ClearBird addresses GPMs

Discussion in 'Freezone, Independents, and Other Flavors of Scien' started by uniquemand, Apr 8, 2012.

View Users: View Users
  1. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

    ClearBird (a Class VIII using that nom de plume) has created an address to GPMs called Deep Character Cleaning. Looks very interesting to me. It was due to a complete failure on the part of Scientology to develop a direct address for GPMs that I decided the subject of Scientology AUDITING was incomplete. Glad to see that this has now been remedied.

    I'm also not surprised to see that this looks a lot like metapsychology's "unstacking" method. :)
  2. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    It's also confidential. And the website looks on Hubbard as a technical master all over the place. Pfft.

    I'm not familiar with Metapsychology's unstacking. Is it in the book, Kev?

    That said, I know addressing polarities — and the thoughts, emotions, efforts and other components therein — can stir up and discharge some heavy stuff. Two of my (free) PaulsRobot3 polarity-addressing modules are Dipoles and NotTooShabbyPower, and Rub & Yawn sure helps with the discharging. The (free) PaulsRobot3 HeavyDuty module allows one to address 15 aspects of an incident or topic, including thought, emotion and effort.

    I would be interested in seeing how they dig them up, and how they discharge them.

  3. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

    Yup, everyone seems to address this stuff as confidential. Sad. Just glad they have an address for it.

    Sarge describes what the Unstacking method is for, but not how it is done, in the Third Edition. Same with their Individuation section (which covers NOTS type stuff, where a person has themselves confused with other beings or their own projections).

    Metapsychology considers that everything through those two has been well written, well-defined, and well-piloted, with many people having done those things successfully, whereas "unstacking" and "individuation" are considered experimental, in that some people do not benefit from those actions, and they don't, at present, have an understanding of why, or how to remedy that. They DO, however, admit this, and discuss it at their technical symposiums, which I attend, and they ARE looking to get a better grasp on it. That being said, the people that I know who HAVE done the Unstacking Section all seem to have REALLY benefited from it, and seem to be some of the most grounded people, leading nearly effort-free lives that I've met. They don't get sucked into new games conditions and they made excellent mentors for me (I haven't done that stuff yet, and I'm sure it shows).

    As to considering Hubbard a master, or holding him in high esteem, consider their "public". They are using scientologese, they are delivering to Scientologists. Given the last twenty-six years in the Church, I'm guessing most people leaving the Church but still considering themselves Scientologists probably still consider Hubbard the guru and think the Church has "gone off the rails", rather than recognizing that it IS as Hubbard designed it to be, and does what Hubbard designed it to do.
  4. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

    Actually neither of the principals involved have at all a myopic view of hubbard, although both acknowledge his actual contribution to the initial development and description of auditing tech. Whatever one's view of hubbard it is only reasonable to acknowledge the legitimate contributions he did in fact make.

    Mark A. Baker
  5. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

    Metapsychology's official perspective is that it's not confidential, by the way, or considered "secret", but that they don't discuss it until a person has trained in the material. This, to me, is a distinction without a difference, and I've made it plain that I disagree with not having this material fully explained in the book. However, the basic theory section of Sarge's book does discuss it all very clearly, in terms of what an identity is, how it is created, etc. With those definitions, and other parts of his theory section ("the person and his world"), it would not be at all difficult for an experienced facilitator to create actions that would target these, without resorting to any new training, IMO. Apparently, my view of that is contradicted by the number of people who've ostensibly studied this material but who cannot, apparently, create anything using the theory. :) Every subject has its "bots", I guess.
  6. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    I agree it would be reasonable to acknowledge the legitimate contributions he did in fact make. The problem is in isolating which useful contributions those were.

    He is known to have stolen things from others uncredited. He is known to have altered useful tech from others for reasons of his own not related to the efficacy of that tech. He is a known liar, to such an extent that absolutely nothing he says can be taken on trust as it may be true and it may be false.

    Yes, some of "his" stuff is useful, but who knows its original source?

  7. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

    Spot a source. Spot a non-source.


    Really, IMO, source is an awareness characteristic, rather than a state of mind, or something that a person *IS*. Becoming identified with an awareness characteristic must make life into one long drill about maintaining a specific awareness characteristic. Not much fun. Getting stuck there, unknowingly, or having to pretend you have that characteristic when you don't, must be incredibly exhausting and embarrassing.
  8. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    I'm not hung up on spotting exactly WHO developed every single little bit of tech in Scn, good or bad. I don't think it matters, beyond acknowledging that it wasn't Hubbard who did it all by a long shot and therefore he doesn't rate the free ride of having anything he put his grubby paws on rubber-stamped as automatically valid.

  9. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

    This is also true. :)

    So, given that his contributions ARE in there somewhere AND that, like a multi-party orgy, its not always clear what specific contributions were made by whom, it makes sense to allow for a generic attribution which acknowledges in a general fashion that hubbard made substantial contributions, among which and certainly not the least the promotion of the general subject, and leave specifics out due to their ambiguous or uncertain character. In such a fashion his contributions may be generally acknowledged without his being credited specifically with that which were the actual accomplishments of others.

    Mark A. Baker
  10. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor


    Mark A. Baker :)
  11. Leon

    Leon Gold Meritorious Patron

    Anyone planning on auditing GPMs on self or others is well advised to go the TROM route. Doing it any other way is risky, to put it mildly.

    Dennis Stephens did his work well.
  12. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    Well, the PaulsRobot3 modules address any polarities or dichotomies in present time, like any other PaulsRobot procedure. I don't really know how true Hubbard's pronouncements were on the subject of GPMs and don't get into his structures at all.

    I don't see how (willingly and at one's own pace) addressing anything in present time can be particularly dangerous. I can well imagine how believing oneself to be digging into obscure and dangerous mental masses trillions of years and several universes ago could lead into problems, though.

  13. Terril park

    Terril park Sponsor

    I like Stravinsky's take on this. " Poor composers imitate, good ones steal wholesale" Or similar.

    All knowledge stands on the shoulders of predeccessors.

    Hubbard initially validated that and then tried to be "source" with some success.

    OK. A bad direction.

    I was an initial reseach PC for Mr Clearbirds GPM processing, done over Skype with him holding the cans.

    Didn't really do a lot for me. That is mainly down to me and my history IMO and I believe was primarily directed at opposition terminals or similar.
    Having been on all critical forums for more than a decade, and having
    tried to handle upsets between other FZ terminals in this time period I guess I was reasonably flat on that area having discharged much in livingness.

    However his methods were I thought exellent. He primarily used 3 of the most powerful processes from Scn. Effort processing, creative processing
    and repeater technique.

    He's probably grooved all this in even better now.

    As an auditor I found him an excellent guy and was very happy to talk to him. :) I had no problem with him holding the meter, doing it over skype. We connected very well. :) He's a lovely guy. :)

    Others have done extremely well with this tech. Anyone interested and who can't contact him mail or PM me.
  14. Leon

    Leon Gold Meritorious Patron

    Running an out-of-ARC process, Running a lie while believing it to be true, Getting landed with a wrong listing item, Running the victim side of processes only and neglecting the overt side - all of these can fuck up an an improperly trained solo auditor. And he wouldn't have a clue how to get out of it.

    And running something you believe to be in the bank whenin fact it isn't - as with GPM's - can do they unwary adventurer serious damage.
  15. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

    So don't go solo.


    It's that simple.
  16. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    Yes, sorry, I was referring to my own stuff. :). And I'm not so sure that "out-of-ARC" processes are universally bad — I think that Hubbard's generality on that was wrong.

    So where are they? (And how are you defining "bank"?)

    I'm very uncommitted on GPMs, as to what they are or if they even exist in the form some have stated. I do know with certainty that various opposites and quasi-opposites are tied together charge-wise, but beyond that it gets iffy.

  17. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    That is a wise and rational position.

    Hubbard's 1962 and early (till end of March) '63 version and attempts at "GPMs" was truly a disastrous screw-up. Way incomplete and erroneous. He didn't even address the "identities" found . . . now that's incomplete! And as to "line-plots"???? fuggettaboutit!!!

    One of the things missed regarding all that shit is, even though it was a purported attempt to address "your own Goals" . . . it was all positioned as an enterprise in getting rid of "what affects you" . . . . it was not positioned as nor dealt with on the basis of restoring your sovereignty and power.

    It really was a total screw-up.

  18. Ted

    Ted Gold Meritorious Patron

    Yes. A wrong assumption that said if the negative forces on a case were addressed the being would return to native ability and awareness. Some positives were eventually addressed as in, "What force could you confront?" but the overwhelming focus on Scientology processes and administration is on the negative, pain, unconsciousness, secondary, downstat, lower condition, overt, withhold, out-ethics, SP, DB, PTS, hidden influence, hidden WHO, rollback, ... OMG!

    On the positive side you have Opinion Leaders with access to MONEY. And... Er, ah... What else? :dieslaughing:
  19. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

    On the positive side, you have creative processing, admin scales, Science Fiction, etc.
  20. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    I don't know about others, but I find that most of the creative processing I have in my stuff is aimed at directly manipulating and thereby discharging bits of negative stuff. When it is deliberately aimed at positive stuff, it acts to stir up the connected negative stuff (the opposites or quasi-opposites mentioned above) which can then be worked over and dissipated.

    The purely positive stuff I have (like in RAW4 or SpotAnAngel) is either Reach & Withdraw (in RAW4) or using Higher Sense Perceptions (in SpotAnAngel), neither of which are creative processes as such.

    It's easy to dream up uncharged thingies to run creative processes on, but I find it hard to persist with them as what's the point? There is no obvious pay-off. Maybe I haven't done them long enough and need to do a Crowley-like Magick approach and conjure up a moonchild or something. :). But I can't say I'm too interested - well, I would be unbelievably fascinated to have one appear in front of me in the flesh, but doing the rituals I don't find at all appealing.


Share This Page