Leon's Tech Page

Leon

Gold Meritorious Patron
Pirate and Bum wants me to start a tech thread so as to keep the stuff I say separate from others' threads. So OK, here it is.

Anyone may contribute but is you hate the tech and reckon it is all crap then please stay away and go and join the others with like ideas to you on the other threads. You are not welcome here.

Any questions you have regarding the tech or whatever, if you are sincere in your questioning, you may post here and I will answer as best I can.


We start with a cut and paste of P&B's question to me re Help processing:


Originally Posted by Leon
This statement is a blatant contradiction in terms. It's an oxymoron.

The only process which can, or should, reduce havingness is Dianetics where masses are erased. All Scientology process depend on the preclear increasing his reach for their effectiveness, and so should always increase havingness.


P&B:
Leon, I invite you to LOOK at what you just wrote in response. You call out a blatant contradiction and then provide an example of a process that reduces havingness in contradiction to your own statement. I find that a bit perplexing my friend.

I see that you are making a distinction between erasing mass and Scientology processes. I would invite you to explore further this idea that only dianetics is capable of erasing mass. This is just not the case. Could it be that the help processes are also erasing mass? You seem to have come to this conclusion or am I missing something?

It seems that you are proposing (this is my interpretation of what I am getting from what you wrote) that any process that brought about a "key-out" - a moving off of some mental crap - which would reduce "havingness" and is therefor not a scientology process - which would rule out most of the grade processes. Confessional procedure also reduces havingness.

It seems that by your classification that only processes that invite a person to exercise and improve their ability would be "scientology" processes - like creative processing. I find that to be a bit restrictive. Is not R3R part of your scientology universe?

Hope you can clear this up for me.

Edit: I know this discussion is going to make some people here unhappy campers. How about making a thread to discuss your ideas Leon?



OK. What I wrote is somewhat unclear so let's straighten it out a little.

First, "auditing a person at Cause", versus, "auditing the person at Effect" refers to the position the person had in the incident.

Dianetics is primarily focussed on erasing bad things that happened to the preclear - so here he is being run at Effect. This is why Dianetics is a Limited Process - you can only run a person at effect for a short while before he starts to adopt the effect valence more thoroughly and so the process develops a negative aspect. Also, mental masses get erased and this leads to a further loss of havingness. Never mind the four flows on this matter - they are of lesser importance.

Scientology processes are in the main focussed on auditing the preclear at Cause, e.g "What could you confront? What have you done? What problem could you solve? What overt have you committed? What have you withheld?" etc etc. Processes such as these are key-out processes and are not so limited. Yes, some preclears tend to "overrun" after you go past a win and so the auditor should never do this. But it is quite possible that at a later stage of his progress the preclear is able to confront more and dig deeper and then grades processes such as these can be run again with much benefit. In order to run such a process as this the preclear continually needs to increase his reach a little - the process leads him into this - and so his havingness increases and does not need to be remedied.

Now one can do this - and this is seen throughout the grades - on several different subjects - Recalls, communication, control, CCHs, problems, ARC, etc, etc. All of them display the same increases in havingness in the preclear when you run them. But running Help is different. And it has been known to be different ever since LRH developed them during the 3rd South African ACC back in about 1960 or 61. Havingness needs to be run often - like after each process - and thoroughly. Why? I reckon it is because by auditing the preclear at Effect point you are in fact running a reverse process.

= = = = = =
 

clamicide

Gold Meritorious Patron
<snip>
Anyone may contribute but is you hate the tech and reckon it is all crap then please stay away and go and join the others with like ideas to you on the other threads. You are not welcome here. <snip>

= = = = = =

Wow... does this mean we can keep techies out of threads that do question the tech? I've seen the squawk when that tries to go down.

Don't worry, won't be posting here after this (didn't presume to know what the thread was about when i clicked) ... but, dictating what is OK on a thread in a message board that you don't run, just because you started the thread... ????

Might just be the tone of the post that irks me. It just oddly sounds familiar....
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
Wow... does this mean we can keep techies out of threads that do question the tech? I've seen the squawk when that tries to go down.

Don't worry, won't be posting here after this (didn't presume to know what the thread was about when i clicked) ... but, dictating what is OK on a thread in a message board that you don't run, just because you started the thread... ????

Might just be the tone of the post that irks me. It just oddly sounds familiar....


Lol, I almost responded by asking Leon if he had any 'special tek' for crabby people who get their knickers in a twist when things don't go all their way (but thought I'd better not in case he got his knickers in a twist because clearly ... he hasn't).


:coolwink:

 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
I think this thread is a good idea. Most (not all) Exes are quite familiar with the practice of auditing and its various outcomes within the confines of scientology organisations. I'm interested in reading about the practice and outcomes of auditing minus the suppressive environment.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
I think this thread is a good idea. Most (not all) Exes are quite familiar with the practice of auditing and its various outcomes within the confines of scientology organisations. I'm interested in reading about the practice and outcomes of auditing minus the suppressive environment.



You're such a lovely Panda, Panda ... (and you spell well too).


:yes:
 

Leon

Gold Meritorious Patron

Lol, I almost responded by asking Leon if he had any 'special tek' for crabby people who get their knickers in a twist when things don't go all their way (but thought I'd better not in case he got his knickers in a twist because clearly ... he hasn't).


:coolwink:




I reckon I do have some "special tek" for you, but your knickers don't feature in it. Wanna come over to my place sometime?
 

Gib

Crusader
I think this thread is a good idea. Most (not all) Exes are quite familiar with the practice of auditing and its various outcomes within the confines of scientology organisations. I'm interested in reading about the practice and outcomes of auditing minus the suppressive environment.

Marty Rathburn said he audited his wife, Mosey, up the bridge to "clear" on his blog,

and he announced she was clear as a bell.

But, she also listened to the LRH lectures while getting auditing.

So, I'd be interested in learning of one who has not listened to the lectures, or any sort of reading of LRH,

to learn if they are "clear as a bell" after getting auditing to clear. :wow:
 

Freeminds

Bitter defrocked apostate
Is it possible to discuss the "Tech" without using made up cultspeak words such as "havingness"? I don't believe that we can derive anything useable, if you have to subscribe to Hubbardism in order to witness the upside.

Thanks,

Minds
 

Leon

Gold Meritorious Patron
Well, if you can give me an English word that has the same meaning then I'd be happy to use it.
 

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
Originally Posted by Leon
This statement is a blatant contradiction in terms. It's an oxymoron.

The only process which can, or should, reduce havingness is Dianetics where masses are erased. All Scientology process depend on the preclear increasing his reach for their effectiveness, and so should always increase havingness.


P&B:
Leon, I invite you to LOOK at what you just wrote in response. You call out a blatant contradiction and then provide an example of a process that reduces havingness in contradiction to your own statement. I find that a bit perplexing my friend.

I see that you are making a distinction between erasing mass and Scientology processes. I would invite you to explore further this idea that only dianetics is capable of erasing mass. This is just not the case. Could it be that the help processes are also erasing mass? You seem to have come to this conclusion or am I missing something?

It seems that you are proposing (this is my interpretation of what I am getting from what you wrote) that any process that brought about a "key-out" - a moving off of some mental crap - which would reduce "havingness" and is therefor not a scientology process - which would rule out most of the grade processes. Confessional procedure also reduces havingness.

It seems that by your classification that only processes that invite a person to exercise and improve their ability would be "scientology" processes - like creative processing. I find that to be a bit restrictive. Is not R3R part of your scientology universe?

Hope you can clear this up for me.

Edit: I know this discussion is going to make some people here unhappy campers. How about making a thread to discuss your ideas Leon?



OK. What I wrote is somewhat unclear so let's straighten it out a little.

First, "auditing a person at Cause", versus, "auditing the person at Effect" refers to the position the person had in the incident.

Dianetics is primarily focussed on erasing bad things that happened to the preclear - so here he is being run at Effect. This is why Dianetics is a Limited Process - you can only run a person at effect for a short while before he starts to adopt the effect valence more thoroughly and so the process develops a negative aspect. Also, mental masses get erased and this leads to a further loss of havingness. Never mind the four flows on this matter - they are of lesser importance.

Scientology processes are in the main focussed on auditing the preclear at Cause, e.g "What could you confront? What have you done? What problem could you solve? What overt have you committed? What have you withheld?" etc etc. Processes such as these are key-out processes and are not so limited. Yes, some preclears tend to "overrun" after you go past a win and so the auditor should never do this. But it is quite possible that at a later stage of his progress the preclear is able to confront more and dig deeper and then grades processes such as these can be run again with much benefit. In order to run such a process as this the preclear continually needs to increase his reach a little - the process leads him into this - and so his havingness increases and does not need to be remedied.

Now one can do this - and this is seen throughout the grades - on several different subjects - Recalls, communication, control, CCHs, problems, ARC, etc, etc. All of them display the same increases in havingness in the preclear when you run them. But running Help is different. And it has been known to be different ever since LRH developed them during the 3rd South African ACC back in about 1960 or 61. Havingness needs to be run often - like after each process - and thoroughly. Why? I reckon it is because by auditing the preclear at Effect point you are in fact running a reverse process.

= = = = = =

OK, not to nitpick, but the 3rd SA ACC (1961) covered the subject of havingness. The 19th ACC (1957-58 era) was when help processes became a major part in "clearing".

Is a "reverse process" a process that runs a person at effect? I just want to be sure what you mean, because that term has meant something very negative in the parlance - a process that is harmful to the person.

Do you consider that erasure is bad for a person? Isn't the point of clearing to erase the "reactive mind"? Is that reverse processing?

In TROM, Dennis says you're going to have to run havingness often. I don't see TROM as running a person at effect process. It is erasing stuff. Since when did as-ising stuff become reverse(bad) processing?

I'm not sure why you want to never mind the running of other flows. Many of the grades processes have multiple flows. If the only thing of importance was running the person at cause then you would be bypassing quite a lot of other viewpoints. So do you skip running all other flows? If not, then why would you run them given your stance?

Rather than help being a reverse process, could it not instead be a process that is erasing mental mass? And is therefore a more powerful process? After all, the first "clears" (like RogerB) came from this period - running help.

I'm also a bit unclear about what "increase his reach" means. I think of improvement in terms of increased awareness or increased ability to look. Reach connotes across a distance through space and I don't get how that fits - so perhaps I have the wrong concept?
 

Freeminds

Bitter defrocked apostate
Well, if you can give me an English word that has the same meaning then I'd be happy to use it.

Thanks.

Based on the poor evidentiary standard of your predecessors, I think that the closest equivalent to "havingness" in English might be:

pixiefarts

Talking therapies do work, though, and I believe that you could well improve on LRH's "Tech". Proving such a thing in a post-Scientology world, though... that's going to be an uphill struggle.
 

Leon

Gold Meritorious Patron
OK, not to nitpick, but the 3rd SA ACC (1961) covered the subject of havingness. The 19th ACC (1957-58 era) was when help processes became a major part in "clearing".

Is a "reverse process" a process that runs a person at effect? I just want to be sure what you mean, because that term has meant something very negative in the parlance - a process that is harmful to the person.

Do you consider that erasure is bad for a person? Isn't the point of clearing to erase the "reactive mind"? Is that reverse processing?

In TROM, Dennis says you're going to have to run havingness often. I don't see TROM as running a person at effect process. It is erasing stuff. Since when did as-ising stuff become reverse(bad) processing?

I'm not sure why you want to never mind the running of other flows. Many of the grades processes have multiple flows. If the only thing of importance was running the person at cause then you would be bypassing quite a lot of other viewpoints. So do you skip running all other flows? If not, then why would you run them given your stance?

Rather than help being a reverse process, could it not instead be a process that is erasing mental mass? And is therefore a more powerful process? After all, the first "clears" (like RogerB) came from this period - running help.

I'm also a bit unclear about what "increase his reach" means. I think of improvement in terms of increased awareness or increased ability to look. Reach connotes across a distance through space and I don't get how that fits - so perhaps I have the wrong concept?


A process that results in the person being more at Effect than he was before is a negative process, yes.

Erasure in itself is not a bad thing but it must be seen as only the first step in the person becoming able to re-occupy the time and space of the incident and to recover the beingness, doingness and havingness that he had prior to the incident. So when the job is fully done there will be an increase in Havingness. When it is left half-done, as in R3R for example, the one erases the masses but does not fully recover the Be, Do Have etc and so one is left with depleted havingness. Any havingness process run after Dianetic erasure should be run on the Time and Space and Beingness of the incident and not on the present time environment.


TROM is run by increasing the person's ability to manipulate MIPs. As such it will increase his ability to pervade the bank and, on the face of it, looks like an excellent process. Repairing havingness is fine. R3X fully done is a better process.

I have never said that as-ising masses is a bad/reverse process. See above.

re Increased reach. Every engram or secondary received results in the person being less willing to occupy the space and time of the incident. Or the activity of the incident too. So he withdraws from that and shrinks to that degree. As a further consequence he is also less willing to cause things in that space and time. So havingness is designed to increase his reach, usually on a general basis and not specifically into an engram's space and time. It is an actual spatial reach into a mental space, though often into physical space. Both are valid though initially it is the reaching into physical space that will produce best results. Later, when his mental space becomes more real and less imaginary dub-in to him, you can do it there with good results.


Hope this helps. Thanks for the Q's - I learn a lot from them.
 

In present time

Gold Meritorious Patron
i am trying to remember the other question i asked you some time ago, so i'll try to re-phrase it.
it was about the ot levels. i mentioned that when i first say the ot3 materials i assumed that lrh had audited hundreds of cases and had arrived at this incident by piecing together the same story from many many pre-clears.
so i guess that was really an assumption, because i remember he said he broke his back researching it. or did he says he broke his back or did he just say he almost broke his back? big difference.

so, anyway did you run this process? and do you really believe in body thetans? i think there may be something there in terms of genetic cellular memory, but good god the idea of adopting the belief that these are half dead space aliens seems terribly unhealthy to me.

scn. really sort of makes one start to feel trapped in a yucky meat body on a prison planet.

so, now i am rambling. the question is what EXACTLY did you expect to accomplish by sending these thetans off into oblivion, and what exactly changed for you after you managed it? and WHEN did you think the planet might be cleared, and exactly what would a cleared planet look like? because i dont think we could have based our dreams of a cleared planet on any microcosim we ever saw INSIDE scn. or even on the demeanour of any paritcular single scientologist.
 

Balthasar

Patron Meritorious
///SNIP

Any questions you have regarding the tech or whatever, if you are sincere in your questioning, you may post here and I will answer as best I can.

SNIP///

You are jumping into hot water Leon but I guess you know what you are doing. Here is my first question to check you general understanding before I go ahead with more difficult ones :):

Why do people have engrams but others don't?
Or do all have engrams but some can't see it?
Or does nobody have engrams and it's all dubbed in?
 

R2-45

Silver Meritorious Patron
Those body thetans in your elbow aren't really as annoying as they could be. What if after you dislodged them through some sort of 'processing,' they went on to lodge in your dick or brain? Might be a lot more annoying.



Why is it better to 'audit' them out rather than to just let them be?
 
Top