The Pilot, Excerpts from his Writings

[Antony A Phillips]

Re: Pilot'sPost Z27 --- Entity Handling --To hell with entities!!

On a list I am on, where I had expressed something of my position and views on entities. Some one wrote in helping me to handle entities. But I did not ask for help, and I sent this reply:

Thanks for your message. The point, which I hope I made in the Ex Scn Message Board message is: Why should I bother with entities?
You were interested and curious about them, and got your curiosity handled.'
I was not interested or curious, and I handled the things that bothered me by standard lower level Scientology.
Why should I jump into something unreal, uninteresting and difficult? I am different from you, and I am happy the way I am (much happier after the ten or more years doing what I did and ignoring entities). I appreciate your attempt to help, though would draw your attention to the fact that I was not asking for help, but more pointing out a problem others might have by this mystery sandwich of entities. Not all others, but some others. Pushing other people to adopt what was right for you, is not wise. Listen, and find what is needed and wanted.​

Actually, one of the advantages of auditing extensively, is you find out how different people are. I found that most intersting.

They do not all fit in the same box.

All best wishes,

Ant

 

[Antony A Phillips]

Pilot'sPost Z31 -- Definition of OT and comment on Hidden Standard.

.

Pilot'sPost Z31


Definition of OT and comment on Hidden Standard

From Post 54 – May 1999


On 11 Apr 99, "8.Way" <[email protected]> asked
on topic "Q to Pilot"
> Is your whole research and alteris of the scn bridge a solution to a
> hidden standard regarding the state of OT? (ref: An expanded bridge)

No.

My standard for OT is the well known standard definition
issued by LRH. "Total cause over matter, energy, space,
time, thought, and life".

To this I would add the Tone 40 concept of willingness to be
both cause and effect and say that one could also experience
any effect without consequences and enjoy doing so.

And I would further clarify this by adding in Ron's concept
that we all get out together, and therefore conclude that one
must also be willing for everyone else to achieve this same
level of total cause / effect at their own will.

From this I conclude that at the top we will create many
realities, intersecting or varying as needed to suit our
various whims and desires and games and ARC and individuality
and so forth. In other words, co-existence of static rather
than the current enforced reality of the MEST universe.

That is my standard for real OT, and it is not at all hidden.

==========

Taking this from another angle, the case manifestation of a
HIDDEN standard is that the pc evaluates his gains based
on it, and as a consequence will invalidate good gains if
the hidden standard does not change.

We handle this, on the Green Form, with "What would have
to happen for you to know Scientology works?" This reveals
the hidden standard that the pc has been using to judge
his progress.

I already know that the tech works. I don't judge my gains
exclusively on the basis of the above definition of OT.

Therefore it is not acting as a "hidden standard" in the
technical sense.

Instead, it is a highly desirable target that I am working
towards.

==========

It should be obvious that we are still quite far from this
target of full OT. This should not be taken as an
invalidation of the progress we have made, the advances
are enormous. But it is simply to say that the bridge
is only partially built.

My continued research could be looked upon as a solution
to the problem of having to finish a job that was left
half done.

But it's a big job, the biggest one ever undertaken actually.

Therefore it would be wrong to blame others for the
incompleteness. Instead one rolls up ones sleeves and
helps carry the work forward.

Someday you will sit at the top of an incomplete bridge.
When that day comes, will you sit around whinning and
nattering or blaming the SPs or praying for the second
comming, or will you lend a hand in furthering the research?

I am taking responsibility.

Time to wake up.

 

[Antony A Phillips]

Pilot'sPost Z32 -- On Invalidation

.

Pilot'sPost Z32


On Invalidation

Tech research

Tech-finders creating processes


From Post 53 April 1999


It has been obvious to me for a long time that we would need
to run a grade on the area of invalidation.

Invalidation is the main reason for loosing gains and
rollercoastering. This business of becoming PTS (a "potential
trouble source") due to the influence of an SP (a "suppressive
person") is really just the effect of one person getting
another to invalidate themselves. The orthodox CofS handling,
which is to get the hell away from the source of the invalidation
by disconnecting, is about as low toned as you can get. You
can do that on an emergency basis, but you can't live life
that way, it leads to running in fear from every snide remark.

We also know that invalidation can suppress meter reads or
even make wrong things read.

Also, when I tried to lay out the aberrative factors based on
logic (see "sequence of aberration" in post 52), it fits in well
as one of the early basics.

And so it is a hot area, well worth running.

But I've been very negligent about putting together a
handling on this topic.

The Self Clearing Book really just has process 23.9 (recall
invalidation) in the chapter on trickery and false data plus
a bit on invalidation of aesthetics in chapter 45.

I finally found a good process which I mentioned in the post
"ON VALENCES, OVERRUN, RESPONSIBILITY, ETC. (Attn Potential)"
which is in post50.txt of early March.


# A process that I have been experimenting with recently is to
# pick something you feel invalidated about, mockup somebody else
# as having it, and then validating them for it. For example, if
# one feels invalidated because one forgets things, then mockup
# somebody else who forgets things and praise them for how well
# they manage to forget things. And perhaps also reverse the
# flow and have them praise you as well.

This is a nice one but a grade needs many processes coming
at the area from various angles, and I've found it really hard
to think in the area and come up with things.

The thing that was really sitting in my craw was "what about
real invalidations". There you have a baby learning to walk
and he really does fall down and that really is invalidating.

Babies are pretty terrible at walking, and yet they need to be
validated and encouraged, it takes a lot of praise and
enthusiasm on the parents part to keep the kid going if he has
fallen on his face a few times. In fact, the best teaching
method when somebody is starting to learn something seems to
be to continue validating them right in the face of their
obvious disability until they push through the stops and
get it.

So I asked a friend (an old class 6) to chew over the area
a bit and see if he could make some suggestions. And he in
turn got ahold of an old class 7 and got her to bounce some
ideas around too.

Here is the writeup he gave me.


> INVAL Mar. 99
>
> What is INVAL and when is it a processing target?
>
> The pc has anchor points. When one or several of them
> are attacked or caved in, that is inval. Comparing this
> to physical pain, if these were body anchor points, the
> definition would fit PAIN. Therefore I conclude that INVAL
> is a basic on PAIN (not the other way around). What makes
> the INVAL a processing target is when it hurts. The pc
> hurts, even though there may be no physical pain involved.
> This can puzzle the pc, who cannot understand the bad feeling.
>
> This suggests one array of processes which treat it like
> engram chains.
>
> The pc is puzzled because he does not know all about his
> "extended body" i.e. the larger collection of anchor points
> he is hanging from. Walt Whitman presented a good picture
> of the situation in his poem about the "noiseless patient
> spider".
>
> As for the question, what about a pc who cannot really add
> two and two, this is not the problem.
>
> Example: some athletes delight in being booed in certain
> arenas, it just lights their fire to play better.
>
> Example: some athletes and show biz types never feel they
> are accepted no matter what success they have. Look at
> Karen Carpenter who died trying to get thinner when she was
> totally thin and totally successful.
>
> Example: I changed my answering machine tape message. Next
> time I visited the answering machine, I still felt I did not
> understand the answering tape mechanism. The fact that I
> successfully followed the directions and changed it does not
> affect this feeling. I have several such things which I think
> I cannot cope with despite having coped with them.
>
> Meeting and passing or failing tests is just a part of life.
> Processing is not here to eliminate parts of life. But at
> times something gets inval'd and the pc caves. This must involve
> unknown factors, and they are the processing target.
>
> I don't say inval does not have a physical basis, i.e. the
> "extended body" may be physical or not, but it certainly is
> not the ordinary physical context of his present body and
> experience. That is why he has not shrugged off the invals
> which need processing.
>
> Many conversations consist of nothing but inval. The speaker
> invals someone else, then relates what that person said to
> inval the pc, and on and on. When good friends meet,
> especially men, they may pile on all kinds of insults.
> This is found refreshing. If your friends peered at you and
> inquired about your health, you'd think something was wrong.
>
> PROCESSES
> ----------
> Chain type processes:
> ---------------------
> Give me an inval, what was invalidated,
> and earlier similar.

Basically this is the Inval rudiment. For a grade, one uses
recall and lets the PC's attention go where it may, earlier
or later. This is Self Clearing processs 23.9.

> Make it worse type processes:
> -----------------------------
> On an inval which is eating at the pc:
> mock up ways of making it worse.
>
> I recently ran four such drills, 3 successful and one bogged.
> The one that bogged was TOO GENERAL in its phrasing. So take the
> sharpest definition of one aspect of the inval and just do
> mockups on that one aspect at a time.

An excellent suggestion.

Improved version -

a) what should you be invalidated for

Run the next command repetitively to a win, then do command a again.

b) mockup a way to get more invalidations for that


> Experimental process:
> ---------------------
> On a solid answer to 'what was invalidated';
> What is more basic than (that)? Process what you get.
>
> Discussion:
>
> This is experimental because it is aimed at a larger context
> for "more basic" than just TIME. TIME is a serviceable
> first cut, but sooner or later, TIME is not good enough
> to get us out of here. A present event can invalidate a whole
> past pc effort in retrospect, something which was accepted
> as successful at the time. So you would be processing a
> later incident as more basic than an earlier one.

Of course "What is more basic than that" is the kind of thing
we ask ourselves when researching an area. But the answer
is a broad array of things which we then sort through for
common factors that can be handled with specific processes.
This entire write-up could be considered to be an answer to
such a question. So it is a research question rather than a
processing question.


> Discovery type process:
> -----------------------
> What inval could you have?
> What inval would hurt?
>
> Discussion:
>
> We are inviting the pc to help us find out what makes
> certain invals so destructive instead of water off
> a duck's back.

This is what I was missing. Except that "hurt" is needlessly
restimulative. We want to move the pc over to a causative
viewpoint, so the other side of "have" should be "reject".
And with that it falls nicely into the "accept/reject" style
processing from the 1950s.

a) What inval could you accept
b) What inval could you reject

This works like dynamite.

> Next
> -----
> Consulted with an old friend on this who is a Class VII.
> Here are some points which emerged from the discussion.
>
> INVAL and EVAL are both excellent processing targets.
> Each is no doubt a major grade.
>
> EVAL attempts to change you whereas INVAL attempts to
> negate you.

This is a key point.

> One thing which makes INVAL heavy is the intention behind it.
> What makes INVAL stick is the germ of truth it contains.
>
> Starting on this research began to raise me on this point.
> The first thing I noticed, not necessarily the first thing
> which occurred, is a rehab of my ability to deliver a
> devastating inval to another. I was good as this as a kid
> and later buried it. Refer to our discussions of OT not
> necessarily a theety weety.

Ah. We need to confront the overt side as well. But if we
concentrate exclusively on the invals the pc has delivered,
we will spin him, so we need to balance this with the positive.

a) What have you validated
b) What have you invalidated

Maybe run on 5 flows (what have you validated in another, etc.).

(I changed real names to Xxx and Yyy in the following)

> Also recently had the experience of blanking out on the
> existence of a chess piece even though I looked right at
> it before making my (wrong) move. This was a win, because
> I did not know what Xxx was talking about when he would say
> that this happened to him.
>
> One line of questioning this suggests is self-inval out of
> sympathy (my behavior). Another (Xxx's behavior) is self-inval
> to get others off your back = a sort of Service Fac, with
> a wrongness instead of a rightness. Now actually in the world
> with its tone level, a disability is if anything more accepted
> than an ability. So there is a whole raft of stuff the guy is
> wearing just to keep others off him. Obvious example: my friend
> Yyy showed me how to speak to a social worker so they will
> write you down as crazy. (Then you get your money.) Unless
> Yyy is trained and cleans up very carefully, he will end up
> with some craziness from this.

Good point. Making less of yourself as a protective mechanism.
"Don't shoot me because I'm not dangerous to you".

The protect button and protective mechanisms are a big enough
target to run them as a separate grade. But we could still
run something on avoiding inval here.

a) How could you avoid inval
b) How could you attract inval

Also:

a) How could another avoid inval
b) How could another attract inval

> On the subject of losing higher states, let me report a couple
> of facts. One, from my experience is, you cannot find something
> if you are sitting right on it. There is a Yiddish story of
> a rabbi who has lost his glasses, and by a wonderful, long,
> carefully reasoned rabbinic argument (they call this "pilpul")
> he decides they must be at the end of his nose, and indeed
> finds them there. This is a super version of cleaning a clean
> which feeds into inval. Only the rabbi's special training
> stopped him from a long downward spiral of inval.
>
> Another interesting fact: both my friend and her husband lost
> higher states attained when S&D's were ordered on everybody.

Just about everybody did. This spun in lots of people.

> This suggests to me that perhaps the safest way to approach
> inval would be to get off the cleaned cleans and the hopeless
> self-inval for wrong reasons first. Otherwise these are
> glum areas. If you were to run "Recall an inval" first on a
> pc, it would likely hit these glum areas and bog down.
>
> My friend points out:
>
> Just having a body is an inval!
>
> To which I add,
>
> Just being a thetan is an inval!
>
> (Once you are confined to one viewpoint, you might as
> well have a body!)
>
> I conclude that running INVAL and EVAL comes early in any
> attempt to rehab higher states. Otherwise the higher state
> is buffeted by waves of inval and eval.

================

This has been extremely helpful.

I'm doing a separate writeup on an inval grade (chapter)
for Self Clearing.

Best,

The Pilot
_______________________________________________

 

[Antony A Phillips]

Pilot'sPost Z33 -- Research Discussion on Dynamics

Pilot'sPost Z33


Research Discussion on Dynamics

From Post 57 - June 1999


Two interesting postings were made about the area of the
Dynamics and I thought that I might put my two cents in.

On 16 May 99, "Rogers" <[email protected]> posted on
subject "Inverted Dynamics"

> Dynamics Inverted.
>
> In the course of living, we might normally perceive the Dynamics as an
> expansion of the self outward into larger spheres. However, the numbering
> of the Dynamics actually represents the inverse of our original
> participatory sequence. In other words, one might consider they began with
> the 8th and worked down from there.
>
> 8th Dynamic Co-existence of Static
> 7th Dynamic Self (separation from Static)
> 6th Dynamic Mock-ups/Creations
> 5th Dynamic General Forms, Creations granted Life
> 4th Dynamic Particular Form of Creation granted Life
> 3rd Dynamic Larger-Group Activities
> 2nd Dynamic Interaction of Two, Smaller-Group Activities
> 1st Dynamic Interiorization, Manifestation as "one"

I prefer to think of the 4th as Society. It makes more sense
that way and it fits those few implants that were done by dynamics.

> (I don't know if Ron elaborated much on this in taped lectures, but he
> just has a couple of almost off-hand remarks on this in bulletins of
> August 1960.)

One of the big ACCs posted this year by fzba (either the 5th or
the 9th) had some discussion of inverted dynamics. But there Ron
is talking about them inverting and dropping below zero, down
through negative 1 to negative 8 at the bottom.

> This sequence "away from the Static," essentially has been covered
> before but it does have some interesting ramifications when tied into the
> Dynamics as shown. I mean to say, we are immediately faced with the concept
> that the 2nd Dynamic precedes the 1st (well, the 1st as we know it, i.e.,
> self as body, perhaps I might say, self as piece, as opposed to the real
> self, self as player, on the 7th Dynamic). Perhaps Freud caught a glimpse
> of this but was unable to properly evaluate it. There's a lot of food for
> thought and comment right there, but my immediate interest is how this
> affects the tying in of the Upper Dynamics.
>
> 8th. Co-existence of Static Knowingness
> 7th. Self (separation from Static) Games
> 6th. Mock-ups/Creations Creation
> 5th. General Forms, Creations granted Life Change
> 4th. Particular Form of Creation granted Life Reason
> 3rd. Larger-Group Activities Construction
> 2nd. Interaction of Two, Smaller-Group Activities Aesthetics
> 1st. Interiorization, Manifestation as "one" Ethics

> Okay, this is of course speculative (actually, I'm only doing this to annoy
> the Pilot... just kidding, Anjin-san) but I figure at least two of the three
> changes (only the top three have been rearranged) seem to have certain
> merit. I mean, tying Creation with the 6th seems like a "given" (to me), as
> does the connection of "separation from Static" (the 7th Dynamic self) with
> the will to play a game. Still, despite the apparent "semantic" connection
> between "Knowingness" and co-existence of static, we might consider this one
> a weak one, merely for the reason that this so-called "Knowingness" is
> really more like "Know Aboutingness." However, if we understand
> "knowingness" in the spirit of "willing to find out" (about separation and
> its ramifications) it might work beautifully. If we take the "knowingness"
> Dynamic more in the context of "curiosity" we can understand it as a
> preliminary consideration (8th) to the will to play a game as an
> "individual" (7th).

I would suggest that co-existence of static implies that there is
already separation and I would expect that mock-ups and creation
are present at that level, but no barriers and no fixed solidified
playing field (the mockup of a fixed Mest universe as distinct from
general transient mockups willfully created & discarded). Hence
my consideration that 6th dynamic is not creation in general but
only a specific creation of a playing field & barriers which are
useful for games.

> Les C. Rogers.
>
> P.S. This document needs to put on a full width screen to get the "columns"
> decent. Getting this posted just trashes my formatting. Hope it doesn't
> come out too oogly.

Your comment about "away from static" and looking at the sequencing
from static downwards got me thinking.

Often Ron talks about the dynamics proceeding upwards from 1 in
an ever widening sphere. Going from 1 up to 8, the progression
seems orderly. But that is an expansion in a game, and would
be after the fact of being human, in other words it would be
late on the chain.

So I thought about running this from the top down in an orderly
sequence.

The upper half runs fine this way. You get the idea of being a
godlike being and of having other godlike beings around (no sense
being egocentric about this). Then it seems reasonable to mockup
ideas (thought) and perhaps also identities, entities, or whatever.
And then (perhaps together with others) to mockup a physical plane
(a Mest Universe). And then to mockup lifeforms and races and so
forth.

And then comes this glaring discontinuity. Following the dynamics,
we would go - races, society, groups, family, etc. and that is
backwards. It would have to be individuals in bodies first and
then sex and family and children and then organize them into
groups and form the groups up into a society.

So the "natural" order of creation is from static down to
lifeforms, and then from the 1st dynamic up to society.

The damn things only follow in a logical pattern from 1 to 8
if you add in survival, and that means that they are late
track, and that almost certainly means that they are "implanted"
in some way or other.

The Penalty Universes follow that expanded pattern of 16
dynamics. But I had the feeling that the dynamics did not
originate from them. So it was laid in earlier, which means
prior to Home Universe. And that would make sense because
by the Home Universe era, the being is already overly concerned
with being an individual.

Theorizing now, on early track there would only be you, others,
and creations, any more convoluted groupings would be arbitraries.

Concerning the upper dynamics (9 to 16), the transition is
smoother, and yet there is not a lot of logical necessity to
the divisions. And so again these might be arbitrary from
some extremely high viewpoint.

Considering later track, a common trick is to divide something
into fractions set in opposition to each other so that the
being weakens himself and becomes less. Instead of being
Holy and Intelligent and Strong all at once, one has these
as individual goals and the Intelligent guys fight the Holy
guys and the Strong guys, etc.

The implications of this are that Aesthetics and Ethics were
divided out from each other and divided out from Reason
and from the Constructive impulse and these things were to
some slight degree set into opposition against each other,
and so one has to work to hold them concurrently.

So I thought of "how would an ethical person oppose an
aesthetic person" and the stuff just started pouring out,
beautiful prostitutes arguing with moralists and so forth.

I considered each of the 4, ethics, aesthetics, construction,
and reason and any pair of them will turn up locks and charge
like blue blazes. But I have the feeling that I'm not touching
anything more than the surface of something that runs
terrifically deep and whose basics are probably out of the
band of accessibility, at least for now.

And I hardly dare consider ethics and creation as oppterms.
It feels like the entirety of the Mest universe and its
persistent solidity is a lock on that. Is it ethical to
mock it up or is it not ethical to mock it up and the whole
thing hangs there persistent on the maybe between those two.

So much was shaken loose on this that I feel that I should
put it aside for the moment and let the dust settle.

====================
_______________________________________________

 

[Div6]

Inverted dynamics as a concept were introduced in the First ACC, and commented upon in quite a few lectures thereafter, and were also mentioned in CoHA. I think most people's concept of "the dynamics" comes from Fundamentals of Thought, which was intended as an introductory text.

Going "top down", there is also some alignment with the Know to Mystery Scale, and the First, Second, Third and Fourth postulate series coverd in the 4th ACC.
Know (co-existence of being)
Not-Know (choosing an area of 'no-responsibility' for randomity, or to have a game, or both.)
Know-about - playing a game, having opponents, etc
Look, etc.

Filbert also discusses "filters" (dichotomies) installed in the next universe out that are fixed viewpoints that color a beings existence in the physical universe. The 3 are "love/hate", "survive/succumb" and "good/evil".

The purpose of these 3 theta traps was to eliminate the competition and to render the recipient blind and ineffective as an operating thetan. One of these three, at the least, got laid into them prior to any involvement in this physical universe, and it gets reinforced once they are in it, and it accumulates engrams locks and secondaries (not to mention GPMs, Reliable items and Service facsimiles) very rapidly. If you would talk to people about these three, you will find that although each of the three can be restimulated up to being important, only one do they care about and perform upon. Thus society is composed of (1) ethical moralists, (2 calculating opportunists, and (3) romantics, as the result of this implanting. Different dichotomies prevail over the entire culture of earth at different decades in history. The good/evil one has dominated the majority of history, where every 100, and every thousand, years people pair up on sides on this one and fight it out.

(from http://www.american-buddha.com/cult..._and_Experience_Beyond_the_Physical_Universe_)

 

[DagwoodGum]

Then why didn't knowing these things restore us to our previous Herculean states of being that we'd come to expect?

 

[Antony A Phillips]

Pilot'sPost Z34 -- Admin Scale

.
Pilot'sPost Z34


Admin Scale

From Posts 34 and 35 (August 1998)

On 23 July 98, "chas" <[email protected]> posted on
subject "Admin Scale"

> I was looking at the Admin Scale and liked the idea it puts forth but was
> not happy with the order. I have re-worked the scale and feel it is much
> easier to apply. I made no changes to the scale other then moving two items,
> which changes the importance of the items. Does the change make sense to
> anyone else?
> Charles
>
> Current scale taken from HCO PL 6 Dec 70 "Third Dynamic De-Aberration" is:
>
> Admin scale
>
> Goals
> Purposes
> Policy
> Plan
> Program
> Project
> Orders
> Ideal Scene
> Statistics
> Valuable Final Products
>
> Change this to:
>
> Admin scale
>
> Goals
> Purposes
> Policy
> Plan
> Program
> Project
> Orders
> Products
> Statistics
> Ideal Scene
>
>
> The ideal scene is senior to the product but you need to understand
> everything listed above ideal scene before you are able to establish what
> the ideal scene should be. Everything is set up so that the goals can be
> achieved. Each relates to each other and all must relate to reaching the
> goals. So the goals are senior. But the ideal scene needs to be correctly
> stated for any proper evaluation to take place to correct negative
> situations or enhance positive ones. So a correctly stated ideal scene is
> just as important as the goals but you are not able to state the ideal scene
> until you have everything in place above it. So you start with the goals and
> you end with an ideal scene. The right goals for an activity should make the
> purpose self-evident and on down the list. So one should take the time to
> correctly state the goals for an activity. The ideal scene is the result
> from correctly stating all the areas of the scale above it. It is then that
> a departure from the ideal scene begins an evaluation into a situation.
> Product has tended to be overstated; it is not the end all but rather a
> measuring stick with regards to the set goals. The proper product will help
> achieve the goals. So the product must be properly stated and must fit in
> relation to the rest of the scale. But the quantity and quality of the
> product comes under the next two items on the list; statistics and ideal
> scene. So the bookends of the Admin Scale are Goals at one end and Ideal
> Scene at the other end. So the whole intent and purpose of this scale is to
> create and establish an ideal scene which is set from all the items above
> it. This ideal scene will in turn give a visible means in which to reach the
> stated goals. CML; 23 July 1998.

To which [email protected] (Ralph Hilton) replied

# No. I would agree with the original.
# The ideal scene has to be established before one can correctly
# establish a statistic. Pursuing statistics and VFPs in a way that
# places lesser importance on the ideal scene is a major flaw in
# scn management. The overall statistic is senior to individual VFPs.
# Data Series 13 goes into depth about the relationship between the
# Ideal Scene and the Statistic. I would consider the Data Series the
# senior technology relating to administration. The rest has to be
# evaluated with a full understanding of that.

I think that Ralph is correct in his analysis as far as it goes,
but there is a basic flaw in the entire scale.

Note that this scale is very MEST mechanical. This tends to be
the case with many of the later policies. The brilliance of the
1952-4 period is that things were evaluated from a Theta perspective
that seems to have been lost in the later days.

I don't want to put down the data series here, it is among the
best of the later policy series. But it needs to be reviewed
the way that Ron used to look at things when he was at his peak.
In other words, lets examine it from the perspective of a free
being who can make his postulates stick but who has gotten fooled
into trapping himself and tangled his postulates up into a knot.

Part of making a postulate stick is to visualize the desired
result. That is visualizing the ideal scene. This is senior
to policies.

Your postulate is not to have the policies followed, but simply
to achieve the goal by whatever means and to do that you visualize
what you want. Then you think up policies which might help
you get there.

The progression from policies down to orders is reasonable
because you need agreement to get the orders done. So you lay
things out in a sensible manner. But that entire section of
the scale is really an ARC step - agreement, duplication, an
understanding of what is to be done, etc. It deteriorates
into control when ARC and understanding fail, and with that
you begin sliding down the prehave scale (O/W a limited theory)
and will eventually end up with overts and dramatizations
unless you keep rekindling the theta at the top.

Postulates and live communication have to be senior to policy
or we might as well all sign up to become MEST right now.

So we have Goals and Purposes. Then we have the visualization
of an ideal scene. Then we have postulates, ARC, and understanding.
That lets us agree on some policies, plans, etc. to get the job
done. But policy is only a guiding thing (old definition) and
so we use it when it helps but bypass it whenever it is in
the way. Our overriding judgements should be based on the
goal we are working towards, the ideal scene we are postulating,
and of course ARCU which must be senior to policy or else
people will use the policies against each other as the CofS
has amply demonstrated.

That leaves Products and Statistics. Faced with the choice
between following a plan or policy and violating it to get
a valuable final product, the correct decision is generally
to violate policy to get the product out. But you can't even
evaluate if its a valuable product without an ideal scene to
judge it against and you can't force products while creating
ARC breaks in all directions or you end up with an ARC broken
field. So the products have to be above policy but below
ARCU.

You don't have to have a policy to get a product. You could
get a valuable product simply by postulates and live communication.
But when you can't make it with a simple wave of the hand,
then you use policies and plans and so forth as a crutch so
that you can do something step by step and still make it.

The statistics only exist in the context of the ideal scene
and furthermore are low level MEST quantifications. If you're
upscale, you can look at a product directly and see its value,
but if you have to depend on bean counting, then you are
trusting that the policies, plans, and so forth have given
you the right beans to count.

So you violate policy to get a real product that can be
percieved as valuable in terms of the goals, postulates,
and so forth. But you would not violate policy to get
some number to look good. So that puts stats at the bottom
of this hierarchy. For example, you would violate policy
to get somebody trained through class 4, but you wouldn't
violate it to get the gross income up or raise the letters
out stat. Unless of course your goal is to make money and
the hell with the tech.

Of course the statistics should reflect the valuable final
products. But that is based on the hope that the accumulation
of individual efforts will add up to achieving the products
and ideal scene. That hope depends on the policies and
orders being correct and therefore cannot override them.

In summary, my revision of the admin scale would be
as follows:

Goals
Purposes
Ideal Scene
Postulates
ARCU
Valuable Final Products
Policy
Plan
Program
Project
Orders
Statistics

Note that although its unpopular, you can make postulates
out of agreement. But if you make policies that drive the
staff out of ARC, your staff will end up as a pack of rabid
critics, as we have seen demonstrated for us by the CofS.

==============

From Post 35:

On 16 Aug 98, LaMont Johnson <[email protected]> responded on
subject "Super Scio Tech - About The Admin Scale"

> Friends,
>
> I've kept my piece for quite a while and have simply observed the
> overhaul that is appearing on these pages.
>
> I am quite keen on seeing to it that the technology of LRH be brought
> forward such that those who might benefit from proper application do so.

I agree. I am quite supportive of retaining the tech that already
exists, making it easily available (I encourage FZ Bible etc.),
keeping it in use, and acknowledging LRH for the fantastic work that
he did.

I also feel that much of the tech from the 1950s is not used and
needs to be restored and revitalized.

I also feel that the research line is incomplete and that much more
work is needed. This work only gets done by encouraging free
thought and continually questioning everything. If a datum is
correct it should be able to stand on its own merits rather than
being held up by the support of an authority. Science continually
goes through this, looking for exceptions to Newton rather than
worshipping him.

I have argued before that the freezone should be safe and supportive
for standard tech as well as for alternatives and extensions.
And I have stated from the first that a reformed CofS should retain
its standard tech basis (without fighting against alternatives,
but simply delivering a product).

I think we need both.
> I have maintained my silence and "hoped for the best". Afterall, I'm not
> Hubbard, and what happens to his tech, admin and ethics systems is
> actually none of my affair.

You, I, and many others all devoted tremendous amounts of time and
efforts to this, so we do have a part in it, it IS our affair.

> Having said that -
>
> DSEC, FEBC and the Org Board are management tools. Yes, they may stem
> from a philosophic viewpoint, but a guy on the other side of L-12, OT
> VII the hard way, who has done those administrative trainings (like me,
> for example) doesn't look to kindly at revisions of the revisions.

There must be something wrong in policy or the org would have
straightened itself out long since.

There are many conflicts with the basics that Ron outlined back
in the 1950s. Confidentiality is one of the most flagrant
examples (he says again and again that making the tech confidential
is suppressive).

I think that the tech is only incomplete, but the policy has
some fatal flaws.

For example, the org is statted on its gross income and the
value of services delivered. This means that if you double
the prices and only deliver half the service, you will be
upstat. This is not to say that the org shouldn't make money,
but it should not be the senior importance. If money is
the number one factor ... well, you can see the results.

And yet there is a lot that is correct and valuable even in
the admin tech. So it would be a waste to just toss it.

I think that the data series and admin scale are especially
good which is why they are worth the time. But if these
are unflawed, then why are things so bad in the CofS?

Policy is treated as senior. And yet we know that Ron previously
said to hell with the policy when it gets in our way. Doesn't
that indicate that there are things which should be above
policy on the admin scale? If the scale was right, you would
just point to it and say "This is why I violated policy in
this case" and the ethics officer would pat you on the head
and say "Good boy".

You of all people have suffered especially from the blind
fanaticism that is currently being encouraged by the SO.
I would think that you would want to look the policy over
and try to debug it and with your extensive training on
policy I would think that you are particularly well prepared
to do that.

> ARCU is ***not*** senior to KRCP. Never was, never will be.
>
> 1. ARC leads to cohesion. Total ARC brings about as-is-ness.
>
> 2. KRC leads to causation. Total KRC is serenity (of beingness).

Of course. I put KRC items like mocking up an ideal scene
and making postulates above ARC. But for policy you need
agreement or else it is so much toilet paper and all you get is
covert non-compliance.

> I know strong minds have worked this Admin Scale up and down to come to
> these revisions, and my bringing up the two items above sounds violently
> like the caustic criminality that gets tossed around by the xhurch mgmt.
>
> But you don't say, "Nice Bull"...you either clobber the s.o.b. with a
> hickory 2x4, or you run like hell, while pondering how you got into that
> bullpen in the first place.

Ideal scene - to still be alive tomorrow. Postulate (which is
a doingness) - to run like hell. Policy and orders don't come into
it, they might even have ordered you to get in there with the
bull but it violates your ideal scene so you run like hell anyway.

> Some pundit will say, "Well, with a revised admin scale..."

Exactly. Better to violate the policy or even (horrors) create
an ARCX rather than getting trapped into a very non-ideal
scene such as bleeding on the ground after being smashed by
the bull.

Then again, if you're really good you might calm the bull down
and handle it with the ARC of "Nice bully". If you can manage
that, then you do, but the judgement call is on what scene
you can postulate and create.

You mustn't be afraid of ARCXing people. If you make ARC the
senior datum you will end up promoting the nicest guy instead
of the effective one. But you must never operate on a basis
of constantly creating ARC breaks. So the policies must not
have ARC breaks built into them.

Basically you work to maximize ARC within the parameters of
what you are trying to accomplish. Sometimes you do have to
ARC break somebody, but you never do that if there is an
alternative that maintains ARC while still achieving the goal.

So the revised scale encourages judgement. Consult the ideal
scene first, then see if you can do it with ARC, and only
then worry about policy (if you have any time left).

> Love,
>
> LaMont Johnson

ARC,

The Pilot
**

 

[Antony A Phillips]

Pilot'sPost Z35 --Improved Black and White.

.

Pilot'sPost Z35

Improved Black and White. A Healing Process.

From Post 30 (April 1998)


This is a nice variation that was figured out by an old time
Class 8 who passed it on to me.

According to the PDC lectures, you can turn off a somatic
by turning the area white.

I have had success with this on rare occasions, but usually
you can't get into the area or get it to turn white properly.
Putting in a true flow of white energy feels significantly
different than simply imagining the area white. It has a
warm and comfortable feeling to it and that is what really
aids healing.

The improvement consists of mocking up the body in front of
you and then flowing white into the area and flowing black
out of the area alternately until you have control over
the area. Then reach into the real body and turn the area
white.

This does seem to work to let you successfully reach into
the area and turn it white.

I played with this a bit and also bounced it off of another
friend (a Class 6 this time). He wanted to try it as an
assist. After a short while doing it on the mock up, he
said it felt like the right point to shift over to the real
body, but he wanted to continue doing the inflow and outflow.

So I went along with this and he observed that it turned
on a bit of a somatic to put black into the body and outflow
it. So I varied the command to "now let any blackness that
is there flow out and disperse into space". This worked
really well, in fact spectacularly.

Pushing in white energy brings black energy into view,
and then you outflow it (without putting any black energy
in) and then you push in more white etc. until the black
stops appearing. Then you can really get white energy
into the area that really feels like warm energy and that
seems to have a strong healing effect.

My friend felt that we had finally mastered the Chi force
(life energy, I'm not sure about the spelling) that is
talked about in some eastern practices.

So the full drill is:

1. mockup a copy of your body in front of you (with its
back to you seems best).

2. Push white energy into the center of the area that
needs to be handled, and have the energy spread out to
encompass the full area, and along nerve channels as
well if it seems to indicate (on a gradient if necessary,
doing more on subsequent commands), alternated with
flowing black out of the area (its ok to put black there
to outflow while running on the mockup).

Continue step 2 until your attention is drawn to the
real body or you suddenly feel you are doing it on the
real body or any win that leaves you feeling like it
is time to handle the real body.

3. Push white energy (as above) into the real body,
alternated with having any black energy that is there
or appears there flow out and disperse into space
(but don't put any black energy into the body).

4. Once no more black is appearing, push in some more
white energy and leave it there with the postulate
for the body to heal.

This seems like a powerful healing process.

Then it occurred to me that it could be done on an area
or a group. So I drilled with a mockup of the LA complex
for a bit and then got the idea that I was looking down
at the real thing and filling it with white and letting
any blackness flow off. That was really interesting and
felt very good indeed. There were waves of blackness
coming out of the ASHO basement, but the AO seemed almost
clean. When I tried this on Helmet [?Hemet] I honestly expected
that Gold would be an isolated bright spot, but everything
there was like the bottom of the La Brea tarpits.

On this one I honestly can't say whether or not I was
just running my own charge or whether the insanity there
has maybe gone down by a notch, but it was fun and felt good.

Affinity,

The Pilot
_______________________________________________

 

[RogerB]

Re: Pilot'sPost Z35 --Improved Black and White.

.

Pilot'sPost Z35

Improved Black and White. A Healing Process.

From Post 30 (April 1998)


This is a nice variation that was figured out by an old time
Class 8 who passed it on to me.

According to the PDC lectures, you can turn off a somatic
by turning the area white.

I have had success with this on rare occasions, but usually
you can't get into the area or get it to turn white properly.
Putting in a true flow of white energy feels significantly
different than simply imagining the area white. It has a
warm and comfortable feeling to it and that is what really
aids healing.

The improvement consists of mocking up the body in front of
you and then flowing white into the area and flowing black
out of the area alternately until you have control over
the area. Then reach into the real body and turn the area
white.

This does seem to work to let you successfully reach into
the area and turn it white.

I played with this a bit and also bounced it off of another
friend (a Class 6 this time). He wanted to try it as an
assist. After a short while doing it on the mock up, he
said it felt like the right point to shift over to the real
body, but he wanted to continue doing the inflow and outflow.

So I went along with this and he observed that it turned
on a bit of a somatic to put black into the body and outflow
it. So I varied the command to "now let any blackness that
is there flow out and disperse into space". This worked
really well, in fact spectacularly.

Pushing in white energy brings black energy into view,
and then you outflow it (without putting any black energy
in) and then you push in more white etc. until the black
stops appearing. Then you can really get white energy
into the area that really feels like warm energy and that
seems to have a strong healing effect.

My friend felt that we had finally mastered the Chi force
(life energy, I'm not sure about the spelling) that is
talked about in some eastern practices.

So the full drill is:

1. mockup a copy of your body in front of you (with its
back to you seems best).

2. Push white energy into the center of the area that
needs to be handled, and have the energy spread out to
encompass the full area, and along nerve channels as
well if it seems to indicate (on a gradient if necessary,
doing more on subsequent commands), alternated with
flowing black out of the area (its ok to put black there
to outflow while running on the mockup).

Continue step 2 until your attention is drawn to the
real body or you suddenly feel you are doing it on the
real body or any win that leaves you feeling like it
is time to handle the real body.

3. Push white energy (as above) into the real body,
alternated with having any black energy that is there
or appears there flow out and disperse into space
(but don't put any black energy into the body).

4. Once no more black is appearing, push in some more
white energy and leave it there with the postulate
for the body to heal.

This seems like a powerful healing process.

Then it occurred to me that it could be done on an area
or a group. So I drilled with a mockup of the LA complex
for a bit and then got the idea that I was looking down
at the real thing and filling it with white and letting
any blackness flow off. That was really interesting and
felt very good indeed. There were waves of blackness
coming out of the ASHO basement, but the AO seemed almost
clean. When I tried this on Helmet [?Hemet] I honestly expected
that Gold would be an isolated bright spot, but everything
there was like the bottom of the La Brea tarpits.

On this one I honestly can't say whether or not I was
just running my own charge or whether the insanity there
has maybe gone down by a notch, but it was fun and felt good.

Affinity,

The Pilot
_______________________________________________

Thanks for this, Ant.

It is 50+ years since I looked at this and the related processes from 8-80, 8-8008 and CHA.

And in reading these first paragraphs caused me to recall those old days and the difficulty I had in running this and related processes. It also sparked the cognition for me on WHY and how come I had difficulty and failure with the process.

The process command is "Turn it white."

I have just realized I failed to carry out the command correctly . . . I did NOT turn the area white but instead superimposed whiteness on the area.

My cognition this morning is that, that action of superimposing the additive of "white" ON the area is, of course, an additive that only compounded the problem situation.

As a result of the above I then actually practiced truly turning an area of my body (my prostate) white . . . that resulted in an amazing change of condition and benefit.

The Pilot is also correct in that it is better to "allow the blackness to flow out and dissipate" . . . though as I continued to practice this process, I found it beneficial to determine (as in intend) the blackness to flow out, dissipate and restore to free Life-Force ("Theta'). This as against doing the old "turn it black" trick.

Roger

 

[Leon]

Good one, Rog.

And Ant too.

 

[Antony A Phillips]

Re: The Pilot, Excerpts from his Writings - sort of result

A few days ago I checked this thread I started here on 23rd July 2012 and got the following statistics:
There have been 42 posts in all.
I had posted 21 reposts of the Pilot.
Which means there were 21 comments, a few by myself. And of those comments very few could be regarded as belligerent or destructive.
There was, a few days ago when I looked, 8,654 views (presumably what people call "hits")
That seems to give 412.0952380952381 average views per repost; so lets say 400.

We don't know how many looked more than once at the same repost, or how many got here "by accident", so lets say on average each post was viewed about 100 times by different people.

I consider that not bad, in fact satisfactory. I am not aiming to get into the Guinness Book of Records. I am aiming to help people in a small way, and to a minor degree disabuse the writing off (discarding) of all the Pilot did because "he committed suicide", or "he self audited".

I also have an of understanding of the effect scale, and the idea of doing things by gradients.

However I don't have any objection to more people looking - so you are welcome to tell any receptive friends of yours about it.

All best wishes,

Ant

Antony Phillips.
www.antology.info
[email protected]
(+45) 45 88 88 69
Admin to SelfClearing2004,
SuperScio, Cosmic History
mailing lists
Jernbanevej 3f 4th
DK 2800 Lyngby

 

[RogerB]

I think it is better than "satisfactory," Ant.

I think it is a job well done. You see, you helped a number of people with this thread and I know that is your underlying intent.

So it is a job well done and mission accomplished.

I've known of you and your work for a number of years, and self aggrandizement or the effort to be noticed or play weird "I am the source of something" games is not you.

So thank you for all you've done for the Exie community. I place your achievements up with Mark Jones and Hank Levin (to name a select few).

Roger

 

[Antony A Phillips]

Pilot'sPost Z36 - Ethics and Conditions

.
Pilot'sPost Z36


Ethics and Conditions
There was no need for ethics conditions before quickie grades

From Post 41 – November 1998

"alan c. walter" <[email protected]> has been putting
out some excellent technical posts recently.

On 2 Nov 98, he responded to Heidrun's followup to his
earlier post called "Process Basics", and I wanted to
address a segment of that.

> Heidrun Beer wrote:
>
> > However what it did not contain was any incomplete or never
> > applied ETHICS CONDITIONS.
>
> Strange - before the quickie grades came in there was no real need for ETHICS
> CONDITIONS.
>
> They just naturally went in.

This is absolutely correct. The ethics conditions were not
present in early Scientology and they were not necessary to
achieving case gain.

The conditions from non-existence upwards are a management
system. They are useful for operating in an area. But
they have nothing whatsoever to do with ethics.

These upper condition formulas are tech for improving
flows. They don't include any consideration of the ethical
questions of which flows should be improved nor do they
include anything which increases one's responsibility.

One does not become more ethical by getting the stats up.
However one can gain prosperity by using these formulas.
So let us not throw them away. But calling them ethics is
a red herring.

The lower conditions are a theta trap.

They stick one to the organization. They ask for propitiation
and responsibility as blame rather than true responsibility and
contemplation of optimum survival. They push one off of
infinity valued logic and cast things into a good/evil two
valued logic system.

Alan is correct in observing that these were put in to
stifle protest at a time when the organization was delivering
an overt product.

The keynote of the old theta traps was that they used
the thetan's own energy against him. Like a Chinese finger
trap, the harder you struggle, the tighter you are held.

With ethics as it is currently set up in Scientology, the
more you try to put your ethics in, the more you restrain
yourself. But greater responsibility goes hand in hand
with less restraint and more action. So it is a reverse process.

Let us say that one sees some terrible out-points in the
organization. The direction of greater responsibility
would be to try and do something about those things.
Handling these might require violating some policy or
breaking some agreements. The doubt formula is a way
to get the individual to accept these things as being
for the greater good and swallow his objections. And
so he operates less and takes less responsibility.

A correct ethical action would be considering what you
could do in the future to bring about a more optimum
condition rather than propitiating for what bad thing
you may have done in the past.

If you are going to run O/W, then you run O/W as a
process with a view towards bringing about an as-isness.
This sets the person free of his guilt and, because
a being is basically good, will show an increase in
his future ethics and responsibility.

A reverse process would be to restimulate O/W that
is late on the chain without going earlier and bringing
any basics into view. That would actually make grade 2
more solid. Imagine running general O/W or even just
a withhold rudiment and every time the PC brings up an
overt, you end session and send him out to make amends.

The overts will stick and go solid instead of erasing.

Real ethics is how could you help others and working
to embrace other's viewpoints as well as your own.

Reverse ethics is moralizing and make wrongs.

Real ethics is do unto others and love thy neighbor
as thyself.

Reverse ethics is stop others from fornication and never
criticize the church.

The being's own high sense of ethics has been used again
and again to entrap him. I prefer not to contribute
to that motion.

Hope this helps,

The Pilot
_______________________________________________

 

[Leon]

Well. This post by Pilot just reinforces the basic principle of Scio - going way way back to about 1951 lectures (or thereabouts) that it is a complete waste of time trying to sort the guy out on the third dynamic when you have not sorted him out on the first. This is where the old story of El Caney and the Rough Riders came from with Hubbard. Fixing the third dynamic is a fine thing to do but you can't start off on that - you need to fix the first dynamic first.

And the conditions formulas - well unfortunately Hubbard mashed the dynamics up horribly on them. The lower ones are all first dynamic and then before getting the guy fixed on them he branches over into stats and crap like that, and then the next guy tries to do the lower formulas on the third dynamic and you have the horrible mess that these formulas are in scio.

BUT. DONE RIGHT, first handling the first dynamic fully before going on to other dynamics, they are a work of genius. Absolute genius. And in fact once you get the first D sorted the other tend to line up fairly easily anyway all by themselves.

And the sort-out on this was done by Mary Freeman - as have have often stated on this board - and whenever and wherever it gets applied that was things just get better and better. The formulas are just fine. Nothing much wrong with them. You just got to apply them properly.

 

[Hatshepsut]

Re: Pilot'sPost Z36 - Ethics and Conditions

.
Pilot'sPost Z36
.

Real ethics is how could you help others and working
to embrace other's viewpoints as well as your own.

Reverse ethics is moralizing and make wrongs.

Real ethics is do unto others and love thy neighbor
as thyself.

Reverse ethics is stop others from fornication and never
criticize the church.

The being's own high sense of ethics has been used again
and again to entrap him. I prefer not to contribute
to that motion.
Hope this helps,

The Pilot
_______________________________________________

Boy, that is a lollapalooza there. (bolded)

I have had many shifts in viewpoint since reading The Pilot. I have also written many replies to the posts submitted by here by Ant. I usually get too in depth and just delete them because it is a dreary task to edit away from my desktop as I am out on the property with the animals and an Evo pad only to type on.

This lifetime I've had two separate run-ins with long term whole track 'enemies'. Enemies in that the intention was for them to win and me to lose or vice versa. These postulates being sourded from outside the matrix itself and floating. Looking through the filter of all my losses and charge I'd consider these beings behind the veil of physicality of the opposition to be evil .... every time there is a grand collision there is a sort of a sandwich made of these fighting beings . Of course one side makes the other's efforts wrong, strips the value from the other's purposes, and viciously invalidates and suppresses the elan vital and spirit of the other.

The being's own high sense of ethics has been used again.
and again to entrap him

One ends up hating oneself for being bespeckled with the presence of the despised. The conflict prevents most achievements and any kind of admin scale is difficult to sort out. The internal battle to remain ethical and in line with the orginal purposes is almost arresting.

What is ethical or in the survival interests of the one is unethical or counter survival for the other. But now they're a unique composite. Maybe it's petty like the splitting hairs about what insider trading is or how 'wrong' you'd be for counting cards in Vegas. It is only wrong because the doer of these things will make the others too easily prone to LOSE and that wouldn't be fair or right. Spotting the stringy lines and beams we place on each other in an effort to track those competitive players going after our own weenie is interesting. This is done by us outside of time and space as we shove our pieces around. I often sense there is some sort of high game ethics between a lot of the players. But the ones who HAVE TO WIN at all costs seem like some 'old guard'. These have lost the ability to create from nothing. They cannot afford to view anything as truly ethical or not. If they lose they know they will be dominated also ( or think they will be) to the extent that they'vd tried to implant 'scripts' into others.

I attended Christmas Mass in Catholic church yesterday. I could feel the woman next to me really leaning into my space and capping me with some series of beams. These had barbed hooks like the claws on a cat. It felt erie, like I was a trapped lobster ear marked for some astral world diety...which for some strange reason presented the image of a dinosaur bird. I do appreciate the Christian mysteries but the ambience here was different. I was defiant__ it was highly unethical for another to try and envelope me and override my free will re the direction of what my future experiences would be. (This was an unusual occurence for me...someone trying to control the fate of my soul)

 

[Free Being Me]

Re: Pilot'sPost Z36 - Ethics and Conditions

>snip< I attended Christmas Mass in Catholic church yesterday. I could feel the woman next to me really leaning into my space and capping me with some series of beams. These had barbed hooks like the claws on a cat. It felt erie, like I was a trapped lobster ear marked for some astral world diety...which for some strange reason presented the image of a dinosaur bird. I do appreciate the Christian mysteries but the ambience here was different. I was defiant__ it was highly unethical for another to try and envelope me and override my free will re the direction of what my future experiences would be. (This was an unusual occurence for me...someone trying to control the fate of my soul)

Darn little ole ladies using their insidious mind control powers in church

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Posted by Hatshepsut

snipped

I attended Christmas Mass in Catholic church yesterday. I could feel the woman next to me really leaning into my space and capping me with some series of beams. These had barbed hooks like the claws on a cat. It felt erie, like I was a trapped lobster ear marked for some astral world diety...which for some strange reason presented the image of a dinosaur bird. I do appreciate the Christian mysteries but the ambience here was different. I was defiant__ it was highly unethical for another to try and envelope me and override my free will re the direction of what my future experiences would be. (This was an unusual occurence for me...someone trying to control the fate of my soul)

Oooh yeah, it certainly does sound as if someone was trying to control the fate of your soul ... or, someone may have just spiked your Christmas pudding with a few buckets of hallucinogenic drugs (you get that at this time of the year).

 

[RogerB]

Yes, the Pilot is on the ball here. Particularly in this paragraph:

With ethics as it is currently set up in Scientology, the
more you try to put your ethics in, the more you restrain
yourself. But greater responsibility goes hand in hand
with less restraint and more action. So it is a reverse process.

In actuality, while we might have all thought "how clever of Hubbard to figure this out" . . . . the Conditions Formulas are a real cock-up . . . or, as we used to say in the military FUBAR.

Two examples:

1. As a spiritual Being, look at his Affluence Formula . . . The first step being "Economize!" Umm, well, that was good for Hubbard as he wanted to stop his minions from spending his money! But as a spiritual Being, to "economize" as the very first thing on attaining a success breakout (See Alan's Chart containing the Levels of Existence I've posted elsewhere on ESMB) or "Affluence" is to severely restrain and incapacitate yourself. The first true action on success breakout/Affluence is to find the reason for the success breakout/affluence and validate and strengthen it! Then you can get into managing the new-found "wealth," etc.
2. The other screw-up in is mis-positioning "Power" and "Power Change" . . . . he's got power change: the act of empowering another, below the condition of being in Power . . . umm, in actuality, you can't empower another until you yourself have attained Power. Alan addressed this subject of operating states and responsibility levels and placed the levels corrrectly with the Being rising up through "Success Breakout/Affluence" into Power and then on up to "Empowerment" wherein the Being can correctly do the "Power Change" thingie . . .

These are just two examples of where and how Hubbard's "ethics tech" is a screw-up designed to dominate, control and put folks DOWN.

RogerB

 

[Antony A Phillips]

Pilot'sPost Z37 - On Standard Tech, 1950s Tech, Free Tech

.
Pilot'sPost Z37


On Standard Tech, 1950s Tech, Free Tech

From Post 23 – January 1998


On 25 Jan 98, lakis agrogiannis <[email protected]>
posted on subject "To Pilot"

> Hi again!
>
> This is from Lakis. Well, I consider myself a free zoner, but I
> haven’t yet made my mind up to deviate from LRH’s standard tech. (If
> you disagree with LRH, would you like to tell me at which points?) I
> believe that he was an honest being, with the salvaging of Earth’s
> people in mind.

I am very much in agreement with the LRH of the 1950s.

In DMSMH he says to get busy and build a better bridge.

In all the courses of 1952-4, you were expected to make up your
own process commands as needed and also to self audit.

In the 3rd ACC, the ultimate rundown was SOP8-OT where you
were supposed to handle whatever else you could find that was in
the way of going OT by designing your own processes on the fly.

In the HCL lectures (1952), he defines Scientology as the study
of how to bring absolute truth into workable form and says that
any technique devised by anybody is part of Scientology if it
works to accomplish that goal.

Throughout that early period, the idea was that we had a logical
framework that allowed us to evaluate the relative truth of the
data and techniques used by other practices and that we could
therefore create workable techniques from them.

That was the true breakthrough. How to create processes. How
to mix practices successfully. Every early auditor and Ron
himself in those days would have been labeled as squirrels today.

That was the research line. But it died in the 1960s. And we
never made stable OTs (we did sometimes get sporadic OT phenomena).

I believe that it was an honest research effort. In the early
days, he talks about magic and Crowley and Krishnamurti, and
how to extract workable processes from those things and evaluate
which data were workable and which were just foolishness.

He used to say that he was only an organizer rather than an
originator of tech.

I am in agreement with this and with the basics discovered in
those days and with the entire attitude and approach which
created people who could think with the subject.

When the tech solidified in later days, we were left high and
dry with only a subset of the tech that was discovered, and
with strict and dreadful rules against altering anything, and
without the research techniques that I believe had carried
us about halfway to a total solution and simply needed to be
taken further.

Even as late as about 1965, he was saying that the rules were
only for training new students and trained auditors should use
their judgement instead (this is on an SHSBC tape called, I
think "Tech Roundup").

As to the later days, there is much good stuff, but I filter
it all through the sieve of the 1950s material and evaluate
it just as if I was pulling things out of Science of Mind or
the Tibetan materials.

So I see things like "Don't mix practices" and "Don't self audit"
and toss them because they are in total conflict with the basics.

I believe, for example, that Ron was right in 1952 when he said
that ARC = Understanding and that you study successfully by raising
ARC or handling barriers to ARC. That is a senior basic. I
evaluate later study tech on that basis. Handling an MU is smart
because the MU = out communication. Thinking that the primary
out-point is MUs and doing endless hours of tiresome and
unnecessary word clearing is an outpoint, it ignores too many
factors and will end up reducing ARC for the subject. Letting
the students talk about the tech is a plus because it raises
ARC, making them all shut up is obviously wrong. And so forth.

The 1952 attitude on implants is correct. The 1960s research
gave us some valuable implant platens, but put them in a bad
context, almost a suppressive context, by making them a big
"Why" on the case. The correct attitude is that they are motivators,
rather than major sources of aberration. Of course you want
to get the person's confront up on them and do some handling,
but if it is too charged up, you run the overt of implanting
others rather than thinking that implants are oh so important and
making the PC into a victim.

Same goes for entities, which were looked on as trivial and not
a major why on the case, but which could be handled if
necessary by what we now know of as NOTs techniques.

Basically, I disagree with LRH's later efforts to freeze the
tech into a standard.

I do waffle on the question of what were his intentions in the
later days. He really should have known better.

> I believe definitely that the church should either mend their ways
> or give it all up, and give it all up to us. In which case we must
> really act responsibly.

Truly mending their ways would mean making the tech available and
spreading it as broadly as possible without restriction. They
should be encouraging the freezone and simply being a "standard" in
the sense of a yardstick against whom others are measured.

When they train an auditor, it should be just like a university
that trains a student. The university does not then police the
student or force him to stop applying what he learned if there
is some new discovery. He paid for his course, he did it, and
he now is free to use whatever he learned in whatever manner he
sees fit, restricted only by the laws of the land (don't use
your knowledge of physics to blow up buildings) and not by
arbitraries introduced by the school that he graduated from.

A university has a right to demand certain standards of their
computer students before giving them a degree, but they do not
have the right to insist that nobody may write a program unless
this one and only university or group of universities has trained
that person. And the university does not have a right to stop
people from opening up computer schools or reading about the
pentium chip specifications.


> By the way, has it not struck you how many different "scientology
> schools of thought" we got? Suppose every thetan exercises his rights
> and develops his own, *workable* version of the tech. How would you
> like to have billions of "standard" tech, each one saying, "it works!"
> Ha-ha!

If you had real competition, maybe it really would achieve maximum
workability and a high success rate.

Those hundreds of different schools in honest competition and also
trying to learn from each other would be the fastest way to really
evolve the subject.

People would go where they made the most gains. It would tend to
be a self correcting situation.

Look at the computer industry. If IBM had owned the exclusive
right to build computers and transistors and so forth, a computer
with 1 MB of memory would still cost ten million dollars (I
remember those days, that was normal pricing when I started
programming). And the competition didn't drive IBM out of
business either, although there is much squabbling and they have
to stay on their toes.

Taking the analogy further, when IBM developed the IBM PC (a
latecomer in the micro computer market), it swept the market by
creating an open standard that anybody could follow and imitate
without license or copyright fees. They immediately became the
number one PC manufacturer and their name was a household word
even though they had to share the market with all the clone
manufacturers.

IBM got stupid and thought about all the money they had lost by
not keeping their PC standards a trade secret and licensed and
so forth. So they designed the PS/2 and made the microchannel
architecture a closed hidden standard. And with that they
almost disappeared from the PC hardware market within a year
or so. Even IBM stopped making microchannel PCs and went back
to the ISA standard even though it wasn't as good (now we have
PCI which is better than microchannel).

So I think that open competition is ideal for everybody.

If the org welcomed it and set the tech free and spread it
around and encouraged everybody else to spread it around, they
would boom despite the increased competition.
…

Best,

The Pilot

 

[RogerB]

Yes, the '50's game was much better . . . .

The above is correct. In the “old days” we were expected to think, invited to think and contribute and to be able to analyze with the basic principles being revealed to us. This, of course, led to folks coming up with all sorts of brilliant R/Ds and procedures.

Those were the days when “scientology” as a unity of like-minded discoverers was able to benefit from the multiplicity of perceptions and viewpoints we as a team held. And the endeavor was a co-creating, exchanging of ideas and advancement.

The moment LRH went onto his "I am the only one to rise above the bank" and there is "Only one source and one truth and we have it all here, now" kick; that was the point where things started south.

The truth is: the whole truth that needs be known is far bigger than one sole, individual viewpoint

Once the body of knowledge known as Scn was pulled down into as being the sourcing from one man it spiraled into nonsense and stupidity.

Roger