Rising Scale Processing

[Dulloldfart]

In PDC Tape 38 LRH talks about running Rising Scale on the Chart of Attitudes top and bottom buttons similar to this:

1. Get the concept of (bottom button column 1).
2. Now shift it as far as you can towards (top button column 1)
3. Get the concept of (bottom button column 1).
4. Now shift it as far as you can towards (top button column 1)
5. Get the concept of (bottom button column 1).
6. Now shift it as far as you can towards (top button column 1)

1. Get the concept of (bottom button column 2).
2. Now shift it as far as you can towards (top button column 2)
3. Get the concept of (bottom button column 2).
4. Now shift it as far as you can towards (top button column 2)
5. Get the concept of (bottom button column 2).
6. Now shift it as far as you can towards (top button column 2)

...

1. Get the concept of (bottom button column 16 [12?]).
2. Now shift it as far as you can towards (top button column 16 [12?])
3. Get the concept of (bottom button column 16 [12?]).
4. Now shift it as far as you can towards (top button column 16 [12?])
5. Get the concept of (bottom button column 16 [12?]).
6. Now shift it as far as you can towards (top button column 16 [12?])

Then start in at the beginning again, i.e.

1. Get the concept of (bottom button column 1).
2. Now shift it as far as you can towards (top button column 1)
3. Get the concept of (bottom button column 1).
4. Now shift it as far as you can towards (top button column 1)
5. Get the concept of (bottom button column 1).
6. Now shift it as far as you can towards (top button column 1)

I assume one would stay in good comm with the pc, handle originations, end off on a big win, etc.

The way it seems to be run these days on Grade 4 is different. I'll take the liberty of quoting the Clearbird version online (sorry about formatting of the buttons):

SURVIVE RIGHT FULLY RESPONSIBLE -
DEAD WRONG NO RESPONSIBILITY

OWNS ALL EVERYONE ALWAYS
OWNS NOTHING NOBODY NEVER

MOTION SOURCE/ TRUTH FAITH
STOPPED HALLUCINATION DISTRUST

I KNOW CAUSE I AM
I KNOW NOT EFFECT I AM NOT

The commands are:

1. "Get the idea of (bottom of scale 'dead')"
2. "Do you have that idea?"
3. "All right.
4. "Now change that idea as nearly as you can to (top of scale 'survive')."
5. "OK. How close did you come?"
6. "Thank you."

Run each pair separately; 1,2,3,4,5,6 - 1,2,3,4,5,6 etc, until pc has a certainty that he can maintain the upper scale idea and has an F/N, Cog, VGIs. Then go to the next pair. Each pair is run to EP _____.

I remember as a pc running it this second way. I had read the theory about how fantastic it was as a process, but nothing much happened in the session doing each column to "F/N cog VGIs" and it was a bit of a disappointment. Of course, looking at it now, I can't tell if people really did have wonderful wins running Rising Scale or if it was just more Hubbard bullshit.

I thought I'd try a Paul's Robot version, just to see how it goes. I have two questions:

1. Has anyone run it both ways, and have practical experience of one way working much better than the other?

2. What happened to the other columns on the chart, as listed in 8-8008 and on PDC 38, namely Win/Lose; Start/Stop; Differences/Identification; Being/Had? Why were they removed from the items to run Rising Scale on? EDIT: I now see that Start/Stop and Being/Had are duplicates, but that doesn't go for Win/Lose and Differences/Identification.

Paul

 

[promise]

I haven't ran this with a pc, but here's what I found in playing with rising scale myself.

1) Sometimes huge wins happen quickly.

BUT - they are often outside my "serv - fac" based reality.

When this happens there is a very real discomfort, and the win for me in many cases partially or completely went back down to the lower level. It was difficult to maintiain the new higher level.

2) I think it's mainly serv facs that put an upper limit on how far I think can take each scale.

I think it would be cool to build some mechanism for handling this "ceiling effect" and for handling the outside comfort zone.

maybe apply the same process - rising scale to the the notion of how far you can take the button.

take the button as far as possible then expand the notion of how far it can be taken then bring the button as high as possible.

OR ... maybe when a limit or discomfort is bumped into ... handle it with the 6 directions ... then go back rising scale.

Seems like that would be very powerful.

If it is serv facs - like I think... then you could also have the person spot the serv fac as it applies to the button ...

is there any way you are making yourself right for keeping it at X / not taking it any higher than that
... others wrong
... avoiding domination
... dominating others
..etc.

then run that out with ^ directions or r3SC
then back to rising scale.

rising scale is a very OT process, my theory is if you handle all the bumps / limits, you can take someone all the way to the top with rising scale.


EDIT:
consequences ... what would happen if you took 100 x the responsibility .... 6 directions ...any other consequences ... run it with 6 directions till no more ... then back to rising scale

trying to prevent ... what are you trying to prevent by keeping it at .. // not taking any it any higher "responsibility (button)
run that 6 directions .. then anything else you are tyring to prevent ...run it all out then back to rising scael


Promise

 

[Dulloldfart]

Thanks for your experiences, Promise. I may not even have 6-direction commands in there. I'll have to play around with it first.

Paul

 

[Veda]

All I have handy, right now, that relates to this topic, is a folder with a couple hundred pages of "end of session write ups" from my post-Scientology exploration-phase of Scientology auditing, as an auditor (which I haven't looked at in a long time). There's about one page of content devoted to 'Rising Scale Processing'. I don't have the session records handy, or a copy of '8-8008', or the (circa 1970s) 'Grade 4' process lists (which, as I recall, featured 'Rising Scale Processing' at the beginning.)

I recall running the process from the book, '8-8008'.

Here's a relevant passage (edited, with PC's personal info deleted) from a 'PC' (who had just finished 'Grade 3' and was beginning 'Grade 4'):

"The rising scale process could be run with much benefit as a drill. That only means that the individual dichotomies are not all that important - it is the act of moving from one to the other. So, initially, we skipped a number of dichotomies because of lack of interest. It appears I first began really doing the process with the 'wrong-right' dichotomy...

" 'Owns nothing-Own all' brought about the interesting idea that the top and bottom of these scales are equally desirable and undesirable. Owning nothing, though commonly thought to be the height of undesirability, is actually quite a free state. Free from even owning a body. I suppose the key to this is whether the ownership is self-determined.

"As I got further into the process - and this seems to be true of any process - I became more and more exterior. When a process is running well, I am feeling rather exterior. All that means is that I am exerting unhindered control over my attention units. Nothing else exists but the activity of doing the process.

"When we got into the 'stopping-starting', I looked at myself and noted the exterior state, in regard to the action of moving out beyond the body... Overall, perhaps this was the point of attention of the entire evening. That is, beginning to take control over the action of going exterior. I think that initially when doing this, the person is likely to diffuse the thrill of being exterior a few times. It seems natural that one should have to go through this. If one had an enormous desire to maintain the exterior position, it seems probable that the person would be thoroughly interiorized. A better way is by repeated exteriorization and subsequent interiorization. I became more and more relaxed on the exterior state to a point where it can be had with ease..."

IMO, this process (or exercise) should be kept simple, with the action, or "doing," - actual change of state, and the ability to change at will, and at ease - being the focus, more than any particular significance.

That's all I have on this topic right now. Hope this little bit helps.

 

[Leon]

I've generally had good results from the process. When it failes it was mainly because the prec;ear's thinking wasn't under control (i.e. unflat objectives) and he wasn't really doing the process - only doing it in mock-up form or with unspoken "conditionals" added. For e.g. "(when day when I'm OT) I can get the top button yes."

But with the guy actually doing it and run long enough (or short enough and not too long if he's fast) then the results are usually very good. I recall one guy with chronic indigestion who's belly just settled out and food digested the way it was supposed to after rising scale.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Thanks very much, Veda and Leon.

Looking at that Clearbird write-up, "Get the idea of ..." followed by an automatic "Did you get that idea?" is a hell of a comm cycle additive. I assume that was copied from the usual command sheet and not of CB's own invention.

Paul

 

[Veda]

Thanks very much, Veda and Leon.

Looking at that Clearbird write-up, "Get the idea of ..." followed by an automatic "Did you get that idea?" is a hell of a comm cycle additive. I assume that was copied from the usual command sheet and not of CB's own invention.

Paul

Don't know where "Did you get the idea?" came from. It's just "Get the idea."

Asking "Did you get the idea?" besides being an unnecessary "additive," puts the idea in the past. If, for some reason, it was necessary to check, then, "Do you have the idea?" would be the wording, not "did you get?" (past tense.)

So, as far as I'm concerned, without referencing any materials, and only from memory, it's just "Get the idea," (present tense.)

 

[Mark A. Baker]

All I have handy, right now, that relates to this topic, is a folder with a couple hundred pages of "end of session write ups" from my post-Scientology exploration-phase of Scientology auditing, as an auditor (which I haven't looked at in a long time). There's about one page of content devoted to 'Rising Scale Processing'. I don't have the session records handy, or a copy of '8-8008', or the (circa 1970s) 'Grade 4' process lists (which, as I recall, featured 'Rising Scale Processing' at the beginning.)

.....

That's all I have on this topic right now. Hope this little bit helps.

Well, if nothing else, I appreciate your post as a sincere attempt to help Paul in his efforts.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Leon]

"Do you have that idea?" was part of the original LRH issued instructions.

I find it interesting that the write-ups on Super Power that exist on the net - whether they be genuine or not I don't know - describe Super Power as being basically the same technique as Rising Scale.

 

[Dulloldfart]

"Do you have that idea?" was part of the original LRH issued instructions.

Interesting.

I find it interesting that the write-ups on Super Power that exist on the net - whether they be genuine or not I don't know - describe Super Power as being basically the same technique as Rising Scale.

Well yes, somewhat, but the Super Power stuff on the net doesn't have the gradient scale beneath it. Rising Scale is basically get the idea of the lowest level, then shift it as high as you can towards the highest level. Super Power is [SPOILER WARNING!] (in general terms) getting the idea of having infinite power, but without the lead-up of having zero power, and increasing it as much as you can--it's purely WHAM! BAM! Get the idea right away of the topmost level!!!

To make it an easier gradient, maybe one could sort of combine the two to form a "Not-Too-Shabby Power Rundown". . I am maybe joking, but I might just do that. I had some good wins in solo'ing the "Super Power" stuff on the Net, and some of it might be worth putting into a Paul's Robot Auditor version.

As I've mentioned several times, I audited the commands given on those 5 Internet "Super Power" bulletins, and did a very detailed critique of them and reworded them to correct the flow commands, remove the stupid stuff, and allow them to be run properly. As written, some of it is completely unrunnable. That write-up is one of the best things I've ever written, and I consider it essential reading for anyone thinking of giving or receiving whatever is called "Super Power" in the Freezone. It is at http://www.fzglobal.org/superpower.htm

Paul

 

[Dulloldfart]

Not-too-shabby Power sounds more appealing to we glass-half-empty types.
If I had Super Power it just wouldn't gel with my Slacker-Wannabe aspirations.

I'll give it a go.

(ported in from the "Street Sessions" thread)

You may be joking here, but I've started in on it already. It was just so tempting as it is so very similar to Rising Scale. Anyway, there are what I consider to be serious defects in Rising Scale. The way it's run on Grade 4 is that top-scale attributes and bottom-scale attributes are divided into an arbitrary 12 or 14 pairs. Originally LRH seemed to run them a few commands each, cyclically. The rote way they are done on Grade 4 is to take one pair, alternate the bottom and as far towards the top as the pc can stretch, take it to an F/N Cog VGIs 'cos that's the way all Grades EPs must be done, then leave it for the rest of that lifetime. Then go on to the next pair, which may or may not read, or be charged, or have pc interest, or whatever, as it's basically the same thing anyway from a different angle.

I also saw the line that the pc is supposed to be able to maintain the top-scale postulate indefinitely. That is just horseshit, of course, for anyone living on Planet Earth. Another loss to give all the tech guys re unattainable EPs, if it is really pretended to be done like that these days.

The idea of Rising Scale is to change the pc's postulates, so he starts postulating top-scale survive stuff instead of bottom-scale succumb stuff. This is similar to many other philosophies, positive thinking, Napoleon Hill's secret of the world's most successful men, and so on. But what these other philosophies teach is that you have to keep at it, day after day after day, postulating the exact success you want, i.e. these higher-level survive postulates and not the succumb ones. None of them say do it for ten minutes until you have a nice win then end off! Is that because Hubbard had a tech that made all that hard work unnecessary? No, he didn't. I think Rising Scale gives some nice wins but fades after a little bit because the person never does any more of it!

So the way I'm working it is to have a few more top/bottom pairs (no rude comments, Tansy), stated generally, so the pc can fit anything he is running into in life in the 20 or so there. Then, when he needs a boost, he goes into session, picks a pair that matches what he is encountering in life, and gets some charge off the high/low aspects of those postulates he is having trouble with. Result? He can make the higher postulates stick better. Can he now juggle planets? No, but maybe he managed to shovel up the dead cat in the corner that he had been putting off for the past few months. Next time he finds himself not performing like Superman, he can address whatever seems to need the most attention with another pair, or two. He doesn't have to run every single pair, just any he is interested in, although he can try out the lot in sequence if he wishes.

This isn't simply theory. I did a couple of 15-minute sessions just like that today. Hot stuff. I got rid of a (metaphorical) dead cat.

As I wrote above, the "Super Power" I've seen is a real stretch, as it requires the pc to solely hit that top-level postulate. I've simply tacked on four of the top levels from "Super Power" (I used Ralph's) with their low-level polarities, and added the four as options to do just like any other Rising Scale pair, starting out at the bottom and raising the postulate as high as one can towards the top, without insisting on reaching the top. "Super Power" is a series of rundowns, and this isn't any kind of substitute for that. There's no good reason not to toss in the commands here, and anyway I like the name Not-Too-Shabby Power.

I should have it online within a few days, a week tops.

Paul

 

[Tanstaafl]

I only ran RP on someone once and that was many years ago.
It seemed to me that its use was in unsticking the person from a chronic attitude by allowing them to demonstrate their power of choice on the matter, a little like how mood drills would work on the tone scale.

I guess it might also demonstrate that there are other attitudes one can choose, a little like running "What could you have done today?" on someone in chronic boredom or monotony. That would be an undercut to power of choice - knowing there were other choices.

Perhaps there's more therapeutic value in the dichotomy aspect of the process? The "higher" attitudes might rehab to some degree or simply raise vibrations if they are truly created. I'll volunteer to be a guinea pig, if you don't mind experimenting on chronic NCG cases.

 

[Zinjifar]

I only ran RP on someone once and that was many years ago.
It seemed to me that its use was in unsticking the person from a chronic attitude by allowing them to demonstrate their power of choice on the matter, a little like how mood drills would work on the tone scale.

I guess it might also demonstrate that there are other attitudes one can choose, a little like running "What could you have done today?" on someone in chronic boredom or monotony. That would be an undercut to power of choice - knowing there were other choices.

Perhaps there's more therapeutic value in the dichotomy aspect of the process? The "higher" attitudes might rehab to some degree or simply raise vibrations if they are truly created. I'll volunteer to be a guinea pig, if you don't mind experimenting on chronic NCG cases.

I'd say that the process itself, in pointing out the ability to *assume* different attitudes is a potentially positive one.

The 'trap' is that Ron enforces His view about 'which' attitudes are valuable.

There's fishhooks in every lollypop

Zinj

 

[Tanstaafl]

I'd say that the process itself, in pointing out the ability to *assume* different attitudes is a potentially positive one.

The 'trap' is that Ron enforces His view about 'which' attitudes are valuable.

There's fishhooks in every lollypop

Zinj

I think that's a valid point with some aspects of The Bridge.
But if you look over the dichotomies I think you'd find 99% agreeing on their preferences. If you don't believe me you could always run a poll.

 

[gomorrhan]

Paul, my consideration is that if a person has an Admin Scale, that all you have to do is dust off their buttons "with regard to your admin scale, [button]" to an f/n. That should keep them flying.

 

[Leon]

I think the intention was not so much to be able to hold the top button indefinitely (which I have never seen written anywhere) but rather to get the preclear able to shift his viewpoint around as he wishes. I would consider that a far better EP than having the guy fixedly at the top.

In running Rising Scale (it being a positive gain preocess) one should push for a really big result and not bail out at the first hint of an F/N. There's no reason to worry much about overrunning the guy.

 

[Leon]

The Admin Scale is an expanded and somewhat mixed up version of Be Do and Have, which is the most basic of all triangles and sequences we have.

 

[gomorrhan]

Exactly.

 

[Dulloldfart]

I think the intention was not so much to be able to hold the top button indefinitely (which I have never seen written anywhere) but rather to get the preclear able to shift his viewpoint around as he wishes. I would consider that a far better EP than having the guy fixedly at the top.

In running Rising Scale (it being a positive gain process) one should push for a really big result and not bail out at the first hint of an F/N. There's no reason to worry much about overrunning the guy.

Clearbird says "Run each pair separately; 1,2,3,4,5,6 - 1,2,3,4,5,6 etc, until pc has a certainty that he can maintain the upper scale idea and has an F/N, Cog, VGIs. Then go to the next pair. Each pair is run to EP." I assumed that came from some HCOB, but I don't have the current grades issue.

I have to tailor the procedure to how it runs well without an auditor on the spot able to 8c the pc, however that comes out. I can't insist on hanging on for a big win. But it's looking good so far.

Paul

 

[Dulloldfart]

I only ran RP on someone once and that was many years ago.
It seemed to me that its use was in unsticking the person from a chronic attitude by allowing them to demonstrate their power of choice on the matter, a little like how mood drills would work on the tone scale.
...
Perhaps there's more therapeutic value in the dichotomy aspect of the process? The "higher" attitudes might rehab to some degree or simply raise vibrations if they are truly created. I'll volunteer to be a guinea pig, if you don't mind experimenting on chronic NCG cases.

I think the value comes in allowing the pc to dwell around the high scale stuff for most of the time, rather than being honestly able to tell the auditor or examiner that he can do it (i.e. he can, but doesn't very often, and remains relatively broke etc.)

Sure you can be a guinea pig.

Paul