Date: 5 Mar 1999 04:00:12
Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology
From: [email protected] (The Pilot)
Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 51 - EARLY MAR 99 PILOT POSTS (2/2)


POST51.txt

SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 51 - EARLY MAR 99 PILOT POSTS (2/2)

The first half of post50 (down to the Humor post) was to ARS & ACT,
the remainder of post50 & all of post51 was to ACT only.

Also see "Super Scio - MASTER LIST OF MATERIALS OF THE R6 ERA"
which was put out last week and is available at fza.org.


==========================================

Contents:

subj: Super Scio Tech - Aaron's Protest Process
subj: Super Scio Tech - More On Taking Other's Sins (Attn Beth)
subj: Super Scio Tech - To Robert On Time, GPMs, Etc.
subj: Super Scio Tech - Between Lives And Targs
subj: Super Scio Tech - Ralph's PTS R/D & Other Nifty Postings
subj: Super Scio Tech - The Sources Process (Attn Ralph)
subj: Super Scio Tech - Comments On Yoga (Attn Lisa & Dave)
subj: Super Scio Tech - THE R6 RESEARCH LINE


==========================================


subj: Super Scio Tech - Aaron's Protest Process


AARON'S PROTEST PROCESS

On 21 Feb 99, "Aaron Bair" <[email protected]> posted on topic
"New Protest Process (attn: Pilot, protesters)"

(I'm going to quote the whole thing so that it doesn't get lost.
Once somebody gets going with a lot of tech posts I expect them
to web them or make archive files or get them into lightlink's
archives, but when they're first starting out, its easy for
things to get lost in the shuffle).


> Radical, New (to me at least) Protest Process
>
> 1. What are you protesting?  (Pissed/miff-t about)
>
> 2. Is that protest one of
>    beingness?
>    doingness?
>    havingness?
>    existence?

Smart.  I usually put be-do-have equals games but existance is
better in this context.


> 3. For each indicated item in #2 assess for
>    removed
>    withheld
>    imposed
>    exposed
>    possessed
>    rejected
>    pretended
>    no
>
> 4. How have you tried to communicate that?
>    Did you become something?
>    Did you do something?
>    Did you get something?
>    Did you create something?
>
> 5. What was the communication there?  (if not already obvious)
>
> 6. Who should acknowledge that?
>
> 7. Visualize them doing so.
>
> [end]
>
> 21 February 1999; Aaron R. Bair
>
> ----------
> It was never my intention to become a tech-finder.  But maybe I'll get a
> cert for this anyway :)

You got it.

> I've mayhap earned the goldenrod "get out of regging free forever" card?

Probably not.  They not-is ACT so heavily that they don't notice.
Their big emergencies are the ARS pickets and the copyright suits,
they have no time for anything else.  They think that we'll key
ourselves in with squirrel tech and disappear.


> Dedicated to the whole ACT/Clear-L cast who helped me get my life going
> again in '93.
>
> ----------
> Development History
>
> I had previously done an exhaustive run of SelfClearing Chapter 14 (the
> Protest chapter).  This was good. I made some gains, had some wins.  It
> helped a lot, but I never reached anything that felt like an EP.  Eventually
> I moved on thinking I'd have to go back to finish it later.
>
> In the Pilot's post46 he mentions that Chapter 14 needs more work, that got
> me itsa-ing about what was missing from Chapter 14.  I hit on the idea of a
> doingness, protesting a doingness, communicating a protest with a doingness.
>
> In the Pilot's post49 he includes A SUPER PROCESS ON PROTEST, which I
> immediately started using. The commands of which are:
>
> a) Protest the existence of ___
> b) Admire the existence of ____
> c) Get the viewpoint of creating the existence of ____
>
> This is a dynamite process.  When it runs, it blasts away protest fast.  But
> the wording seemed strange, and in order to get certain protests to run it
> seemed like I was redefining the words a little.  And some protests just
> wouldn't run.
>
> One of my unhandled protests was: "Bill making noise."

To run it in the process I posted, you would run "the noise" as the
item rather than "Bill making noise".  Not all noise in general, but
the specific noise that was protested.


> So I modified the wording of the Pilots process to
>
> a) Protest the doingness of Bill making noise.
>
> I could feel that, but it was cumbersome.  So I reworded it to more clearly
> define the protest.
>
> a) Protest Bill's doingness of making noise.
>
> And then it seemed like the word act would fit perfectly, so:
>
> a) Protest Bill's act of making noise.
> b) Admire  Bill's act of making noise.
>
> That ran.  My god, how it did run.  At the time I wasn't able to find a good
> wording for c) but I had the concept of the thing so I was able to run that
> command without any words.

c) Get the viewpoint of creating Bill's act of making noise.

This is excellent.  Note that it is a different process than
protesting the existance of the noise.  Either could run with
benefit.

> ---
> Later that night, I was playing with the wording when I realized that the
> English word for "to exist" was "be". In my mind now I had a BE and a DO, so
> there was probably a HAVE.  Eventually, I wrote this down:
>
> If you are protesting the existence of a thing (beingness)
> a) Protest the existence of ____
> b) Admire the existence of ____
> c) Get the viewpoint of creating the existence of ____
>
>
> If you are protesting someone else's action (doingness)
> a) Protest ____'s action of ____
> b) Admire  ____'s action of ____
> c) Get ____'s viewpoint while he/she did ____
>
>
> If you are protesting someone else's things (havingness)
> a) Protest ____'s having that/those ____
> b) Admire  ____'s having that/those ____
> c) Get ____'s viewpoint when he/she acquired that/those ____
>
>
> All good, workable processes despite the cumbersome wording of my additions.
> I stayed up all night, partly from excitement.  And partly because by the
> time I had run these I was so out of my head that I couldn't get "in" and
> couldn't sleep.
>
> ---
> The next day I itsa'd the correct item: "can't stay in" and after running
> more from SelfClearing chapter 11 (to handle "can't stay in") I started to
> wonder about why these processes work.  So I thought I'd try writing down
> the "Axioms of Protest".  I got 6 axioms written down and 7 maxims when I
> had a totally weird idea about an anti-admiration particle.  That threw the
> whole thing back into confusion and I let it go.

Anti-admire would be Detest.

In trying to figure things out, one sometimes hits some charge and
then things become confused.  In this case, one might pick objects
and just alternately admire and detest each one to a cog.  Then one
goes back to the activity which got derailed and sees if it can be
taken a bit further or straightened out a bit.


> I was unbelievably productive Friday and Saturday. I finished a whole week's
> programming work in less than two days, and surprised the client with it
> Saturday afternoon.  So I didn't have many idle moments to consider the
> axioms, but the be-do-have thing really started to look like a triangle
> similar to ARC. (OK I'm boasting about my production :)
>
> Anyway, Last night after going to bed I considered how I might test to see
> if BE-DO-HAVE is a triangle like ARC. When I realized that PROTEST might be
> the be-do-have equivalent of an ARCX, I completely freaked out, got up, and
> started looking for a protest corollary to ARCX's "enforced/inhibited."
> Found "Imposed" and freaked out again.  Found "Exposed" as the alternate
> flow of "Imposed".  Did some drawings of flows and came up with "removed,
> withheld, rejected, and overcome."  After some testing the process on
> myself, I dropped "overcome" and added "possessed, rejected and no."

See "The Furies" in post4.txt (mid 1997) in the pilot archives.
I had destroyed and betrayed as points on some kind of decay scale
dealing with be-do-have.  But I never got any further with this.

The imposed beingness button sounds like it has its finger right on the
entire valence mechanism.

See if you can take this a bit further and come up with a generalized
decay scale (not just on protest) for be-do-have.  The above feels very
close to it.  Consider the logic of one button decaying into the
next.


> One of the cogs I got from my testing was that the triangle is
> BE-DO-HAVE=Existence. That completed the ARC=U corollary. Did we already
> know this?

Sort of.  I equated it to games, but existance in this context
could be taken to mean the same thing.

However it also seems to me that one can "exist" at a higher level
above games where it is all continuous create, and that doesn't seem
bounded by the  Be-Do-Have formulas.  If one can mockup anything,
one doesn't mockup more for "havingness" but just mocks up what one
wants at the moment.  Why keep a Rolls Royce mocked up unless one
wants to drive one right now?  So you don't keep a garage full
of cars (unless you want a garage that day), instead you mockup
the car you want when you want it.

One's ability to create had to have gotten invalidated before one
started wanting to keep things mocked up and have havingness.

Be-Do-Have almost seems like a solution to having slipped down
from simply creating things in an unlimited manner.  But it is
very close to the top, certainly running back to early track.


> From that and chapter 14 of self clearing comes the rest of the
> process (questions 4-7).
>
> By morning, I was convinced I had to write it all up and get it on ACT.  I
> can't test it anymore I'm so blown out.  (As I write this I'm keenly aware
> that I should really be sleeping and not writing.)  So I hope others will
> check things over and make sure I haven't missed anything.
>
> This is my first contribution to the tech.  I hope it helps.

Definitely a big help.  Keep going on this.  I'm quite interested
in those axioms when you get them finished.


> ARC
> Aaron
> ---
>
> To the Pilot:
>
> Wow!  Thanks!  Thanks for recognizing the need for a protest level.  Thanks
> for chapter 14.  Thanks for the process in post49.  And thanks for the
> challenge to come up with new processes based on your work.
>
> I hope I have risen to the occasion.
>
> The Self Clearing book has been very cool.  I'm getting the case gain I
> wanted.  I'm getting the KRC of studying and applying the tech to achieve a
> result.  And now I'm able to even contribute?  Its more than I wished for.
>
> OK, gushing aside, I'd really like to hear what you have to say about this
> new process.  I have no formal tech training, aside from a couple co-audit
> courses, so I don't know far this differs from LRH.  I don't know what
> exactly is "new" and what is already discovered and sitting in a book I
> don't have.  And I accept the possibility that the whole thing might just be
> "true for me" and based on lack of sleep.

LRH talked a good bit about be-do-have in the late 50s, but
he didn't get anywhere near this far on it.


> My concepts of problems, overts, withholds are all in confusion so I know
> I'm going to have to re-think those.  (Which Seems odd having already done
> the problems, overts and withholds sections of SelfClearing.) And I am a bit
> concerned about being an only-one on this. I've seen others go out on the
> "what's true for you" limb and never come back!
>
> Thanks Again
> Aaron


"What's true for you" is really just a practical datum that one
has to put up with rather than a measure of truth.  It is really
just the band of accessiblity in terms of what data can be worked
with.  It is a zone where one can and should expand and refine
and correct things.  If you realize that it is all relative truth
and continue to expand, these things progress closer to absolute
truth.

The one's who get stuck on a limb usually get stuck there by
service facing about how they are absolutely right and end up
freezing in place.  If you go out on a limb and keep expanding,
soon you encompass both the limb and the tree and all is well
again.

So keep up the good work.

=====================

Right after I wrote the above, I found Aaron's second post about
this process.  Since it is an improved version, I thought I
should include it here.

On 4 Mar, "Aaron Bair" <[email protected]> posted on
topic "Aaron's Protest Assessment version 2"


Revision and notes on my protest process
(Revised process at the bottom)

> Since initial posting:
>
> * The process seems to work well for others (thanks!)
>
> * The process handles the hell out of some protests.
>
> * The buttons used in question 2 add two new buttons to the
>   Expanded CDEI scale: Imposed and Exposed
>
> * Other buttons used in question 2 conform to the Expanded CDEI
>   scale
>   - Withheld, Possessed and Removed are replaced by "Denied"
>   - Pretended has been replaced with "False"
>
> * "Absurd" added to the question 2 buttons
>   (missing from the first version)
>
> * Other protest situations have shown up
>
> I now have four processes to deal with the larger "protest"
> scene: ARCX assessment, this protest process, an unpublished
> process based on an Authority triangle, and an unpublished
> processes based on another triangle which I do not yet have
> satisfactory wording for.
>
> The Authority triangle appears to break Hubbard's KRCC triangle.
> I will post it only after being certain it is correct.
>
>
> If anyone else has done work in any of these areas I would very
> much like to see it:
>
> * Application of mathematics to the triangles
>   (formulas and calculations)
> * triangle that equals Authority
> * triangle with Perception as a side
> * relationship of triangle sides to the conditions of existence:
>   non-e, danger, emergency, normal, affluence, power
> * Anything regarding the lower portion of the Expanded CDEI
>   scale: rationalized, abusive, horrible, compressed, conjured,
>   recriminatory
>
>
> Thanks for the nice comments from the first posting!
>
> Here is the latest wording of my protest assessment process.
> ---
> 1. What are you protesting?
>
> 2. Is that protest one of
>    beingness?
>    doingness?
>    havingness?
>    existence?
>
> 3. For each indicated item in #2 assess for
>    no
>    rejected
>    false
>    imposed
>    exposed
>    denied
>    absurd
>
> 4. How have you tried to communicate that?
>    Did you ...  (Did you not ...)
>    be/become something?
>    do something?
>    get something?
>    create something?
>
> 5. What was the communication there?
>
> 6. If still charged repeat 4 and 5.  If the situation goes solid
>    look for a similar situation and run from 1.
>
> 7. If you know who should acknowledge that communication
>    visualize them doing so.
>
>
> ---
> 4 March 1999
>
> Aaron Bair
> [email protected]
>
> No clearing web site at this time.



Best,

The Pilot

==========================================


subj: Super Scio Tech - More On Taking Other's Sins (Attn Beth)


MORE ON TAKING OTHER'S SINS (Attn Beth)

On 21 Feb 99, Beth Guest <[email protected]> posted on
topic "To the Pilot- TAKING OTHER'S SINS"


> In article <[email protected]>, The Pilot
> <[email protected]> writes
>
> I ran this process with husb this evening and thought I might add a few
> bits.
> Just the idea is tremendous to me.
>
> >I was thinking of this business of Jesus taking on everyone's
> >sins.  That is more than just forgiveness.  It is more than
> >simple responsibility.  It is an "I will carry that man's
> >burden".  Or, even better, "I will take that man's Karma".
>
> >And he supposedly had extensive exposure to eastern ideas
> >while studying with the Essenes.  So it seems to me that
> >he might have learned about Karma and then had this
> >brilliant idea of taking on other's Karma.  That by itself
> >might be enough to blow apart not only the bank but the
> >entire game if you could do it completely with good reality.
>
> This is what I thought:
>
> If ( theoretically) karma no longer existed
> then "you reap what you sow" would be redundant.

I think almost but not quite.  What you postulate for others
still affects yourself as well.  I think that that is a basic
because the separation from others is just make believe.  So what
we have done is restored a clean slate or removed a catch-22 where
the fact of karma causes the accumulation of more karma.

> This would tear shreds
> into the physical universe rules and thus game and also the
> spiritual/theta universe game.

Most certainly.

> Thus one would be "back" at native state
> or Heaven's Universe (as I understand ACW calls it)  It would be an end
> of game.

There are layers and layers of stuff.  My guess would be that it
would take one above this reality but not above all realities and
that it would end the humanoid games but not all games.


> Could/would one then decide to "come back down" in order to help others
> or play a game or whatever? Would that not be small potatoes?
> But what other game would be worth playing?.

At the top I think it is infinite creations and exchanging creations.
Not really a game so much as a sharing.  Co-existance of static
rather than passivly being all one.  For this you need to get
everyone else out to add to the richness of creation.

But if one only makes it halfway up with something like this (and
I think that is the more likely case), then one is faced with
the choice of whether to operate at that level or trying to find
one's way further up or coming back down to aid others.


> Perhaps as you said Jesus did this, hence raising the dead walking on
> water etc.
>
> I am not clear how it would work FOR another.
>
> i.e. If one did this for another   would the game be ended for them?
>  would the PU disappear etc. for them?

I doubt it.  You haven't addressed thier postulates.  But they
might get a fresh start.  Some might re-entrap themselves but
others might begin to work their way out.  Note that I am
making educated guesses here.


> >The first process I tried was "get the idea of takeing on
> >another's  sins/burden/karma."
> >
> >Theoretically this should run on 3 flows.  But flow 2 felt
> >like a horrible overrun.  So I only run flow 1 and 3 alternately
> >(flow 3 would be "another taking on another's").  This was,
> >I think, because Cristianity can get flow 2 heavily overrun.
> >I haven't done that this lifetime, but I think that I spent
> >a lifetime once as a monk busilly foisting all my sins off
> >on Christ.  And doing that without confronting flow 1
> >(taking on other's karma yourself) made flow 2 overrun
> >badly.
>
> I got an incident where I was acting as a god urging others to get rid
> of their karma/burdens/case/sins. I was channeling through a priest to
> give instructions. It was  Egyptian civilisation or Egyptian type. I
> think they (the people) got the idea that I would take their karma on
> but although I let that idea run, I personally held the idea that it
> would be  a joint effort -  as-is it together - me doing it but them
> giving it up. Well at least that was the plan.

A good plan, actually.  What goes wrong is that karma is not all
of the picture, so you save some folks and then some things which remain
unhandled on one's case get one snarled up again and then one
still has the power of a god and can really do big overts, so
you decide that karma was a good idea after all and trap yourself
again.

At least that is what seemed to happen to me.  Of course I'm
baseing this on vague recalls.

As for what might remain unhandled, an example is protest.  One
sets somebody free and the freed being begins mocking up things
that one objects to and one doesn't know how to clear this up and
so one wacks them and gets back into games and fighting and what
have you.  I can imagine many different ways to sink back in.


> But it ended badly. Whole thing fell apart.
> I think "my" followers got taken over by another group or in some other
> way they defected and I flipped into a suppressive valence/identity and
> I am not going to write up the next bit as I am too ashamed.
>
> !!

I think that everybody has these occasionally.  One gets halfway
out, becomes a god, does good things for awhile, slips up, turns
nasty, and eventually ends up back down here again.

I think of it like a mountain slope, and we make it halfway
up occasionally and then slip back down.  My thought now is
that only a team will make it out because we always slip when
we try it alone.

Everyone is guaranteed to slip sooner or later and the higher
they are, the harder they fall.  And so there would have to be
many of us of comparable magnitude, pulling each other back up
whenever we slipped.

If there is just one guru who is an only one, then when he
slips he drags his followers down, hence the RPF and so forth.


> The good bit was pretty light/powerful though.
> I kind of knew the idea of getting rid of karma etc *could*
> theoretically work.
>
> I have also done the Christian thing i.e. giving up my sins to Jesus.
> This lifetime I did it aged around 17. I did it for about 4 weeks and
> then decided it was a "cop out" and that I should take responsibility
> for my own sins. Felt like taking a tablet for a broken leg instead of
> healing it.
>
> After your post and this process I am not sure my analysis was correct.
> It "feels" correct for me but maybe that is because I am locked into the
> karma idea itself.

Giving your sins to somebody else is the reverse flow to taking
on other's sins.  Doing that one by itself is an abandonment of
responsibility.  But so is taking a tablet.


> >Another workable variation is "spot somebody whose
> >sins/burden/karma you would be willing to take".  That
> >might be the best version.
>
> There is the ethics involved. Should one take over another's burden?
> 1. They would have to ask/want it (I understand in the Christian church
> this happens) i.e. deliberately "hand it over" to you to show they are
> cause over the event.

From the very begining, we have always allowed each other to duplicate
or copy.  It can't be otherwise because at basic we are all that
same underlying singularity and only pretend to be individuals.

So you just do it.  Deep down, they choose to go along with that or
they don't.  And I doubt that you'll actually errase anything from
their viewpoint, instead you're taking the weight off of it.  The
shadow of it remains and it is up to them whether they charge it
up again or take responsibility and become free.


> 2. How would one judge who should have this?
> Well I'd say you could not so you do anyone or no one or everyone.
> No judgements at all.

Exactly.  As soon as you judge, you would kick in more basic
charge as regards to protest, enforced agreement, good/evil
dichotomies, etc.  A good way to spin yourself in.


> 3. But in principle would it be unkind/wrong to do this (even if they
> wanted it)?

No.  It is either good or harmless.  At a minimum, it helps you.
Sometimes it helps them too.  Think of putting out troughs of
water for horses.  Some will drink.  Just don't try and force
them to drink.


> Question: Does the Christian church today manage to do this to any
> degree at all?

Maybe on rare occasions.  Some of the faith healers might be
good at this.


> When they talk about Jesus taking on one's sins does it tie in  in
> practice, with what we are discussing above or is it "just" some sort of
> watered down version. I would love to know.

When "they" talk about it, most "theys" would be reciting a
statement of faith rather than having any understanding.  But
again, some few might comprehend.

As for Jesus actually taking on anyone's sins in the modern age,
I can only speculate and the modern Christians would probably
consider my speculations to be heresy.  I do not believe that
he has had much luck in reaching Earth and in creating effects here.
I'm sure that if he could he would have prevented so much blood
from being shed in his name.

Instead my gut feeling is that he has established a safe space, a
sort of heaven, out beyond the between lives crew.  Perhaps
if someone had enough faith upon death they might find him and he
would lift a burden from their shoulders.  But the implanters
certainly have false pictures of Christ by now to lure the
unwary into their snare.  And I suspect that the real Jesus would
be abhorrant to most moralistic Christians.  He was a defender of
bums and prostitues who was trying to bring an end to all religious
laws and replace them with love and sharing.  He would certainly
be a hippie flower child in this day and age.


> >Another slant on this is to get the idea of taking on the
> >fate that another had created for themselves.  That might
> >be better because it gets all the right/wrong good/evil
> >out of the equation and simply lets you look at what doom
> >are they tossing themselves into without worrying about why.
>
> Yes.
>
> >This is an extremely high process.  I'm barely scratching
> >the surface on it, just tentatively "getting the idea of" rather
> >than going any further.  But even at that light level, it
> >is opening up a tremedously exterior view to life.
>
> I was scared of going ext/losing the PU. and so ran your body process
> first as you suggested. ( idea of using the mountain as an anchor) I
> liked this but had an idea that I thought would suit me better if I
> needed it: Husband's body part (!).
>
>  Felt myself "going" a bit when I was running the priest event. Used
> Husband's foot as an anchor - just grabbed hold of it while I was
> running the incident.
> I mention this as it might be a handy tip for someone else.
> Husb's foot was attached to his body (!!) and thus represented a fair
> sized mass. This helped. Also I was pretty sure that I could use husb as
> an anchor because of my affinity for him. I knew I would always be able
> to get back to him. (I just knew that)

Good point.

> >And using this even just a little bit, selecting real people
> >as the targets, reveals that karma or the overt/motivator
> >sequence is only one reason among many which causes a
> >person to mockup his own doom.  Another is that he will
> >distroy himself to gain affinity, admiration, or sympathy.
> >But it goes far beyond that.  See what you can find.
>
> I am not sure about this but here goes..
>
> It's a concept I have been working on but have not got full reality on
> yet just a "feel" of the concept of my life/existence as whole.
> I get the idea that I should be able to perceive it at any point,
> past/present or future and further that there is a pattern to it, almost
> like one would see in a carpet or similar.  In the design there would be
> colours woven and these would be people one met and then "lost" again,
> maybe places too, events. Of course my pattern would intersect with
> others' Note the pattern does not just represent time in the PU,
> although that would be part of it. It would represent my entire
> existence.  I felt there would be some sort of design in this - one that
> had been created in advance by me presumably. The karma/burden idea is
> part of that pattern but maybe a thread that does not appear all the way
> through - I don't know.

Sounds good.

> My feeling is that to put one's burden onto another is to stop this game
> and break up one's pattern. Instinctively I think beings don't want to
> do this.

I think that you're correct.  The intention to dump one's burden
onto another is not a good one.  But we are talking about the
opposite here, that of loosening the chains that bind them, just
restoring to them free choice about whether to stay in the cell
or walk out.  And actually I suspect that we can only weaken the
chains rather than break them.

> >And of course if you do take on somebody else's fate, their case
> >is not necessarily hard for you to confront, so you can as-is
> >it.  And so it becomes a process of taking their karma
> >to yourself and then dissolving it.
>
> Yes but to repeat is it OK to do this??

Yes.

A man is pushing a cart up a hill.  A second man comes over and
gives him a hand.  The second one recieves the greater spiritual
gain but the first man is aided as well.  Both benefit.

If the first man really doesn't want help, he will push the
other one away and the second man would be wise to leave him be.
And I think that you would feel such a push if your help was
undesired.

Of course there is also a third situation, where the first man
is whinning for somebody else to come over and push his cart
for him.  I don't think that that is particularly good for him
spiritually, but you can still give him a hand.  Perhaps when
he catches his breath he will come around to a better attitude.
And as I mentioned earlier, it is safer to help without
judging rather than attaching all sorts of considerations and
restrictions.


> >A truely wild and facinating process.  I suspect that this
> >is one of the really major ones.
>
> Loved it.
> Thanks.
>
> PS I feel a bit itchy about posting about me being an Egyptian god (!!!)
> but I can assure any readers that I have spent other lifetimes as the
> lowest of the low grubbing about in ditches etc. so I  don't think I
> have delusions of grandeur. It's just, if memory serves,  how it was...


Don't worry about it.  Everybody's been up there occasionally.
The fact that they're down here now means that it must have ended
badly.  The suspicious stories are the ones who are proud of
having been ... and releate no-out points or failings.  I'm sure
that if we met the real Napoleon he would consider himself a
failure who mucked things up and lost everything in the end.

Best,

The Pilot

==========================================


subj: Super Scio Tech - To Robert On Time, GPMs, Etc.


TO ROBERT ON TIME, GPMS, ETC.

On 18 Feb 99, [email protected] (RDucharme) responded to my
earlier post on "Super Scio Tech - Name Game For Robert"


> At 13:42 17/02/99 -0500, The Pilot wrote:
>
> >
> >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.
>
> But the basic on those is before time.

Before which kind of time?

Incident I is before Mest Universe time.  And it pretends to be
before all times, but it is not.

The begining of time in this universe is extremely late on
the track.

> Identities existed before bodies, as
> did goals, problems and masses.

Wood, stone, and glass are there before civilization but the
structures of wood stone and glass come after civilization.

A GPM is a structure of composed of these things.  One has many
goals that are not GPMs.  Just postulating a goal does not bring
about the formation of a GPM.  Same for the other components.


> Before bodies there may not have been the
> types of liabilities for GPMs as after bodies.  On the other hand, beings
> without bodies do pay their regular visit their local implant stations.  So
> physical bodies evidently aren't really needed for GPMs since implant
> stations operate on a higher plane than the physical.

Nowardays he is keeping the GPMs mocked up between bodies, that is
why he keeps a GPM mocked up.  He works on the goal across numerous
lifetimes.

> >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.
>
> There is still an origin point for all those goals, and that's early on the
> track.  The bad consequences may be late, but the basic postulates were laid
> out early on.

We have different concepts about what is early and late track.

The origin points for the GPM goals are late.

However, the PCs postulates go all the way back, so of course he has
basic postulates made earlier which will undercut the later GPMs.


> >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.
>
> They do, up to present time in fact, but the origin points have all the
> postulates which are afterwards dramatized in many forms throughout time.
>
> >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.
>
> So far the only shortcut I've found is to run out the basic basic incident
> from the viewpoint of all the dynamics, and then run out all the goals and
> counter goals on that.  Anything later on the chain would only replicate an
> aspect of the basic dramatization in one way or another.
>
> >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.
>
> But he IS running secondaries.  The analogy falls short because "GPMs" and
> "dianetics" are not comparable data.  "GPMs" and "secondaries" are.

You're right in that my analogy was sloppy.  So let me rephrase it.
Blowing up mockups of the lost terminal is undercutting the secondary
rather than running it.


> >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.
>
> Actually, now that I think about it, I do find a value in tweaking the
> powers that be.  But I also see a problem in terms of confusion.
>
> And since I consider that I am running GPMs and the later stuff like implant
> areas of the track is made up of only locks on GPMs, my suggestion is that
> the old GPM tech's name be changed.  It's all relative, isn't it.  :-)

Ha!

> However, since that would be an impractical solution because of the many
> references in the LRH tech, and a confusion does occur between terms, I'll
> agree to call my tech "Personal GPM Clearing, or P-GPM Clearing, which could
> also stand for primordial, pre-MEST or just pre-GPM Clearing, in other
> words, handling the precursers to GPMs which are the original goals,
> postulates, and computations, though GPMs are also handled in the process.

PreMest has a nice ring to it.

(Primordial might have a connotation of being stone age tech and
Personal might give the impresison of a solo technique).


> The Pilot makes very persuasive arguments.  :-)
>
> But anybody who says that GPMs can be permeated away, or mocked up and
> thrown away, or be handled by asking what/who are you, well, these are the
> wishful thinkers who are operating with data on the thinkingness band
> instead of looking and knowing.  They're mainly addressing the tips of the
> icebergs.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks.

Go ahead and promote what you are doing and sing its praises, but
avoid scoring points by invalidating what others are doing because
these things have their place too and you may need them for something
later.

Mockups have definite potential as an undercut.  But it would be
mocking up the kinds of stuff that lead to forming a GPM rather
than just mocking up copies of the mass that one has after the
fact of a GPM.  And again, it would be an undercut rather than
running GPMs.


> As for the old GPM tech, I see it as addressing many somatic chains at once,
> but not handling any of them at their first moment of creation, and not with
> the degree reality that I demand for the process.  So whereas the older GPM
> tech may pack a bigger punch, I believe my tech to flow more naturally and
> address the items more cleanly.
>
> As I've said many a time before, I challenge anybody to prove me wrong on
> the tech I use, with actual tests.  Nobody seems brave enough to take me up
> on my challenge, or interested in proving me wrong in this way.  Even Ted
> Crammer, as close to me as he lives (Orlando), refuses to take me up on any
> of my offers.  Doesn't that raise any questions in anyone's minds? Are they
> too superior to be bothered, or too afraid I might be right?  Their
> objections are "filled with sound and fury, signifying nothing" -- at least
> so far.

Be thankful.  You wouldn't be able to audit over a games condition and
a make wrong.  The pc and the auditor have to work together.

Offering them a sample session is good, but don't make a challenge
of it or you might get a pissing contest instead of a session.
Nobody makes gains in those no matter how good the tech is.

I remember one time when I had to check out on the instant read
drill in qual.  The only one there to hold the cans was an HDA
student (like a beginning book 1 student), and she was pissed at
being sent to cramming.  So she picks up the cans and the TA
is pegged at 5.25 and the needle is frozen like there was a
resistor across the leads instead of a PC.

The cramming officer told me that since I was training to do reviews
in qual he would accept no excuses and I had to pass the drill on her.
And I couldn't do an ARCX assessment because that would be squirreling
and a student didn't have a case.  I was left with getting her to
flunk me for something.  She wasn't sure what to flunk me for, being
untrained, but enjoyed yelling "Flunk".  After 15 minutes of getting
her to yell flunk more and more enthusiastically, she cheered up,
the TA came down, and I managed to pass the instant read drill for
the cramming officer with her on the cans.

I mention the story simply to indicate that it is very undesirable
to have to handle an unwilling PC.

As for me, I'm still keeping my identity secret so I'll save
your offer for another time.

Meanwhile you might try raising ARC and treating the button
pushing as bullbaiting instead of getting into firefights.


> Robert
>
>
> http://users.ctinet.net/voltr
> P-GPM Clearing procedure writeup:
> http://fza.org/articles/gpm1.htm
> http://fza.org/articles/gpm2.htm

Best,

The Pilot

==========================================


subj: Super Scio Tech - Between Lives And Targs


BETWEEN LIVES AND TARGS


Yet another post full of wild and dubious stuff.  I like to
get these things on record just in case, but I wouldn't bet
money on them.

I was trying to come up with another recall process.  I was
actually hoping for a fast one and instead I got one that
turned on a huge comm lag.

I was thinking that it would be helpful to run off the
intention to forget.

It didn't seem smart to try any heavy L&N or XDN style
intention handling.  There are too many implants that include
"to forget" as an implanted goal.

So I wanted a light repetative process that would handle
the being's own intention.  And it seemed to me that the
nice remembering/forgetting strightwire process (something
you wouldn't mind remembering/forgetting) was after the
fact.  What I wanted was to spot the actual decisions to
forget because those would be before the fact of forgetting.

The process I put together was the following commands
(run alternately):

a) Recall a time you wanted to make another forget something
b) Recall a time another wanted to make you forget something
c) Recall a time another wanted to make somebody else forget something
d) Recall a time another wanted to make himself forget something
e) Recall a time you wanted to forget something

In retrospect, this might have run faster as 5 separate
processes, each consisting of 2 commands, alternating remembering
and forgetting.  Although the remembering side seemed fairly
uncharged to me, it could restore horsepower in between each
push at forgetting.

But the above is the one I used.  The plan was to blow postulates
on wanting to forget.

I normally run recall processes extremely fast.  They don't
turn on much of a comm lag.  I can spot a few trivial answers
easily, which builds up momentum and then hit something good
almost instantly.  And if I haven't said it before, that is
the way to get fast results on a process.  Go ahead and give
a few trivial or inconsequential answers to warm up rather
than looking for something important or significant on the
first command.

So logically speaking, I expected to recall a few inconsequential
things to start with.  It was obvious to me that there were
some easy answers.

But when I tried the command, I couldn't think of any even
though I was certain that they were there.  In fact I got
completely foggy every time I considered the command.
And I kept going back and looking at it occasionally.

It took me approximately 24 hours (off and on) to think of
a first trivial answer to the first question.  The answer,
by the way, was a trivial one, an instance where I'd wanted
a teacher to forget to collect a homework assignment that
I hadn't done.

I should have thought of that answer in 10 seconds, I have
pleanty of little stuff like that and there wasn't any
non-confront on the thing that I came up with (I've done lots
of O/W etc. - the above was just trivial).

I was at this one for 3 days before I'd gotten through two
runs through the 5 commands above.  And the really big
lags were on the 1st command (making another forget).

Of course, as I'd mentioned, "forget" appears in a lot of
implants, but I have good confront of implant items and
I'm not likely to dramatize an item these days.  And of
course there is the subject of implanting others, but
I've run charge off of that too and it is not likely to
put me on such a heavy comm lag.

But that first command was almost knocking me out every
time I tried to do it.

So I was Itsaing this to a friend in the coffee shop (that
does help and speeds things up) when I realized that it
was the between lives area.

Not just being implanted to forget, but doing the overt of
making other's forget.

That is how they work it.  You have to make the guy ahead
of you forget before you can get out.  And then the guy
behind you makes you forget (which is easy because you
have just done it as an overt).  So the people getting
this implant are running it in on each other, the one
to the next.

That opened up the flood gates.  There are a series of areas
in the BLI (between lives implant).  These are places where
you interact with other beings rather than just implanted
pictures and items (which are also part of this).  As
you leave each area, you have to implant a compulsion into
somebody else and then get implanted with the same yourself.
Of course one could be stubborn, but then one is just
stuck in that area until they get apathetic and give in.
It is probably a bit like being in the RPF.

That is what makes it so sticky and hard to run, it is
full of overts rather than just being a motivator.

There might also be things like being among a crowd of
people being tortured by demons.  Then one of the demons
offers to let you take his place and torture people for
him, and you say no so you get tortured some more.
Eventually you agree, and then you are the demon.  That
is the only way out, each person going through the same
progression.  Later you are quite happy to forget all this.

I've gotten various areas of this before (see Super Scio etc.)
and there are lots more, some with various platens of
implant items or whatever, and all with this overt aspect
mixed in, and that puts a whole new slant on the thing.

When the lessons are being assigned, you give somebody
else a bad lesson (designed to place somebody more in
agreement rather than really enlighten them) and then
somebody else does the same to you.  Of course it is
explained to you as "until you help somebody else to
get their ethics in and agree with the proper morals,
we will not consider you fit to be allowed to leave this
area".

I would not say that I have good recall of this, but I
think that I've finally stopped compusively forgetting
it.

Now lets take this whole mess and lable it the BLI,
because it is not everything that is in the between lives
area.

PS. The first time I saw BLI used as an abbreviation,
it was in Irene Mumford's Dianasis newsletter.  Supposedly
she researched out a BLI platen.  Anybody know what
she found out?

=========

Once I'd done the above, the BLI sorted out from the
other between lives stuff.

Outside of the BLI there are tons of areas mocked up,
usually small territories mocked up by one powerful
being or another.  Some could be termed heavens and
some might even be termed hells and most would fall
somewhere inbetween.  This is Monroe's area 2 and the
heavens and hells of various religious mythologys
and maybe even a bit of the aetherian realms of Oaspe.
Just about anything that a being with some awareness
and horsepower might choose to mock up and for which he
could attract a few people to agree with.

I have my own oddball story on this stuff.  Again maybe
dub-in.  This poped up while I was running the not-know
process that I posted in mid February.  What I hit
was completely off the wall so again I have to say that
this is completely speculative and might only be a half right
shadow even if it is partially true.

I was fooling around with running "mocking up something"
alternated with "not-know who created it", which is a really
fun and fabulous process.

While running that, I got a perception of another me that
was creating and how I was not-knowing across the two identities.
The sensation was truely amazing, and something that had
really struck me once and been a puzzel fell into place.

To explain this I need to fill in some background information.

A few years ago I saw a movie called "Made in Heaven" on the
TV.  As part of the background, it had a sort of god of this
"heaven", a limited one, who appears as a preppie high school student
(blazer jacket etc.), chain smoking, contemplating, enjoying and
encouraging artwork and creativity, and with more than passing
interest in sex.  When the hero wishes to return to earth to
persue his girlfriend who has just reincarnated, this demigod
tells him that he can send him back but the hero's memory will
be lost and the demigod cannot ensure that the hero will return
to this heaven because he does not have power elsewhere.

Also  note that the heaven seemed to be very limited in scope
and its stated purpose was to encourage creativity, giving
people a chance to develope creative talents which would
benifit them when they reincarnated even though they would
not actually remember the visit after returning to earth.

And in case you haven't noticed, I consider create to be the
most important button.  If I wanted to do something about
the sorry state of things here and I had the power to mockup
some limited sort of heaven, this creative heaven is exactly
what I would have mocked up.  Or rather, it is what I would
have mocked up when I was younger and hadn't had all the
recent cogs on teaching self processing and so forth.

When I saw this movie, I was sure that I was looking at myself
exactly as I appeared in my final year of high school. It seemed
like me down to the exact appearance, dress, mannerisms, attitudes,
and the heaven was exactly as I would have mocked one up at that
time.

And that last year of high school is the one in which I got on
part time staff and trained on level zero as well.  And the end
of that period is when I ran Creation of Human Ability route 1
on myself.

So when I saw that movie, my first thought was that someone
who had known me in school then must have been impressed and
written the movie, but that idea seemed fairly silly and
impossible.

Then when I ran that not-know process, I had this perception
of being that other me mocking up that limited little heaven.

And with that I had a sudden recall.  It seemed to me that as
I ran CofHA route 1, I came to a halfway consciousness in a
higher self and, not quite awake but wanting to preserve what
might be a unique chance, I copied the lower identity almost
as a reflex and sent the copy off to some astral level to work
with mockups.

The copying actually happened on the "whatever you are
looking at, copy it" command, and from the higher viewpoint I
was looking at the lesser me and copied it.  And then I had the
recall of being the other copy, drifting sideways of myself
watching me run the grand tour in route one.  And with this was
a vague awareness that subsequently I mocked up and held a small
safe territory in the between lives area and mocked it up as a
heaven where people might learn to create.

As to the movie, perhaps someone reincarnated from this heaven
and had a half recall, or perhaps some screen writer visited
it in a dream.

Of course this might all be dub-in.  But it was very striking.
There was the feeling of some sort of invisible barrier crumbling
as I spotted this.

And with it, I seemed to get this vision of there being many
little enclaves, heavens (and maybe hells), held stable, each
by some strong being, in the chaos of the between lives area
with the between lives implanters just holding their own little
mess of trouble for whomever they can pull in to their area.

But I couldn't quite reconcile this view with the apparant
fact that everybody is always going through the BLI and there
is little direct contact between these astral relms and
Earth.

Until, that is, I did the forgetting process mentioned
above and got some more charge off the BLI.  Then it did
start to make sense and I began to see things as follows.

=======

I think that the whole thing was set up as a prision.

There seems to be a between lives admin area and a heaven
and a hell closely connected with the BLI amd these all
seem to be the original machinery built here.  The heaven
seems to be an R&R area for the guards and trustees and
the prison warden is its god (and a fairly limited one).

Let us say that they did push stuff sideways of ordinary
3 dimensional space to build a maximum security prison.
Then they have beings running around in half solid astral
bodies so that they can control them between lives.

Then some big being like Christ senses a deep connection to
basic static, says God is Love, and then finds himself
hitting a Marcabian hell.  The legends say that he decended
into hell and lead virtuous people out of there and then
arose on the third day.  I'm inclined to belive that and
to think that he would have subsequently established his
own safe space beyond the implant stuff, a heaven more in
keeping with his own postulates.

And there are the Buddhist stories of the Pure Land.
Another promise to make a place where beings could go.

I think that it happened a lot.  Any time a big being got
past the between lives machinery one way or another he
worked to mockup something better.

Perhaps the jailers made a big mistake and tore the
three dimensional continuum of this universe and now there
is a leak with endless little "pocket" universes spinning
off to the sides at this weak point.

If my speculations on keeping copies for use in replaying
this time period are correct, they had to store the
copies sideways in a 4th dimensional direction, and
the BLI and admin areas have to be off on a 4th axis,
and once you move people over that way, maybe they gradually
realize that they can go that way and do it on their own.

This is a universe of force and solidity.  It is MESTy.
The games are planetary and space opera, very very human
even when the bodies are different.  I have to look back
to earlier universes to find stuff like what seems to be
going on now out there in the near earth between lives area.

This universe is itself a prison.  And some of the inmates,
themselves trying to make an even more solid prison within
the prison, accientally knocked down one of the walls and
haven't even quite realized what they've done yet.

Then, of course, I started considering how the mechanism
works, using this new higher perspective.

==========

As I've said at other times, my previous life overlaps the
current one by about 4 years.  I gabbed the current
body while still alive in the old one and was senile and
in my "second childhood" and seemed to be "dreaming" of
early childhood in the new body during that time period.

I think that I was doing that (sort of unconsiously on
a theta level) as a solution to the BLI.  The idea was
to already be firmly connected to a new body before I
dropped the body so that I could jump from one body to the
other when I died and thereby miss the implant.

It didn't work.  I hit the BLI when I died in the old
body and jumped to the new one even though I had been
controlling the new one for 4 years.  Any time I have
tried to date when I went through the BLI, I get a
huge read (a division of TA wide) on the year in which
I turned 4 in this lifetime.

I have heard similar things from other people.
I would guess (from the instances of senility) that
there are a lot of people who do this occasionally
(but not every lifetime).

Then there are stories of people hanging around between
lives.  Especially stories of Scientologists who have
dropped the body and seem to hang around between lives
for awhile with some awareness and maybe even trying to
do a bit of drills before getting bored and re-incarnating.
And yet when they do re-incarnate, they have been brainwiped.
So it seems like the implant takes place when they pick
up the body rather than when they die.

And there are the Tibetan ideas, avoiding being pulled
anywhere and not letting demons scare you into a body
you don't want.  I would think that some of them can go
around for awhile comfortably and with some benifit before
picking up a body.  And yet I think that they mostly hit
this thing too when they incarnate.

Or one hangs out in one of the between lives relms as
I discussed earlier.  Maybe one stays for decades or
centuries, but has a bit of an urge to reincarnate or
get back to friends stuck on earth or whatever and
then heads back here and gets wacked with the implant.

Of course I'm speculating, but I have this strong feeling
that it is the action of fully connecting up to the body
that throws one into the implant.

You can hang around earth bodiless or go off to the
astral relms, but try to get into an earth body and
bang, you're shifted somewhere else and get hit with
this implant and then shot back into the body you were
trying to pick up.

So they have the body line here tied into the prison
machinery, and they have the earth reality blocked
from the between lives spirits in some way, which is
why there is so little interfereance from outside.

==========

Next I tried to focus on what happened when I picked up
the current body.  I had been running it for 4 years,
but I was still locked onto the old body during that time
period, so it seems like I could put a beam on this one
and handle it without locking in.

When the old one died, I put a beam into the head of
this one.  Running that as an incident, I suddenly
realized that there was a black ring in the center
of the head and that that is what I connected to for
the motor controls and when I shifted off of the ring
in the old body, the one in the new body shifted me
off to the BLI.

It is like I could hold and control the new body safely
as long as I was still locked into the old one because
my hook onto the ring in the old body's head kept me
from being moved by the ring in the new one.  And it
seems like you always keep a beam on that ring, even
if you're exterior, because if you pull off of that
point, you loose contact with the body.

As soon as I remembered this black ring (thick like
a tiny donut), I just "knew" that it was called a
"Targ Ring".

Now that was strange because I had no reason for
associating Targs with the thing and the ring itself did
not seem to be composed of entities.

========

Very little has been said about Targs.

There is one LRH tape reference, the "electropychometic
scouting, battle of the universes" tape of 1952.

He associates them with Arslycus, which he also describes
as one of the few other between lives control areas
of the track in addition to recent earth.

He is not very clear or detailed, it is actually a demo
session that MSH is running on him and he is spotting
this stuff as he is running it.

The Trags seem to be an entity type used in making
slaves.  It seems to me that the term "Targ Ridden"
(being infested with or even ridden or controled by
Targs) is associated with this but I'm not sure if Ron
used that term or it just poped into my head when I
heard that tape many years ago.

I've run a bit on Arslycus (see Super Scio) and it seems
to me that they wanted slaves and used between lives
control mechanisms and it now strikes me as quite likely
that the same mechanisms (Targs and Targ Rings and BLIs)
were used there as are now used here.  And Ron says
that this kind of control mechanism is not used in most
other times or places in this universe.

Filbert also mentions Targs.  He describes them (if
I remember right - It's somewhere in Excalibur Revisited)
as entities of exceptionally heavy black energy which are
expecially difficult to handle.

Since Ron did know about Targs and doesn't mention them in
Solo Nots, I'd pretty much assumed that they would just
blow with the rest of the stuff, so I hadn't gone hunting
very hard for Targs specifically or paid much attention
to this business.

===========

The upshot of this is that I found a black ring in the
middle of the current body's head (a black theta energy
construction, not something you'd find with a scaple).

Concentrating on it, I tried to contact a Targ in the
body.

I found a large (almost body sized) thick black theta
body which answered up.  It was surprising that I had
had previously had zero perception of this thing despite
all the Nots and everything else.

This thing was quite willing to talk but various processes
seemed to have little effect.  ("yes I'm me, but so what,
I like being a Targ, lots of nice sensation").

I even tried "spot being made into a Targ" with little
effect.

The one that worked was "spot making another into a
Targ".

I was not one of these where you indicate and a few
impressions come back and they blow.  Instead I had
somebody running through a major incident in detail.

I only duplicated a small bit of it, but it had to
do with implanting these things among others:

Gluttony, Lust, Greed, A craving for Power, and probably
quite a few more along the lines of the 7 deadly sins.

And at the top of the implant were things like stirring
up a desire to be loved and making that into Lust, and
stirring up a desire to be admired and making that
into a craving for power and riches etc.

I looked for another.  I only got a vague impression and
maybe ran a bit of dub-in until I mentally grabed that
black ring again (like holding it in a theta fist),
then I had another big solid black being with fairly
clear comm.  That was also very interesting.  It seems
like you can hardly find or percieve these guys unless
you clamp down on that ring somewhow, and then they
are extremely visible.

This time I needed to have him spot an earlier similar
time he made another into a Targ, but the making another
question seemed to be the basic handling without much
else.  And it went fairly fast this time.  And I noticed
that "To get vengance" was in the list of goals.

==========

As I said at the begining, this is all highly speculative.

And it seems awfully complex.  But so would New York to
a primitive tribesman.

I have a good feeling about this and it feels like a lot
of things are coming together here.  But we shall see.


Affinity,

The Pilot

==========================================


subj: Super Scio Tech - Ralph's PTS R/D & Other Nifty Postings


RALPH'S PTS R/D AND OTHER NIFTY POSTINGS

On 23 Feb 99, [email protected] (Ralph Hilton) posted on
topic "Missed flows"

> There is a missed flow on the PTS R/D.
>
> Get the mutual out ruds.
>
> The terminal is "Fred"
>
> "Do Fred and I have an ARCx with another?"
>
> "Do Fred and I have a withhold from another?"
>
> etc.
>
> This gets the mutual out ruds which stick the shit together.


He immediately followed this with another post on this titled
"Tale of a lady"

> I was in a restaurant tonight with my girlfriend and in walked a pretty
> lady.
>
> I was fascinated and thought "why?" I realised that we had shared a past
> lifetime of massacre.
>
> The missed flow is the mutual overt.
>
> Add to the PTS R/D :
>
> Have terminal and I committed an overt against others? etc.


This is brilliant.  The general concept of "stuck together by
out ruds" has endless applications and immense ramifications.

I immediately thought of the org.  And then it seemed that a
repetative general O/W would be a lot easier (especially solo)
than trying to handle it in a rudiments style.  That resulted
in the "CofS Cleanup Process" which I'm posting separately.

I've been saying all along that grades/rudiments type stuff
is more basic than impacts or implants or GPMs other late track
force related things.  So of course mutual out ruds would be
a more basic reason for cluster formation than a shared impact.

And think of those mutual support groups were people get together
because of having similar losses or motivators or whatever.

We reinforce our strengths by getting together to build things
or whatever.

And we reinforce our weaknesses and start sticking by
mutual out ruds.

I'll take up Ralph's great "8D Clear" post in a separate writeup
(see "The Sources Process").


==============

On 17 Feb, Ralph responded to my post
"Super Scio Tech - On Tommy's Advanced Rundowns"

> >On 17 Feb 1999 04:00:13, in alt.clearing.technology Pilot wrote:
> >
> >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.
>
> I'm inclined to disagree now. A few months ago I would have partially
> concurred. I have run both approaches. The problem with XDN was, for me and
> a number of others, misownership. I used the FPRD approach in preference
> later. Recently I've been finding that it doesn't always bite deep enough
> and am running informal R3R on the clusters owning the mass. R3Ring the
> prior confusion seems to get a fuller resolution.

Good point.  My key point was in being sure to address the prior
confusion, which XDN often misses.

R3R sounds good, especially as you said "informal" (my experience
is that you can usually just move a cluster through an incident).

Combining prior confusion, R3R, and cluster handling is really
something more advanced than XDN.

Note that I have a bit of a bone to pick with "standard" XDN as
it was delivered in the 70s.  A couple of my friends spun in on
it badly, its the only rundown I can say that about.  But it
was the listing for ev purps.


====================

Also from Ralph on 17 Feb, in response to
"Super Scio Tech - The Non-Interfereance Zone (Attn Ryan)"


> On 17 Feb 1999 04:00:19, in alt.clearing.technology Pilot wrote:
>
> >Much later, in 1978, the Dianetic Clear business came out.  Now
> >at least some of those people really were clear, had the clear
> >cog, found that the CC platen mostly FNed when they did it on
> >old OT 4, etc.
>
> Surely one just bypasses the F/Ns. The OT4 procedure involved creating the
> items and uncreating them. Lots of F/Ns which need to be bypassed to get the
> EP.

Yes, of course.  They kept trying to get me to attest, but I
wanted to make sure the entire platen was flat.  My point was
that it did mostly just FN.

I suspect that most of it would have read if I'd tried it before
the point where I really did go clear.  But it was like looking
over a grouper where the grouping effect had already blown and
there was just an occasional pair of items where the charge was
mine due to earlier games.

In other words, I think that the original implant gained its
force by occasionally having an item that lined up with an
actual GPM and thereby charged up all the other items.

I would say that the items which were really mine remained
charged after clear because, of course, I would have postulates
and dones and so forth concerning them.  For those, going clear
doesn't blow all the charge because its there based on your
own postulates and those haven't been handled.

But for items that were only implanted, they would stop being
charged because you don't have your own postulates on those
things, just charge by association.  And that blows with the
clear cog because you don't have any further reason to keep
mocking that charge up.


> >I would say that if somebody is right around clear they
> >should learn a bit of light NOTS handling and use that
> >if they bump into an entity.  See the self clearing
> >chapter on entities.  That is easy.  There is no sense
> >in fighting with a late on the chain troublesome incident
> >just because it was found before they came up with an
> >easier handling.
>
> Yes. I give people NOTs to run before OT2. I find it far more workable.

Exactly.


===========

Also on 17 Feb, Ralph responded to
"Super Scio Tech - To Thom On ACC Tapes Etc."

> On 17 Feb 1999 04:00:12, in alt.clearing.technology
> [email protected] (The Pilot) wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> I'm not quite sure who invented this "volcano assessment". It isn't part of
> OT3. The list of volcanoes is only for info. If one is running a cluster on
> inc 2 then checking which volcano can hang up the incident as the
> individuals were implanted at different locations before transport and
> packaging. The OT3 instructions state to check which area not which volcano.


I wish that we had a full set of OT 3 HCOBs.  There were quite a few
when I did the level.  I distinctly remember that "Wrong Volcano"
was on the correction list.  But the level was revised a number of
times and went through at least one more major revision after I
did it.  And I know people who did it before standard tech (before
fall of 68), and there was no C/Sing and lots of verbal data.

I never ran Inc 2 very extensively on III, it just didn't seem
to come up (I was doing cumulative cluster), and I'm sure I never
did a volcano assessment, but I think it was there as a sort of
last resort.  But it has been decades and I wouldn't swear to
it.  However I am sure about the correction list item.  Maybe it was
only meant as a correction list handling for that item.

But I have handled stray BTs who were messed up on III in modern
times (I'm not too far from the complex) and wrong volcano seems
to come up sometimes and handles easily on having them point to
the right one without bothering to find out which one it is.

Note that I didn't do III until the late 1970s.  But I'd bumped
into entities way back in 1968 and was occasionally handling one
based on 1950s tech and not thinking much of it.  I even helped
another staff member late one night, getting her to fly an
entity's ruds (un-metered, out of session coffee shopping) until
it blew (both of us VGIs and very pleased with ourselves).

I laughed my ass off when I started reading the III pack.  I'd
never dreamed that I'd been casually handling the super secret
deadly level.  I'd thought it was a minor thing that got in
the way sometimes.  Then of course I got all serious about it
(because Ron and the SO were so serious) until my endless
overrun on Solo Nots.


> --
>
> Ralph Hilton
> http://Ralph.Hilton.org


Much Thanks,

The Pilot

==========================================


subj: Super Scio Tech - The Sources Process (Attn Ralph)


THE SOURCE PROCESS (attn Ralph)

On 23 Feb 99, [email protected] (Ralph Hilton) posted on
topic "8D clear"


> This is so obvious that I hardly dare show my face for not observing
> the obvious.
>
> Just take responsibility for each dynamic in turn and run the grades
> again as that dynamic.
>
> Power is a FUCKING blowout. The VA L&Ns go into devastation.
>
> I can't write the whole thing up yet as I'm still running a few
> hundred by-passed flows and have a few hundred out-lists to correct.
>
> --
>
> Ralph Hilton
> http://Ralph.Hilton.org

You are really on a roll.  On hell of a set of cogs.

The most advanced processes are the simple ones run again on
a broader scale.  Power by dynamics - wow.

So of course I jumped right into the middle (no gradients for
me, just jump in over my head and see if I crash).

I read your post and immediately thought of trying PrPr 4 (sources)
on the 3rd dynamic.   "Spot a third dynamic source".

The instant answer was "Hubbard" and then I sat there for 5 minutes
thinking "oh shit now what do I do" instead of continuing the
process.

The answer was in realizing that the sources process is a directive
list with a known answer.  It has to end with the PC at source
rather than at effect.  I'm not sure to what degree its taught
that way on Class 7 (I have not seen the materials except for what
is on the net), maybe they don't even know this, but if you give the
pc an effect item on the sources list you're guaranteed to spin
him per the 1950s tech.

Now knowing in theory that I had to eventually find myself as
source on the 3rd dynamic was not the same as actually being
able to occupy that viewpoint or even understand what that meant.

But being aware that I was stripping off external assignment
of sources until I could find how I was source in the area
unstuck the solidity that had gone crunch on that first answer.

You see, I'd simply deadlocked on the solidity of the
answer.  Obviously Ron was source of the 3rd Dynamic that I
was involved in (he says so right there in KSW - grin).
That was a reality that my own postulates and considerations
were not going to change.

If that happened to me (and I originate tech), then heaven
help the poor ex-SO member who tries this process casually
without knowing that an external source will always be a wrong
item on this process.

And note that you can spot others as sources in repetative
processes as long as its not one sided (alternating self as
source and others as source works).  But you mustn't list for
The Source on your third dynamic and find somebody else there.

Anyway I was then able to run the process casually and
easily, happily giving trivial or charged answers until
suddenly The Answer fell into my lap.

Before I ever walked into the org I had postulates out for
some sort of a group with some of the org's characteristics.
I was mocking it up.  I pulled in the closest alignment that
was available, which was the org.  And then it was this game
of me being in the third dynamic I was mocking up and others
each being in the third dynamics that they were mocking up
individually and all sorts of interchanges and shifting around
etc. as these things overlapped and went in and out of alignment.

It was fantastic.  And it was my mockup.  Until, that is,
I got overwhelmed and shifted source on my own 3D over to
an external source (Ronnie of course).

The really funny thing is that I was quite happy mocking up
things that Ron wanted mocked up as long as I was source on
my own 3D.  His suggestions were often good and I liked the
help and agreement.  But I was at cause, it was my choices and
my decisions.  Although KSW existed, there was also "think for
yourself" and "what's true for you" and the PDC data on
disagreement being senior to agreement and the business about
policy being a guiding thing rather than an absolute.

It took Sea Org storm troopers and robotic class 8s and
overboarding and heavy ethics to force KSW's wrong item of
Ron as source down the throats of the free thinking outer orgs.

That datum in KSW is actually a reverse power process.  The
evidence is that when it was put in by force, the outer orgs
became a smoking ruin within months.

The amount of awareness and OT perception that is opening up
from running this one process is tremendous.  I'm starting
to be aware again of what other people are mocking up on
a theta level, getting telepathic flows that I haven't
percieved since early 68.

I highly recommend the process, but make sure that people
know that the PC has to end up at cause at the end or they
can spin themselves in.

Thank you,

The Pilot

==========================================


subj: Super Scio Tech - Comments On Yoga (Attn Lisa & Dave)


COMMENTS ON YOGA (Attn Lisa & Dave)

On 21 Feb 99, Lisa & Dave <[email protected]> asked on
subject "SelfClear: Question to the pilot on Yoga"


> Hi,
>
> Thank you pilot for your answer on not-know. It is an area that gives me
> big realizations. The first big wins I got with scientology type technology
> was from my experience with landmark education. One of the basic ideas in
> landmark tech is that we keep repeating the failures of the past by using
> our past to "know" the future. They call removing that "known" future
> "Creating possibility".
>
> Now, I guess I would relate this to not-knowing the future and having a
> complete nothingness to create any future in.
>
> Understand this is just my interpretaion of what I learned in Landmark.
>
> When I realized that this is what I've been doing with my future, because
> my future looked exactly like the things I hated about my past, my future
> completely opened up like anything was possible. It was amazing!
>
> Landmark, in my opinion, is a good way to get alot of basic tech ideas and
> get started in scio with a bang! They talk alot about symbols, Be-Do-Have,
> and the leader helps the students to as-is alot of big past incidents in
> the students lives. The main goal of the first program seems to be to
> complete alot of incomplete games of the past. Their propriatary language
> is anoying though. After 3 days we all sounded like robots. Other than
> that, it kicks ass.
>
> I know I rambled on but maybe someone will be interested in this.

I certainly am.  I try to learn everything I can.

> Anyway, tonight I have a question about Yoga. Somewhere, maybe in Super
> Scio, I got the impression that you are against doing yoga. Is this true? I
> enjoy the physical aspect as well as the mental aspect of yoga. After a
> Yoga session, I feel the same way as TR0. Complete silence of the mind and
> body.
>
> Is there a certain way to do yoga so that it doesn't interfere with self
> clearing work? Or should I not do it at all?

I put a writeup on Yoga after your message.

> Also, while I'm on a roll here, maybe you could help me with something on
> the self clearing book. I am on chapter 6. I'm doing the recall processes
> but it is going really slow. last night I fell asleep in the middle of one.
> I have nearly no perceptions in recall. It sucks cause I could never really
> get anything run out with Dianetics because of it.
>
> When I dream, I know that I can sometimes see and hear things so I guess it
> is possible. It's funny cause once I was dreaming that I was seeing
> pictures in recall and I could actually see them. It was wierd.
>
> Once in a while if I'm really relaxed with my eyes closed and not thinking
> about it, a picture might show up but then fades away as soon as I realize
> that it's there and try to look at it.
>
> Is there something I can run to turn my recall perceptions on and help me
> get through this painful chapter a little easier?

Work on pleasure moments, things that were really nice.

A workhorse type process is spot something in the room alternated
with spot something in the incident.  Or spot 3 things in the room,
then 3 things in the incident.  Pick an "incident" where you really
had a good time.

Another trick (mentioned in another of this weeks posts) is to
do a not-know type recall process.  Pick an incident or a type of
incident (again, pleasurable ones) and run "what could you not-know
about that".

Also, try working with recent things like dinner last night and
concentrate on imagining the tastes, sounds, etc.

> My girlfriend has total recall with 3D sight, sound smell etc. It's wild
> hearing some of the stuff she sees and can mock up. She can mock up full 3D
> scenes with her eyes open and put them on automatic. I want to be able to
> do stuff like that.

The ability will come.  Don't grind on too long on the one chapter.
Get some wins and move on, coming back later if necessary.


> Any help would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Dave


==========

SOME COMMENTS ON YOGA

I'm not against doing Yoga and I don't see any reason to
think that it can't be done concurrently with self clearing.

I do have a few cautions and comments.

First I should present a bit of background on myself.

Note that I do not practice physical forms of yoga and I'm
not an expert in this area.  As I child I did pick up some
things from my grandmother (think of her as a cross between
Lighning and CBW in this newsgroup) but I've never done any
formal training.

I find it difficult to get into a lotus position.  I use
a prone position in the rare cases where I'm interested in
having the chakras in physical alignment.  I do however
seem to have complete control and consciousness of different
forms of breathing from various things my grandmother
showed me when I was very little but I don't know the
formal names and so forth, and in fact I didn't even know
that I was practicing a form of yoga.  Once when I was
young a swimming instructor called for a contest in
holding your breath under water.  Eventually they became
worried that I might have drowned and sent somebody down
to bring me up from the bottom of the pool where I was
relaxing comfortably.

I also learned to go through the body and tense and relax
each little muscel individually.  I even learned to wiggle
my ears at some point (much to the amusement of my friends),
but again I did not even think of these kinds of exercises
as being yoga.

I was always far more interested in mental rather than
physical drills.  Again, I was exposed to quite a few
things as a child and then I read quite a bit in my teens
and tried things, but then I became involved in Scientology,
and you know how CofS feels about mixing practices.  And
so I pretty much dropped these areas until about a dozen
years ago when I began to study and play around with
these things again as part of my research efforts.

Also, my strongest exposure when I was reading things
in my teens was Science of Mind and other western materials
rather than eastern ones.

Of course when I first did TRs in Scientology I mixed
these things in, relaxing the body, using a form of
breathing meant to quiet the body (but I wouldn't even
know how to describe it) and I had already mastered focusing
my attention.  I did not think of these things as mixing
practices.

In all my dealings with these things, both as a child and
recently, it has seemed to me to be a mistake to put excessive
importance on the body or on any physical system.  This
doesn't mean that you shouldn't do them, it just means that
you shouldn't put too much importance on physical aspects.

If you are practicing prana, make a point of mocking up
golden energy for the body to breath in.  And occasionally
make the energy flow in in reverse to the breathing just
to retain your ability to disagree and remain senior to
the body.  It is much easier to make it flow in harmony
with the breath, but you shouldn't be a slave to the physical
agreements.

As to mental forms of yoga, these would usually be in
alignment with the self clearing processes.  Just realize
that you are running processes and should treat them the
same as if they were in a different chapter of the self
clearing book.  If you are in the middle of something, you
don't then shift over to something else and get two things
going at once, for example.

The most likely difficulty would be in trying to grind
something much too long and turn on overrun phenomena
which can interfear with running other processes.

And the most common weakness in many meditations is to
push at something steadily instead of alternating.  That
can make a speed difference of considerable magnitude.

Have Fun,

The PIlot

==========================================


subj: Super Scio Tech - THE R6 RESEARCH LINE


THE R6 RESEARCH LINE

My posting of the materials of the R6 Era seems to have sparked
some interesting discussion and again reopened the nagging question
of what was going on in 1964-5.

So I took the items that were confidential in the materials
list for 1964-5 and the tapes that were confidential in the
Master Tape list I put out last year and made a short combined
list by month.

Following this is some commentary and responses to messages
that were posted on this topic.


=============

THE R6 RESEARCH LINE

(Normal non-confidential BC lectures of 1964 begin with
SH Spec-2 ren 363   7 Jan  Good Indicators at Lower Levels
and end with
SH Spec-49 ren 412 15 Dec  Communication: A Gradient of Duplication)

SC = Staff Clearing lectures.
SH Spec = SHSBC lectures


JAN 1964

      1 Jan  Session, LRH auditing MSH on R6
SC-4      1 Jan  R6 Indicators
HCOB   8 Jan Scientology VI routine VI two actual line plots
SC-5A    16 Jan  On R6, part 1
     16 Jan  To Instructors on R6 (might be same as SC-5A)
SC-5B    16 Jan  On R6, part 2
SC-6A    20 Jan  R6 Line Plots And Admin, part 1
SC-6B    20 Jan  R6 Line Plots And Admin, part 2
SC-7A    21 Jan  R6 Case Analysis, part 1
SC-7B    21 Jan  R6 Case Analysis, part 2


FEB 64

SC-8A FILM    5 Feb  The Pattern of the Bank, part 1
SC-8B FILM    5 Feb  The Pattern of the Bank, part 2
SC-9          6 Feb  R6 On Items And Goals
(*missing)    9 Feb  SH Demo Auditing Session
DEMO-2    9 Feb  LRH audits MSH "on bringing about commands"
SC-10    11 Feb  Bad Indicators
SC-11A   13 Feb  Goals, Part 1
SC-11B   13 Feb  Goals, Part 2
SC-12A   17 Feb  Goals Listing And Plotting, Part 1
SC-12B   17 Feb  Goals Listing And Plotting, Part 2
SC-13A   18 Feb  Technical Rules And Bad Indicators, Part 1
SC-13B   18 Feb  Technical Rules And Bad Indicators, Part 2
SC-14A   19 Feb  GPM Series And Examination Review, Part 1
SC-14B   19 Feb  GPM Series And Examination Review, Part 1
SC-15    20 Feb  Goals Finding And Plotting
HCOB  21 Feb scientology six taught only at Saint Hill
SC-16    24 Feb  Q & A On R6
SC-17A   25 Feb  The Goals Pattern, Part 1
SC-17B   25 Feb  The Goals Pattern, Part 2


MAR 64

HCOB   1 Mar scientology VI goals recording pain in R6
HCOB   6 Mar goals that begin the series track analysis
HCOB  11 Mar scientology VI bad indicators and technical notes
SH Spec-10A ren 371 12 Mar  Track Analysis [filmed lecture] <confid>
SH Spec-10B ren 372 12 Mar  Running GPMs [filmed lecture] <confid>
 (371 and 372 above are not included in the BC cass.)
HCOB  16 Mar scientology VI goals that begin the series track analysis
HCOB  16 Mar Scientology six- part two track analysis- drills
HCOB  17 Mar track analysis
HCOB  19 Mar scientology- six.  Part one basic auditing- drills
HCOB  19 Mar scientology VI.  Goal check outs
HCOB  20 Mar scientology VI- part 2 track analysis the GPM
HCOB  20 Mar scientology VI goals that don't exist as actual goals
HCOB  21 Mar scientology VI plots


APR 64

HCOB   7 Apr scientology VI- part five R6 auditing
HCOB   7 Apr scientology VI- part five
HCOB   7 Apr scientology VI- part six
HCOB   7 Apr Scientology VI- part five gpm auditing
HCOB  20 Apr model session levels III to VI session preliminaries
HCOB  23 Apr scientology III auditing by lists

(no confidential lectures).

MAY 64

SH Spec-20A  382 19 May  R6 Remarks - Goal End Word Running <confid>
HCOB  31 May level VI arc break assessment for routine 6

JUN 64

SC-18             1 Jun  The Line Plot - Goals Plot - Series Plot
SH Spec-21   384  4 Jun  R6 Auditing Skills
HCOB   9 Jun scientology six level VI progress

SH Spec-24 ren 387 18 Jun  Studying: Introduction <ST-1, study cass>

The above (not confidential) might have been the lecture originally
titled "Study and End Words" which had a little bit about R6 before
jumping over into study tech and which I think is the lecture that
Alan remembers.  Whatever lecture it was (I heard it on the OEC in
1967), a hacked up version of it (omitting mention of R6) with
a new title appeared as part of the study tapes.  There is a chance
that it was one of the later study tapes of July or Aug 64, but
I think that it was most likely this one.  Unfortunately, I heard
it a decade before the study tapes showed up on cassette and I'm
sure its one of them (without the R6 data), but I'm not sure which
one.  If somebody has an old set of BC reels, they could find the
"study and end words" title and post the date.


JUL 64

SH Spec-29   392 14 Jul  Track And Bank Anatomy <confid> (posted by FZBA)


AUG 64

HCOB  17 Aug R6 co-auditing the processing of end words only


SEPT 64

(none)


OCT 64

HCOB  22 Oct What an r6 auditor should know
HCOB  22 Oct scientology VI arc break assessment--livingness list L6L


NOV 64

HCOB   1 Nov scientology VI provisional cl. auditng requirements


DEC 64

HCOB   8 Dec scientology VI solo auditing and R6 EW solo auditing
(above posted by scamizdat)

SH Spec-50   413 22 Dec  Mastery of the GPMs (FILM) (confid)
SH Spec-51   414 30 Dec  Pattern Of the Bank (FILM) (confid)
(short transcripts - possibly notes rather than word for word,
of both films were posted by Scamizdat)

HCOB  31 Dec scientology VI arc break assessment ---session list l6s


========== 1965


(non-confidential BC lectures of 1965 are from
SH Spec-53 ren 416  2 Mar  Technology and Hidden Standards
to SH Spec-68 ren 431 14 Oct  Briefing to Review Auditors)

JAN 65 ===

SH Spec-52   415 23 Feb  Level VII <confidential>

HCOB   4 Jan R6 EW, R6 EWS, R6 EWP CORRECTION (posted by Scamizdat)

FEB 65 ===

(none)


MAR 65 ===

HCOB   4 Mar scientology VI gradient scale for solo


APR 65 ===

HCOB  14 Apr scientology (gpms) materials of the gpm unit reorganized

(this looks like the last of the really confidential HCOBs that
was individually copyrighted.  The following ones which we know
of from Scamizdat were not individually copyrighted, so there
may be other materials after this point that we don't know about)


MAY 65 ===

HCOB  11 May Scientology VII The Power Processes (posted by Scamizdat)
HCOB  13 May LIST 6 EW (posted by Scamizdat)

JUN 65 ===

(none)


JUL 65 ===

HCOB  31 Jul releases r6 ew note


AUG 65 ===

Note that non-confidential HCOB of 5 Aug 65 "Release stages"
mentions that a 4th stage release comes from running lock
end words off of the R6 bank solo and that fifth stage release
is done by running out the reactive mind with R6GPMI (GPMs
by Item - this is basically the CC process as given in the
CC instruction booklet).


SEPT 65 ===

Film CC-1              3 Sep  Material of the R6 Bank (FILM)
This is the clearing course film.  It begins with Ron
addressing a small room full of students who seem to be
the initial group invited onto the CC including Eunice
Ford and John MacMasters.  Reg Sharp is given credit for
running the camera.  He also tells the students that they
"should be up to having a withhold without consequences"
and should keep the materials secret.


> SH Spec-66   429  9 Sep  Classification and Gradation [filmed lecture]


OCT 65 ===

HCOPL  4 Oct Clearing Course Materials
(the later Security of Data policy is excerpted from this, here
is where the data really becomes confidential)


NOV 65 ===

(none)


DEC 65 ===

HCOB  29 Dec clearing course successes

=============

(note that in early 1966 Ron is in Rhodesia and discusses that
on the next BC tape SH Spec-69 ren 432 "About Rhodesia" of 19 Jul 66
when he returns).

==============

The R6 of early 1964 seems to be the final evolution of R3M.
Initially a process of listing for actual GPMs and their items
but possibly shifting towards a quest for an ultimate underlying
pattern common to everybody.

And then comes the idea that the patter is big and consists
of root and end words.  So let's just find the end words first.

The shift into running end words seems to have happened in May of
64.  And shortly thereafter we find Ron's own Itsa line appearing
to fade out on the topic, with the lecture mentioned by Alan
as a key indicator along with the sudden lack of lectures and
HCOBs on the subject.  A drop in Itsa like that would either be
due to overcharge or wrong items or moving in a wrong direction.
Somehow or other, he got derailed here.

I've both heard the Track and Bank anatomy tape (and you can
read FZBA's transcript) of July 64 and seen the Pattern of
the Bank Film of Dec 64 (on the R6 course, a brief transcript
was posted by Scamizdat) and they pretty much cover the same
topic.  The bank is composed of an iteration of Root + End Words
(hundreds of each, giving tens of thousands of GPMs) with a
simple underlying item platen for each GPM.

My impression is that the actual pattern of end words envisioned
in the two lectures (July and Dec 64) is quite different, but
everything else is pretty much the same.  So I would imagine that
the entire upper level of research during the second half of 1964
consisted entirely of continually listing and correcting lists to
try and get the real and correct pattern of end words that compose
the bank.

I can imagine an overcharged, full of significance, mixed up
period of "Wow, Potatos is an endword".  "Yip", says Joe,
"To eat potatoishness!  That is why I threw up at dinner."

At the end of the year, the shift from co-auditing to Solo
R6EW is made and that probably is the main research effort for
the first half of 1965.

Concurrently we have the development of power processes.
I'm sure there are bulletins missing here that we don't know
about, but maybe not very many.  And we have John Mac's
lectures about power (see the lightlink archives).  Of course
Ron screws around with PrPr 4 and cognites that he is source.
That is a correct item for him (we are each source) but he
inflicts it as a wrong item on everybody else in KSW.

Finally they apparantly have a set of items that they are
confident enough in to try really running them as a complete
bank by item (R6GPMI) instead of just listing for items
and the clearing course is launched.  Filbert makes comments
about that last stretch of research leading up to the CC.
I'm not sure its really his story (he might have gotten it
from somebody else who was there - maybe Renz) because I think
it is a bit before his time at St Hill, but the story sounds
accurate none the less.  He talks of a bunch of people, not
Ron, bumbling around to put that pattern together.  See his
Excalibur book.

Then Ron takes off for Rhodesia.  Was he getting out of the
area while these people took a first run at trying to errase
the basic underlying pattern of existance?.  Was he afraid
that the universe would start unravelling or that St. Hill
would blow up?  How could he leave at such a moment when the
research was supposedly coming to fruition?  Or was he
simply afraid that the CC students might flair up into a
huge ARC break and come after him wanting blood?  Or that
the platen might be wrong (and was too scared to try it
himself) and that he couldn't handle it if they all spun in?
So maybe he wanted to be out of the area and have another
source of income.

When he comes back, John Mac is clear.  And Ron cognites that
he (Ron)  has been overrunning himself and is already clear and
has really been doing OT 2 (taking additional charge off of
platens after going clear).

Now I wonder if Ron was planning not to come back unless somebody
telexed him that one of the CC students had made it through
instead of everybody going crazy or something.

Gee Whizz.


========================

On 27 Feb, 99 Alexander <[email protected]> responsed
to "Super Scio - MASTER LIST OF MATERIALS OF THE R6 ERA"


> The Pilot wrote:
>
> > MASTER LIST OF MATERIALS OF THE R6 ERA  (1963-1965)
> >
> > The Bulletins related to R6 (Routine 6 or level 6 - The
> > research line leading up to the clearing course)

> Comment:  Per Alan Walter's various postings, the GPM research
> at St. Hill ended around June 1964.

The June 64 study tape in the list above does seem to be the
point where the R6 actual GPM listing was replaced by R6EW.
And as I noted, Ron's Itsa line and the big outpouring of
ideas seemed to die at that point.


> Per Filbert (FWIW), the CC research began over a year later,
> Sept 1965,  and ended Feb 66.

As noted above, the formalized CC began in Sept 65.  I've seen
the CC film (given in Sept 65).  Ron welcomes the first students
onto the course and tells them that they are going to flatten
the CC platen and talks about how "It's like digging a ditch".

The platen itself had to have been researched prior to Sept 65
and Filbert's story of a bunch of auditors struggling to come
up with the items has to be referring to mid 1965.  I assume
that they were fooling around with listing for end words and
then root words but nobody had tried to put the whole mess
together and flatten it as a unit.

The CC students were to run the CC platen 10 times through
because the implant was done in 10 runs (repeats).  John
Mac is the first one to finish, and that is in Feb of 66.

The intermediate patterns of end words researched in
mid to late 1964 seemed to be things that were eventually
put into the later chapters of OT 2.  And in the CC film,
Ron says something like "most of you have been coming up
with items on R6EW that are actually out of this more recent
implant at such-and-such a date".  Unfortunately I only saw
the film once and I don't remember the details.

I knew an old timer once named Renz Hoffman who had been on
the R6EW co-audit and mentioned that they used to bullbait each
other with end words because they had to be able to confront
end words that they hadn't run if the PC came up with one in
session.  That was way back when and unfortunally Renz died
many years ago.  But I know that he hung around with Filbert
at one time, hence my speculation that Geoffrey's CC research
story might have come from Renz (a truely amazing character).


> These two areas of tech seem to bear no discernible relationship
> in theory or content. I found it very confusing to try to find a
> connection between  these two areas, like trying to pound the
> proverbial square peg into a round hole.

My thought is that they derailed on Actual GPMs and slid back
over into implants.

I think that part of what was wrong is that they were so carried
away with finding items and not working to get Itsa and take
charge off, so they had no data or context for what they were
listing.  And remember that these people didn't have their
grades (although each one had a different random hodge podge
of grade processes) and they didn't even fly the ruds.

Once I finally spotted the actual goal that I really was
living in this lifetime, I put about 50 hours of lower
level processes in on it to get it FNing before I ever tried
to list for an item.  That's in Super Scio chapter 3.

The R6 students, on the other hand, were madly trying to
reach basic basic and co-auditing on it and just getting
all excited about rocket reads and so forth.  Just listing
in the presence of too much charge.

And it is much much easier to confront an implant than to
confront something you have actually lived where you have
overts and impacts and all sorts of real charge.


> However, Alan also indicated in a posting on ACT last year
> that "It was not meant to be."    No wonder, then.

Simply out gradient.

And Ron's "research" is really explorative research rather
than a scientific data gathering effort.  It needs to be
followed up with thorough mapping of the territory.  Think
of exploratory pushes to find a Northwest Passage or to
locate the Pacific Ocean as opposed to actually mapping
the American Continents.


> > Note that the GPM materials of this era were originaly labled
> > as Routine 3
> >
> > Eventually . . . the designation R6 came into
> > effect.
>
> Jack Horner's notes taken from LRH's live lectures at St. Hill
> indicate that LRH was using the designation "Routine 6" and "R6"
> for GPMs as early as December 31, 1963, and consistently in early
> to mid 1964.

Sorry, I should have been more specific.  I did an extensive post
called THE GPM RESEARCH LINE early last year which can be found
in post27.txt in the Pilot archives.  It contains a quick summary
of all the R3/R4 bulletins and tapes and processes.  The R3
designation goes way back to the early days of the BC begining
with R3A of 1961 and ending with R3M2 and R3N in mid 63.  R4 (R4M
and R4N etc.) applies to the latter half of 1963 and it becomes R6
in Dec 63.  I skimped on talking about that because of the earlier
post which discusses it in detail.


> > The R6 materials of 1964 remain confidential at this time
> > and appear in neither set of tech volumes.
>
> It would be interesting to see that material .  The notes I have
> read indicate there was a quantum leap in the theory and technology
> from late 1963 to January 1964.
>
> Regards,
>
> John

Yes, it would be very interesting.  I'm assuming that the first
R6 listing processes were improved versions of R4M.  The evolution
of the GPM techniques from R3M to R3M2 to R4M were mostly
improvements in how to list and a bit of simplification and
straightening up (see post27.txt).  If I recall correctly, you
indicated that the R6 change was to list for solves instead of
opposes, but it sounds like it was still the same kind of process
until the shift over to listing for end words instead of getting
the items of each GPM in sequence.

The final CC platen handling, on the other hand, is a
successor to the implant handling of R3N and R4N.  Those used
directive listing of a known platen along with random listing
to get charge off so as to errase an implant platen.  The
CC process is simple repeter done solo to blow the charge
on an implant platen.  That is a better technique to handle
the same thing.

Really two different research lines.

========================

On 27 Feb, "Patricia Krenik" <[email protected]> posted
on topic "To the Pilot"

> Apprieciate all the work you went to to list the Ability HCO'bs.
> One thing though, it might be better said that R3 was the newest process
> at the time, not the highest process.  Remember, the bridge hadn't been
> built yet, and everything was experimental.  Many of the OT drills had
> already been published in the early 50's.
>
> Pat

I should have said "the highest processes IN USE at that time".
The org has never gotten back to the most advanced materials of
1952-4.  Even the old upper OT levels only seemed to include the
lower gradient OT drills from the early days.  More advanced
things in SOP 8-C, SOP 8-OT, or the PDC were not included, leaving
me with the impression that there would eventually be some
higher OT level for things like the PDC levitation drills etc.

And from another post by Patricia on the same day:

> Pretty long ago and I didn't get into either theory much.  But the
> Routine 3 processes would be comparable to the GPM R6 as prepchecking is
> to reliable items--something like that.  A step in the direction.
>
> Pat

True for the early R3 stuff.  But R3M was the major breakthrough
and could probably be considered as an early version of the R6
actual GPM process.  And if actuals are of far greater magnitude
than implants, then even R3M would be an order of magnitude
above R6EW.

(John - do you know the process designation used in Dec 63 and
early 64? - was it R6M?  I don't know what they called the process
before they drifted off into fooling with end words only and slid
into implants).

========================

Hope this helps,

The Pilot



==========================================

This weeks messages were posted with the following trailer.

------------------
The free Self Clearing Book, The Super Scio book, and the
"SCIENTOLOGY REFORMER'S HOME PAGE" are all over the net.

See The Self Clearing Homepage for URLs to these sites
http://fza.org/pilot/selfclr.htm or
http://www.proweb.co.uk/~tech/clear.htm

Or see The Pilots Home Page at http://fza.org/pilot/index.htm

Some translations are available, see links at fza.org

All of the current posts will be collected in Super Scio Archives
#50 and 51 and posted to ACT.  See the Pilot Archives at FZA.ORG.

Individual posts to ARS are being double posted to ACT rather than
cross posted to foil the spambot attack which takes good headers
and attaches garbage messages to them.

Note that some of my posts only go to ACT.  I cannot be reached by email.
I watch ARS and ACT for messages with Pilot in the subject line.

------------------

You are viewing proxied material from sdf.org. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.