Date: 17 Feb 1999 04:00:22
Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology
From: pilot@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (The Pilot)
Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 48 - MID FEB 99 PILOT POSTS (1/2)


POST48.txt 

SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 48 - MID FEB 99 PILOT POSTS (1/2)

The first half of post48 (down to the Humor post) was to ARS & ACT,
the remainder of post48 & all of post49 was to ACT only.


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

Contents:

 subj: Super Scio - COFHA Book Cover = Bear Goals
 subj: Super Scio - On Tech Vol Posting (Attn Thom & Zenon)
 subj: Super Scio - Burkhardt's Questions About Dogma
 subj: Super Scio - Big Cog's Invalidation Failure
 subj: Super Scio - To Heidrun On Monitoring
 subj: Super Scio - History of Abandoning Processes (Attn IAM Thetan)
 subj: Super Scio Humor - THE OT COOKBOOK
 subj: Super Scio - To Lakis On Games
 subj: Super Scio Tech - The Non-Interfereance Zone (Attn Ryan)
 subj: Super Scio Tech - NOT KNOW PROCESS (Self Clearing etc.)
 subj: Super Scio Tech - More On Wild Topics (Attn MegaSquirrel, Rogers)
 
==========================================

 subj: Super Scio - COFHA Book Cover = Bear Goals

COFHA BOOK COVER = BEAR GOALS

There was a question posted about what was the meaning of the
man (womman?) in a Bear's suit on the cover of Creation of
Human Ability.

This is meant to restimulate "The Bear Goals".


From the tape "Errors In Time" which was posted last year by
Freezone Bible -

"In the Gorilla and Bear GPMs, and so on, they do put a figure
on the cart with the thetan.  They've - there's a guy in a pink 
shirt with a monkey peeking out from behind him, put on the ride 
carts.  A guy in a pink-striped shirt - very, very interesting. 
That's their - that was their badge, the hoi poiloi.  And you'll 
see this bird with a pink-striped shirt.  Sometimes you have a 
gorilla in front of you.  Sometimes it's the gorilla who is 
spitting things at you, and that sort of thing."

There is also an HCOB of 17 July 63 called R3N Line Plots on the 
Bear Goals among other things which is in the New Tech Volumes 
and was included in Scamizdat 11 but which was omitted
from the old tech volumes because it used to be considered
confidential.

Here is an excerpt from that -

---- begin fair use quote

THE BEAR GOALS

- - From about 256 trillion trillion years ago to about 370 trillion trillion
years ago the GPMs are the Bear Goals.

These use the same pattern, similar amusement park arrangements, the same
type of goals as the Gorilla Goals.

The only real difference is that instead of a mechanical gorilla a
mechanical or live bear was used, and the motion was even more violent.

There is, however, a change of pattern in the Bear Goals in that TWO RIs
were added.  These come as a pair just below "The Vast Value of Goaling".
They are oppterm "Any worries about being __________ or goaling" opposed by
terminal "A worried goaler."  Aside from this addition, the pattern is the
same as the Gorilla Goals.

Mostly raw electric sprays are used in the Bear Goals to drive in the
Items.

The Bear Goals were handled by a group called, I think, "The Brothers of
the Bear" and were the ancestors of the Hoipolloi.

----- end quote

These are mentioned briefly on a few of the other tapes of 1963
and I seem to recall that there was at least one place where LRH
said that sometimes there was a person in a bear's suit sitting
across from you on the rollercoaster during the implant.

I think that the whole idea of using "restimulative" covers is
silly.  If they really were restimulative, people would avoid
the books rather than buy them.

I always though it was a man in a bear's suit.  But somebody said
that they thought it was a woman.  Certainly a picture of a
Bare Girl would help to sell the book.  Maybe LRH's instruction's
got altered by the evil world conspiracy.

Best,

The Pilot

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


 subj: Super Scio - On Tech Vol Posting (Attn Thom & Zenon)


ON TECH VOL POSTING (Attn Thom & Zenon)

Thom was asking about tech volumes and Zenon answered -

> I said earlier in this thread that I was prepared
> to scan them. Only later I found out that I not only
> don't need to scan them, but have already posted them
> on the net. They were part of a massive posting I did
> in May last year and they went by the file names of
> HCOPLsVolnn.zip, where nn went from 01 to 14. I am
> sure they have been saved on more than one hard drive.
>
> If there is a genuine general interest for them, I
> might know someone who might be willing to repost them.
> Let the interest be known in this thread.


Yes, the tech vols were mislabled HCOPL.  Unzipped, one
gets a total of 30 files (the 14 volumes mostly were in
two parts each) occupying a total of just under 17 MB.

Unfortunately these only went out as zip files in the
binaries newsgroup which doesn't propogate well and is
not accessible on most open NNTP servers (but it is
now available on lightlink, thank you Homer).

Even with each volume in 2 pieces, the file sizes vary
between 400 and 800 K approximately.  This is large for
a text posting.  Best would be to cut these in half
yet again, giving 4 or 5 (or even 6) files per volume,
named, lets say TV01A, TV01B, etc.  This would give
about 60 or 70 files in total with an average size of
about 250K.  This is reasonable for text posting as
long as it is not done all at once.

Best would be to post 1 volume a week for 14 weeks.
That's only a bit over a megabyte per week and probably
wouldn't overload or annoy anybody except OSA who will
probably have another shit fit.

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

Note that the ones posted were the OLD Tech Volumes.
These were first issued around 1975 as a set of 10
volumes and later followed by volumes 11 and 12 to
cover the time period from 1975 to 1979.  Zenon's
posting included pseudo volumes 13 and 14 which contained
material from 1980 and a bit later.

In modern times, the org discontinued these and replaced
them with a set of NEW tech volumes (around 1990).
Note that the new volume numbers do not correspond to
the old ones.  There are 13 chronological volumes (numbered
I to XIII) and a number of supplementary volumes (rearranging
the material for use) of which volume S4 "Grades Processes"
is probably the most useful.

The NEW volumes have NOT been posted.  In general they
are not as good as the old volumes because they omit all
revision history etc. and only reflect the latest interpretation
of standard tech.

However there are a few exceptions:

New Volume VII (corresponding to the time period of old
volume 5) covers the 1963 timeperiod and at the time of
the old volumes, the implant materials were considered
confidential.  That low level of confidentiality (R3/R4
implant stuff prior to R6) was cancelled.

Therefore new VII has the implant research line of 1963 including
the helatrobus platens and the details of R3M which were not
in the old tech volumes.  Unfortunately the confidential
material of 1964 onwards remains confidential, so it is only
this one year that has extras (nothing prior to 1963 was
considered confidential when the old tech volumes were done).

So it would be extremely helpful if new vol VII were scanned
and posted.

Also of some interest would be new vol XII and XIII which
cover the time period from 1980 onwards, especially those
bulletins issued after Ron's death which were supposedly
"discovered" by Davey and company.

===========

In earlier messages Thom mentioned having admin volumes
(I assume he means the OEC volumes) which are falling apart.  
These have never been posted.  A volume on which the binding 
is coming apart is idea for scanning with a book feeder 
(because that requires using loose pages for the auto feed).

===========

PS. Just because I'm talking to Thom in a friendly manner
doesn't mean that I know who he is or can verify his 
intentions.  Any direct handling of copyrighted material
always has to be done with the consideration that one might
be talking to an OSA plant.  Remember how successfull OSA
was at planting supposedly disaffected members in Mayo's
and Capt Bill's organizations.

Best,

The Pilot


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

 subj: Super Scio - Burkhardt's Questions About Dogma


BURKHARDT'S QUESTIONS ABOUT DOGMA

On 11 Feb 99, BLPJ57B@prodigy.com (Rob Burkhardt) posted
on subject "New Sleuth - Q. About Scientology Dogma"


> Hi kids,
> 
> Ive been consistently reading ARS and the various Scientology related 
> websites for over a year. Ive only posted once to ARS on a non-
> Scientology thread but my curiosity with this head on crash is growing. 
> Currently Im researching Scientology dogma in order to fully understand 
> its workings. I just finished reading The Hidden Story of Scientology 
> written by Omar V. Garrison and I have a few question I hope someone can 
> answer. Please note Garrisons book is pro-Scientology to the bone and 
> these are not scripted questions from a hatchet book, i.e. I dont have 
> an agenda - Im simply curious at this point.

Hi.  I'm a reformer rather than one of the loyal fanatics.
In fact I keep my identity hidden, the current CofS management
does not like heritics.  Since I do have ideas and interpretations
of my own, I'll make a point of saying so where that is the case.
Sometimes there is also a radical difference between modern
orthodox Scientology and early LRH (1950s), and often the
modern fanatics have not a clue about what is really in the tech.

 
> 1. Websters defines psychology as: 1: the science of the mind and 
> behavior 2 a: the mental or behavioral characteristics of an individual 
> or group 2b: the study of mind and behavior in relation to a particular 
> field of knowledge or activity 3: a treatise on psychology
> Dianetics is subtitled The Modern Science of Mental Health and L. Ron 
> Hubbard claimed Dianetics was the result of extensive research and 
> scientific testing. 
> 
> Q1. Is Dianetics a school of psychology? If it is, why does the Church of 
> Scientology denounce psychology unilaterally? If it is not, please 
> explain why.

Original Dianetics could be considered to be a psychology squirrel
group.  On early tapes Ron sometimes said that we fought psychology
because we were very close to it.  There are times when he said
nice things about Freud and there are times when he ranted against
him.  Basically in those early days you could say that Ron was
pissed because the psychs criticised his stuff instead of praising
him as a genius.

When the 1952 shift into Scientology was made, it would be better
described as a school of metaphysics or a psychology-metaphysics
hybrid.  This was even true of dianetics as later used in Scientology
because it changed into a past life oriented technique.

In the later 1950s it would be better to say that Scientology
was a bit annonyed with psychology and critical of it but
not unilaterally opposed.  A few key figures like Ray Kemp
were studying psychology (he developed the original APA tests).

The unilateral denunciations begin in the late 1960s, 
Rat posters and so forth.  Scientology was collapsing due
to quickie grades and the OT 3 mess and Ron destroyed its
technical elete by tossing the class 8 students overboard.
With that going on, they needed an enemy to blame and
the pychs were an ideal candidate.

 
> Q1A: If Dianetics is a school of psychology, is it disingenuous for the 
> Church of Scientology to denounce psychology unilaterally instead of 
> opting to solely denounce specific individuals or organizations within 
> the psychiatric profession?

I would agree (one of my points for reform), but of course
CofS sees them as a direct opponent.  Gerbode seems to be
working to bridge the gap with TIR, but of course CofS sees
him as a squirrel.

 
> 2. Based on my reading thus far, one of the core goals of Scientology is 
> to help an individual gain a quasi omnipotence over their environment by 
> consciously building and controlling all the causal factors of their 
> environment. 

The official description of OT is "total cause of matter, energy,
space, time, thought, and life".


> L. Ron Hubbard defines the three major agents of reality as freedom, 
> barriers, and purpose. 

He says that these are the components of a game and that thetans
need games.  His definition of reality is that it comes from agreement.
Two different things.

> Hubbard warned that in a reality where a group of 
> individuals were operating simultaneously, barriers were necessary 
> otherwise one individual would gain full control over the shared reality 
> and a dictatorship would result that strips all others of their freedoms.

I don't recognize this reference.  Is this from Garrison?  There
is so much LRH material that I could have missed this, but it is 
not a common idea in CofS.

Beings with maximum ability to create universes would parallel 
realities in cases where they disagreed (more than one choice, 
with some people agreeing with one and some with another) rather
than going into a dictatorship.  But this is my own interpretation,
and it is possible that the above was a backwards idea thought
up in the bad days of the late 1960s.

With people way upscale, someone could postulate that all others
were his slaves, but he would end up with his own copy of
the universe because nobody would agree & come along with him.
And so the people in his version would just be his mockups and
Ron says that when that happens it is unsatisfying because
you have trouble forgetting that you mocked them up.  Try
talking to an imaginary friend sometime and you'll see what
the people would feel like.

 
> L. Ron Hubbard also stated that psychological aberrations occur when an 
> individual does not have full control of the causal factors of their 
> environment and is then forced to behave in a fashion they do not desire 
> (such as being conscripted to fight a war that one morally opposes) or 
> they are unable to create something they want (getting a pony when youre 
> seven).  
> 
> Q2. Please explain the prima facia contradiction between total freedom of 
> the individual as a goal and total freedom of the individual causing 
> others to lose their freedom.

Total freedom to create does not cost others their freedom to
create.

An uncensored internet with unlimited resources at each website
and no ability for one website to hack and destroy another would
be a mundane shadow of this.

And of course there would be flame wars and CofS screaming about
thousands of critics webpages and critics screaming about thousands
of CofS webpages and lots of fun and confusion.  Those are your
high level game conditions that keep life interesting.

But of course there is a barrier here and it is that you don't
destroy other's ability to create.

When you start censoring the thing and hacking and trashing each
other's websites, it all slides down into crap.

So it is freedom TO rather than freedom FROM.  You can be free
TO put anything on the net and it works.  But you can't be free
FROM anything (porn on the net for example) without destroying 
everybody's freedom including your own in all areas of existance 
(it just takes time while one censorship leads to another and 
finally everything is a solid trap).

The hope is that once we make it out, we wouldn't be so stupid
a second time because we will know that the second you try to
stop others from creating you will stop yourself too and spin
down into another hell on earth.  The real game is in outcreating 
others (more nifty web pages that get more hits) rather than in 
stopping others.

But this emphasis on create faded even by the mid fifties because
of sporatic failures in creative processing and too little
thorough research and repeatable results (sporatic results
rather than consistant ones), so that by the late 50s, it
was rants against freedom FROM rather than emphasis on freedom TO.

In modern times the party line is a hypocritical reverse vector 
perversion with sales hype about total freedom combined with
maximum control and slavery in the form of things such as 
the RPF.  And their efforts to censor the net are in violation
of every basic from early Scientology.

 
> Q2A: L. Ron Hubbard wrote the reason great revolutionary movements always 
> fail is, "they promise unlimited freedom. That is the road to failure. 
> Only stupid visionaries chant of endless freedom. Only the afraid and the 
> ignorant speak of and insist on unlimited barriers." How do your 
> reconcile this proclamation with Scientologys promise of total freedom 
> for the individual?

See above.  This is the later decay.
 
> Logically, in order for a reality to proceed which does not cause 
> aberration, all participants must agree to a set of ground rules which 
> define how the reality will operate and be happy with them. 

Nope.  Because you are not limited to one reality.  Websites with
more and less hits.  Unpopulare troublesome places almost cut off.
Big central places like Yahoo that almost everybody uses.

Trying to freeze it into ONE reality and impose ground rules
is the trap.  And really the only reason to make it one reality
is so that you can make the rules stick.  Otherwise some folks
will just go off on their own and do things differently.

But here again I am adding my own interpretation.  Early 
Scientology (1952-4) which was moving in this direction never
had a chance to embelish the theories to this degree, instead
they began to slide off of the target (correctly stated as
total freedom in the early tapes) and we get rants against
freedom like the one you mentioned above.

 
> Q3A. Is it possible for a thetan to initially agree to a set ground rules 
> for a reality but later have a legitimate change of heart and disagree 
> with one or more of the rules? 

Of course.  If you slide too far off, you end up isolated and alone,
but that is fine too, maybe you want to play with yourself for
awhile.  And if your only partway off, others come along, just
not everybody.  One makes compromises, but one always has choice.
Until, of course, one begins to enforce ONE reality and block
other's creations and so forth.

 
> Q3B. If this is possible and the thetan would like to remain in the 
> reality but desires to modify it against the wishes of the other 
> participating thetans, what should the thetan then do? 

Copy it and modify the copy.  Or get some agreement.  Or
splinter off.

The one and only CofS is actually a reverse vector.  Having
splinter groups and a variety of creation is actually the
higher scale manifestation.  It should be proud of that fact
rather than trying to smash the squirrels.

 
> Q3C. If a solution cant be reached which is satisfying to all 
> participating thetans, can aberrations occur?

It is only abberative if the solution is enforced.

 
> Q3D. If aberrations of this nature do occur, how can they be fixed?

Willingness to tolerate others viewpoints even when those
viewpoints are out of agreement with you.  Defend somebody's
right to free speach even when you don't like what they are
saying.

 
> Q3E. Based on my reading so far, there is a tacit implication that all 
> thetans automatically desire to abide by the same ground rules for the 
> Earth Game. Is this true?

Crap.  My opinion.  Hubbard would have said the same in the early
days, but the above reverse idea does seem to have worked its
way in later on.

 
> L. Ron Hubbard laid out 8 dynamics which are the basic impulses of life. 
> These dynamics and their sundry combinations are stated to be the core 
> motivations for the human animal and also create teams which are often 
> at odds with one another which in turn causes aberrations to occur when 
> one team is out created by another and is no longer at cause over 
> their environment. (I love all this jargon.) If Im understanding Hubbard 
> accurately, his solution to the conflicts of interest this creates is to 
> play all sides of game, i.e. to pursue the goals that each combination 
> of the 8 dynamics creates.  

Pan determinism.  Playing the game from both sides.  Set up a chess
board, work out problems, play each side (black and white) wholeheartedly.
This can be fun although there are not as many surprises.  And at
a minimum, one of the best skill raisers for a begining chess player
is to see the board from the opponent's side.

> From my vantage point, this implies an individual should desire to 
> willingly forego individual preference, most notable the preference not 
> to feel or act in a certain fashion, so one will never be on a losing 
> team. 

It is the opposite.  You can assume the preferences of each
side, more preferences, not less.  And lose occasionally too just
for the fun of it (a weaker opponent putting up one hell of a
fight and losing can be more respected than the winner).

If you need to win, then you become both a democrat and a
repulican and contribute to both campaign funds and you win
either way.  Its called hedging your bets.

 
> Q4A. If this summery is accurate, how do you respond to a charge that 
> Scientology asks the individual to never say no, only yes?

Reverse vector black Scientology, using tech to gain compulsive
agreement instead of setting people free.

 
> Q4B. Are personal ethics and morality pejorative to the well being of a 
> thetan as they cause the thetan to denounce specific actions as wrong 
> which in turn creates the potential that the thetan will be out created 
> which in turn could create aberrations within the thetan? 

Using the definitions of morality as a fixed code as opposed
to ethics as a philosopy of optimum behavior for the benifit of
self and others, then morality would be pejorative but ethics
would be benificial.

 
> Q4C. Even if you play all sides of the game, some teams will still beat 
> other teams on given issues which means you would still lose on those 
> given issues. Can this cause aberrations? If so, is Hubbards solution in 
> reality a false panacea? 

Back to chess again.  Master players always play both sides.  So 
both players in a tournament will use this against each other.
Generally they stick with the game and don't become abberated.
Of course one then thinks of Fisher, but he worked to beat
Sposky by reducing Sposky's ability to play (with psychological
tactics) rather than by working to play better, resulting in 
Fisher's abandoning the game.

Games are only abberative if you try to win by weakening your
opponent instead of trying to play better than him.

 
> Hubbard freely acknowledged his indebtedness to the Eastern schools of 
> theology. He claimed that although the Eastern schools do lead to freedom,
> the demands they place on their practitioners is so great they produce 
> very few individuals who are free. However it is clear that Hubbard 
> believed, regardless of how difficult, the Eastern schools could produce 
> the freedom Scientology was created to achieve.

True for his early attitudes.  Maybe not in the later days.

 
> Q5A. If body thetans are one cause of aberrations which most be overcome 
> to gain freedom, yet the Eastern schools do not recognize these entities, 
> how did those who achieved freedom through the Eastern schools overcome 
> their personal body thetans?

Many eastern schools do recognize them.  Christ cast out demons.
Tibetan Budhism is layered over Tibetan demonology.  Somebody
pointed out recently (maybe it was Joe Harrington) that the
Nots process (who are you) is an old one for handling demons.

But I personally think that BTs are a minor, lessor factor 
rather than a major one.

 
>  I have a stockpile of questions I want to ask but this list is a good 
> start. Id love to discuss these questions with people who have a solid 
> understanding of Scientology dogma and can discuss it objectively. Xenu 
> is entertaining but if I can let Christianity off the hook for talking 
> shubbery the least I can do is give Scio a freebie on the Xenu nonsense. 
> 
> Migs/Rob
> Swazzle@Prodigy.com


These were good questions.  Fun and enlightening to answer.

Best,

The Pilot


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

 subj: Super Scio - Big Cog's Invalidation Failure


BIG COG'S INVALIDATION FAILURE

On 12 Feb 99, "Big Cog" <big.cog@usa.net> posted on
subject "Pilots tech failure-The why"

> The Pilots self-clearing tech is not producing lasting 
> results because of a very very basic outpoint:
> PC and Auditor is greater than the bank.
> This fundamental datum is violated.
> This is the basic why.

The PC mocked up the bank, hence he can be bigger than it.

Hence -

"An auditor doesn't have a case"

and 

"No case on post".

Anyone who can obey either of these LRH orders is obviously
bigger than his bank.

Also, the PC plus materials can be bigger than the bank.  Hence
the Self Analysis book and the Handbook for Preclears and
Ron's freequent statement to his students in the 1950s that 
they could run the processes on themselves.  He even says that
you can self audit route 1 on the 8th ACC tapes.

But it is a matter of consideration.  Obviously you are currently
being smaller than your bank.  You could change that.  All it
takes is a decision to take responsibility for your case and
a willingness to change.

You can be bigger than the bank, after all, you put it there
in the first place.

Best,

The Pilot


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


 subj: Super Scio - To Heidrun On Monitoring


TO HEIDRUN ON MONITORING

On 4 Feb 99, Spiritual Research Workgroup <info@sgmt.at>
asked on topic "E-Mail Monitored by ???"

> I have heard that it is technically possible to monitor (and manipulate???)
> e-mail which goes through satellite lines.
> 
> Are there any cases known where this has happened and the tampering
> could be traced back to OSA?
> 
> Should all e-mail generally be sent encrypted?
> 
> Heidrun Beer
> 
> Workgroup for Fundamental Spiritual Research and Mental Training
> http://www.sgmt.at

I can monitor anything that moves in IP packets through my
PC by using a simple IP trace utility.  I can monitor anything on 
our Lan using a sniffer (common for debugging).  I know enough low 
level IP packet architecture to reassemble messages if I felt 
like writing a few lines of C code, and there are probably 
programs floating around on the net that will already do that. 

If I was an ISP, I could certainly eavesdrop on anything coming
through.

If I was the US govt. and had kindly given the original internet
backbone (ARPANET) to the private sector, I could certainly
monitor anything flowing on the backbone.

But think for a moment about the volume involved.  How many
planetary sized bodies covered with disk drives are we going to
use to store all this data.  How many millions of workers
would be needed to read the email traffic from a single large
city?

The only way would be to have a program scan for keywords
and save those messages for review which contained the word.

I'll bet that the only word monitored is c * i * a and that
that govt agency has thousands of people reading every e-mail
that contains the word, and that all they get is garbage and
that it is so boring that the probably don't really read
them anyway but just page through endless yammerings while
daydreaming and then sign off on each disk full of stuff.

So I wouldn't worry about it.

I do think that OSA monitors ARS.  That is a practical
target, and even there I think that they get a bit numb
while reading through it all.

Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj: Super Scio - History of Abandoning Processes (Attn IAM Thetan)


History of Abandoning Processes (Attn IAM Thetan)

On 7 Feb 99, OneThetan@hotmail.com (IAM Thetan) asked on
subject "Re: An Introduction"

> Ron created many valid and powerful processes that are no longer 
> in use in the church.  IE SOP 3,4,5 etc. , Union Station (R246) 
> and many others.  They seem to have fallen into disuse and it's 
> one of those "everbody knows" you are not supposed to run those 
> processes.
> 
> What I want to know is can anyone refer me to when and why these 
> were stopped, and is there any policy that says I can't run those.
> 
> I am a "Standard Techi" but to ne that includes all of the tech.  
> I have run some such processes on myself and on others and have 
> not been shot for it but there is always a question re: Standardness 
> of it.  It may seem kind of strange to ask that here but I fugured 
> that some of you here are "Standard techi's" too and would have had 
> the incentive to know what Ron had to say about this.

Since others (Ralph Hilton, etc.) have already been giving good 
answers to this one, I felt that I should address the context
in which processes were cancelled or abandoned.  I've been
wanting to write this up anyway.

And let me welcome you to the newsgroup.

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


A HISTORY OF ABANDONING PROCESSES

With the May 1950 release of Dianetics the Modern Science
of Mental Health came the idea that there was One Basic Why
(engrams) which could be handled by a single technique
to produce an ultimate case state which was at that time
referred to as "Clear".

Of course that went by the boards when the discovery of past
life incidents made it painfully obvious that there was no way 
to run out all of an individual's engrams.

At the same moment that the ultimate target was found to
be unbelievably higher than the humanoid clear of DMSMH,
the amount of material that would have to be handled had
seemed to jump by a factor of about a trillion to one.

Ron mentions, on at least one tape, that he had a moment
of great dispair when he saw that.  

Remember that this is before techniques such as mockup 
processing which could blow all the charge out of an area 
without actually running every damn incident that had ever 
been connected with something.

And so the search was on to find faster more powerful
techniques to undercut the bank and reach the target in
a reasonable amount of time.

And there was this idea of some key basic-basic which
would undo everything.

By the time of the Philadelphia Doctorate Course (PDC)
at the end of 1952, not only was Dianetics old and
abandoned but even the technique 88 processes of just
a few months before were considered obsolete.

Every ACC (advanced clinical course) in those days
had its own lineup of processes and most of the earlier
processes were abandoned.

They were not accumulating techniques in those days,
instead they were using them briefly and then dropping
them in favor of the next latest and greatest super
techniques.

Eventually, by mid 1954, we end up with Route 1/2 of
Creation of Human Ability.  And that was a great set
of super techniques, probably the best single collection
that was put together in the early days.  But please realize
that when it was truely in use, everything else was
abandoned.  That includes Dianetics, group processing,
technique 88, fac one handling, running entities, 
the mockup processes of the doctorate course, the
advanced OT rundown know as SOP-8C, the even more
advanced roll your own OT bridge of SOP-8OT, and
everything else from earlier times.

And as always, there was a new bridge the following
year.  But unlike all the others, CofHA was so
well consolodated that in later years route 1 would
sometimes be identified as what to run if the current
bridge was completed.  But it stopped being used
in the org's processing lineup.

And then come the later ACCs, each again focusing on
a limited target and trying to run the entire case
that way.

And finally we have the St. Hill Special Briefing
Course.  Again most of the processes are old and
we only use a limited subset.  Techniques like
R2-12 are used briefly and then abandoned with
the ultimate target seen as GPMs and all other 
processing simply being a way to get the person up
to running GPMs.

If you examine the old tech volumes for the time
period from the late 50s up until the grades are
devised in 1965, you will see occasional HCOBs
labled as "HGC Allowed Processes".  Those are complete
lists of the techniques permitted in those times.
All other processes could be considered to be
cancelled.

But up until 1965 there was also the idea that a
field auditor could use any process he was trained
on and even that a new HGC auditor could run whatever
he was best experienced at before learning the modern
lineup.  In other words, the cancellations really
only applied to the standard HGC lineup at a central
org, Ron was always happy to hear that some old
process had been dug out and used in the field and
he often related stories along those lines to his
students when he would lecture.

And so you wouldn't find route 1 being run in an
org's HGC, but you might find a field auditor who
was running it and nobody was going to make anyone
wrong for doing that, any auditing was considered
to be better than no auditing.

But this thirst to knock out basic-basic by means
of running a handful of techniques was still permeating
the subject and in 1965 Ron thought that they had
finally made it.

I began training in 1966.  By then KSW had come out
so that all other processes were gone under pain
of being declared as a suppressive and a squirrel.

At that time I was not privy to what they were running
on the clearing course, but I can tell you what
was permitted at lower levels because it didn't
change much during 1967 as I continued my training.
And of course later I found out what I was not
permitted to know about the upper levels in those
early days.

There were 2 assists permitted, the touch assist
and the contact assist.  I was threatened with
being declared and having my certs pulled as a
squirrel once in 1968 for using the "keep it 
from going away" assist on a fellow staff member.

The only permitted dianetic technique was "66 style"
dianetics.  R3R of 1963 was of course forbidden.
I thought that was heartbreaking.  Sometime in
mid 1968 a telex came down telling us that we could
use R3R for making a Dianetic release in the HGC
instead of 66 style.  You were allowed to get one
FN on locks, one on secondaries, and one on engrams.
This was all single flow of course.  There was an
HCOB about that which came out in 1967 (up till 
then Dianetics was only run by students on the 66
style HDA Dianetics course and not in the HGC).
The HCOB, although supposedly by Ron, disappeared
when Ron decided that "you can always run an
engram" around the time of the Class 8 course
in late 1968.

Then you could run ARC straightwire.  Just the one
process, single flow.  When it FNed you had a
straightwire release.  Of course self analysis 
was available to the public, and we didn't attack 
people for running it on themselves, but it wouldn't 
be run by an auditor, that would be squirrel.

And then there was a process (sometimes a few
processes) on each grade, but you couldn't continue
a grade past it's floating needle.  These FNs were
hard to get because you didn't fly the ruds (that
would have been counted as a grade release because
FN meant release) so there was usually a big gain
when the process finally did FN.

But these were single flow processes, not even
triples.  So it was a few hours on each grade.  This
is before the true quickies of the Class 8 course.

And of course Qual used the green form (and nothing
else).

And of course there were the S&Ds to handle the
PTSness that was the reason for any instabillity
in the grade releases.

That was it.  Everything else was old, cancelled,
we don't use it anymore and if you do use it you
are a squirrel and a suppressive.  Note that the
tech degrades policy did not come out until 1970.

The entire reactive mind, you see, was supposed to
be coming from R6 and that supposedly dissolved
when you ran the CC implant.  So you should only
run what was needed to set the case up for that.

The brightly colored rocks referred to in KSW were
things like R3R, CofHA, PDC, Tech 88, and so forth.

Any process which might exteriorize somebody was
seen as dangerous.

Any running of whole track was seen by many as
over restimulative.  Some of us (including me) ignored 
that one, but it was a mixed bag.  There are many tales
of auditors stopping pcs from running whole track
in those days.  Common was for an auditor to add
"in this lifetime" to a command if the pc came
up with any whole track in an answer.

Many were scared of restimulation.  The idea was to
get a good keyout and then do CC for the magical
vanishment of the reactive mind.

This was the heritage of KSW and ethics and a
standard lineup that included HCOBs like "all
sickness equals PTS".

In the fall of 1968, the first class 8 course was
delivered on the flagship and the graduates came
back to the orgs and put in what we now know of
as quickies.

It is only at this point in time that it was discovered
that a case can be gotten to FN with rudiments.
And the 8 course had the concept of setting a case up
with ruds and perhaps even a prepcheck or a bit of
2 way comm, which in those days was C/Sed as
"chat with pc about ...." (his job or his 2D etc.).

For the first time we were running grade processes
with an FN before starting the process.  And that
makes it easy to get FNs while running the process.
But it might be a small FN without the cognition
or the big blowout.  You didn't usually get those in
the older days when the ruds were not flown, it usually
takes a big cog to get an FN over out ruds.

Of course the "FN And EP" bulletin had not come out yet.

And then there were the situations where you got
a persistant FN.  If you did do a good job on the
processes (usually by pretending not to see the
small FNs because you would be tossed in the showers
if you bypassed them), the odds were that you would
turn on a persistant FN either on straightwire or on
Grade 0 because you were running the key process for
the grade.

And the standard tech C/S was to run all the grades in
one session because faster results were more stable
and because then life wouldn't interfear and knock out
the ruds in the middle of the PCs grades.  So it was
the key process of straightwire immediately followed
by the key process of grade 0 and so forth.  The
rest of the grades would be lost to a persistant FN
as you started each one and saw that the needle was
still floating broadly.

So either all the PC's EPs were chopped, or he turned
on a persistant FN fairly early in the session, and
in either case, there was very little processing done
above grade zero.  Even grade 4 might be lost on a
PC feeling good and FNing while saying "I don't have any 
urge to make anybody wrong" (and of course most people 
wouldn't while they are on a persistant FN).

However some new rundowns were put in to handle the
problem of people falling on their heads.  This was
originally the 7 resistive cases, and was renamed
the 7 special cases so as not to upset the PCs and
then it became what we now know of as green form 40.

I'm rambling a bit here, but it is to emphasize what
the situation was in those days.  The intention of
the original standard tech of the 8 course was to do
the minimum possible to get the person onto the clearing
course to errase the bank and then get him up to OT 3
so that he could handle entities with incident 1 and 2.
Those were considered the source of case and anything
else was pretty rocks that might lead us from the path.

And so most of the tech was gone, forbidden, and now
we had a police force (ethics, the GO, and standard
tech C/Ses) to make sure that it was never used.

If people wonder why I have a bit of a dislike for
KSW and the term "standard tech", this is the reason.
In their original incarnation, they were used
intensively to knock out what we now know to be
valid tech and they made it impossible to fix what
was wrong in the subject.

PCs caved in, orgs crumbled, and ethics went in hard
because the why was SPs and squirreling and the world
conspiracy.

1969 was probably Scientology's darkest hour.

In 1970 the tech was reinstated.  They didn't bother
cancelling all the cancels, Ron simply said that all
the tech is for use.  So you can agrue about what is
cancelled and what is not.  Expanded grade zero included
at least one process from an explicitly cancelled HCOB
which is not in the New tech volumes (it is in the
old tech volumes marked as cancelled even though the
cancelled HCOB was also, at that time, on the level 
zero checksheet to be star-rated).

But the hard line of standard C/Sing and following
the grade chart pretty much makes it impossible to
use most of the older processes legally, unless of
course you call it an assist and do it without an
official C/S.

As to mockup processes, they were cancelled back around
1963.  But around the begining of 1968, Ron issued
the money process as "mockup a way to waste money",
ignoring the cancellation.  That was shocking to some
of the tech people.

Also, sometime in 1969 or 70 (if I remember correctly), 
Yvonne Gillam (later Heber's wife) came around on tour 
doing group processing with the old group auditors 
handbooks.  That went very well and so group processing 
was put back into use.  

But those old books were full of mockup commands as part
of the group processing sessions.  And raw public would
often go to them, and so mockup processing was used
on raw public in group processing (where there is the
least auditor control and handling of the PC) despite
the fact that it was cancelled.  And I'm pretty
sure that this was ordered by Ron (since group processing
remained in use thereafter), so here again he ignored
the cancellation without actually bothering to revoke it.

By the way, most of the public loved it.  The same goes
for playing old group processing tapes of Ron's and
letting the public do them.  And he does wild things
in those group sessions, some of the processes wound 
up on old OT 6 and 7.  People coming in off the street
can run these things, but its a hit or miss matter,
one of the R-factors was that it was ok to skip a group
processing command if you didn't feel like doing it.

But this was during the brief exhilaration of the 1970
reinstatement of the tech.  Later I saw people smashed
for using mockups in group processing.

In practice, you wouldn't find a standard C/S using
mockups.  And if I were C/Sing for an orthodox organization,
I wouldn't dare C/S them because you can't do them
by rote.  I did a more extensive writeup on this
awhile ago.

Also, OT drills are supposed to be up above modern OT 8.
Therefore it would be mis-C/Sing to use them at lower
levels.

Personally, I don't think that anything is cancelled,
but you would have to be prepared to argue this to get
away with it in an org.  Practically speaking, there
are only two alternatives: Either Ron was chronically
lying about the results produced in the 1950s, or
those processes work and there is more than one way
to skin a cat, it doesn't have to be modern standard
tech.  It should be obvious that I believe the latter.
There is no third alternative where a process could
only work in a certain year and not in other years.

As to self auditing, the early days have this continual
mix of considering that public PCs who self audited had
some case outness while at the same time telling
professional auditors that they could audit anything
on themselves that they were trained on.

The real bug in public self auditing was that they wouldn't
know what they were doing and so would sit around 
figure figuring on a "whatsit" rather than running
properly.  And that was not forbidden, just seen as
an outpoint.  The only rule was against self auditing
while in the middle of an HGC intensive because it
threw in an unobserved action.  The early green form
had the question stated that way ("during an intensive")
and did not have any question about self auditing in
general.

But here again, we have the late 1960s concept that
all case was R6 or OT 3 coming in and messing up the
works.  The whole idea was to destimulate the case
rather than handle it with the handling being to go
and do the clearing course.  And auditing involves
restimulating things so that one can blow them.  
Therefore any auditing was undesirable except for the
tiny amount necessary (quicky grades) as a setup for
CC.  And so all self auditing became forbidden.

Of course there was solo auditing in those days.
The PC might have had one or two intensives of auditing
in their entire life, and done a solo course so that
he could read a meter and run a command, and then
you'd let him loose on R6EW with some real heavyweight
self listing processes.  Note that these were not
people who were clear.  These were not professionals.
They had barely a lick and a promise as far as any
prior case handling went.  In later days, a new person
who had done a self analysis co-audit (early 70s HQS
course) probably had more auditing experience and
had probably recieved more hours of auditing than
the people who were being allowed to solo in 1968.

The rules and worries about all this which were introduced
during the quickie era never did get reviewed or cancelled
when things changed.

The keynotes of 1969 were being afraid of the bank and
scared of restimulation, and so of course people keyed
in heavily and got restimulated like crazy.

Imagine the attitudes of a time period where simply
using the word "withdraw" in an auditing command was
seen as so restimulative of R6 that you would wrap the
pc around the flag pole (see the forbidden word list
HCOB).

And the higher trained somebody was, the more "OT" levels
they had done, the more certain they were of the dangers
of this and so as people moved up the line, they became
greater suppressors of tech rather than greater encouragers
of tech.

Without the halfway reforms of 1970, the orgs would
have been gone within a few years.  But we still bear
the scars in terms of fixed ideas and tough policies
that were meant to solve a problem that is long gone.

In a total scarcity of tech, you had better be afraid
of a pin dropping because if you are only allowed one
process and something goes wrong, you are dead.
With an abundance of tech, that becomes silly, about
like worrying about a single drop of coffee when there
is an urn right next to you.


Best,

The Pilot


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


 subj: Super Scio Humor - THE OT COOKBOOK


HUMOR: THE OT COOKBOOK


Nifty Ways To Cook an OT


1. OT Home Fries

Get him to put his own "ethics" in whenever he disagrees 
with you.  He will fry himself with his own intention beams.


2. Italian Style

Convince him that BTs are responsible for the condition
he is in.  He will turn into a meatball and can be served
with linguini.


3. Mulligan Stew

This interesting stew is a favorite among the Hobos.  Prepare
the OT by having him mortgage his home and future to pay for
services and then deliver some sec checking.  Soon he will
be living with the homeless and can be added to the stew.


4. Cabbage Soup

Let him restrain himself for the sake of mankind while Davie
MarCabbage or one of his clones rants and raves at him.
When the OT is properly wilted, the juices can be drained
from him making a tasty soup.


5. Rice a Ronnie

Place the OT in the Sea Org.  Add rice and beans.  Continually
locate him in space and time until he becomes MEST.  Stir
with world conspiracy stories to distract him while he
solidifies.  If properly prepared, he will march to your
plate for consumption.


6. An After Dinner Smoke

Tell the OT to think for himself.  Then force his thoughts
into agreement with policy.  Soon "himself" will equal "policy"
and he will turn into paper.  Use the paper to roll your
own cigarettes.


7. Clam Chowder

Make tech data confidential or price it out of range or limit
it to an elete.  Publish a cheap book telling him that he
is a clam.  Put the data that that was only an implant in a
hard to get reference.  Soon he will be snapping properly and
can be made into chowder.


8. hOT dog

Give him a big league sales course and let him FSM his friends.
When his financial overts are great enough he will become
the effect of bread.  He can then be trapped in a bun.  Add
mustard and relish to suit.


Humorously,

The Pilot


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

 subj: Super Scio - To Lakis On Games

To Lakis On Games

On 10 Feb 99, lakis agrogiannis <agrogiannis@swipnet.se>
asked on topic "Qs about Games and Conditions"


> hi,
> 
> There must be some connection between
> games, size of, and condition one is in.
> 
> Can you be in a big game and on a low condition?

Of course.  WWII was very big.  Many of the players dropped their
bodies.

 
> How do you make your game bigger?
> And what is a big game, anyway?

More space, more matter, more energy, longer timespans, more
beings involved.

 
> If you make your game bigger,
> do you automatically better your condition?

No.  It is the reverse.

Big fish in a small pond, being waited upon by all the other
little fish.  Then he goes to a big pond and starts from the
bottom.

But in moving to a larger game, there are more flows and
terminals available, and so the potential is much greater.

So it is an automatic drop with the potential for going much
much higher than before.

Think of being in power change and shifting from power in one
area to non-existance in another larger area with the prospect
for greater rewards.

Also, moving into a larger sphere tends to raise a being's
horsepower.

My point here is that you have to start operating, reaching
twice as far, managing twice as many particles, juggling
twice as many comm lines, etc.  The automatic effects are
mostly aimed against you, but this is how you really expand
fast and build up horsepower.

 
> If you make your condition better,
> do you automatically make your game bigger?

No.  You raise your ability to play well.  Moving into a
position of power, you can consolodate your gains or you
can expand, or maybe do a little of both.  Making your
condition better gives you a broader choice of viable
options.

 
> What 's the relationship between PrPr6 and the ethics conditions?

Developed around the same time period (the lower ethics conditions
are later, actually).

But power processing was aiming at fixed conditions (revivs,
not-isness, etc.) rather than at ethics conditions.

It is possible that running power on people and hearing various
cogs might have contributed to developing the conditions
formulas, but I don't see a direct relationship.

 
> Opinion:
> In order to change somebody's life,
> among other things,
> one has to do something
> to the games this person is playing
> and to the conditions he's in on the various dynamics.

Yes, but of course you might bring that about indirectly.  For
example, you run a shy person on grade 0 and now he can talk
to girls.  His 2D games will change and hopefully he moves
into higher conditions.

 
> How would one handle those two areas?
>
> Has it all been taken care of on the levels and grades of the bridge?

Standard tech contains very little that is directly addressed
to the area of games.  As I mentioned, you can get significant
indirect effects, but a direct handling could be very benificial.

There was some work done by LRH on this in the mid fifties, but
it could well be labled an abandoned line of research.  One of 
the few that is in the tech is R2-69 "please pass the object" 
and that is wonderful fun.

There is a modern practice of doing conditions by dynamics as
an ethics action, but it is not really processing and at best
it would only be holding the fort rather than real spiritual
advancement.  And I find the ethics formulas to be incomplete
although they are a help (at least the upper ones, the lower
ones are off base).  For example, in non-existance one should
examine the economics and practicality of producing the 
product before comitting oneself to an unviable action.
Otherwise one foolishly finds out that a better meter is
needed and then produces one that costs $10,000 and finds
that the market has disappeared.

Quite a few of the freezone practices have been carrying the 
games research line forward.  There is just enough in Ron's work
to call significant attention to the area and it is obviously
incomplete.  As I've said at other times, I'm not an expert
on the various freezone practices, but I've seen enough on
the net to have the impression that both Alan and Enid have
made advances in this area.  I've been planning to take a shot 
at this area myself but I haven't gotten around to it yet.

 
> Opinion:
> I don't think so!

Agreed.
 
> lakis


Best,

The Pilot


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

 subj: Super Scio Tech - The Non-Interfereance Zone (Attn Ryan)

THE NON-INTERFEREANCE ZONE (Attn Ryan)

On 11 Feb 99, ryan_noemail@my-dejanews.com asked on topic
"calling all techies Re: Non-interference zone"


> The non-interference zone... is to do with being close to clear?
> 
> Got the tech ref handy?

Excerpt from old tech vol 7 as posted to the net -

----- begin fair use quote

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 DECEMBER 1971

       Solo C/S Series 10

	 C/S Series 73

    THE NO-INTERFERENCE AREA

From R6 Solo to OT III one does not do anything except keep the pc
winning for R6 Solo to OT III.

This is the critical band of the Gradation Chart.

On Flag it was learned the hard way that you don't do other major auditing
actions between these two points.

Example:  Action -- Completed R6, Clear and OT I, then a Dianetic
Completion was attempted. Result -- failure. Right Action -- Complete
Dianetics before R6. Right Action -- let it go until OT III well begun, then
complete Dianetics.

Example:  Pre OT doing OT II. A new PTS RD is done. Failure. Right Action
-- do it before R6 or after OT III.

Example:  R6 done. Drug RD given. Result. Poor. Right Action -- Do Drug RD
before R6.

----- end fair use quote

The rest of the HCOB lists exceptions - repair actions allowed etc.

Ron does not really give a reason in this non-confidential reference.
But in the III materials he says that the composite starts coming apart
as the person goes clear and he will begin running into III.  But
see below for my own opinion.


> And the tech handling at that point?

Orthodox handling would be to get through the OT levels up through III.
But see below.

> Thanks,
> Ryan :)
> 
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    


Much later, in 1978, the Dianetic Clear business came out.  Now
at least some of those people really were clear, had the clear
cog, found that the CC platen mostly FNed when they did it on
old OT 4, etc.

There were tons of people who went clear back in the sixties
and early 70s but were not considered clear because they hadn't
done the CC.  Therefore they were audited on everything under
the sun without considerations of non-interfereance.

I know because I was one of them.  There were only a few real
problems -

a) Occasionally (not usually), dianetic engram running can
slide over onto entity's pictures because the auditor doesn't
realize how fast you run and pushes you in again when it
errased on the first time through.  If you're smart you say
it errased, but if not, you look a little harder and find
something which is not your own case.

b) You usually run processes much faster than a lower level
person can keep up with.

c) Sometimes you go way over the auditor's head with what
you are running and they have trouble duplicating you or
turn green or whatever.

d) Went clear and not allowed to attest reads chronically
on any correction list in which it appears and you and the
auditor can do nothing but shrug your shoulders about it.

However I agree with Ron that people who got into R6 seemed
to need to get through OT III.

It should be obvious.  They have been given half the story
and started to muck around with it and they really should
get the whole thing, otherwise it is an incomplete major
action.

And I don't think that it is CC that does it.  That seems
to be a much earlier implant that will run stand alone and
produce a really groovy state.  Some people felt like they
didn't need anything for a long time after doing it.

But that mucking around with endwords on level 6 could
easily clip the R6 platens that are on OT2, and OT 2 is
supposed to be part of the contents of the OT 3 incident.

I would say that if somebody is right around clear they
should learn a bit of light NOTS handling and use that
if they bump into an entity.  See the self clearing
chapter on entities.  That is easy.  There is no sense
in fighting with a late on the chain troublesome incident
just because it was found before they came up with an
easier handling.

And your own case is senior, and it sure does exist after
clear, its just an order of magnitude lighter, held by
postulates and considerations and unknowness of consideration
rather than force.

What clear really is is ceasing to flinch from force in
mental image pictures and awareness that it is you who
puts the force there.  Nothing at all to do with OT 3
really.

The org errs in blaming what is left on entities and then
they can't tell you about that until you do OT III, so
they are up shitz creek until you get to that level.

Best,

The Pilot


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

 subj: Super Scio Tech - NOT KNOW PROCESS (Self Clearing etc.)


NOT KNOW PROCESS (Self Clearing etc.)

On 6 Feb 99, Lisa & Dave <lisabeau@bodybuild.com> posted on
subject "SelfClear: not-know"

# Hello,
# 
# I have a question that I hope the pilot or someone else can answer. While
# reading The Fundamentals of Thought, I came across a chapter called know
# and not-know. I found it interesing. I scanned through the self clearing
# book to find a not-know process but I couldn't find any. Is it somewhere
# and I missed it? If there isn't one in there, is there a reason?
# 
# It seemed pretty powerful to not-know the future and instead have a
# nothingness to create from. Usually when I think I know the future, it's
# really the failures from my past pushed into the future.
# 
# Thanks,
# Dave

An excellent point.  And it is missing from the book, and should
have been there, but I "forgot" about it because it was an area
where I felt that something was missing in the tech and I needed
to do some work on it.  Thanks to you I've finally gotten back to 
the area of not-know processing and the results are below.

But first I wanted to quote some of the other good discussion that
you generated.

==========

On 6 Feb 99, Ted Crammer <ted@magicnet.net> posted in response

: Not-know processes were on old OT-7. I think you'll find one or more in
: Creation of Human Ability.
: 
: Interesting observation. I agree.
: 
: Running solo, by yourself? Try this: Select an area of life that you
: would like to improve upon. Run, "Think of something you could not-know
: about_______." You can write down the answers to help stay organized
: about it and complete auditing comm cycles. Then if the answers come
: too fast and the writing slows you down, just skip the writing and
: enjoy the session.
: 
: --
: Ted

Yes, excellent.  This one should be in the self clearing book.

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

Then Ra <pthorn1@pacbell.net> continued with:

(he begins by quoting the original post above)

> The earliest not-know processes were in the early PABs. They were, 
> at the time the "one shot OT" processes. Not know is below static. 
> Basically, the processes were run to the point where you could just 
> not-know the entire universe around you.  I forget off hand the 
> principles behind it, but it will come to me in a second.......
>
> Oh yeah, here it is. :) I get couple second com lags on studying tech
> decades ago. :)
> 
> The idea is this. It was pretty much proven that the early held the 
> late in restim. This is why engrams would erase. One of the processes 
> was: "What could you not-know about that incident" (somatic, picture, 
> situation, condition, etc.)  This is why the problems processes work.

Excellent process.  And it is why "what could you not know about
that problem" would work.  But other problems processes work for
other reasons.  (was that last paragraph an LRH quote?)

> Before the condition of Knowing, one would first Not-Know. This 
> repeats all the way down the Know to Mystery Scale. For reference, 
> I have included it here.
> 
> EXPANDED CDEI SCALE
> 
> Scale      abbrev.   range
> 
> Not know      NK    Spiritual
> Know          K
> Unknown       U
> Curious       C
> Desired       D
> Enforced      E
> Inhibited     I
> No            N
> Refused       R
> False         F     Human
> Denied        DEN
> Absurd        A
> Rationalized  RAT
> Abusive       ABUS
> Horrible      H
> Compressed    COMP  Sub-Human
> Conjured      CON
> Recriminatory RCR

Very good.  But where is this from (Filbert?).  The lower range
is extended below the LRH one I'm familiar with.

> It was discovered the harmonics of the first (not know) would produce 
> case change, and would reach all the way south. The second Know, would 
> not, and would tend to cave the pc in. This became a very useful process, 
> and by determining where the being was on the tone scale you could run 
> at his reality level processes that he would actually do, bring him up 
> tone, and then run the next not know harmonic.
>
> A person in bad shape would try like hell to not know something, but 
> was well above his reality level, and he would in actuality, just 
> Not-Is it, causing it to persist.  But the Process "Lie about something" 
> (harmonic of not-know)  had a lot of workability. "Tell me the truth" 
> spun him in. The reason? Because Truth is a harmonic of Know, lie a 
> harmonic of not-know. You get him to start telling you the truth, he 
> as-ises the truth, and leaves all the lies, along with its charge and 
> mass. You get him to lie, he as-ises alter-isness, and the truth remains. 
> Very workable, very strong processes. Unfortunately, a being on the 
> bottom has to tell you lies for about a million hours before he really 
> gets anywhere, because his r is so low, and his horsepower is almost 
> in non-e.

The lie process is also a covert way of getting the pc to create 
and might be thought of as a low level creative process that works
even on PC's who can't get mockups and are unwilling to invent
things, except, that is, to get out of trouble.  A very workable
process.

> So the workable processes were, Not Know, Unknown, Desired, 
> Inhibited, refused, Denied, rationalized, horrible, and conjured. 
> (you see some of this app in handling arc breaks)
> 
> What could you Not Know? Give me an Unknown datum. What have you 
> desired? Recall a refusal.

The first two are really good, being right on the not-know button.
The third one is probably best left until one is going to address
the subject of ARC breaks.  And the last one (refusal) is out ARC
and therefore has to be alternated with something positive.


> What have you denied about (terminal). etc, etc.  Any number of 
> questions could be put in to any of the brackets to hit the pc's 
> tone level. Soon as he was up, then you use the next harmonic. 
> Eventually he would be able to just Not Know the whole bank, and 
> guess what? Clear. 

Doubtful.  He has to be one step higher, able to mock it up, and
choosing not to.  But if we are talking about able to mock it
up in total detail, we are really talking cleared theta clear
here and we're light years above the dianetic clear.  So this
not know is a very high state.  The dianetic clear is simply 
pulling up above the effort band (see K-M scale later) rather
than the not-know band which is much higher.


> Once you go clear, it is the strangest feeling in the world 
> that you ever had a bank, you not- know it so thoroughly.

> Lrh abandoned it, as a one shot clear and ot process, because  
> it took too long.

Way out gradient for most cases.

(he quotes the beginning of Ted's post here)

> Lots in COHA. Very workable. Easy to Solo Audit as well,

(and the rest of Ted's post here)

> Good suggestion. You want to be able to look right at the wall, 
> and not know something about it. Repeat with many objects. Runs 
> best outside with plenty of variety. Wont be long until you will 
> be able to Not Know huge chunks of the universe. Its a strange 
> feeling, kinda scary at first. But then to get it back, all you 
> have to do is know it again. :)  

Objective not-know (what could you not know about that object)
was one of the best of the old not know processes.

> EP is when you can either know or not know anything at will. 

Run a variety of not-know processes to reach this.  Don't run
a specific one with a hidden standard of the cog that has to occur.
Take wins instead and vary the process (many not know processes
are possible).

> You will cog on the factors, the conditions of existence, ARC, 
> KRC, and the entire tone scale. It probably could be continued
> to the 3 universes., but you definitely would be in ot 5 and 6 
> abilities at that point. If you can not know someone else's bank, 
> or a part of it, you will find it will disappear for you, all 
> right, but they go around just like you didn't erase it at all.
> The being has to come up to the point where they can not know 
> their own case. Otherwise they just keep on mocking it up.

That is why not know is not the top.  When they can consciously
mock it up as desired, without either the need to know or not
know because they can simply create (as it was before or different
or whatever they feel like), then there is no concievable reason
to keep it mocked up (except maybe bits of it occasionally for fun).

> Happy FTA.

You too (he means Floating TA).

> Tom


==========

On 7 Feb 99, From: "Aaron Bair" <aaron@xartech.com> posted
on topic "Self Clearing Survey Reply"

He gave an very detailed response to the survey which is really 
helpful to me (I'm not going to repeat the whole thing here).

Among other things, he pointed out the following:

> >10. Do you have any suggestions for improvements?
> 
> I'm sure you are planning to expand with the breakthrough on loss post, so
> that's covered.  I just read you have some enhancements for chapter 14, so
> that's covered.

For chapter 14, see the Super Process on Protest that I'm posting
along with this.
 
> I second the motion to have a "the first postulate is NOT-KNOW" section.
> That was a great tape, if there is any other work out there in the same line
> I'd love to be exposed to it.  Running not-know was as cool as spotting
> spots or holding corners used to be when I first started reading LRH books.
> Hey, is there a spotting spots in space process in self-clearing?  Before I
> even got into the church I read that (in phoenix lectures?) and drilled it
> for days and days.  Eventually I had to stop because I started being able to
> see with my eyes closed and it scared the good sense out of me.  The "hole"
> I could see through went away after another week or so.  I still get brave
> every now and again and spot a few spots until I become aware of being
> outside the normal 3-dimentional reality, but I don't continue past that.  I
> really look forward to the days when I can intentionally go for that kind of
> result again.
 
Yes, the not-know processes are great.  See the breakthough below.

And there is a high powered version of spotting spots in the
self clearing book.  But since it can act as an exteriorization
process and turn on out-int, I put it fairly late.  Chapter 11 which
handles out-int should be done first.

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

To add to the background, here is the EXPANDED KNOW TO MYSTERY SCALE
as included in the book Scientology 0-8.

Native State
Not Know
Know About
Look
Emotion
Effort
Think
Symbols
Eat
Sex
Mystery
Wait
Unconscious

This is the final version of the scale, but note that this is
the scale which varied continually during the 1950s, not just
being expaned or having minor refinements but having the order
shifted around occasionally.  Sometimes sex was above eat.
Sometimes Know (knowingness) was at the top, then not know,
then know about.  Sometimes it was not-know, then know, then
know about.  Often mystery was the bottom.

Personally I would say that Sex is above Eat because the
2nd dynamic is above the 1st.  And I would think that the
pattern is Thought - Emotion - Effort because that shows
up elsewhere and because that would be a pattern of increasing
solidity.  Then Symbols - Sex - Eat show up nicely as
substitutes for thought, emotion, and effort respectively.

But the biggest bug has always been the top of the scale.
I think that not-know above knowingness is correct, the
not-know processes run better than processing knowingness.
Below knowingness comes know about.

But if you have it that way, there is something missing at
the top, and native state with no definition in this context
is just a sort of cop out or a place holder.

This is the bug that was nagging at me and which kept me from
writing a chapter on not-know processes for self clearing.
I couldn't really do it in the face of that uncertainty.

I took another look at the K-M scale back in August of 98.
The post is called "Knowingness and Creation" and it is
in post34.txt in the archives.

The top of the scale is create.  This is above knowing.
The idea of knowing isn't even defined until you first
not-know what you are creating.  Otherwise how could you
need to know it, you are simply creating it.

Right now my current view of K-M is that it should be

Create
Not Know
Know
Know About
Look
Thought
Emotion
Effort
Symbols
Sex
Eat
Mystery

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

PROCESSING

Probably the easiest one to start with is to pick objects
in the room (or the walls etc.) and run a few commands of 
"not know something about that object" on each one.

Then do the not-know variation of union station, which is
done by going to a crowded place, selecting people and
running "not know something about that person".  That one
is discussed in the conquest of chaos tapes that were posted
recently.

Then move up to the more exotic ones such as not know
something about an area or situation or futures etc. (see 
the various posts above)


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

A Super Process on Not Know -

This one is the real breakthough.  When I was first reading
all the above posts and thinking of my earlier work in 
putting create at the top of the K-M scale, it occured to
me that we could test whether create belongs above not-know
by using a process to work the two against each other.

The process is dynamite.  It does a lot more than I imagined 
when I thought it up.  Here it is.

a) Create (mockup) something
b) Not Know who created it


In its pure form, it is just wild and wonderful to run.

But of course I had to experiment further.  So I mixed it
in with book and bottle as follows:

a) mockup a book
b) not know who created it
c) not know its weight
d) not know its color
e) not know its temprature
f) not know its contents
g) not know when it was created
h) not know its location.

Then mockup a bottle and do the same.  Then mockup ANOTHER
book and so forth.

After having a few dozen not known books and bottles disappearing
into an unknown location, I had a funny mass of energy 
swirling around and just hanging there persistantly.
Not really swirling around me but over to the side somewhere.
Quite amazing really.

As an experiment, I tried to blow it by copying it, changing
its color, etc. but it really didn't want to blow, and
by this point it was just a mass and I kind of felt foggy
about it.

Note that I was not flattening not-know on any step and
I was continually mocking up more books to not-know rather
than doing anything more with the previous ones.

I had had no problem using simple creative not-know (above)
repetatively.  It was only when I did this book and bottle
variation and kept adding to it that a mass built up.  And
the mass was not in the location where I had been mocking
the books up, so I had never aimed the command at it either.

Of course this was a research experiment, so I was quite
happy with the odd results.

Then the question was how to get rid of the mass.

I decided to try repetatively not-knowing who created 
the mass.  After half a dozen commands, the not-know
came off and I suddenly had good awareness of having
created the mass and the individual points of creation
and the books and bottles that were in it and so forth,
so I simply unmocked it.

Interestingly enough, I didn't have to flatten all the
different not-knows I'd done, but just repetatively 
did a not know on who created the mass.

I noticed another interesting thing.  When I'd mockup a
book, I would make its cover a certain color, and when
the not-know came off, I would know what that color was
as I unmocked it.

But I had never assigned any contents to the books, I'd
simply not know what the contents were.  At the end I
again knew what the contents were, but the contents, of
course, was nothing because I'd never mocked it up in
the first place, so I was aware that it had no contents.

The not known contents and the not known color were the
same kind of feeling during the period when I had the
whole mess suspended there.  One was there but not known
and the other had never been there in the first place.
And what I learned was that you can't tell the difference 
between those two situations until you get the not know 
off.

After this I tried picking objects and running "not know
who created that object" (once per object).  That 
actually brought up some wild awarenesses, and was
also a lot of fun.

Anyway, the creative not-know process is extremely 
benificial and seems to mimic some basic mechanisms.


Have Fun,

The Pilot

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


 subj: Super Scio Tech - More On Wild Topics (Attn MegaSquirrel, Rogers)


MORE ON WILD TOPICS (Attn MegaSquirrel, Rogers)

On 5 Feb 99, squirrel@mega.com (MegaSquirrel) posted on 
topic "Re: Pilot" 


> You raise some interesting points. I'm posting some of my own comments
> along similar lines.
> 
> "Rogers" <here-i-yam@erols.com> wrote:
> 
> >January 31, 1999
> >
> >Hi Pilot!  A couple of things.  First of all, I know that there (hopefully)
> >will be other readers beside yourself, so some of my comments are not
> >exactly to you personally.
> >
> >In Super Scio #6A you said, "To the best of my knowledge, there were only
> >10,000 individuals on the early track."  And later on, "And don't make the
> >mistake of thinking that you're everyone else.  You'd only be a small
> >percentage.  Maybe one in a billion."
> >
> >All things being equal (or sort of average), that is to say, assuming all
> >these original individuals divided up in comparable orders of magnitude; the
> >ratio would remain constant.  In other words, if the ratio was 1 to 10,000
> >at the beginning, it would still be 1 to 10,000 - now!  Therefore, one could
> >consider that one in every ten thousand is an "extremely close" early twin
> >of yours (as opposed to the other 9,999 who are still brothers/sisters
> >anyway).
> 
> My question on this is that for a being to fully divide and thus
> create another thetan (not just split pieces or BTs), wouldn't he have
> to be pretty powerful?  (to be able to reach the basic underlying
> static).  It seems unlikely that people trapped in bodies can do
> something like this, which would indicate that thetan-dividing hasn't
> occured much in the last 3 or so universes. 

My gut feeling (but highly speculative), is that while I don't
do this here as a human, me on some higher level (which is mostly
unconscious) might spin off a copy of the lesser me under special 
circumstances.

 
> >Next.  The proposed "reset time" incident where Ron and a thousand others
> >attacked the "guards."  This seems a bit extreme.  A violation of "hat don't
> >hit."  It seems to me that we have to, just have to, get the between-lives
> >crew rehabilitated and out of the implant business.  Periodically, some
> >group or other has collective meditation at a specific time on a specific
> >day.  You know, world peace and stuff.  Perhaps we could use the same
> >principle.  I mean, what would happen if we were to telepathically transmit
> >(the gist of) the "Cosmic History" section to these guys.  Or, at least, the
> >concept of the false data implants, penalty universes, Agreements Universe
> >entry point, false data in Jewel of Knowledge?  (Actually, maybe we should
> >do the same to the Sea Org staff as well?)  You know, not projecting as if
> >to force feed, but projecting the data for enlightenment purposes.  Hatting
> >not hitting.  (Hey, if there are any real thetans up there, there is a
> >1:10,000 chance s/he's a twin anyway, be gentle.)
> 
> I don't think the between-lives crew are the real bad guys in charge.
> They're probably prisoners themselves with the exception of a few at
> the top.  

That is my feeling too.

> Even if the crew can be educated and rehabilitated, the
> space powers that set up the prison would just come down with a new
> crew.  So we'd probably have to "handle" the space powers (Marcab and
> Espinol?) somehow. Falling short of that, knock out the prison
> machinery and implant stations and have a massive breakout before the
> powers-that-be come down to restore order.

This is something that I do wonder about.  The trouble is our
lack of data.  Heinlien's novel "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" might
provide some guidelines.
 
> Some more thoughts on this topic:  According to Pilot, this solar
> system is a "pocket universe" apart from the MEST universe in general.
> That is, there isn't a one-to-one mapping of points between them. He
> further suggests that what we see in the night sky (galaxies and
> stars, etc) is a projected image to give the illusion of us belonging
> to the rest of the universe. 

Actually, my comments on not having a one to one mapping was
in regards to truely separate universes as in the magic universe
vs the current physical universe.  What I'm calling a "pocket
universe" is like a pocket on a shirt, not quite in the main
body but still interconnected.

Here I am thinking in terms of shifting a local area (this solar
system) sideways by a few feet along a 4th axis.  

For an analogy, think of a 2D drawing on a sheet of paper as
the regular physical universe.  Next draw a circle around a
small area.  Make xerox's of that area and paste them one
on top of another over the original area.  There are only
millimeter separations of the copies, they are only fractionally
deflected from the main 2D area.  This is easily done by virtue 
of using a third dimension which is extra to the universe,
but would be impossible if one were limited to 2 dimensional
constructs.

 
> There are some astronomical data that seem to contradict this.
> Astronomers use the parallax of earth orbit to calculate the distance
> of nearby stars. They take a picture of, say Alpha Centauri,  in
> January.  Then they take another picture in July when the earth is at
> the opposite side of the sun.  When comparing the two pictures, Alpha
> Centauri would have moved a bit relative to the background stars
> (which are much farther away). The amount it moved tells us how far it
> is (more it moves, closer it is to us).  This seems to indicate that
> there IS a one-to-one correlation of our space and the space of our
> universe in general.  There would be no parallax if the night sky that
> we see is a projection only 1 light year away. 

The parallax differential would be far too tiny to notice.
Even if it were a million miles (many orders of magnitude more 
than I think it is, a few feet or a mile is more likely), we can't 
measure interstellar distances with that degree of accuracy.

 
> Furthermore, the amount of effort it would take to project all of this
> is so fantastic,  why even bother?  It's only been in the last few
> centuries that earthlings developed enough science to understand the
> true size and nature of the universe.  It was Galileo who discovered
> that the Milky Way cloud is actually composed of individual stars.
> Before this everyone thought the universe was just our solar system
> anyway.  They could've fooled us plenty with a lot less effort, it
> seems.  

I would think that it is the real view slightly deflected, perhaps
even naturally occuring.  Going back to the 2D sheet of paper,
the layered xeroxs might each see the same view of the rest of
the paper just because that is the way this sort of a layering
might work.

 
> But I do agree with the idea of Earth being a prison planet, many
> other gurus have said the same. And it just seems right, it sort of
> "indicates".

Yeah.  When I first heard Ron say that on the Comm Cycles tape
my feeling was "of course, it would have to be that way."

 
> Best regards,
> 
> MegaSquirrel


Good questions.

PS. Rogers posted a correction to my mistake in calculating
time zones - here it is as a reminder:

> Now, as far as a coordinated "projection" of (hopefully) destimulating and
> freeing data to the between lives crew.  Yes, it does hint of new age
> flakiness, but for those few who want to do this silly thing and coordinate
> the exercise, I think the times need verification.  PST is two hours behind
> CST, so Noon CST is 10:00 a.m. PST;  11:00 a.m. MST and 1:00 p.m. EST.


Best,

The Pilot

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

This weeks posts 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 links at fza.org

All of the current posts will be collected in Super Scio Archives
#48 and 49 and posted to ACT.  See the Pilot Archives at FZA.ORG.

Also, the individual posts to ARS are being double posted to
ACT rather than cross posted to foil the spambot.  So if you
pick up a spam replaced one on ARS you can get the real one from
ACT or find a good one on dejanews. (the spamming takes a good
header and puts somebody else's message on it - all of my real
messages have a trailer like this one).

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.

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



