The Pilot, Excerpts from his Writings

[Antony A Phillips]

Pilot'sPost Z38 -- Life Static. Static and the Beginning

.
Pilot'sPost Z38


Life Static - Static and the Beginning

From Post 18 – December 1997

On 27 Dec 97, "Bob" <[email protected]> posted
on subject Pilot's Super Scio Book, question about"

> Can anyone explain this one to me?? I was following it up to here. But
> this total baffles me!
> ---------

[Pilot:]
Note that the following is from Chapter 2 of the Super Scio book.
>> In the beginning, the zero-infinite life static conceived of space.
>> And in the concept of space, is the concept of separation.
>> And the only thing there was which could be separated was the life static itself.

If you go back before anything exists, then there is no matter,
energy, space, or time, obviously.

Matter assumes that there is a place to locate it in.

Energy assumes that there is something which can move.

Time assumes that there is already something there which can
change.

Space requires that something be separate. Usually we simply
have it be a separation of matter. A chair over here and a
table over there and therefore you have space in between them.

In other words, we usually define space in terms of matter and
energy. But that gives us a circular definition.

So our initial occurrence of space has to be done without any
matter or energy to separate. In fact we are saying that this
is before anything exists, therefore there is nothing which
can be separated. Except of course for that which I'm referring
to as the life static in the above.

I like to call this thing a nothingness with potential. Hubbard
like to refer to it as the static or a life static. Homer likes
to call it the unmanifest. Enid likes "no thing" (rather than
nothing). These all seem to be correct to me. We don't really
have a good word for it. You could also say God unmanifest, but
you would have to drop tons of baggage that is attached to the
word God, remember that we are talking here about a point
prior to everything, so there is not yet even a thought process
possible.

You could also say that this is an attempt to spot the first
thought, to deduce what it had to be. With nothing yet there
to think about, I am suggesting that the initial thought, the
first thing conceived of, is the idea of separation.

So one thinks of separation first, and in doing that, one
separates. Then one thinks of mocking up things to separate,
but that is already two thoughts.

[ Super Scio]
>> But the basic life static which is the unchanging nothingness is senior to
>> space time and therefore cannot be affected by this separation. It is not
>> made less by it, and therefore it may again separate. And from the view of
>> the basic nothingness, the separations cannot be before or after each other
>> because it is indeed timeless, but from the lesser view of that which is
>> separated, the separated almost statics can conceive that one separated
>> before another and therefore we have time.

The basic idea here is that the top level nothingness with potential
is senior to space and time and therefore is not within a time
stream or in any location and therefore does not have a consecutive
sequence of events.

That would be the only true static. Obviously, we are not completely
static, we experience events and there is a sequence, one thing
happening after another.

So this true static would not be changed by the separation having
occurred, only the part that separated changed. So the true
static would tend to have more separations because the initial
conditions for separation still exist (the true static was not
changed, so it is still set up with the potential for separation).

So there are lots of separations. Each partial static that
separated is separate and therefore individual to some slight
degree, although the only individuality initially would be the
time of separation (one separated before or after another).

If the true static is outside any time or space, then it would
simply encompass these things as a timeless concept of separation,
but from our view, we would see a sequence of individual separations.

[ Super Scio:]
>> And the lesser near-statics are also nothingness with the potential for
>> infinite creation, but they have the experience of time and therefore the
>> experience of what they have created.
>>
>> Once those who can conceive are separated from the basic nothingness, they
>> then proceed to apply further separations to bring about the creation of
>> existence. A positive and a negative can be pulled out of nothing and the
>> net equation remains the same. 1 - 1 = 0 = 2 - 2 = 0 = 256 - 256 etc. The
>> only difference between these is consideration and consideration is the
>> product of thought. Infinite matter and energy may therefore be generated by
>> thought alone."
>> ---------

One positive charge plus one negative charge equals zero. In the
sum total, there is nothing there. Unless you separate them. Then
you have a positive here and a negative there.

Two positive charges plus two negative charges equals zero. Again
there is nothing there in the sum total. They equal zero and they
also equal (1 minus 1) or (200 - 200) or whatever.

In total there is nothing there and there never has been except
that we choose to separate the two halves of nothing, and these
half nothings are something.

[ "Bob":]
> Ok, I understand that there was some kind of static being or nothingness.
> Whether this was a being or a thing, I know not. But then there was a
> separation of some sort? Then Pilot talk about "separations" (plural). This
> is where I really get lost. I thought he was talking about a separation not
> separations. And if, in fact he is talking about other separations, where
> did they come from. Did this "nothingness" separate itself again or
> something? Maybe some more explanation or clarifying would help me out.
> Seems really complicated for me. Never did understand Hubbard's "Factors".
>
> Ok, so there are two sub-nothingnesses. And they have the experience of
> time. Ok. I think I can see that. But what "creations" have these two
> experienced, as Pilot states?? Maybe the three are actually one and they
> have experienced the creation of themselves?? I don't know. It's as if
> there should be a paragraph after each sentence to expand on each statement,
> at least for smart people like me.

Unfortunately true. These were my research notes on going beyond
Hubbard, so there is too much assumed. It would help to have read
Phoenix Lectures or heard one of the tapes on The Factors.

I tried to clarify this a bit (above), so maybe it will get
across this time. It is a difficult area to talk about because
it is outside of our normal frame of reference.

[ "Bob":]
> Ok, maybe I should word clear these two, but what is the difference between
> consideration and thought? Maybe I need to do a demo. Ha-ha. Never did
> have much success with those demos or clay creations. Always got the clay
> underneath my fingernails.

In this case I was using "consideration" in the sense of holding
onto a consideration as in "Jill had a consideration that she must
wear an ankle length dress to be respectable". In other words,
retaining an idea as opposed to actively thinking about it. It is
common to use it this way in Scientology. Of course both of these
are "thought" in the broader sense.

Depending on which definitions of the words "thought" and "consideration"
are being used, there are cases where they would mean the same thing
and there are cases where they have slightly different connotations.

In the phrase "consideration is the product of thought", it should be
obvious that "consideration" is being used in a retentive sense and
"thought" here is being used in an active sense.

Word clearing alone is generally inadequate in cases like this.
If one didn't know what the word meant, it would help to look it
up. But here it is the context that tells you which definition
is being used in a situation where the subtle shades of meaning
are the distinguishing factor.

Old time Scientologists were expected to think about and figure
out things. Modern ones, taught on a diet of too much word clearing
and too little contemplation rarely understand things like the
factors even after looking up every damn word in the document.

As to clay demos, you could try doing them with jello instead.
Then you can lick the residue off of your fingers (just joking).

[ "Bob":]
> I can understand how matter and energy can be generated from thought, but
> how does addition and subtraction equations come out of all this
> nothingness?

Something must do the thinking. Namely us.

[ "Bob":]
> All this is quite interesting, but my eyebrows are scrunching too
> much about this.

[Pilot:]
That is why I wrote the Self Clearing book. You could just work
through that. And the tiny amount of "spiritual orientation"
given in the introduction of that book is not essential to working
through the chapters, so leave it for later if it is in your way.

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

 

[Hatshepsut]

This is interesting on static and almost statics. A while ago I inspected my consideration that we mock up and inhabit a theta body or mind-shell which we use to go into and experience the time stream. It didn't seem like a static could be trapped, located or contained if it did not. Lately I think this condition for being IN the world as we know it is not absolutely necessary.

I was reading a transcript of a taped interview of L. Ron Jr. posted by CarmeloOrchards. Nibs was really into dropping clues about the Magick. It sparked off a recollection or two and some thinking followed by a run of circular processing as an experiment. My query was 'How are we here.' By what method do we place ourselves here if we are outside the time stream? I got a myriad of ideas followed by tools we use to keep ourselves located within time or a built construct. If it us true like Nibs suggests that space IS beingness, then you don't HAVE to 'go in' or travel 'into' a universe. You just APPEAR at a chosen point or DISAPPEAR from it.

I actually remember appearing in the head of a person in this royal house or that. Not growing from a baby. The recollection was clear as day. I had to ask myself 'how' I did that! I wasn't being pan-determined or actively OT. I just 'was' that 'space' and then alternately 'wasn't'.

You don't need to mock up a constructed mental body to take an Inc I with or travel through one of the firey gates of hell as an indoctrination. And I found my test run of circular processing amazing. WHO am I 'really' if I can run charge or perception from any angle with the same result. That I'm sourcing from a 'specific' location is a consideration....and one I'm happy to have. The more static me is the secret I keep from myself. A game of peek-a-boo as Alan Watts has suggested

I think we are capable of appearing as totally fresh beings many times, or separating into 'more' viewpoints in a condition of Native State or 'no track'. I think Scientology would tend to keep this away from you....invalidate that it is not that rare.

 

[uniquemand]

I think these sorts of questions will have an interesting analog in artificial intelligence. As these intelligences come online, they will have definite start points that their creators will know. Will the machine have memory of it's own creation? Perhaps the universe is like a giant virtual reality, and we can exist as dormant, downloadable files, and then when we incarnate, those files are downloaded to a specific point in the game.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I think these sorts of questions will have an interesting analog in artificial intelligence. As these intelligences come online, they will have definite start points that their creators will know. Will the machine have memory of it's own creation? Perhaps the universe is like a giant virtual reality, and we can exist as dormant, downloadable files, and then when we incarnate, those files are downloaded to a specific point in the game.

Call back when someone actually comes up with a plausible schema for consciousness arising as a result of a strictly physical process.

Until then the dream of 'artificial intelligence' is yet another faith based religion only one centered on redefining intelligence as the outcome of parlor tricks played with probabilistic mechanisms.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Antony A Phillips]

Pilot'sPost Z39 -- Upper Dynamics

.

Pilot'sPost Z39


Upper Dynamics


From The Pilot's Post 22 (January 1998) and SuperScio


On 16 Jan 98, [email protected] asked on subject
"To The Pilot - Super Scio & Self Clearing chapter 46"

> Pilot,
>
> In your book Self Clearing you state:
>
> > SELF CLEARING CHAPTER 46: THE UPPER DYNAMICS
> >
> > These were mentioned in the chapter on Ethics. They are
> > extremely important to your spiritual health as a being.
>
> >Here is the list again.
>
> >Dynamic 1 (9) : Ethics
> >Dynamic 2 (10): Aesthetics
> >Dynamic 3 (11): Construction (building things)
> >Dynamic 4 (12): Reason (mathematics and so forth)
> >Dynamic 5 (13): Variety (change)
> >Dynamic 6 (14): Games
> >Dynamic 7 (15): Understanding
> >Dynamic 8 (16): Creation
>
> In his book Excalibur Revisited Geoffrey Filbert says:
>
> >The upper dynamics are as follows:
> >
> >9th dynamic - aesthetics
> >10th dynamic - ethics
> >
> >(These were copyrighted by L. Ron Hubbard. He did not look any
> >further apparently.) The rest of them are:
> >
> >11th dynamic - decency
> >12th dynamic - truth
> >13th dynamic - awareness
> >14th dynamic - individuality
> >15th dynamic - coexistence
> >16th dynamic - theta that is not-being
>
> Can you reconcile this point of disagreement?
>
> Robert

Geoffrey's 6 dynamics belong above number 16.

The complete pattern is at least 32 and maybe 64.

There is scouting the territory and then there is doing detailed mapping.

When you scout something out, you see the big landmarks in the distance. When you sit down to do the detailed work, you may find more things in between.

Ron's suggestion of aesthetics as 9th and ethics as 10th was a scouting operation. He took a look and spotted something correctly, but the exact order was apparently guesswork.

Note that there is only a tiny mention of 9th and 10th dynamics in the early material (the PDC lectures). It was not subject to the detailed work that was done on the first 8 dynamics.

One gets the feeling from the PDC tapes that there is a higher set of 8 associated with a higher universe. I would chew on this occasionally. After awhile I cognited that games must be one of the upper dynamics because it was such a hot button in mid to late 1950s processing.

Later I started to think of individuality as possibly being some sort of dynamic and also thought of permeation as a dynamic.

The pattern of 16 dynamics is in the penalty universes and is used in some other implants as well. I don't think that these created the dynamics but were simply using them as a useful system for designing an implant that would parallel the mind.

I fought very hard to force aesthetics into the 9th position and kept making mess and getting wrong items.

Finally I remembered Ron's comment (and the popular idea) that sex sublimates into aesthetics and realized that I was looking at a harmonic pattern. That made ethics the 9th dynamic (using the definition of "contemplation of optimum survival") and aesthtics the 10th.

The whole pattern of 16 fell into place fairly easily after that. It is at least very close to correct because some implant patterns follow it without giving trouble with wrong items.

There is more discussion of this in Super Scio Chapter 5.

There are also implants which only use 12 and the 12th is a catchall. There are some which only use 8.

There are also implants which use more than 16 but they are so early on the track that I haven't managed to research them properly yet. I've only found these (so far) in the time prior to home universe and they always use more than 3 dimensional objects.

Individuality seems like an upper harmonic on 1st dynamic and therefore should be something like number 17 or 25 or possibly higher but almost certainly in the first position of one of the sets of 8.

I also felt that A, R, and C would be dynamics.

Agreement (Reality) would be a harmonic on 6th, but which harmonic? My current feeling is that Communication is a harmonic on 5th (its the differentiating factor of lifeforms vs MEST). And I would suspect that Affinity is a harmonic on 7th.

Here is my current feeling about the rest of Geoffrey's list.

I'm not certain that "decency" belongs (sounds like a variation of Ethics to me) but I will trust Geoffrey's judgement (I do have blind spots). I would guess that it would be a harmonic on 1st, but maybe it would be a harmonic on 4th because of social interaction.

I think that I might have had "awareness" in at least one or two of my abortive attempts to map the upper sets. I'm pretty sure that it belongs, but I'm uncertain as to what it harmonics on. I could guess at 7th.

The other 3 (truth, coexistance, and theta that is not-being) were not ones that I thought of myself, but they really indicate to me as being correct. Useful input like this is a real help in trying to map the higher sets because it catches things that I missed. I would guess that truth is a harmonic on either 7th or 8th and the other two are harmonics on 8th.

Anyone who is researching does both scouting operations and detailed work.

------

On 16 Jan 98, "C. B. Willis" <[email protected]> referenced Robert's post above and wrote -

> I see all of these "upper" dynamics as facets of the seventh
>dynamic of spirit and the abilities and activities of spirit.
> Making them separate dynamics makes no sense to me at all.
> I see no good reason for it.
> I would rather address them under 7D, or what I would call
> spirit and the abilities and activities of spirit.
> > - CBW

Sometimes its useful and sometimes not.

There are times when it is helpful to have more precise points to work on rather than a general idea of spirit. There are other times when a more complex system is just in the way and it should be ignored.

I believe in collecting tools within a toolbox. Some tools are more useful than others. Sometimes a single general tool does just as well as a specialty device. Sometimes you need everything you've got.

My attitude is to have these things available for when they are useful or necessary rather than to insist that one must follow a specific system.

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

From SuperScio:

The definition of the 8 dynamics has been used successfully for many years. Much observation of life and the long history of workable auditing rundowns based on these show that they do, in some manner, form a complete set of the urges to survive. But there have always been loose ends which hinted at something more.

First, there was the recognition that Survive was not the ultimate goal but simply a mid-point in the Create-Survive-Destroy cycle. Of course, one can do better than simply surviving on the 8 dynamics. One can BE these 8 dynamics (see the Technique 80 lectures) or even create in each of these areas. But, although a being can operate along these lines, they do not seem to form a complete picture of surviving well as a thetan. Although a thetan can't help but survive in the sense of persisting, he can certainly survive well or poorly in his own estimation. And his estimation of this only follows the 8 dynamics to the degree that he has gone into agreement with physical universe survival. It is not his normal baseline. His native operation is up towards the create side.

Consider achieving ultimate survival in MEST universe terms on these 8 dynamics even to the extent of being worshipped as a God and having ultimate persistence along all these 8 lines. But imagine it with nothing more beyond this, no beauty or ethics or interesting games. This would be a poor and tawdry thing for a thetan. In fact, it would be a trap. Infinite survival in physical universe terms is a curse, not a blessing.

Therefore, just as we see 8 dynamics reflecting the Survival or physical universe band of the scale, so we might conceive of another set of 8 reflecting the creative or Theta band.

The next clue was the mention of Aesthetics and Ethics as the 9th and 10th dynamics in the Philadelphia Doctorate Course lectures. Certainly these make sense in terms of Creative or Theta dynamics. Also, we can see that the physical universe tries to make nothing out of these, but in spite of this, thetans do operate better when ethics and aesthetics are present.

Looking further, we see other factors that the thetan values. He likes playing games and building things and figuring out logical problems, and especially, he loves to create. Often you will see an individual considering one or more of these as being more important than good survival in MEST universe terms. Consider someone solving a crossword puzzle with no payback in terms of any of the 8 dynamics and perhaps even putting off eating and sleeping (good physical survival) to accomplish the task. Is this some weird aberration laid in by an implant? Or is it the individual's last remaining shreds of theta level operation persisting in spite of all physical universe evidence and objections.

I struggled long and hard to define these 8 upper dynamics and get them in the right order. Much research of the whole track and implants gave many clues (there are many implants which try to aberrate each of the 16 dynamics in sequence), but still the correct order eluded me. Then one day, I saw that each of the lower dynamics had a slight tendency to sublimate into the corresponding upper dynamic. This let me establish the order of the upper dynamics based on the known order of the lower ones. This brought considerable order and relief to other areas that I was researching and validated the entire pattern of dynamics.

The list of 16 dynamics is as follows:

1.Self as a body
9.Ethics

2.Sex/Children/Family
10.Aesthetics

3.Groups
11.Construction

4.Governments/Mankind
12.Reason

5.Lifeforms
13.Change

6.MEST
14.Games

7.Spirits
15.Knowingness

8.Worship
16.Creation

The 9th dynamic, Ethics, has been defined as the contemplation of optimum survival. A major component in this might be referred to as Integrity. For a being who cannot die, integrity is the cornerstone of real survival. Whenever he has lost it, he has not truly survived in his own estimation.

We might say that physical survival as a body sublimates upward into this Ethics dynamic. Or, from another viewpoint, we might say that Ethics has been collapsed downward into physical survival. Once the thetan has abandoned integrity and lost himself as a being, all that remains is the effort to persist as a physical mockup.

Note that I have reduced the definition of the first dynamic down to survival as a body. We generally think of this dynamic as encompassing more theta qualities, but these are really the remnants of dynamics 9 to 16. Once these theta dynamics have been crushed out of view, the last lingering traces can be attributed to personal survival since they are the thetan's last hold on survival as a being.

The 10th dynamic is Aesthetics. It has often been said that sex can be sublimated into aesthetics. We can also see that aesthetics is a huge band of theta enjoyment. In the second dynamic, this enjoyment seems to have been collapsed into a simple physical act.

What about the close sharing and love between family members that occurs on the 2D? It's more than simple ARC. How would it manifest between beings without bodies? Wouldn't it be proper to describe this as the intimate exchange of aesthetic waves between beings?

The eleventh dynamic is Construction. This is the kick you get when you build something yourself. The child putting together a model airplane is surviving on this dynamic as is the person who builds his own furniture for the fun of doing it. You might say that this is simply survival through MEST, but it's not. You can buy the child lots of model airplanes and they don't matter one whit compared to the one he built himself. Here it's the construction itself that counts rather than the havingness.

Interestingly enough, this does sublimate upwards from the third dynamic. Or rather, the third dynamic is to some degree a lower shadow of the Thetan's constructive impulses. The biggest and most interesting constructive efforts involve groups of beings working in a coordinated effort. This is a natural way for Thetans to build things and it is the way you would go about putting together a complicated universe. When survival is not a problem and no one has to work for a living, they still join groups for the purpose of building things that are fun and interesting.

The 12th dynamic is Reason or Logic. Here is the realm of the mathematician, the problem solver, and the player of thought oriented games. Here I'm emphasizing the abstract problems because it's easier to see the urge in isolation from the other dynamics.

The 4th dynamic has been referred to as race and mankind. But a better definition would be to consider it as those groups that one is born into. The big difference between this and the 3rd dynamic is that in the 3D one has choice as to what groups to join but in the 4D your stuck with it and must figure out some reasonable way for everyone to get along together. Governments generally fit more into the 4D characteristics rather than the 3D and should be considered here.

Since people cannot leave a 4D easily, this raises the entire area of law and legal systems. This sublimates into the dynamic of reason since logic is the primary justification of law.

For the 13th dynamic, we have Change. Thetans will alter and modify things just for the sake of change and variety. No other reason is necessary. Notice that this dynamic is above reason and often operates contrary to logic. As Ron has pointed out, change and unpredictability are survival characteristics for a Thetan because it makes him difficult to manipulate and trap. At a higher level, we see that altering things lends persistence and interest and variety.

In the fifth dynamic, we also see endless change and variety as one of it's greatest survival traits, so its reasonable to consider the 13th a sublimation of the 5th.

The 14th dynamic is Games. The subject of games was frequently discussed in the materials of the 1950s and is obviously a keynote of theta operation. As far as relating this to the 6th dynamic, it would seem that a playing field and implements and some rules about energy etc. would be necessary components in a game. This is the only theta dynamic where a consistently paced sequential time rate would really be needed. We might well consider the entire MEST universe to be no more than the components of a game. Note that here we are referring to action games rather than the thought games of the 12th dynamic.

Knowingness or Understanding is the Fifteenth Dynamic. This is higher than the dynamic of Reason and quite distinctly separate from it. With reason, one follows a logical progression, but in the 15th dynamic one can just know. Here we have the urge for knowledge and understanding even when there is no physical universe reward in sight. Again we have something that has been extensively discussed in the early technology but not previously considered to be a dynamic.

Although one may come to understand something by study or reason, the higher levels of knowingness are achieved by pervasion, mockup, ARC with other beings, and by pure postulate. In MEST universe operation, this is all closely related to survival as a spirit and with other spirits.

The 16th dynamic is Creation. Here we have ourselves as gods rather than worshipping gods. This is the cause side for which the MEST universe 8th dynamic (religion etc.) is the effect.

Of course all these 16 dynamics are inter-related. Although I have pointed out that it's the upper 8 dynamics which are operational beyond the physical universe level, within this universe the lower 8 are vastly significant. True survival here means operating fully on both sets of dynamics.

Note that each of these upper 8 dynamics have been used to trap and aberrate thetans. Since the thetan wants to do these things, he can be suckered in and taken advantage of even when he is in a bodiless or OT state. His own codes of ethics can be used to trick him into punishing himself, his love of aesthetics can be used to lure him into traps, etc. Total freedom would require being able to operate or not operate in these areas at will. Just because these areas are interesting doesn't mean that they have to be compulsive. A thetan doesn't have to have a game, he only thinks he does.


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

 

[Soul of Ginnungagab]

Re: Pilot'sPost Z39 -- Upper Dynamics

.

Pilot'sPost Z39


Upper Dynamics


From The Pilot's Post 22 (January 1998) and SuperScio


... snip ...

On 16 Jan 98, "C. B. Willis" <[email protected]> referenced Robert's post above and wrote -

> I see all of these "upper" dynamics as facets of the seventh
>dynamic of spirit and the abilities and activities of spirit.
> Making them separate dynamics makes no sense to me at all.
> I see no good reason for it.
> I would rather address them under 7D, or what I would call
> spirit and the abilities and activities of spirit.
> > - CBW

Sometimes its useful and sometimes not.

There are times when it is helpful to have more precise points to work on rather than a general idea of spirit. There are other times when a more complex system is just in the way and it should be ignored.

I believe in collecting tools within a toolbox. Some tools are more useful than others. Sometimes a single general tool does just as well as a specialty device. Sometimes you need everything you've got.

My attitude is to have these things available for when they are useful or necessary rather than to insist that one must follow a specific system.

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

... snip ...

Wise words and yet simple and plain commen sense. The pilot had a great ability to express common sense in a very nice and simple and also educational way.

 

[Antony A Phillips]

Pilot'sPost Z40 - About Excalibur -- Games

.
Pilot'sPost Z40


About Excalibur -- Games; How to Make a Piece


From Post 11 - October 1997


There has been some talk about Ron's Excalibur book.

I am really hoping that somebody posts it because I would
very much enjoy reading it.

The rumor that I heard about it was from a Flag Class 8 back
in the 1970s.

She said that the class 8s at Flag were passing around a
xerox of it and that she had read it. She said that it was
considered to be confidential and so she could not talk about
what was in it with one exception.

The exception was one section of the book which Ron had read
to the Philadelphia Doctorate Course students. It was the
segment about the players of the game etc.

This is at the end of PDC lecture 39 of 12 Dec 52 titled
"Games Processing".


He tells the students that he is going to read them something
but he doesn't say where it is from. My impression when I
first heard the tape (before I was told that it was an excerpt
from Excalibur) was that he had dug out some old research
notes that he had written about the subject of games.

Here is a bit of it (consider this to be a book review,
certainly a fair use quote).

"Now the cast system of games consists of this -

"The Maker of Games - He has no rules, he runs by no rules.

"The Players of the Game - Rules known but he obeys them.

"The Assistant Players - Merely obey the players

"The Pieces - Obey rules as dictated by players, but
they don't know the rules (and then what do you know?).

"And then there's Broken Pieces - They aren't even in the
game but they're still in the game (and they are in a terrible
maybe, am I in a game or am I not in a game).

"Now, how to make a piece (this is how to make a piece) -

"1. Deny that there is a game

"2. Hide the rules from them

"3. Give them all the penalties and no wins

"4. Remove all goals (ALL Goals)

"Enforce them their playing.
"Inhibit their enjoying.

"Make them look like but forbid their being like players
(look like god but you can't be god).

"To make a piece continue to be a piece, permit it to associate
only with pieces and deny the existence of players (never
let the pieces find out that there are players).

"Now out of this you're going to get a game".

---

Note that in "making a piece", he is talking about how to
reduce a thetan down to the status of only being a piece in
a game rather than a player. Earlier in the lecture he was
talking about games processing and how to get somebody back
up to being a player. In other words, this was not a formula
for processing but the exact opposite, a description of what
had been done to people that needed to be reversed by means
of games processing.


-----

Now it might be that somebody is reading this who has been
made into a piece. This could be true on either side of
the conflict. So let us try the following checklist.

Suspect that you are a piece (a pawn in somebody else's game) if:

a) Have you been made to look like either an OT or an expert
authority when you do not actually have the abilities?

b) Have the real rules of the game been hidden from you?

c) Do you just get penalties and no wins?

d) Have your own goals been lost somewhere along the line?

e) Are you being forced to play (by your own side)?

f) Are you being kept (by your own side) from having fun?

g) Are you unaware that there are many real players on ARS?
[News Group at that time, named alt.religion.scientology. Of the two Scientology newsgroups this one was extremely critical of Scientology]

h) Are you unaware that a game is going on?


Note that I tried to make this test very fair, especially as
to the first question which is written in a manner that could
be answered by somebody on either side of the conflict.

Now if you have suddenly discovered that you are merely a
pawn in a game, please wake up and smell the coffee. Have
a look around on ARS and on the net. Find out what is really
going on. Begin to make up your own mind instead of thinking
what you are supposed to. Gather up all the data that you
can and start making your own decisions. Begin to play
for real.

Good Luck,

The Pilot
_______________________________________________

 

[Antony A Phillips]

Pilot'sPost Z41 -- The Mirror Process

.
Pilot'sPost Z41


The Mirror Process


From Post 10 -- September 1997


This one can turn on fear, so flatten fear first if necessary.

A nice process for handling irrational fear is to pick innocuous
objects in the room and alternately mockup being afraid of
them and having them be afraid of you.

You should also be adept at handling entities ('what are you?'/
'who are you?' (me) ) and split pieces of yourself ('point to the
being you divided from') because a few of these might turn up
even though they are not the main target of the mirror process.

Which brings us around to the mirror process itself. It is
very interesting.

Close your eyes. Mockup or visualize a mirror in front of
you. Look into it and see what you are hiding behind your
back.

I found a whole bunch of old stuck pictures from times when
I was terrified, mostly from earlier lives. On the first few,
I would get a bit of a chill down my spine and a bit of a feeling
of terror from anticipating what might be in the picture, but
when I actually looked at them, there was nothing really scary.
It was things that had completely terrified me at the time that
they happened but which were not a big deal to look at in
retrospect.

For example, I got a picture of a sort of snow cat, a bit
like a snow white cougar or mountain lion. He was right in
my face and I was paralyzed with fear. It was similar to
but not quite the same as the big cats here on Earth. Later
I dated it at about 3 million years ago on some other planet.
The picture was stuck at about 5 minutes before I died in that
lifetime.

The pictures were extraordinarily vivid. This despite my being
clear, and having run lots of track, and not being inclined to
copy or mistake an entity's pictures for my own.

I did not want to derail the process, so I didn't try to
date or locate or handle the incidents as the pictures came
off. I simply looked at and confronted each one as it
appeared in the mirror and it would then fade and the
next one would come into view (with a bit of anticipatory
terror on the first few). It was such a relief to keep
finding innocuous things such as mountain lions eating me
that the pictures blew without any real effort on my part.

If a picture had stuck, I would have used some trick for
handling a stuck picture. Just spotting and confronting
portions of the picture often works. And copying the
picture a few times and changing the colors and things
has always worked for me.

Eventually the pictures stopped showing up and I felt
comfortable about there being nothing dangerous behind
my back. It was quite nice.

I kept track of the pictures as they came off, and once
the process had flattened, I went back and checked over
each one, date/locating the incident and spotting what
happened there.

Interestingly enough, this did not dredge up any old
implants or really wild incidents or anything outside
of this universe.

But it did get rid of a dark little mass of terror that
had been hanging behind my back for a long, long time.

Best,

The Pilot
_______________________________________________

 

[Hatshepsut]

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...m-his-Writings&p=769136&viewfull=1#post769136

There has been some talk about Ron's Excalibur book.


I am really hoping that somebody posts it because I would

very much enjoy reading it.

http://www.american-buddha.com/cult.yesbookcalledexcalibur.htm

Arthur J Burks, sci fu writer and mystic seer here on Excalibur. He also penned a rare book called Monitors in which he mentions Ron's red headed Empress...his guardian angel who occasionally channeled through him as he wrote some of his early works.
OPEN LINK FOR FULL ARTICLE

I 'd read a lot of
material by Ron, and didn't especially like it - and he'd read a lot of
material by me and didn't particularly like it. I wouldn't say we were
very close friends, but I knew him, I guess, as well as anybody. For
instance, I knew Ron was a night owl - he'd sleep all day and work all
night - and didn't pay any attention to your working hours at all He was
apt to call you at 4 o'clock in the morning and hold you in conversation
for an hour or more until you felt like you could break his neck. Then
he'd pull down all the curtains and sleep all day.
Ron called me one
day - the strange thing about this was that he called during the day -
and said, "I want to see you right away. I have written THE book." I
never saw anybody so worked up - and he was disturbed over a lot of
angles. Apparently, he started to write the book, and had written it
without sleeping, eating, or anything else - and had himself literally
worked to a frazzle.

http://www.factnet.org/l-ron-hubbard-occult

In 1984, a former close colleague of Hubbard's told me that thirty years before when asked how he had managed to write Dianetics: The Modern Science Of Mental Health in just three weeks, Hubbard had replied that it had been automatic writing. He said that the book had been dictated by "the Empress". At the time, I had no idea who or what "the Empress" might be. Later, I noticed that in an article printed immediately prior to the book Dianetics, Hubbard had openly admitted to his use of "automatic writing, speaking and clairvoyance" (15). However, it took several years to understand this tantalising reference to the Empress.


In the 1930's, Hubbard became friendly with fellow adventure writer Arthur J. Burks. Burks described an encounter with "the Redhead" in his book Monitors. The text makes it clear that "the Redhead" is none other than Ron Hubbard. Burk said that when the Redhead had been flying gliders he would be saved from trouble by a "smiling woman" who would appear on the aircraft's wing (16). Burk put forward the view that this was the Redhead's "monitor" or guardian angel.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Monitors.html?id=FAKDGwAACAAJ

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

Thank you Anthony for starting this thread. Here's a discussion from early '98 between Ken and Ralph (Hilton) about the Freezone;



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

subj : Super Scio - On Freezone Ethics (attn Ralph)


ON FREEZONE ETHICS (ATTN RALPH)


On 25 Jan 98, [email protected] (Ralph Hilton) posted on
subject "Ethics"

> What is missing in the FZ is ethics.
> What is missing in the CofS is a real understanding of ethics.

Within the CofS, Ethics inverted and became a negative factor a
long time ago. It is actually worse than no Ethics because one's
ethical sense is twisted around so as to get one to commit overts.

Within the freezone there is no central authority imposing a
standard of ethics but this does not mean that there are no
ethics.

In an unregulated industry, you will have ethical practicioners
and unethical ones and ones that fall in between. It does mean
that you will need more judgement of who you are dealing with,
but that is true of any frontier society.

And in case you haven't noticed, Homer is acting to a great
degree as an ethics officer for ACT, insisting on tech instead
of bullshit PR. It shows how much can be done with communication
alone.

But the freezone is distorted by the heavy threat of CofS attacks.
Real free market operation would quickly bring things into line.

Taking E-meters as an example, the freezone is not really in
position to get a good cheap mass produced E-meter.

Lafayette electronics in New York used to make a build your
own E-meter kit for about twenty bucks (it would be about a
hundred bucks at today's prices) and that could be done again
today (interesting a small professional shop in mass producing
a product) if the CofS wasn't standing in the wings ready to
launch an attack.

I would think that an assembled meter could be mass produced
for $200 wholesale and that any freezone group would happily retail
it with normal markup (which would put it at about $400).
That is assuming low volume rather than cut rate oriental
pricing.

But who is going to invest in an assembly line product
if they expect the CofS to launch harrassment suits and
send in secret agents to sabotogue production and plant
dead agent lies about the manufacturers.

So the freezone only has custom assembly and the correspondingly
high price. Just compare the cost of buying a manufactured
bookcase to the price of having a carpenter build one and
you'll see what I mean.

It doesn't act like free market.

Anyone running a group has to worry about maintaining a
war chest against possible attacks.

The comm lines are inhibited.

Upstats are more visible and therefor in greater danger
of attack.

The threat puts a bad twist onto everything.

The CofS has an imaginary enemy. The freezone has a real
one. Both need to be as-ised.


> What is missing in the FZ is training.
> What is missing in the FZ is a real understanding of what it really
> takes to train an auditor.

This is the freezone's biggest weakness.

Processing can be done by individuals. It doesn't actually need
an organization, and in the old days field auditing was the
CofS's biggest auditing stat.

But training is best done at an organization, and organizations
make big targets that are easily attacked by the CofS.

The CofS itself theoretically has the capability to train
auditors, but also works to attack and unmock auditors and
inhibits the use of the tech.

If they simply delivered courses, no questions asked, to
freezoners they could boom on that one action alone.

But the fastest way for an orthodox member to get in trouble
with the organization is to actually use any of the tech.
And David Miscaviage personally seems to have wrecked the
Sea Org's technical staff again and again with destructive
ethics.

That is one of the reasons why reform is needed.

That is one of the reasons why I think that the copyrights
need to be released into the public domain on the basis of
religious freedom.

Not only would the freezone be encouraged to train and to
use the tech, but the org would straighten out and actually
have to deliver tech.

They could still do it now, but only just barely. They are
losing too many of the old hands with this new golden era
push.

The ones who really go for it and are winning with the
retraining action (there are some) are the ones for whom
it is a correct indication. In other words, the people
who were very weak technically anyway and need another
pass through the material.

It is a sort of process of natural selection. They are
breeding for stupidity.

If they wait too long they will not have the technical
core left on which to make a comeback. They are already
only a shadow of what was there in the 1970s.

If they are to sink, I would prefer that they not take
the tech down with them.

And freeing the tech is the most likely thing that would
cause the CofS to rethink its position and actually
straighten out.

Right now they still have people and resources. If they
had to compete openly they might actually begin to use
them effectively.

It should be done now before they piss away the last
of their strenght on stupid lawsuits and unjustified
attacks.

Hopefully you will have already thought this out further
by the time I get this message onto the net. But I
thought that the above were worthy of comment.

There is a definite need for delivery of SHSBC type training
in the freezone. Rumor has it that there are such groups
in existance but they don't talk on the internet because they
would be smashed flat very quickly.


Affinity,

The Pilot

 

[Hatshepsut]

...

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

Here's part of a discussion between Allen Hacker and Ken about a post of Homer's to ARS. I've split it in two as
to me the second part is more abstruse and difficult to follow than the first, shorter part;

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

subj : Super Scio Tech - To Homer On Cosmic Jokes

TO HOMER ON COSMIC JOKES

There has been an ongoing discussion on ACT on subject "Joke".

I am mostly going to respond to Homer's post, but I'm going to
quote Allen's subsequent answer (which includes Homer's post)
so as to include his comments in this as well.

I am mostly in agreement with the concept of acceptance although
I have my own slant on it and only consider it as one aspect of
the puzzel. My general views on this are based on my interpretation
of the concept of as-isness and are presented in detail in Chapter
xx "Repression" of the Self Clearing book.

Allen's slant on this is a bit different, and I am not an expert
in his tech, but I think that we are looking at the same thing
from different angles and discussing this from both angles might
help other's understanding.

---

On 4 Feb 98, Allen <[email protected]> responded to Homer's
earlier post.


> WARNING
>
> The subject of this post is the essence of terror, as in the way Christians
> react to Buddhism: they see no Father-Intercessor and no Heaven/refuge from
> reality and no End time, and it scares the shit out of them.
>
> Maybe some people should not read this one.

It is not scary if you see it clearly.


> At 02:07 AM 2/4/98 -0500, you wrote:

Allen is quoting Homer's post here.

> >
> > Allen,
> >
> > The more I try to understand your view, the more I feel that WHAT IS
> > is not WHAT I WANT.
>
> It appears not to be. But then, where are you now that you dare decide
> from there what you want for all time?

Allen is right.

Sometimes things that you don't want from a narrow viewpoint (relatively
speaking), are desirable to you from a senior viewpoint.

> > Instead I see that I must ACCEPT IT, but I don't see
> > how I can ever APPRECIATE IT.
>
> As it is. Observe the multidimensional intricacy.

Although true, there is no need to bring in multidimensional
complexity here. There are simpler examples.

Burried in ice, one thinks that one could never appreciate it.
Until one lives on a tropical island and wants a few ice cubes
for one's drink.

After a thousand years in a pleasure palace, you'll want ten minutes
of that nasty somatic and you'll just love it.

What are a few bad lifetimes to a being who spans the trillenia.

What is wrong is that you have salted your food too much and it
now seems unedible. But if you try to knock salt out of existance,
deep down you wouldn't let yourself because that would condem
you to eating bland food forever.


(CS notes; and here are some more speculative comments IMO. )


> > Now maybe my solution to the original disorientation was to bury
> >myself in a pretended philsophy of prior intent, because indeed I have
> >seen many times that I have been hurt so bad that the only way I will ever
> >be able to forgive existence is to find out that I did it to myself for a
> >reason.
> >
> > This vision has been pounded on me over and over and over again
> >by the infinite utter outrageousness of what was done to me (by me
> >or who or whatever. The condition I found myself in during the
> >early years of this life.)
>
> That would be a way for that to happen, sure.
>
> But it might well be the solution that becomes the next problem, since its
> blinding effect would also hide tha same truth in re what would free you.
>
> > Now you are asking me to throw off this protective shroud of seeking
> >the INTELLIGENCE, COMPASSION AND DESIGN to my suffering, and accept that
> >there was no intelligence, compassion or design to it at all,
>
> Right. A cosmic blooper.

It could be either way. Or it could be incomprehensible in human
terms.

> > I wasn't
> >even guilty, I was just crucified by the big bang for no desirable reason
> >at all other than it was bored. *It* was bored, and *I* got crucified.
>
> That's too strong a grip on your individuality. Before "I" (as you) there
> was "It" (also you, only different).
>
> "I" is specific consciousness, "It" is general consciousness.
>
> Don't try to apply specific-consciousness standards or concepts to general
> consciousness. It will never make sense, and it just annoys the pig (the
> teach-a-pig-to-sing joke).

Here I would say that it was you who were bored rather than "it".

Of course that might be a wrong item, I'm not sure what all of the
higher level buttons are, but boredom is one of the biggies.

Each of us, in our higher states, are still abberated on a number
of items. Put aside all concepts of being hurt or suffereing pain
and loss, and see what still is there.

Getting oneself in trouble to learn something is another of these
buttons. It is another reason that a super being will screw
himself over.

Based on this idea, I worked up an assessment list, which I am
posting separately.


> >For some of its shards they ended up in a better state than being bored,
> >and for others they ended up in a very much worse state.
>
> Judgement.
>
> >
> > In stead of intelligence, compassion and design, you are asking me to
> >accept that I was the victim of a mechanical uncaring trap that my own
> >ignornace made worse once I fell into it and struggled against it. The
> >trap of resistence and OORs.
>
> Yes, but rather than the victim, the manifestation. Victimhood is
> a judgement.
>
> > You are asking me to accept that these jaws of steel were put there by
> >the cold mechanics of existence, and served no purpose AT ALL.
>
> That's a mean metaphor that may not apply to a significant
> population, but Yes.

Here I only agree halfway, because it is always you and there are
always purposes of some sort.

But many of the things we do are inadvertent side effects rather
than direct intentions.


> > No higher
> >purpose, no higher intelligence if only my own, no higher design, no
> >higher compassion, no higher beauty, no higher reason, no higher humor.
>
> Correct.

I think that your own higher or senior designs and humor and so forth
are operative in this.

> >
> > You are asking me to accept that this ALL THAT IS, abiding in the
> >peace that passeth all understanding for all of 'eternity', should half
> >way through its sojourn in eternity GET BORED
>
> Yes.

As a big being (but not ultimate static), you get bored a lot.

> > and decide to shatter
>
> Not exactly. Merely consider limitation.
>
> >with
> >no awareness of the consequences.
>
> Right. No Time in the All, therefore no idea of "after".

Often there would be awareness of the consequence, but total
disregard of them anyway.

Its more important to an immortal to have a good tale to tell
even if it means being eaten by a bear to get that good tale.

> >
> > You yourself say, that for the ALL THAT IS to think of something is to
> > cause it,
>
> To merely conceive it, far more subtle than to think. More general and not
> specific, for at the moment of it becoming at all specific - that is the
> moment of individuation.
>
> >so this big ALL THAT IS oaf, gets this idea it is bored, so it
> >is, and then it gets this idea to
>
> ...look at things from limited points of view, which operates so as to make
> it appear IT has shattered...
>
> > shatter and so it does. But then you
> >assert that it DIDN'T GET THE IDEA OF ALL THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT
> >SHATTERING BEFORE IT SHATTERED or as part of the shatter.
>
> It didn't even get the idea of "shatter" before it happened.
>
> > So you are suggesting there is this cosmic ALL that can cause things
> >by thinking about them, but then it can have things happen afterwards that
> >it didn't cause by thinking of them first.
>
> It doesn't think. Thinking is a function of local consciousness.

I put more layers into this than Alan does. At the very top, I
agree with his sentence here, but one layer down you have the
being in a super state that does think but thinks on a level that
omits all physical concern. Something that would hurt itself
just for kicks because it knows that there is no way to do permanent
damage.


> > BEFORE, DURING OR AFTER THE SHATTER, DID THE ALL THAT IS OR ANY PART
> >OF ITS SHARD THINK "RESISTENCE CAUSES PERSISTENCE", AND THEREFORE CAUSE IT
> >TO BE TRUE?
>
> No. But it was some generalized equivalent of resisting when the shattering
> occurred, so it is a taint we all carry. Along with such contextual taints
> as know, not-know, can't-not-know, interest and mystery.

See the mechanics given on this in the Self Clearing book.


> > Did the ALL THAT IS think "Some will be in a better state and
> >some will be in a worse state".
>
> No. It just turned out that some resisted primarily, and some were
> instantly curious or intrigued. Some went static on mystery and don't know
> anything, even that we are.

It is a fractile function. Pieces of pieces of pieces. The trouble
here is in thinking of only one level of shattering.


> > Then you tell me that this big shattering solved for all eternity the
> >problem the ALL THAT IS had, namely being bored, which it created by
> >thinking
>
> Not thinking, merely conceiving the possibility.
>
> > it in the first place, and that forever more it will remain
> >shattered never to indulge in that cycle again.
>
> Yes. Or, multidimensionally, as AllThatIS which exists without time, it is
> always indulged in that very moment. And all that "we" do is peripheral to
> that. An infinitely iterated flash that lasts forever without enduring. A
> Singularity.
>
> > Did it think as part of its shatter "One day all men will re attain
> >the awakened state?"
>
> No. But men could, so long as they didn't make that depend upon a total
> undoing of individuation. (Some have tried.)
>
> > Did it think "We are going to do this ONCE and never again?"
>
> No. It didn't think.
>
> > Of all that is going on, how much of it is going on because
> >the ALL THAT IS THOUGHT IT AS IT THOUGHT THE SHATTER, AND HOW MUCH
> >IS GOING ON AS A SURPRISE.
>
> As to all that is going on, ALL of it is a surprise.

Much of it is an intentional attempt to surprise oneself, and
one often fails. Think on how hard it is to really generate
a truely random number on a computer.


> > The shatter wasn't a surpirse because it caused it by thinking it.
>
> No. It didn't think.
>
> >
> > Did it think first "To think is to cause?"
>
> No. It didn't think.
>
> > I am not needling you, but I am letting you know once again the
> >points of your view as I understand it that irritate me TO HELL at a very
> >deep fundamental philosophical level.
>
> I know.
>
> And I think you are lucky you are not a Christian!
>
> -0-
> |
> Allen, Speaker -0- ASC Missions Group
> [email protected] | http://www.asc.org


When I first read this it really got me thinking and I ended
up putting together the Higher Self Assessment that I'm posting
separately. See that for more ideas.

My thanks to both Allen and Homer.


Best,

The Pilot

PS. I quite liked your (Homer's) response on the subject of
agreement.

 

[Antony A Phillips]

Pilot'sPost Z42 - Some Advanced Processes

.

Pilot'sPost Z42


Some Advanced Processes

From Post 9 - August 1997


Here are some very powerful processes (OT drills) that I figured out
recently and have been using with great success.


1. The Source Drill

Spot an object in the environment, put enough theta into it to
get an answer (as in the TR8 ashtray drill), and ask it:

"Who Is Mocking You Up".

There will generally be many "answers" which you will perceive
as feelings, telepathic images, awareness of intentions, and
lines radiating off in various directions.

Acknowledge each answer and keep asking until you have all the answers
that you can get from a particular object and then select another
object, etc.

You do not expect the object to answer as if it was a being, but
you may sometimes get a flow from somebody who is mocking the
object up.

If the object starts answering you as if it was itself a being,
you probably have hit a BT in the object and should handle him
with NOTS or some similar technique. This is not what you are
looking for on this process. What you want to do is endow enough
life to pull an answer back from an inanimate object. This is
how you trace lines of control and causation back to their source.

Note that asking "who is mocking it up" does not work well because
you tend to sit back in your head and try to figure out who is mocking
the object up. What you want to do is actually reach into the space
of the object (with TR1) and pull back an answer from it. Hence the
need to personalize the object even though you know that there is
usually no actual consciousness there.

You will often get old intentions and postulates from manufacturers,
designers, and assembly line workers. These are light and weak
and release easily.

Most of the stuff lying around is not really being held very
tightly. Even the theoretical owner is not doing much to keep
it there or stay in control unless it is a favorite piece of
MEST.

But there are exceptions.

If you do this on somebody's fine new car, the strength of the
postulates and intentions will just about knock you over. There
is no way that you're going to end those cycles or take over
control of the object. If you do a few of these, you'll get
a good feel for the difference between old postulates left on
circuit and active present time connections.

This process can also be run on a condition if you have already
handled most of your case whys and blown off any entities
in the area. This lets you spot and knock off other peoples
postulates to have you in the condition (either to put you there
or to keep the condition in place).

Other people sympathizing with a condition do, to some degree,
mock up the condition and make it persist even though they
don't really mean to do that. It can lock up on their own
games and valences.

You might also find, for example, that your mother wanted you
to wear glasses to keep you out of fights or that a doctor
wanted you to have a particular disease that he knew how to
treat so that he could cure you successfully.

One of the things about a chronic condition as opposed to an
acute one is that the chronic condition will accumulate other
peoples postulates over the course of time in addition to your
own original whys for mocking up the condition. This makes
it harder to blow unless you use this process as a final step.


2. The Energy Drill

We have to a large degree concentrated on creation and on
mass and havingness. This is important.

But there is a flip side to the coin.

Energy comes about through destruction rather than creation.

Of course something has to be created first before it can be
destroyed.

And there is no sense in destroying your finest creations.
We don't burn down nice houses to keep warm, instead we burn
black coal or whatever.

Note that I am using the popular definition of destroy rather
than the physics one.

All of our energy comes from destruction. Cars run on a series
of tiny explosions. The Sun destroys matter. Our bodies
destroy food.

You run creation to have mass, and destruction to have energy.

Direct mockups of energy never work very well, which is not
to say that it can't be done, but the results are disappointing.

If you concentrate exclusively on create, there is a tendency
to have less motion rather than more.

Destroy is not simple vanishment. If you mock up a rock and
then unmock it, no energy is gained. But if you mock one up
and blow it up, you get energy as a result.

Just mocking up explosions is nowhere near as good as blowing
up mockups of solids like rocks etc.

Note that there is no balance of creation and destruction that
has to be maintained. You should create more than you destroy.
The universe is expanding. There is always more rather than
less and we need that for havingness.

Start by mocking up tiny particles and exploding them. Run
chains of these tiny explosions.

I pulled my back slightly the other day and my neck felt stiff
as a result. I ran chains of tiny explosions back and forth
through the muscles that were tightened up and they relaxed and
the area felt better very quickly.

There is a lot that could be done with this.

I have hardly scratched the surface.

Good Hunting,

The Pilot
_______________________________________________

 

[programmer_guy]

Re: Pilot'sPost Z42 - Some Advanced Processes

.

Pilot'sPost Z42


Some Advanced Processes

From Post 9 - August 1997

<snip>

2. The Energy Drill

<snip>

Just mocking up explosions is nowhere near as good as blowing
up mockups of solids like rocks etc.

I pulled my back slightly the other day and my neck felt stiff
as a result. I ran chains of tiny explosions back and forth
through the muscles that were tightened up and they relaxed and
the area felt better very quickly.

<snip>
_______________________________________________

I just take some aspirin and use a heating pad and I'm much better the next day.
It's amazing!

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

Pilot'sPosts Z21 is a classic containing many valuable insights.

He is absolutely right about where things went sour in the "orgs" and with the game we old-timers enjoyed. It went sour when "enforced reality and control of the individual" was introduced. And that violated our willing, able contribution.

Roger

Pilot was at New York org, and I wonder how much he generalises from his experiences there and assumes that what happened there was true of the whole country. For example, he said it was the done thing at one time at New York org for even straight people in Scn to experiment with gay sex in order to "get your TRs in" (he said he didn't do it himself). None of the people I spoke to in my part of the world who'd been involved with Scientology at that time did this or had even heard of it; in fact the main reaction I got was surprise.

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

I would like it stated for the record that Ken Ogger, The Pilot committed suicide.

Ken was a very nice and brave man but all this self auditing did him absolutely no good as he was delusional with reports of OSA anally raping him and other hallucinatory incidents.

Those still severely indoctrinated believed Ken and believe he was murdered, but the fact show that he was a severely depressed and unhappy man that killed himself.

You are certainly free to read his writings but you should know that it didn't work or help Ken in the end.

You're making a very absolutist statement here. Can you prove that definitively? I don't know any more than you do but I'm inclined to believe he was telling the truth about what happened to him. At the very least I'm open to that possibility.

Please bear in mind that he did say he was OK with people disbelieving his account of what had happened to him (which a delusional person would be unlikely to be; they'd be convinced beyond doubt that it happened). And let's face it, if anyone could or would do that to someone it'd be OSA.

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

Possibly all "the good stuff" was channelled from someone in the spirit world, or from someone in another universe, and its usefulness (or not) is disrelated to that human and his personal travails. I'm not asserting it is or it isn't. I don't know.

I'm not a great fan of all writings Ogger, but I suggest taking them on their own merits. As I have said, in early 2000 I found Self-Clearing useful (even if now I would not agree with much in it) and audited about 240 hours from it over a few months. And from the first reading to today I think SuperScio is absurd, as I think is any effort to state as historical fact what one has "found" in session, expecially several universes ago. Your mileage may vary, but at least it's yours.

Paul

"Your mileage may vary" seems to me to sum up a lot of things in FZ research, not just Ken's work. For example, I once knew someone who got excellent results auditing someone on Geoffrey Filbert's "Excalibur Revisited" processes, yet Ralph Hilton (someone with very extensive Tech knowledge and experience) claims he didn't get much out of Filbert's stuff at all.

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

Re: Pilot'sPost Z42 - Some Advanced Processes

I just take some aspirin and use a heating pad and I'm much better the next day.
It's amazing!

That would be the sane thing to do, but sanity is not for everyone

Some people prefer to indulge batshit crazy

 

[Antony A Phillips]

Pilot'sPost Z43 -- On Flows in Processes

.
Pilot'sPost Z43


On Flows in Processes

From Post 30 - April 1998


Answering Lakis on Flow Zero


On 14 Apr 98, lakis agrogiannis <[email protected]>
asked on subject "TO PILOT"


> Hi, Pilot!
>
> While I would like to talk to you for hours, I'll just ask you
> this now, lest I forget it: why wasn't the flow zero included in the
> Clearing Book's [Self Clearing] processes? Even if I disagree, I would like to know your
> reason.
>
> arc, lakis
>
> (ps I just skimmed through, I haven't looked at all the pages.)


As explained in the appendix, the flows used varied depending
on the process, as was the style in the early days. More or
less flows were used as seemed reasonable for the exact command
being run.

The idea of precisely having to do all flows always is something
that developed during the quicky era. If you are only going
to run one process for a grade, it really will bypass charge
if you skip a flow because nothing else is to be done in the
area. It doesn't seem to matter that much once you use many
processes per grade.

And there was often trouble putting quads in after triples
had been done on an expanded grade. It has to be done lightly,
often skipping the process. I believe that this was because
they were pedantically trying to make everything into 4 flows.

There are many more than 4 flows possible, especially depending
on the process. Some of the old processes have 15 or 25 flows
(called brackets in the old days).

So multiple flows were worked in as needed so as to make the
most sense and make the processing easiest without omitting
anything. So some processes do have 4 flows and some have
less and some even have more. And some of the ones with 2
or 3 flows have flow 0 instead of flow 1 as the first command.

Also, many of the single flow processes are inherently flow
zero rather than flow one, so the book actually has more
flow zero than anything else. This is after all the basic,
that the person is source for his own condition.

Best,

The Pilot
_______________________________________________

 

[Leon]

Ant has asked me to write something to clarify this Pilot Post as regards some of the technical terms. This clarification being aimed at guys who are not familiar with the tech. So here goes:

The "quicky era" refers to a period in the 1960's when all that one audited on the lower grades was one process on each grade - this process was then run to a floating needle and that was that. End of that grade. Sometimes it took only a minute to attain it. And to make matters worse in some places guys were running several grades all in one session - so you would get some people and in half an hour they'd get all the lower grades. The theory was that on the Clearing Course you were going to blow the bank in its entirety anyway so why waste time on lower grades - just do the minimum needed to hoick the guy up to the CC and then let it all get handled there. Only trouble was nothing got handled anywhere. And they'd go onto OT-3 which was released then and after that they just rolled over and fizzled away. I knew one Class 8 auditor who'd had less that 25 hours in total auditing in his life - this includes all grades and all solo upper levels up to OT-3. The guy was a fruitcake from tweety-land.

Anyway, then Triple grades was introduced and now each grades process (still only the one process) was run on three flows. (I think most guys know what flows are so I won't explain that. Ask if you want me to.) Then later an additional flow was added and that was then called Quad Grades.

The in mid 1970 LRH realized that this was a stuff-up and these guys never got much benefit from the grades as they were being run too shallowly and he introduced Expanded Lower Grades and the idea then was to audit as many process as could be found on each grade. This was really good and boomed Scientology in the early 1970's. Really great results were achieved routinely. Lives were changed for the better all over the place.

Quicky Grades were banished forever on pain of death and declare. Well, almost forever. During the 1980's the temptation to get guys "up the bridge" as quickly as possible (and whizz over to the AO and pay them your big bucks) became more than management could resist so the changed it all back to delivering as little as possible on each grade. They said the thing to do was deliver the main process of the Grade first - just like the old Quad Grades - and if it seemed like the guy was so aberrated that he needed more in order to make the grade then OK they'd sell him some more. For more money. So we were back to quicky grades again.

But even that was too much and so we got instant clear for every one (wheeee I'm Clear!)and so you didn't need any grades auditing at all if you reckoned you were cool and you could zoom straight over to the AO and "Do your OT levels" and pay them your money. Soon after this they had no auditors left so they stopped bothering with delivering auditing at all and so now you just give them your money. They didn't scrap that step.

Make sense? It's called Keeping Scientology Working.