Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology
From: pilot@hiddenplace.com (The Pilot)
Subject: Super Scio Archive - POST16.txt
Date: 4 Dec 1997  14:00:22



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

POST16.txt 

SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 16 - Early DEC 1997 PILOT POSTS 


==========================================

Contents:

 subj : Super Scio - HOLLYWOOD WINTER WONDERLAND
 subj : Super Scio - ABOUT DARMA (JENNA ELFMAN)
 subj : Super Scio - World Takeover (answering Anonymous)
 subj : Super Scio - More on Sea Org Under Pressure
 subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering Homer about Thought
 subj : Super Scio - Self Auditing CofHA (answering Azeric)
 subj : Super Scio - Thanks for the Compliment (attn Robert)
 subj : Super Scio - Sophie's Choice
 subj : Super Scio - Answering Joe on S-Nots Stats
 subj : Super Scio - Book Includes OT Drills (Answering Robert)
 subj : Super Scio - Computerized E-Meters

==========================================


 subj : Super Scio - HOLLYWOOD WINTER WONDERLAND


HOLLYWOOD WINTER WONDERLAND


There has been some talk of holding Lisa MacPherson vigils
in front of the Scientology Winter Wonderland on Hollywood
Boulevard near Mann's Chineese.

Don't be foolish.

Don't interfear with kid's Christmas fun.  Their parents
will hate you for it, no matter how well you justify it.

Anything you do around any Christmas setups must be
in keeping with the spirit of Christmas.  It must be
fun and especially it must be fun for kids.

Space aliens are a big hit with kids.  They love them.
Especially alien's with ray guns.

Imagine 3 aliens, a set of ET brothers, wearing costumes
with the names XEMU, XENU, and XENN stenciled on them
and singing christmas carols in front of the display.

Lots of fun for kids.

Nothing that anybody in their right mind could object to.

Nothing that anyone could even complain to the police
about.  They can't even say that they are being made fun
of unless they want to bring out the secret scriptures.

And nobody getting sick or going psychotic from watching
those irresistible X men, three in name because the
Scientologists can't even figure out for sure what the
evil rulah's name was.

Why am I encouraging such a nasty trick when I really
do like Scientology tech?

Because I think that that the crazy secrecy and the
fanatacism about the horrible OT 3 incident is one of
the things that makes the organization psychotic.
Bringing it into view would be a healing action, just
like getting a preclear to face something that he has 
been non-confronting.

Seeing this space age version of the 3 wise men bringing
joy to children and not making anybody sick will force 
many OTs to back up and rethink the premises that they
have been operating on.

We three beings from Marcab are ...
bearing gifts, we travel afar
having escaped from Xenu's mountain
following yonder star


Merry Xmas,

The Pilot


==========================================



 subj : Super Scio - ABOUT DARMA (JENNA ELFMAN)


ABOUT DARMA (JENNA ELFMAN)


Yes, Jenna Elfman is the new Scientology Celebrity who is
staring in the Darma and Gregg sitcom on ABC wednesday
nights.

I love the show.  I love the idea of Scientologists watching
it (attracted by Jenna).  Because it is a totally "New Age",
"Mixing Practices", Freezone sort of show.

I love it because if any current Scientologist lived Darma's
life, they would be in Ethics within minutes.

Scientologists in general really like New Age stuff because
it is close to their own ideas.  But the org hates it because
its competition.  They stamp it out furriously with the "mixing 
practices" rules.  They have lost many people to Zen or whatever.

So the Scientology public is loving this show, and ethics
is having shit fits but they don't dare do anything because
Jenna is a CELEBRITY and they MUST handle with kid gloves
or else its the RPF for them.

Do you see how neat this is?  They are caught between two
policies, each with dire penalties.  Celebrities are 
sacrosanct and mixing practices is the devil incarnate.

Jenna herself is a beginner.  She has hardly done anything
except beginner's level services such as the communications
course (which she really liked) and she is at celebrity
center where they are coddling her.  She knows nothing
of the OT stuff or the crazy policies or abuses.

There is an interview with her printed in Celebrity magazine
issue 307 which came out recently.

She is very pro Scientology, but all she knows is some very
nice beginners stuff.  Here is a quote:

"My success has come from Scientology, from learning to be a
responsible human being.  Forget about trying to be right.
Help somebody.  Give love.  Give admiration.  You can't
lose by giving admiration and communicating, you absolutely
cannot".

Now these are good sentiments.  Love, admiration, and
communication really are wonderful things.  And that is
what Scientology should be about.  And that is what I
believe it once was about and should return to.

Of course the Sea Org would say that she is spouting
"theedie weedie bullshit".  They would rather scare people
into morgaging their homes with horror tales of implanting
and psychs and the awful dangers of new age and squirrel
tech.

Just from the way that she plays her role and her skill at 
holding yoga positions and things like that, I suspect that 
she has come from a new age background herself.

I would expect her to run into trouble fairly soon.  I
suspect that she would already be in trouble except for
her celebrity status.

This is not a Kirstie Allie recovering from drugs or a 
John Travolta being helped to recover from his girlfriend's
death.  People who joined Scientology for reasons like that
were always the most fanatical and the least capable of
evaluating the organization.

The people who joined because they were seeking truth and
had already fooled around with other practices were always
the least tractible and the most trouble for the organization
because they did have high ideals and alternative standards
to judge things from.  That may be the real reason for the
tough rules on mixing practices and the constant dead
agenting of any other metaphysical system.  Its not just
stomping out competition but also suppressing a potential
source of revolution.

So I would say that you should be very nice to this girl.
Don't attack her or put her on the defensive.  She seems
smart and of good intentions.

Maybe she should be sent some things, like the Reformer's
home page, to help wake her up.  But gentle, not rabid
stuff.  Get her to look around, to ask about what is
happening with other people, to see how things really are,
and to begin really thinking about what is going on.

And support the show.  Encourage them to show even more
new age culture.  Perhaps even write them suggesting
how nice it would be to have David Mayo or Alan Walters
on as a guest star.  Or even Shirley MacLain or Carlos
Castenadas.

Its like waving a red flag infront of a bull.  Let's
get some popcorn and enjoy the action.


With love and admiration,

The Pilot


==========================================


 subj : Super Scio - World Takeover (answering Anonymous)


WORLD TAKOVER (ANSWERING ANONYMOUS)

On 21 Nov, 97, Anonymous <anon@anon.efga.org> asked on
topic "For the pilot"


> Hi Pilot,
> 
> On ARS I read all about the plans of the CoS and it's management
> to overtake the world. My questions are:

Management tells the ordinary Scientologists that this business
of the CofS wanting to take over the world is just the "enemy
line" meant to dead agent the CofS.

I suspect that Int Management and the SO do have ideas like
this, but many of the members would object.

Any talk of taking over the world is always excused as meaning
that the ideas and tech will spread over the world and take
it over in the sense that Christianity took over the western
world.

The active membership likes the idea of the tech spreading
all over the world.  Many of them would object strenuously to 
the idea of any kind of a physical takeover.

Even the loyalists would have nightmares if they thought that
the local Ethics officer or Sea Org reg might be given power
over the local city government.

So if there are intentions like this at the higher levels
within the Sea Org (and I think that there are), they are 
careful never to let them be pinned down or proven because
it would drive off a lot of the membership.

 
> 1. Do you think that this compares to similar groups in that 
> sure they state this stuff, but how real is the threat to any of us?

Unless you have a war machine like Hitler's, the threat to
us is trivial.
 
> 2. Doesn't current CoS activity do more damage in the long run?

As a generality, I would say yes.  But I'm not sure exactly
what your question is here.

 
> 3. Do you think the German Government is overreacting to Scientology?

Definitely.

I think that it is very wrong for them to persecute Scientology
as a religion.  That makes things worse and puts Germany in
a bad position.

They might have defensible reasons for being leary of the
Sea Org as a political organization.  They should limit themselves
to that.

I really don't like it because the persecution strengthens the
loyalists.  It gives them a real example of needing to unite and
support command intention because otherwise the evil goverments
(under control of the evil german psychs) will have us all
shot.  The German situation almost makes this bullshit seem
real.

How many German Scientologists who were tempted to bail out
and join the freezone have turned around and decided that
they have to support the orthodox organization in its hour
of need?

If the German government had attacked and exposed the Sea Org
and the corporation only and shown truth to the ordinary 
Scientologists while continuing to be nice to them, they would
have hastened the rush into the freezone.
 
The whole thing seems like a fiasco.  Nothing good in it
for either side.  But maybe it helps the CofS more than it
hinders it.


> Also please put your pgp key on a keyserver. You can submit it 
> via anonymous remailers. 

Its at the end of each copy of "The Scientology Reformer's
Home Page" which is up at the various websites.

Note that the top level index pages are done by the individual
hosts.  None of them has thought to extract the key and make
it available separately, possibly because nobody has asked
up until now.

I posted things like the reformer's home page and reform
Scientology now / the org's grades are out, in HTML, including
the PGP key at the end, and posted them to this newsgroup.  It
is the volenteer hosts who picked them up and put them onto
their web sites.

Note that even if your browser doesn't let you copy a segment
of a web page to your clipboard, you can always save the
entire page and use a text editor to copy the PGP key at
the end.  I've been assuming that anyone capable of installing
PGP would also be up to pulling a key off of the end of
a webpage or extracting it from a post.

I've attached it to this post, but you should compare it
to one that is up on the web to be sure that it hasn't
been doctored on its way to you.

 
> My Hat's mad

Really?

Have you tried giving it electroshock?

I had a baseball cap once that thought it was a
Marcabian Fedora.

One jolt of the good old 120 volts fixed it up nicely.


Best,

The Pilot

- -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6

mQCNAjOXMNYAAAEEAOmWNw5YRwWJTiAAuRUVjsIOwQgWAxcj5gV1/oIrE6RpabWq
qWsItc20hdH5oWOtmWNp8Ds/dGXdZqIUeLQIyBlzCChayk0nwBO2o/3lQFNaMVDV
L4/vqfoNM0YYwQwl3768G/jxR0hW+wecMgySpDi53WQ+lq17JAaiYNA/uGaNAAUR
tBt0ZXN0aWQgPHRlc3RpZEBub3doZXJlLmNvbT4=
=vY8g
- -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----


==========================================


 subj : Super Scio - More on Sea Org Under Pressure


MORE ON SEA ORG UNDER PRESSURE 
 
 
On 21 Nov, 97, grahameb@aol.com (GrahamEB) responded to
my post "Super Scio - SEA ORG UNDER PRESSURE" with the following -


> I believe, pilot, that you are right. My bet is that Starkey will make 
> the move."I am relieving you of your command."  I do not think Marty,
> the two Mikes, Epstein, or Leserve have the balls or backbone to do 
> it - but Norman Starkey is another matter.  The Trustee of the LRH 
> Estate.  Of  course, MSH, now there is salvatation and a brand new 
> beginning.  Or a real new beginning, Princess Suzzette or Princess
> Dianna, with Norman and the two Mikes as the powers  behind the 
> thrones and with DM moved aside to a titular ceremonial but powerless 
> post under total watch.
> 
> Graham Berry

Do you know anything about Norman Starkey?

I don't, and it bothers me.

I either know or know about or at least have little rumors and
stories concerning most of the big names.  He is the exception.

Is he a good guy or potentially a worse tyrrant than Miscaviage?

I think that one of the key factors is the high up technical
staff, especially in Florida and California.  They may be
close to revolt.  A word from someone they trusted, such as
Mary Sue or even Dianna, and a majority might back a play for
control.

The CofS barly survived the Galatic Patrol and Mayo technical
revolts.  They bled profusely from those.  And that was with
Ron still alive and supposedly overseeing things.  Many
stayed because they wouldn't desert LRH.

Imagine if Ron hadn't been there and the choice had been
between Mayo and Miscaviage.  Remember that the membership
thought that they were choosing between Mayo and LRH.  The
real choice that they were making was not apparent to them.


Best,

The Pilot

==========================================


 subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering Homer about Thought


ANSWERING HOMER ABOUT THOUGHT

On 28 Nov 97, "Homer W. Smith" <homer@lightlink.com> responded
to my earlier post on " Super Scio Tech - CHAKRAS"

The double > > are his quotes of my earlier post.

> > Eating and Sex have somehow a dichotomious nature. One is used to
> > intake the creations of (an)other(s), making the form from something
> > into nothing, the other is creating from nothing into something,
> > when scarcity occurs.
> 
>      LRH said eating DEATH sex.
>  
>      Without eating there would be no death, and without death
> there would be no need of sex.
>  
>      Eating doesn't just refer to animals eating animals, but to
> any form of destruction.  A volcano overruning a village is a form
> of eating.
>  
>      Phoenix Lectures I believe.

Yes, he talked around the ideas in 1954 and I do remember something
about death in the various discussions.  But it didn't end up on
his final version of the scale.  Its still an interesting point
to consider, but it didn't fit into the pattern I was working out
in the Chakras post.  
 
> > >Know
> > >Think
> > >Look
> > >Symbols
> > >Emotion
> > >Effort
> > >Sex
> > >Eat
> 
>     LRH made a distinction between THOUGHT and THINKING.
>  
>     A thought ("a pink elephant") is a creative outflow of postulates
> images and ideas.
>  
>     Thinking is a figure figure about a thought and as such comes
> way below looking, emotion and effort.

Good point.

But there is something missing here.

Besides thought as a creative postulate (at the top) and thought
as figure figure (at the bottom), there is also constructive 
consideration and thinking about things.

I'm sure you must do this all the time.

Constructive figure figure that leads to something rather than
going around in circles.  LRH talked about doing that all the
time, evaluating things, sorting things out, visualizing various
ways of handling things, considering things, speculating about
things, and so forth.

But there is this dead agenting that he does on the area.  Act
instead of thinking about it.  Don't look before you leap.  Just
dive in.

Early on I think that he was just trying to get people to move
off of stuck points.  But later it might be to keep from being
questioned.

  
>     Symbols refered to the Orientation Point - Symbol theory, when
> people were no long able to think about (figure figure on) things as they
> are, they took to figure figuring with a substitute, namely symbols.
> The word became the item.
>  
>     Thetans shift over into becoming a symbol when they try to get
> others to think about (figure figure) about them.

Now that's a really interesting point.

I sort of fell into it naturally without actually having thought
of this idea.

I really wanted OSA and the RTC to be thinking about and figure
figuring on the stuff that I put in the Super Scio book.  I do
have a goal to do something about the orgs and I wanted to rock
the boat and maybe wake some people up rather than just running
off into the freezone.

So of course I was inspired to pick a symbol that would be
of great significance to CofS OTs and use it as my handle.
I did have other reasons for my choice, but I probably would
have discarded any prospective choices that didn't also have
this effect of getting the CofS to go into a figure figure.

  
>     Homer
>  

  --------

I also thought that the following from your post of 28 Nov 97
was very smart.

> > Robert at what point is a person done with running
> > GPM's and what might the next area too be adressed
> > be, 
> 
>      Practice creating new ones.
>  
>      Homer

I think that Robert is really running some kind of 
postulate / counter-postulate masses rather than what I
think of as GPMs.

So I practiced mocking up a postulate and mocking up a
counter postulate to it and holding them there together.

Just something simple like, "time to get out of the chair"
and "no, lets sit some more", and then kept both ideas
going at once.

Feels like running black and white or some high powered
energy drill.

Really shakes up something very basic and early on the
track.

I'm still playing around with this one, but its really
something.  If I can flatten it successfully, I'll put
it in the book because its really easy to do and seems
to turn on a lot of horsepower.

 
  --------

    
Speaking of which, I'd better get back to working on the book.

Toughest writing I've ever done.  I keep going over it again
and again looking for holes and potential trouble spots or
ways to take some area a bit further.


Affinity,

The Pilot

==========================================


subj : Super Scio - Self Auditing CofHA (answering Azeric)


SELF AUDITING C OF HA (ANSWERING AZERIC)


On 20 Nov 97, azeric <azeric@flash.net> asked on subject
Self processing gains -

> I have a copy of Creation of Human Ability. The processes are to be run 
> by an auditor on someone, but I have done some of the processes solo and 
> have liked them.  I don't think I'll get restimulated or stuck in 
> something because I am not using any process that might deal directly 
> with some charged incident. I was wondering if anyone else has had 
> success running the processes in this book solo ?

Yes they can be self audited.  These processes are from the 
8th American ACC (Advanced Clinical Course) given in 1954.  Ron
was always telling the ACC students that the self auditing rules
didn't apply to anybody who trained in the subject, it was only
for public PCs.

When I trained on level zero (right after taking the communications
course, there was no other prequisite in 1966), I self audited
the grade while listening to the tapes and they rehabilitated
the grade EP that I got from that in my next review session.  Aside 
from that, I had only had a few hours of auditing (reviews) at
that time.

Shortly thereafter, I was sitting around reading CofHA and decided
to run Route 1 on myself.  It was really neat and worked well.
Of course the perceptions were vague and mostly imagination with
only a few bits of real perception.

But it probably set me up for the big keyed out OT state I hit
in the following year after getting a few hours of processing
up through grade 5A (one process per grade).  It was the most 
powerful state I've ever been in (unfortunately unstable) including
violation of physical universe laws in front of witnesses.

And I had no withholds in those days about self auditing because
it was only forbidden if you were in the middle of an HGC
intensive (mustn't mix major actions).  So if anything had
ever given me trouble, I would have had no qualms about
brining it up on a review.

Nothing ever came up or read on an emeter about overrun or
incomplete actions on any of those OT drills (or on the 
doctorate course stuff which I self audited the following
year).  And I did things sloppy as all hell.

It just doesn't create the same degree of trouble as getting
audited by somebody else because you are taking responsibility
for your own case instead of handing it off to an auditor.

- ------

In another post of Nov 20, azeric asked on subject
"For 'The Pilot': What is your opinion of Knowledgism?" -

> I am interested in spiritual gains.  I looked at the Knowledgism web site 
> and they had some processes listed. I understand the founder, Alan, has a 
> background in sceintology.  Have you examined his processes or writings 
> at all? As you have an extensive tech background, what is your opinion of 
> it?


In general I like Alan and I have a good opinion of what I have
looked at so far.  But I have not studied Knowledgism extensively.

I'm not sure which processes he has up on the website currently,
but the processes of his that I have seen or tried out seem
to be well done and in accordance with basic theory.

Scientology in the 1950s laid a broad basic foundation.  Modern
orthodox Scientology only followed up on about 10 percent of
that broad base and in 1965 Hubbard closed the door on the
possiblity of others in the CofS following up on the remainder.

Alan is often working with different areas than the ones that
I am following up on or the ones that CofS does have in use,
but his ideas fit well into the overall pattern.

His biggest potential outpoint is that he is working so very
hard to distance himself from Scientology that he may have
discarded too much.  He was a very highly trained old time
Scientologist who ran a large mission network and now he wouldn't
even mention the word Scientology (he only refers to it as 
"a former practice").

This is not a problem for me because I look at his works as
additions rather than seeing them in isolation.

The lighting in our homes required Faraday's formulas and
Edison's work on DC and Tesla's work on AC and somebody to
put these all together into a workable hybrid.  That joking 
post that I put out about "Keeping Electricity Working" was
not all that farfetched.  Edison tried to dead agent Tesla
to the degree that he actually put on demonstrations of
electrocuting cats with AC and called it "tesslarizing"
the cats, the argument being that AC was dangerous and
DC was the only safe current to use.  Westinghouse and
General Electric eventually made peace and shared the patents
for both systems between themselves and developed the modern
super system which is the result of "mixing practices" and
works ten times better than either system individually.

Edison gave wonderful things to mankind but he would have
killed all other research in the field if he'd been allowed to.
The same could be said about Ron.

I think that it is a very big puzzel and we need all the
tech finders that we can get.


Good Luck,

The Pilot


==========================================



 subj : Super Scio - Thanks for the Compliment (attn Robert)


THANKS FOR THE COMPLIMENT


On 20 Nov, VoltR@ctinet.net (Robert Ducharme) posted
on subject "Re- Super Scio Archive... (PILOT please note)"


> Ralph,
> 
> Thanks a lot for thinking of us and posting the Pilot series.  I have to
> hand it to this guy, he certainly is prolific as well as being
> understandable and knowledgeable.  His stuff makes for very good and
> entertaining reading.  I just wish he'd come out of the closet and start a
> new free zone movement.  I think he'd have a lot of followers, even amongst
> the more snobbish elite.  If an election were to take place  for leader of
> the free zone hypothetical world org, he would certainly get my vote. 
> 
> I'd vote for Alan for Div 6 and Div 2 sec, Christine for H.A.S. (freezone
> equivalent) and E.O., Ralph for Qual Sec, Enid for Tech Sec, L.G. for
> traveling musician and P.R. man, Heidrun for H.E.S. or O.E.S., Homer for
> Guardian, and the rest could fill various tech posts.  The AM man could be
> our live demo of what can happen when tech is allowed to go too far amok.
> ;-)  Koos?  Well, enough said.  
> 
> Robert

Thank you, I found this quite flattering.

Unlike some other people, I did notice that you said "HYPOTHETICAL"
and took this to be a toung in cheek characterization of the
various people on A.C.T.  The mention of Koos should have clued
everyone in.

I do expect to come out of the closet eventually, but that would
let various people at the CofS sleep better.

As to movements, I think more in terms of many free individuals
catching a common target in a cross fire rather than having
troups marching in ranks.  Gordon Dickenson's science fiction
novel "The Tactics of Mistake" illistrates this principle.


Best,

The Pilot


==========================================


 subj : Super Scio - Sophie's Choice


SOPHIE'S CHOICE


On 29 Nov,  nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) asked on
subject "Sophie's choice"


> Should I learn to be OT or learn to be an auditor?
> 
> Post your suggestions.
> 
> Sophie (Scientologist and proud to be on the Bridge)

If you "learn to be an OT", the main skill that you will
learn is how to flow big bucks to Flag and how to be in
compulsive agreement with command intention.  And maybe
some other nifty tricks like how to write knowlege reports
or disconnect from friends and family.

If you learn to audit, you will actually be learning
to work with the mind and able to do things.

I never saw any real manifestation of OT abilities from
anyone who was not highly trained as an auditor.  Sometimes
the manifestations come about through training alone without
any upper level materials.

A class 4 auditor who has managed to train without having
his ability to think and observe destroyed by crush ethics
or overboard CSing is probably the the most advaced case
state that is ever produced by the orgs in modern times.

I say class 4 instead of class 6 or 8 only because trying
to go further in the course room leaves more time to
pull in the common malady of getting trained by force and
ceasing to think.  Class 4 gives you enough skill to read
the tech volumes and listen to the BC tapes on your own
and that is the way to study them while learning to think
in the subject instead of learning to parrot standard tech.

And you can do class 4 at an outer org that might (if you
are lucky) actually have a good instructor instead of a
sea org flunky who is not even trained on the levels that
he is supervising.

So the only real way to learn to be an OT is to learn
to be an auditor.

Actual understanding and ability are much more important
than any certificate that they can give you.  


ARC,

The Pilot

==========================================


 subj : Super Scio - Answering Joe on S-Nots Stats


ANSWERING JOE ON S-NOTS STATS

On 20 Nov,  Joe Harrington <joeharr@worldnet.att.net> replied
to may post titled " Super Scio - S-Nots Course Stats" with
the following question -

> I assume the 3280 figure does not include those who finished 
> solo NOTS and went on to OT8?

No.  It includes all the OT8s too because they also have to
pay for and redo SNOTS.  The newsletter I was quoting from
included a success story from an OT 8 who had gone back and
done the SNOTS certainty course and was having wins from 
finally doing Nots right or something like that.  Pathetic
really.

I don't think that many of the OT7 or OT8 completions are
going back for this.  Too much overrun and wrong case whys
and paying for the same thing over and over again.

This golden certainty business may cost them half of their
remaining OTs.


> Do you have an estimate on the number of OT8 completions? 

Unfortunately not.  My guess would be about a thousand.


> NOTS came out in 1978. Not including those who completed OT8, this
> averages out to about 173 completions per year, over the last 19 years.
> This is a rather dismal figure for an organization that claims "8
> million members". 
> 
> Joe


They didn't let anybody complete until the mid 1980s (after
Hubbard died if I remember right).  Then it was only a few
until they released OT8.  They they started letting people
attest so that they could sell them OT 8 on the ship.  So
about a thousand completed OT 7 all at once.

Since then they let a few complete occasionally.  Enough
to keep up the enthusiasm.

Many are still incomplete on S/NOTS and not auditing because
they can't affort to pay for the next 6 month check at
flag.  They know how to audit it but they are not allowed
to for economic reasons and are bogged.

The stat is not just dismal, it is completely in the toilet.
And an OT 8 completion has not even done any real OT drills
yet like the old OT 7s did.  So they are PreOTs who haven't
even gotten started really.

It has been a progression of less and less tech for more and
more bucks.

Of the old OT 7s, none of the untrained ones ever had any
OT ability worth a damn, but sometimes the trained auditors
who did these levels would have a brief flash of OT powers.
Thats all long gone now.


Best,

The Pilot


==========================================


 subj : Super Scio - Book Includes OT Drills (Answering Robert)


THE BOOK INCLUDES OT DRILLS (Answering Rober Sepehrt)


On 27 Nov 97,  "Robert Sepehr" <robsep@earthlink.net> asked
on subject "to PILOT"


> I just had a question on the new book.  Does it cover ground on 
> going past Clear?

It neatly sidesteps the issue by starting out with OT drills
immediately.

The modern approach would require much too much training 
before a beginner could start self processing.  Its fine if
you are already trained as an auditor, but if you're not,
the runway is too long because you would need to be able
to fly ruds before you can start auditing.  

Even a CofS trained solo auditor does not have the skill to 
do a CS53 on himself if it is needed before the ruds will fly
for the first time.  A class 4 could do that on himself but
a pure public solo auditor just isn't up to it.

So the method must allow for running over a high TA and
out ruds.

And grades processes are the most difficult to audit solo.
The OT drills are the easiest.

In the 1950s they used OT drills on beginners.  They never
flew ruds and generally didn't even use an e-meter.  And
the 1950s is when we had the most occurances of keyed
out OTs and dramatic super phenomena.

But they pretty much bypassed the person's case and didn't
do much about problems, overts, ARC breaks, and so forth.
So the results were very unstable.

The solution is to use the old style approach of high
horsepower OT style objectives (almost all OT drills are
objective processes done by the thetan rather than by
using the body) to build horsepower and gradually
introduce subjective processing such as the grades
processes.

Since the OT drills (such as those in Creation of Human
ability) are objectives, they will run over out ruds
and with the TA out of range.

The book covers everything on the grades, but it takes
its time, because it is the more difficult skill and
the case already needs to be doing well to push 
through the grades style abberations.

Things like implants are not brought up until about
three quarters of the way through the book because
they are mostly motivatorish distractions.  The person
needs to know about them (the book pulls no punches)
but there are much more powerful processes done earlier.

The book is designed to be done in a light and sloppy
manner on a first pass, because that is needed to give
you enough skill and understanding, and then followed
with a thorough second pass that should give stability
and high horsepower.

In self processing, the person is taking responsibility
for his own case instead of handing it off to an auditor,
so many of the liabilities and potential difficulties
fall away.

A self processor will naturally skimp on things which
are too difficult and the mind's protection is at
maximum so there is little danger of any real trouble.

With a small lineup of processes, this might leave the
person without gains because none of them happen to
hit right where he is sitting or address the particular
areas that he is a bit more able to handle.

The book contains thousands of processes.  Some will
bite.  Some of the OT drills will fly.  All he needs
is one brief flash of true exterior perception and
the whole case changes by an order of magnitude.

I expect that most people will hit theta clear (about
the level of old OT 6 or what may someday be new OT 12)
a some point during the first pass.

At a minimum, I expect that once somebody has gone
through the book completely, even in a half assed manner,
they will know enough and have enough confront and awareness
to self audit anything in orthodox tech or freezone
tech or the Super Scio book or metaphysics in general.

Really being able to keep the ruds in means training
through grade 3, and it takes about half the book to
reach that point.  But you'll have a ton of OT drills
under your belt by that time.

Since a true ext/int rundown (exteriorization/interiorization)
is not possible until late in the book (again it takes 
too much training), and since OT drills are being worked 
early on, a way to sidestep ext/int difficulties was needed.  
Luckily, the 3rd ACC (Advanced clinical course) has ext/int 
drills which cool down the phenomena and let the person 
audit past exterior safely.  So these are introduced early.  
They are very easy.  Too bad that the orgs tossed away 
most of the tech.

Real physical objectives are also used.  Almost all
of these were originally developed in the 1950s as OT 
drills and then a physical variation was made because 
the auditor couldn't tell if the PC was doing the 
command or not.

One trick I came up with is to do both, the physical
drill first and then the theta version.  It works
orders of magnitude better than doing either drill
by itself.

It pretty much covers everything the CofS is running
and orders of magnitude more.  Lots of stuff from
the 1950s.  Lots more where I saw holes that were
missing in the tech (such as a grade on the subject
of protest or a level on handling energy).

The main trouble is that it is fast, like route 1 and
2 in CofHA rather than the long discussions and examples
given on the SHSBC tapes.  I'm trying to say everything
that the person will need to know, but there is little
repetition.  Imagine route 1/2 extended out to a thousand 
steps and upgraded with everything we know now from
hindsight.

The way that the CofS is handling cases, they might 
need 30 OT levels to cover the kind of stuff that's in 
the book.

My big wonderment is how many people will have the
determination and perseverence to study and work on
their own.  There are books avilable on every subject
under the sun and yet few people will make the effort
to learn anything by themselves.

So I think that a lot of people will want somebody
to hold their hand, at least initially.

Also, the book does not cover how to process somebody
else.  That is best taught in an organization.  And
it would require explaining a lot more data.

I'm pushing hard to get it out before Christmas or at least
before New Years.  I'm skipping answering a lot of
posts right now for that reason.


Best,

The Pilot


==========================================


 subj : Super Scio - Computerized E-Meters


COMPUTERIZED E-METERS


On 20 Nov 1997 12:18:57 +1100, fjc@thingy.apana.org.au (Frank
Copeland) wrote:

> Of course it would mean spending money (lots of it if they want 
> the job done right) to develop. The hardware would be much more 
> expensive; they couldn't do their present trick of selling $25 
> worth of parts for $3000 and I doubt even the most dedicated 
> $cientologist will shell out $50,000 for a PC plus D/A (digital/analog, 
> not dead agent) converter and a bit of Visual Basic software. 
> Not to mention all the auditor training hours they couldn't charge
> for anymore.

To this, ralph@atnet.at (Ralph Hilton) responded on 21 Nov -

# The initial work has already been done, but not by Scientology. I was
# collecting data on various systems before I moved here from the UK but
# shelved the project of investigating further for the moment while
# establishing here. 
# 
# Ralph


Yes, I'd thought of the idea too (mentioned briefly in Super Scio)
and probably anybody with some computer savy has thought of this.

The hardware could be super cheap.

The cans connect to a wheatstone bridge (nothing more than a
few resistors and other cheep junk, the expensive part is the
needle dial and battery and neither one is needed here).

Then an analog to digital converter is used to change the signal
into something that the computer can deal with (computers are
digital, needle dials are analog).  An A/D chip costs about
a dollar.

You put this on a super simple printed circuit board that
plugs into the printer port on the PC.  That lets the PC
read the AD converter almost directly without having to serialize
the signal (necessary if you plug into the COM port).  That's
a trick used by some of the COMPROBE or make your PC into
an Oscilliscope type attachements to cut way down on the
hardware.

Probably a 2 inch by 3 inch printed circuit board in a
plastic box that plugs right onto the printer port and
has a jack to plug the cans into.

Might cost ten bucks to make.

Then comes tons of programming.  Win95 might shoot you in
the ass.  Visual Basic is as slow as molasses and might not
be able to poll the A/D converter fast enough.

So you need some assembler language in a DLL to handle the
hardware and only use VB for the fancy display, or do that
in Visual C.  Or go for bare bones PCDOS and manipulate
the bitmap yourself (often easier than crapping around
with visual basic).

But the software is one time development.  No manufacturing
cost.

And you can do all sorts of super stuff.

Choose from different style displays or needle behavior
(quantum button on or off at the click of a mouse), 
multiple display windows (regular dial and magnified
auto centered read), and even instant replay capability.

Include a TCP/IP socket and an ISDN concurrent digital/voice
connection and the client could pickup the cans at home (on
his PC) and his processor could watch the needle reads on
his own home computer while he processes over the phone and
their computers are linked over the internet.

But of course you'd have to sell this for fifty bucks or 
so (including software) and let the person put it on their 
existing home PC.

So I guess that that would screw the org out of its
six grand profit on each quantum meter.

So that makes the idea qualify as "denying income to
the orgs".  I forget whether that is a crime or a high
crime (suppressive act).

I hope that Ralph or somebody does this one.  It would
be a real boon.  Eventually I'll do it myself if nobody
else does, but that might be quite awhile.


Best,

The Pilot


==========================================

The following trailer was used on all of the
above posts

- ------------------

See the "SCIENTOLOGY REFORMER'S HOME PAGE" by the Pilot 
at http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~krasel/CoS/pilot.html
or http://www.igs.net/~michaelv/scnreform.htm or
The Pilots Home Page at http://super.zippo.com/~freezone/pilot/index.htm

Get the Pilot materials (the 32 part SUPER SCIO book) at:
ftp://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/pub/ss/index.html
or from the Pilots Home Page or pick up the ss## files 
from Homer's archive at lightlink.com.

All of this weeks posts will be collected in Super Scio Archive #16
and posted to ACT.  The posting archives are also available
on The Pilots Home Page.

- ------------------



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6

iQCVAgUBNIYPP8sIt3ZgVQbNAQGPDwP/VeZMKEV/zOb7Eca5J0dDJgmBXmrR2VWI
EMro7CJevri0IwS+DHXIjra+FaEw5p9OqJH6bJ8j0MOiYMlfH4o3DcTdq82GLsJt
4TwBqPqrxhArXs+BTfHdsvvZZH/dQF/XWm+ah31+grsFGsX/yFTYyVN40UgvmV6z
0zZMoycB1XQ=
=pf94
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

