Date: 7 May 1999 04:00:18 Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology From: pilot@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (The Pilot) Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 54 - 1/2 EARLY MAY 99 PILOT POSTS TO ARS/ACT POST54.txt SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 54 - 1/2 EARLY MAY 99 PILOT POSTS TO ARS/ACT The first few, down to the humor post, were to ARS & ACT, the remainder were to ACT only. The remaining posts to ACT are in post55. ========================================== Contents: subj : Super Scio - Thanking Paul Misiunas subj : Super Scio - MAY 8 DIANETICS EVENT subj : Super Scio - A LIST OF FZ BIBLE POSTS subj : Super Scio - Answering 8 Way On Hidden Standards subj : Super Scio - Answering Mike On E-Meter Assessments subj : Super Scio - On Ayn Rand (Attn Roy) subj : Super Scio - What's In Store For Miscavige (Attn F. Rice) subj : Super Scio - Answering Mark On Old OT VI subj : Super Scio - To Russ Shaw On The Freezone (Attn Safe) subj : Super Scio - Answering Stickwork on Scn & Religion subj : Super Scio - HUMOR: THE ETHICS TIME PATROL subj : Super Scio - Freezone International (Attn Ralph) subj : Super Scio - Carbon-14 subj : Super Scio Tech - On Solo Itsa (Attn Les, Thomlove, Alan etc.) subj : Super Scio Tech - To Aaron On Collapsed Space, Self Clearing, etc. ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Thanking Paul Misiunas THANKING PAUL MISIUNAS Back in 1997, Paul simply appeared out of the blue and created the original fza.org Freezone America website. It was with great pleasure that I discovered that he not only put up the Super Scio book (this was before Self Clearing was written), but also was beginning to collect my posts and make them available. It was for this reason that I began to collect my posts together into the archive posts that you see today. If you like those, then you have Paul to thank for providing the impetus and for doing all the work to web the tables of contents and make zips of them available. The Pilot's guestbook with its pertinent questions was his creation (yes, I read it and enjoy it) and he put up R & T's Self Clearing diaries (another pleasant surprise for me). And it wasn't just my works, but the works of many others. For example, he was the first one to get Trom up on the net. And let's not forget the discussion boards, which have grown and grown. Bascially he set up a central clearinghouse for information and he did it without any prejudice and without the backing of any organization. This is rare for such as large and comprehensive site, the only other one that comes to mind is Homer's famous clearing archives at lightlink. And nobody asked him to do this. He simply saw a need and took on the responsibility. For that I think we all owe him our thanks. Now that he feels it is time to move on, I think that we should all wish him well, or give him a hearty welcome if he should choose to join the fray again. The rumors are that somebody might be taking over maintenance of the fza.org site and I certainly hope that this important resource will remain with us. And Ralph is busily working to setup Freezone International, which I am also heartily looking forwards to. Really we need both. Having multiple sites reduces the likelyhood of attacks, ensures stability, and adds to the richness of creation. So here is a big thank you to Paul. Wishing him all the best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - MAY 8 DIANETICS EVENT MAY 8 DIANETICS EVENT Just incase anybody hasn't gotten the word yet - The "May 9" Dianetic anniversary event is going to be on Saturday, May 8 this year. Shrine Auditorium, 655 W. Jefferson Blvd, LA Doors open 6:30, Event starts 7:30. Promo item: "For 4.7 Billion People, The adventure is about to begin ...". There will be an LRH film release. Tickets have to be reserved - 323-953-3347. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - A LIST OF FZ BIBLE POSTS A LIST OF FZ BIBLE POSTS There have been quite a few freezone bible posts over the last year or so. There seem to be a number of posters contributing to this. I've seen names like FZBH or Tech Lover or Voice of Free Scientology, all using the FZ Bible mission statement. I've seen at least one of the many postings of the Nots go by with an FZB mission statement and there have been lots of small posts of PABs etc. which I've lost track of. But here are all the tape transcripts and big course packs that I've seen go by. FZ BIBLE 1/2 ROLE OF EARTH >This is the famous Role of Earth tape from the SOP >lectures of 1952. Posted in 2 parts. 5210C30A SOP8A (SOP lectures number 8A). (this was reposted recently with both parts combined into one). FZ BIBLE 1/3 ERRORS IN TIME >This is a companion piece to the Between Lives Implant >Tape which is already available on the internet. 6307C18 SHSBC-287 renumbered SHSBC-316 FZ BIBLE 1/12 CLEARING CONGRESS >This is the 1958 Clearing Congress, consisting of 6 >lectures on the state of clear and how to attain it. >Each tape will be in 2 parts giving 12 parts in total. 5807C04 CC-1 THE FACT OF CLEARING 5807C04 CC-2 THE FACTORS OF CLEARING 5807C04 CC-3 THE FREEDOMS OF CLEAR 5807C05 CC-4 PREREQUISITES TO AUDITING 5807C05 CC-5 CLEAR PROCEDURE, CCH-0, HELP 5807C05 CC-6 CLEAR PROCEDURE, CREATIVENESS FZ BIBLE 1/4 TIME TRACK OF THETA >These 4 half hour lectures were previously available on 2 >one hour reels as part of the Hubbard College Lectures (HCL). >They were HCL-19 and HCL-20 of 10 MAR 52 and were titled >History of Man Series 1 to 4 (2 parts per lecture). > >The individual titles were: >HofM Series 1 - Organization of Data >HofM Series 2 - Main Theta Line & Sub Theta Line >HofM Series 3 - Theta and Genetic Lines of Earth >HofM Series 4 - Principal Incidents of the Theta Line FZ BIBLE 1/3 SHSBC-392 TRACK AND BANK ANATOMY >Originally numbered ShSpec-29. 14 JUL 64. >This lecture has been made CONFIDENTIAL and is not in >the SHSBC cassettes. FZ BIBLE 1/2 2ACC19B BODIES 9 DEC 53 FZ BIBLE TAPE 2ACC-23A CAUSE AND EFFECT FZ BIBLE 1/3 3RD ACC Tape 6 SYMBOLS & GROUP PROC FZ BIBLE TAPE 3ACC-8 COMMUNICATION FZ BIBLE 1/2 3ACC44 EXT COURAGE & SERENITY FZ BIBLE 1/2 OS-11 CONSEQUENCES OF ORGANIZATION FZ BIBLE 1/2 OS-15 MONEY 6 DEC 56 FZ BIBLE 1/13 ROUTE TO INFINITY TAPES (The TECH 80 LECTURES) >1/13 19 MAY 52 Beingness >2/13 19 MAY 52 Outline of Technique 80 (1) >3/13 19 MAY 52 Outline of Technique 80 (2) >4/13 19 MAY 52 Wavelengths of ARC (1) >5/13 19 MAY 52 Wavelengths of ARC (2) >6/13 20 MAY 52 Decision (1) >7/13 20 MAY 52 Decision (2) >8/13 20 MAY 52 Decision: Cause and Effect >9/13 21 MAY 52 Therapy Section of 80: Part I (1) >10/13 21 MAY 52 Therapy Section of 80: Part I (2) >11/13 21 MAY 52 Therapy Section of 80: Part II (1) >12/13 21 MAY 52 Therapy Section of 80: Part II (2) & Appendix >13/13 About the Author, Glossary, Bibliography FZ BIBLE 1/3 SHSBC-344 ITSA MAKER LINE FZ BIBLE 7thACC Tape 11 THINGS IN TIME AND SPACE FZ BIBLE 7thACC Tape 12 LAUGHTER IN PROCESSING FZ BIBLE 1/4 HPC TAPES 1952 (Fdn Business & HofM Incidents) FZ BIBLE 1/2 TAPE PDC-3 E-METER DEMO 1 DEC 52 FZ BIBLE 1/10 HCL TAPES of 1952, FIRST SECTION >These are the first 10 lectures in the HUBBARD COLLEGE >LECTURES (HCL) Series of early 1952. This is based >both on the transcripts in R&D volume 10 and an old >reel-to-reel set of the tapes. > >1. HCL-1 3 MAR 52 SCIENTOLOGY MILESTONE ONE >2. HCL-2 3 MAR 52 OUTLINE OF THERAPY >3. HCL-2A 3 MAR 52 DEMONSTRATION OF E-METER >4. HCL-3 4 MAR 52 THE AXIOMS AND HOW THEY APPLY TO AUDITING >5. HCL-4 4 MAR 52 THOUGHT, EMOTION AND EFFORT >6. HCL-SPEC 4 MAR 52 DISCOVERY OF FACSIMILE ONE >7. HCL-6 SPEC 5 MAR 52 AUDITING FACSIMILE ONE (demo session) >8. HCL-5 5 MAR 52 THOUGHT AND PRECLEARS >9. HCL-6 5 MAR 52 EMOTION >10. HCL-6A 5 MAR 52 WHOLE TRACK FACSIMILES FZ BIBLE 0/10 HCL TAPES PART 2 (1952) - CONTENTS >These are the second 10 lectures in the HUBBARD COLLEGE >LECTURES (HCL) Series of early 1952. > >1. HCL-7 6 MAR 52 EFFORT AND COUNTER-EFFORT >2. HCL-8 6 MAR 52 ATTACK ON THE PRECLEAR >3. HCL-9 7 MAR 52 FACSIMILES: HOW TO HANDLE RECORDINGS >4. HCL-10 7 MAR 52 INDOCTRINATION OF THE PRECLEAR >5. HCL-11 8 MAR 52 RESOLUTION OF EFFORT_AND COUNTER-EBFORT: OVERT ACTS >6. HCL-12 8 MAR 52 INDOCTRINATION IN THE USE OF THE EMETER >7. HCL-13 9 MAR 52 THOUGHT, EMOTION, & EFFORT AND COUNTER-EFFORT >8. HCL-14 9 MAR 52 DEMO: EFFORT, COUNTER-EFFORT, STRAIGHTWIRE >9. HCL-15 10 MAR 52 TRAINING AUDITORS: THE ANATOMY OF FAC ONE >10. HCL-17 10 MAR 52 RUNNING EFFORT AND COUNTER-EFFORT FZ BIBLE - BATTLE OF THE UNIVERSES - CONFIDENTIAL TAPE > HCL-SPEC ELECTROPSYCHOMETRIC SCOUTING: BATTLE OF THE UNIVERSES FZ BIBLE 0/35 SOLUTION TO ENTRAPMENT 9TH ACC > December 1954 to January 1955 in Phoenix, Arizona. A huge set of 35 lectures. FZBH 1/6 CONQUEST OF CHAOS TAPES (1955) >1. ALS-1 23 AUG 55 THE AUDITOR'S PUBLIC >2. ALS-2 23 AUG 55 AXIOM 53: THE AXIOM OF THE STABLE DATUM >3. ALS-3 30 AUG 55 RUGGED INDIVIDUALISM >4. ALS-4 30 AUG 55 UNION STATION - R2-46 >5. ALS-5 14 SEP 55 THE UNKNOWN DATUM - A MEST SHAKING LECTURE >6. ALS-6 14 SEP 55 POSTULATES 1,2,3,4 IN PROCESSING - NEW > UNDERSTANDING OF AXIOM 36 FZBH 1/5 SECRETS OF MEST UNIVERSE TAPES (1952) >1. LS-1/3 6 NOV 52 METHODS OF RESEARCH - THE THETAN AS AN ENERGY UNIT >2. LS-2/3 7 NOV 52 METHODS OF RESEARCH - FORCE AS HOMO SAPIENS > AND AS THETAN - RESPONSIBILITY >3. LS-4A 14 NOV 52 METHODS OF RESEARCH - BE, HAVE AND DO, PART I > TIME, SPACE, ENERGY IN RELATION TO DO >4. LS-4B 14 NOV 52 METHODS OF RESEARCH - BE, HAVE AND DO, PART II >5. LS-5 ? 16 NOV 52 METHODS OF RESEARCH - SELF-DETERMINISM AND > CREATION OF UNIVERSES FREE SCN 1/4 CLEARING COURSE MATERIALS > THE MATERIALS OF GRADE 5 THROUGH OT II FZ Tech Lover 0/11 Level 0 Academy Pack > Here is a complete Level 0 Academy pack from the 1970s > being posted in 11 parts. FZ Tech Lover 0/7 Level 0 Tapes >SHSBC Lectures - (old & new lecture numbers shown) > > Old New DAte > >1. 148 162 May 24,1962 E METER DATA: INSTANT READS PART I >2. 149 163 May 24,1962 E METER DATA: INSTANT READS PART II >3. 290 319 Jul 25,1963 COMM CYCLES IN AUDITING >4. 291 320 Aug 6,1963 AUDITING COMM CYCLES >5. 296 325 Aug 20,1963 THE ITSA LINE >6. 297 326 Aug 21,1963 THE ITSA LINE (CONT.) >7. 5 366 Feb 6,1964 THE COMMUNICATION CYCLE IN AUDITING FZ TechLover 0/16 CLASS VIII CONFIDENTIAL COURSE PACK > Here is a complete Confidential Class VIII course pack > circa 1980 being posted in 16 parts. Although not done with the FZB mission statement, there have also been transcripts of the PDC tapes (missing a few like PDC-3 which was posted by fzba) up on the net. And the CofS has put ONE tape up on the web, that is "The story of Dianetics and Scientology", which is a nice and entertaining tape. It can be found at their www.scientology.org site. Although FZBA is over a hundred times more effective than CofS at spreading LRH tapes, the single contribution by CofS should be validated. At least they have done something. ============== The bible enthusiasts are to be congradulated. They have gotten well over a hundred tapes onto the net so far. But its just a drop in the bucket. Theres lots more left to go. Common everybody, get those scanners busy. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Answering 8 Way On Hidden Standards ANSWERING 8 WAY ON HIDDEN STANDARDS On 11 Apr 99, "8.Way" asked on topic "Q to Pilot" > Is your hole research and alteriss of the scn bridge a solution to a > hidden standard regarding the state of OT? (ref: An expranded bridge) No. My standard for OT is the well known standard definition issued by LRH. "Total cause over matter, energy, space, time, thought, and life". To this I would add the Tone 40 concept of willingness to be both cause and effect and say that one could also experience any effect without consequences and enjoy doing so. And I would further clarify this by adding in Ron's concept that we all get out together, and therefore conclude that one must also be willing for everyone else to achieve this same level of total cause / effect at thier own will. From this I conclude that at the top we will create many realities, intersecting or varying as needed to suit our various whims and desires and games and ARC and individuality and so forth. In other words, co-existance of static rather than the current enforced reality of the MEST universe. That is my standard for real OT, and it is not at all hidden. ========== Taking this from another angle, the case manifestation of a HIDDEN standard is that the pc evaluates his gains based on it, and as a consequence will invalidate good gains if the hidden standard does not change. We handle this, on the Green Form, with "What would have to happen for you to know Scientology works?" This reveals the hidden standard that the pc has been using to judge his progress. I already know that the tech works. I don't judge my gains exclusively on the basis of the above definition of OT. Therefore it is not acting as a "hidden standard" in the technical sense. Instead, it is a highly desirable target that I am working towards. ========== It should be obvious that we are still quite far from this target of full OT. This should not be taken as an invalidation of the progress we have made, the advances are enourmous. But it is simply to say that the bridge is only partially built. My continued research could be looked upon as a solution to the problem of having to finish a job that was left half done. But it's a big job, the biggest one ever undertaken actually. Therefore it would be wrong to blame others for the incompleteness. Instead one rolls up ones sleeves and helps carry the work forward. Someday you will sit at the top of an incomplete bridge. When that day comes, will you sit around whinning and nattering or blaming the SPs or praying for the second comming, or will you lend a hand in furthering the research? I am taking responsibility. Time to wake up. ---------- PS. I noticed you complaining about the upper level materials at http://www.b-org.demon.nl/scn/upper-levels/ > It is an overt to publish such incomplete OT-levels. Why do you promote > that? What is your intentions? Indeed there could be more comprehensive versions up on web pages, there have certainly been better ones in the newsgroup. If you feel so strongly, please email them better materials and encourage them to put them up. The Class VIII pack that was posted recently has maximum quality complete copies of ALL OT III materials, even C/Sing materials. Let's get 'em up on the web. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Answering Mike On E-Meter Assessments ANSWERING MIKE ON E-METER ASSESSMENTS On 28 Apr 99, lepton@panix.com (Mike O'Connor) asked ARS/ACT on subject "FZ TechLover 12/16 CLASS VIII CONFIDENTIAL COURSE PACK" > In article , Secret > Squirrel wrote: Actually an FZ bible post by TechLover using the secret squirrel anon remailer. > [...] > C-6 ARE YOU LYING TO PEOPLE? _________ > [...] > C-7 DO YOU HAVE SECRETS? _________ > [...] > C-8 ARE YOU HERE FOR REASONS NOT DISCLOSED? _________ > [...] > C-9 DO YOU HAVE AN EVIL PURPOSE? _________ > [...] > > I've been wondering, when you are in a session and are asked questions, > are you supposed to answer verbally? Does your answer matter? Or is it > only the reaction on the E-Meter that is significant? Thanks! > > -- > Mike O'Connor - lepton@panix.com > The above is an "assessment" where the auditor is checking a list of many possible topics for an e-meter read. This is a little different than the normal case where one is really asking the pc for answers to a processing question because some (or all) of the above questions might not have any charge on them. If the topic has no charge on it, then it is just a waste of auditing time for the pc to chatter about it, he can do that in the coffee shop far more cheeply. If, however, it does read on the e-meter, just having it react on the meter doesn't do the pc any good either. You might as well be auditing a turnip for all the good that that would do. The way this works is that when the auditor sees something react on the meter, he then gets the pc to talk about it. If it is a charged topic and the pc starts talking immediately without waiting for the auditor, that is fine because the auditor would have had to encourage the pc to talk anyway. Usually on seeing a read, the auditor just asks the question again while staring at the pc expectantly to coax a verbal response. In the old days we used to tell the person that it read or was clean on the meter, but that was later dropped as being too evaluative and fixates the pc's attention too much onto the e-meter. If, however, it did not read and the pc starts talking anyway, then the auditor must determine if it is a charged topic or whether they are just wasting time. If the pc is babling on about every question, without any charge showing up, then the auditor would want him to quite down and wait for a charged topic. But he wouldn't want to tell the pc to shut up because he does need the pc's interest and attention to get the meter to read and it is also possible to miss reads or for a topic to be suppressed or invalidated which will obscure the read on it. In that case (if the pc starts talking when the meter didn't read), the auditor can check if it was suppressed or invalidated and seeing a reaction on that, would then take up the topic. Of course there is also the problem of an auditor simply missing reads (that gets him in trouble). And then there is the special case where the read is equivocal (uncertain) because, perhaps, the pc moved around just at the end of the question and knocked the needle off the dial with body motion. In that case the auditor would normally recheck the question, but maybe the pc has started talking a blue streak because it was a really hot topic with him and the auditor doesn't want to cut the pc off to recheck the question. Personally I would assume that it read if the meter continued reading and the TA was moving as the pc talked, and if it wasn't I'd shift back to rechecking the question with a gentle acknowledgement (because we might really have to take the question up). But this is a grey area where an auditor can get hung for doing it either way in orthodox standard tech. In the original 1968 standard tech an equivocal read always got you thrown overboard because it was part of the "infinity of wrongness" and there was no standard handling, but things mellowed out later. Hope this clears things up, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - On Ayn Rand (Attn Roy) ON AYN RAND (Attn Roy) On 11 Apr 99, "computeruser" posted on subject "Why is Ayn Rand banned reading for Scientologists?" > from INSIDE SCIENTOLOGY by Robert Kaufman > Copyright 1972 by The Olympia Press, Inc. > page 187 > > ¿But sooner or later SP* orders would be placed on the shops that didnÚt > choose to be outlets for RonÚs** books, and I had heard certain writers´Ayn > Rand and Lobsang Rampa among them > ´classified as suppressive, their books forbidden reading matter. ¿ > > > * In the Back of this book there is a section called ¿Dictionary of > ScientologeseÀ in this section the term SP: Suppressive. > > > ** L. Ron Hubbard > > Does anyone on this newsgroup know the specifics of why Ayn Rand was banned > reading for Scientologists? Bob got it slightly wrong. I was around when he was on lines and I knew and liked him, but he was public rather than staff and sometimes people misquote or alter things (he might have been told this by some staff member who did not himself have it right). Ayn Rand was not declared suppressive and her books were not considered suppressive books. Quite a few Scientologists read and liked them and The Fountainhead was especially popular, being considered particularly poignient because of the hero's destroying his own creation. The popular interpretation among Scientologists was that the hero ran into an SP (Tooey), which gave him PTPs, Overts, and ARCXs and so he slid into a GPM and dramatized "to create is to destroy". But the Objectivists (the organization based on Rand's books) were declared a suppressive group, probably because they were competition, and maybe also because somebody had tried to get them to sell LRH books too and gotten thrown out on his ass. It was the time period of "Mission International Books" and quite a few bookstore owners got labled as suppressives in those days. As it was explained to me, Rand was not declared because she was not running the Objectivists organization and her relations with them were a bit cool, at least at that time, so the org's party line was that her work had fallen into the hands of SPs who had formed the Objectivists. The same was true of Edgar Casey. He was not considered a suppressive and his books were not banned (although using or promoting them would be considered mixing practices, but it was not considered wrong to read them), however his son (?) and the organization that was promoting Casey's work were considered suppressive (at least so I was told by ethics). As far as Lopsang Rampa goes, I don't know the story, but it wouldn't surprise me if he was declared. In general the org was more inclined to declare groups and gurus who were actual competition rather than writers unless the writer published something nasty about Scientology. By the way, Bob changed the names of all the people in the book. I haven't figured out who everybody is yet, but the franchise holder he was involved with was definitely Bernie Green, well known for having been the first splinter group to deliver the OT levels without permission way back in the late 1960s. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - What's In Store For Miscavige (Attn F. Rice) WHAT'S IN STORE FOR MISCAVIGE (Attn F. Rice) On 9 Apr 99, frice@linkline.com (Fredric L. Rice) replied to my post on "Super Scio - TO DAVID MISCAVIGE" > On 8 Apr 1999 04:00:36, pilot@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (The Pilot) > wrote: > > >TO DAVID MISCAVIGE > > >So how do we get you out of this bind? > >There is one way out. > > Don't these cult leaders often merely suicide out? He doesn't dare! The between lives boys would get him and implant his ass off. And if he manages to avoid them, he still has Hubbard's ghost to contend with. He must know that Ron is very pissed at him for those shots in the ass. And if he can outrun Hubbard (which I doubt), then the Koos will probably suck him in for telepathic sec checking. He'll spend eternity as one of Koo's BTs being harrassed about how he fucked Mary Queen of Scotts or something like that. Pity the poor Missing Cabbagehead. Many fates worse than death await him. In truth, he probably still believes at least half way and therefore has to be scared shitless of dying, not because its the end but because it might not be. And Scientology does not offer the easy forgiveness of Christianity. And Davey proves to himself every day that even though people supposedly clean up their overts, they get tossed in the RPF anyway (because he does the tossing). And so he is sitting there knowing that the overt-motivator sequence will eat him alive eventually. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Answering Mark On Old OT VI ANSWERING MARK ON OLD OT VI On 8 Apr 99, Mark W Brehob asked on topic "OTVI question (Pilot?)" > Hi all, > A question for those of you that have done OTVI (ex-CoS, freezone, or CoS). > > A) is the OTVI at http://www.b-org.demon.nl/scn/upper-levels/ot6.html > accurate? Pretty much. This is an older version than the one I did. I think there were a few more processes. But it was a short level. Really it needs to be expanded with hundreds of processes from the 1950. Quite a few of those are in Self Clearing or Super Scio Chapter 7. > B) What is expected of the following? > > "Finally, exteriorized visit a friend who lives in another state. > Greet him and flow affinity to him. Ask him to communicate to you > by letter." I'm pretty sure it said "visit someone in another country" rather than "a friend in another state" when I did the level. It was the very last process. It did not occur to me to pick somebody I knew. I simply got the idea of floating around in a post office in Germany, looking for somebody (perhaps a tourist) who was already writing postcards to friends in the US. I figured that that would make it easier, since they were already writing and had the implements to hand. If they had a pile of pre-stamped post cards, they might mail one on a whim. > Is it expected that the friend will see you? That the friend will just get > an urge to write a letter? I did not expect the person to see me, but simply to feel like they had been visited by some spirit. There are many people around who believe in spirits or metaphysics or psychic phenomena who might go along with a silly impulse just to see what happened. So I tried to tune into such a person, one who had the right attitude and the right implements to hand, and I felt that with all of Europe available, there were thousands of post offices and so I might be drawn to the right person who would be willing to send such a card on impulse. > Does this cause doubt if nothing happens? Or is LRH just counting on the > fact that when you are next in contact the person will say "I've been > meaning to write you?" This is the LAST process on the level, and so one does the inspiring and then one goes and attests to the level. I was feeling quite good about it because the view of the German post office I was attracted to had seemed very real. And so I was happy to attest to the level. But I did have my doubts, even when I was attesting, as to whether a complete stranger really would send me a postcard. But the drill was fun, so I didn't worry about it too much. It was a little disappointing that a postcard didn't come in later, but of course I was already done with the level by then and I had not really been expecting it anyway, it just would have been nice. I have had the experience of picking up the phone and the person I want to call is at the other end without my dialing because they had started to call me at the same moment. That experience is fairly common amoung old time Scientologists, but even when that sort of thing is happening (you and somebody else are in such rappaport that you call simultaneously), it only works occasionally. And of course my mother used to nag at me telepathically to call her and I wouldn't be in the mood and would ignore it. I'd call her the next day and she would complain at me about how she'd been postulating at me to call her all the previous evening. Of course if she could have she would have just called, but sometimes I didn't have a phone and other times I'd be out carousing, so she'd try her telepathic skills. I usually felt the nagging when she didn't but generally I wouldn't call, so that goes to show that even if you get through there is only a slim chance that you'll get a response. With that kind of experience, I figured that even a close friend might well ignore a request for a letter and even if I did get through to somebody, telepathic communications are so vague that they'd probably get my address wrong. I and various people I've lived with (relatives, roommates, 2Ds), often intend at each other to stop at the store and pickup something on the way home. The batting average on this is high (over 50% with people you're close to) but one often can't quite duplicate what it is that one is supposed to pick up and so maybe they bring coffee cake instead of coffee and one has to run to the store anyway. The accuracy of the transmission is terrible but often something gets through. And also note that that happens even without doing OT levels. I grew up in a family that practiced this regularly. I remember talking to another friend who'd done old OT VI, and he was disappointed when he didn't get a letter, but of course it was after he'd attested to the level and he didn't want to get in trouble for a false attest, so he'd simply forgotten about it. In the old days a false attest meant liability, and an OT would tend to feel that it was their fault and they hadn't done the process right. A true science would have the people intending letters and then tabulate the results, somewhat like the Rhine insitute was tabulating telepathic card reading. And a proper test would be to have them intend a letter before starting the level as well as after completing it. If I had gotten a letter, would it have been from doing OT VI or from having done TRs or played around with PDC drills or from Science of Mind stuff I'd gotten in my early teens or what? There is a small percentage of telepathy in the society at large without doing any Scientology processing whatsoever. People don't notice because they don't try. I suppose I'll get some flak for tweaking peoples noses about these OT phenomena, but its only a superstition among the narrow minded that these phenomena don't exist. Although mind over matter would violate Newtonian physics, we know that Newtonian physics is only a special case of Quantum anyway, and Quantum mechanics does retain its integrity in the face of the observer interacting with the experiment. It would not be overtoppled if somebody were to move an ashtray by observing it in the right way. > Mark > > -- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.cps.msu.edu/~brehob ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ~~~~~~Mark Brehob: Ultimate Player, Gamer, Computer Geek~~~~~~~~~~ Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - To Russ Shaw On The Freezone (Attn Safe) TO RUSS SHAW ON THE FREEZONE (attn Safe) On 22 Apr 99, "Safe" responded to Russ's post on "To the Pilot: Russell Shaw on the Freezone" > Hi Pilot, > > Russell Shaw, the one who has the ARS Bigots web-site, wrote ... > > >It is also true that without the organizations the subject winds up > >getting wildly "altered". The overt speaketh loudly in the accusation. There is alter-is already in the orthodox materials: editing of tapes, revisions of bulletins, and the New Tech Volumes don't maintain a revision history like the old ones used to so you can't see what has been altered. And most of the 1950s tech has not been used (and is forbidden from use) within the CofS for many decades. We do not lose a tech by having additional tech as long as the originals remain available as well. I add to the tech, but I also encourage that the original LRH works be posted to the net and made available. I compile various references such as the LRH Master Tape list to help with this. The CofS, on the other hand, attempts to hide the LRH data and attacks anyone who posts tech. > >I fully understand that there are many in the freezone > >who will say "not true" to that or defend the changes as "improvements". > >But, the fact remains that the technology does not stay in its pure form in > >the "field". Never has, never will. Never stayed in its pure form in the CofS either. And in the old days, Ron used to change the tech annually. But if all the LRH works can be made available on the net, it will never be lost or forgotten. As LRH said, something will either expand or it will decay, it cannot remain frozen. If there is a growing body of works, then the originals remain available too. If, however, you suppress all expansion, it will decay and the tech will fall out of use. > >One subject missing - almost completely - in the FZ is ethics. Without > >that vital part, the whole thing goes off the rails. Even LRH says that purely putting in ethics is a worthless activity. It is a solution to a problem rather than as-ising the source. The original idea was simply to do the minimum necessary to get people into session and auditing. Ethics exists to get tech in. Man is basically good and his ethics go in without external intervention if you straighten the case out. The place where ethics is the most flagrantly out is CofS, and what they currently call ethics is usually used to prevent auditing rather than to deliver auditing in the face of stops. If auditing is being delivered, ethics has done its job and is in to the degree necessary. Considering the relative degree of stops on doing any actual auditing, it should be obvious that Freezone Ethics is superior to that of CofS. Rolling up your sleeves and auditing anyway despite the presence of a lawsuit happy suppressive group that is determined to stop auditing from occuring is a fantastically high level of true ethics, the likes of which have rarely been seen inside the CofS. > >Just for example, look where almost *all* FZ auditors were trained: in > >orgs. NOT in the FZ. The FZ does not produce trained auditors. This is changing, and it had better change FAST because the bulk of the auditors were produced back in the 60s and 70s. CofS has been falling down on the job, producing fewer and fewer auditors each year, and the quality of the training has, in general, deteriorated. I don't want to invaliate the auditors that did make it through modern training, there are some good people who've succeeced despite the stops, but the deck has been stacked against them in modern times. It should be obvious that the Golden Age training was introduced because CofS realized that its training had deteriorated to crap by the early 1990s. The trouble is that they are handling it backwards, introducing more force and eval instead of increasing the student's ability to think and act and be truely responsible for the session. Furthermore, they put Golden Age in as a blanket inval and retrain instead of using judgement. Some people were trained in better times, and some made it despite Sea Org alter-is and those people have been told that their tech is just as fucked up as everybody else. That wrong indication will cost them a good percentage of their remaining experts. > >What they do is chuck ethics tech out the window, lower prices > >to steal ARCX, PTS preclears from orgs - and basically act as > >parasites. Silly. They lower prices to make it easier for people to get up the bridge. The org has priced itself out of the market. As to stealing ARCXen PTS preclears - the ones you're thinking of were never going to go back on lines anyway. And most have not gone into the FZ, they just sit apathetically on the sidelines, unwilling to go against the orgs and yet unable to bear going into the orgs. What percentage of the membership that is still in good standing has actually been on lines in the last 5 years? Less than ten percent of the remaining loyalists are actually active in the subject. AT least some of these people have been recovered in the independent field. > >They do not contribute to planetary dissem. Lots of people who were never in Scientology have picked up my Self Clearing book and gotten interested. And I do push LRH tech as well as my own, so they will get that too. The book is free and it works. That's the way the clear the planet. You're not going to make it by charging astronomical prices and then delivering stops and crush ethics. And I'm only one example. There are numerous freezone practices and they each have their own inroads into the society. But there would be a lot more planetary dissem from the freezone if the CofS weren't sitting there like a spider anxious to eat up any freezone group that gets too big and visible. > >They do precisely nothing to ensure that Scientology technology > >will be around 100 - 200 - 1000 years from now. Freezone bible has been getting the tech onto the net. That ensures that it will be around. OSA, on the other hand, tries to suppress the spread of the tech and tries to keep it secret. The freezone would love to see the LRH tech up at permanent websites, but OSA hates the tech and would sue their asses off if they did that. > >Almost all of them (the original FZ) are people who just took off > >when the going got a little tough. Bullshit. Many hung on for decades and kept the subject alive even when the suppression was running rampant in the CofS. Then they apply danger and bypass the CofS and OSA comes after them. It takes a lot more guts and toughness to run a freezone organization than to continue to agree with the orthodox suppression. > >Any "growth" they have is strictly in finding others with mutual > >out-ruds on the subjects of control and ethics. Any remaining "growth" that CofS has is in finding people in propitiation who want to be victims. High toned beings do not put up with the sort of crap that goes on in the orgs. There are comm lags on collapse because people come in to get their motivators. But that's all you've been living on for years now. > If you're reading this, I would like yours (and any other Freezoners) > comments about Russells vindictive accusations. > > Thanks! > > Yours for learning the truth, > Safe, an authentic, informed NON-CofS Scientologist because CofS's ethics > went out. Thanks Safe. I let these things slide by too often. I've been enjoying the suff you've been posting. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Answering Stickwork on Scn & Religion ANSWERING STICKWORK ON SCN & RELIGION On 9 Apr 99, stickwork@aol.com (STICKWORK) continued the discussion on "Super Scio - To Stickwork on That Hideous Strength" > Are you California based or Florida based? California. > Are you "clear"? As much as anyone given that label in Scientology. But I think that "clear" is mis-defined. It is not the end of abberation. It does not include total recall. It is simply that one is no longer bothered by the force (pain, etc.) in old mental pictures. It's a nice state. Some things stop giving you trouble. But its far from the whole enchelada. Just one layer of a very big and smelly onion. > As for statement of purpose, I am primarily against the presence > of Scientology in the city of Clearwater. I do not believe that > Scientology is a religion (ie an organized belief system about > God or gods). I wish you would differentiate between Scientology and the CofS organization. Every religion has its share of charlatan evangalists and hypocritical organizations. That doesn't make the members any less religious, it just makes them stupid. Even the most blindly orthodox fanatics (and every religion has those too) should have the right to hold their beliefs without persecution. It is neither here nor there as to whether the belief is in auditing tech or that eating fish on Fridays will improve one's spiritual development, what is important is the bad behavior of the organization. > In fact, I believe that Scientology is actually antithetical > to the belief in God. It depends on the interpretation. And although it is weak on the area of God, it is extremely strong in the area of the immortality of the spirt. Stronger than Christianity in that respect, actually. > This is very important to my opposition to Scientology. I am glad > that you question the actions of the upper levels. It is clear from > my web surfing that I have wasted $$$ on this tech. Dante had a special circle in hell for the sin of selling holy offices and dispensations to commit sins etc. It needs to be expanded to include price gorging and monopolizing of enlightenment. > I am well educated and can't believe that I went as long as I did > without figuring it all out. The last time somebody thought they had all the answers, they tried to sell me a bridge. > But do I leave? No that would be the easy thing to do. Agreed. > I let my anger grow and continue my drills. My revenge will be > silent and sure. Revenge is not a good goal. Do it to help others. Feel satisfaction from helping rather than hurting. That will make a difference to you later, even if the action you do is the same in either circumstance. > Some of those that are "clear" now see clearly. Something wonderful > will happen in June. Those on the bridge currently must pull up anchor. Surely we live in interesting times. I look forward to the entertainment you will provide. > And if you are a Gaurdian over me then you may know me. I'm not sure what it means to be a Gaurdian over you. > PS If you haven't read Bare Faced Messiah, its a must. I have, and I agree. > Stickwork > > Concerned Citizens of Clearwater. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - HUMOR: THE ETHICS TIME PATROL HUMOR: THE ETHICS TIME PATROL Now that time travel has been discovered, it is possible for our Golden Ethics Officers to go back in time and really straighten out the planet. 1. The Alamo Davey Crockett, Jim Bowie, and a bunch of other downstat Texans betrayed their trust by allowing Santa Anna to beat them. They are hereby assigned a condition of TREASON and will be forced to suffer all penalties as soon as we can get our hands on the thetans, who seemed to have used the deaths of their bodies at the battle as an excuse to blow their posts. 2. Columbus This downstat spread false data about having reached India when he had only reached America. This is a false report. He is hereby assigned a condition of LIABILITY. All penalties apply. 3. Neil Armstrong He may have set foot on the moon, but he has gross M/Us. "One Small Step for Man, One Giant Step for Mankind" is a reactive A = A because it equates "Small Step" with "Giant Step". He is ordered to cramming to do "Small" and "Giant" in clay. 4. Abraham Lincoln With his Emancipation Proclamation, he freed slaves that didn't belong to him. This is suppressive communistic philosopy that seeks to shackle the strong by saying that nobody owns anything. He is hereby assigned a condition of DOUBT because of his uncertainty about anybody having a right to own anything. 5. Florence Nightingale. She helps DOWNSTATS. This is a flunk. Off to cramming to retrain. 6. Thomas Jefferson This DB had gross out 2D. And he cancelled John Adam's anti-sedition laws and pardoned the out-ethics natterers who had been complaning about the government. Encouraging entheta and unmocking ethics earns him a condition of ENEMY. 7. Mae West Joking and Degrading. Off to the RPF with her. 8. Jesus Christ Him and his deciples SQUIRRELED the entire Jewish tech. They are to be FAIR GAMED and DEAD AGENTED. ========== But we would be remiss unless we also gave awards for pro-survival actions. 1. Ghengis Kahn For being upstat and expanding across the planet, he is hereby awarded a condition of POWER. 2. Ceasar Augustus For putting an end to the nattery democratic squabblings and converting Rome from a Republic to and Empire, he is hereby awarded a condition of KAH KAHN and is protected against all ethics actions. 3. John D. Rockafeller For amassing lots and lots of money, he is hereby awarded a condition of ETHICS UPSTAT. ============ As our next project, we will be restoring the between lives implant stations because that seems to be the only way to make people behave properly and get their ethics in. Sorry, just another jokers and degraders fit, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Freezone International (Attn Ralph) FREEZONE INTERNATIONAL (Attn Ralph) The prototype page you put up looks great. I would suggest adding "LINKS" to the top level categories. I'm of mixed opinion about the animation. It is impressive, but my Netscape browser sat at 97% done and endlessly loaded the images over and over to animate them until I clicked the stop button (which stops the animation too). But I get the same effect from the "squeeze the clams" animation (see Steve & Sarah's webpage) and the animation is an attention getter. Possibly it would be best to limit this to only a few pages and not do too much of it. I am really looking forward to this site. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Carbon-14 CARBON-14 On 22 Apr 99, tjf@uci.edu (Tom Fielder) posted on topic "Re: Incident 2" > In article <371EC3F8.6C90A4CD@pacbell.net>, Zero wrote: > > > Jeaux wrote: > > > > > > Incident 2 was dated at 75,000,000 years ago (at least in Hubbard's claim). > > > The demise of the Dinosaurs occurred 65,000,000 years ago--never got a > > > dinosaur or the Maxatlan meteor on the cans though. Complicating this is > > > Actually the radiation from the atomic explosions is worth about an > > extra 10 million if using raido active dating techniques. No big mystery > > there. > > Um, no, I don't think you can use that argument. Radiocarbon dating is > based on the fact that living things are constantly absorbing carbon > compounds from their environment, in the form of food and CO2 from the > air. Once they die, they no longer absorb these compounds (although there > can be sources of contamination that have to be considered). Meanwhile, > any carbon that is of the form C-14, i.e., radioactive, is decaying at a > constant rate. Therefore, once the animal or plant dies, no more C-14 is > being added to it, but whatever was there when it died is still decaying. > The amount of C-14 is proportional to the amount of total carbon as long > as the thing is alive, because of the constant flux of carbon. But once > it dies, the ratio begins to change as the C-14 decays into another > element (I forget which one it is). Thus, by measuring the present time > ratio, one can deduce when the organism died. > > C-14 is not one of the isotopes produced by atomic explosions. Therefore, > these could not have been a source of cantamination. > > Tom This was followed by a nice analysis by "Rogers" showing how much slop there would have to be in the calculations because the amount of material measured would be so minute. And in actual fact, carbon-14 dating at the this range is known to be only approximate, give or take a few million years. Certainly the scientists waffle around anywhere in the range of 63 million to 67 million when they place a date on the great dying. Now C-14 is simply an isotope of carbon produced by radioactive bombardment of ordinary carbon, and it decays back into ordinary carbon. It is not itself directly involved in any atomic reactions, instead it is picking up stray neutrons from the existing radiation that is in the air. I am oversimplifying here slightly, read a physics textbook if you want more data. Normally C-14 is formed by background radiation, which is here at the surface because of solar radiation, cosmic rays, etc. If the organic material is then burried, it ceases to be exposed to this background radiation, and so the proportion of C-14 to ordinary carbon will shift as the C-14 decays. This has nothing to do with the solar carbon cycle (the formation of carbon in the sun). Although that is a true nuclear reaction, the carbon formed is the ordinary non-radioative carbon-12 (atomic processes can form non radioactive end products - the direct output of the hydrogen fussion reaction itself is helium and there is no such thing as radioactive helium). Of course the carbon can subsequently get irradiated. My point is that the carbon formed directly by a nuclear reaction is carbon-12. The carbon-14 is produced by exposing carbon-12 to radiation rather than by having some true rearrangement of elements by splitting or fusing stuff. Also note that material currently being formed in the sun is not the source of the material here on earth. Supposedly, these elements were formed by solar processes long long ago before the planets condensed (I think the theories on this are still shifting around) and it certainly has nothing to do with the modern level of carbon-14 in terrestial lifeforms. It wouldn't matter if its background radiation or fission or fusion bombs producing the radiation. If the level of radiation in the air, water, and soil were to be increased significantly, there would be a higher ratio of carbon-14 present in the lifeforms living today. Therefore if the planetary background radiation level was artificially raised by the extensive use of nuclear weapons, archeologists would subsequently be fooled by a dating anomaly, because there would be too much carbon-14 proportionately, giving the impression that the material was burried a bit more recently than it actually was. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - On Solo Itsa (Attn Les, Thomlove, Alan etc.) ON SOLO ITSA (Attn Les, Thomlove, Alan etc.) On 18 Apr 99, Thomlove responded to Les Rogers post on "Reality Factor" Thom wrote: > Hello Les: > > "In my opinion", anything run as a 'solo' action can cut your 'itsa' > line, but not your 'itsa maker' line. I think that you have the common CofS M/U about Itsa. Not everybody has it, and Ron certainly didn't, but a lot of the later trained auditors seemed to have picked it up. ITSA is "looking at and identifying something". It is the pc saying "It is a ..." rather than "What is it?", but Ron has said explicitly that it is not the comm line itself (the Itsa Line), but the contents that travels on that line. Ron often said that it was the pc's ability to Itsa his enviornment that determined his health and well being. Not whether he told anybody about it, but just whether he could spot what is. Although he usually discussed Itsa in relation to the Itsa line between the PC and the auditor, because that is the practical application in professional auditing, he does not always do so, and obviously did not think of it in terms that were limited to an auditing session between two people. The M/U comes about in Ron's way of describing this as "The pc SAYING ..." Some people seem to think that that means that the pc has to SAY it to somebody else, but Ron never actually said that, it is just his way of describing it. I describe it that way too, and I get shocked when somebody does a literal minded fixation on a word rather than getting the meaning. So let's get this very clear, the ITSA is in the SPOTTING AND IDENTIFYING, not the SAYING. All solo auditing, even the standard OT levels, would fail to work if the definition of Itsa required talking to somebody else. You couldn't even run self analysis successfully. And group processing would not work either since there is no Itsa LINE from the pcs to the group auditor. But the people in group sessions happily Itsa their environment when you ask them to spots things in the room even though they don't tell you about it. Itsa is generally greater when there is an auditor present to encourage it. The auditor validates it, he acknowledges it, he asks for more, that really beefs it up. And the PC trying to put it into words helps the pc focus his attention and state things clearly. But that does not mean that Itsa is absent in solo or group processing. Now of course to Itsa something, the PC has to be able to look at something which can be Itsa'd. In an objective process, this is simply his ability to look in present time, but in a subjective process, he needs to look at his case. That is the Itsa Maker line, and if he is too distracted, for example, and can't concentrate on the thing he is trying to Itsa, then we say that the Itsa Maker line is cut. Auditors can accidentally cut this. So can noisy neighbors. > If you don't have a terminal to itsa to, then you may not itsa at > all. But you can still handle it. Usually, just recognizing yourself > what you have noticed in session, just recognizing your cog, or > whatever, works fine. The recognition acts like a TR2. This is Itsa. > When you think of it, what is the itsa line really? What it does > is communicate to another something you have already recognized. > Why bother? Because when you communicate it to another, that > person duplicates it, acks it, and you end cycle on it. i.e. > You end cycle on mocking it up in present time. i.e.. asis it. A > long way around to simple ack it yourself, and stop mocking it up, > or what ever. A person can simply end cycle on something. Scratch your nose. Now stop scratching your nose. That is an end of cycle. It is easy. An acknowledgement can help in ending cycle, it contributes to the motion. It is a recognition that something is done. This is a tremendous aid in haulting compulsive mental machinery. But you can just stop things too. Drilling starting and stopping things improves this. In professional auditing, the auditor's acknowledgement also serves another purpose, which is to validate the PC for having Itsa'd. This is extremely important because it encourages more Itsa. In running something like grade zero where one is simply using quantity of communication to blow through stops, one does not actually use many "end of cycle" style acknowledgements because one wants the PC to keep talking more. But this encouraging aspect of acknowledgments is crucial to getting fast results. > In solo, the biggest drop in the auditing comm cycle, which is ALWAYS in > action, is the TR2. You can ack yourself, and solo auditors need to do so. This is better described as recognition or validation. Sitting there saying "good" and "thank you" to yourself is a bit silly and tends to put one out of valence and setup circuits. Recognizing that you have done something when you have done it is the proper way. > Rogers wrote: > > > Reality Factor. > > > > The Pilot noted that the Clearing Course platens did not encourage a lot of > > ITSA as far as he was concerned. I don't know if this is a specific problem > > with this level or if it is also a general problem with many of the upper > > level courses that revolve around platens. This is a general problem with platens. They were laid in with heavy force, and then running the platen is a bit of an eval to boot. And so Itsa is less under those circumstances. But it should not be totally absent, and there should be a good bit of itsa as the thing errases. That happened for me sometimes while running OT2 and CC. It happened a lot more for me on many of the platens that I put in Super Scio. But that might also be because my confront and ability to itsa these things was improving. > > I've been thinking about this for sometime, and it just so happens I read > > something this morning that precipitated this post. I was reminded that > > running a process beyond the pc's reality level produces little benefit, > > or, at least, recognizable benefit (by the pc himself or herself). > > > > This of course is going to be generally true, no matter what level > > is being addressed, but I can't help wondering if the "platen" levels > > are even more relevant. There's some truth to that. It is probably useless to run these too early on in processing. Best is probably to go clear with incident running (eg. confronting force until one can confront force and it doesn't bother one anymore). That drains force from the implanted items as well. Then they are much easier to confront. But the real indicator would be that the pc becomes aware that he is dramatizing crap that was jammed down his throat. That is when he might want some platens. There was a point in dianetics when my reality came up on implants, and they are hell to run through without a platen. So you want to have these things available and know where to find them and how to run them and then maybe just leave them be until you bump into it on your own. > > In addition to keeping the comm line in, it seems quite obvious that > > ITSA is the means by which one finally gets the is-ness (reality) that > > is a prerequisite to, or pretty much synonymous with, as-isness. Itsa is a gradient on as-isness. Itsa is a warmup, getting the as-isness bit by bit. Really full Itsa IS as-isness. Note, by the way, that you can as-is something without telling it to someone else. > > NO ITSA equates to NO REALITY which equates to NO (awareness of) BENEFIT. > > > > As I said, the Pilot zeroed in on the Clearing Course (and probably fixed > > it), but I am wondering if this is a common complaint, a common problem, > > with the other "platen" courses. If so, this is a REAL PROBLEM. > > > > I have a suspicion that there are more than a few who have run OTIII with > > little or no reality. My further suspicion is that the problem had an > > "earlier beginning." Namely, the earlier upper level courses being run > > with poor reality. OT III is not really a platen course. It is an entity handling course, which is a different thing entirely. Because of using Inc 2 as part of this level, they need to have pulled charge off of the OT 2 implant items first. But that is an artifact of the technique used. Nots style entity handling doesn't require it. The reality factor is a serious point in regards to entity handling. Entity style levels should not be fooled around with until entites start catching one's attention and getting in the way. That is the sign that one has the reality necessary to address and handle them. Sometimes lower level pcs even run into this. It has nothing to do with reality on implants, and it shouldn't be force fed. > > I am just on the underside here, looking up, not really in a good position > > to get a clear view. > > > > I think that in addition to the Clearing Course, the Pilot has corrected a > > number of other platens. Do these ALL produce good ITSA now? The > > underlying question is, do they appear complete and accurate enough now. (I > > thought it was very clever of the Pilot to use lack of ITSA as a clue to > > "possible" incompleteness, by the way. I'm sure with the general > > understanding that lack of ITSA may also be just a gradient problem.) Yes, I expect that both are true. If a person usually gets a certain amount of Itsa on running platens, and it shuts down on a particular platen, I would suspect the platen, although it might also be that that particular one is further out of reach or was used many times as an overt or whatever, or maybe the person never bumped into that particular implant. But if the person is not yet getting Itsa on these things in general, then a better platen is probably not going to handle that. > > I would like to get this straight, both for my own sake and people like me > > who have yet to do these levels, as well as the "failed OTIII's" who may be > > able to take heart by understanding their difficulties may have been > > inherent to the (earlier) levels such as the CC itself. > > > > Les C. Rogers. -------------- The "Reality Factor" discussion continued with various other people becoming involved, but I felt that the above point was quite important and was missed. Later, however, it came to the following interesting dialog between Thom and Alan Walter: Thom said: # I was taken off OT2 and shoved onto OT3 because I was seeing much more in the # incident than was intended on OT2. I was able to spot where the implanters were # physically located during the implant, what they looked like, the colour of # their uniforms, what the circumstances of the situation was, the physical # orientation of the 'room', or whatever it was, and so on. And Alan responded: > Geezus! > > Are you kidding me? > > For christ sake how can you see too much of an incident? > > When you see it all.....it should erase. > > If you do not see it all....it is unflat. Or earlier incident or beginning - or > someone else's. > > # None of that is on > # the OT2 course. So I was hauled off and set onto the rocks of OTIII. > > Gross out-tech! To which Thom replied: # Sure was a screw up. I crashed on OTIII, was taken off, put back on OTII, # did great, flying and having a ball and commented on the black uniforms # also had red braiding, and was taken off and put back on OTIII. I ended # up on OTIII after that for thousands of hours. # # Thom Alan, of course, recognized that this is just Itsa and is a very good indicator. One doesn't stop running the process because the pc has started to Itsa. But CofS has the evaluative idea that the person must not be allowed to slip into the "36 days of implanting" mentioned on the Inc 2 platen because the pc might freewheel and get sick. So they cut the Itsa Line! I don't think that "gross out-tech" is strong enough to describe the stupidity of intentionally cutting a PCs Itsa because you are afraid of what he is Itsaing. Out-tech beyond your wildest dreams might be a better description. I started getting Itsa similar to the above on OT2 Chapter 9 (the Basic Basic GPM, right after the pictures GPMs). I had already been having big keyouts and large FNs and getting Itsa on how I'd dramatized various implant items. When I started spotting surroundings on Ch 9, they talked me into attesting. The Qual consultant indicated that I might be done and started rehabbing the various wins I'd had and soon I was feeling flipped out and willing to attest. But of course they had distracted me from the stuff I had been starting to Itsa. It was done smoothly enough that I didn't notice, and I actually didn't make the connection between that and being pushed into attesting until Thom mentioned the above. I was quite happy to run OT 3 at that point, and Inc 2 was quite real and easy to handle. I also knew that it was NOT the incident I had been spotting on Ch 9. Which is why I've always been certain that these platens were implanted at many different times, both in mass implants like inc 2 and in more ordinary implants used on individuals rather than entire populations. And I get those black and red uniforms too, and that's not Inc 2 because I agree with Hubbard about the Confederacy using white. I think I was getting the first time that particular platen was used on me, and that's a hell of a lot earlier than Inc 2. There is lots of this implanting stuff on the track. So one lets the pc Itsa. That is an extremely good inicator. That is what you want to happen on these implant platens, namely, that he gets above the force of the items and the Itsa opens up. So from a C/Sing viewpoint, one doesn't care what color the uniforms are or what surroundings and situations the pc is finding, he gets whatever he needs to get to errase the incident. Of course the PC's Itsa will probably not match Inc 2, and if the C/S has some fixed idea that it is the only implant on the track, then of course he feels that the pc is making Hubbard wrong and wants to shut down the Itsa line. Talk about dumb fanatics. In practice, if Inc 2 is presented as an example of the kind of shit that was done on the track, that could be helpful in providing a datum of comparable magnitude to whatever the pc is trying to Itsa. ----------- Alan also made a nice comment on the pc's own postulates being much more valuable to run. The real difficulty is that people have status buttons on these CofS upper levels due to the heavy sales hype. The better view is to look at these as something that sometimes gets in the way of handling real case and doing real OT drills and that one handles them whenever one notices them getting in the way. A simple early track postulate to make somebody else get their ethics in probably has more charge and more abberative power than the entirety of all of these implant platens. Because, of course, that is one of the reasons why one agreed to implanting. As Ron said, one mocked up the bank to make others good. The most advanced processes I'm doing on myself are the simple ones. Just trying to put in Itsa, ruds, recalls, and basic grade type processes with emphasis on early track. But you do a bit of that and then this other stuff gets in the way and you need to handle a bit of it. I once compared inc 2 to somebody blowing up an outhouse in Lithuania, and if anything I overstated it. But if you need to go to the john and the local outhouse has gone up in smoke thanks to xenu the mad toilet bomber, then it makes a PTP which acts as a lock that gets in the way of running a real basic like why mockup bodies that need to go the bathroom in the first place. In truth, simple rudiments and recall processes and such are also governed by this reality factor. Otherwise the people who got through OT 3 would have had the sense to grab self analysis and start running it on the time period prior to incident one. But that is ten times more difficult than doing OT 3 and nobody thinks of it, at least not in CofS. Some of the freezoners do. We should call that OT 25 or something and maybe more people would work themselves up to it. So run whatever seems real and just keep expanding on a gradient. Sad to say, Hubbard cut his own Itsa line by making OT III confidential. It was supposedly too dangerous to look at or talk about and so the research ground to a shuddering hault. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - To Aaron On Collapsed Space, Self Clearing, etc. TO AARON ON COLLAPSED SPACE, SELF CLEARING, ETC. On 9 Apr 99, "Aaron Bair" posted on topic "Super Scio Tech - AN EXPRANDED BRIDGE" > Pilot, > > A few comments from one of your self-clearing disciples who's made it... > > > Also, OT drilling will quickly get most pcs exterior and > > you have to run process 11.1 or else you will be launched > > off into an ext/int rundown. > > The drills in chapter 11 also cool off the Collapsed Space issue. I > encourage you to mention the two advanced processes (31.7 and 31.8) in both > the ruds chapter and in chapter 11. I ran into collapsed space problems > long before hitting chapter 31 and because they would cool off with chapter > 11 drills, I assumed they were all int-related and almost didn't run 31.8. > > Actually, I got to chapter 28 and just didn't have an incident case to run > (being a natural or alternate-universe clear or something). Then I went on > to 29 and that was also very stable, again nothing to run. I ran safe > locations (30.1) which was neat but I had a lot of attention on some > specific symbols and I stopped there to look into those. I ran 31.7 when my > "int" issues continued and didn't even see 31.8 until I read "world closed > in" in super scio and wondered how I missed it before. Oopse. I hadn't realized that "collapsed space" was that significant. I came up with the rundown (in Super Scio) because I had bumped into something myself and really needed it, but I'd never heard of anybody else hitting that kind of thing. It might have been just me. So I haven't paid much attention to it or pushed it. It is not the same as ext/int although it is the same kind of animal and runs with similar techniques. It is good that 11.1 cools this button down. But it is not really aimed at it directly. So I began fooling around with anchor point drills trying to come up with a good way to cool this one down directly without having to lauch people into the equivallent of an ext/int rundown on collapsed space. Pushing anchor point masses out and then pulling them back in did not seem to do well for handling this. It is backwards from the collapsed space effect. Instead, the right way seemed to mockup a bunch of big masses (pyramids, globes, huge cubes, etc.) way out there. Imagine them connected to their locations, so that if they are pulled off, there is a sort of pull back to their proper spot, as if they were attached by rubber bands or elastic. Then pull them all the way in, but having a bit of pull back towards their original locations as if there was a stretched rubber band pulling them back. Then let go and let them be pulled back to their original position by these rubber bands (or energy lines or whatever feels good). Do this repetatively. So mockup big masses as "anchor points" and pull them in and let them snap back out. Put the masses out in various directions, above and below you as well as to the front, sides, and back. In mocking up a mass that is to serve as an anchor point (rather than just mocking up masses to have), there should be the consideration that it is yours (rather than something you might be given) and that you own the space defined by the anchor points. Another nice drill is simply to mockup and unmock a collection of large anchor points at a distance. There is more to be figured out on this, but the above is a start. > >Ch 19: OVERTS, MOTIVATORS, AND WITHHOLDS > > Are you going to add a chapter for excused or just add to chapter 19? > > Excused by self, by the family, by the group, by society, ...by > (dynamic)..., by the game. > > These excused things were the stuff that really loosened up locations > (chapter 30) for me (also did wonders for my whole track recall). I ran > them almost exclusively for some time what I did, what I didn't, what I > avoided and what I craved. I only felt relief (never got meaner or spun-in) > despite only running the "what I did" flow. > > It seems like this is a larger area of which o/w's are only a part. Correct. There is a bit of this in chapter 25 "Justification and Responsiblity", but there should probably be more. > I'd define the more general "overt" as any action or inaction that is okayed > by some dynamics but not by another. I'd define the more general "withhold" > as anything you avoid doing or crave doing that is okayed by some (dynamics > or domains or areas of your existence) but not by others. This doesn't > match LRH's definitions so you'll have to invent two new names for these > things to gain acceptance. > > There is something here, though. Someone did or caused or said (or whatever) > something that was perfectly acceptable in one dynamic, but not okay in > another. That person can't just let it go. Or someone failed at something. > It is acceptable in some areas of that person's existence, not in others. > Again, it hangs up "should have done better". One avoids something. Its > just some stupid thing that no one would ever care about -- except mom. It > still causes trouble despite confidence from every sector (except mom) that > it doesn't matter. A person can want/desire/crave something that is okay at > work, but not acceptable at home, it's okay to the person, but not okay with > the bible club. This is the stuff that causes problems, and requires weird > solutions that cause more problems. And of course pretty much anything that > comes up here is a "don't tell" withhold from somebody. It blots out the > past. Even future postulates and goals get twisted in this mess. > > I urge you to add something like this into self-clearing. > > Here is what I was running: > > What did/do/does/will ___ do that is/was not okay with ___? > What did/do/does/will ___ fail to do that is/was not okay with ___? > What did/do/does/will ___ avoid(ing) that is/was not okay with ___? > What did/do/does/will ___ crave that is/was not okay with ___? > > Base one button on a dynamic and put "you", "another", or "others" as the > other button. Then flip them around and continue down the list. Since the > do/did/does stuff gets tedious after a while (and limits you in time) I > think it is easier to just run without those words. It sounds like the docs > that come with computer hardware from Taiwan, but allows any past incident, > present situation or future consideration to pop up. Just don't insist on > overts or evaluate or anything... like your CofS cleanup from post50. > > eg: you - society > (do) > What you do that not okay with society? > What society do that not okay with you? > (fail to do) (not do) > What you not do that not okay with society? > What society not do that not okay with you? > (avoid) > What you avoid that not okay with society? > What society avoid that not okay with you? > (crave) > What you crave that not okay with society? > What society crave that not okay with you? > > eg: another - a child > What another do that not okay with a child? > What a child do that not okay with another? > .... Good process. > When the gains slow down, run a much more general version using that same > list "you, another, others" plus buttons based on dynamics. Keep the > r-factor in mind that the answer could be past present or future (wherever > your attention seems to be) and looking for things that are excused in some > dynamic(s) but not another(others). > > What ___ do? > What ___ not do? > What ___ avoid(ing)? > What ___ crave(ing)? > > eg: What the church do? What the church not do? What the church avoid? > What the church crave? Better wording: "What has the church done?" or "What is the church doing". > The dynamic-based buttons I was running were "self, the family, a lover, a > spouse, a child, the group, a church, a team, a friend, the society, a > nation, an ethnicity, and the game" -- But I didn't run as much of it as I > wanted to. > > This is what I was running when I ran into the collapsed space problem and > minutes after handling that I found myself lost in implant land with a > raging nots case. Right now I can see that a super-advanced version would > include buttons based on all 16 dynamics. This is why a present time drill is needed on something like collapsed space. Better to take a lot of charge off in PT and then use incident running as final touch, it is much easier if the charge is already cooled down. > Of course for the self clearing book you'll have to modify this quite a bit > or break it up into sections or something. And if one had a meter (which I > don't yet) I assume it would be more worthwhile to make up a big list of > dynamic buttons and then run the specific method three flow on reading > items. > > I'm surprised after all the excitement over the "group excused" discovery > that no one has voiced this yet. We already had "co-excused" (Electra and > Homer were using these years ago) then "group-excused". It isn't a big > stretch to go from there to "dynamic-excused or domain-excused", is it? Not at all. It fits in nicely. > I'm going to assume you were already aware of this and simply failed to > mention it. How am I suppsed to remain a disciple of your's if I allow > myself to see limits to your omniscience! You are more than welcome > to tell me I'm full of shit, though. I'd kinda like it. :) Actually I had a nice win on seeing the group-excused business, and so I shelved the area until it catches my attention again. To some degree I'm sort of running "what's the next thing that's in my way" as an overall program. When something gives way, I'm on to the next area rather than pushing deeper on the same area. That seems to open up data and cognitions the fastest for me right now. I cycle around back to things. > :( I get the impression that no one is going to tell me I'm full of shit. > I'll have to do it myself. "Jeezus aaron. You want the Pilot to add some > big ole rundown to self-clearing just because you think it should be in > there? You haven't even finished running it yourself, and by your own > admission you ended up with 'space closed in', 'implants' and 'raging nots'. > You're so full of shit." > > Hey, I did like that. :) For the record, my space closed in issues predate > post50 (which is the genesis of this), and I was doing side research into > CDEI, specific symbols, and what is turning into a scale of vias on > cause-distance-effect. I credit the impants and nots problems to the > research line. > > > >Still to be done would be a chapters on eval, protect, > >games, goals (trying for a light keyout of GPMS), > >and possibly chapters on agreement and on exchange (but I > >hardly have a clue in these areas yet yet). > > Exchange, eh? I've done a little thinking in this area. Maybe it will > help. > > Cause - Distance - Effect > ------ -------- ------ > Matter - Motion - Energy > > Motion is the bridge between matter and energy. After one adopts a > "conservation of matter" policy (no create) this turns into exchange. You > exchange Matter for Energy and Energy for Matter. To some degree and in some definitions, motion (and potential motion) is energy. But you are right in that there is a tie in between exchange and conservation of matter and energy. > Product->sale->money from the vendor point of view. Money->sale->product > from the consumer point of view. > > Heat is a physical universe demo of energy from matter in motion. > > Strength is the ability to move matter. A stong person can lift more than > an average person. A strong business can sell a product for more than an > average business or can move more product than another business. > Production and Quality have their place, but the Strength is a measure > of motion alone. > > Wealth is stored energy. This can include energy and matter. Money in the > bank (energy) and product, or property (matter) all included in net worth. > If you cannot achieve wealth by creation alone, you have to jump in at > Exchange and move some product. > > The whole concept of exchange has given me a great deal of grief since my > first business. (I failed at four businesses before I could make enough > money to not have a normal job.) And even with this business it is still a > nightmare sometimes. Exchange is an enforced part of being in business and > making a living, so if you can come up with a crackerjack process in this > area (like admire/protest is) it would be very helpful and appreciated. It took a large amount of mulling over "protest" occasionally to finally hit on the admire/protest process. I am hoping to have a similar inspired idea on exchange on of these days. > >Initmately connected with loss is the area of "protect". > >All of the help processes can be run with the word > >"protect" substituted for "help". > > Interesting. Something like protect came up runing 30.1. In "Spot places > where a mate or companion would be safe" I found that I was still guarding > this cave entrance in an effort to protect the people inside (they were not > there or long dead, obviously). It was surprising because I was clearly and > certainly still there protecting it for no real reason. I didn't give it a > lot of thought. It was just odd. > > I have observed people that protect their kids from things that aren't > there. My brother wont let the kids play in the front yard for some reason. > We ran all over hell when we were little little kids, so I have no idea why > he would have a problem with his own kids doing the same. There is very > little traffic on his street and all the neighbor kids are about the same > age so I don't know who or what this is protecting them from. Is this the > area you are talking about? > > I've reached a pretty good case state on loss and right now I'm flying high > from the inval thing. I'll consider protect a bit here. > > Protect > to keep safe > to keep from harm > to continue having > to keep from changing > to keep another from finding out (a withhold for the sake of ___) > God help me > God save me > > What is to be protected? > a loved one > someone who has protected you > the righteous > loyalty > > Hey... > "the dull thud of an enemy" > 3rd dynamic power > > Defend the members of the group. Stick up for friends. Give aid to less > fortunate. Hmm.. definite ethics connection. > > Im getting a strong attack-defend thing here. > > Protect is an effort to defend those being attacked or without normal > defenses. You get a loss when an attacker delivers a blow to you. Your car > window is smashed and your radio stolen. You decide to move, or get a car > alarm, or whatever else as a defense against similar attacks. > > Caution, dangerous. The attack must be explained. Why me? Why my car? > What is wrong with the world? Lacking stable data to explain you promote a > new datum to "stable data" status. New stable data alters perception. > > Down the spiral > - energy (attacking force) > - motion (the blow) > - matter (what takes the blow) > - havingness (the loss) > - do in reverse: respond, react > - be (?) > - conceive (possible reasons why) > - predict in reverse: explain > - know (the why adopted above) > - stable data (altered importance shifts data around) > - inspection in reverse: projection > - perception (now altered by the new projection) > > Yeah. It makes sense in my view of things. One bug is failing to recognize > the parameters of the game and then adopting a wrong why. The wrong why > implants false stable data which turns on imaginary projections. The > environment looks dangerous. When the being goes back upscale the > projection is perceived, inspected, this confirms the stable data, enforces > the wrong why, the being predicts how it could happen again, thinks up ways > to avoid that situation in the future. Then it continues up > be-do-have-matter-motion-energy... > > The other obvious point of address is reacting to the initial blow. If you > could adequately react to the blow it you wouldn't have to explain it at all > (and go down the spiral). You'd just laugh about how you'd bloodied their > nose too. > > From this perspective I'd say the over-protective parent is doing what they > do because of an erroneous stable data and its subsequent projection. You'd > have to address this in terms of danger or caution. > > "What sort of attack might make __ look dangerous?" No, too many vias > between the attack and the dangerous worldview. "What sort of attack might > make you cautious?" Maybe. "What sort of loss might make one cautious of > ___?" No, its still too much. > > It's the projection that is faulty. First get a cog that the projection is > faulty. What is the danger? Spot places the danger isn't. Spot times the > danger isn't. Spot people not in danger. Etc. The stable data will loose > its enforcement when the projection vanishes. > > Then maybe lie about the danger being everywhere, in all time and affecting > everyone. (cog: dangerous feeling was exaggerated.) Then find the situation > where you decided things were dangerous. > > Then > What was the loss there? > What was the attack there? > What game might the attacker have been playing? > How did you react to the attack? > > Finally, > Invent other ways you could have reacted. Too heavy for the self clearing book because too many strong buttons are asked for at once. Remember that you've already come quite far, a beginner would get overwhelmed. > Oh, wait. Your point is that you can run help processes with the word > protect in the place of help. > > Who or what would you be willing to protect? > .... > How could you protect a child? > How could a child protect you? > > Ewww... there is a sympathy flow there that is very unpleasant. You are > unable and someone else takes pity on your pathetic worthless hide and > staves off death one more day. The reverse flow is even more diseased, "I > see how pathetic and defenseless you are, so I've decided to protect you." > It turns into instances of incurred debt that can not be repaid. > > I guess it depends on what you mean by Protect. Is "protect" a noble > defense against attack? Or is it assistance to overcome inherent > disability? I wouldn't want to run chapter 12 replacing "help" with > "protect." I am willing to run it using "defend." It was meant in the sense of defend. The other interpretation hadn't even occured to me. > Spot an acceptable way of defending. (the gods, the dead, property, > animals, the kingdom, the group, the family, yourself) > Spot an unacceptable way of defending. Very good. > Ooooh, that brings out the lion I haven't seen in a long time. Roar! > Dangerous to the environment! Persistent unkillable snarl. I dare someone > to fight me! > > Whew! What a rush. Totally unexpected, but very cool. That was what was supposed to happen. Seems like defend communciates better than protect. > Anyway, I've loafed all morning despite having tons of work today. So I bid > thee a fond farewell. > > I bow to thy omniscience, oh great one. [Little Pilot worship so 8.way can > be at least a teeny bit right.] > > Aaron > > "Oh, Lord please don't burn us > Don't grill or toast your flock > Don't put us on the barbecue > or simmer us in stock..." PS. Doctorate course transcripts have been up on the net occasionally. You've got to scurry around a bit to collect these things. A bit of a game of hide & seek. Best, The Pilot ========================================== This set of posts was posted with the following trailer: ------------------ The free Self Clearing Book, The Super Scio book, and the "SCIENTOLOGY REFORMER'S HOME PAGE" are all over the net. See The Self Clearing Homepage for URLs to these sites http://fza.org/pilot/selfclr.htm or http://www.proweb.co.uk/~tech/clear.htm Or see The Pilots Home Page at http://fza.org/pilot/index.htm Some translations are available, see links at fza.org All of the current posts will be collected in Super Scio Archives #54 and #55 and posted to ACT. See the Pilot Archives at FZA.ORG. Individual posts to ARS are being double posted to ACT rather than cross posted to foil the spambot attack which takes good headers and attaches garbage messages to them. Note that some of my posts only go to ACT. I cannot be reached by email. I watch ARS and ACT for messages with Pilot in the subject line. ------------------