Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology
From: pilot@hiddenplace.com (The Pilot)
Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 34 - AUG 98 PILOT POSTS TO ARS/ACT
Date: 14 Aug 1998  14:00:37


POST34.txt 

SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 34 - AUG 98 PILOT POSTS TO ARS/ACT


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

Contents:

 subj : Super Scio - CofS Stratedgy Change
 subj : Super Scio - About John Colletto
 subj : Super Scio - Roland's Sermon
 subj : Super Scio - Scriptures Needed (Attn Ralph)
 subj : Super Scio - FREEZONE DOES NOT MEAN CAPT BILL
 subj : Super Scio - United Free Zone Fellowship (Attn Joe)
 subj : Super Scio - Soup Cans (Attn Invis)
 subj : Super Scio - To Werner Erhardt
 subj : Super Scio - TO JESSIE PRINCE
 subj : Super Scio - To Whippersnapper
 subj : Super Scio - KARNO vs LENSKE
 subj : Super Scio - Answering Sassie10
 subj : Super Scio - To Rod Keller On Ways To Leave
 subj : Super Scio - To Paul On Lions
 subj : Super Scio - Org Money Stupidity
 subj : Super Scio - To A-J On Cluelessness
 subj : Super Scio Humor - Laundry Balling
 subj : Super Scio Tech - Self Clearing More on Ch 3 (Attn Oleg)
 subj : Super Scio Tech - About The Admin Scale
 subj : Super Scio Tech - Japanese Translation (Attn NYKinjo)
 subj : Super Scio Tech - To Lars On Multidimensional Music
 subj : Super Scio Tech - GPM Research Truncation (Attn John Alexander)
 subj : Super Scio Tech - Ralph's Meter TA Calculations
 subj : Super Scio Tech - Minor Mistake in Tape Name (Attn Michael)
 subj : Super Scio Tech - THE DEAD ZONE
 subj : Super Scio Tech - KNOWINGNESS AND CREATION

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

 subj : Super Scio - CofS Stratedgy Change


COFS STRATEDGY CHANGE


Top management has finally realized that silence is death.

I don't know if they got this from reading early Hubbard or
from my own writings about how the suppression of communication
is killing them, but the light has finally dawned.

Top management has finally learned that sticking your head 
in the sand makes an enticing target of your ass.

So they know this.  

And what do they do with it?  Black Scientology.

Management and OSA are going to fix it so that they can talk
about Xenu and the Freezone.  And as a preliminary step, 
they further suppressed the public member's communications
by blinding them with the net nanny.

Do you see the hypocracy here?  Its subtile and easy to miss.
They do know that wearing blinders is bad for you.  So they
take theirs off and give thicker ones to the membership.

Its the philosophy of tech for me and slavery for you and
that is Black Scientology.

The Xenu pickets are hurting them badly, so they are releasing
"Revolt in the Stars".  This lets them say that Xenu is just some 
of Ron's SciFi and start using the dreaded name without Xing
it out.

And they have this desprite longing to dead agent the freezone
but they have kept it suppressed because they didn't want
to accidentally promote the freezone to the membership.
Now that the nanny is in place they are cutting loose with
all the shit that they can throw.

Suppressive use of the tech.  They will give themselves
more ability to communicate while working harder to suppress
other's communication.

I can only expect that such an evil purpose will backfire.
There is an inherent conflict in operating this way.  If
your basic operation is to suppress communication, opening
your mouth wider just makes more room for a bigger foot.

Indeed we live in interesting times.


Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio - About John Colletto


ABOUT JOHN COLLETTO

Since this is being discusses on ARS -

The various accounts agree as to the broad outlines but seem
to vary as to the details.

This might be because the org worked at suppressing the data.
It wasn't really a heavy cover up or anything heavy handed.
Just a continual "It's out PR to talk about that" until
the rumors died out.

So here is my own two cents for what its worth, which is
probably nothing.

There is an apartment complex on Edgemont around the corner
from Kaiser Permanente (Kaiser is on the opposite side of
Sunset facing the complex).

Around 1979 I was told that that was where John Colletto
had his apartment and that that is where he shot himself.
I heard this from multiple sources (lots of Scientologists
lived on Edgement and there was a brief flurry of coffee
shop discussions).  But it is only a rumor.


Best,

The Pilot

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


 subj : Super Scio - Roland's Sermon


ROLAND'S SERMON

On 13 Aug 98, roland.rashleigh-berry@virgin.net posted
on subject "Sermon on the Mount"

> Cursed be the poor, for they are down-stat
> Cursed be the hungry, for they are without ethics
> Cursed be the sick, for they hath pulled in their afflictions
> Cursed be the blind, for they have blinded others in ages past
> Cursed be the old, for they art responsible for their fragility
> Suffer little children who come unto me, for they produceth nothing
> 
> There are many virtues, but the least of these is "Charity".
> 
> If a man may strike you then strike yee both his cheeks
> If a man doth criticize us, yea shalt we use the law to harras him
> Those who oppose us shalt we dispose of quietly and without sorrow
> For we are a religion, recogniseth as such by the government of the United
> States of America.
> 
> Amen
  

This was heartbreaking.  It is sad but true and epitomizes what
is currently wrong in the orgs.

I can't imagine that there is any current or former staff member
who wouldn't feel a pain in his heart as he read this.

Makes me feel like pounding on the doors of ASHO with a shepard's
crock and yelling "Let my people go".  Or perhaps throwing the
money regs out of the temple.


Thank You,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio - Scriptures Needed (Attn Ralph)


SCRIPTURES NEEDED (Attn Ralph)

On 13 Aug 98, ralph@atnet.at (Ralph Hilton) posted on subject
"Plonking anons"


> I see a lot of garbage from anonymous posters.

Very true indeed.


> While I can see that they provide the opportunity to repost 
> sacred scriptures it seems to me that the war is over as far 
> as that goes.

Far from true.  Where are the Class 8 tape transcripts for
example.  I would love a set.

And the org is actively knocking things offline as always.
The website that had the PDC tapes and was collecting FZ Bible
posts and carrying the books posted by Zenon seems to have
disappeared.

I haven't mentioned the URL before least I draw OSA's attention
to it, but it was http://www.anthrax.net/cos/library/ and the
entire domain seems to be gone.

Even if you or I have something, there are continual new people
coming online and the fence sitters need to see that they can
pick up the materials without risking exposure by having to
contact somebody (because that feels like a commitment rather
than sticking your toe in the water).


> If someone wants the sacred scriptures they are now available.

Many key items are available but far from everything.

For example, the Solo Nots HCOBs haven't been posted.  I don't
have them and I wouldn't mind seeing them again myself.  I
did describe what was in them (burried in a post in last year's
archives - I didn't want to get OSA's attention onto it) but
I'm sure people would like the real bulletins.

I know they made it into the freezone because while I was
at Flag once security suddenly was beefed up tremendously.
They used to let you check out the entire pack and take it
to your room and then you couldn't anymore.  I asked and
was told that the previous week somebody had blown with
the materials.


> I received a mail recently from someone in Cyprus who could 
> put the scriptures up on a site with no repurcussions.

Yes please.  And hopefully all the old tech vols (which never
showed up at a web site but only appeared in the hard to get
binaries newsgroup) and the BC transcripts (which have never
been posted) and all the FZ bible stuff (only some was up
at anthrax) and whatever else shows up in the future.


> Recently there has been a fair bit of garbage about the FZ 
> posted by people from anon accounts.

Too True.  But some bailouts from CofS also show up as anons.


> My current inclination is to KF all anons.
>

Maybe so.  Depends on the discomfort level and net capabilities.

I prefer to set my newsreader to pull headers only and let
it download the ones I feel like reading as I click on them.
That way I can scan everything quickly without a killfile.
Generally I sort by subject and display it unthreaded so
I can just jump into the middle of threads and pull one from
somebody whose opinion is more useful (and they often repost
the earlier sections).  Even when OSA was doing its super
spam I could pull the scroll bar past thousands of messages
pretty damn quick.

When I had a slow link I used to go make a cup of coffee while
the newsreader pulled all the headers during the big OSA spam.


> Ralph Hilton


One of the big worries for fence sitters is whether or not
they can get the tech outside of the CofS.  Not just the
OT levels but all the tech.

I'm hoping that some other anons will get onboard and start
posting more of the missing pieces.  FZ Bible has come through
a number of times but they are slow and I wonder if they are
having technical difficulties.

Unlike some people we know, I really want to have the
research line and the things that I'm building on highly
visible and easily accessible.  Unfortunately my primary
sources are mostly old ACCs rather than modern HCOBs and
those are damn hard to get.  FZ Bible has already posted
things that you can't get from the orgs, and even when
the org does have them the prices are astronomical.

BTW, I think you're doing a fantastic job on ARS and with
the helpline and e-meter design.


Much Affinity,

The Pilot

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


 subj : Super Scio - FREEZONE DOES NOT MEAN CAPT BILL


FREEZONE DOES NOT MEAN CAPT BILL


Some folks over at the CofS are trying to do an A = A and
equate Capt. Bill and the organizations he founded with the 
entirity of the Freezone.

They do this for the purpose of having the freezone as a single 
target which they can then ridicule and dead agent.

CofS is expert at attacking single targets, whether with truth
or with lies.  They will probe for every weakness and their
ethical code tells them that it is good to attack and do harm
to supposed "SPs".

What they can't attack is an idea of freedom.  There is nothing
to shoot at.  So instead they try to make the idea into the
MEST (matter, energy, space, time) of a single organization
and then use that organization as a punching bag.

Freezone is an idea.  It is the idea of free and unrestrained
Scientology practiced as you see fit.

We owe Capt. Bill a debt of gratitude for having the brilliance
to coin the term Freezone.  But he was far from the first
Freezoner and his organizations are only one example out
of the endless flavors of Scientology which are springing
up in all directions.

The early Scientology research line opened endless doors.  It
was not a single standard tech but a hundred beginings, a
scattering of seeds that could grow into a new age of spiritual
enlightenment.  But as the seeds began to sprout, one
plant began to strangle all the others least it have to
suffer the labors of honest competition.

I do not think that the tech practiced as "Standard Tech" is
bad.  They have a lot of good processes and there is still
some good auditing being done in the CofS.  In fact many
freezone practictioners use standard tech and do quite well
with it.

But the idea of having one and only one standard tech and
destroying all other tech is bad.

Ninty percent of Scientology cannot be practiced in a Scientology
organization without being declared as a Squirrel and Suppressive.

And anybody who has the gaul to think for themselves and
actually originate processes (as Ron used to teach his ACC
students to do) is considered to be the most vile villian.

Capt. Bill had the guts to stand up in plain sight of a fire
breathing dragon and for that he deserves our respect.

But the freezone encompasses all manifestations of the tech.
Everything the CofS has plus more besides; a forrest rather
than a single tree.

The correct analogy is to the Protestant movement with the
CofS playing the part of the old Catholic church at the
time of the Spanish Inquisition.  There are many flavors
of Protestantism and similarly there are many flavors of
Freezone.

Best,

The Pilot

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


 subj : Super Scio - United Free Zone Fellowship (Attn Joe)


UNITED FREE ZONE FELLOWSHIP (Attn Joe)

On 10 Aug 98, joeharr@cybertours.com (Joe Harrington)
posted on subject "United Free Zone Fellowship"

>     Creed of the United Free Zone Fellowship 

(It can be found on the discussion board at fza.org so
I'm not going to repeat the contents here)

This is really excellent.

Let's go for it.


Affinity,

The Pilot

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


 subj : Super Scio - Soup Cans (Attn Invis)


SOUP CANS (Attn Invis)

On 13 Jul 98, "The invisible 1 <nobody@nowhere.com>" asked
on subject "Where is the soup?"

> Hi, all,
> I was reading a post about the e-meter, and a question came to mind:
> Where is the soup/vegetable that (supposedly) went into the cans? Or are
> they empty cans, bought from a factory? If they are actual soup cans,
> then why aren't the members getting the food that went inside?
>   Just another question from
> --The invis.


The cans contain clam chouder, therefore it would be canibalism
to allow the staff to eat it.  Instead it is burried at sea with
the appropriate ceremonies.

Sorry, just another joking and degrading fit.

I don't refer to Scientologists as clams, after all, I am one
myself.

But it sure seems like an appropriate label for those clueless
fanatics who worship Hubbard's words literally instead of trying
to understand the subject.

Scientologists who actually study the tech know that the clam
business in History of Man was a simple mistake based on 
quickie research.  Hubbard found an incident of being a clam on
somebody and coaxed a few more people into the incident and
then wrote a book based on extremely shaky data.

When he finally got back to this area in 1963, he finds that
the clam business is an implanted picture.  (reference - the
Errors in Time tape that FZ Bible put onto the net recently).
Again this is shaky research based on a few people poking at
a whole track incident, but at least it is a second look.

Scientologists who actually study the tech know this, but
they are in the minority.

Those who swallow everything Ron said blindly without evaluation
and actually think that they were clams deserve the label, but
note that that is only some Scientologists, not all.

As to the soup cans, the ones that come with the meters are
manufactured for that purpose and never held soup.  They are
also incredibly expensive.

So replacement cans are much cheaper to buy as real soup.
And in the old days the Mark 5 meters didn't come with cans,
so you had to buy soup.  This used to be up to the individual
auditors.

For penniless staff members it was usually Campbell's tomato
soup which was the cheepest.  The auditor would usually eat
the soup himself.  Unfortunately, the biggest need was for
the hard to get small can size (needed for people with smaller
hands) and that meant asparagus cans.  Not all auditors liked
asparagus.  The large size cans would usually mean canned 
peaches, but only PCs built like Hulk Hogan need cans this
big, so they rarely wear out.

Note that the cans gradually corrode and turn black from 
sweat and so they need to be replaced occasionally.


Best,

The Pilot

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


 subj : Super Scio - To Werner Erhardt


TO WERNER ERHARDT


I saw your message in the Pilot's Guestbook and I appreciate
your thanks.

I wanted to take this opportunity to emphasise that I really
mean it when I say that people should be free to use the
tech as they see fit.  I am not a Hubbardian Control Freak
who almost sets people free and then enslaves them instead.

So do with it what you will.  Use a little of it or a lot and
if you make some new synthesis, then all the more power to
you.


Affinity,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio - TO JESSIE PRINCE


TO JESSIE PRINCE


Welcome.

I would expect that you're loaded with anger and upset.  
Discovering that you have been betrayed is rought on the
emotions.

But you mustn't fall into a black and white, good and evil
dichotomy.

Black Scientology has been used on you, it's built into the
Sea Org architecture.  That doesn't mean that all Scientology
is black or evil.

I am continually contrasting Ron's kindness and wisdom in
the early days with the inherent madness in his later formulation
of the Sea Org.  For every vile thing they do, you can find
Ron saying the exact opposite in the 1950s.

And so the modern Sea Org is this incredible mixture of
good and evil.

If you make a single black or white judgement that its all
either good or evil you will almost certainly flip flop
between the two sides of the coin as has been amply illustrated
by people like Kim Baker and Jon Zegel.

The doubt formula is itself an instance of Black Scientology.
Ron knew about infinity valued logic.  Evaluating things as
relative truths on sliding scales is critical to judgement 
and intelligence.  Thinking that way permeates the 1950s
tech.  And then he puts out a doubt formula that asks for
a black and white absolute judgement.

It is a control mechanism.  Nothing is all good or all evil.
With a doubt formula like that, you are made to accept the
evil as an inherent part of the good until you are so 
immersed in it that you puke the whole thing up.  And that
is wrong too.

You are probably puking it all out right now.  Except that
if you just keep throwing up you will loose all the nutrients
along with the poisions.  You need to learn to eat again while
being more carefull about what you swallow.

This calls for judgement.

You need to sort out the truth from the lies.  You need to
spot what was good and what was a viscious twist.

I did my own sorting out in chapter 1 of the Super Scio book
"What is and Isn't true".  But that's my evaluation.  You
have to do your own and I do not expect it to be the same.
Whether or not you publish yours is beside the point.  You
have been involved for so long and at such a high level
(which is where the control mechanisms are at their worst)
that you will never get free of it unless you lay it out
piece by piece.  If you just do an absolute "its all bad",
you will simply end up running the negative side of the
program instead of being free.

And don't belive everything on the critics side either.
A lot of it is accurate but there are some ringers like
that bogus OT 8.  I've even been fooled by an OT level
written by Martin Hunt.  So use judgement.  Learn to think
for yourself.

Again Welcome,

The Pilot


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


 subj : Super Scio - To Whippersnapper


TO WHIPPERSNAPPER

On 8 Aug 98, Whipsnap@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) posted 
on subject "Jesse Prince?"


> Our "Jesse Prince" friend is nothing new and nothing special as far 
> as I can see.  In fact, in his handling of facts he bears a suspicious
> resemblance to Steve Fishman; his "facts" appear in part to come
> secondhand from discredited sources; and he has a writing style 
> similar to that of Bob Minton, illogical in similar ways to Bob's.

<I'm snipping a long and intelligent post by Whip which chews
up a number of things posted by Jessie>


Well this round goes to you, Whip.

But what made Jessie so shell shocked and upset that he swallowed
a bunch of critical garbage?

THIS WAS A MAN WHO DEDICATED HIS LIFE TO SCIENTOLOGY.

And they threw him in the dumpster.

I don't know who you are but the odds are that he has sacrificed
more and done more for the subject than you have.

But somewhere around the tenth time that DM pisses in someone's
mouth they begin to get the urge to leave.  It's bad near the
top.  I doubt that you could have drunk as much for as long
as he did.

You should be offering him comfort, not emnity.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap.


The Pilot

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


 subj : Super Scio - KARNO vs LENSKE


KARNO vs LENSKE

On 13 Aug 98, tallulah@storm.ca (tallulah@storm.ca) posted
on subject "Who is Norton S. Karno? - Legal Affairs"

(I'm quoting the entirity of tallulah's long and intelligent
post before offering my comments)

> In article <OaO3#aox9GA.197@nih2naaa.prod2.compuserve.com>, Ex Lurker 
> <74640.3705@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> ><<
> >On 12 Aug 1998 02:58:20 GMT, nortnkarno@aol.com (NortnKarno) 
> >wrote:
> >
> >>    Case Entitled: Stephen A. Lenske vs David L. Blender, Joseph 
> >M.
> >>                   Cobert, Kenneth L. Friedman, Norton S. Karno, 
> >Karno
> >>                   Schwartz Cobert, Karno & Schwartz, et al
> >>    Case Number:   C359497
> >>    Date Filed:    03/13/81
> >>    Court:         Los Angeles
> >
> >this is one i've been wondering about for a while.  what the hell 
> >is that?
> >why would lenske be suing karno, a cult ally?
> >
> >rob
> >>>
> >
> >  To establish a favorable precident on something?
> 
> 
> I doubt it, frankly - and I've read the original complaint, as well as a 
> number of other filings in the case, which was eventually settled, though not 
> without much acrimony. 
> 
> The cast of characters is, to put it mildly, curious.  
> 
> On one side of the battle, we have Stephen Lenske, brother (I'm assuming) of 
> Sherman Lenske, who was to go on to act as Special Director of the Church of 
> Spiritual Technology. 
> 
> On the other, we have the sinister Norton S. Karno, who -- was at the time of 
> the lawuit, at least, executor of Hubbard's  will, and who had been during the 
> course of events over which the lawsuit ensued (if I remember correctly, 
> 1977-79)Hubbard's personal tax attorney. 
> 
> Representing Lenske in the matter was the famous Larry Heller, longtime CoS 
> attorney who was a major player within the  corporate 'restructuring', and 
> also spoke at the famous Missionholder's Conference in 1982. At the time of 
> this lawsuit, in fact, Heller was partners with the two Lenskes in a lawfirm 
> not surprisingly known as 'Lenske, Lenske and Heller'. 
> 
> Okay, everyone got the players straight? Lenske, Lenske, Heller and Karno? 
> Good. Let's move on. (I'm working without my notes, so it's possible the dates 
> might be slightly off; I'll double check when I get home.) 
> 
> The case itself, in fact, is actually less than riveting. In 1977 (ish), 
> Stephen Lenske was hired as an associate by lawfirm Karno &Schwartz. He worked 
> at the firm for several years - and, if I'm not mistaken, works particularly 
> in the area of *estate planning* --  before deciding to leave to join his 
> brother's firm. After telling Karno et al of his intentions, he continued to 
> work for the firm for another month, under the understanding that his pension 
> and other benefits - into which he had paid during his employment with the 
> firm - would continue until the day he left. 
> 
> In his claim, Lenske alleges that K&S defrauded him of some of the money he 
> was owed - $20,000 or so, as I recall. He sues for the amount he claims is 
> owed to him, and additional damages, and I believe the total comes to 
> somewhere around $70,000. Both sides send nasty lawyer letters to each other 
> for a year or two, and at one point, I believe an amended complaint by Lenske 
> makes resference to additional frauds allegedly committed by K&S. 
> 
> Eventually, it all ends in settlement; the Lenskes become Special Directors of 
> CST (with, of course, Meade Emory and Leon Mistarek), Larry Heller leaves the 
> Lenskes and starts his own firm.  And Norton Karno stays in the shadows, 
> controlling millions of dollars in assets and real estate, engaging in 
> mortgage scams with WISE bigshot Gerald Ellenburg and running his lawfirm, 
> until that fateful day when he gets a call from ole Ger's WISE buddy Bryan 
> Zwan about the investment possibilities in a little Clearwater company called 
> .. Digital Lightwave. 
> 
> Anyway, that's my recollection of Lenske vs. Karno. I'll reread the filings I 
> have tonight and post a more complete analysis. 
> 
> K 
 

Karno was Ron's man, his old time attorney, at least as far back as
the early sea org days.

Lenske shows up after Ron disappears and establishes himself as Ron's
attorney by means of credentials.

Karno was not labled a suppressive or a bad guy and continued to
do lots of business with Scientologists thereafter, but was no
longer Ron's attorney even though he was the last attorney to
represent him before he disappeared.

The old will is via Karno, the new questionable one is via Lenske.

The above are, I think, all up on the net in one place or another
and I confirmed the old time Karno connection with an ex-Sea Org
exec who was on the flagship with Ron and is still in good standing
with CofS.  So I take it to be fact.

The "young turks" takeover is pretty well established.

Whether Miscaviage jerks Lenske's chain or Lenske jerks Miscaviage
(as Veritas claims) or somebody else jerks both of them is still
to be determined as far as I'm concerned.  Miscaviage is the
current operational head, but that's also beside the point here.

So let's just say that there was a takeover and put aside the
question of who engineered it.

Now lets speculate.

---

The following is all just fiction and bears no resemblance to
any persons living or dead.

Karno is Ron's attorney.

Whoever wants control has Lenske as their man on the legal front
(whether or not he is a mover and shaker, he is certainly in
the picture).

So Lenske sends his brother to work for Karno as a plant and 
infiltrator to gather up secret information.  At a minimum,
enought to fake proof that they are Ron's attorney when it
is needed later, but probably much much more of various
secret affairs.
	       
Karno finds out and gets rid of Stephen Lensky but can't prove or
doesn't dare to prove that he was a spy.

Karno is pissed and kills Stephen's pension (wouldn't pay a
pension to that stinking spy) even though he is afraid of the
reprecussions if he goes after Stephen.

But Lenske knows too much and proves his power by sueing
Karno for the pension.

Karno backs down and comes to terms.  He is thrown a bone as
far as being given continued access to Scientologists for
lucrative legal work.  And he keeps his mouth shut during
the young turks takeover and the later forging of the new
will.

But as I said, this is all just fictional speculation.


Best,

The Pilot

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


 subj : Super Scio - Answering Sassie10


ANSWERING SASSIE 10

On 24 Jul 98, sassie10@aol.com (Sassie10) posted on
subject "Pilot to the White Courtesy Phone"


> About 11 months The Pilot wrote:
> 
> >TO SASSIE10

Welcome Back.
 
> <snip>
> 
> >But I suspect that you might be shuddering in horror at
> >what I'm doing, considering me to be some kind of squirrel 
> >and suppressive.
> 
> I understand you have another point of view.
> 
> >And I look at your posts and think of PR bullshit and blind
> >fanaticism.
> 
> I think you may have overstated your critique.

Perhaps so.
 
> >I'm willing to square off and defend my postion in a dialog
> >with you here on the net.
> 
> Alright Pilot- I'd be curious to see what are the tenets of your defense.
> 
> >Of course I'll be trying to wake you up and get you to start
> >thinking.  And you'll be trying to get me to see the errors of 
> >my ways and bring me back into the fold before I do any
> >more damage.
> 
> I presume though that you feel you are right in your ways and that 
> those ways contain no errors.

I do feel that I am right in my ways.  But I do not claim to be
perfect.

> I would expect nothing less than an attempt by you to sway what 
> you assume from experience are my flawed logic and influenced thought
> processes. 

Actually I will aim to really communicate and sway your actual
opinions on the matter.  I will make assumptions based on
experience, but I will also discard those ideas as you show
me otherwise.  Experience is an aid but it doesn't substitue
for present time perception.


> >If you haven't already done so, you should read "The 
> >Scientology Reformer's Home Page" and/or "The Org's Grades
> >Are Out" which can be found on "The Pilot's Home Page" and 
> >other websites (see the URLs below), so that you know where
> >I'm coming from.  Neither of these contain any confidential 
> >materials, so you can read them without getting
> >in trouble with ethics even if you haven't done your OT levels.
> 
> I have taken some time during my vacation this summer to catch up on some
> undone projects.  I have read fairly representative sections of the
> sites to which you refer.
> 
> <snip>
>  
> >So how about it?  Even if you can't handle me, maybe you can
> >draw some fence sitting lurkers back in.  
> 
> I guess you can start with the defense of your position.
> 
> Sassie
 

I think that the tech is very important.  Otherwise I would
just walk away.  I could be writing books about computers
instead of processing.

I think that when you learn something, its yours.  In fact
Ron says that too.  If you go to a computer school and learn
programming, once you graduate the school has no further rights
or control over you.  If you work or not is your problem.  What
you charge is your problem.  How well you do is your problem.
Whether or not you keep up (a continual need in the computer
field) is your problem.  You don't sell your soul to the 
school and then go back (or never work again) every time that
they realized that they taught you something that they now
think is wrong.

And if you simply make auditors, then you would have more and
more auditors.  As it is now, there are less and less people
who are allow to audit.

Ron says that any auditing is better than none, but the org 
doesn't seem to think so.

And self auditing works.  Ron encouraged it in the 1950s.
Even the 1965 Green Form only has "Self Auditing during
an HGC Intensive" as a question.  It was not considered
an out point unless you were in the middle of an intensive.

So why not do what works?  

Why stop it from being done?

Why not have more auditing rather than less?

Let's say that you have some crackerjack auditors who can
produce great results.  Let's say that they are 100% standard
and the gains are immense.

That is no justification for stopping everybody else from
auditing.

All I see is suppressive monopolistic stomping out of all 
possible competition.

There are exceptions.

I almost hate to mention them because OSA and the SO might
notice.

There was an "assist network" in LA just a few years ago.  
All were Scientogists in good standing doing free assists.  
Probably delivering more hours of auditing than the AO.  They 
didn't think that they were doing anything wrong either.  Until
Sea Org Ethics noticed.  It was crushed right out of 
existance, instantly.

You probably don't realize how many years of good work
can go straight down the toilet with just one Sea Org
mission.  The Finance Police blitzkrieg in LA was a good
example.  Destroyed almost every Scientolgy business in
the city in a matter of months.

Of course the party line is to complain on the proper internal
lines.  That is totally unworkable.

I even went so far (back in the 1960s) as to telex
International Ethics at World Wide.

Useless.  Dead Silence.  I might as well have been talking 
to the wall.

So my position is that they should simply get out of the
way.  Not be stopping things all the time.  And (knowing
from experience that this is critical), not having the right 
or the authority to stop anything.

Let the Sea Org start all it wants, and continue but have
no right to stop.  Let orgs start anything and everything
they feel like.  Let field auditors start.  Let the
dreaded squirrels start.  Let self auditors start.  Just
let there be more tech and more auditing and it will all
sort itself out and come out alright in the end.

Continual stopping of other's cycles of action is a suppressive 
characteristic.

Speaking of stopping, this seems like enough for now.


Looking forward to your reply,

The Pilot

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


 subj : Super Scio - To Rod Keller On Ways To Leave


TO ROD KELLER ON WAYS TO LEAVE

On 10 Aug 98, rkeller@netaxs.com (Rod Keller) asked on
subject "50 Ways to Leave Scientology"

> I'd like to compile a list of ways to leave Scientology. Former members -
> if you would like to be included, please send me your name, last post
> held, starting and ending dates you were involved, the name of the org you
> left, and a short description of the circumstances under which you left. 
> No essays please, just the core facts in a short paragraph. Maybe 4 or 5
> sentences, if that's possible. I'd like it if all stories were attributed,
> since I think that has a strong impact on current members. 
> 
> I'm thinking it might be an inspiration for current members to see so many
> different ways to leave Scientology. Like a light at the end of the
> tunnel.
> 
> -- 
> Rod Keller / rkeller@voicenet.com / Irresponsible Publisher
> Black Hat #1 / Expert of the Toilet / CWPD Mouthpiece
> The Lerma Apologist / Merchant of Chaos / Vision of Destruction
> Killer Rod / OSA Patsy / Quasi-Scieno / Mental Bully
 
OK, here's my contribution to your list -

* Download the Self Clearing Book (http://fza.org)

Of course they don't really have to leave (unless they fess up
in Ethics), but that instantly destroy's the orgs ability
to control them by denying them the tech.

Sort of like having a "get out of jail free" card.

And once your carrying one of those, there is no telling what
kind of trouble you might choose to make.

Best,

The Pilot

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


 subj : Super Scio - To Paul On Lions


TO PAUL ON LIONS

On 13 Jul 98, misiunas@fza.org (Paul Misiunas) posted
on subject "Are You Afraid of Lions?"


> I am afraid of lions.
> 
> Practicing Scientology outside the Church of Scientology, is not what
> you may think it is.
> 
> We would all like to believe that we are free to practice our
> religious beliefs whenever and where ever we choose. Is this a right
> that cannot be denied? Are we assured the right to our own religious
> beliefs and practices? Current copyright laws say otherwise.

<snipped for brevity - the entire text is up at the fza.org website>

> The complete legal ownership of this religion entitles the Religious
> Technology Center, the legal arm of the Church of Scientology, to do
> as it pleases.
> 
> Are you afraid of lions? Lions symbolize the appetite of those that do
> not believe in religious freedom, but only desire to be satiated with
> the bodies and souls of those who oppose it. I fear to become a meal
> in the crusade called the Church of Scientology.
>  
> Paul
> http://fza.org


Very Well Done.

May you be as Daniel in the Lion's Den, protected by the spirit
of truth and freedom.


Affinity,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio - Org Money Stupidity


ORG MONEY STUPIDITY


The org has some really dumb finance policies.

Let's skip the scamlike aspects and the way that huge percentages
flow on up the line and look at something that is stupid
under any circumstances.

They live from hand to mouth on a weekly basis.  An org's
operating money comes from this weeks income.

And they have products that take more than one week to
deliver.

Let's say that they have a wonderful windfall.  A huge crowd
of 100 students from Mexico gets talked into flying to
Flag as a team and getting trained on the Dianetics course
(I was at Flag when this happened many many years ago -
I'm pretty sure it was the NED course that they all came
to do shortly after it was released).

It's gonna take them months to finish that course.  And now
the academy is packed and the service is a bit poorer because
everything is overloaded, so your new arrivals after that
are a bit less than usual because the word has gotten out.

All of the money hits in week number one.  The GI is in affluence
or power.  The staff sees little of it, but they do get some
perks.  Stats are up that week so its good will all around.

And all the money is spent, appropriated, sent uplines, or
whatever.

And for the next 3 months the orgs expenses are higher 
because of servicing those 100 students.

So its one good week and then 3 months of rice and beans
even though the academy is jammed packed and a huge sum
of money went into the reserve account in that first week.

Dumb as turnips.


Best,

The Pilot

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


 subj : Super Scio - To A-J On Cluelessness

TO A-J ON CLUELESSNESS


On 11 Aug 98, a-j@mailcity.com reponded to an FZA repost of
my writup on "SCIENTOLOGY RELIGIOUS TECH AND COPYRIGHTS"


> In article <35d42c51.5502392@news3.newscene.com>,
>   fza@fza.org wrote:
> > SCIENTOLOGY RELIGIOUS TECH AND COPYRIGHTS
> >
> >
> 
> > In the current hate filled atmosphere encouraged by the
> > CofS, where they label any freezoner's as "squirrels" and
> > subject to any form of mistreatment, it is not even possible
> > for a known freezoner to walk into a CofS organization and
> > purchase materials since they are officially barred from the
> > organization.
> >
>
> Dear Mr. Pilot,
> 
> Why is there all this goddamned fuss about wanting to go into the
> C of $ to get Hubbard's materials?  Why don't you ask your German
> counterparts - they have the Robertson bridge up to OT 40.  It's
> right in their home page.
>
> A-J
> 
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum


Indeed thou art clueless.

I'm not a Robertson follower.

I'm a follower of 1950s LRH Scientology.

That Scientology, unlike yours (which is a watered down scam),
allows for multiple sources and extending the tech.

In those days, Ron was only an organizer of data and not 
source (by his own statement).  It includes how to intelligently
separate the wheat from the chaff.  That is how we got all those
great datums from Crowly and Science of Mind and the Rosecrucians
and the Tibetan Book of the Dead and endless other sources.

They did not have an adequate logic structure to evaluate their
own data and evolve a workable tech.

Ron did.  That is his genius.  That was the breakthrough.

With KSW in 1965, he lies and claims to be the single source
even though he was acknowledging other sources as late as 1963.
From there on there is more and more hostility towards further
research and the subject gradually becomes a fanaticism.

As to an evaluation of stats, OT phenomena used to be common
and now are virtualy non-existant in the subject.  Ron used
to talk a mile a minute full of brilliant ideas and then he
shut up like a clam (hundreds of tapes a year, and then a
handful, and then none).

The 1950s material is incomplete.  It was always known to be
incomplete.  It was a research line.  It was the best
leap towards freedom that this planet has ever had.
Unfortunately we missed the grab at the top of our jump
and fell back down.

There is good later data.  But it is trapped in a ridgid
framework that does not support really producing OTs
or completing the research.

So I follow early Ron from the days when he was most inspired.

And then I follow his orders to evaluate and extend the
subject and mix in anything that you can find that works.

So I mix in the later materials, but I do so with the same
critical eye that I would use to judge things coming in from
EST or Krishnamurti.

So I look at sec checks and toss them out the window because
accoring to the basics and according to early Ron, they
will make people mean and nasty due to unbalanced flows
(and Sea Org behavior amply illustrates that he was right
the first time).  But I look at real grade 2 processes and 
they fit in with the basics just fine.

As to Robertson, I like him but he goes through the same
logic sieve as everyone else.

I'm glad that Robertson's folks are auditing just as I'm glad
that CofS is auditing (when they do - usually they just reg
people and then waste the hours on sec checking at cadillac
prices).

But my goal is to see the tech evolve into something that
really can produce a stable OT (rather than just giving out 
OT numbers on pieces of paper).

For that my greatest inspiration is Ron in the 1952-4 period.
And I do not want to commit the overt of obscuring the
sources I am working from.  So I want all who follow me
to have access to those same source materials.

So I am still a follower of Hubbard.  But not the later
stupidity.  The formation of the Sea Org was an overt
product.

That is why your statement was totally clueless.

And another bit of cluelessness that you have been spouting
about is your concern about Oldtimer possibly being located
in Southern California.

It is meaningless.  Both the German Freezone and Freezone
America are International in scope and overlap everywhere.
There are (or were) Roberston style orgs in both New York
and Los Angeles.  There are also dozens of non-Robertson
style orgs in these places.

And Freezone America is an information clearinghouse
(with a stong Pilot bias, but carrying everything they
can) rather than a specific organizational network.
They inspire orgs rather than controlling them.

Still clueless or is this finally sinking in?


The Pilot

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


 subj : Super Scio Humor - Laundry Balling


HUMOR: LAUNDRY BALLING


Background: There was a company (I think it was called ATEG) 
run by some Scientologists that manufactured these "laundry 
balls" which you put in your wash to help get the clothes clean.
Last year there was a big scandal when it was found that the
balls contained nothing but colored water.  This was followed
by disclaimers about "activated water" and all sorts of
nonsense and the jokes and discussions about this on the
ARS newsgroup were endless.  (I'm not joking here, this part
is true).

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

The Sooper Skrit Data About Laundry Balling:

You are filled with space cooties.
Your clothes are filled with space cooties.
The world around you is filled with space cooties.

Space cooties follow the laws of thermodynamics.

They move from areas of high concentration to areas of lower
concentration much in the same manner as warmer air molecules
will disperse through a cold room.  This forms conviction
currents (the cooties were once convicted of being troublemakers)
that are similar to the convection currents described in
physics textbooks.

If you move to an area of Low Cootie Concentration (an LCC),
you will feel better because your own level of cootie concentration
will decrease as they disperse into the surrounding LCC.  This
is why people feel good when they go off to a cabin in the
mountains.  Since there are far fewer surrounding cooties, people
begin emitting them and become less troubled.

If you have a total absense of something, it will act as a
vacume and suck up things.  An absense of air gives us a
vacume cleaner.  An absence of heat (a super cooled object)
will suck the heat out of an area.

This can also be done with cooties.  A "cootie vacume" will
drain the cooties out of an area.  This is a simple application
of thermodynamics.

Cootie vacumes can be created by Solo Nots completions 
concentrating on an object and blowing all the cooties out
of it.  This is easiest to do with tap water.

Hence the laundry balls.  These are cootie vacumes cleaned
by the intense work of SNOTS graduates.  As a result, the
water has been "activated" to draw cooties out of your
clothes if you put them in with the wash.

Wearing cootie free clothes will in turn draw cooties out
of your body and result in your impoved heath and well being.

Think of it as being holy water and the clothes being blessed.
This is what the laundry ballers were really manufacturing.

Unfortunately, they went out-ethics.  It takes about ten
hours of intense auditing with a Quantum meter for a SNOTS
graduate to clear all the cooties out of a single laundry
ball, and the ball looses its effectiveness after a few
washes because it fills up with the cooties from the clothes.

So it takes about ten thousand dollars of Nots auditing
to make a ball that will only clear a few washes.

This is not economically viable.

So they cheated.  After the first batch, which would have
proven to all the wogs that cootie free clothes were 
one of Ron's greatest achievments (see "Ron the Clothes Washer"
soon to be released), they began skimping on the product
(called "cutative tech" in Scientologese).  Instead of
doing the hard work, they simply had an OT yell "get
the fuck out of here" at a warehouse full of laundry balls.

Needless to say, these quicky cootie vacumes did not
work to produce cootie free clothing, and so the 
things were useless and the manufacturers got in trouble.

OSA forbit them to reveal the true story, but now you
have it.  It was not really a rip off.  Instead it was
a failure of "Keeping Scientology Working" (KSW).  They
had the correct tech but they failed to apply it out
of lazyness and greed.

Don't let this marvelous plan be derailed by a few lazy
scoundrels.  Please write your congressman and ask him 
to get federal funding for properly manufactured laundry 
balls.  With enough of them we could clear the planet 
and make it cootie free.

And as a final step, we can use spacecraft to launch the 
cootie filled balls into the sun.  It will be a new
golden age for mankind.


========

I wrote this as a joke.  I really don't know what these
laundry ballers were up to.  But you know, I could almost
believe that they really were doing some crazy idea like
this, having an OT doing something to the water, maybe
cleaning it of cooties or maybe just putting postulates
into it so that it should make clothes clean better or
something.

I'm also surprised that the Catholic Church hasn't thought
of this one yet.  They could sell laundry balls filled
with holy water to make blessed clothes.  Of course I
would expect them to be honest about it.  But I bet
that they could sell some at the relic shops.


=======

With Humor,

The Pilot


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


 subj : Super Scio Tech - Self Clearing More on Ch 3 (Attn Oleg)


SELF CLEARING MORE ON CH 3 (Attn Oleg)

On Sun 19 Jul 98, "Dopertchouk, Oleg" <olegd@ea.com> mailed
to selfclearing-l (forwarded to ACT by Antony Phillips <ivy@post8.tele.dk>)
on subject "SelfClear: Self Clearing side effects]"


> This is about the process 3.4 (Automaticities). 
> 
> I went to a small dancing party 2  days ago. I had a very good time
> there but eventually got tired a bit and so decided to sit down. While
> at it I decided to do some of 3.4. (background note: I have done a
> plenty of OT TR0 - a related orthodox Scn process- before, but 3.4 is
> slightly different - here when something comes up you have a way to deal
> with it, while in OT TR0 you just try to let it go). As soon as I sat
> down and closed my eyes pictures began to pop  up in my mind. I started
> copying them around, shifting them and changing them. At first it wasn't
> very successful  as pictures just dissolved only to be replaced by
> others. It was a bit frustrating but I have gradually learned to hold
> them in place for a longer time. After some more practice I managed to
> get the process going,  pictures got somewhat under my control and my
> mind got cleared up. I felt reenergized so I decided to go back  to
> dancing :) Then I have noticed one very incredible thing - when I have
> closed my eyes, I could still see my body. The view was quite dim - as
> if it was in a dark fog but I could definitely see it. It wasn't my
> imagination - I know how it looks like, the picture this time was
> absolutely stable. The view was black-and-white (black and dark gray,
> rather) but it was there. The experience was quite fascinating but
> didn't last for long - maybe a few minutes, half an hour max. Then the
> mind became unclear again (it was 4 in the morning and I didn't get any
> sleep yet!), I didn't want to push it, so I let it be that way for now.
> Cool :)
> 
> Additional note for  The Pilot:
> The process reminds me a great deal some of the old CCH processes:
> 
> process 1: Get a picture. Keep it from going away.
> process 2: Get a picture. Hold it still.
> process 3: Get a picture. Make it a little more solid.
> 
> These are assumed to be arranged in an order of increasing difficulty.
> process 1 is the easiest. (there are even more undercuts - when you work
> with real physical objects, not with pictures). I have never run them
> but I have read about them in Tech Vols.
> 
> 3.4 seems to be about the same level as the process 3. 3.4 is a tad too
> difficult for me as I often have trouble keeping my attention on a
> picture long enough for it to get copied and changed. I suspect that
> others might have similar troubles too. Would it be a good idea to put
> something like the above processes before 3.4? Maybe not for everybody
> but for those who have troubles with 3.4? What do you think? I know it
> might seem unreal that people can't actually hold on to their mental
> pictures, but it happens...
> 
> These might also  be a better fix for Attention Deficit Disorder than
> Ritalin ;)
> 
> Cheers,
> Oleg

Good suggestion.

I think it would be good to start with physical versions of
these before doing it on pictures.  A whole collection of these
are in sections 13.1 to 13.4 as a warmup for running change
processes.

Try 13.1-13.4 and see if they are easier than the begining of
chapter 3.  Although they are a nice setup for running change
processes (the rest of chapter 13 which should stay where it
is), they might be better as a setup for chapter 3.  Then they
would be followed by the one you stated above, and finally
would come the current chapter 3.

When running commands of the going away / still / solid family,
the commands tend to unflatten each other (16th ACC Tapes), so you
run a few of each in rotation.  I suggested 5 of each in
chapter 13 but I think that 3 each would be better this early
in the book.  Or you could run each to a mild win.  In
either case, you go back to "going away" after doing "solid".

Since the Self Clearing Diaries (at fza.org) also mention a bit
of difficulty with Chapter 3, it might be that a bit more
of a gradient is indeed needed here in general.

I already posted an improvement to process 3.3 which can be
found in post32.txt in the Pilot archives at fza.org.

And your story about process 3.4 is really great.


Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - About The Admin Scale


ABOUT THE ADMIN SCALE

On 23 July 98, "chas" <chasloch@yahoo.com> posted on 
subject "Admin Scale"

> I was looking at the Admin Scale and liked the idea it puts forth but was
> not happy with the order. I have re-worked the scale and feel it is much
> easier to apply. I made no changes to the scale other then moving two items,
> which changes the importance of the items. Does the change make sense to
> anyone else?
> Charles
> 
> Current scale taken from HCO PL 6 Dec 70 "Third Dynamic De-Aberration" is:
> 
> Admin scale
> 
> Goals
> Purposes
> Policy
> Plan
> Program
> Project
> Orders
> Ideal Scene
> Statistics
> Valuable Final Products
> 
> Change this to:
> 
> Admin scale
> 
> Goals
> Purposes
> Policy
> Plan
> Program
> Project
> Orders
> Products
> Statistics
> Ideal Scene
> 
> 
> The ideal scene is senior to the product but you need to understand
> everything listed above ideal scene before you are able to establish what
> the ideal scene should be. Everything is set up so that the goals can be
> achieved. Each relates to each other and all must relate to reaching the
> goals. So the goals are senior. But the ideal scene needs to be correctly
> stated for any proper evaluation to take place to correct negative
> situations or enhance positive ones. So a correctly stated ideal scene is
> just as important as the goals but you are not able to state the ideal scene
> until you have everything in place above it. So you start with the goals and
> you end with an ideal scene. The right goals for an activity should make the
> purpose self-evident and on down the list. So one should take the time to
> correctly state the goals for an activity. The ideal scene is the result
> from correctly stating all the areas of the scale above it. It is then that
> a departure from the ideal scene begins an evaluation into a situation.
> Product has tended to be overstated; it is not the end all but rather a
> measuring stick with regards to the set goals. The proper product will help
> achieve the goals. So the product must be properly stated and must fit in
> relation to the rest of the scale. But the quantity and quality of the
> product comes under the next two items on the list; statistics and ideal
> scene. So the bookends of the Admin Scale are Goals at one end and Ideal
> Scene at the other end. So the whole intent and purpose of this scale is to
> create and establish an ideal scene which is set from all the items above
> it. This ideal scene will in turn give a visible means in which to reach the
> stated goals. CML; 23 July 1998.


To which ralph@atnet.at (Ralph Hilton) replied 

# No. I would agree with the original.
# The ideal scene has to be established before one can correctly
# establish a statistic. Pursuing statistics and VFPs in a way that 
# places lesser importance on the ideal scene is a major flaw in 
# scn management. The overall statistic is senior to individual VFPs.
# Data Series 13 goes into depth about the relationship between the 
# Ideal Scene and the Statistic. I would consider the Data Series the 
# senior technology relating to administration. The rest has to be 
# evaluated with a full understanding of that.


I think that Ralph is correct in his analysis as far as it goes,
but there is a basic flaw in the entire scale.

Note that this scale is very MEST mechanical.  This tends to be
the case with many of the later policies.  The brilliance of the
1952-4 period is that things were evaluated from a Theta perspective
that seems to have been lost in the later days.

I don't want to put down the data series here, it is among the
best of the later policy series.  But it needs to be reviewed
the way that Ron used to look at things when he was at his peak.
In other words, lets examine it from the perspective of a free
being who can make his postulates stick but who has gotten fooled
into trapping himself and tangled his postulates up into 
a knot.

Part of making a postulate stick is to visualize the desired
result.  That is visualizing the ideal sceen.  This is senior
to policies.

Your postulate is not to have the policies followed, but simply
to achieve the goal by whatever means and to do that you visualize
what you want.  Then you think up policies which might help
you get there.

The progression from policies down to orders is reasonable
because you need agreement to get the orders done.  So you lay
things out in a sensible manner.  But that entire section of
the scale is really an ARC step - agreement, duplication, an
understanding of what is to be done, etc.  It deteriorates
into control when ARC and understanding fail, and with that
you begin sliding down the prehave scale (O/W a limited theory)
and will eventually end up with overts and dramatizations
unless you keep rekindling the theta at the top.

Postulates and live communication have to be senior to policy
or we might as well all sign up to become MEST right now.

So we have Goals and Purposes.  Then we have the visualization
of an ideal sceen.  Then we have postulates, ARC, and understanding.
That lets us agree on some policies, plans, etc. to get the job
done.  But policy is only a guiding thing (old definition) and
so we use it when it helps but bypass it whenever it is in
the way.  Our overriding judgements should be based on the
goal we are working towards, the ideal sceen we are postulating,
and of course ARCU which must be senior to policy or else
people will use the policies against each other as the CofS
has amply demonstrated.

That leaves Products and Statistics.  Faced with the choice
between following a plan or policy and violating it to get
a valuable final product, the correct decision is generally
to violate policy to get the product out.  But you can't even
evaluate if its a valuable product without an ideal sceen to
judge it against and you can't force products while creating
ARC breaks in all directions or you end up with an ARC broken
field.  So the products have to be above policy but below
ARCU.

You don't have to have a policy to get a product.  You could
get a valuable product simply by postulates and live communication.
But when you can't make it with a simple wave of the hand,
then you use policies and plans and so forth as a crutch so
that you can do something step by step and still make it.

The statistics only exist in the context of the ideal sceen
and furthermore are low level Mest quantifications.  If you're
upscale, you can look at a product directly and see its value,
but if you have to depend on bean counting, then you are
trusting that the policies, plans, and so forth have given
you the right beans to count.

So you violate policy to get a real product that can be
percieved as valuable in terms of the goals, postulates,
and so forth.  But you would not violate policy to get
some number to look good.  So that puts stats at the bottom
of this hierarchy.  For example, you would violate policy
to get somebody trained through class 4, but you wouldn't
violate it to get the gross income up or raise the letters
out stat.  Unless of course your goal is to make money and
the hell with the tech.

Of course the statistics should reflect the valuable final
products.  But that is based on the hope that the accumulation
of individual efforts will add up to achieving the products
and ideal sceen.  That hope depends on the policies and
orders being correct and therefore cannot override them.

In summary, my revision of the admin scale would be
as follows:

Goals
Purposes
Ideal Scene
Postulates
ARCU
Valuable Final Products
Policy
Plan
Program
Project
Orders
Statistics

Note that although its unpopular, you can make postulates
out of agreement.  But if you make policies that drive the
staff out of ARC, your staff will end up as a pack of rabid 
critics, as we have seen demonstrated for us by the CofS.

Best,

The Pilot

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


 subj : Super Scio Tech - Japanese Translation (Attn NYKinjo)


JAPANESE TRANSLATION (Attn NYKinjo)

On 25 Jul 98, Antony Phillips <ivy@post8.tele.dk> posted on
subject "SelfClear: translation to Japanese"

He was reposting corresponence from "NYKinjo" 
<kinjo@mvg.biglobe.ne.jp>

<snipped for brevity>

> I was once an auditor and then the cramming officer at Tokyo Org.
> 
> What I noted was that Japanese PCs seemed to be running very, 
> very shallowly on Grades, compared with those I had audited in 
> English. I had an idea that Japanese PCs have denser cases. But 
> as they move on the Bridge to NED auditing, they all did fine. I 
> was at a loss why Scientology didn't really work on them whereas 
> Dianetics did.
> 
> Before I had found answers to my questions, some brass SO members 
> came down to our org, and for a moment things were really screwed 
> up. I simply left the Church before getting myself screwed up. They 
> tried to run a Class V org like an SO org. Many left staff in those 
> days.
>
> Not long ago I bought a personal computer and started to browse 
> the Net, accidentally runnning into the FZA homepage.
>
> I downloaded the Pilots works and found them fascinating. I began
> translating the materials and then began wondering if the commands 
> would really run on Japanese.
> 
> I followed FZA links and got in comm with Bernd Luebeck of Freezone
> Europe. He said that English speakers invent a lot of Tech stuff 
> but speakers of other langugages don't.
>
> I started to do a bit of research on this by asking people to define
> some words (of course, they didn't like it) and found out that the 
> subtle nuances of English auditing commands cannnot be translated 
> into some other languages.
> 
> There in Japanese are many, perhaps more than a hundred, words that
> approximately means "you". We have words meaning "you the respectable",
> "you the dear one", "you my friend", "you the hated", etc, but not 
> "you". In other words, we cannot address a thetan separately from 
> his current beingness. "From where could you communicated to another?" 
> becomes "From what places do you the respectable seem to be able 
> to communicate to another human being?"
>
> Oh, this can be overcome. It takes a lot of training on the part of 
> the preclear.
>
> My would-be solution is that I translate the Pilot's works and
> distribute them on the Net along with a set of other materials 
> and references to ensure that people know what to look for as an 
> answer to the auditing command.
>
> Therefore I need to assemble such materials. The Original Scn books
> contain some errors and conflicts, such as the definitions of a 
> Clear and the bits and pieces on prenatals, clams, GE. The readers 
> of Self Clearing Book will mostly go solo and I have to be careful.
> 
> My work seems to take a lot more study than I first expected.


I am very glad that you are working on the translation.

My first thought is that religions such as Buddhism may have
introduced words while coming into Japan.  Is it possible that
Zen might have a word for "self" that has an appropriate shade
of meaning?  Or one that at least comes close enough to work
with just a slight amount of explanation?

Another thought is to use the English "you" directly as itself
in the Japaneese.  Listening to some people talking about
computers in a Chineese dialect, I hear "...... CPU ......".

You may need to add an introductory chapter that presents
concepts of being.  You might even need to invent a process
or two.  Maybe something like, "get the idea of being
you the respectable", "get the idea of being you the unrespectable",
"get the idea of being both at once".

Unfortunately I don't know Japaneese and I'm not an expert
at translation.  So use your judgement.


Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - To Lars On Multidimensional Music


TO LARS ON MULTIDIMENSIONAL MUSIC

On 24 Jul 98, Lars Peter <larspeter@tranceform.org>
posted on subject "Multidimensional Music"

> Dear "Pilot"
> 
> It happens that beings from different dimensions interchange life colours
> for the wellbeing of life in all dimensions concerned. The communication of
> interchange gets carried by art. One of the art forms is music. The soft
> and powerful Multidimensional Musical Magenta Dragon takes care of
> channelling the life colours and has great fun doing that for the pleasure
> and delight of the people involved.
> 
> Your book "Super Scio" is a great piece of work, it's fantastic. I like the
> relaxed style that shines through.
> 
> There is a very weird message that touches a subject that deserves
> attention, it is pretty early in the book in the chapter called "We Begin
> the Creative Process" which is chapter 6 in "Cosmic History". It says:
> 
> ******************
> Those one dimensional systems of creation are still with us.  One of them
> is music.  The one dimensional "object" (e.g. a sound or musical note) can
> only go up and down.  It moves forward in time, but time is not a dimension
> in the sense that were are discussing here (we are concerned with
> dimensions of space).  The "object" can have a width and shape in the form
> of a chord (as opposed to a single note) and there are all sorts of
> interesting aesthetics in the inter-relationship of many notes moving up an
> down in a complex work, but it is still motion in only one dimension.  The
> notes can also have a quality as in the sound of a piano Vs that of a
> violin but this also does not change the number of dimensions just as
> adding color to a three dimensional world doesn't add an extra dimension.
> ******************
> 
> Are you serious? Or is this an example of another implant, an implant
> enforcing the victim to forget the real power and magic of music?
> 
> One can't play a note without making a sound. The sound can't exist unless
> energy and mass is a part of it (as well as time).
> 
> You can have a violinplayer go into a concert hall and play such a sound,
> just one single note. The physical space of the concert hall is 3
> dimensions. You can experience that the single note played by the
> violinplayer fills the whole space in all 3 dimensions.
> 
> So the physical part of music obviously includes all the components of the
> physical universe: Matter, Energy, 3-dimensional Space and Time.
> 
> You can have another violinplayer playing the same note, the excact same
> pitch, filling all 3 dimensions as before and yet it is different music.
> The difference is that there are one or more other dimensions involved and
> the two violinplayers might perform different dimensions apart from the 3
> physical ones. 
> 
> Of course the violin players can be more advanced than just playing a
> single note, they can improvise and they can perform a composed piece of
> music. Now it gets really exciting, it can open incredible worlds,
> depending on the inspiration the music gives as well as on the
> communication with the public and the abilities of the musician.
> 
> Music can give as different effects as rhytmic vibrations that make the
> body dance, healings, spiritual revelations and one or more or even all the
> chackras can adjust their rotations into blissful harmony.
> 
> 
> The example from Super Scio that is quoted above gives an indication that
> multi-dimensional music can carry a communication through even to a
> one-dimensional approach. What I mean is, music is an excellent way for
> let's say a 13-dimensional being to get a communication through to a
> 1-dimensional being as well as to a 17-dimensional one.
> 
> This multi-dimensional power of music is a power that also can be performed
> in other art-forms including the art of writing a book like Super Scio.
> 
> 
> Many greetings from
> The Multidimensional Musical Magenta Dragon
> 
> Lars Peter Schultz, composer of music
> 
> ***************
> Psychic Musician Lars Peter Schultz
> Schultz Artistry Reading **** Touch of deep emotion
> <http://tranceform.org/lps>http://tranceform.org/lps email:
> larspeter@tranceform
> org
> Tel/Fax :+45-4354-3017


Of course if you put music into a 3 dimensional universe there
will be 3 dimensional matter and energy involved in the process.

If you mockup a violin player doing, let's say, the Sibelius 
concerto, you have a 3 dimensional mockup.

Now just mockup the music without putting a soloist or orchestra
there.  Just mock it up in its own space without putting it
in the current physical universe.

A professional should be capable of doing both.

When you mockup the music as itself, it has a space of its own
that is not MEST universe.  Percieving that space and noticing
that it is a space can be exteriorizing because it is outside
of MEST space.  People listening to music with their eyes closed
and following it carefully will sometimes exteriorize on this
basis.

If you examine that space very carefully you will see that it
is only one dimensional.  That is not a downgrade.  It is the
exact opposite.  It is about as close to static as you can
get and that is why it is so all pervasive and powerful.

Now a professional performer puts that into a three dimensional
space using three dimensional instruments and three dimensional
sound waves because we are currently trapped in a three dimensional
space.  If it was a two dimensional or a four dimensional space,
then the artist would use bodies and energies of the appropriate
number of dimensions to serve as his communication medium.
But the music itself is senior to all this, as is the artist
who is mocking it up.

I tend to discuss dimensions of space rather than dimensions
of time or other things because I feel that I understand
the spacial dimensions very well.  Timelike dimensions are
a different breed of cat from spacial dimensions and I don't
like to lump them together, it would be better to call them
something else.  I don't expound much on time because I am
still flailing around in the dark rather than having good
certainty.

If you have extra dimensions of space handily lying around,
you can use them to store pre-recorded time tracks and so
one can get time and space confused.  Of course this was
used in implanting, but its primary use is in entertainment
and so we agree with doing that.  The classic example is
movies which are recorded as 2 dimensional pictures (x,y
co-ordinates) and stacked up in three dimensions to give
the pre-recorded "time track" of the movie.  Of course we
play tricks to get a 3 dimensional perspective, but the
actual recording medium only has 2 co-ordinates on each
frame and that is even true of holographic recording
equippment.  You can't record a canned track unless you
can stack pictures, so any physical universe recordings
have to use time as the 3rd dimension and that only leaves
two for the pictures themselves.

Since music only requires one dimension of space, we can use
a spare 2nd dimension for the time component and only need
two dimensions for a page of music.  If you look at a musical
score, your up and down vertical y component is the space and 
your left to right horizontal x component is the time.
Of course we put multiple lines on one page for efficiency
(unless its one of those big dense orchestral scores).

Musical rhythm is certainly one of the things to investigate
as part of studying timelike dimensions.

I think that there is tremendous spiritual insight to be
gained from music.

And I really liked your opening paragraph.


Best,

The Pilot

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


 subj : Super Scio Tech - GPM Research Truncation (Attn John Alexander)


GPM RESEARCH TRUNCATION (Attn John Alexander)

On 21 Jul 98, John and Deirdre Alexander <Alexandex@worldnet.att.net>
continued the discussion on topic "Structure of GPMS (fwd)"

> Jack Horner's notes from LRH lecture of 6/18/64 read:
>
> "Top of bank/series hardest thing to find root words of.  Can't 
> learn anything then you can't find out to do anything.  Study 
> operates as door to learning how to audit.  All great success 
> built on fundamentals.  Need to isolate foundations.  In aud. 
> foundation = STUDY= ability to learn. [etc.]
> 
> Alan C. Walter wrote:
> 
> > At 08:21 PM 7/20/98 -0400, Homer Wilson Smith wrote:
> >
> > >> The exact moment in time that the subject of the pcs own actual GPM's was
> > >> dropped was 14th June 1964.
> > >>
> > >> It occured in mid sentence during a lecture on "Bring abouts."
> > >
> > >    What was the sentence and why did he cut it mid way?
> > >
> > >    Homer
> >
> > Well it was 34 years ago and I'm sorry to say I am no longer sure what the
> > sentence was.
> >
> > He just switched from talking about GPM's......paused.....then began the
> > study tech lectures.
> >
> > To go from the power, force and mass of GPM's to something as tiny as a
> > mis-understood word, was to say the least a sudden shift of attention, if
> > not a major shock moment.
> >
> > I can speculate that at that moment something massive moved in and blew him
> > out of the GPM Tech area. But this is just guessing. But he never really
> > approached the area with the same intensity as he had done up to that time.
> > Or he may have blown his GPM's at that time, and thus lost interest.
> >
> > And as you probably know the GPM Tech faded from view.
> >
> > Alan


I think that anyone who starts going through the Briefing Course
tapes in sequence gets this shock at the abandonment of the
research line into Actual GPMs.  Coming up through the lower
levels it takes awhile to spot this because the confidentiality
keeps it obscured.  I had always assumed that the clearing course
delt with actual GPMs and was shocked when it turned out to
be just another implant.  

When I was doing the R6 theory section (slightly before the devine 
revelation), there was a checksheet item to mockup a GPM lineplot 
using "to eat apples" as the goal.  I made the begining and ending
items very formal but put lots of non-standardness in the crossover
area.  The supervisor wanted to flunk me for that, but I pointed
out that if the crossover was cut and dried canned items, then
the whole thing would have to be an implant and couldn't be an
actual GPM.  And I gave him the tape references to prove it (I
had been an old cramming officer and could site chapter and verse).
He ended up passing me, but at some point in the discussion he
turned a bit green under the gills.  I didn't know it but in
retrospect I think that he had realized in that moment that the
clearing course was just an implant.

I wonder if the confidentiality was to keep BC students from
bailing out and joining Jack Horner in trying to continue the
research into actual GPMs.  Its also amazing how well they dead
agented Jack.  I heard of him as some crazy squirrel who had
abandonded the tech.  And really he was declared for trying
to continue a tech research line that Ron had abandoned.

To John Alexander - What is the title of the tape in Jack's
notes?  The modern title is "Studying Introduction", ST-1
(study tape #1, SH Spec-24 renumbered 387).

There used to be fewer study tapes on the levels.  But when
I started the Org Exec Course in 1967, there was a complete
set of study tapes near the begining of the checksheet including
one I'd never seen before (or since) called "Study and End Words".  
I recognized parts of it when I heard the more modern version of 
the study tapes, but I don't know which one it was.  Without
notes or my original course checksheets, I've never been sure
which of the study tapes is the hacked up edited remnants of
that GPM + Study tape and I'd like to pin it down for sure.
I seem to recall something about how you can ignore end words
while studying and that possibly looking up words could reduce
the charge on end words.  But I heard it at a time when I
barely knew about GPMs.

If anybody else remembers a bit more about this, please pass
on the stories.

Affinity,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - Ralph's Meter TA Calculations


RALPH'S METER TA CALCULATIONS

On 18 jul 98, ralph@atnet.at (Ralph Hilton) posted on subject
"Meters"

> After a few hours with simultaneous equations last night I came up 
> with a simple modification to the TA that gives a linear range 
> keeping TA2 and TA3 as-is and giving only small changes to TA4 and TA5.
> 
> Rather than having a scale going from 0.5 to 6.5 one has a scale 
> from 1 to 7. Thus if the PC short circuits the TA is 1. If the PC is 
> open circuit the TA is 7.
> 
> The resistance for each TA position is defined by the formula:
> 
> TA = PC/(PC + 25,000)*6 + 1
> 
> or
> 
> PC = 25,000(TA - 1)/(7 - TA)
> 
> This gives
> 
> TA        PC
> 1	0
> 2	5K
> 3	12.5K
> 4	25K
> 5	50K
> 6	125K
> 7	infinity
> 
> Electronically the PC is in series with a 25K resistor across a 
> fixed voltage source.
> 
> The analogue TA meter will display range 1 - 7
> 
> A digital display can show voltage as TA linearly if a negative 
> offset of 1/6th of the voltage across the resistor and PC is used.
> 
> For computer purposes the actual TA of the PC could be transmitted 
> and recorded as a 16 bit figure equal to (TA -1)* 1000 making 
> effective use of the 16 bits without complex translation.
> 
> --
> 
> Ralph Hilton
> http://Ralph.Hilton.org


Most Excellent Work!

For a simple computer meter, take any hardware that can produce
a simple ohms resistance measurement.  Calculate the TA as
(Ohms times 6) divided by (Ohms plus 25000) and add 1 to the
result.

The resulting number must be displayable on screen with a 
simulated dial.  The dial could be 400 pixels wide, making it
big and easy to read.  Low sensitivity is easy.  For higher
sensativity, focusing the entire dial in on, lets say a width
of point one TA divisions should be better than anything the
Quantum can do.  At 2.0, its 5000 ohms.  At 2.1 its about 5612
ohms which means about 1 ohm per pixel.  At 5.0 its 50K and
at 5.1 its just under 54K so we only need a precision of about
10 ohms per pixel unless we do an auto sensitivity increase
like the quantum does (a configuration switch in the software).

Since we want to get up to 125000 ohms and track increments
as small as 1 ohm for highest sensativity at low TA positions,
a 16 bit number (and a 16 bit A-D converter in the hardware)
is just a trifle shy of making a super meter although it 
would be good enough for most uses and could be orders of 
magnitude better than a hardware meter.

So the standard should use 24 bits.  Fancy 24 bit A-D 
converters (even some with built in serial UARTs) are not very 
expensive, so the long range hardware could aim at a high
quality design.  Note that the hardware could just connect
the AD circuit directly to the PC through a 220 or 600 ohm 
resistor.  With that, the preclear at maximum (cans shorted
together) would only draw as much current as a single LED 
which is miniscule and unnoticable as a drain on the computer's 
power supply and is also unnoticable to the PC (and probably 
less current than a normal e-meter battery).

But we can use 16 bits of precision for the first generation
(that should be better than a Quantum at sensativity 32)
because it makes it easy to use cheep hardware and who
ever uses the sensativity booster anyway.  Just carry it
as 24 bits so that we can upgrade easily in the second
generation.

Once you have the actual numbers in the program, you can
toggle different interpretations and display types in 
software by pressing function keys.  You could show a
TA or double dial or actual numbers or multiple windows
(high and low sensativity simultaneously) or instant
replays or auto centering or anything else you can dream
up.

You could also record these in a file for later review.
Robert could have himself and a remote preclear both
on meters, save the files, and then bring them up side
by side onscreen for comparison.

For Homer, it wouldn't be too hard in a second generation
to use two circuits and paired solo can inputs into a
left/right pair of onscreen displays.  Or you could overlay 
the displays in different colors (red and green needles)
or whatever you like, again in software and changable
on a function key press.

Remote (internet) metering is an excellent long range
goal that would really open up the world to telephone
auditing.  The data packet size would be trivial, but
it wouldn't be good to collect the packets into a big
buffer because you would see the entire read late when
the buffer finally arrived.  So you need a high packet
rate, which means that internet baud rates would be
misleading.  Right now we can probably only do this
with a direct dialup.  But custom code on a direct
async link only needs 60 packets per second (at 3
data bytes per packet) to give TV screen level of
visual perception.  This is trivial for a direct dial
at 9600 baud.

The trouble here is that you either need two phone
lines or an IDNS connection that supports concurrent
voice and modem channels so that you can talk to the
PC at the same time.  These are aound in the US but 
not all that common.

As to displays, it would be best to use 8 bit color
because that eliminates the messy bit planes and makes
it really easy to generate a bit map and zap it down
into the video driver.  That's bottom level SVGA and
if it is written in ordinary C for PC DOS (maybe with
a bit of assembler), you get a quick program that just
takes ohms, calculates pixel positions, and zaps the
bitmap.  That will run more than fast enough even on 
a 486 and is ten times easier to program than trying 
to do it as as windows program.  A nifty book called
"PC Intern" (a must for professionals) comes with a
diskette of sample programs including some that zap
bitmaps into the video driver.

So we design for the future with 24 bit precision and
optional dual inputs and a hoped for super internet
connection (today it would take a T1 link and good
internet weather reports).

And in the meantime we implement with only 16 bit
precision (while carrying it as 24) and single input
via some cheap ohm meter type interface board and
use 9600 baud direct modem dialup.  That can be done
today.  And it would still put the Quantum to shame.

Really an exciting idea.

Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - Minor Mistake in Tape Name (Attn Michael)


MINOR MISTAKE IN TAPE NAME (Attn Michael Hunsaker)

On 28 Jul 98, "Michael Hunsaker" <mikegh@concentric.net>
posted a message on the subject "Tapes wanted"

He gave a long list of tapes that he wanted to get for 
the Bay Area FreeZone .

Much of the list came from my posting of a level zero checksheet
(which is available at fza.org).

It included the following tape -

> SHSBC-312 ren 343 15 OCT 63 TBD "Essentials of Auditing")

This is my mistake.  All I can say is that I was writing this
very late at night (as it is right now) and I got careless.

I use the letters TBD for "To Be Done" as a reminder when I
have to go back to do something.  On something big like the
level zero checksheet, I search on "TBD" as a final step when
I'm finishing up the document and handle anything I might
have forgotten to do.  In this case I was reminding myself 
to check the tape in the master list, which I did do before 
posting, but I forgot to remove the letters TBD.

So omit the TBD from the name of the tape.

Sorry.

And much validation to Michael for getting busy and starting
an organization.

Affinity,

The Pilot

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


 subj : Super Scio Tech - THE DEAD ZONE


THE DEAD ZONE


Reference - Stephen King's novel of that title.  The hero is
in a coma for years and comes out of it with the ability to
predict the future.  When asked how he does it, he describes
a dead zone in his mind where he goes to see visions of the 
future (or something like that).

I assume that he got this "dead zone" from some metaphysical
writings but I've never heard the term before.  Anybody
know the source?

I was thinking over OT abilities yet again and I remembered
that title and an interesting idea occured to me.

Every time I directly violated physical universe laws
(ultra rare and not repeatable at will), there is a
little blank spot, a sort of "dead zone".  I would never
have called it that but in retrospect the name could fit.

Note that this is only on direct violation of physics
(moving a cigarette pack or whatever) and not on theta
perceptics, improved luck, telepathy or anything that
doesn't go head to head with conservation of energy.

I have always thought that this was because there was something
I was not allowing myself to remember, something that was
necessary to violating laws directly but which I could
not keep in conscious recollection.

However King's title made me look at it from a different
slant.

What if this "dead zone" is static nothingness.  An almost
return to static, a quick flip of the wrist, and then
back down here in the solidity.

I usually have lucid dreams and can change them at my
will (although I rarely do so, choosing to enjoy the content 
of the dream instead).  If I make a really major (not a
minor) change to the dream, sometimes I half wake up for
just an instant.  You go up, reach down and shift the
dream, and slide back in.  You don't actually wake up,
you just approach it.

Maybe that's how it works.  You go almost static, but not
quite enough to really loose the universe.  And since
static is nothingness, it is a dead zone, no time or space.

It's worth persuing, unfortunately I can't get that
dead zone at will, at least not yet.  But the dream 
control happened sporatically for a long time before
I could do it at will.  It might just be a long gradient.

Perhaps there is something one could drill.  Maybe "spot
a timeless nothingness" alternated with "spot reality".


ARC,

The Pilot


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


 subj : Super Scio Tech - KNOWINGNESS AND CREATION


KNOWINGNESS AND CREATION

This one may be a key breakthrough.

I was thinking about the Know to Mystery scale and wondering
how one could learn something sophisticated such as a computer
language by knowingness alone without the hard work and experience.

It just didn't seem to me that knowingness would go that high.
You can pick up things by knowingness, but I just couldn't imagine
it really working at that level of detail.  My thought experiment
was to consider somebody running "get the idea of knowing the C
language" (C is a computer programming language) alternated with
"get the idea of not knowing the C language" and my conclusion
was that it wouldn't actually yield a knowledge of the language
although somebody might have a few good cogs and get their
confront up on learning programming.

And yet I pickup new computer languages these days with a careless
wave of the hand.  I certainly don't bother "learning" them in
any formal manner.  Using C as an example, when I did start using
the language back in the early 1980s, I spent a few hours flipping
through Kernigan and Richie's book, glanced at some sample code,
and immediately wrote a sophisticated multi-threaded program.
Within a few days I was solving problems for supposed C experts at
work.

Now of course I already had a dozen other computer languages under
my belt, and I knew machine internals well, having done system
programming in assembler (machine) language back in the 1970s.

But I do come very close to picking up new computer languages by
pure knowingness now that I have lots of experience in the area.
Except that it isn't by knowingness.  It can't be or else you
could get to this state simply by drilling knowingness.

So what am I really doing when I pick up some new complex computer
area in an afternoon?  It is not knowingness.  I hardly work on
that at all.

IT IS THE CREATE BUTTON.  IT IS MOCKUP BY APPROXIMATION.

In learning C, for example, I was visualizing what would have to
be under the hood, mocking up how the language would have to work,
almost creating it and simply staying in agreement with what
others had created.  Knowing how the machine works and knowing
what the language would have to do, you of course know what
is there in the language without having to learn it, it is just
obvious.

So I went back to the thought experiment and considered whether
you could get somebody to know a computer language by running
"mockup a computer language", and my feeling was that yes, this
one could work if it was taken far enough.  Of course this might
be a bit out gradient and would probably overrun before you got 
far enough, but I could see it working in the right direction.

In practice, I am quite capable of inventing a computer language,
and picking up an existing one simply means getting enough
anchorpoints and orientation to duplicate what somebody else
has mocked up.

I'll bet that somebody who already knows a few computer languages
could drill mocking up new ones and turn into a real hotshot.

Where a computer neophyte would fail would be in not doing
the mockups in sufficient detail so as to be of comparable
magnitude to existing computer languages.  Note that I'm not
talking here about mocking up a vague symbol of a mass called
"a computer language", I'm actually talking about mocking up
a language in all its detail, including a detailed instruction
set and parsing rules, because that is the one that gives you 
the abilty to know these languages easily.

The point here is that if you can create them, you can know them.

This puts CREATE as the top button on the Know to Mystery Scale.
Starting from static nothingness, you have to Create something
first before it can be known.

Ron bounced around a bit on whether Know or Not-Know was the top
button on the scale.  Putting Not-Know at the top doesn't quite
feel right, so one trys to put it between Knowingness and
Know-About (learning).  But in practice, you generally shift
up from leaning to pure knowing without going through a not-know
step.  And you can shift from Knowing down to leaning by
simply going downtone or losing confidence or contracting your
space again without manifesting a Not-Know step.  

However, moving up to create, there is a natural tendency to 
do a little bit of a not-know.  I don't mean a "blast everything
out of existance", but simply that you would ignore the existing
computer languages (not-knowing them slightly) so as to mockup
a fresh and different one.

And coming downscale from create, after creating something,
you would have to not-know it to some degree before you actually
needed to do anything to know it (knowing it is an inherent
effortless side effect as long as you are at create).

So the top of the Know to Mystery scale is really:

CREATE
NOT-KNOW
KNOW
KNOW-ABOUT

And then it goes downwards (looking etc.) to Mystery as is
discussed in other writings.

I had a wonderful experience once when I was being word cleared
in session.  This was when I was getting set up for expanded
grades back in the 1970s.  I was a class 4 auditor and grade
VA release from the 1960s one process per grade era.  My
auditor was one of my own former PCs and the C/S also knew
that I had been a real hot shot cramming officer.

Everybody involved, including myself, the auditor, and the C/S
knew that I probably knew the Scientology materials and
definitions better than both the auditor and the C/S did.
But the first step of the program required doing all the
word lists for any correction list that they might have to
use.  And since I was grade VA, that meant every word list
in existance except for the ones on the Clearing course and
OT levels.

So the word clearing was a totally bullshit step which everybody
knew was a waste of time, and it was being charged for at
the current auditing rates ($50 per hour at that time).
The C/S did not dare bypass the word clearing step because
that would be squirreling.  And we all wanted me to get
onto the expanded grades processing.  And nobody wanted
to give me a lot of bypassed charge on wasting money on
unnecessary actions.  That quantity of word clearing can
easily burn up 25 or 50 hours of auditing.

So we went through those word lists at express train speed.
The auditor would say the word and I would say the definition.
I wouldn't think about it, I'd just say the first thing that
poped into my head and the auditor would just say the next
word without stoping to consider whether I was answering
correctly.  He had confidence that I knew the answers so
he wasn't worrying about it.  And we weren't worrying about
context.  It was "Run?" - "Go Fast" rather than "Run?" -
"do a process", and it was as fast as we could say the
words quickly.  So we did about 30 definitions per minute.
We went through thousands of words in a couple of hours.

And something wild happened.  First of all, I lost all
considerations.  Then I was just talking from knowingness
without looking at any pictures or considering anything.
Then there was a moment of stumbling when I realized that
I didn't know anything and this was all meaningless.
I talked to the auditor a bit about machinery blowing and
he indicated an FN on that and then we went back and
continued the word lists.

And then I realized that I was just creating definitions
and not actually knowing anything, simply inventing
without reference to anything.  And the definitions
just happened to be right but not as a result of looking
at or knowing anything.  They simply were right because
I was postulating that they should be correct and in
agreement because I wanted to get through the word
clearing action without any time wasting distractions
such as looking up words (and I didn't have to look
up any in that entire endless list).

At the end of the action I had a floating TA and was
in a state of creation above knowingness, but of course
I didn't recognize the significance of that or fit
it into the K-M scale as I did just now.  But it is
a great example of what I am talking about in this
writeup.

In the Hubbard College Lectures of 1952, Ron talks
about how you would learn to fly a plane by visualizing
everything that could happen and what you would do
about it.  He talks about a beginning auditor preparing
themselves to do a session in this manner;  Visualizing
everything that could happen and how to handle it.
He certainly saw a bit of this in those early inspired
days, but it didn't make it into the general theory
or onto the K-M scale.  But he does talk at times 
about learning something by doing mockups to approximate
it (I think that that one is even on the study tapes).

So this isn't really new data.  But the relative importance
has been missed.  Seeing it this way as the top of
the K-M scale puts a whole lot of things into context
and opens up practical applications.

And my thought experiment with the C language points
up another key concept.  It is not the size or significance
of the mockup that is important.  It is the amount of
detail.

The difference between a child's stick figure painting
and a Rembrant is the detail.

Tesla is said to have visualized the complete AC power
generation system in his mind before he wrote down the
design of the Niagra Falls generators for Westinghouse
to build.

Mozart is said to have composed symponys in his head, 
complete in every detail, before setting them down
on paper.

The great men in almost every profession are usually
notorious for their attention to detail and when you
dig further you often find that they had a tremendous
ability to visualize things as well.

Recently there has been a discussion of theta size on 
Clear-l / ACT, with processing about mocking yourself
up as bigger and so forth.  Now that is nice and getting
the idea of being bigger and smaller alternately is
certainly a good process.  A thetan's ability to reach
and to have space is definitely one of the monitoring
factors and you can get a big fast gain that way.

But this factor of details is why you don't get an
OT simply by having the person be bigger and permeate
things.  He is simply not up to mocking up the quantity
of details necessary for good perception and control.
If you get the idea of being as big as the galaxy
(which is fun and interesting), you probably get a
vague blur rather than precisely visualizing the
details of 3 billion star systems (yes it is that
many).

Now don't let this discourage you.  It is a gradient
like everything else.  It starts slowly, but you
grow by quantum jumps rather than linearly by one
item at a time.  Once you can handle a certain level
of detail, then you can handle it.  Once you can hold
one musical composition in your mind in detail, then
you can do them endlessly, like Mozart.  Its only
the first one that's hard.

Do the usual attention drill (a locational, as in self
clearing process 1.1) spotting individual points on
objects.  Then as a second step, spot and hold points,
keeping the previous points while adding a new one so
that you can hold multiple points simultaneously.

Do mockups and see how many details you can put into
them.  Do it occasionally getting a little more detail
each time.

Go ahead and permeate a big city and see how many
individual buildings you can hold in your mind at
once.  Try it occasionally and keep pushing the
number up.

Listen to complex music and follow individual lines.  
Then listen again and try to follow multiple lines 
at once and see how many you can get.

Study something complex and work on getting more
and more of it into your mind at once.

There are lots of things that you can do here and
there are many ways to work them into the ordinary
activities of your life so that they build up
naturally and easily.

And there are quantum jumps where you start getting
collections of detail as a unit without loosing sight
of the detail.  Think of reading.  You probably get
"The Cat" as a single unit rather than as 6 letters
or two words.  And yet you probably do see and know
all the letters.  Just contrast that with the first
time learning experience of sounding out all the
letters and composing words while reading something.

I wonder how it would work to just have kids mockup
words and how to spell them and to write them down
without inval or eval and just keep them at it until
something gives way.  Then you would just have to
orient them to what the currently agreed upon words
and spellings are.  This is just in theory, but it
might turn on a fantastic learning ability.

You raise your ability to handle detail by rolling
up your selves and handling details.  If you do this
consciously in present time without putting it on
circuit, it soon jumps to being able to handle
packages of details.

Part of our downfall may have been that we decided
that there were too many details and it seemed 
overwhelming or too boring and so we put the details
on automatic so that we wouldn't have to confront
them.  But if it is on automatic, your confront
never comes up and you don't get that jump up
to handling quantities of detail easily.

I would say at this point that theta horsepower is
primarily monitored by how many details you can
mockup and hold.  If you want to be god, you better
plan on tracking every sparrow that falls.

So the top of knowingness is the Create button, and
the monitoring factor is how many details you can
create.

I'm sorry if this sounds like work.  It can be rough
getting started.  But at the top of the scale its
lots of fun to mockup lots and lots of details.

Affinity,

The Pilot


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

These messages were 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.

The MASTER LIST OF LRH TAPES which I posted recently is available both at 
fza.org and at http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~krasel/CoS/tapes.html

All of this week's posts will be collected in Super Scio Archives
#33 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.

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



