Antony A Phillips
Commoner
Re: Ken Ogger, The Pilot speaks from the dead
Pilot'sPosts Z7 - “Itsa”- Importance of and Common M/U on
(From Post 54, May 99)
Thom wrote:
> Hello Les:
>
> "In my opinion", anything run as a 'solo' action can cut your 'itsa'
> line, but not your 'itsa maker' line.
I think that you have the common CofS M/U about Itsa. Not everybody has it, and Ron certainly didn't, but a lot of the later trained auditors seemed to have picked it up.
ITSA is "looking at and identifying something". It is the pc saying "It is a ..." rather than "What is it?", but Ron has said explicitly that it is not the comm line itself (the Itsa Line), but the contents that travels on that line.
Ron often said that it was the pc's ability to Itsa his environment that determined his health and well being. Not whether he told anybody about it, but just whether he could spot what is.
Although he usually discussed Itsa in relation to the Itsa line between the PC and the auditor, because that is the practical application in professional auditing, he does not always do so, and obviously did not think of it in terms that were limited to an auditing session between two people.
The M/U [misunderstood] comes about in Ron's way of describing this as "The pc SAYING ..." Some people seem to think that that means that the pc has to SAY it to somebody else, but Ron never actually said that, it is just his way of describing it. I describe it that way too, and I get shocked when somebody does a literal minded fixation on a word rather than getting the meaning.
So let's get this very clear, the ITSA is in the SPOTTING AND IDENTIFYING, not the SAYING.
All solo auditing, even the standard OT levels, would fail to work if the definition of Itsa required talking to somebody else. You couldn't even run self analysis successfully.
And group processing would not work either since there is no Itsa LINE from the pcs to the group auditor. But the people in group sessions happily Itsa their environment when you ask them to spots things in the room even though they don't tell you about it.
Itsa is generally greater when there is an auditor present to encourage it. The auditor validates it, he acknowledges it, he asks for more, that really beefs it up. And the PC trying to put it into words helps the pc focus his attention and state things clearly. But that does not mean that Itsa is absent in solo or group processing.
Now of course to Itsa something, the PC has to be able to look at something which can be Itsa'd. In an objective process, this is simply his ability to look in present time, but in a subjective process, he needs to look at his case. That is the Itsa Maker line, and if he is too distracted, for example, and can't concentrate on the thing he is trying to Itsa, then we say that the Itsa Maker line is cut. Auditors can accidentally cut this. So can noisy neighbors.
> If you don't have a terminal to itsa to, then you may not itsa at
> all. But you can still handle it. Usually, just recognizing yourself
> what you have noticed in session, just recognizing your cog, or
> whatever, works fine. The recognition acts like a TR2.
This is Itsa.
> When you think of it, what is the itsa line really? What it does
> is communicate to another something you have already recognized.
> Why bother? Because when you communicate it to another, that
> person duplicates it, acks it, and you end cycle on it. i.e.
> You end cycle on mocking it up in present time. i.e.. as-is it. A
> long way around to simple ack it yourself, and stop mocking it up,
> or what ever.
A person can simply end cycle on something. Scratch your nose. Now stop scratching your nose. That is an end of cycle. It is easy.
An acknowledgment can help in ending cycle, it contributes to the motion. It is a recognition that something is done. This is a tremendous aid in halting compulsive mental machinery.
But you can just stop things too. Drilling starting and stopping things improves this.
In professional auditing, the auditor's acknowledgment also serves another purpose, which is to validate the PC for having Itsa'd. This is extremely important because it encourages more Itsa.
In running something like grade zero where one is simply using quantity of communication to blow through stops, one does not actually use many "end of cycle" style acknowledgments because one wants the PC to keep talking more. But this encouraging aspect of acknowledgments is crucial to getting fast results.
> In solo, the biggest drop in the auditing comm cycle, which is ALWAYS in
> action, is the TR2. You can ack yourself, and solo auditors need to do so.
This is better described as recognition or validation. Sitting there saying "good" and "thank you" to yourself is a bit silly and tends to put one out of valence and setup circuits. Recognizing that you have done something when you have done it is the proper way.
> Rogers wrote:
>
> > Reality Factor.
> >
> > The Pilot noted that the Clearing Course platens did not encourage a lot of
> > ITSA as far as he was concerned. I don't know if this is a specific problem
> > with this level or if it is also a general problem with many of the upper
> > level courses that revolve around platens.
This is a general problem with platens. They were laid in with heavy force, and then running the platen is a bit of an eval to boot. And so Itsa is less under those circumstances.
But it should not be totally absent, and there should be a good bit of itsa as the thing erases. That happened for me sometimes while running OT2 and CC. It happened a lot more for me on many of the platens that I put in Super Scio. But that might also be because my confront and ability to itsa these things was improving.
> > I've been thinking about this for sometime, and it just so happens I read
> > something this morning that precipitated this post. I was reminded that
> > running a process beyond the pc's reality level produces little benefit,
> > or, at least, recognizable benefit (by the pc himself or herself).
> >
> > This of course is going to be generally true, no matter what level
> > is being addressed, but I can't help wondering if the "platen" levels
> > are even more relevant.
There's some truth to that. It is probably useless to run these too early on in processing. Best is probably to go clear with incident running (e.g. confronting force until one can confront force and it doesn't bother one anymore). That drains force from the implanted items as well. Then they are much easier to confront.
But the real indicator would be that the pc becomes aware that he is dramatizing crap that was jammed down his throat. That is when he might want some platens.
There was a point in Dianetics when my reality came up on implants, and they are hell to run through without a platen. So you want to have these things available and know where to find them and how to run them and then maybe just leave them be until you bump into it on your own.
> > In addition to keeping the comm line in, it seems quite obvious that
> > ITSA is the means by which one finally gets the is-ness (reality) that
> > is a prerequisite to, or pretty much synonymous with, as-isness.
Itsa is a gradient on as-isness. Itsa is a warm-up, getting the as-isness bit by bit. Really full Itsa IS as-isness.
Note, by the way, that you can as-is something without telling it to someone else.
> > NO ITSA equates to NO REALITY which equates to NO (awareness of) BENEFIT.
> >
> > As I said, the Pilot zeroed in on the Clearing Course (and probably fixed
> > it), but I am wondering if this is a common complaint, a common problem,
> > with the other "platen" courses. If so, this is a REAL PROBLEM.
> >
> > I have a suspicion that there are more than a few who have run OTIII with
> > little or no reality. My further suspicion is that the problem had an
> > "earlier beginning." Namely, the earlier upper level courses being run
> > with poor reality.
OT III is not really a platen course. It is an entity handling course, which is a different thing entirely. Because of using Inc 2 as part of this level, they need to have pulled charge off of the OT 2 implant items first. But that is an artifact of the technique used. Nots style entity handling doesn't require it.
The reality factor is a serious point in regards to entity handling. Entity style levels should not be fooled around with until entities start catching one's attention and getting in the way. That is the sign that one has the reality necessary to address and handle them. Sometimes lower level pcs even run into this. It has nothing to do with reality on implants, and it shouldn't be force fed.
> > I am just on the underside here, looking up, not really in a good position
> > to get a clear view.
> >
> > I think that in addition to the Clearing Course, the Pilot has corrected a
> > number of other platens. Do these ALL produce good ITSA now? The
> > underlying question is, do they appear complete and accurate enough now. (I
> > thought it was very clever of the Pilot to use lack of ITSA as a clue to
> > "possible" incompleteness, by the way. I'm sure with the general
> > understanding that lack of ITSA may also be just a gradient problem.)
Yes, I expect that both are true.
If a person usually gets a certain amount of Itsa on running platens, and it shuts down on a particular platen, I would suspect the platen, although it might also be that that particular one is further out of reach or was used many times as an overt or whatever, or maybe the person never bumped into that particular implant.
But if the person is not yet getting Itsa on these things in general, then a better platen is probably not going to handle that.
> > I would like to get this straight, both for my own sake and people like me
> > who have yet to do these levels, as well as the "failed OTIII's" who may be
> > able to take heart by understanding their difficulties may have been
> > inherent to the (earlier) levels such as the CC itself.
> >
> > Les C. Rogers.
--------------
The "Reality Factor" discussion continued with various other people becoming involved, but I felt that the above point was quite important and was missed.
Later, however, it came to the following interesting dialog between Thom and Alan Walter:
Thom said:
# I was taken off OT2 and shoved onto OT3 because I was seeing much more in the
# incident than was intended on OT2. I was able to spot where the implanters were
# physically located during the implant, what they looked like, the colour of
# their uniforms, what the circumstances of the situation was, the physical
# orientation of the 'room', or whatever it was, and so on.
And Alan responded:
> Geezus!
>
> Are you kidding me?
>
> For christ sake how can you see too much of an incident?
>
> When you see it all.....it should erase.
>
> If you do not see it all....it is unflat. Or earlier incident or beginning - or
> someone else's.
>
> # None of that is on
> # the OT2 course. So I was hauled off and set onto the rocks of OTIII.
>
> Gross out-tech!
To which Thom replied:
# Sure was a screw up. I crashed on OTIII, was taken off, put back on OTII,
# did great, flying and having a ball and commented on the black uniforms
# also had red braiding, and was taken off and put back on OTIII. I ended
# up on OTIII after that for thousands of hours.
#
# Thom
Alan, of course, recognized that this is just Itsa and is a very good indicator. One doesn't stop running the process because the pc has started to Itsa.
But CofS has the evaluative idea that the person must not be allowed to slip into the "36 days of implanting" mentioned on the Inc 2 platen because the pc might freewheel and get sick.
So they cut the Itsa Line!
I don't think that "gross out-tech" is strong enough to describe the stupidity of intentionally cutting a PCs Itsa because you are afraid of what he is Itsaing. Out-tech beyond your wildest dreams might be a better description.
I started getting Itsa similar to the above on OT2 Chapter 9 (the Basic Basic GPM, right after the pictures GPMs). I had already been having big keyouts and large FNs and getting Itsa on how I'd dramatized various implant items.
When I started spotting surroundings on Ch 9, they talked me into attesting. The Qual consultant indicated that I might be done and started rehabbing the various wins I'd had and soon I was feeling flipped out and willing to attest.
But of course they had distracted me from the stuff I had been starting to Itsa. It was done smoothly enough that I didn't notice, and I actually didn't make the connection between that and being pushed into attesting until Thom mentioned the above.
I was quite happy to run OT 3 at that point, and Inc 2 was quite real and easy to handle. I also knew that it was NOT the incident I had been spotting on Ch 9. Which is why I've always been certain that these platens were implanted at many different times, both in mass implants like inc 2 and in more ordinary implants used on individuals rather than entire populations.
And I get those black and red uniforms too, and that's not Inc 2 because I agree with Hubbard about the Confederacy using white. I think I was getting the first time that particular platen was used on me, and that's a hell of a lot earlier than Inc 2.
There is lots of this implanting stuff on the track.
So one lets the pc Itsa. That is an extremely good indicator. That is what you want to happen on these implant platens, namely, that he gets above the force of the items and the Itsa opens up.
So from a C/Sing viewpoint, one doesn't care what color the uniforms are or what surroundings and situations the pc is finding, he gets whatever he needs to get to erase the incident.
Of course the PC's Itsa will probably not match Inc 2, and if the C/S has some fixed idea that it is the only implant on the track, then of course he feels that the pc is making Hubbard wrong and wants to shut down the Itsa line.
Talk about dumb fanatics.
In practice, if Inc 2 is presented as an example of the kind of shit that was done on the track, that could be helpful in providing a datum of comparable magnitude to whatever the pc is trying to Itsa. -----------
Alan also made a nice comment on the pc's own postulates being much more valuable to run.
The real difficulty is that people have status buttons on these CofS upper levels due to the heavy sales hype.
The better view is to look at these as something that sometimes gets in the way of handling real case and doing real OT drills and that one handles them whenever one notices them getting in the way.
A simple early track postulate to make somebody else get their ethics in probably has more charge and more abortive power than the entirety of all of these implant platens. Because, of course, that is one of the reasons why one agreed to implanting. As Ron said, one mocked up the bank to make others good.
The most advanced processes I'm doing on myself are the simple ones. Just trying to put in Itsa, ruds, recalls, and basic grade type processes with emphasis on early track.
But you do a bit of that and then this other stuff gets in the way and you need to handle a bit of it.
I once compared inc 2 to somebody blowing up an outhouse in Lithuania, and if anything I overstated it. But if you need to go to the john [toilet] and the local outhouse has gone up in smoke thanks to xenu the mad toilet bomber, then it makes a PTP which acts as a lock that gets in the way of running a real basic like why mockup bodies that need to go the bathroom in the first place.
In truth, simple rudiments and recall processes and such are also governed by this reality factor. Otherwise the people who got through OT 3 would have had the sense to grab self analysis and start running it on the time period prior to incident one. But that is ten times more difficult than doing OT 3 and nobody thinks of it, at least not in CofS. Some of the freezoners do. We should call that OT 25 or something and maybe more people would work themselves up to it.
So run whatever seems real and just keep expanding on a gradient.
Sad to say, Hubbard cut his own Itsa line by making OT III confidential. It was supposedly too dangerous to look at or talk about and so the research ground to a shuddering halt.
Best,
The Pilot
Pilot'sPosts Z7 - “Itsa”- Importance of and Common M/U on
(From Post 54, May 99)
Thom wrote:
> Hello Les:
>
> "In my opinion", anything run as a 'solo' action can cut your 'itsa'
> line, but not your 'itsa maker' line.
I think that you have the common CofS M/U about Itsa. Not everybody has it, and Ron certainly didn't, but a lot of the later trained auditors seemed to have picked it up.
ITSA is "looking at and identifying something". It is the pc saying "It is a ..." rather than "What is it?", but Ron has said explicitly that it is not the comm line itself (the Itsa Line), but the contents that travels on that line.
Ron often said that it was the pc's ability to Itsa his environment that determined his health and well being. Not whether he told anybody about it, but just whether he could spot what is.
Although he usually discussed Itsa in relation to the Itsa line between the PC and the auditor, because that is the practical application in professional auditing, he does not always do so, and obviously did not think of it in terms that were limited to an auditing session between two people.
The M/U [misunderstood] comes about in Ron's way of describing this as "The pc SAYING ..." Some people seem to think that that means that the pc has to SAY it to somebody else, but Ron never actually said that, it is just his way of describing it. I describe it that way too, and I get shocked when somebody does a literal minded fixation on a word rather than getting the meaning.
So let's get this very clear, the ITSA is in the SPOTTING AND IDENTIFYING, not the SAYING.
All solo auditing, even the standard OT levels, would fail to work if the definition of Itsa required talking to somebody else. You couldn't even run self analysis successfully.
And group processing would not work either since there is no Itsa LINE from the pcs to the group auditor. But the people in group sessions happily Itsa their environment when you ask them to spots things in the room even though they don't tell you about it.
Itsa is generally greater when there is an auditor present to encourage it. The auditor validates it, he acknowledges it, he asks for more, that really beefs it up. And the PC trying to put it into words helps the pc focus his attention and state things clearly. But that does not mean that Itsa is absent in solo or group processing.
Now of course to Itsa something, the PC has to be able to look at something which can be Itsa'd. In an objective process, this is simply his ability to look in present time, but in a subjective process, he needs to look at his case. That is the Itsa Maker line, and if he is too distracted, for example, and can't concentrate on the thing he is trying to Itsa, then we say that the Itsa Maker line is cut. Auditors can accidentally cut this. So can noisy neighbors.
> If you don't have a terminal to itsa to, then you may not itsa at
> all. But you can still handle it. Usually, just recognizing yourself
> what you have noticed in session, just recognizing your cog, or
> whatever, works fine. The recognition acts like a TR2.
This is Itsa.
> When you think of it, what is the itsa line really? What it does
> is communicate to another something you have already recognized.
> Why bother? Because when you communicate it to another, that
> person duplicates it, acks it, and you end cycle on it. i.e.
> You end cycle on mocking it up in present time. i.e.. as-is it. A
> long way around to simple ack it yourself, and stop mocking it up,
> or what ever.
A person can simply end cycle on something. Scratch your nose. Now stop scratching your nose. That is an end of cycle. It is easy.
An acknowledgment can help in ending cycle, it contributes to the motion. It is a recognition that something is done. This is a tremendous aid in halting compulsive mental machinery.
But you can just stop things too. Drilling starting and stopping things improves this.
In professional auditing, the auditor's acknowledgment also serves another purpose, which is to validate the PC for having Itsa'd. This is extremely important because it encourages more Itsa.
In running something like grade zero where one is simply using quantity of communication to blow through stops, one does not actually use many "end of cycle" style acknowledgments because one wants the PC to keep talking more. But this encouraging aspect of acknowledgments is crucial to getting fast results.
> In solo, the biggest drop in the auditing comm cycle, which is ALWAYS in
> action, is the TR2. You can ack yourself, and solo auditors need to do so.
This is better described as recognition or validation. Sitting there saying "good" and "thank you" to yourself is a bit silly and tends to put one out of valence and setup circuits. Recognizing that you have done something when you have done it is the proper way.
> Rogers wrote:
>
> > Reality Factor.
> >
> > The Pilot noted that the Clearing Course platens did not encourage a lot of
> > ITSA as far as he was concerned. I don't know if this is a specific problem
> > with this level or if it is also a general problem with many of the upper
> > level courses that revolve around platens.
This is a general problem with platens. They were laid in with heavy force, and then running the platen is a bit of an eval to boot. And so Itsa is less under those circumstances.
But it should not be totally absent, and there should be a good bit of itsa as the thing erases. That happened for me sometimes while running OT2 and CC. It happened a lot more for me on many of the platens that I put in Super Scio. But that might also be because my confront and ability to itsa these things was improving.
> > I've been thinking about this for sometime, and it just so happens I read
> > something this morning that precipitated this post. I was reminded that
> > running a process beyond the pc's reality level produces little benefit,
> > or, at least, recognizable benefit (by the pc himself or herself).
> >
> > This of course is going to be generally true, no matter what level
> > is being addressed, but I can't help wondering if the "platen" levels
> > are even more relevant.
There's some truth to that. It is probably useless to run these too early on in processing. Best is probably to go clear with incident running (e.g. confronting force until one can confront force and it doesn't bother one anymore). That drains force from the implanted items as well. Then they are much easier to confront.
But the real indicator would be that the pc becomes aware that he is dramatizing crap that was jammed down his throat. That is when he might want some platens.
There was a point in Dianetics when my reality came up on implants, and they are hell to run through without a platen. So you want to have these things available and know where to find them and how to run them and then maybe just leave them be until you bump into it on your own.
> > In addition to keeping the comm line in, it seems quite obvious that
> > ITSA is the means by which one finally gets the is-ness (reality) that
> > is a prerequisite to, or pretty much synonymous with, as-isness.
Itsa is a gradient on as-isness. Itsa is a warm-up, getting the as-isness bit by bit. Really full Itsa IS as-isness.
Note, by the way, that you can as-is something without telling it to someone else.
> > NO ITSA equates to NO REALITY which equates to NO (awareness of) BENEFIT.
> >
> > As I said, the Pilot zeroed in on the Clearing Course (and probably fixed
> > it), but I am wondering if this is a common complaint, a common problem,
> > with the other "platen" courses. If so, this is a REAL PROBLEM.
> >
> > I have a suspicion that there are more than a few who have run OTIII with
> > little or no reality. My further suspicion is that the problem had an
> > "earlier beginning." Namely, the earlier upper level courses being run
> > with poor reality.
OT III is not really a platen course. It is an entity handling course, which is a different thing entirely. Because of using Inc 2 as part of this level, they need to have pulled charge off of the OT 2 implant items first. But that is an artifact of the technique used. Nots style entity handling doesn't require it.
The reality factor is a serious point in regards to entity handling. Entity style levels should not be fooled around with until entities start catching one's attention and getting in the way. That is the sign that one has the reality necessary to address and handle them. Sometimes lower level pcs even run into this. It has nothing to do with reality on implants, and it shouldn't be force fed.
> > I am just on the underside here, looking up, not really in a good position
> > to get a clear view.
> >
> > I think that in addition to the Clearing Course, the Pilot has corrected a
> > number of other platens. Do these ALL produce good ITSA now? The
> > underlying question is, do they appear complete and accurate enough now. (I
> > thought it was very clever of the Pilot to use lack of ITSA as a clue to
> > "possible" incompleteness, by the way. I'm sure with the general
> > understanding that lack of ITSA may also be just a gradient problem.)
Yes, I expect that both are true.
If a person usually gets a certain amount of Itsa on running platens, and it shuts down on a particular platen, I would suspect the platen, although it might also be that that particular one is further out of reach or was used many times as an overt or whatever, or maybe the person never bumped into that particular implant.
But if the person is not yet getting Itsa on these things in general, then a better platen is probably not going to handle that.
> > I would like to get this straight, both for my own sake and people like me
> > who have yet to do these levels, as well as the "failed OTIII's" who may be
> > able to take heart by understanding their difficulties may have been
> > inherent to the (earlier) levels such as the CC itself.
> >
> > Les C. Rogers.
--------------
The "Reality Factor" discussion continued with various other people becoming involved, but I felt that the above point was quite important and was missed.
Later, however, it came to the following interesting dialog between Thom and Alan Walter:
Thom said:
# I was taken off OT2 and shoved onto OT3 because I was seeing much more in the
# incident than was intended on OT2. I was able to spot where the implanters were
# physically located during the implant, what they looked like, the colour of
# their uniforms, what the circumstances of the situation was, the physical
# orientation of the 'room', or whatever it was, and so on.
And Alan responded:
> Geezus!
>
> Are you kidding me?
>
> For christ sake how can you see too much of an incident?
>
> When you see it all.....it should erase.
>
> If you do not see it all....it is unflat. Or earlier incident or beginning - or
> someone else's.
>
> # None of that is on
> # the OT2 course. So I was hauled off and set onto the rocks of OTIII.
>
> Gross out-tech!
To which Thom replied:
# Sure was a screw up. I crashed on OTIII, was taken off, put back on OTII,
# did great, flying and having a ball and commented on the black uniforms
# also had red braiding, and was taken off and put back on OTIII. I ended
# up on OTIII after that for thousands of hours.
#
# Thom
Alan, of course, recognized that this is just Itsa and is a very good indicator. One doesn't stop running the process because the pc has started to Itsa.
But CofS has the evaluative idea that the person must not be allowed to slip into the "36 days of implanting" mentioned on the Inc 2 platen because the pc might freewheel and get sick.
So they cut the Itsa Line!
I don't think that "gross out-tech" is strong enough to describe the stupidity of intentionally cutting a PCs Itsa because you are afraid of what he is Itsaing. Out-tech beyond your wildest dreams might be a better description.
I started getting Itsa similar to the above on OT2 Chapter 9 (the Basic Basic GPM, right after the pictures GPMs). I had already been having big keyouts and large FNs and getting Itsa on how I'd dramatized various implant items.
When I started spotting surroundings on Ch 9, they talked me into attesting. The Qual consultant indicated that I might be done and started rehabbing the various wins I'd had and soon I was feeling flipped out and willing to attest.
But of course they had distracted me from the stuff I had been starting to Itsa. It was done smoothly enough that I didn't notice, and I actually didn't make the connection between that and being pushed into attesting until Thom mentioned the above.
I was quite happy to run OT 3 at that point, and Inc 2 was quite real and easy to handle. I also knew that it was NOT the incident I had been spotting on Ch 9. Which is why I've always been certain that these platens were implanted at many different times, both in mass implants like inc 2 and in more ordinary implants used on individuals rather than entire populations.
And I get those black and red uniforms too, and that's not Inc 2 because I agree with Hubbard about the Confederacy using white. I think I was getting the first time that particular platen was used on me, and that's a hell of a lot earlier than Inc 2.
There is lots of this implanting stuff on the track.
So one lets the pc Itsa. That is an extremely good indicator. That is what you want to happen on these implant platens, namely, that he gets above the force of the items and the Itsa opens up.
So from a C/Sing viewpoint, one doesn't care what color the uniforms are or what surroundings and situations the pc is finding, he gets whatever he needs to get to erase the incident.
Of course the PC's Itsa will probably not match Inc 2, and if the C/S has some fixed idea that it is the only implant on the track, then of course he feels that the pc is making Hubbard wrong and wants to shut down the Itsa line.
Talk about dumb fanatics.
In practice, if Inc 2 is presented as an example of the kind of shit that was done on the track, that could be helpful in providing a datum of comparable magnitude to whatever the pc is trying to Itsa. -----------
Alan also made a nice comment on the pc's own postulates being much more valuable to run.
The real difficulty is that people have status buttons on these CofS upper levels due to the heavy sales hype.
The better view is to look at these as something that sometimes gets in the way of handling real case and doing real OT drills and that one handles them whenever one notices them getting in the way.
A simple early track postulate to make somebody else get their ethics in probably has more charge and more abortive power than the entirety of all of these implant platens. Because, of course, that is one of the reasons why one agreed to implanting. As Ron said, one mocked up the bank to make others good.
The most advanced processes I'm doing on myself are the simple ones. Just trying to put in Itsa, ruds, recalls, and basic grade type processes with emphasis on early track.
But you do a bit of that and then this other stuff gets in the way and you need to handle a bit of it.
I once compared inc 2 to somebody blowing up an outhouse in Lithuania, and if anything I overstated it. But if you need to go to the john [toilet] and the local outhouse has gone up in smoke thanks to xenu the mad toilet bomber, then it makes a PTP which acts as a lock that gets in the way of running a real basic like why mockup bodies that need to go the bathroom in the first place.
In truth, simple rudiments and recall processes and such are also governed by this reality factor. Otherwise the people who got through OT 3 would have had the sense to grab self analysis and start running it on the time period prior to incident one. But that is ten times more difficult than doing OT 3 and nobody thinks of it, at least not in CofS. Some of the freezoners do. We should call that OT 25 or something and maybe more people would work themselves up to it.
So run whatever seems real and just keep expanding on a gradient.
Sad to say, Hubbard cut his own Itsa line by making OT III confidential. It was supposedly too dangerous to look at or talk about and so the research ground to a shuddering halt.
Best,
The Pilot
