Date: 7 May 1999 04:00:19
Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology
From: pilot@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (The Pilot)
Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 55 - 2/2 EARLY MAY 99 PILOT POSTS TO ACT 


POST55.txt 

SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 55 - 2/2 EARLY MAY 99 PILOT POSTS TO ACT 

The other posts to ARS/ACT are in post54.


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

Contents:

 subj : Super Scio Tech - Self Auditing vs Self Clearing
 subj : Super Scio Tech - A Great Entrypoint To GPMs
 subj : Super Scio Tech - To Ryan On Entities
 subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering Hunter on Nots and S/Nots
 subj : Super Scio Tech - To Norman On Nots
 subj : Super Scio Tech - On Six Ways To Nothing 
 subj : Super Scio Tech - On Route 2 Not Biting (Attn Ryan, Ted)
 subj : Super Scio Tech - Continuing The Golden Dawn Discussion (Attn Koyote, Rogers)
 subj : Super Scio Tech - To Heidrun On Higher Self
 subj : Super Scio Tech - Valences (Attn Beth, Ralph)
 subj : Super Scio Tech - Super Dooper OT Recall Processing
 subj : Super Scio Tech - A Fun OT Drill
 subj : Super Scio Tech - The Be Do Have Implant

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


 subj : Super Scio Tech - Self Auditing vs Self Clearing


SELF AUDITING VS SELF CLEARING


In the early days, there was "self auditing" and there was
"self auditing" and the one was highly encouraged and the
other was highly discouraged and the same word was used for
both.

Workable self auditing consisted of a trained auditor runing
processes on himself.  Ron freequently encouraged his advanced
students to do it.

Unworkable self auditing consisted of a preclear sitting around
and figure figuring to himself and pulling things into
restimulation.  It was not at that time forbidden, but it was
seen as a major outpoint to be remedied on a case.

And then there were the self auditing books done by Ron.
The best for beginners was "Self Analysis" and also its
creative processing variation "Self Analysis in Scientology"
(doing mockups instead of recalls).  There was also the Six
Steps of Self Auditing as given in the tech volumes.

There was even Handbook for Preclears, which was primarily
intended for solo use in between professional sessions.  It
works well that way but leaves something to be desired as a
pure solo book if one is working alone because it provides
too little theory.  The real theory materials that go with
it are in Advanced Procedures and Axioms and for broad workablilty,
I think that most untrained people would need to study AP&A
concurrently with doing HBPC.

Nonetheless, these self auditing materials were issued, and
CofHA routes 1 and 2 were also designated as being good for 
self auditing.  And many gains have been made using these various
materials on a self audited basis.

And then came modern solo auditing.  This was only used on
a very limited array of processes and under strict case
supervision, but it still shows that successful self processing
can take place.  And note that the common misconception that
one must be Clear to do Solo is quite false.  Ron developed
solo auditing for use before going clear because grade 6 and
the clearing course had to be done solo.

The conflict between the unworkable self auditing and the
obviously workable use of self analysis even by a beginner
was explained as "It's not really self auditing because the
book is auditing you."

But this doesn't really explain why the doctorate course 
students had such great success self auditing the processes
nor does it explain why highly trained auditors do well
in soloing rundowns on themselves.

The better statement would be:

PC plus Materials is greater than bank.

or 

PC plus Processes and Processing Skill is greater than bank.

But of course this depends on the PC and how good the materials
are and how good is his skill level.

So maybe it would be better to say "can be greater than
bank" rather than saying "is greater than bank".

Since self auditing has a bad name, and solo auditing was
defined very strictly in orthodox standard tech, let us
coin a new definition:

Self Processing is the action of running a drill or a process
upon oneself to a result.

We could use that as the broad definition, and then consider
Self Clearing and Solo Auditing to be particular implementations
of Self Processing.  Both are valid.  And so is Self Analysis,
which is yet a third variation of Self Processing.  Many
bridges are possible, you can have more than one way to
cross the same river.

The figure-figure variation of self auditing, on the other
hand, is not valid processing.  In fact it is a contradiction
even in how it is named because there is no "auditor" (listener)
to listen to oneself.

In self processing, you take a drill or a processing question
and use it repetatively to push through non-confronts and
confusion to see what is really there and bring about an
as-isness and restoration of ability.

In self auditing, one just mucks about going "What is it?",
"What's it?", "What's it?", and "what about that too?",
and "What about this other thing?", and "Now I feel miserable,
why is that?" and so on.  One is just opening up more and
more questions and confusion without answering anything.
This brings in more bank and soon the person will have
too much bank in current restimulation to make any progress.

In self processing, on the other hand, one limits the
question, using just a single "What's it" aimed at a
narrow target, and then one goes "It is a ...", and then
"It's a ...", and then "It's a ..." and soon one is digging
deeper and seeing more basic things on that single target
and one ends up with some bank handled and less bank in
current restimulation.

Getting some well done professional processing can greatly 
improve self processing.  Professionally done grades are
wonderful for increasing one's depth and speed of processing,
and it gives you an excellent subjective understanding of
how it feels when processes are run at optimum.

If you do get some professional handling, don't mix in
self processing at the same time unless you have gotten
an ok from the processor.  If he is running one set of
processes on you and you are going home and running a
different set, it throws a wild variable into his processing
and can get in the way of him being able to do his job.
It really only works if he is giving you self processing
assignments (just like the old days when an auditor would
give the pc a section of HBPC to work on between sessions).

In the long run the only way out is by self processing whether
it is formal solo auditing or self clearing or some other
similar technique.  You eventually will have to come up to
a point of complete understanding and full responsibility
for your own case.

At the beginning, you can make it alone if you're determined
enough, or you can get some help and have an easier time
of it.  Do whatever works, but do something rather than just
sitting around being the effect of things.


Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - A Great Entrypoint To GPMs


A GREAT ENTRYPOINT TO GPMS


On 17 Mar 99, "Alan C. Walter" <wisdom@cyberstation.net> posted
on topic "Its a two pole universe"

> The simplicity of GPM Tech is based upon:
> 
> "What PT identity are you presently dramatizing?"
> 
> It can be an Opterm or it can be a Terminal.
> 
> The item can be at the bottom or it can be at the top of the GPM.
> Usually the Reliable Item item is so charged it takes quite a bit 
> to discharge it and find its correct location.
>
> Once a RI is found it is vital the rest of the package is found, as the
> RI's get there power from the previous RI's.
> 
> The finding and handling of the full RI package results in a full 3
> dimensional holographic erasure that includes both the horizontal
> dichotomuos spectrum and the vertical multi dichotomous spectrums 
> that spans all levels of the Zones of existences from top to bottom 
> of all scales.
> 
> As RI's are basically solutions to previous beingness or identity
> problems they do not just as-is on inspection. They are solidified 
> together by problem - solution postulation and H. E. & R. (Human 
> emotion and reaction).
> 
> You know you are on the right track as your life continues to go right
> and you have plenty of time and resources to continue your processing 
> and training. You ability to command your environment to manifest your 
> wants becomes consistently awesome.
> 
> Further you feel very friendly towards life, beings, and objects past,
> present and long into the future.
> 
> Present time problems just melt away.


The question "What PT identity are you presently dramatizing?"
is brilliant.

The "PT" seems to me to be a bit redundant and possibly confusing,
so I would simplify it to:

"What identity are you presently dramatizing?"

Now this is a great way to list for the current actual GPM RI.

From here one could try to package up the RIs.  That would
produce great gains, but it is rough and any errors could
kick back heavily.

Furthermore, one might not have the real RI but just a lock
on it and that can give trouble too.

As Alan mentioned, the RI gets its force from the previous
RI.

But they all go back to the goal, with each RI adding to
the charge.  And all the charge could be thought of as
being grouped on the goal itself.  And that whole mess
of charge comes to rest on the current RI.

That makes RI listing difficult and sets one up for heavy
kickbacks on list errors.

The better technique is to use the RI to get the goal.
That works even if you have a lock RI instead of THE RI.

One could use a listing question such as:

"What would be the basic goal or purpose of (identity found)?"

Although it is vital to package RIs (find opterms, etc.)
before listing for further RIs, you can go right for the
goal without packaging because it is senior to all the
RI pairs.

Once you have the goal, you take charge off the goal with 
the lightest processes that you can find.  See Super Scio
Chapter 3.

AFTER you have stripped tons of charge off the goal itself,
with as much itsa as possible, then go for listing the RIs.
That will be safe and easy because the goal is no longer
kicking your teeth in, and also your Itsa on the goal
and things connected to it will already be freed up.

The key point is not on whether you use my techiques or
Alan's or somebody else's for listing the RI pattern,
nor is it in following the exact set of processes I
suggested in Super Scio.

The key point is to take charge off of the goal before
continuing with RI listing.  That makes the difference
between a walk in the park and a gruesome hell of difficult
listing.

As you first start to process the goal with light processes, 
the rocket read on it will get larger as the suppress comes off.
I've seen actual GPM goals rocket read across 3 divisions
of TA on the meter, repetatively.  I suspect that if we
could see it unsuppressed without it having been discharged
at all, the rocket read would be around through 7 on the
dial because it is a complete identity.  But, of course,
taking off the suppress also begins to discharge it.

And then the kick of the goal begins to decrease and
the RR comes back down to a more normal size as you keep
running light processes to discharge the goal.


Good hunting,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - To Ryan On Entities


TO RYAN ON ENTITIES

On 9 Apr 99, "Ryan Q Lee " <ryanqlee@my-dejanews.com>
asked on topic "Super Scio Tech - Heavyweight Entity Attack"


> How does someone like me, not gone through OT3 or
> similar, handle entities?

Self Clearing chapter 38.
 
> How do I even know that an "intention" originated 
> _not_ from me?

You get a feel for it with experience.

Entity stuff tends to be transient rather than things you
feel deep down.  Of course you have transient impulses of
your own too, but if its long term it has to be yours even
if there is also an entity cheering you on because they can't
hold something very long against your own intentions.
 
> Personally, I've only had one experience recently,
> about a month ago, that I knew with certainty that
> I was dealing with "other", namely, entities.
> 
> Recently, this "other" business is becoming a hassle,
> and although I wish to follow the advice of the
> technically more able, I can't ignore this "other"
> business any longer, as the amount of interference, 
> noise, whatever, as it is slowing me down to a 
> grinding halt in my life and in solo processing. 
> 
> Here's what I've decided...
> 
> Any "feeling" or "thought" that counters good
> survival, especially progress in my own clearing, 
> _must_ be from "other." (Even if I originally
> created it myself.)
> 
> Now I need some "handling" for those "feelings" or
> "thoughts". From Pilot's Self-Clearing book:
> 
> 38.5 Putting it all together
> You have 3 simple handlings that you should have at
>  your fingertips in case you run into some kind of
>  spirit or entity.
> 1. Point to the being you divided from
> 2. Run them through incident 1 (even just a vague 
> approximation will do)
> 3. The NOTs What/Who technique
> 
> My difficulty is finding the "other", when all I 
> experience (perceive) is a feeling or thought.
> 
> Comments, especially from the hi-fidelity beings
> in the group are welcomed.
> 
> Arc, Ryan
> 
> -----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/  Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums


A number of approaches could be used.

On OT III and Solo Nots, one does it on a meter and kind of
feels around until the meter reads.  This helps early on, later
I just seemed to know.

You can get the idea of agreeing with the being who is putting
out the thought (you don't have to do what they're saying, just
consciously agree with it for a moment) and see where your
attention is drawn while you do that.  In other words you get
this thought "I am a ruddy rod".  Rather than thinking the
thought yourself, you get the idea of agreeing with whomever
is thinking that thought.  You relax, not trying to spot any
locations, but just thinking of agreeing, and for some reason
you think of something like your left foot.  That is where the
guy is.

You're just trying to let your attention go to wherever they
are.  If your attention is jumping around (without you
causatively shifting your attention around), then its probably
a bunch of them who are copying each other (or occasionally
its one who is moving around, but that is rare).  Indicate to
the whole bunch that they are copying and then try to focus
on one while ignoring all the other locations.  After that
one blows, then pick up the next one.  In other words, if
you notice more than one, you make a point of handling one
at a time.

You should focus or narrow in on one rather than just blasting
a broad intention across a large area (except for things like
acknowledging copying where you do want to hit a lot of them
at once).  Once you have the general area, you should be able
to tune in closer.

If necessary, you can run hello and ok on them (say hello and 
have them say ok back and visa versa).  The first few commands 
might just be your own mockup and then you start to get a bit of 
a real flow going along with it, and that generally lets you spot 
their location.  It can also be used if you do spot the location
but don't seem to be able to reach them with your commands.

Its easiest if you sort of blanket them and elicit a response.

You can also do a mockup drill.  Mockup a BT in a precise
spot in the body, ask it "who are you", and have it say "me"
and blow with a feeling of joy or relief.  After awhile real
ones will probably start blowing, or will present themselves
for handling and handle easily because it acts as a sort of
demo, R-factor, and reassurance to them.  If you do this
enought you will be able to distinguish real ones from the
ones you mock up.

This is based on my own experience.  I think that I got through
Solo Nots a hell of a lot faster and easier than most people.

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

On another question you asked on "odd effects on heavy TRs"

> In doing heavy TRs, say TR0, I perceive some odd
> things happening. My TR buddy, his face seeming to
> change, light/dark, all sorts of stuff.
> 
> Anyone care to share their experiences?


Yes, I've gotten this effect a few times as TRs were 
flattening.

My guess is that it is not-isness coming off of old
pictures, things long suppressed finally coming into
view.


Have Fun,

The Pilot

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


 subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering Hunter on Nots and S/Nots


ANSWERING HUNTER ON NOTS AND S/NOTS

On 25 Apr 99, Hunter's <anonymous@freezone.net> asked on
subject "Solo Nots"

> HI FELLOWS!
> 
> WHILE STUDYING NOTS MATERIALS, I GOT SOME DOUBTS IN WHICH I'D LIKE TO
> GET SOME HELP:
> 
> 1st : NOTs series 23 and 53 are not available.
> 
> 2nd: The checksheet says: ADVANCED COURSE SPECIALIST
> COURSE CHECKSHEET PART TWO
> 
> SO NOW, MY QUESTION IS,IS IT ENOUGH WITH THIS CHECKSHEET TO AUDIT 
> NEW OTV? IF AFFIRMATIVE, WHAT ABOUT PART ONE? WHAT IS IT? IS IT STIL 
> IN USE?
> 
> MY NEXT THING IN WHICH I AM CONCERNED IS IN SOLO NOTS. IS THERE ANYONE
> AROUND WHO KNOWS HOW CAN IT BE AVAILABLE?
> 
> ANY  HELP  ON  THIS  WILL  BE  REALLY  APRECIATED
> 
> Hunter.


First, as a matter of netiquette, using ALL CAPS implies emphasis 
or shouting and shouldn't be done for the entire message.

I'm not sure about the missing issues, they don't give you all
the HCOBs in the series on the Solo Nots course.  Certainly they
are not essential in most cases since I don't notice anything
missing from what was run on me as a PC on audited Nots or what
I was given to study on Solo Nots (except, of course, for the Solo 
Nots HCOB itself).  Probably these two issues were cancelled.

Maybe they are the ones that were identified by the org as being
"the bad Mayo Nots", which is not even to say that it was Mayo's
fault (it could just as well have been a mistake by LRH), but just 
that there was some serious bug in the first year of Nots delivery, 
which was that they would take up unreading items and assume that 
the cause was BTs.  E.G. if you had a somatic, then it must be
coming from a BT even if it wasn't reading on the meter.  This is
wrong and many people who got Nots during that first year had
lots of trouble because of being audited that way.  It was changed
in the second year of delivery, I think before Mayo left, but
later when they gave early Nots PCs an R-factor about how their 
cases had been messed up by running unreading items, they always
blamed it on "Bad Mayo Nots".  I didn't have this happen to me (I
got Nots just a little bit later) but I heard the story from others
who had gotten Nots earlier and then been repaired.

As to its being "PART TWO", any advanced course like this would
have a "PART ONE" with non-confidential basic material on how
to audit.  The Solo Nots course was like that, with a first part
covering how to read a meter and so forth which you had to pass
successfully before you could get the confidential materials.
On Solo Nots, this was pretty much a retread of the Solo Course
including doing all the e-meter drills etc.  For a professional
Nots auditor, it would include lots of stuff from lower level
courses about how to audit another person.  Although the first
half of these courses did not actually contain any confidential
material, they were handled as if they were confidential, not
letting other people know that they were doing the same old e-meter
drills again etc.  This lets the org catch anybody who has lax
security early before they really give them any confidential data.

The Solo Nots HCOB itself has not been posted to the net.  There
was only one big HCOB that was specifically for S/NOTS when I
did the course, which was fairly early.  The rest of the confidential
section was about half of the audited Nots HCOBs.  They gave you
all the ones giving the theory and left out all the ones that
described specific audited rundowns.  There were some more HCOBs
that came out later, but all of them were extra techniques,
such as asking for "the next being will present himself to be
handled" (or something like that), and those HCOBs are only
given to you after you have been doing well with the basic
technique for awhile (I got them on later visits to Flag, but
they don't let you keep the HCOBs after you have checked out
on them - so one has to trust to memory).

The S/NOTS HCOB was mainly composed of little excerpts from the
Nots bulletins that were not on the Solo Nots course, plus the
solo version of Valence technique.  See the audited version.
The main difference was that the solo version was treated more 
casually.  You can do a list correction if needed, but usually
a flub on the "What are you list" resolves automatically by 
the being listing more items on the "Who are you" question
instead of giving you "me" immediately.

I've described S/Nots in more detail in other posts.  See
"Entity Handling" in post52.txt and my writeup "To Heidrun"
in post05.txt in the Pilot archives.

Before you launch off into running Nots on yourself, please
read Chapter 38 of the Self Clearing book.  Its fairly short
and its free and it might make things a bit easier and help
you avoid some pitfalls that the people on Nots got into.
Best is to read the chapter, and then read the entire Nots
pack carefully, and then read the chapter again.  Although
its nowhere near the ultimate level that the CofS thinks it
is, there are still some big gains to be had by doing a
thorough handling.  

And if you're really feeling ambitious, also read chapter 6 of 
Super Scio for even more data on entities, and study the LRH 
HCL lectures too (especially the Battle of the Universes one 
about Targs that was posted recently).


Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - To Norman On Nots


TO NORMAN ON NOTS

On 30 Apr 99, norman_suchanek <norman_suchanek@my-dejanews.com>
posted on subject "FZA.ORG: The State of Case, a personal report"


> Heidrun Beer <concern@atnet.at> wrote:
> 
> > I just realized that I felt a similar impulse just the other day -
> > just SH** on saving the planet and enjoy life.
> >
> > Any of you others? I wonder whether it's one for each of us, or whether
> > the same guy goes from one to the other?
> >
> > I either audited mine, or told him in a friendly way that I had
> > certain plans which I didn't want to change.
> >
> > BTW didn't Pilot write something about weird impulses recently?
> > Like poking his finger into his eyes? This comes over me too
> > sometimes. Ideas like how it would be to bite off my boy's
> > finger, or some such thing.
> >
> > If this is done by BTs, then they have the special trick of seeking
> > out the position where the thetan perceives himself in/around the body,
> > before they first speak out. That makes them less easy to distinguish
> > from self.
> 
> 
> There are a few NOTs rundowns about JUST THIS !  However, they do
> _NOT_ appear in the NOTs pack that I have read !
> 
> I have found these rundowns in Scamizdat 9 ONLY  ( they are NOTs
> rundown steps 46, 47 and 49 ).
> 
> I have extended the running of NOTs ruds to include these phenomena.
> When I get a read on a rudiment I check whose charge it is.  In case
> of a problem I would check :
> 
>    is this my problem ?
> 
>    is this a BT's problem ?
> 
>    is this a CL's problem ?
> 
> etc. like in the HCOB about running ruds after OT III.
> 
> However, if I get a read on 'is this my problem' I check
> 
>    is 'my' really a BT ?
> 
>    is 'my' really a CL ?
> 
> This may be lousy grammar but it DOES work ( at least on me ).
> These days I hardly find any charge on myself.  But there
> are LOTS of 'guys' very close to me and my head area ( where
> I mostly reside ).  They are almost an intimate part of my
> thinking machinery, and are hard to differentiate from myself.
> But anytime I get rid of one it is a really nice win, because
> these mis-identifications ( myself - BT ) are worth clearing up.
> 
> Norman

I should have studied the earlier Scamizdat postings more 
carefully.

Those steps are not valid Nots.  They are probably part of 
the materials that were canceled in the first year of Nots.

I only heard rumors of the original "bad" Nots and doing this 
was one of the rumors.  Many of those cases bogged and had
lots of trouble.  Later AO tech estimates to repair cases
who had Nots done this way were generally twice as high as
the number of intensives for new cases to complete Nots.

Sometimes "my" might really be a BT or CL, but if it is and 
you didn't immediately spot it without being asked, you are 
running one which is out gradient anyway and you might as 
well let it slide until it comes into view later.

But usually "my" is you and the questions ask you to not-is
your own case and responsiblity and drag in a BT from
somewhere else to take over your own item.  That is extremely
easy to do.  After all, the question is reading which means
that there is charge on it.  So this is an open invitation
not to confront the overt or problem or whatever it is and
offload it onto a BT.  Cases get loaded with BTs when they 
do this.  You end up with more than when you started.


Hope this helps,

The Pilot

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


 subj : Super Scio Tech - On Six Ways To Nothing 


ON SIX WAYS TO NOTHING

On 15 Apr 99, squirrel@mega.com (MegaSquirrel) answered Rogers
on topic "Six Ways to "Nothing"  -  Question"


> Six ways to nothing - process 37.1 in the Self-Clearing book.
> 
> On Wed, 14 Apr 1999 10:42:51 -0400, "Rogers" <here-i-yam@erols.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >The Journal of Scientology, Issue 24-G, 31 January 1954  "SOP-8-C: The
> >Rehabilitation of the Human Spirit.  (Starts on page 10 of "old" Tech Vol
> >II, my question pertains to page 15)
> >
> >As part of Step VII: Barriers
> >
> >(b)  Have preclear do six ways to "nothing."
> >
> >Can someone clarify what this is, or I should say, what these six ways are?
> >I did consider the possibility it refers to the "Six Steps to Better
> >Beingness" (on page 424 of old tech vol I) which starts out with taking ten
> >minutes of nothing, but I am unconvinced.  Cannot find it in the cumulative
> >index.
> >
> >Appreciate it.
> >
> >Les.


I'm flattered that you knew Self Clearing well enough to point
out the reference.

Some other folks asked if I remember the LRH reference for this
one and I have to admit that I can't pin it down right now.
Its somewhere in the vast amount of stuff I reviewed while writing
self clearing, I remember checking the reference on this one,
but my guesses as to where aren't panning out.

It is easy to do a Grep (command line style text search) on the 
tech volumes, CofHA, and everything that FZBA has posted, but that 
only yields the various summaries of SOP-8C like the above reference.  
So I don't think that it is in anything that has been posted to the 
net.

Someday maybe we'll have everything online and then this would
be a snap to find.

In the meantime, all I can suggest is that it is in SOP-8C and
therefore would be covered on one of the tapes that apply to
that rundown.  Those are the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd ACC tapes and
that's probably where I heard it because those are among my
favorites.

Unfortunately, each of those ACCs is the size of the doctorate
course (they are the sequals to it) and without an online
copy, I'm not going to find it without putting in a ton of work.

Let's hope that FZBA or somebody gets busy and posts these.


Best,

The Pilot

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


 subj : Super Scio Tech - On Route 2 Not Biting (Attn Ryan, Ted)


ON ROUTE 2 NOT BITING (Attn Ryan, Ted)

On 28 Apr 99, ted@magicnet.net (Ted Crammer) responded to Ryan's
question on subject "processes taking longer"


> Ryan Q Lee  <ryanqlee@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> 
> > Running the processes on Route 2 are not "biting" (i.e. case kicking in)
> > as much as previously.
> > 
> > I can "feel" a process bite, but it doesn't run as deep, even when 
> > run for a long time; say, 25 minutes of "find something in which you 
> > could be interested in?"
> > 
> > Is this usual?

(In the following, I'm assuming that when he says "Route 2", he
does mean Route 2.  However, in another post, Ryan mentioned that 
he was running the "spot three point in the body / in the room",
so perhaps he is actually running Route 1 at this point.)


Ted gave a nice analysis, so I'll start from there.  Basically some
of his points are high probability and some are low.
 
> May be due to process flattening.

Route 2 has lots of different processes.  I assume that if it was
just particular processes flattening, other ones in the set would
still bite.  So this is unlikely if it has persisted for a while.

But in the broader sense, it could be a persistant FN or major
keyout on the entire class of processes in route 2.

Handling would be to rehab the major win and then shift to some
other processing, such as route 1 for example.  (or, if it is
Route 1 that went to a win and stopped biting, Route 2 might
then be appropriate).

Sometimes "case" is just gone (at least for the moment) and its
time to do OT drills.  Route 1 will run with benifit over a
persistant FN, but route 2 will not.  Sometimes the next layer
of case has shown up and one is better off runing processes
oriented torwards case.  The Self Clearing book tries to work
around this by intermixing both types of processes and giving
the person the liberty to skip processes that don't seem
appropriate at the moment.

Sometimes the overrun phenomena gives one a clue, but the
really big states or a solid persistant FN can sometimes leave 
the entire case temporarily discharged to the point where even 
overrun doesn't occur.  I've been in states like that for months
sometimes.

 
> May be due to your doing TRs while also doing the processing.

There is a slight chance of this, but it is not that likely.
In the old days auditors would do TRs regularly without regard
for any processing they were getting.

It doesn't actually get in the way of processing.  What it
does is get in the way of C/Sing.  It can drive the C/Ses crazy
because the case is changing out of his sight.

Sometimes TRs toss in a wild variable that would throw off
a standard C/S because the case has been doing a different
action (TRs) in between standard sessions.  So maybe a button
was left restimulated and unflat and is grabbing the person's
attention or maybe some process that needed correction was
inadvertently repaired or maybe some keyout on TRs has produced 
an FN that is obscuring an error from the previous session.

Perhaps the auditor assesses a list, and sends it to the C/S and
the C/S picks the next action based on that and meanwhile the
case has changed around because of doing TRs, and the auditor,
who is not at liberty to adjust to the pc in orthodox standard
tech, goes in with an invalid C/S and makes a mess.

In practice, you could C/S around this as long as you knew
about it and took some precautions, such as not splitting
an assessment and the handling of it between sessions and
perhaps having the auditor ask "how did the TRs go" as part
of the ruds.  But that would make extra work and the auditing
is expensive and the pc can do TRs some other time, so they
don't bother.

For un-CSed solo, the person knows what he's been doing and
knows how his TRs went and there is no wild variable out of
sight.

 
> May be a lull before a storm, flat point being only temporary.

That does happen sometimes.

Having a lot of confidence in my ability to rehab, I'll push
on a bit if I have any doubt.  Usually it just leads to overrun,
but occasionally you can make a really big gain.

For a beginner I'd say that it would be better to take the
win.  At least until you have enough experience to spot overruns
quickly and rehab them easily.  Count on the fact that you'll
work around to that area again anyway.  That lets you get gains 
even if your still fumbling around with the tech.

 
> May be the processes you are running no longer parallels the case or
> challenges the being.

Very likely.  But the reason would probably be the first point
discussed above, namely a big blowout and the handling would
be to rehab and then shift over to another rundown.

 
> May be the limitations of solo processing R-2.

Probably not since he was doing well and the processes were 
biting.  This would be likely if the processes had never bitten
in the first place, but that is not the case here.

 
> May be lack of havingness in sharing wins with someone who could
> appreciate what you are doing and discovering.

Possible.  And its nice to get wins acknowledged.  And it serves
as a rehab if there was a big state attained and then bypassed.

So my suggestion would be to spot the biggest win that happened
while running route 2 and write it up for the newsgroup.

 
> May be a number of things. I am pretty sure you'll get some more
> feedback on this from others.
> 
> -- 
> Ted


The other possiblity is, of course, that there is something
wrong.

For this one looks back to the last point that one was doing
well and trys to determine what changed.

If, for example, one had simply stopped eating, that would
drop the accessibility factor and processes would not run as
deep.

Or if one had gotten scared on some process and not finished
it and then decided never to look at anything again to avoid
getting restimulated, that too could drop the accessibility
factor and make the processes run shallow.  One could actually
ignore this and run shallowly for awhile until ones confidence
built back up, but its much more effective to go back and run
the messed up process correctly to a real win.

But if the pc is still feeling good, the most likely thing that
changed would be a big blowout as discussed earlier.


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

Also, on 30 Apr 99, "Ryan Q Lee " <ryanqlee@my-dejanews.com>
asked on subject "mapping Route 2 to the OT processes"

> Here's an interesting one.
> 
> Apparently, _all_ the OT processes originate from 
> Route 2 in Creation of Human Ability.
> 
> If anyone has already done it, could they please
> post the mapping of which Route 2 processes map to
> the OT processes.
> 
> Thanks! :)
> 
> Arc, Ryan :) :) :) :)

More Route 1 than Route 2 actually.  And some come from SOP8C.
I haven't done the exercise.  It's a nice idea.

The only "complete" OT bridge was around the beginning of 1954.

It was:

1. SOP 8 (PDC materials) to exterior
2. SOP 8C (1st & 2nd ACC) to drill after exterior
3. SOP 8OT (3rd ACC) to roll your own bridge to handle whatever
else was in the way.

This turned out to be too tough.  So Ron addressed himself
to undercutting and providing an easier gradient.

This resulted in the undercuts of group processing (4th ACC),
SOP8D to handle valences (the 5th ACC), the phoenix lectures 
material (7th ACC) and finally Routes 1 and 2 (8th & 9th ACC).
(I haven't gotten around to studying the 6th ACC yet).

Route 1/2 was basically aimed at replacing SOP 8 as a way to
produce a thetan exterior and doing some of the easier bits
of SOP8C to get him moving towards OT.

The more advanced materials of SOP8C and SOP8OT remained as
an upper bridge but Ron never got back to them because he
had to then undercut Route 1/2 with the processes of the
late 1950s.

Note that the later use of the term "8C" to refer to the objective
processes which was run as the SOP-8C setup action is a tech
degrade of the highest order.


Hope this helps,

The Pilot

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


 subj : Super Scio Tech - Continuing The Golden Dawn Discussion (Attn Koyote, Rogers)


CONTINUING THE GOLDEN DAWN DISCUSSION (Attn Koyote, Rogers)

On 10 Apr 99, "Koyote" <koyote@paonline.com> posted
"To Pilot On Y2K & Golden Dawn"


> The Pilot wrote in message ...
> 
> > 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?
> 
> Heya. I'm new around here, so I'm still not entirely sure about how
> you're gonna define positive and negative.
> 
> The Golden Dawn is said to be in operation by some renovators. There are
> also smoky rumors that the old GD is still about, but really damned deep
> underground. Whatever.

I can see that I had an oversimplified view.  There seem to be many
groups and the name is popular.


> The OTO is alive in at least two manifestations. The A.'.A.'. is around,
> but it is widely acknowledged that the current manifestation has little to
> do with anything Crowley ever intended.
>
> There are others secretive magical orders, Temple of Psychic Youth,
> Temple of Set, etc.
> 
> These all may be accessed by some level of consciousness under "Golden
> Dawn" in a sort of Jungian manner as the first, and often only, exposure
> most dabblers have in this type of magical order is through Isreal
> Regardie's works on the Golden Dawn and/or Golden Dawn Tarot systems.
> 
> Some of these orders right, some go left. Many of them have, at some
> level, the evolution/uncovering (depends on the theology) of the divine 
> in individual man as a goal. Many of them also Work to increase the 
> ability and opportunity for other men to glimpse and pursue the divine
> potential/resident.

From my viewpoint, the differentiating factor would be whether
the target is to gain personal power for oneself or a few only, in 
which case they are trying to make slaves, or whether the goal is
towards ability for others as well as oneself.

I am, of course, aligned with the latter and feel favorable towards
those who "Work to increase the ability and opportunity for other
men."  
 
> Many of these orders are planning/executing serious Workings for y2k.
> Those I have direct access to intend the Work to result in an overall
> increase in ability and drive pushing more meatballs into a place 
> where they can initiate.
> 
> This is all, I gather, positive, yes?

Yes.
 
> The only problem in defining positive and negative here is that many of
> these orders subscribe to a theology which includes individual divinity,
> but not an overall Master divinity which must be served.

I don't believe in a Master divinity which must be "worshipped".

I do believe in an all encompassing divine which could be termed
a life static or universal mind or God or whatever.  Bringing about
a general increase in awareness and ability would be serving that.

I suspect that we simply have a bit of confusion here between serve
and worship.

> And, as such, much of their work is oriented against mass
> mind/collective salvation, etc. theology.
> 
> This, in fact is the source of some of the y2k workings- the "Osirian
> death cults" (or christian, muslim, etc. sacrifice based religions) are
> running around pushing for total stasis- the end of the world followed by a
> never changing kingdom of heaven and hell- end of *all* games, you lose!
> Personally, I can see why they fight that kind of mindset....

An interesting way of putting it.

I think that for most Christians, Heaven is simply the idea of
a place where "things will be better".  If it is "total statis",
then it is a trap, but if it is sharing in an infinity of creation,
then it is freedom.  Most Christians are not up to thinking in these
terms and as to Christ's original intentions, I would think that
infinite creation would be more his style than some perpetual
status.  He was a rebel against the orthodox orders of his time.  

I would prefer, therefore, to define "heaven" as infinite creation 
and sidestep the argument.  With that definition all games become
possible rather than all games being ended.

The real killer is wishing to see others burn in hell for eternity.
Now that is not only a desire for stasis and an unchanging status
quo but is an evil purpose that one would expect to rebound against
the holder.

 
> Tread Rightly,
> 
> Koyote

-----------

On 14 Apr 99, Koyote continued on this subject with a response to my 
post "Super Scio Tech - To Phil On Y2K & Golden Dawn"


> Pilot man,
> 
> It may be a Jungian unconscious tie in sorta thing (I know very
> little of clearing technospeak, so bear with me). Most people who
> access magick, ceremonial magic, high magic (many names) access first
> the Golden Dawn (G.D.) work, history and system.
> 
> There are a bunch of orders, Temples, schools in existence. The
> Ordo Templi Orientalis (OTO) exists in at least two "valid" forms,
> Crowley's A.'.A.'. is also around- though not in a form most
> occultists accept as valid. The G.D. also exists in a couple of forms
> including perennial restarts of the Order, individuals and informal
> groups performing the work, and some say that the core G.D. never
> really ended ops but went deep underground.
> 
> Coming from the stream of magical orders also one finds some of
> the more magickally oriented Wiccans (very rare!), and orders such as
> the Rune Gild, TOPY (Temple ov Psychic Youth), Temple of Set, Order of
> the Dragon, Telesis Foundation, Etc.
> 
> I don't know a whole hell of a lot about all of these, though I am
> pretty knowledgeable about a couple. The goal of most of these orders
> is the diefication of man. This is approached in two distinct manners:
> 
> 1. Through seeking instruction/access/oneness with/from some sort
> of God thing.
> 
> 2. Through discovering and raising one's self to a divine state as
> a being seperate from any god thing.
> 
> There is an expansionist goal as well, running through most
> orders, to get more people to access, develop, or develop the ability
> to access their divine natre/being.
> 
> I do know that some of these orders a planning big juju for the 2k
> event. The juju primarily focuses on expanding the potential and rate
> of evolution (to divine beingness) in humanity. Some efforts are using
> the expected morass of y2k babies as a focus.
> 
> I think that many of these have a partial cause/focus in
> countering/uncreating the stasis (end of world and eternal unchanging
> kingdom of heaven) sought by many end of worlders.
> 
> So there ya go, at least that's what I can figure of it,
> 
> Koyote

Thank you for the additional info.  This has been quite informative.

----------

And to round this out, here is a response from "Rogers" 
<here-i-yam@erols.com> also on the same topic.

> The Pilot wrote in message ...
> 
> > 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".
> 
> 
> Gee, Anjin-san, now I feel a bit hostile.  I LIKED "Red Dawn."  What do you
> mean "second rate" and "far fetched?"  I'm just teasing!  I don't feel
> hostility, but actually I DID like the movie - rather primal I must admit.

It wasn't bad actually.  I just read too many similar Sci-fi stories
as a kid (often with interesting aliens instead of mundane invaders) 
and got a bit overrun.
 
> Now, to the real point.  I really and truly doubt that any problems
> associated with a group going by the name "Golden Dawn" is going to be in
> terms of THAT (magical and metaphysical group) "Golden Dawn."
> 
> Still, just to approximate some answers to you query.  There are still some
> Golden Dawn practitioners and authors knocking around.  There's one fairly
> prolific writer in, I think, New Zealand of all places.
> 
> Mostly, I think they are small potatoes.  When I think of these guys it
> reminds me of pre-scientology psychotherapists, but, in their case, they
> were pre-Crowley and never evolved.  Crowley WAS an evolution in this field.
> 
> I think one can get a pretty "clear" (he says facetiously) view of the
> Golden Dawn mentality by looking at the actual book by that name.  It's a
> disorganized mess!  To use a French technical term, it's a cluster-fuck!
> 
> It's one of those "sticky" subjects that has you scratching your head for
> years - very "mysterious" stuff.
> 
> Crowley found it both pathetic and amusing that, after his ceremonial
> initiation - full of sworn pledges not to divulge the "secrets" upon pain 
> of death, blah, blah, blah - the first "secret scripture" he was presented 
> with was the HEBREW ALPHABET!

About like finding an implant platen instead of real handling of
actual GPMs when one finds out the super secret CC materials.
 
> > It was an occult group that was
> > active for 13 years back around the turn of the century.
> 
> Without looking this up (Owen's going to be mad at me again) I think the
> group might have been founded in 1887, 13 years before the turn of the
> century.  It was, most definitely. sometime around that time.
> 
> > 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).
> 
> Yes as to Yeats.  But Crowley didn't go "directly" to the OTO.  Story is,
> they invited him in later - after he had done a lot of work on his own
> stuff - because he apparently "discovered" their innermost doctrine on his
> own separate track.
> 
> BTW.  I think Crowley was born in 1875.  This was the time period (I
> believe) when people would go on to higher university education when they
> were about 12 or 13 years old.  Unlike today, they didn't sit on you and
> stifle you for thirteen years through high school and then another four
> years through college in those days.  And the "classics" were an integral
> part of the curriculum in any serious college.  It's like a different world.
> The schooling was much less aberrative I think.  Well, a shorter exposure 
> to the abuse anyway.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Definitely, White Magick.
> 
> But, I could see that "Golden Dawn" could be a nice name for a terrorist
> group, in fact, it sort of seems familiar.  It reminds me of one of the
> (assumed to be fictitious) names of a terrorist group given in "True Lies"
> or some other movie.
> 
> Do you think the Defence Satelites could be sufficiently discombubulated by
> the Y2K problem...  No, let me phrase that differently...  I wonder if some
> terrorist group or antagonistic nation might "postulate" that the Defence
> Satelites will be messed up by the Y2K bug, sufficiently so to give them a
> bit of an "edge" in some sort of attack?
> 
> Les.

The folks that would be interested in doing a military attack would
probably not be of a mindset to try and postulate things.

One would hope that the US military has not been so stupid as to
have Y2K bugs in unreachable orbital hardware.  Then again, the
military mind has not been known for its intelligence, the Sea
Org being a case in point.

I don't really feel that this one is in the cards, but I'll watch
my back anyway.

----------

Let's hope that all this means is a push for consciousness raising
and enlightenment.  I've been expecting that anyway because of
the significance that people put on the date.

It would be nice, however, if something loosens up the single frozen
fixed reality into a flexible mockup where there is more free choice
and a flux of varying agreements and realities.


Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - To Heidrun On Higher Self


TO HEIDRUN ON HIGHER SELF

On 2 May 99, Heidrun Beer <concern@atnet.at> posted on
topic "Processing-Style After Re-Merging with Higher Self"

Let me prefix my comments with a disclaimer that I consider
"higher self" type material to be highly speculative.  I have
bumped into some things, so I will talk about it, but I don't
want to push it because I don't think all the results are in
yet.


> There is a point in processing which requires a change in processing
> style, and this is where the person re-unites with his "higher self"
> and becomes stable in this union.

It's waking up as the higher self rather than re-uniting with it.
It's not somebody else.
 
> The "Higher Self" is that part of the person who stayed exterior 
> to space and time and in full possession of his spiritual capabilities, 
> while the person himself, as we normally see him, went to explore the 
> physical universe and the lower spiritual zones.
> 
> Re-uniting with one's higher self would also mean that the person
> arrives at a stable awareness of the wholeness of space and time.
> At this point there is no more past and future; existence happens
> in a multidimensional moment of "now", which is always available
> for spiritual interchange. 

Incorrect.

There is always time of some sort although maybe not time as
we know it down here.

Absolute no-time equals no change which would mean there was
never anything there in the first place because putting something
there would be change.  That only exists as true static which
is unchanging, and there can be no individuality at that level
because that would imply change.

The highest level would be static / separation-from-static.
That is two states and therefore a change has taken place and
therefore there is time, the time being the before and after
separation.

Now let us say that there is a timestream, call it timestream A,
which can percieve another timestream, call it timestream B,
as a cohesive whole.  I do find stuff like that on early track.
But timestream A still has time of its own sort even though
it is outside of timestream B, which might be a human timestream. 

Actually I find lots of stuff.  I'm not sure how much of it
is real.

I find stuff that is multi-threaded, with a senior time above
the time of many parallel individual threads which each have
their own independent time.

I find time streams at "right angles" to each other.

I find time streams out of agreement with Mest universe time.

I find different "mest universe style" time in different
universes that are not locked into agreement with each other
and therefore are unsynchronized as to time relative to
each other.

I find different "single thetan style" time streams that
might weave around in relationship to a "mest universe style"
time so that the thetan goes back in time relative to mest
but of course does not go back in time relative to his own
timestream.

And of course I find implanted time and false track and
implanted no-time (nasty old implanter says "this is happening
in no-time" or "there is no time" or "this is before all
time").

And I have the impression that there's lots more that I'm
not up to percieving yet.

But there is always a relative before and after of some
sort.  You can count on that.  Sometimes you can't date
something in Mest universe concepts, but you can get
relative before and after in its own terms.

It can be hard to wrap your wits around the time concepts
outside of the human area, but it is worth the effort if
you're going to run anything in this area.

 
> Note that this is NOT the same as the collapsed time-track of a 
> heavily charged case - the heavily charged case is in a confusion
> and denial about the spaces and times of his existence, while we 
> are talking about a person who has completely permeated the times 
> and spaces of his existence, so that he has smooth and simultaneous 
> access to every point in it.
> 
> At this point in processing, all processing commands would have 
> to be reworded so that they don't refer to the past or the future 
> anymore. Questions like "When was it?" would have to be changed
> into "When is it?" etc.

That might apply if you are asking somebody in timestream A
about time stream B.  It certainly does not apply if you are
asking a timestream A viewpoint about events in timestream A,
because those events are consecutive relative to A.

And even working cross time perception, A can still see the
sequential arrangment of B even though he is not bound by
that sequence.  Pick up a VCR tape.  You can easily tell
somebody that X happens at the beginning of the movie and
Y happens at the end even though you might watch the end
of the movie before you watch the beginning and you might
have seen it multiple times.  As far as you're concerned,
that tape is a cohesive whole, but you can still examine
the consecutive order of events within it.

 
> And as the indidents - in the dimension exterior to space/time -
> are no longer past, a very powerful undercut to any known process
> can be run: "Reach into this existence and touch [item]" (as the
> person is now bigger than this complete existence, he cannot 
> move around within a particular space/time-bubble; he must reach
> into it from the outside in order to contact an incident).
> This is done until complete ownership of the abandoned point
> in space and time has been restored.
> 
> Example: "Reach into this existence and touch the ARC-break [the
> one he just described]. It is a reach/withdraw-process. The 
> withdraw will happen naturally after the "touch"-command, but 
> if it doesn't, a second command could be given: "Let go of this
> [item] and cease to reach into this existence". 
> 
> If the person is totally aware of his state exterior to all
> existences and handles the moves in and out of "real life"
> in a very natural way - in other words, if there is no more
> danger that his state of awareness could shrink away again
> from the complete ownership of all space and time -, the command 
> could be further shortened to "Touch that [item]" and 
> (if necessary) "Let go of that [item]". In this case it is
> implied that he does the whole cycle of reaching in and
> pulling out of existence every time he does the command.
 
Nice.

About like helping a human being get his confront up on a
movie that he was a bit keyed in by.  Wind the tape back
and forth and spot various sceens.

More interesting would be to spot the first time in the
higher timestream that one touched or mocked up this lesser 
timestream. And there is even the interesting question of what 
point in this lesser timestream was touched first.  Sometimes
people walk into the middle of a movie and the first sceen
they saw was not the first one in the movie.  And then
they stay to see the beginning that they missed.

Or, if one is mocking up newly, sometimes one works backwards
from the end.  I do that often in system design, spotting
first where I want to go and then sketching backwards and
then working forwards in detail.

And so one might have sketched the year 2000 before one
went back and lived the 20th century.

But of course I'm just speculating and fooling around here,
this is stil way above my perceptions and I'm just trying
on ideas for size.
 
> 
> 
> Heidrun Beer
> 
> Workgroup for Fundamental Spiritual Research and Mental Training
> http://www.sgmt.at


You often stir up such fun ideas.

Thanks,

The Pilot

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


 subj : Super Scio Tech - Valences (Attn Beth, Ralph)


VALENCES (Attn Beth, Ralph)

On 19 Apr 99, ralph@hilton.org (Ralph Hilton) continued
the discussion on "Depression"


> On 19 Apr 1999 14:33:56 -0400, in alt.clearing.technology Beth Guest
> <beth@guests2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> >In article <371bb9f0.59851239@mgate.telekabel.at>, Ralph Hilton
> ><ralph@hilton.org> writes
> > 
> >>
> >>No - auditing the strong important valences is incorrect. A person goes into
> >>weak valences. In early Dianetics Hubbard was running motivators thus the
> >>causative valences were addressed. 
> >>The most aberrative valences are the ones one committed overts against and
> >>those would be the weaker ones.
> >>The reference on this is "The Rule of the Weak Valence" tape of 12 November
> >>1959.
> > 
> >
> >How does one run out valences in Scn?
> >
> >I know the Kn process to do this but cannot recall the Scn one at the
> >moment and would be interested.
> 
> The easiest and most effective I have come across is:
> 
> Tell me a difference between yourself and .....
> Tell me a similarity between yourself and ....

This is an excellent one, but the easiest is probably SOP8D
"Spot some places where ... would be safe".

This can just be run repetatively (spot lots of places, briskly,
if you can) and taken to a nice win.

For maximum effectiveness, you can do a few commands of
"Spot some places where ... would place you to make you safe"
whenever the above seems to flatten (ceases to produce change)
and then go back to the first command again.  That lets you
push the process deeper.  In that case you should keep on until
you get a major valence shift.

This SOP8D process and the topic of valences is one of the
main subjects of the 5th ACC, which is available as the "Universes"
cassettes.  FZBA mentioned in one of their recent postings that
they were going to do this ACC soon, so watch for the these in ACT.

LRH even used a variation on this one in some group processing 
sessions during the 5th ACC (using general terminals like find
some places where problems would be safe, etc.)

Also, the bright think rundown used a variation of this.

 
> Valences can also be split with processes such as general o/w on the
> terminal, help, failed help, From where could you communicate to a ...

Certainly.

Another good one is to mock the terminal up in various places
and blow them up.  That's from the 1st ACC.  

 
> The LX lists and process 220H from 1968 give a general valence address.

I'm going to ramble a bit here.  The LX1 handling is much too
heavy for a beginner to solo, so some people might want to skip this
section.

Probably half of the auditing I did between the introduction
of quickie standard tech in late 1968 and the advent of expanded
grades in mid 1970 was 220H (the 7 resistive cases, now known
as GF40) and most especially LX1 (which was the handling for
the out of valence item on 220H).

The 220H is covered in the Case Supervisor Actions HCOB which
is in part 13 of the Class 8 pack that was posted recently 
(the pack has the 20 May 75 revision of this HCOB of 12 Aug 69).
You'll also note that the damn HCOB was confidential, so they gave 
us non-confidential excerpts from it and checked us out on that.  
Later, after the HGC was a smoking ruin, non-confidential references 
came out on GF40 etc.

What would happen is that the person would get all his grades
in under an hour (per LRH's instructions, this was not somebody
else's alter is), they'd feel great for a week, and then they 
would cave in, feel overwhelmed, the TA would go low, and they'd 
almost inevitably read on out of valence on the 7 cases.

Then it would be endless reviews, mostly running LX1 to try
and get the TA back up.  Note that LX2 and 3 came out later
as a gradient into LX1, and note that the CS 53 and other
low TA handling did not come out until much later.  So the
only known processes in "standard tech" that brought up a
low TA were LX1 and Power Process 6, and you were not allowed
to run PrPr 6 on public at an outer org.  So LX1 was the only
handling.

As a setup for LX1, we'd first run "recall another person".
That was in the original version of the C/S Actions HCOB.
Note that the one posted to the net is a later revision
which doesn't have this process and has been upgraded with
the LX2 etc.

Then we'd be into the LX1, which was basically assessing for
the engram chain necessary to resolve the case (buttons like
crushed, overwhelmed, etc.).  We'd run 3 flow recalls, then
secondaries, and then engrams, and then reassess and run
another button, etc. until the person snapped into valence.
It would work, too.  Quite dramatic really.  But one hell
of a hard run and hell to audit as well because the TA would 
dive to 1.5 if you breathed wrong.

You could walk around the academy in those days and look
at students doing e-meter drills and almost never see
a TA above 2.

I even got run on an LX1 as a pc, and sure enough, we got
to basic on a heavy chain and the feeling of apathy and
unreality which seems to go with a low TA suddenly vanished.
And I mean suddenly and with a great feeling of relief.
Unfortunately it doesn't cure bypassed grades and quickie
type processing or proof you up against an org gone mad
with ethics conditions and wrong whys.  So the result
unstabilizes in a month or so and the pc starts spinning
again because you've only handled the symptom rather than
the cause.

 
> A very powerful general valence cracker is
> 
> Get the idea of entering a mind
> Get the idea of not entering a mind
> 
> I'm currently working out expanded versions to handle quad flows and 8
> dynamics.

This goes far beyond valences.  Definitely a powerful and
advanced process.  I wouldn't recommend this for beginners,
there are far too many considerations and implications attached
to the concept of mind.  But it felt right for me to give it
a try right now.

So I fooled with this one a bit.  I would suggest running
"another entering a mind" before attempting "another entering
your mind", because that last one is a very steep gradient.
Each of these ran nicely to a mild win.  My plan was to do
a light touch and cycle back through each flow multiple times
rather than trying to push deeply at the start.

Then I thought about flow 0, not even running it but just trying 
to figure out what the process command should be.  As I was trying
to wrap my wits around "get the idea of entering your own
mind", it was like some barrier fell away and I sort of
exteriorized in some strange manner.  The very concept of
"mind" seemed meaningless for a moment and then it seemed
like I had many minds in various places.

As best I can describe it, it was like the whole package, not 
just thought and identity but also experience and consideration 
and the data I was working on could be seen as an interrelated
cohesive unit, but it was something I HAD rather than being
me myself, and I had many such packages, each kept in isolation
from the others.

Of course with a big blowout like this, one drops the process,
at least for the time being, so as not to invalidate the win
or reinteriorize or overrun.

So I sidetracked into mocking up and throwing away "minds"
in this sense of the word (complete packages of identity,
data, track, and thought processes).  That was really wild.

 
> --
> Ralph Hilton
> http://Ralph.Hilton.org


Probably there should be some kind of grade and/or self clearing
chapter on the subject of valences and identity.  I'll try
and put some more thought into this and suggestions would be
welcome.  There are already quite a few mild valence handling
processes worked into self clearing, such as processes 10.4
and 10.5 (duplicating others viewpoints) which is a variation
on the old "wearing heads" process from the early 1950s.

Another good process for a grade on valences is step 4 of the 
220H handling for out of valence.  This is done on the 220H
after the 3 LX lists and can be found in the C/S Actions HCOB
mentioned above.  The process is:

4. 3 Way or Quad Recall each leg to F/N:

F1. Recall another causing you to be someone else.
F2. Recall you causing another to be someone else.
F3. Recall another causing another to be someone else.
F0. Recall causing yourself to be someone else.

This one would seem to be just a bit steep for a beginner to
do without setup (Ron put it after the LX handlings), so this
should be run after running easier valence shifting processes.
Also, there can be heavy force connected with this (implants
etc.) so this should be left until after one gets one's
confront up on force (by a clear cog or whatever).

It is also intresting that in the 1968 quickie lineup, Ron
put real valence handling up at old OT 4.  The valence
shifter processes was "What valence would be safe?"

I would say that this is an easier process than many of
the above, and I would suggest the following variation
for use in self clearing:

Run alternately:

a) What identity would you consider it safe to be
b) What identity would you consider it safe for others to be
c) What identity might another consider it safe to be
d) What identity might another consider it safe for others to be

This is a fun and easy processes and would probably fit
in very well around grade 5 on a standard bridge, before
worrying about implants, entities, or whatever.

Ron's placement of valence handling way up at OT IV in
the early OT lineup shows that he considered this to be
a significant case factor which was operative after clear
and after handling entities.  Remember that this was the
quickie era and the consideration would be that there were
no GPMs, implants, or entities affecting the case after
a properly run OT III.

Here is the full OT IV rundown from the C/S actions
HCOB:

> 1. Ruds or GF to F/N.
> 2. Rehab drugs.
> 3. Valence shifter "What valence would be safe?"
> 4. Rehab ARC Straightwire to Grade IV.
> 5. Rehab R6EW to OT II.
> 6. Prepcheck OT III.
> 7. Rehab OT V and VI.
> 8. Run "What has been overrun ?"
> 9. Run "What can you confront ?"
> 
> IF THE PRE OT DOESN'T EXTERIORISE, WE WILL DO 7 CASES NEXT SESSION
> UNTILL HE DOES GO EXTERIOR which is really the end phenomena of 
> OT IV.  Audited only by a class VIII.

This should also clear up the occasional question that I've
seen about what was supposed to bring about exterior perceptions
in the original OT lineup.  Apparantly the idea was that if
entities had already been handled, then all you had to do was
handle valences and non-confront and any case outpoints to
turn on exterior perception.  I've even heard of some people
who did turn on some perception briefly after getting the IV
rundown.  Then one was supposed to do the old OT V & VI to
improve and stabilize the ability.

Note that "what has been overrun" was not a repetative process
or a listed list.  Instead one took up anything that gave a
TA blowdown (BD) on the meter (sometimes anything that read at all)
and rehabbed it to FN.  This was the ONLY handling for high TA
during the quickie era.	 One used it at lower levels if the
TA was high, but only rehabbed the first BD to FN so as to
get the TA back in range.  Apparantly the IV rundown included
a more thorough run of this processes, doing it as a major
action with the TA in range instead of only using it as a
repair.

Sorry for continuing to slide off into discussions of the
quickie era.  The recent posting of the Class VIII pack and
Ralph's mention of 220H have gotten me busy thinking over
that old messed up attempt to make OT on a lick and a
promise.


Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - Super Dooper OT Recall Processing


SUPER DOOPER OT RECALL PROCESSING

Ralph made a great joke about getting overly status happy
OTs to do some self analysis by giving them a super secret
self analysis list that is only for special OTs.

I thought it was hilarious.  

The super duper special OT recall processes:

Self Analysis, an orthodox expanded straightwire grade (recall
release), self clearing chapter 6, or any of a wealth of other
similar techniques (I'm sure Alan uses some, etc.) ARE the
super duper advanced OT processing way way up the bridge.

==========

Demo Session:

Just for the hell of it, I'll run a recall question on myself
here to see what I can get now.  I always like "recall a time
you went fast" from self analysis (the wording might be slightly
different, I'm not bothering to look it up).  So I'll give
it a shot.  Note that this is unrehearsed & unprepared, I'm
just gonna see what happens.


1. Recall a time you went fast -

Roller skates, 7 years old, zooming down the block, on the
sidewalk because my mother didn't want me doing it in the
street.  Old style skates with a skate key.  Concrete very
rough and full of pebbles.  I'd completely forgotten.  Facinating
how much detail I'm spotting.

1. Recall ...

Space ship.  Trying to get away.  Zooming along.  Then bang!
run right into a mountain.  Can't figure it.  In space, 
going out of a star system, then bang, hit a mountain on
a planet that was at least a 100 million miles behind me.
Maybe some kind of warp drive & it malfunctions and bang,
you're somewhere else?  Doesn't feel right.  Maybe some OT,
some god of the local system reaches out, grabs the ship,
and snaps it back into a planet. Bang, spot the impact
again, bang.  Yeah, that feels right. Drifted up from the
wreckage (hardly more than dust and scraps and gook from
the splattered bodies) and in complete puzzelment as to
what happened.  It hung up on a big question mark, never
saw what grabbed the ship.

1. Recall ...

Magic universe.  Facinating.  Beautiful.  Indigo sky.
Some wizard has gotten pissed off.  Nothing to do with
me, but he has started flinging around balls of fire.
I start running up a hillside.  Feeling tired, out of
breath.  He notices and tosses one in my direction.
I can feel the heat on my back.  Then I'm looking down
at the body and pulling it with a beam.  Zoom, I'm
up at the top of the hill.  Dazzed.  Can't figure what
happened.  Thinking over & over, wow, how did I do
that, felt amazing, want to do it again but can't,
but it was a huge win anyway.  The body actually flew
threw the air, zoom.  I loved it but it had left me
puzzeled as to how (seems obvious now).

Ah.  Hung up on a maybe.  This & the other one were things
that I'd intentionally wanted to remember (at the time) 
because I couldn't figure them out and felt that I'd have
to keep thinking them over until I understood what happened.
But I'd never quite figured them out (then) and so had 
gotten apathetic and then postulated forgetting because
I got sick and tired of trying to understand what happened.

A double layering, first anxious to remember, and then
determined to forget, what an interesting mechanism, and
I can feel some mass releasing, like things that were
held based on a misunderstood about what really happened.

That's really neat.  Holding onto incidents and keeping
them mocked up because of a misunderstood in the incident.

This is a nice EP, so I'll end off here.

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

The above is just a trivial little session, no big deal.

But that is how recall processes run after you get above
all those minor lower OT levels and facing up to implants
and entities and GPMs and stuff like that.

This is how you open up the track.  It doesn't come as an
automatic side effect of doing some super dooper process
or running implant items on forgetting or something like
that.  Those things just take barriers out of the way.
You still have to run self analysis or the equivallent.

And you run it again and again and again.

But you can't do that one after the other.  One big run
on recall and then it bypasses charge to keep on going.
The other grades start to kick in because they are being
bypassed.  So attempting to do a second run through immediately
will act as an overrun.  So you run grades again, and maybe you 
get a clear OT state on grade 2 or whatever.

I had expanded grades after going clear and keying out OT
on power processing (and after doing the PDC and route one
and running SOP 3 (PDC) on myself and after having a lot
of auditor training).

The pass through self analysis (which I had run on myself
before) as part of expanded straighwire ran very deep and
whole track (although not as deep as the above demo).  At
that time we ran each question of self analysis earier
similar to an FN, so the gains were immense and it did
open up my track extensively.  And that was the pass
through the grades where I went clear OT on grade 2.

Since then, of course, I have taken more passes at these
grades areas.  And after a few, the buttons of protest
and inval and so forth were starting to really kick in
as bypassed charge because they were missed grades.
You've seen the writeups I've done in those areas since
then.  And of course there are more grades areas (eval
for example) which are starting to really draw my attention.
So there is more to be researched.

But straighwire remains one of the most important workhorses
as far as opening up track and handling case.  It just
gets better and better and better.

And note that it is not that the grade wasn't run right
the first time.  How many new people with no previous
training or processing would be able to reach early
track on a first run through?

Although it didn't in this example, self analysis type
techniques will often run all the way back to home universe
on an OT.  This is the way to reach into the next area of 
the track that is accessible no matter how advanced the case 
is.


Hope This Helps,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - A Fun OT Drill


A FUN OT DRILL


Pick an object in the room that it would be easy and
safe for you to move.

First run the following commands alternately.  Repeat
the set at least twice and then continue until you feel
like the object is in agreement with you.

a) Have the object say hello to you.
b) acknowledge it
c) Have the object like you.
d) acknowledge it
e) Have the object agree with you.
f) acknowledge it


Then do the following list of commands alternately.  In this
case the acknowledgements just seem to get in the way so you
can leave them out.  A brisk pace is desirable.  Continue to
a nice win.  The object does not have to move for the drill
to be complete (at least for now), the drill has a good feeling
to it.

Begin each repeat of the commands with step 1.

1. Pick a simple movement such as lifting the object up,
and then do it, physically.  Then put the object back down
in the same place.

2. Then intend the object to do that same motion again, but 
don't reach over and enforce it physically with your body
this time.  Instead, maintain the intention and do the
following:

a. Have the object desire to move
b. Have the object be happy about the idea of moving
c. Have the object like the idea of moving
d. Have the object agree with the idea of moving
e. Have the object have faith that it can move
f. Have the object know that it can move
g. Have it feel that it would be good to move
h. Have it feel that it would be ethical to move
i. Have it feel that it would be beautiful to move
j. Have it feel that it would be constructive to move
k. Have it feel that it would be reasonable to move
l. Have it feel that it would be logical to move
m. Have it feel that it would be responsible to move
n. Have it feel that it would be enjoyable to move
o. Have it feel that it would be humorous to move
p. Have it feel that it would be interesting to move
q. Have it feel that it would be entertaining to move
r. Have it feel that it would be exciting to move
s. Have it feel that it would be enlightening to move
t. Have it feel that it would be creative to move

Then go back to step one and move the object physically.

Note that it is usually preferrable to end with step 1.

Then select another object and do both sets of processes on
it as above.


Have Fun,

The Pilot

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


 subj : Super Scio Tech - The Be Do Have Implant


The BE DO HAVE Implant

I'm not quite sure if "Implant" is the correct designation
for this thing.

This seems to be a pattern that was entered willingly for the 
sake of a game, but there is some protest on it and it was
other determined.

The feeling on it is of one bunch of powerful beings building
it and then tricking another bunch into diving into it,
perhaps by challenging them and pushing buttons of "pride"
etc.

It fits the 1964 concept of R6 as a senior pattern (rather
than a true implant) which caused Actual GPMs etc. to form
beneath it as one played the games implied by the pattern.

However it is not an all encompassing pattern that embraces
all of modern existance.  Instead it seems like one of many
similar constructions which we went into and out of for
games and adventure.

There does not seem to be a lot of force on it and the
items do not have a lot of kick to them, but there is an
almost hypnotic feeling of "Facination" attached to this
one.

I tried to date it, but it is a bit out of reach and I don't 
think that I'm seeing the events of that time clearly.
My first impression was that it is significantly prior to 
home  universe, but after running it a bit, it seems more
likely that it is a bit after home universe, possibly in
the later of the two "games" universes that followed
home universe.  It is certainly much earlier than Inc 1 or CC.

But I'm fairly sure that there were many things like this
and that only a few (such as this one) were designed to
be abberative and unpleasant.

It seems like one played with many other beings under the
influence of such a pattern and then left and went into
another pattern when one tired of the game.

And usually it wasn't abberative but just fun.  However,
on a sour pattern like this one, the game didn't go well
and one not-ised things and left things unresolved and
eventually left the game in disgust.  And that left things
hanging there which could kick in later because they hadn't
been confronted.

I'm also having trouble visualizing how one "played" once
one had passed through the pattern and entered the playing
field.  My feeling is that one became many identities
simultaneously and played against others who were doing
the same.  In other words, this was played by high level
multi-threaded beings.  But again, I'm streatching a
bit here and I could be a bit off base.

=========

The pattern I found may be inaccurate and incomplete, but
charge came off and I got some cogs from it, so its
close enough.

And as I mentioned above, I think that there were a number
of abberative ones like this and I'm not sure that everybody
went through all of them.  I would expect that we each
worked on building a few nasty ones as well as getting 
suckered into a few of them as a motivator, but different 
people might have different ones that they hung up on.

There are a series of dichotomies begining with
creative - destructive.  Each dichotomy has 18 goals.
Each goal has 20 items.

Except for the very start of the pattern, each dichotomy
begins with a goal on the negative side.  The very first
one skips the first goal (which would be "to be destructive")
and starts with the second one ("to be creative").  The
very end of the entire series of dichotomies swings you
around to the start again by leading into the missing
first goal ("destructive") and then begining the entire
series again for a total of 12 runs (repeats).


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

I found this thing by playing around with the R6 "What
am I dramatizing" process.

First of all, R6EW is aimed at end words and assumes that
what the person is dramatizing is an end word, and I felt
that that was probably not always correct, and most especially
would usually be a wrong assumption on a clear.

So I altered the command to "What end word might I be
dramatizing".  I included the "might" so as not to assume
that there were any.  That would probably be a good idea
even on somebody who is doing R6EW before clear, because I
don't believe that the whole case is end words and R6 type
patterns.

I was also considering the 1964 concept that a true R6
pattern might be senior to actual GPMs.  Of course the
final R6 platens that ended up on OT 2 are supposed to
be nothing more than an implant done recently (75 Million
years ago) in the current universe.  But that doesn't
mean that there aren't real patterns, it just means
that the BC students running R6 still had too much charge
on implants.

Ron seems to have had the idea in 1965 that the CC platen
was a higher pattern senior to actual GPMs rather than
being yet another implant.  I'm still a bit unsure of
that.  But I do know that although I got considerable 
gains running it, it did not undercut actual GPMs for me.

But maybe undoing the actual GPMs by means of a pattern
is an unreal expectation because one really lives the
actual ones and gets ones postulates wrapped up into them.

I did run my own current actual GPM, which was the goal
"To be intelligent" in considerable detail and with
immense gains.  When I did that, I could see how I'd
lived the items lifetime by lifetime.  I've never gotten
that level of result from simply running a platen, even
the CC platen.

My research question was to find out if that actual GPM
I'd run out could be traced back to a higher R6 style
pattern by means of the R6EW process.

So I oriented to the mostly errased actual GPM "to be
intelligent" and looked for an end word that the entire
actual GPM could be a dramatization of.

Right away, I thought of "SMART".  The negative seemed
like it should be "STUPID" (not "unsmart", although that
is suggested by the 1964 materials).

I thought of R6EW Sixes (making a grouping of related
pairs) and immediately got:

smart <--> stupid
smarter <--> stupider
smartest <--> stupidest

Then it seemed like these should replicate on Be, Do, 
and Have, and I immediately got:

To be smart    <--> to be stupid
to be smarter  <--> to be stupider
to be smartest <--> to be stupidest

to do smart things <--> to do stupid things
to do smarter things <--> to do stupider things
to do the smartest things <--> to do the stupidest things

to have smart ideas   <--> to have stupid ideas
to have smarter ideas <--> to have stupider ideas
to have the smartest ideas <--> to have the stupidest ideas

In other words, a pattern of 18 goals on this smart/stupid
business.

Since I think that one of the mistakes in the R6 research
was to deal exclusively with end words instead of running
the detail items (and thereby leaving too much charge
behind), I then tried to list for the items of the goal
"to be smart".  That gave a set of 20 items including
an ending section that carried me into the goal "to be
stupider".

With that I could see that "to be stupid" had to come
before the goal "to be smart" in the pattern and I
backed up and filled it in.

So the sequence was 

A. To be stupid
B. To be smart
C. To be stupider
D. To be smarter
E. To be stupidest
F. To be smartest
G. To do stupid things

etc.

I tried to jump to the end of the whole smart/stupid
dichotomy, to the end of the goal "to have the smartest
ideas" and found that I could not list the item that
carried it into the next dichotomy.  So I laid out and
scanned through the entire mess of 360 items (18 goals
times 20 items on each) and then found that the next
dichotomy was obvious.

The next one was wise/foolish, with the goal "to be
foolish" opposing the goal "to have the smartest ideas".

Once I did about a third of wise/foolish, the pattern
lost strenght and I could pretty much skip the detail
and jump to the final items of the set.

Soon I was just jumping to the final transition items
between each dichotomy and getting the next dichotomy
in the series.

The bottom of the series wraps around to the top
and the whole thing begins with the dichotomy
creative/destructive.  From there I carried it the
rest of the way around the circle back to smart/stupid.

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

The item pattern :

On the goal to be XXX, with a direct opposite of YYY

Note that the first half of the statement is what you are
"being" in the pattern and the second half is your relation 
to the opposition.


1.  Those who have the goal to be XXX
   dominate those who have the goal to be YYY

2.  Those who have the goal to be XXX
   are dominated by those who are being YYY

3.  Those who are being XXX 
   dominate those who are being YYY

4.  Those who are being XXX 
   are dominated by those who like being YYY

5.  Those who like being XXX 
   dominate those who like being YYY

6.  Those who like being XXX 
   are dominated by those who agree with being YYY

7.  Those who agree with being XXX 
   dominate those who agree with being YYY

8.  Those who agree with being XXX 
   are dominated by those who talk about being YYY

9.  Those who talk about being XXX 
   dominate those who talk about being YYY

10. Those who talk about being XXX 
   are dominated by those who try not to be YYY

11. Those who try not to be XXX 
   dominate those who try not to be YYY

12  Those who try not to be XXX 
   are dominated by those who talk about being XXX

13. Those who talk about being YYY 
   dominate those who talk about being XXX

14. Those who talk about being YYY 
   are dominated by those who agree with being XXX

15. Those who agree with being YYY
   dominate those who agree with being XXX

16. Those who agree with being YYY
   are dominated by those who like being XXX 

17. Those who like being YYY 
   dominate those who like being XXX

18. Those who like being YYY 
   are dominated by those who are being XXX

19. Those who are being YYY 
   dominate those who are being XXX

20. Those who are being YYY 
   are dominated by those who have the goal to be ZZZ

Item 20 is the transition and  contains the opposite
of the next goal.  The first item of the next goal
(NNN) would be:

1.  Those who have the goal to be NNN
   dominate those who have the goal to be ZZZ

But since we go through a progression of 18 goals
before the dichotomy changes, we can plot this
item as well.

In the following, letters indicate each goal and the numbers
represent the 20 items for a goal.  Here are the first 4
goals (letters A to D) of an 18 item set (which would be
letters A to R).


A. The goal to be XXX

A1. Those who have the goal to be XXX
   dominate those who have the goal to be YYY
.

A20. Those who are being YYY 
   are dominated by those who have the goal to be XXX


B. The goal to be YYY

B1. Those who have the goal to be YYY
   dominate those who have the goal to be XXX
.

B20. Those who are being XXX
   are dominated by those who have the goal to be MORE YYY


C. The goal to be MORE XXX

C1. Those who have the goal to be MORE XXX
   dominate those who have the goal to be MORE YYY
.

C20. Those who are being MORE YYY 
   are dominated by those who have the goal to be MORE XXX


D. The goal to be MORE YYY

D1. Those who have the goal to be MORE YYY
   dominate those who have the goal to be MORE XXX
.

D20. Those who are being MORE XXX
   are dominated by those who have the goal to be THE MOST YYY

And so on through the set of 18 goals for the dichotomy.

The very last of the 360 items, which would be item R20, would 
tie into the next dichotomy.

In the example, it would be:

R20. Those who have the MOST XXX ideas
   are dominated by those who have the goal to be (new endword)

For the first dichotomy, which is creative/destructive,
this item would be:

R20. Those who have the most destructive ideas
   are dominated by those who have the goal to be responsible

And this leads in to the second dichtomy, which is
responsible/irresponsible.  Note that responsible starts
out as an opposition and the first goal of this second
dichotomy is "To be irresponsible".

Note that each goal inverts as one proceeds through the 20
items, so that by item 20 you are being the opposite of
the goal.  And because the goals themselves are opposites,
there is a terrific almost duplication between items at
the top of one goal and the items at the bottom of the
opposite goal, which tends to make the opposing goals
pull together.

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

The dichotomies:

Each has 18 goals each of which has 20 items giving a
total of 360 items per dichotomy.

Note that there might be some skipped dichotomies.

The very first dichotomy, creative - destructive, skips goal A
(which doesn't come until the end of the entire run of dichotomies)
and begins with goal B, which is "TO BE CREATIVE".

(1)  creative - destructive

(2)  responsible - irrestponsible

(3)  good - evil

(4)  helpfull - callous

(5)  sharing - selfish

(6)  valued - worthless

(7)  upstanding - degraded

(8)  strong - weak

(9)  active - inactive

(10) powerful - unable

(11) free - enslaved

(12) aware - unconsious

(13) knowing - unknowing

(14) smart - stupid 

(15) wise - foolish

(16) Success - Failure

(17) admired - detested

(18) loved - hated

(19) praised - rediculed

(20) sensible - irrational

(21) competant - incompetant

(22) productive - wastefull

(23) enduring - transient

(24) timeless - sequenced

(25) pervasive - located

(26) flexible - fixed

This last dichotomy ends with

R20. Those who have the most fixed ideas
   are dominated by those who have the goal to be creative

That leads back into creative - destructive (the top
of the series).

Note that at this point we have goal A of the creative -
destrutive dichotomy, which is

A. To be destructive.

Only when we get down to the second goal of the dichotomy
do we duplicate the very beginning of the pattern which is:

B. To be creative.

The whole mess repeats for 12 runs, ending with to be
destructive.  Then one enters the game, beginning with
the goal to be creative, but one is doing it in opposition
to being destructive and so begins to live the pattern.

Note that being creative is a native state characteristic
and therefore is a correct indication to the person.  But
here it is in an altered form because of the opposition to
destruction, which is not present in the high scaled pure 
creation, and therefore one decays.

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

DETAILED PLATEN:  

These are the first 3 goals only, to show how this works.
You could copy the item template given earlier and do
global replaces on the XXX and YYY if you need a detailed
item platen of some particular section of the implant.

Note that there are 26 dichotomies of 18 goals and 20 items
each so that the whole mess has almost ten thousand items.

Dichotomy 1 (creative - destructive), the first goal
is goal B of the dichotomy:

1-B TO BE CREATIVE

1.  Those who have the goal to be creative
   dominate those who have the goal to be destructive

2.  Those who have the goal to be creative
   are dominated by those who are being destructive

3.  Those who are being creative 
   dominate those who are being destructive

4.  Those who are being creative 
   are dominated by those who like being destructive

5.  Those who like being creative 
   dominate those who like being destructive

6.  Those who like being creative 
   are dominated by those who agree with being destructive

7.  Those who agree with being creative 
   dominate those who agree with being destructive

8.  Those who agree with being creative 
   are dominated by those who talk about being destructive

9.  Those who talk about being creative 
   dominate those who talk about being destructive

10. Those who talk about being creative 
   are dominated by those who try not to be destructive

11. Those who try not to be creative 
   dominate those who try not to be destructive

12  Those who try not to be creative 
   are dominated by those who talk about being creative

13. Those who talk about being destructive 
   dominate those who talk about being creative

14. Those who talk about being destructive 
   are dominated by those who agree with being creative

15. Those who agree with being destructive
   dominate those who agree with being creative

16. Those who agree with being destructive
   are dominated by those who like being creative 

17. Those who like being destructive 
   dominate those who like being creative

18. Those who like being destructive 
   are dominated by those who are being creative

19. Those who are being destructive 
   dominate those who are being creative

20. Those who are being destructive 
   are dominated by those who have the goal to be more creative


1-C TO BE MORE DESTRUCTIVE

1.  Those who have the goal to be more destructive
   dominate those who have the goal to be more creative

2.  Those who have the goal to be more destructive
   are dominated by those who are being more creative

3.  Those who are being more destructive 
   dominate those who are being more creative

4.  Those who are being more destructive 
   are dominated by those who like being more creative

5.  Those who like being more destructive 
   dominate those who like being more creative

6.  Those who like being more destructive 
   are dominated by those who agree with being more creative

7.  Those who agree with being more destructive 
   dominate those who agree with being more creative

8.  Those who agree with being more destructive 
   are dominated by those who talk about being more creative

9.  Those who talk about being more destructive 
   dominate those who talk about being more creative

10. Those who talk about being more destructive 
   are dominated by those who try not to be more creative

11. Those who try not to be more destructive 
   dominate those who try not to be more creative

12  Those who try not to be more destructive 
   are dominated by those who talk about being more destructive

13. Those who talk about being more creative 
   dominate those who talk about being more destructive

14. Those who talk about being more creative 
   are dominated by those who agree with being more destructive

15. Those who agree with being more creative
   dominate those who agree with being more destructive

16. Those who agree with being more creative
   are dominated by those who like being more destructive 

17. Those who like being more creative 
   dominate those who like being more destructive

18. Those who like being more creative 
   are dominated by those who are being more destructive

19. Those who are being more creative 
   dominate those who are being more destructive

20. Those who are being more creative 
   are dominated by those who have the goal to be more destructive


1-D TO BE MORE CREATIVE

1.  Those who have the goal to be more creative
   dominate those who have the goal to be more destructive

2.  Those who have the goal to be more creative
   are dominated by those who are being more destructive

3.  Those who are being more creative 
   dominate those who are being more destructive

4.  Those who are being more creative 
   are dominated by those who like being more destructive

5.  Those who like being more creative 
   dominate those who like being more destructive

6.  Those who like being more creative 
   are dominated by those who agree with being more destructive

7.  Those who agree with being more creative 
   dominate those who agree with being more destructive

8.  Those who agree with being more creative 
   are dominated by those who talk about being more destructive

9.  Those who talk about being more creative 
   dominate those who talk about being more destructive

10. Those who talk about being more creative 
   are dominated by those who try not to be more destructive

11. Those who try not to be more creative 
   dominate those who try not to be more destructive

12  Those who try not to be more creative 
   are dominated by those who talk about being more creative

13. Those who talk about being more destructive 
   dominate those who talk about being more creative

14. Those who talk about being more destructive 
   are dominated by those who agree with being more creative

15. Those who agree with being more destructive
   dominate those who agree with being more creative

16. Those who agree with being more destructive
   are dominated by those who like being more creative 

17. Those who like being more destructive 
   dominate those who like being more creative

18. Those who like being more destructive 
   are dominated by those who are being more creative

19. Those who are being more destructive 
   dominate those who are being more creative

20. Those who are being more destructive 
   are dominated by those who have the goal to be the most creative


1-E TO BE THE MOST DESTRUCTIVE

1.  Those who have the goal to be the most destructive
   dominate those who have the goal to be the most creative

etc.

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

Best,

The Pilot


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

This set of posts was posted with the following trailer:

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

See The Self Clearing Homepage for URLs to these sites
http://fza.org/pilot/selfclr.htm or
http://www.proweb.co.uk/~tech/clear.htm

Or see The Pilots Home Page at http://fza.org/pilot/index.htm

Some translations are available, see links at fza.org

All of the current posts will be collected in Super Scio Archives
#54 and #55 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.

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



