nots pts handling technique

Feral,
OK, you have experience of ONE solo auditor doing his NOTS incorrectly. And seemingly his group are also messed up. But as Ralph has said, that's not the FZ, and it doesn't sound like the professionalism that Ralph, I and others can offer.

Why there should be a shortage of the NOTS material is a mystery, as it's been pretty freely available since it was liberated mid 80's and can be found on the web in many places. No need to create it from memory, if you want to run NOTS then the real LRH/D Mayo pack is available.

That friends of yours on NOTS have died is not unexpected, the CoS bridge doesn't have anything like all the tech that's needed to handle the phenomena that can be run into above OT 3. Chasing smaller and smaller reads forever and forever is not the approach to OT that makes any sense to me. The charge and reads should get bigger, not smaller as you go higher!

Otherwise, how could that charge ever affect you, a thetan of unlimited power?

Regards, Allen


Hamster logic for hamsters of unlimited power on the hamster wheel.
 

Ralph Hilton

Patron Meritorious
The one thing I do see is that SOLO NOTS in the FZ is as I have previously stated not well understood either through a lack of data or a sea of conflicting background noise.
As a generalization, I'd say its mostly correct. From soon after the 82/83 exodus the background noise started. One "Class 8" in London, resting upon his status, issued an 8 or so page write up of the OT levels from OT1 to Solo Nots and was selling if for £500. Some followed a long book by Geoffrey Filbert and there are various "free solo" nots write ups going around putting forward a very small subset of the data and claiming that its all that is needed.

People who have been outside of the CofS for a while are mostly very suspicious of anything released after LRH died. I'd want to study any new tech released later than that very carefully before accepting its validity.

BTs can be PTS for quite a few reasons. I suspect the CofS doesn't even touch quite a few. For instance a BT can go PTS from enforced sec checks, heavy regging or being screamed at by a senior exec. Can't have (the bridge), can't do (communicate with declared friends, look at the internet), must do (unwanted reg briefings, write KRs) and the CofS version of "think for yourself" all can create PTSness.

As I see it, an individual is not in a position to trust the CofS tech and there is, as you say, a lot of confusion in much of what appears on the internet.
I would be interested in technical writeups from people with a good recall of what procedures have been used in the CofS since I left. I'd consider it quite possible that data was omitted in the earlier releases of Solo Nots.

Which leads me back to my original conclusion that one needs to be quite a well trained auditor with a broad knowledge of the tech to make it through.
 

RogerB

Crusader
Interesting Thread . . .


Interesting thread here with some truths being rendered by each of the folks who yet still appear to be in conflict as to what is correct.

I forget what year it was I got onto S/NOTS, but I was way early. Maybe 1981? I was the first in New York.

When I read what is written above as to the materials in the S/NOTs pack/training, I thought, hell I didn't have that stuff on my pack!

Fact is, I was pulled off my S/NOTs in March, 1983 . . . so much must have been added to the S/NOTs course and checksheet after that.

And looking at the dates and timing of who and when the S/NOTs material was leaked in to "field" . . . it is obviously the early short verson that got leaked. Another defector did a later expanded version.

I had my own handling for "evily intended, SP or PTS" "BTs" that worked sweetlty, but which I did not reveal while on the level :no: Who needs aggro??

I continued S/NOTS alone without a C/S or other tech contact for 11+ years till November, 1994 with no problems whatsoever, and only coming off of it because I got the more superior tech from Alan's Kn.

It is to be noted that tech at FSO when I was routing out after the S/NOTs course was off . . . way off.

Part of the routing off course to take the materials home was a checkout in Qual.

My checkout was being given by a good man named Paul ? who later became the first RTC Rep at FSO. He possibly had the hat of Rev Officer at the time of his checking me.

Anyhow, he asked me a question about L&N . . . "Do you ack the PC/BT answers while doing L&N?"

I said, "Yes."

I'll cut this story short to save your time, but in essence he referred me to the Tech Dictionary and, pointing to the definition of L&N, asked, "Where does it say ack the PC in that?" In essence he was asserting you do not ack the PC during L&N, but instead shut up when the PC has answered the question.

We argued on a bit about this, with me pointing out that what he was referring to was a defintion of it only, not a description or write-up of the procedure . . .and that it was a descriptive defintion, not even an action definition of it.

In the long run, I actually said, "In other words you are wanting me to violate the auditing comm cycle. You are wanting me to knock out the basics of auditing tech. That's crazy . . . I've been doing L&N for 20 bloody years, and we've always acked the PC since the beginning of when L&N was created in 1962!"

Then we got the bright idea . . . go to the Red on White. And there it was, in 1962, LRH saying in Red on White, "The auditor occasionally acknowledges the PC as items are given."

Paul was somewhat stunned. I could see the history of his and FSO screw-ups on this flash before his eyes.

Where this crazy no-ack of PC answers came from, I have no idea, but Paul then had a job to do to undo it:yes:

This of course, is another example of what twits can do when they grab a hold of a little piece of info and incorrectly apply it across a broader area where it does not apply.

So I am not surprised that there are some screw-ups "in the field" . . . all kinds of "improvements" and abbreviations might well have been introduced. It happened at the "Meca of tech perfection!" :whistling: :omg: :roflmao:

Rog
 
Last edited:

Been Done Had

Patron with Honors
Thankyou Been Done Had. I was very surprised to have found bully BTs, but I certainly DID. :nervous: Mostly as a result of being exterior. 13 Int RDs done without ownership used up a lot of my free theta and messed me up. The severe Out Int turned on some godawful stuff. Some incidents had to do with ancient Hindu exteriorization practices and punishments for having done them.. Being exterior again ignited a re-enactment.
. When I was at Flag in 1982 there were 4 big thugs in my room. They were BTs and telepathically informed me that the idea was on the table to throw me out the window of the 4th floor. I was really over it. I made plans to take an haitus from the game I was playing in order to escape all the counter-intention.
I have been looking for the link to Talk On Solo Nots dated 1978 by Commander David Mayo. I saw it just last week. :yes: Its archived on one of the sites. I'll ask Paul where I found it.

I had a similar experience, I had gone exterior and was basically cruising around looking at stuff (mest) it was all very real, I FORGOT about my body. Next thing I know I'm back in the old meat puppet being assaulted by at least hundreds, maybe thousands of beings spraying me with R6 pictures. Whether these were actual BTs or simply part of a holographic implant restim I do not know, the beings exuded the most unbelievable fury and rage, a depth and power of emotion way beyond human. Demonic comes to mind.

Okay, that aside. To you folks who know and love (loaded word, sorry) Solo Nots, what is going haywire when a pre-OT gets cancer, a terminal illness etc. I know lots of people on Nots who got body conditions.

Just how incomplete is the Mayo Nots pack on Wikipedia? What is missing? Why is the level such a grind? It takes YEARS and YEARS. Is there real gain? Is it deliverable in the Freezone? I know this will kick up more dust.:)

I have never Soloed anything. The descriptions of the experience seem to vary wildly, some people seem to muddle along, rotely following the HCOBs. How real is the PC (BT) in a solo session?

It seems like a lot of ditch digging. Is it worth it?:confused2:

Also (yeah I know enough already) is there a Knowledgism version of Solo Nots?
 

Veda

Sponsor
Feral,
OK, you have experience of ONE solo auditor doing his NOTS incorrectly. And seemingly his group are also messed up. But as Ralph has said, that's not the FZ, and it doesn't sound like the professionalism that Ralph, I and others can offer.

Why there should be a shortage of the NOTS material is a mystery, as it's been pretty freely available since it was liberated mid 80's and can be found on the web in many places. No need to create it from memory, if you want to run NOTS then the real LRH/D Mayo pack is available.

That friends of yours on NOTS have died is not unexpected, the CoS bridge doesn't have anything like all the tech that's needed to handle the phenomena that can be run into above OT 3. Chasing smaller and smaller reads forever and forever is not the approach to OT that makes any sense to me. The charge and reads should get bigger, not smaller as you go higher!

Otherwise, how could that charge ever affect you, a thetan of unlimited power?

Regards, Allen

This would require a new heavy-duty model e-meter with low sensitivity and high tolerance for huge surges of charge. Probably, the person would need to be wearing rubber shoes for safety purposes.

For lurkers, who are new to these strange discussions, here are some links to earlier posts to provide some background:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=205748&postcount=5

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=205777&postcount=9

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=206175&postcount=17

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=206206&postcount=18

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=206209&postcount=19
 

Veda

Sponsor
References have been made to David Mayo, citing statements by him from 1978, and from the early 1980s. In fairness to Mayo, and for the sake of accuracy, it should be noted that Mayo's views changed, as the Scientology programming/Hubbardian "spell" wore off.

The situation with Mayo was complicated by a prolonged legal case in which Mayo was involved and, now, by his no longer being available to speak on his own behalf. That he is no longer talking publicly is preferred by both the "Church" of Scientology and the Scientology Freezone - the former wishing him to be "erased" altogether, and the latter preferring that only his early comments be consulted.

While the following interview - from late 1986 - does not contain any "technical" observations, it does demonstrate that Mayo's views were continuing to develop, as he freed himself further and further from the Scientology reality-bubble:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/miller/interviews/mayo.htm

It's interesting to note that the 1965 definition of "PTS Type 3" ("the person has ghosts about him or demons," as problems or as "SPs.") is close to what was soon to become the preoccupation of Scientology's "upper levels" - along with "Implants" of course.

Hubbard could have chosen a more enlightened path, but #1) he went down the "rabbit hole," with the Scientologists following him faithfully; #2) or, was Hubbard applying his own confidential tactical instructions of "using enemy tactics," but doing so on his "friends," the Scientologists?

Was he driving Scientologists a little bit nutty (placing them further at "effect") so they'd "fit in the palm of his hand," as one old timer put it? Or was it a combination of #1 and #2?

"Recognize them as a reflection of your own mind. Recognition and liberation are simultaneous":

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=232751&postcount=72
 

Hatshepsut

Crusader
References have been made to David Mayo, citing statements by him from 1978, and from the early 1980s. In fairness to Mayo, and for the sake of accuracy, it should be noted that Mayo's views changed, as the Scientology programming/Hubbardian "spell" wore off.

I am well aware of this too. Just tonight I was on a site http://wiseoldgoat.com/papers-scientology/popup-windows/scn_source30_mayo_solo-nots.html and I saw all the promo with David Mayo praising Ron's new discoveries in Advance magazine and at Flag. Later I saw he went the other way. Extremely. He told us the new OT VIII was nothing fully researched. That we did not need Ls. That there were actually no OTs who could walk through walls. He began instructing on how to not need a meter and to drill active listening with ARC... twinning with another.
In David's earlier enthrall with the great new solutions one found on NED for OTs up the line, he was using teasers unabashedly to promote Ron's genius. We'd have to wait to find out ....and ....what the big mistake a thetan can make is....and what our factor of responsibility is. What the stuff of the living lightning of life was....(big smile) Tease, tease, tease. BIG turnaround later! This is a fantastic link by the way. I spent a couple hours on the site.

From David Mayo's Talk on Solo Nots: Delivered at Flag Oct 11, 1980
You may have seen HCOB 30 July 80, by Ron, called the “Nature of a Being”. In this bulletin he points out that man is a very complex composite of factors along the lines of various identities or valences* (*Valence: a valence is a false or true identity. The preclear has his own valence. Then there are available to him the valences of all persons who appear in his engrams.) which have been built up; and which have existed for a very long time. Also that one has to be able to take responsibility for and become cause over and handle these factors.
I could let you in on a little secret here. It's because of that, that the End Phenomena of NOTs is described in Ron's Journal in 1978 as the very “living lightning of life itself”. It is stuff to do with Theta, life units and so on. It's the thing which determines the state or condition of any being or entity. On Solo NOTs, one is dealing with some pretty high powered stuff. He is taking responsibility not only for his own condition and his own state of being, but also that of others, both now and long ago.

Another great link here at Christmas. David addresses Flag and its FCCIs with Love from RON and tells of the breakthrough.:happydance: Of course while I was at the AAC I knew he was over all the hype. During his fantastic talk on disillusionment I knew it was his own understanding of this subject that made him the perfect person to discuss it.
http://wiseoldgoat.com/papers-scientology/popup-windows/scn_source19_mayo_nots.html
 
Last edited:
Top