От: The Pilot Тема: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 49 - MID FEB 99 PILOT POSTS (2/2) Дата: 17 февраля 1999 г. 7:00 POST49.txt SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 49 - MID FEB 99 PILOT POSTS (2/2) The first half of post48 (down to the Humor post) was to ARS & ACT, the remainder of post48 & all of post49 was to ACT only. ========================================== Contents: subj: Super Scio Tech - On Running Proccesses (Attn Rau) subj: Super Scio - On Deuteronomy (Attn CBW, PScott) subj: Super Scio Tech - To Thom On ACC Tapes Etc. subj: Super Scio Tech - On Tommy's Advanced Rundowns subj: Super Scio - To Rogers on Exasperation subj: Super Scio Tech - Name Game For Robert subj: Super Scio Tech - RUDIMENTS AND SELF CLEARING (Attn MadTurnip0) subj: Super Scio - To Bob On The Books LRH Read subj: Super Scio - To Dimitry subj: Super Scio - More Thanks For Survey Answers subj: Super Scio Tech - A SUPER PROCESS ON PROTEST ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - On Running Proccesses (Attn Rau) ON RUNNING PROCESSES (Attn Rau) On 8 Feb 99, rau@voyager.co.nz asked on subject "SelfClear: Real basic question on 1.1" > From the book, > > "...An important part of it is the spotting of precise points rather > than just vaguely looking around...." The word "precise" here refers to the points being spotted. In other words, one wants specific points. > Does this mean I should think of what I am about to look for before I > look for something, or does it just mean that when I look a > direction, I should look carefully. The second statement is correct. > IE do I think to myself "I am now going to turn head right, and look > at the far top left corner of the room" No. Except that you can do this as a help when begining with a command that seems difficult. Most important is to get the command done, so this is fine as long as it is helping, but usually this just slows one down and gets in the way. > ...or.. > > do I turn my head right, and then when looking, I decide to look at a > particular point in my vision, say the far top left corner of the > room" This is exactly right. > Do I make sense here? Yes. > Sorry for such a basic question, and only on the first procedure I > think they are called. This is the most likely place for basic questions to come up and this is where I am most likely to have left out things that I take for granted. > rau@voyager.co.nz Welcome. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - On Deuteronomy (Attn CBW, PScott) ON DEUTERONOMY (Attn CBW, PScott) > On 6 Feb 99, "C. B. Willis" continued the > discussion on my earlier post "Super Scio Tech - To Phil On Between Lives" > > : PScott wrote: > : >> The bible warns heavily against this activity..... I have not fathomed > : why > : >> yet. it may be that in our grievous error here, if we get too much of > : >> what we want, the error can become overwhelming....... or it may be that > : >> erronious intent from this side attracts erronious intent from the other > : >> side....and things can get nasty. > > > : Pilot replied: > : >Which book and which version of it? > > : Don't now, got it from a TV preacher who was discussing what was meant > : in the bible by 'familiar spirits' and admonition against association... he > : was looking up the original greek and hebrew.....seemed to be making his > : point well... my guess is the real truth is a bit different. > > The reference on "familiar spirits" is Deuteronomy 18:10-12. > > The reason for it is that such familiar spirits are usually lower astral > entities and divert attention from direct communication/communion with > God/Spirit, who is the Spirit of Truth. Spiritualists would normally do > "rescue work" if they encountered such a being rather than get attached to > it. > > Contemporary channelers may get attached to such beings or call them > masters or such. No master worth its salt would want a person to be so > attached, but would likely direct the person to a reservoir, body of > knowledge, or specialized library of information on the inner planes they > could "download" directly by intuition - tap into the "raincloud of > knowable things" sort of idea. > > Also, perceived familiar spirits may just as likely be dramatization of > disowned parts of the self, disowned wisdom, or disowned case, etc. > > This is not to say that we can't have _some_ communication with spirits > without bodies, and this is most common for a while after the person has > passed to the other side after "death." Also common is for one who has > passed over to allow loved ones to observe what's going on with them, > track their progress, like an ongoing spiritual postcard or video. But > this is not an everyday thing, usually on an urgently as-needed basis, not > a substitute for highest spiritual relationship. > > - CBW I like Carol's answer. My general feeling is that communication is fine but one shouldn't be looking to these spirits for answers. I looked up the verses in my Revised Standard Version of the Bible (c. 1962). "There shall not be found among you any one who burns his son or his daughter as an offering (Heb: make his son or daughter pass through the fire), any one who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord; and because of these abominable practices the Lord your God is driving them out before you". I would mention that some anchient practices of divination and auguries involved cutting open animals and reading their guts, basically a lesser variation on the human sacrifices. Certainly a no-no. There might be a bit of ranting here against any kind of mixing practices, but that might also be a later additive or due to changing meanings in the words. Although this version of the Bible is supposed to be based on a retranslation of early sources, the sources are 5th to 9th century rather than anything really early. My own liberal interpretation would be to consider it an admonition against sacrifice and against spiritual practices which are aimed at abusing power. Note that terms like "medium" might not have the same meaning as today and my impression of the list of professions is that they were meant to identify abusive actions rather than all spiritual actions. The version above has no mention of "familiar spirits". I would suspect that that is a later alteration, probably by Rome in the middle ages. At some point (11th century?), the Catholic Church banned white magic. Up until then, I would expect that contact with spirits in general (and especially the Holy Spirit) would have been quite acceptible. And remember that the Holy Sprit was only defined as an aspect of God (The Trinity) many hundreds of years after Christ said that he would send back a holy spirit to guide us. I prefer the interpretation that we are all children of God and that would include the spirits as well. Of course I have a gnostic interpretation of Christianity. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - To Thom On ACC Tapes Etc. TO THOM ON ACC TAPES ETC. On 7 Feb 99, thomlove@my-dejanews.com continued the discussion on topic "Super Scio Tech - On Doing Research (Attn Thom)" > In article , > pilot@hiddenplace.com wrote: > > Hello Pilot. > > Thank you for your detailed response. It'll take me a short while to really > grasp it all, so this post is short until I have more data to refer to. > > For now, I'd like to know what ACC tapes you'd recommend. What R&D Volumes > you'd recommend. The local org has a couple of the ACC tape sets, but I don't > want to buy them all. I would probably do so eventually, but the money has > it's own travel plans. So, I'd rather concentrate on the specific ones that > you may recommend me getting hatted up on. New R&D volumes 9 to 12 cover all of 1952 up to but not including the doctorate course (PDC). This has my top recommendation. The HCL (Hubbard College Lectures), Tech 80 (Route to infinity), Tech 88, Tech 88 supplements, OT cassettes (secrets of Mest Universe plus SOP lectures), and LPC (London Professional Course - the warmup for the PDC) are all transcribed in these. Best is to read these in order starting from the beginning of volume 9. This is the transition from Dianetics into Scientology and many of the breakthroughs and methods of research can be seen here in context. Note that there has been some editing of the material and in a few cases Freezone Bible has posted transcripts which have the omissions (based on the old reels) marked. FZBH did secrets of the Mest Universe recently. But the bulk of these transcripts are yet to be done and it might be years and the R&Ds are not too expensive, relatively speaking. Transcripts of the PDC have been available on the net. These are also being covered in R&D volumes 13 to 15 (15 isn't out yet). In this case I think that there are so many old sets of the tapes that they don't dare monkey with editing out some of the contents. All of the above are nice to have in audio but the orgs tape prices are astronomical and you have said that you are not planning to just buy everything because of finances. So I would say that you should concentrate on buying cassettes for which you can't get transcripts and concentrate on the most advanced ones. The most advanced series of cassetes that is available from the orgs, and unfortunately one of the most expensive, is the 2nd ACC. Since this is a huge set that has come out recently, I doubt that there are many copies in the field and it may a few years before the R&Ds get up to this (probably around R&D 21). The set is called "The Rehabilitation of The Human Spirit" and it contains 67 lectures. The price is about 2 grand or a bit less with discounts etc. The peak of the research line is the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd ACCs. Each of these is a bit larger than the doctorate course (all other ACCs are half the size or less). Unfortunately they haven't done the 3rd yet on cassette, but both the 1st ("Exteriorization and the Phenomena of Space") and the 2nd (above) have been done. A very few tapes of the 2nd and 3rd have been posted by Freezone Bible. As for the late ACCs, my favorite is the 1st Melborne which is out on cassette as Responsibility & the State of OT. Unfortunately the powerful ACCs are big sets and most of the small sets are congresses, which are good but not maximum strength. Going through an ACC in sequence from begining to end, soloing the processes and learning with understanding aimed at application is a truely major action which produces great results. > > Super Scio chapters 5, 6, 9, and 10 all have occasional sections > > where I discuss how I approached researching something and what > > steps I took. > > I do have your book. The chapters are not marked, so I guess I'll have to > guess. I 'think' you are referring to the chapter on Penalty Universes as > chapter 5. I'm printing out your book as we speak, so I'll get onto it > tonight. Yes, 5 is the Penalty Universes. > Getting myself FNing is a piece of cake. I've done quite a few GF's and 53's > solo already while at Flag, as well as solo L&Ns. VWD. > My present TAA is not spectacular; about 2.5 divs every 45 minutes. I try to > get in an hour a day, but in reality, it is usually only about 45 minutes. > Short sessions are best. I notice the needle begin to rise as soon as I get > 'looking', and then when I find 'something' it runs quite well and after a > half an hour or so, the TA settles down to below where I started at SOS. If I > go past that point, the session bogs, and my c/s for the next session > ususally has to do with 'BP a win' sort of handling. It is easy to miss on > this level. I just finished my first solo Int R/D handling, and it flew like > an eagle. Smooth and no complications... until I over ran a big win in the > area...which I handled the next day. As you move upscale, things keep running faster and it is extremely easy to overrun. > I am aware of the 'evaluation' of robotically running Inc 2. If I can > percieve any CI's or BI's, (counter intentions or bad indicators), I swith > over to the more generalize handling of finding the type of incident, and > then D/L (date locate) it. I find usually I can tell right away if Inc 2 will > run or not. I find eventually in most cases it does have to be run but the > sequence does vary. I would usually just know. If you don't know, check for incident type rather than assuming inc 2. Don't use the volcano assessment, instead have them "point to the volcano you were implanted in" if this step is needed at all. > Anyway, I'll respond in more detail to your post, and let you know how it is > going. In the meantime, if you could fill me in on what LRH sources I should > aim at initially, that would be much appreciated. > > I should have your book all up an readable by the end of tomorrow, and I'll > start to study the NOTs valence processes to an EP tonight. So, maybe tomorrow > I can get that 'FN', and start! > > Thanks again. > > "When in doubt, COMMUNICATE!" LRH > > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own Good to hear from you, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - On Tommy's Advanced Rundowns ON TOMMY'S ADVANCED RUNDOWNS Recently Tommy Thompson has appeared on the net posting as Ra and putting out a number of advanced rundowns under titles such as "Universe Goals" and "Power Rundown". The material is a bit too long to quote here. These rundowns should get collected together and put up on the net somewhere. ================= He began with this message to me which I will quote in full. Later he exanded the rundown that he describes here, naming it the "Universe Goals" and explaining the abbreviations and the procedure in detail. So if you're not familiar with these, pickup his other posting for a full explanation. On 5 Feb 99, Ra posted on subject "Pilot Thanks" > Pilot: > > Finally got some ta on finding you. Have had much success with > superscio. Great to hear. > Old OTVII (#1000), Nots Solo comp. VWD on the research. Thank you. Since you're not witholding your identity, when did you start & finish S/Nots (idle curiosity, just wondering if I met you at Flag, although obviously I'm not going to say if I did for now). > Have some interesting procedures on the 16 d's. > Assess for largest reading, L&N for WW would have purp of ____. to bd > F/N item. Then use L term procedure, What would be the purp of (item). > If yours, dl, es to ep. If B/c/etc, then dl, or r3r es to basic, > postulate off, if necessary, what, who, point to split, Spot first > machine, what who. > Enormous ta if done with good int. It's really good to see somebody thinking with this stuff. It looks like you are aimed at stripping off lock valences from penalty universe items, and maybe it would even undercutting into an area prior to the penalty universes which I think of as "valance masses". But the target doesn't seem clear and I'm not sure what you'll find at the bottom of this. It makes me think of the research rundown I did stripping off later implants etc. from the penalty universes as described in chapter 5 of Super Scio. That was a research action because I learned a lot but was not really a good case handling because it stirred up as much as it errased. As you get charge off on things like this and have cogs and see the anatomy of things better, it becomes possible to think up easier repetative processes that would let others work their way to the same point without the same degree of auditing skill. We will need more light processes for taking charge off of goals and purposes, and I am working on that, but if you can come up with some it would be a help. > Thanks much, if anyone interested, am compiling procedure now. > Have to be at least complete on III, or good reality in area. For those who haven't done III, bypass it and start with solo nots, just blowing what your attention is drawn to. That is much easier and safer. > Thanks Again. > Tommy Thompson > > -- > "A being is only as valuable as he can serve others." > pthorn1@pacbell.net > http://home.pacbell.net/pthorn1/ > http://wwp.mirabilis.com/232039 (icq pager) The big mistake in the later research was to look at items (GPMs or whatever) and entities as the whys of what is wrong with the PC. And so we had endless GPM listing with very little Itsa and then we had lots of handling of entities with very little Itsa because supposedly things like this were the source. The real why is the PC's own postulates, decisions, dones, etc. The other stuff only tricked him into makeing bad postulates and so forth which caused him to abberate himself. His real case comes off with Itsa. The Itsa can be very high on finding correct items. But it is also possible to find correct items with inadequate Itsa because the area is just too far out of reach. If too much of that is happening, one needs to shift over to techniques which produce more Itsa in the area. ================= SOME OUTPOINTS This is based on looking over a number of the rundowns in addition to the above. I am going to point out some outpoints, but I hope that you will take this as constructive criticism, make some improvements and keep posting because I'm getting some big wins from your approach and I hope others will as well. The main cautions are for beginners who might get themselves in trouble so I'm going to put these first before I get around to more positive things. ========= The really big outpoint is that the listing questions which you are using would be dangerous in unskilled hands. Listing for an intention or purpose is really the same as listing for a goal, and you can potentially pickup pieces of GPMs or implants or penalty universes or god knows what else. That means that the liabilities of an out list are immense unless the person is up to Itsaing these things. Listing in an area where the person has an adequate Itsa line is safe and casual. The person rarely gets anything wrong and when he does he spots it fairly fast because he can Itsa a wrong item. But if you list him in over his head, he can't Itsa a wrong item and will become the effect of it. That is how you get people sick or screwed up with an out list. So these listing actions are only safe for either a real hotshot professional auditor or for somebody who has gotten way up the line to a point where they can Itsa this stuff easily. I'm not saying that you shouldn't run them and I'm not saying they shouldn't be posted, I'm glad to have them and I'm sure that some of the other pros are enjoying them too, but you need to put some warnings on these things. Either that or find ways to soften up the areas with easy repetative processes and raise Itsa before trying to list. I don't think that a person could list themselves into a complete spin solo because there isn't an auditor there to enforce a wrong item or keep the question going past the point of mind's protection. But they sure can sit there and go onto a complete whatsit and Q&A and grind to a hault with too much in restimulation and no way to sort it out except to give it a week to cool down. ========== You often use XDN style techniques, and there is a huge and deadly bug in XDN that was fixed in the FPRD tech. If an "evil intention" (now called a "false purpose" out of politeness) comes up, you have got to go for the prior confusion that the intention was mocked up to solve. Sometimes people came out of XDN Q&Aing about whether they were basically evil. The XDN handling does not discharge these ev-purps adequately. But the FPRD handling does seem to work. Of course the FPRD is just a sec check with the addition of prior confusion handling if a false purpose (ev-purp) comes up, and that is about the poorest way to get into these things. But the actual handling once they do hit one is the only safe way. Actually, this would apply anytime you are listing for any kind of a goal, purpose, or intention. There is a chance that the resulting item will be an ev-purp. And note that it is evil by the PC's consideration, not by the auditor's or the mores of the current society. You might not even have been looking for an ev-purp. The trouble is that everybody has inverted periods on the track. So you have to be prepared for one to come up occasionally. I think that you will always find that these are from late in an actual GPM, or from an implant, or from some similar early track inversion or locks on one of these things. And most PCs would not be up to Itsaing this. You can't even assess for what it is if the PC has not already confronted a bit of the structural anatomy of the thing that you have hit, and in this case it is a crap shoot as to exactly what he has gotten himself into. But at basic, overts are always comitted to solve something, so the prior confusion tech undercuts and works even if you are in the middle of a GPM. I complain about the FPRD because of the sec checking aspect which is evaluative and doesn't let the overts come off on a gradient and then is abused by using ethics on the person after an item is discharged. But the prior confusion handling is spot on. ============ You used the penalty universe goals in your Universe Goals process. That's fine by me. But any time you use that list of goals, please, please mention the business about spotting pushing others into the penalty universes. You could even baby that up and oversimplify it as in "if you start to feel really charged up on the goal or get into trouble, spot pushing somebody else into an implant about that goal". Or give them the whole business about the first item and blanketing and the home universe time frame. Those things are so solid that there is nobody on earth who can stop eating without dying, just to give an example on the goal "to eat". The above is a safety net. It will knock out the restim of a totally goofed action. You did some very smart things with platen 1. That makes it pretty damn safe to fool with these. Other people who have not done that could wrap themselves around a telephone pole unless you give the the above as a way of cooling down the charge if they get in trouble. Also note that if somebody were to make a level out of handling valences locked on top of penalty universe terminals and then another level about the entry points to the penalty universes, and made these secret, they would actually be creating a non-interference zone between the two levels. I think that we've learned not to do this by now. =========== PENALTY UNIVERSE BREAKTHROUGH Speaking of penalty universes, your improvement in using alternate spotting is excellent and you are right about the number of items gradually reducing on it. This is a major breakthough on handling the things. The penalty universe items are not really in words or language as we know it. It is hard to say exactly what it is, the operating capability of the beings in the home universe era was so high that it can barely be duplicated from a human viewpoint. I tried a couple of times to get a complete platen of the items used within the mocked up universe where one is going around in a body and just begining to slide down from tone 40. That is from before I found platen 1. I still thought that it started with one in the universe rather than going through a long setup. So every time I'd run another one or two hundred items, I'd pick up the begining and try to flatten items as in normal implant handling and I'd look for missed items in between. Whenever I did that, items would always spread out into multiple lighter items. It was like looking at something under greater and greater magnification. So these are not items as we know them in later implants. It is some sort of big telepathic wave and you can embrace a larger or a smaller section. I hadn't seen that clearly until I read your post on shortcutting platen 1. You need to focus down to a level of detail that you can as-is. At first it is a narrow item and then later it is a broader item that encompasses many of the narrower ones as a unit. I've worked in recent times with alternate spotting on items rather than repetative spotting of the same item and it is definitely the better technique. But I hadn't cognited on that back in the days when I was researching the penalty universes, so I never tried it there. Based on just some light fooling around, it works like dynamite on the later sections of the penalty universe. I could grab the tiger with the goal to eat and take the entire tone band at antagonism with its hundreds of items and the band a anger with its hundreds and alternately shift up and down between them and feel all those items discharging like crazy. Note that I don't have real errasure even on the goal to eat which is the one I ran the most (the first one I found). Because of the above mentioned problem of the items seeming to fan out into more items, I gave up on getting true errasue and settled for a floating TA and a major key out (thanks to platen 1) while knowing that it was not really errased but only cooled down. This new procedure opens the possiblity of actually errasing the damn things by running items in bulk. =========== HANDLING LOCATIONS This is from your power rundown. Locations is one hell of a topic. It is a key button in SOP 8D (places where ... would be safe) of the 5th ACC, and there is some interesting ideas on the PC abandoning locations in the 4th ACC as well. And then there is the "why thetans mockup" HCOB that is supposedly a bit of OT 8 which was included on the Class 8 course (I've verified that with two different class 8s). --- > First the following is assesed method 5, and the largest to smallest > reads are taken up e/s to f/n, cog, vgis. It is assesed once more, > taking all reads up, to a f/n ing list. > > Has a location been suppressed? > Has a location been invalidated? > Has a location been attempted? > Has a location been challenged? > Has a location been resisted? > Has a location been abandoned? > Has a location been rushed? > Has a location been missed? > Has a location been over run? (this is cleared with the meaning of taken > over) > > The above will enable the pc to erase the most prevalent charge on > important locations. Once this is clean, the following is ran. I would think that the 18 prepcheck buttons you give below plus the inval button (I think inval should be in the standard prepcheck series) might be better. "Over run" smacks of LX1 and that might be a good thing here too, but just using one button of that grouping might be assuming too much. In other words, why this one but not crushed, smashed, overwhelmed, destroyed, etc. Maybe that should be its own separate step. In practice I rarely do formal M5 assessments on myself anymore, reserving that as a repair action. I'd rather raise perception in an area and then know whether there is anything there or not with certainty and no meter dependence. So I simply ran "spot locations that have been suppressed". (not recommended for charged up cases - you can't do it that way if one of these buttons is charged enough that it has to be run first). A whole bunch of light little suppresses came off of various places (with some perceptions turning on) and then I hit a real significant one that had been heavily suppressed. Of course I'd peaked ahead (and didn't feel I needed any setup), so I wanted to jump to the next section and run it there. Since I immediately knew it was some sort of important basic, and was about 700 thousand years ago and was a location I'd held as a politician when things went bad, and since I was feeling very good at having spotted it and felt a lot of suppress lift, I figured that I was ready to run it without further itsa/es itsa. > L&N > > What position could you have held absolutely? The question doesn't seem quite right. I think that the right wording would be "what position did you intend to hold absolutely?" or maybe even "what position did you hold absolutely?" I'm assuming here that you want one where he made an absolute postulate to hold it and so he is still there even though he was knocked out of there. The trouble is that he may also have the consideration that the couldn't hold it even though he did hold it, so the wording you used might stir up a Q&A on could he hold it or couldn't he. > Indicate the item, and mark it on the worksheet. (for example: > Entrance to Home Universe) Nice example. Mine is a mundane key moment in an actual GPM that I've had a vague idea of and wanted to know more about. One that is a couple down the track, maybe to be successful or to be popular or something like that. But I'd previously known that there was some mucking about with politics in the middle of it. I've disliked politicians ever since. Aside - as I'm writing this I just realized that the goal was to be powerful (VVGI), and it was followed by the goal to be holy (to solve the oppression of powerful people). A whole bunch of things just fell into place for me. But I'm getting way ahead of what I ran last night that I was describing here. Anyway, I didn't list the above question because I already had a good answer in the form of that suppressed location that I'd spotted on the previous step. > next: use the item in the next listing q. > What effort would it take to hold (that position)? Excellent question. My answer for the above was "Determination". I had this incredibly solid determination to hold that position. And when I spotted that, I realized that the exact position was up on a podium addressing a sort of senate that was booing and hissing at me. > Indicate, mark on worksheet. (eample: infinite effort) > next: use the item in the next listing q. > What problem would be solved by (infinite effort)? > (this will be a rough one. He has been not-knowing this for a long > time. Sooner or later he will give you an answer like: "Deciding to be > there" This is the reason he ever entered the universe. Indicate the > item, and get ready with the thumb to keep the needle on the dial.) > At this point, you will proably have a FTA, VVVVgis, and he will have > his ultimate secret. Just a bit harder to run, not really super rough. But there was a bit of getting pieces of it and looking at it from different angles before I realized what the item was. I was more Itsaing here rather than listing. It might be better to use "think of some things that could be solved by ...." until you suddenly realize that that is the thing that you were solving. That might get a bit more Itsa and be easier than formal listing, especially as there might be many things being solved in addition to the key thing being solved. Eventually I came up with "The collapse of society". But the Itsa along the way gave me a view of fighting with other politicos and having a veto power (maybe like a governor or something) and trying to stop a wave of laws that I saw as suppressive. And I had the sense that I was at the GPM crossover point. After this failed I turned evil on that goal and was going to wreck things. > Let him have his win, and when you can get back in > session, run the following. > > prepcheck: > On the item (Deciding to be there) has anything been: > 1. Suppressed > 2. Careful of > 3. Didn't reveal > 4. Not-ised > 5. Suggested > 6. Mistake been made > 7. Protested > 8. Anxious about > 9. Decided > 10. Withdrawn from > 11 . Reached > 12. Ignored > 13 . Stated > 14. Helped > 15. Altered > 16. Revealed > 17. Asserted > 18. Agreed with > This should mostly reabitate his ability to hold a location in space, as > it removes the charge from moving off the earliest point he considered > important. For an OT, you would additionally run: > On the item (deciding to be there) is it: > yours? (mine) > bt > c > cc > etc. and handle per the grade of the pc. It seemed like I had enough itsa on the previous step to skip this as unnecessary. > Next, we will handle out of valenceness on this point of overwhelm. > > L&N > Who or what would (decide to be there)? (practice harder than > anyone, etc) > > This will give you the valence that overwhelmed him on this > location. example:(Billy, God, Me,etc) You are not asking for the valence that overwhelmed him, you are asking for the valence he was being when he got overwhelmed. Sometimes you might get the overwhelming terminal on a list like this, because he did shift into it, so you should check what you got, but remember that you have been taking charge off, so the whole thing is in a state of flux that could list either way. W/W would be determined? - A powerful leader W/W would oppose a powerful leader - A conniver Or - W/w would bring about the collapse of society - a conniver. (same answer, run as a cross check) W/W would be determined to prevent the collapse of society - a powerful leader. (another cross check) And just for fun: W/W would solve the opposition of a conniver - ans. A POWERFUL CONNIVER. That is the GPM crossover. Becoming what you oppose. Massive blowout on this, huge gain, big valence shift. A powerful leader opposed by the conniving slime of a greedy legislature that was bound and determined to milk the population dry. And the leader failed to stop them and was booed from the podium and discredited and became a powerful conniver to win back his power and position and in so doing became the most vile exploiter of them all. I turned really black after that. It's no wonder that I don't trust politicians. > Next L&N: > What would be the intention/purpose of (terminal)? > (he will come up with: to unmock, live forever, stay still, etc etc.) I was so blown out by the previous one that I didn't bother doing this last night. Figured that I'd hit the EP of the action. Silly of me. Of course the intention was "to be powerful" (the GPM goal), and it just sort of poked up while I was writing this up (see where I stopped, startled, and gave an aside on it above). > Indicate the item. > Then Check: > Is the intention (to live forever) > Yours (mine solo) > BT > C > CC, etc, and handle per grade of the pc. This will blow false purposes > that the pc has been living unknowingly, and as long has he is being, he > cannot hold that location in space.. The intention to be powerful was mine once, long ago, abandoned with disgust maybe 500 thou years ago when I decided to be holy to get away from that power shit. "Is the intention" is not good here because you are handling an old stuck point. Better to ask "is the item yours?". Abandoning locations and valences goes through zig zags and is cumulative. So you get an old one and you can't assume if he is closer to the term or the opterm right now and you can't assume that it is his intention now because he might have opposed it since then. In this case I ran into a recent GPM while running the process. This might be because I'd run off the last two awhile ago and blow out enough to drop the area and work with other kinds of processes and the third one back (which the above was) has finally become accessible. The really interesting thing was that the process was powerful enough to take me right to the crossover without discharging the goal or even being sure what the goal was and without running the intermediate items. And I think that the TA just went around the dial through 7 (I've had that happen a few times and I know what it feels like) when the last of it fell into place while I was writing a few minutes ago (but I wasn't on the cans to be sure). But this business on locations etc. can run much earlier than GPMs and an early track one might have run completely differently. But I still think that there would be two valences involved in something like this. The trouble is what questions to use at the end. I knew I had a GPM kicking and the questions I formulated felt right, but slightly different ones might have been needed for a different sort of anatomy. You can do this as research with the confidence of being able to feel around for the right way to list something. But you can't let people loose on it who are not up to doing that unless you can envision everything they might get into and formulate something that is always appropriate. Despite my complaints, I made an enourmous gain here. Thank you. ============== The next day I was wondering about what would have happened if I'd listed into a late part of that GPM where there were lots of overts and ev purps and probably a big R/S as I committed some kind of horrible overts against the holy folks before flipping into the goal To Be Holy (which is pretty well discharged already). Being adventurous, I simply looked for an absolutely held position near the end of that GPM and something popped up immediately. It was sitting on a throne holding that position. So I looked for the effort needed to hold that position (this by the way is a very good question). That was easily spotted (just Itsa, not L&N) as "crush the opposition". Then W/W would crush the opposition - I actually had to list a few answers to get off charge (informal, unmetered, coffee shopping, just curious to see how it would fit together). When I spotted the right item, it was obvious - A Merciless Ruler. Of course I did this out of sequence, (didn't have the materials to hand - I'm terribly casual about this stuff these days - NOT recommended for beginners). Maybe that's why I didn't just know the item immediately. Anyway, I looked for the problem being solved as the next step. I was solving the problem of these holy people (monks really) who were going around and inciting the population against me. My big overt was ordering the soldiers to go out one night and butcher them all. They got them all too but the population was horrified and went into revolt. Not long after I swore off holding power ever again and started studying to be a priest. This is maybe 50 thousand years after the earlier set of items I'd run, and there were probably dozens of item pairs in between. But that didn't seem to matter, I was happy about running this. Now this would have been a good point to stop. I looked at the next intention list and it seemed obvious that my intention was to make them shut up. But that left my attention on the opterm, and slightly unflattened the keyout which after all was sitting right in the middle of a big old GPM. One word of advice is to bail on a rundown like this if you get a major feeling of relief. Don't push it open again unless you want to start in on another can of worms. So I listed W/W would being a merciless ruler solve and got "noisy preachers". That cooled it back down. But there was that comment about "this was the valence that overwhelmed him on that location". So I thought about whether a merciless ruler had overwhelmed me on that location. Definitely not, it was me who had been being the merciless ruler, not my opponent. But of course I couldn't leave it alone with an interesting suggestion like that, so I looked for whether there was a merciless ruler who had overwhelmed me. Screech. There sure was, but it was way up near the beginning of the GPM. I tried to date it and got 1.2 million years ago, over half a million earlier than the point where I used the valence against others. And at that earlier point it was an opterm. At this point I was turning on heavy mass and getting a few somatics. So I looked for W/W would oppose a merciless ruler and immediately got "a powerful protestor" and that was me acting almost like the monks had later acted against me and raising a revolt against this evil ruler. So I would say that it will have been something which had overwhelmed him previously, but it might be way in the past and a different location, so the statement of "overwhelmed him on that location" could (and did in my case) act as a wrong indication. However I still had some mass kicking around. Probably the mass of the dozens of unlisted items in between the merciless ruler as an oppterm up near the beginning of the GPM and the merciless ruler as a terminal down near the end. I didn't feel like sitting there with mass and somatics struggling to list out dozens of valences. I also wondered what would happen to somebody who had poor or nonexistant Itsa on GPMs if they walked into a mass like this while listing for intentions etc. They might just see a lot of charge and some evil intentions to zap priests and stuff like that. So I took my own advice. I grabbed the mass of charge without worrying about GPM anatomy or the half million year timespan or anything else and simply looked for the prior confusion I was solving. Right away I knew that I was solving the collapse of civilization and the mass and charge blew. I'd hit a bit of that much earlier, but this time I knew that the whole GPM "To be powerful" had been entered in to solve that. I was trying to grab power to stop civilization from collapsing. And I could see the humor of starting out that way with high goals and intentions and eventually ending up butchering holy men. With that I felt a tremendous release. And I could see that since then I have been unwilling to be at the focal point of power. I always step to the side, trying to be the planner or designer or researcher or whatever but not holding the reins myself. Yet again thank you. But some work is needed on this rundown, there is a bit too much heritage from XDN and (I think) Ls which skirt the edges of GPMs without really handling them. ============= But I wondered if I hadn't given it a fair trial, after all it might not list into GPMs. So I decided to try this on earlier time periods. I thought of entry to this universe, and it did not seem at all correct. On entering a universe, one does not want to hold a position, one wants to explore. How about getting kicked out of a universe? Ah, there one usually fights like the devil to hold one's position. That seemed good. So I looked for trying to hold a location while they were trying to push me into incident 1 and sentence me to the physical universe (from the magic universe). Boy oh boy did I hold on. I was going to maintain that position absolutely. So what was the effort (I love that question), and it was to permeate everything so that I could hold onto it. When I spotted that, the whole incident came into view. They have these statues leading up to the pool where you are pushed in and transfered. I jumped into one of the statues. I thought I was being smart, but that is planned for and the people running the show just leave you be. Because what happens is that when they push the next guy down the line, you push at him too to keep from being sucked along and falling into the implant. So you help them. After a few of those you are feeling guilty for implanting others and toss yourself in. Again a good point to stop. But for research purposes, I went on. As far as problems being solved, I was obviously trying to keep from being kicked out. Then I listed W/W would permeate everything (while holding my attention on the time period, because it had keyed out and I didn't want to list into something else with a similar item). Answer - a sinful god. A very minor nature god really, hanging around a village and making storms and zapping people. They hired some wizzards to catch me in a bottle and get rid of me. What intention? Get even with the nasty villagers. That did not seem to need any opterm handling or anything related to GPMs. So I finally had a different sort of thing here. But it really did seem like the prior confusion handling would be needed here. Although there was that problem step above, now I was earlier in the thing. And it seemed like there was a whole long period of going around and zapping people and making storms and being nasty in general. So I looked for the prior confusion. Ah, relief. The environment was getting ruined. I couldn't solve that. I couldn't get things going right. So I decided to drive the people off. Nice. I hope that I haven't bored everyone with rambling on about case. But it seemed like a good way to test out the questions and see how this stuff would run. ================ XDN (and its cousin the Introspection Rundown) was the only lower level action that had a reputation for spinning people in. I don't know the actual stats (the org is good at covering up case failures) but I know quite a few who were badly caved in by XDN handling. It was probably the actions of a) running evpurps without getting the prior confusion the purpose was mocked up to solve, and b) clipping pieces of actual GPMs without handling them properly. If you mix that in with some out lists and evaluative ethics handling, you have a dangerous action. Part of what is wrong with Int. Management today is probably due to screwed up XDN handling in the 1970s leaving evpurps in heavy restim and maybe also leaving heavy GPM items being dramatized. Imagine if I'd clipped into that merciless ruler valence without a clue and too charged up to itsa it properly. Might I not have started to dramatize it and ended up like MissCabbage. Screwed up GPM listing might well be what started the mess in the 1960s, and then it comes back, renamed "intentions" and the same mess is made again, but this time without even any clue as to the anatomy of what was being listed. There should be a simpler and safer way. Some kind of light repetative processes on intentions, locations, postulates, and even goals. We already have those on valences and on overts (and actually I put a few on postulates into self clearing). =========== Enough for now. I'm very cheerful about the wealth of ideas that are beginning to pour into ACT. We might yet make OT in this lifetime. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - To Rogers on Exasperation To Rogers on Exasperation On 9 Feb 99, "Rogers" responded to my post on "Super Scio - Answering BigCog's Rant" > Dear Pilot, (May I call you Anjin-san?) Yes, I enjoyed Shogun and Anjin-san is well respected, therefore it is a compliment. > Please, please, please don't let yourself get too exasperated. Wait, > I take that back. Get a little more exasperated, change its color, > get a little less... and so on (tongue in cheek but still a good idea). A little bit of it is fun and I'm not stuck in it. > A lot of the critics of Super Scio and Self Clearing are just finding it > hard to get over their own protest and bpc. Yes, and there are the factors of comm lag and cultural lag. > Personal anecdote: In 1997 I "tried" to re-read 8-8008 and, dammit, I just > couldn't. One of my formerly favorite books was now just frustrating me and > pissing me off - for reasons that were unclear at the time. Oh well, I knew > I was depressed and feeling hopeless at that time, but the data in the book > just didn't seem to indicate the way it used to. I've had a couple of bad moments like that and I've know others who have too, and some of the really disaffected who became critics seem stuck in it. It is BPC. > Subsequently, I made some changes in my life (started taking some of my own > home brewed echinacea and St. John's Wort tincture on the physical level, > started trying to correct some things on higher levels, and so on. By the > way, I thought the echinacea worked on my depression better than the St. > John's Wort. I suspect that it is due to the interactivity of immune system > and depressive mental states. In other words, it is well accepted that a > poor mental state just chews up your own immune system, but, I swear, > stimulating the immune system with the echinacea also worked backwards to > upgrade my mental state. It just happened, I didn't postulate it or expect > it.). Sure. Just having a nice meal can put one in a better mood, and being in a better mood can improve one's digestion, so there is obviously a two way street here. > Anyway, the following year, feeling much better, I found 8-8008 to be just > as brilliant as I did thirty years ago. And I might add, after re-reading > CofHA, Phoenix Lectures and 8-8008 as well as re-listening to the PDC tapes, > I was READY for your wonderful books. > > Anyway, I tell this story to emphasize that this year's critic could be next > year's fan. Hopefully. I tend to expect that in the one's who are intelligent and really learned some tech even if they are frothing at the mouth at the moment. But there are also fanatical robots who haven't a clue, and their comm lags may be beyond our wildest dreams. Some people still think the earth is flat, and that datum has been around for over 2000 years now (proven and even measured by the Greeks but only agreed on by the common people since Columbus). > I know I don't need to tell you (you have it covered in your books) that it > just locks people in when they justify their positions. Yup. > Furthermore, a lot of the bpc that is externalizing is really coming at you > as a "wrong target." You know that too. Too true. I'm either equated with the "evil psychs" or the "evil cult" depending on which side is carping at me at the moment. Perhaps I post to both ARS and ACT for balance so that I can get criticised for being both too tall and too short at the same time. It's kind of funny really. > Best wishes. Les C. Rogers > > P.S. By the way, I thought it was funny somebody calling you "flyboy." > It's almost as good as anjin-san. Unfortunately it makes me think of flies rather than flying. Probably some old batman comic or something (the flyboy sends his annoying insects to plague our heros). Even so, its more fun than having people applaud my bust (especially as I'm a flat chested male). I wonder when the org will cognite and have a tape of applause playing continuously in front of Ron's picture. PS. I've been enjoying your other posts. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - Name Game For Robert NAME GAME FOR ROBERT I hate to see all these invalidations of Robert's GPM Clearing Tech. He has come up with some bright ideas and I look on him as a pioneer. I don't know how high his batting average is (we only see the wins), but certainly some people are making gains and his prices are quite reasonable. Certainly the idea of auditing over the phone is valid although it would seem more difficult and it is an area where pioneering is needed. My experience with processing over the phone is limited to a few emergency assists, but it does work. I do have my doubts about his remote metering, but it is mainly that I would not have confidence in the reads because some might be Robert's rather than the pc's and he might miss some of the pc's reads. On Solo Nots one sometimes runs a BT on someone else and that really could be considered remote metering, so there is a precedent for this. But there is even more precedent for running without a meter at all. The high point of the research (1954) was a period of meter-less auditing. So I don't have a big problem with Robert's tech. I think that the big source of argument is that he is calling it "GPM Clearing", which leads to continual fire fights about whether or not he is handling GPMs. The GPMs are a very late track phenomena. They only go back a few universes at most. They can't exist in the absence of engrams and dying and loss of identity because they are the PC's solution to those things. He holds a goal constant through shifts of identity so that he can achive it (or so he thinks, it really doesn't work) despite having bodies shot out from under him and forgetting who he is over and over again. Alan, Jack Horner, LRH, myself, and other researchers might all look at these things a bit differently and disagree as to various aspects, and yet the general kind of thing we all talk about involves goals and terminals and opposition terminals and activities that streatch over enourmous time periods. And it seems like the things can be undercut by many other approaches. Things like games, codes, reality frames, penalty universes, and even engrams can run much much earlier. So they tend to get bypassed in favor of things which cut the base out from under them because it takes a lot of work to take one apart directly. Robert seems to have come up with some things in terms of shocks and postulate - counter-postulate that are very smart and might well undercut GPMs because those are some of the more basic things that GPMs are built out of. But if one undercuts a secondary by running an ARC break or by blowing up mockups of the lost terminal, one does not say that one is running Dianetics. So there is a problem in names. "GPM Clearing" is a very catch buzz word. It has PR value. I'd hate to drop using such a good name. But its creating all sorts of BPC amoung other researchers who think of all the heavy goals and item lists of the SHSBC. And I find it confusing because I do do GPM handling by item occasionally. Robert needs a new name which is of comparable magnitude. So lets suggest some - maybe he'll pick one or maybe It'll inspire him to come up with a good one of his own. Here are a few to get people rolling: a) Shock Clearing b) TeleClearing c) Case Clearing I like Robert. I'm suggesting this as a way for him to get out of the current pickel and gain more acceptance for his work. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - RUDIMENTS AND SELF CLEARING (Attn MadTurnip0) RUDIMENTS AND SELF CLEARING (Attn MadTurnip0) At 20:01 11/02/99 -0500, MadTurnip0 wrote: > greetings and salutations, > I've been doing the self-clearing book for a period of about 5 months now >with several cognitions but no serious steady wins or anything I could call a >permanent win. I find that after a proccess I feel good for a short while but >it usually wears off the next day when I wake up. I've been doing the >communications processes for about a week now with mild wins. I was wondering >whether anyone could help me with a small problem I have. I find that at times >I think too much, sort-of anxiety attacks, proccess 1.1 helped me with this >problem for a while but I find that it doesn't help as much as it used to. I >was wondering also wondering whether if anyone knew of a proccess that could >help me stop being so introverted at times, because I consider myself quite shy >especially infront of strangers. I would appreciate any help anyone could >offer. thanx in advance. Robert suggested holding corners, which is a good suggestion but you have probably already done that (it is in chapter 3). Somebody else pointed out that they started getting spectacular results after running an exteriorization process, and that can do it if the process will run, but exteriorization can have side effects unless you begin by running the process in chapter 11, and not everybody is up to running these kinds of processes initially. Another person suggested running overts/witholds, and that is one of what we call "the rudiments" and it is a possibility too. But my best guess is that it is the area of problems, and that is another of the 3 most important rudiments used in orthodox Scientology processing. A couple people have indicated that they were getting slow gains and the most likely source is the area of rudiments. So I decided that I'd better do a writeup on this, and here it is. It should probably be fitted into the book at around chapter 7 because that is about the minimum amount of skill that would be needed. ================== RUDIMENTS AND SELF CLEARING There are three basic areas that are the most likely to slow down and interfear with processing. It is common in professional sessions to check these areas and handle if one of them is bothering the person before going on with regular processing. Unfortunately, these are not the easiest areas to run. Even in professional processing, a thorough handline of these things is not generally undertaken until other easier targets have been cleared up. But a professional generally can and will do a light handling just to get them out of the way so that the person will make faster progress. The three areas (slightly oversimplified) are problems, overt acts (guilt, etc.), and upsets. In orthodox Scientology, the light handling of these 3 areas at the begining of any processing session is referred to as the rudiments, meaning basic or rudimentary actions. The processes in chapters 1 to 3 of self clearing were selected, among other reasons, for the fact that they often run well despite trouble in these 3 areas and they can often cool down problems, upsets, etc. as a side effect. In a general book such as self clearing, it is not possible to guess what particular area might be blocking somebody because it varies from individual to individual. So the arrangement of chapters is based first of all on the skill and knowledge needed to run the processes and secondly on the sequence which will generally run fastest if there isn't some particular thing in the way. But if there is a specific thing which is of great interest and which is holding one back, it can be handled out of sequence. In this case, the best action might be to simply do a light handling of the area and then go back to doing the chapters in order, doing a deeper run on the more advanced chapter when one reaches it in its proper place. Before attempting this, you will need the skills for running subjective processes that is given in chapter 4 and it would be best to have the experience gained in running the recall processes of chapter 6 as well. Note that chapter 5 is aimed at the specific target of difficulties with study and can be temporarily bypassed if one is good at study and has one of these other areas in the way. =========== The 3 rudiments, in more detail, are: A. Problems This is an important area to handle in general, but the specific roadblock that might need handling out of sequence is the case where one has a specific problem in the present which is holding one's attention. The general symptom is that one does not seem to make very many gains while running anything else. This is partially because one doesn't give much importance to gains which do not cure the problem and partially because other things run in a slower and shallower manner while the problem is holding one's attention. This is covered in chapter 15. If this seems to be the case, read the beginning of chapter 15 and if it makes sense and seems interesting, run some of the processes until the current problem releases. But note that problems in general will run much faster after handling areas like "communication" and "help" which are in earlier chapters. B. Overts, Withholds, and Guilt This is a tough area to face up to, and so it is down in chapters 18 and 19. Note that chapter 18 "Cause" is the easier handling and helps one build up for chapter 19. But if one is plagued with guilt, some handling may be needed immediately. And if one is filled with hostility and continually hurting others, that also tends to slow one down and interfere with making gains from other processes. Sometimes feelings of anxiety or worry can come from this area as well although it is not the only source for these. If this seems to be the case, jump ahead to chapter 18 (and 19 if needed) and do some processes until there is a feeling of relief. C. Upsets By this we generally mean upsets with other people. Unlike problems, where one usually feels like things are stuck and unchanging, if there is some big upset one can feel like life is getting worse. This is the most difficult of the three areas. It is covered in chapters 21 and 22. You will need an understanding of the introductory section of chapter 21 before studying 22. But it is process 22.3 which is specifically aimed at taking apart a current upset, so read forward to that point (the section on the e-meter can be skipped for now). Then use 22.3 on the upset until you feel better. ============== If you are running processes with some success but don't seem to be making big gains, the above 3 are the most likely reason. But there is also the matter of skill. If you are just getting tangled up on running things, you would be better off doing a second pass of chapters 1 to 6, especially as chapters 1 to 3 can cool down the above areas even though they don't address them directly. And for some people, chapter 5, which is about studying, might be essential to learning the techniques well enough to have success with them. Immediately after chapters 1 to 6 comes chapter 7 which is aimed at raising the speed with which the processes will run. If you get though chapter 6 and are unsure whether or not to jump ahead (rather than feeling a real need to), go ahead and do chapter 7 because it will make the others run faster. There are other areas which might get in the way. As mentioned above, some people may need to handle study (chapter 5). There is also the special case where somebody in the person's environment is continually cutting him down as is discussed in the chapter on Suppression (chapter 24). Another tough one is the situation where there has been a recent terrible loss. The first section of Chapter 29 can be used to gain some relief (but 29.2 requires skills learned in earlier chapters, so just use 29.1 if you need to jump ahead to this). =============== A phenomena that is uncommon in normal life but freequently occurs is spiritual practices is something called "exteriorization". This usually means being exterior to the body but it can also mean exteriorizing from games or even from the universe. On the one hand, this can be an extremely big gain. Among other things, it often takes one right out of the problems, guilt, and upsets mentioned above (and therefore is another way around these barriers). On the other hand, if one snaps back in with some force it can give one a headach and might be disturbing enough to act as a roadblock. In this case the person's attention might be occupied with trying to get out again and other processes will not run well. Some people might already be in this situation from earlier practices. In rare cases it might occur even as soon as the first process of the first chapter of self clearing. But for many people the whole topic might seem unreal until they are very far along. Therefore, as a compromise, exteriorization was placed in chapter 11. If you do get some sort of out of body experience or feel like you have suddenly entered some divine state or see the world completely differently as if you were outside of the ordinary games of existance, then you should go immediately to chapter 11, read the introduction, and do process 11.1. The special quality of 11.1 is that it proofs one up against the side effects mentioned above. It is also an exteriorization process in its own right, so it is more than just a remedy. There are faster and more spectacular exteriorization processes, but they are much later in the book because this is the safe one. ================== Hope this helps, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - To Bob On The Books LRH Read TO BOB ON THE BOOKS LRH READ On 9 Feb 99, hummelsr@csi.com (Robert "bob" Hummels) continued the discussion on "LRH Reading List [was: Re: LRH sources?" > On Sun, 7 Feb 1999 13:24:21 -0500, you wrote: (not sure who the 'you' is). > >Began writing a list of books read by LRH. > > >Posting, hoping for interest, and, help. > > > >a.r.s. has a mountain of material to be mined, but that will be endless, so > >it'll have to be ad hoc additions to the list when performing other research. > > > >Thus, the list is very, very simple, so far. Needs to be much expanded to be > >extensive in quantity or quality. Additions & corrections welcomed and hoped > >for, especially, good reputable citations. Thanks. > > He may not have ever mentioned it but I would > imagine he read Scientologie. I think you can > find a lot of info about it at: > http://www.freezone.org > > bob I'll bet that he didn't. It was in german. I'll bet that it was Bob Heinlein who read it (we know he was reading this kind of stuff, he mentions Gurdieff and Ousspensky in his "Assignment in Eternity"). And Ron certainly knew Heinlein, he might have even said that they roomed together once (in school?). So maybe Bob told Ron a bit about what he'd read. Or maybe he heard about it from Eric Frank Russel. Another sci fi writer full of wild Scientology style ideas. Ron did read Russel's "Sinister Barrier". He mentions it at the end of the original magazine version of Evolution of a Science (May 1950 issue). That is Russel's novel about BTs and how they make you commit suicide if you find out about them. At a guess, Ron might also have read Russel's "Dreadful Sanctuary" about Earth being a prison planet where the alien's dumped all their criminals. These books are from the late 30's and 40's. But note that Russel's book about implanting ("mindwipe") is late 50's. He probably read a good bit of sci fi. At least the stuff in the magazines that carried his own stories just to see what the competition was up to. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - To Dimitry TO DIMITRY On 5 Feb 99, "Dimitry Ivakhnenko" posted on subject "Pilot: Questionary" in response to the ten questions I previously posted for people who were doing the self clearing book. ======= Dimitry, The vagueness of your criticisms here in contrast to your normal precision (which matches my own), and the lack of helpful suggestions when you do see something that could be done better, gives me the feeling that you are upset with me. If so, let us discuss this and clear the air between us. I consider your technical writings to be of great value. ======= (note that the numbered questions are mine and the responses are Dimitry's.) > 1. What previous processing or training have you had in > Scientology or metaphysics or other mental practices? > > 2. How far have you gotten with the book? > > About a third of it. > > 3. Are you still working with it? > > Yes. > > 4. What was your biggest win on it? > > It was when I learned how to run the process until the release, and > then to switch to another one. > > 5. What was the biggest difficulty? > > Abundance of boring figure-figuring subjective processes. Please give an example so that I can get some idea of what you are really talking about here. Would a recall process be figure-figure? Would remembering a past life be boring? > 6. Would the materials have been easier in a different > sequence? > > The whole idea of rigid sequence is dubious. Taking in account that > it can take about a year or so, it turns out that a person has > slight chances to run something hot in time. I agree on the problem of rigid sequence, but the book must be in some order. But this is a reason for there to be many books, slanted differently and approaching from different angles. As far as slight chance to run something hot, I disagree. One should hit a spectacular one occasionally. But if one is running over some difficulty as I discussed in the post I just issued called "Rudiments and Self Clearing", it might seem that way. > 7. Was there something you didn't understand or > disagreed with? > > The well-tested traditional material differs radically from Pilot's > own raw findings. Which well-tested traditional materials? I can't even tell if you are referring to eastern metaphysics (which I know you are well versed in) or orthodox Scientology (where I am unsure of how much you have studied). > The excellent practical running-in of traditional materials is > partially lost. The processes and rundowns invented by Pilot, his > slants towards exteriorization, telekinesis, seem to have been > designed for his particular case. Actually the slant towards exteriorization and telekinesis is from early Scientology. And unless you have studied Scientology very extensively, I doubt that you can properly sort out my own extensions from what was inherited from LRH. > The weak side of traditional material, namely its theoretical > inconsistencies, are well preserved. Again, an example please. > 8. Was there something that was extremely enlightening? > > First subjective processes were quite enlightening, when I learned > how to tune to particular subject expressed verbally. > > 9. Are you having fun with it or is it a chore to work with? > > Now I am having fun with it, sometimes using brilliant bits from > here and there in my own work. Very good. > 10. Do you have any suggestions for improvements? > > Great that there is such a book, wonderful that it is available on > Internet. Thank you. > I doubt that anything can be improved much in the framework of > canned sequence, lack of testing, personal slants and huge volume. Canned sequence - an unfortunate fact of life. Lack of testing - gradually this is being remedied. You are one of the testers. Gradually I am building up a list of things to be remedied (see other posts this week, for example). In the meantime, nothing approaching the scope of this book has been done before, so even a beta version should be valuable. Personal slants - We all suffer from this, even LRH. I try to minimize it. Huge volume - You have no concept of what really huge volume would be. Look at LRH's tremendous body of works and then realize that it is not enough. Look at the field of computers and how much is written on the subject. Imagine how many books would be needed to design and build and program from scratch all the way up to the level of the sophisticated systems and applications that are in use today. > The classification is by areas, which makes it hard to apply the > tools from one area to another, and to process anything not given in > the book. At least a few people have been realizing from it how one might go about devising processes or addressing other areas. Since the book is aimed at new people, it does not teach a great deal of theory on how to devise processes and so forth, but one can learn by example. The book could use a chapter on this, but really a sequal is needed. > Currently I am developing quite a flexible system of creative > clearing, which includes imaginative search and discovery, mapping > what is, designing a process and bringing it to desired outcome. Most excellent! I am looking forward to this. Seeing others do things such as this is exactly what I have been aiming at. > Thank You, > > Dimitri You're welcome, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - More Thanks For Survey Answers MORE THANKS FOR SURVEY ANSWERS Just to let you know that I'm still reading them all with great interest and managing to find them on the bulletin and in the guest book as well as on ACT. This is a big help, as you can probably guess from some of the other things I posted this month on protest, not-know, and rudiments. And where all the answers are highly positive, it lets me know that I shouldn't mess up what is already working well. Thank you, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - A SUPER PROCESS ON PROTEST A SUPER PROCESS ON PROTEST This is one of the most powerful processes I've ever run. It dissolves solidities, blows somatics, undercuts problems and just about everything else. The area addressed is "protest" and that is probably the most critical unhandled button on anyone who has had orthodox Scientology grades. It is a key basic right up there with problems, overts, and ARC breaks. In orthodox handling, the protests get bypassed with only the lightest lick and a promise and they accumulate. Eventually the former Scientologist ends up out there with a picket sign protesting the whole damn subject. I had taken a stab at this area before and there is a chapter on it in the Self Clearing book. But as I mentioned in a recent post, the chapter is only a first pass and more work was needed. So I was thinking about that and trying things. And I'd just put together those axioms of creation, and doing that improved my view of early track. I've previously theorized that the downward spiral begins with willful decisions not to communicate. And I could see that eventually the being would be tying to communicate a protest and could not get it across (because of out communication) and therefore would begin to mock up something compulsively to communicate that protest. That does run nicely and is still a good start on handling protest (in expanded grades, we learned not to discared the earlier processes when we hit upon a more advanced one in an area). But it is not basic. There is an earlier action connected with protest on the track. Before he begins trying to communicate his protest, he must have something that he is protesting. So it begins with an inflow that he objects to and pushes a protest against. So I came to the following concept: Imagine that Joe is busily creating things. He has all sorts of interesting mockups and spaces and so forth. So do other people. They exchange creations. One day Bill puts something in Joe's space. Joe and Bill are already slightly out of communication. So Joe doesn't feel like communicating with Bill and doesn't want to take Bill's viewpoint for the moment necessary to vanish the creation. So instead of admiring/acknowledging the creation for a moment and then as-ising (uncreating) it to get rid of it, he protests against it. In protesting against it, he cannot now create it and therefore cannot uncreate it and as a result it becomes solid and he is stuck with it. And so he protests more. And the more he protests, the more solid it becomes and the harder it is for him to control or handle it. Soon he has problems in the area and then he's committing overts to solve the problems and down we go. A friend helped with the next part. We were bouncing around ideas on protest in the coffee shop and he realized that admiring something was the correct opposite to protesting the existance of it. Soon we were alternately admiring and protesting the existance of objects on the table and that was one hell of a process all by itself. Then I added a third step, based on the idea that the correct handling was to take the viewpoint of creating something to dissolve it instead of protesting it. With that I quickly knocked out a back somatic that had been troubling me all that morning (more on this later) and he tried running protest on the location that he was in and knocked himself right out of his head. I've been playing with it since then and the process is wild. It runs extremely fast (usually just a few cycles through the commands) and runs on just about anything with spectacular results. The commands are: a) Protest the existance of .... b) Admire the existance of .... c) Get the viewpoint of creating the existance of .... At basic, protest is an outflow. So on the first command, you are projecting a protest at the target. It is not passive and it is not mearly disliking it or detesting it, it is an active flow of protest, a sort of "get it out of here". The assumption here is that anything which is in your space which you don't want is, at some level, being protested. So we have the pc do consciously what he is doinging unconsciously, which in this case is to protest. Considering how well this runs on objects selected at random, I might even theorize that at some level (maybe deeply suppressed), one is protesting the entire universe and that is what makes it solid and holds one trapped here. And notice that the command is to protest the existance of rather than to protest something about something. If you want to run a spot on a salt shaker, you protest the existance of the spot (ignoring the salt shaker) rather than protesting the fact that the salt shaker has a spot on it. If you do it the other way, you wouldn't have a pure protest and it doesn't run right, you're trying to hold the salt shaker there at the same time that you're protesting the spot on it. The admiration step is very important. Generally you will find that as you run through the commands a few times you will begin permeating and acknowledging the target for its existance. If necessary you could make a point of permeating it on this step, but it seems better to just let that come about naturally. Generally on the first pass you are mostly protesting and only willing to give it a tiny grudging bit of admiration and then distastefully get a vague idea of creating such a thing. But that lets you really protest it heavily on the second time and then you find that you really can admire it a bit and start really getting the viewpoint of creating it. And that "get the viewpoint of creating" is another wild part of this. Often there is a bit of a feeling of motion at some spiritual level and sometimes you get thoughts that seem connected with the creation of what you were protesting. It is just fantastic. And then on the next pass something feels like it is really coming apart. Often you feel like you are permeating it on the protest step and that is freequently accompanied by a feeling of warmth and energy releasing. And often it starts to seem like a huge joke and the thing that you were protesting seems immensly funny, like a pratical joke that you had pulled on yourself. And you'll find that when this happens, somatics disappear, if that was what you were running. Or things seem different and situations seem to change. Or perceptions change if you were running this on an object. The biggest limitation seems to be on how much you can knock out on one run. I mentioned that I tried it immediately on a back somatic. I had been lifting things the night before and what it really was was a bunch of little aches and pains, just the usual morning after effects of using muscels that were out of shape. I'd run a few little assists on it in spare moments and eased it up a bit, but I hadn't had the time to clean it up properly, I know from experience that somatics from sore muscels run slowly for me. This was at lunch time, by the way, so I hadn't had too many spare moments and it was one of these deals where you pretty much ache all over. So I took a shot at it right away, protesting the somatic, admiring, and creating it in rotation. A few commands and the somatic blew completely. Until, that is, I moved around and a different set of muscels started aching. So I did it again, this time being very carefull to protest the entire business, not just the ones that hurt in the particular position I was in. Again, just a couple of commands and the somatics were gone. And I turned my head far to the side and there were more somatics. Run it again. Twist my shoulder around. Run it again. Shift into a wierd position. Run it again. It took a half dozen runs before I was moving around comfortably with no more back somatics. On the first few I kept trying to get the whole thing, and later I didn't bother, just getting my protest at the muscels that were now hurting. It didn't seem to make any difference in the process. The individual runs were fast (especially the later ones) and the whole business still only took a few minutes. But there was this odd effect of only getting a small or limited amount of as-isness even when I tried to run a broader target. Of course I tried running the entire physical universe as a single item. It runs well too. And some weight of oppression seems to dissolve, but it is hard to say exactly what, the itsa is not good on such a broad target. But the universe was still here for me afterwards. And I found that I could run that one again, and another little weight seemed gone, but not the whole universe. This one is fun, but it is probably using a teaspoon against the ocean. Narrower and more specific targets produce better results. And there is much better itsa, so that is the way to go. You might try a broader target occasionally just to see what you can pick up, but don't get into grinding away at a big one over and over. Use it on things that you currently feel heavy protest towards and you can feel the charge lifting off in great chunks. And of course I've been running this on various things that I protest in CofS. It is amazing how much protest that organization can engender. Note that you do not run "CofS assigning lower conditions" because you end up holding CofS solid while trying to run the lower conditions out of it. Just run "the exsistance of lower conditions" or a specific lower condition assignment you were given once or something like that where the entire item is a target of the process. Unfortunately there does seem to be that limitiation on how much really dissolves on each run of the process. But I wonder if enough freezoner's ran off enough protest at CofS whether it might cause the unpleasant solidities in that place to dissolve. Note that in the ideal scene, one can create everything but only chooses to create some things. It is restoration of choice over the existance of things rather than an irrevocable vanishment. So don't be afraid of as-ising something you like, you'd just put it right back. This might also unblock the road on running positive mockups successfully. The big barrier to this was that it doesn't work well to try to mockup a good leg to handle the fact of a bad leg. Although this tends to be explained in terms of alter-is and not-is, we could also describe it as being due to his protest at the bad leg blocking his ability to create a good leg. That does fall under the same theory (the later condition persists) but opens the door to a simpler handling. The theory would be to first blow all your protests in an area and then run a positive create to mockup what you want. The maximum strenth positive create process from the early ACCs is to mockup others creating the item. At one point Ron suggests using self analysis and running the commands as "mockup another creating ..." That all pretty much fell by the wayside because of the good leg / bad leg problem that would get in the way of positive create. So there wasn't as much work on this as on other variations of creative processing. My feeling on this is that if one is going to create a specific rather than vary the thing being created, then one should vary the terminal that one is mocking up to create it. In other words, "mockup Joe creating X", "mockup Bill creating X" alternately. Even better might be to use dichotomies for classes of terminals as in "mockup a strong person creating X" alternated with "mockup a weak person creating X". This might also be helpful for people working with TROM since that has a positive create process in its lineup. This protest business might also be the basic bug on creative processing. According to Ron (I think around 1957 - possibly it was the 16th ACC), occasionally somebody's TA would soar out the roof on trying to do a mockup command. We know from modern tech (C/S series 1) that protest can drive the TA up. So my hypothesis now is that occasionally a creative process would restimulate this protest at other's creations and cause the TA to soar. How far one could go with this remains to be seen. But I can say for sure that there are big gains and cogs to be had running the protest process given above. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== This weeks posts 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 links at fza.org All of the current posts will be collected in Super Scio Archives #48 and 49 and posted to ACT. See the Pilot Archives at FZA.ORG. Also, the individual posts to ARS are being double posted to ACT rather than cross posted to foil the spambot. So if you pick up a spam replaced one on ARS you can get the real one from ACT or find a good one on dejanews. (the spamming takes a good header and puts somebody else's message on it - all of my real messages have a trailer like this one). 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. ------------------