Keeping Alan C. Walter In View

[uniquemand]

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....

Aberrations cluster around own goals. They are not aberrative, but the failures and other sorts of charge around them are.

 

[Veda]

Comments by Dart:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=174810&postcount=24

And by Alan:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=175063&postcount=30

IMO, part of the problem that the C of S or certain "Independent Scientologists" have with Dart and Alan stems from their acknowledgement of Hubbard's drug use, not just during the 1950s, but also after the establishing of the Sea Org.

Their rejection of the "Grade Chart" (particularly parts of the "upper level Grade Chart"), also irritates many Scientologists. This is particularly puzzling to "Standard Tech" promoters, who sell the "LRH Bridge" and are willing to take advantage of those, still under Hubbard's spell, who "want their LRH Bridge."

This discussion of "Own GPMs" vs "Implant GPMs" has been around for some time. This is one example from almost 25 years ago, from 'Messiah or Madman?' ('Clay in the Master's Hands' chapter):

"The next level, 'old style' goals processing or 'clearing', dealt with the rehabilitation of the person's own ability to create his own life and locate and follow his own current goals. It was discontinued...

"Only warped little cross-eyed Buddhas on this assembly line, thank you.

"In its place since then is a procedure that reflects Hubbard's recurring fixation on science fiction type scenarios consisting of 'hypnotically implanted goals'. Such goals were said to have been deliberately and maliciously installed into a persons subconscious mind in many lifetimes...

"Hubbard had [earlier] dismissed his own idea of 'implanted goals' as of no real consequence, being '1000 times less powerful', in the effect of missing someone up, than the person's own contradictory goals. That all changed..."

Others -over the years - have made similar observations.

 

[nw2394]

So maybe I am terminally dense...

I dunno - probably not.

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

Good. We wouldn't want you be a victim Hopefully that can be put to bed.

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

The goal itself is not the source of the problem - but it is the source of the being's will to be in motion in the first place. And, as things go along, so beings can also adopt unusual solutions in the pursuit of that goal (or goals). So the goal - at least in its original form - is not the problem - but it is a hot area to look for things to audit.

Lets see if I can actually lever some understanding of the difference of approach of Kn and Scn into your Scn oriented mind (mine is a bit too - so you're not entirely alone). In Scn we have the false purpose R/D - which is fine. However, the spin on it - the unstated, scientological assumption is that the purposes to be audited are unwanted, perhaps evil and were adopted after some sort of confusion. Nothing especially wrong with that per se. But what if you did that R/D without the spin? What if you took up purposes that were not necessarily evil, but things which you actually wanted to do - but had just maybe gone awry in some way? Or perhaps even not gone awry, but weren't being achieved in satisfactory measure? Well.... I don't know whether you see or not - but there is stuff you could take up there - and, at least for someone in relatively good shape - hotter than merely picking off unwanteds.

Nick

 

[Mark A. Baker]

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

Call me "simple minded" I find this patently absurd on its face. Own postulates are the ONLY thing about a session I've ever found to have truly aberrative impacts. Spot the postulate(s) that are out of whack and you're essentially done with the session heavy lifting and have produced a miraculous change. Goals are of course one form of postulate, hence their aberrative potential.

Even "implant goals" are only aberrative to the degree an individual undertakes them as his "own". The aberration being the CONSIDERATIONS about ownership. Accepting "implant goals" as somehow senior is just another manifestation of abandonment of responsibility (yet another own postulate).


Mark A. Baker

 

[alex]

I dunno - probably not.



Good. We wouldn't want you be a victim Hopefully that can be put to bed.



The goal itself is not the source of the problem - but it is the source of the being's will to be in motion in the first place. And, as things go along, so beings can also adopt unusual solutions in the pursuit of that goal (or goals). So the goal - at least in its original form - is not the problem - but it is a hot area to look for things to audit.

Lets see if I can actually lever some understanding of the difference of approach of Kn and Scn into your Scn oriented mind (mine is a bit too - so you're not entirely alone). In Scn we have the false purpose R/D - which is fine. However, the spin on it - the unstated, scientological assumption is that the purposes to be audited are unwanted, perhaps evil and were adopted after some sort of confusion. Nothing especially wrong with that per se. But what if you did that R/D without the spin? What if you took up purposes that were not necessarily evil, but things which you actually wanted to do - but had just maybe gone awry in some way? Or perhaps even not gone awry, but weren't being achieved in satisfactory measure? Well.... I don't know whether you see or not - but there is stuff you could take up there - and, at least for someone in relatively good shape - hotter than merely picking off unwanteds.

Nick

You are still dealing with the portion that is the negative, rather than the present time, fully aware, ethically created goal.

In my view, all of life, all we do is driven by the same life force, good, evil and in between, and its the stuck bits of unexamined stuff, agreements from the past, decisions, moments of unconsciousness and the associated automaticities playing along with the life forces push, like parasitic pseudo entities, that spoil the game, or at least keep it from being boring.

It is the unwanted stuff that hides from examination in effect.

The scientology approach assumes some pattern or possiblity of common elements. The knowledgism approach denys that.

Sure it feels good to run what you want. It also leaves a very big opportunity for avoidence of the more difficult to confront.

Knowledgisms big problem is the ascension experience effect, running into bigger problems, a higher level of "case", when processing is successful. This is the "take up the persons own wants, effect", it deals with validating what a person thinks is their own determinism, yet still needs to find the elements which hinder it.

Who is to say that a goal would remain when all the ancilliary junk is stripped off?

Why not directly address the common and know mechanisms that hinder a person, leaving them to expand unfettetered? And make new goals, in a new unit of time.

Just because a goal is ones own, does not make it sacrosanct. It does not mean it is relevant in the present, when all negative material is fully examined.

From what I have read about the levels above ot7, (per Pierre and Ralph) more native impulses created by life are the subject of address, rather than the deritus of the past. But our garbage does need dealing with before that can happen.

imo.

 

[alex]

Call me "simple minded" I find this patently absurd on its face. Own postulates are the ONLY thing about a session I've ever found to have truly aberrative impacts. Spot the postulate(s) that are out of whack and you're essentially done with the session heavy lifting and have produced a miraculous change. Goals are of course one form of postulate, hence their aberrative potential.

Even "implant goals" are only aberrative to the degree an individual undertakes them as his "own". The aberration being the OWNERSHIP. Accepting "implant goals" as somehow senior is just another manifestation of abandonment of responsibility (yet another own postulate).


Mark A. Baker

Perhaps you would agree then if I said goals made in full awareness of all factors, and uninfluenced by faulty data? (Goals lacking implant elements).

Surely ones own goals can lead to bad outcomes, but it is the unknown or coercive factor which leads to the misownership, and thus the abberation.

And a goal is different than a postulate, a postulate is a decision about how something will be, a goal is less as it is just a decision as to direction of effort. A goal is not an assumption of out come, as a postulate is.

My personal concept of implant would include much subtler influences than h bombs and volcanos, it could be as subtle as a kiss and a lie from an evil woman.

Advertising is an implant. How our mommies raised us is part of our implanting, contagion of abberation, you know. Cultural norms, societal norms, our education, all implanting. And so subtle as to escape inspection.

The power to set "correct" goals is hindered by that which we have taken in, yet not fully examined. Goals made in full cognizance are not abberative.

I would call these our own goals.

 

[nw2394]

You are still dealing with the portion that is the negative, rather than the present time, fully aware, ethically created goal.

Yeah. It is true that if it is a useful subject of address then there must be some sort of negative or misalignment in there somewhere. Indeed, for a long time, I thought as you do now in relation to this.

The emphasis, shifting from the negative to the positive, is more in relation to where to look rather than anything else - but it is an important shift all the same. Someone who *only* looks for negatives will tend to strip things away and strip more away ad infinitum - it can have the effect that, in the end, you see most things as bad. But some things that you need to look at only really answer if addressed from the point of view of the positive. Such "BTs" if you must call them that (its a term I've always hated) don't think of themselves as negative - they do respond if you regard them as - well the Kn term is teammates (not sure I like that term a whole lot better) - but they see themselves as "assistants" and such like. They get *very* BIs if you see them as detritus to be removed.

I can't emphasise the above enough really - it is important that you don't see everything as a negative to be stripped away.

It is the unwanted stuff that hides from examination in effect.

Well that isn't exactly my observation - some of the stuff that regards itself as important to you will hide from being gotten rid of and deliberately go invisible - they go into sad effect when they see things being gotten rid of that they couldn't agree should go. Whether they are right about that or not is quite beside the point - you tend not to even find them to audit.

The scientology approach assumes some pattern or possiblity of common elements. The knowledgism approach denys that.

Dunno what this means. Kn and Scn - though Alan would have hated anyone saying it - are one helluva lot similar. By far the biggest single difference is the emphasis shifting from the negative to the postive - IMO.

Sure it feels good to run what you want. It also leaves a very big opportunity for avoidence of the more difficult to confront.

You have to watch that with any PC - ooh - and self too

Knowledgisms big problem is the ascension experience effect, running into bigger problems, a higher level of "case", when processing is successful. This is the "take up the persons own wants, effect", it deals with validating what a person thinks is their own determinism, yet still needs to find the elements which hinder it.

Scn has ascension experiences too - and has the same possibility for the after effects. I speak from experience.

Who is to say that a goal would remain when all the ancilliary junk is stripped off?

Maybe it would - or maybe it wouldn't - depends on the degree to which that goal is a genuinely chosen goal versus it being a solution to the last problem you had. In any event maybe you won't even get it in the first place without acknowledging some of the positives about it too!

From what I have read about the levels above ot7, (per Pierre and Ralph) more native impulses created by life are the subject of address, rather than the deritus of the past. But our garbage does need dealing with before that can happen.

It won't disagree that detritus needs to be stripped away too. I can't tell you about Pierre as I don't really know the man - but I can tell you that, although Ralph sees himself very much as a "standard techie", of all the independents, he probably had more respect for Alan than any other single person. Ted is another name high on his list.

I haven't spoken to Ralph about Alan since ESMB came into existence - so I don't really know what he thinks about Alan changing his stance wrt to OT2 - Alan used to like it - and so does Ralph - and so did I - though I do acknowledge that it doesn't seem like the best next major step for everyone taking their first look at "OT" material.

Nick

 

[alex]

My current belief is that looking at either negative or positive is to be still embedded IN some game to an extent beyond full awareness.

Negative and positive, good and evil, are assigned significance, not external realities.

Hubbard recommends a neutral attitude towards "BT's". I agree. "They" are connections, with associated unexamined influence. Why does there need to be a connection? In PT any needed interaction with others can simply exist or not depending on circumstance, with out prior connections.

The "deritus" then is really ones own considered opinion of things, negative, positive or whatever else is not a purely present time, fully aware perception.

So OK, positive may need to be addressed also! (and removed?) No, we still need a game and terminals in opposition to "play".

Perhaps it is solely my "case" which brings me to my opinions. And I certainly have much bpc connected with Alan. I was almost flat on it once...

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=274427&postcount=245

And this spring sunday morning feel almost flat on it again...

Yeah. It is true that if it is a useful subject of address then there must be some sort of negative or misalignment in there somewhere. Indeed, for a long time, I thought as you do now in relation to this.

The emphasis, shifting from the negative to the positive, is more in relation to where to look rather than anything else - but it is an important shift all the same. Someone who *only* looks for negatives will tend to strip things away and strip more away ad infinitum - it can have the effect that, in the end, you see most things as bad. But some things that you need to look at only really answer if addressed from the point of view of the positive. Such "BTs" if you must call them that (its a term I've always hated) don't think of themselves as negative - they do respond if you regard them as - well the Kn term is teammates (not sure I like that term a whole lot better) - but they see themselves as "assistants" and such like. They get *very* BIs if you see them as detritus to be removed.

I can't emphasise the above enough really - it is important that you don't see everything as a negative to be stripped away.



snip
Nick

 

[alex]

snip


It won't disagree that detritus needs to be stripped away too. I can't tell you about Pierre as I don't really know the man - but I can tell you that, although Ralph sees himself very much as a "standard techie", of all the independents, he probably had more respect for Alan than any other single person. Ted is another name high on his list.

snip

Nick

Yes Ted does seem a decent sort...

 

[nexus100]

My current belief is that looking at either negative or positive is to be still embedded IN some game to an extent beyond full awareness.

Negative and positive, good and evil, are assigned significance, not external realities.

Hubbard recommends a neutral attitude towards "BT's". I agree. "They" are connections, with associated unexamined influence. Why does there need to be a connection? In PT any needed interaction with others can simply exist or not depending on circumstance, with out prior connections.

The "deritus" then is really ones own considered opinion of things, negative, positive or whatever else is not a purely present time, fully aware perception.

So OK, positive may need to be addressed also! (and removed?) No, we still need a game and terminals in opposition to "play".

Perhaps it is solely my "case" which brings me to my opinions. And I certainly have much bpc connected with Alan. I was almost flat on it once...

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=274427&postcount=245

And this spring sunday morning feel almost flat on it again...

There is no "neutral" view of anything in this place, my opinion. There is love and understanding as creation (or mutual creation) to the degree one is willing to acknowledge that creation.

I agree creating a system to use to interact with creation is not the process of understanding. I think Alan wanted to create a system that involved others and cleverly did so. Any created system is just one more thing to solve. That's what we've all been doing, of course. Wheels within wheels.

 

[nw2394]

So OK, positive may need to be addressed also! (and removed?) No, we still need a game and terminals in opposition to "play".

My thought is let them be what they want to be - which may mean that they clear off - or may mean that they stick around. I don't like to override their determinism.

Nick

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Perhaps you would agree then if I said goals made in full awareness of all factors, and uninfluenced by faulty data? (Goals lacking implant elements).

Such is meaningless to me.

Goals are always set from some sort of limitation on perspective. That is a requirement of any sort of an activity (i.e. "game"). As such "full" is inherently limited by the scope of the activity.

Any "irrational goal" is "rational" from within the limited scope of its goal. The rationality breaks down when the issue of the validity of the scope of the game is raised. That "validity" is a consideration outside the scope of the game. At some prior point a consideration apparently has set the scope for a limited game.

Hence recovering such prior considerations allows the elimination of unwanted patterns. This latter is commonly experienced in auditing as a result of "spotting the postulate".

Any "goal" is indicative of some sort of "limited game". That limitation suggests a prior consideration of limitation. It's the chicken or egg question, or as Buddhism discusses it the chain of causality.

Manifestations, being innately limited, exhibit just such chains of causality. Absolutes (static?) if such are taken as having some sort of reality, albeit metaphysical, are unlimited in range and unbound by chains of causality. Thus, Absolutes are not manifested but can serve as limits on what it is possible to manifest.

Admittedly this is a bit circuitous, but it reflects the pattern of manifestation & absolutes, or chain of causality & consideration. It's also a bit of what Plato has in mind with his Theory of Forms, as well as the Vedic Principle of Creation, or Hubbard's "Be,Do,Have".


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mystic]

Such is meaningless to me.

Goals are always set from some sort of limitation on perspective. That is a requirement of any sort of an activity (i.e. "game"). As such "full" is inherently limited by the scope of the activity.

Any "irrational goal" is "rational" from within the limited scope of its goal. The rationality breaks down when the issue of the validity of the scope of the game is raised. That "validity" is a consideration outside the scope of the game. At some prior point a consideration apparently has set the scope for a limited game.

Hence recovering such prior considerations allows the elimination of unwanted patterns. This latter is commonly experienced in auditing as a result of "spotting the postulate".

Any "goal" is indicative of some sort of "limited game". That limitation suggests a prior consideration of limitation. It's the chicken or egg question, or as Buddhism discusses it the chain of causality.

Manifestations, being innately limited, exhibit just such chains of causality. Absolutes (static?) if such are taken as having some sort of reality, albeit metaphysical, are unlimited in range and unbound by chains of causality. Thus, Absolutes are not manifested but can serve as limits on what it is possible to manifest.

Admittedly this is a bit circuitous, but it reflects the pattern of manifestation & absolutes, or chain of causality & consideration. It's also a bit of what Plato has in mind with his Theory of Forms, as well as the Vedic Principle of Creation, or Hubbard's "Be,Do,Have".


Mark A. Baker

Yes, of course. All this is quite within the parameters of the superannuated decompression of all hyperbolic attenuations pre-concluded without reference to a sub-basis of decomposing hallucinations egobloated with a myriad of non-experienced paramental transmutations.

 

[alex]

My thought is let them be what they want to be - which may mean that they clear off - or may mean that they stick around. I don't like to override their determinism.

Nick

Yes. Overdiding their determinism, whether to stay or to go would be implanting.



While I do agree that the processing of entities, incarnate or not, should be in their best interests, it should not be at their direction.

Thus the solution is a relative neutral handling of impendiments. When the impediments are handled...well then they are free to pursue their own goals.

 

[alex]

Such is meaningless to me.

Goals are always set from some sort of limitation on perspective. That is a requirement of any sort of an activity (i.e. "game"). As such "full" is inherently limited by the scope of the activity.

Any "irrational goal" is "rational" from within the limited scope of its goal. The rationality breaks down when the issue of the validity of the scope of the game is raised. That "validity" is a consideration outside the scope of the game. At some prior point a consideration apparently has set the scope for a limited game.

Hence recovering such prior considerations allows the elimination of unwanted patterns. This latter is commonly experienced in auditing as a result of "spotting the postulate".

Any "goal" is indicative of some sort of "limited game". That limitation suggests a prior consideration of limitation. It's the chicken or egg question, or as Buddhism discusses it the chain of causality.

Manifestations, being innately limited, exhibit just such chains of causality. Absolutes (static?) if such are taken as having some sort of reality, albeit metaphysical, are unlimited in range and unbound by chains of causality. Thus, Absolutes are not manifested but can serve as limits on what it is possible to manifest.

Admittedly this is a bit circuitous, but it reflects the pattern of manifestation & absolutes, or chain of causality & consideration. It's also a bit of what Plato has in mind with his Theory of Forms, as well as the Vedic Principle of Creation, or Hubbard's "Be,Do,Have".


Mark A. Baker

And thus, goals which the postulates are spotted in relative significance to the known game would be non abberative.

While the larger playing field may be.

And goals which the operant postulates are unseen, due to self imposed conditions or by others machinations would be.

Same thing, different realtivity to absolutes...

I will await Rogers forwarding to me the complete "Codes" materials, which deal with the basic individual goals of a being, supposedly at the first stage removed from static, before I comment further.

This is a thread about Alan not alex!

 

[degraded being]

The mind boggles.

 

[Mystic]

The mind boggles.

Ain't it the truth!

And spirit laughs.

 

[Hatshepsut]

GAMES MATRIX TECHNOLOGY - I

This is to announce the completion of the GAMES MATRIX TECHNOLOGY!

All of our technology has been designed around one objective in mind – that is to set each client up so that they can develop the abilities needed to be masters of their chosen Games of Life.

The GAMES MATRIX TECHNOLOGY is the core technology that will if done correctly and fully - help you achieve that level of ability mastery.

The Zones, the Vital Fundamental Courses, the Basic Courses, the Life by Design Courses are gradient set ups for running the GAMES MATRIX TECHNOLOGY.

There are two moods and levels of existence that prevents a person from Being - Doing – and Having All what they would love to Be – Do - and Have.

These two moods and levels of existence create almost all bad conditions in life.

FEAR and ANXIETY are the twin terror moods and levels of existence.

FEAR stems from the – DISTRUST OF SELF.

ANXIETY stems from the DISTRUST OF OTHERS.

It takes a great deal of bravery and personal integrity to face up and fully duplicate and permeate one’s FEARS and ANXIETIES.

Few can do it.

Most will find an infinity of ways to explain, justify, rationalize and make excuses so that they cannot be present and therefore do not need to face it – hence they are continuously running away from their chronic FEARS and ANXIETIES.

It appears the greatest FEARS and ANXIETIES are to do with POWER.

FEAR OF POWER – is the personal “avoidance” stop that each being has put on themselves.

The problems caused by the distrust of themselves and their use of power and the distrust of others having power is the cause of the Red Zone Games Condition that most people have put themselves into in order to solve these problems.

Fear of being fully present, fear of being all you can be, fear of being fully known, fear of standing out, fear of taking a powerful position, fear of great success, fear of great fame, fear of love, fear of being omni-responsible, etc., are all stopping a person from being all they can be – which in turn causes others to not be all they can be.

The GAMES MATRIX TECHNOLOGY erases those FEARS and ANXIETIES and restores your inner-core greatness whilst at the same time allowing you to take off the stops, inhibitions and restraints that are preventing you from being all you can be – and consequently begins to allow others to discover their inner-core greatness and be all they can be.

Alan

PATTERNS OF LIFE - GAMES MATRIX – II

In order to handle fear and anxiety you set up a set of preprogrammed patterns in order to survive.

It is these patterns that are contained within a Games Matrix.

The definition of a Games Matrix is:

A surrounding formed substance that is a container of life energy within which all parts of a game is created, formed, originated, played, and controlled to a targeted result.

Within that container is also an arrangement of elements in a game playing series of circuits that perform specific functions in order to win or survive the game.

A Games Matrix is similar to a chicken egg – there is the egg shell within which there is an arrangement of elements (white and yoke) in a circuit that perform specific functions. The egg is designed to survive and grow into a fully formed chicken - it to wishes to survive.

There are vast amounts of these Games Matrices each dedicated to surviving.

The problem is they were often made a long time ago and they are no longer appropriate for today’s life or living. Yet for many they are stuck in an old Games Matrix.

The Games Matrix circuits are very fixed – very resilient – very controlling – very demanding – very survival orientated.

Most people live their lives following and dramatizing the same set of patterns over and over again – so powerful are these Games Matrices that the person cannot even conceive of anything outside of the Games Matrix they are stuck in.

The Games Matrix pattern contains a quantity of life force – an intention – a vision – a mind set – a body to implement the mind set in the physical universe and a targeted result.

A full Games Matrix Package contains several hundred Games Matrix Paradigm Spheres – these usually were produced from a high Gold Zone state - these are linked together in a gradient downward set of ever smaller Games Matrix Packages that decline downward from the top of the Gold Zone – then downward from the top of the Green Zone – then downward from the top of the Yellow – and then downward from the top of the Red Zone to its bottom.

The reason the Games Matrix Packages were created was to maintain and monitor the control over ones power – the reason that one went on a downward spiral of Game Playing is that one caused harm to others – thus the person inhibited their power.

The Games Matrix Packages are also designed to oppose each other – what is common to all Games Matrices and what gives them their energy and power is the original intention and holographic vision – often at the bottom of the Games Matrix Package you will find that the person has now become completely opposed to the original intention and holographic vision – and is now obsessively attempting to destroy it.

Games Matrix Packages are always dichotomous in nature. That is they contain “intentions – versus – counter intentions” - “force – versus – counter force” “power – versus – counter power”

It is these dichotomous aspects that hold the Games Matrix Packages together and causes them to float forward into present time.

The reason these Games Matrix Packages have never been found and erased is they contain autonomous survival defenses. So powerful are these defenses that most people will not go near them – it takes very specific processes - a very brave processor and a very well trained strong team to run the Games Matrix Packages.

It is also why it has taken me nearly 50 years to discover how to gradiently handle and erase the unwanted Matrices.

Alan

Thanks for this Ted.
I experienced waffling in and out reading this. I have been inspecting my own matrixes and running their imbedded impressions. Every time I come out of one I hit another. And sometimes that other is huge....and I realize why I was hiding in the one I just emerged from. That one being abandoned ....well, I often get confused as to where to go from there. I use various techniques as none seem to work invariable all the time. This last time, I went exterior I was pulling in what seemed to be a whole chain of genocides. I got scared but scanned back to the first contact this lifetime that I remembered this 3D impression going active in my space. Sure enough, it was when I went down to the Miami Org to fix my then Int trouble....and cheated on my boyfriend with the auditor while there! That kinda sealed the deal that I could 'not be trusted'. I've had the worst Int in the world via not trusting myself.. Clobbering, anihilating, self-sabotaging, physically injuring myself ..... Always just when I was getting huge. I surmised I could not possibly be doing these things to myself. I just would not hurt myself as bad as I was being injured. (But I'd set up circumstances to do it for me!) I gave others the roles to do it with. Amazing. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Not good.

I can say this..... just as I was basking in the glory of finding out I had a valence once as 'rescuer' to humanity, an associated valence involving the transporting of unwanted thousands out of one locality and affixing them in another came to view. Oy vey.
Then, another time after extensive running of being involved with practices designed to free beings from the body, my competing for bodies came into view. How can I take myself seriously again on any given viewpoint. My resistence is coming off to anti-valences though.
When I look at MY ISSUES from the perspective of games matrixes I get the 'bigger' me viewpoint.

 

[Leon]

Seems a bit odd. Alan always railed against LRH for evalating on the grades and telling people what they ought to run. Telling them which bits of case need to be audited.

And here we have Alan doing the same - telling you to run fear and anxiety, and that this is on your case and you don't even know ot.

Odd.

 

[Ted]

Seems a bit odd. Alan always railed against LRH for evalating on the grades and telling people what they ought to run. Telling them which bits of case need to be audited.

And here we have Alan doing the same - telling you to run fear and anxiety, and that this is on your case and you don't even know ot.

Odd.

It does seem odd, doesn't it?

Yet, when it comes down to the actual running of a session, Alan always said the client knows best what needs to be run. I would take this to mean that if fear or whatever does not come up, it is not addressed no matter what he wrote or surmised.