Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology From: pilot@hiddenplace.com (The Pilot) Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 36 - MID SEP 98 PILOT POSTS TO ARS/ACT Date: 15 Sep 1998 14:00:33 POST36.txt SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 36 - MID SEP 98 PILOT POSTS TO ARS/ACT ========================================== Contents: subj : Super Scio - The Fragrances HCOB subj : Super Scio - GOADING MINTON & PRINCE subj : Super Scio - On Bill Clinton subj : Super Scio - The Tech Vols Really Were Posted (Attn Andreas) subj : Super Scio - To Emerald on the Bogus 8 subj : Super Scio - Continuing the ACC Grad Discussion (Attn Jana) subj : Super Scio - Question For Roland On FZ Stats subj : Super Scio - To Gregg Hagglund On Questions subj : Super Scio - Master Tape List Addition subj : Super Scio - Hubbardian Translation For Lisa Chabot subj : Super Scio Tech - BEFORE TIME subj : Super Scio Tech - On Ethics And Asthetics (Attn Homer) subj : Super Scio Tech - Handling Suppression (Attn Reijers) subj : Super Scio Tech - From Where Processes (Attn Robert) subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering Lamont On Admin subj : Super Scio Tech - Continuing the Discussion With Lamont On Music subj : Super Scio Tech - Management Tech subj : Super Scio Tech - To Jeff On Handling Loss subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering Stephen On Solo, Group Proc, EST subj : Super Scio Tech - ANSWERING RALPH ON PSYCHIC ATTACK subj : Super Scio Tech - To Lakis On Spiritual Goals subj : Super Scio Tech - LOOKING AT THE GPM RESEARCH AGAIN ========================================== subj : Super Scio - The Fragrances HCOB THE FRAGRANCES HCOB The CofS has recently been mailing around an HCOB titled "DATA ABOUT FRAGRANCES". The bulletin is dated 29 APR 1991 and it says "Written in 1984 while researching the Allergy or Asthma Rundown. Released 1991." It is signed L. Ron Hubbard, Founder Compilation assisted by LRH Technical Research and Compilations. It is two pages long (both sides of an 8 and 1/2 by 11 page). Some excerpts - "From my point of view the current society has suddenly gone stark staring mad on the subject of stink." "The psychs even have a campaign running right now to dull people's awareness and render them more suggestible by dousing the society with cheap fragrances." "The danger of fragrances of that nature being spread all over the place is that they can then hide toxic or even leathal substances and areas. And the psychs, on the track, used such scents for exactly that purpose." "The handling is simple. When things don't smell good to you or when they have an odor of fragrance, don't buy them!" "The penalty of becoming more aware in this society is to discover that it stinks." ---- I know this will sound like a joke or some kind of sick parody to many CofS members, but it really is being sent around by the orgs. This indirectly confirms the stories about Ron's sensitivity to oders in the sea org days. Its hard to imagine that considering how he chain smoked Kools. Speaking of which, American cigarettes contain artificial fragrances and flavors (pure American tobacco is very bland). I learned that (amoung many other interesting tidbits) while doing a little work for a Flavors and Fragrance manufacturer once. I must have been dumb because I never spotted the evil psych lord who must have been orchestrating that companies attemps to implant mankind. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - GOADING MINTON & PRINCE GOADING MINTON & PRINCE Last week a picket escallated into violence. According to what's been posted on the net, Bob Minton and Jessie Prince were picketing the Boston Org when a bunch of Scientologists surrounded Bob and began jostling him and he responded by hitting one of them with his picket sign. Bob was arrested but released on his own recognicance. On 11 Sep 98, inducto@aol.com (Inducto) made some apt comments. The subject was "Goading Minton & Prince, and CoS' PR exploitation" > I came home yesterday thinking I'd make a post about how it > seemed like CoS was using its staff and members to goad Minton > and Prince into acting aggressively, apparently even putting > their low-level minions and followers at risk if necessary - > I suspect that the higher-ups in CoS would be happy in a certain > way to see one of their pawns hurt or worse, if it gave them > ammunition against a perceived enemy. Exactly. They have been bullbaiting him, both because of the TV special and because of Jessie. They have probably reinterpreted the code of honor to "never fear to sacrifice a pawn in a good cause". > Unfortunately, it looks like CoS has already succeeded. I hope > that this is an instructive lesson for everyone. Whether Minton > was right or wrong, CoS has exploited the situation to gain > ammunition for PR and perhaps legal purposes; and that ammunition > will be used for years to come to discredit those who speak ? out against CoS' abuses, and to convince the membership and > staff to ignore outside questioning and criticism. Yes. They might have footbulleted this one by capturing the goading on the same video tape that they used to film the response, which (at least according to Grady Ward) was confiscated by the police. But it sets a bad precedent and associates Bob with violence. > I think part of the lesson to be learned is that CoS' "tech" is > "workable", if for nothing else, for pushing people's buttons > and putting them off balance. Simply doing TRs (Training routines zero to four) on a communications course gives the person practice not only in sitting there and not reacting when their own buttons are pushed but also gives them practice in finding and pushing other peoples buttons. And that is with nothing more than a beginner's course. Scientologists believe in drilling things. Look what happens in the martial arts when somebody who has actually drilled something takes on an untrained opponent. Luckily, applying the tech well requires thinking for yourself and that causes the people who can do it to distance themselves from the organization and the fanatics. And fanatics will footbullet no matter how well they are trained because they do things robotically without thinking. > It seens to me that even the most diehard critic and detractor > would have to admit that Hubbard was a great manipulator and > exploiter, and he has apparently passed some of the "tech" for > that on to his followers. No matter how righteous or justified > an emotional response to CoS' misdeeds is, it gives them a > certain leverage, and may play into their hands. Perhaps the > real opportunity for a critic is to practice keeping an even > emotional and spiritual keel in the face of rather cunning > attacks, or as Koos might put it "black magic". I would > certainly say that the evidence is that the most effective > critics and pickets have been those that most utilized > "Gandhi tech", and that critics who have lost their composure > have all too often found their reactions used against them. Precisely. Bob's best move would have been to drop the sign, raise his hands in the air and yell "Help Police" loudly. Guess who would have been arrested then. What is needed is for potential picketers (especially Bob), to DRILL GANDHI TECH. If Jesse Prince or Dennis Erlich thinks about this for a minute they will realize how to do it and can run a drill while mustering for a picket. Simply have some critics "play Scientologist" and pretend to harrass a "student picketer" until he gets comfortable and can handle them. And if you make a point of drilling for comfortable handling instead of robotic TRs, you will run rings around the robots. > I. > > SIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIG > > Induct YourSELF into new realities > > Avoid highwaymen on the road to personal and spiritual > betterment -- beware dead ends and unlit paths Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - On Bill Clinton ON BILL CLINTON This might be a bit off topic, but maybe not too much since conspiracy theories are part and parcel of late era Hubbard. There is a bad feeling to this Clinton impeachment business. I am not a Clinton supporter. I can certainly find things to criticise and disagree with and I certainly don't consider him trustworthy. But the US economy has done a hell of a lot better under him than when it was hiding under a Bush. And there seems to be the possiblity of a double switch where Gore is also thrown out on the campaign funds issue. The last time that happened, the country wound up under a pair of people who had been nowhere near the presidency. I refer, of course, to tricky Dick and his sidekick being replaced by Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockafeller. Shades of Mission Earth, these were both known catspaws of David Rockecenter. So we might end up with two strangers running the country. It might be that the deck is stacked and the cards are marked and someone is finessing a trick. So I don't like it. It is creating a disturbance in the the force, so to speak. Furthermore, when a pc gives up a withhold, we want to make it safe rather than jumping all over him. I'd rather set a precedent for cutting the president a little slack rather than nailing him to a cross if he gives out a hint of truth (and I do think it was only a hint rather than a full confession). So I would encourage those of you who are in the US to derail this damn thing. What you can do is go to www.webpointers.com\senatemail.html or capitolhillblue.com\repemail.htm which will let you find your congressman's email address and send him or her a note to the effect that you want him to oppose impeachment. It might make a difference. Best, The Pilot PS. as far as the blow job part of it goes, we would have saved a fortune in taxpayer's money if the government had placed some offical White House Hookers on their staff. Penny wise and pound foolish I calls it. ========================================== subj : Super Scio - The Tech Vols Really Were Posted (Attn Andreas) THE TECH VOLS REALLY WERE POSTED (Attn Andreas) Andreas asked about this and he got some inaccurate replies. Zenon posted the actual tech volumes in zipped base64 encoded form to alt.binaries.scientology a few months ago. They are accurate. They are a complete set of the old (prior to 1990) tech vols. They unzip to 17 Megabytes of material. I posted a detailed description in "Tons More Tech On The NET" back in MAY. The post can found in the Pilot archives at fza.org in post31.txt. I also added a section describing them to the "Guide to Confidential Data" which I post periodically and which can also be found at fza.org. At the same time Zenon ALSO posted Frank Gerbode's NOTES on the Saint Hill Special Breifing Course Tapes (SHSBC tapes). Those are notes rather than the actual transcripts. That might have gotten some people confused as to what was being posted. Please don't help the CofS perpetuate the myth that the only way to get the tech is by remaining loyal. I would assume that Andreas already knows better by now. So this is really damage control to handle the incorrect replies that lurkers might have read last week. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - To Emerald on the Bogus 8 TO EMERALD ON THE BOGUS 8 On 29 Aug 98, Emerald responsed to my earlier post on subject "Super Scio - Answering JimDbb on Bogus 8" > The Pilot wrote: > > > 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). > > The "Confidential - Student Briefing" bulletin does not contain the word > pederast. Here is what it says: > > For instance, the historic Jesus was not nearly the sainted figure > has been made out to be. In addition to being a lover of young > boys and men, he was given to uncontrollable bursts of temper and > hatred that belied the general message of love, understanding and > other typical Marcab PR. > > -- > Emerald You're right, the bulletin doesn't use the word pederast. I had seen the word so many times in conjunction with it that I misremembered it as being in there (so much for Clears and perfect memory). But it really had struck me as very unlike Ron when I had read it last year (and also when I read it the first time back in the 1980s). The Class 8 "Assists" lecture, on the other hand, strikes me as very typical of Ron's style. So I re-read the whole thing carefully just now. Here are a couple snippits just to remind us (this is from the copy that was posted in scamizdat #11, I assume that the whole bulletin can be found on the net somewhere). # By the time you read this I will no longer be occupying the body # and identity that you have known as Ron. No longer occupying the identity? He just wouldn't put it that way. The idea is to retain one's identity across lifetimes and realize that it is independent of the body. Implants between lives would knock you out of valence and force you to take a new identity, but he would expect to remember and retain his identity. For him, changing identities would be an admission of weakness and failure. Other Scientologists might use the word "identity" with a different shade of meaning and say it this way, but it doesn't fit the way he would have said it. This sounds like somebody else establishing the groundwork for coming out at some later time and saying that the "Ron thetan" is now occupying their body. # This implant, laid in by carefully controlled genetic mutation # at Incident Two of OT Ill and periodically reinforced by controlled # historic events since then, makes it effectively impossible for # beings on the more heavily affected planets such as Earth to # become free. It causes progressive genetic "evolution" that # gives the subject population greater and greater susceptibility # to the telepathic impingement and direction of the controllers. Controlled genetic mutation? # But my return depends on people like you doing these materials # thoroughly and completely so that there will be a genetically # uncontaminated body for me to pick up and resume where I left # off. A body free of religious mania, right/wrong dichotomy # and synthetic karma. A body free of religious mania? # Without the biogenetic meddling of those who stand outside time # (who cannot yet directly influence our world and must work through # others) the dwindling spiral is not nearly as automatic and # self-perpetuating as it appears. Biogenetic meddling? This is all much closer to modern UFO encounters type stuff (genetic experiments) and far from the 1930s Star Wars type Sci-Fi which is characteristic of Ron's talks about Marcab and Invader Forces. It is all much closer to Capt. Bill's cosmology than to Hubbard's. (read the Sector 9 and Teegeak bulletins which can be found in Homer's archives or the European freezone site). But to be fair, it is also close to L. Kin (book available through Homer) who supposedly was influenced by Capt. Bill and it is also close to "Gods of Eden" by Bramley (an Avon paperback) who supposedly did not have a lot of connection with Scientology (at least according to a recent discussion on ACT). Because it was closer to Bill's writings and because of Bill's "channeling" of Ron/Elron Elray, I had at one time assumed that this bulletin was by Capt Bill and might be part of his OT 8. But I just skimmed through the Captbill section of Homer's archives and it really doesn't seem to be in the same style (but I'm not an expert on Bill's writing nor do I have access to the upper level materials that he wrote for the European freezone). My latest opinion is that this one is by somebody who broke away from Capt Bill. This bulletin is a very doubtful source. Whereas the Class 8 "Assists" lecture is endlessly verified. Any class 8 who has left the organization knows that it is correct. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Continuing the ACC Grad Discussion (Attn Jana) CONTINUING THE ACC GRAD DISCUSSION (Attn Jana) On 29 Aug 98, morejd@gte.net replied to my earlier post on subject "Super Scio - Answering Tilman on ACCs" > In article , > pilot@hiddenplace.com wrote: > > > > ANSWERING TILMAN ON ACCS > > > (big snip) > > > > 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. > > My personal experience with this has been that an ACC grad cannot > just route in for the Briefing Course. At the very least they have > to do the Minister's Course and the Word Clearing Course. They have > to pay for these. I think that most ACC grads would have to do more > than those two aforementioned courses to get up to snuff to do the > BC. There would also be case actions (auditing) involved which > would be paid for at their expense. They would also have to buy a > new e-meter and do an e-meter course. So the income to the Org might > be, at this time in the huborg history, significant. > > jana > > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- > http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum Unless there has been a recent change, the policy was that all training up through Class 6 was not to be charged for. This would include all prerequisite courses. But you're right about the e-meter and any auditing. And of course there's a big chunk of cash if they can get them onto the OT levels. That's still a hell of a lot of training to give away. If that's the reason that they are doing this, then they are really grasping at straws. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Question For Roland On FZ Stats QUESTION FOR ROLAND ON FZ STATS On 8 Sep 98, Roland posted on subject "Co$-->FZ Exodus cost" > As I mentioned in a previous post, the best estimate I have for Co$ > members going over to the FZ worldwide is 50 per week. These are people > turning up and actually asking for services - courses but more often > auditing. Most of these people have been disillusioned with the Co$ for > many months, so they are not exactly walking out of the Co$ courserooms. > So I'll do a little calculation here. > > If these people were happy staying in the Co$ because it was being > managed properly and the public image of the Co$ was acceptable then, > because they are now buying services from the FZ showing they are dead > keen to move up the Bridge, then they would have been expected to have > paid $50,000 each on average to the Co$ if all had been well. 50 people > per week at $50,000 each is $2,500,000 per week lost to the Co$ purely > due to its incompetent management and its poor public relations. Per > year we therefore get a loss to the Co$ of about $125,000,000 assuming > 50 weeks in a year. These idiots are losing themselves one hundred and > twenty-five million dollars per year solely because of their inept > attempts at a public image and poor management. > > $125,000,000 a year being lost by just a handful of management staff. > > Now THEY have got to be BIG THETANS. > > Roland > -- > Watch the Xemu Cartoon: http://www.xs4all.nl/~xemu/xemurams/ > Visit Xemu's Home Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~xemu/index2.html > Also the incomparable Operation Clambake: http://www.xenu.net/ > The TRUE story of Hubbard: http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/bfm/ > Hubbard's "No Christ": http://www.xs4all.nl/~xemu/rams/Nochrist.ram > The famous Xenu flyer: http://www.xs4all.nl/~xemu/flyers/Xemu.html > L. Ron Hubbard - A Profile: http://www.xs4all.nl/~xemu/RonSez.html Right on. I'm curious as to what you based your estimates of 50 a week on. Does this only represent people actually walking into real organizations? Or is it just the stats for Robertson's groups? Or Alan's? Or Mayo's? I would suspect that there are at least that many people picking up the self clearing book each week and starting to work on their own without going into any organization. And lots go freezone by simply co-auditing or connecting up with an independent field auditor rather than affiliating with any of the formal groups. I think that the total number is an order of magnitude higher. Unless you are talking about the relatively small number of Scientologists who are actually active on lines, doing courses or being on staff. I can well imagine 50 of those getting disgusted and walking out the door each week. So let's not understate the case. Many whom they were hoping to get back on lines are moving completely beyond their reach. Only half of the Solo Nots OTs have gone back for this stupid Golden Age of Overrun. The other half aren't going back. The org is footbulleting in hitting these people with "Technical non-compliance chits" (I have recieved one) and driving them into the freezone as fast as they can. By the way, I used to post the solo nots golden era stats from the SNOTs newsletter, but the latest one I recieved didn't have the stats in it. I think that it has gotten so bad that they have to hide the numbers. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - To Gregg Hagglund On Questions TO GREGG HAGGLUND ON QUESTIONS On 3 Sep 98, elrond@cgo.wave.ca (Gregg Hagglund) posted on subject "FOR PUBLICRELATIONS: Questions for the "expert"" Gregg was reposting his list of questions, addressing them to somebody who has been posting as publicrelations@scientology.org. I'm just using this as an opportunity to work over his list of questions a bit. So I'm snipping most of the post. I would like to see the CofS members wake up, so here are some suggestions. > Section 1: A Test of Faith. - Honesty > > [ A 'Yes' to the following demonstrates an absolute loyalty > to Hubbard and a singular lack of embarassment in the > face of what is considered by many to be complete lunacy > or chicanery on the part of Hubbard. > This is called unshakeable Faith. > Do you have what it takes?] You tell them up front that they are fools if they answer yes to any of these. That makes it an attack instead of an honest dialog. I would say that anwering yes to all of them represents a literal minded fanatic, but that a mixure of opinion and being willing to discuss these things shows somebody who at least is thinking for themselves. You might revise this to a more reasonable statement. > Do you believe, despite his documented failure at University > that Hubbard was a Nuclear Physicist? This is bad because it is two different questions. Better to make it - 1. Do you believe that Hubbard was a Nuclear Physicist? 2. Do you believe that Hubbard got good grades in school? (I'll take the liberty of numbering the other questions although they are not numbered in Gregg's post) > 3. Do you accept thought has weight as Hubbard taught? > Do you accept calculus does not work as Hubbard taught? Ambigouous. Are you asking if calculus works differently from the way Hubbard taught or if the person believes that calculus doesn't actually work because Hubbard says it was no good. Since he really says that it is useless and impractical rather than explicitly saying that the math of it is wrong, I will rephrase this to - 4. Do you think that Hubbard actually understood calculus and knew how to apply it? >5. Do you accept radiation is water soluble as Hubbard taught? > Do you accept there is no Christ as Hubbard taught? The reference is to a Class 8 tape that even the OT 3 public has not seen, and there could be some debate as to whether he was saying that the implant doesn't include Christ (only a man on a cross) or whether he was saying that Christ doesn't exist. Better to substitute another question about religion. 6. Do you believe that religions exist to control people and make money as Hubbard taught? > Do you accept in Xenu the Galactic Overlord as Hubbard taught? Reasonable, but a much better question would be - 7. Do you believe that people will get sick and die if they find out about Xemu and entities as Hubbard taught? >8. Do you accept there was a 1950s style civilisation on earth > 75 million years ago, with a population over 100 billion, > which perforce would have had to co-exist with the dinosaurs > and yet left absolutely no traces? >9. Do you accept there are implant stations on Mars as Hubbard taught? >10. Do you accept there are locomotives on Venus as Hubbard taught? >11. Do you accept any of the above are scientifically based as > Hubbard taught? And I'd like to add my own pet hobby horse. 12. Do you believe that if any part of Scientology is made confidential, it will be used to enslave mankind as Hubbard taught? Of course this last is a trick question, the idiots will say that Hubbard didn't teach this but there are numberous places where he does say it in the old days. Really makes one think and worry about what is now going on in there. -------------- Having adjusted the list to my satisfaction, I'll now present my own personal answers. 1. Do you believe that Hubbard was a Nuclear Physicist? No way. I believe that he took one course in atomic and molecular phenomena, and didn't do well in the course either (as he states in "Story of Dianetics and Scientology"). 2. Do you believe that Hubbard got good grades in school? Nope. 3. Do you accept thought has weight as Hubbard taught? Maybe. Mental mass certainly can have a feeling of weight within its own framework and we can see varying electrical resistance on a meter as one shifts one's ideas around. As far as actually affecting the weight on a scale by running processes, I don't think that there has been a dependable test of this. 4. Do you think that Hubbard actually understood calculus and knew how to apply it? No way. He definitely needed to do some word clearing and clay demos on this topic. He did not know the useful applications. Unfortunately, useful applications of calculus are not generally taught in the first year so he missed the boat. 5. Do you accept radiation is water soluble as Hubbard taught? Radiation is not water soluble, but radioactive ash is. He was simply being sloppy about quoting common civil defense booklets of the 1957-8 time period. Nuclear plants have a series of radiation safety zones with explicit safty procedures. The first few outermost zones do use careful washing and showering as the explicit safety procedures. That does work for minor transient exposure to contaminated particles. This is because the immediate effect of a momentary exposure might be trivial but the cumulative effect of having the contaminated particle on one's skin or clothes could be deadly if the dose accumulates over a long time period. It is of course rediculous for handling direct exposure to an intense radiation source. So he was exponding in an area in which he was not an expert. 6. Do you believe that religions exist to control people and make money as Hubbard taught? At least sometimes. The current CofS is a good example. 7. Do you believe that people will get sick and die if they find out about Xemu and entities as Hubbard taught? Nope. This is one of the best proofs that there is something wrong. 8. Do you accept there was a 1950s style civilisation on earth 75 million years ago, with a population over 100 billion, which perforce would have had to co-exist with the dinosaurs and yet left absolutely no traces? Now that is a bit far fetched. I think that there is an incident there but there must be flaws and inaccuracies in the description of it. 9. Do you accept there are implant stations on Mars as Hubbard taught? I believe that there is something between lives. I am not trustworthy of the details as reported but I do think that there is something. So I will wait and see and try to be armed to the teeth with processes to run when my body dies. 10. Do you accept there are locomotives on Venus as Hubbard taught? It does sound a bit far fetched. Again my attitude is wait and see. 11. Do you accept any of the above are scientifically based as Hubbard taught? Not in the sense of true scientific proof. There is, however, a progression of logic and observation which was used to evaluate ideas in the 1950s. Personally I think that it still has to evolve into a science, but it already has much more experimentation and observation than any other metaphysical practice and therefore is the best starting point that we have in this area. 12. Do you believe that if any part of Scientology is made confidential, it will be used to enslave mankind as Hubbard taught? Certainly. ------------- Obviously I do believe a lot of Hubbard. But I have opinions on the subject rather than a literal minded worship of every word he said. I really wonder what publicrelations would say to this one. But they will probably non-confront it. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Master Tape List Addition MASTER TAPE LIST ADDITION I recieved a note from an old Sea Org member about tapes after 1972. Apparantly there were a few lectures after this and the flag master list simply used it as a cut off date. Three lectures of 1972-3 are transcribed in Data Series numbers 41 to 43 and can be found in the Management Series volume of the OEC (green volumes). Unfortunately my OEC volumes are an early set and the data series cuts off at number 40 in my copy. And apparantly there were other lectures as well. I also found a copy of RJ 28 (it was RJ 28, not RJ 29) and have updated that paragraph accordingly. First I will repeate the last section of the Tape Master List with these changes incorporated. The full master list that I posted can be found at fza.org and other places on the net. Below that is an excerpt from the note I recieved. ============ TAPES AFTER 1972 ============= There are no other lectures listed after this in the flag master list. The master list was distributed in 1978, but it may have been compiled earlier and its purpose was to locate old missing tapes. There are some taped lectures after this but I do not have a complete list. There is a rumor that some of Ron's briefings or instuctions to SO members were taped. This might include orders for bulletins and policies to be written, etc. (but not simple orders - those came out daily in the Orders of the Day (OODs)). Two lectures of 1972 and one of 1973 are transcribed in the Data Series. --- 1972 ---- > SO 2 JAN Evaluation (transcribed in Data series 41R) > SO 18 May Current and Future Operations Actions (transcribed in data series 42R) --- 1973 ---- > SO 27 Sep Programs Bureau And FB Lines Functions (FB = Flag Bureau)(transcribed in data series 43R) --- 1976 ---- > 24 Nov Ron's Journal 28 This was a general message to Sea Org orgs and it had the peculiarity of having a general section and then a custom section that was specific to each org so that AO and ASHO versions, for example, have different custom sections. The tape was not very long and didn't really say much of note (it pretty much matched info letters of the time period). It did not strike me as bogus (the later RJs did) and might have been the last tape actually recorded by Ron before he disappeared into Northern California. --- later tapes ---- The cassette "Books Make Booms" issued around 1980 was not a lecture by Ron, but simply a recording of various SO speakers at an event. There were Ron's Journal 36 to 39 issued in December of each year from 1982 to 1985. These don't sound quite right and there have been rumors on the internet that these fail a voice print analysis and are not actually by Ron. ==================== Excerpts from the note (author's name withheld) - "Over 30 of us attended the Flag Bureau lecture (27 Sep 73) on board the Apollo. "The 5 Sep 71 lecture "Talk on a Basic Qual" was only given to a small group in LRH's office on the Prom Deck of the Apollo. "There were other taped conferences - he did not tape orders, these were in the OODs (Orders Of the Day) which came out daily - early in the morning. "Sometimes orders were issued on an FBDL (blue on white), only LRH wrote these." ---- Sorry I can't reveal more without exposing this person to harassment. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Hubbardian Translation For Lisa Chabot HUBBARDIAN TRANSLATION FOR LISA CHABOT On 3 Sep 98, lscdoesnteatspamanymore@netcom.com (Lisa Chabot) asked on subject "hubbardian translator needed" > I'm having trouble with this sentence: > > In history we have a very foul opinion of the past because it is > related by recriminations of two opponents and has not spotted > the third party. > > "In history we have a very foul opinion of the past"--does that mean > the foul opinion of the past only exists in history, or that history > comprises a foul opinion of the past? Hmm, maybe I'll go with the > latter. > > Next, "...and has not spotted the third party." Who "has not spotted > the third party"? History? Or the past? Do they mean, "spot" as in > "sight"? Did the tense change between this clause and the preceding? > Or just the plurality--is it we who "has not spotted"? > > Yes, I make grammar mistakes too, but nobody worships me for my > clarity of speech. (Let me also take this opportunity to say I have > also never been a decorated war hero or nookular scientist.) > > This isn't word-clearing: it's weird-clearing. This is the kind > of thing you either have to read so quickly you just pick up glimmers, > or stare at it until the letters themselves become unintelligible. I speak Hubbardianish. Its fairly easy. The above sentance is just sloppy. The pronoun "it" refers to "history" so just substitute it. The conjunction "and" reuses the previous subject (which is the "it" again) so place the word "history" there explicitly instead of letting it be assumed. Then you get - In history we have a very foul opinion of the past because history is related by recriminations of two opponents and thus history has not spotted the third party. Of course you also need to know about his idea that there is always a hidden third party behind every conflict. And it helps to know the old idea that "History is written by the winners". The real problem comes up when you combine a sloppily written sentence with literal minded interpretation and fanaticism. Then the grammatical errors and typos become real killers. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - BEFORE TIME BEFORE TIME The idea of spotting incidents "before time" has been being discussed recently on ACT. If we consider that time is dependent on change, there would not be anything that is truely before all time streams except static which has no events because there is no change. But in practice what you will get is something that the pc thinks of as being before what he thinks of as time. First, of course, are the implants which say that they are at the beginning of time. If these are still affecting the pc, then he will look earlier and spot "before time", but it could still be track in this universe. A bit higher on the scale, the pc sees these as just being implants and so he is no longer fooled by them. Then comes the fact that universes have their own fixed physical time streams. If the pc is heavily in agreement with Mest time, then "before time" is simply before entering the time stream of a particular universe. You can see this one with Incident 1 which is an actual universe shifting incident as well as being an implant (it is actually an "implant universe" or a universe built with the intention of confusing and controling the being by means of the mechanics of the universe itself). But of course you can find earlier similar incident 1s. Obviously the pc still has his own time stream even though he is popping in an out of these Mest time streams. You could ask the pc "how long before time was that?" and make it obvious that he still has his own sense of consecutive change that is senior to the time of specific universes. All of the above can be seen as simple sequential time streams and could be thought of as one dimensional time. There might also be multiple dimensions of time. My Itsa is not yet good in this area so the rest of this is highly speculative. First, please do not confuse dimensions of time with dimensions of space. Think of them as their own separate breed of cat. I usually talk about dimensions of space because they are very easy to visualize and I feel that we have a good understanding of them. Time is sometimes called the 4th dimension and that is a bad way of looking at it. It assumes that we are talking about 3 dimensional spaces and that there is an additional dimension which is time. But if we were considering a 2 dimensional space, then time would be the 3rd dimension. Or if it is a 4 dimensional space, then time is the 5th dimension (or the 5th 6th and 7th dimensions if there are 3 dimensions of time as well). This tends to lead us into the error of confusing time and space. Since implanters like to do that, I wish to avoid this error. And we can neatly sidestep it by looking at time as a separate thing which may have dimensions of its own. The simplest case for a two dimensional time would be to consider that a being might have parallel time streams. We can get a computer analogy by thinking of multi-processing where more than one program is running concurrently on the same computer. Or the more sophisticated case of multi-threading programs where the programmer takes advantage of this. In multi-threading, the programmer has his routines utilize mutiple sequential threads so that he can have one processing the mouse while another one draws a picture and a third sends something to the printer. Each of these threads runs independently of the others but the top level of the program is aware of this and co-ordinates it. You can get a hint of this simply by walking and talking at the same time and paying attention to both at once. When asked for "before time", somebody might get off of the current sequential thread and into parallel threads or a higher viewpoint. Somebody mentioned the analogy of a circle where a being moving around the circle might see it as a sequential line but an exterior being might see it as a circle. Notice that you do not dissolve the one dimensional line to see it as a circle. Instead you get more dimensions of space in addition to the one that you already had. I would expect that it is the same with time. In moving beyond a sequential time stream to see it as a circle for example (if the current one is a circle - that still remains to be seen), you would get more dimensions of time rather than not having any time. In other words, at these higher levels there would still be the perception of consecutive change (time) but it would be in a broader form. There would be, for example, the consecutive sequence of the drawing of circles. Trying to get before all possible times simply gives you static. But getting exterior to some time frames may give you perception of and access to others, and that might be very useful. A three dimensional body easily handles two dimensional drawings. The same might be true for operating in multiple time dimensions. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - On Ethics And Asthetics (Attn Homer) ON ETHICS AND ASTHETICS (Attn Homer) On 30 Aug 98, ralph@hilton.org (Ralph Hilton) replied to an earlier message from Homer on subject "Ethics and Aesthetics" > On Sun, 30 Aug 1998 01:41:16 -0400 (EDT), homer@lightlink.com (Homer Wilson > Smith) wrote: > > > Pilot seems to alternate between Aesthetics is 9th and 10th > > dynamics and the same for Ethics. > > > > Which is it? > > > > > From PDC tape 2: > > And a person who can equally create and destroy anything finds himself > associated with a group and has actually what could be considered to be the > ninth dynamic which will be aesthetics. And the tenth dynamic, which would > probably be ethics, if you were going to go way on out beyond this universe, > saying that the eight dynamics we have apply to this universe. > > -- > > Ralph Hilton > http://Ralph.Hilton.org That one sentance in the PDC is the only reference I know of where Ron defines the 9th and 10th dynamics. So I feel that it was a quick look and an accurate feeling rather than a careful analysis. I doubt that he had much reason for putting one above the other but was simply spotting two higher levels that were senior to the 8 dynamics. Notice that he says "probably". I originally took this as accurate (Asthetics as 9th and Ethics as 10th) until I had reason to reverse the order, so it is possible that some older writing that I included in Super Scio might have used Ron's sequence for these. But I've been sure that Ethics is 9th and Asthetics is 10th ever since I audited my way through the Penalty Universes (Super Scio chapter 5). I have a number of reasons for this: 1) Looking at the upper dynamics as "theta" harmonics on the lower 8 dynamics, Ethics ("contemplation of optimum survival") is obviously a harmonic on the 1st dynamic (bodily survival) and Asthetics is obviously a harmonic on the 2nd dynamic ("sex sublimates into asthetics"). 2) I cognited on #1 above while trying to sequence the penalty universe goals (the goals are in sequence by dynamics) and it gave much better meter reads and helped to sort things out when I changed to this sequence (instead of putting asthetics as 9th dynamic). This held up as correct when I later worked other platens that were oriented by the dynamics. In any patterns that seemed to follow the dynamics (whether going upwards or downwards), things related to ethics would be between things related to worship and things related to asthetics rather than having things related to asthetics in between the worship and the ethics. If you can't live in beauty, then you can at least keep your sense of honor and if you can't do that either, then you'd better go worship some higher power for help or else your dead. 3) Thinking of the dynamics as an expanding sphere, you can reach farther with asthetics than you can with ethics. So nowardays I always put Ethics as 9th and Asthetics as 10th. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Handling Suppression (Attn Reijers) HANDLING SUPPRESSION (Attn Reijers) On 2 Sep 98, "H.T.J.Reijers" asked on subject "S&D of suppressives, to The Pilot" > Dear Pilot, > > I have just started reading your wonderful book Self-Clearing. Thanks a > lot for sharing your experience and knowledge with us. Looks very good. > I want to try some of the processes mentioned in it. > > I did some solo-auditing in the freezone. One of the things I did was > the handling of suppressives. Recently, I found a process to handle > suppressives developed by amongst others John McMasters in the sixties. > They had found that suppression was not necessarily caused by the > person acting suppressively towards the pc, but could also be caused by > the pc him/herself. In all the cases they investigated they found that > the pc had something in his/her space that got restimulated by the > another person's behaviour, or that he/she was unknowingly doing > something that was compelling the other person to act suppressively > towards them. > > This was contrary to Hubbard's view who assigned cause to the > suppressive person. All S&D processes in the red volumes, at least, do > assign cause to the SP. > > What do you think of the idea of suppression caused by the pc, and what > process steps would you recommend to handle it? > > All the best, > > > Tim According to all the early basics, you must run the pc in the direction of his being at cause and not assign cause to external sources. (for example, 2ACC-24B of 16 Dec 53, "Techniques Which Do or Do Not Assign Cause"). If he places the cause point exterior to himself, then he is at effect and cannot do anything about it, and if he shifts the cause point from outside to internal, then he can change conditions. All auditing works on this basis. You don't write a disconnection note to the car that hit you and blame your condition on it (and try to disconnect even harder when the injury doesn't heal). Instead you run out the incident, and even that is often not good enough because there is too much effect, so you run hitting other people with cars (being at cause over mocking it up). Even if it was really them who mocked it up, if you can assume the viewpoint of having caused them to mock it up, then you can change things. And it even seems to work just to decide that you mocked it up no matter who was really the source. The old disconnection tech worked to the degree that the person simply said that he was going to be cause and move away from somebody who was bothering him. But it was deadly the second that the person blamed any of their case on the SP. If somebody is making rude noises at the movies, you can be causative about moving your seat. But when you say he made you sick by doing that and start blaming and dramatizing, you stick yourself with the condition. If you go around blaming Joe for making you sick, then you can't as-is it even if he did do something to cause that, because you are mocking Joe up as mocking it up in your own universe. I don't know what John's processes were (it would be nice if you posted them), but I would think that anything which puts the pc more at cause would be better than the S&D tech. I know that Alan did something smart with handling abuse where he gets the pc at cause by finding an object and then having them mock it up causatively. Note that an S&D could be used to find a terminal to handle. And the suppressed person rundown is quite workable and does try to run the condition out instead of blaming the person's case on some evil SP. That is quite different from ordinary PTS handling. But blameing others for the condition that you are in is a sure route to sticking yourself with a chronic condition. Self Clearing chapter 24 is about Suppression and has quite a few processes. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - From Where Processes (Attn Robert) FROM WHERE PROCESSES (attn Robert) On 5 Sep 98, Beth Guest responded to Robert Ducharme's post on "From where could a spiritual being..." where he asked about one of Alan Walter's processes that Heidrun had mentioned in an earlier post. > In article , RDucharme > VoltR@ctinet.net> writes > > > At 03:18 05/09/98 -0400, Heidrun Beer wrote: > > > > >we had a discussion on this list a few months ago, about the > > >exact interpretation of one central question in Alan's processes: > > > > > >"From where could a spiritual being experience [unpleasant sensation]?" > > > > > > Has anyone here run this process and had any successess with running it? > > Yes. I have used it quite a lot. > > > It seems to violate certain basics like processing a terminal rather than a > > condition, and limiting it to flow 3. Shouldn't it be "From where could > > YOU...."? > > > > Well I am not a tech expert so I can't explain why it worked only that > it did. > I took the "spiritual being" mentioned in the process to include me (or > another) > -- > Beth Guest Beth is right. The "spiritual being" is simply an all-flows variation rather than using you/another. This would be probably be better than the simple flow one (without flow two) that was used on some of the "from where" processes originally since it allows whatever flow is needed to come up. All flows type processes are not uncommon in the old days, but this was not done in this case because "from where could somebody ..." seems to lack punch. Alan's use of "spiritual being" seems to make this one work well in an all flows variation. Using 4 flows as is done in modern grade 0 might be a stronger variation, but sometimes running too many flows can get in the way too. Fastest might be a simple you/another alternation. But Alan's emphasis on the spiritual aspect is a nice touch and might help with people who find these "from where" type processes to be a bit unreal. Old style processing used multiple flows sometimes but not always. Only quickies where you only run a few processes gave trouble on missing flows. The rule on having to run a terminal instead of a condition is not absolute and was only in vogue at certain times during the research. Obviously all Dianetic somatic handling is in violation of this rule (you run the somatic rather than the body part). I would say that it is only a rule of thumb which suggests that you will get faster results by running "from where could you communicate to a leg" rather than "from where could you communicate to a bad leg". And the emphasis on using a terminal is really aligned towards the "communicate" subset of these kinds of processes because communication is aimed at terminals. Also, in the specific case of using the communicate version on an injured body part, the good leg would be earlier than the bad leg so you would want a process that allows the pc to shift over as needed. But I do have one nitpick which is that "experience [unpleasant sensation]" is a bit oriented towards being at effect. It should work but something which alternates this with causatively creating it would probably work faster. For example - a) From where could a spiritual being experience [unpleasant sensation] b) From where could a spiritual being create [unpleasant sensation] Run alternately. But I haven't looked at the full rundown from which Heidrun excerpted this process. I think that Alan already uses the mockup or create variations sometimes. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering Lamont On Admin ANSWERING LAMONT ON ADMIN On 29 Aug 98, LaMont Johnson responded to my post on "Super Scio Tech - Admin Scale Discussion (Attn LaMont etc.) > Cher Pilot, > > Again, okie-dokie. > > But now we must re-evaluate GROUP SANITY/3rd D DE-ABERRATION. And then > align all those against the Awareness Characteristics, Effect Scale, and > so on. > > In so doing, the whole thing goes out of whack, requiring a complete > overhaul. Unfortunately true. That's why it will take a good bit of work and detailed analysis rather than just a "gut feeling" even if the gut feeling is in the right direction. I mostly spend my time working back and forth over the tech endlessly. The same is needed for admin basics. With the auditing tech, Ron went through generation after generation of auditing processes and furthermore, he was at his most brilliant in 1952 when he laid the groundwork. So there is a rock solid base to stand on. The admin tech, on the other hand, is like a first pass, about the equivallent of DMSMH without the subsequent brilliance of the PDC lectures. > What happened in the xhurch, happened due to rabid, untrained, unhatted > moths applying "policy" as they saw fit, without the benefit of those of > us who knew better. True, but how did the rabid, untrained, unhatted folkes get into positions of power? Earlier flaws in policy which left the door open for dramatization. For example, management by stats only rather than by means of management good indicators. If you were to audit based on TA action alone, without consulting good indicators, etc., you would eventually find that the highest TA action could be produced by running "pick up the cans" "put down the cans" alternately as a process. And once that gets labled as a "false stat", then you can alternately overrun and rehab (over and over again) a simple process to drive the TA up to 5 and bring it back down again every minute or so (until the case goes solid and sticks at 5, and then you declare him an SP and get another PC). So the people who can really get the stats up (driving them up by brute force, making students stay till midnight etc.) are the ones who get promoted. And if they do it fast enough, they get promoted before the area that they have milked goes into an unrecoverable collapse. This is like the corporate raiders who can get a high money stat briefly while ruining a company. Per policy, they would be promoted. > Protecting Own Turf. > > Reminds me of a time the FCCI's whipped the pee out of the FSO STAFF > (with some ringers from other Land Base Orgs). Kind of like The Orange > County Polo Club versus the Fruit of Islam. > > But we (FCCI's) didn't HAVE to win. Exactly. The basic tech datums are correct and people with tech training know, for example, that not having to win is the right way. But people who only trained on policy learn to be tough and drive everything in with force and make it go right (we know where that is on the tone scale). > The balconies were lined with staff on lunch. Every org was represented, > and this was the BIG EVENT. SO had to make a showing - afterall, they > were SO. > > So, we whipped the pee out of 'em, in water polo, in the FH Pool before > 2,000 onlookers, Orgs (multiple) Staff and Public. > > They blew off the grey hairs for the same reason in '80-83. > > MUST PROTECT OWN TURF. Must dramatize force. Must implant others into thinking the exact same way as they do. Must be in compulsive agreement and never tolerate any disagreement. A complete reverse vector. > And us OT's were the enemy. Kind of tragic really. Guaranteed to happen unless policy is realigned in accordance with the technical basics. Someone who is highly trained on tech can use the admin safely because they don't violate tech basics no matter what the policy says. Somebody without tech training who learns admin only generaly acts like a raving psycho. Time after time I saw good execs clean up the org and save the day and inevitably they were also highly trained auditors. And then that stupid policy came out on having admin people train on admin rather than tech. Of course you don't automatically become a good executive just by learning to audit. So tech training only leaves you with an exec who can't manage (or who needs time to learn). But admin training only leaves you with an exec who is actually destructive. Just too many missing basics and wrong relative importance. > Clearly demonstrated misaligned scales. I don't see how more > re-aligning will work, but I will reserve further comment at > this time. If something is misaligned, then you have to keep trying to get it right. > Good Luck. > > Love, LaMont Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Continuing the Discussion With Lamont On Music CONTINUING THE DISCUSSION WITH LAMONT ON MUSIC On 29 AUG 98, LaMont Johnson jazzlamont@home.com responded to my earlier post on Musical Dimensions. > Cher Pilot, > > Okie-dokie. > > Yet having observed multiple dimensions in this space-time, and having > demonstrated them objectively to others, such that those incidents HAD > to be confronted in and out of session, I question the concept of two or > even three dimensional space. I have only been discussing mechanical concepts of space, in other words the co-ordinate system in which an object might reside. The physical universe currently has 3 spacial dimensions set up that way, and it is possible to have 4 (or more) set up along these lines, in other words space as we know it rather than the other kinds of things that people freequently spot when they think of more dimensions. I use 2 dimensions for analogy purposes because it is easy for people to visualize an extra (3rd) dimension whereas discussing 3 dimensional mockups and then trying to introduce an extra (4th) dimension is expecting too much of the audience. So lets take a 2 dimensional drawing. The mockup is in only 2 dimensions. You can visualize it as 2 only although you need to put it on a 3 dimensional piece of paper to draw it in this universe. That drawing is in a 2 dimensional frame of reference and is pretty much the same whether it is a pure 2D mockup or on a 3D piece of paper or even on the equivalent paper in a broader 4 dimensional system. But you can't reduce the 2D drawing to 1D without loosing its meaning. The extra dimensions of space beyond the drawing might be considered a sort of hyperspace relative to it. The thickness of the paper has little to do with the mockup of the drawing, it is outside of its frame of reference. But we can fold or tear the drawing and impinge on its existance. And there can be other sheets of paper, and we can organize them in a larger framework of dimensions which are really something other than the drawing. Most people have trouble visualizing mockups in more than 3 dimensions. Some of the really heavy implants use 3 dimensional mockups in 4 or even 5 dimensional spaces and use the extra dimensions to really dork the victim around. Most people can only get vague ideas and impressions rather than really visualizing 4 or 5 dimensional MEST. I can manage 4 these days (with a bit of strain) but I can only get a 5th by sacraficing one of the other 4 (seeing 3D rooms as flat pictures or whatever, which might be stacked in one space which is in turn curved in another space). The penalty implant universes that I talk about occasionally were done in 5 dimensions but they use 3D mockups twisted around in the other dimensions. The pc has lots of stuff going on that is sideways of this 3 dimensional reality. Of course you run into it occasionally. But he is generally percieving in 3D and he is working with a reality that uses 3D mockups. I can easily spot a 4D thickness to this stuff, but it is like the thickness of a sheet of paper that is holding a 2D drawing. There is a lot about these kind of things in the Super Scio book that I posted at the beginning of last year. And with all this, I'm still only talking about dimensions of space. I just wrote a separate post about dimensions of time. And I'm getting pretty sold on the idea that there are other kinds of dimensions besides these. When I talk about mockups in 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 dimensions, I'm ignoring lots of other things. Its an attempt to focus on one aspect of things so that we can come to grips with it. > I know this is what is apparent to those interiorized and subject to the > laws of the MEST Universe. Just trying to figure out how the playing field is constructed. > Perhaps, as an artist, what I do is lead my friends to the perception of > more dimensions, and when I load up a couple of notes and aim them, I > get more than some applause from those who hang on and ride those notes > - which has also been amply demonstrated. This is something other than mechanical space. I am getting more and more inclined to define art as the act of adding additional dimensions beyond the mechanical ones. I kind of liked the "quality of communication" definition, but it always struck me as being a bit shallow and missing something. You don't get the "Rapsodie in Blue" by improving the quality of "Home Sweet Home". And when Garner did "I Remember April", there was a hell of a lot more there than just adding quality to an existing tune. Considering that asthetics is above the 8 dynamics, we might define art as putting something there that is beyond the physics that are present. Sort of like the sum is greater than the whole. > I appreciate your candor, and I like you style. > > But when LRH asked my true opinion of his music, I opted for a politic > response. He still tried to get me to compose the score for RITS and > then come out to OTR to "study" music with him for 6 months. If you were > there, you remember the routine. Did my 50 hours of Sec Checks, Security > Clearance through CMO, etc., etc., etc. He wasn't a great artist. But I've heard worse things on the radio. And I think that it takes lifetimes to build up a great talent. So I would say that he made a good start for a beginner. Except that he let his ego get in the way. > Ingo has his remote viewing schtick, and I do my little thing. Ingo also has or had his painting. > But it starts at 360+180 and goes from there. Time being the arbitrary > there's a lot to duplicate. > > Trust me. > > Love, LaMont I think that it will take a lot of us working together to figure out and duplicate the whole stick. That's where the idea of a single source becomes suppressive to finding our way out of the trap. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Management Tech MANAGEMENT TECH Despite my complaints about policy, there are many valuable datums in the Scientology Mangement Tech. We know that it is flawed because of what the organization became and because attempts to run ordinary businesses on a literal and complete implementation of policy tend to do poorly. But we also know that the ordinary humanoid management tech has its own grave flaws. Corporate middle management has an especially bad reputation. The various stories of corporate infighting, especially as to stealing each others works, casting blame, and so forth are quite real. Some Scientologists have done very well as management consultants. Where they have succeeded in the real world (instead of by leaching off other Scientologists), it has been by putting in some workable basic without trying to put an entire company "on policy", thereby creating a sort of hybrid that has the best of both worlds. For example, hatting somebody up on their post is a good idea. Tracking statistics (without the attendant management by statistics only and abusive condition assignments) is a good idea. Improving the commuications within an organization (the comm system) is a good idea. Examining the flows within an organization (without going crazy on the subject of routing forms) is a good idea. So how do you separate the wheat from the chaff? It is by consulting the basics. Things such as ARC, KRC, communications (most important), problem and solution chains (which derives from the 4 conditions in the axioms), and so forth are rock solid and can be used as tools to evaluate other data. Does a particular policy increase ARC or does it create continual ARC breaks? Does it encourage the staff to be at cause or does it put them into chronic effect? These are what you use to judge. You can't just put in a policy and watch what happens to the stats. We know that that has continually failed within the organization. What you get is people making it go right and covering up long term bad effects that return to haunt us in the following years. That happens even without the more typical corporate America behavior of false reports, false stats, and shifting the blame. Ron had absolutely no management experience. And then he had his big ARC break with Don Purcell. So he tried to bypass without bothering to find out what acutally worked in the business realm and we ended up with a pattern based on the Navy. And yet there are some brilliant insights in policy. What is really needed is the same kind of evaluation that let us pull data from mysticism (1952-4) and align it into a workable system. Of course there are flaws and gross out ethics in current business practice. But modern business practice has been evolving for generations and those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. This whole area is still more of an art than a science. Genius and inspiration are needed. But, as is the case with the tech, we have the seeds of something that could grow into a true science. So let's fix the management tech rather than abandoning it. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - To Jeff On Handling Loss TO JEFF ON HANDLING LOSS Jeff (robsep@earthlink.net) wrote: >I am turning to this newsgroup for help. I am in my early twenties and am >in the middle of a crises. I have what is most commonly known as a broken >heart. Within the last 24-36 hours I have experienced the worst levels of >the tone scale. Right now "agony" (if that is on the tone scale) seems >light years above what I feel now. The one thing keeping me going is my >small understanding of the tech. I believe I can overcome this somehow and >stop being an effect. What I am asking for is how. what process do I run? >How do I confront this and move on? It feels like the end of the world, but >I know its not. If anyone can suggest something....something for >betrayal.....loss....abandonment. something that will make me be able to >eat again and not throw up. ARC, Jeff I understand. This can be very rough. Hopefully you are already over this, but I though I should suggest something anyway, just in case. (Unfortunately I only check the newsgroup periodically and then post in bulk). Homer (homer@lightlink.com) posted what is basically the most powerful handling for this, but he didn't explain it or provide a gradient. His post was - # Run, # # "Make more of it." # # repetively to humor and extroversion. # # Homer Bascically, when you can really have and confront what happened, you will feel better an be able to let go of it. That means being able to mock it up, and the way to do that successfully is to mockup more of it until you become cause instead of sitting at the effect point. The easiest gradient to this is to use an assist for loss that Ron gives in the 1st ACC (1953). What you do is you mockup the person that is gone and then blow them up. You mock them up in various places (on the roof, in the car, in the countryside, and so on) and each time, you then visualize them exploding. You can also vary it a bit by having them crushed, smashed, or otherwise pounded out of existance. This is a gradient to confronting them being gone and is also putting you at cause. I ran this assist once on somebody whose wife had died. It brought on heavy grief and crying for a few minutes and you have to persist through that and keep going. It went from there to a tremendous feeling of relief. Note that one is not blowing them up to get even with them for leaving, but it can run that out too if it is there. You just persist through whatever emotions turn on until they fade and you come up tone. Beyond that you can run the general subject of loosing loved ones or being betrayed or whatever. This is more difficult and the above should be run first. To get your confront up on any bad situation, you can run "Mock up a way to have it happen more". In other words, if it is a betrayal, you can mockup ways to suffer from even more betrayals. Note that it is not just mocking up betrayals, but WAYS to have LOTS of them. This is very fast and powerful if you can just hang in there and do it. My own experience with doing this solo is that the first couple of commands are really difficult and have long comm lags (it takes quite awhile to think up an answer) and then suddenly the charge blows and you can really have it and become exterior to the whole scene. That generally results in laughter and it seems like things change for the better in the real world too because you stop pulling it in. Hope this helps, ARC, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering Stephen On Solo, Group Proc, EST ANSWERING STEPHEN ON SOLO, GROUP PROC, EST, ETC. Paul Misiunas (misiunas@fza.org) has posted a number of messages that Stephen had sent to fza.org for my attention. The first one is from 31 AUG 98 with a question about Solo. > Dear Pilot, > > What do you think about a checksheet for people wanting to learn Solo > metered auditing ? I, for example have learned metered auditing but > left before doing Solo. > > Not wanting to increase your workload perhaps there is already stuff > available which you could point to. > > Thanks, and keep the good work coming. > > Stephen I posted a writeup of how to do solo auditing (for trained auditors who didn't do the solo course) last year. It is in post15.txt which can be picked up from the pilot archives at fza.org. Have fun, its easy. ----------------------- On 31 AUG 98, he posted a very informative message about EST in response to a comment that I had made in an earlier post. > Pilot / Werner Erhard / Continuing on EST > (Inducto on Werner Erhard, 14 Aug 98) > > (Pilot wrote) > >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. > > Was EST Scientology ? Having done it when it first came to England > in the late 70s (before I seriously studied Scientology) my guess in > retrospect would be/ one third; Scientology/ one third; altered > Scientology/ one third; Werner. > > Did it work? It certainly seemed powerful at the time and did get > everyone uptone, even if for a limited period, but it was also very > restimulative and a lot was left unhandled. It was really a very sink > or swim approach. Group processing a group of 300 people on strong > stuff is not a very viable activity. I think the basic idea of it and > some of its content came from Ron's early Group Processing which he > abandoned later. (There was even the Co$ book, 'Group Auditors > Handbook', long since disappeared) I believe Werner was trying to > make a short fast route to Clear. Also an area which Ron explored with > things like 'One Shot Clear'. The EST people I spoke to did openly > acknowledge that it was part Scientology. > > EST also ran a communication workshop as a separate thing from the > 'TheTraining', which was definately TRs, especially TR0 and Bullbait, > plus other processes on duplication, some of which were very good. > > I ran the Co$ 'Est Repair List' on myself which did help me sort out > some of the problems and misunderstandings I had acquired. In terms > of casualties the Church has probably a worse track record. > > Werner's one and only appearance in England is a good story. There > was a big event staged in a theatre in London and lots of EST > graduates were there. As Werner came on the stage and the applause > died down someone shouted "What do you do with all the money Werner". > There was a gasp from the audience and a few moments of tense silence > then Werner said," You are not in the right frame of mind for me to > talk to you", and walked off the stage never to be seen again. Well > you can ARC break all of the people some of the time but you should > really not do it to all at once. That marked the decline of EST in > England ­ it carried on for a while in a watered down version then > disappeared even before the Church got its teeth into Werner. After > all, Werner was trying to make Scientology ideas more widely > available, and that is not allowed. Mr Filbert also gives some data > on him in Excalibur Revisited. > > EST was`very expensive too,( even by Co$ standards) and the British > are not so willing to spend money on such things as Americans are. It > was promoted as a one off fix all. (We should be so lucky). > > It would be nice to think that Werner had developed enough confront in > the interim period to come out on the net. This would be a measure of > his real intentions. > > Hope this is of interest. > > Stephen And on 3 SEP 98, he posted some more about this. > EST evolved over the years. There are several books out which give > a good description of what it was like in the mid 70s when it first > caught on. It had a huge LRH influence at that time; for instance > several hours of the last day were devoted to a description of the > analytical and reactive mind with locks, engrams and secondaries. > The terminology was altered, but the concepts exactly the same. > > In early years there seems to have been an even stronger influence. > A friend of mine was one of the first people ever hired to work > for the organization about 1971 or so, and told me that as part of > her hiring procedure she was given a metered sec check. I've > never met anybody else who did this, so it must have been dropped > quite early on. > > The later incarnation as the Forum, which I have done, moved away > to some degree from LRH material. Still it included procedures that > were clearly group auditing, and for me at least the group auditing > was the most powerful part of the experience. > > Currently I believe they are continuing to move away from LRH. The > organization is largely dominated by the Forum Leaders - Erhard made > sure, as LRH didn't, that his tech people would be a driving force > in the movement instead of just galley slaves rowing for managers > with no clue of what it was about. The leaders are a group of > around 50, very impressive people, very smart, knowledgable in a > broad range of topics from nuclear physics to yoga. But none of > them, AFAIK, has any expertise in Scn other than from the EST version > of it. Yes, this was very interesting. I do not know much about EST. The one person who I knew that had been involved was aware that it had evolved from Scientology and had done some sort of TRs and also was very strong on how people had to take personal responsibility for things. But when I met him he had dropped out because he felt that he had gotten all he could out of it after being involved for a year or two. He felt that he had made gains but that it was not an ultimate answer. ----------------------- The mention of group processing in the post on EST above lead to a discussion on that topic. Here I'm picking up Anthony who was responding to Beth who in turn was responding to Stephen. On 2 Sep 98, ivy@post8.tele.dk (Antony Phillips) posted on subject "FZA: ATTN PILOT: Another Mesage from Stephen" > Beth Guest wrote: > > > Thanks for this post Stephen, > > > > >> > >> Did it work? It certainly seemed powerful at the time and did get > >>everyone uptone, even if for a limited period, but it was also very > >>restimulative and a lot was left unhandled. It was really a very sink > >>or swim approach. Group processing a group of 300 people on strong > >>stuff is not a very viable activity. > > > > >Why? > > >I was at a big Scn conference at "The Hilton" hotel in London run by > >Peter Thompson (??) where group processing was done. Around 1979/80? > >This seemed to work. > >(I had thought of using some of the ideas at school) > > That is interesting. > > I run group processing (the first sessions from "Group Audoitors > Handbook, Volume 1" bought august 1980, copyrights from 1952 to 1979) > on a group of two I have here once a week. One has completed grade VI > (at another centre), the other just struggled through objectives and > running his first engram. > > A little to my surprise (:-) ) they are both pleased with group > processing (which is half the evening). > > There have been lots of wins with Group processing, and I have no > doubt that in good hands (enthusiastic, compassionate, comm cycle in, > etc., etc.) It could be used far more extensively. > > I would say it is a *very* viable activity on large groups. But you > need to know what you are doing, have sufficient excellent helpers > around (They used to be called "the goon squad", I think). And run > objective type processes (first two sessions in that book). > > Also, that book is almost certainly taken verbatum from what Ron said, > reacting to the group he was running, so has to be "alterised" to work > with, and lead, the group you are running. Wooden repetitions of whats > in the book certainly will not produce much (positive). > > Incidentally, I run them with the (English) book in my hand, > translating to my attempt at Danish as I go, and improvising a bit. > > One can go a long way with group processing. Maybe you wont produce > sky high results on single rich individuals, but you could produce a > united, up tone,, positive group/community. > > But the organisation, persistance and communication level required is > quite high. > > Ken Urquharts article (in IVy 2, hopefully being roboposted to a.c.t > no and then) mentions that one of his early (and determining) > experiences with scientology was weekend group intensive, about ten to > fifteen hours group processing run on a saturday and Sunday at HASI > London in the 50's > > Hi, > > Ant > > Ant Antony A Phillips > ivy@post8.tele.dk > tlf: (+45) 45 88 88 69 > Box 78 > DK - 2800 Lyngby > Editor, International Viewpoints (= IVy). See Home Page: > http://home8.inet.tele.dk/ivy/ > Administrator: trom-l, selfclearing-l, superscio-l, IVy lists Group Processing is quite valid and can produce big gains even on an advanced case. It was out of favor in the 1960s until 1969. At some point around then, Yvonne Gillam (later Yvonne Jentz) went around on tour running the old group auditor's handbook in group processing sessions. She processed small groups of about 20 people and worked without any supporting handlers and it went just fine. Her TRs were excellent, her tone level was good, and she kept an eye on everybody, giving extra time or using a variation of the same command again if needed to make sure that the audience stayed with her. The R factor she gave at the start included saying that if you didn't feel like doing a command then it was ok to skip it and if you felt like staying on a command longer than the rest of the class it was ok to ignore the next command and keep doing the one your attention was on. Also, if you felt a sudden tremendous release or gain, it was ok to drop out and quit on the win. It was only a couple of dollars per person and I think that it was about a two hour session (most of the evening, like 7:30 to 9:30 with a break in the middle). I attended a few of them and they were just great and I never saw anybody have any trouble. She ran these using the books, including mockup type commands and other things which were forbidden by standard tech at that time. These were the 1954 group auditor's handbooks, each about 100 pages long (there were 2 volumes, one with a yellow cover and a second volume with a grey cover). Afterwards we managed to find a few of the 1st (yellow) volume and I had one as part of my materials when I was cramming officer. I drilled and checked out a few HGC auditors on delivering group processing with it. In the early 70s, one had to scrounge for an old copy of the handbooks, but finally they reprinted these in a new edition (I think it combined both the old volumes, it was a big spiral bound version). By the late 70s they were running group processing on large crowds at events, but that didn't seem to produce as much results as the small groups being run by a skilled group auditor. Artie Maren designed some group processing for RJ Stewart to use as part of his money course and that was in use in the late 1970s until the finance police crushed Steward and almost declared Artie. Artie had followed the style used in the old group auditor's handbooks and that included mockup processing and the Finance Police used that as evidence that Artie was squirreling because mockup processing was forbidden by an early 1960s bulletin. This despite the fact that the org was also using mockups as part of group processing. Another item is the group processing sessions that were taped by Ron. Those are really nifty. The group auditor's handbook says that it was compiled from the most successful of Ron's group sessions. But it is only a tiny sampling. Some of the taped group sessions are really wild and include things as extreme as "get the idea of being one", "get the idea of being two", or "be an unmocking machine behind yourself". FZ Bible has said that they were going to post a transcript of 3rd ACC tape 6 and that one has a whole bunch of group processing on it, so watch for it. In October of 1969, the Anatomy of the Spirit of Man tapes were played at the "October Congress" given at all the class 4 orgs. This included some group processing tapes which are really neat. The audience would sit there and run the commands (with the CS and some of the auditors looking on in horror during the congress, such a thing was unheard of at that time). Lots of people made gains and I remember having a fantastic cog where I realized that it was me who mocked up the significance on anything I considered important. There are probably over a hundred hours of LRH group processing on tape, and he said in one lecture that you can replay a group processing tape if necessary to flatten the processes that it ran. I don't have most of them. The bulk are in the 4th ACC of which only a few reels have been available in modern times. I wonder if you could clear the planet just by playing them over and over again on the radio. A lot more could be done with group processing. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - ANSWERING RALPH ON PSYCHIC ATTACK ANSWERING RALPH ON PSYCHIC ATTACK On 30 Aug 98, ralph@hilton.org (Ralph Hilton) asked on subject "Unrest on the Astral Planes" > Last night (Saturday), starting 1900 GMT A few people here noticed waves of > enturbulated BTs. This, as with the activities of last December, seemed to > emanate from the CofS. > > They didn't appear to have been sent as part of a psychic attack but to come > from some new research rundown which is being misrun. > > Anyone else get this stuff? > > -- > > Ralph Hilton > http://Ralph.Hilton.org Nothing at the time you mentioned. But there was something Sunday afternoon (the next day), a real wave of enturbulation (I didn't read your post until Monday). But the impression I got was that somebody (or more likely a team?) were trying to muck about with CofS member's BTs, maybe a team of S/Nots auditors like they used during the Portland crusade. This is only an impression and possibly dub-in, but it seemed like they might have been trying to implant a goal "to be loyal" or an intention to come back in and get on lines. My guess is that what we felt were side effects caused by a lot of theta getting enturbulated and starting to bang around. Or maybe they were also using the freezone as an opterm? ---- I wrote the above earlier this month. Since then, Ralph posted his message about 'the world is changing' and stated that he had made a real breakthrough on OT 8 which he was going to write up (I'm looking forward to it). He noticed that there was a strong positive influence immediately after the negative influence above. I felt the same way. There seemed to be a wave of positive inspiration and I began to get a hint of real items (rather than subjective GPM items) which might actually underlie the manifestation of reality. I'm only starting to pull the string on this one, but the implications are tremendous. Its written up in "LOOKING AT THE GPM RESEARCH AGAIN" which I will post at the same time as this message. And Homer came up with something really smart about reverse permeation (other things permeating your space). And Heidrun dived into researching how not to be affected by a drug (at least that is how I saw her efforts, and I would give her a very well done on that). And this may only be the tip of the iceburg if there has been a strong positive flow pushing for research. My estimation is that we have seen a theta universe style footbullet where a bunch of DBs tried to use Black Nots tech for evil purposes and woke something up which is kicking back very strongly in a positive direction. I have a guess as to what they woke up, but its only a guess. My certainty of perception at this level is laughable. I think that a crowd of folks have been getting together in the between lives area. A number of big names have died this year, people armed with tech and dedicated to freedom. The ones I knew personally (Wayne Marple and Ray Kemp) were both smart enough and gutsy enough to start running processes solo after dropping the body. Anytime I get a whisper of a communication from a trained person who has dropped the body (and this might be just dub-in), I suggest that they start running processes (locationals, reach and withdraw, CofHa stuff, PDC mockups etc.) and try to carry on the research. I have a feeling that some of our old friends might have started doing that, avoiding the between lives implants and trying to build up enough horsepower to really make OT instead of reincarnating. Real OT is not just operating without a body but includes being able to wish a body in and out of existance at will to visit friends and so forth. My feeling is that this latest wave of entheta got them to band together and to organize. And so they are postulating and putting out flows and whispering helpful ideas and encouragement to us as well as researching things themselves (as above, so below). A joint research effort by the incarnate and the disincarnate might be just the thing. As a little side note, it is possible to take drugless trips of enlightenment. Easiest is to use a time when you are half asleep so that it is easy to get dream style pictures but where you are still conscious. Put out a strong intention of seeking truth and enlightenment. Let the almost dream take shape under this postulate and then float into the picture without letting yourself loose consciousness. Begin to move (preferably floating, maybe bodiless) immediately (drifting slowly is good, but start moving) so that you don't fall asleep. Move in the direction that you are drawn to while holding the thought of enlightenment (it has the feel of a right item, like the pointing step in a date/locate, rather than a strong pull which would more likely be some kind of implant or trap). Sometimes you get nothing but pretty scenery or you just fall asleep, but sometimes you get a really good idea, in which case you should force yourself to sit up and write it down immediately (because there is a tendency to feel fufilled and then go to sleep for real once you have gotten an answer). Note that you can use light spotting and orientation in this (it helps pull you slightly more awake so that you stay conscious) but don't use intense repetative locational type spotting because it can push through the dream picture and leave you stareing at the bedroom wall. Also, as far as I can tell you can't get anything outside of your current band of accessibility. If you reach for too much you get stuff that you can't duplicate or align. But you can pickup the next thing that you're ready to learn. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - To Lakis On Spiritual Goals TO LAKIS ON SPIRITUAL GOALS On 4 Sep 98, From: lakis agrogiannis posted on sbject "888888888888 Spiritual Goals 8888888888888" > 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 > > We have seen and continue to see wonderful examples in this list, > of every aberration imaginable. > > With the exception of very few, we all have descended down and > low. > > That means we are tough cases. No matter what we say, we have > handled but few things in ourselves. This may be a wrong indication and result in ARC breaks. Seeing what remains does not give you any clue of the magnitude of what is already gone. > When it takes so little to start vomiting an amazing amount of > obscenities and raw hate, at each other, in such speed, in the > name of freedom and wisdom, man, the sanity meter needle it's > in the red, and screaming. It's urgent! Now this one really is a problem. I have suffered from it too and finally recovered (I hope). The trouble is that the CofS uses freedom and wisdom and the attainment of abilites as a control button and pushes it endlessly. Eventually it gets sore or gets stuck in a frozen position. And one eventually feels betrayed and gets terrible bypassed charge wrapped up in the area. Somebody who is onlines at the CofS almost always gets this area grossly mishandled. For example, somebody has a valid objection because of something wrong in tech or policy or in an arbitrary order coming down from above. They protest and get handled. It comes up again. They are right and protest again and again they are handled. It hits them in the face again and they protest and get handled. And all the while, the rightness of the being is being overwhelmed and unmocked. Finally they are like a powder keg ready to explode. And it is the smartest and most aware beings who hit this one the fastest. Trying to attain spiritual freedom is a hot topic under any circumstances. And when you tie the org into the equation, its the heaviest charge that probably exists on a case in present time, much heavier than clearing course or OT 3 actually, because the entirity of the case swings back and forth on the equation of is the tech real or false and is Ron right or wrong. For me it was hard going. Tons of Itsa. Tons of handling. Lucky breaks with free ARCX sessions sometimes where the auditor was really willing to hear all that was wrong with the org and acknowledge it without consideration. Luck in that I heard the PDC tapes early on and would self audit mockups to try and cool down charge as it built up. Luck in that I heard lots of early tapes and knew that what was being put out by registrars and so forth was mostly garbage. And eventually I broke free enough and saw far enough to begin the research that resulted in the Super Scio book. But even after everything in Super Scio except for chapter 1, I had a horrible mess of charge on the subject of the org and the tech itself. Chapter 1 of Super Scio was the last chapter written even though I placed it at the begining. I had already run things beyond the orgs wildest dreams and was sitting in a fantastic case state, except for the one point of the subject of Scientology itself, where I still had enough charge to fry a steak if I started thinking about it. Chapter 1 was originally an afterthought. I really just wanted to put my research out on the net because I didn't want it to be lost and also in the hopes that maybe somebody else could use it to make a further breakthough which would really set us free. But I was afraid to perpetuate the lies and the false data and I was also afraid that we would lose the real but impossible sounding things that were discovered in the tech. So I decided to write an introduction which identified what was and what was not true. And it went on and on and became that big chapter 1. And in the process of writing it, fantastic amounts of charge came off of my own case on the subject of Scientology itself. Doing that was a case action for me, a major OT level in its own right. I highly recommend it to everybody. Do a writeup of what you know was true and what you know was false in Scientology. Do your own writeup (don't just copy mine, it is your own ITSA that is needed to relieve charge). Publish it or not as you see fit, but do it. Doing this eliminated all the present time charge on the subject. After that, there was still a nasty ball of charge on my worst time period in the subject. It was keyed out by the above but it could still restimulate occasionally. Thorough handling of that is described in a set of posts I wrote on "The Furies" that are in the pilot archives for 1997. With that gone, it all seems really comfortable. So realize that this is an area of especially heavy charge. Every backtrack attempt to get out of the trap (and the opterm of implanting people) can lock up on this one. Somebody might otherwise be in fantastic case shape and yet be frothing at the mouth in this one area. For example, I am clear OT and do not have a time track unless I choose to mock it up, it no longer hangs there as a solidity. While I was charged up on the org, you can bet that I always choose to mockup the track connected with the heavy charge of 1968-9 (this is when I had my worst period in Scientology). I wouldn't mockup 1965 or 1975 unless I wanted to reminisce with friends, but 1968, I would always keep that mocked up even though I had the free choice to unmock it. That is the level of charge we are talking about here. > When our only measure of things is whether or not life > agrees with our cherished fixed ideas, we aren't likely > to go any distance at all, much less cross the abyss. Very true. > Maybe the only real problem with the freezone is how to > keep it free, and at the same time, create an agreement > as to where we're going and how. A good statement. Except that we don't actually have to agree on "how" as long as we allow each other to be individuals and choose our own paths while supporting each other in our shared goals. For example, a crowd of people might want to go from New York to LA and be mutually supportive and come together at the end and yet some might choose to drive and some might take a plane and a few might even take the train. One of our big problems is that standard tech and KSW taugh that there is only one way and that we must work to stamp out any other ways or else the one way will be lost. So that one is taught that the only way to drive to LA is to first go out and tear up all the train tracks and ruin the airport runways. Then, while the believers in driving are doing that, the believers in trains ruin the highways and airports and the believers in planes destroy the trains and cars. And so we spend all our time fighting for purity and nobody makes it. It does nobody any good to stamp tech out of existance. If some tech is wrong or ineffective it will put itself out of existance as soon as it comes into contact with workable tech. And even if it is only partially workable, leave it alone to do what it can for people in the meantime. > The ruin of a person, the total destruction of an individual, > is not when he is kicked out of a church, but when he no longer > has any spiritual goals. True indeed. > It doesn't matter which religion, as long as a spiritual being > has spititual goals he's alright. Almost. He needs some kind of tech that aid him in moving towards the goals. A better statement would be "... as long as a spiritual being has spiritual goals and a way of moving towards them ...". > lakis > > 88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 A good post. Much better than engaging in button pushing. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - LOOKING AT THE GPM RESEARCH AGAIN LOOKING AT THE GPM RESEARCH AGAIN AND A FIRST LOOK AT ABBERATED POSTULATE PATTERNS I spent a little time skimming through Gerbode's Briefing Course tape notes of the BC tapes from 1963 to 1966 (posted recently by Zenon). He does a nice job although they are not literal transcripts or even precise lists of all the ideas on each tape. Instead he explains the parts he thinks were important, expanding on them with things from bulletins of the time (or sometimes moveing things from another tape to group a topic together in one place) and gives a bit of his own opinion. To some degree this actually has more of a "feel of the times" than the real transcripts do because it accurately captures the attitudes that the BC and Class 8 graduates were coming back with in the 1968 timeframe. Note that I was in an outer org so everything I saw was on a comm lag (older St. Hill graduates were mellower, there was a steady slide down towards solidity). Also note that at the time of writing these notes he was very pro LRH so that he tries to put a positive spin on everything and therefor there were no negatives to encourage me towards a bad opinion. Therefore, rest assured that any criticisms I make here are my own and not inspired by any third partying in his notes. I've heard most of these tapes before and also been through the transcripts a number of times, but this time the use of a text editor to skim his notes quickly gave me a faster survey of the time period and some new impressions. Skimming forward through that time, I felt like I was sliding down towards darkness. There are occasional out-points in the 1950s materials. There is a bit of a slow slip as the decade progresses. But it is a slow slip balanced by endless discoveries and an outpouring of brilliant ideas. Things are a little tarnished by the start of the SHSBC, but not a lot, and this carries on even into the heavy implant item research of 1963. But in 1964 things start to appear that actually feel bad to me, and it gets worse in 1965. It doesn't really hit rock bottom until 1969 (I've talked about that elsewhere) and then there is the turnaround in 1970 when expanded grades and so forth are put in. By late 1964, the idea had come in that the basis of all abberation was R6. And R6 was looked upon as a single plot of GPMs/RIs identical from person to person. I would say that that would be an implant, but it was not being called an implant. Instead the attitude seemed to be that it was a construction of some sort that we had mocked up, dived into, and then started going down a declining spiral so that we could no longer simply postulate our way back out of it. Gerbode sums it up nicely with this paragraph from his notes on SH Spec-65 (renumbered 428) "Stages of Release" of 27 Jul 65. > You start with the R6 bank. Then, on top of it, you get a > wogginess and wooziness on the subject of postulates. He > accumulates R6EW locks. Then his own goals, as locks, get > stacked up on this. And implants are overlaid on top of this. > Then you get whole track engrams, then secondaries, then locks. > Eventually, with time, when the thetan finally became human, > everything was a lock on something earlier in the bank, and > he made a picture of it. I have at various times had ideas of our mocking up some kind of pattern together and jumping into it. That would meet the criterion of being identical from person to person and yet would not really be the same as an implant which another imposes on you. The agreements universe that I wrote up in Super Scio certainly works that way and I also had a feeling of this kind of thing when I went clear (on power processing) back in 1968. In both cases it seemed that we were creating something to solve a problem and not quite realizing how abberative it would be. The agreements universe solved the problem of people being out of alignment (see Cosmic History in Super Scio) and whatever I touched when I went clear felt like it fit Ron's comment that the bank was mocked up to make others good. Ron must have had this idea of an agreed upon abberative pattern or else he would have labled the clearing course as another implant. Unfortunately, he doesn't really talk about this on the ordinary BC tapes (he might have in the staff clearing lectures which are still confidential). But the platens they got for this in 1964 kept turning out to be implants. So they kept madly changing plots and researching and leaving a trail of platens behind them, some or all of which ended up as chapters of OT 2 until they finally ended up with the clearing course platen. The trouble with the CC is that it still strikes me as an implant. However, it does seem to have the flavor of haveing been group postulated, everybody mocked it up so as to have a place to toss criminals (and nobody expected to have it used on them), which is the same kind of stupidity that caused us to mockup the penalty universes (see Super Scio) back in the home universe era. So it is a bit more than a simple implant. Your own postulates to have others be good would tend to keep it mocked up. But it would be a mistake to think of it as the core of the bank. It's just a nasty grouper. I don't really know if Ron really thought it solved everything or simply gave up and settled for a very basic implant which was good enough to produce a major state upon running it. But certainly many of his students believed that this was basic basic. The attitudes of this time period were incredible. Everything was R6 items or locks on them. That quickies developed is not surprising considering that the grades were really only meant to cool down the rudiments enough so that somebody could get to R6 and begin errasing the real bank. I don't think that I've seen this really clearly until now. Looking back at remarks from late (not early) BC graduates, I can see (with hindsight) that they were sold on this idea of everything coming from R6 items. And then came the first crop of Class 8s who thought it was all R6 items or entities who kept the R6 items mocked up even after you had errased the items. It should be obvious that quickies would work and expanded grades would be a gross mistake if that view of the mind were correct. But anyone who was around when we went to expanded grades will assure you that the quickies were a terrible mistake and expanding the grades is what produced results. It was this mess of mistaken assumptions that invalidated the correct 1958 view of clear and replaced it with the idea that all bank and abberations were gone (which is a PR idea from DMSMH that has never been proven or attained). And that mistake lead to blaming case on SPs (1965) and subsequently on entities as well (1967), which is all external cause and a wrong indication. Now before I chew this up too much, let me say that there really is a "state" which is currently labled as "clear" and which is indeed a wonderful condition. This is the confront of force and assumption of responsibility for mocking up the bank which restores the individual to a state of cause where he no longer flinches at his pictures. This is a really big jump spiritually and generally seems to be stable rather than some minor key-out. By his own statement (1958), Ron hit this on people in the 1948-9 timeframe by using the gradient confront of incidents type Dianetic technique given in "Original Thesis". He then lost it by making mistaken assumptions in DMSMH (searching the prenatal area for basic-basic, and that never produced any clears). Then he found it again in 1958 (and the 1958 tapes are the best reference on why you can make a Dianetic Clear), But since it was the limited clear described above (confront of force rather than an end to all abberation), it was then put aside because the real target was OT and a true end to all case. And so the mucking about with GPMs began. And actually that was quite important research and a lot was learned and they are still worth running. But this wrong assumption was made. And things shifted into an incorrect perspective. And it was heavy enough that when a clear state was again found, there was a big sigh of relief and a lot of wishfull thinking. They though that they now had the ultimate clear state, the theoretical end to all abberation which is proposed but never delivered by DMSMH. And they didn't. It was just the limited clear state again surrounded by a lot of unfounded PR. As a result, all remaining abberations after clear were mis-assigned to external sources (SPs, entities, etc.). If you assign the wrong source to something it will get more solid and you will be more the effect of it. So all remaining abberations then become worse. This took awhile to manifest because the clear state is such a big gain that it tends to key other things out temporarily. But the people who came off the clearing course were not OTs and PTPs, Overts, ARCXs, somatics, and so forth could (and did) still key in on them occasionally. And let me also say that the clearing course implant platen is well worth running. Even after reaching Dianetic clear with all the nice gains that do occur from that state, you can still get 50 or a 100 TA divisions of charge off the case by checking over this platen. And it is easy to run solo, so it's worth the time (as long as you aren't paying a fortune for the level). But of course there are pleanty of platens around that will pull off a bit of charge. Then there are the real actual GPMs, the ones where you mockup your own items as described in Super Scio chapter 3. You can get lots of charge off on those. Since they were lived, your best approach is simple processes (rather than item lists) that develope high Itsa. But none of these things really manifest as solidities in the physical universe. They take off charge and considerations and explain some behavior, but they do not create miraculous physical changes. In other words, they were responsible for subjective manifestations rather than objective manifestations. The mistaken assumption about R6 was that if a person had a bad leg it was there because he was dramatizing an item and therefore it should vanish if the item were handled. And that obviously did not work in practice. But there is something very attractive about that theory. There is something almost right about it. When I was researching the penalty universes, I was getting significant manifestations of the items as I listed them. A somatic, for example, would turn on and I'd state it as an item and put it where it belonged and it would turn off. But handling these did not change physical realities, only subjective realities. In other words, somatics would turn on and off but but I did not see actual physical changes like my arm breaking and unbreaking. Also, the penalty universes are only implants (very early and basic ones from the home universe timeframe). They seemed to me to be about as strong as actual GPMs and orders of magnitude stronger than ordinary implants such as those of R6. But they are still just implants (implant universes really). What if there is an "actual" equivalent for which the item manifestations are objective rather than subjective? My first thought is that the penalty universes do not use a double firing flip flop pattern like a GPM does. They are simple declining scales. A leads to B leads to C rather than being a fight against opposition. For these implant universes in particular (there are other implant universes), the actual pattern is the tone scale (and they are the source of the tone scale, which is after all only a subjective manifestation). The other odd characteristic of these is that the item itself is really the physical mockup (these were created universes used to implant) rather than the statement of the item in words. The item discharges on spotting the scene rather than calling the item in words. So I thought about the idea of a "reality item" where the thing itself is the item and where the items proceed down a simple declining scale. Maybe the item itself IS "A bad leg". Except that that is too simple, there would have to be something that ties the pattern together. So I thought of - 1. to have a bad leg so as to be pitied 2. to be pitied so as to get food 3. to get food so as to be strong 4. to be strong so as to feel energetic 5. to feel energetic so as to be admired Goal - To Be Admired And this would be listing back down the track in reverse order. It would have been lived in the opposite direction. It would begin with the person mocking up the goal "To be admired". Next, it is almost the admin scale coming into play. He postulates this goal and it doesn't manifest immediately. So he looks around and says "what can I mock up to achieve this". So he decides that if he were energetic, people would admire him for this and so he postulates the first item (#5 above). But it doesn't seem to work, he doesn't feel energetic enough. So he decides that if he were stronger he would be more energetic (#4 above). That doesn't work either, so he decides that to be strong he needs to eat some food (#3). But he can't get any food so his plan for that is to talk people into feeding him by gaining their pity (#2). But they don't pity this big almost strong almost energetic guy so he mocks up a bad leg to get pity (#1). Now let's say that this sequence occurs over a long time period with lots of trys and failures at each item until he sinks into the next one lower. And lets say that he is forgetting as he slides down so that he doesn't see more than two items back in the pattern. And lets say that the pattern is much much longer than the above. At the end we have somebody with a bad leg. He doesn't want to have a bad leg but can't seem to stop mocking it up. He doesn't know why he has the bad leg. He sees no relationship between it and the goal to be admired. He also still wants to be admired. That is a continuous present time postulate, he does consciously create that one. If you told him to stop desiring admiration he would tell you that you were foolish. But every time he really mocks up being admired very hard, he accidentally breaks his leg. And he thinks that god is punishing him for his vanity. Maybe he realizes that abandoning all goals and desires will turn these things off, but with that he only ends up as a hermit in a cave trying to go out the bottom. And sometimes the bad leg keys out because he really does get some admiration. But he never unmocks the pattern, and he can't always be admired, so the bad leg comes and goes. It is his postulates in PT which are causing these items to manifest, but the manifestations bear no resemblance to what he is postulating, so he can't sort it out. And he has enough of these things to keep the physical universe mocked up and solid around him on a continuous create basis. Now this is really just a research idea. I don't think that I have it exactly right yet. But I think that I'm approximating something that begins very early on the track and extends up to present time. I need a lable for these things, so lets call them Abberated Postulate Patterns (APPs). The GPMs would fit in as late locks on them. At a guess, these APPs would run below the reality generators that I've also been playing with (see earlier posts). The generators would provide the framework and the APPs would be what you do inside the framework. But as I said, I'm only guessing at this point. And of course PTPs, Overts, and ARCXs would run even earlier or else why would the being have mocked up such a nasty trap for himself. Obviously, he doesn't get into this pattern if he can actually make his postulates stick easily. The whole thing seems like a series of solutions to failed postulates. I'm still fumbling around for the proper way to list for these things. I tried picking a couple of real manifestations and listing them back like the above and it seems to work and indicate well for a few items and then the itsa line dies and it seems immensly confusing so that I can't seem to reach the earlier items. So either there is something I've missed or the charge is so solid that you need to take off charge and get itsa at each step before looking earlier. So I'll be working this over some more. Simply picking something and saying "what am I postulating in PT that is causing this to manifest" seems totally unrunable and yet has a feeling of rightness about it so that it simply seems like the question is way out gradient. I'm hoping to carry this one further and I'd be very interested in any comments or experiences that others have in playing around with this. ---- Update - I wrote the above a few days ago and have been experimenting since. I found an interesting way to take a lot of charge off of one of these APP items. Using the example of mocking up a bad leg to get pity, 1) assess "How many times did you postulate that" (answer probably in the thousands) 2) "How many times did it work" (maybe only dozens of times - it must have worked a few times or you wouldn't have gotten stuck on it). 3) "Spot the first time that it worked". Get Itsa on the incident if possible. 4) Date/locate when you first mocked this item up. (this will be prior to it working the first time) ----- Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== The above 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 #36 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. ------------------