Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 57 - EARLY JUNE 99 PILOT POSTS TO ACT Date: 9 Jun 1999 04:00:31 From: pilot@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (The Pilot) Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology POST57.txt SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 57 - EARLY JUNE 99 PILOT POSTS TO ACT The other posts to ARS/ACT are in post56. ========================================== Contents: subj: Super Scio Tech - Answering Dave On Self Clearing Chapter 25 subj: Super Scio Tech - To Croesus on Oversouls etc. subj: Super Scio - Answering Rogers on C14 subj: Super Scio Tech - AN OT BREIFING COURSE subj: Super Scio Tech - Types of GPMs (Attn Rogers) subj: Super Scio Tech - To Ralph on Power After Clear subj: Super Scio Tech - To Ryan on Good Indicators subj: Super Scio Tech - Research Discussion on Dynamics subj: Super Scio Tech - THE REALITY IMPLANT subj: Super Scio Tech - ADVERSARY TYPE IMPLANTS ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - Answering Dave On Self Clearing Chapter 25 ANSWERING DAVE ON SELF CLEARING CHAPTER 25 Dave posted this question on subject "SelfClear: Self Clearing Chapter 25 question". Since waterlily1999@my-deja.com gave a good general answer on 28 May, I'm going to start from that post. > In article <199905280436.AAA05660@neelix.ici.net>, > L&D wrote: > > > I'm very interested in erasing my service fac. I was running > > 25.7.5 and I am confused. Is the service computation the positive > > thing, the negative thing or both? > > > > Is it: > > > > I'm smart? > > They're stupid? > > I'm smart and they're stupid? > > > > Thanks, > > Dave > > Well, Dave, it is your computation, that is, if it is your service > fac. :) You choose the wording. If you have come up with those three > choices as an answer, then you probably have a preference. Everyone > has his own computation. > Don't get the idea that everyone has a smart/stupid computation. > Computations are as different as beings. (Or was that intended only as > an example?) > I'm not sure that one erases a service fac, unless one is using a > Dianetic procedure to locate and handle those engrams the person is > using in present time to justify, explain his actions, aid his > survival, etc. and run this chain of incidents out Dianetically. If > you are using Scientology you just key them out, but, of course with > resultant understandings that give you conscious choice. This is basically correct, the wording of the service fac would be whatever feels correct to you. However, in practice your actions against someone else would generally be more charged than what you do for yourself, so that the more likely basic would be "They're stupid", and this is the more common final result of grade 4 style listing for a service fac. But note that Self Clearing chapter 25 is trying to avoid doing a formal listed list as is used on grade 4. The grade 4 technique requires high skill level. Instead the approach is to get charge off of the area first without trying to get a perfect and absolute statement of the item. For that, it is better to begin by running a positive statement such as "I'm smart" in process 25.7.2. This would have more wins and less overts on it than "They're stupid" and allow an easier gradient into this area. So the idea was to take some charge off of "I'm smart" first and then go deeper into "They're stupid" which would have the heavier overts etc. When enough charge is off, the correct statement of the service fac becomes obvious. At that point it may seem like a sort of absolute. You run 25.7.5 to 25.7.7 on that until that falls apart. I probably erred in assuming that 25.7.2 to 25.7.4 would take off enough charge to to bring it clearly into view. Instead it seems to have gotten you close. The 25.7.5 to .7 process set will run on an approximation or "lock" on the service fac and get more charge off of the area. Therefore the revised version would be: Take your best statement of the service fac and run it once through 25.7.5 to 25.7.7. Do not fool around with trying to get a better statement of it while running those processes, just run them and take charge off. After finishing a pass through this set, check over the service fac and see if you now have a better statement of it and if so, change to that statement and use that in 25.7.5 to .7. Repeat as needed. Note that doing it this way, it might have lost some of its absoluteness and be partially dissolved by the time it comes clearly into view. Don't worry about the business of keyout vs errasure. There has been a lot of sales hype on these things. The 1969 time period where this idea comes from ran Scientology processes as quickies (a few minutes, very shallow) and ground on for hundreds of hours with Dianetics. In practice if you get a lot of charge off you will see it as it is and get errasure no matter what technique you are using and if the run is shallow you will get a keyout and you should be happy with that as a nice stepping stone. Simply allow for the fact that it might show up again and need to be run more deeply later. It will not be in your way while it is keyed out. Hope this helps, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - To Croesus on Oversouls etc. TO CROESUS ON OVERSOULS ETC. Note that my responses contain things that I consider highly speculative. On 21 May 99, croesus123@aol.com (Croesus123) posted on topic "The Pilot and the Big entity attack" in response to an earlier post of mine. > Your piece about the big entity attack struck a cord. The > question for me has always been, "Is this an inert planet with > humans simply dramatizing aberrations laid in eons ago or have > these aberrations simply make it easy for others to manipulate > and control our actions and dramatizations telepathically. Maybe a bit of both. > You sensed a being influencing you and giving you thoughts that > didn't go away upon inspection. He was not a decayed being like > NOTS but a high powered one who apparently had devised a method > to mirror your thought wavelengths so as to try to fool you as to > what were your thoughts and what were his. I myself had wondered > if this was possible then you came along and said that you had > experienced it. This interests me. But the general populace doesn't > know any of this; they don't have a clue as to why they often feel > compelled to do some strange things. They think its their thoughts. > How about the craziness going on in the minds of these children > shooting up the high school right now - their thoughts or > induced thoughts? It has more the flavor of induced ones. But that could also be a physical agency, drug them up and PDH them for some covert agenda. I do think that most people are fairly resistant to direct mind control. I also think that these kind of techniques (mirroring thoughts etc.) are also used at more humanoid levels like the telepathic wars that one finds in sci fi occasionally. > Which brings me to the OT VIII bulletin which you never thought was > right. I always thought it made sense and would have you rethink some > of that information. It is the only technical bulletin about implants > that directly addresses the religious dramatizations that we see going > on on this planet right this instance. Which brings us back to the > question: dramatization of old inert implants or active involvement > by external beings using telepathy to control things and cause effects. I still don't think that it is by Ron. But it is probably somebody's honest attempt to go a step further, so we can certainly discuss the data as data and not worry about the author. In answer to your question, again I would say both. > In that bulletin LRH alluded to very similar ideas that you encountered > with that being. I am including two sections from that bulletin just > to refresh your memory. > > Quotes from OT VIII bulletin > > Quote 1 -"It causes progressive genetic "evolution" that gives the > subject population greater and greater susceptibility to the telepathic > impingement and direction of the controllers. In its final stage the > progression becomes almost geometric, and it is this final stage that > we are rapidly approaching. Here I disagree. The thetan is not his genes. He is susceptible because he has overts of controlling others this way and wants people to be controlled for various reasons. This I would say is the historical heritage. A few thousand years on Earth would hardly make any difference in that. But if this is a prison planet or otherwise interfered with (and I consider that highly likely), then whomever is doing it would want to manipulate and increase control, and for that they would work to key in what was already there, introducing symbols that were common on the track, starting "games" that got the person to dramatize more than usual, etc. And so you might well have intentional key in and restimulation which would progressively increase susceptibility. But it would have nothing whatsoever to do with the body or the GE, it would be a theta matter, and it would be cumulative over many lifetimes, but on the theta line, not the body. Is one more or less susceptible to telepathic control because of the body they picked up? I don't think that that is likely and it is certainly contrary to LRH's view of things. > Another aspect of this GE-line implant is that the body becomes in effect > a sort of theta trap that kicks in heavily on the being should he attempt > to expand his horizons beyond that of pure physical universe reality." Probably true, but this would be applicable to anyone using bodies in this universe including any space aliens hanging around and it would have nothing to do with being on Earth in particular. Personally, I think that the body as a theta trap goes back about three universes. Ron also talked of this kind of thing, but again considered it as going way back on the track. Talking of it as being something only recently introduced here on Earth implies that the author has very little recall or reality on whole track. My argument here is not that my recall or Ron's is correct (perhaps there is terrible dub-in and misconceptions) but simply that if you think in terms of millions of years (nothing to say of trillions or quadrillions), you don't have silly ideas about somebody recently coming up with the idea of bodies as theta traps. That would be a long standing method of control. > Quote 2 - "Without the biogenetic meddling of those who stand outside > time (who cannot yet directly influence our world and must work through > others) the dwindling spiral is not nearly as automatic and self- > perpetuating as it appears." Aside from the above problems, this also has the outpoint of mixing apples and oranges. Although not inconcievable, I would not expect the same crowd to work a telepathic approach and a genetic approach. Of course there could be different crowds with different techniques. At a guess, I would say that anyone working biogenetic meddling is going to be at a high tech but humanoid level, themselves trapped in bodies and thinking in those terms. > end quotes > > I hope you see the similarities that I see. It could be that LRH, > researching through NOTS finally ran into what you just ran into. He > says he ran it but just had an inkling of its nature back in 1945 > (when he was with Parsons doing research on magic). Maybe all this > NOTS stuff is the building down of theta or putting decayed thetans > between them and us so that beings at a higher wavelength can > telepathically influence mest beings at a lower energy. You may > have cleared out enough stuff and research far enough to be right > at the point of discovering something about this area. Quite possible, but that would not be specific to Earth or any local aliens. This Nots style infestation goes back prior to this universe even according to Hubbard (HCL lectures), and I see it as common in the Magic universe which I believe to be prior to this one. Yes there may be beings at higher levels working something like this, but that would be in relationship to this entire universe as a prison relative to higher levels. > I would like you to clarify something for me. Could you be very > explicit and explain exactly what you meant by an oversoul? Is it a > thetan that resides in a higher universe who never came down to our > level? Almost. I think that we are bigger than we seem to be and that much of ourselves is not fully conscious. One's "oversoul" would not be somebody else, but would be you on a higher level. Just as you are not your body, you are not your current identity either, that is just something you put on. But just as humans tend to identify themselves with their bodies, we tend to identify ourselves with our current identities instead of our more basic components. I think that one does not decend completely, just as one does not reside completely in a body even when all of one's conscious components are located there. My own view is that we who are down here are asleep at that higher level, but not totally gone from it. There might be others there, however, who are awake or partially awake. Some might be trying to wake us. Others might want us to sleep more deeply. Perhaps we take turns awake and asleep. Other posibilities exist. Instead of sleep it might be an intentional partitioning or some other mechanism. But whatever is going on at that level would certainly not care about anything in human terms or be interested in the genetic line of a Mest planet. There might be some effects that come through, but the rhyme and reason would be in a non-Earth context. > I am trying to get a better handle on the exact nature of the being > you were involved with. I believe you said that he was somewhat > unconscious but are there higher being at that level who are not > unconscious. Maybe what upset him (them) was the idea that the > flow should only go one way - from them to us. You may have scared > them by reaching back and influencing them. This is possible. Or maybe I was simply mumbling in my sleep and it irritated somebody. I do think that we tend to dramatize and repeat things and fractile and recursive patterns seem common. Hence the same thing happens at higher and lower levels, as above so below. And I think that there are a lot of layers. Dreams within dreams within dreams. Prisons within prisions within prisions. But each layer would have the rules and concerns that apply at that layer. A higher level could affect a lower one (shake somebody's shoulder while they are asleep), but the reasoning would be relative to the higher level, and sometimes a lower level might even affect a higher one (somebody talking in their sleep or even sleepwalking). I have no real certainty on these things. This is my best guess at the moment. ------------------- Also, on 22 May, squirrel@mega.com (MegaSquirrel) posted a follow up to Croesus's message: # I've been wondering if that OT8 bulletin was real myself. The writing # style seemed consistent with LRH and I thought it might be genuine, # but Pilot thought it was probably Capt Bill's. But then, I've always # been the gullible type. :-) My technical objections are as given above. I did speculate that it might have been by CBR. Since he was into ufo stuff, he is a bit more likely than LRH as the author. But his followers stated that it was not his. I don't know his writings well enough, so I'm taking their word for it. I don't know if my arguments above also rule out CBR, we may know for sure one way or the other if and when his works hit the net. # Pilot, you're a solo NOTs comp, maybe you can go do OT8 and put the # matter to rest. Maybe do a little write-up on it for us. That would # be cool :-) # # No wait (duh), my brain just kicked in. They'll probably make you go # back and do Golden Age NOTs before doing OT8... Exactly. Years of overrun and firefights with the C/S, all at high prices and no valuable final product at the end of it. # also if do OT8 and # then write about it on ACT, OSA will be able to figure out who you are # pretty easily. Maybe if I got back from the ship and immediately posted it. Not, however, if the trail was obscured by waiting a little while and also by saying that somebody else I trusted did the level & passed on the materials. Then they only know that one of the OT 8s leaked it. # Maybe you should do it right before you "come out". Frankly, I don't think I'm up to tolerating a ton of "handling" on lines anymore. I'd end up sneaking in a bull horn and start ranting from the Ft. Harrison Mezannine until some heavyweights jumped me and dragged me off to the basement for the Introspection rundown. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - Answering Rogers on C14 ANSWERING ROGERS ON C14 On 10 May, "Rogers" responded to my earlier post on "Super Scio - Carbon-14" > The Pilot wrote in message ... > >Now C-14 is simply an isotope of carbon produced by radioactive > >bombardment of ordinary carbon, and it decays back into ordinary > >carbon. It is not itself directly involved in any atomic reactions, > >instead it is picking up stray neutrons from the existing radiation > >that is in the air. I am oversimplifying here slightly, read a > >physics textbook if you want more data. > > Hi Anjin-san, > > Despite this well-written and informative treatise, I still have some real > confusions. Doesn't Carbon-14 decompose into Nitrogen-14? If not, what is > the connection? If so, isn't this resulting product (Nitrogen-14) a gas > with the potentiality of diffusing off into the atmosphere? Oopse, yes it goes to Nitrogen-14. But you're not measuring what is produced, instead you're measuring what percentage of the Carbon is Carbon-14 instead of ordinary Carbon, it is only a tiny percentage anyway, but it becomes less after the lifeform is dead and burried and the C-14 decays. > Next, I sort of wish you had provided a similar insight into Potassium > dating (or whatever else the geologists actually use). No-one took me up on > my arithmetic (which DID worry me) in my treatise, but, assuming it is > correct, I still find it highly unlikely that there is any device on the > face of this earth that can detect an element in a "one part to a > quadrillion-quadrillion" dilution. Even a radioactive element. And that > one part to a quadrillion-quadrillion only represents 573,000 years or 100 > half-lives (of Carbon-14). Bottom line (my prejudiced viewpoint), there is > no way scientists could REALLY be using carbon dating in connection with a > period millions of years ago. NO WAY! (There! Put myself out on a limb! > ha ha). > > So, what do these scientists "really" depend on? Potassium-dating? Now, > Potassium dating, despite the minimal quantities of decomposition, I COULD > see as being measurable, EXCEPT for the fact (I think) that it decomposes > into another damn gas (Argon-40). That's gotta be hard to quantify. Same story as above, you measure the remaining amount of radioactive Potassium as compared to ordinary potassium, you don't need to find the Argon. > >Therefore if the planetary background > >radiation level was artificially raised by the extensive > >use of nuclear weapons, archeologists would subsequently > >be fooled by a dating anomaly, because there would be too > >much carbon-14 proportionately, giving the impression that > >the material was burried a bit more recently than it actually > >was. > > Anybody got better math skills or a bigger computer than me? Based on the > doubling phenomenon associated with the half-life of 5730 years, just WHAT > DILUTION are we talking with a period, say, sixty million years ago? > > Best, Les. Its fantastically diluted of course. Ralph already posted some better numbers on this. And of course there are millions of years of slop even with the potassium dating. From Ralph's post of 10 May [ralph@hilton.org (Ralph Hilton)] # >Anybody got better math skills or a bigger computer than me? Based on the # >doubling phenomenon associated with the half-life of 5730 years, just WHAT # >DILUTION are we talking with a period, say, sixty million years ago? # # divide 60 million by 5730 - approx 10,000 - this is the number of halvings. # divide this by logı10 (about 3.3) gives the number of reductions by a factor # of 10. # # Thus the dilution is by a factor of about 10e3300 (10 followed by 3300 # zeros). # # This would seem rather hard to measure accurately. # # One site giving more data is: # # http://c14.sci.waikato.ac.nz/webinfo/agecalc.html # # They suggest that c-14 dating isn't dependable for dates greater than 60,000 # years. I'm not a nuclear physicist (although at least I got As in physics and have poked my nose into a nuclear plant, unlike another self proclaimed nuclear physicist that we know about). For correct numbers, reactions, and estimates of slop in the calculations you really should consult some textbooks or do a web search for reliable data. My real point was that the radioactive dating techniques are based on background raditation, and that of course would be thrown off by an abnormally high post-armageddon level of radiation. I was really responding to some silly posts about whether or not an A bomb or H bomb would form C-14, and that is totally beside the point. And note that this doesn't prove the Xemu business. Even direct proof of a nuclear blast at that time would not prove anything either way, a dinosaur killer type impact might do that too and could well screw up the background radiation levels. Also, I find lots of copies of Earth on the track. It is a popular mockup. And although I don't think mass implants are very common, the track is long and the galaxy is large. I think that most people will find a few of these with variations in detail. So don't assume anything, just let the pc run whatever is there to run. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - AN OT BREIFING COURSE AN OT BREIFING COURSE Now that the 1950s tapes are starting to hit the net in quantity, it seems worthwhile to discuss how one might approach the 1950s material in a sequence that would promote understanding and application. This was never really possible at the orgs, at least for most people, because the material was too scarce or expensive. Of course a lot of these materials haven't hit the net yet, but I expect that we will be seeing them this year. This "OTBC" is not a replacement for the SHSBC, they are two different animals, each quite important, one being the 1950s tech and the other being the 1960s tech. Of course one can just study whatever comes ones way. In fact I encourage it. But as more material reaches the net, it is going to get harder to decide what to study first, and intensive study for application is a different action from just casually reading things. One of the amazing things is that people do that OT Doctorate Course at the orgs and with a few exceptions don't come out of it applying the processes or really using the tech. Of course the org's fear of squirreling and discouragement of application have some part in this. But another aspect is that the PDC gradient is extremely high. Another approach is simply to start at the beginning and go through all 3000 tapes (if they were available). That is something that a real researcher or tech finder should do eventually. But it is an awfully long road. It is best done after getting a good grounding in both 60s and 50s tech for application. And the actual gradient of material in terms of difficulty and "OTness" is not chronological. The most advanced materials are those of 1952 to 1954. The easiest gradient for real application is to begin with modern academy levels. That is a small amount of tapes and bulletins and a chance to get one's feet wet with processes that do not require a lot of judgement. Starting from there, how would one approach the huge mass of 1950s data? In studying for use, one should go through an entire ACC as a course in sequence and use the techniques of that time period rather than simply studying a random collection of tapes pulled from various courses. That doesn't mean that you mustn't look at tapes at random or study other stuff, what it means is that when you really buckel down to learn something, you take a set of materials and go through it A to Z in sequence, reviewing whatever of it you might have studied before and putting it all together. In putting this together, my though was to come up with a set of materials about equal in size to the the modern SHSBC. That means cutting the approximately 2300 tapes prior to the BC down to about 500 (approximately the number of BC tapes). As a result, there are a lot of omitted materials and many alternate choices given. The idea is not to cover everything but to cover enough at each level of difficulty so as to bring one up to maximum ability in studying the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd ACCs which are the top of the bridge. 1. The Clearing Congress or the LCC. As a start, it would seem best to begin with some orientation to the late 1950s philosophy of what is clear etc. There are two short congresses, the CC and the LCC, either of which would be ideal for this. The Clearing Congress was transcribed and posted by FZBA as one of their first postings. It is or was available on video cassette from the CofS. They used to show these films continually in the lounge at Flag. The LCC is the London Clearing Congress which the org has out as the "Origin of Abberation" cassettes. Perhaps Fzba will get this one on the net soon (hint). There is a lot of other good warm up material for the late 50s such as the Conquest of Chaos cassetes or the Skills of a Theta Being cassettes. But we are aiming at a fast runway here and the minimum would be one of the two above since they have material on the state of clear, etc. which is important to a good understanding of the 1950s approach. 2. An "easy" ACC The 15th to 18th ACCs of 1956-7 are the lowest gradient ones. They make an excellent bridge in understanding between modern BC materials and 50s style data. Furthermore, the 16th to the 18th, which are known as the "CCH" ACCs attempted to do the entire bridge with "CCHs" and therefore have many applications in modern as well as 50s style processing. But don't make the mistake of thinking that these just contain low level objective processing. They attempted to carry the CCH theory into upper level processing as well and so you will find facinating advanced processes such as "then and now solids". And although these are "easy" in a 1950s frame of reference, they are advanced and hard hitting in comparison with academy level material. Remember that a graduate of any ACC was considered the equivallent of a Class VIII in those days. The 15th (Power of Simplicity), 16th (Anatomy of Cause) and 18th (Illusion or Truth) are all available on cassette. Again, I would hope that Fzba can get one of these onto the net. Here I'm suggesting that you just do one of these in a thorough manner aimed at application. 3. One of the late ACCs After the CCH ACCs above are the more difficult ACCs of the late 1950s. These are the 19th to 21st (American) ACCs and the 5th & 6th London ACCs (LACC) and the 3rd South African (3SACC) and the 1st St Hill ACC (SHACC). Again, these form a bridge between 50s material and the later 60s approach. The 20th ACC is available on cassette from the org. Hopefully we will see it on the net eventually. The best of these late ACCs is the 1st Melborne, but that has a special relationship to the PDC and should be done after it. For a fast gradient, one could get away with skipping this step and diving right into the early 50s material. 4. The Tech 80 (Route to Infinity) lectures These are perhaps the best introduction to the high powered early 50s material. They have been available on the net for quite some time now. The set is fairly short and is primarily oriented towards understanding rather than technique. 5. One of the 1954 ACCs After attempting the top of the bridge on the 3rd ACC, Ron decided to cut back the gradient and so the later ACCs of 1954 (the 4th to the 9th ACCs) are, you might say, the low gradient OT ACCs. Here I would recommend either the 5th ACC (Universes cassettes) or the 9th (Solution to entrappment cassettes). The 9th has been available on the net for some time now and the 5th was just posted by Fzba. These are a bit preferable to the 7th & 8th ACCs only because the student is expected to already have studied Phoenix lectures (7th ACC) & CofHA (8th ACC). The books don't have enough to subsitute for doing one of these ACCs, but the books do have enough to give you the key materials of the 7th & 8th in addition to whichever ACC you really do study from this time period. And so you would have a broader base by adding in the 5th or 9th ACC here. 6. The HCL lectures This is the beginning of the OT research line of 1952. These are extremely advanced but also include a great deal of basics that are not repeated in the later lectures of 1952 such as the PDC. This series is crucial to understanding how the research was done and it lays the foundations for the most advanced materials in the subject. This is the original research into entities (NOTS), implants (OT 2), and the whole track. These have been appearing on the net piece by piece. 7. The Tech 88 Lectures This is the fastest lecture series ever given in terms of the amount of different data covered per unit of time. The research sequence was HCL, then Tech 80, and then Tech 88, and at this point Ron is just pouring stuff out non-stop with hardly a breath between each new idea. There is almost as much material in these lectures as on the entire doctorate course even though this series is less than a third of the size of the PDC. These are in R&D volumes 10 (2nd half) to 11 (1st half). Hopefully they will hit the net eventually too. The remainder of R&D 11 & 12 are also nice because that gives you the complete set up to the PDC, but you could just jump from here right to the PDC. These lectures cover part of the materials in the Scientology 8-80 book, the remainder are covered on the tech 88 suppliment lectures in the latter half of R&D 11. 8. The Philadelphia Doctorate Course (PDC) Here is the research line that leads up to SOP-8 (actually the PDC evolves through about SOP-4 to SOP-6 and the final SOP-8 version doesn't really get codified until a little bit later - see the 1st ACC below). This is the first of the huge lecture sets (over 60 tapes) and it has been on the net for quite some time. It is very advance, far above the old or the new OT levels. 9. The 1st Melborne ACC This is a late ACC, but unlike the other late 50s material, it attempted to reintroduce creative processing and is, on that basis, a bit of a sequal to the PDC. These are available on cassette as "Responsibility and the State of OT". 10. The 1st ACC Here we have the beginning research beyond the PDC as well as the final formalization of the SOP-8 PDC technique. This is another huge set, even larger than the PDC. It is currently available from the org as the "Exteriorization and the Phenomena of Space" cassettes. Hopefully it will show up on the net. 11. The 2nd ACC This covers SOP-8C. And please realize that that is NOT the objective process which is later referred to as 8-C, that was just a setup action before doing the 8-C OT drills. SOP-8C did not substitute for SOP-8, it was what you did after completing SOP-8. The later 1954 attempt to undercut the gradient used Route 1/2 to bypass SOP-8 to make a theta clear. Above that comes SOP-8C in its full version (a few of the techniques are also used in route 1/2). Since Route 1 has some correspondence to old OT 5 - 7, and since those will probably be new OT 9 to 11 or 12, and since much other lower gradient OT material has shown up in modern times, I would guess that SOP-8C is in the band of OT 20 or so on a modern bridge. This is another huge PDC sized set of lectures recently released on cassette by CofS. Hopefully they will hit the net soon. 12. The 3rd ACC The ultimate OT course, a roll your own bridge technique that "cannot be written down" because it is based on understanding and figuring out processes as you go along rather than being a rote set of procdures. A sort of super squirrel course that creates tech finders. It also includes all sorts of other neat stuff. Here is the real handling of mental machinery including machines that one uses to mockup and unmock things. Here are some of the highest gradient hair raising group processing sessions you've ever seen. The technique is SOP 8-O, also known as SOP 8-OT. It is sometimes mentioned in the 1954 ACCs as what to do after you complete the current bridge (SOP 8-C or SOP 8-D or Route 1/2 or whatever). Students unfamiliar with the 3rd ACC lectures sometimes confuse these later references to 8-O with Tech 80 of 1952. This is compounded by the fact that the tech 80 lectures do lay the beginning of the theoretical groundwork upon which SOP 8-O is based. This could be thought of as being up in the range of OT 30 or so. And note that self analysis (ha!) is still a key technique here. This set of 78 lectures has never been available from the CofS in modern times. The org has never published transcripts. A handful of the tapes were available on reels in the 1970s. Many more are floating around in the freezone from older tape collections. Fzba has been dutifully transcribing these from audio and posting them bit by bit. I don't know if a complete set exists in the field. I know for sure that Gold has a complete set of masters for these and we can hope that they will come out on clearsound soon (the fact that they did do the 2nd ACC recently tells me that they are willing to release this stuff - they are just slow). I haven't even heard the complete set. There are extensive notes on all the tapes (most notably Alphia Hart's taken when the lectures were given) floating around in the field that one can use to fill in the cracks. I'm hoping that Gold gets busy. -------------- So there you have it, a suggested OTBC to bring somebody up to maximum ability on these 50s materials. And don't let me discourage you from studying anything you can get your hands on or from beginning at R&D 1 and reading everything. Those are valuable actions too. The above is simply meant to maximize skill in application and provide a shorter route to broad undertanding of the subject. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - Types of GPMs (Attn Rogers) TYPES OF GPMS (Attn Rogers) On 4 Jun 99, "Rogers" asked on topic "Pilot - Questions, questions, questions." > (I figure the following questions are probably going to be reserved for > anyone who has a decent grasp of both the Pilot's works and LRH's. This may > not necessarily limit response to only the Pilot himself, but I am going to > address my questions to him specifically. But anyone with answers is of > course welcome to respond.) > > Anjin-san, > > Sooner or later I am going to have to access a lot of LRH's tapes on GPMs > and the Patterns and Anatomy of the Bank, etc., AND go through your Super > Scio again. In the absence of this, my vagueness may be understandable, but > if you will indulge me, I would like to interrogate you in terms of the > differences and similarities between your revelations about GPMs and LRH's. There is more than one kind of thing lumped together under the heading "GPM"s. Before getting to the 1963 GPMs (which is the category covered by Super Scio chapter 3), I'd like to discuss the 1962 ones a bit to illistrate what I mean. The GPMs of 1962 are a different thing than the GPMs of 1963. Of course Ron and everybody else thought that he was simply correcting what was wrong with the 1962 tech when he came out with R3M in 1963. But I tried the various 1962 commands and listing questions and squirreled around with that stuff for awhile and I found that it will run successfully. It leads into a completely different kind of GPM than the 1963 tech. The keynote of 1962 is that the GPM Items package up 4 ways instead of 2 ways. They were listing for "not want" and "not oppose" as well as for terminals and oppterms. The "not oppose" turns out to be a classic third party who encourages your overts and the "not want" turns out to be a terminal to whom you have to justify your overts. But they didn't have good consistant results running this originally, although there must have been enough gain to keep them pushing at this area. It was a research effort with a lot of fumbling around. And of course they were often pulling things in sideways from the direct terminal - oppterm GPMs of 1963 and from implants and from R6 patterns of whatever sort. And they had not yet learned to list and null properly nor had they learned to fly the ruds. In fact even bypassed charge is not even understood until 1963. Those are all later discoveries. And they had not thought up my trick (obvious from later tech) of using some light processes to cool down an area before listing. And there must have been a feeling that there was a missing item type because in the end the 4 item lists were expanded into a huge array of listing lines. I went into this with the hindsight of modern tech and found that the 4 way listing lines do work but there is bypassed charge. And following that up, I found that there was simply a 5th missing item type. This gives a nice easy to work pattern of 5 lines which runs well. And it leads into a completely different type of GPM than anything found in the later days. I wrote that up as the 5 way oppose GPMs in chapter 9 of Super Scio. Running it produces a particular fantastic gain which is that it runs out hitting the wrong target, because that missing fifth line was "the victim who suffers". That is somebody you hit by mistake while you are trying to fight the oppterm. I mention this to make the point that there was something important there which was its own kind of thing that bore no relationship whatsoever to the the GPMs of 1963. And so they were aiming at something in 1962 and instead of getting it, they jumped the rails and slid into the GPMs of 1963 which is a different target and a different kind of animal. Note that Filbert also hit something on 5 way GPMs. He did not get the same thing that I came up with, but the stuff he had is in that 1962 category, and I think that some of the other freezone GPM techs might aim in this direction too. Attemps to follow up on things that have 4 way packages like some of the R2-12 tech etc. tend to lead in this direction. My point is that using the 1962 definitions and styles of listing questions leads into a different area of the reactive mind than the later GPM tech, and this 1962 stuff is valid but different than later GPM theories. I think that there is a similar research slipup at the end of the R3M GPM research line. Failing to successfully handle those, they slide over into the R6 sytle GPMs of 1964. It is not that one is right and the other is wrong. It is that these are different breeds of cat. You can get different gains from running each group. I think that there are at least 3 disrelated classes of actual GPMs. a) The 1962 style (which I believe lead to 5 way patterns if you get them right) b) The R3M GPMs, which are the true actuals as defined in most references to actual GPMs. c) The R6 GPMs, where the target seems to be some kind of a postulated pattern, which is a sort of actual GPM. All of these also have implant varieties, and there are many other classes of implants as well. Super Scio chapter 3 is a follow up on the R3M research line. It meets the definitions for the actual GPMs as they were viewed at that time. Jack Horner's work is a followup on the R6 type of GPM. It is a different kind of thing. I would like to hear LRH's staff clearing tapes and get a better understanding of the 1964 research. For this discussion, lets set aside the 1964 GPMs. They are whatever they are and they are something else than the R3M GPMs. The R3M research slid over into implants (Hellatrobus, Bear Goals etc.) and then got back to actuals, and then slid over into R6 style GPMs. The R6 style GPMs eventually slid over into implants too (the final R6 platens are simply a recent mass implant as explained on OT 3) and never got back on track either. > As far as I can determine, both you and LRH are in agreement that the > basic pattern of Actual GPMs is similar from one person to the next. > How did the structure he proposed differ from the 36 Goal pattern > you suggested? If different, what is the explanation? (I don't > think LRH could be confused by an Implant GPM.) Ron's patterned structures are R6, they are not R3M. My 36 goal pattern does violate R3M theory. All I can say is that I was not looking for it and was surprised to find it. Furthermore, the RIs are not in the pattern, they are unique and postulated by the individual, which is in accordance with R3M actual GPM theory. It is only the goals that were suggested on entry to this universe. I suspect that LRH was also sensing that there was some kind of an imposed pattern underlying these R3M style GPMs. But when he went looking for that, he looked for an item pattern and these things do not have an item pattern, and therefore he slid over into GPMs that do have an item pattern which are the R6 GPMs. Then he goofed that up by trying to shortcut by listing only for end words and slid over into R6 related implants (the OT 2 stuff etc.). > I gather his perspective of the structure of the bank was in terms of > alternating constructive versus disasterous Goals. This essentially led to > the concept that each of us were alternating between "good" and "evil" over > the course of lifetimes, with a postulate that at any one point in time, 50 > percent of the population would have the urge toward a constructive goal and > the other 50 percent toward a disasterous goal. A quick survey of the population at large should show that most people are not running on evil goals. I suspect that only implants have these good/evil alternations. > It seems to me, your perspective was that, since none of the 36 goals were > "bad" in themselves, the only "evil" lay in the context of the latter > "deteriorating" period of any Goal, amounting to only a fraction of the > total duration of a GPM, perhaps two and one-half percent. That is not only true for the R3M style actuals of super scio chapter 3, it is also true for the 1962 style GPMs in the 5 way oppose in SS chapter 9. In other words, that class of actuals also follows the rule that the goal itself is not an evil purpose. I suspect that if we ever get the R6 style GPMs right, we will find that the actuals of that class are also sort of positive rather than good/evil alternations. > Finally, I think you suggested the CC as possibly representing an Implant > GPM. Do you STILL think so? Uncertain. There is the idea of postulated patterns which are willfully entered. According to the CC materials, there is protest and a mouth somatic on CC, and that implies that it is an implant. But this is yet another breed of cat from the 1964 R6 stuff, and if it is an implant, it implies that there is an actual of this class that we have yet to find. > It seems to me, rightly or wrongly, LRH thought he had GPMs, Actual > GPMs for sure, cracked. He would say that kind of thing all the time. But I think that you are thinking of his excitement at the R3M breakthrough. That is a big one, and it is almost right and it comes close to solving the 3M style actual GPMs. Super Scio chapter 3 is really just some simple refinements and hindsight plus having the big advantage of running it after flattening CC, OT 2, etc. which knocked all sorts of other stuff out of the way. I don't think they ever got anywhere near properly running a 3M style GPM because of listing in the presence of heavy charge, not flying the rudiments, and having all sorts of implants and other kinds of GPMs kicking around at the same time. But basically he was right, he did solve the 3M actuals, but the solution was not one which could be applied at that time for practical reasons. I believe that the 3M actuals are the GPMs of this universe. That makes them the most pertinent ones in our everyday life and it is the area in which we are currently decaying. When I followed up on the 1962 GPMs, they turned out to be the goals of what I call the conflicts universe, two universes back (above the magic universe). The trouble is that we are still living those GPMs too, concurrently with the 3M pattern. Running the 1962 GPMs does not undercut the 3M GPMs, but it removes a certain aspect of stimulous response from everyday life. If I remember right, Ron said the CC is 3 universes back. As I said, I'm not sure if there is a more powerful actual of the CC category, but it is certain that running CC does not undercut either the 3M or the 1962 GPMs. I think that the 1964 R6 category of GPMs is a different class from CC. I do not know enough about it yet. But I would suspect that it is the goals series of yet another universe. I'm sure that there is some kind of actual GPM which we are still living from the magic universe. That's where all the hedonistic stuff comes from like wanting to get laid. But I don't have a clue on these yet except the certainty that they don't fit into any of the above categories. We continue to live each of the early types of GPMs as well as beginning a new kind with each universe. The biggest mistake is to think that there is one thing which is a GPM. > Can't find the damn quote I wanted, but it was something to > the effect that he had it "wrapped up like a Christmas present." So, it > wasn't the "research" that was abandoned, apparently, merely the > application? (Except for "maybe" the CC?) > > Appreciate any light that could be shed on these questions. > > Best, Les. I think he did make a bad mistake in assuming that the CC was it and dropping all the GPM research lines. Perhaps he just couldn't bare to open up that can of worms again once he had something which would FN fairly easily. Remember that at that time they thought that FN meant keyed out clear and that there were only a few FNs available on a case (any FN on a grade was total EP for that grade). ==================== I think that this is why goals lists were so impossibly hard to do. They violate the laws of L&N because they don't really go to one item. If we are living through 5 or 10 different goals patterns simultaneously, then there are that many items available. And yet each would be a very hot and precise item, with enough charge on it to be a major revelation if it was indicated as THE item. So you list hundreds and hundreds of items (the old stable datum was that no goals list was complete if it had less than 850 items), and maybe he gets one in restim enough and the others destimulated enough to get it as the item. Now if I consider listing, "what is my goal", I could imagine shifting back and forth between endless things and I could imagine listing for thousands of items and who knows what I'd get. But if I think of listing "what goal am I persuing to ensure my survival" or "succeed in life" or "be superior" or something like that, there is exactly one answer and it is obvious and it is "to be intelligent", which is the 3M goal that I'm currently using to survive and succeed in this universe. However, if I change the question to "what goal am I persuing to gain admiration from others", I instantly get "to play the piano" which I think is either a goal or aa lock on a basic goal in the 5 way oppose series. (That series has lots of artistic goals in it, whereas the 3M series does not). And if I make the question, "what goal am I persuing to gain enjoyment", I get sexually related answers that are clustering around something in the magic universe goals series (but I haven't quite pinned it down yet). I can think of a load of questions like this, and it feels like each would go in one precise direction towards a goal that is currently operative in my existance. For example, I have this strong thing about setting people free, and yet it is not in any of the above patterns. But if I were to run "what is my goal", stuff from all of these would start turning up and getting in each others way. I think that once we see the whole thing clearly, we will find easy ways of keying it all out. Meanwhile, it takes digging away in the trenches. But there is one fast keyout technique from the early 50s, and that is "Spot some goals you don't have". That is very Zen and quite good for cooling down this whole mess. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - To Ralph on Power After Clear TO RALPH ON POWER AFTER CLEAR On 26 May 99, ralph@hilton.org (Ralph Hilton) posted on topic "Power and R6EW" > I recently ran power on a clear and just started R6EW. > I very much suspect that the datum that one can't run Power on a > Clear was due to overrun. R6EW runs BRILLIANLTLY!. > > A lot of cases have been bypassed due to the bridge being alter-ised. > > -- > > Ralph Hilton > http://Ralph.Hilton.org > Freezone International: http://www.fzint.org My huge keyed out OT experience came from getting power after clear. Considering how many people in the old days were unacknowledged clears because of the arbitrary of having to run the CC before attesting, it would seem that this occured quite commonly. I now suspect that all the keyed out OT Theta Clears that came out of power (a wild random variable according to Ron), were people who were run on power after clear. Ron only mentions this Theta Clear state once or twice in the 1966 timeframe. At a time when OT I was supposed to be the Route 1 drills, he said that this Theta Clear state was at least Two levels above clear. It is not on the current bridge. It would have been above OT 7 on the 1970s bridge and would be above OT 12 now (assuming that they even get near route 1 type processing on the OT 10 to 12 which are still to be released). You might have trouble with somebody who has gotten into Nots or OT 3 because the entities might start running the grade 5 processes (preclear version) instead of the pc running them (postclear version). So it would be best to either do it prior to entity handling or after that is flat. The processes run differently after clear. I was shocked when I read the power materials and found out what the auditor thought we were running. I talked to another grade 5 at that time and he had the same kind of cogs and results as I did, so it was consistant, not just me. In fact, on that what is/isn't process, I heard lots of people makeing statements about seeing how the walls were both there and not there simultaneously. In fact, one guy even got declared for having said that once St. Hill found out that it was being casually discussed in the coffee shop at the org where I was. The common denominator on power after clear was that the processes did not run case charge but ran like OT drills. And so they don't really act as listed lists. In fact I had trouble with that on 5A. The places process ran as a sort of exterior spotting drill. But really, (new cognition right now), the places were coming up to present time. The EP was hit with a clear visio of a place in PT seeing what was happening there now. But that location was not an "Item". Indicating these things as "Items" tended to act as a wrong indication. Generally I ignored it (I was very blown out by the cogs I was having), but eventually we had to do a GF correction (during 5A) and get off my charge on having things indicated that weren't really items (had never been items in the first place). In other words, these were running as ordinary repetative processes. And there was no reviv either, except that the auditing room changed suddendly with a vast perception change and we took that as being the reviv EP. But that happened without any backtrack reviv showing up. Instead, I realized that I was always looking at a slightly out of PT picture (off by a few fractions of a second) instead of seeing the real world. Generally these things ran with massive cogs and no charge in sight. No not-isness came up on what is/isn't. No detested people or places came up on the 5A lists. But these things felt like they ran to floating TAs. Biggest gain per unit of time that I've ever had. I put a more gradient beginners version in self clearing chapter .. By the way, this is where I went up the pole and there was no liability to that. Nothing triggered. None of this ascension experience type liability. It was just great. What hurt was falling off the pole two or three months later. Probably what happens is that most people just fall right off immediately. I know one guy I talked to recently who had it for a day (and he also had later found that he'd gone clear before getting power in '68 and well prior to doing the clearing course). By the next morning he was down. And then he kind of forced himself back into the state briefly, and then was down for good. After you fall you might think that you're still up there for another week (there is a lingering memory of the awareness) and that is dangerous because you mis-estimate and do stupid things. Just like ext/int, it is not the exteriorization that keys one in, it is the subsequent interiorization which keys in the earlier interiorization. So maybe we should be running out desension experiences. He had to have desended first before he ascends again. Probably keys in all the bad posulates that got him here in the first place. The guy goes up, he falls, he keys in the old bad postulates. Then he forces himself back up by recalling the cogs and the way it felt, but now he has those reverse posulates triggered and he has enough horsepower to make them stick. And so he gets backlashes and gets burnt and this time he falls for good. I think I've just spotted why the state wouldn't rehab. You keep wanting to get back to it, so you do rehab it, just naturally out of session, and it comes back and you get in trouble, and you rehab, and you get in trouble, and finally you block it from rehabbing. That is conscious. In fact I remember doing that although I wasn't looking at it in those terms. But there is a moment when I decided to stop trying. And I remember yet another of these theta clears telling me that she decided that it was too uncomfortable to stay in that state. There's a pile of research that needs to be done here. But power after clear is one of the ones with a real track record of turning on sporatic OT phenomena (but note that it was still rare, don't make a hidden standard of this.) Although a sporatic OT is miles short of our real target, it is at least a step in the right direction. And as far as I know, the modern (post NOTS) CofS bridge without power has never produced a sporatic OT. That shows how much they've lost. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - To Ryan on Good Indicators TO RYAN ON GOOD INDICATORS On 14 May 99, "Ryan Q Lee " asked on subject "tech call: perceptics as indicators" > Please confirm. :) > > If you're getting better (freer), then your > recall improves dramatically, AND, the number > of perceptics in the recall increase too. > > Arc, Ryan :) Usually. But sometimes this happens in sudden jumps rather than a gradual smooth progression. Use these as good indicators rather than hidden standards. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - Research Discussion on Dynamics RESEARCH DISCUSSION ON DYNAMICS Two interesting postings were made about the area of the Dynamics and I thought that I might put my two cents in. On 16 May 99, "Rogers" posted on subject "Inverted Dynamics" > Dynamics Inverted. > > In the course of living, we might normally perceive the Dynamics as an > expansion of the self outward into larger spheres. However, the numbering > of the Dynamics actually represents the inverse of our original > participatory sequence. In other words, one might consider they began with > the 8th and worked down from there. > > 8th Dynamic Co-existence of Static > 7th Dynamic Self (separation from Static) > 6th Dynamic Mock-ups/Creations > 5th Dynamic General Forms, Creations granted Life > 4th Dynamic Particular Form of Creation granted Life > 3rd Dynamic Larger-Group Activities > 2nd Dynamic Interaction of Two, Smaller-Group Activities > 1st Dynamic Interiorization, Manifestation as "one" I prefer to think of the 4th as Society. It makes more sense that way and it fits those few implants that were done by dynamics. > (I don't know if Ron elaborated much on this in taped lectures, but he > just has a couple of almost off-hand remarks on this in bulletins of > August 1960.) One of the big ACCs posted this year by fzba (either the 5th or the 9th) had some discussion of inverted dynamics. But there Ron is talking about them inverting and dropping below zero, down through negative 1 to negative 8 at the bottom. > This sequence "away from the Static," essentially has been covered > before but it does have some interesting ramifications when tied into the > Dynamics as shown. I mean to say, we are immediately faced with the concept > that the 2nd Dynamic precedes the 1st (well, the 1st as we know it, i.e., > self as body, perhaps I might say, self as piece, as opposed to the real > self, self as player, on the 7th Dynamic). Perhaps Freud caught a glimpse > of this but was unable to properly evaluate it. There's a lot of food for > thought and comment right there, but my immediate interest is how this > affects the tying in of the Upper Dynamics. > > 8th. Co-existence of Static Knowingness > 7th. Self (separation from Static) Games > 6th. Mock-ups/Creations Creation > 5th. General Forms, Creations granted Life Change > 4th. Particular Form of Creation granted Life Reason > 3rd. Larger-Group Activities Construction > 2nd. Interaction of Two, Smaller-Group Activities Aesthetics > 1st. Interiorization, Manifestation as "one" Ethics > Okay, this is of course speculative (actually, I'm only doing this to annoy > the Pilot... just kidding, Anjin-san) but I figure at least two of the three > changes (only the top three have been rearranged) seem to have certain > merit. I mean, tying Creation with the 6th seems like a "given" (to me), as > does the connection of "separation from Static" (the 7th Dynamic self) with > the will to play a game. Still, despite the apparent "semantic" connection > between "Knowingness" and co-existence of static, we might consider this one > a weak one, merely for the reason that this so-called "Knowingness" is > really more like "Know Aboutingness." However, if we understand > "knowingness" in the spirit of "willing to find out" (about separation and > its ramifications) it might work beautifully. If we take the "knowingness" > Dynamic more in the context of "curiosity" we can understand it as a > preliminary consideration (8th) to the will to play a game as an > "individual" (7th). I would suggest that co-existence of static implies that there is already separation and I would expect that mock-ups and creation are present at that level, but no barriers and no fixed solidified playing field (the mockup of a fixed Mest unvierse as distinct from general transient mockups willfully created & discarded). Hence my consideration that 6th dynamic is not creation in general but only a specific creation of a playing field & barriers which are useful for games. > Les C. Rogers. > > P.S. This document needs to put on a full width screen to get the "columns" > decent. Getting this posted just trashes my formatting. Hope it doesn't > come out too oogly. Your comment about "away from static" and looking at the sequencing from static downwards got me thinking. Often Ron talks about the dynamics proceeding upwards from 1 in an ever widening sphere. Going from 1 up to 8, the progression seems orderly. But that is an expansion in a game, and would be after the fact of being human, in other words it would be late on the chain. So I thought about running this from the top down in an orderly sequence. The upper half runs fine this way. You get the idea of being a godlike being and of having other godlike beings around (no sense being egocentric about this). Then it seems reasonable to mockup ideas (thought) and perhaps also identities, entities, or whatever. And then (perhaps together with others) to mockup a physical plane (a Mest Universe). And then to mockup lifeforms and races and so forth. And then comes this glaring discontinuity. Following the dynamics, we would go - races, society, groups, family, etc. and that is backwards. It would have to be individuals in bodies first and then sex and family and children and then organize them into groups and form the groups up into a society. So the "natural" order of creation is from static down to lifeforms, and then from the 1st dynamic up to society. The damn things only follow in a logical pattern from 1 to 8 if you add in survival, and that means that they are late track, and that almost certainly means that they are "implanted" in some way or other. The Penalty Universes follow that expanded pattern of 16 dynamics. But I had the feeling that the dynamics did not originate from them. So it was laid in earlier, which means prior to Home Universe. And that would make sense because by the Home Universe era, the being is already overly concerned with being an individual. Theorizing now, on early track there would only be you, others, and creations, any more convoluted groupings would be arbitraries. Concerning the upper dynamics (9 to 16), the transition is smoother, and yet there is not a lot of logical necessity to the divisions. And so again these might be arbitrary from some extremely high viewpoint. Considering later track, a common trick is to divide something into fractions set in opposition to each other so that the being weakens himself and becomes less. Instead of being Holy and Intelligent and Strong all at once, one has these as individual goals and the Intelligent guys fight the Holy guys and the Strong guys, etc. The implications of this are that Asthetics and Ethics were divided out from each other and divided out from Reason and from the Constructive impulse and these things were to some slight degree set into opposition against each other, and so one has to work to hold them concurrently. So I thought of "how would an ethical person oppose an asthetic person" and the stuff just started pouring out, beautiful prostitues arguing with moralists and so forth. I considered each of the 4, ethics, asthetics, construction, and reason and any pair of them will turn up locks and charge like blue blazes. But I have the feeling that I'm not touching anything more than the surface of something that runs terrifically deep and whose basics are probably out of the band of accessibility, at least for now. And I hardly dare consider ethics and creation as oppterms. It feels like the entirety of the Mest universe and its persistant solidity is a lock on that. Is it ethical to mock it up or is it not ethical to mock it up and the whole thing hangs there persistant on the maybe between those two. So much was shaken loose on this that I feel that I should put it aside for the moment and let the dust settle. ======================= This seems like a good time to address another post, this one is from Zero on 18 May on subject "Cause Across Dynamics" > Howdy again; > Well, well, well, I think I have discovered perhaps the last major > bug to OPERATING across the dynamics. > > I don't know if I would want to call it the final wall of fire, but > something in my gut tells me this is so. You've certainly got a hot area. But there are no walls of fire once you know the way. The OT 3 mess is because it was a half assed approach which didn't go for basic. That is sometimes needed in a research effort because you may need to reach the far side to see the easy way. But Nots is not a wall of fire and will run before OT 3. Reports from people doing it casually in the field without having done their upper levels are that it runs easily and lightly on a gradient and is neither hard nor dangerous. I had, you might say, a wall of fire with the penalty universes. I don't think that anybody else will have to go through that. Once I hit the far side, I found an easy keyout and they can be fooled with casually. > I do know that in researching the small amount that I have that the > electronics are sufficient to kill a meat body. That means that you're late in the incident or chain or pattern or whatever it is that you are poking at. > I think a full and complete bridge to OTVIII is going to be necessary > to run this thing, that remains to be determined. > > I beleive the rundown will reack to the bottom of the bridge, limited > only by the beings ability to confront and perceive. I will release the > complete rundown later in the week. > For the present, and for the adventurous: > > Mock up a dynamic. Decide to cause something. Cause it. This needs a lighter touch. 1. a) what would you be willing to cause on (dynamic) b) what would you be willing to not cause on (dynamic) 2. a) what would you be willing to experience on (dynamic) b) what would you be willing to not experience on (dynamic) Then the same as "what would another ...". By including willingness, we ensure that the person gets earlier (postulates, dones, decisions) rather than landing in later implants which follow the pattern of dynamics (including the penalty universes and whatever it was I was bumping into in the first section above). This version should be safe & fun & easy and bring one's confront up on a gradient. > Do this on the meter. With a meter you could see FNs & spot overrun easily, so it does help, but it is not essential for the version I presented. > Handle all reads. God help you if you get a penalty universe item reading on the dynamic and try to follow it up. Read Super Scio chapter 5 immediately. That's not going to happen if you address willingness (which emphasises your own mockups instead of externally imposed ones). And you'd probably even get away with flattening your original version as a process. But if you start chasing down reads in the middle of running the process, there is no telling what you'll land in. > Check for electronics keying in. Yow! Just asking to land in the later part of some implant. > Check for beams. Dicey. Better to flatten beams as their own topic. And if it is flat, you generally don't need to check, you just know if one turns up. > Check for activation in other universes. Again dicey but worth researching. But it is a research time action, once you get a good roadmap of how things activate in other universes, you write that up as a separate topic and find ways to flatten it and key it out without mixing together two heavy topics at the same time. I'll be very intrested in what you find on the mechanisms here. > Repeat untill the dynamic is flat upon cause something. > Repeat with good cause. > Repeat with bad cause. > Flatten all flows. > This is a tiny, tiny portion of the rundown. It is powerful, > powerful.. Watch for kickback. It may be a good idea to ground one > of the cans to a water pipe or something. It also may be useful to > turn off tvs, computers, or sensitive electronic equipment in the > vicinity. No kidding. I had physical universe reactions while I was mucking around in the later sections of the penalty universes. Very bad kickbacks, very dangerous to run. The second that I got the top item of one of them all the liabilities went away and it became safe and easy to muck about in them. The very first item of the top penalty universe is "to create is native state". Spot blanketing another and pushing them into it. > I have no idea of the eventual result. I have a sneaking suspicion > the ep will be Operating Thetan. > > I can tell you that it directly processes all three universes. When something reacts with enough kick to produce a major reaction, the mistake is to believe that running it out will put one at cause over the reaction. I have not found this to be the case. One might, for example, turn on a fever by screwing up running an engram and leaving a fever in restim (not to worry, it will fade in a few days). Sometimes one can turn one off by running an engram. But one blows the entire engram bank and one is not immune to fevers nor can one turn them on and off at will although maybe one gets them less often. Then you find that misshandling a GPM might turn on the same fever, and mistakenly think that that is the source. And again sometimes one can turn one off by handling reliabile items. Then you find the same somatic in inc 2 and discover that that can also kick it in and out. Then you find the same with Nots. Then one turns on a fever because one is trying to run late penalty universe items and the next one in the pattern is "to eat is to have a fever" (if any restim, spot pushing somebody into "to eat is native state"). So one writes down the item and the fever vanishes. Again one erroneously concludes that one will be cause over and immune to fevers when one gets to the bottom of the penalty universes. Then one finds a quick undercut that knocks penalty universes (and the dynamics and the tone scale which permeate the penalty universe items) out of restim. And one discovers that one has fevers a bit less often and has yet another trick that turns one off once in awhile but not always. The same goes for things that blow out your home electrical system. Just because it triggers something doesn't mean its the source, it may be kicking something heavier that is still inacessible. But that does tell us that at some level we are capable of affecting the very creation of reality itself and that we are moving in a direction towards the control of it. So just take each factor in turn and work a bit deeper. But you might as well take the easy way and undercut and sidestep restimulation when possible. On a new type of thing, one often does have to push through heavy restim once to get to the far side and map out an easy way. So don't make a practice of avoiding restim either. But don't make those your standard rundowns. Do it once and then find a shortcut. Ron or somebody might well have had to push through inc 2 in detail to find out what we were dealing with. But the shortcut is Nots. That should have been developed immediately rather than throwing people into a late track restimulative incident and making over-restimulated fanatics. > tommy > -- > "A being is only as valuable as he can serve others." > http://recyclerhome.com/community/spellsinger/index.html > http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Campus/2058/ > pthorn1@pacbell.net > http://wwp.mirabilis.com/232039 (icq pager) I do not want to discourage you from researching this. There are things to be learned. And it is good to document as you go along and keep everybody advised. I make a point of talking about everything, even very dicey experimental stuff, but I make a point of searching for undercuts and I tend to downplay things unless I'm sure they are safe and easy. Here you are doing something which is not good case wise but is highly educational, and that is to try and follow up multiple types of restimulation that are tied into one particular thing. I try a bit of that occasionally as a research action because it helps in seeing how things fit together, but I use a light touch and don't push it too long because it restimulates more charge than it blows. Once, full of confidence about the penalty universes being basic (which they weren't, although they are an order of magnitude closer than than trivial locks like the clearing course or incident 1), I tried to do this kind of action intensively on all the junk which they tied into. Six months later I knew a hell of a lot more about the track, but I also had more charge in restim than when I started. And running this way, you need an arsenal of keyout tricks to dig you out if you get too much stirred up at once. For fast case gain you narrow your targets rather than fanning them out. Then you can look deeper easier on that one particular button and hopefully get a big gain quickly. Hope this helps, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - THE REALITY IMPLANT THE REALITY IMPLANT I was trying to run some charge off of compulsive agree and compulsive create and this implant seemed to get in the way. This is only approximate. I only fooled with it to the point where it seemed like it couldn't affect me anymore. The detail is probably only half right and there are probably more items. I suspect that I was only picking up the parts that still had a bit of kick to them for me. There should be multiple realities and we should have some choice in shifting around between them, but instead everything seems to have been "grouped into one". This implant is one of the groupers, a fairly early one. But its not enough by itself to account for the current situation. Actually I think that one's intentions to force others into agreement are more significant. But I was having trouble running that until I scanned through this implant. Now, after running the implant, it seems easy to spot incidents where I jambed a reality down somebody else's throat. In fact there are light modern locks on this like the SO's severe reality adjustments. Anyway, here is what I ran. ======== (moving through a "heavenly" corridor, something like stained glass windows or possibly just simple crystals acting like prisms along the walls as you move past) This is your fate This is your destiny This is the ultimate truth You are a god but you have forgotten Be one with us and we will show you the way ======= (you pass into a larger space, there is colored light, then darkness) Before the beginning there must be desire The desire to create space (the desire fills you, and you are coaxed to say: "let there be space" (the above repeats until you do say it, before each repeat you seem to move into a colored space for a moment which then goes dark, this tends to collapse your space. Spot how many times it repeated before you agreed and said it) ======== (a golden space appears around you. Then a dark creature, adversary, indistinct, comes into the space at a distance) (The adversay says items to you, they come from the far side of the space. "Your" items are implanted telepathically where you are, you appear to be saying them, but it is actually someone else implanting the intention.) Adversary: You cannot create space I can creat space Ad: You must not creat space I must create space Ad: You will not create space I will create space Ad: You will forget to create space I will create space without remembering Ad: You will tire of creating space I will create space continuously Ad: You will stop creating space I will create space compulsively Ad: You have no desire to create space I will create space continuously and compulsively whether I choose to or not Ad: Your space has no agreement My space has the agreement of all Ad: None will agree with you I will agree with everyone Ad: Your space is not real My space is the one true reality Ad: You have no reality I will create the space of the one true reality, compulsively, now and forever whether I know it or not, whether I remember it or not, whether I want to or not. To create the one true reality in agreement with all, forever. ========== (the space seems to turn, it dims, then brightens) Before the beginning, there must be desire The desire to create matter (the desire fills you, you are coaxed to say: "let there be matter" (a simple object, possibly a cube, appears - note that the object may vary) (the entire sequence above repeates, with matter in place of space - note that this is not in English - the item could just as well be "mass" as "matter") . (last items - I will create the matter of the one true reality, compulsively now and forever whether I know it or not, whether I remember it or not, whether I want to or not. To create the one true reality in agreement with all, forever. ============= (again the space dims & brightens and at the same time the object receeds and then comes back in) Now the whole business repeates on the item "Energy", with a cloud of "energy" appearing etc. ============= Item 4. Time As above ============= Item 5. Persistance Item 6. Bodies Item 7. Life Forms Item 8. Spirits Item 9. The World Item 10. The Universe (last items - I will create the universe of the one true reality, compulsively now and forever whether I know it or not, whether I remember it or not, whether I want to or not. To create the one true reality in agreement with all, forever. ===================== Part B: (Now you feel that you are entereing the universe created above. Again there is something like entering a corridor & moving down it, very similar to the original opening sequence) This is your fate This is your destiny This is the ultimate truth You are a player but you have forgotten Be one with us and we will show you the way (the detail items are slightly different in Part B, being related to the game and agreement) ===================== Item 11. The Rules Before the game there must be desire The desire to obey (agree with) the rules (the desire fills you, you are coaxed to say: "I will obey the rules" ---------- Adversary: You will not obey the rules I can obey the rules Ad: You will fail to obey the rules I must obey the rules Ad: You will not obey the rules I will obey the rules Ad: You will forget to obey the rules I will obey the rules without remembering Ad: You will tire of obeying the rules I will obey the rules continuously Ad: You will stop obeying the rules I will obey the rules compulsively Ad: You have no desire to obey the rules I will obey the rules continuously and compulsively whether I choose to or not Ad: Your rules are out of agreement My rules are in agreement with all Ad: None will agree with you I will agree with everyone Ad: Your rules are not real My rules come from the one true reality Ad: You have no reality I will obey the rules of the one true reality, compulsively now and forever whether I know it or not, whether I remember it or not, whether I want to or not. To obey the one true reality in agreement with all, forever. ============== Item 12. The Barriers Item 13. The Limitations Item 14. The Inabilities (at this point the items change from "obey" to "suffer") Item 15. The Penalties Item 16. The Losses Item 17. The Pains Item 18. The unconsciousness Item 19. The Death Item 20. The Forgetfullness ============== There may be significantly more to this implant. ============== Hope this helps, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - ADVERSARY TYPE IMPLANTS ADVERSARY TYPE IMPLANTS The GPM research of the early '60s brought home the fact that you create your own opposition. The person assumes a "valence" (a beingness) to accomplish his goal and an opponent shows up and so the person shifts to a new valence to solve that opposition and then another opponent shows up and the person shifts again and so forth. At that time it was assumed that the GPMs themselves were the reason that the person pulled in this opposition. Eventually, doing my own research, I stumbled onto the penalty universes of the home universe era. These are simple declining scales held in place by their highly asthetic opening sequences. In those, and in the entire home universe time period as best I can determine, there is no concept of mocking up your own opposition in the stimulous response manner that shows up in the more recent implants. There seems to be a big gap between these two types. And in retrospect, it now seems to me that the heavy terminal vs oppterm style GPMs could not exist unless the person was already mocking up opposition compulsively. They give a pattern to his mockingup of opponents, but they do not provide an adequate rational as to why he is doing that in the first place. Last week I ran into an implant that fits in the gap. It is written up separately as "The Reality Implant" and is in the current set of postings. It had the interesting characteristic of an "adversary" showing up and he seems to argue with you and you negate against him. And it has more of a feeling of you interacting with the opponent rather than simply being a pattern that was run in. It seemed like there should be more like this. And eventually the "NIX" business in Helatrobus came to mind. The recent use of Helatrobus is a true double firing implant of the shallowest sort. It simply has terminal and oppterm items stated on opposite sides of you as you go through the implant. It works by assuming that you already follow this term - oppterm business on a stimulous response basis and then it wears you down by hitting you with endless items. There is no serious attempt to get you to actively mockup the items, that is just taken for granted by the implanters. And there are earlier versions of that implant. I've spotted a few and so did Ron. This is an old mockup. So I looked back very early, way way before the clearing course implant and almost all the way to home universe. And I found a Hellatrobus like implant in the "adversary" style. The adversary sais something like "the glorious delight of eating" and you are encouraged to say "Nix Eating". I only found a few goals. They were "To Eat", "To Have Sex", "To Obey", "To Be Good", and "To Worship". There are probably more. They might have some correspondence to the dynamics. The opening sequence for a particular goal seemed to consist of the "adversary" stating a whole series of positive statements about the goal, something like the early items in Helatrobus. You are encouraged to negate, or say "Nix" or protest against these positive items. It is like a sales talk on the joy of eating or whatever and it goes on and on, the items (maybe a dozen or two) just repeating over and over until you begin to protest heavily against them. Note that this is variable, like a program in a loop that keeps going until you do something. Spotting how many times it repeated before you got fed up and started protesting is a good thing to do when running it out. They do this because they want you to protest. Protest brings about compulsive mockups and solidity. Once they have you protesting hard, then the second part starts and they get you to fight it down through a declining scale until you start to mock it up compulsively. On eating for example, they get you to the point where you don't want to eat but feel you have to eat. Same for sex, worship, etc. This does not have the typical Helatrobian sceenery of heaven, staircases, etc. It seems to be done in a bodyless state. Unlike later implants, the items themselves did not seem to be of great significance. They do not have the kick of RIs (reliable items) laid in with force. The whole keynote of the thing is of being held in a location and protesting. There are no other impacts or somatics. But the protest is immense, and it is encouraged. Running this is fairly easy if you can run it at all, but these goals exist in lots of other implants, so I'm not sure how accessible this would be to somebody who hasn't knocked a lot of those out of the way. Then again, this might be so basic that it will take some charge off even if only done on a conceptual level without much reality. To run it: 1. Get the idea of somebody pushing the goal at you. 2. Alternately protest and admire the goal. (a number of times) 3. Alternately protest and admire having the goal pushed at you. (a number of times). Repeat the above 3 steps to a win. Since I'm uncertain of accessibility etc., I would suggest that you don't grind this or try to dissolve the goal, just take a light win. I suspect that overrun would pull in a lot of mass fast because these goals are in so many other implants. A few minutes of the above on each goal seemed to cool down the whole damn thing for me. I then went through the detail items to try and get some more charge off. The early sequence is as follows: See the Helatrobus platen in the new tech volumes or in the Freezone Super Tech Vol for 1963 that was posted recently. The early version does not have block 1. It begins with the goal stated as "To ...." which is the start of block 2. The adversary says the items of block 2 to 5 and you are encouraged to protest (there are no true items on your side). Then the adversary says the items of block 6. Note that these are against the goal instead of in favor of it and so you tend to agree with them and you are encouraged to agree. Now that you are agreeing, the adversary says the items of block 2 in reverse order and you are encouraged to agree. Since block 2 in reverse starts low toned, it seems like a continuation of the disparaging items of block 6 and so you are still inclined to agree. But the items move uptone and so you find yourself agreeing with the goal. Once you are agreeing, the adversary begins to say Nix items (the terminal or right side items), and you are encouraged to protest. In other words, the adversary is now against the goal and you are protesting that. The nix items run forward from block 2 to the end of the implant. And so you are first made to protest the goal and then to protest the negation of the goal. There are probably many more of this kind of implant. I wouldn't put a great deal of significance on any particular one. Best, The Pilot ========================================== All these messages were 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 see The Pilots Home Page at http://fza.org/pilot/index.htm Some translations are available, see links at fza.org Also see the new www.fzint.org website. All of the current posts will be collected in Super Scio Archives #56 and #57 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. ------------------