Corrections and Advances in More Workable Tech

[RogerB]

Roger’s Journal, 2010

I wrestled with whether to call this thread Roger’s Journal; this is response to several requests that I promised to fulfill, or whether to give it a technical name based on its subject matter and content.

Being a techie, tech won out.

Be warned, this following might shake up a stable datum or two :p

This first installment is comment on what I have found to be the biggest, most catastrophic goof in Scn tech that has yet not been recognized as such nor commented on anywhere (that I have seen).

As I look at this now, I can’t help thinking this might likely be the why, apart from the extent of abusive behavior by those in power, that Scn has become a failing piece of technology . . . but then, the abuse might even be explained by this gross, monster tech error that is inherent and built into its practice.

Alan Walter made a comment in his thread titled: “L10 and Obesity” here:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=7556

His comment got me to wondering as to what exactly had gone out: what was the tech factor that was the actual goof. Alan did not explain it. Whether he had unraveled what the actual tech point error is or not, I don’t know.

What he wrote in his opening post on the above thread was:

The simple fact is that the L's in most cases are non precision guestements of what could be wrong!

In my case they pulled whole track GPM or Games Matrice items out of sequence (Most likely delusional items) - then reinforced them as actual - this stuck me in a false delusive past!

The above stuck in my mind from when I first read it 18 months or so ago, till I listened to Trey Lots’s 2010 FZ presentation here:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=476592&postcount=25

Trey explained that the L’s (or so he was told) were, in part, an extension of research based on the old early “GPMs” tech. This was new info to me.

He also, however, made two statements that were true: a) the GPMs were/are composed of Identities; a hung up structure of Identity versus counter Identity (certainly the putative own goals GPMs are) and b) what was being sought (in 1962 with own goals GPMs) was the GPM affecting you in present time. This I can vouch for as I ran that old stuff as and when released.

But what interested me was the way in which the “L’s tech” apparently related to the old GPM tech and their identities structure.

So I looked at the L10 R/D Trey had mentioned.

It says on page 534 of the on-line available PDF “Scientology OT levels” the following:


PURPOSE OF THE L’s

The Ls are intended to handle out-valence and evil purpose cases. We are handling
main areas of resistiveness that are stopping the person from expanding. On L10 we
handle the main valences that make him restrain his havingness. On L11 we handle evil
purposes that keep him from acting. On L12 we stabilize his certainty of being himself.
The 3 Ls roughly divide into Have (L10), Do (L11), and Be (L12).

Our main targets are past identities and evil purposes. We will gradually make the
person realize that they are not him and thereby free him from them.

As it happened, even that last paragraph didn’t tip me off when I first read it. It was like: “Well, OK, that makes sense!” But I did feel a mass turn on slightly while I digested the statement, but ignored it as business as usual :duh: (One did get so used to this sort of thing happening, and then looking forward to the next session to “handle” it!

Page 548 has the specific description of L10, and the actual R/D is given on the pages following.

While there are a number of steps and different handlings for various areas of the R/D, this is what I observed.

On Page 549:
Areas/items to handle:

6) Greatest Overt: L&N “What was the greatest overt you committed on the Whole
Track?” ... D/L + do FL0-4
7) E/Purp Multiple: (See ExDN pack in Vols.) “What evil purpose have you had
towards another?”
8) Lie RD: L&N “What was your greatest lie on the Whole Track?”

On Page 553, we see the questions to use on what is labeled the 8D RUNDOWN

I won’t list the entire series; it is long. But here is a sample for the questions for the 2D:

2D:
1. Is the 2D something to stay away from?
2. Have you been made to feel inadequate sexually?
3. Have you been made wrong for loving someone?
4. Have you desired someone and not won them over?
5. Was there someone that insisted you were at fault in the 2D?
6. Has a 2D partner used anger to get their way?
7. Have you been stopped on the 2D?
8. Has a 2D partner forced you into something you don’t want?
9. Have you gone along with a 2D when you knew it was wrong?
10. Have you conceded a major point on the 2D when you shouldn’t have?
11. Have you left a 2D for no good reason?
12. Have you harmed a 2D?
13. Have you withheld your true intentions to a 2D?

Here is another example from Page 560: the OVERTS BY DYNAMICS R/D


2ND DYNAMIC (Family)
1. Have you ever been a disturbing element in a family?
2. Have you ever joined a family out of revenge?
3. Have you ever disowned a member of your family?
4. Have you ever gotten a relative into trouble?
5. Have you ever worked against your family?
6. Have you ever badly raised a child?
7. Have you failed to provide for a child of yours?
8. Have you ever split up a family?
9. Have you ever had a bastard?
10. Have you ever passed off a bastard as legitimate?
11. Have you ever claimed a blood-relationship you didn’t have ?
12. Have you ever forced a child into an unsuitable profession?
13. Have you ever forced a child into a loveless marriage?

And it was here, when looking at all the above, that I saw what the hell had been screwing up all our cases since the beginning!

Notice that all those questions above, put you into the past!

Here is a datum. An important datum.

What is screwing up the present is in the PRESENT, it is here, now, doing its screwing up here, now! It is NOT in the past nor necessarily of the past! (I will get into the mechanics of this time notion/factor later on.)

What I saw is that the error which is endemic and a core erroneous principle in/of Scn is the idea that what is bugging you is in the past or from the past. This is a colossal error, and one that has screwed us all up.

Looking at the development of the tech, we can see how this error came into being and how it seemed so logical, and Oh so right to think that. It began with the early “successes” with Dianetics, and carried forward as “the truth behind what bugs you in Scn.” Of course this notion that what is bugging you and wrong with you is in or from your past didn’t begin with Dianetics. Hubbard took the notion from others.

What I realized in looking at all this is that virtually everyone in Scn has been hooked on the idea that what is “wrong with them,” and what is bugging them, is in or from their past . . . . when in fact, what has to be found, corrected and handled is in the present, NOW!

These are the questions that are being asked in all the R/Ds: “Have you ever . . .” “Have you or did you . . .?” That’s putting you in the past!

The questions should be rephrased so as to pick up the in present time, now, action that is screwing up the game. And folks need to be brought to a new understanding of what is going on. It’s not the past: it is the now that is screwing up the present and your futures.

The question needs to be: “Is there . . . ?” or “Are you . . . ?”

Now it may be true that the genesis of the now screwy action is in the past, but you should look in the present for the now screwy action . . . for that is where it is active.

The big, big error has been the constant ransacking of the past looking for things that MIGHT be active in the present and screwing it up. The trap in ransacking and stirring up all of the past in order to find the very few “items,” actions, intentions, solutions etc., that need be found is that you make all of the past live and stick the client back out of PT and into his past!

And this is what Alan wrote of. It is what I also experienced but didn’t particularly realize it till just these last few weeks. It’s been a colossal relief to let the past go, to let it settle out back into the past and to myself come (more) fully into PT and direct my powers, abilities, awareness and presence here where they can do their good.

The fact is, for the last fifty years or so, I’ve been stuck out of PT but trying to handle it and get better, etc., etc., and not aware of the actual what and why of my relative difficulties in operating.

Even so, it is true that I continued to get gains with the correct tech . . . but the truth is, I was actually handling a lot of unnecessary shit. (And OT3 and NOTs, forget about it . . . they are a destructive waste of time.)

What should have been located and addressed was: WHAT WAS I DOING IN PRESENT TIME TO SCREW UP MY PRESENT TIME!! For the fact is, that is where I live and should be playing the game: not in the past!

You old-timer will remember we used to often use the command at the end of sessions: “Come up to (or back up to) Present Time.” :D This has dropped out in “standard tech.”

This is now long. Other related pieces on another page,

RogerB

[Auditor's Toad]

Nicely done !!!!!!!!!!!!

[EP - Ethics Particle]

Good call, Rog! That explains, neatly, precisely why the Life Repair I did with Dex as Auditor so many years ago was such a stellar action.

Also, perhaps, why not too long after that, with another auditor, my "case" simply "fell apart" reminiscent of shelling dry corn off the cob - on a "sec-check" dealing with PT stuff.

At least that's the way it seems to me! :yes::confused2:

Thank you!

Mike

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?p=542

[scooter]

Nice, Rog - very nice. Well done on that. :thumbsup:

I've been looking at something similar and puzzling with it the last week or so and you've just explained it for me. :D

Thanks, mate. :happydance:

[RogerB]

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?p=542

Ya, nice link to re-read Chuck . . . and it is on an appropriate part on ESMB . . . "Life after Scn." I nearly put this thread there.

Thanks for putting that link here.

R

[FoTi]

Interesting, Roger.

[RogerB]

Nice, Rog - very nice. Well done on that. :thumbsup:

I've been looking at something similar and puzzling with it the last week or so and you've just explained it for me. :D

Thanks, mate. :happydance:

Scoots,

You just made my day, Mate!

I love it when I can do some good with what I write . . . .

I think I'll go get myself a nice malt Scotch on the strength of that . . . it's that time of day over here :p

Thanks!

Rog

[scooter]

Scoots,

You just made my day, Mate!

I love it when I can do some good with what I write . . . .

I think I'll go get myself a nice malt Scotch on the strength of that . . . it's that time of day over here :p

Thanks!

Rog

Excellent:thumbsup:

And I'll go out into the late spring morning here and enjoy that.:happydance:

[Dulloldfart]

Good stuff, Rog. It aligns perfectly with the principle of auditing the pc in present time, and not diving into the past to try and find some magical answer. If stuff from the past comes to view and *demands* to be handled, i.e., some other part of one's topic is pressing so hard on one that the aspect being worked on before is no longer even viewable because of the new one, then one goes with the flow and addresses that. But it's all just following the way the mind is stacked up, and not some arbitrary sequence dreamed up by some wannabe-guru.

Paul

[dexter gelfand]

I like it, Roger! Thanks!:thumbsup:

It seems to me that the whole point of going backtrack is to bring one's confront and responsibility up to be oneself, and be in present time, free of dramatizations and misperceptions. I can see using that (going backtrack) as a tool, just to the point where the person can now be here now. Perhaps some sort of testing process, involving confronting one's present, could be used as needed, to signify at which point going backtrack is unnecessary. (Similar to how, when testing and running havingness, one has the PC squeeze the cans to gauge whether sensitivity is increasing or decreasing, to determine whether or not the havingness process being run is the correct one).

Going backtrack has the liability of being used as a dodge and a refuge to avoid present time, and if processes could be developed to gradiently increase one's willingness and ability to confront this lifetime without going backtrack, so much the better, if that's more efficient and effective.

I always found it fascinating to go backtrack, and to have my PC go backtrack, as it can be extremely interesting and revealing. I think there's nothing wrong with it as a pastime or for historical value, and one way or another, if the goal is no track-no charge, which I agree with, one does need to first own his track. I just don't know that this couldn't be accomplished more efficiently than to spend hundreds of hours recalling or returning through a nearly infinite track.

Love, Dex

[uniquemand]

I agree with handling what is being created right now. Sometimes, we have to look deep within ourselves for the reasons we are doing something right now, and often, we don't even realize we ARE doing it right now, we think it was only in the past. So, start with something happening now, track it to where it began, look to where the person thinks it will lead, examine all aspects of it.

UCP.

[paradox]

...

What is screwing up the present is in the PRESENT, it is here, now, doing its screwing up here, now! It is NOT in the past nor necessarily of the past! ....

...

What I realized in looking at all this is that virtually everyone in Scn has been hooked on the idea that what is “wrong with them,” and what is bugging them, is in or from their past . . . . when in fact, what has to be found, corrected and handled is in the present, NOW!

....

I had a similar realization not long ago when I read this from Alan Watts. (May be tl;dr for many). For me, a major change in outlook with regard to conventional wisdom of "cause-and-effect." Good stuff, Roger.



There is no way of defining the creative energy of the universe. Suppose God could come and talk to you, and you said, "God, this is a pretty complicated universe--in fact, it is amazing! How did you do it?" And God would say, "I don't know, I just did it."

Of course God does not know--if God had to think out every detail of it, it never would have happened. In just the same way, you breathe and you live: You don't know how you do it, but you are still doing it!

We have been taught by social convention, though, to restrict the concept of "myself" to "what I do voluntarily and consciously." This is a very narrow view of the self. Certainly if you say, "I, by my ego and my intelligence, created all this," you would be conceited, and you know you are a liar. But you is much deeper than that; you includes far more than your conscious mind. It is the total you that not only is responsible for the infinitely complex structure of your physical organism, but also for the environment in which you find yourself. You runs that deep.

It is you in that sense, the total you, that is the root and ground of everything. And yet we arrange our image of who we are around a principle of human sociability, which is measured by our ability to get along together according to our system of social convention. And as a result we so often end up putting everyone down, including ourselves, because nobody's perfect, and because as my mother used to say to me, "You're not the only pebble on the beach!"

Why don't we instead try the other technique, and put everyone "up" instead of down? It might be that everyone would get along far better that way than they do by putting everybody down! Of course, whatever you do, you have to do it uniformly for everyone. You can't say, "Well, Johnny is the Lord God, but Peter isn't!"

As a result of our social conventions, we all feel ourselves to be strangers in the world. We are disconnected from it all, and it is something that "happens" to us that we endure passively, and that we *receive* passively. And we never get to the point where we realize we are actually doing the whole thing! It is up to you. You make your troubles and you put yourself into a trap. You confuse yourself and forget that you did it, and then ask how to get out of it! A verse from the Mumonkan, a famous book of koans puts it this way: "Asking where Buddha is, is like hiding loot in your pocket and declaring yourself innocent!"

To finally admit it, and to come to the recognition that it was you, requires a certain kind of nerve. I don't mean "nerve" in the sense of being brash and cheeky. I mean the sort of sense that you use when, for the first time, you take a plane off the ground, or when you pull a cloth off the table and leave all the dishes on the table! That sort of nerve has nothing to do with pride in the ordinary sense. It is being ready to leap in, somehow. You see it, and jump in.

But most of us lack that kind of sense. Instead we have what I would call an ambivalent sense of responsibility. We say, "Now, look: It is only me here--just little me. I have certain responsibilities, and they are such and so, but that means as well that there are a lot of things I am certainly not responsible for." And in our social conventions we play games about where we are going to draw the line that defines what we are--and what we're not--responsible for.

When someone is in some kind of social or psychological difficulty and someone has been irresponsible in some way, we wonder what caused the problem: "Why are they like that?" And instead of attributing the problem to the person our psychologists tend to refer it back to other things and other people: It was because of their environment, or because of family conditioning, or because of their father and mother. But there is no end to that, because you can take the blame straight back to Adam and Eve! And responsibility is evaded because it was limited in the first place.

We think that the world is limited and explained by its past. We tend to think that what happened in the past determines what is going to happen next, and we do not see that it is exactly the other way around! What is always the source of the world is the present; the past doesn't explain a thing. The past trails behind the present like the wake of a ship, and eventually disappears.

Now you would say that obviously when you see a ship crossing the ocean with the wake trailing behind it that the ship is the cause of the wake. But if you get into the state of mind that believes in causality as we do, you see that the wake is the cause of the ship! And that is surely making the tail wag the dog!

The point is this: You will never find the mystery of the creation of the world in the past. It never was created in the past. Because truly there is nothing else--and never was anything else--except the present! There never will be anything else except the present.

Life is always present, and the past is a kind of echo, a tracing within the present of what the present did before. We can say, "Oh well, we can guess what the present will do next because of what it has done in the past." And this is true: Because of what it does habitually, you may guess it will go on doing it like that. But still it is not the past that controls the present any more than the wake controls the ship. Now from the record of the past you can study the nature of the present and predict what sort of things its likely to do. But sometimes it surprises you when something new happens, as every so often it does.

It is always in the immediate here and now that things begin. And so one of the essentials of Zen training is, to quote a certain parrot from Huxley's *Island*, "Here and now, boys!" *Be here*.

And in order to be here, you can't be looking for a result! People keep asking me, "Why do you do this? What do you want to get out of it?" But these questions imply that my motivation is different from my action. It is talking about it in terms of Newtonian billiards--in Newton's explanation of mechanics and behavior he used an analogy with billiards. The balls--the fundamental atoms--are banging each other about; a ball will be still until something bangs it, and that bang will be its motivation, and set it in motion. So when we say, "Human beings behave in such-and-such a way because of unconscious mental mechanisms," this is really Newtonian psychology and it is out-of-date. Today we need a psychology that is current with quantum theory at least, not one that is tied to mechanical causality.

It is difficult for us to understand this, however, unless we turn things around, as in the analogy of the ship and the wake. If you understand fully that it is from the present that everything happens, then the only place for you to be, the only place for you to live, is here right now.

People immediately say, however, "Now wait a minute. That's all very well, but I want to be sure that under such-and-such circumstances and in such-and-such eventualities I will be able to deal with it. It's all very well to live in the present when I am sitting comfortably in a warm room reading this, or meditating, but what am i going to do if all hell breaks loose? What if there's an earthquake, or if I get sick, or my best friends get sick, or some catastrophe happens? How will I deal with that? Don't I have to prepare myself to deal with those things? Shouldn't I get into some sort of psychological training, so that when disasters come I won't be thrown?"

That, you would ordinarily think, is the way to proceed--but it doesn't work very well. It is much better to say, "sufficient unto the day is the trouble thereof," and to trust yourself to react appropriately when the catastrophe happens. Whatever happens, you'll probably have to improvise, and failure of nerve is really failure to trust yourself. You have a great endowment of brain, muscle, sensitivity, intelligence--trust it to react to circumstances as they arise.

Zen deals with this. Studying Zen will change the way you react to circumstances as they arise. Wait and see how you deal with whatever circumstances come your way, because the you that will deal with them will not be simply your conscious intelligence or conscious attention. In that moment it will be all of you, and that is beyond the control of the will because the will is only a fragment having certain functions.

But if you really know how to live from your center, you live now, and know that now is the origin of everything. This way, you stand a much better chance of being able to deal with the unforeseen than if you keep worrying about it and considering past lessons and future possibilities.

I know that this sounds impractical to some of you, or perhaps revolutionary, or perhaps not even possible, but it is simply living in the present. It requires a certain kind of poise: If you make exact plans to deal with the future and things don't happen at all as you expected, you are apt to become thoroughly disappointed and disoriented. But if your plans are flexible and adaptable, and if you're here when things happen, you always stay balanced.

As in movement or martial arts, keep your center of gravity between your feet, and don't cross your feet, because the moment you do you are off balance. Stay always in the center position, and stay always here. Then it doesn't matter which direction the attack comes from; it doesn't matter what happens at all.

If you expect something to come in a certain way you position yourself to get ready for it. If it comes another way, by the time you reposition your energy, it is too late. So stay in the center and you will be ready to move in any direction.

This is the real meaning of zazen, or sitting Zen: to sit in the center. As you begin sitting meditation the first thing to do is find your center, and become comfortable with it, so that you are neither leaning forward nor sitting back. When one's body is balanced in this way the forces of high and low, the heart and breath, and mind and feeling merge at the center.

To sit in zazen in order to perfect a technique for attaining enlightenment, however, is fundamentally a mistaken approach. Sit just to sit. And why not sit? You have to sit sometime, and so you may as well really sit, and be altogether here. Otherwise the mind wanders away from the matter at hand, and away from the present. Even to think through the implications of the present is to avoid the present moment completely.

When you are meditating, it is perfectly fine to be aware of anything that's around: things on the floor, the smell of the atmosphere, the little noises going on. Be there! But when you hear a dog bark, and that starts off a train of thought about dogs in general, about your dog, or somebody else's dog, then you have wandered away from being here. Of course you finally will come to the point where you realize there is no way of wandering away from being here, because there is nowhere else to be. Even if you think about somewhere else, past or future, this is all happening now.

Through this you will also come to understand how to be a scholar and a historian, if you wish to, and still live in the present. That was how D.T. Suzuki was able to be scholarly and intellectual, and yet at the same time not to depart at all from the spirit of Zen, which is beyond the intellect. you can intellectualize in a Zen way, just as you can sweep floors in a Zen way, but of course the key to the matter is centering--being really here. Because this is the point of origin of the world, and it is at the same time the destination of the world.

This is the real meaning of dhyana, which in Sanskrit is the kind of concentration or meditation that constitutes Zen. Zen is simply the Japanese way of pronouncing dhyana, and it is that state of centeredness which is here and now.

When you practice zazen, just sit and enjoy yourself being quiet. It is not a duty at all; it is a great pleasure! Get up early in the morning when the sunlight is just beginning to show. It doesn't matter where you are, just sit.

Don't have any thoughts, but don't compulsively try to get rid of thoughts. It's just not important. The real thing is what is--what is here, now. After all, here you are, and you may as well see it!

Eventually, a curious feeling will overcome you, one that is very hard to describe in words. I just said that the origin of the world is now--and there is this odd sensation that now comprises everything: the most distant past, the most remote future, the vastness of space, all states of experience, all joy, all sorrow, all heights, all depths. Everything is now. There isn't anywhere else to be--there never was, and never will be!

That is why you were never born, and therefore cannot die. You never came, so you won't go. You were always here. It's a very curious feeling, so different from what we ordinarily think. In entering into the now, we find the eternal now. We find infinity in the split second.


As they say in Yoga, liberation lies in the interval between two thoughts. Between the past thought and the future thought lies now--there is no present thought.

As one of the Zen texts puts it, "One thought follows another without interruption. But if you allow these thoughts to link up into a chain, you put yourself in bondage."

Actually, this present moment never comes to be and it never ceases to be, it is simply our minds that construct the continuity of thoughts we call time. In the present moment is nirvana.

As the great Zen master Dogen explains, in the course of the seasons, the spring does not "become" the summer. And when wood burns, the wood does not "become" the ashes. There is the state of wood, and then there is the state of ashes. There is the state of spring; there is the state of summer. The spring does not become the summer; the wood does not become the ashes; the living body does not become the corpse. That only happens in us, in our minds, when we link our thoughts together. "Oh, no! I will become a corpse!" But you won't. You won't be there when there is a corpse!

Excerpted from book, What is Zen? by
Alan Watts (1915-1973)
Part II "Zen Reconsidered"

[nexus100]

This thread is entertaining in its awesome display of what you tech guys don't know.

[dexter gelfand]

This thread is entertaining in its awesome display of what you tech guys don't know.
(Channeling Joe Pesce in "Goodfellas"): "What am I, your clown, am I here to amuse you?" :D

I'm glad, being that we lack your obvious deep spiritual wisdom, that you're big enough to so graciously condescend to us, Nexus:duh:

Love, Dex

[nexus100]

(Channeling Joe Pesce in "Goodfellas"): "What am I, your clown, am I here to amuse you?" :D

I'm glad, being that we lack your obvious deep spiritual wisdom, that you're big enough to so graciously condescend to us, Nexus:duh:

Love, Dex

Just returning the favor, old buddy. Get off the ferris wheel some day and ride out into the territory.

[mate]

Absolutely brilliant, Roger.

It, of course, explains why those who have received Power and Power Plus, have had enormous wins with very few exceptions, if any. It would be interesting to develop a universal correction list that could be used on all former and present PCs.

Just a thought.

David.

[AlphOhm]

It says on page 534 of the on-line available PDF “Scientology OT levels” the following:
Quote:
PURPOSE OF THE L’s

The Ls are intended to handle out-valence and evil purpose cases. We are handling
main areas of resistiveness that are stopping the person from expanding. On L10 we
handle the main valences that make him restrain his havingness. On L11 we handle evil purposes that keep him from acting. On L12 we stabilize his certainty of being himself.
The 3 Ls roughly divide into Have (L10), Do (L11), and Be (L12).

Our main targets are past identities and evil purposes. We will gradually make the
person realize that they are not him and thereby free him from them.

Not sure when this was written or who wrote it, but the data presented conflicts with my understanding of areas addressed by Ls. In the early 90s, Flag materials said this:

The 3 Ls roughly divide into Do (L10), Have (L11 & L11 Expanded), and Be (L12).

Is this data more recent than mine?


Also--I have not done L10, but some of the questions listed seem to be asking for motivators.

I wonder if the "L10" being looked at is one assembled from "recall" by somebody.

[programmer_guy]

Roger,

Take your SCN beliefs to some major universities and get some professors and PHD candidates to spend a few years on it and report back to me on the findings.

[AlphOhm]

Roger,

Take your SCN beliefs to some major universities and get some professors and PHD candidates to spend a few years on it and report back to me on the findings.

Will you remain silent until then?

[programmer_guy]

Will you remain silent until then?

You are kidding me. Right?
You have got to be kidding me. :D

[dexter gelfand]

Absolutely brilliant, Roger.

It, of course, explains why those who have received Power and Power Plus, have had enormous wins with very few exceptions, if any. It would be interesting to develop a universal correction list that could be used on all former and present PCs.

Just a thought.

David.

I have Mate to thank for inspiring me to get my own power processing, which was followed by my training on power and now delivering on a regular basis. Thanks, friend!

As to your suggestion, how about PrPr3? ("What condition have you encountered in auditing/Scientology/Dianetics?" "How have you handled it?")
I consider it to be exactly what you are describing.

Love, Dex

[ULRC/S]

.

Is this data more recent than mine?


Also--I have not done L10, but some of the questions listed seem to be asking for motivators.

I wonder if the "L10" being looked at is one assembled from "recall" by somebody.

I know who did write this L's materials and neither of them were ever trained on the LRH materials and had no access to them.

They hadn't even had them as PCs.

The data was assembled by surveying perhaps 10 who had the Ls and it was based on these recalls.

Regards, Allen

[RogerB]

Not sure when this was written or who wrote it, but the data presented conflicts with my understanding of areas addressed by Ls. In the early 90s, Flag materials said this:

The 3 Ls roughly divide into Do (L10), Have (L11 & L11 Expanded), and Be (L12).

Is this data more recent than mine?


Also--I have not done L10, but some of the questions listed seem to be asking for motivators.

I wonder if the "L10" being looked at is one assembled from "recall" by somebody.



I know who did write this L's materials and neither of them were ever trained on the LRH materials and had no access to them.

They hadn't even had them as PCs.

The data was assembled by surveying perhaps 10 who had the Ls and it was based on these recalls.

Regards, Allen

Good honest input, gentlemen!

The reason I was somewhat voluminous in my write-up and cited the exact sources of the info available was so we could track the kinds of errors and crap you fellas have cited.

If anyone has other factual data to contribute, it'd be good to get it.

I have more to post later, but for now I'll let what's here run for a while.

Rog

[FoTi]

I have Mate to thank for inspiring me to get my own power processing, which was followed by my training on power and now delivering on a regular basis. Thanks, friend!

As to your suggestion, how about PrPr3? ("What condition have you encountered in auditing/Scientology/Dianetics?" "How have you handled it?")
I consider it to be exactly what you are describing.

Love, Dex


Isn't that similar to the process that used to be in the VMH on how to handle an SP?

[dexter gelfand]

Isn't that similar to the process that used to be in the VMH on how to handle an SP?

Hi Foti,

I don't recall that passage in the VMH, but as a matter of fact, PrPr6 "Tell me an existing condition"/"How have you handled it?", on which PrPR3 is based, is described as the process to handle an SP, as it brings to the surface and erases that incident that the SP is stuck in.

(Bear in mind, we are using the term "suppressive person" in technical sense, as a case condition, and not in the indiscriminate "ethics declare" sense as practiced in the CoS)

Love, Dex

[freet43]

Interesting, Roger.

At some point I found it no longer interesting to run processes that go to the past - you know earlier similar type stuff.

And, my absolute most favorite level was the original audited OTVII rundown, which most definitely dealt with the present and improved one's ability to project intention. What amazing, simple, but mind blowing powerful processes. Certainly, the stuff of OT is on that level! (and, of course, the CoS no longer delivers that level!!!!)

One observation, though... if Alan was correct on his theorizing, wouldn't the right "why" lead to a handling? however, if I understand correctly, Alan never did get a handle on his weight, or did he?

Thanks,
Marina



Roger’s Journal, 2010

I wrestled with whether to call this thread Roger’s Journal; this is response to several requests that I promised to fulfill, or whether to give it a technical name based on its subject matter and content.

Being a techie, tech won out.

Be warned, this following might shake up a stable datum or two :p

This first installment is comment on what I have found to be the biggest, most catastrophic goof in Scn tech that has yet not been recognized as such nor commented on anywhere (that I have seen).

As I look at this now, I can’t help thinking this might likely be the why, apart from the extent of abusive behavior by those in power, that Scn has become a failing piece of technology . . . but then, the abuse might even be explained by this gross, monster tech error that is inherent and built into its practice.

Alan Walter made a comment in his thread titled: “L10 and Obesity” here:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=7556

His comment got me to wondering as to what exactly had gone out: what was the tech factor that was the actual goof. Alan did not explain it. Whether he had unraveled what the actual tech point error is or not, I don’t know.

What he wrote in his opening post on the above thread was:

The above stuck in my mind from when I first read it 18 months or so ago, till I listened to Trey Lots’s 2010 FZ presentation here:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=476592&postcount=25

Trey explained that the L’s (or so he was told) were, in part, an extension of research based on the old early “GPMs” tech. This was new info to me.

He also, however, made two statements that were true: a) the GPMs were/are composed of Identities; a hung up structure of Identity versus counter Identity (certainly the putative own goals GPMs are) and b) what was being sought (in 1962 with own goals GPMs) was the GPM affecting you in present time. This I can vouch for as I ran that old stuff as and when released.

But what interested me was the way in which the “L’s tech” apparently related to the old GPM tech and their identities structure.

So I looked at the L10 R/D Trey had mentioned.

It says on page 534 of the on-line available PDF “Scientology OT levels” the following:


As it happened, even that last paragraph didn’t tip me off when I first read it. It was like: “Well, OK, that makes sense!” But I did feel a mass turn on slightly while I digested the statement, but ignored it as business as usual :duh: (One did get so used to this sort of thing happening, and then looking forward to the next session to “handle” it!

Page 548 has the specific description of L10, and the actual R/D is given on the pages following.

While there are a number of steps and different handlings for various areas of the R/D, this is what I observed.

On Page 549:
Areas/items to handle:


On Page 553, we see the questions to use on what is labeled the 8D RUNDOWN

I won’t list the entire series; it is long. But here is a sample for the questions for the 2D:


Here is another example from Page 560: the OVERTS BY DYNAMICS R/D



And it was here, when looking at all the above, that I saw what the hell had been screwing up all our cases since the beginning!

Notice that all those questions above, put you into the past!

Here is a datum. An important datum.

What is screwing up the present is in the PRESENT, it is here, now, doing its screwing up here, now! It is NOT in the past nor necessarily of the past! (I will get into the mechanics of this time notion/factor later on.)

What I saw is that the error which is endemic and a core erroneous principle in/of Scn is the idea that what is bugging you is in the past or from the past. This is a colossal error, and one that has screwed us all up.

Looking at the development of the tech, we can see how this error came into being and how it seemed so logical, and Oh so right to think that. It began with the early “successes” with Dianetics, and carried forward as “the truth behind what bugs you in Scn.” Of course this notion that what is bugging you and wrong with you is in or from your past didn’t begin with Dianetics. Hubbard took the notion from others.

What I realized in looking at all this is that virtually everyone in Scn has been hooked on the idea that what is “wrong with them,” and what is bugging them, is in or from their past . . . . when in fact, what has to be found, corrected and handled is in the present, NOW!

These are the questions that are being asked in all the R/Ds: “Have you ever . . .” “Have you or did you . . .?” That’s putting you in the past!

The questions should be rephrased so as to pick up the in present time, now, action that is screwing up the game. And folks need to be brought to a new understanding of what is going on. It’s not the past: it is the now that is screwing up the present and your futures.

The question needs to be: “Is there . . . ?” or “Are you . . . ?”

Now it may be true that the genesis of the now screwy action is in the past, but you should look in the present for the now screwy action . . . for that is where it is active.

The big, big error has been the constant ransacking of the past looking for things that MIGHT be active in the present and screwing it up. The trap in ransacking and stirring up all of the past in order to find the very few “items,” actions, intentions, solutions etc., that need be found is that you make all of the past live and stick the client back out of PT and into his past!

And this is what Alan wrote of. It is what I also experienced but didn’t particularly realize it till just these last few weeks. It’s been a colossal relief to let the past go, to let it settle out back into the past and to myself come (more) fully into PT and direct my powers, abilities, awareness and presence here where they can do their good.

The fact is, for the last fifty years or so, I’ve been stuck out of PT but trying to handle it and get better, etc., etc., and not aware of the actual what and why of my relative difficulties in operating.

Even so, it is true that I continued to get gains with the correct tech . . . but the truth is, I was actually handling a lot of unnecessary shit. (And OT3 and NOTs, forget about it . . . they are a destructive waste of time.)

What should have been located and addressed was: WHAT WAS I DOING IN PRESENT TIME TO SCREW UP MY PRESENT TIME!! For the fact is, that is where I live and should be playing the game: not in the past!

You old-timer will remember we used to often use the command at the end of sessions: “Come up to (or back up to) Present Time.” :D This has dropped out in “standard tech.”

This is now long. Other related pieces on another page,

RogerB

[degraded being]

Interesting, Roger.

At some point I found it no longer interesting to run processes that go to the past - you know earlier similar type stuff.

And, my absolute most favorite level was the original audited OTVII rundown, which most definitely dealt with the present and improved one's ability to project intention. What amazing, simple, but mind blowing powerful processes. Certainly, the stuff of OT is on that level! (and, of course, the CoS no longer delivers that level!!!!)

One observation, though... if Alan was correct on his theorizing, wouldn't the right "why" lead to a handling? however, if I understand correctly, Alan never did get a handle on his weight, or did he?

Thanks,
Marina

Marina, this is what *came up* when I read your post, The questions are not addressed to you personally.

Warning: entheta to follow.

".....if Alan was correct on his theorizing, wouldn't the right "why" lead to a handling?..."

My questions are similar: If the coolaid improvers are as brilliant as they paint themselves (see OP) wouldn't they have *spotted* the huge *outpoint* that this thread is about, several decades ago?
Next question. If the coolaid improvers are so good at out-geniusing the genius who created the labyrinth, would they not have found the exit instead of finding more and more pathways that keep them in the labyrinth?

[Hatshepsut]

RogerB

The big, big error has been the constant ransacking of the past looking for things that MIGHT be active in the present and screwing it up. The trap in ransacking and stirring up all of the past in order to find the very few “items,” actions, intentions, solutions etc., that need be found is that you make all of the past live and stick the client back out of PT and into his past!

Anyone who has had a barrage of repair lists that went nowhere has also experienced this reality. What is a shame is that sometimes such damn good setups get wasted. The person is in present time and nobody guesses what's causing a fresh upset one fine day. So...into a folder error summary. $$$$ :grouch:

[Leon]

Roger's post is certainly a good one. No doubts. However, LRH himself did talk of this exact thing in various of his lectures. The fact is that as much as auditing runs out charge and fixed postulates and so on, it also runs in certain lies. The "reality" of Time is one of them. The past does not exist - only present time exists - so there is nothing one can do in auditing to "send" a person back into the past. That is all delusion.`Only the present exists and the preclear is always in present time. He can't be anywhere else.

Space is a similar delusion, and so is the idea that the preclear is at the effect of his reactive mind. All of these are false assumptions that auditing tends to reinforce.

This is why LRH also said that once one has completed all of Scientology one is left with the the need to run out Scientology itself, and it is these specific lies that need to be run out. One has to run out the aberrative effect of all the auditing one has done.

The reason why auditing had to be the way it is is simply that the bank is structured this way. It does no good - except here and there with some very light processes - to go into a preclear's case from the viewpoint that Time is an illusion and that all is really in [present time, even though it is true. The fact is that the bank is not structured this way - the bank says there is time, and the preclear's entire experience of life confirms this. This is where LRH was coming from when he stressed the need to parallel the bank in programming and auditing.

So for as long as the preclear believes he is the effect of his bank you do not evaluate or invalidate and say that he is delusional, you simply take what he says and parallel it and proceed with the auditing. At some stage he will himself cognite that it is not so and what the truth is. To insist that he accept this truth at the start of his bridge is pointless.

HOWEVER, this is not to say that I disagree with Roger. What I am interested to see is how, by taking on the datum that only the present exists, are you going to formuilate this into auditing procedures that go as deeply into the bank as normal auditing can do. You make a few references by converting the "Have you ever . . . ?" into "Are you . . . ?" but that does not really clarify much. A question such as "Have you ever forced a girl into prostitution?" cuts a LOT deeper into the bank than "Are you forcing a girl into prostitution?"

Dex: That PrPr6 process exists in various versions in various places on the lower grades - none of them cutting as deeply as the actual PrPr does. They also go only to the Cog, Key out, F/N type of result and not the full power result. One of these versions is quite likely to be in the VMH book.


"Tell me an existing condition, How are you handling it?" - I don't think you're going to get much of an EP. But I'm willing to be wrong on this.

[Hatshepsut]

paradox



What Is Zen by Alan Watts

There is no way of defining the creative energy of the universe. Suppose God could come and talk to you, and you said, "God, this is a pretty complicated universe--in fact, it is amazing! How did you do it?" And God would say, "I don't know, I just did it."

Of course God does not know--if God had to think out every detail of it, it never would have happened. In just the same way, you breathe and you live: You don't know how you do it, but you are still doing it!

We have been taught by social convention, though, to restrict the concept of "myself" to "what I do voluntarily and consciously." This is a very narrow view of the self. Certainly if you say, "I, by my ego and my intelligence, created all this," you would be conceited, and you know you are a liar. But you is much deeper than that; you includes far more than your conscious mind. It is the total you that not only is responsible for the infinitely complex structure of your physical organism, but also for the environment in which you find yourself. You runs that deep.

It is you in that sense, the total you, that is the root and ground of everything. And yet we arrange our image of who we are around a principle of human sociability, which is measured by our ability to get along together according to our system of social convention. And as a result we so often end up putting everyone down, including ourselves, because nobody's perfect, and because as my mother used to say to me, "You're not the only pebble on the beach!"

Why don't we instead try the other technique, and put everyone "up" instead of down? It might be that everyone would get along far better that way than they do by putting everybody down! Of course, whatever you do, you have to do it uniformly for everyone. You can't say, "Well, Johnny is the Lord God, but Peter isn't!"

As a result of our social conventions, we all feel ourselves to be strangers in the world. We are disconnected from it all, and it is something that "happens" to us that we endure passively, and that we *receive* passively. And we never get to the point where we realize we are actually doing the whole thing! It is up to you. You make your troubles and you put yourself into a trap. You confuse yourself and forget that you did it, and then ask how to get out of it! A verse from the Mumonkan, a famous book of koans puts it this way: "Asking where Buddha is, is like hiding loot in your pocket and declaring yourself innocent!"

To finally admit it, and to come to the recognition that it was you, requires a certain kind of nerve. I don't mean "nerve" in the sense of being brash and cheeky. I mean the sort of sense that you use when, for the first time, you take a plane off the ground, or when you pull a cloth off the table and leave all the dishes on the table! That sort of nerve has nothing to do with pride in the ordinary sense. It is being ready to leap in, somehow. You see it, and jump in.

But most of us lack that kind of sense. Instead we have what I would call an ambivalent sense of responsibility. We say, "Now, look: It is only me here--just little me. I have certain responsibilities, and they are such and so, but that means as well that there are a lot of things I am certainly not responsible for." And in our social conventions we play games about where we are going to draw the line that defines what we are--and what we're not--responsible for.

When someone is in some kind of social or psychological difficulty and someone has been irresponsible in some way, we wonder what caused the problem: "Why are they like that?" And instead of attributing the problem to the person our psychologists tend to refer it back to other things and other people: It was because of their environment, or because of family conditioning, or because of their father and mother. But there is no end to that, because you can take the blame straight back to Adam and Eve! And responsibility is evaded because it was limited in the first place.

We think that the world is limited and explained by its past. We tend to think that what happened in the past determines what is going to happen next, and we do not see that it is exactly the other way around! What is always the source of the world is the present; the past doesn't explain a thing. The past trails behind the present like the wake of a ship, and eventually disappears.

Now you would say that obviously when you see a ship crossing the ocean with the wake trailing behind it that the ship is the cause of the wake. But if you get into the state of mind that believes in causality as we do, you see that the wake is the cause of the ship! And that is surely making the tail wag the dog!

The point is this: You will never find the mystery of the creation of the world in the past. It never was created in the past. Because truly there is nothing else--and never was anything else--except the present! There never will be anything else except the present.

Life is always present, and the past is a kind of echo, a tracing within the present of what the present did before. We can say, "Oh well, we can guess what the present will do next because of what it has done in the past." And this is true: Because of what it does habitually, you may guess it will go on doing it like that. But still it is not the past that controls the present any more than the wake controls the ship. Now from the record of the past you can study the nature of the present and predict what sort of things its likely to do. But sometimes it surprises you when something new happens, as every so often it does.

It is always in the immediate here and now that things begin. And so one of the essentials of Zen training is, to quote a certain parrot from Huxley's *Island*, "Here and now, boys!" *Be here*.

And in order to be here, you can't be looking for a result! People keep asking me, "Why do you do this? What do you want to get out of it?" But these questions imply that my motivation is different from my action. It is talking about it in terms of Newtonian billiards--in Newton's explanation of mechanics and behavior he used an analogy with billiards. The balls--the fundamental atoms--are banging each other about; a ball will be still until something bangs it, and that bang will be its motivation, and set it in motion. So when we say, "Human beings behave in such-and-such a way because of unconscious mental mechanisms," this is really Newtonian psychology and it is out-of-date. Today we need a psychology that is current with quantum theory at least, not one that is tied to mechanical causality.

It is difficult for us to understand this, however, unless we turn things around, as in the analogy of the ship and the wake. If you understand fully that it is from the present that everything happens, then the only place for you to be, the only place for you to live, is here right now.

People immediately say, however, "Now wait a minute. That's all very well, but I want to be sure that under such-and-such circumstances and in such-and-such eventualities I will be able to deal with it. It's all very well to live in the present when I am sitting comfortably in a warm room reading this, or meditating, but what am i going to do if all hell breaks loose? What if there's an earthquake, or if I get sick, or my best friends get sick, or some catastrophe happens? How will I deal with that? Don't I have to prepare myself to deal with those things? Shouldn't I get into some sort of psychological training, so that when disasters come I won't be thrown?"

That, you would ordinarily think, is the way to proceed--but it doesn't work very well. It is much better to say, "sufficient unto the day is the trouble thereof," and to trust yourself to react appropriately when the catastrophe happens. Whatever happens, you'll probably have to improvise, and failure of nerve is really failure to trust yourself. You have a great endowment of brain, muscle, sensitivity, intelligence--trust it to react to circumstances as they arise.

Zen deals with this. Studying Zen will change the way you react to circumstances as they arise. Wait and see how you deal with whatever circumstances come your way, because the you that will deal with them will not be simply your conscious intelligence or conscious attention. In that moment it will be all of you, and that is beyond the control of the will because the will is only a fragment having certain functions.

But if you really know how to live from your center, you live now, and know that now is the origin of everything. This way, you stand a much better chance of being able to deal with the unforeseen than if you keep worrying about it and considering past lessons and future possibilities.

I know that this sounds impractical to some of you, or perhaps revolutionary, or perhaps not even possible, but it is simply living in the present. It requires a certain kind of poise: If you make exact plans to deal with the future and things don't happen at all as you expected, you are apt to become thoroughly disappointed and disoriented. But if your plans are flexible and adaptable, and if you're here when things happen, you always stay balanced.

As in movement or martial arts, keep your center of gravity between your feet, and don't cross your feet, because the moment you do you are off balance. Stay always in the center position, and stay always here. Then it doesn't matter which direction the attack comes from; it doesn't matter what happens at all.

If you expect something to come in a certain way you position yourself to get ready for it. If it comes another way, by the time you reposition your energy, it is too late. So stay in the center and you will be ready to move in any direction.

This is the real meaning of zazen, or sitting Zen: to sit in the center. As you begin sitting meditation the first thing to do is find your center, and become comfortable with it, so that you are neither leaning forward nor sitting back. When one's body is balanced in this way the forces of high and low, the heart and breath, and mind and feeling merge at the center.

To sit in zazen in order to perfect a technique for attaining enlightenment, however, is fundamentally a mistaken approach. Sit just to sit. And why not sit? You have to sit sometime, and so you may as well really sit, and be altogether here. Otherwise the mind wanders away from the matter at hand, and away from the present. Even to think through the implications of the present is to avoid the present moment completely.

When you are meditating, it is perfectly fine to be aware of anything that's around: things on the floor, the smell of the atmosphere, the little noises going on. Be there! But when you hear a dog bark, and that starts off a train of thought about dogs in general, about your dog, or somebody else's dog, then you have wandered away from being here. Of course you finally will come to the point where you realize there is no way of wandering away from being here, because there is nowhere else to be. Even if you think about somewhere else, past or future, this is all happening now.

Through this you will also come to understand how to be a scholar and a historian, if you wish to, and still live in the present. That was how D.T. Suzuki was able to be scholarly and intellectual, and yet at the same time not to depart at all from the spirit of Zen, which is beyond the intellect. you can intellectualize in a Zen way, just as you can sweep floors in a Zen way, but of course the key to the matter is centering--being really here. Because this is the point of origin of the world, and it is at the same time the destination of the world.

This is the real meaning of dhyana, which in Sanskrit is the kind of concentration or meditation that constitutes Zen. Zen is simply the Japanese way of pronouncing dhyana, and it is that state of centeredness which is here and now.

When you practice zazen, just sit and enjoy yourself being quiet. It is not a duty at all; it is a great pleasure! Get up early in the morning when the sunlight is just beginning to show. It doesn't matter where you are, just sit.

Don't have any thoughts, but don't compulsively try to get rid of thoughts. It's just not important. The real thing is what is--what is here, now. After all, here you are, and you may as well see it!

Eventually, a curious feeling will overcome you, one that is very hard to describe in words. I just said that the origin of the world is now--and there is this odd sensation that now comprises everything: the most distant past, the most remote future, the vastness of space, all states of experience, all joy, all sorrow, all heights, all depths. Everything is now. There isn't anywhere else to be--there never was, and never will be!

That is why you were never born, and therefore cannot die. You never came, so you won't go. You were always here. It's a very curious feeling, so different from what we ordinarily think. In entering into the now, we find the eternal now. We find infinity in the split second.


As they say in Yoga, liberation lies in the interval between two thoughts. Between the past thought and the future thought lies now--there is no present thought.

As one of the Zen texts puts it, "One thought follows another without interruption. But if you allow these thoughts to link up into a chain, you put yourself in bondage."

Actually, this present moment never comes to be and it never ceases to be, it is simply our minds that construct the continuity of thoughts we call time. In the present moment is nirvana.

As the great Zen master Dogen explains, in the course of the seasons, the spring does not "become" the summer. And when wood burns, the wood does not "become" the ashes. There is the state of wood, and then there is the state of ashes. There is the state of spring; there is the state of summer. The spring does not become the summer; the wood does not become the ashes; the living body does not become the corpse. That only happens in us, in our minds, when we link our thoughts together. "Oh, no! I will become a corpse!" But you won't. You won't be there when there is a corpse!Excerpted from book, What is Zen? by
Alan Watts (1915-1973)
Part II "Zen Reconsidered"

I'm so glad you posted this. I was searching the internet for something D. T. Suzuki said about the use of Zen as a set up for final true enlightenment. Looking at about the same time you posted this.

I wish I could find it.

http://i986.photobucket.com/albums/ae345/loutupper/hb0j49p128-FID4.jpg__http://i986.photobucket.com/albums/ae345/loutupper/imagesCAARNDBL.jpg


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satori

Satori is sometimes loosely used interchangeably with kensho, but kensho refers to the first perception of the Buddha-Nature or True-Nature, sometimes referred to as "awakening." Distinct from kensho, which is not a permanent realization but a clear glimpse of the true nature of existence, satori is used to refer to a "deep" or lasting realization of the nature of existence.

Satori in the Zen tradition does not actually happen to an individual, rather it is a realization out of all concepts including the individual. Practitioners of Zen Buddhism, however, work to realize the true nature of existence. The student's mind often must be prepared by rigorous study, with the use of koans, and with meditation to clear the mind of all attachments to the physical world.

It is therefore customary to use the word satori, rather than kensho, when referring to the realization of the Buddha and the Patriarchs with Bodhisattvas; these figures recognized that "all things are Buddha things" and therefore any separation between self and the universe is illusory.

According to D. T. Suzuki, "Satori is the raison d'être of Zen, without which Zen is no Zen. Therefore every contrivance, disciplinary and doctrinal, is directed towards satori."[1]

[Dulloldfart]

HOWEVER, this is not to say that I disagree with Roger. What I am interested to see is how, by taking on the datum that only the present exists, are you going to formuilate this into auditing procedures that go as deeply into the bank as normal auditing can do. You make a few references by converting the "Have you ever . . . ?" into "Are you . . . ?" but that does not really clarify much. A question such as "Have you ever forced a girl into prostitution?" cuts a LOT deeper into the bank than "Are you forcing a girl into prostitution?"

Part of the procedure of "proper" sec-checking is to "groove in the question". This does not involve merely an academic clearing of what the question means, but really rubbing the person's face in it to stir up any charge that is there. Once it is stirred up, it is *now* in present time. Although the language is couched in the past ("What did you do then?") the pc is viewing it as of the present, although he is aware it is an action in the past.

Sec-checking tries to wring every last soupçon of charge out of an incident before going earlier similar, so is better than R3R in this respect in that non-narrative R3R(A) dives into the past at the drop of a hat and so misses a lot.

Saying there is no time and there is no space might be useful in some philosophic discussion, but it doesn't have a whole lot of application to bodily life on Earth.

Paul.

[paradox]

paradox

I'm so glad you posted this. I was searching the internet for something D. T. Suzuki said about the use of Zen as a set up for final true enlightenment. Looking at about the same time you posted this.

I wish I could find it.

Hi Hatshepsut. Let me know if you find what you were looking for. Reading between the lines, as it were, I think I may have a pretty good idea of what he would be driving at in that regard, even though I have not read him directly. Good stuff from wiki, too; thanks. :thumbsup:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/picture.php?albumid=89&pictureid=1108
Enlightenment

http://www.forum.exscn.net/picture.php?albumid=89&pictureid=1109
Past, Present, & Future

[Leon]

Part of the procedure of "proper" sec-checking is to "groove in the question". This does not involve merely an academic clearing of what the question means, but really rubbing the person's face in it to stir up any charge that is there. Once it is stirred up, it is *now* in present time. Although the language is couched in the past ("What did you do then?") the pc is viewing it as of the present, although he is aware it is an action in the past.

Sec-checking tries to wring every last soupçon of charge out of an incident before going earlier similar, so is better than R3R in this respect in that non-narrative R3R(A) dives into the past at the drop of a hat and so misses a lot.

Saying there is no time and there is no space might be useful in some philosophic discussion, but it doesn't have a whole lot of application to bodily life on Earth.

Paul.



This is correct, and it is one reason why Robert Ducharme's R3X is so superior to R3R. He flattens each incident on the chain fully before going earlier.

[dexter gelfand]

Dex: That PrPr6 process exists in various versions in various places on the lower grades - none of them cutting as deeply as the actual PrPr does. They also go only to the Cog, Key out, F/N type of result and not the full power result. One of these versions is quite likely to be in the VMH book.

"Tell me an existing condition, How are you handling it?" - I don't think you're going to get much of an EP. But I'm willing to be wrong on this.

I quite agree, Leon. I've found what you could call precursors to the power processes from 10 years earlier, in processes taken from lectures given in 1955.

In changing the question "How have you handled it?" as per PrPr6, to the version you reference, "How are you handling it?" (present time, instead of past track), you won't get the PC cycling on the track, so you are not likely to get the phenomena of PrPr6, the key incident revivifying, but I could see how you could get charge of and erasure of something, because you are still, in effect, running effort processing, getting the effort and counter-effort alternately.

Love, Dex

[RogerB]

Roger’s Journal #2

OK, I see the opening post has sparked some good stuff for many of you. Nice.

Basically, it was a simple point I was endeavoring to make, but felt I had to write fulsomely to get it in context.

I don’t know that a simple one-off statement of the point would have done it; for example in the terms that:

“There is a great intrinsic error in Scn that is at the very essence of much of its practice; and that is the belief that in order to fix/remedy what is out or going badly in the present one must look in the past.”

The error is in not looking in the present but instead automatically going into the past to find things that are supposed to be affecting your present; whereas what is affecting your present is in the present and finding it there enables one to remedy the present.

Now it may be that the genesis of what is affecting the present has carried forward from “the past”; but it is also sometimes the case that what is affecting the present is doing so from the future. :D

Thus, the only correct procedure for handling the present is to look in the present for what is affecting/screwing-up the present, locate it and to then trace it to its source and handle it.

In essence, you only need to locate the things that are ongoing in the present that are screwing-up the present. The notion of ransacking the past in order to “clean up everything” on the basis, belief or idea that “this is the stuff, all this stuff of the past, is what is screwing you up,” is utterly false and dangerous to a client. A classic example of this error is the CofS trick of having folks do extensive write-ups of “all of their O/Ws of the past.” Another is Sec Checking with questions beginning with the phrase: “Have you ever . . . ?” What a wonderful way to get your attention spread all over the time trail and get it stuck there! :duh:

At a minimum, it is making the past more important than your present! :duh:

A better R/D and question would, for example, be: “Is there a harmful act your are committing continuously?” Note that question gets the PT screw up. It does not pull all the useless past in on the client. Or another example: “Is there a harmful act you have attention hung up on or having to restrain?” These examples would get any stuff that is stuck and affecting the present.

There are many R/Ds in Scn that stick the client with the past. NOTs, OT3 are classics for this.

There are, as noted by some responding on this thread, also many R/Ds in Scn that wonderfully address the present and produce spectacular gains that benefit the client and their future prosperity. So, it ain’t all bad there in Scn . . . . but what is bad, is so bad it is factually dangerous.

It is to be noted that the early version of “O/W” from 1959-60 addressed “dones and withholds” in the present that were also good, not just bad, and had the advantage of running the client in present time dealing with what came to view in the present. It is one of the perversions of later Scn that the process was made to focus on both the past and the “bad.” :angry:

It is also to be noted that, every so often, rummaging about in the past to find something that unlocks a PT situation strikes gold, and the client has a big win as a result. But the rummaging in the past to find it instead of looking in the present takes its toll and typically screws up the wins achieved.

David raised the idea of a correction list to handle the case trouble caused by this erroneous piece of tech.

It might just be as simple as the question: “Has an auditing question or R/D put you in the past and stuck you with it? Or alternatively: “Has an auditing question or R/D put you in the past and caused it to be stuck with you, or caused you to be stuck there?”

Once found and indicated. The handling would be the simple usual, with a final step of inviting the PC to be in PT, here.

I suspect that any among you here that had this BPC scenario are likely coming out of it now that it has been indicated (if it sparked for you as an “Oh shit, that happened to me!). Now the why of that particular case difficulty has been spotted, your actual living of life and directing attention into the PT environment will likely relocate your awareness from the past into the present.

Though in my case, having been screwed around with since 1957 and all up and down the “Bridge,” I’ve had more than one “stuck point in the past” to handle/clean-up.

Since November, 1994, I’ve been working on recovering my various earlier ascension states using Knowledgism tech, along with generally advancing my case. There were an array of spiritual abilities and powers “recovered” and/or opened up in the early years on Scn only to be “lost” due to O/R and/or other erroneous or incomplete tech in Scn. It has required lots of clean up, running stuff that, had the case been run in Kn from the beginning, would likely never have had to be dealt with.

I mention this because the tech point I am making on this thread has been a key element in the successes of the individuals I have processed and case advised with Kn. And the continued wins and progress of these folks stands in stark contrast to the roller-coaster ups and downs of the Scn “win” then crash and burn phenomena.

The case progress for my folk has gone something like this. Some clients first had to address what they “wanted handled,” then they went on to addressing what it is they wanted to accomplish in life—which often involves dealing with and removing that which is in the way of attainment. Then, as the client becomes more spiritually aware, one targets the clients “Prime Dreams and Aspirations” and handling the identities/Beingnesses and powers and abilities required to operate optumumly, along with unlocking the jammed Games Matrices involved.

In Virginia’s case, she never had any “wants handleds,” and went straight into processing the positive and “Upgrading of Present Time and Future Existences.” (Actually, that’s also the name of one of Alan’s R/Ds.)

And all this based on what is in the client’s present time, now.

Yes, past stuff is dealt with. But it is as Paul says, one finds a PT scenario and in dealing with that PT scenario, it unstacks and opens up and what is revealed is the why/what carried forward from the “past” that is operating in the present to cause the strife. And the point must also be made here that, sometimes what is screwing up the client are their expectations and visions of the future.

Thus one is really only ever dealing with what’s in the “here, now” regardless of where it came from.

Alan deals with this on his Pandora’s Box thread, post# 353, here.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=212927&postcount=353

I also dealt with the issue of addressing case stuff “in the present,” following Alan’s on the thread on Post# 357, 361 and on the next page.:

Paul and I developed a rather wizard little R/D based on the truth that it is one’s PT action/intentions that are what screw you up. It was on his thread “Out-Int — Fact or Fiction?” here: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=19156
We resolved the unresolvable, endless, endless Int R/D by addressing the now continuum, ongoing automatic intention the client is unwittingly carrying out in the present moment.

As it happens, I’ve had some personal communications regarding this thread; and some points were raised that I can address. Also I have some answers that might help many of you unravel this issue of “time” and why stuff hangs up from the “past.”

This is now long, so I’ll do a page break and put the next part of it on a new page.

RogerB

[RogerB]

Interesting, Roger.

At some point I found it no longer interesting to run processes that go to the past - you know earlier similar type stuff.

And, my absolute most favorite level was the original audited OTVII rundown, which most definitely dealt with the present and improved one's ability to project intention. What amazing, simple, but mind blowing powerful processes. Certainly, the stuff of OT is on that level! (and, of course, the CoS no longer delivers that level!!!!)

One observation, though... if Alan was correct on his theorizing, wouldn't the right "why" lead to a handling? however, if I understand correctly, Alan never did get a handle on his weight, or did he?

Thanks,
Marina

Marina, :):happydance::yes: on your wins!

On yours in red above, I don't have an answer on Alan's weight scenario . . . just some opinion :D

I'd say he got the right why on his case upsets, and he was successfully handling such . . . . though being as close to him as I was, and having on occasion gotten tangled in some of his research and stuff, I have to say it's a big job.

Old-timers like he and me who did so many R/Ds and such colossal numbers of hours thinking we were going in the right direction, had a lot of unstacking of shit to do and repair.

But on his weight, the L10 thing might or might not have been a complete why. He did at one point (1994-5) tell me that he put on weight during and as a result of research into cracking the Earlier Universes scene.

When I reconnected with him in Nov. 1994, he was pretty heavy, ?? maybe 275?? though certainly not the 420lb he ballooned to by around 1999-2000.

Remember I 1st met him in '62 when he was still fit from his pro-athlete days (as I was:D) So, 275 looked puddingly to me . . . and 425 looked positively balloon-like.

Alan did go vegetarian and was so in 1995. I have a sense that also contributed to his weight gain.

Also, he had chronic knee injuries from his athlete days which caused constant pain (bone rubbing on bone) so he became very inactive and simply concentrated on his research and the putting of the Knowledgism materials together.

He made the comment, regularly on tape, that he simply sat all day without moving except for necessities.

But case can be an issue. I remember one visit to the ranch . . . I typically arrived late in the evenings from NYC. On this particular trip, when I got up in the morning to take myself into my solo session, as I addressed what was in my then PT space, I suddenly found this colossal enveloping, inwards vectoring mass and energy field.

It was a totally blocking, enveloping and accumulating energy mass.

Took me a bit of a WTF? but in due course I got the what and the scene of it (not going to tell here :no:) and handled it. But it was an amazing revelation.

So I told Eric W, the then senior tech terminal, so we could include this issue in any case programming he would do for my upcoming processing sessions.

Eric looked at me aghast. It turned out I had collided with the remnants of what he and Alan had been researching the night before and not been able to crack :melodramatic:

My cracking it appeared to enable to area/subject to be able to cleaned up for all concerned.

I tell you this because screwed up case can heap enormous, even crippling case forces and mass onto a body.

PS: Alan did take great pride in telling me that he'd shed 140-60lb off of his weight at one point.

Rog

[FoTi]

Hi Foti,

I don't recall that passage in the VMH, but as a matter of fact, PrPr6 "Tell me an existing condition"/"How have you handled it?", on which PrPR3 is based, is described as the process to handle an SP, as it brings to the surface and erases that incident that the SP is stuck in.

(Bear in mind, we are using the term "suppressive person" in technical sense, as a case condition, and not in the indiscriminate "ethics declare" sense as practiced in the CoS)

Love, Dex



Yeh, that was it....it was in the PTS/SP section of the VMH that I had back in '83 or '84....what to run or how to handle an SP casewise. I no longer have the book to give you the page reference.

What does PrPR3 or PrPR6 mean?

[dexter gelfand]

Yeh, that was it....it was in the PTS/SP section of the VMH that I had back in '83 or '84....what to run or how to handle an SP casewise. I no longer have the book to give you the page reference.

What does PrPR3 or PrPR6 mean?

Hi Foti, "PrPr" is short for "Power Process"- Power Process 3, Power Process 6, etc.

Love, Dex

[dexter gelfand]

Roger’s Journal #2

“There is a great intrinsic error in Scn that is at the very essence of much of its practice; and that is the belief that in order to fix/remedy what is out or going badly in the present one must look in the past.”

The error is in not looking in the present but instead automatically going into the past to find things that are supposed to be affecting your present; whereas what is affecting your present is in the present and finding it there enables one to remedy the present.

....
Thus, the only correct procedure for handling the present is to look in the present for what is affecting/screwing-up the present, locate it and to then trace it to its source and handle it.

In essence, you only need to locate the things that are ongoing in the present that are screwing-up the present. The notion of ransacking the past in order to “clean up everything” on the basis, belief or idea that “this is the stuff, all this stuff of the past, is what is screwing you up,” is utterly false and dangerous to a client. A classic example of this error is the CofS trick of having folks do extensive write-ups of “all of their O/Ws of the past.” Another is Sec Checking with questions beginning with the phrase: “Have you ever . . . ?” What a wonderful way to get your attention spread all over the time trail and get it stuck there! :duh:

At a minimum, it is making the past more important than your present! :duh:

A better R/D and question would, for example, be: “Is there a harmful act your are committing continuously?” Note that question gets the PT screw up. It does not pull all the useless past in on the client. Or another example: “Is there a harmful act you have attention hung up on or having to restrain?” These examples would get any stuff that is stuck and affecting the present.

RogerB

Good stuff, Roger! Makes sense to me that it's not the best use of processing time to spend it looking backtrack for things that aren't in restim in the first place.:)

Love, Dex

[Infinite]

Its a pity many "out" Scientologists don't have a more favourable attitude towards psychoanalysis (http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=ppsy.021.0645a) and related fields. The idea that a constant focussing on the past leads to trapping a person there is an old one. Sure, there is a need to examine the past but only so long as it relates specifically to behaviours manifesting in the "here and now". Often the realisation of a pattern of behaviour is sufficient to commence work on changing the present, there's no need to endlessly "flatten" previous experiences.

Its easy to understand why Hubbard and the cult prefer the life-regression model: there's simply so much stuff to cover (especially when you have multiple life times to pick over) that will require more and more auditing.

As difficult as it may be and as frustrating as some might find it, I would recommend that all Scientologists "come up to present time" in relation to modern thinking on therapeutic models from a range of disciplines. I'm sure there are many parrallels just as I am sure there are many ideas which might spur developments of your own model.

[Zinjifar]

If anything, I'd say psychoanalysis suffers from the same pseudo-scientific magical 'theories' as Scientology, and, it's pretty roundly debunked as a therapeutic tool, assuming you're not trying to lock someone into a permanent dependency.

However, I'll assume you're talking about other forms of psychiatric/psychological therapy, and that's true. The best psychiatry/psychology/therapy helps the person to be *happy* and 'well adjusted' rather than tilting eternally after 'basic' trauma/engram.

Zinj

[Infinite]

If anything, I'd say psychoanalysis suffers from the same pseudo-scientific magical 'theories' as Scientology, and, it's pretty roundly debunked as a therapeutic tool, assuming you're not trying to lock someone into a permanent dependency.

However, I'll assume you're talking about other forms of psychiatric/psychological therapy, and that's true. The best psychiatry/psychology/therapy helps the person to be *happy* and 'well adjusted' rather than tilting eternally after 'basic' trauma/engram.

Zinj

All true. I picked psychoanalysis in this case because, inter alia, it formed the basis for Hubbard's initial version of Dianetics and would thus be a familiar starting point for Scientologists willing to examine other practises.

I will say, though, Roger does the subject a grand favour by bringing new thinking to what has become a sclerotic field. I don't mean to dismiss his contribution, but to encourage it. Lets have more.

[Ted]

Roger’s Journal, 2010

[snippage...]

Here is another example from Page 560: the OVERTS BY DYNAMICS R/D



And it was here, when looking at all the above, that I saw what the hell had been screwing up all our cases since the beginning!

Notice that all those questions above, put you into the past!

Here is a datum. An important datum.

What is screwing up the present is in the PRESENT, it is here, now, doing its screwing up here, now! It is NOT in the past nor necessarily of the past! (I will get into the mechanics of this time notion/factor later on.)

What I saw is that the error which is endemic and a core erroneous principle in/of Scn is the idea that what is bugging you is in the past or from the past. This is a colossal error, and one that has screwed us all up.

Looking at the development of the tech, we can see how this error came into being and how it seemed so logical, and Oh so right to think that. It began with the early “successes” with Dianetics, and carried forward as “the truth behind what bugs you in Scn.” Of course this notion that what is bugging you and wrong with you is in or from your past didn’t begin with Dianetics. Hubbard took the notion from others.

What I realized in looking at all this is that virtually everyone in Scn has been hooked on the idea that what is “wrong with them,” and what is bugging them, is in or from their past . . . . when in fact, what has to be found, corrected and handled is in the present, NOW!

These are the questions that are being asked in all the R/Ds: “Have you ever . . .” “Have you or did you . . .?” That’s putting you in the past!

The questions should be rephrased so as to pick up the in present time, now, action that is screwing up the game. And folks need to be brought to a new understanding of what is going on. It’s not the past: it is the now that is screwing up the present and your futures.

The question needs to be: “Is there . . . ?” or “Are you . . . ?”

Now it may be true that the genesis of the now screwy action is in the past, but you should look in the present for the now screwy action . . . for that is where it is active.

The big, big error has been the constant ransacking of the past looking for things that MIGHT be active in the present and screwing it up. The trap in ransacking and stirring up all of the past in order to find the very few “items,” actions, intentions, solutions etc., that need be found is that you make all of the past live and stick the client back out of PT and into his past!

And this is what Alan wrote of. It is what I also experienced but didn’t particularly realize it till just these last few weeks. It’s been a colossal relief to let the past go, to let it settle out back into the past and to myself come (more) fully into PT and direct my powers, abilities, awareness and presence here where they can do their good.

The fact is, for the last fifty years or so, I’ve been stuck out of PT but trying to handle it and get better, etc., etc., and not aware of the actual what and why of my relative difficulties in operating.

Even so, it is true that I continued to get gains with the correct tech . . . but the truth is, I was actually handling a lot of unnecessary shit. (And OT3 and NOTs, forget about it . . . they are a destructive waste of time.)

What should have been located and addressed was: WHAT WAS I DOING IN PRESENT TIME TO SCREW UP MY PRESENT TIME!! For the fact is, that is where I live and should be playing the game: not in the past!

You old-timer will remember we used to often use the command at the end of sessions: “Come up to (or back up to) Present Time.” :D This has dropped out in “standard tech.”

This is now long. Other related pieces on another page,

RogerB


Correctomundo, Roger!

LRH noted a great many things worthy of some further exploration and concentrated effort. For whatever reason(s) he just yapped a bit about one thing or another then moved on. Sometimes I feel he was more interested in being interesting or being the solitary vanguard of tech. Other times I feel he was looking to beef up income. Other times I feel he was being genuinely concerned.

LRH wrote or mentioned on more than one occasion that a sane person has attention on the future, a neurotic is fixed on the present, and a psychotic is fixed on the past. That being the case, didn't anyone wonder why the majority of processes had a person hammering away at the backtrack? Why were Clears still running engrams and "earlier similar" incidents?

In conversations on alt.clearing.technology Alan echoed, on more than one post, this point about past, present, and future. Given the earlier conversations, when I arrived in Dallas to do the Setup/Upset Course I was a little surprised at some of the process commands/questions beginning with the Clean Slate Drill. They called for more rummaging through the past.

I told Eric I had nothing to run as I was totally fine with what was. I was seeking to optimize my present and future. That's not to say some past experience would never come to view. It is to say that processing the past as the first and only focal point of process commands is just wrong target. It seems to me to be a great way to make a Clear act nuts -- just keep jamming his attention on what was. (By Clear I mean anyone whose thoughts are clear on any particular subject.)

This I brought to Eric's attention. He said he would relay the info the Alan. I assume he did. The process commands/questions were changed to reflect no past-present-future time constraint or demand on the client. I would have preferred to be consulted on the exact commands, but I was not. As they are they lack finesse which could only come about by auditor/processor understanding of what he is attempting to accomplish with the client. Nevertheless, the changes were an improvement.

Dully mentioned sec checks and grooving in the questions a few posts earlier. Here's what I have to say about grooving in: The assumption is there is more on the track that the pc is not-ising or more that could pop up to affect the pc whenever the environment or pc's own actions kick in the overt. In fact, there are a lot of presumptions with the time-track model of auditing. I agree with Leon: There are lies (presumptions) that eventually need to be cleared, i.e. the pc needs to be cleared of Scientology itself.

Note that in heavy-handed sec checking the pc is ganged up on then made to come up with an overt that satisfies the sec checker and his oppressive teammates. Eventually the pc can't get out of the sec check by telling the truth; he has to invent some horrendous overt that is acceptable to the sec checker and C/S and E/O, etc. Well, it's a present-time invention. The pc is made to believe, by reason of the philosophy itself, that the overt is actual. Others insist on positioning it as an actual, long-gone overt incident, then saddle the pc with its implications.

Say overt acts are the target of the client's auditing. In the present-time model, the client is simply sits there in PT and imagines or mocks up: "Imagine (mockup, etc.) a (horrendous, huge, unforgivable, etc.) overt (on any Dynamic or other specificity). An inability to imagine or mockup would indicate some work, maybe a lower gradient, would be in order. Better yet, why not imagine tremendously laudable acts? If the client can't, there might be something there to run out.

Anyway, there's a lot to be said when it comes to slaughtering Scientology's sacred cows. This business about going earlier similar and hammering away at present time's perception of what was is certainly one area to address.

[RogerB]

Nice input, Ted!

If I recall correctly, you had a hand in affecting some correction/enhancement to the identities handling procedure (Presence Three) also.

Nice.

Rog

[uniquemand]

Its a pity many "out" Scientologists don't have a more favourable attitude towards psychoanalysis (http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=ppsy.021.0645a) and related fields. The idea that a constant focussing on the past leads to trapping a person there is an old one. Sure, there is a need to examine the past but only so long as it relates specifically to behaviours manifesting in the "here and now". Often the realisation of a pattern of behaviour is sufficient to commence work on changing the present, there's no need to endlessly "flatten" previous experiences.

Its easy to understand why Hubbard and the cult prefer the life-regression model: there's simply so much stuff to cover (especially when you have multiple life times to pick over) that will require more and more auditing.

As difficult as it may be and as frustrating as some might find it, I would recommend that all Scientologists "come up to present time" in relation to modern thinking on therapeutic models from a range of disciplines. I'm sure there are many parrallels just as I am sure there are many ideas which might spur developments of your own model.

I agree that psychoanalysis is worth study. Not because I believe that long-form psychoanalysis is necessary, but because there are some nuggets of value within it.

Modern cognitive flooding and REBT are the modes closest to that which I espouse as valid, now.

However, if you study where they came from, it becomes clear (tm) why they trimmed down, changed focus, etc., and this deepens your understanding of the whole field.

[RogerB]

Roger’s Journal #3

As mentioned in my last journal, I’ve had some personal communications on this issue.

Here’s an extract from an individual who’d done a very extensive stint on S/NOTs (along with all of the “search through and ransack the past” accoutrements that nowadays go along with it :duh:). In essence the individual related how the ability to operate and perform in PT and be successful just simply declined and eventually crashed. Life was a mess.


I wrote to Alan and pointed out that I'd learned by reading the data of OTVIII that next to NONE of the ev purps, overts and identities that I'd run were ever really mine, in fact 99% of the track is mis owned, in fact nothing to do with you or me AT ALL.

He pointed out that running those identities also allowed you to misown their whole package, ser facs, disabilities, etc.

So the whole bridge of subjective auditing was bunk.... great.

Here is my cog that I've had as a result; Lrh defined PT too narrowly. As a trader or a businessman PT is a much broader concept than Lron let on. It even involves calculation and thought/ comparison to related data. Maybe I haven't worded this well, I've got to run now, but there you have it.

Yep!

The trap with the Scn “Bridge” and the OT levels as they now line up (apart from being a gross evaluation of “what is wrong with you”) is that it sticks you with a “what you are supposed to be effect of.” And of course, we got suckered into going looking for the “what we were effect of, and agreed we were effect of it!” :duh:

In retrospect, I’d say we were . . . err, umm, I’ll be kind and say, “misled.”

The Kn handling for spiritual connections that need handling due to negative scenarios deals with the present time now scene. The first question after locating the Being and getting them into comm. and sorting out whether an individual or team, etc., is: “What incident, mood, or imagery is it/are they handling?”

Note that question addresses the present. It does not ransack the past to try and unlock the problem scenario and run a “get rid of.” By the way, this spiritual connection handling has a number of steps and is a very positive process address to the Being that restores volition in the relationship. It ends with the actions to find: “What action or ability of your spiritual team or teammate are you willing to acknowledge and appreciate?” and to then: “Telepathically acknowledge and appreciate your spiritual teammate or team.” :thumbsup:

You see, the difference is that with that handling of one’s spiritual connections one is processing in the present and developing or restoring a future . . . not rummaging the past and ending things. The difference is expansion of view and make more of versus introspection and making less of!

See the thread started by “Mate” David on: “How Dangerous is New OTVII (Solo NOTs)” here: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=16109
I did not weigh in on the issue till page 14, with post # 135.

It is also true that guys who’ve done extensive NOTs (as I did) can recover their key spiritual connections if they choose.

And of course, the CofS won’t let you get rid of your past once you’ve coughed up all those lovely, nitty-gritty O/Ws . . . . they perpetuate them by sending you off to the MA/Ethics Officer to have you do “what’s need for ‘severe reality adjustments’ to get your ethics in!”

Instead of acknowledging you for having viewed and separated from the O/Ws, and then rendering forgiveness and welcoming you to present time away from it all, they now grind you back into it in the Eth Office to make sure you do really never forget or get free from these things . . . and worse; you know that shit is ever after hanging over your head with the CofS to use against you!

It’s actually a very nasty trick for sticking you with the past stuff. It is diametrically opposed to all they promote, promise and say is what their tech line-up says it does!

I could go on with other issues on how this tech point is out in the CofS. But enough.

What I want write about now is on the subject of time, and how come we can be stuck with aspects of it. Hubbard made some statements about it, but none of that did much or went anywhere on restoring your sovereignty on the matter.

What I’m writing is my own personal experience and that of some of the folks I case advise. It also relates to Alan Walter’s material in his book, “Gods in Disguise” on earlier universes. I offer it on that basis for you to use as you see fit and/or choose.

What this relates to is “beyond” the physical universe even though it is the genesis of the physical universe and the physical universe is “within” it and at the end of a very long sequence of alterations to it and compoundings of it.

As my friend wrote in the PM above: “Lrh defined PT too narrowly. As a trader or a businessman PT is a much broader concept than Lron let on.” This is so. Indeed, Hubbard’s statements on the issue turn out to be misdirections.

The Source of Life, Games and Universes, me and thee, are natively without time. We simply exist. Thus, the bottom line truth is that all is now and it is an infinite now. However we did alter that truth, and things then began to get very screwy. :duh:

See the “New Axiom One” Alan and I put together here: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=465519&postcount=5272
There is also a little info I wrote on time and persistence here: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=475536&postcount=59

The first alteration I have found to our basic, purity of existence is the wanting of (certain) experiences/things to continue. I hope the simplicity on my wording gets across here. This did not create a future. It created a continuing now, or put differently, a now continuum. The decision/postulate was to simply have things continue, now. (Note the postulate was not to have them continue into a future, but simply to continue in existence now.)

And in that very basic, early, vast domain of existence (universe) all the things then considered/created simply floated in the “now continuum.” And they still do, (with the exception of some items that were knowingly ceased).

In my view, or should I say, what I have found is, this is the basic on why things hang up and float in time.

But having stuff simply floating along in our now continuum (with us) and accumulating created some problems and a mess-up. It was a rather upsetting experience (I’ll not get into specifics here), and it was solved by another rather dumb alteration to our basic truth.

We conceived of futures in which we envisioned what we wanted and also what we didn’t want that must be “not had” or avoided, countered or otherwise not experienced. :duh::yes: It was here, in the moving from the first universe of the now continuum to the envisioned futures that we began to dramatize our particular individual “solutions” on how to best experience or not experience the wants and not wants.

This is the sequence in which our dichotomous nature was set-up.

It is to be noted that in creating these Universal Visions of the futures, we still spanned the entire expanse of the now continuum and the created future. Thus our “Presence” and awareness was of all of existence. That’s a huge expanse or span of existence or “Presence Time.”

Part of “managing,” aligning and predicting this was to hold knowledge and relative “data” in one’s awareness as a kind of analytical mind . . . best referred to as the “Super-Conscious Mind of spirit.”

Needless to say, this also eventually screwed up and had to be solved.

So the solution was to “leave the crap behind.” And what better place to leave it while also maintaining control of it than to store/accumulate it in this mind mechanism we’d developed?

And thus the past was created.

But note, that past we created is still within our domain of existence :yes: And it has been giving as problems ever since.

The fact is, the time phenomena we have in the physical universe does not exist in the spiritual universes in the same way. In the spiritual universes, it is all “now,” and present. The only issue is that we have indulged various mechanisms to not know that and the content therein.

I’ll not get into the rest of the sequence, and the words to express the concepts I’ve related are mine. Your choice of words will quite likely differ even if what I’ve written above makes sense to you.

The history of our existence is one of us creating things that we then, for various reasons, lost control of. And also lost various degrees of knowledge of and responsibility for.

We have in truth, massively sabotaged ourselves, our powers, our knowledge, control and responsibility. The sad thing to say is that, in many respects, a lot of it was done unwittingly, but once the rot set in we were rather rough on ourselves.

But we know that, and the good news is that this all can be rectified.

But it gets rectified by addressing what is here with you now in your presence time . . . not by diving out of the present—out of and away from your true Presence—to some putative past to look for a solution.

RogerB

[Mystic]

Who or what would be convinced they have a "case"?

[Zinjifar]

When I was first interested in 'psychoanalysis' back in the '60s, I remember thinking that it was odd that a 'psychoanalyst' needed to undergo psychoanalysis *too*, before he could be credentialed (this after training as a medical doctor and psychiatrist.)

Now, in retrospect, it makes perfect sense. In the same sense that Scientology makes sense. It's the *gradient*.

And, it's training in blindness.

Zinj

[uniquemand]

A traveler? x
A banker? sf
A lawyer? lfbd

I'd like to indicate that a lawyer would be convinced they have a case.

[Zinjifar]

A traveler? x
A banker? sf
A lawyer? lfbd

I'd like to indicate that a lawyer would be convinced they have a case.

Only as long as he had a retainer.

Zinj

[Terril park]

"Here is a datum. An important datum.

What is screwing up the present is in the PRESENT, it is here, now, doing its screwing up here, now! It is NOT in the past nor necessarily of the past! (I will get into the mechanics of this time notion/factor later on.)" [quote]

I'm inclined to disagree.

What is screwing up the present is that carried forward from the past.

It is of course in the present.

[Terril park]

ROGER

"6) Greatest Overt: L&N “What was the greatest overt you committed on the Whole
Track?” ... D/L + do FL0-4
7) E/Purp Multiple: (See ExDN pack in Vols.) “What evil purpose have you had
towards another?”
8) Lie RD: L&N “What was your greatest lie on the Whole Track?”

I see these as very powerful self affirming actions. been there sort of on an elected FPRD.

[Terril park]

ROGER

2ND DYNAMIC (Family)
1. Have you ever been a disturbing element in a family?
2. Have you ever joined a family out of revenge?
3. Have you ever disowned a member of your family?
4. Have you ever gotten a relative into trouble?
5. Have you ever worked against your family?
6. Have you ever badly raised a child?
7. Have you failed to provide for a child of yours?
8. Have you ever split up a family?
9. Have you ever had a bastard?
10. Have you ever passed off a bastard as legitimate?
11. Have you ever claimed a blood-relationship you didn’t have ?
12. Have you ever forced a child into an unsuitable profession?
13. Have you ever forced a child into a loveless marriage?

And it was here, when looking at all the above, that I saw what the hell had been screwing up all our cases since the beginning!

Notice that all those questions above, put you into the past.

BB
Don't agree. The answers bring up whatever is charged back then into the present. And thus to be handled.

[Ted]

ROGER

2ND DYNAMIC (Family)
1. Have you ever been a disturbing element in a family?
2. Have you ever joined a family out of revenge?
3. Have you ever disowned a member of your family?
4. Have you ever gotten a relative into trouble?
5. Have you ever worked against your family?
6. Have you ever badly raised a child?
7. Have you failed to provide for a child of yours?
8. Have you ever split up a family?
9. Have you ever had a bastard?
10. Have you ever passed off a bastard as legitimate?
11. Have you ever claimed a blood-relationship you didn’t have ?
12. Have you ever forced a child into an unsuitable profession?
13. Have you ever forced a child into a loveless marriage?

And it was here, when looking at all the above, that I saw what the hell had been screwing up all our cases since the beginning!

Notice that all those questions above, put you into the past.

BB
Don't agree. The answers bring up whatever is charged back then into the present. And thus to be handled.


The thing is, BB, if the time track model and running "what was" works for you, the correct "C/S" is "continue."

[RogerB]

"Here is a datum. An important datum.

What is screwing up the present is in the PRESENT, it is here, now, doing its screwing up here, now! It is NOT in the past nor necessarily of the past! (I will get into the mechanics of this time notion/factor later on.)" [quote]

I'm inclined to disagree.

What is screwing up the present is that carried forward from the past.

It is of course in the present.

Terril,

Actually you and I are not in disagreement :D

Though what I have highlighted in red of yours above is incomplete.

It can also occur that what is screwing up the present can be from the future(s) you have created for yourself (or others created for you).

But all these semantic things are not the issue.

The issue I am posting on is that it is a goof to, as an action, to not look in the present to correct the present; but to instead only address the past and not the present in order to find something that is affecting the present. Yes, when you do find something of that ilk, the gains can be wondrous . . . but at the great cost of stirring up shit that should have left alone.

By looking in the present you'll find the correct why's/what's, whether from the past, present or future, that need to be handled . . . and you'll not stir up shit you shouldn't stir up.

All this I have written in my pieces. I would recommend re-reading them and picking up these nuances. Though I know they are long . . . but as I said they are fulsome because I had hoped to avoid the kind of triggered response to small parts or small thoughts and aspects, as the example you have given.

The best and safest course for addressing what needs addressing is to look at what is here now that needs correction . . . not looking in the past for what might be screwing things up to "find something."

But then even better is to process the positive and process upgrading abilities and powers . . . . low and behold what needs handling/removing so you can perform very smartly shows itself and then you have the best "whats" to handle.

R

[Ted]

[QUOTE=Terril park;495194]"Here is a datum. An important datum.

What is screwing up the present is in the PRESENT, it is here, now, doing its screwing up here, now! It is NOT in the past nor necessarily of the past! (I will get into the mechanics of this time notion/factor later on.)"

Terril,

Actually you and I are not in disagreement :D

Though what I have highlighted in red of yours above is incomplete.

It can also occur that what is screwing up the present can be from the future(s) you have created for yourself (or others created for you).

But all these semantic things are not the issue.

The issue I am posting on is that it is a goof to, as an action, to not look in the present to correct the present; but to instead only address the past and not the present in order to find something that is affecting the present. Yes, when you do find something of that ilk, the gains can be wondrous . . . but at the great cost of stirring up shit that should have left alone.

By looking in the present you'll find the correct why's/what's, whether from the past, present or future, that need to be handled . . . and you'll not stir up shit you shouldn't stir up.

All this I have written in my pieces. I would recommend re-reading them and picking up these nuances. Though I know they are long . . . but as I said they are fulsome because I had hoped to avoid the kind of triggered response to small parts or small thoughts and aspects, as the example you have given.

The best and safest course for addressing what needs addressing is to look at what is here now that needs correction . . . not looking in the past for might be screwing things up to "find something."

But then even better is to process the positive and process upgrading abilities and powers . . . . low and behold what needs handling/removing so you can perform very smartly shows itself and then you have the best "whats" to handle.

R

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[Atalantan]

Hi Foti,

I don't recall that passage in the VMH, but as a matter of fact, PrPr6 "Tell me an existing condition"/"How have you handled it?", on which PrPR3 is based, is described as the process to handle an SP, as it brings to the surface and erases that incident that the SP is stuck in.

(Bear in mind, we are using the term "suppressive person" in technical sense, as a case condition, and not in the indiscriminate "ethics declare" sense as practiced in the CoS)

Love, Dex


I think this article is relevant to this thread topic and to your post, Dex.

MASTER PROCESS
http://www.lightlink.com/archive/homer/jm2.memo

The first tape is available here as well:
http://www.lightlink.com/archive/homer/jm1.memo

[Terril park]

[QUOTE=Terril park;495194]"Here is a datum. An important datum.

What is screwing up the present is in the PRESENT, it is here, now, doing its screwing up here, now! It is NOT in the past nor necessarily of the past! (I will get into the mechanics of this time notion/factor later on.)"

Terril,

Actually you and I are not in disagreement :D

Though what I have highlighted in red of yours above is incomplete.

It can also occur that what is screwing up the present can be from the future(s) you have created for yourself (or others created for you).

But all these semantic things are not the issue.

The issue I am posting on is that it is a goof to, as an action, to not look in the present to correct the present; but to instead only address the past and not the present in order to find something that is affecting the present. Yes, when you do find something of that ilk, the gains can be wondrous . . . but at the great cost of stirring up shit that should have left alone.

By looking in the present you'll find the correct why's/what's, whether from the past, present or future, that need to be handled . . . and you'll not stir up shit you shouldn't stir up.

All this I have written in my pieces. I would recommend re-reading them and picking up these nuances. Though I know they are long . . . but as I said they are fulsome because I had hoped to avoid the kind of triggered response to small parts or small thoughts and aspects, as the example you have given.

The best and safest course for addressing what needs addressing is to look at what is here now that needs correction . . . not looking in the past for might be screwing things up to "find something."

But then even better is to process the positive and process upgrading abilities and powers . . . . low and behold what needs handling/removing so you can perform very smartly shows itself and then you have the best "whats" to handle.

R

Very much liked Ted's underlining in red.

From our presumably held basics:-

"Axiom 3
Space, energy, objects, form and time are the result of considerations made and/or agreed upon by the static and are perceived solely because the static considers that it can perceive them."

You said:-

"What is screwing up the present is in the PRESENT"

A basis for the power processes.

I've always found straight scientology workable. Also validate in general variations. Thus progress.

Auditing of course addresses the present. To resolve the present one at times needs to address the past. Dianetics for example where one can even go clear!

Not a techie but I assume much of grades addresses the present. As does
objectives. At least so it seems.

For me one of the greatest actions I did was to volunteer for FPRD. Sec checking that delves into the past. Among other amazing matters I recalled pre mest universe attempts to it seems create the mest universe.

My other favourite level was OT II. God knows what it addresses! Apparently a whole track implant resolving this lifetime gains.

Then OT III. As I've posted a few times IMO goes back to pab 12 and the fact that explosions are basicbasic.

So, really whatever one addresses with auditing is always present time.
Even when looking at the past.

Who knows where a preclear will go on a given question?

There is brilliance in asking the right questions.

[RogerB]

[QUOTE=RogerB;495682]

Very much liked Ted's underlining in red.

From our presumably held basics:-

"Axiom 3
Space, energy, objects, form and time are the result of considerations made and/or agreed upon by the static and are perceived solely because the static considers that it can perceive them."

You said:-

"What is screwing up the present is in the PRESENT"

A basis for the power processes.

I've always found straight scientology workable. Also validate in general variations. Thus progress.

Auditing of course addresses the present. To resolve the present one at times needs to address the past. Dianetics for example where one can even go clear!

Not a techie but I assume much of grades addresses the present. As does
objectives. At least so it seems.

For me one of the greatest actions I did was to volunteer for FPRD. Sec checking that delves into the past. Among other amazing matters I recalled pre mest universe attempts to it seems create the mest universe.

My other favourite level was OT II. God knows what it addresses! Apparently a whole track implant resolving this lifetime gains.

Then OT III. As I've posted a few times IMO goes back to pab 12 and the fact that explosions are basicbasic.

So, really whatever one addresses with auditing is always present time.
Even when looking at the past.

Who knows where a preclear will go on a given question?

There is brilliance in asking the right questions.

You're up late, mate! :D

I'll be quick here as I am into my after dinner brandy mode here:p

Nice to see we are comparing notes and fine tuning things. Progress is truly made this way.

We actually have no real disagree on all this. What we have is what we are currently viewing based on experience, and expressing our various points of relative importance and alignment.

But actually, you just made me spot another of Hubbard's "apparent-clevernesses-that-are-so-stupid-as-to-be-asinines."

Here:

"Axiom 3
Space, energy, objects, form and time are the result of considerations made and/or agreed upon by the static and are perceived solely because the static considers that it can perceive them."

That part in red . . . . like, err, umm, can you actually conceive of not being able to perceive of what you consider or otherwise create? :duh:

Like, of course you perceive it!

The real deal that he missed here is: Space, energy, objects, form and time are the result of considerations made and/or agreed upon by the static and are reality simply because the static agrees or considers it so.

He also screwed up the sequence. I would word it: "Time, space, energy, form and objects" . . . . that is the actual sequence of development.

OK. To now relax with my music and other endeavours . . . I'll be responding to your fulsome post on the other thread concerning "3 feet behind" tomorrow.

Rog

[FoTi]

Hi Foti, "PrPr" is short for "Power Process"- Power Process 3, Power Process 6, etc.

Love, Dex


Thanks Dex.

[FoTi]

I think this article is relevant to this thread topic and to your post, Dex.

MASTER PROCESS
http://www.lightlink.com/archive/homer/jm2.memo

The first tape is available here as well:
http://www.lightlink.com/archive/homer/jm1.memo

Thanks for these, Atlantan

[Terril park]

That part in red . . . . like, err, umm, can you actually conceive of not being able to perceive of what you consider or otherwise create? :duh:

Like, of course you perceive it!



I see it as written for the common man. LRH was brillient here. :)

Another who was brilliant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzf0rvQa4Mc

[Leon]

Here:
Quote:
"Axiom 3
Space, energy, objects, form and time are the result of considerations made and/or agreed upon by the static and are perceived solely because the static considers that it can perceive them."

That part in red . . . . like, err, umm, can you actually conceive of not being able to perceive of what you consider or otherwise create?


Sure. Blind people do this every day. Also thetans who not-is their creations.

[Hatshepsut]

"Here is a datum. An important datum.

What is screwing up the present is in the PRESENT, it is here, now, doing its screwing up here, now! It is NOT in the past nor necessarily of the past! (I will get into the mechanics of this time notion/factor later on.)"

Terril Park
I'm inclined to disagree.

What is screwing up the present is that carried forward from the past.

It is of course in the present.


I'm gonna throw a couple of pennies in here too. :coolwink:

If you really believe the concept that we are connected to 'teammates' it must be obvious that not everyone is of the same calibre in our cache. :yes: There is a reason YOU are the one in charge of running things HERE and NOW and not another 'member'. THIS IS YOUR LIFE !
In any situation where there is a rollercoaster what is spotted will be some kind of intention vs counter-intention. :grouch: But what makes the counter effort so heavy? The reactivations of overwhelms triggered pertaining to the current endeavor. There are not just YOUR considerations to clean off but co-considerations. You've got considerations about the unsatisfactory condition...but are they all yours? Look at any complex existing condition and spot WHO is creating it. It is pure hubris to say that it is only YOU.. :yes:

At an NBA playoffs game you wouldn't sit in the bleachers pretending YOU were creating the court and the hoop and the players and the beer. :no:
This is a social event with many contributors to it.

I have often seen relationships where one's team members are the ones befuddling or beaming the person they have the stress regarding. I have witnessed the 'masses' connected to a person literally clobbering the other person they have the insecurity about. And the person central to this looks so innocent. And actually, if heavily charged, this protection serves on automatic and they kind of are 'innocent' of intent. After all, its not them doing anything...at least not directly to the other. :) Now granted, if a person's postulates toward the other individual should change... maybe the teammates would settle down regarding their 'services'. BUT___ we in our human state are not capable of remembering the buried traumatic shocks triggered in us....we're not generally spectacular at it. :confused2:


The 2 most stably exterior individuals I know went thru their space cleaning all the stuck filters. They slugged it out locating any viewpoints in their space and the current charge they were stuck in or creating on automatic.
Whether you look at your associations as teammates or BTs or dissociative phenomena where you have walled off valences or identities in your grouping....there is some idea about their ability to 'help'. They were a mind you once used to get thru other conditions. Now they Re- mind you. :eyeroll:

When these phenomena start to weigh heavily it is usually because some associated charge is being 'triggered' in the NOW and these are clueing you in. :p It could work to acknowledge them for doing such an excellent job for you and relieve them of the task of the goal they are operating on in order to help.... after just having woken up.

You cannot always resolve what is in the NOW without looking at how many vectors and intentions are creating it that way. Not always. Only when lucky. Could label it baggage. :confused2:

[CarmeloOrchards]

I'm gonna throw a couple of pennies in here too. :coolwink:

If you really believe the concept that we are connected to 'teammates' it must be obvious that not everyone is of the same calibre in our cache. :yes: There is a reason YOU are the one in charge of running things here and NOW and not another 'member'. THIS IS YOUR LIFE !
In any situation where there is a rollercoaster what is spotted will be some kind of intention vs counter-intention. :grouch: But what makes the counter effort so heavy? The impressions triggered of the overwhelms re the NOW subject of interest. There are not just YOUR considerations to clean off but co-considerations. You've got considerations about the unsatisfactory condition...but are they all yours? Look at any complex existing condition and spot WHO is creating it. It is pure hubris to say that it is only YOU.. :yes:

At an NBA playoffs game you wouldn't sit in the bleachers pretending YOU were creating the court and the hoop and the players and the beer. :no:
This is a social event with many contributors to it.

I have often seen relationships where one's team members are the ones befuddling or beaming the person they have the stress regarding. I have witnesses the 'masses' connected to a person literally clobbering the other person they have the insecurity about. And the person central to this looks so innocent. And actually, if heavily charged, this protection serves on automatic and they kind of are 'innocent' of intent. After all, its not them doing anything...at least not directly to the other. :) Now, granted, if a person's postulates toward the other individual should change maybe the teammates would settle down regarding their 'services'. BUT___ we in our human state are not capable of remembering the buried traumatic shocks triggered in us....we're not generally spectacular at it. :confused2:

The 2 most stably exterior individuals I know went thru their space cleaning all the stuck filters. They slugged it out locating any viewpoints in their space and the current charge they were stuck in or creating on automatic.
Whether you look at your associations as teammates or BTs or dissociative phenomena where you have walled off valences or identities in your grouping....there is some idea about their ability to 'help'. They were a mind you once used to get thru other conditions. Now they Re- mind you. :eyeroll:

When these phenomena start to weigh heavily it is usually because some relassociated charge is being 'triggered' in the NOW and these are clueing you in. :p It could work to acknowledge them for doing such an excellent job for you and relieve them of the task of the goal they are operating on for in order to help.... after just having woken up.

You cannot always resolve what is in the NOW without looking at how many vectors and intentions are creating it that way. Not always. Only when lucky. Could label it baggage. :confused2:

and furthermore:

there have been times this lifetime, where events and PT got so threatening and unpleasant that I withdrew, and my teammates ran the show, until I felt strong and safe enough to rejoin the party.

[Mystic]

The most advanced "tech" there is, is called Life. It's all around you...unless of course you are some being degraded from your glorious past, then that's all you'll see. That's the Hubbard-thing implant at work.

[Hatshepsut]

and furthermore:

there have been times this lifetime, where events and PT got so threatening and unpleasant that I withdrew, and my teammates ran the show, until I felt strong and safe enough to rejoin the party.

At least you are aware that you did that. Others might not be so aware of willful dissociation.

[uniquemand]

To me, this is not relying on some external beings to come and help. Instead, it seems to me that you create projections and hide behind them. I don't believe the spiritual mumbo-jumbo.

When I was a teenager, and I went to a new school for the seventh grade, I wasn't received well, because I was raised very conservatively. I was better educated than most of my peers, and so I found the classes boring, and the other kids were always trying to cheat off my papers, wanted help with homework, etc. Socially, I was kind of retarded. I had grown up in a small school, sixty kids per grade. We knew each other so well that the idea of hitting on each other was almost like incest. The new school had hundreds of kids in each class, if not thousands, and nobody knew each other, and sexual activity was casual. Girls thought I must be gay, boys thought I was a nerd. I ended up having to fight a lot. Within a few weeks, I created a new persona. I was suddenly a punk rocker. Everyone started to think I was cool as hell. All the girls wanted to go out with me. I got in a lot of trouble. I stopped doing my schoolwork completely. I picked on the bullies.

You know what? That wasn't some new spiritual being taking over. That was my idea of some sort of punk rocker that I projected. I got stuck in the role. Sometimes I still slide back into it. But to pretend it was some demon or spirit or whatever would be ridiculous.

Take responsibility for your own creations.

[CarmeloOrchards]

To me, this is not relying on some external beings to come and help. Instead, it seems to me that you create projections and hide behind them. I don't believe the spiritual mumbo-jumbo.

When I was a teenager, and I went to a new school for the seventh grade, I wasn't received well, because I was raised very conservatively. I was better educated than most of my peers, and so I found the classes boring, and the other kids were always trying to cheat off my papers, wanted help with homework, etc. Socially, I was kind of retarded. I had grown up in a small school, sixty kids per grade. We knew each other so well that the idea of hitting on each other was almost like incest. The new school had hundreds of kids in each class, if not thousands, and nobody knew each other, and sexual activity was casual. Girls thought I must be gay, boys thought I was a nerd. I ended up having to fight a lot. Within a few weeks, I created a new persona. I was suddenly a punk rocker. Everyone started to think I was cool as hell. All the girls wanted to go out with me. I got in a lot of trouble. I stopped doing my schoolwork completely. I picked on the bullies.

You know what? That wasn't some new spiritual being taking over. That was my idea of some sort of punk rocker that I projected. I got stuck in the role. Sometimes I still slide back into it. But to pretend it was some demon or spirit or whatever would be ridiculous.

Take responsibility for your own creations.

nice

neat

good foundation

yep. liked what you wrote here

[Hatshepsut]

uniquemand

To me, this is not relying on some external beings to come and help. Instead, it seems to me that you create projections and hide behind them. I don't believe the spiritual mumbo-jumbo.

When I was a teenager, and I went to a new school for the seventh grade, I wasn't received well, because I was raised very conservatively. I was better educated than most of my peers, and so I found the classes boring, and the other kids were always trying to cheat off my papers, wanted help with homework, etc. Socially, I was kind of retarded. I had grown up in a small school, sixty kids per grade. We knew each other so well that the idea of hitting on each other was almost like incest. The new school had hundreds of kids in each class, if not thousands, and nobody knew each other, and sexual activity was casual. Girls thought I must be gay, boys thought I was a nerd. I ended up having to fight a lot. Within a few weeks, I created a new persona. I was suddenly a punk rocker. Everyone started to think I was cool as hell. All the girls wanted to go out with me. I got in a lot of trouble. I stopped doing my schoolwork completely. I picked on the bullies.

You know what? That wasn't some new spiritual being taking over. That was my idea of some sort of punk rocker that I projected. I got stuck in the role. Sometimes I still slide back into it. But to pretend it was some demon or spirit or whatever would be ridiculous.

Take responsibility for your own creations.

It pays to know the difference. :yes: I wouldn't say I have multiple personalilty disorder, but lately I DO have other people with strong opinions around me. They are definitely NOT me. This only occurs when I have taken a trek that there is a heavy internal disagreement on. Otherwise everything glides smoothly on the same rails.

In 1984 after I'd left the church, I had a phenomena where I had cross restimulation from pulling things out of sequence on the track while running scores of repair lists. Nothing got handled, only stirred up more. Everything that shoulda been left alone, got woken up and bunched together. In short, auditing was making a cluster. Now a cluster of what? A little later in 1986 I got a review from a local NOTs auditor. He C/Sed me thru OT III and then I got ownership processing. On every Who Are YOU__What Are YOU question I got the same answer. :confused2: It was always the first item on the list. The answer was a dual one.... "I'm you..I'm me". :unsure:

We went down the list to discern when the associated viewpoint first took on the idea that it was 'me'. You know what? There were actually a couple of phenomena. One where I sort of subdivided creating multiple viewpoints and the other situation where it was someone else added to me for some purpose. If you indicate the wrong reality to the situation it does not AS-IS. If you hit truth you get resolution. I'm open to all possibilities when I'm looking around. I check to see if a wrong or implanted idea is being sounded off at me too.

Also I've come across some other things:
I believe that there are certain beings not native to this area that have been in small island universes. In deep space where there are relatively independent universes of multiple beings. They create according to tastes and are vastly different than organized human societies.
I was watching the Academy Awards one night and then American Gladiators and then Latin dance competition. Lo and behold it was like a flashback! Even THE GAMES in the ancient coliseums are a dramatization. :yes: The awards ceremonies in Hollywood was my biggest flashback. I also think there is an Amusement Park type universe with huge prizes for the best submission or contribution. In all of this I realized that beings left alone to their own devices and creativites DO have the ability to subdivide themselves. But it is an ABILITY. An advanced one in my opinion as all parts are operating. It's a simple NOT KNOW postulate.
In today's society these types might have a propensity for developing mental disorders like Howard Hughes or Nicola Tesla. Creating and Procreating are similar.

If you look at it, when one is under threat of extinction a good way to assure your survival is to duplicate yourself into as many aspects as possible. Assuming many viewpoints. (which are issued vectors) Attack has to come from a vector. The more vectors you have to escape into the more you might wear down the attack. I think you see this a lot in mental illnesses following heavy abuse episodes or shocks. Granted, most subdivisions of personality are probably more in the realm of walled off circuits or safe survival solutions. (valences) And I am familiar with how my own charge can trigger wearing a certain 'hat' in order to survive.
Depending on what I am 'being' I find I have a very different mind. The mental phenomena that tracks with me as a human does not have the same items in it as the mind I have to use when I am operating in a more exterior state. Different things constitute them. The mental machinery is designed with operating postulates from many universes. To only hone in on one set is to overlook what else might actually be there.
Many of us do not notice 'other' beings in our space until there is a major disruption in our life or some great umbridge is taken with our method of handling things. These are my observations after dealing with 30 yrs of occasional 'otherness' in my space.

[Atalantan]

Thanks for these, Atlantan

You're very welcome. This, and McMaster's articles on PTS Handling were eye openers to me. I can post the links to those (when I find them -I'm not too well organized).

[uniquemand]

The idea that because having a belief (say, thinking that another being is responsible for your actions or thoughts) helped resolve something means that the belief is true is illogical. I'm glad you got resolution, but that doesn't mean there are entities in deepspace trying to occupy your space.

It is always an error to mistake your beliefs for reality.

[Leon]

The idea that because having a belief (say, thinking that another being is responsible for your actions or thoughts) helped resolve something means that the belief is true is illogical. I'm glad you got resolution, but that doesn't mean there are entities in deepspace trying to occupy your space.

It is always an error to mistake your beliefs for reality.


This is correct, as it stands. But while it is not True it is yet workable up to the point where the guy accepts greater responsibility for his own case.

Your last line is spot-on. (Up to the point where the guy accepts greater responsibility for his case!)

[Hatshepsut]

The idea that because having a belief (say, thinking that another being is responsible for your actions or thoughts) helped resolve something means that the belief is true is illogical. I'm glad you got resolution, but that doesn't mean there are entities in deepspace trying to occupy your space.

It is always an error to mistake your beliefs for reality.

You know, the general idea seems to be that as you progress or ascend that you drop away from all the bullshit mind stuff that you had when you went lumbering around as a not too bright human. Well, I know there is a reverse reality to this presenting uncomfortable factors to a lot of people.
Many individuals on this board did not even HAVE the problems they have until they blew out of their human case and started operating in a different state to this. The next condition above human and descending down to human had its own case factors. It is a fact that if you clear a person from what he has interiorized into he will many times go right back to doing what he did just before he went in. The condition prior to going in has its own sets of frailties. If the problems in it were solvable the person wouldn't have given up the identity and gone into something else.
I, myself, did not feel any connectedness with entities or gpm type mass before experiencing big release states. Its like....... well... having a Christmas tree decorated with ornaments. What if that tree which was many years old just decided to pull a vanishing act from this universe. What would happen to the ornaments which were composed of elements particular to this matrix which were at that present time less endowed than the tree. The ornaments would not make the trek OUT. You could expect a great shock and a cohesive attempt to figure out the confusion by these additives on this tree. Shit happens! I know people that this kinda crap has literally floored. It has been said that the biggest mistake is to start the journey and not continue walking all the way out. Its better not to start at all as there could be hell to pay. There is a reason why so many never make it ALL THE WAY OUT. They don't know how to make it over the hurdles encountered.

In the Tibetan Book of the Dead and the Egyptian book of spells to help the deceased thru the afterlife there definitely does seem to be a perilous rite of passage. There are surprisingly few who think this is all there is and do not experience a visceral suspicion that all is not right thus attempting to leave this comfort zone where no breadcrumbs were dropped to mark the way in. I've experienced that there are quite a few things, unexpected things, laying in wait for those who attempt their escape. The least of which is the unconscious inclination to give another severe problems if there is a clue to his inclination to pull OUT of the game. The way is littered with casualties as seen by many stories and vids posted on this board. Were these people wrong in their basic feeling that there was something rotten in Denmark and that there might be something else outside of all this? Has the disappointment about the fact that no fantastic assistance actually arrived to push the needed wind up under our wings left a generalized feeling of disinterest and apathy re our original wants? Those wants don't just go away. They can get buried and altered but they don't evaporate because of the obstacles in the matrices we carry. Not these kind of wants anyway.

[uniquemand]

You know, the general idea seems to be that as you progress or ascend that you drop away from all the bullshit mind stuff that you had when you went lumbering around as a not too bright human. Well, I know there is a reverse reality to this presenting uncomfortable factors to a lot of people.

It's also not a demonstrable fact that people drop away all the bullshit mind stuff you refer to. While you can drop away a specific intention, deactivate specific memories, etc., I would be hard-pressed to believe that there is anyone who is operating without a mind, memories or intentions, or that they don't have emotions. The degree of identification with those things may lessen with meditation or with some forms of counseling (even auditing).


Many individuals on this board did not even HAVE the problems they have until they blew out of their human case and started operating in a different state to this. The next condition above human and descending down to human had its own case factors. It is a fact that if you clear a person from what he has interiorized into he will many times go right back to doing what he did just before he went in. The condition prior to going in has its own sets of frailties. If the problems in it were solvable the person wouldn't have given up the identity and gone into something else.

So, address the prior confusion. If this is done honestly and fully, why would the person rationally re-engage in something they later found was destructive to them?

BTW, while I agree that people can shake a given identity, I don't think that this necessarily means they have stopped being a human, or that they have moved out into some other state. They are simply in a human condition which has a much greater degree of freedom from identification with their mind/body. It's still a human condition.


I, myself, did not feel any connectedness with entities or gpm type mass before experiencing big release states. Its like....... well... having a Christmas tree decorated with ornaments. What if that tree which was many years old just decided to pull a vanishing act from this universe. What would happen to the ornaments which were composed of elements particular to this matrix which were at that present time less endowed than the tree. The ornaments would not make the trek OUT. You could expect a great shock and a cohesive attempt to figure out the confusion by these additives on this tree. Shit happens! I know people that this kinda crap has literally floored. It has been said that the biggest mistake is to start the journey and not continue walking all the way out. Its better not to start at all as there could be hell to pay. There is a reason why so many never make it ALL THE WAY OUT. They don't know how to make it over the hurdles encountered.

I'm not sure there is such a thing as "ALL THE WAY OUT". I think it's a false goal for processing, frankly.


In the Tibetan Book of the Dead and the Egyptian book of spells to help the deceased thru the afterlife there definitely does seem to be a perilous right of passage. There are surprisingly few who think this is all there is and do not experience a visceral suspicion that all is not right thus attempting to leave this comfort zone where no breadcrumbs were dropped to mark the way in. I've experienced that there are quite a few things, unexpected things, laying in wait for those who attempt their escape. The least of which is the unconscious inclination to give another severe problems if there is a clue to his inclination to pull OUT of the game. The way is littered with casualties as seen by many stories and vids posted on this board. Were these people wrong in their basic feeling that there was something rotten in Denmark and that there might be something else outside of all this? Has the disappointment about the fact that no fantastic assistance actually arrived to push the needed wind up under our wings left a generalized feeling of disinterest and apathy re our original wants? Those wants don't just go away. They can get buried and altered but they don't evaporate because of the obstacles in the matrices we carry. Not these kind of wants anyway.

Well, I would suggest that the "prior confusion" leading to the desire to get "ALL THE WAY OUT" should be addressed, rather than pursuing mystical spells or soap commercials about immortality.

[Mark A. Baker]

I'm not sure there is such a thing as "ALL THE WAY OUT". I think it's a false goal for processing, frankly.

Not as false as "nowhere to go but here". :whistling:


Mark A. Baker

[uniquemand]

How about "handle whatever charge the person has, rather than leading them to follow the pied pipers"?

[dexter gelfand]

This is correct, as it stands. But while it is not True it is yet workable up to the point where the guy accepts greater responsibility for his own case.

Your last line is spot-on. (Up to the point where the guy accepts greater responsibility for his case!)

I haven't (yet) done OT III, or NOT'S, and I fully intend to at least experience OT III, albeit with my eyes open to whether or not each bit of the materials rings true for me. I have observed some specific positive results for some people, despite the violation of the principle of paralleling the mind, and not evaluating for the preclear. But I have my own take on the idea of "entity case":

If you look at "Hellos and OK's" to and from injured body parts, the process involves regarding the body part as a "terminal", i.e., a sentient being. And that frequently works quite well, so there is a workability to processing with the idea of granting or creating sentience where it doesn't independently exist. Results are obtained.
From what I understand of handling "entity case", much of it is analagous to hello's and ok's on a body part. This to me suggests that "entities" are a circuit or other creation of the individual, and that there is a workability to this processing, as ultimately it seems that all processing deals with, or leads to dealing with, one's own creations.

I think Leon's comments say it well, and align with my observations. As much as we would all like to have complete reality on willfully creating everything we experience, I think that to fully achieve that level of function might well be the end of all case, which, as far as I know is a theoretical state. If anyone has achieved it, they don't seem to be interested in sticking around here to display it.

I have not come to a conclusion that there is no such thing as a thetan without a body occupying whatever space they may occupy, but I think that what I say above must play into the processes that deal with "entity case".

I think that "entity case" is based, at least in part, on the idea that a being has limitations in their ability to tolerate having others in their self-defined space, and that it would therefore ultimately be more direct to process that intolerance, as opposed to addressing as effect point of "entities", i.e., motivator case, and more basically GPM case.

Entity case handling therefore, appears to be, when skillfully applied (see Mate's thread on NOT'S regarding what seems to be a result of overrunning NOT'S), a gradient, responsibility-level-wise, in getting to that level. Whether that gradient is actually necessary, or just appears to be so because of the CoS's lack of providing on the "grade chart", a very workable way of clearing out GPM case, at this point I could only speculate.
Of course, my observations and views are subject to change when I experience such processes for myself.

[Hatshepsut]

It's also not a demonstrable fact that people drop away all the bullshit mind stuff you refer to. While you can drop away a specific intention, deactivate specific memories, etc., I would be hard-pressed to believe that there is anyone who is operating without a mind, memories or intentions, or that they don't have emotions. The degree of identification with those things may lessen with meditation or with some forms of counseling (even auditing).



So, address the prior confusion. If this is done honestly and fully, why would the person rationally re-engage in something they later found was destructive to them?

BTW, while I agree that people can shake a given identity, I don't think that this necessarily means they have stopped being a human, or that they have moved out into some other state. They are simply in a human condition which has a much greater degree of freedom from identification with their mind/body. It's still a human condition.



I'm not sure there is such a thing as "ALL THE WAY OUT". I think it's a false goal for processing, frankly.



Well, I would suggest that the "prior confusion" leading to the desire to get "ALL THE WAY OUT" should be addressed, rather than pursuing mystical spells or soap commercials about immortality.

THAT is an excellent point U.!! But most likely the prior confusion would still be about identity and what 'spell' one was under.

And the ambition to get ALL THE WAY OUT may not be a false goal for processing if it is genuinely the client's own goal. :yes:

[uniquemand]

THAT is an excellent point U.!! But most likely the prior confusion would still be about identity and what 'spell' one was under.

And the ambition to get ALL THE WAY OUT may not be a false goal for processing if it is genuinely the client's own goal. :yes:

I've never had a single client who was not once a Scientologist who had that as their goal. I firmly believe that scientologists have had this goal implanted in them from years of listening to Ron talk about it and ideation based on his ideas.

[Mark A. Baker]

I've never had a single client who was not once a Scientologist who had that as their goal. I firmly believe that scientologists have had this goal implanted in them from years of listening to Ron talk about it and ideation based on his ideas.

It's a basic motivation within both the Vedantic & Buddhist traditions, ergo I suspect you've been rather limited in the scope of your clientele rather than that there is any particular "implant" of this concept by the Co$. But then, you aren't interested in spirituality, are you, U?


Mark A. Baker

[uniquemand]

I'm interested in spirituality, in the same way I'm interested in poetry.

I have had rather limited clientele: people who have something they want to get handled.

[Leon]

I haven't (yet) done OT III, or NOT'S, and I fully intend to at least experience OT III, albeit with my eyes open to whether or not each bit of the materials rings true for me. I have observed some specific positive results for some people, despite the violation of the principle of paralleling the mind, and not evaluating for the preclear. But I have my own take on the idea of "entity case":

If you look at "Hellos and OK's" to and from injured body parts, the process involves regarding the body part as a "terminal", i.e., a sentient being. And that frequently works quite well, so there is a workability to processing with the idea of granting or creating sentience where it doesn't independently exist. Results are obtained.
From what I understand of handling "entity case", much of it is analagous to hello's and ok's on a body part. This to me suggests that "entities" are a circuit or other creation of the individual, and that there is a workability to this processing, as ultimately it seems that all processing deals with, or leads to dealing with, one's own creations.

I think Leon's comments say it well, and align with my observations. As much as we would all like to have complete reality on willfully creating everything we experience, I think that to fully achieve that level of function might well be the end of all case, which, as far as I know is a theoretical state. If anyone has achieved it, they don't seem to be interested in sticking around here to display it.

I have not come to a conclusion that there is no such thing as a thetan without a body occupying whatever space they may occupy, but I think that what I say above must play into the processes that deal with "entity case".

I think that "entity case" is based, at least in part, on the idea that a being has limitations in their ability to tolerate having others in their self-defined space, and that it would therefore ultimately be more direct to process that intolerance, as opposed to addressing as effect point of "entities", i.e., motivator case, and more basically GPM case.

Entity case handling therefore, appears to be, when skillfully applied (see Mate's thread on NOT'S regarding what seems to be a result of overrunning NOT'S), a gradient, responsibility-level-wise, in getting to that level. Whether that gradient is actually necessary, or just appears to be so because of the CoS's lack of providing on the "grade chart", a very workable way of clearing out GPM case, at this point I could only speculate.
Of course, my observations and views are subject to change when I experience such processes for myself.


My own experience is that "the entity case" is a great big fruit salad of many and varied components. There is dub-in, there are circuits, there are hallucinatory beings, there are real and willing team mates, there are lost souls clinging on for dear life, and there are real out and out evil buggers who have it in for you. So I wouldn't take on any generality and say that it is all this, or all that. Fact is it is a mixed bag that needs sorting out. Take each one individually and treat it according to its qualities and merits.

[Mark A. Baker]

My own experience is that "the entity case" is a great big fruit salad of many and varied components. There is dub-in, there are circuits, there are hallucinatory beings, there are real and willing team mates, there are lost souls clinging on for dear life, and there are real out and out evil buggers who have it in for you. So I wouldn't take on any generality and say that it is all this, or all that. Fact is it is a mixed bag that needs sorting out. Take each one individually and treat it according to its qualities and merits.


For me the recognition of the "mixed bag" and a willingness to "grant beingness" are the most important things to achieve from the processing of "entity case".


Mark A. Baker

[Heche Reed]

Protocol: "What am I doing in present time, to screw up present time?"

Step 2 (optional) - Stop that!

As the heart of the teaching this must be priced accordingly...

[Mystic]

Hubbard-spew tech is dead. Long die the dead.

[uniquemand]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1g3ENYxg9k

[Hatshepsut]

My own experience is that "the entity case" is a great big fruit salad of many and varied components. There is dub-in, there are circuits, there are hallucinatory beings, there are real and willing team mates, there are lost souls clinging on for dear life, and there are real out and out evil buggers who have it in for you. So I wouldn't take on any generality and say that it is all this, or all that. Fact is it is a mixed bag that needs sorting out. Take each one individually and treat it according to its qualities and merits.


It's a basic motivation within both the Vedantic & Buddhist traditions, ergo I suspect you've been rather limited in the scope of your clientele rather than that there is any particular "implant" of this concept by the Co$. But then, you aren't interested in spirituality, are you, U?


Mark A. Baker

Thankyou guys! :hey::hey::hey:

[Hatshepsut]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1g3ENYxg9k

:hysterical: Loved it. :thumbsup:

[uniquemand]

I think Newhart has discovered the OneShot Clear process.

[RogerB]

THAT is an excellent point U.!! But most likely the prior confusion would still be about identity and what 'spell' one was under.

And the ambition to get ALL THE WAY OUT may not be a false goal for processing if it is genuinely the client's own goal. :yes:

Hats,

The actuality is that there is actually something prior to the "prior confusion." :yes:

The full sequence runs:
1) an initial, happy, wonderful positive.
2) The happy positive gets upset, and confusion reigns.
3) One solves the confusion with an idea or solution that itself causes further aberration.

In Hubbard's address to handling all this, he picked up on #3 and processed it back to and undid #2 . . . . but he failed to address and properly, positively process #1.

The handling was left at "feeling good" at undoing the #2.

Bad move as the #1 was not restored to being under your full knowing control and volition . . . . hell how many of those who handled the "prior confusion" ever found out what the prior positive #1 is/was? :duh:

Rog

[Heche Reed]

Prior positive number 1 - is a good honing in on the area. I like that. I feel it can be created through using creativity and imagination. "What else would I have enjoyed doing at that time?" I'm interested how you create it RogB. I agree with the correction of focus you offer.

I think an issue handling the Prior positive is that many of the overwhelms are in childhood/youth where one does not have the maturity of more forthright creative adult responses.

[RogerB]

Prior positive number 1 - is a good honing in on the area. I like that. I feel it can be created through using creativity and imagination. "What else would I have enjoyed doing at that time?" I'm interested how you create it RogB. I agree with the correction of focus you offer.

I think an issue handling the Prior positive is that many of the overwhelms are in childhood/youth where one does not have the maturity of more forthright creative adult responses.

Well, Heche,

It's a simple proposition :yes:

Even using some old LRH info . . . look at what your two stated basic abilities are.

They were stated as being: the ability to postulate and the ability to perceive.

Well, of course that's close, and typical LRH-isms.

If we look at how these can be used in processing we observe we can run them as the actions of "Experience" (as in feel the sensations of: feel the heat, cold, weight, pressure, motion, mood, etc.) and "Create."

So, when you articulate what the important prior positives are (I once, in 1997, ran "competence") you run the processes:
"From where could a spiritual Being experience (item)?"
"From where could a spiritual Being create (item)?"

This restores your basic abilities regarding the item.

It is to be noted that the occasion in '97 when I ran "Competence" followed having run to EP the item "Incompetence" . . . . . and it left me feeling, where the F*** was my competence?! . . . why has it not returned?

And I realized that all I had accomplished by running the negative, was to raise my mood and capability on the area up to the level of failure (0.0 on the Tone Scale) on this issue of Competence versus Incompetence :yes:

And the cog was that I then had to process the positive to take it up from 0.0 to at least being enthusiastically able and competent!:happydance:

As it happened, it ran a lot further up than 4.0 (enthusiasm) :yes: But that's another story.

This was the point when we in Kn began truly addressing and processing the positive instead of only getting rid of the negative.

RogerB

[Heche Reed]

Well, Heche,

...If we look at how these can be used in processing we observe we can run them as the actions of "Experience" (as in feel the sensations of: feel the heat, cold, weight, pressure, motion, etc.) and "Create."

So, when you articulate what the important prior positives are (I once, in 1997, ran "competence") you run the processes:
"From where could a spiritual Being experience (item)?"
"From where could a spiritual Being create (item)?"

This restores your basic abilities regarding the item.

RogerB

Very nice. Elegant. I imagine this can be helpful to many people. Thanks RogB!!

Just to be thinking out loud one could ask "where could a 9 year old spiritual being experience (competence)?" and one might be satisfied with an ability that is "age appropriate" if one is so inclined for such things to matter.

Then again Joan of Arc postulated a great deal as a 12 year old!

[Heche Reed]

@uniquemand
I think Newhart has discovered the OneShot Clear process.

Yes, but Newhart overran it! :)

[Jachs]

My own experience is that "the entity case" is a great big fruit salad of many and varied components. There is dub-in, there are circuits, there are hallucinatory beings, there are real and willing team mates, there are lost souls clinging on for dear life, and there are real out and out evil buggers who have it in for you. So I wouldn't take on any generality and say that it is all this, or all that. Fact is it is a mixed bag that needs sorting out. Take each one individually and treat it according to its qualities and merits.

Leon, The entity case...I may be flattering myself but are you talking about me ...???

[RogerB]

Very nice. Elegant. I imagine this can be helpful to many people. Thanks RogB!!

Just to be thinking out loud one could ask "where could a 9 year old spiritual being experience (competence)?" and one might be satisfied with an ability that is "age appropriate" if one is so inclined for such things to matter.

Then again Joan of Arc postulated a great deal as a 12 year old!

Heche,

"Competence" was the first item I ran in this context. It was in that session that I saw the importance of this tech point.

Since then a whole re-orientation or re-emphasis of the tech occurred, and it is a standard thing to ask for the "Positive Opposite" of certain items/issues to then process.

The real deal is that we are actually in the business of restoring ourselves to our highest states of Being and power. Hubbard gave us a real bum steer with the "get rid of the negative, bad, wrong, evil, etc."

Yes, there are some screw-ups in our existence we need to address and undo . . . but the far more important action is to address your true nature and powers and restore that.

You know Hubbard never itemized or listed what your positives and good points are? :duh:

No wonder the CofS only sees enemies and SPs all about it! :duh:

It is a very powerful R/D for an individual to take a sheet of paper and to write down all the good and positive things about themselves along with all their abilities and powers . . . . and then to fully acknowledge and honor them.

I'll post more on this theme as we paddle along on this thread.

RogerB

[RogerB]

Dexter G PMed me recently, asking about the Games Matrix tech. It was a "simple," though complete question
:D:

Hi Roger, what are your observations/experiences/insights regarding Games Matrix Processing?

Below is page one of my answer. As a typed document the full answer is eleven pages long . . . and that is truly too long for a single post; so here is a first part:
___________________________________

Hey, Dex :)

Good simple question . . . here’s the long and fulsome answer :yes:

You’re already familiar with my Pasadena presentation. I go into things in writing with more depth and clarity than I was able to in person in the presentation.
Here: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=14524

OK, now for the nitty-gritty.

In my observation, there are two ways into the monster(s) . . . and it is plural, as we have a number of these things sitting on, about and throughout us.

A basic thing to know is that, we as infinite spiritual Beings suffered misalignments of our life-force (theta) in the relationships and games we have played. This experience was/is holographic; 3DH all throughout our Being and presence.

As we declined and “solved” the misalignments (and charge) we began to separate from the experience and Beingness of the whole and infinite presence, and we became dotted, located and in opposition to the truths of our pristine state of Being.

And one of our great, tragic errors was that we projected onto the “other part” of existence that which we opposed or otherwise despised, found abhorrent and sought to destroy. The trap is that all this ugliness is now within our infiniteness of Being even though we have created and masked it with the untruth that it is separate from us. Another way of looking at it is to realize what we are attacking is often the “other part of oneself” — the part of self we now refuse to be, the goal we used to have that is now opposed by self, etc.

I wrote on this dichotomous scenario on the Apollo thread recently when I spoke of those who go through the Power Split and flip into hatred of that which they formerly loved along with all the other nasties of destruction towards that which they used to co-create; and also practice deliberate, destructive ignorance toward that which they used to want to know, and so on. You can list all of the native positives of spirit here and see how we have gone negatively opposed to such.

That’s the mechanics of what we are sitting in . . . and it’s impressed or recorded throughout our spiritual presence as it is, in truth, the alteration of us ourselves: our spiritual Being. It is not really a “mind” thing; it is an altering of us ourselves, our Being and condition of existence. In actuality, the “mind” is really an expression of a part of self: our spiritual self.

OK, so how to address this monster.

It’s tricky, because part of the negatives we are stuck in acting out are such niceties as: refusal to know, refusal to experience, refusal to be and/or be aware, refusal to relate truthfully and honesty; absolute destructive absence to and of the truth of Be, Do, Have, etc.

More anon . . .

RogerB

[Leon]

" . . . those who go through the Power Split and flip into hatred of that which they formerly loved along with all the other nasties of destruction towards that which they used to co-create; and also practice deliberate, destructive ignorance toward that which they used to want to know, and so on."

One seees plenty of this right here on this board, doesn't one? With all of the bile and vituperation directed at LRH and the CofS.

[uniquemand]

LRH and the CofS, Leon, deliberately conned people out of vast sums of money and delivered very little in exchange, in most cases. There are people that got a lot out of it, but nowhere what they contributed to it. Then, the Church and LRH used that money to do the same to other people, while subverting the justice system and targeting their critics.

While I do think it's ridiculous for people to ignore the benefits, I don't think it's at all out of place to be outraged, angry, or sad about having had dealings with the Church of Scientology, or LRH.

[Jachs]

" . . . those who go through the Power Split and flip into hatred of that which they formerly loved along with all the other nasties of destruction towards that which they used to co-create; and also practice deliberate, destructive ignorance toward that which they used to want to know, and so on."

One seees plenty of this right here on this board, doesn't one? With all of the bile and vituperation directed at LRH and the CofS.

Isnt it betrayal after trust Leon from the Church.

[Leon]

I'm not disputing what either of you said as being valid - I'm simply pointing out that the mechanism Roger described appears to be at work here. That's all.

And BTW, I fully agree with Roger on the existence of this mechanism.

[Hatshepsut]

Originally Posted by Leon
" . . . those who go through the Power Split and flip into hatred of that which they formerly loved along with all the other nasties of destruction towards that which they used to co-create; and also practice deliberate, destructive ignorance toward that which they used to want to know, and so on."

One seees plenty of this right here on this board, doesn't one? With all of the bile and vituperation directed at LRH and the CofS.



I'm not disputing what either of you said as being valid - I'm simply pointing out that the mechanism Roger described appears to be at work here. That's all.

And BTW, I fully agree with Roger on the existence of this mechanism.

Some observations regarding a splitting of power also.

I just typed a few paragraphs on Alanzos thread For Those Who Can't Stand Criticism (deleted it though) I started to write about how all criticism is an attempt to make self right and another wrong and hence in the category of service facsimiles. I mentioned cases of extreme abuse and constant chastisement and criticism and attack. I agreed with Free To Shine that the condition of going into hermit mode by those who felt stigmatized by wrongness projected on them that were not really a right item often felt overwhelmed by many vectors on this assault. These for their own protection withdrew from those capable of any power to 'project' psychically their punishment stigma....often avoiding the source of their pain in general...PEOPLE. Animals and things don't tend to project things on top of you...only people do that. I deleted it cause it really wasn't appropriate to anything except the previous post about becoming a hermit for a while.
But the purpose of the comment was to lead into the subject of ABUSE.

I had seen too many real high quality individuals hen pecked to death by someone who wanted to control them and took advantage of their good nature. Their general desire to please and their hesitance to embroil anyone in conflict. What I had seen also in extreme cases of constant criticism and the weakening of the anothers' ability to hold onto their own sense of RIGHTNESS is that something happens to the energy field you carry with you.

In attempting to run out a downturn of events I was looking at the episodes of abuse that just preceded it. I particulary saw that the life force I was carrying either took on the identity of the person continually creating shocks that I could not easily experience or that theta I was carrying just transferred over. There's a power split right there. To have your own life force become the enemy identity and act out the enemy's intentions toward you while still connected to you; very insidious. Also the idea that the counter force made such an impression on you that attention particles became intermingled between the pro and the con viewpoints

Earlier today I was being perplexed by someone who was dramatizing something I found unpleasant. There was a lot of unnatural make wrong in excess of what would be called for. I looked over into their space and telepathically asked "What kind of incident would cause such a thing ( to be dramatized?) " The two push pull terminals in play were 'the soul' and 'sex'. I regarded the imagery and the feelings and efforts I was picking up.

It seemed there was an incident where the being while trapped was forced to put out energy in his own defense creating a 'field' out to about 10 inches around him and withdraw being in a separate location from it. Then a repeated attempt with another cocoon of energy going out maybe a yard and withdraw from it. Then another and another created by the being himself but disowned as he left it surrounding himself. In the end there are numerous auric fields around him like those russian dolls stacked like concentric eggs one locked inside the other. Anyway, the person is continuously identifying with a smaller and smaller space 'inside' the walls of something that is supposedly not him. That is splitting one's power too . The individual was those things he created but now he is separate from them.... they seem to stand in opposition to his freedom.
The end result was that the person felt he no longer occupied any more space than that which was in the immediate vacinity of the body. The spiritual being was now relegated to 'being' the only space it was permitted to occupy. The command of infinite space and any number of simultaneous vectors was whittled down to a point that only creating more bodies guaranteed there would be more vectors and space to occupy. Entering from stage left the punching home of the sex drive.

It seems in a situation like in this incident the power split goes from being a 'soul' (implant notion I believe) or immortal being to becoming a specialized amalgam of created subdivides (who are supposedly no longer YOU) and a condition of being earth human.

[Jachs]

[/QUOTE]OK, so how to address this monster.

It’s tricky, because part of the negatives we are stuck in acting out are such niceties as: refusal to know, refusal to experience, refusal to be and/or be aware, refusal to relate truthfully and honesty; absolute destructive absence to and of the truth of Be, Do, Have, etc.

RogerB[/QUOTE]



Roger a person who is nice to everybody,

i listened LRH talked about this and said the individual had a withold that could blow the top off the empire state building, have you seen any truth to this statement?

[Jachs]

Some observations regarding a splitting of power also.

I just typed a few paragraphs on Alanzos thread re the million bucks or listening to another's pointing out what is wrong with you. (deleted it though) I started to write about how all criticism is an attempt to make self right and another wrong and hence in the category of service facsimiles. I cited cases of extreme abuse and constant chastisement and criticism and attack. I pointed out that the condition of going into hermit mode by those who felt stigmatized by wrongnesses projected on them that were not really a right item often felt overwhelmed by many vectors on this assualt. These for their own protection withdrew from those capable of any power to 'project' psychically their punishment stigma....often avoiding the source of their pain in general...PEOPLE. Animals and things don't tend to project things on top of you...only people do that. I deleted it cause it really wasn't appropriate to anything except the previous post about becoming a hermit for a while.
But the purpose of the comment was to lead into the subject of abuse.

I had seen too many real high quality individuals hen pecked to death by someone who wanted to control them and took advantage of their good nature. Their general desire to please and their hesitance to embroil anyone in conflict. What I had seen also in extreme cases of constant criticism and the weakening of the anothers' ability to hold onto their own sense of RIGHTNESS is that something happens to the energy field you carry with you.

In attempting to run out a downturn of events I was looking at the episodes of abuse that just preceded it. I particulary saw that the life force I was carrying either took on the identity of the person continually creating shocks that I could not easily experience or that theta I was carrying just transferred over. There's a power split right there. To have your own life force become the enemy identity and act out the enemy's intentions toward you while still connected to you; very insidious. Also the idea that the counter force made such an impression on you that attention particle became intermingled between the pro and the con viewpoints

Earlier today I was being perplexed by someone who was dramatizing something I found unpleasant. There was a lot of unnatural make wrong in excess of what would be called for. I looked over into their space and telepathically asked "What kind of incident would cause such a thing ( to be dramatized?) " The two push pull terminals rubbing were 'the soul' and 'sex'. I regarded the imagery and the feelings and efforts I was picking up.

It seemed there was an incident where the being while trapped was forced to put out energy in his own defense creating a 'field' out to about 10 inches around him and withdraw being in a separate location from it. Then a repeated attempt with another cocoon of energy going out maybe a yard and withdraw from it. Then another and another created by the being himself but disowned as he left it surrounding himself. In the end there are numerous auric fields around him like those russian dolls stacked like concentric eggs one locked inside the other. Anyway, the person is continuously identifying with a smaller and smaller space 'inside' the walls of something that is supposedly not him. That is splitting one's power too . The individual was those things he created but now he is separate from them.... they seem to stand in opposition to freedom.
The end result was that the person felt he no longer occupied any more space than that which was in the immediate vacinity of the body. The spiritual being was now relegated to 'being' the only space it was permitted to occupy. The command of infinite space and any number of simultaneous vectors was whittled down to a point that only creating more bodies guaranteed there would be more vectors and space to occupy. Entering from stage left the punching home of the sex drive.

It seems in a situation like in this incident the power split goes from being a 'soul' (implant notion I believe) or immortal being to becoming a specialized amalgam of created subdivides (who are supposedly no longer YOU) but a condition of being earth human.

Good post Hats

[Jachs]

I'm not disputing what either of you said as being valid - I'm simply pointing out that the mechanism Roger described appears to be at work here. That's all.

And BTW, I fully agree with Roger on the existence of this mechanism.

Ok Leon ,Yes i do see how this power split mechanism could be at work.
its the mechanism at work , even if it is a Betrayal.

[programmer_guy]

I started to write about how all criticism is an attempt to make self right and another wrong and hence in the category of service facsimiles.


As long as one thinks in Scientology terms then all thought is in Scientology thinking.
It's not about so-called "service facsimiles"... or any other Scientology concept.

But it certainly sounds good ... doesn't it?
This is a pseudo-science. And some people never get out of that trap.

[Jachs]

I had seen too many real high quality individuals hen pecked to death by someone who wanted to control them and took advantage of their good nature. Their general desire to please and their hesitance to embroil anyone in conflict. What I had seen also in extreme cases of constant criticism and the weakening of the anothers' ability to hold onto their own sense of RIGHTNESS is that something happens to the energy field you carry with you.

These auric fields, restricting the beings abilities to reach out.


Earlier today I was being perplexed by someone who was dramatizing something I found unpleasant. There was a lot of unnatural make wrong in excess of what would be called for. I looked over into their space and telepathically asked "What kind of incident would cause such a thing ( to be dramatized?) " The two push pull terminals in play were 'the soul' and 'sex'. I regarded the imagery and the feelings and efforts I was picking up.

It seemed there was an incident where the being while trapped was forced to put out energy in his own defense creating a 'field' out to about 10 inches around him and withdraw being in a separate location from it. Then a repeated attempt with another cocoon of energy going out maybe a yard and withdraw from it. Then another and another created by the being himself but disowned as he left it surrounding himself. In the end there are numerous auric fields around him like those russian dolls stacked like concentric eggs one locked inside the other. Anyway, the person is continuously identifying with a smaller and smaller space 'inside' the walls of something that is supposedly not him. That is splitting one's power too . The individual was those things he created but now he is separate from them.... they seem to stand in opposition to his freedom.
The end result was that the person felt he no longer occupied any more space than that which was in the immediate vacinity of the body. The spiritual being was now relegated to 'being' the only space it was permitted to occupy. The command of infinite space and any number of simultaneous vectors was whittled down to a point that only creating more bodies guaranteed there would be more vectors and space to occupy. Entering from stage left the punching home of the sex drive.

It seems in a situation like in this incident the power split goes from being a 'soul' (implant notion I believe) or immortal being to becoming a specialized amalgam of created subdivides (who are supposedly no longer YOU) and a condition of being earth human.

Was this person very timid Hats?

These auric fields could you see them, or was it a sense they existed?

Just out of curiousity woud you say this person may be suggestible?

[Hatshepsut]

Was this person very timid Hats?

These auric fields could you see them, or was it a sense they existed?

Just out of curiousity woud you say this person may be suggestible?


No. Not suggestible at all. When someone is acting in a certain way I cannot understand I try to see their incident or whatever which may be in semi-creation. I see a lot of weird imagery carried by people. I don't always intend to look. But if its chronic with them and includes repeated phrases it gets my curiosity up enough to try and see their pictures.

[Jachs]

No. Not suggestible at all. When someone is acting in a certain way I cannot understand I try to see their incident or whatever which may be in semi-creation. I see a lot of weird imagery carried by people. I don't always intend to look. But if its chronic with them and includes repeated phrases it gets my curiosity up enough to try and see their pictures.

I see, when you see this weird imagery,you see around the person\? is the person normally present or can you pick it up other ways..?

Can you see it change at all during conversation?

Im quite intrigued about this.

[RogerB]

Nice, lucid comments, Hats.

I see you are winning :)

Rog

[Leon]

Good post there, hatsy. Thank you for it.:thumbsup:

[Leon]

Do you think maybe those who most strongly assert their present freedom from all of the influences of Scientology on their lives are among those most affected by this mechanism? Hmmmm! Maybe! LOL.

[RogerB]

Do you think maybe those who most strongly assert their present freedom from all of the influences of Scientology on their lives are among those most affected by this mechanism? Hmmmm! Maybe! LOL.

Well, mate . . . .

There are so many shades of gray of upsets with the the CofS, and various reasons for those upsets, the response can vary from utter hateful, "the CofS is totally evil and must be destroyed" to "some of the tech works, I got gains, but the shits are screwing with people and I am leaving to get on with my life," approach.

In other words, some do flip into the totally negative vector. Others have a "balanced" view . . . they even see that while Hubbard was a fraud and a liar, he did do something that they benefited from.

So, your comment is valid . . . for many folks:D not valid for others:D

It is certainly valid for those who are rabidly anti everything scientological after having sampled it. I say this because there is no valid reason, other than is explained by a case reaction, for the colossal amount of hatred and vitriol expressed by some against the tech.

I stress the point of the tech here because it is to be separated from the Org operation as based on policy and personnel conduct. That is to be hated and opposed to the utmost. As for example the latest shit leveled at Emma, and the shit leveled at Carmel.

But the "Power Split" is seen throughout all of life . . . look at all of the formerly loving couples who become so destructive towards each other in divorce.

The next thing to know is that this "pattern" was set in long, long ago. At first, it was a rather slower decline from positive to negative. But once the flip occurred, it became a "pattern" of response that ever after would be triggered and act as an instant solution to cause the flip from positive to negative.

And so, now we see it as "instant reaction."

Rog

[Gottabrain]

As I look at this now, I can’t help thinking this might likely be the why, apart from the extent of abusive behavior by those in power, that Scn has become a failing piece of technology . . . but then, the abuse might even be explained by this gross, monster tech error that is inherent and built into its practice.

Here is a datum. An important datum.

What is screwing up the present is in the PRESENT, it is here, now, doing its screwing up here, now! It is NOT in the past nor necessarily of the past! (I will get into the mechanics of this time notion/factor later on.)

What I saw is that the error which is endemic and a core erroneous principle in/of Scn is the idea that what is bugging you is in the past or from the past. This is a colossal error, and one that has screwed us all up.
...
What I realized in looking at all this is that virtually everyone in Scn has been hooked on the idea that what is “wrong with them,” and what is bugging them, is in or from their past . . . . when in fact, what has to be found, corrected and handled is in the present, NOW!
...
What should have been located and addressed was: WHAT WAS I DOING IN PRESENT TIME TO SCREW UP MY PRESENT TIME!! For the fact is, that is where I live and should be playing the game: not in the past!

RogerB

Hi Roger,
:hattip:

Thank you for what you are doing. Thank you for helping everyone who got screwed up and stuck thinking all the answers were in the past. Your persistence in untangling this mess is greatly appreciated. :blowkiss:

[Hatshepsut]

I see, when you see this weird imagery,you see around the person\? is the person normally present or can you pick it up other ways..?

Can you see it change at all during conversation?

Im quite intrigued about this.

Yes, I have picked it up both ways. If I have good communication with someone or have been in close contact for a long time I can see what's impinging. It doesn't always have to directly belong to the individual running the body.

I am not usually looking at someone's pictures as they are communicating with me. My attention is directed more at what they are saying to me. It takes a concentration of sorts, even the use of stringy tractor beams to siphon sensations about what I am looking at.

[Leon]

Well, mate . . . .

There are so many shades of gray of upsets with the the CofS, and various reasons for those upsets, the response can vary from utter hateful, "the CofS is totally evil and must be destroyed" to "some of the tech works, I got gains, but the shits are screwing with people and I am leaving to get on with my life," approach.

In other words, some do flip into the totally negative vector. Others have a "balanced" view . . . they even see that while Hubbard was a fraud and a liar, he did do something that they benefited from.

So, your comment is valid . . . for many folks:D not valid for others:D

It is certainly valid for those who are rabidly anti everything scientological after having sampled it. I say this because there is no valid reason, other than is explained by a case reaction, for the colossal amount of hatred and vitriol expressed by some against the tech.

I stress the point of the tech here because it is to be separated from the Org operation as based on policy and personnel conduct. That is to be hated and opposed to the utmost. As for example the latest shit leveled at Emma, and the shit leveled at Carmel.

But the "Power Split" is seen throughout all of life . . . look at all of the formerly loving couples who become so destructive towards each other in divorce.

The next thing to know is that this "pattern" was set in long, long ago. At first, it was a rather slower decline from positive to negative. But once the flip occurred, it became a "pattern" of response that ever after would be triggered and act as an instant solution to cause the flip from positive to negative.

And so, now we see it as "instant reaction."

Rog



Yep. You're all correct here. :thumbsup:

[RogerB]

Hi Roger,
:hattip:

Thank you for what you are doing. Thank you for helping everyone who got screwed up and stuck thinking all the answers were in the past. Your persistence in untangling this mess is greatly appreciated. :blowkiss:

Thanks, Gotta . . . . :D

It is important to do. And it is true that I do delight in seeing folks being able to resolve situations they'd been stuck with from whatever source.

I've been at this game a rather long time, and am delighted that in ESMB I and others have a venue through which we can help folks.

So, hang in there . . . the best is yet to come :yes:

. . . . Well, maybe; it depends on what is each individual's "best." :D

Rog

[draetti]

... When someone is acting in a certain way I cannot understand I try to see their incident or whatever which may be in semi-creation. I see a lot of weird imagery carried by people. I don't always intend to look. But if its chronic with them and includes repeated phrases it gets my curiosity up enough to try and see their pictures.

Sorry for popping in so rudely on a side point, but I wonder: Is "weird imagery" or the "weird" in it something you perceive "directly" as a characteristic (like color, taste, pattern) or a quality you judge into it by your experiences and estimations? Does it a have a "negative" connotation or is it just "different", differentiable and on the analytic interpretation (in a kind of second step) given the significance of "weird" by you?

[Mark A. Baker]

I just wanted to say that I think your creating this thread has been an utterly invaluable service to us all and that I've been enjoying reading your posts. :clap:


Mark A. Baker

[Hatshepsut]

Sorry for popping in so rudely on a side point, but I wonder: Is "weird imagery" or the "weird" in it something you perceive "directly" as a characteristic (like color, taste, pattern) or a quality you judge into it by your experiences and estimations? Does it a have a "negative" connotation or is it just "different", differentiable and on the analytic interpretation (in a kind of second step) given the significance of "weird" by you?

Weird, as meaning what's in the incident that seems somewhat frozen for them? Some of it is so volatile I sometimes have been nauseous. Sometimes what I see I cannot easily be put into words. It is my personal feeling that a lot of stuff I uncover in myself is weird. Residue of space opera control operations...and whatever. Galactic deformities and skin diseases that were rampant at times...left over imagery in self and others. These things stick my attention when I pick up really vivid mental image pictures from other people. Images of things not easy to experience or have. :no: Weird oddities, especially physical ones where the imagery is directly overlaying a person's current physical mockup.

But you are exactly right. If I was a journalist doing a review to send back to an off planet rag, the stigma and the word 'weird' would ABSOLUTELY be my own consideration. I do not 'handle' or address a live being with any attitude of shock or disdain to confront. At least I would like to think I don't.

If some happenstances weren't so unimaginably horrible we would not push against them and resist so hard that they now sit on ridges we have created. Thats why they're visible.

I must admit, talking from my own perspective most of the weird feeling stuff and hard to look at stuff by my own standards is outside the realm of living as a human on this planet. Another scope of things entirely.

Today I was handling some masses that had to do with between lives implant goals. Not a direction I have ever had occasion to put my attention in. Did not believe in the phenomena. :angry: It is definitely not true for everyone. :no: But I couldn't get around it....I consider what I was fishing around in 'weird' and I felt 'weird'.
We are all entitled to our opinions ...

[RogerB]

Part 2 of my reply to Dexter on Games Matrices

Another way of looking at the construct of a Games Matrix (and we have many) is that it is a composition of Beingnesses/Identities you have created and assumed in order to play the games you’ve been involved in. These Beingnesses/Identities accumulated to them problems and solutions (that really didn’t truly resolve anything), charge and upsets that were not correctly handled, pain and unpleasant sensations that were mishandled, fears, shocks and generally all of the same messes we experience as part of the current human game. The bad news is that these existences carried forward in the time continuum and jam our spiritual powers and abilities.

OK, so how to address this monster.

It’s tricky, because part of the negatives we are stuck in acting out are such niceties as: refusal to know, refusal to experience, refusal to be and/or be aware, refusal to relate truthfully and honesty; absolute destructive absence to and of the truth of Be, Do, Have, etc.

Alan and I quite likely have two and slightly different views on how best to crack this. I was not able to exchange info with him on my views, I was going to after the Pasadena gig, but as we know he died four weeks later. I had written him some short notes on the matter the previous March, but what became of it I don’t know.

So here’s the line-ups.

When you as auditor or case adviser consider your client is ready and able to comprehend and deal with this stuff you use either of these two approaches.

By ready, I mean the client has attained the following:

Has attained certainty of own spiritual Presence and truth of own spiritual existence.
Has handled all out life Ruds: has no upsets or problems in life that would block being able to obtain gains in sessions of processing.
Has assumed personal responsibility for own condition and does not any longer place blame elsewhere.
Has handled sufficient mis-emotional charge, force and mass off of the case to be able to confront, experience and handle the massive force, charge and mass that will be encountered when addressing the Games Matrix content.
Has done sufficient Objectives to be able to project an intention and stay present in the face of any shit that may turn on. :D (Objectives restore that ability)
Must have a holographic full comprehension of the mood scale and have experienced the various moods and reality levels of its range.
Client is familiar with and has successfully handled various key human and some spiritual identity/Beingnesses. These are Beingnesses the client has existed as and operated as. This part of the line up is important for the client as this familiarizes him/her to the principle that one can assume the existence and Beingness of a “something” and operate as such.
Client is hatted and role educated on what this Games Matrix scenario is; it’s mechanics and how we changed from our ideal optimum and declined down into being stuck in and as this stuff, acting out its content.

Note that last point. It is not something most folks easily comprehend. In PT we are stuck in being this construct, phenomenon and existence of the Matrix. It is us converted into it and stuck as being it and acting it out. Hence it is empowered by us in continuum till we unlock it and erase its presence, form and auto-continuance.

But part of the delusion we can be in is that we think we are only one or another part of the Game Matrix and that we are not and have not ever been the other part we are opposing and so in hatred of.

In Kn, we do have some particular R/Ds and drills that put all the above in for a client, but do not exist in Scn. Though this does not mean Scn folks do not achieve the above; many have. Though certain particular technical facts are missing in the Scn line-up. Example: the true scene on charge and its easy handling.

One thing that is important is Alan’s write up on the “Twelve Vital Fundamentals” . . . this is what needs to be in whenever you process a client, and particularly for addressing the Games Matrices.

Following is Alan’s write up on the Twelve Vital Fundamentals. It used to be on his website, but now I’ll put it here on the following page as it too is rather long.

It is vital information for, as Alan says in the first paragraph:


“There are specific, fundamental actions that must always be handled. Any time one of these fundamentals is violated, the client will begin to get worse and will not be able to continue processing.”

[RogerB]

Note: "Kepts" are Withholds


THE VITAL FUNDAMENTALS OF PROCESSING


The biggest problem that most processors have with their clients is what to do when. There are specific, fundamental actions that must always be handled. Any time one of these fundamentals is violated, the client will begin to get worse and will not be able to continue processing.

Perfect technology requires perfect truths — that is exact, precise, correct who, what, wheres, whens, whys, and mood. When this is evident in an environment, you get expansion and confidence.

Sloppy or poor implementation of technology means that the practitioner is putting untruths into the client's life, thus causing the client to degrade and the practitioner and client to contract and lose confidence.

The vital end product of processing is TRUTH. TRUTH, when found, permeated and owned is the top of the Green Zone. Thus your client soars to the high Green Zone states. The less truth in the session, the lower the client will be in the zones.

It is very easy to observe out-technology in an area. That area has too many untruths. The public doesn't trust the technology or the technologists and will not buy.



THE TWELVE VITAL FUNDAMENTALS OF PROCESSING


There are twelve vital areas that must at all times be fully cleaned up. If any one of these is left unflat or unhandled, the case will crash. These twelve areas are listed in order of importance and must be handled in their exact order. All processors must know these twelve areas and their causes verbatim, and become expert in handling them to Cause Indicators.

The twelve vital areas are:

1. YOU.

2. NO PROCESSOR

2a. SOMEONE OR SOMETHING CONTINUOUSLY NEGATIVELY PROCESSING CLIENT

3. AN AREA OF FEAR.

4. AN ASCENSION EXPERIENCE.

5. WRONG ANSWERS.

6. PARADIGM CRASHES.

7. CONTINUOUS RECURRING PROBLEMS.

8. KEPTS.

9. HARMFUL ACTS.

10. SOMEONE OR SOMETHING TRIGGERING INCIDENTS OF PAIN AND UNCONSCIOUSNESS.

10a. SOMEONE OR SOMETHING TRIGGERING INCIDENTS OF LOSS.

11. NONCOMPREHENDED TERMS OR ACTIONS.

12. SOMETHING GONE ON TOO LONG.


Any one of these twelve points can go out and ruin the session. Naturally, brand-new clients have almost all areas out, so your first actions on beginning clients are to handle each area in this sequence. At the lower levels, we are interested only in de-access types of processes. The idea is to de-access the client's immediate life and bring them up to the Green Zone. When the client is ready to handle the main line processes, put them on them.

It has taken thirty-five years and hundreds of thousands of hours on tens of thousands of clients to uncover the exact sequence of how we became the way we are. The only way out is with the correct tech aimed at the correct area.

Truth, when found, has very specific phenomena. They are covered in the Cause Indicators bulletin. Out-tech shows up by manifestation of bad or effect indicators.

To be a top, champion, master processor demands the ability to be truth, act truth, and own truth. It takes great bravery and honesty to become a master processor.



THE VITAL FUNDAMENTALS


1. YOU. The reason that this is the most important vital fundamental is that it's the source point of everything in and connected to your life. Should this source point be less than its full capacity, then everything else is less than it can be.

If you cannot fully define something, the You cannot be it, do it, or have it.

Thus, the single most misunderstood term for everybody is the word You. This also makes it the most confused subject because everybody has a different or conflicting erroneous belief system upon this misunderstood term, YOU.

Not knowing the full definition of the word You enters in confusion, stupidity, delusions, weird ideas, hate, mis-emotion, upsets, conflicts, hidden agendas, huge communication difficulties, dishonesty, dishonor, dependency, immobility, restraints of self, success reluctances, fear of failure, embarrassment, short or no attention span, poor or no concentration, poor or no focus, shyness, and a tremendous restriction of drive, action, size of games, levels of achievement, feelings, pleasures, abilities, and accuracy of perception, thus causing many Red Zone and Yellow Zone phenomena.




And, when you put two or more people together who do not comprehend what YOU means, you set up a reinforcement and an empowerment of the above liabilities. Thus you get a multiplicity of these phenomena.

This is the single, most basic, reason education does not work properly throughout the world.

Without full and total comprehension of the word and the subject, YOU, you have a barrier to being able to fully and totally comprehending any other words, subjects, or actions. The ability to see and own the truth will be flawed because you will not be able to observe the true who, what, where, or when, or be able to experience the higher moods. Your perceptions and permeation will be limited to the lower Yellow and Red Zone areas.

When the YOU is not fully comprehended, it is very easy to make it not important, thus putting the You under outside control and making your own and others' identities more important than YOU.



MANIFESTATIONS OF NON-COMPREHENDED,
OR FALSELY-COMPREHENDED YOU:

UNCERTAINTY OF SELF

LOW SELF-ESTEEM

LOW SELF-RESPECT

INDECISIVE

RELUCTANCE TO TAKE A POSITION

RELUCTANCE TO BE RESPONSIBLE

RELUCTANCE TO CREATE

RELUCTANCE TO OWN

RELUCTANCE TO BE

RELUCTANCE TO ACT

RELUCTANCE TO BE KNOWN

RELUCTANCE TO PROMOTE

RELUCTANCE TO CONCENTRATE

RELUCTANCE TO COMMIT

RELUCTANCE TO LEAD

PROCRASTINATION

CONTINUOUS WAFFLING

CAN'T MAKE UP ONE'S MIND

NO FOCUS

NO PERSONALITY

A NON-ENTITY

NO DYNAMISM

OUT OF COMMUNICATION

VERY POOR LISTENING SKILLS

VERY POOR DATA ASSIMILATION

VERY POOR DATA RETENTION

VERY POOR READING HABITS

VERY POOR PEOPLE-HANDLING SKILLS

VERY POOR RELATIONSHIPS

EXTREMELY ARGUMENTATIVE

VERY POSSESSIVE


BODY LANGUAGE MANIFESTATIONS:

GRIM FEATURES

SAD LOOK

NO FUN — HAS BEATEN LOOK

NO PLEASURE — MOVES AND ACTS LIKE LIFE IS AN ORDEAL

WALKS AND ACTS SLOW

BLANK LOOK IN EYES

VERY LITTLE LAUGHTER

VERY SERIOUS OUTLOOK

LIFELESS

PONDEROUS ACTIONS

GRUNTS, GROANS, AND SIGHS WHEN DOING SOMETHING WHEN ANYONE IS WATCHING (as if to say, "See what a martyr I am; what a noble beast of burden. Oh, my!)


2. NO PROCESSOR: This is second in order of importance because your client can lose all gains. Further the loss of the processor can stop all future gains.

The loss of a processor can collapse the client’s universe, and down through time most major life losses can be traced to the loss of a processor.


MANIFESTATIONS OF NO PROCESSOR

CHRONIC ATTRACTION TO WRONG PEOPLE

CONTINUOUS RELATIONSHIP PROBLEMS

COLLAPSED UNIVERSES

CAN’T HAVE POWER

AFRAID OF OWN POWER

REJECTION OF POWER

LONELINESS

FEELING STOPPED

FEELING CHARGED

FEELING DESPERATE

APATHETIC

PROCRASTINATION

UNWILLING TO TAKE NEXT STEP

LACK OF REACH

MISALIGNMENT WITH LIFE

NO ONE TO SHARE WINS WITH

BORED

ANGRY

FUTURE APPEARS UNINTERESTING




2a. SOMEONE OR SOMETHING CONTINUOUSLY NEGATIVELY PROCESSING CLIENT. Your client can lose most if not all of their gains or the client's new abilities and case gain can be severely negated by someone or something actively putting the client down.

The major process that the negative processor is running on the client is wrong answers, wrong perceptions, wrong whos, whats, wheres, moods, and hows. Untruths are the weapons of the negative processor.



MANIFESTATIONS OF NEGATIVE PROCESSING:

LOSS OF GAINS.

CLIENT EXPERIENCING UPS AND DOWNS.

CLIENT HAS CONSTANT RECURRING PROBLEMS.

CLIENT CONSTANTLY CREATING FUTURE PROBLEMS AND BAD
CONDITIONS.

CLIENT NOT WINNING IN LIFE.

CLIENT NOT WINNING IN SESSION.

CLIENT IMMOBILIZED.

CLIENT OVERWHELMED.

LOSS OF DREAMS.

LOSS OF GAMES.

LOSS OF ASPIRATIONS.

LOSS OF LIVELINESS.



3. AN AREA OF FEAR. The reason this is the next most important vital fundamental is that when the client has an area of fear, they will not want to be there. If you process over an area of fear, the client will not be able to maintain their gains. There can be trillions of areas of fear, so which area is the most important?

A. Fear of being (yourself) self.

B. Anything to do with the session:

The processor

The room

Things in the room

The Attention Bit Locator

Being asked questions

Being acknowledged

Talking to someone

The chair

The table

The process

The terms

Making an appointment

Being on time

C. The next area of fear could then be the subject of Knowledgism:

The staff

The executives

The books

Alan C. Walter

Seminars

Workshops

Life Planning

Time

D. The next area of fear would be similar practices:

Therapists

Doctors

Patients

Technologies

Staff

Executives

Leaders

Terms

Procedures

Incidents

Negative processes

Ascension states

E. The next area would be present-time connections:

Wife

Husband

Children

Girl friend

Boy friend

Boss

Work mate

Teammates

Games

Rules

Players

Opponents

Job-related fears

Closing

Public speaking

Asking for money

Success

Wealth

Any area of fear represents an area of withdrawal and will ruin the client's life. A client without any areas of fear is a client who is free and who can be incredibly effective.

As you handle a client's areas of fear, you will also handle many of the other vital fundamentals.


MANIFESTATIONS OF FEAR:

LATENESS

INABILITY TO HANDLE TIME

INABILITY TO HANDLE SPACE

INABILITY TO HANDLE ENERGY

INABILITY TO HANDLE FORCE

INABILITY TO HANDLE OBJECTS

INABILITY TO HANDLE PEOPLE

INABILITY TO HANDLE MONEY

INABILITY TO BE FULLY IN SESSION

PUTS OFF SESSIONS

RELUCTANCE TO COMMUNICATE

RELUCTANCE TO TRUST PROCESSOR

RELUCTANCE TO TRUST LIFE-PLANNER

RELUCTANCE TO WORK

RELUCTANCE TO PRODUCE

RELUCTANCE TO BE KNOWN

RELUCTANCE TO SUCCEED

RELUCTANCE TO TRAIN FULLY

RELUCTANCE TO KNOW FULLY

RELUCTANCE TO BECOME A MASTER

RELUCTANCE TO TRUST SELF


4. AN ASCENSION EXPERIENCE. The reason this is the next most important area is that it is also a prime area of fear. When the client experiences a very high surge of awareness, they sometimes experience too many areas that need repair and handling. This is too much truth too suddenly and causes great fear within the client. The client doesn't have the skills and vocabulary to express or handle what has come to view. This causes them to unknowingly pull in old solutions to handle the problems. These old solutions are the reason the client lost their awareness and ability in the first place.

There are two major products of handling past ascension experiences: One, by rehabilitating the ascension experience and allowing the client to permeate and own it, you add tremendous certainty and stability to the basic truth of who and what the client really is.

The second major product is you help the client uncover involuntary replications that are ruining their present existence.


MANIFESTATIONS OF ASCENSION EXPERIENCE:

SUPER-HIGH MOOD LEVELS, THEN DREADFUL LOWER MOOD
LEVELS.

EXPERIENCING HUGENESS OF SELF SPIRITUALLY.

VERY HIGH PERCEPTION.

INABILITY TO MAKE THINGS GO RIGHT.

UNSOLVABLE PROBLEMS.

SOME AREA OF LIFE IN HIGH GREEN ZONE.

SOME AREA OF LIFE IN LOW RED ZONE.

SUDDEN BURSTS OF AWARENESS.

ENERGY LEVEL GREATLY EXCEEDING KNOWLEDGE.

DEPRESSION.

LOSS OF GAMES.

END OF GAMES.

DOESN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH SELF.

KNOWLEDGE FANATIC.

SUDDEN INCREASE IN ABILITIES.


5. WRONG ANSWERS. The reason this is the fifth most important area is that the client is running their life with these wrong answers. If you don't locate them and get the client to get the true answers, their life will not change and they'll continue to operate in a low zone or level of existence.

Wrong answers lead to more questions, which lead to more wrong answers, then more questions. When this happens, the client becomes very introspective and very mis-emotional.

Introspection is a sure sign of too many wrong answers.

Chronic mis-emotion is another sure sign of too many wrong answers.

The client who is constantly self-processing is a client with too many wrong answers.

Wrong answers can cause a client to refuse processing, especially if the session has caused him to be given more wrong answers.

Wrong answers process the client down-scale.



MANIFESTATIONS OF WRONG ANSWERS:

UPSET — MIS-EMOTIONAL.

DOESN'T WANT PROCESSING.

TIRED.

CAN'T MAKE LIFE WORK.

INTROSPECTED.

NO INTEREST IN LIFE — FEELS TRAPPED.

CHRONICALLY WANTS TO BE ELSEWHERE.

UNCERTAIN.

UNCONFIDENT.

CAN'T GET IN SESSION EVEN DURING SESSION.

PEOPLE PROBLEMS.

WRONG PLACE, WRONG TIME.

WRONG WHOS.

WRONG WHATS.

WRONG GAMES.

IN A DAZE.

SESSION NOT GOING RIGHT.

CHRONIC LOW MOOD LEVEL.

ANSWERS DON'T FIT PROCESSING QUESTIONS.

WILL NOT TAKE CHARGE OF LIFE.

WILL NOT LEAD.

WILL NOT WEAR HAT.

WILL NOT STUDY.


6. PARADIGM CRASHES. This is the sixth most important area. The client is running his life in a negative manner because of past paradigm crashes and perceives only negatively, thus negatively process the environment and those around him. Paradigm crashes cause upsets. When a client is upset, his life gets worse.

Unhandled upsets can wreck the lives of the client and his friends. This level of client cannot be friendly, thus makes life very hard for himself.

Freedom from upsets and paradigm crashes allows the client to operate continuously in the Green Zone.



MANIFESTATIONS OF PARADIGM CRASH:

NO INTEREST IN LIFE OR SESSION.

UNFRIENDLY.

SAD.

LIFE NOT WORKING.

FACIAL CHARACTERISTICS GRIM OR GLUM.

LITTLE OR NO LAUGHTER.

STRESSED OUT.

FEELS OLD.

POOR COMMUNICATION SKILLS.

CUTS COMMUNICATION.

DEGRADED GAMES.

REFUSES TO GET IN COMMUNICATION.

REFUSES TO GET INVOLVED.

REFUSES TO WIN.

CAN'T WIN.

LOOKS ONLY AT NEGATIVITY.


7. CONTINUOUS RECURRING PROBLEMS. The reason this is the seventh most important area is because continuous recurring problems tie up all the client's attention and life-force particles in trying to solve the problem. Failure to handle continuous recurring problems causes the client to experience no case-improvement.



MANIFESTATIONS OF CONTINUOUS RECURRING PROBLEMS:

CONTINUOUSLY BRINGING UP SAME SUBJECT OR PERSON.

DOESN'T FEEL GOOD AT END OF SESSION.

NO GAIN

LIFE IS A PROBLEM

SESSIONS ARE PROBLEMS

YOU ARE A PROBLEM

FACIAL EXPRESSIONS GRIM.

LITTLE LAUGHTER.

FEELS HOPELESS.

VICTIMISH.

NEGATIVE TOWARD LIFE.

NO WINS.

NO COGNITIONS.

NO CAUSE INDICATORS.

EVERYTHING IS A PROBLEM.



8. KEPTS. The reason this is eighth in importance is that the above six often have at their source a kept or many kepts.

Kepts contain a great deal of fear, shame, embarrassment, remorse, and guilt. This forces the client into disguising themselves and denying their You-ness.

A client with known kepts cannot attain the higher states because higher states require a fuller You.

The client will refuse processing because of KEPTS. Fear of being found out is a major reason for most people's refusal of processing.

The client with kepts gets very critical of those around them because they can't trust anyone enough to tell their kepts. That the client blames everyone for their fixed condition is an immediate giveaway that the client has kepts.


MANIFESTATIONS OF KEPTS:

EXTREMELY CRITICAL.

CONSTANTLY UPSET.

GETS UPSET EASILY.

TIRED.

YAWNS.

CANNOT LOOK YOU IN THE EYES.

SEES ONLY NEGATIVITY.

LOOKS FOR WHAT'S WRONG IN OTHERS.

RUNS SHALLOWLY.

WON'T GO INTO SESSION EASILY.

ATTENTION BIT LOCATOR MANIFESTATIONS TIGHT.

DOESN'T WANT TO KNOW.

STUDY DIFFICULTIES.

BREAKS COMMUNICATION.

IS BAD-TEMPERED



9. HARMFUL ACTS. The reason harmful acts are ninth in importance is that they block perception, knowledge, permeation, ownership, and cause. Unhandled harmful acts keep the client from rising up the zones.

The most important harmful acts to handle are those that recur continuously because they cause the client to pull in punishment and penalties and create a continuous dangerous environment and climate of neurotic, self-created fear.

Fear of being punished or ridiculed for having committed a harmful act is a major reason behind fear of being fully themselves; they are in hiding and in disguise.


MANIFESTATIONS OF HARMFUL ACTS:

CONTINUOUSLY COMPLAINING ABOUT SOMEONE OR SOMETHING.

AT EFFECT.

POVERTY.

VICTIM.

ACCIDENT PRONE.

VERY RED ZONE.

UNHAPPY.

DESTRUCTIVE GAMES.

PENALTY AND PUNISHMENT PRONE.

UNLUCKY.

UN-CAUSING.

AFRAID TO REACH OUT.

HEAVY DENIAL.



10. SOMEONE OR SOMETHING TRIGGERING INCIDENTS OF PAIN AND UNCONSCIOUSNESS. The reason this is tenth in order of importance is that a client can become extremely over-accessed by having past incidents accessed. Too many untruths are being put into the client's environment, mind, and spiritual space.

Past incidents have the power to control the client; to make them do things they don't want to do. It can be very upsetting for the client to have these past incidents accessed.


MANIFESTATIONS OF TRIGGERED PAST INCIDENTS OF PAIN AND UNCONSCIOUSNESS:

NOT PRESENT.

LOOKS 'OUT OF IT.'

IN A TRANCE.

IN WRONG PLACE AND WRONG TIME.

CAN'T STUDY.

CAN'T TRAIN.

ACCIDENT PRONE.

REOCCURRING INCIDENTS IN LIFE

RED ZONE.


10a. SOMEONE OR SOMETHING TRIGGERING INCIDENTS OF LOSS:
As important as and similar consequences of Triggering Incidents of Pain and Unconsciousness, but has specific liabilities and manifestations in life that stop the client from creating a future.


MANIFESTATIONS OF TRIGGERED PAST INCIDENTS OF LOSS:

EXTREMELY SAD

CHRONICALLY SAD

STUCK IN MOOD OF GRIEF OR BELOW

NOT INTEREST IN CREATING ANYTHING

OUT OF COMMUNICATION

UPSET

DEPRESSED

BAD MEMORY

RELATIONSHIP PROBLEMS

FIXED ATTENTION



11. NON-COMPREHENDED TERMS AND ACTIONS. The reason these are eleventh in importance is that when the client has non-comprehended terms and actions, they will not run the processes correctly. Worse, they will add tremendous confusion and potential upsets in the session.

If there are too many non-comprehended terms and actions, the client will not return for processing.

It is vital that the client comprehend what is going on in sessions and what you are doing. If there are too many non-comprehended terms and actions, the client will feel totally overwhelmed, then extremely stupid. They will not make any gains and may well refuse to ever get processing again.


MANIFESTATIONS OF NON-COMPREHENDED TERMS AND ACTIONS:

FEELS STUPID.

BAD INDICATORS.

CAN'T ANSWER PROCESS QUESTIONS.

BLANK LOOK ON FACE.

YAWNING.

PROTESTY.

WANTS TO LEAVE.

DISLIKES YOU.

DISLIKES KNOWLEDGISM

DISLIKES PROCESSING.

FEELS UNCONSCIOUS.

SAD.

UNHAPPY.

GLUM.



12. SOMETHING GONE ON TOO LONG. The reason this is number twelve is that the client has won at something, or ended a game or relationship but has not acknowledged that it has ended, thus overruns. This sets up a feeling of resistance and, ultimately, resentment and finally, protest.

When something goes on too long, the life is withdrawn and there is a feeling of grinding and hopelessness. This shows up on the Attention Bit Locator as the Resistance Value reading stuck above 4.0.

When a process goes past the Cause Indicator point, you have run the process too long. This shows up as no-change, Resistance Value rising above 4.0 and sticking, and the client looking grim.

Sometimes you'll run into an area that has been processed for too long. I once had a client who had been in therapy and been running a rape incident for three years. She had blown the incident in the first session, and the next 1000 hours were a waste of time and money. Worse, it made her believe she couldn't handle her case or vanish anything. This transferred into her life and she felt continuously overwhelmed and unhappy.

She lived her life the way she ran her incidents — everything was an ordeal, nothing was fun, nothing made her better.


MANIFESTATIONS OF SOMETHING GONE ON TOO LONG:

NO INTEREST.

RESISTANT.

SESSION IS AN ORDEAL.

LIFE IS AN ORDEAL.

GRIM.

GRINDING AT EVERYTHING THEY DO.

PROTESTY.

HIGH STUCK RESISTANCE, 4.0 OR ABOVE.

NO GAINS.

NO CAUSE INDICATORS.

NO LIFE.


All processors and clients should be Clean Slated on this bulletin. You can save a client thousands of hours by correct application of the correct handling at the correct time.

Processors must know, verbatim, the Twelve Vital Fundamentals and their manifestations, in their correct order.

Strict adherence to this bulletin will guarantee your clients get massive wins in their sessions and life, and your own certainty, confidence, and competency in handling clients will expand tremendously.





3 August, 1993 ALAN C. WALTER
Revised 4 May 2004

Copyright © 1993, 1995, 2003, 2004
Alan C. Walter
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

[Leon]

This will take a while to study and digest fully, but my initial take on it is that seems quite awesome.

[uniquemand]

Wow, guaranteed wins. Where have I heard that before?

[Leon]

Question for Roger: What is a "paradigm crash"?

[RogerB]

Question for Roger: What is a "paradigm crash"?

Sorry, I should have spotted that and slugged in a "definition."

Basically, it is a major upset to or of one's operating paradigm. That is, one is going along in life with a basically successful operating basis, and suddenly it gets crashed. One's dreams and aspirations are lost, trashed.

We are not talking simple ARCX's here, we are talking order's of magnitude like a crashed life, like, you thought you could trust your spouse . . . but, shock of shocks! Though it's true that ARCX's can be present time activators of deeper, bigger upsets.

I will later be posting on the issue of fear. It is a huge subject, a vital subject to understand; and one that has catastrophic effects on one's spiritual presence and ability to exercise one's powers/abilities.

You see, it is in the face of fear that one goes most absent . . . and that constitutes the most extreme method of loss of ability and power. Big subject.

Rog

[nexus100]

This is a massive overthink, my opinion. No wonder the "processor" gets a big head.

[uniquemand]

Yep. Bigtime. Why so complicated?

[nexus100]

Yep. Bigtime. Why so complicated?

UM have you noticed we are agreeing more lately?

[olska]

<>


THE VITAL FUNDAMENTALS OF PROCESSING


The biggest problem that most processors have with their clients is what to do when. There are specific, fundamental actions that must always be handled. Any time one of these fundamentals is violated, the client will begin to get worse and will not be able to continue processing.
<>
There are twelve vital areas that must at all times be fully cleaned up. If any one of these is left unflat or unhandled, the case will crash. These twelve areas are listed in order of importance and must be handled in their exact order. All processors must know these twelve areas and their causes verbatim, and become expert in handling them to Cause Indicators.
<>
Any one of these twelve points can go out and ruin the session. Naturally, brand-new clients have almost all areas out, ...

It has taken thirty-five years and hundreds of thousands of hours on tens of thousands of clients to uncover the exact sequence of how we became the way we are. The only way out is with the correct tech aimed at the correct area.
<snip snip snip -- very long post>

After reading through this very long so-called "tech" post, I’m left not knowing whether to laugh, cry, or call the police.

There is something very unsettling and creepy about the fact that there are people out there in the world, who consider themselves part of something called “the independent field,” who are forwarding the idea that, referring to a long, long list of "negative" emotional/ mental/ spiritual manifestations


... brand-new clients have almost all areas out...

and


It has taken thirty-five years and hundreds of thousands of hours on tens of thousands of clients to uncover the exact sequence of how we became the way we are.

and


The only [my emphasis] way out is with the correct tech aimed at the correct area.

In other words, these people of the "independent field" are forwarding the idea that the people of the world who’ve not yet availed themselves of the “tech” described in this long post, or hooked up with a “processor” trained in this “tech,” are suffering and doomed to continue to suffer from the long, long list of “manifestations” given under the “twelve vital fundamentals of processing.”

From time to time, for short interludes, I have personally experienced SOME of those manifestations; and as well, I personally know many (normal, happy) people who from time to time, for short interludes, have experienced some of those manifestations.

But, for the most part, I and the people I’ve known have “snapped out of it” with little more than some time passing, a good rest, a self-motivated change of unproductive habits, perhaps some private contemplation and soul-searching, some education, some kind words (or occasionally a kick in the butt) from caring friends, or a change in circumstances (escaping an abusive relationship, finding a new love, a better job, a move to more suitable environment, a child outgrowing a phase the parent person finds taxing or demanding, and the like…) – each and all of which can serve to give one a new outlook on and new enthusiasm for life.

I think the experience of that long, long list of various “negative” emotional states is a “normal” and almost always TRANSIENT part of living, requiring no need for this strange, and -- imo -- sinister and invasive “tech.”

But maybe I have completely misunderstood what all this is about. Maybe it’s designed for the deeply mentally/ emotionally/ spiritually ill MINORITY of the human race who wouldn’t be able to cope with or manage life without it, or without something equivalent.

So in the interests of better understanding, I’ll ask this question:

WHO are the intended “clients” for this processing?

[Leon]

Well, there now. What can I say? My immediate response to "The only way out is with the correct tech aimed at the correct area" is so plainly obvious that it hardly merits any mention. It's like insisting that the order of the correct way to make a peanut butter and cheese sandwich is to use bread, peanut butter and cheese.

Duh! Of course you need the correct tech aimed at the correct area.

But thanks to Olska I now know that I am mistaken in this idea.

[olska]

Well, there now. What can I say? My immediate response to "The only way out is with the correct tech aimed at the correct area" is so plainly obvious that it hardly merits any mention. It's like insisting that the order of the correct way to make a peanut butter and cheese sandwich is to use bread, peanut butter and cheese.

Duh! Of course you need the correct tech aimed at the correct area.

But thanks to Olska I know know that I am mistaken in this idea.

Starting with the apparent assumption that that there is much (a very long list, according to the post I referenced) WRONG with people for which they need "a way out," the ideas and "tech" put forth in the post I referenced are considerably more complicated, involved, and invasive than preparing a peanut butter and cheese sandwich.

Perhaps I didn't communicate it well in my post above, but I think that initial assumption is incorrect.

If the assumption is incorrect, all the thinking and "tech" that is built on that assumption is an attempt at a "solution" for a false situation. Who knows what might be the effect on persons subjected processes such as those described in an attempt to "clean up" a false situation?

I find the whole proposal disturbing. Rather than just dismiss what I had to say, and dismiss my concerns, perhaps you could tell us:

.. what makes you think anyone needs or would want to undergo these processes?

.. who are the people you think are suffering from those long, long lists of negative manifestations, who need to be "cleaned up" with this proposed "tech"?

And since it was said in the original post that I referenced,


Any one of these twelve points can go out and ruin the session. Naturally, brand-new clients have almost all areas out, ..."

.. who are the intended "brand-new clients" for this proposed "processing"?

[Leon]

Are you a trained and experienced auditor? I'm interested to know.

Regarding: ".. what makes you think anyone needs or would want to undergo these processes?" all I can say is that the people themselves say they want to "undergo" them; well they don't use the word undergo, they say they want to have them, and I don't have enough hours in my day or days in my week to satisfy them.

Regarding: "who are the people you think are suffering from those long, long lists of negative manifestations, who need to be "cleaned up" with this proposed "tech"? Well again, your choice of words is very far from descriptive of the people who have come to me over the last several decades, but leaving that aside, they are by and large just ordinary people who need a helping hand for whatever reason.

And yes, very often brand-new clients have almost all areas out.

[LongTimeGone]

Starting with the apparent assumption that that there is much (a very long list, according to the post I referenced) WRONG with people for which they need "a way out," the ideas and "tech" put forth in the post I referenced are considerably more complicated, involved, and invasive than preparing a peanut butter and cheese sandwich.

Perhaps I didn't communicate it well in my post above, but I think that initial assumption is incorrect.

If the assumption is incorrect, all the thinking and "tech" that is built on that assumption is an attempt at a "solution" for a false situation. Who knows what might be the effect on persons subjected processes such as those described in an attempt to "clean up" a false situation?

I find the whole proposal disturbing. Rather than just dismiss what I had to say, and dismiss my concerns, perhaps you could tell us:

.. what makes you think anyone needs or would want to undergo these processes?

.. who are the people you think are suffering from those long, long lists of negative manifestations, who need to be "cleaned up" with this proposed "tech"?

And since it was said in the original post that I referenced,



.. who are the intended "brand-new clients" for this proposed "processing"?

I'm with YOU Olska.

By the way "is there an earlier similar time you were annoyed by this sort of crap?" :eyeroll:
D.

[FoTi]

Starting with the apparent assumption that that there is much (a very long list, according to the post I referenced) WRONG with people for which they need "a way out," the ideas and "tech" put forth in the post I referenced are considerably more complicated, involved, and invasive than preparing a peanut butter and cheese sandwich.

Perhaps I didn't communicate it well in my post above, but I think that initial assumption is incorrect.

If the assumption is incorrect, all the thinking and "tech" that is built on that assumption is an attempt at a "solution" for a false situation. Who knows what might be the effect on persons subjected processes such as those described in an attempt to "clean up" a false situation?

I find the whole proposal disturbing. Rather than just dismiss what I had to say, and dismiss my concerns, perhaps you could tell us:

.. what makes you think anyone needs or would want to undergo these processes?

.. who are the people you think are suffering from those long, long lists of negative manifestations, who need to be "cleaned up" with this proposed "tech"?

And since it was said in the original post that I referenced,



.. who are the intended "brand-new clients" for this proposed "processing"?

Olska....what was/is your involvement with Scientology?

[olska]

Are you a trained and experienced auditor? I'm interested to know.

No, I am not a "trained and experienced auditor."


Regarding: "who are the people you think are suffering from those long, long lists of negative manifestations, who need to be "cleaned up" with this proposed "tech"? Well again, your choice of words is very far from descriptive of the people who have come to me over the last several decades, but leaving that aside, they are by and large just ordinary people who need a helping hand for whatever reason.

The words I chose referred to the list of "12 vital areas that must at all times be cleaned up" (actually there are 14 areas if you include 2a and 10a) and the lengthy list of "manifestations" under each of the 14 that are supposedly present if that "area" is "out."


And yes, very often brand-new clients have almost all areas out.

Would it not then follow that those brand-new clients would be exhibiting (perhaps suffering was a poor word choice?) the many "manifestations" that are supposedly present if those "areas" are "out"?

My concern is that the "clients" you describe as ordinary people who need a helping hand for whatever reason can be encouraged to

(1) be drawn into a long, arduous, and costly program such as scientology, or such as the "tech" proposed in the post I've referenced, by first making much ado about what is WRONG with them that only a "trained, experienced auditor" or special "processor" knows how to fix: twelve (plus 2) areas listed in order of importance [that] must be handled in their exact order.

OR

(2) effectively overcome and get past their difficulties in simpler ways, some of which I described in my first post above.

When choice #2 is readily available, who really benefits from choice #1?

That might depend on WHO are the intended "brand new clients" for the processing to be delivered in choice #1 -- I asked twice already, you've yet to answer.

[olska]

I'm with YOU Olska.

By the way "is there an earlier similar time you were annoyed by this sort of crap?" :eyeroll:
D.

yah, several, many, ... oh omg now you've got me LISTING! whatever shall we do!! :omg: :D

[olska]

Olska....what was/is your involvement with Scientology?

I was involved in scientology in the mid-1970s -- training, processing, staff at a Class IV org. With the exception of occasionally indulging my hobby of deconstructing Hubbard's writings, I'm no longer involved.

[LongTimeGone]

yah, several, many, ... oh omg now you've got me LISTING! whatever shall we do!! :omg: :D

Oh well, there you go.
Take an Aspirin and call me in the morning.
D.

[degraded being]

It's very simple.
Ron was a genius.
He was flawed, but a genius nonetheless.
Ron knew that we have to get out of the terrible trap we are in.
Some of us didn't even know were in it until Ron told us. God we're dumb!
Ron came up with some technology. It is wonderful.
But Duh!!! The genius Ron made some mistakes.
Some people have come up with corrections to Ron's tech.
Boy are we lucky to have them here to make sure our coolaid is made to their new improved recipe.
Now we can get out.
Sigh of relief!
We can get out!

If you don't get this....like,.. Duh!

[Dulloldfart]

I think we just have different viewpoints at work here.

The "average person" goes through life, functions like a normal human, has his ups and downs, and doesn't need to be forcibly locked up or medicated as he is no particular danger to others around him. He might indulge in a bit of self-help of one kind or another, but doesn't go overboard on it.

Then there's the kind of person who wants to "improve" himself to a marked extent, mentally and spiritually, whether by decades of devotion in a temple, studying and practising no end of this and that, or even immersing himself in Scn or similar practices.

And there are other types, including those inmates of institutions who *are* locked up for the good of others.

I can imagine that the first type looks on the second type as weird, in that they seem to be missing the point, and similarly the second type looks on the first as missing the point. I certainly read such comments here on ESMB, as well as having thoughts of my own that I don't necessarily voice, although I may.

Paul

[Veda]

In 1937 a book titled, 'The Middle Pillar' http://weiserantiquarian.com/catalogfiftynine/36769.jpg by Israel Regardie was published.

Wrote Regardie:

"[Psycho-therapeutic] Analysis is the logical precursor of spiritual attainment and Magical experiment... Not until the mind and the emotional system have been cleansed and unified by the cathartic process... can the full spiritual benefits of magical work be reflected into the mind of man.

"...We should remember the parables of the archaic philosophical religions whose fundamental tenet was that within man was a spirit, a dynamic center of consciousness which, because of its contact and association with matter, had been plunged into a profound sleep, a kind of somnambulism...

"By endeavoring to extend the horizon of consciousness, to enlarge the field of awareness so as to embrace what previously was unconscious, is obviously a logical method. To become aware of all our actions, our thoughts and emotions and unsuspected motives, to regard them in their true light as actually they are and not as we would like them to be or as we would wish an onlooker to perceive them. It requires, to take this step, an extraordinary degree of honesty and courage... The more of this suppressed and forgotten material stored in this at one time unknown or dormant side of our nature that can be raised to the clear light of day, by exactly so much do we awake from the inert stupor into which we have in the past been plunged."

The 'Tree of Life': http://www.cosmiclight.com/oflightandlife/images/treelife.jpg

[RogerB]

No, I am not a "trained and experienced auditor."

Snipped . . .


That might depend on WHO are the intended "brand new clients" for the processing to be delivered in choice #1 -- I asked twice already, you've yet to answer.

The answer, olska, is any who wish to honestly investigate and find answers.

And since you are obviously no longer interested since your departure from Scn, this does not apply to you.

And you thus neither require nor deserve any further explanation.

You may be as you choose.

RogerB

[olska]

It's very simple.
Ron was a genius.
He was flawed, but a genius nonetheless.
Ron knew that we have to get out of the terrible trap we are in.
Some of us didn't even know were in it until Ron told us. God we're dumb!
Ron came up with some technology. It is wonderful.
But Duh!!! The genius Ron made some mistakes.
Some people have come up with corrections to Ron's tech.
Boy are we lucky to have them here to make sure our coolaid is made to their new improved recipe.
Now we can get out.
Sigh of relief!
We can get out!

If you don't get this....like,.. Duh!

Apparently the "tech" I've been referencing was written by Alan Walters, not Ron; otherwise, I generally tend to agree with you -- particularly with the bolded line. And I personally LIKE your blunt and succinct way of making your point.

HOWEVER,

It was recently pointed out to me that my own tendency toward blunt statements tinged with ridicule comes across as "disruptive, rude, unproductive negative comments on others' writing" meant to stir up flames rather than sincere contribution to discussion.

I hope my genuine concerns won't be dismissed because of something as insignificant as my writing style, because I have concerns about efforts of the "independent field" to forward, promote, distribute, and/or sell the idea that unless the people of the world avail themselves of this “tech” by hooking up with a “processor” trained in this “tech,” they are doomed to be "trapped" and troubled by the long list of “manifestations” that are wrong with them.

For example, early in the article the author states (bold is my emphasis):


... the single most misunderstood term for everybody is the word You. This also makes it the most confused subject because everybody has a different or conflicting erroneous belief system upon this misunderstood term, YOU.

Did the author really mean "everybody," as in all human beings? Or only "everybody" within a limited group of individuals defined and known to the "insiders" but not the rest of us?

If it's "everybody" in the full sense of the word, then we're all in trouble, as the author goes on to tell us the consequences of our ignorance:


Not knowing the full definition of the word You enters in confusion, stupidity, delusions, weird ideas, hate, mis-emotion, upsets, conflicts, hidden agendas, huge communication difficulties, dishonesty, dishonor, dependency, immobility, restraints of self, success reluctances, fear of failure, embarrassment, short or no attention span, poor or no concentration, poor or no focus, shyness, and a tremendous restriction of drive, action, size of games, levels of achievement, feelings, pleasures, abilities, and accuracy of perception ...

That sinister list of negative attributes is laid out in the first of 14 "vital areas" that the "processor" is to address ... we're just getting started!

[olska]

The answer, olska, is any who wish to honestly investigate and find answers.

And since you are obviously no longer interested since your departure from Scn, this does not apply to you.

And you thus neither require nor deserve any further explanation.

You may be as you choose.

RogerB

Did you mean that I am "obviously no longer interested" in scientology? in which case, you are incorrect as I am interested in analyzing and deconstructing it so as to help people (those who wish to do so) untangle themselves from it, or

that I am "obviously no longer interested" in honestly investigating and finding answers? in which case you would be wrong, as my interest in your lengthy post of the "tech" written by Alan Walters is part of an honest investigation aimed at finding the answers to how it happened (and still could happen), that people seeking help or answers to the normal and usual problems of life, can be drawn into something so insidious and destructive to their mental, emotional, social, and spiritual life as "scientology" and some of its offshoots.

You can believe whatever you like, play at whatever games you like, discuss the subject or not; but, in light of the devastating effect "scientology" has had on the lives of many people, I think it is foolish of you to dismiss the concerns I and others have by implying that I am "dishonest" and telling me that I "neither require nor deserve" any answers.

[olska]

I think we just have different viewpoints at work here.

The "average person" goes through life, functions like a normal human, has his ups and downs, and doesn't need to be forcibly locked up or medicated as he is no particular danger to others around him. He might indulge in a bit of self-help of one kind or another, but doesn't go overboard on it.

Then there's the kind of person who wants to "improve" himself to a marked extent, mentally and spiritually, whether by decades of devotion in a temple, studying and practising no end of this and that, or even immersing himself in Scn or similar practices.

And there are other types, including those inmates of institutions who *are* locked up for the good of others.

I can imagine that the first type looks on the second type as weird, in that they seem to be missing the point, and similarly the second type looks on the first as missing the point. I certainly read such comments here on ESMB, as well as having thoughts of my own that I don't necessarily voice, although I may.

Paul

I think what you say is right as far as it goes, but there is an important bit missing:

Someone in your first category (the "average") hits a rough spot in life and finds themself feeling lost, or depressed, or they need help sorting out a family or career relationship, or they're looking to overcome what they know is a self-destructive habit or addiction.

In this state, they are vulnerable to the scientologist (or some other kind of practitioner with their own agenda) who "finds their RUIN," and then draws the person into an elaborate, long, arduous, and sometimes VERY COSTLY (and not just financially costly) program of "processing" to "handle" all the many other things beneath the surface of the original "ruin" that are WRONG with this person -- according to the "processor" and the theories of the "tech" this processor uses.

I have no beef at all with anyone in your second category as long as they do not impose their beliefs and practices on the rest of us "for our own good."

For the unfortunate souls in your third category, some promising advances have been made in recent decades with drugs for treating serious mental illness. Psyche drugs are not a panacea, but I think treating people with drugs is often preferable to no treatment at all -- and, oddly, some of the people I know who are being so treated agree.

Your first category covers the majority of the human population and a broad, broad range of life situations and intensities of help-seeking. The more serious or confusing their problem, the more responsible they are for taking the initiative to do something about their situation, the more vulnerable they are to being exploited.

I think MOST of the people who were drawn into scientology and whose lives were devastated by that involvement were part of this group; they were not part of your second group.

[Leon]

There are some good answers for you on this page, Olska.

Bye bye.

[Vinaire]

I would look at any "tech" that operates as a business, with great deal of suspicion.

.

[Vinaire]

Did you mean that I am "obviously no longer interested" in scientology? in which case, you are incorrect as I am interested in analyzing and deconstructing it so as to help people (those who wish to do so) untangle themselves from it, or

that I am "obviously no longer interested" in honestly investigating and finding answers? in which case you would be wrong, as my interest in your lengthy post of the "tech" written by Alan Walters is part of an honest investigation aimed at finding the answers to how it happened (and still could happen), that people seeking help or answers to the normal and usual problems of life, can be drawn into something so insidious and destructive to their mental, emotional, social, and spiritual life as "scientology" and some of its offshoots.

You can believe whatever you like, play at whatever games you like, discuss the subject or not; but, in light of the devastating effect "scientology" has had on the lives of many people, I think it is foolish of you to dismiss the concerns I and others have by implying that I am "dishonest" and telling me that I "neither require nor deserve" any answers.


Please check out

An honest critique of Scientology (http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=20906)

Have fun.

.

[FoTi]

No, I am not a "trained and experienced auditor."



I was involved in scientology in the mid-1970s -- training, processing, staff at a Class IV org. .

Since you say you are not a trained or experienced auditor in the first quote, what training or processing are you referring to here in the second quote?

[olska]

Since you say you are not a trained or experienced auditor in the first quote, what training or processing are you referring to here in the second quote?

Why do you need or want to know?

Would you also like to know my full name, history of name changes, DOB, SocSec number, name of the org where I was on staff, where I live now, who I was married to and when? Would you like me to fill out a life history form for you?

Give me a really good reason why I should share with you the personal details of my life, and MAYBE i will -- otherwise, please respect my privacy as I respect yours.

[FoTi]

Why do you need or want to know?

Because you said that you had no auditor training or experience and then you say you did training and processing. :confused2:

Would you also like to know my full name, history of name changes, DOB, SocSec number, name of the org where I was on staff, where I live now, who I was married to and when? Would you like me to fill out a life history form for you?

Nope. Have no interest in your personal life. Just trying to make some sense out of what you posted in this thread.

Give me a really good reason why I should share with you the personal details of my life, and MAYBE i will -- otherwise, please respect my privacy as I respect yours.

My, my....touchy aren't we?

:eyeroll:

[olska]

Quote:
Originally Posted by olska
Why do you need or want to know?

Because you said that you had no auditor training or experience and then you say you did training and processing.

Would you also like to know my full name, history of name changes, DOB, SocSec number, name of the org where I was on staff, where I live now, who I was married to and when? Would you like me to fill out a life history form for you?

Nope. Have no interest in your personal life. Just trying to make some sense out of what you posted in this thread.

Give me a really good reason why I should share with you the personal details of my life, and MAYBE i will -- otherwise, please respect my privacy as I respect yours.

My, my....touchy aren't we? :eyeroll:

OK -- I did NOT say that I had "NO auditor training or experience" -- what I wrote in answer to Leon's question was that I am not (do not consider myself) a "trained and experienced auditor."

In fact, I did a number of scientology "services" that I don't care to delineate here just to satisfy your curiosity, and one amongst those was the HQS course, as part of which I audited my twin for maybe 6 hours (too long ago to remember) before we reached the "EP" required by the checksheet.

... So does that mean I am now qualified to call myself a "trained and experienced auditor?" Didn't think so, which is one reason I don't represent myself as such.


My, my....touchy aren't we?

You can view it however you wish, but if you think such a remark is going to provoke me into publishing on the internet details about myself that I prefer to keep private, you are mistaken.

[draetti]

Weird, as meaning what's in the incident that seems somewhat frozen for them? Some of it is so volatile I sometimes have been nauseous. Sometimes what I see I cannot easily be put into words. It is my personal feeling that a lot of stuff I uncover in myself is weird. Residue of space opera control operations...and whatever. Galactic deformities and skin diseasesthat were rampant at times...left over imagery in self and others. These things stick my attention when I pick up really vivid mental image pictures from other people. Images of things not easy to experience or have. :no: Weird oddities, especially physical ones where the imagery is directly overlaying a person's current physical mockup.

But you are exactly right. If I was a journalist doing a review to send back to an off planet rag, the stigma and the word 'weird' would ABSOLUTELY be my own consideration. I do not 'handle' or address a live being with any attitude of shock or disdain to confront. At least I would like to think I don't.

If some happenstances weren't so unimaginably horrible we would not push against them and resist so hard that they now sit on ridges we have created. Thats why they're visible.

I must admit, talking from my own perspective most of the weird feeling stuff and hard to look at stuff by my own standards is outside the realm of living as a human on this planet. Another scope of things entirely.

Today I was handling some masses that had to do with between lives implant goals. Not a direction I have ever had occasion to put my attention in. Did not believe in the phenomena. :angry: It is definitely not true for everyone. :no: But I couldn't get around it....I consider what I was fishing around in 'weird' and I felt 'weird'.
We are all entitled to our opinions ...

Opinions which are just kind of serfacs if they don't lead anywhere, aren't they?

Thank you for the explanations. It's interesting to share your views. I'm not the same today as when I asked the question so can't follow up with a more specific ack - don't know anymore to what aim I wanted to know.

The structures which seem weird to me most often are structures of functions. That is, not single instances of manifestations, but groups along a function which leads to similar manifestations. The manifestations are then not weird, the function or group of functions are. For example, sticking to one and calling that self. Or getting stuck to a body as a self and by that surrendering "yourself" to domination like by MEST - to have to's, like eating, have shelter and paying taxes. "We" could for example come together and do something like playing music without that, don't we? Weird that we have chosen or fallen to these domination games.

If I remember right, you Hatshepsut have recently quoted from the gospel of Thomas (I'm not a regular reader and poster here, just sometimes pop in for some hours and fill my nose). I very much like this, it's so different to the ideals and basics by LRH - no survival as an embracing command (how weird!) and ideals which are completely off the "krc", the exchange of VFPs (valuable final products) and the eternal circling in conditions from 3rd party to power change and such things. I guess that such limitations by LRH are making his gifts (or should I say his efforts) a mixed blessing - good for advancing, but also sticking to advancing on "lower levels" forever, especially if they are used also to hammer out of existence every other tech. (Similarities with what Scientology has become are inevitable.) The Thomas gospel is, for me, a counterpart to the tech which holds open hope in times when the way out seems to be the way through, forever.

This is not written to become fodder for those who damn Scientology because they want eternal normality (stay in the norms which they consider to be everything), but if it does become, well, enjoy the meal! :angry::happydance:

[degraded being]

Apparently the "tech" I've been referencing was written by Alan Walters, not Ron; otherwise, I generally tend to agree with you -- particularly with the bolded line. And I personally LIKE your blunt and succinct way of making your point.

HOWEVER,

It was recently pointed out to me that my own tendency toward blunt statements tinged with ridicule comes across as "disruptive, rude, unproductive negative comments on others' writing" meant to stir up flames rather than sincere contribution to discussion.

I hope my genuine concerns won't be dismissed because of something as insignificant as my writing style, because I have concerns about efforts of the "independent field" to forward, promote, distribute, and/or sell the idea that unless the people of the world avail themselves of this “tech” by hooking up with a “processor” trained in this “tech,” they are doomed to be "trapped" and troubled by the long list of “manifestations” that are wrong with them.

For example, early in the article the author states (bold is my emphasis):



Did the author really mean "everybody," as in all human beings? Or only "everybody" within a limited group of individuals defined and known to the "insiders" but not the rest of us?

If it's "everybody" in the full sense of the word, then we're all in trouble, as the author goes on to tell us the consequences of our ignorance:



That sinister list of negative attributes is laid out in the first of 14 "vital areas" that the "processor" is to address ... we're just getting started!

Yes I get what your are saying and it was very obvious to me in your posts on the last couple of pages of this thread that you were taking care to write in a way that would get responses to questions and points you were making, without being seen as simply inflammatory. There was nothing amiss in those posts about style.
Getting hit on the upside of the head by Rog, ....and...one or two others? for that was nothing to do with you, but was their mis-reading or being overly defensive about being questioned.

I have the same concern about the coolaid being on-sold to others.
I do not get into lengthy discussions about it because with some coolaid sellers it would be a waste of time. I hope the coolaid buyers read these boards.
In some ways I do not mind cool aid sellers and buyers doing their own thing. When I see people elevating themselves above others with their amazing insights and knowledge of what is best for everyone, I just take a pot shot at that. That elevation was what Ron did, and it looks quaintly stupid when others do the same and say they found out the flaws in Ron's brainwashing, so people would do well to buy theirs.

[Vinaire]

I remember Alan Walters getting upset with me when I first started on this board because I questioned him on The Factors of Hubbard. He just "knew" the FACTORS and thought they were perfect and so easy to understand that I was stupid to question them.

Today I finally understand them as being flawed. I finally resolved the inconsistency that I intuitively felt and asked Alan for his help to resolve it.

Now Knowledgism carries the same basic flaw that is built into the Factors. Please see

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=501327&postcount=164

.

[olska]

Yes I get what your are saying and it was very obvious to me in your posts on the last couple of pages of this thread that you were taking care to write in a way that would get responses to questions and points you were making, without being seen as simply inflammatory. There was nothing amiss in those posts about style.
Getting hit on the upside of the head by Rog, ....and...one or two others? for that was nothing to do with you, but was their mis-reading or being overly defensive about being questioned.

I have the same concern about the coolaid being on-sold to others.
I do not get into lengthy discussions about it because with some coolaid sellers it would be a waste of time. I hope the coolaid buyers read these boards.

Thanks for your feedback! :)

The bolded sentence expresses my own hope, also, as:

If something I write as part of these discussions sparks a reader to look more closely at what is being discussed, and more thoroughly evaluate whether what is proferred truly serves that reader's best interests, the effort is worthwhile.

I do not now, and never have expected to cause anyone here to "change their mind" about beliefs they hold dear or feel called to defend.


In some ways I do not mind cool aid sellers and buyers doing their own thing. When I see people elevating themselves above others with their amazing insights and knowledge of what is best for everyone, I just take a pot shot at that. That elevation was what Ron did, and it looks quaintly stupid when others do the same and say they found out the flaws in Ron's brainwashing, so people would do well to buy theirs.

Yip yip yeah, Ray! :thumbsup: :hattip:

[mate]

Hi Vinnair.

I think you will find that it is more an inadequacy of of language rather than an inconsistency in the statement of the first factor.

By this I mean that it conforms with the experiential understanding that one has of the the sequence of "start change stop" to project it to an intellectual understanding to the absolute beginning of everything, whereas itis beyond any language created by man.

I personally have little time for Hubbard's Factors and Axioms, or who ever he got them from, as they are simply an intellectual exercise. True understanding is an experiential exercise.

It is assumed by most, if not all, that time as we observe it, "must" have had a beginning. I disagree with this assumption, and I do not accept that it is self-evident. To me time is another, that is a fourth, dimension, and like the other three, it has neither beginning nor end. We observe it as the "passage of time" because we are not able to view the fourth dimension as we do the other three.

David.




I remember Alan Walters getting upset with me when I first started on this board because I questioned him on The Factors of Hubbard. He just "knew" the FACTORS and thought they were perfect and so easy to understand that I was stupid to question them.

Today I finally understand them as being flawed. I finally resolved the inconsistency that I intuitively felt and asked Alan for his help to resolve it.

Now Knowledgism carries the same basic flaw that is built into the Factors. Please see

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=501327&postcount=164

.

[FoTi]

OK -- I did NOT say that I had "NO auditor training or experience" -- what I wrote in answer to Leon's question was that I am not (do not consider myself) a "trained and experienced auditor."

In fact, I did a number of scientology "services" that I don't care to delineate here just to satisfy your curiosity, and one amongst those was the HQS course, as part of which I audited my twin for maybe 6 hours (too long ago to remember) before we reached the "EP" required by the checksheet.

... So does that mean I am now qualified to call myself a "trained and experienced auditor?" Didn't think so, which is one reason I don't represent myself as such.



You can view it however you wish, but if you think such a remark is going to provoke me into publishing on the internet details about myself that I prefer to keep private, you are mistaken.

Thanks for answering my question and clarifying the issue. And by the way, I'm not trying to 'provoke' you into doing anything. You just seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder.

[Vinaire]

Hi Vinnair.

I think you will find that it is more an inadequacy of of language rather than an inconsistency in the statement of the first factor.

By this I mean that it conforms with the experiential understanding that one has of the the sequence of "start change stop" to project it to an intellectual understanding to the absolute beginning of everything, whereas itis beyond any language created by man.

I personally have little time for Hubbard's Factors and Axioms, or who ever he got them from, as they are simply an intellectual exercise. True understanding is an experiential exercise.

It is assumed by most, if not all, that time as we observe it, "must" have had a beginning. I disagree with this assumption, and I do not accept that it is self-evident. To me time is another, that is a fourth, dimension, and like the other three, it has neither beginning nor end. We observe it as the "passage of time" because we are not able to view the fourth dimension as we do the other three.

David.


I think language is quite capable of expressing the is-ness. There is no mystery until you put it there. Let me express it again in plain language.

Hubbard’s static with special qualities is a speculation. Hubbard gave static a beingness. It became “individuality” to him… the ultimate in self-determinism. A beingness is a manifestation. “Individuality” is a manifestation. Hubbard’s static is a manifestation.

Hubbard made a manifestation to be the source of all other manifestations.

This is very much in line with the traditional premise entertained in the Semitic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Hubbard simply gave it a new garb pretending it to be coming from the East. He had no inkling what East is about.

According to East, the background of manifestation is “absence of manifestation.” That background is UNKNOWABLE because there is nothing manifested to be known.

FACTOR 1 and AXIOM 1 may look good on the surface, but they have curves of "cause" and "individuality" as the ultimate reality thrown into them.

How is this "cause" or "individuality" manifested in the first place.

If they exist they are manifestations.

The same can be said about SPACE, TIME or any other dimension.

.

[olska]

Thanks for answering my question and clarifying the issue. And by the way, I'm not trying to 'provoke' you into doing anything. You just seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder.

What if I had answered the original question you put to me, which was


Olska....what was/is your involvement with Scientology?

by saying that I was ex-SO, Flag-trained Class XII who had several thousand hours of auditing "in the chair" and, while interning as a C/S after GAT was introduced, I protested the "out tech," was unjustly kicked out and left on the street with nothing but the clothes on my back, and have been seeking justice for myself and for REAL scientology ever since?

Would that give the opinions I express here more weight?

[Leon]

I think language is quite capable of expressing the is-ness. There is no mystery until you put it there. Let me express it again in plain language.

Hubbard’s static with special qualities is a speculation. Hubbard gave static a beingness. It became “individuality” to him… the ultimate in self-determinism. A beingness is a manifestation. “Individuality” is a manifestation. Hubbard’s static is a manifestation.

Hubbard made a manifestation to be the source of all other manifestations.

This is very much in line with the traditional premise entertained in the Semitic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Hubbard simply gave it a new garb pretending it to be coming from the East. He had no inkling what East is about.

According to East, the background of manifestation is “absence of manifestation.” That background is UNKNOWABLE because there is nothing manifested to be known.

FACTOR 1 and AXIOM 1 may look good on the surface, but they have curves of "cause" and "individuality" as the ultimate reality thrown into them.

How is this "cause" or "individuality" manifested in the first place.

If they exist they are manifestations.

The same can be said about SPACE, TIME or any other dimension.

.


The Eastern view is just as speculative as the Western view is. There is not one scrap of evidence to support your assertions that the fons et origo is "unknowable" as there is that the "static" is the source of it all.

I maintain that beingness can be fully aware of self even while there is no "creation" to be perceived.

[RogerB]

The Eastern view is just as speculative as the Western view is. There is not one scrap of evidence to support your assertions that the fons et origo is "unknowable" as there is that the "static" is the source of it all.

I maintain that beingness can be fully aware of self even while there is no "creation" to be perceived.

This is elegantly stated, Leon. And I concur.

It is as I have found it to be. One can be aware of self while in the state of existence prior to the sourcing of any creations.

Rog

[RogerB]

However, I do have a request Vin. Please don't jam-up this thread with a turning it into a discussion of your current project of dissecting LRH Factors etc.

You have your own threads for this that are on-going.

I want to have this thread cleanly available for discourse on corrections and advances in tech that folks can use to undo the damage caused by screwy Scn.

It's for corrections and advances in tech . . . Tech outside of and away from, and often nothing even related to Scn, or "derivatives." (I've had tech prior to and not at all related to Scn for years.)

There are folks benefiting from having this thread available as such. I don't want to see the thread made into something else.

Rog

[Vinaire]

The Eastern view is just as speculative as the Western view is. There is not one scrap of evidence to support your assertions that the fons et origo is "unknowable" as there is that the "static" is the source of it all.

I maintain that beingness can be fully aware of self even while there is no "creation" to be perceived.


It is illogical to look for evidence at this level, because there is nothing comparable.

All you can look for is consistency.

The idea of a beingness creating all other beingnesses is inherently inconsistent.

.

[Vinaire]

However, I do have a request Vin. Please don't jam-up this thread with a turning it into a discussion of your current project of dissecting LRH Factors etc.

You have your own threads for this that are on-going.

I want to have this thread cleanly available for discourse on corrections and advances in tech that folks can use to undo the damage caused by screwy Scn.

It's for corrections and advances in tech . . . Tech outside of and away from, and often nothing even related to Scn, or "derivatives." (I've had tech prior to and not at all related to Scn for years.)

There are folks benefiting from having this thread available as such. I don't want to see the thread made into something else.

Rog


You have a lot to confront, mate.

Please don't destroy people's cases by making the coolaid sweeter.

Now I have given the warning, and I shall be off your precious thread.

.

[Leon]

It is illogical to look for evidence at this level, because there is nothing comparable.

All you can look for is consistency.

The idea of a beingness creating all other beingnesses is inherently inconsistent.

.


Beingness already is - any "beingness" it creates is a becomingness and therefor a substitute.

Your idea of a sort of non-beingness becoming a beingness, an unawareness becomeing aware, an unconcuiiousness spontaneously becoming conscious - there is the logical inconsistency.

But that is enough of this on this thread. I tried to discuss it with you earlier on the other thread but found you to be very stuck on your own rightness.

[SweetnessandLight]

Good stuff, Rog. It aligns perfectly with the principle of auditing the pc in present time, and not diving into the past to try and find some magical answer. If stuff from the past comes to view and *demands* to be handled, i.e., some other part of one's topic is pressing so hard on one that the aspect being worked on before is no longer even viewable because of the new one, then one goes with the flow and addresses that. But it's all just following the way the mind is stacked up, and not some arbitrary sequence dreamed up by some wannabe-guru.

Paul

Amen! :clap:

[FoTi]

What if I had answered the original question you put to me, which was



by saying that I was ex-SO, Flag-trained Class XII who had several thousand hours of auditing "in the chair" and, while interning as a C/S after GAT was introduced, I protested the "out tech," was unjustly kicked out and left on the street with nothing but the clothes on my back, and have been seeking justice for myself and for REAL scientology ever since?

Would that give the opinions I express here more weight?

"What ifs" is not the is-ness, is it?

[olska]

"What ifs" is not the is-ness, is it?

Why do you keep harping on something that is really none of your business? I answered your question, directly and succinctly, as to what my involvement was/is in scientology when you first asked it -- why was that not good enough?

The "is-ness" of it if you want to use that term is that some of us -- me, for example -- left scientology and its offshoots behind years and years ago and found simpler, easier, more effective methods of dealing with our "issues," whatever those were -- whether that was the usual everyday problems that many -- perhaps MOST -- humans encounter in life, or whether that was a spiritual quest/search for the meaning of life.

Along with that we/I left behind the status, clout, and "altitude" that goes with scientology "training" and scientology "production" statistics such as WDAHs. Now, if someone comes to me with a headache, instead of an auditing session followed by a visit to the examiner followed by a success story followed by the registrar followed by someone having to file all those paper particles in folders and make sure those folders and their contents are stored in the proper place where they can only be viewed by properly trained people, I recommend a couple of Advil or Tylenol and a hot shower. Amazingly effective. I'll even give them the Advil from my own stash, no charge, no "what's the exchange?"

So I will repeat my answer to Leon's question with this modification: NOW, I am not a "trained and experienced auditor."

You're free to speculate all you want on what I may or may not have been in the past. Have a ball. Or not.

[FoTi]

Why do you keep harping on something that is really none of your business? I answered your question, directly and succinctly, as to what my involvement was/is in scientology when you first asked it -- why was that not good enough?

The "is-ness" of it if you want to use that term is that some of us -- me, for example -- left scientology and its offshoots behind years and years ago and found simpler, easier, more effective methods of dealing with our "issues," whatever those were -- whether that was the usual everyday problems that many -- perhaps MOST -- humans encounter in life, or whether that was a spiritual quest/search for the meaning of life.

Along with that we/I left behind the status, clout, and "altitude" that goes with scientology "training" and scientology "production" statistics such as WDAHs. Now, if someone comes to me with a headache, instead of an auditing session followed by a visit to the examiner followed by a success story followed by the registrar followed by someone having to file all those paper particles in folders and make sure those folders and their contents are stored in the proper place where they can only be viewed by properly trained people, I recommend a couple of Advil or Tylenol and a hot shower. Amazingly effective. I'll even give them the Advil from my own stash, no charge, no "what's the exchange?"

So I will repeat my answer to Leon's question with this modification: NOW, I am not a "trained and experienced auditor."

You're free to speculate all you want on what I may or may not have been in the past. Have a ball. Or not.

I'm not harping on anything. Just responding to your posts. :D

[Heche Reed]

So what is Kn's definition of "you"?

I happened to come up with a cracker this afternoon (independent of having read the latter thread)-

"You" is a context dependent, context shifter! {TM};)

HR

[Leon]

The you that you think you are is no more than the aggregate of all of your past efforts to not be you. The real you is beyond all that.

Get it right now. Clay demo it if you need to.

[RogerB]

The you that you think you are is no more than the aggregate of all of your past efforts to not be you. The real you is beyond all that.

Get it right now. Clay demo it if you need to.

Yep! :yes: :yes: :yes:

Or, put in other terms, the now you is the aggregate of all the changes made to the real you.

R

[RogerB]

Part 3 of Roger's write up on the Games Matrix tech.

In light of recent events on ESMB and in response to various replies to my posts, I had best comment on my position on all this.

I am not an “-ismist” or “-ologist” of any stripe. Nor am I an “anti-ismist” or “anti-ologist” of any stripe. I am simply a searcher for any answers that work.

My search for answer on the issue of performance enhancement and “human betterment” began around 1950, long before I delved in Scn in 1957. Prior to Scn I had studied all the then available usual suspects: eastern thought/religions, philosophy, various “occult” movements, psychology and hypnosis; and one of my favorites, Emile Coué’s work, "Self Mastery Through Conscious Autosuggestion." After my introduction to Scn, I also studied and experienced various native religious beliefs and practices . . . including modern physical and medical sciences.

So I offer up what I have found such that it might be useful to those interested. Those who are not interested can safely ignore it. And having said that, I will say I will not be getting into any arguments about any of this. Folks may have whatever opinions they choose. I will not be engaging in any conflictive argument over what I am offering. You may take it or leave it as you choose.

As a further explanation of what we are/I am dealing with here on this subject, I will put in simple terms the scenario. This in addition to what you have read on my earlier referenced postings above and as further commented on by others in these two links:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=505101&postcount=9174 Abraham Maslow

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=506350&postcount=9225
Hatshepsut on ACWs “created as identities and “GPM” notes.
And my reply http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=506505&postcount=9232

Basically what we now have to deal with, began with us departing a spiritual union of omni-presence by assuming a “position” or, put differently, creating and then being a Beingness or Identity to address the game and other Beings with or as that Beingness/Identity.

In playing the game, this assumed Beingness/Identity reciprocated with others. Because of various misalignments, errors and such, charge built up and much of what was exchanged in the reciprocation stuck. What also stuck to each of the Beings in the game was the imagery and creations projected by each of the players on the other. This included what each Being saw or created the other to be for the playing of the game.

There has been a vast sequence of creating and of assuming the identities of these Beingnesses and the games they facilitated. And in present time, it is this compounded, complex accumulation of conflicted Beingnesses that sit here as the “problem” to resolve.

It is also to be noted the game construct, and the Beingnesses/Identities assumed in the playing of the game, constitute “opposites.” This does not mean, however, that these “opposites” are or were automatically in destructive opposition to each other. Often, and indeed initially, these opposites or apposites were complementary to each other.

It is the aberration of these complementary opposites that we see in present time that is the conflictive opposition that is common to human existence.

Much has been written through the eons about these opposites. Some of that material refers to the positive complementary apposition; and some of it referring to the negative conflictive opponency nature of it.

If you go to these references on Emile Coué, you’ll see how he wrote of this as “Self Conflict.” Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89mile_Cou%C3%A9
http://www.psychomaster.com/books/emile/
Self-Mastery Through Conscious Autosuggestion (1922)


Self-conflict

A patient's problems are likely to increase when his willpower and imagination (or mental ideas) are opposing each other, something Coué would refer to as "self-conflict". In the student's case, the will to succeed is clearly incompatible with his thought of being incapable of remembering his answers. As the conflict intensifies, so does the problem: the more the patient tries to sleep, the more he becomes awake. The more a patient tries to stop smoking, the more he smokes. The patient must thus abandon his willpower and instead put more focus on his imaginative power in order to fully succeed with his cure.

Yin and Yang are also positive expressions of this.

This from Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang


Yin yang are complementary opposites that interact within a greater whole, as part of a dynamic system. Everything has both yin and yang aspects, but either of these aspects may manifest more strongly in particular objects, and may ebb or flow over time.

Carl Yung spoke of these forces of opposites and how they are often expressed as out of control conditions. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enantiodromia

He coined the word Enantiodromia to explain this situation.

From Wikipedia:

Enantiodromia (Greek: enantios, opposite + dromos, running course) is a principle introduced by psychiatrist Carl Jung that the superabundance of any force inevitably produces its opposite. It is equivalent to the principle of equilibrium in the natural world, in that any extreme is opposed by the system in order to restore balance.

I give you the above as part of the explanation of the forces that comprise the construct of the Games Matrices we now find ourselves locked up in.

However, you should realize that these forces are of you and by you along with being of and from those you have related with in the games you have been involved in. And equally important, these forces are now encysted as part of the Beingnesses/Identities you have assumed to play the games you’ve been involved in.

And so those games jammed up into what we now will call the Games Matrices.

All this can now be unraveled and the forces restored to being free spiritual Life-Force under your volition.

This handling will be the subject of my coming posts.

RogerB

[dexter gelfand]

Hey Roger, thanks so much for what you share! My taking in your talk at last year's FZ convention and creating a comm line with you continues to pay dividends:)! Much appreciated. please continue!

Love, Dex

[Heche Reed]

In other words

"The "you" that I, Leon, thought I was, was no more than the aggregate of all of my past efforts to not be Leon. The real Leon is beyond all that."

This seems to be more a definition of "self" not "you" per se. Unless you think "you" is in its most essential form, synonymous with (all?) our "self".

I would say "you" can refer to self if one is addressing onesself. But generally refers to OTHERS' selves.

But a definition accurate to both would be "a context dependent, context shifter".

[Heche Reed]

"I" "me" and "you" seem interchangeable in RogB and Leon's definitons of "you".

"I" and "me" are not however "context dependent, context shifters".

"Me" is context bound.

"I" is context independent.

[Heche Reed]

I have to say it is totally uncanny that I'm on this thread Rog B - I have some radical ideas about Yin Yang that have been coming to me. I will let you post more before canvassing them. How extraordinary that our topics are aligning so closely - I also come from a general non-scn-centric philosophical background (realist zen and phenomenology) so we may have some very fruitful intersections.

A simple method of reintegrating shadow - is to ask onesself regarding a particualar hang-up or obsession is "what "that's not me!" quality might have some more play in me than I'd care to admit." Often its just a little more in play than we'd care to admit, fears one is a "jack the ripper" sort are usually unfounded - unless one IS a Jack the ripper sort - in which case DON'T clay demo this please.

[Leon]

Clay demoes, Heche. Clay demoes.

[Heche Reed]

Defining terms, Leon, Defining terms.

[RogerB]

"I" "me" and "you" seem interchangeable in RogB and Leon's definitons of "you".

"I" and "me" are not however "context dependent, context shifters".

"Me" is context bound.

"I" is context independent.

Heche,

I am referring to the "you" that Alan wrote of in his 12 Vital Fundamentals piece. And he was referring to the Being he was addressing, the reader . . . . and that is the "you" he spoke of and I now also refer to . . . . . it is the you I refer to, as you read this. Which is the Being you refer to as "me" or "I" when you speak of yourself.

R

[Mark A. Baker]

Heche,

I am referring to the "you" that Alan wrote of in his 12 Vital Fundamentals piece. And he was referring to the Being he was addressing, the reader . . . . and that is the "you" he spoke of and I now also refer to . . . . . it is the you I refer to, as you read this. Which is the Being you refer to as "me" or "I" when you speak of yourself.

R

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/German_ewe_grazing_closeup.jpg/450px-German_ewe_grazing_closeup.jpg Who? :confused2:


Mark A. Baker
p.s. Sorry, Rog. I couldn't resist. :coolwink:

[Heche Reed]

"The reader refers to the you...as you read this. Which is the Being you refer to as "me" or "I" when you speak of yourself."

OK I get it you are referring to "that thou art" and presuming I, HR, are identified with contractions against atman.

I'm really curious to see a clay demo of the Kn definition of "You".

1. The you that you think you are is no more than the aggregate of all of your past efforts to not be you. The real you is beyond all that.

2. the now you is the aggregate of all the changes made to the real you.

I never contracted to begin with, and can't begin to imagine what it would look like.

[Axiom53]

ROGER

2ND DYNAMIC (Family)
1. Have you ever been a disturbing element in a family?
2. Have you ever joined a family out of revenge?
3. Have you ever disowned a member of your family?
4. Have you ever gotten a relative into trouble?
5. Have you ever worked against your family?
6. Have you ever badly raised a child?
7. Have you failed to provide for a child of yours?
8. Have you ever split up a family?
9. Have you ever had a bastard?
10. Have you ever passed off a bastard as legitimate?
11. Have you ever claimed a blood-relationship you didn’t have ?
12. Have you ever forced a child into an unsuitable profession?
13. Have you ever forced a child into a loveless marriage?

And it was here, when looking at all the above, that I saw what the hell had been screwing up all our cases since the beginning!

Notice that all those questions above, put you into the past.

BB
Don't agree. The answers bring up whatever is charged back then into the present. And thus to be handled.

Eeekkk....

What do you or would you want for your family? Or some similar positively placed question would run like gang-busters. Pickup the reading items and help him resolve whats in the way of getting this "positive want".

Charge is often present on the positive side or on the positive intention. "The road to hell is paved with [FILL IN THE BLANK]..." - I've processed every one of my clients in that direction with superb results. And guess what the past shows up anyway, I didn't have to go looking for it and the intensives are used to enhance the "Beings" wants instead of on a past fact-finding mission, we process whats here now.

"Have you ever been a disturbing element in a family?" Ouch, what me, no, I've always have the best intentions for my family - OK, what "are" some those intentions? - if it reads you've got a hot area. Obviously the question could be better formulated but you get the idea.

Find out what he/she wants now and process them in that direction. Its about ability "RIGHT"?

I'd also question the validity of some of these questions.

Have you ever been a "disturbing element" "READ", "in a family" READ. Which read do you handle first? :)

Faadiel

[FoTi]

Roger, appreciate your posting your knowledge here on this thread.

Looking forward to the one you said you were going to do on 'fear'.

[Leon]

The really disgusting thing about those Sec Check questions is that the Sea Org is guilty of all of them. Do they ever confess? Oh no.

[Veda]

The really disgusting thing about those Sec Check questions is that the Sea Org is guilty of all of them. Do they ever confess? Oh no.

You mean L. Ron Hubbard don't you?

Oh that's right. It's the darned Sea Org, and the darned CofS, that's really screwy, not Scientology.

So silly of me.


Hey, I just looked over this thread. Some interesting stuff. I'll let you fellows get back to your discussion. :)

[RogerB]

Roger, appreciate your posting your knowledge here on this thread.

Looking forward to the one you said you were going to do on 'fear'.

FoTi,

Thanks . . . I thought it was time to put what I had in one place instead of it being spread throughout various threads including those started by others.

The fear issue will be addressed after we finish with the Games Matrix scenario . . . there are 3 maybe 4 posts on this subject to go.

Fear is a real bitch as it can totally immobilize a Being, even cause a Being to "evaporate" its presence and powers :duh: such can be the extreme urgency with which it wants to "get away" from what occasioned the fear.

Rog

[Leon]

Why yes of course. But then, LRH is your personal hobby-horse and I know I can rely on you to promptly chirrup about any such omissions of mine.

[FoTi]

FoTi,

Thanks . . . I thought it was time to put what I had in one place instead of it being spread throughout various threads including those started by others.

The fear issue will be addressed after we finish with the Games Matrix scenario . . . there are 3 maybe 4 posts on this subject to go.

Fear is a real bitch as it can totally immobilize a Being, even cause a Being to "evaporate" its presence and powers :duh: such can be the extreme urgency with which it wants to "get away" from what occasioned the fear.

Rog

That's real to me. Looking forward to your future posts on this.

[Leon]

Yeah, I'm looking forward to this too.

[Hatshepsut]

Eeekkk....

What do you or would you want for your family? Or some similar positively placed question would run like gang-busters. Pickup the reading items and help him resolve whats in the way of getting this "positive want".

Charge is often present on the positive side or on the positive intention. "The road to hell is paved with [FILL IN THE BLANK]..." - I've processed every one of my clients in that direction with superb results. And guess what the past shows up anyway, I didn't have to go looking for it and the intensives are used to enhance the "Beings" wants instead of on a past fact-finding mission, we process whats here now.

"Have you ever been a disturbing element in a family?" Ouch, what me, no, I've always have the best intentions for my family - OK, what "are" some those intentions? - if it reads you've got a hot area. Obviously the question could be better formulated but you get the idea.

Find out what he/she wants now and process them in that direction. Its about ability "RIGHT"?

I'd also question the validity of some of these questions.

Have you ever been a "disturbing element" "READ", "in a family" READ. Which read do you handle first? :)

Faadiel

I question the validity of MOST of the questions on the sec checks. It takes for granted that the PC has whole track recall and can access things reading. There are also 'teammate' reads that are not taken up ownership style. Its a big make wrong if you ask me. Casting negative dispersions on the person's character. If there was not an original purpose in the direction of a pro dynamics positive there would be no charge to read in the first place. Other rundowns take that into consideration, but not these confessionals like the Joburg.

[Heche Reed]

These would, for many, read if you were the effect as much as the cause or just afraid of them. A reason to NEVER join an org like SCN. Nor to enter the "area" of "whole-track" "crimes" unless you ALREADY understand and agree 100% with the metaphysical and theoretical underpinning - certainly NOT to get issues of personal morality "off" in order to also to get your scn/post-scn hypotheses verified! Saying "Clay Demo it NOW!" is stupid and wrong.

I question the value in being "hands cleaned up" with any group so boneheaded as to indulge in inquisitorial tactics whatsoever.

I recommend "A Theory of Justice" by John Rawls to get a deep philosophy on justice as fairness.

[RogerB]

This is Part 4 of my answer to Dex on Handling The Games Matrix

As noted earlier, not all opposites are destructive or in the vein of “light side/dark side,” good/evil, etc. Many opposites are quite optimum and survival: yin/yang is an example as is outflow/inflow, emanation/reception.

The trouble is, these distinctions got lost in our reactivity as we lost knowledge, control and responsibility (volition) of and over our causes and receivings.

Alan’s diagram of the Games Matrix stems from his work outlined in the book: The Paradigm Matrix and its Effects on Future Prosperity and Human Events.
And is the chart used in his 1994-5 model of the Matrix. (I don’t know if he subsequently changed it.) This is a book that is worth reading.

My chart is different, as explained in my Pasadena presentation linked in my opening post of this thread.

In a later post I will be delving into the distinctions between our published versions of the matrix. Suffice to say at the moment is that my matrix diagram is based a perception of creating a whole game as an omni-present Being, able to set up both sides of the game. Alan’s diagram, as he states in the above book in Chapter Nineteen: “. . . each individual has five basic identity personality traits. These make up the Identities Paradigm Matrix of man.” The fifth identity, not shown in the diagrams I presented, is the “Empower” that sits above the other four identities, “exterior” to the game it created comprising the four conflicted positions.

OK, the approaches.

Early on in dealing with clients, one deals with them based on what they have attention on that they want to handle. There is an array of processes available to handle whatever it is the person wants to handle, and all this would be in the terms of them being ordinary folks wanting to better deal with their lives.

As they progress, and attention comes off of the usual parade of mysteries, upsets and problems of living, one begins to work with them on the basis of them being spiritual Beings with infinite powers abilities and attributes. So a fair amount of correct information/education will be embraced by them as they progress to this point.

And it is here that one can begin to address the Games Matrix phenomena that they are locked up in.

Basically, in present time we are each trying to accomplish something.

Most folks have no clue of this, nor of what it is they are basically trying to accomplish.

This “something” during the period 1961 to early ’63 was viewed by Hubbard as being “your goal” that underlay what you were on about in present time as your Being and Doing that resulted in your current Have conditions.

In actuality, it is a lot bigger than a mere “goal.” It is actually a whole three-dimensional holographically created envisionment of a want, intention, purpose and pursuit to be and accomplish something. It is also the envisioning of a whole game and condition of existence!

Also, it is to be noted that down through our existence we have created many of these “whole games and conditions of existence” based on a basic want or “goal.” Underlying it all is your “ultimate Prime Dream and Aspiration and want” . . . the want that set you going in this game of relationships that led to PT.

And this underlying, deep “ultimate Prime Dream and Aspiration and want or goal” is as a glue that runs through all the later endeavors of your existence, even if amended and altered to enable games in later circumstances.

Hubbard also missed the fact that much of what carried on into present time that was trapping the individual (as per the GPM construct he wrote of) was co-created by others. This fact was not addressed in the ’62 tech on “GPMs.”

And nor were the forces involved in the playing of the game addressed! And it is these forces, misaligned and hung up, that are trapping the Being in the matrix.

And in my observation, this last point is the key point of what undid any possibility of success in the old Scn endeavor, along with the point Alan Walter mentions of Hubbard not seeing that the identities of the package were co-created and not just one’s own creation. This along with the fact the game one is locked up in was co-created by others also.

Alan did develop an array of processes for undoing these locked up forces and conditions, including those created/sourced or otherwise emanated by others.

There are two approaches for getting into and handling the Games Matrices.

One can approach the Games Matrix case from a negative perspective: that is, the client is effect of it and rather located and “dotted” as a spiritual presence. That’s the perspective of Alan’s R/D as released in his 2007 tape titled , “Game Matrix, ”dated 7/10/07; and is quite likely the most common way in.

It’s possible Alan devised this R/D approach released in the tape cited above the way he did because he simply observed that that was the condition of most cases to be handled.

My approach is to address it from a positive perspective. That is, from the position and perspective of your highest attained state of Being and your most positive, wanted want to accomplish, Prime Dream and Aspiration (positive Goal/purpose) you are aware of.

Both R/Ds ask for and address what the client is doing/dramatizing now in PT . . . we do not dive off and rummage the past to try and locate what is “wrong” with the case. We are looking for a NOW ongoing continuing action/activity the client is pursuing, doing, carrying out.

I will give you Alan’s first . . . that way we can end with mine on a positive note :D Also we’ll end with some case history examples of how this Games Matrix stuff can unravel and be handled.

These are the notes from Alan’s tape titled, “Game Matrix,” dated 7/10/07. There are a number of earlier tapes going back to 1994 and the version of the R/D I went through in Nov. 1994; but I won’t be delving into them. They are simply earlier views on the mechanics of the subject, the gist of which is in my Pasadena presentation.

As an LRH reference, you can go to the HCOBs on Routine 2-10 and 2-12 (R2-12) best reference is HCOB, 23 November, 1962, “Routine Two-Twelve: Opening Procedure by Rockslam.” The other HCOBs of the period Jan-Nov 1962 can give you insights . . . but I would not, definitely would NOT, run any of that stuff!

This was a R/D that both Alan and I (and others had) huge gains and changes on . . . but it is also a R/D that then blew up for various tech goofy reasons . . . i.e., no Laws of L&N tech, no correction lists, and listing by R/S only :nervous:. And, more importantly, also due to no correct handling of what was found! :duh::angry: This last point is also true for the own goals GPM adventure.

In other words, this is another example of an LRH incomplete, superficial and damaging “spectacular” wherein he found a hot, very hot item/area of case and did nothing to clean it up! Today, it is no mystery why we developed so much BPC . . . but at the time we were enamored with the flash and dazzle; and there was lots of “flash and dazzle!” :duh:

R2-12, as with own GPM handling, is a R/D that attempted to locate a carried forward past “item or identity” that is hung up as a here/now PT thing the client is into. The listing questions get the dramatized past identities or Beingnesses that comprise the opposition packages the client is hung up in, in PT.

This is an example of the “negative way in” to the case. And Alan does crib from it as one of his ways in to get the “items/identities/Beingnesses to handle.

It is to be noted that the structure and why of the hang up of a Games Matrix (and Hubbard’s putative GPM and R2-12 package) is because the identities/Beingnesses involved in the package are hung up locked into opposition to each other . . . and often violent, destructive opposition. (Now where have we seen that in our daily lives? :ohmy:)

So the beginning of Alan’s Games Matrix handling was to find what the client, in PT, is most violently opposing. Here he changed LRH’s question from referring to the past (“Who (or what) have you . . . ?“) to:

1. Ask the client: “Who is the person you most detest?” (Or “Most dislike/can’t get along with, etc. Hubbard had one charmer: “What is not part of existence?” :p)
(You can also go for a “What do you most detest?” Note, however, on an advanced person this question might get you the answer to question 2 below, which is the real item you are after.)

It happens, however, that this is not the item you need to run necessarily. It is the PT connection to and expression of the real deal! It is the present time activator of the case item you have to find.

The next question, and here you better get it right is:
2. “Who or what does (found PT item/person) represent?”

This will give you the “item” that has been floating since ever with the client that he has been opposing and trying to handle in the game/Games Matrix that can now be addressed. This question gives you an item from the past that is active in and screwing up the present.

Now, for you “Standard Tech” mavens used to having to get the most correct and perfect answer to the universe type items . . . . don’t sweat it too much. You are after what is real to the client, what he/she is interested in, and wants to address. On occasion, I’ve actually found and begun handling items without a meter. You can actually do it by simply observing the client indicators.

Truth is, if you take it lightly, and don’t force the Hubbard seriousness of “must get the ultimate truth item” on the client, what he comes up with is that which he can run and get gains on, and as the area opens up he will get more truthful (as in able to see more truth) and very often will adjust the wording and concept of the “item” to make it more correct and precise. In any event, it will be on the chain of a charged “purpose line,” and he/she will get great gains from addressing it. You only risk upset and BPC when you lay in on the client additive think like “wrong item bad and must be avoided—so we must get the ‘right’ item” . . . . because if it’s then not the perfect or basic item for the area you will be by-passing charge. But by taking it lightly and by picking up items the client says he/she is interested in handling . . . you’ll always be right. And as you progress, you can make it “more righter.” (This is not to say the tech regarding the damage wrong items and wrong indications do is incorrect. It is correct. But you only run the risk of a wrong item when you insist on having THE absolute most right item.)

Your objective here is to pull off the layers of case and charge . . . and as you progress, you’ll find it gets more accurate, more powerful, and actually vastly more huge in scope and effect. For some clients, the top PT expression of their Games Matrices can be quite light and human oriented. On an advanced case what is addressed can be quite “Godly” even though also real in terms of human involvement.

The handling at this stage, when you have the identity/Beingness, is quad flows Dones and Restraints (O/W) on that item. I would do the Flow 0 with these two questions “Because of a (item) what have you done to/restrained from yourself?” and “As a (item) what have you done to/restrained from yourself?” Be sure to also get good dones and good restraints! I give you the actual questions in the next post.

For, don’t kid yourself that you’ve not been this most detested thing/identity/Beingness you’re currently locked into opposing and destroying/unmocking and must not be!

Next part, following, I’ll give the precise processes for handling this identity along with next steps.

RogerB

[RogerB]

Part 5

This the R/D as part of a case advice I sent via email to a client who asked for help in solo processing at home following a big realization.


Run the Dones/Restraints.

Since it is the Winner Identity that is screwing up  . . . that is: you win and then the winning scenario caves in with involuntary replications of masses and negative thoughts and/or operating paradigm screw ups occurring . . . we’ll address it first to clean it up before addressing the negative. That way we will be empowering the positive, and making you stronger for the handling of the negative.

Here’s the drill: run it “As a winner . . . . “ That is with you being a winner, in the identity/Beingness of being a winner.

Flow 1a: “As a winner, what has another done to you?”
F1b: “What has a winner done to you?”
F2a: “As a winner, what have you done to another/others?”
F2b: “What have you done to a winner?”
F3a: “As a winner, what have others done to others?”
F3b: What have winners done to other winners?
F0: “As a winner, what have you done to yourself?”

Ditto Restrained.

Handle any masses, shocks, forces, chronic moods, etc., that turn on . . . also pick up intentions and/or thoughts/precepts and handle. They all need to be cleaned up . . . particularly the intentions, even if they are “positive” . . . if they are on automatic, do a quick repeat on hem in order to bring them under your knowing control.

Don’t rush this. Take breaks on big wins and continue in a later session. Be aware of the getting detached on big wins phenomenon. Also, be alert for Spiritual Teammate phenomena . . . sometimes the charge hangs up because it belongs to a STM, or because a STM or S.Team gets accessed by the R/D and they have to be handled.

Then, when you are up for it, you can run the same R/D on the “Loser Identity.”

Or, depending how you feel towards these “flows of charge,” you could run Dones/Restraints between the Winner and the Loser:

That is:
“What has a Winner done to a Loser?”
“What has a Winner restrained from a Loser?”

Then:
“What has a Loser done to a Winner?”
“What has a Loser restrained from a Winner?”

Then run the same flows on Oppose:
“How has or does a Winner oppose a Loser?”
“What have been the consequences of that?

“How has or does a Loser oppose a Winner?”
“What have been the consequences of that?

And you do still have the Presence 3 processes on these identities to complete, no?

That should keep you happy for a week :D

It is to be noted that the unlocking of all this charge and force that has been created by the client operating as an identity, or relative to a particular identity/Beingness, is what has to be addressed. Hubbard missed this. Simply asking the client “what have you done?” is not precise enough . . . it misses the exact and precise charge you need to find that the client creates, or has created, while operating as that identity.

There is an additional R/D we have here that might be used: the “Locked in Mortal Combat Handling.”

However, in the tape Alan cautions that one can collide with a group of items collapsed into one, and they need to be uncollapsed before you can really run the whole R/D. He does not give the handling for affecting this uncollapsing on the tape. Though I suspect it would be assessing prepared lists as he mentions this collapse can be the result of collapsed universes and in particular, shocks. So one would assess for these types of things, determine which and use the appropriate handling.

I do not have from Alan the rest of the actions, but would say they would be as follows.

After O/W on this detested item, in consultation with the client, you would then run either the Presence Four handling (for handling identities of others the client has had trouble with) and then follow with Presence Three to handle the identity as the client’s own; or your client might be up to and want to run it as his/her own without first, or at all, addressing it with Presence Four. This all puts the client at cause over that detested item/identity.

This is why you need well grooved in clients for this stuff . . . . they need to be able to guide you on what to run on what comes up. Your best method of determining whether to run the Presence 4 process versus the Presence 3 on the found item at this stage, is ask the client! Remember, Presence 4 Process is run to handle the identity of another who is dominating and/or upsetting and troublesome to the client. Presence 4 concludes by asking: “Have you ever been a (item)?” . . . and then running Presence 3 on it as the client’s own identity. Either way you’ll be running this found item as one of the client’s identities/Beingnesses in the particular Games Matrix being addressed.

Now the presumption at this stage is that the client is currently basically in the identity that has been opposing the detested thing, so the listing question to get what the client is being is:

3. “What Identity or Beingness do you go into or become to oppose (detested thing)?”

This gives you the Identity/who/what the client is being to oppose the nasty.

Though, it may be more real to ask your client: “What identity or Beingness would oppose the (detested thing)?” This works on a grooved in client.

In Kn, the questions/commands are quite precise. The Hubbard type question which is open to too much error is: “Who or what would oppose the (detested thing)?” Our question, as above, very often addresses specifically “you” the client.

One needs to be careful here not to get the commands reversed as this results in a real screw-up. It’s called a wrong way oppose . . . and you can read all about that in HCOBs.

The reverse flow question which might be used later on in the R/D is:
“Who or what would a (you as your Beingness) oppose?” That gets what you are opposing!

It is to be noted that Alan was very guarded and cautious regarding L&N as it could go so wrong! Particularly with this particular type of so highly charged stuff, as the fact is we have been all this shit! We do tend to go into the identity (valence) of that which overwhelms us! :melodramatic: Also, we routinely have gone effect of that which we earlier caused and then denied responsibility for. :duh: So, what you are wrestling with is what is most real to the client in PT and in his current condition.

And indeed, it can happen that one can run an identity as both that which you are being and as that which is “not you” and which you have violently opposed (just that they are located in different Presence Times). Such is the complexity of what we are unlocking and handling.

So all this is the sort of stuff to hat your clients up on so they can sort their way through all this crap. This is not the old, simple LRH black and white, is/isn’t stuff. We are talking shifting shades of gray here. Be happy to bleed charge off on any part of it, from any perspective, as you go. You’ll find that the client has many changes of perspective and viewpoint on the same items and areas/subjects on this R/D . . . . this is all part of the getting off the confusion. You’ll find, one minute one thing is truth and the next, woops, it’s something else.

Indeed, so you know, the Presence Four R/D for handling Beingnesses and identities of others that have given you trouble and even overwhelmed you (not Games Matrix tech, but regular “my father was a bastard type tech”), the final step is to ask the client after they have handled and freed themselves from the nasty other is this step: “Have you ever been a (nasty identity)?” . . . if so, run it on Presence Three to handle the own identity of being a nasty.

So all this comes off like peeling an onion, layer after layer, addressing the changing “now” condition and reality of the client.

On the item found in #3, the identity the client is being to oppose the detested thing from #2, you can do O/W quad flows, and then run how each identity opposed the other and consequences of that opponency.

Use the question: “How does (identity #3) oppose (identity #2)?” and “What have been the consequences of that?” (Repeat to get all) And then reverse the flow between the identities.

If you go to my write-ups on the Pasadena FZ presentation, you’ll see Alan and I have four identities making up the package of a Games Matrix. The difference between our concepts of the construct is not that hugely a problem at this stage (folks can pick what they feel is right).

What is important here is that at this stage in Alan’s R/D it has not been determined which particular part of the Matrix package the obtained opposing identities are. And this, I believe, is where Alan’s version of it ran into its initial difficulty in ’94-5.

I will be going into these nuances later.

At this point in the proceedings you don’t know which two of the four identities of the package you have. Fact is, each identity opposes the other three in the package.

And I do not have Alan’s final handling for this. (I’ll not put on the line the Nov. 1994 version of things ran on me, as that was not a success.)

My judgment here is that the way to go from here, now that one has unburdened the Matrix, would be twofold.

First, ask: “What is the positive, Prime Dream, Aspiration or Goal that began this Matrix?”

Or: "What is the positive, Prime Dream, Aspiration or Goal that you are trying to accomplish with or in this Matrix?”

Then, ask the client what part of the Matrix you have.

This post is now long . . . so I’ll let you all chew on this . . . and give you both my handling and how you deal with the positive of the known Prime Dream/Aspiration/Goal when you have it.

But as you can see above, it's a sweet little R/D for truly unlocking what has been missed all these years.

RogerB

[Mark A. Baker]

Part 5

This the R/D as part of a case advice I sent via email to a client who asked for help in solo processing at home following a big realization.



It is to be noted that the unlocking of all this charge and force that has been created by the client operating as an identity, or relative to a particular identity/Beingness, is what has to be addressed. Hubbard missed this. Simply asking the client “what have you done?” is not precise enough . . . it misses the exact and precise charge you need to find that the client creates, or has created, while operating as that identity.

There is an additional R/D we have here that might be used: the “Locked in Mortal Combat Handling.”

However, in the tape Alan cautions that one can collide with a group of items collapsed into one, and they need to be uncollapsed before you can really run the whole R/D. He does not give the handling for affecting this uncollapsing on the tape. Though I suspect it would be assessing prepared lists as he mentions this collapse can be the result of collapsed universes and in particular, shocks. So one would assess for these types of things, determine which and use the appropriate handling.

I do not have from Alan the rest of the actions, but would say they would be as follows.

After O/W on this detested item, in consultation with the client, you would then run either the Presence Four handling (for handling identities of others the client has had trouble with) and then follow with Presence Three to handle the identity as the client’s own; or your client might be up to and want to run it as his/her own without first, or at all, addressing it with Presence Four. This all puts the client at cause over that detested item/identity.

This is why you need well grooved in clients for this stuff . . . . they need to be able to guide you on what to run on what comes up. Your best method of determining whether to run the Presence 4 process versus the Presence 3 on the found item at this stage, is ask the client! Remember, Presence 4 Process is run to handle the identity of another who is dominating and/or upsetting and troublesome to the client. Presence 4 concludes by asking: “Have you ever been a (item)?” . . . and then running Presence 3 on it as the client’s own identity. Either way you’ll be running this found item as one of the client’s identities/Beingnesses in the particular Games Matrix being addressed.

Now the presumption at this stage is that the client is currently basically in the identity that has been opposing the detested thing, so the listing question to get what the client is being is:

3. “What Identity or Beingness do you go into or become to oppose (detested thing)?”

This gives you the Identity/who/what the client is being to oppose the nasty.

Though, it may be more real to ask your client: “What identity or Beingness would oppose the (detested thing)?” This works on a grooved in client.

In Kn, the questions/commands are quite precise. The Hubbard type question which is open to too much error is: “Who or what would oppose the (detested thing)?” Our question, as above, very often addresses specifically “you” the client.

One needs to be careful here not to get the commands reversed as this results in a real screw-up. It’s called a wrong way oppose . . . and you can read all about that in HCOBs.

The reverse flow question which might be used later on in the R/D is:
“Who or what would a (you as your Beingness) oppose?” That gets what you are opposing!

It is to be noted that Alan was very guarded and cautious regarding L&N as it could go so wrong! Particularly with this particular type of so highly charged stuff, as the fact is we have been all this shit! We do tend to go into the identity (valence) of that which overwhelms us! :melodramatic: Also, we routinely have gone effect of that which we earlier caused and then denied responsibility for. :duh: So, what you are wrestling with is what is most real to the client in PT and in his current condition.

And indeed, it can happen that one can run an identity as both that which you are being and as that which is “not you” and which you have violently opposed (just that they are located in different Presence Times). Such is the complexity of what we are unlocking and handling.

So all this is the sort of stuff to hat your clients up on so they can sort their way through all this crap. This is not the old, simple LRH black and white, is/isn’t stuff. We are talking shifting shades of gray here. Be happy to bleed charge off on any part of it, from any perspective, as you go. You’ll find that the client has many changes of perspective and viewpoint on the same items and areas/subjects on this R/D . . . . this is all part of the getting off the confusion. You’ll find, one minute one thing is truth and the next, woops, it’s something else.

Indeed, so you know, the Presence Four R/D for handling Beingnesses and identities of others that have given you trouble and even overwhelmed you (not Games Matrix tech, but regular “my father was a bastard type tech”), the final step is to ask the client after they have handled and freed themselves from the nasty other is this step: “Have you ever been a (nasty identity)?” . . . if so, run it on Presence Three to handle the own identity of being a nasty.

So all this comes off like peeling an onion, layer after layer, addressing the changing “now” condition and reality of the client.

On the item found in #3, the identity the client is being to oppose the detested thing from #2, you can do O/W quad flows, and then run how each identity opposed the other and consequences of that opponency.

Use the question: “How does (identity #3) oppose (identity #2)?” and “What have been the consequences of that?” (Repeat to get all) And then reverse the flow between the identities.

If you go to my write-ups on the Pasadena FZ presentation, you’ll see Alan and I have four identities making up the package of a Games Matrix. The difference between our concepts of the construct is not that hugely a problem at this stage (folks can pick what they feel is right).

What is important here is that at this stage in Alan’s R/D it has not been determined which particular part of the Matrix package the obtained opposing identities are. And this, I believe, is where Alan’s version of it ran into its initial difficulty in ’94-5.

I will be going into these nuances later.

At this point in the proceedings you don’t know which two of the four identities of the package you have. Fact is, each identity opposes the other three in the package.

And I do not have Alan’s final handling for this. (I’ll not put on the line the Nov. 1994 version of things ran on me, as that was not a success.)

My judgment here is that the way to go from here, now that one has unburdened the Matrix, would be twofold.

First, ask: “What is the positive, Prime Dream, Aspiration or Goal that began this Matrix?”

Or: "What is the positive, Prime Dream, Aspiration or Goal that you are trying to accomplish with or in this Matrix?”

Then, ask the client what part of the Matrix you have.

This post is now long . . . so I’ll let you all chew on this . . . and give you both my handling and how you deal with the positive of the known Prime Dream/Aspiration/Goal when you have it.

But as you can see above, it's a sweet little R/D for truly unlocking what has been missed all these years.

RogerB

Thanks Rog. This is definitely "meaty". One thing I'm unclear about. You refer to "Presence 3" & "Presence 4" in the above by I remain unclear on what these are. Did I miss something or was that material not included here but implicit to the correspondence you cited?


Mark A. Baker

[RogerB]

Thanks Rog. This is definitely "meaty". One thing I'm unclear about. You refer to "Presence 3" & "Presence 4" in the above by I remain unclear on what these are. Did I miss something or was that material not included here but implicit to the correspondence you cited?


Mark A. Baker

You are observant, Sir :D

They are the names of the R/Ds used, but I have not included them. That would not be proper for me to do.

Presence 3 is simply the name of the R/D that handles own identities. Presence 4 handles for you the identities of others (and probably helps them also :D )

In any event, Presence Three is from memory 15/16 actions, many of which are multiple questions/steps. Example step 5 has 20 questions to it.

The person to whom I sent the email cited, has done the Vital Fundamentals Course levels 1-7 at the Ranch, and is in possession of these R/Ds. He comes visit me weekly for case advice/coaching on application. He, like Virginia and all my clients, I train to solo all this stuff.

I'm not in the business of accumulating folks to be dependent on me for auditing. I train them so they can look after themselves.

R

[Mark A. Baker]

You are observant, Sir :D

They are the names of the R/Ds used, but I have not included them. That would not be proper for me to do.

Presence 3 is simply the name of the R/D that handles own identities. Presence 4 handles for you the identities of others (and probably helps them also :D )

In any event, Presence Three is from memory 15/16 actions, many of which are multiple questions/steps. Example step 5 has 20 questions to it.

The person to whom I sent the email cited, has done the Vital Fundamentals Course levels 1-7 at the Ranch, and is in possession of these R/Ds.

Good to get that point clarified then. Thanks.




He comes visit me weekly for case advice/coaching on application. He, like Virginia and all my clients, I train to solo all this stuff.

I'm not in the business of accumulating folks to be dependent on me for auditing. I train them so they can look after themselves.

R

Hmmm, you seem to be aimed at making me ambitious again, not sure if I'm ready for that. :omg:

I do have a friend out here though whom I am certain could be greatly benefited by your assistance in a variety of areas. I've mentioned him to you before. Unfortunately he's stuck with a lot of considerations (even more than I) about what he "can & can not do". In his case they are fairly silly as he genuinely has NO ties to preclude him picking up and going somewhere else for several months (or even years) apart from the fixed idea that he "can't". All things considered a bit of something different would do him a world of good. :)


Mark A. Baker

[RogerB]

Part 6 Roger’s Games Matrix tech.

To reiterate, the action above of doing Dones/Restraints (O/W) as an identity, is a wonderful process and terribly important.

Also, one can add on the Flow 0: “Because of (identity) what have you done to yourself?”

In retrospect, I feel this is an area where Hubbard and certainly the CofS now have screwed up royally.

The inanity of going on and on with “you” doing O/W write ups as “you” is nuts! What an over-run and what a grinding cleaning a clean action!

Far wiser and smarter would be: “As a Sea Org Member, what have you done?” “As a S/NOTs auditor, what have you done?” etc. “As a father,” “As a lover,” “As a businessman” . . . . try it yourself. You’ll likely suddenly see answers and benefits not obtainable by doing the process as “you.”

Paul, I think this could be a good little R/D for your Paul’s Robot. It’s a process anyone can use to improve their performance and happiness in any area of life activity. Simply pick the Beingness they are for the activity, and do O/W . . . and remember to pick up good and creditable Dones and Restraints . . . these are important to recognize and validate.

And, of course, do it quad flows.

OK. To continue with the Games Matrix scenario.

The last action we spoke of was to locate:

First, ask: “What is the positive, Prime Dream, Aspiration or Goal that began this Matrix?”

Or: "What is the positive, Prime Dream, Aspiration or Goal that you are trying to accomplish with or in this Matrix?”

When you know the Prime Dream, Aspiration, Goal, Purpose or Wanted Want that is powering up the Matrix, you and the client can sort out where the parts so far obtained fit.

If you haven’t yet got the Power Identity, you can ask the following:

“What Identity or Beingness did you create or become to (positive, Prime Dream, Aspiration and Goal)?”

In my version of the package, it might also get you the Complementary Power Identity.
The problem here is one doesn’t know whether the client is sitting in the “Terminal” valence/identity or the “Opposition Terminal” valence/identity here. This is old 1962 LRH tech, using heat, cold and electric (the components of pain) and pain itself to recognize a Terminal, versus sensations, to recognize an Op-Terminal.

This determination was used in ’94 to decide which flow of the next listing question to use to list for the rest of the package. Though in ’94 we did not stick to this formula and rigid view of things as it can sometimes be difficult for the client to discern whether the identity contains sensation versus pain. But because of how you get this identity, it is safest to proceed with it on the basis of it being a “Terminal” and list it with, “What Identity or Beingness would (this Power Identity) oppose?” As the area opens up, the client can correct it and reposition it if need be.

The trick is to not attempt to stick the client with any answer, for that is the way to get stuck with wrong item BPC. Truth is, the client has been a bit of both on these identities: both cause and effect! Both terminal and Op-Terminal.

Here I would say, this is one aspect of difficulty in Alan’s approach to unlocking the Games Matrix that my approach does not have.

Then, as you get your identities of the package you run O/W on them, how each opposed each other of the package and the identity handling procedure, Presence Three.

My Pasadena pitch gives you my view of the Games Matrix construct as well as Alan’s. I don’t have a great grumble regards Alan’s . . . I simply see it as a shade of gray that can miss the target . . . I know he was refining things to his dying day, he may well have seen my stuff and amended his?? He often took a little while to embrace another’s advice on tech, as Dart will confirm.

Here is a diagram I did for Alan of my findings based on what I ran on my own case. This about a year before his death. It might appear a little complex for you at this stage as it does contain the items of two Matrices, and I was addressing Alan based on our knowledge of the underlying tech. For those interested, you might refer back to my Pasadena presentation to see how my presentation of the Matrix differs from Alan’s.

Also, looking at it now, I see I should have bolded the class or type of Identity, viz: Whole Self, Power Identity, Complementary Power Identity, etc. But I think you'll be able to figure it out.

http://i655.photobucket.com/albums/uu277/Boz_bucket/RCompositeTwoMatricestoAlan.jpg
________________________________

So now for Roger’s Handling . . . .

My handling of the whole scenario is different to Alan’s above. Mine addresses the catastrophe from the positive perspective. By the way, it is possible Alan created, or had to create, his R/D the way he did because those on his lines he was dealing with weren’t up enough and capable of dealing with this thing from the positive “top down.” And he possibly created a R/D to address that fact. One has to realize that he did not keep his staff, and there was quite a turnover of troops at the ranch. Those with him at the end were relative newbies. So much so, I’ve never met the ED.

I have a lot of views on this and possible whys, but that is not important. The fact is, Alan’s view of those he was dealing with in the development of the R/D was such that, as he said in the above cited tape, he “moved them off the lines.” He actually said “they” had blocked his ability to discover the data. And, to be honest, this is a part of why I kept myself somewhat separate and not too close to the scene (as in on staff) for so many years, even though I went to the ranch and the old Dallas center several times a year . . . being on staff at the center would have been a little too close on a continuing basis for me . . . and Alan did make it tough on those nearest him, and they on him 

The thing about the Games Matrix is that we are all locked into it/them and we tend to project on each other the denials, occlusions and opponencies that keep it in place.

To be honest, for a long time I deferred to Alan on tech issues. This while I sought to embrace and learn as much as possible of what he had developed. After a while and as a result of correcting and advancing a number of things for him, I came to the observation I had my own areas of different and sometimes more advanced or more accurate perception of what was what. This does not detract from his stupendous achievement, without which I would never have come up with my advances and/or corrections. (I will be enumerating these other areas of tech advancement later on in this thread.)

It also appears that Alan considered this a R/D that had to be audited by an auditor-PC team. My view is that it is best done solo . . . or perhaps most ideally by a processor/PC team that honors and allows the PC to truly run the session and uses the processor as a terminal lending additional power in the session by way of the mechanics and phenomena of having and using a terminal to reach to, create space with and to whom one can exchange the energy and charge involved. In all my years, I’ve only found three such processors: two women and one male.

So Roger’s approach to entering and handling the Games Matrix is as follows.

As I said in Pasadena, I collided with my first Matrix as a result of looking for the positive: the up Tone top of the mood scales positive of an area of negative I had just successfully handled. (I do not count the attempt based on Alan’s ’94 tech which was an effort to open a Matrix based on my “Codes”)

I had been working to recover my various old ascension states, and cleaning up all the negatives and involuntary replications (case) that turn on and cave in as part of the “ascension crash and burn phenomena” that was so prevalent in the CofS. And it was after cleaning up a vast area of negative charge that I sought to address, “What was/is the prior positive that all this charge built up on!”

That by the way is a key question. What a lot of folks do not appreciate is that the negative charge we have on our cases is the result of pursuing our positive dreams and aspirations and colliding with barriers, impedance and/or distractions that upset the endeavor.

It was here that I suddenly expanded into and experienced the “positives” at the top of the particular Games Matrix I uncovered.

Note I write “positives” here as what I went into was both the underlying intention, goal, dream and aspiration and the identity to carry it out that I’d created so long ago. It was a huge three-dimensional hologram of spiritual energy/Life-Force.

Further, due to knowing this tech, I also became aware of the span of decline of both this “goal” or game and the identity I’d assumed to carry it out but, as a result of having handled so much of the charge related to that decline, I remained stable in my position viewing and experiencing all this.

What interested me however was the getting of the rest of the “package.” To achieve this, I first sought to do the old ’94 thing that lined up with Alan’s approach above, which has an “Opposing Power identity” instead of a “Complementary Power Identity” at the top right of the diagram, and the “Malicious Identity” below that “Opposing Power” and the “Weak Identity” below the Power identity on the left.

Trying Alan’s Matrix model simply jammed. It somehow seemed all twisted to me.

So I separated and had another look at the Matrix and how I’d seen it “decline from the positive of the Dream and Aspiration to become its own reversal of power polarity and go negative.”

This blew all the confusion and jam-up. I suddenly saw how the power position had declined down the Zones of Existence to become destructive and negative. The “Malicious Identity” was seen as being the negative/reverse expression of the “Power Identity” but also opposed to it.

Simultaneously I saw the reciprocal of the Power Identity as being in the Yin and Yang vein of being a Complementary Power . . . and not as being the negative oppositional power that Alan had diagrammed and spoken of. Similarly, it too had declined down the Zones of Existence to invert as a Weak Identity.

My diagram in actuality reversed the positions of the two negative identities at the bottom, the Malicious and Weak Identities. But they lined up perfectly in the sense of their Life-Force vector characteristics . . . the left side of the diagram expressing an out-flow vector and the right side inflow/effect. The big realization here was on how these two complements composed and made up the game.

This in fact was the goof made in my session in ’94. The Malicious and Opposing Power Identities got confused. This due to the way the package was listed by the R/D . . . it caused me to put my Negative Code (a known item from the Codes R/D) in the Opposing Power position, when for me it is actually the Malicious Identity/terminal of the package.

I will at a later date write up why I think Alan missed the boat on the construct of the Matrix and the real why of how it came into being. This to explain why he and I have a different presentation of the four component parts.

Thus it was in this solo session just a few years ago that I spotted that the Opposing Power Item/Identity is not really set as a destructive or blocking/countering opponency but is actually a Complement to the Power Identity which thus enables the game!

Suddenly everything settled out and I could see the whole package and the way the two Power Identities: a) complemented each other and b) how they had declined down the mood scale to become the negative, reverse polarity and reverse vector expression of the positive Powers. You see, the bottom of the mood scales is an inversion of and counter to the top.

With this perception and cognition, all the case crap and BPC of the ’94 attempt at doing a Matrix R/D based on my Codes evaporated and the forces involved beautifully aligned. Also, much of the old own goals GPM and R2-12 screw ups cooled off as well. Having been stuck with that BPC for nearly fifty years, it was a major relief to get it settled out.

Since this discovery, my R/D and approach the Games Matrices has been as follows. And there is precedent for it a couple of Alan’s earlier, lower level R/Ds.

Basically, once you have an ascended Being on your hands, what you’re after is the Being’s “Prime Dream and Aspiration” or put another way what is his/her most wanted want, or what “deep down spiritual Game are they playing.”

You can ask any well grooved-in client either of those questions, and you’ll get a positive “item” that is real to the Being that can be run. It may not be the ultimate in terms of total resolution to the case . . . and don’t expect that. Expect to get an item that you can run and advance the case with. The truth is, we have lots of matrices. So the trick is to just keep picking up what the client is doing/pursuing in PT, get the four identities of the package, and handle. As you progress, you’ll find the basic concepts of what’s going on simply gets bigger and more inclusive.

The question that got my sweet Virginia going with the tech 15 years ago was: “If you had all of the money, time and resources needed to be able to do whatever you really, deep down most want to do, or be and have; what would it be?”

Her immediate answer was “To heal people.” And she actually meant it in a spiritual sense. So, it turned out I had an easy recruit to introduce tech to :p:D

If you get a “do” for an answer, you’ve got a goal or purpose, so go for the identity with:
“What identity or Beingness would (item)” I prefer this question . . . it’s clean, neat and more precise. Though you could use Hubbard’s: “Who or what would (item)?”

If they give you a “Be.” You could ask: “What is the dream, aspiration, goal or purpose of (or behind) the game that (Be) is pursuing and playing?” This to fire up the positive energy :D

You might even find huge ascending cognitions on just these actions. You can also run Responsibility on the Game/Goal/Dream & Aspiration.

Use: “Connected to (game/goal) what are you willing to be responsible for?”
“Connected to (game/goal) what would you rather not be responsible for?”
Connected to is broader in scope in terms of relationships, actions, connections, etc., than “What part of,” or Hubbard’s “On.”

You can also do the O/W handling on the identity/Beingness found. But what has to be done is the Presence Three identity handling R/D.

What you will have your hands on here will almost certainly be the Power Identity of the package. And there are huge advantages in entering the package from the Positive rather than the negative.

This is where all the truth and power of the Being is. As they run it they will likely and easily begin to see how this Power Identity got screwed with and declined and also how they themselves made decisions and changes and created solutions that created all of the subsequent decline and change into the negative identities. And if they are well hatted on the formula of the Matrix construct, they will cognite on and tell you what the other identities of the package are.

In my experience, it does not matter much which items of the package you find next. Just pick up what’s real to the client, or to you (if this is your own case), and do the usual: O/W quads, and then Presence Three on the identity, and then do the oppose step of; “How does (identity) oppose (identity?” Maybe it’ll be more real to run “How has . . . opposed . . . ?” Check with client, but leave them in PT when done.

The key is follow the client’s interest and wants to handle . . . he/she will have a sense of what’s most important to address first.

To get the Complementary Power identity, I use a variation on a basic theme: “What identity or Beingness complements (Power Identity) as an opposite in the game of (name of game)?” I’ve also used “What identity or Beingness completes (makes) the other half of the game of (name of game) for the (Power Identity)?”

Note we are not using Hubbard’s difficulty creating and prejudicing question of “W/W opposes?” etc. My questions asks for a positive: “What completes or complements . . .?” Big difference.

In my view, this is a much easier way to deal with the Matrices because: a) you are putting the client into a power position rather than putting him/her into a negative scenario, b) you know where you are on the R/D . . . you’re at the top an in the power positions.

When you are ready to go for the Malicious or Weak identities, the questions I’ve used are:
“What malicious identity or Beingness did the (Power Identity) decline or descend into in the game of (name of game)?”
And: “What weak identity or Beingness did the (Complementary Power Identity) decline or descend into in the game of (name of game)?”

Or these questions could be rephrased as: “In the game of (name of game) what malicious identity did the (Power Identity) decline into?”

The tech behind all this is in my Pasadena pitch.

My view is that anyone not well educated and tech trained in correct tech doesn’t have much hope of making it through this stuff . . . they’ll just be too spiritually and technically illiterate to understand what they are experiencing and having to deal with.

While running these things, be alert to masses, forces, shocks and handle them as they manifest. Also pick up any intentions voiced by the client and handle with the “Repeat technique.” Be alert to any fears that turn on; get the exactness of it . . . it’s a fear of a particular (item subject) not just a general feeling of fear . . . run this on Experience/Create.

Next, I’ll be giving some examples of how clients have found packages.

But in the meantime I am off in the morning out of town on business for a few days :D and the above should give those interested something to chew on till I return.

Rog

[FoTi]

Thanks for the post, Roger. Have a nice trip. Looking forward to your next post. :)

[2wolves]

I have been lurking on this thread. Really appreciate your willingness to share! :yes: Thankyou!:D

[RogerB]

I have been lurking on this thread. Really appreciate your willingness to share! :yes: Thankyou!:D

Welcome out of "lurkerville" 2wolves.

Glad you appreciate my little effort . . . . more to come :yes:

Rog

[nw2394]

The 3 Ls roughly divide into Do (L10), Have (L11 & L11 Expanded), and Be (L12).

Is this data more recent than mine?



As others have noted, the version Rog quoted is a "from memory" one.

In the late 70s and early 80s we were also told they were "do", "have" and "be" in that order - which is roughly right.

Nick

[RogerB]

As others have noted, the version Rog quoted is a "from memory" one.

In the late 70s and early 80s we were also told they were "do", "have" and "be" in that order - which is roughly right.

Nick

Yes, that's my memory of it also, Nick . . . even if a 30 old memory. But because it was my vague old memory, I didn't want to supplant the write-up I found even though the write up is very suspect . . . . as I saw when reviewing other parts of its version of OT levels old and new, it is very suspect in that it did not accord with some things I remembered.

Hence I cited the source so folks could deal with it.

Rog

[nw2394]

Did you mean that I am "obviously no longer interested" in scientology? in which case, you are incorrect as I am interested in analyzing and deconstructing it so as to help people (those who wish to do so) untangle themselves from it, or

that I am "obviously no longer interested" in honestly investigating and finding answers? in which case you would be wrong, as my interest in your lengthy post of the "tech" written by Alan Walters is part of an honest investigation aimed at finding the answers to how it happened (and still could happen), that people seeking help or answers to the normal and usual problems of life, can be drawn into something so insidious and destructive to their mental, emotional, social, and spiritual life as "scientology" and some of its offshoots.

You can believe whatever you like, play at whatever games you like, discuss the subject or not; but, in light of the devastating effect "scientology" has had on the lives of many people, I think it is foolish of you to dismiss the concerns I and others have by implying that I am "dishonest" and telling me that I "neither require nor deserve" any answers.

Yeah, but your "investigation" is apparently being made with the implicit assumption that not only is Scn bad, but anything related to it must also necessarily be bad.

Now you *could*, of course, be correct - or you could be making the most monumental fuck of of an "investigation". Most investigators - or certainly those more intested in truth rather than an arbitrary conviction - have a more open mind than you appear to.

Nick

[olska]

Yeah, but your "investigation" is apparently being made with the implicit assumption that not only is Scn bad, but anything related to it must also necessarily be bad.

Now you *could*, of course, be correct - or you could be making the most monumental fuck of of an "investigation". Most investigators - or certainly those more intested in truth rather than an arbitrary conviction - have a more open mind than you appear to.

Nick

I'm not really interested in an "open minded" discussion of whether scientology or its offshoots are "bad" or "good" -- the facts of the devastation wreaked on the psychological health and well being, and subsequently on their physical life circumstances, of people who have practiced and participated in "scientology" are well documented.

You of course have the choice to believe those facts, ignore them, attribute them to some other cause, diminish their importance, denigrate the character of people who were adversely affected, denigrate my character and sincerity as you did in your post above, or whatever you choose to do. Or not.

The concerns which prompted my interest in this thread and my comments on it were clearly and succinctly stated in the post you quoted, but I'll reiterate them for you or anyone who cares to know:

1) I am interested in analyzing and deconstructing "scientology" so as to help people (those who wish to do so) untangle themselves from it, or

2) I am interested in understanding how it happened (and still could happen), that people seeking help or answers to the normal and usual problems of life, can be drawn into something so insidious and destructive to their mental, emotional, social, and spiritual life as "scientology" and some of its offshoots.

[Leon]

For 1) - PoohBah.

For 2) - read The True Believer by Eric Hoffer.

[olska]

For 1) - PoohBah.

I don't get this comment.


For 2) - read The True Believer by Eric Hoffer.

I have. It's a good book with valid insights. I think what it covers is an excellent, but incomplete, explanation.

[nw2394]

2) ... can be drawn into something so insidious and destructive ... some of its offshoots.

You're still doing it. How on earth do you expect Roger or anyone vaguely interested in what he has to say to have even one minute of time for you. Its like attending court where you're guilty before the trial even starts - it is actually worse than 'guilty until proven innocent'.

Nick

[researcher]

Hi Roger

Let me see If I've understood the first questions about Games Matrix .


1. Ask the client: “Who is the person you most detest?” (Or “Most dislike/can’t get along with, etc. Hubbard had one charmer: “What is not part of existence?” )

2. “Who or what does (found PT item/person) represent?”

3. “What Identity or Beingness do you go into or become to oppose (detested thing)?”

Those questions mean "How you see another person" and "what you use to deal with that person" .
For instance if you consider someone an IDIOT you become ANGRY .
So anytime you think about that person you drop into an identity of being ANGRY and get stuck there for a while.

We know how our moods dictate our lifes.

Are those Identies the Weak and the Malicious IDs of the Games Matrix ??

Is it possible use the questions referred at this lifetime in case you don't have an opponent in PT ?
It could be someone that you hated long time ago.
In this case could be difficult to spot him/her if the client has done some processing as the terminal could be discharged.

I'm looking forward to receiving your reply .

Researcher

[RogerB]

Hi Roger

Let me see If I've understood the first questions about Games Matrix .


1. Ask the client: “Who is the person you most detest?” (Or “Most dislike/can’t get along with, etc. Hubbard had one charmer: “What is not part of existence?” )

2. “Who or what does (found PT item/person) represent?”

3. “What Identity or Beingness do you go into or become to oppose (detested thing)?”
Hi, Researcher . . . .

Yes those are the questions for Alan's version of entry into a PT matrix the client is "dramatizing." It is not my preferred "way in," but it is effective.


Those questions mean "How you see another person"

Sort of, but not really. Question 1 simply gets you focused on an individual you "detest" . . . . question 2 get the underlying type of Being/identity that is being triggered by the PT detested person that the client is really fighting. If the PT detested person was the real problem and why for all the upset and case, the upset would evaporate on inspection. The reason it doesn't resolve is because of the underlying "whole track" activated earlier similar identity/Beingness triggered into replication by the detested person as a PT activator.

One could say, superficially, it (this activated earlier thing) is "how the client sees the other person," but that would be superficial and not accurate enough. When this stuff from the "whole track" is activated into PT by the detested PT person, the client is overwhelmed by an aspect of that particular Game Matrix and the client unknowingly dramatizes the parts of the Matrix. And all of his/her old solutions to handling the original failed Matrix go into replication along with the hung up conditions of the Matrix . . . this is why you see lots of automatic, unthinking, unknowing behavior by folks when these Game Matrices get accessed/triggered.


and "what you use to deal with that person" .
For instance if you consider someone an IDIOT you become ANGRY .
So anytime you think about that person you drop into an identity of being ANGRY and get stuck there for a while.

Not really. Angry is a mood; and a mood is a combination of emotion and attitude.

Question 3 gets you the identity/Beingness you become that acts out and uses its powers and abilities to deal with the idiotic other person. This Beingness may well address the idiot with anger . . . . but that is a very small part of the Beingness and the package we are dealing with.

In the example you give, what you are looking for in question 3 is "the who or what that gets angry at idiots!" :yes:

The Games Matrix phenomenon is based on the huge spiritual identities/Beingnesses we have assumed in the creating of our games. At a human level, you would see them as human type activity identities . . . but the underlying scenario that is firing this monster up is spiritual and at a Godly-like level where vast games and vast spiritual powers were used to create vast holographic existences.

I have a client who has a key Game Matrix based on being a "healer" . . . . this identity and all of its powers, ability, experience, knowledge, triumphs and catastrophes are vast and thread through from his PT life all the way back to his very first effort to help/heal other Beings in a very much earlier universe in our existence. The tragedy of this area of spiritual "case" is that all of this identity and its experience, along with what it is opposing, is sitting here now in PT . . . it is the stuff of what occludes and traps us.


We know how our moods dictate our lifes.

Yes, they are the "carrier wave" of our relationships with others and when negative and out of control they can cause what one does not really want :yes::D


Are those Identies the Weak and the Malicious IDs of the Games Matrix ??

If you are referring to what you get from the above three questions . . . . the answer is: not necessarily. They could be any of the four of the package. All the identities of the package oppose every other identity of the package. You'll have to re-read these write-ups to get the sense of how this pans out . . . also re-do the Pasadena tapes :yes:


Is it possible use the questions referred at this lifetime in case you don't have an opponent in PT ?
It could be someone that you hated long time ago.
In this case could be difficult to spot him/her if the client has done some processing as the terminal could be discharged.

All things are possible :D

The answer to this question (if I get it correctly as it seems English might be your second language?) is that both the auditor and the client/PC going into this R/D have to use judgment and address what the client/PC is sitting in and/or based on the case condition you are dealing with.

Basically, you are after what the client is doing/dramatizing now in PT. It doesn't matter where it comes from. It is now being done, empowered, created. The client is sitting in it . . . that's what you're after. And it is true, the Games Matrix the client is acting out began long, long ago . . . the tricky part is that it has a PT "expression."

Rog



I'm looking forward to receiving your reply .

Researcher

[researcher]

Hi Roger

Thanks SO MUCH for your EXCELLENT Reply !!!!
You always give long and extensive explanations.

As I wrote you in a private Email I ran Games Matrix using the above questions and then Dones / Restraints on each IDs .

The result has been TERRIFIC !!!!

The person that I most detested is a guy who is usually at 1.2 on the Tone Scale and anyone can't stand him for obvious reasons .

I had a lot of Blowdowns in session , and since then (24th of Dicember) I regained a full state of exteriorization and Presence I'm very high tone and I recovered my Prime Positive Aspiration about the Matrix called "UNDERSTANDING" .
I don't see that person as a 1.2 Person ( at Human Level he is in this way) but I see Him at Spiritual Level and it's like I have transmited or hemanated to him a paceful vibrational state.
It's incredible how our vibrational state can affect the others.

Im absolutely sure that Game Matrix is dynamite !!!!!

BTW , I'm looking forward to reading the example you mentioned in your las Games Matrix post !!

Thank so much

Researcher

[Hatshepsut]

I've been trying to draw up my own diagram like in Roger's post #202. I seem to have worked backwards though instead of from top down because I got my teeth first into what I was dramatizing in PT. It happens to be the same matrix items though.
I started to get the opposing identities and purposes as I saw them give birth to each other down the line. It gets scary when it is right in front of you. You can't ignore it. My live attention is opening up some of these occluded areas. I don't like it. It's like having a nervous breakdown.
I see how you can get connected to the same 'beings' implementing conflicting roles. The most dangerous thing is the locked in 'mortal' combat thing right now.
You won't believe this, but there is sort of a ridiculous agreement that those who cost you a body now owe you one. :coolwink: Do you know what the ramifications of that are??? :nervous: It means you can get born to people who might have murdered you or shot you recently. :melodramatic:

I'm treading softly trying to reorient from the TOP of the matrix diagramming my way back down. I have a nice list of identities to run the brackets on. I seem to be on a charge of TO BE or NOT TO BE. It makes it so much easier to spot it from the top down. The individual dramatizations are less likely to get stirred up and put me into overwhelm that way.

Roger was so right about the character imagery we impress onto one another. Also the end game we envision is important. How many have lost sight of what end they are trying to bring about. Lethal. You have to feel deserving, worthy and keep your eye on the prize. :D

I had spotted something horrible about myself that was causing me much abuse. I was triggering the same dramatization in almost everyone. If I wasn't outright attacked I was covertly sabotaged. From the horses' mouths...THIS is the reaction I was evoking from others. (yet I wasn't aware of doing anything wrong at all)

"I know what you're up to..."

"Don't think I don't know...."

"You're trying to cause..."

"You're not going to win...''

"You're not going to cost me .."

"I'm not going to be the one to end up the loser here..."

I mean for the last 20 or so years I have been treated like I was up to something. I wasn't. And it was causing a huge life upset and acting as a 'wrong item' that people were creating me as doing something I was wasn't.

So yesterday, I asked myself if I could actually name WHAT was being dramatized. It turned out to be "a fear of losing absolutely everything ." I asked myself, What am I DOING or what imagery are these people seeing that makes them feel that it is imminent that they will lose EVERYTHING if I am around? I remind you that I have always paid dearly for triggering this in others. I unconsciously started to list what identity could possibly make others feel they were about to lose everything. (instant headache)
Anti-matter?
A conqueror ?
Shiva?

It wasn't good for me to do this...but a WINNING identity with all sorts of imprintings sending clues to another that he was about to lose? These did not feel like any of my past life images but what others had created me 'as' being. (you could maybe say I was 'stigmatized') And you'd be right if you thinketh I protests too much. :grouch: I AM A FRIENDLY PERSON. As a solution I had created myself with overlaying images of a weak identity that was not ambitious or agressive or greedy and would never do anybody any harm or beat anybody to their prize. :duh: All this to keep safe and others from reacting to the 'overwhelm' imagery and sabotaging me before they had to experience some 'loss'. What a mind f-ck. I have NO idea where I'm going with this.... :unsure:
But I DO know this. The charge is coming off not on past lives but on what we create each other as in present time. There now...the headache's gone. :D

http://i986.photobucket.com/albums/ae345/loutupper/imagesCA1BSEOF.jpg

[RogerB]

I've been trying to draw up my own diagram like in Roger's post #202. I seem to have worked backwards though instead of from top down because I got my teeth first into what I was dramatizing in PT. It happens to be the same matrix items though.
I started to get the opposing identities and purposes as I saw them give birth to each other down the line. It gets scary when it is right in front of you. You can't ignore it. My live attention is opening up some of these occluded areas. I don't like it. It's like having a nervous breakdown.
I see how you can get connected to the same 'beings' implementing conflicting roles. The most dangerous thing is the locked in 'mortal' combat thing right now.
You won't believe this, but there is sort of a ridiculous agreement that those who cost you a body now owe you one. :coolwink: Do you know what the ramifications of that are??? :nervous: It means you can get born to people who might have murdered you or shot you recently. :melodramatic:

I'm treading softly trying to reorient from the TOP of the matrix diagramming my way back down. I have a nice list of identities to run the brackets on. I seem to be on a charge of TO BE or NOT TO BE. It makes it so much easier to spot it from the top down. The individual dramatizations are less likely to get stirred up and put me into overwhelm that way.

Roger was so right about the character imagery we impress onto one another. Also the end game we envision is important. How many have lost sight of what end they are trying to bring about. Lethal. You have to feel deserving, worthy and keep your eye on the prize. :D

I had spotted something horrible about myself that was causing me much abuse. I was triggering the same dramatization in almost everyone. If I wasn't outright attacked I was covertly sabotaged. From the horses' mouths...THIS is the reaction I was evoking from others. (yet I wasn't aware of doing anything wrong at all)

"I know what you're up to..."

"Don't think I don't know...."

"You're trying to cause..."

"You're not going to win...''

"You're not going to cost me .."

"I'm not going to be the one to end up the loser here..."

I mean for the last 20 or so years I have been treated like I was up to something. I wasn't. And it was causing a huge life upset and acting as a 'wrong item' that people were creating me as doing something I was wasn't.

So yesterday, I asked myself if I could actually name WHAT was being dramatized. It turned out to be "a fear of losing absolutely everything ." I asked myself, What am I DOING or what imagery are these people seeing that makes them feel that it is imminent that they will lose EVERYTHING if I am around? I remind you that I have always paid dearly for triggering this in others. I unconsciously started to list what identity could possibly make others feel they were about to lose everything. (instant headache)
Anti-matter?
A conqueror ?
Shiva?

It wasn't good for me to do this...but a WINNING identity with all sorts of imprintings sending clues to another that he was about to lose? These did not feel like any of my past life images but what others had created me 'as' being. (you could maybe say I was 'stigmatized') And you'd be right if you thinketh I protests too much. :grouch: I AM A FRIENDLY PERSON. As a solution I had created myself with overlaying images of a weak identity that was not ambitious or agressive or greedy and would never do anybody any harm or beat anybody to their prize. :duh: All this to keep safe and others from reacting to the 'overwhelm' imagery and sabotaging me before they had to experience some 'loss'. What a mind f-ck. I have NO idea where I'm going with this.... :unsure:
But I DO know this. The charge is coming off not on past lives but on what we create each other as in present time. There now...the headache's gone. :D

http://i986.photobucket.com/albums/ae345/loutupper/imagesCA1BSEOF.jpg

Hats, you are delicious! :yes: And very brave :D

The good news is that this is all unraveling for you now . . . at times it is TOUGH! :yes: and yep, I do the headache things also :yes: I find the headache thing is usually connected with some sort of deep underlying countering of myself . . . that is, I had done or was about to do (repeat some old) thing that I recognize was a violation or otherwise harmful to self or others---and then instant counter-creation against my action and also the powers/ability employed in that action.

It's all rather vicious stuff we do to ourselves in our effort to maintain any semblance of integrity or ethics (I mean that in the true sense, not the Scn shit sense).

We really are our own best watchdog in keeping ourselves "decent" . . . . trouble is we weren't always successful, and we get pissed at ourselves :duh: Well, now we have the better and more correct answers than getting pissed at ourselves . . . we can undo and repair the errors. And that is a good thing to do.

On your note about the "top down" and where you "entered the matrix" . . . don't sweat it . . . you'll see the answers as you progress. Don't do the Hubbard stupidity of trying to get instant perfect answers right away . . . you'll come to the higher level truths as you progress.

Your cogs of seeing how you created various scenarios is testament to that. The greatest trap, as you point out, is that we do unwittingly project onto others to "create them as (name it)" and to incite them to do and to respond to us in the way they do! I can be a bitch . . . all on an unknowingly involuntarily replicated manner:yes:

Rog

[RogerB]

Hi Roger

Thanks SO MUCH for your EXCELLENT Reply !!!!
You always give long and extensive explanations.

As I wrote you in a private Email I ran Games Matrix using the above questions and then Dones / Restraints on each IDs .

The result has been TERRIFIC !!!!

The person that I most detested is a guy who is usually at 1.2 on the Tone Scale and anyone can't stand him for obvious reasons .

I had a lot of Blowdowns in session , and since then (24th of Dicember) I regained a full state of exteriorization and Presence I'm very high tone and I recovered my Prime Positive Aspiration about the Matrix called "UNDERSTANDING" .
I don't see that person as a 1.2 Person ( at Human Level he is in this way) but I see Him at Spiritual Level and it's like I have transmited or hemanated to him a paceful vibrational state.
It's incredible how our vibrational state can affect the others.

Im absolutely sure that Game Matrix is dynamite !!!!!

BTW , I'm looking forward to reading the example you mentioned in your las Games Matrix post !!

Thank so much
Researcher

Researcher . . . NICE! :happydance:

I love it when folks win, and more so when they win BIG! :yes:

You'll have to send me another PM or email . . . I do get a bit of that traffic . . .and I get mixed up on who is who when we switch between real names and nics! :duh: Like, tell me who you are in real life :blush:

Rog

[Leon]

When are you giving us another chapter, Rog? More please!

[RogerB]

When are you giving us another chapter, Rog? More please!

Leon, my Love :D I thought you were at war with me at one stage:melodramatic:

I'm almost into the next chapter . . . though it will be written extemporaneously . . . straight from the top of my head. The earlier pieces on the Games Matrix were written and edited before hand.

But as we observe, once a piece is put up on the board folks jump in and the "process starts running" :p so it is wise to let what runs settle before dumping more on the line. Just posting the anatomy of the structure starts it unlocking for some folks . . . so it is wise for me to take breaks at certain points.

My next post(s) on the GM stuff will include some case history examples of how folks found/got what enabled them to rise out of this mess . . . and it is easy once you have the formula.

The key to it is the Life-Force you direct when you are involved in a game and the identities you create and/or go into to play the game . . . and the messes you produce with the deployment of that Life-Force if you are not smart enough to not produce messes---anyone? anyone smart enough to not produce messes? Anyone? :duh:

Also, I have a number of subjects/issues I'll be posting on that folks can benefit from if they choose. A lot of it to do with correcting earlier tech and/or handling completions of incomplete areas . . . all of which messed up folks when in the Cof$. Hopefully, those posts will help folks "un-mess" if needed.

Rog

[FoTi]

I've been trying to draw up my own diagram like in Roger's post #202. I seem to have worked backwards though instead of from top down because I got my teeth first into what I was dramatizing in PT. It happens to be the same matrix items though.
I started to get the opposing identities and purposes as I saw them give birth to each other down the line. It gets scary when it is right in front of you. You can't ignore it. My live attention is opening up some of these occluded areas. I don't like it. It's like having a nervous breakdown.
I see how you can get connected to the same 'beings' implementing conflicting roles. The most dangerous thing is the locked in 'mortal' combat thing right now.
You won't believe this, but there is sort of a ridiculous agreement that those who cost you a body now owe you one. :coolwink: Do you know what the ramifications of that are??? :nervous: It means you can get born to people who might have murdered you or shot you recently. :melodramatic:

I'm treading softly trying to reorient from the TOP of the matrix diagramming my way back down. I have a nice list of identities to run the brackets on. I seem to be on a charge of TO BE or NOT TO BE. It makes it so much easier to spot it from the top down. The individual dramatizations are less likely to get stirred up and put me into overwhelm that way.

Roger was so right about the character imagery we impress onto one another. Also the end game we envision is important. How many have lost sight of what end they are trying to bring about. Lethal. You have to feel deserving, worthy and keep your eye on the prize. :D

I had spotted something horrible about myself that was causing me much abuse. I was triggering the same dramatization in almost everyone. If I wasn't outright attacked I was covertly sabotaged. From the horses' mouths...THIS is the reaction I was evoking from others. (yet I wasn't aware of doing anything wrong at all)

"I know what you're up to..."

"Don't think I don't know...."

"You're trying to cause..."

"You're not going to win...''

"You're not going to cost me .."

"I'm not going to be the one to end up the loser here..."

I mean for the last 20 or so years I have been treated like I was up to something. I wasn't. And it was causing a huge life upset and acting as a 'wrong item' that people were creating me as doing something I was wasn't.

So yesterday, I asked myself if I could actually name WHAT was being dramatized. It turned out to be "a fear of losing absolutely everything ." I asked myself, What am I DOING or what imagery are these people seeing that makes them feel that it is imminent that they will lose EVERYTHING if I am around? I remind you that I have always paid dearly for triggering this in others. I unconsciously started to list what identity could possibly make others feel they were about to lose everything. (instant headache)
Anti-matter?
A conqueror ?
Shiva?

It wasn't good for me to do this...but a WINNING identity with all sorts of imprintings sending clues to another that he was about to lose? These did not feel like any of my past life images but what others had created me 'as' being. (you could maybe say I was 'stigmatized') And you'd be right if you thinketh I protests too much. :grouch: I AM A FRIENDLY PERSON. As a solution I had created myself with overlaying images of a weak identity that was not ambitious or agressive or greedy and would never do anybody any harm or beat anybody to their prize. :duh: All this to keep safe and others from reacting to the 'overwhelm' imagery and sabotaging me before they had to experience some 'loss'. What a mind f-ck. I have NO idea where I'm going with this.... :unsure:
But I DO know this. The charge is coming off not on past lives but on what we create each other as in present time. There now...the headache's gone. :D

http://i986.photobucket.com/albums/ae345/loutupper/imagesCA1BSEOF.jpg

Hats, this is really interesting to me. Thanks so much for sharing your experience.

[FoTi]

Leon, my Love :D I thought you were at war with me at one stage:melodramatic:

I'm almost into the next chapter . . . though it will be written extemporaneously . . . straight from the top of my head. The earlier pieces on the Games Matrix were written and edited before hand.

But as we observe, once a piece is put up on the board folks jump in and the "process starts running" :p so it is wise to let what runs settle before dumping more on the line. Just posting the anatomy of the structure starts it unlocking for some folks . . . so it is wise for me to take breaks at certain points.

My next post(s) on the GM stuff will include some case history examples of how folks found/got what enabled them to rise out of this mess . . . and it is easy once you have the formula.

The key to it is the Life-Force you direct when you are involved in a game and the identities you create and/or go into to play the game . . . and the messes you produce with the deployment of that Life-Force if you are not smart enough to not produce messes---anyone? anyone smart enough to not produce messes? Anyone? :duh:

Also, I have a number of subjects/issues I'll be posting on that folks can benefit from if they choose. A lot of it to do with correcting earlier tech and/or handling completions of incomplete areas . . . all of which messed up folks when in the Cof$. Hopefully, those posts will help folks "un-mess" if needed.

Rog

Looking forward to whatever you're going to post, Roger. :yes:

[RogerB]

While I am here, before I get onto my other business of the day, I'd like to relate a story I received as one of two of the best Xmas presents I've ever had. It came to me the morning of Xmas Eve.

It really is in the vein of a huge win for ESMB and for our Emma and the purpose intended for her setting up ESMB. And I post this in that vein. This is not being posted for the reason of "tech wins" . . . it is being posted in the context that we each can help each other on this board if we communicate honestly and with care.

It happens this rescue and recovery of happiness and the restoration of a true state of Being occurred simply as a result of acknowledging another and forwarding on to the person some info I saw could help.

There are others here who do that: Dex, CarmelO, Ted, Nick, Mike Goldstein, and others whose names escape me for the moment . . . but the important point is that many folks are to varying degrees still scarred by Cof$ involvement with varying degrees of remaining upset.

ESMB is the pre-eminent healing venue for these folks where whatever tech we have can be offered so folks can benefit. And that is something that ought be supported: not criticized as happens. To criticize the wins folks have in their recovery is, in my view, an evil and insane act . . . and one we know when we see it.

So, in that vein, below is the Xmas present I got that I now post in honor of ESMB.
__________________________________


Hi Roger,

Thank you! thank you! thank you!

I think for the first time in my life, I can say it sure feels good to be ME. :p

After sending you the message on ESMB, I got back into action, pulled in some money & my responsibility level went right up. It was nice to have someone duplicate where I was at even with the little information I gave you.

When I watched the Pasadena Presentation you did, my ARC grew...It was amazing & so clear. I felt so much affinity.

I would like to share some of my wins with you except for I don't think there is enough room :D

This is the main one though. I am no longer effect of wanting to impress. What a liberation, if there is one identity that was uncomfortable this lifetime, that was the one.

As I was running the processes and being all pissed off & being a victim I remembered why don't I just admit being cause, that is when everything changed. After this some of my abilities starting coming back even some I was unaware that I had.

It is strange, it was all opposing identities, which was great fun running them out. For the first time auditing was easy for me. Somehow these processes were easy to do. I don't think I have ever laughed as much doing processes either, everything became really funny and light.

I also realized I could create fear because then I can do something about it, I could create an addiction because then I could do something about it...

Then finally this morning I woke up, looking at the beautiful sky, listening to the birds sing, looking at the trees...That is when I had the cog...It is OK for me to use my power, ha ha. I was afraid of it and well obviously because I had overts...wanting to impress. Then my original intention came back what it's really for! :coolwink:

I waited this long to write to you because I could not write until I had the cog mentioned above.

Thank you Roger, I am back to being keyed out, happy, fully in Present Time, free from being obsessed with wanting to cause, and...I met my new 2D.

Wishing you unlimited postulates for the New Year!

ARC,
C****

Oh, yes, PS: take a win Emma!

Rog

[dexter gelfand]

What a great win! THAT is making a difference. Very, very nice, Roger, congrats! I was quite moved and enlightened by that presentation you gave at Aida's 2009 Freezone convention. That opportunity to become familiar with you and your work has paid big dividends for me already, with much more to follow, as I further study and make more use of what you share!

Thanks Roger:)

Love, Dex

[AnonyMary]

Roger’s Journal, 2010

I wrestled with whether to call this thread Roger’s Journal; this is response to several requests that I promised to fulfill, or whether to give it a technical name based on its subject matter and content.

Being a techie, tech won out.

Be warned, this following might shake up a stable datum or two :p

This first installment is comment on what I have found to be the biggest, most catastrophic goof in Scn tech that has yet not been recognized as such nor commented on anywhere (that I have seen).

As I look at this now, I can’t help thinking this might likely be the why, apart from the extent of abusive behavior by those in power, that Scn has become a failing piece of technology . . . but then, the abuse might even be explained by this gross, monster tech error that is inherent and built into its practice.

Alan Walter made a comment in his thread titled: “L10 and Obesity” here:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=7556

His comment got me to wondering as to what exactly had gone out: what was the tech factor that was the actual goof. Alan did not explain it. Whether he had unraveled what the actual tech point error is or not, I don’t know.

What he wrote in his opening post on the above thread was:

The above stuck in my mind from when I first read it 18 months or so ago, till I listened to Trey Lots’s 2010 FZ presentation here:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=476592&postcount=25

Trey explained that the L’s (or so he was told) were, in part, an extension of research based on the old early “GPMs” tech. This was new info to me.

He also, however, made two statements that were true: a) the GPMs were/are composed of Identities; a hung up structure of Identity versus counter Identity (certainly the putative own goals GPMs are) and b) what was being sought (in 1962 with own goals GPMs) was the GPM affecting you in present time. This I can vouch for as I ran that old stuff as and when released.

But what interested me was the way in which the “L’s tech” apparently related to the old GPM tech and their identities structure.

So I looked at the L10 R/D Trey had mentioned.

It says on page 534 of the on-line available PDF “Scientology OT levels” the following:


As it happened, even that last paragraph didn’t tip me off when I first read it. It was like: “Well, OK, that makes sense!” But I did feel a mass turn on slightly while I digested the statement, but ignored it as business as usual :duh: (One did get so used to this sort of thing happening, and then looking forward to the next session to “handle” it!

Page 548 has the specific description of L10, and the actual R/D is given on the pages following.

While there are a number of steps and different handlings for various areas of the R/D, this is what I observed.

On Page 549:
Areas/items to handle:


On Page 553, we see the questions to use on what is labeled the 8D RUNDOWN

I won’t list the entire series; it is long. But here is a sample for the questions for the 2D:


Here is another example from Page 560: the OVERTS BY DYNAMICS R/D



And it was here, when looking at all the above, that I saw what the hell had been screwing up all our cases since the beginning!

Notice that all those questions above, put you into the past!

Here is a datum. An important datum.

What is screwing up the present is in the PRESENT, it is here, now, doing its screwing up here, now! It is NOT in the past nor necessarily of the past! (I will get into the mechanics of this time notion/factor later on.)

What I saw is that the error which is endemic and a core erroneous principle in/of Scn is the idea that what is bugging you is in the past or from the past. This is a colossal error, and one that has screwed us all up.

Looking at the development of the tech, we can see how this error came into being and how it seemed so logical, and Oh so right to think that. It began with the early “successes” with Dianetics, and carried forward as “the truth behind what bugs you in Scn.” Of course this notion that what is bugging you and wrong with you is in or from your past didn’t begin with Dianetics. Hubbard took the notion from others.

What I realized in looking at all this is that virtually everyone in Scn has been hooked on the idea that what is “wrong with them,” and what is bugging them, is in or from their past . . . . when in fact, what has to be found, corrected and handled is in the present, NOW!

These are the questions that are being asked in all the R/Ds: “Have you ever . . .” “Have you or did you . . .?” That’s putting you in the past!

The questions should be rephrased so as to pick up the in present time, now, action that is screwing up the game. And folks need to be brought to a new understanding of what is going on. It’s not the past: it is the now that is screwing up the present and your futures.

The question needs to be: “Is there . . . ?” or “Are you . . . ?”

Now it may be true that the genesis of the now screwy action is in the past, but you should look in the present for the now screwy action . . . for that is where it is active.

The big, big error has been the constant ransacking of the past looking for things that MIGHT be active in the present and screwing it up. The trap in ransacking and stirring up all of the past in order to find the very few “items,” actions, intentions, solutions etc., that need be found is that you make all of the past live and stick the client back out of PT and into his past!

And this is what Alan wrote of. It is what I also experienced but didn’t particularly realize it till just these last few weeks. It’s been a colossal relief to let the past go, to let it settle out back into the past and to myself come (more) fully into PT and direct my powers, abilities, awareness and presence here where they can do their good.

The fact is, for the last fifty years or so, I’ve been stuck out of PT but trying to handle it and get better, etc., etc., and not aware of the actual what and why of my relative difficulties in operating.

Even so, it is true that I continued to get gains with the correct tech . . . but the truth is, I was actually handling a lot of unnecessary shit. (And OT3 and NOTs, forget about it . . . they are a destructive waste of time.)

What should have been located and addressed was: WHAT WAS I DOING IN PRESENT TIME TO SCREW UP MY PRESENT TIME!! For the fact is, that is where I live and should be playing the game: not in the past!

You old-timer will remember we used to often use the command at the end of sessions: “Come up to (or back up to) Present Time.” :D This has dropped out in “standard tech.”

This is now long. Other related pieces on another page,

RogerB

LFBD!~ Terrific observations. Thanks :)

[I told you I was trouble]

While I am here, before I get onto my other business of the day, I'd like to relate a story I received as one of two of the best Xmas presents I've ever had. It came to me the morning of Xmas Eve.

It really is in the vein of a huge win for ESMB and for our Emma and the purpose intended for her setting up ESMB. And I post this in that vein. This is not being posted for the reason of "tech wins" . . . it is being posted in the context that we each can help each other on this board if we communicate honestly and with care.

It happens this rescue and recovery of happiness and the restoration of a true state of Being occurred simply as a result of acknowledging another and forwarding on to the person some info I saw could help.

There are others here who do that: Dex, CarmelO, Ted, Nick, Mike Goldstein, and others whose names escape me for the moment . . . but the important point is that many folks are to varying degrees still scarred by Cof$ involvement with varying degrees of remaining upset.

ESMB is the pre-eminent healing venue for these folks where whatever tech we have can be offered so folks can benefit. And that is something that ought be supported: not criticized as happens. To criticize the wins folks have in their recovery is, in my view, an evil and insane act . . . and one we know when we see it.

So, in that vein, below is the Xmas present I got that I now post in honor of ESMB.
__________________________________



Oh, yes, PS: take a win Emma!

Rog


I quite like being "evil and insane" ... but then I am an EX scientologist.

:dance3:

[Mark A. Baker]

Leon, my Love :D I thought you were at war with me at one stage:melodramatic: ...

FWIW, Rog, I never understood Leon to be at war here so much as that he has a bit of a "sharp & questioning" mind. Just a bit of the ol' "miscommunication" style of thing.


Mark A. Baker

[nexus100]

While I am here, before I get onto my other business of the day, I'd like to relate a story I received as one of two of the best Xmas presents I've ever had. It came to me the morning of Xmas Eve.

It really is in the vein of a huge win for ESMB and for our Emma and the purpose intended for her setting up ESMB. And I post this in that vein. This is not being posted for the reason of "tech wins" . . . it is being posted in the context that we each can help each other on this board if we communicate honestly and with care.

It happens this rescue and recovery of happiness and the restoration of a true state of Being occurred simply as a result of acknowledging another and forwarding on to the person some info I saw could help.

There are others here who do that: Dex, CarmelO, Ted, Nick, Mike Goldstein, and others whose names escape me for the moment . . . but the important point is that many folks are to varying degrees still scarred by Cof$ involvement with varying degrees of remaining upset.

ESMB is the pre-eminent healing venue for these folks where whatever tech we have can be offered so folks can benefit. And that is something that ought be supported: not criticized as happens. To criticize the wins folks have in their recovery is, in my view, an evil and insane act . . . and one we know when we see it.

So, in that vein, below is the Xmas present I got that I now post in honor of ESMB.
__________________________________



Oh, yes, PS: take a win Emma!

Rog

Believing that anyone is evil and insane because they don't have the same viewpoint is an interesting notion for a practitioner of the fine art of healing souls.

[I told you I was trouble]

Success Story posted by RogerB

Hi Roger,

Thank you! thank you! thank you!

I think for the first time in my life, I can say it sure feels good to be ME.

After sending you the message on ESMB, I got back into action, pulled in some money & my responsibility level went right up. It was nice to have someone duplicate where I was at even with the little information I gave you.

When I watched the Pasadena Presentation you did, my ARC grew...It was amazing & so clear. I felt so much affinity.

I would like to share some of my wins with you except for I don't think there is enough room

This is the main one though. I am no longer effect of wanting to impress. What a liberation, if there is one identity that was uncomfortable this lifetime, that was the one.

As I was running the processes and being all pissed off & being a victim I remembered why don't I just admit being cause, that is when everything changed. After this some of my abilities starting coming back even some I was unaware that I had.

It is strange, it was all opposing identities, which was great fun running them out. For the first time auditing was easy for me. Somehow these processes were easy to do. I don't think I have ever laughed as much doing processes either, everything became really funny and light.

I also realized I could create fear because then I can do something about it, I could create an addiction because then I could do something about it...

Then finally this morning I woke up, looking at the beautiful sky, listening to the birds sing, looking at the trees...That is when I had the cog...It is OK for me to use my power, ha ha. I was afraid of it and well obviously because I had overts...wanting to impress. Then my original intention came back what it's really for!

I waited this long to write to you because I could not write until I had the cog mentioned above.

Thank you Roger, I am back to being keyed out, happy, fully in Present Time, free from being obsessed with wanting to cause, and...I met my new 2D.

Wishing you unlimited postulates for the New Year!

ARC,
C****

What a load of old tosh.

[Mark A. Baker]

To criticize the wins folks have in their recovery is, in my view, an evil and insane act . . . and one we know when we see it.



I quite like being "evil and insane" ... but then I am an EX scientologist.

:dance3:


Believing that anyone is evil and insane because they don't have the same viewpoint is an interesting notion for a practitioner of the fine art of healing souls.


Okay you two, looking at this a bit more closely: how is criticizing another person's wins in recovery a positive or helpful action?

Or were you just a bit so overly eager to come across in a posting as members of "the loyal opposition" that you didn't bother to actually read & understand that to which you chose to respond?


Mark A. Baker

[I told you I was trouble]

Okay you two, looking at this a bit more closely: how is criticizing another person's wins in recovery a positive or helpful action?

Or were you just a bit so overly eager to come across in a posting as members of "the loyal opposition" that you didn't bother to actually read & understand that to which you chose to respond?


Mark A. Baker


OK you, I must have neither read nor understood that to which I chose to respond (and I am a bit on the evil and insane side).

Just re-read it (using clay demo and a dictionary etc) ... and it's still a load of old tosh.

Goodnight.

[me myself & i]

Originally Posted by nexus100 View Post

Believing that anyone is evil and insane because they don't have the same viewpoint is an interesting notion for a practitioner of the fine art of healing souls.


Okay you two, looking at this a bit more closely: how is criticizing another person's wins in recovery a positive or helpful action?
Mark A. Baker

Hi Mark, they may not be the only two that share such notions here. I would be a third, for example.

to answer your question:

how is criticizing another person's wins in recovery a positive or helpful action?

Preamble/background: Roger wrote:
To criticize the wins folks have in their recovery is, in my view, an evil and insane act . . . and one we know when we see it.

Nexus responded:
Believing that anyone is evil and insane because they don't have the same viewpoint is an interesting notion for a practitioner of the fine art of healing souls.

Ok, that should just about wrap it up. Lol.

It's apples and oranges Mark.

Roger is calling critical speech of anothers euphoria (aka wins) evidence of evil and insanity of the author of such criticism, while Nex is merely addressing the merit or absence of merit, of calling such criticism evil and insane, by a practicing healer, so to speak.

While you drop the 'evil and insane' comment altogether and go off on a 'positive or helpful' inquiry/inquisition. Lol.

It seems to be a Scientology mindset that imagines personal 'victories' to be so fragile as to demand group agreement (or silence of critique) to act as a sort of psychological glue to hold such personal victories together. Whereas in the other-world (think wog-world) the soundness of personal psychological victories are immune to the blessings or cursings of others. Elsewise they are not counted as being sound but rather fleeting. Most especially when those 'others' are neither close family nor friends.

In regard to the evident 'escaping/deflecting' of the heart of Nexus pondering of Rogers commentary by you, I can only say you are somewhat of a master (as we all are) at doing such things, largely unawares, lol.

mojo

ps if I tell you Mark you are full of shit will you be wounded? I think not. Well then, have a little more confidence in your fellow scientologists capacity to be on the receiving side of a critique without intellectually or emotionally falling apart. And without needing to call the author of such critique insane and evil.

In the 4th grade I had 2 special teachers. One for art and the other for music. My art teacher praised me to no end (think positive action). My music teacher roughed me up (verbally) every day (think critique). My music improved to the point of unimaginable successes. My art simply passed away. Lol.

[RogerB]

Originally Posted by nexus100 View Post
Believing that anyone is evil and insane because they don't have the same viewpoint is an interesting notion for a practitioner of the fine art of healing souls.

Okay you two, looking at this a bit more closely: how is criticizing another person's wins in recovery a positive or helpful action?

Or were you just a bit so overly eager to come across in a posting as members of "the loyal opposition" that you didn't bother to actually read & understand that to which you chose to respond?


Mark A. Baker

Yes, well, it's typical of Nexus's "viewpoints" and "understanding" he touts with his negative put-downs.

Here I am writing about an evil and insane act, and his brilliance changes it into the personage. :duh: Typical.

Could this be the reason we don't see too many wins being revealed from his corner of the camp?

R

[Zinjifar]

Could this be the reason we don't see too many wins being revealed from his corner of the camp?

R

'His corner'?
'No Wins'?
'We know what *that* means'?

heh
we do indeed.

Zinj

[me myself & i]

Yes, well, it's typical of Nexus's "viewpoints" and "understanding" he touts with his negative put-downs.

Here I am writing about an evil and insane act, and his brilliance changes it into the personage. :duh: Typical.

Could this be the reason we don't see too many wins being revealed from his corner of the camp?

R

That's below the belt Rog. Lol.

The reason our corner of the camp do not post wins is precisely because we are not practicing scientologists in need of comfort or congratulations in regard to our wins, nor in regard to ourselves. So to speak.

The whole 'us vs. them' dichotomy is a spiritual collapse of historical proportions (in terms of doctrine). Not religious proportions mind you, lol, but in terms of spiritual proportions.

You call a critique of a recovering Scientologist evil and insane. Yes?

So be it Roger.

In his later years Ron would be proud of you. In his earlier years, not so much.

Mojo

[dexter gelfand]

That's below the belt Rog. Lol.

The reason our corner of the camp do not post wins is precisely because we are not practicing scientologists in need of comfort or congratulations in regard to our wins, nor in regard to ourselves. So to speak.

The whole 'us vs. them' dichotomy is a spiritual collapse of historical proportions (in terms of doctrine). Not religious proportions mind you, lol, but in terms of spiritual proportions.

You call a critique of a recovering Scientologist evil and insane. Yes?

So be it Roger.

In his later years Ron would be proud of you. In his earlier years, not so much.

Mojo
Hey MM&I, when you say "we are not practicing scientologists..." are you not dramatizing such a dichotomy?
As for comfort and congratulating of wins, I know there's a lot of that in the CoS, but that doesn't make it bad. If a Sea Org exec wears socks, are socks therefore bad?
Validating accomplishments, or "wins" is positive support, and we do it in life all the time with friends, family and co-workers to acknowledge, encourage and reward a positive act. I wouldn't classify refusing to be encouraging or supportive something to crow about.
I always validate artists and musicians, and anyone doing anything worthy of encouragement. Anything that makes anyone's life better. Its very muddled thinking to associate that with the CoS and thus ridicule or attack it.
What possible motivation can there be in raining on someone's parade? Why would you do that? it is a rather cruel thing to do, really. So "evil" as a characterization of that kind of thing, is understandable and not out of line.
This business of attacking anything that seems or is similar to anything done in the CoS is foolish, and carried out far enough paints you into a corner where almost anything anyone does is something to be attacked and/or ridiculed.
Anti-CoS people (of which I am one) need to be discriminating, to distinguish the actual harmful activities of the CoS from the good or benign practices of people not in the CoS.

Love, Dex

[Zinjifar]

Why bother communicating with us Dex? Obviously we're NCG (read; suppressives.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pq28qCklEHc

Zinj

[Mark A. Baker]

Why bother communicating with us Dex? Obviously we're NCG (read; suppressives.

I wouldn't say that about you, Z. I think you are improving, albeit slowly and not perhaps without a bit of backsliding from time to time. I just think you are a bit pts to Hubbard. :coolwink:


Mark A. Baker :whistling:

[EP - Ethics Particle]

I wouldn't say that about you, Z. I think you are improving, albeit slowly and not perhaps without a bit of backsliding from time to time. I just think you are a bit pts to Hubbard. :coolwink:


Mark A. Baker :whistling:

:omg:That is so totally spot-on I am line chargin' in new units of time!:dieslaughing::clap:

[dexter gelfand]

Why bother communicating with us Dex? Obviously we're NCG (read; suppressives.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pq28qCklEHc

Zinj

LOL! I love that number from West Side Story:thumbsup: Funny thing is, 2 days ago something reminded me of that very number. Interesting!

Zinj, who is "we"?

As to the "NCG/Suppressives" comment, I realize you're being a bit tongue in cheek here, but you're illustrating an important point, which is that there are meaningful differences between the views of (at least some) freezoners and the CoS. To think of or brand others as "SP's" is very "Churchie". Speaking as an independent Scientologist, I can recognize a cruel, or "evil" attitude, without dull-wittedly labeling the person overall "a suppressive" or "evil". The idea of writing off somebody as suppressive, so as to complete reject or dismiss everything about them demonstrates an embarrassingly shallow level of thinking. One doesn't have to have ever heard of Scientology to understand that people have within them a large catalog of attitudes depending on circumstances, regardless of having any idea about where these attitudes come from, and so if you want to find an example of bad behavior so you can inflict some silly all-encompassing label on another, there's plenty of material available.
Perhaps an example of this extermely faulty thought process would be to brand anyone who has any use for any part of Scientology a cultist who calls others "SP's" for disagreeing with them.:)

Love, Dex

[Ted]

I wouldn't say that about you, Z. I think you are improving, albeit slowly and not perhaps without a bit of backsliding from time to time. I just think you are a bit pts to Hubbard. :coolwink:


Mark A. Baker :whistling:


Oh, that's a good one, Mr. Baker. (Not a putdown of the Z-Man in any way.)

I would say, "PTS to the convergence of archetypes as represented in the Hubbard-model." Or call it the Hubbardian convergence point.

Oh, yes. I shall let that one slow-cook on the back-burner of the mind I am presently using.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[me myself & i]

[COLOR="Blue"]Hey MM&I, when you say "we are not practicing scientologists..." are you not dramatizing such a dichotomy?

Well, if we had 10 people in a room surrounding me listening to my speech (i.e. reading my post) and 6 said I was (dramatizing) and 4 said I wasn't, I assume, according to the Scientology Theory of Reality Being Agreement, that you are correct. Yes? Lol.

Do you know what I mean Dex?


As for comfort and congratulating of wins, I know there's a lot of that in the CoS, but that doesn't make it bad. If a Sea Org exec wears socks, are socks therefore bad?

No.


What possible motivation can there be in raining on someone's parade? Why would you do that? it is a rather cruel thing to do, really. So "evil" as a characterization of that kind of thing, is understandable and not out of line.

When my son was 7 years old I rained on his parade often. And you may consider that to be cruel. Yes. And you may consider that to be evil too.

But my son is no longer 7 years old and adults are adults. And I refuse to treat an adult like a child and kiss his or her emotional ass so as to not hurt their immature undeveloped juvenile spiritual feelings.

Do you get that Dex?

If not let me make it clearer. The whole 'gradient truth' 'control the pc' 'scientology will save the world' bull shit is pure spiritual juvenile bull shit.

You, on the other hand, I can easily love.

And do.

mm&i

[ps my son at 7 was more like 12, if you know what i mean]

[Mark A. Baker]

But my son is no longer 7 years old and adults are adults. And I refuse to treat an adult like a child and kiss his or her emotional ass so as to not hurt their immature undeveloped juvenile spiritual feelings.

Do you get that Dex?

A "failure to kiss ass" is not the same thing as "direct criticism of another's 'win'". Or do you not understand that, Mojo?

In such an instance comment is rarely required, and criticism is never appropriate. But don't believe me. Try telling your wife all the things wrong with her the next time she dresses up to go out. I'm sure that would prove to be an interesting intellectual exercise. You might even learn something about communication. :whistling:


Mark A. Baker

[nexus100]

Gee I'm sorry I left. I saw the new "True Grit" which is really well done, my opinion.
Look at EXACTLY what Roger said and EXACTLY what I said. Those words don't necessarily reflect the responses.

My opinion is that there is not an insane or evil creature in existence. To decide there is, is to admit, in fact insist, that your game is not to understand. If you want that and if you want to be treated by someone who believes that, be my guest. You don't have to. You'll likely see better how this place really works if you take another route. Or forget about the whole biz and just have fun.

[Mystic]

This thread has got to be a joke. All this hallucination about a "tech" which was purposely designed to keep folks from enlightening, entrapping them in mind, mind, mind and going nowhere spiritually but rather tech and more tech and mind and more mind.

[me myself & i]

You might even learn something about communication. :whistling:

Mark A. Baker

Mark,

In 1968 I was named Senior Professor of English Literature and Human Communication at Yale University.

That was 43 years ago.

In 1972 I became the American Ambassador to the Republic of China.

Lol!

Couldn't help myself. I was using a Hubbard technique of gaining credibility and favor from my audience by merely, well, communicating.

Sorry Mark, the third glass of wine did me in. Lol.

[nexus100]

Mark,

In 1968 I was named Senior Professor of English Literature and Human Communication at Yale University.

That was 43 years ago.

In 1972 I became the American Ambassador to the Republic of China.

Lol!

Couldn't help myself. I was using a Hubbard technique of gaining credibility and favor from my audience by merely, well, communicating.

Sorry Mark, the third glass of wine did me in. Lol.

I hope they were large glasses, or Bogart would think you're a weenie. (See Chat)

[Mark A. Baker]

Mark,

In 1968 I was named Senior Professor of English Literature and Human Communication at Yale University.

That was 43 years ago.

In 1972 I became the American Ambassador to the Republic of China.

Lol!

Couldn't help myself. I was using a Hubbard technique of gaining credibility and favor from my audience by merely, well, communicating.

Sorry Mark, the third glass of wine did me in. Lol.

More importantly, what was your wife's response to the proposed intellectual exercise? I'd be interested in how diplomatically you could handle that sort of "exchange of views". :coolwink:


Mark A. Baker

[me myself & i]

More importantly, what was your wife's response to the proposed intellectual exercise? I'd be interested in how diplomatically you could handle that sort of "exchange of views". :coolwink:
Mark A. Baker

Hmmm.........

Almost feels like a challenge (of the higher mind variety). Lol. The ole *he said she said* eternal dialogue....

If so, you are, I fear, unarmed, Mr. Baker. Lol!:coolwink:

Nonetheless, I shall re-read the post, re-contemplate it, re-consider it, and then respond.

Knowing in advance (as I do) the female species tends toward being right.

All the time.

[nexus100]

More importantly, what was your wife's response to the proposed intellectual exercise? I'd be interested in how diplomatically you could handle that sort of "exchange of views". :coolwink:


Mark A. Baker

Referring to anyone's relatives in a post is beyond the scope of reasonable communication on this board or any other. I suggest you go to hell and feel free to stay there.