Date: 8 Dec 1998 04:00:19 Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology From: pilot@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (The Pilot) Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 42 - EARLY DEC 98 PILOT POSTS POST42.txt SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 42 - EARLY DEC 98 PILOT POSTS ========================================== Contents: subj : Super Scio - THE SPAM ATTACK subj : Super Scio - FOOTBULLETS CLIMBING TOWARDS THE GROIN subj : Super Scio - Cheryl's Story - Recommended Reading subj : Super Scio - Faith Healing subj : Super Scio - Answering Ishmael subj : Super Scio - To Zenon subj : Super Scio Humor - LIFE UNDER THE CABBAGES subj : Super Scio Humor - MARCABBAGE DOLL DANGER WARNING subj : Super Scio Tech - Limited Bridges subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering NotMax (More on Self Auditing) subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering Allen subj : Super Scio Tech - Continuing The Discussion On Loss subj : Super Scio Tech - Thou Art God subj : Super Scio Tech - REALITY FRAMES, AN ADVANCED PROCESS ========================================== subj : Super Scio - THE SPAM ATTACK THE SPAM ATTACK On 1 Dec 98, daviss@aol.com (DavisS) posted on subject "Xenu: This spam is no prank - it's an attack." > OK. This isn't an adolescent prank. > > The forged postings are overwhelming the AOL newsreader. The ARS is now > unreadable, except for doggedly persistent monomaniacs like me. > > I am aware of some of the "HipCrime" pranks, and their motivations, such as > eliminating supercedes and cancels from the USENET. And I am sure there were > such prank forgeries a few months ago. > > But. The ARS is being eliminated from AOL, essentially. AOL has no ability to > install USENET filters. And the company has no plans to either. > > ARSers that are very PC and net literate can eliminate all the nonsense, and > call it even But please remember that 14 million people are on the "Commoners > Service", and can no longer keep up. This IS important, regardless of any > superiority one may feel to users of AOL software. > > A prank goes on for a while, and then stops. This is an attack. The > multiplicity of newsgroups being spammed is a cover. I think that the Church > of Scientology has found an untraceable method of spamming and disrupting the > newsgroup, and it will not stop, ever. > > -Davis > > Next: proposal for alt.religion.scientology.moderated I believe that you are right. It is too persistant and would require too many bucks (throw away accounts) and too much comittment to be a prank. I'm guessing now, but here is what I think that you'll find. There was some real prankish spam of transient annoyance recently. But not high volume and not too difficult to handle. It did look like a prank and it was broad across the internet. I would bet that OSA found some Hip Crime spammer and backed him up with big bucks. Why do it for free when you can be paid to target a newsgroup. So I only think that they are providing funding, lots of it, but their pockets are deep and they would be happy to purchase the destruction of ARS. I would say that this is a danger to the entire internet. When big corporate money backs the spammers for the purpose of destruction and stifling free speach, it becomes a matter of general importance instead of a local battle. It sets a precedent that other corporations might use. On that basis, you might get help even from those who are normally spamers themselves. Only a nasty few want people to shut up. Remind them that alt.binaries.erotic.whatever might be the next target if the moral majority feels like buying some spammers of their own. Try crying for help on alt.2600 and other hacker hangouts. Making it moderated is no good because the org would insist that its their right to moderate it. I think that you can successfully keep it unmoderated but that the courts would back the trademark holder if you tried to moderate an opposition newsgroup. I don't want that any more than you would so I would prefer that it wasn't tested. ---------------------------- For those who are not up on what is happening, I'm going to repeat Bob's reply to Robert Ducarme about some spam that hit ACT using headers from my messages. On 28 Nov 98, hummelsr@csi.com (Robert "bob" Hummels) posted on subject "Re Super Scio - PICKETS (Attn CiCiAychar)" > Robert, > This is the hipcrime spam. > I finally made it through to ACT > and thus to Clear-l. > > These guys take valid headers from > authors on a ng, substitute a wonderful > message from alt. white supremacy groups, > or alt.slack or a mormon ng, and slam them > back at the ng. For a while ARS was getting > close to 1000 of these a day. The seem to > change posting IP daily. > The folks on ARS are using Nfilter to filter > out the spam using the posting IP. Roland > updates the .dat file for nfilter daily > adding the new hosts. I can't find the > URL right now but try a search for Hipcrime > or nfilter. It checks the packets before they hit > your newsreader. > > bob CiCiAychar apparantly didn't get my message suggesting to include some picket signs that encouraged reform and by the time I saw her reply, she had already left for Florida. My original message did however make it onto lightlink and can be found in the archives in post39.txt. --------------------------------- The spam is apparantly only aimed at ARS. It shows up on ACT in rare cases where messages are cross posted to ARS/ACT and happen to get picked up by the spambot for trashing. To foil this, I will double post instead of cross posting in the cases where I want to hit both newsgroups. That will ensure that the ACT copy remains intact even if the ARS copy is picked on. So if you do get one of mine with bogus spam contents, look for the same header on ACT. And it will keep the spam out of ACT where people aren't used to it and get confused and wonder what is going on. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - FOOTBULLETS CLIMBING TOWARDS THE GROIN FOOTBULLETS CLIMBING TOWARDS THE GROIN On 30 Nov 98, Baba_ROM_DOS@hotmail.com (Baba ROM DOS) posted on subject "Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun" >>CLEARWATER, Fla. (November 30, 1998 12:45 p.m. EST >>http://www.nandotimes.com) - The Church of Scientology entered a "not >>guilty" plea Monday to two criminal charges in the 1995 death of a >>woman member who was being cared for at the church's regional >>headquarters in Clearwater. > >Tech rules! (*) isn't going to give up an inch of Stalingrad! >I was actually concerned that they would cop a "no contest", >which would have been a better strategy from both a PR and >a legal perspective. But it wouldn't have been Scientology[tm]. Yes, no contest would have gotten them off the hook with a small fine and no true admission of guilt that would haunt them later, at least from a legal perspective. But the admission that flag is less than perfect is inconcievable. It would be a wakeup call to the membership. So instead they will fight to the death, dragging the organization down with them into a court case that will show them to be malicious rather than simply incompetant. And whenever things get bad they start pissing on their own loyal staff members thanks to the backwards application of ethics. So you know that there will be blows. And at least one will start talking. You can pretty much count on it. So all the dirty laundry will be out in the open. It looks like Waterloo to me. Push hard to get internal operating policies and flag orders read into the record. Things like the RPF and lower conditions to show what would happen to staff if they talked honestly. Is it still a footbullet if you shoot your own balls off, or is there some better name? ------------------- Speaking of Crotchbulleting, the SO has done it again with their handling of the Lisa Memorial Picket this last weekend. Yet again they applied Ostrich Tech, hiding from the entheta. Have they entirely given up on doing TRs and confronting things? It must be the new golden age of tech, learning to put your head in a hole in the ground STANDARDLY and without variation. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Cheryl's Story - Recommended Reading CHERYL'S STORY - RECOMMENDED READING On 2 Dec 98, heldal@online.no (Andreas Heldal-Lund - www.xenu.net) posted on subject "NEW: The Cheryl S Story!" > First two chapters online: > > http://home.sol.no/~spirous/CoS/archive/personal_story/cheryl_s/ > > Read about her 12 years in Scientology; the scams, the terror, > the tragedy. Is this really a _church_???????? Why does people > become members, and more important; what makes them stay so > long? > > More will come, it's being written now. Help fight this cult, > keep the focus and show that it is better outside! One brick > at the time, the bastards will loose. > > Thanks Cheryl, for sharing! > > Best wishes, Andreas Heldal-Lund > Operation Clambake: www.xenu.net SP4 & Adm. TOXE CXI > _______________________________________________________________ > "Throughout history it has been the inaction of those who could > have acted, the indifference of those who should have known > better, the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered > most, that has made it possible for evil to triumph." Excellent. An accurate account by an ex-staff member about how it was to be on staff. As to Andreas' question as to why, they become members and hang on so long because the goals and purposes are very high and desirable. In fact I still believe in them and continue to work towards them. The lie is that the goals and the organization are one and the same. The lie is that the money making and sue happy cult is actually spreading the tech rather than suppressing it out of existance. The lie is that you can set people free by making slaves out of them. The lie is that you get people to use the tech by making them afraid to use the tech. The lie is that people become more ethical by getting the org's stats up. They are long, long overdue for a major reform. Cheryl's story is not some bogus Fishman tale, it is right on as far as how things are done in CofS in the modern Miscarriage era. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Faith Healing FAITH HEALING On 21 Nov 98, Spiritual Research Workgroup posted on subject "Re: Being a NOT's Auditor" >On Sat, 21 Nov 1998 01:21:02 GMT, mirele@newsguy.com (Deana Marie Holmes) wrote: > >>On Fri, 20 Nov 1998 19:31:17 -0500, Beverly Rice >>wrote: >> >>>Borg> >> >>> "With one short session, perfectly applied, I've seen chronic >>> physical conditions vanish instantly and forever." >> >>Oops! Looks like we're practicing medicine without a license again, >>and using an e-meter to boot! > > >This is really a problem. How can we talk honestly about our >experiences if it is criminal when a physical condition disappears >after doing spiritual work? > > >Heidrun Beer > >Workgroup for Fundamental Spiritual Research and Mental Training >http://www.sgmt.at It's not criminal for a condition to disappear and it's not criminal to say it did. What is criminal is to promise that you can cure. And frankly, I do not think that we could make such a promise in all honestly anyway. Sometimes people do get better, but I would never guarantee it. It would be wrong for somebody to be tricked into, let's say mortgaging their house, in a mistaken belief that something was going to be cured for sure. I think that you can promise to help somebody. I think that you can count on doing something that will be of benifit. I feel that I got something of value out of every major action that I was audited on. But which gains did I make and which things went unhandled? It was a grab bag assortment. I would think that the above recruitment statement was true at least a few times. But what they don't mention is that for every condition that miraculously vanished there were a dozen that didn't change no matter how much NOTS was used on them. It's not that the NOTS was done wrong (KSW idiocy), its that people get sick for different reasons. However Deana should know better. Faith healing is legal in the US. Look at Oral Roberts. And I'll bet that he's cured a few too. But I don't imagine that he can cure 1 for 1 every time even when its the same condition. Neither can we. You can't promise anything because you don't know what is accessible on a given case vs what will not let go until he does OT 40 or something that we haven't even mapped out yet. An honest practitioner lets people know that. The orgs on the other hand will hard sell right up to the limit of the law. Sometimes we do work miracles. But they really are miracles because it doesn't happen consistently. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Answering Ishmael ANSWERING ISHMAEL On 29 Nov 98, Ishmael replied to my earlier post "Super Scio - TO ISMAEL" > On 20 Nov 1998 04:00:17, in article , > pilot@soda.csua.berkeley.edu wrote thusly... > > > > > >TO ISMAEL [sic] > > (He means, Ishmael) Got it. Sorry. > >First of all, let's not get into a pissing contest. > > Fair enough, but I can't guarantee that I won't rain on your parade. > > >Obviously I believe deeply in the tech and think that it > >is very important. > > It's very obvious to me. > > >But I also understand that after a hell ride with captain > >Ahab, one might well deny the existance of whales and the > >sea and abandon the practice of sailing altogether. > > Now there you go, being a "typical" scientologist--assuming that becuase > of my "track" and "unhandled charge" and "[insert your favorite rationale > here]" that I am therefor denying the efficacy of the "tech" and > "reactively" railing against the "only hope for Mankind". Not quite. I'm assuming that you don't like the subject because CofS fucked you over. And maybe you never got any decent tech from them, so of course you'd think its crap. I would too if I'd only had, for example, the stuff they'd done with Margorie Wakefield (Road to Xemu), and I know that the tech was delivered that way to large numbers of people. > You categorically refuse to acknowledge > that you might just possibly be an eeny-teeny bit mistaken in your > determinations and opinions of Hubbard and his "tech" and whatever > mutation of it happens to be popular this week. I got too much out of it for me to deny that there is something there. But if your talking about fanatically believing everything in the subject, you should know by now that I rant against quite a bit of it, especially things like lower ethics conditions which I consider to be an atrocity. > >So I don't bother proselytizing on ARS. > > I think that you avoid beating the drum on ARS because you've grown > weary of people blowing your fallacious assertions out of the > proverbial water. Actually I haven't experienced much of that. Really its because CofS itself is such a bad example. I have no answer to the argument that the tech must be fucked because the CofS is so bad except to say that CofS applies black Scientology. So I tend to talk tech over on ACT where the crowd has already managed to separate out the tech from the org and doesn't confuse the two. > >On the subject of money and vested interests, I would point > >out that I am not affiliated with any specific freezone > >organizations and I don't make any money off of this, I > >am doing it out of faith and conviction rather than for > >gain. > > Okay, so I admit that I was wrong to accuse you of lusting > after financial gain. > > >Furthermore, I am still officially in CofS and my big target > >is to get them to reform. I am quite in agreement with the > >critics about the abuses practiced by the organization and I > >want to see them stopped. > > You must realize by now that you have far less than a snowball's > chance in hell of achieving that noble but dubious goal. Read Dante. Snowballs are quite common in the innermost circle of Hell. > If you care about the "church" and the people in it then you > would gird your loins and announce who you are to the church > membership and take as many of them as possible with you when > you leave. The people who are officially in but siding with me are already past the point of foolishly giving more money to the org or aiding OSA. Better to keep erroding the foundations rather than to make a stupid little show. > I think that you want to play both sides of the fence so that > you can gain some type of advantage when the "church" finally > crumbles. Actually yes. I'm afraid of a halfway reform that would leave much of the ills in place and continue to block the research line etc. If you look at people bailing out and moving into the free zone, you will see that at first many retain fanatical ideas about ethics, standard tech, and so forth and only gradually learn to think for themselves. It takes time to wake up and a sudden reform doesn't give the newly awakened members time to grow up into the new freedoms before decisions are made and a new structure emerges. The orthodox membership could easily be convinced that it is only a few bad guys like Miss Cabbage that are hurting people and have a trivial reform which retained all the bad policies. Or only tossed out a few extreme policies and kept the rest of the mess intact. And the bad behavior would be back again in a year or two. I would like to be in a position where I could have significant input into the restructuring. Frankly right now I don't trust anyone else who is left in there to do it right. The people who could have are long gone, the org works very hard at purging anybody who can think for themselves. But the odds are that I will be out too before this occurs. So it is only a hope rather than an expectation. But if I can hold this position long enough, others who are waking up now will have time to develope judgement and so there will be people who can replace me in this role. > Obviously I still don't > trust your motives and I probably never will. Neither does OSA and quite a few orthodox hard liners. > >I do think that it would be nice to collect royalites for my > >books someday, but obviously that is not a motivating factor > >since I put everything I write up on the net for free. > >Furthermore, I think that all tech should be available at > >normal book prices rather than the exorbanant monopoly > >prices that the orgs like to use. > > I've read parts of your Super Scio book, and to be honest I wouldn't hold my > breath against the day that it becomes popular. I'm not trying to be mean, but > you come off like a total crackpot in every chapter that I've read. Super Scio is certainly not publishable. It would probably only be of interest to Scientology auditors (except for chapter 1). But I think that Self Clearing has definite possibilites, especially considering the modern boom in New Age books. > >As far as freezone groups go, I think that the real solution > >to avoiding scams and ripoffs and CofS like behavior is > >to have normal business world style competition and > >broad publication of all materials. > > That will NEVER happen. The reason being that there is NOTHING > to competitively market. It's pseudoscientific science fiction - > not a big demand for it these days and decreasing all the time. Of course I think that there is something there. And I'm in LA where there is a New Age boom, it seems like there is a psychic advisor under every rock, so the demand is certainly not decreasing around here. But even if we were talking about something useless, such as marketing pet rocks, having a number of firms in competition would get the price down and improve the quality. > >For CofS itself, I believe that the best thing would be > >to have it unbundled like any big corporation that > >practices monopoly style price gorging and smashing of > >competition. Let each org be set off on its own with > >all the materials and freedom to deliver as it sees > >fit. > > The only reason that CSI is still in business today is that > they have a monopoly on their shrinking market. Its the opposite. They have destroyed their market by driving people away and pricing the services out of sight. > >With that, if ASHO RPFed somebody, he might just tell > >them to go fuck off and get a job at AOLA without > >having to choose between abandoning his religion or > >eating shit. > > > >And if an org choose to practice price gorging or > >abusive ethics, the public could simple go to a > >different org that was behaving more sensibly. > > > >But the biggest protection against abuse would be > >to have do it yourself books so that the person can > >practice the subject without having to depend on > >anybody. If you study a do it yourself book on > >automechanics, you might still choose to take your > >car to a mechanic, but you stop being a sucker > >for rip-off type repair shops. > > > >That is what the self-clearing book is all about. > >People can go at it on their own without having to > >kiss anybody's ass (not even mine) or drain their > >life savings. And the book is not an exclusive. > >It can be immitated. I expect that eventually > >quite a few people will be writing these, slanted > >different ways, because I don't think that one size > >fits all. > > > >I am trying to set this thing free rather than sell > >something. > > > > Okay, I believe you; sort of. > > >Now as to Hubbard's tapes, my point was that back > >in the 1950s he avoided lying to his advanced > >course students. And so you find that they contradict > >bullshit that he might say or have others say to the > >outside world. > > You still don't address the information that I gave you a > pointer to. He lied to the press (badly) in 1968. The membership wouldn't fault him for that. The press are supposed to be evil rumor mongers in the pay of the world conspiracy. It makes them sort of Fair Game so of course they can be lied to with impunity. Better to point out that the org is lying to its own members about Ron not having a second wife despite the fact that it is recorded in his own voice on one of his tapes to his students. > He lied in > the transcript of the (circa 1951) > tape that you posted an excerpt of. Really? What specifically? I thought he was quite honest. Maybe a bit dillusional about the commies getting hold of Sarah (but who knows?), but I certainly think that he believed it. > Here's what Hubbard said to the BBC in 1968 (from > http://www.marcab.com/XenuArne/shrinkw.rm @13:09 in the file). > For those who are multimedia impared here's a transcript: > > BBC: How many times have you been married? > > Hubbard: How many times have I been married; I've been married > twice. And I'm very happily married just now, I have a lovely > wife and I have four children, my first wife's dead. > > BBC: What happened to your second wife? > > Hubbard: I never had a second wife. > > I would have posted the excerpt from the transcript you quoted, > but it's not on Dejanews. I do recall however that he was lying > about Sara being involved with communists. > > >The critics poke fun at his technical ideas (invader > >forces or whatever), but of course that doesn't > >carry any weight with the membership that believes > >in the tech. > > > >But when Ron in his own words backs up and validates > >an account in Bare Faced Messiah and invalidates > >whatever PR stuff the org might publish in "Ron > >the Devoted Husband", that carries a lot of weight > >with the membership. > > Fine. Then show the membership the "Shrinking World of L. Ron > Hubbard" tape quoted above! The trouble is that its hard to get them to read the supposed "entheta" that's on the net. > >And as Inductio pointed out, it is very odd that > >the first wife (Polly) is disliked but accepted > >whereas the second wife (Sarah) is errased from > >the org's history. Very strange. > > It's not strange. It's damage control. He lied so much and so badly about his > wives that they want to eradicate all conflicting statements about them and > remove any avenue of research that would definitely catch him in a lie. Reasonable. > >But Nibs is already starting to disappear from the > >tapes (the favorable mention of Nibs on the Role > >of Earth tape has already been cut), so maybe they > >are just being practical about waiting until there > >are fewer people who remember him before errasing > >the first marriage as well. > > If CSI is still around in 2005, Hubbard will have become a > confirmed bachelor whose children sprang full grown from his head. More likely whose bodies he mocked up by postulate to hold the thetans of his loyal aids from the spasto-galactic empire. > >Enough for now. > > Quite so. > > >Best, > > Back at ya, > > >The Pilot > > Ishmael > > >------------------ > >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 - www.sgmt.at/pilot.htm > >In Hungarian - www.extra.hu/self/index.html > >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 > >#39, 40, and 41 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. > > > >------------------ > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Doubts of all things earthly, and intuitions of some things heavenly; this > combination makes neither believer nor infidel, but makes a man who regards > them both with equal eye.--Herman Melville > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - To Zenon TO ZENON On 1 Dec 98, Zenon Panoussis posted on subject "Ruling in Zenon's case" > OK, this is made to look like a reply to an earlier > thread, but it is really an original posting starting > a new thread. > > In article <35FDB059.84B0D641@xs4all.nl> I myself wrote: > > > 1. The ruling against me this afternoon was pretty solid. > > I did find a couple of ridiculous logical flaws, but if > > these flaws had not been there the end result would have > > been just the same. In other words, the judges did put in > > a good work in producing a solid ruling and succeeded at it. > > I surely don't agree with them in their assessment of the > > legal situation in whole - how could I? - but I can't just > > wave away the ruling as I did with the previous one. This > > makes an appeal all the more difficult: I would need to work > > a lot to get the court of appeals to overrule this one, and > > I don't like to work. Actually, I mostly like to play. > > I have to admit that most of the above was bullshit. True, > at first glance the ruling did look very solid, and it > even cheated me into thinking that it was. It was only > after I started working on my appeal that I took a closer > look at the details and saw all the errors, ommissions, > unfounded arguments, unfinished arguments, correct arguments > on the wrong topic etc. I have rectified my view on the > September 14 ruling: it is mediocre at best. > > Example: I wrote and said a hundred times that I did > not produce the copies that I handed to the parliament > and that the first one of them was made by the court > itself. Well, what do you think? The same court that made > that copy, found me guilty of infringement for having > made it (and in a second instance for handing it to the > parliament). It's not a question of evidence evaluation; > who really made the copy is not even disputed. This is > the result of unbelievable haste and sloppiness on the > part of the court. There are several similar examples. > > The appeal cost me a great deal of effort, but it > restored my optimism and fighting spirit. I feel now > fairly well prepared to take up the CoS on a new round > at the courts and I promise that this one will be harder. Good for you. Hang in there and don't let the bastards get you down. You have my thanks. I would think that you have FZ Bible's thanks and much of the rest of the freezone as well. And you will have the thanks of many orthodox Scientologists eventually once they get free of their chains. Support Scientology by setting the tech free from the money hungry clutches of the CofS. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Humor - LIFE UNDER THE CABBAGES LIFE UNDER THE CABBAGES This just in from the loyalist officers who intercepted a tachyon transmission from a possible future where the Cabbage People and their leader Davey have taken control. ---------------- Now that we Scientologists are finally about to take over the world, it is time for us to plan out some of the practical aspects of Western Civilization. Here then are a few preliminary sketches on how to apply standard tech to the world. 1. BRIDGES Currently there are many kinds of bridges. There are truss bridges and girder bridges and draw bridges and all sorts of variations. This is obviously a field that has been infused with squirrling and alter-is. So we assessed for the one right way to build a bridge. The item is ARCH BRIDGES. They are strong and permanent producing 100 percent stable results, and notice that they contain ARC. Therefore all squirrel bridges are to be torn down and replaced with Arch Bridges. Some SPs are saying that there is no way to replace the Golden Gate Bridge with an Arch bridge, but we will have them dead agented in short order and prove them wrong. Also, all bridges should be TOLL BRIDGES. That will help pay for the cost of building them. 2. BUILDINGS It should be obvious to anyone that the current construction tech involves mixing practices. The skyscrapers use a steel framework combined with concrete and other materials. Again we assessed and found that STEEL was the item. So all buildings will henceforth be built exclusively of steel. Imagine it, beautiful, shiny, standard cities. No more slums. No more wooden houses. No more bricks. Just steel in all its elegance. 3. ELECTIONS Ron has wisely said that "You never give the public a choice". The current system of voting allows the public to go out ethics and vote for things which are bad for them. Therefore, HCO will analyze the correct choices to be made at each election in accordance with policy and cast everybody's votes for them. That way we will have unanimous votes and perfect agreement. 4. AIRPLANES The Pilot is an evil squirrel and a joker and degrader to boot. The solution is simple. Eliminate airplanes. Hence no more pilots. See how easy it is. Standard tech works. 5. OPEN MINDS We know that having an open mind is a source of PTSness. Since it is new ideas that tend to shatter closed minds, we will impose censorship and ban all new ideas from the media. And a strong media campaign on the dangers of open mindedness, new ideas, and thinking for yourself will help to close those minds that are already open. And if they wouldn't close, there is always ethics. 6. SOLVING CRIME It has been proven that only 2 and 1/2 percent of the population are bad hats who cause all the evil. They can be disposed of quietly and without sorrow. Therefore we only have to shoot 2 1/2 percent to achieve an ideal society. And LRH, in his infinite wisdom, made this an absolute statement, therefore we know that in the following year, there will be another 2 1/2 percent that need to be shot. So by doing this each and every year, we will not only achive social bliss but we will also handle the problem of overpopulation, thus killing two birds with one stone. 7. TELEVISION AND MOVIES The SO has long know that TV is evil. Eliminating it has created a boom in the movie industry. However we must be careful not to allow restimulative movies to be shown. Many of the troubles of the 1970s can be traced to the restimulation that came from the 2001 movie. So the new national theta censorship bureau will have to approve all movies. No more out ethics on film. No more Godfathers and Rambos. Just nice pictures about people making lots of money and giving it to the orgs. 8. HEALTHY HAPPY BABIES Milk is to be taken off the market. Only barley water will be sold. 9. STANDARD APPAREL The yearly fashions were inspired by the world conspiracy. From now on all women will wear Mother Hubbards. That will solve the rampant out 2D which has plagued this planet. 10. THOUGHT CONTROL TOWERS We know that evil purposes are the basic abberation which has plagued us all. Ron found these nifty devices for handling them on the whole track. Some evil SP altered Ron's words so as to say that these thought control towers were bad, but any good Sea Org member knows better. Support thought control in your neighborhood now! 11. MIXING PRACTICES This is becoming impossible now that there are no other practices allowed by law. Praise Ron. 12. CASE GAIN GALORE You no longer have to wait for auditing or go through the difficulties of being sessionable. Just pay your money to the org and one of our OTs will postulates the gains into your head. YAJADF (Yet Another Jokers And Degraders Fit), The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Humor - MARCABBAGE DOLL DANGER WARNING MARCABBAGE DOLL DANGER WARNING On 1 Dec 98, The.Galactic.Federation@ThePentagon.com (¸Anti-Cult©) posted on subject "Re: NEW!! - MARCABBAGE, PRINCE OF SPACE doll" > On 30 Nov 1998 23:28:08 GMT. > In Message-ID: <19981130182808.06284.00000286@ng127.aol.com> > lr1467@aol.com (LR1467). > From: AOL http://www.aol.com. > Wrote on the subject: Re:NEW!! - MARCABBAGE, PRINCE OF SPACE doll: > > > This doll is a ripoff. It's just the old one with a little fishbowl > > thingy on its head!! > > > > (I dumped it in my fishbowl, but the piranhas wouldn't come near it.) > > > > LR > > > > What on god's green earth/Teegeack are you talking about? Have you gone > PTS type III? > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > "Somebody some day will say 'this is illegal'. By then be sure the > orgs say what is legal or not." > > -- L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL 4 January 1966-- > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > ********* I'm so entheta I mock up *your* reactive mind too ********* > *********** http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/index.htm ************ > * Multimedia: http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/multimed/index.htm * > ******** The.Galactic.Federation@ThePentagon.com (Anti-Cult) ******** > ***** Public PGP key: http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/pgp.htm **** --------------------------------------------------------------------- Most certainly PTS, but it is TYPE I not TYPE III. When there is a real SP right there, its TYPE I. And he brought that damn doll into his OWN HOME. And probably handled it without gloves on too! ALWAYS WEAR GLOVES WHEN HANDLING A DM DOLL. These Dolls are the next biggest source of planetary suppression after DM himself. THEY EMIT SPACE COOTIES. So be warned. It might be fun to stick pins in them, but they are dangerous. Even the piranhas knew better than to get near the damn thing. IT IS A PLOT BY THE CABBAGE PEOPLE TO TAKE OVER THE EARTH. End PTSness, Disconnect from the Sea Org. Humorously, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Limited Bridges LIMITED BRIDGES Let's hypothesize that there are 100 areas or levels that must be addressed to make it to OT. I'm talking major areas here, like grade 1 or NOTS. The CofS only handles about a dozen. A few more if you include older levels that used to be done (like grade 5 or the old OT levels). My impression (not knowing his materials in detail) is that Alan goes after a few dozen, and I have the same opinion of Identics and CBR's followers. Trom on the other hand only aims at a couple of targets and I have the same impression of Avatar from the various things that have been posted about it. The self clearing book was my own best shot at this and the 48 chapters probably cover half of the potential targets. There is a datum in orthodox CofS case supervision that anything can be handled at any level and that you use the processes of the level the pc is on to address what he needs handled. In other words, if somebody at level zero has a pain in the shoulder, then you use "from where could you communicate to a shoulder" rather than some other technique. Although this only has limited workability, it does show that you can broaden out any one of these levels and try to handle everything from that perspective. My experience is that this will work for a little while and then begin to grind and act as a wrong why. When I was running solo nots endlessly, there was a short period where anything could be handled with a Nots approach. The same goes for Dianetics and handling overts which are the other two areas that CofS pushes to the wall and tries to run the entire case on endlessly. You could handle problems by pulling overts and get a key out a few times, at least on some people, before it started coming up dry. The same for handling them by running incidents or blowing entities. I would assume that this would also be true of uncreating the problem as they do in Avatar or using a Trom technique. So you can fool yourself into thinking that one area can run the entire case. And different people will find different areas to be the most easily accessible. You can just throw away the idea that there is one sequence and everybody does best on that one pattern. Some people would find Dianetics easiest to run first, others would do better on grades, others might find Avatar's approach to be the easiest initially. I even know one guy (not a Scientologist) who finds entities really easy to confront and handle (and has good perception of them) and yet is heavily blocked on past track (his attitude is that this is our first lifetime, we are potentially immortal and go on to higher planes when we die but there is nothing before, it is all black). Besides this, there are different styles and techniques for approaching a particular level. It can be light or intense, narrow or broad, and there are many different ways to skin the same cat. Some will work better on a particular person than others. One size does not fit all. The hardest part is the first step. Once you make one big gain, it softens everthing else up a bit and give you more space and horsepower to tacket another. The person may be very limited as to what can be run for that first step but as he progresses beyond that, more areas become available and the selection of what tools will work becomes much broader. Any practice that assumes what that first step will be is going to end up filtering their public for people on whom thier first step works well. Even the self clearing book suffers from that because the chapters are in a certain order and that order will not be right for everybody. This tells us that we should not be unmocking other practices. Whatever gets someone started on the road to truth gets them started. The greatest weakness in metaphysics was not in its ideas but in its practical application. The big breakthough in early Scientology was in how to process something rather than in what processes were being run. And in that regard, metaphysics is changing. Some of it may be due to spill off from early Scientology and some due to better dissemination and training of techniques which did exist but the main reason might simply be that it is growing in a culture that is infused with the practicalities of science and engineering. In other words, this synthesis of Eastern thought and Western methedology is a natural thing whose time has come. Scientology was simply a bit ahead of its time, moving in advance of the wavefront. The big wrongness exists when a practice says that it is the only way and limits its approach and techniques rather than simply saying "Here is something helpful which works". Science and engineering are additive, bigger and bigger collections of data and techniques. There is more than one way to build a bridge. There are truss bridges and arch bridges and suspension bridges and there is no one way which is right in all circumstances. And so it should be with processing, many approaches and an assortment of tools rather than one right way. There is nothing wrong with persuing a narrow technique as long as it is working. Take it as far as it will go. Go ahead and get to the big gain. But once that does happen, don't start overrunning it and grinding it into the ground. And don't expect that everything is now handled. Plan on moving on to another area for your next step. There may be a wonderous key-out with that big gain. Everything might seem like it is gone. Enjoy it. But don't expect it to last. If you have a big gain like that, there will be something which is a permanent stable gain, but there will also be a large amount which has not errased but simply has gotten off of your back temporarily. And don't invalidate it just because it isn't everything. These are huge steps when you make them. From what I remember of earlier lifetimes, one was lucky to make one such big step in an entire lifetime dedicated to seeking enlightenment. Despite what Ron said, I think that these states are not new, they have been achieved at various times. What is new is the speed. You can do in a year what might have taken a lifetime of searching. But don't stop at just one, go ahead and take the next step. They get faster as you build up momentum. There are many limited bridges. Don't let that stop you. Go ahead and string them together until the composite is long enough to get you out of the swamp. And if you want to mix techniques from the Self Clearing book into any other practice, be my guest. I am not a purist or an advocate of only one right way. You're going to need everything that you can get your hands on. And if somebody tells you that their one techique is all that you'll ever need, just realize that its a PR statement, similar to a box of corn flakes proudly proclaiming that it has all the vitamins and minerals that you might ever want. Expand your horizons, think broadly, and keep moving. Each forward step is its own reward. You will never be the same again. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering NotMax (More on Self Auditing) ANSWERING NOTMAX (MORE ON SELF AUDITING) On 21 Nov 98, NotMax posting as Secret Squirrel (this is an anon remailer) replied to my earlier post on subject "Re Super Scio Tech - On Self Auditing (attn NotMax)" > On the matter of overrun. I accept the possibility of it. I always made > an effort to acknowledge a win. I would approach what might be termed a > 'blockage'. I would put my resources onto it until the flow got smoothed > out, without describing how this occurred in this post. > > At this point I would feel that it was finished. I would not move away too > quickly though, but would put attention on it for anything extraneous. The > way to acknowledge a win here is to 'give thanks', which can be said as an > alternative to just accepting that this kind of thing just happens and try > to move on. This is appreciation. > > As well I reject the concept of persistence. I don't regard what I did as > an exercise in persistence. I tried to originate all that I did whenever > possible which is outside of consideration of time. > > I noticed a tendency to feel 'contented'. In a way it was a case of 'why > am I bothering?' and 'just try and use the key-out to relax now that I have > my eyes closed'. Anyone who baulks at self-auditing probably thinks this > is the most which is possible. I would acknowledge my feelings of being > relaxed but do my darnedest to avoid leaping to it and try to self-audit > instead. > > In my posts I described feeling worse due to an increasing major key-in. > The intention was to get to what I was keying in, I was aware of no other > approach. Only lunatics and scientologists try to key-in I believe. I > would guess that people would scorn my effort to feel worse rather than > attempting some key-out approach. > > I think that in this sense I utilized positive processing. There was just > no place for what was in my way. In this kind of approach there are > smaller gains as extraneous charge is reduced, from locks and so forth. > For a large secondary I noticed that incidents from earlier on the chain > run first, as this happens the later secondary keys in more clearly. This > can be disheartening as well, there might be doubts as to the cognitive > gains from this situation. There is a pattern to the way incidents present > themselves for running, as is described in Science of Survival. > > The only version of the release grades I have seen are the Filbert ones. > They are quite long, you make them sound as if they are shorter. I gather > that you are saying that you reached the EPs by other means than running > everyone one of the processes in the early grades. > > Regards, > NotMax Very interesting. It helps a lot to read of other's experiences with self auditing, there is not nearly enough. Although Filbert uses the lighter, more pleasant style of 1967 rather than rote standard tech, he does blend in anything that he saw of value in the later days (and his choices are good in this regards). So he has many more grade processes than the very limited selection of the late sixties. In 1967, we mainly just used the "key" process for each grade. For straightwire, it was simply ARC straightwire (Recall A/R/C/U) and for grade zero it was 0-0 (what are you willing to talk to me about), 0-A (if you could talk to a ....), and 0-B (talking about various subjects). This is a very limited set, but you could run for hours by filling various things in the blanks in the grade zero commands and really getting the pc talking. It could be taken to a large FN and the person would usually feel good about communicating for a few months until he accumulated too many stops and losses and keyed his considerations back in. The expanded grade is of course much more stable. The grade zero processes are not easy to do solo in their original form. For self clearing I had to think about what could somebody do by themselves to get that same effect of pushing through and blowing ridges on communication. I wrote that up in the chapter on communication. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering Allen ANSWERING ALLEN On 3 Dec 98, Antony Phillips posted on subject "Re: Super Scio Tech - BREAKTHROUGH ON LOSS" My thanks to Antony and Ole for putting this together and calling it to my attention so that I can discuss Allen's points. (note - for those who only lurk occasionally, please don't confuse Allen Hacker (acceptance processing) with Alan Walters (Knowledgeism) since I talk to both of them and people sometimes get the first names confused) My original article can be found in post41.txt in the archives at fza.org. (this begins with Antony's introduction) > On Sunday 20th November, I posted to a private list the above article > from The Pilot. this resulted in some comments, some of which are posted > here both for general edification, and to give the Pilot an opportunity > to further comment. My thanks to Ole Blem Jensen for putting this > together for me. > (What is not in Ole's extracts below is the fact that I made some remark > to the list about Allen's critising the Pilots cognitions/wins) > The following is what Ole sent to me: > *********************************** > Here you'll find a collection (3 posts) of Allen's criticism of the > Pilot. My own opinion is that we owe the Pilot the opportunity to see > it and (as I'm sure he will) respond to it. > > As to Allen's "not being a pacifist" and "mirroring people's > aggressivenes back to them" (as he wrote in the letter to you which > you posted) I came to think of Ray Kemp in Copenhagen 1989. During a > lecture someone in the audience made a comment, defending the > activities of the Guardians office, and maintaining that one > sometimes had to resort to tough measures because after all, there is > evil in the world. And Kemp answered, here quoted from memory: > > "But that is outside the philosophy of Scientology. In > Scientology, when you encounter entheta, you don't put more > entheta on the line. Instead, you put theta on the line and > eventually the entheta will blow off." > > And he went on with examples of the GO "making it more solid" so > it "wouldn't go away" and thus have enough to handle and keep the > stats up etc. Perhaps a quote worth posting. If you are interested, > I'll dig it up verbatim. > > And her follows the Allen collection, > best regards, > Ole > > > > Date sent: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 22:25:32 -0800 > To: ivy-subscribers > From: Allen > Subject: Re: IVy: Pilot: Breakthrough on loss > > ** ivy-subscribers relaying. ** > > > Pilot wrote: > > >The being who had been my father was obviously not lost > >but simply off somewhere else and playing different games > >(at least if any of our theories about theta are correct). > > > >What had been lost was the valence of "a father", in > >other words, a role that that being had chosen to play > >for awhile. > > > > But I disagree. The loss is not about the "other". It's about self. > > What is lost, what is always lost, is not the "terminal" one no longer > "has". It's the "self" one can no longer "be" in relation to the > now-absent terminal. You can be anything. > Have a baseball = be a ballplayer; lose the baseball, can't play ball. Mockup a way to waste balls. Mockup a baseball game. > Have a father = be a son; lose a father, no longer a son. > > Have a girlfriend, be a boyfriend; lose the girlfriend, not a > boyfriend; get a different girlfriend, be a different boyfriend. Be what you want. Is your beingness only defined by others? > What's lost is an identity. True. But you can mock it up again. > Or a new identity is achieved via dumping the anchor to an old one. Of course. But let it be your choice rather than stimulous reponse. > -0- > > Allen, Speaker | speaker@asc.org > ASC Missions Group -0- http://www.asc.org > Articulate Management | http://www.artman.com > > --------------------------- > Date sent: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 11:42:54 -0800 > To: ivy-subscribers > From: Allen > Subject: Re: IVy: Pilot: Breakthrough on loss > > ** ivy-subscribers relaying. ** > > Hi, > > Let me explain a couple of things. Those of you who are hard-core > Scners may not get it, that's okay. Not to be catty there, but it is > my experience that Scners and Xians are generally two of the most > hard-core types when it comes to not questioning one's own stable > data. Unfortunately true. > So if you get it, and reject it, that's okay. If you reject it > only because it conflicts with your already-accepted and > now-unquestioned belief structure, then I'm sorry, that's reactive. > > At 09:27 PM 11/22/98 +0100, via Ant, Pilot wrote: > ..... > > subj : Super Scio Tech - BREAKTHROUGH ON LOSS > > > > > >BREAKTHROUGH ON LOSS > > > > > >For years now I have been theorizing that there should be a > >clear-like state attainable on the subject of loss. > ..... > >Some people may be able to get this just by following > >along with me here as I explain how I got there. Or > >you can run a simple gradient of confronting losses > >until you make it. These things are much easier once > >you have a road map. > > Look at these two opening paragraphs. The Pilot is not merely > originating a win. He's offering up a technical explanation and a > process or two. So when I comment on what he's doing, I'm commenting > on his offering, not the personal aspects of his personal-win > illustration of it. Fair enough. > ..... > >On the second command I realized "my god, what if I > >never ever lost a wife or a girlfriend but just kept > >on aquiring them, more and more forever and they all > >hung around and nagged at me, it would be total overwhelm". > > > >If you never lost anything, you would be burried in > >your own Mest. > > Yet this is exactly where everyone is, and will always be if they ask > the question, How many girlfriends do you have? The correct question > is rather, How many manifestations of the archetype "girlfriend" are > you attached to? Fine so far. > The situation of the first question in the previous paragraph can only > stem from the Scn (and some others') unquestioned stable datum that an > individual exists totally separate as a being from all other beings. This does not follow. In fact I think quite the opposite, namely that we are all interconnected under the surface. But it does raise a damn good question. If Joe is god and totally responsible and Bill is god and totally responsible, then how does it work? I have thought a lot about that one, but I have probably not said enough, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised at being misunderstood. I thought this important enough to do a separate write up on the topic. It's called "Thou Art God" and is being posted separately in this batch of posts. > From there, one can experience "others" as having conflicting > intentions and committing destructive actions against one, which one > cannot control. Idiotic ethics officers and people who blame their PTSness on others might think this, but I certainly don't. > There's an interesting paradox in the Pilot's writings that I believe > rests upon a pair of conflicting "stable" data. On the one hand is > the idea that the self is a distinct absolute. On the other is the > idea that one creates one's experience totally in control, consciously > or not. I don't think that the self is a distinct absolute. But I will agree with the second statement, I believe it to be correct. > To see where I go, you have to question both of those. > > The self-as-a-distinct-absolute view implies that one sees others as > the same: selves distinct and immutable unto themselves. This view > can be represented by the peas-in-the-pod simile. Each pea is a part > within the pod, connected but separate and separable, similar to all > the other peas yet distinct at the same time. I think that there is a lot more slopping over. > This simile should lead one to deciding that all peas are more or less > equal in their traits if not their power, and that each is therefore > possessed equally of self-determination. This I would agree with. > Yet when the Pilot talks > about a loss occurring (or anything occurring) because he postulated > it, where that event contains other people performing actions > contributing to the effect he seemingly intends, he is expressing a > belief that he causes others to fulfill his postulates. True. And other people get me to fulfill their's. The mugger needs a victim, and the victim needs a mugger, and they work hard at getting together. Or, better, two people are looking for mates and they come together. Both are at cause. > The paradox in that one is, Are these others self-determined or > Pilot-determined? Either self-determined or stimulous response (still self-determined but no longer conscious of what they are determining for themselves). > I know that one can construct an elaborate > conspiracy of tacit (unspoken) agreements to fulfill each other's > play-roles, but the truth is, there's no consistent evidence of that > in any case I've ever questioned. Then you're not asking the right questions. You can always find the person at cause at some level. The org abuses this and uses people's own power against them by forcing the mishandled person to spot what he did to bring it on and therefore distracts the person's attention from what the org did against him. Finding how Joe pulled it in does not justify Bill's overt against Joe. But that does not invaliate the fact that you really can always find Joe setting the thing up for himself. You can also find Bill setting it up for him. Both work together in this. > A lot of talk about it, but never > any direct discovery of how exactly one did the will of another in the > action - each person is walking around believing that he originated > the motivations himself. Both people are correct. See "Thou Art God". > The paradox is, "I am real, and others are real, and each of us is > self-determined, but my postulates control the behavior of them in > their functions in my experience while I remain totally > self-determined in my functions in fulfilling their experience of > their postulates." > > It's a paradox because it includes conflicting "facts". > > One of the things this leads to is the huge number of people, most > Scners included (per my information), who have never resolved 100% the > question, Do other people truly exist or do/did I create them? Ask > yourself. Do you have a positive, definitive, totally confident > answer? Yup. Other people do exist and they created themselves. But you are right in that most people don't confront this question. > The other thing it leads to is false understandings. More in a > moment. > > ..... > >But what if you're not supposed to throw some things > >away, or you can't confront doing it. Now you need > >an external cause. > > > >This mechanism cannot develop until the person already > >has problems and overts. He has to want to loose > >something (as a solution to a problem) and yet be > >unwilling to be responsible for loosing it (he is > >wishing that some external force would bump off his > >wife or something like this). > > > >And so he then postulates external cause out of his > >control which will cause him to suffer losses. > ..... > >I'm still having cognitions on this one. > > > >It feels like a terrible weight has been lifted > >from ny shoulders. > ..... > > Sure, having an explanation always calms one. Even a wrong > explanation. Take, for example, a lie, like, The world is flat. If > you believe it, you can operate in terms of it, and everything will > seem to make sense and fit together. And your understanding of the > world in terms of it can compound as you relate more and more data to > it. But only if you don't look too close; only if you don't question > your stable data, the lie included. And it is comforting to have > things make sense. And you can discover more and more alignment > within that scene as you look for it. But only if you don't question > your stable data; only if you ignore as "minor anomalies" any > reality-conflicts that you notice, like, Sometimes sailors come back > after falling off the edge! I look on everything as relative truths rather than absolutes. If I had previously believed the world to be a pretzel and finally came to the realization that it seemed too flat for that and therefore was better viewed as flat, then I would go with it until something better came up. Hopefully one eventually notices that the bottoms of the mountains disappear before the peaks as one sails away and thus concludes that there might be a curvature. And then perhaps one sails to America and thinks that it is India because one has Ptolomy's incorrect calculation of 17,000 miles for the circumference. But one keeps an open mind and realizes that the natives are not Indians and therefore questions the numbers. > Be that as it may, however, when any your stable data are wrong, then > your entire construct of what's going on is false. And I suggest that > it doesn't matter how good you feel in that scene if your real > intention is to possess the truth. > > Remember, nowhere in the discourse on stable data and confusion does > Ron say that a stable datum is necessarily true by definition. > Remember, "The world is flat", and "Man is an animal". Relative truths. Flat is good enough to triangulate the other side of a river. It is not good enough to find your way from Europe to America. I consider the stable datum in a confusion idea to be useful in reducing randomity so that one can look at something that has one overwhelmed. But it is far too shallow for good research. You have to keep picking different stable data and re-evaluating. Often some things will align and others wouldn't. I believe in continual questioning of stable data, probably to the disgust of others who think I'm a Q&A artist. > Of course if you're willing to buy into the notion that there is no > real truth beyond your own declarations, then you can sidestep all > those issues. > But only if you don't question your stable data; only if you excuse > the > microscopic inconsistencies. > > >When a child looses a parent, they generally think that > >its their fault. Its because they have old postulates > >out there about bumping off parents. It might not be > >on the current parent. > > This is a perfect example of what I'm saying: here the child is given > all the power to formulate the event even though there are other > beings involved. Because the child had past overts and evil > intentions toward parents, the child now can lose a parent through no > apparent fault of his own. But for that to happen, I insist, the > parent must do the bidding of the child and go away. The parent > cannot simply decide to leave, or die. It's the child's experience, so > it's the child's "plan": the parent is merely a pawn in the play. If you process the child the parent will change. If you process the parent the child will change. All are interconnected, not separate and isolated. > Now I ask, How much respect is being granted to others by people who > see things this way? How much beingness is being granted? Not much! > And in my opinion, that's abusive. (On all flows, but that's a > separate detail.) > > ..... > >All of this left me feeling very exterior to the > >whole subject and at cause over the losses I've > >experienced. My gut feeling was that you do create > >your own losses. > > I'll grant that one actualizes one's own losses, but it's only by the > way one views things and how one responds to that view. > > As for the idea of it being a good thing to be exterior to a subject, > I question whether that's alienation rather than a good thing. I > think it depends totally on your world-view: believe that you are a > distinct being and you can believe that you are separate from the > universe or any part of it, even to the point of believing that you > exist in your own separate and solid but "personal" universe. That's > a platform for going elsewhere, including going exterior. Exterior is NOT the same as disconnecting. You don't drop the body in exteriorizing from it. It is both separate and not-separate. > Believe that you are part of AllThatIs, and you find echoes of It > throughout yourself and of yourself throughout It, and the universe is > a subjective, experiential, mirror. That's a platform for simply > turning things on and off, directly, but it is also an immersion > perspective. Agreed. > I have found more evidence in support of the second of these two > views. Consider the immense awareness increases that come from > "pervading" a subject or area or location. And then question which > explanation makes more sense of what pervasion is. Is it an ability > to extend oneself into where one is not? Or is it merely a relaxation > of the arbitrary boundary holding oneself apparently separate from > things of which one is actually an eternal part, immersed even when > unaware that one is immersed? Both are true but the second is more basic. Either one will work as a process. Both probably need to be run at various times. > And ask yourself which takes less effort in the doing? Which implies > the greater liability of failure, or instability? Which implies the > greater potential for alienation and self-doubt? And which implies > the greatest success with respect to knowingness? > > Now I'm going to offer you a mean idea: Scientology IS the reverse > vector that Ron so often talked about. It became that. I don't see it in the 50s but I do see it in the later rigid ideas of standard tech and ethics and policy. > It offers you a set of stable > data that ultimately conflict with each other. And if you don't > question that materialistic spirituality, you will never find the true > You. In my opinion the only ones who have made it through are the > ones who have been bold enough to look beyond what Ron said when they > found inconsistencies; to say, Okay, what's the truth between or > beyond these indications? I'm always saying that. The subject is very incomplete. We don't have all the answers. > Yet even then most of them continue to use the misstatements and pass > on the misunderstoods to their progeny. They don't get that people > hear what they say, not what they mean. Some do. > ..... > >So I grabbed the incident of my father's death. Obviously > >a real loss. > > > >I've run it before, and the charge had been pretty cooled > >down, but there had been some mass remaining on it. > > > >And I looked at it again to see how it seemed now that > >I've had that big cog on loss. And the charge was gone > >and it looked really different as follows: > > > >The being who had been my father was obviously not lost > >but simply off somewhere else and playing different games > >(at least if any of our theories about theta are correct). > > > >What had been lost was the valence of "a father", in > >other words, a role that that being had chosen to play > >for awhile. > > > >And the loss of that valence had completely fallen apart > >with the above cognition. As I looked at it again, I > >had this exterior view of an entire track where that > >parent valence comes and goes, sometimes desirable and > >sometimes undesirable, and worn by various beings at > >different times. > > So the Parent valence is the child's experience, "worn by various > beings at different times". Those various beings are just character > actors, right, dropping by only to gratify the child's postulates > concerning the valence? Sure. They don't have anything more important > to do, like their own messes to agonize about. We play lots of roles for each other all the time. > ..... > >With that it seemed to me that a being doesn't actually > >need havingness. He mocks up what he wants when he > >wants it, at least high on the scale. If you can just > >mock things up, you don't bother mocking up tons of > >something, you just mockup a really nice one, and only > >when you want it around. > > The unquestioned stable data in this are probably something like, I > always know what I'm doing if I'm high-toned (and I am high-toned); I wish that "high-toned" were good enough for this. > Everything is premeditated; Each of us exists in his own universe; I > am in control in "my" universe. > > Logical extensions of these are: I'm totally responsible = I'm to > blame; I play nasty jokes on myself -intentionally- (because I like > the pain as a preferable alternative to having nothing better to do). > > Hmmm. Don't seem to make as much sense when you state it outright, > does it? Actually it does make sense. Drop the word "blame" in the above, there is a wrong twist to it. And change the ending to "as a preferable aternative to total nothingness" and you're pretty close to the truth. Then see that there are better ways to balance the nothingness than that of playing victim in your own Shakepearean tragedy and you begin to find your way out. > >But once you've launched all sorts of postulates out > >of control which give you losses, then you have to have > >lots and lots of stuff because you keep loosing it. > >Then the havingness level becomes important. But its > >a solution to a problem rather than being a basic. > > > >What happens is that one continually mocks up losses > >for oneself, and launches them out of control, and > >then one looses the wrong things because uncontrolled > >postulates often hit the wrong targets. > > BZZZZT! Totally wrong. Postulates are never uncontrolled, just > poorly posed. At any rate, they never miss. Never. If you think you > understand a postulate that missed, you just haven't seen the thing > clearly yet. They miss all the time. Try postulating the ashtray into the air. It works sometimes but not often. One makes postulates that are in conflict. And there are other people. The general postulate can work ("I want a loving girlfriend") but not the specific ("I want Nancy to love me") unless the specific individual is willing to play the role. We just went through the whole business about other people and self-determinism. At rock bottom we could say that Joe's postulates are absolute for Joe, but he doesn't even know what he's thinking at that level. So you could say that his postulates always stick relative to himself in the context of all the other postulates that he is holding in place. So you could process somebody on this, stripping off layer after layer until you found the level at which it didn't miss but was exactly as mocked up. But we're far outside of the human condition and beyond any concept of loss when we hit it from that angle. In any frame of reference in which he does experience undesired loss, his postulates are already badly messed up. > Of course, if you're looking at everything through unquestioned > erroneous stable data, then you're never seeing anything clearly. > > Clarity is, after all, a relative thing. You can be clear in an > insane asylum merely by knowing that you, unlike most of the other > inmates, _know_ you are insane. But if you think that's the End > Phenomenon of "self-improvement", you're doomed. Agreed. > The same is true of > anyone who believes that his case has anything at all to do with > anyone or anything else. Weren't you just arguing the exact opposite? If it had nothing to do with anybody else, then it would not be possible to process him since there would be no point of interaction. We do help or hinder each other. Joe is at cause over Joe, but you can encourage or discourage him. > Consider BE-DO-HAVE. In a ranking of closest-to/farthest-from > "universal consciousness" (theta), BE is closest and HAVE is farthest, > from the Truth of self. Another way of saying this is that in the > Grand Illusion, BE (the individual) is the least false of the three. Alright. > So when you're clearing, if the client (yourself?) is still finding > explanations in HAVE (as in loss of terminals), or DO (as in > Overts/Withholds), then you are dealing with someone who has not yet > gotten down to the level of self (as in loss of identities). Are we back to absolutes now? All these things cycle. Clear up have, then do, then be. Then clear up deeper have, then do, then be. Then even deeper and so forth. Or start with be if you like since it is closer to theta (I agree on that). But count on do and have showing up again at a deeper level. Absolute be without do or have is pure static unmanifest. A hairsbreath short of that and there is near absolute do and have as well as be. > Now, I had no intention of slighting the Pilot by not praising him. > Nor did I mean to come across as invalidating his cognitions. The > fact is though, not all cognitions are valid; they may make one feel > better, even blow the needle down, but if they are realizations of the > alignment-of-data type, their accuracy is only as real as the validity > of the stable data upon which the alignment is being done. > > I was dealing with the Pilot as if he is on a par in the field of > tech-finding. For he has gone beyond mere parroting and restatement. > But that opens him to debate, to challenge, to an implied obligation > to question his own assumptions and stable data, lest he build an > edifice on sand (hidden standards and fixed ideas). Good enough. > For after all, what are unquestioned erroneous stable data, if not > fixed ideas and by extension, hidden standards? True. > And, no apologies, but it is my opinion, extended from the lack of any > confirmation of them from my research with clients, that several of > the Pilot's "stable data" (some as discussed above) are no less than > erroneous assumptions and adoptions - fixed ideas leading to blinding > illusion, not all of which are of his own invention. In this case I think you misduplicated my viewpoint. But I agree that I might still be standing on some wrong ideas, as might you and anyone else in this field. That's why I try not to rant against other tech finders and why I try to be polite and cool down the "I'm right you're wrong type arguments that are always springing up on ACT". Let each state their positions and argue their beliefs, that helps us all to see truth. But the "I'm right because I say so and you're an idiot" does nobody any good. I do criticize people (especially modern CofS) for claiming to have all the answers or being the only source because it blocks the research. I know that I don't have it all and I'm still searching. And I learn a lot from others, even you. I have though for a long time that it would take many people each going at it from their own angles of approach. > So I had no intention to insult or denigrate the Pilot. I had every > intention to challenge his technical proposition that here was an > important case-breaker when I knew that several measures of increased > gain would flow from the correction I offered. I still think that its an important breakthough. It is not everything. It is a specific on the anguish of mental image pictures of incidents of loss. That might be about one percent of the entirity of case just as mental pictures of pain and the dianetic clear state probably represent about one percent of what needs to be handled. On a scale from human up to god, one percent is a huge step. > One thing I also did not intend to do that perhaps others have done > here: to make of the Pilot an icon, whose ideas are beyond reproach. Agreed. I do make mistakes and am far from perfect. I hope to open peoples minds to ideas rather than to freeze them into a new solidity. > I love the man. But I have a lot of reservations about his basics. > They're just refried Scn, which I have already found to be erroneous > at basics. Far more than refried Scn. But I am trying to move forward from where Hubbard left off. Newton is the cornerstone of physics. He also had many ideas that would make a modern physicist shudder in horror and he certainly didn't manage to build any computers or space craft. Before and after Newton are like night and day. But what he didn't know would fill all our modern physics textbooks. And in fact it does. > He, like Ron, is still talking about HAVE and DO. I'm > trying to prod him to get down to, and eventually beyond, BE. Good. Go forth and crack yet another one percent. There is pleanty of room for breakthoughs. > Remember, the world made sense to the people who believed it was flat. > > It makes more sense now that we believe it is round. > > Imagine how much more sense it will make when we see it for what it > really is? > > -0- > > Allen, Speaker | speaker@asc.org > ASC Missions Group -0- http://www.asc.org > Articulate Management | http://www.artman.com > > ---------------------------------- > > Date sent: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 13:04:10 -0800 > To: ivy-subscribers > From: Allen > Subject: IVy: The Pilot - A real criticism > > ** ivy-subscribers relaying. ** > > Hi, > > Have you ever heard the adage, Be falsely accused, might as well enjoy > the crime (so do it!)? > > I'm not doing that. :-) > > But I did notice something when I wrote the comment in my last > message, about making of the Pilot an icon. It's been bothering me > from the beginning. > > I want to criticize him for choosing "The Pilot" as his pseudonym. > > Who/what is The Pilot in Scn mythology? He is the guy in OTIII. And > what is one of the key questions in that action? "What is the pilot > saying?". > > No doubt many people thought, "Man, what a great pseudonym!" And why > wouldn't they? It has such a ring of association to the COS, to the > mythology all of us who were there cherish or once cherished, such a > feeling of familiarity. It is an attention getter. I'm not ashamed of that. You get more people to try your corn flakes with a picture of a tiger on the box than with a walking turd. But it doesn't make anybody buy the damn stuff, it just makes them notice it in a favorable manner. > But there is a LOT of significance associated with that name, > specifically that what the pilot is saying is important. That is in > fact where the immediate sense of familiarity comes from. It is > established in two ways. In the incident it seems very meaningful what > the pilot is saying, but it's also obscured, as part of the incident's > implant, to create confusion and mystery. And the fact that it's > asked for in session imparts to the answer, what the pilot is saying, > an importance, a meaning, that can only be gained by knowing what he's > saying. Thus the inference within the name that whatever he is > saying, or will say, is important. > > So maybe there's a tendency on the part of people, even many of us, to > attribute the significance attached to the name, to the individual who > uses it later, and his utterances. Maybe this is where the so-called > power of names and words comes from? If somebody dresses up in an angel costume for a TV commercial, do you then literal mindedly believe everything that they are saying? > Anyway, I think "The Pilot" gained an automatic but case-based > altitude from which to be unfairly respected when he chose a pseudonym > that anyone in his position must know would be either restimulative or > significant in ways unfathomable to the vast majority of his readers. Like the Knights of Xenu put everyone under hypnotic control by their use of the sacred name? Bull. It is an attention getter and to some degree a wakeup call for people who have done OT 3 and are foolishly putting extra significance where there is none. > So, since I can't pretend that he doesn't know about the probability > of these liabilities, or that he didn't consider them, I can't excuse > him for what I consider a deliberate manipulation. > > I do, however, excuse all who fell for it, if they did, if they > assigned some unexamined importance to the "what he's saying" and then > extending that to the person saying it. > > I do therefore excuse anyone who has made The Pilot into an icon. > Because that's what "the pilot" is. And I, unlike Scners, don't hold > people responsible (blame) for their cases. I don't agree that it's > all secretly intentional self-abuse. I understand that acting from > case results in mistakes, such as giving automatic credence to someone > simply because he presents what he has to offer through a charged > persona. > > None of this is to say that The Pilot has not contributed. Nor that > he is evilly-intentioned. But it is a questioning of his intentions > nonetheless. > > Now I will backpedal just a bit, and allow for some possibilities I > have already rejected. > > It is possible, despite my opinion, that The Pilot did not think his > choice through. It is even possible that he fell into the same > significance-reverence trap I'm suggesting most of us have gotten > caught in. After all, what if he's not perfect? :-) I have said endlessly that I'm not perfect. And I've explained about choosing the name a few times already. > For who among us with experience in Scn has not sold or recommended > Dianetics or Fundamentals of Thought to someone? Did we all know, > fully informed, the peripheral aspects of what we were doing to people > when we showed them those books with their pretty dust jackets? Most > likely not. I'd wager most of us still don't, so I'll tell you. > > I'll be telling you how you unknowingly (or maybe knowingly) > manipulated people into Scn. > > Some of you may know of the intentional significance-marketing that > COS has done with book jackets. The old man on many covers, including > Fundamentals of Thought, is not just a characterization of a wise > guide, representative of the value of the information in the book: he > is the R6 God, straight out of the Clearing Course. As such, his face > on the cover of Ron's books represents an _infallibility_ that the COS > wanted people to attribute to Ron's assertions. > > And the volcano on the Dianetics book is straight out of OTIII. How > powerful is that?! Haven't you ever wondered how the hell a volcano > represents Dianetics? It doesn't. But the key residual effect of > OTIII-event/implant is Overwhelm. So when you see the volcano on the > cover, you are already susceptible to the significance hidden behind > it just by being in the org. Responding to the unperceived overwhelm, > you surrender your self-determinism regarding the contents of the > book, including your freedom to question its validity. Or its > author's veracity. > > These are deliberate attempts to use restimulation and the conveyance > of significance to attach the public's attention to Ron's writings. > They work, too. But they are also well-known inside the organization. > So I don't believe that The Pilot doesn't know this stuff, and that > is why I criticize him for his choice, even if he didn't think it > through. He's too smart and well-informed to make such a mistake in > all innocence. That is what Hubbard thought he was doing. But it was dumb. The Dianetics cover is a good attention getter, not because Xemu tossed people into volcanos (a late track lightweight incident) but because the things errupt with great force and so have a true meaning as a symbol of a big event. There are symbols of heavy whole track significance. Madison Ave uses them all the time. They are planes, trains, automobiles, lions and tigers and bears, and yes, volcanos and pilots and just about everything else that people notice. We're used to these things. Nobody goes out and buys these products compulsively just because a dumb bear in a commercial say's that they taste good (but maybe they try them once if they feel like it). The cover of CofHA with the idiot in the bear's suit is about as poor as you can get. Ron thought he was restimulating the Bear Goals. Except that a real bear is much more basic as a track symbol. Or a real Gorilla like "Congo" or "Gorrilas in the Mist". And the dumb drawing of the "packaging" is just terrible dub in, not even accurate or meaningful. It probably reduced sales. At least self analysis had a dog, although Snoopy or Rin-Tin-Tin would have been stronger. > And now that you are also informed on the subject, I hope you will > inspect your own responses to things a little more closely. It might > save you from dramatizing an inappropriate reaction or two. > > -0- > > Allen, Speaker | speaker@asc.org > ASC Missions Group -0- http://www.asc.org > Articulate Management | http://www.artman.com The pilot symbol is meant to communicate that one is a guide. That is a correct meaning and I do mean it that way. If somebody sees the name "The Pilot" and says to themselves, "that person is trying to guide us", why then they would be right. It doesn't automatically make me a good guide just to say that I am one, but it does let people know that that is what I am aiming for and I think that that is fair. And my favorite imagry for a pilot is of a 1930s barnstormer in a bi-plane. That's thanks to Bach's Illusions which was as much of an inspiration as anything else in choosing the handle. When the name finally occured to me, I was very pleased because it did pull together a lot of factors. Frankly, I feel that I was very bright in choosing it. But its just a good neon sign, advertising rather than implanting. I'm sure that if you ask over on ARS, the critics will assure you that they do not hypnotic believe what I say because of the power of my name. In fact I think that the question would have them rolling in the asile with laughter. > ** > Replies, comments, to the list, send to ivy-subscribers > ** > Ole Blem Jensen > > -- > 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 Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Continuing The Discussion On Loss CONTINUING THE DISCUSSION ON LOSS Both Christine and Ted enjoyed my previous writeup on loss and then pointed out additional kinds of losses besides the standard secondary as we know it. Very intersting, especially Christine's desription of losses of potentials that hadn't occured, things that should have happened but didn't. Standard dianetic handling of secondaries isn't going to work in these cases. But there would be a moment of shock when one realizes the loss which could be run. However, the better tactic might be to simply locate and blow up mockups of whatever was lost. That could apply to unrealized potentials and other things which don't fit well into an incident handling approach. I would be very interested in hearing how these things look after blowing the charge on them. I'm finding it difficult to relate to loss right now because of the big keyout, but on categories like this where I haven't actually run anything myself, I suspect that they are only keyed out rather than fully handled, so I may need the insight next year. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Thou Art God THOU ART GOD One of the basic questions is "How can it be that I am god and you are god too and how can we each be total cause concurrently?". I first ran into this one in my teens while reading something written by Alexander Scriabin, the mystic composer who lived around the turn of the century (I believe he was one of the companions who traveled with Gurdieff to India). He was one of the great proponents of the "Thou art God" concept but this question troubled him. This one has always been uppermost in my mind when considering causation and responsibility and the nature of reality. A better way of putting it might be "If I am god and totally responsible for the condition that I am in and you are god and totally responsible for the condition you are in, how does this work?" Ron hints at this question back in 1952, wondering about how we can even talk to each other or create any effects. But he never really got back to it or carried it any further, later it is simply accepted that one pulls things in and that you must audit the pc at cause rather than effect. One of the key observations, which I have seen and experienced and most auditors will confirm, is that sometimes you audit the pc's charge on something and somebody else ceases to create trouble for him without any physical universe contact taking place to make them behave differently. It doesn't happen all that often, usually you just get some charge off and the pc behaves better and handles the other terminal better and some difficulty improves, but we can see a physical interaction that brought it about. But the miraculous change in another terminal does occur often enough that you will have an example eventually if you audit enough. My best one personally is the time I was coming in late on post on a regular basis. I had gotten caught for the third time and the ethics officer was going to throw the book at me. She was writting up a condition of liability when she was called out of the office. This was back in the rough days of 1969. I was feeling pretty desprit so I remembered that on a tape Ron said that you only pull in motivators on a withhold flow, not on the overt itself. Obviously I had been withholding cominging in late, so I decided to outflow instead of pull in. I simply sat there (alone in the ethics office) and sort of broadcast telepathically to everyone that I was coming in late, with the idea of outflowing completely and not inflowing or pulling in. Miraculously, the ethics officer came back in, tore up the incomplete draft of a liability assignment, and told me THAT IT WAS OK FOR ME TO COME IN LATE FOR POST IF I FELT LIKE IT. If you are familiar with Scientology ethics and the way orgs behave, you will realize that this is totally beyond belief. I attribute this to my having completely reversed the flow and the charge and the mockup that was about to occur. So these things do happen. And yet there are other people and they are as much creating reality as I am. My next observation was in watching pc assignments in the HGC. It had often been said that when a pc recieved bad auditing, they were pulling it in. And yet the auditor is also cause and is responsible, the session cannot be blamed on the pc. So I watched carefully. There was a lineup of about 8 auditors, and some were better than others. The poorest was still pretty good. There were lots of pcs (this was the 3 to 5 hours per grade timeperiod, so each auditor had about 5 pcs per week). You could pretty much guess who was pulling in poor auditing. Those people did seem to get assigned to the poorest auditors. And yet they couldn't get an auditor worse than the ones available, and if two people were contending for that worst spot, one of them was pulling harder than the other so that the other would get a slightly better auditor. And so it was like people with better and worse cards in a card game, or people with higher and lower numbers for seat assignment, it was all relative. If there are 5 cars and one is a lemon, then somebody gets the lemon, even if he wasn't pulling it in very hard just because nobody was pulling it in harder. But if none are lemons, then even the person who is really pulling in a bad car gets a pretty good one. The next really significant thing I hit in this area was while doing the solo research that went into Super Scio. I found a GPM implant which I labled the 5 way oppose GPMs and it had us setting up games that involed 5 valences. We'd keep the potential for these out there (as split pieces of yourself) hunting for corresponding roles from other people and when an appropriate group clicked together, then 5 people would begin to dramatize the implanted game together. Except that it was an implant and a fairly late one and there only seemed to be occasional dramatizations of it (its keynote was the 5th valence who was "the victim who suffers" - a valence set up to be hit by "accident" while the terminal was trying to hit the opterm). But implants follow actuals, so my later supposition (after Super Scio) is that it was exaggerating and twisting a "natural" mechanism. My thought now is as follows: In any interaction, you are mocking up the other terminal. In the normal case, you have a huge number of these in potential form already mocked up out these (like potential rather than kenetic energy). Everyone else is doing this too. So we are each going around with this array of potential interactions hanging out there. Some of these line up between two people, and then they become real, they manifest. You're mocking them up and they are mocking you up and its real as long as BOTH are doing that. If you as-is your charge or change by strong postulate or whatever, you drop out of alignment and their side (which they are mocking up) slides off of you. Let's consider a bully and a victim. You process the victim and he stops pulling it in and the bully finds somebody else to beat up on. You process the bully and he stops beating people up and the victim finds a new bully. But of course you have gotten rid of the worst bully the victim could find, so he probably gets a milder one. You can run each side individually as being totally responsible and that does seem to work. Sometimes it takes a long time to pull something in because there is nobody willing to deliver the motivator. Or you let a pin drop and the motivators start crashing in because people are hot and hungry to wear that role. Its not that things are orderly and balanced, its a mechanism that is way out of control. But it does work to process the pc at cause, even if he pulled in too much or too little. Another interesting question is what happens when two people who are not lineing up are held in close proximity. This makes me think of giving checkouts on TR 9 back when I was on staff. If the upper indoc TRs are really done well, when the person gets his TR 9 in, the coach doesn't want to bullbait. As a coach, you would give him a pass at that point. But as an instructor, that is the point where you come over and have the student try it on you to see if he's really got it. If he's good (and many were in those days), you really want to just go along and be moved around by the student. It almost feels like a valence or a role settling around you. But of course as an instructor you want to see if the student can maintain it in the face of opposition. So you start bullbaiting anyway. And you can do it, but the interesting thing is that it takes a continual conscious effort of will, it is obvious that you are constantly overriding something and bypassing it. And it's the same from the students viewpoint if he has a tough instructor (not tough as in nasty, just high standards), which is that you have to continually recreate your intention in present time to maintain it in the face of somebody else who is not agreeing with that game or lining up with the role you are trying to put there for him. So continuous create takes precedence over the roles which we mock up for ourselves and others. But of course this only goes on briefly as the TR is checked out. The student and instructor are basically both in agreement and only doing a drill. I suspect that if it were two OTs who were in disagreement and unwilling to compromise and locked in a struggle one way or another then you would get what Ron called a "glare" fight, each maintaining continuous creation and intention until one or the other was worn down and dropped into apathy. Doing that to others (wearing them down into apathy to get them to accept your creations instead of their own) might be the basic early track overt which makes us suceptible to getting stuck in an other determined continuously created reality such as this universe. On the early track, the sane action was to create what you wanted and let others create what they wanted, like putting up your own website and also letting others put up thiers and allowing all to be different and rich in variety. We still see this today in the areas that are less solid. That basic overt keeps repeating. Censor the net. Insist that everybody be the same. Set yourself up as the one and only source of tech and beat all others into line. Make everybody line up and march in step. The basic overt keeps repeating. It is time to confront it and break the pattern. Never forget that there are other individuals out there. Let them be individuals. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - REALITY FRAMES, AN ADVANCED PROCESS REALITY FRAMES, AN ADVANCED PROCESS This is wild, and yet it is amazingly simple and obvious. Think of a reality, a universe, a game, a role in that game, and a viewpoint playing that role with a track and a bank and whatever else seems to go with it. As an easy first gradient, think of a character in a movie or a book and then consider the complete package at any point in the ongoing drama. We need a word for this package of reality and identity and the prior history taken at any instantaneous moment in the track of the mocked up creation. Thinking of the frames of a movie and also of frames of reference, I decided to call this package a "FRAME", or a Reality Frame (to distinguish it from other more normal uses of the word). The process is to drill stepping in and out of frames. Begin with easy fiction, tv or movies, things that are fun and easy to confront. Work up the gradient. Eventually you want to mockup stepping in and out of "real" frames, but the weight of track and case and complexity are immense in any approximation of the real world, so you need to work up to it. On the early track we mocked up frames and stepped in and out of them, exchanged them, etc. It is not possible to experience pain or loss or shock except in the context of a frame. Only the eariest abberations (things like enforced & inhibited comm, protest, etc.) can exist in an environment where one steps in and out of frames at will. ------------------------ Last month I had that big cognition on loss and stopped flinching at pictures of loss. And of course I stopped flinching at pictures of force way back when (that is the dianetic clear state). So of course I wondered what I might still be reacting on and the obvious answer, per Ron's thought-emotion-effort theory was mental shocks. And I've already run quite a few of those, but that's not the same as getting to a clear state on the subject. And Robert Ducarme has been getting good milage out of paying special attention to shocks in incident running and has been pointing out some of Ron's early statements on the subject (it seems to have gotten lost in modern R3R dianetics). But I was looking for a fast way though and was almost exterior to the whole mess thanks to the big keyout that came along with the big blowout on loss. So I decided that a gradient of confronting mocked up shocks would be fast and easy, and the occasional shocking moments that one gets in movies or whatever seemed ideal. You don't get real pain or loss watching a movie but you do get shocks (which are generally fun, but still shocking) so it approximated the earlier track situation where one could not be affected by force or loss but was already subject to shocks. This was good in theory, but in practice I was still blown out over the loss business so instead of connecting with the mental impact of shocks and flattening that, I jumped past it and noticed that the shocks could only exist in the context of an ongoing drama. I probably will have to flatten the area of shocks eventually because I think that there is a clearlike state available on that topic as well. But I put it aside for the moment because this other thing was just too good to miss. So I began thinking of how one would get in and out of context and that lead to the frames idea above. ------------------------ This is to some degree a sequal to the old 1950s process called "wearing heads", of which a variation is presented in Self Clearing as process 10.5 "Other's Viewpoints". In the process, one mocks oneself up as somebody else and looks around from their viewpoint. And it is a sequal to the final process in the last chapter of Self Clearing where one mocks up a scene and steps in and out of it. Both of these are easy and fun processes and you might need to do them first. Certainly I found them both easy by this time, so my approach to drilling stepping in and out of the context of a frame was basically a combination of the two. My first attempt was to pick something light and easy. I settled on the pleasant sitcom, "Cheers" and decided to step in and out of the "Norman" character. It was unbelievably difficult. I was shocked. I could easily mock myself up as Norman and walk around with his viewpoint in the Wearing Heads process. I could easily mockup the bar at Cheers and visualize myself in and out of the sceen as in the final Self Clearing process. But when I put the two together, trying to step in and out of the Norman viewpoint in the bar at Cheers, there was a horror to it and an incredible flinch. I comm lagged on this for a day, not quite daring to do it for real and sort of making halfway tries occasionally. Finally I was talking this over with a friend in the coffee shop and I realized that I was flinching at the fear of being trapped in the frame. Then I could see that in wearing heads I was mostly adding an additional viewpoint to my current one and in stepping into the picture I was retaining my current viewpoint and only moving into a different scene. But in really mocking myself up in the frame, I was narrowing down, accepting a new set of limits. Once I had spotted that and confronted those considerations, I found that I could do the drill and flatten the charge on it. And of course it wasn't a complete narrowing down, you only narrow in the viewpoint that you reach into and remain yourself behind that. And of course these things weren't sticky and entrapping once I started really confronting. I drilled this some more with various things and it got easy and a lot of charge seemed to blow. But the amount of charge on it was surprising, so I began to speculate that we had used sticky frames as traps early on the track. I'm even suspecting now that what I refer to as the reality wars were fought with sticky frames. ------------------------ So I wondered how a frame would become sticky. And of course I thought of the things that get people hooked on a soap opera or deeply involved in a book or a movie. Things like mystery, unanswered questions, and wondering what is going to happen next. And if you're really good, you get a series of questions going so that when one gets answered there are others to keep the person involved until you can raise the first question again. In other words, you have a "who killed xxx" question going and then you start "who is sleeping with yyy" and then when the murder of xxx is found you keep the audience hooked with the second question while you start up another murder mystery. This is the typical soap formula. My next thought was that there must be some basic or eternal questions which are keeping us stuck in this frame. It seemed like "Who am I", "Why are we here", "What is the purpose of it all" and so forth were good candidates. And of course "Who am I" is the flow zero version of the NOTS question. So let us say that it is one of the basic questions and when you get an answer it loosens the being up a bit. I don't think it sets anyone totally free because there are many questions going at once, but answering any one might relieve enough charge to let an entity go on their way or whatever. So I decided to try and flatten "What is the purpose of it all" as a repetative question, just acknowledging each answer I might find for myself. Instead of listing for a single right answer, I took the attitude that there were many valid answers but that I would gradually move from surface ones to getting down to deeper basics. That had a wonderfull effect. I spotted things like "Its all a game" and "We're here to learn" and finally came down to the fact that the meaning of it all is whatever arbitrary we feel like assigning to it at the moment. And that gave a real feeling of freedom. The Nots question actually has layers of valid answers. Saying "I'm Joe" is valid but its surface, so you strip off the layers and get to the most basic answer which is "I'm me". After finding one of these, it will start building up layers again because of course you start being various identities and adding meaning back into life and so forth, so the answer is pure only for a short time. And so it works like the soap opera. When you have the answer to "who am I", you lack the answer to "why are we here", and by the time you find out the second one, you are already away from the first one. Of course the series of basic questions is much longer and I'm not sure what else is on the list. Speculatively, it might be enough simply to have a full list and the basic answers to them and to consider them all at once. But I'm only guessing here. -------------------- This last section might just be my own dub-in, so take it with a grain of salt. If we are all stuck in a frame, the important question would be when and how did we get stuck. When I thought of that, I immediately flashed on the fall of home universe. Ron has said that anybody can spot fall of home universe by spotting the time when the stars fell down. I'm not sure how many people he tried this on, probably only a handful. But I get something on it and I know at least a few other people who do, so it would seem like there is something there even if it is not very accessible. I wrote up a lot of my own Itsa on home universe in the Cosmic History chapter of Super Scio. But I was never very sure of exactly what caused the collapse, and you'll note that I mentioned my uncertainty about that in the chapter. In other words, I have had a fairly good view of the home universe time period for awhile now, and I have this incident of the collapse, which I also feel fairly good about but there has always been this gap between them and I have been quite bothered by the question of why did it collapse. So I revisited the area with this new awareness of frames. Home universe is not in a frame. It is a place where you create frames. The frames are the "story universes" mentioned in Super Scio. The "fall of home universe" sequence is within a frame. Spotting real home universe, and spotting the fall, and shifting between those two points in time back and forth, I can feel the same narrowing down as I go into the fall as I feel when I shift into something like the Norm character at cheers. Its a goddamned story line, and its the story that we've been stuck in ever since. The story of how did a god become mortal. It never actually happened (except in the sense that all is illusion anyway), instead it was presented to as a fait acomplee and then we became intrigued by the problems of how would you operate from a limited human viewpoint. Imagine that you go to watch one of these movies where the world is destroyed and now the survivors have to get along somehow. Now imagine that it is an interactive video game where you get to play as well as just watch. And now imagine that it is so popular and engrossing that eventually people go into the thing and forget that its a movie and never step back out into the real world again. In the end you think that the world really has been destroyed and that becomes your reality. My only proof of this is subjective. It occured to me that if this was the case, then we might not have gotten really hooked the first time but instead might have gone in and watched the opening sequence and played a bit and then left. Only after a few times might somebody get so hooked that they stayed in too long and forgot who they were. And then they became subject to the shocks and loss and force that might hit them in the context of the frame and could decay further down to our current level. Based on that, it would mean that the fall of home universe happened multiple times because you would get the sequence each time you connected to the game. And I can spot that. Its there, over and over again, the same goddamn collapse with the stars falling down and everything starting to decay. One of the hooks is "Why did home universe fall" and of course they never answered that one but just kept promising to. The real answer is that it never did fall. Its just part of the story line. ---------------------- A few more observations: Reality generators pushing in more and less of various qualities would be a way to add variety and randomity to a complex frame so that it was interesting enough to keep people's attention and complex enough to prevent casual as-isness. All the more complex abberations such as GPMs could only come about in context and so exist only within frames. But we must have already decayed seriously due to basic grades style abberations or else we would not have forgotten and become lost so easily. Home Universe is at the bottom of the positive scale, the last point at which we were creating and discarding realities at will. Hope this helps, The Pilot ========================================== All this weeks posts used the following trailer - ------------------ The free Self Clearing Book, The Super Scio book, and the "SCIENTOLOGY REFORMER'S HOME PAGE" are all over the net. See The Self Clearing Homepage for URLs to these sites http://fza.org/pilot/selfclr.htm or http://www.proweb.co.uk/~tech/clear.htm Or see The Pilots Home Page at http://fza.org/pilot/index.htm Some translations are available, see In German - www.sgmt.at/pilot.htm In Hungarian - www.extra.hu/self/index.html In Russian - http://www.user.cityline.ru/~cisergem/ and www.aha.ru/~espinol and http://www.tagil.ru/~sk/pilot/pilot.html. All of this week's posts will be collected in Super Scio Archives #42 and posted to ACT. See the Pilot Archives at FZA.ORG. Also, the individual posts to ARS are being double posted to ACT rather than cross posted to foil the spambot. So if you pick up a spam replaced one on ARS you can get the real one from ACT or find a good one on dejanews. 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. ------------------