Date: 7 May 1999 04:00:19 Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology From: pilot@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (The Pilot) Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 55 - 2/2 EARLY MAY 99 PILOT POSTS TO ACT POST55.txt SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 55 - 2/2 EARLY MAY 99 PILOT POSTS TO ACT The other posts to ARS/ACT are in post54. ========================================== Contents: subj : Super Scio Tech - Self Auditing vs Self Clearing subj : Super Scio Tech - A Great Entrypoint To GPMs subj : Super Scio Tech - To Ryan On Entities subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering Hunter on Nots and S/Nots subj : Super Scio Tech - To Norman On Nots subj : Super Scio Tech - On Six Ways To Nothing subj : Super Scio Tech - On Route 2 Not Biting (Attn Ryan, Ted) subj : Super Scio Tech - Continuing The Golden Dawn Discussion (Attn Koyote, Rogers) subj : Super Scio Tech - To Heidrun On Higher Self subj : Super Scio Tech - Valences (Attn Beth, Ralph) subj : Super Scio Tech - Super Dooper OT Recall Processing subj : Super Scio Tech - A Fun OT Drill subj : Super Scio Tech - The Be Do Have Implant ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Self Auditing vs Self Clearing SELF AUDITING VS SELF CLEARING In the early days, there was "self auditing" and there was "self auditing" and the one was highly encouraged and the other was highly discouraged and the same word was used for both. Workable self auditing consisted of a trained auditor runing processes on himself. Ron freequently encouraged his advanced students to do it. Unworkable self auditing consisted of a preclear sitting around and figure figuring to himself and pulling things into restimulation. It was not at that time forbidden, but it was seen as a major outpoint to be remedied on a case. And then there were the self auditing books done by Ron. The best for beginners was "Self Analysis" and also its creative processing variation "Self Analysis in Scientology" (doing mockups instead of recalls). There was also the Six Steps of Self Auditing as given in the tech volumes. There was even Handbook for Preclears, which was primarily intended for solo use in between professional sessions. It works well that way but leaves something to be desired as a pure solo book if one is working alone because it provides too little theory. The real theory materials that go with it are in Advanced Procedures and Axioms and for broad workablilty, I think that most untrained people would need to study AP&A concurrently with doing HBPC. Nonetheless, these self auditing materials were issued, and CofHA routes 1 and 2 were also designated as being good for self auditing. And many gains have been made using these various materials on a self audited basis. And then came modern solo auditing. This was only used on a very limited array of processes and under strict case supervision, but it still shows that successful self processing can take place. And note that the common misconception that one must be Clear to do Solo is quite false. Ron developed solo auditing for use before going clear because grade 6 and the clearing course had to be done solo. The conflict between the unworkable self auditing and the obviously workable use of self analysis even by a beginner was explained as "It's not really self auditing because the book is auditing you." But this doesn't really explain why the doctorate course students had such great success self auditing the processes nor does it explain why highly trained auditors do well in soloing rundowns on themselves. The better statement would be: PC plus Materials is greater than bank. or PC plus Processes and Processing Skill is greater than bank. But of course this depends on the PC and how good the materials are and how good is his skill level. So maybe it would be better to say "can be greater than bank" rather than saying "is greater than bank". Since self auditing has a bad name, and solo auditing was defined very strictly in orthodox standard tech, let us coin a new definition: Self Processing is the action of running a drill or a process upon oneself to a result. We could use that as the broad definition, and then consider Self Clearing and Solo Auditing to be particular implementations of Self Processing. Both are valid. And so is Self Analysis, which is yet a third variation of Self Processing. Many bridges are possible, you can have more than one way to cross the same river. The figure-figure variation of self auditing, on the other hand, is not valid processing. In fact it is a contradiction even in how it is named because there is no "auditor" (listener) to listen to oneself. In self processing, you take a drill or a processing question and use it repetatively to push through non-confronts and confusion to see what is really there and bring about an as-isness and restoration of ability. In self auditing, one just mucks about going "What is it?", "What's it?", "What's it?", and "what about that too?", and "What about this other thing?", and "Now I feel miserable, why is that?" and so on. One is just opening up more and more questions and confusion without answering anything. This brings in more bank and soon the person will have too much bank in current restimulation to make any progress. In self processing, on the other hand, one limits the question, using just a single "What's it" aimed at a narrow target, and then one goes "It is a ...", and then "It's a ...", and then "It's a ..." and soon one is digging deeper and seeing more basic things on that single target and one ends up with some bank handled and less bank in current restimulation. Getting some well done professional processing can greatly improve self processing. Professionally done grades are wonderful for increasing one's depth and speed of processing, and it gives you an excellent subjective understanding of how it feels when processes are run at optimum. If you do get some professional handling, don't mix in self processing at the same time unless you have gotten an ok from the processor. If he is running one set of processes on you and you are going home and running a different set, it throws a wild variable into his processing and can get in the way of him being able to do his job. It really only works if he is giving you self processing assignments (just like the old days when an auditor would give the pc a section of HBPC to work on between sessions). In the long run the only way out is by self processing whether it is formal solo auditing or self clearing or some other similar technique. You eventually will have to come up to a point of complete understanding and full responsibility for your own case. At the beginning, you can make it alone if you're determined enough, or you can get some help and have an easier time of it. Do whatever works, but do something rather than just sitting around being the effect of things. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - A Great Entrypoint To GPMs A GREAT ENTRYPOINT TO GPMS On 17 Mar 99, "Alan C. Walter" posted on topic "Its a two pole universe" > The simplicity of GPM Tech is based upon: > > "What PT identity are you presently dramatizing?" > > It can be an Opterm or it can be a Terminal. > > The item can be at the bottom or it can be at the top of the GPM. > Usually the Reliable Item item is so charged it takes quite a bit > to discharge it and find its correct location. > > Once a RI is found it is vital the rest of the package is found, as the > RI's get there power from the previous RI's. > > The finding and handling of the full RI package results in a full 3 > dimensional holographic erasure that includes both the horizontal > dichotomuos spectrum and the vertical multi dichotomous spectrums > that spans all levels of the Zones of existences from top to bottom > of all scales. > > As RI's are basically solutions to previous beingness or identity > problems they do not just as-is on inspection. They are solidified > together by problem - solution postulation and H. E. & R. (Human > emotion and reaction). > > You know you are on the right track as your life continues to go right > and you have plenty of time and resources to continue your processing > and training. You ability to command your environment to manifest your > wants becomes consistently awesome. > > Further you feel very friendly towards life, beings, and objects past, > present and long into the future. > > Present time problems just melt away. The question "What PT identity are you presently dramatizing?" is brilliant. The "PT" seems to me to be a bit redundant and possibly confusing, so I would simplify it to: "What identity are you presently dramatizing?" Now this is a great way to list for the current actual GPM RI. From here one could try to package up the RIs. That would produce great gains, but it is rough and any errors could kick back heavily. Furthermore, one might not have the real RI but just a lock on it and that can give trouble too. As Alan mentioned, the RI gets its force from the previous RI. But they all go back to the goal, with each RI adding to the charge. And all the charge could be thought of as being grouped on the goal itself. And that whole mess of charge comes to rest on the current RI. That makes RI listing difficult and sets one up for heavy kickbacks on list errors. The better technique is to use the RI to get the goal. That works even if you have a lock RI instead of THE RI. One could use a listing question such as: "What would be the basic goal or purpose of (identity found)?" Although it is vital to package RIs (find opterms, etc.) before listing for further RIs, you can go right for the goal without packaging because it is senior to all the RI pairs. Once you have the goal, you take charge off the goal with the lightest processes that you can find. See Super Scio Chapter 3. AFTER you have stripped tons of charge off the goal itself, with as much itsa as possible, then go for listing the RIs. That will be safe and easy because the goal is no longer kicking your teeth in, and also your Itsa on the goal and things connected to it will already be freed up. The key point is not on whether you use my techiques or Alan's or somebody else's for listing the RI pattern, nor is it in following the exact set of processes I suggested in Super Scio. The key point is to take charge off of the goal before continuing with RI listing. That makes the difference between a walk in the park and a gruesome hell of difficult listing. As you first start to process the goal with light processes, the rocket read on it will get larger as the suppress comes off. I've seen actual GPM goals rocket read across 3 divisions of TA on the meter, repetatively. I suspect that if we could see it unsuppressed without it having been discharged at all, the rocket read would be around through 7 on the dial because it is a complete identity. But, of course, taking off the suppress also begins to discharge it. And then the kick of the goal begins to decrease and the RR comes back down to a more normal size as you keep running light processes to discharge the goal. Good hunting, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - To Ryan On Entities TO RYAN ON ENTITIES On 9 Apr 99, "Ryan Q Lee " asked on topic "Super Scio Tech - Heavyweight Entity Attack" > How does someone like me, not gone through OT3 or > similar, handle entities? Self Clearing chapter 38. > How do I even know that an "intention" originated > _not_ from me? You get a feel for it with experience. Entity stuff tends to be transient rather than things you feel deep down. Of course you have transient impulses of your own too, but if its long term it has to be yours even if there is also an entity cheering you on because they can't hold something very long against your own intentions. > Personally, I've only had one experience recently, > about a month ago, that I knew with certainty that > I was dealing with "other", namely, entities. > > Recently, this "other" business is becoming a hassle, > and although I wish to follow the advice of the > technically more able, I can't ignore this "other" > business any longer, as the amount of interference, > noise, whatever, as it is slowing me down to a > grinding halt in my life and in solo processing. > > Here's what I've decided... > > Any "feeling" or "thought" that counters good > survival, especially progress in my own clearing, > _must_ be from "other." (Even if I originally > created it myself.) > > Now I need some "handling" for those "feelings" or > "thoughts". From Pilot's Self-Clearing book: > > 38.5 Putting it all together > You have 3 simple handlings that you should have at > your fingertips in case you run into some kind of > spirit or entity. > 1. Point to the being you divided from > 2. Run them through incident 1 (even just a vague > approximation will do) > 3. The NOTs What/Who technique > > My difficulty is finding the "other", when all I > experience (perceive) is a feeling or thought. > > Comments, especially from the hi-fidelity beings > in the group are welcomed. > > Arc, Ryan > > -----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----- > http://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums A number of approaches could be used. On OT III and Solo Nots, one does it on a meter and kind of feels around until the meter reads. This helps early on, later I just seemed to know. You can get the idea of agreeing with the being who is putting out the thought (you don't have to do what they're saying, just consciously agree with it for a moment) and see where your attention is drawn while you do that. In other words you get this thought "I am a ruddy rod". Rather than thinking the thought yourself, you get the idea of agreeing with whomever is thinking that thought. You relax, not trying to spot any locations, but just thinking of agreeing, and for some reason you think of something like your left foot. That is where the guy is. You're just trying to let your attention go to wherever they are. If your attention is jumping around (without you causatively shifting your attention around), then its probably a bunch of them who are copying each other (or occasionally its one who is moving around, but that is rare). Indicate to the whole bunch that they are copying and then try to focus on one while ignoring all the other locations. After that one blows, then pick up the next one. In other words, if you notice more than one, you make a point of handling one at a time. You should focus or narrow in on one rather than just blasting a broad intention across a large area (except for things like acknowledging copying where you do want to hit a lot of them at once). Once you have the general area, you should be able to tune in closer. If necessary, you can run hello and ok on them (say hello and have them say ok back and visa versa). The first few commands might just be your own mockup and then you start to get a bit of a real flow going along with it, and that generally lets you spot their location. It can also be used if you do spot the location but don't seem to be able to reach them with your commands. Its easiest if you sort of blanket them and elicit a response. You can also do a mockup drill. Mockup a BT in a precise spot in the body, ask it "who are you", and have it say "me" and blow with a feeling of joy or relief. After awhile real ones will probably start blowing, or will present themselves for handling and handle easily because it acts as a sort of demo, R-factor, and reassurance to them. If you do this enought you will be able to distinguish real ones from the ones you mock up. This is based on my own experience. I think that I got through Solo Nots a hell of a lot faster and easier than most people. ------------------ On another question you asked on "odd effects on heavy TRs" > In doing heavy TRs, say TR0, I perceive some odd > things happening. My TR buddy, his face seeming to > change, light/dark, all sorts of stuff. > > Anyone care to share their experiences? Yes, I've gotten this effect a few times as TRs were flattening. My guess is that it is not-isness coming off of old pictures, things long suppressed finally coming into view. Have Fun, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering Hunter on Nots and S/Nots ANSWERING HUNTER ON NOTS AND S/NOTS On 25 Apr 99, Hunter's asked on subject "Solo Nots" > HI FELLOWS! > > WHILE STUDYING NOTS MATERIALS, I GOT SOME DOUBTS IN WHICH I'D LIKE TO > GET SOME HELP: > > 1st : NOTs series 23 and 53 are not available. > > 2nd: The checksheet says: ADVANCED COURSE SPECIALIST > COURSE CHECKSHEET PART TWO > > SO NOW, MY QUESTION IS,IS IT ENOUGH WITH THIS CHECKSHEET TO AUDIT > NEW OTV? IF AFFIRMATIVE, WHAT ABOUT PART ONE? WHAT IS IT? IS IT STIL > IN USE? > > MY NEXT THING IN WHICH I AM CONCERNED IS IN SOLO NOTS. IS THERE ANYONE > AROUND WHO KNOWS HOW CAN IT BE AVAILABLE? > > ANY HELP ON THIS WILL BE REALLY APRECIATED > > Hunter. First, as a matter of netiquette, using ALL CAPS implies emphasis or shouting and shouldn't be done for the entire message. I'm not sure about the missing issues, they don't give you all the HCOBs in the series on the Solo Nots course. Certainly they are not essential in most cases since I don't notice anything missing from what was run on me as a PC on audited Nots or what I was given to study on Solo Nots (except, of course, for the Solo Nots HCOB itself). Probably these two issues were cancelled. Maybe they are the ones that were identified by the org as being "the bad Mayo Nots", which is not even to say that it was Mayo's fault (it could just as well have been a mistake by LRH), but just that there was some serious bug in the first year of Nots delivery, which was that they would take up unreading items and assume that the cause was BTs. E.G. if you had a somatic, then it must be coming from a BT even if it wasn't reading on the meter. This is wrong and many people who got Nots during that first year had lots of trouble because of being audited that way. It was changed in the second year of delivery, I think before Mayo left, but later when they gave early Nots PCs an R-factor about how their cases had been messed up by running unreading items, they always blamed it on "Bad Mayo Nots". I didn't have this happen to me (I got Nots just a little bit later) but I heard the story from others who had gotten Nots earlier and then been repaired. As to its being "PART TWO", any advanced course like this would have a "PART ONE" with non-confidential basic material on how to audit. The Solo Nots course was like that, with a first part covering how to read a meter and so forth which you had to pass successfully before you could get the confidential materials. On Solo Nots, this was pretty much a retread of the Solo Course including doing all the e-meter drills etc. For a professional Nots auditor, it would include lots of stuff from lower level courses about how to audit another person. Although the first half of these courses did not actually contain any confidential material, they were handled as if they were confidential, not letting other people know that they were doing the same old e-meter drills again etc. This lets the org catch anybody who has lax security early before they really give them any confidential data. The Solo Nots HCOB itself has not been posted to the net. There was only one big HCOB that was specifically for S/NOTS when I did the course, which was fairly early. The rest of the confidential section was about half of the audited Nots HCOBs. They gave you all the ones giving the theory and left out all the ones that described specific audited rundowns. There were some more HCOBs that came out later, but all of them were extra techniques, such as asking for "the next being will present himself to be handled" (or something like that), and those HCOBs are only given to you after you have been doing well with the basic technique for awhile (I got them on later visits to Flag, but they don't let you keep the HCOBs after you have checked out on them - so one has to trust to memory). The S/NOTS HCOB was mainly composed of little excerpts from the Nots bulletins that were not on the Solo Nots course, plus the solo version of Valence technique. See the audited version. The main difference was that the solo version was treated more casually. You can do a list correction if needed, but usually a flub on the "What are you list" resolves automatically by the being listing more items on the "Who are you" question instead of giving you "me" immediately. I've described S/Nots in more detail in other posts. See "Entity Handling" in post52.txt and my writeup "To Heidrun" in post05.txt in the Pilot archives. Before you launch off into running Nots on yourself, please read Chapter 38 of the Self Clearing book. Its fairly short and its free and it might make things a bit easier and help you avoid some pitfalls that the people on Nots got into. Best is to read the chapter, and then read the entire Nots pack carefully, and then read the chapter again. Although its nowhere near the ultimate level that the CofS thinks it is, there are still some big gains to be had by doing a thorough handling. And if you're really feeling ambitious, also read chapter 6 of Super Scio for even more data on entities, and study the LRH HCL lectures too (especially the Battle of the Universes one about Targs that was posted recently). Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - To Norman On Nots TO NORMAN ON NOTS On 30 Apr 99, norman_suchanek posted on subject "FZA.ORG: The State of Case, a personal report" > Heidrun Beer wrote: > > > I just realized that I felt a similar impulse just the other day - > > just SH** on saving the planet and enjoy life. > > > > Any of you others? I wonder whether it's one for each of us, or whether > > the same guy goes from one to the other? > > > > I either audited mine, or told him in a friendly way that I had > > certain plans which I didn't want to change. > > > > BTW didn't Pilot write something about weird impulses recently? > > Like poking his finger into his eyes? This comes over me too > > sometimes. Ideas like how it would be to bite off my boy's > > finger, or some such thing. > > > > If this is done by BTs, then they have the special trick of seeking > > out the position where the thetan perceives himself in/around the body, > > before they first speak out. That makes them less easy to distinguish > > from self. > > > There are a few NOTs rundowns about JUST THIS ! However, they do > _NOT_ appear in the NOTs pack that I have read ! > > I have found these rundowns in Scamizdat 9 ONLY ( they are NOTs > rundown steps 46, 47 and 49 ). > > I have extended the running of NOTs ruds to include these phenomena. > When I get a read on a rudiment I check whose charge it is. In case > of a problem I would check : > > is this my problem ? > > is this a BT's problem ? > > is this a CL's problem ? > > etc. like in the HCOB about running ruds after OT III. > > However, if I get a read on 'is this my problem' I check > > is 'my' really a BT ? > > is 'my' really a CL ? > > This may be lousy grammar but it DOES work ( at least on me ). > These days I hardly find any charge on myself. But there > are LOTS of 'guys' very close to me and my head area ( where > I mostly reside ). They are almost an intimate part of my > thinking machinery, and are hard to differentiate from myself. > But anytime I get rid of one it is a really nice win, because > these mis-identifications ( myself - BT ) are worth clearing up. > > Norman I should have studied the earlier Scamizdat postings more carefully. Those steps are not valid Nots. They are probably part of the materials that were canceled in the first year of Nots. I only heard rumors of the original "bad" Nots and doing this was one of the rumors. Many of those cases bogged and had lots of trouble. Later AO tech estimates to repair cases who had Nots done this way were generally twice as high as the number of intensives for new cases to complete Nots. Sometimes "my" might really be a BT or CL, but if it is and you didn't immediately spot it without being asked, you are running one which is out gradient anyway and you might as well let it slide until it comes into view later. But usually "my" is you and the questions ask you to not-is your own case and responsiblity and drag in a BT from somewhere else to take over your own item. That is extremely easy to do. After all, the question is reading which means that there is charge on it. So this is an open invitation not to confront the overt or problem or whatever it is and offload it onto a BT. Cases get loaded with BTs when they do this. You end up with more than when you started. Hope this helps, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - On Six Ways To Nothing ON SIX WAYS TO NOTHING On 15 Apr 99, squirrel@mega.com (MegaSquirrel) answered Rogers on topic "Six Ways to "Nothing" - Question" > Six ways to nothing - process 37.1 in the Self-Clearing book. > > On Wed, 14 Apr 1999 10:42:51 -0400, "Rogers" > wrote: > > >The Journal of Scientology, Issue 24-G, 31 January 1954 "SOP-8-C: The > >Rehabilitation of the Human Spirit. (Starts on page 10 of "old" Tech Vol > >II, my question pertains to page 15) > > > >As part of Step VII: Barriers > > > >(b) Have preclear do six ways to "nothing." > > > >Can someone clarify what this is, or I should say, what these six ways are? > >I did consider the possibility it refers to the "Six Steps to Better > >Beingness" (on page 424 of old tech vol I) which starts out with taking ten > >minutes of nothing, but I am unconvinced. Cannot find it in the cumulative > >index. > > > >Appreciate it. > > > >Les. I'm flattered that you knew Self Clearing well enough to point out the reference. Some other folks asked if I remember the LRH reference for this one and I have to admit that I can't pin it down right now. Its somewhere in the vast amount of stuff I reviewed while writing self clearing, I remember checking the reference on this one, but my guesses as to where aren't panning out. It is easy to do a Grep (command line style text search) on the tech volumes, CofHA, and everything that FZBA has posted, but that only yields the various summaries of SOP-8C like the above reference. So I don't think that it is in anything that has been posted to the net. Someday maybe we'll have everything online and then this would be a snap to find. In the meantime, all I can suggest is that it is in SOP-8C and therefore would be covered on one of the tapes that apply to that rundown. Those are the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd ACC tapes and that's probably where I heard it because those are among my favorites. Unfortunately, each of those ACCs is the size of the doctorate course (they are the sequals to it) and without an online copy, I'm not going to find it without putting in a ton of work. Let's hope that FZBA or somebody gets busy and posts these. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - On Route 2 Not Biting (Attn Ryan, Ted) ON ROUTE 2 NOT BITING (Attn Ryan, Ted) On 28 Apr 99, ted@magicnet.net (Ted Crammer) responded to Ryan's question on subject "processes taking longer" > Ryan Q Lee wrote: > > > Running the processes on Route 2 are not "biting" (i.e. case kicking in) > > as much as previously. > > > > I can "feel" a process bite, but it doesn't run as deep, even when > > run for a long time; say, 25 minutes of "find something in which you > > could be interested in?" > > > > Is this usual? (In the following, I'm assuming that when he says "Route 2", he does mean Route 2. However, in another post, Ryan mentioned that he was running the "spot three point in the body / in the room", so perhaps he is actually running Route 1 at this point.) Ted gave a nice analysis, so I'll start from there. Basically some of his points are high probability and some are low. > May be due to process flattening. Route 2 has lots of different processes. I assume that if it was just particular processes flattening, other ones in the set would still bite. So this is unlikely if it has persisted for a while. But in the broader sense, it could be a persistant FN or major keyout on the entire class of processes in route 2. Handling would be to rehab the major win and then shift to some other processing, such as route 1 for example. (or, if it is Route 1 that went to a win and stopped biting, Route 2 might then be appropriate). Sometimes "case" is just gone (at least for the moment) and its time to do OT drills. Route 1 will run with benifit over a persistant FN, but route 2 will not. Sometimes the next layer of case has shown up and one is better off runing processes oriented torwards case. The Self Clearing book tries to work around this by intermixing both types of processes and giving the person the liberty to skip processes that don't seem appropriate at the moment. Sometimes the overrun phenomena gives one a clue, but the really big states or a solid persistant FN can sometimes leave the entire case temporarily discharged to the point where even overrun doesn't occur. I've been in states like that for months sometimes. > May be due to your doing TRs while also doing the processing. There is a slight chance of this, but it is not that likely. In the old days auditors would do TRs regularly without regard for any processing they were getting. It doesn't actually get in the way of processing. What it does is get in the way of C/Sing. It can drive the C/Ses crazy because the case is changing out of his sight. Sometimes TRs toss in a wild variable that would throw off a standard C/S because the case has been doing a different action (TRs) in between standard sessions. So maybe a button was left restimulated and unflat and is grabbing the person's attention or maybe some process that needed correction was inadvertently repaired or maybe some keyout on TRs has produced an FN that is obscuring an error from the previous session. Perhaps the auditor assesses a list, and sends it to the C/S and the C/S picks the next action based on that and meanwhile the case has changed around because of doing TRs, and the auditor, who is not at liberty to adjust to the pc in orthodox standard tech, goes in with an invalid C/S and makes a mess. In practice, you could C/S around this as long as you knew about it and took some precautions, such as not splitting an assessment and the handling of it between sessions and perhaps having the auditor ask "how did the TRs go" as part of the ruds. But that would make extra work and the auditing is expensive and the pc can do TRs some other time, so they don't bother. For un-CSed solo, the person knows what he's been doing and knows how his TRs went and there is no wild variable out of sight. > May be a lull before a storm, flat point being only temporary. That does happen sometimes. Having a lot of confidence in my ability to rehab, I'll push on a bit if I have any doubt. Usually it just leads to overrun, but occasionally you can make a really big gain. For a beginner I'd say that it would be better to take the win. At least until you have enough experience to spot overruns quickly and rehab them easily. Count on the fact that you'll work around to that area again anyway. That lets you get gains even if your still fumbling around with the tech. > May be the processes you are running no longer parallels the case or > challenges the being. Very likely. But the reason would probably be the first point discussed above, namely a big blowout and the handling would be to rehab and then shift over to another rundown. > May be the limitations of solo processing R-2. Probably not since he was doing well and the processes were biting. This would be likely if the processes had never bitten in the first place, but that is not the case here. > May be lack of havingness in sharing wins with someone who could > appreciate what you are doing and discovering. Possible. And its nice to get wins acknowledged. And it serves as a rehab if there was a big state attained and then bypassed. So my suggestion would be to spot the biggest win that happened while running route 2 and write it up for the newsgroup. > May be a number of things. I am pretty sure you'll get some more > feedback on this from others. > > -- > Ted The other possiblity is, of course, that there is something wrong. For this one looks back to the last point that one was doing well and trys to determine what changed. If, for example, one had simply stopped eating, that would drop the accessibility factor and processes would not run as deep. Or if one had gotten scared on some process and not finished it and then decided never to look at anything again to avoid getting restimulated, that too could drop the accessibility factor and make the processes run shallow. One could actually ignore this and run shallowly for awhile until ones confidence built back up, but its much more effective to go back and run the messed up process correctly to a real win. But if the pc is still feeling good, the most likely thing that changed would be a big blowout as discussed earlier. ============== Also, on 30 Apr 99, "Ryan Q Lee " asked on subject "mapping Route 2 to the OT processes" > Here's an interesting one. > > Apparently, _all_ the OT processes originate from > Route 2 in Creation of Human Ability. > > If anyone has already done it, could they please > post the mapping of which Route 2 processes map to > the OT processes. > > Thanks! :) > > Arc, Ryan :) :) :) :) More Route 1 than Route 2 actually. And some come from SOP8C. I haven't done the exercise. It's a nice idea. The only "complete" OT bridge was around the beginning of 1954. It was: 1. SOP 8 (PDC materials) to exterior 2. SOP 8C (1st & 2nd ACC) to drill after exterior 3. SOP 8OT (3rd ACC) to roll your own bridge to handle whatever else was in the way. This turned out to be too tough. So Ron addressed himself to undercutting and providing an easier gradient. This resulted in the undercuts of group processing (4th ACC), SOP8D to handle valences (the 5th ACC), the phoenix lectures material (7th ACC) and finally Routes 1 and 2 (8th & 9th ACC). (I haven't gotten around to studying the 6th ACC yet). Route 1/2 was basically aimed at replacing SOP 8 as a way to produce a thetan exterior and doing some of the easier bits of SOP8C to get him moving towards OT. The more advanced materials of SOP8C and SOP8OT remained as an upper bridge but Ron never got back to them because he had to then undercut Route 1/2 with the processes of the late 1950s. Note that the later use of the term "8C" to refer to the objective processes which was run as the SOP-8C setup action is a tech degrade of the highest order. Hope this helps, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Continuing The Golden Dawn Discussion (Attn Koyote, Rogers) CONTINUING THE GOLDEN DAWN DISCUSSION (Attn Koyote, Rogers) On 10 Apr 99, "Koyote" posted "To Pilot On Y2K & Golden Dawn" > The Pilot wrote in message ... > > > So I tried to tune into whatever might be being mocked up for the > > turn of the millenium. > > This is probably just dub-in or subconcious concerns stirring up, but I > > thought I should mention it anyway. > > > > At first I seemed to be getting "Red Dawn". That is an old second rate > > invasion movie and pretty far fetched. Maybe just my feeling that it > > is a good time for an invasion. But it didn't seem quite right. > > > > And then it seemed like what it really was was "Golden Dawn". > > > > That rang a bell as something I read once, maybe connected with occult > > practices. So I looked it up in Colin Wilson's book on the Super > > Natural. It was an occult group that was active for 13 years back > > around the turn of the century. Yeats was involved and even Crowly for > > a brief period (they denied him their higher orders and he made trouble > > and then went on to OTO). > > > > Maybe its not significant. I don't even know if this "Golden Dawn" was > > supposed to be a positive or a negative mockup although my guess would be > > that they were attempting white magic. > > > > Anybody know more about this? Is there some new group that has revived > > the name? Any idea if this is slanted in a positive or a negative > > direction? > > Heya. I'm new around here, so I'm still not entirely sure about how > you're gonna define positive and negative. > > The Golden Dawn is said to be in operation by some renovators. There are > also smoky rumors that the old GD is still about, but really damned deep > underground. Whatever. I can see that I had an oversimplified view. There seem to be many groups and the name is popular. > The OTO is alive in at least two manifestations. The A.'.A.'. is around, > but it is widely acknowledged that the current manifestation has little to > do with anything Crowley ever intended. > > There are others secretive magical orders, Temple of Psychic Youth, > Temple of Set, etc. > > These all may be accessed by some level of consciousness under "Golden > Dawn" in a sort of Jungian manner as the first, and often only, exposure > most dabblers have in this type of magical order is through Isreal > Regardie's works on the Golden Dawn and/or Golden Dawn Tarot systems. > > Some of these orders right, some go left. Many of them have, at some > level, the evolution/uncovering (depends on the theology) of the divine > in individual man as a goal. Many of them also Work to increase the > ability and opportunity for other men to glimpse and pursue the divine > potential/resident. From my viewpoint, the differentiating factor would be whether the target is to gain personal power for oneself or a few only, in which case they are trying to make slaves, or whether the goal is towards ability for others as well as oneself. I am, of course, aligned with the latter and feel favorable towards those who "Work to increase the ability and opportunity for other men." > Many of these orders are planning/executing serious Workings for y2k. > Those I have direct access to intend the Work to result in an overall > increase in ability and drive pushing more meatballs into a place > where they can initiate. > > This is all, I gather, positive, yes? Yes. > The only problem in defining positive and negative here is that many of > these orders subscribe to a theology which includes individual divinity, > but not an overall Master divinity which must be served. I don't believe in a Master divinity which must be "worshipped". I do believe in an all encompassing divine which could be termed a life static or universal mind or God or whatever. Bringing about a general increase in awareness and ability would be serving that. I suspect that we simply have a bit of confusion here between serve and worship. > And, as such, much of their work is oriented against mass > mind/collective salvation, etc. theology. > > This, in fact is the source of some of the y2k workings- the "Osirian > death cults" (or christian, muslim, etc. sacrifice based religions) are > running around pushing for total stasis- the end of the world followed by a > never changing kingdom of heaven and hell- end of *all* games, you lose! > Personally, I can see why they fight that kind of mindset.... An interesting way of putting it. I think that for most Christians, Heaven is simply the idea of a place where "things will be better". If it is "total statis", then it is a trap, but if it is sharing in an infinity of creation, then it is freedom. Most Christians are not up to thinking in these terms and as to Christ's original intentions, I would think that infinite creation would be more his style than some perpetual status. He was a rebel against the orthodox orders of his time. I would prefer, therefore, to define "heaven" as infinite creation and sidestep the argument. With that definition all games become possible rather than all games being ended. The real killer is wishing to see others burn in hell for eternity. Now that is not only a desire for stasis and an unchanging status quo but is an evil purpose that one would expect to rebound against the holder. > Tread Rightly, > > Koyote ----------- On 14 Apr 99, Koyote continued on this subject with a response to my post "Super Scio Tech - To Phil On Y2K & Golden Dawn" > Pilot man, > > It may be a Jungian unconscious tie in sorta thing (I know very > little of clearing technospeak, so bear with me). Most people who > access magick, ceremonial magic, high magic (many names) access first > the Golden Dawn (G.D.) work, history and system. > > There are a bunch of orders, Temples, schools in existence. The > Ordo Templi Orientalis (OTO) exists in at least two "valid" forms, > Crowley's A.'.A.'. is also around- though not in a form most > occultists accept as valid. The G.D. also exists in a couple of forms > including perennial restarts of the Order, individuals and informal > groups performing the work, and some say that the core G.D. never > really ended ops but went deep underground. > > Coming from the stream of magical orders also one finds some of > the more magickally oriented Wiccans (very rare!), and orders such as > the Rune Gild, TOPY (Temple ov Psychic Youth), Temple of Set, Order of > the Dragon, Telesis Foundation, Etc. > > I don't know a whole hell of a lot about all of these, though I am > pretty knowledgeable about a couple. The goal of most of these orders > is the diefication of man. This is approached in two distinct manners: > > 1. Through seeking instruction/access/oneness with/from some sort > of God thing. > > 2. Through discovering and raising one's self to a divine state as > a being seperate from any god thing. > > There is an expansionist goal as well, running through most > orders, to get more people to access, develop, or develop the ability > to access their divine natre/being. > > I do know that some of these orders a planning big juju for the 2k > event. The juju primarily focuses on expanding the potential and rate > of evolution (to divine beingness) in humanity. Some efforts are using > the expected morass of y2k babies as a focus. > > I think that many of these have a partial cause/focus in > countering/uncreating the stasis (end of world and eternal unchanging > kingdom of heaven) sought by many end of worlders. > > So there ya go, at least that's what I can figure of it, > > Koyote Thank you for the additional info. This has been quite informative. ---------- And to round this out, here is a response from "Rogers" also on the same topic. > The Pilot wrote in message ... > > > At first I seemed to be getting "Red Dawn". That is an old > > second rate invasion movie and pretty far fetched. Maybe just > > my feeling that it is a good time for an invasion. But it > > didn't seem quite right. > > > > And then it seemed like what it really was was "Golden Dawn". > > > Gee, Anjin-san, now I feel a bit hostile. I LIKED "Red Dawn." What do you > mean "second rate" and "far fetched?" I'm just teasing! I don't feel > hostility, but actually I DID like the movie - rather primal I must admit. It wasn't bad actually. I just read too many similar Sci-fi stories as a kid (often with interesting aliens instead of mundane invaders) and got a bit overrun. > Now, to the real point. I really and truly doubt that any problems > associated with a group going by the name "Golden Dawn" is going to be in > terms of THAT (magical and metaphysical group) "Golden Dawn." > > Still, just to approximate some answers to you query. There are still some > Golden Dawn practitioners and authors knocking around. There's one fairly > prolific writer in, I think, New Zealand of all places. > > Mostly, I think they are small potatoes. When I think of these guys it > reminds me of pre-scientology psychotherapists, but, in their case, they > were pre-Crowley and never evolved. Crowley WAS an evolution in this field. > > I think one can get a pretty "clear" (he says facetiously) view of the > Golden Dawn mentality by looking at the actual book by that name. It's a > disorganized mess! To use a French technical term, it's a cluster-fuck! > > It's one of those "sticky" subjects that has you scratching your head for > years - very "mysterious" stuff. > > Crowley found it both pathetic and amusing that, after his ceremonial > initiation - full of sworn pledges not to divulge the "secrets" upon pain > of death, blah, blah, blah - the first "secret scripture" he was presented > with was the HEBREW ALPHABET! About like finding an implant platen instead of real handling of actual GPMs when one finds out the super secret CC materials. > > It was an occult group that was > > active for 13 years back around the turn of the century. > > Without looking this up (Owen's going to be mad at me again) I think the > group might have been founded in 1887, 13 years before the turn of the > century. It was, most definitely. sometime around that time. > > > Yeats was involved and even Crowly for a brief period (they > > denied him their higher orders and he made trouble and then > > went on to OTO). > > Yes as to Yeats. But Crowley didn't go "directly" to the OTO. Story is, > they invited him in later - after he had done a lot of work on his own > stuff - because he apparently "discovered" their innermost doctrine on his > own separate track. > > BTW. I think Crowley was born in 1875. This was the time period (I > believe) when people would go on to higher university education when they > were about 12 or 13 years old. Unlike today, they didn't sit on you and > stifle you for thirteen years through high school and then another four > years through college in those days. And the "classics" were an integral > part of the curriculum in any serious college. It's like a different world. > The schooling was much less aberrative I think. Well, a shorter exposure > to the abuse anyway. > > > Maybe its not significant. I don't even know if this > > "Golden Dawn" was supposed to be a positive or a negative > > mockup although my guess would be that they were attempting > > white magic. > > Definitely, White Magick. > > But, I could see that "Golden Dawn" could be a nice name for a terrorist > group, in fact, it sort of seems familiar. It reminds me of one of the > (assumed to be fictitious) names of a terrorist group given in "True Lies" > or some other movie. > > Do you think the Defence Satelites could be sufficiently discombubulated by > the Y2K problem... No, let me phrase that differently... I wonder if some > terrorist group or antagonistic nation might "postulate" that the Defence > Satelites will be messed up by the Y2K bug, sufficiently so to give them a > bit of an "edge" in some sort of attack? > > Les. The folks that would be interested in doing a military attack would probably not be of a mindset to try and postulate things. One would hope that the US military has not been so stupid as to have Y2K bugs in unreachable orbital hardware. Then again, the military mind has not been known for its intelligence, the Sea Org being a case in point. I don't really feel that this one is in the cards, but I'll watch my back anyway. ---------- Let's hope that all this means is a push for consciousness raising and enlightenment. I've been expecting that anyway because of the significance that people put on the date. It would be nice, however, if something loosens up the single frozen fixed reality into a flexible mockup where there is more free choice and a flux of varying agreements and realities. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - To Heidrun On Higher Self TO HEIDRUN ON HIGHER SELF On 2 May 99, Heidrun Beer posted on topic "Processing-Style After Re-Merging with Higher Self" Let me prefix my comments with a disclaimer that I consider "higher self" type material to be highly speculative. I have bumped into some things, so I will talk about it, but I don't want to push it because I don't think all the results are in yet. > There is a point in processing which requires a change in processing > style, and this is where the person re-unites with his "higher self" > and becomes stable in this union. It's waking up as the higher self rather than re-uniting with it. It's not somebody else. > The "Higher Self" is that part of the person who stayed exterior > to space and time and in full possession of his spiritual capabilities, > while the person himself, as we normally see him, went to explore the > physical universe and the lower spiritual zones. > > Re-uniting with one's higher self would also mean that the person > arrives at a stable awareness of the wholeness of space and time. > At this point there is no more past and future; existence happens > in a multidimensional moment of "now", which is always available > for spiritual interchange. Incorrect. There is always time of some sort although maybe not time as we know it down here. Absolute no-time equals no change which would mean there was never anything there in the first place because putting something there would be change. That only exists as true static which is unchanging, and there can be no individuality at that level because that would imply change. The highest level would be static / separation-from-static. That is two states and therefore a change has taken place and therefore there is time, the time being the before and after separation. Now let us say that there is a timestream, call it timestream A, which can percieve another timestream, call it timestream B, as a cohesive whole. I do find stuff like that on early track. But timestream A still has time of its own sort even though it is outside of timestream B, which might be a human timestream. Actually I find lots of stuff. I'm not sure how much of it is real. I find stuff that is multi-threaded, with a senior time above the time of many parallel individual threads which each have their own independent time. I find time streams at "right angles" to each other. I find time streams out of agreement with Mest universe time. I find different "mest universe style" time in different universes that are not locked into agreement with each other and therefore are unsynchronized as to time relative to each other. I find different "single thetan style" time streams that might weave around in relationship to a "mest universe style" time so that the thetan goes back in time relative to mest but of course does not go back in time relative to his own timestream. And of course I find implanted time and false track and implanted no-time (nasty old implanter says "this is happening in no-time" or "there is no time" or "this is before all time"). And I have the impression that there's lots more that I'm not up to percieving yet. But there is always a relative before and after of some sort. You can count on that. Sometimes you can't date something in Mest universe concepts, but you can get relative before and after in its own terms. It can be hard to wrap your wits around the time concepts outside of the human area, but it is worth the effort if you're going to run anything in this area. > Note that this is NOT the same as the collapsed time-track of a > heavily charged case - the heavily charged case is in a confusion > and denial about the spaces and times of his existence, while we > are talking about a person who has completely permeated the times > and spaces of his existence, so that he has smooth and simultaneous > access to every point in it. > > At this point in processing, all processing commands would have > to be reworded so that they don't refer to the past or the future > anymore. Questions like "When was it?" would have to be changed > into "When is it?" etc. That might apply if you are asking somebody in timestream A about time stream B. It certainly does not apply if you are asking a timestream A viewpoint about events in timestream A, because those events are consecutive relative to A. And even working cross time perception, A can still see the sequential arrangment of B even though he is not bound by that sequence. Pick up a VCR tape. You can easily tell somebody that X happens at the beginning of the movie and Y happens at the end even though you might watch the end of the movie before you watch the beginning and you might have seen it multiple times. As far as you're concerned, that tape is a cohesive whole, but you can still examine the consecutive order of events within it. > And as the indidents - in the dimension exterior to space/time - > are no longer past, a very powerful undercut to any known process > can be run: "Reach into this existence and touch [item]" (as the > person is now bigger than this complete existence, he cannot > move around within a particular space/time-bubble; he must reach > into it from the outside in order to contact an incident). > This is done until complete ownership of the abandoned point > in space and time has been restored. > > Example: "Reach into this existence and touch the ARC-break [the > one he just described]. It is a reach/withdraw-process. The > withdraw will happen naturally after the "touch"-command, but > if it doesn't, a second command could be given: "Let go of this > [item] and cease to reach into this existence". > > If the person is totally aware of his state exterior to all > existences and handles the moves in and out of "real life" > in a very natural way - in other words, if there is no more > danger that his state of awareness could shrink away again > from the complete ownership of all space and time -, the command > could be further shortened to "Touch that [item]" and > (if necessary) "Let go of that [item]". In this case it is > implied that he does the whole cycle of reaching in and > pulling out of existence every time he does the command. Nice. About like helping a human being get his confront up on a movie that he was a bit keyed in by. Wind the tape back and forth and spot various sceens. More interesting would be to spot the first time in the higher timestream that one touched or mocked up this lesser timestream. And there is even the interesting question of what point in this lesser timestream was touched first. Sometimes people walk into the middle of a movie and the first sceen they saw was not the first one in the movie. And then they stay to see the beginning that they missed. Or, if one is mocking up newly, sometimes one works backwards from the end. I do that often in system design, spotting first where I want to go and then sketching backwards and then working forwards in detail. And so one might have sketched the year 2000 before one went back and lived the 20th century. But of course I'm just speculating and fooling around here, this is stil way above my perceptions and I'm just trying on ideas for size. > > > Heidrun Beer > > Workgroup for Fundamental Spiritual Research and Mental Training > http://www.sgmt.at You often stir up such fun ideas. Thanks, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Valences (Attn Beth, Ralph) VALENCES (Attn Beth, Ralph) On 19 Apr 99, ralph@hilton.org (Ralph Hilton) continued the discussion on "Depression" > On 19 Apr 1999 14:33:56 -0400, in alt.clearing.technology Beth Guest > wrote: > > >In article <371bb9f0.59851239@mgate.telekabel.at>, Ralph Hilton > > writes > > > >> > >>No - auditing the strong important valences is incorrect. A person goes into > >>weak valences. In early Dianetics Hubbard was running motivators thus the > >>causative valences were addressed. > >>The most aberrative valences are the ones one committed overts against and > >>those would be the weaker ones. > >>The reference on this is "The Rule of the Weak Valence" tape of 12 November > >>1959. > > > > > >How does one run out valences in Scn? > > > >I know the Kn process to do this but cannot recall the Scn one at the > >moment and would be interested. > > The easiest and most effective I have come across is: > > Tell me a difference between yourself and ..... > Tell me a similarity between yourself and .... This is an excellent one, but the easiest is probably SOP8D "Spot some places where ... would be safe". This can just be run repetatively (spot lots of places, briskly, if you can) and taken to a nice win. For maximum effectiveness, you can do a few commands of "Spot some places where ... would place you to make you safe" whenever the above seems to flatten (ceases to produce change) and then go back to the first command again. That lets you push the process deeper. In that case you should keep on until you get a major valence shift. This SOP8D process and the topic of valences is one of the main subjects of the 5th ACC, which is available as the "Universes" cassettes. FZBA mentioned in one of their recent postings that they were going to do this ACC soon, so watch for the these in ACT. LRH even used a variation on this one in some group processing sessions during the 5th ACC (using general terminals like find some places where problems would be safe, etc.) Also, the bright think rundown used a variation of this. > Valences can also be split with processes such as general o/w on the > terminal, help, failed help, From where could you communicate to a ... Certainly. Another good one is to mock the terminal up in various places and blow them up. That's from the 1st ACC. > The LX lists and process 220H from 1968 give a general valence address. I'm going to ramble a bit here. The LX1 handling is much too heavy for a beginner to solo, so some people might want to skip this section. Probably half of the auditing I did between the introduction of quickie standard tech in late 1968 and the advent of expanded grades in mid 1970 was 220H (the 7 resistive cases, now known as GF40) and most especially LX1 (which was the handling for the out of valence item on 220H). The 220H is covered in the Case Supervisor Actions HCOB which is in part 13 of the Class 8 pack that was posted recently (the pack has the 20 May 75 revision of this HCOB of 12 Aug 69). You'll also note that the damn HCOB was confidential, so they gave us non-confidential excerpts from it and checked us out on that. Later, after the HGC was a smoking ruin, non-confidential references came out on GF40 etc. What would happen is that the person would get all his grades in under an hour (per LRH's instructions, this was not somebody else's alter is), they'd feel great for a week, and then they would cave in, feel overwhelmed, the TA would go low, and they'd almost inevitably read on out of valence on the 7 cases. Then it would be endless reviews, mostly running LX1 to try and get the TA back up. Note that LX2 and 3 came out later as a gradient into LX1, and note that the CS 53 and other low TA handling did not come out until much later. So the only known processes in "standard tech" that brought up a low TA were LX1 and Power Process 6, and you were not allowed to run PrPr 6 on public at an outer org. So LX1 was the only handling. As a setup for LX1, we'd first run "recall another person". That was in the original version of the C/S Actions HCOB. Note that the one posted to the net is a later revision which doesn't have this process and has been upgraded with the LX2 etc. Then we'd be into the LX1, which was basically assessing for the engram chain necessary to resolve the case (buttons like crushed, overwhelmed, etc.). We'd run 3 flow recalls, then secondaries, and then engrams, and then reassess and run another button, etc. until the person snapped into valence. It would work, too. Quite dramatic really. But one hell of a hard run and hell to audit as well because the TA would dive to 1.5 if you breathed wrong. You could walk around the academy in those days and look at students doing e-meter drills and almost never see a TA above 2. I even got run on an LX1 as a pc, and sure enough, we got to basic on a heavy chain and the feeling of apathy and unreality which seems to go with a low TA suddenly vanished. And I mean suddenly and with a great feeling of relief. Unfortunately it doesn't cure bypassed grades and quickie type processing or proof you up against an org gone mad with ethics conditions and wrong whys. So the result unstabilizes in a month or so and the pc starts spinning again because you've only handled the symptom rather than the cause. > A very powerful general valence cracker is > > Get the idea of entering a mind > Get the idea of not entering a mind > > I'm currently working out expanded versions to handle quad flows and 8 > dynamics. This goes far beyond valences. Definitely a powerful and advanced process. I wouldn't recommend this for beginners, there are far too many considerations and implications attached to the concept of mind. But it felt right for me to give it a try right now. So I fooled with this one a bit. I would suggest running "another entering a mind" before attempting "another entering your mind", because that last one is a very steep gradient. Each of these ran nicely to a mild win. My plan was to do a light touch and cycle back through each flow multiple times rather than trying to push deeply at the start. Then I thought about flow 0, not even running it but just trying to figure out what the process command should be. As I was trying to wrap my wits around "get the idea of entering your own mind", it was like some barrier fell away and I sort of exteriorized in some strange manner. The very concept of "mind" seemed meaningless for a moment and then it seemed like I had many minds in various places. As best I can describe it, it was like the whole package, not just thought and identity but also experience and consideration and the data I was working on could be seen as an interrelated cohesive unit, but it was something I HAD rather than being me myself, and I had many such packages, each kept in isolation from the others. Of course with a big blowout like this, one drops the process, at least for the time being, so as not to invalidate the win or reinteriorize or overrun. So I sidetracked into mocking up and throwing away "minds" in this sense of the word (complete packages of identity, data, track, and thought processes). That was really wild. > -- > Ralph Hilton > http://Ralph.Hilton.org Probably there should be some kind of grade and/or self clearing chapter on the subject of valences and identity. I'll try and put some more thought into this and suggestions would be welcome. There are already quite a few mild valence handling processes worked into self clearing, such as processes 10.4 and 10.5 (duplicating others viewpoints) which is a variation on the old "wearing heads" process from the early 1950s. Another good process for a grade on valences is step 4 of the 220H handling for out of valence. This is done on the 220H after the 3 LX lists and can be found in the C/S Actions HCOB mentioned above. The process is: 4. 3 Way or Quad Recall each leg to F/N: F1. Recall another causing you to be someone else. F2. Recall you causing another to be someone else. F3. Recall another causing another to be someone else. F0. Recall causing yourself to be someone else. This one would seem to be just a bit steep for a beginner to do without setup (Ron put it after the LX handlings), so this should be run after running easier valence shifting processes. Also, there can be heavy force connected with this (implants etc.) so this should be left until after one gets one's confront up on force (by a clear cog or whatever). It is also intresting that in the 1968 quickie lineup, Ron put real valence handling up at old OT 4. The valence shifter processes was "What valence would be safe?" I would say that this is an easier process than many of the above, and I would suggest the following variation for use in self clearing: Run alternately: a) What identity would you consider it safe to be b) What identity would you consider it safe for others to be c) What identity might another consider it safe to be d) What identity might another consider it safe for others to be This is a fun and easy processes and would probably fit in very well around grade 5 on a standard bridge, before worrying about implants, entities, or whatever. Ron's placement of valence handling way up at OT IV in the early OT lineup shows that he considered this to be a significant case factor which was operative after clear and after handling entities. Remember that this was the quickie era and the consideration would be that there were no GPMs, implants, or entities affecting the case after a properly run OT III. Here is the full OT IV rundown from the C/S actions HCOB: > 1. Ruds or GF to F/N. > 2. Rehab drugs. > 3. Valence shifter "What valence would be safe?" > 4. Rehab ARC Straightwire to Grade IV. > 5. Rehab R6EW to OT II. > 6. Prepcheck OT III. > 7. Rehab OT V and VI. > 8. Run "What has been overrun ?" > 9. Run "What can you confront ?" > > IF THE PRE OT DOESN'T EXTERIORISE, WE WILL DO 7 CASES NEXT SESSION > UNTILL HE DOES GO EXTERIOR which is really the end phenomena of > OT IV. Audited only by a class VIII. This should also clear up the occasional question that I've seen about what was supposed to bring about exterior perceptions in the original OT lineup. Apparantly the idea was that if entities had already been handled, then all you had to do was handle valences and non-confront and any case outpoints to turn on exterior perception. I've even heard of some people who did turn on some perception briefly after getting the IV rundown. Then one was supposed to do the old OT V & VI to improve and stabilize the ability. Note that "what has been overrun" was not a repetative process or a listed list. Instead one took up anything that gave a TA blowdown (BD) on the meter (sometimes anything that read at all) and rehabbed it to FN. This was the ONLY handling for high TA during the quickie era. One used it at lower levels if the TA was high, but only rehabbed the first BD to FN so as to get the TA back in range. Apparantly the IV rundown included a more thorough run of this processes, doing it as a major action with the TA in range instead of only using it as a repair. Sorry for continuing to slide off into discussions of the quickie era. The recent posting of the Class VIII pack and Ralph's mention of 220H have gotten me busy thinking over that old messed up attempt to make OT on a lick and a promise. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Super Dooper OT Recall Processing SUPER DOOPER OT RECALL PROCESSING Ralph made a great joke about getting overly status happy OTs to do some self analysis by giving them a super secret self analysis list that is only for special OTs. I thought it was hilarious. The super duper special OT recall processes: Self Analysis, an orthodox expanded straightwire grade (recall release), self clearing chapter 6, or any of a wealth of other similar techniques (I'm sure Alan uses some, etc.) ARE the super duper advanced OT processing way way up the bridge. ========== Demo Session: Just for the hell of it, I'll run a recall question on myself here to see what I can get now. I always like "recall a time you went fast" from self analysis (the wording might be slightly different, I'm not bothering to look it up). So I'll give it a shot. Note that this is unrehearsed & unprepared, I'm just gonna see what happens. 1. Recall a time you went fast - Roller skates, 7 years old, zooming down the block, on the sidewalk because my mother didn't want me doing it in the street. Old style skates with a skate key. Concrete very rough and full of pebbles. I'd completely forgotten. Facinating how much detail I'm spotting. 1. Recall ... Space ship. Trying to get away. Zooming along. Then bang! run right into a mountain. Can't figure it. In space, going out of a star system, then bang, hit a mountain on a planet that was at least a 100 million miles behind me. Maybe some kind of warp drive & it malfunctions and bang, you're somewhere else? Doesn't feel right. Maybe some OT, some god of the local system reaches out, grabs the ship, and snaps it back into a planet. Bang, spot the impact again, bang. Yeah, that feels right. Drifted up from the wreckage (hardly more than dust and scraps and gook from the splattered bodies) and in complete puzzelment as to what happened. It hung up on a big question mark, never saw what grabbed the ship. 1. Recall ... Magic universe. Facinating. Beautiful. Indigo sky. Some wizard has gotten pissed off. Nothing to do with me, but he has started flinging around balls of fire. I start running up a hillside. Feeling tired, out of breath. He notices and tosses one in my direction. I can feel the heat on my back. Then I'm looking down at the body and pulling it with a beam. Zoom, I'm up at the top of the hill. Dazzed. Can't figure what happened. Thinking over & over, wow, how did I do that, felt amazing, want to do it again but can't, but it was a huge win anyway. The body actually flew threw the air, zoom. I loved it but it had left me puzzeled as to how (seems obvious now). Ah. Hung up on a maybe. This & the other one were things that I'd intentionally wanted to remember (at the time) because I couldn't figure them out and felt that I'd have to keep thinking them over until I understood what happened. But I'd never quite figured them out (then) and so had gotten apathetic and then postulated forgetting because I got sick and tired of trying to understand what happened. A double layering, first anxious to remember, and then determined to forget, what an interesting mechanism, and I can feel some mass releasing, like things that were held based on a misunderstood about what really happened. That's really neat. Holding onto incidents and keeping them mocked up because of a misunderstood in the incident. This is a nice EP, so I'll end off here. =============== The above is just a trivial little session, no big deal. But that is how recall processes run after you get above all those minor lower OT levels and facing up to implants and entities and GPMs and stuff like that. This is how you open up the track. It doesn't come as an automatic side effect of doing some super dooper process or running implant items on forgetting or something like that. Those things just take barriers out of the way. You still have to run self analysis or the equivallent. And you run it again and again and again. But you can't do that one after the other. One big run on recall and then it bypasses charge to keep on going. The other grades start to kick in because they are being bypassed. So attempting to do a second run through immediately will act as an overrun. So you run grades again, and maybe you get a clear OT state on grade 2 or whatever. I had expanded grades after going clear and keying out OT on power processing (and after doing the PDC and route one and running SOP 3 (PDC) on myself and after having a lot of auditor training). The pass through self analysis (which I had run on myself before) as part of expanded straighwire ran very deep and whole track (although not as deep as the above demo). At that time we ran each question of self analysis earier similar to an FN, so the gains were immense and it did open up my track extensively. And that was the pass through the grades where I went clear OT on grade 2. Since then, of course, I have taken more passes at these grades areas. And after a few, the buttons of protest and inval and so forth were starting to really kick in as bypassed charge because they were missed grades. You've seen the writeups I've done in those areas since then. And of course there are more grades areas (eval for example) which are starting to really draw my attention. So there is more to be researched. But straighwire remains one of the most important workhorses as far as opening up track and handling case. It just gets better and better and better. And note that it is not that the grade wasn't run right the first time. How many new people with no previous training or processing would be able to reach early track on a first run through? Although it didn't in this example, self analysis type techniques will often run all the way back to home universe on an OT. This is the way to reach into the next area of the track that is accessible no matter how advanced the case is. Hope This Helps, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - A Fun OT Drill A FUN OT DRILL Pick an object in the room that it would be easy and safe for you to move. First run the following commands alternately. Repeat the set at least twice and then continue until you feel like the object is in agreement with you. a) Have the object say hello to you. b) acknowledge it c) Have the object like you. d) acknowledge it e) Have the object agree with you. f) acknowledge it Then do the following list of commands alternately. In this case the acknowledgements just seem to get in the way so you can leave them out. A brisk pace is desirable. Continue to a nice win. The object does not have to move for the drill to be complete (at least for now), the drill has a good feeling to it. Begin each repeat of the commands with step 1. 1. Pick a simple movement such as lifting the object up, and then do it, physically. Then put the object back down in the same place. 2. Then intend the object to do that same motion again, but don't reach over and enforce it physically with your body this time. Instead, maintain the intention and do the following: a. Have the object desire to move b. Have the object be happy about the idea of moving c. Have the object like the idea of moving d. Have the object agree with the idea of moving e. Have the object have faith that it can move f. Have the object know that it can move g. Have it feel that it would be good to move h. Have it feel that it would be ethical to move i. Have it feel that it would be beautiful to move j. Have it feel that it would be constructive to move k. Have it feel that it would be reasonable to move l. Have it feel that it would be logical to move m. Have it feel that it would be responsible to move n. Have it feel that it would be enjoyable to move o. Have it feel that it would be humorous to move p. Have it feel that it would be interesting to move q. Have it feel that it would be entertaining to move r. Have it feel that it would be exciting to move s. Have it feel that it would be enlightening to move t. Have it feel that it would be creative to move Then go back to step one and move the object physically. Note that it is usually preferrable to end with step 1. Then select another object and do both sets of processes on it as above. Have Fun, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - The Be Do Have Implant The BE DO HAVE Implant I'm not quite sure if "Implant" is the correct designation for this thing. This seems to be a pattern that was entered willingly for the sake of a game, but there is some protest on it and it was other determined. The feeling on it is of one bunch of powerful beings building it and then tricking another bunch into diving into it, perhaps by challenging them and pushing buttons of "pride" etc. It fits the 1964 concept of R6 as a senior pattern (rather than a true implant) which caused Actual GPMs etc. to form beneath it as one played the games implied by the pattern. However it is not an all encompassing pattern that embraces all of modern existance. Instead it seems like one of many similar constructions which we went into and out of for games and adventure. There does not seem to be a lot of force on it and the items do not have a lot of kick to them, but there is an almost hypnotic feeling of "Facination" attached to this one. I tried to date it, but it is a bit out of reach and I don't think that I'm seeing the events of that time clearly. My first impression was that it is significantly prior to home universe, but after running it a bit, it seems more likely that it is a bit after home universe, possibly in the later of the two "games" universes that followed home universe. It is certainly much earlier than Inc 1 or CC. But I'm fairly sure that there were many things like this and that only a few (such as this one) were designed to be abberative and unpleasant. It seems like one played with many other beings under the influence of such a pattern and then left and went into another pattern when one tired of the game. And usually it wasn't abberative but just fun. However, on a sour pattern like this one, the game didn't go well and one not-ised things and left things unresolved and eventually left the game in disgust. And that left things hanging there which could kick in later because they hadn't been confronted. I'm also having trouble visualizing how one "played" once one had passed through the pattern and entered the playing field. My feeling is that one became many identities simultaneously and played against others who were doing the same. In other words, this was played by high level multi-threaded beings. But again, I'm streatching a bit here and I could be a bit off base. ========= The pattern I found may be inaccurate and incomplete, but charge came off and I got some cogs from it, so its close enough. And as I mentioned above, I think that there were a number of abberative ones like this and I'm not sure that everybody went through all of them. I would expect that we each worked on building a few nasty ones as well as getting suckered into a few of them as a motivator, but different people might have different ones that they hung up on. There are a series of dichotomies begining with creative - destructive. Each dichotomy has 18 goals. Each goal has 20 items. Except for the very start of the pattern, each dichotomy begins with a goal on the negative side. The very first one skips the first goal (which would be "to be destructive") and starts with the second one ("to be creative"). The very end of the entire series of dichotomies swings you around to the start again by leading into the missing first goal ("destructive") and then begining the entire series again for a total of 12 runs (repeats). ============ I found this thing by playing around with the R6 "What am I dramatizing" process. First of all, R6EW is aimed at end words and assumes that what the person is dramatizing is an end word, and I felt that that was probably not always correct, and most especially would usually be a wrong assumption on a clear. So I altered the command to "What end word might I be dramatizing". I included the "might" so as not to assume that there were any. That would probably be a good idea even on somebody who is doing R6EW before clear, because I don't believe that the whole case is end words and R6 type patterns. I was also considering the 1964 concept that a true R6 pattern might be senior to actual GPMs. Of course the final R6 platens that ended up on OT 2 are supposed to be nothing more than an implant done recently (75 Million years ago) in the current universe. But that doesn't mean that there aren't real patterns, it just means that the BC students running R6 still had too much charge on implants. Ron seems to have had the idea in 1965 that the CC platen was a higher pattern senior to actual GPMs rather than being yet another implant. I'm still a bit unsure of that. But I do know that although I got considerable gains running it, it did not undercut actual GPMs for me. But maybe undoing the actual GPMs by means of a pattern is an unreal expectation because one really lives the actual ones and gets ones postulates wrapped up into them. I did run my own current actual GPM, which was the goal "To be intelligent" in considerable detail and with immense gains. When I did that, I could see how I'd lived the items lifetime by lifetime. I've never gotten that level of result from simply running a platen, even the CC platen. My research question was to find out if that actual GPM I'd run out could be traced back to a higher R6 style pattern by means of the R6EW process. So I oriented to the mostly errased actual GPM "to be intelligent" and looked for an end word that the entire actual GPM could be a dramatization of. Right away, I thought of "SMART". The negative seemed like it should be "STUPID" (not "unsmart", although that is suggested by the 1964 materials). I thought of R6EW Sixes (making a grouping of related pairs) and immediately got: smart <--> stupid smarter <--> stupider smartest <--> stupidest Then it seemed like these should replicate on Be, Do, and Have, and I immediately got: To be smart <--> to be stupid to be smarter <--> to be stupider to be smartest <--> to be stupidest to do smart things <--> to do stupid things to do smarter things <--> to do stupider things to do the smartest things <--> to do the stupidest things to have smart ideas <--> to have stupid ideas to have smarter ideas <--> to have stupider ideas to have the smartest ideas <--> to have the stupidest ideas In other words, a pattern of 18 goals on this smart/stupid business. Since I think that one of the mistakes in the R6 research was to deal exclusively with end words instead of running the detail items (and thereby leaving too much charge behind), I then tried to list for the items of the goal "to be smart". That gave a set of 20 items including an ending section that carried me into the goal "to be stupider". With that I could see that "to be stupid" had to come before the goal "to be smart" in the pattern and I backed up and filled it in. So the sequence was A. To be stupid B. To be smart C. To be stupider D. To be smarter E. To be stupidest F. To be smartest G. To do stupid things etc. I tried to jump to the end of the whole smart/stupid dichotomy, to the end of the goal "to have the smartest ideas" and found that I could not list the item that carried it into the next dichotomy. So I laid out and scanned through the entire mess of 360 items (18 goals times 20 items on each) and then found that the next dichotomy was obvious. The next one was wise/foolish, with the goal "to be foolish" opposing the goal "to have the smartest ideas". Once I did about a third of wise/foolish, the pattern lost strenght and I could pretty much skip the detail and jump to the final items of the set. Soon I was just jumping to the final transition items between each dichotomy and getting the next dichotomy in the series. The bottom of the series wraps around to the top and the whole thing begins with the dichotomy creative/destructive. From there I carried it the rest of the way around the circle back to smart/stupid. =============== The item pattern : On the goal to be XXX, with a direct opposite of YYY Note that the first half of the statement is what you are "being" in the pattern and the second half is your relation to the opposition. 1. Those who have the goal to be XXX dominate those who have the goal to be YYY 2. Those who have the goal to be XXX are dominated by those who are being YYY 3. Those who are being XXX dominate those who are being YYY 4. Those who are being XXX are dominated by those who like being YYY 5. Those who like being XXX dominate those who like being YYY 6. Those who like being XXX are dominated by those who agree with being YYY 7. Those who agree with being XXX dominate those who agree with being YYY 8. Those who agree with being XXX are dominated by those who talk about being YYY 9. Those who talk about being XXX dominate those who talk about being YYY 10. Those who talk about being XXX are dominated by those who try not to be YYY 11. Those who try not to be XXX dominate those who try not to be YYY 12 Those who try not to be XXX are dominated by those who talk about being XXX 13. Those who talk about being YYY dominate those who talk about being XXX 14. Those who talk about being YYY are dominated by those who agree with being XXX 15. Those who agree with being YYY dominate those who agree with being XXX 16. Those who agree with being YYY are dominated by those who like being XXX 17. Those who like being YYY dominate those who like being XXX 18. Those who like being YYY are dominated by those who are being XXX 19. Those who are being YYY dominate those who are being XXX 20. Those who are being YYY are dominated by those who have the goal to be ZZZ Item 20 is the transition and contains the opposite of the next goal. The first item of the next goal (NNN) would be: 1. Those who have the goal to be NNN dominate those who have the goal to be ZZZ But since we go through a progression of 18 goals before the dichotomy changes, we can plot this item as well. In the following, letters indicate each goal and the numbers represent the 20 items for a goal. Here are the first 4 goals (letters A to D) of an 18 item set (which would be letters A to R). A. The goal to be XXX A1. Those who have the goal to be XXX dominate those who have the goal to be YYY . A20. Those who are being YYY are dominated by those who have the goal to be XXX B. The goal to be YYY B1. Those who have the goal to be YYY dominate those who have the goal to be XXX . B20. Those who are being XXX are dominated by those who have the goal to be MORE YYY C. The goal to be MORE XXX C1. Those who have the goal to be MORE XXX dominate those who have the goal to be MORE YYY . C20. Those who are being MORE YYY are dominated by those who have the goal to be MORE XXX D. The goal to be MORE YYY D1. Those who have the goal to be MORE YYY dominate those who have the goal to be MORE XXX . D20. Those who are being MORE XXX are dominated by those who have the goal to be THE MOST YYY And so on through the set of 18 goals for the dichotomy. The very last of the 360 items, which would be item R20, would tie into the next dichotomy. In the example, it would be: R20. Those who have the MOST XXX ideas are dominated by those who have the goal to be (new endword) For the first dichotomy, which is creative/destructive, this item would be: R20. Those who have the most destructive ideas are dominated by those who have the goal to be responsible And this leads in to the second dichtomy, which is responsible/irresponsible. Note that responsible starts out as an opposition and the first goal of this second dichotomy is "To be irresponsible". Note that each goal inverts as one proceeds through the 20 items, so that by item 20 you are being the opposite of the goal. And because the goals themselves are opposites, there is a terrific almost duplication between items at the top of one goal and the items at the bottom of the opposite goal, which tends to make the opposing goals pull together. ================= The dichotomies: Each has 18 goals each of which has 20 items giving a total of 360 items per dichotomy. Note that there might be some skipped dichotomies. The very first dichotomy, creative - destructive, skips goal A (which doesn't come until the end of the entire run of dichotomies) and begins with goal B, which is "TO BE CREATIVE". (1) creative - destructive (2) responsible - irrestponsible (3) good - evil (4) helpfull - callous (5) sharing - selfish (6) valued - worthless (7) upstanding - degraded (8) strong - weak (9) active - inactive (10) powerful - unable (11) free - enslaved (12) aware - unconsious (13) knowing - unknowing (14) smart - stupid (15) wise - foolish (16) Success - Failure (17) admired - detested (18) loved - hated (19) praised - rediculed (20) sensible - irrational (21) competant - incompetant (22) productive - wastefull (23) enduring - transient (24) timeless - sequenced (25) pervasive - located (26) flexible - fixed This last dichotomy ends with R20. Those who have the most fixed ideas are dominated by those who have the goal to be creative That leads back into creative - destructive (the top of the series). Note that at this point we have goal A of the creative - destrutive dichotomy, which is A. To be destructive. Only when we get down to the second goal of the dichotomy do we duplicate the very beginning of the pattern which is: B. To be creative. The whole mess repeats for 12 runs, ending with to be destructive. Then one enters the game, beginning with the goal to be creative, but one is doing it in opposition to being destructive and so begins to live the pattern. Note that being creative is a native state characteristic and therefore is a correct indication to the person. But here it is in an altered form because of the opposition to destruction, which is not present in the high scaled pure creation, and therefore one decays. ============== DETAILED PLATEN: These are the first 3 goals only, to show how this works. You could copy the item template given earlier and do global replaces on the XXX and YYY if you need a detailed item platen of some particular section of the implant. Note that there are 26 dichotomies of 18 goals and 20 items each so that the whole mess has almost ten thousand items. Dichotomy 1 (creative - destructive), the first goal is goal B of the dichotomy: 1-B TO BE CREATIVE 1. Those who have the goal to be creative dominate those who have the goal to be destructive 2. Those who have the goal to be creative are dominated by those who are being destructive 3. Those who are being creative dominate those who are being destructive 4. Those who are being creative are dominated by those who like being destructive 5. Those who like being creative dominate those who like being destructive 6. Those who like being creative are dominated by those who agree with being destructive 7. Those who agree with being creative dominate those who agree with being destructive 8. Those who agree with being creative are dominated by those who talk about being destructive 9. Those who talk about being creative dominate those who talk about being destructive 10. Those who talk about being creative are dominated by those who try not to be destructive 11. Those who try not to be creative dominate those who try not to be destructive 12 Those who try not to be creative are dominated by those who talk about being creative 13. Those who talk about being destructive dominate those who talk about being creative 14. Those who talk about being destructive are dominated by those who agree with being creative 15. Those who agree with being destructive dominate those who agree with being creative 16. Those who agree with being destructive are dominated by those who like being creative 17. Those who like being destructive dominate those who like being creative 18. Those who like being destructive are dominated by those who are being creative 19. Those who are being destructive dominate those who are being creative 20. Those who are being destructive are dominated by those who have the goal to be more creative 1-C TO BE MORE DESTRUCTIVE 1. Those who have the goal to be more destructive dominate those who have the goal to be more creative 2. Those who have the goal to be more destructive are dominated by those who are being more creative 3. Those who are being more destructive dominate those who are being more creative 4. Those who are being more destructive are dominated by those who like being more creative 5. Those who like being more destructive dominate those who like being more creative 6. Those who like being more destructive are dominated by those who agree with being more creative 7. Those who agree with being more destructive dominate those who agree with being more creative 8. Those who agree with being more destructive are dominated by those who talk about being more creative 9. Those who talk about being more destructive dominate those who talk about being more creative 10. Those who talk about being more destructive are dominated by those who try not to be more creative 11. Those who try not to be more destructive dominate those who try not to be more creative 12 Those who try not to be more destructive are dominated by those who talk about being more destructive 13. Those who talk about being more creative dominate those who talk about being more destructive 14. Those who talk about being more creative are dominated by those who agree with being more destructive 15. Those who agree with being more creative dominate those who agree with being more destructive 16. Those who agree with being more creative are dominated by those who like being more destructive 17. Those who like being more creative dominate those who like being more destructive 18. Those who like being more creative are dominated by those who are being more destructive 19. Those who are being more creative dominate those who are being more destructive 20. Those who are being more creative are dominated by those who have the goal to be more destructive 1-D TO BE MORE CREATIVE 1. Those who have the goal to be more creative dominate those who have the goal to be more destructive 2. Those who have the goal to be more creative are dominated by those who are being more destructive 3. Those who are being more creative dominate those who are being more destructive 4. Those who are being more creative are dominated by those who like being more destructive 5. Those who like being more creative dominate those who like being more destructive 6. Those who like being more creative are dominated by those who agree with being more destructive 7. Those who agree with being more creative dominate those who agree with being more destructive 8. Those who agree with being more creative are dominated by those who talk about being more destructive 9. Those who talk about being more creative dominate those who talk about being more destructive 10. Those who talk about being more creative are dominated by those who try not to be more destructive 11. Those who try not to be more creative dominate those who try not to be more destructive 12 Those who try not to be more creative are dominated by those who talk about being more creative 13. Those who talk about being more destructive dominate those who talk about being more creative 14. Those who talk about being more destructive are dominated by those who agree with being more creative 15. Those who agree with being more destructive dominate those who agree with being more creative 16. Those who agree with being more destructive are dominated by those who like being more creative 17. Those who like being more destructive dominate those who like being more creative 18. Those who like being more destructive are dominated by those who are being more creative 19. Those who are being more destructive dominate those who are being more creative 20. Those who are being more destructive are dominated by those who have the goal to be the most creative 1-E TO BE THE MOST DESTRUCTIVE 1. Those who have the goal to be the most destructive dominate those who have the goal to be the most creative etc. =============== Best, The Pilot ========================================== This set of posts was 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 #54 and #55 and posted to ACT. See the Pilot Archives at FZA.ORG. Individual posts to ARS are being double posted to ACT rather than cross posted to foil the spambot attack which takes good headers and attaches garbage messages to them. 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. ------------------