Differentiation: The ORIGINAL OT Levels Available Only In Independent Scientology

OperatingSP

Patron with Honors
I may have a MU, attempted to steep of a gradient, or lack mass on the relevant concepts, but it appears to me there might be some... uncertainty in Independent Scientology concerning the integration and order of the Original OT Levels and the "New," NOTs OT levels.

http://scientolipedia.org/index.php?title="New"_OT_Levels_vs._"Old"_OT_Levels

"New" OT Levels vs. "Old" OT Levels

NEW OT LEVELS VS OLD OT LEVELS By Patricia Krenik, June 1, 2012

I would like to start out with a “fair use” quote from Pierre Ethier’s, Class XII, upperlevelbridge.com because he says it so well:

“There is no such thing as OLD and NEW OT Levels, except within RTC's feverish mind (and therefore those of its followers). Except for "old OT I" (originally developed in 1966 and found in 1967 by LRH to be a dead-end), there has not been, since 1967 any "OLD OT Levels".

Its core issues written up in 1969, LRH found OT VIII to be "only for a High level Thetan", and the gradient simply too steep for most people, even a Full OT 7 completion. It took nearly a decade for tech to be developed to address those points.

Finally in 1978, LRH triumphantly announced that NOTS was the answer and the prerequisite for OT VIII.

NOTS was found to be a far longer rundown than originally expected. Unfortunately over the next few years, RTC and the CSI (Church of Scientology International) re-wrote the bridge solely for "Marketing" and "Income Making Purposes" and not for "technical Reasons". NOTS, became "New OT V". The Solo NOTS Course (NOT an OT level, by any standard), became "New OT VI", and Solo NOTS (essentially the continuation of NOTS auditing, but done Solo, became "New OT VII". This was done, disregarding the obvious fact that by making "New Levels", the previous ones of the same name automatically became "OLD", in complete contrast to the Issues on technical Degrades. The issues on technical degrades are deemed so important by LRH, that he has ordered them to be at the beginning of every single course in Scientology. There is also no issue whatsoever or even order from LRH advising to market NOTS and Solo NOTS as "New OT V-VII" and to drop the previous line-up. This was a "bright idea" entirely dreamed up by the "New Management".”

Here in Elma WA we refer to NOTS as “audited NOTs” and “solo NOTs” rather than to call it the “new OT V” or “new OT VII”. Ray (my husband) and I both consider this important, because the use of “new OT V” for example rather implies that the original OT V is “old and not used anymore”. Indeed, the original OT IV, V, VI, and VII were removed from the Classification, Gradation and Awareness Chart by the RTC, and is not on the RTC bridge. Totally removed from that bridge, yet those are vital steps for any being to increase his ability.

Unfortunately, we do not have a bridge written up that actually reflects what a c/s does or can do regarding the upper sections. No C/S trained properly would actually toss out the original OT Grades (often called “levels” even though the word “level” was primarily used for the training side of the bridge) and not use them simply because NOTs has arrived. The question becomes, when is the best time to introduce the original OT grades?

At our Revitalizing Ministry in Elma WA we follow the 1981 bridge, but with reservations. It really is important to get a pc, who has finished OT III onto NOTs as soon as possible. Yet the OT III Drug Rundown has not been canceled. The original OT VII which improved the pre-OT’s ability to project intention was at one time placed after OT III, to increase the person’s skill as a solo auditor among other things. (See C/S Series 39R). It would seem to me that that very same skill would be useful in solo auditing NOTs.

Then there is the matter of Dianetic Clears. Of course, currently they are just called “Clears” but the truth is they went clear without ever seeing the content of the Clearing Course. The original OT IV proofs up a being so he will never become the effect of any possible future CC course implant, so we certainly don’t want to drop out this technology.

In C/S Series 34R LRH recommends the L’s to be done after OT III. This HCOB was, of course written before the NOTs materials entered the standard tech scene. The L’s aren’t part of the bridge; they are considered “boosters”. Perhaps the ideal scene would be to consider the original OT grades as “boosters” and find an ideal place for them to be inserted on the bridge lineup. If the L’s are recommended after OT III, then certainly OT IV and possibly OT V (original) would find a home there for many people at the option of the C/S (Which puts them where they were on the original 1980 chart.)

I know one well trained NOTs C/S who is adamant on having the pre-OT going directly to audited NOTs, and if any sign of drugs reading do the NOTs Drug Rundown as soon as feasible. Yet in actual practice in the COS they ran the OT III Drug Rd. as soon as the person routed onto “New NOTs IV”.

In my practice I determine whether to do the OT III Drug Rd or not is based entirely on the person't drug history. Heavy history means "yes" on the OT III Dr Rd. and "yes" on the Nots Dr Rundown the moment NOTs ceases to produce gains.

LRH once mentioned that he wanted us to get busy and build a better bridge. Someone (I don’t remember who) once countered and said since then we have built a better bridge. That is partially true…the fact is there have been several “bridges” built since that comment of LRH, including the RTC bridge that overtly wiped out the OT levels and replaced them with NOTs without stating where these dropped out levels would be applied.

So I propose:

OT I
OT II
OT III
OT III, Drug Rundown if Necessary audited by another.
Optional…L’s, Super Power, (if not already run) (C/S discretion,
Original OT VII to improve ability to project intention (c/s discretion)
Audited NOTS
Solo NOTs Study
Solo NOTs to completion
Original OT levels not yet run
OT VIII

I believe this would be a better bridge than the RTC bridge. I would love input from other C/Ses on an Ideal Bridge.
 
I may have a MU, attempted to steep of a gradient, or lack mass on the relevant concepts, but it appears to me there might be some... uncertainty in Independent Scientology concerning the integration and order of the Original OT Levels and the "New," NOTs OT levels. ....

I found an article from David Mayo which offers an intelligent discussion of factors relating to "the bridge'. I've included the introductory paragraph along with a link to a copy of the article. I'm not sure of the original date. It seems to be from the IVY magazine, possibly in the early '90s or earlier. It's well worth the reading.

Recently, the CofS made some more changes in the grade chart. It's been changed quite a few times over the years, to a point where I don't think there is any such thing anymore as a "standard" grade chart. Alternatively, being very fair about it, one could say that there have been many "standard" greade charts. Maybe some grade charts have been more standard than others. Perhaps the idea behind grade charts is that of a precise sequence of actions on which a person would be audited. Along with that is the idea that if you don't receive auditing in that particular sequence, or if you are audited in a different sequence, the results wouldn't be as good. ...

Thoughts on the Grade Chart and Sequences - David Mayo


Mark A. Baker
 

This is NOT OK !!!!

Gold Meritorious Patron
I found an article from David Mayo which offers an intelligent discussion of factors relating to "the bridge'. I've included the introductory paragraph along with a link to a copy of the article. I'm not sure of the original date. It seems to be from the IVY magazine, possibly in the early '90s or earlier. It's well worth the reading.




Mark A. Baker

David Mayo is a HELL of a lot easier for me to read without becomming critical than Marty, Steve Hall, Hubbard, et. al.
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
The whole idea of a "Bridge to Total Freedom" is a ridiculous idea useful only as a sales device.
 

DartSmohen

Silver Meritorious Patron
Interestingly, the "original OT levels" IV-VI didn't work back in the 1970s. Why would they "work" now? :duh:

Read the claimed abilities and what you do on these amazing levels.

Here we go again . . . . more promises and claims that fail to materialize.

As I recall, old OT VII is now OT III Expanded (about improving intention). Generally one "finishes OT III", then does OT III EXP, and then with "improved laser intention", does MORE OT III . . . . . :confused2:

Them BTs just never seem to fully go away! :duh: :ohmy: :omg: :unsure: :lol:

Once again I will reiterate the FACTS behind the OT Levels.

Firstly, the OT levels were NEVER meant to be delivered for CASE GAIN
The idea was that the person made their case gains on the basics and grades. The OT levels were there for THETAN REHABILITATION.

The major change came in late 1967 when Hubbard decided that the organisation would no longer be responsible for its product. The attestation line was introduced and there went the whole game. It was a huge money spinner for him.

People had "quickie" grades (no real case gain), attested complete and through the introduction of the bullshit "Natural" Clear etc, individuals got to pay lots of money for their OT levels, attesting when they felt "complete" and going on to the next level.
I remember one guy who attested OT1-OT5 in ONE DAY.

The two things a being values most are status and identity. So, now these (completely unhandled) cases could swagger around replete in their new (bought) identities.

As for OT 4-6 being "unworkable", well they were to all but a couple of people. These people had already done 100's of hours of CCHs, Op pro by Dup, GPM running, many, many hours of Route 1 and 2,hundreds of hours of coaudit on Havingness, O/W, ser fac running. All in all, they had achieved a very high level of case gain. So, when it came to achieving the full EP of OT6, it was done under closed conditions.

Three people properly completed it, Otto Roos, Bill Robertson and myself. We did not attest, we were checked out after producing the required proofs.

I know all about this because I was the Chief of Advanced Courses when the AO opened on the ship in Valencia. All three of us had been through the full Clear Check at St Hill. I was one of only a few who went through the full OT2 check in late 1967. (Done by John McMaster - it took 3 hours).

Originally OT3 was supposed to take many months. The first students came to the ship expecting to be out of contact for several months. However, when Chris Weiderman from S.Africa "attested" OT3 after 2 days the floodgates opened and people poured on board to "complete" their OT levels.

Having been with Hubbard when he was "researching " OT3, we all knew it was a load of bollocks. That is why the "Loyal Officer" part was inserted in the script. It meant we didn't have to do the "BT handling" as it was basically an exercise in mental masturbation. Hubbard was a confirmed drug abuser. One of the side effects of cocaine use is to "try and rid oneselfof these things crawling on your skin"

I am sorry if I have punctured some of your sacred beliefs, but you should know the truth about it.

Dart
 
Dart - so you're saying the ot bridge stops at the completion of OT2 and the rest is bs? What about those people who did lots of OT 2 and started seeing masses on their bodies?

Mimsey
 

OperatingSP

Patron with Honors
As for OT 4-6 being "unworkable", well they were to all but a couple of people. These people had already done 100's of hours of CCHs, Op pro by Dup, GPM running, many, many hours of Route 1 and 2,hundreds of hours of coaudit on Havingness, O/W, ser fac running. All in all, they had achieved a very high level of case gain. So, when it came to achieving the full EP of OT6, it was done under closed conditions.

Three people properly completed it, Otto Roos, Bill Robertson and myself. We did not attest, we were checked out after producing the required proofs.
What were "the required proofs" that were "produced?" How were they "produced?"
.
 

guanoloco

As-Wased
Once again I will reiterate the FACTS behind the OT Levels.

Firstly, the OT levels were NEVER meant to be delivered for CASE GAIN
The idea was that the person made their case gains on the basics and grades. The OT levels were there for THETAN REHABILITATION.

The major change came in late 1967 when Hubbard decided that the organisation would no longer be responsible for its product. The attestation line was introduced and there went the whole game. It was a huge money spinner for him.

People had "quickie" grades (no real case gain), attested complete and through the introduction of the bullshit "Natural" Clear etc, individuals got to pay lots of money for their OT levels, attesting when they felt "complete" and going on to the next level.
I remember one guy who attested OT1-OT5 in ONE DAY.

The two things a being values most are status and identity. So, now these (completely unhandled) cases could swagger around replete in their new (bought) identities.

As for OT 4-6 being "unworkable", well they were to all but a couple of people. These people had already done 100's of hours of CCHs, Op pro by Dup, GPM running, many, many hours of Route 1 and 2,hundreds of hours of coaudit on Havingness, O/W, ser fac running. All in all, they had achieved a very high level of case gain. So, when it came to achieving the full EP of OT6, it was done under closed conditions.

Three people properly completed it, Otto Roos, Bill Robertson and myself. We did not attest, we were checked out after producing the required proofs.

I know all about this because I was the Chief of Advanced Courses when the AO opened on the ship in Valencia. All three of us had been through the full Clear Check at St Hill. I was one of only a few who went through the full OT2 check in late 1967. (Done by John McMaster - it took 3 hours).

Originally OT3 was supposed to take many months. The first students came to the ship expecting to be out of contact for several months. However, when Chris Weiderman from S.Africa "attested" OT3 after 2 days the floodgates opened and people poured on board to "complete" their OT levels.

Having been with Hubbard when he was "researching " OT3, we all knew it was a load of bollocks. That is why the "Loyal Officer" part was inserted in the script. It meant we didn't have to do the "BT handling" as it was basically an exercise in mental masturbation. Hubbard was a confirmed drug abuser. One of the side effects of cocaine use is to "try and rid oneselfof these things crawling on your skin"

I am sorry if I have punctured some of your sacred beliefs, but you should know the truth about it.

Dart

Dart, I would like to ask you some questions regarding what Otto stated in his story. He talked about the break down of "I" as identity, specifically this:

the breaking down of "I" as identity (an early forerunner of XII, which on the Avon he called "way upscale auditing")

From this link here.

Would you know anything about this remark and procedure mentioned or would you be able to have Otto talk more about this?

Thanks,

guano
 

Winston Smith

Flunked Scientology
The whole idea of a "Bridge to Total Freedom" is a ridiculous idea useful only as a sales device.

"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." --made famous by the great Janis Joplin. And boys and girls, we sure know we don't have even two dimes left to lose after our little LRH excellent adventure.

May Joan Tourtellot rest in peace. God damned cult.
 

AnonyMary

Formerly Fooled - Finally Free
I love it when Dart makes an appearance from his deserved life outside of the forum and posts the facts. We are fortunate to have him as a member here.

Thanks for popping, Dart, and and setting the record straight!
 

David C Gibbons

Ex-Scientology Peon
I found an article from David Mayo which offers an intelligent discussion of factors relating to "the bridge'. I've included the introductory paragraph along with a link to a copy of the article. I'm not sure of the original date. It seems to be from the IVY magazine, possibly in the early '90s or earlier. It's well worth the reading.
Mark A. Baker

Mark,

Thank you very much for providing a pointer to this interesting Mayo article. It re-inforces my impression of the man as a decent person. It also is interesting in that he doesn't directly call out LRH for the flaws Mayo sees in the way the grade chart/bridge was structured and sold at the time Mayo wrote this article.

I acknowledge that some here on this board strongly feel that EVERYTHING in Scientology is Hokum, but at least this Mayo article suggests that the claims should be dialled way down, which is an improvement.
 

AnonyMary

Formerly Fooled - Finally Free
Differentiation: The ORIGINAL OT Levels Available Only In Independent Scientology

I am cross-posting the following from Marty's blog for only one reason. Independent Scientology is further differentiating itself from the corporate Church of Scientology by endorsing and offering the ORIGINAL OT levels. (...snip)

Another pro-scientology message brought to you by the Terril Park of the Indies :eyeroll:
 

DartSmohen

Silver Meritorious Patron
Dart - so you're saying the ot bridge stops at the completion of OT2 and the rest is bs? What about those people who did lots of OT 2 and started seeing masses on their bodies?

Mimsey

The whole idea of a "Bridge" was to sell the product. Processing is for the client, not the org and its structure. Therefore to program a client to run communication processes before , say, ARCX is an arbitary decision. It was done for the benefit of training auditors, not processing clients.

There is only ONE way to process a client - handle what is there right now in PT. Once that is handled then handle the next thing that comes to the surface.

Power Processing can be delivered at any time, if the client need it. Ser Facs can be run over and over until the person achieves the desired outcome - moving up out of fixed conditions.

Probably the "meatiest" topic addressed was GPM handling. So, how many of you got to run R6EW ? Did your "Natural or Past Life Clear attestation" preclude you from running it?

So, when you went on to the OT levels, had you taken sufficient charge off your case to be able to address these actions properly ?

Forget about the concept of "The Bridge". It is a marketing concoction and has ingrained your thought and approach to the subject into Hubbard's paradigm.

The whole idea of the OT levels was to help you develop your spiritual abilities.

The whole concept of "BTs" is an inversion of the correct approach. You are not alone. You have your own spiritual team around you. When you set out to master an activity you need to practice and practice. That way your "team" also "get with the program" and you move on up to a level of mastery.

Consider this; what are the two most engramic things you can do to a being ? One is to force them into a space they don't want to be in, the other is to force them out of a space they are happy in.

Thererfore when you apply Hubbard's abberated procedures of "BT handling", what you are doing is to get rid of them from your space. Each time you do so, what have you created? An ARCXn BT. You have also created a space for another BT to come and join in.

Now, if you have a centre where a lot of this nonsense is going on, then you will find you wiill pick someone elses ARCXn being, who comes with all their own baggage in restim and "muddies the water".

Have you ever considered why there have been so many suicides, heart attacks, cancers, illness etc at centres where this has been going on?

Of course, there is the very occasional "suppressive" being. As Hubbard's top auditor I was tasked with piloting a very specific and highly dangerous procedure to handle them. The results were ofter violent but spectacular. The problem we had was that we found it impossible to train any auditors to successfully deliver this procedure. It was put in limbo. David Mayo (one of my Cl 8 students) pleaded with me to teach him how to do it, I declined. Davids strength is in being a Case Supervisor.

The highest level of processing skill is Class VII, Power Processing. It requires a perfect comm cycle to get the best results. Never mind the "status" of Class 9, 10, 11 or 12, these are basically additional processing techniques, but do not compare to the level of processing skill required to deliver Power.

So, back to your question. If you consider NOTS and Solo NOTS as an obscenity, you are halfway there. These actions have been introduced to milk MILLIONS from untrained and gullible public clients who are engaged in the ridiculous activity of trying to rid themselves of their entire spiritual team. It will never happen.

I am sure people finally attest only when they are so bored with doing this or they run out of money.

If you have not made adequate case gain on the basic processes running OT2 can trigger the cases of your spiritual team members. I would reccommend a few hundred hours of CCH's and OP Pro by Dup. Thst will get your team mates working with you and on your side.

The purpose of the OT levels is to regenerate the person's spiritual abilities. Running the CC and OT2 blows away a huge amount of GPM blockage.

Did you know why Hubbard closed the Sea Project and started the much diluted Sea Org? Well, people on the Sea Project were turning on all sorts of abilities and Hubbard went nuts because they were displqying abilities way beyond what he could accomplish in his drug addled state.

I hope this adequately answers your question. I know some of you have asked other questions, I will deal with them once you have digested this.

Dart
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
There is only ONE way to process a client - handle what is there right now in PT. Once that is handled then handle the next thing that comes to the surface.

Yup. Agree fully.

Several of my PaulsRobot modules start the session with http://paulsrobot3.com/common/topic.htm to determine what to take up in the session. Auditing off a canned list tends to violate this principle in spades, as does arbitrarily diving down the track fishing for some "earlier similar" that some half-assed theory says is there (as opposed to being forced to switch to the earlier- [or later-] similar because it is taking up the client's attention so much he can't see the first item any more).

Paul
 
... I hope this adequately answers your question. I know some of you have asked other questions, I will deal with them once you have digested this.

Dart

Thanks for the summary, Dart. It provides excellent context for aiding the process of sorting out things relating to scientology. If you have no objection, I may lift a copy of your post and put it in a couple of places where it may do some more good among those who don't frequent esmb. :coolwink:

BTW, you once spoke of the possibility of writing a text on your views on how best to deal with such matters as auditing addresses. This was possibly in tandem with Roger Boswarva and in light of the changes in Alan's organization after his death. I personally hope that idea is still in the cards.


Mark A. Baker
 
Last edited:
The whole concept of "BTs" is an inversion of the correct approach. You are not alone. You have your own spiritual team around you. When you set out to master an activity you need to practice and practice. That way your "team" also "get with the program" and you move on up to a level of mastery.

Consider this; what are the two most engramic things you can do to a being ? One is to force them into a space they don't want to be in, the other is to force them out of a space they are happy in.

Therefore when you apply Hubbard's abberated procedures of "BT handling", what you are doing is to get rid of them from your space. Each time you do so, what have you created? An ARCXn BT. You have also created a space for another BT to come and join in.
Hi Dart - it seems to me you are saying the inversion is removing your team, rather than improving them. Is my understanding correct? In your opinion, was Hubbard aware of this liability? If I read between the lines, am I surmising correctly, Hubbard started off with Dianetics, and the other processes invented in the early 50's, and as he started getting some sort of results, he attracted like minded individuals, who in concert, developed some of the processes, the procedures that gave the gains in the Sea Project. Not being a humble man, he destroyed the very things that would have saved man? It seems yet another dichotomy that ruled his life.

But where do we go from here? Can the developments found in the Sea Project be revisited? Resurrected? Or is it that only a few have gotten the gains and that is all she wrote?

Mimsey
 

OperatingSP

Patron with Honors
A follow-up post to Steve Hall on another thread that awaits moderation on Marty's blog:

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/scientology-review-by-steve-hall/#comment-239102
CommunicatorIC | November 11, 2012 at 11:35 pm | Reply

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Three preliminary observations. First, having given it some thought, I want to apologize if my comments above (below?) concerning the “sociopath question issue” were ridgy, ser-facy, or rude.

Secondly, the Scientology Reviews website is excellent from a technical standpoint and from an aesthetic standpoint. I have not seen a better designed and implemented site on the web. The fact that your family of Independent Scientology websites far surpass the corporate Church of Scientology websites despite the money at the corporation’s disposal is a testament to your ability.

Thirdly, and far more importantly, I couldn’t be more impressed with the objective substantive moderation policy concerning the reviews published to date. The fact that the review by “Daft” of A History of Man (a book I always had trouble with for the reasons stated in that review), the review by “Scientia” of Dianetics, and the review by “justme” of What is Scientology? were published is truly impressive and speaks volumes about the objectivity of your efforts. You are permitting the type of critical consumer feedback that would NEVER be allowed in a corporate Church of Scientology publication, forum or official comm line. Indeed, I am, to my ashamed surprise (ashamed because I prejudged your moderation policy), and to your credit, tempted to submit some reviews of my own.

I do have one technical question. Above, you state:

“The grade chart as it stands is per Dan Koon, what LRH wanted. What you do is your business, of course, but I’m not going to start a dialog of people second guessing LRH. The only problem I know of with the current Bridge is the “routes” at the bottom are messed up, but that is really no problem.”

Given this view, may I ask what you think of the current appropriateness, validity, applicability, workability, etc., if any, of the Original OT Levels? I am particularly thinking of the observation in the post “Scientology is Working” that:

“LRH’s original, never canceled, OT Levels are; OT I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII and VIII.
One can do Audited NOTs (New OT V), Solo NOTs (New OT VII) and then can do the original OT levels and have it all, just as LRH intended.

One could just do the original OT levels but, after starting on my NOTs, I see that it is best for me to do NOTs first.

The original OT levels are only being delivered in the Independent field.”

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2012/11/02/scientology-is-working/

Particularly given the, well, independent nature of Independent Scientology , I appreciate your above statement that, “What you do is your business,” but would appreciate your thoughts on the Original OT Levels. Your viewpoint on the Original OT Levels are important not only with respect to the particular topic of OT (as crucially important as it is), but also to larger issues of KSW and “standardness” vs. religious tolerance and acceptance of diversity.
 
There should be no argument with one doing the original OT levels, or 3M or 3GAXX or R2-12 or Route one or any of the others per Hubbard's KSW policies that all of the grades and processes are not "old" and thus valid, except perhaps Creative processing, which he said beefed up the bank.

However, getting Scavageology to allow one to do so would be considered squirrel, though the fools should offer them, since it represents a gold mine - think of all the new and old 8 comps sitting there, waiting for Super Power, having done their L's. They would jump on that band wagon faster than a Rockslamming needle.

Mimsey
 
Top