Keeping Alan C. Walter In View

[uniquemand]

You were disconnected from your daughter while you were still pregnant with her? You were ahead of your time!

I say Admin Scales are a very valid processing action. I think they should be the guiding structure of a person's progress in clearing, rather than the Grade Chart. Put together an Admin Scale. Work on it's programs and targets. When "charge" comes into view, go in session and handle it. From time to time, the Admin Scale may need to be completely revamped, as a result. Do this. Keep ruds clear.

I call this approach "Clear Objectives".

 

[Leon]

Take Be, Do and Have, stick them in a meat chopper and chop them into pieces, jumble them up, and Hey Presto! We have an "Admin Scale".

 

[RogerB]

Just a note on the GPM timeline: My goals were listed by LRH in 1956. I know that it was 1956 because I was mildly pregnant with my DISCONNECTED Daughter.
You have placed the goals finding at 1963, IIRC.
I admit that I have steered a wide swath around any goals listing since LRH denied my goal. I held the idea that "own goals" was a lock on "implant goals", and our own goal blew off as a lock.
Also, the question arises as to why the goals that we set when we do Admin Scales do not count as " own goals". I think that setting goals as an action on an Admin Scale is perfectly valid and is considerably easier than to go for them in auditing. An Admin Scale is prolly looked upon as a 3D activity, but those of us who have done them,have done them across the Dynamics.
What say ye Tech Mavens?

Challenge

This tech maven says this:

LRH lightly, very lightly touched on and dealt with "goals" and "purposes" at various times prior to the big push in Feb. '61 when he started off with S.O.P. Goals as written up in the Tech Vols. And the own goals and GPM tech continued to be developed and processed till April ’63. That’s the public and HCOB record. He certainly will have dealt with the stuff “off the record” before it hit HCOB publication.

As I wrote on Alan’s “Opening Pandora’s Box” thread, LRH made the idiotic statement in April, 1963, “That all goals/GPMs processed to date, were not your own, but implants.” That HCOB is not reproduced in the Tech Vols . . . along with many others HCOBs.

On February 24, 1964, Hubbard reversed himself with the HCO Policy Letter titled: “Urgent: Org Programming.” In it he stated:
“GPMs
“Issue publicly PCs do have their own goals and GPMs. The best way to get them run is to graduate up through the levels.
“The invalidation of the idea that a PC had his own goals was a severe blow. Invalidation of a PC’s own GPMs, calling them implants, produced an instant ARC Break and physical repercussions.
“So correct this quick on Broad Public Interest (BPI), regardless of classification.”

However Hubbard and the tech never returned to running the PC’s own Goals and GPMs. It is a dropped out and abandoned tech subject. He even knocked out ascertaining PC goals as part of session setup in the beginning Ruds.

So folks who came into Scn after April 1963 got the bum rap that implants are where it’s at, and your own goals “do not matter” as it’s implants that are screwing you.

As I look at this now, I actually get a little angry for I can’t see why LRH did this or let it happen unless he was colossally bent, dishonest, criminally irresponsible or really, as some hold, that he was a criminal fraud through and through. Certainly what he did in this respect was a colossal technical error and damaging to folks; and certainly criminally negligent “research.”

Personally, as noted in my Pasadena lecture, I have seen implants are an “in-the-physical universe light lock on the real deal" of your own creations and, of course, your own goals.

The idea of games and domains of existence and "universes" prior to or outside of and above the physical universe (PU) was not part of Scn tech till around 1978-80 . . . I wrote it up after I could not date locate a spiritual connection on OT3 in the PU, but found it to be way earlier . . . this finding later was introduced into Scn.

Obviously, we have had goals and purposes as spiritual Beings way before the existence of implants in the PU . . . for Hubbard to suggest or let it be a part of the tech that implants preceded own goals and that they are the basic is a gross irresponsible violation of truth.

The reverse is the case . . . . the "implanters" attempted to superimpose over and on top of and to "harness" the charge, force, and life-force of our own basic powers as locked up in or basic to our own goals/purposes.

“Goals,” as you note, Challenge, are not that “big” a deal . . . we are setting and creating them all the time! They are what sparks energy into the game. They are what directs our life-force. And whether it is done as part of an Admin Scale, or for personal reasons, they are still important to your life as they are what direct your life!

But it is the jammed-up, failed and encysted old goals/purposes that are locking up our true deep-down spiritual powers that are the problem. Our human level goals and purposes are light weight by comparison.

So, Hubbard was certainly in error, criminally so, to invalidate anyone’s goal(s). It is also a perversion of truth to portray “implants as being the basic on the subject, and that your own goals are lesser and only locks.”

The truth is, we have each been operating on and following an “own goal/purpose” (or more than one) since the beginning of our involvement in games, any games—for games are based on such. And we have been doing it for a very, very long time . . . way, way earlier than the PU and any attempts to control us with implants.

RogerB

 

[alex]

This tech maven says this:

LRH lightly, very lightly touched on and dealt with "goals" and "purposes" at various times prior to the big push in Feb. '61 when he started off with S.O.P. Goals as written up in the Tech Vols. And the own goals and GPM tech continued to be developed and processed till April ’63. That’s the public and HCOB record. He certainly will have dealt with the stuff “off the record” before it hit HCOB publication.

As I wrote on Alan’s “Opening Pandora’s Box” thread, LRH made the idiotic statement in April, 1963, “That all goals/GPMs processed to date, were not your own, but implants.” That HCOB is not reproduced in the Tech Vols . . . along with many others HCOBs.

On February 24, 1964, Hubbard reversed himself with the HCO Policy Letter titled: “Urgent: Org Programming.” In it he stated:
“GPMs
“Issue publicly PCs do have their own goals and GPMs. The best way to get them run is to graduate up through the levels.
“The invalidation of the idea that a PC had his own goals was a severe blow. Invalidation of a PC’s own GPMs, calling them implants, produced an instant ARC Break and physical repercussions.
“So correct this quick on Broad Public Interest (BPI), regardless of classification.”

However Hubbard and the tech never returned to running the PC’s own Goals and GPMs. It is a dropped out and abandoned tech subject. He even knocked out ascertaining PC goals as part of session setup in the beginning Ruds.

So folks who came into Scn after April 1963 got the bum rap that implants are where it’s at, and your own goals “do not matter” as it’s implants that are screwing you.

As I look at this now, I actually get a little angry for I can’t see why LRH did this or let it happen unless he was colossally bent, dishonest, criminally irresponsible or really, as some hold, that he was a criminal fraud through and through. Certainly what he did in this respect was a colossal technical error and damaging to folks; and certainly criminally negligent “research.”

Personally, as noted in my Pasadena lecture, I have seen implants are an “in-the-physical universe light lock on the real deal" of your own creations and, of course, your own goals.

The idea of games and domains of existence and "universes" prior to or outside of and above the physical universe (PU) was not part of Scn tech till around 1978-80 . . . I wrote it up after I could not date locate a spiritual connection on OT3 in the PU, but found it to be way earlier . . . this finding later was introduced into Scn.

Obviously, we have had goals and purposes as spiritual Beings way before the existence of implants in the PU . . . for Hubbard to suggest or let it be a part of the tech that implants preceded own goals and that they are the basic is a gross irresponsible violation of truth.

The reverse is the case . . . . the "implanters" attempted to superimpose over and on top of and to "harness" the charge, force, and life-force of our own basic powers as locked up in or basic to our own goals/purposes.

“Goals,” as you note, Challenge, are not that “big” a deal . . . we are setting and creating them all the time! They are what sparks energy into the game. They are what directs our life-force. And whether it is done as part of an Admin Scale, or for personal reasons, they are still important to your life as they are what direct your life!

But it is the jammed-up, failed and encysted old goals/purposes that are locking up our true deep-down spiritual powers that are the problem. Our human level goals and purposes are light weight by comparison.

So, Hubbard was certainly in error, criminally so, to invalidate anyone’s goal(s). It is also a perversion of truth to portray “implants as being the basic on the subject, and that your own goals are lesser and only locks.”

The truth is, we have each been operating on and following an “own goal/purpose” (or more than one) since the beginning of our involvement in games, any games—for games are based on such. And we have been doing it for a very, very long time . . . way, way earlier than the PU and any attempts to control us with implants.

RogerB

My God Roger. You asked me to no longer communicate with you, but I fear I must, as you are making a dogs breakfast of this whole goals thing.

Own goals are not aberrative. Simple. They are not.

The only goals that screw one up are ones that have an element of other determinism and unknown about them. And that in simple is what an implant is...not space opera, but simply goals and their components that are imposed to some extent on one and not fully known.

It can be as simple as the societal pressure to act a certain way. That is an implant.

Or incidents of un-confrontable force, H-bombs in volcanos and such. And a whole range in between.

Any omni soverign being's purely own goals are simple considerations, and can vanish at a whim. Nothing to get bothered about. The games matrix IS confrontable.

Yes sometimes a degree of other determinism or unknown influence or data is mixed with "own goals" and a bit of 2wc and maybe an emeter can help.

A "sane" being can see the goals they are operating on and act accordingly, changing the goals as fit the present situation. Only the unexamined, unknown and other sourced is detrimental to a person. These are not own goals.

Look at the out-list, invalidation effect "the codes" had on people when that was Alan's big thing. It solidified goals and assigned them an evaluated significance of being something separate from a beings own present time consideration. People died from it.

Alan C Walter was flipped in the the winning valence of L Ron Hubbard and thus his GPM between the goals "implanted" on him by scientology and his own, and thus his obsession with "own goals".

The only thing aberrative in the present is that which we have brought forward with us from the past.

 

[uniquemand]

I think own goals are the only valid reason to do processing. everything else, to me, is subtle implanting, and a waste of time at best. It's not the goal that's aberrative. It's the reasons why you aren't achieving it, or can't confront it, etc.

It doesn't have to be all that significant, though. I used to think so. Every day, and in every way, I'm getting better and better, though. Now, I think: pick something you want to do and do it. If you run across "charge" while in this pursuit, handle it. If, in the process of handling it, you decide that goal is no longer worth pursuing, stop it. Pick up a new goal (or better formulation of the old goal). Run with it. If you run across charge in the pursuit of it, handle it. Etc. Life teaches you what to handle. Looking at and "being with" the charge eventually handles it. Best if you have someone who will listen while you work it out, because by giving it voice, it sometimes helps to unpack and unload it. That's the function of an auditor. Listen. Get the person to look and be with "charge" (my metapsychology definition of charge is "repressed, unfulfilled intention"), until they spot all of it, confront it fully, and it ceases being unconfrontable or difficult for them. Then send them back to life.

And: bottom line, if you are charging people money for this, I think you are wrong.

 

[Leon]

I'm going to come in on this. Both Roger and Alex are correct, in their way.

For an implant to "stick" it must be perceived as important (by the implantee) and essential to his survival. If this does not happen then it will have no effect on him since he is not holding on to it.

So clearly, a skilled implanter will design his implant to align as closely as possible with the implantee's own goals and purposes and then implant something which pretends to align with that but actually insidiously bends the means to attain the goal to the implanters own desires. That's just Implanting 101.

So which comes first? Own goals, of course.

Can these be aberrative? Yes, indeed - when the being fails to attain the goal and flips into the opterm valence, and thenceforward setting up a full GPM for himself. This particular GPM will end only when the being has occupied and failed in every possible potential valence that the GPM allows for. Then he crashes TOTALLY, space collapses, all beingness collapses, all is black. VERY black.

Eventually some sort of lesser beingness type of being will crawl out of that and pursue a lesser goal, hoping that he will attain it.


Can implanted GPMs be effective? Yes, if - and only if - the implantee holds them closely to his bosom for his dear life's sake.

Should they be audited out? If he has charge on the area and he is interested in running it, then yes.

 

[Leon]

From the above it is clear that "other-determined" actions are effective against the person only when he self-determinedly decides that he should (for goal-attainment's sake) make them his own.

So we are back with 'one creates one's own bank'.

 

[RogerB]

My God Roger. You asked me to no longer communicate with you, but I fear I must, as you are making a dogs breakfast of this whole goals thing.

Own goals are not aberrative. Simple. They are not.

The only goals that screw one up are ones that have an element of other determinism and unknown about them. And that in simple is what an implant is...not space opera, but simply goals and their components that are imposed to some extent on one and not fully known.

It can be as simple as the societal pressure to act a certain way. That is an implant.

Or incidents of un-confrontable force, H-bombs in volcanos and such. And a whole range in between.

Any omni soverign being's purely own goals are simple considerations, and can vanish at a whim. Nothing to get bothered about. The games matrix IS confrontable.

Yes sometimes a degree of other determinism or unknown influence or data is mixed with "own goals" and a bit of 2wc and maybe an emeter can help.

A "sane" being can see the goals they are operating on and act accordingly, changing the goals as fit the present situation. Only the unexamined, unknown and other sourced is detrimental to a person. These are not own goals.

Look at the out-list, invalidation effect "the codes" had on people when that was Alan's big thing. It solidified goals and assigned them an evaluated significance of being something separate from a beings own present time consideration. People died from it.

Alan C Walter was flipped in the the winning valence of L Ron Hubbard and thus his GPM between the goals "implanted" on him by scientology and his own, and thus his obsession with "own goals".

The only thing aberrative in the present is that which we have brought forward with us from the past.

Boy, if that is your comprehension of what I wrote and intended to communicate . . . you are only demonstrating how loopy you really are!

Who is saying "own goals are aberrative?" Where is it even implied in what I wrote.

And as to your incessant attacks and lies about Alan's "Codes" Tech, it'd be sensible to have the actual truth of what the tech is before commenting on such. You have not studied the material, yet you spew invective and lies about it. Please name the "people who died from it."

And while you're here, please cite the instance(s) of me and Dart "third partying" Marty Rathburn and his folks on this board that you lied about over on another board/blog.

All you've managed to demonstrate is a) what a liar you are and b) the extent of your inability to understand what you read.

I write this rather pointedly in the effort to prevent good folks being misled by your invective and falsehoods.

RogerB

 

[alex]

Boy, if that is your comprehension of what I wrote and intended to communicate . . . you are only demonstrating how loopy you really are!

Snappy reparte old chap.

Who is saying "own goals are aberrative?" Where is it even implied in what I wrote.

It is certainly implied with the derision you have for Hubbard's seeming abandoment of "own goals" in favor of implants

"As I look at this now, I actually get a little angry for I can’t see why LRH did this or let it happen unless he was colossally bent, dishonest, criminally irresponsible or really, as some hold, that he was a criminal fraud through and through. Certainly what he did in this respect was a colossal technical error and damaging to folks; and certainly criminally negligent “research.”

Personally, as noted in my Pasadena lecture, I have seen implants are an “in-the-physical universe light lock on the real deal" of your own creations and, of course, your own goals."

If the "real deal" is own creations, own goals, do you or knowledgism then focus on processing implants? No. You process "from the positive". You attempt to process from the point of pressence in the game matrix that is native rather than implanted, which to me seems to validate the concept of own goals as something to be dealt with, something non optimum. Aberative.

Whereas the aberative content is the implanted portion of the goals package, the other intended, uninspected portion.

I believe this approach to have the same potential effect as an out list.

It "implants" (evaluates?) a false significance to a charged item, keeping it in power.

It is the subject of ethics, the self determined examination and contemplation of optimum survival, that is the "tech" for own goals.

And as to your incessant attacks and lies about Alan's "Codes" Tech, it'd be sensible to have the actual truth of what the tech is before commenting on such. You have not studied the material, yet you spew invective and lies about it. Please name the "people who died from it."

Perhaps you would forward the appropriate material to me, so that I may correct my understanding? My study of the codes does not include some of the secret material. Alan held this very closely. Do you have copies?

People didnt die directly as a result of the actual processing but later commited suicide. I believe it was 3 people out of the approximately 100 or so who had their codes completed.

Interestingly the same phenomenon is seen in misapplied scientology "L's" and the original release of OT8.

And while you're here, please cite the instance(s) of me and Dart "third partying" Marty Rathburn and his folks on this board that you lied about over on another board/blog.

The source of that information is not available for attribution. My apologies. I believe it to be true, even though I can not support the assertion. But then that is another boards drama isn't it?

All you've managed to demonstrate is a) what a liar you are and b) the extent of your inability to understand what you read.

Am I the only one who notices that you fail to engage me regarding the things I say and offer rebuttal when you disagree, but chose to attack my intelligence and character?

I write this rather pointedly in the effort to prevent good folks being misled by your invective and falsehoods.

RogerB

As I write what I do to provide "good folks" some "thinking points" when being fed notions that may be harmful or misleading. Your ascension to pundit status after the success of your Pasadena presentation has gone to your head.

Knowledgism is scientology chopped into pieces and reassembled with the substitution of parts of Wallace Wattles and Charlton Sheets where the lack of understanding of the original subject was missing.

Alex

 

[Mystic]

Alex! Bout time you showed up!

I was at St. Hill during all this goals carrying on. Man O man, we were hot and heavy into it: listing and nulling and looking for and trying to find a "goal" that would rocket-read 2 out of 3 calls in a check out (done by Herbie Parkhouse).

Hubbard-thing had to abandon "own goals" as, being but a conjured pseudo-entity absent of the sentient nature of thee and me, he/it had no "own" anything. He/it never had an "own goal" check out.

 

[Ted]

Alex! Bout time you showed up!

I was at St. Hill during all this goals carrying on. Man O man, we were hot and heavy into it: listing and nulling and looking for and trying to find a "goal" that would rocket-read 2 out of 3 calls in a check out (done by Herbie Parkhouse).

Hubbard-thing had to abandon "own goals" as, being but a conjured pseudo-entity absent of the sentient nature of thee and me, he/it had no "own" anything. He/it never had an "own goal" check out.

That certainly explains the sudden abandonment of own goals finding. He had a bognition followed by a service fac. "Hey, you all are responsible for my case. (He actually cracked that as a joke on a BC lecture.) If I don't have a goal then no one else does either!"

 

[Challenge]

My God Roger. You asked me to no longer communicate with you, but I fear I must, as you are making a dogs breakfast of this whole goals thing.

Own goals are not aberrative. Simple. They are not.

The only goals that screw one up are ones that have an element of other determinism and unknown about them. And that in simple is what an implant is...not space opera, but simply goals and their components that are imposed to some extent on one and not fully known.

It can be as simple as the societal pressure to act a certain way. That is an implant.

Or incidents of un-confrontable force, H-bombs in volcanos and such. And a whole range in between.

Any omni soverign being's purely own goals are simple considerations, and can vanish at a whim. Nothing to get bothered about. The games matrix IS confrontable.

Yes sometimes a degree of other determinism or unknown influence or data is mixed with "own goals" and a bit of 2wc and maybe an emeter can help.

A "sane" being can see the goals they are operating on and act accordingly, changing the goals as fit the present situation. Only the unexamined, unknown and other sourced is detrimental to a person. These are not own goals.

Look at the out-list, invalidation effect "the codes" had on people when that was Alan's big thing. It solidified goals and assigned them an evaluated significance of being something separate from a beings own present time consideration. People died from it.

Alan C Walter was flipped in the the winning valence of L Ron Hubbard and thus his GPM between the goals "implanted" on him by scientology and his own, and thus his obsession with "own goals".

The only thing aberrative in the present is that which we have brought forward with us from the past.

I turned a bright gold when my goal was invalidated. walked around looking like a Krugerand for about 2/3 weeks.
My solution to it was to fly to NYC, to the wholesale fur district, and buy a full length Autumn Haze mink coat.

Bloody Scientology!
I dropped "offlines" until Jack Horner came thru my life in prolly 1958.

I agree with this poster when it is said that Alan flipped into LRH's valence. Although there are many here who loved Alan, we are not blind. When Alan ran his Mission network, he was not very well liked by his clientele, nor his "staff". When I was working in his Mission, I had nothing personal to do with him because he was so in LRH's valence.I did not find that attractive. That was a common feeling at that time. He had recently left the ship. This was about 1967. Still under the LRH spell.( mindfuck).

Later on, after he was out of COS, he blew the valence. He was no longer openly arrogant. He still didn't want to get too close unless you were doing his tech.

I understand that.

Challenge

 

[Challenge]

You were disconnected from your daughter while you were still pregnant with her? You were ahead of your time!

I say Admin Scales are a very valid processing action. I think they should be the guiding structure of a person's progress in clearing, rather than the Grade Chart. Put together an Admin Scale. Work on it's programs and targets. When "charge" comes into view, go in session and handle it. From time to time, the Admin Scale may need to be completely revamped, as a result. Do this. Keep ruds clear.

I call this approach "Clear Objectives".

Yep. This is the way I conduct my life.

P.S. My DISCONNECTED DAUGHTER disconnected from me in 1984, several months after I resigned from the Truman Show.

Challenge

 

[uniquemand]

Yep. This is the way I conduct my life.

P.S. My DISCONNECTED DAUGHTER disconnected from me in 1984, several months after I resigned from the Truman Show.

Challenge

That's a fucking long time to be disconnected. I've only had to deal with it for thirteen years.

 

[freemefree]

I like everything I have read by Alan Walter so far. I wish I would have found him before the COS.
With Alan I understand and do not feel talked down to or talked at like I do when I listen to LRH's lectures. Do not get me wrong I have enjoyed what I learned from LRH. However, Mr. Walter's was obviously more intelligent of the two. IMO

 

[uniquemand]

That's exactly how I feel (and felt) when I read Metapsychology.

Metapsychology has ONE textbook. All other books are explorations of ideas in the first book, written by Gerbode.

I joke with Dr. Gerbode that I thank him for writing that book so I don't have to think anymore. First time I said it to him, he looked apoplectic, then he realized I was kidding. He does NOT want to be a guru!

 

[Ted]

I like everything I have read by Alan Walter so far. I wish I would have found him before the COS.
With Alan I understand and do not feel talked down to or talked at like I do when I listen to LRH's lectures. Do not get me wrong I have enjoyed what I learned from LRH. However, Mr. Walter's was obviously more intelligent of the two. IMO

Don't let the title of the thread mislead. Alan was no saint. And you did not want to get on his bad side.

 

[RogerB]

Snipped . . . .

If the "real deal" is own creations, own goals, do you or knowledgism then focus on processing implants? No. You process "from the positive". You attempt to process from the point of pressence in the game matrix that is native rather than implanted, which to me seems to validate the concept of own goals as something to be dealt with, something non optimum. Aberative.

Alex

I'm not going to get into a slanging match with You Alex . . . as I said I respond to shit like you throw out only to ensure the good folks on ESMB don't get misled.

What I cite above is an example of either your incessant effort to distort truth and workable tech or your total inability to see what is actual.

My statement in Pasadena that you are misrepresenting and destructively distorting refers to that fact that our own goals are valuable, and that they are processed, not to be erased and blown, but to be honored, recovered and restored to us.

But I think you actually know that and are simply being destructive.

The rest of your diatribe I don't have the time to deal with. You and your crap are not that important.

But if you want to make accusations about deaths of folks: provide facts and who's . . . not "rumor." If you want to post elsewhere that Dart or I 3P'ed Marty R, cite and show such . . . otherwise stand as the liar you are demonstrating yourself to be.

R

 

[nw2394]

My God Roger. You asked me to no longer communicate with you, but I fear I must, as you are making a dogs breakfast of this whole goals thing.

Own goals are not aberrative. Simple. They are not.

You've blundered with your opening statement, Alex. Nobody ever said they are aberrative per se - you've not understood that which you apparently seek to belittle.

Nick

 

[alex]

You've blundered with your opening statement, Alex. Nobody ever said they are aberrative per se - you've not understood that which you apparently seek to belittle.

Nick

So maybe I am terminally dense...

If own goals are not aberrative, why are they a subject of address with processing?

There is much I dont understand. But I am regaining my will to blunder....