|
post29 Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology
SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 29 - APR 3, 1998 PILOT POSTS TO ACT Note that the posts to ARS/ACT are in Archive 28.
Contents: Subj : Super Scio Tech - Reviewing Trom (attn Jules)
On 29 Mar 98, jules@dev.null (Jules Trent) asked on subject "To Pilot re: TROM" Great! I've said a bit about Trom before, but it is about time I reviewed it in detail. For starters, here are my quick notes on reading it. These are, of course, my opinions of what he is having people do. ----- NOTES ON TROM In general he has nice descriptions of postulates, games, etc. and a good discussion of some of the important points involved in auditing. Level 1: Setups, run by another, basically, the CCHs. RI (Repair of Improtances), The Governor a) Create Something b) Have another create something or similar processes (bring something into existance) (create an importance). Note, mockup in all directions, & you don't have to percieve them for them to be real.
Level 2: Bascially then and now alternate spotting with a differentiation step. Level 3: Timebreaking - simultaneously perceiving a past scene and PT until the past scene dissolves. Level 4: Overwhelm - Bascially handling incidents of enforced and inhibited "know" on both inflow and outflow by means of the timebreaking process. Level 5: Postulates - handled in terms of Games. It is basically a GPM like pattern of postulates / counter-postulates (8 pairs of items) on Must / Mustn't Know. There is a GPM crossover style valence shift in the middle of the scale. The pattern then repeates on a substitute significance. One basically holds up the postulates of the items and timebreaks whatever shows up, and one does lots of RI. Additional Materials: These extend the level 5 handling into more goals, which are seen as derriving from the basic set on Know. One of the lists of additional goals is: To create, love, admire, enhance, help, feel, control, own, have, eat, sex. ---- The RI processes are appropriate for use as what I refer to as a "safety net" in self processing. In other words, something basic that you can do to cool down restimulation if you get into trouble. The creative RI is usable but is a very high gradient for someone if they get in trouble. In other words, it could be very workable under normal circumstances but be too steep at the exact time when the person needs it most. The RI by perception should work even if the person is heavily spun in by a bad mistake. But it is not necessarily the easiest process of its kind. I put many different processes of this class into the self clearing book on the basis that some will work better than others for a given individual and he may need alternatives if he gets into trouble. Also, although all processes of this class are theoretically unlimited, they do sometimes flatten and overrun temporarily, so you need multiple choices. I would recommend doing the first few chapters of self clearing first and having those processes at your fingertips in addition to the RI in case of trouble. Also, some of the processes in those first chapters should reach lower than the RI set and can probably subsitute for doing CCHs at level 1, at least for anybody who is aware enough to read the book and try it. ---- He is also using the RI processes as a sort of havingness step to balance blowing mass in session. This is not a bad idea, and is very much in keeping with the late 1950s style of processing. But it is also to some slight degree a solution to bypassing too many areas and running with inadequate Itsa. I don't want to invalidate this, because running havingness or create or any nice booster action between steps or at the end of session is a good and helpful thing. However, it usually only becomes critical (and needs to be done in vast quantities), when there is too much being sidestepped. For example, with quickie triple grades in the late 1960s, you were asking for an instant cave in if you didn't finish the grade off with a havingness process. The effect is not simply due to blowing too much mass at once. That is the mistake. You can blow tons of mass without this effect if you balance areas of handling. The effect comes from blowing really deep holes in the bank while ignoring other areas. The effect has occured often on the Scientology research line because of the stupid idea of having found the one and only right why and then pushing it to the hilt while ignoring all the other things we knew. But it rarely happens with things like expanded grades that use a broader base. So I would say that if you seem to be needing too much RI, then you should run something other than TROM for awhile. Trom's biggest liability is simply that it is a very narrow subset of the tech and the areas that can be handled. At the same time, he does give me the idea that I should check over the self clearing book and add some havingness or creative mockups to the end of the occasional chapter which doesn't already have them built in. These things are always useful as an enhancement. What I'm really trying to say here about Trom is that his RI actions are good but also that they are good enough to cover weaknesses in his levels. ---- Unfortunately, he completely misses the areas of the grades. That was also true of 1950s Scientology. That will give trouble eventually, and that is why we ended up with modern Scientology even though the 1950s stuff is ten times more powerful. The really smart thing is to use both instead of one or the other. ---- His level 2 is a very "standard" application of late 1950s Scientology. There are dozens of varitions of these kinds of processes and all work very well. Some are in the self clearing book. ---- His Timebreaking is a bit different from earlier techniques. I tried it and it seemed like fun to do it with light incidents, but I prefer to handle light incidents with simple itsa and blowing by inspection. But the timebreaking seems to be designed as a heavy incident handling technique rather than a light one. For me most incidents are not "heavy" and so I rarely use heavy incident running, by which I mean any technique like R3R or other drills that let you push through on something that is really difficult to confront and can't be blow by simple itsa. But I felt that I should try this once just to see how good the timebreaking was on a rough incident. Finaly I remembered an old picture of some kind of 4 dimensional spiral which I had clipped while running something else and never gotten around to examining more deeply. This was something from before home universe in the area of track that I still have trouble understanding and Itsaing, so it seemed appropriate for a real test. So I got present time and this old 4 dimensional thing around me simultaneously. Present time started distorting. Lots of shifts back and forth in depth perception and intensity of colors and some sporatic double images of room objects. Really wierd. That cooled down a bit (but didn't entirely stop) and that damn spiral just sat there solid as a rock. Finally I got impatient and, while continuing to hold both the spiral and present time in my attention, I started spotting points on the spiral (simple objective spotting). That got things moving, and suddenly I started being able to itsa the thing, and I realized that it was curving through a 4th dimension as a means of transportation between two different 3 dimensional frames. With that the whole thing dissolved and the distortions stopped and I felt really good. My conclusion was that I had to beef up the Itsa line to get this to work well on a heavy picture. So that makes it a marginal process unless you enhance it a bit or instinctively tend to spot and itsa things in the thing that you are handling. But it is still a nice trick. ---- For level 4 I would say that you would be better off with recalls and intensive Itsa on the buttons being handled. But this is not to say that the timebreaking wouldn't work but just to say that it might be slower and might not run as deep. Pushing at things in a way that maximizes Itsa is better because it gives you much more orientation and understanding of what you are taking apart. ---- Level 5 has the inherent assumption that the basic goal is To Know. This may act as a wrong item for some people. It is possible that there is a very early track actual GPM series that begins with this goal and runs well on his short item pattern. It is also possible that there is an implant series that this is approximating. It is also possible that this might actually be pieces of something larger and that it works sometimes to relieve charge. If it is only an implant, I would think that the timebreaking actually works better than repetative item spotting. It might even be strong enough to blow charge on a platen that is only half right. And that might be a good use for the timebreaking technique in general. I'm only guessing now, but I think that it could drain charge off of an out of sequence or wrongly worded implant item that wouldn't blow on simple spotting. If, however, this stuff is some kind of actual GPM, the timebreaking technique would probably not give enough Itsa to really handle it fully. That was always the bane of the GPM research, namely that there was too much running of items and too little Itsa of how the items were lived. It does feel like he is very close on some early actual GPM series, but I don't have my hands on it right now and I wouldn't venture to say how accurate his pattern is or how many people would be able to run this series successfully. I would suggest that people who try to run this should try to add in some technique to get more itsa. Perhaps simply to describe what somebody might do to make such and such a postulate stick or what overts they might commit while doing it. Or to try and date/locate when they were living the item. If somebody is makeing gains with this, I would say go for it, and please write up what you find. But if it wouldn't run and doesn't indicate, I would say that you shouldn't push it or try to force it to run because it may be way off from where you are sitting right now. Right now I think that we set up an actual GPM series for each universe and that we leave it running and don't abandon it when we move down to a lower universe and start a new series, so that many sets are running concurrently. And each could be traced sequentially. That would be the way to distinguish an actual series from an implanted one (you don't live implants sequentially, you dramatize different parts as they go into restim). But one series of actuals might explain your choice of professions and a different one might explain your love life and yet another one might explain your taste in movies. If he is right in the simplicity of his item pattern, then the series is a holdover from an very early universe because we have gotten more complex as we went along. It feels like he has pieces of a larger goals series. Since the technique allows for finding more goals, one would have to see what one came up with. His goals series does approximate the Know to Mystery scale and he mentions substitute as the action which one does as one cycles downward, which fits in with the general theory of K to M. It is quite possible that the K to M scale is rooted in an actual GPM sequence and originates from there. I will be quite interested to hear what people find out while working with this level. I can not guarantee that it is either safe or accurate, but I don't want to invalidate it because it could well be a significant piece of the puzzel. ---- In summary, I would say that there is some good stuff in Trom, and that he has done some good writeups about basic things that will be useful in studying other techniques as well, but that it is far from a complete case handling and should be used in conjunction with other things. He is also to be commended for having made it primarily a solo effort.
The Pilot
On 17 Mar 98, jimc@sonic.net (Jim Cook) asked on subject "To the Pilot" Possibly, but it might be the long way around or not be workable for everybody. Theoretically, one goes clear simply by achiving full confront of force. Full confront of everything would actually be a higher state. But good TR 0 needs to be outward and steady. I have my doubts about the effectiveness of large amounts of OT TR 0 because of the tendency to have one's attention inward rather than outward. If you sit there with your eyes closed confronting the room (even if you can't see the room) or whatever else is around you, you can get somewhere with it. But if you just sit there with your eyes closed and not doing that, you might as well be asleep. And doing a spotting drill, as in the second process in self clearing chapter 1, is much easier, runs faster, and keeps your attention outward while your eyes are closed. It is actually a much easier gradient on OT TR 0. As for true TR 0 (eyes open), this is indeed a powerful action. According to the Tibetan materials, it can either be done with a partner or done on an object. Unbullbaited TR 0 works almost as well with an object as with another person. The mirror trick is a really good idea. Ron had some mirror type processes in the 3rd ACC, including looking in a mirror and seeing your ideal self, and looking in a mirror and seeing nothing. He also had one mockup mirrors and look into them. There is, of course, the gains to be had from TR 0 bullbaited. About the second time I did it (on level zero training), I realized that the reason that I laughed at things was because I mocked up the pictures that made me laugh in response to the coach's button pushing. So I simply choose not to put up any pictures in response and thereby ceased to react. It was actually a bit of a clear cog. Since then I've always had choice as to weather or not to laugh at or react to something that anybody says, but of course I always choose to mock up the pictures and have a good time laughing unless there is some good reason not to. That one only applied to reacting to things that people were saying rather than all reactions to force or whatever, and so it was a bit halfway. By the time it occured to me to push this up a notch by getting my TRs in on the scenes in violent or graphically gross movies, I had already had a deeper clear cog from getting run on power, so I was already past that point and I can't guarantee that it would work. But it sounds workable if you use a VCR and rerun a scene until you flatten it and stop flinching and can confront it. A specific trick with movies, in the rare cases where one seems to stir up charge, would be to watch it again with your TRs in until all the charge blows off.
The Pilot ==========================================
The ultimate process is to simply spot the next barrier in your way and mockup a process to handle it. If you're lucky it is a known area and you already have a good specific process for handling it. If it is an unknown, then you do simple basics like alternate spotting, exaggerating more and less, mocking up, etc. until you can think clearly enough about it to either Itsa it completely and blow it or Itsa it enough to identify pieces of its anatomy that can in turn be handled by designing a more specific process. The trouble is that working with a light general handling takes much much longer than knowing the anatomy of something and using a specific technique on it.
Run alternately - a) What mustn't be created b) What would you be willing to create The biggest limitation of this one is that you will eventually get down to an answer to the first question which is such a big blowout that you can't run the process anymore, at least for a few weeks. I designed this and tried it myself and after a few commands, I spotted an answer which knocked my socks off. Then I ran it on a friend and he got something wild as well, but not the same answer as I had gotten. Both of us felt like this one could have numerous answers of trememdous significance but you can't run it twice in a row without it overrunning immediately. It takes you so deep in the "bank" that you just have to run other stuff until you're ready to go deeper. Note that it has to be run alternately because running only the first question by itself could cave someone in.
An old OT 7 Class 8 tried the Penalty Universe Keyout rundown given in Super Scio Chapter 5. I put in hundreds of hours on penalty universe detail items before I found the top (platen 1). And then I did more work with platen 1 stripping charge off of the top of many different penalty universe. And it was all pretty much discharged by the time I thought up the key out rundown. So I thought that the keyout rundown would just soften the things up a bit so that they could be run more easily. It only has a few steps for each of the penalty goals, spotting the top item, spotting being pushed into it, spotting pushing another into it, and so forth. Its something that can probably be done on the entire goals series in under ten hours. I didn't expect that it would run the damn things out and produce the cumulative gain that I got on hundreds of hours of work. I stand corrected. The report I got was that she experienced massive BT visible BT blows. On the goal "to compute" a green cube drifted out of the body and dissolved. On another one an entire mockup of the body came out with a snap that adjusted her spine and then that mockup dissolved. At the end the TA went around through 7. And it is a short and easy to run action, the only provisio being that you need to be able to spot something that early on the track.
This is a speculative idea. I was rereading (yet again) the Pattern of the Bank and Mastery of GPMs transcripts, and noticing Ron's comments about how pulling items out of place in the bank was the source of things like hidden standards and chronic somatics. There are similar comments in some of the 1963 GPM tapes that I reviewed the other week while writing up that history of the GPM research line. The underlying idea seems to be that the entire compulsive creation of reality itself might be due to the GPM item patterns. But I'm sure that we have proven that that is not the case. The GPMs and items affect the identities we use and games we play, but it is not basic enough to be the anatomy of reality as we know it. But it felt like there was a half truth here as far as this idea of an underlying pattern which kept reality real and which could give trouble when pulled out of shape. But a pattern of what? I played with that for awhile and came up with the idea of it being a pattern of postulates used in the creation of "real" objects. If you just mockup a table, then you have a table but it is not in the framework of real reality. Maybe the simple truth is that you just need to make a series of one or two dozen postulates in a certain pattern to lock it into reality and make it real. I don't know what that pattern is, or if there really is such a thing, but it is something to consider. I'm imagining that its things like having to postulate that it will follow the laws of physics (gravity etc.) for example so that it is in agreement with the shared reality. Also, maybe, postulating that it is connected to some kind of underlying universal anchor points that keep the space oriented. Also, maybe, postulating that it belongs to everyone or some such thing so as to get others to copy and agree to it. As I said, this whole idea is very wild and speculative and it might just be a red herring. But it is one hell of a concept to play around with.
The Pilot ==========================================
Note that feedback from people working with the book, both as to things with worked spectacularly well and as to areas which gave difficulty, is helpful.
I'm so turned off by sales hype that I tend to do it in reverse, down playing things and making less of them. If I were selling cars, I'd probably say that the things might actually get you to work if you were lucky as long as you paid constant attention to keeping them filled up with gas and had a mechanic work it over regularly and you had adequate driving skills. This is in contrast to car commercials which show beautiful girls and drivers with racing skills zig zagging through hairpin turns. I don't believe in making outrageous claims or indulging in false PR, but I really should work a little harder in generating some excitement and enthusiasm because it takes a good bit of determination for somebody to roll up their sleaves and get to work at facing up to their abberations and expanding their abilities. This is like the old joke about the pessimist and the optimist, where one says the bottle is half empty and the other says that it is half full. After all, cars are very useful for driving to places and a nifty looking one will get you some attention and you can even learn to drive those hairpin turns. So let me say for starters that I do believe that all those wild OT abilities are there at the top and that we are moving in that direction. And that in the meantime, the sporatic OT abilities are available now and can be gotten for free by many people by putting in some work on self clearing. And the various chapters of self clearing really should have a few words of encouragement to build up some energy for pushing through the barriers. The chapter on communictions, for example, should start by pointing out that you are going to do a hell of a lot better in life if you open up your communication lines. All the chapters in the book have that hidden assumption, namely that it is an area of importance that will really make a difference. The entirity of the gains achieved in orthodox Scientology today are based on working over no more than about a third of the areas in the book, and people pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for this. So count yourself lucky and get to work.
Current orthodox Scientology processing tends to concentrate on negative gain. Earlier 1950's Scientology assumes that you will get into positive action but doesn't play that up except for the areas of drilling OT abilities. The exception is auditor training, where areas (such as communications) which are necessary to auditing successfully are studied and drilled. I made a point of covering positive areas that have been well mapped out in auditor training, such as the second of the chapters on communication which covers the positive skills. But I neglected this in other areas. Notice that in communication, after one blows off the barriers to communicating, there is a second chapter drilling things such as "intention" and "acknowledgements" and then one is expected to actually go out and communicate. This is where one developes real ability to live life. In the chapter on recall processes, one will begin opening up one's recall of the past, especially by means of spotting pleasure moments etc. With the barriers gone, one can now work more easily with positiive memorization techniques (such as those given in popular "improve your memory" type books), but self clearing does not mention that. As a general rule of thumb, in any area where something major falls out of your way, you can now engage in positive actions on that line more easily. If the book doesn't give you some specific positive thing to do, then just look around and see if you can now find something which will contribute to your abilities and enjoyment of life. The sky's the limit on this stuff.
When I took a second run at the chapter on Protest, I found that process 14.1 could be upgraded as follows: The original version was - 14.1.1a) What are you protesting 14.1.1b) What have you done to communicate that 14.1.1c) Who should acknowledge that
Select an area of Protest, then 14.1.1a) Describe the protest, or an earlier similar protest 14.1.1b) What have you done to communicate that 14.1.1c) Who should acknowledge that 14.1.1d) Visualize them as acknowledging your protest.
The addition of the last command (d, visualizing an acknowledgement), made the process run much faster and deeper. Once an area of protest is handled, another protest can be selected and run in the same way. These changes (staying with the same protest, and visualizing acknowledgements) can also be applied to the other processes in sections 14.1 and 14.2.
The rundowns for handling must have / can't have and so forth are fairly complex and advanced. These are good for advanced students but may be a bit difficult for a beginner on his first pass through the book. So if it seems like too much, a simpler version can be used. Take each major item in both chapters (such as money or pain or whatever), and run a) Mock up a way to waste ____ b) Mock up a way to have more ____ Just run them alternately without worrying about which side of things (trying to have or trying to avoid) you are stuck on. Then use the more sophisticated rundown on the second time through the book.
The Pilot ==========================================
Allen
The Animal Mind technical discussion raged so extensively precisely because it was so controversial and because MM kept bullbaiting and insisting that ALL case was AM emote. If it had been simple BS, it might have been laughted off instantly. But it had these half right and interesting aspects. I even ended up posting a good bit about it. But if something is well and thoroughly written up, there is often little to say about it except thank you. I stay hidden so I rarely do that. But if I were, I would probably email it in most cases rather than filling the newsgroup with acknowledgements. Maybe that is a mistake, but it seems to be the way that things are done online. Robert mentioned the poor response to some session reports that he had written up and posted. I had picked them up and thought that they were very interesting and that the data was potentially useful, but I really had nothing to say about them at the moment, so I just filed them carefully away. I was quite glad to get them. There is often something like this, and it is one of the main attractions of ACT for me. So please keep it up. The real index is probably which posts did people think it worthwile to save rather than simply read and discard. And there is no way to measure that. The self clearing book is an excellent example. I can tell that there is a lot of enthusiasm because so many people are working to spread it around, translate it, etc. and people often include an acknowledgement while posting something else to me. But the only things that generated any extensive discussion were some of the general philosophical comments in the introduction. I take this as a compliment actually. If I had put some idiotic thing in the early chapters such as farting in the swimming pool to relieve the charge on ARC Breaks, I'm sure that the arguments would have raged extensively. I agree with Allen about getting technical things saved, at least in Homer's archives and hopefully up on web pages as well. Maybe somebody should try to put together a monthly ACT Technical Journal to specifically collect the technically interesting posts into a file which could be webbed and archived. What does everybody think of this idea? And would anybody volenteer to do the work? Right now I collect all my own stuff into an archive file because of the fabian manner in which I only post periodically. So I don't do a lot of two way comm. But I have thought about the day when I start posting interactively, and it seems to me that then I would start specifically selecting things to archive monthly rather than keeping everything.
The Pilot ==========================================
On 7 Mar 98, concern@atnet.at (Heidrun Beer) asked on subject "L.Kin - GE-Rundown" On 8 Mar 98, Georg Ragaz # My wife recently has been running CBR's "CO Cycle rundown" (OT 14), which # is the source of L.Kin's GERD. She has had great success in getting in # handling body conditions. She has been able to handle a lot of PTPs # connected with the body and markedly improved her communication with her # body. The basic is to become aware of the body organization, get in comm # with the body and to establish two departments in the body org that train # and run processes on trouble spots in the body and get the body org up the # bridge. The body org CO is put in charge of these and should later on not # be bypassed by the thetan. # # As a result you are much move aware what the body needs and wants. Of # course as a result the body will ask for a betterment in your nutrition as # there are also limits to what he can handle. We were using high quality # food supplements to provide for the needed vitamins, minerals and # proteins, as the currently available food is of detrimental quality. # # regards, # Georg
First let me say that you can have BTs who think that they are the GE and will answer up on its behalf and they can indeed act like real beings. Handle them with Nots or whatever. Once they are out of the way you get down to the real GE which is NOT a being, but has the apparancy of being a being. Since one has charge on bodies and GEs and things like that, it is a bit harder to think about, so lets shift over to computers and software, because the GE is the same kind of thing and software is easier to talk about. A computer program can also have the apparancy of being a real being. It is not, but it can be made to look like one. For people who don't know programming, it would be a very good idea to learn a little bit of the "BASIC" language and write a few simple little programs to get a real feel for how its done. Let us say that you write a program which tells the computer to display the question "Hello, what is your name?". Then you tell the computer to take whatever the user types in response to this and feed it back to him with the sentence, "Hi ...., good to see you". Then Bill sits down at the keyboard and answers that his name is "Bill", and the computer says "Hi Bill, good to see you". It sounds very real. At least until Martin sits down and answers "you are an asshole", and then the program replies "Hi you are an asshole, good to see you". So the programmer gets smart and adds another line to the program which checks if the user answers with more than one word, and if so he has the computer say "that doesn't make sense to me, could you answer in more simple terms" until the user gives the computer a simple answer (a name in this case) that it can deal with. This is software. It can get very complex and sophisticated. Big programs can have hundreds of thousands of instructions for the computer, or even millions. The first thing to realize is that the computer is not a being. There is nobody home. But it can sound like a being because it was programmed by a real being. We are the only ones who can think up how to do something new. But once you have thought something up, you can always program a computer to do it again just as if you were there doing it. Of course we run into practical limitations with current computers, so it is not always practical to program something this way, but it can always be done in theory just by laying out every step in detail. You can program the computer to act just like you would in any situation that you can anticipate at the time that you are writing the program. Therefore you can fool somebody into thinking that they are dealing with you instead of a machine as long as they don't introduce some unpredicted factor. As a live being, you would be able to handle something new, but you can't program for it unless you have anticipated that it might happen. Therefore, software can have the apparancy of a being, but it is not. What you are really getting is the "theta" of the programmer on a comm lag, and he is not sitting in your computer and so he isn't around to adjust to new things on the fly. A computer program cannot get ARC broken with you. But I could write a program which pretended to have an ARC break, by having it say what I would say if I had an ARC break. This brings up the question of what processes are valid. Anything which addresses your case in relation to the computer would be a valid process. It should improve your ability to confront and handle the computer and it should be able to resolve those occasional "computer accident prone" people who always find some inventive way to crash the system whenever they get near the keyboard. People who get pissed off at a piece of software often find ways to get the program tangled up and if they are dealing with a piece of crap like Win 3.1, they can get the whole thing so bolluxed up that they end up having to reinstall to clean up the mess that Windows makes in its configuration files. So you can run your ARC break with the computer. And since you are a being who is capable of mocking up, you can postulate that your computer is ARC broken with you and have some charge on the far side of the comm line too. So that one will run too, but it runs on Your Charge and Mockup. The computer and software can't ARCX with you. But you can mock it up as being ARCXen and that CAN have charge and interfear with your handling of the machine. Of course if you're smart and know about computers, you have your ARCX with Bill Gates instead of with your home computer. Then you run the charge off of that, because it still gets in the way of your getting the best possible use out of the software that you're stuck with. Now you could run Hello and OK on your computer. You say hello to it and you mock it up as saying OK back to you. This is a good thing to run if you have any stuck flows in the area. But realize that the OK from the computer back to you is running on YOUR INFLOW, you are not running the actual computer's own outflow line, because there is no charge there to be run. For example, you might have started putting up a barrier to recieving comm from your computer because you saw one too many "error protection fault" type messages. Once you have put up such a barrier, you become less able to handle your computer because you miss things and don't properly monitor what it is doing. So you can run the comm flow from the computer to you and clean this up. But let me emphasize again that it is YOUR CHARGE and not the computer itself which you are handling. Now lets say that you knock out any charge that was in the way. Now we get down to the real computer itself. Your first real OT level is simply raising confront and perception and understanding to the point where you can get the best possible performance out of what you have got. You learn its capabilities, and you also learn its limitations. You become a sophisticated user instead of a klutz. Your next level of operation would be to learn to bypass effectively. The more you can bypass, the better, because that lets you remedy actual defects in the software. You learn, for example, to edit Win.Ini and System.Ini so that in the occasional cases where two conflicting pieces of software have shot each other in the foot, you can go in and fix it manually. This is not to say that you always bypass. Once you know how, you never do so unnecessarily because it is a lot of work, but you can monitor what is going on and fix things when they do go wrong, and you can second guess how things will behave under various circumstances. Finally you learn to write programs yourself. Usually you use the off the shelf stuff anyway because it is a hell of a lot of work to build your own, but you can when it is necessary and you are capable of evaluating and handling programs written by others from a viewpoint of maximum understanding because you are capable of writing it yourself. Now lets get back to the GE. There are two main differences between the GE and a piece of software on your computer. First, the GE is a theta machine rather than one built out of Mest. As such, it consists of an ordered series of postulates (probably millions) rather than machine instructions on a computer chip. This makes it more sensative to thought. And second, the input/output device (like the mouse, screen, and keyboard) is a telepathic connection with the thetan. Again, this makes it more sensative to thought. So this thing reacts to your thoughts, and therefore to your case, on a level that is orders of magnitude stronger than that of your computer. Most of what is wrong consists of orders that you are giving to the GE without meaning too. Those are your psychosomatics and so forth. Now you run out an incident, lets say, and thereby you stop unconciously giving orders to the GE to put that somatic in the body. Or, on the other hand, you get a touch assist and get your mind and attention into the area of the body and thereby bypass the GE and it stops pushing the somatic in there. This handles the negatives, but it doesn't solve the need for positive gains. For that you've either got to get in there and give the GE orders which it can do, or you've got to bypass the GE and make the body do more than the GE was programmed to do, or you've got to learn to mock up better bodies yourself. Now the GE is programmed to grow and rebuild bodies. It can do a lot of things if you permeate it and give it orders with certainty, but you also need to allow for comm lags (just like downloading something from the internet) and you have to provide adequate resources (like buying enough RAM for your computer). In this case you are limited by its programming, but the programming can run at the maximum case achived by world class athletes and so forth. Note that some of Bill's OT 14 rundown does work on this basis. You can use the software analogy to sort out the sensible ideas from the misconceptions. Would you bother to hat the Windows Program Manager up as CO of your computer? Probably not, unless the analogy helps you get your own confront up (it wouldn't help the computer). But some of his ideas are good, and there has been very little work in this area, so we take what we can get. You can also bypass and learn to order the heart and muscels and so forth around directly when you need to. This opens up the door to doing all the super tricks attributed to the great gurus and also things like hysterical strength (making the muscels react at 100 percent temporarily instead of their usual conservative level) on an emergency basis. But the software and hardware currently on the market is pretty piss poor and there are no alterate vendors to get better versions from. So in the long run, your best bet is to learn to mock up bodies and theta machines yourself. See the chapters on this in Self Clearing, which will at least provide a starting point.
The Pilot
On 28 Mar 98, "John R. Alexander"
In this case, Ron did mean that the endword itself was "absence" as the opposite of "presence" because he also says that on on the Track & Bank Anatomy tape. In that tape, he talks about the endwords themselves being the anatomy of what we are now living and therefore we have problems in identifying them because the words mean things as well as being items. I think that this is where the "forbidden word" list came from (words not to be used in auditing commands), because these tapes also mention things like here/there as endwords. But with these tapes we are talking about the later half of 1964, and they seem to represent a different breed of cat than the "R6" GPMs of early 64. It occurs to me that this is the stepping stone between the R6 GPMs and the CC GPMs, and it is its own different thing, so lets put a lable on it to keep from getting confused. Since it shows up in these late 64 "pattern of the bank" style lectures, lets call it a "pattern" GPM. It would help if you could identify the titles/dates of the very last SC/BC lectures that Jack heard so that we know the exact point he turned aside. My assumption at this point is that there are many different GPM-like things, not just actual and implant but many types of each, all running to some degree concurrently in present time. Hubbard walked down a road in researching this and came to forks and took one path where another would have also been valid but would have lead to a different species of GPM. When I tried to follow up on the 3DXX/3GA style 4 way packages, I landed in a 5 way pattern that had a good bit of charge on it and which I still consider to be valid, but which bears no relation to any of the other GPM lines. It gets a minor mention in Super Scio because it was overshadowed by the GPMs I found when I followed up on the 3M pattern. Those are not the R6 or Pattern or CC ones, they are their own animal and they are the strongest ones I've hit so far. My working theory at this point is that we start a series of actual GPMs with each big agreed upon universe, and the series is the anatomy of the game in that universe, and then when we move on, we keep the old series going too (rather than abandoning it) but it ends up as an underlying shadow within the next universe game. For the current universe, I do think that the actual GPMs are the 3M style pattern of 2s that I put in Super Scio chapter 3. The pattern of 5s I hit was 2 universes back. The CC was originally aimed at a pattern of 7s (it may be half right) and seems to be 3 unvierses back. I have been trying to lay my hands on the series for 1 universe back which would be the Magic Universe, and it suddenly occurs to me that it would be a patter of 3s simply because there seems to be a prime number progression going here. And a pattern of 3s makes me think of Jack's Triads. In your previous post, you mentioned that the relationship was a) bring into existance, b) avoid, and c) get rid of, with b) and c) having come from Ron's early R6 GPMs and part a) having been spotted by Jack. Now Ron later shifted into Create/Destroy for his basic root words. Considering a triad in this form, the basic triad roots might be Create/Survive/Destroy. This is almost Jack's pattern. And that reminds me of a 1956 tape in the London Auditors Meeting series (LAM) where Ron talks about his new discovery that the real cycle of action is Create Create Create and that therefore the Create Survive Destroy cycle is a late track abberation that causes things to decay and that it may be an implant or an installed mechanism of some sort. It also strikes me that the Magic Universe might have been the first one where bodies aged naturally (rather than only decaying under impacts).
This is news to me. I had not assumed that the OT 2 Chapter 12 pattern was the 18 item pattern that Ron talks about in the pattern tapes. Now it turns out that it is (maybe with some variation, as you mention). I just shoved absence/presence into this patter, it makes sense and some charge came off. So it seems valid although it might well be an implant and it was not charged up enough to give me any unpleasantness in casually playing around with the items. On the anatomy tape Ron has 268 root words, and by the time of the pattern tape he has got it down to two roots (create/destroy). In the anatomy tape it is 268 end words, later I'm not sure but it may still be 268. And each has the 18 items. The platens for chapters 13 and 14 of OT 2 are not on the net and I didn't run those. Does anybody (Alan or LaMont perhaps?) know if this is mapped out in one of those chapters? I do think that this one is an implant. So maybe that is what happened. In the second half of 64, they got into a massive implant which used this 18 item pattern (which could also be an actual pattern as well as implanted). The Clearing Course film (I wish somebody would post a transcript, it has been many years since I saw it) had a comment by Ron where he says that most of the people running R6EW are probably pulling the endwords out of an implant that exists at such and such a time period on the track instead of actually getting the real endwords of CC. I now think that this is the implant that he was talking about.
The first thought that strikes me is that the pattern should be the CDEI scale itself.
I've been assuming for a long time that things like "love" fit into the magic universe goals pattern in some way. It is very strong and deep but it doesn't fit the viscious dog eat dog survival game of this universe and is very in keeping with the character of the magic universe.
The only thing that gave me certainty on the 3M GPM pattern in Super Scio chapter 3 was the trememdous amount of itsa and track dating that I did to see how I had been living the damn thing. I think that this has to be done with any "actual" type pattern to really view it properly. An implant would not hold up under this kind of running because one only dramatizes them (as items get restimulated) rather than truely living them sequentially.
Are any of Jack's writings on GPMs available? Is anybody still practicing his techniques or following up on them? Can we coax you into doing your own writeup?
The Pilot ==========================================
And on 30 Mar he posted on subject "session on daughter"
The "leapfrog" exteriorization process is indeed one of the best. I put it in both self clearing and super scio and it is on the old OT 6, and Ron even uses it on a group processing tape, I think it was in the 5th ACC in 1954. It is both easy and effective. But there is one liability to exteriorization drills and that is the ext/int phenomena. I think that that is what you hit in the above session with your daughter. People can push through this and its not as deadly as the org makes out, but it can make an ext drill a bit restimulative, and you may have similar troubles with ext drills on her in the future. The solution is to handle interiorization. The standard tech way is to do the ext/int rundown, and you could adjust that for your style of incident running. Basically you just want to run out incidents of interiorizing, by whatever means works. Or running out incidents of making others interiorize. That might actually be more important. But there is also a trick for handling this on the 3rd ACC. It is to drill interiorizing and exteriorizing so as to flatten the button. That can be done with no exterior perception or reality on exteriorization and will also tend to turn on perception as a side effect. That is the first process in the chapter on Exteriorization in the self clearing book. I put it first specifically to knock out any ext/int difficulties before giving people processes like the leapfrog one which usually work spectacularly but sometimes turn on troubles like the above. See the begining of Chapter 11 for more details on running it. I don't think that ext processes should be avoided just because there is an occasional ext/int difficulty. But you should have the remedies at your fingertips just in case some trouble does come up.
The Pilot
On 10 Mar 98, "N. D. Culver" For anyone who doesn't have my earlier post, this is from a 1963 HCOB in the tech volumes that I was quoting, being a letter that Jean wrote to Ron and which he in turn quoted in the bulletin.
But I'm not certain what she was looking at when she said "body moulding", nor am I certain what you consider it to be, nor am I sure if you are both talking about the same thing. And my attention goes to something when I consider the idea of "body moulding", but is it the same thing as either you or Jean? Unfortunately, its the kind of vague lable that might apply to a lot of different things on the track. I know of no other reference to the term anywhere within LRH tech. Does anybody know of one, or of a Freezone reference? There also seem to have been 7s in the original clearing course platen. When you say "nested" 7s, I assume that you mean a fractile pattern, correct? Function of ( Function of ( X ) ). Is this just your own knowingness, or do you have other sources? What do you get on this "body moulding" as far as what it is and where it fits into things? I don't mean to be badgering you about this. It's just that I see this as a real tantalizing bit of string that needs to be pulled on to see where it leads.
The Pilot
On 14 Mar 98, Austill
I'm not an expert in the bodily areas, partially because of not wanting to validate the body too much or go too heavily into agreement with it. I would suggest that you look a bit into Homeopathy and read a good book or two on it. They specialize in getting poisons out of the system. I have used a professional homeopath twice and in one case it was miraculously effective, and in the other case the treatment had no effect whatsoever. So sometimes they can really hit the mark but not always. I agree with you that the purif is a partial handling, only addressing particular things that Ron was aiming at. Also, there are some potential problems with the high niacin dosages. You might also want to read up a bit on biochemistry. Not pharmasuticals specifically but rather the general chemical processes that occur in the bloodstream and so forth. Adele Davis is also good to read. And don't forget Linus Pauling.
The Pilot
On 18 Mar 98, psmith@direct.ca (paul smith) asked on subject "XENU and the art of outin motivators."
See "THE PICKETS OF DOOM" and "SAVE THE TECH BEFORE ITS TOO LATE" which I just posted. I'm not sure what's going on at the top right now, but I feel like something is happening. Certainly the phone calls and promo to get existing OTs to come back in for more stuff are getting more and more frantic. At the same time, both I and friends have seen the most incredible delays in stale dated material which shows up in the mail announcing events long past and so forth. It is likely that promo pieces are held until there is enough gross income (GI) to send them out and so the low income makes them get mailed late. And the news stories keep hitting, but I really wish that there were more freezone exposure in them. That might rescue loyalists instead of pushing suicidal tendencies among disillusioned ex-members. The internet web pages are likely to be a terrible foot bullet. It encourages members to get online, and at a minimum that opens them to freezone connections. The real joke of that is that the Old Timers Network (OTN) had been trying to put up a really effective website for over a year now (they are capable of putting up a real one that would have good stories and real communication) and they haven't been able to get Issue Authority. What a laugh. I'm gonna keep my head down for awhile yet, but its starting to feel like I'm hiding from a dead person. Then again, zombies are the guys that chase people around in the horror movies. Thank you for reposting my stuff to clear-l.
The Pilot
The following trailer was used on all of these posts. ------------------ The free Self Clearing Book, The Super Scio book, and the "SCIENTOLOGY REFORMER'S HOME PAGE" are all over the net. See The Self Clearing Homepage for URLs to these sites http://fza.org/pilot/selfclr.htm or http://www.proweb.co.uk/~tech/clear.htm Or see The Pilots Home Page at http://fza.org/pilot/index.htm Some translations are available, see In German - http://www.cso.net/mt/pilot.htm In Russian - http://www.user.cityline.ru/~cisergem/ or www.aha.ru/~espinol All of this week's posts will be collected in Super Scio Archives #28 and #29 and posted to ACT. See the Pilot Archives at FZA.ORG. Note that some of my posts only go to ACT. I cannot be reached by email. I watch ARS and ACT for messages with Pilot in the subject line. ------------------ |
