Dulloldfart
Squirrel Extraordinaire
I don't think Hubbard had a clue about havingness.
If a Scio wants to "Get his havingness up" what does he do? He goes out and has a good meal or buys some stuff he can wear or put in his pockets or something. It's all about PHYSICAL STUFF and contacting it.
My own definition, as stated in the PaulsRobot3 glossary, is
I use that definition because it is useful. For example, Rub & Yawn is all about increasing the client's energy level so that he/she can then discharge the "bad" energy, manifested as yawning, sighing, belching, farting etc. (I decided against calling it Rub & Yawn, Sigh, Belch & Fart.) And how does one increase this energy level? By using a Havingness process! Rubbing the body vigorously is the best one I've found.
Right now I'm working on the PaulsRobot BasicR3X module. The major problem I have with R3X, apart from the woo-woo pre-time bits, is that running it tends to devastate havingness and there is no built-in havingness fixer. There's a little bit of wimpy hav brush-off at the end, but that is far too-little-too-late. The thing that's wrong is not that R3X wrecks havingness (that's good!) but that there is no built-in fix for that. I sort of get around that by encouraging the user to use Rub & Yawn liberally throughout, but I can't really insist as then it wouldn't be R3X any more.
Anyway, this post is mainly about Hubbard and his ideas (or rather, what has come down to us in red-and-white as his ideas). What is Hubbard's idea of a havingness process?
Fuck no! The Tech Dictionary definition of Havingness is, from the IAS online Scn glossary, "havingness: the concept of being able to reach. By havingness we mean owning, possessing, being capable of commanding, taking charge of objects, energies and spaces."
Does that have anything to do with energy? No, it's all about THINK. Here's a process you figure might have something to do with Havingness as it is called "Grade 0 Havingness."
It's a THINK process.
How does a Scientologist find the pc's "Havingness Process?" He runs down a list of approved hav processes until one seems to bite (by can squeeze) and uses that. I've listed them out at the end of this post. Hubbard's "havingness" processes are all THINK processes. The nearest he gets to anything physical is to look at something in the room or even <gasp> POINT at something in the room and *then* think about it. Crazy. The pc has one of these pieces of shit inflicted on him by the auditor to try and fix his hav at the end of the session or "whenever he needs it." Well, good luck with that.
More later.
Paul
-----
From HCOB 6 October 60 Thirty-Six New Pre-sessions:
2. Havingness: “Look around here and find something you could have.”
3. Havingness: “Point out something in this room you could confront.”
“Point out something in this room you would rather not confront.”
4. Havingness: “What part of a beingness around here could you have?”
5. Havingness: “Point out something in this room you could confront.”
“Point out something in this room you would rather not confront.”
6. Havingness: “Look around here and point out an effect you could prevent.”
7. Havingness: “Point out something.”
8. Havingness: “Where is the (room object)?”
9. Havingness: “Look around here and find an object you are not in.”
10. Havingness: “Look around here and find something you could have.”
11. Have: “Notice that (indicated object).” (No acknowledgement.)
“What aren’t you putting into it?”
12. Have: “Look around here and find something you can agree with.”
13. Have: “Look around here and find something you could have.”
“Look around here and find something you could withhold.”
14. Have: “Notice that (room object). Get the idea of making it connect with
you. “
15. Have: “Look around here and find something you could withhold.”
16. Have: “Point out something around here that is like something else.”
17. Have: “Where isn’t that (indicated object)?”
18. Have: “What else is that (indicated object)?”
19. Have: “What is the emotion of that (indicated object)?”
20. Have: “What is that (indicated object) not duplicating?”
21. Have: “What scene could that (indicated object) be part of?”
22. Have: “Duplicate something.”
23. Have: “What is the condition of that (indicated object)?”
24. Have: “What is the condition of that person?”
25. Have: “Notice that body.” “What aren’t you putting into it?”
26. Have: “What bad activity is that (indicated object) not part of?”
27. Have: “Where would that wall have to be located so you wouldn’t have to restrain it?”
28. Have: (a) “What around here would you permit to be duplicated?” or (b) “What is the safest thing in this room?”
29. Have: “Who would that (indicated object) be a good example to?”
30. Have: “What would you have to do to that (indicated object) in order to have it?”
31. Have: (Auditor holds two small objects, one in each hand. Exposes them alternately to pc, with as little motion of arms and hands as possible.)
“Look at this.” (No acknowledgement.) “What around here isn’t this duplicating?”
32. Have: “How could you deter a ......?” “What have you not given a ......?”
33 & 34 aren't specific processes
35. Have: “Notice that (indicated room object).” “How could you get it to help you?”
36. Have: “Notice that (room object).” “How could you fail to help it?”
If a Scio wants to "Get his havingness up" what does he do? He goes out and has a good meal or buys some stuff he can wear or put in his pockets or something. It's all about PHYSICAL STUFF and contacting it.
My own definition, as stated in the PaulsRobot3 glossary, is
HAVE/HAVING/HAV etc.: Various techniques to increase the energy level of the client; also the energy level of the client ("Her havingness was good and she had energy to spare").
I use that definition because it is useful. For example, Rub & Yawn is all about increasing the client's energy level so that he/she can then discharge the "bad" energy, manifested as yawning, sighing, belching, farting etc. (I decided against calling it Rub & Yawn, Sigh, Belch & Fart.) And how does one increase this energy level? By using a Havingness process! Rubbing the body vigorously is the best one I've found.
Right now I'm working on the PaulsRobot BasicR3X module. The major problem I have with R3X, apart from the woo-woo pre-time bits, is that running it tends to devastate havingness and there is no built-in havingness fixer. There's a little bit of wimpy hav brush-off at the end, but that is far too-little-too-late. The thing that's wrong is not that R3X wrecks havingness (that's good!) but that there is no built-in fix for that. I sort of get around that by encouraging the user to use Rub & Yawn liberally throughout, but I can't really insist as then it wouldn't be R3X any more.
Anyway, this post is mainly about Hubbard and his ideas (or rather, what has come down to us in red-and-white as his ideas). What is Hubbard's idea of a havingness process?
"Stamp your feet on the floor!"
"Jump up and down!"
"Clap your hands together hard!"
Processes like that that boost the person's energy level?"Jump up and down!"
"Clap your hands together hard!"
Fuck no! The Tech Dictionary definition of Havingness is, from the IAS online Scn glossary, "havingness: the concept of being able to reach. By havingness we mean owning, possessing, being capable of commanding, taking charge of objects, energies and spaces."
Does that have anything to do with energy? No, it's all about THINK. Here's a process you figure might have something to do with Havingness as it is called "Grade 0 Havingness."
16. HAVINGNESS
F1: "What solid could another have you understand?" to EP
F2: "What solid could you have another understand?" to EP
F3: "What solid could others have others understand?" to EP
F0: "What solid could you have yourself understand?" to EP
(Taken from Clearbird)F1: "What solid could another have you understand?" to EP
F2: "What solid could you have another understand?" to EP
F3: "What solid could others have others understand?" to EP
F0: "What solid could you have yourself understand?" to EP
It's a THINK process.
How does a Scientologist find the pc's "Havingness Process?" He runs down a list of approved hav processes until one seems to bite (by can squeeze) and uses that. I've listed them out at the end of this post. Hubbard's "havingness" processes are all THINK processes. The nearest he gets to anything physical is to look at something in the room or even <gasp> POINT at something in the room and *then* think about it. Crazy. The pc has one of these pieces of shit inflicted on him by the auditor to try and fix his hav at the end of the session or "whenever he needs it." Well, good luck with that.
More later.
Paul
-----
From HCOB 6 October 60 Thirty-Six New Pre-sessions:
2. Havingness: “Look around here and find something you could have.”
3. Havingness: “Point out something in this room you could confront.”
“Point out something in this room you would rather not confront.”
4. Havingness: “What part of a beingness around here could you have?”
5. Havingness: “Point out something in this room you could confront.”
“Point out something in this room you would rather not confront.”
6. Havingness: “Look around here and point out an effect you could prevent.”
7. Havingness: “Point out something.”
8. Havingness: “Where is the (room object)?”
9. Havingness: “Look around here and find an object you are not in.”
10. Havingness: “Look around here and find something you could have.”
11. Have: “Notice that (indicated object).” (No acknowledgement.)
“What aren’t you putting into it?”
12. Have: “Look around here and find something you can agree with.”
13. Have: “Look around here and find something you could have.”
“Look around here and find something you could withhold.”
14. Have: “Notice that (room object). Get the idea of making it connect with
you. “
15. Have: “Look around here and find something you could withhold.”
16. Have: “Point out something around here that is like something else.”
17. Have: “Where isn’t that (indicated object)?”
18. Have: “What else is that (indicated object)?”
19. Have: “What is the emotion of that (indicated object)?”
20. Have: “What is that (indicated object) not duplicating?”
21. Have: “What scene could that (indicated object) be part of?”
22. Have: “Duplicate something.”
23. Have: “What is the condition of that (indicated object)?”
24. Have: “What is the condition of that person?”
25. Have: “Notice that body.” “What aren’t you putting into it?”
26. Have: “What bad activity is that (indicated object) not part of?”
27. Have: “Where would that wall have to be located so you wouldn’t have to restrain it?”
28. Have: (a) “What around here would you permit to be duplicated?” or (b) “What is the safest thing in this room?”
29. Have: “Who would that (indicated object) be a good example to?”
30. Have: “What would you have to do to that (indicated object) in order to have it?”
31. Have: (Auditor holds two small objects, one in each hand. Exposes them alternately to pc, with as little motion of arms and hands as possible.)
“Look at this.” (No acknowledgement.) “What around here isn’t this duplicating?”
32. Have: “How could you deter a ......?” “What have you not given a ......?”
33 & 34 aren't specific processes
35. Have: “Notice that (indicated room object).” “How could you get it to help you?”
36. Have: “Notice that (room object).” “How could you fail to help it?”