Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology From: pilot@hiddenplace.com (The Pilot) Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 35 - LATE AUG 98 PILOT POSTS TO ARS/ACT Date: 28 Aug 1998 14:00:31 POST35.txt SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 35 - LATE AUG 98 PILOT POSTS TO ARS/ACT ========================================== Contents: subj : Super Scio - To Ishmael on Freezone subj : Super Scio - Sec Checks and Jessie Prince subj : Super Scio - TO DAVID MISCAVIGE subj : Super Scio - Answering Tilman on ACCs subj : Super Scio - OSA SCARED OF FZ BIBLE subj : Super Scio - Answering JimDbb on Bogus 8 subj : Super Scio - Answering Inducto on Werner Erhardt subj : Super Scio - Answering Azeric on Germany subj : Super Scio - To Kim On Flip-Flops subj : Super Scio - Answering Martin Hunt on 1950s subj : Super Scio Humor - Top Ten List subj : Super Scio Tech - Musical Dimensions (Attn LaMont) subj : Super Scio Tech - Direction of Research subj : Super Scio Tech - Correction To Level Zero Checksheet subj : Super Scio Tech - Admin Scale Discussion (Attn LaMont etc.) subj : Super Scio Tech - SELF CLEARING CHAPTER 47 ADDITION subj : Super Scio Tech - MORE ON THE DEAD ZONE (attn Heidrun) subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering Paul Sheer on Knowingness subj : Super Scio Tech - Translations of Self Clearing subj : Super Scio - Playing The Guessing Game ========================================== subj : Super Scio - To Ishmael on Freezone TO ISHMAEL ON FREEZONE I've been enjoying your story. You seem to be getting into an argument with Ralph that seems to be based on an M/U. So I thought I'd try and straighten things out. From your earlier post - (which was a follow up to Ralph's discovery of a safe country for putting materials online) > It occurs to me that those who should be most interested in this > type of service (all things being equal) are the Freezoners. One > would assume, if thier rhetoric is true, that they would raise the > money needed to place all the Sacred Scriptures(sic) of Scientology > in a place where all could have access. > > But I bet they won't. They won't because they have no real interest > in the data being public. They want it for themselves, but they > don't want it freely available. When was the last time that you > saw the Excalibur levels on the net? Never. And you never will. > And if you did you can bet that there would be a more than a few > Freezoners screaming about it. I would call it hypocracy, but > maybe I'm jaded. > > Ishmael Captain Bill applied the lable "Freezone" to what was formerly called "The Independent Field". Some people still use the older term. Either name is better than calling it "Squirreldom" which is what the org likes to call it. He was a powerful figure and the Galatic Patrol revolt, the "Ron's Org" organizations, the Freie Zone e.V. association (www.freezone.org), and the Excaliber levels are all his handiwork. His followers are mostly in Europe but there are a few Robertson oriented groups in the US as well. But Robertson's followers only represent a small percentage of the Freezone. It is a generic lable. In fact if you are using tech in any form outside of the auspices of the CofS, then you are already a freezoner by definition. Note that some freezoners are standard tech devotees. I'm in a funny position myself. I am still connected with the orgs (because they haven't figured out who I am yet) but I also extend the tech (which makes me freezone) and I am a 1950s tech revivalist (that is LRH tech but it is not standard tech). I think that if they had any sense, the CofS would be putting the tech up on the net themselves for the sake of spreading it around and making it easily available, like the Guideon Society does with the Bible. I think the same about Robertson's followers and the Excaliber levels. As for myself, I put everything out freely on the net. That includes the Super Scio book and the Self Clearing book. I really wish that everyone would follow my example. The Freezone America website (fza.org) has been of tremendous help in this regard (note that they are an information clearing house rather than a formal organization). I think that we have an evolving subject and we need everything we can get, all of Ron and all of Bill and Ralph and Alan and everybody else and of course all of my stuff as well. Think of any serious branch of science or engineering and notice how many people it took to evolve it into our modern technology. Think of electricity. We needed Faraday and Ohm and Volt and Edison and Tesla and endless others whose names I don't even know. That's what a science requires. Many thinkers inspecting the problem from every possible angle. It is mainly OSA who is pushing the idea that all of the freezone is just Captain Bill. They do that so that they can have a single target to attack. The truth is that there are too many individual sources for them to confront. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Sec Checks and Jessie Prince SEC CHECKS AND JESSIE PRINCE On 22 Aug 98, "Alan C. Walter" posted on subject "Jesse Prince in Deposition" > Taken from alt.religion.scientology > > ****** > > > Jesse concluded 2 days of questioning by Rosen--the transcript of which > > will no > > doubt become available--in the Factnet case. > > > > However, I would like to point out something for all the scientologists who > > screamed so loudly that Jesse may use *PC folder material on ARS. (Keep in > > mind > > that I implied that sec-check info would be used--and it will.) > > > > Rosen used everything from Jesse's PC folder. Not even a second thought. > > > > Strange policy or calculated evil? > > > > What did you expect from the church of hypocrisy? > > > > Bob Minton > > ****** > How low can they go? > > Once the sanctity of the session is violated, the technology ceases to work. > > No matter what the church says, the safety and integrity of the processing > space has been violated. > > The consequence of this is the charge will not move in and blow, at best > some significance is viewed. > > Alan > > *PC = pre-clear = client I agree wholeheartedly with Alan. Sec Checks are not officially protected by session confidentiality, but I believe that that is very wrong. The org pretends that they are not auditing the person (they say "I am not auditing you" at the begining of a sec check) but they use all the tools of auditing and do it exactly like an auditing session. And in the case of public, they are expected to pay for this and told that they will make gains rather than being advised that they are going through a police interrogation for the purpose of getting dirt that can be used against them. So the current policy is despicable to say the least. I would suggest that Jessie hold the moral high ground and not use data gained in session. I would think that he has enough data that was gained out of session to put them on the hot seat. But I say that for Jessie's sake and not to protect DM or his cronies. Frankly I will not fault Jessie if he does use the data against them, it would only be a fair tit for tat and their own overts coming home to roost. But it really is better not to sink to the low methods used by an unethical enemy. If you do you eventually become just as black as those you are fighting against. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - TO DAVID MISCAVIGE TO DAVID MISCAVIGE Dear David, I still have hopes that you might working from the best intentions instead of being power mad or money hungry or a pawn in somebody else's game. On that basis I am going to try and make a rational presenation of one of the many things that needs to be fixed if the orgs are to actually succeed in spreading the tech and clearing the planet. If an organization has as its primary purpose a delivery of total freedom, then the visible product should be an increase in freedom among its membership rather than an increase in controls and this should be especially true of the staff in the organizations since they are closest to the tech. This does not seem to be the case at present. But freedom is hard to measure (it is easy to obnose but that requires judgement). So let us consider the primary target of the organization which is to use and spread the tech because the tech is what should be bringing about this freedom. It would be reasonable for an org to consider its tech delivery to be its primary statistic. It would be gross out-ethics use the Gross Income as the main statistic. That will ensure that you have an organization oriented towards making money. Now you might point to the VSD ("value of services delivered"), but note that that still has money in the equation. If you are delivering 100 hours at $100 the VSD is $10,000 and if you double the price to $200 and only deliver 60 hours, then the VSD is $12,000 and a false condition occurs where you seem to be upstat even though you have crased the delivery stats. It is very bad for a supposedly altruistic organization to be money motivated. Not only do the staff cease to move in the correct direction but the public also begins to stay away because they smell a rat. Now I am not saying that the org should not make money. Of course you have to charge for services so that you can pay the rent and so that the staff can eat. The out point is in using the money as a significant stat instead of using stats oriented towards production. If you produce, then there will be money as a side effect. But if you chase after the money as your primary target, then you might as well go work for the international bankers because it is off purpose and sure to sink any hope of delivery. This is just one out-point amoung many. The Thursday at 2 syndom is notorious for making the orgs neurotic (stuck in the present instead of operating towards the future). And Ron's idea of "Indicators of Orgs" shows a better road of management by means of management good indicators (we audit by PC indicators rather than by TA action alone) rather than management on the basis of stats alone. But I think that this is enough for one sitting. So if you really do care, spend a moment and think about the possiblity that the organization has been aimed at a wrong statistic all these years. In Freedom, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Answering Tilman on ACCs ANSWERING TILMAN ON ACCS On 19 Aug 98, tilman@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) asked on subject "advanced clinical courses" where he questioned a message that had appeared on TNX in April. >>Date: Tue Apr 7 02:28:12 1998 >>From: duncan@icon.co.za (Duncan Gray) >>Subject: TNX ANNOUNCE: Looking for ACC attendees To: pvid@tnx.org >>Reply-To: duncan@icon.co.za (Duncan Gray) >> >>====================================================================== >>== >> Theta News eXchange >>====================================================================== >>== >>Dear TNX's >> >>The Old Timers Network is currently compiling a list of people who >>attended the ACC's (advanced clinical courses) given by LRH back in >>the early days of Scientology. Arte Maren asked for my help with >>compiling a list of people from Africa or currently living in Africa, >>who attended one or more of these ACC's. > >Does anyone know what this is? Jana? > >Tilman I have been recieving "help us find old ACC graduates" type stuff from the Old Timer's network all year. There has been a policy in effect since the 1960s that anyone who attended an ACC in the old days was entitled to recieve all future training for free. Ron was honoring some promise he made to the ACC students about not needing any further training after doing an ACC and there were probably only a few hundred people who actually graduated from these in the 1950s so it wasn't a significant loss of income for the orgs to do this. But they have never really promoted this or done any work to get the stats up on delivering free training to ACC grads. They honor it if an old ACC grad shows up, but its all pretty obscure and low key since it doesn't contribute to the gross income. So I'm really puzzeled about why they are suddenly so anxious to find these people. Let's not automatically assume that OSA is behind it because the old timer's network is pretty independent and may not be playing ball with them. It might just be that some old ACC grads in the old timer's network want to get back in touch with old friends. Then again, maybe OSA wants to get a handle on where these guys are for the purpose of making sure that none of them are formulating a revolt. Or it might even be the exact opposite. So I'm pretty much clueless on this one and I prefer that we don't call a lot of attention to it until we know which way it is aimed. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - OSA SCARED OF FZ BIBLE OSA SCARED OF FZ BIBLE OSA is not talking about FZ Bible. They are hoping that nobody will notice. They are very afraid of fighting this fight out in the open where it will get press and exposure. They are afraid of another Fishman style internet footbullet. This one worries them a lot. The big hold on the membership is that the CofS controls the materials. Getting the OT levels and NOTS out on the net was a very big deal to them, but it is not the whole job. For the rank and file Scientologists, the OT levels are only a small part of the tech. Of course much of the material is out in the freezone already, but the membership doesn't know and can't see for themselves without making that irrevocable step of changing aliegence. And I can't even tell for sure what's available from which sources, so the average member certainly wouldn't know. The internet postings really set the tech free and do so in a manner that is highly visible. This is very upsetting to the CofS control freaks who see their slaves escaping into the freezone. So FZ Bible is a prime target, probably their next priority after NOTS and Clambake. They are trying to give the impression that they are ignoring it, but this is far from the case. Go to the Dejanews power search. All the FZ Bible posts hit dejanews and are always available there at least for a little while. Note that these tape transcripts are large so that deja's article counts are very high because they list them in multiple parts. Restrict the search to ARS and start it from APR 1 1998 (FZ Bible only started around the begining of May). For convience, set it to pull 100 titles at a time. Tell it to find FZ and Bible. There will be hundreds of articles. A few will be postings that talk about FZBA, and quite a few will be the most recent tape transcripts that FZBA has posted. And then there will be HUNDREDS of "ARTICLE UNAVAILABLE". They are working very hard to stop FZ Bible and they are afraid that this will be found out. The www.anthrax.net/cos/library/ website which was hosting some of the FZ Bible posts seems to be GONE. And there is another odd thing which might only be a coincidence, but maybe not. The inital anonymous FZ Bible postings were via the REPLAY remailer. Immediately after that, there seemed to be problems with annonymous postings going to ARS via Replay. FZ Bible remarked on this and there seemed to have been other comments posted as well. Recently somebody posted that Replay only seemed to be working for OSA shills and not for critics. This is not entirely true (I can find examples to the contrary), but at least some of the traffic to ARS via Replay is going down a black hole. I tried posting a test message via replay in the normal manner (not as Pilot and not with my own tools which could forge a replay posting easily) and it never showed. They do seem to work as a midpoint in remailer chains but not as the last stop before posting to ARS. Note that FZ Bible has been using the secret squirrel remailer for its more recent postings. Maybe its only a coincidence or a side effect of some other spam war that is going on, but the possibility occurs to me that OSA went after Replay when the FZ Bible posts started going through it and either hacked the site or planted an operative in there. If so, this would be a major comittment of resources for them. They do not have a lot of high powered computer talent. It's actually hilarious that there are so many Scientology OTs (myself included) who are really high powered programmers but cannot be used by Incomm or OSA. I know quite a few who were contacted at one time or another by Incomm to do some contracting work for the org and in every case, when the CSW (completed staff work - what anyone else would call a proposal) went uplines, it was rejected for security reasons. They do not dare let any public OTs get anywhere near their computer operations. So they are starved for talent. Incomm used IBM's consulting arm (ICCS) for a lot of their big internet work and obviously OSA can't do that for any of their covert ops. I'm not sure if they are really the source of the trouble at replay. But they are certainly working very hard to knock the FZ Bible postings off of the net. And they are doing it as quietly as possible. So I think that they are running scared. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Answering JimDbb on Bogus 8 ANSWERING JIMDBB ON BOGUS 8 On 14 Aug 98, jimdbb@aol.com (JimDBB) responsed to my earlier post on subject "Super Scio - TO JESSIE PRINCE" > >Subject: Super Scio - TO JESSIE PRINCE > >From: pilot@hiddenplace.com (The Pilot) > > >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. > > >The Pilot > > I don't think that the secret OT 8 Bulletin was bogus. It is > exactly what L. Ron Hubbard would say and exactly the way that > he would say it. The confidential priests and psychs bulletin from the same time period and which has been around on the net shows how he would actually rant against priests. That one is real (I saw it on the solo Nots course). Calling Jesus a pederast is just not Ron's style, I don't think that he ever used that word in his entire life. He'd either use scieno-speak (SPs, R6, ev-purps) or pulp style rabbel rousing (where a fancy British word like pederast has no place). Furthermore, the cosmology sounds like Robertson's sector 9 stuff rather than pure LRH. That's why I originally assume that it had been written by Captain Bill (and there were rumors to that effect when this bulletin was being passed around in the early 80s). But his followers deny that it's one of Bill's writings, so my assumption now is that it is by somebody else who was part of the Galatic Patrol revolt but who broke off from Robertson and tried to continue on in the same vein. Those late Ron's journals are certainly good imitations (and approved by the orthodox fools) but they raise a red flag to anybody who has really studied a lot of the tech. I get the same red flag when I look at that OT 8 bulletin. I think that Adrien's description of the current OT 8 which is up on the net is trustworthy and I think that the "why thetans mock up" one from the old days is correct for the old OT 8. But this pederast one is just a red herring. > And what did Martin Hunt write that fooled you. Can you repost it? > > JImDBB Here it is. It even got into Scamizdat number 11. So it fooled a lot of people. > Class 12 Auditors > OT 6 course > OT 6 auditors > Review C/S > Confidential > HCOB 16 June, 1969 > > Running Out GPM's on End Words > > Welcome to the OT 6 course. Now as you know, Goals can create > Problems which result in masses. End Words are now tied in with this > in the following manner. > > During my research into the Upper Levels of the Bridge, I have discovered > a new phenomenon dealing with GPM's. To remove BPC on these items, it is > necessary to runs out ALL flows as applied to End Words. > > Formerly, End Words were seen as an end in themselves, to be removed > through the usual procedure, but this has not been effective in dealing > with thorny GPM's. > > The new procedure is as follows: take each GPM as it comes in > Straightwire, and run four flows through to F/N on each flow. The former > method is to be ONLY used when there is no BPC on the item. > > A complete rundown of items and four flow methods follows in the > next HCOB in the series. This new method will keep us ALL winning > on the Bridge. > > mc.gdr.LRH Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Answering Inducto on Werner Erhardt ANSWERING INDUCTO ABOUT WERNER ERHARDT On 14 Aug 98, inducto@aol.com (Inducto) responded to my post on subject " Super Scio - To Werner Erhardt" > First, a quibble, you've misspelled his (assumed) last named. > > This could well be a troll. Erhard seems to be keeping an extremely > low profile these days. I'd expect him to have at least made an > attempt at a more profound comment, and had something more > interesting to say about CoS' #1 issue to address than "me", plus > more likely done all this anonymously. If anything, the entry > just forwards the CoS PR line that Erhard is (still) just using > squirreled LRH/CoS "tech" (only partially true from what I can tell). > But then again, Erhard did seem to have a sense of humor..... > > It would be interesting one day when you're "out" to see what you > and he would have to say to one another, though. If for some reason > you want to try to verify this contact, or find out about the huge > collection of scn materials he was supposed to have had in the late 60s > (possibly every tape there was as of then), you can probably figure > out how to contact some of his family members who I suspect can at > least pass messages on and I'm sure are used to running very > discrete and secure comm lines. > > I. > > SIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIG > > Induct YourSELF into new realities > > Avoid highwaymen on the road to personal and spiritual betterment -- > beware dead ends and unlit paths I would not be surprised if it was a troll. But if so, it was aimed at me rather than ARS because it appeared in the Pilot's Guestbook at fza.org. I replied on ARS/ACT because that is the only place I put messages (I am not in direct contact with Paul who runs the fza.org website). If it was a troll, it was somebody probing me to see if I really meant what I said about putting the tech out freely without trying to control it. In other words, somebody may have been testing me to see if I'd fly off the handle and start ranting at the idea of Werner running off with my stuff and making a self esting technique or something. The test might have been well meaning (somebody just checking me out) or bad intentioned (OSA hoping to get me ranting) or it might even have been real or a probe from some former EST follower who wanted to see if I'd make trouble for them if they tried to create a hybrid. So it had to be answered as real even if it wasn't from Werner. But I really am serious about letting knowledge spread freely and be easily available without any secrecy or controls. As I've said before, the computer schools don't put leashes on their graduates and prevent them from squirreling Unix C programs by porting them to Win NT. So my answer was the same whether the message was real or just a troll, so I didn't worry about it and simply answered. As to Werner, my impression was that he did not have or use a lot of Scientology materials but was only inspired by observing Scientology. I thought that he was only involved in CofS for a very short time, but I don't have any real data. I would indeed enjoy talking to him but I'm not going to try and setup some covert communication line. Perhaps someday we will have some kind of dialog on the net, I think that everybody would enjoy that. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Answering Azeric on Germany ANSWERING AZERIC ON GERMANY On 15 Aug 98, azeric asked on subject "TO PILOT: WHAT is the current Germany Handling??" > I was just curious to know about the current handling the Church is > doing to get their situation straightened out in Germany. A few years > ago, it seems that there were Sea Org events about every 6 weeks at the > Org to raise money for the Germany campaign. At that time they were > doing Freedom Mags, newspaper ads, and White Papers. I have heard of > their religious tolerance campaign lately, but I was wondering what else > is going on. > Take Care. The big money pushes for handling Germany do seem to have died down. I think that they got as many contributions as they were going to get and the well started drying up. In other words, the people who were going to shell out had already done so. You can only push a button like this for so long before it goes flat. Once it stops yielding donations, it becomes a distraction from things that do yeild bucks so they stop beating a dead horse and find another live one to beat on. Per policy they are supposed to shield the membership from things like this rather than call attention to it, so their real plans would not have been along these lines. As long as the bucks flow, there is ethics upstat protection which allows the policies to be violated, but when the bucks stop then the policies take effect and they have to get it off the members plate. The real plans seem to be oriented around using celebrities, Travolta and so forth. But this is only my view from the sidelines. There are so many positive things for them in this one that they might actually be more interested in milking it rather than handling it, playing victim in the press and so forth. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - To Kim On Flip-Flops TO KIM ON FLIP-FLOPS On 17 Aug 98, KBaker@my-dejanews.com posted (in response to an earlier post of mine) on subject "Attention Pilot: (Was Re: Super Scio - TO JESSIE PRINCE)" >In article , > pilot@hiddenplace.com wrote: >> >> TO JESSIE PRINCE >[...] >> 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. > > Warning: to the attention-span-challenged, don't bother > reading on, this is long. > > Oh come now, Pilot! I can tolerate it when people with > the perceptive abilities of a plankton make these kinds of > bland statements, but coming from you, this is a BIT much. > Jon Zegel is not here to speak for himself, but I sure > am not going to let this one slide by. > > The implication of your statement above is that both Jon > and I "flip-flopped" of our own accord. It seems so. > Jon made three tapes revealing what went on in his time. > I, from a *much* lower level of involvement (outer level > public, with six months on the TTC in Cape Town, trained up > to level 2 only), made some damning posts on Scientology > way back when. Then, Jon made a dramatic "retraction" > in his fourth tape, and left it at that.I made a dramatic "declaration" > (ie signed declarations prepared by OSA, after having > been out for under a year, but did not leave it at that, I retracted > it). They may have succeeded in getting me to "Dead Agent" myself, > give credit where credit is due, it was a brilliant op, but they > have by no means broken *me*, and they never will. And I have not > flip-flopped in the subsequent 3 years out (all mine took > place in my first year out, and each one flipping *back* > into Scientology was OSA-induced.) > > But hang on a second. This pattern is a bit familiar. > Margery Wakefield signed declarations in favour of > Scientology (documented in "the Road to Xenu"), and > then retracted them. Vicki Aznaran made declarations > against Scientology, and then retracted them. > Paulette Cooper made declarations against people, > after the campaign against her, and she eventually > settled. David Mayo vowed he would never settle, and then he > settled. Enid Vien vowed she would never settle, and > then she settled. Gerry Armstrong made a stand against > Scientology, and then settled, and signed a gag order - he > then broke free again. Malcolm Nothling in South Africa > vowed he would never settle, and then he signed a gag order and > settled. Peter Mante in the Netherlands took a stand against > Scientology, and then made a dramatic turn-around, and signed Declarations > for them. I could go on and on. In fact, it would be a worthwhile > research project to doument just how many of these dramatic > turn-arounds, flip-flops, from a position taken, in the history > of fighting Scientology, there have been. > > Noticed anything just a tad bit odd about that yet? The hidden element >here is that in ALL these cases, Scientology officials were present. Not one >that I know of took place with the individual just doing a dramatic >turn-around by themselves. > > Now dammit, Pilot, you KNOW how they work their techniques > to bring about "severe reality adjustment". I don't expect the > general public out there to begin to comprehend this, which > is why I very seldom bother to challenge it when they refer to > me, or others as flip-flopping 'hos. No point in bothering. > But when YOU make statements like this, I get steamed enough > to respond. > > Scientology is *all about* "severe reality adjustment", bringing > a person around to their point of view. Every Scientologist > who has ever walked into a Reg Cycle, determined not to part with > their money, and then after being worked over by the Reg, and parted > with their money, has "flip-flopped". I personally saw a group > of about 50 people in Cape Town, called in to help with the "flap" > in Germany, in 1994, all determined beforehand NOT to part with > their money, and then, after the long-distance Phone Reg had > gone on for two hours, EVERY one of us "flip-flopped" into parting > with our money. This included business people, an architect, a doctor, > and a lawyer. And you, from your position, should KNOW this. > The fact that you have chosen to remain anonymous speaks volumes. > You KNOW what they can do. The people out there mostly don't begin > to understand. Your re-inforcement of their incomprehension > is almost traitorous to those who *have* been brave enough > to speak out. Yes, I'm angry at you. Until now, I've had no > problem with what you are doing, freedom of religion, and all. > But if you're going to knowingly support a myth (there is no such > thing as persuasion, Scientology does not manipulate people, its > these people who are at fault, Scientology had *nothing* to do with > it), I am very disappointed in you. However, in the paragraph > below, you say: > >> 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. > > OK, this redeems you slightly, I'll give you the benefit > of the Doubt (ahem!), and allow for the possibility that > you just did not express yourself well in the paragraph > that set me off - in any case, the above shows that you DO know > about Scientology's control mechanisms. I do however, > question your thesis that "flip-flops", using Jon and I as > examples, are directly attributable to seeing Scientology > as "all good, or all bad", when you leave out the VITAL > datum that flip-flops almost always occur after sessions > with the OSA Gulag. > > And having said all that, I don't think you need > to worry about Jesse, he'll do just fine. Enough of us > have made our tactical errors for those in the future to learn > from, and avoid repeating. > > Kim Baker > >************* >We come back. >************* > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum I was probably not clear enough in my earlier posting, and I probably inflamed an old wound, for which I appologize. I look at the current organization as putting out a very desirable piece of bait with a hook burried in the middle. Or look at it as a nice piece of candy with a poison pill in the center. Personally I don't think that it is a fishing lure which only gives the pretense of being desirable (I know that some of the critics think that that is all it is). I think that the bait is real and is worth the trouble as long as you can get it off that nasty fishhook. But whether it is real or just a lure is an argument that we can put aside for now because my point is that if you separate it from the hook, you are immune to being caught again. The wise old fish lunches on the fisherman's bait without swallowing the hook. You're right about "handling" flipping people around, but what does this handling consist of? It is button pushing. They are going to stir up everything positive that somebody has associated with the subject on the one hand and stir up all the negatives as being opterms on the other (Opterm = Opposition terminal - the evil psychs and so forth). And they keep pushing those buttons until they have enough items stirred up to mask the real negatives temporarily. But that depends on somebody looking at the whole thing as a big all or nothing proposition. But what if he's sorted it out himself and can pick and choose what he wants to keep and what he wants to throw in the toilet. Then the button pushing doesn't do them any good. The absolute best they can do to me with a reg or recruting cycle is to beef up my determination to set the tech free and dump it all out on the net. You see, any button they would push would just make me more enthusiastic about giving tech away for free. How ya gonna keep em down on the farm after they've seen Parie? And yes I agree with you that the control mechanisms are extensive. They are based on reverse application of Scientology techniques; Black Scientology in other words. Communication is the universal solvent so they make everybody get Issue Authority. Secrecy makes man into mud so they make the tech confidential. Saying others are responsible for the condition you are in makes you weak, so they have you blame your condition on SPs. The list goes on and on. I feel a jokers and degraders fit coming on so I'll leave it at that for now. Best, The Pilot ******************************************************* Motto of the SO Registrar Whores "We come on our back." ******************************************************* ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Answering Martin Hunt on 1950s ANSWERING MARTIN HUNT ON 1950s On 14 Aug 98, martinh@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt) responded to my earlier post on subject "Super Scio - TO JESSIE PRINCE" > In article , > pilot@hiddenplace.com (The Pilot) wrote: > > >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. > > It's not hard to find Ron saying and doing all kinds of evil > crap in the 1950s from knowingly duping people to shooting up > drugs to abusing his wives and kids to exploiting the "religious > angle" to make more money. > > You freezoners can be incredibly blind to the reality of Ron > at times; your simplistic 1950s Ron good/1970s Ron bad scheme > is *very* flawed, to say the least. Hubbard was lying, conning, > scheming, defrauding, and hurting long before that. Since he > was but a child, really; it was a life-long personality defect > of monumental proportions. > > Ron's "kindness and wisdom" was a show. Typical of psychopaths, > he could really turn on the charm when he wanted to. When he > later turned on you viciously if he perceived you crossed him > in any way, the real Ron came to the fore - the one he tried so > hard to hide from public eyes. I've had the displeasure to know > some real criminal psychopaths in my life, people who don't > give an effing shit about anyone but themselves and their own > pleasure, and who enjoy hurting people. Everything said about > Hubbard fits the profile, even your comments as one of the duped. > You, no doubt, met the man? I've spoken to many people who have, > and what they told me fits the picture. Hubbard was a charming > paranoid psychopath along the lines of Stalin, Hitler, or > Mussolini. > > -- > Cogito, ergo sum. > "Scientology is evil to the core." - Jesse Prince, former core > Scientologist. > http://www.islandnet.com/~martinh/prince/prince.htm I do not expect perfection from Hubbard even when he was at his best. You are right in saying that he was not a pillar of perfection in the 1950s either. But he is much better at that time than in the later days and the organizations behaved a lot better. It is not an absolute good/bad but simply a relative better/worse. But it is much better. There are so many early quotes on lightness of organization, think for yourself, confidentiality is bad, and so forth that it makes a firm base for undoing the later evils. I know you've got good reason to be furious at the man. But it doesn't help to rant about Ron the psychopath. What does help is to point to specifics that are wrong and how to change them for the better. Or blow some of the charge off with a hilarious parody. Diatribes against evil are best left to the hell raising preachers. What is needed right now is to change the equivallent of the Spanish Inquisition into the gentle fellowship of, lets say, the Lutherans. Both rest on the same foundations of faith. Which ones would you rather have as neighbors? Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Humor - Top Ten List Humor: TOP TEN LIST THE TOP TEN REASONS TO DO THE GOLDEN AGE OF ETHICS SPECIALIST COURSE 10. Too much money in the bank. The bank is the source of all abberation. When you have too much money in it you become more abberated. Send all your money to Flag now! 9. Reluctant to talk to Registrars Re-experience the joy of talking to a reg. The only reason you find it unpleasant is because of your own overts and withholds. You hid money from them or lied about your prospects for taking out a second mortgage. Rekindle your love for these helpful beings now! 8. Worried About The Government Again it is your overts and withholds. You haven't been totally honest with the IRS. We are now working with them to help you pay all your taxes. And we found an earlier similar. You cheated on your taxes back on Marcab. We are empowered to collect your Marcabian back taxes on their behalf so that you can feel clean again! 7. Addicted To TV It is an implant device. They implant you to buy cars instead of LRH Memorabilia. Look what happened to Jerry Seinfield. Make amends for your addiction by working for the org in all your spare time. You'll never watch that horrid TV again! 6. Bothered by Internet Critics Your ethics are grossly out if you didn't install the net nanny. The resulting enturbulation is your motivator. Consider the worthy ostritch. Scientific studies show that the ostritch never gets enturbulated. Be as free as an ostritch today! 5. 2D Troubles We have discovered that all sex is abberative. Remember the pain and sex bulletin. Disconnect from sex now and stop feeling PTS. Whenever those nasty urges rear up you can come down to the org and do an ammends project. The next time your wife or girlfriend gets that gleam in her eye bring her down to the org and you can both experience the delight of working to clear the planet instead of being a body. 4. Nagging Family Members Wife or parents got you down with their constant carping and complaining? We will help you disconnect. Get rid of the troublesome influences in your life now! 3. Stopped on the Bridge Can't seem to get through lines? It is your overt. You mistakenly thought that the org was mishandling you, but you are responsible for the condition that you are in. So it was your creation. Make amends for it now and the stops will vanish. Get moving on the Bridge Again! 2. Afraid of Ethics You are only afraid of ethics because you know that there are many ammends projects and conditions formulas that you should have done. Do them now and you wouldn't feel afraid anymore. The ethics officer is your friend! 1. Full of Doubts This is an ethics condition. It can be handled. A sane being never doubts the perfection of the Chuch of Scientology. Never doubt again! The Ethics Specialist Course only costs 2400 dollars at your local org. Do it now and handle all the doubts and uncertanties. ------------ Mostly joking. But the course has been released and the price is 2400 in the US. The promo says it has "Drills formulated for each and every Ethics tool". This is the first course released in the new Golden Age of Ethics. Also from the promo "If you are not moving up The Bridge during this Golden Age of Tech, Ethics is the tool that will remove the barriers". There is some truth to that, but the ethics need to be applied to the org rather than the exploited membership. Reform is long overdue. The bridge is out and no amount of propitiating to an ethics officer is going to put it back. But this was meant to be a humor post and I've gotten too serious (heartbreaking dispair actually). So here is a parting joke - A traveling ethics officer had been on the road all day long and needs a place to sleep. He comes upon a farmhouse and asks if he can spend the night. The farmer replies that "You'll have to sleep with my daughter". Things proceed as expected but in the end he can't seem to get it up. To which she wittily observers "Looks like your in a lowered condition". Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Musical Dimensions (Attn LaMont) MUSICAL DIMENSIONS (Attn LaMont) Gosh, no wonder Hubbard started raving about misduplication. In my discussions about dimensions, I have been talking about dimensions of SPACE. Not dimensions of time or of any other quality, but just dimensions of space. I'm not saying whether or not there are dimensions of time, that is a very thorny topic and I prefer to leave it aside until I have a better understanding. We also use the word "dimension" for depth and quality. I am not using it in that way. In the sense that I have been using "dimension", it would be correct to say that all paintings are done in 2 dimensions. Of course you see 3 when you look at a good painting, and sometimes you see more, that is the genius of the artist, but the actual medium consists of points in a two co-ordinate system. A great artist might take that as an inval, but it is not meant that way. I'm talking about mechanics here rather than asthetics. The mechanics are automatic, a freebie that is there even if somebody is not talanted. The asthetics give extras which transend mechanics. Look at the room around you. It is a 3 dimensional space. There may be other sideways components in more dimensions, but the physical mockup perceptible with the body's eyes is a 3 dimensional mockup. There may also be timelike dimensions, but I am intentionally ignoring those here. Imagine changing the color of the room, making it brighter or darker. It is still a 3 dimensional room. Imagine making it incredibly asthetic, adding all sorts of wonderful detail and nuances. It is still 3 dimensional. Of course if you were good you could invoke all sorts of things that are beyond the three dimensional boundaries, but the mechanics you are using are still those of a three dimensional space. I am not talking about the quality or nuances or energy or any of a million other things. I am only talking about the space. The room is mapped onto a co-ordinate system that only involves 3 axis. Consider a chess game. The game is played in a 2 dimensional co-ordinate system. You need 2 dimensions of space to track the motion. We might play it with 3 dimensional pieces, but the only motion that is part of the game (rather than our playing around moving the pieces in the air exterior to the board) is 2 dimensional (including the ability for the Knight to teleport in a limited fashion). The most brilliant chess game ever is still played in a 2 dimensional system. That is not meant to invalidate Bobby Fisher. It is simply a description of the mechanics of the space involved. Music is played in a 1 dimensional co-ordinate system. Mockup a low note on the scale. Mockup a high one. Alternate them or mock them up simultaneously and feel THE SPACE BETWEEN THE NOTES. It is there. It is perceptible. It is not physical universe space, it is its own space defined by the anchorpoints of the notes. Yes, you can mockup somebody playing music in a 3 dimensional space. Yes, it takes 3 dimensional energy to propogate the communication in a 3 dimensional space. But the music has its own space which is not these things. And this is a mechanical effect, it is even present for the untrained beginner. And that one dimensional space is not any of the 3 MEST universe dimensions, so it is a different 1 dimension, and that is really mind blowing. Of course there is amplitude. But that is not a dimension of space. If you make the lights in a room brighter, does that increase the number of spacial dimensions? Of course not. For this we could talk about dimensions of energy (interesting idea) but as I said, I'm only talking about dimensions of space here. The musical scale defines a space. You can feel the space in your gut as you listen to music. Things happen in that space. They can happen with a great deal of detail and complexity. There can be an entire group moving around in that space intertwining back and forth, having dialogs (counterpoint), mocking up large solidities (big chords), filling the space with energy and motion, and doing it with fantastic quality and detail. But the space involved only has one dimension. This does not mean that the playing is flat and lacking in depth. On the contrary, it shows that an entire universe of fantastic complexity can be mocked up even with only a single dimension of space to move in. And since it is in its own space and not in the pre-generated space of the current MEST universe, it is a true example of how to mockup universes. The idea that the number of dimensions equates to quality is probably just some old third party. I have yet to see a great sculpture that is as great as the top paintings. And I have yet to see the painting which could match, let's say, Beethoven's 9th being performed really well. Of course that's just my opinion, but the asthetic seems to intensify when it is concentrated into fewer spacial dimensions. The one dimensional comment was not meant as an inval. I am aware of the details and complexity involved in music. Although I am not a professional, I do perform (piano) and I have taken music theory (real theory, not the stupid survey courses), and I love music. I have heard LaMont performing live in the old days and I think that he is great. I could almost (not quite but almost) agree with Scriabin (the mystic Russian composer) that the world will end when the ultimate musical composition is performed. So I don't say these things from a shallow view of the subject. Music is one of the few areas where universes still are created at will (at least if you're up to it). If you think about it for a moment, you will see that LaMont mocks up a universe when he creates a musical composition. It has its own space and time. He mocks it up again at will, either the same or with variations. Or he mocks up a different one instead. Whatever he wants. Notice that he does not destroy these universes. He simply chooses not to mock a particular one up again if that is the way he feels. The Create - Destroy dichotomy is an implant. The actual opposite of Create is not creating. Either you mock it up or you don't mock it up (in which case it isn't there). If you destroy you are not doing the opposite of creating. That was the implanted lie. Destroying leaves the ruins lying around thereafter. Therefore they do not balance and cannot be opposites in truth. When we can do in 3 dimensions what LaMont does in 1, then we will be real OT in the fullest sense, wishing worlds in and out of existance at our whim. Right now we are trapped in the equivalent of a musical scale, thinking ourselves to be the notes and melodies and suffering pain at each discordance. We need to learn to make music again instead of being stuck on a record that has long since grown warped and scratchy. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Direction of Research DIRECTION OF RESEARCH Just in case anybody things that I'm busy abandoning one thing in favor of another as I shift around I though that I should explain how I'm approaching the subject. Rather than trying to dig to rock bottom in any one spot, I prefer to take many light passes over the entire terrain. This encourages good Itsa, gives one datums of comparable magnitude to evaluate things with, and side steps many technical difficulties because one is not stirring up deep amounts of charge. And yet it does work. You do reach the point where you are casually Itsaing and chatting about GPM items without a lot of kick to them and with little liability if you should get something wrong. The frightful difficulties and the high precision needed during the 1960s GPM research was not due to the nature of GPMs. It was due to running too deep with inadequate Itsa. When the quickie era hit, PCs with real quickies (the 15 minute kind) were just as hard to handle and repair as the people who had been spinning on the GPM research line. If you're not going to listen to the PC and if your going to dive for some deep heavily overcharged item as a magic bullet, then the difficulties are immense. Light repetative passes, going deeper each time, with lots of Itsa works even under the sloppiest handling. Sometimes a pro can get you there faster if there is already a map of the territory and he really knows his stuff. But I'm already past the well charted regions. Its cumulative knowledge rather than one thing supplanting another. --------- On a different note, I was considering automaticities again and came up with the following - AUTOMATICITIES They are easy to override if you have confront. If you mocked it up to avoid confronting something, then it is out of control. Persistant machinery must contain a non-confront. -------- Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Correction To Level Zero Checksheet CORRECTION TO LEVEL ZERO CHECKSHEET On 14 Aug 98, misiunas@fza.org (Paul Misiunas) responded to my post on subject "Super Scio Tech - Minor Mistake in Tape Name (Attn Michael)" > A search on the Level Zero Training Checksheets > (http://fza.org/pilot/l0chksht.phtml) for "TBD" also revealed this > entry: > ------------------------ > BTB 20 JUN 70 Summary Report (HCOB reiss 21 JUL 74 as BTB) > (this is the actual form used, in the new tech vols it TBD > ------------------------ > > Paul > http://fza.org Oopse, I did it again (posted without handling a To Be Done). The correct line should be - ------------------------ BTB 20 JUN 70 Summary Report (HCOB reiss 21 JUL 74 as BTB) (this is the actual form used, in the new tech vols it is HCOB 17 MAR 69R.) ------------------------ Thanks, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Admin Scale Discussion (Attn LaMont etc.) ADMIN SCALE DISCUSSION (Attn LaMont etc.) I haven't included the original posting since it is a bit long and can be found in the pilot archives. But I will include the revised admin scale that I suggested. It was - # Goals # Purposes # Ideal Scene # Postulates # ARCU # Valuable Final Products # Policy # Plan # Program # Project # Orders # Statistics On 16 Aug 98, LaMont Johnson responded on subject "Super Scio Tech - About The Admin Scale" > Friends, > > I've kept my piece for quite a while and have simply observed the > overhaul that is appearing on these pages. > > I am quite keen on seeing to it that the technology of LRH be brought > forward such that those who might benefit from proper application do so. I agree. I am quite supportive of retaining the tech that already exists, making it easily available (I encourage FZ Bible etc.), keeping it in use, and acknowledging LRH for the fantastic work that he did. I also feel that much of the tech from the 1950s is not used and needs to be restored and revitalized. I also feel that the research line is incomplete and that much more work is needed. This work only gets done by encouraging free thought and continually questioning everything. If a datum is correct it should be able to stand on its own merits rather than being held up by the support of an authority. Science continually goes through this, looking for exceptions to Newton rather than worshipping him. I have argued before that the freezone should be safe and supportive for standard tech as well as for alternatives and extensions. And I have stated from the first that a reformed CofS should retain its standard tech basis (without fighting against alternatives, but simply delivering a product). I think we need both. > I have maintained my silence and "hoped for the best". Afterall, I'm not > Hubbard, and what happens to his tech, admin and ethics systems is > actually none of my affair. You, I, and many others all devoted tremendous amounts of time and efforts to this, so we do have a part in it, it IS our affair. > Having said that - > > DSEC, FEBC and the Org Board are management tools. Yes, they may stem > from a philosophic viewpoint, but a guy on the other side of L-12, OT > VII the hard way, who has done those administrative trainings (like me, > for example) doesn't look to kindly at revisions of the revisions. There must be something wrong in policy or the org would have straightened itself out long since. There are many conflicts with the basics that Ron outlined back in the 1950s. Confidentiality is one of the most flagrant examples (he says again and again that makeing the tech confidential is suppressive). I think that the tech is only incomplete, but the policy has some fatal flaws. For example, the org is statted on its gross income and the value of services delivered. This means that if you double the prices and only deliver half the service, you will be upstat. This is not to say that the org shouldn't make money, but it should not be the senior importance. If money is the number one factor ... well, you can see the results. And yet there is a lot that is correct and valuable even in the admin tech. So it would be a waste to just toss it. I think that the data series and admin scale are espcially good which is why they are worth the time. But if these are unflawed, then why are things so bad in the CofS? Policy is treated as senior. And yet we know that Ron previously said to hell with the policy when it gets in our way. Doesn't that indicate that there are things which should be above policy on the admin scale? If the scale was right, you would just point to it and say "This is why I violated policy in this case" and the ethics officer would pat you on the head and say "Good boy". You of all people have suffered especially from the blind fanaticism that is currently being encouraged by the SO. I would think that you would want to look the policy over and try to debug it and with your extensive training on policy I would think that you are particularly well prepared to do that. > ARCU is ***not*** senior to KRCP. Never was, never will be. > > 1. ARC leads to cohesion. Total ARC brings about as-is-ness. > > 2. KRC leads to causation. Total KRC is serenity (of beingness). Of course. I put KRC items like mocking up an ideal scene and making postulates above ARC. But for policy you need agreement or else it is so much toilet paper and all you get is covert non-compliance. > I know strong minds have worked this Admin Scale up and down to come to > these revisions, and my bringing up the two items above sounds violently > like the caustic criminality that gets tossed around by the xhurch mgmt. > > But you don't say, "Nice Bull"...you either clobber the s.o.b. with a > hickory 2x4, or you run like hell, while pondering how you got into that > bullpen in the first place. Ideal scene - to still be alive tomorrow. Postulate (which is a doingness) - to run like hell. Policy and orders don't come into it, they might even have ordered you to get in there with the bull but it violates your ideal scene so you run like hell anyway. > Some pundit will say, "Well, with a revised admin scale..." Exactly. Better to violate the policy or even (horrors) create an ARCX rather than getting trapped into a very non-ideal scene such as bleeding on the ground after being smashed by the bull. Then again, if you're really good you might calm the bull down and handle it with the ARC of "Nice bully". If you can manage that, then you do, but the judgement call is on what scene you can postulate and create. You mustn't be afraid of ARCXing people. If you make ARC the senior dataum you will end up promoting the nicest guy instead of the effective one. But you must never operate on a basis of constantly creating ARC breaks. So the policies must not have ARC breaks built into them. Basically you work to maximize ARC within the parameters of what you are trying to accomplish. Sometimes you do have to ARC break somebody, but you never do that if there is an alternative that maintains ARC while still achiving the goal. So the revised scale encourages judgement. Consult the ideal scene first, then see if you can do it with ARC, and only then worry about policy (if you have any time left). > Love, > > LaMont Johnson ARC, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - SELF CLEARING CHAPTER 47 ADDITION SELF CLEARING CHAPTER 47 ADDITION Here is a new process that can be added to Self Clearing Chapter 47 "Postulates". A friend suggested that it would be a great idea to apply the "have the preclear do consciously what he is doing on automatic" to the area of postulates. He theorized that the person is putting out postulates and then stopping them on automatic, so he suggested drilling the person on putting out a postulate and then reaching out and stopping it. This sounded neat but something was needed to balance it to avoid the preclear concentrating too much on stopping himself. My friend suggested alternating it with having the person let the postulate stick, but it seemed to me that there would be too much tendency for the person to have losses by invalidating himself if the postulates didn't manifest. So I played around with other flows, your stopping others postulates, others stopping yours, others stopping others, and so forth. These are all runable, but then I hit on a particular two flow variation where you stop a postulate for yourself and then stop the same postulate for another and it ran like dynamite bringing all sorts of wild considerations into view and blowing them. That is the variation presented below and it runs so well that I think that it must be duplicating what the preclear is acutally doing in present time. He is continually stopping other's postulates and that is why he wouldn't let his own stick. He wants things for himself, whether a beautiful girl or a nice car or a big paycheck, but he is jealous of others and counter postulates their having these things or has done so intensly in the past. Since he stops others, he stops himself too. And I don't even think that he is effective at stopping others, but because he is trying, he does succeed in stopping himself. So here is the process. It should go between sections 47.3 and 47.4. 47.3.1 STOPPING POSTULATES For this one you can just mockup another person making a postulate, but it seems a bit more effective if you go to a crowded place and pick out actual people and imagine them making the postulate. These 4 commands are done in rotation, one after the other. a. Put out a postulate, something you would like to have or to have happen. b. Reach out mentally and stop the postulate. c. Spot (or mockup) another person and imagine them putting out that same postulate for themselves. d. Reach out mentally and stop their postulate. Various old jealousies and such will probably come into view and blow off. End at a point where you are willing to allow others to make postulates that stick. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - MORE ON THE DEAD ZONE (attn Heidrun) MORE ON THE DEAD ZONE (attn Heidrun) On 14 Aug 98, concern@atnet.at (Heidrun Beer) answered my earlier post on "Super Scio Tech - THE DEAD ZONE" >On Fri, 14 Aug 1998 13:44:54 -0400 (EDT), The Pilot wrote: > >>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. > > >I have experienced this. But it's not "dead", it's a meeting >place for "the team", if you know what I mean. On some >evenings, I have suddenly dropped the book I was reading, >because I had gotten a "call". > >Makes sense? > >Heidrun Beer > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > "You shall know them by their fruits." (The Bible) >---------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes. The "Dead Zone" is not really a good name for it, but King's title got me to take a better look and sorted out some things so I used it. A mathematical description would be that it is a singularity in an otherwise continuous equation. A simple example would be something involving division where the divisor passes through zero at some point. The curve goes along nicely with the divisor approaching zero and then there is that one point where it is off the curve, zero and infinite and all numbers between simultaneously, which is why we don't allow division by zero. This is a singularity in an otherwise well behaved equation. One could call it static, but that doesn't help too much with spotting it. "Nothingness" is a little better, but its a nothingness that is also infinity rather than a simple absence or a vacume. Right now I find it easiest to think of it as the "blank spot". I would think that your meeting place comes by approaching it closely. To actually be it would be to be the static and we are all the same static, no individuality or separation, so we don't do that. But to almost be the static, with only the slightest of spearations, is to retain one's individuality while reaffirming the underlying connections between all of us. Hence it is an ideal meeting ground. I'm getting a bit better at spotting this blank spot (at least sort of). It feels like all things are possible right at the edges. Working the two sides of something almost always works as a process, but this is one of the exceptions because the singularity is not a more/less point on a continuous curve. If you were asleep and ran getting the idea of being asleep and awake alternately you might wake up (or choose not to wake up) but you probably wouldn't get that halfway point where you can manipulate the dream. What might work is to wakeup while remaining in the dream or holding onto the dream or keeping the dream mocked up. So the right process might be to hold onto or (better) mock up (or at least get the idea of mocking up) the universe while at the same time alternately being here and not existing (while continuing to hold on to or mockup the universe). Of course this is way out gradient and almost impossible to describe and I'm only theorizing here because it is out gradient for me too right now. The very last process in the self clearing book (mocking up sceens and visualizing yourself in and out of them) might be a gradient torwards this. Another would be to pick an object in the room and get the idea of creating it while alternately existing and not existing ("I exist and I am mocking up the coffee cup", "I don't exist but I'm still mocking up the coffee cup"). Of course you just do the commands rather than thinking them (If you don't exist, you're not going to think). Doing this one I get a really wierd but not unpleasant feeling, very hard to describe. Another variation would be to grab the 8 anchor points of the room and instead of just holding them and not thinking, hold them and don't exist at all, just holding them without being. I actually find that a little easier than to be here and not think while holding them. Affinity, The Pilot --- I wrote this a few days ago and since then I've been playing with and expanding on that last process. You can do it as given and then you can go further and grab larger areas, have cars moving on the street etc. and shift in and out of existance while mocking everything up. The effects are just wild. ---- ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering Paul Sheer on Knowingness ANSWERING PAUL SHEER ON KNOWINGNESS On 15 Aug 98, Paul Sheer responded to my earlier post on "Knowingness and creation" > > > > subj : Super Scio Tech - KNOWINGNESS AND CREATION > Blows me away. This is extremely excellent stuff - thanks. > > > [...] wondering > > how one could learn something sophisticated such as a computer > > language by knowingness alone without the hard work and experience. > Me too! > > > 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. > > Ok. Now this is almost right. There is something missing though. > > > 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. > > Do you know python? When I saw python for the first time I went berserk. > Python is gods language. Do you mean Monty Python? Yes, they are great. > > > > 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. > > > This is what was missing. > > > 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). > > !!! > > > 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. > > I have an amazing ability to visualize. I once designed an entire > aeroplane in my mind virtually down to the last nut and bolt. Whats more, > I could generate 3D scetches of it afterword. > > I have a shit memory though. Why, because I don't put myself in the > position of the person who came up with the terminology for that bloody > diagram of the anteria-this-or-that. How would you say one can apply > visualisation to improving memory? Now that is interesting. I have a very poor memory in the sense of being absent minded and also a sloppy one in the sense of easily altering names etc. And yet I have a fantastic memory of anything I've "focused" on, especially huge amounts of technical details. The difference seems to be in the amount of attention that is brought to bear. I know someone with a near photographic memory and she does not remember ordinarily anymore than most people, but when she wants to she focuses carefully on something and then she can rattle it back flawlessly even a decade later. And yet you can dredge up things that you never focused on at all as we see in pulling up the unconscious sections of incidents in processing. Chapters 1 and 6 of Self Clearing are my current best shot at improving memory. > > Do mockups and see how many details you can put into > > them. Do it occasionally getting a little more detail > > each time. > > I try visualizing two simple transparent 3D objects, like a cube and a > sphere. Then I try letting them pass through each other, seeing all the > lines of interception as projected to 2D. Wonderful. I tried this a few times and it was real neat. Then I tried visualizing 2 4-D objects intersecting with the 3-D intersection being the room I was sitting in. That was all vague sloppyness but I got it "sort of" and the sensation was extremely mystical and facinating. It might be the correct anatomy. Two different 4-D structures intersecting to produce a 3-D that is different from either of them. What a way to introduce persistance. > > 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. > *thinks* ... yes it WOULD! > > > > > 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. > Yes :-) > > > Affinity, > Affinity > > I think you are leaving out of this discussion an important aspect: > When you try to learn something or be creative, you automatically align > yourself with all beings on this planet (or anywhere) that have similar > intention/energy. There is a telepathic communication with them that > assists your learning. Comments? This seems right. > -paul (never been affiliated to the Co$) Thank you for the interesting feedback. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Translations of Self Clearing TRANSLATIONS OF SELF CLEARING These messages have already appeared, but they're worth repeating and I'd like to get them into the Pilot archives. First from Russia - On 16 Aug 98, "Sergey Konopelko" posted on subject "SelfClear - Re - Japenese translation, Russian too" > Hello All > > >(Forward) This man was quick of the mark replying to the Pilots letter. > >Grand that Self Clearing is going into Japenese. Heidrun Beer has a > >German trnslation, and I heard on Thirsday of a Spanish translation on > >the way. Ant > >Administrator: trom-l, selfclearing-l, superscio-l, IVy lists > > I've just finished translating Self Clearing into Russian - > > http://www.tagil.ru/~sk/pilot/pilot.html (There is word2, word8 and html > formats). Really good news. I added the URL to my message trailer about a month ago while the work was still in progress. > A lot of people are interested in the Pilot's works In Russia. > I know it because so many thanks wase sent to me for this translation. > > Best regards. > ___ > Sergey A. Konopelko Email: sk@ntmk.tagil.ru > NTMK,N-Tagil,Russia Phone: SU (3435) 292 401 And here is the facinating continuation of the story of the Japaneese translation. Antony Phillips forwarded these from "NYKinjo" > **************** > Nowadays, the Japanese have very little to do with Buddhism. We do have > Buddhistic-looking ceremonies at funerals, where some basic Buddhism > materials are read aloud, but not in Japanese. Almost nobody understands > what is being read, except the priest, whose main job is that of a > funeral conductor. Many of us pray to the statues of Buddha or what > we call Hotoke-samas, the gods in Buddhism. Sounds strange, doesn't > it? It has nothing to do with what Buddha really taught. > > In the beginning, there was no Buddhism or its alter-ised versions in > Japan. There was Shintoism and this was more like white magic than like > a religion. Priests prayed or cast spells to gods in order to perform > miracles. But Shintoism did not take care of what comes after the death > of the body. > > Buddhism, which was already quite remote from its origin when it came to > Japan, gained popularity. This doesn't mean that people understood it > well. Most of them considered that they now had additional gods to pray > to so that they would be taken care of after death. The Japanese became > dual-religious. > > After World War II, the importance of Shintoism in our life was made > nothing of, and this is true of the Japanese Buddhism. > > Now, we attend ceremonies of both Shintoism and Buddhism > ************************* > > And here is the forward for the Pilot, and all interested. > > Dear Pilot and Antony, > > I have found out a way to translate any Scientology command into Japanese > almost word by word. > > The Japanese language went through a process of drastic simplification > about a hundred years ago, and many auxilary verbs were discarded from > the standard language as they seemed unnecessary at that time. > > By flipping pages of thesauruses and dictionaries of old Japanese, I found > counterparts for "could", "would" and "where". By reading masterpieces of > literature written in old Japanese, I also found colorless "you". > > It may take considerable word clearing before people use the commands > that have nearly obsolete words in them, but the original meanings can > be clearly communicated. It is also possible to import some English > words. For example, the word "communicate" has been imported since > long ago. > > >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". > > This sounds great! Will give us a quick way to freedom from social > beingnesses we tend to be badly stuck. > > NYKinjo > kinjo@mvg.biglobe.ne.jp Its really good to hear this. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Playing The Guessing Game PLAYING THE GUESSING GAME ACT has been playing a guessing game (meter reads and theta perceptics) on the topic "Scn status assessment list". It looks like fun and I'm in a fey mood so I'll give it a shot. Of course this is all probably just dub-in and I wouldn't stand behind anything in this post. I'm just going to spout whatever crazy ideas pop up and not worry about it. It's more like clearing the air rather than an analytical look. I might just be getting some charge off and confronting the wild ideas that I've read in other postings (that "CIA in Scientology" one was a real doozy). I don't necessarily believe these things. > 1 What entity owns the C of S? Marcab controls Rockafeller Rockafeller controls CIA CIA controls Segrams Canada. Segrams controls Lensky. Lensky controls CST. CST controls Miscavage. Miscavage controls C of S. > 1a. Is it self sufficient? It is a cash cow. > 1b. Is it owned by a corporate entity? > 1c. Is it owned by a government agency? All of the above and more. > 2. How many of the C of S top executives are plants? Roughly 1/4. > 3. What is their main purpose? (list to a blowdown F/N) At basic, Marcab wants the secret limited OT training given to 5th invader force officers. Ron (5th invader officer) was caught here and gradually his secrecy conditioning began to unravel under the impact of the continual between lives implants. None of the 4 space powers in the area (Marcab, Espinol, 4th invader, 5th invader) want unrestricted OT materials. They only want limited OT for officers (restore some abilities while otherwise putting the being under heavier controls). Espinol (the saucer guys) watches fearfully. They are afraid that a power will transcend (pissed off OT hurling planets into suns) and want Marcab to take the backlash if it happens, but they want the data if Marcab is successful. 5th invader has the highest tech, having only come in recently from the magic universe. But their resources are limited. Espinol and Marcab are in a cold war (and have 4th invader completely pinned down) but all 3 will unite against 5th invader if the 5th should try and come in to take over this system to protect their secrets. But the 5th has agents here too who are trying to derail the project. > 4. How many plants are in C of S? The instant answer was 4000. > 5. When did LRH's body die? 1981? 1982? 1986. But the thetan left in 1982 and only entities remained for the last years. 5th Invader is hunting for him (they want to courtmarshal him and keep any more secrets from leaking) and so are the other groups. ------------------ All just science fiction. It's as bad as channeling Seth. Best, The Pilot ========================================== These 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. ------------------