Date: 17 Feb 1999 04:00:22 Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology From: pilot@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (The Pilot) Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 48 - MID FEB 99 PILOT POSTS (1/2) POST48.txt SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 48 - MID FEB 99 PILOT POSTS (1/2) The first half of post48 (down to the Humor post) was to ARS & ACT, the remainder of post48 & all of post49 was to ACT only. ========================================== Contents: subj: Super Scio - COFHA Book Cover = Bear Goals subj: Super Scio - On Tech Vol Posting (Attn Thom & Zenon) subj: Super Scio - Burkhardt's Questions About Dogma subj: Super Scio - Big Cog's Invalidation Failure subj: Super Scio - To Heidrun On Monitoring subj: Super Scio - History of Abandoning Processes (Attn IAM Thetan) subj: Super Scio Humor - THE OT COOKBOOK subj: Super Scio - To Lakis On Games subj: Super Scio Tech - The Non-Interfereance Zone (Attn Ryan) subj: Super Scio Tech - NOT KNOW PROCESS (Self Clearing etc.) subj: Super Scio Tech - More On Wild Topics (Attn MegaSquirrel, Rogers) ========================================== subj: Super Scio - COFHA Book Cover = Bear Goals COFHA BOOK COVER = BEAR GOALS There was a question posted about what was the meaning of the man (womman?) in a Bear's suit on the cover of Creation of Human Ability. This is meant to restimulate "The Bear Goals". From the tape "Errors In Time" which was posted last year by Freezone Bible - "In the Gorilla and Bear GPMs, and so on, they do put a figure on the cart with the thetan. They've - there's a guy in a pink shirt with a monkey peeking out from behind him, put on the ride carts. A guy in a pink-striped shirt - very, very interesting. That's their - that was their badge, the hoi poiloi. And you'll see this bird with a pink-striped shirt. Sometimes you have a gorilla in front of you. Sometimes it's the gorilla who is spitting things at you, and that sort of thing." There is also an HCOB of 17 July 63 called R3N Line Plots on the Bear Goals among other things which is in the New Tech Volumes and was included in Scamizdat 11 but which was omitted from the old tech volumes because it used to be considered confidential. Here is an excerpt from that - ---- begin fair use quote THE BEAR GOALS - - From about 256 trillion trillion years ago to about 370 trillion trillion years ago the GPMs are the Bear Goals. These use the same pattern, similar amusement park arrangements, the same type of goals as the Gorilla Goals. The only real difference is that instead of a mechanical gorilla a mechanical or live bear was used, and the motion was even more violent. There is, however, a change of pattern in the Bear Goals in that TWO RIs were added. These come as a pair just below "The Vast Value of Goaling". They are oppterm "Any worries about being __________ or goaling" opposed by terminal "A worried goaler." Aside from this addition, the pattern is the same as the Gorilla Goals. Mostly raw electric sprays are used in the Bear Goals to drive in the Items. The Bear Goals were handled by a group called, I think, "The Brothers of the Bear" and were the ancestors of the Hoipolloi. ----- end quote These are mentioned briefly on a few of the other tapes of 1963 and I seem to recall that there was at least one place where LRH said that sometimes there was a person in a bear's suit sitting across from you on the rollercoaster during the implant. I think that the whole idea of using "restimulative" covers is silly. If they really were restimulative, people would avoid the books rather than buy them. I always though it was a man in a bear's suit. But somebody said that they thought it was a woman. Certainly a picture of a Bare Girl would help to sell the book. Maybe LRH's instruction's got altered by the evil world conspiracy. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - On Tech Vol Posting (Attn Thom & Zenon) ON TECH VOL POSTING (Attn Thom & Zenon) Thom was asking about tech volumes and Zenon answered - > I said earlier in this thread that I was prepared > to scan them. Only later I found out that I not only > don't need to scan them, but have already posted them > on the net. They were part of a massive posting I did > in May last year and they went by the file names of > HCOPLsVolnn.zip, where nn went from 01 to 14. I am > sure they have been saved on more than one hard drive. > > If there is a genuine general interest for them, I > might know someone who might be willing to repost them. > Let the interest be known in this thread. Yes, the tech vols were mislabled HCOPL. Unzipped, one gets a total of 30 files (the 14 volumes mostly were in two parts each) occupying a total of just under 17 MB. Unfortunately these only went out as zip files in the binaries newsgroup which doesn't propogate well and is not accessible on most open NNTP servers (but it is now available on lightlink, thank you Homer). Even with each volume in 2 pieces, the file sizes vary between 400 and 800 K approximately. This is large for a text posting. Best would be to cut these in half yet again, giving 4 or 5 (or even 6) files per volume, named, lets say TV01A, TV01B, etc. This would give about 60 or 70 files in total with an average size of about 250K. This is reasonable for text posting as long as it is not done all at once. Best would be to post 1 volume a week for 14 weeks. That's only a bit over a megabyte per week and probably wouldn't overload or annoy anybody except OSA who will probably have another shit fit. ============== Note that the ones posted were the OLD Tech Volumes. These were first issued around 1975 as a set of 10 volumes and later followed by volumes 11 and 12 to cover the time period from 1975 to 1979. Zenon's posting included pseudo volumes 13 and 14 which contained material from 1980 and a bit later. In modern times, the org discontinued these and replaced them with a set of NEW tech volumes (around 1990). Note that the new volume numbers do not correspond to the old ones. There are 13 chronological volumes (numbered I to XIII) and a number of supplementary volumes (rearranging the material for use) of which volume S4 "Grades Processes" is probably the most useful. The NEW volumes have NOT been posted. In general they are not as good as the old volumes because they omit all revision history etc. and only reflect the latest interpretation of standard tech. However there are a few exceptions: New Volume VII (corresponding to the time period of old volume 5) covers the 1963 timeperiod and at the time of the old volumes, the implant materials were considered confidential. That low level of confidentiality (R3/R4 implant stuff prior to R6) was cancelled. Therefore new VII has the implant research line of 1963 including the helatrobus platens and the details of R3M which were not in the old tech volumes. Unfortunately the confidential material of 1964 onwards remains confidential, so it is only this one year that has extras (nothing prior to 1963 was considered confidential when the old tech volumes were done). So it would be extremely helpful if new vol VII were scanned and posted. Also of some interest would be new vol XII and XIII which cover the time period from 1980 onwards, especially those bulletins issued after Ron's death which were supposedly "discovered" by Davey and company. =========== In earlier messages Thom mentioned having admin volumes (I assume he means the OEC volumes) which are falling apart. These have never been posted. A volume on which the binding is coming apart is idea for scanning with a book feeder (because that requires using loose pages for the auto feed). =========== PS. Just because I'm talking to Thom in a friendly manner doesn't mean that I know who he is or can verify his intentions. Any direct handling of copyrighted material always has to be done with the consideration that one might be talking to an OSA plant. Remember how successfull OSA was at planting supposedly disaffected members in Mayo's and Capt Bill's organizations. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - Burkhardt's Questions About Dogma BURKHARDT'S QUESTIONS ABOUT DOGMA On 11 Feb 99, BLPJ57B@prodigy.com (Rob Burkhardt) posted on subject "New Sleuth - Q. About Scientology Dogma" > Hi kids, > > IÚve been consistently reading ARS and the various Scientology related > websites for over a year. IÚve only posted once to ARS on a non- > Scientology thread but my curiosity with this head on crash is growing. > Currently IÚm researching Scientology dogma in order to fully understand > itÚs workings. I just finished reading ÄThe Hidden Story of ScientologyÚ > written by Omar V. Garrison and I have a few question I hope someone can > answer. Please note GarrisonÚs book is pro-Scientology to the bone and > these are not scripted questions from a hatchet book, i.e. I donÚt have > an agenda - IÚm simply curious at this point. Hi. I'm a reformer rather than one of the loyal fanatics. In fact I keep my identity hidden, the current CofS management does not like heritics. Since I do have ideas and interpretations of my own, I'll make a point of saying so where that is the case. Sometimes there is also a radical difference between modern orthodox Scientology and early LRH (1950s), and often the modern fanatics have not a clue about what is really in the tech. > 1. WebsterÚs defines psychology as: 1: the science of the mind and > behavior 2 a: the mental or behavioral characteristics of an individual > or group 2b: the study of mind and behavior in relation to a particular > field of knowledge or activity 3: a treatise on psychology > Dianetics is subtitled ÄThe Modern Science of Mental HealthÚ and L. Ron > Hubbard claimed Dianetics was the result of extensive research and > scientific testing. > > Q1. Is Dianetics a school of psychology? If it is, why does the Church of > Scientology denounce psychology unilaterally? If it is not, please > explain why. Original Dianetics could be considered to be a psychology squirrel group. On early tapes Ron sometimes said that we fought psychology because we were very close to it. There are times when he said nice things about Freud and there are times when he ranted against him. Basically in those early days you could say that Ron was pissed because the psychs criticised his stuff instead of praising him as a genius. When the 1952 shift into Scientology was made, it would be better described as a school of metaphysics or a psychology-metaphysics hybrid. This was even true of dianetics as later used in Scientology because it changed into a past life oriented technique. In the later 1950s it would be better to say that Scientology was a bit annonyed with psychology and critical of it but not unilaterally opposed. A few key figures like Ray Kemp were studying psychology (he developed the original APA tests). The unilateral denunciations begin in the late 1960s, Rat posters and so forth. Scientology was collapsing due to quickie grades and the OT 3 mess and Ron destroyed its technical elete by tossing the class 8 students overboard. With that going on, they needed an enemy to blame and the pychs were an ideal candidate. > Q1A: If Dianetics is a school of psychology, is it disingenuous for the > Church of Scientology to denounce psychology unilaterally instead of > opting to solely denounce specific individuals or organizations within > the psychiatric profession? I would agree (one of my points for reform), but of course CofS sees them as a direct opponent. Gerbode seems to be working to bridge the gap with TIR, but of course CofS sees him as a squirrel. > 2. Based on my reading thus far, one of the core goals of Scientology is > to help an individual gain a quasi omnipotence over their environment by > consciously building and controlling all the causal factors of their > environment. The official description of OT is "total cause of matter, energy, space, time, thought, and life". > L. Ron Hubbard defines the three major agents of reality as freedom, > barriers, and purpose. He says that these are the components of a game and that thetans need games. His definition of reality is that it comes from agreement. Two different things. > Hubbard warned that in a reality where a group of > individuals were operating simultaneously, barriers were necessary > otherwise one individual would gain full control over the shared reality > and a dictatorship would result that strips all others of their freedoms. I don't recognize this reference. Is this from Garrison? There is so much LRH material that I could have missed this, but it is not a common idea in CofS. Beings with maximum ability to create universes would parallel realities in cases where they disagreed (more than one choice, with some people agreeing with one and some with another) rather than going into a dictatorship. But this is my own interpretation, and it is possible that the above was a backwards idea thought up in the bad days of the late 1960s. With people way upscale, someone could postulate that all others were his slaves, but he would end up with his own copy of the universe because nobody would agree & come along with him. And so the people in his version would just be his mockups and Ron says that when that happens it is unsatisfying because you have trouble forgetting that you mocked them up. Try talking to an imaginary friend sometime and you'll see what the people would feel like. > L. Ron Hubbard also stated that psychological aberrations occur when an > individual does not have full control of the causal factors of their > environment and is then forced to behave in a fashion they do not desire > (such as being conscripted to fight a war that one morally opposes) or > they are unable to create something they want (getting a pony when youÚre > seven). > > Q2. Please explain the prima facia contradiction between total freedom of > the individual as a goal and total freedom of the individual causing > others to lose their freedom. Total freedom to create does not cost others their freedom to create. An uncensored internet with unlimited resources at each website and no ability for one website to hack and destroy another would be a mundane shadow of this. And of course there would be flame wars and CofS screaming about thousands of critics webpages and critics screaming about thousands of CofS webpages and lots of fun and confusion. Those are your high level game conditions that keep life interesting. But of course there is a barrier here and it is that you don't destroy other's ability to create. When you start censoring the thing and hacking and trashing each other's websites, it all slides down into crap. So it is freedom TO rather than freedom FROM. You can be free TO put anything on the net and it works. But you can't be free FROM anything (porn on the net for example) without destroying everybody's freedom including your own in all areas of existance (it just takes time while one censorship leads to another and finally everything is a solid trap). The hope is that once we make it out, we wouldn't be so stupid a second time because we will know that the second you try to stop others from creating you will stop yourself too and spin down into another hell on earth. The real game is in outcreating others (more nifty web pages that get more hits) rather than in stopping others. But this emphasis on create faded even by the mid fifties because of sporatic failures in creative processing and too little thorough research and repeatable results (sporatic results rather than consistant ones), so that by the late 50s, it was rants against freedom FROM rather than emphasis on freedom TO. In modern times the party line is a hypocritical reverse vector perversion with sales hype about total freedom combined with maximum control and slavery in the form of things such as the RPF. And their efforts to censor the net are in violation of every basic from early Scientology. > Q2A: L. Ron Hubbard wrote the reason great revolutionary movements always > fail is, "they promise unlimited freedom. That is the road to failure. > Only stupid visionaries chant of endless freedom. Only the afraid and the > ignorant speak of and insist on unlimited barriers." How do your > reconcile this proclamation with ScientologyÚs promise of Ätotal freedomÚ > for the individual? See above. This is the later decay. > Logically, in order for a reality to proceed which does not cause > aberration, all participants must agree to a set of ground rules which > define how the reality will operate and be happy with them. Nope. Because you are not limited to one reality. Websites with more and less hits. Unpopulare troublesome places almost cut off. Big central places like Yahoo that almost everybody uses. Trying to freeze it into ONE reality and impose ground rules is the trap. And really the only reason to make it one reality is so that you can make the rules stick. Otherwise some folks will just go off on their own and do things differently. But here again I am adding my own interpretation. Early Scientology (1952-4) which was moving in this direction never had a chance to embelish the theories to this degree, instead they began to slide off of the target (correctly stated as total freedom in the early tapes) and we get rants against freedom like the one you mentioned above. > Q3A. Is it possible for a thetan to initially agree to a set ground rules > for a reality but later have a legitimate change of heart and disagree > with one or more of the rules? Of course. If you slide too far off, you end up isolated and alone, but that is fine too, maybe you want to play with yourself for awhile. And if your only partway off, others come along, just not everybody. One makes compromises, but one always has choice. Until, of course, one begins to enforce ONE reality and block other's creations and so forth. > Q3B. If this is possible and the thetan would like to remain in the > reality but desires to modify it against the wishes of the other > participating thetans, what should the thetan then do? Copy it and modify the copy. Or get some agreement. Or splinter off. The one and only CofS is actually a reverse vector. Having splinter groups and a variety of creation is actually the higher scale manifestation. It should be proud of that fact rather than trying to smash the squirrels. > Q3C. If a solution canÚt be reached which is satisfying to all > participating thetans, can aberrations occur? It is only abberative if the solution is enforced. > Q3D. If aberrations of this nature do occur, how can they be fixed? Willingness to tolerate others viewpoints even when those viewpoints are out of agreement with you. Defend somebody's right to free speach even when you don't like what they are saying. > Q3E. Based on my reading so far, there is a tacit implication that all > thetans automatically desire to abide by the same ground rules for the > ÄEarth GameÚ. Is this true? Crap. My opinion. Hubbard would have said the same in the early days, but the above reverse idea does seem to have worked its way in later on. > L. Ron Hubbard laid out 8 dynamics which are the basic impulses of life. > These dynamics and their sundry combinations are stated to be the core > motivations for the human animal and also create ÄteamsÚ which are often > at odds with one another which in turn causes aberrations to occur when > one team is Äout createdÚ by another and is no longer Äat causeÚ over > their environment. (I love all this jargon.) If IÚm understanding Hubbard > accurately, his solution to the conflicts of interest this creates is to > play all Äsides of gameÚ, i.e. to pursue the goals that each combination > of the 8 dynamics creates. Pan determinism. Playing the game from both sides. Set up a chess board, work out problems, play each side (black and white) wholeheartedly. This can be fun although there are not as many surprises. And at a minimum, one of the best skill raisers for a begining chess player is to see the board from the opponent's side. > From my vantage point, this implies an individual should desire to > willingly forego individual preference, most notable the preference not > to feel or act in a certain fashion, so one will never be on a Älosing > teamÚ. It is the opposite. You can assume the preferences of each side, more preferences, not less. And lose occasionally too just for the fun of it (a weaker opponent putting up one hell of a fight and losing can be more respected than the winner). If you need to win, then you become both a democrat and a repulican and contribute to both campaign funds and you win either way. Its called hedging your bets. > Q4A. If this summery is accurate, how do you respond to a charge that > Scientology asks the individual to never say ÄnoÚ, only ÄyesÚ? Reverse vector black Scientology, using tech to gain compulsive agreement instead of setting people free. > Q4B. Are personal ethics and morality pejorative to the well being of a > thetan as they cause the thetan to denounce specific actions as wrong > which in turn creates the potential that the thetan will be Äout createdÚ > which in turn could create aberrations within the thetan? Using the definitions of morality as a fixed code as opposed to ethics as a philosopy of optimum behavior for the benifit of self and others, then morality would be pejorative but ethics would be benificial. > Q4C. Even if you play all sides of the game, some teams will still beat > other teams on given issues which means you would still lose on those > given issues. Can this cause aberrations? If so, is HubbardÚs solution in > reality a false panacea? Back to chess again. Master players always play both sides. So both players in a tournament will use this against each other. Generally they stick with the game and don't become abberated. Of course one then thinks of Fisher, but he worked to beat Sposky by reducing Sposky's ability to play (with psychological tactics) rather than by working to play better, resulting in Fisher's abandoning the game. Games are only abberative if you try to win by weakening your opponent instead of trying to play better than him. > Hubbard freely acknowledged his indebtedness to the Eastern schools of > theology. He claimed that although the Eastern schools do lead to freedom, > the demands they place on their practitioners is so great they produce > very few individuals who are free. However it is clear that Hubbard > believed, regardless of how difficult, the Eastern schools could produce > the freedom Scientology was created to achieve. True for his early attitudes. Maybe not in the later days. > Q5A. If body thetans are one cause of aberrations which most be overcome > to gain freedom, yet the Eastern schools do not recognize these entities, > how did those who achieved freedom through the Eastern schools overcome > their personal body thetans? Many eastern schools do recognize them. Christ cast out demons. Tibetan Budhism is layered over Tibetan demonology. Somebody pointed out recently (maybe it was Joe Harrington) that the Nots process (who are you) is an old one for handling demons. But I personally think that BTs are a minor, lessor factor rather than a major one. > I have a stockpile of questions I want to ask but this list is a good > start. IÚd love to discuss these questions with people who have a solid > understanding of Scientology dogma and can discuss it objectively. Xenu > is entertaining but if I can let Christianity off the hook for talking > shubbery the least I can do is give Scio a freebie on the Xenu nonsense. > > Migs/Rob > Swazzle@Prodigy.com These were good questions. Fun and enlightening to answer. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - Big Cog's Invalidation Failure BIG COG'S INVALIDATION FAILURE On 12 Feb 99, "Big Cog" posted on subject "Pilots tech failure-The why" > The Pilots self-clearing tech is not producing lasting > results because of a very very basic outpoint: > PC and Auditor is greater than the bank. > This fundamental datum is violated. > This is the basic why. The PC mocked up the bank, hence he can be bigger than it. Hence - "An auditor doesn't have a case" and "No case on post". Anyone who can obey either of these LRH orders is obviously bigger than his bank. Also, the PC plus materials can be bigger than the bank. Hence the Self Analysis book and the Handbook for Preclears and Ron's freequent statement to his students in the 1950s that they could run the processes on themselves. He even says that you can self audit route 1 on the 8th ACC tapes. But it is a matter of consideration. Obviously you are currently being smaller than your bank. You could change that. All it takes is a decision to take responsibility for your case and a willingness to change. You can be bigger than the bank, after all, you put it there in the first place. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - To Heidrun On Monitoring TO HEIDRUN ON MONITORING On 4 Feb 99, Spiritual Research Workgroup asked on topic "E-Mail Monitored by ???" > I have heard that it is technically possible to monitor (and manipulate???) > e-mail which goes through satellite lines. > > Are there any cases known where this has happened and the tampering > could be traced back to OSA? > > Should all e-mail generally be sent encrypted? > > Heidrun Beer > > Workgroup for Fundamental Spiritual Research and Mental Training > http://www.sgmt.at I can monitor anything that moves in IP packets through my PC by using a simple IP trace utility. I can monitor anything on our Lan using a sniffer (common for debugging). I know enough low level IP packet architecture to reassemble messages if I felt like writing a few lines of C code, and there are probably programs floating around on the net that will already do that. If I was an ISP, I could certainly eavesdrop on anything coming through. If I was the US govt. and had kindly given the original internet backbone (ARPANET) to the private sector, I could certainly monitor anything flowing on the backbone. But think for a moment about the volume involved. How many planetary sized bodies covered with disk drives are we going to use to store all this data. How many millions of workers would be needed to read the email traffic from a single large city? The only way would be to have a program scan for keywords and save those messages for review which contained the word. I'll bet that the only word monitored is c * i * a and that that govt agency has thousands of people reading every e-mail that contains the word, and that all they get is garbage and that it is so boring that the probably don't really read them anyway but just page through endless yammerings while daydreaming and then sign off on each disk full of stuff. So I wouldn't worry about it. I do think that OSA monitors ARS. That is a practical target, and even there I think that they get a bit numb while reading through it all. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - History of Abandoning Processes (Attn IAM Thetan) History of Abandoning Processes (Attn IAM Thetan) On 7 Feb 99, OneThetan@hotmail.com (IAM Thetan) asked on subject "Re: An Introduction" > Ron created many valid and powerful processes that are no longer > in use in the church. IE SOP 3,4,5 etc. , Union Station (R246) > and many others. They seem to have fallen into disuse and it's > one of those "everbody knows" you are not supposed to run those > processes. > > What I want to know is can anyone refer me to when and why these > were stopped, and is there any policy that says I can't run those. > > I am a "Standard Techi" but to ne that includes all of the tech. > I have run some such processes on myself and on others and have > not been shot for it but there is always a question re: Standardness > of it. It may seem kind of strange to ask that here but I fugured > that some of you here are "Standard techi's" too and would have had > the incentive to know what Ron had to say about this. Since others (Ralph Hilton, etc.) have already been giving good answers to this one, I felt that I should address the context in which processes were cancelled or abandoned. I've been wanting to write this up anyway. And let me welcome you to the newsgroup. ============== A HISTORY OF ABANDONING PROCESSES With the May 1950 release of Dianetics the Modern Science of Mental Health came the idea that there was One Basic Why (engrams) which could be handled by a single technique to produce an ultimate case state which was at that time referred to as "Clear". Of course that went by the boards when the discovery of past life incidents made it painfully obvious that there was no way to run out all of an individual's engrams. At the same moment that the ultimate target was found to be unbelievably higher than the humanoid clear of DMSMH, the amount of material that would have to be handled had seemed to jump by a factor of about a trillion to one. Ron mentions, on at least one tape, that he had a moment of great dispair when he saw that. Remember that this is before techniques such as mockup processing which could blow all the charge out of an area without actually running every damn incident that had ever been connected with something. And so the search was on to find faster more powerful techniques to undercut the bank and reach the target in a reasonable amount of time. And there was this idea of some key basic-basic which would undo everything. By the time of the Philadelphia Doctorate Course (PDC) at the end of 1952, not only was Dianetics old and abandoned but even the technique 88 processes of just a few months before were considered obsolete. Every ACC (advanced clinical course) in those days had its own lineup of processes and most of the earlier processes were abandoned. They were not accumulating techniques in those days, instead they were using them briefly and then dropping them in favor of the next latest and greatest super techniques. Eventually, by mid 1954, we end up with Route 1/2 of Creation of Human Ability. And that was a great set of super techniques, probably the best single collection that was put together in the early days. But please realize that when it was truely in use, everything else was abandoned. That includes Dianetics, group processing, technique 88, fac one handling, running entities, the mockup processes of the doctorate course, the advanced OT rundown know as SOP-8C, the even more advanced roll your own OT bridge of SOP-8OT, and everything else from earlier times. And as always, there was a new bridge the following year. But unlike all the others, CofHA was so well consolodated that in later years route 1 would sometimes be identified as what to run if the current bridge was completed. But it stopped being used in the org's processing lineup. And then come the later ACCs, each again focusing on a limited target and trying to run the entire case that way. And finally we have the St. Hill Special Briefing Course. Again most of the processes are old and we only use a limited subset. Techniques like R2-12 are used briefly and then abandoned with the ultimate target seen as GPMs and all other processing simply being a way to get the person up to running GPMs. If you examine the old tech volumes for the time period from the late 50s up until the grades are devised in 1965, you will see occasional HCOBs labled as "HGC Allowed Processes". Those are complete lists of the techniques permitted in those times. All other processes could be considered to be cancelled. But up until 1965 there was also the idea that a field auditor could use any process he was trained on and even that a new HGC auditor could run whatever he was best experienced at before learning the modern lineup. In other words, the cancellations really only applied to the standard HGC lineup at a central org, Ron was always happy to hear that some old process had been dug out and used in the field and he often related stories along those lines to his students when he would lecture. And so you wouldn't find route 1 being run in an org's HGC, but you might find a field auditor who was running it and nobody was going to make anyone wrong for doing that, any auditing was considered to be better than no auditing. But this thirst to knock out basic-basic by means of running a handful of techniques was still permeating the subject and in 1965 Ron thought that they had finally made it. I began training in 1966. By then KSW had come out so that all other processes were gone under pain of being declared as a suppressive and a squirrel. At that time I was not privy to what they were running on the clearing course, but I can tell you what was permitted at lower levels because it didn't change much during 1967 as I continued my training. And of course later I found out what I was not permitted to know about the upper levels in those early days. There were 2 assists permitted, the touch assist and the contact assist. I was threatened with being declared and having my certs pulled as a squirrel once in 1968 for using the "keep it from going away" assist on a fellow staff member. The only permitted dianetic technique was "66 style" dianetics. R3R of 1963 was of course forbidden. I thought that was heartbreaking. Sometime in mid 1968 a telex came down telling us that we could use R3R for making a Dianetic release in the HGC instead of 66 style. You were allowed to get one FN on locks, one on secondaries, and one on engrams. This was all single flow of course. There was an HCOB about that which came out in 1967 (up till then Dianetics was only run by students on the 66 style HDA Dianetics course and not in the HGC). The HCOB, although supposedly by Ron, disappeared when Ron decided that "you can always run an engram" around the time of the Class 8 course in late 1968. Then you could run ARC straightwire. Just the one process, single flow. When it FNed you had a straightwire release. Of course self analysis was available to the public, and we didn't attack people for running it on themselves, but it wouldn't be run by an auditor, that would be squirrel. And then there was a process (sometimes a few processes) on each grade, but you couldn't continue a grade past it's floating needle. These FNs were hard to get because you didn't fly the ruds (that would have been counted as a grade release because FN meant release) so there was usually a big gain when the process finally did FN. But these were single flow processes, not even triples. So it was a few hours on each grade. This is before the true quickies of the Class 8 course. And of course Qual used the green form (and nothing else). And of course there were the S&Ds to handle the PTSness that was the reason for any instabillity in the grade releases. That was it. Everything else was old, cancelled, we don't use it anymore and if you do use it you are a squirrel and a suppressive. Note that the tech degrades policy did not come out until 1970. The entire reactive mind, you see, was supposed to be coming from R6 and that supposedly dissolved when you ran the CC implant. So you should only run what was needed to set the case up for that. The brightly colored rocks referred to in KSW were things like R3R, CofHA, PDC, Tech 88, and so forth. Any process which might exteriorize somebody was seen as dangerous. Any running of whole track was seen by many as over restimulative. Some of us (including me) ignored that one, but it was a mixed bag. There are many tales of auditors stopping pcs from running whole track in those days. Common was for an auditor to add "in this lifetime" to a command if the pc came up with any whole track in an answer. Many were scared of restimulation. The idea was to get a good keyout and then do CC for the magical vanishment of the reactive mind. This was the heritage of KSW and ethics and a standard lineup that included HCOBs like "all sickness equals PTS". In the fall of 1968, the first class 8 course was delivered on the flagship and the graduates came back to the orgs and put in what we now know of as quickies. It is only at this point in time that it was discovered that a case can be gotten to FN with rudiments. And the 8 course had the concept of setting a case up with ruds and perhaps even a prepcheck or a bit of 2 way comm, which in those days was C/Sed as "chat with pc about ...." (his job or his 2D etc.). For the first time we were running grade processes with an FN before starting the process. And that makes it easy to get FNs while running the process. But it might be a small FN without the cognition or the big blowout. You didn't usually get those in the older days when the ruds were not flown, it usually takes a big cog to get an FN over out ruds. Of course the "FN And EP" bulletin had not come out yet. And then there were the situations where you got a persistant FN. If you did do a good job on the processes (usually by pretending not to see the small FNs because you would be tossed in the showers if you bypassed them), the odds were that you would turn on a persistant FN either on straightwire or on Grade 0 because you were running the key process for the grade. And the standard tech C/S was to run all the grades in one session because faster results were more stable and because then life wouldn't interfear and knock out the ruds in the middle of the PCs grades. So it was the key process of straightwire immediately followed by the key process of grade 0 and so forth. The rest of the grades would be lost to a persistant FN as you started each one and saw that the needle was still floating broadly. So either all the PC's EPs were chopped, or he turned on a persistant FN fairly early in the session, and in either case, there was very little processing done above grade zero. Even grade 4 might be lost on a PC feeling good and FNing while saying "I don't have any urge to make anybody wrong" (and of course most people wouldn't while they are on a persistant FN). However some new rundowns were put in to handle the problem of people falling on their heads. This was originally the 7 resistive cases, and was renamed the 7 special cases so as not to upset the PCs and then it became what we now know of as green form 40. I'm rambling a bit here, but it is to emphasize what the situation was in those days. The intention of the original standard tech of the 8 course was to do the minimum possible to get the person onto the clearing course to errase the bank and then get him up to OT 3 so that he could handle entities with incident 1 and 2. Those were considered the source of case and anything else was pretty rocks that might lead us from the path. And so most of the tech was gone, forbidden, and now we had a police force (ethics, the GO, and standard tech C/Ses) to make sure that it was never used. If people wonder why I have a bit of a dislike for KSW and the term "standard tech", this is the reason. In their original incarnation, they were used intensively to knock out what we now know to be valid tech and they made it impossible to fix what was wrong in the subject. PCs caved in, orgs crumbled, and ethics went in hard because the why was SPs and squirreling and the world conspiracy. 1969 was probably Scientology's darkest hour. In 1970 the tech was reinstated. They didn't bother cancelling all the cancels, Ron simply said that all the tech is for use. So you can agrue about what is cancelled and what is not. Expanded grade zero included at least one process from an explicitly cancelled HCOB which is not in the New tech volumes (it is in the old tech volumes marked as cancelled even though the cancelled HCOB was also, at that time, on the level zero checksheet to be star-rated). But the hard line of standard C/Sing and following the grade chart pretty much makes it impossible to use most of the older processes legally, unless of course you call it an assist and do it without an official C/S. As to mockup processes, they were cancelled back around 1963. But around the begining of 1968, Ron issued the money process as "mockup a way to waste money", ignoring the cancellation. That was shocking to some of the tech people. Also, sometime in 1969 or 70 (if I remember correctly), Yvonne Gillam (later Heber's wife) came around on tour doing group processing with the old group auditors handbooks. That went very well and so group processing was put back into use. But those old books were full of mockup commands as part of the group processing sessions. And raw public would often go to them, and so mockup processing was used on raw public in group processing (where there is the least auditor control and handling of the PC) despite the fact that it was cancelled. And I'm pretty sure that this was ordered by Ron (since group processing remained in use thereafter), so here again he ignored the cancellation without actually bothering to revoke it. By the way, most of the public loved it. The same goes for playing old group processing tapes of Ron's and letting the public do them. And he does wild things in those group sessions, some of the processes wound up on old OT 6 and 7. People coming in off the street can run these things, but its a hit or miss matter, one of the R-factors was that it was ok to skip a group processing command if you didn't feel like doing it. But this was during the brief exhilaration of the 1970 reinstatement of the tech. Later I saw people smashed for using mockups in group processing. In practice, you wouldn't find a standard C/S using mockups. And if I were C/Sing for an orthodox organization, I wouldn't dare C/S them because you can't do them by rote. I did a more extensive writeup on this awhile ago. Also, OT drills are supposed to be up above modern OT 8. Therefore it would be mis-C/Sing to use them at lower levels. Personally, I don't think that anything is cancelled, but you would have to be prepared to argue this to get away with it in an org. Practically speaking, there are only two alternatives: Either Ron was chronically lying about the results produced in the 1950s, or those processes work and there is more than one way to skin a cat, it doesn't have to be modern standard tech. It should be obvious that I believe the latter. There is no third alternative where a process could only work in a certain year and not in other years. As to self auditing, the early days have this continual mix of considering that public PCs who self audited had some case outness while at the same time telling professional auditors that they could audit anything on themselves that they were trained on. The real bug in public self auditing was that they wouldn't know what they were doing and so would sit around figure figuring on a "whatsit" rather than running properly. And that was not forbidden, just seen as an outpoint. The only rule was against self auditing while in the middle of an HGC intensive because it threw in an unobserved action. The early green form had the question stated that way ("during an intensive") and did not have any question about self auditing in general. But here again, we have the late 1960s concept that all case was R6 or OT 3 coming in and messing up the works. The whole idea was to destimulate the case rather than handle it with the handling being to go and do the clearing course. And auditing involves restimulating things so that one can blow them. Therefore any auditing was undesirable except for the tiny amount necessary (quicky grades) as a setup for CC. And so all self auditing became forbidden. Of course there was solo auditing in those days. The PC might have had one or two intensives of auditing in their entire life, and done a solo course so that he could read a meter and run a command, and then you'd let him loose on R6EW with some real heavyweight self listing processes. Note that these were not people who were clear. These were not professionals. They had barely a lick and a promise as far as any prior case handling went. In later days, a new person who had done a self analysis co-audit (early 70s HQS course) probably had more auditing experience and had probably recieved more hours of auditing than the people who were being allowed to solo in 1968. The rules and worries about all this which were introduced during the quickie era never did get reviewed or cancelled when things changed. The keynotes of 1969 were being afraid of the bank and scared of restimulation, and so of course people keyed in heavily and got restimulated like crazy. Imagine the attitudes of a time period where simply using the word "withdraw" in an auditing command was seen as so restimulative of R6 that you would wrap the pc around the flag pole (see the forbidden word list HCOB). And the higher trained somebody was, the more "OT" levels they had done, the more certain they were of the dangers of this and so as people moved up the line, they became greater suppressors of tech rather than greater encouragers of tech. Without the halfway reforms of 1970, the orgs would have been gone within a few years. But we still bear the scars in terms of fixed ideas and tough policies that were meant to solve a problem that is long gone. In a total scarcity of tech, you had better be afraid of a pin dropping because if you are only allowed one process and something goes wrong, you are dead. With an abundance of tech, that becomes silly, about like worrying about a single drop of coffee when there is an urn right next to you. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Humor - THE OT COOKBOOK HUMOR: THE OT COOKBOOK Nifty Ways To Cook an OT 1. OT Home Fries Get him to put his own "ethics" in whenever he disagrees with you. He will fry himself with his own intention beams. 2. Italian Style Convince him that BTs are responsible for the condition he is in. He will turn into a meatball and can be served with linguini. 3. Mulligan Stew This interesting stew is a favorite among the Hobos. Prepare the OT by having him mortgage his home and future to pay for services and then deliver some sec checking. Soon he will be living with the homeless and can be added to the stew. 4. Cabbage Soup Let him restrain himself for the sake of mankind while Davie MarCabbage or one of his clones rants and raves at him. When the OT is properly wilted, the juices can be drained from him making a tasty soup. 5. Rice a Ronnie Place the OT in the Sea Org. Add rice and beans. Continually locate him in space and time until he becomes MEST. Stir with world conspiracy stories to distract him while he solidifies. If properly prepared, he will march to your plate for consumption. 6. An After Dinner Smoke Tell the OT to think for himself. Then force his thoughts into agreement with policy. Soon "himself" will equal "policy" and he will turn into paper. Use the paper to roll your own cigarettes. 7. Clam Chowder Make tech data confidential or price it out of range or limit it to an elete. Publish a cheap book telling him that he is a clam. Put the data that that was only an implant in a hard to get reference. Soon he will be snapping properly and can be made into chowder. 8. hOT dog Give him a big league sales course and let him FSM his friends. When his financial overts are great enough he will become the effect of bread. He can then be trapped in a bun. Add mustard and relish to suit. Humorously, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - To Lakis On Games To Lakis On Games On 10 Feb 99, lakis agrogiannis asked on topic "Qs about Games and Conditions" > hi, > > There must be some connection between > games, size of, and condition one is in. > > Can you be in a big game and on a low condition? Of course. WWII was very big. Many of the players dropped their bodies. > How do you make your game bigger? > And what is a big game, anyway? More space, more matter, more energy, longer timespans, more beings involved. > If you make your game bigger, > do you automatically better your condition? No. It is the reverse. Big fish in a small pond, being waited upon by all the other little fish. Then he goes to a big pond and starts from the bottom. But in moving to a larger game, there are more flows and terminals available, and so the potential is much greater. So it is an automatic drop with the potential for going much much higher than before. Think of being in power change and shifting from power in one area to non-existance in another larger area with the prospect for greater rewards. Also, moving into a larger sphere tends to raise a being's horsepower. My point here is that you have to start operating, reaching twice as far, managing twice as many particles, juggling twice as many comm lines, etc. The automatic effects are mostly aimed against you, but this is how you really expand fast and build up horsepower. > If you make your condition better, > do you automatically make your game bigger? No. You raise your ability to play well. Moving into a position of power, you can consolodate your gains or you can expand, or maybe do a little of both. Making your condition better gives you a broader choice of viable options. > What 's the relationship between PrPr6 and the ethics conditions? Developed around the same time period (the lower ethics conditions are later, actually). But power processing was aiming at fixed conditions (revivs, not-isness, etc.) rather than at ethics conditions. It is possible that running power on people and hearing various cogs might have contributed to developing the conditions formulas, but I don't see a direct relationship. > Opinion: > In order to change somebody's life, > among other things, > one has to do something > to the games this person is playing > and to the conditions he's in on the various dynamics. Yes, but of course you might bring that about indirectly. For example, you run a shy person on grade 0 and now he can talk to girls. His 2D games will change and hopefully he moves into higher conditions. > How would one handle those two areas? > > Has it all been taken care of on the levels and grades of the bridge? Standard tech contains very little that is directly addressed to the area of games. As I mentioned, you can get significant indirect effects, but a direct handling could be very benificial. There was some work done by LRH on this in the mid fifties, but it could well be labled an abandoned line of research. One of the few that is in the tech is R2-69 "please pass the object" and that is wonderful fun. There is a modern practice of doing conditions by dynamics as an ethics action, but it is not really processing and at best it would only be holding the fort rather than real spiritual advancement. And I find the ethics formulas to be incomplete although they are a help (at least the upper ones, the lower ones are off base). For example, in non-existance one should examine the economics and practicality of producing the product before comitting oneself to an unviable action. Otherwise one foolishly finds out that a better meter is needed and then produces one that costs $10,000 and finds that the market has disappeared. Quite a few of the freezone practices have been carrying the games research line forward. There is just enough in Ron's work to call significant attention to the area and it is obviously incomplete. As I've said at other times, I'm not an expert on the various freezone practices, but I've seen enough on the net to have the impression that both Alan and Enid have made advances in this area. I've been planning to take a shot at this area myself but I haven't gotten around to it yet. > Opinion: > I don't think so! Agreed. > lakis Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - The Non-Interfereance Zone (Attn Ryan) THE NON-INTERFEREANCE ZONE (Attn Ryan) On 11 Feb 99, ryan_noemail@my-dejanews.com asked on topic "calling all techies Re: Non-interference zone" > The non-interference zone... is to do with being close to clear? > > Got the tech ref handy? Excerpt from old tech vol 7 as posted to the net - ----- begin fair use quote HCO BULLETIN OF 23 DECEMBER 1971 Solo C/S Series 10 C/S Series 73 THE NO-INTERFERENCE AREA From R6 Solo to OT III one does not do anything except keep the pc winning for R6 Solo to OT III. This is the critical band of the Gradation Chart. On Flag it was learned the hard way that you don't do other major auditing actions between these two points. Example: Action -- Completed R6, Clear and OT I, then a Dianetic Completion was attempted. Result -- failure. Right Action -- Complete Dianetics before R6. Right Action -- let it go until OT III well begun, then complete Dianetics. Example: Pre OT doing OT II. A new PTS RD is done. Failure. Right Action -- do it before R6 or after OT III. Example: R6 done. Drug RD given. Result. Poor. Right Action -- Do Drug RD before R6. ----- end fair use quote The rest of the HCOB lists exceptions - repair actions allowed etc. Ron does not really give a reason in this non-confidential reference. But in the III materials he says that the composite starts coming apart as the person goes clear and he will begin running into III. But see below for my own opinion. > And the tech handling at that point? Orthodox handling would be to get through the OT levels up through III. But see below. > Thanks, > Ryan :) > > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own Much later, in 1978, the Dianetic Clear business came out. Now at least some of those people really were clear, had the clear cog, found that the CC platen mostly FNed when they did it on old OT 4, etc. There were tons of people who went clear back in the sixties and early 70s but were not considered clear because they hadn't done the CC. Therefore they were audited on everything under the sun without considerations of non-interfereance. I know because I was one of them. There were only a few real problems - a) Occasionally (not usually), dianetic engram running can slide over onto entity's pictures because the auditor doesn't realize how fast you run and pushes you in again when it errased on the first time through. If you're smart you say it errased, but if not, you look a little harder and find something which is not your own case. b) You usually run processes much faster than a lower level person can keep up with. c) Sometimes you go way over the auditor's head with what you are running and they have trouble duplicating you or turn green or whatever. d) Went clear and not allowed to attest reads chronically on any correction list in which it appears and you and the auditor can do nothing but shrug your shoulders about it. However I agree with Ron that people who got into R6 seemed to need to get through OT III. It should be obvious. They have been given half the story and started to muck around with it and they really should get the whole thing, otherwise it is an incomplete major action. And I don't think that it is CC that does it. That seems to be a much earlier implant that will run stand alone and produce a really groovy state. Some people felt like they didn't need anything for a long time after doing it. But that mucking around with endwords on level 6 could easily clip the R6 platens that are on OT2, and OT 2 is supposed to be part of the contents of the OT 3 incident. I would say that if somebody is right around clear they should learn a bit of light NOTS handling and use that if they bump into an entity. See the self clearing chapter on entities. That is easy. There is no sense in fighting with a late on the chain troublesome incident just because it was found before they came up with an easier handling. And your own case is senior, and it sure does exist after clear, its just an order of magnitude lighter, held by postulates and considerations and unknowness of consideration rather than force. What clear really is is ceasing to flinch from force in mental image pictures and awareness that it is you who puts the force there. Nothing at all to do with OT 3 really. The org errs in blaming what is left on entities and then they can't tell you about that until you do OT III, so they are up shitz creek until you get to that level. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - NOT KNOW PROCESS (Self Clearing etc.) NOT KNOW PROCESS (Self Clearing etc.) On 6 Feb 99, Lisa & Dave posted on subject "SelfClear: not-know" # Hello, # # I have a question that I hope the pilot or someone else can answer. While # reading The Fundamentals of Thought, I came across a chapter called know # and not-know. I found it interesing. I scanned through the self clearing # book to find a not-know process but I couldn't find any. Is it somewhere # and I missed it? If there isn't one in there, is there a reason? # # It seemed pretty powerful to not-know the future and instead have a # nothingness to create from. Usually when I think I know the future, it's # really the failures from my past pushed into the future. # # Thanks, # Dave An excellent point. And it is missing from the book, and should have been there, but I "forgot" about it because it was an area where I felt that something was missing in the tech and I needed to do some work on it. Thanks to you I've finally gotten back to the area of not-know processing and the results are below. But first I wanted to quote some of the other good discussion that you generated. ========== On 6 Feb 99, Ted Crammer posted in response : Not-know processes were on old OT-7. I think you'll find one or more in : Creation of Human Ability. : : Interesting observation. I agree. : : Running solo, by yourself? Try this: Select an area of life that you : would like to improve upon. Run, "Think of something you could not-know : about_______." You can write down the answers to help stay organized : about it and complete auditing comm cycles. Then if the answers come : too fast and the writing slows you down, just skip the writing and : enjoy the session. : : -- : Ted Yes, excellent. This one should be in the self clearing book. ============ Then Ra continued with: (he begins by quoting the original post above) > The earliest not-know processes were in the early PABs. They were, > at the time the "one shot OT" processes. Not know is below static. > Basically, the processes were run to the point where you could just > not-know the entire universe around you. I forget off hand the > principles behind it, but it will come to me in a second....... > > Oh yeah, here it is. :) I get couple second com lags on studying tech > decades ago. :) > > The idea is this. It was pretty much proven that the early held the > late in restim. This is why engrams would erase. One of the processes > was: "What could you not-know about that incident" (somatic, picture, > situation, condition, etc.) This is why the problems processes work. Excellent process. And it is why "what could you not know about that problem" would work. But other problems processes work for other reasons. (was that last paragraph an LRH quote?) > Before the condition of Knowing, one would first Not-Know. This > repeats all the way down the Know to Mystery Scale. For reference, > I have included it here. > > EXPANDED CDEI SCALE > > Scale abbrev. range > > Not know NK Spiritual > Know K > Unknown U > Curious C > Desired D > Enforced E > Inhibited I > No N > Refused R > False F Human > Denied DEN > Absurd A > Rationalized RAT > Abusive ABUS > Horrible H > Compressed COMP Sub-Human > Conjured CON > Recriminatory RCR Very good. But where is this from (Filbert?). The lower range is extended below the LRH one I'm familiar with. > It was discovered the harmonics of the first (not know) would produce > case change, and would reach all the way south. The second Know, would > not, and would tend to cave the pc in. This became a very useful process, > and by determining where the being was on the tone scale you could run > at his reality level processes that he would actually do, bring him up > tone, and then run the next not know harmonic. > > A person in bad shape would try like hell to not know something, but > was well above his reality level, and he would in actuality, just > Not-Is it, causing it to persist. But the Process "Lie about something" > (harmonic of not-know) had a lot of workability. "Tell me the truth" > spun him in. The reason? Because Truth is a harmonic of Know, lie a > harmonic of not-know. You get him to start telling you the truth, he > as-ises the truth, and leaves all the lies, along with its charge and > mass. You get him to lie, he as-ises alter-isness, and the truth remains. > Very workable, very strong processes. Unfortunately, a being on the > bottom has to tell you lies for about a million hours before he really > gets anywhere, because his r is so low, and his horsepower is almost > in non-e. The lie process is also a covert way of getting the pc to create and might be thought of as a low level creative process that works even on PC's who can't get mockups and are unwilling to invent things, except, that is, to get out of trouble. A very workable process. > So the workable processes were, Not Know, Unknown, Desired, > Inhibited, refused, Denied, rationalized, horrible, and conjured. > (you see some of this app in handling arc breaks) > > What could you Not Know? Give me an Unknown datum. What have you > desired? Recall a refusal. The first two are really good, being right on the not-know button. The third one is probably best left until one is going to address the subject of ARC breaks. And the last one (refusal) is out ARC and therefore has to be alternated with something positive. > What have you denied about (terminal). etc, etc. Any number of > questions could be put in to any of the brackets to hit the pc's > tone level. Soon as he was up, then you use the next harmonic. > Eventually he would be able to just Not Know the whole bank, and > guess what? Clear. Doubtful. He has to be one step higher, able to mock it up, and choosing not to. But if we are talking about able to mock it up in total detail, we are really talking cleared theta clear here and we're light years above the dianetic clear. So this not know is a very high state. The dianetic clear is simply pulling up above the effort band (see K-M scale later) rather than the not-know band which is much higher. > Once you go clear, it is the strangest feeling in the world > that you ever had a bank, you not- know it so thoroughly. > Lrh abandoned it, as a one shot clear and ot process, because > it took too long. Way out gradient for most cases. (he quotes the beginning of Ted's post here) > Lots in COHA. Very workable. Easy to Solo Audit as well, (and the rest of Ted's post here) > Good suggestion. You want to be able to look right at the wall, > and not know something about it. Repeat with many objects. Runs > best outside with plenty of variety. Wont be long until you will > be able to Not Know huge chunks of the universe. Its a strange > feeling, kinda scary at first. But then to get it back, all you > have to do is know it again. :) Objective not-know (what could you not know about that object) was one of the best of the old not know processes. > EP is when you can either know or not know anything at will. Run a variety of not-know processes to reach this. Don't run a specific one with a hidden standard of the cog that has to occur. Take wins instead and vary the process (many not know processes are possible). > You will cog on the factors, the conditions of existence, ARC, > KRC, and the entire tone scale. It probably could be continued > to the 3 universes., but you definitely would be in ot 5 and 6 > abilities at that point. If you can not know someone else's bank, > or a part of it, you will find it will disappear for you, all > right, but they go around just like you didn't erase it at all. > The being has to come up to the point where they can not know > their own case. Otherwise they just keep on mocking it up. That is why not know is not the top. When they can consciously mock it up as desired, without either the need to know or not know because they can simply create (as it was before or different or whatever they feel like), then there is no concievable reason to keep it mocked up (except maybe bits of it occasionally for fun). > Happy FTA. You too (he means Floating TA). > Tom ========== On 7 Feb 99, From: "Aaron Bair" posted on topic "Self Clearing Survey Reply" He gave an very detailed response to the survey which is really helpful to me (I'm not going to repeat the whole thing here). Among other things, he pointed out the following: > >10. Do you have any suggestions for improvements? > > I'm sure you are planning to expand with the breakthrough on loss post, so > that's covered. I just read you have some enhancements for chapter 14, so > that's covered. For chapter 14, see the Super Process on Protest that I'm posting along with this. > I second the motion to have a "the first postulate is NOT-KNOW" section. > That was a great tape, if there is any other work out there in the same line > I'd love to be exposed to it. Running not-know was as cool as spotting > spots or holding corners used to be when I first started reading LRH books. > Hey, is there a spotting spots in space process in self-clearing? Before I > even got into the church I read that (in phoenix lectures?) and drilled it > for days and days. Eventually I had to stop because I started being able to > see with my eyes closed and it scared the good sense out of me. The "hole" > I could see through went away after another week or so. I still get brave > every now and again and spot a few spots until I become aware of being > outside the normal 3-dimentional reality, but I don't continue past that. I > really look forward to the days when I can intentionally go for that kind of > result again. Yes, the not-know processes are great. See the breakthough below. And there is a high powered version of spotting spots in the self clearing book. But since it can act as an exteriorization process and turn on out-int, I put it fairly late. Chapter 11 which handles out-int should be done first. ============ To add to the background, here is the EXPANDED KNOW TO MYSTERY SCALE as included in the book Scientology 0-8. Native State Not Know Know About Look Emotion Effort Think Symbols Eat Sex Mystery Wait Unconscious This is the final version of the scale, but note that this is the scale which varied continually during the 1950s, not just being expaned or having minor refinements but having the order shifted around occasionally. Sometimes sex was above eat. Sometimes Know (knowingness) was at the top, then not know, then know about. Sometimes it was not-know, then know, then know about. Often mystery was the bottom. Personally I would say that Sex is above Eat because the 2nd dynamic is above the 1st. And I would think that the pattern is Thought - Emotion - Effort because that shows up elsewhere and because that would be a pattern of increasing solidity. Then Symbols - Sex - Eat show up nicely as substitutes for thought, emotion, and effort respectively. But the biggest bug has always been the top of the scale. I think that not-know above knowingness is correct, the not-know processes run better than processing knowingness. Below knowingness comes know about. But if you have it that way, there is something missing at the top, and native state with no definition in this context is just a sort of cop out or a place holder. This is the bug that was nagging at me and which kept me from writing a chapter on not-know processes for self clearing. I couldn't really do it in the face of that uncertainty. I took another look at the K-M scale back in August of 98. The post is called "Knowingness and Creation" and it is in post34.txt in the archives. The top of the scale is create. This is above knowing. The idea of knowing isn't even defined until you first not-know what you are creating. Otherwise how could you need to know it, you are simply creating it. Right now my current view of K-M is that it should be Create Not Know Know Know About Look Thought Emotion Effort Symbols Sex Eat Mystery =================== PROCESSING Probably the easiest one to start with is to pick objects in the room (or the walls etc.) and run a few commands of "not know something about that object" on each one. Then do the not-know variation of union station, which is done by going to a crowded place, selecting people and running "not know something about that person". That one is discussed in the conquest of chaos tapes that were posted recently. Then move up to the more exotic ones such as not know something about an area or situation or futures etc. (see the various posts above) ==================== A Super Process on Not Know - This one is the real breakthough. When I was first reading all the above posts and thinking of my earlier work in putting create at the top of the K-M scale, it occured to me that we could test whether create belongs above not-know by using a process to work the two against each other. The process is dynamite. It does a lot more than I imagined when I thought it up. Here it is. a) Create (mockup) something b) Not Know who created it In its pure form, it is just wild and wonderful to run. But of course I had to experiment further. So I mixed it in with book and bottle as follows: a) mockup a book b) not know who created it c) not know its weight d) not know its color e) not know its temprature f) not know its contents g) not know when it was created h) not know its location. Then mockup a bottle and do the same. Then mockup ANOTHER book and so forth. After having a few dozen not known books and bottles disappearing into an unknown location, I had a funny mass of energy swirling around and just hanging there persistantly. Not really swirling around me but over to the side somewhere. Quite amazing really. As an experiment, I tried to blow it by copying it, changing its color, etc. but it really didn't want to blow, and by this point it was just a mass and I kind of felt foggy about it. Note that I was not flattening not-know on any step and I was continually mocking up more books to not-know rather than doing anything more with the previous ones. I had had no problem using simple creative not-know (above) repetatively. It was only when I did this book and bottle variation and kept adding to it that a mass built up. And the mass was not in the location where I had been mocking the books up, so I had never aimed the command at it either. Of course this was a research experiment, so I was quite happy with the odd results. Then the question was how to get rid of the mass. I decided to try repetatively not-knowing who created the mass. After half a dozen commands, the not-know came off and I suddenly had good awareness of having created the mass and the individual points of creation and the books and bottles that were in it and so forth, so I simply unmocked it. Interestingly enough, I didn't have to flatten all the different not-knows I'd done, but just repetatively did a not know on who created the mass. I noticed another interesting thing. When I'd mockup a book, I would make its cover a certain color, and when the not-know came off, I would know what that color was as I unmocked it. But I had never assigned any contents to the books, I'd simply not know what the contents were. At the end I again knew what the contents were, but the contents, of course, was nothing because I'd never mocked it up in the first place, so I was aware that it had no contents. The not known contents and the not known color were the same kind of feeling during the period when I had the whole mess suspended there. One was there but not known and the other had never been there in the first place. And what I learned was that you can't tell the difference between those two situations until you get the not know off. After this I tried picking objects and running "not know who created that object" (once per object). That actually brought up some wild awarenesses, and was also a lot of fun. Anyway, the creative not-know process is extremely benificial and seems to mimic some basic mechanisms. Have Fun, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - More On Wild Topics (Attn MegaSquirrel, Rogers) MORE ON WILD TOPICS (Attn MegaSquirrel, Rogers) On 5 Feb 99, squirrel@mega.com (MegaSquirrel) posted on topic "Re: Pilot" > You raise some interesting points. I'm posting some of my own comments > along similar lines. > > "Rogers" wrote: > > >January 31, 1999 > > > >Hi Pilot! A couple of things. First of all, I know that there (hopefully) > >will be other readers beside yourself, so some of my comments are not > >exactly to you personally. > > > >In Super Scio #6A you said, "To the best of my knowledge, there were only > >10,000 individuals on the early track." And later on, "And don't make the > >mistake of thinking that you're everyone else. You'd only be a small > >percentage. Maybe one in a billion." > > > >All things being equal (or sort of average), that is to say, assuming all > >these original individuals divided up in comparable orders of magnitude; the > >ratio would remain constant. In other words, if the ratio was 1 to 10,000 > >at the beginning, it would still be 1 to 10,000 - now! Therefore, one could > >consider that one in every ten thousand is an "extremely close" early twin > >of yours (as opposed to the other 9,999 who are still brothers/sisters > >anyway). > > My question on this is that for a being to fully divide and thus > create another thetan (not just split pieces or BTs), wouldn't he have > to be pretty powerful? (to be able to reach the basic underlying > static). It seems unlikely that people trapped in bodies can do > something like this, which would indicate that thetan-dividing hasn't > occured much in the last 3 or so universes. My gut feeling (but highly speculative), is that while I don't do this here as a human, me on some higher level (which is mostly unconscious) might spin off a copy of the lesser me under special circumstances. > >Next. The proposed "reset time" incident where Ron and a thousand others > >attacked the "guards." This seems a bit extreme. A violation of "hat don't > >hit." It seems to me that we have to, just have to, get the between-lives > >crew rehabilitated and out of the implant business. Periodically, some > >group or other has collective meditation at a specific time on a specific > >day. You know, world peace and stuff. Perhaps we could use the same > >principle. I mean, what would happen if we were to telepathically transmit > >(the gist of) the "Cosmic History" section to these guys. Or, at least, the > >concept of the false data implants, penalty universes, Agreements Universe > >entry point, false data in Jewel of Knowledge? (Actually, maybe we should > >do the same to the Sea Org staff as well?) You know, not projecting as if > >to force feed, but projecting the data for enlightenment purposes. Hatting > >not hitting. (Hey, if there are any real thetans up there, there is a > >1:10,000 chance s/he's a twin anyway, be gentle.) > > I don't think the between-lives crew are the real bad guys in charge. > They're probably prisoners themselves with the exception of a few at > the top. That is my feeling too. > Even if the crew can be educated and rehabilitated, the > space powers that set up the prison would just come down with a new > crew. So we'd probably have to "handle" the space powers (Marcab and > Espinol?) somehow. Falling short of that, knock out the prison > machinery and implant stations and have a massive breakout before the > powers-that-be come down to restore order. This is something that I do wonder about. The trouble is our lack of data. Heinlien's novel "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" might provide some guidelines. > Some more thoughts on this topic: According to Pilot, this solar > system is a "pocket universe" apart from the MEST universe in general. > That is, there isn't a one-to-one mapping of points between them. He > further suggests that what we see in the night sky (galaxies and > stars, etc) is a projected image to give the illusion of us belonging > to the rest of the universe. Actually, my comments on not having a one to one mapping was in regards to truely separate universes as in the magic universe vs the current physical universe. What I'm calling a "pocket universe" is like a pocket on a shirt, not quite in the main body but still interconnected. Here I am thinking in terms of shifting a local area (this solar system) sideways by a few feet along a 4th axis. For an analogy, think of a 2D drawing on a sheet of paper as the regular physical universe. Next draw a circle around a small area. Make xerox's of that area and paste them one on top of another over the original area. There are only millimeter separations of the copies, they are only fractionally deflected from the main 2D area. This is easily done by virtue of using a third dimension which is extra to the universe, but would be impossible if one were limited to 2 dimensional constructs. > There are some astronomical data that seem to contradict this. > Astronomers use the parallax of earth orbit to calculate the distance > of nearby stars. They take a picture of, say Alpha Centauri, in > January. Then they take another picture in July when the earth is at > the opposite side of the sun. When comparing the two pictures, Alpha > Centauri would have moved a bit relative to the background stars > (which are much farther away). The amount it moved tells us how far it > is (more it moves, closer it is to us). This seems to indicate that > there IS a one-to-one correlation of our space and the space of our > universe in general. There would be no parallax if the night sky that > we see is a projection only 1 light year away. The parallax differential would be far too tiny to notice. Even if it were a million miles (many orders of magnitude more than I think it is, a few feet or a mile is more likely), we can't measure interstellar distances with that degree of accuracy. > Furthermore, the amount of effort it would take to project all of this > is so fantastic, why even bother? It's only been in the last few > centuries that earthlings developed enough science to understand the > true size and nature of the universe. It was Galileo who discovered > that the Milky Way cloud is actually composed of individual stars. > Before this everyone thought the universe was just our solar system > anyway. They could've fooled us plenty with a lot less effort, it > seems. I would think that it is the real view slightly deflected, perhaps even naturally occuring. Going back to the 2D sheet of paper, the layered xeroxs might each see the same view of the rest of the paper just because that is the way this sort of a layering might work. > But I do agree with the idea of Earth being a prison planet, many > other gurus have said the same. And it just seems right, it sort of > "indicates". Yeah. When I first heard Ron say that on the Comm Cycles tape my feeling was "of course, it would have to be that way." > Best regards, > > MegaSquirrel Good questions. PS. Rogers posted a correction to my mistake in calculating time zones - here it is as a reminder: > Now, as far as a coordinated "projection" of (hopefully) destimulating and > freeing data to the between lives crew. Yes, it does hint of new age > flakiness, but for those few who want to do this silly thing and coordinate > the exercise, I think the times need verification. PST is two hours behind > CST, so Noon CST is 10:00 a.m. PST; 11:00 a.m. MST and 1:00 p.m. EST. Best, The Pilot ========================================== This weeks posts were all posted with the following trailer. ------------------ The free Self Clearing Book, The Super Scio book, and the "SCIENTOLOGY REFORMER'S HOME PAGE" are all over the net. See The Self Clearing Homepage for URLs to these sites http://fza.org/pilot/selfclr.htm or http://www.proweb.co.uk/~tech/clear.htm Or see The Pilots Home Page at http://fza.org/pilot/index.htm Some translations are available, see links at fza.org All of the current posts will be collected in Super Scio Archives #48 and 49 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. (the spamming takes a good header and puts somebody else's message on it - all of my real messages have a trailer like this one). 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. ------------------