Corrections and Advances in More Workable Tech

RogerB

Crusader
Roger’s Journal, 2010

I wrestled with whether to call this thread Roger’s Journal; this is response to several requests that I promised to fulfill, or whether to give it a technical name based on its subject matter and content.

Being a techie, tech won out.

Be warned, this following might shake up a stable datum or two :p

This first installment is comment on what I have found to be the biggest, most catastrophic goof in Scn tech that has yet not been recognized as such nor commented on anywhere (that I have seen).

As I look at this now, I can’t help thinking this might likely be the why, apart from the extent of abusive behavior by those in power, that Scn has become a failing piece of technology . . . but then, the abuse might even be explained by this gross, monster tech error that is inherent and built into its practice.

Alan Walter made a comment in his thread titled: “L10 and Obesity” here:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=7556

His comment got me to wondering as to what exactly had gone out: what was the tech factor that was the actual goof. Alan did not explain it. Whether he had unraveled what the actual tech point error is or not, I don’t know.

What he wrote in his opening post on the above thread was:
The simple fact is that the L's in most cases are non precision guestements of what could be wrong!

In my case they pulled whole track GPM or Games Matrice items out of sequence (Most likely delusional items) - then reinforced them as actual - this stuck me in a false delusive past!
The above stuck in my mind from when I first read it 18 months or so ago, till I listened to Trey Lots’s 2010 FZ presentation here:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=476592&postcount=25

Trey explained that the L’s (or so he was told) were, in part, an extension of research based on the old early “GPMs” tech. This was new info to me.

He also, however, made two statements that were true: a) the GPMs were/are composed of Identities; a hung up structure of Identity versus counter Identity (certainly the putative own goals GPMs are) and b) what was being sought (in 1962 with own goals GPMs) was the GPM affecting you in present time. This I can vouch for as I ran that old stuff as and when released.

But what interested me was the way in which the “L’s tech” apparently related to the old GPM tech and their identities structure.

So I looked at the L10 R/D Trey had mentioned.

It says on page 534 of the on-line available PDF “Scientology OT levels” the following:
PURPOSE OF THE L’s​

The Ls are intended to handle out-valence and evil purpose cases. We are handling
main areas of resistiveness that are stopping the person from expanding. On L10 we
handle the main valences that make him restrain his havingness. On L11 we handle evil
purposes that keep him from acting. On L12 we stabilize his certainty of being himself.
The 3 Ls roughly divide into Have (L10), Do (L11), and Be (L12).

Our main targets are past identities and evil purposes. We will gradually make the
person realize that they are not him and thereby free him from them.

As it happened, even that last paragraph didn’t tip me off when I first read it. It was like: “Well, OK, that makes sense!” But I did feel a mass turn on slightly while I digested the statement, but ignored it as business as usual :duh: (One did get so used to this sort of thing happening, and then looking forward to the next session to “handle” it!

Page 548 has the specific description of L10, and the actual R/D is given on the pages following.

While there are a number of steps and different handlings for various areas of the R/D, this is what I observed.

On Page 549:
Areas/items to handle:
6) Greatest Overt: L&N “What was the greatest overt you committed on the Whole
Track?” ... D/L + do FL0-4
7) E/Purp Multiple: (See ExDN pack in Vols.) “What evil purpose have you had
towards another?”
8) Lie RD: L&N “What was your greatest lie on the Whole Track?”

On Page 553, we see the questions to use on what is labeled the 8D RUNDOWN

I won’t list the entire series; it is long. But here is a sample for the questions for the 2D:
2D:
1. Is the 2D something to stay away from?
2. Have you been made to feel inadequate sexually?
3. Have you been made wrong for loving someone?
4. Have you desired someone and not won them over?
5. Was there someone that insisted you were at fault in the 2D?
6. Has a 2D partner used anger to get their way?
7. Have you been stopped on the 2D?
8. Has a 2D partner forced you into something you don’t want?
9. Have you gone along with a 2D when you knew it was wrong?
10. Have you conceded a major point on the 2D when you shouldn’t have?
11. Have you left a 2D for no good reason?
12. Have you harmed a 2D?
13. Have you withheld your true intentions to a 2D?

Here is another example from Page 560: the OVERTS BY DYNAMICS R/D

2ND DYNAMIC (Family)
1. Have you ever been a disturbing element in a family?
2. Have you ever joined a family out of revenge?
3. Have you ever disowned a member of your family?
4. Have you ever gotten a relative into trouble?
5. Have you ever worked against your family?
6. Have you ever badly raised a child?
7. Have you failed to provide for a child of yours?
8. Have you ever split up a family?
9. Have you ever had a bastard?
10. Have you ever passed off a bastard as legitimate?
11. Have you ever claimed a blood-relationship you didn’t have ?
12. Have you ever forced a child into an unsuitable profession?
13. Have you ever forced a child into a loveless marriage?

And it was here, when looking at all the above, that I saw what the hell had been screwing up all our cases since the beginning!

Notice that all those questions above, put you into the past!

Here is a datum. An important datum.

What is screwing up the present is in the PRESENT, it is here, now, doing its screwing up here, now! It is NOT in the past nor necessarily of the past! (I will get into the mechanics of this time notion/factor later on.)

What I saw is that the error which is endemic and a core erroneous principle in/of Scn is the idea that what is bugging you is in the past or from the past. This is a colossal error, and one that has screwed us all up.

Looking at the development of the tech, we can see how this error came into being and how it seemed so logical, and Oh so right to think that. It began with the early “successes” with Dianetics, and carried forward as “the truth behind what bugs you in Scn.” Of course this notion that what is bugging you and wrong with you is in or from your past didn’t begin with Dianetics. Hubbard took the notion from others.

What I realized in looking at all this is that virtually everyone in Scn has been hooked on the idea that what is “wrong with them,” and what is bugging them, is in or from their past . . . . when in fact, what has to be found, corrected and handled is in the present, NOW!

These are the questions that are being asked in all the R/Ds: “Have you ever . . .” “Have you or did you . . .?” That’s putting you in the past!

The questions should be rephrased so as to pick up the in present time, now, action that is screwing up the game. And folks need to be brought to a new understanding of what is going on. It’s not the past: it is the now that is screwing up the present and your futures.

The question needs to be: “Is there . . . ?” or “Are you . . . ?”

Now it may be true that the genesis of the now screwy action is in the past, but you should look in the present for the now screwy action . . . for that is where it is active.

The big, big error has been the constant ransacking of the past looking for things that MIGHT be active in the present and screwing it up. The trap in ransacking and stirring up all of the past in order to find the very few “items,” actions, intentions, solutions etc., that need be found is that you make all of the past live and stick the client back out of PT and into his past!

And this is what Alan wrote of. It is what I also experienced but didn’t particularly realize it till just these last few weeks. It’s been a colossal relief to let the past go, to let it settle out back into the past and to myself come (more) fully into PT and direct my powers, abilities, awareness and presence here where they can do their good.

The fact is, for the last fifty years or so, I’ve been stuck out of PT but trying to handle it and get better, etc., etc., and not aware of the actual what and why of my relative difficulties in operating.

Even so, it is true that I continued to get gains with the correct tech . . . but the truth is, I was actually handling a lot of unnecessary shit. (And OT3 and NOTs, forget about it . . . they are a destructive waste of time.)

What should have been located and addressed was: WHAT WAS I DOING IN PRESENT TIME TO SCREW UP MY PRESENT TIME!! For the fact is, that is where I live and should be playing the game: not in the past!

You old-timer will remember we used to often use the command at the end of sessions: “Come up to (or back up to) Present Time.” :D This has dropped out in “standard tech.”

This is now long. Other related pieces on another page,

RogerB
 

EP - Ethics Particle

Gold Meritorious Patron
Roger that!

Good call, Rog! That explains, neatly, precisely why the Life Repair I did with Dex as Auditor so many years ago was such a stellar action.

Also, perhaps, why not too long after that, with another auditor, my "case" simply "fell apart" reminiscent of shelling dry corn off the cob - on a "sec-check" dealing with PT stuff.

At least that's the way it seems to me! :yes::confused2:

Thank you!

Mike
 

scooter

Gold Meritorious Patron
Nice, Rog - very nice. Well done on that. :thumbsup:

I've been looking at something similar and puzzling with it the last week or so and you've just explained it for me. :D

Thanks, mate. :happydance:
 

RogerB

Crusader
Nice, Rog - very nice. Well done on that. :thumbsup:

I've been looking at something similar and puzzling with it the last week or so and you've just explained it for me. :D

Thanks, mate. :happydance:

Scoots,

You just made my day, Mate!

I love it when I can do some good with what I write . . . .

I think I'll go get myself a nice malt Scotch on the strength of that . . . it's that time of day over here :p

Thanks!

Rog
 

scooter

Gold Meritorious Patron
Scoots,

You just made my day, Mate!

I love it when I can do some good with what I write . . . .

I think I'll go get myself a nice malt Scotch on the strength of that . . . it's that time of day over here :p

Thanks!

Rog

Excellent:thumbsup:

And I'll go out into the late spring morning here and enjoy that.:happydance:
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Good stuff, Rog. It aligns perfectly with the principle of auditing the pc in present time, and not diving into the past to try and find some magical answer. If stuff from the past comes to view and *demands* to be handled, i.e., some other part of one's topic is pressing so hard on one that the aspect being worked on before is no longer even viewable because of the new one, then one goes with the flow and addresses that. But it's all just following the way the mind is stacked up, and not some arbitrary sequence dreamed up by some wannabe-guru.

Paul
 

dexter gelfand

Patron Meritorious
Advancing the tech

I like it, Roger! Thanks!:thumbsup:

It seems to me that the whole point of going backtrack is to bring one's confront and responsibility up to be oneself, and be in present time, free of dramatizations and misperceptions. I can see using that (going backtrack) as a tool, just to the point where the person can now be here now. Perhaps some sort of testing process, involving confronting one's present, could be used as needed, to signify at which point going backtrack is unnecessary. (Similar to how, when testing and running havingness, one has the PC squeeze the cans to gauge whether sensitivity is increasing or decreasing, to determine whether or not the havingness process being run is the correct one).

Going backtrack has the liability of being used as a dodge and a refuge to avoid present time, and if processes could be developed to gradiently increase one's willingness and ability to confront this lifetime without going backtrack, so much the better, if that's more efficient and effective.

I always found it fascinating to go backtrack, and to have my PC go backtrack, as it can be extremely interesting and revealing. I think there's nothing wrong with it as a pastime or for historical value, and one way or another, if the goal is no track-no charge, which I agree with, one does need to first own his track. I just don't know that this couldn't be accomplished more efficiently than to spend hundreds of hours recalling or returning through a nearly infinite track.

Love, Dex
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
I agree with handling what is being created right now. Sometimes, we have to look deep within ourselves for the reasons we are doing something right now, and often, we don't even realize we ARE doing it right now, we think it was only in the past. So, start with something happening now, track it to where it began, look to where the person thinks it will lead, examine all aspects of it.

UCP.
 

paradox

ab intra silentio vera
...

What is screwing up the present is in the PRESENT, it is here, now, doing its screwing up here, now! It is NOT in the past nor necessarily of the past! ....

...

What I realized in looking at all this is that virtually everyone in Scn has been hooked on the idea that what is “wrong with them,” and what is bugging them, is in or from their past . . . . when in fact, what has to be found, corrected and handled is in the present, NOW!

....

I had a similar realization not long ago when I read this from Alan Watts. (May be tl;dr for many). For me, a major change in outlook with regard to conventional wisdom of "cause-and-effect." Good stuff, Roger.

There is no way of defining the creative energy of the universe. Suppose God could come and talk to you, and you said, "God, this is a pretty complicated universe--in fact, it is amazing! How did you do it?" And God would say, "I don't know, I just did it."

Of course God does not know--if God had to think out every detail of it, it never would have happened. In just the same way, you breathe and you live: You don't know how you do it, but you are still doing it!

We have been taught by social convention, though, to restrict the concept of "myself" to "what I do voluntarily and consciously." This is a very narrow view of the self. Certainly if you say, "I, by my ego and my intelligence, created all this," you would be conceited, and you know you are a liar. But you is much deeper than that; you includes far more than your conscious mind. It is the total you that not only is responsible for the infinitely complex structure of your physical organism, but also for the environment in which you find yourself. You runs that deep.

It is you in that sense, the total you, that is the root and ground of everything. And yet we arrange our image of who we are around a principle of human sociability, which is measured by our ability to get along together according to our system of social convention. And as a result we so often end up putting everyone down, including ourselves, because nobody's perfect, and because as my mother used to say to me, "You're not the only pebble on the beach!"

Why don't we instead try the other technique, and put everyone "up" instead of down? It might be that everyone would get along far better that way than they do by putting everybody down! Of course, whatever you do, you have to do it uniformly for everyone. You can't say, "Well, Johnny is the Lord God, but Peter isn't!"

As a result of our social conventions, we all feel ourselves to be strangers in the world. We are disconnected from it all, and it is something that "happens" to us that we endure passively, and that we *receive* passively. And we never get to the point where we realize we are actually doing the whole thing! It is up to you. You make your troubles and you put yourself into a trap. You confuse yourself and forget that you did it, and then ask how to get out of it! A verse from the Mumonkan, a famous book of koans puts it this way: "Asking where Buddha is, is like hiding loot in your pocket and declaring yourself innocent!"

To finally admit it, and to come to the recognition that it was you, requires a certain kind of nerve. I don't mean "nerve" in the sense of being brash and cheeky. I mean the sort of sense that you use when, for the first time, you take a plane off the ground, or when you pull a cloth off the table and leave all the dishes on the table! That sort of nerve has nothing to do with pride in the ordinary sense. It is being ready to leap in, somehow. You see it, and jump in.

But most of us lack that kind of sense. Instead we have what I would call an ambivalent sense of responsibility. We say, "Now, look: It is only me here--just little me. I have certain responsibilities, and they are such and so, but that means as well that there are a lot of things I am certainly not responsible for." And in our social conventions we play games about where we are going to draw the line that defines what we are--and what we're not--responsible for.

When someone is in some kind of social or psychological difficulty and someone has been irresponsible in some way, we wonder what caused the problem: "Why are they like that?" And instead of attributing the problem to the person our psychologists tend to refer it back to other things and other people: It was because of their environment, or because of family conditioning, or because of their father and mother. But there is no end to that, because you can take the blame straight back to Adam and Eve! And responsibility is evaded because it was limited in the first place.

We think that the world is limited and explained by its past. We tend to think that what happened in the past determines what is going to happen next, and we do not see that it is exactly the other way around! What is always the source of the world is the present; the past doesn't explain a thing. The past trails behind the present like the wake of a ship, and eventually disappears.

Now you would say that obviously when you see a ship crossing the ocean with the wake trailing behind it that the ship is the cause of the wake. But if you get into the state of mind that believes in causality as we do, you see that the wake is the cause of the ship! And that is surely making the tail wag the dog!

The point is this: You will never find the mystery of the creation of the world in the past. It never was created in the past. Because truly there is nothing else--and never was anything else--except the present! There never will be anything else except the present.

Life is always present, and the past is a kind of echo, a tracing within the present of what the present did before. We can say, "Oh well, we can guess what the present will do next because of what it has done in the past." And this is true: Because of what it does habitually, you may guess it will go on doing it like that. But still it is not the past that controls the present any more than the wake controls the ship. Now from the record of the past you can study the nature of the present and predict what sort of things its likely to do. But sometimes it surprises you when something new happens, as every so often it does.

It is always in the immediate here and now that things begin. And so one of the essentials of Zen training is, to quote a certain parrot from Huxley's *Island*, "Here and now, boys!" *Be here*.

And in order to be here, you can't be looking for a result! People keep asking me, "Why do you do this? What do you want to get out of it?" But these questions imply that my motivation is different from my action. It is talking about it in terms of Newtonian billiards--in Newton's explanation of mechanics and behavior he used an analogy with billiards. The balls--the fundamental atoms--are banging each other about; a ball will be still until something bangs it, and that bang will be its motivation, and set it in motion. So when we say, "Human beings behave in such-and-such a way because of unconscious mental mechanisms," this is really Newtonian psychology and it is out-of-date. Today we need a psychology that is current with quantum theory at least, not one that is tied to mechanical causality.

It is difficult for us to understand this, however, unless we turn things around, as in the analogy of the ship and the wake. If you understand fully that it is from the present that everything happens, then the only place for you to be, the only place for you to live, is here right now.

People immediately say, however, "Now wait a minute. That's all very well, but I want to be sure that under such-and-such circumstances and in such-and-such eventualities I will be able to deal with it. It's all very well to live in the present when I am sitting comfortably in a warm room reading this, or meditating, but what am i going to do if all hell breaks loose? What if there's an earthquake, or if I get sick, or my best friends get sick, or some catastrophe happens? How will I deal with that? Don't I have to prepare myself to deal with those things? Shouldn't I get into some sort of psychological training, so that when disasters come I won't be thrown?"

That, you would ordinarily think, is the way to proceed--but it doesn't work very well. It is much better to say, "sufficient unto the day is the trouble thereof," and to trust yourself to react appropriately when the catastrophe happens. Whatever happens, you'll probably have to improvise, and failure of nerve is really failure to trust yourself. You have a great endowment of brain, muscle, sensitivity, intelligence--trust it to react to circumstances as they arise.

Zen deals with this. Studying Zen will change the way you react to circumstances as they arise. Wait and see how you deal with whatever circumstances come your way, because the you that will deal with them will not be simply your conscious intelligence or conscious attention. In that moment it will be all of you, and that is beyond the control of the will because the will is only a fragment having certain functions.

But if you really know how to live from your center, you live now, and know that now is the origin of everything. This way, you stand a much better chance of being able to deal with the unforeseen than if you keep worrying about it and considering past lessons and future possibilities.

I know that this sounds impractical to some of you, or perhaps revolutionary, or perhaps not even possible, but it is simply living in the present. It requires a certain kind of poise: If you make exact plans to deal with the future and things don't happen at all as you expected, you are apt to become thoroughly disappointed and disoriented. But if your plans are flexible and adaptable, and if you're here when things happen, you always stay balanced.

As in movement or martial arts, keep your center of gravity between your feet, and don't cross your feet, because the moment you do you are off balance. Stay always in the center position, and stay always here. Then it doesn't matter which direction the attack comes from; it doesn't matter what happens at all.

If you expect something to come in a certain way you position yourself to get ready for it. If it comes another way, by the time you reposition your energy, it is too late. So stay in the center and you will be ready to move in any direction.

This is the real meaning of zazen, or sitting Zen: to sit in the center. As you begin sitting meditation the first thing to do is find your center, and become comfortable with it, so that you are neither leaning forward nor sitting back. When one's body is balanced in this way the forces of high and low, the heart and breath, and mind and feeling merge at the center.

To sit in zazen in order to perfect a technique for attaining enlightenment, however, is fundamentally a mistaken approach. Sit just to sit. And why not sit? You have to sit sometime, and so you may as well really sit, and be altogether here. Otherwise the mind wanders away from the matter at hand, and away from the present. Even to think through the implications of the present is to avoid the present moment completely.

When you are meditating, it is perfectly fine to be aware of anything that's around: things on the floor, the smell of the atmosphere, the little noises going on. Be there! But when you hear a dog bark, and that starts off a train of thought about dogs in general, about your dog, or somebody else's dog, then you have wandered away from being here. Of course you finally will come to the point where you realize there is no way of wandering away from being here, because there is nowhere else to be. Even if you think about somewhere else, past or future, this is all happening now.

Through this you will also come to understand how to be a scholar and a historian, if you wish to, and still live in the present. That was how D.T. Suzuki was able to be scholarly and intellectual, and yet at the same time not to depart at all from the spirit of Zen, which is beyond the intellect. you can intellectualize in a Zen way, just as you can sweep floors in a Zen way, but of course the key to the matter is centering--being really here. Because this is the point of origin of the world, and it is at the same time the destination of the world.

This is the real meaning of dhyana, which in Sanskrit is the kind of concentration or meditation that constitutes Zen. Zen is simply the Japanese way of pronouncing dhyana, and it is that state of centeredness which is here and now.

When you practice zazen, just sit and enjoy yourself being quiet. It is not a duty at all; it is a great pleasure! Get up early in the morning when the sunlight is just beginning to show. It doesn't matter where you are, just sit.

Don't have any thoughts, but don't compulsively try to get rid of thoughts. It's just not important. The real thing is what is--what is here, now. After all, here you are, and you may as well see it!

Eventually, a curious feeling will overcome you, one that is very hard to describe in words. I just said that the origin of the world is now--and there is this odd sensation that now comprises everything: the most distant past, the most remote future, the vastness of space, all states of experience, all joy, all sorrow, all heights, all depths. Everything is now. There isn't anywhere else to be--there never was, and never will be!

That is why you were never born, and therefore cannot die. You never came, so you won't go. You were always here. It's a very curious feeling, so different from what we ordinarily think. In entering into the now, we find the eternal now. We find infinity in the split second.


As they say in Yoga, liberation lies in the interval between two thoughts. Between the past thought and the future thought lies now--there is no present thought.

As one of the Zen texts puts it, "One thought follows another without interruption. But if you allow these thoughts to link up into a chain, you put yourself in bondage."

Actually, this present moment never comes to be and it never ceases to be, it is simply our minds that construct the continuity of thoughts we call time. In the present moment is nirvana.

As the great Zen master Dogen explains, in the course of the seasons, the spring does not "become" the summer. And when wood burns, the wood does not "become" the ashes. There is the state of wood, and then there is the state of ashes. There is the state of spring; there is the state of summer. The spring does not become the summer; the wood does not become the ashes; the living body does not become the corpse. That only happens in us, in our minds, when we link our thoughts together. "Oh, no! I will become a corpse!" But you won't. You won't be there when there is a corpse!

Excerpted from book, What is Zen? by
Alan Watts (1915-1973)
Part II "Zen Reconsidered"
 
Last edited:

dexter gelfand

Patron Meritorious
But seriously, folks...

This thread is entertaining in its awesome display of what you tech guys don't know.
(Channeling Joe Pesce in "Goodfellas"): "What am I, your clown, am I here to amuse you?" :D

I'm glad, being that we lack your obvious deep spiritual wisdom, that you're big enough to so graciously condescend to us, Nexus:duh:

Love, Dex
 

nexus100

Gold Meritorious Patron
(Channeling Joe Pesce in "Goodfellas"): "What am I, your clown, am I here to amuse you?" :D

I'm glad, being that we lack your obvious deep spiritual wisdom, that you're big enough to so graciously condescend to us, Nexus:duh:

Love, Dex

Just returning the favor, old buddy. Get off the ferris wheel some day and ride out into the territory.
 

mate

Patron Meritorious
Absolutely brilliant, Roger.

It, of course, explains why those who have received Power and Power Plus, have had enormous wins with very few exceptions, if any. It would be interesting to develop a universal correction list that could be used on all former and present PCs.

Just a thought.

David.
 

AlphOhm

Traveler of time/space
It says on page 534 of the on-line available PDF “Scientology OT levels” the following:
Quote:
PURPOSE OF THE L’s

The Ls are intended to handle out-valence and evil purpose cases. We are handling
main areas of resistiveness that are stopping the person from expanding. On L10 we
handle the main valences that make him restrain his havingness. On L11 we handle evil purposes that keep him from acting. On L12 we stabilize his certainty of being himself.
The 3 Ls roughly divide into Have (L10), Do (L11), and Be (L12).

Our main targets are past identities and evil purposes. We will gradually make the
person realize that they are not him and thereby free him from them.

Not sure when this was written or who wrote it, but the data presented conflicts with my understanding of areas addressed by Ls. In the early 90s, Flag materials said this:

The 3 Ls roughly divide into Do (L10), Have (L11 & L11 Expanded), and Be (L12).

Is this data more recent than mine?


Also--I have not done L10, but some of the questions listed seem to be asking for motivators.

I wonder if the "L10" being looked at is one assembled from "recall" by somebody.
 
Last edited:

programmer_guy

True Ex-Scientologist
Roger,

Take your SCN beliefs to some major universities and get some professors and PHD candidates to spend a few years on it and report back to me on the findings.
 
Top