Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology
From: pilot@hiddenplace.com (The Pilot)
Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 20 - JAN 9, 1998 PILOT POSTS TO ACT
Date: 9 Jan 1998  14:00:36


POST20.txt 

SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 20 - JAN 9, 1998 PILOT POSTS TO ACT

see also post19.txt containing the posts to ARS (crossposted to ACT)


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

Contents:

 subj : Super Scio - Answering Steve on Codes
 subj : Super Scio - Answering Joe The Eternal
 subj : Super Scio - To Ray Kemp on OCA'S
 subj : Super Scio - To Oleg About Publishing
 subj : Super Scio Tech - Answers About Clear (Attn Oleg)
 subj : Super Scio Tech - Lock Scanning (Attn Robert & CBW)
 subj : Super Scio Tech - A Lesson From S. Africa (Attn Ivy)
 subj : Super Scio Tech - HOMER'S PROOF
 subj : Super Scio - Cosmic Forces At Work

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


 subj : Super Scio - Answering Steve on Codes

ANSWERING STEVE ON CODES

On 7 Jan 98, Steve Brock <stebro@tdn.com> asked on
subject - To Pilot: The "codes"

> To The Pilot:
> 
> First of all, much thanks for the self clearing book.  I think my gratitude
> is inconsequential compared to the good karma you will reap from what you
> have sewn.  I do have something that I want to bring up though.  During my
> search through the freezone I have found that it appears that Alan Walter
> has made some amazing breakthroughs in the tech.  While I am only beginning
> to work with the materials of Knowledgism, I am basing this opinion on the
> things that I have read and the opinions and testimonials of a great many
> others.  I am not talking about people dragged off the street, who are
> dazzled by this tech, I am talking about long time scientologists who claim
> that this technology is a quantum leap beyond what the CofS has to offer.
> 
> Alan Walter states that the basic basic basic on any case is what he calls
> the "codes".  He says that each individual has their own codes and that
> these codes give us the reason for existence.  The initiation of the codes
> is a the very beginning of the track.  By discovering one's codes, that
> individual can then be processed from the top down and processing can be
> taylored around one's own codes.  Using this approach huge case gains can be
> made quickly, in less time with more stable results.
> 
> If this is true, then it appears to me that this and this alone should be
> the focus of any research being done by independent scientologists.  Why has
> this not been found by anyone but Alan?  Are we missing the boat here?  He
> claims to have found this for himself in 1962 (his codes) but only recently
> realized the significance of this on any one given case.  It seems at this
> point to be the foundation of the processing that is done in Knowledgism.  
> 
> I would very much like your opinion on this.  Is this something that you
> have previously looked at?
> 
> Gratefully yours,  steve


LRH was a great proponent of the idea that there was one basic
which could undo everything else.  This is the dianetic pyramid
(upsidedown with the entire reactive mind focused on a single point
where it could be toppeled) in the early days and the core of the
reactive mind by the time of the clearing course.

So with every new discovery, it was a big eureaka, and this is
the one and only basic, and let's throw all the other tech away.

It never worked.

Some people still have this idea and simply think that Ron never
found it but it is there.

I think that it is more like a mine cave in.  There is a big pile
of bolders and rocks and dirt in your way.  You can pull a basic
piece and a whole bunch of other stuff comes down with it, but
you can't get the whole thing by pulling at one key point.

You probably don't have to get every basic because you just
need enough room to crawl out.  But you need a lot more than
one.

Alan's codes are probably more basic than Ron's GPMs, but
both are just individual rocks in that big pile.

I do not know the details of Alan's code research because he 
is a bit secretive.  I do have some guesses and I know that
there is early charge both on the subject of ethical codes
and on the subject of violating ones own postulates.

In self clearing, I take the approach of lightly pulling at
many different things and striking from many angles to
loosen up the rock pile rather than trying to pry away
at a particularly big bolder.

For GPMs, the self clearing has some light touches that
should drain charge.  But the full pry bar handling is
in chapter 3 of super scio.  That can also be done if
necessary, but it would be too difficult for a beginner
to do alone unless they had already done the self clearing
book (a trained auditor could take a go at it first if
they wanted).

On the areas of ethical codes and of postulates, the
self clearing book again includes some light handling
that should drain charge.  The pry bar against the
area (Alan's codes if I am guessing correctly) would
also be of value.

Self clearing will not be practical for everybody because
it doesn't provide the same hand holding as co-processing.
Some people will want co-processing first.

In that case, the most important consideration in my mind
is that they be handled by someone who is really intending
to help rather than to exploit and who will let the person
grow so that they can move on to self clearing and other
areas once they have handled whatever the practioner is
best at using to give them good gains.

I have not been to Alan's center.  I do not know what is
going on there.  But based on rumor, the indications are
that he meets these criteria.

I don't think that he has the one and only answer.  But
I do think that he is providing some valuable case 
handling and working on an area of importance.

Look in the archives for my posts on the Furies.  I
addressed an area that was of real trouble to me by
using LRH tech, my own tech, Alan's tech, Enid's tech,
and Robert's tech.  Each and every one took off charge
of one kind or another and none of them undercut all
the others completely.  The area finally yielded to
all this intense handling and is really far gone.
But it could be run on all of these things in 
succession with great results and more gains from each
one.

I actually got much more out of it and had much deeper
cognitions by striking at it from many different angles
than I could have by pushing harder on any one line.

Which is my point exactly.


Best,

The Pilot

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


 subj : Super Scio - Answering Joe The Eternal

ANSWERING JOE THE ETERNAL

On 3 Jan 98,  Joe The Eternal <jmoss37@worldnet.att.net>
posted on subject "TO PILOT"


> Dear Pilot,
> 
> Thank you so much for all the work you have done.  I am an ex-sea org
> member, and never thought that I would be able to get the benefits of
> the tech by going through the church. (Just way too expensive)  My wife
> and I are doing your book, and seeing great benefits, and case gain.  I
> have a couple of questions that I would like to ask, if that would be
> alright.
> 
> 1)In your last posting, you spoke of LRH's death, and how he was drugged
> in the last stages prior to leaving his body.  I have always been
> interested in what the true story is behind all of this, but found that
> your couple of paragraph's only whetted my appetite here.  I can not
> imagine how the old man could have gone on drugs in the first place
> considering all the tech he put out about how bad it all was.  We all
> have out weaknesses, and I'm sure that LRH had his too, but the idea
> that he was so heavily into drugs, as is put out by the entheta I hear
> on various web pages, just doesn't ring completely true with me.  My
> questions in this area are:
> 
> a) Who did the drugging in the last stages of his death, and could it
> have been a "hit" job by those that wanted him out of the way?

According to the critic's pages (which include the coroner's report
and actual photographs), at the end he was injected with a drug
(see pictures of needle marks on his butt) that could have been
taken orally.

I tend to think that it was forced for this reason.  But I was
not there and there is no direct proof.
 
> b) If they were psych drug's, is it possible that the drugs were
> administered by a psych, or under the direction of psychiatry?

I don't know.  Taking a guess, they might have been perscribed
by Ron's phisician (Dr. Denk) who then convieniently went off on 
vacation or something like that and then they might have been
injected by Miscaviage.  

Note that Denk is or was attached to Shaw Health Center down in LA 
near the complex.  He might have left the drugs as an emergency
measure and it might not have been out of bad intention.  He might
have gone off on vacation (again guessing) because maybe Ron did
want to die in a drug free condition and Denk was worried about
his leagal position or wanted to wash his hands of the matter.
He might not have expected the drugs to be used.

Personally, I avoid using drugs to suppress pain because I believe
it is a not-is and just makes things worse if you do it for a
long time.  But I would (and have) certainly taken drugs while
in the Hospital.  The difference is between use in an emergency
and chronic use.  If I was near death (as I was that one time
in the Hospital), I would expect the doctors to use everything
in their arsenel to aid in my recovery.  But if I knew that it
was hopeless and I was going to drop the body, I would want that
one week of drying out before dying in the hopes of being more
conscious as I left the body even though there might be significant
pain involved.

Without knowing, I would guess that Ron would have the same
attitude.  Namely, to let the doctors (Denk) try to handle
with drugs if there was some hope of it working, and then when
it looked hopeless, to dry out from the drugs before dropping
the body.  This seems sensible.  The one out point is those
injections which may have been given forcibly on his last day.


> Any more leads to clarify what really happened would be most helpful. 
> If it was done by those in charge of the church right now then I would
> have to say that this leads to some very interesting questions as to the
> real intentions of the leaders of the church right from the beginning.

One outpoint is that they creamated immediately and then had a
bit of a service while spreading the ashes.  If you read the
Scientology funeral service (I am posting a bit of it), you
will see that it is to be read to the dead body before it is
creamated in the expectation that the thetan will hear the
service.  One would have expected his family and friends to
have gathered and said words of good wishes to him in the
expectation that he would hear them before he went off to try
to research the between lives area.

Also, there was supposedly a rundown he wrote for what an
OT should do when he dies.  They were going to release this
and charge big bucks for it.  I would have therefore expected 
them to do this even if only to collect the big bucks.

But they never released the rundown.  One wonders why not.
Even if it was only a few grand, they could certainly have
sold it to a few thousand people and gotten quite a few
million dollars added to the stats.

The reason which I am imagining is that the rundown explains
this business about dying in an undrugged condition (this is
not just my own idea, it is even in one of the near death books
by a doctor who has been researching near death experiences).

If he had actually said that in writing, and with the needle
mark pictures having gotten out, then whomever engineered it
(I suspect Miscaviage) would have had to suppress the release
of the rundown.

 
> 2)I was first intrigued by the freezone through Capt. Bill Robertson's
> page out in Germany.  What do you know of their organization?  Is it a
> valid continuing of work on the bridge?  What do you know of Capt. Bill
> himself?  Can you shed some light here on what happened between him and
> the church other than what his web page says?  Is what he claim's about
> the church being infiltrated by the US government or other entities
> possibly true?

Hard to say.  Most of what I know is already in some posts that
I wrote to Oleg where he was passing on things that one of Capt.
Bill's people had written him.  The posts are in the Pilot's archive.

 
> 3)  I am quite impressed that you have remained unapproachable by the
> church and that they have not found out who you are.  This to me shows
> that the "fabian" technique does work, and rather well when needing to
> get certain job's done.  My question here is, how do you stay out of the
> way of sec checking by the church?  I am not sure if I remember this
> right or not, but didn't you say that you were a sea org member, or on
> staff, and wouldn't that mean that you would get sec checked on a
> semi-regular basis?  My wife was saying that she is surprised that the
> whole church, especially staff hasn't been sec checked by now
> considering the depth which your clearing book goes into, and that it is
> free.

In my very first post I said that I have not been on staff
since 1972.  I do have friends and relatives who are or
have been on staff or in the sea org.

I have been through a flag sec check since starting my own
unrestrained solo research.  It was no problem because I didn't
consider that what I was doing was an overt, and also because
I had a persistant FN from handling the thing that I had just 
researched.

They do know that I am a solo Nots completion.  But half of
the solo Nots completions will not go back for the solo Nots
certainty course, so they can't really lay their hands on them
(or me).

If they decide to get tough and declare all those people, they
will end up declaring half of the upper level OTs who still 
remain connected to the CofS.  I would willingly pay the price
of being declared to see them do that because it would destroy
them instantly.

Also, from the very first they have been capable of finding out
who I am if they were willing to pay the price.

There are enough details spread throught the Super Scio book
that the people who audited or C/Sed my case at Flag might
be able to identify me if they read the book from cover to
cover.

But the only way OSA could use this would be to give the enire
book to the entire tech staff at Flag and tell them to read
it and figure out who I am.

I would love it because I think that most of the tech staff
would either blow or become secret reformers.  And the secret
reformers might even pretend not to know who I am.  So
OSA might get nothing for their troubles and suffer much
loss.

Again this is something where the price that they would
pay is so great that I would willingly be exposed to
create that effect.

The possiblity of charging them such high prices for my
exposure is one of the reasons I remain anonymous.
 

> 4)And one freebie, just for a laugh.  Considering that you have been a
> Scientologist for over 32 years, and I am assuming that you are staff,
> and sea-org, I want to mention that I had a dream last night as to your
> identity.  In the dream, Heber Jensch came to me and told me that he was
> the Pilot. :-0  That would tell me a lot as to why you wouldn't be
> getting sec checked, and I've had the opportunity to meet with Heber on
> one of Ron's birthday party's back in 1992.  He seemed to be a very
> honest man and very dedicated to the tech, but my impression was that if
> he really, really, really saw some outnesses in the church, he might do
> what you did by putting out the self-clearing book.  Of course, I don't
> know if he is an OT VII like yourself, and this IS pure conjecture.  Any
> comments?

I think well of Heber and I think that his intentions are good.  But
he is not a strong technical figure and I doubt that he would be
capable of writing something like the Self Clearing book.  I
think that he is caught between the good and bad of the subject
and so hangs in a perpetual hell, unable to let go of the good
and therefore unable to reject the bad.

But his wife Yvonne might have written the book by now if she had 
not died many years ago.  In fact, I think of her as a bit of a 
contributor.  She is the one who restored the old group processing 
tech from 1954 and put it into use around 1970 or so (maybe a little 
later, I forget exactly).  I attended some of her group processing 
sessions and it was an eye opener to see how easily she tossed 
process commands  (even forbidden things like mockups) at the group 
and how well it all went and how easily even new people ran these things.

As for Heber, I think that he is trapped by the Policy and 
is not well versed enough in the old tech to believe that he
can revise it or reform.  Considering that he is constrained by
the policy and has little internal power (he is a handler for
the external situation), I think that he often fights a well
planned defense.

I don't think that he himself is inclined to footbulleting, 
but he can't stop the footbulleting of the others and sometimes
the policy pushes him into it as well.

I just saw him on TV on the Public Eye segment about Lisa.
I would say that he was betrayed by the technical idiots at
Flag.  Per real tech, they should have maintained continual 
two way comm and also used objective processes with Lisa instead 
of isolation, and they should have gotten her under medical
(not psychiatric, but real medical) care many days sooner.

I've bounced this idea off of many auditors who are still
in good standing (including a Class 8 who worked directly
with Ron) and all agree that this is the classic handling
and that only a literal minded fool (Flag staff) would persist
in that stupid isolation idea for 17 days instead of falling
back to the older workable methods when Lisa didn't snap out 
of it right away.  Even Ron would have been appauled if 
anybody had blindly followed his orders for that long.

Heber, of course, covered for them and dived away from some
excellent questions that the newsman was asking, but he did
well considering that he was in an untenable postion.  I
couldn't help but feel sorry for the guy.  The modern tech
had betrayed him and he knew it, but he was going to 
defend it anyway.  I felt like I was watching General Lee
(who was anti-slavery and had freed his slaves before
the cival war) on that final road to Appomatox.


> Once again, I would like to thank you from the deepest part of my heart
> for all the work that you have done, and the chance you have taken for a
> worthy cause.  I am extremely dedicated to the tech, as you are, and I
> will be doing everything I can to get this stuff out there to everyone
> that I know, and getting the show on the road.  I am still a dedicated
> sea-org member in my heart, although not to the church, but to the tech.
> You can count on me if you ever need any help, in any area.
> 
> May you be blessed in all that you do.
> 
> with much ARC,
> Joe The Eternal


This encouragement is extremely helpful.  I am also connected to
the pro CofS crowd and I do get hit with the party line a lot.
Every bit of it has to be evaluated continuously because I have
no safe rule to fall back on.  I can't say that all Hubbard is
good or all Hubbard is bad.

So I am in a position that ensures the maximum tendency to
rollercoaster, holding both poles of a very highly charged
electrical circuit.

I do tend to think that I am one of the last hands held out in 
their direction as they fall off the edge of the cliff.

So the validation really helps me to steer a sane course
between the two extremes and lets me know that I am on the
right track.


ARC,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio - To Ray Kemp on OCA'S


TO RAY KEMP ON OCA'S

On 2 Jan 98, Homer forwarded a message from Raymond Kemp
on subject OCA test

> To Pilot
> 
> Your recent submission in re OCA tests is not entirely accurate either
> in use or history. Since I wrote it, I can straighten out some of your
> statements. I am not denying your opinions , but they should be modified
> by Facts. See an earlier issue of IVY for the history, and contact me if
> you wish by any means
> 
> Raymond

Good to hear from you.

My observations were based on what I observed in the mid 60s to
mid 70s timeframe.  Mostly the APAs were just used to sell services.
When I was DofP briefly, we used it to guess at the tech estimate.
There was also an OCA right and left side handling in XDN 
eventually.  I saw no effort to correlate results or do any
kind of statistical analysis or whatever.  And XDN with its endless
searching for evil purposes tended to make a mess of cases rather
than raising the OCA scores.

It might have been different in earlier times.  I was there when
fanaticism grew beyond the bounds of reason.

I would be very interested in hearing your suggested corrections
to my post, especially as they would reflect an earlier time period 
when I belive that things were better and there was more scientific
style thought present in the subject.

----

I remember the time when you were on tour and you gave a lecture 
on the Free Being tape in the academy.  You thought that you were 
only talking to the staff and academy students.  But some idiot 
reg had taken the entire crowd in the PE introductory lecture and 
brought them into the academy to hear you speak.

If you've guessed what org I was at, I would prefer that
you didn't mention it for now since I am providing entertainment
for OSA by remaining anonymous.

----

Some girl, I think it was Pam, had a wonderful story about
how she got into Scientology.  Its been about 30 years so
I'm not sure whose story it was.  Maybe you could ask Pam
if she was the one with this interesting tale or maybe you
know the story and whose it is.

The story was that she had been interested in finding out
about the subject and then heard that Ron would be at a party.
This was in Washington in the late 50s.

She was introduced to the great man and told him that she
was interested but couldn't affort it.  He was holding a
giant glass full of scotch and said "Well little girl,
if you drink this glass down you can start on course on
Monday".

Being a good sport, she drank the scotch but thought that
he was joking.  On monday she was getting ready for work
when the course supervisor called to find out why she was
late for class.

On of my favorite stories.

------  

Regards,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio - To Oleg About Publishing

TO OLEG ABOUT PUBLISHING

On 1 Jan 88, "Oleg V. Matveev" <espinol@aha.ru>
asked on subject "To Pilot from Oleg: next questions"


Hello Pilot,

> Great thanks for your answers. I was out studying in another country, and I
> just downloaded the archives from fza site and found your answers. Note
> that I changed e-mail address.
> 
> RE Self Clearing books.
> 
> > It would require that somebody or a team of people would have
> > to do the work of translation for the sake of helping others.
> > Since I do not speak Russian, I could not ensure the quality
> > or accuracy.
> 
> I could guarantee the quality... I am in Scn for more than three years and
> also I had some tech training in Academy. I have translated about 3000
> pages of LRH works. For about a year I was in Sea Org "Russian Translation
> Unit". Many people in Russia know me by my translations of scientology
> materials. Also, the section under russian flag on http://www.freezone.org
> is my work. 
> 
> > So it would be work without profit, or possibly the distant
> > hope of receiving the normal royalties of a translator at
> > some time in the future when things are better.
> > I would expect that the Russian versions would be made
> > available on the internet.
> 
> Here is the point I wanted to discuss with you. Look,
> 
> 1) internet is not a means for broad dissemination in Russia, as not so
> many people have computers to browse the web, and also probably not many
> towns have the www providers. 
> 
> 2) it is much more efficient to translate and publish it as usual book, as
> this could be promoted and shipped wherever, for $3 - $4 for copy (that's
> the price for hardcover in Russia). Then it would be available to anyone,
> and I could establish line for orders by post for this book for all people
> who'd want to get it. I have a good scn publisher here, he is my friend. He
> has possibilities to make this very fast and cheaply, and also he's got
> lines for dissem.
> 
> 3) CofS is not famous here at all. I can understand your desire to balance
> church's flows by free tech on the net, but what about exchange? Exchange
> must be IN anyway. If person gets something for nothing, it is unhealthy
> for his case :-).
> 
> > I would expect others to immediately cry warnings if 
> > someone should try to fool people by making an intentionally
> > false translation.
>  
> No problem. Tell me your ideas asap. This is real thing, I mean - to
> translate & publish this book very broadly.
> 
> RE Buddha and Hubbard you wrote:
> 
> <On this basis, he was claiming to be the next Buddah rather than the
> previous one.>
> 
> Thanks for such detailed comments.
> 
> On Oct 4, Oleg asked -
> 
> > Dear Pilot,
> > 
> > What was the essence of the policy "Only Accounts Talk Money"? Maybe it
> > would be useful for our freezone orgs...
> 
> Thanks for the answer, too. I have found this policy in old greens.
> 
> Keep in touch,
> Oleg.
 
I see your problem.  I would very much like to see the book
get into the hands of the Russian people.

But I do wish to retain the copyrights and do, in the long run,
expect to receive normal royalties on my writings when they are
published professionally.

But now is not a time for taking profits and I wish to encourage
your efforts in this area.  And I feel that the Russian people
deserve a break after the years of hardship.

So publish your Russian edition.  I will forego any royalties
on the first ten thousand copies.

When your volume surpasses that, we will find some way to
handle it in a reasonable manner.  I might well be out of
hiding by that point.


Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - Answers About Clear (Attn Oleg)

ANSWERS ABOUT CLEAR (Attn Oleg)

On 1 Jan 98, "Oleg V. Matveev" <espinol@aha.ru> posted
on subject "The Pilot: Going Clear"

> Dear Pilot,
> 
> in one of your postings, you wrote,
> 
> > Most class 4 auditors will find that they have already
> > gone clear.
> > 
> > The clear cog is often repeated in the materials and 
> > its such an everybody knows that most auditors have
> > trouble realizing that it is the clear cog and wouldn't
> > even bothering mentioning it as a cog in session 
> > because they've known it since they started training.>
> 
> Right now I am doing Academy with my twin, and I have some tech questions.
> 
> If a person went Clear, he/she usually has Clear Certainty Rundown, or
> Dianetic Clear Special Intensive, by old name. 
> 
> 1) What is it and how it is done? Is it true that only auditors Clears can
> run it for pc who went Clear?

The CCRD is basically a handling to clean off any invalidation and
validate the state.  The most important part is giving the person
certainty that they are clear by letting them see the confidential
bulletin (which is available on the internet) called "The State of
Clear" dated 24 Sept 78.  

Note that the clear cog is also stated in many non-confidential 
places (I quoted one on the Scientology Reformer's Home page) but 
the person doesn't know that it is the clear cog.

So it is not really the cognition itself which is confidential but
simply the knowledge that this particular cog is the one which is
considered to be the clear cog.

The early handling (1978) was, I believe, simply to two way comm
whatever it was the PC said that made the C/S suspect that they
had the clear cog (they might not have stated it precisely) and
establish that they had really attained the state of Clear.
Then they would attest and go immediately onto the solo course
and then OT 1.

I was Theta Clear (with the clear cog as a minor side effect) 
from Power (old 1965 references say that this can happen and
that it is senior to the state attained on the clearing course)
and Dianetic Clear from the older definitions but had not
yet done the Clearing course when the 1978 Dianetic clear
definitions came out, so I went immediately onto OT 1 with
no preparation and it was just fine.  Quite a few people
were simply handed the OT 1 pack on the day the HCOB hit
the advanced organizations.  There were no certainty rundowns
or any other prerequisites so anybody who had already done
the solo training could start OT 1 immediately.

The DCSI and the CCRD which replaced it are confidential and
I have not seen the materials.  

Based on rumor and general CS series references, I would
expect the CS to be something like -

a) fly all ruds especially including eval and inval with
the prefix "On going clear ...".  (or a similar prefix which
reads well).

b) Two way comm (TWC) any "considerations on going clear" and
possibly follow that with TWC any reading items that
resulted from the above. (or a similar question which
reads well).

c) Date/Locate (or otherwise rehab) the moment when the
person went clear.

I suspect that the CCRD improvement would have been to 
add a correction list with common troubles such as "audited
on Dianetics after clear" with indication of the bypassed
charge and TWC or E/S to FN (two way comm or Itsa, earlier similar
Itsa to FN).  These kind of bypassed charge indications can
simply be done from a general TWC (as in b above) but a
correction list makes it easier and requires less judgement.

My own thoughts on this would be that most of the trouble
goes away with a correct definition of clear and an elimination
of all the sales hype.  The current CofS members who are
Dianetic Clear tend to invalidate the state every time they
have an out-rud.

I continually wondered if I was really clear until I got
the CC platens on old OT 4 and saw that the items mostly FNed
with a very few pairs that gave spectacular reads.  And
since I did have a few which reacted (and both of the
pair reacted identically and dramatically before FNing), I 
knew that I was running it right and that most of it was
already gone (just FNed).  So that whatever state I was
in (which did not match the sales talk), it was what people
were actually achieving.  

My theory on the few reads which did occur is that these are 
the things that were part of my own case before I received 
the implant and which caused the implant to stick (it is a 
grouper - hoping to hit something that is already charged 
and equate all the other things to it).  Note that it is
quite easy and benificial to run the CC platen after going
clear by some other means.

As far as I am concerned, the state consists of

a) Knowing that you are not your bank and that you are the
one who is mocking it up.

b) Being separated from the bank, in other words, you have a 
moment's free thought before allowing yourself to have an ARCX 
or whatever.   It is not stimulous response.  (but the charge 
which might cause you to have an ARCX is still there, you just 
have free choice instead of reacting).

c) Being able to confront the pain and force in mental image
pictures so that one's thinking is no longer distorted by
flinching from pain.

This is actually a tremendous state.  Implants become weak
and ineffective because one has choice in dramatization and
does not flinch due to simple force.

But it is far from the end of abberation.  And the attempt
to blame all the remaining case on entities is a good way
to dig oneself back in because it is an abandonment of
responsibility for what is left.

Since it is an important state, it would be quite helpful
to clean up any invalidation or whatever by putting in
ruds (especially eval and inval) and doing a date/locate
of when the state was attained.

 
> 2) Can it be done solo- or on oneself?

Not according to the CofS.

I would say yes if you are capable of flying ruds and doing
a date/locate (any trained solo auditor should be up to this).

The TWC step can probably be bypassed, and TWC is usually too 
vague for solo.  But if some consideration is sitting right
on your plate, then you could write it down and handle it
like a correction list item.  In other words, there is too
much WHATSIT involved in fishing for something, but if the
fish is already caught, then go ahead and cook it.

 
> 3) What skills it take (class of auditor training etc)?

In CofS, a Class 3 or 4 who is also clear.  But it needs
review auditor style skills, so that means either a 
Grad 4 or a professional.

In self clearing, the beginner should be capable of
handling ruds, rehabs, and repairs by chapter 27 and should
find the whole thing to be an easy matter because of the
lack of sales hype.  But you have reminded me that an
appendix talking about the state of clear (and other states)
is really needed in the Self Clearing book (there is some 
discussion of states in Super Scio chapter 4).
 
> 4) What is "natural" clear and how you can check this?

New tech volume XI page 450 -

HCOB of 5 March 1979 RB (revision B) revised 2 Dec 85.

(begin fair use quote)

Any org staff declaring a Dianetic Clear 'achieved in
other practices' is subject to expulsion from the Church.
 
Technically, a very few thetans have never been anything
but Clear.  These few didn't 'go Clear' on anything; they
have simply always been Clear.  When a natural Clear is found, 
it should be so stated.  To assign this condition to some
other practice is a suppression of Dianetics and Scientology.

<snipped 4 paragraphs of dire warnings about falsely
declaring people as clear, especially when it happened
due to some squirrel practices>

People don't go Clear in garbage eating or psychiatry - they
perish.  Thus, hearding people into their hands by falsely
validating them is suppressive.

Any and all such false declares are cancelled.

(end fair use quote, and end of the bulletin which is by
LRH, at least according to the tech volume).

     ---

Therefor, if you cause any people to go clear within your
group, they will be "natural clears" if they ever go into
the orthodox CofS.

Initially, there were people who attested to Dianetic clear
as having been attained in some earlier lifetime in
practices such as Buddhism or whatever.  Later, these people 
were made to believe that they must had always been clear 
because they couldn't have attained the state in some other 
practice.

There is also a rumor line idea that some natural clears
are BTs that were blown off by people who did OT 3.

There is also a rumor line idea that some natural clears
are beings who were lucky enough to miss the CC implant
at the time when the implant was being done to people.

The only natural clear test that I know of was to recognize
that the person was in good case shape and ran grades or
whatever easily but had serious trouble trying to run
Dianetics.

Here you will simply have to rely on your judgement and
look at the PC in front of you.  I suspect that all will
rehab if you drop this false idea that nobody could ever
go clear outside of the CofS.  But I would accept this
natural clear label if the person otherwise exhibited
the characteristics but it seemed that they were always
that way and had no point at which it seemed to have occured.


> 5) Is it true that dianetic clear should be audited on Grades only by
> auditor-clear?

In CofS it must be somebody who is already verified as clear because
the clear cog is considered confidential and a non-clear auditor
would risk hearing it.

Standard tech also requires that a person not be audited by anyone of
a lower case state or training level than their own, but this is
often violated in practice.

I would simply say that judgement is needed.  Do not give a slow and
low level auditor to somebody who is too far advanced beyond them.
And do not have an auditor who himself does not understand the
clear cog run a CCRD on a PC.
 
> 6) Is it true that clear can be audited on grades no matter if he attested
> already or not?

If a person is thought to be Dianetic Clear but has not yet attested,
standard tech would consider that it should be attested first
before any other major action should be undertaken.  But they
might do something such as an ext/int rundown (recalls only) if
it seemed to be a roadblock to doing the CCRD.

There is a general rule that unacknowledged major states
attained can give trouble due to the invalidation of bypassing 
them without acknowledgement.  In general, one simply gets a 
statement of what the state is and rehabilitates it if needed 
and has the person attest.  The CofS will accept any label the 
PC chooses to place upon the state.

I do not consider it as important in Self Clearing because the
person is master of their own domain and knows what he has
achieved.  But if the person is working with someone else,
especially if he is looking to them for guidance, and they
do not acknowlege a major achievement, they might either
begin invalidating themselves or demanding to be recognized
and either one would be a distraction that could interfear
with their progress.

If Clear or some other major state (such as Clear OT) is
achieved in the middle of a Grade, the person should also
be considered complete on that grade because of the magnitude
of the win.  This was done in the CofS during the timeperiod
when they considered that a person could go clear on grades
but it is not currently standard since they changed the tech
and decided that Clears were only made by Dianetics.

I went Clear OT on grade 2 and all OW processes were totally
unrunable for years thereafter (eventually I expanded enough
that they again became runable).  Even the O/W section
of the suppressed person rundown just FNed and would not
run when that was done on me a few years later.

Any other grades, however, can be run.  This is my consideration,
and it usually has been the standard tech on it as well but
they have fluctuated a bit as to whether or not to run
expanded grades on a Clear.  Sometimes it might not be correct 
as the immediate next action.  I believe that right now it is
a matter of C/S judgement.  But I am not familiar with the
latest Golden Age interpretations.

 
> If you can, please give this answers from both standard and your own
> viewpoints. I really need them as I have a suspection that unattested clear
> can suffer a lot from self-inval of the state and this must be done fast.

I believe so.  Simply putting in ruds on the area (especially eval
and inval) should handle this problem.

Note that you can always fly a run on a specific thing or do
a two way comm in the area where trouble is suspected.  These and
the use of general correction lists such as the Green Form allow
the org to get away with messing up many things that they do not
understand, because these general actions will work as cleanups
even when you don't know what you are cleaning up.

If only they would listen to the PCs while doing this, they would
begin to map out areas that are not in the tech and make big
breakthoughs in research.

I was many times repaired during the many years I was stuck on
Solo Nots after actually achieving the EP.  I was already into
many things such as actual GPMs, fragmentation, and I even had
some pieces of the implant universes that I'd hit while tring
to trace down BTs that were keeping the walls solid or whatever
(this is not why the walls are solid, but I did get into lots 
of wierd and interesting areas).

So I would talk about and ITSA these areas on general repairs
as above and they would indeed be 2 way comm'ed as reading
items and I would have cogs and feel better and inch by inch
was moving forward on these things.  I really needed levels
that were not yet researched, but these ruds and repairs always
worked to cool down any immediate charge and give me a bit more
awareness in the areas.

Eventually I would get a persistant FN and attest to the
repair being complete.  And then they would foolishly try
to overrun me some more with yet another unnecessary NOTS action
and I would run right back into these other things and need
some more repair.

In a sane organization, this material would have been prized
as aiding in the research and they would have listened and
gotten a handle on previously unknown areas.  That is how
Ron mapped out much of the later tech, because he did really
listen to his PCs in the early days and was excellent at
figuring out questions on the fly which would help the PC
Itsa an unknown area.  The area was often unknown to Ron as
well, but in guiding the PC, he would see where the area
leaded and then be able to formulate a more general process.

As it was, I eventually got off enough charge on these repairs
that I could formulate theories and tackel these things
solo myself.  

 
> Thanks a LOT for you time and help,
> Oleg.
 

There is another problem which concerns doing Dianetic R3R
after Clear.  Per standard tech, this may cause the PC to
begin running BT's incidents instead of his own.  Because
they may not tell him of this and because the corrections
are on NOTS, they then must try to get him all the way up
to OT 5 as quickly as possible so that they can handle the
correction list item of "misowning BTs pictures as your own".

This is extreme foolishness and excessively hard on the PCs.

First of all, a Clear can still have incidents and make gains
by running them.  The failing is in R3R when it is done too
mechanically, because the auditor pushes for things after
they have gone and then the PC, not knowing of BTs, will
grab a BTs picture to satisfy the auditor.

I recieved most of my Dianetics after clear.  At least half
of it was of tremendous value.  But there was also some
running of BTs pictures, especially when doing unnecessary
actions which were called for by rote procedure.

The NOTS techniques are much easier than OT 3 and I have
heard quite a few stories of low level people (freezone) 
having success with this, even solo.  They generally do not 
run a lot of BTs but simply dust themselves off, handling a 
dozen or two to the point where they feel clean and capable 
of handling any others that might show up later in processing.

If a person has had extensive Dianetics after Clear, I
would suggest that they first handle the CCRD as above and
then learn to use the NOTS techniques in a light manner
to dust themselves off and to handle the item of misowning
BTs pictures.  There is a light presentation in the
chapter on entites in the Self Clearing book.

I would suggest avoiding running R3R on Clears who have
not mastered NOTS except perhaps for a Dianetic assist on
a serious accident or injury.

Less formal incident running techniques are probably safe
because they are not as likely to push the PC off of his
own case and onto a BTs.  Note that the 1969 Standard 
Dianetics (R3RA actually) was designed for use on new 
people and was aimed at achieving maximum push on cases
where the pictures were barely accessible.

Solo incident running is probably safe as well because the
person is not likely to push himself past errasure and into
some bank other than his own.

In 1952, they just used to spot that the picture was from
a "borrowed bank", indicate that and drop it.  I had
heard of this still being done in review on rare occasions
in the days before OT 3 was released.

In general, I think that they turned a minor problem into
a major one because of the confidentiality.  Various things
such as ext/int do require a bit of care occasionally, but
rarely give trouble on a trained PC because he spots things
quickly and knows how things fit together.  But confidential
areas get people to stumble around in the dark and messes
are often made.

Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - Lock Scanning (Attn Robert & CBW)

LOCK SCANNING (ATTN ROBERT & CBW)

This was a valuable and interesting discussion, so I thought
that I should put it all togther as well as adding my own 
comments.

On 1 Jan 98, VoltR@ctinet.net posted on subject
" Lock scanning - the tech that got little respect "

> Ever hear of lock scanning on the "Bridge"?  It's not on any standard parts
> that I ever studied.  The only references I know about off hand are in
> "Handbook for Preclears" and "Science of Survival", though there may be
> others scattered here and there.  
> 
> Well I never relegated that tech to the storage bin, but have been making
> ample use of it by mingling it in with running this lifetime track with R3R
> (Routine 3 revised - standard dianetic procedure).  It's basically the same
> thing as Dianetics except the commands are geared toward running relatively
> long periods with time gaps in them and often specific subjects.
> 
> If someone has had a lifetime of very frequent and ongoing encounters with a
> particular feeling, pain, sensation, emotion or attitude I will always
> consider the use of lock scanning as a way of reducing later track charge so
> that the earlier time track will be more accessible.
> 
> I have several options I choose from.  One option is to run the standard R3R
> technique on incidents and earlier incidents on a particular chain, until
> nothing earlier is seen.  Then I will have them scan the track from that
> earliest point forward to present time.  I will formulate and use whatever
> command I deem necessary to accomplish this at the time.  One typical such
> command might sound like:  "From this point forward to present time, scan
> through all the incidents on the subject of fear of oranges."  
> 
> Normally I have to repeat that command maybe 20 or 30 times before the
> period is completely flat on that subject.  Typically many incidents will
> come and go with each run through.  This is continued until the charge lifts
> for that whole period of time.  Some individual incidents might still have
> to be taken up separately just the same though.  Lock scanning isn't geared
> toward the heavier incidents.  What tends to happen with these if they come
> up is that the viewer's attention gets stopped at that incident.  If that
> happens I merely take up that one incident, flatten it with standard R3R,
> and continue with the lock scanning.  I do that with each incident that
> becomes a block to the scanning.  But that shouldn't become much of an issue
> if standard R3R is done on the chain first.
> 
> The result is a very clean track from the first available incident forward
> to present time.  That will make it much easier for the viewer to contact an
> earlier incident on the track, which often has to be run as imaginary at first. 
> 
>  On some more able viewers I may have them just run this entire lifetime
> with no specific subject in mind.  On others I may have them run whole
> particular sections of time which were highly stressful, and probably had
> many somatics in them.  I have one such client whose track I am having him
> scan section by section, usually one session per section, this in addition
> to running out the previous week if it was emotionally stressful.  This is
> what is presently making him able to continue to function normally in life
> despite any "PTS" ( Potential Trouble Source:  i.e. connected to someone
> hostile to him) situations he may encounter.  I find PTSness to not be any
> block to processing whatsoever.    
> 
> I have never had any problem with earlier incidents causing the later
> incident to solidify from running it too many times.  I just make sure the
> viewer lets me know if he gets any pictures of an earlier incident coming
> into view.  Even then I may ask him if the later incident is flattened
> enough for him to leave. With this knowledge in mind it becomes very safe to
> run any incident to a flat point in this lifetime and leave it there if the
> viewer feels good about doing that, as for assist purposes.  In fact, I have
> some clients on whom I make it a standard practice to run out the previous
> week or whatever period since their last session.  Works like a charm, much
> better than ruds and less invasive.  I also always run out the session after
> it's completed.  This is according to LRH's suggestion of as-ising the fact
> of having as-is'd an incident.  It always works as it's supposed to.  I
> always do these things to a blowdown, F/N (e-meter needle reactions) with
> VGIs (very good indicators, like laughter)
> 
> I've found that this lifetime is very charged for most people and needs to
> be discharged before deep gains can be had.  I've found many ex churchies
> still bothered by childhood incidents they've been sitting in all their
> lives and the church never addressed them.  Instead they got rudiments,
> grades, key to life, objectives, security checks, purification rundowns,
> ethics,  etc.  And so their life ruins never got addressed.  Simple standard
> dianetics with some use of book 1 techniques and lock scanning will go a
> long way toward setting up a case and clearing this lifetime.  
> 
> Robert

In 1970 when the expanded grades and life repair theories  first came 
out there were few rules about what processes to use.  It was up to the
C/Ses at the orgs to decide which of the old processes might be
applied.

I was cramming at the time and the C/S had me putting together
various little reference packs and hatting checksheets for the
HGC auditors.  Although you're not really supposed to do this per
policy (unapproved checksheets, etc.), there were no tech volumes
in those days and the orders were to make it go right with whatever
materials were at hand while waiting for Ron to come up with the 
real expanded grades material etc.

We were using, for example, clay table healing on somatics in
life repair (do the body part in clay, carefully labeling etc.).
The really interesting part of that one was to keep having the
PC refine and add to the clay mockup until one got an EP.

Another thing that we did was lock scanning of pleasure moments.
I remember checking the whole HGC out on this one.  It was C/Sed
freequently during those few months of maximum C/S discretion.
Of course it dived out of sight again when the actual expanded
grades processes were released.

It worked extrememly well either as a life repair step or a
part of expanded strightwire.

Because we did pleasure moments only, almost any PC could do it
and there were no problems with the time track going solid or
anything like that.

I forget the exact patter (see Science of Survival), but it was
pretty much to have the PC spot the earliest time that he
can when he "had a nice meal" for example, and then have him
scan forward through similar incidents to PT.  We did this
by explaning to the PC that "When I snap my fingers, I want
you to scan forward through a chain of similar incidents where you
had a nice meal until you reach present time".  (or some similar
wording).  Then you would snap your fingers and say "begin
scanning" (yes we actually used the finger snap in 1970).

Because of the sudden expansion of the tech, the whole HGC
was just about living in cramming for additional training (as
well as an occasional cram for an error) and so I had good
feedback on the use of these processes.  

The C/S was also in closer verbal comm with me (as cramming) and 
to some degree with the auditors than is usually done.  This
was important because of the newness of the tech (nobody had
ever tried to run things like clay table healing or lock
scanning with modern procedures to a modern EP for example),
and in my opinion it made the entire operation more successful.

It gave me significant doubts about this idea of keeping
the C/S in an ivory tower rather than in 2 way comm with
the technical staff.

This pleasant and exciting time period is probably why I
hung on yet again (even after the madness of 1969) until
things began to tighten up once more in 1971.

Anyway, the lock scanning of pleasure moments seemed to
run very well in general and it seems to me that it would
be a great way to beef up a PC's horsepower on doing
scanning before moving on to the tougher stuff that
Robert is running.

At a minimum, it would let you grove the PC in on how to
scan before you had any real charge to deal with.  But I
think that you'll find that it does a lot more.

I'm really glad to see that Robert is following up on
this long forgotten area.

I also notice that Alan does some kind of forward scans,
and there is CBW's discussion later (see below).  My gut
feeling is that there are more breakthroughs to be had
here and that this is an important area.

----

On 1 Jan 98, VoltR@ctinet.net followed this with another post
on subject "Lock scanning - additional data"

> In running lock scanning on extended periods, the time track may quickly
> pack up and go solid.  This most likely means too big a span of time was
> addressed at once.  The trick here is to find the proper span of time which
> will be comfortable for the viewer by lowering the gradient.  If 10 year
> spans don't work, then 5 year or 6 month spans might be assimilable.  Some
> can only tolerate a week or so at a time.  Often the later track (closer to
> present time) will be more difficult to confront for some reason.  

It might be better to say that the scanning range encompassed too
much charge.  With pleasure moments, we never had any trouble with
the time range of the scan, 30 years or even multiple lifetimes were
not a problem as long as the time period encompassed was real to
the person.  But the total charge of the incidents to be scanned
was always negligible because they were pleasure moments.

The PC might be able to scan through 10 years of not liking to
tie his shoes but not be able to scan through 10 years of being
yelled at.
 
> If a particular span of time seems to be grinding (little or no progress
> being made), look for an earlier beginning on the incident, or a particular
> incident within that span of time which was particularly stressful and not
> being confronted.  Earlier similar periods of time I never have to worry
> about.  
> 
> Another way lock scanning can be done is by addressing periods of time on
> one item with regards to particular subjects like one's mother, spouse,
> father, brother, girl/boyfriend, etc.  The commands might sound something
> like this:  "Move to the beginning of that [previously agreed upon] period
> of time" and "from that point forward to the end of that period of time scan
> through all the incidents on the subject of fear of oranges with regards to
> your mother".  These periods (like with brother, father, spouse, etc.) may
> overlap, but they will have their own charge and will be in sections limited
> enough for the viewer to normally be able to assimilate.  Here also
> gradients can be applied. 
> 
> The one thing I am adamant about with regards to this is that it be
> flattened completely to a blowdown, F/N and release.  It's always better to
> be too thorough than not enough.  One run through too many can't hurt.  One
> not enough can leave the viewer with somatics.  Obnosis (observation of the
> obvious) by the processor is always a good asset.  Expertise comes with
> practice and care about one's work, not talent.  
> 
> Robert
> 
>   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *  *  *
>                GPM Clearing by telephone             
>              Technology for the recovery of                     
>               advanced spiritual abilities              
>              http://users.ctinet.net/voltr                                     
>           Full procedure writeup available from           
>     http://super.zippo.com/~freezone/articles/index.htm 
>                                            
>   *  *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *  *

---

On 1 Jan 98, "C. B. Willis" <cbwillis@netcom.com> replied
to Robert's second post with -

# Robert wrote:
# : In running lock scanning on extended periods, the time track may quickly
# : pack up and go solid.  This most likely means too big a span of time was
# : addressed at once.  
# 
# I agree that what Scn calls "lock scanning" is a major key to processing.
# Just as case beefs up by trauma and related associations (Korzybski), you
# can also unpack it by trading on these associations after you have a big
# energy release in processing.  Very quickly many people develop their own
# way to highlight to awareness the associations connected with a traumatic
# incident, then use the spiritual substance freed to extrapolate into
# associated areas as well.  Flushing out or blowing charge on associations
# is the only hope we have of clearing the case, and fairly quickly, else
# we'd never get around to everything in one lifetime, which is a grim
# prospect from where I sit. OTOH, whatever it takes, but why not be elegant
# and fast about it?  
# 
# The game of processing as I see it: spiritually-based, effective for the
# right reasons, thorough, intuitive, elegant, fast, fun where possible,
# high energy, inspiring, joyous. 
# 
# I've never had a time track pack up and go solid, either in myself or
# anyone else.  But then I don't run R3R per se on others. In my own
# experience, I see associations as points of light outside and around the
# time track but not on it, perhaps because associations are made by mind
# and we could say they are outside of time (even though we could link them
# to incidents that took place in time). I take the freed spiritual
# substance and flush it through the associations as a group, symbolized by
# the points of light (the charge that gets lit up by association), and know
# it's done. Very fast, elegant, anyone can learn to do this.  To be valid,
# you have to have a major energy release to start with, to give you enough
# power to Work with. Very able students can do this after one or two
# sessions, even if they have never had clearing of any genre before. 
# Perhaps because I expect them to be able to do it, and know how easy it
# is, and how much fun it is to blow all that stuff out at once!  :-)
# 
# - CBW
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------
# | cbwillis@netcom.com            | "Values are the infrastructure   |
# |                                |  upon which civilization         |
# |                                |  will be reinvented."  - CBW     |
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 
There are 3 very interesting points here.

First, she is scanning "associations" rather than incidents per se.

Second, she is counting on a major energy release first to give
the PC enough power to run this.  I would not necessarily define
this in terms of energy so much as a jump in "state".  I always
felt that there were processes that I could have done when I
hit the keyed out OT state (and in the occasional moments since
then when I am feeling that way) that would not be accessible
outside of the state.  In this case it did not feel like a matter
of gradients so much as that of doors open that are otherwise
shut.  It is like an electron moving to the next outer shell,
so perhaps the energy analogy has some accuracy, but I would
perfer to state it in less physical terms.

And third, she is using what I would call an "analog", a way of
seeing the things in a symbolic representation, just as you
would look at the dial of a meter instead of perceiving the
current directly.  I think that this is an important idea and
I will comment some more on it later.

------

Robert then quoted Carol's last paragraph above and asked

> What technique(s) do you use for this?  
> Robert

On 2 Jan 98, "C. B. Willis" <cbwillis@netcom.com> replied

# Pretty much just as stated above, but based on the phenomenology of spirit
# - how spiritual substance shows itself to awareness, and how the conscious
# spirit can wield this substance.  It's the Magic of Spirit.  This is the
# kind of thing that makes my Work with students very different from Dn/Scn,
# since it incorporates elements of Gestalt, Judeo-Christian metaphysics, 
# New Thought, Hegel, magick, Castaneda, etc. 
# 
# Extrapolation Process
# 
# Beginning at the right graceful moment after a large energy release [such
# as from your GPM or incident clearing etc] and the person has had a couple
# of minutes to enjoy and entrench the energy, say, "Now we're going to
# *extrapolate* this release into related areas...into [list the nature of
# what was just released, and a couple associations that come to mind as you
# intuitively scan the person's case in relation what you've been talking
# about together - i.e. some of his most charged words/issues]. Have him
# "Gather up some spiritual substance. Direct it to flush the associations
# that just got lit up as we were speaking of them, using a light
# intention."  [spiritually track while he's doing this, witness it] Ask him
# to "Behold your Work."  [be happy with him] Validate him on a Good Job,
# that he did Good Work.  Have him feel his energy, "Feel your energy." (I
# work a lot with the energy body). [do your favorite grounding technique
# before he leaves] At the appropriate moment, end off the session [without
# "burning the energy" with chatter]. 
# 
# The gathering up of spiritual substance is not done physically, but with a
# light intention or spiritual hand, as in the healing techniques of
# spiritualism. "Flushing" might be analogous to permeation in Knowlegism;
# I like flushing for the process as the spiritual substance has a very 
# fluid quality about it, and it moves without no effort.
# 
# My "Extrapolation" process can be done eyes open or eyes closed. I like to
# get students to the point where they have the concentration to do it with
# eyes open, easily and naturally, with nothing unusual about their
# appearance or manner, able to Work in the dimensions across time and
# space, and outside of time and space, with ease. It's like riding a
# wave and directing light traffic at the same time. This is simpler than it
# sounds, is like riding a bicycle as far as remembering how to do it,
# and can be accomplished fairly early on. 
# 
# Case is transformed (or "cleared") by the power and activity of Spirit
# that seeks a free flow of energy the the person's space and in the world.
# 
# - CBW

----

She then followed with a second post on the same date, continuing
the discussion. 

# It's a way to piggyback on a process win and USE it to multiply the value
# of what just happened.  4th way would call this "the way of the sly man".
# You've got to find ways to USE everything for transformation, and realize
# that EVERYTHING CAN BE USED for transformation and acceleration. 4th way 
# is an accelerated developmental path, far exceeding that of normal 
# "evolution" and such.
# 
<snipped a repeat of paragraph 3 ("Begining at ...") from the previous post>
# 
# This gathering of substance and directing it to associations keeps the
# person exterior to and senior to his case, exterior to and senior to time
# and space, working powerfully and symbolicly on his case in a spiritually-
# oriented way that produces exponential results. 
# 
# While Hubbard was well-versed in magick, he missed the power of using
# symbols (esoteric shorthand) in order to accelerate Work-on-self (which
# btw is a 4th way term that predates Hubbard), and classified symbols as
# relatively downscale. Hubbard no doubt meant something valid in that
# classification, but he failed to teach the hightoned and very powerful
# uses of symbols in service of the Work. This can be done in a way that is
# very ordinary and not woo-woo or "occult" at all, and is really just the
# way smart people already think. 
# 
# Another historical note: Crowley talked about the Great Work, but I
# believe he defined it differently than Christian metaphysicians such as
# Dion Fortune, Alice Bailey, Gurdjieff/Ouspensky/Bennett, or myself.
# 
# # Case is transformed (or "cleared") by the power and activity of Spirit
# # that seeks a free flow of energy the the person's space and in the world.
# 
# - CBW
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------
# | cbwillis@netcom.com            | "Values are the infrastructure   |
# |                                |  upon which civilization         |
# |                                |  will be reinvented."  - CBW     |
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Here we have "the hightoned and very powerful uses of symbols".

I have been thinking of these things as "analogs".  They are
symbolic representations of ongoing dynamic processes.  Although
she is correct in calling them symbols, the term is too loose
because most of our symbols are passive rather than dynamic.

The word "book" for example, is a symbol of the actual object,
but the symbol does not vary dynamically with the state of the
objects it represents.

However, the gague on a photometer does vary dynamically with
the actual amount of light present.  It is only a symbol of
the amount of light, but it varies directly.

You can monitor real word activities with these symbolic
representations.  Even looking at a thermometer is only viewing a 
symbol of the temprature rather than direct perception of the
hotness or coldness present.

If these things exist in real world physics, then one would
also expect them to exist in mental or "theta" consturctions
because they are a useful tool.

Just compare the advantages of having an oven with a temprature
gague to the difficulties of putting your hand in the oven and
guessing at the temprature.

Or the advantages it gives you in handling large quantities.
You can watch a varying graph of the votes coming in on 
election day much more easily than you can spot all the
millions of people who are voting individually.

If you will contemplate the differences between a technical
civilization and primitive hunter/gathers who do not have
these tools, you will see how much difference things like
this can make.

With the keyed out OT state I hit in 1968 came an instinctive
skill of mocking up an area and visually seeing the flows
running through it.  I'd spot where a flow had stopped or
assess for what action to take (thinking various things
and watching the analog).  With this I could always spot
who on the lines had just been ARCXen by Ethics or whatever
and go talk to them (there would always be something that
just happened) and keep the flows moving through my post.

This always worked.  Not sporatically, not vague, and not
guesswork.  It was musical chairs days and I changed posts
about once every 6 weeks.  The posts I walked onto went
into power within a week even when the org's stats were
sinking in the later days.  Even after I slipped out of
the OT state I could still do this one most of the time 
although my certainty was not as great.

I applied policy or violated it selectively based on what
I percieved with this trick.  As I mentioned, I would think
of doing various things and watch what happened to the flows
as I held different intentions.

I was not perceiving a real thing.  It was purely a symbol
of how the flows would or were behaving.  It was like having
an oscilliscope instead of trying to debug a radio by
holding one of the wires.

To use sophisticated equipment well, it is also important
to have good confront of the details that they are registering.
But you don't stay at the detail level because the quantity
is too great.  You use tools to bring quantity and complexity 
under control.

This has been quite helpful.

Thank you,

The Pilot

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


 subj : Super Scio Tech - A Lesson From S. Africa (Attn Ivy)

A LESSON FROM SOUTH AFRICA

On 31 Dec  Antony Phillips <ivy@post8.tele.dk> posted
on subject "Scn and S.Africa"

> There was a time when  Scientology  included  care  for  the
> well-being of others, even in distant lands.
> 
> Care, without dominating or controlling, or demanding  high
> fees.
> 
> There are still  small  Oasises  of  that  type  of  caring,
> concerned Scientology around, amongst other  places  in  the
> paper  Magazine  International  Viewpoints  (IVy),  and  the
> private Internet list associated with it.
> 
> It was also so, that  that  periods  Scientology  had  ideas
> applicable to the healing of wounds in large groups. It  was
> with that in mind that I started a thread a couple of months
> ago concerning South Africa and the Truth Commission, for in
> that  I  saw  the  application  of  an   old   (forgotten??)
> Scientology  priniciple  (also  of  course   found   earlier
> elsewhere) of allowing a person to disclose "overts"  ("bad"
> actions) without punishment or other special conditons.
> 
> The early Scientology idea  of  amnesty  (now  rather  badly
> mis-used) aligned with this. It also occurred to me that the
> Scn idea of confusion blowing of when you put order into  an
> area might  also be applicable -- so reports coming in might
> seem confusing.
> 
> The following is the interchange  that  resulted,  including
> with three people in South  Africa.  It  is  about  55K  and
> contains some 1400 lines, Maybe 20 pages A4. I  have  edited
> the headers out, and done little other editing.
> -- 
>        Ant                                Antony A Phillips
>        ivy@post8.tele.dk
>                                          tlf: (+45) 45 88 88 69
>                                           Box 78
>                                           DK - 2800 Lyngby
> Editor, International Viewpoints (= IVy). See Home Page:
> http://home8.inet.tele.dk/ivy/

I snipped most of this very large and interesting post which
tells a lot about what is going on in South Africa today.
One particular email in the set really caught my eye and
I wanted to make some comments on it, so here it is.

> Its not so much the fighting that worries me. That still
> is a sign of life. Its the apathy, hopelessness, "nothing
> we can do about it" mind-set that is setting in, its
> the crime wave, the complete absence of ethics, complete
> disregard for each other, disrespect for human life in
> general - its the mind-boggling incompetence and mismanagement,
> the disappearance of millions of rands, the collapsing of the
> health, education and other essential services, the claims
> of "no money", "can't have" all the time, the "grab what
> you can for yourself while there's still something left and if
> you don't you're a fool"........
>
> Itsa magistrate letting a rapist out on bail, so he
> promptly goes and kills the 3-year old child who was
> to testify against him (the response - "oh dear");
>
> Itsa social worker returning an abused child back to
> his abusive parents, and surprise, surprise, they beat
> him to death (the response - "oh dear")
>
> Itsa education policy that has resulted in the retrenchment
> of masses and masses of teachers (the response - "well, there's
> no money")
>
> I could go on for pages......but these types of things are
> happening every day -
>
>
> I don't see this as a GPM, anymore, I see it as the
> *collapse* of the GPM:
>
> I.E: under apartheid, the GPM was clear cut - the sides were
> polarised, the game was defined. I took the side of the
> game that opposed apartheid, since a governmental system
> based on the colour of people's skins was nothing
> short of ludicrous, and had to be removed, BUT,
> and here's the BIG BUT:
>
> We forgot what we were fighting FOR.
> We only knew what to fight AGAINST.
>
> Now that its gone (what we were fighting against), it
> seems that we cannot conceive of anything to replace
> it - we have lost the ability to create, we only
> know how to destroy, and since the thing we wanted to destroy
> is gone, we turn on each other and destroy each other.
>
> I don't know how that fits into the Tech, that's just
> my reading of it.
>
> Kim


In the grade 1 (problems) tech is the idea that the solution
to a problem will in turn become a problem.  Therefore, if one
blows the problem (which was a solution), the earlier underlying
problem now comes back into view.

Let us say, for example, that one wants to steal the land
from the Indians.  Now one "solves" this by starting a conflict
with the Indians so that one may shoot them and take their
land.  Then, through the good efforts of people with better
intentions towards their fellow man, this subsequent "problem"
is dissolved and peace is made with the Indians.  Now the
earlier "problem" of how to steal the Indian's land is back.

Instead of finding a better way to exploit the Indians, one
should be addressing the earlier problems that lead to this
abberated solution in the first place.

Looking at South Africa, apartheid was a way to solve certain
economic problems.  It was a very bad solution which was morally
abhorrent and contained the seeds of its own distruction.  But
it was a solution to the problem of how to get slaves and that
in turn was a solution to various basic economic problems.

And so those problems reappear.

Slavery has always been the wrong choice in solving the problem
of how to get work done and ensure the production of that
which is necessary to survival.

The problem of selecting who is to be enslaved is simply the
second problem that developes after one has choosen to solve
the economy by the use of slaves.  South Africa (and the American
South in the old days) choose to make their selections by skin
color (it makes it easier to distinguish who is a slave).  The
Romans choose to enslave anyone whom they beat in battle.
The Sea Org chooses slaves by means of statistics and disobedience
and must resort to black armbands to distinguish them (the RPFers).

And yes, I know that aparthied is not true enslavement, but
it was a solution to various economic problems just as the
availability of cheep immigrant labor has been a solution in
various enterprises in the US.

And economics is not the only area impacted.  Every area related
to the society and social interaction will have old suppressed
and burried problems returning to the surface.  Things that
were "solved" by this aparthied business and which now must
be confronted and handled in a more ethical manner.

Now one must get busy solving the "new" (actually very old and
much more basic) problems revealed instead of sliding into
apathy about the whole matter.  And the solutions must keep
to a higher standard of ethics than the previous ones or else
it will simply be another timebomb ticking away and more misery
will be waiting in the wings.

Of course one prefers to dissolve problems rather than solving
them, but this can be difficult and may take too long, so one 
solves in an ethical manner and then tries to undercut the problem.

Since I am not there, I am only guessing as to the problems
which have been revealed.  But there are many countries which
have solved problems in other ways than by means of aparthied.
These solutions can be studied and intelligent choices made
as to the most workable solutions.

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

This same pattern is of concern to me in the reform of
the Church of Scientology.

The abusive conditions, financial stops, confidentiality, and
harsh ethics all serve to keep more basic problems in check.

If the tech is suddenly available freely and easily to many
thousands of people and they move through it quickly, I
believe that you will find that various problems will come
to light which were being suppressed by heavy ethics and
keeping the flow slowed down.

These things appeared during the quickie fast flow days.

The prices, although high, were not outrageous and a public
person could get through the entire bridge to OT 7 for
under 10 thousand dollars, and it could be managed in a
year or so.

A great deal of the difficulties were due to the grades
being highly unstable due to quickies.  But many people
were around from earlier days and did have more stability
because more auditing had been done.  And some people
had auditor training, which adds stability because the
person has at least studied the theory of other related
processes that later became part of expanded grades.

There were some cases which did well and there was even
the occasional keyed out OT.

The troubles and unhandled areas were not limited to grades
which had not been expanded.  There were other areas of
case that had been left completely untouched.

My own belief, when I was in the keyed out OT state, was
that the remaining case areas would be handled by things
such as OT 3 which I had not done yet.  If I had been
able to see those materials at that time, I would have
known that it would not have handled the things that
I felt needed to be handled.

I was already familiar with implants from listening to
endless tapes and had a good confront of such things.  I
was also familiar with entities from the 1952 materials
(I was a 1950s tape fanatic even then) and had even 
managed to handle one somehow or other that had shown
up.  So I would have known enough to tell.

In the self clearing book and the super scio book, I pinned 
down as many of these other areas as possible, but I
can pretty much say for sure that there are more.

This is allright if people know that it is an ongoing
research line and if auditors are willing to listen
and use general tools for reliving the current charge
in such areas.

But it is deadly if you pretend that you have all the
answers and make statements like NOTS is the end of
negative gain because any case that is left is then
known to be unsolveable or is mishandled in an attempt
to force square pegs into round holes.

This problem will blow up in their faces if they 
only reform policy and correct the bad behavior and
change to a sane pricing structure.  People will move
fast, and the volume will give a brief boom, and
people will be happy for a time, and then they
will hit the end of the bridge and smash right into 
whatever case is being bypassed.

The most important technical reform is the recognition
that it is still a research line and that more of the
person's own case can be audited even after Clear and
NOTS have been done.  More processes can be unearthed 
by studying the 1950s material.  Charge in unknown 
areas still yields to general techniques such as
two way comm of reading items.

I think that they could make it on that much alone
even without all the additional things I have been
researching.  But without the above change in technical
attitude, they will collapse under the weight of 
this old and very basic problem when it comes back
to the surface after a policy reform.

And of course the CofS should bend over backwards
to be nice to freezoners and support them because
those are the pioneers who are trying to map out
the missing areas.


Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - HOMER'S PROOF


HOMER'S PROOF

On 27 Dec, the Clearing Archive Roboposter <roboposter@lightlink.com>
which automatically reposts things from Homer's extensive archive
of clearing materials posted Homer's own "hom6.memo".  

Since it is available in the post and also directly from the archive, 
I wouldn't repeat most of it here.

He gives a long and intelligent discussion of the Newtonian model
of physics which comes down to the following important point -

> THERE IS ALWAYS TIME BETWEEN CAUSE AND EFFECT WHEN CAUSE AND
> EFFECT ARE NOT ON THE SAME POINT IN SPACE.

which leads to -

> Thus THE ONLY THING THAT CAN BE LEARNED BY LOOKING is how the
> remote object AFFECTED the photons.  Data in this respect is ONLY data
> about how remote causes produced a remote effect on the carrier wave
> of change.
 
And eventually leads to - 

> Learning by looking at effects here and drawing conclusions about
> cause out there, is learning by looking at symbols.  At no time is one
> looking at causes.

Homer then shows that consciousness can violate this, leading
to his final conclusion which is as follows -

> Since a conscious unit can learn about cause, namely its own
> agency and the agency of its mockups to cause themselves to be
> perceived, we can conclude that consciousness is not learning by
> looking at effects, but by looking at causes directly.
>  
> This is an egregious violation of the Newtonian model of
> existence, and shows that the Newtonian model of machinery is not
> applicable to conscious phenomenon, no matter how much that concscious
> unit may be intertwined with or riding in a virtual or actual
> Newtonian Machine.
> 
> - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Homer Wilson Smith     News, Web, Telnet      Art Matrix - Lightlink
> (607) 277-0959         E-mail, FTP, Shell     Internet Access, Ithaca NY
> homer@lightlink.com    info@lightlink.com     http://www.lightlink.com
> 
> ================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
> Sat Dec 27 06:00:27 EST 1997 
> ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom6.memo
> Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help


I began thinking about this and playing around with it and it
had a wild and exteriorizing effect.

First let me digress a little and bring up quantum mechanics.
When we push too hard against Newtonian mechanics, it begins
to break down even from the viewpoint of the physicists.

Eienstein's great disproof of Quantum was based on the fact
that it does imply interaction between the observer (the effect
point) and the source (or cause point) and that implies 
instantaneous, non-Newtonian, interaction.

Except that the quantum double slit experiment is demonstrable
and repeatable and therefore Eienstein's disproof became the
actual proof that there is direct and instantaneous interaction 
on the part of the observer over any distance without any 
limitation due to the speed of light or whatever.

But the quantum boys have trouble with establishing at what
point does the interaction occur and where does the wave
break down from probablility into reality.  In other words,
what is an "observer".  For example, would a mirror act
as an observer of a room, or does it all sit in a wave of
probablities until somebody looks into the mirror and actualizes
the whole thing all the way back to what is being reflected
in the mirror.

Now let us go back to Homer's proof, which highlights the 
action of consciousness in percieving causes as opposed to
Newtonian interactions where one only percieves effects.

I looked across the room at a bookcase.  My eyes see the
effect created by the light coming to them from the bookcase.  
This is a perception of an effect which emmanated from the 
bookcase, and therefore is a hairsbreath removed in time 
and is also removed in space from the actual cause point 
sitting across the room from me.

Now I mockup a bookcase in that same position.  It is my
mockup, so of course it is in PT and I am percieving the
cause directly.  I am doing this purely with mockups just
so that we can do this experiment without any need to
prove or disprove whether or not the "real" bookcase can
be percieved by exterior perception or whatever.

Now with my eyes closed, I mockup that bookcase and mockup
looking at it with my eyes.  If necessary I can open and
close my eyes a few times to get a good feeling of how
it feels to look with one's eyes so that I can refine my
mockup.

I work with this a bit to the point where I can do the
following two things simultaneously with my eyes closed -

a) Mockup a bookcase and percieve it directly at cause
point.

b) Mockup eyes and look across the room at that same
mocked up bookcase and see it from the effect point.

Action b) is Newtonian, and action a) is not.
The interplay between these two, and the differences is
very interesting and is left as an exercise for the 
student (which really means that I'm still playing with 
it myself and there is more to be learned here).

Next I mockup a star 4 light years away.  I repeate
steps a and b above.  

When I first do this, my perception of the effect and
my perception of cause are looking at the star at
the same time.  In other words, I am mocking up the
star at a time 4 years ago and that is where I am
interacting with the cause point.  This is simply
the way it happens when I just do it on automatic.

So I decide to mockup the star in PT instead of
4 years ago.  Now there is no direct connection
between the Newtonian perception and the causative
perception.  If I make a causative change now, 
would I see it 4 years later with my mocked up
eyes?

Its hard to say.  Its all a mockup anyway.  I can put
the star into the past or the future and it all 
responds instantaneously to thought because nobody
else is holding it in place since it is is my mockup 
exclusively.

So I decide to try with a real star.  Maybe my
theta perceptions are good, and maybe not, but I'll
see what I can find out.  I'm not meaning to make
any wild claims here, it all might just be imagination
but maybe I can learn something from it.

I try to focus on one, looking at it from effect point
here and trying to percieve directly at cause point
there.  It seems to be very far away, maybe 17 light
years.  My cause perception is 17 years out of date,
matching my effect perception, and this is the point
of my normal direct interaction as an observer with
that star.

I interact now with a photon as it exists 17 years
ago and it leaves the star and comes to me now at
effect in PT here on Earth.  This is the normal
mechanism which occurs automatically.  There is a solid
connection across the 17 years of time and distance.

So I shift the cauative perception of the star up
towards PT.  It is like a solid track.  The star
is not where it seemed to be.  It is elsewhere now.
The whole thing is very solid because the star has
been observed by other observers more recently than
17 years ago.  It is not subject to probablistic
manipulation and if I do not follow its true path,
it is just my mockup and not the real star.

I try this with other stars at varying distances.
Would my estimates of distance check out?  Would
my perception of subsequent motions be correct?
Maybe not.  It is all very vague anyway.  But
something becomes readily apparant.

I am surrounded by a time/space sphere where my
normal causative interactions are with points that 
are further and further back in time in proportion
to the distances away from my operating viewpoint.

And a greater and greater persistance of solidity
streatches forward from my point of interaction 
as I get further away.

So I mockup another operating point above a far
star and drill int/ext from the star until it
gains a flash of what seems like real perception.
I've done this one before and it is a nice process.

Next I begin to look around from there, spotting
the space/time gradient which is now oriented on
that point.

It is different from and in conflict with the one
oriented here on Earth.  Holding them both at
once gives a very strange sensation.  Quite interesting.

I try another experiment, to look at Earth from
the viewpoint around the far star and see if I can
see Earth in the past.  But that one is like a short
circuit.  It snaps me into PT in the Earth viewpoint
instead.  And I mean really into PT, it feels and
looks like I've just run ten minutes of look around
the room and notice something you like.  Quite
startling but not unpleasant.

Probably this one can be done by drilling some other 
things first and working it on a gradient.  It occurs
to me that the right drill would be to hold different
points in time simulatenously.

That gives me the idea looking at an incident not
by scanning through it but by holding both the
begining and the end points simultaneously.

Trying that gives me a wild feeling of exteriorization 
from the Mest timestream (note that my own time is
still present, I still have consecutive events in my
own frame of reference, and Mest PT is still readily 
apparant, but I have shifted out of it somewhat and 
something has changed).

I decide to take the win and put all this aside for
now.  There is much food here for further research.

Anyway, much thanks to Homer for his writeup on
the Proof.

Best,

The Pilot

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


 subj : Super Scio - Cosmic Forces At Work


COSMIC FORCES AT WORK


WARNING - The following should not be taken too literally 
or assumed to be true.  I do like to let myself go sometimes
and play around with wild ideas.  So don't hold me to what
I say here.  I do like to apply the following (the quote was
kindly provided by jimc@sonic.net on 4 Jan) -

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold
 two opposing ideas in the mind at the same time
 and still retain the ability to function"  -  F. Scott Fitzgerald

Or you might say that I like to apply Lewis Carrol's believing
two impossible things each day.

------

On 6 Jan 98,  lightnin53@juno.com posted on subject "The Muse"

> Seems the clear-l has lost its muse over the past
> month or so, I've had no inspiration to post anything
> and i,ve seen nothing that inspires me to write.
>    Of course I'm not even sure this is getting thru
> or if I've missed posts due to what Homer called
> postponing because of bouncing.
>     Oddly enough over this same period of time I've
> written no knew songs for my band either.
>     I consider myself fairly perceptive and I think there
> is a sort of blanket of energy or shadow crossing the 
> entire planet right now and even the brightest of stars
> are somewhat dimmer at the moment. call me gooffy
> but thats what I get FWIW.
> 
> Lightnin

The muses and other energy have all been drawn up into
the push against the CofS.  They will return soon at new
and more vibrant levels.

On Tue, 6 Jan 1998  "N. D. Culver" <ndc@alum.mit.edu> replies:

>My take is that things will lighten up shortly.
>No news is good news.
>
>ndc

And on Jan 6, lightnin53@juno.com continues with

> I agree it is due to lightnen up, there are some very old
> cycles winding up and it seems there is some last ditch 
> resistence to the change, the most recent cycle seems 
> to be on the order of 6000 yrs but it a lite lock on many much
> older cycles, someone is extremely pissed off over this
> creation gong by the wayside, I'm not sure what some are
> running in the upperlevels but keep it up !!!!!!!! Its definitely
> getting TA in the immediate cosmos :)
> 
> Lightnin

It is the big 2000 year cycle.  The age of Aquarius arrives
in 2012.

But the second foreshadowing begins on Jan 28 of this year
as Neptune enters Aquarius.

This is like the late sixties (the first dawning) only bigger.

Neptune is a metaphysical influence.  It is moving into
the sign of theta and the 7th dynamic.  (count the dynamics
starting with Leo as the 1st dynamic, including the 9th to
12th in my extended system and you will come very close to
the Astrological flavor of each sign).

Or in other words, the metaphysical influence was trapped
in the 6th dynamic and is now moving into the 7th, hence
the money making of the CofS will fall and the tech will
gain a true theta orientation.

I don't really give much credence to astrology.  But there
might be something there due to implanted predispositions.
Nothing that you couldn't violate or disagree with.  But it
might give one a bit of a feeling for how the group agreements
are going to shift and some idea of which way the cosmic
energies are moving.

I haven't bothered to look at any Astological stuff in years.
But I read of Neptune moving into Aquarius the other week
and it was right on top of all these other indicators
and it just seem to fit.

And I'm an Aquarius with Neptune involved in both parts
of a double minor grand trine (which is supposed to be good).
As I've said, my family was into metaphysics and I have
relatives who do these things.  So I recieved a detailed
natal chart once as a Christmas present.  Its supposed
to be a very good configuration (also has a major grand
trine and other things of good portent).

It might just be the placebo effect, but I'm always happy
to have good portents adding to the show.

------

And Homer sprained his ankle (my sympathies to Homer, I understand
that he is better now).  The discussion included the following -


>From "Homer W. Smith" <homer@lightlink.com> on 7 Jan
on subject "Injury"

(he starts by quoting an earlier post of Hiedrun's)
 
> > BUT what is remarkable, is that the awareness of others who 
> > have similar experiences is becoming greater, and that what you 
> > call "empathy" is manifesting to an increasing degree. That 
> > seems to indicate to me that the barriers between individuals
> > are slowly dissolving, hopefully due to the processing people
> > are doing globally.
> > 
> > If you consider individuals as the cells of a spiritual
> > organism, the walls of case between must disappear, and 
> > their feeling for each other must be developed, in order 
> > to allow for a co-creation in harmony. 
> 
>     Yep and part of *MY* healing process was bringing into the
> session room everyone else's co injury.  Now I am auditing outwardly also
> rather than inwardly only.  At first it was by telepathy, but now
> all my users are writing in about their injuries this season and
> in the past, and its quite moving.
>  
>     It has become WE ARE HEALING US, rather than I AM HEALING ME.
> 
>     Many do not have the tools to deal with injuries, but many are
> quite aware of clearing techniques, although they don't call em that.
>  
>     Homer

To which concern@atnet.at (Heidrun Beer) replied
 
> On Wed, 7 Jan 1998 14:05:26 -0500 (EST), Homer W. Smith wrote:
> 
> >    It has become WE ARE HEALING US, rather than I AM HEALING ME.
> 
> That is a phantastic step, really an upgrade, maybe the key
> to an individual case being resistive?
> 
> Do we have a composite case above the individual level also,
> not only below?
> 
> Heidrun Beer 


I wonder if there was a slight cosmic energy backlash as all those
energies began to smash into the CofS.

An electrical outlet short circuited and burned out in my wall
a few days ago (never happened before).  I'm lucky the circuit 
breaker kicked in and saved the house from burning down.  That 
wall was really HOT above the outlet.

And then there was Sony Bono.  For some strange reason I felt 
like I'd lost a potential ally.  No reason for it, its just
how it felt.

-----

I tried backing off to some higher level (??) and there is
so much energy moving that you could almost taste it.

I asked for a date and got March 21.  Don't know what it
means but it feels like a really good date.

The last time I felt a date strongly it was a bad one and
I watched out for it.  I had totally wrong ideas as to
exactly what might happen, but something did happen, and
it was lucky that I was being careful when it came around.
My name even got into the newspapers, so it wasn't a minor
incident, nor was it a self fufilling prophecy.  I'll save
that story for some future time when I'm not being so
secrative about my identity.

So I trust my feelings as to when but I wouldn't even
bother guessing as to what.

-----

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I've started doing a deep and
thorough run through the self clearing book myself.

On one of the straightwire processes, I had this sudden
awareness of again being one of these high level beings
with multiple threads or bodies below me.  And as always,
I had been long dead and numb.  But this time I remembered
that there once was a time when we all were awake at that
level and had great affinity for each other and engaged
in a joyful intertwining of our various threads with
each other.

-----

Maybe I'm just in a fey mood.  It's after midnight.

I'm feeling a great deal of affinity for everyone right now
and I hope that you all come through this allright.  It's a 
little bit rough because we live in interesting times, but 
most of the energy is moveing in our favor rather than 
against us.

Even the loyalists, although they feel under attack right
now, will find more tech than they ever dreamed of if they
only reach out with a bit of ARC instead of hostility.


Affinity,

The Pilot

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

The following trailer was used on all of these posts

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

See the "SCIENTOLOGY REFORMER'S HOME PAGE" by the Pilot 
at http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~krasel/CoS/pilot.html
or http://www.igs.net/~michaelv/scnreform.htm or
via http://www.proweb.co.uk/~tech/good.htm or
The Pilots Home Page at http://fza.org/pilot/index.htm

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

Get the new Self Clearing Book from the Pilots Home Page (above) or in 
gzip format from ftp://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/pub/ss/selfclear.gz
or pkzip from http://www.innernet.net/joecisar/fza1000.htm or Homer's archive

All of this week's posts will be collected in Super Scio Archive 
#19 and #20 and posted to ACT.  The posting archives are also 
available on The Pilots Home Page.

Note that some of my posts only go to ACT

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