Date: 8 Apr 1999 04:00:18
Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology
From: pilot@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (The Pilot)
Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 53 - EARLY APRIL 99 PILOT POSTS TO ARS/ACT


POST53.txt 

SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 53 - EARLY APRIL 99 PILOT POSTS TO ARS/ACT

The first few, down to the post on matrix, were to ARS & ACT,
the remainder were to ACT only.


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

Contents:

 subj : Super Scio - The Factnet Settlement
 subj : Super Scio - TO DAVID MISCAVIGE
 subj : Super Scio - To Ted On Cats & Stats
 subj : Super Scio - To Stickwork on That Hideous Strength
 subj : Super Scio - Darma Would End Up In The Freezone
 subj : Super Scio - TO ROB AND 8 WAY ON PRESERVING TECH
 subj : Super Scio - GO SEE THE MATRIX MOVIE (Attn Arnie & Ceon)
 subj : Super Scio Tech - To Rogers On Getting Responses
 subj : Super Scio Tech - To Tom On Gradients Of Physics
 subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering Thomlove On Bridges, Reform, Etc.
 subj : Super Scio Tech - On Levitation & Camcorders (Attn David)
 subj : Super Scio Tech - To Ryan On Command Wording
 subj : Super Scio Tech - To Dimitry & Ram on Emptyness & Resets
 subj : Super Scio Tech - The Way Out Is Not Through High TA
 subj : Super Scio Tech - To Phil On Y2K & Golden Dawn
 subj : Super Scio Tech - To Norman On The OT V EP
 subj : Super Scio Tech - AN EXPRANDED BRIDGE
 subj : Super Scio Tech - Notes On Invalidation
 subj : Super Scio Tech - More Notes On Inval (Attn ID32)
 subj : Super Scio Tech - SELF CLEARING CHAPTER 14A - INVALIDATION
 subj : Super Scio Tech - Heavyweight Entity Attack
 subj : Super Scio Tech - Cosmic History & Abberative Seq (Attn Rogers)
 subj : Super Scio Tech - CO-EXISTENCE OF STATIC


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

 subj : Super Scio - The Factnet Settlement

THE FACTNET SETTLEMENT

For CofS, this seems to be a phyrric victory, having cost 
them many millions only to maintain their existing position
along with gaining a small settlement.  Here we see the
overt/motivator sequence at work, with CofS suffering the
exact same draining of resources in lawsuits that they try
to do to their opponents by launching petty harrassment suits.

For Bob Minton and FactNet, it might best be described as
damage control.  Although the copyrights and secrets are
among the most powerful lines of attack, they are a weakness
on FactNet's legal front.

The real loser in this is Freezone since there is one less
voice working to set the tech free.  But Bob never cared much
for Freezone or the tech anyway, so this is to be expected.

But the big joke is in the reason why CofS considered that
this settlement was of such tremendous importance.

They have this wrong idea that all attacks stem from a single
source.  (Rolling on the floor with laughter).

They think that all the copyright terrorists will now stop
because Minton was source!

The critics think that OSA must have been joking when they 
blamed all the attacks on Minton.  Oh no, they were dead serious.
They did a why finding and Minton was the Why.  They would
give anything, even pay off Wolly, to get Minton to stop
the copyright attacks.

You see, they think he CAN stop it.

But there is no single source on these things.  The attacks
are there because the org is "pulling it in" and no matter
how many sources are handled, they will always create some
more to keep delivering their motivators to them.

They have a freedom vs slavery GPM going and unfortunately
they have choosen the side of slavery.  And so the freedom
fighters keep poping up out of the woodwork as if by magic.

Perhaps the critics will teach them a lesson by posting
a ton more stuff to the net.

And I certainly expect that the Freezone Bible supporters
will get their scanners busy.

I believe in the tech.  I think that it is important.
For me this is not just nose tweaking or a desire to spite
the CofS.

For me the only acceptible settlment would be to see the
tech in the public domain with everyone free to practice
it as they see fit.

Currently the CofS members are faced with the choice of
enslaving themselves to management or abandoning the tech
and this set of choices is unacceptible to any freedom
loving individual who has accepted Scientology as their
religion.

So let's set the tech free.

Let's get it all out there.


Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio - TO DAVID MISCAVIGE


TO DAVID MISCAVIGE


You have probably cognited by now that your power is an
empty shell.

Although you are free to kick people around, you can't
really launch a true reform.  If you did, CST would pull
the copyrights and cut the Sea Org's balls off.

It might even have dawned on you that the lawyers are
the real third party who are inciting the conflicts.
After all, they are making lots of money off of CofS even
when they loose a case.  And so it is in their best
interest to incite the critics to further attacks.

How much money are you flushing down that sewer every
year?  I'll bet that its quite a lot.

We don't even have to determine whether or not there is
a world conspiracy behind these guys.  The money motive
would be enough.

And just in case you haven't figured this one out yet,
just think about who seems all so friendly and helpfull
while making a fortune every time CofS's blood is spilt.
It's certainly not the freezone or even the critics.

Do I need to dig out LRH's comments on lawyers back in
the 1950s?  I don't think he ever said one positive thing
about the legal profession.  Even the Ethics policies
sneer at wog justice.

So how do we get you out of this bind?

If you don't make sweeping and radical reforms, the CofS
will continue its tailspin to oblivion.  But if you do,
CST will apply castration tech.

There is one way out.

Put all the tech into the public domain.  It is religious
material, intended for religious uses.

Once that is done, there is no way that CST can shut down
the RTC or the orgs.

Yes the freezone will benefit.  So what.  That's just more
people spreading the tech.

With copyright control, CST suppresses you just as you
hope to suppress the freezone.  And although the chains
on you are very covert, they are very solid, I think that
you've felt that already.

The next question is how.

I think that you need to subvert one of the lawyers,
not one of the top guys but someone who is very much
a Scientologist and whose first loyalty is to the tech.
Somebody who sees the need for reform and doesn't give
a damn about keeping the bucks flowing into the legal
fund.

You can't just go to the top lawyers (especially the
ones on CST's board) and say - "let us give these materials
to the world to prove undesputably that we are religiously
motivated rather than a money making fraud".  But that
is what you would want done.  And so you arrange with
a lesser lawyer to do this and make such a presentation
on behalf of RTC or some other corporate body for which
you have the power to give such an authorization.  And
he or she sets it up covertly without notifying the
legal masterminds.  And then springs it while handling
a supposedly minor case on the org's behalf.

Of course CST will throw fits.  But you just carry on
business as usual with the rest of the corporate structure.
Without the copyright threat, they can't do anything to
you.  And so of course you can keep publishing LRH.  You
don't need copyrights for that if the works are public
domain.

And the fights will begin to evaporate.

And you will be able to open the communication lines,
drop the issue authority and the confidentiality and
get people talking again.

In the old days we used to encourage people to talk more,
not less.

It is time to get grade zero in on the third dynamic.

Tech works.  Lawsuits don't.


Best,

The Pilot

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


 subj : Super Scio - To Ted On Cats & Stats


TO TED ON CATS AND STATS

On 4 Apr 99, Ted.Mayett@worldnet.att.net (Ted Mayett)
posted on topic "STATS and CATS, Las Vegas"


> Friday, 2.4.99 11:40am
> Big org 8 vehicles, little org 2 vehicles.
> 
> DP Bracken:
> http://home.scientologist.org/bracken/index.htm
> 
> has made it into one of the free newspapers that get published here,
> this one is called 'Las Vegas Weekly'.
> 
> CATS means, Citizens for an Alternative Tax Structure
> CATS is a scientology front-group.
> 
> This article was titled "Fighting Back" and contained several stories
> about people battling the IRS.  There is a photo on the front page of
> this newspaper showing the back of some guy with a CATS T-shirt on in
> front of the Vegas IRS office.
> 
> Some quotes from the article:
> "When the IRS hit him with a $17,000 bill for failure to pay taxes on
> his tips, Bracken was shocked and appalled.  ""So I filed bankruptcy,
> and they got jack ***t,"" he say's smiling."
> 
> "Bracken ran across a magazine entitled Freeing America from the Tax,
> published at the national headquarters of the CATS.  Bracken called up
> and asked how to join the local chapter; when he learned none existed,
> he volunteered to start one.  that was 7 and a half years ago- there
> are now between 300-400 members of the Las Vegas Chapter."
> 
> "Bracken attributes a large portion of his dedication to his
> involvement with his church, which believes in community affairs
> participation."
> 
> End quotes.
> 
> the word 'scientology' is not mentioned in the article, the article
> has 7 different examples of 'fighting back', CATS was just one of
> them.  Newspaper date is, March 31- April 6, 1999
> 
> So, Bracken had no idea there was not a CATS chapter in Vegas?
> [big lie]
> And, the Vegas CATS have between 300-400 members.
> 
> Now then, this 300-400 figure is revealing.  My guess is that this is
> the actual number on the mailing list for the big org here.  Why the
> big org? because his wife, Terri, is on staff at the big org.  A clam
> would just assume that all other clams want CATS, and so I'm guessing
> that this 300-400 figure is actually a number that reflects a mailing
> list.  300-400 members in CATS, 1800 orgs, scientology is expanding.
> 
> It is good that these silly lies continue.  Here we have this Bracken
> fellow lying in an interview for a newspaper, this is good, as long as
> bullies and liars are members....
> 
> And in the meantime, between a Class V org, and a Celebrity Centre, on
> a normal business day, the vehicle count combined was TEN.

Yes, CofS was targeting the IRS as an enemy and turning up
the heat.  I am not up on the details but I'm pretty sure that
CATS was backed by Scientologists.

THEN MISCAVIGE SOLD OUT TO THE IRS.

Now that CofS itself has its tax exemption & the services are
deductible, Miscavige wants Scientologists to support the IRS
and shut up about the same things that they used to be screaming
about.

There are probably still quite a few Scientologists supporting
things like CATS, but they are on the org's shit list if they
do so.

I suspect that this conflict and the sudden party line switch
from the IRS is our enemy to the IRS is our friend is driving
people out into the freezone.

Las Vegas is far from the action.  And so the Sea Org thought
police are slow to act.  Expect a severe reality adjustment
if LV continues to be pro CATS.

Check out Veritas.  The IRS business is one of the reasons
they are fighting Miscavige.

And please applaud the courage of any Scientologists who remain
in Cats, because only the most innocent would fail to be
aware that an SO mission is going to land sooner or later
and put some heads on a pike to get their ethics in.

From an Ethics standpoint, any Scientologist who continues
to fight the IRS is jepordizing the IRS deal and therefore
would be in Treason.  I would expect mass declares.

Personally I'm pro CATS and anything else that would cut
the government bureaucracy, but I'm busy with my own fight
to free the tech from OSA and see the CofS reform.


Best,

The Pilot

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


 subj : Super Scio - To Stickwork on That Hideous Strength


TO STICKWORK ON THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH

On 27 Mar 99, stickwork@aol.com (STICKWORK) posted to ARS on
subject "CENTRAL COMMITTEE respond to THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH!"

> Dear friends,

> Did LRH, by chance, read C. S. Lewis? 

Possibly, he was well read and writing fantasy, so I would
expect him to examine the competition.

Personally, I loved "Out of the Silent Planet" but I found
the rest of the trilogy (ending with "That Hideous Strength")
a bit of a disappointment.  The first book opened up a wonderful
tapestry of existance and the subsequent mundane things like the 
return of Merlin just didn't seem to live up to my expectations.


> I have now spent a far longer time than any normal person should 
> spend on the web regarding that hideous strength.

Welcome to the club.


> My wife is becoming suspicious. I seek to know clearly who of 
> you will be my allies. 

A statement of purpose might help.  I am pro tech and pro Freezone
and still theoretically in good standing but exceedingly unhappy 
with CofS, OSA, and Int. Management.


> It appears from varous posts to this site, that some of us are not
> exactly who we seem to be. 

Things are seldom what they seem,
Skin milk masquerades as cream.


> When I come outside into the light of day, I wish to thank my 
> friends personally. You are the clear beacon and the first stop 
> on the road back. 
> 
> In June, something wonderful will happen. You will know me when 
> you see me.

Looking forward to it.


> Stickwork
> 
> PS In the words of Deep Throat to Bob Woodward, "FOLLOW THE         
> MONEY". Trust me on this, the result is worth a million pickets.

An excellent assessment technique.


Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio - Darma Would End Up In The Freezone


DARMA WOULD END UP IN THE FREEZONE

On 20 Mar 99, Xenubat@primenet.com (Bat Child (Sue M.))
posted on topic "Jenna Elfman wants to have her TV character join Scn!"


> From the "Star People" gossip column in "Star" magazine, 3/30/99:
> 
> ====================
> 
> Jenna Elfman is so devoted to Scientology that she wants her TV
> character Dharma to join the organization!  Jenna credits her success
> to Scientology and feels her sitcom is the perfect medium to
> illustrate what it can do for the world.  If she can't convince
> "Dharma & Greg" producers, she's exploring other ways to promote the
> group.
> 
> ====================
> 
> 
> Sue, SP4(:), listed on the Scieno Sitter list 5 times!
> --
> http://www.primenet.com/~xenubat
> 
> "It will take a *long* time to find another enemy
> with the combination of evil and incompetence
> you see in Scientology."--Keith Henson 


Oh Yes!  Let's encourage this one.

I'll bet that OSA has already slapped her wrists.

This is a COMEDY show.  They are fair about making fun of both
New Age and Establishment, that gives the show its balance.
In fact they do it very well, making both sides targets and
also giving both sides wins so that the show is appealing
to everybody.  I really enjoy it.

Now what if one of those sides becomes Scientology?  Per the show's
standard formula they would both show good things and make fun.

What does OSA do if somebody makes a joke about Scientology?

Even if they start out very mild and very favorable, they
have to poke some fun or the show will not get any laughs.

Sceen: Darma at the dinner table.  Greg's obnoxious sidekick
comes up behind her and she accidentally jabs her elbow into
his crotch.  He gets a big grin on his face and demands a
contact assist.

Pleasant and funny.  Not even critical.  I would like it,  
Freezoners would like it, critics would like it and even
ordinary Scientologists would like it.

But OSA and the Sea Org would freak out.  Remember the jokers 
and degraders policy.  They would have to attack.  Jenna would
be in Ethics fast.

And you know how comic writers are, needing material and trying
to keep a weekly show going.  How long before they began to
tap the wealth of humor on ARS?  Remember, Jenna doesn't
write the show, she just plays the part.

But I'm dreaming here.  What will really happen is that Jenna, 
up until now all bright eyed and enthusiastic, will suddenly 
discover that the scripts have to get ISSUE AUTHORITY or 
else CofS will sue ABC over the use of the sacred MARKS.

When Sienfield, enjoying TRs and liking the subject, found
out how touchy ethics could be about a few friendly jokes
about LRH, he walked.

But Jenna is much further along in the subject, so I wouldn't
expect her to abandon the tech.  So you can expect that OSA
will drive her into the freezone.

The funny thing is that even harsh humor would actually
be good for Scientology, calling it to people's attention.
It also might get the ordinary Scientologists thinking and
demanding reform.  A good thing all around.

But OSA's reaction would be so psychotic as to make it into
a FootNuke.


Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio - TO ROB AND 8 WAY ON PRESERVING TECH


TO ROB AND 8 WAY ON PRESERVING TECH

On 6 Apr 99, Rob Judd <judd@alphalink.com.au> answered 8.way's
post on topic "Preserving the Tech"


> 8.Way,
> 
> You make some salient points. I guess 40 million words is enough tech for
> anyone, and we should just start using what we know of it.

It is not enough actually, since we don't have stable OTs.  We
have a start, but the job is not complete.  I say this with all
due respect to LRH who was the best single researcher that we've
ever seen in this area.  I hardly measure up to him and I will
freely admit that my triumphs are because I'm standing on his
shoulders.

But 40 million words and the work of only one researcher is a joke
compared to what it took to light the cities.

The pivot point of physical science is Newton.  I would place Ron
in the same position relative to the science of the mind.

And yet Newton didn't even come close to lighting the cities.
The theoretical foundations are laid by Faraday, who, of course,
was building on the basics of physics that already existed in
his time thanks to the work of Newton etc.

And even that was not enough for practical results.

We also needed Edison.

But if we had lived with Edison's tech, we would only have DC
generators in the homes of a few rich men.

And so we also had to have Tesla who developed the AC transmission
gird that makes cheap power available to the masses.

And then we had to have some brilliant electronics engineers
at GE and Westinghouse who successfully mixed Edison's DC and
Tesla's AC to produce a workable super system.

As a result, you can snap a light switch and experience 
miraculous results beyond anything concieved of by Mozart
or Shakesphere.  And that, my friend, is truely astounding
because I don't think that either of us could match those
guys on an equal footing.

My hope is that similar advances can be achieved in the field
of the mind.

 
> Rob
> Clear 13611
> Scientologist since 1975

Good for you.  

By the way, I consider that your posts are usually reasonable and 
sensible, which is more than I can say for 8.way who seems to be 
a bit blind and babbling the party line.

 
> 8.Way wrote:
> > 
> > I dont like the way the Church is handling the fantastic technology of scn.
> > BUT the Church are preserving the technology. IF the FZ got the power the
> > tech would get lost-simply because there is no respect and appreciation for
> > the tech AND  the "inventors of "new tech"" is trying to solve their own
> > case and get some ego-power from "see what I have created".


Bullshit.

I work hard at studying and promoting LRH.

FZ Bible and its affiliates puts tons of tech on the internet.

All OSA does is try and cancel LRH tech that is posted.  

Try looking at the actual stats for a change instead of spouting
false data.


Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio - GO SEE THE MATRIX MOVIE (Attn Arnie & Ceon)


GO SEE THE MATRIX MOVIE (Attn Arnie & Ceon)



WARNING - THIS CONTAINS A BIT OF DATA ABOUT THE MOVIE, DON'T
READ IT IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT YET AND WANT TO BE SURPRISED.


This movie has my highest recommendation - It is great.


=======


On 4 Apr 99, ceon@u.washington.edu (Ceon Ramon) responded to Arnie's
post on "Hey Bob, go watch this move THE MATRIX! see www.lermanet.com"


> In article <7e34jp$aej@edrn.newsguy.com>,
> Arnie Lerma  <Arnie@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >
> >  Brilliant Entertainment.

Most certainly!

> >  Likely to be banned by Scientology.

OSA and Int. Mangement wouldn't like it but they will have to
live with it.

 
> Why?  It had some little bits of Buddhism, a few shreds of Greek mythology,
> and some totally implausible biological and biochemical premises that were
> cheerfully ignored by the riveted audience.   

One bit of dumb biology, but the computer ideas are right on.  Overall,
they get a pass in my book when compared to the scores of Sci Fi
movies that are full of stupidities (Ice Pirates for instance).

 
> Keanu Reeves even looked for the first time as if he might be an actual 
> human being -- the result of special effects, no doubt.
> 
> >
> >  Dont wait for video!
> 
> Absolutely not!  This must be seen on the biggest screen available.  

Definitely.


> Bring earplugs, though, if you value your hearing.
> 
> --Barbara


========== 
 
THE MATRIX

The average Scientologist will love this movie.

It is a graphic demo of Hubbard's Bodies in Pawn theory
from History of Man.

Ron talked about this a lot in the 1950s.  Just for variety,
here is a quote from the Tech 88 lectures (you'll also find
things about this in the PDC tapes, the HCL tapes, etc.)

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

"And it's an unfortunate fact that this is true, because
they're rough incidents to run because your preclear protests.
He says, "I'm here," when he is actually there.  And only when
he's runout a couple of deaths of the other body on Mars -
see that body'll go along, preserved, more or less, in a
field for maybe two or three, four thousand, five thousand
years, getting along just fine.  He returns back, he comes
back here, he goes back there, he comes back here, he goes
back there, he comes back here.  He goes back there and they
run a certain kind of an incident and that makes him somebody
else, and he comes back here.  See, every times he dies on
earth, he just reports back there automatically, gets a new
set of order, goes along.

"Works wonderfully, and then one day he dies up there and
he goes back and (snap) - he's gone.  And they promised him
faithfully that he would be there still.  And this upsets
him and he goes to see psychiatrists and so forth down
here; he wants to know what's happened.

<snipped for brevity>

"But it's - Body, body, where's my body now?"

From "Tech 88 and the Whole Track, Part I" of 26 June 52.

===========

These kind of incidents, where there is a double body, a
second body held in pawn in some kind of chamber or vat
or suspension field were comming up commonly in 1952.

I don't know how often this comes up in modern dianetics.  
I've run incidents like this and other people I know
have, but my experience is more with running LX chains
(incidents of being overwhelmed etc.) and ext/int (incidents
of interiorizing, etc.) on people who had had quickie grades
and so forth.  In my small amount of experience running new people 
on a more gradient dianetic approach, I didn't see these kind
of incidents showing up.

Often the double body was in some kind of glass case or
tube or just floating in some kind of suspension field looking
a bit like the stored bodies in the "Coma" movie rather than
in the vats portrayed in Matrix.

Multiple locations and storage mechanisms show up and it
doesn't seem unusual for more than one layer of this to show
up on a case, as if he was put into suspension by one group
and beamed somewhere else where he made trouble too and was
put into suspension there and beamed into yet another place
like earth.


===========

The party line in 1952 was that earth was real and that you
are beamed into a newborn body on earth from the body being
held in suspension on Mars or Acturas or whatever.

But this was being run at a time when people didn't have the
virtual reality concepts that began showing up in 1960s
Science Fiction and which are now sweeping the Sci Fi market.

Quite a few of us back in the 60s and 70s had the idea
that virtual reality might be a better explanation for these
confounded bodies in pawn incidents that kept showing up.

The average Scientologist will say that its the Marcabs
running the vats rather that some AI gone out of control.
And of course the reason for it is the prison planet business
rather than that stupid idea about biological batteries.

The Scientologists will like this one better than Battlefield
Earth.

Only Miscavige and OSA will hate it.  They might even issue
an ethics order saying that it is too restimulative to watch
as was done with 2001.  And you can expect that everybody
will ignore the ethics order just like they ignored the
one about 2001 because it is unenforcable unless the person
is in the middle of getting an intensive of auditing at
Flag or AO.  It is only a misdemeanor rather than a high
crime to ignore an ethics order of this sort.

Scientologists love Sci Fi and the closer to LRH & History
of Man it is, the better they like it.


Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - To Rogers On Getting Responses


TO ROGERS ON GETTING RESPONSES

On 20 Mar 99, "Rogers" <here-i-yam@erols.com> posted on
topic "Protest and Expectations"


> Hate to be (that) pushy, but I'm a bit surprised by how much silence this
> post engendered.

Happens to me all the time.


> Made me run through a number of doubt sequences.  And it is all the worse
> because I didn't get any direct response to this concept when I originally
> mentioned it in the "Karma, Nuts" post.

I loved "Karma, Nuts".

 
> Is it possible that it is just too obvious and well known... well please
> clue me in.  I can take it (I'll TRY not to cry, anyway).

For me, protest blew out big time when I found the protest/admiration
process that I posted.  And so the area of protest is persitant FN
this month.  Of course I know that it'll be back eventually, so I
want everything that I can save up on protest.  But its all for later,
I'm not able to evaluate anything worth a damn in the area right now.

 
> Just in case the problem was in my writing, allow me to whip through this
> concept one more time, then I promise to shut up about it.
> 
> "Protest" is a big button and can be considered to be basic on many
> aberrative postulates, even suggested as a basic on the compulsive creation
> of mental pictures.
> 
> What I am saying is that "expectations" are the "earlier beginnings" to
> protest.  Now, by "expectations" I might include any and all "standards" and
> any other form of "assumptions" and so on.

Certainly true sometimes, I can remember this happening.  Unfortunately,
as far as a general statement goes I can't tell right now because the
are is just a big laugh to me.  I'll look again later when it seems
serious again.

 
> One protests something because it violates one's sense of "what should be."
> Protest is, "It shouldn't be (that way)."  BUT, there is a "potentially"
> arbitrary issue here.  We have all been living together for so long, with
> lots of common experiences and common standards, that we no longer question
> some of these things.  But, somehow or another, we had to acquire these
> standards and expectations.  My postulate was that something comparable to
> the Jewel of Knowledge must have set a lot of these "standard expectations"
> in place.
> 
> My thought was that in addition to handling the charge induced by protest,
> we also need to exercise our ability to "question" the expectations that may
> underly the protest.  Not just assuming that because it has long been agreed
> upon that it is "right."
> 
> Even if the source of these expectations and standards are currently lost to
> us, there is no reason why an exercise or a drill cannot be done in present
> time.
> 
> It is the earlier beginning!
> 
> If nothing else, this might provide great fodder for the kind of "disagree
> with MEST" mockup processing.  You know, someone comes up to you and stabs
> you in the heart with a twelve inch knife, and you protest it (for some
> unknown reason).  Later (ha ha) when you are in session, you can peel off
> the injury and then the protest and so on, but then continue on to dealing
> with the expectations that were violated and then changing them around this
> way and that.  Perhaps you could mockup that all knife wounds should be in
> the back, or in the neck.  Perhaps one "should" only be stabbed with a
> fourteen inch knife and it "should" have been two inches higher, and so on.
> 
> I'm suggesting we apply a bit of attention to the (initially arbitrary)
> "reason for" protest as part of the handling.
> 
> Les C. Rogers.


This is why key tech ideas should go somewhere like Homer's
archives.

Here I am knowing that protest is one of the biggies.  And
yet I'm still just blown out on a previous cog in the area.

Furthermore, the best written tech posts don't create a lot
of discussion, they are alreay perfect.

We need an evolving base of ideas.  So let's get these things
archived.


Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - To Tom On Gradients Of Physics


TO TOM ON GRADIENTS OF PHYSICS

On 20 Mar 99, tjf@uci.edu (Tom Fielder) wrote in response to
my earlier post on "Super Scio Tech - SEQUENCE OF ABBERATION"


> Inspired by the portion of Pilot's post quoted below, I see a certain
> similarity between his description of the very early steps leading to
> individuated thetans and descriptions of the beginnings of the physical
> universe, as proposed by the latest theories of cosmology.
> 
> In the beginning of the PU, it is theorized that matter and energy did not
> yet exist as separate entities.  There were no particles per se early on,
> and the individual forces of electromagnetism, gravity, and the strong and
> weak nuclear forces had not yet "separated".  (Of course, on ordinary time
> scales, it didn't take very long for these things to separate out - most
> of the action was over in less than a nanosecond, if I am not mistaken.) 
> The universe began as a perfectly symmetrical point, and gradually that
> symmetry was broken as the energy levels dropped in the expanding
> "fireball" of the Big Bang.  Asymmetries have manifested themselves by,
> for example, the imbalance between matter and antimatter in the universe.
> 
> I am suggesting that the creation of the PU is a reflection, dramatization
> perhaps, of our own "creation" as described by Pilot below.
> 
> It is tempting to align the components of the PU with the concepts of
> affinity, reality, and communication.  Matter with reality, energy with
> communication, and what's left to go with affinity?  How about gravity? 
> It's the one force that has so far stubbornly refused all attempts by
> physicists and cosmologists to be unified with the others. If the analogy
> is correct, that would seem to endow the PU with a sort of enforced
> affinity, since gravity is pulling on everything and attempting to bring
> every piece of mass together.  Now, however, there is good evidence for a
> mysterious force, once predicted by Einstein although later rejected by
> him, that opposes gravity.
> 
> Well, normally I hate these kinds of analogies because they tend to depend
> on very loose interpretations of precise scientific terms.  Having made
> one of my own, perhaps I will be more tolerant of others'.
> 
> Thanks for reading.
> 
> Tom
> 
> In article <X519990319T36884X23.3BR@somewhere.com>, pilot@hiddenplace.com wrote:
> 
> > SEQUENCE OF ABBERATION
> 
> (snip)
> 
> > 1. First there is Static.  Neither one nor many.
> > 
> > 2. Then there is the concept and creation of separation 
> > which could be thought of as imposing space or space/time
> > (time is a different style of separating things).  And
> > since nothing else exists, it is the static itself which
> > separates.
> > 
> > 3. Next we have Concieve / Create / Communicate.  Here one
> > is adding to the richness of creation and since there are
> > other beings (other separations from static) and since they
> > are separate from each other, communication naturally comes
> > into play.
> 
> (huge snip)
 

Well said.

Correlating gravity with affinity sounds right.

One thing I think that you might be missing is that the laws 
of physics evolved on a gradient.

For this universe, the laws that hold consistantly would
pretty much go back to the beginning of this universe.  But 
go back one level (to the magic unvierse) and some laws would 
hold (gravity, for example) but others might not (nuclear 
forces ?).

If one mocks up a table, or sees a table in one's dreams,
does that table have the elaborate neuclear structure that
we find in PU type Mest?  I doubt it unless one is busily
mocking that up at the moment.

Here we have a certain level that is indeterminate and
responsive to the observer.  That is our quantum mechanics,
where certain "realities" are evidently not yet fixed.

As we go earlier, I think that we find more that is observer
dependent and less that is clockwork.

There is lots of food for thought here.

Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering Thomlove On Bridges, Reform, Etc.


ANSWERING THOMLOVE ON BRIDGES, REFORM ETC.

On 28 MAR 99, Thomlove <Thomlovenetmail@netscape.net> posted
on subject "Pilot! I have some comm for you."


> Hello.
> 
> I'm well into your Super Scio book, and although I know I've not studied
> it enough to 'know' it, ( I usually read/listen to LRH three times,
> wording clearing each time until I don't find any more mu's, and then
> read/listen to him again for understanding. I'm doing your Super Scio
> book in the same manner, so, it'll be a while before I can comm with you
> directly on it's contents. )
> 
> However, I'm already very interested in the procedures you have
> suggested.
> 
> Re: the Grades.
> 
> Have you ever run this alternate Bridge on anyone? Has anyone run it on
> anyone?
> 
> I noticed that there are no processes or references for all the grades
> as mocked up by yourself, but the ideas behind them make sense to me. If
> you have actually fleshed out these grades, I'd like to run them on some
> persons who are reaching for the Bridge. I wouldn't consider running
> them on anyone unless I felt they had some merit, and I do think they
> have some considerable merit.

When I worked it out, I wrote it up for solo use, since that I
how I was testing them on myself.  It is the Self Clearing Book.

Note that many were also tried out in the coffee shop on other
trained auditors, if they work there, casually without setup, and 
go to a nice win, then they are safe to let beginners fool around 
with.  I also used quite a few while doing "assists" (very very
broad definition of what an assist is), again light and unmetered
and with good results.  So these can be run on another person
successfully.

As to applying this to a professionally delivered bridge, I don't
know if anyone has tried it yet but it is a good idea.  This is
important enough that I'm writing it up in a separate post called
"An Expanded Bridge".
 
> This may well be very important. The CofS will not reform itself, and
> the real target for all the 'protesters' of the CofS are Scientologists
> who are presently on CofS lines....
> 
> (I'm writing up a procedure on how to handle the CofS using standard
> Scientology tech and Admin. The SO's worst nightmare is an organized
> opposition based on the work of LRH. The important advantage we'd have
> is that the CofS has withholds it enforces on it's own members, and the
> Reformers don't. This comm cut by the CofS on itself is a very major
> hole that can be filled by the Reformers.)

Exactly.
 
> .....however, these individuals will willingly suppress themselves to
> 'unexpressed resentment', in order to get up the Bridge. If they knew
> there was a viable alternative Bridge, then there may well be an exodus
> from the CofS to the alternative Bridge. So, I'm aware of the potential
> value of what you wrote. It just needs to be done so promises can be
> kept!
> 
> If you could flesh out the Grades as you posted in the book, I'll audit
> them on others, and let you know how they are going. I'd be willing to
> assist you in finding processes, however my library is at the moment
> mostly a big hole. It will take time for me to get the LRH materials to
> sift through to dig up the processes, as well as to add the ones you
> have mocked up.

Great.  See the expanded bridge writeup.

I spend a lot of time digging through LRH materials too, hence the
various materials lists etc. that I've posted and which end up at
fza.org.  I did a composite all time level 0 checksheet and really
need to write up similar ones for the rest of the levels, and then
do something about lists of references for earlier 50s style stuff.
There's just not enough time, especially as I also work a full
time job in software development.

 
> We need an alternative Bridge, one that works as well as LRH lower
> levels, and one that goes further than what he did. I think you may laid
> the basics of it out for us rather quite well.
> 
> Also, for lurkers, be advised that reading the Super Scio Book can be
> very restimulative, so if you do, ensure you are well fed, rested, vits
> and such. In other words, be sessionable. I was reading the section on
> 'Implant Universes', and on the 'Penalty Universes', at the same time my
> little sweetie pie fell ill with a high fever. I did the daddy thing,
> cuddled up with her and inhaled her wet exhale, filtering out the air,
> (unintentionally), and she inhaled clean air. Well, in a day or so I was
> ill. No big deal. I missed one day of solo, then I went in and did a
> little repair on myself, and learned real fast that my 'illness' had
> nothing to do with my daughters breathing wet on me. The BPC banged like
> crazy on things I read in the Super Scio Book. After the session, I was
> quite keyed out. But I did spend the next two weeks on various L1C's,
> L4BRA's, and the NCL. The cycle is still not complete, but I'm flying.
> 
> So, if you lurkers are reading the Super Scio, and if you are studying
> it to duplicate it, then be well advised not to do so late at  night
> when you are a little tired!

I had that happen a couple of times while studying LRH stuff.  Generally 
I was burning the candle at both ends (double shifted) and simultaneously 
trying to listen to every tape that the org had after midnight (staff 
were allowed to borrow tapes overnight and I had my own reel to reel 
tape player) and I was often studying over insufficient food and rest.

But the restim cools down in a few days and you study it again.
And I've never had the same area react like that twice in a row.
Just be sure to go over the material again.

 
> It's quite the work! I doubt if anything like it exists on this planet.
> 
> Also, 'Pilot', i'm curious as to when I should switch the Bridges
> myself. Right now I'm still getting gains running the OT3 and NOTS
> areas, more separations are occurring, and my 'willingness to care' is
> going up quite a bit. Almost like a release grade, in a way. However,
> I'm not sure when I should end off, and start running processes, or even
> what processes. I've managed to get the R&D's 9-12 as you mentioned, but
> I wonder if I should start off on something more basic. I'd be willing
> to to the Self Clearing Book processes, but I'm not sure... I hesitate
> to wait for an 'EP' to what I am now running, so I suspect I'll have to
> jump Bridges in mid-stream, so to speak.

See the writeup I did recently on entities.  You shouldn't spend
too long with your attention on other sources, but you want to get
to a good stable win.

If your enthusiasm is high on it, then keep going with NOTS.  There
are some big gains to be had, but if your attention starts shifting
over to your own case, FN the NOTS correction list, rehab the last 
big NOTS win, and attest.

In practice I think that there were a couple of big stable points
along the way before I hit the S/NOTS EP and any of them would
have been a good time to shift over to something else for awhile.
Between old OT 3 and starting NOTS, I did old OT 4 to 7 and that
really felt right, and the TA action was about 10 times as high
per hour as I ever saw on NOTS, I mean really spectacular.

In a similar manner, much of the stuff in super scio had the TA
flying around the dial when I was running it.

In the BC materials, Ron talks about the TA action being really high
at upper levels.  And he is absolutely correct.  If you are not
getting high TA action and spectacular wins, then you are going
after a wrong target.  With NOTS, the idea came in that an
upper level took a huge amount of time and the higher the level,
the longer it took, and they became satisfied with low amounts
of TA action per session (although NOTS will occasionally give
high TA action for brief periods).

If you take a broad perspective, you can program the case
based on what is rich in TA action.

If you can run early track with reality, you'll find that a
simple out rud in those days has more kick to it than the
biggest GPMs or implants later on the track, because you could
create and destroy entire universes with a wish and you did so
based on PTPs, Overts, ARCXs, Protest, Inval, etc.

 
> Anyway, my main interest at the moment is getting the Grades you mocked
> up fleshed out so that I can run them on others. I consider this of very
> great magnitude in importance for all of us. The CofS is failing, but we
> cannot let the torch fall.

Right on.

 
> Thanks.
> 
> Thom


Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - On Levitation & Camcorders (Attn David)


ON LEVITATION & CAMCORDERS (ATTN DAVID)

On 21 Mar, homer@light.lightlink.com (Homer Wilson Smith)
answered David's post in response to my earlier writeup
on "Super Scio Tech - A Grand Experiment"

> David (david@guests.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> > Would this be better done with a camcorder running & focused on the
> > object to be levitated - to rule out any form of mass hypnosis ?
> 
> The entirety of space-time is a form of mass hypnosis.
> 
> The presence of a cam corder forces the particpants to be willing
> for *EVERYONE* to perceive the event, which will turn on enough
> PTSness to possibly make the event unlikely.
> 
> Its mainly a matter of willingness.
> 
> Are you willing to have the ash tray levitate, and are you
> willing to have others know you can do this?
> 
> Without willingness there is no levitation.
> 
> The cam corder changes things at the willingness level.
> 
> Homer


Homer is exactly right.

If you are going to try the experiment, then do it without
witnessess, without camcorders, and without trying to prove
anything.  Just do it for the hell of it.

After doing it successfully a few times, have one of the
participants who has been successful before stay out of
the session, go off for an appropriate period, and then
come back in while you have the object in the air.

That will handle the mass hypnosis consideration.  As a
teenager when my family was doing table tipping on a regular 
basis (we did it continually for a few months), I did wander 
in while some relatives had the table about 2 feet in the air, 
went over to it, pushed at it etc. and confirmed the reality 
for myself.  Since  I had come home unexpectedly and just saw 
it immediately, there was no possiblity of mass hypnosis.  
We always did this in a well lit room, by the way.  I'm sorry 
now that I didn't run and get my boyscout compass and check 
around the table for magnetic effects or move a spring balance
around it or hang a plumb bob from it.

I suspect that if I hadn't already participated in some of 
the sessions myself, it might have fallen with a crash
when I walked in.

After you have some wins, then you might consider having
one of the group wander in with a camcorder after the
object is in the air.  That might cause the object to
fall, or maybe not, you could see what happens.  But don't
start out that way, that is just asking for a loss.

Trying to get a pc who is just starting to get exterior 
perceptics to prove it is a guaranteed way of turning the 
exterior perceptics off.  And yet you do eventually get proof.
Sooner or later they see something they had no way of
knowing and you go and look and they were correct.

Considerations about proof are the last thing you want on 
your lines while trying something like this.

Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - To Ryan On Command Wording


TO RYAN ON COMMAND WORDING

On 28 Mar 99, "Ryan Q Lee " <ryanqlee@my-dejanews.com>
asked on topic "Tech call: Processing questions"


> Thom.
> 
> I experienced solo difficulties with the particular
> processing command "How does ... seem to you now?"
> 
> It did not run easily for me. As moments of dullness
> came in, it was hard to run the command, the word
> ordering keep slipping, it was hard to "construct"
> the sentence. 
> 
> I wrote:
>
> >> "How is ... now?"
>
> Thom, you wrote:
>
> > the command you suggest to replace the other 
> > command is>an entirely different command. It asks
> > a very different question.
> 
> How? Why? Elaborate please.

It might be a different command, depending on how you
interprete it.

"How does ... seem to you now?" is definitely subjective.
It asks for your feelings.

"How is ... now?" could either be interpreted as subjective
or objective.  

If it is interpreted as objective, it is definitely a
different command.  Furthermore, it is not a good objective
command because it is repetative spotting of the same objective 
item.  Objectives run much better if there is some kind of
alternation or shifting of attention.

Obviously, R2-34 is looking for subjective itsa.  On subjective
targets, the item shifts around more easily than it does on
objectives and so repetative spotting is a bit more workable.
Even so, I would prefer to alternate this with something,
such as "describe the ...", "how does ... seem to you now?"

 
> Be, do, have. Gradients. Have becomes do becomes be.
> 
> Why is "How does" better than "How is"?
> Why is "seems" better than "is"?
> Why is "to you" better than not using a pronoun?

All three emphasise that we want subjective itsa.
 
> There is art to building processing commands.
> There is science to building processing commands.
> 
> I want that art, that science. 

Study the early ACCs.
 
> Arc, Ryan :)
> p.s. I expected a "purist" response. My question
> hopefully can be considered "research." :)
> p.p.s tech references on command phrasing welcomed!
> 
> --
> 
> On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 16:22:29   Thomlove wrote:
> >Hello Ryan;
> >
> >> While running Route 2 of Creation of Human Ability,
> >> you can see that questions are formed in a very exact
> >> manner.
> >>
> >> I read that you put the major thought in the end
> >> words of the sentence, which is where you want the
> >> cognition for emeter reads. (HCOB 4JUL62 Bulletin
> >> Changes)
> >>
> >> Now, from R2-34: Description Processing, what to
> >> make of this processing sentence:
> >>
> >> "How does ... seem to you now?"
> >>
> >> But, what about:
> >>
> >> "How is ... now?"
> >>
> >> Am I correct?    Namely, that a simpler form of a
> >> processing question is better.
> >
> >You'd be well advised not to start altering the command wording. In the
> >examples above, the command you suggest to replace the other command is
> >an entirely different command. It asks a very different question.
> >
> >If you are using LRH, and if you consider that it is working, don't try
> >to 'fix' it. Just keep on going!
> >
> >Thom

Route 2 is from the time period when you were expected to roll
your own commands and vary them as needed.  Many of the processes
do not have a pat command but simply specify a target and a means
of approaching it.  The ones that are spelled out exactly were
not laid out in the manner of standard tech where one is expected
to use them rotely.

Read the 9th ACC transcripts that were posted recently.  Somewhere
in there Ron comments that rote usage is poor auditing.  And that
ACC was done right after the 8th ACC which is the one that 
corresponds to the publishing of CofHA.  But he also says that
rote is the best that a beginner can do.

Varying commands requires understanding both of the basics
and of the target that is being aimed at.  The modern commands
evolved based on a lot of experience, and will generally be
the most workable form of the command even though the triple
and quad versions were not usually written by Ron.

I did vary a number of commands for self clearing based on
making them more workable for solo use, and you can certainly
adjust commands as well.  But varying a command successfully
does require understanding the target of the command, and
that means that you can sort of make the original command
work even though you know that you are twisting it a little
bit because the wording isn't quite right for you.

And so the workable action is seeing the sense of the original
command and then seeing a better way of reaching it.

The other alternative, where you don't quite see the original
intention, but come up with a command, means that you are
coming up with a new process.

Devising new processes is also a workable action.  You can
look at a command and say "but it is missing point X" and
devise a process to go after the point X that you spotted.
That gets you a tech finder's cert.  But it is an order of
magnitude more difficult than simply varying a workable
command to fit a particular situation or pc.

And tech finders have, shall we say, batting averages.
Ron's was extremely high, and I think that mine and a few
others are as well, but high does not mean perfect.  I
certainly try things on myself occasionally that just go
bumbling off into restimulation without a good EP.  And
certainly some of the biggest things that Ron discovered
came from times when he tried something that ran contrary
to what he expected.  If you're good, you really learn
from your mistakes.

For example, Ron found that create/survive/destroy did not
run as expected in processing and thereby discovered that it
was implanted and that the correct cycle at basic was
create/create/create.  

And, even more extreme, agree runs as a reverse process
while communication and affinity run as positive processes.
That one is totally contrary to the 1951 theory of ARC and 
is the breakthrough on which the entire doctorate course is 
based.

Therefore, anybody who is inventing processes has to be
prepared for one to occasionally run in reverse of what
was expected.

I mention this not as a discouragement, we need all the
tech finders we can get, but simply to point out that you
should be aware of it when you are running an experimental
process.


Good Hunting,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - To Dimitry & Ram on Emptyness & Resets

TO DIMITRY & RAM ON EMPTYNESS & RESETS


On 31 Mar 99, "Dimitry Ivakhnenko" <Dimitri@quanta.kiev.ua>
posted on subject "Pilot: A question from my friend"


> Dear Pilot,
> 
> First, I am glad to inform you that new half-rewritten Russian
> translation of Self-Clearing is available at my Russian page
> 
> http://come.to/koleso/

Excellent
 
> Second, there's a letter from the friend of my friend, which I
> translated.
> 
> Greetings,
>            Tim
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> To Pilot.
> 
> I have read Super-Scio. Thank you very much for this book, and for the
> information that you have generously shared with other people of a
> planet. Many isolated facts in my consciousness have found their places
> and stood up as coherent picture.
> 
> One sentence in cosmic history has left an impression of close, but not
> complete cognition. I mean an idea about creations as means to balance
> emptiness. I think that this task is solved rather simply. It is enough
> to create, for example, just one electron, and however tiny will be its
> energy and weight, it all the same surpasses emptiness in these
> parameters. Because emptiness has neither weight nor energy. We can
> consider that the task is executed, the purpose is achieved!

Nice.  And yet it is all a matter of viewpoint because something
and nothing are like comparing apples and oranges.  From one angle,
anything is more than nothing and so we balance easily.  But from
another, we will never have more somethings than the nothingnes
which remains.  Since the latter is more intersting, we choose it
in preference to the easier task.

And the creation of an electron is trival in comparison to the
writing of a great symphony.  And yet after the symphony there is
still a great silence to be filled.

 
> Obviously, in the jewel of knowledge there was engraved the false idea,
> about that how this task, namely - to create space close by scale to
> infinity of emptiness, and to fill it thoroughly with creations.
> 
> And indeed, those who have created a jewel needed new creations, which
> are distinct from their own. I see a sole simple way, which could affect
> a thetan so that he will begin to create and could never stop. It was
> necessary to deprive him of ability to confront emptiness!!!
> 
> >From this position the intervention of jewel creators does not seem so
> easy, but rather all-determining! A mournful show, isn't it?
> 
> Which we have as a result of this inability today.
> 
> In MEST the law of diffusion (the nature does not bear emptiness!), when
> even solid bodies diffuse in other solid bodies, trying to evenly
> allocate their concentration. We come upon this phenomenon when working
> with pc case, when a new one occupies the place of erased engram. We work
> on whitening of black masses, but they soon again fill the space.
> 
> Each person is afraid to remain in loneliness for the same reason -
> absence of people around leads to insanity of lonely prisoner. A similar
> picture with games and troubles . Thetan considers that it is better to
> have a problem, than not to have it!
> 
> I have assumed, that if we'll restore ability to confront emptiness, then
> pc will cease to lose havingness in processing, and will uncreate with
> greater readiness all compulsive creations instead of keeping them from
> fear to be devastated.
> 
> 
> The command can sound approximately as:
> 
> " Get the idea of more emptiness! "

This is good.

It leads me to the idea of:

"Mockup a way to have more nothingness"

And even stranger:

"Mockup a way to waste nothingness"

 
> 
> And some questions.
> 
> How many times the history was rewritten after 1963, and in what years?

I wish I knew it all.

I see a reset from 1992 back to 1987.

I see at least two that went well past 2000 and were reset way
back into the 1950s.

I think that there are more.

 
> I have found out, that 1992 was copied already twice.

That does not surprise me.

 
> I am engaged in Dianetics and Scientology since 1994.
> 
> On first track the exteriorization was very easy.
> 
> On second more difficult.
> 
> On third there was no exteriorization.

I would not say "no", but I do think it was easier and became
harder.

 
> How to confront this mechanism of memory deletion, so as not to lose
> wins?

My thought on this is to select key events in one's earlier
life and build up an intention to remember something if one
should live though them again. 
 
 
> What this mechanism actually consists of?

I am unsure.

Perhaps it involves 4th dimensional copying.

Then agin, maybe this is a simple computer simulation and all
that is done is to restore an old copy of the database.

 
> How to neutralize it?

Theta is senior to Mest.

Some of our gains carry through even if we forget everything.

Some "abberations" were to me always a shadow that easily
blew on the tiniest indication.

Some things I always knew, even as a child, and it may be
that I learned them in the "future" because the knowledge was
not there last lifetime.

My intelligence early in this lifetime (genius level) was an 
order of magnitude greater than anything I can find in my
former lives (the last few thousand years).  I suspect gains
carried forward from earlier passes through this lifetime
where I studied and processed extensively.

 
> I shall be very grateful for the answers.
> 
> Yours faithfully
> 
> Ram
 

Hope this helps,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - The Way Out Is Not Through High TA


THE WAY OUT IS NOT THROUGH HIGH TA


There is an early Scientology saying which is

THE WAY OUT IS THE WAY THROUGH.

This is often, but not always correct.  Sometimes is is
the exact reverse.

Since some folks on ACT have been arguing about this recently,
I thought I'd take a stab at it.

The three primary causes of stuck high TAs are

1) Overrun
2) Out Lists
3) Ext/Int

In all three cases the way out is NOT the way through.
If you continue the action that you are doing, the TA will 
climb higher.

If it is overrun, you GO BACK and pickup the EP that was
missed.

If it is an Out List, you GO BACK and correct the wrong
item.

If it is Ext/Int, you don't continue to run exteriorization
but you backup, so to speak, and handle the charge on
interiorization.

As Homer is fond of saying, if you stick your head up your
ass, the way out is to back up rather than continue pushing
deeper.

Note that leaving processes unflat does not generally drive
the TA up very much.  In the days before FN everything, huge
numbers of things were left unflat.  But TAs generally
stayed in range unless something else was wrong, usually
one of the above.

And even real quickies generally did not drive the TA 
high although it often went low on invalidation and
overwhelm.  But note that it could be (and was) brought
back into range by handling overwhelm without completing
the incomplete grades (ie. you could repair the pc and
get him flying again before doing expanded grades).

"The way out is the way through" is explicitly aimed
at PCs and auditors "rabbiting" (running away) from
material which they found hard to confront.

"Never back off from anything in processing" is a good
motto.

And of course our normal action in running a repetative
process is to move on through.  This is how you make
forward progress.

But somebody who has the guts and determination to start 
self processing would certainly have the courage to
keep going if something began to happen on the process.
After all, that is why they are running it.

And once you have flinched at something and then carried
forward to a successful win, you know what it feels like
when you are flinching.  And so whenever that happens,
you know to keep going because you get big gains when
you push through these things.

Experienced pcs are generally eager to go after things
that they are flinching at.

If the pc is not rabbiting (and most experienced pcs
will never rabbit under any circumstances) but the pc
does not want to go on or does not want to run the
process, then there is something else wrong and you
should never carry on with "the way out is the way
through" in that case.

If you are just starting an action, or haven't started
it yet, the odds are that it is a wrong action, maybe
unnecssary or out-gradient or whatever and you should
just drop it.  If you are deep into an action, then
you do a correction list.

The one exception that I know of is mockup processing.
In that case you can ask for something that is too
heavy in one shot but can be reached by varying the
command and working around the side of it gradually.

It is actually a set of 3 datums:

a) The way out is the way through (our normal use of
repetative processes, etc.)

b) The way out is to back up (handling overrun, etc.)

c) The way out is to step around the side (used in
mockup processing and also applicable to C/Sing in
difficult areas).

If you were trying to climb a mountain, you would need 
to do all of the above.

It takes judegment to apply the correct one of the 3
in any given circumstance.


Hope this helps,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - To Phil On Y2K & Golden Dawn


TO PHIL ON Y2K & GOLDEN DAWN

On 24 Mar 99, "P.Scott" <pscott@inreach.com> posted on
topic "DONT WORRY BE HAPPY"

> josie hall wrote in message ...
> > WITH ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE GOING AROUND NOW , TAKE THE TIME TO
> > CONTIMPLATE, THE ASTROID THAT SHOULD ARIVE IN JUNE, AND FORGET IF 
> > CULTS ARE A THREAT , THINK ABOUT SURVIVEING THE ASTROID AND Y2K
> 
> Good point...... the last asteroid hit just below the current target, in
> Mazatlan about 75 million years ago.
> 
> Y2K will just be a non event....a few stuck elevators, some minor
> interruptions.... while the third world is not prepaired, they are also in a
> position to do paper work by hand...... also we will be able to see it
> coming and prepare...... many computers that are prone to the problem will
> begin going in the first fiscal quarter of 2000, thats this summer.... and
> another 15% as we approach november..... if this is bad, we know there will
> be a real fiasco at 2000..... but if this is a non event....then 2000 will
> be a non event also.
> 
> Further, about 56% of the problems are not expected to show up until mid
> 2000 or 2001.... thats quite a spread of time.
> 
> Much of the production machinery that bogs can be fixed temporarily by just
> giving it a false date input, so it will think its still in the 1900's....
> home PC and software sales should skyrocket though.... with PC's so cheap,
> its going to be easier to buy all new than to fix glitches.
> 
> I'm thinking of setting up on Linux (Red Hat), then if my regular PC dies, I
> can download Unix compatible software and be off and running on a good
> operating system come 2000.....  the MS stuff seems to be too much of a
> hairball to straighten out in some cases from what I can tell....that could
> get messy.    Linux will not be messy.
> 
> Phil

Logically speaking, I agree with Phil's analysis.  I think that
it will be a minor rather than a major event in the computer realm,
with some inconvienience and lots of overtime for us computer geeks.

If there is some major event, it will not be due to the Y2K
computer trouble because we know about that, there is a lot of 
preparation going on, and as Phil says, the real impact will
be spread over a broader time span (giving more time to confront
and handle) as month end, year end, tax calulations, and bill
paying programs are run.

And I doubt that some physical universe event, such as an astroid,
would have the luck to coincide with our calander, especially
as we got Christ's birth wrong and went past the 2000nth 
anniversary a few years ago (if he was born in Bethlehem because
of Joseph having to go there for the Roman census and if it was
in the reign of the old king Herod, then the last possible date
for Christ's birth was 4 BC).

That still leaves us with the possiblities of events mocked up
by people or space invaders or guys in astral realms or whatever.

I'm inclined to downplay the possibility of any cosmic forces
making a major manifestation because it simply hasn't happened
in modern times.  If there are such things at work, then they
are comitted or constrained to a policy of subtile action.
One can prepare oneself with mockup drills (so that one can
act reasonably without panic) just in case, and I do plan to
do that, but I really don't expect the Marcabs to show up
on TV and say howdy.

But that still leaves the possibility of people doing something
because of all the significance attached to the date, whether
due to cult crazyness or to somebody deciding that the Y2K
confusion and millenium parties would make an ideal time for
an invasion or a revolution.  If anything like that is going
to happen it will be right away.

So I tried to tune into whatever might be being mocked up
for the turn of the millenium.

This is probably just dub-in or subconcious concerns stirring
up, but I thought I should mention it anyway.

At first I seemed to be getting "Red Dawn".  That is an old
second rate invasion movie and pretty far fetched. Maybe just
my feeling that it is a good time for an invasion.  But it
didn't seem quite right.

And then it seemed like what it really was was "Golden Dawn".

That rang a bell as something I read once, maybe connected
with occult practices.  So I looked it up in Colin Wilson's
book on the Super Natural.  It was an occult group that was
active for 13 years back around the turn of the century.
Yeats was involved and even Crowly for a brief period (they
denied him their higher orders and he made trouble and then
went on to OTO).

Maybe its not significant.  I don't even know if this
"Golden Dawn" was supposed to be a positive or a negative
mockup although my guess would be that they were attempting
white magic.

Anybody know more about this?  Is there some new group that
has revived the name?  Any idea if this is slanted in a
positive or a negative direction?


Thanks,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - To Norman On The OT V EP


TO NORMAN ON THE OT V EP

On 26 Mar 99, norman_suchanek <norman_suchanek@my-dejanews.com>
posted on topic "The end phenomenon of OT V"


> *****  beginn fair quote  *****
> 
> ''Several phenomena occur near the end of OT V.  The pre-ot leaves
> his body and seems to remain stably out of it.  Because so many
> BTs leave the body, the electrical field around the pre-ot becomes
> clear and bright.  But the real end phenomenon is that the pre-ot
> gets rid of all BTs in, on and near his body.''
> 
> ''The awareness level 'cause over life' means that an OT V
> completion has the ability to differentiate between what he mocks
> up himself and what others mock up.  He can also recognize the
> source of a creation and he can mock-up thetans and spiritual
> power as he pleases.''
> 
> *****  end fair quote  *****

This quote was not in anything I saw on Solo Nots, nor is it
in the Nots pack that has been on the net (and the regular Nots
bulletins that I saw on S/Nots match the ones in that pack, so
I believe that the pack is accurate).

Since Ralph also said the same based on his experience, I think
that we can safely conclude that this is not LRH.  However, 
the business about a transparent body is in the Nots material.

Also, I did fool around with mocking up BTs at the begining of 
audited Nots (see below) and they didn't tell me to go attest, 
so it is not the orthodox EP.  However, it is a great idea and 
whoever wrote this (Filbert? L. Kin? Robertson? Mayo?) is quite 
sharp.

 
> source of this text :
> 
> This quote is from a book about some aspects of SCN.  The book
> deals also with OT III, but the data are a bit altered as compared
> to LRH's handwriting.  The clearing course is also mentioned, but
> it is Filbert's version rather than the original LRH version.

Which book? 
 
> conclusions :
> 
> The resulting ability to mock up thetans seems interesting  -  but
> it is not surprising for someone who has studied magic ( not stage
> magic tricks but the real thing ).  A well educated magician creates
> his own 'elementars' ( i.e. lower order beings ) and gives them
> orders.  He can also uncreate them when they have done their job
> ( not very grateful, I admit ).
> 
> So a positive process ( drill ) after achieving cause over life
> would be :
> 
> 1.   create a thetan    or    create a bt
> 
> and when one has created it :
> 
> 2.   uncreate a thetan  or    uncreate a bt
> 
> and then to continue commands 1 and 2 to a good win.
> 
> 
> disclaimer :
> 
> I wasn't able to verify the correctness of the above source.
> And I didn't test the above process.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Norman
> 
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    


After a few sessions of audited Nots (new OT V), I blew off a
few in session because the auditor had seen a read but it
didn't really feel right to me (although it did FN).  And
so I wondered (sitting in the lounge waiting to go in session
again) whether I had mocked them up to satisfy the auditor.

Being gutzy and having always gotten away with self auditing
(because I always FN on the subject and it never comes up as
needing repair, and I'm a regular lawyer on quoting 50s tech),
I simply sat there in the lounge mocking up BTs in the body 
and blowing them.  Occassionally (but not usually), this caused
a real one to become visible and so I'd blow him too (I was
constantly blowing BTs out of session on my own while getting
audited Nots).

After about half an hour of this I could differentiate between 
the ones I'd mocked  up and the ones that were really there.

When I went back in session I explained all this and also
indicated that I was sure that I'd mocked up a couple of
the ones that we'd "blown" in the last session just because
the auditor had indicated a read.  Luckily I had a good
auditor who was quite willing to have that and agreed 
(indicated) that that had occurred.  Then we had to end off
auditing for the rest of the day because of a floating TA.

This was a significant EP, but it was not the same as
the Nots EP.  I handled a lot more before I could spot and
blow any at will and was no longer affected by BT think.
Really two different actions, both important.

I suspect that having done the mockup drill made a significant
difference for me because from that point on I didn't 
erroneously mockup BTs just because the auditor saw a
read.  Without it the level could have dragged on and on
and been full of uncertainty.


Hope this helps,

The PIlot

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


 subj : Super Scio Tech - AN EXPRANDED BRIDGE


AN EXPRANDED BRIDGE

In the Super Scio book, I pointed out that more grades were
possible than those run in the CofS.

As I mentioned in another post, when I finally got around to
working on these, I was researching them as solo actions on
myself and it ended up as the Self Clearing Book.

But only a small percentage of the population are really up
to reading something new and then doing it on their own.  I'm
not just talking about processing here, few people teach 
themselves in any area unless somebody else gets them started
first.

Furthermore, one can often run faster and deeper with a trained
professional, and even somebody who is doing great at solo
could use an occasional cleanup by a professional as a boost.

The idea would be to have solo, co-processing, and pc routes 
available, and use a mixture of these as appropriate.

A beginner doing the book is probably going to need two passes
through it to reach the same depth as we usually get on a
first pass in professional handling.

But no matter how well you set up the case or how thorough
you are in running an expanded grade, you are never going to do
more than scratch the surface of one of these grades areas on
a first pass.  The later grades hold the earlier ones in place
and vise versa.  He has problems because he has overts and he
commits overts because he has problems, and under those problems
are more overts and under those overts are more problems and
so on down to basic where you find that the original overts are
preceeded by problems.  Except that this is vastly oversimplified.
It is not just problems and overts but every grade.

The easiest route would probably be to get one pass through
the grades professionally and then solo the deeper and deeper
runs that take one back through earlier universes.

The most economical route (its free) would be to do it all
on your own or with a twin (as in the self clearing diaries
that are up at fza.org), but of course this requires time
and determination.

Compromises between these two extremes are possible.
One way would be to get setup by a professional, do a good 
solo course, and then run the self clearing book using
rudiments and metering and be professionally C/Sed so as 
to run deeper on a single pass.

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

I have been talking cheerfully here about the Self Clearing 
Book as if it was a complete roadmap of the grades areas.

Unfortunately, it isn't.  This is a subject that is still
evolving.  The new writeup that I just put out on Inval
should make it obvious that I'm still filling these things
in.


The current CofS grades lineup is basically -

-  TRs & Objectives
-  Recall
0. Communication
1. Problems (& Help)
2. Overts
3. ARCXs (& Change)
4. Serv Facs (& Responsibility)

After which they do Dianetics, Implants, & Entities.

Also they used to do Power (including Sources), Power Plus,
and dramatization (aimed only at end words).

And handling of exteriorization, study, and suppression are 
done as needed although they aren't grades.

Super Scio Chapter 4 section 5 - "Grades of Release"
sketched out an expanded bridge.  Note that a number of
levels come from moving disrelated things into grades of
their own (seprating Help from Problems, etc.)

Briefly, it was:

1. Confront and Knowingness (willing to find out, etc.)
2. Doingness (objectives etc.)
3. Recall
4. Comm
5. Problems
6. Help
7. Overts
8. Change
9. Eval
10. ARCXs
11. Inval
12. Responsibility
13. Games
14. Wasting
15. Exchange
16. Protect
17. Serv Facs
18. Loss
19. Emotions
20. PTSness
21. Location
22. Causation
23. Sources
24. Power (not-isness etc.)
25. Power Plus (& agreements etc.)
26. Perception
27. Protest
28. Words (end words, etc.)
29. Dramatization
30. Force
31. Goals
32. Actual GPMs

Plus it lists Dianetics, OT Drills, Implants, and Entities as
advanced things to do.

Note that this was only a sketch rather than a detailed set
of grades.

The Self Clearing Book has 48 chapters, most of which are
grades.  In general this is a better lineup than that given
in Super Scio (having been written a year later), but it
omits grades such as Inval that I didn't yet have enough on
to assemble properly.

I have been gradually been filling in missing pieces as I
get them worked out.  Note that the CofS expanded grades
material were gradually accumulated over a period of two
decades, it takes time to figure out these things.

Briefly, the self clearing lineup is:

Ch  1: BEGINNING STEPS
Ch  2: REACH AND WITHDRAW
Ch  3: THOUGHTS, EMOTIONS, AND ATTITUDES
Ch  4: SUBJECTIVE PROCESSES
Ch  5: STUDY
Ch  6: CONFRONTING THE PAST
(+ the Rudiments in post 49 will become ch 6A)
Ch  7: WILLINGNESS AND ACCESSIBILITY 
(+ Not Know in post 48 & 50 - will become ch 7A)
Ch  8: COMMUNICATION BARRIERS
Ch  9: MORE ON COMMUNICATIONS
Ch 10: THE DUPLICATION FACTOR
Ch 11: EXTERIORIZATION
Ch 12: HELP
Ch 13: CHANGE AND NO CHANGE
Ch 14: PROTEST (+ see post 49)
Ch 14A - (the new chapter on inval posted this week)
Ch 15: PROBLEMS
Ch 16: MUST HAVE AND CAN'T HAVE
Ch 17: MUST AVOID AND CAN'T GET RID OF
Ch 18: CAUSE
Ch 19: OVERTS, MOTIVATORS, AND WITHHOLDS
Ch 20: A STEP FURTHER OUT
Ch 21: AFFINITY, REALITY, AND COMMUNICATION
Ch 22: MORE ON UPSETS
Ch 23: TRICKERY AND FALSE DATA
Ch 24: SUPPRESSION
Ch 25: JUSTIFICATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITY
Ch 26: REPRESSION
Ch 27: KEEPING YOURSELF MOVING
Ch 28: INCIDENT RUNNING
Ch 29: HANDLING LOSS (+ see breakthrough on loss in post41.txt)
Ch 30: LOCATIONS
Ch 31: ADVANCED INCIDENT RUNNING
Ch 32: INCREASING PERCEPTION AND ORIENTATION
Ch 33: SOURCES AND OTHER ADVANCED MECHANICS
Ch 34: IMPLANTS
Ch 35: ENTRY POINTS
Ch 36: ENTRY INTO THIS UNIVERSE
Ch 37: UNIVERSES
Ch 38: ENTITIES AND SPIRITUAL FRAGMENTS
Ch 39: ENERGY
Ch 40: MACHINERY
Ch 41: BODIES
Ch 42: OBJECTS AND INFINITY
Ch 43: ADVANCED CONCEPTS
Ch 44: ETHICS, MORALITY, AND THE DYNAMICS
Ch 45: AESTHETICS
Ch 46: THE UPPER DYNAMICS
(+ reality frames in post 42 - will become ch 46A)
Ch 47: POSTULATES
Ch 48: NEXT STEPS 

Still to be done would be a chapters on eval, protect,
games, goals (trying for a light keyout of GPMS), 
and possibly chapters on agreement and on exchange (but I 
hardly have a clue in these areas yet yet).  Also I want to
beef up chapter 5 on Study with some processes.  This
is all tentative because if I knew what needed to be written
here I would have posted it already.

Note that chapter 20 has a very light touch on the areas
of games, goals, and emotions, but I think that more can
be done in these areas.

Eventually I'll do a second edition of the book with all
the new material worked in.

Also note that in generial I'm trying to parallel the "Sequence 
of Abberation" that I wrote up in post 52.

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

For professional use, the self clearing book could be run
as is, but it has two shortcomings -

a) It avoids some processes that are hard to solo.  You
can get deeper faster by adding those in (although he will
make it anyway eventually).  For example, you could begin
handling a grade on inval by flying inval ruds on 5 flows
(include another to himself).  After that, the pc would
run deeper on the other processes.  And you could even add
in a prepcheck on the subject of invalidation (prepchecks
are tough to solo).

b) It mixes in mockup processes and OT drills which require
a superlative auditing skill that hasn't been taught in
the CofS since the 1950s.

Consider process 1.2 which is a locational done with the
eyes closed.  You give him the first command and one of
two things happen.  Either he does the command or he
doesn't.  If he does, you are going to get big gains fast
and it is easy.  But what if he says "all I can see is
blackness"?

Now you have to vary the question.  You have to get him
to some kind of win.  And if it is really rough, you have
to bail out as fast as possible.  But you want a win first
if at all possible (not even an FN or three equal comm
lags or whatever, just something that gets the pc a little
bit at cause in the area - then maybe bridge over to a
locational with the eyes open to get an FN).

Maybe you'll make it with a bit of coaxing.  Or you
suggest "well, if you could see something, what would
it be?" and then "OK, now spot that".

But what you can't do is simply repeat the question.  It
will probably go into a grind and you'll drive the TA up.
All the modern muzzeled auditor training is exactly the
reverse of the auditing style needed.  If you look at
the LRH demo sessions in the 9th ACC that was posted
recently, you'll see how these processes need to be run.

Also, in professional handling, my inclination would be
to use OT drills like we use havingness processes.
After a big win on ordinary processing, end off with
a bit of OT drilling.  Self clearing had to use a fixed
sequence because of the need to train the person
concurrently with doing the processing.  You can do
better by adjusting to the pc.

It is expecially good to run some OT drills when the pc 
has a persistant FN.  That should avoid the occasional 
situations where the pc can't do the command.  It is 
inappropriate to do any case handling over a persistant FN, 
but it is the best time to be running OT drills.

Also, OT drilling will quickly get most pcs exterior and
you have to run process 11.1 or else you will be launched
off into an ext/int rundown.

The ext/int rundown is a great action, but it is to
some degree off program to have to dive into one sideways
from the middle of trying to run a grade.  The ext/int
liability is why OT drills were dropped in the first
place, and Ron only discovered the ext/int why around 1970.

Although the int drilling in process 11.1 is an old
1950s process (it is from the 3rd ACC), Ron never realized
how important it was (because the int keyin had not been
spotted) and so it was not used extensively outside of
that particular ACC.  And so Route 1 was pretty much
abandoned even though they had a process which would have
made it work.

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

The best approach for auditors trained in modern standard
tech would probably be to deliver expanded grades as they
were trained to plus to add in missing grades using
the appropriate chapters in the self clearing book.

And possibly to supplement this with doing some light OT 
drilling (especially 1.2 and 11.1) when the pc is persistant 
FN.  But don't even dream of trying OT drills on a pc
unless you have had some wins doing them yourself solo
first, remember all the old warnings Ron gave about the
auditor keeping the pc inside his head.

Self clearing chapters 1 to 10 are all really setup,
TRs & objectives, recall, and grade zero actions.
You could use a normal standard tech lineup and optionally
add in things from the book as appropriate.

It is especially desirable to get wholetrack recall on
strightwire before launching into the regular grades
because the gains on the grades will be an order of
magnitude greater.  It makes a huge difference in how
deep the case runs.  I don't know what the org's current
batting average is on this, it is certainly not a 
requirement for attesting to a recall release.  You
could use the extra material in chapter 6 after the
standard processes and self analysis if he hasn't made
it yet.  But don't make this an absolute roadblock,
one can make good gains on the grades even if they
don't run whole track.

A new grade on Not Know could come before or after grade
zero, they are both very early track.  My inclination
is to put Not Know (chapter 7A) first in self clearing 
because it requires less effort on the PC's part but to put 
it after grade 0 in professional handling because it is harder 
to explain (the person doing self clearing has the advantage
of studying the theory at the same time).

The processes on willingness and accessiblity (chapter 7)
go hand in hand with knowingness, so it makes sense to put
these together with "not know" to form a grade on
Knowingness (EP, willingness to know or not know).

I like the sequence of Help and Change before trying
to run protest because those are easy repetative processes
(even though change is currently taught on class 3).
Both of these are, of course, in the standard lineup
but not attested to separately (which I think is a
mistake).

Then do the new grades on protest and inval using the
processes given in self clearing.  Note that the
protest/admiration process I posted recently is dynamite
and essential to really making it on protest.

Of course you then do the real grade 1 problems processes.

The next grade could be called havingness and would
be the Must Have and Must Avoid processes of
chapter 16 and 17.  For professional use, I would
suggest shifting back and forth between doing a "Waste"
process and then a "Have More" process rather than
running all the wast processes first (chapter 16) and
then doing all the have more processes (chapter 17).
I was trying to keep it simpler for solo by doing
one first and then the other.  Also, add in lots
of havingness using the Precessions HCOB since that
is the target of the grade.

With protest, inval, and havingness handled, and the
whole track opened up, grade two (O/W) should run like 
a charm, followed by grade three (ARCXs).

Next it would be appropriate to handle suppression.
Simply do the suppressed person rundown on any suspected
suppressive influences.  But do not handle the person
as a PTS, just do this nice lineup of processes, that
will put him at cause which is what you want (you do
not want to go witch hunting and put him at effect).
Since he is not disconnecting, but simply handling
troublesome terminals, you do not need an S&D or
any assurance that they are SPs, they are probably
not.  Simply do 2 way comm to find people he has
difficulty with and run the rundown on terminals that
give large reads or high TA action.

Next would be grade 4 (service facs and responsibility).

The next question is how to arrange the more advanced
grades.  I'm inclined to put any long Dianetic runs
(drug RD, health form, etc.) after power because the
speed increase on running dianetics after power is
immense.  The self clearing book puts power later
(chapter 33) to ensure that it is in the accessible
band without requiring listing techniques.

Chapter 26, on repression, is really about not-isness.
The advanced standard process in this area is power
process 5 which is in self clearing as 33.5, so we will
leave this grade for a bit later.

But handling of loss and emotion is a good idea at this
point.  Begin with the processes in chapter 3 and 20
on emotions and then do chapter 29 (handling loss) using
narrative R3R if needed on any major loss that is troubling
the pc.

Note that small amounts of narrative R3R are quite
workable fairly early in the lineup.  We used to do
major dianetic handling before grades, and I think that
that is a mistake, it ends up going into the hundreds
of hours because the pcs run slowly.  But it does show 
that PCs low on the bridge can run incidents.

Initmately connected with loss is the area of "protect".
All of the help processes can be run with the word
"protect" substituted for "help".

Chapter 30, locations, is a good setup for the sources
process (Power process 4, self clearing 33.2).  With this
gradient, it should be possible to run it as a simple repetative
process  instead of using power listing techniques.  And this 
area is major enough to be a grade in its own right, so call it 
SOURCE and run chapter 30 plus 33.1 and 33.2.

Next we want power process 5 on not-isness, except that
on an advanced case it often runs far beyond that into a
keyed out OT state, penetrating beyond is-ness as well
as not-isness.  The processes on cause and creation which
surround it in chapter 33 of self clearing are based on
the huge keyed out state I went into when this was run
on me back in 68.  So run chapter 26 and then 33.3, and
then 33.5 to 33.7.  And then finish up with 33.4 because
that is the most causative of the set and it is a good
one to complete the grade with.  Call the grade Power.

Finally we want to run power process 6 (33.9) as well
as the rest of 33.8 to 33.14.  Use the full many flow
version of prpr 6 with formal class 7 techniques for
maximum results and use the same technique on 33.10
(beliefs).  For 33.13 (significances), see the group
processing session in the anatomy of the spirit of man
tapes where Ron runs this on the audience.  That one
often produces a sort of clear cog where the pc realizes
that he is mocking up all the significance.  This grade
could be called Existance.

Then do Power plus.  Finish it off with 33.18 which is
really a more advanced version.  The processes of 33.15
to 33.17 are really OT drills but could be worked in here
as well if you're up to the auditing style necessary.

Note that old style power in the 1960s was a quickie
grade with just a few very hot processes run with almost
no setup.  That is why there are so many cautions and
exotic listing techniques, etc.  The pc was way over
his head.  With an easy gradient like that given here
and a battery of processes instead of just one in each
area, it should behave like normal grade processing.

Also note that despite the warnings of not running
power after clear, many people run on it had had the
clear cog and subsequently found that they were clear
when it was run and the gains on it were fantastic.

This is a good point for a grade on games.  Run the
processes on games and also on goals in chapter 20.
Exchange would fit in here as well.  Hopefully I'll
be expanding on this area eventually.  For professional
auditing, the nicest starting process would be R2-69
"please pass the object".

Evaluation and agreement might belong together and they
might fit in here.  But maybe not, I wouldn't know for
sure until I figure them out, and I'm still wrestling
with these areas.

Finally we get to dianetics.  There are really three
different levels here.

First, drug handling.  Begin with drug rehabs.  Then
somatic and prior assessments.  Then, for each drug,
run "what was (drug) intended to solve". Then finish up with
mocking up each drug sensation and pushing it into the
walls.  If the person has gone clear, subsitute recalls
for R3R but be sure to do all steps, especially identifying
somatics prior to taking the drug.  

Next do an ext/int rundown.  That is worth running at
this point even if the person does not have ext/int
difficulties turning on.  Also do collapsed space in
31.8 exactly the same as ext/int except for using the
collapsed space buttons instead of the end of endless
int buttons.  If the person has already gone clear,
just run recalls instead of R3R.

Finally do a health form.  If not yet clear, follow it
with wants handled rundowns until you do get a clear cog.
With power in etc. it should be easy.  You could call
this confronting force.

Sometimes the person will have gone clear before you
had any chance to do R3R.  I don't like the idea of
skipping all incident handling.  Clears can run 
narrative with great benefit.  But overly thorough
R3R procedure and somatic chain running will skip
them over onto entity's pictures which is undesirable.
Best would be date, duration, locate and then scan
through without any move commands (which entities
might obey) and a careful r-factor to have the pc
tell you if the incident goes (expect fast errasures
by inspection).  But this is experimental and might
better be left for solo where the person is not 
going to push himself the way an auditor might.

By this point you should have somebody who is not only
clear but is very far along towards OT.  If there are
any doubts about the clear state you could do a CCRD
or DCSI, but I doubt that you'll need to, especially
if you use the correct definition of "confront of
force in pictures and knows he's mocking it up" rather 
than an end of all abberation.

Past this point he has to solo.  So we'll call this the
end of the grades.  The easiest next action is OT 1 and
then flattening implant platens (much easier than running
repetative processes).

And note that although he hasn't fooled around with
implants or entities yet, he's still an order of magnitude
beyond the states usually attained on the orthodox bridge,
especially if you've been beefing him up with occasional
OT drills.

In summary, the new list of grades would be -

1.  TRs & Objectives
2.  Recall
3.  Communication
4.  Knowingness
5.  Help
6.  Change
7.  Protest
8.  Invalidation
9.  Problems
10. Havingness
11. O/W
12. ARCXs
13. Suppression
14. Service Facs
15. Loss
16. Protect
17. Sources
18. Power
19. Existance
20. Power Plus
21. Games 
22. Goals

(23. Eval)
(24. Agreement)

25. drug handling
26. exteriorization
27. force


On either a second pass through self clearing or after getting 
grades professionally, self clearing chapter 34 (implants) should 
include the entirity of the CC and OT 2 platens plus the easier 
ones in Super Scio chapter 8.  That would basically be an
expanded OT 2.

Then the areas covered in self clearing chapters 35 to 48.  
Of course a thorough version of chapter 38 is the entirity
of Solo Nots, but should also include fragments that one is
putting on others.

Throughout these upper levels one should be doing lots of
OT drills (there are quite a few in the later self clearing
chapters).

Then go for errasure of actual GPMs (Super Scio chapter 3)
and of Penalty Universes (Super Scio chapter 5), and keep
working in OT drilling (Super Scio chapter 7 etc.).

At this point one might have a shot at running the grades
solo in the basic area well before home universe.

I know this sounds long, but hopefully, one will have keyed 
out OT well before this point and have occasional wild and 
sporatic abilities.

I think that the more we learn, the easier it will be to
get an early OT keyout.

But I can't imagine how you would have a stable OT if he
still had charge on protest for example.  And so you
need the big array of things for stability.

And one probably needs to hear the early ACCs (especially
the 3rd) and know how to roll your own processes for whatever
dregs are left after all the mapped out areas are handled.

Also note that when I talk about real OT, I don't just
mean some low scale character who can levitate ashtrays
or something.  The target is creating realities.

For example, you take your friends to a resturant and
it isn't quite what you expected, so you wave your hands
at a picture on the wall and it becomes a picture of
another resturant and you take your friends by the hand
and step into the picture.  And everyone eats well
and Queen Victoria comes out and tells bawdy jokes
and a grand time is had by all.  And then everyone
steps back into the "real" world and you dissolve
the picture behind you and nobody else in the "real"
resturant notices this business or thinks it unusual.
And your friends are just as well fed as they would have
been if they had eaten in the "real" resturant because 
your mockup was just as real as anything else.


Best,

The Pilot

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


 subj : Super Scio Tech - Notes On Invalidation


NOTES ON INVALIDATION


It has been obvious to me for a long time that we would need
to run a grade on the area of invalidation.

Invalidation is the main reason for loosing gains and
rollercoastering.  This business of becoming PTS (a "potential 
trouble source") due to the influence of an SP (a "suppressive
person") is really just the effect of one person getting
another to invalidate themselves.  The orthodox CofS handling,
which is to get the hell away from the source of the invalidation
by disconnecting, is about as low toned as you can get.  You
can do that on an emergency basis, but you can't live life
that way, it leads to running in fear from every snide remark.

We also know that invalidation can suppress meter reads or
even make wrong things read.

Also, when I tried to lay out the abberative factors based on
logic (see "sequence of abberation" in post52), it fit in well 
as one of the early basics.

And so it is a hot area, well worth running.

But I've been very negligent about putting together a
handling on this topic.

The Self Clearing Book really just has process 23.9 (recall 
invalidation) in the chapter on trickery and false data plus 
a bit on invalidation of asthetics in chapter 45.

I finally found a good process which I mentioned in the post
"ON VALENCES, OVERRUN, RESPONSIBILITY, ETC. (Attn Potential)"
which is in post50.txt of early March.

# A process that I have been experimenting with recently is to
# pick something you feel invlidated about, mockup somebody else
# as having it, and then validating them for it.  For example, if
# one feels invalidated because one forgets things, then mockup
# somebody else who forgets things and praise them for how well
# they manage to forget things.  And perhaps also reverse the
# flow and have them praise you as well.

This is a nice one but a grade needs many processes coming
at the area from various angles, and I've found it really hard
to think in the area and come up with things.

The thing that was really sitting in my craw was "what about
real invalidations".  There you have a baby learning to walk
and he really does fall down and that really is invalidating.
Babies are pretty terrible at walking, and yet they need to be 
validated and encouraged, it takes a lot of praise and
enthusiasm on the parents part to keep the kid going if he has 
fallen on his face a few times.  In fact, the best teaching
method when somebody is starting to learn something seems to
be to continue validating them right in the face of their
obvious disability until they push through the stops and
get it.

So I asked a friend (an old class 6) to chew over the area
a bit and see if he could make some suggestions.  And he in
turn got ahold of an old class 7 and got her to bounce some
ideas around too. 

Here is the writeup he gave me.


> INVAL  Mar. 99
> 
> What is INVAL and when is it a processing target?
> 
> The pc has anchor points. When one or several of them
> are attacked or caved in, that is inval. Comparing this
> to physical pain, if these were body anchor points, the
> definition would fit PAIN. Therefore I conclude that INVAL
> is a basic on PAIN (not the other way around). What makes
> the INVAL a processing target is when it hurts. The pc
> hurts, even though there may be no physical pain involved.
> This can puzzle the pc, who cannot understand the bad feeling.
> 
> This suggests one array of processes which treat it like
> engram chains.
> 
> The pc is puzzled because he does not know all about his
> "extended body" i.e. the larger collection of anchor points
> he is hanging from. Walt Whitman presented a good picture
> of the situation in his poem about the "noiseless patient
> spider". 
> 
> As for the question, what about a pc who cannot really add
> two and two, this is not the problem. 
> 
> Example: some athletes delight in being booed in certain
> arenas, it just lights their fire to play better.
> 
> Example: some athletes and show biz types never feel they
> are accepted no matter what success they have. Look at
> Karen Carpenter who died trying to get thinner when she was
> totally thin and totally successful.
> 
> Example: I changed my answering machine tape message. Next
> time I visited the answering machine, I still felt I did not
> understand the answering tape mechanism. The fact that I
> successfully followed the directions and changed it does not
> affect this feeling. I have several such things which I think
> I cannot cope with despite having coped with them.
> 
> Meeting and passing or failing tests is just a part of life.
> Processing is not here to eliminate parts of life. But at
> times something gets inval'd and the pc caves. This must involve
> unknown factors, and they are the processing target.
> 
> I don't say inval does not have a physical basis, i.e. the
> "extended body" may be physical or not, but it certainly is
> not the ordinary physical context of his present body and
> experience. That is why he has not shrugged off the invals 
> which need processing.
> 
> Many conversations consist of nothing but inval. The speaker
> invals someone else, then relates what that person said to
> inval the pc, and on and on. When good friends meet, 
> especially men, they may pile on all kinds of insults.
> This is found refreshing. If your friends peered at you and
> inquired about your health, you'd think something was wrong.
> 
> PROCESSES
> ----------
> Chain type processes:
> ---------------------
> Give me an inval, what was invalidated,
> and earlier similar.

Basically this is the Inval rudiment.  For a grade, one uses
recall and lets the PC's attention go where it may, earlier
or later.  This is self clearing processs 23.9.

 
> Make it worse type processes:
> -----------------------------
> On an inval which is eating at the pc:
> mock up ways of making it worse.
> 
> I recently ran four such drills, 3 successful and one bogged.
> The one that bogged TOO GENERAL in its phrasing. So take the
> sharpest definition of one aspect of the inval and just do
> mockups on that one aspect at a time.

An excellent suggestion.

Improved version -

a) what should you be invalidated for

Run the next command repetatively to a win, then do command a again.

b) mockup a way to get more invalidations for that

 
> Experimental process:
> ---------------------
> On a solid answer to 'what was invalidated';
> What is more basic than (that)? Process what you get.
> 
> Discussion:
> 
> This is experimental because it is aimed at a larger context
> for "more basic" than just TIME. TIME is a serviceable
> first cut, but sooner or later, TIME is not good enough
> to get us out of here. A present event can invalidate a whole
> past pc effort in retrospect, something which was accepted
> as successful at the time. So you would be processing a
> later incident as more basic than an earlier one.

Of course "What is more basic than that" is the kind of thing
we ask ourselves when researching an area.  But the answer
is a broad array of things which we then sort through for
common factors that can be handled with specific processes.
This entire writeup could be considered to be an answer to
such a question. So it is a research question rather than a 
processing question.

 
> Discovery type process:
> -----------------------
> What inval could you have?
> What inval would hurt?
> 
> Discussion:
> 
> We are inviting the pc to help us find out what makes
> certain invals so destructive instead of water off
> a duck's back.

This is what I was missing.  Except that "hurt" is needlessly
restimulative.  We want to move the pc over to a causative
viewpoint, so the other side of "have" should be "reject".
And with that it falls nicely into the "accept/reject" style
processing from the 1950s.

a) What inval could you accept
b) What inval could you reject

This works like dynamite.

 
> Next
> -----
> Consulted with an old friend on this who is a Class VII.
> Here are some points which emerged from the discussion.
> 
> INVAL and EVAL are both excellent processing targets.
> Each is no doubt a major grade.
> 
> EVAL attempts to change you whereas INVAL attempts to
> negate you.

This is a key point.
 
> One thing which makes INVAL heavy is the intention behind it.
> What makes INVAL stick is the germ of truth it contains.
> 
> Starting on this research began to raise me on this point.
> The first thing I noticed, not necessarily the first thing
> which occurred, is a rehab of my ability to deliver a
> devastating inval to another. I was good as this as a kid
> and later buried it. Refer to our discussions of OT not
> necessarily a theety weety.

Ah.  We need to confront the overt side as well.  But if we
concentrate exclusively on the invals the pc has delivered,
we will spin him, so we need to balance this with the positive.

a) What have you validated
b) What have you invalidated

Maybe run on 5 flows (what have you validated in another, etc.).

(I changed real names to Xxx and Yyy in the following)
 
> Also recently had the experience of blanking out on the
> existence of a chess piece even though I looked right at
> it before making my (wrong) move. This was a win, because
> I did not know what Xxx was talking about when he would say
> that this happened to him. 
> 
> One line of questioning this suggests is self-inval out of
> sympathy (my behavior). Another (Xxx's behavior) is self-inval
> to get others off your back = a sort of Service Fac, with
> a wrongness instead of a rightness. Now actually in the world
> with its tone level, a disability is if anything more accepted
> than an ability. So there is a whole raft of stuff the guy is
> wearing just to keep others off him. Obvious example: my friend
> Yyy showed me how to speak to a social worker so they will
> write you down as crazy. (Then you get your money.) Unless  
> Yyy is trained and cleans up very carefully, he will end up
> with some craziness from this.

Good point.  Making less of yourself as a protective mechanism.
"Don't shoot me becasue I'm not dangerous to you".

The protect button and protective mechanisms are a big enough
target to run them as a separate grade.  But we could still
run something on avoiding inval here.

a) How could you avoid inval
b) How could you attract inval

Also:

a) How could another avoid inval
b) How could another attract inval

 
> On the subject of losing higher states, let me report a couple
> of facts. One, from my experience is, you cannot find something
> if you are sitting right on it. There is a Yiddish story of
> a rabbi who has lost his glasses, and by a wonderful, long,
> carefully reasoned rabbinic argument (they call this "pilpul")
> he decides they must be at the end of his nose, and indeed
> finds them there. This is a super version of cleaning a clean
> which feeds into inval. Only the rabbi's special training
> stopped him from a long downward spiral of inval.
> 
> Another interesting fact: both my friend and her husband lost
> higher states attained when S&D's were ordered on everybody.

Just about everybody did.  This spun in lots of people.
 
> This suggests to me that perhaps the safest way to approach
> inval would be to get off the cleaned cleans and the hopeless
> self-inval for wrong reasons first. Otherwise these are
> glum areas. If you were to run "Recall an inval" first on a
> pc, it would likely hit these glum areas and bog down.
> 
> My friend points out:
> 
> Just having a body is an inval!
> 
> To which I add,
> 
> Just being a thetan is an inval!
> 
> (Once you are confined to one viewpoint, you might as
> well have a body!)
> 
> I conclude that running INVAL and EVAL comes early in any
> attempt to rehab higher states. Otherwise the higher state
> is buffeted by waves of inval and eval.

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

This has been extremely helpful.

I'm doing a separate writeup on an inval grade (chapter)
for self clearing.

Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - More Notes On Inval (Attn ID32)


MORE NOTES ON INVAL (Attn ID32)

On 27 Mar 99, ID32@webtv.net (ID32) posted on topic
"PILOT: S/C session report"

This is useful data and ties in with the research into inval
that I've been doing this week.  So I'll begin by just quoting
the post in full.

> Hi Pilot,
> 
> My coninued good wishes to you.
> 
> I have had many good sessions with your material in Self Clearing,
> (though I am still a mess), mostly Notice that, and your CCH2, but the
> other day, in desperation <G>, I turned to the correction list. 
> 
> The following is a report on my second session with it. Also a bit after
> that on another cog. 
> 
> Thought you might be interested. And as this is the only way to reach
> you, I am putting it here.
> -------------
> [The comments in these brackets are after the fact for clarity]
> -------------
> This is my session notes for yesterday; and what just happened.  
> 
> From Self Clearing, appendix B: correction list: 
> 
> Silently read down list, clearly checking one question at a time. (No
> meter)
> 
> Q 14, "Has Anything Been Invalidated?" grabbed a little attention, so a
> made a check mark and continued on as it didn't seem to be really there,
> and thought I would go throught the whole list first, then take up the
> biggest read, as far as I could tell.
> 
> But I kept going back to it in my head, even though I didn't have any
> ready answer, so finally decided to work it. 
> 
> (The time being "listed" without preface, is quite naturally the period
> from "x" years ago, the cycle with an org terminal that destroyed me,
> and where I am quite stuck, so it comes from there quite naturally!) 
> 
> 3/26/99 1:16pm: 
> 
> "Has anything been invalidated?" 
> 
> Yes. my feeling of having successfully made it into the group as a "good
> guy", having uncovered what was the matter with me. 
> 
> OK. 14? (same Q, repetitive) 
> 
> .......<skip forward>... 
> 
> The validity of operating as an honest person ... in the C of S... the
> safety of the C of S as an environment for spiritual growth!!!! 
> 
> OK. 14? 
> 
> The raisen d'etre of the C of S! The C o S as a safe place to be honest
> and open and seeking enlightenment. The C of S as a safe environment. 
> 
> OK. 14? 
> 
> That there is hope. that there is a place to go for help... that I can
> find help. 
> 
> OK. 14? 
> 
> My hope. 
> 
> OK. 14? 
> 
> My idea that I an be cured. 
> 
> OK. 14? 
> 
> The only legitamate purpose I have had this lifetime. 
> 
> OK. 14? 
> 
> My reason to exist.. ******Whoa! When I had my big win [about two weeks
> before this cycle] that finally gave me some payback and justification
> to my lifetime quest to fix myself as I actually finally took a little
> bite out of it-- made a real step forward, thereby justifying all my
> decisions and choices, and in fact, the choice to pursue Scientology
> itself. When the org then turned around and attacked me again, [there
> were several people involved], and ignored my gain, that left me
> hanging... as big win justified and finalized my rejection of the status
> quo [ie, normal societal progression, college, career etc], making me a
> Scientologist; then org rejected my presence, and I am left with
> nothing/ no one. Hmmmmm. 
> 
> OK.... 
> 
> ...I found a place where it was "okay to exist [big button] and then it
> wasn't!!!!! 
> 
> GOOD. 14? 
> 
> Yes. That it is okay for me to exist (now), in C of S, last hope... Yes:
> that it is okay for me to exist in the C of S! 
> 
> GOOD. 14? 
> 
> That I exist! My "OK to exist"! 
> 
> GOOD. 14? 
> 
> That I achieved a state of "OK to exist"- that I had made it happen,
> what had to happen, to make it okay for me to exist, to be! 
> 
> OK. 14? 
> 
> My qualifications that entitled me to my "ok to exist". 
> 
> OK. 14? 
> 
> Yes, my gains, my repairs, my discovery of the "why" on my case! And
> that it was the "why". That I had cracked my case, and was no longer
> slow case gain, or no case gain, or troublesome case. That the problem
> had been found; that the barrier, the *real* "why" had been found. 
> 
> ....<snip>... 
> 
> OK. 14? 
> 
> Ya! That the real "why" had been found! 
> 
> OK. E/S? 
> 
> Ya. Mom... spanking... girl... glasses... 
> 
> OK. E/S? 
> 
> Ya. That I was honest. That I was part of the family: a member of the
> group. 
> 
> ...<snip>... 
> 
> OK. E/S? 
> 
> My right to exist as part of that group [family].. my right to be
> there!!! 
> OK. E/S? 
> 
> ... no. 
> 
> OK. EOS 1:53pm 
> 
> Good. 
> --------------- 
> 3/26/99; ~11:30am 
> 
> Last night in bed, still trying to get this as answer was not quite
> right. and was still definately reading. 
> 
> No answer, but definate reads. 
> 
> This morning, while just in the shower, thinking about doing session
> today to further pursue Q14, and got answer! 
> 
> FIrst, while ack'ing that "They're all out to get me" is still a big
> part of it, [earlier realization of what got keyed in in this incident],
> *the* answer to "Has something been invalidated?" *is*: That I had
> *made* it *okay* for me to exist!!!! 
> 
> BD, I think! 
> 
> :-) 
> ---------end of report-------- 
> Also want to note another cog I had yesterday, relevant to this and
> other supressive situations,. I don't know the mechanism, but somehow
> the supressor does get into the mind of the victim, be it abuse or
> whatever, that it *is* somehow the victims fault, or something about
> them that causes the abuse. 
> 
> And this idea is what keeps the victim down and silent. 
> 
> And it expands to include all of life, not just the particular abuse. 
> 
> The idea becomes part of the victims understanding of him or her self,
> that there is something about themself that causes them to have bad
> things happen to them, that it is *all* their fault, and therefore,
> thoroughly introverts them into tyring to "fix" themself! And hold
> others blameless! 
> 
> It is a cruel and vicious mechanism! And quite dibilitating! That's all! 
> 
> :-) 
> -----------
> 
> ID32


Thank you, this is quite helpful.

I'm sorry that I hadn't already beefed up the handling for
inval in self clearing.

While reading this, some more possible processes occured to
me.

"Where would it be safe to have that invalidation"

And also -

"What would make it all right to be invalidated that way".

For example, if one were a "bright young lad" it would be
invalidating to fail math, but if one were a "street gang
member" it would be ok, so one changes to get out from 
the impact of the inval.


Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - SELF CLEARING CHAPTER 14A - INVALIDATION


SELF CLEARING CHAPTER 14A - INVALIDATION


At basic, a person can only be weakened or loose abilities by
his own decision.

But he can be encouraged to make less of himself by the disparagement
and criticism of others.  This is invalidation.  It is making less
of something.

And once a person has agreed with an invalidation, it becomes
to some degree a self fulfilling prophesy.  Since he now believes
that he is incapable, he will indeed be incapable unless something
raises his confidence immensly.

To develope abilities, one must validate instead of invalidating.

You have to coax a small flame to turn it into a great blaze.
If you are kindling a fire and you say that the flame is too
small and worthless and let it go out, then there will be no
fire and you are left out in the cold.

We teach children to walk by encouraging their efforts rather
than by criticizing them each time they fall down.

A great basketball player does not think less of himself whenever
he misses a shot.  He simply moves on, planning to do better on
the next shot.  The mark of a professional is that he does not
take invalidations of his skill to heart, he knows better because
he has succeeded so many times.

But one does not achieve this by hiding from invalidation.
If a player does not take a shot at the basket because he is afraid
of missing and being invalidated, then he is already cutting his
abilities down.

Instead one confronts these things.  A real player can accept that
the shot was missed without having to think less of himself.

You could listen to all the criticism in the world and not be
harmed by it as long as you choose not to think any less of
yourself because of it.

In light of that, how do people come to a state where the
slightest disapproving word or gesture shatters their confidence?

The early efforts at invalidation only took root because we
wanted to invalidate each other.  The harder you work to make
somebody else swallow an external invalidation, the more you
open the door to receiving such an effect yourself.  And so
we have to face both sides of this and confront how we have
worked to invalidate others as well as confronting the invalidations
that we have recieved.


14A.1 Avoiding Invalidation

People hold themselves back to avoid getting invalidated.
They often keep their mouths shut to avoid saying something
stupid.  They back away from the limelight to avoid being
ridiculed.

So lets loosen this up a bit.

14A.1.1

a) How could you avoid invalidation
b) How could you attract invalidation


14A.1.2

a) How could another avoid invalidation
b) How could another attract invalidation


14A.2 Recall


a) recall invalidating another
b) recall being invalidated
c) recall another invalidating another or others
d) recall invalidating yourself
e) recall another invalidating themselves

[Note that this replaces process 23.9]


14A.3 Reversing the Invalidation


a) What might you be invalidated for?  

Repeat the following on it until there is some relief.  Then
pick another invalidation etc.

b) mockup somebody validating it.
c) spot or mockup somebody with a similar outpoint and mockup 
yourself validating them for having it.

This is the fastest one shot process and can be used any
time that you feel invalidated for something.

[Revise chapter 27 to use this process instead of 23.9 if
invalidation needs to be handled as part of a repair action]


14A.4 Accept/Reject

One should be able to accept or reject invalidations at will.

14A.4.1

a) What invalidation could you accept
b) What invalidation could you reject


14A.4.2

The same goes for criticism, which is closely related to inval.

a) What criticism could you accept
b) What criticism could you reject


14A.4.3

Many invalidations come from somebody else judging a person's 
performance.


a) What judgement could you accept
b) What judgement could you reject


14A.5 Spotting invalidations

Let's see how much more we can find and confront on this.

14A.5.1

a) What have you validated
b) What have you invalidated


14A.5.2

a) What has another validated
b) What has another invalidated


14A.5.3

a) What has society validated
b) What has society invalidated


14A.6 Safe Places

a) Spot something that could be invalidated

Run the following commands alternately to a win, and then
do command a) again.

b) Where would it be safe for you to have that?
c) Where would it be safe for another to have that?


14A.7 Making It All Right

We often change to get out from under invalidation.

Run this like 14A.6 above.

a) Spot something that could be invalidated

Run the following commands alternately to a win, and then
do command a) again.

b) What would make it all right for you to be invalidated that way
c) What would make it all right for another to be invalidated that way


14A.8 Overcoming any remaining flinch at invalidtion

a) what should you be invalidated for

Run the next command repetatively to a win, then do command a) again.

b) mockup a way to get more invalidations for that

This should run to the point where the very idea of inval
seems rediculous.


14A.9 Building Confidence

If there is an area where you are trying to develop some skill
but have been feeling invalidated about it, do the following:

Invent imaginary incidents in your past where you did the
action successfully and recall these until you feel as much
confidence as you would have if you had already done the
action successfully.

When doing this, do not work at misremembering times when you
failed as having been successful.  It doesn't work well to
pretend that the bad stuff didn't happen.  Instead, remember
additional (imaginary) times when you did succeed.

For example, if you tried to ride a bicycle once and fell
off and feel invalidated about trying it again, you would
make up imaginary times when you did ride one successfully
in addition to the one time that you fell.  Here we are
offsetting the losses with remembering wins rather than 
trying to hide the losses.


14A.10 A formula for handling invalidated areas


Invalidation is to some degree a catch-22.  Because an ability is
invalidated, he can't do it, and because he can't do it, that
invalidates the ability.

If he has an accumulation of wins in an area, he treats other's
inval as just so much noise.  But he can't accumulate wins
while he is invalidated and incapable.

Occasionally it works to push in with mocked up certainty
and confidence.  That sidesteps the inval and it works if
there are no other whys which cause him to continue to fail
in the area.  But if there are other whys too, then he fails
again and accumulates further inval.

Generally it is better to mockup the certainty that one can
learn to drive a car or that one will be able to drive well
in the future rather than to mockup the certainty that one
already knows how to drive a car when one doesn't.

In other words, one finds a gradient where he can accumulate
wins rather than making it an all or nothing proposition.

This means that when he is learning arithmatic, he needs to
get a win from adding 2 and 2 successfully rather than
getting invalidated by the fact that he can't multiply ten
digit numbers in his head.

This suggests that there is a procedure for handling a
condition of invalidation - 

1. recall wins in the area
2. target the next available win
3. accumulate any needed data
4. drill any necessary skills
5. get any available help or encouragement
6. make any other necessary preparations
7. If necessary, run off any inval in the area
8. then mockup the certainty that one can do it
9. go for it

Note that this is an activity rather than a process.

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

Have Fun,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - Heavyweight Entity Attack


HEAVYWEIGHT ENTITY ATTACK


Yet another thing that could be just bullshit or dub-in,
but I should mention it in case anybody bumps into something
like this.

I was sitting around and suddenly got this off the wall
impulse to blind myself in one eye, just putting it out
by poking something into it.  Along with this were feelings
that this was facinating, kinky, different, and one would
gain wisdom like Odin did (he traded one of his eyes to become
a god or something like that).  And much to my surprise, there
was no flinch at doing this.

And I thought "that's rediculous" and was very suspicious
of it and realized immediately that it wasn't my though but 
simply some entity trying to convince me of that.

Usually when I spot something like this which isn't mine,
it turns off instantly.  Then I go ahead and handle the
entity involved.  Generally it is extremely easy, and 
I also find that this kind of thing is exceedingly
rare.  My thought on the matter is that once in a rare
while I trigger some old protective mechanism and some
entity tries to key me in and I blow him off immediately.
Usually I think that these are far away and suddenly trying
to target me and I just blow them right off, not a big deal
really.

This was different.  I focused in on the being involved and
started handling him and yet the flow kept going in the
background.  Finally I realized I was dealing with some
kind of oversoul, a really big being who had lesser selves
in a big parallel processing array.  He could talk to me
and at the same time have hundreds of "threads" continuing
to beam intentions and impulses at me, all carefully designed
to feel like my own thoughts except that I wasn't swallowing
them or being fooled like I was supposed to.

I did the usual handlings on him and he came up to being
in comm and talkative and yet this background flow continued.
Inquiring about that, I got his picture of me which was of
a big unconscious oversoul like himself who had a subordinate
thread that was begining to wake the big guy up and he
didn't want that.

I went to more exotic handlings, running a bit of penalty
universe stuff on him, etc.  This was all nice but he was
still scared of my waking up at some higher level.  It 
didn't help for me to reassure him from this human viewpoint
because if I woke up at his level, he felt that I'd know more 
and I'd go after him anyway and get him.

I tried using the agreements universe as an undercut.  "Spot
rushing to get into agreement" etc. as mentioned in super
scio.  That got some real Itsa from him and turned this
background flow off.

His Itsa on it was something I hadn't expected because I
didn't think that it would have worked this way, but it is
what I got.

On the agreements universe, my take on it is that we all
built it and then dived into it joyfully and with excitement.  
He said that he was supposed to work on his part of it but 
hadn't done so, being distracted or lazy.

Because of that, he had not been as badly affected at the
higher levels and was not completely unconsious as an
oversoul.  But at the same time, he had a withhold about
this and was afraid of others waking up and so worked to
keep others asleep.  And note that he was half asleep
himself and extremely reactive at the higher lever, just
not quite completely unconsious.

What we ended up doing was a sort of grade 2 at some
superbeing level that spanned multiple identities running
in parallel.

As I handled this, it also seemed to me that it was
outside of time as we know it at the Mest and single
identity level.  It had the feeling of being something
that crossed time streams but was at this moment holding
a magnifying glass to a particular thread which was dangerous
to it.  And yet it was also in a time stream although it
was a time above time as we know it.  There was certainly
a before and after my handling it in its own framework as
well as in mine.  But I had the impression that its change
in state could manifest last year or next year just as 
easily as now in my own frame.  In other words, something
changed in all of its interactions with my timetrack whenever
they had happened before.

Needless to say, this was all very strange and I might
have all sorts of dub-in on this.  But it was quite
interesting and I seem to find it easier now to think in
terms of multiple time flows, some of which are at right
angles to each other.

Another intersting point was my lack of flinch at the
impulse to put out my own eye.  Of course it seemed like
a stupid idea to me, but it didn't have the kind of horror
that one would expect to feel.  What had happened was that,
with some of his threads, he had duplicated the normal
horrified reaction and kept that nulled out.

And when I saw that, I realized that some of our flinch at
things is to keep from carelessly being pushed into some
horrible circumstance.  It is like, when the nice man comes
over to you as a little kid and suggests how much fun it
would be to run out into the street and get run over, you
flinch at it even though you are otherwise quite amiable
to suggestion.  This oversoul had a handling for that kind
of thing based on some sort of matching of wavelengths.
It has the feeling of "It will be alright" said over and
over again.

I also got from him that he had first tried to get me to
suicide, but I didn't even notice because of having run out
that suicide implant.  And so he had switch off to a lesser
thing.  His reasoning on it was that I might get suckered
in on the Odin business because I'm so hot on gaining
wisdom.

Being warned about this now, I would watch out for a
repetative "go ahead, It'll be all right".  That one sounds
so nice and reassuring that one is liable to agree with
it.  Expecially as one does have that though oneself
sometimes.  But if it seems like a repetative stream,
take it as a red flag, it might really be a sales job that
is very very far from being all right.

What pulled his attention onto me, by the way, is that
I've been fooling around recently with trying to spot what's
got us in compulsive agreement.

Ignore this post if you like, I'm only putting it out
incase there was something real to it and somebody else
hits something similar sometime.

Best,

The Pilot


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


 subj : Super Scio Tech - Cosmic History & Abberative Seq (Attn Rogers)


COSMIC HISTORY AND ABBERATIVE SEQUENCE (Attn Rogers)

On 22 Mar 99, "Rogers" <here-i-yam@erols.com> posted on
topic "Super Scio Tech - SEQUENCE OF ABBERATION"


> Hi Pilot,  You may need to excuse me because I think I am either developing
> a fetish or a pet theory (and I am not sure which is worse, he he he).
> 
> Firstly, I think this is a monumental effort (VWD) and it would need a lot
> more contemplation on my part to do it justice.
> 
> But I got a lot of attention stuck on "Section B."  And I know it is going
> to be funny for me to mention this to you, since I got the concept from
> Super Scio anyway, but my main thought was on how it was the Jewel of
> Knowledge that really formed the basis of the Section B issues.
> 
> Let me put it another way.  It is easy to see the logic involved in those
> Section B "semi-aberrations" BUT, all the "musts" and "has tos" (in the
> earlier ones anyway) are likely based on the Jewel as the STANDARD R-factor.
> Or, one other way of saying this is that the Jewel introduced the
> arbitraries - subsequently accepted as guidlelines for creation and
> interaction.
> 
> I am not saying that, for example, "To allow communication between the
> separated semi-statics, one must permit others to create in one's space" is
> incorrect, only that it may be an arbitrary (introduced by the Jewel).  And
> so on with some of the other "semi-aberrations" you mention.
> 
> Considering I got this from Super Scio in the first place, I know I don't
> have to beat you up about this.  It's just that when I read Section B it
> didn't seem complete without a reference to the Jewel.  The Jewel is the
> HIDDEN STANDARD.  Well, not exactly "hidden" at that early point on the
> track, but it is the "tacitly understood" standard, perhaps.
> 
> I guess another way of saying this is that Section B may be completely
> right, but possibly only in this particular "womb."
> 
> Anyway, THAT's what I thought was missing, the missing datum from Section B
> (or the latter part of Section A?).
> 
> Best,  Les.

An excellent point.

When I put together the sequence of abberation, I did it based on
logic rather than running track.  I intentionally ignored the
things in Cosmic History so that I wouldn't bend anything out of
shape in a mistaken effort to make myself right about what I'd
written earlier.  I would expect that there are significant blank
spots in Cosmic History because some parts of the track are more
accessible to me than others.

And so I only made a couple comments, as far as where Home
Universe fit in etc., which I felt were self evident.

I was just letting this slide for a bit, letting the ideas in
the Sequence settle out before trying to reconcile the two.

As I read your post, what struck me was that the big arbitrary
in the Sequence is the Need For Agreement (point 16 in section D).

That struck me as something which could have been totally
different.  Perhaps we could have gone down a route of using
affinity or communication or knowingness to solidify mockups
(as a solution to failed create).  And the most abberative
sequence I've managed to find in the jewel so far was a
demo of the need for agreement.

And so I think that this is the key arbitrary.

As to section B, I think that these are "natural" and follow
logically.  But, one never makes the slip downward if these
are only done in moderation.  And another thing that I felt 
we got from the jewel was an encouragement that it was better
not to communicate (point 5).

And the very existance of the jewel and the high interest
level it created would encourage assignment of external
cause (point 4).

What I think now is that section B exists at the top (and
perhaps many other transient willful abberations as well) but 
that one doesn't slide down into section C (real abberations)
unless section B (or similar things) is encouraged and
exaggerated.

The jewel gives us that encouragement at the beginning and
also sets up a hidden time bomb in the form of a suggestion
about needing agreement.

We begin our early creative sequence and almost immediately
begin sliding down through section C because we are communicating
less than we should etc.  And so there are protests and
invals and things which might not otherwise have developed.

Then we slip a trifle further into section D, hit the
button on needing agreement, and the reality wars start.  
Note that without the need for agreement, there is no reason 
for the reality wars.  There is no reason why we couldn't 
have many different schools of creation, that actually 
balances the nothingness better than narrowing it down to 
one system of 3 dimensional mockups.

And of course once we are fighting, we start sinking down
through this womb.

Without this need for agreement, there is not even any
reason to desire personal power.

At the top you mock up what you want.  And there is always
pleanty of ARC even though it transiently comes and goes
just because there are so many other beings.  I mention
transient reality here because your creations are real
to others at this level when they feel like looking at 
them.  But whatever you mockup is always real for you and
for whomever happens to be dropping by at the moment.

If, however, you NEED agreement, then you can't tolerate
it as transient because your creations fade when you
don't have it.

The only concievable reason for anyone to want power over
others would be to compel agreement on a permanent basis.

Hence, without this factor there is no fighting and there
are no wars, just a joyfully creative co-existance.  I'm
writing a separate post on that one.

Affinity,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - CO-EXISTENCE OF STATIC


CO-EXISTENCE OF STATIC


We are not here to dissolve everything into nothingness.

The true nirvanah is a creative state rather than a passive
one.

At basic we are balancing the nothingness with a richness
of creation.

Having everything locked down into a single agreed upon
reality inhibits free creation and therefore reduces the
richness.  It is therefore abhorrent to a being and as
he rises upscale, he objects to it more rather than less.

But what is wrong is not the creations themselves but the
locked down singleness of the realities available.

There could be many realities, some shared, some overlapping,
some independent, and all visited by choice.

Imagine an internet with many websites.  There is communciation
and interaction, and yet each is free to create as he chooses,
and if he really likes someone else's creation, perhaps he copies 
it and if he dislikes it, perhaps he shuns it, but there is
room for anything and everything.

And then one day there is a virus, and everybody's system
is permanently locked onto the same site.  Of course they
will fight amongst each other because each one's creations
affects the others.  There can be no true freedom because
freedom will be at odds with responsibility.

Consider what would happen if everyone became a god.
One person would wish for rain and another would wish
for sunshine.  It just doesn't work if all are locked
into a single reality.

And yet it is also a failure for each of us to go off into
a totally isolated personal universe, for then we loose
the communication and interaction that are so desirable
to us all.

What should happen is a fanning out of multiple realities.

When some want rain and some want sunlight, then each
occurs and the multitude of beings individually choose
which they want to agree with.

Many realities but not isolated, except when someone is 
in the mood for that.

In such a scenario, each individual can be a god with
the power to make any postulate stick, at least as far
as physical reality goes.  The tradeoff is that he cannot
make anything stick as far as trying to enforce or demand
anything from another being, because they are gods too.

If Joe wants to visit Bill, he has to put up with Bill's
postulate for a tacky lime green sky with orange pokadots.
Or he can change the sky and see if Bill will come along
with him, but if Bill chooses to keep the pokadots while
Joe insists on a blue sky, then they will find themselves
in different realities and no longer talking to each other.

Think of a radio with endless stations and you can tune
in to whatever you feel like.  But a particular announcer,
whom you might like, is currently playing music that you
don't care for.  Its up to you whether you stick with
him or try another station.

That is total freedom.  You can have anything you want,
no matter how outlandish.

Joe can even mockup a copy of Bill and give him a better
taste in sky colors.  But it wouldn't be the real Bill,
just Joe talking to a puppet he mocked up.

What Joe can't have is control over Bill.  He can ask
for Bill's agreement on something, but he can't force it.

Each and every one of us decided at some point that we
had a right to control others and enforce agreement.
That postulate is a two edged sword and you see the
results around you now.  If you hadn't made it, you
wouldn't be here.

And its a hard one to let go of completely.  Deep down,
you know that some madman will come at you swinging a
sabre and you are not confident that you could shift
realities and just let him hack up his own mocked up
copy of you.  And with everything locked down to one
reality, he would hack up the agreed upon copy and you
would end up walking around in your own universe with 
everybody else out of comm.

And so we need to loosen the realities first and let
go on a gradient.

Control Mest all you want, but avoid controlling people
whenever possible.  Instead work by means of communication
and shared postulates and encourage as much individual 
beingness as possible.

LRH's brilliance was in inspiring enthusiasm; people
turned over their lives for the sake of the tech.
He erred greatly when he installed strong controls
in the late 60s.  The controls were unnecessary, he 
already had the enthusiastic willing hands.  

As soon as the organization began to enforce agreement
instead of simply continuing to train and asking people
to do their best, it backfired and the org began to
spiral down from high theta towards dramatization and
solidity.

Control MEST, not people.  And as far as auditing and
CCHs and other helpful forms of "control", don't look
on it as control, because if you make that your purpose
it will backfire.  It is educational guidance, like
holding a child's hand and helping them cross the street
safely for the first time.  The idea is not to override
their will but to steer them through new territory.

The road out is in the direction of less enforced agreement 
and less control while increasing communication and affinity.

Note that this requires developing a tolerance for others
disagreeing with you.

You can have a TV set with lots of stations.  You can like
them all and yet retain your freedom to shift agreements.

Think how much better that is than having only one
station that only plays the party line.


Best,

The Pilot


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

This weeks posts all used 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
#53 and posted to ACT.  See the Pilot Archives at FZA.ORG.

Individual posts to ARS are being double posted to ACT rather than 
cross posted to foil the spambot attack which takes good headers 
and attaches garbage messages to them.

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.

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



