Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology From: pilot@hiddenplace.com (The Pilot) Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 27 - MAR 10, 1998 PILOT POSTS TO ARS/ACT Date: 10 Mar 1998 14:00:21 POST27.txt SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 27 - MAR 10, 1998 PILOT POSTS TO ARS/ACT ========================================== Contents: subj: Super Scio - MARCH 13/14 INFO subj: Super Scio - CELEBRATING RON'S BIRTHDAY subj: Super Scio - THE LURKING REFORMER'S POST HAT subj: Super Scio - Answering Stacy Young subj: Super Scio Tech - Martin Had Me Fooled subj: Super Scio Humor - On The Lighter Side subj: Super Scio - To Blake on Humility subj: Super Scio Tech - Answering Steve On Higher Planes subj: Super Scio Tech - To LittleLRH on Co-Auditing subj: Super Scio Tech - THE GPM RESEARCH LINE subj: Super Scio - OSA GOES CRAZY ========================================== subj: Super Scio - MARCH 13/14 INFO MARCH 13/14 INFO Friday Mar 13, 1998 is Ron's Birthday and it should be celebrated! ---- LOS ANGELES ORTHODOX CELEBRATION INFO FRIDAY MAR 13 - UNIVERSAL AMPHITHEATRE 100 Universal City plaza, LA. Doors Open 6:00 PM, Event starts 7:30 PM Call for info & tickets (per CofS promo) 213-953-3340 ---- Universal City is on the far side of the hills separating Hollywood from North Hollywood/Burbank. It is on the slopes and has many different terrace levels. The Universal City Walk is on one of them, the jumping off point for the Unviersal Studios tour is on another. I think they use the same parking for the Amphitheatre as for the Walk. A huge many level parking structure. A reformer who was very fabian and careful might be able to put lots of REFORM SCIENTOLOGY NOW, THE ORGS GRADES ARE OUT pages on windshields of cars parked for the event. Parking is expensive at Universal, so plan on taking in the City Walk while you're there if you're not going to the event itself. You get there by heading North on the Hollywood Freeway towards the San Fernando Valley. Its just as you're comeing over the hills and heading down into the valley. There are lots of signs because its a big tourist attraction. ---- Note that the price increases were postponed until Mar 13. This tells me that there was little response to the previous deadline and the bucks didn't roll in. So they are going to be trying like crazy at this event to push people into paying right away to avoid the increase. But I think that anyone who was going to fall for this has alreay payed up. So its going to be a downstat event. ---- SATURDAY AND SUNDAY SPECIAL WEEKEND OF EVENTS AT THE LA COMPLEX. (from the CofS promo) * Group Processing (LRH tape) for everyone! * Special Briefing for all clears * Clearing Congress Film Festival All Day * Lost Tech Briefing by Special Guest Speaker * A Tribute to LRH by Celebrity Artists All Begining at 2:00 PM on Saturday Mar 14 with a Commemoration Ceremony on L. Ron Hubbard Way. (end CofS promo) ---- The Cedars complex includes AOLA, ASHO, LA Org, INCOMM and various other stuff. The big cross street is Vermont and Sunset. The next through street heading west on Sunset is Edgemont and LRH way (and some other small streets) are in between these two. The next avenue south is Fountain. ASHO, LA ORG, Incomm, and local offices for Bridge Pub etc. and the main complex parking lot occupy the entire block between Sunset and Fountain on the west side of LRH Way. AOLA (and its small parking lot and some admin stuff) is on the south half of the block on the east side of LRH way. A few of the buildings on the south side of Fountain facing into LRH way (which dead ends there) are CMO or whatever, but not everything along Fountain. On the north side of Sunset there are no through streets before Edgemont and most of that side is Kaiser Permanente (hospital). In the center of that block (enter from Hollywood Blvd to the North) is Barnsdale park which is pleasant for a picknik or taking a break. Yet another long block north of Hollywood is Franklin Ave where at the corner of Franklin and Vermont will be House of Pies which gets a lot of Scientology lunch and dinner business. Note that there is a staff only underground tunnel linking the ASHO and AO basements. There buildings are huge and easily visible. There is a big Scientology billboard on Sunset. The biggest building faceing Fountain has SCIENTOLOGY in enourmous letters. The resturant on the South side of Franklin is or was a hangout also. Note that Yogananda's Self Realization Fellowship is also on Sunset on the next block over between the complex and Edgemont. Don't get them mixed up with the Scientology buildings. ---- Celebrity Center and the Manor Hotel for Scientologists are on Franklin at Bronson. The Manor building is tall and hard to miss. They have the entire block. There are nice resturants with outdoor tables on the north side of Franklin facing it. A shuttle bus runs regularly between the Manor and the complex. ---- There are a few lesser things like the testing center and berthings and FOLO on the stretch between Vine and La Brea (Mann's Chineese) on Hollywood Blvd, but I forget exactly what's where. They had something on Las Palmas street at one time and I thought that that was hilarious all things considered. ---- Reformers who are in good standing might want to take advantage of these big doings to mix in the crowd and whisper ideas of reform. Also they might get to see some entertaining pickets. But keep your TRs in. And do not make Xenu jokes to the Sea Org members. After all, OT 3 is supposed to be the deadly wall of fire. I'm going to leave everybody guessing, especially OSA, as to weather or not I'll be lurking in the crowds. Good Luck and Have Fun, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - CELEBRATING RON'S BIRTHDAY CELEBRATING RON'S BIRTHDAY Stuck on the Bridge? Overwhelmed by Hard Sell and Crush Ethics? Blocked from the tech by a bunch of fanatics? Eaten by a mamouth and need to get it run out? It's time to do something. It's time to reform the orgs. The tech was meant for use. Ron himself said "the work was free, keep it so". He also said that the time will come when the cry will be "Auditors of the world unite, you have nothing to loose but your certs". That's what he said. That's what L. Ron Hubbard said. Read the Scientology Reformer's Homepage. And get busy. ARC, The Pilot PS. If you're in Los Angeles, please read my post giving MARCH 13/14 INFO. ========================================== subj: Super Scio - THE LURKING REFORMER'S POST HAT THE LURKING REFORMER'S POST HAT The short webpage with "THE ORGS GRADES ARE OUT, REFORM SCIENTOLOGY NOW" can be printed off and spread around. You can put it on car windshields or tape it to lampposts where Scientologists have lunch. You can whisper to other Scientologists about the internet. If you're unsure and don't want to risk trouble, announce your horror at all the OT materials being up on the net. Say that you're worried about things like the self clearing book being freely available. See how the other person reacts. If you can talk reform with them, then do so. If you can't, at least get ideas across like the internet situation so that it will be spread around. Go to large events where there are enough crowds to buffer you from hard sell and being handled. Spread the word. Get Scientologists onto the internet. There will come a time when there are enough secret reformers at a large event to start a "Reform Now" chant. BE NOT AFRAID FOR THOU ART THETA, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - Answering Stacy Young ANSWERING STACY YOUNG On 6 Mar, Stacy Young asked on subject "FZA: [Fwd]: "ATTENTION PILOT" - a msg from Stacy Young" > Dear Pilot, > > Your posts on a.r.s. have been really good. I would very much like to > talk to you. Please contact me at sby@eskimo.com or call me at > 206-463-6809 in Seattle. > > Stacy Young Hi, I'm happy to talk but I prefer to keep things out in public for now. The reform movement consists almost exclusively of lurkers who have no other contact point but to observe the newsgroup. So I want them to see as much as possible. If there is some critical secret thing you must tell me, you could encrypt it with my public key and put a clear text appogy above it and post it to ACT, or put it in the anonymous newsgroup and leave me a message about it in ACT. I suspect that you might want to talk about the legal front, so I'll say a few things on that topic. It might well come down to a religious freedom battle in the courts to dissolve the Scientology copyrights because they are discriminatory against others who practice unorthodox or reformed Scientology outside of the CofS control. I see it as my job to build potential for reform within the orgs and to encourage the freezone and the liberation of the tech and to make the tech accessible to all through things such as the self clearing book. For now I need to keep working on internal lines. Let OSA worry about who is still loyal and who is a secret reformer within the organization. The freezone also needs major media exposure as to the religious persecution by the CofS. But I don't have a personal story of attack and harrassment because I have not tried to openly practice as freezone. I know of these things and I know that they are true but the real victims need to come forward. This has already been fought in the courts a few times and CofS has beaten their opponents down. The key to winning is a tremendous cry for reform and big media exposure. What I don't know at this time is how far the reformist ideas have spread through the membership. My hope is still to see the organization reform. It could happen if the ideas spread deep enough. Miscaviage would not last long if the audience started chanting "reform now" whenever he walked up on the stage. But if it comes to a make or break court battle and they call for something like the Portland crusade, I want as many Scientologists paradeing on the side of making the works public domain as there are fanatics paradeing to allow Int. Managment to continue exploiting them. I would suggest that anyone making LRH materials available on the net include a statement to the effect that they are doing so in aid of religious freedom. Even if they themselves do not believe in Scientology, they can state their desire to aid the persecuted unorthodox Scientologists. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - Martin Had Me Fooled MARTIN HAD ME FOOLED Well I'm red faced. I made a mistake in the "Guide to Confidential Data" that I published last week. But it was in the Scamizdat pack and that pack in general was very good about filtering out trolls and fake posts. And Martin was smart enough to date it 1969, which is one of the time periods when any idiot might write an HCOB and have it issued in Ron's name before anybody reviewed it. Those were the days of Fast Flow and No Inspection Before The Fact. Ron would say, write a bulletin about putting in multiple flows on grade 6 and somebody would write it (without any further data) and it would go right out. A few months later he'd look at it and sometimes he'd scream about the idiocy and it would get rewritten. That's how we got things like listing for somebody else's service facsimilie. The definition of what is an acceptible read on the emeter kept getting rewritten by various hands and changing freequently. One HCOB (actually by a Class 4 auditor who had been in the subject for less than a year and joined the Sea Org) said that the R Factor on starting a grade zero session was to tell the PC about the other grades so that the pc would know what he wasn't supposed to try to run in grade zero. All cancelled or rewritten or reissued as BTB's, except maybe for a few, and most of them are not in the tech volumes. Fast flow and not bothering to inspect anything were cancelled fairly quickly. OK, I'm making excuses. But it was a damn good troll. On 5 Mar 98, martinh@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt) answered my post "Super Scio - GUIDE TO CONFIDENTIAL DATA (attn Scam Iz Dat)" > In article , > pilot@hiddenplace.com (The Pilot) wrote: > > >GUIDE TO CONFIDENTIAL DATA > > >02251 > >> HCOB 16 June, 1969 > >> Running Out GPM's on End Words > >> [1969; L. Ron Hubbard] > > > >This is a Grade 6 HCOB which is mislabled as OT 6. I don't remember > >this bulletin and I can't guarantee that it is accurate. It is > >probably just a careless transcription. > > Should I just give up, and let people go on believing > this particular troll? I think someone must be promoting it and > continuing the thing. After all, it was all out and exposed > and in the open within a few days of being posted originally. > Sure, I'll let it go; this will be my own little myth, my own > little private joke from now on. My question is, has anyone > actually tried it in session? That would be rich. > > Hint: "gdr" stands for "grin, duck and run" in acronymic Usenet > jargon, commonly used after a joke, a troll, or a stir-the-shit > post, as if the naughty person had lobbed something into the > fray, and was ducking the inevitable returning cream pies. > > -- > Cogito, ergo sum. FAQs: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282/ > > L. Ron Hubbard: "Clears do not get colds." - Dianetics. > David Miscavige: "I guess one could." - Koppel interview. And on 4 March from Emerald > Actually, this "HCOB" is a troll written by the very naughty Martin > Hunt, as a search of DejaNews will confirm. > > Your guide is an interesting read, and, apart from the above, accurate > as far as I can tell (having done Power, R6EW, CC, OT1, OT2 & OT3 > while in Co$). > > -- > Emerald > > Picket your local "Church" of $cientology today! > Thanks, and congradulations to Martin, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Humor - On The Lighter Side ON THE LIGHTER SIDE Wouldn't it be neat if David Miscaviage walked up to the podium at a big event and the lurkers in the crowd started chanting "HAIL XEMU" and the rest of the audience picked it up? ---- The following is true, but I laughed my ass off when I heard it. I was talking to a casual aquaintance in the coffee shop. He is into OASPE and knows almost nothing of Scientology. OASPE is some strange book about various layers of heavens and gods that was written ("channeled") by some doctor back in the late 1800s. The book has something called KNOTS. A KNOT comes about when a false god or prophet attracts followers. When they die, the followers cluster around the spirit of the dead false prophet and form a KNOT. I had mentioned Scientology and he had explained about Knots and said that Hubbard would be trapped in one of these KNOTS. He said that these KNOTS are littering the landscape. It keeps the souls from ascending to the first resurection or something like that. He said that the handling is to create bodies of kings and rich men and beautiful women to entice the souls out of the Knots so that they could get on with thier spiritual existance. --- It's bad manners to serve food with pee in the title. Lets rename then Xenut Butter Sandwitches. ---- Whew! I needed that. A little jokeing and degrading helps clear the mind and raises one's tone to cheerfulness. Best, The Pilot PS. My appologies for any posts that have gone unanswered. I'm quite pressed for time right now. ========================================== subj: Super Scio - To Blake on Humility TO BLAKE ON HUMILITY On 4 Mar 98, bake102@aol.com (BAKE102) asked on subject "To Pilot on Humility" > I would appreciate your opinion on this subject. It seems to me > that much emphasis is placed on humility and the absence of vanity > and egotism in a variety of teachings. I don't see these adressed > with such directness and importance in Scientology. In fact,the > emphasis on being right, lots of validation, building certainty > and power,etc. do not lend themselves to this type of self-work > and critical review. > > The critcal review in Scientology only seems to appear when one > is in ethics trouble and the solution there is always to get more > services. Although all of auditing involves looking at ones > situation and past, there is a line of earlier-similars which need > not ever address the ego-drives of the false-I. > > We have a Scientology founder who is far from humble. We have > Management which no one would mistake for highly evolved > spiritual types. Is it fair to say that Scientology misses > this area of address? Is this part of the Human condition which > is such an impediment to expanded awareness,conciousness and > right living suppossed to get handled as a by-product of auditing. > I don't recall there being any emphasis on this type of self-work. > Am I missing something or is this area not adressed to the > extent it could/should be. How important do you think it is? In modern orthodox Scientology, humility is seen as self invalidation and weakness. I need hardly comment about the org's bad behavior, we are all aware of that. In the later days Hubbard may have suffered from an excess of arrogance, but I have remarked before that I consider that he was a shadow of his former self and suffering from abberation in the Sea Org days. I believe that Hubbard would have said that the attempt to remove the ego-drives of the false-I was one of the traps that was layed into metaphysics to booby trap the area. He might be correct in that regard because an attempt to suppress or make nothing of (not-is) might lead to a greater persistance rather than a true freedom. These ego-drives could be considered to be valences within the Scientology framework and would therefore be desirable for errasure, but that would be through confront rather than repression. Excess humility could also be seen as a valence and an affectation. At basic, the being just IS. We see a hint of this in TR 0 done well. Modern Sea Org behavior with its rah-rah and toughness and godlike aspirations is certainly undesirable. The biggest fault is that this is encouraged. But early Scientology has ideas of serenity of beingness and co-existance of static rather than these dramatizations of force and ego. Certainly more work is needed in these areas. As a practical matter, I would say that there is a point of balance where one avoids (but doesn't suppress) both weakness and arrogance. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - Answering Steve On Higher Planes ANSWERING STEVE ON HIGHER PLANES On 2 Mar 98, Steve Brock asked on subject "To Pilot" > Pilot, > I would appreciate your input on a metaphysical point. Various > spiritual practices outside of Scientology and Freezone talk about > higher planes or universes, such as the astral plane or causal plane. > I'm sure you are familiar with these concepts and I am wondering how > they fit into the cosmology of universes that you wrote about in Super > Scio. > > Another question, somewhat related comes to mind. Have you seen Alan > Walter's cosmology of universes? If so, what do you think of the > differences between his and yours? I highly respect your writings and > Alan's and would like to understand why, using the same technology both > your versions seem so different. > > Best Wishes, > Steve I haven't yet gotten around to studying Alan's material, but I keep meaning too. What would be my best reference on his cosmology? I suspect that there are higher planes associated with this universe but I wouldn't guarantee it. There is some material in the last chapter's of Super Scio that covers things that I consider speculative but have some (possibly dubbed in) perception of. It is also possible that some of these things are remnants of the older universes I charted out in Super Scio chapter 2. It is also possible that things may simply get mocked up by enough beings wanting to find them between lives and thereby achieving reality to some degree. I don't have as much confidence in these things as I do in the sequence of universes in Super Scio chapter 2. Not knowing Alan's cosmology, I might offer reasons for differences: 1. The definition I used for "universe" in chapter 2 was the most extreme one. By that definition, sideways frames, fourth dimensional parallels, other planes, sub-pockets, and just about anything else that has any kind of mapping between the spaces is all part of the same universe. With a slightly looser definition, you might identify dozens of universes where I have one. Home universe would be tens of thousands of individual universes, and you might have visited them all at one time or another. 2. I only choose to consider the big agreed upon ones that seemed to be part of the common track. Many others spun off but didn't persist in the series. I spotted many generated below the Symbols universe for temporary use as prisons or whatever which later dissolved with everyone ending up back in the Symbols universe again. Others may have persisted temporarily and had their fans but did not get into the position of being "The Universe". 3. Universes are huge things with lots of variation. Two people might have been in radically different places and identified the same universe quite differently when writing up such things. 4. Implant universes are very real and good enough to fool one into thinking that they were true universes. Story telling universes and universes mocked up temporarily for games are also quite real and one might mistake these for the big agreed upon ones. 5. The stuff that I simply lumped into the early track areas (well before home universe) could be identified as many separate universes, but that didn't seem appropriate. 6. I am not all knowing and I can make mistakes, dub things in, and miss things. I would assume that the same is true for Alan and anyone else down here. In these situations I always remember the story of the blind men and the elephant, one feeling the trunk and another feeling the legs. So I only suggest what seems like a useful and logical progression, but I would not insist, and people should run whatever they find to run rather than forcing things to fit a certain mold. Whenever a system like this helps one to Itsa and align things, then use it. If you have something which diverges, then don't invalidate it. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - To LittleLRH on Co-Auditing TO LittleLRH on Co-Auditing On 4 Mar 98, "littleLRH" asked on subject "4 the pilot..more audting" > Dear Pilot, since it very hard to go solo auditing and it > is very very funny to team up and co - audit, could you please > write a coaudting version of the clearing book...i mean could > you please write all the steps for coauditing or summarises them up ? > > much love > littleLRH This is certainly needed but it will need time and thought. Only DMSMH had the simple idea of a totally unsupervised, un-metered, home co-auditing from nothing more than a book. I believe it can be done but we are breaking new ground. A metered co-audit for people who are not professionally trained would be yet a different approach that also needs to be addressed. If you already have professional training, then it is much easier. The appendix already explains differences that one would need to know in adapting existing training to the use of the processes in the self-clearing book. For co-auditing, one would not have to be as good or as precise as in a professional dealing with a beginner. There is yet another possiblity, which is that two people twin up to aid each other in going through the book. That is perhaps simple enough to explain here and easy enough to do. It helps one to have somebody else to talk things over with. This can be done informally. They might set aside a regular time to come together, perhaps even in a coffee shop. Each would have a turn to discuss their progress and be helped by the other. One would ask the other how he was doing with the book and listen carefully and offer aid and encouragement. If one was having some difficulty, both could consider the matter and attempt to figure out what was wrong and what should be done. If one has had a good win, he gets to tell it and get it acknowledged. If one has trouble understanding something, perhaps the other can help. And good encouragement helps one roll up one's sleeves and get to work. And of course they may exchange fun and humor. This requires almost no rules except not to invalidate or criticize each other but always to maintain a friendly and helpful attitude and be willing to listen. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - THE GPM RESEARCH LINE This is a work of religious scholorship investigating one of the foundations of the Scientology faith. This has been under discussion on ACT and is a topic of high interest. It is being posted to ARS as well for the sake of the Scientology lurkers. It is also appropriate for ARS because it shows the proper context for the materials on Helatrobus and Marcab which are sometimes discussed there. ===================== THE GPM RESEARCH LINE ===================== This is a detailed history of the early GPM (Goals Problem Mass) tech as it evolved at St. Hill in the early 1960s. All direct quotes are marked >. The summaries, commentaries, and opinions are my own. This material is all drawn from the technical materials (bulletins, tapes, etc.) of the time. Note that this contains a great deal of Scientology jargon and abbreviations and may be confusing to those who are not already experts on the subject. Studying this research line on the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course (SHSBC) eventually came to be known as "The Wall of Tapes" because of the hundreds of hours of taped lectures that needed to be listened to. Note that I have used the old (original) SHSBC tape numbers rather than the modern renumbering. The new numbers are higher because they merged in the TV demo sessions which used to be numbered separately. We begin with a brief look at 1960 to see how the stage was set. Note that the E-meter was in intensive use throughout this period and the terms R/S (Rock Slam) and RR (Rocket Read) are precise and dramatic meter reactions which were observed in conjunction with the Goals Problem Mass phenomena under investigation. ===================== 1960 ===================== In this time period, "Model Session" (the standard procedure for running an auditing session) included having the PC set goals for the session and for life or livingness and asking if he made any of those goals at the end of session. Note that the continual practice of asking for goals as part of the session procedure might have been what started the GPM research. The emphasis in this time period is on handling Overts, and also on Help, Problems, Havingness, and Confront processes. HCOB 8 JAN 60 OT PROCEDURES FOR HCS/BSCN COURSES > Check well into his goals. What goals does he particularly > want rehabilitated? Clean up his earliest present life > "discreditable creation" on this goal line by running > responsibility on it. You may do well to run several of > these. This, of course may be done much later in session > after whole track. This is artistic rehabilitation" > 2b. Identities of the last two or three lives, with > special attention to the shifts of identity involved". The procedures also included various things such as O/W, researching recent lifetimes using a meter etc. --- HCOB 24 MAR 60 GOALS IN THE RUDIMENTS > The fastest goals process is a general problems process. > This occurs because the pc in looking over problems > falls into realizing what his actual desires are. > If PC is still reluctant and upset about goals or isn't > getting better faster because of the solutions process > above, run some consequences in this fashion: "What > would you be likely to do if you didn't have a bad > foot?". ===================== 1961 ===================== The year begins with the last of the American ACCs (the 22nd) and then the 3rd South African ACC (Advanced Clinical Course) in February. And at the end of the 3rd South African ACC, he comes out with SOP Goals (Standard Operating Procedure, Goals). --- HCOB 28 JAN 61 NEW ASSESSMENT SCALE > The Pre-Havingness Scale This scale figured in many of the subsequent goals processes. The scale runs from Havingness on downwards, in other words, these are buttons to run to bring a person up to being able to have something. This version has 27 buttons. They are 1 Havingness, 2 Failed havingness, 3 Interest, 4 Failed Interest, 5 Communication, 6 Failed Communication, 7 Control, 8 Failed Control, 9 Help, 10 Failed help, 11 Overts, 12 Failed Overts, 13 Withholds, 14 Failed Withholds, 15 Importance, 16 Failed Importance, 17 Leave, 18 Failed Leave, 19 Protect, 20 Failed Protect, 21 Abandon, 22 Failed Abandon, 23 Inverted help, 24 Inverted Control, 25 Inverted Communication, 26 Inverted Interest, 27 Obsessive Can't Have. Note that buttons 5 to 11 above previously appeared (in that order) in the much shorter scale given in HCOB 22 DEC 60 O-W A LIMITED THEORY. --- HCOB 18 FEB 61 SOP GOALS > Marvellous New Breakthrough, BE-DO-HAVE Coordinated The procedure was basically to do a goals assessment (take the goal that falls the most on the meter) and convert the goal to a terminal. > Goals assessment shows up strongest goal to be "To get > over having a painful body". Terminal is chosen, > "Painful body" is shown to fall most as terminal wording. Then the terminal is meter assessed against the Pre-Havingness scale (above) begining with "No Effect". Note that No Effect was added below the last item (number 27) on the above scale. > "Painful Body" is assessed on Pre-havingness Scale. Endure > falls most. Then an auditing command is developed. Note that the buttons Endure and Failed to Endure were added between numbers 22 and 23 on the above scale. Also note that at this time the auditors were still supposed to be able to make up an auditing command to handle a button. > "What should a painful body endure" The prehave assessment is repeated and additional questions are run until all reading levels have been flattened. --- Gradually this gets more complex. Assessing by elimination is introduced. The pre-have scale expands. The commands expand into brackets etc. Repairing SOP Goals goofs becomes of concern. Also, as the process evolves over the following few months, the definition of goal and terminal shift so that the above examples (painful body etc.) would be invalid. Negatives like getting rid of something are seen as problems and side effects rather than the person's actual goal, and the terminal is supposed to be the person's beingness in doing the goal. At the end of March the SHSBC is started at Saint Hill and in May Ron gives the first of the SHSBC lectures. In one of the early lectures, Ron says that the SHSBC was started to handle the problem of trying to train auditors to run SOP Goals. Various other processes such as sec-checking and change processes are also introduced. --- HCOB 17 APR 61 TRAINING DRILLS MODERNIZED > SOP Goals will not function in the presence of bad TRs Obviously, the difficulty of trying to run SOP goals was giving real trouble and causing the tech to become more formalized. --- HCOB 23 MAY 61 PRE-HAV SCALE REVISED introduces the enourmous primary level / secondary level version of the pre-have scale. The original scale is now the primary levels and it has increased to 66 buttons. The secondary scale takes each of these and provides a second assessment of from 100 to 300 specific buttons (such as "loaf" for the primary level of "failed interest"). --- HCOB 5 JUNE 61 PROCESSES ALLOWED Here the bridge consists of - Level 1: CCHs, Joberg sec-check Level 2: More Joberg, general runs on pre-have without terminal, problems, havingness, confront. Level 3: SOP GOALS. (and also more joberg, havingness, confront). --- HCOB 24 AUG 61 VALENCES KEY TO CLEARING Note that at "valence" is a beingness or an identity package, such as being in the valence of a policeman. > If you aren't running in the direction of Valences, you > aren't clearing. > Goals made by a person take the person away from areas > he or she doesn't want to be in and therefore does not > as-is. Goals are an escape. One must have them. But > when one uses them to be where he or she can't stand to > be, then goals are an escape. > > The basic escape is into ANOTHER being. Thus one > aquires beingness to escape. > > Therefore Routine 3, as it exists, is the fundamental > road to clear. > The fastest road is to find a goal that is a lasting > one and then find the valence that matches up with > that goal and then run the valence out. > All other processes not addressed to separating valences > are addressed to a valence and try to make the valence > better. One cannot improve a valence. One must improve > the PC, not the valence. --- They were declaring people as clears at this time based on having flattened all the prehave levels after finding the person's goal. Eventually a level 4 was added above clear where the person could be run on engrams (not used below clear). The 1962 tapes mostly concentrate on SOP goals (eventually referred to as routine 3 or R3), metering, problems, and sec checking. --- HCOB 7 NOV 61 ROUTINE 3A This adds the "goal modifier" to the structure. > I developed this by deducing that if a goal is held > suspended in time, it must have another side to it > like a problem. > Definition: A Modifier is that consideration which > opposes the attainment of a goal and tends to suspend > it in time. > Example: Goal: To be a Willow Wand. Modifier: So as > never to be reached. By this time, they were sending the PCs home to write a long goals list out of session and then the auditor would assess it by elimination in session to find the goal. The R3A improvement was to then take the goal and list (in session) for a modifier with questions like what would make the goal impossible to attain, etc. The remainder of the handling was as in SOP goals, using the combined goal + modifier to assess for a terminal and then finding the prehave level and then designing multi-bracket commands for running it out. --- HCOIL 14 NOV 61 ROUTINE 3D (HCOIL = HCO INFO LETTER) > This is the first routine to make dynamic clears. > Earlier clears were cleared on ony one or two dynamics. > Such selectivity also resulted in clearing procedures > not working all the way to clear on a large number > of cases. Obviously they were having trouble with R3/R3A and this info letter even says that anyone who was declared as clear should go back and be run through R3D. > Each time an item is found it will be discovered to > have the same needle pattern as the last item. All > parts found will have the same needle pattern throught. The steps in brief were: 1. goals assessment 2. Who or what would oppose that goal. < = the opterm>. 3. What would be an (opterm)'s goal that would be in opposition to (pc's goal). < = the opposition goal > 4. If your goal consistently failed, what ideas would you add to it? < = goal modifier>. 5. Who or what would (pc's goal) + (goal modifier)? < = the terminal>. 6. Assess for the prehave level using the questions a) would (terminal) (level) you b) would you (level) (terminal). The these two were supposed to be alternated as one assessed. The questions would be like "would you fail to endure a farmer". 7. Compose a command to flatten the level found. Then keep repeating 5 and 6 to flatten any other levels that react. Then recheck the whole thing, finding additional terminals etc. if needed until no more terminals can be found. The final step is "Then form up pc's goal and opposition terminal and run one against the other". > OPPOSITION GOAL - The idea that is interlocked against > the pc's goal, making it a postulate counter-postulate > situation of long duration. It is not actually the > goal of the Opposition Terminal as the Opposition > Terminal would see it, but only what the pc believes > it was as it affected him. > GOALS TERMINAL - That valence into which the pc has > interiorized and which carries the goal, modifier, > and abberation which the pc attributes to self. > PRE-HAV LEVEL - That dominant doingness or thinkingness > at the moment of the goals terminal, as taken from > the Primary Pre-Hav Scale. --- Around this time Ron starts calling these things GPMs in the tapes. The term first appears in the tech volumes in the following command sheet. HCO 20 NOV 61 ROUTINE 3D COMMANDS > THE GOALS PROBLEM MASS > > The goal has been baulked for eons by opposing forces. > This is the picture of any problem - force opposing > force with the resultant mass. > Where the pc's goal meets constant opposition, you > have in the reactive mind, the resultant mass caused > by the two forces This discusses forming the bracket commands (from prehave) and running each level to a still tone arm (no more TA motion). The general form is What/How/Why MIGHT ___ (level) ___. There are 5 flows (not the modern flows), which are a) you to terminal, b) terminal to you, c) terminal to opterm, d) opterm to terminal, e) terminal to itself. Example: > How might you interest a Waterbuck? > How might a Waterbuck interest you? > How might a Waterbuck interest a Tiger? > How might a Tiger interest a Waterbuck? > How might a Waterbuck interest itself? --- HCOB 23 NOV 61 AUXILLIARY PRE-HAVE 3D SCALE This is the prehave scale used in conjunction with the above. Note that the primary/secondary business was abandoned and instead we only use primary levels (which are now up to 68) plus an auxiliary list of about 200 more levels consisting of any kind of significant button (love, neglect, confuse, etc.). --- HCO 27 NOV 61 ROUTINE 3D COMMAND SHEET This replaces the commands above for flattening a prehave level with a set that mixes in problems and solutions. There are 6 pairs of commands. Each pair has the same second command which is "How might (prehave level) have been a solution to that problem". Repeating the earlier example, (waterbuck = the terminal and tiger = the opterm), the problems questions would be: Tell me a problem you might have had with a Waterbuck? Tell me a problem a Waterbuck might have had with you? Tell me a problem a Waterbuck might have had with a Tiger? Tell me a problem a Tiger might have had with a Waterbuck? Tell me a problem you might have had with a Tiger? Tell me a problem a Tiger might have had with you? And each of these 6 would have been followed by "How might 'interest' have been a solution to that problem", with 'interest' being the prehave level used in the example. --- Improved commands are issued almost immediately, which add: Tell me a problem a Waterbuck might have had with a another Waterbuck? to the above. Also, "Tell me a problem a Waterbuck might have had with others" was sometimes used. --- HCOB 3 DEC 61 RUNNING 3D LEVELS > The Goals Problem Mass IS a problem in structure. It is > so tought you have to run the TOP off of it. This is > done by 3D level runs. Dating bits of it might work. > Clears went unclear because the Goals Problem Mass > could come back in. --- HCO 7 DEC 61 COMMAND SHEET FOR ROUTINE 3D Now we are up to creating commands by a more complex assessment. Instead of assuming "problem", we assess Problem, Situation, Difficulty, Confusion, Mess, Trouble and others can be added if needed. And instead of "solution", one assesses Solution, Solved, Made Okay, Cured, Finished, Ended and others can be added. Furthermore, additional flows, which don't involve the terminal or the opterm, are added to the brackets, these being you with yourself, you with others, and others with you. --- Even more command sheets come out. One of them adds in O/W commands in the form "what action or attitude have you had towards a waterbuck" etc. --- HCOB 28 DEC 61 3D RULES OF THUMB > 4. The closer to present time and the more downgraded, > the more confusion as to which is term or oppterm, as > the items grow more identified with each other the > later they are on the track. > 7. Run the side of the package that gives the pc > sharp somatics Avoid the side that mearly makes > pc dizzy or feeling fuzzy. ===================== 1962 ===================== Note that at this point the idea is still that a GPM has a single terminal and opterm, and we use prehave levels to run the charge off of those. The idea seems to be that the terminal decays down the prehave scale over the course of many lifetimes until the GPM fails completely. And in the tape lectures on R3D, we have the goal modifier discussed further as being the mechanism by which the pc comes around to destroying his own creations. One of the tapes describes something like having a goal of "to build beautiful sailing ships" and then having a goal modifier of "and sink them if they don't sail right". Around this time we also have the idea of the terminal and opterm eventually decaying and collapsing together so that we get a co-term that has some of the characteristics of both (a tiger that acts like a waterbuck). --- HCOIL 9 JAN 62 3D CRISS CROSS This is an alternative to R3D rather than a replacement. The idea was to get the terminal and its opterm (referred to as a 3D package) without having to find the goal first. This was done by running two sets of lists. One set begins with "What kind of person or being haven't you liked" and the other begins with "What kind of person or being have you liked". Each list is nulled to one item. After doing both lists, the result from each is then listed with "Who or what would oppose (item)?". The two sets of lists are continued in this manner until they collide. In other words, try to approximate the terminal and opterm. They do an oppose list on each one, which should give a slightly better approximation of the opposite side. And so on until you get a good statement of both the terminal and opterm. Then you use those to find the goal and proceed to fill in the rest of the R3D steps. --- HCOIL 22 JAN 62 3D CRISS CROSS METHOD OF ASSESSMENT This allows for other possible ways of starting lines of lists. In other words, instead of liked/haven't liked, other things could be used to get the starting list. This is where "line plot" first appears. The line plot lets you keep track of what lists were done by opposing items. Each starting list (such as "like") was kept track of on its own line plot. In other words, the pc liked carpenters and those were opposed by apprentices who in turn were opposed by teachers who in turn were opposed by students, and so on. Initially, these line plots were simply to keep track of the lists rather than being seen as a roadmap of the items in the bank. --- Tape SHSBC-105 25 JAN 62 WHOLE TRACK This one is in the whole track cassettes and was usually on the R6 course and is one of the tapes most commonly used as a reference for introducing what a GPM is. This is the one that describes a priest who over the course of many lifetimes builds up an opterm on vestial virgins. This is the simple R3D idea of a GPM. > They don't ball up until he has an overt on the opterm. > It takes the mechanism of a problem to keep this in > suspension. --- By early February, there were more ways of getting the first list (starting a listing line), especially by doing an assessment of flows such as permissible outflow and then listing "Who or what would (flow)". The speed with which new commands and techniques were coming out tends to indicate that there were a lot of problems in running these things and new things were continually being tried. Also, most of this was comming out in info letters or command sheets rather than as HCOBs, so it can be seen as highly experimental. This is also the time period when prepchecking by the withhold system was introduced (what/when/all/who to clean up overts). And CCHs were back in vogue. --- HCOIL 29 APR 62 ROUTINE 3G (EXPERIMENTAL) Simply L&N (list and null) for the goal (what is your goal) and then L&N for the terminal by "who or what would want to (goal)", and then get the opterm by "Who or what would oppose (terminal)". 3DXX was to remain in use as a training technique because 3G required better L&N skills. But 3G was to be the main technique because it was much faster. > The modifier is part, it seems, of the opterm so its > use is dropped. It is not found now. Also at this time comes the idea that listing itself is auditing and bleeds charge from the goal. So they are no longer trying to further errase the terminal by means of prehave derrived auditing commands. --- HCOIL 10 MAY 62 ROUTINE 3GA (EXPERIMENTAL) The tech continues to shift around. Simply listing for the terminal seemed to be too rough. It is much easier to run an oppose list. And the lists were long and arduous, so the latest idea is to list on 4 flows (inflow, outflow, restrained inflow, and restrained outflow) and shift lists (without completing them) each time the list got hard to do. In other words, get a few easy answers on the terminal list, then shift over to the opterm list and get a few there, and so forth so that the pc didn't have to push all the way through at once. > List One: Who or what would want to catch catfish > List Two: Who or what would oppose catching catfish > List three: Who or what would not oppose catching catfish > List four: Who or what would not want to catch catfish Side note: I played around with this 4 way type of pattern at one point and eventually hit an implant pattern which worked this way. There was a 5th line in the implant (who or what would suffer unjustly if you were to catch catfish) and this mess is described as the 5 way oppose GPMs in the Super Scio book. My comment here is that trying to list this way takes you into a completely different style of GPM than the ones you get with simple oppose type listing. ---- HCOB 14 MAY 62 CASE REPAIR After lots of mucked up goals listing, it was decided that everything had to be cleaned up and redone on the 3GA listing pattern. > This includes all clears. > There is no other method of salvage. ---- In this time period there is a lot of attention on rudiments (which were only cleaned, not taken to FN) and sec checking, and ARC breaks were seen as coming from missed withholds (this is before the time of ARC break assessments). Emeter Instant Reads only comes along in 25 May 62. The impression that I get is of there being lots of trouble and things going wrong (comments anybody?). And note that the lists were extremely long and hundreds of hours of auditing would be done on a single GPM. --- HCOB 27 JUN 62 RUNDOWN ON ROUTINE 3GA > 3GA has cleared or is clearing everyone on whom it > has been run. > A goals list is at least 850 items long. > As many as 2500 items per line, or ten thousand > items in all have been listed before a needle went > free on every line. ---- HCOPL 15 JUN 62 GOALS PREPCHECK FORM R3GA A "prepcheck" step was added between finding the goal and listing the lines. This was pretty much putting in suppress, inval, etc. both "on goals" and on the specific goal found. ---- Soon more prepchecks are added, "on auditing", "on listing", etc. And HCOPL 19 JUL 62 CLEARING - FREE NEEDLES defines the state of "first goal clear" as having a free needle on all 4 lines and no reaction of the goal on the meter after a final prepcheck on the goal. The listing questions for lines 3 and 4 change to "pull back opposition to" and "pull somebody or something back from (goaling)" in HCOPL 22 JUL 62 ROUTINE 3GA LISTING WORDING. ---- HCOB 1 AUG 62 R3GA GOALS, NULLING BY MID RUDS The goals lists were rough (850 items minimum), especially without even flying the rudiments first. So now the idea is to put in buttons (mid rudiments) such as suppress and inval on the items as part of nulling the list. The drill for practicing this in training uses the goal "to be a tiger" and so this comes to be called "tiger drilling". Also, if the goals list is still not flat after listing 850 items, then one tries to get charge off of the 4 lines by listing them on goals instead of terminals as follows: > 1. what goal might you have > 2. what goal would oppose your goal > 3. what goal would retard opposition to your goal > 4. what goal would pull back your goal Note that this, which was simply intended to relieve stress on the goal - opterm, was the begining of the tech which led to running down the pattern of GPMs by means of goal oppose lists. Another Side Note: Filbert eventually came up with a 5 way goal oppose which he describes in his Excalibur Revisited book. His was a goal pattern rather than a terminal pattern like the one I found (mentioned earlier). I know that we each didn't know of the other's work on this and they are not the same sort of thing. But it makes me think that the valid patterns are by 2s or by 5s rather than by 4s. The patterns of 4s like the above seem to have a feeling of incompleteness about them. ---- HCOB 10 AUG 62 HOW IT FEELS TO GO CLEAR This contains a letter from Jean Kennedy who cleared a goal on R3GA that had previously been cleared on R3. > "... suddenly the track opened up and vivid pictures > and recall in detail on the track came from all > directions, cognitions shot off the body in little > spark forms and one could feel the masses just > exploding all around, at times making the rings > so hot on my hands they had to be taken off. There > was a stead feeling of cycling backwards (to the > start of body moulding) and one's habit patterns, > fixed ideas, and attitudes just went flying by. > The most facinating part was the lines transferring > over and viewpoints changing totally ... > ... Jean Kennedy" But one wonders how much of this was simply due to having finally gotten an FN after hundreds of hours of endless listing. ---- HCOB 13 AUG 62 ROCK SLAMS AND DIRTY NEEDLES > A criminal I had my hands on showed me clearly > that the wide rock slam was an overt. The > dirty needle is a small rock slam. And so > we benifit. > Do a dynamic assessment. Ask the question: > "What goal might you have that would be an > overt against (dynamic found)". ---- Now we are into the era of R3GA Dynamic Assessment by Rock Slam (RS or R/S). Also, there are more changes in wording to the lines to be listed, etc. Soon there are 20 lines which can be listed, such as "oppose opposition" etc. But goals assessment by rock slam gave short goals lists. HCOB 2 SEP 62 ACCOUNT OF CONGRESS GOAL mentions finding one after 49 items (as compared with 850). However the number of lines to be listed on a goal after it is found keeps growing. It reaches the point were on tape 20 SEP 62 LISTING LINES, he suggests using index cards to keep track of the lines and simply making tick marks on each card so that you list equal numbers of items on each line (without bothering to write the items down). --- HCOPL 27 SEP 62 VALID PROCESSES Now the bridge is basically - 1. objectives ( CCHs, Op Pro by Dup, SCS ) and ARC strightwire. 2. Problems intensive, and prepcheck/sec check 3. R3GA Ordinary, or R3GA Dynamic Assessment Notice how few processes were in use at any one time in the 1960s. ---- HCOB 1 OCT 62 R3GA LISTING BY TIGER BUTTONS, 114 NEW LINES FOR LISTING Now we seem to have gone way off the deep end on this listing of lines. Here he says that in student auditing, the PCs should buy or pay for their own index cards. --- 18 OCT 62 R3GA LISTING BY PREHAVE > ... the 114 lines which haven't done well at all > in auditors' hands ... Not surprising. The new system goes back to assessing the prehave scale. Then you combine the prehave level with the goal (as in "failing to withhold eating apples") and list 32 lines against that (as in "who or what would fail to withhold eating apples" as the first line). And they are still just making slashes on index cards rather than writing down items. ---- If you thought that the above was bad, now it gets worse. Here we come to R3-21 and R3GAXX (3GA Criss Cross), and also R2-10 and R2-12 for running items without finding a goal first. I'll just describe this mess rather than specifically quoting the maze of bulletins and tapes. 3GAXX uses rockslams and opposition lists to get the goal. R3-21 is the clearing procedure, and it either uses an 850 goals list with tiger drilling, or it uses 3GAXX as its goal finding step. Then it carries on to clear the goal. After getting the goal, R3-21 runs the basic 4 lines as real lists (rather than tick marked index cards), each to a specific item. Next you do a "roll your own prehav". This is done by assessing the prehave levels and taking the one found and listing "if somebody was fixated on (level) what would that person do?". This gives a specific secondary prehave level. Then you combine the level and the goal and list 4 lines. This procedure is repeated as needed to discharge the goal. The final step is a goals prepcheck. They are still writing line plots to keep track of what was listed. R2-12 uses "consider committing overts against .." to get an RS and then does terminal oppose lists without first finding a goal. The R2-10 variation is a beginners version that just assesses for a read and then lists "who or what does ___ represent to you" in the hopes of hitting an RS that can be used in an oppose list. A few quotes: HCOB 8 NOV 62 SOMATICS, HOW TO TELL TERMINALS AND OPTERMS > Everyone Alive RSs on something. HCOB 11 NOV 62 3GAXX, STRAIGHTING UP 3GAXX CASES > Your pc's attention is hung up where you haven't made > a pair. The GPM is full of pairs of terminals and > opterms. --- TAPE SHSBC-212 15 NOV 62 TERMINALS > Now, as the individual goes forward, postulating a > new goal, he of course is flying in the teeth of and > alter-ising all of his former agreements. So now > he gets up to a point of where he explodes out of the > bank or something of the sort and he says "Well the > bank is over there and I'm here" and he now postulates > again, a new individuation. He postulates a new basic > purpose for himself. And he lives that one on out and > it accumulates mass and then he adds it to the first mass > and somehow or another, one day, why he manages to get > an unrestimulated environment, or get blown up or > something of the sort, ... And he postulates a NEW > basic purposes ... --- TAPE SHSBC-214 20 NOV 62 THE GPM (renamed LAYOUT OF THE GPM) > Its just a road and it's got a black ball on the right > and a black ball on the left. And all the black balls > on the left are oppterms. And all the black balls on > the right are terminals. And these things are always > in pairs, and when you find a pair of them they rock > slam against each other. He also talks about the secondary pair, which is the "not oppose" pair (this is the days of 4 lines rather than simple oppose). > "tell me a problem. What two things in that problem > oppose each other or are in opposition? What two > things are NOT in opposition" He says that that works, but if you only run the oppose question without the NOT oppose question - > .. you're going to get some of the nastiest > non-turn-offable somatics you've ever seen in a > long time. > You're trying to split the GPM right down the middle. > And when you split it right down the middle, the > reactive mind disappears down to the point of the > first goal. --- HCOB 6 DEC 62 R2-10, R2-12, 3GAXX DATA > There are no never RSing pcs. All pcs RS. > Horrible shape = hard to find RS > The GPM RS is the pathway through the GPM. Any item > that RSes was part of the GPM and has another item > in opposition to it. > The Rocket Read is superior in value to an RS. > The rocket read is the read of the goal or the rock > itself. > The RS is the read of the rock vs the opposition rock > and every pair above them on the cycle of the GPM. > It marks the path to the rock. > Just below the rock lies the pc's goal. > The rock slam channel is the pathway through the > pairs of items that compose a cycle of the GPM > and lead to the rock and goal. > Below the 1st goal is a whole new undisclosed GPM. > But the first goal is too heavily overburdened to > be found easily or run on the vast majority of cases. > Therefore R2-12 is needed and 3GAXX. > The target of R2-12 is the packages in present time > which bend the GPM out of shape and give the pc PTSs > and hidden standards. > The target of R3-21 is clear, theta clear, and operating > Thetan. > Second goals are easily found by R3-21 without > step 4A (3GAXX) ===================== 1963 ===================== As the year opens, we are still in the mad hunt for RSes on everybody as an entrance into the GPM channel, and endless listing to find and discharge goals and the various item lines. A lot of ideas of toughness and precision, which didn't seem to be needed in the earlier days, developed in this time period. R2-10 and R2-12 were not working very well and were too hard to audit. So R2-12A comes out in late January. The idea is to eliminate the nulling and tiger drilling because lower level auditors have too much trouble doing it. Instead, you list 50 items beyond the last RS and last movement of the tone arm (TA), and then check the last RSing item as to whether it is The Item for the list. How rough things really were can be estimated from the following: TAPE 16 JAN 63 SHSBC-232 TR 0 LECTURE > But how about dodging E-Meter cans? Hm? Do you > realize that in general practice, particularly due > to the ARC breaks which can sometimes come up under > R2-12, that I would say if you went six months > without having a pc throw the cans down, you must > be either very, very luck or have very apathetic > pcs. And I'd say once a year, an auditor can > certainly expect to get the cans in his chest. > Now you don't want to train an auditor to a point > where he doesn't dodge the cans, but you certainly > want him trained to the point where the cans do > not interrupt his command of the session. Also at this time there is the FDA raid on the Washington DC organization (Jan 4). There is a background undercurrent of worry about the organization that was not present previously. ---- At the beginning of February is a massive change over to using R3M (originally called R3MX for experimental). HCOB 1 FEB 63 ROUTINE 3, URGENT-URGENT-URGENT > ... to solve why we are getting too few Clears after > a goal is found. And why they are sometimes unclear > after their needle frees. > A goal may be listed only on "Who or what does the > goal oppose". > Goal reliable items rocket read. If a goal wouldn't > yield RR reliable items, its probably wrong. > In routine 2 you use rock slams. The bigger the > rock slam, the better it will go for the pc. > In routine 3 you use rocket reads, never rock slams. The goal can be found various ways but must be cleaned up to the point of RRing (rocket reading) before doing R3M on it. You can do a goals list, or dig out old goals and clean them up, or run R2-12A, or even run a problems intensive until the goal appears. Then clean it up with R2-12A. > If one keeps on doing R2-12A well, the goal will > eventually rocket read easily for a checkout. > Rock slams on a case indicate a lot of distance > down to rocket reads. List items are found by listing 25 (or 50) items beyond the last RR or TA action, and then the last RR is checked for being The Item. You begin with finding the current opterm for the goal (as above) and then oppose that and so on, continuing to work back and forth between the two sides of the pattern by opposition listing from one item to the next, gradually working back down the track to the begining of the GPM. This is referred to as the "spiral staircase". This is continued until the goal clears. In other words, the item pattern is now seen as pairs in opposition rather than the 4 lines. Note that this is the point where the old tech volumes begin to omit "confidential" materials (old volume 5, bottom of page 240 "R3M and R3N as developments are not included in these volumes. They will be found on courses to which they apply"). But these are included in the new tech volumes (see new volume 7) which only begins confidential omissions with R6 in 1964. ---- TAPE SHSBC-234 7 FEB 63 R3MX PART I Here Ron discusses a session that Mary Sue did on him on Feb 5. He apparantly has the lists written by Mary Sue in the session because he shows them to the class. > In that session we found the R/Sing item which began > the goals entrance into R3MX, and just before that, > completed an R2-12 package. He says that his RSing item was "Unlimited Wealth". Note that you were not supposed to accept a small rockslam as the item in R2-12. ---- He apparantly carries on being run on this by Mary Sue and gets it RRing and lists out the GPM connected with it. TAPE SHSBC-236 12 FEB 63 ROUTINE 3M > I was a Clear last night. > Well, actually I was a first-goal Clear for all of > about 3 minutes - and we went on to the second goal. > I got the last package of items, the last two, on > the spiral staircase. There were 25 items in all, > and I got the last pair. > The thing was blowing down on rocket reads ... > and it blew all the way down from about 4.0 to 3.0 > and that was about that. > I got up and went over and sat down on the couch ... > I sat there and enjoyed this sensation of being > unburdened and all cleaned up ... And I came back and > she saw that I was sitting on a free needle ... > and then she started opposing the final opterm. > And all hell broke loose ... So they back up and clean up the previous goal. And now they're into the second GPM. And everything reverses, because the current one was in opposition to the previous (second) one which is the one that they are now running. Considering that this all started with the RSing item "unlimited wealth", and guessing that the goal itself was something like "To Be Wealthy", I wonder whether the GPM was really errased or only keyed out briefly. ---- HCOB 22 FEB 63 R3M, RUNDOWN BY STEPS Now we are checking different ways of wording the listing questions, seeing if (goal)ing or "somebody with the goal ___" reads better in listing for the top opterm. Although we are listing for an opterm, we might get the top terminal instead, and have to check which it is. Once we are listing RIs, the question varies whether the RI is a terminal or an opterm. If its a terminal, you list "who or what would ___ oppose" and if its an opterm you list "who or what would oppose ___". When an RI that is a terminal is used as an opterm, "more mass turns on". Also, terminals have pain on them and opterms have sensation. > When the needle goes free just tell the pc and keep > going. ... but realize that you are probably now > on a new goal channel. Once you were two or more RIs deep into the next goal, you were to do a brief new goals list for an RRing goal. Side Note: I started with this, using modern listing techniques, on an actual GPM and the listing questions weren't quite right and had to be worked around a bit. Then the whole thing fell together in a much cleaner manner. This is described in detail in Super Scio Chapter 3. ---- TAPE SHSBC-244 28 FEB 63 GOALS PROBLEM MASS > In handling the GPM, we are actually handling identities. > Now, an individual goes through this type of cycle and > action. He makes a postulate. He becomes an identity > to make the postulate stick, and in the process of doing > that, he is opposed by various elements out of his own > fancy or the determination of others which causes an > opposition identity to materialize. And the presence of > the opposition makes the individual believe that to accomplish > his goal he must now become another, different identity > in order to handle the new opposition which has appeared. > And because he is this new different identity, all in the > same goal, a new opposition identity occurs in his vicinity. > Now, the whole GPM is tending to ride forward in present > time and its characteristic is instantaneousness, because > it has no time in it. That is because every one of these > firm identities has been opposed by a firm opposition, > and where the balance necessary to a hang-up has been > achieved, we got a timeless situation. Later in the tape he begins talking about the earlier research and the Clears made by Dianetics. Here he lables them as keyed-out Clears, and this is where the 1960s-70s idea came from that Dianetic clears were not real Clears. Of course this was reversed by the modern Dianetic Clear bulletin. > First we started to make Clears by accustoming people to > look at their banks and be able to see that bank. ... > And going in on a gradient scale ... you could get the > individual more and more accustomed to confronting his > bank. ... And next thing you know ... you would have a > keyed-out Clear. You could do that today. > Now, that was key-out. That was key-out as opposed to > errasure. You have a big difference here because this > is where we started making key-out Clears, 1947. And > key-out clearing is successful but it isn't stable. Then he begins to talk about the first book (DMSMH). > ... with the first book ... the pc's ability to confront > the bank had not been especially raised. And in view > of the fact that it had not been raised, you did not > get the key-out Clear phenomena. The above is yet another reference on the inability of DMSMH to make clears. Gradient confront (1947) produces an ability to confront the force in pictures (clear), whereas grinding out prenatal engrams doesn't. Of course here he is downgrading the state because he's pushing clearing by handling GPMs. > The first auditing process on exteriorization, which > has great validity ... was figured out by Evans Farber. > ... Its Try NOT to be three feet back of your head. Note that even as late as 1963 he was not claiming to be the exclusive source for tech. But that would change by 1965. > Now recently - 1958, 1957 - we start producing keyed-out > Clears using techniques which were a cross between being > able to confront and a mechanical erasure. As I've said elsewhere, 1958 is the second time period when they were making Dianetic clears by gradient confront of force in pictures. This is the clear definition of 1958 (can confront force in pictures and is at cause over mocking them up) and it is stable (not a key-out). The DMSMH and clearing course ideas of clear being total freedom from abberation are just BS. Sorry for the digression, but this tape is a damn good review of the research line. > Now - I want you to get this now - with 3M we're > producing an erasure Clear. Nice idea. But all I see is an errasure of something that is bothering the person. Like errasing an engram, only much much bigger. Not the be all and end all of all abberation. Later in the tape he talks more on the GPM structure. At this time we have the items in a simple oppose pattern, but the GPMs themselves are still seen as being in a 4 way pattern (later in the year that simplifies to the same simple oppose pattern as the items). > The first two GPMs you'll find are on the postulate > "not-oppose each other". I don't care what the goals > are, they just won't oppose each other. They're pals. > And they're hung together by affinity and the couple > below them are hung together by opposites. > It tells you that when you first enter the pc's goal > channel you actually might enter any one of the four > gaols. any one of the first four goals. ---- There continue to be difficulties and repairs being issued. HCOB 10 MAR 63 VANISHED R/S OR RR > The thing which turns off a pc's RR or R/S is > too many RIs found without finding the PC's goal > An RR as it expires may become an R/S > The only thing that will restore the ability of a > pc to RR or R/S is to find the pc's first or next > GPM goal. --- HCOB 13 MAR 63 THE END OF A GPM > There are many GPMs. Four of them take one back about > 20 trillion at a rough estimate. > The last one formed may be only partially formed and > cover as little as 60,000 years. The 60,000 seems real to me, but the 20 trillion sounds like some kind of dub-in. In a later HCOB (17 Mar 63 CORRECTIONS), Ron says that the span given here "is only approximate and has no technical value". This one includes a sample lineplot of the goal "To Scream". At the top is the first terminal found, which is "A Mute". As you work down the page towards the begining of the GPM, the terminals improve until at the beginning the pc was being terminals that could scream instead of being ones that had lost the ability. And the opterms are the reverse of this, with the oldest ones (at the bottom) being actual opponents to screaming and the most recent ones actually being screamers. Note that the most recent item (time track wise) is at the top of the page and the oldest one is at the bottom because we are listing backwards through the GPM. Also, Ron has the opterms on the left and the terminals on the right. > Rule: The first terminal contacted will be found to > be the most degraded form of the goal of that GPM and > the first oppterm an exalted form of the goal. > > Of course, in a first GPM that is not fully complete, > the above rule may not hold true but this is an > exception. > Remember this: a Clear IS a Clear. The attainment of > Clear lies on the OTHER side of a GPM. Man has been > unable to crack the riddle of the bank until now. > We have the rules. 3M makes Clears. --- By the end of March R3M changes over to doing short lists and nulling them instead of the 25/50 beyond and take the last RR rule. With this and other adjustments in the rules, it then becomes R3M2. Also in this period there is a lot about handling ARC breaks by finding the errors in listing etc. And there is a good bit of hype about going clear. And a stable theta clear is supposed to occur after about 8 GPMs, and OT is supposed to be beyond that but nobody has gotten that far yet. And in early April there are a bunch of R2G... routines added to give class 2 auditors some ways of doing goals finding. These are variations of things like goals listing and prepchecks to try and find and clean up items that RR or R/S. --- TAPE SHSBC-257 16 APR 63 TOP OF THE GPM In this and subsequent tapes in April he begins discussing a common pattern that shows up in the top items of the GPM, these being items with a fixed series of endings, as in happy, happingness, happyishness, happyivity, etc. This is a foreshadowing of the Helatrobus pattern. > the bank wasn't laid in in English. --- HCOB 17 APR 63 A COMPLETE GPM PATTERN This one is in the Scamizdat pack. It was originally thought to be an actual GPM. Later this was identified as the pattern used in the Aircraft Doors implant, the Bear Goals implant, and the Gorrilla Goals implant. --- HCOB 18 APR 63 R3M2 DIRECTIVE LISTING > DIRECTIVE LISTING is defined as that Routine 3 activity > which directs the pc's attention while listing to the > form of the inevitable reliable item, providing it > can be predicted. > A directed reliable item is one guided on the list by > the auditor. It is one derived from the form of the > GPM common to all cases. > The auditor knows that in every GPM ... the majority > of the RIs are common to all GPMs ... Most of these, > particularaly top and bottom groups, NEVER change. > Therefore the auditor, with the pc's help, determins > what the inevitable RIs should be, confirms it with > the meter, gets the charge off the question by getting > some more items on the list and gives the pc the right > RI for that point in the bank or works with the pc > to obtain that exact RI. Looks like we're starting to get implants which have identical RI patterns. Seems like evaluation to insist that all GPMs follow the same pattern of items. But this would soon evolve into R3N and then it would only be used in implants and not actual GPMs. --- TAPE SHSBC-260 25 APR 63 FINDING GOALS > Most of these early track goals are fairly standard. > There are certain goals that are standard to every > case --- HCOB 28 APR 63 ROUTINE 3, AN ACTUAL LINE PLOT > This is the first relatively complete and accurate > line plot published. The earlier line plots > (except for the limited issue of HCOB 17 APR 63) > published were synthetic. The first Helatrobus like pattern, giving the items for the goal "To Have A Game'. This was eventually corrected and expanded to form the final Helatrobus pattern in the following month. I used the corrected version as a starting point for my own attempt to run the Helatrobus implant and made some further corrections (which are clearly identified) and that version of the Helatrobus platen can be found in the Super Scio book in Chapter 8. Again, this was originally thought to be an actual GPM rather than being recognized as an implant. --- Now we're on the edge, both item patterns and goals are repeating from person to person. And both the Bear Goals and Helatrobus platens have been found (approximately) but not recognized as implants. But the idea of electronic implants goes back to 1952. --- HCOB 8 MAY 63 THE NATURE OF FORMATION OF THE GPM > All goals contacted on the preclear early on in his > processing and made to rocket read are implants. > > An implant is an electronic means of overwhelming the > thetan with significance. > > In the case of implanted GPMs, use was made of the > mechanics of the actual pattern of living to impress > and entrap a thetan and force obediance to behavior > patterns. The goal selected was not based on any > goal of the thetan but was an entirely arbitrary > selection, both as to goal and pattern, by those > conducting the implanting. > The pattern and similarity of goals and GPMs should > make one aware of their actual nature as implants > > That implanted goals and GPMs exist does not mean > that the pc's own goals and GPMs do not exist. > > However, to get to the pc's own goals and GPMs one > must run the implanted ones. > Both have a basic pattern, though the implant pattern > does not vary pc to pc, goal to goal. > > You won't find a real whole track goal on a pc until > the implanted goals are handled, and even if you did > it would snap into an implanted goal. > Does running an implant change the pc's pattern of > behavior? The only troublesome patterns of behavior > the pc has reactively are from these implants. > Does this change the definition of Clear? No. It > clarifies it. Clear could mean "a thetan cleared > of enforced and unwanted behavior patterns and > discomforts". > What, at the worst, has happened is that it will take > longer to run a pc to OT as one has to handle these > implanted banks before handling the actual whole > track. > The O/W sequence is present. The one who has the > hardest run of it in a bank has done the most implanting. > but, motivators or not, these implants must be run. > The overts can be handled later. Side Note: I agree with the above, except for that last sentence. They should have handled the overt side immediately. Eventually the actual GPMs were abandoned completely and they ended up with the clearing course, and its a humdinger of a basic implant, but its still just a motivator. And by then they were dramatizing overts beyond recovery. --- HCOB 12 MAY 63 R3 GPM RI FORM CORRECTED This is the Helatrobus pattern. Its an improvement of HCOB 28 APR 63. See my comment above. It hasn't quite been labled Helatrobus or the Heaven Implants yet, but that happens shortly. --- TAPE SHSBC-263 14 MAY 63 IMPLANT GPMS > Now, a pc's got his own goal and he's got a GPM of > his own and so forth and you can find all that. And > that's Routine 3M2 and that's a buttoned up piece > of technology. > You're about to get R3N and 3N you are more or less > doing at this particular instant. It's simply a > stripped down, directive R3 which uses line plots > and is as crude as: prop up the HCOB May 12th in > front of the pc and prop up the copy of it in front > of yourself and use that copy as a line plot. This is where the Directive Listing business mentioned above evolves into the R3N process. Note that R3N also eventually begins using "random listing" (the pc just randomly listing items which are not written down) to try and get enough charge off of the item that is supposed to read so that the item will actually read. We don't do this in the modern implant flattening process (as used on the CC and OT 2), and I suspect that it just stirs around items in the bank. In the later sections of this tape he gives a bit of the Helatrobus description but doesn't call it Helatrobus. > but that early sequence doesn't run like the > implants. It all just runs like an engram and > that's why you're learning how to run some > engrams. > Now, we have the argument, just because there's > been a false heaven with implants on it, does not > mean that all heavens are false. Helatrobus is the Heaven Implants and the goal "to be in heaven" is implanted up at the top of the staircase. At this time, they are still under the impression that this is the only type of implant GPMs. --- Now R3N is the hot new process. But R3R engram running is also introduced. Note the R3 designation, which means that its an upper level process along with R3M2 and R3N. TAPE SHSBC-265 16 MAY 63 THE TIME TRACK This one begins as a discussion of engram running and then shifts over to a bit of a description of the Helatrobus implant incident. This one is in the "whole track" tape set. TAPE SHSBC-266 21 MAY 63 THE HELATROBUS IMPLANTS Finally named and some more description given. TAPE SHSBC-268 23 MAY 63 STATE OF OT Here he starts out talking about "Intention" and OT abilities and then slides over into talking about more details of Helatrobus. > Now the Helatrobus Implants (call them the Heaven > Implants for the public), these things were preceded, > then by a tremendous period of unrest. This is another one in the whole track casset tape set. --- Finally in June we have the beginings of the modern grade 3 processes and handling bypassed charge. That becomes the new level 2 (R2H). The original R2H process is simply to recall an ARC break and then do an assessment (such as an early L-1C predecessor) on it. R2-12 is dropped at this point because GPM handling can be started by running R3N on the Helatrobus platen. Note that original R3R was started by doing a prehave assessment to select the chain to be run. This is also when the first correction lists (L-1 to L-4) appeared. There is also a heavy push to make OT to handle the world situation and the attacks on the orgs (FDA raid in DC, trouble brewing in Australia, etc.). And with the use of R3R and also running implants by use of R3N, there is a lot of talk about whole track and space opera in the tapes of this period ("The Free Being" for example). So we have outside attacks, threats of nuclear war, a concentration on motivators (implants), an over restimulative technique (random listing as part of R3N), a minimum of lower level auditing (not much being handled before diving into implant GPMs), and a very small amount of R3R engram running (assessed by prehave scale so as to get the heaviest chain possible right away) that was concentrating on trying to find out what was going on in the space opera area. And that leads to a lot of wild, poorly verified, space opera stories dug out in an over restimulated atmosphere. In all the tapes of this time period, even when they are supposed to be about other subjects such as comm cyles, Ron is constantly digressing into GPMs, implants, and the latest space opera story that just came out of somebody's session. I'm not saying that this is all dub-in, but simply that its like the Incas passing around wild rumors and half right ideas about the Spanish Conquistadores. --- HCOB 1 JUL 63 R3R PRELIMINARY STEP This has the final version of prehave, used for the R3R starting assessment (to select a chain to run). It has a pattern of 1. prehave level 2. failed to prehave level 3. Not prehave level In other words, 3 variations for each major level. There are about 71 major levels and they don't seem to be in a particular order. They include things like suppressed and invalidated. --- HCOB 14 JUL 63 R3N LINE PLOTS This is the Aircraft Doors, Gorrilla Goals, etc. This bulletin is in the scamizdat pack and in new tech vol 7 (but not in the old tech vols). The platen is in the 17 APR 63 bulletin above. Note that he also mentions these on TAPE SHSBC-282 10 JUL 63 AUDITING SKILLS FOR R3R, and calls them the Fairground or Circus Implants. This is also one of the places that Ron says to shift over to R3N if you hit an implant while running a chain on R3R. ---- TAPE SHSBC-287 18 JUL 63 ERRORS IN TIME This has a lot about implanting false track and about wrong dates being used in implants. This also has more on the Bear and Gorrilla goals and Helatrobus and also the Darwinian implant. ---- TAPE SHSBC-288 23 JUL 63 BETWEEN LIVES IMPLANTS This is a companion to the HCOB (below). Part or all of the transcipt is up on the net. This is the one with "I was up in the Van Allen Belt" and the various stuff on Venus. This and the previous tape are where Ron first discusses screen implants. In a screen implant, the person is made to put his own pictures up on the screen which then misdates them and scrambles them. From here on, we have pcs trying to run through the between lives screen implant and this is done by dating and running the various earlier things that the pc put up on the screen. ---- HCOB 29 JUL 63 R3R-R3N-R3T CAUTIONARY HCOB Note, R3T was to simply correct dates or meter date things to straighten up the time track and improve recall, or to key-out a somatic by dating. > I found almost at once that false timing of incidents > was not only used but very nearly specialized in. The > exact character of the between-lives implants not only > then came to view and could be mapped, and other implants > of earlier times were disclosed. > Entire false pasts and futures have been installed and > even actual dates and incidents have been grouped. > This does not mean that R3N or R3R are in any way changed > or that one does not run GPMs. > Meanwhile, be very careful in dating. No dates released > on anything may be accurate including the Helatrobus > Implants. > Some of you have been groaning about these skillions of > trillions of years. They're usually found early on in > auditing only on false track. ---- TAPE SHSBC-292 7 AUG 63 R2H FUNDAMENTAS R2H is the ARCX handling process I described earlier, but as always in this time period, he gets into talking about more advaned stuff. > And the only thing it wouldn't run is a GPM. And to run > a GPM you have R3M and R3N. > Oh, you'd forgotten R3M, huh? You wait till one day you > run into a wildcat GPM, man. And you'll thank your stars > for R3M, if you know how to do it. Because that's how > you got the patterns in the first place. > But R3M will do a wildcat GPM, by which we mean a GPM for > which you have no pattern. And they exist all over the > track, and you'll eventually run into one, inevitably. > Don't think you can just go on running the pattern GPMs, > because that'd mean your pc was never caught in a bind > that was an oddball bind, see? ---- TAPE 8 SHSBC-293 AUG 63 R2H ASSESSMENT > Some cases are going to run so head-on into a GPM > that you're going to have to shift to 3N in order to > carry out that particular GPM, and then shift back > to 2H. Just as you can shift from R3R over to 3N > and back again. This is also the begining of using the CDEI scale in the ARCX assessment. ---- TAPE SHSBC-295 15 AUG 63 THE TONE ARM This is, of course, the tone arm on the e-meter and the tone arm moving (TA action) indicates that charge is coming off. But as usual in this time period, he digresses into discussing the between lives implants. > They're dependent upon a system. So they've got to > charge up your bank and charge you up, and so forth, so > that you can get charged up and be uncomfortable > enough to consider yourself entrapped. I just ran > into - while they prepare you for the series of implants > which you will get at the end of each lifetime - your > preparation series. It's just a series of GPMs. The > wildest most vicious GPMs I ever ran into. Practically > everybody's got them at least twice. Carefully misdated. > And every goal called a wrong goal. > > There's at least thirty or forty wrong dates on every one > of the GPM's. And that's how they get you to return. > Because between the wrong dates, they tell you to get > out and come back here, see. > They sandwitch the command to return, between a series > of about eighty GPMs. > But this makes you think more and more that they're not > native to this galaxy, because this particular series > does not carry the significances. The goals are > opposite-terminaled, yes. But the goals themselves > are of a characteristic, as to make life the opposite > terminal, so that livingness gives you the oppterm. > Goals are lovely: "To be wrong" "To get caught". You > know, that sort of thing. All derogatory goals. So > they make you of course be the opposite thing to this, > see. So they naturally stay hung-up better. And then > they're all misdated. ---- HCOB 20 AUG 63 R3R-R3N THE PRECLEAR'S POSTULATES > three types of charge exist in a GPM. > 1. charge as an engram > 2. charge as reliable items > 3. charge as postulates > Thus in all incidents the pc's postulates must be called > for and removed. ---- HCOPL 21 AUG 63 CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION TARGETS, PROJECT 80 > We have now exceeded by technical advance, public reality. > Therefore we have, in the various classes of data, > Scientology within Scientology The policy sounds mostly innocuous. But it gave me a bad feeling when I first read it. More below. --- TAPE SHSBC-298 22 AUG 63 PROJECT 80 The essence of project 80 is that we have been stirring up too much charge and should be destimulating the beginning pcs instead of restimulating them. But of course he then slides right over into talking about the stuff that he thinks is too restimulative. > For instance, just last night I got my hands on the > pattern of the O/W sequence itself - the overt-motivator > sequence rather - got the whole patter, tailor made. > And its a lolly, man! It's a doll! It's a GPM of > sorts and its own special breed of cat. And there goes > you overt-motivator sequence. I wonder if this is the Forerunner GPM that made it into the OT 2 platens? > If you are stripping off a between-lives screen and > you suddenly find some incident that's way back in > something-or-other land, don't just date it and let > it go - run it. And when you've got it run, come back > to the between lives screen to strip it down some more. > Now, what happens to the other immediate planets that > are connected with this confederacy in this system I > could not bet on just for two seconds. I could just > not bet on it. In the first place, these are invasionary > planets; they possibly were facing some type of invasion > here into this particular galaxy. There's probably > political situations in existance and you and I would > not know what of, don't you see? And I know they've > made a considerable incursion into the thing, because > I know that the Espinol Confederacy used to control > this very much and I found out the other day that > their return platforms were closed, were barred off > with speakers, you know, saying "Get away from here", > and "Report to the ones we told you to report to", > and "We don't want anything to do with you". In other > words, their return points are closed. ---- However, the project 80 idea goes further than simply trying to run light processes before tossing the person into GPMs. It becomes a communication stop and a PR image builder. This is the begining of the "lets not tell the society what we're really up to" kind of attitude. Things are not yet confidential, but now they are being categorized as to what is suitable for raw public. Of course this was put into a situation where everybody was jabbering about wild half wrong ideas on Marcab and space aliens. That does interfear with trying to get on with the basic task of processing and taking charge off of the case. But when that happened in 1952, it was simply handled by labling it para-Scientology and admitting that it was all a bit uncertain rather than making it secret or suppressed. The 1952 handling worked because it didn't suppress the communications. The project 80 handling began putting a suppresses on the lines, which made it worse, and eventually led to confidentiality which brought about a destruction of free thought and killed the research line. Project 80 was the beginning of the end. We're over restimulating the pcs and driving the public off so let's start hiding stuff. Definitely a bad policy which has now come home to roost. ---- HCOB 24 AUG 63 R3N THE TRAIN GPMs, THE MARCAB BETWEEN LIVES IMPLANTS This one is also in the scamizdat pack and in new tech volume 7 but was omitted from the old tech vols. Finally he publishes his map of the between lives implant. But it only has the item pattern and mentions a handfull of the goals. As far as I know, a complete goals list is never published for this one (anybody know better?). And of course it has that screen implant (besides the goals implant) as part of it. Scanning over that in session probably stirs up lots of things that get missed even though they were supposed to pick up each thing and follow it back on the track. ---- TAPE SHSBC-300 28 AUG 63 THE TA AND THE SERVICE FACSIMILE TA = Tone Arm. If a person gets too restimulated (charged up), the tone arm stops moving (charge stops releasing). Here he is talking about restimulating something vs keeping things destimulated. > I'll give you and idea. You're coffee shopping with > somebody and you say, "You realize, you realize that > there's a GPM - there is a GPM devoted to homosexuality > in the between-lives implants? There is one!". And > he says, "Oh, I don't really think so." He says "Well > get the idea now, just get the idea of 'To Be A > Homosexual". Just get that idea for a moment and > you'll see. Ha! That, of course, throws that GPM > alive, see? ... That GPM, which up to this moment > has been inert, now becomes restimulated and is now > in a restimulated state. Now Ron says that you can either run out the implant, or just destimulate it again by getting the pc to tell you about what happened in the coffee shop. ---- Throught this time period, R3M2 remains in existance in theory (and is used to research new implant platens) but the push seems to be to get the implants out of the way along with running track with R3R and trying to figure out how these things came about. In addition, the modern grade 3 tech (ARCXs and BPC) continues to expand and also basics on getting ITSA (R1C) and handling the comm cycle start showing up, probably due to continual problems with ARC breaks resulting from out lists etc. Also the service fac processing (what becomes modern grade 4) shows up at this point, with the service fac considered to be the top RI of the PT (present time or current) GPM. Finally we get back to actual GPMs. ---- TAPE SHSBC-306 11 SEP 63 SERVICE FACS AND GPMs > The pc's own GPM has the power and velocity, over an > implant GPM, of somewhere between a thousand or a hundred > thousand to one. > The whole the the implanted GPMs: between-lives area, > screens, implant GPMs, the Minion goals, the Helatrobus > Implants and the Train goals - all this sort of stuff, > all those GPMs, all those implant GPMs - are one > RI in one of my GPMs. > One RI. The name of the RI is "goals" - "oppterm goals". > which is one of something on the order of a hundred RI > personal GPM, which extends from trillions-30 to > trillions-twenty on the time track. But which is > actually still going. > It's backwards, you know, they implanted them from the > top to the bottom. Well an actual GPM is run from the > bottom to the top, the way it was lived. See, you > don't run an actual GPM from its top oppterm down > to the goal at the bottom. You take the goal at the > bottom and you list it back up to the top oppterm. > The liability of reaching the goal is of course the > goal is the furthest item from present time, being > the bottom terminal. > All these RIs - oppterms or terminals - have in > common the goal. They all have the goal in them. > Because they're part and parcle of the goal. But > they have their own significance with regart to > the goal. ---- TAPE SHSBC-307 17 SEP 63 WHAT YOU ARE AUDITING The implanted goals occasionally matched up with one of the PC's actual GPM goals. These would get mixed up so you have to check for implanted or actual before running a goal, and it might read on both. You could run the implant first if you have a platen for it because its easier, but the actual one is the important one to run. (use R3M2). ---- HCOB 28 SEP 63 ACTUAL GOALS > The actual goals and items of the preclear are several thousand > times more abberative than implant GPMs. The Scamizdat pack contains HCOB 19 FEB 64 SCIENTOLOGY V which is a reprint of the first half of this HCOB, giving the general theory but not the technical details on the processes. The new bridge given here is: 1. R1C (Itsa) 2. R2H (ARCX handling) and also R2T (dating somatics) 3. R3SC (service fac handling), also R3R 4. R4M2 and also R4N (renumbered from R3M2 and R3N) The implants are now seen as drawing their power from the actual GPMs, so they are mostly bypassed. Finding the service fac gives a clue as to the pcs actual GPM, so that can be used as the way in. Running R3SC takes charge off of the actual GPM, so it also makes the current actual goal easier to find. > The pc's own line plot is quite individual. > The pc's current actions are always explained by the pair > of items nearest present time. > Anything worrying the pc or reducing his capability or > life potential is to be found in actual items or goals, > not in engrams or implants. These are not primary causes. ---- TAPE SHSBC-309 19 SEP 63 R4MTA An R4M variation, R4MTA (TA = tone arm action) is tried briefly and then cancelled by HCOB 2 OCT 63. Bascially, the RR of an implant GPM remains clean and consitant whereas the RR of actual GPM items begins running out and will decay (a disintigrating RR). So the idea here was to find items by tone arm action rather than by rocket read. There is some GPM theory and description which remained in force but the process apparantly gave trouble and they went back to R4M2. ---- TAPE SHSBC-? 24 SEP 63 SUMMARY I > Co-term. There is no such thing as a co-term. That's > the same RI appearing as a terminal and an opterm in > the same GPM. Per the old Flag master tape list, this tape was cancelled by HCOB 12 OCT 63 and therefore was not numbered in the old SHSBC numbering series, but the HCOB itself seems to have been cancelled and is in neither set of tech volumes and this tape was restored in the new SHSBC numbering. It is number 340 in that series (and the following tape below is number 341 in the renumbered series). --- TAPE SHSBC-310 25 SEP 63 SUMMARY II: SCEINTOLOGY 0 Per project 80, Scientology 0 is beginning level public, but of course Ron slides over into talking about GPMs. > Actual GPMs are far sloppier and nowhere near as neat > and they're not preordained at all. ---- TAPE SHSBC-311 26 SEP 63 SUMMARY III: ABOUT LEVEL IV AUDITING > It's very easy to get the top RI of a formed goal, because > the oppterm of course is some direct construct of the goal > and the terminal; the pc now has turned against the goal, > and so it'd be some anti-goal thing. See that's very > easy on a completed bank, but on these banks which are > present time GPMs, these things maybe have formed in very > recent times, there may be only a few RIs formed in > the thing, and you don't know where to hit it. But it > is easier to hit it as a terminal, for this reason: > you can ask the pc "What are you in present time". > Get into the goals channel through what you found as > as service fac, listing goals against, but get into > that goals channel. By goals channel, I mean your > pc has thirty or so goals. He doesn't have very many. > and if you can get onto the sequence of the GPMs > anyplace, you can then do goal opposes and bring > the pc up the line and list the one in present time. > Now of course, that restimulates the pc more than if > you found the present time GPM in the first place. > But nevertheless, this is acceptable and doable. > Any goal that you find puts the pc in his goals channel > and then don't run anything until you are sure that > you have the PT goal. Finally we're using goal oppose lists to move up and down in the goals channel ("what goal would oppose to catch catfish " to work forwards in time and "what goal would to catch catfish oppose" to work backwards in time). Then the items are listed. > Recognize that you've probably got 50 percent of > it's RIs unfound. And you're going to go back up > now and you're going to find anything in it that > ticks ... One works up and down the item pattern, listing again whenever an item reacts, to find missed pairs of items. > If he's got the actual GPM, it is also hung up > against the implant GPM. You're not going to > bother with the implant GPM, but you want to know > it's there, because it's bypassed charge. ---- In this time period there are pleanty of tapes about running GPMs, mostly cautioning and solving problems with missing items, getting items out of the wrong GPMs, getting GPMs out of sequence and so forth. There were lots of problems which were being solved by trying to be more precise and have more correction remedies and so forth. It never occured to them to take some charge off the goal with light processes first before trying to list it, so they were always listing in the presence of heavy charge. This time period is also filled with discussion of the dramatization of GPMs and RIs. ---- TAPE SHSBC-315 21 OCT 63 ATTACK AND GPMS (... talking about defending against attacks long gone) > A GPM, in essence, is such a mechanism. > One has a defense up against an area of confusion. > He has a stable datum all arranged to take care of > an area of confusion that has long since ceased to > exist. Thetan eventually traps himself. > The GPMs then are a long history of all the things > which ever attacked him, and those things might now > be gone. ---- TAPE SHSBC-319 30 OCT 63 R4 CASE ASSEMBLY > You run an engram, this one runs and that one doesn't. > Why? Well, one's closer into an RI than the other. Some > engrams wouldn't relase till you get the RI that's holding > it in place and so forth. > The guy who was at the last throes of the thing is starting > dimly to realize that it was the basic goal that he set > in the first place that was getting him into all this > trouble and he's now agin it. So he solves it by being > against the goal. > You just sit there and you ask the person, "Well, goals > and present time - what might your present time GPM be? > All right, we'll make a list and we'll get it". ---- TAPE SHSBC-318 26 NOV 63 R4 AUDITING > We find a goal "to be tired" and it happens to be just > a goal. It's not an actual GPM at all. ... And during > the entire week he will be completely exhausted. And > he'll know what it is. It's that goal that is making > him that way. ... Now if we had found the GPM, the > correct GPM "to be tired", and is was the right GPM, > then some of the pc's feelings of tiredness would > vanish. He wouldn't get more tired, he'd get less tired. > No GPM which is a correct GPM and no item ever turns > on any pain of any kind whatsoever if found in proper > sequence. They only turn on heat. They do not turn > on sen (sensation). They do not turn on pain. > This is so much true that if you find pain on an item, > you unload. > There are only certain objects in the mind and they can > only get disarranged in certain ways and only certain > things can go wrong with the mind and actually these > things are not significances but masses. > Goals always oppose. Items always SOLVE. > Item oppose - implant GPM. Distinguishes an implant > from an actual GPM. > "Who or what would solve a caterwump". > "Who or what would scavengers solve". > "Is this an implant GPM?" > "Is this an actual GPM?" > "Is this only a goal?" > "Is this just an item?" ---- HCOPL 26 NOV 63 CERTIFICATE AND CLASSIFICATION CHANGES This places implants and whole track at level 5 and the old R3 / R4 actual GPM processes at level 6. And level 7 is defined as old CofHA Route 1 and other OT drills. This is the beginning of the R6 designation. ---- CONFIDENTIAL TAPES SH SC-1A 30 DEC 63 SUMMARY OF R6 PART 1 SH SC-1B 30 DEC 63 SUMMARY OF R6 PART 2 SH SC-2 31 DEC 63 OBJECTS OF THE MIND PART 1 SH SC-3 31 DEC 63 OBJECTS OF THE MIND PART 1 These are the first lectures of the R6 Staff Clearing series. These were not confidential as we know it today because the true confidentiality did not come in until later. However, this lecture series was labled confidential retroactively. In the original time period, Project 80 rules meant that this material would not be discussed with lower level people so as to avoid exceeding their reality. ============ END OF 1963 ============ This seems like a good point to stop since the story now becomes more obscure and I do not have all the materials. Perhaps I will try to continue at another time, attempting to reconstruct it from what is visible. Or perhaps some helpful soul will post more of the confidential tapes from this time period. Basically, it seems like the Actual GPM processing continues during the early days of R6 but eventually they run into another layer of implants. If the communication had been free and open, this third diversion into implants might have proceeded like the previous two, being a brief fever of wild space opera excitement and distraction and then settling back down to further work on the PC's own case (rather than motivators of various sorts including implanted items and entities). Instead, the Project 80 ideas of restricting communication were in force and were beefed up to the level of total secrecy and confidentiality and that brought the GPM research to a shuddering hault, leaving the entire organization stuck in the middle of an implant and dramatizing it with great vigor. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - OSA GOES CRAZY This was actually posted last week immediately after the materials collected into post25.txt and post26.txt. ---- OSA GOES CRAZY You'll have to trust me on the time sequence here, the posting times in my posts are made up and I'm not saying what time zone I'm really in. I did one of my bulk posts as I do about every 2 weeks. The entire set of posts usually gets into the newsfeed within about 10 seconds. OSA had been going along at the normal low spam volume. At a certain time, I checked some open NNTP servers and a few of my posts were starting to come in. I checked back 3 hours later. Most of my posts had hit. AND ABOUT 500 INSANE ONE LINERS FROM THE SHILLS. Good old Ron Archer and eventually the various (Idiot at Ron Archer) IDs as well. Of course it might have been the Boston Herald stuff. But they didn't start a crazy spam when the Wall St Journal did its thing the other week. They have to know that this is going to rebound against them. So its a one time sacrifice. There is only one thing which I can imagine them doing this for. They must have this setup as a last resort in case there is a true SCAMIZDAT posting. And this week's bulk Pilot post included the following: Super Scio - GUIDE TO CONFIDENTIAL DATA (attn Scam Iz Dat) Either they had an M/U and thought that I was actually reposting Scamizdat #11, or they thought that this one was scary enough to be worth triggering their last resort type of spam. I simply copied the scamizdat index for #11 which is available at the scamizdat websight. AND THEN I ANNOTATED IT IN DETAIL. Any Scientologist with access to the tech volumes can check my annotation of non-confidential HCOBs (page numbers etc.) and see that I know what I am talking about. Various errors, such as mislabling a grade 6 bulletin as OT 6 (that's why there are two different OT 6s on the net) are corrected. Details of how to put together the various materials in the correct order so as to have a proper set of the OT levels are explained. And it has hints for how to use obscure keywords (like Ampinistics) to find obscure FTP copies of Scamizdat files and other data. Basically it gives any CofS bailout the data they need to reconstruct the upper levels. I think that they freeked out about it. PLEASE PASS THE "GUIDE" AROUND AND GET IT UP AT THE SCAMIZDAT SITE AND ANYWHERE ELSE THAT LIKES TO PROVIDE CONFIDENTIAL DATA. I'm making an exception to my usual operation and posting this immediately because I think it is important and OSA seems to be going crazy about this. I am also going to repost the "GUIDE" immediately to reduce the chances of it being cancelled. And I am going to alter the source so as to navigate past killfiles this one time because I think that almost everybody will want this one. My appologies if it is undesired. The repost will be GUIDE TO CONFIDENTIAL DATA from Scamizdat@hideaway.com Best, The Pilot ========================================== This weeks posts all used the following trailer. ------------------ 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/ or www.aha.ru/~espinol All of this week's posts will be collected in Super Scio Archives #27 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. ------------------