От: The Pilot Тема: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 50 - EARLY MAR 99 PILOT POSTS (1/2) Дата: 5 марта 1999 г. 7:00 POST50.txt SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 50 - EARLY MAR 99 PILOT POSTS (1/2) The first half of post50 (down to the Humor post) was to ARS & ACT, the remainder of post50 & all of post51 was to ACT only. ========================================== Contents: subj: Super Scio - WILL THERE BE A XENUFEST POSTING STORM? subj: Super Scio - To Andreas On The Death Film subj: Super Scio - Beep Meter Tape (Attn Warrior) subj: Super Scio Tech - CofS CLEANUP PROCESS subj: Super Scio Tech - Debugging The Org's Bridge subj: Super Scio Humor - Ron's Birthday Games subj: Super Scio Tech - Preserve The Tech (Attn Tech Finders) subj: Super Scio - Another Book That LRH Read subj: Super Scio Tech - Answering Homer On Dianetic Chains subj: Super Scio Tech - Bodies In Pawn (Attn Ryan) subj: Super Scio Tech - Answering Fredj on Chakras & Protest subj: Super Scio Tech - Answering Lakis on Ls, Games, & Overruns subj: Super Scio Tech - More On Not-Know & A Recall Process (Attn Rogers) subj: Super Scio Tech - On Valences, Overrun, Responsibility (Attn Potential) ========================================== subj: Super Scio - WILL THERE BE A XENUFEST POSTING STORM? WILL THERE BE A XENUFEST POSTING STORM? In honor of Ron's birthday on March 13th, the critics have planned a XenuFest to help the orgs to spread the word of the evil ruler and his volcanos. This may attract many folks to the interent. It would therefore seem appropriate if those who love the tech were to post tons of it in the weeks following the XenuFest celebration. Spreading his works around the planet is certainly a grand way to celebrate the Old Man's birthday. In fact, if the Cabbage people had any sense, they would get on the bandwagon and help with this. Unfortunately their target is money and control so that they will probably try to suppress the spread of LRH tech. Of course I'm only making a weather prediction here, and you know how wethermen are. But based on the heavy posting storm that followed the December picket, I would expect that there will be a real blizzard in March. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - To Andreas On The Death Film TO ANDREAS ON THE DEATH FILM On 24 Feb 99, heldal@online.no (Andreas Heldal-Lund - www.xenu.net) asked on subject "Hubbard's death filmed?" > Just talked to a former Norwegian Scientologist who told > this strange story. He claims that on one of the CoS > courses he attended they were asked if they had seen the > film where Hubbard left the body. This happened more than > 12 years ago so he can't remember all the details, but he > remember that a couple at the course said they had seen > it and at the end of the film Hubbard was supposed to > have died. > > Anybody ever heard this before? > > Best wishes, SP4 & Adm. TOXE CXI > Andreas Heldal-Lund, Normannsgaten 9, N-4013 Stavanger, Norway > Pho: +47 88 00 66 66 Fax: 90 32 35 46 E-mail: heldal@online.no > home.sol.no/~spirous www.xenu.net www.hedning.no/hedning > --------------------------------------------------------------- > "The great snare of thought is uncritical acceptance of > irrational assumptions." - Will Durant > --------------------------------------------------------------- Now that would really be something. If Ron dropped the body causatively to do research (as the CofS claims), then it should have been filmed. Perhaps a bit like the Samurai suicide in Shogun with a death poem and much drama, and then the thetan reaches down and goes snap and the body drops. Considering his obligations as a researcher, it would be out-ethics not to have done it in front of a crowd of witnesses and admirers and captured the moment on film. Of course that didn't happen. What the CofS did is hold a huge event about Ron's death with Pat Broker etc. giving out the shore stories and preparing the crowd and finally revealing that Hubbard had died. This event was filmed and the film was sent to orgs all over the planet to help them break the news of Ron's death. Many people felt that it was a very moving presentation. I'm sure that this is the film that they were talking about. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - Beep Meter Tape (Attn Warrior) BEEP METER TAPE (Attn Warrior) There was a beep meter back in the early days. I heard a tape of a demo session in one of the early ACCs, with Ron experimenting around on the students and trying to run processes to change which areas of their body were beeping (you can hear the thing beeping in the lecture). He had just recieved the meter from Matheson. It might have been the tape below. 3ACC-34, 20 Jan 54, Audio (Beep) Meter Demonstration ============== I also knew a blind OT 5 back in the 80s. He had been run by an auditor through the lower OT levels that are usually done solo. He had been told that a "sonic emeter" was in development so that he could do his solo Nots. That was supposedly a standard meter (mark 6 or 7 - I forget which) enhanced with a sonic circuit. I talked to him a few years later and he was disappointed that the sonic meter had not yet materialized. But I have heard rumors of such a thing in recent years, so they might have finally made one or at least have one in development. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - CofS CLEANUP PROCESS CofS CLEANUP PROCESS Inspired by Ralph Hilton's cognition that mutual out ruds can stick people together. Run the following alternately. A. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE FOR THE SAKE OF THE GROUP B. WHAT HAVE YOU WITHHELD FOR THE SAKE OF THE GROUP DO NOT EVALUATE. Do Not Insist on Overts, any done is acceptible, and extremely mild helpful things like holding the door open for somebody might be necessary as a gradient before somebody can confront the heavy stuff. We are looking here for the mutual out rudiments. These can hold the person to the group until the point where they get so outrageous that he flip flops. And then the charge on these keeps him frothing at the mouth and makes it hard to handle things in a sensible manner. DO NOT KEEP ANY SESSION ADMIN. There has been too much use of overts given off in session. DO NOT TRY TO HANDLE OR OTHERWISE TAKE UP THESE THINGS AFTER THE CHARGE COMES OFF. Just let it dissolve. CofS charges the overts right back up again by sending people to ethics and handling. The above is really for handling any group about which one is or has been fanatical. It runs like dynamite. There was steam coming out of my ears as I ran this on myself solo. That doesn't mean that I'll drop the fight, I still have all these lofty goals, but I may operate more effectively with less charge kicking around. Hope this helps, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - Debugging The Org's Bridge DEBUGGING THE ORG'S BRIDGE Obviously I'm pushing self clearing and finding your own way out. But that is like telling somebody to go out and get a self study course and teach themselves a new language. Some people are up to it and some are not, and even the ones who can do it themselves might enjoy getting some help in a formal class. A good school that was teaching, let us say French, would be happy to have some of its students doing a teach yourself course in parallel and they wouldn't mind somebody just doing it all on their own either but they would work at doing a good job of teaching and developing a reputation for excellence in the field. And they might even offer services such as debugging and cramming and workshops for people who were studying on their own. And it might have some friendly rivaly with other schools but it wouldn't be attacking them or trying to have them closed down and if somebody transferred in from a different school with different methods, they would try to fit him in and make allowances for the fact that there are many different ways to approach the same subject. And of course they wouldn't cut communications with other schools and if somebody decided to transfer over to another one they wouldn't tell their students that it would be dangerous to keep talking to the one who left. And if there was a school which was going psychotic and attacking everything else in sight and priceing its services out the roof, then it could be bypassed. Right now the CofS is behaving like a psychotic instead of engaging in friendly rivaly and setting a standard for excellence. And so I've been pushing for reform and also bypassing both by putting out the self clearing book and by encouraging the various freezone practices. And of course I've written a lot about what should be reformed in policy. But as far as the org's standard tech goes, I've mostly been teaching how to bypass it. To be fair, I really should outline what they should fix to really boom with a standard tech lineup. So here it is. ------- A. Lower Levels 1. The endless word clearing makes the HGC services SLOW. Instead give a course in basics - looking up words and some clay demos etc. to handle the problem of people not knowing what an ARC break is and so forth. Then drop the word clearing of word lists (except as a correction activity). You can still clear commands and there can still be an M1 co-audit, just don't waste hundreds of hours of professional time on these word lists. 2. The endless sec checks have the same effect of slowing the PC down and getting in the way and they are evaluative as to what is an overt and so forth. You have a M/W/H rudiment and most especially Grade 2 for clearing up overts. Those work well. So drop the sec checks and do what works. 3. You have to be able to handle PCs who have been exposed to upper level data. It's all over the net and showing up in TV shows. That may seem horrifying to you, but guess what, the orgs are already selling a book that talks about implants and entities, it's called History of Man. The killer on these upper levels is blaming your case on them. Let the pc start offloading his case onto entities and you've had it. But saying that they are the why is just sales hype. So stop the hype and tell the truth, they are a minor factor. It says that in HofM. Ron was right the first time. If a pc has an entity really bothering him, you should have a review auditor who can coax him through handling it. A Nots handling will work on a lower level case, especially if you fly the entity's ruds first. And then star rate the PC on the page in HofM so that he doesn't start dragging these things in to handle instead of his own case. Of course this means discarding confidentiality, but I've been saying that all along and Ron said it over and over again too in the 1950s when he did know about implants and entities and so forth. Remember that the early upper level PCs hit OT 3 during the quickie era and had about 10 hours of auditing under their belt when they started soloing, and then they walked into OT levels that had been PRed endlessly as the real source of their case. Of course they spun. They weren't even flying the ruds in late 67 and early 68, that began with the class 8 course which was first given in late 68. 4. Your premier service is the grades. People love them. Even many of the dissafected critics have nice things to say about them. Without the slowdowns and the fear of upper level data, these are fast powerful actions. You boom not by selling the guy a story or handling people with ethics but by delivering services that are desirable in and of themselves at reasonable prices. And I think that the grades are basic. If you promote them that way, people will stop trying to jump away from their case and into implants and whatever (those are just good motivators). The other wrong datum is to think that these releases are permanent errasure. They are not. The lower level PC is not running PTPs, Overts, and ARC breaks on the really early track many universes ago. He is just not up to it yet. So these are RELEASES. They can always be run further when he is more advanced. They can be dusted off if they key in again. You don't handle the case by pretending that the releases are absolute, how can they be if he doesn't have recall on the early track? And how can he get early track recall unless he goes up the bridge first and THEN reruns straighwire in the basic area. So stop blaming the slight unstability and appearance of more material eventually on the presence of SPs or entities or other wrong whys. Just let him know that as he expands he can run deeper and it will all go well. And don't forget Dianetics which is right there on the "lower level" bridge along with the grades. 4. And then you have intro courses and co-audits and most expecially training on the levels. If you delivered training without prejudice, there's many a freezoner who would like to polish his skills. As matters stand now, you drive off your old timers as they begin to think for themselves and then you wonder why there is little support from the field. A change in attitude and in policy could make a big difference here. 5. Then there are the qual actions. Simple but effective repairs such as the green form and the C/S 53. These could help anybody on any bridge if they are done by simply running itsa e/s itsa on whatever reads even if it is some "offbeat" thing from self clearing or Trom or whatever. And so you could deliver a "clean up and speed up rundown" with a few hours of review to just about anybody. That would get you lots of business. But again you'd have to abandon the prejudices and stop trying to force everybody onto the standard bridge. 6. And don't forget the solo course. The outer orgs deliver solo 1 now. Why not deliver solo 2 as well. There are no upper level actions on that. It is not done currently because the PC might start soloing lower level processes on himself. Well why not? Any auditing is better than no auditing, and the tech works. How about encouraging it. Teach him to solo well and let him run whatever he can and then sell him the above cleanup actions occasionally so that he keeps moving. 7. And why should somebody disconnect from an outer org and stop being able to get services there just because they have done some services at an AO or Flag? Why make them Flag only public? It is only to protect the confidentiality (which should be tossed out anyway) and to act as a money funnel for advanced organizations, and they should be capable of generating their own income, they shouldn't be living on yours. Just because somebody takes their car to a more advanced shop for an engine overhaul or a valve job doesn't mean that they then must go back to that advanced shop for every oil change. Why not let them keep using their local service station for the things that the service station can do well. -------------- An outer org would have to stop fighting squirrels and get its confront up on supposedly "confidential data". It would have to deliver its services without prejudice instead of fighting to stamp out alternative tech. The smart part of KSW is the idea of keeping what you have that works and not allowing it to fall into disuse. But you don't do that by stamping out all other technology, you do it by keeping the materials available (spread them on the internet!) and delivering the stuff. You don't stop building automobiles just because there are also airplanes. If you could deliver without prejudice, you would have volume. If you had volume you could have reasonable prices. If you had reasonable prices, you would have even more volume. --------------- B. SAINT HILLS and AOs You might think that these places would dry up and die if public weren't forced up the line by policy and the mystery and status of the confidential upper levels. And in fact that would happen if you delivered bullshit at exhorbinant prices. But what about delivering real service? The briefing course materials have always been available at the outer orgs and in the field. People still went and did the BC. It is one hell of a course. Again drop the orthodox prejudice. Teach what you know how to teach and don't worry about it. The Saint Hills were always the training side. Let them train everything all the way up to class 12. Forget the secrecy and the party line. They would boom. And the Saint Hills should start delivering those 'OT' courses based on the old ACCs. But encourage people to use the processes and get them to do some solo auditing on the materials too. The tech is for use. What's more, there is power processing. It is a mistake to skip this wonderful level. Ron's statement that you can't do power after clear was in 1965 before anybody had finished the clearing course, so it has never been tested. And many of the early unacknowledged Dianetic Clears got run on power and had absolutely fantastic gains. Just don't mix it in when the person is halfway through handling entities. As for the AOs, there is a huge potential in doing a good job delivering a well structured set of OT levels. Let your public bounce around between outer orgs and splinter groups and an occasional AO service. If the AO services are well done and reasonably priced, the public will come, and probably a lot more of them than you have now. But what OT levels? OT 1 is good. But expand it. Add in a bit more from older OT 1s and 1950s material. Make it a pleasant level of doing OT drills. Don't over price it. It was always a cheep easy warm up. In modern times many people will have done the drills already on their own, so just dust them off and let them warm up on doing advanced processes under a sharp solo C/S. OT 2 is your flattening of implant platens. Some people will have run a bit of that on their own. So what! Just give them everything you've got in the file cabinets. And begin with the CC platen. If it has not been run, then it is just as good a target as the current OT 2 chapters. And you can deliver a lot of training on implants and so forth as part of OT 2. There are all of those great films and so forth. And you can add in the drills on mocking up items from old OT 4, and in fact why not include all of old 4. And run some O/W on implanting others as well. Let's not just run the motivator flow on these things. OT 3 should be solo nots. This is the easy entrance point. Then you don't care if the guy has run off some entities on his own. Here you deliver thorough training and a good handling of solo nots to the EP of the PC being at cause over entities instead of at effect. You don't try to run his whole case on them and you don't grind him to death on Nots handling. That is dangerous. You simply get him to do a good job handling the area. It becomes a fast and easy level. Many people had big EPs on S/NOTS (including myself) before they were overrun and started pulling in BTs and misassigning case to them and getting sick and having trouble. Doing a super drug handling at OT 4 does seem like a good idea. But don't limit it or think that the why is Nots. Do prior assessments. Use recalls to blow somatic chains. Blow entities when they show up. And most especially, put in the early LRH tech on putting sensations and somatics into the walls until the guy can mockup the drug effects without taking drugs. Now that is high powered serious OT processing. Of course I just put new OT 5 to 7 down at OT 3. But there is old OT 5 to 7. And these could be considerably beefed up and expanded with materials from the 1950s. The original versions were quickie levels designed in the quickie era. Even quickie, those were great levels. Imagine what you could do with an expanded version. And yet again, if the person has run some of these processes on their own, so what. These are unlimited OT drills and big gains can be made. And even if orgs and freezone groups or whatever are delivering AO style services occasionally, there is still a special need to have an organization full of experts on these things. A place where one could go to get superlative handling or debugging. But of course you would have to actually become experts. You would have to study the research line and be in comm about these things. Something which is unfortunately lacking today because the confidentiality not only makes people afraid to talk, it makes them afraid to think because it says that the data is dangerous. ---------- C. Flag Organizations Here I am talking about both the Flag land base and the Freewinds. If things are going well you could easily fill them both up with your top level delivery. And count on exporting higher levels out to the AOs and ASHOs as they stabilize. Of course these should be setting a standard for excellence in delivering the lower level services. Unfortunately this is currently misinterpreted into beating everybody over the head with ethics and KSW to the point where they can't think and therefor deliver unfalteringly standard second rate service robotically. You don't get tech hotshots by having them learn less material and be more afraid of altering it. Instead you have them learn more material. There are thousands of tapes and tons of material. How about making some real experts. Here is where you deliver your leading edge rundowns and levels for awhile before migrating them out to the AOs. There is new OT 8. There is whatever other advanced sketches that Ron left for advanced levels. There is the original OT 8 of 1968, whatever that was. And there are the tons of other OT materials in the 1950s. And I might even hint at the tons of new research going on in the Freezone. I'm certainly not going to sue if you build a new level to handle actual GPMs, perhaps aided by hints in Super Scio chapter 3. You certainly have the resources to do extensive testing and make it into a standard level. Or do your own work to take things that were started by RON like actual GPMs and finish them up. If you must never change and cannot advance, then you will end up like the dinosaurs. So there has to be someplace where the tech can evolve and you can make some forward progress. Considering the current CofS mentality, you probably will want to limit any research line efforts to a small elete who are extremely well educated in all of Ron's material (including the 1950s stuff). But you have got to have at least that much or you will wither away. The place for that is the Flag organizations and possibly also Helmut (which should also be setup as a Flag organization for staff). ========== I have probably made some people's flesh crawl here. The org has to give up its bad behavior. It has to drop the confidentiality. That is already being forced by the critics. And it has to give up its "only one" mentality. With that it could live on as a source of standard tech in a free spirited world of many techs and many organizations. And people could talk to each other and work together just like a chemist and a physist might get along despite their different techs. Hoping for a better world, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Humor - Ron's Birthday Games Humor: RON'S BIRTHDAY GAMES Yes Ron's birthday is again upon us, and as is the custom, there will be an array of birthday games to delight one and all. Since XenuFest will effectively close down the complex, the games will be held at Dodger Stadium which will be fitted with a clam like snapping roof for the occasion. The preliminary schedule includes: 1. STANDARD TECH FOOT RACES No contestant will be allowed to run any faster than the others, showing that everyone can get the same results when they apply 100 percent standard tech. 2. FOOTBULLET BALL It will be the famous OSA Spambots vs the Moroxonic Sewers in a champion game of footbulleting. The rules are like conventional football, but the team whose players mess up their own plays the most wins. 3. FEEDING THE SQUIRRELS TO THE LIONS The Lions of Standard Tech, our glorious class XIIs, will eat raw squirrels to demonstrate what will happen to anyone who alters the tech. 4. A SPECIAL DEMONSTRATION BY THE ZOOKEEPER OF TECH Following the feeding of the Lions, he will come out with his whip and beat them into line to show how well the tech is being presevered. 5. THE CHARIOT RACE Cherubs will blow horns while chariots race around the arena, turning to the right and left each time they pass the scoreboard. FSMs should bring their selectees to see this one. We can't tell you what incident is being restimulated because it is confidential, but just like the DMSMH cover, it is guaranteed to key people in and make them reach deep into their wallets. 6. THE ROYAL ASS KISSING Davey will come out riding THE OBSCENE DOG. Watch the RPFers pucker up. 7. MARCABIAN CAR RACING In honor of Ron's history as a racecar driver on Marcab, we will have a race based on Marcab's rules. Being a world where only the Tigers survive, the fatality rate is estimated at 50 percent. But only people who are out ethics will pull in crashes. And so public people will be allowed to prove how in ethics they are by participating in the race. Note that to help clear the planet, entry into the race requires signing a will leaving your estate to Author Services. 8. REGGING CONTEST The audience will twin up and take turns regging each other. The one who collects the most money for the org wins. And a New Tech Release: THE GOLDEN AGE OF STANDARD VIRGINS Yes, we can now restore virginity by errasing all the incidents of having sex in this lifetime. Grow back your virginity now and become pure again! Don't miss this great event. Total Freedom is just around the corner. Humorously, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - Preserve The Tech (Attn Tech Finders) PRESERVE THE TECH (attn Tech Finders) On 2 Mar 99, Homer Wilson Smith posted on subject "Roboposter" > I wish more people were putting stuff in the roboposter archives, > the material there is getting a bit old. > > You should all be putting any tech rundowns or writeups that you > post to a.c.t. in the robo archives. Its even possible to send > new postings directly to the archives and have it posted to clear-l > automatically, so you don't have to repost. > > If anyone wants a directory, just send the directory name and password > to me and I will create it for you. Many of you already have one from > postings that I put there taken from the net, but I don't have time to > do this any more. > > Homer (following this he attached a help file for the archives roboposter). Let me encourage this. Let me especially emphasize the importance of this for people who don't keep their stuff up on a webpage but who do post rundowns to ACT or the lists that feed to ACT. And let me point out that even if you do have a webpage, it is much safer to have a second source, and it makes the files easily available to people who prefer using ftp rather than a browser to retrieve things. There has been a lot of valuable tech posted recently. I don't have time to comment on everything, so I generally just get involved when I have something to contribute or when it is right in an area that I am working on. And I do not want to set my self up as a filter for tech. We need a freeflowing exchange of ideas rather than clamping down and blocking off research lines that might be critical in the long run. For example, I worked over Ra's power rundown extensively last month. He has since then done an excellent revision. At this point I should just encourage him and get out of his way. There has been a great upsurge recently in the amount of intelligent and well thought out tech being posted. Although ACT still has its legendary quarreling, the balance has been shifting towards tech for some time now. With so many new arrivals, I think that we are seeing the birth of something. In both science and the arts there have been occasional times and places where everything seemed to come together and there was a quantum leap forward. So let's build up a feedback effect and get an upward spiral going. And that means developing an evolving body of works rather than letting last week's breakthrough fade from sight. Otherwise how will next month's new arrivals see, for example, the excellent rundowns that Dimitry posted last month. So please get your work into Homer's archive. Thank You, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - Another Book That LRH Read ANOTHER BOOK THAT LRH READ Another tidbit for the folks who are working on compiling a list of what LRH himself had read. From the lecture LPC-1 (London Professional Course) of 10 NOV 52 titled "Definitions of Dianetics and Scientology, Other Philosopies" which is transcribed in R&D volume 12. "They say there were three hundred reincarnations to Buddha - the bodhisatta. You read the Jataka. The Jataka is very revealing - a book not very well known in the United States, if known at all. And I don't know whether it's well known here but it should be much better known here. The Jataka, the three hundred reincarnations of the bodhisatta. And they clam he (to be British colloquial) did a bunk and left this area afterwards." According to the footnote, it is a collection of 547 "legends", each of which tells a story of one of the former incarnations of the Buddha. Jata is sanskrit for birth. I've read some of the stories, which are usually called "Birth Stories" in other collections of Buddhist works. It was reading these that made it obvious to me that we tend to twist whole track recalls into our current frame of reference. I agree with Ron's recommendation. I'll have to keep my eye out for the full collection. If I have it right (I'm not an expert in this area), the Buddha, unlike some of the other great spiritual founders, lived comfortably to a ripe old age while writing extensively. ====== As long as I'm quoting Ron, there is an interesting little bit later in R&D 12, this is in lecture LPC-2 of 12 Nov 52. "A lady popped into the Foundation one day not too long ago and she says to me, "I have just invented Dianetics for dogs". Contrary to what a modern Scientologist might expect, Ron does not launch into a rant against squirreling. Instead he takes it quite in stride and ends with - "I don't know, maybe by this time we have dogs that will talk or play the piano, or maybe they've all become very stupid or - I don't know what's happened to these dogs." Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - Answering Homer On Dianetic Chains ANSWERING HOMER ON DIANETIC CHAINS On 14 Feb 99, Homer Wilson Smith asked on subject "Key ins" > I can't believe I am reading this abominable crap again... > > Anyhow in the Dianetics Picture book, on page 17, it shows a person > with multiple chains in his bank each going back to a different basic, > but only 7 of them are keyed in. > > It claims that by erasing the 7 chains, and leaving the others > in place, one can attain a state of well and happy human being. > > Each of the 7 keyed in chains shows that the key in took > place on the second incident on the chain, presumably a secondary. > > Why did not the second incident on the other chains also > key them in? Can a chain be keyed in by an incident that > is not second on the chain, say *WAY* later at incident 15 or so? > > I also don't understand why it takes a secondary (loss) to key in an > engram, why can't it be another engram or a lock etc? There is often > sorrow etc in engrams, why can't they key in a basic? Why does an > engram have to be keyed in by another incident, why can't the being > just have an engram and keep it in restimulation even though it is > basic on the chain? > > The picture book presents a confused picture as it implies that the > key in is *ALWAYS* the second incident on the chain, yet there are > other chains not in restimulation that already have 6 or more incidents. > If they eventually key in, which incident is it that keys it in? > > This seems to me to be one of the bigger sloppinesses in Dianetics, > and also indicates that finding *WHICH* incident keyed a chain in, > is probably a good way to approach an other wise unauditable chain. > I presume it may not be the second incident on the chain. I'll try to answer this from an orthodox 1960s viewpoint since that is the time period when R3R and standard dianetics were developed. First and foremost, the Dianetic picture book is not by Ron. It is based on things in the 1969 HSDC bulletins and it is hard to guess how much of those are really by Ron either. I seem to remember Otto Roo's name being on at least a few of them originally. These present an oversimplified view of the bank, chains, and incidents. Remember that HSDC was the first professional level at that time, below class 0. It seems to me that there was an intention to present these concepts in an oversimplified manner. The various 1963 tapes where Ron talks about Dianetics present a more complex picture, but one is supposed to count on keyout effects to avoid mucking about in the complexity. Also, you are correct in spotting that there is a great deal of sloppiness in the Dianetic theories. The practice was to let the pc run whatever he needed to run and to let him locate whatever he locates. That gets around the sloppiness in the theory. I suspect that it would not work very well as soon as you tried to force the PC to follow some pattern like the above in a precise manner because the true situation would vary considerable. Ron gave examples where there was an incident and then a later incident keyed it in. Other people then dub-in that it is the second incident on the chain, but he doesn't say that. The PC has hundreds of car crashes in earlier lives. One day he has a near accident, becomes fearful, and drags in all those old pictures in a mistaken effort to keep from loosing yet another body in a car crash. Now the chain is keyed in. He stimulous responses, using data from the old pictures. Maybe it stays keyed in for the rest of this lifetime, or maybe it is only keyed in for a week and then he gets his TRs in on cars and the chain keys back out. If it stays keyed in, he's probably service facing about cars or somebody is continually reminding him of how dangerous it is to drive or he is busily justifying overts or something. Otherwise these things usually key out again fairly quickly unless there is something keeping them in restim. The sixties view is that the entire bank, all engram chains, are keyed out whenever the needle is floating. That was one of the big contributors to the quickie era. I'm not sure if that idea is true and it stopped being pushed when expanded grades came out, but it is certainly something to think about. The sixties rehab tech where one works back and forth between what keyed in and what keyed out made it pretty obvious that the person's own decisions and postulates about things were the senior factor involved in keying things in and out. > Someone in the know, please clarify. > > 1.) Why does an engram have to be keyed in by *ANOTHER LATER* > incident? Remember the old saying "I tell you three times"? I would say that nobody is so far gone that they would dramatize a one of a kind occurance. My experience in processing is that when you get the first time on anything it is always fairly easy to confront. Even the dreaded incident II (ha!) would be a triviality that would probably blow by inspection if it had been the first time something like that had happened to the PC instead of being late on a long chain that included overts as well as motivators. > 2.) Why does it have to be the second incident on the chain? It doesn't. > 3.) Why don't other incidents key in even though they have > a second and more incidents on the chain? They do key in. But not all at once. It's a flux of things keying in and out. Hence the 1951 investigation into service facs to try and explain why occasionally the PC kept one keyed in steadily. > 4.) What eventually keys them in? Postulates, decisions, dones, etc. The sixties view was that the grades were the major factors which keyed in secondaries and engrams. Of course I think that the Dianetic picture is backwards. Rather than the grades being locks on the engrams, I see the engrams as locks on the grades, so that as you shift grades type factors around, the engram chains shift in and out too. > 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 Hope this helps, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - Bodies In Pawn (Attn Ryan) BODIES IN PAWN (Attn Ryan) On 26 Feb 99, Ryan asked, on subject "if restimulated, then ?" > What turns it on, turns it off. As LRH stated. Excellent. > > All the same, aren't we _always_ in restim? Even the mighty OTs? > Not just the reactive mind, but something beyond that? There are a) uncharged areas, b) areas that restimulate sporatically, and c) areas that are in compulsive create. Things in group C are pretty much inaccessible. As you clear things out of area B (which is where our processes run), you make room for things to move up from area C. It is like water dripping off of the edge of a block of ice. As the previous layer is wiped away, the warm air strikes the newly exposed surface. > I ask this because of my failed attempt at Route 1 in Creation of Human, > which turned on a bunch of stuff that I didn't know how to run out. To > steep a gradient, I was told. Following the advice of that most > excellent person, I worked to flatten it and move on to Route 2. > > However, I am occasionally getting what must be brief glimpses or > flashbacks of earlier incidents. Also, I'm getting this sort of duality > or flipping of "being a body here in this Newtonian physics" and "some > other state" (that I can't quite understand). > > These are very interesting, but I can't quite access the "other state" > or get full perceptions of the "flashbacks" and they disappear almost as > soon as I look at them. A sort of "can't have." Is this normal? Welcome to the club. You've probably hit the "double body" or "bodies in pawn" business. Ron talks about this in various 1952 lectures. I discussed it a bit in Super Scio chapter 6. It is still a puzzel to me, a worse head scratcher than the between lives area. But you can cool it down and get it out of your way by spotting bits of yourself in the double body which are holding your attention to it and have them "point to the being you divided from". You should be able to do route 1 without this kicking you in the teeth. Occasionally I fool with this area and try to get a bit more info and charge off etc. For me, the question that always restimulated it, like clockwork, was "Are you here for any other reason than you state". I got that the first time when I routed onto course in 1966. I remember the poor course sup (who was checking the question) sitting there and we had the question kicking and I knew why I was there currently (seeking truth) but there was also this other thing. So there I was explaining this odd feeling that I was sent to Earth and they still had part of me back there and asking for help figuring out what was going on because the whole thing seemed completely off the wall. I hadn't yet read History of Man at that time. The interesting thing is that the question is always clean if I can talk them into varying it to "are you routing onto course for any other reason than you state" or "are you in Scientology for any other reason than you state" because it doesn't have anything to do with the org directly. That is actually how the course sup got us past it the first time (smart old timer). Whenever they would say "Here", to me it meant "Earth" and on being asked the question I always know that I'm sent here for some reason which is not completely in view and part of me is still back there. I always get these flashes on it and try and itsa and the best I can do is that somebody sent me down to Earth as a spy of some sort a few thousand years ago while holding a body in pawn. The last time I took a stab at it I got bodies in pawn behind bodies in pawn, just layers of this stuff. My advice is to blow what's holding your attention to it ("point to" works an order of magnitude better than NOTS on this particular phenomena). If necessary Itsa/ES-Itsa off any restim (or even alternate spotting on an incident as suggested by Tommy). Then put it up on the shelf as a mystery to be solved eventually. Leave things like this for times when you are persistant FN and there is no charge in sight and you are feeling gutzy about diving into an area that still needs to be explored. I am still intrieged by what the hell is the real story on this. But now it doesn't stir up much charge, so it is possible to just cool this thing down so that you can get on with processing in other areas which probably need to be run first. I have gone so far as to spot 3 spots in the double body, spot 3 spots in the room around it alternately until I seemed to drift above it and then drifted out of the building. The building seemed to be a sort of huge tomb under a reddish sun which I believe is the one we call Acturas. And I had fun running reach and withdraw on the walls of the tomb (one in a long line, millions of people in each one) and drifted around for a bit. But I got nothing much case wise out of doing all that. I can find lots of these. I can find one on Mars in the "mouth of the serpent" (the huge rift near Olympus Mons). I can even find one up in the damn magic universe (In a goddamn jar - sent down here to find out for some high wizzard what is going on). But the amount of dub-in that I might be getting in this area is probably fantastic. So play around with it when you're in the mood but don't put a lot of significance on it. It's just another of the shadow cages that keeps us confused enough to remain trapped within our own creations. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - Answering Fredj on Chakras & Protest ANSWERING FREDJ ON CHAKRAS AND PROTEST On 20 Feb 99, "fredj" asked on topic "Super Scio Tech - A SUPER PROCESS ON PROTEST" > Hi Pilot, > > I was wondering what you think might be the > validity of a protest process that uses the chakras > as you described in super scio. I started > working on the chakras based on your model > in super scio sometime ago, not using a protest > button though, not really approaching it that way, > but using the relation to the dynamics and an eight > chakra structure, or ladder. That was why I was > a touch puzzled when running the protest processes > in the self clearing book. Perhaps the 'significance' of > the protest seemed enough to look at. I say that > because of the material I got. Perhaps not up to > an encompassing view as you had, or something, or not. > I started by using the table of universal goals, and 'getting the idea' of > the goal at the chakra, or body location corresponding to it. Hence I > cognited much the same as you said on the nature of the chakras in relation > to the dynamics, and their nature, which you described as 'hedonistic' or > such as in the magic universe. This > lead to more besides. > John Self Clearing avoids things such as the Chakras or other energy structures etc. until fairly late in the book. Most people are not up to percieving these and the drills which will turn on perceptions of chakras, GE anchor points, and other structures are fairly advanced and require a good command of mockup processing. So it is really an area for the advanced student. If you're up to it, then have fun, but I shouldn't put it early in the book because it is late track. The advanced drills that are early in the book are ones that are grounded in early track basics. Protest itself runs back to very very early track, far before the middle track (home universe etc.) manifestations of games and dynamics and the highly structured late track (last 3 or 4 universes) manifestations of matter and energy. The handling of protest is not just "significance", it is the mass and energy that the person is mocking up in protest. The original chapter is too shallow and needs the advanced process that I posted, that one will get your hands on the compulsive mockups and bring them back under control. It is not that the chakras are the basic source of protest, it is that the protests trash the chakras. If you look over various metaphysical practices, when they work with chakras they often end up working on acceptance or alignment or love or oneness or something that tries to get them over the protests (and overts and ARCXs etc.) that they are mocking up. If they don't do that, the flows backlash. Protest is operative both in an atmosphere of free and unrestrained creation and in situations where his energy is locked down into formalized patterns such as the chakras. The beginner should concentrate on basics, advanced students should alternate between working with later complexities and taking the basics deeper. Hence the chakras are more appropriate for the Super Scio book. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - Answering Lakis on Ls, Games, & Overruns ANSWERING LAKIS ON Ls, GAMES, & OVERRUNS On 18 Feb, 99 lakis agrogiannis posted "To Pilot - re: the Ls" > Hi Pilot! > You get a delayed answer but I hope you don't mind. Mutual out ruds. I'm also slow to answer things. > >...I have heard rumors that a CofS set (of the Ls)made it out into > >the freezone ... > > As long as they are the real thing they are interesting. Even other's redevlopments are interesting. Best is to have both. > >... I know that there are sets > >of the Class 8 tapes out in the field... > > You don't think LRH would have liked them MP3'ed? I think that he would love it, but OSA goes type III to these things and starts dramatizing. They hate seeing LRH tech spread around (amazing!). So our best hope is to postulate that FZBA or their friends will anon post transcripts. That way the files are small and manageable rather than big things that really need a permanent website for downloading. > >the late era tech was almost completely assembled by others > >rather than Ron... > > I see your point, but why, suddenly he couldn't write anymore? I wonder about that one too. When he stopped lecturing, he pretty much stopped originating. He would have ideas like "let us put the old processes back on the grades" but then he would tell somebody else to go do it instead of re-researching these things from a modern perspective. There are errors and flagrant violations of basics in new things that were developed in the later days. The most notorious is the original OT 3 (before cumulative cluster etc.) which forces the PC into a single late track incident and insists that it is The Why. And the entire concept of R6 as the source of the bank is obviously in violation of basics because it is a motivator. That misbegotten theory was the true source of quickies. And notice that CofS made clears in the later days without needing to run R6 at all (although it is nice to get your confront up on it). There are many possibilities: a) Too many out lists during the GPM research era (Otto Roos suggested this and it is quite likely). b) Research Errors (misassigning his case to implants and entities, he may have spun himself in). c) Too much case restimulated but not handled. I get into this sometimes. You can't research without occasionally diving into things and stirring them up and sometimes they don't resolve and you just get overcharged. I can back off and take a break while the restim dies down, but he was at the focus of attention. I think that he tried to take that break later with the writing of Battlefield Earth etc., but by then it was probably too late. d) He knew that making the materials confidential was an overt. He says that often enough in the 1950s. He also knew that the mystery would probably raise stats and income. Perhaps he was already overwhelmed by government opposition and disappointed by failures to make OTs. But with that one act he cut his own comm lines and probably caused his case to backlash badly. And it would have stopped the freeflowing of ideas that were probably inspiring him to new breakthroughs. e) Maybe the SPs jumped him and wacked him over the head too many times as suggested by deep throat last year. It would not surprise me if the orgs were counter infiltrated in the sixties. > >L9 > What is L9? L9 was later renumbered L11. > >C/S series 37. So in this case you can see the original > >material. > I know, I have. Very good. > >The entire set of Ls is aimed at achieving the state of > >Clear OT. The definition of Clear OT is "No Track". > > Very interesting. I thought though that they were about Be, Do and > Have. No? Probably a matter of interpretation. The ultimate EP was clear OT. This was the target of L10 when it first came out. It was out gradient so the others were developed to give a gradient. Initially they were L10S and L10M. Then L10S became L9S and eventually evolved into L11 (the New Life Expansion Rundown). And L10M eventually became L12 (The Flag OT Executive Rundown). The order of running was generally supposed to be L12, then L11, then L10. This can all be found in the Tech Dictionary and other non-confidential references. I don't know what is in the confidential materials, but the division between the 3 Ls could well have been based on be, do, and have. But the target is the freedom from the compulsive solidity of the track. > >It can be achieved by deep running of grade 2 after clear. > > I have no reason to doubt that, on the contrary, I believe > O/ws can rehabilitate a lot in a person. Exactly. > >Look at the definition of L10 in the Admin Dictionary. > > Thanks, had seen it before, says quite a bit there. > > > A deep pass on self analysis... > > The potential of self-analysis is great, > it can sure be used to reach back track, progressively. > > >When you first make it on grade 2, you then have to run something > >else, such as grade 3. Much later, you can do grade 2 again > >and hit this second level EP which is Clear OT. > > Overrun. Are you sure you can run it again and again and again? > If you can, then overrun is relative only to a time, and not > cumulative. There wouldn't be any whole track-overruns.... Yes. Overrun is only relative to a time. But there would be whole track overruns. Imagine somebody who was run on 100 hours of "something you wouldn't mind remembering", "something you wouldn't mind forgetting". That was not unusual in the 1950s. You're not going to be able to run that process again for a long long time. You might not be able to run any recall processes on the guy until you've done some PTPs, Overts, and ARCXs because running one process that deep leaves far too much of the rest of the case bypassed. Case handling in the 50s and early 60s was extremely unbalanced, with people getting run on the one latest and greatest thing to an absurd degree of overrun while bypassing everything else. And if the process was overrun and that wasn't corrected, then you also have the problem of the PC's cogs and EPs being invalidated by the mass which came in during the overrun. How are you going to run more in the area if he went solid and felt invalidated the last time he ran the area? So the tech on how to Run or Rehab as needed when going over a grade that has been run before still applies. Just drop the prejudice that it can't be run again. Just let the PC know that when he is interested in running it again, it can be run again without invalidating the EP previously attained. The keynote is whether or not he is interested in running more in the area. Right after a grade EP, the materials of that grade will hold no interest and other areas will be interesting. People would come in to get that all sorted out once modern rehabs came out in 1965. There would be areas that were so overrun they'd put the TA through the roof. And yet later the same cases, who might have had a soaring TA on problems or whatever when they were being straightened out, were getting expanded grades in the 70s and having great gains. > >It is your own efforts to alter the sequence of things so as > >to justify your overts which make the track solid. > > There you said it, very wise. > HCOB of 15 may 1963, had a lot to say about the time track, > as you surely know. Yup. > >When your confront comes up high enough, you blow this and > >stop making the track solid. Compared to having a solid > >time track, it feels like "no track". That doesn't mean > >that you can't remember things and it doesn't mean that > >you don't have a consecutive sequence of time and incidents > >and so forth. > > Again, very true, and as it should be, makes sense. > All in all, thanks for taking the time to answer, and though > it's possible to use grade 2 to achieve Clear OT, > I still would like to get hold of the Ls. > And I will! Good Luck. Hopefully we will see these and other good stuff show up on ACT one day. Maybe Davey M will do an ammends project and post them himself. That would make up for a lot. > ------------------- > > PS: How would you go about it, > if you wanted to process somebody towards playing bigger games? Willingness to be, do, and have. Not Ls or fancy lists or whatever. Those have their place, but the simple processes are often the most powerful in these areas. The best havingness process on a PC would be the one that runs best and gives the most havingness, and that is often one of the simple ones like "look around and find something you could have". The best way to raise doingness is often general O/W. NOT searching for overts with sec checks or whatever, but simple "what have you done/withheld" perhaps in relation to a specific area or terminal. Beingness comes up fast on TR0. Or pick a simple target like being smarter or whatever and alternate "get the idea of being smarter/dumber" or some similar drilling of taking on alternate beingnesses to blow any stops. And run these on other flows. Willingness to let others be, do, and have. That can work wonders. > And what relationship exists between games and conditions(not games > conditions)? Not much. Conditions formulas are a way to raise stats. Games are much broader in scope. Try playing a game of chess using conditions formulas and very little knowledge of the game itself. You will probably loose fairly quickly and have to place yourself in liability for having let your pieces be captured. Or you could place your queen in liability for letting your king get checkmated. But play chess with the simple idea of giving the pieces more space and you have made the first major jump towards master level play. The easiest way to move a beginner up to being a half decent chess player is to show him how the pieces dominate the space of the board and get him to mobilize them so that they control more rather than less space. And so our simple basics such as space, be, do, have, etc. stand up very well. Go with those and you will find that your stats are just naturally up and your games expand easily. > best for now > lakis Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - More On Not-Know & A Recall Process (Attn Rogers) MORE ON NOT-KNOW, AND A RECALL PROCESS (Attn ROGERS) On 23 Feb 99, "Rogers" responded to my post on "Super Scio Tech - NOT KNOW PROCESS (Self Clearing etc.)" > Hi Pilot! (Anjin-san!) > > I've snipped your post quite brutally here just to keep the whole thing a > reasonable size as well as focussing on a specific area for comment. > > Just wondering if the masses that were, shall I say, excited, by the fact of > mocking things up (book and bottle) and then not-knowing stuff about them > might have possibly felt like "glee-masses." Well, that's just my own > descriptive phrase (I think) but I'm sure you get the picture. > > Quite obviously, your later ingenious application of the not-know principle > did deal with these masses, so maybe this is a moot point. But I am sort of > curious. > > Don't mean to overrun you on this - just off the top of your head > recollection is fine. But did the masses have a similar vibration (as it > were) as when you were doing that other process where you had two > counter-postulates instilled into an object at the same time. I am > referring to a sort of "It is" versus "It isn't" process you covered. Hope > you know which one I am referring to. Anyway, was it like that or did it > have a taste of glee in there. Or both? Neither. In fact, now that you call my attention to it, it had a different quality than anything I've hit before in processing. There was a bit of a chaos and mystery quality to it. Not unpleasant, just strange, about like looking at static on a mistuned TV set. > Just conceptualizing. Just seems like a possible shortcircuit between > Create and Not-Know, like maybe there should be one or two more items > in-between them. Either that, or perhaps the process just needs a buffer > command inserted between the two given. > > It strikes me that this process might hit the "irresponsibility" button, if > you know what I mean, but then again, maybe this parallels what we actually > did very early on the track. The simple process, alternating mockup with not-know who created it seems to run very well and easily and did not turn on the chaos effect mentioned above. I just tried mockup a book alternated with not-know its contents and again, that is fun and flattens easily. So these are basics. What turned on the chaos effect was changing the not-know each time. So don't run it that way except as an experiment, and then handle it by flattening the same not-know repetiatively. Running "not-know who created it" definitely works and blows it without flattening the other not-knows. I'm not sure if flattening "not-know its temprature" for example would have the same effect since "who created it" might be an undercut. > I am a also made a bit suspicious by the fact that the masses that were > excited were "over to the side." Almost as if they were "peripheral" or a > side effect. It seemed more likely that in not-knowing its location (occasionally, interspersed rather than flattened) enforced that it would not be in the location it was created in and so it pushed off a bit in a random direction. You could try it and see what happens, just be sure to clean up later with a straight run of "not know who created it" repetatively on the mass. > Perhaps the process just activated an automaticity? It didn't really feel that way. > I could postulate some notion along the lines of "Create a machine. > Not-know who created it." as a possibility but then again, I am > still not sure there isn't some missing ingredient. There probably are missing things in regards to this. See below. > It certainly is a great topic, so I hope you won't mind me giving you > another opportunity to analyze it. > > The section of your post that is in question is immediately below. Best, > Les. (I didn't repeat it again since it is in the archives) It would seem that pure create and exchange of creations doesn't require a not-know. At that level, even responsibility / irresponsibility doesn't exist except as a concept in context within a story line or a created frame of reality. One can also play both sides of a game in an exterior manner without a not-know. Consider, for example, setting up and working chess problems. It is not true that one has to not-know the solution to enjoy the puzzel. The solution is not there to know until it is mocked up. Only then would you have to not-know it to be able to solve it again, and why not mockup another puzzel instead. However playing against an opponent rather than with one does require not-know so that one can trick and outsmart the other. And some games (many card games for example) are not interesting from an exterior view. And so not-know would run earlier on the track than interiorizing into games. Not bothering to know something is different from putting up a barrier to knowing. One probably has to not-know first before one gets into protests and other more sophisticated abberations. But communication is more basic. So the early pattern is probably 1) separate, 2) create, 3) communicate, 4) not-know, 5) protest, 6) invalidate. After that comes grade 1 and so forth. Since recall of pleasure moments works without finding any whys or handling any case, it has to be close to basic just like the comm processes. But it has to be a bit less basic than comm because we do get some benifit by running stops on recall (reasons for to forgetting, etc.). So it feels right to put this around the same place as not-know. Based on that, I looked at forgetting as simply not-knowing the past. So I tried "not know what I had for lunch" for each day of last week. Two quick cycles, just thinking of each day and deciding not to know what I had for lunch that day and I not only remembered what I had each day but even the various thoughts and so forth that I had while deciding what to have on those days. This is a spectacular recall process. I would suggest doing a good bit of recalling pleasure moments first and then also getting one's confront up on force and overts and things like that. But based on some brief fooling around, this is the fast one that brings up tons of whole track data quickly. I've been looking for a fast high powered recall process for awhile now and this is it. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - On Valences, Overrun, Responsibility (Attn Potential) ON VALENCES, OVERRUN, RESPONSIBILITY, ETC. (Attn Potential) On 24 Feb 99, "p otential" asked on subject "SelfClear: To The Pilot, comments, Questions etc." > Although I'm hoping for a reply to this post from The Pilot, I'd welcome > anyone elses comments too! > > Dear Pilot, > > firstly huge thanks and validation for your excellent 'Self-Clear', > 'Super-Scio' and your many posts to ACT, they are helping me, and I'm > sure many others, greatly. > > I came accross something the other day which I thought you'd be > interested in. This is my observation that 'Zero-balancing' seems to me > to be blowing BT's and/or fragments. I was recieving a ZB session and > had turned on a persistant pain in my right foot. I could feel the > practitioner doing things to move that 'negative' energy, but it didn't > seem to be leaving me easily. > > I had been doing lots of processing and thinking about my observation > that I seemed to have taken on my mothers valence at birth. I thought of > using your 'point to where you came from' handling and upon asking that > question (to the pain and stuck energy), the immediate and clear answer > (from outside myself) was 'from mother', and it vanished. So that seems > to me very much like a BT or fragment got handled. > > Thinking back to other ZB sessions, that seems to be a common occurance, > I feel a 'negative energy' which sometimes is strong enough to be a > pain, and the practitioner moves it around and out of me. Talking to the > ZB practitioner about this, she said that different sources of the tech > call it different things, but overall it is described as removing a > negative energy from the persons system. > > Also, this 'fragment' handling seems to have similar benefits to someone > else described in one of The Pilots old postings. They said that due to > doing some BT handling between sessions of other processes they seemed > to be clearing away negative 'stuff' that had been uncovered but not > removed by other processing. > > Just in case anyone reading this is unfamiliar with ZB, it was developed > recently from Traditional accupuncture and Kundalini Yoga, and includes > touching the 'accupuncture' points but not actually sticking needles in > them (which I personaly find too traumatic). Most Traditional > Accupuncture centers will know of ZB. > > I would think that accupuncture and maybe other technologies would also > include handling BT's or fragments (I'm not too sure of my terminology) > in similar ways, and from my personal experience, early in a course of > treatment. Does anyone else have any information on this?? Very interesting. I had not heard of Zero Balancing before. In 1951 Ron came up with the theory of epicenters as discussed in "Advanced Procedures and Axioms" and some 1951 lectures. Although he did not go very far with the theory, these epicenters would seem to be the acupuncture points. In 1952 when he is discussing entities, he sees the epicenters as an entity manifestation. So he saw a connection there, and that makes sense to me as well. But realize that there is also machinery and structure and flows even in the absense of entities. A simple touch assist shows that you can open up stuck flows on the various channels without consulting the entity phenomena at all. > ---------------------------- > > In one of your old posts I think you mentioned yawns as a over-run > phenomenon. I wanted to ask you more about this. I've done quite a bit > of Dianetics in the past, and am familiar with what I thought was the > 'Boil-off' phenomenon of eyes rolling up, strange feelings in the head > then lots of yawns as 'charge' comes off. What is your oppinion of that > phenomenon?? (Btw, thanks for your very useful comments about other > things from Dianetics) > > I have been thinking that this boil-off feeling was charge being blown > away, and get those feelings from just about any process that runs > deeply and finds something that feels charged. I also get that same > phenomenon from doing processes such as a locational (touching the > walls), which nearly always seems to produce this 'boil-off' feeling > especially if I've been running other processes that uncover new case. > > I'd very much like to know what you can tell me about this phenomenon. Somewhere in the lectures of late 1950 or 51, Ron says that they let somebody boil-off for a huge number of hours and there were no gains. It is at this point that he abandons the practice of letting the PC boil-off in session. Boil-off does not normally turn on during R3R style modern dianetic running since they go earlier as soon as the incident seems to be getting more solid. In 66 style dianetics, one often took more passes over the incident, and this is true of using R3R as an assist on a recent accident as well. In that case there is often a moment where one feels more of the unconsiousness just before it lifts and one begins to get data from the "unconsious" period in the incident. And yet this boil-off phenomena doesn't occur there either. From what I know of early use of DMSMH, it was common when tossing the PC in over his head with repeater technique. In a general view, boil-off would mean that you are turning on more mass than you are blowing. On repetative processes where one is going for a key-out, the most likely source is overrun. On incident running (dianetics etc.) it could also be that you need to go earlier (there is charge restimulating from an earlier unviewed incident, therefore you are turning on mass while running an incident rather than reducing the mass). In life the most likely is that one is continueing a flow too long in one direction and the flow needs to be reversed. This can also be handled as overrun. With study, a misunderstood which one has not spotted (note that is is misunderstood with a wrong definition being dubed in rather than simply not understood) again leaves the person stirring up something without aiming at it in a correct direction and so he turns on mass. Or one is simply tired, which could be seen as an "overrun" of handling the body too long without any theta relief. In life, one sees that one can plow through boil-off sometimes, but it is slow and usually one gets out of it by putting one's attention on something else rather than continuing to push in the same direction. Locationals usually turn off boil-off but might turn it on briefly while doing that (like a somatic showing up strongly for just a moment on a contact assist before it vanishes). They are the correct handling if one is in a boil-off and no other handling seems obvious, but one should generally feel the boil-off reducing as one pushes through. However, if the boil-off is due to a process overrun, spotting the overrun can give an instant relief whereas pushing through it with a locational can take some time. Furthermore, spotting an overrun also validates the cognition and awareness attained prior to the overrun and therefore is more valuable than simply handling the boil-off. > -------------------------- > > I agree with comments you've made about the lower ethics conditions as > you described them being applied by CofS Orgs in a way that's not > useful. However, I was helped to apply them in a way that I found useful > and positive when I was at an Org a few years ago, and I'd like your > comments. > > It was applying to my own financial situation. I found that I definitely > seemed to be in Treason (ie. denying that I was responsible for my own > situation), and I applied the handling by admitting that I was > responsible for that. > > Then in enemy, it seemed true that I was the 'enemy' of my own financial > situation, causing my own debts etc. So I handled that by writing a > concise description of being on the side of taking responsibility for > improving my situation etc. Doubt was similar, deciding that I was > definitely on the 'side' of me being responsible for improving my > situation. > > That seemed to be a positive way of using that tech, and seemed to be of > some benefit. What do you think of applying the lower conditions to > oneself in that kind of way? Are there any problems possible in doing > that? What are the dangers? Is there a better way of handling the same > kind of situation (which I find myself in repetitively)?? What you are doing here is better described as "taking responsibility". This is quite benificial. But it is easier to achive it by simply spotting things that you could be responsible for in the situation and then doing something about them. Applying the treason formula ("find out that you are") is not really the right target and a treason assignment can be invalidating. What is desirable is a true taking of responsibility, and what will fail is "responsibility as blame". And taking responsibility is applicable and benificial anywhere on the scale, not just in some lower condition. > --------------------------- > > I'd like your oppinion on how my experiences with Dianetics might change > anything about what and how I need to run processes. With so much book 1 experience, you might enjoy reading the early R&D volumes and get a lot out of them. > First, a little bit about my background to try and let you know what > state my case might currently be in. I have used lots of different > self-development technologies over the years, but not much that had a > big, lasting effect yet. I've had lots of good wins, but seem to > invalidate them quickly and fall back to a state lower in some ways than > before I got the win, which is very frustrating. Although, having said > that, I think I am gradually making some progess. > > I went to an Org a few years ago as a public. I did the 'ups and downs > of life' and knew what suppression felt like, but was still very much at > effect from it. The actual source of the roller coaster effect is invalidation. There might be an actual "suppressive" who is continually invalidiating one or who is talking one into invalidating oneself. But it is far from the only possible source. But invalidation can also be handled on the simple basis of having been overwhelmed. In 1969, when almost everyone was feeling heavily invalidated due to quickie grades and so forth (and roller coastering due to that), running dianetic chains of being overwhelmed etc. would often get them back in shape. Or one can accumulate light wins, seeing that things are gradually turning around, and rise above this. I have been thinking that we could use a more direct and powerful handling of inval. If and when I come up with one, I will of course post it. Meanwhile, build up wins and develope horsepower and the gains will stabilize. A process that I have been experimenting with recently is to pick something you feel invlidated about, mockup somebody else as having it, and then validating them for it. For example, if one feels invalidated because one forgets things, then mockup somebody else who forgets things and praise them for how well they manage to forget things. And perhaps also reverse the flow and have them praise you as well. >I did 'success through communication' which I got very > little from . . . the whole area of comm seemed just too charged and > full of ARC breaks (I now see) for me to be able to confront much. > > I then did HDA, and gave and recieved lots of Book One, which I found > valuable, but didn't seem to do what it promised. I had some good cogs, > and increased my confront to some extent. Eventually, I found myself > able to run chains and fairly quickly ran every chain that was > accessable until I got to a point where I looked and there were no more > engrams to be found. I thought I might be a clear, but was not sure, > gave it a few days to see what happened, and then 'came down' again out > of the reasonably good state I'd reached, which, as with other times > I've got a good win and then 'dropped down' again, I found intensely > frustrating. > > I found right from the beginning of doing Dianetics that I had a better > relationship with my own 'file clerk' than the auditor ever had. The > auditor would ask a question of give a command, and I would 'allow' that > to be recieved by my File Clerk, or more commonly relay the question > myself to my own File Clerk, sub-vocally. I also was very curious, so > soon got into asking my own File Clerk lots of additional questions for > my own interest, and found that the answers always seemed to be correct. > I would often get dub-in, but my File Clerk would always let me know > that that was not definite data, if I remembered to ask! > > So even before the time when I ran out of engrams (temporarily) I found > myself doing Dianetics on myself. The fact that the book and staff said > it was impossible only made it more interesting for me to do! I'd be > restimulated in present time often, and decide that I might as well run > the engram, as that was what I was doing when an auditor was present. > > The first few times I asked my File Clerk whether I should run that > incident myself, the answer was 'no, it's not safe', but as my confront > improved, I got the go-ahead from my File Clerk, and so run engrams. I'd > get precisely the same results as with an auditor present . . . > somatics, engrams, boil-off, etc. I picked up usefull additions to what > I was doing from what other auditors did in session, such as finding > postulates at the beginning of chains etc. > > About 3 or 4 days after having run out of engrams to find, I had > invalidated my gains (because nothing seemed to go better in my life) > and had another look for engrams, and found all the ones I thought I'd > erased were all back there, plus some ones I hadn't found before. The > visual representation of what I found was that all the charge seemed to > have been 'erased' out of the patterns that were engrams (they looked to > me like etched patterns on the long cylinder of the time track), but the > charge had been left floating around, and then something caused lots of > that charge to drop back into those engram patterns so that they had > power again. > > I was then told by the Org that basic-basic was about 65 trillion years > ago, so I obviously hadn't found it yet! I'd only been back a few > lifetimes, just running what came up. So I began looking further back, > and found lots more incidents. One incident was a 'theta trap' which > seemed very much like the description I later read in one of the books > (maybe 'History of Man') which seemed to validate that the data I was > given by the Org was at least partly correct, because I was finding > things, then later reading about that exact thing. > > Still, things didn't seem to be going better in my actual life, which > was (and is) what mattered to me, even though I was finding all kinds of > interesting stuff! The next thing I was given was 'Self-Analysis' which > I loved. I worked hard at it, and got my tone level way higher. I got to > a really great state in which my perceptions increased greatly in > clarity ,space and beauty. I was also not having to think about things, > just percieving what was the right thing to do, directly, which was > great. But on observing that some of the same old things went wrong in > my life in the same old ways, I invalidated that gain, and came way down > again with lots of frustration. Best not to invalidate your gains, it slows one down considerably. If you accumulate enough wins, life will start to improve. Besides what I wrote above on inval, the recent post I made on Rudiments might also help. > I got on the PTS-CS1 course and was told that I was probably still PTS, > which was why the processing I was doing was not improving my life, and > that I probably had some Service Fax.'s which were holding my engrams in > place. I was allowed to read the Tech Volumes, and read up on what a > Service Fax is, and came accross the handling. Of course, I'd been told > by the Org that Service Fax's certainly cannot be found without an > e-meter, and even more definitely cannot be handled without one. > > So, of course, I just had a go and found lots of Service Fax.'s and at > least partially handled them. I do honestly think that I can percieve > charge directly, both in myself and others (in situations where they > want me to), and intend to further improve that skill. Yes, they can be found and handled without a meter. But it is not easy, so it is in a later chapter of self clearing. > I also have many reasons to believe that I was a Scientologist last > lifetime, such as having an irrational dislike of Psychology, knowing > that drugs were not something I would ever do (even asprin), and having > a real knowledge even from very young that I had the potential to be > anything I wanted to be, and the way my life was was not the state I > wanted to be in. If you were in before, rehabilitating points of release that were attined would be extremely benificial and might be a handling for the rollercoastering. Try "what could you not-know about processes you had been run on during your last lifetime" and see if that opens up some recall. > So, that gives you an idea of what I've done before. In the last few > months, I've done some of the Self-Clear (just running anything that > caught my attention at first, now going through lightly in order), read > through Super-Scio, and read all your previous posts. I'd like to know > if you have any comments on what might be the best way of me now making > progess, and if my past experiences suggest any changes in what I should > run, and how I should run it. I am quite prepared to accept that lots of > what I thought was true (such as things I've described above) are not > true at all. What matters to me is progress in terms of how my life > actually happens. See above. The "prepared to accept ... are not true at all" is the ideal attitude since it lets processes run at maximum without regard for prior considerations. You will probably find that in most cases you were right all along but occasionally things shift slightly as you get a better view of things. > -------------------------------- > > Another topic I'd like your help with is handling a valence. As far as I > can tell, I took on aspects of my mothers personality during birth. She > was almost dead at one point, and had to be brought back to life, and > the whole birth lasted at least 56 hours. How I see it is that in fear > of losing contact with her, I took on aspects of her personality. I've > done lots of Dianetics processing on birth, and seem to be able to face > the incident OK, and see the decision that I made, and admit that it was > fully my decision and why I made it. > > Recently, ie. all through Chapter 8 of self-clear and a bit before, I am > comming up against the same (abberated) answer to everything. The answer > to nearly every process I do at the moment seems to be that I am willing > for anything to happen, or to do or be or communicate anything, as long > as it isn't in conflict with the game I'm currently playing of surviving > by using the personality I took on from my mother during birth. I'm > bumping up against this big limitation wherever I look. One of the main > effects of the aspects of personality I took on is the unwilingness to > be in real contact with anything (such as people, MEST, energy etc.), I > keep on finding myself doing everything 'by remote controll' so as to > avoid contact, and of course, this prevents things from going right most > of the time. I've tried everything I can think of to handle this > particular issue, but it refuses to change for more than a few hours so > far. > > I've also done some processing from the first part of Ralph Hilton's OT8 > (from The Pilots posts), which seems to me to be about valence. That > brought up lots of charge, some good cogs. etc. and a good end > phenonenon of universe exteriorisation, but no real change in my life. > The rest of the processes in that OT8 (after the first one) are a bit > out-gradient for me! I've also done processes from various different > technologies all of which address the valence issue. > > So far, those abberations are still there, and I can clearly see so many > times a day when I'm doing something very obviously abberative from > those personality aspects I took on. For example when driving, I find > myself thinking that most of what other drivers do is wrong, then if I > do the same thing it's OK . . . I see that happening very clearly, and > many other things. I seem to have most of the same specific list of > obvious abberations as my mother, and everyone else I know seems to have > a different list, so I don't think I'm just imagining this valence > issue. > > Any suggestions as to what I can do to remove that valence I took on?? > It seems the most obvious thing that I want to handle in my case at the > moment, although I know there will be lots and lots of bigger things > after this, that valence issue is what seems to be holding me back most > right now. > > Why is this valence so hard to change?? I get some temporary progress > out many things, such as running ARC breaks, OW/withholds etc, and lots > of processes give me great cogs, and good wins, but it all seems to make > no lasting difference to abberations I took on from this valence. I even > managed to get myself to the point where I 'let go' of this whole > assumed valence, but that lasted only a few days, and then it was back > as strong as ever. > > Should I run abberations from this assumed valence just the same as > anything else that is more 'mine' ?? I think I've clearly seen the > incident in which I took on this valence, and the decision to take it on > and why, I've traced that way back to violating my own 'codes' and other > things, and it just isn't shifting at all at the moment. > > Any help would be most appreciated. Being stuck in someone else's valence is another reason for poor gains and a tendency to invalidate. Run the following 3 processes, each to a mild win, and then repeate the entire set (each time to mild wins) over and over until it shifts. 1. Mockup the terminal in various places and blow them up 2. Spot places where the terminal would be safe. 3. Mock the terminal up in front of you. Have them say Hello to you and you say OK or Thank You back to them. Repeat 3 times and then reverse it so that you say hello and they acknowledge 3 times and then back again the other way etc. Although you are handling your mother, there might be an earlier similar. So let the mockup of the valence be whatever feels right. Go ahead and shift its appearance whenever you feel like it should look a bit different. > ------------------------------ > > I read your comments about Jesus taking on another persons Karma. > Wouldn't that be likely to have the effect of lessening the persons > responsibility for their own lives? No. If they tried to put their Karma on him, it would be an avoidance of responsibility. But to take something like this on, one takes the other person's viewpoint to do it and that makes it easier for them to emulate you because you give them the agreement that their karma can be confronted. And so I think it increases their responsibility if you take on their Karma. > I see that happening in a major way with most Christians I know . . . > they feel that Jesus is responsible for all their case, and so are > totally at effect from everything, and make a very strong decision that > they must not be cause over their lives. Anything unwanted that happens > in their lives, they say 'Jesus must want it that way' and take no > responsibility. I'm sure that's not the way you meant it. Surely there > is more to gain by confronting and handling ones own abberations, than > having them removed by someone else?? Definitely. The process improved Jesus's ability. I believe it helped the people he really did it to as far as them becoming more responsible. There are stories of early Christians who came way up in responsibility. Many of these modern people, on the other hand, are running some kind of dub-in and offloading of responsibility. > Also, I have a comment that relates to the 'oneness' idea. I injured my > ankle badly last year, and ran lots of processes on it, and gave it lots > of attention. Weeks later, I suddenly found myself having antagonistic > feelings towards that ankle for the first time, and realised that I had > gone back to my old way of 'handling' an injury which was to withdraw > from it. As soon as I stopped withdrawing way from that area, I felt > good about it again. It healed better in 6 weeks than a very similar > injury had healed in 6 months, earlier in my life. > > From this experience I came up with the hypothesis that one can only be > antagonistic towards something that one has withdrawn from, be that a > part of oneself, or anything outside oneself. I find similar things > comming from many areas of metaphysics. I think this would be part of > the concept of confront. Quite correct. > ---------------------------- > > I've just read your recent post on flowing energy through a ridge, where > you mentioned a stuck flow as maybe relating to arthritis. I read a book > years ago by a man who was told by the medical profession that his > rheumatoid arthritis is totally incurable, so he invented his own method > and cured it completely in himself! > > His method was visualising what would need to happen to cure the > problem. In this case things such as certain blood cells acting to > remove the buildup of mass around the joint, clean it up, lubricate the > joints, etc. He used an in-breath to 'gather intention' and an outbreath > to release that intention and visualise it happening. This seems similar > to your process in some ways. Yes it is. And I do do the above, simply putting intentions and visualizations of what I want to occur into an area and then count on the GE to implement them on a comm lag. > Also, knowing that in the oppinion of another tech, anger is just 'life > energy' that is stuck, I applied your process to the anger in me > ('seeing' it as a ridge of stuck energy in front of me), which seemed > very effective in dissolving some of it. This also makes me wonder how > that might relate to emotions in general, and ways of handling > 'negative' emotions. As I said above, it seems to me that 'antagonism' > (maybe relating to hate) is an aspect of non-confront, and anger is a > stuck flow. Good point. The above process is good if one is up to being exterior to one's emotions and seeing them this way. It would be out gradient for many people. > ----------------------------- > > Here are some answers to your Questions for people doing Self-Clear . . > .. > > 1) As well as some Scientology, and dianetics, I've done some NLP, > T'ai-Chi, Chi-Kung, Hatha Yoga, Zero-balancing, Chakra work, and > benefitted from many other spiritual, philosophical and scientific > inputs. > > 2) I've just finished Chapter 8 at the moment going through in order, > but have done various processes from elsewhere in the book, as my > attention was drawn to them > > 3) yes, still going, and intend to keep making progress using your > materials and anything else I can. > > 4) One great win I had was doing the Postulate/counter-postulate > process. I was so excited about the significance of this to my case > after reading through what the process was about, that the first time I > postulated wanting a pencil to be in a position 2 inches to the left, it > moved by itself before I could reach out and move it. I've had lots of > other wins, and good cogs, but it doesn't seem to have made any > percievable difference to all the same old things that are always going > wrong in my life over and over again. What I want is my life to get > better, and nothing I've done has made much of a difference to that yet > for more than a few days. I've had lots of nice wins from lots of > different processes using lots of diffferent technologies, but none that > make much difference for more than a few days, and I want more than > that. It sounds like you're making great gains but they are very unstable. I have had some periods like that, the biggest one being 1969 when I was rollercoastering heavily thanks to the heavy mess of quickies, inval, overwhelm, and madness that was going on in the org where I was on staff (at least when I wasn't blown). It would be OT manifestations one day and sitting in the dumpster the next. When my case finally stabilized, all those transient gaines came back as stable gains and I found myself in an incredibly high state. So think of them as latent gains that will all be back and stable once you handle whatever it is. And don't get too frantic trying to handle it because you can also rise above it if you accumulate enough wins. > 5) The biggest difficulty for me is always finding something new that > seems great, and then getting to the point where I've done quite a lot > of it and my life is still going wrong in the same ways . . . I find > that intensely frustrating and it makes it more and more difficult to > continue doing that technology, until I eventually drop it and look for > the next new thing. Any suggestions you may have on what will actually > make my big, obvious, stupid abberations go away for more than just a > few hours, would be much appreciated. As above. Also note that an obvious target might not be accessible in which case all you can do is cool it down by taking some charge off and then get big gains in other areas until you can reach deep enough. I've had miracle level gains and I also have things which are still stuck. I don't worry about it but just keep working deeper letting things come off in the order that they can come off in. > 6) For myself, I decided that my own perception is good enough to try > processes out of order (as well as other stuff from Super Scio, your > posts etc) if my attention was drawn to anything in particular, which I > did, and am now going through in order, which I find fine. > > 7) not really. > > 8) lots of enlightenment, lots of great cogs, good wins on processes, > but little lasting change in my actual everyday big abberations. > > 9) It's great fun doing the processes that seem to produce lots of > change, but a bit more like a chore doing the ones that don't seem to do > anything for me at this point (I just find a very small win and move > on). Good enough. > 10) As I've said, for me personally, I seem to easily get great wins, > huge cogs, lots of change in processes, find huge amounts of 'charge' > and hugely significant postulates, OW's, etc. etc, but all the > abberations that constantly hold me back and make my life go wrong all > the time seem to hardly change (they do sometimes seem to change a lot > for a few hours or days after a really big win, but then they just go > back again, and each time that happens, it seems more difficult for me > to get another win). If you invalidate the gain, it can be harder to get another win. > Any suggestions as to what I can do to get my life actually changing in > a stable way would be very much appreciated. I would think that all > these great processes that are leading to wonderful OT states would be > easily able to handle one persons abberations to the point that they are > able to function successfully in ways that are easy for lots of other > people, but so far nothing has really done that for me. > > What would be the basic reason that I can get very significant changes > which I then lose after a few days or less? What can I do to change > this? I have found this same phenomenon whatever technologies for > change I use. What it feels like to me is that I made a very strong > decision during birth to take on aspects of my mothers personality > (which are very abberative) and whenever I do something to remove these > abberations, something 'wakes up' shuts down the new change, and puts > the abberation back even stronger. Yet I think I've found the time I > made those decisions, and done lots of work on the decisions, but they > seem to be made in a way that I won't let myself undo, or something like > that. I got the same thing happening when I did some work on undoing > those decisions . . . big change for a few hours, then that change > removed again and the abberations here even stronger. Two more suggestions come to mind. 1) Mockup ways to make the abberations stronger. 2) From where could you make the abberations stronger. I suggest that you reject the idea that something "wakes up" and shuts down the changes even though that might be happening. Anything like that can only operate if you let it, and so you can weaken and override it by refusing to agree and refusing to give it any strength and reasserting your own power and causation. Are you young enough to have done OT 3 last lifetime? Perhaps the early screwed up version of 1967 where one only mucked about being effect of entities and incident 2 without even flying ruds or having a case supervisor? If so you might blow the whole mess just by spotting a misguided decision to assign cause to the OT3 stuff. > I seem to be able to find lots of charge, great cognitions and powerful > effects fairly easily, but it doesn't seem to change things, except > occasionally I get a good change for a few hours, or a few days at most, > then I lose it again. For example, I did what was suggested in 'The > Furies' and 'Code Violations' from one of your early posts to ACT. I > found things exactly as described, found that the huge Fury that I have > been aware of for a while has a chain behind it . . . I found more and > more intense Furies, back to one that seemed to be an earliest event, > which was violating my own codes by sending a stream of symbols > outwards. > > I found the codes that I was violating etc. etc. I had huge cognitions, > found lots of charge in many big incidents that I haven't found before, > found the first incident of violating my own codes and handled it as > described. All this seemed very significant, I thought I'd found > something huge that would lead to a major change . . . but absolutely > nothing in my life has changed, the charge is still there in the furies, > and everything is still in place, even though I found and confronted it > all, and sat through lots of 'boil-off' as charge supposedly dissipated. > What am I doing wrong? What can I do to actually get real change in my > life (that lasts more than a few hours) out of these processes? > > I would really appreciate any comments and suggestions on this. > > ----------------------------- > > Thanks again for everything you've done for us all, and I hope that as I > progress I will be able to add to the research too. > > ARC. > > from 'Potential' > p_otential@hotmail.com > (hiding my identity for now, as I see no reason to make an enemy of the > CofS). Good luck with the above. Remember that at basic you are source. And I'm very confident that when you do breakthrough the difficulty, you'll find yourself in an extremely advanced state. Most people are not up to doing the things you find easy. Best, The Pilot ========================================== This weeks messages were posted with the following trailer. ------------------ The free Self Clearing Book, The Super Scio book, and the "SCIENTOLOGY REFORMER'S HOME PAGE" are all over the net. See The Self Clearing Homepage for URLs to these sites http://fza.org/pilot/selfclr.htm or http://www.proweb.co.uk/~tech/clear.htm Or see The Pilots Home Page at http://fza.org/pilot/index.htm Some translations are available, see links at fza.org All of the current posts will be collected in Super Scio Archives #50 and 51 and posted to ACT. See the Pilot Archives at FZA.ORG. Individual posts to ARS are being double posted to ACT rather than cross posted to foil the spambot attack which takes good headers and attaches garbage messages to them. Note that some of my posts only go to ACT. I cannot be reached by email. I watch ARS and ACT for messages with Pilot in the subject line. ------------------