Subject: Re: UCP: Co-Audit vs. Solo
From: [email-masked] (Anon)
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 18:46:23 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology

On 4 Nov 1999 12:03:18 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:

>in message <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Anon)
> wrote  in thread "Re: UCP: Co-Audit vs. Solo", on Thu, 04 Nov 1999
>15:17:04 GMT,  :  
>
>
>>On 4 Nov 1999 05:10:24 -0500, Honza Svasek <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>
>>>In my experience anything can be solo audited as long as you have enough
(Snip)
>
>>>So solo you tend to waste time, and maybe one needs a tool to keep you at
>>>the right track and interested.
>
>Yes.  Bouncing out from boredom or distracted attention or feeling "it's
>not working" are SO EASY to do, and the Witness eliminates the ease of
>that.  At least you have to TALK about the somatics that are driving you
>OUT OF SESSION, and that tends to put your attention back ON them, instead
>of turning AWAY from them, and puts you BACK IN SESSION.
>
>>>Tool could be good session admin, maybe a solo C/S, or maybe even a
>>>computer that presents the questions and prompts for a response. (The
>>>ultimate in muzzeled auditing)
>
>I've thought about a simple computer program working from a basic flow
>chart for many years.  It COULD work . . . but I don't know.  It hasn't
>been tried yet.  

Yes, it has.  I tried it several years ago after writing a program to
do just that.  It was more difficult with Scn tech because of all the
Rudiments scenarios and suppress, withhold, buttons, etc..  It can get
pretty complex.  Then what do you do about listing and nulling
actions, green forms, etc.?  It could be done, but the gain wouldn't
be worth the strain.  I did it more as an intellectual exercise to see
how far I could take it.  It worked, very crudely.

With UCP, it would be MUCH simpler.  No problem writing the program.
Only question, is it worth doing?  Interaction with another human
being is far superior, usually.  There's more IMPINGEMENT and feeling
of needing to STAY IN SESSION.  This other person has invested his
time and interest in the session, i.e., in YOU.  Not so easy to just
"chuck" it (as you indicate above).   One tends to stick with it.
(Anon)

>I was VERY FIRED UP ABOUT IT TWENTY YEARS AGO, but then my
>handbasket went to the proverbal place and it got dropped out.  Maybe it
>could get dropped back in again.  Even if it doesn't work well for major
>case gain, it might be a FABULOUS dissemination and training tool, and get
>people interested and ready to co-audit really smoothly.
>
>There HAVE been a few counselling programs dating back decades, which
>attracted attention.  ELISA [or ELIZA?] I believe to be the first one,
>dating all the way back to 1948 or so.  It's a very interesting possibility
>I went into apathy on long ago.  Maybe I'm coming out?
>
>Techtalk #22 lays out the basic flow chart very clearly.  It's almost a
>trivial exercise for a computer maven.  A few questions in big print with
>possible VOICE.  A couple of prompter loops.  A few help screens.  A few
>diagnostic questions on how you are doing and what is happening.  A few
>originations from the computer re "I'm not sure what is happening, please
>give me some more data."  A few questions to help evaluate if the session
>is DONE or not.   Some end of session wrap-up or overview questions for
>integration and extroversion.  Not much else is needed?  Voice recognition
>of a few simple Seeker commands or responses would eliminate a lot of
>distracting keyboarding.  Standard Mouse reponses to a few standard
>questions would also help minimize technical distractions.
>
>Well, OK, it IS a big project, but at least the overall pattern and scope
>is QUITE APPARENT.
>
>Also, you would need to have the training or reality-factor section on WHAT
>UCP IS and HOW it works adapted for the progam to feed you data in the
>correct order, unless you simply tell them to "Read the Techtalk Series."
>ALL the $cientologese would have to be eliminated or translated for general
>public consumption.  
>
>OKAY . . . IT IS A *BIG* PROJECT!
>
>I was really gung-ho on it about 20 years ago, but realized that it would
>probably take man-years to develop, and I simply did NOT have the time or
>financial resources to do it.  I spent a couple of weeks trying to figure
>out BASIC from the command list, and after maybe a hundred hours of work
>finally managed to get ONE QUESTION up on the screen.  That put me into
>apathy real fast.  The POSSIBILITY is there, but there is NO certainty that
>it would work, and it would require a HUGE INVESTMENT IN TIME.  I haven't
>even gotten all my alt.clearing.technology articles posted to my web site
>yet.  I'm backlogged on plaintext.
>
>If it could be distributed as freeware, it would maintain the Gods Church
>*FREE ENLIGHTENMENT* policy, which I like very much, even though the
>temptation to become a billionaire DOES beckon.  However, freeware would
>leave no way to recover development costs, except perhaps shareware
>donations to Gods Church.  It seems that it would take a TRUE BELIEVER who
>is also a computer whiz to get this off the ground.  Of couse, Linux
>demonstrates that HUGE projects can be organized and executed by
>volunteers.  Perhaps a minimalist version could be launched quickly and
>then upgraded?  You tell me!
>
>The computer could NOT do the TWO-WAY-COMM sharing of viewpoints at the
>end.  Maybe you would have the irresistable urge to call your friends or
>post to ACT?    :-)
>
>Several people are working on emeter cards for computers, but I am QUITE
>CERTAIN that is totally unnecessary.  Having the computer put the question
>on the screen, or better yet TALK to you, MIGHT be enough to KEEP YOU IN
>SESSION.  THAT SEEMS TO BE KEY!
>
>THAT WOULD BE A BIG BREAKTHROUGH!
>
>MAYBE *YOU* ARE THE GUY TO DO IT!
>
>>>I don't feel that another TERMINAL is needed to achieve as-issness,
>>>release etc.
>
>OK.  I'll go for that.
>BUT IT SURE DOES HELP.
>
>STAYING INTERESTED AND IN SESSION SEEMS TO BE THE KEY.
>
>>My experience supports this. But solo is for some reason harder, for
>>some reason I don't fully understand.
>
>The analogy I like to use is:
>You *CAN* have sex by yourself . . . . . 
>
>THE RELATIONSHIPS I HAVE WITH THOSE 
>I HAVE SHARED UCP WITH ARE *THE* MOST 
>OPEN, STABLE, TRANSPARENT, TELEPATHIC 
>AND ENDURING ONES I HAVE.   THE TRUST 
>LEVEL IS *AWESOME*
>
>>>However, I find co-auditing big fun and probably faster.
>
>AND BUILDS SACRED ENDURING TELEPATHIC RELATIONSHIPS.

I look forward to seeing if that occurs for me.  I seem to have
noticed some falling off of infinity among some of us who have taken
opposing views on mixing practices with UCP.  Whether that is a blip
or a major change only time will tell.  (Anon)

>
>THAT IS A *MAJOR* BENEFIT IN *ADDITION* TO CASE HANDLING.
>
>>Yes, I would imagine it could be big fun if you have a good partner,
>>otherwise it can be quite efforty, teaching someone, handling their
>>misapplication of what earlier would have been called the "auditor's
>>code", teaching a person that interfering with the Seekers process is
>>NOT a helpful thing even though they think it is and are really trying
>>to "help" by giving you their opinions, prior experience, etc.  If
>>you've got someone who has some previous training the co-audit is MUCH
>>more productive.
>
>Trying to teach someone to Witness and correct all their compulsive errors
>which are pulling me out of session while trying to be a Seeker PULLS ME
>OUT OF SESSION AND MAKES ME GRUMPY!  Maybe if you are both starting out
>it's not such a problem?
>
>>I definitely find having a good partner leads to deeper, better
>>results and I can really go deeper into my thoughts, prior
>>experiences, etc., and BE there without having to shift back and forth
>>between Witness viewpoint and Seeker viewpoint.
>>
>>I keep hoping we will discover someday some piece of insight that
>>makes Solo more powerful.  It somehow "limits" me to think that I MUST
>>have someone else INTENDING for me to handle MY case.  
>
>How about "AS GOD IS MY WITNESS"?
>
>There is something powerful about 
>sharing with ANOTHER HUMAN BEING.
>
>*ALL* of the twelve step programs 
>have this as a CRITICAL ELEMENT.
>
>NOW MATTER HOW GOOD YOUR COMPUTER 
>PROGRAM, IT *CANNOT* SUPPLY THIS ELEMENT.
>
>THAT IS THE *HUGE* RESERVATION THAT I HAVE.

Me, too.  (Anon)

>
>I've discussed this with Scorpio and Mudrunner and there
>is a VERY REAL sense that the Witness represents GOD
>or the ENTIRE UNIVERSE for the Seeker.  Speaking to
>ANOTHER VIEWPOINT OF GOD gets it OUT of your
>universe and into the universe-at-large.   There is some
>thing VERY POWERFUL about this which makes me
>question how well computer-Witnessed UCP will work,
>no matter how well written the program is.  It will NEVER
>BUILD SACRED RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHERS.
>It will never OBLITERATE your withholds from GOD.

I haven't entered into that level of case state.  I have been looking
at parallels between religious views (not all are junk) and some of
the "truths" which I seem to discover anew during UCP sessions, but
thusfar no sense of a rapproachement with God, whatever that term
(God) really means, individual-by-individual.  I'm still tackling very
personal-universe issues and even looking at 3D and 4D issues, but not
8D (to borrow from prior terminology).  I'm looking at a lot of
clay-feet, my own and everyone else's I meet on planet Earth,  and
have difficulty even thinking in terms of "sacredness."   I hope that
doesn't offend you, but maybe it's that I haven't gotten that far.
I'm not sure what "sacred" means to others, actually.  I don't have to
go outside my personal universe to have some very deep,
high-integrity, spiritually aesthetic feelings, relatedness, towards
people, the universe, all that might be that isn't evil.  To elevate
that to "sacredness", I don't know.  I'd have to be standing in the
presence of God, stricken in awe by the infinitude of decency, love
and power to even relate to that sort of thought.  I'm reserving that
term for my first (to the best of my present recall) meeting with God.
Mere mortals could never earn that, from my present viewpoint.

For me, the core of what is Sacred is like nitroglycerin.  A dangerous
thing for most people to even handle, myself included.  Consider it,
fine.  Think you have a full grasp of it?  Not ready to agree on that.
I've seen too many Christians (of so many varying beliefs they don't
even seem in the same religious ballpark), not to mention, Buddhists,
Moslems, etc., who SWEAR they KNOW what is sacred.  And if they are
the example, then heaven help us to help ourselves.

Sacred is somewhere near or at the VERY top of my quest.  Not within
sensing distance yet, and my perception and ability to see ahead and
behind is not all that bad.  (Anon)

>
>>I still am not certain that THEIR intention has anything to do with MY
>case.  
>
>Not with your case . . . WITH YOU.

Fine.  But see below.  (Anon)

>YOU ARE "your case."

Not sure I'm ready to accept that.  See below.  (Anon)

>"It" is NOT something you carry around with you 

I never said it was.  I'm not looking at "it" as something someone
else is responsible for.  And maybe someday I'll shed the concept
altogether, but for now, it helps me get a handle on "it" by
separating it out enough to look at.  My creations are not me.  They
are "it".  They intertwine with me, but they are creations, not me, at
least from how I presently see/understand "it".  Even other peoples
views, once I bring them into my acceptance, become part of the
package I refer to as "case".  Even YOUR view have the potential for
that.  Certainly LRH's did.  Many OTHER viewpoints which I have
adopted, accepted, bought into, have affected ME.  They are NOT me,
but that can have positive as well as negative impacts on ME.  THESE
things, I want to look at, sort through.  What is looking AT these
things is ME.  Call "it" case, call "it" what you will.  (Anon)

>. . . like a badly behaved television set.
>"IT" IS YOU!
>
>>I have
>>to really think that one through.  If it is true, it more or less
>>offends my own desired sovereignty over MY universe.  
>
>And was your fantasy to be all alone in your universe?

No, but I do maintain boundaries between self and other.  I exchange
with other universes, people, etc.. But I define my own boundaries.
And I want to have the sovereignty to be ABLE to do that.  If and when
I choose otherwise, it would only be with a being which I could
describe as God, and I would have to have a near infinity of certainty
that it WAS God before I'd bow my spirit to his and give myself so
completely as to eliminate all personal boundaries.  Mortal
destruction, oblivion, they are nothing compared to that kind of
surrender of self.  That is why I suspect that THAT, not mere
admiration, is the most sought after thing in the universe.  I
strongly suspect that every being (at some level) would like to
imagine himself capable of being God. (So many are playing "at" being
God here on Earth; if there are higher realms, likely the same kind of
egomania would be present on a more dangerous scale there). 
To some, that would appear the core problem, the ultimate insult to
God, which has to be removed from the being in order to be reconciled
to God.  To others, ALL should be God, and returning to that state is
their quest.

Not sure I should have gotten off on "religion" tangent, but try as we
may, it seems always juxtaposed to some very basic issues: those
pertaining to the underpinnings of existence, and that definitely
comes up at times during my UCP sessions and in my life.  Just
clarifying my viewpoints.

I don't yet have certainty and am not expectant of a quick resolution.
It is not my present focus.  I hope it (know) will be a byproduct of
my quest. (Anon)

>
>>Yet, if it's
>>true, so be it.  I just don't know if the correct WHY is someone
>>else's intention.  If that's the case, then maybe salvation does have
>>to come from a third party, such as a benign God, Jesus, etc..  
>
>"AS GOD IS MY WITNESS"?

Can't fill in the blanks.  Elaborate if you wish.  (Anon)
>
>>The
>>premise has implications, for me, that I must examine more thoroughly.
>>Then you get into the concept of third parties being able to "as-is"
>>someone else's bank.  
>
>I think THAT is a load of CRAP!

I'm very inclined to agree.  (Anon)

>
>I have NEVER seen it done.

Nor have I.  (Anon)

>
>I do NOT believe it is even possible.
>
>You CAN telepathically or conversationally induce hallucinations and
>dramatizations in someone whose tone level permits that, and many people
>will gleefully proclaim that as a WIN!

Yes, I've seen that done.   Frankly, I think it is an OVERT, a hidden
invasion.   Persuasion is one thing.  Inducing hallucinations is quite
another and to me is not acceptable.

>  I am NOT interested in that . . .
>except as a way of getting people to DO UCP and actually get themselves
>ABOVE the tone levels in which they can be influenced in that way.

I am thankful that that is your viewpoint.  I couldn't respect
anything less. .  (Anon)

>
>>Maybe so, but I can't just accept such things on faith.  
>
>Why should you?  IT'S CRAP!
>
>>There are many so-called OT's who were supposed to be able to
>>virtually do anything with anyone's universe.  
>
>And they were *SUPPOSED* to be "CLEAR" before they got to be "OT"!
>
>SO WHAT?
>
>Slick Willie was SUPPOSED to be honest!
>
>>From what I've seen,
>>they stumble, have colds, get hurt, stay fat, etc..  I'm not impressed
>>with their supposed "abilities".  
>
>Good!
>
>Your perceptions are much better than theirs!
>
>You do NOT share their hallucinations!
>
>>But once you posit that someone else
>>can create an effect an effect on my case, not by interaction, an
>>exchange of (discernable) communication, but by their silent
>>intention, where's the limit?  
>
>I do NOT posit that!

 OK.  Then I misunderstood you. (Anon)
>
>>Why can't they do ANYTHING,
>>potentially, in someone else's universe?
>
>Because they are HALLUCINATING!
>
>>I guess I'm still stuck in Doubt.  So be it.  
>
>FLUNK!
>
>You are NOT "stuck in doubt" . . . although 
>you ARE dramatizing that SOMATIC.
>
>YOU ARE *MOVING THROUGH* DOUBT.
>
>>That's where I am.  
>
>Yes . . . MOVING!

Yes, I think so, too. (Anon)
>
>>I don't easily align with what looks like "magic" from my viewpoint.
>>Willing to change.  
>
>You ARE changing.
>
>Your every posts testifies to that FACT.
>
>>But for now, that's not real for me.
>
>OK.  THAT'S where you ARE at.
>
>>LRH's concept was that the auditor plus PC were, together, "bigger
>>than the bank."  Words, words, words.  Where's the ACTUAL  why?
>>Other's beliefs are only that.  Don't mean ANYTHING to me if I can't
>>see the mechanics of it.  And as yet, I don't.
>
>Keep Looking!
>
>>>Always: Your milage may vary, and the proof of the pudding is in the
>>>eating.
>
>YUM!  YUM!
>
>>I agree.  Thanks for you input.
>>Glad to see you are here.
>>
>>Anon
>
>ME TOO!
>
>
>Konchok Penday
>Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
><[email-masked]>
>
>FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
>http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
>"Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"