Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 65 - AUG 30, 99 PILOT POSTS TO ARS/ACT
Date: 30 Aug 1999 04:00:21
From: pilot@scientology.at (The Pilot)
Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology

POST65.txt

SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 65 - AUG 30, 99 PILOT POSTS TO ARS/ACT

Everything down to the Humor post went to both ARS & ACT.
The remainder went to ACT only.

Best,

The Pilot (aka Ken Ogger)

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

Contents:

 subj: Super Scio - Freewinds Out Of Drydock
 subj: Super Scio - To Bryan on New vs Old R&D Volumes
 subj: Super Scio - Snake's Book (Attn Bryan)
 subj: Super Scio - On Organizations and the NY Boom (Attn Alan)
 subj: Super Scio Tech - On Changing The Tech (Attn Afolderman)
 subj: Super Scio Humor - Getting Ethics In On The Planet
 subj: Super Scio Tech - THE COWBOYS IN THE GREY HATS
 subj: Super Scio Tech - To Homer On Failed Purpose
 subj: Super Scio Tech - Running Out Symbol Orientation
 subj: Super Scio Tech - To Pietro On DeProgramming
 subj: Super Scio Tech - SelfClearing Discussion On Inventing Processes
 subj: Super Scio Tech - Processing Blame
 subj: Super Scio Tech - To ThomLove on Agree/Disagree
 subj: Super Scio Tech - The Self Analysis Disk (Attn Robert)
 subj: Super Scio Tech - To Croesus123 on R7
 subj: Super Scio Tech - SUMMARY OF RESEARCH
 subj: Super Scio Tech - HOME UNIVERSE PROCESSING

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

 subj: Super Scio - Freewinds Out Of Drydock

FREEWINDS OUT OF DRYDOCK

Roland was right, the Freewinds was in drydock.

They just announced it going back to sea in the latest
Scientology News.

They had pictures of it up in the dock and everything and
bragged about the renovations.

This is all well and good.  It is proper to keep the ship
fixed up and in good repair.

Except for the fact that they did not mention this in
their promo while the ship was in drydock.

That might have hurt the stats of getting people to go to
the ship because the public might prefer cruseing at sea to
sailing on a ship in drydock.

So they only mention it when the ship is coming out of
drydock, when the news will raise stats instead of lower
them.

Scientologists would only find out about the drydock from
critics like Roland and not from their own organization.

Sounds out-ethics to me.

Opps, ethics equals the stats being up.  So I guess that
they don't think of it as out ethics.

I feel a jokers and degraders post coming on.

Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj: Super Scio - To Bryan on New vs Old R&D Volumes

TO BRYAN ON NEW VS OLD R&D VOLUMES

On 12 Aug 99, Bryan <bryan_q@my-deja.com> responded to my post
on "Super Scio - Even Heavier Editing on Old R&Ds Than New Ones"

> Yo Pilot. :)
>
> Maybe it's just the example, but, but, but, what signficant impact --
> tech-wise -- does the new volumes have over the old?
>
> This will affect my future purchase of R&D vols as I only have one of
> the old ones.
>
> Arc,
> Bryan :)

The new ones are definitely better quality, even in terms of
printing quality and extra photos etc. which make them nice
to have.

The alterations in the old volumes are probably trivial in
most cases, but it makes them unreliable and, knowing that
the wording is altered, it leaves one with a bit of doubt
because the editor might have reworded something without
understanding the original intention.

And there is the distinct possibility that at least a few
things of significance might have been screwed up badly.

Since the greatest investment is actually the time one spends
reading them, it would be better to do it right the first
time.  I read all the old ones and got a great deal of
gains and a perspective on the research line from it, but
given a choice, I would have spent that time studying the
material as originally given rather than as altered to
clean up the grammer.

Furthermore, Ron is an entertaining speaker, and it makes
the lectures a little bit duller if his language is adjusted
by a pedantic editor.

I will not throw out the old ones, especially as there
might be something that was in the first set and removed
later (somebody needs to sit down and compare these
lecture by lecture eventually).  And usually it wouldn't
make any difference.

But if you are buying a set, then the new ones are a much
better choice.

Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj: Super Scio - Snake's Book (Attn Bryan)

SNAKE'S BOOK (Attn Bryan)

On 12 Aug 99, Bryan <bryan_q@my-deja.com> posted on
topic "Re: Super Scio - To Ray On Snake's Book"

> Pilot. :)
>
> I've spent some time occasionally trying to chase down this book, but
> still no luck.
>
> One search did find an "Outline of Psycho Analysis", Clar Mabel Thompsom
> (Editor), published 1955.
>
> Following the Navy route to find the WWII manual has dried up, no
> responses. Hmmm.
>
> Any more details you can provide would help a lot.
>
> Arc,
> Bryan

It is possible that that is the book.  I've mentioned that
I'm uncertain on the title and a bit vague on the author's
name.  It did seem to me like it was some other first name.

Note that CM Thompson edited it rather than writing it.

It would make sense if a relative had edited Snake's book for
popular publication.  If it is his book, then the material
would be his, but maybe he was no longer up to writing (or maybe
not even alive) by 1955, and a publisher might well expect
the Navy writings to be adjusted for the mass market.

I distinctly remember the book containing the story of studying
with Freud in Vienna and then trying things out at Naval bases
in Asia.  Obviously that would not be Clar Mabel.  And she is
identified as an editor rather than an original author.

It would be worth poking into second hand bookstores to see
if this one turns up.

Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj: Super Scio - On Organizations and the NY Boom (Attn Alan)

ON ORGANIZATIONS AND THE NY BOOM (Attn Alan)

On 12 Aug 99, "Alan C. Walter" <wisdom@cyberstation.net> responded
to my post on "SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 63 - LATE JULY 99 PILOT POSTS TO ARS/ACT"

> >CONTINUING ON NEEDING LRH
> >
> >
> >We have only two choices if we wish to make it all the
> >way.
> >
> >a) Organize on the ORIGINAL Scientology base (NOT standard tech)
> >
> >b) Develope a new broad base of Clearing Tech
>
> This is already done......clearing is easy.
>
> What about making an OT?

Right.  That is what I was really talking about.

I was using clearing in the general sense (as it is used in
the name alt.clearing.technology) rather than referring to
the "state of clear" which is just a stepping stone (and,
I agree, it is easy to make once you get the CofS false PR
off the lines).

> >Whatever base is used, it HAS to encompass Trom, Avatar,
> >Standard Tech, Knowledgism, Dyamism, CBR, Zen, Gurdieff,
> >and anything else under the sun that produces a workable
> >result.
> >
> >Alternative b) is possible, but the work involved is tremendous
> >and I don't see anybody doing it.  Alan will probably scream
> >at me for saying this, but I think that he is doing an
> >implementation rather than evolving a complete new base.
>
> I won't scream at you Ken, for the above statement tells me so much about
> you, far more than I wanted to know. I thought for awhile I had someone who
> could see things as they actually are. Duh! dumb old me!

If I could really see them as they actually are I'd be walking
through walls.  So would we all.  It's a gradient.


> You have no idea how I have affected your life.
>
> You have no idea how Bob Thomas, Lee and Dave Ecker have affected your life.

Actually, I probably do.

> Bob Thomas, Lee and Dave Ecker were my three most treasured friends for
> between us we built the Mission Network and the US Orgs.
>
> When I came to the US the NY Org was a hole in the wall operation....with a
> maximum of 8 students.

Sounds about right for when I got on staff in '66.

But note that we were already handing out those "cordially invited's"
back in '66 under Eunice Ford well before Bob, Dave, & Lee came back
from St. Hill.

I used to grab packets of them & pass them out on the way home whenever
I left the org.  You can ask Bob Ross, who is the one who talked me
and others into doing that back in '66.


> I began to build my Mission in Dallas, my GI was 10 times the NY ORG in a
> week. I had 100's of students within 5 weeks of arriving.

Yes, I remember hearing about the Texas boom.  You were spoken
well of by folks at NY.


> I met Bob Thomas at St Hill he was interested in my success. I gave him my
> basic tech secrets.
>
> NY Org began to grow.

Bob came back on NY staff around mid '67.  He might have been back
in the city earlier, because there was a telex from Ron that came
in through NY that ordered Bob to get off his ass and get into the
NY org and take it over and get it booming.

He might initially have been looking into setting up a franchise
(now called missions) instead.  I know he was very hot on becoming
a franchise holder.

He only stayed on for about a year and then left staff to open
a franchise (class VIII hit shortly after that and the franchise
floundered and he ended up in the GO).

Lee came on shortly after Bob, but Dave stayed away from the org
until Bob talked him into coming on in '68 as Bob's replacement
so that Bob could go and do the franchise thing.


> 18 months later 1965 I built the St Louis Mission it had 100's of student
> on inception.

Maybe you were talking about 1963 in the above?  (I had assumed '67)

In which case you were referring to Bob, Lee, & Dave back before
they went out to do class VII?

But NY must still have stayed pretty small after they came back
(1963 or 64 timeframe?) in that case because it was small later
when I came on in '66.

However it was experiencing slow but steady growth.  The org finally
moved out of the hole in the wall and into the big space in the
Martinique Hotel on 32nd St in '66 (under Eunice Ford).


> I often went to NY Org and Bob, Lee and Dave and I became firm friends.
>
> They wanted to know how I had so many students.....I gave them the handing
> out ticket idea and posters.
>
> I also pointed out LRH and MSH did not know how to run a viable uptone
> Organization....they had already observed this for themselves.

I think that we have all observed that one.  But they did better
at it than Miscaviage and co. are currently doing.


> Bob, Lee and Dave implemented my tech program....but they went far beyond
> that and really added quality to that....now I was the student. Bob, Lee
> and Dave also improved on the handout line coming up with the "cordially
> invited's."
>
> All this occurred before ethics and the Grades were really an outer area
> subject.
>
> I am an innovator Ken. Never forget that.

Agreed.

> Because you do not know how the NY Org became the way it was, and neither
> did anyone know why it really crashed.

I was there and quite aware of what happened, although it takes
hindsight and a lot of subsequent experience to really understand it.

Bob was a good all around manager.  He was good at PR.  He was
good at Tech and delivery.  He was good at working the right deals
and putting the right people in charge of areas.

And he tended to hold back ethics.  I remember a talk he gave
about not letting ethics stop flows.  Some of the later troubles
were probably due to Dave giving ethics free reign instead of
holding it back the way Bob did.

Bob took over from Eunice in 67 and the org continued its slow but
steady growth.  Not a boom but a high normal.  And he cared for his
staff, so he was very appreciated.

The brilliant idea that set off the boom actually came from George
Hatfield (another great wheeler and dealer).  He was Tech Sec at
the time and he hit on the point that if staff were trained as
auditors, he had a right to pull them from post to audit paying
public.

So he wanted to put a bunch of staff on auditor training.  And he
wondered if he could get them to study after hours on that.  And he
went to Bob, and to Qual (Val Weiss and Dorothy Waller) and I think
even to Lee (HCO Exec sec) and began pushing this idea.

I know because I was tech services and in the coffee shop with
him after post when he began running around to the various other
tables (where a lot of the staff were sitting around) and talking
to people and selling this idea.

Bob got enthusiastic and really ran with it, possibly much further
than George had expected.  In truth, we might say that George
stumbled onto the idea but Bob and others saw it on a bigger
scale and really mocked it up.  And I don't think that any
of us realized what a significant effect it was going to have
or really saw the full implications.

We opened an academy from 10:30 PM to midnight (optionally to 1 AM
if you were up to it that night) and took just about the entire
staff and started them on class 0 (with the ones already trained
acting as course sups).  Note that there was no prerequisite for
class 0 training at that time.

Of course this only lasted about a month and then petered out
due to exhaustion.  And the exhaustion level was immense, so
it never did get acknowledged properly for the effects created
because nobody wanted to confront doing it again or even think
about the work involved.  It was like taking this power pill
that made you a superman (briefly), but gave you such convulsions
when you took it that you wanted to forget the whole deal.

The result was that almost the entire staff became class 0 auditors,
and many found ways to carry on with their academy training after
the all hands after hours academy was terminated.

And even for the ones who didn't, they at least had class 0, and
that is all about communication, which is the most useful thing
for a staff member to know (I doubt that this would have had
the same effect if we'd trained them in dianetics).

And we exercised the policy about pulling people from post to
audit as needed (and in general, the staff on other posts
loved to get pulled for this).

So we made it standard to schedule anybody that walked into
the HGC to come in "tomorrow night at 7:30" and then we would
worry about where to get and auditor (you could pull almost
anybody from any post to run grade 0) and a room, and we would
make sure to get them in session then no matter what.

We were even dragging the success officer and C&A and
folks like that off of post to run grade 0.  And we were
throwing people out of their offices or even renting hotel
rooms as needed to have an auditing room.

Of course this was the 2-3 hours per grade days, so grade
zero could be run in one evening.

And the place started booming.  I'm talking about 25% increase
in stats per week.  Spectacular.

We doubled and doubled and doubled again.  The unit hit fifty
cents, which gave you about fifty bucks a week on each shift
as staff pay (about like 300 a week now - low but orders of
magnitude better than any other period on staff).  We closed
the org for 3 days of Christmas holiday in '67 and took 2 more
for New Years and stayed in power right through it.

People just loved the 25 hours of key processes that they got
as part of the grades.  So we had good word of mouth.  If
only we could have delivered a second 25 hours of comparable
magnitude, we would have been in fat city but you know how
the tech was then.

But things leveled out around March of 68.  There were quite
a few reasons.

One was the 25 hour grades.  They are only stable for about
3 to 6 months and then the person needs something more, and
instead of more grades processes, they were either handled
as PTS or went out to St. Hill for the Xemu story.  In either
case, they were no longer shiny examples and good word of
mouth.

Next was the lower ethics conditions.  They had come out in
'67 but were rarely applied, probably both because of Bob
and old timer wisdom.  About March, with stats leveling off
and orders coming down from on high to get ethics in,
this reverse tech started getting used.

And the PTS tech started being applied heavily too.  That
blames others for the condition you are in, and the standard
in those days was disconnection or L&N for whole track SPs
everytime you sneezed.  We didn't do that in '67, instead
we'd run an assist.  But in '68, we started really applying
"all sickness equals PTS" (it had come out in '67 but was
mostly ignored) and of course it is a wrong datum.

And of course, the small staff which had suddenly achieved
a huge percentage of trained auditors, was diluted by
the fantastic expansion, and the new staff members were
not made to do class 0 as part of getting hatted up.
So we went back to the more normal ratio of only having
a small percentage of trained staff members.

Staff increased from a few dozen to about 150 on each
shift.  Foundation was a bit larger than day and much more
intense.  I and quite a few others were on both shifts
(with 2 org salaries and the high pay unit, you could
actually make about as much as on a low paying real world
bookkeeping job).

And of course there were the idiotic Sea Org missions which
came around, made trouble, gave destructive orders, pulled
people off post, and created mayhem in general.  Usually
the SO super certain loaded to the gills hotshots were
our raw public from the previous year who had seen the
light and joined the SO but were neither trained nor OT.

And so instead of lots of people knowing and applying
tech, we had lots of people (both our own staff and SO)
who only knew dumb policies and had not a clue about
the real subject.

In spite of all this, we held the line and did not crash.
We only leveled out, maintaining about the same volume
of new people per week (about 60 new comm course graduates
each week, off of 4 HAS course shifts).

PR and marketing were maintained and in fact increased
after the leveling off (we went to the 9 division org
board pattern which gives more public divisions).  That
seemed capable of maintaining the flow but not increasing
it no matter how much the PR and letters out volume were
increased.

That persisted until the advent of standard tech with
the return of the class VIII graduates in the fall of '68.

Then we started delivering true quickies as ordered by Ron.
Cases caved in left right and center.

The class VIIIs put ethics in on the auditors by "overboarding",
just as they had been overboarded by Ron.  Within a few
months, NY was reduced from over 50 class IVs on staff
(both shifts) to only a handfull.

When the VIIIs showed up, we put standard tech into the
academy and the stats promptly collapsed (courses crash
faster under bad tech than the HGC does).  We instantly
pulled standard tech out and went back to courses as
delivered before the VIIIs arrived and the academy stats
soared back up again.  We should have learned from that.
Instead we just comm lagged and put std tech into the
academy slowly so as not to unmock it.  So the stat
sank slowly.

By 1969 the place was in ruins, a regular ghost town
with few paying public.

And yet the staff was still fairly large, just very few
trained auditors (most auditors blew under the impact of
overboarding) and crashed stats and ethics running
rampant.  I pretty much blew every other month but would
let them talk me back on and I'd try again.

People were going out with shopping bags full of cordially
invites.  It did not one damn bit of good.

The mid '69 release of standard dianetics pulled the
stats up a bit.  It wasn't quickie to sit there and
actually run incidents, so we actually had a product
to deliver again.  But it wasn't good enough to stop
the collapse, it just slowed it down a bit and covered
the hole (and gave a month long boom as old timers
came in to do HSDC).

The place was almost gone by mid '70 when the original
class VIII standard tech was replaced by expanded grades
type standard tech.  And then of course things got better,
but they never boomed again at that incredible pace of
late '67 to early '68.  There were just too many stops
on delivery.  And ethics, which was pretty much cancelled
in '70, started being put back in in '71 and started
dragging everything down again.

I do not want to invalidate your abilities at marketing.
You do really well at it.  But you are also standing
on a strong knowledge of tech and ensuring delivery.
Without that you'd be sinking into the sewer like the
CofS no matter how well you marketed.

You can PR and then have a bit of a time margin to
get tech in, but if you don't then actually get the
tech in and deliver, the PR stops working.

The right sequence would probably be:

a) preliminary PR
b) TECH
c) back the tech delivery up with more PR
d) catch up with admin so you don't get burried in confusion.

As for ethics, real ethics is pushing through what you
have to to do tech inspite of apparant obstacles like
suit happy fanatics.

I got a bit carried away here.  Sorry.

> Because no-one knew Bob Thomas's successful action in the GO, but after
> his removal 11 people went to jail including MSH.

Good point.

> I have given you some clues....I wonder if you can now fill in the gaps.
>
> MSH or LRH could not run a viable for the staff Organization if their life
> depended on it.

He should never have tried.

In the old days he was brilliant as a researcher.  He could
have lived well just going around lecturing (for a heafty
fee in the later days if he wanted) and collecting book
royalties and left each group or org or whatever to go
however it pleased.

People did really well when they got their case flying and
got some training and also had some good business sense and
experience and learned to think for themselves so that they
could apply tech basics to business areas where they were already
experts.  That's how we got people like Bob who could boom an
area.

Ron was a brilliant theorist about the mind, but lacked any
kind of experience with business or organization aside from
the Navy.

Would you put Einstein in charge of a Nuclear Plant?  Probably
blow the damn thing up in some experiment.

Wrong hat.


> Maybe this will strip away some of your delusions.

I pointed out way back in Super Scio that LRH had exactly zero
experience working as an employee or doing any kind of a normal
job or business.  His only organizational experience was in the
Navy, and that is rotten for trying to operate a business.

Any delusions I might have had about Ron's ability to make
a viable organization were gone even before the class VIIIs
showed up.  I stuck with it for the sake of the tech.

My general slant has always been very pro tech and very
dubious of policy.

How may great scientists were also great business men and
vise versa?  It is a rare combination of talents.


> BTW I have written 2500 bulletins since 1995...non of which I have
> posted....these are the core of Knowledgism.

Then publish.  Or do you want to walk Ron's later dark paths?


> You dear Ken - know not of what you pretend to know.

Really?


> You are living a deluded existence.

Aren't we all?  All is illusion.  <grin>


> Alan

My earlier posting was concerning early Scn as a technical
framework (with later CofS and std tech only being one out of
many possible implementations).  Although 3rd dynamic techs
could evolve off of that, the one that did evolve in the
form of modern policy is mostly in violation of the basics
in that 50s technical framework and therefore is reverse
vector.

The fact that CofS is doing lousy organizationally actually
proves the validity of the early theoretical framework.  You
could just predict from the axioms that any organization
which specialized in cutting comm, stifling criticism, and
enforcing agreements would dig its own grave.

I probably am deluded as far as hoping that the org will
reform, but I want to keep postulating that.

And I do think that they can at least be made to stop
suppressing the field of clearing, one way or another.

Best,

The Pilot (aka Ken Ogger)

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

 subj: Super Scio Tech - On Changing The Tech (Attn Afolderman)

ON CHANGING THE TECH (Attn Afolderman)

On 12 Aug 99, afolderman@cs.com (Afolderman), posted on
topic "Pilot"

> Ron says that a DATUM IS ONLY AS VALUABLE AS IT HAS BEEN EVALUATED.
> Evaluated by whom. BY YOU> BY THE PERSON RECEIVEING THE DATUM.

Eval requires datums of comparable magnitude.

> If all data werwe allowed to be evaluated, there would be no
> problems in Scientology. Ron presented data, to be evaluated
> by the Qs and logics.IF it isn't evaluated it is worthless.

Yes, think for yourself.  Very basic.

> The creeds and codes guarentee free speech, yet you hear people
> who  think that they must disagree with the tech in order to
> believe in freedom of speech,.

A silly attitude.  Must disagree is just as much a trap as must
agree. If you are simply reversing, then you are controlled by the
foolish practice of "reverse psychology".

Free means free.

> I don't get it. So what if something says freedom of speech
> is not ok (usually these kinds of referances are abbreviated
> and out of context), if you evaluate it by the logics, like
> youre supposed to, you would be applying ROn's tech, in
> seeing that it is unimportan. Apply the logics to the ideal
> of freedom of speech, and you will see that freedom of speech
> is VERY important. Ron would want us to know that.

Ron said many things of varying degrees of relative importance.

One of our basics is to consider the relative importance of
various datums, Ron emphasises that in the 50s, even in regard
to his own writings.  It is not all of equal value and importance.

But the modern training drops out relative eval by insisting
on all LRH statements as being absolute, which drops out any
judgement factors.  If it is all of equal weight, then it is
just as bad to snub a registrar as to break into an auditing
session and shoot the pc.

Obviously, things such as the axioms and logics and the ARC
triangle far overshadow any casual remarks made in policy for
the sake of expediancy.  And we know that communication is
one of the basics.  So freedom of speach is a senior datum.

> Ron did not want his sentances taken apart, unevaluated
> by literal minded morons, unable to put things in context,
> and would be furious if he knew that his words were being
> dished out in "bits" to accomplish ends he would have
> never dreamed of.
>
> My belief is that education in the tech, and PROPER evaluation
> of the tech is the answer. It is not up to us to do the
> evaluating, since that does not handle the actual problem.
>
> The problem is altered importances. Since, according to the tech,
> no datumn is valuable if it isn't evaluated, then the tech on
> evaluation must be VERY VERY important.
>
> The solution is not to alter the tech (inforce our own evaluations),
> but to handle the OUTPOINT (as listed in the tech on outpoints)
> of ALTERED IMPORTANCES and the intention of altering importances
> and get at the root of the problem there so that it doesn't
> reoccur. What it boils down to I'm afraid are some pretty
> unthinkable crimes. This mess did not come from "rainy days and
> good intent."

The road out is booby trapped.  Most especially for a researcher.

I don't know if there is active opposition or just old restim
that kicks in.  I'm prepared for either to be true.

> Pilot, I hope that you see my point and see to move from your
> intent to change the tech. (although I do believe in questioning
> the source of the tech, because I'm sure that if it were available
> on microfilm (the handwritten or typwritten originals) would
> discover some interesting things. It wouldn't suprise me if
> statements like, "You may hnot lower prioces once set" turned out
> to be slightly differant as in "you may not alter prices once set".
> Compenstaing for inflation would not be in violation of this policy.
> In summary"question the source, but don't change the tech. " that's
> closer to the as isness of the problem, I belive and it would zoom
> in on some of the minor alterations of tech and those who are
> guilty of this.

Almost all modern (Sea Org days) bulletins and policies were written
by others, usually being C/Sed by Ron.  He would say to write a
policy on such and such.  There often were "C/S"es in writing.

In some cases, the writer would use Ron's C/S as the headings
in the bulletin or policy.  In other words the section titles
might be the only actual statements made by Ron on the subject.

Sometimes he would review these, giving very well dones or
asking for rewrites.  But often things were issued without
his seeing them.

There was a major project in the 80s by the SO to reverify
various policies, checking back to the original orders.
But since the text is not by Ron and the SO people had their
own vested interests and prejudices, the whole mess can easily
be twisted various ways.

Something like the "Solution to Inflation" ED probably only
consisted of Ron telling Herbie Parkhouse that we had to
raise prices to handle inflation and to write up something
about that.  The rumor line is that the actual plan and the
endless 5% per month increases were Herbie's idea, but who
knows, unless he wants to come forward and give the real story.

Personally, I take everything from 1952-4 as senior data
and question anything that comes into conflict.

Therefore, I have to discard things like confidentiality as
being suppressive and reverse vector.  He said that so many
times back in the 50s and he did know about implants and
entities back then.

I'm not actually trying to change the tech so much as to
expand it and to get more of it back into use.  If you were
to actually study the old ACCs, you would see that I'm
actually closer to early LRH than the modern CofS is.

I would like to see CofS delivering expanded grades the
way they were in the early 70s when things were at their
best.

If they dropped the endless sec checks, and replaced the
grinding through word lists with a simple course where
people could twin on defining words used in correction
lists, and dropped some ideas imposed by Mayo around '78
about excessive throughness (and grinding away as a solution
to not having made OTs), they could knock off grades with
big big wins at about 25 hours per grade and the pcs would
be raving.

If they sold that 25 hours for about 2 grand and it was
a grade of release, they would be swamped with business
and the staff would be on high pay.  They would hardly
need registrars because the word of mouth would be so good.

But 5 grades of release by themselves will not make an
OT.  And handling some implants and entities isn't enough
either.

So they went into unusual solutions.  Grind the grades
into one and two hundred hour marathons, with the same
gains that they used to get in 25 hours.  Add in tons
of other rundowns that don't really hit the spot.  Sec
check the living daylights out of somebody, but do it
with a moral code, even though Ron says that that is an
arbitrary and you will not make it unless you find what
the pc considers to be an overt (the overt might be
writing a knowledge report, because it is ratting on
your friends, or failing to sleep with everybody).

The trouble is that you need another bunch of grades of
comparable magnitude to the first 5.  More bang for the
bucks.  More bridge motion.  Not grinding on the same
buttons but handling more buttons.  Things like protest
and inval are at the "steam coming out of the ears"
level on most OTs.

So we look back at the 50s stuff, and there is tons of
material.  Just look at the wild things Ron runs in
those 4th ACC GROUP PROCESSING sessions recently posted
by FZ Bible.

So I think that we extend the grades.  And we get all
those "old" OT drills back into use.  And we get the
guy through the implants and stuff too.

And after intermediate OT levels, we do the grades again,
but this time with the whole track really open and
accessible.  I think that that is basic, and we have
Ron's statement on the grades harmonicing onto the OT
levels.

Maybe, just maybe, we might get a real OT with stable
abilities.

Ron used to say that ALL the tech was for use.

Only about ten or twenty percent of it made it onto the
modern bridge.

The trouble with the earlier stuff is that he could
not teach auditors to run it, because it required
inventing the processes in flight during the session.
That is one hell of a skill level.

Much of what I'm doing is simply upgrading the other
80% of early material the same way that a small amount
of it was upgraded to from the modern grades.

But what I do is addative to what Ron already did with
the grades.

I'd like to see every word he said posted here on the
net and permanently available to everybody.  Then let
people study like crazy and use whatever works.

We didn't loose Beethoven just because Brahms wrote
a few symponies.

Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj: Super Scio Humor - Getting Ethics In On The Planet

HUMOR: GETTING ETHICS IN ON THE PLANET

THE END OF ENDLESS POLITICOS RUMDOWN

The EP of this Rumdown is freedom from politicians.

1. Drink down one bottle of Rum (a standard part of
every rumdown).

2. Look around the city and spot some politicians.

3. For each politician spotted, have them run the formula
for the condition of politiconess, which is "Find out that
you really aren't".

4. Repeat this until the politician blows.

5. In rare cases, the politician will not blow but will
be blown by an intern instead.  In that case, shift
immediately to the Clinton rundown, spotting earlier
similar interns until the politician himself blows.

Once this has been done on the planet, we will be able to
convert the governments to upstat-ocracies, which means
rule by the most upstatliest.

Since money is the attention unit of society, the most
upstat person will have the most money, therefore, the
richest man in each country automatically becomes its
ruler.

The richest man in the world becomes the head of the
United Nations.

All political problems are thereby solved and we avoid
the dev-t of elections.

FIXING THE LEGAL SYSTEM

The court system and lengthy trials can be eliminated
on the simple premise that the upstats (rich folks) are
innocent and the downstats (poor folk) are guilty.

Obviously, O.J. had enough money to be innocent, so why
bother wasting the taxpayer's time and money.

Cival cases can be settled on the adjudication of
which party is higher toned.

The remaining leftover bits of the court system can
be used for ritual suiting of squirrels.

DE-PTSING SOCIETY

Since TV only carries entheta such as News Reports,
restimulative material such as dramas and horror movies,
and jokers and degraders in the form of sit comms, all
TV broadcasts can be eliminated except for the following
two ethical channels -

1) A free channel showing "Orientation" and similar
introductory material.

2) A pay channel which will continually broadcast
tech films.

This will end PTSness in the world.

SOLVING THE SECOND DYNAMIC

Anyone who has sex out of marriage can be implanted to
associate sex with pain.

When they are properly married, we can run out the
implant.

This will end the rampant promiscuity.

CLEANING UP THE LIBARIES AND ART GALLERIES

We can get the out ethics books and artwork handled
easily.

Just insist on everything having to get issue authority.

HANDLING OIL SPILLS

The adjudication is very simple.

Are the oil company's stats up or down.

If the company's stats are down, it cleans up the spill.

If its stats are up, then we sec check anybody who natters
about the oil harming the environment.

Nuff said,

The Pilot

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

 subj: Super Scio Tech - THE COWBOYS IN THE GREY HATS

THE COWBOYS IN THE GREY HATS

You can't draw a line and stay on one side of it forever.

The cowboys in the white hats always jump over the line
and become cowboys in black hats.

And after playing as black, they will play as white again.

This is the nature of games and of non-confronting half of
existance.

If you are senior to the game, there is no dividing line
and you would be seen as grey by the players, neither good
nor evil, although deeper basics such as ARC would give one
a bias towards helpful rather than harmfull actions.

Being "basically good" is not the same as playing as one
of the "good guys" in some arbitrary game.  Basic goodness
is that urge towards ARC and recognizing one's interconnections
with all life.

Seeing the cops and robbers shooting at each other, one's
inclination would not be to joint either side, but would
perhaps include buying both some drinks and trading a few
jokes so that they might have a bit of a breather before
returning to their mutual mayhem.

The urge to play a game is not basic.  It goes very deep,
but not all the way.  The creative urge goes much further.

Imagine that you are Beethoven writing the Ninth Symphony
or Da Vinci painting the Mona Lisa.  Would there be any
need for opponents?  Would you need anything more than the
joy of creating itself to make it interesting?  Would stops,
barriers, and not-know help you at all or would it just
get in the way?

And so it is possible to enjoy life without being a character
in the latest action thriller.  In fact, creating an action
thriller would be far more fufilling that being trapped in
one.  And being stuck in some sort of games condition
would simply be a distraction to anyone who is trying to
film an action thriller.

Games are creations.  At the top one has games by mocking
them up within the creations.  It helps make the creations
interesting.  But it is a bit foolish to interiorize into
one's creations and become trapped into playing a role on
one side or the other.

I've said grey for the sake of those who see things in black
and white.  But really these things are multi-colored party
hats, continually shifting around.  That gives you much
more variety than an alternation of black and white flip
flops.

Hope this helps,

The Pilot

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

 subj: Super Scio Tech - To Homer On Failed Purpose

TO HOMER ON FAILED PURPOSES

On 23 Aug 99, Homer Wilson Smith <homer@lightlink.com>
asked on topic "Life (fwd)"

> If I were to die today, I would have to honestly say I have
> not led a full life, I have led an empty life.
>
> Every night when its time to go to bed I often get this horrible
> feeling, god its time to go to death already, I haven't done anything, I
> haven't been anything, I haven't *HAD* anything.  And this is after
> working 12 hours from dawn to dusk.
>
> Every day I am emptier and emptier, my life is less and less worthwhile
> for having lived.
>
> So what is this?
>
> Homer
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Homer Wilson Smith     The paths of lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
> (607) 277-0959               cross in         Internet Access, Ithaca NY
> homer@lightlink.com     the line of duty.     http://www.lightlink.com

This is classic failed purpose.

Quickie handling is to rehab the failed purpose.

That might be out gradient, and is difficult to do solo,
and you need some wins.

Any positive step will help.  Just a tiny baby step but in
the right direction so that you know that you are starting
to move forward.

The worst mistake is to invalidate the tiny steps because
they are tiny.  Momentum builds up FAST.

My impression, from other things that you've posted, is that
you are running heavy effort processing in PT as an assist
for the physical condition.  That is only marginally workable.
It restimulates too much and only builds up confront fairly
slowly.  And the Itsa produced is too low unless it is bringing
whole track incidents into view.

You should switch over to lighter assist techniques that
don't restimulate as much but get you through it.  Spotting
points inside the body, alternating right and left sides
might be best.

You are probably processing the body too much.  It is slow
freight and validates the condition.

You certainly know enough to be doing light OT drills.
Alternate those with running the body.

Best is to do the first process of chapter 11 in self
clearing, drilling int/ext on a nearby mountain.  Not
only is this a wonderful exteriorization drill, but it
will turn off out-int if it should happen that that is
what is really wrong.  You will probably get vague half
assed perceptions initially, but you validate them like
crazy instead of invalidating them and they will get
better and more accurate.  Another good one is to simply
do a locational assist with your eyes closed, spotting
points outside.

And you need to alternate these with some light case handling,
but the keynote is light and build up wins.  So run self
analysis or any light recall of pleasure moments or chapter 6
of self clearing.

In summary -

a) a light assist on the body
b) a light OT drill
c) a light recall process

Alternately.  Maybe ten minutes of each, round and round,
shifting from one to the next on mild wins.

This is like coaxing a tiny flame into a blaze.  It is
marginal and keeps going out and then it starts to take
off.

As for the failed purpose, if you can spot what it is,
then think of some tiny little thing that you can do which
might just inch you a little bit in that direction or
contribute just slightly to the purpose, and do it.

The impulse will be to invalidate it.  There you want to
move a mountain and all you can accomplish is to take
one teaspoon full, so you don't bother and say it is
hopeless.  And that is the trap.

You pick up the teaspoon full and move it even though it
is bullshit, but you do it anyway, and something will
begin to shift casewise.

A tiny snowball can start an avalanch.  Stop worrying
about how small the snowballs are and how big the
mountain is and begin tossing a few.

Affinity,

The Pilot

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

 subj: Super Scio Tech - Running Out Symbol Orientation

RUNNING OUT SYMBOL ORIENTATION

This is symbols universe stuff, middle track bias on
what should be an orientation point and what is the
symbol oriented on it.  The mechanism persists because
you play both sides alternately (otherwise it would
decay like GPMs), but it abberates because you force
the flow to go one way only.

This incident occurs on many polarized items.  I ran
it on male/female.

It is seen first as a sphere, which then becomes like yin/yang
and then the two separate out and one orbits the other.

One side is the orientation point (in the center) and the
other symbol circles it.  It is your choice which goes in
the center and which orbits.  The incident actually pushes
you to make a choice, and it can be either way.  That sticks
it because it is partially your causation.

Let us call these two sides A and B, one selected to be
in the center and the other selected to orbit.

In life, you play both sides.  When you are A, you try to be
oriented on by Bs and when you are B you try to orient around
an A.  But it is arbitrary.  Others have the reverse, having
chosen B as the orientation and A to orbit.

This makes a pattern of 4.  A as orientation and B circling
it and B a orientation and A circles it.  You will be doing
one of the 4 currently.  Take the one diagonally opposite
and alternate taking that viewpoint with taking the current
viewpoint on the symbol mass.  This breaks the pattern.
You should be able to hold any of the 4 viewpoints at will
rather than alternating between two of them while not-ising
the other 2.

Symbol Set 1: Male / Female.

Either you have the males orienting on the females or the
females orienting on the males.  Spot which way you have it
oriented and which position you are in right now.  For example,
you might have males oriented on females and currently be
male.  If so, you will also find that when you have been
female in recent lifetimes, you tried to be an orientation
point and have males orienting on you.

The diagonally opposite would be to be a female who orients
on males.  If your item was as males oriented to females, then
you will not have been a female orienting on males in recent times.
This creates misduplications (out-comm), problems with the 2D,
overts, ARCXs, and so forth.  It is not basic source (out
grades do go earlier, and are the more basic why), but it is a
major generator of out ruds.

So you would, for example, alternate holding the viewpoint
of being a male who orients on females and a female who
orients on males.  Just get the idea of, alternately, that
will kick the hell out of the stuck flow.

After that is flat, run the opposite pair, which in this
example would be a male whom females orient around and a
female whom males orient around.  This will have less kick
to it than the one you are currently in, but will get some
more charge off.

Then run the first one again.  The whole mechanism falls
apart fairly easily, and tons of 2D troubles will vanish
because you have been forcing the flow in one direction
for a long time.

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

The pattern of these is sort of by dynamics, but really only
the lower 8, with more than one pair per dynamic.

As an example, I noted in parenthesis the way I found these
initially, but of course the bias dissolves as you run the
alternations of viewpoint.

Parent / Child

(parent orients on child)

Man / God

(does man worship God or does God carefor man)
(Creator orients on his creations)

Teacher / Student

(teacher orients on students)

Thetan / Body

(thetan orients on bodies)

Matter / Energy

(energy orients on matter)

That last one is funny.  Does energy locate matter (pushing
it around etc.) or does matter locate energy (holding steady
points that emit energy).  And of course the truth is that
both occur in the physical universe.  But the implant gets
you to choose one or the other, and so you never really handle
things right or get at total cause because you always try
to force it to be one way or the other.  A big cosmic joke.

There are lots more of these.  But I tend to solve jigsaw
puzzels by jumping around from area to area rather than
trying to finish one section first and I got distracted by
the the stuff I wrote up in "Home Universe Processing" which
I think is far more significant.

Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj: Super Scio Tech - To Pietro On DeProgramming

TO PIETRO ON DEPROGRAMMING

On 20 Aug 99, josef@direct.a2000.nl posted on
topic "Pilot (20-8-99)"

> Dear Pilot,
>
> I have one specific area I want to address in this mail
> I will use the most simple language as the problem is
> too complex. Causing me otherwise to lose track of
> the problem in trying to describe it. I will put every-
> thing in second person singular so I can get a bit
> exterior to it.
>
> There are a number of things that we have to keep in
> mind to get to the main point I want to address:
>
> (1) He has been a number of years in CoS
> (2) He has experienced some good and many
>      bad sides to CoS.
> (3) He has been a number of years in SO.
> (4) He has decided I want out of the group of CoS
>      whether it be as staff, SO or public or anything
>      else for that matter.
>
> The trouble is he still has is the indoctrination of the
> CoS still kicking around in his mind.
>
> To get to the point as simply as possible. What sort of
> processing are we talking about that addresses the
> area of regaining ones own ability to decide what is
> right and wrong, independent of past indoctrination
> (that one has been in agreement with in the past)
>
> That is still telling the person what is right and wrong
> even in PT. Even though this person has disavowed
> the group where this indoctrination was put in place in
> the first place.
>
> Meaning this data is no longer applicable and is no
> longer of any use to him. This data is still kicking in fact
> kicking around in his brain making him wrong for not
> being part of the group of CoS.
>
> The good reasons he has for leaving this group would
> according this data be justifications for a whole range of
> overts. Such as overts, w/h's, squirreling, individuating,
> being 'know best', being 'self determined', being Sup-
> pressive, Not making it go right, being a chronic 1.1, not
> confronting, being down stat, being out ethics, being
> out-tech, out 2d, a DB, to alter-is, to not-is
>
> Well the list goes on, all of the things that one would
> be accused of if one was in CoS.
> How can one come to grips with this form of PTSness
> to this awful 'church'.
>
> I guess that would make it a kind of deprogramming
> if you will, or the equivalent thereof, would this be
> correct ?
>
> Hereby regaining ones own sense of what is right and
> wrong (fully). And build up again from that point.
> >From point zero if necessary, (as long as the church
> of Scientology can be avoided completely)
>
> Meaning that this indoctrination that one was all
> happy going into agreement with 'lock stock and
> barrel' in the bad old days (when 'his' brain was
> apparently totally out to lunch) don't continue to
> come back to haunt him, causing him to be less
> sessionable and causing him to invalidate himself
> etc.
>
> Then one would have to make up these justifica-
> tions in an never ending thought loop to try and
> make himself right to these bits of data (he put
> there himself) in his mind telling him he is wrong
> and only CoS can ever be right.
>
> Like a program going in a loop trying to find the
> answer to a mathematical impossibility. Because
> half a right is only another way of saying he is
> wrong.
>
> Its like having gone in agreement with all this stuff
> and in doing so one has been building this mental wall
> around onesself that is only getting higher the longer
> he goes in agreement with what is going on. And that
> you only notice ones you try to get out of the area
> (CoS), because that is the time you bump your head
> against it.
>
> So it also a matter of breaking down this wall and
> smashing it into a very fine powder that is what I am
> interested in the most to tell you the honest truth.
>
> I hope I have been able to describe the phenominon
> properly. It is really coming to grips with this spiritual
> booby trap that CoS has carefully  implanted (with his
> stupid and willing cooperation) that I have some attention
> on and would appreciate any info about it you may have
> in order to erase the darn thing out.
>
> Regards,
> Pietro

First, as to "deprogramming", this is a mistake.

Having been made to think one way, one now places another
layer on top of it where one thinks the opposite.

Everything has some good in it.  If one does an absolute,
it is alway off base.

Instead one must learn to pick and choose instead of swallowing
something as a whole.

This would be truely thinking for yourself, and if the person
is to think for themselves, then the choice of what to keep
and what to throw away must be their own.

For me, writing my own judgement of "what is and isn't true"
was a tremendous relief.  It would be best for the person
to write their own, making their own decisions based on their
own experience as to what was true and what was not.

And of course once one is thinking freely, one is free to
change one's mind, so one doesn't even have to get it all
perfectly correct, just get the thoughts moving again and
you can always shift around some more later.

One thing that does make it hard is that one may have done
various things which are justified by what one believes
in and so one can't change one's beliefs without having those
landing on one's plate.  Then one must either cling solidly
to the belief, or say it was all a scam and blame Hubbard
for the overts comitted, and neither of these gives one
free throught.

I wrote a CofS cleanup process aimed at handling that.  It
can be found in Post50.txt in the Pilot Archives.

Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj: Super Scio Tech - SelfClearing Discussion On Inventing Processes

SELF CLEARING DISCUSSION ON INVENTING PROCESSES ETC.

On 16 Aug 99, Antony Phillips <ivy@post8.tele.dk> posted this
on topic "SelfClear: To The Pilot on valence, inval, postulates etc."

This has some helpful observations, so I have included the entire
message.

> Forwarded from Selfclearing-l
>
> Could someone please post this to ACT, as I think the technical comments
> would be of interest to people there (I cannot do it myself as I am hiding
> my identity at present).
>
> I would like to say a very big thank-you to The Pilot, and others who
> helped, for giving me the processes I needed to make a very significant win
> in my self-development. I managed to let go of a valence that I had been
> holding onto very strongly, and which had been really getting in the way of
> my life. I'd like to add a few comments of my own from this experience,
> hoping that this may help others.
>
> When exploring the valence that I was holding onto, I began looking to see
> how I was holding onto it in terms of a 4-dimensional spacial reality,
> energy beams etc. I found that there was a big, thick energy beam comming
> from the middle of my belly, extending out forwards and the valence (and
> earlier similar ones) were attatched to the other end of this. Handling this
> energy beam seemed to be a significant part of enabling myself to let go of
> valences, so maybe this will help others too. This also made sense of a big
> energy 'leak' in my belly, percieved by the Eastern 'energy-body' approach
> to self-development (accupuncture, Chi etc).

Even in the early processing of 1952, people were sometimes spotting
beams coming into the body.  The perceptions of them and peoples
descriptions seem to vary.  Sometimes they associate them with
other valences or other bodies or with control rooms or all sorts
of other interesting things.  There might be many times, or maybe
we just see things differently from different viewpoints or
vibration levels.

I mention this simply to indicate that people should work with
whatever they percieve on these kinds of things.

> I handled this energy beam by making it alternately stronger and weaker,
> generally playing with all it's properties, changing them, and getting used
> to the fact that I was creating it. I also found out what was making it
> persist, which was the continual opposition of two forces.

Alternating stronger and weaker is quite smart.  The other way
is to copy it many times, changing its color etc.  Either should
be workable.

> Another process that gave me great gains on this energy beam, and also
> eventually dissolved the whole valence issue (after all the gains I'd got
> from other processes) was playing with the 'not-know' concept. I would
> decide to not-know something about the energy beam, or about the valence
> issue, for example, what colour it was, how strong it was, who created it,
> when it started, why it was there, etc.
>
> Each time I decided to not-know a particular aspect of something, I'd
> percieve a very  rapid succession of different possibilities, then a feeling
> of release and freedom. Doing this process gave me a really great win on the
> valence issue, with a very stong universe externalisation. Now I apply that
> to anything I do, and it seems to greatly help and speed up lots of other
> processes. For example with incident running, I will first decide to
> not-know one by one every aspect of the incident I can think of, such as
> when it was, what I can see, what I could hear, how much charge is in it,
> who created it and anything else I can think of. This seems to make the
> incident run very much more easily and quickly.

Again, quite good.  You've gotten the message of how to apply
the data yourself to handle whatever you bump into.

> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Pilot . . . a question for you. If I understood you correctly, I think you
> said that the Why for taking on taking on a valence is an Overwhelm. I know
> in a general way what an overwhelm feels like, but I would like to know
> precisely what it is, so that I can do some work on it. Is it a collapse of
> beingness, or something like that? What processes would you reccommend??

I might have generalized a bit too much, because one might
take on a valence for many reasons, even just to play a game.
But one of the sticky ones is overwhelm.

On late track, overwhelm is by force, simply being hit too hard so
that one wants to be the one doing the hitting (the winning valence)
instead of the one who gets hit.

On earlier track (and still continuing), its overwhelm by sheer
quantity and too much randomity.  It is simply being out created
by somebody else who is mocking up more things faster than you
can handle them.

A collapse of beingness would be late on a chain.  Basics would
generally include your own decision that you should be like the
other terminal instead of yourself because they succeeded and
you failed.

One could use incident running on a gradient to raise one's
confront of force and find basics until the force comes under
your control and falls away (this is the Dianetic clear state).

Then one could go a step further and do the same for incidents
of high randomity and being out created until one gets to a
similar state on that type of thing.  That would be real
freedom from overwhelm.


> ----------------------------------------------
>
> I also invented a process to handle invalidation, which I have found very
> helpful. If I ever notice myself invalidating myself (which I think many
> people do very often) I immediately repeat the invalidation, each time
> getting the idea that I am saying it and creating it. After a few repeats, I
> find myself rapidly going up the tone scale, usually getting very angry
> about the invalidation, then finding it very funny and feeling it release.
> This process seems to work best if done immediately, but also seems to work
> on invalidations said in the past, and on mocked-up ones.

Very good.

> --------------------------------------
>
> I would like to describe something which happened in my life, giving me good
> reason to think that our postulates are actually all comming true, it's just
> that we are unaware of most of what we are postulating. I think I remember
> other people talking about this same idea too.
>
> There was a time when my tone level was higher than usual for a short time,
> I'd been doing lots of 'Self-Analysis' type straight-wire and similar stuff.
> I was walking outside and throwing stones at things for fun and decided to
> try really fucusing on a clear postulate of hitting what I was aiming at. I
> tried it a few times and missed, then once, just as I was throwing a stone,
> a sudden noise took my attention, and I threw with a real sense of just
> letting it happen, and my postulate stuck perfectly and I hit a dificult
> target knowing that I could not miss. I was very aware that I hit the target
> because of something I had been distracted into NOT doing, rather than
> because of something unusual that I had done.

Yes.  All my OT stories have this element of being distracted into
NOT doing something which stops the abilities.  The things just
happen before you remember to stop yourself, which is why you
can't demonstrate anything in the sporatic OT band.

I am reminded of the hilarious description of how to levitate in
one of the Hitchhiker books.  The tech was to throw yourself at
the ground and miss because you were distracted by some spectacular
thing, and they had teams of people arranging surprises for each
other to distract themselves while jumping.


> With this as an example, I then spent some time imagining a connection with
> my target, and trying to reach the same state of the postulate sticking, and
> it really worked just once. After this one success, I became very aware that
> the following times I threw after making a postulate that I would hit the
> target, I percieved myself making a very quick postulate to miss the target
> just before I threw, and so would miss.

Exactly.

> So it seems to me to be generally the case that it's not that postulates
> don't stick, it's that we make a (usually unpercieved) postulate to not get
> something right nearly every time, even when we have just previously made
> the conscious postulate to get the thing right.  Upon asking myself why I
> was postulating to get things wrong most of the time, the immediate and
> clear answer was 'to hide'. Because if I were to go round violating the laws
> of physics, I would be very conspicuous, and seen to be 'breaking the
> rules', and open to attack. A friend of mine said that she felt that the
> same was true for her too.

Yes, that is one answer and I've found that one and I've heard
of others saying it too.  So it is generally correct for a lot
of people.

But its not the only why on this or else we would blow through it.

There's lots of ways to override that specific one, such as
alternately getting the idea of hiding it and not hiding it,
or even mocking up a shield around the room to keep it hidden
from others while you secretly levitate an object.

But if I do that, I get the feeling that one of the stops is
out of the way while others are still in effect to continue
to block the ability.

> ------------------------------------------
>
> Another brief idea I would like to share is that I seem to have found a cure
> for seasickness . . . it seems to me that if ones anchor points are outside
> the body then you don't get seasick, and if they are inside the body then
> you do. I used the 'holding 8 corners of a room' type of thing, applying it
> either to the immediate space I was in, or to a larger context like the
> seafloor and surface of the water etc, and it always seemed to work. I would
> be interested in anyone elses results with this.

This is good.

> -----------------------------------------
>
> I'd also like to agree with you about the necessity of having ways of
> developing new processes, as well as having existing processes to run. From
> my own experience, I think that one of the most beneficial things is to
> percieve for oneself whenever possible. For example, after doing the first
> few chapters of selfclear, I think it would be good to learn to percieve for
> oneself what order to do things in and what new processes to invent, as well
> as to make sure one covers all the material and progresses at a good
> gradient.

The trouble is getting up to the point of skill where one can
repair mistakes easily, handle out ruds and so forth.  And that
is all the way up at chapter 27.  So I took my best guess as to
a generally workable sequence and left the reader free to skip
processes that didn't indicate.

Unless they are already tech trained, most people will need the
bulk of the technical descriptions up to chapter 27 even if they
don't run all the processes to that point.

However, that is a good place to add a chapter 27A about inventing
processes and to give the person more liberties about skipping
around and working on what interests them.


> As you have said, one can use ones particular interest or particular
> avoidance of things to know what is the most useful process to do next. I
> know, and I'm sure you have said too, that anyone can learn to percieve
> charge directly. I personally think this would be more beneficial than
> learning how to use an emeter. Maybe an emeter could be used to train people
> how to percieve change rather than to replace their own perception. I
> remember being shocked at the obvious untruth of being told at a Scientology
> org that it is absolutely impossible to percieve ones own charge oneself.
> Also, I think that on percieving charge oneself, it is possible to get much
> more information about it than from the emeter, for example, it's location,
> shape colour etc.

When one starts, one does get confused and might take one's flinch
from things that need to be run as an indicator that they shouldn't
be run.  New people rarely percieve charge correctly.

The stupid idea is to think that they stay that way.

One learns.  One gets better at these things.  One gets the knack
of it, so to speak, and then it is easy to tell.

The emeter does read deeper than what you can spot consciously,
but it is still only reading at the surface, just, let us say,
two inches deep instead of one inch deep on a bank that might
be one hundred inches deep.


> I think that from a long-term organisational point of view as well as for
> the continued correctness of the (freezone) tech, it would be beneficial to
> encourage individuals to percieve and generate their own processes and
> structures of orders of processes as early as possible in their
> self-development. I think it is only perception (from more than one
> veiwpoint as you have said) that can keep things on the right track . . . as
> soon as something becomes 'this is the right way to do it' (even if it is a
> good process) then it will quickly lose it's way and become distorted as can
> be seen in every previous attempt at a workable self-development technology.

Agreed.

> Of course, I recognise the vast importance of having something such as the
> selfclear book, which is a structured course on what to do, but I personally
> would encourage as much as possible of the individuals own perception of
> what they need to do, and how to generate their own processes, from as early
> as possible. I also think that this would lead to more new processes, ideas
> and ways of doing things, which would be to everyones advantage. I would
> personally tend to favour the direction of open, unstructured creative
> approaches rather than making things into more rigid courses to follow as
> some people seem to be suggesting, especially as letting go of rules,
> constraints, and fixed answers seems to me to be such an important part of
> ones self-development anyway. Still, these are just my thoughts, and I will
> be interested to see what other people think . . .

Actually, my original expectation was that people would go through
the self clearing book in a fast and sloppy manner.  That is how
most people study and apply things if there isn't a supervisor
breathing down their necks.

On that basis, doing the entire book is sort of a minimum for
people without prior training because they will not have done
it with a great deal of care and thoroughness.

I still think that that will be the way of it for most people
as the book spreads around.

The exception is that the bulk of people here and now have been
groved in to doing things thoroughly and have experience from
earlier practices or CofS training or whatever.  And so they are
up to things like this sooner.  Just think for a moment if most
people you see walking on the street could match your own speed
and insights.


> hope this helps others,
>
> and big thanks to The Pilot and everyone else who has helped me,
>
> p
>
> **
> This message was sent to the list selfclearing-l
> The list is for those engaged in using the Pilot's self
> enlightenment book "Self Clearing".
> Send in your comments, questions and answers to others questions.
> **
> --
>        Ant                                Antony A Phillips
>        ivy@post8.tele.dk
>                                          tlf: (+45) 45 88 88 69
>                                           Box 78
>                                           DK - 2800 Lyngby
> Publisher, International Viewpoints (= IVy). See Home Page:
> http://home8.inet.tele.dk/ivy/
> Administrator: trom-l, selfclearing-l, superscio-l, IVy lists

Thank you.  And thank you to Antony as well for reposting
this.

Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj: Super Scio Tech - Processing Blame

PROCESSING BLAME

We have known for a long time that you must process the pc at
cause.

People get better when you process them this way, and they
do not when you place all the responsibility on an external
source.

This is not to say that people can't hurt and hinder each other.

But if you work from the view that it is somebody else's fault,
then others are at cause and the case will not change significantly.

And if you work from the view of the pc as source for the
condition he is in, then he can change that condition because
he is the source for it.

It would seem that anybody can be source for anything by
simple decision without regard to logic or physical universe
mechanics.

Bill kicks Mike's teeth in.  Bill was being the source for
that.  He mocked it up.  Mike decides that Bill was source,
since it is obviously the case.  And it becomes difficult
to handle the condition that Mike is stuck with, because he
is not the one who mocked it up.

Then Mike decides that he mocked it up.  He takes over the
source point.  It is beside the point whether he gets to
that by seeing how he pulled it in, or simply by deciding
that he was Bill at the moment when Bill kicked him.  What
is important is that when Mike becomes the one that mocked
it up, he can unmock it.

Theta doesn't seem to care who has moved onto the source
point for something, and does not apply logical restrictions
or any rules of physical causation to that.

Using Dianetics to run motivators only (as was done in the
early days) does have some workability because you are placing
the pc at cause over the picture of being kicked.  But it
often fell short of the mark.  What you really want is to
place the pc at cause over the actuality of being kicked
rather than just the picture of it.

The solution, in R3R is generally to run flow 2 (the overt
side) as well as the motivator side.

Another way is to run the incident from the other person's
viewpoint and get control over mocking up the action.  Or
even just mockup the action.  Or find earlier source points
that you created that led to the incident.

There are numerous tricks for getting the pc over to the
causative side of the equation instead of leaving him at
effect.  The 1950s tech is very aware of this.

And yet Ron slipped on this one in the late 60s and
blamed the existance of case after clear on entities.

Again there is some workablility because you are telling
the pc to start being causative over the entities.  But
that is quite limited and weak in comparison with placing
the pc at direct cause over what hit him.

And the theory of assigning the entirety of remaining
case to an external source is deadly if the pc begins
to think that way and say that they mocked up his case.

It seems to turn up again and again that some otherwise
brilliant tech finder wants to find and assign some external
source for abberation.  Hence we get blaming Xenu or
blaming entities or blaming implants or blaming the world
conspiracy or whatever.

The obvious conclusion is that people just love to cast
blame and even the tech finders fall into that trap
occasionally.

Therefore, it is a major case factor and one of the key
sources that keeps the person abberated.

Hence, we should have a grade aimed at handling this
impulse.

My first thought is simply to drill casting blame, getting
the pc to do consciously what he is doing unconsciously.

Move an object and then say that Joe did it.  Or say
"devil made me do it."

Mock up a picture and say that somebody else mocked it
up.

Alternate these with the idea that you did it.  In other
words, "Joe mocked it up", "I mocked it up" alternately.

Even "Mock up WAYS to blame others" and "mock up a way
to waste opportunities to blame others."

Go to a mall and just mockup casting blame at people
as they walk by.

Then mockup taking blame from them, even for things that
they really did.

The process I put out a long time ago on "taking on other's
sins" fits right in with this (see Post45 in the Pilot
Archives).

Lots of variations are possible.

Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj: Super Scio Tech - To ThomLove on Agree/Disagree

TO THOMLOVE ON AGREE/DISAGREE

On 15 Aug 99, thomlove <thomlovenetmail@netscape.net> posted
on topic "To tech researchers"

> Hello all;
>
> I have noticed a couple of phenomenon in session, and I altered the LRH
> tech I was using a little to see if an idea I had would handle it, and I
> was pleased with the results. So, I'm curious if any of you have
> happened on the same handling and how it panned out.
>
> I was running entities, and I noticed in one occasion, the entity kinda
> got confused and bogged down a little, and things got a little foggy. I
> figured it was probably due to misownership. Evaluative, I know, but it
> couldn't be too far off the mark. We were running an incident, and I
> decided to do a little switch of commands to see if it would open up the
> area a little. I was operating on the datum re: misownership causes
> needles to read, and things to persist. So, I decided to run the
> question, the attention on that entity and that incident; 'Is there
> something about that (the incident) that you agreed with?' ( I forget
> the exact wording, unfortunately...) This opened up the comm, and
> actually opened up the area which could then be run. I ran it
> repetitively. I did this a couple of times on other entities when they
> bogged down, and it ran well. It didn't deflect their attention at all,
> and it really brought up their interest! Big difference in tone level.
>
> Then, on one, it ran but didn't produce any final result. So, the
> squirrel that I am, I decided to vary the question, and get the other
> side. So, with the attention on that entity and that occluded area of
> track, we ran; 'What part of that .... did you agree with?' repetitively
> until it no more answers, then; 'What part of that .... did you disagree
> with?' until no more answers, and then the first question, then the
> second, and so on, running each until dry and then the next until dry
> and then the first, and so on. This completely opened up track, more
> than I've seen in a long time. So much so, that two past lives with
> dates of births and deaths came into view. The interest level was
> extremely high, the certainty of perception went into a very high range.
> What I really noticed was the rise in tone.
>
> ( I'm trying to find out if these individuals really did live, but I'm
> not too hatted on finding genealogical trees. I've been trying to find
> if there was a data base on the net, but no luck yet. I've tried the
> Scottish Genealogy, the Old Pharocrial Records, and such, but no data
> base yet. In case anyone here is quick on finding things like that,
> could you please info me how to do it.)
>
> I figure that the two questions, agree/disagree, would undercut
> misownership. The meter also reads on disagreements, per an old E-Meter
> Essentials book I read years ago. (I don't know if it still says that or
> not).
>
> In any case, the process ran and really opened up track when run that
> way. I tried on an area that was occluded, and the area opened up, and
> on an incident that was confusing, and that blew it off. The final
> cognition seemed to come on the 'disagree' step, and the cognition seems
> to be that there are 'no disagreements' with it at all. 'It' being the
> incident or occluded area. By this I guess all the charge was gone, all
> misownership had been spotted. At this point I was able to go back to
> the original process, and run it to EP.
>
> I was wondering if anyone here has any LRH refs on this process, or, if
> anyone here has run such processes themselves, and what occurred.
>
> Thanks
>
> Thom

Agree/disagree is very good.  Since the PDC is so hot on
disagree, one would assume that disagree is the more important
one to run.

From basic theory, it is better to try and get on the two
sides of something or have something to alternate rather than
to push at something one way, so the natural thing to do
is to try and make a pair right away.

I put a general process on agree/disagree fairly early in self
clearing.  It is really a major area and more handlings are
probably needed.

Misownership would seem like a later thing because anyone can
take the causative viewpoint over anything.  However, it is
the create button which undercuts it.  If you can create it,
you can own it and who cares who was creating it yesterday,
and they can create it too if they want one.

Agree/disagree is a different sort of animal from ownership.
It is also very basic (more so than ownership) but I don't see
it as a guaranteed undercut of ownership.

As far as all the charge being gone, all the charge usually
goes on a keyout basis on spotting only a tiny percentage of
the things that are holding something pinned down, so you can't
judge on that basis.

If the camel only collapses when 1000 straws have accumulated,
you can get him up again by lifting up any handfull out of
the 1000.  It doesn't have the be the same ones that finally
brought him to his knees.

Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj: Super Scio Tech - The Self Analysis Disk (Attn Robert)

THE SELF ANALYSIS DISK (Attn Robert)

On 27 Aug 99, VoltR@ctinet.net (RDucharme) posted on topic
"Self Analysis perceptic list from the old text"

> I just acquired a box of old Scientology books and among them was a large
> paperback edition copyrighted 1951 and reprinted in 1968.
>
> At the bottoms of the pages were the senses we are all familiar with:
>
> sight, smell, touch, color, tone, external motion, emotion, loudness, body
> position, sound, weight, personal motion.
>
> On the printed disk, however was a different set of perceptions, namely:
>
> sight, smell, touch, external motion, your emotion, sound, personal motion,
> understanding of situation, degree of your agreement, degree of your
> affection.  The last two were printed once on each side.
>
> So the two sides looked like this:
>
> side 1:  smell, degree of your affection, personal motion, sight, degree of
> your agreement, touch,
> side 2:  sound, degree of your affection, understanding of situation,
> external motion, degree of your agreement, your emotion.

Thank you for reminding me of this.

It is quite correct.  I remember having a disk like this with
my old copy of self analysis back in the 60s and noticing that
the disk had more than the book had.

It is good to have these down in writing.

Thank you,

The Pilot

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

 subj: Super Scio Tech - To Croesus123 on R7

TO CROESUS123 ON R7

On 15 Aug 99, croesus123@aol.com (Croesus123) posted on
subject "To the Pilot regarding your R7"

> I have some thoughts about what you call R7 which apparently is
> the idea that R6 is not just restimulted by symbols but is made
> active by being compulsively used at a telepathic level to keep
> each other restimulated and dramatizing it.

You indirectly pointed out something important with your
remark "not just restimulated by symbols".

As far as I know, Ron did not talk a lot about symbols being
the thing that restimulates R6 or CC (unless there is more
about that in the confidential R6 material of 64-5).

My impression is that Ron considered that the grades type
factors were locks on the engrams which were locks on the
identities which were tied into the goal of each GPM.
And so the primary restimulators would be grades type
buttons rather than symbols.

But in practice, symbols really are heavy restimulators.

A symbol is really a much more effective grouper than
an RI.  Consider a symbol for freedom, or even the concept
of freedom itself (which is a symbol by its very nature).
There would be huge amounts of be, do, and have associated
with it as well as the possiblity of getting lots of
engrams and out grades type things tied in.

A goal such as "to be free" would group onto a symbol for
freedom.  But then one sees that one needs money to be
independent (free) of economic constraints and gets the
goal "to be wealthy" associated with the symbol for freedom
as well.  So one could look at the symbol as being senior
to GPMs and accumulating GPMs on it as "locks".

Theoretically, that would imply that there are patterns
of symbols which are more basic than the GPM patterns.

Note that the R7 type things I've been finding are not
GPMs but cycles (like create-survive-destroy).

Where the symbols fit in relation to this still remains
to be seen.  My gut feeling is that they are a level
in between the GPMs and the R7 cycles.

I just wanted to get this down in writing before I lose
track of it.  There are things to look into further in
this area.

> To me this idea almost sounds like a cluster - the concept
> that a group of thetans, each copying and dramatizing the same
> incident, stay attached and keep each other restimulated in it.
> In other words maybe this society is formed by the same basic
> phenomena, just at a higher level. Let me explain this. This
> maybe a little disjointed but please bear with me.

My initial feeling on OT 3 when I did it was that reality was a
big cross copy.

That's actually why I worked so hard at overrunning Solo Nots.
I thought that it might really lead to true OT on the basis
of the walls themselves being an entity projection synchronized
by copying.

That did not work.  Eventually you run into your own case
on creating reality.  So they are not the source of reality.

And yet I do feel that the cross copy mechanism is involved
in the synchronization of reality between all of us.

> LRH said in Ron's journal 67 that OT III deals with the very
> formation of society itself. It should be mentioned that no
> one runs this incident directly and so no one comes in contact
> with the actual information and force of the incident. It
> apparently is the content of the 36 days incident that causes
> the deadly phenomena of OT III that LRH talks and what he
> actually confronted in early 1967. LRH once said that this
> information would probably never be published. The OT III
> procedures we use bypass the deadly stuff - the truth is
> that we don't run Incident 2.

I've run the later part.  It came up while I was running the
penalty universes that I wrote up in Super Scio chapter 5.

I think that Ron got over restimulated and spun in on it.

It can not be run as itself in Incident 2 because it intentionally
includes later sections of penalty universe material without
including the earlier part.  And so it only restimulates and
will not errase.

Imagine taking the OT 2 platens and including the second half
of each page only without the first half and using them as
the text for a new implant.  Then, even if a bright researcher
found the items, they would not get the first items and so
could not errase the platens.

That is what the designers of incident 2 did with the
penalty universe materials.  Except that any one penalty
unvierse has more items than the entirety of OT 2.

When I was running the penalty universe which had a goal
that might be translated as "to unite" or "to join", I
felt that I was looking at the Sea Org in its exact patterns
and formations except for the fact that the body type was
a sort of dog like person.  That one goal has about
ten thousand detail items, and about two or three thousand
of those items, from the later sections of the implant
are repeated exactly at some point during the 36 days,
combined with pictures (at random) from the later part
of that penalty universe and with a mockup of the
penalty universe setup on earth and the lie stated in
the implant that the penalty universe was actually here
on earth (even though the original really occured back
in home universe).

My impression is that he keyed them in while trying to
run the 36 days, never spotted the earlier origins of
the items, and dramatized them thereafter.

I did not get to them by running incident 2.  Thanks
to Ron, I had incident 2 keyed out and was therefore
capable of working earlier material and I found the
original first before stirring up the later incomplete
versions in incident 2.  And the thing was a killer
until I found the first items.

The first items are almost completely uncharged and
can be stated casually without restimulation because
they were layed in so early.  On the goal "to unite",
the first item would be "to unite is native state",
setting up the silly idea that uniting into a group
is the same as being in the original native state and
is the reason for all existance.

> Now I very distinctly remember an LRH statement in a
> tape journal near the last years something like the
> following: "the interlocking bank mechanism of the
> reactive mind". He didn't explain it. But I think I
> knew what he meant since I think I have "seen it" it
> over the years.

He talks about an interlock on OT 3, which is that the
implants given to each entity dovetailed with the ones
given to others, causing them to hold onto each other
because each had an incomplete pattern.

> We know now that the real use of a single computer is in
> its networking capability, the individual computer hooking
> up to a network like the Internet. Wouldn't we expect that
> the space age societies that laid in the R6 and OT III
> implants would long experience with computers and networking.

Yes.

> If they laid in a controlling bank in each of us wouldn't
> they also devise some way to tie them together at a telepathic
> level. It seems that telepathy has been and is still widely
> used in this galaxy. Although these ideas seem new and startling
> to us it seems like these idea s would be almost antique to
> them. What I'm saying is that I think there is some basis to
> your idea.

Yes.  Metaphysical studies rarely consider the implications
of sophisticated telepathy.  But some of the more advanced
science fiction occasionally touches on this topic.

> There may be a similar idea here. Just like a cluster can
> be formed as and held together by thetans mutually and
> continuously creating the incident, an entire society of
> humans might be formed and held together in mutually create
> and continuously dramatized implant.

At this level, it is not an implant, it is reality.

The difference is that in an implant, the pattern or track
is fixed, like watching a movie.

But reality contains free choice and live interactive
action, like playing a video game.

> As a cluster is held together by copying and cross copying,
> maybe the same with the implant.

Maybe the same with reality.

> Maybe your idea of R6 being telepathically used on each
> other at a telepathic level is like the cross copying in
> a cluster. Again we can't tell since the actual contenet
> of Incident 2 is not available to us.
>
> But this brings out an even larger idea - how a universe
> might be mutually created by a multitude of thetans. If
> you consider that a universe is like a mutual created
> incident, then the mechanism might  be the same.

Or, from a different perspective, the implants mimic the
actually mechanics of reality.

> In a sense thetans co-creating a universe would be just
> like thetans in a cluster co-creating the incident. Now
> I can imagine that at a higher level, many universes ago,
> this would not be the case. Thetans would have freely agreed
> to this co-creation.

I've run incidents like that.  Early ones.  We put pieces
of ourselves into a pool to cross copy where things are
on the playing field while blocking our knowingness of
where they are so that we can play a game without spoiling
it and yet remain in synch.  But early on it is willful
and you pull out if you feel like it.  As long as there
is no enforcement, it really is a game.

> But the mechanism for the co-creation of this universe
> far down the road would probably not be a freely subscribed
> to. The co-creation and agreement would have to be enforced.

That is the problem and the solution should yield real OT.

> The co-creation of this universe, the marching in the same
> time stream to the same time stream, would have to be enforced
> telepathically on each of by each of us at some telepathic
> level. I sure to the thetans in a cluster the incident
> they are dramatizing must seem to them to be a "universe"
> since it is always there and continually persists and is
> mutually perceived by each member of the cluster.  Maybe
> so for this entire universe.

I think so.

You raised a lot of extremely interesting points, worthy
of much further thought.

Best,

The Pilot

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

 subj: Super Scio Tech - SUMMARY OF RESEARCH

SUMMARY OF RESEARCH

Looking back at the way that one breakthrough was discarded
in favor of another within the CofS research line, I feel
that I had better emphasize that I think that all the work
is cumulative rather than one thing replacing another.

We have a huge subject to investigate.  The puzzel is actually
larger than the physical universe because the physical universe
is only one of the pieces within the larger whole.

Think about how much is known in physics, chemistry, electronics,
computer science, and so forth, and then realize that the
sum total of those is a subset of what we are considering
when we talk about ultimate OT and the creation of universes.

You will not make it as an idiot.  You will not make it by
a non-confront of details.  You will not make it by being
too lazy to crack open a book.  And you will not make it
by expecting somebody else to wave a magic wand over your
head.

But you will make it by the determination to understand and
use everything that you can lay your hands on and by having
the confidence that no matter what your current awareness
and abilities, you can grow to encompass anything and everything
that has ever been concieved of.  There is no limit, for as
you grow, you increase your potential for growth.

To be a superman, you must make yourself into a superman,
but that is within your potential if only you will take on
the challange and dedicate yourself to the task.

I think that sometimes people flinch at the shear quantity
of material and the number of different factors which are
part of the picture.  That is an unfortunate side effect
of trying to put all these things into context, because
the picture is big and complex.

But as you confront each factor, it loses its ability to
abberate you, and once it is done, then it is done.  Although
these things often show up again at higher levels (more
grades after confronting the heavy force of implants etc.),
you will find that things are easy the second time once you
have gone through the work of that first difficult effort to
face up to the material.

So do not let the quantity of things get you down, the more
you do, the faster and easier it gets.

THE MAJOR PARTS:

1) Grades type things.  These are the basics and the reasons
why.

2) Heavy patterned abberations including implanted things
(things imposed by others) and heavy structures such as
actual GPMs which you postulated for yourself.

3) Things related to beingness, whether entities or
fragments of oneself or "oversouls" or whatever.

4) Present time, the physical universe, one's own universe,
etc.  That which is real or mocked up right now.

CLASSES OF "IMPLANTS" AND PATTERNS

The heavy abberations are patterns of one sort or another.
Sometimes they are implanted (imposed by others) and sometimes
they are postulated and lived by the person himself ("actuals").

There are four major styles and this seems like a good
time to summarize them.  Note that many different things
exist within each style.  These are general categories
rather than specifics.

1. Simple Pictures, mockups, universes, etc. locked in by
asthetics, interest, and other attractive factors.

These are of low abberative power because you can always
turn your back on them and step away.

For a current example, think of sex.  People are attracted
and its fun but they can also (hopefully) step away by an
effort of will.  This is not to claim that sex is or isn't
abberative or implanted, but simply to say that it is a
good example of an attractive nusience where one has some
choice but often dives in.

At basic, all implants have to be anchored by things like
this, because nothing can impact a thetan up at the top
of the scale.  But these are fairly easy to handle in
their pure form, the really abberative stuff has the high
level asthetics burried so that it is hard to spot or depends
on asthetics in earlier harder to reach implants.

These are the earliest, although you will find recent ones
too.  Some of the recent between lives stuff is simply
attractive asthetic pictures.

For an early example, see the chapter on Courage in self
clearing.  We were tricked into mocking up strong opposition
because it was more asthetic to be corageous fighting against
overwhelming odds.  Just an asthetic idea which gets you
into trouble.

2. Simple Decay Scales

These are the next earliest on the track.

The best example are the penalty universes (Super Scio chapter 5)
which lay in the tone scale.

The weakness of these is based on the fact that even after
you are the effect of them, you can still move up and down
the scale because nothing blocks upward motion.

Anthing you can get as a transient gain by raising somebody's
tone can be had as a permanent gain at any emotion by blowing
the damn scale.  So that gives you an idea of how much
abberation is held by these kinds of things.

There are other decay scale type patterns, some more significant
and some less.  Probably anything we can map out a scale for
has some fixed pattern setup somewhere.

Again, there will be recent examples as well as old ones.

But notice that just getting a person upscale doesn't make
a full OT.  So these are not the full picture.

3. Opposition Patterns

Here is the realm of GPMs and things like that.

Instead of leaving the person free to move up and down scale,
each level is blocked by multiple points of charge so that
the person doesn't just back up.

There are implants and actuals and higher level patterns of
various sorts and quite a bit has been written about these
things.

Really anything with opposition and fixed viewpoints falls
into this category including earlier game type things
which predate the later more sophisticated GPM patterns.

Note that these are not effective until the being has decayed
to the point of wanting a game, they do not operate properly
if the being is free to create both sides causatively.

So these tend to be after Home Universe.

The liability of these things, from the implanter's perspective,
is that they cause declining spirals.  Below a certain point,
an implanted slave or a population implanted into agreement
will cease to be able to do productive work.

4. Static Patterns

To make a permanent slave who does not decay in ability,
you need to hold him trapped at the same level instead of
going down in a zig zag.

Because of the basic of adding to the richness of creation,
it is not possible to hold anybody perpetually on one side
of a pattern.  Eventually they will flip flop and create the
opposite and we have a GPM decay pattern.

To maintain a steady state, you have to let the being occupy
both sides of a pattern, but in a controlled manner so that
he cycles back to the first position again instead of
zig zagging downwards.

A number of things meet this criteria.

The Symbols Orientation stuff I just posted does it by
letting the person occupy either role (male and female for
example), but jaming the flow line so it sticks in one
direction.

The R7 triad cycles that I was talking about last time
also fit into this category by giving you brief moments
of controlled violations and then swinging you back into
line.

And the reality generators stuff I was talking about last
year do it by injecting both sides into a mockup (both
freedom and slavery for example) but with comm lags and
concurrent addition and removal.

All of these are characterized by creating long term No
Change while encouraging transient changes that keep taking
you back to where you were before.

Things setup this way permeate the current reality.

There may have been earlier things like this that permeated
earlier realities, but they must have been as-ised and are
no longer with us, because something like this will perpetuate
until it is as-ised.

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

I still say that grades are basic.

Any time you loosen up one of the above heavy patterns,
more out grades stuff from the early track becomes visible
and accessible.

I tend to just stir the above things enough to get them
out of the way and go after the out grades stuff that
shows up.  Everything later keeps getting weaker as you
continue to take charge off of the underpinnings.

Hope this helps,

The Pilot

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

 subj: Super Scio Tech - HOME UNIVERSE PROCESSING

HOME UNIVERSE PROCESSING

FZ Bible recently posted a collection of 4th ACC tape transcripts.

These contain tons of group processing sessions.  The 4th ACC
was the group processing ACC and had about 60 hours of group
processing that Ron did on the ACC students.

At the very end, after carrying the class up on a long
gradient, Ron runs the most fantastic process.  I don't
think that you could use it on a group without this much
warm up, and it would probably be over a lot of people's
heads, but it is just fantastic and worth a special note.

I am going to excerpt a little bit of the session here,
but note that Ron does a lot more, bringing the students
up on a gradient, so you should really look at the original.

> Subject: FZ Bible SOME 4TH ACC TAPES 4/6

> 5403C26 4ACC-70 <1024> UNIVERSE SERIES: MORALS, LAWS, CODES

> Now find your own universe around you.
> Now find the physical universe around you.

.

> Now, what sort of a personal universe is acceptable to you?  What
> sort of a your own universe?  What condition would your own
> universe be in, that it would be acceptable to you?  All messed
> up, exactly paralleling the physical universe?  Beautiful
> condition?  Well now, make up a lot of them and pull them in on
> you.  One after the other.  Doesn't come in easily, change it
> around 'til it does.  Pull in a whole lot of them.

.

> Now let's find some places in your own universe where you are
> not.
>
> Now let's check over the physical universe for some places
> where you are not.

I got a fantastic gain while alternating that last pair of
commands.

Note that your own universe is just whatever space you mockup
and put things in.  This is covered in the Philadelphia Doctorate
Course.  You simply make a space that is not tied into physical
universe space (this is "Spaceation" - SOP 8 step 3) and start
doing mockups in it.  I worked that into a number of spots in
self clearing.

A neat drill from the early ACCs is to mockup something in your
own space and then alternate between spotting something in that
space vs spotting things in the physical universe.  Again, I've
done a lot of that and worked a bit of it into self clearing,
for example, mocking up a mountain and doing ext/int drills on
that as well as doing them on a physical universe mountain in
chapter 11.  That is a lot of fun.

Really, all the OT drills can be done both on physical universe
and on your own universe, and switching off between the two
gives interesting effects and great gains.

But it never occured to me to try SOP 8C step 1 (finding places
where you are not, etc.) in this variation (own universe vs
physical universe).

My assumption (wrong in retrospect), was that I was obviously
everywhere in my own universe since I was mocking it up.

I should have known better.

We are mocking up tons of crap compulsively and not knowing it,
both in our own universes as well as the physical universe.

This drill can be done as soon as you reach the point where
it is fairly easy for you to mockup "your own universe" in
some vague manner.

You would begin by mocking up an acceptible personal universe.
It doesn't matter what, just lots of nice junk that gives
you good havingness.  The drill of mocking up a mountain in
your own space in chapter 11 of self clearing is a nice warmup
for this, or the final process in self clearing where you
mockup a scene and step in and out of it.

We are not worried too much here about how real that personal
mockup is.  It might be quite vague, but it should be stable
and under your control.  Just fill it with whatever you feel
like at the moment, whether mountains or cities or bunches of
naked nymphs or whatever.

Then alternate -

a) spot some places in your own universe where you're not.

b) spot some places in the physical universe where you're not.

Something previously not-ised and compulsively created may
suddenly appear in your personal universe.

Whatever it is, copy it a number of times, changing its color
etc. to get control over it.  See if you can spot when you
mocked it up and confront the incident.  Get Itsa on it -
time, place, form, and event, and postulates, decisions, dones
to whatever degree necessary to get you back at cause over it.

It might seem like an external creation but it is not.  This
is your own universe we are running here and it will definitely
be your own creation no matter how much you would like to offload
the responsibility onto some entity or whatever.

The rule is that nothing exists in your own universe that
you are not putting there.  You can copy physical universe
stuff or crap from entities into your own universe, but it is
always you who is doing the copying and putting it there.

You have access to many spaces, including spaces created by
others or shared (like the physical universe), but when it
is a space that YOU mocked up, then it IS your space and
there is NO question of ownership.

When the mockup comes fully under your control and dissolves
(you can mock it up again if you feel like, but it is no
longer stuck there), you should get a big cog and see the
underlying postulate that you made and have continued to make
which was keeping that mockup in place.  If not, then take
a break and check over it again a bit later or the next day.
This is a bit like power or ext/int where so much can come loose
that you need to let things settle out and look it over again
(usually done as a 2 way comm step on the following day in
professional handling).

The win on one of these old compulsive postulates coming loose
is so great that you have to let it settle out a bit.  The
above process might not bite again for a few days, just going
to a mild win instead of revealing an old not-isness.  You
can do other drills and come back around to this one.

Just as an example, I'll tell you what I hit the first
time I tried this.

There I had a nice little personal universe mocked up, and
was busily spotting places where I was not and suddenly I
found an old bedroom from when I was about 4 sitting right
there in my own universe.  And I had a monster in it and
a feeling of fear.  Silly, one would say, and nothing important.
But why was it sitting there in my own created space, having
come in automatically.

So I copied it a few times, getting at cause over mocking it
up.  And suddenly a deep long standing postulate came into
view on the subject of fear.  It wasn't something I'd thought
up when I was 4, it had only keyed in then.  It was a stupid
idea that I had come up with way way back on the track and
simply been doing on automatic for a long time.

The idea was that if you are afraid, it attracts bad things.
This is the usual business of "the only thing to fear is
fear itself" and animals smelling your fear and going after
you only if you are afraid and so forth.

And my stupid solution was to keep myself from being afraid
by not-ising the thing I was afraid of.  In other words,
if you hide it from yourself, then you aren't afraid and
will not pull in the bad things which come from being afraid.

So I had mocked up a mechanism to blanket something with
invisibility and stop myself from thinking about it to
turn off fear.  And at age 4 I had triggered that mechanism to
suppress a fear at a supposed monster hiding in the bedroom.

The result was copying the entire not-ised scene into my
own universe, because you do that when you not-is things
so that you wouldn't completely loose track of them.

Tons of stuff started unravelling when I hit this.

The huge gain was not the one little incident, but the
whole mechanism coming into view and things starting to
show up and dissolve in all directions.  Just wild.

It feels like a whole basic core of fear from up and down
the track is just gone.

But that is only one potential gain from this process.

Theoretically, all of one's compulsive creates might
come into view, step by step on a gradient, with this
process.  But I'm far from done with this one, so we
will see.

Affinity,

The Pilot

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

This weeks messages were all posted with the following trailer -

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

See The Self Clearing Homepage for URLs to these sites
http://fza.org/pilot/selfclr.htm

Or 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
#65 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 (any messages with my
header but without a trailer like this are spam garbage).

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.

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