. Destroy is not simple vanishment. If you mock up a rock and then unmock it, no energy is gained. But if you mock one up and blow it up, you get energy as a result. Just mocking up explosions is nowhere near as good as blowing up mockups of solids like rocks etc. Note that there is no balance of creation and destruction that has to be maintained. You should create more than you destroy. The universe is expanding. There is always more rather than less and we need that for havingness. Start by mocking up tiny particles and exploding them. Run chains of these tiny explosions. I pulled my back slightly the other day and my neck felt stiff as a result. I ran chains of tiny explosions back and forth through the muscels that were tightened up and they relaxed and the area felt better very quickly. There is a lot that could be done with this. I have hardly scratched the surface. Good Hunting, The Pilot ======================== Subj : Super Scio Tech - R Palteks Directional Rundown RICHARD PLATEK'S DIRECTIONAL RUNDOWN On 14 July, Richard Platek wrote: > Pilot, > > Having some experience with spacation, my take on it, is to instantly > release ANY anchor points perceived. This is all that gets noticed, is > anchor points. The bigger the better! Anchor points are felt. And they > also might have mass equal to image. If I had to create a process, I > would say, > > 1. notice a sensation. > 2. take a slow deep breath > 3. Release that breath, in the "direction" of the sensation. > 4. repeat if necessary. > 5. Notice the next sensation (anchor point) > 6. repeat 1-5 above. There are many variations of spotting lines coming into the body and "from where ..." type processes or handling the remote sources of things. But this is a new twist, namely to flow backwards along the line. It seems very smart and workable and I have been having some fun with it. > Also, I recalled and re-practiced a VERY valuable process today. I call > it "feeling with the head". Focus perception within and around the space > called head. Feel into and around the brain. Feel into and through the > brain. Feel the head from top to bottom, front to back. Feel into and > through the contraction which is thinking, knowing, stategy, desire to > know and master, knowledge, memory, image, recalled somatics, > everything. Feel your hair follicles. Feel the front of the face. Feel > the backside of the skull. Feel the entire skull itself. I've already been doing this one. It is actually a nice variation on Hubbard's "feel the aliveness in each body part". > Well, what are you waiting for? Try it. > > Love, Lion > . Very well done. It seems like new tech is springing up all over the place. This is how we will make it out, by pooling our ideas and resources rather than fanatically worshipping a single source. Thank You, The Pilot ======================== Subj : Super Scio Tech - re Fallen Angel On 17 Aug 1997, Heidrun Beer (concern@atnet.at) posted: > Subject: The Fallen Angel > Message-ID: <33fa9645.3030669@mail.atnet.at> > I recently got some data about an incident which I would call > the "fallen angel" incident. > > It is the devastating experience of being repudiated by God > forever, with no chance to ever get back into a state of grace. > The main components are an ultimate recognition of God's > allmighty power, with a simultaneous ultimate rejection by > this same desparately admired allmighty being. > > It seems to be basic for a personality pattern which lives > on the famous "Do what thou wilt" rule (= it doesn't really > matter which crimes I commit, I anyway don't have a chance > to become accepted by God again), plus a deep, hopeless, > scared and bitter protesting attitude towards people > who for some reason are thought to be representing God. > > I think the "devilish" valence stems from there - chains > of lifetimes of ultimate arrogance, playing with others like > soulless toys, because of this "It doesn't matter, I'm lost". > > I would like to hear any LRH-comments or other technical > references or auditing experiences on this. For me it's clear > that it can't be a genuine incident because a genuine God, > characterized by the omnipresence of love, wouldn't do such > a thing. So is it an incident of somebody "playing God", > or simply a vicious implant? > > Could it be that it is neither of these but a mock-up held > alive and continually projected on someboy by the one of the > distant monitor beings whom Ralph has described in the > "Structure of Character"-text he has posted to clear-l? > > If not, what is the fundamental lie which makes it persist? > > How would the auditors amongst you approach it with processing? > > How could a person with an awareness of the real 8th dynamic > approach somebody who is sitting in this incident, without > triggering his protest? > > If you read this on spirit-l, please do me a favour and CC your > post to clear-l@lightlink.com. > > Sorry if I'm asking a silly question - so far, I didn't come > across that thing in any text I have read - you know, poor > management slave who is always craving tech :-) > > Heidrun Beer (clear baby) > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Discussing CoS practice: http://www.icon.fi/~marina/clrbaby/index.htm > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > "Competition" is a trick of the weak to fetter the strong. > > Where there's a group to be helped or a preclear to be processed > or a student to be trained, see that it's done; and *if* it gets done, > don't count the cost in broken rules. > - LRH, 29.10.59 II, "Service" - > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm sure that this scene occurs in the Hellatrobus implant which I believe to be in use in sentencing people to Earth. It may occur in other implants as well. As I started reading your post, the item "To be rejected, absolutably" immediately flashed into mind along with a bit of a visio of standing between pillars (from which came the items) while looking up at a "god" who was rejecting me as a flawed creation. Glancing at the expanded Hellatrobus platen which is in Chapter 8 of the Super Scio book, the goal "to be rejected" obviously fits between "to be in heaven" and "to be created". Note that the first run of Hellatrobus is implanted backwards, so that the earliest goal implanted is "to be ended" and the final one (up at the top of all the staircases etc.) implanted is "to be created" (where you are shown being created by God). In the second run, you get the story in the forward direction, begining with being created by God, found wanting, getting kicked out of Heaven, wandering around down on Earth, and eventually ending up at the Bottom of Hell with the goal "to be ended". It seems to have 6 runs, with 3 backwards and 3 forwards, alternating. My dates on this seem to be that I first recieved the implant about 10,000 years ago and have recieved it about 8 times altogether (each time I tried to excape) with the last being about 166 years ago. With 8 occurances and 6 runs, that gives a total of 48 times that I recieved the item mentioned above. The 63 trillion years ago date is part of the implant. Supposedly that is when God created you. I would not raise the subject of Hellatrobus with the PC unless they are either a very advanced case or studying this kind of stuff comfortably on their own. I would simply ask if it might be an implanted picture or experience, and ask for how many times it was implanted. That should get them exterior to it and cool down all sorts of crazy religious figure figure that they might otherwise get into. ARC, The Pilot ======================== Subj : Super Scio Tech - The Animal Mind Tech THE ANIMAL MIND TECH Michael Mourer has been posting some material on the subject of what he has identified as "Animal Minds". I will quote a bit from his post of Fri, 11 Apr 1997 From: "spook3s" . > These self created entities respond to being called Animal Minds or AM's. > All thoughts, emotions, and efforts coming from all humans are these AM's. > .... > > It is noteworthy these AMs draw all there energy from the primordial human. > They also create duplicates of themseves and are doing so as you read > this. > > To remove (off load) these AMs and their duplicates simply ask their name > and title and number of duplicates. Then count them off. After a few > thousand hours of this proceedure you will naturally go > from egoistic to altruistic. This is the natural (primordial) you > emerging. Your natural state is essential purity and spontanaity. There seemed to be enough substance to it for me to give it a try and follow up on it. But note that his posts are also filled with attacks and invalidation of all other technologies. He is pushing that this is the one and only case "why". It twists his viewpoint a bit because he is trying to force square pegs into round holes and they don't fit very well. Its like Ron getting snarled up in incident 2 and thinking that everything came from BTs. I suspect that what happens is that one gets a really bad, heavy, central incident into massive restimulation and then it seems like the one incident is source for everything. I had this happen for a few months while researching the penalty universes. But I managed to flatten them and everything fell back into perspective. I hope that Michael can pull out of this dramatization before it sinks him completely. He does have something to contribute and his effort to make his tech easily available to others is commendable. He has apparently been running a single case phenomena for thousands of hours. And the fact that they only answer up to "Animal Minds" specifically indicates that the source is an implant or a series of implants. This means that he is either overrunning, or running with inadequate ITSA, or the technique he's using is simply too slow. I played around with this a bit and I managed to find some huge clouds of emotions that would answer up as "animal minds". And he's right in that they wouldn't answer up to anything else. But asking their name and title just didn't seem to reach into the core of these clouds. And running self duplicating theta constructs can take a very long time unless you use a question that will be copied back to the first original that is projecting the duplicates. In other words, you hit duplicates of duplicates of duplicates and simply reaching for the most basic one you can find still leaves you a couple layers beyond the original. If you simply run that one, you are using a teaspoon against the ocean. I ran into this with what I have been calling "Programmed Machine Entities" (PME's). It was slow freight and just endless until I hit the "Spot being made into a machine" question, which is central enough to their anatomy that it gets copied into places that you couldn't reach without taking off layers and layers. So I tried the PME question, but it didn't work at all on these guys. And I tried the Nots technique and that was almost unworkable. Next, because it seemed like these were split off pieces of myself rather that pieces of somebody else, I tried the "point to" question, but it only works marginally. Then I got bright and came up with "Spot being made into an animal mind". If you just permeate the whole cloud and hit it with that one, it will start unravelling. There seems to be a cloud for each major "emotion" such as hated, fear, lust, jeliousy, vengance, etc. After a few of these clouds dissolved I tried to get to the underlying implant. It seems to be the same one that I have labled "emotional basic". Its mentioned in the Super Scio book as an area for further research. I've been clipping the edges of it here and there, but it had remained extremely obscure. So I have to thank Michael for giving me a hand with this one. I still don't have a good handle on the incident, but it seems to be a very early "mass implant" type of thing, which is done by and to very senior beings who are capable of projecting multiple bodies at will. The scenery and events involve more than 3 dimensions, so its hard to visualize. This one probably dates all the way back to the "Reality Wars" (see Super Scio). This would be the original one that mocks up emotions. Much later, the penalty universes of the home universe era take these emotions and arrange them and lay in the pattern of the tone scale. And there is a very heavy later similar incident in the "Symbols" universe where one builds "emotional thought pools". This adds a BT cross copy factor to the mess because lots of different people all put pieces of themselves into these pools where they are bound together into emotional amplifyers. But the original source is these clouds formed of pieces of yourself. There is a tendency to bounce into the later thought pools incident while trying to run the earlier clouds incident. And I suspect that the penalty universes and possibly also the "big splitter" (see Super Scio) might also be getting in the way if I hadn't already taken a lot of charge off of them. The begining of the incident has something like "to be emotional is the divine purpose of existance". There seem to be worlds full of creatures within you and you have to fill them with emotions. And its very very asthetic. And in some way or other they manage to convince you that everything would be pointless and meaningless and apathetic unless you mocked this damn thing up compulsively and hid it from yourself. The incident consists exclusively of asthetic and emotional impacts. There is no physical force in it and you were probably senior to physical force and incapable of being hit at the time that it was done because you were still senior to bodies and projecting them in vast quantities as needed. I would suggest taking apart every emotional cloud (with spot being made into an animal mind) that you can find before tackeling the incident directly. I tend to take a shallow pass and jump ahead because I have such a compulsion to see how everything fits together. But even a shallow pass took off a lot of weight for me. - The Pilot ======================== Subj : Super Scio Tech - To Paul Sheer re Suppressive TO PAUL SHEER - HOW NOT TO BE SUPPRESSIVE On 12 Aug, Super-User posted > Subject: Questions for Koos and others: the USP series and me > Message-ID: <5sqem4$85b$1@nntp.wits.ac.za> > I read through the entire USP series twice. Thank you Koos - it > has really helped me. > > I realise now full well that I AM an SP. This is not by way of my actions, > but by my intention to destroy others. What I found disappointing > about the USP series was the little given in aid of readers who ARE > SP's, who REALISE this, and who WANT to change. Unfortunately, Koos mostly just rants and raves about things. He sees a small fire and instead of putting it out, he pours petrolium on it so that others will see it better and acknoledge that Koos has seen a real fire. I have looked at some of his materials and have not found them to be helpful in actually changing conditions for the better. There are many things in Homer's archives that are actually helpfull, and there are the many LRH books, and there is the material that I have been posting, and lots of other good stuff. To begin with, let us NOT say that you are suppressive. This is just a big generality and a way for others to blame things on you and discount what you are saying. Instead, let us recognize that you have spotted an evil intention "to destroy others" and acknowlege that you are already advanced enough to confront this and realize that it is undesirable. You seem to be willing to do something about it, and that is half of the battle right there. A person adopts an evil purpose in an attempt to solve an area of heavy confusion and non-confront. These are never the person's real purpose, but are only abberated solutions to things going wrong. Therefore, they are labled false purposes in modern Scientology. These things are encouraged by old implants which give you self-destructive ideas like the only way out is to destroy. But those are only suggestions. It is you who either chooses to follow them or finds a better way to deal with life. From the situation you described, it seems like you are still in the midst of the "confusion" and have not yet jammed the false purpose in on top of it completely. So let us move on to dealing with the confusion itself. > ... > So I decided to be in > perpetual suppression of others rather than be called names - it did > work: people have this bizarre respect for me, but I'm hurting them > and having no social life. This is really miserable. > > I hate life, I hate people, and I hate this world. I see people as > coming in three kinds: those that would destroy me, those that > would condone my destruction, and those who are too thick or > afraid to do anything but stand by and watch. > > Now my question is this: Is the problem that I feel pain over their > thoughts, or that I say wrong things to give them those thoughts > to start off with? > > Is this just me, or do other people have this problem with thoughts > of others and just keep it a secret, as I have my whole life. I had this trouble for a time during my teens. Although I do believe in telepathy, it is not necessary to bring it into the picture to analyze this problem. Everybody feels other people's approval or disapproval. The means by which this occurs is secondary to the unpleasant feeling of being disliked and rejected. Even a psychologist could see this on the basis of the subliminal clues that we give each other. So let's not worry about how this done but simply recognize that most people usually can recognize how others feel about them. The first key to this whole thing is that there are FEEDBACK EFFECTS. If you project love, it encourages love. If you project hate, it encourages hate. These things bounce back and forth. You put out some bad feelings in their direction and they feel worse about you so you are encouraged to put out more hate and so they put out more hate and so you put out more hate, etc. Or you put out some good feelings and they feel a little bit better about you and so you are encouraged to put out more good feelings and so they are encouraged to put out more good feelings, and so forth. If you can put out love despite their hate, it gradually reduces their hate and they begin to feel better about you. Of course there are many other factors involved in inter-personal relationships. But this one is so significant that it can turn things around all by itself. The second key is that real world communications can take preceedent over the subtiler mental effects. If somebody is thinking "what a stupid shit he is" and you say something like "how are you?" it often derails the though process. Thoughts are often very transient things of low significance. And people bounce back and forth between contradictory ideas quite freequently. In Scientology there is something called the ARC triangle which is the idea that Affinity (liking), Reality (agreement), and Communications are all inter-related and have a feedback effect upon each other. In other words, if you communicate more, then people tend to like you more and agree with you more. And if you like people, they tend to communicate with you more and are more inclined to agree with you. And so on. Because of this, Scientology pushes communication heavily in its beginners courses because it does produce radical improvements in a person's life. But they don't have an exclusive on the subject of communication. Anything that you can do to improve your ability to communicate with others will help. The ability to percieve other's viewpoints is a very powerful one. It means that you must act as the more evolved being in your relationships to others. It is for you to make the communications go well. This does not mean propitiating or fawning on other people. That is actually not very good communication and people don't generally like it very much. What it means is real communication. Confident, comfortable, warm, and certain. And realize that sometimes you have to keep communicating for awhile before the effect is felt. People take time to change. > I think that people on this newsgroup spend to much effort trying to > convince readers of the truth of their knowledge than giving them > alternatives. OK, I'm convinced that we have been reincarnating for > billions of years, I believe in Xenu, Venus, etc etc. > Now what the hell must I do! I can't afford auditing at $NNN-NN > dollars per hour. I can't even afford a psychiatrist. I have gotton > much benefit from the writings of Homer and Koos. But more than > this, I've been given a false sense of hope: "YES! we've found you the > solution to life, you're just to financially inadequite." You can do a lot with self-study and solo processing. Its more than just believing in things. You can do various drills and exercises and processes. But you will need much more understanding than somebody who is being processed by a professional. You will have to become your own professional by self-study. Take advantage of the wealth of material that is here on the internet. And search out printed books and materials as well. Its all in your own hands. > I'm also not convinced that all these newsgroup contributors are so happy > where I have managed to conceal my own unhappyness so well. "Come out and > admit your own unhappyness first, and then you will have some credibility." > I would really like to talk sincerely to those who would admit similar > problems to mine. I'm unhappy about lots of things. There is much that I would like to change in the world. I would, for example, like to see orthodox Scientology reformed. This is not just an idle passtime for me. I put many years of my life into the subject and mucho dollers as well. I think that I have a right to demand that they act better. And I have a vested interested in wanting to see them forwarding the cause of spiritual advancement instead of inhibiting all further research in the field. Besides which, many of my friends are still at the effect of how Scientology chooses to kick them around. But you get better by moving forward in areas where you are making progress rather than by immersing yourself in failures and self-pity. As you gain strength in one area, it carries over into other areas that previously seemed imposible. Things spiral upwards or downwards. You can't take the entire weight on your shoulders at once. In metaphysics they say that "a tree grows from a single seed". So you take the easy targets first and build up. > I would love to start my own 'org' and audit people and be audited > day and night, and perhaps devote my life to studying this phenonemen. But > where is the fascility for doing this? In this country I have met > only one practacing Scientologist outside of the Church and he wanted > around $50 (roughly) per hour. I would need thousands of hours to > become a clear, he said. Right now, I'm a student, with just enough > scholarship money to support myself. What are my options? If you are going to start an organization and audit, you definitely need to undertake a course of study, learning and investigating everything that you can about the mind. I'm a firm believer in self-study. All it requires is time, motivation, and sources of materials to study. Investigate the libraries, explore the internet, read and digest and apply everything that you can lay your hands on. Its not a matter of belief. Its a matter of understanding and practical application. I'm looking forward to seeing your org when you are ready to create one. And perhaps there are others in your area who will contact you if you keep posting to the net. > HELP > > Paul Sheer > > psheer@hertz.mech.wits.ac.za > psheer@budget.mech.wits.ac.za > > Tel +27 11 788 7748 Best, The Pilot ======================== Subj : Super Scio Tech - Solo Grade 2 Question SOLO GRADE 2 QUESTION superandrew@tripod.net wrote: > Dear friends, i am a class v graduated auditor who was on staff on an > earth church and got fed up of being treated bad from seniors , > getting no auditing, low income, high working hours ; i figured out > that by devoting all my forces to the church i will be committing an > overt on 1d 2d 5d 6d 7d. > Now i don't have a freezone auditor in my country so i am attempting > to go through grade2 to the top alone, by solo auditing me, do you > have any suggestions or can you give me any help ? > much love, > littleLRH Good for you. I have managed to run grades style processes on myself solo. But it is difficult. You need a high level of skill and enough persistance to flatten the process. This is probably out of reach for people who are not trained auditors. I have been thinking a lot about how to do a mostly solo bridge. It is easier with more narrowly focused commands that can be answered more easily and will flatten faster. And it helps to boost the person's posative side a bit more so that they retain enough horsepower as the process brings things into restimulation. With this in mind, lets take a look at the key process for Grade 2 which is "What have you done", "What haven't you said". First of all, we are addressing two targets rather than one. It would be better to deal with done and withheld doingness separately from hiding what one has done. So let us use "what have you done", "what have you kept yourself from doing" as our first process. Then we could use "What have you let others find out" alternated with "what have you kept hidden" as our second category of process. But we should also narrow the target, so we might do this by dynamics. Each is run alternately to EP. 1.1a) What have you done with your body 1.1b) What have you kept yourself from doing with your body 1.2a) What has another done with their body 1.2b) What has another kept themselves from doing with their body 1.3a) What have others done with their bodies 1.3b) What have others kept themselves from doing with their bodies 2.1a) What have you done with sex 2.1b) What have you kept yourself from doing with sex (other flows as above) 3.1a) What have you done with children 3.2b) What have you kept yourself from doing with children (other flows as above) 4.1a) What have you done with loved ones 4.2b) What have you kept yourself from doing with loved ones (other flows as above) And so on, including things such as work, groups, governments, society, animals, life forms, objects, energy, space, time, spirits, (entities if appropriate), religion, god, infinity, ethics, asthetics, knowlege, games, creation. Note that done does not mean committed an overt. It just means done. Overts are allowed to come up if they need to, but do not have to be searched for. Then one could run 1a) What have you let others find out about your body 1b) What have you kept hidden about your body And continue on through the same pattern of processes as above. I know its a lot of processes, but most of these could probably release in a few commands and the whole set (maybe 144 processes) can probably be run in a half dozen hours solo. My gut feeling was to use 3 flows on this rather than four. The first flow here is mostly causative and pretty much flow zero as well as allowing for flow 1. This might run well with only two flows (self and others) because of the similarity between another and others. Running things by dynamics is to a great degree a sort of super bracket anyway and is less likely to give trouble due to unrun flows. And our real target here is one's own causation and awareness of other's causation. This is, of course, highly experimental. So use your judgement as to what else might be needed. Other flows, buttons, and command wordings are possible. But the above should take one hell of a lot of charge off of grade 2. Please post your experiences with doing a solo bridge as you work your way up the chart. I think that mostly solo, with review and booster rundowns from professionals, would be the fastest way to set everyone free. Good Luck, The Pilot ======================== Subj : Super Scio - Reply About Confidentiality (was To Pilot) DISCUSSION OF CONFIDENTIALITY, RESTIMULATION, ETC. On July 15, Richard Platek (lines marked # ) carried forward a discussion with leader (lines marked > ) who was in turn referencing an even earlier message from Oleg V. Matveyev on the subject of confidentiality. First, the following is the preface from Oleg's message (marked = ) which was included in leader's post. = Please forward this to The Pilot if there is a possibility. I liked his web = page very much. I was in Sea Org for about a year and now = I myself am in Free Zone and there is some interesting comments from = my friends on "What's wrong with confidentiality" and other = things on this www page. = = Feel free to give him my e-mail account. = = Oleg V. Matveyev = ------------------------------------------------------ = = e-mail: fz-ru@freezone.org (Lotse) = freezone@orc.ru (Moscow) = ------------------------------------------------------ Thank you for the encouragement. I couldn't find the original message (I have both leader's and Richard's followups). Could somebody repost it? leader wrote: > > ((< him. ...>> # While I am out of my element here, I tend to agree with this. > > I don't, and you will agree with me after you have gained enough auditing > experience with OT reviews. # Okay, this matter is the subject of much debate. If we are talking about OT reviews, rather than low level reviews where the person might have accidentally found out about OT3, then we are talking about people who are already supposed to know about the confidential materials. Wouldn't it be more likely that the OT's troubles were due to wrong whys, evaluation, invalidation, mis-CSing, and other technical troubles rather than the simple fact of having found out about the confidential data? And, since charge is bascically self-created, wouldn't it make something significantly more restimuative to convince people that it is dangerous and then surprise them with it after keeping it hidden? Don't primitive people get very restimulated by stuff that they are superstisious about? Things that don't bother an educated person? Itn't it mostly due to the undo significance that they place on some things? This is not to say that its all mocked up. But what component is due to the actual charge and what is due to the fact of having made it confidential? > Let me try to explain it in simple terms: Basically, the tech of auditing is > the "art" of selectively restimulating parts of the PC's case in such a > sequence that the PC can efficiently as-is ever-increasing portions of his > bank. > > If too much is restimulated at one time, the PC will be overwhelmed and his > situation will worsen and not improve. This is especially true if the > restimulation might "kick off" major parts of his case. # I don't agree with the words, AND I have seen this happen. And, there # are other mechanics involved. One can as-is positive "influences" and # "motivations". It can leave one without the necessary motivation to # continue. I do agree with the words and the mechanics described (although Richard is right in noting that there are also other mechanics), however, leader is missing an important point. Restimulation cools down fairly quickly. Present time impingement is much more significant. We always have to deal with PCs being overwhelmed or restimulated because life can be overwhelming and restimulative. Somebody who has just had his senior screaming at him is generally more overwhelmed and keyed-in than a low level PC who has just read the OT3 confidential data in the newspaper. Both situations can be handled. And either one will cool down by itself if the person doesn't keep getting kicked in the teeth by life. Grade 3 (upsets, ARC Breaks), for example, is very restimulative and out-gradient on a new person. People throw fits, break dishes, and scream at the top of their lungs. But we don't hide the tech on it. And we use it as a rudiment from the very begining even though it would be much too restimulative to try and run it as a grade before addressing easier things. The real problem was that the OT3 tech is too difficult and messy to use as a rudiment, so you didn't have a good quickie way of destimulating it. This changed when NOTS was developed. That is certainly easier than running a list repair or even assessing an ARCX when the PC is really upset. > Certain parts of the OT levels can restimulate such "major pieces > of charge". While the general charge in areas like OT 3 has > fortunately been reduced a lot by the many people who have completed > those levels meanwhile (today, reading OT 3 material usually will > no longer cause any illness while it was guaranteed to do so > some 20 years ago), it can nevertheless cause individual problems as has > been reported by review auditors. (I did not have to fix up PCs > recently, but I did fix up OT-3-restimulations when I still was > in the Sea Org in the 70's.) # Well, you are over my head (as far as your model goes) with this. The material was not very restimulative. What is restimulative is the idea that all of your case is coming from OT3 and that you are at total effect. Another staff member told me the OT3 data in 1969. He had heard it from somebody on lines at a splinter group. He was very keyed in. I'd already mucked around a bit with entities based on the stuff in History of Man and what was in the early tapes. I though it was funny and that it was just a squirrel twist on what was in History of Man combined with some old space opera incident. I grabbed a copy of HofM and sat down with the other staff member and went over the material on entities, how the phenomena exists but has little power because its not your own case and can only affect you if you feed it energy etc. When we finished, he was grinning and feeling better and we both though that the "squirrel" was an idiot for putting so much importance on a stupid incident and we though that he was trying to key his PCs in by making them mis-own resposibility for their own case by mis-assigning it to entities. On that basis, we concluded that he really was a suppressive! We didn't know that he was simply copying Ron's tech. Very funny in retrospect. I bet that my friend would have gotten sick if I hadn't handled him as I did. He was all set to offload his entire case on this "horrible incident that had been done to us and the entities that were manipulating him like a puppet on a string". In fact, I might even have gotten sick at that time if I had believed that OT3 was the source of all my case. Remember that this was the quickie era. People got onto the upper levels after only a few hours of lower grades processing. They would have, lets say 15 minutes of problem processing and suddenly feel good about problems for a few days. If they ever had another problem, it was attributed to OT3. So of course the level was over restimulative and a real killer. But it's because of the wrong why and endless mis-ownership. And please note that the incident and the idea of entities was not unreal to me. I had actually seen a bit of incident 2 (without having heard the materials) in dreams when I was sick back in 1968. It was one of the many things that had keyed in when I collapsed out of the keyed-out OT state. But I had considered it (and still consider it) to be a minor incident. The splitter incidents are much more significant than the joiners (like overts are more significant than motivators) and both are mentioned in the early tapes. Its interesting that you bring up the point that having some people run OT3 reduces the charge for others. I do think that there is some truth to this. But are you aware that the logic behind this is based on what is now being called the "fragmentation theory"? They have been hacking up and omitting parts of the HCL lectures of 1952 (it includes Nots data among other things) which is the main source of the fragmentation theory ("theta siblings, both split off of the same earlier individual"), but there is still a bit of it in the materials that are available. Supposedly, if you run an incident prior to the time of split, it runs the incident out of the other theta siblings as well. And you can pull incidents sideways out of your siblings. Ron discusses a character named Piedro who is one of his theta siblings. Supposedly he even left behind a screenplay about this and the org is planning to film it. The org doesn't realize that this is the next level beyond the "Revolt in the Stars" movie. This is the overt side rather than the motivator. The fragmentation stuff is much more advanced and therefore theoretically much more restimulative than the entity stuff. But we haven't made a big deal out of it or jammed it down people's throats and we are not attributing all case to it. So its not a big deal and people aren't much bothered. Its there when you're ready for it (see Chapter 6 of my Super Scio book) and meanwhile it can be ignored in the face of more important things such as PTPs, Overts, and ARC Breaks. > << ... I'm curious about the policy of the Freezone as regards confidentiality. > Is Excalibur [Excalibur is Captain Bill's package of AA IV - VIII levels] > available for perusal in the Net? If not why?>> > > To my knowledge, the OT levels are treated as confidential by all European > freezone orgs. While the excalibur materials are available free of charge for > properly trained auditors who want to deliver them, Captain Bill clearly set > forth specific prerequisites for every single level. There is no general freezone policy because there is no central point of control (which I consider to be a good thing), so each of the many freezone groups has its own policies on this. Some have swallowed the idea of confidentiality and some have not. If you form your own group, then you will get to call the shots. I don't keep my stuff secret. Capt. Bill's group does keep some of his stuff hidden. Nobody can keep Ron's stuff secret anymore because its all over the internet. # If one knows there are "advanced" levels then it's too late to keep them # private or better said "non public". It depends on how well the advanced # levels can be communicated. The should be hinted at to encourge desire # for continued growth. Most of all they should be DEMONSTRATED by those # that have completed these levels. That creates a desire to duplicate. # And that is VERY motivating. > OT levels are precise methods which bypass many protection mechanisms > of the mind. So they are not suited for "coffee shop auditing" and thus > don't belong onto the Net.)) Is the net only useful for coffeeshop auditing? I don't see it that way. As for bypassing the protection mechanisms of the mind, I don't see how they do that or how they could do it to any great degree. Materials lie there passively and you causatively read them. And there is nobody to scream at you or pressure you if you decide that they don't indicate right now. One living being working another over the coals is how the protective mechanisms get bypassed. Or a well meaning auditor who is flubbing badly at a time when the PC has purposfully set aside his own protective mechanisms because he wants what the auditor is supposed to be able to deliver. # Cast not, your pearls before swine. Perhaps this was not a deep as it # appeared. Not only that, discovering secrets is one of the best # motivators I have ever seen. And keeping motivation in, is one of the # underated tools. # # A motivated being, can lift a universe. Motivation is an important point. But making things secret is not going to inspire people who are not reaching. For somebody who is reaching (in other words, already involved in this subject), the big make/break factor on motivation is the success/failure ratio. If somebody is making big gains, you don't have to keep the levels secret, he will want to do them all anyway. People want to get their problems handled on grade 1 even if they know what grade 1 is about. Confidentiality is mostly just sticking the person with a mystery which might keep him paying out of despriation when you have failed to deliver or handle his case. # Homer, as much as I love him, is an example of "under motivation". This # is not an insult to Homer, it really isn't. Homer is in a prison which # he freely admits to building the walls. I have watch many share personal # power to help him break out of his prison. And in VERY compassionate # ways. Stupid ways too. I have been guilty of this. And yet, not one of # us has motivated him to draw so deeply on his own resources that he # actually makes it out, to the next level. I am not angry at myself for # not being able to do this. I don't have a "one size fits all" mentality. # And it is very likely that I will not win at this game. Perhaps Homer # really does have demons which all the tech in the world will not # exorcise. Who, but Homer knows. I do believe that Homer is dealing with # something bigger than any of us want to admit. I know that his pain # transcends mine. Or it seems to. And his sorrow, I cannot fathom. # # I have, for the last few weeks, stopped trying to help Homer. I have # focused on trying to get to know him. # # Sorry, Homer, This didn't start out as a post about you, It's just where # it ended. # # Love, Lion I certainly don't think that Homer is undermotivated. In fact he acts like he is intensly driven to find answers and get out of the trap and to develope understanding and help others along the way. A lot of folks complain about how he is full of piss and vinegar. But as I see it, he is simply demanding of people that they do the best that they can, questioning everything and insisting on real meat, rather than letting the newsgroup deteriorate into fluffyness and PR. I suspect that he is rather disgusted (as am I) with the wishfull thinking type wins and undelivered promises that are the mainstay of Scientology PR. He's wearing the hat of a research team leader or perhaps of the "petty tyrrant" that Carlos Castenadas says is needed to inspire you to growth. ARC, The Pilot ======================== The following trailer was used on 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://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 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) ------------------