What's new

The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hatshepsut

Crusader
CarmeloOrchards
would either of these people be who you are thinking of?

just curious

Rudolph Valentino , the being aka John McMaster

No. but I WAS thinking of how groovy it will be when we get sound bites of John MacMaster doing the power process.

And I AM gazing at a pouty photo of Jean Harlow from Dinner at Eight placed permanently on this desk. :D

3814956567_aef8a080fc_m.jpg
THIS is my fav

Oh, and I remember that Ron on occasion likened himself to Wallace Beery

dinnerateight.png
 
Last edited:

Pepin

Patron with Honors
When the church did a political deal with the secular powers of the empire for religious exclusivity in exchange for political support, it was ultimately able to muster the power of the state to systematically destroy all competing religious & spiritual doctrines, including of course the suppression of the gnostic christians.


Around what year do you believe this "political deal" happened?
 

Ted

Gold Meritorious Patron
I followed CBR's advice to look at the CC platens when doing OT 2.
I'd already done OT3, and OT 2 was my favorite bridge level so I was very happy to revisit it. The CC platens were very active for a while, and then I had another nice run on OT 3. I found OT 3 to be excellent and most
people I know who've done it did also.


This statement supports my contention that a person needs to be aware of what is being run in as things are being run out. Running something in under the perceptual RADAR is the setup for running more and more things out. That's not to say life hasn't run in on us things to be run out, but it does say that the action of processing itself can generate the perceived need for more processing. This is sometimes known as "opening up the case."

"Opening up the case" used in this way is likely a knowing deception. I say that because hubbard knew, for example, that Dianetics had limitations. He said that after about 300 hours that process tended to beef up the bank through validation, i.e. giving it constant attention. If he knew that, I wonder what justified endless running of GPMs and NOTs as two other examples of validating something one is trying to run out.

On the one hand, a case does open up as the pc/client becomes adept at processing skills and processor/client relationship. On the other hand, there comes a point where enough processing is enough processing. Living should be the only choice, not another trip to the banker and to the registrar for more processing.

A good example of enough processing is found in the LRH recommendations for handling illness in the illness assists HCOBs. In short, process gently; don't grind on but get to a point where the pc is feeling a bit better, able to move out and away from the illness having moved from effect to slight cause. Similar recommendations for handling the PTS person -- move from effect to cause.

I stand by good processing as being a wonderful thing. I do not agree that things need to be redone for the purpose of running things out that were earlier missed. I do agree that if a person wants to run something over again, there is no harm, and perhaps some gain or a lot of gain to be had.
 
Last edited:

lkwdblds

Crusader
I followed CBR's advice to look at the CC platens when doing OT 2.
I'd already done OT3, and OT 2 was my favorite bridge level so I was very happy to revisit it. The CC platens were very active for a while, and then I had another nice run on OT 3. I found OT 3 to be excellent and most
people I know who've done it did also.

I had an interesting conversation with someone who was on the first NOTs course. He said some people did quite short runs on OT 3, some did it
continuously for years, and some didn't like NOTs, and some did. He is an old timer trained trained on the Apollo.

Discussing OT 3
Leon and I were discussing OT 3 on another thread and that thread started to degrade as to quality of postings so Leon PMed me and we had a long and civil discussion. In my opinion, he has a very good handle or outlook on OT 3 and subsequently NOTs.

Many people made gains on runing OT 3 but the Xenu story appeared far fetched to me as it did to Leon. Even so, when people looked for what LRH told them to look for, many found things which read on the meter, people ran these things per LRH's instructions and quite a few felt they had enormous gains from doing so. ESMB IS JUST FULL OF ARGUMENTS PRO AND CON THAT THIS PHENOMENA MEANS ANYTHING. TO THOSE WHO DID WELL ON THE LEVEL, IT IS IRREFUTABLE PROOF THAT THE XENU STORY IS CORRECT WHILE TO OTHERS WHO GOT NOTHING FROM THE LEVEL OR WHO WERE HARMED BY IT, IT IS IRREFUTABLE PROOF THAT THE STORY IS BAD SCIENCE FICTION CREATED MAINLY TO CONTROL BEINGS AND SUBJUGATE THEIR WILLS.

My concept was that LRH fabricated the Xenu story from being on a drug trip or else he purposely made up a ridiculous story just to demonstrate to himself how much he had people "in his pocket." He demonstrated that no matter how ridiculous or outlandish his writings were, his followers would still follow those writings, treating them as "Gospel" and paying good money for them!

LEON'S VIEW
Leon agreed with my second item above that LRH might just be demonstrating to himself how much the "suckers" were in his pocket. By the way, if this is true, we both believed that LRH lost all respect for his "marks" when they fell for one of his scams and through their ignorance, he justified cranking up his efforts even further to trick them and relieve them of all of their money.

Where we disagreed is in my concept that LRH knew when he wrote the Xenu story that it was phoney. Leon does not think this is correct. LRH had an extremely overinflated view of his own perceptions and the validity thereof. Leon further believes that LRH considered that the physical universe was full of traps to snare all beings but LRH was the first being smart enough to figure out the traps and avoid tem. Based on this premise, the Xenu story is something which LRH encountered when runing himself to that area of his time track. He believed it to be true himself. Since he considered himself infallible, he demanded that we believe it too and forced us to accept the story, feeling that he was doing all of humanity a favor. Leon won me over on this point. I now believe that LRH did believe the story to be true and did feel he was leading his followers out of the big trap by forcing everyone to accept this story at face value.

MEANWHILE NOTs proves that the Xenu story is not needed to run out entities. Then the fact that non Scientologists who believe in spirits and entities can easily run NOTs, at least through my small sampling, shows further that the Xenu story is not necessary to run entities.

SUMMARY What it boils down to with the Xenu story is that if everyone in the alleged Galatic Confederacy, ourselves included, experienced some extremely traumatic incident 75 million years ago, as Hubbard purports, then does the Xenu story have to be accepted and run out to get everyone past this incident so they can run out further entities.

The choices are that nothing happened here 75 million years ago and that the Xenu story has no truth or merit whatsoever through something happened 75 million years ago and the Xenu story while not absolutely true has some elements of truth to it to the other extreme where the huge catastrophe actually occurred 75 million years ago exactly as per Hubbard's Xenu story and that the Xenu story is complete truth which needs to be run out of beings before they go on to run out more of their entities. I tend to go for the first choice and Leon, if I am quoting him correctly, seems to prefer the middle choice.
Lakey
 

Veda

Sponsor


-snip-

when people looked for what LRH told them to look for, many found things which read on the meter, people ran these things per LRH's instructions and quite a few felt they had enormous gains from doing so.

-snip-



How about some of you folks who had ENORMOUS GAINS on OT 3 coming forward to tell your stories.

Leon, do you want to go first?
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Famous names popping up! Very Interesting!

No. but I WAS thinking of how groovy it will be when we get sound bites of John MacMaster doing the power process.

And I AM gazing at a pouty photo of Jean Harlow from Dinner at Eight placed permanently on this desk. :D

3814956567_aef8a080fc_m.jpg
THIS is my fav

Oh, and I remember that Ron on occasion likened himself to Wallace Beery

dinnerateight.png

Isn't it widely accepted knowledge that Ron wrote or had something to do with the screenplay of the late 1930's movie "Treasure Island" based on the book of the same name by the great Robert Louis Stevenson. Of course Wallace Beery starred in that movie as Long John Silver. BTW, RLS had some connection with Carmelo's family up in Northern Califronia as I recall.

The picture above looks almost exactly like LRH, it is really amazing. Jean Harlowe... photos of her posted in your surroundings, etc.. Are you trying to suggest something to us? Also, photo's of the great Mark Twain popping up on this thread all the time now. Is someone trying to send a message that Mark Twain has posted on this thread?
Lakey
 
Last edited:

Hatshepsut

Crusader
Well he has vicariously hasn't he ? sorta
What is RLS. ROBERT LOUIS STEVENSON??
Id forgotten about Treasure Island. :D
The Champ and China Seas was classic Wallace Berry
 
Last edited:
It's the "other stuff," including sneakily inserted subtle hypnotic suggestions from Hubbard, that is the beginning of the bait and switch (from "ask the person" to "tell the person") progression that peaks at OT 3.

IMO, a re-formed "Clearing Course," sans subtle hypnotic suggestions, would be preferable.

Of course, none of this will matter to e-meter worshipers, who ooh! and ahh! every time the needle of their e-meters reacts to some of Hubbard's "upper level" sacred "whole track" scribblings.

yes, I believe you to be 100% correct, and, may I add: deftly put.
 
I am no expert on this area but isn't the first Council of Nicaea in AD 325 generally agreed on as the point at which the "political deal" occurred?
Lakey

correct

might I add, we have a shit load of very smart, diversified, and highly literate contributors to this thread.
 
This statement supports my contention that a person needs to be aware of what is being run in as things are being run out. Running something in under the perceptual RADAR is the setup for running more and more things out. That's not to say life hasn't run in on us things to be run out, but it does say that the action of processing itself can generate the perceived need for more processing. This is sometimes known as "opening up the case."

"Opening up the case" used in this way is likely a knowing deception. I say that because hubbard knew, for example, that Dianetics had limitations. He said that after about 300 hours that process tended to beef up the bank through validation, i.e. giving it constant attention. If he knew that, I wonder what justified endless running of GPMs and NOTs as two other examples of validating something one is trying to run out.

On the one hand, a case does open up as the pc/client becomes adept at processing skills and processor/client relationship. On the other hand, there comes a point where enough processing is enough processing. Living should be the only choice, not another trip to the banker and to the registrar for more processing.

A good example of enough processing is found in the LRH recommendations for handling illness in the illness assists HCOBs. In short, process gently; don't grind on but get to a point where the pc is feeling a bit better, able to move out and away from the illness having moved from effect to slight cause. Similar recommendations for handling the PTS person -- move from effect to cause.

I stand by good processing as being a wonderful thing. I do not agree that things need to be redone for the purpose of running things out that were earlier missed. I do agree that if a person wants to run something over again, there is no harm, and perhaps some gain or a lot of gain to be had.

Ted,

I know what you've written intuitively, but I could no more put it into words than fly to the moon.

If you're going to explain this stuff, so that even I can understand it, when are you going to write the book on basic auditing skills for the general public?
 

afaceinthecrowd

Gold Meritorious Patron
This statement supports my contention that a person needs to be aware of what is being run in as things are being run out. Running something in under the perceptual RADAR is the setup for running more and more things out. That's not to say life hasn't run in on us things to be run out, but it does say that the action of processing itself can generate the perceived need for more processing. This is sometimes known as "opening up the case."

"Opening up the case" used in this way is likely a knowing deception. I say that because hubbard knew, for example, that Dianetics had limitations. He said that after about 300 hours that process tended to beef up the bank through validation, i.e. giving it constant attention. If he knew that, I wonder what justified endless running of GPMs and NOTs as two other examples of validating something one is trying to run out.

On the one hand, a case does open up as the pc/client becomes adept at processing skills and processor/client relationship. On the other hand, there comes a point where enough processing is enough processing. Living should be the only choice, not another trip to the banker and to the registrar for more processing.

A good example of enough processing is found in the LRH recommendations for handling illness in the illness assists HCOBs. In short, process gently; don't grind on but get to a point where the pc is feeling a bit better, able to move out and away from the illness having moved from effect to slight cause. Similar recommendations for handling the PTS person -- move from effect to cause.

I stand by good processing as being a wonderful thing. I do not agree that things need to be redone for the purpose of running things out that were earlier missed. I do agree that if a person wants to run something over again, there is no harm, and perhaps some gain or a lot of gain to be had.

Simply Excellent, Ted.:thumbsup::thumbsup::yes::yes:

Face:)
 

afaceinthecrowd

Gold Meritorious Patron
It's the "other stuff," including sneakily inserted subtle hypnotic suggestions from Hubbard, that is the beginning of the bait and switch (from "ask the person" to "tell the person") progression that peaks at OT 3.

IMO, a re-formed "Clearing Course," sans subtle hypnotic suggestions, would be preferable.

Of course, none of this will matter to e-meter worshipers, who ooh! and ahh! every time the needle of their e-meters reacts to some of Hubbard's "upper level" sacred "whole track" scribblings.

Right on, Veda, Right on!:thumbsup:

Face:)
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Well he has vicariously hasn't't he ? sorta
What is RLS. ROBERT LOUIS STEVENSON??
Id forgotten about Treasure Island. :D
The Champ and China Seas was classic Wallace Berry


"Treasure Island" based on the book of the same name by the great Robert Louis Stevenson. Of course Wallace Beery starred in that movie as Long John Silver. BTW, RLS had some connection with Carmelo's family up in Northern Califronia as I recall.

Hatsheput, sometimes extremely intelligent people surpirse me! I mentioned Robert Louis Stevenson and then about 10 words later needed to mention it again and just abbreviated it by his "nom de plume" so to speak, RLS. You know L Ron Hubbard, LRH, George Bernard Shaw, GBS. Mark A Baker, MAB, its done all the time on the board. Brilliant people sometimes amaze one, sometimes they see things others can't see and sometimes they don't see something which to me appears totally obvious. Well you did guess at it and guessed right.
Lakey
 
I mentioned Robert Louis Stevenson and then about 10 words later needed to mention it again and just abbreviated it by his "nom de plume" so to speak, RLS. You know L Ron Hubbard, LRH, George Bernard Shaw, GBS. Mark A Baker, MAB, its done all the time on the board.

or Lakey >>>> LKWDBLDS
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top