Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 58 - LATE JUNE 99 PILOT POSTS TO ARS/ACT
Date: 23 Jun 1999 04:00:19
From: pilot@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (The Pilot)
Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology

POST58.txt

SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 58 - LATE JUNE 99 PILOT POSTS TO ARS/ACT

The ones after the Humor post went to ACT only.

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

Contents:

 subj : Super Scio - FREE SPEACH IN DANGER
 subj : Super Scio - To Onethetan on Free Speach
 subj : Super Scio - Survival Insurance
 subj : Super Scio - Ted's Excellent Peace Talk Analysis
 subj : Super Scio - Scientologists in Mensa
 subj : Super Scio - FREEZONE MARCHING
 subj : Super Scio - Answering Fred Rice on The Marks
 subj : Super Scio Humor - TOP TEN REASONS FOR NAKED GOVERNMENT
 subj : Super Scio - AN ACT FABLE (the Phil/Bryan story)
 subj : Super Scio Tech - To Robert On The OT BC
 subj : Super Scio Tech - SOFTENING UP GPMS
 subj : Super Scio Tech - On Maier's Help Bracket Processing
 subj : Super Scio Tech - Solving Difficulties in doing UCP Solo
 subj : Super Scio Tech - To Joanne Barree on Assists
 subj : Super Scio Tech - ON PME'S, PLUGS, CBR, & INC 1
 subj : Super Scio Tech - CLEAR AND THE TIME TRACK
 subj : Super Scio Tech - A NIFTY ADVANCED PROCESS - CREATION CLEANUP

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

 subj : Super Scio - FREE SPEACH IN DANGER

FREE SPEACH IN DANGER

There have been a number of very bad indicators lately concerning
the survival of free speach on the net.

Although only two of these are directly related to Scientology,
all are important.

This is just a summary.  These are heavily snipped.

Commentary below.

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

First, of course, was the NY Court forcing Safe's identity
to be revealed without any proof or trial, but simply on
the grounds of an accusation having been made.  I've talked
about this in detail previously.

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

http://www.internetnews.com/isp-news/article/0,1087,8_136521,00.html

Ruling Has AOL Members On Alert  June 11, 1999

By Patricia Fusco
InternetNews.com Assistant Editor  ISP News Archives

Virginia authorities have grabbed the attention of America Online Inc.'s
members nationwide.

Late last month, a federal district court in Alexandria, Va., ruled that
AOL members can be hauled into a Virginia court to answer for lawsuits,
no matter where they live.

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

http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,37622,00.html?st.ne.fd.tohhed.ni

===Begin Quote===
Scientologists' copyright suit shapes Net liability
By Dan Goodin
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
June 9, 1999, 6:35 p.m. PT

Linking to a site that contains material that infringes someone's
copyright also is an infringement, a Dutch court ruled today, according to
the Church of Scientology, the plaintiff in the case.

The decision appears to be the first time a court has ruled on the legal
status of hyperlinking and could expose Dutch and multinational Internet
publishers to new liability for a practice that is rampant on the
Internet.
(...)

The County Court in the Hague ruled that the materials on the Dutch Web
site also infringed the church's copyrights. But the court broke new
ground when it ruled that hyperlinks to the materials also infringed the
church's copyrights. Although only binding in Holland, the decision got
the attention of attorneys who follow Internet law.

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

http://www.salonmagazine.com/tech/log/1999/06/07/linux/index.html

Will Linux be banned down under?

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Jamais Cascio

June 7, 1999 | Did the drafters of Australia's new Net censorship
legislation ever imagine that their rules might ban Linux? After all, the
Linux source code has quite a few instances of the word "fuck" sprinkled
throughout, mostly as commentary about problems with software. Can an
operating system be considered unsuitable for minors?

.

How many sites would Australia's Net censorship scheme kill?
Aimed at porn, the bill would push service providers to block anything even
remotely risqu, critics charge.

.

Second-hand commentary on Australia's Net censorship law abounds, but I
decided to go straight to the source. Like most laws, it makes for
stultifying reading, but in essence the measure says that the government can
prohibit Australian Web servers from hosting X-rated material. R-rated
material would be prohibited if it's not behind a guard page or adult check
of some sort. I figured, therefore, Linux source code would have to be
shielded from young eyes, lest they get the impression that "fuck" is a
valid engineering term. But then I realized something: This assumes that an
R rating in Australia means pretty much the same thing that it means in the
United States.

.

A filtering system supported by the backers of the Australian law may give
us some clues. Among the words the software blocks are the terms "anarchy,"
"gothic," "pierced" and "tattoo," along with the usual run of sexual terms
and names such as Pamela. So, it seems that what is "unsuitable for a minor
to see" may well be anything unusual or outside of the mainstream --
possibly including, but far from limited to, Linux.
salon.com | June 7, 1999

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

What really bothers me is that all of these came out together
in a short time period.

The trend is scary.

I believe that the real target on the part of Governments and
large corporations, is to prevent the spread of critical,
emparassing, and secret items on the net.

To gain support for this, they push whatever button is
convienient.

For the moralists, they cry about porn even though they have
the biggest porn collections known to man.

For the proud, they cry about liable even though their political
campaigns have the greastest mud slinging every seen.

And for the Church of Scientology, they lure them on with
protecting the secret scriptures even as they plan to censor
them along with all the other "nut cults".

For CCHR and OSA to fight on the side of the governments in
this is high treason to LRH and the original goals of
Scientology, for this IS the planetary suppression and
the beginning of the thought police.

Everybody on the net, no matter whether their pet hobby horse
is being pissed on or their sensibilities offended, should
be making every effort to fight against this, even if they
foolishly feel that some censorship action would benifit
their own vested interests.

The comm line you save may be your own.

Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio - To Onethetan on Free Speach

TO ONETHETAN ON FREE SPEACH

Excerpts from two posts by OneThetan <OneThetan@hotmail.com>

On 7 Jun 99, on topic "To Safe and to Church From on lines Scientologist"

> I am a Scientologist, in the church, active on a daily basis
> both as a student and as Field Staff Member.  I have
> engaged safe in debates re: Scientology management and
> technologies.  I am not opposed to current management of the
> church.  I do not share his views on them.  I believe they
> are not perfect but are more right than wrong by far.
>
> In this case I must speak up and make my position known.  I
> hope Safe comes through this with anon intact.

And on 10 Jun 99 on the same topic -

> I do not have time to answer you all, but here are the
> basics.
>
> I believe in Safes right to free speach,
>
> I hope the church sees that outing him is bad PR,

Excellent attitude.

The question of free speach goes far beyond any arguments
about doctrine, reform, squirreling, standard tech, or
management.

As I have put out in another post, there are some very bad
indicators present right now on the subject of free speach
on the net and it goes far beyond the CofS situation.

I do not wish to get into psych bashing.  I think that many
of the individual practitioners studied the mind for the sake
of helping others and I have great admiration for Freud and
Jung.

But the big money in the psych field is to work for Governements
and big corporations for the sake of CONTROL rather than HELP.
That is a different breed of cat from the average practitioner.

Free speach on the net misses their withholds.  It misses
withholds on every big Government and corporation, because
their secrets, their covert ops, and their out-ethics can
spread across the planet in a flash.

There are big guns aimed at getting the net under control.

And they are laughing their asses off at having the Scientologists
help them.

And I will guarantee you that anything established now as
a precedent in inhibiting free communciation on the net will
be used against Scientology later.

I honestly think that Ron would throw everything onto the
side of free speach.  When it goes, it marks the end of
that narrow little window of time.  It's on the BC tapes.

So please push this one point.  Think that freezoners are
nuts and squirrels if you want, but keep the planet's comm
lines open.  This is the only one that bypasses media control
by big vested interests.

Write KRs.  Push for free speach.  CCHR should be fighting
for this one.

Thank You,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio - Survival Insurance

SURVIVAL INSURANCE

On 18 Jun 99, "Safe" <Safe2WC@worldnet.att.net> posted on
topic "Survival Insurance in big trouble"

> "one of the largest auto insurance brokerages in California, for alleged
> price-gouging and threats against customers.
>
> Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush said his department has found
> hundreds of violations and logged more than 700 complaints against the Los
> Angeles-based company since 1997.
>
> 'The violations that we found were so massive, so systematic, that we
> decided we had to pull their license, Quackenbush said in an interview.
>
> Survival had no comment Thursday on the department's action."
>
> Well, "threats" sure does sound typical of church of Scientologists.  But
> I'm sure what's the "truth" of what's really happening here is there is a
> secret conspiracy by the psychs and media to destroy this Wise company.
>
> Perhaps the church of Scientologists runnig the company were making their
> customers follow the Code of Descipline as outlined in the 274 rules in
the
> Church of Scientology "ethics" book. SEVEN HUNDRED compliants against them
> is atrocious! UNBELIEVABLE.
>
> Yours for ethics,
> Safe, an authentic, informed NON-CofS Scientologist
>
> Dave VanHorn <dvanhorn@cedar.net> wrote in message
> news:xrwa3.778$8D2.258@news.rdc1.il.home.com...
> >
> > > Wise Company, Survival Insurance has applied 100% standard Hubbard
> > > Management Tech and gotten their license revoked!
> >
> >
> > Where is the clammish link documented? I didn't see it in the article,
> > though you're right, it sounds like the classic push to "up those
stats".
> >
> > Either way, another scam-the-downtrodden insurance company bites the
dust
> :)

When California started pushing on everybody getting insurance, I
signed up at the Survival office which is across the street from the
complex.  It was right after they had opened up.  I had heard about
them on the rumor line at New York George's resturant which was at
that time a Scientology hangout (George was ex New York staff, the
resturant was sold long ago).  Apparantly Survival was started by
some Scientologists and their original staff & public were mostly
Scientologists, but of course there was no direct connection to
the CofS, just public members starting a business & using their
connections to promote.

I expected that it would be easier since there would be people there
who knew me etc. and it was quite simple.  The rate sounded
reasonable, but of course I didn't know anything, and it was
the first time I'd gotten auto insurance.

But note that I'd never had an accident in my life and the few
traffic tickets I'd gotten when I first learned to drive had
aged off long ago, and I was in an older low risk age bracket
with many years of safe driving on my record.  And a large
number of Californians were in a similar position and shopping
around for insurance that year because of the new laws.

And there was all sorts of PR about how Survival searched for the
lowest possible rates for me personally.

All bullshit.  When it came time to renew, I decided to see what
a normal big insurance company would charge.  Would you believe
HALF!  Survival had carelessly dumped me into the assigned risk
category which California had forced the insurance companies to
create for people who were uninsurable. I had the lowest possible
assigned risk rate available, as did (I assume), everybody else
who went to Survival regardless of driving record.

In other words, they cut out all the overhead of trying to
figure out if you were a good risk and treated everybody as
lousy drivers and then used the huge volume to negotiate a
slightly better rate for rotten drivers.  But even a good
assigned risk rate is double what you pay if you have a decent
driving record.  I don't know if they continued to do this.
This was a long time ago.

Among others, they ripped off thousands of their fellow
Scientologists.  And they probably spent lots of bucks at
Flag and Wise, which would keep ethics off their back.
(Ask Wollershim about how ethics used to ignore reports about
him a long as he was "flowing power".)

Good riddance.

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio - Ted's Excellent Peace Talk Analysis

TED'S EXCELLENT PEACE TALK ANALYSIS

On 15 Jun 99, ted@magicnet.net (Ted Crammer) posted on
topic "Super Scio - Ralph's Peace Talks"

> Rogers <here-i-yam@erols.com> wrote:
>
> > I figure that the upper management in the CofS is probably as harassed
and
> > confused and fatigued as any group can be.  But I would at least like to
> > approach them with the postulate that each and every one of them STARTED
> > OUT with the noblest of intentions and purest of hearts.  THIS is where
> > the diplomacy fits in.
>
> Generally speaking, the above is a good perspective.
>
> Now for some reality: If a meeting should take place you would not get
> to see the top dog. A mission would "fire" to the location of the meet.
> That mission would be very tightly managed from Int. The missionaires
> would wrap-up their day with lengthy reports as to what went down during
> the talks, who said what, to whom, tone, etc. Reports would include all
> observations, even that of who was there who didn't speak. There might
> be reporting during the day as well. In return, the missionaires would
> have a current "C/S" which they would be following.
>
> The management people would have Data Series Evaluators as their
> resource and the whole system would report to WDC. Most likely the
> stated outcome of the mission would be in place ~before~ the mission
> fired but there is a possibility they would fire an obs mission first
> and then some others would arrive as the meeting progressed.
>
> A few loosely associated people from the FZ are not going to go in to
> "build up the ARC" or "be diplomatic" or something like that and expect
> to walk away having achieved something with the CoS.
>
> While this fancied meeting could end with outward appearances of some
> understanding, any agreements that might be made would be binding on the
> FZ reps. and you can expect that the CoS would not hold up their end of
> the bargain.
>
> The above is my estimation of effort and prediction should a meeting
> ever take place.
>
> One more thing: Said missionaires would have your Declares "For
> Eternity" in their briefcases ready to issue if things looked rough.
> Then you can bet on a fantabulous shore story in KSW News and other
> publications.
>
> --
> Ted
>
> PS: This might work out much, much better if there is enough beer being
> consumed by all. I'll come if there's some good Mexican or German beer
> flowing. What I could do is laugh really loud when someone says
> something stupid.

This is spot on.  And for those not familiar with SO lingo,
Ted is using the right buzzwords too.

When he was ED Int (Executive Director, International), Bill Franks
tried to hold an honest set of meetings with disgruntled franchise/
mission holders.

The end result was that Bill got declared suppressive and removed
from post, and Davey called the infamous mission holders confrence
to beat everybody back into line, declaring a whole slew of
big league mission holders in the process.

So even an honest top level representative of the CofS might
have a "heads on a pike" mission coming in on his heels.

Peace talks are still a nice idea.  But I doubt if CofS would
make an honest effort.  And representatives of Scn public
would be in definite danger of being declared.

Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio - Scientologists in Mensa

SCIENTOLOGISTS IN MENSA

On 10 Jun 99, ralph@hilton.org (Ralph Hilton) posted on
topic "COS mathematics?"

>On Thu, 10 Jun 1999 02:54:22 GMT, jrford@sd.cybernex.net (J. R. Ford)
wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 9 Jun 1999 11:43:26 +0100, "Dave Bird---ARS HakeMonger
>>,,,,><_'>.,,,<_\",,,," <dave@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <7jklo7$1c1$1@andromeda.azstarnet.com>, David Sewell
>>><dsewell@andromeda.azstarnet.com> writes
>>>>In article <3761873b.32700431@enews.newsguy.com>,
>>>>Bern - http://welcome.to/ars <welcome@bernie.us-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>>>        Q. Why do some people oppose Scientology?
>>>>>>        A. In the first place, very few do.
>>
>>Q.  How many people belive in $cientology?
>>A.  Very few do.
>>
>>Statistically, I got you beat.  Wanna take a Harris poll on the
>>subject, chump?
>>
>>> I think they have a place in Mesa AZ.
>>
>>True, MENSA is waaaay out of their league.
>
>He said Mesa, AZ.
>
>When I left the S.O. I took the MENSA test and cleared 13 points above the
>necessary. MENSA is probably way outside ~your~ league.
>
>--
>
>Ralph Hilton
>http://Ralph.Hilton.org
>Freezone International: http://www.fzint.org

I got in easily (99th percentile and they only require 98th
for genius level).  I only kept the membership up for a few
years (but they keep you on file, so you only have to send in
dues to rejoin).

When I joined I was surprised to discover that they have a
"Scientologists in Mensa" SIG (Special Interest Group).

We did used to be "the high IQ religion" in the old days.

Unfortunately too much chineese school lowers IQ per the
BC tapes, and they seem to specialize in using that on their
staff these days.

You can't make people who can think better if you don't
let them think.

It's a shame really,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio - FREEZONE MARCHING

FREEZONE MARCHING

On 9 Jun 99, Ramata@webtv.net (Owen Roe) responded to my earlier
post on "Super Scio - To David Guest on Taking a Stand"

> Pilot: "If a thousand of them marched down Hollywood Blvd. from the
> Manor to the Complex carrying "Free The Tech" signs, we would win (and
> you can bet that I would come out to lead the parade)."
>
> I volunteer, plus guarantee 9 more.
> That's 1% . Owen Roe

You and all the others who came forward (Safe, Megasquirrel, etc.)
have my deepest thanks for your support.

I think that right now we'd have a hundred easily.  But I don't
think we'd get a thousand, at least not yet.

It will take time for this idea to grow.

It would be best to begin with a push to pickup more people
for this rather than making too weak a showing.

We need to reach the sleeping masses in LA.

What Ralph and Heidrun get away with in Austria was ruthlessly
stamped on here back in the eighties.  The groups that are still
operating are extremely secretive as a matter of survival.

There are endless thousands walking around in LA in a sort of
stalemated position.  They hide from registrars, they filter
their phone calls, and they might go to one event every few years,
as long as they know its a big one so that they can duck the
reg.  They don't keep up their IAS memberships, but they read
Advance and Source avidly.  They don't know what's wrong but
they know that they are stuck.

They need to read the net.  They need to have time to cognite.
The "Reform Now" page I wrote often gets through to them and
wakes them up.

The "FREE SCIENTOLOGY - see www.fza.org" stickers and copies
of the "Refrom Now" page need to be continually put up in
the areas with high Scientology populations - mostly almost
anywhere north of Wilshire from Silver Lake to Santa Monica
and especially Hollywood, Glendale, and the Valley.

Probably the "Scientology Reformer's Home Page" needs a
link on the first page of fza.org (hint) to help support
this.  That's the longer story (too big to use as a flyer).

How about a heavy freedom push during July to get stickers
and reform pages spread around and see if we can wake some
people up.

Team efforts to put stuff up might be fun and easy if you are
not worried about getting declared.

I'm not the right person to co-ordinate this.  Any volenteers?

Affinity,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio - Answering Fred Rice on The Marks

ANSWERING FRED RICE ON THE MARKS

On 8 Jun 99, FRice@LinkLine.COM (Fredric L. Rice) posted on
topic "FreeZoners:  Trademarking the name of your religion"

> Greetings, FreeZoners!
>
> How does everyone feel about the Scientology cult having trademarked
> the name of your religion?

Disgusted.

But the one that really got to me was "Scientologist".

When they told AOL that Hunnicut couldn't call himself a
Scientologist even though he was still in good standing
and hadn't been comm eved and even though he met all the
old definitions for a Scientologist -

It just made steam come out of my ears.

"What is Scientology" and other similar books and some of
Ron's tapes all have definitions for a "Scientologist"
that go like "somebody who knows Scientology works" and
so forth.

They should be forced to put a big red lable on the books
and tapes saying -

"Contains the lie that a Scientologist is somebody who
practices Scientology - the only people who may call
themselves Scientologists are those who use the Net
Nanny and get Issue Authority because it is a Registered
Mark"

Of course I'm just ranting here.  In truth the marks
should be tossed out of court because registering them
and using them like that was a betrayal of trust.

If they turn somebody into a Scientologist, then they've
got to live with that even if they don't like it.

Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Humor - TOP TEN REASONS FOR NAKED GOVERNMENT

HUMOR: TOP TEN REASONS FOR NAKED GOVERNMENT

On 10 Jun 99, tilman@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) found the
following tidbit and posted it on topic
"fwd: Mary Bono shows her Body Thetans!"

{Thank you Tilman)

(snipped for easy reading)

> From: agcgossip@aol.comBillie (AGC Gossip)
> Subject: Mary Bono...glad she's not my Congress(wo)man
> Date: 10 Jun 1999 12:31:38 GMT
>
> NY POST...By DENISE BUFFA
> ---------------------------------------------------
> REP. MARY BONO Undresses during interview. Rep. Mary Bono obsessed
> about her hair and undressed in front of a reporter profiling her -
> prompting a Democrat to lecture her on congressional dignity.

.

> "Excuse my naked body," Bono said as she stripped down to her "matching
> underwear," Esquire reported.
>
> Democratic political consultant Hank Sheinkopf said Bono was engaging
> in "stupid and dumb behavior."

I'm on Mary Bono's side here.  The hell with congressional
dignity.

In fact, let's go one better and require congress and all government
agencies to work in the nude.

TOP TEN REASONS FOR NAKED GOVERNMENT

10. Balances the sexes by getting more women elected to congress.

9. Saves on congressional cleaning bills.

8. Supports the arts by getting beautiful women elected to congress.

7. Ensures that congress will "trim the fat."

6. Keeps up with the times, by getting young women elected to congress.

5. Encourage beer drinking couch potatos to watch congressional
debates instead of sports.

4. Prevents incompetants from rideing in on other's coat tails.

3. Early visual warning if congressional representatives are
planning to screw the public yet again.

2. Makes it impossible to pocket bribe money.

(drum roll)

1. Early visual warning if Slick Willie spots a new intern.

Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio - AN ACT FABLE (the Phil/Bryan story)

AN ACT FABLE  (the Phil/Bryan story)

Once upon a time there was a fabulous apartment complex known
as Amazing Court Terrace.

It was filled with all sorts of strange and wild characters,
many of them refugees from an overly rigid cast society who
were now bound and determined to play their individuality to
the hilt.

There were students and hookers and businessmen and circus
performers and just about anything else that you could imagine,
even a delightful old curmodgeon whose bark was worse than
his bite who ran the place.

There was even some sort of a pilot who showed up occasionally
to jump off of the roof.  Luckily he had a hang glider.  But
he was only seen rarely because he spent most of his time
dragging the glider back through the mud.

But this tale is about two of the other colorful characters
that gave the building its charm.

One of these was a rough character named Phil who tended to
irritate people.  He had this enourmous stereo sound system
and just loved to play acid rock songs at top volume.  One
of his favorites had lyrics something like "Blow your ass,
blow it fast, blow it outta da Vol-ca-no!"

Needless to say, this was not appreciated by the neighbors.
But Phil had his sterling qualities too, being the sort
of tough character that had the guts to tackel a dangerous
situation if he felt that it needed doing.  He'd do things
like reaffixing the lightning rod when it blew loose in the
storm, even the pilot didn't feel like risking that one.

And then there was Bryan.  He was a quiet studious type,
well mannered and helpful in that he put some effort into
cleaning up the lobby and quite knowledgeable on various
topics.

But these two guys had a past history, both having been
on the same fishing trawler under a particularly rough
captain.  And they had gotten into the habit of throwing
fish at each other.

So there they were, Phil with his music and Bryan trying
to make the place nice looking and the two of them exhanging
nasty remarks whenever they passed in the stairwell.

And if it had been a Neil Simon world, they might eventually
have come to some mutual tolerance like the odd couple.

But that wasn't in the cards.  Instead, one fine day, when
Phil had left yet another beer can lying in the lobby, Bryan
snapped.  He grabbed a fire axe, chopped Phil's door down,
and chased him out of the building.

A few of the tenants applauded, after all the music had
been quite loud.  But most of them considered that using
fire axes was reprehensible and some missed Phil's occasional
wit and insight for he had not been a one sided character.

And there was much turmoil and discussion.  But the building
did really need both of them, Phil for the roof and Bryan
for the lobby.  And so it came to pass that Phil was
re-established in a new apartment and Bryan was censured
for his deeds.

Here the traditional fairy tale would come to its cheerful
conclusion where all live happily ever after, punctuated
by Phil, Bryan, and all the tenants joining hands and
singing about friendship.

Alas, things did not quite go that way.  Phil now played
his radio louder and Bryan began teaching classes in
axemanship.

Eviction was discussed, but the pilot, passing by on his
way to the roof, rightly pointed out that soon everybody
would be evicted, for all had habits that annoyed others,
even the lovable old curmodgeon pissed people off more
often than not.

The truth of the matter was that the building was populated
by very able characters who were continually growing in
skill and strenth, and the stronger they became, the less
they were willing to conform and and line up properly
like good citizens.  But the growth was uneven and so
the same character who had learned to make explosives
and was enjoying setting off fireworks in the halls
was complaining about the guy who had learned to have
fun floating naked in the middle of the lobby.

They had not yet learned tolerance for each other's
creations.

And so it was decided to force everybody to get along
and be in agreement and harmony with each other and
not create anything that others didn't like.

Once the implanting was finished, all were in peace
and harmony.  Phil no longer played his music loudly
and Bryan had ceased to sharpen his axes.

And a new golden age was prophesied.  All were happy.
However, Phil no longer would brave the roof, and
Bryan had ceased to care how much beer was spilled
in the lobby.  Furthermore, the guy who used to
tie up the phones had ceased to fix the plumbing,
and the guy who used to throw up in the stairwell
had stopped repairing the electrical system.

The pilot was saddened by this, but continued to
drop by occasionally to use the roof.  That is,
until the day when he found the building had
collapsed into rubble due to lack of maintenance.

And so he began the long search for another tall
building, slowly dragging his glider through the
mud behind him.

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

I hope that wasn't too mornfull.  But I'm afraid of
the traditional solution which is to implant everybody
into agreement.

You have to find a better way.  Not more controls.
Not more exiling (disconnection).  Not more beating
people into line.

I think you have to handle with more comm.  I think
you have to push it back up towards comm whenever it
starts sinking towards control and the inevitable
plunge down the pre-have scale that comes when you
go that route.

We have to find ways of being the exact reverse of a
third party, cleaning up the 3rd flow without falling
into the sweetness and light not-isness that builds
up charge on a reverse vector.

Right now you've got two cases to heal.

This is a test situation.  If we all became gods
right now this would happen in spades.

This situation is very close to basic.

Learn to solve it here where worlds wouldn't turn to
dust if you make a mistake.

And remember - "Communciation is the universal
solvent."

Good Luck,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - To Robert On The OT BC

TO ROBERT ON THE OT BC

On 9 Jun 99, VoltR@ctinet.net (RDucharme) responded to my
post on "Super Scio Tech - AN OT BREIFING COURSE"

> At 13:47 09/06/99 -0400, The Pilot wrote:
> >
> >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.
>
> Nice synopsis!
>
> I like this idea of a second briefing course, though I would lean towards
a
> review of the entire series of lectures if available, not just 500 of
them.

I'm simply afraid of too long a runway.  People take forever to
get through the SHSBC which is under 500 tapes.

Maybe a third course after both the OTBC & SHSBC to pick up the
remaining 2000 or so tapes.

> One of my favorite basic tech lecture series was the 8th ACC (C.O.H.A.),
> even though I'd already read the book.  I don't think the book gives one
> anywhere near the grounding in processing that the lecture series does.  I
> definitely would include it in the second briefing course.

I certainly agree that the 8th ACC tapes go far beyond reading CofHA.

My thought was that there was room for one ACC in the 4-9 range
if this was going to stay under 500 lectures.  Since you at least
get a summary of the key 8th ACC materials in CofHA, and since you
get nothing on the 9th unless you do it, my preferenance would
be to use the 9th.  They are both great.

> The Phoenix Lecture series I think should be added too.  The book has been
> edited too much and the tapes clarify a lot of confusions.

True, but again my logic was as above.

> As to which one should be done first?  Personally, I would opt for the
> second (O.T.) BC first so the student could get a proper grounding for the
> more technically detailed '60s briefing course.  It would also help him
put
> the SHSBC tapes into better perspective.

Running OT drills, especially PDC style stuff, on someone else
(rather than doing them solo), is an order of magnitude more
difficult than grades processing.  At least if you're going to
do it right, it takes much more judgement.

Of course the SHSBC has the really difficult GPM processing, but
it isn't applied.

So if our gradient is skill level, then its SHSBC first.

But the materials evolved the other way around.  So it could be
arged both ways.

>
> Robert

Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - SOFTENING UP GPMS

SOFTENING UP GPMS

I've made the point a number of times that one should soften
up an actual GPM before attempting to search for items.

You can do this with grades style repetative processes on
the area of the goal and a generalization of the overall
terminal.  This is discussed and processes are laid out in
Super Scio chapter 3.

This kind of processing will run easily without a lot of
risk or difficulty.

Recently Alan C. Walter pointed out that you have to run
the top (current) Reliable Item (RI) of the goal first.

This is absolutely correct when dealing with the RIs of the
goal, but it can be ignored when running generalized processes
that strip off charge without forcing the pc into a specific RI.

Let's make up an example.

The PC mocks up a goal "to be an icecream cone."

At the beginning of the GPM, he has RIs like "a glorious
icecream cone" and "a yummy icecream cone".

As he gets all screwed up on this goal, he eventually ends
up sinking down towards "a melted icecream cone" and "a
disgusting icecream cone."

If this is an actual GPM, he has been living these items,
and he has been accumulating charge in doing that, and
all the charge has come to rest right here in present time
on the last item.

If you try to deal with the charge on "a yummy icecream cone",
all the later stuff that he lived through on melting and
getting disgusting gets bypassed and restimulated and you
have a rough time of it.

And so you have to deal with the most recent items first
and work backwards down through the GPM towards the
beginning of it.

But the charge that holds these items in place consists
of PTPs, Overts, ARC Breaks, Inval, Protest, and so forth.

And we know that we can run grades style processes without
finding out any specifics about GPMs.  The reason is that
the grades style processes are flexible enough to run on
whatever needs to be run next.

In truth the grades are more basic and the GPMs only form
a small portion of the case.  All of the overts you would
get on running general O/W will not be locks on the RIs
that the pc is currently living.  But some of them may
be and they will run just fine because the pc is free to
bring up whatever he is ready to confront next.

Now, having our mitts on a particular actual GPM that the
pc has going, we can use this same trick to pull charge
off of the GPM without having to get the RIs first.

If you ask "what overt would an icecream cone commit",
the pc is free to bring up whatever overt is most accessible
in this area.  You are not forcing him into the current RI
and you are not forcing him into an early RI, you are just
letting him bring up whatever he can confront on a gradient.

Furthermore, the overts that he commits in the later RIs
often have basics in the earlier RIs.  And in fact there
may be a key basic on icecream cone overts that is prior
to the entire GPM.  Overts will run earlier on the track
than any GPM and are one of the many things that the GPMs
build on top of.

We already know that we can run back chains of things,
whether problems or overts or engrams or whatever, without
having to stay in the current RI and in fact all of our
tech works best when the PC can go earlier without restraint.

My experience in running light repetative processes on
an actual GPM area is that you tend to pull charge off
of the current RI and occasionally cycle back on the
time track and knock out earlier underlying basics from
earlier RIs or even prior to the entire GPM and this is
our natural running of repetative processes.

And this all happens easily without spotting the specific
RIs.

What an RI does is it acts to group together PTPs, overts,
ARC breaks, inval, protest, etc. so that these all have
to be confronted at once as part of confronting the RI.

That is what makes the RIs so hard to find and handle.
Ron would talk about how it doesn't work to use simple
Itsa to try and find RIs, and this is correct unless you
take a lot of charge off first.  In confronting an RI,
the pc has the overts and the problems and the ARC breaks
and the inval and the protest and all sorts of other
case buttons all hitting him at once and it is just too
much.

But you can strip out these grades style buttons first.
If that didn't work, the grades would not work.

In getting each of the grades areas to FN on the goal,
you key out all these things in relation to the goal.
This takes you to the point where the bulk of the charge
on the goal is keyed out and the goal will FN broadly
without having yet found any RIs.

But that is a keyout.  The pc may have thousands of overts
related to this goal and you might have only run out a dozen
of them.  Therefor the goal can charge up again unless
it is fully confronted.

Now is the time to list out the RIs.  They can be taken
to an FNing platen.  They can be scanned up and down and
looked at at random and nothing kicks or charges up anymore.
And you can remember living the damn things and see how
it all fits together.

The listing in this case becomes extremely easy, generally
you hardly start to think of the question and you know
immediately what the next item is.  And the RIs are up
in the accessible band where you can get a lot of Itsa
on them easily because you're not getting kicked in the
teeth by the overts and problems and so forth that are
connected with it.

A pro can list RIs in the presence of heavy charge.  It
takes maximum skill.  I do not want to invalidate anybody
who has managed it.  But the above is the easy way.

If the goal is already keyed out, mistakes key in very
little charge and are easy to spot and correct.

But the rule still holds that you have to start with
the present time RI and work back down towards the
beginning of the goal.  If you try to list from the
formulation of the goal forward in time from the early
items up towards the present, you will start turning
on charge from the later items.  Its not the huge masses
of charge that you would get on a goal that hasn't been
softened up, but you can still feel the mass building
if you try to do it that way.

Once you have worked down through a half dozen RIs,
you can come from that point forward and its easy
because the later items are already spotted.

And with the goal mostly dischared by repetative processes,
you can comfortably miss a few items and then catch them
as you work the mapped out area back and forth.

But you can't just jump back to the beginning of the
goal and start working with the initial items if you
haven't confronted any of the later ones yet.  There
are just too many postulates to non-confront later in
the goal.

This is a characteristic of actual GPMs where the person
postulates items to achieve a goal.  And note that the
postulates that he made and is still holding in place
to solve this goal are what we really want to free up.

It does not apply to anything where the being has the
items before he lives or dramatizes them.  It only
locks up this way if the person postulates an item,
lives it and charges it up, and then mocks up the next
item.

Implants, like individual engrams, run best from the beginning
to the end because the entire implant is one incident.

I'm still scratching my head a bit on the idea of basic
patterns like the 1964 GPMs.  Those might run early to
late because the pattern was entered as a unit.  But
that is a different breed of cat.

However, even those would be easiest to run on the general
theory of softening up the goal first with light repetative
processes.

The beauty of the light repetative grades style processes
is that you don't even have to figure out which way something
would have to be run, the pc just naturally comes up with
things in the order that he can confront them.

My current theory (see my posting on Types of GPMs) is that
there are many goals series going on concurrently.  The
pc begins one with each universe and a shadow of it keeps
going once he sinks down to the next lower universe and
starts a new goals series aimed at operating in the new
universe.

Each series would have a PT (present time) GPM in formation.
In searching for goals in 1963, they sometimes would get an
older GPM first rather than the PT GPM.

If an older one shows up first, it probably did so because
there is some current situation stirring it up and causing
it to get in the way.  Again it works to take off some
charge with light repetative processing.  But if it is
an older GPM, then you should just FN it and not go into
item listing, that is best done from PT back.

And of course in the old days they would often get a goal
that was only a lock on an RI rather than an actual GPM or
they would get an actual goal which was not a GPM but was
only a goal.  And again, these things have some charge
on them and that charge will handle with light processes.
But you would make a mess if you tried to do item listing.

In fact, when running the grades, there are lots of fill
in the blanks type processes and we run those without
caring whether or not they tie in to some particular GPM.

So you can sidestep the whole horrible mess of trying to
be sure whether you've got an actual PT GPM or an older
GPM or something else that simply has charge on it.

If there is a goal with some kick to it and the pc has
high interest in running it, then just take some charge
off with light repetative grades style processes that
are aimed at the area of the goal.  When you get enough
charge off, he will know if this is a PT GPM that he
has been living for many lifetimes or something older
that has come into restim recently or whatever.  And
since you are getting charge off with these processes,
it doesn't matter that much what you've bumped into
because there are gains to be made in discharging it.

Item listing, on the other hand, is often wasted time
if you get tangled up in something incorrectly.

Taking apart actual GPMs by item is a very upper level
action. It requires a very educated pc and probably only
should be attempted solo.  And it shouldn't be attempted
until after one is "clear" because there is too much
force on these.  The RIs group engram chains as well
as grades type stuff and the best way to get the pc
to stop mocking up the impacts in the bank is to get
him to a dianetic clear state.  That does not as-is
the grades material and it doesn't as-is the RIs and
it doesn't get his postulates into view, but it does
remove the engramic force that makes these things smash
into him like a steam locomotive when he tries to fool
around with them.

But taking charge off with repetative processes is
safe and easy.  If you aim them at a PT GPM you will
get more cognitions and TA action per unit of time than
if you just run them in general manner as we do on
the grades.

Note that on my own case, running an actual GPM goal
was one of the highest producers of TA action.  There
was orders of magnitude more TA on the single GPM
"to be intelligent" than there was on the entire CC,
and I got excellent TA running CC so that should tell
you something.

Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - On Maier's Help Bracket Processing

ON MAIER'S HELP BRACKET PROCESSING

On 11 Jun 99, ciric@gte.net (Bill Maier) posted on topic
"Clearing Help Brackets"

Although it is a bit long, I wanted to quote this excellent
post in full.

Rather that mark the individual lines, I though it better to
simply mark the beginning and the end - my comments follow:

>>>>>>>>>> HELP BRACKET PROCESSING

 Help Bracket Processing
 Bill Maier
 June 10, 1999

 I. Introduction
 Over the past few months I have been solo auditing a clearing program
 using help processes from Eductivism class VIII. Although these help
 processes will look very familiar to Scientologists, their application
 to clearing GPMs was originated by Jack Horner, the founder of
 Eductivism. His original handling of GPMs was similar to standard
 Scientology methods, but he later decided that these help processes
 handled the same things, with less auditing skill required for their
 application. The idea for me personally running these came from one of
 Jack's former students, who became a sort of mentor for my clearing
 progress.

II. Processes

There are two basic processes used. The Clearing Help Bracket is

1. In relation to _____, how could you help another?
2. In relation to _____, how could another help you?
3. In relation to _____, how could another help himself?
4. In relation to _____, how could you help yourself?
5. In relation to _____, how could another help another?
6. How could _____ help you?

The process is run as a bracket, meaning that the questions are run 1,
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, etc. The Participant Bracket is

1. How could you help a _____?
2. How could a ____ help you?
3. How could you help yourself?
4. How could a ___ help himself?
5. How could a _____ help another?
6. How could another help a _____ ?
7. How could a ___ help a ____?

Various items can be inserted into the blanks. The Clearing Help
Bracket is most useful when the item is a concept. For example, to run
the item "winning", the first question would be "In relation to
winning, how could you help another?" The Participant bracket is used
to run terminals (people or beings), and is most often used on
different kinds of game participants. For example, running "unwilling
participant" leads to the question "How could you help an unwilling
participant?" etc.

It's necessary to recognize the variety of subjective definitions of
help that may come up when running these processes. For example, a
soldier might help an enemy by killing him. Perhaps the soldier was
helping by showing the enemy the justness of the cause for which the
soldier is fighting. In any case, the interpretation of what
constitutes an answer is entirely up to the PC, but he does need to be
hatted on this so he doesn't invalidate his answers if they don't fit
the textbook definition of help.

Here are some items that can be run in the Help Brackets:
 Being a source / Not being a source
 Intending / Not intending (or Intention / No intention)
 Creating / Not creating
 Pleasing people / Not pleasing people
 Winning / Non-Winning
 Participating / Not participating
The items are listed in dichotomous pairs, both of which should be
run. For example, first you would run the bracket 1-6 on "being a
source" with the questions "In relation to being a source, how could
you help another?", "In relation to to being a source, how could
another help you?" etc. You would then run the bracket 1-6 on "not
being a source" with "In relation to not being a source, how could you
help another?", etc. In all there would be 12 questions in the bracket
that would be repeated to EP.

Here are some items to run in the participant brackets:
 detached participant
 involved participant
 winner
 loser
 non-winner (someone who doesn't win or lose, but stays in the game)
 willing participant
 unwilling participant
 degraded participant
 solving participant
 rejected participant
 different (and better) participant
 failing participant
 constant (or determined) participant
 obsessed participant
 automatic participant
 compelled participant
 committed participant
 faulty participant
 begrudging participant
 perfect participant
 excessive (or overwhelmed or overrun) participant
 regretful participant
 unsolvable participant
 refusing participant
 bothered (by others who are doing what you are trying to give up)
participant
 changing (to a new solution) participant

There are 18 participants which are supposed to address specific items
common to GPMs, that can be run in the Participant brackets.  They
are:

1.  Ex-participant  = one who no longer has the desire to participate.
Just doesn't have the desire anymore . . . Doesn't want to be involved
anymore.

2.  Changing participant (or change-desiring participant) = one who
has desire to pursue the next goal.  The key is desire - he's not
actually doing the new thing yet.

3.  Bothered participant =  having problems with those who are still
doing the thing that one has just given up.  Example: quit smoking
cigarettes and now have problems with cigarette smokers.

4.  Refusing participant = one who has determined to not do it at all,
ever again.  Try not to think of a pink elephant.  Quitting once and
for all.  Actually "quitting partcipant" might work very well also.

5.  Discouraged participant = one whose goal has become an unsolvable
problem. "Unsolvable participant" might work also.

6.  Regretful participant = is hoping not to, but is doing it anyway.
"Sorry I keep stepping on your foot . . .  I'd like to stop smoking
and I hope to give it up some day, but . . ."

7.  Excessive participant.  Or: overwhelmed or overrun participant.
= having too much of whatever it is.

8.  Begrudging participant = one who HATES what he is doing, but goes
on doing it. Hating is the solution!

9.  Faulty participant = suffering from criticisms, his own and
others'.

10.  Committed participant = one who is doing what has to be done.
Justifying and rationalizing why one has to do this.

11.  Compelled participant = someone or something making you do it.

12.  Automatic participant = setting up automaticities to carry out an
intention

13.  Obsessed participant = obsession, fixation, can't get your mind
off it.

14.  Determined participant = doing it over and over, constantly.

15.  Failing participant = having failures to achieve what was
intended.

16.  Better participant = doing it differently and better.  Generally
has attitude of "I'll show them"  (This also true of determined
participant).  Could say "different and better participant."

17.  Rejected participant = having
rejections/difficulties/disagreements with those who have the same
general goal.

18.  Solving participant =  One who has the only solution for
everything.   Solution could be positive or negative.  For example, he
could be solving everything by avoidance.  A person dramatizing this
item usually is trying to get the solution to manifest on all flows.
Example, trying to be agreeable, get others to be agreeable = total
solution for everything.

III. Prerequisites
I would recommend that a person have completed at least some prior
auditing before attempting these processes. The traditional course is
to have a person complete the grades through Power processing before
attempting these clearing processes. However, I have found that many
of the assumptions currently extant for auditing are quite arbitrary
-- e.g. you must do grades before power, power before R6EW, etc. I
would say use your own judgement.  The only real "danger" is that the
person would fail to get significant results, then write off the
processes without recognizing they might be applicable later on.
Personally I had only perhaps one hundred hours of processing with an
auditor before starting the help brackets, but I had also completed
several hundred hours of solo processing including about the first
half of the Pilot self-auditing program, through the Power processes.

One prerequisite I would not compromise on is the excellent use of
TRs. Personally, it wasn't until I began to adhere strictly to the use
of TRs in my solo auditing that I began to get consistently good
results. Prior to this I would frequently bog down and simply abandon
a process, without knowing why it didn't work. The correct handling is
just simple TR4:
  Auditor: How could you help an unwilling participant?
  PC: (starts to feel groggy)
  Auditor: What's happening?
  PC: I feel groggy.
  Auditor: OK. Is it all right to continue with the process?
  PC: Yes.
  Auditor: OK. I'll repeat the auditing question, how could you help
an unwilling participant?
The groggy feeling is treated as an origination. The auditor gets the
PC back into session and continues. You must train yourself to keep
your auditor identity in place, even when the going gets rough. It's
really not that difficult.

IV. Personal Experience
These processes are simple to run and make few assumptions. You don't
have to have any reality on GPMs to run these. You don't even have to
run whole track, though they undoubtedly run deeper if you do. Despite
the lack of assumptions, I frequently found myself involved in the
interaction of identities and goals - GPM material. The absence of
assumptions is appealing to me. It's clear by looking at the diversity
of opinions in the Free Zone about running NOTs and OT III that there
is no consensus for handling cases beyond the grades. I think it is
best to stick to those processes that allow the PC to come up with his
own answers, rather than those that feed him assumptions about his
case or his history.

I always use a meter when auditing, though this is not strictly
necessary. I would recommend you use one if you have one, but don't
let a lack of a meter stop you. My main use of the meter during these
processes is to confirm the EP, and to a lesser extent to monitor
progress. The position of the TA is the most important indicator,
though the looseness or tightness of the needle is also useful
information.

I have seen more TA action while running these processes than any
others I've run. It is not unusual to see the TA rise as much as a
division or more, then blowdown, rise again, blowdown, etc. over and
over again during the session. I've had TAA of 35 divs per hour or
more. The processes can also cause "high TA, stuck needle" situations
as masses move in. I have had a stuck needle at TA 5.5 for more than
half an hour in a session, but after continuing to run the process the
needle eventually freed up, the TA blew down, and I ended with a
floating TA. Incidentally, floating TAs have been a common result for
me running these processes, and once I have one there's no point in
trying to run anything else for a day or two until it settles down.

There's just one more point I'd like to make about the meter. You can
use it to assess items to run, though again this is not necessary. You
could formulate a question such as "What kind of participant am I
being" and look for reads on your answers. I tried this once and did
not have much luck with it. (I have not had much success with solo
assessment in general, however - I rarely get reads on any of the
items). Personally, I just went ahead and ran all of the items. Those
that were not heavily charged ran to an EP in 10 or 15 minutes, while
those that were more heavily dramatized took longer.

One of the greatest difficulties for me in solo auditing was
determining when to end the process. When I first started soloing
(prior to running these help brackets) it was not unusual for me to
run a process for 3 or 4 minutes, have a cognition, and then end the
process. Several auditors in the Free Zone told me it was OK to end
the process here, that the important thing was to keep having wins.
Well, perhaps this is true for some people, but for me personally this
was not right. The quick cognition was a sort of non-confront
mechanism which kept me from getting into the real heart of the
process. I needed to push ahead and run processes to a true flat
point. It's hard to put a run time on processes since they run
differently from person to person, however the above brackets
frequently required at least an hour for me to flatten one item when I
first started this processing. As I progressed the times tended to
shorten as the bulk of the charge was handled. The meter can also be
used to help confirm when to end a process, by watching for the TA in
the range 2 to 3 with a loose needle.

Although these processes are unlimited and can be run for a long time
with benefit, I do not recommend them as a "one-shot" technique, to be
done to the exclusion of all else. There are those who find some
process to be particularly effective, and then narrowly focus on that
process as "the answer". I cannot agree with such an approach. No one
process can cover all aspects of a case. I think it is important to
take the gains one can get from a process and then move on to
something else.

V. Results
My results with these processes have been outstanding. Flattening an
item frequently leaves me in such a keyed-out state that it is
impossible to continue further processing for at least a day or two. A
floating TA is a common end result.

So is this processing an effective way to handle GPMs? Quite honestly
I cannot say for sure one way or the other. I do know that the
processes tend to address identities and the interaction of
identities, and that running them does exteriorize me from these
dramatizations. This, along with the huge quantities of charge being
handled, makes me think that I am indeed erasing or keying-out GPMs.
However, until I have direct experience with a more traditional GPM
process, I have no real basis for comparison.

Nonetheless, I find that I am becoming quite detached in my view of
life as a result of this processing. I am far less bothered by the ups
and downs of daily living, and feel that I have gained a considerable
ability to act on life, rather than react to it. Life is less serious.
My own personal space has also expanded. In short, the help and
participant brackets have been some of the most effective processing I
have ever had.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> END OF BILL'S POST

See the general writeup that I'm posting on "SOFTENING UP GPMS."

I've been pushing the use of general repetative grades style
processes to discharge GPM goals, and pointing out that the
grades will run earlier on the track than any GPMs.

Here Bill has come up with a different approach using the same
grades style philosophy to discharge the GPM bank, and I'm
quite pleased to see that Jack Horner had found reasons to
validate this approach.

Jack's work was not known to me at the time of writing Super
Scio and mine was obviously not known to him.

From what I understand of Jack's work now, he was aiming at
what I'm calling the 1964 actuals, which are a different sort
of thing than the 1963 R3M style actuals.  I think that Ron
was mistaken in abandoning one for the other, there is more
than one kind of GPM back on the track, and neither of these
are directly related to the 1965 type which the clearing course
addresses.

I am assuming here that the list of things to run in the help
process is slanted towards discharging the RIs of the 1964 set,
based on Jack and other's experience in working with the GPMs
directly.

Instead of discharging one single goal with a limited amount
of repetative processing, Bill is tackeling the entire GPM
series as a unit.  As a result, he has lots of work to do
on the help button, but it runs sucessfully because it is
indeed more basic.  And note that as the button runs out of
the entire GPM series, it should come loose from the RIs and
more basic (prior to GPMs) stuff on help should come into view.

There is a basic problem in that the accessible band on a
new person is too shallow to let them reach the help button
on the early track.  The grades only go to keyout instead of
errasure.  The material run is late track, but it harmonics
on early track (because we keep doing the same stuff) and
so we get releases without really viewing the basic stuff.

After grades, you can fight your way through the heavy force
band as I did, running implants, overts, and tearing apart
a few actual GPMs until you can see past them (and also
handling entities and all the other wild phenomena).  It
took me a long time to find the grades again on the far
side of this heavy later stuff.

Another approach, which is used in self clearing, is to
cycle through grades style material repetatively a number
of times because the band of accessibility is wider each
time and you will eventually get earlier than the GPMs
and things.

Here we now have a third approach, which is to have a battery
of processes on a particular grade button ("help" in this case)
tailored closely enough to the RI patter to let it cut
through to the far side.

"Help" is a good choice because it is one of the more basic
grade buttons.  I don't think that you would make it with
a later heavier one such as overts or ARC breaks as the first
process.  But "communication" or even "protest" or "not know"
could probably be made to work in this pattern.

I'm not sure if you can reach full errasure on "help" this
way on a single pass.  I'm fairly sure, though, that
the "help" button will have errased out of the RIs if
you can get it running earlier than the initial creation
of GPMs.

Eventually help will either errase or key out so thoroughly
that it will not run further.

Then you will need to shift over to a different grade
button and errase that out of the RIs and get it into
the basic area.  "Communication" might be a good choice,
it might even be a better first target than help.
It could be as simple as "what could a ____ say to you",
"what could you say to a ____".  But of course many variations
are possible and one might have to experiment around a bit.

I would say that a light run through grades or self clearing
should be done first.

And as I said, there are other ways to reach early track.
But this does seem like a workable one.

Bill has my thanks.

Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - Solving Difficulties in doing UCP Solo

SOLVING DIFFICULTIES IN DOING UCP SOLO

A process known as the Universal Clearing Process or UCP has
been given out freely on the net.  The source is:

> Konchok Penday
> Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
> <konchok.penday@net-prophet.net>
>
> FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
> http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
> "Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"

A nice simple summary was put out by Bryan, <ryanqlee@hotmail.com>
on 14 Jun 99.

>The following seems to be the core of UCP.
>
>---
>UCP COMMANDS:
>1] Tell me a place you have been.
>2] Compare that place to where you are now.
>3] Where might you be?
>4] Compare that place to where you are now.
>
>1] Tell me a View Point you have had.
>2] Compare that View Point to your present View Point.
>3] What View Point might you have?
>4] Compare that View Point to your present View Point.
>---

Konchok has taken the admirable action of distributing his
work freely for use in co-audits.  For that I thank him.

He also has the common dramatization of saying that his process
is all you'll ever need and so forth and bashes at other's
work (especially Hubbard even though he uses Ron's scales etc.)
But I'll ignore that for now since his work does have some
value and he has given it out freely.  I hope he'll mend his
ways and join the club, there is ton's of stuff we still have
to figure out.

The big bug is that he insists that it cannot be solo audited
but must be co-audited.  And he is right, it is a rough one
to solo, although I wouldn't say that it is impossible.

And I don't want to invalidate co-auditing.  You can generally
run deeper doing that.  But if it can be made to solo, then
the same technique should make it easier to co-audit too.

The biggest difficulty here is that this is a differentiation
style process.  Those are inherently more difficult to run.

The easy processes are generally spotting type processes where
you look at one thing at a time.  A differentiation type
process requires looking at two things at once and it is,
of course, a bit harder.  It is difficult enough that it
can be out of the accessible band in solo.

I favored spotting techniques in self clearing and the majority
of modern Scientology grades processes are in the repetative
spotting category.  Take problems and solutions for example,
it is basically an alternate spotting of problems and solutions,
considerably beefed up to get more Itsa ("What solutions have
you had for that problem").

But differentiation techniques do give good gains, Ron uses
them occasionally in the 1950s, and I used some in self
clearing.  In fact Trom's timebreaking is basically a
differentiation style techique.

These things all work and they will solo.  But the key to
doing it successfully is to come up to it on a gradient.
Even Trom wouldn't just toss the person into their time
breaking without any preparation.

One way to do this would be to do a few commands of alternate
spotting on the target first before trying to differentiate.

For example

a) spot a place you have been.
b) alternately spot that place and where you are now a few
times until you have good reality on it.
c) Then spot similarities and differences between the two locations.

Then spot another place, etc.

In this form it should solo fairly easily.  Without this,
many people would just skid off in solo and the process wouldn't
bite.  In a co-audit, doing it this way should run a bit faster
and deeper.

It occurs to me that this might also run well on "time"
instead of "place" or "viewpoint".

It also occurs to me that it might be fun without the
limiter of where you have been.  In other words, spot
any place.

Have Fun,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - To Joanne Barree on Assists

TO JOANNE BARREE ON ASSISTS

On 20 Jun 99, "Joanne Barre" <joanne@telsurf.net> posted on
topic "Pilot, thank you"

> Thank you for the touch assist.  I understand this.  He is paralyzed
> on his left side.  I still want to know were "he" is.  Is he in his
> body?  Does he move in and out?  If so, why?
>
> I don't know what my father's fears are for the somatic on the two
> way communication.  I will ask him.  As far as I know, his fears
> are going to be pretty heavy.
>
> I don't want to mess him up more than he already is.
> I am going to do the touch assist.
> Thank you, J

I only seem to be able to find later parts of this conversation
(I notice that thom has been giving you some good answers) and
I'm missing too much background information.

The touch assists are a very good idea.

Also have him spot points inside the body, alternating the two
sides, I'm assuming that you are in good enough comm to get him
to do this.

Don't concentrate exclusively on the body because it validates
the physical situation too much.

Also do some light recall of pleasure moments or other light
processing directed away from the current situation.

For fear, your best starting point is to have him remember or
spot things that he is NOT afraid of.  This fits in well with
doing a bit of processing away from the current condition and
yet also acts as an indirect handling.

Best is probably to spend the first half of each session working
on the physical condition and the second half working other things.

Hope this helps,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - ON PME'S, PLUGS, CBR, & INC 1

ON PME'S, PLUGS, CBR, & INC 1

I just went through CBR's tech briefings 4 and 7 on Super Nots
(Actually I've been going throught he tech briefings in sequence
and I would recommend reading them that way, but these are the
two that I'm commenting on here).

He found something called plugs and it's what I've been calling
PMEs (programmed machine entities - see Super Scio).

I'm quite surprised at the number of parallels and facinated
by the fact that we hit these things with completely different
slants and viewpoints and yet bumped into the same phenomena.
Note that I didn't even have a hint of his stuff about plugs
when I was writing Super Scio and he certainly didn't read my
stuff because it wasn't posted until 1997.

I think he slipped up occasionally but he also got a thing or
two that I missed in the area.  And since we both say to follow
attention and interest and that you have to get to the core
of these things instead of using ordinary Nots endlessly
around the edges, the differences of opinion don't really
matter that much.

What he calls a "plug" is a construction of "entities" with
organization and structure that does something.  He was into
policy and "3rd dynamic tech", so he describes it that way.
I'm more into mechanics and computer programming and things
like that so I describe it as a "machine".  But of course a
"machine" has organization and structure and does something.

CBR talks about these plugs having org boards.  Hopfully he
was not doing a literal minded dub-in of the 7 or 9 division
org board used by CofS.  That's just a crapped up old example
of a poor org structure dragged out of some old civilization
that must have had about the worst tech/admin ration that
you could imagine.  But Ron's Mind/Body/Product concept of
organization struture is a correct basic and would apply
to these things.

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

ORG BOARDS -

I feel a need to digress here and talk a bit about org
boards, feel free to skip this.

Ron's truely brilliant cognition on organization structure
is the Mind/Body/Product theory.  That is correct.  And it
holds true for machines as well as groups.  Not just mental
machines, but physical machines as well.

If you take the now standard computer programming model of
Input/Processing/Output, and you realize that output is the
product, and that body fits with processing, then you can see
that there should be a line up between Mind and Input.  Except
that mind is broader, it establishes and controls as well as
setting up the input to the processing.  And that establishment
and control function IS present in computer softwear, and therefore
Ron's description encompasses the reality better than the
standard I/P/O model.

And of course the Mind, Body, and Product each subdivide into
a lesser Mind, Body, Product in a fractile manner.  In computers,
they recognize this repeated occurance of I/P/O within each
segment of I/P/O and therefore describe it as being Hierarchical.
This is the classic Hierarchical Input-Processing-Output or
HIPO model which underlies good quality system design.  And
yet again, if you use Ron's description with its broader
concept of mind rather than simply input, you pick up loose
ends related to control and establishment that system designers
have to finagle with, and so it is a better picture.

Now if you take an automobile, there is a "mind" function which
is the control system.  And then there is the "body" or actual
"production" component which is engine and body and so forth,
and there is a "product" which is the movement of the car.
And if we take some subordinant piece, such as the engine,
we again find that there is an input+control function and
the body/production unit itself, and a product or output even
though we started by selecting a component of the higher level
"body" segment.  And if we take the control system (mind from
the higher view), we again see that we can subdivide it into
mind, body, and product.  This is a fractile pattern, the same
subdivisions at the top are also the lesser subdivisions within
each large subdivision.

So your car does not have tiny little registrars and ethics
officers running around in it, but it does have this mind/body/
product pattern.

There is an infinity of ways in which this pattern can be
implemented.  Many organization structures are possible, the
CofS has one, although as I said I don't think it is a very
good one.  It is a shame that Ron didn't try to rethink the
entire org board from scratch once he had this more basic
cognition.

And of course you can build machines without paying attention
to this.  But you will find that you end up having to handle
input/control and operation and results anyway, and so the
machine will wind up having these things.  The only question
is whether you plan for these things or end up hacking them
in after you start construction so as to get the damn thing
to work (happens often in computer software).

And so it is fair to say that a machine has organization and
that it will have a hierarchical organization and you need to
get to basic on the whole structure (which is the top level -
that is what you lay out first in writing a program) to take
it apart.

If you want to look at this as going up the chain of command
to the "CO" (commanding officer), it will work although I
would consider the analogy to be a little bit silly.

I prefer to look at this as moving through outer layers
towards a central core.  But again, that is only a way of
looking at it.

In truth what you are trying to do is get to the stuff that
holds the entire automobile together instead of just dealing
with the stuff that is holding one of the tires together,
and you hit the small details on the fringes first and
have to work to get past them to the all encompassing ones.

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

MACHINE MAKING

I called it a "machine making cylinder", Bill calls it a
"Spin-Dryer".  Same damn thing, a rotating cylinder that
forms the machine.  The entities are repelled by the walls
as it spins.

Bill says "electrostatic charge" repels the beings, pushing
them into the center.  That could be true on recent track
but would not be true in the middle track period when these
machines were first being formed because the thetan did not
yet think of himself as being energy which could be handled
with force.

So I think that I'm right in saying that the thetan was
handled by using symbols that he flinched at.  The walls of
the cylinder have symbols on them and he tries to back away
from them and thereby pushes in towards the center of the
cylinder.  And if it was just the symbol immediately above
the thetan on the inner wall of the cylinder, he might not
flinch and he might confront it, so they have a long series
of different symbols and they rotate the cylinder so that
the symbols show up one after the other, and the faster it
rotates, the faster he gets hit with these symbols, so he
flinches more and more instead of getting his TRs in and
escaping.

Note that this early, the thetan did not think of himself as
either being mass or energy, but he had already come to think
of himself as being space rather than being something which
creates space (big difference) and so was located and occupied
space.  And of course we know it is possible for thetans to
occupy the same space, but if the thetans are insisting that
they each have their own space, then those spaces can be pushed
together and the thetans can be crushed in on each other even
though that is something that cannot truely happen on early
track when the thetan had less considerations.

And so the thetans near the walls of the cylinder press inwards
a bit and so the next layer beneath them, trying to keep some
space, push in more on the ones below them and the pressure
gets immense in the center, especially as the cylinder spins
faster and begins to conract.

Of course if you were willing to have the other thetans in your
space, this wouldn't work and the machine making wouldn't affect
you.  And if you were not flinching at symbols, you would just
float out of the damn thing.  So this is middle track, with a
thetan who is already pretty abberated although he is still being
a thetan instead of a body.

I find the machine making to be recent.  These things do come
apart.  But to blow a machine properly, I generally had to
have the basic core spot "the first time you were made into
a machine."  And that is generally in what I call the symbols
universe.

And guess what, I get the same damn dates that CBR does.
4 to 7 Quadrillion.  The big machine building era late in the
symbols unvierse.  See the Cosmic History chapter of Super
Scio.

He has another interesting thing which he calls a "Hoover"
that sucks up thetans.  His description is correct.  I should
have taken a closer look at the "clean up" done by the implant
dealers after a mass implant.  I mentioned that in Super Scio,
but with no detail.  This hoover thing is exactly what they
use.

In a mass implant like inc 2, there are huge numbers of decayed
beings that just drop out, being too overwhelmed for packaging.
The implant dealers kindly clean up afterwards, collecting
these dregs and building them into machines.  And so there is
a hoover suckup prior to the machine making.  But of course
this is late track.  You wouldn't find this in a first time
machine making experience.

However, you might find a hoover like device in middle track
(the orginal machine making era), working on symbolic attraction
to draw in thetans rather than using force.  We do tend to repeat
ourselves even as the laws and mechanics change.

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

INVADER FORCES

Another digression.  Notice how cross fertilization of
different techs is really turning on lots of Itsa.

Bill mentioned sucking thetans up out of another universe.
Something seemed to indicate on that although it would not
fit with machine building activities here in this universe.

What I got immediately was a different use of one of these
hoover things in building an invader force, and for me
that is a recent incident, only slightly before Earth.

I've mentioned before that these heavy invader forces are
formed up by somebody in the magic universe capturing a
crowd down here, dragging them up to the magic universe,
implanting them into being an army, and then pushing them
back in here via incident 1.  This is an effort on the
part of those few high lords and wizards that are still
left up in the magic universe to establish empires before
relocating here because the magic universe has almost
completely decayed due to exiling most of its people to
this universe.

With CBR's description of hooverizing, my own incident on
this came into better view.

The earlier beginning was a huge space battle.  I think
that will usually be the case because they want soldiers
to make up into an army, so it is best to start with beings
who are already making soldier style postulates.  After the
battle, there are lots of confused thetans who just died in
the hundreds or thousands of ships that blew up.

You're not going to suck up a happy and oriented thetan or
somebody that has a well body to hang onto.  But these guys
who've just had the shit blown out of them are easy meat.

So the sequence is:

1. Killed in some huge battle or other catastophie that leaves
thousands or millions dead and in shock as beings.

2. Sucked up by Hoover

3. Confusing impressions of magic universe as they shift you
from the hoover collection mechanism (a golden sphere) into
an implant.

4. Invader force making implants.  Things like being invited
into a beautiful crystal city and then these space ships
appear and smash it and they inspire you to smash the enemy.
And another sequence where a good and kind king tells you
he trusts you to save the common people.  Lots of highly
asthetic picture sequences like that, not particularly related
to each other, meant to remind you of times that you did make
strong postulates to be a good and loyal soldier etc.
Then a bunch of implant items about being brave and obedient
and loyal and so forth.

5. Incident 1.  A very recent late on the chain occurance
of it.  And of course its the beginning of track and before
time and all that garbage if you've been kicked around enough
to confuse your own time track with a Mest time track.
The big trick is that it really is the beginning of track.
It is the moment when the Inc 1 universe was created and
there is nothing earlier in it.  And you are used to tieing
into a start of track like that and accepting it as the
beginning of all time within a game for the sake of playing
a game (start a monopoly game - it is the beginning of
game time - no fair using stuff from yesterday's game).
In this case its just meant to trick you.

6. And then you're back down here being marshalled up, perhaps
into a 4th or 5th invader force unit (from different mutually
hostile kingdoms in the magic universe).

Of course this is just based on my own run through a recent
(maybe ten thousand years ago) incident.  I would expect it
to vary considerably for indivduals, so find whatever you find.

And I was happy very briefly to be part of the 5th invader
because we were going into battle against Marcab, because
that is who I was fighting in the earlier battle before getting
sucked up.  Or at least that's how it seems peering back
though all the dup-in and charge and the continual implanting.
There are a lot of groups fighting here and each time you
get captured in battle the group that captures you implants
you to fight for them instead of the other guys.  Because
of access to the magic universe, the invader forces do a
much better job with their implanting than the local jobs
done by Marcab or whatever, but all the empires work that
way.

You only wind up on prison planets like this one when you've
gotten so numb to the implants that they can't even explain
to you anymore which side you are supposed to fight for next.

----------

STACKS

Bill seems to see these plugs or machines as being stacked
up in some sort of fashion.

I just consider that there is a general band of accessiblity
and things that are either in or out of reach and that this
shifts around a bit in a state of flux as a being shifts his
postulates.  Sometimes things are layered, and sometimes not,
and who cares, you just go for whatever is in reach now.

But in either case (mine and Bill's), you run what has
attention and interest and you expect that other things,
previously unreachable, will now come into reach.

So it's only a philosophical difference rather than a difference
in practice.

---------

HANDLING

CBR is quite right in stating that these things have layers
of holders holding holders etc.  You can sit there with
ordinary Nots style techniques blowing stuff off of the outer
fringes endlessly and it just keeps getting replaced.

You have to reach to the bottom of these things to handle
them.  The place where its being held together and mocked
up from.  Or call this the top or center or whatever you
like, but its a basic point rather than the fringes.

Early on I went through lots of difficulty and complexity
pushing down through these things to reach key points.

Gradually it got easier and I found undercuts.  I'm still
not sure if other people will be able to undercut immediately
or will need some of the more complex handlings briefly.
The various complicated rundowns I used are in Super Scio
chapter 6.

CBR's handling still has some complexity in it.  Its probably
as good a way in as my early handlings were, possibly better
because they've been refining this thing and using it on
lots of cases.  So I don't want to invalidate it.  And
new people may need to do a bit of it this way first until
their confront is up and they have a feel for these things.

Speaking of physical plugs now, the easy way to get a
plug out of something is not to pry away at it from the
top but to simply give it a wack on the bottom and pop
it out.  Of course you have to be in a position to poke
it from underneath, which is not always feasible, but if
you can, you would do it that way.  If you can poke up
at the bottom, it will be out of there in a few seconds
instead of taking an hour.

My eventual super fast handling on PMEs is "spot the (first)
time you were made into a machine" and "spot making others
into machines".  Sometimes I need to do a touch more with
"spot being tricked into thinking that machines were
necessary" or other similar questions, but that rarely
seem necessary these days (but maybe that's because I've
come up through a gradient).  It only takes about a minute.
Huge structures come apart.  Sometimes clouds of individuals
remain, but these days they usually go on a big friendly
acknowledgment that blankets them all.

Since there is a terminology difference, and since the command
needs to go in with real intention and reach close enough to
the core (or CO or whatever you want to call it) to be
copied in, somebody who is used to thinking of these things
as plugs should probably reword the command, because the
understanding and intention is senior here rather than the
words.

So this could be run as "spot the (first) time you were made
into a plug", "spot making others into plugs", and "spot
being tricked into thinking that plugs were needed".  This
should pop one out in under a minute.  But of course it
wouldn't work if you simply waft the command at the outer
fringes on a light breeze.  You need to get it in there.
Not by shouting but with good TR 1.

The inner core is hard to reach because there are so many
layers in the way, but these commands indicate to it well
enough that they will get copied down through a few layers,
so it works even if you only get close.  The whole structure
should come unglued when the key point lets go.  Lesser
pices, held together from lesser points, sometimes hang
together momentarily, but the central point's cog and blow
will have permeated everything, so these substructures
dissolve almost immediately as they get the cog on a commlag.

-----------

MONITORS

CBR's monitors correspond to what I've been calling control
entities(CEs).  I noticed this parallel awhile ago when some
monitor tech started being talked about on the net, but again
my write up in Super Scio chapter 6 predates hearing any of
Bill's tech on this, so there is a phenomena that people will
run into here even if it is not suggested.

Again I'm amazed at the parallels despite the fact that we
look at and describe things in very different ways.

The monitors (CEs) do not generally dissolve if handled as machines
(or plugs) like the above.  Bill also needed something beyond his
ordinary plug tech to handle these.

These things are more conscious than machines.  They restimulate
the machines and use them against you.  They are a control
mechanism.

And they don't dissolve on machine handling because they
think that they are serving a higher purpose and doing good.

Again I went through more complex handlings (see Super Scio).
And I keep simplifying.  Until recently I've been using
a "spot being made into" as with PMEs, and then a few
"spot being tricked" type commands to blow them.

But recently I shifted over to "Spot being tricked into
controling others" and these things are dissolving on the
one command without anything else.  But at this point I have
a huge awareness and certainty on how we have been doing each
other in on misguided efforts to control and I feel like
a lot of that is communicating along with the command so
they duplicate that as well and simply say "the hell with
all this controlling" and pull out.

I don't think that "spot being tricked into monitoring
others" will work unless they are only monitoring (some
only do that) because controlling is more of an overt.

Doing this writeup got me back to fooling with these things
again and seeing if I could find some more that were now
accesible.  But something further opened up, which was the
idea that I was doing this to others.  I'd been handling
that on the lighter Nots style phenomena, but not with
these control entities, they are about the strongest
constructions and it simply hadn't come into view.

This time it was there with reality.  I simply started
spotting being made to put part of myself into a control
entity, and as I would spot that, I would get this wild
view of having a line, now in PT, running down to somebody's
body, and then I'd just sort of let go and it would feel
like some strength returned to me, and then I'd spot
another time and so forth.  It was just wild although
the spotting both of the incident and of who I was now
holding under control were both extremely vague and uncertain.

From this I got the following cog:

Anything that is blocking you, controlling you, or impacting
on you is something that you are also doing, now in present
time, to others on an unconsious basis.  And that is where
most of your horsepower is going.

Somebody else tries to move an ashtry, you stop them.  You
try to move an ashtray, they stop you.

This is off the cuff, and it might not be as absolute as
I just suggested.  But the phenomena is there at least to
some degree.  We'll see how far it goes.

-----------

EARLIER UNVIERSE

I glanced a bit a super static and noticed that Bill followed
up on other stuff in what I call the symbols universe (he
doesn't refer to it this way).

Much to my surprise, he seems to have found some sort of
council of gods which matches what I called the controlling
council in the Cosmic History section of Super Scio.
This is the suppressive crew that keeps launching games
of entrapment and escape in lower sequences of universes.
He calls these things GUMs (Games Universe Matrix) and he's
got more structure to them than I think is there (but I
keep an open mind on these things) but I also got this
repeated business of down into lower universes and back
on up again over and over.

Here I would remind people of the blind men and the
elephant with one feeling its trunk and another feeling
the tusks.  In this case I don't think that either of
us has a full view of this particular elephant yet
but with the two views together, you might get a little
better feel for it.  Now if only somebody would pull
on its tail, we might get this one wrapped up properly.

But this points out something funny.  CBR is getting
Itsa here in the current universe, proceeding forward
from incident 1, and he's getting Itsa way back there
at the council level prior to CC, and yet I see nothing
on the huge gap inbetween.

And yet people run magic track occasionally.  It is
not that hard to reach.  And incidents from two or
three universes back show up in some of the 1952 stuff.

So the incidents and universes prior to incident 1 are
not really that hard to reach or particularly dreadfull
in their restimulation.  In actual fact, the current
universe is tougher to confront.

And CBR even uses Ron's tech on indicating "earlier
universe" if the earliest incident 1 doesn't do the
trick on handling OT 3.

So he knows he can get earlier than inc 1, and he
manages to reach prior to CC quite well.  But he doesn't
LOOK earlier than inc 1 and see that big missing band
of stuff at the magic universe level etc.

I don't think that this is due to CBRs inability to
look.

He got a Bum Steer from Ron.

In the OT 3 and Nots materials, Ron says to indicate Earlier
Universe but not to run it.  And CBR follows Ron's orders.

I don't follow Ron's material as orders.  I take it as
excellent suggestions.  He is generally right.  I try it
his way because he has such a good track record on the
research.  But I look for myself and act accordingly,
and I expect those of you who are using my materials to
do the same with anything that I say.  It's suggestions
and trail markers.  You have to keep your eyes open and
see what's there.

I'm tempted to go into a rant here on self analysis.
Please, please, if you blow some big OT level out of
your way, follow it up by running self analysis again
on the new areas exposed.  Without that or some other
use of recall techniques (such as self clearing
chapter 6), you will not get things in context.

And Ron knew better.  He even has a handling for start
of time and beginning of track type stuff back in 1963.
Just move the pc to a month before start of time.  Aha!
And he'd even run pcs through magic track, see the neat
descriptions in the 1MACC tape "Principle incidents on
the whole track".

So why didn't he look a trifle before incident 1 and
see magic universe, and why did he tell others not to
look?

The big charge on incident 1 is not being pushed into it,
it is on pushing others into it.

He probably got a glimplse of that.  And this is when
he had slipped into that "only one" and "I am the single
source" type dramatization that he seems to develope
in the 1965-7 time period.

Just guessing now, but I can imagine him getting a glimpse
of pushing somebody else into incident 1 and saying to
himself, "Oh my god, I'm the guy who pushed everybody
into incident 1 and got us all stuck here" and flinching
at that.  And then he didn't want to look and he didn't
want others to look because it would miss his withhold.

Except that he wasn't the only one.  We all pushed each
other into incident 1 endlessly.  The thing does not
stick or hold you here unless you have pushed somebody
else into it with the intentions of trapping them.

Early on we come out pretty fast and then try and get
even by pushing others in.  It is about as common as
little kids dunking each other under water in a swimming
pool.

It's not even a question of did you do it or not, its
just "how many times?"

So its no big deal.

But when I first got a glimpse without real confront or
seeing this in context from the other side, it was this
shuddering horror of, "oh my god, did I do this to others?"
And I wasn't being an only one, so I was only considering
that I might have been one of the guys who did this rather
than the source point.  And even so it was tough to face
up to.

So if Ron was looking at it that way, I don't blame him
for backing off even though it was the wrong thing to do.

Anyway, there is a load of stuff in between that controlling
council and incident 1 and its quite interesting and fun
to run.  And there is tons more even earlier on the track
too, most especially home universe.

So keep these things in context and don't get too carried
away on any one incident, no matter how popular it was
to toss each other into it.

Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - CLEAR AND THE TIME TRACK

CLEAR AND THE TIME TRACK

After all this time, I've finally realized a key fact about
the state of Clear and the way R3R runs after clear.

After clear the pc's timetrack does not move at the auditor's
command.

A clear will continue to mockup his own solid timetrack
until he hits the clear-OT state.  But it will only move
under the control of the pc, not the auditor.

According to the R3R bulletins, the time track moves under
the auditor's control.  Based on the small amount of Dianetics
I had before clear and based on running many hours of Dianetics
on people who were not clear, this seems to be correct.
The track moves when the auditor tells it too (assuming he
is in control of the session and has decent TRs).

I had a great deal of Dianetics after clear.  The auditor
would say "move to (date)", and then, being in session and
wanting to run the process and learn new things, I would obey
the command and move the time track.

Notice the difference there.  It is a big difference.

There is a time delay.  The track moves instantly when it
moves, but it doesn't move until the pc executes the auditing
command.

Based on running a lot of Dianetics on others, the meter
sometimes flicks when the track moves.  On pcs who are not
clear, you will see that flick (if it occurs) like an instant
read on the move command.  However, on pcs who I now think
were unacknowledge Dianetic clears, that flick is latent,
occuring when the pc did the command.  It is not that the
track takes time to move, it is that the pc takes time to
decide to move it.

But there is an exception, which is entities' time tracks.
These always move instantly at the command of the solo
auditor.  If they didn't, you would already have a blow.

Early on in Nots however, and especially on unacknowledged
clears, an entity may obey the auditor's orders and
move at his command.  I did not notice this happening later
once I had a bit of awareness and control.

But in retrospect, I did have that happen sometimes in
Dianetics.

It was always on overrun, gone past basic, or an unnecessary
action.  In those cases we would slip over onto a BT's
track instead of my own.  And in that case the time track
would move under auditor control rather than being something
which I did because I was asked to by the auditor.

That makes a mess because the unacknowledged clear being
run on R3R misowns the BTs pictures for his own.  I had to
sort through a bunch of this on audited Nots.

That is the liability of dianetics after clear.

It is not that you can't run incidents or that you don't have
incidents which you can make gains on running, it is that
you can be pushed into sliding over onto somebody else's
track.

With this trick, you can tell.  If you consciously moved
to the incident, its yours.  If something else moved, then
it ain't you.

Another interesting point is that after clear, the degree
of impact or amount of force in an incident does not seem
to be of significance.  Lots of other stuff IS still significant
in the incident, especially decisions, postulates, and your
reaction at the time of the incident.  But not the amount
of force.

Also, the R3R commands specifically tend to get in the way.
There are too many of them, especially the use of two move
commands on one incident.  There is too much thoroughness
which coaxes you to put things back.

But incident running is still beneficial although it might
better be left until you have enough cause and awareness
over entites that you don't get fooled and misown thier
pictures.  And it might best be done solo with a stripped
down set of commands.

The time track retains its solidity until clear-OT.  The
solidity is the result of alter-is of time.  Most especially
it occurs because of pushing incidents out of sequence to
justify overts, but other alter-ises are possible.

When the track blows, you cease to "move" on the track,
there is no longer any sense of moving along a time line
when you move to an incident.  And yet you can still
"move" to incidents, its just a bit different, there is
more of a sense of mocking them up.

But incident running is still an aid to getting your confront
up on things and finding and regaining control over old
postulates.

But you will find something interesting, which is that
the cumulative progression and build up of charge from
incident to incident no longer exists.

If you are running sour grapes, you are simply getting
your confront up on sour grapes.  Whether it is an
earlier or a later incident on what was once a chain
hardly matters, what matters is raising your confront.

What is happening here is that with each state, more
of the mechanics are dropping out and ceasing to
matter.

On clear, the force goes out of the pictures and the
pc's track ceases to obey external orders.

On clear-OT, the solidity of the track disappears and
the cumulative chain effect vanishes.

Sometimes you get exceptions to this, and those are
due to a BT.  But that stops happening too on the
cause over life state.  You no longer misown others
tracks or mistake BT think for your own.

And yet after all of this there is still abberation
and some stimulous response left.  Note that you cannot
get an instant read on an e-meter without stimulous
response.

An ARC break assessment will still instant read even
after all of the above states are attained and after
other states that I'm not even sure how to name or
describe.

The grades material is basic or at least closer to basic
than any of the heavier phenomena.  Grades material
continues to read and run well.

Hope this helps,

The Pilot

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

 subj : Super Scio Tech - A NIFTY ADVANCED PROCESS - CREATION CLEANUP

A NIFTY ADVANCED PROCESS - CREATION CLEANUP

It occured to me that we should have some axioms about
reality.  So I thought of the following:

Axiom R1: Reality is being created now.

The mechanics of reality are the continuous creation of
consecutive nows, each in a new unit of time.

This lead to the following process on reality:

Give me 3 realities you could have.
Spot some more realities you could have.
Give me some realities that you'd let another have.

This all got me thinking some more about the continuous creation
of the  universe which we must be doing but are not conscious of
doing.  And so we must have abandoned responsibility for creating
various things.  And we flinch at creating things which we fell
are overts, and so we don't regain control over the automaticities
where those things are being unconsciously mocked up.

And finally I came up with the following process.

This runs like dynamite.

But I think that this one is doing even more than I anticipated.
So much shows up and releases and so many considerations
dissolve so fast that it must be releasing charge on an
even deeper level.

Creation Cleanup Process:

a) What would it be an overt to create
b) What would it be nice to create

I thought up the overt side and then added in the "nice" side
simply because I thought that it might spin somebody to just
run overt create without adding some theta back in.  So I
expected the heavy action to occur on "overt" and simply to
get a bit of a breather and renewed horsepower on "nice".
But "nice" ran just as strong as overt, with this huge stuck
flow blowing apart.  It really surprised me.

This can also be run on 3 or 4 flows.  But when I did a bit of
it that way, I had the strange feeling that the process command
had not changed. This one skims the edge of the underlying
interconnection.  It is like all flows are flow zero.  So
I would consider that multiple flow versions are experimental.
But the simple version above runs well and easily with big
gains.

This, by the way, is the most advanced process in this week's
posts.  It jumps back through earlier universes faster than
anything I've run so far.  I can't guess as to whether it will
run deep on beginners or only stay up at surface levels.

Best,

The Pilot

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

All this weeks posts 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
#58 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.

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