Date: 20 Nov 1998 04:00:12
Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology
From: pilot@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (The Pilot)
Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 41 - NOV 98 PILOT POSTS


POST41.txt 

SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 41 - NOV 98 PILOT POSTS

Posts to ARS/ACT are in Archive 39
Posts to ACT only are in Archive 40 and 41

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

Contents:

   subj : Super Scio Tech - Ethics And Conditions (attn Alan)
   subj : Super Scio Tech - Cost Accounting (attn Alan)
   subj : Super Scio Tech - Scientology And Metaphysics
   subj : Super Scio Tech - Wholetrack Car Bodies (attn NDC)
   subj : Super Scio Tech - Running Small Reads (attn Ralph)
   subj : Super Scio Tech - To Carol On 8th Dynamic
   subj : Super Scio Tech - Continuing On The Chakras (attn Lightnin)
   subj : Super Scio Tech - Computer Meter Continued (attn Nic)
   subj : Super Scio Tech - BREAKTHROUGH ON LOSS

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

   subj : Super Scio Tech - Ethics And Conditions (attn Alan)


ETHICS AND CONDITIONS


"alan c. walter" <wisdom@cyberstation.net> has been putting
out some excellent technical posts recently.

On 2 Nov 98, he responded to Heidrun's followup to his
earlier post called "Process Basics", and I wanted to
address a segment of that.

> Heidrun Beer wrote:
> 
> > However what it did not contain was any incomplete or never
> > applied ETHICS CONDITIONS.
> 
> Strange before the quickie grades came in there was no real need for ETHICS
> CONDITIONS.
> 
> They just naturally went in.


This is absolutely correct.  The ethics conditions were not
present in early Scientology and they were not necessary to
achieving case gain.

The conditions from non-existance upwards are a management
system.  They are useful for operating in an area.  But
they have nothing whatsoever to do with ethics.

These upper condition formulas are tech for improving
flows.  They don't include any consideration of the ethical
questions of which flows should be improved nor do they
include anything which increases one's responsibility.

One does not become more ethical by getting the stats up.
However one can gain prosperity by using these formulas.
So let us not throw them away.  But calling them ethics is
a red herring.

The lower conditions are a theta trap.

They stick one to the organization.  They ask for propitiation
and responsiblity as blame rather than true responsibility and
contemplation of optimum survival.  They push one off of
infinity valued logic and cast things into a good/evil two
valued logic system.

Alan is correct in observing that these were put in to
stifle protest at a time when the organization was delivering
an overt product.

The keynote of the old theta traps was that they used
the thetan's own energy against him.  Like a chineese finger
trap, the harder you struggle, the tighter you are held.

With ethics as it is currently set up in Scientology, the
more you try to put your ethics in, the more you restrain
yourself.  But greater responsibility goes hand in hand
with less restraint and more action.  So it is a reverse process.

Let us say that one sees some terrible out-points in the
organization.  The direction of greater responsibility 
would be to try and do something about those things.
Handling these might require violating some policy or
breaking some agreements.  The doubt formula is a way
to get the individual to accept these things as being
for the greater good and swallow his objections.  And
so he operates less and takes less responsibility.

A correct ethical action would be considering what you
could do in the future to bring about a more optimum
condition rather than propitiating for what bad thing
you may have done in the past.

If you are going to run O/W, then you run O/W as a
process with a view towards bringing about an as-isness.
This sets the person free of his guilt and, because
a being is basically good, will show an increase in
his future ethics and responsibility.

A reverse process would be to restimulate O/W that
is late on the chain without going earlier and bringing
any basics into view.  That would actually make grade 2
more solid.  Imagine running general O/W or even just
a withold rudiment and every time the PC brings up an 
overt, you end session and send him out to make amends.  
The overts will stick and go solid instead of errasing.

Real ethics is how could you help others and working
to embrace other's viewpoints as well as your own.

Reverse ethics is moralizing and make wrongs.

Real ethics is do unto others and love thy neighbor
as thyself.

Reverse ethics is stop others from fornication and never 
criticize the church.

The being's own high sense of ethics has been used again
and again to entrap him.  I prefer not to contribute
to that motion.


Hope this helps,

The Pilot

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

   subj : Super Scio Tech - Cost Accounting (attn Alan)


COST ACCOUNTING

On 10 Oct 98, "ACW" <wisdom@cyberstation.net> posted on subject
"Cost of introduction to new people to Processing or Training."


> I recently did a cost analysis of how much it costs to introduce a new
> person and bring them on lines to taking a major service.
> 
> One of the ways we introduce our subject is by renting a booth at a trade
> show.
> 
> These usually cost $500 for 2 days.
> 
> Using 3 staff who spend approx 10 hours a day at the show. = 60 hours.
> 
> We usually get 30 prospects for profiles and appointments.
> 
> Of the 30 people approx. 10 show up.
> 
> Each of the 30 people need to be called to verify the appointments. = 10
> hours
> 
> It takes about 3 hours to mark, introduce and evaluate the profiles. = 30
> hours
> 
> 1 person signs up for a major service. = 100 hours spent on each person @
> $20 per hour = $2,000
> 
> A total of 30 new public people a year buy new services. 
> 
> Plus it costs $4,500 a month for rent and utilities. A yearly total of
> $54,000. = per person $1,800.
> 
> Salaries for 4 people, 2 Instructors and 2 processors approx $90,000 =
> $22,500. and a further $3,000 per new person. 
> 
> A total of $6,800 per new person. (Note: I have not included salaries of
> myself or executive staff.)
> 
> The probable total cost is around $10,000 per new person.
> 
> In the 60's my cost of introducing a new person was $1,500 so the ratio has
> stayed fairly constant with inflation over the years.
> 
> Alan


First, thank you for the info, and I agree that the initial expense
of bringing in new people can be high.

But there are better ways to run these numbers, so lets see what
we can do.

First lets separate out the promo from the cost of delivery so 
that we can see how low the prices can get, because lower prices
will bring in lots more people for the same promotional expense.

I will simplify and just look at training first.

Lets say 2 instructors at 40,000 each (higher than you were suggesting).
Lets say an admin at 25,000 and throw in another 15,000 for a
partial share of the management expense giving 80,000 salary,
and we'll toss in 60,000 for the rent and so forth making a total
of 140,000 to keep 2 instructors delivering full time (much higher
than your allocation).

Each instructor might handle 20 students, and there are 2, so we
have 40 seats in the classroom which each must bring in 3,500 a year.
So our delivery expense is about $300 for a one month course.

Now lets add 50% for our promotional budget and another 50%
because things are often not ideal and to build up reserves.
That gives us a course price of $600 per month of course time,
or $150 for a one week course, which is not bad at all.

Let's allocate another $140,000 to keep 2 processors working
full time.  At 25 hrs each per week, we get about 2600 hours
of delivery in the year, and again we double everything and
expect $280 thou to come in, so the processing price is about 
$110 per hour, and there is enough slack in this that we could
just make it $100 because it sounds good.  Again not bad.

Of the total 560 thousand, we expected 1/4 or 140,000 to
represent promo etc.

One could pick up some people by brute force at 2,000 a head,
but that is not really accurate anymore because we have an
easier time selling cheaper courses.  So maybe 1,000 is a
better estimate.  But that is only seed money to keep some
new people coming in ahead of their usual comm lag.  Part of 
the promo money should go to some good mass marketing rather 
than one on one signups.

And the bang for the bucks is good, so we get much more repeat
business.

And if the service is good, word of mouth spreads and people
bring in their friends.

I watched an org doubling every 3 months mostly on word of
mouth in a time of cheap service and happy clients.  But
note that it had to hang in there for a year doing a good
job of delivering those same services before the flows took off.

I know you can't run an org by giving this stuff away for free.

And I agree that you have a right to cater to high end
public if you want as long as you don't stop others from
delivering more cheeply like the orgs do.

But I think that volume is the smarter way to go.  And if
you get high volume with lower prices, the flow itself
attracts more people and soon you have a feedback effect
where your promotional costs will get very low.

The orgs cut their own throats by creating ARC broken fields
and using abusive ethics and so forth, and then they priced
themselves out of the market.

But there would be times when you'd see one of these
power feedback expansions start to take off before it
was killed in its tracks, so the potential is there.

The real problem is that there are long comm lags and one
must survive the initial period before the flows become
self generating.  One might think of this as an establishment
phase where it is extremely expensive to get a body in the
shop.  That is what you were describing above.

This is not actually unique to processing, almost all new 
businesses seem to go through this hungry negative cash
flow period.  Big corporations launching new ventures simply
pour in the bucks and ride it through, that is the fastest,
but its a catch-22 in that it's only open to the rich (have
to have money to make money).

One solution is to operate initially with cadillac style pricing 
with a product that is good enough to sell under those conditions,
building up reputation and connections.  That lets you get
established without running negative.  Again this seems to
parallel your current operation.  But once established,
you can shift to low price high volume and boom spectacularly.

Another method is to build up a flow while supporting
yourself in some other way.  The bunch of Scientologists
(David Gale, Chuck Baron, etc.) who made a mint launching 
MCBA (computer accounting software back in the 1970s) did
most of the work in their spare time.

And yet another is to leverage existing flows and connections,
like an employee who builds a tremendous reputation and
then hangs up his own shingle (Amhdal in the computer
field was an example).

One way or another, you establish a base first and then
you open the floodgates.  There is a matter of timing here.
Is one established firmly enough to shift into high gear
or will the mechanism fly apart under stress, and of course
are the comm lines established well enough to generate
the big flow that is necessary.


Best,

The Pilot

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

   subj : Super Scio Tech - Scientology And Metaphysics


SCIENTOLOGY AND METAPHYSICS


In 1950 Hubbard took the radical step of allowing the preclear
to run whatever the preclear came up with instead of insisting
that the preclear run what he was supposed to find.

Hubbard, after all, believed that the engrams were recorded
in the cells of the body and thought that the source of the
reactive mind was prenatal incidents in the current lifetime.

But Ron, perhaps because he was not over-educated and 
certain of what he was doing, did not at that time suffer from 
the stultifying self-righteousness which might lead a
practicionier into forcing a subject back into the acceptible
channels.

And so he let a preclear run an incident of having been a
lion and eating their keeper.  And the preclear seemed to
get better.  And when his own students took exception to this,
he insisted that you let the pc run whatever the pc came
up with.

And then one time he asked a pc for the "death necessary to
resolve the case" and the pc found a past life death.  Now
this was a misunderstood on the pc's part.  The question
was asking for the death of an ally (such as an aunt or
grandparent) which was assumed to be in this lifetime, and 
Hubbard had started abbreviating the question because 
everybody knew what he meant, until he got a new preclear 
and failed to explain what kind of a death he was searching 
for.  Again, he let the pc run what had come up without
forcing him to run what was supposed to be run.

Within a few months Ron was begining to follow up on these
things and experiment with past-life incident running,
and eventually he found a past life recall of his own which
had taken place in the Civil War.  And this was quite
startling to him, he talks about that in one of the early
lectures.

Please realize that Hubbard himself did not have any 
knowledge or recall of past lives prior to late 1950.  
If you have any doubt of this, please read the first 8
R&D volumes, the entire slow and painful process of his 
comming to a gradual realization of these things is laid 
out in detail.

He might have dabbled a little bit in magic or philosophy,
but as far as metaphysics and spiritual awareness goes,
he was basically a novice rather than an advanced
student.  If you read the accounts in Bare Faced Messiah,
his brief adventures with Jack Parsons in OTO are about 
the same as his brief adventures in the Navy lobbing
depth charges at a mocked up submarine.  So he was no
more an expert at magic than he was a nucelar physicist.
It would be better to say that he had a bit of exposure
to the ideas rather than thinking he was any kind of an
expert in these areas.

He was really more of an adventurer with a sharp mind 
rather than a serious student of anything.  And even the
adventuring is light, being just enough to gather some
seeds that could be blown up into fantastic pulp fiction
tales.  He'd go out in a glider first and then he'd whip
up a ton of aviation stories.  Really just a writer who
wasn't afraid of getting his feet dirty to add a bit more
realism to his stories.

And the most fruitful dabbling was, of course, a bit of
playing around with psychoanalyis.  From the "Story of
Dianetics and Scientology" tape we know that he was 
doing a bit of this at Oak Knoll, passing himself off as
a doctor to a few of the patients and clerical staff
while he was recovering from his "war wounds" (which
according to his statement in the lecture were nothing 
more than having a bit of a limp, feeling depressed, and
having his eyesight getting a bit weak).

I would think that this was simply a bit more of his
gathering of story ideas, and certainly one of those
ideas wound up in the novel "Fear".  And the general
playing around as a doctor probably also found its way 
into the Old Doc Methusela stories. But a writer will 
mine an area for lots of stories, going at it from many 
different angles.

So I imagine that Ron would have envisioned some kind
of psychological super science for his next batch of
stories, and we have Van Vogt's "Null A" and Russel's
"Diabologic" as existing successful pulp stories along
those lines.  And what better than to imagine a sort
of super mental state, a "clear", which had all the
potentials of the mind unleased based on the premise
that what any one mind could do must be an inherant
capability of all minds if only they were used to their
full potential.

And so he dabbled some more, running people back
through traumatic incidents, and with that he stumbled
upon the easily repeatable Dianetic phenomena.

It must have been a great big "Oh shit, this is real!".
Not a scientific researcher but a kid at the candy
shop saying "Wow, look what I found!"  We all get
a shadow of that in our early exposure to the subject,
sitting there with a bag of trick well in advance of
any thorough scientific progression.

Out of this comes the Dianetics book, not at all well
researched but instead a mixture of the futuristic
speculation and the wild phenomena which were found
and taken to be the proof that the speculation was
correct.  And the author is a pulp writer who just
knows that it is the proper thing to exaggerate a
few glider flights into wild tales of daring aviation.
And so the dabbling is exaggerated into thorough
research and the Dianetic boom is born only to
flounder as the endless loose ends and difficulties
became visible under actual use.

And, as anyone who has had success with processing
well knows, the biggest loose end was that most
chains of incidents do not have basics in this lifetime
but instead run back to earlier existances.

With that, the whole applecart is overturned and
Hubbard makes his own attempt to think this through
scientifically, based on his vague understanding of
what a scientist is supposed to do.  The end result
of this is the Theta/Mest theory of 1951 and the
Dianetic Axioms.  Again we do not have anything
resembling thorough research, but we do have an
attempt to formulate a logical structure that will
explain the wild phenomena.

But the vague Theta Mest theory and that first
set of axioms leave even more loose ends than DMSMH,
hinting at things without quite coming to grips
with them.

So there is more dabbling in past lives and more
guesswork, and then he takes the brilliant step
of formulating the Scientology axioms.

And so we have the wild period of 1952-4 where these
ideas are being researched and organized.

Take a look at the Time Track of Theta lectures which
FZBA posted to the net recently.  Notice the statement
(which I've quoted before) about taking anything
that works in this area and adding it into Scientology.

That is not an idle remark.  That was an order which
was implemented.  The students were set to digging
into metaphysics and finding things for Ron.

In 1966 I was on course with a very old lady (I think 
she was in her eighties) who had been with Ron in the 1950s.  
She was still looking around for books (especially metaphysics)
which would help in the research and whenever she found one 
she would buy a copy and mail it off to Ron.

So in those early days other practices were tried and
tested and anything which worked was fitted into
the Scientology framework.

But note that this was a small batch of students.
Those early courses (ACCs etc.) usually only had
about 20 or so students on them and there were only
a small number of courses given in this time period.

So what we really had was a light, cursory survey
of what was around and easily available in metaphysics
during the early 1950s.  We gained a lot from it,
but that research line was cut off far too quickly.

And the scan of metaphysics was very shallow and
lacking in expertise.  An example is Kundalini and
the chakra system.  Somebody finds out a little about
that (a particular system of 7 chakra), and Ron
immediately assumes that the 7 chakras are just
an altered perception of the 7 entities he was
finding in the HCL lectures.  He mentions that in
the PDC lectures (somebody posted the quote recently).
He never notices that the locations in the body,
the properties, and the effects are quite different.
Instead he has a know-it-all attitude and doesn't
bother to look.

So the ideas of metaphysics made their way into
Scientology on a very hit or miss basis.

And by the late 50s, Ron was already begining to
turn his back on any other sources, and so that
very fruitfull area of research was cut off.

And by the late 60s, the research is blocked entirely
by the foolish idea that we have all the answers
despite never having made a stable OT.

There is a lot to be gained by bringing more of
the metaphsical ideas into the Scientology logical
framework, devising processes, testing them, and
expanding the horizons of the subject.


Best,

The Pilot

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

   subj : Super Scio Tech - Wholetrack Car Bodies (attn NDC)


WHOLETRACK CAR BODIES (Attn NDC)

On 20 Oct 98, "N. D. Culver" <ndc@alum.mit.edu> replied to
my post on "RUNNING RIDGES"

> Pilot wrote:
> > 
> > I picked a car and made it more solid.  That was nice
> > and easy.  I've run that before.
> > 
> > Then I made it less solid and turned on an incredible
> > grief charge.  I almost started crying and had no
> > idea why.  So I kept running the process.  And after
> > a little while the grief flattened and I realized
> > that it had been restimulating the loss of home universe.
> 
> You sure picked a good one. The automobile often represents
> the physical human body in the universes just above this one.
> 
> ndc


My first reaction was "Naw, there's some heavy wholetrack
significance on planes, trains, and automobiles, but they
aren't body types".

And then I stopped and thought of those kids stories where
they have a steam locomotive with a face on the front like
"the little engine that could".  And the various cartoon
cars that talk and so forth (as in "Who shot Rodger Rabbit").
And of course the famous old sci-fi story "Killdozer"
(by Sturgeon if I remember correctly).

So I think that you're right, there is something on this.
But I would expect that its a lot further back than the
next universe up, more likely about 4 or 5 universes ago.

Unfortunately I can't do any better than clipping the edge
of this one right now.


Thanks,

The Pilot

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


   subj : Super Scio Tech - Running Small Reads (attn Ralph)


RUNNING SMALL READS

On 3 Nov 98, ralph@hilton.org (Ralph Hilton) responded to Alonzo's
post on "Additional Tech Question"


> > On Tue, 03 Nov 1998 17:12:02 -0700, in alt.clearing.technology 
> > Alonzo Girthmeyer <alonzogno@spamcyberhighway.net> wrote:
> 
> > #2.  I seem to reacll some mention of the "By-passed Case" where items 
> > that read were not run because of 'no interest' on the part of the 
> > pc.  This left much restimulated and un-handled charge on the case 
> > which actually drove the oca graphs down overall even though the PC 
> > may show wins on items run in which he had interest.
> 
> You hit a biggie!
> 
> The charge was restimulated below the level that the meter read at. It got
> bypassed.
> 
> Bad auditors don't see the small reads.
> 
> That little D/N means there is more charge than on the instant LFBD.
> 
> Always take up a small d/n. It is major charge and is more significant than an
> LFBD F/N.
> 
> 
> Finish off the LFBD and ack it then get the D/N.
> 
> --
> 
> Ralph Hilton
> http://Ralph.Hilton.org


There's an LRH reference which says that only an ARC break will worsen
a graph and I'm inclined to think that he was correct.

If the pc says "no interest", then I doubt that you'll get an
ARC break by skipping it although you might miss some potential
gains.  In other words, maybe the graph doesn't rise like it
should, but I wouldn't expect it to go down.

Seeing a graph crash, one would look for ARC breaks or out lists
or wrong indications (especially from ethics handling) or heavy
inval or suppression (not to blame somebody else but to see if
somebody is giving the pc chronic ARC breaks).

I would also check if there was a big loss or a heavy overrun
(because of the inval which goes along with that).

I would not look for bypassed case as a source because 99 percent 
of the person's case is being bypased anyway.  That's just normal.

If you only get a tiny read on something, then calling it was
not very restimulative, it didn't bite hard.  So skipping these
does not leave the person very charged up.

Ralph is correct in saying that the little D/N probably has
more charge under it than the instant LFBD, but most of the
charge is outside of the band of accessibility.

And the things that don't read (most of the person's case)
are the most heavily charged of all.  But you don't try to
run them.  Its not just that you don't know what they are,
its that the person has no hope of Itsaing them until he
is further along.

When I was first auditing, we took any change of needle
characteristic as a read and handled it.  That included those
small d/ns and I had quite a bit of experience with running
them.

Then there was a transition period of a few months where 
we used any reaction when handling ruds, sec check questions,
or doing a correction list but only took small falls or
better on assessments and so forth.  That was actually
pretty workable.

And finally we shifted over to small falls or better in
all cases.  This made the auditing a lot smoother.

When you take up one of these small reads, you are at the
very edge of what the pc can Itsa.  It will take a long
time and you have to be flawless because you have no
safety margin, it is almost out of reach.

If you are doing something where you come back over the
same area again, such as a prepcheck, you can count on
it showing up bigger and cleaner as you take off surrounding
charge that is easier to reach.  Or you can put in 
suppress and inval buttons and see if it cleans up and
becomes easier to reach.

There might be exceptions where you want to push the pc
that hard, but the most likely is in doing a repair
list, and in that case you would do the best reads first
and should usually find that the poor reads have become 
good ones as you reassess.  On a repair I would take one
of these up if there is nothing reading better, it might
be your only way in.

Of course I believe in cycling around many times, taking
the easy targets and moving quickly, that causes the
next bunch of targets to graduate up to becoming easy.

That only fails when you delude yourself into thinking
that an area has been terminatedly handled down to rock
bottom and thereby cease to ever go back and take it
further.

If you're far along, and know enough to roll your own
processes while soloing, and can stand up to the randomity,
you best handling on a d/n is to devise a process to
raise your confront in the area, run it, and then
recheck the question.  Seeing a d/n on "was I Napoleon",
one could run "get the idea of being/not being Napoleon"
until one's confront came up on it, for example.

But you can't do that with a low level pc, tossing in
exra processes from left field in the middle of an action
would be too rough.  However you can save them up and
run them later if you are running lots of processes in 
an area with a view towards handling something in a
thorough manner.

By the way, the old excuse for an oca graph worsening 
was that it was just a picture of a valence and the
person had simply shifted valences or maybe even gone
back into his own valence which was much lower scale
that the false valence he was in.  This goes back to
the time before ARC breaks were properly understood
(which didn't come about until the 1960s).  This might
be true occasionally, but I think that it was usually
just an excuse to justify having made the pc worse with
an ARC break in the time period when ARC Breaks were not
understood.


Best,

The Pilot

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


   subj : Super Scio Tech - To Carol On 8th Dynamic


TO CAROL ON 8TH DYNAMIC


On 20 Oct 98, cbwillis@netcom.com (C. B. Willis) responded to
my earlier post titled "ON EMOTION (ATTN CHRISTINE)"

> : The message here is that all the phenomena about loss and
> : secondaries are still kicking full force on my case despite
> : all the various processing I've done.  Definitely a missed
> : area that needs to be followed up on.
> : Affinity,
> : The Pilot
> 
> Process:
> What losses have you had related to the 8th dynamic?
> Tell me about them.
> 
> - CBW


A wonderful question.  When I picked this post up I remember
looking forward to trying it, but I was reading the newsgroups
and so I just saved it in a directory for later follow up.

Since then, I had that spectacular key out on the subject of
loss (described in another of my posts), and nothing seems
to react on the subject of loss.

Instead of seeing losses in this area, I see things that move
near and far, back an forth, connections to God or (better)
an underlying oneness that lies between us and separations
from it, symbols moving in and out.
                                    
Based on the thought/emotion/effort theory, I'm thinking that
the next more basic layer would be mental shocks on a purely
thought level.  "What shocks have you had in relation to the
8th dynamic" does seem like it would run.  In fact, since
I consider Scientology to be a religion, just reading ARS
provides quite a few of those.  

Going early this lifetime, I went to kindergarden at a Catholic 
school down the block from where I lived (I wasn't Catholic, 
it was just convienient) and they took us into the main church 
one day (not the first day I was there) and I remember being 
shocked at the feeling of "presence" I got when I walked in.  
It scared me, actually, that there was something there because 
I figured that it wouldn't like me because I wasn't Catholic.
Quite funny in retrospect, but it was a real mental impact
at the time.

There's lots more here to run, but spotting that left me feeling
quite good and cheerful so I'll take the win and set the area
aside for now.


Affinity,

The Pilot

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

   subj : Super Scio Tech - Continuing On The Chakras (attn Lightnin)


CONTINUING ON THE CHAKRAS (Attn Lightnin)

On Oct 21, lightnin80@aol.com (Lightnin80) continued the discussion 
with a post titled "Lightnin's response to Pilot  re: Chakras"


> >On 2 Oct 98, Lightnin80@aol.com responded to JimC on 
> >subject "Lisa McPherson".  
> >
> >He was continuing a discussion about the possibility that 
> >her original problem (that got her put on the introspection 
> >rundown) was related to the chakras.
> 
> Hi Pilot
> 
> Lightnin here
> 
> Pilot Jim suggested premature Kundalini
> was the problem, I responded as the resident
> Chakra guy.
> 
> I also made refernce to the Chakra tuning
> as Jim mentioned touch assists, not as a 
> remedy to Lisa's problem.

Got it.

> > (the following paragraph is from an earlier Pilot post) 
> >I would say that it is the other way around, namely that one's
> >body or energy systems or anything else gets screwed up as a
> >result of one's own postulates, in other words one audits the
> >PC at cause over these systems rather than at effect.
> 
> I think you still lack a great deal of understanding when it comes 
> to Chakras and Kundalini.

Maybe so but I'm not sure that anybody has this area really
right.  A lot of the Chakra books are vague fumblings around in
the dark as far as I'm concerned.

I took a drill that Ron had used on GE anchor points and applied
to the chakras and it worked really fast.  You just mockup 
chakras around the body for awhile and then the body starts
pulling them in and then the real ones become visible and you
can see what their positions are.  And some seemed out of
position and could be coaxed into place with a light flow of
energy.  And if you do a bit of that (feeding mockups) over
your head, the crown chakra will slide up there and seems
to have a natural position that it clicks into.

Now that took me less than an hour rather than years of 
meditation.

Unfortunately that does not make me an expert.  I got lucky
on comeing up with a few nifty processes (see chapter 10
of super scio and other stuff I've posted on the subject)
but I've only scratched the surface on these things.

Now I would expect that a real expert would have a trunk
full of techniques like this and be able to produce big
gains quickly.

I do not know, but I do suspect that if anybody had full
mastery of these they would be capable of miraculous
healings easily and at will.

I don't think anybody's there yet.

And I'm pretty sure that anyone who is working a system
of 6 or 7 rather than 8 with one overhead is drilling
them in a collapsed and degraded position.

 
> Postulates are a mental projection using
> the Third Eye Chakra.

The chakras were mocked up originally.  In other words
they were postulated into existance.  Postulates come
first and are senior.

But the chakras may help in getting a postulate into
reality, acting as a bridge between theta and mest.
I've barely dabbled with this, but a postulate projected
from the crown chakra overhead has orders of magnitude
more strenght than one made from lower down in the system.

 
> At times I wonder if what I refer to as Chakras
> are what others are identifying as the Chakra
> system, some have made comments as to the 
> Chakras spinning.

There is an energy system there.  It has motion in it.
There may be more than one motion.  I found the spinning
most obvious, but now instead of a single spinning in
a chakra I seem to sense multiple spinnings in different
directions (bands going opposite ways) and other motions
like clouds shifting around.  My perceptions are far
from full in this area, there may be much more here,
but I do not think that there is less.

But there may also be things here besides the energy
system.  One person might see a car's engine running
and another might see the smooth contour of the car's
body.

It is common for this to be referred to as the subtile
energy system and energy implies motion.

 
> The areas that I work with don't spin, they are
> more like windows or shutters that are either
> open or closed and can take in as well as 
> emanate experience.

Now you are talking about something other than the
usual descriptions.

In physics, we have electrons and photons.  I would
not say that the chakras are electrical, but I would
say that as electrons relate to photons, so too
might the subtle energy system relate to a parallel
subtle observation system.

Here we again need to see the elephant.  One blind
man feels the tusks and the other feels the trunk
and both are part of the larger whole which has not
yet been percieved.

I had not thought or heard of this observational aspect
before, but during my brief playing around with kundalini
I was sensing flows coming in and out of these and
to have perceptions on such channels would make a lot
of sense.

I seem to get something just contemplating your windows
statement, like one could look into each of these and see 
a clear pool in which one would see things, but its
unstable and disorienting and some drill is probably
needed.

 
> And it is more about experience than it is
> energy, although you and others seem to
> imediately tag Chakras as handling or
> manipulating energy.

The tusks vs the trunk.  You're working a different
aspect of the system.

 
> I would only suggest that there is a concept
> at the Third Eye that is like a Chakra System
> and in that case energy is really all your dealing with.
> 
> This is not uncommon I find many with this
> sort of bypass mechanism that goes straight
> from the Root Chakra to the Third Eye and
> is generally a defense mechanism for the
> very painful emotional part of the experience
> that needs to pass thru the Heart Chakra.
> 
> I think you may have a much better understanding of Chakras 
> if you parallel it with the scale of case adress, where the
> experience moves thru these different points
> such as matter effort, emotion and on up.
> 
> Most know of my rejection of the idea
> that you are not your body, it is in my
> opinion an aspect of self and has like
> the ARC triangle an inextricable relationship
> within the Vedic understanding borrowed
> by LRH of Spirit Mind and Body.
> 
> As far as the Chakra tuning I'd say get
> one yourself, its well worth the reseach
> time.
> 
> As for the notes I'll find out for you ;)
> 
> Lightnin
 

The notes might be very helpful.

I'm planning to pick them out on my piano for a start
just to get in the right area.

And I'm extremely good at mocking up sounds (I can replay
music in my head and its like listening to a tape
recorder with all the details present).

So I figured that the thing to do is mockup a note in
or around a chakra and then shift it around a bit until
I feel it slide into the natural position.

As I write this I'm noticing that I can sense a deep
earth sound within the root chakra.  I can purify that
so that it is smoother (less minor dissonances at
variance with the main wave) and that seems to make
the body feel stronger.

Now it seems to me that I can tilt the sound in some
strange manner.  So I try it and the whole body feels like
it is tilted sideways.  I have no idea what I am doing
at this point so I'm going to drop it for now.  But
it was the wildest sensation, like the earth gravity
had shifted to a thirty degree angle instead of being
up and down.


Best,

The Pilot

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

   subj : Super Scio Tech - Computer Meter Continued (attn Nic)


COMPUTER METER CONTINUED (Attn Nic)

On 22 Oct 98, nic@mindwalker.co.uk (Nic Ford) responded to my
earlier post about his demo meter program.  The subject line
was "PILOT meter demo reply"


> Here is some clarification on the issues raised by the Pilot (post38)
> concerning my meter computer interface demo program.
> 
> As mentioned in the accompanying instructions, many details are incorrect
> (infact more than I originally thought) but I wanted to generate some
> interest and communication on the subject now rather than wait. I will be
> doing a better version of the demo in the very near future and admit that
> as it stands it is rather confusing. At the moment I do not write the
> software myself so I am dependent on another for any changes and bug fixes,
> so the process takes longer.
> 
> 1. The bar is meant to show TA position (I like the word Baseline - it
> is more meaningful) and the numbering is wrong.
> 
> 2 The dual dial configuration was an experimental setup which may
> appear in later versions of the software. It was not meant to be 
> accessible on the demo!
> 
> 3 Some sort of help facility will certainly be available on the final
> product
> 
> 4 Sliding scale sensitivity would be easy to implement - also on
> other meters I have designed (Ability Meters) but I have no data on the
> quantum - ie how much does it boost sensitivity at various TA settings? I
> would welcome more information on this.

Unfortunately I don't have a Quantum (I only have an old mark 6 which 
is on its last legs).  Ideal would be for somebody who has a number of 
meters to do a benchmark.

For each TA number (2, 3, etc.), place the appropriate resistance
across the cans (5,000 ohms etc.), adjusting slightly if needed to
get the needle exactly on set, and then see how much resistance
has to be added to deflect the needle exactly 1 inch at sensitivity 1
and post the results.

This would give us both the relative sensitivity of different meters
and also give us the equation for sensitivity at different TA
positions.  I don't know that the same equation applies to the
Mark 5, 6, & 7 nothing to say of the Quantum, and this may vary
even if all had the same needle deflection at sen 1 and TA 2.0, which
they probably don't.

I would think that the older meters deflect in proportion to 
the number of ohms at set, in other words, if the needle is at
set at 5000 ohms and then is deflected by 500 ohms, the deflection
would be the same size (same size read) as if you had it at
10000 ohms and deflected it by 1000 ohms, in other words, the
read is based on a percentage change in the resistance.

On the other hand, I would expect that the Quantum is using
the ohms of deflection as an absolute, in other words a 500 ohm
deflection would be the same size read at TA 2.0 as at 4.0.

I could see arguments in favor of either system, and I'm
only guessing at this, we need charts of various meter deflections
as suggested above so that we can firm this up.

And then we need an accumulation of real experience comparing
different systems, and that is best done by using a computer
meter where it is easy to shift between systems.

 
> 5 I do not cater for replaying at a different sensitivity than the
> recording.

Something to plan for the future, perhaps in a second version, it 
would be a nice feature.
 
> 6 I am making the software as efficient as possible so that lower end
> machines will work OK.
>
> The limiting factor may be screen refresh rate rather than CPU speed. 
> It is difficult to calculate in advance the performance on various 
> machine configurations, but  a more sophisticated demo program would 
> be the easiest way to determine the suitability of any particular 
> computer.

As I mentioned, I only saw problems when running Win95 on a 486.
I would assume that a Pentium would be fine in all cases and that
a 486 is fine as long as it isn't running Win95 (I would assume
that even Win NT would be OK on a 486 with enough memory).

 
> 7 The unpredictable world of Windows can be tackled when the
> interface is proven under DOS - then the customer has a choice. Probably
> Windows for solo, more reliable DOS for clients!

Yes, exactly.  I suspect that even a Pentium 300 doesn't have enough
CPU power to update the screen fast enough if you used Visual Basic
or even Visual C++ for a true Windows Program.  The only fast realtime 
graphics I've seen under windows were obviously not using the MFC 
(Microsoft Foundation Class) or any high level functions (in other 
words, the controls and imaging were completely non-standard) but seem 
to have done their own low level bitmap generation and only used
low level Win API calls to toss the bitmaps up on the screen.

Definitely something for later rather than a first release.

 
> 8 Certainly for a number of years the mouse on computers has been the
> PS/2 variety, and I had assumed that for the majority of users this would
> be the case. Of course the port could be specified as part of the command
> line when first running the program, which would avoid any problems.
 
I haven't seen or heard of a computer that had a PS/2 mouse in
years, I thought they'd stopped making them altogether.  IBM finally
gave up on Microchannel when PCI came out.  None of the PCI
motherboards I know of come with a unique mouse port, all of them 
use COM1 for the mouse.

 
> I think I have addressed all issues raised,
> 
> Best wishes,    Nic Ford
> 
> Nic Ford
> The Computer Film Company


Excellent.  I'm very enthusiastic about this.


Affinity,

The Pilot

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

   subj : Super Scio Tech - BREAKTHROUGH ON LOSS


BREAKTHROUGH ON LOSS


For years now I have been theorizing that there should be a
clear-like state attainable on the subject of loss.

In Dianetic clear, one gains confront of the force in mental
pictures to the point where one becomes aware that one is
mocking the force up and ceases to be the effect of it.
Although it is far from the end of case and abberation, it
is still one hell of a good state and the gains are immense.
And knowing about it in theory is not the same as actually
gaining that level of confront and awareness.

And the charge associated with loss would have to run earlier
than that associated with force based on the pattern of
thought - emotion - effort suggested by Ron in 1952.
The early godlike being could not suffer loss (he could
mock things up again) or pain (you can't hit a thetan)
and so the first abberations are only possible in the areas
of thought (the grades).  Then would come loss and only
much later would come pain and impact.

Furthermore, the basics tell us that he must be creating
his own losses or else it would not be possible to run
them out by processing.

But I've been banging around for years on these ideas
without really coming to grips with them.  The state
comes about by actual confront and awareness rather
than simply through idle speculation.

But I kept coming back to the area and getting a bit
further each time.  And the last push seems to have
carried me over the hump.  Now I think that I've
finally made it, and everything seems different.
It's like looking at things in a new light.  This is
definitely one of the biggies, comparable to clear
and clear-OT.

Since then I've been looking back at losses on the track
and they seem funny.  They look like illusions, wierd
tricks I played on myself.  It's just wild.

And I have to thank the discussions on ACT, and especially
Christine's recent post for giving me the last push to
get me through this area.

Some people may be able to get this just by following
along with me here as I explain how I got there.  Or
you can run a simple gradient of confronting losses
until you make it.  These things are much easier once
you have a road map.

In retrospect, everything here is obvious and it is
amazing to me that I couldn't see this before.  But
the charge on loss makes it hard to think about loss
and so one has trouble seeing why one is creating
the losses.

First, of course, is confronting losses on a gradient
until one can really confront loss.  The fast route
would be to simply run minor and then bigger and
bigger major losses with the emphasis being on raising
confront rather than trying to errase the effects of
a particular loss.

You could do that by incident running or by using the
First ACC assist of blowing up mockups of the lost
terminal or any other technique that raises confront
while blowing charge on the area.

If you look back at my responses to Christine, you'll
see that I was doing a good bit of the blowing up process 
recently, and I've run quite a few losses as incidents
at various times.

And I took that a bit further and I was at a point
where I had a pretty good confront of losses.  But
there was still a lot of charge in the area, and I
had only confronted some specific losses rather than
having confronted the general area of loss.

So I decided that I was ready to try and raise my
confront of the topic on a broader basis.

As a first step, based on general theory, I came
up with -

a) get the idea of having more losses
b) get the idea of having less losses

I ran this in my usual sloppy manner in idle moments
over the course of a few days.  It sort of flattened
to a win.

So the next day I decided to do a stronger version
of this process and really do it with a vengance,
giving the area a hard push.

I ran "mockup having endless incredible horrible
losses" alternated with "mockup never loosing anything",
and did each one with a tremendous amount of space
and people and mass in my visualization.

And the whole damn thing fell apart almost instantly.

On the second command I realized "my god, what if I
never ever lost a wife or a girlfriend but just kept
on aquiring them, more and more forever and they all
hung around and nagged at me, it would be total overwhelm".

If you never lost anything, you would be burried in
your own Mest.

Now of course you can simply throw things away, 
cleaning out the attic so to speak.  As long as you
can do that, you're fine.

But what if you're not supposed to throw some things
away, or you can't confront doing it.  Now you need
an external cause.

This mechanism cannot develop until the person already
has problems and overts.  He has to want to loose
something (as a solution to a problem) and yet be
unwilling to be responsible for loosing it (he is
wishing that some external force would bump off his
wife or something like this).

And so he then postulates external cause out of his
control which will cause him to suffer losses.

And because he was unwilling to be responsible for 
getting rid of the terminal or object himself, and
mocked up an external cause that was out of his control,
he now has an ongoing postulate which he is unwilling
to confront which causes him to continue to suffer
losses.  In other words he has put the postulate
there and then said it wasn't his postulate and never
reached out again and confronted it to stop it so
it just keeps going.

And he solves that one by dramatizing must haves
to remedy the losses instead of confronting his
earlier intentions to have a loss.

I'm still having cognitions on this one.

It feels like a terrible weight has been lifted
from ny shoulders.

To handle a specific loss, you might look for times
on the track when you wanted a loss like that to happen
to you, and then confront the details, especially the
hidden and irresponsible postulates that you made.

When a child looses a parent, they generally think that
its their fault.  Its because they have old postulates
out there about bumping off parents.  It might not be
on the current parent.

The important point is the postulate that they made which
included a denial of responsibility for the postulate.
In other words, they wanted someone to die but didn't
want to do it themselves.  They just hoped for an
external source, and therefore they left the postulate
out of control.

This opens up an entire area of postulating external
causes out of your control for various reasons (not just 
loss).  Note that you can postulate an inflow without
doing that.  And you can have the variety of enjoying
others creations without making the postulate that you
can't control other people.  Leaving something uncontrolled
for variety is quite different from putting a mockup
out there and intentionally abandoning responsibility
for it.

I'm specifically talking here about intentionally 
setting something in motion and then not-ising your
causation in doing that so that it runs out of control.

All of this left me feeling very exterior to the
whole subject and at cause over the losses I've
experienced.  My gut feeling was that you do create
your own losses.

But of course I tend to play devils advocate and Doubting
Thomas, so my next cynical idea was "well yes, but what
about REAL losses".

So I grabbed the incident of my father's death.  Obviously
a real loss.

I've run it before, and the charge had been pretty cooled
down, but there had been some mass remaining on it.

And I looked at it again to see how it seemed now that
I've had that big cog on loss.  And the charge was gone
and it looked really different as follows:

The being who had been my father was obviously not lost
but simply off somewhere else and playing different games
(at least if any of our theories about theta are correct).

What had been lost was the valence of "a father", in
other words, a role that that being had chosen to play
for awhile.

And the loss of that valence had completely fallen apart
with the above cognition.  As I looked at it again, I
had this exterior view of an entire track where that
parent valence comes and goes, sometimes desirable and
sometimes undesirable, and worn by various beings at
different times.

And there were times when I wanted that valence and
times when I didn't and both of those were fine and
workable.  And then there were the times when I didn't
want it but was stuck with it (perhaps an undesirable
drunken and abusive father) and couldn't get rid of
it and so postulated an external source getting rid
of them for me.  And then there were the times when
I wanted such a valence and couldn't have it and that
must have/can't have was a consequence of the earlier
must/can't get rid of.

With that it seemed to me that a being doesn't actually
need havingness.  He mocks up what he wants when he
wants it, at least high on the scale.  If you can just
mock things up, you don't bother mocking up tons of
something, you just mockup a really nice one, and only
when you want it around.

But once you've launched all sorts of postulates out
of control which give you losses, then you have to have
lots and lots of stuff because you keep loosing it.
Then the havingness level becomes important.  But its
a solution to a problem rather than being a basic.

What happens is that one continually mocks up losses
for oneself, and launches them out of control, and
then one looses the wrong things because uncontrolled
postulates often hit the wrong targets.

It's like that joke which was on the net recently
about the mailbomber who uses insufficient postage
and gets the package returned to him.  And opens
it up to see what it is ...

Inch by inch the pattern is unravelling.


Best,

The Pilot


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

These 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  - www.sgmt.at/pilot.htm
In Hungarian - www.extra.hu/self/index.html
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
#39, 40, and 41 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.

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





