Old OT levels Vs the New OT levels

DartSmohen

Silver Meritorious Patron
I feel I must comment here. I knew Steve well, he was my C/S for a while.

Did he develop any tech that Sarge Gerbode and Gerald French (neither of whom became ill) didn't?

Steve developed a few rundowns of his own. However, that was not the primary cause of his demise; that was a fondness for the bottle.
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
Yeah, very sad but I think he was drinking even when the AAC was delivering standard tech (though I only found out later).

Let he who is without sin etc.

I think there are risks involved in delving into new areas, but the principle I was taught was, "whatever turns it on, turns it off."

The CofS aren't doing any serious research into extending the Bridge, so it's down to the freezone to do it. Pilot did some splendid work with his SuperScio and his processes concerning loss, protest etc. on the grade chart, but he seems to have come unstuck at some point.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Pilot did some splendid work with his SuperScio and his processes concerning loss, protest etc. on the grade chart, but he seems to have come unstuck at some point.

He went off to do upper level research.

That was a joke, but with me it would probably be true some day, hopefully not too soon though. :)

Paul
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
This I think is Pilot's most promising line of enquiry (though he never built on it as far as I can see). This is from post 61 to the ARS; I've kept the spelling mistakes in as it wouldn't be Ken without them.

==========================================

subj : Super Scio Tech - TECH BREAKTHROUGH

TECH BREAKTHROUGH

In spite of all the distractions, I haven't totaly abandoned
the research. I've been doing a bit more handling on how all
of us push mental machinery and control lines into each other
which was inspired by cross correlating CBR's and my own work.
And I've been thinking more about the present time continuous
creation of relality, and the recent Avatar postings have
helped with that one. And I was talking to a lot of freezoners
over the weekend, getting reminded of various technical areas.
I even talked to one guy who was on the R6 course in 1964 and
that helped me get some of Ron's final work in that area
into persepective.

And so I was connecting to a lot of different technologies,
all valid, all lying there as pieces of the puzzel, and
experiencing a great deal of cross fertilization.

And then I was sitting there talking to a friend and we were
discussing the need to keep moving forward on any line as
long as it was a move in the direction of freedom and
understanding, so as to avoid being stopped and having stops
go into restimulation. And he was drawing an analogy to
studying computers in a situation where all data was not
available but some was, and so you study what is available
with the confidence that the different lines, which might
seem disrelated, will come together eventually.

And I thought of the entity oriented approach and the
R6 oriented approach and all the other almost contradictory
but sporatically workable approaches and suddenly everything
fell together into a cohesive whole.

There are 4 broad areas of tech:

1. The objective present time oriented tech including OT
drills, Avatar, objectives, etc.

2. The grades style tech, including many freezone things which
the CofS would not call grades but which are working the same
kind of thing from different angles.

3. The theta line, entity, plugs, machines, and what have
you type handlings.

4. The item or pattern oriented stuff that relates to R6
and GPMs and implants etc.

I'm talking here about 4 classes of things rather than
specific approaches or processes or theories about individual
types of things within the broad areas.

And the areas seemed slightly in conflict as to theory. But
the exact same difficulty might well resolve on handling
from any of the 4 areas, indicating that all formed a part
of what might be holding a particular abberation in place.

And so there had to be a broader viewpoint from which
all of these were part of the same cohesive whole.

And it had to be happening now, in present time, because
of objective PT processes being part of the puzzel.

And it had to involve grades style whys because they run
well, and that especially brings to mind overts and
motivators, which would say that we are doing it to each
other now in PT.

And the whole entity business, especially this bit about
pushing control entities on each other, would have to be
the delivery mechanism.

And that leaves R6 like patterns, items, implants, gpms,
or whatever, as what is being delivered, which is not to
say that we have the PT pattern, but we may be close what
with all the research into these things.

So here it is, the unified theory:

WE ARE NOW IN PT IMPLANTING EACH OTHER ON A COMPULSIVE
BASIS BELOW OUR CONSCIOUS LEVEL OF AWARENESS.

The entity mechanisms are how we do it.

The R6 type stuff is what we are implanting into each other.

And the grades type stuff is the reason WHY we do it.

And it is all going on in PT, which is why objectives and
OT drills work.

We are holding each other in the trap of a singular solidified
reality and compulsive agreement.

But as we work any of the above lines we begin to shake
things loose.

And as each of us begins to come up in awareness and loosen
our hold on others, it becomes easier for the remainder to
go free.

And of course, if you weren't doing it to others, they couldn't
do it to you successfully.

I've hardly scratched the surface of this. There is much
more work needed here, and as you all know, I'm quite
distracted right now.

But I wanted to get the basic idea out immediately.

My gut feeling is that this is the key that we needed to
make it to real OT.

Best,

The Pilot

==========================================

Interestingly, the guy I quote in my sig had a similar insight though I don't think he had the tech to handle it.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
==========================================

subj : Super Scio Tech - TECH BREAKTHROUGH

...

So here it is, the unified theory:

WE ARE NOW IN PT IMPLANTING EACH OTHER ON A COMPULSIVE
BASIS BELOW OUR CONSCIOUS LEVEL OF AWARENESS.

The entity mechanisms are how we do it.

The R6 type stuff is what we are implanting into each other.

...

The Pilot

==========================================

I read (and used) Ken's Self-Clearing stuff, but didn't read very much of Super-Scio. I don't recall seeing this before. I could agree that there is some kind of energy interchange going on below most people's awareness, but that's about it. Not a compulsion really, although an automatic one, sure.

I'm not sure what he's referring to with the rest of it, but implanting each other? With R6 items? Entity mechanisms, whatever they are? Did anyone challenge this stuff when he was in a position to defend or amplify what he wrote? If he's calling it a breakthrough and a unified theory, you would think he'd say more about it. Right now it sounds like drivel to me.

Paul
 

Alan

Gold Meritorious Patron
I challenged him continuously for constantly being into significances - almost completely omitted erasing force and mass.

Pointed out his clients would be unable to create or maintain their own space, energy, form or time.
 
A

Art

Guest
Dart wrote: "However, there was one huge problem. Very few people had made all their case gains on the lower levels."

That one statement alone makes a lot of sense, based on my observations. It also seems to me that uncorrected case errors may play a large role.

I wonder if anyone would comment on the responsibility of the individual for his own case? I see many people expecting or demanding "the next rundown" (whatever that may be), or "blaming Scn" in some manner.

This is my first post here, so apologies in advance if I messed up unknowingly.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Dart wrote: "However, there was one huge problem. Very few people had made all their case gains on the lower levels."

That one statement alone makes a lot of sense, based on my observations. It also seems to me that uncorrected case errors may play a large role.

I wonder if anyone would comment on the responsibility of the individual for his own case? I see many people expecting or demanding "the next rundown" (whatever that may be), or "blaming Scn" in some manner.

This is my first post here, so apologies in advance if I messed up unknowingly.

Welcome, Art.

I agree entirely. I was somewhat annoyed in the CofS that I was "done" with Expanded Grades, as I thought there was more stuff to deal with after a further 20 years of living and Scn education, but Hubbard had decreed that Grades could only be run once and that was it.

It was a great pleasure to spend more time on them after leaving. I spent about 230 hours with the Pilot's Self-Clearing, and probably another 200 hours running other stuff that would fit into the same general area as Grades if it had to be classified somewhere on the Scn bridge.

I enjoy seeing something I would like to try out, and trying it out, without having to ask anyone for permission. It doesn't always work out well, although it does mostly and the worst that happens is that I've spent a bit of time finding a dead end, but I like having the option.

Paul
 

gomorrhan

Gold Meritorious Patron
Lots of people seem to want to "get through" whatever they are on, so that they can do the "higher level" services, where supposedly you become godlike (knowing and willing cause over matter, energy, space, time and life).

Essentially, it's a "non-confront" situation, where what is real, what is on your mind, and what is bothering you (and will continue to bother you until it is addressed, either in session or in life) is disregarded in favor of running the most secret processes, dealing with the most unusual subject matter, etc.

I've actually had seasoned auditors say to me that they prefer to deal with "upper level clients". To me, this is ridiculous. Does this mean that they cannot confront emotion and force comfortably? Time for a TRs retread, or a recommitment to the purposes of auditing.

Whatever, you deal with whatever charge the person has, not what YOU want to deal with as an auditor, or what seems fashionable to the client.
 

Alan

Gold Meritorious Patron
Dart wrote: "However, there was one huge problem. Very few people had made all their case gains on the lower levels."

That one statement alone makes a lot of sense, based on my observations. It also seems to me that uncorrected case errors may play a large role.

I wonder if anyone would comment on the responsibility of the individual for his own case? I see many people expecting or demanding "the next rundown" (whatever that may be), or "blaming Scn" in some manner.

This is my first post here, so apologies in advance if I messed up unknowingly.

Welcome Art! :rose:

In session I would just be a pc. Unless of course I was getting screwed up! :eyeroll:

But out of session I would make sure I got what the level promised. If I didn't I would demand that I get it.

I mean how many people are "willing to talk to anyone at anytime" a simple comm release?

90% of the people on ESMB are not even life repair - they may have been once - but not now. :)

For that matter how many have even got their ruds in?

:melodramatic:

Alan
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Dart wrote: "However, there was one huge problem. Very few people had made all their case gains on the lower levels."

That one statement alone makes a lot of sense, based on my observations. It also seems to me that uncorrected case errors may play a large role.

I wonder if anyone would comment on the responsibility of the individual for his own case? I see many people expecting or demanding "the next rundown" (whatever that may be), or "blaming Scn" in some manner.

This is my first post here, so apologies in advance if I messed up unknowingly.

Way to go on posting, ART!

Welcome to ESMB.

How can a pc possibly be responsible for the out-tech his auditor's and C/ses run on him?

LRH, all through the SHSBC, said that the PC is not responsible for his own case. He said that the pc's case was the responsibility of his auditor and his C/S. He said this over and over and over again.

Where did you hear that the pc is responsible for his own case?

Could this be a convenient datum to make more money off of pcs whose auditors commit flubs and out-tech on them?

Or is there a source reference that you have for this?
 

Alan

Gold Meritorious Patron
REPLIES TO FLAG 2005

I know from direct conversations with early financial backers that Hubbard too drugs. Tom Maxwell told me at his hime in New Orleans that he had paid for Hubbard to go into rehab for cocaine addiction, after he had written Science of Survival. In fsact Hubbard wrote Tom a letter awarding him ALL Scientology services for free from thence on.(I have read the letter). However, Tom never took advantage of that and always paid his own way.

Dart

I can verify this as Tom Maxwell and most of his family were students and pc's of mine at my New Orleans Center.

Tom Maxwell and I talked a lot about those early days and how he had to loan money to Ron several times to keep him going - he also told me about the rehab for cocaine addiction - and how he helped Ron escape being charged for kidnapping his daughter Alexis.

Those were wild and wooly days back then.

Drugs as a destructive subject or an actionable out ethics situation did not come into existence until Oct 1968. Up to that time not too much notice was taken of them.

Alan
 

Div6

Crusader
Dart wrote: "However, there was one huge problem. Very few people had made all their case gains on the lower levels."

That one statement alone makes a lot of sense, based on my observations. It also seems to me that uncorrected case errors may play a large role.

I wonder if anyone would comment on the responsibility of the individual for his own case? I see many people expecting or demanding "the next rundown" (whatever that may be), or "blaming Scn" in some manner.

This is my first post here, so apologies in advance if I messed up unknowingly.

Welcome Art.

Tellingly, the first step of NOTS is to correct\verify\rehab earlier errors in auditing.....
 

Div6

Crusader
Way to go on posting, ART!

Welcome to ESMB.

How can a pc possibly be responsible for the out-tech his auditor's and C/ses run on him?

LRH, all through the SHSBC, said that the PC is not responsible for his own case. He said that the pc's case was the responsibility of his auditor and his C/S. He said this over and over and over again.

Where did you hear that the pc is responsible for his own case?

Could this be a convenient datum to make more money off of pcs whose auditors commit flubs and out-tech on them?

Or is there a source reference that you have for this?

"There are no failed PC's" Only Failed Auditors and C\S'es"
HCOB 26 Oct 1975 FAILED CASES
 

Pixie

Crusader
Dart wrote: "However, there was one huge problem. Very few people had made all their case gains on the lower levels."

That one statement alone makes a lot of sense, based on my observations. It also seems to me that uncorrected case errors may play a large role.

I wonder if anyone would comment on the responsibility of the individual for his own case? I see many people expecting or demanding "the next rundown" (whatever that may be), or "blaming Scn" in some manner.

This is my first post here, so apologies in advance if I messed up unknowingly.

You've not messed up, lovely first post and welcome to the forum!! :happydance: Looking forward to reading more of your posts Art. :yes:
 

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
Way to go on posting, ART!

Welcome to ESMB.

How can a pc possibly be responsible for the out-tech his auditor's and C/ses run on him?

LRH, all through the SHSBC, said that the PC is not responsible for his own case. He said that the pc's case was the responsibility of his auditor and his C/S. He said this over and over and over again.

Where did you hear that the pc is responsible for his own case?

Could this be a convenient datum to make more money off of pcs whose auditors commit flubs and out-tech on them?

Or is there a source reference that you have for this?

I think that when a "pc" realizes that they ARE responsible for their case, then some real progress has been made. (clear cog anyone?)

What is the definition of in session anyway?

If a pc is not interested in their case, are they even in session?

But being interested in their own case is a gradient of responsibility, and when the pc finally sees their own role in the creation of "case" then they get their ability back...

PC plus auditor....auditor is mostly necessary to help overwhelm the case.

But it is the PC who needs to be confronting it while the two of them "hold it down on the ground struggling".

Confront, willingness to look, those are elements of responsibility.

No auditor can erase for the pc or cognite either.

alex (am I taking sarcasm literally? :) )
 
Last edited:

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
snip
OT3 was supposed to be a DESTRUCTIVE action. The intent was to rid oneself of those beings around you that were your "spiritual team".

What probably triggered this psychotic approach was Hubbard's cocaine addictioin. He became increasingly paranoid about "things on him".

The correct action would have been to get trained and practice your skills, in whatever area you were working in, until you were fully competent. Your spiritual team would become hatted and actually work WITH you, rather than against you. That was the "problem" Hubbard perceived - all those beings being counter intention and counter productive.

snip

Dart

So "Dart",

Here is a point I always stick on when the folks of the "spiritual teammate" bent talk about it.

What is so wrong with releasing the "bt's" from their connections? Why is it not making slaves of them to use your powers of persuasion to "repurpose" them into helpers for your own goals?

Yes I get that they do it willingly, but then so do sea org members sacrifice willingly. I think morally and ethically those entities must be freed and allowed to move off to follow their own purposes, perhaps have a body if they wish or align with others that they come across independently of past relationships.

I am not saying it is wrong to have a "spiritual team" but I do feel it is wrong to use processing to turn compusively connected beings into ones own personal army.

And it is a gradient of wrong to use processing to free them, and then take advantage of their gratitude to bind them still to you even for good purpose.

Do you see my point?
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
Thanks, Alan. I assume he didn't say anything worth reporting in response.

Paul

I'd like to have seen his reply. I expect he did, he was never at a loss for words in all the time I was reading posts on ARS.

Kevin: my first auditor told me it's much easier auditing someone on New OT V than it is on lower level services like Life Repair, and I can believe it; my Life Repair was a grind.
 
Top