Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology
From: pilot@hiddenplace.com (The Pilot)
Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 29 - APR 3, 1998 PILOT POSTS TO ACT
Date: 3 Apr 1998  14:00:22


POST29.txt 

SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 29 - APR 3, 1998 PILOT POSTS TO ACT

Note that the posts to ARS/ACT are in Archive 28.


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

Contents:

 Subj : Super Scio Tech - Reviewing Trom (attn Jules)
 Subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering Jim about TRs and Clearing
 Subj : Super Scio Tech - More OT Research Notes
 Subj : Super Scio Tech - Self Clearing Additions
 Subj : Super Scio - About Technical Discussions (was Anybody Home?)
 Subj : Super Scio Tech - About the GE (attn Heidrun)
 Subj : Super Scio Tech - Continuing the GPM Discussion
 Subj : Super Scio Tech - Leapfrog Exteriorization (attn Robert)
 Subj : Super Scio Tech - To NDC on Body Moulding
 Subj : Super Scio - To NyghtOne on Body Clearing
 Subj : Super Scio - Answering Paul on CofS Motivators 


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


 Subj : Super Scio Tech - Reviewing Trom (attn Jules)


REVIEWING TROM (Attn Jules)

On 29 Mar 98, jules@dev.null (Jules Trent) asked on subject
"To Pilot re: TROM"

> First, thanks for a much prior post re, Power Pr realization 
> (with clear cog as side effect) producing a state that is, per 
> Ron, senior to that produced by Clearing Course...Just what I 
> got from  realizing "*I* am Source" on the first command of the 
> first process.....Also explains: later (post-Church) I got hold 
> of R6-EW and ran it....went nowhere....and on listing for the 
> trouble, got huge LF/BD/FN on "was nothing wrong in the first 
> place:.....Thanks again...
> Shouldn't have invalidated myself--- DUH!

Great!
 
> Re TROM:
> 
> 1) What's your opinion on running it just as given?
> 
> 2) Up through stage 3, it is ho-hum. Timebreaking seems to be 
> simply, viewing a "past" incident in PT and as-ising it...which 
> I can do with no trouble, even when the incident has a lot of 
> "special effects" and temporary stuff-to-wade-through......
> Think I am too cocky, or too cautious?
> 
> 3) Would appreciate your view re TROM and E-meter. What's your 
> opinion as compared to the view given in TROM itself?
> 
> Will await possible reply on A.C.T.
> 
> Jules

I've said a bit about Trom before, but it is about time I reviewed
it in detail.

For starters, here are my quick notes on reading it.  These are,
of course, my opinions of what he is having people do.

-----

NOTES ON TROM

In general he has nice descriptions of postulates, games, etc.
and a good discussion of some of the important points involved
in auditing.

Level 1:

Setups, run by another, basically, the CCHs.

RI (Repair of Improtances), The Governor

 a) Create Something
 b) Have another create something

or similar processes (bring something into existance)
(create an importance).

Note, mockup in all directions, & you don't have to percieve
them for them to be real.


RI by perception -
 Feeling objects, getting weight and temprature, etc.

Level 2:

Bascially then and now alternate spotting with a differentiation
step.

Level 3:

Timebreaking - simultaneously perceiving a past scene and PT until
the past scene dissolves.

Level 4:

Overwhelm - Bascially handling incidents of enforced and
inhibited "know" on both inflow and outflow by means of
the timebreaking process.

Level 5:

Postulates - handled in terms of Games.
It is basically a GPM like pattern of postulates / counter-postulates
(8 pairs of items) on Must / Mustn't Know.  There is a GPM crossover 
style valence shift in the middle of the scale.

The pattern then repeates on a substitute significance.
One basically holds up the postulates of the items and timebreaks
whatever shows up, and one does lots of RI.

Additional Materials:

These extend the level 5 handling into more goals, which are
seen as derriving from the basic set on Know.

One of the lists of additional goals is: To create, love, admire,
enhance, help, feel, control, own, have, eat, sex.

----

The RI processes are appropriate for use as what I refer to
as a "safety net" in self processing.  In other words, something
basic that you can do to cool down restimulation if you get
into trouble.

The creative RI is usable but is a very high gradient for
someone if they get in trouble.  In other words, it could be
very workable under normal circumstances but be too steep at
the exact time when the person needs it most.

The RI by perception should work even if the person is heavily
spun in by a bad mistake.  But it is not necessarily the easiest 
process of its kind.

I put many different processes of this class into the self
clearing book on the basis that some will work better than
others for a given individual and he may need alternatives
if he gets into trouble.

Also, although all processes of this class are theoretically
unlimited, they do sometimes flatten and overrun temporarily,
so you need multiple choices.

I would recommend doing the first few chapters of self clearing
first and having those processes at your fingertips in addition
to the RI in case of trouble.

Also, some of the processes in those first chapters should reach
lower than the RI set and can probably subsitute for doing CCHs
at level 1, at least for anybody who is aware enough to read
the book and try it.

----

He is also using the RI processes as a sort of havingness
step to balance blowing mass in session.

This is not a bad idea, and is very much in keeping with the
late 1950s style of processing.

But it is also to some slight degree a solution to bypassing
too many areas and running with inadequate Itsa.

I don't want to invalidate this, because running havingness
or create or any nice booster action between steps or at
the end of session is a good and helpful thing.

However, it usually only becomes critical (and needs to be
done in vast quantities), when there is too much being
sidestepped.  For example, with quickie triple grades in the
late 1960s, you were asking for an instant cave in if you 
didn't finish the grade off with a havingness process.

The effect is not simply due to blowing too much mass at once.
That is the mistake.  You can blow tons of mass without this
effect if you balance areas of handling.  The effect comes
from blowing really deep holes in the bank while ignoring
other areas.  The effect has occured often on the Scientology
research line because of the stupid idea of having found 
the one and only right why and then pushing it to the hilt
while ignoring all the other things we knew.  But it rarely
happens with things like expanded grades that use a broader
base.

So I would say that if you seem to be needing too much RI,
then you should run something other than TROM for awhile.

Trom's biggest liability is simply that it is a very narrow
subset of the tech and the areas that can be handled.

At the same time, he does give me the idea that I should
check over the self clearing book and add some havingness
or creative mockups to the end of the occasional chapter
which doesn't already have them built in.  These things
are always useful as an enhancement.

What I'm really trying to say here about Trom is that his
RI actions are good but also that they are good enough to 
cover weaknesses in his levels.

----

Unfortunately, he completely misses the areas of the grades.
That was also true of 1950s Scientology.  That will give
trouble eventually, and that is why we ended up with modern
Scientology even though the 1950s stuff is ten times more
powerful.  The really smart thing is to use both instead
of one or the other.

----

His level 2 is a very "standard" application of late 1950s
Scientology.  There are dozens of varitions of these kinds
of processes and all work very well.  Some are in the self
clearing book.

----

His Timebreaking is a bit different from earlier techniques.

I tried it and it seemed like fun to do it with light 
incidents, but I prefer to handle light incidents with 
simple itsa and blowing by inspection.

But the timebreaking seems to be designed as a heavy 
incident handling technique rather than a light one.

For me most incidents are not "heavy" and so I rarely
use heavy incident running, by which I mean any technique
like R3R or other drills that let you push through on
something that is really difficult to confront and can't
be blow by simple itsa.

But I felt that I should try this once just to see how
good the timebreaking was on a rough incident.

Finaly I remembered an old picture of some kind of 4 dimensional
spiral which I had clipped while running something else
and never gotten around to examining more deeply.  This
was something from before home universe in the area of
track that I still have trouble understanding and Itsaing,
so it seemed appropriate for a real test.

So I got present time and this old 4 dimensional thing
around me simultaneously.

Present time started distorting.  Lots of shifts back and
forth in depth perception and intensity of colors and some
sporatic double images of room objects.  Really wierd.

That cooled down a bit (but didn't entirely stop) and that
damn spiral just sat there solid as a rock.

Finally I got impatient and, while continuing to hold both 
the spiral and present time in my attention, I started spotting
points on the spiral (simple objective spotting).  That
got things moving, and suddenly I started being able to
itsa the thing, and I realized that it was curving through
a 4th dimension as a means of transportation between two
different 3 dimensional frames.

With that the whole thing dissolved and the distortions
stopped and I felt really good.

My conclusion was that I had to beef up the Itsa line
to get this to work well on a heavy picture.  So that
makes it a marginal process unless you enhance it a bit
or instinctively tend to spot and itsa things in the
thing that you are handling.

But it is still a nice trick.

----

For level 4 I would say that you would be better off with
recalls and intensive Itsa on the buttons being handled.

But this is not to say that the timebreaking wouldn't
work but just to say that it might be slower and might
not run as deep.

Pushing at things in a way that maximizes Itsa is better
because it gives you much more orientation and understanding
of what you are taking apart.

----

Level 5 has the inherent assumption that the basic goal
is To Know.  This may act as a wrong item for some
people.

It is possible that there is a very early track actual
GPM series that begins with this goal and runs well
on his short item pattern.

It is also possible that there is an implant series
that this is approximating.

It is also possible that this might actually be pieces
of something larger and that it works sometimes to
relieve charge.

If it is only an implant, I would think that the 
timebreaking actually works better than repetative item 
spotting.  It might even be strong enough to blow charge 
on a platen that is only half right.  And that might
be a good use for the timebreaking technique in
general.  I'm only guessing now, but I think that it
could drain charge off of an out of sequence or wrongly
worded implant item that wouldn't blow on simple spotting.

If, however, this stuff is some kind of actual GPM,
the timebreaking technique would probably not give enough
Itsa to really handle it fully.  That was always the
bane of the GPM research, namely that there was too
much running of items and too little Itsa of how the
items were lived.

It does feel like he is very close on some early actual
GPM series, but I don't have my hands on it right now and
I wouldn't venture to say how accurate his pattern is or 
how many people would be able to run this series successfully.

I would suggest that people who try to run this should
try to add in some technique to get more itsa.  Perhaps
simply to describe what somebody might do to make such
and such a postulate stick or what overts they might
commit while doing it.  Or to try and date/locate when
they were living the item.

If somebody is makeing gains with this, I would say go
for it, and please write up what you find.  But if
it wouldn't run and doesn't indicate, I would say
that you shouldn't push it or try to force it to run
because it may be way off from where you are sitting
right now.

Right now I think that we set up an actual GPM series
for each universe and that we leave it running and don't
abandon it when we move down to a lower universe and
start a new series, so that many sets are running 
concurrently.  And each could be traced sequentially.
That would be the way to distinguish an actual series
from an implanted one (you don't live implants 
sequentially, you dramatize different parts as they 
go into restim).  But one series of actuals might 
explain your choice of professions and a different 
one might explain your love life and yet another one 
might explain your taste in movies.

If he is right in the simplicity of his item pattern,
then the series is a holdover from an very early universe
because we have gotten more complex as we went along.

It feels like he has pieces of a larger goals series.
Since the technique allows for finding more goals,
one would have to see what one came up with.  His goals
series does approximate the Know to Mystery scale and
he mentions substitute as the action which one does
as one cycles downward, which fits in with the general
theory of K to M.

It is quite possible that the K to M scale is rooted
in an actual GPM sequence and originates from there.

I will be quite interested to hear what people find
out while working with this level.  I can not
guarantee that it is either safe or accurate, but I
don't want to invalidate it because it could well be
a significant piece of the puzzel.

----

In summary, I would say that there is some good stuff
in Trom, and that he has done some good writeups
about basic things that will be useful in studying
other techniques as well, but that it is far from a
complete case handling and should be used in conjunction
with other things.

He is also to be commended for having made it primarily
a solo effort.


Best,

The Pilot


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


 Subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering Jim about TRs and Clearing


ANSWERING JIM ABOUT TRS AND CLEARING

On 17 Mar 98, jimc@sonic.net (Jim Cook) asked on
subject "To the Pilot"

> Dear Pilot,
> 
> A dear friend of mine who was once a C/S
>  told me that one can go Clear
>  simply by doing OT-TR0 and TR0 every day
>  but it might take a few days, weeks or maybe years.

Possibly, but it might be the long way around or not be
workable for everybody.

>  She said that both these TR's will blow the bank like
>  you wouldn't believe.
> 
>  She said " You don't even need a partner.
>  You can do OT-TR0 by yourself
>  and you can do TR0 while looking in a mirror."
> 
>  "Confroting your self in a mirror, will absolutely
>   blow your mind"
> 
>   Jim

Theoretically, one goes clear simply by achiving full confront
of force.

Full confront of everything would actually be a higher state.

But good TR 0 needs to be outward and steady.

I have my doubts about the effectiveness of large amounts of
OT TR 0 because of the tendency to have one's attention inward
rather than outward.

If you sit there with your eyes closed confronting the room
(even if you can't see the room) or whatever else is around
you, you can get somewhere with it.

But if you just sit there with your eyes closed and not doing
that, you might as well be asleep.

And doing a spotting drill, as in the second process in self 
clearing chapter 1, is much easier, runs faster, and keeps
your attention outward while your eyes are closed.  It is
actually a much easier gradient on OT TR 0.
 
As for true TR 0 (eyes open), this is indeed a powerful action.
According to the Tibetan materials, it can either be done
with a partner or done on an object.  Unbullbaited TR 0 works
almost as well with an object as with another person.

The mirror trick is a really good idea.  Ron had some
mirror type processes in the 3rd ACC, including looking in
a mirror and seeing your ideal self, and looking in a mirror
and seeing nothing.  He also had one mockup mirrors and look
into them.

There is, of course, the gains to be had from TR 0 bullbaited.
About the second time I did it (on level zero training), I
realized that the reason that I laughed at things was because
I mocked up the pictures that made me laugh in response to
the coach's button pushing.  So I simply choose not to 
put up any pictures in response and thereby ceased to react.
It was actually a bit of a clear cog.

Since then I've always had choice as to weather or not to
laugh at or react to something that anybody says, but of
course I always choose to mock up the pictures and have a
good time laughing unless there is some good reason not to.

That one only applied to reacting to things that people were
saying rather than all reactions to force or whatever, and
so it was a bit halfway.

By the time it occured to me to push this up a notch by
getting my TRs in on the scenes in violent or graphically
gross movies, I had already had a deeper clear cog from
getting run on power, so I was already past that point and
I can't guarantee that it would work.  But it sounds workable 
if you use a VCR and rerun a scene until you flatten it and 
stop flinching and can confront it.

A specific trick with movies, in the rare cases where one
seems to stir up charge, would be to watch it again with
your TRs in until all the charge blows off.


Best,

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


 Subj : Super Scio Tech - More OT Research Notes


MORE OT RESEARCH NOTES


Here is the latest stuff I've been playing with.


1. Ultimate Process

The ultimate process is to simply spot the next barrier
in your way and mockup a process to handle it.

If you're lucky it is a known area and you already have a 
good specific process for handling it.

If it is an unknown, then you do simple basics like alternate
spotting, exaggerating more and less, mocking up, etc. until
you can think clearly enough about it to either Itsa it
completely and blow it or Itsa it enough to identify
pieces of its anatomy that can in turn be handled by
designing a more specific process.

The trouble is that working with a light general handling
takes much much longer than knowing the anatomy of something
and using a specific technique on it.


2. A powerful process on Inhibited Creation

Run alternately -

a) What mustn't be created
b) What would you be willing to create

The biggest limitation of this one is that you will eventually
get down to an answer to the first question which is such a
big blowout that you can't run the process anymore, at least
for a few weeks.

I designed this and tried it myself and after a few commands,
I spotted an answer which knocked my socks off.  Then I ran it 
on a friend and he got something wild as well, but not the 
same answer as I had gotten.  Both of us felt like this one 
could have numerous answers of trememdous significance but 
you can't run it twice in a row without it overrunning immediately.  
It takes you so deep in the "bank" that you just have to run 
other stuff until you're ready to go deeper.

Note that it has to be run alternately because running
only the first question by itself could cave someone in.


3. Penalty Universe Keyout Rundown

An old OT 7 Class 8 tried the Penalty Universe Keyout
rundown given in Super Scio Chapter 5.

I put in hundreds of hours on penalty universe detail items
before I found the top (platen 1).  And then I did more
work with platen 1 stripping charge off of the top of
many different penalty universe.  And it was all pretty
much discharged by the time I thought up the key out rundown.

So I thought that the keyout rundown would just soften the
things up a bit so that they could be run more easily.
It only has a few steps for each of the penalty goals,
spotting the top item, spotting being pushed into it,
spotting pushing another into it, and so forth.  Its
something that can probably be done on the entire goals
series in under ten hours.

I didn't expect that it would run the damn things out
and produce the cumulative gain that I got on hundreds
of hours of work.

I stand corrected.

The report I got was that she experienced massive BT visible
BT blows.  On the goal "to compute" a green cube drifted
out of the body and dissolved.  On another one an entire
mockup of the body came out with a snap that adjusted her
spine and then that mockup dissolved.  At the end the
TA went around through 7.

And it is a short and easy to run action, the only provisio
being that you need to be able to spot something that
early on the track. 



4. Pattern of Postulates

This is a speculative idea.

I was rereading (yet again) the Pattern of the Bank and Mastery
of GPMs transcripts, and noticing Ron's comments about how
pulling items out of place in the bank was the source of things
like hidden standards and chronic somatics.

There are similar comments in some of the 1963 GPM tapes that
I reviewed the other week while writing up that history of
the GPM research line.

The underlying idea seems to be that the entire compulsive
creation of reality itself might be due to the GPM item
patterns.

But I'm sure that we have proven that that is not the case.

The GPMs and items affect the identities we use and games we 
play, but it is not basic enough to be the anatomy of reality
as we know it.

But it felt like there was a half truth here as far as
this idea of an underlying pattern which kept reality real
and which could give trouble when pulled out of shape.

But a pattern of what?

I played with that for awhile and came up with the idea
of it being a pattern of postulates used in the creation
of "real" objects.

If you just mockup a table, then you have a table but it is
not in the framework of real reality.  Maybe the simple
truth is that you just need to make a series of one or
two dozen postulates in a certain pattern to lock it into
reality and make it real.

I don't know what that pattern is, or if there really is
such a thing, but it is something to consider.

I'm imagining that its things like having to postulate
that it will follow the laws of physics (gravity etc.)
for example so that it is in agreement with the shared
reality.

Also, maybe, postulating that it is connected to some kind
of underlying universal anchor points that keep the space
oriented.

Also, maybe, postulating that it belongs to everyone or
some such thing so as to get others to copy and agree to
it.

As I said, this whole idea is very wild and speculative
and it might just be a red herring.  But it is one hell 
of a concept to play around with.


Best,

The Pilot

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


 Subj : Super Scio Tech - Self Clearing Additions


SELF CLEARING ADDITIONS


A few more things which will get incorporated into version
two of the self clearing book when I get around to doing it.

Note that feedback from people working with the book, both
as to things with worked spectacularly well and as to areas
which gave difficulty, is helpful.


1. Sales Hype

I'm so turned off by sales hype that I tend to do it in reverse,
down playing things and making less of them.

If I were selling cars, I'd probably say that the things might
actually get you to work if you were lucky as long as you 
paid constant attention to keeping them filled up with gas
and had a mechanic work it over regularly and you had adequate
driving skills.

This is in contrast to car commercials which show beautiful
girls and drivers with racing skills zig zagging through
hairpin turns.

I don't believe in making outrageous claims or indulging in
false PR, but I really should work a little harder in generating
some excitement and enthusiasm because it takes a good bit of
determination for somebody to roll up their sleaves and get
to work at facing up to their abberations and expanding their
abilities.

This is like the old joke about the pessimist and the optimist,
where one says the bottle is half empty and the other says that
it is half full.

After all, cars are very useful for driving to places and a nifty
looking one will get you some attention and you can even learn
to drive those hairpin turns.  

So let me say for starters that I do believe that all those
wild OT abilities are there at the top and that we are moving
in that direction.  And that in the meantime, the sporatic
OT abilities are available now and can be gotten for free
by many people by putting in some work on self clearing.

And the various chapters of self clearing really should have
a few words of encouragement to build up some energy for
pushing through the barriers.  The chapter on communictions,
for example, should start by pointing out that you are going
to do a hell of a lot better in life if you open up your
communication lines.

All the chapters in the book have that hidden assumption, 
namely that it is an area of importance that will really
make a difference.  The entirity of the gains achieved
in orthodox Scientology today are based on working over no 
more than about a third of the areas in the book, and
people pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for this.

So count yourself lucky and get to work.


2. Positive Action

Current orthodox Scientology processing tends to concentrate 
on negative gain.  Earlier 1950's Scientology assumes that
you will get into positive action but doesn't play that up
except for the areas of drilling OT abilities.  The exception
is auditor training, where areas (such as communications) which
are necessary to auditing successfully are studied and drilled.

I made a point of covering positive areas that have been well
mapped out in auditor training, such as the second of the chapters
on communication which covers the positive skills.

But I neglected this in other areas.

Notice that in communication, after one blows off the barriers
to communicating, there is a second chapter drilling things
such as "intention" and "acknowledgements" and then one is
expected to actually go out and communicate.  This is where
one developes real ability to live life.

In the chapter on recall processes, one will begin opening
up one's recall of the past, especially by means of spotting
pleasure moments etc.  With the barriers gone, one can
now work more easily with positiive memorization techniques
(such as those given in popular "improve your memory" type
books), but self clearing does not mention that.

As a general rule of thumb, in any area where something major
falls out of your way, you can now engage in positive actions
on that line more easily.  If the book doesn't give you some 
specific positive thing to do, then just look around and see 
if you can now find something which will contribute to your
abilities and enjoyment of life.

The sky's the limit on this stuff.


3. Improvement to Chapter 14.

When I took a second run at the chapter on Protest, I found
that process 14.1 could be upgraded as follows:

The original version was -

14.1.1a) What are you protesting
14.1.1b) What have you done to communicate that
14.1.1c) Who should acknowledge that


A better, more powerful version is

Select an area of Protest, then

14.1.1a) Describe the protest, or an earlier similar protest
14.1.1b) What have you done to communicate that
14.1.1c) Who should acknowledge that
14.1.1d) Visualize them as acknowledging your protest.


It worked better to stay on the same area of protest, spotting
and describing it again on each pass through the commands,
allowing it to shift around (the protest will shift as you
keep running it) and also changing over to an earlier similar
protest if it shows up while doing this.  That lets you handle
the protest fully instead of jumping over to a different protest.

The addition of the last command (d, visualizing an acknowledgement),
made the process run much faster and deeper.

Once an area of protest is handled, another protest can be
selected and run in the same way.

These changes (staying with the same protest, and visualizing
acknowledgements) can also be applied to the other processes in
sections 14.1 and 14.2.


4. An easier version of Chapters 16 and 17

The rundowns for handling must have / can't have and so forth
are fairly complex and advanced.  These are good for advanced
students but may be a bit difficult for a beginner on his first
pass through the book.

So if it seems like too much, a simpler version can be used.

Take each major item in both chapters (such as money or pain or 
whatever), and run

a) Mock up a way to waste ____
b) Mock up a way to have more ____

Just run them alternately without worrying about which side
of things (trying to have or trying to avoid) you are stuck on.

Then use the more sophisticated rundown on the second time
through the book.


Have Fun,

The Pilot

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


 Subj : Super Scio - About Technical Discussions (was Anybody Home?)


ABOUT TECHNICAL DISCUSSIONS (was Anybody Home?)


In mid March, Robert Ducharme and others started discussing
the problem of the lack of serious technical discussions
on ACT / Clear-l.

Allen <speaker@asc.org> gave the most extensive response and
I'll quote a little bit of that here.

> Gee, Robert,
> 
> I've been making that observation for years now.
> 
> David and I spoke of it just the other week, when he mentioned a post
> that was technically important and got ZERO response.
> 
> Tell you the truth, if it weren't for the private replies and acks I get
> when I post something technical, I'd have gone away a long time ago.
> 
> Case in point: My comments regarding how to handle someone who is
> killing your life with negativity.  Private raves, public neglect.
> 
> But then, Clear-l has never really been a place for technical
> discussion.  Maybe that's just the nature of the beast.  Each tech
> finder is coming in from a different orientation as to what constitutes
> "a being" and how "case" operates, so how to deal with such things is
> usually a quick discussion lacking in substantive commonality.
> 
>   A says, "This."
>   B says, "But."
>   C says, "Also."
>   D says, "Instead."
> 
> And that's the end of it because this is not peer review, it's
> declaration.  Nothing is ever done between us to compare effectiveness
> of theories in explaining results, or relative effectiveness of
> techniques, and results are never pursued and compared side-by-side to
> reach a validated conclusion.

> ...
 
> And along with that thought, is the thought, "Gee, didn't I already post
> something on that three years ago?!"
> 
> And that, I suspect, is something of a barrier too.  The old, Been
> there, Done that.  Because my next thought was that articles should be
> posted to web pages once written and discussed, so newbies could find
> them.  (There's nothing there on the spike, so I'll have to check
> elsewhere.  And then, if I do post it and we do discuss it and I then
> polish it up a bit, I'll post it to the web page for posterity.
> 
> And it'll be someone else's turn to provoke technical discussion.
> 
> After a few more years, we could have short-cut discussions, each of us
> responding to the others simply by referencing an article somewhere on
> the web, like the _Children of Dahrma_ Star Trek N-G episode: in the
> end, everything that could be said finally having *been* said, the tech
> reduced to an allusory language of metaphor.
> 
> Whereupon (or whenupon, as the case may be), I'll initiate a new rant on
> semantics re: Saying exactly what you mean! :-)
> 
> But I still wouldn't expect tech discussion to run as long as the
> frivolous and social stuff does.  After all, there's little room in tech
> for rambling threads.
>                            |
>      Allen, Speaker       -0-     ASC Missions Group
>      speaker@asc.org       |      http://www.asc.org


It is in the general nature of the news system that the things
which generate the most responses are those which are the most
controversial.

The Animal Mind technical discussion raged so extensively precisely 
because it was so controversial and because MM kept bullbaiting and 
insisting that ALL case was AM emote.

If it had been simple BS, it might have been laughted off instantly.
But it had these half right and interesting aspects.  I even
ended up posting a good bit about it.

But if something is well and thoroughly written up, there is
often little to say about it except thank you.

I stay hidden so I rarely do that.  But if I were, I would
probably email it in most cases rather than filling the newsgroup 
with acknowledgements.  Maybe that is a mistake, but it seems
to be the way that things are done online.

Robert mentioned the poor response to some session reports
that he had written up and posted.  I had picked them up and 
thought that they were very interesting and that the data was 
potentially useful, but I really had nothing to say about them 
at the moment, so I just filed them carefully away.  I was quite 
glad to get them.
  
There is often something like this, and it is one of the main
attractions of ACT for me.  So please keep it up.

The real index is probably which posts did people think it
worthwile to save rather than simply read and discard.  And
there is no way to measure that.

The self clearing book is an excellent example.  I can tell that
there is a lot of enthusiasm because so many people are working
to spread it around, translate it, etc. and people often 
include an acknowledgement while posting something else to me.

But the only things that generated any extensive discussion were 
some of the general philosophical comments in the introduction.

I take this as a compliment actually.  If I had put some idiotic
thing in the early chapters such as farting in the swimming pool 
to relieve the charge on ARC Breaks, I'm sure that the arguments
would have raged extensively.

I agree with Allen about getting technical things saved, at least
in Homer's archives and hopefully up on web pages as well.

Maybe somebody should try to put together a monthly ACT
Technical Journal to specifically collect the technically
interesting posts into a file which could be webbed and
archived.  What does everybody think of this idea?  And would
anybody volenteer to do the work?

Right now I collect all my own stuff into an archive file
because of the fabian manner in which I only post periodically.
So I don't do a lot of two way comm.  But I have thought
about the day when I start posting interactively, and it
seems to me that then I would start specifically selecting
things to archive monthly rather than keeping everything.


Affinity,

The Pilot

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


 Subj : Super Scio Tech - About the GE (attn Heidrun)


ABOUT THE GE

On 7 Mar 98, concern@atnet.at (Heidrun Beer) asked on 
subject "L.Kin - GE-Rundown"

> Anybody here who has experiences with the GE-Rundown written
> by L.Kin? It's at http://fza.org/lkin/v4-5-ge.htm right now.
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
>    The thetans views - and those of his entities - were taken 
>    into consideration right from the beginning of the bridge up 
>    to the end of Excalibur. Yet the thetan's identification with 
>    the GE was never looked at!
> 
>    This identification is caused by non-confronting his overts 
>    against bodies and GEs all along his whole track.
> 
>    Now - finally! - its the GEs turn.
> 
>    That she wasnt taken into consideration earlier already, is one 
>    aspect of the ARC-break a GE may have with "her" thetan. That he 
>    didnt always look after his body properly constitutes another 
>    aspect of the ARC break. And that earlier similar thetans did 
>    similar things earlier on, of course adds to the ARC break.
> 
>    Its the "never trust a thetan" syndrome.
> 
> Heidrun Beer 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>        "You shall know them by their fruits." (The Bible)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

On 8 Mar 98, Georg Ragaz <gragaz@bluewin.ch> replied

# My wife recently has been running CBR's "CO Cycle rundown" (OT 14), which
# is the source of L.Kin's GERD. She has had great success in getting in
# handling body conditions. She has been able to handle a lot of PTPs
# connected with the body and markedly improved her communication with her
# body. The basic is to become aware of the body organization, get in comm
# with the body and to establish two departments in the body org that train
# and run processes on trouble spots in the body and get the body org up the
# bridge. The body org CO is put in charge of these and should later on not
# be bypassed by the thetan.
# 
# As a result you are much move aware what the body needs and wants. Of
# course as a result the body will ask for a betterment in your nutrition as
# there are also limits to what he can handle. We were using high quality
# food supplements to provide for the needed vitamins, minerals and
# proteins, as the currently available food is of detrimental quality.
# 
# regards,
# Georg


I looked it over and it has some good concepts, such as the GE
being software (in contrast to the body which is hardware) and
some silly ideas about bypassing or ARC breaking the GE.

First let me say that you can have BTs who think that they are
the GE and will answer up on its behalf and they can indeed act
like real beings.  Handle them with Nots or whatever.  Once they
are out of the way you get down to the real GE which is NOT a
being, but has the apparancy of being a being.

Since one has charge on bodies and GEs and things like that,
it is a bit harder to think about, so lets shift over to computers
and software, because the GE is the same kind of thing and
software is easier to talk about.

A computer program can also have the apparancy of being a real
being.  It is not, but it can be made to look like one.

For people who don't know programming, it would be a very good
idea to learn a little bit of the "BASIC" language and write
a few simple little programs to get a real feel for how its
done.

Let us say that you write a program which tells the computer
to display the question "Hello, what is your name?".  Then
you tell the computer to take whatever the user types in
response to this and feed it back to him with the sentence,
"Hi ...., good to see you".

Then Bill sits down at the keyboard and answers that his name
is "Bill", and the computer says "Hi Bill, good to see you".
It sounds very real.  At least until Martin sits down and
answers "you are an asshole", and then the program replies
"Hi you are an asshole, good to see you".

So the programmer gets smart and adds another line to the
program which checks if the user answers with more than one
word, and if so he has the computer say "that doesn't make
sense to me, could you answer in more simple terms"
until the user gives the computer a simple answer (a name
in this case) that it can deal with.

This is software.  It can get very complex and sophisticated.
Big programs can have hundreds of thousands of instructions
for the computer, or even millions.

The first thing to realize is that the computer is not a being.
There is nobody home.  But it can sound like a being because
it was programmed by a real being.

We are the only ones who can think up how to do something
new.  But once you have thought something up, you can always
program a computer to do it again just as if you were there
doing it.  Of course we run into practical limitations with
current computers, so it is not always practical to program
something this way, but it can always be done in theory just
by laying out every step in detail.

You can program the computer to act just like you would in any 
situation that you can anticipate at the time that you are writing 
the program.  Therefore you can fool somebody into thinking that 
they are dealing with you instead of a machine as long as they 
don't introduce some unpredicted factor.  As a live being, you 
would be able to handle something new, but you can't program 
for it unless you have anticipated that it might happen.

Therefore, software can have the apparancy of a being, but
it is not.  What you are really getting is the "theta" of
the programmer on a comm lag, and he is not sitting in
your computer and so he isn't around to adjust to new things 
on the fly.

A computer program cannot get ARC broken with you.  But I
could write a program which pretended to have an ARC break,
by having it say what I would say if I had an ARC break.

This brings up the question of what processes are valid.

Anything which addresses your case in relation to the
computer would be a valid process.  It should improve your
ability to confront and handle the computer and it should
be able to resolve those occasional "computer accident
prone" people who always find some inventive way to crash
the system whenever they get near the keyboard.

People who get pissed off at a piece of software often
find ways to get the program tangled up and if they are
dealing with a piece of crap like Win 3.1, they can get
the whole thing so bolluxed up that they end up having
to reinstall to clean up the mess that Windows makes in
its configuration files.

So you can run your ARC break with the computer.

And since you are a being who is capable of mocking up, you
can postulate that your computer is ARC broken with you and
have some charge on the far side of the comm line too.  So
that one will run too, but it runs on Your Charge and Mockup.
The computer and software can't ARCX with you.  But you can
mock it up as being ARCXen and that CAN have charge and
interfear with your handling of the machine.

Of course if you're smart and know about computers, you have
your ARCX with Bill Gates instead of with your home computer.
Then you run the charge off of that, because it still gets
in the way of your getting the best possible use out of
the software that you're stuck with.

Now you could run Hello and OK on your computer.  You say
hello to it and you mock it up as saying OK back to you.
This is a good thing to run if you have any stuck flows
in the area.  But realize that the OK from the computer back
to you is running on YOUR INFLOW, you are not running the
actual computer's own outflow line, because there is no
charge there to be run.

For example, you might have started putting up a barrier to
recieving comm from your computer because you saw one too
many "error protection fault" type messages.  Once you have
put up such a barrier, you become less able to handle your
computer because you miss things and don't properly monitor
what it is doing.  So you can run the comm flow from the
computer to you and clean this up.  But let me emphasize again
that it is YOUR CHARGE and not the computer itself which you
are handling.

Now lets say that you knock out any charge that was in the
way.  Now we get down to the real computer itself.  Your
first real OT level is simply raising confront and perception
and understanding to the point where you can get the best
possible performance out of what you have got.  You learn
its capabilities, and you also learn its limitations.  You
become a sophisticated user instead of a klutz.

Your next level of operation would be to learn to bypass
effectively.  The more you can bypass, the better, because
that lets you remedy actual defects in the software.
You learn, for example, to edit Win.Ini and System.Ini
so that in the occasional cases where two conflicting pieces
of software have shot each other in the foot, you can go
in and fix it manually.

This is not to say that you always bypass.  Once you know
how, you never do so unnecessarily because it is a lot of
work, but you can monitor what is going on and fix things
when they do go wrong, and you can second guess how things
will behave under various circumstances.

Finally you learn to write programs yourself.  Usually you
use the off the shelf stuff anyway because it is a hell of
a lot of work to build your own, but you can when it is
necessary and you are capable of evaluating and handling
programs written by others from a viewpoint of maximum
understanding because you are capable of writing it yourself.

Now lets get back to the GE.

There are two main differences between the GE and a piece of
software on your computer.

First, the GE is a theta machine rather than one built out
of Mest.  As such, it consists of an ordered series of
postulates (probably millions) rather than machine instructions
on a computer chip.  This makes it more sensative to thought.

And second, the input/output device (like the mouse, screen,
and keyboard) is a telepathic connection with the thetan.
Again, this makes it more sensative to thought.

So this thing reacts to your thoughts, and therefore to your
case, on a level that is orders of magnitude stronger than 
that of your computer.

Most of what is wrong consists of orders that you are giving
to the GE without meaning too.  Those are your psychosomatics
and so forth.  Now you run out an incident, lets say, and 
thereby you stop unconciously giving orders to the GE to
put that somatic in the body.  Or, on the other hand, you
get a touch assist and get your mind and attention into the
area of the body and thereby bypass the GE and it stops
pushing the somatic in there.

This handles the negatives, but it doesn't solve the need
for positive gains.  For that you've either got to get
in there and give the GE orders which it can do, or you've
got to bypass the GE and make the body do more than the
GE was programmed to do, or you've got to learn to mock up
better bodies yourself.

Now the GE is programmed to grow and rebuild bodies.  It
can do a lot of things if you permeate it and give it orders
with certainty, but you also need to allow for comm lags
(just like downloading something from the internet) and
you have to provide adequate resources (like buying enough
RAM for your computer).  In this case you are limited by
its programming, but the programming can run at the maximum
case achived by world class athletes and so forth.

Note that some of Bill's OT 14 rundown does work on this
basis.  You can use the software analogy to sort out the
sensible ideas from the misconceptions.  Would you bother
to hat the Windows Program Manager up as CO of your
computer?  Probably not, unless the analogy helps you
get your own confront up (it wouldn't help the computer).
But some of his ideas are good, and there has been very little
work in this area, so we take what we can get.

You can also bypass and learn to order the heart and muscels
and so forth around directly when you need to.  This opens
up the door to doing all the super tricks attributed to
the great gurus and also things like hysterical strength
(making the muscels react at 100 percent temporarily instead
of their usual conservative level) on an emergency basis.

But the software and hardware currently on the market is
pretty piss poor and there are no alterate vendors to get
better versions from.  So in the long run, your best bet
is to learn to mock up bodies and theta machines yourself.
See the chapters on this in Self Clearing, which will
at least provide a starting point.


Best,

The Pilot


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


 Subj : Super Scio Tech - Continuing the GPM Discussion


CONTINUING THE GPM DISCUSSION

On 28 Mar 98, "John R. Alexander" <Alexandex@worldnet.att.net>
replied to my previous post on subject "To Pilot:  More on GPMs"


> Thank you for the concise review of Hubbard's GPM research through
> 1963.  Following are a few more comments pertaining to our earlier
> correspondence concerning "R6" GPMs, which you may find helpful:
> 
> 1.  You may have noted an apparent discrepancy between my previous
> report, in which I noted that all the GPMs in a pair (or triad under
> Jack Horner's methodology) share the same endword, and Hubbard's
> statements in the two lectures you mentioned, Pattern of the Bank and
> Mastery of GPMs, to the effect that the two GPMs in a pair have
> different endwords which are opposite.  Actually I don't think there
> really is a discrepancy:  As Jack taught GPMs, the top endword is
> preceded by the prefix "un-" which makes it seem like an opposite of the
> endword.  Based on  Jack's St. Hill notes, I would guess this is how
> they were running these in 1964 as well. 
> 
> The intention actually is not to create an opposite of the endword, but
> to create an absence of it, and I would guess this is what Hubbard was
> referring to in the lecture you mentioned where he says the top GPM is
> "absence."  I don't believe he meant that the endword itself is
> "absence."  As an example, it might be said that the "opposite" of black
> is white. But, an "absence" of black ("unblack") would include white,
> red, green, hot, cold, anything you could mock up to avoid or out-create
> black.  I think of the "un" as part of the root word because it is
> consistent from one pair (or triad) to the next.  

In this case, Ron did mean that the endword itself was "absence" as
the opposite of "presence" because he also says that on on the
Track & Bank Anatomy tape.  In that tape, he talks about the
endwords themselves being the anatomy of what we are now living
and therefore we have problems in identifying them because the
words mean things as well as being items.  I think that this is
where the "forbidden word" list came from (words not to be used
in auditing commands), because these tapes also mention things
like here/there as endwords.

But with these tapes we are talking about the later half of 1964,
and they seem to represent a different breed of cat than the
"R6" GPMs of early 64.  It occurs to me that this is the stepping
stone between the R6 GPMs and the CC GPMs, and it is its own
different thing, so lets put a lable on it to keep from getting
confused.  Since it shows up in these late 64 "pattern of the
bank" style lectures, lets call it a "pattern" GPM.

It would help if you could identify the titles/dates of the very
last SC/BC lectures that Jack heard so that we know the exact
point he turned aside.

My assumption at this point is that there are many different
GPM-like things, not just actual and implant but many types of
each, all running to some degree concurrently in present time.
Hubbard walked down a road in researching this and came to
forks and took one path where another would have also been valid
but would have lead to a different species of GPM.

When I tried to follow up on the 3DXX/3GA style 4 way packages,
I landed in a 5 way pattern that had a good bit of charge on
it and which I still consider to be valid, but which bears
no relation to any of the other GPM lines.  It gets a minor
mention in Super Scio because it was overshadowed by the
GPMs I found when I followed up on the 3M pattern.  Those
are not the R6 or Pattern or CC ones, they are their own animal
and they are the strongest ones I've hit so far.

My working theory at this point is that we start a series of
actual GPMs with each big agreed upon universe, and the series
is the anatomy of the game in that universe, and then when we
move on, we keep the old series going too (rather than abandoning
it) but it ends up as an underlying shadow within the next
universe game.

For the current universe, I do think that the actual GPMs are 
the 3M style pattern of 2s that I put in Super Scio chapter 3.
The pattern of 5s I hit was 2 universes back.  The CC was
originally aimed at a pattern of 7s (it may be half right) and
seems to be 3 unvierses back.  I have been trying to lay
my hands on the series for 1 universe back which would be
the Magic Universe, and it suddenly occurs to me that it
would be a patter of 3s simply because there seems to be
a prime number progression going here.

And a pattern of 3s makes me think of Jack's Triads.

In your previous post, you mentioned that the relationship
was a) bring into existance, b) avoid, and c) get rid of,
with b) and c) having come from Ron's early R6 GPMs and
part a) having been spotted by Jack.

Now Ron later shifted into Create/Destroy for his basic
root words.

Considering a triad in this form, the basic triad roots might
be Create/Survive/Destroy.  This is almost Jack's pattern.

And that reminds me of a 1956 tape in the London Auditors
Meeting series (LAM) where Ron talks about his new discovery
that the real cycle of action is Create Create Create and
that therefore the Create Survive Destroy cycle is a late
track abberation that causes things to decay and that it
may be an implant or an installed mechanism of some sort.

It also strikes me that the Magic Universe might have been
the first one where bodies aged naturally (rather than only
decaying under impacts).

 
> 2.  The OT 2 18-item platen you gave is very close to but not exactly
> the same as the line plot for R6 GPMs.  Some of the items require an "s"
> to be added to the endword - this is likely to be significant for
> getting the items to blow properly.  There are also some minor wording
> changes which may not be all that significant.  
> 
> There are also two very important differences:  First, in the bottom
> oppterm (numbered "2" as you reproduced it), the root word and end word
> must be changed to match the next GPM below.  Second, the numbering you
> gave (from OT 2 I suppose) is misleading both as to the order in which
> the items must be run, and as to the relationships between the items. 
> [Good implant trick, I suppose, to give the right GPM significances in
> the wrong order.]  
> 
> The relationships are as follows:  Each opterm (left hand column) brings
> about the terminal directly opposite it and the terminal on the line
> just above it, and each terminal item only brings about the opterm on
> the line just above.  Using the numbering of the items as you gave them,
> item #2 brings about item #1 and item #3.  Item #1 brings about only
> item # 4.  This pattern is repeated all the way up.  In item #17, the
> root word and end word are from the next GPM up.  
> 
> There's alot to know about how these things are run, and it is cannot
> generally be done by repeater technique and cleaning reads as in the
> CC.  [I don't want to get into the mechanics of running them, short of
> doing a fairly complete write-up, which I may do some day.  A person can
> get extremely bogged down running GPMs incorrectly or poorly, and it's
> not always easy to spot the bypassed charge, particularly if there isn't
> another auditor available who knows the material.]  

This is news to me.  I had not assumed that the OT 2 Chapter 12
pattern was the 18 item pattern that Ron talks about in the pattern
tapes.  Now it turns out that it is (maybe with some variation, as
you mention).

I just shoved absence/presence into this patter, it makes sense and 
some charge came off.  So it seems valid although it might well
be an implant and it was not charged up enough to give me any
unpleasantness in casually playing around with the items.

On the anatomy tape Ron has 268 root words, and by the time of the
pattern tape he has got it down to two roots (create/destroy).
In the anatomy tape it is 268 end words, later I'm not sure but
it may still be 268.  And each has the 18 items.

The platens for chapters 13 and 14 of OT 2 are not on the net and
I didn't run those.  Does anybody (Alan or LaMont perhaps?) know
if this is mapped out in one of those chapters?

I do think that this one is an implant.  So maybe that is what
happened.  In the second half of 64, they got into a massive implant
which used this 18 item pattern (which could also be an actual
pattern as well as implanted).

The Clearing Course film (I wish somebody would post a transcript,
it has been many years since I saw it) had a comment by Ron where
he says that most of the people running R6EW are probably pulling
the endwords out of an implant that exists at such and such 
a time period on the track instead of actually getting the real
endwords of CC.  I now think that this is the implant that he
was talking about.

 
> 3.  You mentioned somewhere the hypothesis that the R6 GPMs may have
> been implanted, as evidenced by the fact that the pattern is the same
> from person to person.  While that hypothesis is reasonable enough and
> may be correct (however that might be established), it is not something
> I would have concluded from my experience of running GPMs. It is also
> contrary to what Hubbard was saying at least as late as December of 1964
> (in Mastery of GPMs he said that implants are not the basis of the R6
> bank, and that "the reactive bank does not happen to have any implant
> characteristics"). 
> 
> The R6 line plot is rather like the CDEI scale; it has a certain
> inevitability to it, and the inevitability of the bring-about
> relationship between items is one of the things that must become clear
> and comprehended as a GPM is run and the charge is blown.  Jack Horner
> used to say that the line plot is a "set of codified rock
> dramatizations."  The rock sequence itself also tends to have a great
> deal of similarity from person to person, not because it was implanted,
> but because it is so basic and so tied in with the mechanics of creation
> of and operation in a physical universe (i.e., the creation of space,
> time, particles, the identification and unidentification with
> viewpoints, the conception of communication as a means of
> differentiating and sharing knowingness, and the evolution of standards,
> admiration, help, goals, games, etc.).  

The first thought that strikes me is that the pattern should be
the CDEI scale itself.

 
> What starts the GPM goal on its aberrative path is the postulate that
> the goal is the total solution to everything (Hubbard touched on this
> concept in one of the Briefing Course lectures where he talked about a
> complex problem requiring a complex solution, and the unworkability of
> trying to solve everything with a simple solution).  While the GPM goal
> as a solution might bring about any number of problems, oppositions,
> etc., the first problem that really hangs the being up is difficulties
> with others who have the same goal (i.e., disagreements, rejections,
> etc.), which arises rather inevitably because different individuals all
> have their own personally-created standards about what the goal really
> is.  
> 
> Take an obvious example, like "love" - many people seem to regard it as
> the ultimate solution to everything, but it means something slightly
> different to each, and it's pretty obvious how the total solution of
> "love" results in an accumulation of rejections, disagreements and so on
> once a person starts trying to implement it.  

I've been assuming for a long time that things like "love" fit
into the magic universe goals pattern in some way.  It is very
strong and deep but it doesn't fit the viscious dog eat dog
survival game of this universe and is very in keeping with the
character of the magic universe.

 
> Now look at the two solutions on the line plot which are brought about
> by this problem of difficulties with others who have the same goal -
> first doing the goal differently (either to try to achieve agreement
> with the others or to show them "I can do it better"), and also doing it
> over and over.  Regardless of what other solutions might be tried, it
> does seem rather inevitable that these two solutions would be tried
> sooner or later (and both seem to me to be rather obvious dramatizations
> from the rock sequence - to reach others via the physical universe, one
> creates something, alters it, and duplicates it over and over, and puts
> these functions on automatic).  And someone who is trying to solve by
> doing things differently is rather inevitably going to run into some
> failures, i.e., the next opterm.  And how does one react to failures? 
> Try again, and again, and again.  Or, figure out a machine to do it
> automatically.  And so on.  Incidentally, GPMs are normally run
> backwards from how they were built - one takes the charge off the top
> layer, then the next and the next, etc.
> 
> I tend to think that what we see on the line plot is only a fraction of
> the problems and solutions which occurred with respect to each GPM goal,
> but that those 18 items are the principal ones involving the same root
> and end words which arose most regularly just because of the nature of
> the preceding items, and which acquired the most charge because of the
> repetition of this pattern in GPM after GPM.  It's as if adopting a
> certain solution is like putting on a certain kind of "blinders" which
> guarantees that one will most frequently run into certain specific
> obstacles, among other obstacle that one might also encounter.

The only thing that gave me certainty on the 3M GPM pattern in
Super Scio chapter 3 was the trememdous amount of itsa and track
dating that I did to see how I had been living the damn thing.
I think that this has to be done with any "actual" type pattern
to really view it properly.

An implant would not hold up under this kind of running because
one only dramatizes them (as items get restimulated) rather than
truely living them sequentially.

 
> Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter - I hope they help to
> clarify the subject.  
> 
> Best regards, John
 

Very helpful and much food for thought.

Are any of Jack's writings on GPMs available?  Is anybody still
practicing his techniques or following up on them?  Can we coax
you into doing your own writeup?


Affinity,

The Pilot

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


 Subj : Super Scio Tech - Leapfrog Exteriorization (attn Robert)


LEAPFROG EXTERIORIZATION (Attn RDucharme)


On 27 Mar 98, VoltR@ctinet.net (RDucharme) posted on subject
"Leapfrog exteriorization"

> One client Jan (not her real name) reported that her friend, who is also my
> client, is continuing to use solo a process I ran on her at the end of her
> last session two weeks ago when she went exterior as a result of the GPM
> Clearing session she ran.  The process is the "leapfrog exteriorization"
> process, as Filbert calls it.  Jan said that her friend is using that
> process to successfully keep herself exterior if she ever feels like she's
> interiorizing again.  The process is composed of two commands to E.P.  run
> 1,2,1,2,1,2....
> 1. spot 3 spots in the room.
> 2. spot 3 spots in your body.
> 
> Robert

And on 30 Mar he posted on subject "session on daughter"

> Last night my daughter (who is 19) called me for a cleanup session.  I
> hadn't given her one for several months and she had been feeling the
> pressures of life more and more.  We did the session over the phone, though
> she prefers face to face, and I hope it's because she gets to hug me at the
> end of the session. 
> 
> I ran dianetics lock scanning on her (my standard life clean-up type
> session).  The commands were:
> 
> 1. Move to the beginning of that time period (it was several months). 
> 
> 2. From that point forward scan through all the incidents where you
> encountered stress.
> 
> Each of the tougher incidents I took up individually with R3R (standard
> dianetics) as she told me about them, then I would continue with the lock
> scanning.  The whole thing took several passes through.  I ended off after
> she said she felt completely clean of all that period.  
> 
> Then I had her scan through the session a couple of times.
> 
> Next I did the usual two havingness processes: "Create a pleasant scene"
> (the alternative is "put out 8 anchor points") and "collapse it into the
> body"; and "spot an object" (in the room or environment), both processes to
> a completion.  
> 
> Then I decided to run the leapfrog exteriorization process on her ("spot 3
> spots on your body; spot 3 spots in the room").  After a couple of commands
> she started complaining that she felt real bad again and asked what I was
> trying to do to her.  She accused me of experimenting on her with oddball
> processes and told me she hated the process and would never let me audit her
> again.   All this time I was trying to calm her down and proceed with the
> process.   Then she hung up on me.  About 15 minutes later she called me
> back and said in an angry tone that she was still feeling real bad and
> wanted to finish the process, so we proceeded to continue.  During the
> process I saw several moderate blowdowns on the meter.  Then I saw a very
> long blowdown and asked her how things were going and she said, in an angry,
> grudging tone that yeah,  she was feeling good again.  So I took that as a
> completion.  The process took under 10 minutes while the complaints took
> about 25 minutes.  
> 
> We then ended off and hung up the phone.  I then left to go to the store,
> and in the meantime she called  and left a message on my answering machine.
> This morning I listened to the message said in a happy toned voice which
> follows:
> 
> "......  I took a shower afterwards and I feel really good, and that was a
> great session and I really loved that drill.  It really did a lot to me, I
> can realize it now.  All of a sudden I'm in the shower just laughing,
> everything is so clear, but right when I feel bad is when I think negative
> and kind of catch myself feeling negative and it stops.  <beep> " (The tape
> stops at this point.)
> 
> Incidently, lately she'd been telling me how she used to feel clear and how
> she'd been wanting to feel that way again.  My philosophy is still "Be
> careful what you wish for...."
> 
> Robert
> http://users.ctinet.net/voltr 


First let me thank you for the session reports, which are a big
help in estimating what works and what is being done with the
tech.

The "leapfrog" exteriorization process is indeed one of the best.
I put it in both self clearing and super scio and it is on the
old OT 6, and Ron even uses it on a group processing tape, I
think it was in the 5th ACC in 1954.

It is both easy and effective.

But there is one liability to exteriorization drills and that
is the ext/int phenomena.  I think that that is what you hit
in the above session with your daughter.  People can push
through this and its not as deadly as the org makes out, but
it can make an ext drill a bit restimulative, and you may have
similar troubles with ext drills on her in the future.

The solution is to handle interiorization.

The standard tech way is to do the ext/int rundown, and you
could adjust that for your style of incident running.  Basically
you just want to run out incidents of interiorizing, by whatever
means works.  Or running out incidents of making others
interiorize.  That might actually be more important.

But there is also a trick for handling this on the 3rd ACC.
It is to drill interiorizing and exteriorizing so as to flatten
the button.  That can be done with no exterior perception or
reality on exteriorization and will also tend to turn on perception
as a side effect.  

That is the first process in the chapter on Exteriorization in the 
self clearing book.  I put it first specifically to knock out
any ext/int difficulties before giving people processes like
the leapfrog one which usually work spectacularly but sometimes
turn on troubles like the above.

See the begining of Chapter 11 for more details on running it.

I don't think that ext processes should be avoided just because
there is an occasional ext/int difficulty.  But you should
have the remedies at your fingertips just in case some
trouble does come up.


Affinity,

The Pilot


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


 Subj : Super Scio Tech - To NDC on Body Moulding


TO NDC ON BODY MOULDING

On 10 Mar 98, "N. D. Culver" <ndc@alum.mit.edu> responded to
my post on "Super Scio Tech - THE GPM RESEARCH LINE"

> Pilot wrote:
> > .... But it makes me think that the valid
> >patterns are by 2s or by 5s rather than by 4s.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >Jean Kennedy letter:
> >
> > > was a steady feeling of cycling backwards (to
> > > the start of body moulding) and one's habit ..

For anyone who doesn't have my earlier post, this is from
a 1963 HCOB in the tech volumes that I was quoting, being
a letter that Jean wrote to Ron and which he in turn quoted
in the bulletin.
 
> I'm not sure if it will be helpful to anyone but:
> 
> The human form body moulding is based on a pattern
> of nested 7s.
> 
> ndc
 

Thank You.  Maybe it will help.  I'm glad for the input.

But I'm not certain what she was looking at when she said 
"body moulding", nor am I certain what you consider it to be, 
nor am I sure if you are both talking about the same thing.

And my attention goes to something when I consider the idea
of "body moulding", but is it the same thing as either you
or Jean?

Unfortunately, its the kind of vague lable that might apply
to a lot of different things on the track.

I know of no other reference to the term anywhere within
LRH tech.  Does anybody know of one, or of a Freezone 
reference?

There also seem to have been 7s in the original clearing
course platen.

When you say "nested" 7s, I assume that you mean a fractile
pattern, correct?  Function of ( Function of ( X ) ).

Is this just your own knowingness, or do you have other
sources?

What do you get on this "body moulding" as far as what
it is and where it fits into things?

I don't mean to be badgering you about this.  It's just
that I see this as a real tantalizing bit of string that
needs to be pulled on to see where it leads.


Affinity,

The Pilot


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


 Subj : Super Scio - To NyghtOne on Body Clearing


TO NYGHTONE ON BODY CLEARING

On 14 Mar 98, Austill <junior@mcn.net> asked on subject
"NyghtOne wishes the Pilots advice."


> Dear Pilot,
> 
> I am one of your many admirers, I am doing research into mind clearing
> as well as body clearing. I don't know if you've seen my web page or
> not, but it is http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Spa/5049
> and gives the general jift of what I am trying to accomplish.  I was
> just wondering if in your years of experience you have run across
> something else that could help me out that doesn't involve eating all
> raw foods, LOL.  I would appreciate any advice that you have time to
> give and I check every one of your posts to the freezone.  Thanks either
> way.
> 
> NyghtOne
> nyghtone@hotmail.com


I took a look at your website and it is very nice.

I'm not an expert in the bodily areas, partially because of not
wanting to validate the body too much or go too heavily into
agreement with it.

I would suggest that you look a bit into Homeopathy and read
a good book or two on it.  They specialize in getting poisons
out of the system.  I have used a professional homeopath twice
and in one case it was miraculously effective, and in the other
case the treatment had no effect whatsoever.  So sometimes they
can really hit the mark but not always.

I agree with you that the purif is a partial handling, only
addressing particular things that Ron was aiming at.  Also,
there are some potential problems with the high niacin dosages.

You might also want to read up a bit on biochemistry.  Not
pharmasuticals specifically but rather the general chemical
processes that occur in the bloodstream and so forth.

Adele Davis is also good to read.

And don't forget Linus Pauling.


Best,

The Pilot


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


 Subj : Super Scio - Answering Paul on CofS Motivators 


ANWERING PAUL SMITH ON COFS MOTIVATORS

On 18 Mar 98, psmith@direct.ca (paul smith) asked on subject
"XENU and the art of outin motivators."


> Hi Pilot!(Keep your head down!)
> 
> You were predicting that motivators would catch up to the Church?
> 
> love, Paul.


It looks like they are sinking fast.

See "THE PICKETS OF DOOM" and "SAVE THE TECH BEFORE ITS TOO LATE"
which I just posted.

I'm not sure what's going on at the top right now, but I feel
like something is happening.

Certainly the phone calls and promo to get existing OTs to
come back in for more stuff are getting more and more frantic.

At the same time, both I and friends have seen the most
incredible delays in stale dated material which shows up
in the mail announcing events long past and so forth.  It
is likely that promo pieces are held until there is enough
gross income (GI) to send them out and so the low income
makes them get mailed late.

And the news stories keep hitting, but I really wish that 
there were more freezone exposure in them.  That might
rescue loyalists instead of pushing suicidal tendencies
among disillusioned ex-members.

The internet web pages are likely to be a terrible foot bullet.
It encourages members to get online, and at a minimum that
opens them to freezone connections.

The real joke of that is that the Old Timers Network (OTN)
had been trying to put up a really effective website
for over a year now (they are capable of putting up a real
one that would have good stories and real communication)
and they haven't been able to get Issue Authority.  What
a laugh.

I'm gonna keep my head down for awhile yet, but its starting
to feel like I'm hiding from a dead person.  Then again,
zombies are the guys that chase people around in the
horror movies.

Thank you for reposting my stuff to clear-l.


Best,

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/ or www.aha.ru/~espinol

All of this week's posts will be collected in Super Scio Archives
#28 and #29 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.

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



