Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology
From: pilot@hiddenplace.com (The Pilot)
Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 32 - JUNE 98 PILOT POSTS TO ARS/ACT
Date: 12 Jun 1998  14:00:27


POST32.txt 

SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 32 - JUNE 98 PILOT POSTS TO ARS/ACT


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

Contents:

 subj: Super Scio - MASTER LIST OF LRH TAPES 0/3
 subj: Super Scio - LRH EXPLAINS WHY OSA IS SO MEAN
 subj: Super Scio Humor - Code Of A Fanatic
 subj: Super Scio - To Deana Holmes
 subj: Super Scio - Answering Hilary's Questions To The Freezone
 subj: Super Scio - Ralph's New Scientology Helpline
 subj: Super Scio - To LittleLRH
 subj: Super Scio - To Wolf On Meters Etc.
 subj: Super Scio - ANOTHER MESSAGE TO ROD FLETCHER
 subj: Super Scio - Delaware Street Invalidates LRH
 subj: Super Scio - Publishing Plans (attn Ivy, Fza, etc.)
 subj: Super Scio - Remembering Raymond Kemp
 subj: Super Scio - The 5th Invader (attn Paul & D)
 subj: Super Scio - The Show Me Process (attn Sarah)
 subj: Super Scio Tech - Self Clearing Ch 3 Improvement
 subj: Super Scio - Dichotomies And Reality Generators


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

 subj: Super Scio - MASTER LIST OF LRH TAPES 0/3


MASTER LIST OF LRH TAPES 0/3

The freezone could use its own super duper list of LRH
Tape lectures with all the data on it instead of the
shallow materials list that is at the org's website.

Especially with tape transcripts begining to show up
on the internet.

Some of the critics might like a copy too, especially
as it names confidential lectures.

It is around 220K in size so I'm posting it to ARS/ACT
in three parts.

I'm hopeing that fza.org might combine them together and
make it available as a file for downloading.

I'm not including it in the archive post because it
is too big.

For people who only get clear-l and avoid newgroups, note
that you can set your newsreader to only pull the headers
so that you can select messages for downloading instead
of pulling the entire feed.

It took a hell of a lot of work and it might have some
flaws.  As a side effect, I ended up listening to 
dozens of tapes in the last few weeks, digging out
old reels I hadn't heard in decades and so forth.

Here is the introductory section.

----


MASTER LIST OF LRH TAPED LECTURES:

A thorough study of LRH materials is an important aspect of
the Scientology religion for many of those who practice it.

Although the orthodox CofS provides a list of LRH materials
by year at their website, the list is incomplete because it
omits materials that they consider confidential or otherwise
wish to hide, and it also is missing data.

It does not include the lecture series designations and tape
numberings that are needed to tie old and new tape sets
together nor does it show various renamings and repackagings.
As such, it is inadequate for use in researching or cataloging
old tapes or indexing a tape collection.

Also, anyone who does have an extensive tape collection needs
a simple text file which they can download to their own
computer and annotate as desired.  I have been handwriting
annotations on the old flag master list (source #1 below)
for many years in this manner and I needed to do this
computerized version for my own use and wished to make it
available to others so that they could benifit from my
work instead of having to repete it.

So here it is, the most complete list of LRH tapes that
exists outside of Gold's hidden archives.  I'm sure that
they could do better than I have, but of course modern
policy is to inhibit communications so we end up with
duplicate work.

----

Best,

The Pilot

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


 subj: Super Scio - LRH EXPLAINS WHY OSA IS SO MEAN


LRH EXPLAINS WHY OSA IS SO MEAN


LRH SAYS THAT IF YOU SEC CHECK PEOPLE TOO MUCH WITHOUT
RUNNING OUT ANY MOTIVATORS, THEY WILL GET MEANER AND MEANER.

This is from an LRH tape lecture of 24 July 1952, titled 
"E-meter behavior versus flow lines and patterns".  This is 
one of the tech 88 supplementary lectures and the transcript
can be found in new R&D volume 11.  This specific quote is on
page 129. 

----

Begin LRH quote.

"You can run overt act, overt act, overt act ... Oh he just
gets meaner and meaner and meaner and meaner!"

"You keep running these overt acts out and you're leaving
unexplained motivators there.  I mean, he's got motivators he's
never used.  You're giving him this tremendous supply of
motivators.  And, "Look at all these things that happened to me.
I can do anything I want to anybody".  And he goes out and
he bawls out his boss and he bawls out this guy and that
guy and then he sees people come into the parking
intersection, he's liable to bump their bumpers and so
forth.  And he's talking around mean, ornery, he gets
sarcastic".

"Boy, you're wondering, "Is this what it's like bringing
somebody up the Tone Scale?"  No, No, that's what it's like
by taking out all the overt acts a fellow has done and leave
the motivators in place: he just gets meaner and meaner."

"If you take the motivators out he gets more and more
pathetic, more and more pathetic, you see?  He's got to
have more and more motivators.  And when you take the overt
acts out, he gets meaner and meaner, and meaner and meaner.
He gets ornerier.  He becomes capable of more overt acts."

"So you've got to have a balance there".


End of LRH quote

------

Anyone whose familiar with auditing the grades knows that
we balance the two sides in processing.  You run things
that you've done and things that were done to you, back
and forth.

Even grade 2 which is aimed at overts switches off
between the two sides.

The only exception is those damn sec checks.  And
that is mostly done to staff, and it is especially
done to Sea Org and OSA.

It makes them mean and nasty.

This really explains a lot.

Thank you Ron.


Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj: Super Scio Humor - Code Of A Fanatic


HUMOR - CODE OF A FANATIC

This just in from the Loyal Officers hiding in the 4th dimension.
They were telepathically trying to pick up the recent internet 
posting of old tech volume 6 which contains HCOPL OF 14 OCTOBER 1968R
REVISED 1 JANUARY 1976 titled "The Auditor's Code" but instead
they got this!

  HCOPL OF 14 OCT 1968R 

  REVISED 1 JAN 1990

  THE CODE OF A FANATIC


1. As a fanatic, I promise never to invalidate anything that
my leaders tell me to believe.

2. As a fanatic, I promise never to evaluate anything for myself
but only to believe what I am told.

3. As a fanatic, I promise to administer only standard
footbullets to myself in the standard way.

4. As a fanatic, I promise to spend all my time at the org and
never ever go bowling.

5. As a fanatic, I promise to work night and day even if I am
tired and hungry.

6. As a fanatic, I promise to enjoy eating rice and beans no
matter how overrun I get on them.

7. As a fanatic, I promise not to permit anybody to get audited 
unless they pay huge bucks to the org, and to ensure that they
then only get sec checking and not real auditing.

8. As a fanatic, I promise never to sympathize with anybody who
has been hurt or mistreated or taken advantage of, especially
if this was done by the org.

9. As a fanatic, I promise to never let anybody act on thier own
determinism but to insist that they only follow command intention
and the orders of international management.

10. As a fanatic, I promise never to try and leave the org or
do anything to change or improve my life.

11. As a fanatic, I promise never to get angry with top management
but to swallow anything they feel like dishing out to me.

12. As a fanatic, I promise never to use any process I might
accidentally read in the LRH materials because most of them
are old and we don't do that anymore and the few that are
still in use must be paid for with big bucks.

13. As a fanatic, I promise never to stop doing anything that
my seniors have ordered no matter how stupid it seems or
how many times it has failed.

14. As a fanatic, I promise never to grant beingness because
beings are individuals and do not make good robots.

15. As a fanatic, I promise never to acknowledge that anything 
ever came into Scientology from any other practice or was 
discovered by anybody other than Ron. 

16. As a fanatic, I promise to suppress all free and open
communication on the subject and insist that communication
can only take place after properly aquiring issue authority.

17. As a fanatic, I promise never to let anybody make any
meaningful comments about Scientology but only to permit
entheta communications such as dead agenting critics.

18. As a fanatic, I promise to continue attacking critics
as needed until there is nobody left on earth who is capable
of thinking a free thought.

19. As a fanatic, I promise never to actually study or listen
to LRH materials because I might get misunderstoods but only
to do what Int Management says is LRH tech.

20. As a fanatic, I promise to insist that all the mistakes
made by the org are imaginary.

21. As a fanatic, I promise to insist that standard tech is
absolutely right and never to look at the preclear or what
is happening to him.

22. As a fanatic, I promise to gather secrets from my preclear
and report them to ethics and be helpful to OSA when they
need to cull pc folders for dirt.

23. As a fanatic, I promise to keep anybody from ever getting 
any refunds because they are responsible for the condition
they are in and it doesn't matter what we did, they deserved
it anyway.

24. As a fanatic, I promise to help sue anybody who posts
Nots 34 or any other confidential materials to the internet
and never to let anybody know what the tech is.

25. As a fanatic, I promise to stamp out all practice of
Scientology or auditing and attack anyone who posts tech
to the net.

26. As a fanatic, I promise to refuse to permit any being to 
be physically injured, violently damaged, operated on or killed 
in the name of "mental treatment" unless that treatment is
being done on the Introspection Rundown at Flag.

27. As a fanatic, I promise not to permit sexual liberties or 
violation of David Miscaviage, especially by Grady Ward or
Garry Scarf.

28. As a fanatic, I promise to refuse to admit to the ranks of 
practitioners any being who is capable of thinking for themselves.

29. As a fanatic, I promise to disconnect from anybody that
the org doesn't like even if they are friends, family, or
people who have saved my life.

30. As a fanatic, I promise to make all my fellow staff members
into fanatics too and suppress any attempt at free thoughts
that they might have.

31. As a fanatic, I promise to give all my money to the org
and to get everybody else's money and give that to the org too.

32. As a fanatic, I promise to stamp out free speach on
the internet because people will say bad things and therefore
must never be allowed to communicate.

33. As a fanatic, I promise to stamp out religious freedom
because nobody must believe anything except what Int Management
tells them.

..

The list goes on and on.  Fantics need many more instructions
than thinking beings.

At the end is the final promise:

666. As a fanatic, I promise to thank Ron for anything good
that happens to me because all good really stems from Ron.

Thank You Ron.

------

Those wraskally loyalist officers have yet again tricked
me into joking and degrading.  Shamfull Sakriledge.  I'd
better start Reforming.

Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj: Super Scio - To Deana Holmes


TO DEANA HOLMES

On 11 Jun 98, mirele@newsguy.com (Deana Holmes) posted on
subject "Going on a long vacation or leaving permanently...who knows?"


> Frankly, I am very annoyed and for the first time in three-plus years
> of activity on a.r.s I am taking a vacation.  I might also be leaving
> permanently.  There's a number of reasons for this:
> 
> I don't appreciate being called a cunt by Martin Hunt.
> 
> I don't appreciate being second-guessed by Tilman Hausherr.  
> 
> I don't appreciate being called weak (on IRC) by Grady Ward.
> 
> (As for gunbunny's remarks about medication, that is *quite* true.
> But gunbunny doesn't count because he's shilling for Scientology.)
> 
> It's as if what I do doesn't matter anymore.  What matters is being
> sued, apparently.
> 
> It's as if discretion (at the very least) is not the better part of
> valour.
> 
> Well, you all can just bite and devour each other; I can see that I'm
> not welcome here or on IRC.
> 
> I'll decide later whether or not I'm going to take down my web page.
> 
> Deana


Well done and helpful things are often avidly read and appreciated
but are not really acknowledged adequately.

So let me say thank you.

And I really hope that you leave the website up and come back
soon.


Best,

The Pilot


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


 subj: Super Scio - Answering Hilary's Questions To The Freezone


ANSWERING HILARY'S QUESTIONS TO THE FREEZONE

In mid May, Hilary B Osborne posted some questions for her
religion class.

Unfortunately, she didn't know that most of the apparent
dialogue on ACT is actually the feed from Clear-L, and few
people noticed her post.  And those that did reacted with
worry instead of taking an opportunity to engage in some
pleasant communication.

Since the questions seem harmless, I would think that people
could just answer them without worrying about whether or not
this was for real or some kind of troll.  One could always
skip a question that seemed dangerous.

In general its good to tell one's stories and get things onto
the net.  And its silly to live in fear.  One can be carefull
and take sensible precautions (if one needs to) without having
to be paranoid about everything.

I'm sorry that I didn't catch this one earlier, but I've been
quite busy.  Its probably too late for Hilary's purposes, but
I thought I would answer anyway, both because they seemed like
good questions and to serve as a reference for future researchers.


> [posted to ars and (I hope) act.  My server doesn't get act, so
> please reply by email and/or in ars.  I will read act when I get a
> chance to use dejanews.]

If needed, you can pick up ACT from newsact.lightlink.com.  One
of Homer's excellent freebies for the freezone.


> As part of a religion class, I am writing a paper on the Freezone.
> The best way to get accurate information is to ask those involved.
>
> FYI, I am not now nor have ever been a Scientologist, nor even
> interested in getting involved with Scientology.  I have no
> religious background.  I try to remain objective when studying
> religions and philosophies.  I believe that as long as no one
> is harmed, people can believe/do whatever they want.

An admirable attitude.

> The following is a list of questions that I would like answered.
>
> Additional information would also be welcome.
> --
> -Were you ever a member of the Church of Scientology?

Yes.

> If yes:
> -How long were you a Church member?

Officially I still am.  Its about 33 years now.


> -When did you leave (around the time of significant events?)?

I haven't actually left.

But there is a point where I became unrestrained and that was
when Ron died back in the mid eighties.

Up until then I always had the hope that he would take action
and straighten things out.

Its not that I felt that he was perfect or that all the wrongs 
were due to his subordinates.  Many of the mistakes were his.
But I felt that this was due to his having taken on a nearly
impossible task.

So there was always the hope that he would fix things.

Once he was gone, there was nobody left at the top that I
trusted and it seemed like the org would just continue to sink.

For me there was no choice left but to take personal responsibility
and not depend on anybody else to handle the situation.  With
hindsight I would say that I should have made that decision 
much earlier.

> -Why did you leave--what was the final straw?

Besides the above, there was the endless overrun that Flag
was pushing on OT 7 (solo nots).  From what I could see,
there was a terrible lack of understanding of the tech on
the part of the highest case supervisors at Flag.


> ---
> -Are you a member of any organized Freezone group, such as the FZA?

No.  But of course fza.org is being a wonderful host and really
spreading my writings around.


> -What of Hubbard's do you accept and which do you reject?
> Specifically: Dianetics?  OT levels (which ones?)?  Specific books/
> policy letters?

I am learly of all policy letters.  The org works in such a 
backwards manner that the policies they operate on must be flawed.
So on these I expect each one individually to prove its worth
rather than assuming that they are all correct.  I like some
and discard others.  Basically I have no trust in this area.

For tech on the other hand, my assumption is that Ron is
generally correct and I trust Ron's judgement in this area.
So I only discard a technical point if there is significant
evidence to the contrary.  My main differences with the org
are in areas where Ron said something one way in the early
days and then said something else later.  The org always takes
the later statement as correct and I often think that he was
right the first time.

So when there is a conflict, such as the different definitions
of clear that were used over the years, I examine each in the 
light of real results rather than assuming that the later one 
is correct.  On that basis, I think that his 1958 definition
of clear was correct and the mid sixties definition is some
kind of sales PR that has never held up in practice.


> -Is there a point on the bridge at which you stop, or do you use
> material from different parts?

I'll use anything that works.  I have a preferance for the
materials of 1952 to 1954, but the modern stuff has its points
too.

> -Do you use a "grade" system, wherein certain steps must be taken in
> order, or is it more freeform?

Definitely freeform.  That is the 1950s approach.  Anything
goes.  The only limitation is what the person can do, not
what certificate they hold.


> -If you perform auditing sevices, how much do you charge, relative
> to the amount the Church charges?   (Same amount?  Half?  None?)

I don't charge.  I put my materials out for free, although I do
expect that someday I'll collect normal book royalties.

Right now I only audit to help friends, and I don't charge for
that.  If I was auditing professionally, I would charge less 
than the org, they are way out of line.

> --
> -What was you religious background, if any?

Lutheran in theory.  But my family was heavily into metaphysics.
Things like Science of Mind, Rosicrucian drills, etc.


> -If you were religious, do you still hold those beliefs?

Thanks to the mixture of Lutheranism and metaphysics, I basically
grew up with a very Gnostic Christian exposure and I pretty
much retain that.  I think of Christ as a great teacher and
seeker after truth who found kinship with the Universal
Mind (to put this in pre-Scientology terms).

> -Do you consider Scientology, as you practice it, to be a religion?

Definitely.

> --
> -Have you noticed a significant demographic difference between the CoS
> and the Freezone?  (I.e., are Freezoners generally older/younger?)

My guess would be that Freezoners are older.  At least any who were
in CofS are obviously older when they leave it than when they joined.


> -If you are anonymous on the net, what is the reason?

First, I don't trust OSA to leave me alone if my identity were
exposed.  I think that unobtrusive freezoners would not have to
worry, but I say a lot and that makes me an important target.

Second, I want the CofS to reform and I have more leverage if
I remain a member.  If they find out who I am they would toss
me out immediately.

Third, there are all the people who would be asked to disconnect
from me.  Some are themselves reformers and would not want
to be put on the spot.  Others are people whom I would feel
bad about loosing.

And of course there is the practical factor that being
mysterious does help me get attention and spread the word.
I think that it is shamefull to block the tech with the
foolish confidentiality just to generate an attractive
mystery.  But a harmless mystery like "who am I" is lots of
fun.

And it is very annoying to OSA, which is also a plus.


> -Were you ever or are you afraid of Fair Game or other harrassment by
> the CoS or others?

Certainly.

> --
> I am most interested in doctrinal and practice differences between
> Freezone and Church.  Importance of wordclearing, adherence to policy,
> hierarchy, etc..

There is no single Freezone standard.  Acceptance of varying
technologies is probably the basic difference.

Personally, I don't care for many of the policies, and I put far
less importance on wordclearing.


> I know the Freezone is at most loosely organized, and that you can
> speak only for yourself or a small group.
>
> If you know of anyone else I should contact, please let me know.
> Feel free to forward this to other Freezoners.
>
> I also appreciate additional thoughts and comments.  My questions
> are by no means complete.
>
> Thank you.
>
> -HiLary Osborne


I see Scientology as a Gnostic religion where one is expected
to seek truth rather than obey authorities.

Ron was very anti-authoritarian in the old days and I think that
he was right.  Many of his early rants against authority can
be applied squarely against the modern CofS.


Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj: Super Scio - Ralph's New Scientology Helpline


RALPH'S NEW SCIENTOLOGY HELPLINE

Ralph Hilton posted:

> Tell the staff that you care enough to give them a home while 
> they find a new job. Tell them that you will help them do their 
> OT levels and auditing if that is what they want. Tell them that 
> the OT levels are free on the net. Or if they want to leave scn 
> altogether then you'll help them with that.
>
> Tell them that the OT levels are on the net and they have a
> place to stay for a month or 2 while they get a job and sort 
> themselves out.
>
> The key thing for many staff is that they have no friends if 
> they leave. That is how they are controlled.


To which inducto@aol.com (Inducto) replied

: I think Ralph has really hit the nail on the head here.  The one 
: thing that would probably shake the CoS most -- and the critics 
: who like to just attack and criticize should listen to this if 
: they are really committed to doing what is going to be effective 
: in causing reforms and throwing out the current abusive CoS 
: regime - is to have some real options that staff and members can
: see that they can go to if they leave CoS.  This is why the CoS 
: aparatchiks will never mention reform, the freezone (it's always 
: "squirrels"), and especially not alt.clearing.technology.
: 
: This should be posted as a new subject, and I hope that Pilot will 
: add his comments.
: 
: I.

And another post from Ralph on this -

Ralph Hilton wrote:
> 
> 2 things are needed -
> 
> 1. People willing to help those leaving staff in Scientology.
> 
> 2. Those willing to courier the message to staffs.
> 
> When you are next picketting it would be good to be able to say - 
> yes - there  are several people willing to help accomodate 
> Scientologists who wish to leave -  here are their numbers.
> 
> Perhaps Roland would do a flyer if we can get a few people willing to put
> themselves on the line.

To which Roland <roland.rashleigh-berry@virgin.net> replied

# Yes. I'll do it. We will need a flyer for each country or part
# of the US. That being the case then that leaves plenty of room
# for Success Stories of people who have left and joined the
# freezone as well perhaps. Having said that I would not carry
# anything that puts people into the hands of another cult, such
# as Christianity. It would be a case of "out of the frying pan,
# into the fire". I think when people get out they don't want to
# be put under any pressure (they certainly wouldn't like my ECT
# therapy I have designed). I imagine they might even do silly
# little things like word-clearing and such like until they can
# find their feet again and start thinking for themselves. So it
# would be best (in my opinion) to allow them a half-way stage.
# 
# Roland

 
Let me add my support and say that Ralph has come up with an
excellent idea and has already begun to implement it with
a helpline section at his website.

I might suggest that he have an option for anonymous volenteers
who would be known to him as co-ordinator but who would not
identify themselves publicly to avoid CofS harassment.

One of the important ethical agreements would be that the
excaping staff member would not be pressured as to what he
decides or pushed into getting involved in a specific
freezone group or practice.

I do think that these people should be given access to
the internet and allowed to read pro, anti, freezone, and
whatever else and come to their own decisions.

One might even have volenteers who are specifically in a
fence sitting postion themselves but are willing to help
so that someone who is very leary of "squirrels" could
ask for such as situation.

Some would otherwise be afraid of having to make an
irrevokable decision.

I know some who are soured on the organization but not
officially out.  Staying with such a person would not
automatically put the staff member in the postion of
being connected to a "suppressive person" and yet such
people would not be inclined to push the ex-staffmember
back in.

Best,

The Pilot

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


 subj: Super Scio - To LittleLRH


TO LittleLRH

On 6 Jun 98, "an auditor" <tech@theauditor.net> posted
on subject "LRH AND MP3s"

> ok guys  here is what i have got : exteriorization and the space phenomena
> series, secrets of the mest universe series, the FPRD lectures, state of man
> congress series, ability congress tapes series, Games and the power to play
> series, and the human evaluation lectures.
> 
> Now these is the special offer: i am not selling them but just giving it
> away in mp3, the only problem is : i need a tutorial to teach me how to put
> a tape inti mp3 format and then how to post it to alt.binaries.scientology.
> 
> As a true believer of the free tech i am willing to post them and hope
> others will follow so that we can all share the same free tech.
> 
> much love,
> littleLRH


Exteriorization and the Phenomena of Space is the 1st American ACC
(see the tape master list I put out).  It is a huge set comparable
in size to the Philadelphia Doctorate course.

The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd ACCs are the basic theory underlying the
self clearing book.  Basically I took the modern discoveries on
grades and so forth and retrofit them into the early ACC style
and combined them with the OT drilling to make something that
a beginner could do solo.

I would really like it if people had access to these lectures.

It's a huge amount of material.  Probably 4 MB of text for the
1st ACC transcripts.

I don't know much about MPeg3.  It would be good if somebody
could post some helpful information.

If you post binaries, be sure to cross post to alt.binaries.slack
like zenon did on his second try.  I couldn't find all of the
tech volumes on ABS because there are too few open servers
that carry it and it doesn't propogate well by itself.  The
cross post lets it propogate and there are open NNTP servers
that carry slack (which don't carry abs) that made all the
tech volumes available to those who looked hard.

I would suggest first scanning in the transcripts and posting
them to ARS and ACT as text since the zenon books and the
FZ bible posts really made it around while the tech volumes
on abs were rare and obscure.  I think that ARS would be happy
to see these transcripts.  It would be 84 posts (1 per tape)
of about 50 K each.

But please cover your ass and do this anonymously.

And put religious freedom disclamers at the begining like
FZ Bible does.

Affinity,

The Pilot

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


 subj: Super Scio - To Wolf On Meters Etc.


TO WOLF ON METERS ETC.

On 2 Jun 98, mikedwolf@rpf.org (Mike de Wolf) asked on
subject "TO THE PILOT"


> Hello Pilot!
> 
> I've been reading quite a bit from your archives recently, and I find
> your posting quite fascinating.  Unfortunately, it seems somewhat
> insulting to say that for a Scientologist, you are quite a
> freethinker!

Yes, it has all gone backwards.  The CofS changed from a freethinking
anti-authoritarian group into an unthinking group that worships
Ron as the ultimate authority.

I guess I was just backwards and refused to change direction with
the rest of the herd.

A slogan like "Think for Yourself" would really have been true
in the old days.

 
> Here a few questions on issues that I have not seen addressed in your
> posts:
> 
> First, what is your theory on how the E-Meter works?  Scientology
> critics have said that it is merely hand hand perspiration or subtle
> changes in the PC's grasp that causes the needle to move. 

Absolutely not.

That one is easy to see if you do some e-meter drills and play
around with it a bit.

But doing them in a loose and experimental manner is much better
than the way they teach them on CofS courses these days.  You
should try experiments and play around.

You can see the effects of sweat.  It reduces the resistance and
therefore drives the TA (Tone Arm) lower.  But as the hands
sweat, you get a slow shift that is too gradual to see as
a needle reaction.  Going from dry to wet hands (clutching the
cans and working in a hot courseroom encourages sweat) over
a period of, let's say, 15 minutes, will gradually shift the
TA from (for example) 2.2 to 1.9, and then you take a towel and
wipe your hands and the TA is back at 2.2.

One friend alternately wet and dried his hands (using water, 
not as conductive as sweat - salt water would have been better) 
picking up the cans each time to observe the effect (a slight
change in TA position up and down).  Experimenting like this
used to be encouraged and now is forbidden.

As to grasping the cans, body reactions look different than
mental reactions.

One of the meter drills was to work extensively with body
reactions until you could tell the difference.

Good students, looking at the meter as they coach somebody,
work extensively with trying to affect the meter both physically
and mentally.  Usually the coach is holding the cans and
trying to produce reactions for the student who is operating
the meter.

There are all sorts of effects and some of them are very
distinctly mental while others are physical.

If you are doing this yourself, solo, there is obviously
nobody else there doing any kind of chicanery and you know
if you're holding the cans steady or relaxing your grip or
whatever.

On rare occasions I have gotten spectacularaly large reads
on myself that would shift the TA position (more than one
dial wide on the needle even at the lowest sensativity).
Shifting between 4.0 and 2.0 for example, implies an
immediate resistance change from 25,000 to 5,000 ohms.
Specifically, this kind of thing happened a few times on
implant platens and in that case the item would continue
to react by thinking the same thought so that you could
see the reaction over and over again until it stopped
reacting (usually 3 repeats).

So for example, I would think the item (maybe something
out of clearing course or OT 2 or my own platens) and
the needle would take off like a rocket and you would
have to swing the TA down fast to catch it at the bottom,
less than a second for the whole reaction.  One would see
the characteristic curl of a rocket read at the bottom.
Then it would drift up (not spectacularly fast, but 
moving steadily so that you would be waiting for it
to stabilize) and over the course of about 7 or 8 
seconds would eventually get back up to 4.0 and come
to rest.  You pause for a moment, assure yourself that
nothing further is going on and that the needle is
just sitting there (moving around a little) at 4.0
(about 25,000 ohms) and then you would look at the
platen and think the exact same thought (the item)
again, and bang, the needle would dive and so forth
exactly as before.

These kind of reactions were extremely rare (usually you
just get small falls) but it happened often enough that I 
might get one like this every few hours of auditing.  Of 
course eventually the platen flattens and just FNs (floating 
needle) thereafter.

Another interesting point is that on oppose type platens
that have the items in pairs, the second item in the
pair will react exactly the same way as the first one
in almost all cases.  Ron says this and I have found it to 
be true in practice.  If (fake example) "to create cats" 
reacts with a 2 division wide rocket read and the reaction 
repeats exactly 3 times before it FNs, then "to destory cats" 
reacts exactly the same way with the same number of repeats 
before it FNs with only a slight variation in TA position 
which might be due to shifting can grip or sweat.

An ordinary multi-meter does not provide the ability to
focus in on a tiny window in the range to see what would
be minisule reactions.

But there is a phenomena called a floating TA which is
a floating needle that is so wide that you have to
shift the tone arm around to keep it on the dial.
In other words, it might be floating between 5,000
and 12,000 ohms rather than the usual case where the
float might only be between (guessing) 6,000 and 6,200
ohms.  That reaction is large enough to see on an
ordinary multimeter.  I tried that, grabing the probes
at a time when I did have a floating TA on the meter
and you really can see it as a tiny FN on an ordinary
multimeter dial.

 
> Since you believe that needle movements are valid measurements, how do
> you think restimulation alters the electrical conductivity of the
> human body so that the meter can detect it?

That is a damn good question.

In the early tapes of 1953 and 54, there are mistakes and
discoveries.  The meters turn out to be reacting a bit 
differently than the therories that they were built on.

For example, the tone arm was supposed to measure the person's
tone and they were trying to make it go up to 4.0.  There
are lectures where Ron is doing experiments (demonstration
sessions) and saying hey, this is working backwards or Volney 
(Matheson) doesn't know what he just built.

So the thing got pounded around on a practical basis rather
than being clearly understood from the begining.

It makes a lousy lie detector.  But it seems good for finding
areas where there is some mental charge that can be handled.

If the current were just physically flowing through the mass of
the body as if the flesh were a huge resistor I don't think
it could react this way.  So the effects must be more subtile
and field dependent.

You can affect TV reception not just by touching the antenna
but also by moving your hand around the antenna without 
contact, therefore there is a field effect present.  My
guess would be that the field is responsive to (or generated
by?) thought.

I'm inclined to think of theta and energy fields used by
it to control the body.  But it is also concievable to
have such a thing based on the electrical (?) nature of
the nervous system.

Of course I'm just speculating here.  There are observed
phenomena which are useful and there is, as always, an
inadequate amount of scientific work in the area.

 
> Also, since solo auditing is done with two cans separated by an
> insulator held in one hand, I would expect electricity to follow the
> shortest path, namely through the hand.   In that case, how does
> restimulation of a body thetan located in the right knee affect the
> conductivity of the left hand?

Another good question.

Obviously the body thetan can't.  It's the person himself who
is reading on the meter.

If someone writes a date on a piece of paper and somebody else
finds the date by meter dating (yes I've done this successfully
many times, you zero in on the date by meter reads), it is
not the piece of paper which is reacting but the person's
thoughts about the date.

It has to be the same for BTs.  They don't read, you read when
you think of the location that they are in.

A different question that I have about solo cans is about
the small shift in TA postion (about half a division) when
there is a major difference in the physical mass in the
circuit.  In the two can situation you have an entire body
in the way and with solo cans you have an average of an
inch or so of skin surface.

The TA difference is almost a constant (at least for the
same person).  If my TA is down around 2.0 on 2 cans it
will be about 2.5 solo and if it is up at 5.0 on 2 cans
it will be about 5.5 solo.  So the two track very closely
and vary much less than mental changes due to a few minutes
overrun of a process.  Again I can only conclude that there
is some kind of field effect rather than a measure of the
resistance of flesh.

 
> Next, when I was closer to Scientology (during the crazed late
> 70s/early 80s) I was told that rather than nattering, all one had to
> do was write up any outnesses one saw, send it uplines, and they would
> be handled.  Have you attempted to do this over the years, and what
> were the results?

Its about like talking to the wall.  You can flatten it as a
process but the wall doesn't answer back.

The original Class 8s show up and begin spouting verbal
tech, so I telexed International Ethics like it says in
policy.  Dead Silence.

A couple of highly trained people on staff percieved a major
outpoint (old emeter drill 3, now obsolete due to the
old mechanical TA counters being eliminated).  So they
write up a proposed bulletin giving a drill that works
instead of the flawed original one.  Repetedly sent up
lines.  Dead Silence.

Some Class 8s I knew had some real problems/questions and
would write queries up for technical advice.  Not quite
dead silence.  The reply was "what does your materials
state".

There are exceptions, but usually nobody will do anything
but quote policy so the only things that can get corrected
are policy violations rather than flaws in policy.

You can get things corrected if you know the exact policy
violation.  But its hopeless if its in policy but wrong
or stupid.

 
> Lastly, (since this is election time in California) during that same
> same period, I was connected to a number of Scientologists who were
> active in the Libertarians.  This struct me a peculiar, since
> Libertarian politics stresses maximum persoanl freedom and minimal
> goverment power over individuals, while Scientology (at least the
> organization) sought substantial control over various parts of
> individuals lives.
> 
> Can you comment on the Scientology/Libertarian link?  Is there still a
> Libertarian presence in Scientology, or did they all leave either by
> SP declares (such as Bruce Bishop) or be alienation?

I don't know of any Libertarian link except that it is very
attractive to people who believe in freedom.

Here we have the conflict between what most Scientologists 
feel vs how the organization acts.

The organization dramatizes control while giving lipservice
to freedom whereas most individual Scientologists actually
do believe in personal freedom.  That is why 9 out of 10
are not active and sit on the fence.  They wouldn't tolerate
the heavy control (or the many other outpoints) but they
are sold enough on the goals and purposes that they restrain
themselves and keep their mouths shut rather than hurt the
organization.

They think that things should be better in the org, but the
standard party line is that in that case they should get on
staff intead of criticising from the sidelines.  They think
of that and shudder in horror so they agree to shut up.

They end up stalemated, unable to move in either direction.

 
> Mike de Wolf 
> 
> "A science which depends on Authority alone is a breath in 
> the wind of truth and is therefore no science at all."
> 
>                          - L. Ron Hubbard
 
One of the nice LRH quotes.  I wish the org would apply
these things instead of the messed up policies.


Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj: Super Scio - ANOTHER MESSAGE TO ROD FLETCHER


ANOTHER MESSAGE TO ROD FLETCHER

On 19 May 98, rod_fletcher@hotmail.com responded to my earlier
message on sbject "Re Super Scio - TO ROD FLETCHER"

>In article <D19980519T1914330E2@hiddenplace.com>,
>  pilot@hiddenplace.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> TO ROD FLETCHER
>>
>> On 27 Apr 98, rod_fletcher@hotmail.com posted in response
>> to my earlier post on subject "Super Scio - MAY 9 EVENT INFO"
>>
>> >In article <D19980423T1914330E2@hiddenplace.com>#1/1,
>> >   pilot@hiddenplace.com wrote:
>> > >
>> > > MAY 9 EVENT INFO
>> > >
>> > > The latest promo says "Come to the Dianetics Anniversary
>> > > Event.  See a new feature-length Scientology film".
>> > >
>> > > May 9, 1998 at the Shrine Auditorium, 655 W. Jefferson Blvd,
>> > > Los Angeles.
>> > >
>> > > Doors open at 6:30 PM and the event starts at 7:30 PM.
>> > >
>> >
>> > You know Pilot it's nice of you to be a reformer behind the scene.
>> > Never heard of a reformer being a coward behind the scene. I
>> > wonder where you got those stolen materials. Rod.
>>
>> Boy, yet another Black Scientology attempt to blow me off by
>> missing withholds that aren't there to be missed.
>
>SORRY PILOT BUT I DON'T BUY IT. THERE IS NOT BLACK SCN ATTEMPT AND
>THE WITHHOLD THEORY YOU ARE THROWING AT ME IS YOUR ATTEMPT TO DENIGRATE
>SCIENTOLOGY. IF YOU DON'T HAVE THEM FINE, IF YOU DO IS UP TO YOU TO
>GET IT SORTED OUT.

I do not Denigrate Scientology.  I am a firm supporter of the tech
and the religion.  Much more so than people who throw 90 percent
of Ron's work out of the window and attack anyone who trys to
think for themselves.

I do, however, make less of the CofS and especially of OSA because 
their current behavior is so bad.  I will stop that when they
get their ethics in.

I am assuming that the caps are an indication of bypassed charge
because I have missed a withhold on you.

I know that you went through a whole song and dance about being
a newbie and not knowing any better than to use caps, but I
notice that your previous post is in lower case and all your
other messages on the net were in lower case.  Perhaps a
different thetan has taken over your body?  Or did OSA implant
you and make you forget?  Or are you just trying to weasel your
way out of the situation?


>> Do you actually know any real tech that can be used to
>> help people?  Or do you only know reverse processes?
>
>YES, AND MORE THAN YOU CAN THINK OF. AS MATTER OF FACT I DON'T
>KNOW WHAT REVERSE PROCESSES ARE. YOU ARE PROBABLY THE EXPERT ON
>THIS SINCE YOU BROUGHT UP THIS SUBJECT.

Ron talks about that occasionally.  Obviously you are untrained
and don't know the tech.


>> The real tech does exist.  It's in the books and tech volumes.
>> In fact a lot of it just got posted to the internet by some
>> people who really are spreading LRH tech around the planet.
>
>YES, YOU ARE RIGHT THERE IS A LOT OF TECH SPREAD ON THE PLANET.
>SEE http://www.scientology.org FOR MORE SPECIFCS.

There is very little real tech there.  It is mostly just PR.

The graphics are nicely done (my compliments to Michael etc.)
but that doesn't make up for a shallow content.

About the only real meat is the "Story of Dianetics and 
Scientology" lecture, which is a nice one.  But again, it
is not really a lecture that teaches anything about the tech.


>IF YOU ARE REFERRING TO ZENON PANOUSSIS SPREADING THE TECH, THEN WE
>ARE IN A COMPLETE DIFFERENT FIELD. HE IS A COPYRIGHT CRIMINAL WHO
>PROBABLY DOES NOT EVEN DARE TO SHOW UP AT HIS UPCOMING TRIAL. HE
>CHALLENGED THE CHURCH TO RAID HIM, BUT OF COURSE HE CAREFULLY
>DESTROYED ALL THE INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE AND THEN TELLS THE CHURCH
>TO RAID HIM. I'LL BE SURPRISED IF HE HAS THE GUTS TO SHOW UP AT THE
>TRIAL TO FACE THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS CIMES. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT
>THE TECH IS BEING "SPREAD" WITH ONE MODIFICATION THAT IT IS BEING
>DONE BY PANOUSSIS AND OTHERS IN A VERY ILLEGAL FASHION.

So what.

Ron would want it done.

Only suppressives would try to stop it.

They are doing your job for you, and all you do is carp and
natter and shoot at them.


>> You might think of them as evil critics and squirrels, but
>> they are doing more than you are to get the tech out there.
>
>THIS IS YOUR OPINION AND I LEAVE IT AT THAT. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW
>ME HOW CAN YOU EVEN SAY THAT. DON'T RIDICULE YORUSELF NOW.

Perhaps I have misjudged you.  Maybe you are Freezone Bible and
are only putting up a false show for your OSA seniors.  A
sort of scarlet pimpernel.  If that is the case, then I sincerely
appologize.


>> When have you actually helped somebody?
>
>EVERYDAY FOR WELL OVER 20 YEARS.

OK.  How have you helped?


>> Do you really think that your current low toned behavior
>> is doing anybody any good?
>
>YOUR ARE THE ONE WHO IS HIDING, WHICH  IS CERTAINLY NOT HIGH ON
>THE TONE SCALE.

Ron calls it fabian and he encourages it.  Listen to the
"Welcome to the Sea Org" tapes.


>> The tech is for setting people free, not for making slaves.
>
>I DON'T SEE THE CHAINS ON MY ANKLES, NOR ON ANY OF MY FAMILY MEMBERS
>AND MANY OTHER FRIENDS WHO HAVE BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH. THE CHURCH FOR
>MANY YEARS. THE CHURCH IS OPEN EVERYDAY AND IS PRESENT IN JUST ABOUT
>EVERY COUNTRY OF THE WORLD. WHO IS GOING TO BUY THE "SLAVE" LINE?
>COME UP WITH SOME MORE CREATIVE IDEAS I.E. TELL THE TRUTH.

Ask the RPFers.

Ask all the old tech terminals who have been stopped, driven
out, or otherwise unmocked.


>I INVITE YOU TO VISIT http://on-line.scientology.org AND SEE FOR YOURSELF
>IF THOSE PEOPLE ARE SLAVES. THERE ARE MANY MORE TO COME. I KNOW THAT DEANA
>HOLMES AND ASSOCIATES CAN'T STAND THE IDEA OF SCIENTOLOGISTS BEING ON THE
>INTERNET. READ THOSE STORIES FOR YORUSELF. THEY ARE COMING DIRECTLY FROM
>THE APPLICATION OF SCIENTOLOGY. YOU CAN'T CONTROL THAT MANY PEOPLE, YOU
>CAN'T ENSLAVE THAT MANY PEOPLE AND THAT'S WHY YOUR ALLEGATIONS ARE BOGUS.

You can put massive stops on their lines and fill them with
false data and cut their comm lines.

I know some of the people who have Scientologist online websites.
I have even been asked to put one up.  But the issue authority 
business is one of the stupidist mistakes the org has made.

These people could be having lots of fun and communicating very
freely and makeing a good impression on the net with very
personalized websites.  Some of the critics might not like that
but they would at least respect it.

Instead the entire program makes Scientology into a laughing stock.

A similar debacal is the Old Timer's Network's website, which
would have been really something, but they COULDN'T GET ISSUE
AUTHORITY.  They tried for a YEAR.  For that year they had a
pretty but contentless page with a picture of stars from the
Hubbel telescope.  Last I heard, the whole project was in the
trashcan and even the old site was inaccessible the last time
I looked.


>> I guess that is just too hard for you to have.
>
>NO, IN ACTUAL FACT I ENJOY HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH YOU GUYS. AS A
>MATTER OF FACT I DO RESPECT YOU FOR YOUR ARTISTIC VALUES AND HOW YOU
>PLAY THAT INSTRUMENT. SOME OLD TIMERS IN LONDON AND AT ST. HILL STILL
>REMEMBER YOU. THAT'S WHY I LEAVE IT AT THAT.

Playing process of elimination?  I think I'll skip this one and
leave you in a Q & A.


>> The Pilot
>
>http://www.scientology.org
>http://on-line.scientology.org
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading


How about studying some tech?

There is a nice lecture in the 1st Melborne ACC called
"Responsibility for Zones of Creation".  1MACC-21 of 23 Nov 59.

The entire ACC has been re-released as the "Responsibility and the 
State of OT" cassettes.

Here is a nice LRH quote from it to wet your appitite.

"And the further a person falls away from responsibility for
destruction, the more good they pride themselves in and the more
destructive they are."

Please go ahead and check out the quote.  I guarantee you that
its a valid one.  But you should hear it in context.

It might really do you some good.


The Pilot

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

 subj: Super Scio - Delaware Street Invalidates LRH


DELAWARE STREET INVALIDATES LRH

On 22 May 98, nobody@nowhere.com (DelawareStreet) posted in reply 
to my previous post on "Super Scio - Quote About Clear (To Rognnet)"


> On: 19 May 1998 14:00:13
> Message-ID: <D19980519T1314324E2@hiddenplace.com>
> Super Scio - Quote About Clear (To Rognnet)
> 
> The Pilot wrote: 
> 
> >QUOTE ABOUT CLEAR (TO RGONNET)
> 
> >On 6 May 98, rgonnet <dictionnaire@hol.fr> posted
> >on subject "Fatman said CLEARING IS NOTHING! True!"
> 
> snip . .
> 
> >I would say that the 1965 definition (and the corresponding
> >DMSMH definition of 1950) is sales hype, and I think that 
> >the 1958 definition is the honest one (I've talked about
> >this elsewhere, see the Scientology Reformer's Homepage).
> 
> The "How to get squirrel data"  homepage you mean. 

The Scientology Reformer's Homepage does not contain tech
data.

I know that you might think that tech which I write might
be squirrel (even though it isn't), but the Reformer's page
is not a tech writing.  So its not squirrel even by your own
organization's standards.

It is a heartfelt story of an ex-staff member.

THE ONLY TECH ON THE REFORMER'S PAGE CONSISTS OF LRH QUOTES.

Lots of LRH Quotes.

Accurate Ones.

Check them out.  I dare you to.

 
> >But a literal minded fanatic
> > might wake up if they get
> >hit with all of Ron's varying definitions and statements
> >about Clear.
> 
> Well, is it good to wake them up? 
> 
> > On that basis, this is a good quote to
> > pass around.
> 
> Or round file.  

ROUND FILE? 

REALLY?

ROUND FILE AN LRH QUOTE?

Have you lost it completely?

Do you realize that the org could declare you an SP for
that one statement alone.  It is a high crime.  Please star 
rate HCOPL "Tech Degrades" immediately.

I'm allowed to say things like that if I feel like it because
I can have my own opinion and occasionally I disagree with
Ron (not usually, but sometimes).  But you are not allowed
to or else you get in trouble.

Since you trashed the quote itself, I'll repeat it here.  It
really is a true LRH quote.  In fact I was correcting the
slight alter-is that was introduced by rgonnet's having
translated it back from the French translation.  


# From Tape SHSBC-322 renumbered 353
# 
# 6311C07 (standard tape IDs are the 2 digit year followed
# by the 2 digit month followed by a "C" and then the two
# digit day).
# 
# Title "Relationship of Training To OT".
# 
# From near the end of the tape.
# 
# "Our interest in the state of Clear is so microscopic
# as to be a yawn, see; it's of no importance at all.
# The state makes somebody more comfortable - so what?
# You can make a sick man more comfortable by putting a
# pillow under his head, see?"

I like LRH quotes and want to seem them accurately presented.

Why don't you post some too? 
		        
		        
> Because it comes from you and the "freezone."  
> Group with ideas like it is okay to do what ever you want with
> Scientology,  regardless and no matter, which has brought widespread
> misuse and misapplication.

"Any auditing is better than no auditing" - L. Ron Hubbard


> Justified here by the anti-Scientologist's
> you wish to assist.   Just to get a chance to take a jab at the
> legitimate organization from which you apparently were once a part.   

Still am a part actually.  And I have lots of friends.

Try looking over your shoulder sometime.

 
> >Best,
> 
> >The Pilot
> 
> Delaware Street


Maybe I was a little too rough in the above.  I just finished
answering that idiot rod_fletcher and it put me in a bad mood.

You do talk a bit more sensibly than some of the other
OSA handlers.

Try listening to some of the old LRH tapes.  Read Dianetics 55,
especially the parts about secrecy and so forth.

We only have this one tiny moment in eturnity (LRH again).

Don't waste it on a GPM flip flop from freedom into slavery.


ARC,

The Pilot

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


 subj: Super Scio - Publishing Plans (attn Ivy, Fza, etc.)


PUBLISHING PLANS (attn Ivy, Fza, etc.)


I'm very glad for all the help.  By all means distribute
things and improve things and spread copies around.

And I'm really enjoying things like the feed coming in
from selfclearing-l and the self clearing diaries up
at fza.org and all sorts of good stuff like that.

I think that I should let you know my own plans so that
you know what to expect.

----

I consider that Super Scio is really a record of research, so I 
don't plan to do a major revision.  I doubt that it will ever
be mass marketed because of its length and specialized public.
I hope that the book will continue to be around through all
your good efforts.

In the long run this book will be superseeded, but even then
I hope it stays around, just like we keep the original DMSMH
around despite having R3R.

What I expect is that individual chapters will form the core
of future books.  The Cosmic History, for example, is certainly
a starting point for a sequal to Ron's History of Man.  But
I'm still far from knowing enough to do this one justice.

One day I'd like to take the first chapter (What Is / What Isn't
true), add in the things on the reformers page, add a lot more
of personal experience, and put together a real book about
being in Scientology in the old days.  My tentative working
title is "The Horror And The Glory".  But I think that ones
a long way off too.

Of course platens will get added to and corrected and the 
chapter on OT processes should grow extensively.  But again,
these deserve to be individual books, and I am imagining that
there will be huge amounts of material in these areas.

If somebody wants to do some editorial cleanup, they are
welcome to do so.  I ran it through a spell checker and went
over it endlessly before I released it on the net, but errors
still crept in.

Eventually I will need to combine the various tech postings
in the archives into a Super Scio sequal.  But right now
it doesn't feel like the right moment for me to back up and
regroup and organize.  And the "political" sceen is still
current enough that most of the old ARS posts are still
applicable.

----

Self Clearing on the other hand is a working edition of what
is meant to be a very practical book.  I really want it to
evolve into an optimum form for helping people.  So you can
expect a significantly improved second version.

There has been a good bit of feedback on the early sections
of the book and that helps me to anticipate questions and
problems.  Unfortunately, nobody seems to have made it into
the later chapters yet and I would really like to get some
feedback on those too.

Also I'm only about halfway through myself on a deep second
run of the processes, and as you know, I do keep spotting
ways of making the processes easier and more effective as
I do that.

So it will be awhile yet before the second version gets done.

And I'm distracted by needing to write a co-processing
book.  Making that safe, simple, and easy requires such a 
depth of understanding that I'm doing a review of professional
auditing first.  Right now I'm putting together a hybrid level 
zero course checksheet which will be a composite of various
orthodox checksheets used in different years.  I'll probably
post that next month.

People who are distributing copies of the self clearing
book should know my long range plans so that they don't
get caught with a warehouse full of xeroxes.

I do plan to find an American mass market publisher
eventually.

I need one that is big so that they will shrug off any
CofS harrassement suits, and I want one that will put
the book into the chain bookstores.

At the same time, I will not condone a publisher trying
to shut down the existing free distribution channels.  
A high quality inexpensive professional edition
has nothing to fear from xeroxes and its cheeper than do
it yourself laser printing, so there is no reason for a
publisher to object.

But I don't think that many publishers will understand this
yet.  I expect them to learn eventually, but probably not
in this century.  The internet is still too new.

So I need one who is not only big but also open to new
ideas and aware of the net.  A hard combination.

And let's add in an agent and a publisher who will front for
me and guard my identity.  Unless of course the CofS finds
out who I am.  In that case all bets are off and I'll go
into a mad frenzy to find a publisher immediately.

What I expect is that I'll start looking around carefully 
in a few months.  If I get lucky I might have one this fall.
All this internet exposure might make it possible to sell a 
publisher on the book despite all the difficult requirements
above.

If that does happen, I would expect a one year comm lag,
so that a mass market edition might hit near the end of
1999.  Books do not get printed fast and there is no way
that a mass market publisher would get one out this year
even if I signed a contract today.

I would very much like to see it printed before the year
2000 business gets everything all snarled up.

So that is my target.  Find a publisher in the fall and
hit mass market in fall of 99.

That might be wishfull thinking.  In this case I am being
optimistic and making a strong postulate rather than operating
from any reliable data or knowingness.  It is what I feel
needs to happen rather than what I know will happen.

In the meantime there is a huge gap to fill and I think
that Anthony is doing a great service in making copies of
the book available.

As to translations, I think it would be much longer 
before an American publisher (if I ever get one) would
move into foriegn markets and I would expect them to
negotiate for an existing good quality translation rather
than doing a new one if one already exists.  In practice,
I don't think that the work can be translated by anyone
who is not themselves an expert in the tech.

I greatly appreciate all the help I'm getting.  I love
to see people using this suff, spreading it around, and
working with any and all tech.

My strongest goal is for us to find our way out of the
trap.

I had a vision once while listening to some shallow
PR at a flag event.  They were talking about some low level
idea of OT and I was thinking what I really would expect.

I imagined super beings, conciously godlike and immortal
exchanging an infinite variety of creations for each
other's amusement.  Real co-existance of static.

The net when its at its best gives you a hint of this
because its hard to hit each other and easy to present
a mockup.  There is Sarah joking and Homer poking and 
an interesting flux between beings.

I for one wouldn't trade that dream to sail around on
a yacht and have worshippers shouting hip hip horray
at some bronze bust of my current body.

So if the book ever does become a best seller in
humanoid terms, you can expect that I'll be indulging
in tech research and running around encouraging people
rather than trying to control or suppress the subject
and setting up some gestapo like organization.


Affinity,

The Pilot


PS. I'll try to take a look at Cosmosofy and answer Kurt
about it next month.  If you haven't gussed yet, I've
been very busy, both with the tech and with my job
in computers.

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

 subj: Super Scio - Remembering Raymond Kemp


RMEMBERING RAYMOND KEMP

On 4 Jun 98, Ivy relayed a message ACT on subject
"IVy: URGENT NEWS!!! Death....."

>I am not sure who I am writing to but I know you all knew my
>granddad......Raymond Kemp.
>	Raymond Kemp died on June 1st 1998 from a massive heart attack. He
>went down sunday night and then it took 40 mins to brig him back. He was
>taken to Inland Valley Regional Medical Center in Wildomar Ca. There he was
>placed on life support for 9-12 Hours...but the damage had been done. He
>had no brain activity and this caused the doctor to advise us to remove the
>Life Support because my granddad would become a vegtable.......we removed
>it and he finally passed on at 3:36 p.m June 1st.
>	You can contact us at this address and we will keep you all
>informed. The Memorial Date is Friday, June 12th, 1998. Not sure of place
>or time...that is planning out today.
>
>Thank-you,
>Pamela Kemp, Chandra Leighton & Family


Ray was an old timer when I first came into Scientology.

I did not know him closely, but I remember his lectures with
fondness.  We exchanged correspondence briefly in ACT last year
and I'm glad that I had at least a brief opportunity to 
communicate with him in these later days.

I remember once when he flew into town and the org rented a
hall for him to speak in.

He gave a talk which showed a profound insight into ARC Breaks
which went beyond anything I've seen written in the tech.

He began by talking about the opera "Carmen".

Carmen is a rambuncious and sexually liberal cigarette girl 
who gets arrested for slashing another girl in a knife fight.
She promises a soldier known as Don Jose a good time if he
sets her free.  She delivers on the promise and starts hanging
out with Don Jose thereafter.  But she also starts making it
with a bullfighter and Jose gets upset and stabs her.

Near the end Don Jose whines about how Carmen changed on him.

But Ray pointed out that she had never changed, she was the
same from the start to the end, sleeping with anyone who
struck her fancy.  She even has her big song at the begining
about love being like a little bird that flutters from tree
to tree.

Then Ray made his fantastic point, which was that Don Jose
did not ARC break with Carmen but with a picture or valence
that he mocked up as Carmen.  The actual girl didn't change,
but she acted differently than the valence was supposed to
act in Don Jose's mind.

You mock up that with which you are ARC Breaking.

Its not just that you mock up ARC breaks in the sense of 
letting yourself get upset.  You also mock up the thing
that you are ARC breaking with.

Very profound.

He will be missed.

ARC,

The Pilot

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

 subj: Super Scio - The 5th Invader (attn Paul & D)


THE 5TH INVADER (ATTN PAUL & D)

On 24 May 98, fza@fza.org (FreeZone America) asked on 
subject "FZA [Fwd] ATTN PILOT - a message from D"

> In R&D 10 (I think) Ron mentions if we come across anyone from the 5th
> invaders 3rd batallion, to contact him. I saw mention of contacting
> him in 2 locations over this. Do you know why? What should one do if
> he or she knew someone from the 3rd battalion?
> 
> D

See the Role of Earth tape (a transcript was posted recently by
FZ Bible and it is now up at the Scientology Library site that
has the PDC transcripts).  Ron describes a 5th invader batallion 
landing in Tibet and getting wiped out and ending up in the
reincarnation sequence here on Earth.

I think that there is another place where he says that
he was the commander of that batallion, but maybe I'm 
misremembering, its been a long time and there are lots of tapes.

As to what to do, I think that at that time he was simply
hoping to audit such people through the incident and see if
the data matched up.

In present time, I would suggest simply running the self
clearing book.

Also, since there was a recent thread asking for information
on invader forces, I will mention that I did a summary on
these things and listed the various tape references in a
post called "The Cosmology of Scientology" which can be
found in post03 in the archives for 1997.


Affinity,

The Pilot

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


 subj: Super Scio - The Show Me Process (attn Sarah)


THE SHOW ME PROCESS (ATTN SARAH)

On 11 Jun 98, "Steve n' Sarah" <tech@proweb.co.uk> posted on
topic "LRH comments on the recent "flame war" "


> I remember,the other day I was looking for something in the Tech Vols
> and came across a process 'Show me your (body part)'.
> Ron added a note to the effect that the Auditor should not ask for
> body parts that might embarrass the PC.
> I haven't figured out yet if this was meant as a joke or if he seriously
> thought auditors would attempt to get their PC's to strip off.
> 
> Sarah (laughing)


I think he was quite serious.  This is from HCOB "INTERIM PROCESS"
of 20 May 57 which is in old tech volume 3.

I wasn't in Washington in 1957, but I know people who were.

Doing TRs in the nude was not uncommon. It was not done
in the academy but it was often tried by staff and students
after hours.

The time period was one of extreme sexual looseness in the orgs.

I think it is specifically an injunction against what the pc
would consider embarassing rather than any particular body
part.  That is whatever it is for the person in question.

I remember giving a touch assist for period cramps to another
staff member (late 1960s) who happened to be a pretty girl.
We were friends but were not having a 2D (and I am male).
She asked me because she knew I gave good assists and she
trusted me not to have any considerations.  The assist worked
too.

The pcs considerations are whatever they are, not what we
might assume them to be.  Part of the auditor's job is to
not have any considerations while he is auditing the pc
nor to have any considerations after the fact about whatever
came up in session.

Even in the late 60s, most staff and students (but not raw
public) were flat enough on body parts that you probably
would include genitles in the process and get a grin
out of the pc.

PS. I didn't know the reference so I simply did a grep (a
unix command that has been ported to PCDos and OS/2)
on "show me your" in the directory where I stored 
the 20 Megabytes of tech volumes that were posted recently.
About 30 seconds later it came back and I knew to bring
tech vol 3 up in brief (an editor) and search the text,
which took about 3 seconds to reach the phrase.  In the
old days it would have taken fifteen minutes to half
an hour of bouncing through indexes and tech vols to find
it (if I could find it at all).  It's great to get out of
the stone age.

Affinity,

The Pilot

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


 subj: Super Scio Tech - Self Clearing Ch 3 Improvement


SELF CLEARING CHAPTER 3 IMPROVEMENT


I hid on a better variation for 3.3 Emotions while doing
some other research (described in another post).

The process given is workable but it is easier and faster
if you alternate positive and negative emotions.

Pick objects and alternately put sadness and happyness
into them.

The alternately put fear and courage into objects.

Then alternate hate and love.

And boredom alternated with great interest (or excitement).

Usually it seems best to do two alternations with the
same object before moving on to another one.  I slightly
prefer starting with the lower emotion and ending with
the higher one, but the other way around also works as
long as you don't leave the negative emotions behind in
the objects.

A rapid pace, moving quickly from object to object, is
generally best.

You can also have yourself feel these alternately, but
it is easier if you run these on objects first.

An advanced step, for later in the book or for a second
pass (unless you are already an advanced student), is
to alternately mockup a big sphere of hatred and then love
for the entire environment (or the whole world) until
something dissolves.  You kind of push these spheres out
and layer them over everything as you are doing this.

The same goes for the other pairs above, but hatred and
fear probably are the most significant on this variation.
On these two I found old walls of blackness that I had
layered over everything that were forming a sort of
shell around me.  Doing it consciously regained control
over the old mockups and dissolved them with a gain
in perception and good feeling.  They were remnants of
bad times in the distant past.


Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj: Super Scio - Dichotomies And Reality Generators


DICHOTOMIES AND REALITY GENERATORS


I was trying to think up a good assist to help somebody improve
their confront of pain.

Putting the pain in the walls is good, but it is sometimes hard
to run.

A friend who I had previously discussed the reality generators
with suggested that alternately putting pleasure and pain into
objects would mimic the generator's operation.

This works like dynamite compared to just putting the pain
in the walls.  It makes it into an easy process.

You might, for example, give the wall your headach and then
give the wall a sexual orgasm alternately.

That made me think of doing it with other things.

In the 3rd ACC, Ron considers that putting emotions into
walls and objects is one of the most important OT drills
in existance and that you should run lots of it.  He also
talks about dichotomies (used in certainty processing, etc.),
but he doesn't hit upon combining the two.

There is a bit of putting emotions in objects in the self 
clearing book, but I didn't empasize it because it is not 
easy to drill this one very deep.  So I've been hoping to
find a way to make it run better and this is it.

I tried alternately putting fear and courage into walls
and objects and again it was fast and easy and powerful,
leading to a big gain very quickly.  I'm posting that
separately as a self clearing improvement.

So I bounced this off of another friend and he mentioned
having had an LSD trip back in the sixties where he was
seeing the concepts of "up" and "down" in objects and
the concepts began unravelling and then everything seemed
to be coming apart and he got scared (and swore off the
drug).

He hypothesised that these dichotomies were all present
in objects from the reality generators and that one could
then spot them and gain control over reality.  In his
bad drug experience he was at effect and therefore was
loosing havingness against his will, but in a conscious
drill his thought was that one should be able to hold
or undo these things in a willful manner.

This reminded me of power process 5, "what is / what isn't".
The LRH theory was to use this to take off not-isness, but
it has the wild variable of sometimes makeing a "theta
clear" or keyed out OT as it did in my case.

My latest theory on this is that many people run it by
spotting things which are and different things which
are not and that if they run it that way it blows some
not-isness and therefore is a nice process.

But some people run it by spotting that the same thing
both is there and isn't there concurrently (as I did)
and that's what brings about the OT keyout.

Oleg also recently posted an experience from an LSD
trip that he tied into these reality generators.
It gives me the feeling that the drug does begin to
expose the underlying structure but that since one
is at effect one must back off.  If you unravel
everything causatively, then you can put it back at
will and so it is an ability used at one's whim, but
if you successfully unraveled it at effect, then you
would just be without a universe, so you stop yourself.
Not having done LSD myself, I'm just speculating here.

After this, I talked to the first friend again and he 
had been spotting mountains alternately as solidities
and as waveforms based on the quantum mechanics
particle/wave dichotomy.  He was getting great cogs
and gains on this.

Then I began pushing all sorts of dichotomies alternately
into objects; Motion/no-motion, importance/insignificance,
intelligence/stupidity, and so forth.

After a few of these I began to see the entire formation
of GPMs as locks on a static set of reality generators.

You set the generators running.  Then you get into the
time stream.  Then you dramatize them, banging between
opposing sides sequentially in a time stream.  That
makes GPMs.

The really interesting thing is that these processes
of putting (or spotting) alternating dichotomies into
objects are damn easy to run and flatten fast with
big cognitions.

Probably the next gradient is to spot these things
running down through time or whatever, but I'm now
inclinded to weaken the entire structure with a
fast run on just alternating the dichotomies in
objects first.

Have Fun,

The Pilot


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

This set of posts was all posted with the following trailer.

------------------
The free Self Clearing Book, The Super Scio book, and the
"SCIENTOLOGY REFORMER'S HOME PAGE" are all over the net.

See The Self Clearing Homepage for URLs to these sites
http://fza.org/pilot/selfclr.htm or
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/ and www.aha.ru/~espinol
  and http://www.tagil.ru/~sk/pilot/pilot.html.

All of this week's posts will be collected in Super Scio Archives
#32 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.

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





