What's new

The Pilot, Excerpts from his Writings

Re: Pilot's repost Z80 -- Not Know Process - Technical Side

Re: Pilot's repost Z80 -- Not Know Process - Technical Side

At 05:00 12-11-2013, Ant Phillips relayed the Pilot with:
.


Pilot's repost Z80
(includes two related Pilot excerpts)

Not Know Process (Self Clearing etc.)
From Post 40 – February 1999

On 6 Feb 99, Lisa & Dave <lisab ...​

rest omitted

I have had the following experiences with Not Know processes:

In Jan 1956 on the HPA course, I coaudited with my twin Waterloo Station walking about the streets of London. ("Look at [indicated object] and tell me something you would be willing to Not Know about it." (possibly the command was "could Not Know").

Later, when I was trying to set up a practice, one way HASI/Ron suggested was to run an advertisement: "I will talk to anyone about anything for you" I think was the wording. The material we got (possibly a PAB) said you had to be a minister to do it (50 years later, I think that requirement applied to the USA). I was told one of the requirements to be a minister was to have had Waterloo Station run on oneself (I think we were told 150 hours). I arranged to co-audit it but did not do all hours.

In both cases it must have been greatly above my reality level, and I don't remember any specific result from it (or effect it created). I think also, in my state of case, it was probably unreal, and thinking all the time of not-knowing certainly lowered my havingness markedly.

I find it interesting to hear that the Pilot had positive experiences with it -- and am dead sure he was then in much better case shape than I was! Anybody else here tried a version? It is fascinating what The Pilot got up to in his good years.

Any one done any of the processes in Chapter 32 of the 2014 edition of his Self Clearing?

All best wishes,

Ant

--
 

RogerB

Crusader
Well, Ant, as I said in my presentation at the 2009 FZ Conference, LRHs "tech" on the postulates is, as we used to say in Oz, skewiff . . . that means screwed up.

He says the "First Postulate" is NOT KNOW . . . . umm, if that is so, how the hell did we get into any relationship with any other Thetan back there in the early days of joining into any game?

By actual observation and processing, my finding is that the true and actual "First Postulate" was the decision, want, intention of WANT TO KNOW . . . that is, it is the intent and postulate To Know what it is that is there with the other that one is wanting to relate with.

Then, following the various upsets and disasters that relating can produce, the decision/postulate To Not Know was embarked upon.

So, by actual application of those old processes, the observation is that how "Waterloo Station" ran really depended upon upon where the PC was hung up on the cycle of the original want to know versus not want to know.

If their PT item being dramatized was the reach to know or the I want to know, then running "not know" really beefed the case up as it was negating the PC's positive. If you ran "willing to know" . . . then you implemented and made more of the guy's positive powers and ability and some of the later "not knows" would blow off.

If on the other hand, your PC was stuck in dramatizing and having "not Know" if you ran that, you'd get case gain because you were running out the automaticity of Not Know and restoring the prior "Know."

Where the hell Hubbs got the idea of that piece of tech from I have no idea.

But that's the observation on it from one who has dealt with a broader more correctly aligned view of the complete scenario of it.

So for you guys who did that old stuff to no gain or even upset . . . don't go giving yourselves the wrong indications of such things as "it must have been 'above' my reality level" or such other baloney as "my case state was not high enough" and such drivel.

Rog
 
Re: Pilot's repost Z80 -- Not Know Process - Technical Side

Re: Pilot's repost Z80 -- Not Know Process - Technical Side

At 05:00 12-11-2013, Ant Phillips relayed the Pilot with:

Pilot's repost Z80
(includes two related Pilot excerpts)

Not Know Process (Self Clearing etc.)
From Post 40 – February 1999

On 6 Feb 99, Lisa & Dave <lisab ...[/INDENT]

rest omitted

I have had the following experiences with Not Know processes:
See rest above here.

Two comments.

The first on what I wrote. I realised that both the cases I mentioned (in 1956) we had no idea of rudiments, just dived into session with out checking some of the fundamentals we now know. This should be born in mind when reading accounts of those times, for example Dennis Stephens' at http://scientolipedia.org/info/1951,1952,1953,_England.

Secondly I noted Roger Boswarva's contribution. I have a very different viewpoint. More in the direction of "What are the preclears indicators" than doing a lot of theoretical study. It of course depends to some degree on the condition of the preclear. That is why I was asking if any one had experience with Not Know processes. And I certainly am not in the frame of mind the Pilot was in, of jumping in and trying out any process that came along. I am following a line which is getting marvelous results, and other processes do not indicate.

All best wishes,

Ant
 

RogerB

Crusader
Re: Pilot's repost Z80 -- Not Know Process - Technical Side

See rest above here.

Two comments.

The first on what I wrote. I realised that both the cases I mentioned (in 1956) we had no idea of rudiments, just dived into session with out checking some of the fundamentals we now know. This should be born in mind when reading accounts of those times, for example Dennis Stephens' at http://scientolipedia.org/info/1951,1952,1953,_England.

Secondly I noted Roger Boswarva's contribution. I have a very different viewpoint. More in the direction of "What are the preclears indicators" than doing a lot of theoretical study. It of course depends to some degree on the condition of the preclear. That is why I was asking if any one had experience with Not Know processes. And I certainly am not in the frame of mind the Pilot was in, of jumping in and trying out any process that came along. I am following a line which is getting marvelous results, and other processes do not indicate.

All best wishes,

Ant

Well, Ant, remember I am of the same vintage as you. I started doing all those COHA and old PABs processes in 1957. So I am speaking of experience on this one, not a "lot of theoretical study."

In actuality, the original didn't run well on me either . . . it wasn't till many years later we found the why.

Rog
 
I'm not the Pilot!!!

Dear reader of this thread,

It is over a year since I started sending weekly excerpts from the Pilot (mostly from his fortnightly postings). I am stricken with a fear that some readers may have identified me with the Pilot. Some might even think The Pilot has taken over my body (anything is possible :) :tease: :eyeroll: ).

So I want to assure you, that though I have some associations with the Pilot and his work, I am not identified with the Pilot.

I do not agree with all he says. Specifically, I find little sense in the labels he uses like Clear, OT, Cleared Theta Clear, etc. (they are unreal to me, and I certainly have not "achieved" any of them), and I would not run the processes he talks about solo or on others. I still have loads of case to handle, preferably with an auditor. I am doing so, with lots of gain. I might try some of the Pilot's processes later. If some one came to me asking me to audit them on one of the Pilot's processes, or to achieve one of the labels Scientology or the Pilot uses, I would probably ask them what condition in their own life they wanted changed, and offer to audit towards that or if they did not have a specific condition or two, offer to run the Scientology Grades (again, if they had done so before). I have had lots of success running grades on people.

That said, I can tell you I have just finished editing for publication tomorrow another Pilot excerpt and I am fascinated by it. There are many aspects. One of them is that he was in comm, internationally with "Scientologists" whether outside the "Church" or inside, writing with a pseudonym, and they discuss aspects of Scientology tech. I think this used to be done in the old days (face to face, there was no Internet at the start of Scientology, and even international phone was difficult and expensive) but then I was far too withdrawn to join in. I am a great advocate of two way communication, so long as it is not of the make wrong, dominate type.

His theories are interesting, and speculations, for example, of what one might call spiritual matters make me think, and speculate further.

If you do not share at least a bit of my interest, please ignore this thread.

If you are curious about me, or want to further unidentify me and the Pilot, I have recently written a short (potted) autobiography which you find at: http://scientolipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antony_Phillips

All best wishes,

Ant

--
Antony Phillips.
www.antology.info
[There are three YouTube Danish Interviews]
http://scientolipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antony_Phillips (English potted autobiography)
[email protected]
(+45) 45 88 88 69
Admin to SelfClearing2004,
SuperScio, Cosmic History
mailing lists
Jernbanevej 3f 4th
DK 2800 Lyngby
 

F.Bullbait

Oh, a wise guy,eh?
Regarding the Pilot post on Not Know:


For me, running Not Know on objects seemed to kick the props out. I moved from the usual state of knowing with all of its mechanisms to a state of serenity. Not a stable state but interesting.

I didn't care for the Not Know version of Book & Bottle. I got nothing positive out of it. Fairly much what Pilot described.


I disagree with the Pilot's assessment that Thought is higher on the scale than Emotion and that Emotion is more solid than Thought. Culturally we tend to treat emotion as a lesser thing. I think this is due to it being difficult define or use intellectually. It often slips past our control mechanisms. We are taught that it is an animal thing, not as refined as our intellect.

I consider Emotion to be a close relative of Affinity. It is difficult to attach attributes to either of these manifestations without a workaround. For instance, one can define anger through physical and behavioral symptoms but really cannot define anger itself. It seems to me that the best LRH could come up with was Tone, a vibration. Thought, Effort, Agreement, Communication are much easier to define because they have overt manifestations. At one point LRH touted Emotion as the medium that Thought uses to implement Effort. That doesn't indicate to me.

Last year I listened to LRH lectures from the fall of 1951. This was a transitional phase in Tech evolution between running incidents such as one does with Dianetics or ARC Straightwire and more abstract processes such as finding Ridges, Flows and Dispersals. In the fall of 1951, LRH was promoting Emotion as key to addressing the pc's case.

I found that the concept of "Counter-Emotion" really hit the sweet spot for me in addressing somatics. It would quickly draw me down to the core of what was stuck and easily achieve a key-out. I used this concept to run gobs of stuff that unburdened my case with fantastic rapidity. I subsequently stopped taking pain meds and, a year later, continue to do just fine.

While doing this processing, I developed a conception of Emotion that was quite loose, applicable to both objects and beings. I think that the ease of this processing was due to the fact that Emotion is high on the scale compared to Thought constructs and Effort manifestations.


Once again, Ant, thanks for your good work.
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
I see emotion as a compass. It tells you where you need to be and when to leave, etc. Often, emotions can be fooled or triggered in wrong contexts, but mostly, they are a very good guide when a person is healthy. If they're not healthy, it's like they have a bad compass. Emotions keep telling you to stay when you should leave, or to approach when you should run, etc.
 

Gib

Crusader
Re: I'm not the Pilot!!!

Dear reader of this thread,

It is over a year since I started sending weekly excerpts from the Pilot (mostly from his fortnightly postings). I am stricken with a fear that some readers may have identified me with the Pilot. Some might even think The Pilot has taken over my body (anything is possible :) :tease: :eyeroll: ).

So I want to assure you, that though I have some associations with the Pilot and his work, I am not identified with the Pilot.

I do not agree with all he says. Specifically, I find little sense in the labels he uses like Clear, OT, Cleared Theta Clear, etc. (they are unreal to me, and I certainly have not "achieved" any of them),
and I would not run the processes he talks about solo or on others. I still have loads of case to handle, preferably with an auditor. I am doing so, with lots of gain. I might try some of the Pilot's processes later. If some one came to me asking me to audit them on one of the Pilot's processes, or to achieve one of the labels Scientology or the Pilot uses, I would probably ask them what condition in their own life they wanted changed, and offer to audit towards that or if they did not have a specific condition or two, offer to run the Scientology Grades (again, if they had done so before). I have had lots of success running grades on people.

That said, I can tell you I have just finished editing for publication tomorrow another Pilot excerpt and I am fascinated by it. There are many aspects. One of them is that he was in comm, internationally with "Scientologists" whether outside the "Church" or inside, writing with a pseudonym, and they discuss aspects of Scientology tech. I think this used to be done in the old days (face to face, there was no Internet at the start of Scientology, and even international phone was difficult and expensive) but then I was far too withdrawn to join in. I am a great advocate of two way communication, so long as it is not of the make wrong, dominate type.

His theories are interesting, and speculations, for example, of what one might call spiritual matters make me think, and speculate further.

If you do not share at least a bit of my interest, please ignore this thread.

If you are curious about me, or want to further unidentify me and the Pilot, I have recently written a short (potted) autobiography which you find at: http://scientolipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antony_Phillips

All best wishes,

Ant

--
Antony Phillips.
www.antology.info
[There are three YouTube Danish Interviews]
http://scientolipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antony_Phillips (English potted autobiography)
[email protected]
(+45) 45 88 88 69
Admin to SelfClearing2004,
SuperScio, Cosmic History
mailing lists
Jernbanevej 3f 4th
DK 2800 Lyngby

Thanks.

What is your purpose in posting all this, then?
 
Pilot's repost Z81 -- Between Lives and Targs

.
Pilot's repost Z81

Between Lives and Targs

From Post 51 – March 1999 [two excerpts in this repost]

Yet another post full of wild and dubious stuff. I like to
get these things on record just in case, but I wouldn't bet
money on them.

I was trying to come up with another recall process. I was
actually hoping for a fast one and instead I got one that
turned on a huge comm lag.

I was thinking that it would be helpful to run off the
intention to forget.

It didn't seem smart to try any heavy L&N or XDN style
intention handling. There are too many implants that include
"to forget" as an implanted goal.

So I wanted a light repetitive process that would handle
the being's own intention. And it seemed to me that the
nice remembering/forgetting straightwire process (something
you wouldn't mind remembering/forgetting) was after the
fact. What I wanted was to spot the actual decisions to
forget because those would be before the fact of forgetting.

The process I put together was the following commands
(run alternately):

a) Recall a time you wanted to make another forget something
b) Recall a time another wanted to make you forget something
c) Recall a time another wanted to make somebody else forget something
d) Recall a time another wanted to make himself forget something
e) Recall a time you wanted to forget something

In retrospect, this might have run faster as 5 separate
processes, each consisting of 2 commands, alternating remembering
and forgetting. Although the remembering side seemed fairly
uncharged to me, it could restore horsepower in between each
push at forgetting.

But the above is the one I used. The plan was to blow postulates
on wanting to forget.

I normally run recall processes extremely fast. They don't
turn on much of a comm lag. I can spot a few trivial answers
easily, which builds up momentum and then hit something good
almost instantly. And if I haven't said it before, that is
the way to get fast results on a process. Go ahead and give
a few trivial or inconsequential answers to warm up rather
than looking for something important or significant on the
first command.

So logically speaking, I expected to recall a few inconsequential
things to start with. It was obvious to me that there were
some easy answers.

But when I tried the command, I couldn't think of any even
though I was certain that they were there. In fact I got
completely foggy every time I considered the command.
And I kept going back and looking at it occasionally.

It took me approximately 24 hours (off and on) to think of
a first trivial answer to the first question. The answer,
by the way, was a trivial one, an instance where I'd wanted
a teacher to forget to collect a homework assignment that
I hadn't done.

I should have thought of that answer in 10 seconds, I have
plenty of little stuff like that and there wasn't any
non-confront on the thing that I came up with (I've done lots
of O/W etc. - the above was just trivial).

I was at this one for 3 days before I'd gotten through two
runs through the 5 commands above. And the really big
lags were on the 1st command (making another forget).

Of course, as I'd mentioned, "forget" appears in a lot of
implants, but I have good confront of implant items and
I'm not likely to dramatize an item these days. And of
course there is the subject of implanting others, but
I've run charge off of that too and it is not likely to
put me on such a heavy comm lag.

But that first command was almost knocking me out every
time I tried to do it.

So I was Itsaing this to a friend in the coffee shop (that
does help and speeds things up) when I realized that it
was the between lives area.

Not just being implanted to forget, but doing the overt of
making others' forget.

That is how they work it. You have to make the guy ahead
of you forget before you can get out. And then the guy
behind you makes you forget (which is easy because you
have just done it as an overt). So the people getting
this implant are running it in on each other, the one
to the next.

That opened up the flood gates. There are a series of areas
in the BLI (between lives implant). These are places where
you interact with other beings rather than just implanted
pictures and items (which are also part of this). As
you leave each area, you have to implant a compulsion into
somebody else and then get implanted with the same yourself.
Of course one could be stubborn, but then one is just
stuck in that area until they get apathetic and give in.
It is probably a bit like being in the RPF.

That is what makes it so sticky and hard to run, it is
full of overts rather than just being a motivator.

There might also be things like being among a crowd of
people being tortured by demons. Then one of the demons
offers to let you take his place and torture people for
him, and you say no so you get tortured some more.
Eventually you agree, and then you are the demon. That
is the only way out, each person going through the same
progression. Later you are quite happy to forget all this.

I've gotten various areas of this before (see Super Scio etc.)
and there are lots more, some with various platens of
implant items or whatever, and all with this overt aspect
mixed in, and that puts a whole new slant on the thing.

When the lessons are being assigned, you give somebody
else a bad lesson (designed to place somebody more in
agreement rather than really enlighten them) and then
somebody else does the same to you. Of course it is
explained to you as "until you help somebody else to
get their ethics in and agree with the proper morals,
we will not consider you fit to be allowed to leave this
area".

I would not say that I have good recall of this, but I
think that I've finally stopped compulsively forgetting
it.

Now lets take this whole mess and label it the BLI,
because it is not everything that is in the between lives
area.

PS. The first time I saw BLI used as an abbreviation,
it was in Irene Mumford's Dianasis Newsletter. Supposedly
she researched out a BLI platen. Anybody know what
she found out?

=========

Once I'd done the above, the BLI sorted out from the
other between lives stuff.

Outside of the BLI there are tons of areas mocked up,
usually small territories mocked up by one powerful
being or another. Some could be termed heavens and
some might even be termed hells and most would fall
somewhere in between. This is Monroe's area 2 and the
heavens and hells of various religious mythologies
and maybe even a bit of the aetherian realms of Oaspe.
Just about anything that a being with some awareness
and horsepower might choose to mock up and for which he
could attract a few people to agree with.

I have my own oddball story on this stuff. Again maybe
dub-in. This popped up while I was running the not-know
process that I posted in mid February. What I hit
was completely off the wall so again I have to say that
this is completely speculative and might only be a half right
shadow even if it is partially true.

I was fooling around with running "mocking up something"
alternated with "not-know who created it", which is a really
fun and fabulous process.

While running that, I got a perception of another me that
was creating and how I was not-knowing across the two identities.
The sensation was truly amazing, and something that had
really struck me once and been a puzzle fell into place.

To explain this I need to fill in some background information.

A few years ago I saw a movie called "Made in Heaven" on the
TV. As part of the background, it had a sort of god of this
"heaven", a limited one, who appears as a preppie high school student
(blazer jacket etc.), chain smoking, contemplating, enjoying and
encouraging artwork and creativity, and with more than passing
interest in sex. When the hero wishes to return to earth to
pursue his girlfriend who has just reincarnated, this demigod
tells him that he can send him back but the hero's memory will
be lost and the demigod cannot ensure that the hero will return
to this heaven because he does not have power elsewhere.

Also note that the heaven seemed to be very limited in scope
and its stated purpose was to encourage creativity, giving
people a chance to develop creative talents which would
benefit them when they reincarnated even though they would
not actually remember the visit after returning to earth.

And in case you haven't noticed, I consider create to be the
most important button. If I wanted to do something about
the sorry state of things here and I had the power to mockup
some limited sort of heaven, this creative heaven is exactly
what I would have mocked up. Or rather, it is what I would
have mocked up when I was younger and hadn't had all the
recent cogs on teaching self processing and so forth.

When I saw this movie, I was sure that I was looking at myself
exactly as I appeared in my final year of high school. It seemed
like me down to the exact appearance, dress, mannerisms, attitudes,
and the heaven was exactly as I would have mocked one up at that
time.

And that last year of high school is the one in which I got on
part time staff and trained on level zero as well. And the end
of that period is when I ran Creation of Human Ability Route 1
on myself.

So when I saw that movie, my first thought was that someone
who had known me in school then must have been impressed and
written the movie, but that idea seemed fairly silly and
impossible.

Then when I ran that not-know process, I had this perception
of being that other me mocking up that limited little heaven.

And with that I had a sudden recall. It seemed to me that as
I ran CofHA Route 1, I came to a halfway consciousness in a
higher self and, not quite awake but wanting to preserve what
might be a unique chance, I copied the lower identity almost
as a reflex and sent the copy off to some astral level to work
with mockups.

The copying actually happened on the "whatever you are
looking at, copy it" command, and from the higher viewpoint I
was looking at the lesser me and copied it. And then I had the
recall of being the other copy, drifting sideways of myself
watching me run the grand tour in Route One. And with this was
a vague awareness that subsequently I mocked up and held a small
safe territory in the between lives area and mocked it up as a
heaven where people might learn to create.

As to the movie, perhaps someone reincarnated from this heaven
and had a half recall, or perhaps some screen writer visited
it in a dream.

Of course this might all be dub-in. But it was very striking.
There was the feeling of some sort of invisible barrier crumbling
as I spotted this.

And with it, I seemed to get this vision of there being many
little enclaves, heavens (and maybe hells), held stable, each
by some strong being, in the chaos of the between lives area
with the between lives implanters just holding their own little
mess of trouble for whomever they can pull in to their area.

But I couldn't quite reconcile this view with the apparent
fact that everybody is always going through the BLI and there
is little direct contact between these astral realms and
Earth.

Until, that is, I did the forgetting process mentioned
above and got some more charge off the BLI. Then it did
start to make sense and I began to see things as follows.

=======

I think that the whole thing was set up as a prison.

There seems to be a between lives admin area and a heaven
and a hell closely connected with the BLI and these all
seem to be the original machinery built here. The heaven
seems to be an R&R area for the guards and trustees and
the prison warden is its god (and a fairly limited one).

Let us say that they did push stuff sideways of ordinary
3 dimensional space* to build a maximum security prison.
Then they have beings running around in half solid astral
bodies so that they can control them between lives.
*reference to the early part of the Pilot's Cosmic History (Jewel of
Knowledge consisting of many physical dimensions).

Then some big being like Christ senses a deep connection to
basic static, says God is Love, and then finds himself
hitting a Marcabian hell. The legends say that he descended
into hell and lead virtuous people out of there and then
arose on the third day. I'm inclined to believe that and
to think that he would have subsequently established his
own safe space beyond the implant stuff, a heaven more in
keeping with his own postulates.

And there are the Buddhist stories of the Pure Land.
Another promise to make a place where beings could go.

I think that it happened a lot. Any time a big being got
past the between lives machinery one way or another he
worked to mockup something better.

Perhaps the jailers made a big mistake and tore the
three dimensional continuum of this universe and now there
is a leak with endless little "pocket" universes spinning
off to the sides at this weak point.

If my speculations on keeping copies for use in replaying
this time period are correct*, they had to store the
copies sideways in a 4th dimensional direction, and
the BLI and admin areas have to be off on a 4th axis,
and once you move people over that way, maybe they gradually
realize that they can go that way and do it on their own.
*Refers to in Super Scio - Theory of Reset Time.​

This is a universe of force and solidity. It is MESTy.
The games are planetary and space opera, very very human
even when the bodies are different. I have to look back
to earlier universes to find stuff like what seems to be
going on now out there in the near earth between lives area.

This universe is itself a prison. And some of the inmates,
themselves trying to make an even more solid prison within
the prison, accidentally knocked down one of the walls and
haven't even quite realized what they've done yet.

Then, of course, I started considering how the mechanism
works, using this new higher perspective.

==========

As I've said at other times, my previous life overlaps the
current one by about 4 years. I gabbed the current
body while still alive in the old one and was senile and
in my "second childhood" and seemed to be "dreaming" of
early childhood in the new body during that time period.

I think that I was doing that (sort of unconsciously on
a theta level) as a solution to the BLI. The idea was
to already be firmly connected to a new body before I
dropped the body so that I could jump from one body to the
other when I died and thereby miss the implant.

It didn't work. I hit the BLI when I died in the old
body and jumped to the new one even though I had been
controlling the new one for 4 years. Any time I have
tried to date when I went through the BLI, I get a
huge read (a division of TA wide) on the year in which
I turned 4 in this lifetime.

I have heard similar things from other people.
I would guess (from the instances of senility) that
there are a lot of people who do this occasionally
(but not every lifetime).

Then there are stories of people hanging around between
lives. Especially stories of Scientologists who have
dropped the body and seem to hang around between lives
for awhile with some awareness and maybe even trying to
do a bit of drills before getting bored and re-incarnating.
And yet when they do re-incarnate, they have been brainwiped.
So it seems like the implant takes place when they pick
up the body rather than when they die.

And there are the Tibetan ideas, avoiding being pulled
anywhere and not letting demons scare you into a body
you don't want. I would think that some of them can go
around for awhile comfortably and with some benefit before
picking up a body. And yet I think that they mostly hit
this thing too when they incarnate.

Or one hangs out in one of the between lives realms as
I discussed earlier. Maybe one stays for decades or
centuries, but has a bit of an urge to reincarnate or
get back to friends stuck on earth or whatever and
then heads back here and gets wacked with the implant.

Of course I'm speculating, but I have this strong feeling
that it is the action of fully connecting up to the body
that throws one into the implant.

You can hang around earth bodiless or go off to the
astral realms, but try to get into an earth body and
bang, you're shifted somewhere else and get hit with
this implant and then shot back into the body you were
trying to pick up.

So they have the body line here tied into the prison
machinery, and they have the earth reality blocked
from the between lives spirits in some way, which is
why there is so little interference from outside.*
*Again referring to the Reset Time theory in Super Scio. Ed.​

==========

Next I tried to focus on what happened when I picked up
the current body. I had been running it for 4 years,
but I was still locked onto the old body during that time
period, so it seems like I could put a beam on this one
and handle it without locking in.

When the old one died, I put a beam into the head of
this one. Running that as an incident, I suddenly
realized that there was a black ring in the center
of the head and that that is what I connected to for
the motor controls and when I shifted off of the ring
in the old body, the one in the new body shifted me
off to the BLI.

It is like I could hold and control the new body safely
as long as I was still locked into the old one because
my hook onto the ring in the old body's head kept me
from being moved by the ring in the new one. And it
seems like you always keep a beam on that ring, even
if you're exterior, because if you pull off of that
point, you loose contact with the body.

As soon as I remembered this black ring (thick like
a tiny donut), I just "knew" that it was called a
"Targ Ring".

Now that was strange because I had no reason for
associating Targs with the thing and the ring itself did
not seem to be composed of entities.

========

Very little has been said about Targs.

There is one LRH tape reference, the "electropsychometic
scouting, battle of the universes" tape of 1952.

He associates them with Arslycus, which he also describes
as one of the few other between lives control areas
of the track in addition to recent earth.

He is not very clear or detailed, it is actually a demo
session that MSH [Mary Sue Hubbard] is running on him and he is spotting
this stuff as he is running it.

The Targs seem to be an entity type used in making
slaves. It seems to me that the term "Targ Ridden"
(being infested with or even ridden or controlled by
Targs) is associated with this but I'm not sure if Ron
used that term or it just popped into my head when I
heard that tape many years ago.

I've run a bit on Arslycus (see Super Scio) and it seems
to me that they wanted slaves and used between lives
control mechanisms and it now strikes me as quite likely
that the same mechanisms (Targs and Targ Rings and BLIs)
were used there as are now used here. And Ron says
that this kind of control mechanism is not used in most
other times or places in this universe.

Filbert also mentions Targs. He describes them (if
I remember right - It's somewhere in Excalibur Revisited)
as entities of exceptionally heavy black energy which are
especially difficult to handle.

Since Ron did know about Targs and doesn't mention them in
Solo NOTs, I'd pretty much assumed that they would just
blow with the rest of the stuff, so I hadn't gone hunting
very hard for Targs specifically or paid much attention
to this business.

===========

The upshot of this is that I found a black ring in the
middle of the current body's head (a black theta energy
construction, not something you'd find with a scaple).

Concentrating on it, I tried to contact a Targ in the
body.

I found a large (almost body sized) thick black theta
body which answered up. It was surprising that I had
had previously had zero perception of this thing despite
all the NOTs and everything else.

This thing was quite willing to talk but various processes
seemed to have little effect. ("yes I'm me, but so what,
I like being a Targ, lots of nice sensation").

I even tried "spot being made into a Targ" with little
effect.

The one that worked was "spot making another into a
Targ".

It was not one of these where you indicate and a few
impressions come back and they blow. Instead I had
somebody running through a major incident in detail.

I only duplicated a small bit of it, but it had to
do with implanting these things among others:

Gluttony, Lust, Greed, A craving for Power, and probably
quite a few more along the lines of the 7 deadly sins.

And at the top of the implant were things like stirring
up a desire to be loved and making that into lust, and
stirring up a desire to be admired and making that
into a craving for power and riches etc.

I looked for another. I only got a vague impression and
maybe ran a bit of dub-in until I mentally grabbed that
black ring again (like holding it in a theta fist),
then I had another big solid black being with fairly
clear comm. That was also very interesting. It seems
like you can hardly find or perceive these guys unless
you clamp down on that ring somehow, and then they
are extremely visible.

This time I needed to have him spot an earlier similar
time he made another into a Targ, but the making another
question seemed to be the basic handling without much
else. And it went fairly fast this time. And I noticed
that "To get vengeance" was in the list of goals.

==========

As I said at the beginning, this is all highly speculative.

And it seems awfully complex. But so would New York to
a primitive tribesman.

I have a good feeling about this and it feels like a lot
of things are coming together here. But we shall see.

Affinity,

The Pilot

===========================

Continuing the Targ Discussion (Attn Zero, Paul, etc.)

From Post 52 – March 1999

On Fri, 05 Mar 1999 16:50:32 -0800, Ra <[email protected]> wrote
in response to my earlier post on "Between Lives And Targs"
(note that Ra changed his ID and now posts as "zero")

[ Ra:]
> Hello there Pilot:
> Thought I would dissem some re:
>
> The Pilot wrote:
[ Pilot, quoted by RaRa:]
>>
>> BETWEEN LIVES AND TARGS
>===snip====
>> As soon as I remembered this black ring (thick like
>> a tiny doughnut), I just "knew" that it was called a
>> "Targ Ring".
>>
>> Now that was strange because I had no reason for
>> associating Targs with the thing and the ring itself did
>> not seem to be composed of entities.
>
[ Ra:]
> *As a note here, I have developed a score of rundowns to handle things
> all the way down the bridge. Most undercut the bank completely. Even the
> case completely. I have researched a number of things that I have
> decided in good consciousness not to release at all just yet. One has to
> do with running multiple auditing command cycles on multiple points in
> multiple dimensions. I have another 50 rundowns in note form.*

[Pilot:]
My advice is to write up everything you can as fast as you can
do so with accuracy and good quality.

I do sit on things waiting for another cog or hoping to see
things better, and I go over my technical posts a surprising number
of times, looking them over critically (wearing a Qual hat) before
sending them in.

But once something comes together right, get it written and
out there so that your attention can free up and shift onto
the next thing that needs to be looked at.

Trying to research leaves you with a wandering Itsa line that
can be overrestimulating unless you write your material up for
the sake of others.

The materials in the Super Scio book were accumulated over
a period of about ten years. I would periodically bog and
go solid, sometimes for months or even a year. Putting it
all together and getting it properly written up and straightened
out took about a year, and it was a tremendous case gain for
me to do so.

Since then I've known better than to sit on things. And so
the stuff keeps coming faster and faster and the bogs and
overrestimulation just don't happen any more.

I think that Ron was in this situation, and the second he
began to hold data back and make it confidential it backlashed
and caved in on him.

[ Ra:]
> But you jumped in this area of ETargs. This is pretty high level stuff.
> I am not surprised you had some problem handling them. Yeah, they know
> they are me, etc. Unfortunately, they do not have the same this
> universe agreements, and Usual Auditing Procedures slide off their back
> like water off of a duck.
>
> The fact you spotted the ETarg ring, and knew what it was is the key to
> being able to handle them. So, I'll just address you at that level of
> awareness, and the rest will never even see this communication, probably
> not even the post.
>
[Ra, quoting The Pilot:]
>> Very little has been said about Targs.
>>
>> There is one LRH tape reference, the "electropychometic
>> scouting, battle of the universes" tape of 1952.
>>
>> He associates them with Arslycus, which he also describes
>> as one of the few other between lives control areas
>> of the track in addition to recent earth.
>
[ Ra:]
> Very recent earth, like yesterday and early this morning. It is pretty
> much an ongoing operation.
>
[Ra, quoting The Pilot:]
>> The Targs seem to be an entity type used in making
>> slaves. It seems to me that the term "Targ Ridden"
>> (being infested with or even ridden or controlled by
>> Targs) is associated with this but I'm not sure if Ron
>> used that term or it just popped into my head when I
>
[Ra:]
> It is telepathically given to you. The phrase wipes memory. If you
> start in on one of these guys, if you find a real one, a half second
> later you are running your commands on someone or something else. More
> than likely a mock up of you. Courtesy of yourself.
[The Pilot:]
Entities acting as bouncers and forgetters. Just like with engrams,
it stops happening if you're on gradient.
[Ra, quoting The Pilot:]
>> I've run a bit on Arslycus (see Super Scio) and it seems
>> to me that they wanted slaves and used between lives
>> control mechanisms and it now strikes me as quite likely
>> that the same mechanisms (Targs and Targ Rings and BLIs)
>> were used there as are now used here. And Ron says
>> that this kind of control mechanism is not used in most
>> other times or places in this universe.
>
[Ra:]
> Actually, it is a little more accurate to say it is not used in this
> universe at all. The manifestation appears to be here, but the truth is,
> it is not. The Ring is a gateway to... hmm..... someplace different to
> put it lightly. That's why you couldn't find anything to run in the ring
> itself. Your intention just went through a worm hole to .. ah, nowhere,
> sort of. It sorta shifts phases of this universe to another.
> I had to invent and run some pretty strange math to figure this out.
[The Pilot:]
Yes, a different space. As to a different "universe", I use a
very broad definition of universe and so I would include it as
part of this one even though it is not part of the local 3 dimensional
space/time.
[Ra, quoting The Pilot:]
>> Filbert also mentions Targs. He describes them (if
>> I remember right - It's somewhere in Excalibur Revisited)
>> as entities of exceptionally heavy black energy which are
>> especially difficult to handle.
>
[Ra:]
> Close, I will post the complete handling of his later.
>
[Ra, quoting The Pilot:]
>> Since Ron did know about Targs and doesn't mention them in
>> Solo Nots, I'd pretty much assumed that they would just
>> blow with the rest of the stuff, so I hadn't gone hunting
>> very hard for Targs specifically or paid much attention
>> to this business.
>
[Ra:]
> NOTs wont even begin to touch them. Doubtful if they would ever even
> show up. If you managed to get an intention in the area, it would just
> be wormholed off to a no charge area, and meter wouldn't read.
[The Pilot:]
Everything seems to fit the accessibility concept. Things out
of the band don't read. Things on the edge are hard to perceive
and bouncers etc. come into play. When it moves up into full
accessibility, then you don't bounce or obey implanted orders
and it becomes fairly easy to handle.

[Ra, quoting The Pilot:]
>> The upshot of this is that I found a black ring in the
>> middle of the current body's head (a black theta energy
>> construction, not something you'd find with a scaple).
>>
>> Concentrating on it, I tried to contact a Targ in the
>> body.
>
[Ra:]
> I think you were able to do this because of being able to somewhat
> think in multiple dimension, re: your jewel of the universe construct
[The Pilot:]
Yes. But that is simply the accessibility gradient. Everything
becomes easy eventually.
[Ra, quoting The Pilot:]
>> I found a large (almost body sized) thick black theta
>> body which answered up. It was surprising that I had
>> had previously had zero perception of this thing despite
>> all the NOTs and everything else.
>
[Ra:]
> Again the key was in being able to perceive in multiple dimensions*
*reference the Pilot's Cosmic history – the theory is that over time we have become
limited to only perceiving three physical dimensions..​
>
[Ra, quoting The Pilot:]
>> This thing was quite willing to talk but various processes
>> seemed to have little effect. ("yes I'm me, but so what,
>> I like being a Targ, lots of nice sensation").
>
[Ra:]
> Yep. Functionally, a mirror telepath. It reads your mind, and only
> gives answers you yourself cannot handle.

[The Pilot:]
That can only be done if you have a big bunch of flinches that
it can read and use against you.

In this case the question was simply not good enough, which is
a different point. Obviously I didn't have any problem with
handling his answer, it simply indicated that these guys needed
something stronger than the NOTs what/who.

[Ra, quoting The Pilot:]
>> I even tried "spot being made into a Targ" with little
>> effect.
>>
>> The one that worked was "spot making another into a
>> Targ".
>> I was not one of these where you indicate and a few
>> impressions come back and they blow. Instead I had
>> somebody running through a major incident in detail.
>
[Ra:]
> Here, I think you got a bit of the extra 6th dimension of the ring.
[The Pilot:]
There is no reason to drag in the ring or the extra dimensions
to explain why he needed to do some real incident running.
In truth I do suspect that there was other dimensional cross
copying of his running it going on, but who cares, if somebody
is running something, you just let them run it.

[Ra, quoting The Pilot:]
>> I only duplicated a small bit of it, but it had to
>> do with implanting these things among others:
>==snip===
>> stirring up a desire to be admired and making that
>> into a craving for power and riches etc.
>>
>> I looked for another. I only got a vague impression and
>> maybe ran a bit of dub-in until I mentally grabbed that
>> black ring again (like holding it in a theta fist),
>> then I had another big solid black being with fairly
>> clear comm. That was also very interesting. It seems
>> like you can hardly find or perceive these guys unless
>> you clamp down on that ring somehow, and then they
>> are extremely visible.
>
[Ra:]
> Yes, by holding the ring, you can make him visible, but you are not
> viewing normal MEST.
>
[Ra, quoting The Pilot:]
>> This time I needed to have him spot an earlier similar
>> time he made another into a Targ, but the making another
>> question seemed to be the basic handling without much
>> else. And it went fairly fast this time. And I noticed
>> that "To get vengeance" was in the list of goals.
>
[Ra:]
> Not surprised. Btw, it looks like you ran the second command (e/s time)
> on the second ETarg, and not the first. Should have ran the first
> command on no.2, and then second command.
[The Pilot:]
I did actually. This was not a formal session write up. I
was simply making the observation that the second one needed
to go E/S.

After the first write up, I ran some more, and they started
going on a fast blow by inspection on being asked to spot
making others into Targs. I suspect that there was a bunch
in close connection to each other and as one ran it, others
would watch and be getting their confront up.
[Ra:]
> Wouldn't have made any diff anyway. The command went off to a mirror
> illusion universe, and the Targ wasn't there in the first place.
[The Pilot:]
Doesn't matter. If you are in contact with a being, then you
are in contact with them.
[Ra:]
> Here is Mr Filberts handle [presumably from Excalibur Revisted, Ed.]:
> "E-TARG RUNDOWN
>[snip]
>
> So, the handle is not to handle the Targ, but to handle the incident of
> you receiving him, R3R, good ol R3R. It could or could not have been
> done in a Between Lives Implant. The incident of the big light, and
> tribunal will blow down a couple of division on spotting it. All the
> Targs will come into view, and have a fit, and the Black Ring will
> disappear. They are telepathic, and will hit you with your own pictures,
> and theirs, and whatever else they can find. Don't mess with the
> pictures, don't mess with the goals, and things that come up. Just run
> the incident.
[Pilot:]
I hadn't realized that he [Filbert, Ed.] had bumped into the Targ ring. I read his
book a long time ago.
[Ra:]
> Mr F wrote this with the assumption that the sequence of 1 to 17 had
> been run previously, that would include all ot levels, all entities,
> joiners, and all GPMs, all circuits, prior universes, and rehabilitation
> of home universe. I personally think he was correct in placing this
> handling that far along.
[Pilot:]
Things come up when they come up. Obviously I bumped into them
long after many other things had been handled.

[Ra:]
> Here is the key. Grab the ring. That will activate the Targs. Count
> them, (6 for me) Assign a auditor attention unit to each. (Sort of like
> splitting self in 8) Locate the receipt incident, start R3R. (Will
> necessitate a couple more self splits)
>
> Keep your attention on all 6 Targs, handle their origination's,
> intention attacks, picture and energy attacks while you run the
> incident. If they can find any loose BTs, or clusters, they will
> activate them as well, and key them in. Just assign another auditor
> attention unit to each BT woken up. They (Targs) will attempt to escape
> through the ring when they realize the game is up. You can either let
> them, or hold them there. Once the incident is erased, they will calm
> down somewhat, and thereafter respond to standard auditing.

[Pilot:]
I didn't run into attacks, just some big black heavy beings.
But I've run off lots of stuff and this area was moving up
into the band of being "light" instead of "rough" to handle.

Running 6 in parallel seems interesting, but I didn't find it
necessary. Just hold onto one and get him through it. But I
bumped into a need to run parallels while fooling with the
big splitter in Super Scio chapter 9. I would say now that
it was because it was out gradient and therefore the cross
copy between the beings was heavy enough to require handling
them together. But if you're bigger, then your intention is
senior and overrides the cross copy that they are stuck in,
so you can hold one's attention and push him through. The
others are still copying, so they catch this indirectly and
can then easily be blown.

Then again, drilling parallel processing is fun all by itself.
Worth doing at least once just for the hell of it.
[Ra:]
> I have found that you can handle the ruds, and then R3R each one
> through the incident very nicely. They usually have pretty good
> cognition's, and quit r/sing. Could let them leave at that point,
> up to you (most of mine didn't, wanted to hang around and get
> some auditing). Then handle each BT or cluster woken up to EP.
>
> If the Targ is still around, and interested, have him spot a difference
> between himself and you, then a similarity, repetitive till EP. He will
> then be in valence, will leave, and you will not have the liability of a
> split self running around in a Targ valence.
>
> I takes a quite a bit of confront, and the ability to handle 10
> auditing com cycles simultaneously. Heh. Somewhat of a trick, but you
> sure won't have any trouble auditing one being at a time after that.

[Pilot:]
True.

The "Targ ring" really is a wormhole. That was a smart observation.

So I drilled a bit with wormholes (separate action, no sense
getting it mixed up with Targs). Pick a point in space, lets
call it point A. Perhaps be there to some degree (if needed
for havingness & orientation). Put out a beam to point B and
then unmock the beam alternately a few times, with the beam going
through the intervening distance as is usual.

Next connect from point A to point B but force the connection
by postulate without crossing the intervening space, but
allow a tiny amount of distance to keep the two points
separated. Drill mocking that up and unmocking it a few times.

Now put a bit of a pull from point B back towards point A
on that connection as you mock it up (or pulling on point B
from point A). It makes a black ring in point B because
things are pulled from there back towards point A.

This is a wormhole. It is almost a black hole, but it goes
somewhere with a short tube that is far less than the distance
between the two points. There is much fun to be had with these.
This is the next level above drilling with simple 3 dimensional
beams.

Then I got back to handling Targs and blew off some more as
I mentioned earlier.

Next I started looking around for Filbert's tribunal etc.
and also trying to follow the Targ ring wormhole and making
copies of it and changing its color etc. until everything
seemed to fall into place.

It is a multipoint wormhole, like having a many to one named
pipe in server software (many users connecting to the same
address). Billions of end points on one side, all connecting
to a single destination point. The destination point is white
rather than black because that is where the outflow side is,
and it is brilliant white, that is the big light.

Where it exits is not the real place where we were sentenced
to Earth. It is a copy (complete with a mocked up tribunal etc.).
And it is the entry point to the between lives implant sequence.

If you grab onto a body while you are still also holding
your current body, the ring in the current body exerts enough
pull to keep the ring in the other body from shifting you.

If, however, you are really between lives and grab onto the
ring of an unoccupied body (intending to pick it up), you get
sucked down the wormhole and end up in the mockup of the
sentencing tribunal (which restimulates being sentenced to
Earth). And there the Targs blanket you and push you into
the BLI sequence.

That is what a Targ does. They blanket and enforce agreements.

If your big enough, you blanket them instead and they get easy
to handle.

And of course if you do a bit of drilling on mocking up
wormholes, you're not going to get pulled around by them
anymore (unless you feel like it).

And of course one should run a bit of charge off of times
that they blanketed others and enforced agreements and emotions
in on them.

But note that everything like this should be left until the
person starts bumping into it. That's the easy way.

============


On 8 Mar 99, [email protected] (Paul Misiunas) responded to Ra's
post with the following on "Pilot FYI:Between Lives And Targs"

[Paul:]
# If auditing should be performed for the sake of auditing, then by all
# means, spot every known and unknown type of entity imaginable (and be
# sure to be creative and make up entirely "new" ones too!). That should
# keep you busy for... well, let's just say a long long time.
#
# Target Tags, whether electronic or not, have their use, as do all
# entities, but sooner or later you'll tire of the "entity approach".
#
# The "trick" isn't the number of comm cycles that you can hold with
# entities, or how well you can spot "worm holes", "dimensions",
# "mirrored illusion universe" or any other flowery spacation term. No
# matter the number of rundowns that you put yourself through, you will
# still not be able to escape yourself.
#
# That's not to say that I don't believe some entities should be dealt
# with, it's just that making it a "life's work" will surely keep you
# busy and out of the way for a while.
#
# Handle the incident and move on. Why "handle" the Targ and that
# Targ's Targ and your split pieces Targs, and your car's Targs and 10
# Targs all at the same time...
#
# If the actual incident isn't handled, the Targs won't be either. But
# sometimes handling the secondary is a better gradient for some.
#
# That's my opinion. Your mileage will definitely vary.
#
# Paul
# http://fza.org

[Pilot:]
Paul makes a very good point.

One can go overboard on handling entities.

Handling them does make a difference. I feel like I used to be
muffled in cotton.

But they are never basic. Under all these distractions its
always you, never an outside source.

When you do start running into them, then you get busy and
handle, but the target is to get them out of the way and get
back to running your own case.

If you bump into the Targs because they are the next thing in
view and you're not assigning any cause to them but just handling
something which is in the way of seeing deeper, then they are
fairly easy to handle. But if you were to dig these things
up with the attitude that they were doing things to you and
responsible for the condition that you are in (and one has
been effect of them, so its easy to do that), then you are
going to have one hell of a time handling them.

That could make the difference between spending years on
handling some type of entity instead of just doing a few
sessions to an automatic blow and a cog that puts you at
cause over them and beyond their ability to affect you.

This is important enough that I'm posting a separate write up
on entity handling.


Best,

The Pilot
_______________________________________________
 
Re: I'm not the Pilot!!! (plus a bit on Targs)

Thanks.
What is your purpose in posting all this, then?

I find it interesting stuff, and I anticipate that a few so called nerds will also find it interesting.

I would add that I have gained a good deal out of reading some of the Pilot's writings. You could say it broadened my horizons. As an example you could take what I have just posted (pretty long - it took me over an hour to prepare it). When I first heard of Targs I dismissed them off hand. My "justification" was that Targs were just thetans, behaving in accordance with axioms one and two, and why make a fuss about them. Reading what the Pilot and Ra say about it, I find most interesting. Also the Pilot's description of how he took over his present body, and how his intention did not quite work out was interesting. I am very curious about what I will experience when my body dies, and accounts from a Scientologist interest me a bit more than other accounts. At the same time it is interesting that the Pilot publishes (and comments on) what Paul Misanius says (which I agree with) and comments on it.

So the purpose is to make it available to like minded people, especially those who were not around (in Free Scientology) at the times the Pilot posted. I don't expect many will bother to read. It is for those who have that sort of interest. I rather hope that, just like out in society "odd bods" like vegetarians, those that like classical music and (in my younger days) those that did not smoke are accepted, so these postings to ESMB will be accepted.

I will add that one of the qualities that I find charming about The Pilot was his willingness to answer in a friendly manner critical remarks. I remember someone once made a remark to the Pilot (on the public newsgroup) which I considered "entheta" (I was a good "Church" Scientologist still in spirit) and I expected that the Pilot would ignore (according to "Policy"). However the Pilot answered it (in his next fortnightly posting) in a friendly way, and (to my surprise) the rather antagonistic person responded in a friendly way and changed his mind. A lesson to me, who, though out of the "Church", was carrying forward "church" mentality.

I think some seeking people can gain from these postings (now and as long as the ESMB remains financed).

I hope this answers your question.

All best wishes,

Ant ([email protected])
 

F.Bullbait

Oh, a wise guy,eh?
Re: I'm not the Pilot!!! (plus a bit on Targs)

I find it interesting stuff, and I anticipate that a few so called nerds will also find it interesting.

(snip)
a) Recall a time you wanted to make another forget something
b) Recall a time another wanted to make you forget something
c) Recall a time another wanted to make somebody else forget something
d) Recall a time another wanted to make himself forget something
e) Recall a time you wanted to forget something
(snip)

images_zpse1b06aaf.jpeg



Gosh and I thought we were the cool kids.

That set of recalls sure turns on ... yawn...zzzzz.

I got around that by running them while doing my daily exercise. Not an ideal way to run a process but workable for me as a start.
 
Re: ... (plus a bit on Targs)



That set of recalls sure turns on ... yawn...zzzzz.

I got around that by running them while doing my daily exercise. Not an ideal way to run a process but workable for me as a start.[/QUOTE]
I find that valid. In fact you have "invented" a new process. There can certainly be processes which contain an objective and a subjective aspect. Just follow basic principles (flatten comm lags, stop with EP especially a blow out, meaning a big extroverting win, etc. etc.).
Bottom line, getting charge off, enlarging one's horizon. All the best, Ant
 

F.Bullbait

Oh, a wise guy,eh?
I don't know about that innovation being a new process. I think of it as being a tool in the self-auditing tool box since I don't have an auditor to give me a nudge in a dope-off situation. Worked for me. I ran it until it felt flat. Later I did that recall set in the usual self-auditing manner and did not have anaten as a big factor. It went to cog.
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
So you don't think Cayce was doing what he wanted to do by doing what you say he was doing . . . for the good ol' Christian types I know, the thing they MOST want to do is to follow "God's will" . . . .

So, my dear Cat's we do have a very different view of this "do want you want to do" thingie . . . .

I used to want to be a swim champ . . . and screw any who thought that was stupid.

Then I wanted all that Scn and Hubbs promised . . . and screw any who thought that was stupid. :blush:

Now I want the cult stopped dead in its tracks and the abuse of members and the rip off of everything it touches to stop . . . and screw anyone who thinks that is stupid :biggrin: . . . Oh, and where is God on that one? Are you listening God? How about giving me what I want for a change :melodramatic:

R

As I said before, Roger, it probably doesn't apply to you. I'm not even sure myself where the Truth lies in this area, but the majority of people think they are something they're not - a self separate from the All and comprised of all their memories, likes and dislikes, fears and desires, and significances. So when the 7th / 8th dynamic intrudes upon them, they *experience it as something "other" and probably frightening and/or awe-inspiring. If you are in harmony with these dynamics by being them, then what you want is pretty much going to be what God wants anyway so it wouldn't seem like an "otherness" to you when this happens.

* There's a very powerful description of this in Francis Thompson's poem "The Hound Of Heaven"

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Hound_of_Heaven

http://www.houndsofheaven.com/thepoem.htm
 
Last edited:

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
Cat's points out succinctly the most common route of spiritual ascension: being total effect to power, an entity, god, what-have-you.

I wonder whether OT and that kind of spiritual ascension are cut from the same cloth.

No they wouldn't be. There's an old debate about the mystic path and the magician's path, and to what extent each or the other is valid, but as Gadfly has pointed out Scn isn't even the magician's path because you're not in control of your own creations when going up onto the OT levels but have to accept all Ron Hubbard's creations (Xenu, incident 1 and 2, BTs etc.). So you're basically still at effect even when you're becoming "cause."

Even more benign spiritual practices can suffer from this phenomenon, where however much progress you make you are always still inside the considerations of the person who originated the spiritual practices, religion etc. and so are not genuinely free. The Buddhists btw are well aware of this problem and that is why there are books in existence like Sheldon Kopp's "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!"

Another example; *H A ("Harry") Williams was a theology don at Cambridge who suffered a severe breakdown and for which he went into intensive psychotherapy. He said in his autobiography "Some Day I''ll Find You" that he had to get rid of what he called the "monster god" in his own head before he could recover. For me he's one of the most worthwhile Christian writers to read, easily up there with M. Scott Peck.

*He's probably best known now as one of Prince Charles's spiritual mentors, when Charles was a young man studying at Cambridge, and it's even been rumoured that his son was called Harry as a tribute to him.
 
Last edited:
I don't know about that innovation being a new process. I think of it as being a tool in the self-auditing tool box since I don't have an auditor to give me a nudge in a dope-off situation. Worked for me. I ran it until it felt flat. Later I did that recall set in the usual self-auditing manner and did not have anaten as a big factor. It went to cog.

Yes, my comment was not well thought out. In the things I read on the net I tend to run too much for my liking into caution, and following standard tech, "would Ron have approved" and sort of figure-figure categories of attitudes, and it was a joy to see the spirit of adventure and doingness attitude you displayed. That spirit of adventure attitude is one of the characteristics the Pilot displayed, and which I regard as commendable. Do and dare.

"Worked for me". The acid test, not "would Ron approve" :wink2:

All the best, Ant
 
Pilot's repost Z82 -- Common Base, Need for

.
Pilot's repost Z82

Common Base, Need for

From Post 62 – July 1999
First of three excerpts in this post

A true science requires a huge quantity of work. It is never
the product of one man.

But a strong tech finder will indeed begin acting as a "source"
of tech. The research gets done by individuals, not committees.

That leaves us with the problem of how to pull together unique
and individual source points into a cohesive whole which might
actually achieve real OT.

We can't make it on individual gurus no matter how brilliant
and charismatic they are. If anyone could have done that,
it would have been LRH, and he failed. And his attempt to
do it as an only one almost killed the research line.

We should all have learned our lesson from that. I for one
know that I wouldn't make it alone. And so I imitate Ron
as he acted in the 1950s when he was being "the great organizer"
rather than the "source" of tech (see LRH quotes on the
Scientology Reformer's Homepage*).
Without a common base, we will have one genius making light bulbs
that lack a power source and another pouring concrete for a
power dam that is useless to everyone, and a third stringing
transmission lines to nowhere.

The broadest base ever defined in this field is the original
definition of Scientology. Not the abberant concept that
Scientology is LRH tech or that it is some narrow standard,
but the original definition which says that Scientology is
the subject of "Knowing How To KNOW".

Scientology was not just LRH. He did not define it that way.

He said that if the Arabs find some way of sifting sand that
increases knowingness and reveals truth, then it is part
of Scientology. (see the History of Man lectures).

In this case, the CofS is using a SQUIRREL definition of
Scientology as being standard tech, and in this case I mean
True Squirrel which means altering the subject so as to
make it unworkable, because with this aberrated definition
they have destroyed the actual workability of the subject
as a way to achieve truth and knowledge.

The old definition for Squirrel was destructive alter-is,
and on that basis, the only squirrel group around is the
CofS itself.

There is nothing wrong with having a standard tech. What
is wrong is to knock out all but a narrow subset of the
tech and destroy the research line.

If it works, it is Scientology by definition. That's what
L. Ron Hubbard said.

That doesn't mean that the CofS has to deliver it. They have
their specific delivery lineup. There is nothing wrong with
that either.

You have a workable standard and you use it. And somebody
else has a different workable standard and they use that.
And yet another group has an even different workable standard
and they use that. These are the practicalities of delivering
a product.

You can have more than one brand of car. They are built a
little bit different from each other. Some have better
acceleration. Some have better gas mileage. Some are
build for rough terrain and some are made for the racetrack.
Some people own more than one car. The manufactures don't
mind if they do that.

So there is room for many standards.

And yet we will not make it if each of us goes drifting
off in our own direction.

We do need a common base.

Ron's work in the 1950s is the best starting point that
this planet has ever seen.

Modern CofS standard tech could be thought of as one of
many possible lines that evolved off of that platform.

Things like Avatar and TROM are just as well aligned
with that early base as standard tech. They are definitely
Scientology per LRH's definition in the 1950s.

And so we need LRH for that broad vision and the foundations
that we are building on.

Unfortunately, it has been CofS's effort to blow people
away from LRH, attacking anyone who could think for themselves
to the point where many turned their backs in disgust on
the entire rotten mess.

That is the real reason that freezone groups drift away
from basic Scientology and early LRH. It is not that
there is a natural tendency to drift away. It is that
they are forced off with sixteen inch naval guns.

=====================

From Post 63 – July 1999

Seems like some people didn't get what I was saying
last time.

I was not talking about worshipping LRH.

I was not talking about this sick idea of there only being
one source.

I was not talking about the later organizational insanities.

I was not even promoting standard tech. In fact I was
saying the exact opposite.

I was talking about something quite different.

I was talking about the need for a subject that organizes
subjects.

I was talking about the need for a broader base that embraces
many different practices and implementations.

That is what Scientology was once, in the days before standard
tech and KSW.

That is from the time when Ron called himself the great organizer
rather than the source of the tech.

Something went very bad later. He mentions on the Class VIII
tapes (they were posted recently) that he got run on the Sources
process from Grade 5 and the session went to hell. It's not that
power can't be run on a clear. It's just that some half assed
auditor horribly goofed up the session on Ron. And Ron's subsequent
decision that what was wrong was that it wouldn't run on a clear
obviously didn't correct the screwed up session but simply prevented
it from ever being repaired. Therefore it was a major wrong
indication.

And we can assume that happened in 1965 because that is
when power was developed. And we can look with amazement at
the fact that Ron put out one of the most spectacular processes
and then couldn't be run on it himself. And my guess would be
that Ron was listing it out of session while writing the HCOB
and that the auditor then overlisted it and pushed a wrong item
on him with disasterous results.

But the plain fact of the matter is that Ron got messed up
on the Sources process (by his own statement on the class VIII
tapes) and that this happened in 1965 and that he then immediately
issued the KSW policy stating that he was the one and only
source of tech.

Let me say that date again. 1965. That is when Scientology
became hostile to tech finders. Until then it was THE tech
finder's science.

Of course much of the data goes back earlier. But it is
individual pieces, one here and one there. There is a terrible
problem with applying earlier metaphysics in a practical
manner, I know because I grew up on metaphysics and the
lack of workable processes just drove me up the walls.

I remember searching for answers in my teens. I remember
finding some too. And yet it was horribly difficult to try
and apply anything.

That is what Ron really gave us. Ways of organizing and
processing the higher spiritual truths. It is nice to know
that all is illusion, but how do you process it? How do you
drill it? What can be done about it?

The ideas do go back earlier. But how do you use them?

The unifying platform was outlined in 1952 to 1954 and it
makes all the difference.

We have only two choices if we wish to make it all the
way.

a) Organize on the ORIGINAL Scientology base (NOT standard tech)

b) Develop a new broad base of Clearing Tech

Whatever base is used, it HAS to encompass TROM, Avatar,
Standard Tech, Knowledgism, Dynamism*, CBR, Zen, Gurdieff,
and anything else under the sun that produces a workable
result.
* Dynamism was developed by Enid Vien from Scientology. She died a few years ago.
A brief Google search did not show it. Ed.​

Alternative b) is possible, but the work involved is tremendous
and I don't see anybody doing it. Alan [Walter] will probably scream
at me for saying this, but I think that he is doing an
implementation rather than evolving a complete new base.

There is a big difference between developing a workable
practice and developing something that allows the development
of new workable practices.

The broadness and strength of the original base is why
so many divergent practices have evolved out of Scientology.

One of the many "squirrel groups" that evolved from that
base was Ron's own personal squirrel group known as standard
tech. It is just an implementation. One of the infinity of
possibilities that opened up.

And of course I'm saying "squirrel" as a joke. According to
the original concept of Scientology, the only thing that is
squirrel is making unworkable processes. The only squirrel
idea that I've ever seen on ACT [Newsgroup The Pilot was writing via, Ed.] is the idea of sec checking
everybody telepathically. And that is not to say that all
telepathic processing is unworkable or that all sec checking
is unworkable, but is only to point out that nobody is going
to get any case gain by having somebody else pull withholds
(real or imagined) telepathically without talking to the
person for real to let some charge come off.

As far as I'm concerned, the most important thing here is
to see the research line advance. It is a tough proposition.
As I said last time, if one person could do it alone, Ron
would have. But the standard bridge, despite producing
case gain, falls short of producing real OT. And so it
should be obvious that a group research effort is needed.

Not just me, although I will happily and egoistically
say that I'm smarter than everybody else and so on. And
not just Alan, although he could also claim extreme smart
and unique contributions to the work. And not just ... -
(I started listing names here and I realize that I just
couldn't get all of them without going on for pages and pages.
Nothing could do justice to the amount of significant ideas
that are appearing on ACT. Even Phil has said some things
that are unique and important in the research.)

But how do we align all these wonderful ideas. Are we to
end up as nothing more than an interesting footnote in the
history books, or can we make the real breakthrough, the
one that actually gets us out of the trap.

We need a base broad enough to embrace the entire field.
Not just one slant on things, but something broader that
pulls together multiple viewpoints into a cohesive whole.

That is what Scientology once was.

The real sadness is that most Scientologists do not have
a clue as to what Scientology really is (or maybe I should
say was). They see this other thing which replaced it and
used the same name and think it is Scientology.

Scientology is the science of knowing how to know.

Or, restating this in terms that others might understand,
Scientology is the science of how to be what is now called
a squirrel (by the CofS) in an effective and workable manner.

Hope this helps,

The Pilot

===========================

More on Common Platform

From Post 64 – August 1999

This is so important that I wanted to expound on it a little
bit more.

Awhile back I had an interesting discussion with Allen Hacker
(Acceptance Processing). He took a bit of exception to something
I said and I explained in more detail and he responded by posting
something he had written years ago which was basically saying
the same thing as I had, and we found ourselves in agreement.

Now Allen and I have significantly different viewpoints and
writing styles, but when push comes to shove, we do find that
we are looking at the same thing.

I think that any pair of honest researchers will find this to
be the case. If they were honest and called it as they saw
it, and the other one did so as well, then there really was
something there and they were simply seeing it from different
angles.

Going back yet again to the famous analogy of the elephant,
two people can look at it from opposite sides and yet it is
the same elephant.

To really see the elephant in its fullness, you would have
to look at it from multiple viewpoints.

I am very tempted to state a new axiom here.

Nothing can be seen as-is from a singular viewpoint.

You would never see the back of the elephant if you only saw
it from the front, so how could you have it completely in view
unless you looked from multiple viewpoints.

This means that you would never make it on LRH alone, or
for that matter, on Pilot alone or anybody else. You have
to get more than one viewpoint.

Woe to the guru whose ego insists that he be the only one,
for his students cannot make it without rebelling against
him no matter how good or brilliant he might be.

People who are looking for the one right answer will get
screwed because the only workable way requires at least two
right answers so that you can evaluate them against each
other. If you only have one, you can't evaluate it and
will therefore become stupid in the area. This is a collerary
to the Scientology axioms.

But this requires following at least two gurus and figure
figuring them against each other. That is one hell of a
task. It is out gradient for most people. It requires
a tremendous toleration for uncertainty.

The way to cool this down and make it easier on people is
to align the various gurus on a common platform.

For this purpose, I have been pushing the EARLY Scientology
platform, and I do mean EARLY.

Standard tech is not Scientology per the early definitions.
Later Scientology is a system of studying and applying what
is already known rather than a system of studying NEW ways of
how to know.

But the original system, of 1952-4, was to study WAYS of knowing
how to know, which is quite a different matter entirely.

So there are two different things, namely:

1) Specific implementations (things to know)
and
2) Ways of knowing how to know (eg. knowing how to develope
specific implementations).

Standard Tech falls under category 1 above. It should have
been given some other name instead of calling it Scientology.

If LRH had called it Standardetics or something and presented
it as yet another implementation comparable to Dianetics,
he could have kept true Scientology in existence concurrently
with a standard tech implementation.

Instead he used the same name and this "standardetics", having
the MU that it was a replacement for Scientology, immediately
went into action to stamp Scientology out of existence.

When I say Scientology, I am generally using the original
definition and I'm talking about the long lost subject that
falls under category 2 above.

One of the best ways to destroy a subject is to replace it
with a different subject of the same name and then to have
the replacement behave so badly that everybody gets pissed
off at it and never looks back at the original.

Best,

The Pilot
_______________________________________________
 
Re: Pilot's repost Z82 -- Common Base, Need for

.
Pilot's repost Z82

Common Base, Need for

From Post 62 – July 1999
First of three excerpts in this post

A true science requires a huge quantity of work. It is never
the product of one man.

But a strong tech finder will indeed begin acting as a "source"
of tech. The research gets done by individuals, not committees.

That leaves us with the problem of how to pull together unique
and individual source points into a cohesive whole which might
actually achieve real OT.

We can't make it on individual gurus no matter how brilliant
and charismatic they are. If anyone could have done that,
it would have been LRH, and he failed. And his attempt to
do it as an only one almost killed the research line.

We should all have learned our lesson from that. I for one
know that I wouldn't make it alone. And so I imitate Ron
as he acted in the 1950s when he was being "the great organizer"
rather than the "source" of tech (see LRH quotes on the
Scientology Reformer's Homepage*).

Without a common base, we will have one genius making light bulbs
that lack a power source and another pouring concrete for a
power dam that is useless to everyone, and a third stringing
transmission lines to nowhere.

The broadest base ever defined in this field is the original
definition of Scientology. Not the abberant concept that
Scientology is LRH tech or that it is some narrow standard,
but the original definition which says that Scientology is
the subject of "Knowing How To KNOW".

Scientology was not just LRH. He did not define it that way.

-snip-

There is nothing wrong with having a standard tech. What
is wrong is to knock out all but a narrow subset of the
tech and destroy the research line.

If it works, it is Scientology by definition. That's what
L. Ron Hubbard said.

-snip-

=====================

From Post 63 – July 1999

Seems like some people didn't get what I was saying
last time.

I was not talking about worshipping LRH.

I was not talking about this sick idea of there only being
one source.

I was not talking about the later organizational insanities.

I was not even promoting standard tech. In fact I was
saying the exact opposite.

I was talking about something quite different.

I was talking about the need for a subject that organizes
subjects.

I was talking about the need for a broader base that embraces
many different practices and implementations.

That is what Scientology was once, in the days before standard
tech and KSW.

That is from the time when Ron called himself the great organizer
rather than the source of the tech.

Something went very bad later. He mentions on the Class VIII
tapes (they were posted recently) that he got run on the Sources
process from Grade 5 and the session went to hell. It's not that
power can't be run on a clear. It's just that some half assed
auditor horribly goofed up the session on Ron. And Ron's subsequent
decision that what was wrong was that it wouldn't run on a clear
obviously didn't correct the screwed up session but simply prevented
it from ever being repaired. Therefore it was a major wrong
indication.

And we can assume that happened in 1965 because that is
when power was developed. And we can look with amazement at
the fact that Ron put out one of the most spectacular processes
and then couldn't be run on it himself. And my guess would be
that Ron was listing it out of session while writing the HCOB
and that the auditor then overlisted it and pushed a wrong item
on him with disastrous results.

But the plain fact of the matter is that Ron got messed up
on the Sources process (by his own statement on the class VIII
tapes) and that this happened in 1965 and that he then immediately
issued the KSW policy stating that he was the one and only
source of tech.

Let me say that date again. 1965. That is when Scientology
became hostile to tech finders. Until then it was THE tech
finder's science.

Of course much of the data goes back earlier. But it is
individual pieces, one here and one there. There is a terrible
problem with applying earlier metaphysics in a practical
manner, I know because I grew up on metaphysics and the
lack of workable processes just drove me up the walls.

I remember searching for answers in my teens. I remember
finding some too. And yet it was horribly difficult to try
and apply anything.

That is what Ron really gave us. Ways of organizing and
processing the higher spiritual truths. It is nice to know
that all is illusion, but how do you process it? How do you
drill it? What can be done about it?

The ideas do go back earlier. But how do you use them?

The unifying platform was outlined in 1952 to 1954 and it
makes all the difference.

We have only two choices if we wish to make it all the
way.

a) Organize on the ORIGINAL Scientology base (NOT standard tech)

b) Develop a new broad base of Clearing Tech

Whatever base is used, it HAS to encompass TROM, Avatar,
Standard Tech, Knowledgism, Dynamism*, CBR, Zen, Gurdieff,
and anything else under the sun that produces a workable
result.
* Dynamism was developed by Enid Vien from Scientology. She died a few years ago.
A brief Google search did not show it. Ed.​

I have been studying Enid Vien materials and have been in comm with her surviving husband about getting these materials available. - WN

-snip-

But how do we align all these wonderful ideas. Are we to
end up as nothing more than an interesting footnote in the
history books, or can we make the real breakthrough, the
one that actually gets us out of the trap.

We need a base broad enough to embrace the entire field.
Not just one slant on things, but something broader that
pulls together multiple viewpoints into a cohesive whole.

That is what Scientology once was.

The real sadness is that most Scientologists do not have
a clue as to what Scientology really is (or maybe I should
say was). They see this other thing which replaced it and
used the same name and think it is Scientology.

Scientology is the science of knowing how to know.

Or, restating this in terms that others might understand,
Scientology is the science of how to be what is now called
a squirrel (by the CofS) in an effective and workable manner.

Hope this helps,

The Pilot

===========================

More on Common Platform

From Post 64 – August 1999

-snip-

The Pilot

Ant -

I would rate this post HIGH in importance since as Pilot points out, the tech needs to evolve and but at the same time, stay within the reach of those who could use it, in a fairly common platform.

My observations:

1) The existing platform is fairly sound, but not perfect. In fact, I think sometimes I can trace some of the mis-use of the subject right back to these 'slight' imperfections. These would include the fundamental AXIOMS of the subject. The axioms are good but they are not perfect. As more of the history comes out, it is apparent that LRH paid others to help him develop and write these out (ref. Helen O'Brien - Dianetics in Limbo; ref. interviews with Richard DeMille, who had a hand in writing Science of Survival and who did write 'How to Live though an Executive' which has a vastly superior communication technology for livingness, than found anywhere else).

Dennis Stephens, Alan Walter, and the Pilot are 3 tech-finders who have written convincing constructive criticisms of the original axioms, and proposed some changes. From memory they would be:
*(Dennis Stephens - the axiom asserting 'good, bad, beauty and ugly' as 'mere considerations' is flawed) I agree and I will add that it is in conflict with "man is basically good" - theta seems to have actual, fundamental qualities and Ron admitted as such when he described them in Science of Survival in the theta-MEST theory.
*This dovetails in nicely with the work of Alan Walter where many of these qualities are well-described. He also has advanced his own axioms - one and two, that I remember seeing (maybe more?) -
*oh, and a fellow named Vinay is working on his own axioms (he seems to think they have to be scrapped and re-written, something I can only partially agree with) - let him - (I look in on his work now and then, for ideas - some have been very worthwhile).

2) To me, the sign that someone has actually done their auditing and study of this subject well and has something valuable to add, will be when instead of coming up so much with another far-out cosmology (Pilot, L. Kin, Capt. Bill, etc.), they actually simplify the axioms in a way that makes the rest of us go, "hmmm!" :yes: (and make some of course, throw stones!) :omg:

(I am also working on that, but make no claims to special qualifications or success, thus far.)

The "road to OT" - LRH and other masters said many times, is one of simplicity. (This also aligns with Occam's razor, if you think about it.)

That said, my own project along these lines, is called FreeScientology and has much in common with Pilot's goals of Self-Clearing. It is an -implementation- of the tech of auditing processing, minus the Crowley satanism, the [post-64] LRH ego-trip, the [post-65] heavy ethics, etc. It is an(other) attempt to give ordinary people free, generic processing without the indoctrination or the cult. It follows Gordon Bell's Scientology Grades line-up and incorporates observations from the Pilot, as well. But in the main, it is for the indoctrinated coming out of the church who using a meter (or not), then have gradient steps for getting freer in thinking (the real product of Scientology) while having a "Bridge" or an organized line-up of processing like what they are used to.

This is the path that I have followed, and has brought me from "full-fledged David Miscavige fanatic" (up to 2007, I surely was! :omg:) and "LRH worshiper" :clap: (this lasted a bit longer - to 2009), to a fairly sane, recovering ex-cultie, who actually makes a decent living part-time processing, and full-time researching.

I think that one who endeavors to make significant progress in this complicated mess left of Scientology and its off-shoots, needs to be working at it full-time - auditing others (especially), solo auditing with meter (important as it gives reality on own case and added insights) and most importantly, studying others' tech as well as drawing the good from the less-than-perfect LRH works. That is what I am doing, and I write this not so much to brag, but to pick up communication from others on the same path.

I feel that after years of study and de-programming from being inside the Hubbard organization box, as a broken piece, I am finally cracking the code of what makes processes work. Little by little, I am beginning to understand even of what the L's are made up, and even something of the structure of GPMs. But I am taking it slow and careful, because I realize that I am playing with the mind and minds are not unbreakable. A balance of mass (doingness) and significance (theory) is essential or you go to become as Alan Walter put it, "a legend in your own mind." :melodramatic:

So I am also living life, and watching others pursue their own goals, and gearing the processing to helping them and myself achieve those goals - not just rotely following some grade chart (although there is something to be said for orderly progress outside a narrow focus on one's own wants - long as you make those own goals primary, and never again let it become secondary to some organization or rigid philosophy).

And as I get off the charge of my church experience, loss of wife and friends, and the betrayals of LRH and his administrative successors, I become a more livable and social person - more willing to work with others and more able to resolve past and present upsets. It is a long process, as I am sure you all know. :thumbsup:

ARC,
Scott Gordon
WATCHFUL NAVIGATOR
(still flying with the Pilot)
 
Re: Pilot's repost Z82 -- Common Base, Need for

Ant -

I would rate this post HIGH in importance since as Pilot points out, the tech needs to evolve and but at the same time, stay within the reach of those who could use it, in a fairly common platform.

My observations:

1) The existing platform is fairly soun

[snipped by Ant (see above)]​

And as I get off the charge of my church experience, loss of wife and friends, and the betrayals of LRH and his administrative successors, I become a more livable and social person - more willing to work with others and more able to resolve past and present upsets. It is a long process, as I am sure you all know. :thumbsup:

ARC,
Scott Gordon
WATCHFUL NAVIGATOR
(still flying with the Pilot)

Scott posted the above as a slightly revised version of what he sent to the SuperScio list (a closed list, not normally moderated, and open to all to join, see http://lists.worldtrans.org/mailman/listinfo/superscio).

"Jens" commented to Scott on SuperScio list, and has given me permission to repeat what he wrote here.

"Jens" wrote:

*** *** *** *** ***
*** Message relayed to you by the SuperScio Internet list ***
*** Bringing writings of the Pilot and comments on them ***
*** *** *** *** ***
-
-

I really like this repost Z. I agree with a lot of it.

I have found studying tech from 1952-54 has enabled me to understand the whole subject of Scientology better. It does, in my view, form the basis of understanding most any other technology.

In case any of you should want to study early tech, I want to comment on two things: 1) the validity of the modern bridge (as I know it from the seventies) if run right.. Many of you have this as an important point of reference 2) the prohibition of verbal tech causing study tech to be lost

1) I have great gains on the lower bridge (on pcs and rerunning myself). Being a "Filbertist", I do it as described in his "Excalibur Revisited", but the processes are really the same as in my academy pack. Yet there are particularly 3 things that are a little different.

1. All "what" questions on the grades are changed to "tell me" questions unless they are intended as listing questions

2. The floating needle, cog, vgis must be on the process (sequitur cognition, having something to do with the command), not something else, and the process is checked for charge and rerun if not flat. This means there can be more than one ep.

3. I include the relevant awareness level(s) in the grade ep. These are on the grade chart of 1970, aligned with the grades. On grade 3, for instance, there is energy, adjustment, body, which fits in fine with ARC being rehabbed and recovered. ARC is a very dynamic commodity.

2) The prohibition against verbal tech gradually stopped people from discussing tech, and so they lost a great possibility of getting the right mass (thing, object, subject matter) related to the words and theories. Word clearing should not be understood as defining words only, it includes getting reality on the concept. If you define "ship" for a native desert dweller who only uses water for thirst, he is somewhat at a loss. You may show him a picture of a ship, and better yet you take him out to the ocean and get him aboard one.

This is very relevant when you consider tech of the early fifties. You should be able to find the mass relating to the Factors and the Axioms of Scn. You can define the words and yet not have a clue to what "masses" Ron was talking about. Indeed, I noticed that even the Pilot balked at commenting on the axioms because it was too great a task (some reposts ago). But the axioms are fundamental. That does not mean you can only understand them when you got to the advanced levels. It means they pervade all of life, and they apply every minute of your waking hours. They are simple. But you cannot understand them just by reading them. Clues must be found in other writings and lectures. The London Spring Lectures (aka Admiration and beingness lectures), the Phoenix Lectures (dealing directly with the axioms), and various contemporary PABs and Journals are helpful. The Tech Dictionary and the index of the red volumes provide references to relevant texts.

It is quite a job, really, but when you do get down to basics, it is quite simple and makes great sense. It is very enlightening, and it is great to do the bridge the right way, even if there is more tech to be developped.

ARC

Jens
_______________________________________________​
 
Top