Alan Re: Source
From: "Alan C. Walter"
Subject: Alan Re: Source
Date: 1998/12/04
Message-ID: <3.0.4.32.19981204161023.00c851c0@cyberstation.net>
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.34.1
Organization: [clear-l] Art Matrix - Lightlink Electra Gateway V2.5
Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology
Alan C. Walter wrote in message
<3.0.4.32.19981204124033.00c7bc00@cyberstation.net>...
>
>Re: Source
>
> >I would have more respect for Ralph's opinions if he were to quote a few
>>sources, especially how LRH handled Identities. Up until I left the
>>'church' in 1983, I had read every tech word published by LRH. My
>>extensive studies required it, but I must have missed that gem, for I
have no
>>recollection of it appearing in any materials up to Class V111 and it
>>certainly was not in the NOTS pack I read, that is for sure.
>>Love to you all.
>>John
Alan C. Walter wrote in message
>Allen,
The spelling is Alan....that is why I had to adopt ACW as a nick.
Allen usually applies to Allen Hacker.
>Your list of obvious 'identity' related items demonstrates an insight beyond
>mine in many respects........ however, it is interesting that after doing
>the LRH fornication for decades, myself and most others are still left with
>unhandled unwanted conditions.
That was and is extremely dishonest of you.
>Of course no one would admit it while
>on lines, or even when off lines in some cases.
This may have been true in some cases, but most in a safe environment would
say how things were.
>But present a new level or process that handles unwanted conditions.....and
>5,000 guys start banking on the door.... they have unwanted items.
>This was absolutely true for me too, even after I did my glorious
>development (the BM series).... I handled a lot, but not all of it.
>So I investigated. Seemed that 'idenics' was getting good reviews... so I
>did it. Worked fantastically well..... I had about 6 unwanted conditions,
>and after running two or three of the *core identities.... Most disappeared,
>(because I spotted the point of creation, of the *entire identity.
After the
>first two identities were run, an hour or two each... the rest ran out in
minutes.
I have had several clients who have done 'Idenics', all had great gains
from it. I also have never had to correct an 'Idenics' client.
>I process others occasionally this way, including entities..... I get very
>fast and stable results. Combined with my BM series approach I get a
limitless
>expansion as well.
>I'd say the way Hubbard did identities was too indirect and convoluted to be
>effective, and also stirred up side band stuff that never runs out on his
tactic...
>and as *you have pointed out, LRH's approach is backwards and upside down,
>he starts with the pin point being, instead of an expanded being as you to
your
>everlasting credit have done.
He had to start somewhere. And he did.
On that basis you might want to reconsider
what John Mace said..... he may have meant a more direct and straight
forward and complete approach to identity handling, without plowing
through 50 sheets of assorted trauma and dub in to get there.... I don't
think Hubbard had a clue in that area. He surely did to an extent at
first, when he wrote the 8008 series.
LRH at the time covered the area very well, it was also at a time when we
did not have the BPC correction list tools. Or the Good and Bad Indicators.
I had over 4,000 out lists from that time, I'm sure LRH's lists were in as
bad a condition as mine.
Further I could be audited by many different auditors.....LRH could
not....if anything did LRH in, it was no auditing.
I wrote the answer to the statement Hubbard never addressed identities.
John Mace statement:
> >I would have more respect for Ralph's opinions if he were to quote a few
>>sources, especially how LRH handled Identities. Up until I left the
>>'church' in 1983, I had read every tech word published by LRH. My
>>extensive studies required it, but I must have missed that gem, for I
have no
>>recollection of it appearing in any materials up to Class V111 and it
>>certainly was not in the NOTS pack I read, that is for sure.
This statement is absurd.
The NOT's pack's basic process is based on handling the identity or valence
the bt is stuck in. For christsake.
>Plowing through case is NOT the answer.
No it is not, but almost 50 years have gone by since DMSMH was introduced,
we have evolved a long way.
You can take Scio as a disaster or you can take it as an evolutionary step.
For those who immersed themselves in it it can surely provides an enormous
learning tool, unless of course you throw the babies out with the bathwater.
It is not often a being can get the chance to evolve and devolve with a
subject as vast as Scio. It is a glorious clay demo of magnitude.
What must be gotten from Scio is what worked. Also what did not work. To do
that requires a full knowledge and mastery of the subject, taken to the
ability to being able to create and mock-up or un-mock any part at will.
One of the most destructive things ex-scio's do is abandon the knowledge
and skills they gained whilst in Scio.
>Or maybe he wanted the money, and power, and reason to get an
>organization going, by means of keeping his public in the soup
>as long as possible.
Maybe.....I doubt that.......he had pretty modest mest goals. He just
wanted to take over the planet. :-)
>Truly I cannot forgive him for that.
At the risk of evaluating...It sounds more like your pissed off at LRH
because he didn't stay around long enough to get your case fully handled. :-)
Alan
Phil Scott
