Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 58 - LATE JUNE 99 PILOT POSTS TO ARS/ACT Date: 23 Jun 1999 04:00:19 From: pilot@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (The Pilot) Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology POST58.txt SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 58 - LATE JUNE 99 PILOT POSTS TO ARS/ACT The ones after the Humor post went to ACT only. ========================================== Contents: subj : Super Scio - FREE SPEACH IN DANGER subj : Super Scio - To Onethetan on Free Speach subj : Super Scio - Survival Insurance subj : Super Scio - Ted's Excellent Peace Talk Analysis subj : Super Scio - Scientologists in Mensa subj : Super Scio - FREEZONE MARCHING subj : Super Scio - Answering Fred Rice on The Marks subj : Super Scio Humor - TOP TEN REASONS FOR NAKED GOVERNMENT subj : Super Scio - AN ACT FABLE (the Phil/Bryan story) subj : Super Scio Tech - To Robert On The OT BC subj : Super Scio Tech - SOFTENING UP GPMS subj : Super Scio Tech - On Maier's Help Bracket Processing subj : Super Scio Tech - Solving Difficulties in doing UCP Solo subj : Super Scio Tech - To Joanne Barree on Assists subj : Super Scio Tech - ON PME'S, PLUGS, CBR, & INC 1 subj : Super Scio Tech - CLEAR AND THE TIME TRACK subj : Super Scio Tech - A NIFTY ADVANCED PROCESS - CREATION CLEANUP ========================================== subj : Super Scio - FREE SPEACH IN DANGER FREE SPEACH IN DANGER There have been a number of very bad indicators lately concerning the survival of free speach on the net. Although only two of these are directly related to Scientology, all are important. This is just a summary. These are heavily snipped. Commentary below. ============== First, of course, was the NY Court forcing Safe's identity to be revealed without any proof or trial, but simply on the grounds of an accusation having been made. I've talked about this in detail previously. ============== http://www.internetnews.com/isp-news/article/0,1087,8_136521,00.html Ruling Has AOL Members On Alert June 11, 1999 By Patricia Fusco InternetNews.com Assistant Editor ISP News Archives Virginia authorities have grabbed the attention of America Online Inc.'s members nationwide. Late last month, a federal district court in Alexandria, Va., ruled that AOL members can be hauled into a Virginia court to answer for lawsuits, no matter where they live. ============== http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,37622,00.html?st.ne.fd.tohhed.ni ===Begin Quote=== Scientologists' copyright suit shapes Net liability By Dan Goodin Staff Writer, CNET News.com June 9, 1999, 6:35 p.m. PT Linking to a site that contains material that infringes someone's copyright also is an infringement, a Dutch court ruled today, according to the Church of Scientology, the plaintiff in the case. The decision appears to be the first time a court has ruled on the legal status of hyperlinking and could expose Dutch and multinational Internet publishers to new liability for a practice that is rampant on the Internet. (...) The County Court in the Hague ruled that the materials on the Dutch Web site also infringed the church's copyrights. But the court broke new ground when it ruled that hyperlinks to the materials also infringed the church's copyrights. Although only binding in Holland, the decision got the attention of attorneys who follow Internet law. =============== http://www.salonmagazine.com/tech/log/1999/06/07/linux/index.html Will Linux be banned down under? - - - - - - - - - - - - By Jamais Cascio June 7, 1999 | Did the drafters of Australia's new Net censorship legislation ever imagine that their rules might ban Linux? After all, the Linux source code has quite a few instances of the word "fuck" sprinkled throughout, mostly as commentary about problems with software. Can an operating system be considered unsuitable for minors? . How many sites would Australia's Net censorship scheme kill? Aimed at porn, the bill would push service providers to block anything even remotely risqu‚, critics charge. . Second-hand commentary on Australia's Net censorship law abounds, but I decided to go straight to the source. Like most laws, it makes for stultifying reading, but in essence the measure says that the government can prohibit Australian Web servers from hosting X-rated material. R-rated material would be prohibited if it's not behind a guard page or adult check of some sort. I figured, therefore, Linux source code would have to be shielded from young eyes, lest they get the impression that "fuck" is a valid engineering term. But then I realized something: This assumes that an R rating in Australia means pretty much the same thing that it means in the United States. . A filtering system supported by the backers of the Australian law may give us some clues. Among the words the software blocks are the terms "anarchy," "gothic," "pierced" and "tattoo," along with the usual run of sexual terms and names such as Pamela. So, it seems that what is "unsuitable for a minor to see" may well be anything unusual or outside of the mainstream -- possibly including, but far from limited to, Linux. salon.com | June 7, 1999 ============== What really bothers me is that all of these came out together in a short time period. The trend is scary. I believe that the real target on the part of Governments and large corporations, is to prevent the spread of critical, emparassing, and secret items on the net. To gain support for this, they push whatever button is convienient. For the moralists, they cry about porn even though they have the biggest porn collections known to man. For the proud, they cry about liable even though their political campaigns have the greastest mud slinging every seen. And for the Church of Scientology, they lure them on with protecting the secret scriptures even as they plan to censor them along with all the other "nut cults". For CCHR and OSA to fight on the side of the governments in this is high treason to LRH and the original goals of Scientology, for this IS the planetary suppression and the beginning of the thought police. Everybody on the net, no matter whether their pet hobby horse is being pissed on or their sensibilities offended, should be making every effort to fight against this, even if they foolishly feel that some censorship action would benifit their own vested interests. The comm line you save may be your own. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - To Onethetan on Free Speach TO ONETHETAN ON FREE SPEACH Excerpts from two posts by OneThetan On 7 Jun 99, on topic "To Safe and to Church From on lines Scientologist" > I am a Scientologist, in the church, active on a daily basis > both as a student and as Field Staff Member. I have > engaged safe in debates re: Scientology management and > technologies. I am not opposed to current management of the > church. I do not share his views on them. I believe they > are not perfect but are more right than wrong by far. > > In this case I must speak up and make my position known. I > hope Safe comes through this with anon intact. And on 10 Jun 99 on the same topic - > I do not have time to answer you all, but here are the > basics. > > I believe in Safes right to free speach, > > I hope the church sees that outing him is bad PR, Excellent attitude. The question of free speach goes far beyond any arguments about doctrine, reform, squirreling, standard tech, or management. As I have put out in another post, there are some very bad indicators present right now on the subject of free speach on the net and it goes far beyond the CofS situation. I do not wish to get into psych bashing. I think that many of the individual practitioners studied the mind for the sake of helping others and I have great admiration for Freud and Jung. But the big money in the psych field is to work for Governements and big corporations for the sake of CONTROL rather than HELP. That is a different breed of cat from the average practitioner. Free speach on the net misses their withholds. It misses withholds on every big Government and corporation, because their secrets, their covert ops, and their out-ethics can spread across the planet in a flash. There are big guns aimed at getting the net under control. And they are laughing their asses off at having the Scientologists help them. And I will guarantee you that anything established now as a precedent in inhibiting free communciation on the net will be used against Scientology later. I honestly think that Ron would throw everything onto the side of free speach. When it goes, it marks the end of that narrow little window of time. It's on the BC tapes. So please push this one point. Think that freezoners are nuts and squirrels if you want, but keep the planet's comm lines open. This is the only one that bypasses media control by big vested interests. Write KRs. Push for free speach. CCHR should be fighting for this one. Thank You, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Survival Insurance SURVIVAL INSURANCE On 18 Jun 99, "Safe" posted on topic "Survival Insurance in big trouble" > "one of the largest auto insurance brokerages in California, for alleged > price-gouging and threats against customers. > > Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush said his department has found > hundreds of violations and logged more than 700 complaints against the Los > Angeles-based company since 1997. > > 'The violations that we found were so massive, so systematic, that we > decided we had to pull their license, Quackenbush said in an interview. > > Survival had no comment Thursday on the department's action." > > Well, "threats" sure does sound typical of church of Scientologists. But > I'm sure what's the "truth" of what's really happening here is there is a > secret conspiracy by the psychs and media to destroy this Wise company. > > Perhaps the church of Scientologists runnig the company were making their > customers follow the Code of Descipline as outlined in the 274 rules in the > Church of Scientology "ethics" book. SEVEN HUNDRED compliants against them > is atrocious! UNBELIEVABLE. > > Yours for ethics, > Safe, an authentic, informed NON-CofS Scientologist > > Dave VanHorn wrote in message > news:xrwa3.778$8D2.258@news.rdc1.il.home.com... > > > > > Wise Company, Survival Insurance has applied 100% standard Hubbard > > > Management Tech and gotten their license revoked! > > > > > > Where is the clammish link documented? I didn't see it in the article, > > though you're right, it sounds like the classic push to "up those stats". > > > > Either way, another scam-the-downtrodden insurance company bites the dust > :) When California started pushing on everybody getting insurance, I signed up at the Survival office which is across the street from the complex. It was right after they had opened up. I had heard about them on the rumor line at New York George's resturant which was at that time a Scientology hangout (George was ex New York staff, the resturant was sold long ago). Apparantly Survival was started by some Scientologists and their original staff & public were mostly Scientologists, but of course there was no direct connection to the CofS, just public members starting a business & using their connections to promote. I expected that it would be easier since there would be people there who knew me etc. and it was quite simple. The rate sounded reasonable, but of course I didn't know anything, and it was the first time I'd gotten auto insurance. But note that I'd never had an accident in my life and the few traffic tickets I'd gotten when I first learned to drive had aged off long ago, and I was in an older low risk age bracket with many years of safe driving on my record. And a large number of Californians were in a similar position and shopping around for insurance that year because of the new laws. And there was all sorts of PR about how Survival searched for the lowest possible rates for me personally. All bullshit. When it came time to renew, I decided to see what a normal big insurance company would charge. Would you believe HALF! Survival had carelessly dumped me into the assigned risk category which California had forced the insurance companies to create for people who were uninsurable. I had the lowest possible assigned risk rate available, as did (I assume), everybody else who went to Survival regardless of driving record. In other words, they cut out all the overhead of trying to figure out if you were a good risk and treated everybody as lousy drivers and then used the huge volume to negotiate a slightly better rate for rotten drivers. But even a good assigned risk rate is double what you pay if you have a decent driving record. I don't know if they continued to do this. This was a long time ago. Among others, they ripped off thousands of their fellow Scientologists. And they probably spent lots of bucks at Flag and Wise, which would keep ethics off their back. (Ask Wollershim about how ethics used to ignore reports about him a long as he was "flowing power".) Good riddance. The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Ted's Excellent Peace Talk Analysis TED'S EXCELLENT PEACE TALK ANALYSIS On 15 Jun 99, ted@magicnet.net (Ted Crammer) posted on topic "Super Scio - Ralph's Peace Talks" > Rogers wrote: > > > I figure that the upper management in the CofS is probably as harassed and > > confused and fatigued as any group can be. But I would at least like to > > approach them with the postulate that each and every one of them STARTED > > OUT with the noblest of intentions and purest of hearts. THIS is where > > the diplomacy fits in. > > Generally speaking, the above is a good perspective. > > Now for some reality: If a meeting should take place you would not get > to see the top dog. A mission would "fire" to the location of the meet. > That mission would be very tightly managed from Int. The missionaires > would wrap-up their day with lengthy reports as to what went down during > the talks, who said what, to whom, tone, etc. Reports would include all > observations, even that of who was there who didn't speak. There might > be reporting during the day as well. In return, the missionaires would > have a current "C/S" which they would be following. > > The management people would have Data Series Evaluators as their > resource and the whole system would report to WDC. Most likely the > stated outcome of the mission would be in place ~before~ the mission > fired but there is a possibility they would fire an obs mission first > and then some others would arrive as the meeting progressed. > > A few loosely associated people from the FZ are not going to go in to > "build up the ARC" or "be diplomatic" or something like that and expect > to walk away having achieved something with the CoS. > > While this fancied meeting could end with outward appearances of some > understanding, any agreements that might be made would be binding on the > FZ reps. and you can expect that the CoS would not hold up their end of > the bargain. > > The above is my estimation of effort and prediction should a meeting > ever take place. > > One more thing: Said missionaires would have your Declares "For > Eternity" in their briefcases ready to issue if things looked rough. > Then you can bet on a fantabulous shore story in KSW News and other > publications. > > -- > Ted > > PS: This might work out much, much better if there is enough beer being > consumed by all. I'll come if there's some good Mexican or German beer > flowing. What I could do is laugh really loud when someone says > something stupid. This is spot on. And for those not familiar with SO lingo, Ted is using the right buzzwords too. When he was ED Int (Executive Director, International), Bill Franks tried to hold an honest set of meetings with disgruntled franchise/ mission holders. The end result was that Bill got declared suppressive and removed from post, and Davey called the infamous mission holders confrence to beat everybody back into line, declaring a whole slew of big league mission holders in the process. So even an honest top level representative of the CofS might have a "heads on a pike" mission coming in on his heels. Peace talks are still a nice idea. But I doubt if CofS would make an honest effort. And representatives of Scn public would be in definite danger of being declared. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Scientologists in Mensa SCIENTOLOGISTS IN MENSA On 10 Jun 99, ralph@hilton.org (Ralph Hilton) posted on topic "COS mathematics?" >On Thu, 10 Jun 1999 02:54:22 GMT, jrford@sd.cybernex.net (J. R. Ford) wrote: > >>On Wed, 9 Jun 1999 11:43:26 +0100, "Dave Bird---ARS HakeMonger >>,,,,><_'>.,,,<_\",,,," wrote: >> >>>In article <7jklo7$1c1$1@andromeda.azstarnet.com>, David Sewell >>> writes >>>>In article <3761873b.32700431@enews.newsguy.com>, >>>>Bern - http://welcome.to/ars wrote: >>>>>> Q. Why do some people oppose Scientology? >>>>>> A. In the first place, very few do. >> >>Q. How many people belive in $cientology? >>A. Very few do. >> >>Statistically, I got you beat. Wanna take a Harris poll on the >>subject, chump? >> >>> I think they have a place in Mesa AZ. >> >>True, MENSA is waaaay out of their league. > >He said Mesa, AZ. > >When I left the S.O. I took the MENSA test and cleared 13 points above the >necessary. MENSA is probably way outside ~your~ league. > >-- > >Ralph Hilton >http://Ralph.Hilton.org >Freezone International: http://www.fzint.org I got in easily (99th percentile and they only require 98th for genius level). I only kept the membership up for a few years (but they keep you on file, so you only have to send in dues to rejoin). When I joined I was surprised to discover that they have a "Scientologists in Mensa" SIG (Special Interest Group). We did used to be "the high IQ religion" in the old days. Unfortunately too much chineese school lowers IQ per the BC tapes, and they seem to specialize in using that on their staff these days. You can't make people who can think better if you don't let them think. It's a shame really, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - FREEZONE MARCHING FREEZONE MARCHING On 9 Jun 99, Ramata@webtv.net (Owen Roe) responded to my earlier post on "Super Scio - To David Guest on Taking a Stand" > Pilot: "If a thousand of them marched down Hollywood Blvd. from the > Manor to the Complex carrying "Free The Tech" signs, we would win (and > you can bet that I would come out to lead the parade)." > > I volunteer, plus guarantee 9 more. > That's 1% . Owen Roe You and all the others who came forward (Safe, Megasquirrel, etc.) have my deepest thanks for your support. I think that right now we'd have a hundred easily. But I don't think we'd get a thousand, at least not yet. It will take time for this idea to grow. It would be best to begin with a push to pickup more people for this rather than making too weak a showing. We need to reach the sleeping masses in LA. What Ralph and Heidrun get away with in Austria was ruthlessly stamped on here back in the eighties. The groups that are still operating are extremely secretive as a matter of survival. There are endless thousands walking around in LA in a sort of stalemated position. They hide from registrars, they filter their phone calls, and they might go to one event every few years, as long as they know its a big one so that they can duck the reg. They don't keep up their IAS memberships, but they read Advance and Source avidly. They don't know what's wrong but they know that they are stuck. They need to read the net. They need to have time to cognite. The "Reform Now" page I wrote often gets through to them and wakes them up. The "FREE SCIENTOLOGY - see www.fza.org" stickers and copies of the "Refrom Now" page need to be continually put up in the areas with high Scientology populations - mostly almost anywhere north of Wilshire from Silver Lake to Santa Monica and especially Hollywood, Glendale, and the Valley. Probably the "Scientology Reformer's Home Page" needs a link on the first page of fza.org (hint) to help support this. That's the longer story (too big to use as a flyer). How about a heavy freedom push during July to get stickers and reform pages spread around and see if we can wake some people up. Team efforts to put stuff up might be fun and easy if you are not worried about getting declared. I'm not the right person to co-ordinate this. Any volenteers? Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Answering Fred Rice on The Marks ANSWERING FRED RICE ON THE MARKS On 8 Jun 99, FRice@LinkLine.COM (Fredric L. Rice) posted on topic "FreeZoners: Trademarking the name of your religion" > Greetings, FreeZoners! > > How does everyone feel about the Scientology cult having trademarked > the name of your religion? Disgusted. But the one that really got to me was "Scientologist". When they told AOL that Hunnicut couldn't call himself a Scientologist even though he was still in good standing and hadn't been comm eved and even though he met all the old definitions for a Scientologist - It just made steam come out of my ears. "What is Scientology" and other similar books and some of Ron's tapes all have definitions for a "Scientologist" that go like "somebody who knows Scientology works" and so forth. They should be forced to put a big red lable on the books and tapes saying - "Contains the lie that a Scientologist is somebody who practices Scientology - the only people who may call themselves Scientologists are those who use the Net Nanny and get Issue Authority because it is a Registered Mark" Of course I'm just ranting here. In truth the marks should be tossed out of court because registering them and using them like that was a betrayal of trust. If they turn somebody into a Scientologist, then they've got to live with that even if they don't like it. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Humor - TOP TEN REASONS FOR NAKED GOVERNMENT HUMOR: TOP TEN REASONS FOR NAKED GOVERNMENT On 10 Jun 99, tilman@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) found the following tidbit and posted it on topic "fwd: Mary Bono shows her Body Thetans!" {Thank you Tilman) (snipped for easy reading) > From: agcgossip@aol.comBillie (AGC Gossip) > Subject: Mary Bono...glad she's not my Congress(wo)man > Date: 10 Jun 1999 12:31:38 GMT > > NY POST...By DENISE BUFFA > --------------------------------------------------- > REP. MARY BONO Undresses during interview. Rep. Mary Bono obsessed > about her hair and undressed in front of a reporter profiling her - > prompting a Democrat to lecture her on congressional dignity. . > "Excuse my naked body," Bono said as she stripped down to her "matching > underwear," Esquire reported. > > Democratic political consultant Hank Sheinkopf said Bono was engaging > in "stupid and dumb behavior." I'm on Mary Bono's side here. The hell with congressional dignity. In fact, let's go one better and require congress and all government agencies to work in the nude. TOP TEN REASONS FOR NAKED GOVERNMENT 10. Balances the sexes by getting more women elected to congress. 9. Saves on congressional cleaning bills. 8. Supports the arts by getting beautiful women elected to congress. 7. Ensures that congress will "trim the fat." 6. Keeps up with the times, by getting young women elected to congress. 5. Encourage beer drinking couch potatos to watch congressional debates instead of sports. 4. Prevents incompetants from rideing in on other's coat tails. 3. Early visual warning if congressional representatives are planning to screw the public yet again. 2. Makes it impossible to pocket bribe money. (drum roll) 1. Early visual warning if Slick Willie spots a new intern. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - AN ACT FABLE (the Phil/Bryan story) AN ACT FABLE (the Phil/Bryan story) Once upon a time there was a fabulous apartment complex known as Amazing Court Terrace. It was filled with all sorts of strange and wild characters, many of them refugees from an overly rigid cast society who were now bound and determined to play their individuality to the hilt. There were students and hookers and businessmen and circus performers and just about anything else that you could imagine, even a delightful old curmodgeon whose bark was worse than his bite who ran the place. There was even some sort of a pilot who showed up occasionally to jump off of the roof. Luckily he had a hang glider. But he was only seen rarely because he spent most of his time dragging the glider back through the mud. But this tale is about two of the other colorful characters that gave the building its charm. One of these was a rough character named Phil who tended to irritate people. He had this enourmous stereo sound system and just loved to play acid rock songs at top volume. One of his favorites had lyrics something like "Blow your ass, blow it fast, blow it outta da Vol-ca-no!" Needless to say, this was not appreciated by the neighbors. But Phil had his sterling qualities too, being the sort of tough character that had the guts to tackel a dangerous situation if he felt that it needed doing. He'd do things like reaffixing the lightning rod when it blew loose in the storm, even the pilot didn't feel like risking that one. And then there was Bryan. He was a quiet studious type, well mannered and helpful in that he put some effort into cleaning up the lobby and quite knowledgeable on various topics. But these two guys had a past history, both having been on the same fishing trawler under a particularly rough captain. And they had gotten into the habit of throwing fish at each other. So there they were, Phil with his music and Bryan trying to make the place nice looking and the two of them exhanging nasty remarks whenever they passed in the stairwell. And if it had been a Neil Simon world, they might eventually have come to some mutual tolerance like the odd couple. But that wasn't in the cards. Instead, one fine day, when Phil had left yet another beer can lying in the lobby, Bryan snapped. He grabbed a fire axe, chopped Phil's door down, and chased him out of the building. A few of the tenants applauded, after all the music had been quite loud. But most of them considered that using fire axes was reprehensible and some missed Phil's occasional wit and insight for he had not been a one sided character. And there was much turmoil and discussion. But the building did really need both of them, Phil for the roof and Bryan for the lobby. And so it came to pass that Phil was re-established in a new apartment and Bryan was censured for his deeds. Here the traditional fairy tale would come to its cheerful conclusion where all live happily ever after, punctuated by Phil, Bryan, and all the tenants joining hands and singing about friendship. Alas, things did not quite go that way. Phil now played his radio louder and Bryan began teaching classes in axemanship. Eviction was discussed, but the pilot, passing by on his way to the roof, rightly pointed out that soon everybody would be evicted, for all had habits that annoyed others, even the lovable old curmodgeon pissed people off more often than not. The truth of the matter was that the building was populated by very able characters who were continually growing in skill and strenth, and the stronger they became, the less they were willing to conform and and line up properly like good citizens. But the growth was uneven and so the same character who had learned to make explosives and was enjoying setting off fireworks in the halls was complaining about the guy who had learned to have fun floating naked in the middle of the lobby. They had not yet learned tolerance for each other's creations. And so it was decided to force everybody to get along and be in agreement and harmony with each other and not create anything that others didn't like. Once the implanting was finished, all were in peace and harmony. Phil no longer played his music loudly and Bryan had ceased to sharpen his axes. And a new golden age was prophesied. All were happy. However, Phil no longer would brave the roof, and Bryan had ceased to care how much beer was spilled in the lobby. Furthermore, the guy who used to tie up the phones had ceased to fix the plumbing, and the guy who used to throw up in the stairwell had stopped repairing the electrical system. The pilot was saddened by this, but continued to drop by occasionally to use the roof. That is, until the day when he found the building had collapsed into rubble due to lack of maintenance. And so he began the long search for another tall building, slowly dragging his glider through the mud behind him. ============== I hope that wasn't too mornfull. But I'm afraid of the traditional solution which is to implant everybody into agreement. You have to find a better way. Not more controls. Not more exiling (disconnection). Not more beating people into line. I think you have to handle with more comm. I think you have to push it back up towards comm whenever it starts sinking towards control and the inevitable plunge down the pre-have scale that comes when you go that route. We have to find ways of being the exact reverse of a third party, cleaning up the 3rd flow without falling into the sweetness and light not-isness that builds up charge on a reverse vector. Right now you've got two cases to heal. This is a test situation. If we all became gods right now this would happen in spades. This situation is very close to basic. Learn to solve it here where worlds wouldn't turn to dust if you make a mistake. And remember - "Communciation is the universal solvent." Good Luck, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - To Robert On The OT BC TO ROBERT ON THE OT BC On 9 Jun 99, VoltR@ctinet.net (RDucharme) responded to my post on "Super Scio Tech - AN OT BREIFING COURSE" > At 13:47 09/06/99 -0400, The Pilot wrote: > > > >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. > > Nice synopsis! > > I like this idea of a second briefing course, though I would lean towards a > review of the entire series of lectures if available, not just 500 of them. I'm simply afraid of too long a runway. People take forever to get through the SHSBC which is under 500 tapes. Maybe a third course after both the OTBC & SHSBC to pick up the remaining 2000 or so tapes. > One of my favorite basic tech lecture series was the 8th ACC (C.O.H.A.), > even though I'd already read the book. I don't think the book gives one > anywhere near the grounding in processing that the lecture series does. I > definitely would include it in the second briefing course. I certainly agree that the 8th ACC tapes go far beyond reading CofHA. My thought was that there was room for one ACC in the 4-9 range if this was going to stay under 500 lectures. Since you at least get a summary of the key 8th ACC materials in CofHA, and since you get nothing on the 9th unless you do it, my preferenance would be to use the 9th. They are both great. > The Phoenix Lecture series I think should be added too. The book has been > edited too much and the tapes clarify a lot of confusions. True, but again my logic was as above. > As to which one should be done first? Personally, I would opt for the > second (O.T.) BC first so the student could get a proper grounding for the > more technically detailed '60s briefing course. It would also help him put > the SHSBC tapes into better perspective. Running OT drills, especially PDC style stuff, on someone else (rather than doing them solo), is an order of magnitude more difficult than grades processing. At least if you're going to do it right, it takes much more judgement. Of course the SHSBC has the really difficult GPM processing, but it isn't applied. So if our gradient is skill level, then its SHSBC first. But the materials evolved the other way around. So it could be arged both ways. > > Robert Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - SOFTENING UP GPMS SOFTENING UP GPMS I've made the point a number of times that one should soften up an actual GPM before attempting to search for items. You can do this with grades style repetative processes on the area of the goal and a generalization of the overall terminal. This is discussed and processes are laid out in Super Scio chapter 3. This kind of processing will run easily without a lot of risk or difficulty. Recently Alan C. Walter pointed out that you have to run the top (current) Reliable Item (RI) of the goal first. This is absolutely correct when dealing with the RIs of the goal, but it can be ignored when running generalized processes that strip off charge without forcing the pc into a specific RI. Let's make up an example. The PC mocks up a goal "to be an icecream cone." At the beginning of the GPM, he has RIs like "a glorious icecream cone" and "a yummy icecream cone". As he gets all screwed up on this goal, he eventually ends up sinking down towards "a melted icecream cone" and "a disgusting icecream cone." If this is an actual GPM, he has been living these items, and he has been accumulating charge in doing that, and all the charge has come to rest right here in present time on the last item. If you try to deal with the charge on "a yummy icecream cone", all the later stuff that he lived through on melting and getting disgusting gets bypassed and restimulated and you have a rough time of it. And so you have to deal with the most recent items first and work backwards down through the GPM towards the beginning of it. But the charge that holds these items in place consists of PTPs, Overts, ARC Breaks, Inval, Protest, and so forth. And we know that we can run grades style processes without finding out any specifics about GPMs. The reason is that the grades style processes are flexible enough to run on whatever needs to be run next. In truth the grades are more basic and the GPMs only form a small portion of the case. All of the overts you would get on running general O/W will not be locks on the RIs that the pc is currently living. But some of them may be and they will run just fine because the pc is free to bring up whatever he is ready to confront next. Now, having our mitts on a particular actual GPM that the pc has going, we can use this same trick to pull charge off of the GPM without having to get the RIs first. If you ask "what overt would an icecream cone commit", the pc is free to bring up whatever overt is most accessible in this area. You are not forcing him into the current RI and you are not forcing him into an early RI, you are just letting him bring up whatever he can confront on a gradient. Furthermore, the overts that he commits in the later RIs often have basics in the earlier RIs. And in fact there may be a key basic on icecream cone overts that is prior to the entire GPM. Overts will run earlier on the track than any GPM and are one of the many things that the GPMs build on top of. We already know that we can run back chains of things, whether problems or overts or engrams or whatever, without having to stay in the current RI and in fact all of our tech works best when the PC can go earlier without restraint. My experience in running light repetative processes on an actual GPM area is that you tend to pull charge off of the current RI and occasionally cycle back on the time track and knock out earlier underlying basics from earlier RIs or even prior to the entire GPM and this is our natural running of repetative processes. And this all happens easily without spotting the specific RIs. What an RI does is it acts to group together PTPs, overts, ARC breaks, inval, protest, etc. so that these all have to be confronted at once as part of confronting the RI. That is what makes the RIs so hard to find and handle. Ron would talk about how it doesn't work to use simple Itsa to try and find RIs, and this is correct unless you take a lot of charge off first. In confronting an RI, the pc has the overts and the problems and the ARC breaks and the inval and the protest and all sorts of other case buttons all hitting him at once and it is just too much. But you can strip out these grades style buttons first. If that didn't work, the grades would not work. In getting each of the grades areas to FN on the goal, you key out all these things in relation to the goal. This takes you to the point where the bulk of the charge on the goal is keyed out and the goal will FN broadly without having yet found any RIs. But that is a keyout. The pc may have thousands of overts related to this goal and you might have only run out a dozen of them. Therefor the goal can charge up again unless it is fully confronted. Now is the time to list out the RIs. They can be taken to an FNing platen. They can be scanned up and down and looked at at random and nothing kicks or charges up anymore. And you can remember living the damn things and see how it all fits together. The listing in this case becomes extremely easy, generally you hardly start to think of the question and you know immediately what the next item is. And the RIs are up in the accessible band where you can get a lot of Itsa on them easily because you're not getting kicked in the teeth by the overts and problems and so forth that are connected with it. A pro can list RIs in the presence of heavy charge. It takes maximum skill. I do not want to invalidate anybody who has managed it. But the above is the easy way. If the goal is already keyed out, mistakes key in very little charge and are easy to spot and correct. But the rule still holds that you have to start with the present time RI and work back down towards the beginning of the goal. If you try to list from the formulation of the goal forward in time from the early items up towards the present, you will start turning on charge from the later items. Its not the huge masses of charge that you would get on a goal that hasn't been softened up, but you can still feel the mass building if you try to do it that way. Once you have worked down through a half dozen RIs, you can come from that point forward and its easy because the later items are already spotted. And with the goal mostly dischared by repetative processes, you can comfortably miss a few items and then catch them as you work the mapped out area back and forth. But you can't just jump back to the beginning of the goal and start working with the initial items if you haven't confronted any of the later ones yet. There are just too many postulates to non-confront later in the goal. This is a characteristic of actual GPMs where the person postulates items to achieve a goal. And note that the postulates that he made and is still holding in place to solve this goal are what we really want to free up. It does not apply to anything where the being has the items before he lives or dramatizes them. It only locks up this way if the person postulates an item, lives it and charges it up, and then mocks up the next item. Implants, like individual engrams, run best from the beginning to the end because the entire implant is one incident. I'm still scratching my head a bit on the idea of basic patterns like the 1964 GPMs. Those might run early to late because the pattern was entered as a unit. But that is a different breed of cat. However, even those would be easiest to run on the general theory of softening up the goal first with light repetative processes. The beauty of the light repetative grades style processes is that you don't even have to figure out which way something would have to be run, the pc just naturally comes up with things in the order that he can confront them. My current theory (see my posting on Types of GPMs) is that there are many goals series going on concurrently. The pc begins one with each universe and a shadow of it keeps going once he sinks down to the next lower universe and starts a new goals series aimed at operating in the new universe. Each series would have a PT (present time) GPM in formation. In searching for goals in 1963, they sometimes would get an older GPM first rather than the PT GPM. If an older one shows up first, it probably did so because there is some current situation stirring it up and causing it to get in the way. Again it works to take off some charge with light repetative processing. But if it is an older GPM, then you should just FN it and not go into item listing, that is best done from PT back. And of course in the old days they would often get a goal that was only a lock on an RI rather than an actual GPM or they would get an actual goal which was not a GPM but was only a goal. And again, these things have some charge on them and that charge will handle with light processes. But you would make a mess if you tried to do item listing. In fact, when running the grades, there are lots of fill in the blanks type processes and we run those without caring whether or not they tie in to some particular GPM. So you can sidestep the whole horrible mess of trying to be sure whether you've got an actual PT GPM or an older GPM or something else that simply has charge on it. If there is a goal with some kick to it and the pc has high interest in running it, then just take some charge off with light repetative grades style processes that are aimed at the area of the goal. When you get enough charge off, he will know if this is a PT GPM that he has been living for many lifetimes or something older that has come into restim recently or whatever. And since you are getting charge off with these processes, it doesn't matter that much what you've bumped into because there are gains to be made in discharging it. Item listing, on the other hand, is often wasted time if you get tangled up in something incorrectly. Taking apart actual GPMs by item is a very upper level action. It requires a very educated pc and probably only should be attempted solo. And it shouldn't be attempted until after one is "clear" because there is too much force on these. The RIs group engram chains as well as grades type stuff and the best way to get the pc to stop mocking up the impacts in the bank is to get him to a dianetic clear state. That does not as-is the grades material and it doesn't as-is the RIs and it doesn't get his postulates into view, but it does remove the engramic force that makes these things smash into him like a steam locomotive when he tries to fool around with them. But taking charge off with repetative processes is safe and easy. If you aim them at a PT GPM you will get more cognitions and TA action per unit of time than if you just run them in general manner as we do on the grades. Note that on my own case, running an actual GPM goal was one of the highest producers of TA action. There was orders of magnitude more TA on the single GPM "to be intelligent" than there was on the entire CC, and I got excellent TA running CC so that should tell you something. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - On Maier's Help Bracket Processing ON MAIER'S HELP BRACKET PROCESSING On 11 Jun 99, ciric@gte.net (Bill Maier) posted on topic "Clearing Help Brackets" Although it is a bit long, I wanted to quote this excellent post in full. Rather that mark the individual lines, I though it better to simply mark the beginning and the end - my comments follow: >>>>>>>>>> HELP BRACKET PROCESSING Help Bracket Processing Bill Maier June 10, 1999 I. Introduction Over the past few months I have been solo auditing a clearing program using help processes from Eductivism class VIII. Although these help processes will look very familiar to Scientologists, their application to clearing GPMs was originated by Jack Horner, the founder of Eductivism. His original handling of GPMs was similar to standard Scientology methods, but he later decided that these help processes handled the same things, with less auditing skill required for their application. The idea for me personally running these came from one of Jack's former students, who became a sort of mentor for my clearing progress. II. Processes There are two basic processes used. The Clearing Help Bracket is 1. In relation to _____, how could you help another? 2. In relation to _____, how could another help you? 3. In relation to _____, how could another help himself? 4. In relation to _____, how could you help yourself? 5. In relation to _____, how could another help another? 6. How could _____ help you? The process is run as a bracket, meaning that the questions are run 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, etc. The Participant Bracket is 1. How could you help a _____? 2. How could a ____ help you? 3. How could you help yourself? 4. How could a ___ help himself? 5. How could a _____ help another? 6. How could another help a _____ ? 7. How could a ___ help a ____? Various items can be inserted into the blanks. The Clearing Help Bracket is most useful when the item is a concept. For example, to run the item "winning", the first question would be "In relation to winning, how could you help another?" The Participant bracket is used to run terminals (people or beings), and is most often used on different kinds of game participants. For example, running "unwilling participant" leads to the question "How could you help an unwilling participant?" etc. It's necessary to recognize the variety of subjective definitions of help that may come up when running these processes. For example, a soldier might help an enemy by killing him. Perhaps the soldier was helping by showing the enemy the justness of the cause for which the soldier is fighting. In any case, the interpretation of what constitutes an answer is entirely up to the PC, but he does need to be hatted on this so he doesn't invalidate his answers if they don't fit the textbook definition of help. Here are some items that can be run in the Help Brackets: ú Being a source / Not being a source ú Intending / Not intending (or Intention / No intention) ú Creating / Not creating ú Pleasing people / Not pleasing people ú Winning / Non-Winning ú Participating / Not participating The items are listed in dichotomous pairs, both of which should be run. For example, first you would run the bracket 1-6 on "being a source" with the questions "In relation to being a source, how could you help another?", "In relation to to being a source, how could another help you?" etc. You would then run the bracket 1-6 on "not being a source" with "In relation to not being a source, how could you help another?", etc. In all there would be 12 questions in the bracket that would be repeated to EP. Here are some items to run in the participant brackets: ú detached participant ú involved participant ú winner ú loser ú non-winner (someone who doesn't win or lose, but stays in the game) ú willing participant ú unwilling participant ú degraded participant ú solving participant ú rejected participant ú different (and better) participant ú failing participant ú constant (or determined) participant ú obsessed participant ú automatic participant ú compelled participant ú committed participant ú faulty participant ú begrudging participant ú perfect participant ú excessive (or overwhelmed or overrun) participant ú regretful participant ú unsolvable participant ú refusing participant ú bothered (by others who are doing what you are trying to give up) participant ú changing (to a new solution) participant There are 18 participants which are supposed to address specific items common to GPMs, that can be run in the Participant brackets. They are: 1. Ex-participant = one who no longer has the desire to participate. Just doesn't have the desire anymore . . . Doesn't want to be involved anymore. 2. Changing participant (or change-desiring participant) = one who has desire to pursue the next goal. The key is desire - he's not actually doing the new thing yet. 3. Bothered participant = having problems with those who are still doing the thing that one has just given up. Example: quit smoking cigarettes and now have problems with cigarette smokers. 4. Refusing participant = one who has determined to not do it at all, ever again. Try not to think of a pink elephant. Quitting once and for all. Actually "quitting partcipant" might work very well also. 5. Discouraged participant = one whose goal has become an unsolvable problem. "Unsolvable participant" might work also. 6. Regretful participant = is hoping not to, but is doing it anyway. "Sorry I keep stepping on your foot . . . I'd like to stop smoking and I hope to give it up some day, but . . ." 7. Excessive participant. Or: overwhelmed or overrun participant. = having too much of whatever it is. 8. Begrudging participant = one who HATES what he is doing, but goes on doing it. Hating is the solution! 9. Faulty participant = suffering from criticisms, his own and others'. 10. Committed participant = one who is doing what has to be done. Justifying and rationalizing why one has to do this. 11. Compelled participant = someone or something making you do it. 12. Automatic participant = setting up automaticities to carry out an intention 13. Obsessed participant = obsession, fixation, can't get your mind off it. 14. Determined participant = doing it over and over, constantly. 15. Failing participant = having failures to achieve what was intended. 16. Better participant = doing it differently and better. Generally has attitude of "I'll show them" (This also true of determined participant). Could say "different and better participant." 17. Rejected participant = having rejections/difficulties/disagreements with those who have the same general goal. 18. Solving participant = One who has the only solution for everything. Solution could be positive or negative. For example, he could be solving everything by avoidance. A person dramatizing this item usually is trying to get the solution to manifest on all flows. Example, trying to be agreeable, get others to be agreeable = total solution for everything. III. Prerequisites I would recommend that a person have completed at least some prior auditing before attempting these processes. The traditional course is to have a person complete the grades through Power processing before attempting these clearing processes. However, I have found that many of the assumptions currently extant for auditing are quite arbitrary -- e.g. you must do grades before power, power before R6EW, etc. I would say use your own judgement. The only real "danger" is that the person would fail to get significant results, then write off the processes without recognizing they might be applicable later on. Personally I had only perhaps one hundred hours of processing with an auditor before starting the help brackets, but I had also completed several hundred hours of solo processing including about the first half of the Pilot self-auditing program, through the Power processes. One prerequisite I would not compromise on is the excellent use of TRs. Personally, it wasn't until I began to adhere strictly to the use of TRs in my solo auditing that I began to get consistently good results. Prior to this I would frequently bog down and simply abandon a process, without knowing why it didn't work. The correct handling is just simple TR4: Auditor: How could you help an unwilling participant? PC: (starts to feel groggy) Auditor: What's happening? PC: I feel groggy. Auditor: OK. Is it all right to continue with the process? PC: Yes. Auditor: OK. I'll repeat the auditing question, how could you help an unwilling participant? The groggy feeling is treated as an origination. The auditor gets the PC back into session and continues. You must train yourself to keep your auditor identity in place, even when the going gets rough. It's really not that difficult. IV. Personal Experience These processes are simple to run and make few assumptions. You don't have to have any reality on GPMs to run these. You don't even have to run whole track, though they undoubtedly run deeper if you do. Despite the lack of assumptions, I frequently found myself involved in the interaction of identities and goals - GPM material. The absence of assumptions is appealing to me. It's clear by looking at the diversity of opinions in the Free Zone about running NOTs and OT III that there is no consensus for handling cases beyond the grades. I think it is best to stick to those processes that allow the PC to come up with his own answers, rather than those that feed him assumptions about his case or his history. I always use a meter when auditing, though this is not strictly necessary. I would recommend you use one if you have one, but don't let a lack of a meter stop you. My main use of the meter during these processes is to confirm the EP, and to a lesser extent to monitor progress. The position of the TA is the most important indicator, though the looseness or tightness of the needle is also useful information. I have seen more TA action while running these processes than any others I've run. It is not unusual to see the TA rise as much as a division or more, then blowdown, rise again, blowdown, etc. over and over again during the session. I've had TAA of 35 divs per hour or more. The processes can also cause "high TA, stuck needle" situations as masses move in. I have had a stuck needle at TA 5.5 for more than half an hour in a session, but after continuing to run the process the needle eventually freed up, the TA blew down, and I ended with a floating TA. Incidentally, floating TAs have been a common result for me running these processes, and once I have one there's no point in trying to run anything else for a day or two until it settles down. There's just one more point I'd like to make about the meter. You can use it to assess items to run, though again this is not necessary. You could formulate a question such as "What kind of participant am I being" and look for reads on your answers. I tried this once and did not have much luck with it. (I have not had much success with solo assessment in general, however - I rarely get reads on any of the items). Personally, I just went ahead and ran all of the items. Those that were not heavily charged ran to an EP in 10 or 15 minutes, while those that were more heavily dramatized took longer. One of the greatest difficulties for me in solo auditing was determining when to end the process. When I first started soloing (prior to running these help brackets) it was not unusual for me to run a process for 3 or 4 minutes, have a cognition, and then end the process. Several auditors in the Free Zone told me it was OK to end the process here, that the important thing was to keep having wins. Well, perhaps this is true for some people, but for me personally this was not right. The quick cognition was a sort of non-confront mechanism which kept me from getting into the real heart of the process. I needed to push ahead and run processes to a true flat point. It's hard to put a run time on processes since they run differently from person to person, however the above brackets frequently required at least an hour for me to flatten one item when I first started this processing. As I progressed the times tended to shorten as the bulk of the charge was handled. The meter can also be used to help confirm when to end a process, by watching for the TA in the range 2 to 3 with a loose needle. Although these processes are unlimited and can be run for a long time with benefit, I do not recommend them as a "one-shot" technique, to be done to the exclusion of all else. There are those who find some process to be particularly effective, and then narrowly focus on that process as "the answer". I cannot agree with such an approach. No one process can cover all aspects of a case. I think it is important to take the gains one can get from a process and then move on to something else. V. Results My results with these processes have been outstanding. Flattening an item frequently leaves me in such a keyed-out state that it is impossible to continue further processing for at least a day or two. A floating TA is a common end result. So is this processing an effective way to handle GPMs? Quite honestly I cannot say for sure one way or the other. I do know that the processes tend to address identities and the interaction of identities, and that running them does exteriorize me from these dramatizations. This, along with the huge quantities of charge being handled, makes me think that I am indeed erasing or keying-out GPMs. However, until I have direct experience with a more traditional GPM process, I have no real basis for comparison. Nonetheless, I find that I am becoming quite detached in my view of life as a result of this processing. I am far less bothered by the ups and downs of daily living, and feel that I have gained a considerable ability to act on life, rather than react to it. Life is less serious. My own personal space has also expanded. In short, the help and participant brackets have been some of the most effective processing I have ever had. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> END OF BILL'S POST See the general writeup that I'm posting on "SOFTENING UP GPMS." I've been pushing the use of general repetative grades style processes to discharge GPM goals, and pointing out that the grades will run earlier on the track than any GPMs. Here Bill has come up with a different approach using the same grades style philosophy to discharge the GPM bank, and I'm quite pleased to see that Jack Horner had found reasons to validate this approach. Jack's work was not known to me at the time of writing Super Scio and mine was obviously not known to him. From what I understand of Jack's work now, he was aiming at what I'm calling the 1964 actuals, which are a different sort of thing than the 1963 R3M style actuals. I think that Ron was mistaken in abandoning one for the other, there is more than one kind of GPM back on the track, and neither of these are directly related to the 1965 type which the clearing course addresses. I am assuming here that the list of things to run in the help process is slanted towards discharging the RIs of the 1964 set, based on Jack and other's experience in working with the GPMs directly. Instead of discharging one single goal with a limited amount of repetative processing, Bill is tackeling the entire GPM series as a unit. As a result, he has lots of work to do on the help button, but it runs sucessfully because it is indeed more basic. And note that as the button runs out of the entire GPM series, it should come loose from the RIs and more basic (prior to GPMs) stuff on help should come into view. There is a basic problem in that the accessible band on a new person is too shallow to let them reach the help button on the early track. The grades only go to keyout instead of errasure. The material run is late track, but it harmonics on early track (because we keep doing the same stuff) and so we get releases without really viewing the basic stuff. After grades, you can fight your way through the heavy force band as I did, running implants, overts, and tearing apart a few actual GPMs until you can see past them (and also handling entities and all the other wild phenomena). It took me a long time to find the grades again on the far side of this heavy later stuff. Another approach, which is used in self clearing, is to cycle through grades style material repetatively a number of times because the band of accessibility is wider each time and you will eventually get earlier than the GPMs and things. Here we now have a third approach, which is to have a battery of processes on a particular grade button ("help" in this case) tailored closely enough to the RI patter to let it cut through to the far side. "Help" is a good choice because it is one of the more basic grade buttons. I don't think that you would make it with a later heavier one such as overts or ARC breaks as the first process. But "communication" or even "protest" or "not know" could probably be made to work in this pattern. I'm not sure if you can reach full errasure on "help" this way on a single pass. I'm fairly sure, though, that the "help" button will have errased out of the RIs if you can get it running earlier than the initial creation of GPMs. Eventually help will either errase or key out so thoroughly that it will not run further. Then you will need to shift over to a different grade button and errase that out of the RIs and get it into the basic area. "Communication" might be a good choice, it might even be a better first target than help. It could be as simple as "what could a ____ say to you", "what could you say to a ____". But of course many variations are possible and one might have to experiment around a bit. I would say that a light run through grades or self clearing should be done first. And as I said, there are other ways to reach early track. But this does seem like a workable one. Bill has my thanks. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Solving Difficulties in doing UCP Solo SOLVING DIFFICULTIES IN DOING UCP SOLO A process known as the Universal Clearing Process or UCP has been given out freely on the net. The source is: > Konchok Penday > Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH > > > FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH: > http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm > "Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!" A nice simple summary was put out by Bryan, on 14 Jun 99. >The following seems to be the core of UCP. > >--- >UCP COMMANDS: >1] Tell me a place you have been. >2] Compare that place to where you are now. >3] Where might you be? >4] Compare that place to where you are now. > >1] Tell me a View Point you have had. >2] Compare that View Point to your present View Point. >3] What View Point might you have? >4] Compare that View Point to your present View Point. >--- Konchok has taken the admirable action of distributing his work freely for use in co-audits. For that I thank him. He also has the common dramatization of saying that his process is all you'll ever need and so forth and bashes at other's work (especially Hubbard even though he uses Ron's scales etc.) But I'll ignore that for now since his work does have some value and he has given it out freely. I hope he'll mend his ways and join the club, there is ton's of stuff we still have to figure out. The big bug is that he insists that it cannot be solo audited but must be co-audited. And he is right, it is a rough one to solo, although I wouldn't say that it is impossible. And I don't want to invalidate co-auditing. You can generally run deeper doing that. But if it can be made to solo, then the same technique should make it easier to co-audit too. The biggest difficulty here is that this is a differentiation style process. Those are inherently more difficult to run. The easy processes are generally spotting type processes where you look at one thing at a time. A differentiation type process requires looking at two things at once and it is, of course, a bit harder. It is difficult enough that it can be out of the accessible band in solo. I favored spotting techniques in self clearing and the majority of modern Scientology grades processes are in the repetative spotting category. Take problems and solutions for example, it is basically an alternate spotting of problems and solutions, considerably beefed up to get more Itsa ("What solutions have you had for that problem"). But differentiation techniques do give good gains, Ron uses them occasionally in the 1950s, and I used some in self clearing. In fact Trom's timebreaking is basically a differentiation style techique. These things all work and they will solo. But the key to doing it successfully is to come up to it on a gradient. Even Trom wouldn't just toss the person into their time breaking without any preparation. One way to do this would be to do a few commands of alternate spotting on the target first before trying to differentiate. For example a) spot a place you have been. b) alternately spot that place and where you are now a few times until you have good reality on it. c) Then spot similarities and differences between the two locations. Then spot another place, etc. In this form it should solo fairly easily. Without this, many people would just skid off in solo and the process wouldn't bite. In a co-audit, doing it this way should run a bit faster and deeper. It occurs to me that this might also run well on "time" instead of "place" or "viewpoint". It also occurs to me that it might be fun without the limiter of where you have been. In other words, spot any place. Have Fun, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - To Joanne Barree on Assists TO JOANNE BARREE ON ASSISTS On 20 Jun 99, "Joanne Barre" posted on topic "Pilot, thank you" > Thank you for the touch assist. I understand this. He is paralyzed > on his left side. I still want to know were "he" is. Is he in his > body? Does he move in and out? If so, why? > > I don't know what my father's fears are for the somatic on the two > way communication. I will ask him. As far as I know, his fears > are going to be pretty heavy. > > I don't want to mess him up more than he already is. > I am going to do the touch assist. > Thank you, J I only seem to be able to find later parts of this conversation (I notice that thom has been giving you some good answers) and I'm missing too much background information. The touch assists are a very good idea. Also have him spot points inside the body, alternating the two sides, I'm assuming that you are in good enough comm to get him to do this. Don't concentrate exclusively on the body because it validates the physical situation too much. Also do some light recall of pleasure moments or other light processing directed away from the current situation. For fear, your best starting point is to have him remember or spot things that he is NOT afraid of. This fits in well with doing a bit of processing away from the current condition and yet also acts as an indirect handling. Best is probably to spend the first half of each session working on the physical condition and the second half working other things. Hope this helps, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - ON PME'S, PLUGS, CBR, & INC 1 ON PME'S, PLUGS, CBR, & INC 1 I just went through CBR's tech briefings 4 and 7 on Super Nots (Actually I've been going throught he tech briefings in sequence and I would recommend reading them that way, but these are the two that I'm commenting on here). He found something called plugs and it's what I've been calling PMEs (programmed machine entities - see Super Scio). I'm quite surprised at the number of parallels and facinated by the fact that we hit these things with completely different slants and viewpoints and yet bumped into the same phenomena. Note that I didn't even have a hint of his stuff about plugs when I was writing Super Scio and he certainly didn't read my stuff because it wasn't posted until 1997. I think he slipped up occasionally but he also got a thing or two that I missed in the area. And since we both say to follow attention and interest and that you have to get to the core of these things instead of using ordinary Nots endlessly around the edges, the differences of opinion don't really matter that much. What he calls a "plug" is a construction of "entities" with organization and structure that does something. He was into policy and "3rd dynamic tech", so he describes it that way. I'm more into mechanics and computer programming and things like that so I describe it as a "machine". But of course a "machine" has organization and structure and does something. CBR talks about these plugs having org boards. Hopfully he was not doing a literal minded dub-in of the 7 or 9 division org board used by CofS. That's just a crapped up old example of a poor org structure dragged out of some old civilization that must have had about the worst tech/admin ration that you could imagine. But Ron's Mind/Body/Product concept of organization struture is a correct basic and would apply to these things. --------------- ORG BOARDS - I feel a need to digress here and talk a bit about org boards, feel free to skip this. Ron's truely brilliant cognition on organization structure is the Mind/Body/Product theory. That is correct. And it holds true for machines as well as groups. Not just mental machines, but physical machines as well. If you take the now standard computer programming model of Input/Processing/Output, and you realize that output is the product, and that body fits with processing, then you can see that there should be a line up between Mind and Input. Except that mind is broader, it establishes and controls as well as setting up the input to the processing. And that establishment and control function IS present in computer softwear, and therefore Ron's description encompasses the reality better than the standard I/P/O model. And of course the Mind, Body, and Product each subdivide into a lesser Mind, Body, Product in a fractile manner. In computers, they recognize this repeated occurance of I/P/O within each segment of I/P/O and therefore describe it as being Hierarchical. This is the classic Hierarchical Input-Processing-Output or HIPO model which underlies good quality system design. And yet again, if you use Ron's description with its broader concept of mind rather than simply input, you pick up loose ends related to control and establishment that system designers have to finagle with, and so it is a better picture. Now if you take an automobile, there is a "mind" function which is the control system. And then there is the "body" or actual "production" component which is engine and body and so forth, and there is a "product" which is the movement of the car. And if we take some subordinant piece, such as the engine, we again find that there is an input+control function and the body/production unit itself, and a product or output even though we started by selecting a component of the higher level "body" segment. And if we take the control system (mind from the higher view), we again see that we can subdivide it into mind, body, and product. This is a fractile pattern, the same subdivisions at the top are also the lesser subdivisions within each large subdivision. So your car does not have tiny little registrars and ethics officers running around in it, but it does have this mind/body/ product pattern. There is an infinity of ways in which this pattern can be implemented. Many organization structures are possible, the CofS has one, although as I said I don't think it is a very good one. It is a shame that Ron didn't try to rethink the entire org board from scratch once he had this more basic cognition. And of course you can build machines without paying attention to this. But you will find that you end up having to handle input/control and operation and results anyway, and so the machine will wind up having these things. The only question is whether you plan for these things or end up hacking them in after you start construction so as to get the damn thing to work (happens often in computer software). And so it is fair to say that a machine has organization and that it will have a hierarchical organization and you need to get to basic on the whole structure (which is the top level - that is what you lay out first in writing a program) to take it apart. If you want to look at this as going up the chain of command to the "CO" (commanding officer), it will work although I would consider the analogy to be a little bit silly. I prefer to look at this as moving through outer layers towards a central core. But again, that is only a way of looking at it. In truth what you are trying to do is get to the stuff that holds the entire automobile together instead of just dealing with the stuff that is holding one of the tires together, and you hit the small details on the fringes first and have to work to get past them to the all encompassing ones. ------------ MACHINE MAKING I called it a "machine making cylinder", Bill calls it a "Spin-Dryer". Same damn thing, a rotating cylinder that forms the machine. The entities are repelled by the walls as it spins. Bill says "electrostatic charge" repels the beings, pushing them into the center. That could be true on recent track but would not be true in the middle track period when these machines were first being formed because the thetan did not yet think of himself as being energy which could be handled with force. So I think that I'm right in saying that the thetan was handled by using symbols that he flinched at. The walls of the cylinder have symbols on them and he tries to back away from them and thereby pushes in towards the center of the cylinder. And if it was just the symbol immediately above the thetan on the inner wall of the cylinder, he might not flinch and he might confront it, so they have a long series of different symbols and they rotate the cylinder so that the symbols show up one after the other, and the faster it rotates, the faster he gets hit with these symbols, so he flinches more and more instead of getting his TRs in and escaping. Note that this early, the thetan did not think of himself as either being mass or energy, but he had already come to think of himself as being space rather than being something which creates space (big difference) and so was located and occupied space. And of course we know it is possible for thetans to occupy the same space, but if the thetans are insisting that they each have their own space, then those spaces can be pushed together and the thetans can be crushed in on each other even though that is something that cannot truely happen on early track when the thetan had less considerations. And so the thetans near the walls of the cylinder press inwards a bit and so the next layer beneath them, trying to keep some space, push in more on the ones below them and the pressure gets immense in the center, especially as the cylinder spins faster and begins to conract. Of course if you were willing to have the other thetans in your space, this wouldn't work and the machine making wouldn't affect you. And if you were not flinching at symbols, you would just float out of the damn thing. So this is middle track, with a thetan who is already pretty abberated although he is still being a thetan instead of a body. I find the machine making to be recent. These things do come apart. But to blow a machine properly, I generally had to have the basic core spot "the first time you were made into a machine." And that is generally in what I call the symbols universe. And guess what, I get the same damn dates that CBR does. 4 to 7 Quadrillion. The big machine building era late in the symbols unvierse. See the Cosmic History chapter of Super Scio. He has another interesting thing which he calls a "Hoover" that sucks up thetans. His description is correct. I should have taken a closer look at the "clean up" done by the implant dealers after a mass implant. I mentioned that in Super Scio, but with no detail. This hoover thing is exactly what they use. In a mass implant like inc 2, there are huge numbers of decayed beings that just drop out, being too overwhelmed for packaging. The implant dealers kindly clean up afterwards, collecting these dregs and building them into machines. And so there is a hoover suckup prior to the machine making. But of course this is late track. You wouldn't find this in a first time machine making experience. However, you might find a hoover like device in middle track (the orginal machine making era), working on symbolic attraction to draw in thetans rather than using force. We do tend to repeat ourselves even as the laws and mechanics change. --------------- INVADER FORCES Another digression. Notice how cross fertilization of different techs is really turning on lots of Itsa. Bill mentioned sucking thetans up out of another universe. Something seemed to indicate on that although it would not fit with machine building activities here in this universe. What I got immediately was a different use of one of these hoover things in building an invader force, and for me that is a recent incident, only slightly before Earth. I've mentioned before that these heavy invader forces are formed up by somebody in the magic universe capturing a crowd down here, dragging them up to the magic universe, implanting them into being an army, and then pushing them back in here via incident 1. This is an effort on the part of those few high lords and wizards that are still left up in the magic universe to establish empires before relocating here because the magic universe has almost completely decayed due to exiling most of its people to this universe. With CBR's description of hooverizing, my own incident on this came into better view. The earlier beginning was a huge space battle. I think that will usually be the case because they want soldiers to make up into an army, so it is best to start with beings who are already making soldier style postulates. After the battle, there are lots of confused thetans who just died in the hundreds or thousands of ships that blew up. You're not going to suck up a happy and oriented thetan or somebody that has a well body to hang onto. But these guys who've just had the shit blown out of them are easy meat. So the sequence is: 1. Killed in some huge battle or other catastophie that leaves thousands or millions dead and in shock as beings. 2. Sucked up by Hoover 3. Confusing impressions of magic universe as they shift you from the hoover collection mechanism (a golden sphere) into an implant. 4. Invader force making implants. Things like being invited into a beautiful crystal city and then these space ships appear and smash it and they inspire you to smash the enemy. And another sequence where a good and kind king tells you he trusts you to save the common people. Lots of highly asthetic picture sequences like that, not particularly related to each other, meant to remind you of times that you did make strong postulates to be a good and loyal soldier etc. Then a bunch of implant items about being brave and obedient and loyal and so forth. 5. Incident 1. A very recent late on the chain occurance of it. And of course its the beginning of track and before time and all that garbage if you've been kicked around enough to confuse your own time track with a Mest time track. The big trick is that it really is the beginning of track. It is the moment when the Inc 1 universe was created and there is nothing earlier in it. And you are used to tieing into a start of track like that and accepting it as the beginning of all time within a game for the sake of playing a game (start a monopoly game - it is the beginning of game time - no fair using stuff from yesterday's game). In this case its just meant to trick you. 6. And then you're back down here being marshalled up, perhaps into a 4th or 5th invader force unit (from different mutually hostile kingdoms in the magic universe). Of course this is just based on my own run through a recent (maybe ten thousand years ago) incident. I would expect it to vary considerably for indivduals, so find whatever you find. And I was happy very briefly to be part of the 5th invader because we were going into battle against Marcab, because that is who I was fighting in the earlier battle before getting sucked up. Or at least that's how it seems peering back though all the dup-in and charge and the continual implanting. There are a lot of groups fighting here and each time you get captured in battle the group that captures you implants you to fight for them instead of the other guys. Because of access to the magic universe, the invader forces do a much better job with their implanting than the local jobs done by Marcab or whatever, but all the empires work that way. You only wind up on prison planets like this one when you've gotten so numb to the implants that they can't even explain to you anymore which side you are supposed to fight for next. ---------- STACKS Bill seems to see these plugs or machines as being stacked up in some sort of fashion. I just consider that there is a general band of accessiblity and things that are either in or out of reach and that this shifts around a bit in a state of flux as a being shifts his postulates. Sometimes things are layered, and sometimes not, and who cares, you just go for whatever is in reach now. But in either case (mine and Bill's), you run what has attention and interest and you expect that other things, previously unreachable, will now come into reach. So it's only a philosophical difference rather than a difference in practice. --------- HANDLING CBR is quite right in stating that these things have layers of holders holding holders etc. You can sit there with ordinary Nots style techniques blowing stuff off of the outer fringes endlessly and it just keeps getting replaced. You have to reach to the bottom of these things to handle them. The place where its being held together and mocked up from. Or call this the top or center or whatever you like, but its a basic point rather than the fringes. Early on I went through lots of difficulty and complexity pushing down through these things to reach key points. Gradually it got easier and I found undercuts. I'm still not sure if other people will be able to undercut immediately or will need some of the more complex handlings briefly. The various complicated rundowns I used are in Super Scio chapter 6. CBR's handling still has some complexity in it. Its probably as good a way in as my early handlings were, possibly better because they've been refining this thing and using it on lots of cases. So I don't want to invalidate it. And new people may need to do a bit of it this way first until their confront is up and they have a feel for these things. Speaking of physical plugs now, the easy way to get a plug out of something is not to pry away at it from the top but to simply give it a wack on the bottom and pop it out. Of course you have to be in a position to poke it from underneath, which is not always feasible, but if you can, you would do it that way. If you can poke up at the bottom, it will be out of there in a few seconds instead of taking an hour. My eventual super fast handling on PMEs is "spot the (first) time you were made into a machine" and "spot making others into machines". Sometimes I need to do a touch more with "spot being tricked into thinking that machines were necessary" or other similar questions, but that rarely seem necessary these days (but maybe that's because I've come up through a gradient). It only takes about a minute. Huge structures come apart. Sometimes clouds of individuals remain, but these days they usually go on a big friendly acknowledgment that blankets them all. Since there is a terminology difference, and since the command needs to go in with real intention and reach close enough to the core (or CO or whatever you want to call it) to be copied in, somebody who is used to thinking of these things as plugs should probably reword the command, because the understanding and intention is senior here rather than the words. So this could be run as "spot the (first) time you were made into a plug", "spot making others into plugs", and "spot being tricked into thinking that plugs were needed". This should pop one out in under a minute. But of course it wouldn't work if you simply waft the command at the outer fringes on a light breeze. You need to get it in there. Not by shouting but with good TR 1. The inner core is hard to reach because there are so many layers in the way, but these commands indicate to it well enough that they will get copied down through a few layers, so it works even if you only get close. The whole structure should come unglued when the key point lets go. Lesser pices, held together from lesser points, sometimes hang together momentarily, but the central point's cog and blow will have permeated everything, so these substructures dissolve almost immediately as they get the cog on a commlag. ----------- MONITORS CBR's monitors correspond to what I've been calling control entities(CEs). I noticed this parallel awhile ago when some monitor tech started being talked about on the net, but again my write up in Super Scio chapter 6 predates hearing any of Bill's tech on this, so there is a phenomena that people will run into here even if it is not suggested. Again I'm amazed at the parallels despite the fact that we look at and describe things in very different ways. The monitors (CEs) do not generally dissolve if handled as machines (or plugs) like the above. Bill also needed something beyond his ordinary plug tech to handle these. These things are more conscious than machines. They restimulate the machines and use them against you. They are a control mechanism. And they don't dissolve on machine handling because they think that they are serving a higher purpose and doing good. Again I went through more complex handlings (see Super Scio). And I keep simplifying. Until recently I've been using a "spot being made into" as with PMEs, and then a few "spot being tricked" type commands to blow them. But recently I shifted over to "Spot being tricked into controling others" and these things are dissolving on the one command without anything else. But at this point I have a huge awareness and certainty on how we have been doing each other in on misguided efforts to control and I feel like a lot of that is communicating along with the command so they duplicate that as well and simply say "the hell with all this controlling" and pull out. I don't think that "spot being tricked into monitoring others" will work unless they are only monitoring (some only do that) because controlling is more of an overt. Doing this writeup got me back to fooling with these things again and seeing if I could find some more that were now accesible. But something further opened up, which was the idea that I was doing this to others. I'd been handling that on the lighter Nots style phenomena, but not with these control entities, they are about the strongest constructions and it simply hadn't come into view. This time it was there with reality. I simply started spotting being made to put part of myself into a control entity, and as I would spot that, I would get this wild view of having a line, now in PT, running down to somebody's body, and then I'd just sort of let go and it would feel like some strength returned to me, and then I'd spot another time and so forth. It was just wild although the spotting both of the incident and of who I was now holding under control were both extremely vague and uncertain. From this I got the following cog: Anything that is blocking you, controlling you, or impacting on you is something that you are also doing, now in present time, to others on an unconsious basis. And that is where most of your horsepower is going. Somebody else tries to move an ashtry, you stop them. You try to move an ashtray, they stop you. This is off the cuff, and it might not be as absolute as I just suggested. But the phenomena is there at least to some degree. We'll see how far it goes. ----------- EARLIER UNVIERSE I glanced a bit a super static and noticed that Bill followed up on other stuff in what I call the symbols universe (he doesn't refer to it this way). Much to my surprise, he seems to have found some sort of council of gods which matches what I called the controlling council in the Cosmic History section of Super Scio. This is the suppressive crew that keeps launching games of entrapment and escape in lower sequences of universes. He calls these things GUMs (Games Universe Matrix) and he's got more structure to them than I think is there (but I keep an open mind on these things) but I also got this repeated business of down into lower universes and back on up again over and over. Here I would remind people of the blind men and the elephant with one feeling its trunk and another feeling the tusks. In this case I don't think that either of us has a full view of this particular elephant yet but with the two views together, you might get a little better feel for it. Now if only somebody would pull on its tail, we might get this one wrapped up properly. But this points out something funny. CBR is getting Itsa here in the current universe, proceeding forward from incident 1, and he's getting Itsa way back there at the council level prior to CC, and yet I see nothing on the huge gap inbetween. And yet people run magic track occasionally. It is not that hard to reach. And incidents from two or three universes back show up in some of the 1952 stuff. So the incidents and universes prior to incident 1 are not really that hard to reach or particularly dreadfull in their restimulation. In actual fact, the current universe is tougher to confront. And CBR even uses Ron's tech on indicating "earlier universe" if the earliest incident 1 doesn't do the trick on handling OT 3. So he knows he can get earlier than inc 1, and he manages to reach prior to CC quite well. But he doesn't LOOK earlier than inc 1 and see that big missing band of stuff at the magic universe level etc. I don't think that this is due to CBRs inability to look. He got a Bum Steer from Ron. In the OT 3 and Nots materials, Ron says to indicate Earlier Universe but not to run it. And CBR follows Ron's orders. I don't follow Ron's material as orders. I take it as excellent suggestions. He is generally right. I try it his way because he has such a good track record on the research. But I look for myself and act accordingly, and I expect those of you who are using my materials to do the same with anything that I say. It's suggestions and trail markers. You have to keep your eyes open and see what's there. I'm tempted to go into a rant here on self analysis. Please, please, if you blow some big OT level out of your way, follow it up by running self analysis again on the new areas exposed. Without that or some other use of recall techniques (such as self clearing chapter 6), you will not get things in context. And Ron knew better. He even has a handling for start of time and beginning of track type stuff back in 1963. Just move the pc to a month before start of time. Aha! And he'd even run pcs through magic track, see the neat descriptions in the 1MACC tape "Principle incidents on the whole track". So why didn't he look a trifle before incident 1 and see magic universe, and why did he tell others not to look? The big charge on incident 1 is not being pushed into it, it is on pushing others into it. He probably got a glimplse of that. And this is when he had slipped into that "only one" and "I am the single source" type dramatization that he seems to develope in the 1965-7 time period. Just guessing now, but I can imagine him getting a glimpse of pushing somebody else into incident 1 and saying to himself, "Oh my god, I'm the guy who pushed everybody into incident 1 and got us all stuck here" and flinching at that. And then he didn't want to look and he didn't want others to look because it would miss his withhold. Except that he wasn't the only one. We all pushed each other into incident 1 endlessly. The thing does not stick or hold you here unless you have pushed somebody else into it with the intentions of trapping them. Early on we come out pretty fast and then try and get even by pushing others in. It is about as common as little kids dunking each other under water in a swimming pool. It's not even a question of did you do it or not, its just "how many times?" So its no big deal. But when I first got a glimpse without real confront or seeing this in context from the other side, it was this shuddering horror of, "oh my god, did I do this to others?" And I wasn't being an only one, so I was only considering that I might have been one of the guys who did this rather than the source point. And even so it was tough to face up to. So if Ron was looking at it that way, I don't blame him for backing off even though it was the wrong thing to do. Anyway, there is a load of stuff in between that controlling council and incident 1 and its quite interesting and fun to run. And there is tons more even earlier on the track too, most especially home universe. So keep these things in context and don't get too carried away on any one incident, no matter how popular it was to toss each other into it. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - CLEAR AND THE TIME TRACK CLEAR AND THE TIME TRACK After all this time, I've finally realized a key fact about the state of Clear and the way R3R runs after clear. After clear the pc's timetrack does not move at the auditor's command. A clear will continue to mockup his own solid timetrack until he hits the clear-OT state. But it will only move under the control of the pc, not the auditor. According to the R3R bulletins, the time track moves under the auditor's control. Based on the small amount of Dianetics I had before clear and based on running many hours of Dianetics on people who were not clear, this seems to be correct. The track moves when the auditor tells it too (assuming he is in control of the session and has decent TRs). I had a great deal of Dianetics after clear. The auditor would say "move to (date)", and then, being in session and wanting to run the process and learn new things, I would obey the command and move the time track. Notice the difference there. It is a big difference. There is a time delay. The track moves instantly when it moves, but it doesn't move until the pc executes the auditing command. Based on running a lot of Dianetics on others, the meter sometimes flicks when the track moves. On pcs who are not clear, you will see that flick (if it occurs) like an instant read on the move command. However, on pcs who I now think were unacknowledge Dianetic clears, that flick is latent, occuring when the pc did the command. It is not that the track takes time to move, it is that the pc takes time to decide to move it. But there is an exception, which is entities' time tracks. These always move instantly at the command of the solo auditor. If they didn't, you would already have a blow. Early on in Nots however, and especially on unacknowledged clears, an entity may obey the auditor's orders and move at his command. I did not notice this happening later once I had a bit of awareness and control. But in retrospect, I did have that happen sometimes in Dianetics. It was always on overrun, gone past basic, or an unnecessary action. In those cases we would slip over onto a BT's track instead of my own. And in that case the time track would move under auditor control rather than being something which I did because I was asked to by the auditor. That makes a mess because the unacknowledged clear being run on R3R misowns the BTs pictures for his own. I had to sort through a bunch of this on audited Nots. That is the liability of dianetics after clear. It is not that you can't run incidents or that you don't have incidents which you can make gains on running, it is that you can be pushed into sliding over onto somebody else's track. With this trick, you can tell. If you consciously moved to the incident, its yours. If something else moved, then it ain't you. Another interesting point is that after clear, the degree of impact or amount of force in an incident does not seem to be of significance. Lots of other stuff IS still significant in the incident, especially decisions, postulates, and your reaction at the time of the incident. But not the amount of force. Also, the R3R commands specifically tend to get in the way. There are too many of them, especially the use of two move commands on one incident. There is too much thoroughness which coaxes you to put things back. But incident running is still beneficial although it might better be left until you have enough cause and awareness over entites that you don't get fooled and misown thier pictures. And it might best be done solo with a stripped down set of commands. The time track retains its solidity until clear-OT. The solidity is the result of alter-is of time. Most especially it occurs because of pushing incidents out of sequence to justify overts, but other alter-ises are possible. When the track blows, you cease to "move" on the track, there is no longer any sense of moving along a time line when you move to an incident. And yet you can still "move" to incidents, its just a bit different, there is more of a sense of mocking them up. But incident running is still an aid to getting your confront up on things and finding and regaining control over old postulates. But you will find something interesting, which is that the cumulative progression and build up of charge from incident to incident no longer exists. If you are running sour grapes, you are simply getting your confront up on sour grapes. Whether it is an earlier or a later incident on what was once a chain hardly matters, what matters is raising your confront. What is happening here is that with each state, more of the mechanics are dropping out and ceasing to matter. On clear, the force goes out of the pictures and the pc's track ceases to obey external orders. On clear-OT, the solidity of the track disappears and the cumulative chain effect vanishes. Sometimes you get exceptions to this, and those are due to a BT. But that stops happening too on the cause over life state. You no longer misown others tracks or mistake BT think for your own. And yet after all of this there is still abberation and some stimulous response left. Note that you cannot get an instant read on an e-meter without stimulous response. An ARC break assessment will still instant read even after all of the above states are attained and after other states that I'm not even sure how to name or describe. The grades material is basic or at least closer to basic than any of the heavier phenomena. Grades material continues to read and run well. Hope this helps, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - A NIFTY ADVANCED PROCESS - CREATION CLEANUP A NIFTY ADVANCED PROCESS - CREATION CLEANUP It occured to me that we should have some axioms about reality. So I thought of the following: Axiom R1: Reality is being created now. The mechanics of reality are the continuous creation of consecutive nows, each in a new unit of time. This lead to the following process on reality: Give me 3 realities you could have. Spot some more realities you could have. Give me some realities that you'd let another have. This all got me thinking some more about the continuous creation of the universe which we must be doing but are not conscious of doing. And so we must have abandoned responsibility for creating various things. And we flinch at creating things which we fell are overts, and so we don't regain control over the automaticities where those things are being unconsciously mocked up. And finally I came up with the following process. This runs like dynamite. But I think that this one is doing even more than I anticipated. So much shows up and releases and so many considerations dissolve so fast that it must be releasing charge on an even deeper level. Creation Cleanup Process: a) What would it be an overt to create b) What would it be nice to create I thought up the overt side and then added in the "nice" side simply because I thought that it might spin somebody to just run overt create without adding some theta back in. So I expected the heavy action to occur on "overt" and simply to get a bit of a breather and renewed horsepower on "nice". But "nice" ran just as strong as overt, with this huge stuck flow blowing apart. It really surprised me. This can also be run on 3 or 4 flows. But when I did a bit of it that way, I had the strange feeling that the process command had not changed. This one skims the edge of the underlying interconnection. It is like all flows are flow zero. So I would consider that multiple flow versions are experimental. But the simple version above runs well and easily with big gains. This, by the way, is the most advanced process in this week's posts. It jumps back through earlier universes faster than anything I've run so far. I can't guess as to whether it will run deep on beginners or only stay up at surface levels. Best, The Pilot ========================================== All this weeks posts 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 #58 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. ------------------