CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
Pete and Lisa are still "in" They live in Clearwater. They should have left a longgggg time ago.
The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But
- Thread starter lkwdblds
- Start date
- Status
Pete and Lisa are still "in" They live in Clearwater. They should have left a longgggg time ago.
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
Well, sight unseen, my think on the above would be along these lines . . . of course, doing a perceive of the client and listening to what they say and what comes out of their mouth would really enable a more precise address
By the way, the BPC you want to address, is it yours or theirs?
On case #1, I don't see this as a BPC sit to handle, but mainly as a case sit. Yes the Presence One process could be applied, so could things like Objectives, SPIEPIR and/or a dose of good old SCS.
Meds, of course are a bit of a bitch
But, What about Presence Three? Get her description of what is going on/what she is doing, then ask her, "What Identity of Beingness would do (description of action)?" Then do the identity handling. Pay particular attention to the moods, feelings and sensations involved!
Also, this hoarding might resolve by addressing it as a solution to a problem. Like, "what problem does it solve?"
Also by addressing "connected to (her description of what it is) what pleasant sensation must be experienced?" Handle with good old "Experience/Create" . . . though she might need the undercut version "Part willing/part rather not . . ."
There are a number of other approaches . . . but since she is a never before audited case, these would be doable by her.
On case #2. So, he: "States frankly that the loss of the game is unauditable, can't touch it, etc."
Since he is an auditor he should be able to handle what comes up
Note that what he states is a "precept." You could use the "Precept handling" in Alan's Clean Slate R/D or even the full clean slate handling on the area.
I don't know what recent tech you've had available to you from the ranch, but there is the recent tech release under the title, "Thoughts Are Things Handling." It was incorporated in a case handling version of Clean Slate . . .
The key question being: "What precepts, beliefs or thoughts do you have about or from (thing/area being addressed)?" ANd then, there is a whole R/D to unlock the encysted running on automatic "thought."
You could also go straight in with "Connected to (area being handled) what precepts, beliefs or thoughts do you have?"
You see (and I know you do) thoughts, considerations and precepts like what he is running on will block any address to the area
It would have to be removed, then the area can be properly addressed if there is any further need.
And then, if needed, probably a shock handling or the Life Realignment Sequence would put the guy back is good shape and up out of the collapsed universe, game, dream, aspiration.
Shocks are a real killer. Many, many Scios experienced major shocks resulting in crashed universes, collapsed, lost games and catastrophic upsets, et al, when the church went negative and crazy.
Some folks are not fully recoveredAnd by recovered, I mean their Life-Force fully re-empowered and restored under their full knowing control and being applied with full volition toward their own chosen and envisioned positive wants, dreams, aspirations.
Note that word "positive" there . . . many, as a result of the church abuse are on a negative goal of getting even, opposing, getting rid of, avoiding et al, anything except playing the game they really want.
One of the things LRH missed was the full recovering of the prior to the upset/caved-in goal, dream, aspiration and operating paradigm matrix the person was enjoying before the crash. LRH's BPC "Handling" tech really only "found and indicated the "BPC" item, let the guy itsa, and de-accessed the upset but did not take the action to put back in place the full operating game scenario that existed prior to the upset or crash.
Rog
I would add one thing to identity handling.
What qualities would NOT BE a part of the identity?
When looking at an identity, it is being a list of things. It is also NOT BEING deliberately another long list of things.
You have to get both sides of the identity.
and it doesn't have to be charged. It can be an affinity related assumed identity, such as copying a parent looked up to.
Last edited:
RogerB
Crusader
This is One of the Most Important Issues We Have to Address
Ahoy! Leon. Welcome to the club
Yes, Alan did indeed "write some articles he called 'The Furies'."
But more importantly he did a whole series of tech and a huge R/D relative to them.
The "furies" we humans go into is rather pitter-patter stuff compared to the real deal at the bottom of the chain.
The real deal is a monster event, very early on the track, where spirit went into a monster psychotic break of insanity that raged and furied and spat venom and hatred against all in sundry it was connected to.
The R/D involves, once the client is literate enough on spiritual matters and is beginning to already collide with this area of case, assessing a rather long list of variations on a basic theme of anger, hatred, vile evil intentions, rage against, etc., and then the undoing of the destructive intentions and creations the Being authored at the time.
Of course, a clever fellow like you would likely ask, "How come?" and, "Why would a Being do this?"
The answer is in our descent down the Tone Scale and the the changing nature of our relationships.
In my presentation in Pasadena, I refer to the "Power Split" . . . that point on the Tone or Mood Scale where the Being flips negative and goes into a reversal of polarity and/or vector. The point, just above Antagonism where the Being switches from Love to Hate; from Presence to Absence; from wanting to relate, co-create with and work with into wanting to distance oneself from and destroy, etc.
The first time we did this was huge and monstrous, and rather all-embracing. All later times we did it simply triggered the original . . . but life being the way it is, we also regretted it and it was a little hard to confront . . . . so the whole thing got buried under avoidance and occlusion, denial etc. Additionally, it got solved by way of huge self-restraint.
Not the best solution, but hey, we did our best
Alan, did not particularly "link" BPC and the Furies together, per se. The fact is, the original Furies occurred as a result of building up charge, descending down the mood scale as a result, then going into The Furies as a consequence to handle the circumstance and charge, and then ever after being liable to restim that "rage" when sufficiently pissed-off or otherwise provoked in later times.
Yes, "the Postulate--Failure Cycle" is really the descent from the top of the mood scale at create or source down through loss of control into failure.
Your comment above: "Interesting too is that this condition is a harmonic of Static itself - No space, No time, No identity to view from. An engram is a tiny tiny version of this." is apt. What you describe is the negative expression or mockery of the higher toned positive. It is the inversion of the top of the scale . . . as I described in Pasadena as being what occurs when one goes through the "Power Split."
The above is why I made the comment in Pasadena that: "I don't know how much of the mood scale you have each run out on your cases, but it is worth doing"
Rog
Ahoy! Leon. Welcome to the club
Yes, Alan did indeed "write some articles he called 'The Furies'."
But more importantly he did a whole series of tech and a huge R/D relative to them.
The "furies" we humans go into is rather pitter-patter stuff compared to the real deal at the bottom of the chain.
The real deal is a monster event, very early on the track, where spirit went into a monster psychotic break of insanity that raged and furied and spat venom and hatred against all in sundry it was connected to.
The R/D involves, once the client is literate enough on spiritual matters and is beginning to already collide with this area of case, assessing a rather long list of variations on a basic theme of anger, hatred, vile evil intentions, rage against, etc., and then the undoing of the destructive intentions and creations the Being authored at the time.
Of course, a clever fellow like you would likely ask, "How come?" and, "Why would a Being do this?"
The answer is in our descent down the Tone Scale and the the changing nature of our relationships.
In my presentation in Pasadena, I refer to the "Power Split" . . . that point on the Tone or Mood Scale where the Being flips negative and goes into a reversal of polarity and/or vector. The point, just above Antagonism where the Being switches from Love to Hate; from Presence to Absence; from wanting to relate, co-create with and work with into wanting to distance oneself from and destroy, etc.
The first time we did this was huge and monstrous, and rather all-embracing. All later times we did it simply triggered the original . . . but life being the way it is, we also regretted it and it was a little hard to confront . . . . so the whole thing got buried under avoidance and occlusion, denial etc. Additionally, it got solved by way of huge self-restraint.
Not the best solution, but hey, we did our best
Alan, did not particularly "link" BPC and the Furies together, per se. The fact is, the original Furies occurred as a result of building up charge, descending down the mood scale as a result, then going into The Furies as a consequence to handle the circumstance and charge, and then ever after being liable to restim that "rage" when sufficiently pissed-off or otherwise provoked in later times.
Yes, "the Postulate--Failure Cycle" is really the descent from the top of the mood scale at create or source down through loss of control into failure.
Your comment above: "Interesting too is that this condition is a harmonic of Static itself - No space, No time, No identity to view from. An engram is a tiny tiny version of this." is apt. What you describe is the negative expression or mockery of the higher toned positive. It is the inversion of the top of the scale . . . as I described in Pasadena as being what occurs when one goes through the "Power Split."
The above is why I made the comment in Pasadena that: "I don't know how much of the mood scale you have each run out on your cases, but it is worth doing
"Rog
Last edited:
RogerB
Crusader
This is One of the Most Important Issues We Have to Address
This response by me addresses Carmelo's post that Leon is replying to as well . . . .
Leon, it appears you may have been on holidays? I think you'll love what I said in Pasadena here: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=14524
I get into the why and what happened that caused LRH to abandon own Goals listing in April, 1963. It is also something I mentioned to Alan first in November,1994 and shook him up a little. It is also mentioned by me on Alan's "Opening Pandora's Box" thread.
In that thread, Alan also mentioned that he "always listed his goals in pairs." And the example he gave as his first found goal pair was "A Leader and "A Saboteur."
Co-incidently, Dennis also came up with duality of "goals" structure.
Edit: I am not in accord with this pairs of goals or duality of goals scenario.
Dennis is correct when he says LRH screwed up because he was operating from the perspective that everything opposed something else.
Alan also, based on the last of his Games Matrix tech lecture I've seen, also carried forward this "things oppose things" paradigm. Indeed, in his 2007 lecture on the tech, the listing question used to enter the Games Matrix case is in essence a repeat of LRHs old November 1962, R2-12 listing questions . . . wherein Alan lists for the client's "Most despised, hated person/connection" which is then listed with "Who or what does (most despised person) represent to you?"
Unfortunately, that takes you into the "GPM" or Games Matrix down at the bottom below the Power Split where all is negative and into opponency, hatred and all those other charms that screw one's case up
I prefer to find the person's Prime Dream or Aspiration. The person's current main wanted want or positive goal.
This does give you a Goal, and a positive and puts you at the top of the scale at where all the power and knowledge, conrol and responsibility is.
And it is a goal . . .
Now, in order to pursue that goal, dream and aspiration or most wanted want, you assume (or create for yourself) an identity or Beingness, and you postulate the relating with other suitable Beingnesses which in actuality are complementary to and reciprocals of the identity you assume to play the game.
They are not opponents, and nor are they opposed. That would be idiotically destructive and doom the game to failure. They are play mates!
However, the game did decline and end up in chaos, enmity and destruction . . . and all that can be cleaned up.
In my view, Alan's and Dennis's two or pairs of "goals" are not goals but instead pairs of identities assumed and/or created in the pursuit of the goal.
Particularly Alan's as mentioned in his Pandora's Box here on ESMB. Yes, there will be an intention to create and/or assume such identities, and yes these intentions can read as goals . . . but seeing an identity as a goal is one very certain way to screw trying to undo a "GPM" or Games Matrix
You'll note in Pasadena I pointed out what my Game/Goal was (the particular one I cited . . as I have three such in progress currently), and what the two top identities were that I created in order to bring about the game and pursue its goal.
Them's Roger findings on the deal
R
This response by me addresses Carmelo's post that Leon is replying to as well . . . .
Leon, it appears you may have been on holidays?
I think you'll love what I said in Pasadena here: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=14524I get into the why and what happened that caused LRH to abandon own Goals listing in April, 1963. It is also something I mentioned to Alan first in November,1994 and shook him up a little. It is also mentioned by me on Alan's "Opening Pandora's Box" thread.
In that thread, Alan also mentioned that he "always listed his goals in pairs." And the example he gave as his first found goal pair was "A Leader and "A Saboteur."
Co-incidently, Dennis also came up with duality of "goals" structure.
Edit: I am not in accord with this pairs of goals or duality of goals scenario.
Dennis is correct when he says LRH screwed up because he was operating from the perspective that everything opposed something else.
Alan also, based on the last of his Games Matrix tech lecture I've seen, also carried forward this "things oppose things" paradigm. Indeed, in his 2007 lecture on the tech, the listing question used to enter the Games Matrix case is in essence a repeat of LRHs old November 1962, R2-12 listing questions . . . wherein Alan lists for the client's "Most despised, hated person/connection" which is then listed with "Who or what does (most despised person) represent to you?"
Unfortunately, that takes you into the "GPM" or Games Matrix down at the bottom below the Power Split where all is negative and into opponency, hatred and all those other charms that screw one's case up
I prefer to find the person's Prime Dream or Aspiration. The person's current main wanted want or positive goal.
This does give you a Goal, and a positive and puts you at the top of the scale at where all the power and knowledge, conrol and responsibility is.
And it is a goal . . .
Now, in order to pursue that goal, dream and aspiration or most wanted want, you assume (or create for yourself) an identity or Beingness, and you postulate the relating with other suitable Beingnesses which in actuality are complementary to and reciprocals of the identity you assume to play the game.
They are not opponents, and nor are they opposed. That would be idiotically destructive and doom the game to failure. They are play mates!
However, the game did decline and end up in chaos, enmity and destruction . . . and all that can be cleaned up.
In my view, Alan's and Dennis's two or pairs of "goals" are not goals but instead pairs of identities assumed and/or created in the pursuit of the goal.
Particularly Alan's as mentioned in his Pandora's Box here on ESMB. Yes, there will be an intention to create and/or assume such identities, and yes these intentions can read as goals . . . but seeing an identity as a goal is one very certain way to screw trying to undo a "GPM" or Games Matrix
You'll note in Pasadena I pointed out what my Game/Goal was (the particular one I cited . . as I have three such in progress currently), and what the two top identities were that I created in order to bring about the game and pursue its goal.
Them's Roger findings on the deal
R
Last edited:
Div6
Crusader
Some one once said that the only thing worse than losing a war is winning one. Scipio Aemilianus, the Roman General who oversaw the destruction of Carthage in the 3rd Punic War, is said to have wept openly as he realized the fate of all men, cities and cultures. And although he "won" and was awarded a great Triumph upon his return to Rome, it was bittersweet at best.
Why?
No more opposing terminal of comparable magnitude.
It happens at the end of every "game".
So what has happened in the past is that the "winner" gets smaller. But with the capability to create massive "charge" every game then creates BPC, and the being is "stuck in the win".
This is key data to how "life" has been. Knowing it, understanding it and applying it allows us to change fixed conditions, and move in to new realms of ability. To my mind, this is what LRH was referring to when he said that "its the only game where everyone can win." By recognizeing and handling the "loss of terminals of comparable magnitude" across all dynamics, one can regain the ability to live, create, be, do and have on one's own determinism.
At least, that is my understanding of it at this time.
LRH continued to be dominated by the "need to have a game". He even commented upon this in one of the PDC lectures "the aberration above time is 'there must be a game'".
Actually, no, there doesn't. But he never overcame that, and continued to create opp-terms even where there weren't any, and then created the "Sea Org" to continue his legacy of overwhem via force.
I wonder how things would have been different if Otto (or anyone) had ever been able to sort him out....
lkwdblds
Crusader
Comments on interesting remarks
Interesting post. I noticed that when Germany and Japan were defeated in WWII that the Soviet Union with its Iron Curtain, quickly filled in as the oppositing terminal of comparable power.
When the Soviet Union finally fell, Islamic Terrorism seems to have taken on the hat of the current terminal with comparable power. All this hysteria over Global Warming propounded by madmen such as Al Gore is a novel concept exponded by an extremely aberrated individual to put a boogey man there in the furture so in case we come to terms with and handle Islamic Terrorism, the next huge obstacle we must face will already be waiting for us in the wings. If one liistens and watches Al Gore move, speak and smile, one can see that he has to be on very strong psychiatric drugs such as Prozac and stronger drugs than that. I would really like to see what meds he takes daily.
As regards your what if comment about if Otto or perhaps Mayo, later on, really was able to sort out LRH's case, it is just speculation but I think that things would be much much better know. Mary Sue would have probably taken over LRH's administrative hats and Mayo would have run the tech end of things. Many of the old timer's on ESMB would have taken top posts in either tech or admin. All the thousands of top people who were falsely declared would still be in C of S and the membership would be at least 5 times as large as it is today. The older books would still be around with some modest changes to preserve copyrights, etc. ESMB would probably not exist and on the internet, the negative sites pounding Scientology would probably only be 5% to 10% of wat they are now. The only thing that would be missing would be that there would be far less palatial orgs with 5 star hotel furnishings lying empty but lots of clean productive orgs would be functioning, most of which were packed to the gills with pc's and students.
Lakey
Interesting post. I noticed that when Germany and Japan were defeated in WWII that the Soviet Union with its Iron Curtain, quickly filled in as the oppositing terminal of comparable power.
When the Soviet Union finally fell, Islamic Terrorism seems to have taken on the hat of the current terminal with comparable power. All this hysteria over Global Warming propounded by madmen such as Al Gore is a novel concept exponded by an extremely aberrated individual to put a boogey man there in the furture so in case we come to terms with and handle Islamic Terrorism, the next huge obstacle we must face will already be waiting for us in the wings. If one liistens and watches Al Gore move, speak and smile, one can see that he has to be on very strong psychiatric drugs such as Prozac and stronger drugs than that. I would really like to see what meds he takes daily.
As regards your what if comment about if Otto or perhaps Mayo, later on, really was able to sort out LRH's case, it is just speculation but I think that things would be much much better know. Mary Sue would have probably taken over LRH's administrative hats and Mayo would have run the tech end of things. Many of the old timer's on ESMB would have taken top posts in either tech or admin. All the thousands of top people who were falsely declared would still be in C of S and the membership would be at least 5 times as large as it is today. The older books would still be around with some modest changes to preserve copyrights, etc. ESMB would probably not exist and on the internet, the negative sites pounding Scientology would probably only be 5% to 10% of wat they are now. The only thing that would be missing would be that there would be far less palatial orgs with 5 star hotel furnishings lying empty but lots of clean productive orgs would be functioning, most of which were packed to the gills with pc's and students.
Lakey
Blue Spirit
Silver Meritorious Patron
The Scientology Implant
Another two with the Scientology Implant fixedly in place.:confused2:
Another two with the Scientology Implant fixedly in place.
:confused2:Hiya Rog,
No, I haven’t been on holiday - we work around here! And thanks for the link to your talk in Pasadena - I did listen to it (and enjoy it) when it was first out up on the board, but it is certainly worth a second visit and I will do so.
The fascinating thing about your reply is how it all fits so snugly into what Dennis wrote. Alan and he were clearly writing about the same thing. I think it is only when it came to handling it that they diverged with Alan staying with the “auditor-pc” model and Dennis going into the “do it solo” approach. But as for the understanding of what is in the bank - no difference of note between the two.
You say: “The real deal is a monster event, very early on the track, where spirit went into a monster psychotic break of insanity that raged and furied and spat venom and hatred against all in sundry it was connected to.
. . .
Of course, a clever fellow like you” [..ahem..] “would likely ask, "How come?" and, "Why would a Being do this?" The answer is in our descent down the Tone Scale and the the changing nature of our relationships.”
Your answer is correct, of course, but does not get to the basis of WHY the guy went nuts. Dennis does, in that the consequences of fixated games-playing eventually will wind up in an inability to be true to one’s own postulates. With no possibility of holding any position in the game one is at once in a “must play/can’t play” situation and the conflict results in insanity. LRH was correct in his observation the insanity results from a “must reach/can’t reach” situation; but he didn’t dig deeply enough into it. Dennis did.
This is the origin of the “real deal monster event” that you describe, and all the millions of subsequent ones have been of decreasing intensity, matching our decreasing ability to generate energy and throw lightining bolts.
As an aside, this touches on why a wrong item given during L & N will create such rage in a preclear - by giving him a wrong item the auditor is nullifying the only position he has left in that particular game - his right item! As Alan said - nothing creates more BPC than the loss of a game.
Later you say: “ Alan also mentioned that he "always listed his goals in pairs." And the example he gave as his first found goal pair was "A Leader and "A Saboteur."
Co-incidently, Dennis also came up with duality of "goals" structure.
Dennis is correct when he says LRH screwed up because he was operating from the perspective that everything opposed something else.”
Yes, but WHY? Why are goals in pairs? I haven’t seen either LRH or Alan go into this (although they may have) whereas Dennis deals with it fully in his writings on games play. More importantly, both LRH and (it seems) Alan have gone looking for the opposing terminal in the bank. And it is not in the bank. Not at basic. Games were played for fun and opponents were selected for fun. It is only later that something like “charge” came into it. This means really, that the more you dig into the bank for opterms - well you are looking for something that has no basic in the bank and so is unerasable.
Next: “Now, in order to pursue that goal, dream and aspiration or most wanted want, you assume (or create for yourself) an identity or Beingness, and you postulate the relating with other suitable Beingnesses which in actuality are complementary to and reciprocals of the identity you assume to play the game.
They are not opponents, and nor are they opposed. That would be idiotically destructive and doom the game to failure. They are play mates!”
The second paragraph is spot on correct. But for it to be a game there must be opposing postulates, otherwise we are all agreed and there is no game to play and hence no playmates! So you’re into a paradox, even though you are correct.
The resolution of this is buried in your first paragraph, and I mean buried. But explaining it all would require me to rehash everything that Dennis wrote and I think he did it better than I can so read his work.
Please understand that I’m not in any way agin what you or Alan have written and done in this area. It’s just that your work and Dennis’s work and LRH’s too, is all so hand in glove that one ought to join forces and reconcile them. Dennis has the best “Big picture” in my view. You and Alan probably have better handlings for it than Dennis does. And LRH found and opened the can in the first place, and said “Hey, this can is full of worms!”
Be well.
No, I haven’t been on holiday - we work around here! And thanks for the link to your talk in Pasadena - I did listen to it (and enjoy it) when it was first out up on the board, but it is certainly worth a second visit and I will do so.
The fascinating thing about your reply is how it all fits so snugly into what Dennis wrote. Alan and he were clearly writing about the same thing. I think it is only when it came to handling it that they diverged with Alan staying with the “auditor-pc” model and Dennis going into the “do it solo” approach. But as for the understanding of what is in the bank - no difference of note between the two.
You say: “The real deal is a monster event, very early on the track, where spirit went into a monster psychotic break of insanity that raged and furied and spat venom and hatred against all in sundry it was connected to.
. . .
Of course, a clever fellow like you” [..ahem..] “would likely ask, "How come?" and, "Why would a Being do this?" The answer is in our descent down the Tone Scale and the the changing nature of our relationships.”
Your answer is correct, of course, but does not get to the basis of WHY the guy went nuts. Dennis does, in that the consequences of fixated games-playing eventually will wind up in an inability to be true to one’s own postulates. With no possibility of holding any position in the game one is at once in a “must play/can’t play” situation and the conflict results in insanity. LRH was correct in his observation the insanity results from a “must reach/can’t reach” situation; but he didn’t dig deeply enough into it. Dennis did.
This is the origin of the “real deal monster event” that you describe, and all the millions of subsequent ones have been of decreasing intensity, matching our decreasing ability to generate energy and throw lightining bolts.
As an aside, this touches on why a wrong item given during L & N will create such rage in a preclear - by giving him a wrong item the auditor is nullifying the only position he has left in that particular game - his right item! As Alan said - nothing creates more BPC than the loss of a game.
Later you say: “ Alan also mentioned that he "always listed his goals in pairs." And the example he gave as his first found goal pair was "A Leader and "A Saboteur."
Co-incidently, Dennis also came up with duality of "goals" structure.
Dennis is correct when he says LRH screwed up because he was operating from the perspective that everything opposed something else.”
Yes, but WHY? Why are goals in pairs? I haven’t seen either LRH or Alan go into this (although they may have) whereas Dennis deals with it fully in his writings on games play. More importantly, both LRH and (it seems) Alan have gone looking for the opposing terminal in the bank. And it is not in the bank. Not at basic. Games were played for fun and opponents were selected for fun. It is only later that something like “charge” came into it. This means really, that the more you dig into the bank for opterms - well you are looking for something that has no basic in the bank and so is unerasable.
Next: “Now, in order to pursue that goal, dream and aspiration or most wanted want, you assume (or create for yourself) an identity or Beingness, and you postulate the relating with other suitable Beingnesses which in actuality are complementary to and reciprocals of the identity you assume to play the game.
They are not opponents, and nor are they opposed. That would be idiotically destructive and doom the game to failure. They are play mates!”
The second paragraph is spot on correct. But for it to be a game there must be opposing postulates, otherwise we are all agreed and there is no game to play and hence no playmates! So you’re into a paradox, even though you are correct.
The resolution of this is buried in your first paragraph, and I mean buried. But explaining it all would require me to rehash everything that Dennis wrote and I think he did it better than I can so read his work.
Please understand that I’m not in any way agin what you or Alan have written and done in this area. It’s just that your work and Dennis’s work and LRH’s too, is all so hand in glove that one ought to join forces and reconcile them. Dennis has the best “Big picture” in my view. You and Alan probably have better handlings for it than Dennis does. And LRH found and opened the can in the first place, and said “Hey, this can is full of worms!”
Be well.
RogerB
Crusader
Just to Clarrify . . .
Leon,
Just to be certain none mistake what I wrote based on this little bit from you: "Yes, but WHY? Why are goals in pairs? I haven’t seen either LRH or Alan go into this (although they may have)"
I am not saying that goals are in pairs. Indeed I am saying that that notion is incorrect.
Indeed, I wrote: "In my view, Alan's and Dennis's two or pairs of "goals" are not goals but instead pairs of identities assumed and/or created in the pursuit of the goal."
Rog
Leon,
Just to be certain none mistake what I wrote based on this little bit from you: "Yes, but WHY? Why are goals in pairs? I haven’t seen either LRH or Alan go into this (although they may have)"
I am not saying that goals are in pairs. Indeed I am saying that that notion is incorrect.
Indeed, I wrote: "In my view, Alan's and Dennis's two or pairs of "goals" are not goals but instead pairs of identities assumed and/or created in the pursuit of the goal."
Rog
moontaco
Patron with Honors
Lakey, you mean you believe you can tell from watching someone on TV whether he is taking antidepressants or not? I am skeptical.
Blue Spirit
Silver Meritorious Patron
Terril park
Sponsor
Warning! I'm not a very qualified tech terminal.
I believe I keyed out of that area that may be called the " Furies."
Hoping I can make this more understandable to others.
Just had an example in UK news of a guy who killed his wife and daughter and then himself.
Maybe his wife didn't prepare his dinner? Or whatever. Perhaps this triggered his fury.
Long ago old problems got restimmed. Maybe his gun loader in space wars
didn't fetch enough ammo. Maybe his Cardinal didn't promote him, whatever.
He was furious, and acted back then, and it may have a content of make self right.....by being rightious!
So. Can anyone explain why FPRD can't handle this sort of thing?
I believe I keyed out of that area that may be called the " Furies."
Hoping I can make this more understandable to others.
Just had an example in UK news of a guy who killed his wife and daughter and then himself.
Maybe his wife didn't prepare his dinner? Or whatever. Perhaps this triggered his fury.
Long ago old problems got restimmed. Maybe his gun loader in space wars
didn't fetch enough ammo. Maybe his Cardinal didn't promote him, whatever.
He was furious, and acted back then, and it may have a content of make self right.....by being rightious!
So. Can anyone explain why FPRD can't handle this sort of thing?
OK Roger, I’m listening again to your Pasadena talk - this time I’m noting down various questions as I come to them which I will then edit and put into a post.
First: You talk of the “Power Split” as being a new discovery. While I do applaud you for no doubt discovering it on your own I must point out that LRH did on many lectures refer to this division of the Tone Scale. In the upper portion the guy is seeking to survive and below 2.0 he is factually seeking to succumb. He even mentions that the actual split is just above 2.0 on the scale and not at 2.0.
He also mentions that the speed with which one descends the scale magnifies its effects on the preclear and he also has handlings for it to run out this source of aberration. You’ll find it in Advanced Proceures and also in Handbook for Preclears. It’s called running the Emotional Curve. Also important is to run out a rise in Tone going from below the split to above it where this rise was brought about by an ally terminal coming onto the scene. For e.g just as you’re all about to die on the battlements and be massacred wholesale the cavalry arrives and saves you all.
Second: 1st tape. 5.42 from the start. You talk of two terminals with complementary postulates - a Causer and a Receiver, which positions they hold alternately, and then you say: “As the game starts to descend down the Tone Scale you start getting stuck . . .” My question is why would they descend down scale? This is not explained. What you describe is perfect comm, both winning at it - so from where the downsliding?
Third: Tape 2 near the start. You talk of LRH’s 1st and 2nd postulates and how he at one point places “To not know” as the first postulate. You then give a few examples of what the first postulate should or could be, ending with “To Know”. Clearly one cannot enter the game on a negative postulate, as you explain.
Two points on this. One is that LRH is not consistent with what he gives as first and second (and third) postulates. At different places he gives different items on these and never really reconciles them. Sometimes it is “To not know” as you state, other times it is “To Know”, followed by “To not know” and then “To Know about”. This is how he settled on it in the Know to Mystery Scale so maybe that is his final version. But the lectures prior to that give all sorts of versions on it.
What is missed here by both him and you is that “To Know” is an Effect goal. One is trying to know or understand what is already there, what someone else has created. Basic must must must be on the Cause side of the game and so the first postulate can only be “To Make Known”. This ties in with the tech on the Rock - the first creation of a thetan. See 1958 lectures on this by LRH.
This “To make known” is a postulate for Self made as one presents one’s creation and for which one wants approval/admiration/call it what you will from others. “To know” - or “To appreciate/admire/applaud etc - is the postulate one has for that other terminal in the game as the complement to the first one. However this complementariness precludes the possibility of a game as both vectors are aligned. So one would quite often have “To make not-known” as the opposing postulate. Now we have a clash of postulates, a game, and a potential source of aberration. Fun, fun, fun!
Fourth: Tape 4 at about 7 minutes in (a minor point): You talk about the one-way flow that TRs supposedly run on a student. But students do twin with other students - I think this would more than adequately balance up the flows here. But I have never in my life ever come across anyone who suffered from an over long one-way flow on TRs so I reckon it can’t be too much of a problem.
All in all though a lovely and entertaining talk for which I thank you.
Cheers
First: You talk of the “Power Split” as being a new discovery. While I do applaud you for no doubt discovering it on your own I must point out that LRH did on many lectures refer to this division of the Tone Scale. In the upper portion the guy is seeking to survive and below 2.0 he is factually seeking to succumb. He even mentions that the actual split is just above 2.0 on the scale and not at 2.0.
He also mentions that the speed with which one descends the scale magnifies its effects on the preclear and he also has handlings for it to run out this source of aberration. You’ll find it in Advanced Proceures and also in Handbook for Preclears. It’s called running the Emotional Curve. Also important is to run out a rise in Tone going from below the split to above it where this rise was brought about by an ally terminal coming onto the scene. For e.g just as you’re all about to die on the battlements and be massacred wholesale the cavalry arrives and saves you all.
Second: 1st tape. 5.42 from the start. You talk of two terminals with complementary postulates - a Causer and a Receiver, which positions they hold alternately, and then you say: “As the game starts to descend down the Tone Scale you start getting stuck . . .” My question is why would they descend down scale? This is not explained. What you describe is perfect comm, both winning at it - so from where the downsliding?
Third: Tape 2 near the start. You talk of LRH’s 1st and 2nd postulates and how he at one point places “To not know” as the first postulate. You then give a few examples of what the first postulate should or could be, ending with “To Know”. Clearly one cannot enter the game on a negative postulate, as you explain.
Two points on this. One is that LRH is not consistent with what he gives as first and second (and third) postulates. At different places he gives different items on these and never really reconciles them. Sometimes it is “To not know” as you state, other times it is “To Know”, followed by “To not know” and then “To Know about”. This is how he settled on it in the Know to Mystery Scale so maybe that is his final version. But the lectures prior to that give all sorts of versions on it.
What is missed here by both him and you is that “To Know” is an Effect goal. One is trying to know or understand what is already there, what someone else has created. Basic must must must be on the Cause side of the game and so the first postulate can only be “To Make Known”. This ties in with the tech on the Rock - the first creation of a thetan. See 1958 lectures on this by LRH.
This “To make known” is a postulate for Self made as one presents one’s creation and for which one wants approval/admiration/call it what you will from others. “To know” - or “To appreciate/admire/applaud etc - is the postulate one has for that other terminal in the game as the complement to the first one. However this complementariness precludes the possibility of a game as both vectors are aligned. So one would quite often have “To make not-known” as the opposing postulate. Now we have a clash of postulates, a game, and a potential source of aberration. Fun, fun, fun!
Fourth: Tape 4 at about 7 minutes in (a minor point): You talk about the one-way flow that TRs supposedly run on a student. But students do twin with other students - I think this would more than adequately balance up the flows here. But I have never in my life ever come across anyone who suffered from an over long one-way flow on TRs so I reckon it can’t be too much of a problem.
All in all though a lovely and entertaining talk for which I thank you.
Cheers
lkwdblds
Crusader
A very fair question deserving of an answer.
Moontaco, you pose a very fair and honest question and I owe you a true and honest answer from the heart. My honest answer is yes...and no. I do have pretty good perception or so I believe but I am not infallible by any means.
You know, if a married guy gets home late from an affair and has cheated on his wife, she can usually pick up the withhold from certain subtle changes in the guys speech and in his space and movements. That is how I see Al Gore. I see a space which is somewhat "wooden" in nature. He speaks through a plastic like field which surrounds his space. He has developed some pretty good circuits to compensate for this and make himself appear to be chipper, lively and a real nice decent guy. Deep down, he might be a decent guy, but if he is, his true identity is buried deeply under layers of fog. Some of his true personality came out in the 2004 presidential race when he was attacking Bush while campaigining for John Kerry. The real Al Gore came to the fore several times and you could see the real personality on display and it was frightening.
I watched some youtube videos of him today after I wrote what I wrote and he looked more normal than what I had remembered. Even so, if I had an opportunity to place a bet on whether he was on mood altering drugs prescribed by a psychiatrist, I would put all my money on that bet. I see him as taking perhaps 4 physchiatry type drugs a day plus probably 3 or 4 regular prescription drugs. The man takes no street drugs and probably does not drink much alcohol because his physicians probably advise him against mixing alcohol with prescription and mood altering medication drugs.
Lakey
Moontaco, you pose a very fair and honest question and I owe you a true and honest answer from the heart. My honest answer is yes...and no. I do have pretty good perception or so I believe but I am not infallible by any means.
You know, if a married guy gets home late from an affair and has cheated on his wife, she can usually pick up the withhold from certain subtle changes in the guys speech and in his space and movements. That is how I see Al Gore. I see a space which is somewhat "wooden" in nature. He speaks through a plastic like field which surrounds his space. He has developed some pretty good circuits to compensate for this and make himself appear to be chipper, lively and a real nice decent guy. Deep down, he might be a decent guy, but if he is, his true identity is buried deeply under layers of fog. Some of his true personality came out in the 2004 presidential race when he was attacking Bush while campaigining for John Kerry. The real Al Gore came to the fore several times and you could see the real personality on display and it was frightening.
I watched some youtube videos of him today after I wrote what I wrote and he looked more normal than what I had remembered. Even so, if I had an opportunity to place a bet on whether he was on mood altering drugs prescribed by a psychiatrist, I would put all my money on that bet. I see him as taking perhaps 4 physchiatry type drugs a day plus probably 3 or 4 regular prescription drugs. The man takes no street drugs and probably does not drink much alcohol because his physicians probably advise him against mixing alcohol with prescription and mood altering medication drugs.
Lakey
lkwdblds
Crusader
Thanks for the kind words!
Blue Spirit, thanks for the kind words. By the way, I owe you a retraction. Earlier, a week or more back, I said that you had married above your pay grade. I want to issue a RETRACTION. Though your wife is a really fine catch, she is not outside your pay grade. You made things go right and maried someone of high quality who is at the proper pay grade which you require for both of you to have a good marriage.
Lakey is OT; he can do things you have not dreamed of !
Blue Spirit, thanks for the kind words. By the way, I owe you a retraction. Earlier, a week or more back, I said that you had married above your pay grade. I want to issue a RETRACTION. Though your wife is a really fine catch, she is not outside your pay grade. You made things go right and maried someone of high quality who is at the proper pay grade which you require for both of you to have a good marriage.
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
I noted this post (in the upper left hand corner) as one of my favorites.
This response by me addresses Carmelo's post that Leon is replying to as well . . . .
Leon, it appears you may have been on holidays?
I get into the why and what happened that caused LRH to abandon own Goals listing in April, 1963. It is also something I mentioned to Alan first in November,1994 and shook him up a little. It is also mentioned by me on Alan's "Opening Pandora's Box" thread.
In that thread, Alan also mentioned that he "always listed his goals in pairs." And the example he gave as his first found goal pair was "A Leader and "A Saboteur."
Co-incidently, Dennis also came up with duality of "goals" structure.
Edit: I am not in accord with this pairs of goals or duality of goals scenario.
Dennis is correct when he says LRH screwed up because he was operating from the perspective that everything opposed something else.
Alan also, based on the last of his Games Matrix tech lecture I've seen, also carried forward this "things oppose things" paradigm. Indeed, in his 2007 lecture on the tech, the listing question used to enter the Games Matrix case is in essence a repeat of LRHs old November 1962, R2-12 listing questions . . . wherein Alan lists for the client's "Most despised, hated person/connection" which is then listed with "Who or what does (most despised person) represent to you?"
Unfortunately, that takes you into the "GPM" or Games Matrix down at the bottom below the Power Split where all is negative and into opponency, hatred and all those other charms that screw one's case up
I prefer to find the person's Prime Dream or Aspiration. The person's current main wanted want or positive goal.
This does give you a Goal, and a positive and puts you at the top of the scale at where all the power and knowledge, conrol and responsibility is.
And it is a goal . . .
Now, in order to pursue that goal, dream and aspiration or most wanted want, you assume (or create for yourself) an identity or Beingness, and you postulate the relating with other suitable Beingnesses which in actuality are complementary to and reciprocals of the identity you assume to play the game.
They are not opponents, and nor are they opposed. That would be idiotically destructive and doom the game to failure. They are play mates!
However, the game did decline and end up in chaos, enmity and destruction . . . and all that can be cleaned up.
In my view, Alan's and Dennis's two or pairs of "goals" are not goals but instead pairs of identities assumed and/or created in the pursuit of the goal.
Particularly Alan's as mentioned in his Pandora's Box here on ESMB. Yes, there will be an intention to create and/or assume such identities, and yes these intentions can read as goals . . . but seeing an identity as a goal is one very certain way to screw trying to undo a "GPM" or Games Matrix
You'll note in Pasadena I pointed out what my Game/Goal was (the particular one I cited . . as I have three such in progress currently), and what the two top identities were that I created in order to bring about the game and pursue its goal.
Them's Roger findings on the deal
R
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
You definitely are from the OC (Orange County is known for its population of right wingers).
I think that it is fair to say that Al and Tipper may do grass. At least one of their kids did, as of several years ago (according to a friend of my daughter's who went to school with them).
I do not see what you refer to in terms of drugs.
As for global warming. There are fat robins in our trees today. Robins didn't used to return here until March.
We have tulips, daffodils, narcissus, all popping out of the ground. Some blooming.
This is December / January
I have peach and cherry buds popping out. All of the above is usually a March activity.
Something is terribly askew in our seasons.
The Earth is an eco system. It is in danger, real danger.
Last edited:
Blue Spirit
Silver Meritorious Patron
Me Too
My observation backs up yours, because Al Gore speaks like a Robot and just
sounds like a windup toy on full automatic.
My observation backs up yours, because Al Gore speaks like a Robot and just
sounds like a windup toy on full automatic.
Blue Spirit
Silver Meritorious Patron
Reprieved Just In Time
She was getting a little uppity after reading your post, so this comes just in time.
Wait to you hear the weird story of how we met !
She was getting a little uppity after reading your post, so this comes just in time.
Wait to you hear the weird story of how we met !
- Status