Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology From: pilot@hiddenplace.com (The Pilot) Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 34 - AUG 98 PILOT POSTS TO ARS/ACT Date: 14 Aug 1998 14:00:37 POST34.txt SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 34 - AUG 98 PILOT POSTS TO ARS/ACT ========================================== Contents: subj : Super Scio - CofS Stratedgy Change subj : Super Scio - About John Colletto subj : Super Scio - Roland's Sermon subj : Super Scio - Scriptures Needed (Attn Ralph) subj : Super Scio - FREEZONE DOES NOT MEAN CAPT BILL subj : Super Scio - United Free Zone Fellowship (Attn Joe) subj : Super Scio - Soup Cans (Attn Invis) subj : Super Scio - To Werner Erhardt subj : Super Scio - TO JESSIE PRINCE subj : Super Scio - To Whippersnapper subj : Super Scio - KARNO vs LENSKE subj : Super Scio - Answering Sassie10 subj : Super Scio - To Rod Keller On Ways To Leave subj : Super Scio - To Paul On Lions subj : Super Scio - Org Money Stupidity subj : Super Scio - To A-J On Cluelessness subj : Super Scio Humor - Laundry Balling subj : Super Scio Tech - Self Clearing More on Ch 3 (Attn Oleg) subj : Super Scio Tech - About The Admin Scale subj : Super Scio Tech - Japanese Translation (Attn NYKinjo) subj : Super Scio Tech - To Lars On Multidimensional Music subj : Super Scio Tech - GPM Research Truncation (Attn John Alexander) subj : Super Scio Tech - Ralph's Meter TA Calculations subj : Super Scio Tech - Minor Mistake in Tape Name (Attn Michael) subj : Super Scio Tech - THE DEAD ZONE subj : Super Scio Tech - KNOWINGNESS AND CREATION ========================================== subj : Super Scio - CofS Stratedgy Change COFS STRATEDGY CHANGE Top management has finally realized that silence is death. I don't know if they got this from reading early Hubbard or from my own writings about how the suppression of communication is killing them, but the light has finally dawned. Top management has finally learned that sticking your head in the sand makes an enticing target of your ass. So they know this. And what do they do with it? Black Scientology. Management and OSA are going to fix it so that they can talk about Xenu and the Freezone. And as a preliminary step, they further suppressed the public member's communications by blinding them with the net nanny. Do you see the hypocracy here? Its subtile and easy to miss. They do know that wearing blinders is bad for you. So they take theirs off and give thicker ones to the membership. Its the philosophy of tech for me and slavery for you and that is Black Scientology. The Xenu pickets are hurting them badly, so they are releasing "Revolt in the Stars". This lets them say that Xenu is just some of Ron's SciFi and start using the dreaded name without Xing it out. And they have this desprite longing to dead agent the freezone but they have kept it suppressed because they didn't want to accidentally promote the freezone to the membership. Now that the nanny is in place they are cutting loose with all the shit that they can throw. Suppressive use of the tech. They will give themselves more ability to communicate while working harder to suppress other's communication. I can only expect that such an evil purpose will backfire. There is an inherent conflict in operating this way. If your basic operation is to suppress communication, opening your mouth wider just makes more room for a bigger foot. Indeed we live in interesting times. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - About John Colletto ABOUT JOHN COLLETTO Since this is being discusses on ARS - The various accounts agree as to the broad outlines but seem to vary as to the details. This might be because the org worked at suppressing the data. It wasn't really a heavy cover up or anything heavy handed. Just a continual "It's out PR to talk about that" until the rumors died out. So here is my own two cents for what its worth, which is probably nothing. There is an apartment complex on Edgemont around the corner from Kaiser Permanente (Kaiser is on the opposite side of Sunset facing the complex). Around 1979 I was told that that was where John Colletto had his apartment and that that is where he shot himself. I heard this from multiple sources (lots of Scientologists lived on Edgement and there was a brief flurry of coffee shop discussions). But it is only a rumor. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Roland's Sermon ROLAND'S SERMON On 13 Aug 98, roland.rashleigh-berry@virgin.net posted on subject "Sermon on the Mount" > Cursed be the poor, for they are down-stat > Cursed be the hungry, for they are without ethics > Cursed be the sick, for they hath pulled in their afflictions > Cursed be the blind, for they have blinded others in ages past > Cursed be the old, for they art responsible for their fragility > Suffer little children who come unto me, for they produceth nothing > > There are many virtues, but the least of these is "Charity". > > If a man may strike you then strike yee both his cheeks > If a man doth criticize us, yea shalt we use the law to harras him > Those who oppose us shalt we dispose of quietly and without sorrow > For we are a religion, recogniseth as such by the government of the United > States of America. > > Amen This was heartbreaking. It is sad but true and epitomizes what is currently wrong in the orgs. I can't imagine that there is any current or former staff member who wouldn't feel a pain in his heart as he read this. Makes me feel like pounding on the doors of ASHO with a shepard's crock and yelling "Let my people go". Or perhaps throwing the money regs out of the temple. Thank You, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Scriptures Needed (Attn Ralph) SCRIPTURES NEEDED (Attn Ralph) On 13 Aug 98, ralph@atnet.at (Ralph Hilton) posted on subject "Plonking anons" > I see a lot of garbage from anonymous posters. Very true indeed. > While I can see that they provide the opportunity to repost > sacred scriptures it seems to me that the war is over as far > as that goes. Far from true. Where are the Class 8 tape transcripts for example. I would love a set. And the org is actively knocking things offline as always. The website that had the PDC tapes and was collecting FZ Bible posts and carrying the books posted by Zenon seems to have disappeared. I haven't mentioned the URL before least I draw OSA's attention to it, but it was http://www.anthrax.net/cos/library/ and the entire domain seems to be gone. Even if you or I have something, there are continual new people coming online and the fence sitters need to see that they can pick up the materials without risking exposure by having to contact somebody (because that feels like a commitment rather than sticking your toe in the water). > If someone wants the sacred scriptures they are now available. Many key items are available but far from everything. For example, the Solo Nots HCOBs haven't been posted. I don't have them and I wouldn't mind seeing them again myself. I did describe what was in them (burried in a post in last year's archives - I didn't want to get OSA's attention onto it) but I'm sure people would like the real bulletins. I know they made it into the freezone because while I was at Flag once security suddenly was beefed up tremendously. They used to let you check out the entire pack and take it to your room and then you couldn't anymore. I asked and was told that the previous week somebody had blown with the materials. > I received a mail recently from someone in Cyprus who could > put the scriptures up on a site with no repurcussions. Yes please. And hopefully all the old tech vols (which never showed up at a web site but only appeared in the hard to get binaries newsgroup) and the BC transcripts (which have never been posted) and all the FZ bible stuff (only some was up at anthrax) and whatever else shows up in the future. > Recently there has been a fair bit of garbage about the FZ > posted by people from anon accounts. Too True. But some bailouts from CofS also show up as anons. > My current inclination is to KF all anons. > Maybe so. Depends on the discomfort level and net capabilities. I prefer to set my newsreader to pull headers only and let it download the ones I feel like reading as I click on them. That way I can scan everything quickly without a killfile. Generally I sort by subject and display it unthreaded so I can just jump into the middle of threads and pull one from somebody whose opinion is more useful (and they often repost the earlier sections). Even when OSA was doing its super spam I could pull the scroll bar past thousands of messages pretty damn quick. When I had a slow link I used to go make a cup of coffee while the newsreader pulled all the headers during the big OSA spam. > Ralph Hilton One of the big worries for fence sitters is whether or not they can get the tech outside of the CofS. Not just the OT levels but all the tech. I'm hoping that some other anons will get onboard and start posting more of the missing pieces. FZ Bible has come through a number of times but they are slow and I wonder if they are having technical difficulties. Unlike some people we know, I really want to have the research line and the things that I'm building on highly visible and easily accessible. Unfortunately my primary sources are mostly old ACCs rather than modern HCOBs and those are damn hard to get. FZ Bible has already posted things that you can't get from the orgs, and even when the org does have them the prices are astronomical. BTW, I think you're doing a fantastic job on ARS and with the helpline and e-meter design. Much Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - FREEZONE DOES NOT MEAN CAPT BILL FREEZONE DOES NOT MEAN CAPT BILL Some folks over at the CofS are trying to do an A = A and equate Capt. Bill and the organizations he founded with the entirity of the Freezone. They do this for the purpose of having the freezone as a single target which they can then ridicule and dead agent. CofS is expert at attacking single targets, whether with truth or with lies. They will probe for every weakness and their ethical code tells them that it is good to attack and do harm to supposed "SPs". What they can't attack is an idea of freedom. There is nothing to shoot at. So instead they try to make the idea into the MEST (matter, energy, space, time) of a single organization and then use that organization as a punching bag. Freezone is an idea. It is the idea of free and unrestrained Scientology practiced as you see fit. We owe Capt. Bill a debt of gratitude for having the brilliance to coin the term Freezone. But he was far from the first Freezoner and his organizations are only one example out of the endless flavors of Scientology which are springing up in all directions. The early Scientology research line opened endless doors. It was not a single standard tech but a hundred beginings, a scattering of seeds that could grow into a new age of spiritual enlightenment. But as the seeds began to sprout, one plant began to strangle all the others least it have to suffer the labors of honest competition. I do not think that the tech practiced as "Standard Tech" is bad. They have a lot of good processes and there is still some good auditing being done in the CofS. In fact many freezone practictioners use standard tech and do quite well with it. But the idea of having one and only one standard tech and destroying all other tech is bad. Ninty percent of Scientology cannot be practiced in a Scientology organization without being declared as a Squirrel and Suppressive. And anybody who has the gaul to think for themselves and actually originate processes (as Ron used to teach his ACC students to do) is considered to be the most vile villian. Capt. Bill had the guts to stand up in plain sight of a fire breathing dragon and for that he deserves our respect. But the freezone encompasses all manifestations of the tech. Everything the CofS has plus more besides; a forrest rather than a single tree. The correct analogy is to the Protestant movement with the CofS playing the part of the old Catholic church at the time of the Spanish Inquisition. There are many flavors of Protestantism and similarly there are many flavors of Freezone. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - United Free Zone Fellowship (Attn Joe) UNITED FREE ZONE FELLOWSHIP (Attn Joe) On 10 Aug 98, joeharr@cybertours.com (Joe Harrington) posted on subject "United Free Zone Fellowship" > Creed of the United Free Zone Fellowship (It can be found on the discussion board at fza.org so I'm not going to repeat the contents here) This is really excellent. Let's go for it. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Soup Cans (Attn Invis) SOUP CANS (Attn Invis) On 13 Jul 98, "The invisible 1 " asked on subject "Where is the soup?" > Hi, all, > I was reading a post about the e-meter, and a question came to mind: > Where is the soup/vegetable that (supposedly) went into the cans? Or are > they empty cans, bought from a factory? If they are actual soup cans, > then why aren't the members getting the food that went inside? > Just another question from > --The invis. The cans contain clam chouder, therefore it would be canibalism to allow the staff to eat it. Instead it is burried at sea with the appropriate ceremonies. Sorry, just another joking and degrading fit. I don't refer to Scientologists as clams, after all, I am one myself. But it sure seems like an appropriate label for those clueless fanatics who worship Hubbard's words literally instead of trying to understand the subject. Scientologists who actually study the tech know that the clam business in History of Man was a simple mistake based on quickie research. Hubbard found an incident of being a clam on somebody and coaxed a few more people into the incident and then wrote a book based on extremely shaky data. When he finally got back to this area in 1963, he finds that the clam business is an implanted picture. (reference - the Errors in Time tape that FZ Bible put onto the net recently). Again this is shaky research based on a few people poking at a whole track incident, but at least it is a second look. Scientologists who actually study the tech know this, but they are in the minority. Those who swallow everything Ron said blindly without evaluation and actually think that they were clams deserve the label, but note that that is only some Scientologists, not all. As to the soup cans, the ones that come with the meters are manufactured for that purpose and never held soup. They are also incredibly expensive. So replacement cans are much cheaper to buy as real soup. And in the old days the Mark 5 meters didn't come with cans, so you had to buy soup. This used to be up to the individual auditors. For penniless staff members it was usually Campbell's tomato soup which was the cheepest. The auditor would usually eat the soup himself. Unfortunately, the biggest need was for the hard to get small can size (needed for people with smaller hands) and that meant asparagus cans. Not all auditors liked asparagus. The large size cans would usually mean canned peaches, but only PCs built like Hulk Hogan need cans this big, so they rarely wear out. Note that the cans gradually corrode and turn black from sweat and so they need to be replaced occasionally. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - To Werner Erhardt TO WERNER ERHARDT I saw your message in the Pilot's Guestbook and I appreciate your thanks. I wanted to take this opportunity to emphasise that I really mean it when I say that people should be free to use the tech as they see fit. I am not a Hubbardian Control Freak who almost sets people free and then enslaves them instead. So do with it what you will. Use a little of it or a lot and if you make some new synthesis, then all the more power to you. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - TO JESSIE PRINCE TO JESSIE PRINCE Welcome. I would expect that you're loaded with anger and upset. Discovering that you have been betrayed is rought on the emotions. But you mustn't fall into a black and white, good and evil dichotomy. Black Scientology has been used on you, it's built into the Sea Org architecture. That doesn't mean that all Scientology is black or evil. I am continually contrasting Ron's kindness and wisdom in the early days with the inherent madness in his later formulation of the Sea Org. For every vile thing they do, you can find Ron saying the exact opposite in the 1950s. And so the modern Sea Org is this incredible mixture of good and evil. If you make a single black or white judgement that its all either good or evil you will almost certainly flip flop between the two sides of the coin as has been amply illustrated by people like Kim Baker and Jon Zegel. The doubt formula is itself an instance of Black Scientology. Ron knew about infinity valued logic. Evaluating things as relative truths on sliding scales is critical to judgement and intelligence. Thinking that way permeates the 1950s tech. And then he puts out a doubt formula that asks for a black and white absolute judgement. It is a control mechanism. Nothing is all good or all evil. With a doubt formula like that, you are made to accept the evil as an inherent part of the good until you are so immersed in it that you puke the whole thing up. And that is wrong too. You are probably puking it all out right now. Except that if you just keep throwing up you will loose all the nutrients along with the poisions. You need to learn to eat again while being more carefull about what you swallow. This calls for judgement. You need to sort out the truth from the lies. You need to spot what was good and what was a viscious twist. I did my own sorting out in chapter 1 of the Super Scio book "What is and Isn't true". But that's my evaluation. You have to do your own and I do not expect it to be the same. Whether or not you publish yours is beside the point. You have been involved for so long and at such a high level (which is where the control mechanisms are at their worst) that you will never get free of it unless you lay it out piece by piece. If you just do an absolute "its all bad", you will simply end up running the negative side of the program instead of being free. And don't belive everything on the critics side either. A lot of it is accurate but there are some ringers like that bogus OT 8. I've even been fooled by an OT level written by Martin Hunt. So use judgement. Learn to think for yourself. Again Welcome, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - To Whippersnapper TO WHIPPERSNAPPER On 8 Aug 98, Whipsnap@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) posted on subject "Jesse Prince?" > Our "Jesse Prince" friend is nothing new and nothing special as far > as I can see. In fact, in his handling of facts he bears a suspicious > resemblance to Steve Fishman; his "facts" appear in part to come > secondhand from discredited sources; and he has a writing style > similar to that of Bob Minton, illogical in similar ways to Bob's. Well this round goes to you, Whip. But what made Jessie so shell shocked and upset that he swallowed a bunch of critical garbage? THIS WAS A MAN WHO DEDICATED HIS LIFE TO SCIENTOLOGY. And they threw him in the dumpster. I don't know who you are but the odds are that he has sacrificed more and done more for the subject than you have. But somewhere around the tenth time that DM pisses in someone's mouth they begin to get the urge to leave. It's bad near the top. I doubt that you could have drunk as much for as long as he did. You should be offering him comfort, not emnity. As ye sow, so shall ye reap. The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - KARNO vs LENSKE KARNO vs LENSKE On 13 Aug 98, tallulah@storm.ca (tallulah@storm.ca) posted on subject "Who is Norton S. Karno? - Legal Affairs" (I'm quoting the entirity of tallulah's long and intelligent post before offering my comments) > In article , Ex Lurker > <74640.3705@CompuServe.COM> wrote: > ><< > >On 12 Aug 1998 02:58:20 GMT, nortnkarno@aol.com (NortnKarno) > >wrote: > > > >> Case Entitled: Stephen A. Lenske vs David L. Blender, Joseph > >M. > >> Cobert, Kenneth L. Friedman, Norton S. Karno, > >Karno > >> Schwartz Cobert, Karno & Schwartz, et al > >> Case Number: C359497 > >> Date Filed: 03/13/81 > >> Court: Los Angeles > > > >this is one i've been wondering about for a while. what the hell > >is that? > >why would lenske be suing karno, a cult ally? > > > >rob > >>> > > > > To establish a favorable precident on something? > > > I doubt it, frankly - and I've read the original complaint, as well as a > number of other filings in the case, which was eventually settled, though not > without much acrimony. > > The cast of characters is, to put it mildly, curious. > > On one side of the battle, we have Stephen Lenske, brother (I'm assuming) of > Sherman Lenske, who was to go on to act as Special Director of the Church of > Spiritual Technology. > > On the other, we have the sinister Norton S. Karno, who -- was at the time of > the lawuit, at least, executor of Hubbard's will, and who had been during the > course of events over which the lawsuit ensued (if I remember correctly, > 1977-79)Hubbard's personal tax attorney. > > Representing Lenske in the matter was the famous Larry Heller, longtime CoS > attorney who was a major player within the corporate 'restructuring', and > also spoke at the famous Missionholder's Conference in 1982. At the time of > this lawsuit, in fact, Heller was partners with the two Lenskes in a lawfirm > not surprisingly known as 'Lenske, Lenske and Heller'. > > Okay, everyone got the players straight? Lenske, Lenske, Heller and Karno? > Good. Let's move on. (I'm working without my notes, so it's possible the dates > might be slightly off; I'll double check when I get home.) > > The case itself, in fact, is actually less than riveting. In 1977 (ish), > Stephen Lenske was hired as an associate by lawfirm Karno &Schwartz. He worked > at the firm for several years - and, if I'm not mistaken, works particularly > in the area of *estate planning* -- before deciding to leave to join his > brother's firm. After telling Karno et al of his intentions, he continued to > work for the firm for another month, under the understanding that his pension > and other benefits - into which he had paid during his employment with the > firm - would continue until the day he left. > > In his claim, Lenske alleges that K&S defrauded him of some of the money he > was owed - $20,000 or so, as I recall. He sues for the amount he claims is > owed to him, and additional damages, and I believe the total comes to > somewhere around $70,000. Both sides send nasty lawyer letters to each other > for a year or two, and at one point, I believe an amended complaint by Lenske > makes resference to additional frauds allegedly committed by K&S. > > Eventually, it all ends in settlement; the Lenskes become Special Directors of > CST (with, of course, Meade Emory and Leon Mistarek), Larry Heller leaves the > Lenskes and starts his own firm. And Norton Karno stays in the shadows, > controlling millions of dollars in assets and real estate, engaging in > mortgage scams with WISE bigshot Gerald Ellenburg and running his lawfirm, > until that fateful day when he gets a call from ole Ger's WISE buddy Bryan > Zwan about the investment possibilities in a little Clearwater company called > .. Digital Lightwave. > > Anyway, that's my recollection of Lenske vs. Karno. I'll reread the filings I > have tonight and post a more complete analysis. > > K Karno was Ron's man, his old time attorney, at least as far back as the early sea org days. Lenske shows up after Ron disappears and establishes himself as Ron's attorney by means of credentials. Karno was not labled a suppressive or a bad guy and continued to do lots of business with Scientologists thereafter, but was no longer Ron's attorney even though he was the last attorney to represent him before he disappeared. The old will is via Karno, the new questionable one is via Lenske. The above are, I think, all up on the net in one place or another and I confirmed the old time Karno connection with an ex-Sea Org exec who was on the flagship with Ron and is still in good standing with CofS. So I take it to be fact. The "young turks" takeover is pretty well established. Whether Miscaviage jerks Lenske's chain or Lenske jerks Miscaviage (as Veritas claims) or somebody else jerks both of them is still to be determined as far as I'm concerned. Miscaviage is the current operational head, but that's also beside the point here. So let's just say that there was a takeover and put aside the question of who engineered it. Now lets speculate. --- The following is all just fiction and bears no resemblance to any persons living or dead. Karno is Ron's attorney. Whoever wants control has Lenske as their man on the legal front (whether or not he is a mover and shaker, he is certainly in the picture). So Lenske sends his brother to work for Karno as a plant and infiltrator to gather up secret information. At a minimum, enought to fake proof that they are Ron's attorney when it is needed later, but probably much much more of various secret affairs. Karno finds out and gets rid of Stephen Lensky but can't prove or doesn't dare to prove that he was a spy. Karno is pissed and kills Stephen's pension (wouldn't pay a pension to that stinking spy) even though he is afraid of the reprecussions if he goes after Stephen. But Lenske knows too much and proves his power by sueing Karno for the pension. Karno backs down and comes to terms. He is thrown a bone as far as being given continued access to Scientologists for lucrative legal work. And he keeps his mouth shut during the young turks takeover and the later forging of the new will. But as I said, this is all just fictional speculation. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Answering Sassie10 ANSWERING SASSIE 10 On 24 Jul 98, sassie10@aol.com (Sassie10) posted on subject "Pilot to the White Courtesy Phone" > About 11 months The Pilot wrote: > > >TO SASSIE10 Welcome Back. > > > >But I suspect that you might be shuddering in horror at > >what I'm doing, considering me to be some kind of squirrel > >and suppressive. > > I understand you have another point of view. > > >And I look at your posts and think of PR bullshit and blind > >fanaticism. > > I think you may have overstated your critique. Perhaps so. > >I'm willing to square off and defend my postion in a dialog > >with you here on the net. > > Alright Pilot- I'd be curious to see what are the tenets of your defense. > > >Of course I'll be trying to wake you up and get you to start > >thinking. And you'll be trying to get me to see the errors of > >my ways and bring me back into the fold before I do any > >more damage. > > I presume though that you feel you are right in your ways and that > those ways contain no errors. I do feel that I am right in my ways. But I do not claim to be perfect. > I would expect nothing less than an attempt by you to sway what > you assume from experience are my flawed logic and influenced thought > processes. Actually I will aim to really communicate and sway your actual opinions on the matter. I will make assumptions based on experience, but I will also discard those ideas as you show me otherwise. Experience is an aid but it doesn't substitue for present time perception. > >If you haven't already done so, you should read "The > >Scientology Reformer's Home Page" and/or "The Org's Grades > >Are Out" which can be found on "The Pilot's Home Page" and > >other websites (see the URLs below), so that you know where > >I'm coming from. Neither of these contain any confidential > >materials, so you can read them without getting > >in trouble with ethics even if you haven't done your OT levels. > > I have taken some time during my vacation this summer to catch up on some > undone projects. I have read fairly representative sections of the > sites to which you refer. > > > > >So how about it? Even if you can't handle me, maybe you can > >draw some fence sitting lurkers back in. > > I guess you can start with the defense of your position. > > Sassie I think that the tech is very important. Otherwise I would just walk away. I could be writing books about computers instead of processing. I think that when you learn something, its yours. In fact Ron says that too. If you go to a computer school and learn programming, once you graduate the school has no further rights or control over you. If you work or not is your problem. What you charge is your problem. How well you do is your problem. Whether or not you keep up (a continual need in the computer field) is your problem. You don't sell your soul to the school and then go back (or never work again) every time that they realized that they taught you something that they now think is wrong. And if you simply make auditors, then you would have more and more auditors. As it is now, there are less and less people who are allow to audit. Ron says that any auditing is better than none, but the org doesn't seem to think so. And self auditing works. Ron encouraged it in the 1950s. Even the 1965 Green Form only has "Self Auditing during an HGC Intensive" as a question. It was not considered an out point unless you were in the middle of an intensive. So why not do what works? Why stop it from being done? Why not have more auditing rather than less? Let's say that you have some crackerjack auditors who can produce great results. Let's say that they are 100% standard and the gains are immense. That is no justification for stopping everybody else from auditing. All I see is suppressive monopolistic stomping out of all possible competition. There are exceptions. I almost hate to mention them because OSA and the SO might notice. There was an "assist network" in LA just a few years ago. All were Scientogists in good standing doing free assists. Probably delivering more hours of auditing than the AO. They didn't think that they were doing anything wrong either. Until Sea Org Ethics noticed. It was crushed right out of existance, instantly. You probably don't realize how many years of good work can go straight down the toilet with just one Sea Org mission. The Finance Police blitzkrieg in LA was a good example. Destroyed almost every Scientolgy business in the city in a matter of months. Of course the party line is to complain on the proper internal lines. That is totally unworkable. I even went so far (back in the 1960s) as to telex International Ethics at World Wide. Useless. Dead Silence. I might as well have been talking to the wall. So my position is that they should simply get out of the way. Not be stopping things all the time. And (knowing from experience that this is critical), not having the right or the authority to stop anything. Let the Sea Org start all it wants, and continue but have no right to stop. Let orgs start anything and everything they feel like. Let field auditors start. Let the dreaded squirrels start. Let self auditors start. Just let there be more tech and more auditing and it will all sort itself out and come out alright in the end. Continual stopping of other's cycles of action is a suppressive characteristic. Speaking of stopping, this seems like enough for now. Looking forward to your reply, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - To Rod Keller On Ways To Leave TO ROD KELLER ON WAYS TO LEAVE On 10 Aug 98, rkeller@netaxs.com (Rod Keller) asked on subject "50 Ways to Leave Scientology" > I'd like to compile a list of ways to leave Scientology. Former members - > if you would like to be included, please send me your name, last post > held, starting and ending dates you were involved, the name of the org you > left, and a short description of the circumstances under which you left. > No essays please, just the core facts in a short paragraph. Maybe 4 or 5 > sentences, if that's possible. I'd like it if all stories were attributed, > since I think that has a strong impact on current members. > > I'm thinking it might be an inspiration for current members to see so many > different ways to leave Scientology. Like a light at the end of the > tunnel. > > -- > Rod Keller / rkeller@voicenet.com / Irresponsible Publisher > Black Hat #1 / Expert of the Toilet / CWPD Mouthpiece > The Lerma Apologist / Merchant of Chaos / Vision of Destruction > Killer Rod / OSA Patsy / Quasi-Scieno / Mental Bully OK, here's my contribution to your list - * Download the Self Clearing Book (http://fza.org) Of course they don't really have to leave (unless they fess up in Ethics), but that instantly destroy's the orgs ability to control them by denying them the tech. Sort of like having a "get out of jail free" card. And once your carrying one of those, there is no telling what kind of trouble you might choose to make. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - To Paul On Lions TO PAUL ON LIONS On 13 Jul 98, misiunas@fza.org (Paul Misiunas) posted on subject "Are You Afraid of Lions?" > I am afraid of lions. > > Practicing Scientology outside the Church of Scientology, is not what > you may think it is. > > We would all like to believe that we are free to practice our > religious beliefs whenever and where ever we choose. Is this a right > that cannot be denied? Are we assured the right to our own religious > beliefs and practices? Current copyright laws say otherwise. > The complete legal ownership of this religion entitles the Religious > Technology Center, the legal arm of the Church of Scientology, to do > as it pleases. > > Are you afraid of lions? Lions symbolize the appetite of those that do > not believe in religious freedom, but only desire to be satiated with > the bodies and souls of those who oppose it. I fear to become a meal > in the crusade called the Church of Scientology. > > Paul > http://fza.org Very Well Done. May you be as Daniel in the Lion's Den, protected by the spirit of truth and freedom. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Org Money Stupidity ORG MONEY STUPIDITY The org has some really dumb finance policies. Let's skip the scamlike aspects and the way that huge percentages flow on up the line and look at something that is stupid under any circumstances. They live from hand to mouth on a weekly basis. An org's operating money comes from this weeks income. And they have products that take more than one week to deliver. Let's say that they have a wonderful windfall. A huge crowd of 100 students from Mexico gets talked into flying to Flag as a team and getting trained on the Dianetics course (I was at Flag when this happened many many years ago - I'm pretty sure it was the NED course that they all came to do shortly after it was released). It's gonna take them months to finish that course. And now the academy is packed and the service is a bit poorer because everything is overloaded, so your new arrivals after that are a bit less than usual because the word has gotten out. All of the money hits in week number one. The GI is in affluence or power. The staff sees little of it, but they do get some perks. Stats are up that week so its good will all around. And all the money is spent, appropriated, sent uplines, or whatever. And for the next 3 months the orgs expenses are higher because of servicing those 100 students. So its one good week and then 3 months of rice and beans even though the academy is jammed packed and a huge sum of money went into the reserve account in that first week. Dumb as turnips. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - To A-J On Cluelessness TO A-J ON CLUELESSNESS On 11 Aug 98, a-j@mailcity.com reponded to an FZA repost of my writup on "SCIENTOLOGY RELIGIOUS TECH AND COPYRIGHTS" > In article <35d42c51.5502392@news3.newscene.com>, > fza@fza.org wrote: > > SCIENTOLOGY RELIGIOUS TECH AND COPYRIGHTS > > > > > > > In the current hate filled atmosphere encouraged by the > > CofS, where they label any freezoner's as "squirrels" and > > subject to any form of mistreatment, it is not even possible > > for a known freezoner to walk into a CofS organization and > > purchase materials since they are officially barred from the > > organization. > > > > Dear Mr. Pilot, > > Why is there all this goddamned fuss about wanting to go into the > C of $ to get Hubbard's materials? Why don't you ask your German > counterparts - they have the Robertson bridge up to OT 40. It's > right in their home page. > > A-J > > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- > http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum Indeed thou art clueless. I'm not a Robertson follower. I'm a follower of 1950s LRH Scientology. That Scientology, unlike yours (which is a watered down scam), allows for multiple sources and extending the tech. In those days, Ron was only an organizer of data and not source (by his own statement). It includes how to intelligently separate the wheat from the chaff. That is how we got all those great datums from Crowly and Science of Mind and the Rosecrucians and the Tibetan Book of the Dead and endless other sources. They did not have an adequate logic structure to evaluate their own data and evolve a workable tech. Ron did. That is his genius. That was the breakthrough. With KSW in 1965, he lies and claims to be the single source even though he was acknowledging other sources as late as 1963. From there on there is more and more hostility towards further research and the subject gradually becomes a fanaticism. As to an evaluation of stats, OT phenomena used to be common and now are virtualy non-existant in the subject. Ron used to talk a mile a minute full of brilliant ideas and then he shut up like a clam (hundreds of tapes a year, and then a handful, and then none). The 1950s material is incomplete. It was always known to be incomplete. It was a research line. It was the best leap towards freedom that this planet has ever had. Unfortunately we missed the grab at the top of our jump and fell back down. There is good later data. But it is trapped in a ridgid framework that does not support really producing OTs or completing the research. So I follow early Ron from the days when he was most inspired. And then I follow his orders to evaluate and extend the subject and mix in anything that you can find that works. So I mix in the later materials, but I do so with the same critical eye that I would use to judge things coming in from EST or Krishnamurti. So I look at sec checks and toss them out the window because accoring to the basics and according to early Ron, they will make people mean and nasty due to unbalanced flows (and Sea Org behavior amply illustrates that he was right the first time). But I look at real grade 2 processes and they fit in with the basics just fine. As to Robertson, I like him but he goes through the same logic sieve as everyone else. I'm glad that Robertson's folks are auditing just as I'm glad that CofS is auditing (when they do - usually they just reg people and then waste the hours on sec checking at cadillac prices). But my goal is to see the tech evolve into something that really can produce a stable OT (rather than just giving out OT numbers on pieces of paper). For that my greatest inspiration is Ron in the 1952-4 period. And I do not want to commit the overt of obscuring the sources I am working from. So I want all who follow me to have access to those same source materials. So I am still a follower of Hubbard. But not the later stupidity. The formation of the Sea Org was an overt product. That is why your statement was totally clueless. And another bit of cluelessness that you have been spouting about is your concern about Oldtimer possibly being located in Southern California. It is meaningless. Both the German Freezone and Freezone America are International in scope and overlap everywhere. There are (or were) Roberston style orgs in both New York and Los Angeles. There are also dozens of non-Robertson style orgs in these places. And Freezone America is an information clearinghouse (with a stong Pilot bias, but carrying everything they can) rather than a specific organizational network. They inspire orgs rather than controlling them. Still clueless or is this finally sinking in? The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Humor - Laundry Balling HUMOR: LAUNDRY BALLING Background: There was a company (I think it was called ATEG) run by some Scientologists that manufactured these "laundry balls" which you put in your wash to help get the clothes clean. Last year there was a big scandal when it was found that the balls contained nothing but colored water. This was followed by disclaimers about "activated water" and all sorts of nonsense and the jokes and discussions about this on the ARS newsgroup were endless. (I'm not joking here, this part is true). -------------- The Sooper Skrit Data About Laundry Balling: You are filled with space cooties. Your clothes are filled with space cooties. The world around you is filled with space cooties. Space cooties follow the laws of thermodynamics. They move from areas of high concentration to areas of lower concentration much in the same manner as warmer air molecules will disperse through a cold room. This forms conviction currents (the cooties were once convicted of being troublemakers) that are similar to the convection currents described in physics textbooks. If you move to an area of Low Cootie Concentration (an LCC), you will feel better because your own level of cootie concentration will decrease as they disperse into the surrounding LCC. This is why people feel good when they go off to a cabin in the mountains. Since there are far fewer surrounding cooties, people begin emitting them and become less troubled. If you have a total absense of something, it will act as a vacume and suck up things. An absense of air gives us a vacume cleaner. An absence of heat (a super cooled object) will suck the heat out of an area. This can also be done with cooties. A "cootie vacume" will drain the cooties out of an area. This is a simple application of thermodynamics. Cootie vacumes can be created by Solo Nots completions concentrating on an object and blowing all the cooties out of it. This is easiest to do with tap water. Hence the laundry balls. These are cootie vacumes cleaned by the intense work of SNOTS graduates. As a result, the water has been "activated" to draw cooties out of your clothes if you put them in with the wash. Wearing cootie free clothes will in turn draw cooties out of your body and result in your impoved heath and well being. Think of it as being holy water and the clothes being blessed. This is what the laundry ballers were really manufacturing. Unfortunately, they went out-ethics. It takes about ten hours of intense auditing with a Quantum meter for a SNOTS graduate to clear all the cooties out of a single laundry ball, and the ball looses its effectiveness after a few washes because it fills up with the cooties from the clothes. So it takes about ten thousand dollars of Nots auditing to make a ball that will only clear a few washes. This is not economically viable. So they cheated. After the first batch, which would have proven to all the wogs that cootie free clothes were one of Ron's greatest achievments (see "Ron the Clothes Washer" soon to be released), they began skimping on the product (called "cutative tech" in Scientologese). Instead of doing the hard work, they simply had an OT yell "get the fuck out of here" at a warehouse full of laundry balls. Needless to say, these quicky cootie vacumes did not work to produce cootie free clothing, and so the things were useless and the manufacturers got in trouble. OSA forbit them to reveal the true story, but now you have it. It was not really a rip off. Instead it was a failure of "Keeping Scientology Working" (KSW). They had the correct tech but they failed to apply it out of lazyness and greed. Don't let this marvelous plan be derailed by a few lazy scoundrels. Please write your congressman and ask him to get federal funding for properly manufactured laundry balls. With enough of them we could clear the planet and make it cootie free. And as a final step, we can use spacecraft to launch the cootie filled balls into the sun. It will be a new golden age for mankind. ======== I wrote this as a joke. I really don't know what these laundry ballers were up to. But you know, I could almost believe that they really were doing some crazy idea like this, having an OT doing something to the water, maybe cleaning it of cooties or maybe just putting postulates into it so that it should make clothes clean better or something. I'm also surprised that the Catholic Church hasn't thought of this one yet. They could sell laundry balls filled with holy water to make blessed clothes. Of course I would expect them to be honest about it. But I bet that they could sell some at the relic shops. ======= With Humor, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Self Clearing More on Ch 3 (Attn Oleg) SELF CLEARING MORE ON CH 3 (Attn Oleg) On Sun 19 Jul 98, "Dopertchouk, Oleg" mailed to selfclearing-l (forwarded to ACT by Antony Phillips ) on subject "SelfClear: Self Clearing side effects]" > This is about the process 3.4 (Automaticities). > > I went to a small dancing party 2 days ago. I had a very good time > there but eventually got tired a bit and so decided to sit down. While > at it I decided to do some of 3.4. (background note: I have done a > plenty of OT TR0 - a related orthodox Scn process- before, but 3.4 is > slightly different - here when something comes up you have a way to deal > with it, while in OT TR0 you just try to let it go). As soon as I sat > down and closed my eyes pictures began to pop up in my mind. I started > copying them around, shifting them and changing them. At first it wasn't > very successful as pictures just dissolved only to be replaced by > others. It was a bit frustrating but I have gradually learned to hold > them in place for a longer time. After some more practice I managed to > get the process going, pictures got somewhat under my control and my > mind got cleared up. I felt reenergized so I decided to go back to > dancing :) Then I have noticed one very incredible thing - when I have > closed my eyes, I could still see my body. The view was quite dim - as > if it was in a dark fog but I could definitely see it. It wasn't my > imagination - I know how it looks like, the picture this time was > absolutely stable. The view was black-and-white (black and dark gray, > rather) but it was there. The experience was quite fascinating but > didn't last for long - maybe a few minutes, half an hour max. Then the > mind became unclear again (it was 4 in the morning and I didn't get any > sleep yet!), I didn't want to push it, so I let it be that way for now. > Cool :) > > Additional note for The Pilot: > The process reminds me a great deal some of the old CCH processes: > > process 1: Get a picture. Keep it from going away. > process 2: Get a picture. Hold it still. > process 3: Get a picture. Make it a little more solid. > > These are assumed to be arranged in an order of increasing difficulty. > process 1 is the easiest. (there are even more undercuts - when you work > with real physical objects, not with pictures). I have never run them > but I have read about them in Tech Vols. > > 3.4 seems to be about the same level as the process 3. 3.4 is a tad too > difficult for me as I often have trouble keeping my attention on a > picture long enough for it to get copied and changed. I suspect that > others might have similar troubles too. Would it be a good idea to put > something like the above processes before 3.4? Maybe not for everybody > but for those who have troubles with 3.4? What do you think? I know it > might seem unreal that people can't actually hold on to their mental > pictures, but it happens... > > These might also be a better fix for Attention Deficit Disorder than > Ritalin ;) > > Cheers, > Oleg Good suggestion. I think it would be good to start with physical versions of these before doing it on pictures. A whole collection of these are in sections 13.1 to 13.4 as a warmup for running change processes. Try 13.1-13.4 and see if they are easier than the begining of chapter 3. Although they are a nice setup for running change processes (the rest of chapter 13 which should stay where it is), they might be better as a setup for chapter 3. Then they would be followed by the one you stated above, and finally would come the current chapter 3. When running commands of the going away / still / solid family, the commands tend to unflatten each other (16th ACC Tapes), so you run a few of each in rotation. I suggested 5 of each in chapter 13 but I think that 3 each would be better this early in the book. Or you could run each to a mild win. In either case, you go back to "going away" after doing "solid". Since the Self Clearing Diaries (at fza.org) also mention a bit of difficulty with Chapter 3, it might be that a bit more of a gradient is indeed needed here in general. I already posted an improvement to process 3.3 which can be found in post32.txt in the Pilot archives at fza.org. And your story about process 3.4 is really great. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - About The Admin Scale ABOUT THE ADMIN SCALE On 23 July 98, "chas" posted on subject "Admin Scale" > I was looking at the Admin Scale and liked the idea it puts forth but was > not happy with the order. I have re-worked the scale and feel it is much > easier to apply. I made no changes to the scale other then moving two items, > which changes the importance of the items. Does the change make sense to > anyone else? > Charles > > Current scale taken from HCO PL 6 Dec 70 "Third Dynamic De-Aberration" is: > > Admin scale > > Goals > Purposes > Policy > Plan > Program > Project > Orders > Ideal Scene > Statistics > Valuable Final Products > > Change this to: > > Admin scale > > Goals > Purposes > Policy > Plan > Program > Project > Orders > Products > Statistics > Ideal Scene > > > The ideal scene is senior to the product but you need to understand > everything listed above ideal scene before you are able to establish what > the ideal scene should be. Everything is set up so that the goals can be > achieved. Each relates to each other and all must relate to reaching the > goals. So the goals are senior. But the ideal scene needs to be correctly > stated for any proper evaluation to take place to correct negative > situations or enhance positive ones. So a correctly stated ideal scene is > just as important as the goals but you are not able to state the ideal scene > until you have everything in place above it. So you start with the goals and > you end with an ideal scene. The right goals for an activity should make the > purpose self-evident and on down the list. So one should take the time to > correctly state the goals for an activity. The ideal scene is the result > from correctly stating all the areas of the scale above it. It is then that > a departure from the ideal scene begins an evaluation into a situation. > Product has tended to be overstated; it is not the end all but rather a > measuring stick with regards to the set goals. The proper product will help > achieve the goals. So the product must be properly stated and must fit in > relation to the rest of the scale. But the quantity and quality of the > product comes under the next two items on the list; statistics and ideal > scene. So the bookends of the Admin Scale are Goals at one end and Ideal > Scene at the other end. So the whole intent and purpose of this scale is to > create and establish an ideal scene which is set from all the items above > it. This ideal scene will in turn give a visible means in which to reach the > stated goals. CML; 23 July 1998. To which ralph@atnet.at (Ralph Hilton) replied # No. I would agree with the original. # The ideal scene has to be established before one can correctly # establish a statistic. Pursuing statistics and VFPs in a way that # places lesser importance on the ideal scene is a major flaw in # scn management. The overall statistic is senior to individual VFPs. # Data Series 13 goes into depth about the relationship between the # Ideal Scene and the Statistic. I would consider the Data Series the # senior technology relating to administration. The rest has to be # evaluated with a full understanding of that. I think that Ralph is correct in his analysis as far as it goes, but there is a basic flaw in the entire scale. Note that this scale is very MEST mechanical. This tends to be the case with many of the later policies. The brilliance of the 1952-4 period is that things were evaluated from a Theta perspective that seems to have been lost in the later days. I don't want to put down the data series here, it is among the best of the later policy series. But it needs to be reviewed the way that Ron used to look at things when he was at his peak. In other words, lets examine it from the perspective of a free being who can make his postulates stick but who has gotten fooled into trapping himself and tangled his postulates up into a knot. Part of making a postulate stick is to visualize the desired result. That is visualizing the ideal sceen. This is senior to policies. Your postulate is not to have the policies followed, but simply to achieve the goal by whatever means and to do that you visualize what you want. Then you think up policies which might help you get there. The progression from policies down to orders is reasonable because you need agreement to get the orders done. So you lay things out in a sensible manner. But that entire section of the scale is really an ARC step - agreement, duplication, an understanding of what is to be done, etc. It deteriorates into control when ARC and understanding fail, and with that you begin sliding down the prehave scale (O/W a limited theory) and will eventually end up with overts and dramatizations unless you keep rekindling the theta at the top. Postulates and live communication have to be senior to policy or we might as well all sign up to become MEST right now. So we have Goals and Purposes. Then we have the visualization of an ideal sceen. Then we have postulates, ARC, and understanding. That lets us agree on some policies, plans, etc. to get the job done. But policy is only a guiding thing (old definition) and so we use it when it helps but bypass it whenever it is in the way. Our overriding judgements should be based on the goal we are working towards, the ideal sceen we are postulating, and of course ARCU which must be senior to policy or else people will use the policies against each other as the CofS has amply demonstrated. That leaves Products and Statistics. Faced with the choice between following a plan or policy and violating it to get a valuable final product, the correct decision is generally to violate policy to get the product out. But you can't even evaluate if its a valuable product without an ideal sceen to judge it against and you can't force products while creating ARC breaks in all directions or you end up with an ARC broken field. So the products have to be above policy but below ARCU. You don't have to have a policy to get a product. You could get a valuable product simply by postulates and live communication. But when you can't make it with a simple wave of the hand, then you use policies and plans and so forth as a crutch so that you can do something step by step and still make it. The statistics only exist in the context of the ideal sceen and furthermore are low level Mest quantifications. If you're upscale, you can look at a product directly and see its value, but if you have to depend on bean counting, then you are trusting that the policies, plans, and so forth have given you the right beans to count. So you violate policy to get a real product that can be percieved as valuable in terms of the goals, postulates, and so forth. But you would not violate policy to get some number to look good. So that puts stats at the bottom of this hierarchy. For example, you would violate policy to get somebody trained through class 4, but you wouldn't violate it to get the gross income up or raise the letters out stat. Unless of course your goal is to make money and the hell with the tech. Of course the statistics should reflect the valuable final products. But that is based on the hope that the accumulation of individual efforts will add up to achieving the products and ideal sceen. That hope depends on the policies and orders being correct and therefore cannot override them. In summary, my revision of the admin scale would be as follows: Goals Purposes Ideal Scene Postulates ARCU Valuable Final Products Policy Plan Program Project Orders Statistics Note that although its unpopular, you can make postulates out of agreement. But if you make policies that drive the staff out of ARC, your staff will end up as a pack of rabid critics, as we have seen demonstrated for us by the CofS. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Japanese Translation (Attn NYKinjo) JAPANESE TRANSLATION (Attn NYKinjo) On 25 Jul 98, Antony Phillips posted on subject "SelfClear: translation to Japanese" He was reposting corresponence from "NYKinjo" > I was once an auditor and then the cramming officer at Tokyo Org. > > What I noted was that Japanese PCs seemed to be running very, > very shallowly on Grades, compared with those I had audited in > English. I had an idea that Japanese PCs have denser cases. But > as they move on the Bridge to NED auditing, they all did fine. I > was at a loss why Scientology didn't really work on them whereas > Dianetics did. > > Before I had found answers to my questions, some brass SO members > came down to our org, and for a moment things were really screwed > up. I simply left the Church before getting myself screwed up. They > tried to run a Class V org like an SO org. Many left staff in those > days. > > Not long ago I bought a personal computer and started to browse > the Net, accidentally runnning into the FZA homepage. > > I downloaded the Pilots works and found them fascinating. I began > translating the materials and then began wondering if the commands > would really run on Japanese. > > I followed FZA links and got in comm with Bernd Luebeck of Freezone > Europe. He said that English speakers invent a lot of Tech stuff > but speakers of other langugages don't. > > I started to do a bit of research on this by asking people to define > some words (of course, they didn't like it) and found out that the > subtle nuances of English auditing commands cannnot be translated > into some other languages. > > There in Japanese are many, perhaps more than a hundred, words that > approximately means "you". We have words meaning "you the respectable", > "you the dear one", "you my friend", "you the hated", etc, but not > "you". In other words, we cannot address a thetan separately from > his current beingness. "From where could you communicated to another?" > becomes "From what places do you the respectable seem to be able > to communicate to another human being?" > > Oh, this can be overcome. It takes a lot of training on the part of > the preclear. > > My would-be solution is that I translate the Pilot's works and > distribute them on the Net along with a set of other materials > and references to ensure that people know what to look for as an > answer to the auditing command. > > Therefore I need to assemble such materials. The Original Scn books > contain some errors and conflicts, such as the definitions of a > Clear and the bits and pieces on prenatals, clams, GE. The readers > of Self Clearing Book will mostly go solo and I have to be careful. > > My work seems to take a lot more study than I first expected. I am very glad that you are working on the translation. My first thought is that religions such as Buddhism may have introduced words while coming into Japan. Is it possible that Zen might have a word for "self" that has an appropriate shade of meaning? Or one that at least comes close enough to work with just a slight amount of explanation? Another thought is to use the English "you" directly as itself in the Japaneese. Listening to some people talking about computers in a Chineese dialect, I hear "...... CPU ......". You may need to add an introductory chapter that presents concepts of being. You might even need to invent a process or two. Maybe something like, "get the idea of being you the respectable", "get the idea of being you the unrespectable", "get the idea of being both at once". Unfortunately I don't know Japaneese and I'm not an expert at translation. So use your judgement. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - To Lars On Multidimensional Music TO LARS ON MULTIDIMENSIONAL MUSIC On 24 Jul 98, Lars Peter posted on subject "Multidimensional Music" > Dear "Pilot" > > It happens that beings from different dimensions interchange life colours > for the wellbeing of life in all dimensions concerned. The communication of > interchange gets carried by art. One of the art forms is music. The soft > and powerful Multidimensional Musical Magenta Dragon takes care of > channelling the life colours and has great fun doing that for the pleasure > and delight of the people involved. > > Your book "Super Scio" is a great piece of work, it's fantastic. I like the > relaxed style that shines through. > > There is a very weird message that touches a subject that deserves > attention, it is pretty early in the book in the chapter called "We Begin > the Creative Process" which is chapter 6 in "Cosmic History". It says: > > ****************** > Those one dimensional systems of creation are still with us. One of them > is music. The one dimensional "object" (e.g. a sound or musical note) can > only go up and down. It moves forward in time, but time is not a dimension > in the sense that were are discussing here (we are concerned with > dimensions of space). The "object" can have a width and shape in the form > of a chord (as opposed to a single note) and there are all sorts of > interesting aesthetics in the inter-relationship of many notes moving up an > down in a complex work, but it is still motion in only one dimension. The > notes can also have a quality as in the sound of a piano Vs that of a > violin but this also does not change the number of dimensions just as > adding color to a three dimensional world doesn't add an extra dimension. > ****************** > > Are you serious? Or is this an example of another implant, an implant > enforcing the victim to forget the real power and magic of music? > > One can't play a note without making a sound. The sound can't exist unless > energy and mass is a part of it (as well as time). > > You can have a violinplayer go into a concert hall and play such a sound, > just one single note. The physical space of the concert hall is 3 > dimensions. You can experience that the single note played by the > violinplayer fills the whole space in all 3 dimensions. > > So the physical part of music obviously includes all the components of the > physical universe: Matter, Energy, 3-dimensional Space and Time. > > You can have another violinplayer playing the same note, the excact same > pitch, filling all 3 dimensions as before and yet it is different music. > The difference is that there are one or more other dimensions involved and > the two violinplayers might perform different dimensions apart from the 3 > physical ones. > > Of course the violin players can be more advanced than just playing a > single note, they can improvise and they can perform a composed piece of > music. Now it gets really exciting, it can open incredible worlds, > depending on the inspiration the music gives as well as on the > communication with the public and the abilities of the musician. > > Music can give as different effects as rhytmic vibrations that make the > body dance, healings, spiritual revelations and one or more or even all the > chackras can adjust their rotations into blissful harmony. > > > The example from Super Scio that is quoted above gives an indication that > multi-dimensional music can carry a communication through even to a > one-dimensional approach. What I mean is, music is an excellent way for > let's say a 13-dimensional being to get a communication through to a > 1-dimensional being as well as to a 17-dimensional one. > > This multi-dimensional power of music is a power that also can be performed > in other art-forms including the art of writing a book like Super Scio. > > > Many greetings from > The Multidimensional Musical Magenta Dragon > > Lars Peter Schultz, composer of music > > *************** > Psychic Musician Lars Peter Schultz > Schultz Artistry Reading **** Touch of deep emotion > http://tranceform.org/lps email: > larspeter@tranceform > org > Tel/Fax :+45-4354-3017 Of course if you put music into a 3 dimensional universe there will be 3 dimensional matter and energy involved in the process. If you mockup a violin player doing, let's say, the Sibelius concerto, you have a 3 dimensional mockup. Now just mockup the music without putting a soloist or orchestra there. Just mock it up in its own space without putting it in the current physical universe. A professional should be capable of doing both. When you mockup the music as itself, it has a space of its own that is not MEST universe. Percieving that space and noticing that it is a space can be exteriorizing because it is outside of MEST space. People listening to music with their eyes closed and following it carefully will sometimes exteriorize on this basis. If you examine that space very carefully you will see that it is only one dimensional. That is not a downgrade. It is the exact opposite. It is about as close to static as you can get and that is why it is so all pervasive and powerful. Now a professional performer puts that into a three dimensional space using three dimensional instruments and three dimensional sound waves because we are currently trapped in a three dimensional space. If it was a two dimensional or a four dimensional space, then the artist would use bodies and energies of the appropriate number of dimensions to serve as his communication medium. But the music itself is senior to all this, as is the artist who is mocking it up. I tend to discuss dimensions of space rather than dimensions of time or other things because I feel that I understand the spacial dimensions very well. Timelike dimensions are a different breed of cat from spacial dimensions and I don't like to lump them together, it would be better to call them something else. I don't expound much on time because I am still flailing around in the dark rather than having good certainty. If you have extra dimensions of space handily lying around, you can use them to store pre-recorded time tracks and so one can get time and space confused. Of course this was used in implanting, but its primary use is in entertainment and so we agree with doing that. The classic example is movies which are recorded as 2 dimensional pictures (x,y co-ordinates) and stacked up in three dimensions to give the pre-recorded "time track" of the movie. Of course we play tricks to get a 3 dimensional perspective, but the actual recording medium only has 2 co-ordinates on each frame and that is even true of holographic recording equippment. You can't record a canned track unless you can stack pictures, so any physical universe recordings have to use time as the 3rd dimension and that only leaves two for the pictures themselves. Since music only requires one dimension of space, we can use a spare 2nd dimension for the time component and only need two dimensions for a page of music. If you look at a musical score, your up and down vertical y component is the space and your left to right horizontal x component is the time. Of course we put multiple lines on one page for efficiency (unless its one of those big dense orchestral scores). Musical rhythm is certainly one of the things to investigate as part of studying timelike dimensions. I think that there is tremendous spiritual insight to be gained from music. And I really liked your opening paragraph. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - GPM Research Truncation (Attn John Alexander) GPM RESEARCH TRUNCATION (Attn John Alexander) On 21 Jul 98, John and Deirdre Alexander continued the discussion on topic "Structure of GPMS (fwd)" > Jack Horner's notes from LRH lecture of 6/18/64 read: > > "Top of bank/series hardest thing to find root words of. Can't > learn anything then you can't find out to do anything. Study > operates as door to learning how to audit. All great success > built on fundamentals. Need to isolate foundations. In aud. > foundation = STUDY= ability to learn. [etc.] > > Alan C. Walter wrote: > > > At 08:21 PM 7/20/98 -0400, Homer Wilson Smith wrote: > > > > >> The exact moment in time that the subject of the pcs own actual GPM's was > > >> dropped was 14th June 1964. > > >> > > >> It occured in mid sentence during a lecture on "Bring abouts." > > > > > > What was the sentence and why did he cut it mid way? > > > > > > Homer > > > > Well it was 34 years ago and I'm sorry to say I am no longer sure what the > > sentence was. > > > > He just switched from talking about GPM's......paused.....then began the > > study tech lectures. > > > > To go from the power, force and mass of GPM's to something as tiny as a > > mis-understood word, was to say the least a sudden shift of attention, if > > not a major shock moment. > > > > I can speculate that at that moment something massive moved in and blew him > > out of the GPM Tech area. But this is just guessing. But he never really > > approached the area with the same intensity as he had done up to that time. > > Or he may have blown his GPM's at that time, and thus lost interest. > > > > And as you probably know the GPM Tech faded from view. > > > > Alan I think that anyone who starts going through the Briefing Course tapes in sequence gets this shock at the abandonment of the research line into Actual GPMs. Coming up through the lower levels it takes awhile to spot this because the confidentiality keeps it obscured. I had always assumed that the clearing course delt with actual GPMs and was shocked when it turned out to be just another implant. When I was doing the R6 theory section (slightly before the devine revelation), there was a checksheet item to mockup a GPM lineplot using "to eat apples" as the goal. I made the begining and ending items very formal but put lots of non-standardness in the crossover area. The supervisor wanted to flunk me for that, but I pointed out that if the crossover was cut and dried canned items, then the whole thing would have to be an implant and couldn't be an actual GPM. And I gave him the tape references to prove it (I had been an old cramming officer and could site chapter and verse). He ended up passing me, but at some point in the discussion he turned a bit green under the gills. I didn't know it but in retrospect I think that he had realized in that moment that the clearing course was just an implant. I wonder if the confidentiality was to keep BC students from bailing out and joining Jack Horner in trying to continue the research into actual GPMs. Its also amazing how well they dead agented Jack. I heard of him as some crazy squirrel who had abandonded the tech. And really he was declared for trying to continue a tech research line that Ron had abandoned. To John Alexander - What is the title of the tape in Jack's notes? The modern title is "Studying Introduction", ST-1 (study tape #1, SH Spec-24 renumbered 387). There used to be fewer study tapes on the levels. But when I started the Org Exec Course in 1967, there was a complete set of study tapes near the begining of the checksheet including one I'd never seen before (or since) called "Study and End Words". I recognized parts of it when I heard the more modern version of the study tapes, but I don't know which one it was. Without notes or my original course checksheets, I've never been sure which of the study tapes is the hacked up edited remnants of that GPM + Study tape and I'd like to pin it down for sure. I seem to recall something about how you can ignore end words while studying and that possibly looking up words could reduce the charge on end words. But I heard it at a time when I barely knew about GPMs. If anybody else remembers a bit more about this, please pass on the stories. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Ralph's Meter TA Calculations RALPH'S METER TA CALCULATIONS On 18 jul 98, ralph@atnet.at (Ralph Hilton) posted on subject "Meters" > After a few hours with simultaneous equations last night I came up > with a simple modification to the TA that gives a linear range > keeping TA2 and TA3 as-is and giving only small changes to TA4 and TA5. > > Rather than having a scale going from 0.5 to 6.5 one has a scale > from 1 to 7. Thus if the PC short circuits the TA is 1. If the PC is > open circuit the TA is 7. > > The resistance for each TA position is defined by the formula: > > TA = PC/(PC + 25,000)*6 + 1 > > or > > PC = 25,000(TA - 1)/(7 - TA) > > This gives > > TA PC > 1 0 > 2 5K > 3 12.5K > 4 25K > 5 50K > 6 125K > 7 infinity > > Electronically the PC is in series with a 25K resistor across a > fixed voltage source. > > The analogue TA meter will display range 1 - 7 > > A digital display can show voltage as TA linearly if a negative > offset of 1/6th of the voltage across the resistor and PC is used. > > For computer purposes the actual TA of the PC could be transmitted > and recorded as a 16 bit figure equal to (TA -1)* 1000 making > effective use of the 16 bits without complex translation. > > -- > > Ralph Hilton > http://Ralph.Hilton.org Most Excellent Work! For a simple computer meter, take any hardware that can produce a simple ohms resistance measurement. Calculate the TA as (Ohms times 6) divided by (Ohms plus 25000) and add 1 to the result. The resulting number must be displayable on screen with a simulated dial. The dial could be 400 pixels wide, making it big and easy to read. Low sensitivity is easy. For higher sensativity, focusing the entire dial in on, lets say a width of point one TA divisions should be better than anything the Quantum can do. At 2.0, its 5000 ohms. At 2.1 its about 5612 ohms which means about 1 ohm per pixel. At 5.0 its 50K and at 5.1 its just under 54K so we only need a precision of about 10 ohms per pixel unless we do an auto sensitivity increase like the quantum does (a configuration switch in the software). Since we want to get up to 125000 ohms and track increments as small as 1 ohm for highest sensativity at low TA positions, a 16 bit number (and a 16 bit A-D converter in the hardware) is just a trifle shy of making a super meter although it would be good enough for most uses and could be orders of magnitude better than a hardware meter. So the standard should use 24 bits. Fancy 24 bit A-D converters (even some with built in serial UARTs) are not very expensive, so the long range hardware could aim at a high quality design. Note that the hardware could just connect the AD circuit directly to the PC through a 220 or 600 ohm resistor. With that, the preclear at maximum (cans shorted together) would only draw as much current as a single LED which is miniscule and unnoticable as a drain on the computer's power supply and is also unnoticable to the PC (and probably less current than a normal e-meter battery). But we can use 16 bits of precision for the first generation (that should be better than a Quantum at sensativity 32) because it makes it easy to use cheep hardware and who ever uses the sensativity booster anyway. Just carry it as 24 bits so that we can upgrade easily in the second generation. Once you have the actual numbers in the program, you can toggle different interpretations and display types in software by pressing function keys. You could show a TA or double dial or actual numbers or multiple windows (high and low sensativity simultaneously) or instant replays or auto centering or anything else you can dream up. You could also record these in a file for later review. Robert could have himself and a remote preclear both on meters, save the files, and then bring them up side by side onscreen for comparison. For Homer, it wouldn't be too hard in a second generation to use two circuits and paired solo can inputs into a left/right pair of onscreen displays. Or you could overlay the displays in different colors (red and green needles) or whatever you like, again in software and changable on a function key press. Remote (internet) metering is an excellent long range goal that would really open up the world to telephone auditing. The data packet size would be trivial, but it wouldn't be good to collect the packets into a big buffer because you would see the entire read late when the buffer finally arrived. So you need a high packet rate, which means that internet baud rates would be misleading. Right now we can probably only do this with a direct dialup. But custom code on a direct async link only needs 60 packets per second (at 3 data bytes per packet) to give TV screen level of visual perception. This is trivial for a direct dial at 9600 baud. The trouble here is that you either need two phone lines or an IDNS connection that supports concurrent voice and modem channels so that you can talk to the PC at the same time. These are aound in the US but not all that common. As to displays, it would be best to use 8 bit color because that eliminates the messy bit planes and makes it really easy to generate a bit map and zap it down into the video driver. That's bottom level SVGA and if it is written in ordinary C for PC DOS (maybe with a bit of assembler), you get a quick program that just takes ohms, calculates pixel positions, and zaps the bitmap. That will run more than fast enough even on a 486 and is ten times easier to program than trying to do it as as windows program. A nifty book called "PC Intern" (a must for professionals) comes with a diskette of sample programs including some that zap bitmaps into the video driver. So we design for the future with 24 bit precision and optional dual inputs and a hoped for super internet connection (today it would take a T1 link and good internet weather reports). And in the meantime we implement with only 16 bit precision (while carrying it as 24) and single input via some cheap ohm meter type interface board and use 9600 baud direct modem dialup. That can be done today. And it would still put the Quantum to shame. Really an exciting idea. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Minor Mistake in Tape Name (Attn Michael) MINOR MISTAKE IN TAPE NAME (Attn Michael Hunsaker) On 28 Jul 98, "Michael Hunsaker" posted a message on the subject "Tapes wanted" He gave a long list of tapes that he wanted to get for the Bay Area FreeZone . Much of the list came from my posting of a level zero checksheet (which is available at fza.org). It included the following tape - > SHSBC-312 ren 343 15 OCT 63 TBD "Essentials of Auditing") This is my mistake. All I can say is that I was writing this very late at night (as it is right now) and I got careless. I use the letters TBD for "To Be Done" as a reminder when I have to go back to do something. On something big like the level zero checksheet, I search on "TBD" as a final step when I'm finishing up the document and handle anything I might have forgotten to do. In this case I was reminding myself to check the tape in the master list, which I did do before posting, but I forgot to remove the letters TBD. So omit the TBD from the name of the tape. Sorry. And much validation to Michael for getting busy and starting an organization. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - THE DEAD ZONE THE DEAD ZONE Reference - Stephen King's novel of that title. The hero is in a coma for years and comes out of it with the ability to predict the future. When asked how he does it, he describes a dead zone in his mind where he goes to see visions of the future (or something like that). I assume that he got this "dead zone" from some metaphysical writings but I've never heard the term before. Anybody know the source? I was thinking over OT abilities yet again and I remembered that title and an interesting idea occured to me. Every time I directly violated physical universe laws (ultra rare and not repeatable at will), there is a little blank spot, a sort of "dead zone". I would never have called it that but in retrospect the name could fit. Note that this is only on direct violation of physics (moving a cigarette pack or whatever) and not on theta perceptics, improved luck, telepathy or anything that doesn't go head to head with conservation of energy. I have always thought that this was because there was something I was not allowing myself to remember, something that was necessary to violating laws directly but which I could not keep in conscious recollection. However King's title made me look at it from a different slant. What if this "dead zone" is static nothingness. An almost return to static, a quick flip of the wrist, and then back down here in the solidity. I usually have lucid dreams and can change them at my will (although I rarely do so, choosing to enjoy the content of the dream instead). If I make a really major (not a minor) change to the dream, sometimes I half wake up for just an instant. You go up, reach down and shift the dream, and slide back in. You don't actually wake up, you just approach it. Maybe that's how it works. You go almost static, but not quite enough to really loose the universe. And since static is nothingness, it is a dead zone, no time or space. It's worth persuing, unfortunately I can't get that dead zone at will, at least not yet. But the dream control happened sporatically for a long time before I could do it at will. It might just be a long gradient. Perhaps there is something one could drill. Maybe "spot a timeless nothingness" alternated with "spot reality". ARC, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - KNOWINGNESS AND CREATION KNOWINGNESS AND CREATION This one may be a key breakthrough. I was thinking about the Know to Mystery scale and wondering how one could learn something sophisticated such as a computer language by knowingness alone without the hard work and experience. It just didn't seem to me that knowingness would go that high. You can pick up things by knowingness, but I just couldn't imagine it really working at that level of detail. My thought experiment was to consider somebody running "get the idea of knowing the C language" (C is a computer programming language) alternated with "get the idea of not knowing the C language" and my conclusion was that it wouldn't actually yield a knowledge of the language although somebody might have a few good cogs and get their confront up on learning programming. And yet I pickup new computer languages these days with a careless wave of the hand. I certainly don't bother "learning" them in any formal manner. Using C as an example, when I did start using the language back in the early 1980s, I spent a few hours flipping through Kernigan and Richie's book, glanced at some sample code, and immediately wrote a sophisticated multi-threaded program. Within a few days I was solving problems for supposed C experts at work. Now of course I already had a dozen other computer languages under my belt, and I knew machine internals well, having done system programming in assembler (machine) language back in the 1970s. But I do come very close to picking up new computer languages by pure knowingness now that I have lots of experience in the area. Except that it isn't by knowingness. It can't be or else you could get to this state simply by drilling knowingness. So what am I really doing when I pick up some new complex computer area in an afternoon? It is not knowingness. I hardly work on that at all. IT IS THE CREATE BUTTON. IT IS MOCKUP BY APPROXIMATION. In learning C, for example, I was visualizing what would have to be under the hood, mocking up how the language would have to work, almost creating it and simply staying in agreement with what others had created. Knowing how the machine works and knowing what the language would have to do, you of course know what is there in the language without having to learn it, it is just obvious. So I went back to the thought experiment and considered whether you could get somebody to know a computer language by running "mockup a computer language", and my feeling was that yes, this one could work if it was taken far enough. Of course this might be a bit out gradient and would probably overrun before you got far enough, but I could see it working in the right direction. In practice, I am quite capable of inventing a computer language, and picking up an existing one simply means getting enough anchorpoints and orientation to duplicate what somebody else has mocked up. I'll bet that somebody who already knows a few computer languages could drill mocking up new ones and turn into a real hotshot. Where a computer neophyte would fail would be in not doing the mockups in sufficient detail so as to be of comparable magnitude to existing computer languages. Note that I'm not talking here about mocking up a vague symbol of a mass called "a computer language", I'm actually talking about mocking up a language in all its detail, including a detailed instruction set and parsing rules, because that is the one that gives you the abilty to know these languages easily. The point here is that if you can create them, you can know them. This puts CREATE as the top button on the Know to Mystery Scale. Starting from static nothingness, you have to Create something first before it can be known. Ron bounced around a bit on whether Know or Not-Know was the top button on the scale. Putting Not-Know at the top doesn't quite feel right, so one trys to put it between Knowingness and Know-About (learning). But in practice, you generally shift up from leaning to pure knowing without going through a not-know step. And you can shift from Knowing down to leaning by simply going downtone or losing confidence or contracting your space again without manifesting a Not-Know step. However, moving up to create, there is a natural tendency to do a little bit of a not-know. I don't mean a "blast everything out of existance", but simply that you would ignore the existing computer languages (not-knowing them slightly) so as to mockup a fresh and different one. And coming downscale from create, after creating something, you would have to not-know it to some degree before you actually needed to do anything to know it (knowing it is an inherent effortless side effect as long as you are at create). So the top of the Know to Mystery scale is really: CREATE NOT-KNOW KNOW KNOW-ABOUT And then it goes downwards (looking etc.) to Mystery as is discussed in other writings. I had a wonderful experience once when I was being word cleared in session. This was when I was getting set up for expanded grades back in the 1970s. I was a class 4 auditor and grade VA release from the 1960s one process per grade era. My auditor was one of my own former PCs and the C/S also knew that I had been a real hot shot cramming officer. Everybody involved, including myself, the auditor, and the C/S knew that I probably knew the Scientology materials and definitions better than both the auditor and the C/S did. But the first step of the program required doing all the word lists for any correction list that they might have to use. And since I was grade VA, that meant every word list in existance except for the ones on the Clearing course and OT levels. So the word clearing was a totally bullshit step which everybody knew was a waste of time, and it was being charged for at the current auditing rates ($50 per hour at that time). The C/S did not dare bypass the word clearing step because that would be squirreling. And we all wanted me to get onto the expanded grades processing. And nobody wanted to give me a lot of bypassed charge on wasting money on unnecessary actions. That quantity of word clearing can easily burn up 25 or 50 hours of auditing. So we went through those word lists at express train speed. The auditor would say the word and I would say the definition. I wouldn't think about it, I'd just say the first thing that poped into my head and the auditor would just say the next word without stoping to consider whether I was answering correctly. He had confidence that I knew the answers so he wasn't worrying about it. And we weren't worrying about context. It was "Run?" - "Go Fast" rather than "Run?" - "do a process", and it was as fast as we could say the words quickly. So we did about 30 definitions per minute. We went through thousands of words in a couple of hours. And something wild happened. First of all, I lost all considerations. Then I was just talking from knowingness without looking at any pictures or considering anything. Then there was a moment of stumbling when I realized that I didn't know anything and this was all meaningless. I talked to the auditor a bit about machinery blowing and he indicated an FN on that and then we went back and continued the word lists. And then I realized that I was just creating definitions and not actually knowing anything, simply inventing without reference to anything. And the definitions just happened to be right but not as a result of looking at or knowing anything. They simply were right because I was postulating that they should be correct and in agreement because I wanted to get through the word clearing action without any time wasting distractions such as looking up words (and I didn't have to look up any in that entire endless list). At the end of the action I had a floating TA and was in a state of creation above knowingness, but of course I didn't recognize the significance of that or fit it into the K-M scale as I did just now. But it is a great example of what I am talking about in this writeup. In the Hubbard College Lectures of 1952, Ron talks about how you would learn to fly a plane by visualizing everything that could happen and what you would do about it. He talks about a beginning auditor preparing themselves to do a session in this manner; Visualizing everything that could happen and how to handle it. He certainly saw a bit of this in those early inspired days, but it didn't make it into the general theory or onto the K-M scale. But he does talk at times about learning something by doing mockups to approximate it (I think that that one is even on the study tapes). So this isn't really new data. But the relative importance has been missed. Seeing it this way as the top of the K-M scale puts a whole lot of things into context and opens up practical applications. And my thought experiment with the C language points up another key concept. It is not the size or significance of the mockup that is important. It is the amount of detail. The difference between a child's stick figure painting and a Rembrant is the detail. Tesla is said to have visualized the complete AC power generation system in his mind before he wrote down the design of the Niagra Falls generators for Westinghouse to build. Mozart is said to have composed symponys in his head, complete in every detail, before setting them down on paper. The great men in almost every profession are usually notorious for their attention to detail and when you dig further you often find that they had a tremendous ability to visualize things as well. Recently there has been a discussion of theta size on Clear-l / ACT, with processing about mocking yourself up as bigger and so forth. Now that is nice and getting the idea of being bigger and smaller alternately is certainly a good process. A thetan's ability to reach and to have space is definitely one of the monitoring factors and you can get a big fast gain that way. But this factor of details is why you don't get an OT simply by having the person be bigger and permeate things. He is simply not up to mocking up the quantity of details necessary for good perception and control. If you get the idea of being as big as the galaxy (which is fun and interesting), you probably get a vague blur rather than precisely visualizing the details of 3 billion star systems (yes it is that many). Now don't let this discourage you. It is a gradient like everything else. It starts slowly, but you grow by quantum jumps rather than linearly by one item at a time. Once you can handle a certain level of detail, then you can handle it. Once you can hold one musical composition in your mind in detail, then you can do them endlessly, like Mozart. Its only the first one that's hard. Do the usual attention drill (a locational, as in self clearing process 1.1) spotting individual points on objects. Then as a second step, spot and hold points, keeping the previous points while adding a new one so that you can hold multiple points simultaneously. Do mockups and see how many details you can put into them. Do it occasionally getting a little more detail each time. Go ahead and permeate a big city and see how many individual buildings you can hold in your mind at once. Try it occasionally and keep pushing the number up. Listen to complex music and follow individual lines. Then listen again and try to follow multiple lines at once and see how many you can get. Study something complex and work on getting more and more of it into your mind at once. There are lots of things that you can do here and there are many ways to work them into the ordinary activities of your life so that they build up naturally and easily. And there are quantum jumps where you start getting collections of detail as a unit without loosing sight of the detail. Think of reading. You probably get "The Cat" as a single unit rather than as 6 letters or two words. And yet you probably do see and know all the letters. Just contrast that with the first time learning experience of sounding out all the letters and composing words while reading something. I wonder how it would work to just have kids mockup words and how to spell them and to write them down without inval or eval and just keep them at it until something gives way. Then you would just have to orient them to what the currently agreed upon words and spellings are. This is just in theory, but it might turn on a fantastic learning ability. You raise your ability to handle detail by rolling up your selves and handling details. If you do this consciously in present time without putting it on circuit, it soon jumps to being able to handle packages of details. Part of our downfall may have been that we decided that there were too many details and it seemed overwhelming or too boring and so we put the details on automatic so that we wouldn't have to confront them. But if it is on automatic, your confront never comes up and you don't get that jump up to handling quantities of detail easily. I would say at this point that theta horsepower is primarily monitored by how many details you can mockup and hold. If you want to be god, you better plan on tracking every sparrow that falls. So the top of knowingness is the Create button, and the monitoring factor is how many details you can create. I'm sorry if this sounds like work. It can be rough getting started. But at the top of the scale its lots of fun to mockup lots and lots of details. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== These messages were all posted with 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/ and www.aha.ru/~espinol and http://www.tagil.ru/~sk/pilot/pilot.html. The MASTER LIST OF LRH TAPES which I posted recently is available both at fza.org and at http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~krasel/CoS/tapes.html All of this week's posts will be collected in Super Scio Archives #33 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. ------------------