From pilot@soda.csua.berkeley.edu Fri Nov 20 04:00:12 1998 Path: newscene.newscene.com!novia!news.idt.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!howland.erols.net!news.pbi.net!131.119.28.147!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.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 04:00:12 Lines: 1445 Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology From: pilot@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (The Pilot) Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 41 - 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:67869 POST41.txt SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 41 - 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 - Ethics And Conditions (attn Alan) subj : Super Scio Tech - Cost Accounting (attn Alan) subj : Super Scio Tech - Scientology And Metaphysics subj : Super Scio Tech - Wholetrack Car Bodies (attn NDC) subj : Super Scio Tech - Running Small Reads (attn Ralph) subj : Super Scio Tech - To Carol On 8th Dynamic subj : Super Scio Tech - Continuing On The Chakras (attn Lightnin) subj : Super Scio Tech - Computer Meter Continued (attn Nic) subj : Super Scio Tech - BREAKTHROUGH ON LOSS ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Ethics And Conditions (attn Alan) ETHICS AND CONDITIONS "alan c. walter" has been putting out some excellent technical posts recently. On 2 Nov 98, he responded to Heidrun's followup to his earlier post called "Process Basics", and I wanted to address a segment of that. > Heidrun Beer wrote: > > > However what it did not contain was any incomplete or never > > applied ETHICS CONDITIONS. > > Strange before the quickie grades came in there was no real need for ETHICS > CONDITIONS. > > They just naturally went in. This is absolutely correct. The ethics conditions were not present in early Scientology and they were not necessary to achieving case gain. The conditions from non-existance upwards are a management system. They are useful for operating in an area. But they have nothing whatsoever to do with ethics. These upper condition formulas are tech for improving flows. They don't include any consideration of the ethical questions of which flows should be improved nor do they include anything which increases one's responsibility. One does not become more ethical by getting the stats up. However one can gain prosperity by using these formulas. So let us not throw them away. But calling them ethics is a red herring. The lower conditions are a theta trap. They stick one to the organization. They ask for propitiation and responsiblity as blame rather than true responsibility and contemplation of optimum survival. They push one off of infinity valued logic and cast things into a good/evil two valued logic system. Alan is correct in observing that these were put in to stifle protest at a time when the organization was delivering an overt product. The keynote of the old theta traps was that they used the thetan's own energy against him. Like a chineese finger trap, the harder you struggle, the tighter you are held. With ethics as it is currently set up in Scientology, the more you try to put your ethics in, the more you restrain yourself. But greater responsibility goes hand in hand with less restraint and more action. So it is a reverse process. Let us say that one sees some terrible out-points in the organization. The direction of greater responsibility would be to try and do something about those things. Handling these might require violating some policy or breaking some agreements. The doubt formula is a way to get the individual to accept these things as being for the greater good and swallow his objections. And so he operates less and takes less responsibility. A correct ethical action would be considering what you could do in the future to bring about a more optimum condition rather than propitiating for what bad thing you may have done in the past. If you are going to run O/W, then you run O/W as a process with a view towards bringing about an as-isness. This sets the person free of his guilt and, because a being is basically good, will show an increase in his future ethics and responsibility. A reverse process would be to restimulate O/W that is late on the chain without going earlier and bringing any basics into view. That would actually make grade 2 more solid. Imagine running general O/W or even just a withold rudiment and every time the PC brings up an overt, you end session and send him out to make amends. The overts will stick and go solid instead of errasing. Real ethics is how could you help others and working to embrace other's viewpoints as well as your own. Reverse ethics is moralizing and make wrongs. Real ethics is do unto others and love thy neighbor as thyself. Reverse ethics is stop others from fornication and never criticize the church. The being's own high sense of ethics has been used again and again to entrap him. I prefer not to contribute to that motion. Hope this helps, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Cost Accounting (attn Alan) COST ACCOUNTING On 10 Oct 98, "ACW" posted on subject "Cost of introduction to new people to Processing or Training." > I recently did a cost analysis of how much it costs to introduce a new > person and bring them on lines to taking a major service. > > One of the ways we introduce our subject is by renting a booth at a trade > show. > > These usually cost $500 for 2 days. > > Using 3 staff who spend approx 10 hours a day at the show. = 60 hours. > > We usually get 30 prospects for profiles and appointments. > > Of the 30 people approx. 10 show up. > > Each of the 30 people need to be called to verify the appointments. = 10 > hours > > It takes about 3 hours to mark, introduce and evaluate the profiles. = 30 > hours > > 1 person signs up for a major service. = 100 hours spent on each person @ > $20 per hour = $2,000 > > A total of 30 new public people a year buy new services. > > Plus it costs $4,500 a month for rent and utilities. A yearly total of > $54,000. = per person $1,800. > > Salaries for 4 people, 2 Instructors and 2 processors approx $90,000 = > $22,500. and a further $3,000 per new person. > > A total of $6,800 per new person. (Note: I have not included salaries of > myself or executive staff.) > > The probable total cost is around $10,000 per new person. > > In the 60's my cost of introducing a new person was $1,500 so the ratio has > stayed fairly constant with inflation over the years. > > Alan First, thank you for the info, and I agree that the initial expense of bringing in new people can be high. But there are better ways to run these numbers, so lets see what we can do. First lets separate out the promo from the cost of delivery so that we can see how low the prices can get, because lower prices will bring in lots more people for the same promotional expense. I will simplify and just look at training first. Lets say 2 instructors at 40,000 each (higher than you were suggesting). Lets say an admin at 25,000 and throw in another 15,000 for a partial share of the management expense giving 80,000 salary, and we'll toss in 60,000 for the rent and so forth making a total of 140,000 to keep 2 instructors delivering full time (much higher than your allocation). Each instructor might handle 20 students, and there are 2, so we have 40 seats in the classroom which each must bring in 3,500 a year. So our delivery expense is about $300 for a one month course. Now lets add 50% for our promotional budget and another 50% because things are often not ideal and to build up reserves. That gives us a course price of $600 per month of course time, or $150 for a one week course, which is not bad at all. Let's allocate another $140,000 to keep 2 processors working full time. At 25 hrs each per week, we get about 2600 hours of delivery in the year, and again we double everything and expect $280 thou to come in, so the processing price is about $110 per hour, and there is enough slack in this that we could just make it $100 because it sounds good. Again not bad. Of the total 560 thousand, we expected 1/4 or 140,000 to represent promo etc. One could pick up some people by brute force at 2,000 a head, but that is not really accurate anymore because we have an easier time selling cheaper courses. So maybe 1,000 is a better estimate. But that is only seed money to keep some new people coming in ahead of their usual comm lag. Part of the promo money should go to some good mass marketing rather than one on one signups. And the bang for the bucks is good, so we get much more repeat business. And if the service is good, word of mouth spreads and people bring in their friends. I watched an org doubling every 3 months mostly on word of mouth in a time of cheap service and happy clients. But note that it had to hang in there for a year doing a good job of delivering those same services before the flows took off. I know you can't run an org by giving this stuff away for free. And I agree that you have a right to cater to high end public if you want as long as you don't stop others from delivering more cheeply like the orgs do. But I think that volume is the smarter way to go. And if you get high volume with lower prices, the flow itself attracts more people and soon you have a feedback effect where your promotional costs will get very low. The orgs cut their own throats by creating ARC broken fields and using abusive ethics and so forth, and then they priced themselves out of the market. But there would be times when you'd see one of these power feedback expansions start to take off before it was killed in its tracks, so the potential is there. The real problem is that there are long comm lags and one must survive the initial period before the flows become self generating. One might think of this as an establishment phase where it is extremely expensive to get a body in the shop. That is what you were describing above. This is not actually unique to processing, almost all new businesses seem to go through this hungry negative cash flow period. Big corporations launching new ventures simply pour in the bucks and ride it through, that is the fastest, but its a catch-22 in that it's only open to the rich (have to have money to make money). One solution is to operate initially with cadillac style pricing with a product that is good enough to sell under those conditions, building up reputation and connections. That lets you get established without running negative. Again this seems to parallel your current operation. But once established, you can shift to low price high volume and boom spectacularly. Another method is to build up a flow while supporting yourself in some other way. The bunch of Scientologists (David Gale, Chuck Baron, etc.) who made a mint launching MCBA (computer accounting software back in the 1970s) did most of the work in their spare time. And yet another is to leverage existing flows and connections, like an employee who builds a tremendous reputation and then hangs up his own shingle (Amhdal in the computer field was an example). One way or another, you establish a base first and then you open the floodgates. There is a matter of timing here. Is one established firmly enough to shift into high gear or will the mechanism fly apart under stress, and of course are the comm lines established well enough to generate the big flow that is necessary. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Scientology And Metaphysics SCIENTOLOGY AND METAPHYSICS In 1950 Hubbard took the radical step of allowing the preclear to run whatever the preclear came up with instead of insisting that the preclear run what he was supposed to find. Hubbard, after all, believed that the engrams were recorded in the cells of the body and thought that the source of the reactive mind was prenatal incidents in the current lifetime. But Ron, perhaps because he was not over-educated and certain of what he was doing, did not at that time suffer from the stultifying self-righteousness which might lead a practicionier into forcing a subject back into the acceptible channels. And so he let a preclear run an incident of having been a lion and eating their keeper. And the preclear seemed to get better. And when his own students took exception to this, he insisted that you let the pc run whatever the pc came up with. And then one time he asked a pc for the "death necessary to resolve the case" and the pc found a past life death. Now this was a misunderstood on the pc's part. The question was asking for the death of an ally (such as an aunt or grandparent) which was assumed to be in this lifetime, and Hubbard had started abbreviating the question because everybody knew what he meant, until he got a new preclear and failed to explain what kind of a death he was searching for. Again, he let the pc run what had come up without forcing him to run what was supposed to be run. Within a few months Ron was begining to follow up on these things and experiment with past-life incident running, and eventually he found a past life recall of his own which had taken place in the Civil War. And this was quite startling to him, he talks about that in one of the early lectures. Please realize that Hubbard himself did not have any knowledge or recall of past lives prior to late 1950. If you have any doubt of this, please read the first 8 R&D volumes, the entire slow and painful process of his comming to a gradual realization of these things is laid out in detail. He might have dabbled a little bit in magic or philosophy, but as far as metaphysics and spiritual awareness goes, he was basically a novice rather than an advanced student. If you read the accounts in Bare Faced Messiah, his brief adventures with Jack Parsons in OTO are about the same as his brief adventures in the Navy lobbing depth charges at a mocked up submarine. So he was no more an expert at magic than he was a nucelar physicist. It would be better to say that he had a bit of exposure to the ideas rather than thinking he was any kind of an expert in these areas. He was really more of an adventurer with a sharp mind rather than a serious student of anything. And even the adventuring is light, being just enough to gather some seeds that could be blown up into fantastic pulp fiction tales. He'd go out in a glider first and then he'd whip up a ton of aviation stories. Really just a writer who wasn't afraid of getting his feet dirty to add a bit more realism to his stories. And the most fruitful dabbling was, of course, a bit of playing around with psychoanalyis. From the "Story of Dianetics and Scientology" tape we know that he was doing a bit of this at Oak Knoll, passing himself off as a doctor to a few of the patients and clerical staff while he was recovering from his "war wounds" (which according to his statement in the lecture were nothing more than having a bit of a limp, feeling depressed, and having his eyesight getting a bit weak). I would think that this was simply a bit more of his gathering of story ideas, and certainly one of those ideas wound up in the novel "Fear". And the general playing around as a doctor probably also found its way into the Old Doc Methusela stories. But a writer will mine an area for lots of stories, going at it from many different angles. So I imagine that Ron would have envisioned some kind of psychological super science for his next batch of stories, and we have Van Vogt's "Null A" and Russel's "Diabologic" as existing successful pulp stories along those lines. And what better than to imagine a sort of super mental state, a "clear", which had all the potentials of the mind unleased based on the premise that what any one mind could do must be an inherant capability of all minds if only they were used to their full potential. And so he dabbled some more, running people back through traumatic incidents, and with that he stumbled upon the easily repeatable Dianetic phenomena. It must have been a great big "Oh shit, this is real!". Not a scientific researcher but a kid at the candy shop saying "Wow, look what I found!" We all get a shadow of that in our early exposure to the subject, sitting there with a bag of trick well in advance of any thorough scientific progression. Out of this comes the Dianetics book, not at all well researched but instead a mixture of the futuristic speculation and the wild phenomena which were found and taken to be the proof that the speculation was correct. And the author is a pulp writer who just knows that it is the proper thing to exaggerate a few glider flights into wild tales of daring aviation. And so the dabbling is exaggerated into thorough research and the Dianetic boom is born only to flounder as the endless loose ends and difficulties became visible under actual use. And, as anyone who has had success with processing well knows, the biggest loose end was that most chains of incidents do not have basics in this lifetime but instead run back to earlier existances. With that, the whole applecart is overturned and Hubbard makes his own attempt to think this through scientifically, based on his vague understanding of what a scientist is supposed to do. The end result of this is the Theta/Mest theory of 1951 and the Dianetic Axioms. Again we do not have anything resembling thorough research, but we do have an attempt to formulate a logical structure that will explain the wild phenomena. But the vague Theta Mest theory and that first set of axioms leave even more loose ends than DMSMH, hinting at things without quite coming to grips with them. So there is more dabbling in past lives and more guesswork, and then he takes the brilliant step of formulating the Scientology axioms. And so we have the wild period of 1952-4 where these ideas are being researched and organized. Take a look at the Time Track of Theta lectures which FZBA posted to the net recently. Notice the statement (which I've quoted before) about taking anything that works in this area and adding it into Scientology. That is not an idle remark. That was an order which was implemented. The students were set to digging into metaphysics and finding things for Ron. In 1966 I was on course with a very old lady (I think she was in her eighties) who had been with Ron in the 1950s. She was still looking around for books (especially metaphysics) which would help in the research and whenever she found one she would buy a copy and mail it off to Ron. So in those early days other practices were tried and tested and anything which worked was fitted into the Scientology framework. But note that this was a small batch of students. Those early courses (ACCs etc.) usually only had about 20 or so students on them and there were only a small number of courses given in this time period. So what we really had was a light, cursory survey of what was around and easily available in metaphysics during the early 1950s. We gained a lot from it, but that research line was cut off far too quickly. And the scan of metaphysics was very shallow and lacking in expertise. An example is Kundalini and the chakra system. Somebody finds out a little about that (a particular system of 7 chakra), and Ron immediately assumes that the 7 chakras are just an altered perception of the 7 entities he was finding in the HCL lectures. He mentions that in the PDC lectures (somebody posted the quote recently). He never notices that the locations in the body, the properties, and the effects are quite different. Instead he has a know-it-all attitude and doesn't bother to look. So the ideas of metaphysics made their way into Scientology on a very hit or miss basis. And by the late 50s, Ron was already begining to turn his back on any other sources, and so that very fruitfull area of research was cut off. And by the late 60s, the research is blocked entirely by the foolish idea that we have all the answers despite never having made a stable OT. There is a lot to be gained by bringing more of the metaphsical ideas into the Scientology logical framework, devising processes, testing them, and expanding the horizons of the subject. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Wholetrack Car Bodies (attn NDC) WHOLETRACK CAR BODIES (Attn NDC) On 20 Oct 98, "N. D. Culver" replied to my post on "RUNNING RIDGES" > Pilot wrote: > > > > I picked a car and made it more solid. That was nice > > and easy. I've run that before. > > > > Then I made it less solid and turned on an incredible > > grief charge. I almost started crying and had no > > idea why. So I kept running the process. And after > > a little while the grief flattened and I realized > > that it had been restimulating the loss of home universe. > > You sure picked a good one. The automobile often represents > the physical human body in the universes just above this one. > > ndc My first reaction was "Naw, there's some heavy wholetrack significance on planes, trains, and automobiles, but they aren't body types". And then I stopped and thought of those kids stories where they have a steam locomotive with a face on the front like "the little engine that could". And the various cartoon cars that talk and so forth (as in "Who shot Rodger Rabbit"). And of course the famous old sci-fi story "Killdozer" (by Sturgeon if I remember correctly). So I think that you're right, there is something on this. But I would expect that its a lot further back than the next universe up, more likely about 4 or 5 universes ago. Unfortunately I can't do any better than clipping the edge of this one right now. Thanks, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Running Small Reads (attn Ralph) RUNNING SMALL READS On 3 Nov 98, ralph@hilton.org (Ralph Hilton) responded to Alonzo's post on "Additional Tech Question" > > On Tue, 03 Nov 1998 17:12:02 -0700, in alt.clearing.technology > > Alonzo Girthmeyer wrote: > > > #2. I seem to reacll some mention of the "By-passed Case" where items > > that read were not run because of 'no interest' on the part of the > > pc. This left much restimulated and un-handled charge on the case > > which actually drove the oca graphs down overall even though the PC > > may show wins on items run in which he had interest. > > You hit a biggie! > > The charge was restimulated below the level that the meter read at. It got > bypassed. > > Bad auditors don't see the small reads. > > That little D/N means there is more charge than on the instant LFBD. > > Always take up a small d/n. It is major charge and is more significant than an > LFBD F/N. > > > Finish off the LFBD and ack it then get the D/N. > > -- > > Ralph Hilton > http://Ralph.Hilton.org There's an LRH reference which says that only an ARC break will worsen a graph and I'm inclined to think that he was correct. If the pc says "no interest", then I doubt that you'll get an ARC break by skipping it although you might miss some potential gains. In other words, maybe the graph doesn't rise like it should, but I wouldn't expect it to go down. Seeing a graph crash, one would look for ARC breaks or out lists or wrong indications (especially from ethics handling) or heavy inval or suppression (not to blame somebody else but to see if somebody is giving the pc chronic ARC breaks). I would also check if there was a big loss or a heavy overrun (because of the inval which goes along with that). I would not look for bypassed case as a source because 99 percent of the person's case is being bypased anyway. That's just normal. If you only get a tiny read on something, then calling it was not very restimulative, it didn't bite hard. So skipping these does not leave the person very charged up. Ralph is correct in saying that the little D/N probably has more charge under it than the instant LFBD, but most of the charge is outside of the band of accessibility. And the things that don't read (most of the person's case) are the most heavily charged of all. But you don't try to run them. Its not just that you don't know what they are, its that the person has no hope of Itsaing them until he is further along. When I was first auditing, we took any change of needle characteristic as a read and handled it. That included those small d/ns and I had quite a bit of experience with running them. Then there was a transition period of a few months where we used any reaction when handling ruds, sec check questions, or doing a correction list but only took small falls or better on assessments and so forth. That was actually pretty workable. And finally we shifted over to small falls or better in all cases. This made the auditing a lot smoother. When you take up one of these small reads, you are at the very edge of what the pc can Itsa. It will take a long time and you have to be flawless because you have no safety margin, it is almost out of reach. If you are doing something where you come back over the same area again, such as a prepcheck, you can count on it showing up bigger and cleaner as you take off surrounding charge that is easier to reach. Or you can put in suppress and inval buttons and see if it cleans up and becomes easier to reach. There might be exceptions where you want to push the pc that hard, but the most likely is in doing a repair list, and in that case you would do the best reads first and should usually find that the poor reads have become good ones as you reassess. On a repair I would take one of these up if there is nothing reading better, it might be your only way in. Of course I believe in cycling around many times, taking the easy targets and moving quickly, that causes the next bunch of targets to graduate up to becoming easy. That only fails when you delude yourself into thinking that an area has been terminatedly handled down to rock bottom and thereby cease to ever go back and take it further. If you're far along, and know enough to roll your own processes while soloing, and can stand up to the randomity, you best handling on a d/n is to devise a process to raise your confront in the area, run it, and then recheck the question. Seeing a d/n on "was I Napoleon", one could run "get the idea of being/not being Napoleon" until one's confront came up on it, for example. But you can't do that with a low level pc, tossing in exra processes from left field in the middle of an action would be too rough. However you can save them up and run them later if you are running lots of processes in an area with a view towards handling something in a thorough manner. By the way, the old excuse for an oca graph worsening was that it was just a picture of a valence and the person had simply shifted valences or maybe even gone back into his own valence which was much lower scale that the false valence he was in. This goes back to the time before ARC breaks were properly understood (which didn't come about until the 1960s). This might be true occasionally, but I think that it was usually just an excuse to justify having made the pc worse with an ARC break in the time period when ARC Breaks were not understood. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - To Carol On 8th Dynamic TO CAROL ON 8TH DYNAMIC On 20 Oct 98, cbwillis@netcom.com (C. B. Willis) responded to my earlier post titled "ON EMOTION (ATTN CHRISTINE)" > : The message here is that all the phenomena about loss and > : secondaries are still kicking full force on my case despite > : all the various processing I've done. Definitely a missed > : area that needs to be followed up on. > : Affinity, > : The Pilot > > Process: > What losses have you had related to the 8th dynamic? > Tell me about them. > > - CBW A wonderful question. When I picked this post up I remember looking forward to trying it, but I was reading the newsgroups and so I just saved it in a directory for later follow up. Since then, I had that spectacular key out on the subject of loss (described in another of my posts), and nothing seems to react on the subject of loss. Instead of seeing losses in this area, I see things that move near and far, back an forth, connections to God or (better) an underlying oneness that lies between us and separations from it, symbols moving in and out. Based on the thought/emotion/effort theory, I'm thinking that the next more basic layer would be mental shocks on a purely thought level. "What shocks have you had in relation to the 8th dynamic" does seem like it would run. In fact, since I consider Scientology to be a religion, just reading ARS provides quite a few of those. Going early this lifetime, I went to kindergarden at a Catholic school down the block from where I lived (I wasn't Catholic, it was just convienient) and they took us into the main church one day (not the first day I was there) and I remember being shocked at the feeling of "presence" I got when I walked in. It scared me, actually, that there was something there because I figured that it wouldn't like me because I wasn't Catholic. Quite funny in retrospect, but it was a real mental impact at the time. There's lots more here to run, but spotting that left me feeling quite good and cheerful so I'll take the win and set the area aside for now. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Continuing On The Chakras (attn Lightnin) CONTINUING ON THE CHAKRAS (Attn Lightnin) On Oct 21, lightnin80@aol.com (Lightnin80) continued the discussion with a post titled "Lightnin's response to Pilot re: Chakras" > >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. > > Hi Pilot > > Lightnin here > > Pilot Jim suggested premature Kundalini > was the problem, I responded as the resident > Chakra guy. > > I also made refernce to the Chakra tuning > as Jim mentioned touch assists, not as a > remedy to Lisa's problem. Got it. > > (the following paragraph is from an earlier Pilot post) > >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 you still lack a great deal of understanding when it comes > to Chakras and Kundalini. Maybe so but I'm not sure that anybody has this area really right. A lot of the Chakra books are vague fumblings around in the dark as far as I'm concerned. I took a drill that Ron had used on GE anchor points and applied to the chakras and it worked really fast. You just mockup chakras around the body for awhile and then the body starts pulling them in and then the real ones become visible and you can see what their positions are. And some seemed out of position and could be coaxed into place with a light flow of energy. And if you do a bit of that (feeding mockups) over your head, the crown chakra will slide up there and seems to have a natural position that it clicks into. Now that took me less than an hour rather than years of meditation. Unfortunately that does not make me an expert. I got lucky on comeing up with a few nifty processes (see chapter 10 of super scio and other stuff I've posted on the subject) but I've only scratched the surface on these things. Now I would expect that a real expert would have a trunk full of techniques like this and be able to produce big gains quickly. I do not know, but I do suspect that if anybody had full mastery of these they would be capable of miraculous healings easily and at will. I don't think anybody's there yet. And I'm pretty sure that anyone who is working a system of 6 or 7 rather than 8 with one overhead is drilling them in a collapsed and degraded position. > Postulates are a mental projection using > the Third Eye Chakra. The chakras were mocked up originally. In other words they were postulated into existance. Postulates come first and are senior. But the chakras may help in getting a postulate into reality, acting as a bridge between theta and mest. I've barely dabbled with this, but a postulate projected from the crown chakra overhead has orders of magnitude more strenght than one made from lower down in the system. > At times I wonder if what I refer to as Chakras > are what others are identifying as the Chakra > system, some have made comments as to the > Chakras spinning. There is an energy system there. It has motion in it. There may be more than one motion. I found the spinning most obvious, but now instead of a single spinning in a chakra I seem to sense multiple spinnings in different directions (bands going opposite ways) and other motions like clouds shifting around. My perceptions are far from full in this area, there may be much more here, but I do not think that there is less. But there may also be things here besides the energy system. One person might see a car's engine running and another might see the smooth contour of the car's body. It is common for this to be referred to as the subtile energy system and energy implies motion. > The areas that I work with don't spin, they are > more like windows or shutters that are either > open or closed and can take in as well as > emanate experience. Now you are talking about something other than the usual descriptions. In physics, we have electrons and photons. I would not say that the chakras are electrical, but I would say that as electrons relate to photons, so too might the subtle energy system relate to a parallel subtle observation system. Here we again need to see the elephant. One blind man feels the tusks and the other feels the trunk and both are part of the larger whole which has not yet been percieved. I had not thought or heard of this observational aspect before, but during my brief playing around with kundalini I was sensing flows coming in and out of these and to have perceptions on such channels would make a lot of sense. I seem to get something just contemplating your windows statement, like one could look into each of these and see a clear pool in which one would see things, but its unstable and disorienting and some drill is probably needed. > And it is more about experience than it is > energy, although you and others seem to > imediately tag Chakras as handling or > manipulating energy. The tusks vs the trunk. You're working a different aspect of the system. > I would only suggest that there is a concept > at the Third Eye that is like a Chakra System > and in that case energy is really all your dealing with. > > This is not uncommon I find many with this > sort of bypass mechanism that goes straight > from the Root Chakra to the Third Eye and > is generally a defense mechanism for the > very painful emotional part of the experience > that needs to pass thru the Heart Chakra. > > I think you may have a much better understanding of Chakras > if you parallel it with the scale of case adress, where the > experience moves thru these different points > such as matter effort, emotion and on up. > > Most know of my rejection of the idea > that you are not your body, it is in my > opinion an aspect of self and has like > the ARC triangle an inextricable relationship > within the Vedic understanding borrowed > by LRH of Spirit Mind and Body. > > As far as the Chakra tuning I'd say get > one yourself, its well worth the reseach > time. > > As for the notes I'll find out for you ;) > > Lightnin The notes might be very helpful. I'm planning to pick them out on my piano for a start just to get in the right area. And I'm extremely good at mocking up sounds (I can replay music in my head and its like listening to a tape recorder with all the details present). So I figured that the thing to do is mockup a note in or around a chakra and then shift it around a bit until I feel it slide into the natural position. As I write this I'm noticing that I can sense a deep earth sound within the root chakra. I can purify that so that it is smoother (less minor dissonances at variance with the main wave) and that seems to make the body feel stronger. Now it seems to me that I can tilt the sound in some strange manner. So I try it and the whole body feels like it is tilted sideways. I have no idea what I am doing at this point so I'm going to drop it for now. But it was the wildest sensation, like the earth gravity had shifted to a thirty degree angle instead of being up and down. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Computer Meter Continued (attn Nic) COMPUTER METER CONTINUED (Attn Nic) On 22 Oct 98, nic@mindwalker.co.uk (Nic Ford) responded to my earlier post about his demo meter program. The subject line was "PILOT meter demo reply" > Here is some clarification on the issues raised by the Pilot (post38) > concerning my meter computer interface demo program. > > As mentioned in the accompanying instructions, many details are incorrect > (infact more than I originally thought) but I wanted to generate some > interest and communication on the subject now rather than wait. I will be > doing a better version of the demo in the very near future and admit that > as it stands it is rather confusing. At the moment I do not write the > software myself so I am dependent on another for any changes and bug fixes, > so the process takes longer. > > 1. The bar is meant to show TA position (I like the word Baseline - it > is more meaningful) and the numbering is wrong. > > 2 The dual dial configuration was an experimental setup which may > appear in later versions of the software. It was not meant to be > accessible on the demo! > > 3 Some sort of help facility will certainly be available on the final > product > > 4 Sliding scale sensitivity would be easy to implement - also on > other meters I have designed (Ability Meters) but I have no data on the > quantum - ie how much does it boost sensitivity at various TA settings? I > would welcome more information on this. Unfortunately I don't have a Quantum (I only have an old mark 6 which is on its last legs). Ideal would be for somebody who has a number of meters to do a benchmark. For each TA number (2, 3, etc.), place the appropriate resistance across the cans (5,000 ohms etc.), adjusting slightly if needed to get the needle exactly on set, and then see how much resistance has to be added to deflect the needle exactly 1 inch at sensitivity 1 and post the results. This would give us both the relative sensitivity of different meters and also give us the equation for sensitivity at different TA positions. I don't know that the same equation applies to the Mark 5, 6, & 7 nothing to say of the Quantum, and this may vary even if all had the same needle deflection at sen 1 and TA 2.0, which they probably don't. I would think that the older meters deflect in proportion to the number of ohms at set, in other words, if the needle is at set at 5000 ohms and then is deflected by 500 ohms, the deflection would be the same size (same size read) as if you had it at 10000 ohms and deflected it by 1000 ohms, in other words, the read is based on a percentage change in the resistance. On the other hand, I would expect that the Quantum is using the ohms of deflection as an absolute, in other words a 500 ohm deflection would be the same size read at TA 2.0 as at 4.0. I could see arguments in favor of either system, and I'm only guessing at this, we need charts of various meter deflections as suggested above so that we can firm this up. And then we need an accumulation of real experience comparing different systems, and that is best done by using a computer meter where it is easy to shift between systems. > 5 I do not cater for replaying at a different sensitivity than the > recording. Something to plan for the future, perhaps in a second version, it would be a nice feature. > 6 I am making the software as efficient as possible so that lower end > machines will work OK. > > The limiting factor may be screen refresh rate rather than CPU speed. > It is difficult to calculate in advance the performance on various > machine configurations, but a more sophisticated demo program would > be the easiest way to determine the suitability of any particular > computer. As I mentioned, I only saw problems when running Win95 on a 486. I would assume that a Pentium would be fine in all cases and that a 486 is fine as long as it isn't running Win95 (I would assume that even Win NT would be OK on a 486 with enough memory). > 7 The unpredictable world of Windows can be tackled when the > interface is proven under DOS - then the customer has a choice. Probably > Windows for solo, more reliable DOS for clients! Yes, exactly. I suspect that even a Pentium 300 doesn't have enough CPU power to update the screen fast enough if you used Visual Basic or even Visual C++ for a true Windows Program. The only fast realtime graphics I've seen under windows were obviously not using the MFC (Microsoft Foundation Class) or any high level functions (in other words, the controls and imaging were completely non-standard) but seem to have done their own low level bitmap generation and only used low level Win API calls to toss the bitmaps up on the screen. Definitely something for later rather than a first release. > 8 Certainly for a number of years the mouse on computers has been the > PS/2 variety, and I had assumed that for the majority of users this would > be the case. Of course the port could be specified as part of the command > line when first running the program, which would avoid any problems. I haven't seen or heard of a computer that had a PS/2 mouse in years, I thought they'd stopped making them altogether. IBM finally gave up on Microchannel when PCI came out. None of the PCI motherboards I know of come with a unique mouse port, all of them use COM1 for the mouse. > I think I have addressed all issues raised, > > Best wishes, Nic Ford > > Nic Ford > The Computer Film Company Excellent. I'm very enthusiastic about this. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - BREAKTHROUGH ON LOSS BREAKTHROUGH ON LOSS For years now I have been theorizing that there should be a clear-like state attainable on the subject of loss. In Dianetic clear, one gains confront of the force in mental pictures to the point where one becomes aware that one is mocking the force up and ceases to be the effect of it. Although it is far from the end of case and abberation, it is still one hell of a good state and the gains are immense. And knowing about it in theory is not the same as actually gaining that level of confront and awareness. And the charge associated with loss would have to run earlier than that associated with force based on the pattern of thought - emotion - effort suggested by Ron in 1952. The early godlike being could not suffer loss (he could mock things up again) or pain (you can't hit a thetan) and so the first abberations are only possible in the areas of thought (the grades). Then would come loss and only much later would come pain and impact. Furthermore, the basics tell us that he must be creating his own losses or else it would not be possible to run them out by processing. But I've been banging around for years on these ideas without really coming to grips with them. The state comes about by actual confront and awareness rather than simply through idle speculation. But I kept coming back to the area and getting a bit further each time. And the last push seems to have carried me over the hump. Now I think that I've finally made it, and everything seems different. It's like looking at things in a new light. This is definitely one of the biggies, comparable to clear and clear-OT. Since then I've been looking back at losses on the track and they seem funny. They look like illusions, wierd tricks I played on myself. It's just wild. And I have to thank the discussions on ACT, and especially Christine's recent post for giving me the last push to get me through this area. Some people may be able to get this just by following along with me here as I explain how I got there. Or you can run a simple gradient of confronting losses until you make it. These things are much easier once you have a road map. In retrospect, everything here is obvious and it is amazing to me that I couldn't see this before. But the charge on loss makes it hard to think about loss and so one has trouble seeing why one is creating the losses. First, of course, is confronting losses on a gradient until one can really confront loss. The fast route would be to simply run minor and then bigger and bigger major losses with the emphasis being on raising confront rather than trying to errase the effects of a particular loss. You could do that by incident running or by using the First ACC assist of blowing up mockups of the lost terminal or any other technique that raises confront while blowing charge on the area. If you look back at my responses to Christine, you'll see that I was doing a good bit of the blowing up process recently, and I've run quite a few losses as incidents at various times. And I took that a bit further and I was at a point where I had a pretty good confront of losses. But there was still a lot of charge in the area, and I had only confronted some specific losses rather than having confronted the general area of loss. So I decided that I was ready to try and raise my confront of the topic on a broader basis. As a first step, based on general theory, I came up with - a) get the idea of having more losses b) get the idea of having less losses I ran this in my usual sloppy manner in idle moments over the course of a few days. It sort of flattened to a win. So the next day I decided to do a stronger version of this process and really do it with a vengance, giving the area a hard push. I ran "mockup having endless incredible horrible losses" alternated with "mockup never loosing anything", and did each one with a tremendous amount of space and people and mass in my visualization. And the whole damn thing fell apart almost instantly. On the second command I realized "my god, what if I never ever lost a wife or a girlfriend but just kept on aquiring them, more and more forever and they all hung around and nagged at me, it would be total overwhelm". If you never lost anything, you would be burried in your own Mest. Now of course you can simply throw things away, cleaning out the attic so to speak. As long as you can do that, you're fine. But what if you're not supposed to throw some things away, or you can't confront doing it. Now you need an external cause. This mechanism cannot develop until the person already has problems and overts. He has to want to loose something (as a solution to a problem) and yet be unwilling to be responsible for loosing it (he is wishing that some external force would bump off his wife or something like this). And so he then postulates external cause out of his control which will cause him to suffer losses. And because he was unwilling to be responsible for getting rid of the terminal or object himself, and mocked up an external cause that was out of his control, he now has an ongoing postulate which he is unwilling to confront which causes him to continue to suffer losses. In other words he has put the postulate there and then said it wasn't his postulate and never reached out again and confronted it to stop it so it just keeps going. And he solves that one by dramatizing must haves to remedy the losses instead of confronting his earlier intentions to have a loss. I'm still having cognitions on this one. It feels like a terrible weight has been lifted from ny shoulders. To handle a specific loss, you might look for times on the track when you wanted a loss like that to happen to you, and then confront the details, especially the hidden and irresponsible postulates that you made. When a child looses a parent, they generally think that its their fault. Its because they have old postulates out there about bumping off parents. It might not be on the current parent. The important point is the postulate that they made which included a denial of responsibility for the postulate. In other words, they wanted someone to die but didn't want to do it themselves. They just hoped for an external source, and therefore they left the postulate out of control. This opens up an entire area of postulating external causes out of your control for various reasons (not just loss). Note that you can postulate an inflow without doing that. And you can have the variety of enjoying others creations without making the postulate that you can't control other people. Leaving something uncontrolled for variety is quite different from putting a mockup out there and intentionally abandoning responsibility for it. I'm specifically talking here about intentionally setting something in motion and then not-ising your causation in doing that so that it runs out of control. All of this left me feeling very exterior to the whole subject and at cause over the losses I've experienced. My gut feeling was that you do create your own losses. But of course I tend to play devils advocate and Doubting Thomas, so my next cynical idea was "well yes, but what about REAL losses". So I grabbed the incident of my father's death. Obviously a real loss. I've run it before, and the charge had been pretty cooled down, but there had been some mass remaining on it. And I looked at it again to see how it seemed now that I've had that big cog on loss. And the charge was gone and it looked really different as follows: The being who had been my father was obviously not lost but simply off somewhere else and playing different games (at least if any of our theories about theta are correct). What had been lost was the valence of "a father", in other words, a role that that being had chosen to play for awhile. And the loss of that valence had completely fallen apart with the above cognition. As I looked at it again, I had this exterior view of an entire track where that parent valence comes and goes, sometimes desirable and sometimes undesirable, and worn by various beings at different times. And there were times when I wanted that valence and times when I didn't and both of those were fine and workable. And then there were the times when I didn't want it but was stuck with it (perhaps an undesirable drunken and abusive father) and couldn't get rid of it and so postulated an external source getting rid of them for me. And then there were the times when I wanted such a valence and couldn't have it and that must have/can't have was a consequence of the earlier must/can't get rid of. With that it seemed to me that a being doesn't actually need havingness. He mocks up what he wants when he wants it, at least high on the scale. If you can just mock things up, you don't bother mocking up tons of something, you just mockup a really nice one, and only when you want it around. But once you've launched all sorts of postulates out of control which give you losses, then you have to have lots and lots of stuff because you keep loosing it. Then the havingness level becomes important. But its a solution to a problem rather than being a basic. What happens is that one continually mocks up losses for oneself, and launches them out of control, and then one looses the wrong things because uncontrolled postulates often hit the wrong targets. It's like that joke which was on the net recently about the mailbomber who uses insufficient postage and gets the package returned to him. And opens it up to see what it is ... Inch by inch the pattern is unravelling. Best, 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. ------------------