Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology
From: pilot@hiddenplace.com (The Pilot)
Subject: Super Scio Archive - <9/9> posts of Aug 97
Date: 25 Aug 1997  14:00:20


POST9.TXT

SUPER SCIO TECH - PILOT POSTS OF AUGUST 1997

(other posts from August are in POST8.txt)


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

Contents (Headers):

Subj : Super Scio Tech - Some Advanced Processes
Subj : Super Scio Tech - R Palteks Directional Rundown
Subj : Super Scio Tech - re Fallen Angel
Subj : Super Scio Tech - The Animal Mind Tech
Subj : Super Scio Tech - To Paul Sheer re Suppressive
Subj : Super Scio Tech - Solo Grade 2 Question
Subj : Super Scio - Reply About Confidentiality (was To Pilot)


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


Subj : Super Scio Tech - Some Advanced Processes


SOME ADVANCED PROCESSES


Here are some very powerful processes (OT drills) that I figured out
recently and have been using with great success.



1. THE SOURCE DRILL

Spot an object in the environment, put enough theta into it to
get an answer (as in the TR8 ashtray drill),  and ask it:

"Who Is Mocking You Up".

There will generally be many "answers" which you will percieve
as feelings, telepathic images, awareness of intentions, and
lines radiating off in various directions.

Acknowlege each answer and keep asking until you have all the answers 
that you can get from a particular object and then select another
object, etc.

You do not expect the object to answer as if it was a being, but
you may sometimes get a flow from somebody who is mocking the
object up.

If the object starts answering you as if it was itself a being,
you probably have hit a BT in the object and should handle him
with Nots or some similar technique.  This is not what you are
looking for on this process.  What you want to do is endow enough
life to pull an answer back from an inanimate object.  This is
how you trace lines of control and causation back to their source.

Note that asking "who is mocking it up" does not work well because
you tend to sit back in your head and try to figure out who is mocking 
the object up. What you want to do is actually reach into the space 
of the object (with TR1) and pull back an answer from it.  Hence the 
need to personalize the object even though you know that there is 
usually no actual conciousness there.

You will often get old intentions and postulates from manufacturers,
designers, and assembly line workers.  These are light and weak
and release easily.

Most of the stuff lying around is not really being held very
tightly.  Even the theoretical owner is not doing much to keep
it there or stay in control unless it is a favorite piece of
Mest.

But there are exceptions.

If you do this on somebody's fine new car, the strength of the
postulates and intentions will just about knock you over.  There
is no way that you're going to end those cycles or take over
control of the object.  If you do a few of these, you'll get
a good feel for the difference between old postulates left on
circuit and active present time connections.

This process can also be run on a condition if you have already
handled most of your case whys and blown off any entities
in the area.   This lets you spot and knock off other peoples
postulates to have you in the condition (either to put you there
or to keep the condition in place).

Other people sympathizing with a condition do, to some degree,
mock up the condition and make it persist even though they
don't really mean to do that.  It can lock up on their own
games and valences.

You might also find, for example, that your mother wanted you
to wear glasses to keep you out of fights or that a doctor
wanted you to have a particular disease that he knew how to
treat so that he could cure you successfully.

One of the things about a chronic condition as opposed to an
acute one is that the chronic condition will accumulate other
peoples postulates over the course of time in addition to your
own original whys for mocking up the condition.  This makes
it harder to blow unless you use this process as a final step.



2. THE ENERGY DRILL


We have to a large degree concentrated on creation and on
mass and havingness.  This is important.

But there is a flip side to the coin.

Energy comes about through destruction rather than creation.

Of course something has to be created first before it can be
destroyed.

And there is no sense in destroying your finest creations.
We don't burn down nice houses to keep warm, instead we burn
black coal or whatever.

Note that I am using the popular definition of destroy rather
than the physics one.

All of our energy comes from destruction.  Cars run on a series
of tiny explosions.  The Sun destroys matter.  Our bodies 
destroy food.

You run creation to have mass, and destruction to have energy.

Direct mockups of energy never work very well, which is not
to say that it can't be done, but the results are disappointing.

If you concentrate exclusively on create, there is a tendency
to have less motion rather than more.

Destroy is not simple vanishment.  If you mock up a rock and
then unmock it, no energy is gained.  But if you mock one up
and blow it up, you get energy as a result.

Just mocking up explosions is nowhere near as good as blowing
up mockups of solids like rocks etc.

Note that there is no balance of creation and destruction that
has to be maintained.  You should create more than you destroy.
The universe is expanding.  There is always more rather than 
less and we need that for havingness.

Start by mocking up tiny particles and exploding them.  Run
chains of these tiny explosions.

I pulled my back slightly the other day and my neck felt stiff
as a result.  I ran chains of tiny explosions back and forth
through the muscels that were tightened up and they relaxed and
the area felt better very quickly.

There is a lot that could be done with this.

I have hardly scratched the surface.


Good Hunting,

The Pilot

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


Subj : Super Scio Tech - R Palteks Directional Rundown


RICHARD PLATEK'S DIRECTIONAL RUNDOWN


On 14 July, Richard Platek <lion@databahn.net> wrote:

> Pilot,
> 
> Having some experience with spacation, my take on it, is to instantly
> release ANY anchor points perceived. This is all that gets noticed, is
> anchor points. The bigger the better! Anchor points are felt. And they
> also might have mass equal to image. If I had to create a process, I
> would say,
> 
> 1. notice a sensation.
> 2. take a slow deep breath
> 3. Release that breath, in the "direction" of the sensation.
> 4. repeat if necessary.
> 5. Notice the next sensation (anchor point)
> 6. repeat 1-5 above.

There are many variations of spotting lines coming into the body
and "from where ..." type processes or handling the remote sources
of things.

But this is a new twist, namely to flow backwards along the line.
It seems very smart and workable and I have been having some fun
with it.  

 
> Also, I recalled and re-practiced a VERY valuable process today. I call
> it "feeling with the head". Focus perception within and around the space
> called head. Feel into and around the brain. Feel into and through the
> brain. Feel the head from top to bottom, front to back. Feel into and
> through the contraction which is thinking, knowing, stategy, desire to
> know and master, knowledge, memory, image, recalled somatics,
> everything. Feel your hair follicles. Feel the front of the face. Feel
> the backside of the skull. Feel the entire skull itself. 

I've already been doing this one.  It is actually a nice variation on 
Hubbard's "feel the aliveness in each body part".

 
> Well, what are you waiting for? Try it.
> 
> Love, Lion
> .


Very well done.

It seems like new tech is springing up all over the place.

This is how we will make it out, by pooling our ideas and resources
rather than fanatically worshipping a single source.

Thank You,

The Pilot

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

Subj : Super Scio Tech - re Fallen Angel


On 17 Aug 1997, Heidrun Beer (concern@atnet.at) posted:
> Subject: The Fallen Angel
> Message-ID: <33fa9645.3030669@mail.atnet.at>


> I recently got some data about an incident which I would call 
> the "fallen angel" incident.
> 
> It is the devastating experience of being repudiated by God
> forever, with no chance to ever get back into a state of grace.
> The main components are an ultimate recognition of God's 
> allmighty power, with a simultaneous ultimate rejection by
> this same desparately admired allmighty being. 
> 
> It seems to be basic for a personality pattern which lives 
> on the famous "Do what thou wilt" rule (= it doesn't really
> matter which crimes I commit, I anyway don't have a chance 
> to become accepted by God again), plus a deep, hopeless, 
> scared and bitter protesting attitude towards people 
> who for some reason are thought to be representing God. 
> 
> I think the "devilish" valence stems from there - chains
> of lifetimes of ultimate arrogance, playing with others like
> soulless toys, because of this "It doesn't matter, I'm lost".
> 
> I would like to hear any LRH-comments or other technical
> references or auditing experiences on this. For me it's clear
> that it can't be a genuine incident because a genuine God,
> characterized by the omnipresence of love, wouldn't do such 
> a thing. So is it an incident of somebody "playing God", 
> or simply a vicious implant?
> 
> Could it be that it is neither of these but a mock-up held
> alive and continually projected on someboy by the one of the 
> distant monitor beings whom Ralph has described in the 
> "Structure of Character"-text he has posted to clear-l?
> 
> If not, what is the fundamental lie which makes it persist?
> 
> How would the auditors amongst you approach it with processing?
> 
> How could a person with an awareness of the real 8th dynamic
> approach somebody who is sitting in this incident, without
> triggering his protest?
> 
> If you read this on spirit-l, please do me a favour and CC your
> post to clear-l@lightlink.com.
> 
> Sorry if I'm asking a silly question - so far, I didn't come
> across that thing in any text I have read - you know, poor 
> management slave who is always craving tech :-)
> 
> Heidrun Beer (clear baby)
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Discussing CoS practice:  http://www.icon.fi/~marina/clrbaby/index.htm  
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Competition" is a trick of the weak to fetter the strong. 
> 
> Where there's a group to be helped or a preclear to be processed 
> or a student to be trained, see that it's done; and *if* it gets done, 
> don't count the cost in broken rules.
> 					- LRH, 29.10.59 II, "Service" -
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm sure that this scene occurs in the Hellatrobus implant which
I believe to be in use in sentencing people to Earth.  It may
occur in other implants as well.

As I started reading your post, the item "To be rejected,
absolutably" immediately flashed into mind along with a bit of
a visio of standing between pillars (from which came the items)
while looking up at a "god" who was rejecting me as a flawed
creation.

Glancing at the expanded Hellatrobus platen which is in Chapter 8
of the Super Scio book, the goal "to be rejected" obviously fits 
between "to be in heaven" and "to be created".

Note that the first run of Hellatrobus is implanted backwards,
so that the earliest goal implanted is "to be ended" and the
final one (up at the top of all the staircases etc.) implanted
is "to be created" (where you are shown being created by God).

In the second run, you get the story in the forward direction,
begining with being created by God, found wanting, getting
kicked out of Heaven, wandering around down on Earth, and
eventually ending up at the Bottom of Hell with the goal
"to be ended".

It seems to have 6 runs, with 3 backwards and 3 forwards,
alternating.

My dates on this seem to be that I first recieved the implant 
about 10,000 years ago and have recieved it about 8 times
altogether (each time I tried to excape) with the last being
about 166 years ago.  

With 8 occurances and 6 runs, that gives a total of 48 times
that I recieved the item mentioned above.

The 63 trillion years ago date is part of the implant.  
Supposedly that is when God created you.

I would not raise the subject of Hellatrobus with the PC
unless they are either a very advanced case or studying this
kind of stuff comfortably on their own.

I would simply ask if it might be an implanted picture or
experience, and ask for how many times it was implanted.
That should get them exterior to it and cool down all sorts
of crazy religious figure figure that they might otherwise
get into.


ARC,

The Pilot

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

Subj : Super Scio Tech - The Animal Mind Tech


THE ANIMAL MIND TECH


Michael Mourer has been posting some material on the subject of
what he has identified as "Animal Minds".

I will quote a bit from his post of Fri, 11 Apr 1997 
From: "spook3s" <spook3s@seaknet.alaska.edu>.

> These self created entities respond to being called Animal Minds or AM's. 
> All thoughts, emotions, and efforts coming from all humans are these AM's. 
> ....
> 
> It is noteworthy these AMs draw all there energy from the primordial human.
>  They also create duplicates of themseves and are doing so as you read
> this.
> 
> To remove (off load) these AMs and their duplicates simply ask their name
> and title and number of duplicates.  Then count them off.  After a few
> thousand hours of this proceedure you will naturally go
> from egoistic to altruistic.  This is the natural (primordial) you
> emerging.  Your natural state is essential purity and spontanaity.

There seemed to be enough substance to it for me to give it a try
and follow up on it.

But note that his posts are also filled with attacks and invalidation 
of all other technologies.  He is pushing that this is the one and
only case "why".  It twists his viewpoint a bit because he is trying
to force square pegs into round holes and they don't fit very well.
Its like Ron getting snarled up in incident 2 and thinking that
everything came from BTs.  

I suspect that what happens is that one gets a really bad, heavy,
central incident into massive restimulation and then it seems like
the one incident is source for everything.  I had this happen for
a few months while researching the penalty universes.  But I managed
to flatten them and everything fell back into perspective.

I hope that Michael can pull out of this dramatization before it 
sinks him completely.  He does have something to contribute and
his effort to make his tech easily available to others is
commendable.

He has apparently been running a single case phenomena for thousands 
of hours.  And the fact that they only answer up to "Animal Minds" 
specifically indicates that the source is an implant or a series of 
implants.  This means that he is either overrunning, or running with 
inadequate ITSA, or the technique he's using is simply too slow.

I played around with this a bit and I managed to find some huge
clouds of emotions that would answer up as "animal minds".  And
he's right in that they wouldn't answer up to anything else.

But asking their name and title just didn't seem to reach into the
core of these clouds.  And running self duplicating theta constructs
can take a very long time unless you use a question that will be
copied back to the first original that is projecting the duplicates.
In other words, you hit duplicates of duplicates of duplicates
and simply reaching for the most basic one you can find still
leaves you a couple layers beyond the original.  If you simply
run that one, you are using a teaspoon against the ocean.

I ran into this with what I have been calling "Programmed Machine
Entities" (PME's).  It was slow freight and just endless until
I hit the "Spot being made into a machine" question, which is
central enough to their anatomy that it gets copied into places
that you couldn't reach without taking off layers and layers.

So I tried the PME question, but it didn't work at all on these
guys.  And I tried the Nots technique and that was almost unworkable.
Next, because it seemed like these were split off pieces of
myself rather that pieces of somebody else, I tried the "point
to" question, but it only works marginally.

Then I got bright and came up with "Spot being made into an
animal mind".  If you just permeate the whole cloud and hit it 
with that one, it will start unravelling.

There seems to be a cloud for each major "emotion" such as
hated, fear, lust, jeliousy, vengance, etc.

After a few of these clouds dissolved I tried to get to the
underlying implant.  It seems to be the same one that I have labled
"emotional basic".  Its mentioned in the Super Scio book as an
area for further research.  I've been clipping the edges of it
here and there, but it had remained extremely obscure.  So I
have to thank Michael for giving me a hand with this one.

I still don't have a good handle on the incident, but it seems
to be a very early "mass implant" type of thing, which is done
by and to very senior beings who are capable of projecting multiple
bodies at will.  The scenery and events involve more than 3
dimensions, so its hard to visualize.  This one probably dates
all the way back to the "Reality Wars" (see Super Scio).

This would be the original one that mocks up emotions.  Much
later, the penalty universes of the home universe era take these
emotions and arrange them and lay in the pattern of the tone
scale.  And there is a very heavy later similar incident in
the "Symbols" universe where one builds "emotional thought pools".
This adds a BT cross copy factor to the mess because lots of
different people all put pieces of themselves into these pools
where they are bound together into emotional amplifyers.
But the original source is these clouds formed of pieces of
yourself.

There is a tendency to bounce into the later thought pools
incident while trying to run the earlier clouds incident.
And I suspect that the penalty universes and possibly also
the "big splitter" (see Super Scio) might also be getting
in the way if I hadn't already taken a lot of charge off of
them.

The begining of the incident has something like "to be emotional
is the divine purpose of existance".  There seem to be worlds
full of creatures within you and you have to fill them with
emotions.  And its very very asthetic.  And in some way or other
they manage to convince you that everything would be pointless
and meaningless and apathetic unless you mocked this damn thing
up compulsively and hid it from yourself.

The incident consists exclusively of asthetic and emotional
impacts.  There is no physical force in it and you were probably
senior to physical force and incapable of being hit at the time
that it was done because you were still senior to bodies and
projecting them in vast quantities as needed.

I would suggest taking apart every emotional cloud (with spot
being made into an animal mind) that you can find before tackeling
the incident directly.  I tend to take a shallow pass and jump
ahead because I have such a compulsion to see how everything
fits together.  But even a shallow pass took off a lot of weight
for me.


- The Pilot

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


Subj : Super Scio Tech - To Paul Sheer re Suppressive


TO PAUL SHEER - HOW NOT TO BE SUPPRESSIVE


On 12 Aug, Super-User <root@hagar.mech.wits.ac.za> posted
> Subject: Questions for Koos and others: the USP series and me
> Message-ID: <5sqem4$85b$1@nntp.wits.ac.za>

<much snipped>

> I read through the entire USP series twice. Thank you Koos - it
> has really helped me.
> 
> I realise now full well that I AM an SP. This is not by way of my actions,
> but by my intention to destroy others. What I found disappointing
> about the USP series was the little given in aid of readers who ARE 
> SP's, who REALISE this, and who WANT to change.

Unfortunately, Koos mostly just rants and raves about things.

He sees a small fire and instead of putting it out, he pours
petrolium on it so that others will see it better and acknoledge
that Koos has seen a real fire.

I have looked at some of his materials and have not found them
to be helpful in actually changing conditions for the better.

There are many things in Homer's archives that are actually
helpfull, and there are the many LRH books, and there is the
material that I have been posting, and lots of other good stuff.

To begin with, let us NOT say that you are suppressive.  This is
just a big generality and a way for others to blame things on
you and discount what you are saying.

Instead, let us recognize that you have spotted an evil intention
"to destroy others" and acknowlege that you are already advanced
enough to confront this and realize that it is undesirable.  You
seem to be willing to do something about it, and that is half of
the battle right there.

A person adopts an evil purpose in an attempt to solve an area
of heavy confusion and non-confront.

These are never the person's real purpose, but are only abberated
solutions to things going wrong.  Therefore, they are labled
false purposes in modern Scientology.

These things are encouraged by old implants which give you
self-destructive ideas like the only way out is to destroy.
But those are only suggestions.  It is you who either chooses
to follow them or finds a better way to deal with life.

From the situation you described, it seems like you are still
in the midst of the "confusion" and have not yet jammed
the false purpose in on top of it completely.

So let us move on to dealing with the confusion itself.  

>  ...
> So I decided to be in
> perpetual suppression of others rather than be called names - it did
> work: people have this bizarre respect for me, but I'm hurting them
> and having no social life. This is really miserable.
> 
> I hate life, I hate people, and I hate this world. I see people as
> coming in three kinds: those that would destroy me, those that
> would condone my destruction, and those who are too thick or
> afraid to do anything but stand by and watch.
> 
> Now my question is this: Is the problem that I feel pain over their
> thoughts, or that I say wrong things to give them those thoughts
> to start off with?
> 
> Is this just me, or do other people have this problem with thoughts
> of others and just keep it a secret, as I have my whole life.


I had this trouble for a time during my teens.  

Although I do believe in telepathy, it is not necessary to bring
it into the picture to analyze this problem.  Everybody feels
other people's approval or disapproval.  The means by which this
occurs is secondary to the unpleasant feeling of being disliked and
rejected.  Even a psychologist could see this on the basis of 
the subliminal clues that we give each other.  So let's not worry 
about how this done but simply recognize that most people usually 
can recognize how others feel about them.

The first key to this whole thing is that there are FEEDBACK EFFECTS.

If you project love, it encourages love.  If you project hate,
it encourages hate.  These things bounce back and forth.  You
put out some bad feelings in their direction and they feel worse
about you so you are encouraged to put out more hate and so they
put out more hate and so you put out more hate, etc.  Or you
put out some good feelings and they feel a little bit better
about you and so you are encouraged to put out more good feelings
and so they are encouraged to put out more good feelings, and
so forth.

If you can put out love despite their hate, it gradually reduces
their hate and they begin to feel better about you.

Of course there are many other factors involved in inter-personal
relationships.  But this one is so significant that it can turn
things around all by itself.

The second key is that real world communications can take
preceedent over the subtiler mental effects.

If somebody is thinking "what a stupid shit he is" and you say
something like "how are you?" it often derails the though process.

Thoughts are often very transient things of low significance.
And people bounce back and forth between contradictory ideas
quite freequently.

In Scientology there is something called the ARC triangle 
which is the idea that Affinity (liking), Reality (agreement),
and Communications are all inter-related and have a feedback
effect upon each other.  In other words, if you communicate
more, then people tend to like you more and agree with you more.
And if you like people, they tend to communicate with you more and
are more inclined to agree with you.  And so on.

Because of this, Scientology pushes communication heavily in
its beginners courses because it does produce radical improvements
in a person's life.  But they don't have an exclusive on the
subject of communication.  Anything that you can do to improve
your ability to communicate with others will help.

The ability to percieve other's viewpoints is a very powerful
one.  It means that you must act as the more evolved being in
your relationships to others.  It is for you to make the
communications go well.

This does not mean propitiating or fawning on other people.  That
is actually not very good communication and people don't generally
like it very much.

What it means is real communication.  Confident, comfortable,
warm, and certain.  And realize that sometimes you have to keep
communicating for awhile before the effect is felt.  People
take time to change.
  

> I think that people on this newsgroup spend to much effort trying to
> convince readers of the truth of their knowledge than giving them
> alternatives. OK, I'm convinced that we have been reincarnating for 
> billions of years, I believe in Xenu, Venus, etc etc.
> Now what the hell must I do! I can't afford auditing at $NNN-NN
> dollars per hour. I can't even afford a psychiatrist. I have gotton
> much benefit from the writings of Homer and Koos. But more than 
> this, I've been given a false sense of hope: "YES! we've found you the 
> solution to life, you're just to financially inadequite."


You can do a lot with self-study and solo processing.  Its more
than just believing in things.  You can do various drills and
exercises and processes.  But you will need much more understanding
than somebody who is being processed by a professional.  You will
have to become your own professional by self-study.

Take advantage of the wealth of material that is here on the
internet.  And search out printed books and materials as well.
Its all in your own hands.

 
> I'm also not convinced that all these newsgroup contributors are so happy
> where I have managed to conceal my own unhappyness so well. "Come out and
> admit your own unhappyness first, and then you will have some credibility."
> I would really like to talk sincerely to those who would admit similar
> problems to mine.

I'm unhappy about lots of things.  There is much that I would like
to change in the world.  I would, for example, like to see orthodox
Scientology reformed.  This is not just an idle passtime for me.
I put many years of my life into the subject and mucho dollers as
well.  I think that I have a right to demand that they act better.
And I have a vested interested in wanting to see them forwarding
the cause of spiritual advancement instead of inhibiting all further
research in the field.  Besides which, many of my friends are still
at the effect of how Scientology chooses to kick them around.

But you get better by moving forward in areas where you are making
progress rather than by immersing yourself in failures and 
self-pity.  As you gain strength in one area, it carries over into
other areas that previously seemed imposible.

Things spiral upwards or downwards.  You can't take the entire
weight on your shoulders at once.  In metaphysics they say that
"a tree grows from a single seed".  So you take the easy targets
first and build up.


> I would love to start my own 'org' and audit people and be audited
> day and night, and perhaps devote my life to studying this phenonemen. But
> where is the fascility for doing this? In this country I have met
> only one practacing Scientologist outside of the Church and he wanted
> around $50 (roughly) per hour. I would need thousands of hours to
> become a clear, he said. Right now, I'm a student, with just enough 
> scholarship money to support myself. What are my options?

If you are going to start an organization and audit, you definitely
need to undertake a course of study, learning and investigating 
everything that you can about the mind.  I'm a firm believer in
self-study.  All it requires is time, motivation, and sources of
materials to study.  Investigate the libraries, explore the internet,
read and digest and apply everything that you can lay your hands on.

Its not a matter of belief.  Its a matter of understanding and
practical application.

I'm looking forward to seeing your org when you are ready to
create one.

And perhaps there are others in your area who will contact you
if you keep posting to the net.


> HELP
> 
> Paul Sheer
> 
> psheer@hertz.mech.wits.ac.za
> psheer@budget.mech.wits.ac.za
> 
> Tel +27 11 788 7748


Best,

The Pilot

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

Subj : Super Scio Tech - Solo Grade 2 Question


SOLO GRADE 2 QUESTION


superandrew@tripod.net wrote:

> Dear friends, i am a class v graduated auditor who was on staff on an
> earth church and got fed up of being treated bad from seniors ,
> getting no auditing, low income, high working hours ; i figured out
> that by devoting all my forces to the church i will be committing an
> overt on 1d 2d 5d 6d 7d.
> Now i don't have a freezone auditor in my country so i am attempting
> to go through grade2 to the top alone, by solo auditing me, do you
> have any suggestions or can you give me any help ?

> much love,
> littleLRH


Good for you.

I have managed to run grades style processes on myself solo.  But
it is difficult.  You need a high level of skill and enough 
persistance to flatten the process.  This is probably out of
reach for people who are not trained auditors.

I have been thinking a lot about how to do a mostly solo bridge.

It is easier with more narrowly focused commands that can be
answered more easily and will flatten faster.  And it helps to
boost the person's posative side a bit more so that they retain
enough horsepower as the process brings things into restimulation.

With this in mind, lets take a look at the key process for
Grade 2 which is "What have you done", "What haven't you said".

First of all, we are addressing two targets rather than one.
It would be better to deal with done and withheld doingness
separately from hiding what one has done.

So let us use "what have you done", "what have you kept yourself
from doing" as our first process.  Then we could use "What have
you let others find out" alternated with "what have you kept
hidden" as our second category of process.

But we should also narrow the target, so we might do this by
dynamics.

Each is run alternately to EP.

1.1a) What have you done with your body
1.1b) What have you kept yourself from doing with your body

1.2a) What has another done with their body
1.2b) What has another kept themselves from doing with their body

1.3a) What have others done with their bodies
1.3b) What have others kept themselves from doing with their bodies


2.1a) What have you done with sex
2.1b) What have you kept yourself from doing with sex
(other flows as above)

3.1a) What have you done with children
3.2b) What have you kept yourself from doing with children
(other flows as above)

4.1a) What have you done with loved ones
4.2b) What have you kept yourself from doing with loved ones
(other flows as above)

And so on, including things such as work, groups, governments,
society, animals, life forms, objects, energy, space, time,
spirits, (entities if appropriate), religion, god, infinity,
ethics, asthetics, knowlege, games, creation.

Note that done does not mean committed an overt.  It just means
done.  Overts are allowed to come up if they need to, but do not
have to be searched for.

Then one could run

1a) What have you let others find out about your body
1b) What have you kept hidden about your body

And continue on through the same pattern of processes as above.

I know its a lot of processes, but most of these could probably
release in a few commands and the whole set (maybe 144 processes)
can probably be run in a half dozen hours solo.

My gut feeling was to use 3 flows on this rather than four.
The first flow here is mostly causative and pretty much flow zero
as well as allowing for flow 1.  

This might run well with only two flows (self and others) because
of the similarity between another and others.

Running things by dynamics is to a great degree a sort of
super bracket anyway and is less likely to give trouble due
to unrun flows.

And our real target here is one's own causation and awareness
of other's causation.

This is, of course, highly experimental.  So use your judgement
as to what else might be needed.  Other flows, buttons, and
command wordings are possible.  But the above should take
one hell of a lot of charge off of grade 2.

Please post your experiences with doing a solo bridge as
you work your way up the chart.  I think that mostly solo, with 
review and booster rundowns from professionals, would be the
fastest way to set everyone free.


Good Luck,

The Pilot

========================
 
Subj : Super Scio - Reply About Confidentiality (was To Pilot)


DISCUSSION OF CONFIDENTIALITY, RESTIMULATION, ETC.


On July 15, Richard Platek <lion@databahn.net> (lines marked # )
carried forward a discussion with leader (lines marked > ) who
was in turn referencing an even earlier message from Oleg V. Matveyev
on the subject of confidentiality.

First, the following is the preface from Oleg's message (marked = ) which 
was included in leader's post.

= Please forward this to The Pilot if there is a possibility. I liked his web
= page very much. I was in Sea Org for about a year and now 
= I myself am in Free Zone and there is some interesting comments from 
= my friends on "What's wrong with confidentiality" and other
= things on this www page. 
= 
= Feel free to give him my e-mail account.
= 
= Oleg V. Matveyev
= ------------------------------------------------------
= 
= e-mail: fz-ru@freezone.org              (Lotse) 
=            freezone@orc.ru                  (Moscow)
= ------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the encouragement.  

I couldn't find the original message (I have both leader's and
Richard's followups).  Could somebody repost it?


leader wrote:
>
> ((<<He believes that the OT levels should not be confidential and I agree with
> him. ...>>

# While I am out of my element here, I tend to agree with this. 

> 
> I don't, and you will agree with me after you have gained enough auditing
> experience with OT reviews.

# Okay, this matter is the subject of much debate.

If we are talking about OT reviews, rather than low level reviews
where the person might have accidentally found out about OT3, then
we are talking about people who are already supposed to know about
the confidential materials.

Wouldn't it be more likely that the OT's troubles were due to
wrong whys, evaluation, invalidation, mis-CSing, and other technical 
troubles rather than the simple fact of having found out about the
confidential data?

And, since charge is bascically self-created, wouldn't it make something
significantly more restimuative to convince people that it is
dangerous and then surprise them with it after keeping it hidden?

Don't primitive people get very restimulated by stuff that they
are superstisious about?  Things that don't bother an educated
person?  Itn't it mostly due to the undo significance that they place
on some things?

This is not to say that its all mocked up.  But what component is
due to the actual charge and what is due to the fact of having made
it confidential?


> Let me try to explain it in simple terms: Basically, the tech of auditing is
> the "art" of selectively restimulating parts of the PC's case in such a
> sequence that the PC can efficiently as-is ever-increasing portions of his
> bank.
> 
> If too much is restimulated at one time, the PC will be overwhelmed and his
> situation will worsen and not improve. This is especially true if the
> restimulation might "kick off" major parts of his case.

# I don't agree with the words, AND I have seen this happen. And, there
# are other mechanics involved. One can as-is positive "influences" and
# "motivations". It can leave one without the necessary motivation to
# continue.  


I do agree with the words and the mechanics described (although Richard 
is right in noting that there are also other mechanics), however, leader
is missing an important point.

Restimulation cools down fairly quickly.

Present time impingement is much more significant.

We always have to deal with PCs being overwhelmed or restimulated
because life can be overwhelming and restimulative.  Somebody who
has just had his senior screaming at him is generally more overwhelmed
and keyed-in than a low level PC who has just read the OT3 confidential
data in the newspaper.  Both situations can be handled.  And either
one will cool down by itself if the person doesn't keep getting
kicked in the teeth by life.

Grade 3 (upsets, ARC Breaks), for example, is very restimulative and 
out-gradient on a new person.  People throw fits, break dishes, and 
scream at the top of their lungs.  But we don't hide the tech on it.
And we use it as a rudiment from the very begining even though it
would be much too restimulative to try and run it as a grade before
addressing easier things.

The real problem was that the OT3 tech is too difficult and messy
to use as a rudiment, so you didn't have a good quickie way of
destimulating it.  This changed when NOTS was developed.  That is 
certainly easier than running a list repair or even assessing an
ARCX when the PC is really upset.

 
> Certain parts of the OT levels can restimulate such "major pieces 
> of charge".  While the general charge in areas like OT 3 has 
> fortunately been reduced a lot by the many people who have completed 
> those levels meanwhile (today, reading OT 3 material usually will 
> no longer cause any illness while it was guaranteed to do so 
> some 20 years ago), it can nevertheless cause individual problems as has
> been reported by review auditors. (I did not have to fix up PCs 
> recently, but I did fix up OT-3-restimulations when I still was 
> in the Sea Org in the 70's.)

# Well, you are over my head (as far as your model goes) with this.

The material was not very restimulative.  What is restimulative is
the idea that all of your case is coming from OT3 and that you are
at total effect.

Another staff member told me the OT3 data in 1969.  He had heard it
from somebody on lines at a splinter group.  He was very
keyed in.  I'd already mucked around a bit with entities based on
the stuff in History of Man and what was in the early tapes.

I though it was funny and that it was just a squirrel twist
on what was in History of Man combined with some old space opera
incident.  I grabbed a copy of HofM and sat down with the other
staff member and went over the material on entities, how the
phenomena exists but has little power because its not your own
case and can only affect you if you feed it energy etc.

When we finished, he was grinning and feeling better and we both
though that the "squirrel" was an idiot for putting so much importance
on a stupid incident and we though that he was trying to key his
PCs in by making them mis-own resposibility for their own case
by mis-assigning it to entities.  On that basis, we concluded that
he really was a suppressive!

We didn't know that he was simply copying Ron's tech.  Very funny
in retrospect.

I bet that my friend would have gotten sick if I hadn't handled
him as I did.  He was all set to offload his entire case on 
this "horrible incident that had been done to us and the entities
that were manipulating him like a puppet on a string".	In fact,
I might even have gotten sick at that time if I had believed that 
OT3 was the source of all my case.

Remember that this was the quickie era.  People got onto the 
upper levels after only a few hours of lower grades processing.
They would have, lets say 15 minutes of problem processing and
suddenly feel good about problems for a few days.  If they ever
had another problem, it was attributed to OT3.  So of course
the level was over restimulative and a real killer.  But it's
because of the wrong why and endless mis-ownership.

And please note that the incident and the idea of entities was
not unreal to me.  I had actually seen a bit of incident 2
(without having heard the materials) in dreams when I was sick
back in 1968.  It was one of the many things that had keyed
in when I collapsed out of the keyed-out OT state.  But I had
considered it (and still consider it) to be a minor incident.
The splitter incidents are much more significant than the
joiners (like overts are more significant than motivators)
and both are mentioned in the early tapes.

Its interesting that you bring up the point that having some
people run OT3 reduces the charge for others.  I do think that
there is some truth to this.  But are you aware that the logic
behind this is based on what is now being called the "fragmentation
theory"?

They have been hacking up and omitting parts of the HCL lectures
of 1952 (it includes Nots data among other things) which is the
main source of the fragmentation theory ("theta siblings, both split
off of the same earlier individual"), but there is still a bit
of it in the materials that are available.

Supposedly, if you run an incident prior to the time of split,
it runs the incident out of the other theta siblings as well.  And you 
can pull incidents sideways out of your siblings.

Ron discusses a character named Piedro who is one of his theta
siblings.  Supposedly he even left behind a screenplay about
this and the org is planning to film it.  The org doesn't realize
that this is the next level beyond the "Revolt in the Stars"
movie.  This is the overt side rather than the motivator.

The fragmentation stuff is much more advanced and therefore
theoretically much more restimulative than the entity stuff.
But we haven't made a big deal out of it or jammed it down
people's throats and we are not attributing all case to it.
So its not a big deal and people aren't much bothered.  Its
there when you're ready for it (see Chapter 6 of my Super Scio book) 
and meanwhile it can be ignored in the face of more important 
things such as PTPs, Overts, and ARC Breaks.

 
> << ... I'm curious about the policy of the Freezone as regards confidentiality.
> Is Excalibur [Excalibur is Captain Bill's package of AA IV - VIII levels]
> available for perusal in the Net? If not why?>>
> 
> To my knowledge, the OT levels are treated as confidential by all European
> freezone orgs. While the excalibur materials are available free of charge for
> properly trained auditors who want to deliver them, Captain Bill clearly set
> forth specific prerequisites for every single level.

There is no general freezone policy because there is no central point
of control (which I consider to be a good thing), so each of the many
freezone groups has its own policies on this.  Some have swallowed
the idea of confidentiality and some have not.  If you form your own
group, then you will get to call the shots.  I don't keep my stuff
secret.  Capt. Bill's group does keep some of his stuff hidden.  Nobody 
can keep Ron's stuff secret anymore because its all over the internet.


# If one knows there are "advanced" levels then it's too late to keep them
# private or better said "non public". It depends on how well the advanced
# levels can be communicated. The should be hinted at to encourge desire
# for continued growth. Most of all they should be DEMONSTRATED by those
# that have completed these levels. That creates a desire to duplicate.
# And that is VERY motivating.
 
> OT levels are precise methods which bypass many protection mechanisms 
> of the mind. So they are not suited for "coffee shop auditing" and thus 
> don't belong onto the Net.))

Is the net only useful for coffeeshop auditing?  I don't see it
that way.

As for bypassing the protection mechanisms of the mind, I don't see
how they do that or how they could do it to any great degree.
Materials lie there passively and you causatively read them.  And
there is nobody to scream at you or pressure you if you decide that 
they don't indicate right now.

One living being working another over the coals is how the
protective mechanisms get bypassed.  Or a well meaning auditor who
is flubbing badly at a time when the PC has purposfully set aside
his own protective mechanisms because he wants what the auditor
is supposed to be able to deliver.


# Cast not, your pearls before swine. Perhaps this was not a deep as it
# appeared. Not only that, discovering secrets is one of the best
# motivators I have ever seen. And keeping motivation in, is one of the
# underated tools.
# 
# A motivated being, can lift a universe.


Motivation is an important point.  

But making things secret is not going to inspire people who are not 
reaching.

For somebody who is reaching (in other words, already involved in
this subject), the big make/break factor on motivation is the
success/failure ratio.  

If somebody is making big gains, you don't have to keep the
levels secret, he will want to do them all anyway.  People want
to get their problems handled on grade 1 even if they know what
grade 1 is about.

Confidentiality is mostly just sticking the person with a mystery
which might keep him paying out of despriation when you have
failed to deliver or handle his case. 


# Homer, as much as I love him, is an example of "under motivation". This
# is not an insult to Homer, it really isn't. Homer is in a prison which
# he freely admits to building the walls. I have watch many share personal
# power to help him break out of his prison. And in VERY compassionate
# ways. Stupid ways too. I have been guilty of this. And yet, not one of
# us has motivated him to draw so deeply on his own resources that he
# actually makes it out, to the next level. I am not angry at myself for
# not being able to do this. I don't have a "one size fits all" mentality.
# And it is very likely that I will not win at this game. Perhaps Homer
# really does have demons which all the tech in the world will not
# exorcise. Who, but Homer knows. I do believe that Homer is dealing with
# something bigger than any of us want to admit. I know that his pain
# transcends mine. Or it seems to. And his sorrow, I cannot fathom.
# 
# I have, for the last few weeks, stopped trying to help Homer. I have
# focused on trying to get to know him.
# 
# Sorry, Homer, This didn't start out as a post about you, It's just where
# it ended.
# 
# Love, Lion


I certainly don't think that Homer is undermotivated.  In fact he
acts like he is intensly driven to find answers and get out of the
trap and to develope understanding and help others along the way.

A lot of folks complain about how he is full of piss and vinegar.
But as I see it, he is simply demanding of people that they do
the best that they can, questioning everything and insisting on
real meat, rather than letting the newsgroup deteriorate into
fluffyness and PR.  

I suspect that he is rather disgusted (as am I) with the wishfull 
thinking type wins and undelivered promises that are the mainstay
of Scientology PR.

He's wearing the hat of a research team leader or perhaps of the
"petty tyrrant" that Carlos Castenadas says is needed to inspire
you to growth.


ARC,

The Pilot 

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

The following trailer was used on these messages

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 pick up the ss## files from Homer's archive at lightlink.com.

Or search dejanews http://www.dejanews.com/ either for "Super Scio" 
or for all pilot postings to ARS or ACT using, for example:
    ~a (The Pilot) & ~g (alt.religion.scientology)

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



