The Clear Cognition ***Confidential***

[Zinjifar]

Scarab.


Mark A. Baker

Gesundheit

Zinj

 

[knn]

Being charitable, I think the reason you would want someone to be "clear" at least to some extent, is so that they understand they are responsible for their own pictures, and have some facility with cleaning them up, rather than putting that responsibility on others.

But with the same arguments I could claim that having BTs stops you from going Clear because you constantly see misowned pictures. Without BTs going Clear could be much faster. Without BTs grades could go much faster. Actually without BTs you could maybe run WholeTrack grades much better. Hubbard says in his Class8 lectures that whole grades could have been run on the BTs instead of the PC. And he says how dangerous this can be (without offering any solution though).

 

[Mark A. Baker]

But with the same arguments I could claim that having BTs stops you from going Clear because you constantly see misowned pictures. Without BTs going Clear could be much faster. Without BTs grades could go much faster. Actually without BTs you could maybe run WholeTrack grades much better. Hubbard says in his Class8 lectures that whole grades could have been run on the BTs instead of the PC. And he says how dangerous this can be (without offering any solution though).

It can be difficult to process others "considerations" because an individual is not "stably clear". One reason for variability of processing of individuals on "lower bridge" is precisely because of the degree to which they are unable to differentiate between an own "incident" and that of "another".

Rather than "switch-hitting" the focus of auditing, it is simpler and more generally effective to process the pc to "clear" and subsequently deal as may be necessary with issues associated with "other's considerations".

Dealing with "others" first, is apt to produce a very confusing set of considerations for a pc to unravel. A person can go to London from Manchester by foot via the Gobi Desert but it is not an efficient methodology.

Similar practices often hold with other traditions which address "bt"-like phenomena.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Dulloldfart]

My point was that the "Pilot" is - per OT 3 - part of the implant segment of "Incident 2," and not part of the earlier capture, transport to Teegeeack, nuking, etc. That the "Pilot" was a picture in an implant.

I think you'll find that there are some who think that the "Pilot" was the one(s) who "dropped the Bomb," but that's not my interpretation, my interpretation is that I don't take it seriously.

Fair enough.

Paul

 

[knn]

It can be difficult to process others "considerations" because an individual is not "stably clear". One reason for variability of processing of individuals on "lower bridge" is precisely because of the degree to which they are unable to differentiate between an own "incident" and that of "another".

Rather than "switch-hitting" the focus of auditing, it is simpler and more generally effective to process the pc to "clear" and subsequently deal as may be necessary with issues associated with "other's considerations".

Dealing with "others" first, is apt to produce a very confusing set of considerations for a pc to unravel. A person can go to London from Manchester by foot via the Gobi Desert but it is not an efficient methodology.

I cannot escape the impression that it's only your THEORY based on the Standard Bridge.
Have you actually tried to run out BTs first (= before the PC went clear) and failed? Or is it merely a THEORY that it WILL fail? I am curious.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I cannot escape the impression that it's only your THEORY based on the Standard Bridge.
Have you actually tried to run out BTs first (= before the PC went clear) and failed? Or is it merely a THEORY that it WILL fail? I am curious.

I don't deny that "bts" can be run. It's just not typically smooth going for a "non-clear" pc when the focus of his auditing is "bt's case" and not his own.

Not everything that is "possible" is a good idea.

I've known several freezone & independent scientologists early on ('80s) who tried doing exactly what you suggest with what were "non-clears". They ran & got gains in session BUT out of session the pcs were kicked into a great deal of personal confusion by the process. Their "cycles" wound up as endless repairs.

My own experience includes having run "bts" while on my lower bridge. It went well for me in that I easily differentiated what was happening and had no trouble on the processes. HOWEVER, my situation was atypical. I had already had a great deal of auditing. By that point I was already "clear" only having put off an attest. My auditor was an OT and had no trouble handling the session originations.

I've also on occasion done it with friends I've audited and who weren't "clears". These were specific circumstances arising during the course of a session and were based on handling the pc's origination. I don't recommend it as a general practice but, for a specific circumstance and on a pc's origination, it can prove beneficial.

The better plan is to deal with those matters on which the PC's attention is fixed and not concern oneself with what are essentially digressions to the pc's progress.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Leon]

I don't deny that "bts" can be run. It's just not typically smooth going for a "non-clear" pc when the focus of his auditing is "bt's case" and not his own.

Not everything that is "possible" is a good idea.

I've known several freezone & independent scientologists early on ('80s) who tried doing exactly what you suggest with what were "non-clears". They ran & got gains in session BUT out of session the pcs were kicked into a great deal of personal confusion by the process. Their "cycles" wound up as endless repairs.

My own experience includes having run "bts" while on my lower bridge. It went well for me in that I easily differentiated what was happening and had no trouble on the processes. HOWEVER, my situation was atypical. I had already had a great deal of auditing. By that point I was already "clear" only having put off an attest. My auditor was an OT and had no trouble handling the session originations.

I've also on occasion done it with friends I've audited and who weren't "clears". These were specific circumstances arising during the course of a session and were based on handling the pc's origination. I don't recommend it as a general practice but, for a specific circumstance and on a pc's origination, it can prove beneficial.

The better plan is to deal with those matters on which the PC's attention is fixed and not concern oneself with what are essentially digressions to the pc's progress.


Mark A. Baker

Hundred percent right, Mark.

I've had a pc who had Power processes run on her BTs during Life Repair. For Gawd's sake, what a mess.

Just follow the bridge of the early to mid 1970's, adding whatever is applicable to the person's own case in restim, handle the crap out of everything you find and and all will go well. Upper levels become a breeze.

 

[lionheart]

<snip>
I've known several freezone & independent scientologists early on ('80s) who tried doing exactly what you suggest with what were "non-clears". They ran & got gains in session BUT out of session the pcs were kicked into a great deal of personal confusion by the process. Their "cycles" wound up as endless repairs.

<snip>
Mark A. Baker

But surely this was also observably true of CofS "OTs"?

I remember back in the 70's seeing "OT's" (not quickied by-passed levels OTs but those who had done the whole Power, R6, CC route) who were in a terrible mess in their lives, their health and frankly just plain "casey".

I can remember going to St Hill and being shocked at the out of session "case-state" of so-called OTs, who were on endless reviews.

I expect most of us saw such people.

So is the fault an out-gradient of BT handling as you suggest or an error in the actual BT handling techniques themselves? Or even an error of handling BT's at all.

After I left Scn I came to the conclusion that the casey state of people on the Advanced levels was actually because the OT levels are an evaluation - a code break - where the person is told what is causing their "case" or told what is in their space causing them trouble.

The actual auditing switches from lower levels to upper levels from asking the PC "What's-it?" and letting the PC "Itsa" into telling the PC "It is".

Too much telling a person what is the cause of their difficulties is practically guaranteed to make them worse. Isn't that the original reason for the no-evaluation code rule?

So back to your specific point. What I am basically saying is that telling a PC the sources of their problems are BTs and they are stuck in precise incidents is likely to make a person feel worse, more casey, more effect, etc. no matter how much other auditing they may have had.

I believe this was a deliberate strategy of Ron's to make his adherents more controllable.

 

[me myself & i]

I believe this was a deliberate startegy of Ron's to make his adherents more controllable.

Not for Mark.

And for Mark, what is true for Mark, is true for all beings (in this galaxy as well as the next). Just like what was true for Ron was true for all.

Scientology 101.

Lol.

mm&i

 

[knn]

Hundred percent right, Mark.

I've had a pc who had Power processes run on her BTs during Life Repair. For Gawd's sake, what a mess.

But this is exactly what I am saying. You try to run Power Processes instead of running OT2/3, which then becomes a mess.

 

[Veda]

The 1970s "upper Bridge" was a failure. As natural psychic Ingo Swann diplomatically described it, it was "disappointing."

It did not "deliver what it promised." To continue to promote such a defective and booby-trapped "Bridge" is irresponsible.

Here's some background for newbie lurkers, addressing some topics covered in this thread.

'Class 8 Course', re. Xenu, etc.:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=177122&postcount=41

Some Hubbard info on "Incident 2"

http://www.freezoneearth.org/Prometheus04old/otThree/preot3/platen2.htm

Excerpts from Ron's Journal 67:

http://www.freezoneearth.org/Prometheus04old/otThree/preot3/rj67.htm

"Public Service Announcement":

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

 

[Mark A. Baker]

But surely this was also observably true of CofS "OTs"?

....

So is the fault an out-gradient of BT handling as you suggest or an error in the actual BT handling techniques themselves? Or even an error of handling BT's at all.

....

I doubt very much that any one fault can be held up as the cause of such situations. What is the problem with any individual's particular case state is individual.

However, neither do I assume that an "OT" is necessarily "complete" on a "lower level" action simply because they didn't appear to be "quickied" either. There exist plenty of instances of bad auditing, "no auditing", executive C/Sing, mandatory sec-checks, "missed withholds", "false attests",etc., out there to muddy the waters of any non-systematic approach at diagnosing the faults individuals have experienced with "upper level" auditing.

As stated before, I don't accept Hubbard's views of "upper level" materials as expressed in his write-ups. I see the material as written as less than optimal. However, they are usable as is. They can be improved on. I think they can be successfully negotiated when addressed with due care. Key to this is respecting the Auditor's Code and the fundamentals of scientology basics.

The really "messed up OTs" I've encountered all had had problems in their auditing where the fundamentals of the subject weren't respected. This was usually as a result of advices or tech coming from Hubbard or other "higher ups".

Too much telling a person what is the cause of their difficulties is practically guaranteed to make them worse. Isn't that the original reason for the no-evaluation code rule?

I absolutely agree. Any attempt at evaluating for a pc can only be a detriment. The pc must know & be comfortable with being able to make and express his own interpretations of anything.

So back to your specific point. What I am basically saying is that telling a PC the sources of their problems are BTs and they are stuck in precise incidents is likely to make a person feel worse, more casey, more effect, etc. no matter how much other auditing they may have had.

Again I completely agree. They should find it out for themselves.

Seeing as I'm not inclined to say any such thing to a person I don't see this as a basis for disagreement between us. To the extent that the Co$ or a few others do, I recommend avoiding reliance on their judgement.

I believe this was a deliberate strategy of Ron's to make his adherents more controllable.

That's a plausible although not compelling argument. Hubbard's dead. As a result your claim is unlikely to ever be fully resolved.

At this point, the argument is strictly academic since whatever value scientology practices have does not arise because of Hubbard.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Leon]

The 1970s "upper Bridge" was a failure. As natural psychic Ingo Swann diplomatically described it, it was "disappointing."

It did not "deliver what it promised."

The 1970s lower level bridge was a resounding success wherever I saw it. Applied with intelligence and with an absence of CofS arbitraries it fully delivered what was promised. When coupled with training it was even better. Failures. though not entirely absent, were very rare. Spectacular gains were commonplace.

 

[Veda]

The 1970s lower level bridge was a resounding success wherever I saw it. Applied with intelligence and with an absence of CofS arbitraries it fully delivered what was promised. When coupled with training it was even better. Failures. though not entirely absent, were very rare. Spectacular gains were commonplace.

I was referring to the "upper Bridge" only - the "lower Bridge" is the mostly benign "bait" part, before the "switch" occurs.

 

[Ego]

Requested Rundown. Would this do?

You need the full UnClear Certainty Rundown.

The EP is being completely fuckered.

Paul

Sounds stimulating.

Do you have a url for that rundown yet?

R-Factor: A Thetan can assume any identity. A Thetan can BE anything.

Commands:
1) Look at that toy. (Thank you.)
2) Be that toy. (Thank you.)
3) Does that bring anything to view? (Tell me what your perceptions are about that.)
4) Connected to 'being that toy' what things have you restrained?
5) Connected to 'being that toy' what things have you done?
6) Does that bring anything to view? (Tell me what your perceptions are about that.)

Repeat commands 1 through 6 over and over till EP.

PS. After reading through this rundown some might express doubts as to whether the promised EP can actually be reached with this rundown.
It is believed most of those doubts can be remedied with the following technical training film:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSWL1vA4wgQ

Be careful. If you run this in another valence you might go down the drain,
all wet and blue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-21YY8e_Fk&feature=related

PPS. Be the toy!



PPPS. Do you want others to get what you have gotten from this rundown?

EGO

 

[lionheart]

I doubt very much that any one fault can be held up as the cause of such situations. What is the problem with any individual's particular case state is individual.

However, neither do I assume that an "OT" is necessarily "complete" on a "lower level" action simply because they didn't appear to be "quickied" either. There exist plenty of instances of bad auditing, "no auditing", executive C/Sing, mandatory sec-checks, "missed withholds", "false attests",etc., out there to muddy the waters of any non-systematic approach at diagnosing the faults individuals have experienced with "upper level" auditing.

As stated before, I don't accept Hubbard's views of "upper level" materials as expressed in his write-ups. I see the material as written as less than optimal. However, they are usable as is. They can be improved on. I think they can be successfully negotiated when addressed with due care. Key to this is respecting the Auditor's Code and the fundamentals of scientology basics.

The really "messed up OTs" I've encountered all had had problems in their auditing where the fundamentals of the subject weren't respected. This was usually as a result of advices or tech coming from Hubbard or other "higher ups".




I absolutely agree. Any attempt at evaluating for a pc can only be a detriment. The pc must know & be comfortable with being able to make and express his own interpretations of anything.




Again I completely agree. They should find it out for themselves.

Seeing as I'm not inclined to say any such thing to a person I don't see this as a basis for disagreement between us. To the extent that the Co$ or a few others do, I recommend avoiding reliance on their judgement.





That's a plausible although not compelling argument. Hubbard's dead. As a result your claim is unlikely to ever be fully resolved.

At this point, the argument is strictly academic since whatever value scientology practices have does not arise because of Hubbard.


Mark A. Baker

I'm not doubting your genuine attempt to apply the auditors code and scn basics (such as the auditing comm cycle) - I just don't see how you can do so and run any recognisable version of Ron's Upper Levels.

So, specifically, do you show your pre-OT's Ron's handwritten notes on OTIII? Surely that would be a huge evaluation?

If you don't show them Ron's evaluations, how do you run OTIII? Do your Pre-OT's run BTs on Inc 2 or Inc 1? - further LRH evals.

Do you teach your Pre-OT's that physical sensations, pressures, pains, etc indicate the presence of a BT or entitiy - how is that not an evaluation? An "it is" statement rather than a "whats-it?" question. A violation of the auditing comm cycle.

What about OT2 do you run Ron's evaluated implants?

I am having difficulty conceiving of any version of OT2 to NOTs that doesn't involve telling the person what is causing their case.

I've read the argument that one runs these things as metaphores or without necessarily subscribing to LRH's imposed truth about them. That somehow you run them without believing them and get case gain anyway - I can't understand that - it just seems like double think or disonance to me.

I don't agree that Ron's intentions are "purely academic". Understanding his intentions are crucial to an understanding of what may or may not be happening in applying the techniques he developed from his intentions. Especially as his "tech" is full of his descriptions (evaluations) of what is actually happening. If his intentions are academic, how can his descriptions, procedures and explanations have any validity?

It is not easy to determine his likely motives, but any practitioner of any version of his techniques has a duty, in my opinion, for the sake and safety of his clients to do his best to work out Hubbard's most likely intentions. Otherwise, how can you be sure exactly what it is that you are doing when you apply Ron's tech?

When we applied his tech in the CofS we did so because we assumed or believed that his motives were good. Before any action comes an idea - the idea causes the birth of the action. Ron's ideas created Ron's tech. If Ron's motives were not what he told us they were, how can we be sure that his tech is doing what he said it was doing?

Ouside the CofS you apply some of Hubbard's actions without an understanding or at least a belief as to his ideas/motives? :confused2: I'm not sure I believe you about that - it just beggars belief that you are applying some version of his tech without a belief or understanding of the motives that created it! :confused2: :confused2: :confused2:

Thanks for any answers you care to give to these points.

Can you also tell us specifically which FreeZone group you are most closely alligned to? Is there a website that outlines the version of Hubbard technology you most closely adhere to?

I don't think you have ever said. I get the impression that you are not alligned, yet somehow still seem able to speak for the FZ in some way. Do you have clients or only apply Ron's tech to yourself?

 

[Ego]

If I mistake your meaning correctly.

I was a "past life Clear" and it was validated three times by 3 different sets of Auditors/CSes over 7 years.

And yet I now do not believe in Clear.

And I don't necessarily remember ever saying anything about saying "I am mocking up my reactive mind" in any of those sessions. For me, it was all about some weird dominant perception of TIME. That's the part I was most interested in while we were on the subject in those sessions.

What do I do now, Vinaire?

Please evaluate for me...

What kind of feeling were you seeking through the State of Clear? Have a look.

You have the answer within you. That is my evaluation.

.

Thank you. It is rare that people realize that to say to someone "You have the answer within you." is to evaluate for him.
People do quite often place their answer somewhere else than within themself. Perhaps even somewhen else than now.

EGO

 

[Panda Termint]

Just a few thought;

You decide you'd like a haircut.
You don't know where the hairdresser is located.
You ask someone the way.

He/She tells you;
(a) it's over there on Blah St, it's Number 666, the safest route is down Bleah St, turn left at Doh Avenue and right onto Blah. When you get to the Hairdresser make sure you ask for Mary, she's the best, the others are a bit squirrelly.
or (b) the answer is within you, seek and ye shall find.
or (c) find your own way, Bub.
or (d) you don't need a haircut!
or (e) there are no haircuts.
or (f) all haircuts are bad.
or (g) .... any answer at all other than (a)

Most of us, wanting that haircut, will settle for option (a).

Of course, various complications set in when you find that 666 Blah St is actually a Mafia-style Casino and the cute ex-Hairdresser, Mary, is now yelling at passer-bys, "Step right up folks, place your bets, everyone's a winner!"

Sheesh, I only wanted a haircut!

 

[uniquemand]

Looking over the last series of posts (too many to address individually), I'll revert to an old argument that I think applies here. Anything that you are feeling should be addressed. If you are handling charge using normal means ("below Clear"), and it won't resolve, it may well be a matter of misownership, but the only thing that can effect you is your own charge. Thus, a BT might be restimulated and you might misown that charge, but in order for this to happen, you'd have to have some charge of your own in that area that the BT is restimulating. If you handle your own charge, there's nothing for a BT to charge up or stick to. Handling them might be a nice service to them, but is essentially a digression from handling your own case: IMO, it is rabbiting. I've found that sometimes I had charge on something, and it turned out the only reason I had charge on it was because someone had given me a wrong indication on it (that it was my item, when it was really their item, or whatever). Just spotting that flopped my worldview around, and I was able to stop looking for incidents where I had that feeling, and realize it wasn't my item. I was essentially introverted and looking for/mocking up charge that others had asserted I had, when really, I didn't. Poof. 85 divisions an hour for several days of processing after that as I recovered my own point of view on many things. "Wrong Indication" technique, I think, would handle most of the charge people are handling with BT handling techniques now, without getting into trying to telepathically audit a bunch of dead alien spirits. Handle the ridge they stick to (your own charge), rather than each individual BT (an observably nearly infinite process that seems to lead people to diminished ability, instead of enhanced responsibility/power).

 

[Leon]

One of the comments that Pilot made in one of his books is that the lower grades contain the real upper OT levels. One needs to study them and shift the area of application. I don't know if anyone has fully explored this yet, but it certainly would be an interesting exercise.