Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 57 - EARLY JUNE 99 PILOT POSTS TO ACT
Date: 9 Jun 1999 04:00:31
From: pilot@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (The Pilot)
Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology

POST57.txt

SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 57 - EARLY JUNE 99 PILOT POSTS TO ACT

The other posts to ARS/ACT are in post56.

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

Contents:

 subj: Super Scio Tech - Answering Dave On Self Clearing Chapter 25
 subj: Super Scio Tech - To Croesus on Oversouls etc.
 subj: Super Scio - Answering Rogers on C14
 subj: Super Scio Tech - AN OT BREIFING COURSE
 subj: Super Scio Tech - Types of GPMs (Attn Rogers)
 subj: Super Scio Tech - To Ralph on Power After Clear
 subj: Super Scio Tech - To Ryan on Good Indicators
 subj: Super Scio Tech - Research Discussion on Dynamics
 subj: Super Scio Tech - THE REALITY IMPLANT
 subj: Super Scio Tech - ADVERSARY TYPE IMPLANTS

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

 subj: Super Scio Tech - Answering Dave On Self Clearing Chapter 25

ANSWERING DAVE ON SELF CLEARING CHAPTER 25

Dave posted this question on subject
"SelfClear: Self Clearing Chapter 25 question".

Since  waterlily1999@my-deja.com gave a good general answer
on 28 May, I'm going to start from that post.

> In article <199905280436.AAA05660@neelix.ici.net>,
> L&D <lisabeau@bodybuild.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm very interested in erasing my service fac. I was running
> > 25.7.5 and I am confused. Is the service computation the positive
> > thing, the negative thing or both?
> >
> > Is it:
> >
> > I'm smart?
> > They're stupid?
> > I'm smart and they're stupid?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Dave
>
> Well, Dave, it is your computation, that is, if it is your service
> fac.  :) You choose the wording.  If you have come up with those three
> choices as an answer, then you probably have a preference.  Everyone
> has his own computation.
> Don't get the idea that everyone has a smart/stupid computation.
> Computations are as different as beings. (Or was that intended only as
> an example?)
> I'm not sure that one erases a service fac, unless one is using a
> Dianetic procedure to locate and handle those engrams the person is
> using in present time to justify, explain his actions, aid his
> survival, etc. and run this chain of incidents out Dianetically.  If
> you are using Scientology you just key them out, but, of course with
> resultant understandings that give you conscious choice.

This is basically correct, the wording of the service fac would be
whatever feels correct to you.

However, in practice your actions against someone else would
generally be more charged than what you do for yourself, so
that the more likely basic would be "They're stupid", and this
is the more common final result of grade 4 style listing for
a service fac.

But note that Self Clearing chapter 25 is trying to avoid doing
a formal listed list as is used on grade 4.  The grade 4 technique
requires high skill level.

Instead the approach is to get charge off of the area first
without trying to get a perfect and absolute statement of the
item.

For that, it is better to begin by running a positive statement
such as "I'm smart" in process 25.7.2.  This would have more
wins and less overts on it than "They're stupid" and allow an
easier gradient into this area.

So the idea was to take some charge off of "I'm smart" first
and then go deeper into "They're stupid" which would have the
heavier overts etc.

When enough charge is off, the correct statement of the service
fac becomes obvious.  At that point it may seem like a sort of
absolute.  You run 25.7.5 to 25.7.7 on that until that falls
apart.

I probably erred in assuming that 25.7.2 to 25.7.4 would take
off enough charge to to bring it clearly into view.  Instead
it seems to have gotten you close.

The 25.7.5 to .7 process set will run on an approximation or
"lock" on the service fac and get more charge off of the area.

Therefore the revised version would be:

Take your best statement of the service fac and run it once
through 25.7.5 to 25.7.7.  Do not fool around with trying to
get a better statement of it while running those processes,
just run them and take charge off.  After finishing a pass
through this set, check over the service fac and see if you
now have a better statement of it and if so, change to that
statement and use that in 25.7.5 to .7.  Repeat as needed.

Note that doing it this way, it might have lost some of its
absoluteness and be partially dissolved by the time it comes
clearly into view.

Don't worry about the business of keyout vs errasure.
There has been a lot of sales hype on these things.  The
1969 time period where this idea comes from ran Scientology
processes as quickies (a few minutes, very shallow) and
ground on for hundreds of hours with Dianetics.

In practice if you get a lot of charge off you will see it
as it is and get errasure no matter what technique you are
using and if the run is shallow you will get a keyout and
you should be happy with that as a nice stepping stone.
Simply allow for the fact that it might show up again and
need to be run more deeply later.  It will not be in your
way while it is keyed out.

Hope this helps,

The Pilot

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

 subj: Super Scio Tech - To Croesus on Oversouls etc.

TO CROESUS ON OVERSOULS ETC.

Note that my responses contain things that I consider highly
speculative.

On 21 May 99, croesus123@aol.com (Croesus123) posted on
topic "The Pilot and the Big entity attack" in response to
an earlier post of mine.

> Your piece about the big entity attack struck a cord. The
> question for me has always been, "Is this an inert planet with
> humans simply dramatizing aberrations laid in eons ago or have
> these aberrations simply make it easy for others to manipulate
> and control our actions and dramatizations telepathically.

Maybe a bit of both.

> You sensed a being influencing you and giving you thoughts that
> didn't go away upon inspection. He was not a decayed being like
> NOTS but a high powered one who apparently had devised a method
> to mirror your thought wavelengths so as to try to fool you as to
> what were your thoughts and what were his. I myself had wondered
> if this was possible then you came along and said that you had
> experienced it. This interests me. But the general populace doesn't
> know any of this; they don't have a clue as to why they often feel
> compelled to do some strange things. They think its their thoughts.
> How about the craziness going on in the minds of these children
> shooting up the high school right now - their thoughts or
> induced thoughts?

It has more the flavor of induced ones.  But that could also be
a physical agency, drug them up and PDH them for some covert
agenda.

I do think that most people are fairly resistant to direct mind
control.

I also think that these kind of techniques (mirroring thoughts
etc.) are also used at more humanoid levels like the telepathic
wars that one finds in sci fi occasionally.

> Which brings me to the OT VIII bulletin which you never thought was
> right. I always thought it made sense and would have you rethink some
> of that information. It is the only technical bulletin about implants
> that directly addresses the religious dramatizations that we see going
> on on this planet right this instance. Which brings us back to the
> question: dramatization of old inert implants or active involvement
> by external beings using telepathy to control things and cause effects.

I still don't think that it is by Ron.  But it is probably somebody's
honest attempt to go a step further, so we can certainly discuss the
data as data and not worry about the author.

In answer to your question, again I would say both.

> In that bulletin LRH alluded to very similar ideas that you encountered
> with that being. I am including two sections from that bulletin just
> to refresh your memory.
>
> Quotes from OT VIII bulletin
>
> Quote 1 -"It causes progressive genetic "evolution" that gives the
> subject population greater and greater susceptibility to the telepathic
> impingement and direction of the controllers. In its final stage the
> progression becomes almost geometric, and it is this final stage that
> we are rapidly approaching.

Here I disagree.  The thetan is not his genes.  He is susceptible
because he has overts of controlling others this way and wants
people to be controlled for various reasons.  This I would say
is the historical heritage.  A few thousand years on Earth would
hardly make any difference in that.

But if this is a prison planet or otherwise interfered with
(and I consider that highly likely), then whomever is doing it
would want to manipulate and increase control, and for that
they would work to key in what was already there, introducing
symbols that were common on the track, starting "games" that
got the person to dramatize more than usual, etc.

And so you might well have intentional key in and restimulation
which would progressively increase susceptibility.  But it
would have nothing whatsoever to do with the body or the GE,
it would be a theta matter, and it would be cumulative over
many lifetimes, but on the theta line, not the body.

Is one more or less susceptible to telepathic control because
of the body they picked up?  I don't think that that is likely
and it is certainly contrary to LRH's view of things.


> Another aspect of this GE-line implant is that the body becomes in effect
> a sort of theta trap that kicks in heavily on the being should he attempt
> to expand his horizons beyond that of pure physical universe reality."

Probably true, but this would be applicable to anyone using
bodies in this universe including any space aliens hanging
around and it would have nothing to do with being on Earth
in particular.  Personally, I think that the body as a theta
trap goes back about three universes.

Ron also talked of this kind of thing, but again considered it
as going way back on the track.

Talking of it as being something only recently introduced here on
Earth implies that the author has very little recall or reality
on whole track.  My argument here is not that my recall or Ron's
is correct (perhaps there is terrible dub-in and misconceptions)
but simply that if you think in terms of millions of years
(nothing to say of trillions or quadrillions), you don't have
silly ideas about somebody recently coming up with the idea
of bodies as theta traps.  That would be a long standing method
of control.


> Quote 2 - "Without the biogenetic meddling of those who stand outside
> time (who cannot yet directly influence our world and must work through
> others) the dwindling spiral is not nearly as automatic and self-
> perpetuating as it appears."

Aside from the above problems, this also has the outpoint of
mixing apples and oranges.  Although not inconcievable, I would
not expect the same crowd to work a telepathic approach and a
genetic approach.  Of course there could be different crowds
with different techniques.

At a guess, I would say that anyone working biogenetic meddling
is going to be at a high tech but humanoid level, themselves
trapped in bodies and thinking in those terms.

> end quotes
>
> I hope you see the similarities that I see. It could be that LRH,
> researching through NOTS finally ran into what you just ran into. He
> says he ran it but just had an inkling of its nature back in 1945
> (when he was with Parsons doing research on magic). Maybe all this
> NOTS stuff is the building down of theta or putting decayed thetans
> between them and us so that beings at a higher wavelength can
> telepathically influence mest beings at a lower energy. You may
> have cleared out enough stuff and research far enough to be right
> at the point of discovering something about this area.

Quite possible, but that would not be specific to Earth or any
local aliens.  This Nots style infestation goes back prior to
this universe even according to Hubbard (HCL lectures), and I
see it as common in the Magic universe which I believe to be
prior to this one.

Yes there may be beings at higher levels working something like
this, but that would be in relationship to this entire universe
as a prison relative to higher levels.


> I would like you to clarify something for me. Could you be very
> explicit and explain exactly what you meant by an oversoul? Is it a
> thetan that resides in a higher universe who never came down to our
> level?

Almost.

I think that we are bigger than we seem to be and that much of
ourselves is not fully conscious.

One's "oversoul" would not be somebody else, but would be you
on a higher level.  Just as you are not your body, you are not
your current identity either, that is just something you put
on.

But just as humans tend to identify themselves with their
bodies, we tend to identify ourselves with our current identities
instead of our more basic components.

I think that one does not decend completely, just as one
does not reside completely in a body even when all of one's
conscious components are located there.

My own view is that we who are down here are asleep at that
higher level, but not totally gone from it.  There might be
others there, however, who are awake or partially awake.
Some might be trying to wake us.  Others might want us to
sleep more deeply.  Perhaps we take turns awake and asleep.

Other posibilities exist.  Instead of sleep it might be an
intentional partitioning or some other mechanism.

But whatever is going on at that level would certainly not
care about anything in human terms or be interested in the
genetic line of a Mest planet.  There  might be some effects
that come through, but the rhyme and reason would be in a
non-Earth context.

> I am trying to get a better handle on the exact nature of the being
> you were involved with. I believe you said that he was somewhat
> unconscious but are there higher being at that level who are not
> unconscious. Maybe what upset him (them)  was the idea that the
> flow should only go one way - from them to us. You may have scared
> them by reaching back and influencing them.

This is possible.

Or maybe I was simply mumbling in my sleep and it irritated
somebody.

I do think that we tend to dramatize and repeat things and
fractile and recursive patterns seem common.  Hence the same
thing happens at higher and lower levels, as above so below.
And I think that there are a lot of layers.  Dreams within
dreams within dreams.  Prisons within prisions within prisions.

But each layer would have the rules and concerns that apply
at that layer.  A higher level could affect a lower one (shake
somebody's shoulder while they are asleep), but the reasoning
would be relative to the higher level, and sometimes a lower
level might even affect a higher one (somebody talking in
their sleep or even sleepwalking).

I have no real certainty on these things.  This is my best
guess at the moment.

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

Also, on 22 May, squirrel@mega.com (MegaSquirrel) posted a
follow up to Croesus's message:

# I've been wondering if that OT8 bulletin was real myself.  The writing
# style seemed consistent with LRH and I thought it might be genuine,
# but Pilot thought it was probably Capt Bill's.  But then, I've always
# been the gullible type.  :-)

My technical objections are as given above.  I did speculate that
it might have been by CBR.  Since he was into ufo stuff, he is
a bit more likely than LRH as the author.  But his followers
stated that it was not his.  I don't know his writings well
enough, so I'm taking their word for it.  I don't know if my
arguments above also rule out CBR, we may know for sure one
way or the other if and when his works hit the net.


# Pilot, you're a solo NOTs comp, maybe you can go do OT8 and put the
# matter to rest.  Maybe do a little write-up on it for us.  That would
# be cool :-)
#
# No wait (duh), my brain just kicked in. They'll probably make you go
# back and do Golden Age NOTs before doing OT8...

Exactly.  Years of overrun and firefights with the C/S, all at
high prices and no valuable final product at the end of it.

# also if do OT8 and
# then write about it on ACT, OSA will be able to figure out who you are
# pretty easily.

Maybe if I got back from the ship and immediately posted it.
Not, however, if the trail was obscured by waiting a little
while and also by saying that somebody else I trusted did the
level & passed on the materials.  Then they only know that one
of the OT 8s leaked it.

# Maybe you should do it right before you "come out".

Frankly, I don't think I'm up to tolerating a ton of "handling"
on lines anymore.  I'd end up sneaking in a bull horn and
start ranting from the Ft. Harrison Mezannine until some
heavyweights jumped me and dragged me off to the basement
for the Introspection rundown.

Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj: Super Scio - Answering Rogers on C14

ANSWERING ROGERS ON C14

On 10 May, "Rogers" <here-i-yam@erols.com> responded to my earlier
post on "Super Scio - Carbon-14"

> The Pilot wrote in message ...
> >Now C-14 is simply an isotope of carbon produced by radioactive
> >bombardment of ordinary carbon, and it decays back into ordinary
> >carbon.  It is not itself directly involved in any atomic reactions,
> >instead it is picking up stray neutrons from the existing radiation
> >that is in the air.  I am oversimplifying here slightly, read a
> >physics textbook if you want more data.
>
> Hi Anjin-san,
>
> Despite this well-written and informative treatise, I still have some real
> confusions.  Doesn't Carbon-14 decompose into Nitrogen-14?  If not, what is
> the connection?  If so, isn't this resulting product (Nitrogen-14) a gas
> with the potentiality of diffusing off into the atmosphere?

Oopse, yes it goes to Nitrogen-14.  But you're not measuring what
is produced, instead you're measuring what percentage of the Carbon
is Carbon-14 instead of ordinary Carbon, it is only a tiny percentage
anyway, but it becomes less after the lifeform is dead and burried
and the C-14 decays.


> Next, I sort of wish you had provided a similar insight into Potassium
> dating (or whatever else the geologists actually use).  No-one took me up on
> my arithmetic (which DID worry me) in my treatise, but, assuming it is
> correct, I still find it highly unlikely that there is any device on the
> face of this earth that can detect an element in a "one part to a
> quadrillion-quadrillion" dilution.  Even a radioactive element.  And that
> one part to a quadrillion-quadrillion only represents 573,000 years or 100
> half-lives (of Carbon-14).  Bottom line (my prejudiced viewpoint), there is
> no way scientists could REALLY be using carbon dating in connection with a
> period millions of years ago.  NO WAY!   (There!  Put myself out on a limb!
> ha ha).
>
> So, what do these scientists "really" depend on?  Potassium-dating?  Now,
> Potassium dating, despite the minimal quantities of decomposition, I COULD
> see as being measurable, EXCEPT for the fact (I think) that it decomposes
> into another damn gas (Argon-40).  That's gotta be hard to quantify.

Same story as above, you measure the remaining amount of radioactive
Potassium as compared to ordinary potassium, you don't need to find
the Argon.

> >Therefore if the planetary background
> >radiation level was artificially raised by the extensive
> >use of nuclear weapons, archeologists would subsequently
> >be fooled by a dating anomaly, because there would be too
> >much carbon-14 proportionately, giving the impression that
> >the material was burried a bit more recently than it actually
> >was.
>
> Anybody got better math skills or a bigger computer than me?  Based on the
> doubling phenomenon associated with the half-life of 5730 years, just WHAT
> DILUTION are we talking with a period, say, sixty million years ago?
>
> Best,  Les.

Its fantastically diluted of course.  Ralph already posted some
better numbers on this.  And of course there are millions of years
of slop even with the potassium dating.

From Ralph's post of 10 May [ralph@hilton.org (Ralph Hilton)]

# >Anybody got better math skills or a bigger computer than me?  Based on the
# >doubling phenomenon associated with the half-life of 5730 years, just WHAT
# >DILUTION are we talking with a period, say, sixty million years ago?
#
# divide 60 million by 5730 - approx 10,000 - this is the number of halvings.
# divide this by log10 (about 3.3) gives the number of reductions by a factor
# of 10.
#
# Thus the dilution is by a factor of about 10e3300 (10 followed by 3300
# zeros).
#
# This would seem rather hard to measure accurately.
#
# One site giving more data is:
#
# http://c14.sci.waikato.ac.nz/webinfo/agecalc.html
#
# They suggest that c-14 dating isn't dependable for dates greater than 60,000
# years.


I'm not a nuclear physicist (although at least I got As in physics
and have poked my nose into a nuclear plant, unlike another
self proclaimed nuclear physicist that we know about).  For
correct numbers, reactions, and estimates of slop in the calculations
you really should consult some textbooks or do a web search for
reliable data.

My real point was that the radioactive dating techniques are
based on background raditation, and that of course would be
thrown off by an abnormally high post-armageddon level of radiation.
I was really responding to some silly posts about whether or
not an A bomb or H bomb would form C-14, and that is totally
beside the point.

And note that this doesn't prove the Xemu business.

Even direct proof of a nuclear blast at that time would not
prove anything either way, a dinosaur killer type impact
might do that too and could well screw up the background
radiation levels.

Also, I find lots of copies of Earth on the track.  It is a
popular mockup.  And although I don't think mass implants are
very common, the track is long and the galaxy is large.  I
think that most people will find a few of these with variations
in detail.  So don't assume anything, just let the pc run
whatever is there to run.

Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj: Super Scio Tech - AN OT BREIFING COURSE

AN OT BREIFING COURSE

Now that the 1950s tapes are starting to hit the net in
quantity, it seems worthwhile to discuss how one might
approach the 1950s material in a sequence that would promote
understanding and application.

This was never really possible at the orgs, at least for
most people, because the material was too scarce or expensive.

Of course a lot of these materials haven't hit the net yet,
but I expect that we will be seeing them this year.

This "OTBC" is not a replacement for the SHSBC, they are
two different animals, each quite important, one being the
1950s tech and the other being the 1960s tech.

Of course one can just study whatever comes ones way.  In
fact I encourage it.  But as more material reaches the net,
it is going to get harder to decide what to study first,
and intensive study for application is a different action
from just casually reading things.

One of the amazing things is that people do that OT Doctorate
Course at the orgs and with a few exceptions don't come out of
it applying the processes or really using the tech.  Of course
the org's fear of squirreling and discouragement of application
have some part in this.  But another aspect is that the PDC
gradient is extremely high.

Another approach is simply to start at the beginning and go
through all 3000 tapes (if they were available).  That is
something that a real researcher or tech finder should do
eventually.  But it is an awfully long road.  It is best done
after getting a good grounding in both 60s and 50s tech for
application.

And the actual gradient of material in terms of difficulty and
"OTness" is not chronological.  The most advanced materials
are those of 1952 to 1954.

The easiest gradient for real application is to begin with
modern academy levels.  That is a small amount of tapes and
bulletins and a chance to get one's feet wet with processes
that do not require a lot of judgement.

Starting from there, how would one approach the huge mass
of 1950s data?

In studying for use, one should go through an entire ACC
as a course in sequence and use the techniques of that time
period rather than simply studying a random collection
of tapes pulled from various courses.

That doesn't mean that you mustn't look at tapes at random
or study other stuff, what it means is that when you really
buckel down to learn something, you take a set of materials
and go through it A to Z in sequence, reviewing whatever of
it you might have studied before and putting it all together.

In putting this together, my though was to come up with
a set of materials about equal in size to the the modern SHSBC.
That means cutting the approximately 2300 tapes prior to
the BC down to about 500 (approximately the number of BC tapes).
As a result, there are a lot of omitted materials and many
alternate choices given.  The idea is not to cover everything
but to cover enough at each level of difficulty so as to
bring one up to maximum ability in studying the 1st, 2nd,
and 3rd ACCs which are the top of the bridge.

1. The Clearing Congress or the LCC.

As a start, it would seem best to begin with some orientation
to the late 1950s philosophy of what is clear etc.  There are
two short congresses, the CC and the LCC, either of which would
be ideal for this.

The Clearing Congress was transcribed and posted by FZBA as
one of their first postings.  It is or was available on video
cassette from the CofS.  They used to show these films continually
in the lounge at Flag.

The LCC is the London Clearing Congress which the org has
out as the "Origin of Abberation" cassettes.  Perhaps Fzba will
get this one on the net soon (hint).

There is a lot of other good warm up material for the late
50s such as the Conquest of Chaos cassetes or the Skills of
a Theta Being cassettes.  But we are aiming at a fast runway
here and the minimum would be one of the two above since they
have material on the state of clear, etc. which is important
to a good understanding of the 1950s approach.

2. An "easy" ACC

The 15th to 18th ACCs of 1956-7 are the lowest gradient ones.
They make an excellent bridge in understanding between modern
BC materials and 50s style data.  Furthermore, the 16th to the
18th, which are known as the "CCH" ACCs attempted to do the entire
bridge with "CCHs" and therefore have many applications in modern
as well as 50s style processing.

But don't make the mistake of thinking that these just contain
low level objective processing.  They attempted to carry the CCH
theory into upper level processing as well and so you will find
facinating advanced processes such as "then and now solids".

And although these are "easy" in a 1950s frame of reference,
they are advanced and hard hitting in comparison with academy
level material.  Remember that a graduate of any ACC was
considered the equivallent of a Class VIII in those days.

The 15th (Power of Simplicity), 16th (Anatomy of Cause) and
18th (Illusion or Truth) are all available on cassette.
Again, I would hope that Fzba can get one of these onto the
net.

Here I'm suggesting that you just do one of these in a thorough
manner aimed at application.

3. One of the late ACCs

After the CCH ACCs above are the more difficult ACCs of the late
1950s.  These are the 19th to 21st (American) ACCs and the
5th & 6th London ACCs (LACC) and the 3rd South African (3SACC)
and the 1st St Hill ACC (SHACC).

Again, these form a bridge between 50s material and the later 60s
approach.

The 20th ACC is available on cassette from the org.  Hopefully
we will see it on the net eventually.

The best of these late ACCs is the 1st Melborne, but that has
a special relationship to the PDC and should be done after it.

For a fast gradient, one could get away with skipping this
step and diving right into the early 50s material.

4. The Tech 80 (Route to Infinity) lectures

These are perhaps the best introduction to the high powered
early 50s material.  They have been available on the net
for quite some time now.

The set is fairly short and is primarily oriented towards
understanding rather than technique.

5. One of the 1954 ACCs

After attempting the top of the bridge on the 3rd ACC, Ron
decided to cut back the gradient and so the later ACCs of 1954
(the 4th to the 9th ACCs) are, you might say, the low gradient
OT ACCs.

Here I would recommend either the 5th ACC (Universes cassettes)
or the 9th (Solution to entrappment cassettes).  The 9th has
been available on the net for some time now and the 5th was just
posted by Fzba.  These are a bit preferable to the 7th & 8th ACCs
only because the student is expected to already have studied Phoenix
lectures (7th ACC) &  CofHA (8th ACC). The books don't have enough
to subsitute for doing one of these ACCs, but the books do have
enough to give you the key materials of the 7th & 8th in addition
to whichever ACC you really do study from this time period.  And
so you would have a broader base by adding in the 5th or 9th ACC
here.

6. The HCL lectures

This is the beginning of the OT research line of 1952.
These are extremely advanced but also include a great deal
of basics that are not repeated in the later lectures of
1952 such as the PDC.

This series is crucial to understanding how the research
was done and it lays the foundations for the most advanced
materials in the subject.  This is the original research
into entities (NOTS), implants (OT 2), and the whole track.

These have been appearing on the net piece by piece.

7. The Tech 88 Lectures

This is the fastest lecture series ever given in terms of
the amount of different data covered per unit of time.

The research sequence was HCL, then Tech 80, and then
Tech 88, and at this point Ron is just pouring stuff out
non-stop with hardly a breath between each new idea.

There is almost as much material in these lectures as
on the entire doctorate course even though this series
is less than a third of the size of the PDC.

These are in R&D volumes 10 (2nd half) to 11 (1st half).
Hopefully they will hit the net eventually too.

The remainder of R&D 11 & 12 are also nice because that
gives you the complete set up to the PDC, but you could
just jump from here right to the PDC.

These lectures cover part of the materials in the Scientology
8-80 book, the remainder are covered on the tech 88 suppliment
lectures in the latter half of R&D 11.

8. The Philadelphia Doctorate Course (PDC)

Here is the research line that leads up to SOP-8 (actually
the PDC evolves through about SOP-4 to SOP-6 and the final
SOP-8 version doesn't really get codified until a little
bit later - see the 1st ACC below).

This is the first of the huge lecture sets (over 60 tapes)
and it has been on the net for quite some time.

It is very advance, far above the old or the new OT levels.

9. The 1st Melborne ACC

This is a late ACC, but unlike the other late 50s material,
it attempted to reintroduce creative processing and is, on
that basis, a bit of a sequal to the PDC.

These are available on cassette as "Responsibility and the
State of OT".

10. The 1st ACC

Here we have the beginning research beyond the PDC as
well as the final formalization of the SOP-8 PDC technique.

This is another huge set, even larger than the PDC.

It is currently available from the org as the "Exteriorization
and the Phenomena of Space" cassettes.  Hopefully it will
show up on the net.

11. The 2nd ACC

This covers SOP-8C.  And please realize that that is NOT
the objective process which is later referred to as 8-C,
that was just a setup action before doing the 8-C OT drills.

SOP-8C did not substitute for SOP-8, it was what you did
after completing SOP-8.

The later 1954 attempt to undercut the gradient used
Route 1/2 to bypass SOP-8 to make a theta clear.  Above
that comes SOP-8C in its full version (a few of the techniques
are also used in route 1/2).

Since Route 1 has some correspondence to old OT 5 - 7, and
since those will probably be new OT 9 to 11 or 12, and since
much other lower gradient OT material has shown up in modern
times, I would guess that SOP-8C is in the band of OT 20
or so on a modern bridge.

This is another huge PDC sized set of lectures recently released
on cassette by CofS.  Hopefully they will hit the net soon.

12. The 3rd ACC

The ultimate OT course, a roll your own bridge technique that
"cannot be written down" because it is based on understanding
and figuring out processes as you go along rather than being
a rote set of procdures.  A sort of super squirrel course that
creates tech finders.

It also includes all sorts of other neat stuff.  Here is the
real handling of mental machinery including machines that one
uses to mockup and unmock things.  Here are some of the highest
gradient hair raising group processing sessions you've ever seen.

The technique is SOP 8-O, also known as SOP 8-OT.  It is
sometimes mentioned in the 1954 ACCs as what to do after you
complete the current bridge (SOP 8-C or SOP 8-D or Route 1/2
or whatever).  Students unfamiliar with the 3rd ACC lectures
sometimes confuse these later references to 8-O with Tech 80
of 1952.  This is compounded by the fact that the tech 80
lectures do lay the beginning of the theoretical groundwork
upon which SOP 8-O is based.

This could be thought of as being up in the range of OT 30 or
so.  And note that self analysis (ha!) is still a key
technique here.

This set of 78 lectures has never been available from the
CofS in modern times.  The org has never published transcripts.
A handful of the tapes were available on reels in the 1970s.
Many more are floating around in the freezone from older tape
collections.  Fzba has been dutifully transcribing these
from audio and posting them bit by bit.  I don't know if a
complete set exists in the field.  I know for sure that Gold
has a complete set of masters for these and we can hope that
they will come out on clearsound soon (the fact that they
did do the 2nd ACC recently tells me that they are willing
to release this stuff - they are just slow).

I haven't even heard the complete set.  There are extensive
notes on all the tapes (most notably Alphia Hart's taken when
the lectures were given) floating around in the field that
one can use to fill in the cracks.  I'm hoping that Gold
gets busy.

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

So there you have it, a suggested OTBC to bring somebody up
to maximum ability on these 50s materials.

And don't let me discourage you from studying anything you
can get your hands on or from beginning at R&D 1 and reading
everything.  Those are valuable actions too.  The above is
simply meant to maximize skill in application and provide
a shorter route to broad undertanding of the subject.

Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj: Super Scio Tech - Types of GPMs (Attn Rogers)

TYPES OF GPMS (Attn Rogers)

On 4 Jun 99, "Rogers" <here-i-yam@erols.com> asked on
topic "Pilot - Questions, questions, questions."

> (I figure the following questions are probably going to be reserved for
> anyone who has a decent grasp of both the Pilot's works and LRH's.  This may
> not necessarily limit response to only the Pilot himself, but I am going to
> address my questions to him specifically.  But anyone with answers is of
> course welcome to respond.)
>
> Anjin-san,
>
> Sooner or later I am going to have to access a lot of LRH's tapes on GPMs
> and the Patterns and Anatomy of the Bank, etc., AND go through your Super
> Scio again.  In the absence of this, my vagueness may be understandable, but
> if you will indulge me, I would like to interrogate you in terms of the
> differences and similarities between your revelations about GPMs and LRH's.

There is more than one kind of thing lumped together under the
heading "GPM"s.

Before getting to the 1963 GPMs (which is the category covered by
Super Scio chapter 3), I'd like to discuss the 1962 ones a bit to
illistrate what I mean.

The GPMs of 1962 are a different thing than the GPMs of 1963.

Of course Ron and everybody else thought that he was simply correcting
what was wrong with the 1962 tech when he came out with R3M in 1963.

But I tried the various 1962 commands and listing questions and
squirreled around with that stuff for awhile and I found that it
will run successfully.  It leads into a completely different kind
of GPM than the 1963 tech.

The keynote of 1962 is that the GPM Items package up 4 ways instead of
2 ways.  They were listing for "not want" and "not oppose" as
well as for terminals and oppterms.  The "not oppose" turns out
to be a classic third party who encourages your overts and the
"not want" turns out to be a terminal to whom you have to justify
your overts.

But they didn't have good consistant results running this originally,
although there must have been enough gain to keep them pushing at
this area.  It was a research effort with a lot of fumbling around.

And of course they were often pulling things in sideways from
the direct terminal - oppterm GPMs of 1963 and from implants
and from R6 patterns of whatever sort.

And they had not yet learned to list and null properly nor had
they learned to fly the ruds.  In fact even bypassed charge is
not even understood until 1963.  Those are all later discoveries.

And they had not thought up my trick (obvious from later tech)
of using some light processes to cool down an area before listing.

And there must have been a feeling that there was a missing
item type because in the end the 4 item lists were expanded
into a huge array of listing lines.

I went into this with the hindsight of modern tech and found
that the 4 way listing lines do work but there is bypassed
charge.  And following that up, I found that there was simply
a 5th missing item type.

This gives a nice easy to work pattern of 5 lines which runs
well.

And it leads into a completely different type of GPM than
anything found in the later days.

I wrote that up as the 5 way oppose GPMs in chapter 9 of Super
Scio.  Running it produces a particular fantastic gain which
is that it runs out hitting the wrong target, because that
missing fifth line was "the victim who suffers".  That is somebody
you hit by mistake while you are trying to fight the oppterm.

I mention this to make the point that there was something
important there which was its own kind of thing that bore
no relationship whatsoever to the the GPMs of 1963.

And so they were aiming at something in 1962 and instead of
getting it, they jumped the rails and slid into the GPMs
of 1963 which is a different target and a different kind of
animal.

Note that Filbert also hit something on 5 way GPMs.  He did
not get the same thing that I came up with, but the stuff he
had is in that 1962 category, and I think that some of the
other freezone GPM techs might aim in this direction too.
Attemps to follow up on things that have 4 way packages like
some of the R2-12 tech etc. tend to lead in this direction.

My point is that using the 1962 definitions and styles of
listing questions leads into a different area of the reactive
mind than the later GPM tech, and this 1962 stuff is valid
but different than later GPM theories.

I think that there is a similar research slipup at the end
of the R3M GPM research line.  Failing to successfully handle
those, they slide over into the R6 sytle GPMs of 1964.

It is not that one is right and the other is wrong.  It is
that these are different breeds of cat.  You can get different
gains from running each group.

I think that there are at least 3 disrelated classes of actual
GPMs.

a) The 1962 style (which I believe lead to 5 way patterns
if you get them right)

b) The R3M GPMs, which are the true actuals as defined in
most references to actual GPMs.

c) The R6 GPMs, where the target seems to be some kind of
a postulated pattern, which is a sort of actual GPM.

All of these also have implant varieties, and there are
many other classes of implants as well.

Super Scio chapter 3 is a follow up on the R3M research line.
It meets the definitions for the actual GPMs as they were viewed
at that time.

Jack Horner's work is a followup on the R6 type of GPM.
It is a different kind of thing.

I would like to hear LRH's staff clearing tapes and get a
better understanding of the 1964 research.

For this discussion, lets set aside the 1964 GPMs.  They are
whatever they are and they are something else than the R3M
GPMs.

The R3M research slid over into implants (Hellatrobus, Bear
Goals etc.) and then got back to actuals, and then slid over
into R6 style GPMs.

The R6 style GPMs eventually slid over into implants too (the
final R6 platens are simply a recent mass implant as explained
on OT 3) and never got back on track either.


> As far as I can determine, both you and LRH are in agreement that the
> basic pattern of Actual GPMs is similar from one person to the next.
> How did the structure he proposed differ from the 36 Goal pattern
> you suggested?  If different, what is the explanation?  (I don't
> think LRH could be confused by an Implant GPM.)

Ron's patterned structures are R6, they are not R3M.

My 36 goal pattern does violate R3M theory.  All I can say is that
I was not looking for it and was surprised to find it.  Furthermore,
the RIs are not in the pattern, they are unique and postulated by
the individual, which is in accordance with R3M actual GPM theory.
It is only the goals that were suggested on entry to this universe.

I suspect that LRH was also sensing that there was some kind of
an imposed pattern underlying these R3M style GPMs.

But when he went looking for that, he looked for an item pattern
and these things do not have an item pattern, and therefore he
slid over into GPMs that do have an item pattern which are the
R6 GPMs.  Then he goofed that up by trying to shortcut by listing
only for end words and slid over into R6 related implants (the
OT 2 stuff etc.).


> I gather his perspective of the structure of the bank was in terms of
> alternating constructive versus disasterous Goals.  This essentially led to
> the concept that each of us were alternating between "good" and "evil" over
> the course of lifetimes, with a postulate that at any one point in time, 50
> percent of the population would have the urge toward a constructive goal and
> the other 50 percent toward a disasterous goal.

A quick survey of the population at large should show that most
people are not running on evil goals.

I suspect that only implants have these good/evil alternations.

> It seems to me, your perspective was that, since none of the 36 goals were
> "bad" in themselves, the only "evil" lay in the context of the latter
> "deteriorating" period of any Goal, amounting to only a fraction of the
> total duration of a GPM, perhaps two and one-half percent.

That is not only true for the R3M style actuals of super scio
chapter 3, it is also true for the 1962 style GPMs in the 5 way
oppose in SS chapter 9.  In other words, that class of actuals
also follows the rule that the goal itself is not an evil purpose.

I suspect that if we ever get the R6 style GPMs right, we will find
that the actuals of that class are also sort of positive rather than
good/evil alternations.


> Finally, I think you suggested the CC as possibly representing an Implant
> GPM.  Do you STILL think so?

Uncertain.  There is the idea of postulated patterns which are
willfully entered.

According to the CC materials, there is protest and a mouth somatic
on CC, and that implies that it is an implant.

But this is yet another breed of cat from the 1964 R6 stuff, and
if it is an implant, it implies that there is an actual of this
class that we have yet to find.


> It seems to me, rightly or wrongly, LRH thought he had GPMs, Actual
> GPMs for sure, cracked.

He would say that kind of thing all the time.

But I think that you are thinking of his excitement at the R3M
breakthrough.  That is a big one, and it is almost right and it
comes close to solving the 3M style actual GPMs.

Super Scio chapter 3 is really just some simple refinements and
hindsight plus having the big advantage of running it after
flattening CC, OT 2, etc. which knocked all sorts of other stuff
out of the way.

I don't think they ever got anywhere near properly running a 3M
style GPM because of listing in the presence of heavy charge, not
flying the rudiments, and having all sorts of implants and other
kinds of GPMs kicking around at the same time.

But basically he was right, he did solve the 3M actuals, but
the solution was not one which could be applied at that time
for practical reasons.

I believe that the 3M actuals are the GPMs of this universe.
That makes them the most pertinent ones in our everyday life
and it is the area in which we are currently decaying.

When I followed up on the 1962 GPMs, they turned out to
be the goals of what I call the conflicts universe, two
universes back (above the magic universe).  The trouble is
that we are still living those GPMs too, concurrently with
the 3M pattern.

Running the 1962 GPMs does not undercut the 3M GPMs, but it
removes a certain aspect of stimulous response from everyday
life.

If I remember right, Ron said the CC is 3 universes back.

As I said, I'm not sure if there is a more powerful actual
of the CC category, but it is certain that running CC does
not undercut either the 3M or the 1962 GPMs.

I think that the 1964 R6 category of GPMs is a different
class from CC.  I do not know enough about it yet.  But
I would suspect that it is the goals series of yet another
universe.

I'm sure that there is some kind of actual GPM which we are
still living from the magic universe.  That's where all the
hedonistic stuff comes from like wanting to get laid.  But
I don't have a clue on these yet except the certainty that
they don't fit into any of the above categories.

We continue to live each of the early types of GPMs as well
as beginning a new kind with each universe.

The biggest mistake is to think that there is one thing
which is a GPM.

> Can't find the damn quote I wanted, but it was something to
> the effect that he had it "wrapped up like a Christmas present."  So, it
> wasn't the "research" that was abandoned, apparently, merely the
> application?  (Except for "maybe" the CC?)
>
> Appreciate any light that could be shed on these questions.
>
> Best,  Les.

I think he did make a bad mistake in assuming that the CC
was it and dropping all the GPM research lines.  Perhaps he
just couldn't bare to open up that can of worms again once
he had something which would FN fairly easily.  Remember
that at that time they thought that FN meant keyed out
clear and that there were only a few FNs available on a
case (any FN on a grade was total EP for that grade).

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

I think that this is why goals lists were so impossibly hard
to do.  They violate the laws of L&N because they don't
really go to one item.  If we are living through 5 or 10
different goals patterns simultaneously, then there are that
many items available.

And yet each would be a very hot and precise item, with
enough charge on it to be a major revelation if it was
indicated as THE item.

So you list hundreds and hundreds of items (the old stable
datum was that no goals list was complete if it had less
than 850 items), and maybe he gets one in restim enough and
the others destimulated enough to get it as the item.

Now if I consider listing, "what is my goal", I could imagine
shifting back and forth between endless things and I could
imagine listing for thousands of items and who knows what
I'd get.

But if I think of listing "what goal am I persuing to
ensure my survival" or "succeed in life" or "be superior"
or something like that, there is exactly one answer and
it is obvious and it is "to be intelligent", which is
the 3M goal that I'm currently using to survive and succeed
in this universe.

However, if I change the question to "what goal am I persuing
to gain admiration from others", I instantly get "to play
the piano" which I think is either a goal or aa lock on a basic
goal in the 5 way oppose series.  (That series has lots of artistic
goals in it, whereas the 3M series does not).

And if I make the question, "what goal am I persuing to
gain enjoyment", I get sexually related answers that are
clustering around something in the magic universe goals
series (but I haven't quite pinned it down yet).

I can think of a load of questions like this, and it
feels like each would go in one precise direction towards
a goal that is currently operative in my existance.
For example, I have this strong thing about setting people
free, and yet it is not in any of the above patterns.

But if I were to run "what is my goal", stuff from all of
these would start turning up and getting in each others
way.

I think that once we see the whole thing clearly, we will
find easy ways of keying it all out.  Meanwhile, it takes
digging away in the trenches.

But there is one fast keyout technique from the early 50s,
and that is "Spot some goals you don't have".  That is very
Zen and quite good for cooling down this whole mess.

Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj: Super Scio Tech - To Ralph on Power After Clear

TO RALPH ON POWER AFTER CLEAR

On 26 May 99, ralph@hilton.org (Ralph Hilton) posted on
topic "Power and R6EW"

> I recently ran power on a clear and just started R6EW.
> I very much suspect that the datum that one can't run Power on a
> Clear was due to overrun. R6EW runs BRILLIANLTLY!.
>
> A lot of cases have been bypassed due to the bridge being alter-ised.
>
> --
>
> Ralph Hilton
> http://Ralph.Hilton.org
> Freezone International: http://www.fzint.org

My huge keyed out OT experience came from getting power after
clear.

Considering how many people in the old days were unacknowledged
clears because of the arbitrary of having to run the CC before
attesting, it would seem that this occured quite commonly.

I now suspect that all the keyed out OT Theta Clears that came
out of power (a wild random variable according to Ron), were
people who were run on power after clear.

Ron only mentions this Theta Clear state once or twice in the
1966 timeframe.  At a time when OT I was supposed to be the
Route 1 drills, he said that this Theta Clear state was at
least Two levels above clear.  It is not on the current bridge.
It would have been above OT 7 on the 1970s bridge and would
be above OT 12 now (assuming that they even get near route 1
type processing on the OT 10 to 12 which are still to be
released).

You might have trouble with somebody who has gotten into
Nots or OT 3 because the entities might start running the
grade 5 processes (preclear version) instead of the pc
running them (postclear version).  So it would be best to
either do it prior to entity handling or after that is
flat.

The processes run differently after clear.  I was shocked
when I read the power materials and found out what the
auditor thought we were running.

I talked to another grade 5 at that time and he had the
same kind of cogs and results as I did, so it was consistant,
not just me.

In fact, on that what is/isn't process, I heard lots of
people makeing statements about seeing how the walls were
both there and not there simultaneously.  In fact, one
guy even got declared for having said that once St. Hill
found out that it was being casually discussed in the
coffee shop at the org where I was.

The common denominator on power after clear was that the
processes did not run case charge but ran like OT drills.
And so they don't really act as listed lists.

In fact I had trouble with that on 5A.  The places process
ran as a sort of exterior spotting drill.  But really,
(new cognition right now), the places were coming up to
present time.  The EP was hit with a clear visio of a
place in PT seeing what was happening there now.

But that location was not an "Item".

Indicating these things as "Items" tended to act as a
wrong indication.  Generally I ignored it (I was very
blown out by the cogs I was having), but eventually
we had to do a GF correction (during 5A) and get off
my charge on having things indicated that weren't really
items (had never been items in the first place).  In
other words, these were running as ordinary repetative
processes.  And there was no reviv either, except that
the auditing room changed suddendly with a vast perception
change and we took that as being the reviv EP.  But
that happened without any backtrack reviv showing up.
Instead, I realized that I was always looking at a
slightly out of PT picture (off by a few fractions of
a second) instead of seeing the real world.

Generally these things ran with massive cogs and no
charge in sight.  No not-isness came up on what is/isn't.
No detested people or places came up on the 5A lists.
But these things felt like they ran to floating TAs.

Biggest gain per unit of time that I've ever had.

I put a more gradient beginners version in self clearing
chapter ..

By the way, this is where I went up the pole and there
was no liability to that.  Nothing triggered.  None of
this ascension experience type liability.  It was just
great.  What hurt was falling off the pole two or three
months later.  Probably what happens is that most people
just fall right off immediately.  I know one guy I talked
to recently who had it for a day (and he also had later
found that he'd gone clear before getting power in '68
and well prior to doing the clearing course).  By the
next morning he was down.  And then he kind of forced
himself back into the state briefly, and then was down
for good.

After you fall you might think that you're still up there
for another week (there is a lingering memory of the
awareness) and  that is dangerous because you mis-estimate
and do stupid things.

Just like ext/int, it is not the exteriorization that
keys one in, it is the subsequent interiorization which
keys in the earlier interiorization.

So maybe we should be running out desension experiences.
He had to have desended first before he ascends again.
Probably keys in all the bad posulates that got him here
in the first place.

The guy goes up, he falls, he keys in the old bad postulates.
Then he forces himself back up by recalling the cogs and
the way it felt, but now he has those reverse posulates
triggered and he has enough horsepower to make them stick.
And so he gets backlashes and gets burnt and this time he
falls for good.

I think I've just spotted why the state wouldn't rehab.
You keep wanting to get back to it, so you do rehab it,
just naturally out of session, and it comes back and you
get in trouble, and you rehab, and you get in trouble,
and finally you block it from rehabbing.  That is conscious.
In fact I remember doing that although I wasn't looking
at it in those terms.  But there is a moment when I
decided to stop trying.  And I remember yet another of
these theta clears telling me that she decided that it
was too uncomfortable to stay in that state.

There's a pile of research that needs to be done here.

But power after clear is one of the ones with a real track
record of turning on sporatic OT phenomena (but note that
it was still rare, don't make a hidden standard of this.)
Although a sporatic OT is miles short of our real target,
it is at least a step in the right direction.  And as far
as I know, the modern (post NOTS) CofS bridge without power
has never produced a sporatic OT.  That shows how much
they've lost.

Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj: Super Scio Tech - To Ryan on Good Indicators

TO RYAN ON GOOD INDICATORS

On 14 May 99, "Ryan Q Lee " <ryanqlee@my-dejanews.com> asked
on subject "tech call: perceptics as indicators"

> Please confirm. :)
>
> If you're getting better (freer), then your
> recall improves dramatically, AND, the number
> of perceptics in the recall increase too.
>
> Arc, Ryan :)

Usually.  But sometimes this happens in sudden jumps rather
than a gradual smooth progression.

Use these as good indicators rather than hidden standards.

Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj: Super Scio Tech - Research Discussion on Dynamics

RESEARCH DISCUSSION ON DYNAMICS

Two interesting postings were made about the area of the
Dynamics and I thought that I might put my two cents in.

On 16 May 99, "Rogers" <here-i-yam@erols.com> posted on
subject "Inverted Dynamics"

> Dynamics Inverted.
>
> In the course of living, we might normally perceive the Dynamics as an
> expansion of the self outward into larger spheres.  However, the numbering
> of the Dynamics actually represents the inverse of our original
> participatory sequence.  In other words, one might consider they began with
> the 8th and worked down from there.
>
> 8th Dynamic       Co-existence of Static
> 7th Dynamic       Self  (separation from Static)
> 6th Dynamic       Mock-ups/Creations
> 5th Dynamic       General Forms, Creations granted Life
> 4th Dynamic       Particular Form of Creation granted Life
> 3rd Dynamic       Larger-Group Activities
> 2nd Dynamic       Interaction of Two, Smaller-Group Activities
> 1st Dynamic       Interiorization, Manifestation as "one"

I prefer to think of the 4th as Society.  It makes more sense
that way and it fits those few implants that were done by dynamics.

> (I don't know if Ron elaborated much on this in taped lectures, but he
> just has a couple of almost off-hand remarks on this in bulletins of
> August 1960.)

One of the big ACCs posted this year by fzba (either the 5th or
the 9th) had some discussion of inverted dynamics.  But there Ron
is talking about them inverting and dropping below zero, down
through negative 1 to negative 8 at the bottom.

> This sequence "away from the Static," essentially has been covered
> before but it does have some interesting ramifications when tied into the
> Dynamics as shown.  I mean to say, we are immediately faced with the concept
> that the 2nd Dynamic precedes the 1st (well, the 1st as we know it, i.e.,
> self as body, perhaps I might say, self as piece, as opposed to the real
> self, self as player, on the 7th Dynamic).  Perhaps Freud caught a glimpse
> of this but was unable to properly evaluate it.  There's a lot of food for
> thought and comment right there, but my immediate interest is how this
> affects the tying in of the Upper Dynamics.
>
> 8th.  Co-existence of Static                         Knowingness
> 7th.  Self  (separation from Static)                 Games
> 6th.  Mock-ups/Creations                             Creation
> 5th.  General Forms, Creations granted Life          Change
> 4th.  Particular Form of Creation granted Life       Reason
> 3rd.  Larger-Group Activities                        Construction
> 2nd.  Interaction of Two, Smaller-Group Activities   Aesthetics
> 1st.  Interiorization, Manifestation as "one"        Ethics

> Okay, this is of course speculative (actually, I'm only doing this to annoy
> the Pilot... just kidding, Anjin-san) but I figure at least two of the three
> changes (only the top three have been rearranged) seem to have certain
> merit.  I mean, tying Creation with the 6th seems like a "given" (to me), as
> does the connection of "separation from Static" (the 7th Dynamic self) with
> the will to play a game.  Still, despite the apparent "semantic" connection
> between "Knowingness" and co-existence of static, we might consider this one
> a weak one, merely for the reason that this so-called "Knowingness" is
> really more like "Know Aboutingness."  However, if we understand
> "knowingness" in the spirit of "willing to find out" (about separation and
> its ramifications) it might work beautifully.  If we take the "knowingness"
> Dynamic more in the context of "curiosity" we can understand it as a
> preliminary consideration (8th) to the will to play a game as an
> "individual" (7th).

I would suggest that co-existence of static implies that there is
already separation and I would expect that mock-ups and creation
are present at that level, but no barriers and no fixed solidified
playing field (the mockup of a fixed Mest unvierse as distinct from
general transient mockups willfully created & discarded).  Hence
my consideration that 6th dynamic is not creation in general but
only a specific creation of a playing field & barriers which are
useful for games.

> Les C. Rogers.
>
> P.S.  This document needs to put on a full width screen to get the "columns"
> decent.  Getting this posted just trashes my formatting.  Hope it doesn't
> come out too oogly.

Your comment about "away from static" and looking at the sequencing
from static downwards got me thinking.

Often Ron talks about the dynamics proceeding upwards from 1 in
an ever widening sphere.  Going from 1 up to 8, the progression
seems orderly.  But that is an expansion in a game, and would
be after the fact of being human, in other words it would be
late on the chain.

So I thought about running this from the top down in an orderly
sequence.

The upper half runs fine this way.  You get the idea of being a
godlike being and of having other godlike beings around (no sense
being egocentric about this).  Then it seems reasonable to mockup
ideas (thought) and perhaps also identities, entities, or whatever.
And then (perhaps together with others) to mockup a physical plane
(a Mest Universe).  And then to mockup lifeforms and races and so
forth.

And then comes this glaring discontinuity.  Following the dynamics,
we would go - races, society, groups, family, etc. and that is
backwards.  It would have to be individuals in bodies first and
then sex and family and children and then organize them into
groups and form the groups up into a society.

So the "natural" order of creation is from static down to
lifeforms, and then from the 1st dynamic up to society.

The damn things only follow in a logical pattern from 1 to 8
if you add in survival, and that means that they are late
track, and that almost certainly means that they are "implanted"
in some way or other.

The Penalty Universes follow that expanded pattern of 16
dynamics.  But I had the feeling that the dynamics did not
originate from them.  So it was laid in earlier, which means
prior to Home Universe.  And that would make sense because
by the Home Universe era, the being is already overly concerned
with being an individual.

Theorizing now, on early track there would only be you, others,
and creations, any more convoluted groupings would be arbitraries.

Concerning the upper dynamics (9 to 16), the transition is
smoother, and yet there is not a lot of logical necessity to
the divisions.  And so again these might be arbitrary from
some extremely high viewpoint.

Considering later track, a common trick is to divide something
into fractions set in opposition to each other so that the
being weakens himself and becomes less.  Instead of being
Holy and Intelligent and Strong all at once, one has these
as individual goals and the Intelligent guys fight the Holy
guys and the Strong guys, etc.

The implications of this are that Asthetics and Ethics were
divided out from each other and divided out from Reason
and from the Constructive impulse and these things were to
some slight degree set into opposition against each other,
and so one has to work to hold them concurrently.

So I thought of "how would an ethical person oppose an
asthetic person" and the stuff just started pouring out,
beautiful prostitues arguing with moralists and so forth.

I considered each of the 4, ethics, asthetics, construction,
and reason and any pair of them will turn up locks and charge
like blue blazes.  But I have the feeling that I'm not touching
anything more than the surface of something that runs
terrifically deep and whose basics are probably out of the
band of accessibility, at least for now.

And I hardly dare consider ethics and creation as oppterms.
It feels like the entirety of the Mest universe and its
persistant solidity is a lock on that.  Is it ethical to
mock it up or is it not ethical to mock it up and the whole
thing hangs there persistant on the maybe between those two.

So much was shaken loose on this that I feel that I should
put it aside for the moment and let the dust settle.

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

This seems like a good time to address another post, this one
is from Zero <pthorn1@pacbell.net> on 18 May on subject
"Cause Across Dynamics"

> Howdy again;

> Well, well, well,  I think I have discovered perhaps the last major
> bug to OPERATING across the dynamics.
>
> I don't know if I would want to call it the final wall of fire, but
> something in my gut tells me this is so.

You've certainly got a hot area.

But there are no walls of fire once you know the way.  The OT 3
mess is because it was a half assed approach which didn't go for
basic.  That is sometimes needed in a research effort because you
may need to reach the far side to see the easy way.  But Nots is
not a wall of fire and will run before OT 3.  Reports from people
doing it casually in the field without having done their upper
levels are that it runs easily and lightly on a gradient and is
neither hard nor dangerous.

I had, you might say, a wall of fire with the penalty universes.
I don't think that anybody else will have to go through that.
Once I hit the far side, I found an easy keyout and they can be
fooled with casually.

> I do know that in researching the small amount that I have that the
> electronics are sufficient to kill a meat body.

That means that you're late in the incident or chain or pattern or
whatever it is that you are poking at.

> I think a full and complete bridge to OTVIII is going to be necessary
> to run this thing, that remains to be determined.
>
> I beleive the rundown will reack to the bottom of the bridge, limited
> only by the beings ability to confront and perceive.  I will release the
> complete rundown later in the week.

> For the present, and for the adventurous:
>
> Mock up a dynamic.  Decide to cause something. Cause it.

This needs a lighter touch.

1.
a) what would you be willing to cause on (dynamic)
b) what would you be willing to not cause on (dynamic)

2.
a) what would you be willing to experience on (dynamic)
b) what would you be willing to not experience on (dynamic)

Then the same as "what would another ...".

By including willingness, we ensure that the person gets earlier
(postulates, dones, decisions) rather than landing in later
implants which follow the pattern of dynamics (including the
penalty universes and whatever it was I was bumping into in
the first section above).

This version should be safe & fun & easy and bring one's confront
up on a gradient.

> Do this on the meter.

With a meter you could see FNs & spot overrun easily, so it
does help, but it is not essential for the version I presented.

> Handle all reads.

God help you if you get a penalty universe item reading on
the dynamic and try to follow it up.  Read Super Scio chapter 5
immediately.

That's not going to happen if you address willingness (which
emphasises your own mockups instead of externally imposed ones).

And you'd probably even get away with flattening your original
version as a process.  But if you start chasing down reads in
the middle of running the process, there is no telling what
you'll land in.

> Check for electronics keying in.

Yow!  Just asking to land in the later part of some implant.

> Check for beams.

Dicey.  Better to flatten beams as their own topic.  And if it
is flat, you generally don't need to check, you just know if
one turns up.

> Check for activation in other universes.

Again dicey but worth researching.  But it is a research time
action, once you get a good roadmap of how things activate in
other universes, you write that up as a separate topic and find
ways to flatten it and key it out without mixing together two
heavy topics at the same time.  I'll be very intrested in what
you find on the mechanisms here.

> Repeat untill the dynamic is flat upon cause something.
> Repeat with good cause.
> Repeat with bad cause.
> Flatten all flows.

> This is a tiny, tiny portion of the rundown.  It is powerful,
> powerful..   Watch for kickback.  It may be a good idea to ground one
> of the cans to a water pipe or something.  It also may be useful to
> turn off tvs, computers, or sensitive electronic equipment in the
> vicinity.

No kidding.

I had physical universe reactions while I was mucking around in
the later sections of the penalty universes.  Very bad kickbacks,
very dangerous to run.

The second that I got the top item of one of them all the liabilities
went away and it became safe and easy to muck about in them.
The very first item of the top penalty universe is "to create
is native state".  Spot blanketing another and pushing them
into it.

> I have no idea of the eventual result. I have a sneaking suspicion
> the ep will be Operating Thetan.
>
> I can tell you that it directly processes all three universes.

When something reacts with enough kick to produce a major
reaction, the mistake is to believe that running it out will
put one at cause over the reaction.

I have not found this to be the case.

One might, for example, turn on a fever by screwing up running an
engram and leaving a fever in restim (not to worry, it will fade
in a few days).  Sometimes one can turn one off by running an
engram.  But one blows the entire engram bank and one is not
immune to fevers nor can one turn them on and off at will although
maybe one gets them less often.

Then you find that misshandling a GPM might turn on the same
fever, and mistakenly think that that is the source.  And again
sometimes one can turn one off by handling reliabile items.

Then you find the same somatic in inc 2 and discover that that
can also kick it in and out.

Then you find the same with Nots.

Then one turns on a fever because one is trying to run late
penalty universe items and the next one in the pattern is
"to eat is to have a fever" (if any restim, spot pushing somebody
into "to eat is native state").  So one writes down the item
and the fever vanishes.

Again one erroneously concludes that one will be cause over
and immune to fevers when one gets to the bottom of the
penalty universes.  Then one finds a quick undercut that knocks
penalty universes (and the dynamics and the tone scale which
permeate the penalty universe items) out of restim.

And one discovers that one has fevers a bit less often and
has yet another trick that turns one off once in awhile but
not always.

The same goes for things that blow out your home electrical
system.

Just because it triggers something doesn't mean its the source,
it may be kicking something heavier that is still inacessible.

But that does tell us that at some level we are capable of
affecting the very creation of reality itself and that we
are moving in a direction towards the control of it.

So just take each factor in turn and work a bit deeper.

But you might as well take the easy way and undercut and
sidestep restimulation when possible.

On a new type of thing, one often does have to push through
heavy restim once to get to the far side and map out an
easy way.  So don't make a practice of avoiding restim either.
But don't make those your standard rundowns.  Do it once and
then find a shortcut.

Ron or somebody might well have had to push through inc 2
in detail to find out what we were dealing with.  But the
shortcut is Nots.  That should have been developed immediately
rather than throwing people into a late track restimulative
incident and making over-restimulated fanatics.

> tommy
> --
> "A being is only as valuable as he can serve others."
> http://recyclerhome.com/community/spellsinger/index.html
> http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Campus/2058/
> pthorn1@pacbell.net
> http://wwp.mirabilis.com/232039 (icq pager)

I do not want to discourage you from researching this.
There are things to be learned.  And it is good to document
as you go along and keep everybody advised.

I make a point of talking about everything, even very dicey
experimental stuff, but I make a point of searching for
undercuts and I tend to downplay things unless I'm sure
they are safe and easy.

Here you are doing something which is not good case wise
but is highly educational, and that is to try and follow
up multiple types of restimulation that are tied into
one particular thing.  I try a bit of that occasionally
as a research action because it helps in seeing how things
fit together, but I use a light touch and don't push it
too long because it restimulates more charge than it blows.

Once, full of confidence about the penalty universes being
basic (which they weren't, although they are an order of
magnitude closer than than trivial locks like the clearing
course or incident 1), I tried to do this kind of action
intensively on all the junk which they tied into.  Six
months later I knew a hell of a lot more about the track,
but I also had more charge in restim than when I started.

And running this way, you need an arsenal of keyout tricks
to dig you out if you get too much stirred up at once.

For fast case gain you narrow your targets rather than
fanning them out.  Then you can look deeper easier on that
one particular button and hopefully get a big gain quickly.

Hope this helps,

The Pilot

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

 subj: Super Scio Tech - THE REALITY IMPLANT

THE REALITY IMPLANT

I was trying to run some charge off of compulsive agree and
compulsive create and this implant seemed to get in the way.

This is only approximate.  I only fooled with it to the point
where it seemed like it couldn't affect me anymore.  The
detail is probably only half right and there are probably
more items.  I suspect that I was only picking up the parts
that still had a bit of kick to them for me.

There should be multiple realities and we should have some
choice in shifting around between them, but instead everything
seems to have been "grouped into one".

This implant is one of the groupers, a fairly early one.  But
its not enough by itself to account for the current situation.
Actually I think that one's intentions to force others into
agreement are more significant.  But I was having trouble
running that until I scanned through this implant.

Now, after running the implant, it seems easy to spot incidents
where I jambed a reality down somebody else's throat.  In fact
there are light modern locks on this like the SO's severe reality
adjustments.

Anyway, here is what I ran.

========

(moving through a "heavenly" corridor, something like stained
glass windows or possibly just simple crystals acting like
prisms along the walls as you move past)

This is your fate

This is your destiny

This is the ultimate truth

You are a god but you have forgotten

Be one with us and we will show you the way

=======

(you pass into a larger space, there is colored light, then
darkness)

Before the beginning there must be desire

The desire to create space

(the desire fills you, and you are coaxed to say:

"let there be space"

(the above repeats until you do say it, before each repeat you
seem to move into a colored space for a moment which then goes
dark, this tends to collapse your space.  Spot how many times
it repeated before you agreed and said it)

========

(a golden space appears around you.  Then a dark creature,
adversary, indistinct, comes into the space at a distance)

(The adversay says items to you, they come from the far side
of the space.   "Your" items are implanted telepathically
where you are, you appear to be saying them, but it is actually
someone else implanting the intention.)

Adversary: You cannot create space

I can creat space

Ad: You must not creat space

I must create space

Ad: You will not create space

I will create space

Ad: You will forget to create space

I will create space without remembering

Ad: You will tire of creating space

I will create space continuously

Ad: You will stop creating space

I will create space compulsively

Ad: You have no desire to create space

I will create space continuously and compulsively whether
I choose to or not

Ad: Your space has no agreement

My space has the agreement of all

Ad: None will agree with you

I will agree with everyone

Ad: Your space is not real

My space is the one true reality

Ad: You have no reality

I will create the space of the one true reality, compulsively,
now and forever whether I know it or not, whether I remember it
or not, whether I want to or not.

To create the one true reality in agreement with all, forever.

==========

(the space seems to turn, it dims, then brightens)

Before the beginning, there must be desire

The desire to create matter

(the desire fills you, you are coaxed to say:

"let there be matter"

(a simple object, possibly a cube, appears - note that the
object may vary)

(the entire sequence above repeates, with matter in place
of space - note that this is not in English - the item could
just as well be "mass" as "matter")

.

(last items -

I will create the matter of the one true reality, compulsively
now and forever whether I know it or not, whether I remember it
or not, whether I want to or not.

To create the one true reality in agreement with all, forever.

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

(again the space dims & brightens and at the same time the
object receeds and then comes back in)

Now the whole business repeates on the item "Energy", with
a cloud of "energy" appearing etc.

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

Item 4. Time

As above

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

Item 5. Persistance

Item 6. Bodies

Item 7. Life Forms

Item 8. Spirits

Item 9. The World

Item 10. The Universe

(last items -

I will create the universe of the one true reality, compulsively
now and forever whether I know it or not, whether I remember it
or not, whether I want to or not.

To create the one true reality in agreement with all, forever.

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

Part B:

(Now you feel that you are entereing the universe created above.
Again there is something like entering a corridor & moving down
it, very similar to the original opening sequence)

This is your fate

This is your destiny

This is the ultimate truth

You are a player but you have forgotten

Be one with us and we will show you the way

(the detail items are slightly different in Part B, being
related to the game and agreement)

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

Item 11. The Rules

Before the game there must be desire

The desire to obey (agree with) the rules

(the desire fills you, you are coaxed to say:

"I will obey the rules"

----------

Adversary: You will not obey the rules

I can obey the rules

Ad: You will fail to obey the rules

I must obey the rules

Ad: You will not obey the rules

I will obey the rules

Ad: You will forget to obey the rules

I will obey the rules without remembering

Ad: You will tire of obeying the rules

I will obey the rules continuously

Ad: You will stop obeying the rules

I will obey the rules compulsively

Ad: You have no desire to obey the rules

I will obey the rules continuously and compulsively whether
I choose to or not

Ad: Your rules are out of agreement

My rules are in agreement with all

Ad: None will agree with you

I will agree with everyone

Ad: Your rules are not real

My rules come from the one true reality

Ad: You have no reality

I will obey the rules of the one true reality, compulsively
now and forever whether I know it or not, whether I remember it
or not, whether I want to or not.

To obey the one true reality in agreement with all, forever.

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

Item 12. The Barriers

Item 13. The Limitations

Item 14. The Inabilities

(at this point the items change from "obey" to "suffer")

Item 15. The Penalties

Item 16. The Losses

Item 17. The Pains

Item 18. The unconsciousness

Item 19. The Death

Item 20. The Forgetfullness

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

There may be significantly more to this implant.

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

Hope this helps,

The Pilot

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

 subj: Super Scio Tech - ADVERSARY TYPE IMPLANTS

ADVERSARY TYPE IMPLANTS

The GPM research of the early '60s brought home the fact that
you create your own opposition.

The person assumes a "valence" (a beingness) to accomplish his
goal and an opponent shows up and so the person shifts to a
new valence to solve that opposition and then another opponent
shows up and the person shifts again and so forth.

At that time it was assumed that the GPMs themselves were the
reason that the person pulled in this opposition.

Eventually, doing my own research, I stumbled onto the penalty
universes of the home universe era.  These are simple declining
scales held in place by their highly asthetic opening sequences.
In those, and in the entire home universe time period as best
I can determine, there is no concept of mocking up your own
opposition in the stimulous response manner that shows up
in the more recent implants.

There seems to be a big gap between these two types.

And in retrospect, it now seems to me that the heavy terminal
vs oppterm style GPMs could not exist unless the person
was already mocking up opposition compulsively.  They give
a pattern to his mockingup of opponents, but they do not
provide an adequate rational as to why he is doing that in
the first place.

Last week I ran into an implant that fits in the gap.  It
is written up separately as "The Reality Implant" and is
in the current set of postings.

It had the interesting characteristic of an "adversary"
showing up and he seems to argue with you and you negate
against him.  And it has more of a feeling of you interacting
with the opponent rather than simply being a pattern that
was run in.

It seemed like there should be more like this.  And eventually
the "NIX" business in Helatrobus came to mind.

The recent use of Helatrobus is a true double firing implant
of the shallowest sort.  It simply has terminal and oppterm
items stated on opposite sides of you as you go through the
implant.  It works by assuming that you already follow this
term - oppterm business on a stimulous response basis and
then it wears you down by hitting you with endless items.
There is no serious attempt to get you to actively mockup
the items, that is just taken for granted by the implanters.

And there are earlier versions of that implant.  I've spotted
a few and so did Ron.  This is an old mockup.

So I looked back very early, way way before the clearing
course implant and almost all the way to home universe.
And I found a Hellatrobus like implant in the "adversary"
style.

The adversary sais something like "the glorious delight
of eating" and you are encouraged to say "Nix Eating".

I only found a few goals.  They were "To Eat", "To Have
Sex", "To Obey", "To Be Good", and "To Worship".  There
are probably more.  They might have some correspondence
to the dynamics.

The opening sequence for a particular goal seemed to
consist of the "adversary" stating a whole series of
positive statements about the goal, something like the
early items in Helatrobus.

You are encouraged to negate, or say "Nix" or protest
against these positive items.  It is like a sales talk
on the joy of eating or whatever and it goes on and
on, the items (maybe a dozen or two) just repeating
over and over until you begin to protest heavily against
them.

Note that this is variable, like a program in a loop
that keeps going until you do something.  Spotting
how many times it repeated before you got fed up and
started protesting is a good thing to do when running
it out.

They do this because they want you to protest.  Protest
brings about compulsive mockups and solidity.

Once they have you protesting hard, then the second
part starts and they get you to fight it down through
a declining scale until you start to mock it up
compulsively.

On eating for example, they get you to the point where
you don't want to eat but feel you have to eat.
Same for sex, worship, etc.

This does not have the typical Helatrobian sceenery
of heaven, staircases, etc.  It seems to be done in
a bodyless state.

Unlike later implants, the items themselves did not
seem to be of great significance.  They do not have
the kick of RIs (reliable items) laid in with force.

The whole keynote of the thing is of being held in
a location and protesting.  There are no other impacts
or somatics.  But the protest is immense, and it is
encouraged.

Running this is fairly easy if you can run it at all,
but these goals exist in lots of other implants, so
I'm not sure how accessible this would be to somebody
who hasn't knocked a lot of those out of the way.
Then again, this might be so basic that it will take
some charge off even if only done on a conceptual
level without much reality.

To run it:

1. Get the idea of somebody pushing the goal at you.

2. Alternately protest and admire the goal. (a number
of times)

3. Alternately protest and admire having the goal
pushed at you.  (a number of times).

Repeat the above 3 steps to a win.

Since I'm uncertain of accessibility etc., I would
suggest that you don't grind this or try to dissolve
the goal, just take a light win.  I suspect that
overrun would pull in a lot of mass fast because
these goals are in so many other implants.

A few minutes of the above on each goal seemed to
cool down the whole damn thing for me.

I then went through the detail items to try and get
some more charge off.  The early sequence is as follows:

See the Helatrobus platen in the new tech volumes or
in the Freezone Super Tech Vol for 1963 that was posted
recently.

The early version does not have block 1.  It begins
with the goal stated as "To ...." which is the start
of block 2.

The adversary says the items of block 2 to 5 and you
are encouraged to protest (there are no true items on
your side).

Then the adversary says the items of block 6.  Note that
these are against the goal instead of in favor of it and
so you tend to agree with them and you are encouraged
to agree.

Now that you are agreeing, the adversary says the items
of block 2 in reverse order and you are encouraged to
agree.  Since block 2 in reverse starts low toned, it
seems like a continuation of the disparaging items of
block 6 and so you are still inclined to agree.  But
the items move uptone and so you find yourself agreeing
with the goal.

Once you are agreeing, the adversary begins to say
Nix items (the terminal or right side items), and you
are encouraged to protest.  In other words, the adversary
is now against the goal and you are protesting that.
The nix items run forward from block 2 to the end of
the implant.

And so you are first made to protest the goal and then
to protest the negation of the goal.

There are probably many more of this kind of implant.
I wouldn't put a great deal of significance on any
particular one.

Best,

The Pilot

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

All these messages were 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 see The Pilots Home Page at http://fza.org/pilot/index.htm

Some translations are available, see links at fza.org

Also see the new www.fzint.org website.

All of the current posts will be collected in Super Scio Archives
#56 and #57 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.

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