Corrections and Advances in More Workable Tech

Gadfly

Crusader
What you write is wonderful, and I agree with you all of the way. Insisting on playing mest games while also insisting on being exterior to them at the same time makes no sense at all.

But hey. . . . there's other games than mest games you know.

Actually I do disagree with one point you made - the universe was made for having fun in. Or is being made. That is a pretty damn high purpose I reckon. God should be chuffed for having thought of it.

Well, I am totally on that same page. There are MANY other possible games, but once you get involved in THAT new game, once again, you will NOT be "exterior", not in the pure sense.

I don't know WHY the universe was made, but I have my theories and notions. I do NOT have the view that a bunch of indivudal eternal thetans agreed it all into existence (Ref: The Factors). I think to a degree that it has an objective existence, as an idea in the mind of God, and that we each relate to it by agreement, consideration and belief. But it isn't that simple.

Briefly, a being might be able to have universal concepts like love, hate, pain, compassion, honesty, judgment, fairness, and so forth for a great variety of notions. But these only remain as "ideas", vague and general and sort of wispy. When a universe is created, great dramas can be played out over great expanses of time, allowing these ideas to take form, and to provide the DETAILS OF EXPERIENCE that provide the specifics for the general ideas.

In a sense, the universe and even each of us as a tentacle of awareness from this God, are God's way of creating the background so that all of these universals can appear and exist (at least temporarily) as experience. It is God's way of experiencing in detail, what existed as only abstract universal ideas. And, each of us display the same dichotomy of IDEA versus EXPERIENCE.

And, YES, make it FUN. Make it beautiful. Make it overflowing with appreciation, love and ceaseless wonder. :happydance:

One thing I am always amazed at is just how much is here, and how many different ways there are to see, and appreciate some aspect of it all. Just look at the creative results of all the wonderful artists. It never stops!

I have been having some strange experiences recently. I have been meditating more, and allowing my attention to fall deeply onto the field of awareness (as all else fades away). I have had some explosions of brilliant white light, at the same time having this sense of "seeing it all". But, I can't put it into words. It happened today when I was walking in the woods. I say this, because part of it is that I felt as if "I" totally vanished as I connected or melded with God (or something). It is always very expansive and light feeling. And again, maybe nothing more than an LSD flashback! :confused2:
 
Last edited:

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Is there any reason that these processes should not be run solo? Also, it is my understanding that these processes can be run on any individual regardless of case level.

Try it and see. I've successfully run lots of stuff solo that Hubbard says is impossible to solo. But I prefer the PaulsRobot model — the first process I tried in that mode was Op Pro By Dup, which I had found impossible to run solo. But a rudimentary Paul's Robot Auditor version ran just fine, which was eye-opening to say the least, and provided the impetus for all you see now at PaulsRobot3.

Paul
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
Um, so it would seem.

But, a very very tiny tiny slice of God.

Well if that's true then Ken Wilber's wrong (and he might be, but I prefer to believe he isn't). Wilber's whole thesis in his book "No Boundary" is that boundaries don't exist in nature, and by extension not in the spiritual universe either (from the principle "as above, so below").

You can't have slices without boundaries, because the whole action of slicing introduces boundaries where there weren't any before. Nope, I believe with Joel Goldsmith, "you are the fullness of God."
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
Don't worry yourself Roger, because as soon as a person dumps scientology they are able to also dump the silly concept of "case" ... and free themselves of all the pointless over thinking and become whomever they really are again.

There is no need at all for concern and definitely no need to replace one silly tek with another.

It's all good ... nothing to worry about at all.

:happydance:



And smilla

smilla said:
" 'Case' as put forward by Hubbard, doesn't exist. Just live your life according to your own best judgement. Trust yourself and trust the process of life. Hubbard makes it all much more difficult."

Oddly enough, my last auditor in the FZ didn't believe in case either; she called it a "horrible concept" and preferred to talk instead of one's creations in present time. I don't recall what her reasoning was but it was probably that if you talk of case as a noun, you make both it more solid and you (as the person who has it).

Incidentally Dorothy Rowe, the Australian psychologist and expert on depression, has also written about the problems we get into when we create nouns out of psychological concepts and actions. We use the word intelligence, for example, as though it was a thing in its own right as opposed to the action of thinking intelligently, and anxiety and depression the same way, as a noun instead of an adverb (thinking anxiously or depressively).
 

Spirit

just another son of God
I've successfully run lots of stuff solo that Hubbard says is impossible to solo. But I prefer the PaulsRobot model — the first process I tried in that mode was Op Pro By Dup, which I had found impossible to run solo. But a rudimentary Paul's Robot Auditor version ran just fine, which was eye-opening to say the least, and provided the impetus for all you see now at PaulsRobot3.

Paul
I have run a few of the modules at PaulsRobot3 with success and will continue to do so. I like the concept. I had thought about setting up a site in the same fashion (for my own use) with COHA Route 1 (for starters). I was pleased to find your desktop site which was done much better than I had envisioned.

My main issue with the CofS is the lies that I believed to the point that I was inactive for over 20 years.
2mo5pow.gif
When I got in, I wanted to take the processes and work them solo. Naturally the greedy bastards told me that self auditing was squirreling, would screw me up to the point that the damage would surpass any benefits gained and that I could be declared and denied the pristine path, blah, blah, blah
bore.gif
and I bought it hook line and sinker. I spend that time isolated from likeminded folks and wasted almost a quarter of a century in which I could have been solo auditing. This is something I can not forgive!! THE FUCKING BASTARDS!!!
 
Last edited:

Aiki

Patron with Honors
Aiki,
The past and time may not be an illusion as you stated. I am not certain so I am not going to position myself on the issue at this time. It does seem to be true that the most important aspect is that the point of power is in present time and this datum is workable.

Indeed, a wise decision in my estimation. Wisdom rules and always will:coolwink:

Peace.Aiki.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
And smilla

Oddly enough, my last auditor in the FZ didn't believe in case either; she called it a "horrible concept" and preferred to talk instead of one's creations in present time. I don't recall what her reasoning was but it was probably that if you talk of case as a noun, you make both it more solid and you (as the person who has it).

Incidentally Dorothy Rowe, the Australian psychologist and expert on depression, has also written about the problems we get into when we create nouns out of psychological concepts and actions. We use the word intelligence, for example, as though it was a thing in its own right as opposed to the action of thinking intelligently, and anxiety and depression the same way, as a noun instead of an adverb (thinking anxiously or depressively).

This is such a great point! :thumbsup:

I have been studying up in reading philosophy, and a thing that was recently pointed out by one of the authors was the tendency for people to think of all things as "objects". This probably is a result of the slow progress of the development of language based on the habit of pointing at physical things. Nouns have been given inappropriate exaggerated importance.

A house, a car, a cat, a tree, a moon, a shirt, a radio, or a person are all things - represented by nouns. They exist at an exact place in space and time.

But, there are a great many other things that people tend to think of as "objects", when instead they involve a relationship or description of a quality.

You can get the idea of large or small, fast or slow, close or far, but none of these are "things". These terms involve relationships between things. A word like "growth" involves relationships spread out over time and space. You can say "the growth (of a plant)", but there is no such thing sitting there at any place or specific time. The demise of a farm. It was a wonder to behold. The stupidity of a Scientologist. None of these actually exist - well, except for maybe the stupidity of a Scientologist (kidding).

A word or concept like "demon", what exists in psychiatry as "disorder", or in Scientology as "case". None of them "really" exist, not in time and space. You can't point to it, pick it up, or even detect it. These are all metaphors for complicated phenomena. At best they are inferred and assumed from observations of physical things.

A concept like "intelligence" is a very abstract IDEA. The idea is associated with a great many other ideas, and behaviors that can be viewed. It means something and it relates to something that has to do with a human being, but it doesn't exist at any exact time or place. You might be able to infer intelligence by some set of tests or by observing a person applying some skill, but at no time can it EVER be directly observed via the human senses.

Most of us can perceive a person who displays or lacks intelligence. There is something there. It has a great to to do with definitions, but not entirely. So, since we can all perceive intelligence, and differences in intelligence, yet obviously it is not sitting there like any other physical object, WHERE does it actually exist? It exists somewhere, but not in space and time, and it is MORE than only an idea in your head since people out there, separate from you, can exhibit it. Might there be another universe that we haven't noticed or taken into account? I am just getting into this with some of the philosophy that I am reading.

Hubbard filled Scientology with these vague abstract ideas, that really have no existence outside of a mind or as an idea.

A "cleared planet".

What exactly IS that? What might it even be, if it were possible? It is just a hazy IDEA based on a great many OTHER hazy ideas.

To me these are true:

1. Ones relationship with and reactions to life, that are now "in the past", can affect a person NOW by residual live current unconscious attention.

2. Ones ideas about things, in terms of considerations, beliefs and agreements, especially on the deepest level, affect any person NOW.

To call this all "case" can only make sense if it is not viewed as any "thing", but as a general term that embraces many relationships (that span both space and time by way of unconscious attention). But, of course, the way Hubbard uses it, often, and with exaggerated importance placed upon "it", this "case" comes to be viewed as a "real existing thing". Part of this was that he talked of "mental mass", and how "bank gets solid". He attached physical terms to mental and spiritual things. He did so metaphorically, but followers do NOT think of any of it as metaphors (and Hubbard didn't mean them as metaphors).
 
Last edited:

Aiki

Patron with Honors
And smilla



Oddly enough, my last auditor in the FZ didn't believe in case either; she called it a "horrible concept" and preferred to talk instead of one's creations in present time. I don't recall what her reasoning was but it was probably that if you talk of case as a noun, you make both it more solid and you (as the person who has it).

Incidentally Dorothy Rowe, the Australian psychologist and expert on depression, has also written about the problems we get into when we create nouns out of psychological concepts and actions. We use the word intelligence, for example, as though it was a thing in its own right as opposed to the action of thinking intelligently, and anxiety and depression the same way, as a noun instead of an adverb (thinking anxiously or depressively).

Hi Cat.
I get suspicious when someone says statements like "it doesn't exist". There is something there and a word used for it is case. May not be the best word then again it may fit precisely.

In life and especially business it's commonly used. A businessman may have a heavy caseload to catch up with. A courthouse has many cases to handle. Bottom line is it's just a noun representing a concept. You could call it a bag if you wanted to, a bag of stuff.

So I think the main reason for someone not liking it is to do with what it represents. For the businessman it represents or can represent 'lots of stuff to catch up on he's not too happy to face'

Now in it's use in scientology it had that representation of stuff yet to be confronted, hence the veer away factor. But plain denial....ie: it aint there......Mmmmmmm.

So most times it's not a matter of 'it ain't there' it's more to do with how a person takes it.

The psychologist may have a point but what point? Mislabeling things seems to be the main problem.

Fundamentally it probably boils down to nouns and verbs. States are nouns. Be do and have are verbs.

'Logic' tends to think of actions and describes verbs as representing them and nouns as something with no action, no motion. So we have flows and stable things. That's the logic. But a thing is flowing, it's flowing through time number one. It has a function so it is DOING something.

Finally, when it comes to mind we call it mental. A mental universe if you will. So here's a datum for you given by hubbard which auditors should be familiar with and c/ses should also be but pcs not. From a pc point of view......no interest really. It is this: An Auditor is interested only in the mental mass whilst a pc is only interested in the significance. Understanding that one thing fully would solve a lot of misunderstandings.

Peace.Aiki.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
Lol!

And smilla



Oddly enough, my last auditor in the FZ didn't believe in case either; she called it a "horrible concept" and preferred to talk instead of one's creations in present time. I don't recall what her reasoning was but it was probably that if you talk of case as a noun, you make both it more solid and you (as the person who has it).

Incidentally Dorothy Rowe, the Australian psychologist and expert on depression, has also written about the problems we get into when we create nouns out of psychological concepts and actions. We use the word intelligence, for example, as though it was a thing in its own right as opposed to the action of thinking intelligently, and anxiety and depression the same way, as a noun instead of an adverb (thinking anxiously or depressively).


Yes, that is a good point Cat, it makes 'case' all the more solid and real and it makes the whole 'no case on post' thing interesting too ... staff scientologists are told to 'park their cases' as and when directed (and presumably collect them later and hope they don't get the wrong one with even worse aberrations).

:nervous:

Why wouldn't they just leave them parked elsewhere permanently and have a lovely 'bank free life' from that point ... oh hang on ... they do 'just leave em elsewhere' but only after they have that expensive 'cog' ... about mocking it all up in the first place.

I'm surprised old tubs didn't charge a fee for the parking of all those banks, some of them are huge and take up a lot of space.




:whistling:
 
Re: An Analysis of a Screwy Tech!

Thanks, Ant.

I reread what I wrote in '98 as per your archive above. Not bad, I'd say. I stand by those words today.

Just a few thoughts: Objectives as processes give the pc/client an opportunity to say something. That's it. When the pc is originating I don't barge on with process. When the pc is commenting, I carry on. Reference the TR's on that.

Objective processes stimulate communication if the auditor is prepared to receive.

Communication comes about because of perceptions, objective or subjective. Perceptions give meaning to the communication, for the pc.

Communication that is grounded in present time flows better and more understandably than communications from some other times or places.

Ted

Thanks Ted,

Auditing should be based on improving the pc in his own eyes, that is achieving her goals. It saddens me to see some believe that auditing does not include interest, deep interest, in what is happening in the preclears universe. The Tr4 I learned I certainly interpreted as finding out what was happening in the preclears universe. The idea that the Tr had to be "passed" either by a coach, or a third party was a step towards robotism. When I ran CCH 1-4 on the pc I mentioned, I interpreted every remark from the pc as coming from the preclear. The fashion which came out at one point of ignoring anything (words, etc.) in Tone 40 processing coming from the pc when you were not in a "Freeze" as coming from the bank, is objectionable, and now I would find it very difficult to ignore anything the pc originated (verbal or physical). It would go against the grain.

All the best,

Ant
 

haiqu

Patron Meritorious
Re: Part 1 on Actually Handling a Matrix

Some comments as I read this:

This is Part 4 of my answer to Dex on Handling The Games Matrix

This “something” during the period 1961 to early ’63 was viewed by Hubbard as being “your goal” that underlay what you were on about in present time as your Being and Doing that resulted in your current Have conditions.

In actuality, it is a lot bigger than a mere “goal.” It is actually a whole three-dimensional holographically created envisionment of a want, intention, purpose and pursuit to be and accomplish something. It is also the envisioning of a whole game and condition of existence!

Yeah, the whole packaged fantasy of what might be achievable if one can just manage not to screw it up again.

<fx: looks askance at current fantasy, realizes he's self-saboutaging with that attitude ...>

Also, it is to be noted that down through our existence we have created many of these “whole games and conditions of existence” based on a basic want or “goal.” Underlying it all is your “ultimate Prime Dream and Aspiration and want” . . . the want that set you going in this game of relationships that led to PT.

<fx: Looks over past fantasies, considers what he might have achieved had some other bastard not interfered, as usual. Considers this is an irresponsible attitude but unavoidable as it's the highest truth currently available to him.>

And this underlying, deep “ultimate Prime Dream and Aspiration and want or goal” is as a glue that runs through all the later endeavors of your existence, even if amended and altered to enable games in later circumstances.

Hubbard also missed the fact that much of what carried on into present time that was trapping the individual (as per the GPM construct he wrote of) was co-created by others. This fact was not addressed in the ’62 tech on “GPMs.”

<fx: Shouts "HOLY FUCK!!!">

It's a gloomy day in Brisbane, but suddenly the world seems a lot brighter.

Rob
 

RogerB

Crusader
Re: Part 1 on Actually Handling a Matrix

Some comments as I read this:



Yeah, the whole packaged fantasy of what might be achievable if one can just manage not to screw it up again.

<fx: looks askance at current fantasy, realizes he's self-saboutaging with that attitude ...>



<fx: Looks over past fantasies, considers what he might have achieved had some other bastard not interfered, as usual. Considers this is an irresponsible attitude but unavoidable as it's the highest truth currently available to him.>



<fx: Shouts "HOLY FUCK!!!">

It's a gloomy day in Brisbane, but suddenly the world seems a lot brighter.

Rob

Ahh, Rob . . . it's spring in Brisbane . . . at least the temperature should be good :p


And your thinking that: "some other bastard interfered" is quite correct . . . but the kicker in the gut is that we mishandled with a wrong answer:melodramatic: And the rest, as they say, is history.

Been pondering on what to say since your earlier posts on other threads about doing all the tapes and being interested in possibly doing the Hubbs GPM thingie . . . .

Speaking as one who did do it all, my recommendation is steer clear of it.

R2-12 is good as it pulls up the what you are opposing in PT that you have conflict with and with who/what you are in mortal combat and developing more and more charge on.

The bad news is that Hubbs mishandled and screwed up how you handle what you find!:nervous::grouch::duh:

Here's what to do . . .

You can do the listing questions of R2-12 and get "the item" (the nasty) . . . and that is worthwhile (if your case is up enough to handle it).

Then there are two options: One is to do Alan Walter's Presence 4 Process on the Identity/Beingness of the "who/what" found. (this not done by Hubbs)

But the other and best and eventual vital action to do is to ask this question (not Hubb's but this one) "What identity or Beingness do you go into or became to oppose (who/what found)?" This will get the identity and beingness you are aberratedly in in the game of opposing and trying to handle the "who/what." YOu then run Alan's Presence 3 Process on that Identity you are in when or because you are opposing the nasty.

And that, Sir, begins the correct case handling to handling "what ails you."

Hubbs made the error of trying only to locate a "who/what" that opposed the nasty found by the first R2-12 question but not then doing anything to process or clean up that beingness you wear to carry out the opposition . . . it was left on the case unhandled!!! (the idiot!)

If you really want to be brave, you can also then, after doing the Presence 3 on the identity/beingness of yours you found that opposes the nasty, ask the question: "What identity or Beingness were you being before you met (nasty who/what of 1st R2-12 question)?" Then do Presence 3 on that identity.

And that will totally unlock the package. There is more that can be done with this package . . . but that will suffice for here/now.

When you compare the above to Hubbs R2-12 R/D you'll see why R2-12 caused problems and ran into strife . . . . Hubbs triggered but did not run the identities discovered :duh: Was he trying to kill people?!? :angry:

I'll do a brief write up on the GPMs screw ups on a later post . . . I need to pull some references . . . the above was written off the top of my head.

R
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
Re: Part 1 on Actually Handling a Matrix

Ahh, Rob . . . it's spring in Brisbane . . . at least the temperature should be good :p


And your thinking that: "some other bastard interfered" is quite correct . . . but the kicker in the gut is that we mishandled with a wrong answer:melodramatic: And the rest, as they say, is history.

Been pondering on what to say since your earlier posts on other threads about doing all the tapes and being interested in possibly doing the Hubbs GPM thingie . . . .

Speaking as one who did do it all, my recommendation is steer clear of it.

R2-12 is good as it pulls up the what you are opposing in PT that you have conflict with and with who/what you are in mortal combat and developing more and more charge on.

The bad news is that Hubbs mishandled and screwed up how you handle what you find!:nervous::grouch::duh:

Here's what to do . . .

You can do the listing questions of R2-12 and get "the item" (the nasty) . . . and that is worthwhile (if your case is up enough to handle it).

Then there are two options: One is to do Alan Walter's Presence 4 Process on the Identity/Beingness of the "who/what" found. (this not done by Hubbs)

But the other and best and eventual vital action to do is to ask this question (not Hubb's but this one) "What identity or Beingness do you go into or became to oppose (who/what found)?" This will get the identity and beingness you are aberratedly in in the game of opposing and trying to handle the "who/what." YOu then run Alan's Presence 3 Process on that Identity you are in when or because you are opposing the nasty.

And that, Sir, begins the correct case handling to handling "what ails you."

Hubbs made the error of trying only to locate a "who/what" that opposed the nasty found by the first R2-12 question but not then doing anything to process or clean up that beingness you wear to carry out the opposition . . . it was left on the case unhandled!!! (the idiot!)

If you really want to be brave, you can also then, after doing the Presence 3 on the identity/beingness of yours you found that opposes the nasty, ask the question: "What identity or Beingness were you being before you met (nasty who/what of 1st R2-12 question)?" Then do Presence 3 on that identity.

And that will totally unlock the package. There is more that can be done with this package . . . but that will suffice for here/now.

When you compare the above to Hubbs R2-12 R/D you'll see why R2-12 caused problems and ran into strife . . . . Hubbs triggered but did not run the identities discovered :duh: Was he trying to kill people?!? :angry:

I'll do a brief write up on the GPMs screw ups on a later post . . . I need to pull some references . . . the above was written off the top of my head.

R



You must have missed (or need to retread) the most important wannabe guru course of all Rog, me old mate ... it's called 'How to fake humility and influence people'.




:coolwink:
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Re: Part 1 on Actually Handling a Matrix

Then there are two options: One is to do Alan Walter's Presence 4 Process on the Identity/Beingness of the "who/what" found. (this not done by Hubbs)

But the other and best and eventual vital action to do is to ask this question (not Hubb's but this one) "What identity or Beingness do you go into or became to oppose (who/what found)?" This will get the identity and beingness you are aberratedly in in the game of opposing and trying to handle the "who/what." You then run Alan's Presence 3 Process on that Identity you are in when or because you are opposing the nasty.

If anyone wants to see more of what this is about, Alan's Presence 3 and Presence 4 processes are included in my PaulsRobot3 Prez module.

Paul
 

haiqu

Patron Meritorious
I'd like to "contribute to the motion" here if I may.

Wa-a-a-y back when I was a green student and all goggle-eyed at the possibilities, I got into a discussion with a staff member about the OT levels. He hadn't done them yet either - this was before Sydney had an AOSH, and we expected to have to go to the UK - and asked what I thought they might consist of.

I immediately replied that if Clear was on the first dynamic then OT had to handle the upper dynamics. He seemed surprised but said nothing much more. Years moved along and I eventually got to see the materials, and was somewhat disappointed to discover they had all this stuff about BTs and so on.

Well it seems as if I was right all along. A few days ago I listened to SHSBC 415 6502C23 Level VII (Confidential) for the first time and Hubbard says this explicitly. So where did that go? There should have been an address to this directly, and the closest I can find is one or two of the exercises of old OTVII, the public copy of which, btw, has dubious origins anyhow.

So I decided to put my talents to creating a new process, aligning it with some of the data from this thread.

---

Consider each dynamic separately, one at a time in rapid succession. On each dynamic scan over the symbiotes or team mates (from latest to earliest, if you consider them to be on a time stream). Scan each dynamic through once, moving to the next as soon as there are no more effects arising. There should be some interesting ones if your case is in the region where this process is applicable.

The only tricky one might be the 6th (MEST) but I simply considered times when I had utilized MEST for advantage to my own survival.

I ran the lot through about three times, total processing time was maybe a minute. With each pass I felt my space expanding and a sensation of calm take over. I almost expected to have new powers, but alas this was not the case with any of the tests I could perform easily.

Hope someone else finds this useful. The tape referenced above is also worth a listen.
 

haiqu

Patron Meritorious
Theoretical question, to nobody in particular:

Is there an equivalent of the dynamics in the theta universe that leads to a better understanding of that region? Hmmm. I may have to re-read some of Bill Robertson's stuff in a new light.

First answer: No, since a thetan can't help but survive the dynamics become irrelevant, except as an impression of experience.

Any higher viewpoints available?
 

Leon

Gold Meritorious Patron
There probably are higher dynamics, though I'm not fully convinced of it yet.

Pilot gives his list of them as being harmonics of sorts of the lower ones, CaptBill gives some of his while some higher ones are kept confidential, Filbert had his shot at them too.

What they are is still an open question. A good part of the problem here is that above the 8th Dyn you are entering an area where language as we know it starts to break down and meanings and English words no longer correlate very effectively.

And it's not about "survival" up there - more like something to do with "participating in creation" or "being aligned with the creative urge". Even here already words are inadequate.


What all of this comes down to is, as I said, that above 8th Dyn you're in a realm where language disintegrates ans no longer functions well. So the more asserted and pontificating rightness you encounter on what goes on up there the more likely is is that you are dealing with some version of bullshit.

Best is that you get up there and determine for yourself what goes on. Develop your own paradigms and "languages" and don't be too concerned if they don't align with what other people say.
 
Top