Old OT levels Vs the New OT levels

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
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

He discussed it briefly with Ralph (Hilton) on a later post, but I don't recall much more about it.

(And Alan too) Wouldn't the handling of force and mass come under the heading of Dianetics, which is notoriously tough to run on your own and therefore would be sidelined by someone trying to develop a self-clearing Tech for newbies as Pilot was? That would explain it.
 

Alan

Gold Meritorious Patron
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?

You point is strange - have you ever belonged to a team?

Gee! What does a team represent to you?

Have you any long term old friends Alex?

That's what a true team is - just old friends - who can come go as they please - which they do!
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
He discussed it briefly with Ralph (Hilton) on a later post, but I don't recall much more about it.
OK.

Wouldn't the handling of force and mass come under the heading of Dianetics, which is notoriously tough to run on your own and therefore would be sidelined by someone trying to develop a self-clearing Tech for newbies as Pilot was? That would explain it.

You can run incidents with Dianetic-type procedures superficially by looking mainly at the visual and audio aspect of images and putting attention on thoughts connected with them. Or you can run the same incidents more deeply by putting attention on re-experiencing the efforts and forces and masses, and re-feeling the sensations and emotions, in addition to the thoughts. One way addresses the masses and forces and the other doesn't. Same "tech", kind of. Putting attention on masses and forces is not limited to Dianetic-type procedures, though.

It runs OK with my Robot Auditor, which doesn't seem like running stuff "on your own", despite any theory to the contrary. :)

Paul
 

asagai

Patron Meritorious
You point is strange - have you ever belonged to a team?

Gee! What does a team represent to you?

Have you any long term old friends Alex?

That's what a true team is - just old friends - who can come go as they please - which they do!

Hubbard's idea of a "team" was him (Master) controlling the rest (slaves)

That seems to me to be the scn definition of "team" - a master and slaves, Then senior slaves with sub-slaves, then senior sub-slaves with sub sub slaves ,,,,

I think that is what Alex thought you meant by "team". It is what Hubbard taught him a team was - to his credit, he appears to resist that idea, despite him being a scientologist.

"Men are your slaves. Elemental spirits are your slaves" L Ron Hubbard affirmations.
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
OK.

You can run incidents with Dianetic-type procedures superficially by looking mainly at the visual and audio aspect of images and putting attention on thoughts connected with them. Or you can run the same incidents more deeply by putting attention on re-experiencing the efforts and forces and masses, and re-feeling the sensations and emotions, in addition to the thoughts. One way addresses the masses and forces and the other doesn't. Same "tech", kind of. Putting attention on masses and forces is not limited to Dianetic-type procedures, though.

It runs OK with my Robot Auditor, which doesn't seem like running stuff "on your own", despite any theory to the contrary. :)

Paul

Yeah, and Pilot said (as I recall) that one basic Dianetic handling for an incident was;

Spot a point in the room

Spot a point in the incident

run repetitively.

A bit like Dennis Stephens' TROM.
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron

This is all I know of the discussion bwetween Ralph and Pilot about his breakthrough; it's a long time since I read it myself.

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

subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering Ralph on the Tech Breakthrough

ANSWERING RALPH ON THE TECH BREAKTHROUGH

On 7 Jul 99, [email protected] (Ralph Hilton) responded to my post
on "Super Scio Tech - TECH BREAKTHROUGH"

> On 7 Jul 1999 04:00:24, in alt.clearing.technology [email protected]
> (The Pilot) wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Didn't I say that a while back? I think Alan has said something similar
too
> in several ways

If you said it clearly, then I missed it.

But really I think that you have been skirting around the edges of
it, as have I and Alan, and CBR, and even Ron.

In retrospect, I can see it almost said many times. It is even
there in that Level VII tape of Ron's that got posted recently.
And yet he never quite says it.

And I never quite said it even though I've come close many times.
It's even there in Super Scio about us being cross implanted to
keep each other human.

And your improved OT 8 certainly walks right to the edge of this
one.

But the real statement has some very hard to face colloraries.
Read on at your own risk.

> > The entity mechanisms are how we do it.

Note that this is only a how, not a why. The whole mess of
plugs or machines or monitors or control entities or whatever
is only a delivery mechanism.

Gasolene is not why we drive to work, it is only how. If it
were freely offered, we would accept it because we want to
drive to work.

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

Continuing the analogy, this is what we are driving to work.
It has nothing to do with our need or desire to get to work,
it is just what we use. If it wasn't available we'd use
something else, because we want to be doing this to each other.

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

This is the real kicker.

There are implications to this that I still haven't confronted.

My almost right statement in Super Scio has a flaw in it.
It says that we were implanted into makeing each other human,
and that is incorrect.

All the implant did was to show us how to do it effectively.

An implant can't really make you want anything, not really,
at least not in the long run.

We WANTED to drag each other into the mud. That is the scary
part. And we wanted it so bad that we still can't let go
even if it kills us.

And yet what we are doing to each other is so horrible that
it lays there totally suppressed and out of sight.

> >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.

I'm not talking here about an occasional nasty postulate
towards someone else, although those are what keeps feeding
energy into this thing.

I'm talking about a continuous data stream of implant items
which each of us is telepathically projecting into all the
others on at least a planetary scale, and quite possibly on
a cosmic scale.

> >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.
>
> Yes: it is the fundamental necessary to further advancement.
>
> --
>
> Ralph Hilton
> http://Ralph.Hilton.org
> Freezone International: http://www.fzint.org


I can't even get the scale of this thing yet. It seems to
permeate everything, but that could just be becuase there
is so much charge coming into view so quickly. I'm still
at the stage of knocking things off of the edges and sticking
my toe in. I'm writing that stuff up in a separate post.

My gut feeling right now is that we did this to each other
at the highest levels. That may be why I keep getting the
idea of oversouls who are unconsious. That is who we were
when we did this, and we put a choke hold on each other and
knocked each other out on the higher levels of awareness.
That puts it way before home universe. That might put it
all the way back in the reality wars.

But as I say, this is too charged up for me to trust my
perceptions on it yet.

Best,

The Pilot

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

gomorrhan

Gold Meritorious Patron
Yep, that's pretty charged up.

Reality Wars? I hadn't read about that for a while. I agreed with Ken on method, but not on content. Same issue I had with Ron and many others. Method is the unifying element, connected to how human beings shape their experience and memory and personality. That "how" we have in common, or we couldn't relate to each other. WHAT those experiences are is only really relevant to us, and the people who were along for that ride.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
This is all I know of the discussion bwetween Ralph and Pilot about his breakthrough; it's a long time since I read it myself.

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

subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering Ralph on the Tech Breakthrough
<snip>

Thank you. Still sounds like drivel to me.

Paul
 

Pixie

Crusader
Hubbard's idea of a "team" was him (Master) controlling the rest (slaves)

That seems to me to be the scn definition of "team" - a master and slaves, Then senior slaves with sub-slaves, then senior sub-slaves with sub sub slaves ,,,,

"Men are your slaves. Elemental spirits are your slaves" L Ron Hubbard affirmations.

Good god! Now if people know that he said this, how on earth can anyone then possibly even dream that any of his 'tech' works unless it was which it obviously was to 'make men his slaves'. :duh: How can anyone reading those statements carry on believing they have a 'case' or any of the other tripe he talks about.. 'implants' 'bts'.. what is it that keeps that brainwashing there, even with me it was difficult in the extreme for my friend to wake me up, and we were on google chat for eight hours a day!! What is the core implant that keeps all that crazy shit stuck in the brain?? :confused2:
 

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
Hubbard's idea of a "team" was him (Master) controlling the rest (slaves)

That seems to me to be the scn definition of "team" - a master and slaves, Then senior slaves with sub-slaves, then senior sub-slaves with sub sub slaves ,,,,

I think that is what Alex thought you meant by "team". It is what Hubbard taught him a team was - to his credit, he appears to resist that idea, despite him being a scientologist.

"Men are your slaves. Elemental spirits are your slaves" L Ron Hubbard affirmations.

Asagai, perhaps you should revisit the definition of the term dub-in as that seems to be the operant modality when you discuss me.
 

gomorrhan

Gold Meritorious Patron
Hubbard's intentions, and the methods described in the tech, are not one and the same. There are methods in the tech which I consider traps, minimally a waste of time, and more likely an active attempt to indoctrinate people. There is also an understanding both of how to create such traps, and how to detect and avoid them. The reason I can be interested in, or value, work of Hubbard's, no matter what his personal goals were, is the same reason I can be enjoy a poem about a subject matter which disturbs me. Method, craft, and ultimately WAY can be of value, even when intention is not shared.
 

asagai

Patron Meritorious
Asagai, perhaps you should revisit the definition of the term dub-in as that seems to be the operant modality when you discuss me.

I'm not a scientologist so I don't revisit Ron's labelology. I remember his defintions well, but they are outmoded simplicities.

So tell us what your take is on the master/slave "team". Isn't that what you were describing in your interesting post, when you said "I do feel it is wrong to use processing to turn compusively connected beings into ones own personal army."

For you, does this have any relevance to Ron's affirmations?
  • "Men are your slaves"
  • "That nothing can halt my ambitions."
  • "That I am not credulous or absorbent of other people's opinions."
  • "Your psychology is advanced and true and wonderful. It hypnotizes
    people. It predicts their emotions, for you are their ruler."

By the way there is a rather interesting commentary on Ron's affirmations by Ulf Brettstam if you haven't seen it yet: http://www.lermanet.com/exit/hubbard-admissions-psychiatric-eval.html

Do you think these affirmations have any echo in Hubbard's scientology?

Do you think any of these ideas seeped into the beliefs of scientologists?
 
A

Art

Guest
Very nice to be here!

:) Thank you all for your very warm, truly heart-warming welcome :) You remind me how very nice it is to have ARC. Wish I were really smart and forum-savvy so I could reply to each of you without posting all over the place. So many clear and fascinating thoughts! The philosophy of genuine kindness and intelligence I see here is really inspiring. It really, really is.

Thank you for your welcome and your thoughts.
 
A

Art

Guest
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

Hi, Paul. Thanks for your welcome and reply.

I didn't make it to the Levels before the Dark Years of Scn struck, but I did make it to OT III. However ... I have never had the Dianetics processes of the LX lists (Vol VI, Aug & Nov 1969, toward the end of the vol) run on me. My guess is that there's an awful lot of case that could be handled if those lists were even just competently done. And my guess is most people do not appreciate the scope and range of Dn.

I heard in the 70's that it was an option at OT III to re-do the Grades. You would seem to have proven that right, no? :wink2: As for BT's and so on - and whether case is the pc's or the BTs', Mayo said in the NOTs bulletins that one can run Grades on BT's (five minutes maybe, to blow them). Regardless of what he meant, I would take it from that that if there is emotional, or attitude, or conditions charge on a case, then why not try running it out? (If something sticks, then maybe it is a BT, and can be handled as such.)

I'm looking forwards to getting on the levels and seeing if my 'wild theories' pan out once I have more grasp of the technical side of Dn & Scn.:thumbsup:

Best,
Art.
 
A

Art

Guest
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.

Hi, Ken. You can C/S my case any day:) Actually, I already have a C/S, but what you say echoes recent statements by two Class VIII's and a very good Class V. :thumbsup: Best, Art.
 

gomorrhan

Gold Meritorious Patron
Most Class VIIIs have horse sense, that I have known. Thank you for paying me the honor of being considered as a c/s. Good luck out here beyond the grasp of "Command Intention".
 

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
I'm not a scientologist so I don't revisit Ron's labelology. I remember his defintions well, but they are outmoded simplicities.

So tell us what your take is on the master/slave "team". Isn't that what you were describing in your interesting post, when you said "I do feel it is wrong to use processing to turn compusively connected beings into ones own personal army."

For you, does this have any relevance to Ron's affirmations?
  • "Men are your slaves"
  • "That nothing can halt my ambitions."
  • "That I am not credulous or absorbent of other people's opinions."
  • "Your psychology is advanced and true and wonderful. It hypnotizes
    people. It predicts their emotions, for you are their ruler."

By the way there is a rather interesting commentary on Ron's affirmations by Ulf Brettstam if you haven't seen it yet: http://www.lermanet.com/exit/hubbard-admissions-psychiatric-eval.html

Do you think these affirmations have any echo in Hubbard's scientology?

Do you think any of these ideas seeped into the beliefs of scientologists?

Funny, Ulfie is the reason I am mentioned on lermanet....Ulfie is not one of the great thinkers in his field. He and I have "interacted".

I look at Hubbards affirmations as the act of an immature man. Taken out of context they certainly are disturbing, but at that age I though communism might be the way...and dreamed of glory myself.

Yes I do think though that some of those basic elements of his personality colored scientology. But a persons affirmations are not their life, but indicators of their development at a certain stage, and yes of their direction.

But I find the same flaws in the work of Alan Walter, the flaw of pursuing dominance in a dichotomy, winning. Gathering forces to win, to prevail.

I do see teams as attempts to overpower lessor forces, and dont enjoy that game. Nor do I play it well. In the force vs intelligence equation I always go to the thought over the muscle. So now my dichotomous leanings are in the open. I tend to fight force and usually in a manner that could be considered covert or perhaps subtle.

Yes I tend to see teams as a master slave or leader oriented. And I am not what would be considered a team player. I dont do well in the jostling for position in groups.

So in my questioning it is telling of my inclinations and of my weaknesses.

I do honestly hold the opinions indicated in my questions to Dart, and did introvert a bit at Alans response. He doesnt get me.

But I dont throw out the value of the line of reasoning in scientology just because its former leader and putative creator had dreams of glory in his youth.

It will be fun to look back in a thousand years....

Perhaps I'll buy the first round....
 

Alan

Gold Meritorious Patron
Funny, Ulfie is the reason I am mentioned on lermanet....Ulfie is not one of the great thinkers in his field. He and I have "interacted".

I look at Hubbards affirmations as the act of an immature man. Taken out of context they certainly are disturbing, but at that age I though communism might be the way...and dreamed of glory myself.

Yes I do think though that some of those basic elements of his personality colored scientology. But a persons affirmations are not their life, but indicators of their development at a certain stage, and yes of their direction.

But I find the same flaws in the work of Alan Walter, the flaw of pursuing dominance in a dichotomy, winning. Gathering forces to win, to prevail.

I do see teams as attempts to overpower lessor forces, and dont enjoy that game. Nor do I play it well. In the force vs intelligence equation I always go to the thought over the muscle. So now my dichotomous leanings are in the open. I tend to fight force and usually in a manner that could be considered covert or perhaps subtle.

Yes I tend to see teams as a master slave or leader oriented. And I am not what would be considered a team player. I dont do well in the jostling for position in groups.

So in my questioning it is telling of my inclinations and of my weaknesses.

I do honestly hold the opinions indicated in my questions to Dart, and did introvert a bit at Alans response. He doesnt get me.

But I dont throw out the value of the line of reasoning in scientology just because its former leader and putative creator had dreams of glory in his youth.

It will be fun to look back in a thousand years....

Perhaps I'll buy the first round....

Perhaps you should quit fighting who's - and take on mastering what's - such as overcoming areas of stupidity or ignorance and taking them to areas of mastery with full intelligence and knowledge! :p

One of the definitions of a Master is: An artist or performer of great and exemplary skill. Highly skilled or proficient:
 
Last edited:
Top