Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology From: pilot@hiddenplace.com (The Pilot) Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 26 - EARLY MAR 98 PILOT POSTS TO ACT Date: 3 Mar 1998 14:00:30 POST26.txt SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 26 - EARLY MAR 98 PILOT POSTS TO ACT ========================================== Contents: subj : Super Scio - To Azeric On Between Lives subj : Super Scio - Answering Oleg On LRH subj : Super Scio - Answering Kristen On Sources Etc. subj : Super Scio - Answering Thomas On Leaving CofS subj : Super Scio - To LittleLRH On Emeters subj : Super Scio Tech - OT RESEARCH subj : Super Scio Tech - More On GPMs (attn John) ========================================== subj : Super Scio - To Azeric On Between Lives TO AZERIC ON BETWEEN LIVES On 15 Feb 98, azeric posted to ACT on subject "To PILOT re: Between Lives Implant Situation, etc." > I am trying to figure out the Between Lives Situation with multiple > sources of data to see how it all fits together. > > From what I have read the implant stations were initially put in place > by Xenu. I've never seen that anywhere in LRH tech. See the writeup I did on "The Cosmology of Scientology". > The implant stations are used for control implants and then at > some point you get your memories erased/obscured before your next life. > Since Xenu was captured and overthrown-- why are these implant stations > still in place? According to Hubbard, between lives memory errasure is a "dead forever" type handling to solve the problem of how to get rid of a thetan (see the 1963 tapes like Free Being and Comm Cyles in Auditing). The Xenu stuff, on the other hand, is a "joiner" style mass implant. In 1952 (HCL lectures) he says that there are at least five major joiner incidents on the track (the earliest are prior to this universe) and that the most recent one seems to have taken place here on Earth. At that time he kept the "joiner" implants separate and distinct from the between lives implants. And he says that there have been various time periods where between lives implants have been used. I'm just talking pure Hubbard here rather than my own slant on the matter. > Is it because the Galactic community feels that the > thetans on Earth are a real mess and are scared by the thought of > screwed up thetans messing up their civilizations? > From all that I have read, it seems that the implant stations, etc are > just used now to keep us here until they can figure out a good way to > get us rehabilitated. Maybe so. Hubbard would say it was a prison planet set up in the last ten thousand years to get rid of undesirables, with anybody who wanted change being an undesirable (not just real criminals). My best guess right now is a POW camp style prison planet to keep people out of the fight while the battles rage on. But there is a lot more research needed. I have seen and heard of times when some young child originated some snippet from a past life in Scientology. I know of one case where a toddler saw somebody else's clear bracelet and distintly said "my number is ...." and it was looked up and confirmed as having been the clear number of one of only a handful of clears who had died at by that time (this was years ago). And yet the few reborn Scientology OTs do not have a consecutive conscious recall of their previous lifetime. They have vague recalls and slight snippets of things which are in a few cases just barely good enough to be confirmed. If these people had come through with solid recall and consciousness, the orgs would be promoting it, at least among the upper level public. They act like they have been mindwiped. They seem to come through better than most, but they are a shadow of their former selves and coming back up from scratch. > People of the Monroe Institute have described a between lives area that > sounds very nice. It sounds positive-- a place where you can learn to > create your own reality, etc(unlike on Earth where physical universe > perceptions overwhelm you--and you own mock ups can seem dream like). > From what they say, it sounds like you have a choice of when you want to > come back to Earth. I'm not sure what the institute currently thinks on this but I have read Monroe's books which do present a picture like this. There is also a very interesting book called "Journey of Souls" by Michael Newton, Ph.D. (Llewllyn Pub. 1997) where he reports his findings on using hypnotic regression to research the between lives area. He presents a more formal structure than Monroe, but again it is the pleasant learning environment type view. To balance this I would recommend reading the Tibetan book of the dead which presents a mixture of helpful and malicious things. The translations vary significantly and I would recommend Evan's as being the best (he draws from a lot of sources and comments on the variations). In practice there might be varying environments. And maybe some people are up to creating or agreeing on mockups that are better than whatever between lives machinery has been set up. > And I have read session write ups at the Farsight Institute that talk > about the Grays currently running a project to surround the earth with a > energy field. Some where on the web site it said the purpose of this was > to increase the spiritual awareness of people on Earth. > What do you think about it? (I know there is no substitute like personal > knowingness-- someday I will have it). By "Grays" I assume that you mean the popular UFO style aliens whom I suspect are the Espinol body type. It is almost as easy to lie telepathically as to lie verbally. You just mockup a false picture and project it, and if you're good, you believe it while you're projecting it. Or you dupe some innocent and make him the contact point. So data which is telepathically channeled might still be shore stories and coverups. Even the "X-Files" TV show at its most extreme probably doesn't have enough layers of deception of deception nor does it have enough different groups involved to even come close to what might be going on. Of course it's a fictional show and purely an exercise in speculation. But they had an "April Fool's" show once which at least had the right flavor. Real aliens of different types and also fake aliens and shore stories layered over shore stories and you never do find out exactly what the real truth was. I suspect that everything we get on these guys is different levels of shore stories. > Also I recall you saying somewhere that the Physical Universe > perceptions, etc are so strong on a thetan in a body that his own > personal energy, etc is so overwhelmed that it is not until around body > death that one really can get a chance to 'do' things. I'm not saying that you can't do things until then, but just that its much harder. > The Monroe > Institute seems to have a process that will bypass perceptions and allow > you to be aware of yourself. They use a process called 'HemiSync' which > consist of auditory sounds. You get a sound in one ear at a certain > frequency -- at the same time there is a sound at a different,but close > frequency in the other ear. I think this creates an energy wave or > wavelength approximating theta in your head. I have listened to the > tapes and have a good experience with them. Afterwards, it seems that > I am out of communication somewhat with my senses, etc. I seem to get > out of comm. with my logic circuits for a while after the tapes, but I > feel good. Have you ever looked into this? I listened to a bit of these tapes at a friend's house once. I didn't do a thorough pass but just some sampling. It was quite interesting. But I didn't think that any of the effects were due to the hemisync effect. I get the same effects from listening to composers like Scriabin in a darkened room. Somebody has recently put out a book on music and its effects on the brain (sorry I forget the title) and you might check into that. I suspect that the hemisync business was just a way for somebody to sell some good quality electronic music. And the two channels made it possible to get a really neat three dimensional effect with the sounds (sounds rushing towards you or away from you). And yes, I do think that you can get case gain from listening to music, especially complex music. > By the way, thanks for the free self clearing book. I was very happy to > get it. I have done some of the exercises in your self clearing and have > had success with them. I have been doing actions in the book that > appeal to me( something that interests me, or some topic I have a ruin > on). > However, I need to work on more self discipline-- because I will > self-audit something---and feel good afterwords, and then not do any > more auditing until something comes up later. > > ARC--- AZERIC. Yes, this is the basic problem with working on your own. Maybe I should have included more sales hype a la Hubbard to keep people moving. But I'm still recovering from having heard too much of that myself from the CofS, so I downplayed things instead. And the book is very fast and condensed. So maybe one needs a bit of time to digest between servings. But try not to coast for too long before diving back in again. Its best to get the various techniques under your belt when its easy rather than having to learn too much all at once when you run into trouble. ARC, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Answering Oleg On LRH ANSWERING OLEG ON LRH On 17 Feb 98, "Oleg V. Matveev" posted on subject "To Pilot re LRH Clear check" - I have rearranged his post to put the original first followed by M.'s reply. > From: Oleg V. Matveev > Subject: Clear to Clear > Date: Sonntag, 15. Februar 1998 10:11 > > Dear O., > > I just noticed quite an interesting statement in a lecture about > Gradation Chart on L0: LRH says, "I've had some very good auditing > and I have had some championship bad auditing. And I'm moving right > on up; be checked out here, in a few days, Clear." > > Does it really mean what I understood -- that he was not Clear until at > least '66? > > BTW, I just had another interesting question: if Dianetics is prohibited > for Clears, then LRH must be squirelling from this '66 until '80-81, > years of first NOTs??? > > That's not a ruch question, but it would be interesting to know the > answer... Esp. from M., if he is not TOO busy. > > ML, > Oleg > Hi, > > Here below is the answer of one of my friends here... > > -------------------------------------------- > Oleg V. Matveev, "Theta Club" > E-mail: espinol@aha.ru / fz-ru@freezone.org > WWW: http://www.freezone.de/russian/theta-club/indextc.htm > for unknown encoding see: http://www.design.ru/free/decoder/index.html > -------------------------------------------- > >> Dear Oleg >> >> Well, I don't like to evaluate the case of the Old Man, I have my opinions >> about it. (He was Buddha.) There is somewhere also a tape he is saying that >> he now came up to apathy... So, you see, its hard to estimate him. >> >> I would like to say you more about clear and all those things, but I guess >> I will do that when you are at least OT 3. >> >> And we may consider it a squirreling what he did sometimes but I consider >> it more as research. (But I don't want to hear this statement ever as a >> justification for squirreling!!!) Frankly, he had to find the way how to >> solve the cases here on earth and I think it got solved by several >> technics, the main things today are the Grades (incl. Obj.), NED, OT 3 and >> Excal. And for a long time he didn't know exactly how to put into a row. He >> had the basic knowledge but not all technics and how they had to put >> together. >> >>I hope this does answer your question so far. >> >> Much love M. >> ---------- See my previous writings on the 1958 definition of Clear which I believe to be the correct one (no longer affected by the force in mental image pictures). I believe that Ron considered himself to be a clear by that definition at that time. By 1963, the bridge had changed and clear was a curtesy title given to anyone who had run out an actual GPM. They gave out Clear bracelets and everything on this basis. Ron was clear by that definition. But 1964-5 consisted of yet another attempt to get rid of all abberation, this time by researching a more basic implant. In September 1965, Ron gave the clearing course film to a group of Briefing Course students who were to run the most basic one found to full errasure. He left them at their task and went off to Rhodesia. When he returned to St. Hill, he gave lecture ShSpec-69 "About Rhodesia" on 19 July 66. While he was away, John MacMasters had completed errasure of the CC materials and passed a clear check. In the tape, Ron congradulates him and says that based on reviewing John's results from this, he (Ron) thinks that he (Ron) might have already gone past clear and be overrunning into OT 1. The tape you mention is SHSpec-71 "The Classification Chart and Auditing" given on 26 July 66, about a week after the Rhodesia tape. If I remember correctly, there was a review of one's past auditing and things like that as part of going through the clear check and that it probably what Ron was doing at this point. Note that he choose not to receive a Clear number when he was declared Clear (number 1 was already taken). When Standard Tech was released in 1968, one of the HCOB's said "you can always run an engram". Therefore it was not squirreling to run Dianetics on a clear at that time. In fact, if a clear had a somatic it would have been squirreling not to run Dianetics to handle it. I recieved considerable Dianetics after Clear (delivered as part of standard tech by the orthodox CofS) and I would say that some of it was quite benificial and some of it was an error for NOTS reasons and needed repair with NOTS techniques. Therefore I would say that sometimes it is workable and sometimes it is not. This is one of the many reasons that I do not like the current orthodox definition of squirreling. Almost everything Ron and all older Scientologists did would be squirreling by modern standard tech and yet they gained great benifit from it. I prefer the old definition of squirreling, which is to alter the tech so as to make it UNWORKABLE. That does happen (Koos is an example), but it is quite a different thing. Declaring all variation or advancement to be squirreling creates a subject that CANNOT CHANGE. And Ron has said that anything which cannot change will decay because nothing remains the same. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Answering Kristen On Sources Etc. ANSWERING KRISTEN ON SOURCES ETC. On 25 Feb 98, Kristen posted to ACT on subject "To The Pilot" : This is my first attempt at the usenet, so please bear with me. I : wanted to to know where you came up with the concepts for the SuperScio : book. I am reading it, and am still at the beginning (trying to read : when I can). The Super Scio book (chapters 2 and onward) is my own attempt to research beyond orthodox Scientology. : I've also downloaded your Self-Clearing book. At one : point, I read somewhere that SuperScio was really more for one who is : already knowledgeable in Scientology - is that why some of the concepts : are a bit strange to me? Yes. Even untrained Scientologists (those who have not done professional auditor training) might have trouble with the Super Scio book. Scientology evolved at a brisk pace throughout the 1950s and into the 1960s. It was a search and a research line. When the subject was finally formalized into "standard tech" in the late 1960s, only about ten or twenty percent of the subject made it into modern Scientology. There is no book in orthodox Scientology that sumarizes modern Scientology tech, only vast volumes of bulletins and many hundred hours of taped lectures mostly drawn from the 1960s research line. There are only a few books such as "Creation of Human Ability" (CofHA) which show a bit of the 1950s research line, but they are only the tip of the iceburg. There were thousands of hours of taped lectures in that time period. Few modern Scientologists know very much of this material. The Super Scio book rests on top of both of these areas as a starting point and then tries to go further. That makes it rough to understand and often leaves you without related material. So I took the whole mess, 1950s Hubbard, modern standard tech, my own work, and anything that seemed applicable from metaphysics or freezone Scientology and tried to rethink the whole thing in a simple and orderly manner that started from the begining and assumed no prior knowledge. That is the Self Clearing book. It starts from scratch and assumes no knowledge of Scientology. The Self Clearing book is like a general science textbook in junior highschool. Those general textbooks usually cover the entire field and are not afraid to explain electricity or nuclear fission but they do not have the detail of a textbook on electronics for example. Everything in this field, not just Super Scio but also the various confidential materials on the net or freezone writings or anything of ordinary Scientology, should be easy to read and understand after getting through the Self Clearing book. : I am not a Scientologist, but have a friend in : it. I am thinking of getting into Scientology more, but have heard that : if "they" found out that I read more than just LRH material, I would be : labeled many negative things (SP, PTS, Squirrel, etc.). Any thoughts? In the current fanatical atmosphere, they would certainly tell you that this was "squirrel" material. They might just try to get you to disconnect from it, but if you insisted, then they would probably consider you PTS (you would not be considered Suppressive unless you started criticizing or attacking them or working against them in some manner). The fanaticism generally increases in proportion to the proximity to CofS management and the Sea Org, so it makes a different whether your friend is simply doing a course at an outlying mission or whether they are Sea Org staff at the LA complex. So use judgement and see how freely they are willing to talk. : Kristen : : P.S. I really like your writing style - much better than Hubbard's! Thank you very much. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Answering Thomas On Leaving CofS ANSWERING THOMAS ON LEAVING COFS On 1 Mar 98, tjfielder@earthlink.net (Thomas Fielder) asked on subject "To Pilot - leaving CofS and contacting other Scnists" > To the Pilot and others who wish to comment, > > In the last week I have discovered the FreeZone, the Pilot's writings on > CofS reformation, and A.C.T. It has been something of an epiphany for > me. Although my experiences in Scn have been fairly limited (highest > course=NED, highest processing=Scn Drug R/D and Int R/D, plus 3 months on > staff of the Champaign Mission in 1975), I have followed news from and > about the CofS long enough to have accumulated many doubts and some basic > disagreements (but also enough wins to convince me some of the tech is > useful). Amazingly, I now find that there is a whole community of people > out there who share the disagreements and still apply the tech outside of > the CofS!! If only I had discovered the FreeZone in the 80's! > > Now I am faced with a difficult decision (actually 2). I spent about 4 > years on lines at the Orange County Org (92-96) and still have a few > thousand dollars on account there. My experiences there were largely > positive, and I still feel a great deal of affinity toward several staff > members there. But I could really use that money. If I demand it back, > as I recall, I will be denied any further services in the CofS and > declared an SP. Is this correct? Definitely correct on being denied further service, you have to sign a document to that effect. Probably yes on getting declared, but you might get away with PTS. My suggestion would be to have the money reapplied to 1950s tape sets. Although they are overpriced, they are good quality and helpful and hard to find in the freezone. Usually the staff member who arranges the deal can get a commission (Sea Org staff do get commissions on selling tapes and books, I'm not certain about org staff), so they might be very helpful in arranging a deal like that. Just be careful not to tell them that you are headed for the freezone. Give them a story about how you think that listening to LRH tapes is the only thing that can get you moving forward again or something like that. The money ends up in the book account and Golden Era Studios benifits instead of it ending up in the CofS warchest, so that feels a bit better to me as well. This also leaves you in a very strong ethical and moral position because their overpricing leaves them as the parties who are out-exchange, so it helps you feel good about the matter because your own hands are the cleanest ones in sight. And this way you retain your comm lines within the organization and you have the option of playing reform games. > The other decision concerns 2 very old friends of mine, a married couple, > who are much further along the Bridge than I (he is Clear, she is on Power > Processing). I have always been able to share my feelings about Scn with > them, and I'd like to share my recent epiphany with them as well, and see > what they think about the Pilot's call for reformation, etc. How can I > determine to what extent I would be endangering them by passing such > materials as Super Scio to them? My feeling is it would be an overt not > to, but I could be committing an even bigger one by doing so. All > comments are welcome, particularly from people who have recently faced > similar problems. Power is very short, generally delivered over a period of 3 days (and 3 days for power plus). Don't push anything at the person while they are actually in the middle of grade 5 or 5A, but these are super short so that shouldn't be a problem. Most Dianetic Clears tend to bog right there and they are usually more than ready to take off on their own. In general I would suggest that you let somebody finish an action that they are doing well on. Aside from this, I would say that they are both at ideal points to look at alternative and dive right into self clearing. Just point them at the Reformer's Homepage and see what happens. You could do it cautiously, just asking for their opinion so that they don't decide that you are an SP. In all likelyhood it will really indicate to them and a huge amount of suppressed bypassed charge will be released and they will have their own epiphany. In that case, let them have all the rest of it because they are ready. If it really doesn't indicate, then maybe they really do need the heavy push and control exerted by the CofS, so I'd leave them alone. The Reformer's homepage is good for this because it doesn't mention any confidential materials and wouldn't get them into trouble in auditing. > Tom Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - To LittleLRH On Emeters TO LittleLRH ON EMETERS On 28 Feb 98, "littleLRH" asked on subject "4 Pilot re: emeter trimming" > Dear Pilot my emeter has expired and now when i try to set it up for the > session it goes very wild, and it very hard to trimm it, i have got a mark > VII, what should i do ? since i haven't got any idea what happens every 2 > years at golden era could you please write me all the detailed steps that i > have to make ? > > much love, > littleLRH Sorry, I haven't worked on E-meter repair. Maybe someone else can help and post some data. I know nothing about the Mark 7, but I'll pass on what little I know about the older meters incase it helps. I have an anchient Mark 6 which still works. I only had it certified once when it started giving some trouble a few years after I bought it. The battery has lost its robustness and will only hold its charge for about a week so I tend to plug it into the wall when I use it or charge it earlier on the same day. Maybe if I get ambitious I'll look into replacing the battery, but these days I do most auditing off the meter. Most or all of the knobs which turn (rather than switches) such as the tone arm and the trim are potentiometers (pots). You could think of them as variable resistors (that is an oversimplification). The old British Mark 5s had cheap pots which tended to get "dirty". The solution was to open it up and use a bit of electrical pot cleaner on it. What happens is that these things contain contain carbon which sometimes gets gummed up or something like that. When a pot gets dirty, it changes resistance irratically instead of smoothly as you turn the knob. If you have a cheap radio where the volume knob has stopped working smoothly and has dead spots and irratic behavior, its the exact same thing that is wrong. Sometimes a dirty pot can be made to work a bit better by rapidly turning it back and forth a few times to try and loosen the sticky areas. Pots usually only cost a few dollars. Anyone who knows how to fix a radio or TV would know how to clean a pot if that is what's wrong. Or they could replace it with one of identical specs. Or you could get a do it yourself book on how to fix radios and look at how to fix the volume knob. Aging batteries and dirty pots would seem to me to be the most likely source of trouble in an old meter, or maybe a weakened magnet in the dial mechanism. I work with computers, so when I dabble in electronics, it is digital rather than annonying things like poteniometers. So I'm not an expert in this area and lack practical experience. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - OT RESEARCH OT RESEARCH I've made a tech breakthrough. Not the whole shooting match, but another piece of the puzzel. I began by trying to expand the axioms and it yielded a wild little trick that doubles exterior perception. And the trick is easy to learn. I coached two people through it in a few minutes after explaining the theory and both got it easily and experienced the same effect that I got from it. Note that the trick is an amplifier rather than a method for turning on exterior perceptics. If you don't already have some slight degree of exterior perception (usually mixed in with lots of dub-in and imagination), then do chapters 1, 2, and 11 of Self Clearing, which should at least get you to the vague level that people used to get from old OT 5 and 6. I'll get around to explaning the trick later in this post. You should be able to do it with a few minutes of drilling. But you need the underlying theory first. And the theory is really a lot more important than the trick anyway, because it might lead to a lot more. --------------- If you look over the Scientology Axioms, you'll see that we have a very detailed definition of Communication. Basically it is cause, distance, effect, with intention, attention, and duplication. In other words, we have 6 components, and one of them, "intention" is a very active component that we drill with TR 8 and it seems like one of the significant factors in OT abilities. We do not have a definition of Affinity that is of comparable magnitude, with components that can be drilled and used. And yet we know that it is a basic of great importance. I began by looking for an active factor in Affinity, something comparable to "intention" in the definition of communication. And I thought of having two tuning forks with matching pitches, and you strike one and the other vibrates in sympathy with it. This is a high school physics experiment and you can find the effect described in any good textbook. And if you raise the dampers on a piano (step on the right pedal) and hit a note, other strings which are harmonics of it (an octave above and below etc.) with also start vibrating slightly. Again, this is just highschool physics. This could be referred to as "resonance". It is motion in sympathy. And I thought of a mother rocking a child. A sharing of motion. It builds affinity. The same for sex. And then there is matching tones on the emotional tone scale. If you think of these emotions as having wavelengths, again you have resonance. So let's begin by defining an axiom for resonance. Note that I'm using "axiom" in the popular sense (a basic principle) as did Hubbard rather than in the strict mathematical sense. ___ AXIOM X-1: RESONANCE IS A SIMILARITY OF MOTION. Matching tones on the emotional tone scale is an example of resonance between beings. Sympathetic vibrations between piano strings or tuning forks is an example of resonance between physical object. ___ I thought of the cause and effect sides of communication and felt that there should be something similar for affinity. After a bit of contemplation, it occured to me that these would be "desire" and "acceptance" (thank you Allen). And of course likeing and admiration would fit into it. And I felt that I should define it as an active thing. Putting this all together yields the following axiom. ___ AXIOM X-2: AFFINITY IS THE ACTION OF IMPELLING A FLOW OR VIBRATION ACROSS A DISTANCE FROM A POINT OF DESIRE TO A POINT OF ACCEPTANCE WITH ADMIRATION, LIKEING, AND RESONANCE. ___ Of course most of this is old hat. We even know that duplicating motions as in mimicry tends to build affinity. But this idea of resonance opens the door to another level of practical application. And that brings us back to that trick I was talking about. ------------------- I discussed resonance between beings and between objects, and that raises the question of resonance between a being and an object. Think of objects as having an inherent wavelength, a sort of musical note that they will respond to. A specific element will have electron shells at fixed distances from the nucleus. These are like frozen waves which have a wavelength. When we heat up a metal, it glows at a specific wavelength because of this. In physics, spectrums can be analyzed to precisely pin down the elements present in something based on this principle (spectrographic analysis). Again this is just textbook physics. Of course a complex object has many elements and should probably be thought of as a composite. But the oversimplified idea that an object will have a single basic vibration is actually good enough to start with. Here is the drill: a) pick an object b) imagine that you are sort of humming a note at it (this is done mentally, not by humming out loud) c) project this note into the object d) shift the note up and down until it matches vibrations with the object (you can feel this easily). Note that you don't have to hit the actual vibration, but just a harmonic of it, so it doesn't matter that much weather you use a high pitch or a low one, but it is important to slide up and down the scale by very small increments. e) permeate the object with the vibrations. Repeat this on a number of different objects. After you have assessed a few objects this way, matching vibrations, you should find that you can pretty much match wavelengths automatically without having to assess in detail. You should experience a startling increase in mental preception of an object whenever you hit it with a matching vibration, especially perceptions of the inside and far side of the object (it is a 3D perception rather than looking). Note that matching wavelengths goes way beyond simple permeation (I've played with that too). With hindsight, there are ideas like this in metaphysics. There is the idea in India of playing a specific musical note to heal somebody, and I've even heard mention of the idea that humming the correct note might enable one to move an object. And there is even Scriabin's idea that the ultimate musical composition would bring the would to fufillment and allow it to end. When you first drill this, you can just look at an object or a wall and project a vibration at it. But once you get the knack of it, try it exterior in conjunction with any exteriorization drill that works for you. I think that you'll find that whenever you add in this vibration business, It's like turning on a light switch and your perception increases a notch. There is lots more that you can play around with. You can project broadband "roars" or play around with chords to match a series of wavelengths at once. -------------- Don't get into trying to prove things. Even with your perceptions raised a notch, it's still probably more dub-in than accurate data. You mustn't invalidate the half correct perceptions or they get weaker. Of course I ignored my own advise and tried to read some playing cards upsidedown. I used 8 numbers (2 to 9) in 4 suits to make calculations easy. I held each card up facing away from me and mentally roared vibrations at it until I had a clear visio of the card's face. The results were freeky. 50 percent accuracy on calling the suit. 25 percent accuracy on calling the number. Not one card seen correctly. Every perception a total dub in, but the suits and numbers were percieved at twice the level of random guessing. As a control, I dropped the mental roaring and the incorrect dubbed in perception and the accuracy immediately dropped to 25 percent on suit and around 12 percent on the number (the normal probablility). It was crazy because I could only violate the mathematical probability by getting an obviously incorrect perception. I'd see a 7 of hearts clearly and it would be a 7 of clubs when I turned it over. Or I'd see an 8 or spades clearly and it would be a 3 of spades when I turned it over. But I'd be right on either the suit or the digit on about 3/4 of the cards. An hour of this and I was just about banging my head against the wall and getting exhausted and invalidating my perceptions because every damn visio was obviously wrong (I never ever saw the correct card, which was also contrary to chance because I should have accidentally gotten one right every 32 cards). That left me feeling quite frustrated, so I'm not going to try it again soon. And yet there was a consistant and dramatic violation of mathematical probablity. I thought this over a bit. My first idea was that the true perception coming through must have been no more than a tiny flash of color or the shape of a single number and I was building an entire visio of a card based on that tiny signal of real data. But I talked this over with a friend and he suggested that it was more likely that I had gotten an accurate perception but something was overlaying it with an alter-is because there is some mechanism designed to block doing this with complete accurace in this universe. There is more to be learned here. -------------- My thought right now is that there must be a dozen or so of these factors which sum up into the creation of reality. One of them is intention. Another is resonance. Yet another is faith/belief. Each of these acts as significant amplifiers, and each one can be drilled individually and is fairly easy to master. -------------- I started thinking of affinity as a duplication of motion. So I reviewed the duplication in the communication formula and saw it as a duplication of data or content. And agreement would be a duplication of intention. By communicating, you might duplicate the fact that somebody else likes to fish, and yet you might not want to fish yourself. But you might duplicate the intention to fish and therefore come into agreement with them even if the two of you aren't talking. And you might both go fishing together and thereby duplicate the motion and come to feel more affinity for each other. These are 3 separate duplications. All 3 would be involved in a shared reality which I would see as a duplication of creation. From this comes the thought that the ARC triangle might be a limited perspective. Note that understanding seems to be a byproduct rather than the sum (complete ARC would be more than just understanding). And it should be obvious that agreement by itself may be a factor in reality but is not the sole determining criteria. After all, the majority of people once believed the Earth was flat (even though the educated people like Columbus knew better) and it continued to be round despite that. The real equation might be: Affinity plus Agreement plus Communication plus another half dozen unidentified factors all sum together to yield Reality. Or in other words, duplication of data plus duplication of motion plus duplication of intention plus duplication of various other things all sums up to duplication of creation (which is the reality of the physical universe). All this would be occuring on a compulsive level of course. --------------- As usual, finding an answer has left me with more questions. But the trick with resonance does work and the axiom on affinity has lots of implications. So have fun. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - More On GPMs (attn John) MORE ON GPMS (attn John) On 21 Feb 98, "John Alexander" on subject "To PILOT Re: GPMs", responding to an earlier post of mine titled "GPMS AND A QUESTION FOR JOHN ALEXANDER" I snipped his quote of my earlier post since that is already in the archives. I'm including John's entire reply here since it seems so valuable and its so hard to get any data on the late GPM research line. > I sure wish someone who was there and knows about it first-hand would do a > detailed write-up on this subject. In the meantime, I'll attempt to shed a > little bit of light on it. > > I have studied Jack Horner's notes of the Staff Clearing tapes. These > lectures (the "SC lectures") as recorded in Jack's notes have the same > titles and dates you mentioned, as they are listed in the old tech volumes. > They appear to constitute the original "R6" material. This lecture series > is entirely devoted to the running of "actual" GPMs, and has nothing to do > with the content or running of implants. > > The SC lectures seem to represent a period of extremely rapid research and > evolution of theory (approximately December 1963 to mid June 1964). > Therefore, although there is continuity to the material, the overall > picture in June of 1964 appears to be quite different than the picture in > December 1963. Nobody is going to have an easy time figuring out how to run > GPMs by listening to these lectures. > > Another aspect of this research line is that it seems to represent a > significantly different model of actual GPMs, what they are and how they > came about, than the earlier period of research on "actual" GPMs. I > haven't been able to identify from the notes exactly when or how the > transition occurred in the model. > > Part of the purpose of my earlier posting to Alan Walter, to which your > response was directed, was to request confirmation of my guess that there is > essentially no relationship between the "R6" GPMs and the so-called "R6 > Bank" as it appears in the CC. His answer: "It was not meant to be." > > For example, the lecture on "Objects of the Mind" has nothing to do with > the "objects" section of the CC. It is a basic lecture on the structure of > R6 GPMs as they were understood in December, 1963. Nothing in any of the SC > lectures bears any discernable relationship to any part of the CC as far as > I can tell, or to any of the OT 2 or 3 materials (except one OT2 platen, as > you mentioned ). The "objects" section of the CC would probably strike most > oldtimers as a dressed up version of "Step 6" from the 1957-58 period, > which hopefully might key out aspects of the "rock." That's pretty much how > Jack Horner characterized it. > > Considering the apparent lack of connection between the original "R6" > materials and the later clearing and OT levels, I was always rather > mystified that the designation "R6" was retained. It is absolutely clear > from Jack's notes on the SC lectures that none of the original R6 material > was thought to have been directly implanted or somehow derived from any > earlier implants, even though part of the material was later apparently > included in OT2. > > However, it seems clear that the original R6 GPMs materials are intimately > related to "R6EW." From what I have seen of the R6EW materials, it would > appear that R6EW may have been derived from the research on R6 GPMs, and > evolved as a method of keying these out. There is mention in the SC > lectures that identification of end words is a relatively safe method of > addressing and destimulating this whole area of case. Ironically, the > so-called "lock end words" which a person lists on R6EW may in many > instances be far more basic to the person's case than the so-called "basic > end words" > that appear in the CC. > > It has been assumed by some people that the R6 GPM research line was > discontinued because it was found to be incorrect, unworkable, or simply > unnecessary because of the discovery of more basic material (i.e. the CC, > supposedly). Alan Walter's answer to my previous posting seems to confirm > what Jack Horner also said, that the R6 GPMs are senior to implanted GPMs > such as the CC, and that the change of direction in mid-1964 may have > reflected a decision that the R6 GPM material required too much auditor > skill to be generally usable, or that some aspect of LRH's case had gotton > triggered and not handled, or both. > > The GPM tech initially taught by Jack Horner to his students around 1970 - > 71 was, according to him, essentially the same as was being run at St. Hill > in 1964. Having reviewed his notes of the SC lectures, I would say that > what he taught probably was essentially the same as what was run at St. Hill > towards the end of the period, i.e. around June of 1964. > > By 1972, Jack had refined the GPM material slightly, by adding a couple of > pieces which he thought LRH had missed, and which he thought explained some > of the changes > which occurred in Scientology starting around 1965. Bluntly, he thought > that in researching GPMs LRH had failed to identify a couple of key points > which were dramatized from then on. One of these points was the observation > that the initial postulation of each GPM goal contained the consideration, > whether explicit or implicit, that the particular goal is the "only > solution" to all problems, for all beings, forever, etc. > > Coming from the viewpoint of one who has never been directly involved with > the Church of Scientology and who has run GPMs extensively in the past, I > would say that certain GPMs seem to be blatently dramatized with respect to > "ethics" and "standard tech." It is the nature of GPMs to produce > obsessive, mechanical, enforced and inhibited conduct with respect to > subjects which are considered inherently positive or valuable, but which are > not workable as "only solutions." > > Jack taught quite a few people to run GPMs, and they were run very > successfully. Many people declared "clear" while running this material, > and most all got tremendous benefit whether or not they decided they were > "clear" as a result. > > I think one of the reasons Jack was able to teach GPMs successfully was that > he did not try to equate GPMs with a person's whole case. In 1972 I asked > Jack when he had become "clear" and he responded that he had gotton clear > while running the "rock" back in 1957 or '58. He viewed both GPMs and rock > running as separate and essential aspects of clearing, and taught that the > rock is much more basic than GPMs. > > An example he frequently gave: If you run the GPMs which contain "space" or > "time" you will likely trigger more basic material concerning the original > creation of space and time, which will not resolve through duplication of > the GPM structure. You can still run the items as GPMs, but you may have to > indicate the earlier material being triggered, or, preferably, run it first. > [Actually, aside from his origination of the repetitive question style of > auditing in about 1951-52, some of Jack's biggest contributions to the > subject of auditing have been in the area of running the rock and the > "pre-rock." But that's a whole different subject.] > > A significant number of people have Jack's GPM materials, so at least the > essence of the R6 GPM material is obtainable even if the original SC lecture > tapes are locked up somewhere. Whether other St. Hill Class VI graduates > besides Jack have perpetuated this material I don't know. > > As noted above, the SC lectures seem to represent a period of rapid > evolution of technology. Therefore the lecture series does not present a > single package of integrated technology. Imagine the technical history of > the computer condensed into a six-month period. Although the early > materials on vacuum tubes and circuits may be important resources for study, > they are not immediately relevant to the design and operation of the current > end-product. > > What happened in the R6 GPM research appears ultimately to have been a > process of simplification. As the research developed, many of the variables > seem to have dropped out. > > Like the earlier GPM technologies, it appears that R6 GPMs were discovered > through listing, and identification and verification techniques. In a > February, 1964 lecture LRH appears to have indicated that the key to this > was in the precise listing question which was developed to take GPMs apart > backwards, running from later to earlier. > > And it appears that the key concept that distinguishes this line of research > from earlier GPM research, and which was reflected in the listing > question(s) used was this: The R6 GPM problems and solutions were connected > by "bring about," rather than, for example, "oppose." LRH noted a couple of > times in this lecture series that real GPM RI's are connected by "bring > about" and that "oppose" is a hallmark of implant GPMs. > > Apparently through the listing for items which were connected in a > relationship of "X would bring about Y," or "Y would be brought about by X," > a rather inevitable sequence of problems and solutions eventually emerged. > > What was inevitable, it appears, is that out of all the problems which might > arise as a consequence of a given goal, there would be one particular > problem that the being would get hung up on, and out of all the solutions he > might try, there would always be one or two which he would get stuck in and > which would bring about particular problems which would hang him up,etc. > This particular sequence would eventually lead him to try to give up on his > goal and adopt a new goal, which would go through the same pattern. There > may have been many other problems along the way that he predicted, was able > to solve or complete cycle on somehow. But there was a particular sequence > of problems and solutions which didn't resolve, basically due to his Q&A > with them. > > One of the beautiful things about running these GPMs is that you get to > duplicate the insanity of this inevitable and incredibly repetitive pattern > of problems and solutions which is recognizably manifested by people > everywhere around. Duplicating this pattern brings about a great deal of > understanding of the behavior of people and the structure of the mind, which > can be very handy when you are processing others. The pattern is not just > an arbitrary listing of positive and negative commands as might appear in an > implant. Before I learned to run these materials, twenty-plus years ago, > another one of Jack's students told me "You will be amazed that anyone had > the gall to write this down, it is so obvious." > > It appears from Jack's notes that over the six-month period of research > covered by the SC lectures, the pattern of problems and solutions became > known, little by little, to be essentially an invariable pattern. So, there > are points in the lecture series where LRH talks about which items are > known, and which still have to be listed for, and then in later lectures he > indicates that more of the items have been definitely identified, and fewer > need to be listed. > > In December 1963 he was saying most GPMs had 16 to 20 items, but in January > or February '64 he was saying the number was 16. By May or June '64 it was > 18 items, and all the significances were nailed down, so that there is no > listing for items. [Actually, as Jack taught this material, there could be > instances in which it would be necessary to work with the precise wording of > an item in a particular GPM in a person's case, because even as accurately > as the GPM significances had been pinpointed in English language > representations they were still only approximations of the actual RIs. > However, I never found it necessary to re-word an item in actual practice.] > > The other thing which appears to have brought the whole structure into focus > was the precise identification of the goals to be run. Jack's notes are not > very clear about how this aspect of the research evolved. At some point the > goals were analyzed in terms of "root words" (verbs) and "end words" (nouns) > and it appears that the research eventually zeroed in on two essential root > words and a particular class of end words which are very basic. I have > always assumed this to be a very key point, because it seems to be the very > basic nature of these end word/root word combinations that explains their > adherence to an incredibly regular pattern of problems and solutions. My > speculation, not inconsistent with Jack's notes, is that the precise > identification of the GPM goals is what also permitted the precise > identification of the 18-item pattern to fall into place . > > Putting it differently, if one were to list items related by "bring about" > with respect to a number of late-track goals like "to eat cookies" and "to > eat apples" one might find a great deal of variation in the pattern of items > discovered from goal to goal. So, it is rather remarkable that a basic type > of actual goal was discovered which produced a consistent pattern of items > from goal to goal. This pattern of items is kind of like the CDEI sequence > as related to basic goals, problems and solutions. Further up the track, > things became more complicated and the regularity became manifested only > through the dramatization of the earlier material. > > Eventually, for each endword there were two GPMs connected in sequence, each > GPM of the pair having the same endword but having a different root word. > One GPM in each pair had to do with avoidance of the endword, and one had to > do with getting rid of it. In about 1972 Jack added a third GPM and root > word to the beginning of the sequence, which had to do with putting the > endword into existence in the first place. So, he ran GPMs in triads rather > than pairs. The GPM he added is the one that is usually being dramatized > when a person states (normally with perceptible mass) that any given > positive quality such as "love," "truth," "perfection," "ethics," etc. is an > inherent quality of a being or of existence, or is the only solution to > existence. Most of these qualities are connected to standards and belief > systems which are senior to GPMs and cannot be run out via this GPM tech, > but at least some of the more obvious compulsive problems and solutions can > be transcended this way. > > Another aspect of R6 GPMs is that the items did not consist of "terminals" > and "opposition terminals" in the same sense referred to in earlier > research, although the words "term" and "opterm" were retained to refer to > the solution and problem items, respectively. In R6 GPMs, the items (or > "RIs") could be thought of as conditions, attitudes, states of mind, > postulates, etc. LRH talked about this in one of the SC lectures. These > items could be dramatized by the assumption of a particular identity or > series of identities, but the items themselves are not terminals. The > relationship between terms and opterms is not a me/them relationship; one > is identified with both sets of items. > > LRH apparently placed a great deal of emphasis on finding the exact sequence > in which the individual GPMs were lined up (as distinguished from the > sequence of RIs which occurs internally within each GPM). It is not clear > from Jack's notes whether LRH thought that everybody had the same series of > GPMs, or whether his opinion on this topic changed over time. Anyway, Jack > thought that trying to find the sequence of end words in the bank was a > waste of time. Instead, he taught his students to locate endwords which > would run well and to run the triads in isolation. And, he had a short list > of very basic "required" endwords which he also had his students run. He > thought that after a person had run maybe ten to thirty end words (GPM > triads) the person would blow so much charge that he would unmock the rest > of them. Whether or not this is what happens I don't know, but I do know > that after enough GPMs are run they seem to lose most of their "bite." > > My experience of running myself and others on this material is that it > entirely runnable, and produces immense gains. Although particular > troublesome case conditions may resolve, most of what resolves may just as > well consist of material the person wasn't particularly aware of to start > with, but which contains tons of force, pressure, pain, etc. which the > person had been maintaining, and which is quite noticeable in the absence. > Jack used to say that you could look at someone and observe (visually) > whether they had run GPMs. He also told me "Some people will not get clear > by running GPMs." That was probably a great understatement, but it hardly > devaluates GPM running. The point is: R6 GPMs do not appear to be the > whole case, but they are a great big piece. > > From my experience running myself and others both on GPMs and R6EW, I do not > think that one can get close to handling this area of case with R6EW alone. > I also wonder whether the CC usually does more than key it out. That's hard > for me to determine, because I ran lots of GPMs before I ran the CC. > > Another point is that a person must have a certain level of reality on > themselves, their own case in general and GPMs in particular, in order to > run GPMs with benefit. A person who tries to run GPMs and perceives no > benefit today may find that GPMs run like crazy a year from now, after some > other processes have been run. And, as in running engrams, it is not an > ideal gradient if the auditor is having to use "every trick in the book" to > get the client into the material and to get him to stay in it and duplicate > it. The better shape a person is in, the easier and more cleanly GPMs run. > When it runs well, it is some of the most awesome processing imaginable. > > As I said at the beginning, I would like to see this whole area of history > of the technology clarified by someone who was involved in the original > research and really knows how it all fits together. What I've indicated > about the SC lectures above contains an element of speculation, because the > lecture notes I have studied are sketchy, and there also may have been any > number of bulletins or other materials at the time which are not contained > in the lectures themselves. Also, I have almost no experience with the > earlier lines of GPM reasearch/technology. Everything I've said about GPMs > as taught by Jack Horner is, however, based on accurate and first-hand > knowledge. > > I hope that helps. > > Aloha, John ================ There was an HCOB that I saw on the R6 course which I think was from late 1964 or early 1965. I do not remember it clearly and it did not give a lot of data, but it seemed to mark the point of transition. It was something to the effect that it was discovered that all PCs were cycling through the same set of 84 (?) actual GPMs over and over again as they came down the track. Ron might have decided that all actual GPMs were rooted in implants. ================ Sometime last year I tried to pull together the various R6 & CC stuff and get a better feel for what was going on on this research line. Here are my notes on this. Please excuse the abbreviated writing style. ------ The only 18 item pattern in the OT materials is OT2 chapter 12, the lower LP GPM. It uses 18 items on a decaying series of adjectives on the endword "Pictures" starting from nice pictures down to mystifying pictures (20 goals in total). 18. Those who desire to create 17. Desires to destroy 16. To create 15. Never create 14. Too much creating 13. Hoping to never create 12. Criticisms of created 11. Hating to create 10. Compulsions to create 9. Having to create 8. Obsession with to create 7. Automatic creators of 6. Failures to create 5. Constantly creating 4. Difficulties with other creators 3. Differently creating 2. No more desires to create 1. To create Plotted Upwards #1 is Earliest The scale of adjectives was: 20. Mystifying 19. Informative 18. Frightening 17. Heartining 16. Unpleasant 15. Pleasant 14. Disagreeable 13. Agreeable 12. Valueless 11. Valuable 10. Ruinous 9. Productive 8. Destructive Of 7. Creative 6. Evil 5. Holy 4. Bad 3. Good 2. Naughty 1. Nice ------------------ Per the pattern of the bank film transcript (available on the net) (shspec-51, 30 dec 64): GPMs of 18 items. top endword is "absence" root words are always "create" and "destroy". Begins with - then + alternating until the middle when it reverses. To create absence to destroy presence etc. ----------------- Per track & bank anatomy (shspec-29, 14 July 64) "cause" is an endword. So is "insane", "invalidation", "nowhere", "problems", "future". 268 root words & 268 endwords & 18 items. (all 268 roots on 1st endword, then same on 2nd endword, etc.) 18 RIs with the goal as an RI at the bottom. The + & - endword pairs reverse on the endword "now". 268 on each side of now. Earlier than now, the negative is further from the top of the bank, later it is closer to the top. The center 'now' is double. endwords: here/there (up near the top), everywhere/elsewhere, present/absent (at the end). Interlocked items: GPM B is expressed in GPM As bottom pair and GPM B has the bottom item of GPM A expressed in its top pair. ------------------ Per CC platen - the 7s ( 8 BY 2 BY 4 = 64 GOALS) The later CC platen was in sets of 8, but Bob Kaufman did it very early on and described sets of 7, and that is probably accurate for the original version because they are called the 7s. (per Bob Kaufman, there were only 7 pairs instead of 8 pairs on to have, then to do, and then to be, and the first one was "to have mass" opposing "to not have mass" and the endwords probably included mass / energy / space / time / history, and probably were the same in each set of 7s because he also mentions "to be mass".) TO BE NOBODY / EVERYBODY TO BE ME / YOU TO BE MYSELF / OTHERS TO BE AN ANIMAL / ANIMALS TO BE A BODY / BODIES TO BE MATTER / SPACE TO BE A SPIRIT / SPIRITS TO BE A GOD / GODS TO DO NOTHING / EVERYTHING TO DO MUCH / LITTLE TO DO IT ALL / NOT ANY TO DO AMBITIOUSLY /SLIGHTLY TO DO MORE / LESS TO DO SPLENDIDLY / AWFULLY TO DO WISELY / FOOLISHLY TO DO RIGHT / WRONG TO HAVE NOTHING / EVERYTHING TO HAVE MUCH / LITTLE TO HAVE ALL / NONE TO HAVE HUGELY / POORLY TO HAVE GREEDILY / PICKINGLY TO HAVE MIGHTILY / SPARSELY TO HAVE MAGNIFICENTLY /TAWDRILY TO HAVE TOTALITY / NEGATIVENESS TO STAY EVERYWHERE / TO STAY NOWHERE TO STAY HERE / TO STAY THERE TO STAY NEAR / TO STAY FAR TO STAY UP / TO STAY DOWN TO STAY OUT / TO STAY IN TO STAY BACK / TO STAY FORWARD TO STAY EARLIER / TO STAY LATER TO STAY PRESENT / TO STAY ABSENT ------------ CC - The Basic End Words (Part B) (per BK, there were only 18 endwords, including M, E, S, T, & history as above). 1. THE NOW 2. THE PAST 3. THE FUTURE 4. THE TIME 5. THE SPACE 6. THE MOTION 7. THE ENERGY 8. THE MASSES 9. THE SELF 10. THE OTHERS 11. THE LIFE 12. THE EXISTENCE 13. THE CONDITIONS 14. THE EFFECTS 15. THE PICTURES 16. THE MIND 17. THE HISTORIES 18. THE REACTION 19. THE GOAL 20. THE CHAOS 21. THE UNIVERSE ------------------ CC - confusion GPM: CREATING TO DESTROY THE ... DESTROYING TO CREATE THE ... for each of the 21 endwords above. ===================== While I was pulling together all of the above, I had the feeling that it just didn't sound basic enough and there must be something earlier, either an earlier section of the CC implant itself or a more basic earlier similar. I took a stab at working it out, but I can't guarantee its accuracy. I suspect that its only half right, but the tech finders might as well have it to play around with. Even in its current form it seemed to take a lot of charge off. New Theory: New 7s: matter, energy, space, time, thought, life, history The 7 abberations: pictures, pain, split viewpoints, unconciousness, semsation, loss, forgetfulness from thought stems all life (or all life stems from thought) from life stems all space from space stems all matter from matter stems all energy from energy stems all time from time stems all history from history stems all thought to have history there must be time to have time there must be energy *time, space, matter, energy? to have energy there must be matter to have matter there must be space to have space there must be life to have life there must be thought to have thought there must be history ----------------- to create thought is to have life to create life is to have space to create space is to have matter to create matter is to have energy to create energy is to have time to create time is to have history is to create history is to have thought to have thought is to experience life (experience = do) to have life is to experience space to have space is to experience matter to have matter is to experience energy to have energy is to experience time to have time is to experience history to have history is to experience thought to experience thought is to understand life to experience life is to understand space to experience space is to understand matter to experience matter is to understand energy to experience energy is to understand time to experience time is to understand history to experience history is to understand thought to understand thought is to become life to understand life is to become space to understand space is to become matter to understand matter is to become energy to understand energy is to become time to understand time is to become history to understand history is to become thought to become thought is to create life to become life is to create space to become space is to create matter to become matter is to create energy to become energy is to create time to become time is to create history to become history is to create thought ------------ to create pictures to have thought to create life to have pictures to create pain to have life to create space to have pain to create split viewpoints to have space to create energy to have split viewpoints to create sensation to have energy to create matter to have sensation to create unconciousness to have matter to create time to have unconciousness to create loss to have time to create history to have loss to create forgetfulness to have history to create thought to have forgetfulness to have pictures to experience thought to have pain to experience life to have split viewpoints to experience space to have unconciousness to experience matter to have sensation to experience energy to have loss to experience time to have forgetfulness to experience history to experience pictures to understand thought to experience pain to understand life to experience split viewpoints to understand space to experience unconciousness to understand matter to experience sensation to understand energy to experience loss to understand time to experience forgetfulness to understand history to crave pictures to become thought to crave pain to become life to crave split viewpoints to become space to crave unconciousness to become matter to crave sensation to become energy to crave loss to become time to crave forgetfulness to become history to become pictures to create thought to become pain to create life to become split viewpoints to create space to become unconciousness to create matter to become sensation to create energy to become loss to create time to become forgetfulness to create history ------------ to create pictures to avoid forgetfulness to create split viewpoints to avoid pictures to create pain to avoid split viewpoints to create unconciousness to avoid pain to create sensation to avoid unconciousness to create loss to avoid sensation to create forgetfulness to avoid loss to have pictures to block forgetfulness to have split viewpoints to block pictures to have pain to block split viewpoints to have unconciousness to block pain to have sensation to block unconciousness to have loss to block sensation to have forgetfulness to block loss to experience pictures to stop forgetfulness to experience split viewpoints to stop pictures to experience pain to stop split viewpoints to experience unconciousness to stop pain to experience sensation to stop unconciousness to experience loss to stop sensation to experience forgetfulness to stop loss to crave pictures to reject forgetfulness to crave split viewpoints to reject pictures to crave pain to reject split viewpoints to crave unconciousness to reject pain to crave sensation to reject unconciousness to crave loss to reject sensation to crave forgetfulness to reject loss to become pictures to distroy forgetfulness to become split viewpoints to distroy pictures to become pain to distroy split viewpoints to become unconciousness to distroy pain to become sensation to distroy unconciousness to become loss to distroy sensation to become forgetfulness to distroy loss ============= Of course all these things are super implants rather than actual GPMs. My own idea on the actuals is in Super Scio chapter 3. You're description of the late stages of the actual GPM research line was really interesting and I'd love to hear more. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== The following trailer was used on all of these posts. ------------------ The free Self Clearing Book, The Super Scio book, and the "SCIENTOLOGY REFORMER'S HOME PAGE" are all over the net. See The Self Clearing Homepage for URLs to these sites http://fza.org/pilot/selfclr.htm or http://www.proweb.co.uk/~tech/clear.htm Or see The Pilots Home Page at http://fza.org/pilot/index.htm Some translations are available, see In German - http://www.cso.net/mt/pilot.htm In Russian - http://www.user.cityline.ru/~cisergem/ All of this week's posts will be collected in Super Scio Archives #25 and #26 and posted to ACT. See the Pilot Archives at FZA.ORG. Note that some of my posts only go to ACT. I cannot be reached by email. I watch ARS and ACT for messages with Pilot in the subject line. ------------------