Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology From: pilot@hiddenplace.com (The Pilot) Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 31 - MAY 98 PILOT POSTS TO ARS/ACT Date: 19 May 1998 14:00:31 POST31.txt SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 31 - MAY 98 PILOT POSTS TO ARS/ACT ========================================== Contents: subj: Super Scio - TONS MORE TECH ON THE NET (INFO) subj: Super Scio - ANSWERING THE NEW WGERT subj: Super Scio - Quote About Clear (To Rognnet) subj: Super Scio - To Bob Minton On Black Dianetics subj: Super Scio - Answering LRonsScam's Questions subj: Super Scio - On FZ Pickets (Attn Jenny Hansen) subj: Super Scio Humor - Scientology Colored Glasses subj: Super Scio - To THEAUDITOR.NET subj: Super Scio - TO ROD FLETCHER subj: Super Scio - Who Is A Scientologist (Attn Deana) subj: Super Scio - To Nancy On Squirrels, Natural Clear, Etc. subj: Super Scio - Another News Site Needed subj: Super Scio Tech - About Fear (Attn Andy and Lakis) subj: Super Scio Tech - To Azeric On An Intro Book subj: Super Scio - Continuing the Y2K Discussion (Attn ndc & Allen) subj: Super Scio Tech - Answering Lakis On Resets subj: Super Scio Tech - MORE ON REALITY GENERATORS subj: Super Scio Tech - To ID32 On Ethics Conditions subj: Super Scio Tech - LEFT AND RIGHT METERS (Attn Homer) subj: Super Scio Tech - Whole Track ========================================== subj: Super Scio - TONS MORE TECH ON THE NET (INFO) TONS MORE TECH ON THE NET (INFO) A posting storm has started. Light year kilotons of it . Here is some info and descriptions and hints on where to find it all. ------ It began with the CofS achieving a phyrric victory in the Keith Henson case. Keith had posted Nots 34 openly as part of his argument that it represented practicing medicine without a license. Of course I don't agree with him (I agree with Roland who recognizes that many religions exorcise demons as part of faith healing). But I fully support Keith's right to post the material as a point of discussion. The CofS pushed this one through at great expense (for a short HCOB, when in fact the complete Nots auditors packs have been posted again and again). And the decision may very likely reverse when it is appealed. But they pissed the net off yet again and the backlash is really tremendous. One of the biggest footbullets yet. ----- As most of you already know, I believe in religious freedom and support the posting of Scientology tech on that basis. Since the CofS will not sell the materials to independent Scientologists, they are using the copyright laws as an insideous means of denying others rights to practice their religion freely. I therefore feel that they have waived all rights in this regard and that the works should become public domain. The CofS would of course continue to sell to thier orthodox members (the only ones who are allowed to buy the materials anyway) and therefore would not even suffer from this. So I applaud the brave posters who have been making more tech available on the net. And I hope that more will appear. Get your scanners busy and learn to post anonymously. There is lots of tech that still needs to be posted. Or you could even repost some of the things that haven't been in the newsgroup for a long time, like the clearing course instruction booklet or the Helatrobus tapes. Just be sure to do so anonymously, because the CofS attacks anyone who fights for religious freedom in Scientology. Set The Tech Free! And now a detailed description of what has just been posted along with hints for finding the material. I will also be adding a brief summary of these to the Guide To Confidential Data On The Internet when I post it again. ----- THE BOOK COLLECTION Zenon Parnassus began by posting a carload of Scientology books to ARS. the subjectline was More CoS texts the from line was Zenon Panoussis Since they all had the same subject line, the only way to tell these apart was by the number of lines, so I have included that in the list. 271 lines & 961 lines are not in english (Dutch?) Lines: 3161 The Book of Case Remedies Lines: 9926 CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY Lines: 6078 DIANETICS 55! Lines: 3976 SCIENTOLOGY 8-80 Lines: 5205 SCIENTOLOGY 0-8 Lines: 1027 CONTROL And The Mechanics Of S. C. S. Lines: 3714 ADVANCED PROCEDURE AND AXIOMS Lines: 11031 THE PHOENIX LECTURES Lines: 3211 THE PROBLEMS OF WORK Lines: 11025 DMSMH 1 of 2 Lines: 9677 DMSMH 2 of 2 Lines: 6663 SCIENTOLOGY 8-8008 Lines: 1338 E-Meter Essentials 1961 Lines: 3714 ADVANCED PROCEDURE AND AXIOMS Lines: 6314 CHILD DIANETICS This was about 5MB of text. It was followed by a posting of Science of Survival (SOS) in 3 parts, totaling about another megabyte. And then Pheonix Lectures was posted as well (with Phoenix in the title) and also was posted as a zip into alt.binaries.scientology. You can find these if you hunt around although not many made it to American servers such as newsact.lightlink.com. About half of them can be found on dejanews. The best open NNTP host I found for getting these off ARS was cache.dde-drift.dk which had most of them. The gopher that caught all the FZ Bible posts (see below) also has quite a few of these. ----- THE TECH VOLUMES (The Red Volumes) The tech volumes were posted to alt.binaries.scientology in zipped form by Zenon Parnassus last week with titles in the form of pl##.zip. Each zipped file contains one of the tech volumes, usually in multiple parts to make the text files a manageable size. Note that he called these HCOPLs (HCO Policy Letters, which are the green volumes) and they are not, these are the HCOBs (HCO Bulletins, the red volumes). They were base 64 encoded for transmission. If you save them with a filename.b64, WINZIP will recognize them and decode them. They initally decode to a .zip file and then can be further unzipped to a .txt file. Watch the filenames as you do this because they have long names and PCDOS truncation to 8.3 may cause them to overlay each other. Note that for backup and moving these around on diskette, the zip file is smaller than base 64 so you might want to keep the zip version for archiving. These are the OLD Tech Volumes (as opposed to the new ones which came out in 1991). The old ones have the advantage of including a history (in the footnotes etc.) of any revisions made prior to 1975 when the volumes came out, and they include old and cancelled issues as well. Also, they have the initials line at the bottom which gives you a clue (sometimes) as to who really wrote some of the later bulletins. The new tech volumes omit all earlier versions and history and initials and only show the final authorized 1991 interpretation of tech. But the old tech volumes omitted many things in the 1963 timeframe that were considered confidential but which were later declassified and included in the new tech volumes (the bulletins on implants and on R3M goals processes). Omitted from both sets is R6 and above confidential data (it is only the early R3 / R4 confidential data which was declassified). Also omitted are many bulletins that were around in the 1960s which were reissued (or cancelled) as BTBs (board technical bulletins) as not being by LRH. This includes the 1970s BTBs which give the expanded grades drills for training auditors. The only exception is tech volume 9 which contains the various auditing series and therefore has BTBs which were issued in those series. Zenon's zip posting omits the Table of Contents, omits the index, uses an $c in the copyright notice, and also skips the occasional lists of tapes and books that were included in the tech volumes to show where these fitted into the sequence of bulletins. Aside from this they seem completely accurate and should be extremely useful to any student of the subject, especially as this version (with its historical perspective) has not been available from the orgs since 1990. The old tech vols were originally issued in 1975/76 and are as follows: Vol 1: 1950-53 Vol 2: 1954-56 Vol 3: 1957-59 Vol 4: 1960-61 Vol 5: 1962-64 Vol 6: 1965-69 Vol 7: 1970-71 Vol 8: 1972-75 * (see below) Vol 9: Auditing Series Vol 10: CS Series (and an index, which is omitted in the post) Eventually the org issued - Vol 11: 1976-77 plus any revisions to earlier bulletins Vol 12: 1878-79 plus any revisions to earlier bulletins Zenon also posted "volumes" 13 and 14. These seem to be collections of later bulletins from the 1980 period which were probably collected individually. These appear to be accurate but may not be complete for the timeperiod. Note that my set of tech volumes (that I was comparing this to) is an original. The set posted extends volume 8 slightly into 1976 and has annotations about later revisions that can be found in the supplemental volumes 11 and 12. I think that later (1980s) editions of the old tech volumes were done this way. The set is about 7MB zipped and almost 17MB in text format. In addition to these, he also published a set of notes on the SHSBC tapes. This was done in 3 files, consisting of an index and two files of notes. Again these are zipped and on on the binaries newgroups. The subject line is in the form "SHSBC tapes, part 1:2". These are hard to find because of poor binary propgation. They were posted to alt.binaries.scientology and cross posted to alt.binaries.slack. Only a few showed up on altavista. The only open NNTP server that I could find which had any significant number of these in ABS was at news.lginternet.net But I found almost all of them in alt.binaries.slack on the open NNTP host at mail.fiserv.com. Between the two servers, the entire set was still available on monday. Act quickly because these will probably disappear fast. Much thanks to Zenon for this bountiful dissemenation of the tech. If the CofS were not insane, they would be thanking him too. I would expect any real Scientologist to recognize Zenon as a religious freedom fighter who is helping to set a wonderful religion free from an evil and money grubbing management. ------------------- FZ BIBLE'S TAPE TRANSCRIPTS Just as Zenon's Tech Storm was hitting its peak, the Freezone Bible Association showed up and began posting transcripts of LRH tapes. I'll quote a few lines from their introduction. > The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings > of Judiasm form the Old Testament of Christianity. > > We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according > to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against. > > But the Christians are not good and obedient Jews and yet > are allowed to have their old testament regardless of any > Jewish opinion. They sent in 3 multi-part posts consisting of 8 transcripts in a total of 17 messages. All the individual messages are under 32K, probably because of size limitations in the remailer chains that they used. The complete set is only about half a megabyte. > Our first set of postings will consist of transcripts > for 8 of LRH's tapes. These will be in 17 posts as > follows: > > FZ BIBLE 1/2 ROLE OF EARTH > > This is the famous Role of Earth tape from the SOP > lectures of 1952. Posted in 2 parts. 5210C30A SOP8A (SOP lectures number 8A). Roland was asking for a transcript of this one awhile ago, and I posted the omissions that were left out of the R&D volumes. Here at last is the full transcript. > FZ BIBLE 1/3 ERRORS IN TIME > > This is a companion piece to the Between Lives Implant > Tape which is already available on the internet. 6307C18 SHSBC-287 renumbered SHSBC-316 > FZ BIBLE 1/12 CLEARING CONGRESS > > This is the 1958 Clearing Congress, consisting of 6 > lectures on the state of clear and how to attain it. > Each tape will be in 2 parts giving 12 parts in total. 5807C04 CC-1 THE FACT OF CLEARING 5807C04 CC-2 THE FACTORS OF CLEARING 5807C04 CC-3 THE FREEDOMS OF CLEAR 5807C05 CC-4 PREREQUISITES TO AUDITING 5807C05 CC-5 CLEAR PROCEDURE, CCH-0, HELP 5807C05 CC-6 CLEAR PROCEDURE, CREATIVENESS Note that standard tape numbering consists of the year, the month, a "C", and then the day, so that 5807C04 means that the lecture was given on July 4, 1958. Although only a few hit the open NNTP host at newsact.lightlink.com, I was able to find the entire set on the gopher (use a web browser) at gopher://news.wu-wien.ac.at:7119/1alt.religion.scientology I was also able to find the complete set on dejanews. ------------------- Note that if only 8 tape transcripts are posted each week, it will take almost a decade to get all the transcripts on the net, so more help is need. On 5 May 98, jimc@sonic.net (Jim Cook) posted to ACT on subject "Words from the I-Ching" > 64 Nearing Completion > > Question: Will the tech become available on the Internet? > > The time is not yet ripe for direct action. Patience is advised, but > don't let the period of waiting degenerate into mere idleness. This > is the patience of an engine revving in neutral. Be ready and > waiting, but do not move prematurely before you get a green light. I would say that this is the green light. I hope that you were all warming up your engins and are ready to step on the gas. Operation Tech Storm has begun. ------------------- Yours In Freedom, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - ANSWERING THE NEW WGERT ANSWERING THE NEW WGERT On 25 Apr 98, wgert@loop.com (wgert) responded to my earlier post on subject "Super Scio - ANSWERING WGERT" > 1- It took you17 days to respond to my post. > 2 - Nobody e-mailed this to me which shows that nobody gives a damn > about your post. > 3 - I now understand why OSA would not afford you the time and energy > you would want them to give to you: you're an unimportant factor just > trying to destroy everyone's time. So there is no reason for the OSA > guys to waste their time on you! > wgert > > On 23 Apr 1998 14:00:14, pilot@hiddenplace.com (The Pilot) wrote: > > > >ANSWERING WGERT > > > >(since I don't use e-mail, it would help if somebody would > >e-mail a copy of this to him to be sure he gets it) > > > >On 6 Apr 98, wgert@loop.com (wgert) posted on subject > >"Re- Attention: The Pilot" from NNTP posting host > >7102@207.211.61.132 using X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82 > >in response to a previous post of mine that Future808 had > >answered (and of course Wgert ignored the content of both > >my original post and Future808's response) (note that the new wgert snipped all the text that got the old wgert in trouble. I wouldn't repeate it here because my original post is available in the pilot archives at FZA) If OSA was really ignoring my posts, then why did they RPF the Old WGERT instantly upon recieving my post to him? It was only a matter of hours after I posted before you came onto the net, and everybody noticed the total change in style. You should be proud, by the way, because they started calling you "the intelligent Wgert". I would suggest that you go visit the old Wgert in the RPF and bring him something nice like a chocolate bar. I know that you're not supposed to do that, but its been done before. When you replace somebody who has been RPFed, you have a bit of an excuse to visit them and if the post looks like one which will get anybody RPFed sooner or later, then you do it because you know that you're the next one who'se going to get the shaft. So show a little human kindness to the old Wgert and perhaps the same kindness will be shown to you when your time comes. And give him a corn cob for his pig. ARC, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - Quote About Clear (To Rognnet) QUOTE ABOUT CLEAR (TO RGONNET) On 6 May 98, rgonnet posted on subject "Fatman said CLEARING IS NOTHING! True!" > The clear pillow. > > Yes, i just found this, excerpt (retranslated from the > french version) from the SHill Special Tape, November 7th, > 1963: > > (Fatman Hubbard speaking) > ******* > > "Our interest for the Clear state is so minuscule that it > just gives us a yawn, d'ye see? It has not the least > importance. This state can just make someone feeling more at > ease, and then? you can make someone ill feel more at ease > just by putting a pillow under his head, d'ye see?" > ****** > > Now we know that Hubbard had some different views about what > it is to become a clear. Far from being the fantastic > 120000 $ paid superhuman state, it's nothing more than a > pillow under the head of an ill guy or girl. > > This is a golden pillow, i mean. > > This is sakred skriptchurch. > > Bow, women and men. Hubbard was speaking! > > Roger In case anybody wants to use this, they should have the original english version. From Tape SHSBC-322 renumbered 353 6311C07 (standard tape IDs are the 2 digit year followed by the 2 digit month followed by a "C" and then the two digit day). Title "Relationship of Training To OT". From near the end of the tape. "Our interest in the state of Clear is so microscopic as to be a yawn, see; it's of no importance at all. The state makes somebody more comfortable - so what? You can make a sick man more comfortable by putting a pillow under his head, see?" But note that this was in 1963 and the 1963 state of clear was a "curtesy title" indicating that the person had run out an actual GPM. A loyalist would say that the real clear state was not found until 1965. I would say that the 1965 definition (and the corresponding DMSMH definition of 1950) is sales hype, and I think that the 1958 definition is the honest one (I've talked about this elsewhere, see the Scientology Reformer's Homepage). But a literal minded fanatic might wake up if they get hit with all of Ron's varying definitions and statements about Clear. On that basis, this is a good quote to pass around. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - To Bob Minton On Black Dianetics TO BOB MINTON ON BLACK DIANETICS On 28 Apr 98, bob@minton.org (Robert S. Minton) asked on subject "Black (Hubbard) Dianetics" > Can anybody give specific details and more information on the tape > as to what Hubbard is talking about in this quote? > > >From a tape called "Outline of Therapy" -- > > >"Out of Scientology you could formulate a very fine type of thought > >warfare. Works much better than an atom bomb. An atom bomb just kills > >people, but you could take thought warfare and you could enslave them > >utterly. You could make complete slaves out of them." > > > Thanks > > Bob Minton Tape 5203C03 (1952 Mar 3rd), HCL-2 (lecture 2 of the Hubbard College Lectures) titled "Introduction to Scientology: Outline of Therapy". A transcript is in New R&D Volume 9 on pages 463 to 481. Here is a longer version of the quote from the R&D transcription. >"Out of Scientology you could formulate, for instance, a very > fine type of thought warfare which - much better than an atom > bomb. No, an atom bomb just kills people, but you could > take - in thought warfare you could enslave them utterly. > You could - you'd make complete slaves out of them with > a very simple contraption - very simple. > > We're doing it the honest way in Scientology, because with > a very simple contraption, with the greatest of ease, we > could go around and anybody who was opposed to Scientology > would all of a sudden start being madly, insanely in favor > of it. But that's the easy way to do it, and that's what's > wrong with the race, is everybody has tried it the easy way - > control, restraint, more engrams, more punishment. > > Let's make man free. And when we make man free, we find > out what he consists of. And we find out that he is > cooperative, that he will compute automatically for the > greatest good of the greatest number. Democracy was an > idealistic hope that this might be. The book History of Man is mostly a summary of things that were covered in detail in the HCL lectures, so that book provides the historical context for this lecture. The HCL lectures especially concentrated on running the Fac 1 (Facsimile One) implant which is mentioned in History of Man, and that was supposedly done with a "coffee grinder" style implant device that put out a sonic wave which implanted the items. So when he says "a very simple contraption", I assume that he means a Fac 1 style implant device. Although this particular quote talks about using an implant device, there is the more practical Black Dianetics tech of using PDH (pain drug hypnosis) to implant items, and the even simpler procedure of simply reversing things which make men more aware and independent so as to make them less aware and more easily controlled. For example, there are many 1950s quotes about how secrecy is used to control people and make slaves and get money from them and so on, and that we must do the opposite to set men free. Therefore, a good application of Black Dianetics would be to make some of the tech confidential. I've been saying that for quite some time now, namely that many of the things he warned against in the 1950s became the operating policies in the late 60s and 70s. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - Answering LRonsScam's Questions ANSWERING LRonsScam's QUESTIONS On 3 May 98, lronsscam@aol.com (LRonsScam) asked on subject "question about Dianetics" > Since I am sure there will be no collectivley trade marked > Scientologists that will answer this question on ARS I think > the next logical thing to do is to go ahead and ask some free > thinking Scientologists. > > In Dianetics LRH discussed that the reactive mind thinks in > moronic terms of A=A=A=A and that is what is wrong with it. > The problem is that A does equal A, does equal A and so on. > Is this a plain mistake or was it purposeful? It just hit me > the other day and it struck me as funny that there is something > wrong with this statement. I also had trouble with this one when I first got into the subject. It seemed to me that it would be better stated as A=B=C. I think that this comes from the General Semantics ideas that the map is not the territory and that no two things are completely identical. The As are not quite identical because they are not the same A and they have different locations etc. But the difference becomes more obvious if we substitue a specific for the A. If you say Dog=Dog=Dog it is not really correct because each dog is unique. If you say Sex=Sex=Sex it is not really correct because each sexual experience is unique. > I do have some other questions for FZs if you don't mind. I know > this isn't Co$ and just because one answers a question one way > doesn't mean everyone thinks that way. > > Do you believe in the upper levels as the way Hubbard described > them? Halfway. I think that there are implants and entities. But I don't think that these make a good OT lineup or have any hope of producing real OTs. I've talked a lot about this one. The current lineup is basically motivatorish and shallow and misses the boat. These things are in the self clearing book that I put out, but they are treated as minor factors and I think that that is correct. > Do you believe that Hubbard had any responsibility as to the > quesionable affairs of the Church in its present condition? Yes. But I do not expect perfection from him. There was a lot wrong with Edison ("Tesslarizing" cats by electrocuting them with AC for example) and yet he did give us the light bulb. I would forgive Hubbard a lot for the good work that he did. Most of his actions in the 1950s were good, kind, and helpful with only occasonal abberations. Later he flips the opposite way and does much dramatization, but I also think that some of the people who surrounded him worked hard to bring out the worst in him and to screw up the subject. I would not put all the blame for the bad stuff on Hubbard's plate. I think that by the movie making days of the late 1970s he was already burnt out and letting the juggernaught proceed on its own. > Do you think Miscarriage underhandedly took over CoS and is > now destroying it by his evil intentions? Somebody did this. The only question in my mind is whether it was Miscarriage or whether he is just a front for somebody else. I don't think it has been proven either way as to who is really in control. > What are your ideas on homosexuality? I've covered this one a few times and even put an LRH quote on the Scientology Reformer's Homepage about this. Although the DMSMH view (1950/1951) considers it an abberation, that idea disappeared as soon as the 1952 view of the person as an immortal thetan came into effect. After all, a thetan has no sex. There was absolutely no homophobic sentiment in Scientology throught the remainder of the 1950s and 1960s and when I got involved it was actually a safe haven for homosexuals. Probably 20 percent of the staff was homosexual in those days and even the 1st clear (John Mac) was a known homosexual. I audited dozens of homosexuals in those days and it made not one bit of difference or difficulty in auditing or training. There is a rumor that there is a comment about homosexuality being due to entities in the Class 8 tapes, but I have not heard this myself (I have only heard some of the 8 tapes, I wish somebody would post them all) and even if so, it was not used in a make-wrong type manner and there was little anti-homosexual sentiment in CofS even in the 1970s. It is only in the late days when the young turks came into power that CofS suddenly became rabidly homophobic. That caused practicing homosexuals who were on staff or OTs or auditors to leave the CofS in droves. I still get shocked by modern bail outs and late era freezoners who have considerations about homosexuality. It is so contrary to everything I heard in the early days. I think that the reason has to be AIDS. It is very difficult to make Scientologists take any medical precautions. I would say that people should be sensible and careful and warn that they cannot expect a magical cure, but the CofS would be afraid to announce loudly that Aids is dangerous. With the loose attitudes about sex that were present in the CofS in the late 1960s and a reluctance to warn their members to be careful of something that is medical (basically admitting that they cannot cure things), it would be possible for AIDS to spread through the staff and students like wildfire. So their solution is to make sex, and especially homosexuality, out-ethics so that they have an alternate way to keep their members from indulging. I don't think that these things are out-ethics. I simply think that there is a problem out there that needs care and precautions. But the org can't admit publicly that they can't cure things or solve a big problem. Their operating basis here is not to claim that they can cure AIDS but simply to keep their mouths shut and let the members dub-in. Note that I don't think that AIDS is incurable, there have been spontaneous remissions, but it would be foolish to bet your life on it. > I myself MIGHT believe that the lower levels like NED might > have some effectiveness in handling simple problems in > people. Does that make me a Freezoner? I would say yes. > - I MIGHT believe because I only had a touch of > NED while I was involved. It was OK but not at > all what Co$ said it would be. They were > floundering all over me like I was going to > spring into new skin or something. They have foolish fixed ideas and wishfull thinking. > Thanks for your participation as I am sure I will get some > unique responses. Peace to you for what you do and not what > you are. Thank you. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - On FZ Pickets (Attn Jenny Hansen) ON FZ PICKETS (Attn Jeanny Hansen) On 23 Apr 98, fza@fza.org (FreeZone America) forwarded a message from Jeanny Hansen on subject "ATTN: PILOT - a message from Jeanny Hansen" > I made a copy of the latest postings... really enjoyed the story of 4 > F.Zoners closing down the L.A Org. That reminds me of the early days, > when a guy (forget his name) stood in front of the buiding with a > board on him that said: "BT˙ GO HOME....CALL 1-800 CLUSTER! " > They freaked out and dragged him inside the building. > > I also have fond memories of the first protest March we organized. We > had posters that said: "FREE THE SLAVES", which we also paraded in > front of their headquarters in Gillman Hotsprings. You should have > seen how fast the security guards hussled the new recruits that were > pulling out the weeds from the ditch, inside! L.O.L. > > Yes, those were the days! At that time (1984 ?) there were only a > handful of us, but a year later there were hundreds, and a plane with > a banner flying overhead, that said something about them not wanting > to give us our money back. > > Another sweet memory: the time when we (the first UK 'squirrels') > distributed about 300 copies of that famous 'incognito' letter (17 > pages, from someone high up in management) in the middle of the night, > by depositing it in the letter boxes around East Grinstead, of all the > Scn.gists we knew. You should have seen the uproar from the Minute Men > who were at Saint Hill at the time! They were going NUTS. Well done. In that time period, there was very little hint around the LA complex of what was going on. There was a lot of dissatisfaction among public but the comm was very blocked and suppressed. I was living near the complex at that time and the only active protest I observed was one morning there were copies of OT 3 and Nots stuff taped to the trees in the neighborhood. And complex security was running all over the place to tear them down as fast as possible before public started walking around on their way to course or out on breaks. I heard stories from friends who were bailing out, but I'm an old safe terminal known for not spouting party line. The finance police totally destroyed "The Comm Line" and "Who What Where" at that time to prevent any kind of critical articles being published. (for those who are unfamiliar with these, they were published by Scientologists but were not controlled by the organization - these periodicals finally returned about a decade later, note that there is no mention of Scientology itself in them because they don't have issue authority to discuss the subject). The court cases (Wollershim, etc.) were dead agented as being sponsored by the psychs, and these were obviously critical rather than freezone. A few issues of various publications such as Free Spirit, Dyanasis, CADA, and Mayo's Ability Journal did make it into people's mailboxes. Some people (such as myself), did read and keep these, and it did put a lot of people on the fence. But it wasn't quite enough, and the org was continually dead agenting this kind of stuff. The effort was a good start, but it was not strong enough or visible enough. A few good freezone style pickets of the complex, indicating the correct bypassed charge (rather than Scientology kills type criticism) might have pushed things over the edge. And things often have to be repeated multiple times before they sink in. > And, do you know what the MAA at Flag said to us when he was trying to > justify some overts of Management that he could not deny ????? He > said: David Mayo and Bill Franks were the S.P.'s that brought the > Church to an inch of their survival!" Typical. > When asked what he would do if he were declared (about going up the > Bridge) he replied: > "I would just audit Dianetics". And when I retorted that he couldn't > do that without the Church's explicit consent, he said: "Well, than I > would just have to wait until next life time!"" What a robot! Huh ??? > If only he had known that I was taping the whole conversation, he > would have died on the spot! > > To play that tape at a court hearing might turn out to be quite > interesting, don't you think? Anyway, dear Paul, you can tell that I > have lots of stories to tell. Perhaps some of them will encourage > people to "take Heart" and come out of the closet (it will give you > claustrophobia) or get off the fence (that body part will get pretty > sore, after a while) and if your still "IN", it could cost you plenty > in repairs. Yes, please post more stories. Note that I am not the same person as Paul who is hosting the website. > I look forward to your next Posting! ---˙ and to your response. > > Love, > > Jeanny Hansen > (Still in WA State, but not for long!) What is WA State? ----- I can see that there may eventually be a need for real freezone pickets. Things that would push to set the tech free rather than raw criticism. Signs like "Scientology Persecutes Freezone Scientologists" and "RTC Is Suppressing The Tech". A sign like "Miscaviage Worships Xemu" could be brought and held in reserve to only be used if things get dangerous. Just the threat of such a sign, shown to an OSA representative, might make them back off. The basic freezone goal would be to get the tech into the public domain and spread around the planet without interfearance from the orthodox CofS. A few big highly visible pickets of events at Shrine and Universal, especially with good press coverage, might work wonders. But I haven't felt that freezone was ready. Too many were burnt in the fights in the 1980s and a hugh number would be needed to prevent CofS dead agenting and counter attacks. It might be possible to co-ordinate with the critics for extra support, but this also has its own problems. Something like a Scientology Kills tee shirt just makes the loyalists fight harder and hold tighter to their fixed ideas. We could get away with "out tech at flag killed Lisa" but not with "Scientology killed Lisa", if you see what I mean. Right now I think that it is still a time for fabian (Ron's euphemism for good guys being covert) actions. Things like "Reform Now" printouts placed under windshields of cars at places where Scientologists have lunch for example. And of course the internet is doing its work even as we speak. That is the one that will really make the difference. And the biggest button that I've found on any loyalists is the availability of the tech. Having it all on the net will make a big difference. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Humor - Scientology Colored Glasses HUMOR: SCIENTOLOGY COLORED GLASSES Our great and glorious founder, L. Ron Hubbard, has made a new and astounding breakthrough. One that is light years ahead of its time. Communicating telepathically from the between lives area, he has passed this wonderful new discovery on to the LRH Telepathic Communicator in the RTC so that we may all share in his wisdom. Hip Hip Hooray! This one will usher in the super new KRUGERAND AGE OF TECH. This amazing new breakthrough will filter out ENTHETA (entuurbulated theta, otherwise known as bad stuff) not just from the internet but from life in general. This is done by means of SCIENTOLOGY COLORED GLASSES. Just like the old rose colored glasses, these new glasses change the way that you see the world. But they don't add a special color tint. Instead, they delete entheta! Remember the old Scientologist Online Filter program which blocked web pages that contained the X*** word? Well, this works the same way except that it can filter entheta out of everyday life. NO MORE ENTURBULATION. NO MORE RESTIMULATION. NO MORE UNPLEASANT DATUMS BEING FORCED DOWN YOUR THROAT. EXPERIENCE THE TRUE JOY OF FREEDOM FROM SUPPRESSION. And with the companion Scientology Hearing Aid Filter, you need never see or hear entheta ever again! Imagine this: There you are in front of the org and a picketer starts coming down the street with one of those nasty signs. WhaLa! The picketer disappears from your view! Or picture this one: A policeman turns on his siren to pull you over for a ticket. A blink of the eye and he's gone! No more nasty police! No more speeding tickets! You go home and the wife says "you lazy slob, why don't you take out the garbage". Bang! No more wife! Or how about a drunken driver weaving towards you down the street? Zap! Gone! No key-in. No worries. Or maybe you see your friend lying in the road after being run over by an invisible drunken driver? Not to worry, his body will disappear too! ALL THE BAD STUFF WILL BE GONE FROM YOUR LIFE IN ONE EASY STEP. These glasses may only be rented, not purchased. The price is a mere $5,000 per month. A small sum in exchange for freedom for eturnity! Run, don't walk, to your nearest Scientology Org and get fitted for your glasses NOW! Don't spend even one more day living in a sea of entheta! ----- The above was relayed to me telepathically by the Loyalist Officers in 4th Dimensional Hiding. Have Fun, The Pilot PS. Has anyone thought of passing the Scientologist Net Nanny business on to Howard Stern or Conan O'Brien? I'll bet that they could have a field day with it. PPS. On a different humor thread, the subject of tin foil hat jokes was raised. There are two sets. One is based on the idea that psychotics wear tin foil hats to keep others from reading their minds. The other set is based on the idea of using tin foil hats as an amplifier for telepathic projection. I first read about that in some pyramid power book back in the 1960s. That one suggested making a pyramid shapped tin foil hat to help in beaming one's intentions or picking the next race at Santa Anita. ========================================== subj: Super Scio - To THEAUDITOR.NET TO THEAUDITOR.NET On Sun, 26 Apr 1998 01:00:17 +0200, "an auditor" wrote on subject "4 the pilot" >Dear Pilot i need a private chat with you send a private email to which i >can reply and then we could either chat on a chat room, or via icq or >whatever...is about THEAUDITOR.NET homepage.... > >ml, >an auditor > To which Ralph Hilton correctly replied # Pilot is staying anon. Personally I think he could do that # and use email but he prefers to do things as he will. As I've said before, I do this both to drive OSA crazy and also to get as much comm out in the open on the newsgroup as possible because I think that the bulk of the reform and freezone movement consists of lurkers who need to see the comm. I will guess that you might be asking about using some of my stuff so I will answer that you can use whatever of it that you want. Also feel free to update any links on the web pages I posted. And you can add appropriate graphics if you like. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - TO ROD FLETCHER TO ROD FLETCHER On 27 Apr 98, rod_fletcher@hotmail.com posted in response to my earlier post on subject "Super Scio - MAY 9 EVENT INFO" >In article #1/1, > pilot@hiddenplace.com wrote: > > > > MAY 9 EVENT INFO > > > > The latest promo says "Come to the Dianetics Anniversary > > Event. See a new feature-length Scientology film". > > > > May 9, 1998 at the Shrine Auditorium, 655 W. Jefferson Blvd, > > Los Angeles. > > > > Doors open at 6:30 PM and the event starts at 7:30 PM. > > > > You know Pilot it's nice of you to be a reformer behind the scene. > Never heard of a reformer being a coward behind the scene. I > wonder where you got those stolen materials. Rod. Boy, yet another Black Scientology attempt to blow me off by missing withholds that aren't there to be missed. Do you actually know any real tech that can be used to help people? Or do you only know reverse processes? The real tech does exist. It's in the books and tech volumes. In fact a lot of it just got posted to the internet by some people who really are spreading LRH tech around the planet. You might think of them as evil critics and squirrels, but they are doing more than you are to get the tech out there. When have you actually helped somebody? Do you really think that your current low toned behavior is doing anybody any good? The tech is for setting people free, not for making slaves. I guess that is just too hard for you to have. The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - Who Is A Scientologist (Attn Deana) WHO IS A SCIENTOLOGIST (Attn Deana) In April, Honnicut put a nifty "I am a Scientologist" page up on aol (America Online) that talked about the need for reform in the CofS. Of course this page didn't have issue authority. So the org jumped right in and screamed to Aol that Honnicut couldn't say he/she was a Scientologist because that was a "Collective Membership Mark" that was leagly registered and controlled by CofS. To which mirele@newsguy.com (Deana Holmes) replied on Apr 27, 1998 on subject "I am a Scientologist" > > >I am going to start calling myself a Scientologist. > >No matter that I think LRH was cocked in the head and that the current >band of thieves is, well, just that, a band of thieves...I'm going to >call myself a Scienotologist. > >Maybe I'll modify it with an Extremely Radical Upside-Down >Scientologist, but I AM A SCIENTOLOGIST. > >In short, I think the whole notion of a religion getting a collective >membership mark for "Scientologist" is simply NUTS. But that's what >Scn has apparently gone and done. You and the many others who followed suit have my thanks. When I saw that business about the "collective membership mark", I got really pissed off, I mean steam blowing out of my ears and wanting to thrash somebody. Imagine that you drive a Honda and suddenly you find out that the Honda Honcho has registered the term "Honda Driver" so that you are not allowed to say that you drive a Honda even though you do. It makes one tempted to drive the car right throught the showroom window. The critics response was a breath of fresh air even though there was criticism mixed in with the "I am a Scientolgist" statements. In truth you should have read a book so as to meet Heber's definition (History of Man has been up on the net for quite a while now). Or there is the old (1950s) definition that expected that you had found something workable in the tech. But as far a kissing the ass of an obnoxious organization or having to believe in the Xemu story, that's just bullcrap. Even LRH said that you could take all the space opera stuff and the things in History of Man and lable it para-Scientology and not believe any of it and still be a Scientologist. Thanks Again, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - To Nancy On Squirrels, Natural Clear, Etc. TO NANCY ON SQUIRRELS, NATURAL CLEAR ETC. On 3 May 93, kokoro@qnet.com (Nancy) posted on subject "TO PILOT" > Dear Pilot, > > I have been a Scientologist for many years. I found Scientology in the > early '70's, and was home. My path was found! > > I came in on a lecture on the ARC Triangle. At that time, I was > working for a food company and the first course I did was the > communication course. It blew me away. Finally some reality. My > co-workers were amazed at the change in my ability to duplicate and > handle things in a very understanding way. I had always been able, > however certain buttons were no longer pushed and my reactions were > with a lot more ARC/understanding. (the tech works) > > I was a single mother at the time and was raising my two children, > working a full-time job and going on course in the evenings and > weekends. > > I became a fsm like crazy, as I wanted every one to have what I found. I felt that way too initially. Eventually I started to shut up because I saw too many abuses etc. Then I'd push people to read a book instead of going into an org. I felt that they needed to know the subject first so that they could safely negotiate the stops. > I pulled i the money for my life repair, did that then started on the > bsm. I had a major study problem so I did the bsm again. Then went to > the closest org for a student rescue intensive. This blew me away ... > On that intensive, I became so keyed out that my auditor and I COULD > NOT GET BACK INTO SESSION. GIGGLE CITY. Very well done. This is what many of the critics miss, the huge gains do happen. > After that I routed onto the student hat course and I think for me at > that time it was one of the biggest wins I have had as I finally knew > why I felt stupid in school when I knew I wasn't! > > The rest is pretty much history. I was on the road and I did what ever > it took to get to Clear. That was my goal. > > In 1978 I attested to Clear, and then got sick. I then did a DCSI > (twice) and then finally attested to the state of natural clear. > Later the CCRD came out and after doing my purif, I was routed onto > that and then the sunshine rundown. > > Continued on the bridge, continued fsming, worked on staff at night > and moved toward my goal of becoming OT. > > Many things happened in between but I finally got into the sea org. > Within a two week period I handled so many things and arrived at the > flag land base ... this was in the early '80's. > > I became aware of so many outness's it made me sick ... however I > could not verbalize my feelings as I was among brand new > Scientologists and I didn't want to put that on them, plus I actually > got scared (I know now it was because I wasn't hatted enough to handle > what was occuring). It would take a lot more than just hatting to handle the outnesses that were occuring at that time. Big names and old timers were being smashed left right and center. > Anyway, without going into all the garbage, I finally left there and > came back home and began all over again. (I did route out properly, > and was supposed to get a re-entry program, but that never happened. > To be honest with you, I had no intentions of going back, so I never > pursured the re-entry program). There are many in the same boat. Few have dared to speak because they are still in good standing and still love the subject, but those I know personally (including people who were very high in the SO at one time) all have serious disagreements with management while continuing to support the tech. > Anyway, the years went by and I did get back on the bridge but never > with the same zest I originally had ... life happened and being the > 3rd dynamic being that I am, I got back on staff with one of the > secular groups. I was with them for 5 years, and then left there also. What is a secular group? > In those five years, I had not auditing and small amounts of training. > However, I did learn alot. (I held a lot of posts, and did a good job, > but, again, the non-optimum scene got to me.) > > Anyway, I am currently working out here at a very high randomity job > and my husband and I are working towards putting together a place > where we can give tech to those in the field who need it so they can > reach for the bridge. Most Excellent! > I became aware of you a few months ago, through my husband, and to be > honest I had mixed feelings. My allegiance to Scientology is so great. > At first, I was angry because even though I have had the experiences I > have had, I maintained the viewpoint that, "Yes, there are many > outness's but there must be so much more we are not always aware of > and that perhaps things are being worked on to get them better." I > have many friends in the sea org and on staffs and I admire their hard > work in helping to change things on this planet ... so on one hand I > know some of the things I've read on the Net are true; I also know > there are many who are working so hard to handle stuff. > > At first, I thought, "Well, why don't these people do something > inistead of bad mouthing the church. It is hard to my feelings into > words as it really shakes my solid stable datum for so many years ... > do you understand that? Yes. I kept my mouth shut for decades. I wouldn't say anything until I had some answers that I thought would help others. Basically, I let my comm be suppressed because of my love for the subject and in retrospect that was a mistake. Free and open communication, both about the good and the bad aspects, is the key. The other outpoints would have straightened out if we had been talking freely without issue authority and the threat of SP declares hanging over our heads. > Then, last week, I realized that Scientology and the church have > always been "one" and the same to me. Now I see a difference. This > really bothers me (that is an understatement). Yes, it takes some confront. But equating an organization and a subject is an A=A and therefore wrong. Physics is not MIT. Christianity is not the Catholic Church. Even under ideal circumstances with a wholesome organization, equating it with the subject would not really be correct. > I am very good at granting beingness, for whatever reason, so always, > even in non-optimum situations have tried to look at the whole picture > not just one area, and operated that way. But now I'm wondering if > maybe what I am thinking is 'understanding the whole' and not getting > upset about some things (I don't mean upset' but not getting really > pissed, because I know there is always another side) that I am really > not confronting, or haven't, that it's just plain not okay, no matter > what! True. The whole is composed of detail and attention to the details determins the quality of the whole. When people not-is the wrongness in the details because of the importance of the whole, they actually sacrifice the quality of the whole. The correct policy would be the exact opposite. > How does one separate the real squirrels from the ones out here that > have honest disagreements with out-tech? Or how does one know the real > truth? How does someone who loves Scientology, and wants to get up the > bridge, proceed when some things within the church are not real to > them; or honestly know the C/S that is given to them is correct, and > not just for the money ... and a thousand other questions. I realize > as I am writing this that you cannot give me the answers, I need to > really decide for myself but perhaps give me your opinion. The answer is in knowing the tech well and in having personal observation of what does and doesn't work. The old training emphasised trying and experimenting and observing and discussing the tech and finding out for yourself what worked and what was true. Later, these things were considered to be "squirrel" activities. I use the label "standard tech" to refer to the modern subset of LRH tech in use in the orgs. Even that has gone through a number of major variations over the years. The original standard tech issued by LRH in 1968 was what we now call "quickie tech" and it didn't work very well. Modern standard tech works better but it doesn't produce OTs. The standard tech of the early 70s (the original expanded grades) was probably the better variation. Standard stable grade EPs were usually achieved in about 25 hours each in those days and it seems to take about 100 hours now for the same amount of case gain and total TA action per grade. Besides standard tech, there are all the various flavors of the older LRH tech. Most of the so called "squirrels" are simply carrying forward other LRH research lines that were abandonded when the first standard tech outlawed all the other LRH tech. Note that 90 percent of the tech in use by the CofS today was not part of the original 1968 standard tech and therefore was considered squirrel at that time (the processes existed but could not be used). Ron always had the idea of having standard procedures so that one could get repeatable results. But having one standard lineup didn't invalidate the other lineups which also worked. The 1953-4 ultimate levels concern how to invent process commands as you go along. The entire push in the 1950s is to be able to carry on the research oneself. Even as late as 1965 (see the SHSBC tapes), the rules are only for the students and beginners because they do not have enough judgement and experience. The old definition of squirrel is altering the tech so as to make it unworkable. The only squirrel group declared in the 1950s was E-therapy. They were using hypnotism to implant a "manic" based on copying an experiment of Ron's which failed. Most or all of the modern "squirrel" groups are not squirrel by the old definitions. Many are older flavors of standard tech. The definition of squirrel changed in 1965 to attack anyone who was altering the tech in a workable manner or trying to continue the research line. It was further altered in 1968 to attack anyone who was delivering standard tech outside of the orgs auspices. Your best criteria in evaluating the tech delivered by any group is to a) look at the results produced, and b) evaluate it based on the axioms and other basics which hold true for all implementations of workable tech. This holds true for current orthodox CofS standard tech as well as for any of the "standard" or "non-standard" freezone groups. And on that criteria, the current CofS is only marginal, falling short of optimum results. Things like the obsession with sec checking, the chronic overrun of processes and levels, and the excessively motivatorish OT lineup place them on the edge of workability rather than showing them to be a mecca of technical perfection. > For some reason your communications are very real to me and as someone > on the inside trying to handle things instead of disconnecting I > admire that and trust you as you are taking such > responsibility!!!!!!!!! Thank you . > I do have a specific question I would like you to answer, if you could > please also, and that is: As a natural clear I remember asking "how > does a natural clear happen?" They referred me to ("they" being the > DofP) to a bulletin or directive (I can't remember which) years ago. > It had somethng in it about not agreeing. For the life of me I cannot > remember where that is and I would like to locate it again. I believe > it was in the tech vols, but it was not red-on-white. Do you know what > that might be? I do remember it was the bottom two paragraphs on a > page that was on the left side. The only natural clear reference in the new tech volumes is on page 450 of volume XI in the bulletin of 5 MAR 1979 RB (revised 2 Dec 85) titled "DIANETIC CLEAR FALSE DECLARES". This is the one which forbids declaring a clear "achived in other practices". The only paragraph about natural clear is "Technically, a very few thetans have never been anything but Clear. These few didn't 'go Clear' on anything; they have simply always been Clear. When a natural Clear is found, it should be so stated. To assign this condition to some other practice is a suppression of Dianetics and Scientology". I checked the earlier versions as well and this paragraph is the same (the revisions simply added more threats of Comm Ev for allowing false Dianetic Clear attests). Your reference on "not agreeing" sounds like it is something from the 1952-4 period, especially if it was not an HCOB but was in the tech volumes (most of the 1950s material is black on white). The Philadelphia Doctorate Course especially (1952) worked to drill the PC in disagreeing so that they could blow the bank by ceasing to agree with it. I can't guess at the exact reference, but you might find it by looking through 1952-4 in the tech vols. When Dianetic clear first came out, there were a lot of people who found that they had gone clear in earlier practices during earlier lifetimes. But this tended to validate some of the Tibetan and Zen practices as having made a clear on rare occasions. These were sometimes hard to find because clear by itself does not actually produce good wholetrack recall (self analysis usually works like dynamite on a clear to open up wholetrack). But the people who found these points on their track were generally very happy with them. Natural clear was certainly used as a way to handle people who really had gone clear in earlier practices. If it happened long ago, then it certainly could seem to them that they could always have been clear. There could also be real natural clears. I could see it on the basis of people who never agreed to the clearing course implant or who missed the implant. I could also imagine it occuring on some other basis having to do with never having agreed to force or whatever. I can even imagine wilder ideas. There is also the problem of the definition of clear. I would restate it in accordance with the 1958 materials, to be the ability to confront the force in mental image pictures. That will undo the stimulous response A=A mechanism (and give you a moment of free choice before an ARCX or whatever). But note that it is not the end of all abberation although it is a very high state. I have written a good bit about that already. For yourself, you will know the truth as you develope more Itsa and awareness of the track. As I said earlier, self analysis can open up wholetrack like crazy on a clear. And self clearing chapter 6 will probably do even better. You can also run the clearing course implant when you feel ready. There always used to be a rerun of it in the lineup after clear. This was OT 1 for a very brief time, and then was OT 4 until the old OT levels were removed in favor of doing Nots. It will probably be the new OT 9. The purpose of the level was to revisit the CC implant so that one could handle it in a casual manner and proof oneself up against ever being implanted again. I was dianetic clear (actually went clear on power processing), and missed the DCSI (I was already on my OT levels when it came out). It wasn't until I did the old OT 4 with its running of the CC platens that I was certain of the clear state. Almost every item just FNed, but occasionally a pair of items would read spectacularly (2 or 3 TA divisions). My theory is that these few were the real charge that I had had before the CC implant and which allowed the implant to "take" and group together the random bits of charged areas that I had had before the implant and make an A=A with all sorts of other things that hadn't been charged. Note that at this point I don't think that clear comes from errasing the CC platen. I think that it makes clears by raising one's confront of the force on implant items to the point where one blows the bank. Just as you get a Dianetic clear by gradient confront of force in engrams. And just as you sometimes get a clear on power by confronting sources until you realize that you are mocking up the force (not accepted in the latest Dianetic Clear interpretations, but stated explicitly on an LRH tape in 1965). > I would like to have more comm with you on some other areas but I will > save those communications for another time as this one sure is lengthy > ... > > Hope to hear from you soon. > > Love, > > Nancy I tend to write lengthy comms too, probably because I only post periodically and I have a lot saved up to say. This kind of comm is really good for the people hiding on the sidelines, so let me encourage you to write more. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - Another News Site Needed ANOTHER NEWS SITE NEEDED Homer Wilson Smith has done a fantastic job in making newsact.lightlink.com available as a free and open NNTP site which carries the alt.religion.scientology and alt.clearing.technology newsgroups and furthermore keeps them for a nice long time and does not accept cancels. Also, he runs Lazarus to keep us informed of the Cancel Bunny and other dangers. But much of Zenon's recent tech fest postings did not make it to lightlink. They either did not propogate out of europe or they were otherwise blocked without the cancels showing up in Lazarus. This was not particular to lightlink. Only a few showed up in other American open NNTP servers and even dejanews did not get them all. Picking up the full set required finding open NNTP hosts in europe (there are some good ones). And the binaries were a further problem because neither lightlink nor dejanews carries binaries and few open NNTP hosts carry them. I have said many times that the freezone (and critics too) need multiple sources to ruin the CofS's foolish policy of trying to handle things by spotting the single source. We need that here too. What is needed is an able volenteer comparable to Homer that can put up a european open NNTP server that would just carry the scientology & FZ newsgroups while rejecting cancels and keeping a longer timeperiod than the general open NNTP hosts. Ideal would be if they co-ordinated with Homer to update each other to guarantee good intercontinental propogation. Also ideal would be if they carried alt.binaries.scientology as well as ARS and ACT (and maybe also Hilderun's alt.spiritual.enhancement). Note that I'm only talking about carrying a few newsgroups and allowing read only access (not posting), so this is not as daunting a task as bringing up a full function news server. Any takers? Thank you, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - About Fear (Attn Andy and Lakis) ABOUT FEAR (Attn Andy and Lakis) On 4 Apr 98, Andy responded to my earlier post on subject "Super Scio Tech - Stage Fright (Attn Lakis)" I snipped his quote of my earlier post (where I was responding to a question from Lakis about state fright) since it is fairly long and can be found in the pilot archives at FZA. > Pilot: Very nice tip,but I thought Lakis had something more basic in > mind, like HOW does one eliminate the actual BASIS for this seemingly > absurd extreme fear that most people seem to have. E.g, how the hell > did it get created in the first place, and is there no auditing > technique to get to the basis of it? What a wonderful thing, and how > beneficial to average people, if one could routinely eliminate the > mechanism itself. I once erased an engram re negative feelings about > having wealth which had to do with seemingly having experienced (as a > shark--sounds nuts) being attacked by another shark while eating. So, > as an animal, you don't go around flaunting the prey you have just taken > down. It tends to get ripped out of your mouth and you might be > attacked in the process. As strange as this would sound to those who > have never experienced past-track incidents, that was a very meaningful > bit of "feeling/insight" I reached at the bottom of several incidents. > > A similar perplexity, for me, is how in the world is it that I blush > involuntarily? What is controlling this without MY intention? It is an > automatism of some sort. Shouldn't we be able to gain control over such > automatisms, not by mind tricks alone, but by actually getting to the > mechanism and eliminating it? > > Those are the angles that would definitely interest me, and perhaps > Lakis and others. Any thoughts, knowledge? > > Thanks, > Andy Obviously one could do some incident running, such as R3R, using an initial command such as locate an incident that could have caused that feeling. But if one is running solo, the accessibility factor is reduced. So one might not be able to reach incidents where it was caused (rather than simply keyed in) unless one soften the area up first with some lighter conceptual processes that raised one's confront of fear and of being in front of a crowd. I put incident running fairly deep in the self clearing book for that reason. Interestingly enough, the really basic whys will be in the conceptual band. The person will have made postulates and have considerations in the area long before he could have any heavy incidents on the subject. But this would be so early on the track that its usually out of reach. That is why the supposedly "light" conceptual processes really work to reduce charge in the area without going after the incidents directly. These are things that are so basic that you can ignore the existance of incidents and still get somewhere. But you have to get through the force band and start reaching early track before you can get erasures instead of key-outs on these things. As for automatic mechanisms, there is a huge area of stuff to handle on the subject of machinery and I've only begun to scratch the surface myself. There is some discussion of this in the Super Scio book. Most of the machinery goes back at least 3 or 4 universes, and we wouldn't let go of it because it is useful. What is needed is debugging and regaining control rather than erasure or eradication. The easiest trick is to take an automaticity and alternately make it more and less as best you can until some control begins to come back. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - To Azeric On An Intro Book TO AZERIC ON AN INTRO BOOK On 28 Apr 98, azeric asked on subject "PILOT What About an intro--public book???" > I have downloaded and printed out the Self-Clearing book and I like it a > lot. I have enjoyed doing some of the drills. I appreciate the effort > you have put into it and Super Scio. Thank you. > I was thinking the other day that the Self-Clearing book may be too > steep a gradient for new people. I'm talking about the people who do not > have a > Scientology history and who may have just gotten in to pursuing > spiritual things. This can be the person who is looking for 'answers' > because they are disatisfied or they are simply interested in the 'New > Age' stuff. I originally wrote it with the intention of making it comprehensible for non-Scientologists. The Super Scio book is the one that assumes tons of Scientology knowledge. Of course other introductory books are possible, and I'll probably write more eventually, but this was my best shot at the time. > I think a new person may 'reject' the book because some of the topics > are too out-reality--- the stuff like implants, entry into this > universe, and spiritual fragments. That is why those are very late in the book. > So-- I was thinking a lower gradient but effective 'Intro Book' could be > made by cutting out some of these things out of the 'Self Clearing > Book'. And then the book could be put out for download on its own > website-- without all the other Advanced Reference materials. And it > could be posted out on the spirituality, meditation newsgroups. I have no objection to people breaking the book into 2 or 3 segments so that they can pass the first segment around, as long as the other parts are available somewhere (such as FZA) and people know where to look when they need them. Advanced New Age writings already have mention of entities, demons, other universes, higher dimensions, and even time resets. These things are not unknown although the level of understanding is usually poor (vague ideas of a 4th dimension rather than a good mathematical understanding of 4 dimensional geometry for example). Little bits of these things do show up at lower levels occasionally and it would be wrong to let people flounder when they hit one of these things. If somebody plays around long enough even with "beginners" processes, eventually they will run into an entity or something. If they don't have any clues, they can end up worrying about demons or whatever. Or they can end up like the orgs, xenuphobic and blaming case on dead space aliens. A sensible orientation to this stuff keeps you from getting into trouble. So the problem is to have the material easily available but not to push it. > Then, at some point--- a person would have success with the book and > look for further materials by you and would find it at FreeZone America > or somewhere. > The COS does this with the the intro books like DMSMH, the DIV6 courses, > etc. > What do you think?? Feel free to spread around the first section of the book. It might help to emphasize that the later chapters are not really more advanced but just more complex than the earlier ones. I took every opportunity to put simple but powerful advanced processes in the early chapters. What I call the attention process (known as a locational in Scientology) done on a theta rather than a mest level (in other words, with the eyes closed or on remote locations or spotting points on the time track or whatever) is actually one of the most advanced OT drills known. Eventually I will have to write a true introductory book. Self Clearing is actully an advanced book with a complete roadmap stated in the simplest non-Scientology manner possible. And I have no objection to other people writing books too. Any popular subject has hundreds of different introductory books by different authors, and no single approach is going to be right for everybody. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - Continuing the Y2K Discussion (Attn ndc & Allen) CONTINUING THE Y2K DISCUSSION (Attn ndc and Allen) On 26 Apr 98, "N. D. Culver" replied on subject "Super Scio - The Year 2000 Bug" > Allen wrote: > > > In article , Pilot says... > > > > > > > > > > > >THE YEAR 2000 BUG > > > > > > .. > > > >I work in the software industry and I am an expert in this > > > >area, so I think that my analysis is more accurate than the > > > >trolls and rumors that are flying around. There are other > > > >good sources but you need to be reading high tech publications > > > >to see these things firsthand. > > > > I think you are being dangerously frivolous when you dismiss that > > discussion this way. You are not the only softeware or computer guy > > here, not are you the only one who reads tech magazines. > > Yeah but the Pilot is a sweetness and light kinda guy. > You have to compare his y2k evaluation with his Church Reform > propaganda, with his constant advice giving, same ole same ole. > His platens are good, though it appears that they were produced > in a different era. > > ndc Actully I try to walk the middle road, neither going into a panic nor ignoring dangerous things. Sometimes I do push an optimistic postulate, but I'll usually say so. For the year 2000 computer bug, the industries that are most threatened (banking and so forth) are the ones who have been spending the bucks to protect against it. The chaos and confusion will not come from them but from the businesses that do not specialize in finances, because they are the ones who have delayed too long and have deluded themselves with wishfull thinking. So if the computer problem were the whole story, I would feel safe in saying that things might be a bit shaky but it will blow over. But I said last time that I couldn't predict the non-computer things that might occur. There is some potential for real crazyness because of the significance placed upon the date. If it were up to me, I'd leagalize marajuana effective on Jan 1, 2000 and put some pornography on network TV that month and things like that to reduce the possiblity of riots. But I'm sure that the government will not be that smart and will probably push things in the opposite direction so as to increase rather than decrease the danger. In this area (social unrest), I will make optimistic postulates, but I will also say that you should cover your ass just in case. By the way, I don't understand what you mean by "produced in a different era". Could you clarify. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - Answering Lakis On Resets ANSERING LAKIS ON RESETS On 2 May 98, Lakis asked on subject "TO PILOT: Super Scio, ...Nixon launched a nuclear war in 1963...." > Dear Pilot hi! > > Somewhere at the end of 'Cosmic History' under 'where we are now', > you mention "...storing copies of the 3D space sideways along the 4th > axis....in 1963 when president Richard M. Nixon launched a nuclear war > that destroyed the planet...the prison machinery was used to restore a > copy of the Earth taken in 1957...." > > Could you develop that a little, in order to shed some more light into > the whole thing, so I can see how it fits together with the rest. > > Manipulation of time, and the whole of the planet without us noticing > anything, wow!... > > What happened with the years '57-'63?... > > Did Ron know about it, too? > > I would definitely like a fresh look at it and your commnents. > > with arc, > Lakis Full details of what I ran are in Super Scio chapter 10 section 12. I ran this quite a few years ago. At the time I hadn't heard (or maybe just hadn't noticed) anyone elses theories on this thing. Later I found that Filbert also feels that we have lived through these times before. And some of the other freezoners have reported similar things. And right after I ran it and mentioned it to a friend, he pointed out that this was in Bennet's (a student of Gurdieff at the turn of the century) theories of time. And right after that it seemed to be turning up in SciFi ("Replay" for example) and movies ("Groundhog Day" for example), but maybe I just wasn't noticing those things before. Note that as I see it, it could only be done on a complete planetary basis and only at a time when there was so much dying that we would all agree to be implanted rather than have time carry forward. As far as I know, Ron didn't know about this idea and doesn't mention it anywhere. And I still consider it to be a speculative idea despite the confirmation of meter reads and so forth. So I only allow for it rather than insisting upon it. ARC, The Pilot PS. On another thread Lakis asked about my sources on some things I said about Ron's death. I was stating my own interpretation of data that was all over the internet last year. There are pictures, a corners report, affadavids, etc. I think these are still up at various critics sites, but I'm not certain of the URLs. You could ask politely on ARS for where to find the stuff. ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - MORE ON REALITY GENERATORS MORE ON REALITY GENERATORS See my previous post on this topic. On 24 Apr 98, ralph@atnet.at (Ralph Hilton) posted on subject "Glass and Tar and Pilot's Reality Generator." > This seems to need a bit of clarification. I've been hesitant > about discussing WBRs upper levels on clear-l as Bill wished > them kept confidential and made available to people as they were > ready for them. I therefore won't get into posting his material. > For those who have run his levels the reference to glass and > blackness is in his issue of 8 Jan 1987 "OT13 Short Form C/S". > > I'm juggling with different cosmologies. Sometimes one fits, > sometimes another. So the following is how it appears at the > moment to me, not an attempt to create a new universal reality model. > > The last few months I've been running something similar to what > Pilot talked about in the Reality Generator post. It has also been > hitting glass, ice, fire, tar and such manifestations. > It seems to me that what WBR hit was only part of a much bigger level. I really wish you would define these things. > This universe seems to be the end result of centillions of years > of theta activities which eventually became condensed in a series > of 6 mest type universes. Is that 6 in a declining sequence (like I have in Super Scio chapter 2) or a parallel set of 6. > Outside of that by a couple of levels appear these dichotomies. > I'll go with Pilot's terminology and approach it from that angle. > > So lets say that reality is created on a multidimensional basis > by a series of reality generators. > > Magnificence was one of the items I hit but I didn't connect it > when Homer first posted. Then reading Pilot's summary associated things. > > For me the dichotomy that came up for the "most recent" (they seem > to have a pseudo linear progression aspect) was "Total Freedom". > The "previous" RG came up with "Total Slavery". I had started seeing the RG mechanism as a sort of pump. Something pushes in magnificence or freedom and then something sucks it out. The two together form a pump. If you just mockup magnificence, then its just there, unchanging. But if you have an in and out again, you have constant change. The universe lies in a sort of flux between the two, with continual injection of magnificence, it swirls around a bit, and then gets sucked out again. When I read your mention of freedom/slavery, I suddenly saw it as a double pump rather than a simple one. One pair pushes in freedom and sucks it out again. Another closely associated pair pushes in slavery and sucks it out again. So you have both in varying quantities and in a constant state of change. It makes for much more variety and becomes very difficult to as-is because the freedom and slavery interact intensly. Note that unmocking freedom is not really the same as generating slavery, but they are close, so the whole mess sticks together. > Within the "Total Slavery" RG I get a universe within which > Scientology is/was developed for the purpose of enslavement. > Much of the theta freed upon on running it required corrections > for suppressive "auditing". Within it there appears a planet Earth. > An OT3 type incident was reading heavily but with different > volcano locations. East Grinstead read as one. (I know this sounds > crazy to many but its what I get reads and blowing of charge on) When I was running the Penalty Universes, there was a mockup of each one that was used in Inc 2 and which had a specific Inc 2 location that would read on the meter. It was a key-in that was included in Inc 2. But I kept also finding a second location that was in a different incident 2 which was on another almost identical copy of the earth with some variations. There seem to have been lots of copies of Earth as we know it (sort of), except that this one is late on the chain and therefore is itself a copy. Eventually I had an original mockup of Earth reading as having been created in the home universe era. > Each RG seems to have encysted theta in it of one's own creation. Yes. And possibly also fragments of oneself that one puts in there to keep it mocked up. > I am running them by broadly putting attention on the theta > encysted in the generator and running power processes 4, 5 and 6. > So far they have all dissolved on PrPr6. Some of the best processes known. I've been simply making them generate more and less until something loosens up. > After running one there is a period when theta returns from > the RG and residual charge sometimes has to be handled, such > as out-ruds, out-int, NOTs before the theta returns to static > and one's attention is freed up from continuing to create it. I do think that this area has the potential for handling the compulsive create which holds us trapped. > So far I've run 46 of these. It seems that there are thousands. I hope that its a bit less, maybe 256 or 512 of these sets of 4 (mockup and unmock of something and of its opposite). I think that most or all of the 64 dichotomies that showed up in the Agreements Universe Implant (section 8 of chapter 8 of the Super Scio book) are also in the set of reality generators. > -- > > Ralph Hilton I don't see these things as having a time sequence. I think that there is a pattern of how they sit next to one another but its more like an electrical circuit where it doesn't matter which components were soldered on first, but simply what connects to what. You build the whole circuit and then you energize the entire thing pretty much as a unit. There is a bit of propogation delay and warmup (you have to generate some freedom before you can start it unmocking freedom), but its not like working a GPM platen where one thing brings about another. I tried to find a larger interrelationship beyond the block of 4. It seemed to me that the Strong/Weak set was very close to the Courage/Fear set and that the two squares might form a cube. In contrast, Beauty/Ugly seemed close to both, but closer to Courage than to Strength but not as close as Courage and Strong were to each other (you can get ugly strong men for example). But I don't have much of a handle on a larger pattern yet. A friend of mine was interested and wanted to try running a bit of this. I asked what item he wanted to handle and he said degredation. So I asked what the other side might be and he realized it was majestic, possibly stirred up by my telling him about Homer's item. He didn't have any reality on spotting a reality generator or reaching one or making it emit more or less. So we decided to simply try running concepts on the area to see what would happen. So I formulated the following set of processes (the exact wording was based on 2 way comm and what seemed to indicate to him) - 1a) get the idea of being more majestic 1b) get the idea of being less majestic 2a) get the idea of having more unmocking of majesty 2b) get the idea of having less unmocking of majesty 3a) get the idea of being more degraded 3b) get the idea of being less degraded 4a) get the idea of having more unmocking of degredation 4b) get the idea of having less unmocking of degredation Once we had agreed on the commands and wording we went into a formal session and ran these as repetative processes (4 processes with 2 alternating commands each). They ran really well and there were big cogs at the end (but I'm not going to discuss what he actually ran or cognited on). Each process in the series ran much faster than the one before it and produced bigger cogs than the one before it. It seemed like we pushed through most of the mass and charge on the first process, but most of the big gains came at the very end after having looked at the entire set. I like to spot the thing radiating down through the time track and having it radiate more and less, but the above seemed to work nicely and gives an introductory gradient. Another point I mentioned in my earlier post was that I feel that the whole thing was built as a weapon and we swallowed it about like one tries to swipe the honey from a beehive while attempting to avoid being stung. That left me with the idea that there should be simple natural versions of this kind of thing. And it occured to me that that is how we dream. A dream will only have a few things running. If your are going to have a sexy dream, you don't also have a freedom/slavery generator running at the same time. It seems to me that this is the natural mechanism. You mockup a dream by setting a few generators in motion rather than by doing any detailed orchestration (because that would be too predictable and unsatisfying). But you only set up a few instead of having every damn thing running at once. Of course this would be stuff that you do unconsciously, but it would be the normal way that a being would put something interesting there to experience, in contrast with having an overwhelming array of stuff jammed down his throat. Of course I'm not flat on all of these myself, so I'm hypothesizing here. Another interesting point is that the research on these things seems to be leaping forward based on a whole bunch of us exchanging ideas. It really puts the lie to the KSW idea of singular sources. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - To ID32 On Ethics Conditions TO ID32 ON ETHICS CONDITIONS On 23 Apr 98, ID32 placed a message on the FZA bulletin Board on the subject "PILOT: Question on ethics formulas" > Hello all, > > Good news! According to a recent post on ACT, The Pilot may read > this board! > > To the Pilot, > > Thank you for your work. I'm not sure who the bad guys are, but > I know you'e one of the good guys! > > I do not post on ACT cause of anonymity problems, which are much > easier to deal with here, but I do read ACT, anxiously waiting > for your bi-weekly posts, so if you get this, feel free to answer > it on ACT. > > I was hoping that you could shed some light on how to do enemy > and treason, in the same manner that the little additions you made > to locational and touch that in the self-clearing book totally > changed and made workable those processes. (spotting precise > points and moving briskly from one to the next> touch that, and > feel it a bit...) > > Aside from doing the whole bridge, can you suggest anything for > "Find out that you are"? and "Find out who you really are"? > > There is further on this question way down the list under "I need > ethics formula help", but it comes down to the basic question above. > > Thank you for anything you can do on this. > > ID32 Note that I do take a look at the FZA board occasionally but people shouldn't count on it as a reliable means of reaching me. Also, it is difficult for me to save and convert the message into a form that I can reply to. The same is true of the Pilot's Guestbook. I read that one more often and I find it quite encouraging and I think it helps encourage others. But it is extremely difficult for me to pull messages off of it to quote in replys. Also note that my identity is not known to the FZA webmaster and I do not have any easier access than you do to the messages that are posted. I do not post on the board myself because that would be less secure than the current method that I am using to reach the newsgroups. Right now I am keeping my identity secret even from trustworthy people in the freezone so as to discourage OSA from attacking them or infiltrating them as a means of learning my identity. Eventually that will change, but I'm having too much fun driving OSA crazy right now. ---- As to ethics formulas, the first problem is that I am not really happy with the lower condition formulas as given. They came out in 1967 at a time when Ron seemed to be very enturbulated. Other things from the 1967-9 time period have turned out to be flawed, including quickies and the original OT 3. In 1970 there was a major correction and improvement (expanded grades, and even OT 3 gets partially fixed). The concurrent correction to ethics was simply to cancel all penalties for lower conditions and to almost drop the use of lower conditions entirely (these things came back later). I am not saying that these things are entirely wrong, but simply that they are flawed and were put in as a solution to the problem of Scientology having gone into a collapse due to quickies and so forth. See the Scientology Reformer's Homepage for a discussion of what was happening in the organization at that time. I have already written about the liability condition having this major bug of not evaluating a person's past contributions but only looking at what he has done in the present situation. The doubt condition has a major flaw in that it calls for a black and white yes/no evaluation. This only works if it is a situation that can be evaluated accurately on on black/white logic and fails if infinity valued logic is needed or if there are two distinct sources blended into the collection of data being evaluated. I went through many doubt and liability conditions in the old days and so I have lots of experience with trying to apply these in practice, and I was at one time an ethics officer (briefly) and have some experience trying to get others to do these as well. The above are fatal flaws that gave terrible trouble both to myself and others. As to my comment about the doubt formula, eventually I reached a point in those days when I did one and realized that almost everything on the positive side had to do with tech and almost everything on the negative side had to do with policy and the organization. So two doubt formulas are needed, one for whether to support tech or not and a different one for whether to support the organization or not, and you can see the end result in my current operating basis. I do not have the same level of experience with the enemy and treason formulas, but I suspect that they are flawed as well. The enemy formula is obviously a valence process aimed at getting the person out of a valence (such as being an "evil psych" or a "freedom fighter") and simply being himself. The basic answer would be "Me" or "an immortal spirit" or something of that nature and it bears a great deal of similarity to the basic NOTS process. But it has this basic assumption that the org is good and represents freedom and therefore anyone who is fighting with them must be out of valence and stuck in some identity that is hostile to people becoming free. And that just doesn't hold up in practice. So the condition is often wrongly assigned or is assigned due to a game condition or an ARCX and the formula does not address the right why. This one would only work if the person is fighting wrongfully because they are out of valence. As to the formula itself, there are other ways to get to the same awareness of self which are probably better than "find out who you really are". A good one is the simple trick that was often used by introductory lecturers and which comes from the 1950s tapes. You ask the person to mockup or imagine that they are looking at a cat (or a picture of a cat). Then you ask him "Who is looking at the cat?". For treason, the hidden assumption is that the person is totally unconscious as a being and that finding out that he exists will wake him up. But real cases of treason are generally people who are consciously working for the other side in a conflict and are busily playing secret agent games. Or they represent vast ARCXs. An example of that is Benidict Arnold who was the top general in the American Revolution (better than Washington actually) and who felt that the revolutionary government had betrayed him (his men starved because of profiteering and pilfered supplies done by the business men who were supposedly supporting the revolution). His actions were wrong, but there is no hint of unconsciousness and the treason formula would not have helped the situation. The correct handling would be lots of grade 2 and 3 processing because the charged area was O/W and ARCXs. If you think that you might be in treason and can actually think about that, then obviously you are not unconscious and already do know that you exist, so the formula is useless. I would suggest running grade 2 and 3 processes on the areas that you feel treasonous towards. Self Clearing has these kinds of processes in the middle chapters. In my opinion, I only use these things as a last resort if it doesn't seem possible to get tech in. If, for example, somebody cannot concieve of being a spiritual being and is totally inaccessible to tech for that reason, then you do want to get them to find out who they really are. This does not even mean that they are enemies necessarily, but it does mean that you have to find some way of waking them up if you want to do anything for them. There is the practical matter of considering that somebody is persona non grata because they are wrecking the place. But let's not confuse that with case or ideas of suppressives being out of valence. A simple adjudication of "is he destroying the place and harming beyond any help he has done" is enough to indicate that you'd better get him out the door fast. And liability is reasonable for making amends if he has a change of heart. And maybe the organization or individual who is on the other side of this better also take a look and see if they caused the other person to become a liability or brought on an attack in some manner. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - LEFT AND RIGHT METERS (Attn Homer) LEFT AND RIGHT METERS (Attn Homer) On 30 Apr 98, homer@lightlink.com posted on subject "Session" > Again I set up two meters, two Mark V's this time, one right handed > and one left handed, so the two dials were very close to each other > in the middlle, and the TA arms were easy to reach with both hands. > > Cans to the left hand meter in right hand, cans to the right > hand meter in left hand. > > Quite a difference in response. Right hand cans often > read earlier and deeper. I would see the left hand meter > needle go zooming into a fall, and then the right hand meter > would follow slowly lackadasically later. Reads that were instant > on the left hand meter were very latent on right hand meter. > > Sometimes needles were out of sync, left hand meter would > be rising slowly and right hand meter would be falling slowly. > > I have a feeling my right brain (left hands) is a bit > over audited, as the left hands is the hands I solo with. I may > have been doing better when I was using two hands, but I can't > write that way only voice record. > > Most of my solo was two handed for many years until recently > when I found that I could single hand solo and write things to > good effect. > > Now I wonder. > > In using two meters, eyes are rarely aimed at just one, thus > periphery vision comes into play. I can assess 'left brain, > right brain' and notice each meter read alone in turn. > > Two meters also made the session more lively, because when one > wasn't reading, the other one would be. With one meter it > would be considered a no read. When I nailed something, often > one meter would do the blow down, and then the other would > follow sort of as an after thought. > > Ta was a bit higher on one than the other. Session > was about service facs, computations, domination and suppresed > earlier/other/higher universes. > > Lots of mass and tension on throat and face over this. > > Homer This is really something. The thetan runs the body via the brain. We know the brain has a left/right bias, not being perfectly symetrical in its functions. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that the thetan's machinery that he uses to hook to the brain also has an asymetrical left/right bias. And we know from the 1952 HCL lectures that the entities have a left/right bias as well. But it never occured to me to think that the meter might read differently on the two sides. I hope that other people who have a matched pair of meters (I don't) will try this and post their observations. This might explain something I observed while researching platens and items (that is the only time I use a meter these days). Generally I use a one hand electrode when I'm first researching something because there is so much to write. But I always take a second verification pass through a newly researched platen to make sure I've got it FNing and haven't missed anything. And I always do that on two cans. And I usually find missed items or pairs of items (the usual read is a stopped FN when I hit a point where something was missed while going through the items). I had always assumed that I was simply running deeper on the verification pass and therefore things that had been unaccessible were now available. But it is quite possible that the missed items on the first pass were due to using a one handed electrode. I've always had a gut feeling that anything critical should be checked on two cans. Thank You, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - Whole Track WHOLE TRACK On 8 May 98, VoltR@ctinet.net (RDucharme) posted on subject "Whole Track and Past Lives" >At 02:28 PM 5/8/98 -0400, C. B. Willis wrote: >>Robert wrote: [posted by permission] >>> That we can run >>> charge out of whole track incidents doesn't mean we can relate to those >>> lives. >> >>This makes no sense to me. >> >>> I can clearly remember my childhood, but I can't remember being in >>> 17th century France, though I know I have been. >> >>Again, this comes across as a non-sequitur (I can't remember though I >>know I have been). >> >>- CBW > >I run charge out as pictures, not as memory. It's like watching a movie >produced by someone else, but it discharges nevertheless. > >If I can ever get a hold of a decent dianetic* auditor, my reality on that >may change. > >Robert > >* Dianetics: An ancient, early 50's type of processing that is no longer in >vogue, but which I'm trying desperately to help revive. It has been >superceded by the more flashy key-out processes that instantly disconnects >the pc from charge, like rudiments, date/locate, prep checks and N.U.T.s >(uh...pardon me N.O.T.s). Dianetics is still offered by the CoS to lure >people in and then they're led toward the "real processing" found on the >grades and "O.T. (hah!) levels. It's the grandest bait-and-switch tactic of >the Scientology world. Dianetics does a poor job of restoring memory. That is not really its purpose. It is a specific for handling heavily charged incidents rather than a good general recall technique. Robert's statement is typical and matches the way that I feel about many of the old lifetimes that I've touched by running a single incident in the lifetime. It is not good enough to restore the lifetime to conscious recall or put the incident in context. I also have a number of past lives which are in conscious recall (at least to some degree - about like I remember 2nd grade in this lifetime). Recall processes, especially recall of pleasure moments, is what opens this up. Dianetics helps because you stop flinching at the pain and force and sometimes you need to knock out the death or some other bad incident before you are willing to recall the lifetime. But running the incident doesn't usually restore recall of the lifetime unless you run recall techniques as well. To really get a lifetime back, you need to recall dozens or even hundreds of little incidents, and if you concentrate on remembering that many bad incidents in a lifetime, you'll shut it right back down again because you're stirring up too much misery. But if most of them are nice incidents, you become more and more willing to remember. Self Analysis, well done, opens up whole track recall. I tried to do an even better job at this in the Self Clearing Book in the early chapter on Recall. On a new person, the recall may be shallow and uncertain and some may need to run a bit of Dianetics before they can get very far. But on somebody who has run a lot of Dianetics and is no longer flinching at the pain and force in incidents, recall techniques work like dynamite to open up the whole track. Pick a lifetime that you have already run an incident in that you are certain of. Think of big wins, nice friends, good meals, asthetic sexual encounters, or whatever that might have happened at other times in that lifetime. Once you get a few dozen of these the whole thing should start coming into context and into conscious recall. It's like night and day, and you'll see the incident in a new light too. If I was looking back at this lifetime from a distance of a thousand years, running Dianetics would just get me through a nasty engram when I was in the hospital and would not even give me a clue as to the stuff I'm up to now. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== This set of 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 #31 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. ------------------