The Pilot, Excerpts from his Writings

Discussion in 'Freezone, Independents, and Other Flavors of Scien' started by Antony A Phillips, Jul 23, 2012.

View Users: View Users
  1. Hatshepsut

    Hatshepsut Crusader

    This blazing dramatization of some past track theme became 'obvious' with the 1982 appearance of the finance police. :duh: We all knew 'something' was up.......as we were being held up for our loot. How come this robbery of the masses along with accusations of evil deeds is not put into the explanations for Inc II.
     
  2. Pilot'sPosts Z19 -- Spacation

    Pilot'sPosts Z19

    Spacation

    From Post 6 - July 1997


    [Again the Pilot bases his message on contributions to newsgroup alt.clearing.technology, this time after a little conversation with two people, Ant/Relayer]

    ralph@atnet.at (Ralph Hilton) wrote:

    # Spacation seems to be a lost tech in the CofS. I run it regularly too.
    # I have also found that adding it in to TRs gives quite a boost.

    On Tue, 1 Jul 1997 11:23:11 -0400 (EDT), "Robert" <VoltR@ctinet.net> asked:

    > Can you tell us the technique for doing this?
    >
    > Offhand, I would imagine it would be done by holding eight anchor points in
    > space while confronting, which was a technique suggested by our senior c/s
    > Barbara Wilhite (Bowes) back in 1973, and which I didn't see the importance
    > of at the time.

    On 1 July, Ralph replied:

    # I find that too steep for most. I start people on holding the 2 back
    # corners of the room while doing TR0. Then other pairs of corners. Then
    # build it up to 4 then 8.
    # It seems to increase presence so that the person begins to create the
    # space in which to confront rather than confronting in an
    # other-determined space. Bullbait seems to flatten much quicker and
    # more naturally too.
    # It also seems to lessen any tendency toward robotic TRs.

    This is a nice way of doing it, like intending the space on TR 8.

    In 1968 I was doing this myself as a matter of course (without saying
    anything about it) whenever I did TRs with anybody. This was when I
    was "keyed out OT". One day I did this with another student who was
    in a similar keyed out state and he instantly flunked me for "putting
    him in a box". He felt that I was forcing his space to contract to
    the size of the room we were in. I hadn't told him what I was doing.
    When we discussed it, he said that it made him feel like he was
    trapped. After that I was careful to only lightly grab the corners
    without making walls rather than strongly grabbing the space as a cube.

    The doctorate course spacation technique is to start with a point and
    extend a line from it. Then extend the line into a plane. Then
    either thicken the plane into a cube or extend more lines and planes
    from the corners until you make a box. The senior variation is
    to mockup your own space this way outside of physical universe space
    rather than intending the existing space. Mockups done in your own
    mocked up space are supposed to be more valuable to you and more
    beneficial to run than mockups located in the physical universe.

    Except for a few of us tech fanatics, spacation was pretty much
    lost by the mid 1950s. The last time I talked to somebody who
    had done the "OT doctorate course", he had been advised by his
    instructor not to try out the techniques given on the tapes because
    that would be self auditing (even though Ron says on the tapes that
    they can be successfully self audited).

    Its nice to see that there are other people who liked this process
    as much as I did.

    Best,

    The Pilot
    _______________________________________________
     
  3. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    Very interesting post on spacation, Ant. Thanks for putting it up.

    There are a series of errors and traps built into that process. When we look at what is actually written in LRH’s stuff on the subject and what the Pilot’s post here contains, the errors become obvious when compared to the following.

    The first thing to say, is that the action of putting “locations” or “anchor-points” or “the corners of the room” around you is to actually contain yourself in a cocoon-like box.

    If one looks at the actual mechanics and action involved, one can observe one is holding oneself inside what is actually a limiting container.

    For many people, the act of reaching out to “find the corners of the room” or to “extend out from self” anchor-points or dimension-points may well give the feeling of expanded being: but this is likely only because they began from a rather unawaredly collapsed or dot-like state of being to begin with. But still, the outcome of the exercise is that of limiting oneself to within the confines of the created “box.”

    View the above observations in the context of the premise that we are basically, in our Native State, infinite and without location.

    Alan Walter in fact developed a R/D that undoes the containers we have unwittingly created ourselves to be trapped and limited into. It’s that important a subject.

    An interesting rather introductory process of Alan’s is the Presence Process One.

    In simple terms, it is run thus:

    1) Have the person fully define and understand the concept of “Presence.”
    Basically, you’re after him getting that it means for him to “be here, now”

    2) You give him the command to “Be here” or to “Be present.”

    3a) After some minutes ask the client: “Where are you?”
    3a) Ask the client: “How big are you?”

    Note that last question, it is a winner! One has to expand to one’s true full dimension of being in order to perceive and answer it . . . of course, the client gets this on a gradient but, it enables the client to appreciate and comprehend their true underlying infinite state of Being.

    It enables the client to become fully present without any limitations or containment.

    There are many R/D’s of Alan’s with questions in the vein of: “How big are you?” "What is its size,” etc. Even when dealing with a container, one of the questions is: “What is its size?”

    This question is clever because in order to get the size of something one has to expand up to its limits, at least, or beynd in order to get its size. It is often found that repeating that pair of questions a couple of time causes the client to go free of the restraint of the thing containing or compressing him and for him to become bigger than it rather than being trapped inside as before.

    The above is a short little write up on the topic.

    RogerB
     
  4. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    I found Alan's 4 Presence processes online (link to the original article on the page linked below) and incorporated them into a PaulsRobot3 module some months back. I have no personal comments on whether it's useful or not, beyond I tried to follow his write-up as closely as I could.

    http://paulsrobot3.com/acw/prez/

    -----

    And back to Ant's Pilot theme . . . :)

    Paul
     
  5. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    Very nicely done, Paul.

    R
     
  6. Pilot'sPosts Z20 -- Definition of Clear

    .
    Pilot'sPosts Z20

    Definition of Clear

    From Post 8 -- August 1997


    Answering Michael Richter about Clears Etc..


    On 12 Jul 97, "Michael T. Richter" <mrichter@rogers.wave.ca> asked
    > Subject: Question for The Pilot (and any other Scientologists reading this): Clearing
    > Message-ID: <01bc8ef0$74981370$525c7018@retrotech>

    > I have been looking over your web pages on Michael Voytinsky's site. I
    > have a question for you, based upon some of the contents.
    >
    > In Dianetics, the concept of a "clear" is cited. Clears have many
    > miraculous powers including, among many others, total recall. Yet every
    > clear I have met so far has failed a simple test along the lines of "What
    > is the subject matter of chapter <n> in Dianetics?". Considering that I, a
    > mere wog, could easily memorize the chapter headings of Dianetics given a
    > few minutes' effort, I'm interested in why none of the clears, with their
    > supposedly perfect memories, can do so?

    Unfortunately true. The claims about Clear are greatly exaggerated,
    which I have been saying all along (see chapter 1 of Super Scio for
    example). Throughout the 1950s and early 1960s, the original
    definition of Clear was known to be off base because the existence
    of whole track (past life) engrams meant that nobody was ever going
    to run through all of them.

    It was obvious that whatever "clears" had been made in 1950s Dianetics,
    they did not match the textbook definitions because they hadn't
    even recalled any of their past lives. So the definition was
    pretty much abandoned or used as a courtesy title for somebody who
    was advanced in the subject.

    But something did happen when the person confronted enough pain
    and force in mental pictures. Suddenly the person would stop
    flinching at painful things in their past and would feel much
    better as a result. The person's thinking was no longer distorted
    by avoiding old long gone pains. This was the 1958 redefinition of clear.
    It is valid state, easily attained, and quite desirable.

    This is the actual State of Clear produced by the Clearing Course
    or Dianetics when it is done right. It does not include such
    grandiose things as total recall or freedom from aberration. But
    it is a wonderful state none-the-less.

    When Scientology became so sales and money oriented in the late
    1960s, this real definition of Clear was not good enough to
    bring in big bucks for quickie services. So Ron put back the
    original bogus definition and issued a policy making it a suppressive
    act to invalidate the state of clear. And any real discussion of
    the limitations would be an invalidation. So we have a built
    in misunderstood word, so to speak.

    This is one of the many things that need to be fixed in the subject.

    As far as memorizing chapter titles, I probably could do that but
    it would be cheating. And we both would fail the test if the
    questioner swiched to a different book that we hadn't worked on.

    My memory did improve when I went clear. If somebody is backing
    away from painful incidents in their past, they will be less
    willing to remember things. So of course they remember things
    at least a bit better once they are no longer afraid that they
    might accidentally recall something that they they would rather
    forget.

    One of the big problems in Scientology is separating the sales
    hype from the real gains. There is a lot of PR and wishful thinking.
    And yet I have made fantastic gains, helped others, and occasionally
    even seen impossible things happen. A lot of it is subjective,
    or would be hard to prove under laboratory conditions. And
    unfortunately, that leaves the door open for all sorts of unreal
    BS that is hard to disprove.
     
  7. Pilot'sPosts Z21 -- Co-existence of Static

    .
    Pilot'sPosts Z21


    Co-existence of Static


    From Post 53 -- April 1999


    We are not here to dissolve everything into nothingness.

    The true Nirvana is a creative state rather than a passive one.

    At basic we are balancing the nothingness with a richness of creation.

    Having everything locked down into a single agreed upon reality inhibits free creation and therefore reduces the richness. It is therefore abhorrent to a being and as he rises upscale, he objects to it more rather than less.

    But what is wrong is not the creations themselves but the locked down singleness of the realities available.

    There could be many realities, some shared, some overlapping, some independent, and all visited by choice.

    Imagine an Internet with many websites. There is communication and interaction, and yet each is free to create as he chooses, and if he really likes someone else's creation, perhaps he copies it and if he dislikes it, perhaps he shuns it, but there is room for anything and everything.

    And then one day there is a virus, and everybody's system is permanently locked onto the same site. Of course they will fight amongst each other because each one's creations affects the others. There can be no true freedom because freedom will be at odds with responsibility.

    Consider what would happen if everyone became a god. One person would wish for rain and another would wish for sunshine. It just doesn't work if all are locked into a single reality.

    And yet it is also a failure for each of us to go off into a totally isolated personal universe, for then we loose the communication and interaction that are so desirable to us all.

    What should happen is a fanning out of multiple realities.

    When some want rain and some want sunlight, then each occurs and the multitude of beings individually choose which they want to agree with.

    Many realities but not isolated, except when someone is in the mood for that.

    In such a scenario, each individual can be a god with the power to make any postulate stick, at least as far as physical reality goes. The tradeoff is that he cannot make anything stick as far as trying to enforce or demand anything from another being, because they are gods too.

    If Joe wants to visit Bill, he has to put up with Bill's postulate for a tacky lime green sky with orange pokadots. Or he can change the sky and see if Bill will come along with him, but if Bill chooses to keep the pokadots while Joe insists on a blue sky, then they will find themselves in different realities and no longer talking to each other.

    Think of a radio with endless stations and you can tune in to whatever you feel like. But a particular announcer, whom you might like, is currently playing music that you don't care for. Its up to you whether you stick with him or try another station.

    That is total freedom. You can have anything you want, no matter how outlandish.

    Joe can even mockup a copy of Bill and give him a better taste in sky colors. But it wouldn't be the real Bill, just Joe talking to a puppet he mocked up.

    What Joe can't have is control over Bill. He can ask for Bill's agreement on something, but he can't force it.

    Each and every one of us decided at some point that we had a right to control others and enforce agreement. That postulate is a two edged sword and you see the results around you now. If you hadn't made it, you wouldn't be here.

    And its a hard one to let go of completely. Deep down, you know that some madman will come at you swinging a sabre and you are not confident that you could shift realities and just let him hack up his own mocked up copy of you. And with everything locked down to one reality, he would hack up the agreed upon copy and you would end up walking around in your own universe with everybody else out of comm.

    And so we need to loosen the realities first and let go on a gradient.

    Control Mest all you want, but avoid controlling people whenever possible. Instead work by means of communication and shared postulates and encourage as much individual beingness as possible.

    LRH's brilliance was in inspiring enthusiasm; people turned over their lives for the sake of the tech. He erred greatly when he installed strong controls in the late 60s. The controls were unnecessary, he already had the enthusiastic willing hands.

    As soon as the organization began to enforce agreement instead of simply continuing to train and asking people to do their best, it backfired and the org began to spiral down from high theta towards dramatization and solidity.

    Control MEST, not people. And as far as auditing and CCHs and other helpful forms of "control", don't look on it as control, because if you make that your purpose it will backfire. It is educational guidance, like holding a child's hand and helping them cross the street safely for the first time. The idea is not to override their will but to steer them through new territory.

    The road out is in the direction of less enforced agreement and less control while increasing communication and affinity.

    Note that this requires developing a tolerance for others disagreeing with you.

    You can have a TV set with lots of stations. You can like them all and yet retain your freedom to shift agreements.

    Think how much better that is than having only one station that only plays the party line.

    Best,

    The Pilot
     
  8. Hatshepsut

    Hatshepsut Crusader

    Re: Pilot'sPosts Z20 -- Definition of Clear

    THIS PART ABOVE ABOUT SEPARATING OUT FROM OTHER COMPLEXITIES HITS IT ON THE HEAD. IMHO
    (I snipped the above from a PDF file link I found on the internet back in March )
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2012
  9. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    Pilot'sPosts Z21 is a classic containing many valuable insights.

    He is absolutely right about where things went sour in the "orgs" and with the game we old-timers enjoyed. It went sour when "enforced reality and control of the individual" was introduced. And that violated our willing, able contribution.

    Roger
     
  10. Pilot'sPosts Z22 -- Confidentiality Equals Control

    .
    Pilot'sPosts Z22

    Confidentiality Equals Control


    From Post 44 – January 1999

    I hope you wouldn't mind my getting up on a soap box here and repeating the obvious for the umpteenth time, but this is quite important to the future well being, not only of Scientology but of anything aimed at achieving a higher state of awareness.

    You cannot work to prevent others from finding out things and at the same time expect to discover new things yourself. It is an overt.

    The postulates that you make to prevent others from knowing will eventually turn against you and prevent your own knowing.

    What goes around comes around. It just takes a bit of time to rebound so that you think that you can get away with it. He who lives by the sword does die by it. And he who lives by the suppression of knowledge will eventually find that he has suppressed his own ability to gain knowledge.

    What happened to orthodox Scientology when it made its upper level data confidential?

    Do you realize how fast Ron was back in 1952 or 54? The new awarenesses and alignment of data was incredible. It was breakthrough after breakthrough, so fast that the entire nature of the bridge changed every year.

    By the 1970s he was down to a snails pace by comparison. He hardly ever lectured. The bulletins were mostly being written by others. Most of the "new" tech was old material from the 50s that was being dusted off and put into a modern context. Even NOTS was sketched out back in 1952. There are only a handful of real discoveries in the 70s compared to about one a week back in the early days.

    Why? It should be obvious. Keep others from finding out and eventually your own ability to find out will shut down.

    To all intents and purposes, the introduction of confidentiality destroyed the research line.

    You might well ask "what about the volumes and volumes of bulletins and levels issued after that point?" But these are refinements and codifications rather than new breakthroughs.

    Take Dianetics for example. R3R was developed in 1963. The standard Dianetics of 1969 is simply an improved way of applying an existing technique. And the 1978 upgrade into NED mainly consisted of adding the action of getting the postulate as part of erasing the incident. But that data goes back to 1952 and was stated again in 1963, it had simply been forgotten in the 1969 standardization.

    It is just amazing that the expanded grades did not include any new processes. They consisted exclusively of older processes that were modernized and added back into the lineup. Any researcher worth his salt could find more processes and more missing grades too. There is so much that you just start falling over it if you take a look without blinders on. But all that Ron could manage was a rehash of older ideas. And that is a shocker because he had been really bright, just listen to any of the old ACCs.

    Despite the various carpings of critics, I think that he still wanted to find the answers and he would have discovered more if he could. But the later days are full of mistakes and wrong whys. The idea that all case stemmed from R6 is obviously false, even the CofS rarely bothers to run the CC implant anymore. The quickie standard tech wrecked cases and it took him two years before he backed down from this error and allowed some of the old tech to be put back into use.

    He didn't make errors of that magnitude in the old days. Although there were flaws in DMSMH, he moved forward quickly and didn't just sit there insisting that all case was coming from prenatals. He wanted to find the real answers.

    I think that its the confidentiality. How can you hope to find out more if you are stopping others from finding things out? How can you carry on research when all the comm lines are blocked? How can you Itsa the charge that you are sure to stir up while searching if you make it forbidden to talk?

    And frankly, I just don't see any horrible effects coming from the discussions of upper level materials.

    So why are these things confidential?

    I think that Ron said it again and again in the 1950s.

    You make knowledge secret to control people.

    Best,

    The Pilot
    _______________________________________________
     
  11. Re: Pilot'sPosts Z22 -- Confidentiality Equals Control

    [Ant commenting here]

    The main message here startled and surprised me. I got the item a few weeks ago (a friend provides most of the material for these reposts) and only recently got to reading and preparing this one. Although I have been more and more unhappy about the confidentiality, I had never looked at this aspect.

    Made me think a bit "whole track" (whole Scientology track). When I came into Scientology there was no confidentiality. In fact at some point in the 50's I read or heard Ron talking. with some pride I think, that there was nothing secret in Scientology. The whole subject was accessible to all, and any professor who wanted to could study it. The comment was that the person who studied it that way (professor perhaps) would not understand it fully, because you needed training to understand it.

    The following date might be useful to those who have not known Scientology without confidentially. The first thing that was made confidential was Power Processing. 1964 or '65. They were not confidential at first, but were rather quickly made so. I heard, I think on a verbal line, that an American auditor had taken them home from Saint Hill and got members of his group, in pairs, to coaudit each other on the Power Processes, and that caused Ron to make them confidential. At the time you could only get Power Processing at Saint Hill (UK, where Ron was) and I was somewhat shocked, not so much at the price (it was high compared with other auditing, but that sort of money was unreal to me) but by the fact that you bought it in 12½ hour intensives, and if you only used a small amount of an intensive, there was no refund for unused time. It seemed unethical to me, but that thought was suppressed with the non confront justification "Well, if Ron said it, it must be OK".

    The fact is that in the first 15 years of Scientology there was no confidentiality, and it came on a gradient - as each level after Power came out, it was confidential.

    Pilot's conclusion is very interesting. And I would think the "Church" in the face of that, would do anything to silence him. Anything. Our history is interesting, looked at with a rear view mirror, while we are safe in our freedom.

    All best wishes,

    Ant

    NOTE: You are very welcome to send any gems (favorites) you have from the Pilot's fortnightly posts. If you send to me, I'll send them as one of the "Z" series, and it will go to the four places where this and all earlier ones have gone. Let me know if I must not reveal your identity when posting. One of them is an Internet list, which you can join, and thus get the posts and also the comments people make on that list. To join, go to: http://lists.worldtrans.org/mailman/listinfo/superscio
     
  12. Re: Pilot'sPosts Z22 -- Confidentiality Equals Control

    This Pilot'sPost thread is also appearing on the SuperScio list, as well as here and two other places. SuperScio looks to be one of the most permanent, so note the address for subscribing if this place closes: http://lists.worldtrans.org/mailman/listinfo/superscio . Here are two responses to the above post received at the SuperScio list, for which I have permission to publish here.

    All best wishes,

    Ant

    **********************************


    [I got permission from Dave and Jens to send these to you, originally sent to http://lists.worldtrans.org/mailman/listinfo/superscio which you are welcome to join - it gets the Pilot'sReposts as they come out, and may have comments which I make no promise to relay here - all best wishes, Ant]


    At 22:51 19-09-2012, Dave Smith <davesmith39@hotmail.com> wrote:
    [SuperScio mailing list]
    Confidentiality and tech speed.

    The Pilot attributes lack of tech progress to confidentiality rules in a sort of outflow = inflow computation or as an overt/motivator sequence. I don't agree.

    I think the tech speed was impacted by the general the lowering of peoples case condition.

    Cases started getting more complex. Cases were harder to solve. "Be three feet behind your head" was harder and harder to start from. Ron notices this and says so in lectures from about 1958 I think it is in the lectures "how to present Scientology to the world" that cases were getting harder to handle due to atom bomb tests - the radiation energy waves passing through a human body were messing them up, keying in cases or something. Something like radiation would affect everyone, even old timers clear - OT or not.

    The big picture was the same, the culture continued to decline, most people coming into Scientology from the 1960s on were drug users.

    OT TR 0-4 - The Communications course is still the most effective starting point to put people at cause cheaply. I hope it is still being pushed for newbie's, but somehow I doubt it is.

    The culture is continuing to degrade, and today we have the entire financial system about to implode, talk about PTPs!

    Though I do think that world's OT case is being de-stimulated with all the solo auditing work done, one has to wonder, about the possibility of another Incident II being run.
    Chem-trails = electronic ribbons... ? Who wants to un-mock all that?


    david



    > Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 05:43:48 +0200
    > To: superscio@lists.worldtrans.org
    > From: ant.phillips@post8.tele.dk
    > Subject: Re: [SuperScio] Pilot'sPosts Z22 -- Confidentiality Equals Control
    >
    > [SuperScio mailing list]
    > [Ant commenting]
    >
    > >You cannot work to prevent others from finding
    > >out things and at the same time expect to
    > >discover new things yourself. It is an overt.
    >
    > The main message here startled and surprised me.
    > I got the item a few weeks ago (a friend provides
    > most of the material for these reposts) and only

    ...
    ********************************************************

    And Jens' contribution:
    At 08:19 19-09-2012, Jens Jørgen Nissen wrote:
    From: Jens Jørgen Nissen <telos@vip.cybercity.dk>
    To: "Postings of the Pilot...snip... superscio@lists.worldtrans.org>
    Subject: Re: [SuperScio] Pilot'sPosts Z22 -- Confidentiality Equals Control

    [SuperScio mailing list]
    I do believe the Pilot has a valid point in the fact that if you stop others from knowing, it will boomerang back on you.

    It is not, however, true that you should never withhold knowledge. If you
    confront little children with too many horrible truths about the world - murder, rape, war, famine etc. - you could absolutely wreck a sane development into a mature adult. Kids have more than enough confusion and a great necessity for stable data. The principle applies to adults, too: Optimum randomity is necessary to learning (Dianetic axiom 74). And Ron didn't prevent people from knowing, he just required them to go up the bridge in order to know - supposedly the best way of learning, particularly if you got trained, too. This does not mean that Ron didn't prevent people from knowing. The road would seem unconfrontably long to some, and the prices became a complete stop to many, so the Pilot's point still holds, as far as that goes.

    But there are some good reasons to keep some upper levels confidential, or at least not go around babbling about them to whoever one happens to be talking to.

    Some people do tend to list for what they are doing in life, or what the meaning of life is, and they might be very prone to start listing for goals if they were told that CC and OT II deal with goals. They will try to find theirs, and so they get out lists, and it can be ugly. As for CC not being effective, Filbert has the comment that the beginning of the incident is missing (= incident cannot erase), and if Ron was aware of it, it lies securely hidden in his safe and is not part of the course). Whether effective or not, it should be presented on a proper gradient.

    People have been known to freak out about being obsessed by spirits, and others have had delusions that there were "little worms" in their body etc. One known case wanted to cut off his hand because there were "small animals" in it. He didn't know Scientology, but cases like that could be pushed over the edge by learning about OT III or NOTS.

    So, confidentiality about the upper levels can definitely be exaggerated and may be generally unnecessary, particularly if you have other Scientologists to talk to and are getting auditing, but bad effects can occur. Another fact that I believe is generally overlooked, is that people getting through OT
    III have already changed the world. The subject matter of CC, OT II and III has been to a large degree discharged in society, and the population of Earth, or the Western world at least, is better prepaired to confront it. So what was correct forty years ago may be wrong today.

    As for OT I, IV, V and VI, there is little that can restimulate - except the fact that Scientology can "turn people into thetans", which does worry some. Well, let's live with that!

    A good gradient to the truth is almost always possible.

    ARC
    Jens


    ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ant Phillips" <ant.phillips@post8.tele.dk>
    To: <superscio@lists.worldtrans.org>
    Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 5:43 AM
    Subject: Re: [SuperScio] Pilot'sPosts Z22 -- Confidentiality Equals Control


    [SuperScio mailing list]
    [Ant commenting]

    You cannot work to prevent others from finding out things and at the same time expect to discover new things yourself. It is an overt.

    The main message here startled and surprised me.
    I got the item a few weeks ago (a friend provides
    most of the material for these reposts) and only
    recently got to reading and preparing this one.
    Although I have been more and more unhappy about
    the confidentiality, I had never looked at this aspect.

    Made me think a bit "whole track" (whole
    Scientology track). When I came into Scientology
    there was no confidentiality. In fact at some
    point in the 50's I read or heard Ron talking.
    with some pride I think, that there was nothing
    secret in Scientology. T ...
     
  13. Pilot'sPosts Z23 --- Training – Earlier and Now (Bright Thinkers and Robots)

    .
    Pilot'sPosts Z23


    Training – Earlier and Now (Bright Thinkers and Robots)



    From Post 3 – May 1997


    On 17 Apr 97, Bev <dbj1120@iag.net> responded to Inducto [on the Internet newsgroup alt.clearing.technology]:
    >
    >I have no problem with a person who wants to practice scientology
    >as a system for their own selves.
    >
    >My problem is, and has been with the ~Co$~ and the monster that it has
    >become. When something has become so corrupt that it cannot tolerate
    >being held up to the light for scrutiny without becoming rabid and
    >trying to tear apart those who would either question it or reveal it
    >then it is obvious that something is terribly wrong.

    I agree completely.

    In Scientology we have a concept of something called a "Missed
    Withhold" which is a situation where somebody misses (nearly finds
    out about) something that the preclear is withholding. This causes
    the preclear to worry and wonder whether the other person knows
    about them and often causes the preclear's attention to fixate.
    This can in turn lead to the preclear becoming critical towards and
    attacking the person who missed their withhold. In other words, they
    can become "rabid".

    In the early days of the Sea Org, all Sea Org members and all public
    and outer org staff who went to the ships for training and OT levels
    were continually pretending not to be Scientologists and were
    afraid of being found out because of Hubbard's fears that the
    world conspirators were after him. Here are the various shore
    stories and the pretense of being "Operating Transport Ltd". And
    therefore these people continually had their withholds missed
    whenever they went ashore or travelled. And there was just enough
    trouble and danger in those sea going days to confirm to the
    membership that their fears were real. And so they became loaded
    with these missed withholds.

    And there was so little real use of the tech on Sea Org members
    and so much agreement between them that everybody else was out
    to get them that these things festered and many did indeed become
    rabid.

    Of course there were other factors at work as well, I'm just
    pointing out one of the many things that contributed to the
    vicious tone of the Sea Org and trying to show one of the ways
    in which people who were originally good, clean, and honest began
    to turn into something else.

    Its very funny that the very person who taught so extensively
    about the missed withhold phenomena should then go and set things
    up in such a manner as to ensure that his loyal followers would
    experience the maximum number of missed withhold (with the
    outside world) per unit of time. It almost seems like a
    program designed to alienate the Sea Org from society. But
    I must be imagining things, he probably just forgot about the
    existence and effect of missed withholds (he only gave about
    fifty lectures on the subject in the 1960s).

    By the way, although I have observed this action of becoming
    critical and hostile due to missed withholds, I believe that
    we were gravely mistaken in thinking that this was the only reason
    that people became critical. Just because some houses are built
    of wood doesn't mean that all houses are built of wood. To
    think otherwise is a basic flaw in logic and actually represents
    the A = A thought (as in Houses = Wood) that Hubbard was
    originally trying to cure.

    >In my opinion I would prefer to see the scientology philosophy set free
    >from the corrupted prison it lies in right now to the point that people
    >who chose to study and practice it have the right to do so AS THEY SEE
    >FIT. NOT under the suppressive rule of the Co$ and not in oppressive
    >environments.

    Yes, exactly.

    >Also, those who chose to use it should have the RIGHT to discuss (VERBAL
    >TECH, OH NO!! :) ) it and improve upon it in whatever fashion they see
    >fit.

    I think that you can have both orthodox and liberal sects. Both
    freezone and strictly standard orgs with useful feedback between
    the two. There might be different stages in somebody's personal
    evolution where they need one or the other. And we might learn
    where the standards are critical and where they are simply
    unnecessary arbitraries.

    I personally like to discuss tech and think that its part of the
    learning experience. But this gives some people a lot of trouble.
    So you need both environments.

    >Just as Christianity has evolved into something like over 4,000 differing
    >viewpoints because of freedom to see it as you so choose, so should the
    >same rights be extended to those who want to practice scientology and to
    >see it from their own perspectives as well.
    >
    >But of course under the totalitarian stranglehold the Co$ has over the
    >tech and the hold they seem to have on so many of their members by causing
    >them to fear to think and evaluate it on their own and the use of their
    >legal threats to put a stop on so many who try to oppose them this is
    >simply not a reality.

    It should be obvious that making people afraid to think and making
    it dangerous for people to have their own opinions and evaluations
    would decrease intelligence. In fact Ron used to criticise the
    school system for this very thing. During my early training (1966
    to 1968) I found the course environment to be conducive to learning
    the subject. Although tech and policy contrary to this had already
    started coming out, my supervisors were generally old timers who
    were not so rigid in their approach. Later I found the course
    environment more and more difficult to study in and shifted more
    and more to studying on my own, only putting up with the course
    environment when I absolutely had to.

    Again one has to wonder. Ron knew so much about the right ways to
    encourage intelligence and understanding. The old timers were
    exceptionally bright, fast to think on their feet and deep in
    understanding. The modern training is obviously tailored to
    discourage free thought. Ron certainly knew enough to design his
    courses to create the effect he wanted. In the early days he
    wanted bright thinkers and in the later days he wanted robots.

    >In actuality it is the Co$ its own self who is the true oppressor and
    >violator of the basic rights of individuals under the first amendment granting
    >freedom of religion and speech. The Co$ cries and whines about their
    >rights, but STOMPS the hell out the rights of others.

    Unfortunately true. This is one of the many reasons why I'm
    pushing so heavily for reform.

    >The concerns I have lie not with the ordinary individuals, but with the
    >Co$ and the actions which have been brought to light on a.r.s.
    >

    >Beverly

    Yes indeed.

    I am very concerned about the ordinary individuals involved in the
    subject. They are my friends. They generally became involved for
    the same reasons that I did, namely to discover truth and to become
    more able.

    In the old days I saw people learning skills and new
    ways of thinking which expanded their abilities and awareness.
    The more strength and intention these people developed, the
    gentler and more helpful they became. They could be tough and
    fearless in a pinch, and yet they had no desire to prove it and
    saw no value in the use of force.

    Now the Sea Org members learn to be tough. They scream and yell
    at each other all the time. Its "Make it go right" and "What
    does your materials state" and not an ounce of free thought in
    the place. They think that they've been trained to act like OTs
    and actually they have been trained to act like SPs.

    If you train somebody to act like a suppressive, he can make
    people go PTS to him even if his intentions are not evil.

    I want to see the CofS reformed for the sake of all those people
    who have seen their dreams betrayed. The dream was good, I don't
    want to see it shattered. Instead I want to see the broken
    promises made good.

    Sincerely,

    The Pilot

    Relayer's Note: These reposts go directly to only four places. But you should certainly feel free to copy them to where ever you like. That was certainly the Pilots intention that they be widely broadcast, and you can also copy without any further permission any comments I (Ant/relayer) make.​
    _______________________________________________
     
  14. Re: Pilot'sPosts Z23 --- Training – Earlier and Now (Bright Thinkers and Robots)

    [Ant]
    I think that is so funny (humorous). I won't try to explain. If you don't see the joke, then you don't see the joke.

    [Pilot:]
    Ron certainly knew enough to design his
    courses to create the effect he wanted. In the early days he
    wanted bright thinkers and in the later days he wanted robots.

    [Ant:]
    Those are strong words!!!

    [Pilot:]
    I am very concerned about the ordinary individuals involved in the
    subject. They are my friends. They generally became involved for
    the same reasons that I did, namely to discover truth and to become
    more able.

    [Ant:]
    I share that --- my reason for relaying these resurrections from the dead :)

    [Pilot:]

    They think that they've been trained to act like OTs
    and actually they have been trained to act like SPs.

    [Ant:]
    The Pilot has his moments of inspired writing! He certainly did not lack a goal/purpose.

    But he is dead and gone. The scene is changing. What is happening in the "church" in present time perhaps has less importance than what is happening amongst those trying to apply the better parts of Hubbard's legacy independently of the Church. Perhaps we lack someone making comments in present time like the Pilot did 15 years ago.

    Here in Denmark I notice an area where a withhold is apparent. I wonder if in other countries something similar is happening. In Denmark we have high taxation (we have a welfare state, and I personally have been very glad for the free medical services with regards broken bones, removal of cancer and associated treatment, and fantastic handling of cataract, and the handling of my 2D, especially with her Alzheimer). This high taxation has resulted in tax evasion. It is a well known subject in Denmark. And tax evasion does give the evader and any accomplices a withhold from the authorities.There seems to be an increasing movement of "whistle blowing" on people who receive benefits they are not entitled to or evade taxes. I know of local auditors who audit "sort" ("sort" is Danish for the colour black, meaning here illegal). They may do this with the agreement with the preclear, so the preclear gets a lower price - but is therefore involved in the withhold. You can apply what the Pilot talks about in his post quoted/relayed about the effect of withholds on these people, auditors and preclears. It of course has an application more widely on the whole society, but the ethics standard of practicing auditors outside of the "Church" should be impeccable. No need to go continue "Church" practices of evading national laws, and risk giving independent of the "Church" actions a bad name.

    All best wishes, the relaying (and hopefully industrious) ant.


    _______________________________________________
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2012
  15. Anonycat

    Anonycat Crusader

    Missed Withhold ... isn't that the thing Mystic blurted out and got used?
     
  16. programmer_guy

    programmer_guy True Ex-Scientologist

    Re: Pilot'sPosts Z20 -- Definition of Clear

    DMSMH did not talk about "run through all of them". It mentioned basic-basic.

    DMSMH page 117 <bold emphasis mine>
     
  17. programmer_guy

    programmer_guy True Ex-Scientologist

    Some people DO behave in certain ways when one has "missed their withhold" and others do not.
    Yet again, Hubbard took a "sometimes" phenomenon and made it into an "always" phenomenon.
    IMO, he often made an "A implies B" into a therefore "B implies A" logical fallacy.
     
  18. DagwoodGum

    DagwoodGum Goodby Goodluck

    I just stumbled upon an 818 page manuscript called Super Scio by The Pilot stashed away on my hard drive from some years ago. That and a 332 page manuscript called Self Clearing, also by The Pilot.
    Then when I was at the house on Sunday I found my long lost L. Kin CD that contains all kinds of stuff he authored, probably everything. I remember stumbling upon it on Ebay and the stuff is really out there but was far too voluminous for me to sift through when it arrived in the mail. I’ll have to grab it when I’m at the house in a few days and have a look see as I had lost the disk about 5 or 6 years ago. :yes:
     
  19. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    Ant, your post #34 on MWH/WHs is an important one.

    One of the things about "having withholds" is that one has to then be "secret" and withhold being known about and duplicated. This also involves such a withhold of self and of one's true presence, for fear of being duplicated and/or found out, that one in actuality is also withholding one's power and truth away from others and/or it being able to be applied to positively influence others.

    Having to be "secret" is one of the huge factors in the killing of one's power and presence as a spiritual Being.

    It is, indeed, a self sabotage.

    Rog
     
  20. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    There is a little more to my post above.

    Hubbard, did on occasion write some good stuff.

    His Axioms of S.O.P. 8 are among them

    In one of them he wrote that: "The basic action of existence is DUPLICATION." Typical of him, that is not quite precise enough nor accurate enough; but it is on target enough to provide huge benefit if understood and applied.

    40 years ago, a friend of mine who was an early "OT" was desperate for money and confided in me that he was contemplating committing a crime to get some. He told me that, as an "OT" he could do so and by taking full responsibility for it as he was able to, he would not build up any case on it.

    I pointed out the above axiom and said: "Yes, probably so. But realize you will forever have a part in this universe and an area of connections where you can't be and mustn't be duplicated and fully known. And that will kill you reach and power."

    He cognited and didn't commit the crime. :) And he then went on to successfully handle his affairs and win in life.

    Rog
     

Share This Page