Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 64 - AUG 11, 99 PILOT POSTS TO ARS/ACT Date: 11 Aug 1999 04:00:19 From: pilot@scientology.at (The Pilot) Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology POST64.txt SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 64 - AUG 11, 99 PILOT POSTS TO ARS/ACT The first 3 posts went to both ARS & ACT. The remainder went to ACT only. Best, The Pilot (aka Ken Ogger) ========================================== Contents: subj: Super Scio - LRH In Support Of The Freezone subj: Super Scio - TO DAVID MISCAVIGE subj: Super Scio - Even Heavier Editing on Old R&Ds Than New Ones subj: Super Scio - In Support of IVY Magazine subj: Super Scio - To Ray On Snake's Book subj: Super Scio Tech - On Bypassing CofS (Attn Pietro) subj: Super Scio Tech - Answering Jurgen on Solo Grades subj: Super Scio Tech - More On A Common Platform subj: Super Scio Tech - On Freezone (Attn Heidrun & Brigitta) subj: Super Scio Tech - To Thomlove on Grades and Simpler Implants subj: Super Scio Tech - To Enid on Creation & Destruction subj: Super Scio Tech - To Robsep on OT Abilities subj: Super Scio Tech - BEYOND R7 ========================================== subj: Super Scio - LRH In Support Of The Freezone LRH IN SUPPORT OF THE FREEZONE I've said many times that the later policies are in conflict with the LRH tech of the 1950s. Policy is, after all, only a guiding thing and a solution to a problem. It would be far better to as-is the problems and get back to the technical basics. And so here are yet a few more great quotes from the 1950s tech. ======= From LRH Tape AC-4 of 30 DEC 1957 "Cause and Effect", lecture 4 of the Ability Congress: "But anything which you must not touch and upon which you are not supposed to have any effect at all will sooner or later make you the unwilling or unknowing effect of it. Right? And if I tell you, "Under no circumstances should you alter, change, think about, Scientology" - dizzz - all I have done is set up another monster. Right? "And in a world that is all too prone to build Frankensteins, we don't need another one!" ======= And another great quote from tape AC-4: "The day it becomes a vital subject that we must have a credit in, Scientology becomes a slave subject. So I ask you, don't ever let it happen." ======= And here is an important one from PDC-20 of 6 DEC 1952, "Formative State of Scientology", lecture 20 of the Philadelphia Doctorate Course. "So anybody that knows the remedy of this subject, anybody that knows these techniques, is himself actually under a certain responsibility - that's to make sure that he doesn't remain a sole proprietor. That's all it takes, just don't remain a sole proprietor. Don't ever think that a monopoly of this subject is a safe thing to have. It's not safe. It's not safe for man; it's not safe for this universe. "This universe has long been looking for new ways to make slaves. Well, we've got some new ways to make slaves here. Let's see that none are made." ======= Of course this is only a sampling. The are more on the Scientology Reformer's Homepage and in various postings in the Pilot archives. Or even better, study the 1950s tech for yourself. And please study it as itself, from a viewpoint of applying it for use rather than from a fixed idea of "That's old and we know better now that we have KSW." Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - TO DAVID MISCAVIGE TO DAVID MISCAVIGE Hello. I am here. I can be communicated with. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - Even Heavier Editing on Old R&Ds Than New Ones EVEN HEAVIER EDITING ON OLD R&Ds THAN NEW ONES Just a warning that the old R&D Volumes are even more heavily edited and cut than the new ones. In some cases, the old R&Ds do significant cleanup of sentences, attempting to improve the grammer whereas the new R&Ds are careful to keep Ron's words accurate. Both sets suffer from omitting materials. However the old R&Ds omit more than than the new ones. Because the new R&Ds are larger volumes, old R&D 10 corresponds to the first half of new R&D 9. Here are two examples from one of the lectures. EXAMPLES FROM TAPED LECTURE OF 25 FEB 1952 "REVIEW OF PROGRESS OF DIANETICS AND DIANETIC BUSINESS" Fzba posted a complete transcript of this last year as > Subject: FZ BIBLE 1/4 HPC TAPES 1952 (Fdn Business & HofM Incidents) --------- FIRST EXAMPLE OLD R&D VOLUME 10 (page 233) This is, actually, the first official talk from Hubbard College. I might give you a few words about that. ---------- NEW R&D VOLUME 9 (page 407) AND IDENTICAL ON THE OLD REEL Appreciate seeing so many bright and smiling faces here today. This, I understand, was changed from the Foundation, and then it went to 208 1/2 North Broadway and over here, I think in the course of one day, or something like that. So I congratulate you all upon being able to find your way here without bloodhounds or something. This is, actually, the first official talk from Hubbard College. I might give you a few words about that. ---------- SECOND EXAMPLE OLD R&D VOLUME 10 (page 243) Then a great many sorrowful things happened to me in a rapid-fire order - I had neglected everything, everywhere practically - a lot of unfortunate incidents of one sort or another. Finally - to get some peace and quiet, I went down to Cuba. And I sat down in Cuba with a recording Soundscriber and I dictated in a space of three weeks the book Science of Survival, which brought up the techniques and gave the evaluation of human behavior and so on, and then came back up here to Wichita. -------------- NEW R&D VOLUME 9 (page 419) Then a great many sorrowful things happened to me in a rapid-fire order. I had neglected everything everywhere, practically - a lot of unfortunate incidents of one sort or another. I finally - to get some peace and quiet, I went down to Cuba. And I sat down in Cuba with a transcriber - I mean a, pardon me, a recording Sound Scriber - and I dictated in a space of three weeks the book Science of Survival, which brought up the techniques and gave the evaluation of human behavior and so on, and then came back up here to Wichita. -------------- WHAT IS ACTUALLY ON THE OLD REEL Then a great many sorrowful things happened to me in a rapid-fire order. I had neglected everything everywhere, practically - a lot of unfortunate incidents of one sort or another. The lady who was my wife went and got all tangled up with communists. It was wonderful. My back was ... my back was turned, I could do nothing to help her, I tried to help her, I couldn't. Bang. You've probably seen the results in the newspapers. I finally - to get some peace and quiet, I went down to Cuba. And I sat down in Cuba with a transcriber - I mean a, pardon me, a recording Sound Scriber - and I dictated in a space of three weeks the book Science of Survival, which brought up the techniques and gave the evaluation of human behavior and so on, and then came back up here to Wichita. ---------------------- Therefore, although the new R&Ds are also edited, they are still a better choice than the old R&Ds. Hope this helps, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - In Support of IVY Magazine IN SUPPORT OF IVY MAGAZINE Antony Phillips had planned to retire from editing IVY (International Viewpoints) Magazine, but it has fallen back on his plate. Considering the small subscription base, this is a noble effort in support of clearing rather than a profit making enterprise. This is not a glossy supermarket style magazine, advertizer supported and full of the latest gossip and fashions. It is better compared to a research journal, carrying technical topics and aimed at an educated public. And like most such publications, it has a small readership and a higher price in proportion to its size than the supermarket publications, but the contents are all "meat" rather than fluff. The freezone needs a research journal like this. Despite our awareness of the net as the wave of the future, hardcopy still has a place in this world, and a prestigious publication encourages research. And note that the materials are not usually duplicated on the net, except for the earliest issues which can be found online in Homer's clearing archives at lightlink. I would say that this is a good time to encourage this unique magazine to stay in business. You can get subscription information at their website http://home8.inet.tele.dk/ivy/ Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - To Ray On Snake's Book TO RAY ON SNAKE'S BOOK On 1 Aug 99, "Raymond J. Krenik, Jr." asked on topic "A book once read" > PILOT, It would be of great personal interest to me to know the > book of Snake's that you read. > > Ray Krenik rkrenik@hotmail.com Unfortunately, I don't remember the name, it was some sort of bland title like "Practical Guide to Psychotherapy" or something like that. It was not Snake's title. In the introduction, and possibly as an alternate or subtitle, it was called something like "The Naval Operations Manual on Psychotherapy", and that is how I always thought of it. It was a thick paperback by one of the early paperback publishers, probably printed in the late 50s. I picked it up second hand around 1962 or 63. It stated that it was a reprint of the Navy manual that was used during WWII, and that it had been written for them by Thompson in the 30s, and explained how he had studied with Freud in Vienna and then tested the techniques at various Naval bases in Asia. Unfortunately, I turned my back on all psych books in 1966 when I joined NY staff. I suppose it sat on the shelf in my mother's place for a few years afterwards, but I never looked at it again and it is long gone. On your other question about why I picked The Pilot as my pseudonym, I've talked about that a number of times. See The Scientology Reformer's Homepage (near the end) and also near the end of the message "Answering Allen" in Post42 in the archives. You might also want to read "A more accurate look at incident 2" in chapter 6 of Super Scio, although that is only one of many factors that influenced me. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - On Bypassing CofS (Attn Pietro) ON BYPASSING COFS (Attn Pietro) On 7 Aug 99, josef@direct.a2000.nl asked on topic "Pilot (clearing outside CoS)" > Dear Pilot, > > To start with a compliment on your excellent home page which provides a > necessary peek beyond the PR veneer. It describes the CoS's current > reign of terror very well and as it is backed up by an in-depth > historical background and firsthand knowledge of how the organization > and tech have evolved, it makes it an irreplacable document to fully > grasp the PT situation in the church as well as the role of the > Freezone. > > After 10 years in CoS of which 6 years in SO I have found myself being > bogged down more often than not with handling money instead of handling > my bridge. > The main focus of the church has turned out to be expanding itself, and > I have found it near impossible to advance on the bridge without getting > side tracked with financial problems eventhough my salary has always > been affluent. > > It has been sofar a servant \ master relationship. The CoS is attempting > to cover up everything with continuous propoganda control provided by > among other things Hollywood actors who enjoy VIP treatment, free > auditing and services in order to maintain the PR front (the American > culture idolizes it's Hollywood stars) which serves as a rug under which > all innumerable, unspeakable violations and OP's are being swept. > > Armed with inside information gathered over many it has all begun to > paint too cynical a picture of the kind of enslaved society the church > seems to have planned for this planet, and how easily naive people can > be manipulated (1940's germany). > > I feel therefore like a BYPASS of the current bait and switch racket and > DEI scale dramatizations is in order. I am considering freezone and > handling the bridge by myself. What suggestions do you have to do this > most efficiently ? > > Regards, > Pietro Nicely written. My best shot at writing up a "bypass" method is the Self Clearing book. I would also recommend studying early LRH materials, especially 1952-9. Fzba seems to be getting a lot of stuff out there and there are also the tech vols, etc. which Zenon has been putting out. The various group processing tapes that Ron made are also great to run. In some respects, these are better run from the transcripts, because you can repeat each different command to a win (or skip it if it is inappropriate right now) and move at your own pace. The group sessions in the PHC and 3rd ACC posted recently are especially OT, but might be a bit out gradient unless you have done some self clearing or gotten some grades at the org first. It also helps to help others. Keep writing. It is good to have a twin if there is somebody else who is enthusiastic about this in your area. It helps just to sit around and discuss wins and difficulties occasionally and encourage each other. Or, of course, you could do some co-auditing if you are both trained. It is a bit slower by yourself, but certainly can be done if you are determined. Although the self clearing book leans towards things which are easier to run solo, some of these are extremely advanced processes. Just because something is easy does not mean that it is lower on the bridge. There are life repair processes which are too tough to run solo, and there are drills on old OT 6 which are easy to run solo. The trick in self clearing was to extend the easier techniques to cover for the removal of complex things that are hard to run. And note that simpler is often more basic and more powerful. The most advanced LRH materials are actually those of 1952-4. That is the real OT stuff. It fell out of use not because it was wrong or didn't make gains, it was only that it was too hard to train auditors to run it on somebody else. Based on hindsight, I filled in a gradient into this material. And the most advanced LRH stuff requires rolling your own bridge (3rd ACC) for the final steps to OT. Self clearing tries to set you up for this and teaches it to some degree. CofS on the other hand, by means of KSW, crushes any effort to do what Ron used to tell people to do in the old days. Have Fun, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - Answering Jurgen on Solo Grades ANSWERING JURGEN ON SOLO GRADES On 9 Aug 99, "Jurgen" asked on topic "Pilot: Can you give me some information" > Hi Pilot, > > Is it possible to do the Grades (0-IV) solo with the E-Meter? > > ARC > Jurgen Yes. With a few exceptions. a) You need a decent level of auditing skill. b) If you haven't done a solo auditors course, see the solo auditors course pack that was posted recently, or at least read my summary of how to solo audit. c) You need to set yourself up as in getting the case flying, probably by doing a GF and CS 53 - these are actually easier to do solo than grades processes, but require class IV skills. d) Solo doesn't do well if the questions or procedures are not specific enough. Two way comm type actions are too vague (but are not grade processes anyway) and prepchecks can be a bit too difficult unless the topic is really hot and quite accessible. The easiest things to solo are actually OT drills and implant platens. Next easiest are correction lists (they often let trained auditors solo these in CofS). Then come the grades processes. This is one of the reasons why I mixed OT drills into the early chapters of self clearing. e) Actually writing things down, in solo, to a great degree substitues for telling them to an auditor. It serves to get the stuff separated and get you exterior to it. Note that writing up your overts can produce case gain. Having an ethics officer look over the writeup and invalidate and evaluate and make you do ammends then causes you to loose most of the gains made. So one can writeup one's O/W and then burn it as being symbolic of ending cycle and the hell with having anybody else nagging you about the overts. Hope this helps, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - More On A Common Platform MORE ON A COMMON PLATFORM This is so important that I wanted to expound on it a little bit more. Awhile back I had an interesting discussion with Allen Hacker (Acceptance Processing). He took a bit of exception to something I said and I explained in more detail and he responded by posting something he had written years ago which was basically saying the same thing as I had, and we found ourselves in agreement. Now Allen and I have signficiantly different viewpoints and writing styles, but when push comes to shove, we do find that we are looking at the same thing. I think that any pair of honest researchers will find this to be the case. If they were honest and called it as they saw it, and the other one did so as well, then there really was something there and they were simply seeing it from different angles. Going back yet again to the famous analogy of the elephant, two people can look at it from opposite sides and yet it is the same elephant. To really see the elephant in its fullness, you would have to look at it from multiple viewpoints. I am very temped to state a new axiom here. Nothing can be seen as-is from a singular viewpoint. You would never see the back of the elephant if you only saw it from the front, so how could you have it completely in view unless you looked from multiple viewpoints. This means that you would never make it on LRH alone, or for that matter, on Pilot alone or anybody else. You have to get more than one viewpoint. Woe to the guru whose ego insists that he be the only one, for his students cannot make it without rebelling against him no matter how good or brilliant he might be. People who are looking for the one right answer will get screwed because the only workable way requires at least two right answers so that you can evaluate them against each other. If you only have one, you can't evaluate it and will therefore become stupid in the area. This is a collerary to the Scientology axioms. But this requires following at least two gurus and figure figuring them against each other. That is one hell of a task. It is out gradient for most people. It requires a tremendous toleration for uncertainty. The way to cool this down and make it easier on people is to align the various gurus on a common platform. For this purpose, I have been pushing the EARLY Scientology platform, and I do mean EARLY. Standard tech is not Scientology per the early definitions. Later Scientology is a system of studying and applying what is already known rather than a system of studying NEW ways of how to know. But the original system, of 1952-4, was to study WAYS of knowing how to know, which is quite a different matter entirely. So there are two different things, namely: 1) Specific implentations (things to know) and 2) Ways of knowing how to know (eg. knowing how to develope specific implimentations). Standard Tech falls under category 1 above. It should have been given some other name instead of calling it Scientology. If LRH had called it Standardetics or something and presented it as yet another implementation comparable to Dianetics, he could have kept true Scientology in existance concurrently with a standard tech implementation. Instead he used the same name and this "standardetics", having the MU that it was a replacement for Sceintology, immediately went into action to stamp Scientology out of existance. When I say Scientology, I am generally using the original definition and I'm talking about the long lost subject that falls under category 2 above. One of the best ways to destroy a subject is to replace it with a different subject of the same name and then to have the replacement behave so badly that everybody gets pissed off at it and never looks back at the original. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - On Freezone (Attn Heidrun & Brigitta) ON FREEZONE (Attn Heidrun & Birgitta) On 9 Aug 99, Heidrun Beer continued the discussion on "John Mace re: FZ and Black PR" > Before Cap'n Bill's 'Freezone' became the vogue it was 'the > independents' and both names begged the question, "From what?" > As Birgitta pointed out, Bill's "Freezone" certainly was not free > from the church, but that is how it is perceived. > > >I have always steered away from these titles for the simple reason > >it automatically connected you to a much derided organisation and > >if you wish to be accepted for what you are, you need that like a > >hole in the head . The sooner individuals finds titles which do > >not imply connection to Scientology the better. Here in Perth, > >even the local org goes under the title of Dianetics. Although I am still pushing Scientology Reform and talk about Freezone Scientology, I would like to point out that the term "Freezone" does not have to have any Scientology context. Although Capt. Bill originally coined the term, and set up his own orgs as very close to LRH, I don't think that he meant it to only refer to his orgs ("Ron's Orgs") and the term certainly has gone beyond any CBR specific usage. And my self clearing book makes hardly any mention of Scientology except for one section of the introduction and an appendix, where I felt that I needed to give an appropriate acknowledgement of LRH, explain the current situation, and provide some guidelines for people who had trained as auditors. Those are not actually essential to the book. I think that it would be a mistake to limit the term "Freezone" to being a place that is free from CofS management. It would be better to leverage the "Free" aspect as meaning the attinment of spiritual freedom. And of course in the special case of self clearing it also could mean "Free" in the sense of not costing anything. As of right now I have not yet given up the fight to see CofS straighten out, but I am a bit of an idealist. However, I am allowing for the possiblity that they might shoot at me hard enough that I throw up my hands in disgust and start saying "Freezone" rather than "Freezone Scientology." We'll see. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - To Thomlove on Grades and Simpler Implants TO THOMLOVE ON GRADES AND SIMPLER IMPLANTS On 31 Jul 99, thomlove asked on topic "Pilot; re Simpler Implants to run" > Hello again. > > I'd like an expansion, if you would, re; what you'd consider a simpler > implant platen to run prior to the Penalty Universes. I comm'd with you > about what the case state should be before anyone were to attempt the > Penalty universe run, and you mentioned it'd be best to start off with > some simpler ones first. Unfortunately, I don't know what exactly you > are referring to. I know that in your Super Scio book you have several > implant platens, and there are of course the OTII ones as well, but I'd > like to know what you think would be best. Easiest is the one I put in Self Clearing (chapter 34) and the first few ones on OT II. Also, it would probably be best to do the CC platen before trying the Penalty Universes. Note that this would be running CC after clear as was done on the old OT IV. But see below. If you run enough items, the fact of something being an item looses its kick. This is a bit beyond Clear and should usually happen on OT II if done well. IE. one confronts and mocks up enough items that one sort of says "the hell with items, I don't care what was implanted, I can just ignore that stuff." In other words, the simple fact of an item being pushed at one with force looses ability to affect one. This drains charge from simple implants. It does not undo things that were laid in with more than simple force and command value, but it makes the items loose much of their kick as items. So you can deal with items casually and not have too much trouble with having to get precise wording etc. Basically, the Penalty Universes have heavy charge on symbols and tone scale buttons and things like that. That is enough to be confronting without still having charge on items as well. > It is not just that I am working on setting myself up for the run to the > top. I'm also attempting to get others to run along with me, and I don't > want to really screw them up. This is area that I know very little > about, and although I can get anyone up into the lower OT band quite > easily, I would like to know what to aim for next. > > However, what to do to get someone who is Clear, ready for the Penalty > universe running, is a question I don't think I'm qualified to answer. > If there are simpler implant platens available to run, then I'd like to > know and then I could drill on them to help others run them. > > I have no hesitation in just continuing LRH's Bridge, but I've noticed > that you and others have suggested alterations in the lineup, such as > NOTS prior to OTIII, and such. I tend to agree with that, since the NOTS > auditing is so much simpler than the OTIII procedures. I suspect in > truth the hatting would include both at the same time, with the emphasis > on the NOTS handling and the OTIII procedures as a fallback. I use the > OTIII run when I don't get a blow on the w/w of NOTS. Yes, this would seem to be the right way. > Would a run on the OTII platens, as recently uploaded, suffice as a > prelim to the Penalty Universe? And, if someone, such as myself, who > originally ran some of the OTII 'run one', but not all of it before > being shoved onto OTIII, were to attempt to redo OTII, how do you think > we'd go about it? Should we start at the beginning of 'run one', and > watch for skipping runs or an over run? Yes. But watch for implants blowing on the first item, and move on to the next chapter if that is the case. Also, since you have done III, check for guys stuck at the beginning of each chapter and blow with Nots techniques after FNing the implant on yourself. Some tend to get caught on first items, unwilling to be further implanted, and hang there in a sort of reviv. And include CC in the lineup. It is a very good one to run. But see below. > There are a lot of us in this condition. I know after 13 years on OTIII, > I've really lost confidence in my own view, and am very meter dependent. > I've not run anything for 'me' for many, many years, and I have a very > great doubt of my own reality. I don't know if I could recognize any > ownership any more, to be frank about it. This is the exact opposite of > the condition I was in prior to OTIII. I was way, way out the roof, and > far beyond my wildest dreams as far as identifying and blowing any > mental mass that I picked up. Prior to the OT levels, I spend gawd only > knows how many thousands of hours on dianetics, never any grades, and I > know now I was mocking up things to run. At the moment the dianetics > seems fine. For you or anyone else who has sat for a long time running all case as external BT influences, you have to get back to a causative viewpoint first. I would suggest that you do not use any ownership steps as a formal procedure, or any rundowns specifically directed at finding entities, or run any implants (except on an overt flow), until this is handled, because all these things encourage a motivatorish viewpoint. If you spot that something is coming from a BT, handle it as such, but don't push yourself to spot BTs as source (as is done with an ownership step), instead, assume that things are your own case and if it then seems like its not your charge, go ahead and look for a BT etc. Charge is almost always your own at basic. BTs restimulate, and so the charge keys out when you blow them but the basic is not handled. I would recommend doing the Self Clearing book from the beginning, doing a light and fast run since you've had a good bit of case handling already. An alternative would be to run grades solo. I did this (a bit haphazardly), and it can be done if you are trained, but all the easier grade processes to solo are in Self Clearing and for ones that are tough, Self Clearing has work arounds to make it easy for untrained people to get the same result. Note that Ron's comment about it being foolish to try to run the grades solo was made in the quickie era. The correct context is that for somebody who had only had a few hours of auditing and a solo course to sit down and try to FN the 5 key processes for all the grades (in one session like the pros did!) is clearly impossible. Anyway, you first action should be to start running your own case again, even self analysis would work. Get yourself flying and make some big gains. Have some good cogs about what YOU have done, postulated, decided, etc. Once your back on an even keel, you will find that occasionally entities seem to be getting in the way or indicate as the right why on some particular area and you use that kind of tech when it seems needed, but you don't specialize in it. Most of the big gains are on handling your own case. If an area feels overwhelming, some Nots can cut the restim way down, but you don't get your own basic postulates in the area unless you then get back to your own case and handle your own whys as well. After grades processes are flying, then go for the implants, because they are in the way and there are some big gains to be had, especially on the penalty universes, and maybe after that go for actual GPMs. And then you'll find that the real charge is grades again, but back around the home universe era and earlier, and with all the heavy crap out of the way, you'll start remembering that early stuff well enough to reach it on repetative grades type processes. And mix in OT drilling all up and down the line, like I did with self clearing. You can use any OT drill from any old ACC or the stuff I put out or whatever, and just do a bit of it like you would add in havingness processes. You've done enough bridge that this should be easy. > That's my entire Bridge, dianetics, sec checks, and onto the AO lines. > Not pleasant at any time, really. > > I picked up the cans about a year ago after several years wandering > around, mostly inspired by your web page and posts, and I've had > significant changes since then. Much more certainty, and in the last > month I've started a NOTs type DRD, which has also benefited me quite a > bit. In spite of my earlier comments, if you're in the middle of it, it probably should be finished. Include 3 or 4 way recalls so that you run your own case too, blow BTs or whatever, and finish up each drug with mocking up the drug sensation and putting it into the walls until you are at cause over it. > My immediate idea is to find ways to get my pre OTIII certainty level > back. > > I suspect that before you read this, I'll be done the NOTs DRD, and > ready for the next step. If I'm flying, I'd like to begin the shift to > the Alternative Bridge. I think I may first however program myself for > more thislifetime handlings, such as somatics, major emotional down > curves, and such. I'll wait and see how the case sits at that point. > > I'm not in any location to be able to get any grades, or do any > coaudits, so I'm on my own. > > Any suggestions? > > Thom See the appendix for Scientologists in self clearing. If you're running on the meter now and flying, then go ahead and keep using it, but note that you don't check OT drills for reads. You handle them more like you run havingness, but the expectation is that they will raise perception and awareness and that is your guiding factor rather than can squeeze. Have Fun, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - To Enid on Creation & Destruction TO ENID ON CREATION & DESTRUCTION On 29 Jul 99, ladyv responded to my post on "Super Scio - CYCLES OF ACTION" > On Thu, 29 Jul 1999 LR1467@aol.com wrote: > > > Pilot sed > > > > << In truth all destruction is an abberation, it is not the opposite of > > create. >> > > I am not sure of the CONTEXT in which this was said. I regard it > as the old conundrum of what is good for the hunter is not very good for > the duck. > > This is only true in the universe of motion, and even then it is > by no means always true. > > Ceasing to create something IS an act of destruction. It is not > necessarily abberated at all. Destroying a cancerous growth, destroying a > harmful belief, are generally considered survival and therefore good. > > In fact we concentrate so heavily on create that we tend to > overlook that destruction is an ability. > > Destroying (for example) an invading virus, can hardly be called > creation. > > The Vishnu worshippers understand this at times. > > Creating ethical products and destroying unethical products seems > pretty sane to me. > > In the spiritual universe creation and destruction are of equal > value. > > Love, > > Enid > > Dynamism, 7507 Ohio Place, La Mesa, CA. 91941. > Ph: 619 462-5160 Fax: 619 465-8848 > http://www.lightlink.com/dynamism I think you did miss the context. I was talking very early track or very high level beings. Obviously, if one creates one car today, and a different car tomorrow, and yet another one on the day after, and all of these persist, then one has no parking place and must begin destroying cars before mocking up new ones. And then one still has the resulting scrap metal to deal with. So the situation changes once there is an undesired automatic persistance occuring out of control. Since this is hard to imagine in our current context, I drew an analogy to playing the piano, where the sounds are only created when one is creating them. Ceasing to play a particular work is not the same as destroying it. Destroying would be like burning the music or forgetting the piece. My general feeling is that having the as-isness of something does not cause it to vanish automatically. Instead, it gives one the power to mock it up or not as one wills, like having a piece of music memorized. Maybe one holds the as-isness to a dozen different cars, and one chooses to mock one up today to drive around in, and when one finishes driving, one stops mocking it up (no need to search for a parking spot!). Maybe one mocks it up again tomorrow, or maybe one mocks up a different one, but it is not destroyed. It is simply shifted back and forth between potential and manifest. I have a pile of piano music. If I have the score for something, I can play it. There is no sense playing everything at once, but the ones not played today are still there in potential. But if I don't have the score for something, I must either get a score or invent my own arrangement. If the scores are burn and my memory is wiped, I have a problem. Perhaps I keep whatever residuals remain in a state of permanent creation for fear of loosing my last grasp on the entire body of works. Destruction in the sense of not-isness doesn't really work, it leaves dregs and residue that create new problems. Best would be to gain the as-isness of something and then not mock it up if it is undesired. And then it is in one's repertoire for those rare cases where it might prove useful. But this is only in theory, it is well beyond my skill level at this time, at least in regards to Mest. Easier would be to alter-is things into more desirable forms. Especially as destruction ends up with alter-ised remnants anyway. So you might as well plan the alter-is and gain some benefit from it. Ideal handling for a bug or virus would be to alter it into a symbiosis. Or consider the idea of destroying CofS. That would leave a remnant of very pissed off fanatics doing heaven knows what. Far better to alter it into a more desirable form. But of course I'm talking ideals here rather than practicalities. So I'll make do with necessary destruction just like everyone else. But this is one hell of a research topic. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - To Robsep on OT Abilities TO ROBSEP ON OT ABILITIES On 6 Aug 99, "www.free4webmasters.com" posted on subject "scientology questions?" > Hi all.....let's see if anyone can shed some light on these for me =) > > 1. If we are in a dwindling spiral of sorts, where does it lead > (degrade to what point)? In other words, what is scientolgy hell? > how low can we go, theta wise? Current orthodox CofS - based on Ron's comment about having discovered how low one can go as part of Nots, would be that the eventual fate is to become a BT, or a BT that thinks he is a cell or a molecule of mest. Old time (1950s) LRH would say that the Mud universe is the next universe down (9th ACC) and that everyone starts out there as Mest and goes down from there. I would tend to go along with the Mud universe idea (I think I've been there briefly, but maybe that's dub-in), but I would also say that since you can always rekindle native state (Advanced Procedures & Axioms), you always have some chance of excape. > 2. Pilot and others have stated several times that the CofS's OT > levels fall short of the hype. Example: OT5 - cause over mest, > yet I have yet to meet one that can move a feather without the > use of a via (body, etc). New OT 5 has nothing about cause over mest. Old OT 5 & 6 were actually aimed in that direction. I think of them as a unit because of doing one right after the other and because they were both very short. I had two OT experiences while doing them, I think they were both on OT 6 actually. This is in addition to nice but vague effects and partial perceptions. First, I woke up one morning floating (as a being, my body was still in bed) outside of the apartment building and clearly seeing the flowers along the front of the building and the cars going by on the street. The body was also awake (and I could feel myself lying in bed too), so I sat up and opened my eyes, and the exterior view dimmed in intensity but didn't disappear for a few minutes. Of course the critics will just say it was a dream, but it was damn clear and I think the view was accurate. But even more interesting, I could see both the flowers in front of me (I was sort of facing the building) and the cars going by behind me concurrently - in other words 360 degree perceptions, and I don't get that in dreams and have trouble even visualizing that way (I can do it vaguely but not clearly). And the other was turning off a gas range behind my back, again with a clear visio of the knob turning. I had been planning to turn around and shut it off because I'd heard the water boiling, and then mentally saw it turn off, but thought I was only visualizing it, and then finished turning around and saw that it actually had been shut off. Both were one shot experiences, and both occured "accidentally" without planning. This is what I call the "sporatic" OT state. A key out where sometimes something happens, but one cannot do it at will. I had this kind of thing happening a lot after grade 5 in 1968, it lasted about 3 months with about one wild thing happening per week. Since then, I've been in the state for very brief time periods and there have only been a handfull of experiences. Except for two happening in the same week that I did old OT 6. > With that in mind, how much progress are we really making? Baby steps, accompanied by continually falling on one's head. Just enough (at least for me), to say that it is not all bullshit and we are on a hot trail. And random odds always seem to bend a bit in my favor. That one has been consistant. There are other oddball things on the edge of OT that I've been able to do consistantly at will, so that hints to me that the big stuff would be consistant if only we figure out how to get there. > Hubbard once said that there is little one can do in this present > lifetime to abberate oneself too much more than our current state > (or something close to that). Yes. But one can see dramatic ups and downs as things are keyed out or keyed in. > If our potential native state is "godlike" in any sense of the > word, you'd figure moving a feather around is no big shit, right? Agreed. It is not that lifting the ashtray is such a huge OT state and it is not really a worthy goal. One of the old Budhist (?) sayings was that it was not worth spending a lifetime learning to walk on water just to avoid paying a penny to the ferryman. But doing something like that is a beginners step, like learning to walk as a prerequisite to going to kindergarten. It is shamefull that we can't even toddle around yet while pretending to be college graduates. > Now, who here claims they know of a tech that can even remotely > put you in the ballpark of native state? I would say that the sporatic OT state counts as getting into the ballpark. It's not good enough to get you on the playing field or give you a chance at bat, but it gives you some view of the game even if you need field glasses to see home plate. If you have once violated physical universe laws in front of a witness, it gives you a certainty that is pretty much unattainable by any other means. Getting that is a bit of a crap shoot. Nothing produces it consistantly. But early 1950s type processes (including old OT 5 & 6, PDC drills, CofHA, the SOP8C OT rundown, etc.) and power processes sometimes turn the sporatic OT state on briefly. CofS does not run any of that stuff anymore. I loaded self clearing up with as much of this kind of processing as possible, including an easy solo variation of power processing. If we can get enough of the sporatic effects and have enough comm and cognitions and observations exchanged, maybe we can actually pin this one down. My highest priority is the OT research. That even takes precedent over fixing CofS as far as I'm concerned, because if we really had it, we'd just do it and teach everyone and set everyone free. The trouble is that it is the toughest nut to crack that anyone has ever faced up to. I think that Ron got partway and then skidded off to the side. I'm going a bit further, but I'll be very pleasantly surprised if I can make it all the way without skidding too. It might well take a progression of researchers, each one carrying it a bit further. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - BEYOND R7 BEYOND R7 See the last few postings on "Tech Breakthrough" and the R7 Present Time Implant. I am, of course, still researching this and trying to see it in a broader context. 1. The Telepathic Layer Of course the theory on this is that we are continually broadcasting the implant at each other unconsciously. But it looks like there is more that we are doing beyond the implant. As I continued to play around with alternately projecting and not projecting triads like create-survive-destroy, there was a moment when it all seemed to quiet down. This was just a keyout and it only lasted a few minutes, but during that time I had this wild perception. It seemed to me suddenly that we were continually emitting a sort of "scent" or continuous stream of symbols on a telepathic level. These would attract or repel people and even situations and "random" happenings. It didn't seem like a moment to moment thing so much as a steady thing that only changed slowly or rarely, as if you had been delt a hand of cards and kept them continuously on display over your head. And one's particular "hand" might attract money while repelling women and annoying traffic cops for example. Actually, I could hardly duplicate it and was uncertain of the implications of messing with anything at that level, because there seemed to be inter-relationships where you might loose one thing while gaining another. And the perception faded fairly quickly, as if the clouds had parted for a moment and then slid back into place. How real this is will have to wait on further investigation. But it did give me an idea for a fun process. Walk around in a crowded place like a mall and get the idea of having a symbol or a card over your head or putting out a scent telepathically. And make it a nonsense symbol which has a silly meaning like "I am a bedpost" or "I am the world's greatest candlestick maker." Do this a bit and then mockup other people acknowledging you and putting up their own silly symbols which you percieve and acknolwedge. I'm not sure where this is going, but I expect to have a bit more confront and perceptions when this telepathic band opens up again. 2. The Reason Why After the win above, it seemed like I should shift over from trying to run the implant items to looking at the context and the underlying whys. Of course I've made the general statement that the why is out-grades type of stuff, but at this point I wanted to get more specific. It seemed to me that the current implant must have started at some point, but I just couldn't get my wits around it, it was just too charged up. So I started considering whether we had done this before with other implants, and that indicated, and it seemed like we have done this a lot and it goes way way back. It did not seem appropriate to home universe, that seemed too early. But it seemed to go earlier than what I've been calling the symbols universe (that is the one with the councils of gods and games matricies and pools and all this highly complex social stuff). The starting point seemed to be during what I labled as the "motion" universe (or the lesser games universe - the one with high action heavy motion type games, sort of like being in a giant video game arcade). I was actually bouncing some ideas about this around in the coffee shop with some friends when this fell into place and began to make sense. We began to enforce reality on each other to stop each other from cheating. This brought a whole bunch of things into view on the subject of games. 3. Games Its a game as long as you can break the rules. If you can't break the rules, it becomes dead serious and it is a trap. A player of the game knows the rules and can break them. He does not normally choose to do so because that spoils the game. But he is capable of doing so. As soon as he can't break the rules, he ceases to be a player and becomes a piece. It is no longer a game for him. He is the effect of it. I have mentioned that I was a fantastically good chess player in 9th grade, relative to the other high school students. I did not get there with a lot of intensive play or study. My father had a lighthearted attitude when he taught me chess. He made a game of it. I was free to break the rules and did so freequently when we first started playing. He would laugh and go along. I quickly started following the rules because it made the game more interesting, but I never became effect of the rules, it left me sort of exterior to the game. And we hadn't played much before he became sick and eventually died. So I had almost no experience with the game when I began to really play in 9th grade. Of course I was no grand master. But it didn't take much to become what a chess club would call an "A" level player. Sort of automatically exterior to the rules and able to use them and see the board in an unrestrained manner. I attribute that to having learned the game without the rules ever being enforced. I think that it made a tremendous difference in my skill level. Every great composer has broken what were considered to be the "rules" of music in his time. And the great ones usually follow the rules, they know them well and use them, but they are never the effect of them, they break them when they feel like it. Even Ron has said that you need to break the rules of auditing occasionally. "Auditing is what you can get away with." That was in one of the transcripts posted recently by fzba. 4. Cheating A high toned thetan might do anything occasionally for a whim, but his normal behavior in playing a game that he was enjoying would be to follow the rules rather than cheating. He does this because the game is more fun when played right. In fact, in any good game the fun is in the playing of it rather than winning. And if we are dealing with godlike beings who can mockup at will, there is no prize you could give someone that he could not mockup for himself except for the satisfaction of having played well and succeeded. And that satisfaction is generally spoiled by cheating, so one doesn't do that, it would be a hollow victory with nothing to gain. The being must have slid down greatly in tone and be loaded with buttons on status etc. and probably swimming in ARC breaks and so forth before he would regularly cheat at games. But I'm seeing this as happening after the fall of home universe, and the beings were powerful but loaded with out rudiments etc. by this time. Here it does make sense for the being to feel that the status and admiration of having won was more important than enjoying the games. The solution was to enforce the rules. At that time, when a crowd gathered for a game, the players would project and enforce the rules in on each other. It was an abberated solution and led to further abberations. In the "motions" universe this was transient, done by whomever was playing each time a different game was played. But for the next universe down (what I'm calling the symbols universe), the rules were enforced from the beginning. And with that it becomes serious, and suddenly it becomes important for people to organize and to have managing councils etc. because everybody is stuck with the rules. Society as we know it exists as a solution to having game rules enforced across the boards. By the time you are sitting on a council of gods or something of that sort, you have already lost. The agreements have solidified (or else there could not be such a council). And you are already in a trap. And tumbling from the laughable position of governing such a trap down to the miserable position of being caught at the bottom as we are now, is hardly a blink of an eye and is guaranteed by the mechanics of the overt motivator sequence. Drill being willing to have others cheat. Drill being willing to have others break the rules. Drill being willing to let others get away with things. Project rules and then let go, project and let go, until you can let go for real. That is the only way out. 5. Be, Do, and Have Shortly after the above, I was playing around with some drills on beingness, and this zen like state came over me. I was simply getting the idea of being various things, a coffee cup or a fireman or whatever. Ron liked to use this kind of process in group processing. It is normally light and easy and goes to a pleasant win of increased willingness to be things. And this time it undercut and went to basic and blew. Apparantly, Be - Do - Have is one of the triads in the present time implant. There is no concievable reason to need any particular beingness to do some specific thing. You don't have to be a fireman to put out fires. You don't even need the beingness of a fireman to put out fires. And adopting a particular beingness doesn't actually give you the skill for the doingness. It just makes you and others think that you are allowed to do the doingness and so you let yourself do it. It is hilarious actually. Like getting a licence to live. It is a game rule that is being enforced. You see it all the time in certain styles of video games. A particular player must be a carpenter to build a stairway, if he is not yet a carpenter, he has to become one first before he can do the doingness. It is a game rule, nothing more. This kicks the shit out of GPMs. There is no concievable reason to be the terminals (valences) so as to be able to do the goal. Just do the goal. Be whatever you feel like at the moment. It doesn't matter what you're being. This also says that in theory there is no true relationship between doingness and havingness. Just another game rule. And of course that would have to be true at basic, or else a being couldn't just mockup stuff without doing anything to get it. Of course this is still a bit theoretical. The game rules are still being enforced. Alternately push the Be-Do-Have interlock at people and then let it go. Let people be, do, and have at random without forcing any interdependencies. Do mockups of people in explicit violation of the rules. That has a wonderful asthetic kick to it by the way. The bum with the million pound note in his pocket and so forth. Another good one is to mockup something to have and then invent silly things that somebody would have to do to have it. This is major. And note that Ron says that the later axioms dissolve as you get really basic. Best, The Pilot ========================================== This weeks messages were all posted with the following trailer - ------------------ The free Self Clearing Book, The Super Scio book, and the "SCIENTOLOGY REFORMER'S HOME PAGE" are all over the net. See The Self Clearing Homepage for URLs to these sites http://fza.org/pilot/selfclr.htm Or 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 #64 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. ------------------