Pilot'sPost Z44 -- The Whole and the Details
.
Pilot'sPost Z44
The Whole and the Details.
Not-is the wrongness in the details because of the
importance of the whole, and you actually sacrifice
the quality of the whole
> Dear Pilot,
>
> I have been a Scientologist for many years. I found Scientology in the
> early '70's, and was home. My path was found!
>
> I came in on a lecture on the ARC Triangle. At that time, I was
> working for a food company and the first course I did was the
> communication course. It blew me away. Finally some reality. My
> co-workers were amazed at the change in my ability to duplicate and
> handle things in a very understanding way. I had always been able,
> however certain buttons were no longer pushed and my reactions were
> with a lot more ARC/understanding. (the tech works)
>
> I was a single mother at the time and was raising my two children,
> working a full-time job and going on course in the evenings and
> weekends.
>
> I became an FSM [Field Staff Member] like crazy, as I wanted every one to have what I found.
I felt that way too initially. Eventually I started to shut up
because I saw too many abuses etc. Then I'd push people to read
a book instead of going into an org. I felt that they needed to
know the subject first so that they could safely negotiate the
stops.
> I pulled in the money for my life repair, did that then started on the
>
BSM [
Basic Study Manuel, first published 1972]. I had a major study problem so I did the
BSM again. Then went to
> the closest org for a student rescue intensive. This blew me away ...
> On that intensive, I became so keyed out that my auditor and I COULD
> NOT GET BACK INTO SESSION. GIGGLE CITY.
Very well done. This is what many of the critics miss, the
huge gains do happen.
> After that I routed onto the student hat course and I think for me at
> that time it was one of the biggest wins I have had as I finally knew
> why I felt stupid in school when I knew I wasn't!
>
> The rest is pretty much history. I was on the road and I did what ever
> it took to get to Clear. That was my goal.
>
> In 1978 I attested to Clear, and then got sick. I then did a DCSI
> (twice) and then finally attested to the state of natural clear.
> Later the CCRD came out and after doing my purif, I was routed onto
> that and then the Sunshine Rundown.
>
> Continued on the bridge, continued FSMing, worked on staff at night
> and moved toward my goal of becoming OT.
>
> Many things happened in between but I finally got into the sea org.
> Within a two week period I handled so many things and arrived at the
> flag land base ... this was in the early '80's.
>
> I became aware of so many outness's it made me sick ... however I
> could not verbalize my feelings as I was among brand new
> Scientologists and I didn't want to put that on them, plus I actually
> got scared (I know now it was because I wasn't hatted enough to handle
> what was occuring).
It would take a lot more than just hatting to handle the outnesses
that were occurring at that time. Big names and old timers were
being smashed left right and center.
> Anyway, without going into all the garbage, I finally left there and
> came back home and began all over again. (I did route out properly,
> and was supposed to get a re-entry program, but that never happened.
> To be honest with you, I had no intentions of going back, so I never
> pursured the re-entry program).
There are many in the same boat. Few have dared to speak because
they are still in good standing and still love the subject, but
those I know personally (including people who were very high
in the SO [Sea Org] at one time) all have serious disagreements with
management while continuing to support the tech.
> Anyway, the years went by and I did get back on the bridge but never
> with the same zest I originally had ... life happened and being the
> 3rd dynamic being that I am, I got back on staff with one of the
> secular groups. I was with them for 5 years, and then left there also.
What is a secular group?
> In those five years, I had no auditing and small amounts of training.
> However, I did learn a lot. (I held a lot of posts, and did a good job,
> but, again, the non-optimum scene got to me.)
>
> Anyway, I am currently working out here at a very high randomity job
> and my husband and I are working towards putting together a place
> where we can give tech to those in the field who need it so they can
> reach for the bridge.
Most Excellent!
> I became aware of you a few months ago, through my husband, and to be
> honest I had mixed feelings. My allegiance to Scientology is so great.
> At first, I was angry because even though I have had the experiences I
> have had, I maintained the viewpoint that, "Yes, there are many
> outness's but there must be so much more we are not always aware of
> and that perhaps things are being worked on to get them better." I
> have many friends in the sea org and on staffs and I admire their hard
> work in helping to change things on this planet ... so on one hand I
> know some of the things I've read on the Net are true; I also know
> there are many who are working so hard to handle stuff.
>
> At first, I thought, "Well, why don't these people do something
> inistead of bad mouthing the church. It is hard to [put] my feelings into
> words as it really shakes my solid stable datum for so many years ...
> do you understand that?
Yes. I kept my mouth shut for decades. I wouldn't say anything
until I had some answers that I thought would help others.
Basically, I let my comm be suppressed because of my love for
the subject and in retrospect that was a mistake. Free and
open communication, both about the good and the bad aspects,
is the key. The other outpoints would have straightened out
if we had been talking freely without issue authority and
the threat of SP declares hanging over our heads.
> Then, last week, I realized that Scientology and the church have
> always been "one" and the same to me. Now I see a difference. This
> really bothers me (that is an understatement).
Yes, it takes some confront. But equating an organization and a
subject is an A=A and therefore wrong. Physics is not MIT.
Christianity is not the Catholic Church. Even under ideal
circumstances with a wholesome organization, equating it with
the subject would not really be correct.
> I am very good at granting beingness, for whatever reason, so always,
> even in non-optimum situations have tried to look at the whole picture
> not just one area, and operated that way. But now I'm wondering if
> maybe what I am thinking is 'understanding the whole' and not getting
> upset about some things (I don't mean upset' but not getting really
> pissed, because I know there is always another side) that I am really
> not confronting, or haven't, that it's just plain not okay, no matter
> what!
True.
The whole is composed of detail and attention to the details
determines the quality of the whole. When people not-is the
wrongness in the details because of the importance of the whole,
they actually sacrifice the quality of the whole. The correct
policy would be the exact opposite.
> How does one separate the real squirrels from the ones out here that
> have honest disagreements with out-tech? Or how does one know the real
> truth? How does someone who loves Scientology, and wants to get up the
> bridge, proceed when some things within the church are not real to
> them; or honestly know the C/S that is given to them is correct, and
> not just for the money ... and a thousand other questions. I realize
> as I am writing this that you cannot give me the answers, I need to
> really decide for myself but perhaps give me your opinion.
The answer is in knowing the tech well and in having personal
observation of what does and doesn't work.
The old training emphasized trying and experimenting and observing
and discussing the tech and finding out for yourself what worked
and what was true. Later, these things were considered to be
"squirrel" activities.
I use the label "standard tech" to refer to the modern subset
of LRH tech in use in the orgs. Even that has gone through
a number of major variations over the years. The original
standard tech issued by LRH in 1968 was what we now call "quickie
tech" and it didn't work very well.
Modern standard tech works better but it doesn't produce OTs.
The standard tech of the early 70s (the original expanded
grades) was probably the better variation. Standard stable
grade EPs were usually achieved in about 25 hours each in those
days and it seems to take about 100 hours now for the same
amount of case gain and total TA action per grade.
Besides standard tech, there are all the various flavors of
the older LRH tech. Most of the so called "squirrels" are
simply carrying forward other LRH research lines that were
abandoned when the first standard tech outlawed all the other
LRH tech.
Note that 90 percent of the tech in use by the CofS today
was not part of the original 1968 standard tech and therefore
was considered squirrel at that time (the processes existed
but could not be used).
Ron always had the idea of having standard procedures so
that one could get repeatable results. But having one standard
lineup didn't invalidate the other lineups which also worked.
The 1953-4 ultimate levels concern how to invent process
commands as you go along. The entire push in the 1950s is
to be able to carry on the research oneself.
Even as late as 1965 (see the SHSBC tapes), the rules are only
for the students and beginners because they do not have enough
judgement and experience.
The old definition of squirrel is altering the tech so as
to make it unworkable. The only squirrel group declared
in the 1950s was E-therapy. They were using hypnotism to
implant a "manic" based on copying an experiment of Ron's
which failed. Most or all of the modern "squirrel" groups
are not squirrel by the old definitions. Many are older
flavors of standard tech.
The definition of squirrel changed in 1965 to attack anyone
who was altering the tech in a workable manner or trying to
continue the research line. It was further altered in 1968
to attack anyone who was delivering standard tech outside of
the orgs auspices.
Your best criteria in evaluating the tech delivered by any
group is to:
a) look at the results produced, and
b) evaluate it based on the axioms and other basics which hold true for
all implementations of workable tech.
This holds true for current orthodox CofS standard tech as
well as for any of the "standard" or "non-standard"
freezone groups. And on that criteria, the current CofS
is only marginal, falling short of optimum results.
Things like the obsession with sec checking, the chronic
overrun of processes and levels, and the excessively
motivatorish OT lineup place them on the edge of workability
rather than showing them to be a mecca of technical perfection.
> For some reason your communications are very real to me and as someone
> on the inside trying to handle things instead of disconnecting I
> admire that and trust you as you are taking such
> responsibility!!!!!!!!!
Thank you <grin>.
> I do have a specific question I would like you to answer, if you could
> please also, and that is: As a natural clear I remember asking "how
> does a natural clear happen?" They referred me to ("they" being the
> DofP) to a bulletin or directive (I can't remember which) years ago.
> It had somethng in it about not agreeing. For the life of me I cannot
> remember where that is and I would like to locate it again. I believe
> it was in the tech vols, but it was not red-on-white. Do you know what
> that might be? I do remember it was the bottom two paragraphs on a
> page that was on the left side.
The only natural clear reference in the new tech volumes is on
page 450 of volume XI in the bulletin of 5 MAR 1979 RB (revised
2 Dec 85) titled "DIANETIC CLEAR FALSE DECLARES". This is
the one which forbids declaring a clear "achieved in other
practices". The only paragraph about natural clear is
"Technically, a very few thetans have never been anything but
Clear. These few didn't 'go Clear' on anything; they have
simply always been Clear. When a natural Clear is found, it
should be so stated. To assign this condition to some other
practice is a suppression of Dianetics and Scientology".
I checked the earlier versions as well and this paragraph is
the same (the revisions simply added more threats of Comm Ev
for allowing false Dianetic Clear attests).
Your reference on "not agreeing" sounds like it is something
from the 1952-4 period, especially if it was not an HCOB but
was in the tech volumes (most of the 1950s material is black
on white).
The Philadelphia Doctorate Course especially (1952) worked
to drill the PC in disagreeing so that they could blow the
bank by ceasing to agree with it.
I can't guess at the exact reference, but you might find it
by looking through 1952-4 in the tech vols.
When Dianetic clear first came out, there were a lot of
people who found that they had gone clear in earlier practices
during earlier lifetimes. But this tended to validate some
of the Tibetan and Zen practices as having made a clear on
rare occasions. These were sometimes hard to find because
clear by itself does not actually produce good wholetrack
recall (self analysis usually works like dynamite on a clear
to open up wholetrack). But the people who found these
points on their track were generally very happy with them.
Natural clear was certainly used as a way to handle people
who really had gone clear in earlier practices. If it
happened long ago, then it certainly could seem to them
that they could always have been clear.
There could also be real natural clears. I could see it
on the basis of people who never agreed to the clearing
course implant or who missed the implant. I could also
imagine it occurring on some other basis having to do
with never having agreed to force or whatever. I can
even imagine wilder ideas.
There is also the problem of the definition of clear.
I would restate it in accordance with the 1958 materials,
to be the ability to confront the force in mental image
pictures. That will undo the stimulus response A=A
mechanism (and give you a moment of free choice before
an ARCX or whatever). But note that it is not the end
of all aberration although it is a very high state. I
have written a good bit about that already.
For yourself, you will know the truth as you develop
more Itsa and awareness of the track. As I said earlier,
Self Analysis can open up whole track like crazy on a clear.
And
Self Clearing chapter 6 will probably do even better.
You can also run the clearing course implant when you
feel ready. There always used to be a rerun of it
in the lineup after clear. This was OT 1 for a very
brief time, and then was OT 4 until the old OT levels
were removed in favor of doing Nots. It will probably
be the new OT 9. The purpose of the level was to
revisit the CC implant so that one could handle it
in a casual manner and proof oneself up against
ever being implanted again.
I was Dianetic Clear (actually went clear on Power
Processing), and missed the DCSI (I was already on
my OT levels when it came out). It wasn't until I
did the old OT 4 with its running of the CC platens
that I was certain of the clear state. Almost every
item just FNed, but occasionally a pair of items would
read spectacularly (2 or 3 TA divisions). My theory
is that these few were the real charge that I had had
before the CC implant and which allowed the implant
to "take" and group together the random bits of charged
areas that I had had before the implant and make an A=A
with all sorts of other things that hadn't been
charged.
Note that at this point I don't think that clear
comes from erasing the CC platen. I think that
it makes clears by raising one's confront of the
force on implant items to the point where one blows
the bank. Just as you get a Dianetic Clear by
gradient confront of force in engrams. And just
as you sometimes get a clear on power by confronting
sources until you realize that you are mocking
up the force (not accepted in the latest Dianetic
Clear interpretations, but stated explicitly on
an LRH tape in 1965).
> I would like to have more comm with you on some other areas but I will
> save those communications for another time as this one sure is lengthy
> ...
>
> Hope to hear from you soon.
>
> Love,
>
> Nancy
I tend to write lengthy comms too, probably because I only post
periodically and I have a lot saved up to say.
This kind of comm is really good for the people hiding on the
sidelines, so let me encourage you to write more.
Affinity,
The Pilot
_______________________________________________
]
