pil0.memo

Clearing Archive Roboposter roboposter at lightlink.com
Wed Dec 23 09:06:01 EST 2015



POST15.txt 

SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 15 - NOV 1997 PILOT POSTS PART 2

(The remaining posts for November are in post14.txt)


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

Contents:

subj : Super Scio - Response to Oleg re Translation etc
subj : Super Scio Tech - HOW TO SOLO AUDIT
subj : Super Scio - Answering Bob about the FZ Sea Org
subj : Super Scio - To Bagheera About Trolling
subj : Super Scio - Forged Message
subj : Super Scio Tech - CHAKRAS
subj : Super Scio - To Homer About Charge
subj : Super Scio Tech - RALPH'S NEW NOTS PROCESS
subj : Super Scio Tech - More on AMs
subj : Super Scio - Freezone Code
subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering Steve & Sarah on Errors


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

subj : Super Scio - Response to Oleg re Translation etc


RESPONSE TO OLEG RE TRANSLATION ETC

This is in answer to various questions posted by 
 "Oleg Matveev" <freezone at orc.ru>

On 10/1 Oleg asked -

> Dear Pilot,
> 
> What about publishing your book in Russian, for exx.? Hwo could we
> handle such matter?
> 
> ml
> Oleg
 
Yes, by all means.

It would require that somebody or a team of people would have
to do the work of translation for the sake of helping others.
Since I do not speak Russian, I could not ensure the quality
or accuracy.

I allow people to copy and spread around my work freely as long as
it is not for profit.  If there was profit, I would expect the
normal royalties of a book writer (not crazy exhorbinant cuts
of others peoples business like the CofS), but I do not see
this happening anytime in the near future.

In the current battle, it has to be free because of the 
horrible behavior of the CofS.  And it has to be broadly
distributed (meaning the internet) to preven suppression.

So it would be work without profit, or possibly the distant
hope of receiving the normal royalties of a translator at
some time in the future when things are better.

I would expect that the Russian versions would be made
available on the internet.

The same goes for anyone wishing to translate the material
into other languages.

I would expect others to immediately cry warnings if 
someone should try to fool people by making an intentionally
false translation.

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

On 4 Oct, Oleg asked

> Dear Pilot,
> 
> In Sscio, you wrote:
> 
> > WHAT ISN'T:  The subject of Scientology did not spring out of thin
> > air.  Hubbard didn't come from some advanced Galactic Civilization
> > to teach us poor yokels.  This is a weird idea that has gained
> > popularity on the dumb rumor line within the subject.  Of course he
> > jokingly says that he's not from this planet, but neither is anybody
> > else according to Scientology theory.  He certainly never says that
> > the subject came from off planet.  In fact he says the exact
> > opposite.
> 
> What do you think about Hymn of Asia? I think that ti is responsible
> for "rumour line" that LRH was a reincarnation of Buddha etc. I also
> have some old timers who truely believe that he WAS Buddha etc (for
> exx., you can find many things on http://www.freezone.org, Sector 9,
> Bull #19).
> 
> I'd like to hear your comments about it...
> 
> ml
> Oleg
 
Yes, Hymn of Asia is the place where everybody thinks that Ron
said he was Buddah.  This is the source of the rumor line.

Except that he doesn't say it.  In Hymn of Asia, he says that
he IS the Metreya (there are various spellings, I forget which
one he used).

In some of the popular Buddist sects, they turn the original
Buddah (Guatama Siddartha - again many spellings possible)
from a man into a God that manifests as many people (or something
like that) and that makes the Metreya into another manifestation
of Buddah.

There is even an article somewhere on one of the critical websites
comparing Scientology to one of these Buddist sects and showing
that there is very little alignment.

The real alignment with Buddism only comes when you consider
Scientology to be a sequal to Tantric Buddism (the Tibetan
flavor).

A Tantra is a drill or process.  Some things like TR0 are cleaned
up versions of Tantric drills (the meditation on a breathing object 
by means of the-sitting-face-to-face).  Look at things like
the yoga of the clear light (confront, being there) and the
yoga of the psychic heat (almost identical to R1-12 in Creation
of Human Ability) and their map of the between lives area (the
Tibetan book of the dead).

In this kind of a practical metaphysics, there are many buddahs.
A buddah is simply somebody who has achieved enlightenment,
a sort of OT if you will, with Guatama Siddartha having been
the first.

In this context (which I believed to be Ron's context and
understanding, he shows much knowlege of tantric materials 
but little knowlege of Buddism as a religion), the Metreya is 
simply the next Buddah who is supposed to have been researching
and building a better bridge.  Not the old Buddah but 
whoever it is who figures out a better way than the eightfold
path.

Note that there are endless arguments possible about 
the various Buddist scriptures because the originals were
destroyed when the Moselems invaded India.  The earliest
sources available are supposedly early translations into
Pali, Chineese, Tibetan, etc. and all of them have radically
different versions of the same basic books.  Even something
such as the Tibetan Book of the Dead is available in endless
different versions, not just in English translation but supposedly
in many variations in the "originals".

On this basis, he was claiming to be the next Buddah rather
than the previous one.


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

On Oct 4, Oleg asked -

> Dear Pilot,
> 
> What was the essence of the policy "Only Accounts Talk Money"? Maybe it
> would be useful for our freezone orgs...
> 
> ml
> Oleg 

That was basically the entire thing.  Namely, that the registrars
were not allowed to discuss money, only the cashier could do
that.

They were called registrars because they were to be like registrars
in a university rather than being salesmen.  They helped you
choose between courses and enrolled you.  In a university, the
registrar would not even know the price of things.

There were price lists that one could have.

There were no wierd deals or high pressure sales.

This seems like a good way to run a helpful school or academy.


- ----------------
 
The self clearing book should be out before the end of the year.


Best wishes,

The Pilot

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


subj : Super Scio Tech - HOW TO SOLO AUDIT


HOW TO SOLO AUDIT


This is a brief "how to" for people who are already trained
auditors but who never got to do a solo auditors course.

Since I am going to assume that the reader already knows a great 
deal about auditing, this may be incomprehensible to people
who do not already have some training in the subject.

I am currently working on a self clearing book which will
make no assumptions about prior knowledge of Scientology, it
should be on the net before the end of the year.  That one
should be useful to both trained auditors and beginners alike.
It will be an unrestrained attempt to reach from the ground
all the way up to OT states far beyond what the org is
delivering.

But many trained auditors will also want to do the OT levels
as delivered by the org.

There are many trained auditors who have been sitting on the fence
for a long time.  They are hesitant to step back into an 
organization that is behaving very badly and will drive them
up the wall with all sorts of stops and wrong actions.  They
are also hesitant to burn their bridges and walk into a
freezone organization because they have been so heavily third
partied against these people and are afraid that the tech
isn't really there or is so badly "squirreled" as to be
unworkable.

In actual fact, a good class 4 auditor already has enough 
skill to go it alone and even to chart his own course
safely.  But because of the waves of PR and Secrecy, he
doesn't know that.

Simply reading an article like this is not a bridge burning
kind of step.  A loyalist can look it over and, if it seems
fishy, simply excuse it away as "seeing what those evil
squirrels are up to" so as to better defend the subject,
and in that way avoid any serious trouble with Ethics.

This gives them a chance to know before they go, to stick
their toe in the water before they dive in.

So here it is, a basic briefing on Solo for the professional
auditor.


1. The Solo Course

Almost everything on the solo course has already been covered
in regular auditor training though class 3.  It is there to 
teach untrained public various basic actions such as how to 
fly ruds.

All that you are missing is the solo comm cycle and solo
emeter drills.

In solo, you hold the solo cans in one hand and work the
meter and write on the worksheet with the other hand.

The solo cans have less skin contact (only one hand) so
you set the sensativity higher ( 1/2 or 2/3 of a dial can
squeeze) and the TA will read higher (which is a false TA
and can be ignored, use 2 cans if you want to see the
real TA position).

The solo comm cycle is very simple.  Wearing your auditor's
hat, you ask the question (silently) of yourself, and then
you be the PC and answer it (again silently), writting the 
answer on the worksheet.  Then you shift back to being the 
auditor and handle exactly as if you were auditing a PC.
Your "acknowledgement" is simply recognizing that you have
answered the question.

The meter will instant read if you think the questions
precisely.

The solo e-meter drills consist of doing the ordinary
e-meter drills solo on a one hand electrode.  You would,
for example, assess "what is your favorite fruit", thinking
each one clearly and seeing if it instant reads.

It is actually much easier than doing the ordinary e-meter
drills because you have an internal comm cycle that is fully
under your control.  Perfect TR-1 is almost automatic.

If you have already done ordinary meter drills, these
will be easy and you can do them by yourself.

That's it.  That's all of it.  Nothing else on the course
that you don't know already.  Just do everything else 
the same way as when you are auditing a PC.

They don't teach you to solo L&N on the solo course.  But
they do on the Solo Nots course.  And its nothing that
you don't already know if you have done class 4.

Except for a couple of bulletins which explain solo, as given 
above, you get the same HCOBs as you do on an ordinary auditor
training course.  The same bulletins as always on the
subject of ruds, assessing, and so forth.


2. Basic Solo Actions

The solo internship consists of doing some simple processes
which you already know how to do.

The most important are flying your own ruds and running
self analysis on yourself (metered and in session).

The ruds are exactly as you would do them on a PC.  You
ask yourself "Do I have an ARCX" and if it reads and you
think that you do, then you handle it.  If it doesn't
read but you have one, you put in suppress and inval
as always.  If it reads but you know you don't have one,
then you put in false.

The beauty of it is that you as the auditor have absolute
certainty as to whether or not the PC has an ARCX, so
you have no doubts about whether to use false etc. and
you will never misduplicate what the PC is saying.

It is actually much easier than ordinary auditing.

If they are dealing with untrained public, the solo
CSes will send them to review for just about anything.

But if they are CSing for a professional auditor, they
have you run your own green forms and repair actions
and will only send you to review (if ever) if you
really make a bad mess of things.

The green form and other correction lists are very easy
to do solo if you can already do them on a PC.  They
don't even hat you up on this.  They just assume that
you can do it if you are trained to do it on a PC.


3. Going Clear

Most class 4 auditors will find that they have already
gone clear.

The clear cog is often repeated in the materials and 
its such an everybody knows that most auditors have
trouble realizing that it is the clear cog and wouldn't
even bothering mentioning it as a cog in session 
because they've known it since they started training.

It is simply that its you who is mocking up your
bank and pictures.  It is on pleanty of lower level
tapes and is obvious from the axioms etc.

But knowing it in theory is not the same as having
it as a cog and being aware of it.  You do have to
see it for yourself.

There are two important side effects when you really
make it.

First of all, you stop flinching from the pain in
past incidents.  Its not that your track is gone or
that you don't have incidents or out ruds or whatever,
its simply that your not afraid of a picture just
because there was some pain at the time that it
happened.

Second, and quite important, is that you see that you
are not your bank and you are not the product of
your bank.  You are at cause rather than effect.

There is a lot of incorrect sales hype about the
state of clear.  It is simply being senior to
the force in mental pictures.  The grades (PTPs,
overts, and ARCXs) go much more basic and can
be run back to a time prior to the force and
the pain and the implants to address the earlier
abberated games that caused you to postulate 
being the effect of force.

But you need to knock the stuff on the OT levels
out of the way before you can get the grades to
run early enough on the track.

So don't invalidate the state of clear just because
many abberations are still present.  It is an
important state and it lets you think without
flinching from pains and so forth.

If you haven't made it yet, you can either run
painful incidents on a gradient until you can
really confront force, or you can run implant
platens until you get control over mocking up
the items.

If you have made it, you first step is to rehab
and acknoledge it.  Strip off any inval or false
data if necessary.


3. Running OT levels

The platens and materials are available on the internet.
I wouldn't repeat the data here so you don't have to
be afraid of getting in too much trouble by reading
this.

There are basically 3 categories of upper level processes.

First there are the OT drills.  These are like running
Creation of Human Ability solo.  Currently the only one
like this is OT 1.  It also includes the old (pre-NOTS)
OT 5 and 6.  These were all quickie levels consisting of
only a small number of drills.  The results were probably
unstable for this reason.  There are thousands more of
these processes back in the 1950s materials and that
would be the way to expand these levels and really
make gains.

Don't worry about mockup processes being forbidden.
Ron put some on the old OT 5 and 6.  Create is an
item in some implants.  So you shouldn't do too much
creative processing before clear, but it shouldn't
matter after clear.

There are the ones with implant platens.  These are 
easy to run.  Much easier than flying your ruds.
The current levels are the clearing course and OT2.
Many other platens are available, both in the 1963 
tech volume and in my Super Scio book.

The tech on flattening an implant platen is given in
the clearing course instruction booklet which is available
on the internet.  Read that first.  The procedure is
used on OT 2 as well as on the clearing course, so
it can be done by a clear, but after clear many things
just FN instead of reacting.

You might also want to pick up the "Master of GPMs"
and "Pattern of the Bank" transcripts which are available
on the internet.  This gives you a bit more data on GPMs.

But the big disappointment is that the clearing course
does not handle Actual GPMs.  Its just a bigger more
basic implant.  The actual GPM research line seems to
have been abandoned.  Some clears think that there are
no actual GPMs to be handled and others think that
Ron planned on handling them on some super high OT level
above NOTS.  I took a stab at researching actual GPMs
and wrote it up in chapter 3 of my Super Scio book which
is available on the internet.

When Dianetic clear came out and people started bypassing
the clearing course, they began by doing the OT 2 platens.
Then they would get the CC platens to check over on
old OT 4.  But I think that you might as well do the CC
platens as part of OT 2 if you are dianetic clear.
Just run them lightly, FNing through whatever will FN
instead of grinding them to death like the CC students
try to do.

Note that you do run implant platens after clear.  You
sill need to confront the specific items.  There are things
like postulates and so forth which you made as a result.

Although it is not in the OT materials, there is a 1963
bulletin which says that you should also get the postulates
made at the time of an implant.  Based on adding postulates
to NED, I would suggest that you also add this as a
step after flattening any implant platen (chapter of OT 2
or whatever).

The third area is OT 3 and Nots.  The materials are
available.  I think that Nots is a better approach and
an easier gradient than OT 3, so I would be inclined to
do that first and only use OT 3 to try and stir up some
more when Nots flattens.  I also think that there are
some outpoints.  See chapter 6 of my Super Scio book.


4. Running Everything Else

You can pretty much run any process safely except 
for Dianetic repeater technique.  That one is
trouble and may drag an implant into restimulation.

So Ron was right in saying that DMSMH style Dianetics
should not be self audited.  As soon as they moved
beyond Dianetics in 1951-52, self auditing was quite
acceptible and Ron encouraged trained auditors to
use the processes on themselves.

This continued until the 1960s.

People trying to solo audit quickie grades got in
trouble.  So Ron told them to stop doing that.  But
actually, everybody got in trouble on quickie grades,
so it was not a valid test.

You will find that you can pretty much run anything 
successfully as long as the command directs your 
attention adequately.  The only processes that may
fail are general "two way comms" that do not have
a specific target to Itsa, and you might sometimes
have trouble with a prepcheck because the questions
are a bit too vague.  But it is not actually dangerous 
to try these.

The easiest things to do are correction lists and
simple muzzeled processes.  

There are thousands of processes.  They work.
They can be run solo.  Have fun.


May the tech be with you,

The Pilot


PS, I'm posting this to both ARS and ACT, but many of my tech
and freezone related posts go to ACT only.

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


subj : Super Scio - Answering Bob about the FZ Sea Org


ANSWERING BOB ABOUT THE FZ SEA ORG


On Oct 11, "perlrabit" <rabit at netlabs.net> responded to my
post on subject "Super Scio - Freezone Sea Org (attn Theta B)"


> To Pilot and the person who wrote this:

I was quoting Theta B's earlier post.
 
> > >       FREEZONE SEA ORG
> > > 
> > >   Yes folks, we are forming the Sea Org in the Freezone. A reformed Sea
> > > Org in the  Freezone where a difference in the sanity of the planet can
> > > REALLY be made. 
> 
> Not a bright idea. A better idea is to do what you do extremely well.

This might be what they are able to do extremely well.
Different strokes for different folkes.
 
> I think those who want this confuse purpose with motivation. That's what
> happens when you assume the position. Whereas Motivation manifests as the
> reason or emotion behind a goal in sight , the purpose tells you the way to
> obtain it. 

There can be many ways to achieve the same purpose.  Therefore, 
the purpose does not enforce a specific manner of implementation.
The most it would do is limit your choices because you cannot
use a method that invalidates the purpose itself.

The purpose of freeing mankind cannot be done by making slaves
out of sea org members because the means are hostile to the
stated purpose.

But group activity is possible as long as the freedom of the
individual is not destroyed by the group.

Motivation will determine how strongly someone will work towards
a purpose.  It also does not define method.  It should not be the
the determining factor in working with a group or going it alone.

Method is its own separate affair.  Ideally, one chooses the method
that is the most productive for the individual in moving towards
the desired purpose and within the limitations of the amount of
energy (motivation) that the individual is willing to commit.

Working alone versus as part of a group is not determined by
the degree of motivation.  An individual with low motivation
might do better with a group that accepts that degree of
commitment than he would alone.  An individual with high motivation
might be more successful as a loner.  It can go either way at
either motivational level.

This varies depending on the individual and also depending on the 
choice of groups available.

I would not limit or enforce this in either direction.

 
> This was not a good idea at any time, an accident waiting to happen, fixing
> a hole where the rain gets in, etc. Don't think one should handle the
> oh-so-serious weight of the world when it's sitting on your shoulders, and
> after all, someone else placed it there to begin with while you were
> looking upward. Did you create it, or did you not? 

The crazy Sea Org mentality was a bad idea from day one.

But many of the early orgs were nice and helpfull places.  A good 
organization which encouraged and supported its members
rather than invalidating them could lift somebody to greater
abilities than they would have on their own.

Just because the CofS Sea Org knocked individuals down and made
them act worse than their normal condition does not mean that
all organizations are bad.

My early experience was with an uplifting organization.  We thought
that the Sea Org would be the same only better.  Such an 
organization might truely be possible.

Of course I'm a bit sour on organizations at this point.  So I
would have to see it to believe it.  But I'm certainly not
going to stand in their way, and I really hope that they can
pull it off.

 
> Once freed from the current mindset, all things once again become possible
> and it's easier to evaluate the whole enchilda at a higher level--ride on
> top of  it using what works or go with something better. It appears that's
> what your doing. Dreams manifest, though fought, in the end prevail (my
> take, paraphased).

Very nice statement.

 
> Like the Pilot posts.
> 
> Bob

Good to hear it.

I see room for both individuals and organizations of many different
styles.

The important point is to avoid trying to cast everybody into
the same ridgid mold.

Let people thrive where they personally can thrive.  Let them
change and evolve and move on as they need to.

Freedom does not mean always working alone.  It means the
freedom to choose.

It's not freedom FROM, its freedom TO.

Many choices in an election is freedom.  One choice on the
ballot is a thinly veiled tyranny.  Two identical choices
is a more subtile tyranny.

Many alternative organizations and solo routes that one can
choose from is freedom.  One and only one organization and
only one right way is the tyranny that we call monopoly.

Freedom Good, Tyranny Bad.  Simple enough?

Best,

The Pilot

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


subj : Super Scio - To Bagheera About Trolling

TO BAGHEERA ABOUT TROLLING


On Oct 22, 1997, bagheera <bagheera at dgsys.com posted
subject "AOL Users Beware the 4.0 Cookie!!!!" to ARS.

The message was a troll that tried to scare users about
AOL's 4.0 windows software.  I wouldn't repost it here,
but I'll discuss it below.

This eventually lead to the following -

bagheera wrote in message <34531CA8.6DB at dgsys.com>...
>Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote:
>>
>> In art<62qurg$453$1 at excalibur.flash.net>, alec <alec at flash.net> writes:
>> >
>> >Ron Newman wrote in message <62m3jo$rjt at sdrn.zippo.com>...
>> >>Do not post chain letters.  Do not e-mail chain letters.
>> >>I don't care *what* their contents are.
>> >
>> >Three posters now (Ron Newman, Tilman, and Deomorto) have posted to the
>> >effect that this was a troll or a chain letter.  What is there in the
>>
>Jeez:
>
> I just figured someone on ARS would know if it were true....I didn't
>expect to be reamed for posting the damned thing.  If you guys don't
>know then just say so.  I won't do it again, and I didn't post it
>because the thing told me to pass it on.  I have an enquiring mind, but
>I guess I enquired with the wrong people.  I beg your pardon.
>
> Bagheera


I think that they were right in calling it a troll (I'll explain
in a minute), but I don't want to see you shut up.

The reason they slapped you down is that you posted it in such a
way as to encourage the troll.  This is like crying fire in a
crowded theatre.  It preys on peoples fears without any actual
evidence and gets copied around.

But there are real dangers and warnings too.  If you don't know,
then it is proper to ask rather than ignoring a potential threat.

But you must ask in a way that keeps people from going into a
panic and copying the damn thing around.

You have to downplay the thing to keep others from reacting in
fear and spreading it around, and you have to ask for an
intelligent analysis of whether the thing is real or just
bullshit.  You have to do this strongly enough that anyone else
who doesn't know will sit back and wait for an expert to 
comment on it rather than reposting the thing again to yet
another newsgroup and spreading the panic.

For old hands, its like watching a cattle stampeed or a lynch
mob in action, that's why they react so harshly.

As to why it is a troll -

The most obvious indicator is that it gives absolutely no
evidence or way to test the warning.

It also presents things that any programmer would know in
such a way as to scare people and mislables the thing as
a cookie with the intention of creating panic.

The AOL software is something that you install on your machine.
Of course it accesses your disk drive, almost all programs do,
and most of them search for what they need.

The AOL software is used to connect your machine to a
remote computer system via the phone lines.  Of course it must
pass information, otherwise how do you log on, configure the
connection, or do any useful work.

It is always possible for programs that you run on your machine 
to do bad things to your machine, and if they have communications
access, they can broadcast bad things too.  That is why we
have virus protection software and a lot of suspicious programmers
who keep their eyes open and continually poke at and monitor
things.

You either have to be an expert yourself or you have to depend
on the experts to catch the bad stuff.

The main thing here is that an insider who really had been
involved in placing hostile stuff into AOL's code would have 
details and ways of testing it and a description of what it 
would do to you.

And if AOL did pull such a trick (it is possible), some programmer
would probably catch it pretty fast even if there wasn't any 
internal leak.  And when they screamed about it, they would
have details that you could check.

I don't think very well of AOL and dislike having to defend
them.  But the post was pure dead agenting with nothing behind
it but the intent to harm or to sit back and laugh as a wild
rumor was copied around the net.


Best,

The Pilot

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


subj : Super Scio - Forged Message


FORGED MESSAGE

The following message was not issued by me.  I'm going to
sign this post (my public key is on various webpages) so
that you know that this one is authentic.  I'm also going
to sign the two archive collections (#14 and #15) that
I'm putting out this time.  If you get some dumb post that
isn't in there, you'll know that somebody is fooling around.

Note that I snipped part of the path line, only leaving the far
end which leads back to the originating host (which seems to be
an annonymous remailer).

Hopefully this is just somebody trying to jerk Homer's chain rather 
than an OSA agent who'se too dumb to do a decent forging job.  So 
I'm not going to worry about it.  


> Path: <snip> newsfeed.embratel.net.br!200.246.2.240!alpha.jpunix.com!m2n
> From: Anonymous <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
> Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology
> Subject: Is Homer a?
> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 03:11:53 -0400
> Organization: m2n at alpha.jpunix.com
> Lines: 5
> Message-ID: <8e569b9cf94366ee619e8991069b41bb at anon.efga.org>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 200.246.2.240
> Author-Address: anon <AT> anon <DOT> efga <DOT> org
> Comments: This message was remailed by a FREE automated
>  remailing service. For additional information on this service,
>  send a message with the subject "remailer-help" to
>  remailer at anon.efga.org. The body of the message will be
>  discarded. To report abuse, contact the operator at
>  admin at anon.efga.org.  Headers below this point were
>  inserted by the original sender.
> Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster at alpha.jpunix.com
> 
> Just wondering!
> 
> The Pilot


The only thing I'm wondering is who sent this.

The Pilot 

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


subj : Super Scio Tech - CHAKRAS


CHAKRAS


There have been some interesting discussions about the Chakras
recently, started, I believe, by Lightnin George.

I wrote a half dozen pages about them in chapter 10 of the
Super Scio book.  It is subsection 5 of part 10A < 28 of 32>.

On Nov 14, Ralph Hilton (ralph at atnet.at) posted (Subject 
line of Re: Chakras) an interesting "EXPANDED STUCK FLOWS R/D"
which primarily treated these as being blocked by BTs.

I think that it would work, but I'm past the point of getting
BT interfearance on this sort of thing.  The flow assessment is
nicely done, but the rundown doesn't go far enough in handling the 
person's own considerations on these flows.  

In my own experiments with these, I found that the protest button 
was critical (protesting something on the 2D causes the flow from 
the 2nd chakra to backup, for example).  But I don't think that
that is the whole picture either.  Any flinch or charge in the
area (including BTs, protest, ARCXs, overts, or whatever) probably
plays a part in this.  Homer has also suggested using ruds in
this area.

There was also an interesting suggestion by Nicolas -

At 10:14 AM 11/14/97 -0500, Nicolas wrote:

>I've read there are relationships between colors and chakras. I guess
>there might be between musical notes, or tonalities, and chakras. It's
>7 colors (including the white) 7 tones, 7 chakras.

There are 8 chakras in the better systems (and some systems only
identify 6).

I ran into a girl once who had been drilling a system of 9 chakras.
When I asked about them, they turned out to be the pattern of 8
plus a 9th position which was her own exterior position behind the
whole system.  She said that she'd had some success in psychically
healing people.


>Is it possible to consider a relationship between the Know to Mystery
>Scale and the chakras:
>
>Mystery, first chakra - sexingness, Second-eatingness, the heart area
>to neck - emotions, positive and negative, the Third Eye - lookingness,
>the crown chakra - knowingness, the being exterior. That being different
>energy levels and condensation, could that be workable?
>
>Love, Nicolas

Damn good question.  I've been seeing them as the energy sources
for the energy related to each of the 8 dynamics.

The April 1954 version of the Know to Sex (later Know to Mystery)
scale is Know, Look, Emote, Effort, Think, Symbols, Eating, Sex
(ACC data sheet, old tech vol 2 page 41).  But just before this,
Ron had put Eating below Sex instead of above it when he was
first talking about the scale in one of the ACCs.

The stomach chakra is not concerned with eating in most systems.
It is concerned with emotions (fear for example, as in a terror
stomach), and it is the root chakra which is related to eating
(at the location of the end product of eating).

So we need to shift eating below sex, which might be correct,
it can be argued both ways.  And we have to move thinking up
to the seventh chakra, but I always felt that Ron had put thinking
too low and degraded it (only looking at the inversion of figure
figure rather than having high level thought on this scale).

Since symbols relates to communication, we have to move that
one up to the 5th position.

Although the 3rd chakra is supposed to be the emotional chakra,
the 4th also has emotional aspects (compassion etc.), and
I feel that emotion does belong above effort, so lets leave
emotion in position 4.

This gives us a revised Know to Eat scale as follows:

Know
Think
Look
Symbols
Emotion
Effort
Sex
Eat

I kind of like it this way.  You would have to postulate (think of)
something before you could look at it.  You would have to 
substitute symbols for things before you started feeling emotional
about them.

Then the scale would invert.  You would have compulsive sex just
below eating.  Then you'd fight about things, and get upset about
things, and start dubing in (inverted symbols) and not-ising
(inverted looking) and then figure figure type thinking, and finally
mystery as the inversion of Know.

No guarantees on this, but its worth considering.

Now lets plot this and the chakras and the dynamics all together.

Note that there are a lot of different chakra systems.  I am
using composite definitions which combine things from different
systems.

For example, one system might describe the heart chakra as
representing courage (this is where we get the common idea that
courage comes from the heart) and another might describe it as
being compassion.  I would say that the chakra includes both amoung
other things.


1. Root chakra

Energy related to the 1st dynamic, the body, Eatingness.


2. Sexual chakra (genital level)

Energy related to sex and family and intimate personal relationships.
Sexingness.


3. The emotional chakra or control chakra (stomach level)

Energy related to the 3rd dynamic or your relations to other
people, including heavy emotions (anger, fear), control, and
more constructive activities including work and effort.
Effortingness.


4. The heart chakra

Energy related to the 4th dynamic (mankind, society) including
compassion, courage, loyalty, leadership, justice, etc.
Emotingness in the sense of the higher emotions or feeling
for others.


5. The communication chakra (mouth or throat level)

Energy related to the 5th dynamic (lifeforms).  The distinguishing
characteristic of living things rather than MEST is that they
originate communication (Mest communications are relays of
previous live originations).  Communication involves symbols,
hence Symbolizingness.


6. The perception chakra (eye level or a bit above)

Energy related to the 6th dynamic or physical universe.
Lookingness.


7. The thought chakra (top of the head)

Energy relating to the 7th dynamic, thought or theta,
postulates, etc.  Thinkingness.


8. The crown chakra (halo above the head)

Energy relating to the 8th dynamic, creation, etc.
Knowingness.

The 8th one is often collapsed to the top of the head, but 
this is a degraded position.  The natural position is above.
It may be that worshipping another source as god and
abandoning your responsibilities as a part of god is 
what causes it to collapse.

Instead of trying to force it back up above the head,
you might handle incidents of it collapsing down just
like we handle ext/int (the being interiorizing is the
earlier begining to his attempting to exteriorize) and
pay special attention to abandonment of causation and
responsibility and wishing for somebody else to have
been the one who created what you just made and regretted.

The tricks for making GE anchor points visible and handling
them also work for the chakras.  Mockup copies of them
around the body until the real ones become visible, etc.

There are lots of interesting things that can be done
with this.


Have Fun,

The Pilot

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


subj : Super Scio - To Homer About Charge


TO HOMER ABOUT CHARGE


On Oct 10, 1997 "Homer W. Smith" <homer at lightlink.com> responded
to my earlier post on subject "Super Scio Tech - Homers Enhance/Ruin
Process"

> > It does seem like you're doing things to stir up charge.
> > Possibly pulling in charge in the hope of getting answers
> > as to why you are in the condition that you're in.  
> > 
> > Unfortunately, that doesn't work well.  You need to reduce
> > the charge, and then spot answers with a clear head.
> 
>  I disagree with your analysis.
>  
>  One needs to restimulate charge in order to blow charge.

Not if the charge is already restimulated.

If you can get it all keyed out, then you can selectively
restimulate one thing at a time and blow it.  That is the
fastest way.

It is slow going while a case is over restimulated.  They
have their attention on too much at once and there is little
free attention left to look further in any area.  So things
run slowly and shallowly and the wins and cogs tend to be small.

Once you get the case flying (mostly FNs at session start),
they run fast and easy with big cogs and gains.  Of course
you restimulate them with each process, but they have nothing
else in restim at the same time, so they often push to 
maximum depth (relatively speaking) on a few commands and
pull apart something major.

 
>      For example, much of what is going on in my body is simply
> suppressed sorrow, tears never cried.  By stirring up and finding the
> sorrows, they get cried and the body gets released to that degree.

If the tears and grief are actually coming off and things are
errasing, then this is fine.

If, on the other hand, one is sitting there with an excessivly
high or low TA and grinding slowly away at the area, then the
best course is to cool it down first.  Then you can come back
at it with renewed strength, or undercut it, or hit the area
from another angle of attack.  This can easily make a speed
difference of ten or even a hundred to one.

 
>      One is operating the ruin/enhance thing anyhow all day long,
> by spotting the exact areas where it is operating the most at
> odds with itself, one can then operate it consciously rather
> than conpulsively.
> 
>      One gets up in the morning and feels floating dread and doom.
> 
>      By finding what it is about, one can operate the co opposed
> flows and release it.

I agree with your statement here but not with the specific process
as it was presented in your earlier post.

By getting Itsa on what is there, one can indeed reduce or blow 
the charge.

By duplicating the energies in operation, one can re-exert
control over them.

But one can muck about with questions that restimulate more than
they get you to Itsa.  In which case one needs to rethink 
the process and come up with a better command.

 
>  One only blows charge by finding what it is about and
> reoperating it.
> 
>  That is all I ever do.
> 
>  Telling me that there is some charge I had better not look at
> is going to fall on deaf ears as the charge I am not looking at
> IS the charge I should be looking at.  Any charge I know about is
> not worth looking at as it is persisting due to underlying charge
> I am not looking at.

There are 3 categories here rather than 2.

I agree that there is no charge that you'd better not look at.

But there is charge that you are capable of looking at, and
when you look you can get Itsa and duplication and handle things.

And then there is charge that is just too far out of reach,
and all you do is stir it up without looking at it.  If you can
look at it, then by all means do so.  But if your Itsa is
cut in the area, then get the damn thing off your plate until
you can look at it effectively.

 
> > I have recently had fantastic success with a process for
> > knocking out what one is attracting compulsively and
> > trying to get away from.
> 
> > MOCKUP A WAY TO HAVE MORE ____
> 
>      "How could you make this worse?"
>      "Make more of it."
> 
>      Been posting this for YEARS, love.
> 
>      Making more of it is THE basic Adorian process.

Yes, of course.

The exact command as given can be successfully flattened as
a repetative process.

I've fooled around with a lot of this kind of processing.  It
goes all the way back to GITA in the 1952 materials.

Generally this stuff functions like strain relief rather than
running spectacularly.

I was looking for an equivallent to "Mock up a way to waste ___".
That one does flatten repetatively, often with a spectacular result.
But it is aimed at a stuck flow in the opposite direction.
So I finally came up with the "Mock up a way to have more ___".

Note that it is just mocking up ways, repetatively, bang, bang,
bang.  If the particular target is charged, you should feel the
ridge blow.

Other variations are still useful for building up skill and
confront and havingness, but this one is the one shot kick it
in the teeth variation.

 
>      "The way out is the way in."

The way out is either the way in, or the way through, or to
jump sideways, depending on circumstances.  Each has their place.

Even the org is not so stupid as to try to get the PC "through"
an overrun by overrunning him some more.

For some things, backing out the way you came in is indeed
correct.

Then again, if you are moving forward successfully, you don't 
let yourself be stopped by things getting in your way.

But if you have to cross one of the Great Lakes, you would
be best off jumping sideways and changing the rules of the
game.  Build a cannoe instead of trying to keep walking
forward into the lake.

 
>      "At first they said it wasn't true."
>      "Then they said it wasn't important."
>      "Then they said they knew it all along."
>  
>      It has always been the last ditch process to loosen up the thing
> when it got real bad.  Only failed on me once a few weeks ago when the
> breathing thing was going out of control.
> 
>      Homer

Certainly keep using whatever is keeping your head above water.
 
But do try to reduce the restimulation and raise your horsepower.
Things will go easier.


Best,

The Pilot

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


subj : Super Scio Tech - RALPH'S NEW NOTS PROCESS


RALPH'S NEW NOTS PROCESS


On 19 Nov, 97, ralph at atnet.at (Ralph Hilton) posted on
subject "NOTs"

> According to Scientology 8-8008 NOTs is a limited procedure. It
> validates negative aspects of case too much.
> > From observation people who run it too long deteriorate.
> But there is an appealing aspect to it in that its a fairly simple
> procedure.
> But there is perhaps a simple approach that addresses NOTs without
> negating self.
> One could hypothesize that the NOTs case is pulled in as a substitute
> for lost beingness.
> 
> Based on that hypothesis:
> 
> 1. Locate a bt/cl/mass.
> 2. Pose the question: "What lost aspect  of my own beingness is that a
>    substitute for"?
> 3. Spot the time and place of the dissassociation/ separating of that
>    beingness from self.
> 4. Spot the beginning of the prior confusion to the separation.
> 
> I haven't tried it on anyone else yet.
> Running it myself I find the bt vanishes without any address to its
> case.
> 
> Anyone wanna be a guinea pig :-)
> 
> Ralph


This is brilliant.

I'm alreay having cogs with it.

Of course I've blown Nots stuff left, right, and center, running
it to the S/Nots EP and then overrunning it endlessly thanks to
the wrong why of thinking that Nots was the basic source of case.
I discussed that a good bit in the Super Scio book.

So I didn't look for a bt/cl/mass.  Instead, I recalled blowing
some back when I was running Nots to death.  It left vacumes.

This is why I got so frantic on trying to address the subject
of split pieces of myself.

When I first did OT3, I just knew immediately that it was a
criss cross implant, we each fragmented and put pieces of
ourselves onto each other as "BTs".  The idea didn't bother
me and I didn't worry about it and simply worked at blowing
things.  OT3 went to a nice EP.

I was able to run Nots too, knowing about this business but
ignoring it and making good progress.

Then I went too far with the Nots processing.  Vacumes left
behind.  Screwed up emptynesses and energy imbalances which
I could hardly percieve but which were kicking me in the
teeth.

Without quite seeing it or what was going on, I became really
bothered about this split self business.  Went half crazy
trying process after process and chronically getting sick
on the stuff but just knowing it was the thing that had
to be handled.  The writeup on that is in chapter 6 of
Super Scio.  Finally I found the "point to the being you
divided from" process and it worked easily and I felt better
and began running out the splits that way.

But I didn't see the relationship until you posted this
process.

The whole damn thing falls into place.

I would suggest a step to be added, which should be done
without prejudice (don't force something to be there
if you don't spot something).

See if you can spot the beingness of yours that was 
separated and have it "point to the being you divided from".

Exmple:  Under the impact of, let us say, a mass implant,
I split off a piece which is my "godlike identity" and
I end up as the remnant "human idenity".  This split piece
was jammed onto somebody else and someone else's "godlike 
identity" was jammed onto me, and I grab it at that time 
because I feel the loss and the vacume.

Then I blow this thing of somebody else's on OT 3 or Nots 
and that's good but now the vacume is back.  So maybe I suck 
in another BT to fill the hole.  Or maybe I'm lucky and 
expand to fill the gap.

It does seem like I was able to run quite far on Nots
before this became a major factor.  I can't say for sure
whether this is runnable from the start or only shows
up later. 

Wow.

Much thanks.

 
 ============
 
In another post, Ralph posted the following question -
 
> I don't perceive that anyone on Clear-L or who is running a "Clearing
> tech" group is fully able to grant beingness to terminals of
> comparable magnitude. Sometimes it seems to me that some actually
> believe that there aren't any. Perhaps there are exceptions. I have
> yet to meet one. I met a few in EST but never isolated the key factor
> that Werner partially resolved and Hubbard didn't seem to get close
> to. Nor, obviously, a way of translating it into Scientologese.
>
> I've been looking for a simple approach to this factor. Any ideas?


It does seem to be a common denominator of tech finders who
evolved through Scientology rather than on some other line.

Note that it is common but not always present in gurus in other
fields such as science or computers.  So it is possible that
Werner was simply getting the usual percentage of humble vs
arrogant geniuses.

In Scientology, on the other hand, it takes tremendous arrogance
and certainty of self to even dare to question the most trivial
thing that Hubbard said.  So only the arrogant even begin
to think for themselves.

I'm probably just as bad on this line as Alan or Michael.
But I think it is very dangerous.  So I keep reminding myself
of Hubbard and how he ended up.

During the 1952-4 time period, he moved with a speed and depth
that was just fantastic.  But he got too full of himself and
stopped listing to others.  And eventually he just went solid.
There are hardly any new ideas after 1954, it is mostly just
refinement, better ways to run the same things, rather than
further advances in basic theory.  

You can't go it alone.  You've got to listen to others.  You've
got to accept others ideas as well as your own.  We cover each
other's weak spots.

And the real game is to figure it all out and set ourselves
free.  It is not a game of one-upmanship.  We shouldn't be
competing for the staring role in "The Battle of the Service
Facs".


Thanks again,

The Pilot


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

subj : Super Scio Tech - More on AMs


MORE ON AMs


I've been poking a little bit more at the AM (Animal Mind) 
stuff and Michael Mourer's writings.

First, I'd like to point out that he has one very dangerous
idea, and that is the belief that everything comes from
AM Emote.

That is worse than the CofS idea that all case and somatics
after Clear comes from BTs.

Michael's idea is worse because he makes even more grandious
claims than the org does about Nots.

Note that I do believe BTs exist.  And I can spot something
on these AMs too.

But if you start assigning all cause to either of these
factors, you're going to go into a tailspin, because you
will mis-own every damn bit of case that you have left.

But I don't want to shut Michael up or discourage anyone
who is making gains with his stuff.  I would simply suggest
that they run it on whatever it runs well on and not make
assumptions about other things coming from there as well.

The original audited Nots messed up PCs.  Most of the people
who got it during that first year needed extensive repair.
The big flaw was assuming that things came from BTs and
running unreading items as a result.

So if a person had a somatic, and they did not have a BT
reading in the area, they ran a "BT" anyway (probably
having the PC drag one in there or mock one up without
meaning to).

They probably still think that the somatic must be from
a BT and there is just too much suppress to allow it to
read.  But they know that if they force the PC to run
it under those circumstances, the PC will get worse.
So they leave him alone.

In practice, the guy will probably get rid of about
ten percent of his somatics by doing Nots.

You can't tell which somatic goes with what.  Some
headaches are out-int, some are from engrams, some
are from overts, some are from BTs, some are from other
screwups in energy, some are probably from screwed up
chakras, some are probably from screwed up GE anchor
points, some might even come from AMs, and of course
the guy might actually have a hole in his head.

You can't look at any manifestation and assume that
you know what it comes from.

The only stuff that I've been able to find which has
that peculiarity of answering up to "animal mind" is
on the emotional band.  And its not all emotion, just
some of it.

I think that it comes from some kind of early implant
that involves extensive fragmentation and self replicating
machinery.

But realize that its always you who is really doing it.

One of the interesting perceptions I had while reading
over Michael's stuff was an awareness of mocking up
things which in turn mocked up things which in turn
mocked up things and so on..  I think that it applies
to a lot more than just AMs.  It is a very profound
and useful insight.

If I write a computer program which will in turn generate
programs, or write a multi-threaded program which 
keeps generating new threads to handle things, or even
write a self replicating virus program, the final
programs generated are still my creation, and I work
to fix and debug them and so forth even though I
did not write them directly.  In this case, I would
generally be fixing the generator of the programs
rather than the flawed results.

It all still comes back to me in the long run.

And it would be exceedingly slow to fix each copy,
especially when the code generator is probably 
spewing them out very quickly.  Instead you examine
the copies a bit and then fix the generator itself.

Hence my suggestion to permeate the whole damn thing
and have it spot being made into an animal mind.
It does work if you can permeate and intend well enough.

If you can't, you'd probably be better off building
up your muscels on other things until you can.

But I still haven't spotted the earlier reason why this
was mocked up in the first place.  That would be the
really powerful undercut.  That might blow apart the entire
emotional system (the tone scale will blow on handling
the penalty universes, but not the underlying emotions
themselves).

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

On Oct 24, Michael - amismm at aol.com (AMismm) replied
to Alan on subject "A PC fighting for Survival"

> You keep trying to equate it to The LRH stuff.  The LRH stuff 
> addrresses only the emote of the  of the AMs or the Emote of 
> what the PC thinks, incorrectly is him/her.

Pretty extreme remark.  

Since looking at the wall is LRH stuff, the only possible
interpretation is that the wall itself is an AM emote.

The minimum proof would require walking through walls
in front of witnesses, not just once but at will and
on demand.

These things do happen sporatically, so we know it can
be done.  Since nobody can demonstrate consistant repeatable 
cause over mest (like the physists do), we know that our
theories are incomplete.  And since Mest is fairly low
on the scale, even that is not a guarantee of ultimate
answers but simply the price of admission.

Don't box yourself into a corner with grandious claims.
Look what happened to Ron.

Leave yourself room to percieve and manuver and handle
as new factors present themselves.

And note that most of the LRH stuff works exceedingly
well in most cases as long as you don't try to solve
everything with it or try to use it to control and enslave
people.

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

There is a very intresting remark a few pages into the
AM manual.

> Much later, again mistakenly, you thought you were all of the 
> thoughts, emotions, talk, effort and such emanated by your 
> created thought/energy structures.
> 
> This was the end.
> 
> Your spiritual death.


I quite like this, although I'm reading it literally instead
of the way that Michael intended..  Contemplating this 
rehabbed the clear state for me.

Take "created thought/energy stuctures" literally instead of
limiting it to Michael's AMs.  Consider it to be all the
addatives, whether AMs or GPMs or game spheres or codes or
problem/solution chains or ARCXs or anthing else including
things that we haven't yet got a clue about.

Consider that the being either thinks that he is that stuff
or he separates from it and realizes that it is not him
but simply something he projects.

Separating from it and seeing it as different from yourself
instead of confusing yourself with it is the state of
clear and is another slant on the clear cog.

In realizing deep down that you are mocking it up, you become 
separated from it instead of being it.

It doesn't mean that it is gone, just like exteriorizing
from the body doesn't mean that the body disappears.

But now you can look at it and manipulate it instead of being
stuck in it and at the effect of it.

That is a nice new definition of clear.  Being exterior to
the bank.  It means that you can think instead of reacting.

This did happen for me when I went clear.  Since then I
always have a moment of free choice and decision before
I react or dramatize something or have an ARCX or whatever.
Often I will go ahead and ARCX (for example) anyway, because
this doesn't handle the reason I'm ARCXing, but I always
have the chance to look first instead of simply reacting.

I think that most clears have this, but I don't actually
know for sure.  I'd be interested in hearing other's ideas
on this.
 
Michael does have insightfull things to say.  If only
he could stop hobby horseing about the AMs and broaden
his viewpoint, he could be a really powerful researcher.


Best,

The Pilot

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


subj : Super Scio - Freezone Code


FREEZONE CODE


In Message-ID: <3443c864.33396394 at news.atnet.at>,
Address at bottom.of.mail (Ralph Hilton) wrote:
[snip]

>Let me pose a question:
>
>Given that there are a group of people who want to practice the
>technology of Scientology outside the CofS however ludricous that
>might seem to some here what codes could they put in place that could
>prevent their organization ever becoming corrupt in the way the CofS
>has?
>
>I would suggest for starters:
>
>1. A practitioner would never write down or record anything stated by
>a client that could be used for blackmail.
>
>2. That the technology and cosmology in use by the group should be
>available for examination by anyone at a reasonable price. (What
>constitutes a reasonable price would require discussion). I believe
>that the success of a group dedicated to such work depends on the
>competence and ethics level of its practitioners not on any secret
>technology.
>
>3. That the group should never restrain individuals from leaving with
>any form of spiritual or emotional threat.
>
>Those are just the ones that occur to me in the moment.

A really good idea.

On 14 Oct, Paper Tiger <papertiger at nym.alias.net> gave a nice
discussion on including a point to eliminate the fair game
and "its ok to lie to wogs" mentality.  Since she didn't try
to summarize it into a bullet point, I'll give it a try.

4. To treat non-believers and critics honorably and with respect.

And I'd like to add a few more.

5. To accept the gains made by the client in any practice even if
it disagrees with the practictioner's pet theories.

6. To refrain from correcting imagined errors which only exist
on the basis of theory and are not apparent in the case one is
handling.

7. To validate any gains that the client makes on his own.

That last one is to push for getting people to grow rather
than keeping them under one's thumb.

Of course we should be sure to keep the most critical point of
the orthodox auditors code.

8. To not invalidate the client's case or gains in or out of
session.

This is just off the top of my head.  I'm sure that there are 
more.  On to the next man.


Best,

The Pilot

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


subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering Steve & Sarah on Errors


ANSWERING STEVE & SARAH ON ERRORS


On Oct 12, Steve 'n Sarah (Tech at proweb.co.uk) posted a message
on the subject "Pilot is in error/part one"

The text was base64 encoded with the header missing so that
it didn't automatically decode (I double checked, WinZip decodes
it easily if you add a .b64 extension).

This generated a lot of confusion, so Robert Ducharme
(VoltR at ctinet.net) 
reposted the encrypted text asking for help and sur-ya at usa.net was
kind enough to decode it for the newsgroup.

To which "Steve 'n Sarah" <Tech at proweb.co.uk> responded with
subject line "Apologies are in order (to you that is)"
as follows -

> Listen up.
> 
> We sent a file (the wrong one) to clear-l which became garbled and you
> merely decoded it and reposted.
> You may have been identified as the originator of this post by some people.
> Our sincere apologies for this (and some admiration for your technical
> expertise).
> Please feel free to point the error out and- if you so desire,to post this
> message to clear-l to show that such misidentification
> has occured.We will naturally confirm this via E-mail to anyone who wants
> to know.
> Sorry for the error.
> 
> Steve G./Sarah H.

I assume that they meant to post the message but picked up an
incorrect copy (without the base64 header).

So here is their message and my response.


> The Authors of this document draw the attention of the pilot to the
> following errors in the "SUPER SCIO" book.
> We would like to point out that the Pilot's thinking is admirable in
> most areas but has made some curious statements that violate well
> known technical discoveries in the field.
> We will examine areas that may need correction by quoting the pilot then
> giving our view along with the technical quotations,where appropriate that 
> reinforce the view expressed.
> The original book may be obtained from the 'clearing.org'
> archives.
> Comments may be sent to this list.

(by "this list" I think that they mean Homer's Clear-l)
 

> 1) From SS01a.txt (line 842)
> 
> > The Cof$ is currently anti-homosexual.Homosexuals are currenly 
> > blocked from doing upper levels.
> 
> This is a correct idea.The purpose of a family unit is to provide new 
> bodies for the future and homosexual 'family' units violate this concept.
> If everyone became gay tonight,humanity as a species would cease to exist
> in about 100 years,destroying the 1st,2nd and 4th Dynamics.These practices 
> are harmful to those Dynamics and there is no evidence that they assist 
> any of the others.
> Homosexuality  is a destructive act and the Churchies are right to
> condemn its practice.On this point,Pilot seems to condone a destructive
> act and is invited to explain.

I don't see it as a destructive act.

A number of other posters have already given excellent rebuttals
to this one, so I will simply say that I audited many homosexuals
(male and female) in the old days and they were, on the average,
neither easier nor harder to audit than anybody else and had no
special difficuties making gains.

Since they can make gains with the tech, there is no reason for
putting in Ethics (Ethics exists to get tech in).

If it is an abberation, then it would disappear after enough
auditing, if it is not, then it wouldn't.  In either case, it is
not for us to judge.

If our goal is to set people free, then we must come to accept
what they do with that freedom as long as they don't use it
to destroy the freedom of others.

 
> 2) From SS02b.txt (line 977)
> 
> > The Mud universe is very solid,feeling like molasses.The goal of this
> > Universe is to persist"
> 
> It is suggested that the Pilot listen to SHSBC\316 "Errors in Time" which
> is also NED cassette 4.On page 49 of the NED transcripts it is clearly
> stated..
> 
> "Now I'll give you some idea of the influence of false track upon this
> society;The Darwinian theory,which probably influenced Pavlov to the greatest
> degree,is just an implant.That is an implant from man to mud.And it starts 
> out,oddly enough,with the goal 'to persist'......";
> 
> Pilot may like to review his entire cosmology since at least some of it is 
> now rather suspect.In fairness,no cosmological material will be reviewed by 
> us until a reissued version of the cosmology is available.

Yes, I have heard the tape, and even tried to run the Darwinian
implant in an R3R session during my OT preps many years ago (I
discussed this in another post - see the posting archive on the
Pilot homepage).

Just because something is in an implant does not mean it is not
also real.  Helatrobus includes staircases for example.  Implanters
may use things that exist, or the implant may result in the 
subsequent actual creation of the thing implanted.

And note that the implant says that we are evolving from mud 
rather than sinking towards it, it is a backwards datum.

I do wonder about having found goals associated with various
universes, but the goal "To Survive" really does seem to be
associated with the current universe and it appears in the
"implant" that leads one here and does represent the game of
this universe, so it seems reasonable to assume that all of
these later degraded universes have a goal suggested as one
enters them.

But I am not alone in spotting this Mud universe.  Ron also
mentions it as being the next one below us in one of the 1950s 
tapes.

Note that the Cosmic History is presented as an approximation
rather than perfection.  I would be very happy to see others
do a better job at it, but I would expect to see real work
and a great deal of data aligned.  In this case, I had collected
material for years without having it in good alignment, and
then suddenly it all seemed to fall into place and form a
fairly cohesive whole.  I gained a great deal of insight from
putting it together in the pattern presented.

It could still be twisted by my own non-confronts.  I am far
from perfect.  But I do think that I'm past the point of getting 
mislead by some silly false track in one of the lesser implants.

 
> The Authors would like to suggest to the Pilot that S/He has been less
> than truthful about some (2-specifically) of the personal anecdotes
> written in the book.It is not for us to refute the stories or to indicate
> which ones are referred to,at this point since this may lead the identity 
> of the pilot being revealed but a refutation has been prepared and will 
> only be issued AFTER Pilot has revealed his/Her identity.At this point,
> the Pilot is merely invited to confirm (or,of course,deny) 
> that some personal stories are less than 100 percent accurate and that 
> inaccuracies will be corrected when Pilot leaves 'Hiddenplace.Com' 
> and comes into the open.

I actually have no idea about what you are referring to.

There are a few omissions or even misleading impressions on trivial
matters (nothing technical) done for the sake of protecting my
identity.  And it is possible that I misremembered something.
But I was careful not to say anything false.

But what I think is really the case here is that you have made
an erroneous guess as to who I am.

However, you are correct in recognizing that we should leave this
matter alone until I reveal my identity.  Playing guessing
games is a good way to accidentally expose something or let
OSA zero in by process of elimination.


> To finalise on two happier notes.
> 
> The Pilot has made a number of interesting statements about Commander
> 'Snake' Thompson and we are pleased to announce that a search began in August
> ,for both the book itself and personal details regarding the man.The results 
> of that search will be made available upon completion.

This is good news.

> Finally,in SS10a.txt,there is a lighthearted discussion of NOTS in Science
> Fiction.The interested observer is directed to the STAR TREK:VOYAGER episode
> in Season three (Flashback) in which the science officer is diagnosed as
> suffering from 'Engrams'-Imagine his surprise when the memories under 
> analysis are discovered to belong,not to him,but to a discorperal parasite.

Very good.  The reference to Engrams would mean that they got the idea
from Scientology.  I didn't see the episode.

 
> The authors took considerable pleasure in reviewing the "Super Scio" book
> and,should a corrected edition become available,look forward to doing it
> all over again.Until that time comes however,it is pointed out that
> the serious scientist presents his research and invites criticism of such
> with a view to refining his or her work.Pilot has done his job well,and 
> hopefully....so have we.
> Another post will follow next week.
> 
> Working Together:Gibbons & Hefver 1997

Yes, I do like constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement.

I would not go to the major effort of re-issuing the book unless
there was a significant amount of important corrections to be made.

I did discover recently that in one of the chapters, I accidentally
allowed the spellchecker to replace "motivator" with "motivate" so
that the term overt/motivate sequence appears instead of
overt/motivator.

I plan to adjust my original comments about "Clear Baby" and
"Captain Bill" in chapter 1, I have already mentioned these in 
internet posts.

I have slightly more data on Hellatrobus and on Incident 1, but
nothing that invalidates what is already in the book.

And I have been coming up with more stuff, which I have been
posting to the net, except for what is going into the
self-clearing book which will be posted later this year.

I don't see any reason to issue a second edition yet.  It really
needs much more techincal follow up by other people trying
out the processes and platens first.

Speaking of which, it doesn't seem to me that you have reviewed
most of the book, but only chapters 1 and 2.

I would be interested in your comments on chapter 4 for example.

I can understand that you might not want to comment on platens
or processes.  But chapter 4 addresses basic auditing concepts.

Could you introduce yourselves with a bit of background?  I
don't recognize your names.  Even vague generalities will do if
you have reason for avoiding specifics (as I do).


May the tech be with you,

The Pilot

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

The trailer used on all the above posts was -

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

See the "SCIENTOLOGY REFORMER'S HOME PAGE" by the Pilot 
at http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~krasel/CoS/pilot.html
or http://www.igs.net/~michaelv/scnreform.htm or
The Pilots Home Page at
http://super.zippo.com/~freezone/pilot/index.htm

Get the Pilot materials (the 32 part SUPER SCIO book) at:
ftp://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/pub/ss/index.html
or from the Pilots Home Page or pick up the ss## files 
from Homer's archive at lightlink.com.

All of this weeks posts will be collected in Super Scio Archive #14 
and 15 and posted to ACT.  The posting archives are also available
on The Pilots Home Page.

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



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6

iQCVAgUBNHRYussIt3ZgVQbNAQESfAP+NFZUth+pjJQDPi18r/WssQf/wkIw48R5
JKIjGOK4MQJIvT8uRzZPDCKhi/jAROau5BSweRgaQ/S2REIr1nsoyKxpohRkZ5re
XvNDQVbQ3Q7KuvnHPSrrCthP0g3WcNBeUTdjkiSy5MdGE30m1mKKmzlPDzInuFzW
E7HfPYSardU=
=pEgZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--

Ralph

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Dec 23 09:06:01 EST 2015 
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/pilot/pil0.memo
Send mail to archive at lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but 
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith   Clean Air, Clear Water,    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959       A Green Earth, and Peace,  Internet, Ithaca NY
homer at lightlink.com  Is that too much to ask?   http://www.lightlink.com


More information about the Clear-L mailing list