Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology
From: pilot@hiddenplace.com (The Pilot)
Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 26 - EARLY MAR 98 PILOT POSTS TO ACT
Date: 3 Mar 1998  14:00:30


POST26.txt 

SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 26 - EARLY MAR 98 PILOT POSTS TO ACT


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

Contents:

 subj : Super Scio - To Azeric On Between Lives
 subj : Super Scio - Answering Oleg On LRH
 subj : Super Scio - Answering Kristen On Sources Etc.
 subj : Super Scio - Answering Thomas On Leaving CofS
 subj : Super Scio - To LittleLRH On Emeters
 subj : Super Scio Tech - OT RESEARCH
 subj : Super Scio Tech - More On GPMs (attn John)

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

 subj : Super Scio - To Azeric On Between Lives

TO AZERIC ON BETWEEN LIVES

On 15 Feb 98, azeric <azeric@pop.flash.net> posted to ACT
on subject "To PILOT re: Between Lives Implant Situation, etc."

> I am trying to figure out the Between Lives Situation with multiple
> sources of data to see how it all fits together.
>
> From what I have read the implant stations were initially put in place
> by Xenu. 

I've never seen that anywhere in LRH tech.  See the writeup I did
on "The Cosmology of Scientology".

> The implant stations are used for control implants and then at
> some point you get your memories erased/obscured before your next life.
> Since Xenu was captured and overthrown-- why are these implant stations
> still in place? 

According to Hubbard, between lives memory errasure is a "dead forever"
type handling to solve the problem of how to get rid of a thetan
(see the 1963 tapes like Free Being and Comm Cyles in Auditing).

The Xenu stuff, on the other hand, is a "joiner" style mass
implant.  In 1952 (HCL lectures) he says that there are at least
five major joiner incidents on the track (the earliest are prior
to this universe) and that the most recent one seems to have taken
place here on Earth.  At that time he kept the "joiner" implants
separate and distinct from the between lives implants.  And he
says that there have been various time periods where between
lives implants have been used.

I'm just talking pure Hubbard here rather than my own slant
on the matter.

> Is it because the Galactic community feels that the
> thetans on Earth are a real mess  and are scared by the thought of
> screwed up thetans messing up their civilizations? 
> From all that I have read, it seems that the implant stations, etc are
> just used now to keep us here until they can figure out a good way to
> get us rehabilitated.

Maybe so.

Hubbard would say it was a prison planet set up in the last
ten thousand years to get rid of undesirables, with anybody
who wanted change being an undesirable (not just real criminals).

My best guess right now is a POW camp style prison planet to
keep people out of the fight while the battles rage on.

But there is a lot more research needed.

I have seen and heard of times when some young child originated
some snippet from a past life in Scientology.  I know of one
case where a toddler saw somebody else's clear bracelet and
distintly said "my number is ...." and it was looked up and
confirmed as having been the clear number of one of only 
a handful of clears who had died at by that time (this was
years ago).

And yet the few reborn Scientology OTs do not have a consecutive
conscious recall of their previous lifetime.  They have vague
recalls and slight snippets of things which are in a few cases
just barely good enough to be confirmed.  If these people had
come through with solid recall and consciousness, the orgs
would be promoting it, at least among the upper level public.

They act like they have been mindwiped.  They seem to come
through better than most, but they are a shadow of their
former selves and coming back up from scratch.


> People of the Monroe Institute have described a between lives area that
> sounds very nice. It sounds positive-- a place where you can learn to
> create your own reality, etc(unlike on Earth where physical universe
> perceptions overwhelm you--and you own mock ups can seem dream like).
> From what they say, it sounds like you have a choice of when you want to
> come back to Earth.

I'm not sure what the institute currently thinks on this but I
have read Monroe's books which do present a picture like this.

There is also a very interesting book called "Journey of Souls"
by Michael Newton, Ph.D. (Llewllyn Pub. 1997) where he reports
his findings on using hypnotic regression to research the between
lives area.  He presents a more formal structure than Monroe, but
again it is the pleasant learning environment type view.

To balance this I would recommend reading the Tibetan book of
the dead which presents a mixture of helpful and malicious
things.  The translations vary significantly and I would
recommend Evan's as being the best (he draws from a lot of
sources and comments on the variations).

In practice there might be varying environments.  And maybe
some people are up to creating or agreeing on mockups that
are better than whatever between lives machinery has been
set up.

> And I have read session write ups at the Farsight Institute that talk
> about the Grays currently running a project to surround the earth with a 
> energy field. Some where on the web site it said the purpose of this was
> to increase the spiritual awareness of people on Earth. 
> What do you think about it? (I know there is no substitute like personal
> knowingness-- someday I will have it).

By "Grays" I assume that you mean the popular UFO style aliens
whom I suspect are the Espinol body type.

It is almost as easy to lie telepathically as to lie verbally.
You just mockup a false picture and project it, and if you're
good, you believe it while you're projecting it.  Or you dupe some
innocent and make him the contact point.  So data which is
telepathically channeled might still be shore stories and
coverups.

Even the "X-Files" TV show at its most extreme probably doesn't
have enough layers of deception of deception nor does it have
enough different groups involved to even come close to what
might be going on.  Of course it's a fictional show and purely
an exercise in speculation.  But they had an "April Fool's"
show once which at least had the right flavor.  Real aliens
of different types and also fake aliens and shore stories
layered over shore stories and you never do find out exactly
what the real truth was.

I suspect that everything we get on these guys is different
levels of shore stories.
 
> Also I recall you saying somewhere that the Physical Universe
> perceptions, etc are so strong on a thetan in a body that his own
> personal energy, etc is so overwhelmed that it is not until around body
> death that one really can get a chance to 'do' things. 

I'm not saying that you can't do things until then, but just
that its much harder.

> The Monroe
> Institute seems to have a process that will bypass perceptions and allow
> you to be aware of yourself. They use a process called  'HemiSync' which
> consist of  auditory sounds. You get a sound in one ear at a certain
> frequency -- at the same time there is a sound at a different,but close
> frequency in the other ear. I think this creates an energy wave or
> wavelength approximating theta in your head.  I have listened to the
> tapes and have a good experience with them. Afterwards, it seems that 
> I am out of communication somewhat with my senses, etc. I seem to get
> out of comm. with my logic circuits for a while after the tapes, but I
> feel good.  Have you ever looked into this?

I listened to a bit of these tapes at a friend's house once.  I didn't
do a thorough pass but just some sampling.

It was quite interesting.  But I didn't think that any of the
effects were due to the hemisync effect.  I get the same effects
from listening to composers like Scriabin in a darkened room.
Somebody has recently put out a book on music and its effects
on the brain (sorry I forget the title) and you might check into
that.

I suspect that the hemisync business was just a way for somebody
to sell some good quality electronic music.  And the two channels
made it possible to get a really neat three dimensional effect
with the sounds (sounds rushing towards you or away from you).
And yes, I do think that you can get case gain from listening
to music, especially complex music.

> By the way, thanks for the free self clearing book. I was very happy to
> get it. I have done some of the exercises in your self clearing and have
> had success with them.  I have been doing actions in the book that
> appeal to me( something that interests me, or some topic I have a ruin
> on).
> However, I need to work on more self discipline-- because I will
> self-audit something---and  feel good afterwords, and then not do any
> more auditing until something comes up later.
> 
> ARC--- AZERIC.

Yes, this is the basic problem with working on your own.  Maybe
I should have included more sales hype a la Hubbard to keep
people moving.  But I'm still recovering from having heard too
much of that myself from the CofS, so I downplayed things instead.

And the book is very fast and condensed.  So maybe one needs a
bit of time to digest between servings.  But try not to coast
for too long before diving back in again.  Its best to get
the various techniques under your belt when its easy rather
than having to learn too much all at once when you run into
trouble.


ARC,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio - Answering Oleg On LRH

ANSWERING OLEG ON LRH

On 17 Feb 98, "Oleg V. Matveev" <espinol@aha.ru> posted
on subject "To Pilot re LRH Clear check" -

I have rearranged his post to put the original first followed
by M.'s reply.

> From: Oleg V. Matveev <espinol@aha.ru>
> Subject: Clear to Clear
> Date: Sonntag, 15. Februar 1998 10:11
> 
> Dear O.,
> 
> I just noticed quite an interesting statement in a lecture about
> Gradation Chart on L0: LRH says, "I've had some very good auditing 
> and I have had some championship bad auditing. And I'm moving right 
> on up; be checked out here, in a few days, Clear."
> 
> Does it really mean what I understood -- that he was not Clear until at
> least '66? 
> 
> BTW, I just had another interesting question: if Dianetics is prohibited
> for Clears, then LRH must be squirelling from this '66 until '80-81, 
> years of first NOTs???
> 
> That's not a ruch question, but it would be interesting to know the
> answer... Esp. from M., if he is not TOO busy. 
> 
> ML,
> Oleg

> Hi,
> 
> Here below is the answer of one of my friends here...
> 
> --------------------------------------------
> Oleg V. Matveev, "Theta Club"
> E-mail: espinol@aha.ru / fz-ru@freezone.org
> WWW: http://www.freezone.de/russian/theta-club/indextc.htm
> for unknown encoding see: http://www.design.ru/free/decoder/index.html
> --------------------------------------------
> 
>> Dear Oleg
>> 
>> Well, I don't like to evaluate the case of the Old Man, I have my opinions
>> about it. (He was Buddha.) There is somewhere also a tape he is saying that
>> he now came up to apathy... So, you see, its hard to estimate him.
>> 
>> I would like to say you more about clear and all those things, but I guess
>> I will do that when you are at least OT 3.
>> 
>> And we may consider it a squirreling what he did sometimes but I consider
>> it more as research. (But I don't want to hear this statement ever as a
>> justification for squirreling!!!) Frankly, he had to find the way how to
>> solve the cases here on earth and I think it got solved by several
>> technics, the main things today are the Grades (incl. Obj.), NED, OT 3 and
>> Excal. And for a long time he didn't know exactly how to put into a row. He
>> had the basic knowledge but not all technics and how they had to put
>> together.
>> 
>>I hope this does answer your question so far.
>> 
>> Much love M.
>> ----------

See my previous writings on the 1958 definition of Clear which
I believe to be the correct one (no longer affected by the
force in mental image pictures).  I believe that Ron considered
himself to be a clear by that definition at that time.

By 1963, the bridge had changed and clear was a curtesy title
given to anyone who had run out an actual GPM.  They gave out Clear
bracelets and everything on this basis.  Ron was clear by
that definition.

But 1964-5 consisted of yet another attempt to get rid of
all abberation, this time by researching a more basic implant.
 
In September 1965, Ron gave the clearing course film to a
group of Briefing Course students who were to run the most
basic one found to full errasure.

He left them at their task and went off to Rhodesia.

When he returned to St. Hill, he gave lecture ShSpec-69
"About Rhodesia" on 19 July 66.  While he was away, John
MacMasters had completed errasure of the CC materials and
passed a clear check.  In the tape, Ron congradulates him
and says that based on reviewing John's results from this,
he (Ron) thinks that he (Ron) might have already gone past
clear and be overrunning into OT 1.

The tape you mention is SHSpec-71 "The Classification Chart 
and Auditing" given on 26 July 66, about a week after the
Rhodesia tape.  If I remember correctly, there was a 
review of one's past auditing and things like that as part
of going through the clear check and that it probably what
Ron was doing at this point.

Note that he choose not to receive a Clear number when
he was declared Clear (number 1 was already taken).

When Standard Tech was released in 1968, one of the 
HCOB's said "you can always run an engram".  Therefore
it was not squirreling to run Dianetics on a clear at
that time.  In fact, if a clear had a somatic it would
have been squirreling not to run Dianetics to handle it.

I recieved considerable Dianetics after Clear (delivered
as part of standard tech by the orthodox CofS) and I
would say that some of it was quite benificial and some
of it was an error for NOTS reasons and needed repair
with NOTS techniques.  Therefore I would say that
sometimes it is workable and sometimes it is not.

This is one of the many reasons that I do not like the
current orthodox definition of squirreling.  Almost
everything Ron and all older Scientologists did would
be squirreling by modern standard tech and yet they
gained great benifit from it.

I prefer the old definition of squirreling, which is
to alter the tech so as to make it UNWORKABLE.  That
does happen (Koos is an example), but it is quite a
different thing.

Declaring all variation or advancement to be squirreling
creates a subject that CANNOT CHANGE.  And Ron has
said that anything which cannot change will decay 
because nothing remains the same.

Affinity,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio - Answering Kristen On Sources Etc.

ANSWERING KRISTEN ON SOURCES ETC.


On 25 Feb 98, Kristen <kristenb@pacbell.net> posted
to ACT on subject "To The Pilot"

: This is my first attempt at the usenet, so please bear with me.  I 
: wanted to to know where you came up with the concepts for the SuperScio 
: book.  I am reading it, and am still at the beginning (trying to read 
: when I can).

The Super Scio book (chapters 2 and onward) is my own
attempt to research beyond orthodox Scientology.

: I've also downloaded your Self-Clearing book.  At one 
: point, I read somewhere that SuperScio was really more for one who is 
: already knowledgeable in Scientology - is that why some of the concepts 
: are a bit strange to me?

Yes.  Even untrained Scientologists (those who have not done
professional auditor training) might have trouble with the 
Super Scio book.

Scientology evolved at a brisk pace throughout the 1950s
and into the 1960s.  It was a search and a research line.
When the subject was finally formalized into "standard
tech" in the late 1960s, only about ten or twenty percent 
of the subject made it into modern Scientology.

There is no book in orthodox Scientology that sumarizes
modern Scientology tech, only vast volumes of bulletins
and many hundred hours of taped lectures mostly drawn 
from the 1960s research line.

There are only a few books such as "Creation of Human
Ability" (CofHA) which show a bit of the 1950s research
line, but they are only the tip of the iceburg.  There
were thousands of hours of taped lectures in that
time period.  Few modern Scientologists know very much
of this material.

The Super Scio book rests on top of both of these areas
as a starting point and then tries to go further.  That
makes it rough to understand and often leaves you without
related material.

So I took the whole mess, 1950s Hubbard, modern standard
tech, my own work, and anything that seemed applicable
from metaphysics or freezone Scientology and tried to
rethink the whole thing in a simple and orderly manner
that started from the begining and assumed no prior
knowledge.

That is the Self Clearing book.  It starts from scratch
and assumes no knowledge of Scientology.

The Self Clearing book is like a general science textbook
in junior highschool.  Those general textbooks usually
cover the entire field and are not afraid to explain 
electricity or nuclear fission but they do not have the 
detail of a textbook on electronics for example.

Everything in this field, not just Super Scio but also
the various confidential materials on the net or freezone
writings or anything of ordinary Scientology, should
be easy to read and understand after getting through
the Self Clearing book.


: I am not a Scientologist, but have a friend in 
: it.  I am thinking of getting into Scientology more, but have heard that 
: if "they" found out that I read more than just LRH material, I would be 
: labeled many negative things (SP, PTS, Squirrel, etc.).  Any thoughts?

In the current fanatical atmosphere, they would certainly
tell you that this was "squirrel" material.  They might
just try to get you to disconnect from it, but if you
insisted, then they would probably consider you PTS
(you would not be considered Suppressive unless you
started criticizing or attacking them or working against
them in some manner).

The fanaticism generally increases in proportion to the
proximity to CofS management and the Sea Org, so it makes a 
different whether your friend is simply doing a course
at an outlying mission or whether they are Sea Org staff
at the LA complex.

So use judgement and see how freely they are willing to
talk.   
 
: Kristen
:
: P.S.  I really like your writing style - much better than Hubbard's!
 
Thank you very much.

Best,

The Pilot
 
==========================================

 subj : Super Scio - Answering Thomas On Leaving CofS

ANSWERING THOMAS ON LEAVING COFS

On 1 Mar 98, tjfielder@earthlink.net (Thomas Fielder) asked
on subject "To Pilot - leaving CofS and contacting other Scnists"

> To the Pilot and others who wish to comment,
> 
> In the last week I have discovered the FreeZone, the Pilot's writings on
> CofS reformation, and A.C.T.  It has been something of an epiphany for
> me.  Although my experiences in Scn have been fairly limited (highest
> course=NED, highest processing=Scn Drug R/D and Int R/D, plus 3 months on
> staff of the Champaign Mission in 1975), I have followed news from and
> about the CofS long enough to have accumulated many doubts and some basic
> disagreements (but also enough wins to convince me some of the tech is
> useful).  Amazingly, I now find that there is a whole community of people
> out there who share the disagreements and still apply the tech outside of
> the CofS!!  If only I had discovered the FreeZone in the 80's!
> 
> Now I am faced with a difficult decision (actually 2).  I spent about 4
> years on lines at the Orange County Org (92-96) and still have a few
> thousand dollars on account there.  My experiences there were largely
> positive, and I still feel a great deal of affinity toward several staff
> members there.  But I could really use that money.  If I demand it back,
> as I recall, I will be denied any further services in the CofS and
> declared an SP.  Is this correct?

Definitely correct on being denied further service, you have to
sign a document to that effect.  Probably yes on getting declared,
but you might get away with PTS.

My suggestion would be to have the money reapplied to 1950s tape
sets.  Although they are overpriced, they are good quality and
helpful and hard to find in the freezone.  Usually the staff member
who arranges the deal can get a commission (Sea Org staff do
get commissions on selling tapes and books, I'm not certain about
org staff), so they might be very helpful in arranging a deal
like that.  Just be careful not to tell them that you are
headed for the freezone.  Give them a story about how you think
that listening to LRH tapes is the only thing that can get you
moving forward again or something like that.

The money ends up in the book account and Golden Era Studios
benifits instead of it ending up in the CofS warchest, so that
feels a bit better to me as well.

This also leaves you in a very strong ethical and moral position
because their overpricing leaves them as the parties who are
out-exchange, so it helps you feel good about the matter
because your own hands are the cleanest ones in sight.

And this way you retain your comm lines within the organization
and you have the option of playing reform games.

 
> The other decision concerns 2 very old friends of mine, a married couple,
> who are much further along the Bridge than I (he is Clear, she is on Power
> Processing).  I have always been able to share my feelings about Scn with
> them, and I'd like to share my recent epiphany with them as well, and see
> what they think about the Pilot's call for reformation, etc.  How can I
> determine to what extent I would be endangering them by passing such
> materials as Super Scio to them?  My feeling is it would be an overt not
> to, but I could be committing an even bigger one by doing so.  All
> comments are welcome, particularly from people who have recently faced
> similar problems.

Power is very short, generally delivered over a period of 3 days
(and 3 days for power plus).  Don't push anything at the person
while they are actually in the middle of grade 5 or 5A, but
these are super short so that shouldn't be a problem.

Most Dianetic Clears tend to bog right there and they are usually
more than ready to take off on their own.

In general I would suggest that you let somebody finish an
action that they are doing well on.

Aside from this, I would say that they are both at ideal points
to look at alternative and dive right into self clearing.

Just point them at the Reformer's Homepage and see what happens.
You could do it cautiously, just asking for their opinion so
that they don't decide that you are an SP.

In all likelyhood it will really indicate to them and a huge
amount of suppressed bypassed charge will be released and
they will have their own epiphany.  In that case, let them
have all the rest of it because they are ready.

If it really doesn't indicate, then maybe they really do need
the heavy push and control exerted by the CofS, so I'd
leave them alone.

The Reformer's homepage is good for this because it doesn't
mention any confidential materials and wouldn't get them
into trouble in auditing.
 
> Tom


Best,

The Pilot
 
==========================================

 subj : Super Scio - To LittleLRH On Emeters

TO LittleLRH ON EMETERS

On 28 Feb 98, "littleLRH" <littleLRH@rocketmail.com>
asked on subject "4 Pilot re: emeter trimming"

> Dear Pilot my emeter has expired and now when i try to set it up for the
> session it goes very wild, and it very hard to trimm it, i have got a mark
> VII, what should i do ? since i haven't got any idea what happens every 2
> years at golden era could you please write me all the detailed steps that i
> have to make ?
> 
> much love,
> littleLRH
 
Sorry, I haven't worked on E-meter repair.  Maybe someone else
can help and post some data.  I know nothing about the Mark 7,
but I'll pass on what little I know about the older meters
incase it helps.

I have an anchient Mark 6 which still works.  I only had it
certified once when it started giving some trouble a few 
years after I bought it.  The battery has lost its robustness
and will only hold its charge for about a week so I tend
to plug it into the wall when I use it or charge it earlier
on the same day.  Maybe if I get ambitious I'll look into
replacing the battery, but these days I do most auditing
off the meter.

Most or all of the knobs which turn (rather than switches) such
as the tone arm and the trim are potentiometers (pots).  You
could think of them as variable resistors (that is an 
oversimplification).

The old British Mark 5s had cheap pots which tended to get "dirty".
The solution was to open it up and use a bit of electrical pot cleaner 
on it.  What happens is that these things contain contain carbon
which sometimes gets gummed up or something like that.  When
a pot gets dirty, it changes resistance irratically instead of
smoothly as you turn the knob.

If you have a cheap radio where the volume knob has stopped
working smoothly and has dead spots and irratic behavior, its
the exact same thing that is wrong.  

Sometimes a dirty pot can be made to work a bit better by
rapidly turning it back and forth a few times to try and
loosen the sticky areas.

Pots usually only cost a few dollars.  Anyone who knows
how to fix a radio or TV would know how to clean a pot if
that is what's wrong.  Or they could replace it with one
of identical specs.  Or you could get a do it yourself
book on how to fix radios and look at how to fix the
volume knob.

Aging batteries and dirty pots would seem to me to be the
most likely source of trouble in an old meter, or maybe a
weakened magnet in the dial mechanism.

I work with computers, so when I dabble in electronics,
it is digital rather than annonying things like poteniometers.
So I'm not an expert in this area and lack practical
experience.

Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - OT RESEARCH

OT RESEARCH


I've made a tech breakthrough.

Not the whole shooting match, but another piece of the puzzel.

I began by trying to expand the axioms and it yielded a wild
little trick that doubles exterior perception.

And the trick is easy to learn.  I coached two people through
it in a few minutes after explaining the theory and both got
it easily and experienced the same effect that I got from it.

Note that the trick is an amplifier rather than a method for
turning on exterior perceptics.

If you don't already have some slight degree of exterior
perception (usually mixed in with lots of dub-in and imagination),
then do chapters 1, 2, and 11 of Self Clearing, which should
at least get you to the vague level that people used to 
get from old OT 5 and 6.

I'll get around to explaning the trick later in this post.
You should be able to do it with a few minutes of drilling.
But you need the underlying theory first.  And the theory
is really a lot more important than the trick anyway, 
because it might lead to a lot more.

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

If you look over the Scientology Axioms, you'll see that
we have a very detailed definition of Communication.

Basically it is cause, distance, effect, with intention,
attention, and duplication.  In other words, we have 6
components, and one of them, "intention" is a very active
component that we drill with TR 8 and it seems like one
of the significant factors in OT abilities.

We do not have a definition of Affinity that is of
comparable magnitude, with components that can be
drilled and used.  And yet we know that it is a basic of
great importance.

I began by looking for an active factor in Affinity,
something comparable to "intention" in the definition 
of communication.

And I thought of having two tuning forks with matching
pitches, and you strike one and the other vibrates in
sympathy with it.  This is a high school physics experiment
and you can find the effect described in any good textbook.

And if you raise the dampers on a piano (step on the right
pedal) and hit a note, other strings which are harmonics
of it (an octave above and below etc.) with also start
vibrating slightly.  Again, this is just highschool
physics.

This could be referred to as "resonance".  It is motion
in sympathy.

And I thought of a mother rocking a child.  A sharing
of motion.  It builds affinity.  The same for sex.

And then there is matching tones on the emotional tone
scale.  If you think of these emotions as having
wavelengths, again you have resonance.

So let's begin by defining an axiom for resonance.  Note
that I'm using "axiom" in the popular sense (a basic
principle) as did Hubbard rather than in the strict
mathematical sense.
  ___

AXIOM X-1: RESONANCE IS A SIMILARITY OF MOTION.  

Matching tones on the emotional tone scale is an example of
resonance between beings.  Sympathetic vibrations between 
piano strings or tuning forks is an example of resonance 
between physical object.
  ___
 
I thought of the cause and effect sides of communication
and felt that there should be something similar for affinity.
After a bit of contemplation, it occured to me that these
would be "desire" and "acceptance" (thank you Allen).

And of course likeing and admiration would fit into it.

And I felt that I should define it as an active thing.

Putting this all together yields the following axiom.

  ___

AXIOM X-2: AFFINITY IS THE ACTION OF IMPELLING A FLOW OR

VIBRATION ACROSS A DISTANCE FROM A POINT OF DESIRE TO A

POINT OF ACCEPTANCE WITH ADMIRATION, LIKEING, AND RESONANCE.
  ___

Of course most of this is old hat.  We even know that 
duplicating motions as in mimicry tends to build affinity.

But this idea of resonance opens the door to another
level of practical application.  And that brings us back
to that trick I was talking about.

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

I discussed resonance between beings and between objects,
and that raises the question of resonance between a being
and an object.

Think of objects as having an inherent wavelength, a
sort of musical note that they will respond to.

A specific element will have electron shells at fixed
distances from the nucleus.  These are like frozen
waves which have a wavelength.  When we heat up a 
metal, it glows at a specific wavelength because of
this.  In physics, spectrums can be analyzed to precisely
pin down the elements present in something based on this
principle (spectrographic analysis).  Again this is
just textbook physics.

Of course a complex object has many elements and should
probably be thought of as a composite.  But the
oversimplified idea that an object will have a single
basic vibration is actually good enough to start with.

Here is the drill:

a) pick an object

b) imagine that you are sort of humming a note at it
(this is done mentally, not by humming out loud)

c) project this note into the object

d) shift the note up and down until it matches vibrations
with the object (you can feel this easily).  Note that
you don't have to hit the actual vibration, but just
a harmonic of it, so it doesn't matter that much weather
you use a high pitch or a low one, but it is important
to slide up and down the scale by very small increments.

e) permeate the object with the vibrations.

Repeat this on a number of different objects.

After you have assessed a few objects this way, matching
vibrations, you should find that you can pretty much 
match wavelengths automatically without having to assess
in detail.

You should experience a startling increase in mental 
preception of an object whenever you hit it with a
matching vibration, especially perceptions of the
inside and far side of the object (it is a 3D perception
rather than looking).

Note that matching wavelengths goes way beyond simple
permeation (I've played with that too).

With hindsight, there are ideas like this in metaphysics.
There is the idea in India of playing a specific musical
note to heal somebody, and I've even heard mention of
the idea that humming the correct note might enable one
to move an object.  And there is even Scriabin's idea
that the ultimate musical composition would bring the
would to fufillment and allow it to end.

When you first drill this, you can just look at an object
or a wall and project a vibration at it.  But once you
get the knack of it, try it exterior in conjunction with
any exteriorization drill that works for you.

I think that you'll find that whenever you add in this
vibration business, It's like turning on a light switch
and your perception increases a notch.

There is lots more that you can play around with.  You
can project broadband "roars" or play around with
chords to match a series of wavelengths at once.

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

Don't get into trying to prove things.  Even with your
perceptions raised a notch, it's still probably more
dub-in than accurate data.  You mustn't invalidate the
half correct perceptions or they get weaker.

Of course I ignored my own advise and tried to read
some playing cards upsidedown.  I used 8 numbers (2 to
9) in 4 suits to make calculations easy.  I held each
card up facing away from me and mentally roared vibrations 
at it until I had a clear visio of the card's face.

The results were freeky.  50 percent accuracy on calling
the suit.  25 percent accuracy on calling the number.
Not one card seen correctly.  Every perception a total
dub in, but the suits and numbers were percieved at
twice the level of random guessing.

As a control, I dropped the mental roaring and the 
incorrect dubbed in perception and the accuracy immediately
dropped to 25 percent on suit and around 12 percent
on the number (the normal probablility).

It was crazy because I could only violate the mathematical
probability by getting an obviously incorrect perception.
I'd see a 7 of hearts clearly and it would be a 7 of
clubs when I turned it over.  Or I'd see an 8 or spades
clearly and it would be a 3 of spades when I turned it
over.  But I'd be right on either the suit or the digit
on about 3/4 of the cards.

An hour of this and I was just about banging my head
against the wall and getting exhausted and invalidating
my perceptions because every damn visio was obviously
wrong (I never ever saw the correct card, which was
also contrary to chance because I should have accidentally
gotten one right every 32 cards).

That left me feeling quite frustrated, so I'm not going 
to try it again soon.

And yet there was a consistant and dramatic violation
of mathematical probablity.

I thought this over a bit.

My first idea was that the true perception coming through 
must have been no more than a tiny flash of color or the
shape of a single number and I was building an entire
visio of a card based on that tiny signal of real data.

But I talked this over with a friend and he suggested
that it was more likely that I had gotten an accurate
perception but something was overlaying it with an
alter-is because there is some mechanism designed to
block doing this with complete accurace in this universe.

There is more to be learned here.

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

My thought right now is that there must be a dozen or
so of these factors which sum up into the creation of
reality.

One of them is intention.  Another is resonance.  Yet
another is faith/belief.  Each of these acts as significant
amplifiers, and each one can be drilled individually
and is fairly easy to master.

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

I started thinking of affinity as a duplication of motion.

So I reviewed the duplication in the communication formula
and saw it as a duplication of data or content.

And agreement would be a duplication of intention.

By communicating, you might duplicate the fact that
somebody else likes to fish, and yet you might not
want to fish yourself.  But you might duplicate the
intention to fish and therefore come into agreement
with them even if the two of you aren't talking.
And you might both go fishing together and thereby
duplicate the motion and come to feel more affinity
for each other.

These are 3 separate duplications.  All 3 would be
involved in a shared reality which I would see as
a duplication of creation.

From this comes the thought that the ARC triangle
might be a limited perspective.  Note that understanding
seems to be a byproduct rather than the sum (complete
ARC would be more than just understanding).

And it should be obvious that agreement by itself
may be a factor in reality but is not the sole
determining criteria.  After all, the majority of
people once believed the Earth was flat (even though
the educated people like Columbus knew better)
and it continued to be round despite that.

The real equation might be:

Affinity plus Agreement plus Communication plus another
half dozen unidentified factors all sum together to
yield Reality.

Or in other words, duplication of data plus duplication
of motion plus duplication of intention plus duplication
of various other things all sums up to duplication of
creation (which is the reality of the physical universe).
All this would be occuring on a compulsive level of course.

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

As usual, finding an answer has left me with more questions.

But the trick with resonance does work and the axiom on
affinity has lots of implications.

So have fun.

Affinity,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - More On GPMs (attn John)

MORE ON GPMS (attn John)

On 21 Feb 98, "John Alexander" <Alexandex@worldnet.att.net>
on subject "To PILOT Re: GPMs", responding to an earlier post 
of mine titled "GPMS AND A QUESTION FOR JOHN ALEXANDER"

I snipped his quote of my earlier post since that is
already in the archives.  

I'm including John's entire reply here since it seems so valuable
and its so hard to get any data on the late GPM research line.

> I sure wish someone who was there and knows about it first-hand would do a
> detailed write-up on this subject.  In the meantime, I'll attempt to shed a
> little bit of light on it.
> 
> I have studied Jack Horner's notes of the Staff Clearing tapes.  These
> lectures (the "SC lectures") as recorded in Jack's notes have the same
> titles and dates you mentioned, as they are listed in the old tech volumes.
> They appear to constitute the original "R6" material.  This lecture series
> is entirely devoted to the running of "actual" GPMs, and has nothing to do
> with the content or running of implants.
> 
> The SC lectures seem to represent a period of extremely rapid research and
> evolution of theory (approximately December 1963 to mid June 1964).
> Therefore, although there is continuity to the material,  the overall
> picture in June of 1964 appears to be quite different than the picture in
> December 1963.  Nobody is going to have an easy time figuring out how to run
> GPMs by listening to these lectures.
> 
> Another aspect of this research line is that it seems to represent a
> significantly different model of actual GPMs, what they are and how they
> came about,  than the earlier period of research on "actual" GPMs.  I
> haven't been able to identify from the notes exactly when or how the
> transition occurred in the model.
> 
> Part of the purpose of my earlier posting to Alan Walter, to which your
> response was directed, was to request confirmation of my guess that there is
> essentially no relationship between the "R6" GPMs and the so-called "R6
> Bank" as it appears in the CC.   His answer:  "It was not meant to be."
> 
> For example, the lecture on "Objects of the Mind"  has nothing to do with
> the "objects" section of the CC.   It is a basic lecture on the structure of
> R6 GPMs as they were understood in December, 1963.  Nothing in any of the SC
> lectures bears any discernable relationship to any part of the CC as far as
> I can tell, or to any of the OT 2 or 3 materials (except one OT2 platen, as
> you mentioned ).  The "objects" section of the CC would probably strike most
> oldtimers as a dressed up version of "Step 6" from the 1957-58 period,
> which hopefully might key out aspects of the "rock."  That's pretty much how
> Jack Horner characterized it.
> 
> Considering the apparent lack of connection between the original "R6"
> materials and the later clearing and OT levels, I was always rather
> mystified that the designation "R6" was retained.  It is absolutely clear
> from Jack's notes on the SC lectures that none of the original R6 material
> was thought to have been directly implanted or somehow derived from any
> earlier implants, even though part of the material was later apparently
> included in OT2.
> 
> However, it seems clear that the original R6 GPMs materials are intimately
> related to "R6EW."   From what I have seen of the R6EW materials, it would
> appear that R6EW may have been derived from the research on R6 GPMs, and
> evolved as a method of keying these out.   There is mention in the SC
> lectures that identification of end words is a relatively safe method of
> addressing and destimulating this whole area of case.   Ironically, the
> so-called "lock end words" which a person lists on R6EW may in many
> instances be far more basic to the person's case than the so-called "basic
> end words"
> that appear in the CC.
> 
> It has been assumed by some people that the R6 GPM research line was
> discontinued because it was found to be incorrect, unworkable, or simply
> unnecessary because of the discovery of more basic material (i.e. the CC,
> supposedly).  Alan Walter's answer to my previous posting seems to confirm
> what Jack Horner also said, that the R6 GPMs are senior to implanted GPMs
> such as the CC, and that the change of direction in mid-1964 may have
> reflected a decision that the R6 GPM material required too much auditor
> skill to be generally usable, or that some aspect of LRH's case had gotton
> triggered and not handled, or both.
> 
> The GPM tech initially taught by Jack Horner to his students around 1970 -
> 71 was, according to him, essentially the same as was being run at St. Hill
> in 1964.  Having reviewed his notes of the SC lectures, I would say that
> what he taught probably was essentially the same as what was run at St. Hill
> towards the end of the period, i.e. around June of 1964.
> 
> By 1972, Jack had refined the GPM material slightly, by adding a couple of
> pieces which he thought LRH had missed, and which he thought explained some
> of the changes
> which occurred in Scientology starting around 1965.  Bluntly, he thought
> that in researching GPMs LRH had failed to identify a couple of key points
> which were dramatized from then on.  One of these points was the observation
> that the initial postulation of each GPM goal contained the consideration,
> whether explicit or implicit, that the particular goal is the "only
> solution" to all problems, for all beings, forever, etc.
> 
> Coming from the viewpoint of one who has never been directly involved with
> the Church of Scientology and who has run GPMs extensively in the past,  I
> would say that certain GPMs seem to be blatently dramatized with respect to
> "ethics" and "standard tech."  It is the nature of GPMs to produce
> obsessive, mechanical, enforced and inhibited conduct with respect to
> subjects which are considered inherently positive or valuable, but which are
> not workable as "only solutions."
> 
> Jack taught quite a few people to run GPMs, and they were run very
> successfully.   Many people declared "clear" while running this material,
> and most all got tremendous benefit whether or not they decided they were
> "clear" as a result.
> 
> I think one of the reasons Jack was able to teach GPMs successfully was that
> he did not try to equate GPMs with a person's whole case.  In 1972 I asked
> Jack when he had become "clear" and he responded that he had gotton clear
> while running the "rock" back in 1957 or '58.  He viewed both GPMs and rock
> running as separate and essential aspects of clearing, and taught that the
> rock is much more basic than GPMs.
> 
> An example he frequently gave:  If you run the GPMs which contain "space" or
> "time" you will likely trigger more basic material concerning the original
> creation of space and time, which will not resolve through duplication of
> the GPM structure.  You can still run the items as GPMs, but you may have to
> indicate the earlier material being triggered, or, preferably, run it first.
> [Actually, aside from his origination of the repetitive question style of
> auditing in about 1951-52, some of Jack's biggest contributions to the
> subject of auditing have been in the area of running the rock and the
> "pre-rock."  But that's a whole different subject.]
> 
> A significant number of people have Jack's GPM materials, so at least the
> essence of the R6 GPM material is obtainable even if the original SC lecture
> tapes are locked up somewhere.  Whether other St. Hill Class VI graduates
> besides Jack have perpetuated this material I don't know.
> 
> As noted above, the SC lectures seem to represent a period of rapid
> evolution of technology.  Therefore the lecture series does not present a
> single package of integrated technology.  Imagine the technical history of
> the computer condensed into a six-month period.  Although the early
> materials on vacuum tubes and circuits may be important resources for study,
> they are not immediately relevant to the design and operation of the current
> end-product.
> 
> What happened in the R6 GPM research appears ultimately to have been a
> process of simplification.  As the research developed, many of the variables
> seem to have dropped out.
> 
> Like the earlier GPM technologies, it appears that R6 GPMs were discovered
> through listing, and identification and verification techniques.  In a
> February, 1964 lecture LRH appears to have indicated that the key to this
> was in the precise listing question which was developed to take GPMs apart
> backwards, running from later to earlier.
> 
> And it appears that the key concept that distinguishes this line of research
> from earlier GPM research, and which was reflected in the listing
> question(s) used was this:  The R6 GPM problems and solutions were connected
> by "bring about," rather than, for example, "oppose."  LRH noted a couple of
> times in this lecture series that real GPM RI's are connected by "bring
> about" and that "oppose" is a hallmark of implant GPMs.
> 
> Apparently through the listing for items which were connected in a
> relationship of "X would bring about Y," or "Y would be brought about by X,"
> a rather inevitable sequence of problems and solutions eventually emerged.
> 
> What was inevitable, it appears, is that out of all the problems which might
> arise as a consequence of a given goal, there would be one particular
> problem that the being would get hung up on, and out of all the solutions he
> might try, there would always be one or two which he would get stuck in and
> which would bring about particular problems which would hang him up,etc.
> This particular sequence would eventually lead him to try to give up on his
> goal and adopt a new goal, which would go through the same pattern.  There
> may have been many other problems along the way that he predicted, was able
> to solve or complete cycle on somehow.  But there was a particular sequence
> of problems and solutions which didn't resolve, basically due to his Q&A
> with them.
> 
> One of the beautiful things about running these GPMs is that you get to
> duplicate the insanity of this inevitable and incredibly repetitive pattern
> of problems and solutions which is recognizably  manifested by people
> everywhere around.   Duplicating this pattern brings about a great deal of
> understanding of the behavior of people and the structure of the mind, which
> can be very handy when you are processing others.   The pattern is not just
> an arbitrary listing of positive and negative commands as might appear in an
> implant.  Before I learned to run these materials, twenty-plus years ago,
> another one of Jack's students told me "You will be amazed that anyone had
> the gall to write this down, it is so obvious."
> 
> It appears from Jack's notes that over the six-month period of research
> covered by the SC lectures, the pattern of problems and solutions became
> known, little by little, to be essentially an invariable pattern.  So, there
> are points in the lecture series where LRH talks about which items are
> known, and which still have to be listed for, and then in later lectures he
> indicates that more of the items have been definitely identified, and fewer
> need to be listed.
> 
> In December 1963 he was saying most GPMs had 16 to 20 items, but in January
> or February '64 he was saying the number was 16.  By May or June '64 it was
> 18 items, and all the significances were nailed down, so that there is no
> listing for items.  [Actually, as Jack taught this material, there could be
> instances in which it would be necessary to work with the precise wording of
> an item in a particular GPM in a person's case, because even as accurately
> as the GPM significances had been pinpointed in English language
> representations they were still only approximations of the actual RIs.
> However, I never found it necessary to re-word an item in actual practice.]
> 
> The other thing which appears to have brought the whole structure into focus
> was the precise identification of the goals to be run.  Jack's notes are not
> very clear about how this aspect of the research evolved.  At some point the
> goals were analyzed in terms of "root words" (verbs) and "end words" (nouns)
> and it appears that the research eventually zeroed in on two essential root
> words and a particular class of end words which are very basic.  I have
> always assumed this to be a very key point, because it seems to be the very
> basic nature of these end word/root word combinations that explains their
> adherence to an incredibly regular pattern of problems and solutions.   My
> speculation, not inconsistent with Jack's notes, is that the precise
> identification of the GPM goals is what also permitted the precise
> identification of the 18-item pattern to fall into place .
> 
> Putting it differently, if one were to list  items related by "bring about"
> with respect to a number of late-track goals like "to eat cookies" and "to
> eat apples" one might find a great deal of variation in the pattern of items
> discovered from goal to goal.  So, it is rather remarkable that a basic type
> of actual goal was discovered which produced a consistent pattern of items
> from goal to goal.  This pattern of items is kind of like the CDEI sequence
> as related to basic goals, problems and solutions.  Further up the track,
> things became more complicated and the regularity became manifested only
> through the dramatization of the earlier material.
> 
> Eventually, for each endword there were two GPMs connected in sequence, each
> GPM of the pair having the same endword but having a different root word.
> One GPM in each pair had to do with avoidance of the endword, and one had to
> do with getting rid of it.  In about 1972 Jack added a third GPM and root
> word to the beginning of the sequence, which had to do with putting the
> endword into existence in the first place.  So, he ran GPMs in triads rather
> than pairs.  The GPM he added is the one that is usually being dramatized
> when a person states (normally with perceptible mass) that any given
> positive quality such as "love," "truth," "perfection," "ethics," etc. is an
> inherent quality of a being or of existence, or is the only solution to
> existence.   Most of these qualities are connected to standards and belief
> systems which are senior to GPMs and cannot be run out via this GPM tech,
> but at least some of the more obvious compulsive problems and solutions can
> be transcended this way.
> 
> Another aspect of R6 GPMs is that the items did not consist of "terminals"
> and "opposition terminals" in the same sense referred to in earlier
> research, although the words "term" and "opterm" were retained to refer to
> the solution and problem items, respectively.  In R6 GPMs, the items (or
> "RIs") could be thought of as conditions, attitudes, states of mind,
> postulates, etc.  LRH talked about this in one of the SC lectures.  These
> items could be dramatized by the assumption of a particular identity or
> series of identities, but the items themselves are not terminals.  The
> relationship between terms and opterms is not a me/them relationship; one
> is identified with both sets of items.
> 
> LRH apparently placed a great deal of emphasis on finding the exact sequence
> in which the individual GPMs were lined up (as distinguished from the
> sequence of RIs which occurs internally within each GPM).  It is not clear
> from Jack's notes whether LRH thought that everybody had the same series of
> GPMs, or whether his opinion on this topic changed over time.  Anyway, Jack
> thought that trying to find the sequence of end words in the bank was a
> waste of time.  Instead, he taught his students to locate endwords which
> would run well and to run the triads in isolation.  And, he had a short list
> of very basic "required" endwords which he also had his students run.  He
> thought that after a person had run maybe ten to thirty end words (GPM
> triads) the person would blow so much charge that he would unmock the rest
> of them.   Whether or not this is what happens I don't know, but I do know
> that after enough GPMs are run they seem to lose most of their "bite."
> 
> My experience of running myself and others on this material is that it
> entirely runnable, and produces immense gains.   Although particular
> troublesome case conditions may resolve, most of what resolves may just as
> well consist of material the person wasn't particularly aware of to start
> with, but which contains tons of force, pressure, pain, etc. which the
> person had been maintaining, and which is quite noticeable in the absence.
> Jack used to say that you could look at someone and observe (visually)
> whether they had run GPMs.  He also told me "Some people will not get clear
> by running GPMs."   That was probably a great understatement, but it hardly
> devaluates GPM running.  The point is:  R6 GPMs do not appear to be the
> whole case, but they are a great big piece.
> 
> From my experience running myself and others both on GPMs and R6EW, I do not
> think that one can get close to handling this area of case with R6EW alone.
> I also wonder whether the CC usually does more than key it out.  That's hard
> for me to determine, because I ran lots of GPMs before I ran the CC.
> 
> Another point is that a person must have a certain level of reality on
> themselves, their own case in general and GPMs in particular, in order to
> run GPMs with benefit.  A person who tries to run GPMs and perceives no
> benefit today may find that GPMs run like crazy a year from now, after some
> other processes have been run.  And, as in running engrams, it is not an
> ideal gradient if the auditor is having to use "every trick in the book" to
> get the client into the material and to get him to stay in it and duplicate
> it.   The better shape a person is in, the easier and more cleanly GPMs run.
> When it runs well, it is some of the most awesome processing imaginable.
> 
> As I said at the beginning, I would like to see this whole area of history
> of the technology clarified by someone who was involved in the original
> research and really knows how it all fits together.  What I've indicated
> about the SC lectures above contains an element of speculation, because the
> lecture notes I have studied are sketchy, and there also may have been any
> number of bulletins or other materials at the time which are not contained
> in the lectures themselves.   Also, I have almost no experience with the
> earlier lines of GPM reasearch/technology.  Everything I've said about GPMs
> as taught by Jack Horner is, however, based on accurate and first-hand
> knowledge.
> 
> I hope that helps.
> 
> Aloha, John

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

There was an HCOB that I saw on the R6 course which I think was
from late 1964 or early 1965.  I do not remember it clearly
and it did not give a lot of data, but it seemed to mark the
point of transition.

It was something to the effect that it was discovered that
all PCs were cycling through the same set of 84 (?) actual
GPMs over and over again as they came down the track.

Ron might have decided that all actual GPMs were rooted in
implants.


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

Sometime last year I tried to pull together the various R6 & CC stuff
and get a better feel for what was going on on this research line.

Here are my notes on this.  Please excuse the abbreviated writing
style.

------

The only 18 item pattern in the OT materials is OT2 chapter 12,
the lower LP GPM.  It uses 18 items on a decaying series
of adjectives on the endword "Pictures" starting from
nice pictures down to mystifying pictures (20 goals in total).

18. Those who desire to create       17. Desires to destroy
16. To create                        15. Never create
14. Too much creating                13. Hoping to never create
12. Criticisms of created            11. Hating to create
10. Compulsions to create            9.  Having to create
8.  Obsession with to create         7.  Automatic creators of
6.  Failures to create               5.  Constantly creating
4.  Difficulties with other creators 3.  Differently creating
2.  No more desires to create        1.  To create

  Plotted Upwards
  #1 is Earliest

The scale of adjectives was:

     20. Mystifying
     19. Informative
     18. Frightening
     17. Heartining
     16. Unpleasant
     15. Pleasant
     14. Disagreeable
     13. Agreeable
     12. Valueless
     11. Valuable
     10. Ruinous         
     9.  Productive      
     8.  Destructive Of  
     7.  Creative        
     6.  Evil            
     5.  Holy            
     4.  Bad             
     3.  Good            
     2.  Naughty         
     1.  Nice            

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

Per the pattern of the bank film transcript (available on
the net) (shspec-51, 30 dec 64):

GPMs of 18 items.

top endword is "absence"

root words are always "create" and "destroy".

Begins with - then + alternating until the middle when it
reverses.

To create absence
to destroy presence
etc.

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

Per track & bank anatomy (shspec-29, 14 July 64)

"cause" is an endword.  So is "insane", "invalidation", "nowhere",
"problems", "future".

268 root words & 268 endwords & 18 items.
(all 268 roots on 1st endword, then same on 2nd endword, etc.)

18 RIs with the goal as an RI at the bottom.

The + & - endword pairs reverse on the endword "now".  
268 on each side of now.  Earlier than now, the negative is further
from the top of the bank, later it is closer to the top.  The
center 'now' is double.

endwords: here/there (up near the top), everywhere/elsewhere, 
present/absent (at the end).

Interlocked items: GPM B is expressed in GPM As bottom pair and
GPM B has the bottom item of GPM A expressed in its top pair.

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

Per CC platen - the 7s

( 8 BY 2 BY 4 = 64 GOALS)

The later CC platen was in sets of 8, but Bob Kaufman did
it very early on and described sets of 7, and that is probably
accurate for the original version because they are called the 7s.

(per Bob Kaufman, there were only 7 pairs instead of 8 pairs on
to have, then to do, and then to be, and the first one was
"to have mass" opposing "to not have mass" and the endwords
probably included mass / energy / space / time / history, and probably
were the same in each set of 7s because he also mentions "to be mass".)

TO BE NOBODY     / EVERYBODY
TO BE ME         / YOU
TO BE MYSELF     / OTHERS
TO BE AN ANIMAL  / ANIMALS
TO BE A BODY     / BODIES
TO BE MATTER     / SPACE
TO BE A SPIRIT   / SPIRITS
TO BE A GOD      / GODS

TO DO NOTHING    / EVERYTHING
TO DO MUCH       / LITTLE
TO DO IT ALL     / NOT ANY
TO DO AMBITIOUSLY /SLIGHTLY
TO DO MORE       / LESS
TO DO SPLENDIDLY / AWFULLY
TO DO WISELY     / FOOLISHLY
TO DO RIGHT      / WRONG

TO HAVE NOTHING  / EVERYTHING
TO HAVE MUCH     / LITTLE
TO HAVE ALL      / NONE
TO HAVE HUGELY   / POORLY
TO HAVE GREEDILY / PICKINGLY
TO HAVE MIGHTILY / SPARSELY
TO HAVE MAGNIFICENTLY /TAWDRILY
TO HAVE TOTALITY / NEGATIVENESS

TO STAY EVERYWHERE / TO STAY NOWHERE
TO STAY HERE     / TO STAY THERE
TO STAY NEAR     / TO STAY FAR
TO STAY UP       / TO STAY DOWN
TO STAY OUT      / TO STAY IN
TO STAY BACK     / TO STAY FORWARD
TO STAY EARLIER  / TO STAY LATER
TO STAY PRESENT  / TO STAY ABSENT

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

            CC -  The Basic End Words (Part B)

(per BK, there were only 18 endwords, including M, E, S, T, &
history as above).

 1. THE NOW
 2. THE PAST
 3. THE FUTURE
 4. THE TIME
 5. THE SPACE
 6. THE MOTION
 7. THE ENERGY
 8. THE MASSES
 9. THE SELF
10. THE OTHERS
11. THE LIFE
12. THE EXISTENCE
13. THE CONDITIONS
14. THE EFFECTS
15. THE PICTURES
16. THE MIND
17. THE HISTORIES
18. THE REACTION
19. THE GOAL
20. THE CHAOS
21. THE UNIVERSE

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

   CC - confusion GPM:

CREATING TO DESTROY THE ...
DESTROYING TO CREATE THE ...

for each of the 21 endwords above.

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

While I was pulling together all of the above, I had
the feeling that it just didn't sound basic enough and
there must be something earlier, either an earlier
section of the CC implant itself or a more basic
earlier similar.

I took a stab at working it out, but I can't guarantee
its accuracy.

I suspect that its only half right, but the tech finders
might as well have it to play around with.  Even in
its current form it seemed to take a lot of charge off.


New Theory:

New 7s: matter, energy, space, time, thought, life, history
The 7 abberations: pictures, pain, split viewpoints, unconciousness,
 semsation, loss, forgetfulness

from thought stems all life   (or all life stems from thought)
from life stems all space
from space stems all matter
from matter stems all energy
from energy stems all time
from time stems all history
from history stems all thought

to have history there must be time
to have time there must be energy	  *time, space, matter, energy?
to have energy there must be matter
to have matter there must be space
to have space there must be life
to have life there must be thought
to have thought there must be history

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

to create thought is to have life
to create life is to have space
to create space is to have matter
to create matter is to have energy
to create energy is to have time
to create time is to have history
is to create history is to have thought

to have thought is to experience life     (experience = do)
to have life is to experience space
to have space is to experience matter
to have matter is to experience energy
to have energy is to experience time
to have time is to experience history
to have history is to experience thought

to experience thought is to understand life
to experience life is to understand space
to experience space is to understand matter
to experience matter is to understand energy
to experience energy is to understand time
to experience time is to understand history
to experience history is to understand thought

to understand thought is to become life
to understand life is to become space
to understand space is to become matter
to understand matter is to become energy
to understand energy is to become time
to understand time is to become history
to understand history is to become thought

to become thought is to create life
to become life is to create space
to become space is to create matter
to become matter is to create energy
to become energy is to create time
to become time is to create history
to become history is to create thought

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

to create pictures to have thought
to create life to have pictures
to create pain to have life
to create space to have pain
to create split viewpoints to have space
to create energy to have split viewpoints
to create sensation to have energy
to create matter to have sensation
to create unconciousness to have matter
to create time to have unconciousness
to create loss to have time
to create history to have loss
to create forgetfulness to have history
to create thought to have forgetfulness

to have pictures to experience thought
to have pain to experience life
to have split viewpoints to experience space
to have unconciousness to experience matter
to have sensation to experience energy
to have loss to experience time
to have forgetfulness to experience history

to experience pictures to understand thought
to experience pain to understand life
to experience split viewpoints to understand space
to experience unconciousness to understand matter
to experience sensation to understand energy
to experience loss to understand time
to experience forgetfulness to understand history

to crave pictures to become thought
to crave pain to become life
to crave split viewpoints to become space
to crave unconciousness to become matter
to crave sensation to become energy
to crave loss to become time
to crave forgetfulness to become history

to become pictures to create thought
to become pain to create life
to become split viewpoints to create space
to become unconciousness to create matter
to become sensation to create energy
to become loss to create time
to become forgetfulness to create history

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

to create pictures to avoid forgetfulness
to create split viewpoints to avoid pictures
to create pain to avoid split viewpoints
to create unconciousness to avoid pain
to create sensation to avoid unconciousness
to create loss to avoid sensation
to create forgetfulness to avoid loss

to have pictures to block forgetfulness
to have split viewpoints to block pictures
to have pain to block split viewpoints
to have unconciousness to block pain
to have sensation to block unconciousness
to have loss to block sensation
to have forgetfulness to block loss

to experience pictures to stop forgetfulness
to experience split viewpoints to stop pictures
to experience pain to stop split viewpoints
to experience unconciousness to stop pain
to experience sensation to stop unconciousness
to experience loss to stop sensation
to experience forgetfulness to stop loss

to crave pictures to reject forgetfulness
to crave split viewpoints to reject pictures
to crave pain to reject split viewpoints
to crave unconciousness to reject pain
to crave sensation to reject unconciousness
to crave loss to reject sensation
to crave forgetfulness to reject loss

to become pictures to distroy forgetfulness
to become split viewpoints to distroy pictures
to become pain to distroy split viewpoints
to become unconciousness to distroy pain
to become sensation to distroy unconciousness
to become loss to distroy sensation
to become forgetfulness to distroy loss


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

Of course all these things are super implants rather
than actual GPMs.  My own idea on the actuals is in
Super Scio chapter 3.

You're description of the late stages of the actual
GPM research line was really interesting and I'd
love to hear more.

Affinity,

The Pilot


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

The following trailer was used on all of these posts.

------------------
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
http://www.proweb.co.uk/~tech/clear.htm

Or see The Pilots Home Page at http://fza.org/pilot/index.htm

Some translations are available, see
In German  - http://www.cso.net/mt/pilot.htm
In Russian - http://www.user.cityline.ru/~cisergem/

All of this week's posts will be collected in Super Scio Archives
#25 and #26 and posted to ACT.  See the Pilot Archives at FZA.ORG.

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.

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



