Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
This is a rather lengthy response to a series of questions posed by lionheart. Others might just want to skip it. 
First and foremost, the Auditor's Code and scientology basics are SENIOR to any processes, special rundowns, programs, or materials. If they are not in observance then no good will come from the "auditing".
Second, I don't advocate "upper levels" in accordance with Co$ practice precisely because I regard the church as engaging in practices contrary to the well-being of their pcs. That point is generally not in controversy among most ex-church members.
When necessary and ONLY after a relevant pc origination concerning "bt" phenomena, I will show a variety of materials relevant to how "bt" phenomena have been perceived and handled in various spiritual or psychological traditions historically. This is accompanied by an additional personal advisory that none of these ideas need be considered definitive by the pc as the only thing that actually matters is running out the related charge.
Typically this comes up after a session where such charge has been addressed successfully by a pc and she may be a bit "nonplussed" over what just happened and need a bit of backgrounding to balance the "reality" of the experience with the "unreality" of the session material.
Whereas the Hubbard material is in itself evaluative, the presentation of material with conflicting evaluations undercuts the biasing effects. As a result a pc is made more comfortable with her own ability to assess the "meaning" of the "charge".
I find that if I remember to shut up and pay attention a pc tends to originate. Then I just have to ask about whatever is impinging on her attention. If encouragement is required I request however much of a description as can be provided at the moment. Conceptual coherence isn't necessary. All that matters is what is impinging. When it is "charged", that is sufficient. If it isn't "charged", it doesn't impinge.
If a concept is "charged" it can be run. If it isn't "charged" there's no point in attempting to run it. Much of the material on the "upper levels" is commonly charged. It can be addressed in session.
I'm not a "Ron purist" and I don't insist on doing things "Ron's Way". Although I freely admit there is much of benefit in his materials.
I first encountered "Inc. II" for myself while still on my lower bridge. What I ran wasn't exactly the same as Hubbard's version. Although there were several marked similarities. There were also major differences.
As a result, when I finally did do Hubbard's OT III for myself I wasn't locked into the truth of his script. I had a fairly easy & beneficial time of it. I ran the "charge" on the level as it presented itself. Since I was in the freezone at the time this presented no problem.
Personally, I find things that to some degree roughly resemble Ron's description of "Inc. I" come up spontaneously fairly frequently. Details vary, but major elements do appear as a fairly generic type with significant amounts of associated "charge". Keep in mind, my "generic type" does not match Hubbard's script for "Inc. I" in terms of the symbols involved. However, the "forces" involved & conceptual content are similar.
Things which look something like Hubbard's (or my version) of "Inc. II" come up spontaneously much less frequently, although they do come up.
Not at all. Here's the pattern.
A. Take a concept.
B. Is there charge on that concept? If not, end cycle on that concept.
C. When there is charge, look at the source of the charge.
D. Assess what is changing.
E. Continue to look at the source of the charge until there is no more charge.
F. Usually during the course of the sequence plateaus of significant positive change occurs. These are variably, "release points" or "end phenomena". Handle accordingly.
There is nothing "special" about auditing on "upper levels" beyond checking "ownership". By the time a person is ready to run "upper level" material the question of "ownership" is already real to them. If it isn't, he isn't. Hence wait for a pc's origination.
What a person chooses to believe about "ownership" is fully up to him. There is nothing in any of it that requires belief. The only thing that matters is addressing any "charge" in session.
Just as there are multiple possible explanations for the apparency of "past lives", there are multiple possible explanations for the apparency of "bts". Most are complicated and full of "significance". They are also, from a session perspective, not relevant. Belief is not necessary or even especially helpful. Addressing areas of charge is useful. "BTs" is simple enough to get on with but pc's are free to sort out for themselves what "significance" to attach. Any such "significances" are apt to shift as views change.
What I said is that since Ron is dead the argument is academic. Personally, I don't care about Hubbard's intentions. They never were a motivating force for me. If they are important to you, that's fine.
Not really. Many tools take on a life independent of their developer's original intention.
I don't buy my use of scientology is "Ron's Tech" anymore than I buy that my use of calculus is "Newton's Tech" or my use of a digital computer is "Von Neumann's Tech".
The only way a technology is ever useful to an individual is to the degree he understands and applies it for himself. Even Hubbard is known to have made similar comments before the "KSW" thing went to his head. Doing something because another has told you to is indicative of a state of ignorance, not one of knowledge. As such Ron's intentions don't come into my use of scientology auditing tech.
Quite frankly that was your mistake. You should have acted based on your OWN intentions and from your OWN knowledge and not his.
My honest opinion of this paragraph is it indicates too much dependence on "Ron's Responsibility". Sorry to be evaluative, but there is simply no way I can agree with any of it.
The point is I act out of MY own knowledge (or ignorance) motivated by MY intentions and on MY responsibility. I don't act on another's knowledge or intentions. If I understand & agree with Hubbard then so be it. If I don't, likewise. Much of scientology wasn't original with Hubbard and there is no reason to be dependent solely on his judgement.
I hangout mostly at the freezone chat site on yahoogroups. (Freezoneorg, Terril Park is the host).
If you mean "like an org or mission", mostly the freezone in my area isn't structured in such a fashion. I have a number of freezone friends with whom I share/differ in my opinions. I consult with some when I need technical assistance. Some have similar views to mine, some don't.
Differences of views are common in the freezone. A very few have a problem with it. Most are quite comfortable dealing with others with divergent views.
The thing which seems to be an obstacle for you is grasping that I don't "adhere to a version of Hubbard technology". I study, apply and use ideas and concepts from a variety of different traditions in accordance with my own wishes. Among those ideas are those expressed in the writings of L.Ron Hubbard.
I have a lot of respect for experienced standard tech auditors because I recognize the work, skill, and intention that went in to their efforts. I often go to such for assistance either with my own issues or to clarify some point of study. BUT, I don't accept the "standard tech only" school as the only viable way to use scientology tech.
I use the tech for myself and for friends.
As to "speaking for the freezone", nothing could be further from the truth. The idea itself is ludicrous since the freezone is not of a single mind. And it wouldn't be mine if it were. The variety of distinctly different orgs with differing views bears evidence to this. The fact is most freezoners are small & local.
I am in the freezone and I speak for myself. Some think I speak too much, but then I'm a fairly outspoken sort.
I have had on several occasions other freezoners express either appreciation or horror at my public postings. The "reactionaries" are often horrified at what they consider to be my affronts to Ron and general disregard for "command intention". The "progressives" are usually VERY appreciative of exactly these same things. So far the "progressives" have far outnumbered the "reactionaries".
Also for the record, I number both "conservative tech purists" as well as "totally squirrelly liberals" among my freezone friends. Unfortunately, the "reactionaries" tend to be more than a bit "arcxn" with me.
Mark A. Baker
First and foremost, the Auditor's Code and scientology basics are SENIOR to any processes, special rundowns, programs, or materials. If they are not in observance then no good will come from the "auditing".
Second, I don't advocate "upper levels" in accordance with Co$ practice precisely because I regard the church as engaging in practices contrary to the well-being of their pcs. That point is generally not in controversy among most ex-church members.
When necessary and ONLY after a relevant pc origination concerning "bt" phenomena, I will show a variety of materials relevant to how "bt" phenomena have been perceived and handled in various spiritual or psychological traditions historically. This is accompanied by an additional personal advisory that none of these ideas need be considered definitive by the pc as the only thing that actually matters is running out the related charge.
Typically this comes up after a session where such charge has been addressed successfully by a pc and she may be a bit "nonplussed" over what just happened and need a bit of backgrounding to balance the "reality" of the experience with the "unreality" of the session material.
Whereas the Hubbard material is in itself evaluative, the presentation of material with conflicting evaluations undercuts the biasing effects. As a result a pc is made more comfortable with her own ability to assess the "meaning" of the "charge".
I find that if I remember to shut up and pay attention a pc tends to originate. Then I just have to ask about whatever is impinging on her attention. If encouragement is required I request however much of a description as can be provided at the moment. Conceptual coherence isn't necessary. All that matters is what is impinging. When it is "charged", that is sufficient. If it isn't "charged", it doesn't impinge.
If a concept is "charged" it can be run. If it isn't "charged" there's no point in attempting to run it. Much of the material on the "upper levels" is commonly charged. It can be addressed in session.
I'm not a "Ron purist" and I don't insist on doing things "Ron's Way". Although I freely admit there is much of benefit in his materials.
I first encountered "Inc. II" for myself while still on my lower bridge. What I ran wasn't exactly the same as Hubbard's version. Although there were several marked similarities. There were also major differences.
As a result, when I finally did do Hubbard's OT III for myself I wasn't locked into the truth of his script. I had a fairly easy & beneficial time of it. I ran the "charge" on the level as it presented itself. Since I was in the freezone at the time this presented no problem.
Personally, I find things that to some degree roughly resemble Ron's description of "Inc. I" come up spontaneously fairly frequently. Details vary, but major elements do appear as a fairly generic type with significant amounts of associated "charge". Keep in mind, my "generic type" does not match Hubbard's script for "Inc. I" in terms of the symbols involved. However, the "forces" involved & conceptual content are similar.
Things which look something like Hubbard's (or my version) of "Inc. II" come up spontaneously much less frequently, although they do come up.
Not at all. Here's the pattern.
A. Take a concept.
B. Is there charge on that concept? If not, end cycle on that concept.
C. When there is charge, look at the source of the charge.
D. Assess what is changing.
E. Continue to look at the source of the charge until there is no more charge.
F. Usually during the course of the sequence plateaus of significant positive change occurs. These are variably, "release points" or "end phenomena". Handle accordingly.
There is nothing "special" about auditing on "upper levels" beyond checking "ownership". By the time a person is ready to run "upper level" material the question of "ownership" is already real to them. If it isn't, he isn't. Hence wait for a pc's origination.
What a person chooses to believe about "ownership" is fully up to him. There is nothing in any of it that requires belief. The only thing that matters is addressing any "charge" in session.
Just as there are multiple possible explanations for the apparency of "past lives", there are multiple possible explanations for the apparency of "bts". Most are complicated and full of "significance". They are also, from a session perspective, not relevant. Belief is not necessary or even especially helpful. Addressing areas of charge is useful. "BTs" is simple enough to get on with but pc's are free to sort out for themselves what "significance" to attach. Any such "significances" are apt to shift as views change.
What I said is that since Ron is dead the argument is academic. Personally, I don't care about Hubbard's intentions. They never were a motivating force for me. If they are important to you, that's fine.
Not really. Many tools take on a life independent of their developer's original intention.
I don't buy my use of scientology is "Ron's Tech" anymore than I buy that my use of calculus is "Newton's Tech" or my use of a digital computer is "Von Neumann's Tech".
The only way a technology is ever useful to an individual is to the degree he understands and applies it for himself. Even Hubbard is known to have made similar comments before the "KSW" thing went to his head. Doing something because another has told you to is indicative of a state of ignorance, not one of knowledge. As such Ron's intentions don't come into my use of scientology auditing tech.
Quite frankly that was your mistake. You should have acted based on your OWN intentions and from your OWN knowledge and not his.
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?
My honest opinion of this paragraph is it indicates too much dependence on "Ron's Responsibility". Sorry to be evaluative, but there is simply no way I can agree with any of it.
The point is I act out of MY own knowledge (or ignorance) motivated by MY intentions and on MY responsibility. I don't act on another's knowledge or intentions. If I understand & agree with Hubbard then so be it. If I don't, likewise. Much of scientology wasn't original with Hubbard and there is no reason to be dependent solely on his judgement.
I hangout mostly at the freezone chat site on yahoogroups. (Freezoneorg, Terril Park is the host).
If you mean "like an org or mission", mostly the freezone in my area isn't structured in such a fashion. I have a number of freezone friends with whom I share/differ in my opinions. I consult with some when I need technical assistance. Some have similar views to mine, some don't.
Differences of views are common in the freezone. A very few have a problem with it. Most are quite comfortable dealing with others with divergent views.
The thing which seems to be an obstacle for you is grasping that I don't "adhere to a version of Hubbard technology". I study, apply and use ideas and concepts from a variety of different traditions in accordance with my own wishes. Among those ideas are those expressed in the writings of L.Ron Hubbard.
I have a lot of respect for experienced standard tech auditors because I recognize the work, skill, and intention that went in to their efforts. I often go to such for assistance either with my own issues or to clarify some point of study. BUT, I don't accept the "standard tech only" school as the only viable way to use scientology tech.
I use the tech for myself and for friends.
As to "speaking for the freezone", nothing could be further from the truth. The idea itself is ludicrous since the freezone is not of a single mind. And it wouldn't be mine if it were.
The variety of distinctly different orgs with differing views bears evidence to this. The fact is most freezoners are small & local. I am in the freezone and I speak for myself. Some think I speak too much, but then I'm a fairly outspoken sort.
I have had on several occasions other freezoners express either appreciation or horror at my public postings. The "reactionaries" are often horrified at what they consider to be my affronts to Ron and general disregard for "command intention". The "progressives" are usually VERY appreciative of exactly these same things. So far the "progressives" have far outnumbered the "reactionaries".
Also for the record, I number both "conservative tech purists" as well as "totally squirrelly liberals" among my freezone friends. Unfortunately, the "reactionaries" tend to be more than a bit "arcxn" with me.
Mark A. Baker
I'm conused again now :confused2:
