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

[FoTi]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Yes . . . All of us who've read this this post above

Alan incorporated this basic principle in certain of his R/Ds.

He created a R/D called "The Abused-Abuser Unlocking Procedure" . . . . it's a long R/D but it unlocks the present time strife the person is experiencing.

But it is also true that this level of tech is and must be approached in "gradients" or "layers" . . . . that is, there is the present life physical universe type manifestation of it, and there is the underlying truly spiritual Games Matrix level of it.

The real deal is that the "what" that John Mac wrote of is a locked-up negative existence you have both become and also gotten into conflict with in a Games Matrix on your case.

If you go to my write up of my FZ Pasadena presentation Here:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...gative-RogerB%92s-FZ-Presentation-in-Pasadena
You'll see how one has gone down from being positive and co-empowering to negative and in opposition to and suppressive of self and others in the game.

The trick is to locate the key negative package of identities and discharge them.

R

Appreciate your response on this subject.

Do you think this is something that Paul might incorporate into Paul's Robot?

Can/could this be done solo?

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

from the New York Times

January 23, 2012
After Being Stricken by Drought, Istanbul Yields Ancient Treasure
By JENNIFER PINKOWSKI
ISTANBUL — For 1,600 years, this city — Turkey’s largest — has been built and destroyed, erected and erased, as layer upon layer of life has thrived on its seven hills.

Today, Istanbul is a city of 13 million, spread far beyond those hills. And on a long-farmed peninsula jutting into Lake Kucukcekmece, 13 miles west of the city center, archaeologists have made an extraordinary find.

The find is Bathonea, a substantial harbor town dating from the second century B.C. Discovered in 2007 after a drought lowered the lake’s water table, it has been yielding a trove of relics from the fourth to the sixth centuries A.D., a period that parallels Istanbul’s founding and its rise as Constantinople, a seat of power for three successive empires — the Eastern Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman.

While there are some historical records of this early period, precious few physical artifacts exist. The slim offerings in the Istanbul section of the Archaeological Museums here reflect that, paling in comparison with the riches on display from Anatolia, Mesopotamia and Lebanon.

So Bathonea (pronounced bath-oh-NAY-uh) has the potential to become a “library of Constantinople,” says Sengul Aydingun, the archaeologist who made the initial discovery.

After the drought exposed parts of a well-preserved sea wall nearly two and a half miles long, Dr. Aydingun and her team soon saw that the harbor had been equipped with docks, buildings and a jetty, probably dating to the fourth century. Other discoveries rapidly followed. In the last dig season alone, the archaeologists uncovered port walls, elaborate buildings, an enormous cistern, a Byzantine church and stone roads spanning more than 1,000 years of occupation.

“The fieldwork Sengul has conducted over the last few years is spectacular,” said Volker Heyd, an archaeologist at the University of Bristol in England who surveyed Bathonea for two field seasons. “The discoveries made are now shedding a completely new light to the wider urbanized area of Constantinopolis. A fantastic story begins to unveil.”

In 2008, for example, Hakan Oniz, an archaeologist from Eastern Mediterranean University who specializes in underwater research, investigated a structure in the lake that local lore held was some kind of mystical minaret that appeared and disappeared in relation to the rate of sinful behavior by nearby villagers. The ruins, about 800 feet from shore, may have been a lighthouse.

Since then, Dr. Aydingun’s team and researchers from eight foreign universities have found a second, older port on the peninsula’s eastern side, its Greek influences suggesting that it dated to about the second century B.C.

Nearby, atop the round foundations of a Greek temple, they found the remains of a fifth- or sixth-century Byzantine church and cemetery with 20 burials, and a large stone relief of a Byzantine cross. Coins, pottery and other artifacts indicate that the church suffered damage in the devastating earthquake of 557 but was in use until 1037, when a tremor leveled it — crushing three men whose bodies were found beneath a collapsed wall, along with a coin bearing the image of a minor emperor who ruled during the year of the quake.

After bushwhacking through nettle-choked underbrush a mile and a half north of the harbor, the researchers excavated a 360-by-90-foot open-air cistern or pool, as well as walls and foundations from several multistory buildings that may have been part of a villa or palace altered over many centuries.

Because the archaeologists are at the beginning of a multiyear dig at a site not known from historical sources, they are hesitant to draw many conclusions. Even the name Bathonea is a placeholder, inspired by two ancient references: the first-century historian Pliny the Elder’s “Natural History,” which refers to the river feeding the lake as Bathynias; and a work by a ninth-century Byzantine monk, Theophanes, who called the region Bathyasos.

“There is a big question mark over the name,” Dr. Aydingun said. “It’s too early to say. But the name is not important. The important thing to note is that there are buildings, roads” where “people thought there was nothing.”

“But there’s something there,” she went on. “We need a lifetime to discover what it is. But even by next year, we’ll be able to say more.”

The archaeologists know this much: The site was large. It sprawled across at least three square miles, and its sea wall is nearly half the length of the one that surrounded Constantinople itself. It was moderately wealthy; the region was a country retreat for the urban elite, drawn by its fertile hunting grounds and Lake Kucukcekmece itself, the freshwater body closest to the city. They built villas and palaces all around the region.

Roman glass and high-end pottery dating as late as the 14th century were found throughout the site. Marble, including a gorgeous milky-blue variety, lined the walls and floors of the church and at least one of the buildings.

Also discovered were hundreds of bricks stamped “Konstans,” which were produced in Constantinople beginning in the fifth century and had mostly been discovered at imperial sites like Hagia Sophia, the sixth-century architectural marvel and primary cathedral of the Byzantine Empire for almost 900 years, and nearby Rhegion, a fifth-century compound on a hill across the lake from Bathonea, overlooking the Marmara Sea.

Bathonea was also well connected. Some pottery was made as far away as Palestine and Syria, typical of places with access to foreign goods. It had wide stone roads, the earliest dating to the Roman era.

But its relationship to Constantinople is still unclear. “I like the idea of Bathonea as a satellite port of a major city,” said Bradley A. Ault, a classical archaeologist with the University at Buffalo who has studied ancient port cities in Greece and Cyprus. “It falls in line with Athens and Piraeus, Rome and Ostia.”

If that is the case, the port may have served as a safe harbor on protected waters outside the city walls for both commercial ships and the imperial naval fleet. “In the fifth century, they had a major fleet around Constantinople,” said Robert Ousterhout, a Byzantine scholar at the University of Pennsylvania. “They had ports around the Golden Horn and the Marmara.”

Now 13 to 65 feet deep, Lake Kucukcekmece would have been a deep bay navigable by ships of all sizes, Dr. Aydingun said. Sonar has revealed what may be six Byzantine iron anchors buried in the sand just offshore, and nails commonly used in shipbuilding were unearthed at the site.

In recent years, Istanbul has been the scene of several stunning discoveries during salvage archaeology digs, most notably at the Yenikapi transit project, which unearthed a remarkable array of shipwrecks. No shipwrecks have been found at Bathonea; nor are they likely to be anytime soon, said Mr. Oniz, the underwater archaeologist. The lake is so polluted by industrial runoff that diving in it is dangerous, he said. A new water-treatment facility may make exploration possible within a few years.

The Bathonea archaeologists also hope to uncover more artifacts dating to the earliest days of civilization. In 2007, Dr. Aydingun and Emre Guldogan of Istanbul University found 9,000-year-old flint tools at the site that could be evidence of the earliest pre-pottery farming settlement in Europe. Bathonea’s role — and its real name — can be determined only through further study, Dr. Aydingun said.

Ground-penetrating radar has indicated that extensive structures remain beneath the soil. And as all of their efforts have been focused on the waterfront, the archaeologists have yet to investigate the patches of trees and brush farther inland that farmers have long avoided because their plows cannot cut through them.

Dr. Aydingun suspects there is a good reason for that. “I think all of these buildings continue,” she said. “Can you imagine?”

 

[Leon]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Wonderful. I love the reports of those discoveries being made in India showing showing that the Sumerians were by far not the first to become civilized, not by many thousands of years. This world becomes more and more intereting as we go along.

 

[RogerB]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Appreciate your response on this subject.

Do you think this is something that Paul might incorporate into Paul's Robot?

Can/could this be done solo?

Sweetness,

It requires being able to accurately list for correct "items." That is actually quite precise tech, and it has to be gotten correct.

But I'm sure Paul will love to answer your question with a link to his PaulsRobot series

The R/Ds can certainly be done solo. I and others I've helped do them solo. Though, having said that, it ain't something for newbies to attempt

Rog

 

[RogerB]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

The words I used Terril, were:

You are being stupid Terril

It does not say you are stupid, but that you are being stupid.

Big difference . . . . but then, you being you, one ought not expect you to discern the distinction.

You just can't resist butting in to continuously tout the Hubbard implant shite to people here who've left it and don't want it! That's pretty moronic, to put it politely.

But worse, you dub in inaccuracies and suppositions! And you don't seem to understand or get it that that behavior is dangerous to folks!

And instead of dealing explicitly with the points at hand you wander off into presenting your confusions of dis-related subjects and issues to folk.

You simply refuse to get it that the "OT Levels" are not the answer to peoples' cases plus the tragedy that you can't or refuse to look outside the failed paradigm of Hubbard's schlock and see or learn what might actually be a better answer.

You tout you visited Alan at the ranch . . . but note you didn't do any of the tech or training there . . . at a minimum, that's pretty wasteful of an opportunity.

R

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

The words I used Terril, were:



It does not say you are stupid, but that you are being stupid.

Big difference . . . . but then, you being you, one ought not expect you to discern the distinction.

You just can't resist butting in to continuously tout the Hubbard implant shite to people here who've left it and don't want it! That's pretty moronic, to put it politely.

But worse, you dub in inaccuracies and suppositions! And you don't seem to understand or get it that that behavior is dangerous to folks!

And instead of dealing explicitly with the points at hand you wander off into presenting your confusions of dis-related subjects and issues to folk.

You simply refuse to get it that the "OT Levels" are not the answer to peoples' cases plus the tragedy that you can't or refuse to look outside the failed paradigm of Hubbard's schlock and see or learn what might actually be a better answer.

You tout you visited Alan at the ranch . . . but note you didn't do any of the tech or training there . . . at a minimum, that's pretty wasteful of an opportunity.

R

You two should kiss and make up ... you have so much in common and are on this Ex board for exactly the same reasons, though you do what you do with more finesse.

​

 

[Dulloldfart]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Do you think this is something that Paul might incorporate into Paul's Robot?

Can/could this be done solo?

Sweetness,

It requires being able to accurately list for correct "items." That is actually quite precise tech, and it has to be gotten correct.

But I'm sure Paul will love to answer your question with a link to his PaulsRobot series

The R/Ds can certainly be done solo. I and others I've helped do them solo. Though, having said that, it ain't something for newbies to attempt

Rog

You're lucky I saw this. I usually ignore this thread completely, on principle.

I only add things to PaulsRobot that I understand and have had personal success with. I have to understand the procedure in order to make sure I cover all the possible responses, and that those responses are the correct actions to take at that time. I insist on personal success with it so that (1) I don't add complete junk that doesn't work much of the time, and (2) the procedure works in practice and not just in theory (I don't care if someone else's theory says it can't work!).

Ken Ogger commented on Listing in his Self-Clearing Manual. It's in section 27.6 here. In principle, it is not impossible to list acceptably in a PaulsRobot context, although I would avoid it if possible. None of my current modules include any Scientology-type listing to a single item. I have found that addressing a topic with Rub & Yawn and general mock-up procedures like the 6-direction process or the hundred-odd procedures in Morph does wonders at taking charge out of areas that Scientology considers can only be addressed with precision correction lists and listing processes.

However, since I know dick about Alan's or Roger's procedures, I can't answer the question about whether or not any particular one could be Robotted. Maybe three years ago Alan posted here in answer to my question that he was interested in having his Clean Slate procedure Robotted but he just had to revise it a bit first. He never did, or if he did he never told me about it, so it never happened. I did make a start on it, but some things weren't clear to me so I couldn't continue with it.

Paul

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

SP's, DB's and Big Beings

Below is the main body of a post I made on the Debbie Cook Defense Fund Thread. It was in response to very nice post that MAB made and was not particularly on topic for that thread...which is pretty much SOP for me.

Anyway, I thought I'd re-post the stuff here for anyone that has and interest.

As we all know, El Ron was prone to make sweeping statements that were, according to Hisself, accurate, exact and from Hisself’s “Research” and “Precision Analytic Methods and Mind”.

El Ron said that 2.5% of the population are SP’s. Hisself said that the ratio of DB’s to Big Beings was 18 to 1. Hisself said that DB’s were actually sort of a heavily PTS Case and that it only resolved on OT 3. He said that DB’s only worked for SP’s, consistently produced "overt products" and were near impossible to correct.

Therefore, out of 1,000 people 25 are SP, 75 are Big Beings and 900 are DB’s. Now, if that were truly the case and those 900 would only work for SP’s, consistently produce overt products and were near impossible to correct then the entire structure, model, plan, systems and operations of the Cof$, as they existed at that time, were doomed to fail. If those numbers were true the entire approach to “Planetary Clearing” would have to be changed and organized around these “Truths”. I could see it plain as day and I could not for the life of me see why El Ron couldn’t see it. It just didn’t make any sense to me.

Based upon those “Truths”, the entire structure of Scn, the Orgs, the SO was completely wrong. My big WTF was either El Ron is wrong about these percentages and/or classification traits or Hisself didn’t see the absolute significance of them. If El Ron can’t see the importance and meaning of these numbers, then what else does Hisself not see? If these percentages and/or classifications are wrong, then what else is fundamentally wrong in the “Tech”?

My personal observations are one thing and can be refuted, denigrated or denied. But, what the man wrote is what the man wrote…it’s a fact, Jack. And, therein we find the "Angle"…just tell and sell everyone on the idea that if they’re in Scn, they’re a Big Being….except for the DB’s in the RPF, on Outer Org Staff and the SP’s that keep being found out, sometimes before and often times after they ask to leave or “blow”.

I could do a much better job of analyzing and explaining all this WTF for Y’all, but I just don’t want to spend the time laboring to lay out something that is so prima facie fallacious and telltale obvious regarding the utter stupidity I bought into for far too long.


Face

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: SP's, DB's and Big Beings

Below is the main body of a post I made on the Debbie Cook Defense Fund Thread. It was in response to very nice post that MAB made and was not particularly on topic for that thread...which is pretty much SOP for me.

Anyway, I thought I'd re-post the stuff here for anyone that has and interest.

As we all know, El Ron was prone to make sweeping statements that were, according to Hisself, accurate, exact and from Hisself’s “Research” and “Precision Analytic Methods and Mind”.

El Ron said that 2.5% of the population are SP’s. Hisself said that the ratio of DB’s to Big Beings was 18 to 1. Hisself said that DB’s were actually sort of a heavily PTS Case and that it only resolved on OT 3. He said that DB’s only worked for SP’s, consistently produced "overt products" and were near impossible to correct.

Therefore, out of 1,000 people 25 are SP, 75 are Big Beings and 900 are DB’s. Now, if that were truly the case and those 900 would only work for SP’s, consistently produce overt products and were near impossible to correct then the entire structure, model, plan, systems and operations of the Cof$, as they existed at that time, were doomed to fail. If those numbers were true the entire approach to “Planetary Clearing” would have to be changed and organized around these “Truths”. I could see it plain as day and I could not for the life of me see why El Ron couldn’t see it. It just didn’t make any sense to me.

Based upon those “Truths”, the entire structure of Scn, the Orgs, the SO was completely wrong. My big WTF was either El Ron is wrong about these percentages and/or classification traits or Hisself didn’t see the absolute significance of them. If El Ron can’t see the importance and meaning of these numbers, then what else does Hisself not see? If these percentages and/or classifications are wrong, then what else is fundamentally wrong in the “Tech”?

My personal observations are one thing and can be refuted, denigrated or denied. But, what the man wrote is what the man wrote…it’s a fact, Jack. And, therein we find the "Angle"…just tell and sell everyone on the idea that if they’re in Scn, they’re a Big Being….except for the DB’s in the RPF, on Outer Org Staff and the SP’s that keep being found out, sometimes before and often times after they ask to leave or “blow”.

I could do a much better job of analyzing and explaining all this WTF for Y’all, but I just don’t want to spend the time laboring to lay out something that is so prima facie fallacious and telltale obvious regarding the utter stupidity I bought into for far too long.


Face

Very interesting and amusing concepts. To me it makes about as much sense as the "Occupy Wall Street" bunch. Their division of beings is a little simpler but just as invalid. They say that the the upper 1%, judged by wealth and income, are the SP's and the other 99% are "good beings" who are being manipulated by the 1%.

Say the upper 1% consists of people earning $1million and someone in the upper 2% earns $900k while the poorest people in the lower 1% earn only $4,000 a year. They then lump the guy earning $900k into the same group as the guy earning on $4k a year. They need to study up on "gradients".

I remember Hubbard once saying that there were only about 10,000 beings on planet Earth at any given time who had real leadership and executive abilities. A good example would be Steve Jobs. Another candidate might be Lee Iacoca. JFK was such a being, probably Margaret Thatcher and a handful of others. At the times I heard this listening to LRH tapes, it kind of made sense to me. 10,000 could be a little low, maybe 50,000 or 100,000 would be more realistic.

If 10,000 were an accurate figure and the world had 7 billion people, the U.S.A. if it had 5% of the world's population would have only 2,000 "Big Beings" in the entire country who had superlative leadership and executive abilities. When you look at the political scene and see who is running for office, that number may be the correct order of magnitude because it is very like that even if a person had such abilities, it is quite possible that they might not rise to a position of leadership.

Besides having the ability, a person would have to be in a family and an environment in which they could get a suitable education and would have opportunities to rise to positions of leadership.
Lakey

 

[FoTi]

Re: SP's, DB's and Big Beings

Besides having the ability, a person would have to be in a family and an environment in which they could get a suitable education and would have opportunities to rise to positions of leadership.
Lakey

Like President Obummer?

 

[Terril park]

Re: SP's, DB's and Big Beings

Below is the main body of a post I made on the Debbie Cook Defense Fund Thread. It was in response to very nice post that MAB made and was not particularly on topic for that thread...which is pretty much SOP for me.

Anyway, I thought I'd re-post the stuff here for anyone that has and interest.

As we all know, El Ron was prone to make sweeping statements that were, according to Hisself, accurate, exact and from Hisself’s “Research” and “Precision Analytic Methods and Mind”.

El Ron said that 2.5% of the population are SP’s. Hisself said that the ratio of DB’s to Big Beings was 18 to 1. Hisself said that DB’s were actually sort of a heavily PTS Case and that it only resolved on OT 3. He said that DB’s only worked for SP’s, consistently produced "overt products" and were near impossible to correct.

Therefore, out of 1,000 people 25 are SP, 75 are Big Beings and 900 are DB’s. Now, if that were truly the case and those 900 would only work for SP’s, consistently produce overt products and were near impossible to correct then the entire structure, model, plan, systems and operations of the Cof$, as they existed at that time, were doomed to fail. If those numbers were true the entire approach to “Planetary Clearing” would have to be changed and organized around these “Truths”. I could see it plain as day and I could not for the life of me see why El Ron couldn’t see it. It just didn’t make any sense to me.

Based upon those “Truths”, the entire structure of Scn, the Orgs, the SO was completely wrong. My big WTF was either El Ron is wrong about these percentages and/or classification traits or Hisself didn’t see the absolute significance of them. If El Ron can’t see the importance and meaning of these numbers, then what else does Hisself not see? If these percentages and/or classifications are wrong, then what else is fundamentally wrong in the “Tech”?

My personal observations are one thing and can be refuted, denigrated or denied. But, what the man wrote is what the man wrote…it’s a fact, Jack. And, therein we find the "Angle"…just tell and sell everyone on the idea that if they’re in Scn, they’re a Big Being….except for the DB’s in the RPF, on Outer Org Staff and the SP’s that keep being found out, sometimes before and often times after they ask to leave or “blow”.

I could do a much better job of analyzing and explaining all this WTF for Y’all, but I just don’t want to spend the time laboring to lay out something that is so prima facie fallacious and telltale obvious regarding the utter stupidity I bought into for far too long.


Face

Great post! I think he got it wrong in his estimation of the no of "SPs"

In my experience such people are extremely rare. In 66 years I've only interacted with 2 that I'd consider in that category.

 

[Terril park]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

The words I used Terril, were:



It does not say you are stupid, but that you are being stupid.

Big difference . . . . but then, you being you, one ought not expect you to discern the distinction.

You just can't resist butting in to continuously tout the Hubbard implant shite to people here who've left it and don't want it! That's pretty moronic, to put it politely.

But worse, you dub in inaccuracies and suppositions! And you don't seem to understand or get it that that behavior is dangerous to folks!

And instead of dealing explicitly with the points at hand you wander off into presenting your confusions of dis-related subjects and issues to folk.

You simply refuse to get it that the "OT Levels" are not the answer to peoples' cases plus the tragedy that you can't or refuse to look outside the failed paradigm of Hubbard's schlock and see or learn what might actually be a better answer.

You tout you visited Alan at the ranch . . . but note you didn't do any of the tech or training there . . . at a minimum, that's pretty wasteful of an opportunity.

R

I and most people I know who've done them get excellent gains from
OT levels. I've in fact posted hundreds of success stories of such results.

I'm not claiming they solve all case problems.

I think Mark may be on to something in his comments as to why some of them work.

Note that my speculation of why LRH wanted to quickie JM's work
seems to be borne out by faces comment:-


"Hisself said that DB’s were actually sort of a heavily PTS Case and that it only resolved on OT 3. "

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: SP's, DB's and Big Beings

Like President Obummer?

CORRECTION
If there are 10,000 people in the world with real leadership and executive abilities and the USA is 5% of the world's population, the USA would only have 500 (1 of every 20) such people within its borders, not 2,000 as I previously wrote.

Just think, only 500 in the entire United States, that would mean about 55 in California and 5 in a state with about 3 million people!

I don't believe that President Obama qualifies as such a person. He is world class in public speaking ability, definitely among the best in the world but making an inspiring speech is not all there is to leadership. His family definitely provided him with education and his Mother and Grandmother nurtured his growth so that he could blossom.

As far as exuding real leadership ability, it just has not been there throughout his life. He has never been an executive or run anything such as a company or business. Prior to being elected to office, the only instance of showing any leadership ability seems to have been at the local level in his job as a Community Organizer in Chicago.

He doesn't appear to have led anything such as a society or club while in college and has a bland and unremarkable record, showing no leadership as an Illinois State Senator or as a U.S. Senator. He did not sponsor any legistlation and usually voted only "Present" in the U.S. Senate on the occasions when he did vote.

He seems to sincerely believe that the U.S. has had a history of being too violent and too domineering in world affairs and is working to remold us into a Euro style quasi socialist state. In this capacity, he is showing some leadership abilities but not those of a truly great leader. He has to conceal his true agenda and misrepresent what he stands for to get any kind of support. That is not great leadership! 3 months into his presidency and the Senate has still not passed a budget. That does not show any leadership ability. He has about 50% of the country violently opposing him and saying, "anyone but Obama".

When Great leaders come along, they are able to gain support not just from their own parties but also gain significant support among the opposition party and independents. By this criteria, Franklin Roosevelt showed greatness. Ronald Reagan did as well. In both his elections, he carried nearly every state, most by wide margins.
Lakey

 

[RogerB]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

You're lucky I saw this. I usually ignore this thread completely, on principle.

I only add things to PaulsRobot that I understand and have had personal success with. I have to understand the procedure in order to make sure I cover all the possible responses, and that those responses are the correct actions to take at that time. I insist on personal success with it so that (1) I don't add complete junk that doesn't work much of the time, and (2) the procedure works in practice and not just in theory (I don't care if someone else's theory says it can't work!).

Ken Ogger commented on Listing in his Self-Clearing Manual. It's in section 27.6 here. In principle, it is not impossible to list acceptably in a PaulsRobot context, although I would avoid it if possible. None of my current modules include any Scientology-type listing to a single item. I have found that addressing a topic with Rub & Yawn and general mock-up procedures like the 6-direction process or the hundred-odd procedures in Morph does wonders at taking charge out of areas that Scientology considers can only be addressed with precision correction lists and listing processes.

However, since I know dick about Alan's or Roger's procedures, I can't answer the question about whether or not any particular one could be Robotted. Maybe three years ago Alan posted here in answer to my question that he was interested in having his Clean Slate procedure Robotted but he just had to revise it a bit first. He never did, or if he did he never told me about it, so it never happened. I did make a start on it, but some things weren't clear to me so I couldn't continue with it.

Paul

Yes, all yours above is a good call, Paul. (As usual )

One of the real difficulties in the $cn think is having to get THE single, only, one right item . . . in many people, and quite usually in newbies, the area is a little too charged to get to it.

On some cases it is wiser to do as you are doing, and go for what releases charge and unburdens the area. Usable, run-able "lock items" can move a case forward. The trick is to not stick the client with any fixed ideas or evaluations regarding what is "right." Let him or her get what they can and win at it.

The difficulty and error in the idea of THE one right item is that it does put a false expectation there on the session action.

The question John Mac used: "Who or what does/would (name) represent?" . . . actually can give you a number of correct answers!

Though it is equally true that there is likely the one, most highly charged and troublesome item which, in truth, would be the best one to end up with and handle.

But equally true is the fact that you would massively benefit the client by arriving at a lock item that was both highly charged and confrontable and handle-able by the client, and running it, you would likely free the client from the screw up you were trying to handle.

I had two different types of folks in session recently. One had done much of the $cn bridge, having had a huge ascension/win on the Pr Pr's. He listed as though using a laser: the question was asked, and he simply looked with a well aimed, penetrating "beam" and up came the item needed to handle the issue being addressed. On the three lists done in the R/D (we were unlocking "matched" opposing, abused-abuser identities), he simply came up with the item only . . . none others were given as an answer. He was precise (and ran like a dream).

The other client listed differently. This fellow, I've been coaching and advising on his solo processing for a couple of years now, so he's no newbie. The first item listed for came off easily . . . it was the victim identity that one goes into in major upsets, "paradigm crashes," ascension-crash-and-burn events, and such. Victim identities seem to be more real to folks . . . they are, after all, what the guy is aware of being and sitting in.

But the second and third identities we had to list for were tough. All the tech knowledge of the "Rules of L&N" had to be applied to get the or a run-able item. The guy listed off item after item, with nothing particularly even reading on the meter. It was after checking to see if the item was on the list but missed that I indicated we need to continue with the question that he eventually popped with the item that did the job for him.

It is the abuser, dominating, oppressive items that are hard for folks to confront and find. After all, they've typically placed a lot of solutions on, over, in front the item to handle it so it "won't affect them."

But what is written above is not what I originally intended to write on this morning . . . I did so after seeing Paul's bit.

What I wanted to relate is the fact that there has been evident in the posts relating to John Mac's listing for the "what item" major non-comprehension of what the or a "what item" is or would be.

I recently had to list for an item on my own case. It was done to handle a major upset and conflict that caved in a particular aspect of my case in real present time life. The question listed was: "Who or what does (named real person) represent to you?"

The item/what was, "An Oppressive Presence."

And it is to be noted that that Oppressive Presence was a live spiritual presence I've been locked in mortal combat with since "forever."

The "What's" you're looking for on an S&D type action are not stupid dicky things like "implants" or rocks or other "things" that might have had an affect on you.

You're looking for an identity type Beingness that is on your case that is being activated in present time by the present time real person you are connected to that you are having difficulty with and who appears to be the source of your upset.

The person in front of you is only a present time activator. The real who/what is in your case and being activated.

The "what" being listed for can be an identity you yourself go into or dramatize that causes strife with others or it can be an identity type of Beingness that you have conflicted with in the past and are still hung up with. But be warned, those nasty type identities we like to see in others are typically identities we ourselves have worn and are on our case to be run as our own also.

Some examples from clients recently are: "A perfectionist," "A Loser," "A Stupid Player" . . . . those last two actually formed part of a package . . . the Stupid Player being in opposition to and abusing "A Confused and Angry Being" resulted in a synthesis "Loser" Beingness . . . which then carried forward as the PT unwitting dramatization

The error in Hubbard's '60's tech on handling these identities when found . . . is that he actually did not handle them. He never developed the tech to handle these troublesome, negative and destructive identities

Example: in the own goals GPM listing for identities, when he found the items . . . nothing was doe with them!!! They were simply listed off of to find the/an opposing identity . . . and left! Ditto with his R2-10 and R2-12 R/Ds.

Quite nuts, even insane and evil when you look at it.

Ditto, the S&D R/D . . . . it is possible Hubbard rejected John Mac's brilliant piece of tech because Hubbard had no handling for what was found as the item by listing the "who or what/represent" question.

Neither did John Mac have a handling except to find the item . . . . and make no mistake, finding such right items do afford huge relief!

But the full resolution of the case situation is to handle the client's relationship to the found identity/Beingness "what." For, until that is done, the client will always be stuck with it.

Rog

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I and most people I know who've done them get excellent gains from
OT levels. I've in fact posted hundreds of success stories of such results.

I'm not claiming they solve all case problems.

I think Mark may be on to something in his comments as to why some of them work.

Note that my speculation of why LRH wanted to quickie JM's work
seems to be borne out by faces comment:-


"Hisself said that DB’s were actually sort of a heavily PTS Case and that it only resolved on OT 3. "

Terril, what I have picked up on ESMB and also find true for myself is that for those of us who believe that parts of Hubbard's tech have workability, that workability seems to be available mostly on the earlier part of the bridge.

Life Repair, TR's and Objective Processing, Dianetics, the Grades and Power Processing. Those seem to provide positive changes for a significant number of people as does doing auditor training.

If you take a look at the upper bridge, from OT III on through NOTS and track how the people are doing who have done these things, results are spotty and many people have had negative results.

I've done tons of NOTS myself. Just by the very nature of what it addresses, a person is not going to have increased OT like abilities from doing this level. The first few years I received NOTS, I thought it was awesome. I bought into the line that one NOTS session was as powerful as a full Grade of standard auditing. I was willing to go into debt to purchase more NOTS.

Looking back in retrospect, I see that I was deluded by all the hype and PR into believing that this level is an end all. Here on ESMB, it was pointed out to me that getting rid of everything in one's space is not necessarily the best way to approach auditing. There are such things as spiritual team mates who are better off being cleaned up and kept than being gotten rid of.

If LRH did something wrong, such as rejecting very workable tech and instead releasing a watered down version, I believe it behooves us to apply the LRH policies, "Look, don't listen." and "The Supreme Test of a Thetan is to Make things go right".

Its very simple. Why does an excuse have to be created to justify LRH's screw up and get him off the hook. I find it absurd to make excuses and sugar coat the errors of a being who was proclaimed by himself and his followers as being the most enlightened being in the Universe. He came down HARD on all of us who served him so why do we have to treat him with kid gloves? He should be held to at least as high a standard as the rest of us.
Lakey

 

[Dulloldfart]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

On some cases it is wiser to do as you are doing, and go for what releases charge and unburdens the area. Usable, run-able "lock items" can move a case forward. The trick is to not stick the client with any fixed ideas or evaluations regarding what is "right." Let him or her get what they can and win at it.

I wouldn't want people to get the idea that my stuff can only address light, fluffy lock-type items but can't be used for anything heavy. I haven't found that to be true at all.

However, I don't have any modules that aim at digging up very deep-seated GPM items. Dipoles is a simple way of addressing dichotomies and is lots of fun besides, but it requires the user to have at least one of the items to hand to begin with. I make use of no criss-cross type procedure of using one item to lead into the next (apart from simply deciding on an opposite to run and adjusting it as needed as it discharges). If you ever feel daring )) Rog, you might want to find a pair of your GPM items using your listing method and then try discharging them using mine (the Dipoles module is at http://paulsrobot3.com/dipoles/quick-else.htm — follow the instructions, as it is its own procedure and not Scn).

At some point in the future, I would be interested in taking one of your (simpler) GPM procedures and seeing if I could Robot it. Is there a write-up anywhere online that contains enough of the procedure for me to try doing this?

Paul

 

[RogerB]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I wouldn't want people to get the idea that my stuff can only address light, fluffy lock-type items but can't be used for anything heavy. I haven't found that to be true at all.

However, I don't have any modules that aim at digging up very deep-seated GPM items. Dipoles is a simple way of addressing dichotomies and is lots of fun besides, but it requires the user to have at least one of the items to hand to begin with. I make use of no criss-cross type procedure of using one item to lead into the next (apart from simply deciding on an opposite to run and adjusting it as needed as it discharges). If you ever feel daring )) Rog, you might want to find a pair of your GPM items using your listing method and then try discharging them using mine (the Dipoles module is at http://paulsrobot3.com/dipoles/quick-else.htm — follow the instructions, as it is its own procedure and not Scn).

At some point in the future, I would be interested in taking one of your (simpler) GPM procedures and seeing if I could Robot it. Is there a write-up anywhere online that contains enough of the procedure for me to try doing this?

Paul

Ooops, sorry to have given the impression that you stuff "only" handles light stuff. I was really trying to convey that it is a light and easy way to handle the stuff that the person can handle. This as compared to the heavyweight L&N type action that is fraught with "risk."

I'll dive into your module linked above tomorrow. It will be interesting to do a comparison and analysis, etc.

PS: I don't do any "GPM procedures"

Though we do list for the identities or Beingnesses the person is locked up in in present time such that he/she is jammed up into immobility and unable to operate at full power, awareness, etc.

Two applications of this: the Abused-Abuser Unlocking Procedure, and the Games Matrix R/D as noted in my Pasadena presentation.

I don't feel they would be able to be successfully done via the PaulsRobot . . . it does take an experienced and trained auditor, though it can be done solo very easily.

I do think what you are doing with the PaulsRobot is spot on and wonderful from what I've seen. Its a successful gradient for keeping folks winning.

Rog

 

[Dulloldfart]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Ooops, sorry to have given the impression that you stuff "only" handles light stuff. I was really trying to convey that it is a light and easy way to handle the stuff that the person can handle. This as compared to the heavyweight L&N type action that is fraught with "risk."

OK. . My first intimation of the power of a general "sloppy" process like the 6-direction one was when I audited someone who had had hours and hours of CCRD auditing with correction lists and so forth in the CofS and eventually left in disgust. He was quite charged up over the whole thing. We addressed "his Clear cycle" or "his past auditing" or some general topic like that with regular R3X (this was before I had developed Rub & Yawn), and blew the whole thing in 30 minutes, without having to get into any "precision" at all.

I agree heavyweight L&N cannot be done via PaulsRobot, and as I said, I try not to do any L&N with it. But the thing is that the procedures I use (Rub & Yawn, 6-direction etc.) seem to handle stuff without needing to find precision items at all beyond what topic to address right now. My viewpoint is who cares what the charged item *was* once it's gone?

I only have one Robot procedure where I don't follow that principle and that is the False Data Stripping one, which is a straight Scn procedure anyway. I found that if you find some (more basic) charged incident and Rub & Yawn it away it goes away quickly, but it goes so fast that you don't have time to find out what the (more basic) false datum was! So it kinda defeats the object of doing FDSing in the first place.

I'll dive into your module linked above tomorrow. It will be interesting to do a comparison and analysis, etc.

Great!

PS: I don't do any "GPM procedures"

See, told you I didn't know what you did.

Paul

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

... My viewpoint is who cares what the charged item *was* once it's gone? ...

Well, there is some benefit to be had from the conscious realization of the nature of specific fixed polarities, although recognizing the general pattern is more fundamentally beneficial.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Dulloldfart]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Well, there is some benefit to be had from the conscious realization of the nature of specific fixed polarities, although recognizing the general pattern is more fundamentally beneficial.

Mark A. Baker

Right now I'm not aware of any pattern outside of the "because Hubbard says so" ones. I do know from personal experience that items can have opposite polarities which are tied together and discharge against each other, and don't include this in the "mainly because Hubbard so" bin.

Paul