fg6.memo

Clearing Archive Roboposter roboposter at lightlink.com
Sun Feb 22 12:06:03 EST 2015


 
 
 
 
 
 
             ((My comments in double parentheses - Homer))
 
                        ABERRATION AND RANDOMITY
 
                                 FG - 6
                              ca. No Date
 
                       Copyright (C) Frank Gordon
       Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes
 
 
     Auditing as Optimizing Randomity:
 
     We are all familiar with the phrase (mantra?)  "Scientology works."
What does this mean?
 
     Work = to function or operate according to plan or design; to
produce a desired effect or result (Webster's 9th).  What is this plan
and desired result?
 
     I propose that it is an actual or attempted movement towards an
optimum randomity.  From too much or too little to just the right
amount.  Not too much of either order or upset, but just enough to
engage one's interest and challenge one's skill.
 
     ((Auditing engrams or secondaries can often be done as,
 
     "Was there too much of something?"
     "What there too little of something?"
 
     The Service Facsimile as Optimizing Randomity:
 
     Not only does Scientology work, but so do service facsimiles.  They
contain survival computations of varying quality and effectiveness.
 
     ((The Service Facsimile Computation is that aberrated computation
that the we must be in a certain condition in order to survive, which
condition is often a non survival condition.))
 
     Incidentally, on service facsimiles, I haven't seen anything on the
importance of the susceptibility of the target ((against whom the
computation is being used)) to this technique.  If a female is to get
out of having sex with an impetuous male by pleading a headache, she
must accurately predict that this ploy will achieve her aim.  It must
key into the computations of the target.  It must work, in other words.
 
     ((Filbert claims that the Service Computation is actually used to
SERVICE OTHERS!  My interpretation of this is that is helps us get into
a condition that is acceptable to others so that they cease hindering
our survival, or start actively supporting it.
 
     In either case it places the pc between a rock and a hard place.
The computation itself harms the pc because it IS the computation that
the pc must be sick, injured or disable in order to survive.  It is only
of value to the pc when the injury it wards off from others is worse
than the injury it inflicts on self.  When this no longer holds, the pc
can literally die of his own computations.
 
     Service computations fail to succeed with the target person fails
to help or continues to harm the pc no matter how sick, injured or
disabled the pc makes himself.  Often the psychosomatic condition works
at first to elicit sympathy, but then the effect wears off and the
antagonist returns to their suppressive behavior, so the pc tries to use
the computation harder and harder until the computation itself kills the
pc.))
 
     This brings in a possibly fascinating series of questions, like:
"What excuse especially impressed your mother?"  (teacher / father,..)
 
     ((...God, Devil, Demons, Deities, Implanters, Mates, Children...
 
     Children fall for the service computations of their parents before
they choose to use them themselves against their parents.  That is why
one sometimes has to run, "How has another made you wrong?" before one
can easily get at how the pc is making others wrong.
 
     If a child is suffering from a psychosomatic condition, which IS
the result of a service computation, you can be sure that the parent is
busy grinding the child down with some silliness of the same order of
magnitude.
 
     One can ask, who a started it?  The answer is always the parent.
 
     One should also be very blunt with the child and ask them not only
who has been making them wrong in this life as a child, but how did they
make THEIR children wrong as a parent in a past life, as THAT is the
real reason they fell so hard for what their parents did to them in this
life.  It doesn't have to have been done to you as a child in any life
for you to do it as a parent to a child in that same life.  Parents
outright originate all kinds of terror.  BUT IF THE CHILD FALLS FOR IT
IN A PERMANENT WAY HE HAS GRATUITOUSLY ORIGINATED ALL KINDS OF TERROR
TOO, IN A PAST LIFE FOR HIS CHILDREN!  His own withhold gets missed when
it is later done to him as a child, and THAT is what sinks him, not the
crazy antics of his parents trying to excuse themselves or get sympathy
from the child.  See ADO-1 Co Excused Withholds.
 
     Families are actually pretty easy to audit as long as you audit
everyone at once in the same session and EVERYONE is accessible.  The
family case just sort of blows apart at the seams and everyone stops
doing everyone else in BY DOING THEMSELVES IN!))
 
     "Huh..I never did find any that worked with my mother.  I tried to
stay home one day to see how the threshing machine worked, when a
neighbor came to thresh the oats.  But even when I argued about how
educational it would be, she still made me go to school.  However, when
my brother got run over on his sled one day that seemed to work pretty
well."
 
     "What excuse especially impressed your teacher?"
 
     "I shit my pants one day, and succeeded in getting sent home, but
finally gave up and became a teacher's pet parrot, smart but
uninvolved."
 
     "What excuse especially impressed your father?"  On this one I
changed it to:  "What got some kind of acknowledgement or recognition
from your father?"
 
     "While we were haying, I recited the chemical formula for sugar,
C12H22O11.  He really noticed me when I said this and seemed to smile
inside.  Hey!  Maybe that's why I became a biochemist!"
 
     Each of the above are examples of trying to optimize randomity.
 
     To stay home and watch a threshing machine is more interesting,
active and educational than the enforced minus randomity of sitting
passively still.  Getting out of school by shitting myself was positive,
but did not have a long-term workability.
 
     Recognizing my father's approval was an alignment of flows, i.e.,
help, which he actually did give me in pursuing this field, as I was
able to predict.
 
     The doctrine of the stable datum and its use to handle a prior
confusion optimizes randomity by inserting a "stability."
 
     If I have trouble with politicians, lawyers, and my wife is always
buying some new gimmick from salesmen, I can conclude that politics is
really "dirty politics, lawyers are crooked, and women inevitably
succumb to charming salesmen."  This may not help the situation much,
but it makes me feel comfortable.  I've now "got it nailed" and so feel
better.
 
     This "stabilizing aberration" - a quick fix, a minus randomity,
balances the confusion (the plus randomity), and moves me towards an
"optimum."  It works, not for the long-term, but it's an expedient
(literally, 'gets my foot out') and it works for the moment even though
I've had to pay a price in flexibility.
 
     Each of the above approaches optimum randomity with differing
degrees of rationality, but even so tending towards some kind of action
and survival.  Some worked and some didn't.
 
     The Reactive Bank as Optimizing Randomity:
 
     The reactive bank with its vast fixed generalities, timelessness
(another generality), survival computations, and attempts to handle
unknownness, is a collection of attempts to handle confusion and
disaster:  too much, too little, too slow, too fast, and forced ((and
inhibited)) decisions.
 
     The reactive bank can be viewed as jury-rigged attempts to optimize
randomity:  I can try to hold it still, hold it off, suppress it, etc.
and reduce the plus randomities (confusion) by plugging in minus
randomities that will orient this confusion to something that seems to
make sense.
 
     Applicable Theory:
 
     Using an aberration to reduce randomity is carrying out a makeshift
Scientology axiom 54:  "A tolerance of confusion and an agreed upon
stable datum on which to align the data in a confusion are at once
necessary for a sane reaction on the eight dynamics.  This defines
sanity."
 
     Dianetic axiom 81 also applies "Sanity consists of optimum
randomity."  Unfortunately, with an intolerance of confusion, and an
anxiety to reduce it rapidly one can end up with a slapped-together
stable datum.
 
     In each case an aberration "works" to move towards an optimum
randomity, sanity, and survival.  How well it "works," and doesn't
impede continued refinement is a key factor.  Momentary expediency
shouldn't block continuing development.
 
     Frank Gordon

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Feb 22 12:06:02 EST 2015 
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/fgordon/fg6.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