From pilot@soda.csua.berkeley.edu Fri Nov 20 04:00:11 1998 Path: newscene.newscene.com!novia!news.idt.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!newsfeed.xcom.net!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!la-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!news.alt.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!news-bunny!mail4news.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail Message-ID: Date: 20 Nov 1998 04:00:11 Lines: 1037 Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology From: pilot@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (The Pilot) Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 40 - NOV 98 PILOT POSTS Organization: The Pilot's hidden place Reply-To: pilot@hiddenplace.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E (OS/2; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Distribution: world Old-NNTP-Posting-Host: 141.17.41.23 Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net Xref: newscene.newscene.com alt.clearing.technology:67868 POST40.txt SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 40 - NOV 98 PILOT POSTS Posts to ARS/ACT are in Archive 39 Posts to ACT only are in Archive 40 and 41 ========================================== Contents: subj : Super Scio Tech - EMOTIONS AND ASTHETICS subj : Super Scio - Heidrun In The Gold Zone subj : Super Scio - Controlling The Parishioners (Attn Avalon) subj : Super Scio Tech - Handling Other's Entities (attn robsep) subj : Super Scio Tech - Guru Rundown subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering Heidrun subj : Super Scio Tech - Making It Go Right (attn littleLRH) subj : Super Scio Tech - On Psychotic Breaks (attn Bob) subj : Super Scio Tech - On Self Auditing (attn NotMax) ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - EMOTIONS AND ASTHETICS EMOTIONS AND ASTHETICS On 28 Oct 98, tjfielder@earthlink.net (Thomas Fielder) responded to my earlier post on "ON EMOTION (ATTN CHRISTINE)" > In article <199810201624.MAA23325@dewdrop2.mindspring.com>, Christine > Norstrand wrote: > > > At 11:42 AM 10/20/98 -0400, Pilot wrote: > > > > > >ON EMOTION (ATTN CHRISTINE) > > > >grief, rage, fear, etc. You can feel deep emotions that way, > > >but the thing is that its fun. Deep down we like this stuff. > > > > > > > Smartest thing you've ever said. > > > > Hurting is more fun than "walking dead and living in the head". I am > > exploring other options. > > Although I can't offer any technical insights, I feel compelled to > join in here. > > My gut feeling is that Christine is very close to the mark in saying > that's the smartest thing you've ever said, although you have said many > other very smart things, IMHO. Thank you both. What I think is actually my deepest / highest / smartest insight is that at basic we are balancing the nothingness with a richness of creation. I had to take a hell of a lot of charge off to see that one. And interestingly enough, the above statement on emotions is a collorarry of that. > I spend a lot of time thinking about emotions - my own and others' and > their significance. I am convinced I have some sort of emotional shut-off > (although the potential for deeply-felt emotions seems to be within me). > Yet I commonly experience moments of inappropriate grief that seem to be > tied in with loss and the pleasure/pain of "knowing I am not > worthy/loved/accepted". These moments are almost always elicited by > music. Why would that be? Listening to music is almost a process sometimes. It can take off charge, and so a bit of the suppress comes off. Or putting this another way, it invites you to mockup the emotion and to the degree that you mock it up the stuck charge can flow off. I'm feeling very exterior to loss right now because of some processing I did which I've written up in another post. Instead of causing emotions to disappear, it seems to have increased my willingness to enjoy them while listening to music or watching a movie or just mocking them up for the fun of it. Look at how people love to cry at a tear jerker. What's wrong is when you actually get stuck being a character in "Terms of Endearment" or even (heaven help us) "Rambo" and can't get out. It seems to me that on the early track you would step into the picture and experience it all for real and have a hell of a good time at it even when you were getting wacked around or losing things or whatever, and then you would step out and step into a different picture, or work at mocking one up that others might enjoy. One could enjoy the actuality of being anything or anybody in any concievable state, good or bad, and do it for an afternoon and just love it no matter how horrible, because it was only for an afternoon. Its when you can't get out that the horror becomes real. That IS The Trap. > What is the relationship of aesthetics to emotion? Fine works of art, > sculpture, music, poetry, etc. often produce powerful emotions in people > experiencing them. In fact, I think it would be fair to say that our > PRIMARY response to aesthetics is emotional. Even scientific and > technical works have their aesthetic component that elicits an emotional > response from the scientist or technician (indeed, scientific theories can > gain support partly because of their beauty and elegance). One could also say that one mocks up emotions because they are such a powerful component of asthetics. Passionate art as opposed to abstract. A friend once suggested to me that the higher handling above healing somebody's broken leg might be to teach them how to walk around with their crutch asthetically so that everyone was facinated and admired them. > If we lacked bodies would we lack emotions? Or are the body's feelings > just a lower harmonic of the thetan's? > > Tom Definitely a lower harmonic. The body and being trapped in a reality holds you back because it makes the emotions dangerous and unpleasant. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Heidrun In The Gold Zone HEIDRUN IN THE GOLD ZONE On 15 Nov 98, Heidrun Beer posted on subject "Heidrun's SP-Declare" > Friends, > > after all I finally got my yellow honour certificate from the church:-) > > It's on http://www.sgmt.at/declare.htm (or a.r.s.) > > Heidrun Beer > > Workgroup for Fundamental Spiritual Research and Mental Training > http://www.sgmt.at Each time they do this they push themselves lower. You have both my congraduations (because they would only do this if you were creating an effect on them) and my condolences (in case this blocks some comm lines you valued). Isn't it funny that gold, which is considered an ideal color, is the color that they print these on (its supposed to be goldenrod, not just ordinary yellow). Their most valuable tech they print in red which is often associated with blood and is more appropriate for Alan's Red Zone. The policy, which is a mixed bag as far as I'm concerned, gets the go-ahead of Green. And the most viscious actions are portrayed as Golden. This sounds like a reverse vector to me. Obviously I'm not disconnecting even though I'm still theoretically a member in good standing (at least until they find out whose name to put on my declare). So much for the power of ethics and OSA. No more than a bunch of yapping dogs at the heals of those who are really able. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Controlling The Parishioners (Attn Avalon) CONTROLING THE PARISHIONERS (Attn Avalon) On 9 Oct 98, Antony Phillips forwarded a message from "Avalon" on subject "SelfClear: To Pilot: An overdue thanks!" > Dear Pilot, > > You would probably be surprised if you knew who this was, but I > prefer to remain anonymous for my own set of reasons, at this stage. > I have not yet had the time to set up an anonymous remailing system, > so have asked my trusted friend, Antony, to post this for me. > My identity for this purpose (to communicate to you), is "Avalon." Yes your thanks are much appreciated and I greatly enjoyed your message. I'm not surprised at your remaining anonymous, I do the same. Perhaps you can post some good stories or lost tech without blowing your cover. I'm not going to repeat your entire post here, but I wanted to call people's attention to a particularly important paragraph. > The "church" of Scientology use this as their favourite weapon to > control and keep "parishioners" in line. I personally have had it > used on me, and witnessed it being used on others: "step in line, get > your ethics in (as we define ethics - loyalty to the Org), or we will > deny you access to spiritual freedom." And it works. Get kicked out > or declared, and you cannot go and just obtain a text, tape, book, or > any of the tech volumes - your access *is* cut off. (This may not be > true for everyone, but this is true for a quite a few people I am in > comm with). Even Bob Kaufman's Inside Scientology shows them using this on him back in 1969 when he was about to blow HAPI in Scotland and my feeling was that he almost gave in. Even if somebody only halfway believes that its the bridge to total freedom, if they swallowed the idea that it has to be CofS's way or nothing, then they are facing the equivallent of eternal damnation if they break openly with the org. So there have to be some visible alternatives to following the party line. I still feel this way as far as needing and wanting to walk this road. So of course my first thought is to blaze a trail around the side of that godawfull big toll booth. Oddly enough, I did pay the toll (I mostly had cheep tickets thanks to being around in the early days) and there was only a few feet of concrete beyond the last toll booth. After that it's all wilderness anyway so you might as well learn to blaze a trail and why not start a little early and miss the bloodsuckers. > If it were up to RTC, and all the other greedy, gobbling > multinationals, they would consume, and gobble, and gobble, and > grow, and grow, until they all explode like the fat man in Monty > Python! It ain't over till the Fat Man explodes. :-) > > Thank you. > > Love, > > Avalon. Don't forget Python's chorus of topless angels. Once he does explode there is all sorts of neat stuff ahead. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Handling Other's Entities (attn robsep) HANDLING OTHER'S ENTITIES (attn robsep) On 24 Oct 98, "RS" asked on topic "question" > Is it possible for an auditor to blow a PC's entities for him? In > other words, can the auditor get in com and handle a PC's entities > without the PC being involved (involved in the com cycle)? The analogy would be to going over to a bully and giving him a talking to to get him to stop beating up on a friend of yours. It might work. It could even be very helpful. But it will do nothing for your friend's case. If your friend is going around teasing and attracting bullies, he will have another one on his back in short order. But if it was just a random situation, then you might terminatedly handle it and do some good. Then again, you are poking your nose into somebody else's game, and so you might not be able to do anything about it. I tried this a lot while I was overrunning solo Nots, and I've done it occasionally since. There are a couple of instances where it really did some good. But usually it has little effect, and as I said, it does little for the other person's case. So give it a try in emergencies, but don't be disappointed. There is also the special case where you have a piece of yourself on the other terminal (in other words, one of his entities is a part of you). If your attention is strongly drawn, usually it is by something that you set up long ago. So of course you blow these. The "point to the being you divided from" command works much better in this case than the ordinary Nots handling. According to the Solo Nots HCOB (there is only one main one, a very long summary of how to do it, unfortunately it hasn't been posted to the net), occasionally the solo auditor will find his attention drawn to a BT on somebody else and he should blow these. And that is all it says on the subject. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Guru Rundown GURU RUNDOWN This is just off the top of my head. A lot could be done in this area, this is hardly more than a starting point. a) Get the idea of finding tech b) Get the idea of allowing others to find tech a) get the idea of making it save to discuss tech b) get the idea of making it unsafe to discuss tech On each of the following, alternate waste and have more: Mockup a way to wast / have more tech Mockup a way to wast / have more knowledge Mockup a way to wast / have more wisdom Mockup a way to wast / have more understanding Ruds & prepcheck on finding tech or a similar button that reads well. Do ruds on all flows & especially include inval & eval. Walk around outside, spot things and invent nonsense reasons for their existing, such as "that car was mocked up to hold the street down so that the pavement doesn't fly off into space". Mockup another terminal (this could also be done with a twin as in TRs). Have them tell you a datum. Have them do it with a great air of importance and significance. It can be true or false or something you're not sure of. You acknowledge them (just as in TRs - no arguments or clarification etc.). Then you tell them another (disrelated) datum and they acknowledge you. Do this back and forth a number of times. Be sure to continue this until any urges to correct, argue with, or strangle the other terminal have passed. Go to a crowded place. Pick somebody and alternate the following three commands a few times. Then pick another person and repeat. a) get the idea that they know more than you do b) get the idea that they know less than you do c) get the idea that they know different things than you do Of course actually becoming a tech finder if you are not one already also requires lots of hard study and observation and you either have to be bright enough already or get off enough charge to become bright enough to actually think up and spot things. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering Heidrun ANSWERING HEIDRUN On 20 Oct 98, Heidrun Beer responded to my earlier post on "WHAT TURNS IT ON IS THE CORRECT TARGET" > Hi Pilot, > > I figured a while where to cut into your text with replies, but > it's really a consistent piece of logic, so I kept it whole to provide > the full context. (Pilot's text follows at the end of my post.) (Since my post is in the archives, I'm not going to repeat it again here) > I agree with you in most things, but not in this case. If you are > processing on top of a chronic mishandling of the body, you can > not expect ANY phenomenon to be caused by the processing or the > body alone. Let's say that you are processing over something, anything whether bodily or spiritually. If something happens from the processing, then the processing is the source. > You have a situation of multiple interacting causes. It is a wonder that we can process anybody who is on Earth at all. The background noise is immense. But people get used to it, so we win when we pay attention to changes and avoid banging our heads against the solidity. Its like taking the varying signal off of a carrier wave. > It is well known that the body has a certain ability to buffer > chemical imbalance. The influence of a poison doesn't necessarily > strike at the first intake - it strikes when the buffer is used > up and the body suddenly has run out of tolerance of the poison. If its buffered, then you see a slow collapse as the buffer gives way. > At this point it seems to suddenly break down, but actually the > cause for this is the continuous accumulation of smaller doses > of the poison, whereas one single such dose would not have caused > such a dramatic effect. A person dying of cerrosis of the liver (I knew one once as a child), collapses gradually as the liver fails, it doesn't hit all at once or even over the course of a week. Acute reactions are different, a heart attack happens all at once and the person falls over on the spot. > A similar, although opposite effect is a death from starvation. > You don't starve because you have not eaten for an hour. You starve > because you have not eaten for 24 hours over 6 weeks. It would > be a serious mistake to believe that only the last hour of not > eating was causing the fatal breakdown, and looking for the source > of it in this last hour is silly for obvious reasons. You don't starve in one day either, and you will see the person almost starved to death during the final week. If you are running an assist on him during that last week, and something suddenly turns on, its the process, not the starvation. But note the "suddenly turns on". There is a background of starvation somatics which is there at start of session and would generally be there throughout the session and at the end of it. I ran assists on somebody over very heavy medical drugs and it was like this. The drugs and chronic somatics were like a constant in the background, but the processes and acute reactions followed our normal rules. If something turned on, it was always the process, not the existing condition. > Now the priority question. You are a computer person like myself. > I remember very well a situation once where I had to sort out a very > persistent bug in the video car of a client, where I was responsible > for the software, and other people were responsible for the video > equipment and the software of this, which was on a ROM-chip. > > I finally had debugged the situation, after a day of working, and > counted 5 different bugs which were independent from each other. > Two of them were my own, but they were at the highest layer of > priorities, the software, and so they could not become visible > before the more basic layers of the system had been debugged > (then it was easy to trace and correct them). > > One bug was in the ROM-chip (a timing problem which caused that I lost > characters on the serial interface), and I had to program around it, > writing delays between the reading cycles, which made my software > so slow that the old ROM-chip could keep up with it. > > One bug was in the system configuration. A mouse-driver that was not > even used, because no mouse was connected, accessed the same serial > interface I was using. Somebody had installed it at some point in the > past, and nobody thought of removing it when my software was installed > on the old machine. (I was so used to taking the blame for every bug > that it cost me two hours before I even THOUGHT of checking other > people's work in this whole setup.) > > But first and foremost a mistake had been made in the wiring > of the cable which connected the computer with the serial interface > of the video system. And it was not before we checked, found and > corrected this most basic layer, that it became possible to observe, > access and correct the rest of the bugs. > > I have learned from this that ALWAYS the hardware needs to be stable first, > before I begin to play around with any software, especially if it is in > an experimental stage. I have seen before that among Clearing practitioners > there exists a lot of reasonableness about physical factors, which every > "wog" doctor or nurse or physio-therapist would shake his head about. > > I am not one of these perfectionists who say you must lead a perfect > life and be a saint, if you are active in the Clearing scene. But fact is, > the software we are running does depend on a functionable hardware. > > A car will tolerate a while of running on a low oil level. A computer > will tolerate a while of running with no cooling. A body will tolerate > a while of getting poisoned, or being deprived of essential nutrition, > sleep, sex, etc. But in the long run any software needs a well > configured hardware to bring decent results, and to test a highly > sophisticated beta version on a whacky and badly maintained machine > is plain silly. > > > Heidrun Beer > > Workgroup for Fundamental Spiritual Research and Mental Training > http://www.sgmt.at The body is an I/O device rather than the hardware platform. And software configured hardware does not stabilize without debugging the software. You can't actually have stable hardware first in that case. An example is this new plug and play stuff. Of course you can have a pure hardware failure, but they tend to be absolute, the equivallent of the body's heart stopping rather than a fluctuating condition. Computers are only on the edge of moving into this hardware/software interactive effect. Practically speaking, the thetan and the body are in a feedback loop. It's that lambda business in the Dianetic Axioms. The only way the body can be stable is for it to be dead and finished decaying. Until then it is an interactive dynamic system where the thetan's considerations have a lot of effect on the state of the system. And of course the state of the system has a lot of effect upon the thetan. Its a two way street. So you can do something for the body by helping the thetan and you can do something for the thetan by helping the body physically. I'm not arguing that. What I'm arguing is that if you go mucking with the system from any method of approach and something happens then you consider that what you just changed or did is the primary candidate for the source of what just happened. A car is barely running because of low oil. Then you crash it into a brick wall. You don't handle that by putting in the oil even though it might otherwise be a good idea. In my experience, it is very rare to turn on a heavy somatic or physical reaction to processing. If you do, you'd be foolish to pay attention to anything else because you have a tiger by the tail. Another way to look at this is that you're giving the pc a wrong item. Even if the current physical sceen is real and obvious to you, as soon as the person is looking at his case, the physical sceen might only be a lock on an earlier postulate. Let's say he is banging his head against the wall, and now he's running a process and getting close to why he likes to do that, and he suddenly gets a severe headach instead of his usual mild ach (from the banging). Maybe the process is just unflat and he will cognite in a moment, or maybe you were listing "Who or what would bang their head against the wall" and got a wrong item. That is why the headach has suddenly gotten much worse than its usual dull level of pain. But it is obvious to you that his head hurts because he is banging it. So you insist to him that the pain that just turned on is from the banging. It is a wrong item. So much so that the pc is liable to attack you on the spot. I audited a pc once who had been on asthma medicine since she was a little girl. She was an HSDC student and as far as she was concerned she was on Speed and was throughly hooked. Her, the C/S, and I all agreed that it would be a hell of a lot better if she was not audited over it, but she considered it absolutely hopeless to get off of it and had bad physical reactions when she tried. So we all agreed to ignore it and run a prior assessment over the drug. And of course drug reactions and asthma somatics turned on and off during the processing, but it was the processes, not the drug kicking in more strongly, and it was pretty much textbook despite auditing over the drug. And we finish the prior assessment and then the DRD somatics connected with and still she was on the stuff, so we kept going and started a Health Form. And halfway through that the whole damn mess blew. She came in the next day and volenteered that it was all gone and she had stopped taking the medicine with absolutely no reactions and she was so blown out that we just had to drop the dianetics entirely. It had been a long hard run, much tougher because of auditing over the drug, but it worked. It was the days before dianetic clear or else I'm sure that we would have had her attest. She never would have made it if we'd been fighting her the whole way about having to get off the medication. And the org never would have done it or given her a chance if she'd been a public pc instead of an HSDC student auditor herself. You should never, ever jamb a why down a pcs throat no matter how right it seems. It is probably the only thing you can do in processing that could make the person worse. You can suggest and you can coax. You can invite him to take a look. You can get away with these things as long as he's free to look for himself and reject your conclusion. You can sometimes get a bit of charge on the suggest button (it is one of the prepcheck buttons) but its just not comparable to what happens when you push in a datum with real force. Now if we think that the physical outpoint is so great that we feel that the pc has to be pushed, we want this done by somebody else rather than by the auditor if at all possible. Because if you push too hard, you're going to be in a games condition with that person and not going to be able to audit them. Ethics exists to get tech in, and so you don't push at all unless there is no other choice, and when it has to be done, it is far better that somebody other than the auditor play the tough guy. If the pc has gotten all tangled up in something on a process, you can't shift them over to some other area and handle that instead even if it is something obvious and major. You have to handle where their attention is stuck first. With self clearing, reading a book is at the level of suggest rather than enforce. So if the person's attention is stuck somewhere, that's where its going to run because nobody is trying to force his attention to the place where they want it to go. It would not work to enforce it on somebody in a rote manner. You have to run what the pc can Itsa rather than what you think the pc should be running. Sorry about getting carried away here. To many years of being miss C/Sed at Flag. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Making It Go Right (attn littleLRH) MAKING IT GO RIGHT (Attn littleLRH) On 9 Nov 98, "littleLRH" asked on subject "Q: how to make things go right !" > I am missing some data here: if today i picture all the things i want > tomorrow or later to happen to me... well 99% of the times i get the > opposite or other things... while if i fear that something might happen it > happens ! I fear that my bestfriend is going to split up with his girlfriend > and i have a strong feeling inside my chest and then after a few days it > happens..... so how can i make things going the way i want to ? > > littleLRH In general we are very very far down scale relative to what we could be. In 1952, Ron suggested that there is a positive force band very high on the scale, an intermediate null point, and then a negative force band lower down. He also suggested that the sections of a scale mimiced the entire scale (which fits with modern fractile theory). From this we might conclude that tone 25 is a theta null point similar to tone 2.5 (boredom) and that positive use of force only exists around tones 30 to 35. From tone 20 on down one would be in a reverse vector band where force only worked to one's disadvantage. Since human beings are very happy just to make it up to tone 4, we are obviously sitting at the bottom of this negative band most of the time. So the trick is how to make it go right while one is walking the long road back up the scale to the point where one can bring about good things by simply postulating them. First is the trick of how to avoid bringing negative forces in to work against you. This is a simple matter of dissolving the charge before the unpleasantness can manifest. If you are afraid that something will happen, work to discharge the picture. You can mock it up many times, changing its colors etc. and moving it around until you feel it release. Or you can mockup having more and less of it alternately. Or you could even run incidents where it did happen or run future track incidents or whatever gets your confront up and dissipates the charge. Since you are only trying to pull the charge off of a particular mockup which seems to be hanging there rather than do a total handling of an area, this can be done fairly rapidly. Anything which dissolves a bit of charge should keep you from pulling in things through fear or worry. The second trick is in how one might get a postulate to stick when one's force tends to reverse on one. The trick for that is to make postulates lightly without trying to force them, and then to make them many times from many different angles so that one or another of them will make it through the stops. Hope this helps, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - On Psychotic Breaks (attn Bob) ON PSYCHOTIC BREAKS (Attn Bob) On 21 Oct 98, Robert Hummels responded to my post on "CHAKRAS, LOCATIONALS, LISA, ETC. (Attn Lightning, JimC etc.)" > FreeZone America wrote: > > > CHAKRAS, LOCATIONALS, LISA, ETC. (Attn Lightning, JimC etc.) > > > > On 2 Oct 98, Lightnin80@aol.com responded to JimC on > > subject "Lisa McPherson". > > > > He was continuing a discussion about the possibility that > > her original problem (that got her put on the introspection > > rundown) was related to the chakras. > > > > I would say that it is the other way around, namely that one's > > body or energy systems or anything else gets screwed up as a > > result of one's own postulates, in other words one audits the > > PC at cause over these systems rather than at effect. > > > > I think that one need look no further than a massive ARC break > > with Flag and what she percieved of as Scientology to find out > > why she began spinning. The closest I ever came to a psychotic > > spin was when I was on staff and somebody told me that I was in > > enemy. > > Pilot, > Perhaps I am just confused about the condition of a > psychotic break...but reading the Assists Processing > Handbook I see LRH writes (paraphrased) The first step > in handling insanity is a complete checkup by a > competent medical doctor. LRH seems to believe, > at that time anyway, that a physical problem was > the cause of insanity in a majority of the cases. > He goes on to state that the problem may not be > physical, but to always start with the examination. > > Is a psychotic break NOT considered insanity? > Why does it require different handling? > > bob I'm not sure which actual LRH reference you are refering to (the various assist books are compilations of materials given over a wide timespan, and there have been a number of generations of these books). Offhand, the references I know of where he talks of physical problems causing insanity are all late (late 60s, early 70s) and they are a narrow view rather than all embracive. If the person does have a pinched nerve or other continual aggrivating pain, there is a possiblity that they might act crazy from the pain. So you would want to have them get a medical checkup. That doesn't mean that its the primary source of insanity but just that its a potential source of acting insane. But he has said other things at various times, and he especially likes to talk of the psych's making somebody insane. A psychotic break is it's own special situation because it is a dramatic change rather than a slow buildup. In this case, I would expect to find a specific cause that triggered the break. And it would not surprise me if the person were weakened by pains and/or drugs first, but I would still expect that there was some direct thing that pushed them over the edge. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - On Self Auditing (attn NotMax) ON SELF AUDITING (Attn NotMax) On 7 Nov 98, Secret Squirrel (actually NotMax using the secret squirrel remailer) issued 3 posts on subject "self auditing (1/3 att: Pilot)" This was very interesting and helpful. I hope that it inspires others. The org really gets in the way and discourages self auditing. Ron seems to have been of mixed opinion in the 1950s, encouraging ACC students to try the processes on themselves but looking at it as a case outness on anybody else. And gradually things tightened up until it was forbidden in the standard tech era. I was lucky in that the org didn't consider self-auditing to be a big deal in the 1966-8 time period (only self auditing during an HGC intensive was considered an out point) and by the time they did (late 1968 standard tech), I already had PDC references on it being ok to run the processes on yourself and had enough status as a tech terminal to keep people from bothering me about it. Of course I ran self analysis on myself in 1966 and had a big gain, basically a strightwire release. And I trained on class 0 without having had any auditing myself except for an intro session (class 0 was the first course after the comm course in 1966) so of course I just played around with the commands, trying to visualize what would happen as I ran them on somebody. And the key grade zero process is to mockup communication ("if you could talk to a ...") and I got the grade release by doing that. I hadn't really meant to be self auditing but was simply doing things like visualizing what one could say to a parent for example so that I wouldn't be caught by surprise while auditing the pc on the process. That one was funny because I overrun it and then started invalidating my own ability to communicate because I hadn't been run on the grade and actually started feeling bad about communication. So I got a review, and the damn thing read as overrun and invalidated and we rehabbed the release to a major stable gain. From that point on I knew these things could be self audited. So I made a point of buying an hour of review and getting grade 1 rehabbed after I had trained on class 1 and fooled around with the processes while "studying". And I picked up creation of human ability and ran route 1 on myself. It was all fun and big gains. Being a starving student with no big bucks, I only paid for training levels (fairly cheep) and rolled my own except for some reviews and a bit of 66 style dianetics done on me by an HDA student. Finally I signed a staff contract (I was on staff a good while before contracting) and was entitled to grades 0 to 5A (each grade was usually about 3 to 5 hours in those pre-quickie days). By that point I had gotten through grade 2 on rehabbing self audited grade releases in review, and I was tech division staff (various posts). The tech sec came over to me just before I started getting run on the grades and appologized for potentially having me overrun on the processes but he thought we should try each one just in case we could get more by having an auditor run the processes. I agreed with this, I wanted to be through and to see what would happen. To nobody's surprise, those three grades all overran immediately, driving the TA up and getting solid until the earlier releases (from "studying") were rehabbed. It was, after all, a very limited lineup of processes and I'd already run those grades on lots of people myself. And then grades 3, 4, 5, and 5A all ran like dynamite, so I had no doubts that I'd made grades 0 to 2 in my own wierd manner. The ones I'd done on my own had taken much longer than those run on me by an auditor, but the gains were actually more stable because I knew a lot more about those levels. Eventually I got run on expanded grades (mid 70s), and that's when I found that these things can go to a second more powerful EP once you've gone around through enough other stuff that the processes will bite again instead of overrunning. I still consider that my original grade 2 release was back in the early days, but the expanded grade 2 got me to a clear OT state that matches the maximum gain that seems to be available on the Ls. And I expect that eventually the grade could run again to some sort of super state or even errasure in the basic area before home universe. So of course I'm sold on self auditing, it works. But I have observed some things about it - a) It takes longer (but its free) b) You need to know more (so lots of books are needed) c) You do best by running lots of processes to light wins in an area rather than trying to push too hard with any one process. The third point gets around the fact that the person doesn't run as deep without an auditor to hold his hand and also neatly sidesteps the difficulty of getting somebody to persist without having somebody pushing them. From your post, I do have the impression that you are tending to overrun, pushing a process too long and hard before moving on to another one. Of course I'm guessing (from a distance) and this is a bit evaluative so ignore it if it doesn't seem right. When a process hits the end of what is accessible to it right now, it will begin to grind, things get harder, things come back, and one tends to get dispairing. There will be a win of some sort at the point where the process has cleared what it can out of the immediate vicinity. On overrun, you rehab the win and then shift to a different process. In comparison with regular auditing, you do not run as deep but you make up for it by running more processes so that you reach the same point by a slightly different route. Your persistance and dedication should be aimed at keeping yourself working at this and moving along from process to process rather than in grinding away at one process for a great deal of time. And once you have run a lot of processes, you will find that the earlier ones can again be run and will run much deeper with big gains very quickly because the entire band of what is accessible has been widened greatly by this procedure. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== These were all posted with the following trailer - ------------------ The free Self Clearing Book, The Super Scio book, and the "SCIENTOLOGY REFORMER'S HOME PAGE" are all over the net. See The Self Clearing Homepage for URLs to these sites http://fza.org/pilot/selfclr.htm or 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 In German - www.sgmt.at/pilot.htm In Hungarian - www.extra.hu/self/index.html In Russian - http://www.user.cityline.ru/~cisergem/ and www.aha.ru/~espinol and http://www.tagil.ru/~sk/pilot/pilot.html. The MASTER LIST OF LRH TAPES which I posted recently is available both at fza.org and at http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~krasel/CoS/tapes.html All of this week's posts will be collected in Super Scio Archives #39, 40, and 41 and posted to ACT. See the Pilot Archives at FZA.ORG. 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. ------------------