Havingness

[Dulloldfart]

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

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?

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)

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?”

 

[Ogsonofgroo]

'Havingness' is just one more Hubbard manglation of the language in my opinion, its simply 'materialism' or ownership to me, and even by scio-sub-standards its a crappily constructed word~ good frikken Gord LRon and his love of 'ness'' makes me want to spew chunks when I see/hear it being used ~ I think its all part of the old windbags isolationist conditioning, his leet speak fo de Homo Novi~ RUN AWAY!

 

[Leon]

Havingness is one of Hubbard's better contributions to the subject. He stated early on that he didn't quiite know what it was and so was planning to do an ACC on the subject inoreder to explore it more fully. But he never got around to it and neither did he improve on his earlier attempts to defne it.

I agree with Paul's definition in that it has a lot to do with the energy level of the preclear. And R3X sure does burn up that energy in a devastating way.

I developed my own definiton of it some years ago when I realised that be Do Have was the most fundamental triangle of all the triangles in Scio. All the others - ARC, KRC, etc - derive as fractals from this basic one. Be Do Have is basically a postulate taking place via time and energy.

Here's my definiton:

HAVINGNESS, The feeling of validity and “hereness” one gets when one’s postulates are seen to be effective. One of the most important concepts in Scientology. It could be simply defined as ARC with the environment. It is what comes after Beingness and Doingness, both of which lead to an outreach into the environment in some way.

Havingness is the willingness and ability to reach into a mass, or space, or energy, or time, or significance, - pervade it, duplicate it, participate in it and contribute towards it, coupled with the willingness and ability to not reach into a mass or space or energy or time, pervade it, duplicate it, participate in it and contribute towards if one so chooses. Both have to be present, as well as the freedom to self-determinedly choose between them.

Havingness is an exact synonym for Intelligence. People who do well in IQ tests are willing to reach, duplicate, participate and so on, in the little puzzles they give you to solve on those tests. A person with a high havingness in any given area, be it rocket science or rugby, will manifest a high degree of intelligence and competence in that area.

Note that a lower harmonic of Havingness exists in Ownership, or Possession. Here one is unable to pervade but holds onto the object in order to prevent others from pervading and duplicating it, or to use as a means of getting an inflow from others when one permits a small degree of pervasion. The person derives some small sense of increased beingness as a result of such possession.

There is a related datum in Scio which states that "Production is the basis of morale." This was first served up on the FEBC course back in 1971. It always stuck in my craw as it seemed to be an underhand method of cajoling guys to work harder. What in fact raises morale is seeing one's postulates be effective. All success is postulate success, all failure is postulate failure. It manifests in production in that every cycle of action is a postulate being fulfilled, and the rise in morale stems exclusively from this. And a postulate being fulfilled brings about an enormous rise in havingness.

But the enormous depletion of Havingness on R3X has always intrigued me. I sort of see it as being the result of as-ising the bank. The reactive mind is in one sense the guy's holding on to the past - the pictures are a method of keeping the past in continued existrence and is thereby an ongoing havingness. Thetans without banks tend to feel a little naked at times. Without any mest attaching to them they can feel sort of "out of the game" and so havingness spirals down. Their earlier postulate that "this is forever" (or some such) also gets knocked.

 

[Div6]

Good one Paul! Havingness is a scale. In one of the lecture's on the subject in the 50's, LRH said that the DEI scale hooked up with the Own, Protect, Hide scale. Combining the 2 when running ARCX's can give some interesting results.

The "ultimate" remedy of havingness as I recall was a being "mocking up 8 anchor points" and pulling them in on himself, or shoving the resultant "mass" into the body.

The theory there being, one plays a game to "have". If one loses, then a remedy of havingness can be run to enable them to rise up to the "player" level again.

 

[SweetnessandLight]

I haz a HAPPY!

 

[Dulloldfart]

The "ultimate" remedy of havingness as I recall was a being "mocking up 8 anchor points" and pulling them in on himself, or shoving the resultant "mass" into the body.

The theory there being, one plays a game to "have". If one loses, then a remedy of havingness can be run to enable them to rise up to the "player" level again.

Yeah, it's all theory, based on nothing more than "Hubbard says so."

But don't take my word for it. Try it yourself and see, for hours if you want. The auditor won't complain! This link is to the first screen of R3X's wimpy "8 anchor points" subjective havingness process, where you mock them up, push them into the body, mock them up, let them remain where they are, mock them up, throw them away, mock them up, choose what to do with them, repetitively, for as long as you want to: http://paulsrobot3.com/temp-basicr3x/subjective-havingness-put-out-1.htm. Ignore the "Rub & Yawn" direction if you want to check out what Hubbard said and not my own additions.

I haven't finished the BasicR3X module, and there is no sound, but the final bits after scanning out the session are close enough to done to use. After a few minutes of dicking around with massless "anchor points" try comparing your havingness change with a good solid objective havingness process like stamping your feet on the floor. I left a few Hubbard-type THINK "objective havingness processes" in there as well as the physical ones.

I believe one's havingness goes DOWN if you spend long dicking around with Hubbard's "8 anchor points" process. There is no MASS there, and havingness is all about MASS, about SOLID stuff.

I can just about stay above water with an anchor-points process by avalanching in and out in a full sphere (mockups of) huge masses like suns, but this involves thousands, millions at a time in all directions, not 8 at a time only. But that is still nowhere near as good as simply banging the table or rubbing your bare feet on the carpet!

Paul

 

[Boojuum]

Excellent observation DOF!

LRH would have snagged your idea immediately if he had only known.

 

[RogerB]

Very good stuff, Paul, Leon, Div6.

Hubbard definitely missed on the "havingness" thing.

There are a few nuances to it, and Hubbard missed most of them and in particular missed the important points.

The references in the posts above to energy are good, but fail to really define what it is vis a vis a spiritual Being.

There is a reference to "feeling" above, but again this misses the preciseness of what is going on relative to it and what can be done to truly either repair or enhance "havingness" or prevent it going out in the first place.

In his Axioms, Hubbard did an "almost right" . . . . wot's new?

He spoke of the "static having the ability to postulate and perceive."

That's close, but not close enough to earn a decent cigar.

The two basic abilities of a Being are the abilities (or powers) of/to experience and create.

And these can be directly processed . . . and done so at all levels of reality or case state to both restore havingness and or prevent it going out in the first place.

Indeed, these process are part of most of Alan W's R/Ds for that very reason.

At this point in my little dissertation here I should plug in a RogerB's definition . . . "energy" is really a form of spiritual Life-Force.

You can experience another's or your own "formed/manifested Life-Force" and you can create and emanate your own spiritual Life-Force and by doing so and experiencing both that action and the outcome you will either restore of uphold havingness.

These are direct spiritual actions and a use of one's powers and abilities.

There are several ways in which these basic powers/abilities are used and practiced is session and life.

In session, most R/Ds aught locate related to the area or subject being processed, things that cannot easily be experienced or that must not be experienced . . . . note that it is these "cannot/must not be experienceds" that KO havingness! And if you miss handling them in session, then there goes your PC's havingness.

I have written on the Experience/Create Processes before on ESMB .. . . but for simplicity here they are.

Two versions, both work wonderfully.

"From where could a Spiritual Being experience (item of unpleasant sensation)?" Repeat to EP.

"From where could a Spiritual Being create (item of unpleasant sensation)?" Repeat to EP.

One should also be smart enough to, as appropriate, ask for the positive opposite of the negative unwanted, must not be experienced and/or must not be created item, and run the same process on the positive.

This handling of the positive works wonders on moods and such things as inabilities an such. I first discovered this long ago on the subject of "incompetence." Incompetence was the "unpleasant sensation" in the area I was processing, and after running "incompetence" to EP, I found my competence had not restored . . . and it was then I got the bright idea to run competence.

Alan subsequently added that step to many of our R/Ds.

The other Exp/create process that works equally well but undercuts the one noted above, and is often better to use on newbies is:

"What part of (mood, unpleasant sensation, etc.,) are you willing to experience?"
"What part of (mood, unpleasant sensation, etc.,) would you rather not experience?"

These run alternatively to EP, then run "Create" . . . part willing to/rather not.

As a final point, it is to be noted that "mass" is only accumulated, encysted and hung-up energy. But in processing terms, it is the action of reaching to perceive/experience the mass of the physical universe that produces the energy that gives the feeling or sensation of interface and relationship that is integral to "havingness."

Of course, there is the issue of unwanted and negative mass on one's case that KO's one's havingness, but a part of handling such is the discovery of what about it must not be experienced and processing that item with the above noted process.

Rog

 

[I told you I was trouble]

You strange self obsessed people really should attempt to start a cult (as far away from ESMB as possible).

 

[Dulloldfart]

The references in the posts above to energy are good, but fail to really define what it is vis a vis a spiritual Being.

I use the word "energy" in order to communicate to most users or potential users of PaulsRobot. My real assumption is that we're dealing with the person's subtle-energy system, his spiritual life-force if you like.

I believe that Rub & Yawn and other such actions stimulate the intake/metabolising of energy-consciousness (stuff) from the universal energy field by one's personal subtle-energy system (includes the meridians, nadis, chakras, aura and deeper levels) and utilize it in nourishing the body and helping it (and the whole person) function. Enough of that intake having occurred allows the discharge or expulsion from the subtle-energy system of disharmonious energy-consciousness. Hence the workability of Rub & Yawn — the rubbing stimulates the inflow, the yawning is the external manifestation of the discharge.

This is similar to Hubbard's idea that the being holds onto charge if he doesn't have enough "clean" energy, because, hey, at least it's energy and any energy is better than no energy.

Why yawning? My best guess right now is that it is the physical manifestation of discharging energy through the throat chakra. It would be useful to have the phenomenon observed by someone who can perceive the chakra system directly, as I certainly can't do that.

All the above is mechanical. The third part of Rub & Yawn is putting the person's attention on a particular topic, which influences the discharge depending on how "hot" and how accessible the topic is. This is where the significance comes in, although one can still access the same subtle-energy system by Rubbing & Yawning without attention on anything in particular.

-----

I believe that purely think-type procedures, operating at a mental level and bypassing the physical (etheric) and emotional levels completely, are a fairly limited way of influencing this subtle-energy system. An aura level supposedly influences those on either side of it by a process of induction, sympathetic vibration if you like.

-----

Note that I am primarily interested in negative-gain procedures at PaulsRobot because that is where the bulk of humanity is at. I do have some modules which don't fit in that category, especially the ones based on Barbara Brennan's works like RAW4 (Reach and Withdraw among the 4 "dimensions" of a person: the physical body, the aura levels, the hara levels, the core star) and SpotAnAngel (attempting communication with beings on aura levels 4-7), but those aren't compatible with PaulsRobot3 yet and are quite a way down my list of modules to get up and running there.

Paul

 

[Leon]

having thought about this a while I have the idea now that havingness on R3X gets depleted only because the process isn't flat. The guy has as-ised the picture masses but hasn't fully re-occupied (or restored his ability to re-occupy) the space and time of the actual incident nor regained the full beingness he had prior to it.

And this is after all the EP of a correctly done Dianetic session.

So one needs to run R & W on that, and pervade it etc etc. Run havingness processes on that.

I'll try it next time.

 

[Leon]

I use the word "energy" in order to communicate to most users or potential users of PaulsRobot. My real assumption is that we're dealing with the person's subtle-energy system, his spiritual life-force if you like.

I believe that Rub & Yawn and other such actions stimulate the intake/metabolising of energy-consciousness (stuff) from the universal energy field by one's personal subtle-energy system (includes the meridians, nadis, chakras, aura and deeper levels) and utilize it in nourishing the body and helping it (and the whole person) function. Enough of that intake having occurred allows the discharge or expulsion from the subtle-energy system of disharmonious energy-consciousness. Hence the workability of Rub & Yawn — the rubbing stimulates the inflow, the yawning is the external manifestation of the discharge.

This is similar to Hubbard's idea that the being holds onto charge if he doesn't have enough "clean" energy, because, hey, at least it's energy and any energy is better than no energy.



Paul

Have you read Ingo Swann's works? His book on Psychic Sexuality is very informative on these matters. I'll send you an e-copy if you are interested.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Have you read Ingo Swann's works? His book on Psychic Sexuality is very informative on these matters. I'll send you an e-copy if you are interested.

I read his novel Starfire 25 years ago and several years back read his online History of Remote Viewing, and a few chapters of his Biosupermind or whatever it's called, but I haven't read that book you mention.

Yes please. My email address is [email protected].

Paul

 

[Dulloldfart]

The "ultimate" remedy of havingness as I recall was a being "mocking up 8 anchor points" and pulling them in on himself, or shoving the resultant "mass" into the body.

The theory there being, one plays a game to "have". If one loses, then a remedy of havingness can be run to enable them to rise up to the "player" level again.

Yeah, it's all theory, based on nothing more than "Hubbard says so."

But don't take my word for it. Try it yourself and see, for hours if you want. The auditor won't complain! This link is to the first screen of R3X's wimpy "8 anchor points" subjective havingness process, where you mock them up, push them into the body, mock them up, let them remain where they are, mock them up, throw them away, mock them up, choose what to do with them, repetitively, for as long as you want to: http://paulsrobot3.com/temp-basicr3x/subjective-havingness-put-out-1.htm. Ignore the "Rub & Yawn" direction if you want to check out what Hubbard said and not my own additions.

I haven't finished the BasicR3X module, and there is no sound, but the final bits after scanning out the session are close enough to done to use. After a few minutes of dicking around with massless "anchor points" try comparing your havingness change with a good solid objective havingness process like stamping your feet on the floor. I left a few Hubbard-type THINK "objective havingness processes" in there as well as the physical ones.

Did you try it out?

Paul