Service Facs I have known and loved

[Div6]

I have found it AMAZING that current online Scngsts and HGC's still have NOT a clue about finding and running Service Facsimiles. I got into it with my auditors and C\S'es on when I was on lines, about why they weren't running glaring, obvious ser facs....

Well, it wasn't until I read Mayo's screed
that I realized that they hadn't a clue...their Ser Facs solidly in place, they COULD NOT OBSERVE.

I have been told that LRH said some place that Scn was the LAST Ser Fac you would ever need.

And yes, Zinj, I know, Ser Facs don't exist.

So I thought I would share a ser fac or two that I have known and loved. In a way this is more revealing than just "getting off overts". But I can tell you that once they are gone, life IS different. Feel free to add any of your own.


So here goes:

Way back when, in the Anglo world when marriages were arranged, there was always the possibility of getting set up with a real dog. And so it was that I found my self betrothed to a loathsome wretch with absolutely no appeal to me whatsoever. I suddenly became VERY interested in foreign affairs, hoping for a war, a calling, anything that would take me away from the prospect of having to "seal the deal" on the wedding night.....my prayers for a "just cause" were answered, and as I was hacking Viking meat on the battlefield an arrow pierced my heart......a glorious cause saved me from ignominy....translated into modern day speak, "I'd rather be dead than sleep with that ______.."

 

[Zinjifar]

And yes, Zinj, I know, Ser Facs don't exist.

Oh! But they *do*

In fact, if you're a wog, they come in different flavors:

rationalizations
excuses
justifications

I'd count your viking or the dog Ser Fac as of the 'excuse' flavor..

Zinj

 

[Tanstaafl]

Div6, thanks for that Mayo reference. I'd not read it before and found it very interesting.

Nice serv fac! If it had happened this lifetime you could have joined the Sea Org!

 

[The Oracle]

Great post!

Thanks!

And thanks for the link!

I'll tell you what ser fac that is popular these days, no one has said it to me but it drives me crazy when I hear someone saying it to someone else:

"You're over reacting!".

 

[marty]

Probably this thread should have been connected to Alanzos Scientology Serfacs thread, it already contains much interesting discussion on the subject.

Thanks Div6 for posting that Mayo link, I always enjoy reading Mayos stuff, he gives interesting and often refreshing viewpoints on the tech.

This link though perplexed me a little. He mentions that LRH defines the serfac as the two top terminals of the pt GPM and that nothing is given on how to resolve this.

This is the reference

6309C11 SHSpec-306 Service Facs and GPM’s

"What you are doing in R3SC is “fooling around with the PC’s current RI in his existing PT
goal line of his current truncated goal [GPM].” There is an opposition to it. Clearing up this
stuff is clearing a dumbbell pair out of the PC’s own GPM, restimulated in PT, out of sequence
on the track"
<snip>
"R3SC will land you somewhere in the vicinity of the current oppterm or terminal of the PC’s
own GPM. as it applies to PT, or it may land you near some old RI that is in restimulation in
PT. That will be the source of the PC’s PT restimulation. With R3SC, you can knock that in
the head. You can pull its central postulate. But when you try to make the service fac make
sense, you may find it impossible to do so until you relate it to his goal, by running R3M2. So
that is actually what you are auditing when you find the service fac.
You could find a service fac without a meter by having the PC write a list of solutions, until he
is easy about it and feels that it is complete, then looking on the list for the solution that makes
the least sense. However, when seen as an RI, such things can be seen to make sense"

It is quite evident to me that LRH states quite clearly here that R3SC is what you use and goes on to outline also other approaches to finding it in this lecture and subsequent lectures.

I am curious then why Mayo made the comment he did.

Mayo also refers to a good indoctrination into what is being looked for as feeding a cog. There is no secret cog in this procedure, the more the pc understands what is being done (and most dont) the more likely you are to get the core serfac. again curious why Mayo has this different slant on it.

Mayo also mentions the Prehav scale approach as if it is something original. I as an auditor and as a C/S often went to the prehav scale after having used all the basic tools of R3SC and a few others I was aware of when the pc had not yet still run a serfac to good result. The pre hav scale is very effective approach to this. What Mayo does here though is only go half way. He takes the scale down to a TLT problem/difficulty which is not a serfac but nevertheless runs it as one to hopefully have it show up. What should be done is to find the underlying "idee fixee" precipitating the difficulty by listing safe solutions. That would get you closer to an actual serfac than trying to run the precipitated condition and jacking up the TA.

I think Mayo really missed the boat on this one.

Comments Alan?

But aside from all that I agree with you Div6, most auditors and C/Ss I worked with didnt have the foggiest idea what to do once the pat L&N questions of grd IV were done and still no serfac found. Its not an easy subject to get your head around.

Any way, thats my rant for tonight.

 

[Div6]

I think Mayo really missed the boat on this one.

Comments Alan?

But aside from all that I agree with you Div6, most auditors and C/Ss I worked with didnt have the foggiest idea what to do once the pat L&N questions of grd IV were done and still no serfac found. Its not an easy subject to get your head around.

Any way, thats my rant for tonight.

Thanks for the reference and the input Marty. You know, if the Snr C\S Int missed the boat, then the confusions run rampant down the Org Board.

My current state of knowingness on this is that you have 2 contexts for ser facs....lambda and theta. In the lambda context, it is sympathy\ally computation material. This is probably from 0.0 down on the tone scale, as the "survival value of death" has not really been cognited on.
In the theta context, you have a being postulating a future existence that opposes his current existence...this (to me) is most likely a result of implanting\being implanted as a long term solution along the lines of enforced forgetting as a substitute for "death". Since it is a binary solution it continues a basic postulate of "being split". This is the area of the "super continual PTS" phenomenon, ie: someone who is constantly counter-creating themselves on an "unknown" basis as a method of "survival".
But this is all my current speculation.


It is also interesting to me that LRH used the "dumbbell" term in the tape you quote. From what I understand, the lectures on the NVRD go into and expand on that a great deal. Those lectures were the last LRH ever gave in 1975. I woudl love to hear them.


Again, thanks for your comments.

 

[Bea Kiddo]

In and L & N listed in search of a ser fac, you have to run whatever item the pc gave in the brackets, even if it is not a ser fac. The auditor must be skilled in listening to the pc's answers as one of his answers to the brackets is going to give out his ACTUAL ser fac, which you then need to catch the read and switch to running that. That is what LRH says.

GAT drill teach the auditor to indoctrinate the pc more and more and have the pc give examples and so forth so THEY know how to word them. Its like training the pc on Level IV. I personally did not like it. Usually in that indoc, the pc would spit out the core ser fac as an example and it would get missed by auditors who were only "doing it by the book" and not AUDITING THE PC IN FRONT OF THEM. This would result in, at the end of Grade IV, the core ser fac was not caught and run, and then auditor C/S and FESer have to figure out what went wrong. It's dumb. The auditor, had he know his basics better and not been a robot, would have caught and run it. Happened all too often. I had regular HGC auditors and I got them all groomed up on this, but student auditors or interns, I'd have to train them all up again properly. Works great when auditor and C/S are on the same page (and pc of course!).

(Dang it, I am trying to get away from all that and here I am being a techie again. Ah it's ok. Its kinda fun).

And Div 6, no intent to eval here, but "I'd rather be dead than sleep with that ___" is a SIGN of a ser fac underneath. You have the right area, I am sure. Its a matter of a little more work to word it. I dont want to send you into a self list. That is not my point. I am just saying, it needs a tweak to run properly in the brackets. Ser facs are not doingnesses and they are not justifications either - they are considerations, thoughts, postulates. Buenas suerte!!! (good luck in espanol)

 

[Alanzo]

In and L & N listed in search of a ser fac, you have to run whatever item the pc gave in the brackets, even if it is not a ser fac. The auditor must be skilled in listening to the pc's answers as one of his answers to the brackets is going to give out his ACTUAL ser fac, which you then need to catch the read and switch to running that. That is what LRH says.

GAT drill teach the auditor to indoctrinate the pc more and more and have the pc give examples and so forth so THEY know how to word them. Its like training the pc on Level IV. I personally did not like it. Usually in that indoc, the pc would spit out the core ser fac as an example and it would get missed by auditors who were only "doing it by the book" and not AUDITING THE PC IN FRONT OF THEM. This would result in, at the end of Grade IV, the core ser fac was not caught and run, and then auditor C/S and FESer have to figure out what went wrong. It's dumb. The auditor, had he know his basics better and not been a robot, would have caught and run it. Happened all too often. I had regular HGC auditors and I got them all groomed up on this, but student auditors or interns, I'd have to train them all up again properly. Works great when auditor and C/S are on the same page (and pc of course!).

(Dang it, I am trying to get away from all that and here I am being a techie again. Ah it's ok. Its kinda fun).

And Div 6, no intent to eval here, but "I'd rather be dead than sleep with that ___" is a SIGN of a ser fac underneath. You have the right area, I am sure. Its a matter of a little more work to word it. I dont want to send you into a self list. That is not my point. I am just saying, it needs a tweak to run properly in the brackets. Ser facs are not doingnesses and they are not justifications either - they are considerations, thoughts, postulates. Buenas suerte!!! (good luck in espanol)

Citizen's Array-est!!

VERBAL TAY-ECH!!!!

It's nice to be able to flow and flow verbal tech for once, huh?? Just to finally be able to SPEW VERBAL TECH ALL OVER the PLACE!!!

Go baby, go!!!

 

[Bea Kiddo]

Thanks for the extra post, brat. I have been technically silent this whole time. And now, and now YOU!!!!!!! destroyed everything

:glory:

 

[Alanzo]

Thanks for the extra post, brat. I have been technically silent this whole time. And now, and now YOU!!!!!!! destroyed everything

:glory:

Just let it out....

Yes, that's right. You WANT to engage in Verbal Tech, don't you???

Just let it out.

By the way, Bea - How do you PrepCheck a pc with a high TA?

 

[Bea Kiddo]

Did the session start with a High TA, did it go up on rudiments, or did it go up during the process of prechecking. SCENARIO pulease.... (and, pass me some napkins, my dainty fingers are getting tainted and I can't let THAT happen! Nasty keyboard thingy. My precious hands).

 

[Alanzo]

Did the session start with a High TA, did it go up on rudiments, or did it go up during the process of prechecking. SCENARIO pulease.... (and, pass me some napkins, my dainty fingers are getting tainted and I can't let THAT happen! Nasty keyboard thingy. My precious hands).

Up to you: Take your pick.

Just give us the verbal tech on it.

 

[Bea Kiddo]

You don't start prepchecking on a High TA. Duh. If it is high, you have remedies for that. You have to fix the HIgh TA first. First handle any false TA (before sessio of course). If it is valid High TA, a C/S 53 or the correction list for whatever action the person is on. You must have the TA in range first.

If it went up on Prepchecking, flatten the process.

Are you planning a prep check session on someone this evening? You needing some cramming?

If you dont know the answer to that question, you shouldnt be auditing that pc, as they are above your auditor training level. Its that simple.

Thanks for the extra posts. I am catching up!

 

[Alanzo]

You don't start prepchecking on a High TA. Duh. If it is high, you have remedies for that. You have to fix the HIgh TA first. First handle any false TA (before sessio of course). If it is valid High TA, a C/S 53 or the correction list for whatever action the person is on. You must have the TA in range first.

If it went up on Prepchecking, flatten the process.

Are you planning a prep check session on someone this evening? You needing some cramming?

If you dont know the answer to that question, you shouldnt be auditing that pc, as they are above your auditor training level. Its that simple.

Thanks for the extra posts. I am catching up!

I just love the verbal tech.

It's so freeing!

 

[Div6]

In and L & N listed in search of a ser fac, you have to run whatever item the pc gave in the brackets, even if it is not a ser fac. The auditor must be skilled in listening to the pc's answers as one of his answers to the brackets is going to give out his ACTUAL ser fac, which you then need to catch the read and switch to running that. That is what LRH says.

GAT drill teach the auditor to indoctrinate the pc more and more and have the pc give examples and so forth so THEY know how to word them. Its like training the pc on Level IV. I personally did not like it. Usually in that indoc, the pc would spit out the core ser fac as an example and it would get missed by auditors who were only "doing it by the book" and not AUDITING THE PC IN FRONT OF THEM. This would result in, at the end of Grade IV, the core ser fac was not caught and run, and then auditor C/S and FESer have to figure out what went wrong. It's dumb. The auditor, had he know his basics better and not been a robot, would have caught and run it. Happened all too often. I had regular HGC auditors and I got them all groomed up on this, but student auditors or interns, I'd have to train them all up again properly. Works great when auditor and C/S are on the same page (and pc of course!).

(Dang it, I am trying to get away from all that and here I am being a techie again. Ah it's ok. Its kinda fun).

And Div 6, no intent to eval here, but "I'd rather be dead than sleep with that ___" is a SIGN of a ser fac underneath. You have the right area, I am sure. Its a matter of a little more work to word it. I dont want to send you into a self list. That is not my point. I am just saying, it needs a tweak to run properly in the brackets. Ser facs are not doingnesses and they are not justifications either - they are considerations, thoughts, postulates. Buenas suerte!!! (good luck in espanol)

Very interesting....yeah, the indoc sounds kinda evaluative, but it is a step up from being a total clueless newb.

So as a GAT C\S, what are acceptable wordings for these specific types of postulates? I ask as there have been several different defs over time, so I am curious what is currently in vogue?


And ignore Alonzo....he gets off on Verbal Tech "pr0n". You know how it is...those that can't do, watch...

 

[Alanzo]

And ignore Alonzo....he gets off on Verbal Tech "pr0n". You know how it is...those that can't do, watch...

I feel like a withhold has been missed!

 

[Bea Kiddo]

Very interesting....yeah, the indoc sounds kinda evaluative, but it is a step up from being a total clueless newb.

So as a GAT C\S, what are acceptable wordings for these specific types of postulates? I ask as there have been several different defs over time, so I am curious what is currently in vogue?


And ignore Alonzo....he gets off on Verbal Tech "pr0n". You know how it is...those that can't do, watch...

Well, in the case of the example you have given, its worded as a thinkingness instead of a posulate or consideration. There is a thought process deeper, underlying that statement. You want help digging it out of that? You want me to give you examples of what it could be, based on the thinkingness in that example? Is it your actual consideration or is it an example? (If it's yours, its better that we talk it through and you figure it out yourself. If its an indoc we are doing here, I'll be happy to help you out).

---

Alanzo just a quickie dude trying to get points by catching out other people. Ignore him.

 

[Div6]

Well, in the case of the example you have given, its worded as a thinkingness instead of a postulate or consideration. There is a thought process deeper, underlying that statement. You want help digging it out of that? You want me to give you examples of what it could be, based on the thinkingness in that example? Is it your actual consideration or is it an example? (If it's yours, its better that we talk it through and you figure it out yourself. If its an indoc we are doing here, I'll be happy to help you out).

---

Alanzo just a quickie dude trying to get points by catching out other people. Ignore him.

I am just interested in examples at this point...what the current viewpoint is on ser-facs per the GAT. As an example, lets say what comes up is "I'd rather be dead than red".....to use a phrase from the 1950's. What wording is acceptable? (Supposing that the above read well when voiced by the pc).

(I always thought the LRH example of "All horses sleep in Beds" was a really BAD example...to the point of cluelessness. I also have this idea (not sure where it came from) that ser facs are below 2.0 kinds of postulates (ie: can't have, never be, never do) kinds of things.)


Thanks

 

[Bea Kiddo]

Well, I'm thinking, theoretically, of course, that anything being audited is going to be below 2.0 on the Tone Scale. So in that sense, ser facs would fit that too.

"All horses sleep in beds" is where he is trying to give an example without restimulating actual ser facs in people. Thats the theory of that.

Examples of ser facs, then? Well, one thing to consider, is if they can run in the brackets. Also, to the auditor, and to other people, the statement of the ser fac MAKES NO SENSE. That is a key point. (Brackets, paraphrased, or maybe not: IN this lifetime, how would___ Make you right? In this lifetime, how would ___ make others wrong? In this lifetime, how would ___ help you escape domination? In this lifetime, how would ___ help you dominate others? The other set escapes me now. Dang it.).

Ok examples then: All women are tramps. Police cannot be trusted. Thats the way life is.

(no snide comments from the Peanut Gallery please)

Its gotta be a fixed idea. Something a person cannot see that they are using to explain away things. They use it to operate in daily life and they come up with solutions and evaluations that are illogical to the situation. It makes them unable to think or listen.

Run some of your ideas by me. Lemme see them.

 

[Zinjifar]

Its gotta be a fixed idea. Something a person cannot see that they are using to explain away things. They use it to operate in daily life and they come up with solutions and evaluations that are illogical to the situation. It makes them unable to think or listen.

Run some of your ideas by me. Lemme see them.

How bout, 'There are *millions* of words in Scientology! They *must* mean something!'

Zinj