OTIII: When the Pilot appears, WHO is mocking it up?

Lesolee (Sith Lord)

Patron Meritorious
Now this is a discussion for those of us who have run or are running OTIII. There are plenty of threads for anti-OTIII people to vent on. If you fall into the anti-camp, please voice that opinion elsewhere so this thread is kept fairly contained.

In a recent un-related thread Challenge raised the point that it is the Pilot who is mocking up the situation.
but but but...the Pilot said that HE is mocking it up!

You are making the mistake that others make about OT3, Inc 2. The Pilot says that He is mocking it up. You are not mocking it up. Another is mocking it up.
Has to do with misownership.

DOF countered that it is the Pilot telling the BT that the BT is mocking it up.
In that one handwritten issue where it is mentioned, Hubbard is talking about the pc, and also talks about the point where "the Pilot says he's mocking it up." It is not obvious from the context if the "he" is referring to the Pilot or the pc. To my mind, it doesn't make sense for the Pilot to tell the BT the Pilot is mocking it up. How can one being mock something up mentally for another without the other mocking it up for himself? The only way it makes sense for me is that the Pilot is telling the BT he (the BT) is mocking the incident up as opposed to it being a real incident, so the BT thinks for ever afterwards that the whole implant is imaginary and not real, and so it won't blow.



I know of only two LRH references on this subject, both handwritten.

2nd Note, 28 Oct 1968 "Incident 2"
The Volcanic Explosion on Earth to the point where "the Pilot" say's he's mocking it up is only a few days.

Incident 2 (No date)
Picture of pilot saying he's mocking it up.

This is a very simple question,
When you ran it, did you run it as …

A) The Pilot was mocking it up?
B) The Pilot was telling the BT that the BT was mocking it up?
C) Some other way?

How did it go, and did you change your view on it after a few runs?
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
You think it makes any difference? There is no further explanation of "the Pilot", as to whether "he" is like a Mississippi riverboat pilot, an aircraft pilot, a spaceship pilot, a pilot light on a gas stove, a talking pilot project, or what. God knows what people project for it.

Personally I mocked up something like an aircraft pilot in a brown leather jacket with a white silk scarf. I don't remember who I had mocking it up when I did OT III. I only became an expert after extensive studying while sup'ing it. When I actually first did the theory and audited it the sups sucked.

Paul
 
pilot.jpg
 

Been Done Had

Patron with Honors
I haven't done 3 but I read about it online. :)

It's so frustrating that the Old Man couldn't be bothered to write a clear and concise manual for such an important level. There should be no room for confusion.

In this case I believe that the Pilot in the implant (the guy flying the Xenu Air DC8) is telling the PC that the PC mocked up the incident.

And remember the PC in this situation is not the PRE-OT holding the solo cans. The PC is the BT being audited. The auditor (you) have not gone through this implant personally. Only your BTs.

The "You're mocking it up" command invalidates the victim (BT) and confuses ownership as a self to self incident and not an other to self incident (self being, again, the BT being audited at the moment.)

Now there are tons of threads on the validity of this incident. My take is this; if you believe in space opera and past lives, it is an absolutely plausible incident. If not, then no. It's fantasy.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
My take is this; if you believe in space opera and past lives, it is an absolutely plausible incident. If not, then no. It's fantasy.

I disagree. I believe in space opera and past lives, but not in Inc 2 or Inc 1 or body thetans as entire beings co-inhabiting one's personal space.

Paul
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Now this is a discussion for those of us who have run or are running OTIII. There are plenty of threads for anti-OTIII people to vent on. If you fall into the anti-camp, please voice that opinion elsewhere so this thread is kept fairly contained.

In a recent un-related thread Challenge raised the point that it is the Pilot who is mocking up the situation.




DOF countered that it is the Pilot telling the BT that the BT is mocking it up.




I know of only two LRH references on this subject, both handwritten.

2nd Note, 28 Oct 1968 "Incident 2"


Incident 2 (No date)


This is a very simple question,
When you ran it, did you run it as …

A) The Pilot was mocking it up?
B) The Pilot was telling the BT that the BT was mocking it up?
C) Some other way?

How did it go, and did you change your view on it after a few runs?

A group of OTs in LA had a discussion of this, one was a friend of mine, another was Ken Ogger, [ aka " The Pilot"] don't know who else was there, and several ran it one way, others the other way, all made gains.
 

Veda

Sponsor
I haven't done 3 but I read about it online. :)

It's so frustrating that the Old Man couldn't be bothered to write a clear and concise manual for such an important level. There should be no room for confusion.

-snip-

Do you really think the "confusion" - that Hubbard concocted - was an accident? or just sloppiness?

Threat to survival/needed for survival+confusion+certainty - that's a precise formula, not an accident or sloppiness.

You must trust the "old man" - and his morbid imagination - more than I do.

To the concerned Xenu Bridge walker - As I recall, according to the materials, the "pilot" is a picture saying he is mocking it up. That picture would have been a picture projected on a large moving picture screen which contained the imagery of the R6 bank, administered after the first part of Incident 2, 75 million years ago.

Usually, the strong desire to get through OT 3, and the intense sense of dread at the possibility of failing to do so, will result in a feeling of relief every time the meter reacts as the materials say it should. The confusions will become irrelevant once one is staring at the Tone Arm blowing down and a nice loose floppy needle. The emotion is usually tremendous relief and sheer delight - another happy Hubbardian implantee has made it through the "Wall of Fire"!:happydance: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Public Service Announcement for newbie lurkers:

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=77478&postcount=14
 

Lesolee (Sith Lord)

Patron Meritorious
A group of OTs in LA had a discussion of this, one was a friend of mine, another was Ken Ogger, [ aka " The Pilot"] don't know who else was there, and several ran it one way, others the other way, all made gains.
Yes, that's the way I was thinking about it too. :happydance:
I think some are probably one way, and some the other. I've been pushing into that line a lot harder recently. Did three sessions today and on two of them got a wording for it that blew the TA down 0.5 divs before F/Ning. I've done over a hundred entities so far and got at least ten different wordings at that point of Inc 2 to BD F/N. The only thing they have in common is they are deliberately designed to confuse, misdirect and generally fuck with the BT's "head". It's great fun when you find one. Literally a release. :happydance:
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Yes, that's the way I was thinking about it too. :happydance:
I think some are probably one way, and some the other. I've been pushing into that line a lot harder recently. Did three sessions today and on two of them got a wording for it that blew the TA down 0.5 divs before F/Ning. I've done over a hundred entities so far and got at least ten different wordings at that point of Inc 2 to BD F/N. The only thing they have in common is they are deliberately designed to confuse, misdirect and generally fuck with the BT's "head". It's great fun when you find one. Literally a release. :happydance:

Getting the BT's version of Inc 2 is not part of Hubbard's OT III procedure. It might be good Dianetics — or even sensible :) — but it's not "standard tech" for the level.

Reference is the issue that states something like "the contents of the incidents as given on the platens are run on BTs." Also something like "R3R steps are not run" in another issue.

Of course, you're welcome to do whatever the hell you want to. But it's not OT III. :)

Paul
 

Feral

Rogue male
I ran it as the pilot told the victim that HE was mocking it up. I remember though that the ambiguity of it was bothering me at the time.

I also had to WC, M9 a fellow student on that ref, she was a South African and picked the most unlikely definition of 'pilot', something like, "The guide on a safari or tour" (not verbatim)

I was very amused to read Ken Oggers account of inc 2, where the pilot was the local 'big being' who returned and tried to stop the implant by claiming HE was mocking it up, took him long enough to get back, the time from explosion to that part of the implant must have been days due to time it would take to collect and relocate all of the sectors thetans in Hawaii and the Canaries. Then if the pilot appeared at the same time in each implant they must have been playing at the exact same time.


I also wondered how many disembodied, frozen thetans would fit on a DC8, does anyone know?
 

Lesolee (Sith Lord)

Patron Meritorious
Getting the BT's version of Inc 2 is not part of Hubbard's OT III procedure. It might be good Dianetics — or even sensible :) — but it's not "standard tech" for the level.
Damn you're good. :redface:

I was going to revoke your squirrel status 'cos you keep being so damn Standard, but then I realised you were giving me Verbal Tech, so it's ok after all. :coolwink:

So we have …

Data (undated)
… so be careful to do only incidents 1 & 2 as given and not plow around and fail to complete one thetan at a time.

Section III Running: HCOB 9 July 1971
When OTIII is run, the contents of the incidents as[are] given on the platens are run on B/Ts. R3R steps are not run. The B/T is "intended" to the Date and through the incidents as given.

The
as[are]
thing is me correcting the [are] in the wikileaks version. I imagine it's an OCR error.


At my Ethics hearing I would cite …

HCOB 12 April 1970, Running OTIII
When running OTIII the Solo Auditor handles Body thetans as he would any other pc, for the general idea is to run them standardly and not to ARC break them.
Obviously they would ARC break if left with the withhold of this interesting phrase.:whistling:

… and then I would get Declared. :squirrel: :squirrel: :happydance:
 
Last edited:

Lesolee (Sith Lord)

Patron Meritorious
I was very amused to read Ken Oggers account of inc 2, where the pilot was the local 'big being' who returned and tried to stop the implant by claiming HE was mocking it up, ...
I'm not buying that story.:no:

I did like his idea that you couldn't run the OTIII 36 day implant because of earlier stuff in an Earlier Universe, and that the running of that incident fucked up LRH. Now that does make sense.

I also wondered how many disembodied, frozen thetans would fit on a DC8, does anyone know?
How about this for an "idea". The easiest way to keep a thetan captive is to keep the meat body frozen. But you don't have to keep the WHOLE body. Experimentation reduced the mass down and down until it could be just a small fragment, less than 1 cm when encased in ice. You need to freeze the body, cut bits off which don't hold the thetan and burn them. They can't be left intact because the thetan could jump between pieces otherwise. Transporting these spheres is not that hard, especially as they don't need life support.
 
Yes, that's the way I was thinking about it too. :happydance:
I think some are probably one way, and some the other. I've been pushing into that line a lot harder recently. Did three sessions today and on two of them got a wording for it that blew the TA down 0.5 divs before F/Ning. I've done over a hundred entities so far and got at least ten different wordings at that point of Inc 2 to BD F/N. The only thing they have in common is they are deliberately designed to confuse, misdirect and generally fuck with the BT's "head". It's great fun when you find one. Literally a release. :happydance:

You can make anything mean whatever you want it to mean. So what?
 
You can make anything mean whatever you want it to mean. So what?

Yep, most works of fiction give better detail, especially when they are trying to convey fictitious historical events, Hubbard was so far gone by that time, people who dabble in Hubbard Science fiction OT levels should be happy it's as detailed as it.
 

ULRC/S

Patron with Honors
I got shown the "Pilot" while running OT3 by several of my clients, he/it looked like a squashed humanish face wearing an naval officer's cap - very elongated in width. Much more so than a incorrectly adjusted widescreen TV set.

And that exact same image I've seen somewhere on the record cover of an Elton John album...don't remember the name.

Regards, Allen (Vacuum State)
 
I got shown the "Pilot" while running OT3 by several of my clients, he/it looked like a squashed humanish face wearing an naval officer's cap - very elongated in width. Much more so than a incorrectly adjusted widescreen TV set.

And that exact same image I've seen somewhere on the record cover of an Elton John album...don't remember the name.

Regards, Allen (Vacuum State)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1a8l_574pc
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Damn you're good. :redface:

I was going to revoke your squirrel status 'cos you keep being so damn Standard, but then I realised you were giving me Verbal Tech, so it's ok after all. :coolwink:

Thank you. :)

I put all the benefits of my sup experience into those OT2/OT3 checksheets. Including emphasizing the bits that students tended to miss in studying the theory (like this exact point of running the contents of the platens on the BTs rather than intending them through their idea of the incidents).

I'm not joking. They really are EXCELLENT checksheets if you want to audit exactly how Hubbard laid it out for those two levels, even though they link to the Prometheus versions.

http://www.freewebs.com/squirrelacademy/OT2checksheet.htm (OT2)

http://www.freewebs.com/squirrelacademy/OT3checksheet.htm (OT3)

Paul
 
Top