Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Freezone, Independents, and Other Flavors of Scien' started by Antony A Phillips, Jul 23, 2012.
From what I've heard he killed himself, but was perhaps driven to it.
I think the fact that Ken had felt a victim of some hypnosis or PDH is relevent. He was complaining that he felt 'influenced' by an outside source and an inlayed compulsion.
Ken had stated in some of his archived posts that he was sensitive to this picking up stuff from antagonists who were in a remote location. One time he felt he was being controlled through an implant from a remote source .
I've read accounts where psyche perverts use the heightened condition of orgasm to get 'into' one's aura and lay in suggestions when the brain is vulnerable. The fact that Ken was fighting being 'effect' of physical compulsions in the end makes me somewhat suspicious. I have seen too many times when a person's life was being sabotaged by promiscuous behavior and are not believing or are shocked they did what they did. It is an area of susceptiblity. PDH along with stimulation has come up before.
It was three days ago that I was reading archived post #67 where Ken was explaining his ability to sense what his position was on Earth and what had been going on prior. I don't think he sensed the level that he was really still at war. Killing somebody or manipulating them to kill themselves, the result is the same. I was the unwary victim of something similar and it was suggested by tepathically that death was a way out. I had more options luckily.
Incite an opponent who just can't have you around any more and you may feel PTS. Drink the hemlock!! There'd have to be a lot of pressure on one to comply and one would have to feel hopeless about escaping into an optimistic future. The Pilot had to be succumbing in order for his life to have taken such a downturn. He needed some allies and help and did not think to REACH. Making a person feel they are unwholesome is a primary tactic used to degrade someone by psyches....like an false purpose to do harm, it causes one to stop himself from reaching. A person feels they don't deserve to.
Regarding some points I made above:
I wasn't going to post this because this is Ant's thread and the choice of Pilot's posts is in his court. But I decided to give this excerpt from the fza archives1999 in which Ken Ogger mentioned his suseptibility due to what he was accidentally making contact with in real time. He may have had a predisposition to being a hypnotic receipt point. As above so below. I can relate to this.
I don't doubt that people can be 'remotely influenced'.
Be my guest, its certainly on topic according to the threads title [Now if you had posted a picture of your grandmother's cat, I would have reacted either with an imperceptable raise of my left eyebrow, or had a fit and been hospitalized for the rest of my life - that is if I lived in a world without gradient scales ]
That reminds me. I do not select what goes out every Wednesday with a 'Z' prefix and a number. Some one else, some what on the shy side, has selected most of them, and you (the person reading this now) can also send a Pilot excerpt. Furthermore if you send it first to me, and it is of a reasonable size, I stick the next Z number to it, and post it not only here but at the three Internet lists I send to every Wednesday. Preferable send to firstname.lastname@example.org . Now ya knows.
All the best
Ant [still surviving well even with the absence of an 'h' in his first name]
DMSMH and evaluating
DMSMH and evaluating
Dear reader of this,
I am here commenting on two remarks of Hatshepsut on this thread.
First: "That post 52 feels more of David Mayo than it does of Pilot, and not just content wise. Was The Pilot ever in comm with David?" (Now I am uncertain, perhaps uniquemand wrote both of these - and I am at an unfamiliar computer :-( anyway)
On that point I have not come across anything suggesting that the two had any connection and I believe Ken was only staff on outer orgs when he was on staff, and David, for all intents and purposes, was at the centre of things, but perhaps somewhat seperated from the majority, so I think it unlikely.
The other thing I am commenting on was:
"The violation of what should be audited by a person was CONSTANT in both DMSMH and the rest of Scientology. There was the auditors code, which said you don't evaluate, etc., and then there was DMSMH that said you were looking for a birth incident, an attempted abortion, etc., or Scientology stuff that says you're looking for a specific implant, specific entity, etc."
Personally I would be surprised to find anything constant in the entire history of Scientology, and the degree of evaluation is certainly different. I was told (or saw written) at one point in my 11 year contact with OT III that incident one and two was common to every being (perhaps it said "in this part of the universe"). DMSMH does talk about some rather bizare things, like attempted abortions and prenatals generally but I don't think it ever says everybody has engramic incidents of a specific nature.
The more important point, I think, is the fact that Scientology was a developing thing, Perhaps you might be inclined to say that it became a deteriorating thing, so perhaps we can agree that it was and is a changing thing. So judging what was written in DMSMH against other data should take this into consideration. I can very well understand that some one in 1980, 1990, or now, having the whole body of Scientology data (except, until you have paid through the nose, the confidential data) thrown at them would have difficulty in sorting out the development.
The background to DMSMH was that a certain person, who managed to earn a living writing fiction that sold at a time of depression, also (after a period in the Navy which gave him a withhold ) experimented with therapy on people and wrote a book on it, where the word Dianetics was used, possibly for the first time). When that book came out in 1950 there was no Dianetic organisation. There was no Scientology organisation either (the word Scientology had only been used a quarter century earlier by a german philosopher in Argentina).
The book was published. It produced a sort of success that Hubbard might have dreamed of, but probably did not plan for.
Now did the idea of not evaluating exist as a principle in what he was doing in 1950 and prior? I suspect it was not articulated. (I could be mistaken here, and am too lazy to read the whole book this morning to check)
My suspician is that it first appeared in print a few years later, in Creation of Human Ability.
All best wishes,
Re: Pilot'sPost Z27 -- Entity Handling -- From Post 52 – March 1999
This is quite a brilliant post by The Pilot.
These two paragraphs above contain relative truths that can benefit from more available knowledge.
In the human condition, and certainly among the typical western Judeo-Christian culture, there is much spiritual illiteracy. If one looks at Hubbard's expanded "Tone Scale" below 0.0 we find the individual, having failed at the endeavors of life, substituting games, beingnesses and irresponsibility for the failure with blame, shame, regret and such rather than continuing as the true self being responsible.
It is down below the 0.0 level as a spiritual Being (being other bodies and other substitutes for the true self) that a person has what The Pilot referred to as: entities "intensify(ing) one's aberrations and reduce one's horsepower"
In actuality, the original and optimum relationship with what is being referred to as "entities" in one of co-empowerment. At this level one's spiritual teammates co-create with one and co-empower one's perception and creations.
It is after having descended the scales of existence down through disinterest, boredom, conflict and out into the delusions of below 0.0 on the scales that the appearance of the negative conditions of the relationship appear.
This is quite true . . . for as long as the person is assigning away source and his power to "entities" by way of the act of blaming them for any condition, he will be living a lie.
Yes this is relatively so. Alan Walter expressed it very well and accurately. He noted that one indeed does have ascension experiences doing various forms of processing . . . the liability of this is that the person ascends up into the next area/layer of case still to be handled. But of course, it is an area of activity and Being that one failed to handle last time one was there. And in actuality, the hard learned lesson in all of this is that one will be going through this ascension into new areas of case/charge/upset over and over again, many times, until one is finally totally free of "case."
The basic error in Scientology is in seeing and believing that these "entities" are all deleterious and anything than co-empowering allies in the game of life. This error leads to the catastrophe that is the upper "OT Levels." Indeed, no R/D is available in Scn to restore these "entities" to a harmonious, co-empowering relationship. That is a tragic error.
The error and omission here is the thinking the entities are other than they truly are and the not having a correct R/D to restore them to the true relationship that is native to us.
What you really, really need and want is a correct appreciation of what these spiritual connections are, and a correct R/D for handling them in the context of their true relationship with you.
Without that, there will be continued upset and failure.
Your post #91 is a classy post.
You were very wise to have kissed S/NOTs goodbye . . . . that R/D is a recipe for disaster.
And as you'll see here in ESMB the imposition of the OT3 materials was indeed an act of treachery (Alan and DartSmohen revealed here what went on to trigger in Hubbard the material he included in 3) . . . that in addition to the imposition all the confidentiality . . .
Re: DMSMH and evaluating
I can tell that Ant was sitting at my computer at my place.
Ant and I was discussion this before he posted. I couldn't find my copy of the Dianetics book (DMSMH), so we couldn't check out regarding what is written in that book on this matter.
That was yesterday evening. In the meantime Ant posted his post, but today I had another look and found the Dianetics book. There is a chapter (the chapter about the auditor's role) which contains an auditor's code. Regarding evaluation it says that the auditor should not give the PC information about his/her case including evaluations of data and an estimate of the extent of the remaining auditing (my Dianetics book is in Danish so I can't give you an exact quote in English). The other points state some guide lines which are rather common sense, kind of things that any professionel would follow when (s)he has a client, like be kind, reliable, patient and other things that one would regard as a natural behaviour in such a situation.
Anyway, the discussion on the subject of evaluation is something that comes up now and then. I think you need to use your common sense in what it means. You can't (and shouldn't even try to) evaluate what the pc should think but you can (and must) evaluate what to do in a session.
There are many ideas on what types of evaluation is OK and when. Like if you go to a tarot card reader in order to get a reading you would expect to get what you came for: a reading. Many scientologists would label that as plain evaluation, but I would say that if a reading is what you want then a reading is what should be delivered. Then you are free to make your own conclusions from that reading of course.
Pilot'sPost Z28 - On Self Auditing
On Self Auditing
From Post 40 – November 1998
The org [C of Scn] really gets in the way and discourages self auditing. Ron seems to have been of mixed opinion in the 1950s, encouraging ACC students to try the processes on themselves but looking at it as a case outness on anybody else. And gradually things tightened up until it was forbidden in the standard tech era.
I was lucky in that the org didn't consider self-auditing to be a big deal in the 1966-8 time period (only self auditing during an HGC intensive was considered an out point) and by the time they did (late 1968 standard tech), I already had PDC references on it being ok to run the processes on yourself and had enough status as a tech terminal to keep people from bothering me about it.
Of course I ran Self Analysis on myself in 1966 and had a big gain, basically a straightwire release.
And I trained on class 0 without having had any auditing myself except for an intro session (class 0 was the first course after the comm course in 1966) so of course I just played around with the commands, trying to visualize what would happen as I ran them on somebody. And the key grade zero process is to mockup communication ("if you could talk to a ...") and I got the grade release by doing that. I hadn't really meant to be self auditing but was simply doing things like visualizing what one could say to a parent for example so that I wouldn't be caught by surprise while auditing the pc on the process.
That one was funny because I overrun it and then started invalidating my own ability to communicate because I hadn't been run on the grade and actually started feeling bad about communication. So I got a review, and the damn thing read as overrun and invalidated and we rehabbed the release to a major stable gain.
From that point on I knew these things could be self audited.
So I made a point of buying an hour of review and getting grade 1 rehabbed after I had trained on class 1 and fooled around with the processes while "studying".
And I picked up Creation of Human Ability and ran route 1 on myself.
It was all fun and big gains.
Being a starving student with no big bucks, I only paid for training levels (fairly cheep) and rolled my own except for some reviews and a bit of 66 style dianetics done on me by an HDA student.
Finally I signed a staff contract (I was on staff a good while before contracting) and was entitled to grades 0 to 5A (each grade was usually about 3 to 5 hours in those pre-quickie days). By that point I had gotten through grade 2 on rehabbing self audited grade releases in review, and I was tech division staff (various posts).
The tech sec came over to me just before I started getting run on the grades and apologized for potentially having me overrun on the processes but he thought we should try each one just in case we could get more by having an auditor run the processes. I agreed with this, I wanted to be through and to see what would happen.
To nobody's surprise, those three grades all overran immediately, driving the TA up and getting solid until the earlier releases (from "studying") were rehabbed. It was, after all, a very limited lineup of processes and I'd already run those grades on lots of people myself.
And then grades 3, 4, 5, and 5A all ran like dynamite, so I had no doubts that I'd made grades 0 to 2 in my own weird manner.
The ones I'd done on my own had taken much longer than those run on me by an auditor, but the gains were actually more stable because I knew a lot more about those levels.
Eventually I got run on expanded grades (mid 70s), and that's when I found that these things can go to a second more powerful EP once you've gone around through enough other stuff that the processes will bite again instead of overrunning.
I still consider that my original grade 2 release was back in the early days, but the expanded grade 2 got me to a clear OT state that matches the maximum gain that seems to be available on the Ls. And I expect that eventually the grade could run again to some sort of super state or even errasure in the basic area before home universe.
So of course I'm sold on self auditing, it works.
But I have observed some things about it -
a) It takes longer (but its free)
b) You need to know more (so lots of books are needed)
c) You do best by running lots of processes to light wins in an area rather than trying to push too hard with any one process.
The third point gets around the fact that the person doesn't run as deep without an auditor to hold his hand and also neatly sidesteps the difficulty of getting somebody to persist without having somebody pushing them.
From your post, I do have the impression that you are tending to overrun, pushing a process too long and hard before moving on to another one. Of course I'm guessing (from a distance) and this is a bit evaluative so ignore it if it doesn't seem right.
When a process hits the end of what is accessible to it right now, it will begin to grind, things get harder, things come back, and one tends to get despairing.
There will be a win of some sort at the point where the process has cleared what it can out of the immediate vicinity.
On overrun, you rehab the win and then shift to a different process.
In comparison with regular auditing, you do not run as deep but you make up for it by running more processes so that you reach the same point by a slightly different route.
Your persistence and dedication should be aimed at keeping yourself working at this and moving along from process to process rather than in grinding away at one process for a great deal of time.
And once you have run a lot of processes, you will find that the earlier ones can again be run and will run much deeper with big gains very quickly because the entire band of what is accessible has been widened greatly by this procedure.
There comes a time though, after all that grades auditing, that it all seems to be about your relationships. Thats the considerations and intentionedness we handle one another with. There are so many (just-below-the-surface) present time connections which keep in active play the archived costumes we tried so hard to abandon.
I think this is why grades may run deeper on a later round. Like Charlie Sheen said, 'It's all about winning'. Every situation, every valence/role we encounter, triggers our filters 'somewhere' on the scale of Win/Lose. That is what the mind is for. A repository of ambitions and our thwarted and successful attempts at arriving there-at.
I think that if we had investigated the subjects of PTSness and service facsimiles on a a deeper conceptual level there might have been even more rewards on lower levels as those found up there on Power Processes and the Ls. The continuance of making mathematical connections between your present environment and your gathered solutions isn't the quickest way to end up with 'no track'. That is my bug bear with self auditing E/S too long.
Those banks only remain connected to you as a sequestered solutions to what is holding your attention in present time......games and the conditions you find yourself in; What represents WINNING and What represents having been DESTROYED. (What must never ever happen again.)
I was reading something The Pilot wrote on The Furies which I believe both Enid Vien and Alan Walter researched. Boy oh boy, did I understand some of the layered attacks I had brought upon myself from some psycho individuals. The Furies represent the charge from a destroyed Beingness or Doingness or Havingness. The person was totally annihilated from playing their fav winning game. Sorta like the god Yaweh being taken over by a newer god....hence the Wrath of God or the Furies ensuing.
Subj : Super Scio Tech - The Furies
There is an area which I have been calling the "black emotions" such as hatred, vengance, jeliousy etc. In Chapter 4 of Super Scio, I mention that a grade of auditing needs to be researched in this area, but I didn't have the answers to solving it at that time.
Various freezone researchers have been poking into this. Alan Walters call them "The Furies" and Enid Vien calls them "Psychic Storms". Inspired by reading their materials, I decided to take another stab at this one myself.
Everyone can see these cores of rage exploding occasionally. Almost anyone who has been active in Scientology for a long time has at least one of these masses buiding up on the CofS itself. The loyalists usually keep these well suppressed but they do blow up occasionally. And when somebody throws in the towel and leaves, you're likely to see fireworks. You see these things in ordinary life too, so its not just the org, but its especially common in Scientology, which means that we are either creating or restimulating these things (or both) without properly handling them.
The standard tech approach is to handle these as an ARC break, and that just doesn't work for these things (it does work just fine on ordinary ARCXs - this area is something else). It strips off the surface charge and cools the person down a bit (if you're lucky) by handling the trigger which caused the core of rage to blow up, but it bypasses the underlying reason, and so the core continues to grow.
I have had a black mass of rage building up on the time period of late 1968 when the first crew of Class 8 auditors came back from Flag and started cutting the auditors to shreds. Once in a rare while it would flare up out of control and I would feel like killing somebody. I have gotten this handled as an ARCX a number of times, and that does cool it down for a little while, but it never errased it. Neither did Dianetics or any other handling.
Alan's handling goes further than the orgs, but it also misses the mark as far as handling the source of the charge. If I seem a bit critical here, please realize that it is not meant as an attack. It is simply the disappointment of an avid fan seeing somebody hit what should have been a home run and watching them trip and fall as they round the bases.
Alan gets itsa on the fury, and then runs the emotions ("moods") that the thetan is mocking up as part of it. This is good. It puts the being at cause. But its like handling an ARCX with two way comm instead of simply pricking the bubble of charge with an ARCX assessment. So it leaves residual charge which he tries to scan out with his "holographic" handling instead of seeing the whole thing dissolve (which is what happens if you really pull the plug on something).
The underlying button suggested by Enid Vien is betrayal. This does seem to be a factor, but when I looked over my own area of fury from 1968, the feelings of being betrayed were after the fact rather than at the first point of upset. For me on this incident, it was like spotting the subsequent drop in affinity on an ARCX where the source was an enforced reality. In other words, betrayal might be one of the key buttons, but it wasn't the right one in my particular case.
Since ARCX handling didn't work, but this did seem to be the same kind of thing on a vaster scale, I decided to try using the Be / Do / Have triangle as a method of approach. I think that this triangle sums up to Games rather than Experience (which is the common freezone interpretation) so I included that as well.
But the usual CDEINR assessment just didn't seem to hit the mark. So I scratched my head about what could be done to be/do/have/games which would get me so pissed off. And I realized that the button had to be "distroyed".
As soon as I formulated the assessment, I knew the answer.
The assessment was:
Connected with that area, is there a Distroyed Beingness? Connected with that area, is there a Distroyed Doingness? Connected with that area, is there a Distroyed Havingness? Connected with that area, is there a Distroyed Game?
The instant reaction was on Beingness and the instant answer was "An Auditor". And with that answer, all the charge fell apart spectacularly. It was like poping a baloon or lancing a boil. It was unbelievable.
Re: Pilot'sPost Z27 --- Entity Handling -- To hell with entities!!
Re: Pilot'sPost Z27 --- Entity Handling --To hell with entities!!
Boy, You have said a mouthfull there, Roger. I would add that outside ”typical western Judeo-Christian culture", there is also ”much spiritual illiteracy”
I came across a case a few years ago. Fellow contacted me, wanted to visit me, came (from miles away in snowy weather) got enthusiastic about Scientology. However a few months later he emailed me recommending me to read Carlos Castenedo, and sending me large chunks of it. A few month after that contacted me and in a phone conversation it transpired that he had followed what he read and now was thoroughly keyed in (or spun in, perhaps a better description) had a very low attention span (persistence), was deeply apathetic about life and his responsibilities in it. In my books this was a CCH case, with hours of auditing, but fortunately I knew a Shaman who was by no means spiritually ignorant, and now, out of thankfulness the fellow is encouraging me into the hands of that Shaman!
My background in this is that years ago, I got the idea from Scientology, helped I think by Ron's lectures, that there were many thetans (entities, beings, basically nothingnesses with a bit of baggage). I imagined that there were probably thetans in the room (I imagined them stationary and away from the walls, who might or might not be observing me) and this was (to me) a satisfactory explanation for ghosts and poltergeists. There is also stuff in Ron's tapes of that time talking about a possibility of a guardian spirit for a wood (small forest) or glade in a forest, and the possibility that one thetan controlled for example a colony of ants or bees. But the idea of spirits working against me was a surprise
I have also come across a good deal of different ideas on the subject, like groups having a group mind, people putting out strong postulates.
A list I am on was discussing David Miscavige as a result of the blog at: http://isene.me/2012/11/01/amazing-person-david-miscavige/ and I have permission to give you an entry from it here, as follows (I have made part block letters):
At 05:28 02-11-2012, Rowland Barkley <email@example.com> wrote:
On 01/11/12 23:05, Geir wrote:
Hitler was regarded as charming by many!
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/may/02/germany.artsandhumanities>I am sure he was pretty amazing, too.
Some such people as Hitler and lesser intelligence dictators such as Miscavige can be amazing in themselves.
Some of them only appear so, but as individuals they hardly exist at all. They are simply possessed by group energy fields of stupidity, where the stupid masses follow their own selves to destruction.
Very few people would vote for a conscious politician, they vote for father figures, empty energy shells created by needy masses.
Scientology had its main focus on entities as the source of case, but completely missed out on the most important entities. The group was possessed by group created entities, formed by the opposing themselves against society and becoming possessed by what they were resisting. If it wasn't Miscavige, some other kid on the block would have lived out his life as the same Big Bad Wolf fairy story, huffing and puffing till I blow your house down.
[Ant originating again:] It is interesting to me that The Pilot, and Roger, accept auditing of entities, and someone else I talked to on the phone did.
When I woke up to auditing again after dropping solo NOTs, I with a couple of others worked on Pre "OT" types of processing. Basically really grades (life repair) type auditing. I did a lot of auditing on it, and achieved nice results. Boy was I lucky not to try more "messing around with entities"
All best wishes,
Pilot'sPost Z29 -- Valences and the Quickie Era OT Lineup
Valences and the Quickie Era OT Lineup
From Post 55 - May 1999
Valences (Attn Beth, Ralph)
On 19 Apr 99, firstname.lastname@example.org (Ralph Hilton) continued
the discussion on "Depression"
> On 19 Apr 1999 14:33:56 -0400, in alt.clearing.technology Beth Guest
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> >In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Ralph Hilton
> >>No - auditing the strong important valences is incorrect. A person goes into
> >>weak valences. In early Dianetics Hubbard was running motivators thus the
> >>causative valences were addressed.
> >>The most aberrative valences are the ones one committed overts against and
> >>those would be the weaker ones.
> >>The reference on this is "The Rule of the Weak Valence" tape of 12 November
> >How does one run out valences in Scn?
> >I know the Kn process to do this but cannot recall the Scn one at the
> >moment and would be interested.
> The easiest and most effective I have come across is:
> Tell me a difference between yourself and .....
> Tell me a similarity between yourself and ....
This is an excellent one, but the easiest is probably SOP8D
"Spot some places where ... would be safe".
This can just be run repetitively (spot lots of places, briskly,
if you can) and taken to a nice win.
For maximum effectiveness, you can do a few commands of
"Spot some places where ... would place you to make you safe"
whenever the above seems to flatten (ceases to produce change)
and then go back to the first command again. That lets you
push the process deeper. In that case you should keep on until
you get a major valence shift.
This SOP8D process and the topic of valences is one of the
main subjects of the 5th ACC, which is available as the "Universes"
cassettes. FZBA mentioned in one of their recent postings that
they were going to do this ACC soon, so watch for the these in ACT.
LRH even used a variation on this one in some group processing
sessions during the 5th ACC (using general terminals like find
some places where problems would be safe, etc.)
Also, the bright think rundown used a variation of this.
> Valences can also be split with processes such as general o/w on the
> terminal, help, failed help, From where could you communicate to a ...
Another good one is to mock the terminal up in various places
and blow them up. That's from the 1st ACC.
> The LX lists and process 220H from 1968 give a general valence address.
I'm going to ramble a bit here. The LX1 handling is much too
heavy for a beginner to solo, so some people might want to skip this
Probably half of the auditing I did between the introduction
of quickie standard tech in late 1968 and the advent of expanded
grades in mid 1970 was 220H (the 7 resistive cases, now known
as GF40) and most especially LX1 (which was the handling for
the out of valence item on 220H).
The 220H is covered in the Case Supervisor Actions HCOB which
is in part 13 of the Class 8 pack that was posted recently
(the pack has the 20 May 75 revision of this HCOB of 12 Aug 69).
You'll also note that the damn HCOB was confidential, so they gave
us non-confidential excerpts from it and checked us out on that.
Later, after the HGC was a smoking ruin, non-confidential references
came out on GF40 etc.
What would happen is that the person would get all his grades
in under an hour (per LRH's instructions, this was not somebody
else's alter is), they'd feel great for a week, and then they
would cave in, feel overwhelmed, the TA would go low, and they'd
almost inevitably read on out of valence on the 7 cases.
Then it would be endless reviews, mostly running LX1 to try
and get the TA back up. Note that LX2 and 3 came out later
as a gradient into LX1, and note that the CS 53 and other
low TA handling did not come out until much later. So the
only known processes in "standard tech" that brought up a
low TA were LX1 and Power Process 6, and you were not allowed
to run PrPr 6 on public at an outer org. So LX1 was the only
As a setup for LX1, we'd first run "recall another person".
That was in the original version of the C/S Actions HCOB.
Note that the one posted to the net is a later revision
which doesn't have this process and has been upgraded with
the LX2 etc.
Then we'd be into the LX1, which was basically assessing for
the engram chain necessary to resolve the case (buttons like
crushed, overwhelmed, etc.). We'd run 3 flow recalls, then
secondaries, and then engrams, and then reassess and run
another button, etc. until the person snapped into valence.
It would work, too. Quite dramatic really. But one hell
of a hard run and hell to audit as well because the TA would
dive to 1.5 if you breathed wrong.
You could walk around the academy in those days and look
at students doing e-meter drills and almost never see
a TA above 2.
I even got run on an LX1 as a pc, and sure enough, we got
to basic on a heavy chain and the feeling of apathy and
unreality which seems to go with a low TA suddenly vanished.
And I mean suddenly and with a great feeling of relief.
Unfortunately it doesn't cure bypassed grades and quickie
type processing or proof you up against an org gone mad
with ethics conditions and wrong whys. So the result
unstabilizes in a month or so and the pc starts spinning
again because you've only handled the symptom rather than
> A very powerful general valence cracker is
> Get the idea of entering a mind
> Get the idea of not entering a mind
> I'm currently working out expanded versions to handle quad flows and 8
This goes far beyond valences. Definitely a powerful and
advanced process. I wouldn't recommend this for beginners,
there are far too many considerations and implications attached
to the concept of mind. But it felt right for me to give it
a try right now.
So I fooled with this one a bit. I would suggest running
"another entering a mind" before attempting "another entering
your mind", because that last one is a very steep gradient.
Each of these ran nicely to a mild win. My plan was to do
a light touch and cycle back through each flow multiple times
rather than trying to push deeply at the start.
Then I thought about flow 0, not even running it but just trying
to figure out what the process command should be. As I was trying
to wrap my wits around "get the idea of entering your own
mind", it was like some barrier fell away and I sort of
exteriorized in some strange manner. The very concept of
"mind" seemed meaningless for a moment and then it seemed
like I had many minds in various places.
As best I can describe it, it was like the whole package, not
just thought and identity but also experience and consideration
and the data I was working on could be seen as an interrelated
cohesive unit, but it was something I HAD rather than being
me myself, and I had many such packages, each kept in isolation
from the others.
Of course with a big blowout like this, one drops the process,
at least for the time being, so as not to invalidate the win
or reinteriorize or overrun.
So I sidetracked into mocking up and throwing away "minds"
in this sense of the word (complete packages of identity,
data, track, and thought processes). That was really wild.
> Ralph Hilton
Probably there should be some kind of grade and/or Self Clearing
chapter on the subject of valences and identity. I'll try
and put some more thought into this and suggestions would be
welcome. There are already quite a few mild valence handling
processes worked into self clearing, such as processes 10.4
and 10.5 (duplicating others viewpoints) which is a variation
on the old "wearing heads" process from the early 1950s.
Another good process for a grade on valences is step 4 of the
220H handling for out of valence. This is done on the 220H
after the 3 LX lists and can be found in the C/S Actions HCOB
mentioned above. The process is:
4. 3 Way or Quad Recall each leg to F/N:
F1. Recall another causing you to be someone else.
F2. Recall you causing another to be someone else.
F3. Recall another causing another to be someone else.
F0. Recall causing yourself to be someone else.
This one would seem to be just a bit steep for a beginner to
do without setup (Ron put it after the LX handlings), so this
should be run after running easier valence shifting processes.
Also, there can be heavy force connected with this (implants
etc.) so this should be left until after one gets one's
confront up on force (by a clear cog or whatever).
It is also interesting that in the 1968 quickie lineup, Ron
put real valence handling up at old OT 4. The valence
shifter processes was "What valence would be safe?"
I would say that this is an easier process than many of
the above, and I would suggest the following variation
for use in self clearing:
a) What identity would you consider it safe to be
b) What identity would you consider it safe for others to be
c) What identity might another consider it safe to be
d) What identity might another consider it safe for others to be
This is a fun and easy processes and would probably fit
in very well around grade 5 on a standard bridge, before
worrying about implants, entities, or whatever.
Ron's placement of valence handling way up at OT IV in
the early OT lineup shows that he considered this to be
a significant case factor which was operative after clear
and after handling entities. Remember that this was the
quickie era and the consideration would be that there were
no GPMs, implants, or entities affecting the case after
a properly run OT III.
Here is the full OT IV rundown from the C/S actions
> 1. Ruds or GF to F/N.
> 2. Rehab drugs.
> 3. Valence shifter "What valence would be safe?"
> 4. Rehab ARC Straightwire to Grade IV.
> 5. Rehab R6EW to OT II.
> 6. Prepcheck OT III.
> 7. Rehab OT V and VI.
> 8. Run "What has been overrun ?"
> 9. Run "What can you confront ?">
> IF THE PRE OT DOESN'T EXTERIORISE, WE WILL DO 7 CASES NEXT SESSION
> UNTIL HE DOES GO EXTERIOR which is really the end phenomena of
> OT IV. Audited only by a class VIII.
This should also clear up the occasional question that I've
seen about what was supposed to bring about exterior perceptions
in the original OT lineup. Apparently the idea was that if
entities had already been handled, then all you had to do was
handle valences and non-confront and any case outpoints to
turn on exterior perception. I've even heard of some people
who did turn on some perception briefly after getting the IV
rundown. Then one was supposed to do the old OT V & VI to
improve and stabilize the ability.
Note that "what has been overrun" was not a repetitive process
or a listed list. Instead one took up anything that gave a
TA blowdown (BD) on the meter (sometimes anything that read at all)
and rehabbed it to FN. This was the ONLY handling for high TA
during the quickie era. One used it at lower levels if the
TA was high, but only rehabbed the first BD to FN so as to
get the TA back in range. Apparently the IV rundown included
a more thorough run of this processes, doing it as a major
action with the TA in range instead of only using it as a
Sorry for continuing to slide off into discussions of the
quickie era. The recent posting of the Class VIII pack and
Ralph's mention of 220H have gotten me busy thinking over
that old messed up attempt to make OT on a lick and a
Re: Pilot'sPost Z29 -- Valences and the Quickie Era OT Lineup
Re: Pilot'sPost Z29 -- Valences and the Quickie Era OT Lineup
I AM PUTTING THIS HERE AS A FILLER CAUSE I MADE A BOO BOO AND HAD TOO MANY DUPLICATE POSTS. I THINK THESE ARE TOOLS THAT CAN BE OF USE
Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 58 - LATE JUNE 99 PILOT POSTS TO ARS/ACT
Date: 23 Jun 1999 04:00:19
From: email@example.com (The Pilot)
SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 58 - LATE JUNE 99 PILOT POSTS TO ARS/ACT[/B]
THIS IS A PRELUDE TO WHERE I WAS COMING FROM IN MY FOLLOWING POST.
Re: Pilot'sPost Z29 -- Valences and the Quickie Era OT Lineup
I loved this post Ant. Thanks for inviting conversation on it. Anyone else have opinions?
....Moving on then..
Pilot'sPost Z30 -- References on Self Auditing
References on Self Auditing
From Post 66 - October 1999
There are quite a few LRH references in the 50s encouraging the students to self audit the processes. But note that he also talks against public people who obsessively self audit, and considers it a case outness to be solved. Really there are two different things lumped together under self auditing, one being somebody who knows what he's doing running processes solo, and the other being pcs who sit around figure figuring about their cases.
See my post on "Self Auditing vs Self Clearing" in post55.txt in the Pilot archives for more discussion about this.
I'm pretty sure that there is an explicit reference somewhere on the 8th ACC tapes (the Creation of Human Ability cassettes on clearsound) telling the students that they could self audit route 1. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to dig it out and the transcripts haven't appeared on the net. If and when they do hit, it would be easy to search the text for references to self auditing etc. (that is one of the good reasons for needing computer versions even if you have printed transcripts).
However, here are two other good references. There are lots more if you do some digging.
PDC-36: Structure/Function: Selective Variations of
5212C11C of 11 Nov 1952
"With the data which has been accumulated on this, you can bail yourself out. There isn't much that you can get into that you can't get yourself out of, even if you're all by yourself. These processes will work actually, on yourself, all by yourself."
ALS-4 "Union Station - R2-46" 5508C30 Lecture 4 of Academy Lecture series of 1955 given on 30 Aug 55. Issued on clearsound as "The Conquest of Chaos"
"Now, I've run enough tests on auditors in way out flung points right now to know that there's more gain for an auditor in running Union Station on himself than there has been for the same auditors on other processes - self audited; but we know it would be better if it were audited on them by an auditor, but there's no auditors available in these spots. So you'd run it the same way - same way exactly. So we have an enormous gain here. We have a big win on this. But you understand that running it on yourself is nowhere near as good as getting it audited on you."
Note that it is tough to argue this with the org.
As Ralph pointed out, there are C/S series references to the contrary.
But you handle that by quoting the "Tech Degrades" HCOPL and pointing out that nothing is cancelled unless explicitly cancelled. Therefore the above references are good in spite of anything in later HCOBs.
And a real expert might hit you with the "mockup processing cancelled" business, but you handle that by pointing out that all the tech was being labled old and cancelled etc. until the 1970 restoration. And you can back that up by pointing out that Ron issued the "Mockup a way to waste money" process in the late sixties (1968 I think) even though mockups were supposedly cancelled.
What is forbidden is to self audit during an HGC intensive, and that was the green form question on the 1965 green form. It was not "self auditing" because that was allowed as long as you were doing it at times when you were not trying to get HGC auditing.
And a real tech lawyer could argue that the C/S series references against self auditing only apply during the times when the pc is getting an HGC intensive.
Note that self auditing is NOT on the list of high crimes and you can't get declared for it.
All it can do is get you into firefights and arguments which might lead to getting declared on some other point.
Except that if you keep quoting LRH tech and saying the tech is for use and pointing to Tech Degrades, they will have a damn hard time doing anything to you because you are quoting LRH tech and they are not.
I was playing around with self auditing processes from the moment I started getting trained. And I listened to the PDC tapes back around 1969 and used that stuff extensively from there on.
I never got in any serious trouble about it and was never even ordered not to do it. And I was not withholdy about the matter and I made a point of originating it to the examiner and getting it noted in my folder back in 1969 (and even got an acknowledgement back from the C/S).
However, I was on staff, had a great deal of status as a Tech terminal, made good gains running the stuff, and made a point of saying so.
I would talk about this to people who seemed up to having it, and I would talk about it in session or to highly trained tech terminals, and of course I would be quoting references and never got any trouble from it.
But I never put this on the lines of idiots who couldn't have it.
If you were to tell a reg that you weren't going to give them a ton of money because you are making great gains self auditing, you are almost guaranteed to have lots of trouble as they write it up and scream and drag untrained fanatics into the cycle.
Realize that you would be walking right into the teeth of a reg's vested interests, and frankly, many of them would also make trouble if you were getting free auditing in other ways such as a co-audit or whatever, if they thought it was hurting their stats.
You handle reges by remaining cheerful and keeping your TRs in and giving them full stop acknowledgements after letting them talk as much as they want, and you never originate anything or contribute to the conversation. They quickly go down the scale of a salesman and end up dropping the cycle (and will often avoid you in the future even if a senior is yelling at them). Something you do not want to do is to give them loads of material for writing KRs.
If you end up dealing with an ethics officer on something like this, you have to adjudicate whether they are tech trained and can have it or whether they are going to try and beat you into line. If it is the latter, you must push to get a qual consultation and discuss this with somebody who is tech trained.
In general, untrained SO members are death on something like this, but tech terminals are often (not always, but often) on your side.
But it also means knowing the tech well and sticking to your guns and keeping your TRs in.
The tech is for use.
But you can have trouble from terminals who think that the tech is for making money.
Hope this helps,
The Pilot is, again, quite right
But as at 1982 the SO types at Flag, including the tech terminals, ran a prohibition on any solo processing actions not C/Sed (by them of course).
Even to run a solo assist on self was hit by them . . . crazy, bit there it is.
Umm, like: we are trained to run solo assists but prohibited from doing so? Only the Cof$ could come up with something like that . . . .
Personally, I run all processes solo now and great gains are to be had from doing so.
Re: Pilot'sPost Z27 --- Entity Handling --To hell with entities!!
AntAdmin note: I have resolved to make a Pilot Excerpt posting here every Wednesday (so long as friends send me something to post). Commenting is another matter. A wanted to comment earlier but have only just got round to it. AntAdmin
What we have here is "everyone" (well the majority) accepting entity handling and trying to find ways of improving or correcting it, and nobody (I don't count, I am only a nothingness ) questioning the wisdom of running them at that place.
Boy, You have said a mouthfull there, Roger. I would add that also outside ”typical western Judeo-Christian culture, there is” also ”much spiritual illiteracy”
I came across a case a few years ago. Fellow contacted me, wanted to visit me, came (from miles away in snowy weather) got enthusiastic about Scientology. However a few months later he emailed me recommending me to read Carlos Castenedo, and sending me large chunks of it. A few month after that contacted me and in a phone conversation it transpired that he had followed what he read and now was thoroughly keyed in (or spun in, perhaps a better description) had a very low attention span (persistence), was deeply apathetic about life and his responsibilities in it. In my books this was a CCH 1-4 case, with hours of auditing, but fortunately I knew a Shaman who was by no means spiritually ignorant, and now, out of thankfulness the fellow is encouraging me into the hands of that Shaman!
My background in this is that years ago, I got the idea from Scientology, helped I think by Ron's lectures, that there were many thetans (entities, beings, basically nothingnesses with a bit of baggage). I imagined that there were probably thetans in the room (I imagined them stationary and away from the walls, who might or might not be observing me) and this was (to me) a satisfactory explanation for ghosts and poltergeists. There is also stuff in Ron's tapes of that time talking about a possibility of a guardian spirit for a wood (small forest) or glade in a forest, and the possibility that one thetan controlled for example a colony of ants or bees. These ideas seemed perfectly logical in the framework of Scientology (axioms, etc). But the idea of spirits working against me was a surprise
In the time since the above was posted, I have been ruminating. I remembered when I started on NOTs (a brand new thing at the time, and it had been 11 years since I started OT III, and their solutions to my problems was to put me on to NOTS.), I was in a NOTs preclears waiting room with a number of others. It was the "leapfrog" system, where you got, usually, about five minutes auditing, got a marvelous win, and then came out while the next in your auditors little queue of preclears came in, so there were quite a number of people waiting. Some how the thing about "you must not talk about your case" was ignored (we had to have something to talk about waiting long periods til our next session). People began to discuss their experiences on or after OT III. It seemed that all had had problems as a result of OT III (in fact I seemed to be lucky in that I could not do it ). NOTs was regarded as their saviour.
There seems to be a lot to take into account .
OT levels were secret (aka confidential) putting people at all levels into a mystery sandwich condition.
One was discouraged from talking about her/his case, which meant you only saw the officially approved success stories.
In order to "escape" you had to produce an acceptable success story which was published.
It seems to me that people are far more different in their abilities than we are aware of. I for example was regarded as tone deaf (though I love music), have a pretty poor memory, social graces poor, especially with strangers, more poor abilities my bad memory (thank goodness) prevents me from remembering, and (the important point here) really don't seem to have much of a clue about contacting a being apart from using mest as a via. Which last makes me a poor subject for entity handling.
So why did I (and others) get pushed on to it? Partly, at any rate because of this devilish idea of a bridge, which you must progress over as fast as possible. In other words what was called quickying and was regarded as bad, was in fact rife all over the place. This was partly encouraged by the mystery sandwich of these "phenomenal" OT levels, partly encouraged by the service faccy concern about status ("where are you on the bridge?" -(blushing) "I am only grade III"). It was also discouraged by a general sort of "hidden standard" that all people are "the same" and there was one "standard tech" which would handle all. Boy was that an invalidation of individuals!.
I think there are also other factors. Certainly the idea of finding out what the person wanted handled, and handling it (again and again and again) with the host of tools we had available was not very evident
Not to make this too long, I am not questioning running entities when they duck up as something to be handled. I am suggesting that the basic stable data from the church of a bridge which fitted everyone needs re-evaluation.
There seems to be an enormous amount of repair and re-evaluation to do.
Oh, and it did not start with David Miscavige, his regime just made things a few thousand times worse and more difficult to handle.
All best wishes,