Updates And Notes

FreeZone America presents: ‘The Pilot’

Ref: post19.txt

Date: 9 Jan 98

subj : Super Scio Tech – Working the Self Clearing Book

WORKING WITH THE SELF CLEARING BOOK

I have been working through the self clearing book myself.

As I have said elsewhere, I myself could be thought of as somebody who has done a light and sloppy pass on the entire book and who is ready to do a second run through and make a thorough job of it.

Some beginners might actually need two times through the book to reach the point that I’m at now, but many who have gotten a lot of previous auditing or been working on their own in the freezone might reach this point fairly quickly.

So I think it is valuable to record my experiences as I push these processes to the limit.

I have been going along carefully, starting with the very first process and doing everything in a precise manner.

I have been violating what professional Scientologists would call programming of cases (or mixing practices) by also continuing to work other experimental areas occasionally, as you can see from my post on Homer’s writeup on “The Proof”.

This has not caused any trouble, but I do not do the two things at the same time. In other words, I will sit down and spend some time working the book and not fool around with other experimental things while I do that.

At this point I am up to the middle of Chapter 6.

I have run many of these processes before. This area of the book deals with recall processes or what Scientology sometimes refers to as “straightwire”. I was run on the “ARC Straightwire” expanded grade back in the 1970s. And I have run Ron’s self analysis book (which also addresses this area) more than once. In other words, I have already had tons of processing on this subject, and some of these kind of processes have even been overrun on me at various times in the past.

With one exception, every process ran again without overrun and to a new level of depth, reaching areas that had previously been unaccessible and producing big gains and cognitions.

The one exception was the “think about Matter/Energy/Space/Time” process in Chapter 4, which turned on immediate overrun phenomena (I started yawning like crazy). Not only was this originally run (to a nice win) on me when I received the straightwire grade years ago, but it is something I have done a lot since then. My theory here is that it is already down to maximum depth for my current case state and therefore overruns when I try to push it deeper.

The handling was simply to spot the first time I went release on it, which turned off the overrun feeling.

When I did section 4.2 agree/disagree, I decided that a second process would be helpful in the area and added

— 4.2.2

Pick an idea such as “The Earth is Flat” and alternately agree and disagree with it until you feel in control. Then pick another one and repeat. The ideas can be true or false or things that you are unsure of. Continue until you have real freedom of thought and can think for yourself. —-

On 5.13, I felt that a 4th command should be added to the set as follows:

d) think of a time when another taught somebody something successfully

—-

Note that both of these are enhancements rather than essentials.

I also felt that I should add a note somewhere in either Chapter 4 or at the beginning of Chapter 6 to the effect that one should concentrate on spotting precise moments when running recalls instead of simply having vague ideas. This is another one of these “everybody knows” type assumptions that some beginners might miss.

—–

I’m actually surprised at how far some of these processes are going.

I am certain at this point that the overrun phenomena is nothing more than trying to take one area too deep while too many other areas remain unhandled at that level of depth.

You need to dust off areas and take your wins and move on to other things. But you can keep coming back and pushing these things further. And that means that the theoretical super gains can be attained eventually.

Total recall is light years beyond a low level straighwire recall release as achieved in ordinary Scientology grades, but deeper second and third stage releases on the same processes keep carrying you forward towards that potential end product.

Looking towards a bright future,

The Pilot


FreeZone America presents: ‘The Pilot’

Ref: post19.txt

Date: 9 Jan 98

subj : SUPER SCIO TECH – ANSWERS ABOUT THE BOOK

ANSWERS ABOUT THE BOOK

Some questions have come up that I thought I should answer.

On 22 Dec 97, “Rob” asked on subject ” THE PILOT ”

> First of all, I’d like to thank you for all your work (both technical and
> towards reform) that has had a great impact on myself and many others. I’ve
> been a Scientologist for several years, but found the tech out of reach due
> to prices. I’m very excited about your new book, but not being trained, I
> had a few questions for you. So here it goes:
>
> 1). Is it possible to over run objective processes (like the wall drill) by
> doing it too many times (seperate sessions)?

It is possible to overrun an objective by running it too long in one sitting. One might then feel overrun when one tries it again.

If you do feel overrun when you start an objective drill, the best bet is to rehab the win either by simply spotting that you are overrunning or by counting how many times you have gone release on it and then leaving that one alone for the time being.

But it probably will run again with further benefit at a later date.

If you work any one technique too much to the exclusion of all others, you will eventually have trouble because of things that the technique is not addressing. But it is hard to overrun objectives.

> 2). Is there any “non interference zone” in your new clearing book
> that one could run into problems by doing a process at a bad time?

I believe that the CofS non-interference zone was an artifact of grinding away too long at implant platens.

The original clearing course was to be done ten time through the materials. Early CC students often spent a year at it. Often they had only had a few dozen hours of other auditing and very little case handling before they did this.

By this point they might well have been running items out of entities because their own had erased long since and therefore they needed to get onto some kind of entity handling level such as OT 3 without any further distractions.

The self clearing book takes a light approach rather than a grinding one and expects that you will push through to much deeper levels on a second pass rather than trying to grind away at any one area early on.

After a first pass, you should have a large array of techniques

Also, the CofS has a tendency to insist on running particular processes and often creates trouble by doing unnecessary actions. Pushing this into the middle of a series of OT levels would give trouble. But with the light self clearing approach, one would not try to force a process that wasn’t running.

> 3). When performing a solo process, would you say the command out loud,
> silently to yourself, or is that irrelevent as long as you understand and
> follow the command? Also, is the “ack” that follows a command dropped in
> solo?

In professional processing, the processor must be careful to deliver the command, get a response, and acknowledge it and this communication cycle is very critical to getting good results.

It is hard to mess this up in solo auditing because you do not have to solve the problem of relaying things between two different people.

The general rule of thumb is that one does what feels comfortable while being sure to get the command done and continue moving forward.

When checking questions on an e-meter, one needs to think them precisely to get a proper reaction and some people like to say them out loud for this reason although it is really unnecessary. There is no other reason for saying the commands out loud. I expect that most people will be doing the book without using a meter. Professionals who are running it on themselves will know when to do things in a formal manner.

With objective drills, it is generally best simply to do the drill without continually stating the command to yourself. In other words, you might simply spot precise points in the room rather than saying to yourself “spot a point”, then spotting it, then saying “thank you”, then saying “spot a point” and so forth.

On subjective processes, you can often just take each command from the page and do it, but sometimes it helps to think the command to yourself. Here you do what feels necessary to get your attention on the command and do it and you do what feels comfortable to you. Note that Ron’s Self Analysis book just has the reader do the commands without any formal procedure.

For acknowledgments, there is a bit of recognizing that you have

People who are trained professionally often like to precisely shift back and forth between their auditor and PC hats because they have drilled the auditor hat so intensively and may run deeper as a result. This could include formal statement of commands and acknowledgments. Trained people should do this if it seems more comfortable.

Eventually the formalities become nothing more than a distraction and one simply does the commands.

To some degree formal procedure will help with the more difficult processes initially but I did not want to distract beginners with learning formalities that they would discard eventually anyway.

As a result, beginners might skip some processes as too difficult that they might have been able to run with a lot of formal training, but they will pick those up on a second pass.

> 4). While on a subjective process, if an answer to one of the commands just
> doesn’t come to me, how long should I spend searching for it. Should I skip
> it and come back to it if nothing comes to mind or stick with it until
> something does?

It depends whether the process has started running or not.

If you had some answers, it shows that you can answer the question. As the process begins to work, you might then bump into some charge or difficulty and it is a mistake to drop it at that point.

What sometimes happens is that you find some easy surface

I would even sleep on it and check again in the morning before abandoning something as unrunable if it had shown signs of starting to run. The potential gains from confronting something that had been out of reach is worth the trouble.

But all this only applies if it has started running and is not overrunning.

Overrun is discussed in Chapter 2 so that one can learn about it before doing any subjective processes. That can also make it very hard to answer a question, but it will have run well with real answers and real benefit first.

How hard to push at a process that hasn’t started running yet is a matter of judgment. If it is part of a set of related processes and one of them has already run well, you might keep on a bit longer. If it is an area of high interest, you might keep on a bit longer. If you were not feeling your best before starting, you might try again when you are feeling a bit better.

Also, sometimes if you have just had a really big win, the next process might briefly not be of interest because you are still feeling especially good from the earlier one.

But aside from these factors, making a good try for a few minutes should be long enough on a process that isn’t running yet.

You can go back and run something that you skipped if your attention keeps going back to it.

Eventually you will get a feel for when you are shying away from something that could be run with tremendous benefit versus trying a command that simply doesn’t have anything accessible at the moment.

> My apologies if these questions seem very basic…but I didn’t have a half
> million laying around to find anything out in the CofS.

These were excellent questions which I am sure will be of help to others. This was the exact kind of thing I was worried about having missed because I would take certain things for granted.

> If you ever have a moment of doubt
> about the impact you’re having, I just want you to know that
> what you are doing is giving a chance to many (the majority) to go free.
> You have my vote for president :-)

This is encouraging. And yes, I do have moments of doubt. I believe that the book will give you everything the modern CofS could and more besides, but the actual testing is just as shallow as Hubbard’s work was.

For me, the true research run is now, with honest feedback from people as they work through the book.

Since the money motivation and self righteousness are not a part of it, and since there is no arm twisting or forcing square pegs into round holes, I think that we will really find out for the first time how far one can go with these processes.

> Please keep up the good work…
>
> MUCH LOVE (and I don’t mean that half heartedly), Rob

Yes I plan to. There is much more to be learned.

———-

On 19 Dec 97, Jim Fuller posted on subject “pilot self clearing”

> minor typo on part one from FZA page
> “…
> 7. Rightness……The road our” (should read out I believe
> please don’t send back for more word clearing

Correct. This is in the introduction.

> later on, the word “hubris” couldn’t find it in my basic dictionary.
> can someone define for me.

See below.

> “If you yourself are already a profession” should read “professional”?

Correct. This is in “Advice and Warnings”.

> I hope thes points aren’t annoying. I am just so excited about pilot
> project and would like to contribute where I can.
>
> bye for now
>
> doctor java

This is helpful. A professionally published book would have been further proofed by an editor to catch things like this.

———-

On 20 Dec 97, cbwillis@netcom.com (C. B. Willis) answered the above request for a definition.

> Hubris is an old Greek term meaning arrogance or acting like one is a law
> unto oneself. Hubris was considered a fatal character flaw by the ancient
> Greeks.
>
> – CBW
> http://www.geocities.com/athens/parthenon/1802
> ———————————————————————
> | cbwillis@netcom.com | “Values are the infrastructure |
| | upon which civilization |
| | will be reinvented.” – CBW |
———————————————————————

Exactly. It especially has the implication of ignoring important things, almost like a godlike apathy. And the usual fatality is due to ignoring a correct warning because it comes from a lesser being. It was thought to be the malady of the Gods and the reason for their downfall.

I am tempted to define Hubris as having the quality or characteristics of a Hubbard, especially as to arrogance and disdaining the advice and warnings of “lesser beings” even when they were correct (joke).

———-

E-METERS

There have been a number of requests for information about the E-meter.

There is a short discussion of it at the beginning of Chapter 22, “More on Upsets”. I put it that late in the book because it is only at this point that it would help to be able to do an assessment if one has a meter.

Perhaps I should add a more extensive appendix on the subject.

But what you really need is a number of the clearing series booklets, namely “The book introducing the E-Meter” (or the “Understanding the E-Meter” book), “The book of E-Meter Drills”, and the one on “E-Meter Data” which should include the “Instant Read” HCOB which was included in the later editions.

But using an E-meter would be a major distraction for a beginner unless he was already trained as an auditor.

The tendency would probably be to sit and stare at the E-meter (and get the needle stuck as a result) instead of looking at one’s case.

If, by some chance, you are not really flying already (meaning that it is easy to get a floating needle at session start), or the tone arm is out of range (reading high or low), or you are having trouble, the E-meter will tend to be a distraction and an invalidation unless you are highly enough trained to do a major case repair such as a CS 53 on yourself. This advice applies to partially trained professionals too.

The processes in the early chapters will run on a case that isn’t set up and should gradually get the case flying anyway as long as the person isn’t staring at a meter and invalidating each of the wins because the meter is not yet floating.

Even the basic grade zero process was originally a repair action (see the book of case remedies) and will work on a case that is not yet flying. And in the early days of “life repair” (before the CS 53 came out), we would sometimes run lots of processes without a real floating needle until the tone arm gradually came into range and the case started flying.

It will happen by the accumulation of mild wins as long as you don’t have some electrical device evaluating for you.

And it is easy to freeze the needle just by staring at it and the action of worrying what is wrong is almost guaranteed to make the needle “dirty” even if it had been floating.

That is really why the auditor keeps the meter hidden early on in processing. The PC’s attention goes on it and the needle stiffens up and the PC says “What’s going wrong” and the session goes to hell.

Doing some professional courses and working with the meter and seeing yourself on it during weeks of practical drilling, you get over this.

Or once you are really flying (especially after getting a few grades of release), it doesn’t matter any more, so the upper level students don’t have a lot of trouble with this.

But an untrained beginner is just going to snarl himself up when he should be doing some processing.

A meter is really helpful when you are doing assessments or repair actions. It also makes it a bit easier to flatten an implant platen or dig for things that are slightly out of reach. And it is essential in researching a new implant.

But it is a total distraction in doing objective processes or real OT drills and it is only marginally helpful in running repetitive processes. In those cases it is only of use to the auditor in determining how you are feeling and you already know how you are feeling in solo so why add more complexity.

By Chapter 27, “Keeping Yourself Moving”, you should know enough to keep yourself flying with or without a meter. From there on a meter would be an asset rather than a potential liability because it does help you run deeper and lets you spot mistakes more easily.

A meter is not required even for the later parts of the book. But it can be of great help to an advanced student.

In the old days, a Class 0 or 1 auditor was not even trained to read a meter or recognize the meter reads. It was not actually useful in running the processes. They just had the meter sitting in front of them so that they could get used to it as part of the auditing session environment. They learned a bit about it on Class 2, but they didn’t do all the meter drills or really learn to handle a meter well until class 3 (which is Chapter 22 in the self clearing book).

If you are already trained as a solo auditor or a professional to the point where you can fly the rudiments and keep yourself flying, then you can use the meter while you run through the first chapters of the book. Note that in objectives and true objective OT drills you only use the meter to check for an FN (floating needle) after completing the drill.

But even a trained solo auditor does not know enough to run setup actions on himself if he can’t get the ruds to fly, in which case the right action is to run the book off of the meter until he has such a big blowout that he is flying anyway.

This is even necessary for extremely advanced people if they start researching. In research, you run into things which you don’t have a clue about how to handle and sometimes you go in backwards by mistake and make a mess. Then you have no repair and just need to cool things down and get yourself flying again without knowing how to fix what was wrong. The processes in chapter one even work under those circumstances and it is best to do that off of the meter, accumulating mild wins until you have a major gain that gets you flying again. Then you get back on the meter and take another shot at what you ran into. Once you know the anatomy of what you are handling, you can devise a repair, but you have to get through it once before you can figure that out.

Note that Ron’s “Creation of Human Ability” doesn’t even mention the E-meter. It was not used at all at the time it was written. The meter was developed in 1952, abandoned by 1954, and not used again until 1958.

The runway up to doing case repair is just too long. So you might as well run the processes while you study it. Case repair is chapter 27 and it assumes that you have already read the earlier chapters. It’s just too much theory unless you do some processing too.

So I would recommend leaving the E-meter for later unless you are already trained in using one.

————

Hilderun has suggested that I add a glossary and I agree that this is a good idea. Eventually I’ll get it done and posted but don’t wait for it.

Right now the book is like a prototype version of a high performance car but it is missing some of the niceties like doors and windows. Those will gradually get filled in over the next few months and eventually we will have an improved second edition.

But this first crude version should take you further and faster than anything we’ve had before.

Best Wishes for the Coming New Year,

The Pilot


FreeZone America presents: ‘The Pilot’

Ref: post23.txt

Date: 30 Jan 98

subj : Super Scio Tech – Advanced Grade 0

ADVANCED GRADE 0

As I have mentioned before, I am currently working through the Self Clearing book myself, doing a deeper pass and seeing how much further I can go with the processes.

The general idea is that after enough different areas are run, you can re-run everything at a deeper level.

Of course I have had a lot of standard grades processing and that overlaps some areas of the book. Since those were well done and taken to a point where there was really no more that could be run at that time, I felt that these areas would be an especially important test of this theory.

Despite having had a lot of recall processes run, I expected that area (Chapter 6 in the book) to run much further because the track is so long and I recall so little proportionately, and I found that to be the case.

But I wondered a bit what would happen with grade 0, running the area again (Chapter 8) after having been at a point years ago where it had been taken to a persistent FN and a very solid grade EP (end phenomena).

Of course, according to my own instructions in the book, the area could be skipped if it seemed to overrun.

But it didn’t. There was a bit more to run on all the processes, and the gains were significant.

I did alter the processes in one respect and this might apply to any advanced student. To handle the problem of running communications solo, the book says to write letters (which one does not actually send). This is to ensure that a beginner has enough mass and reality on the communications.

But if you are up to doing mockups that give you adequate “havingness” and reality, you can alter this into simply mocking up people and communicating to them so as to blow through the communication ridges. This is more convenient for an advanced student. A beginner could try it this way, but if there is any feeling of unreality or emptiness (lack of mass), they should do it with paper and pen instead.

I reached the end of the chapter with a really good win, but I felt that I wanted to run another processes, aimed at the area of telepathy. I have thought of this in the past, but it never quite seemed to indicate as the right action, so I had always put it aside.

But after this deeper pass on grade 0, it seemed like a processes on telepathic comm, just to take charge off, would be really appropriate. The target wasn’t to turn on full telepathic abilities but just to take a baby step in that direction.

So I added process 8.9 as follows –

8.9a) What would you be willing to read in another’s mind?

8.9b) What would you be willing to have another read in your mind?

8.9c) What would you be willing to have another read in another’s mind?

This one ran like dynamite and completely blew me away.

It may be too advanced for a beginner on the first time through the book, but it should certainly be there for the advanced students.

Among other things, it gave me a glimpse of some early track. After finishing the process and the chapter, the section of early track that had opened up continued to come back to me that evening and throughout the next day. And that finally lead to the following realization.

The early counter-thoughts, prior to all force (can’t hurt a static) and loss (can mock anything up again at will), are things that we would now call “theedie-weedie”. Things like being made fun of or having one’s creations rejected.

Imagine little kids, not allowed to hit each other and not concerned with surviving (because the parents provide all the food and shelter) but who are busily picking on each other and so forth.

For an innocent and simple being, this has real impact. And I suddenly got the feeling that all the real pain and force and destruction and significant loss was mocked up as a way to devaluate and make less of the hurt of these early things.

The little kid is sniveling because his feelings were hurt so now you belt him one and he has something real to cry about. He soon learns to degrade the hurt feelings to the level of theedie-weedie bullshit.

Except that the hurt feelings are early basics and being hit can’t even happen until late on the track.

ARC goes very very basic. And being admired or agreed with are of fantastic significance.

This gives me the idea that you might get some big case changes simply by running times the PC’s feelings were hurt and where he hurt other kids feelings in the early pre-school time period of this lifetime.

Quite a bit seems to have opened up for me on taking another pass through communications processing. It is not that the self clearing approach is superior to doing expanded grade zero. I’m sure that grade 0 went as far as it could at the time that it was done. It is simply that this area was now ready to be run further because I had advanced far enough beyond where I had been at when the grade was run.

Best,

The Pilot


FreeZone America presents: ‘The Pilot’

Ref: post28.txt

Date: 3 Apr 98

Subj : Super Scio Tech – Self Clearing After Clear (ans to Anonymous)

SELF CLEARING AFTER CLEAR (answering Anonymous)

On 21 Mar 98, fza@fza.org (FreeZone America) forwarded an anonymous message to ACT that they had recieved with the subject “[Fwd]: ATTN: PILOT – questions from an anonymous source”

> I went clear on Book I Dianetics. I never did any grades Is there a
> “Self OT” Technology in the Self Clearing Manual to continue past
> clear?ÿ I was thinking of running myself through Route I of COHA.ÿ
> Would this be a good idea?ÿ What else would be reccomended?
>
> – Anonymous

Maybe I should have called the book “self OT drilling”. It really is both. The various Route I drills are pretty much worked into various places in the book.

Of course you can just do Route I, and you should make good gains on it, it works excellently on a solo basis, but it isn’t enough by itself. I still recommend COHA as one of Ron’s best books.

Going clear does not eliminate the need for grades. And even after they are done, the grades can run again on a much deeper basis once you have advanced a lot further. Ultimate erasure of the grades on the early track (first problem that ever got stuck, etc.) are somewhere up at the very top of the OT levels (around OT 40 or 50 on the current bridge).

I prefer mixing OT drills in right from the beginning because it builds horsepower faster. So the second process of chapter 1 of self clearing is a strong OT drill rather than a low level process. The difference is that for a beginner it will run on a shallow basis. Somebody who is already way up scale can get major effects with the same process. Since it is an unlimited process, you can use it again and again. So one might as well learn it right away instead of waiting.

The real difference for a clear is not in what processes will run but in how fast they run (much faster) and how deep one can reach (one reaches much deeper). Above clear, one gets big cognitions and overruns easily because it all happens so fast. And some things will feel like overrun right away and should be skipped in that case.

A clear is not likely to flinch from force or non-confront. Therefore their judgment as to what they should run can generally be trusted because they don’t try to get out of running a process that will be helpful to them.

So don’t try to force yourself on things that don’t seem to have any charge right now, and don’t grind away at things. Some barriers will already be gone.

But learn all the theory and run any process that seems like it has something on it.

Since you’ve done Dianetics, skip the chapter on incident running on the first pass through the book, or just read it for theory. That’s about the only chapter that might get a clear into trouble. And it might be useful again later after you’ve done some of the more advanced chapters.

At this point I feel that all overrun is due to trying to push too deep in one area while other areas remain unhandled. You get some huge breakthrough and reach super deep in some area, and then when you try to push deeper you start dragging things in from the side instead of actually getting lower, like digging a hole in the sand to the point where the sand to the sides keeps sliding in. So you clean off some other areas of the beach. But eventually you can take any area to a new level of depth.

Good Luck,

The Pilot


FreeZone America presents: ‘The Pilot’

Ref: post29.txt

Date: 3 Apr 98

Subj : Super Scio Tech – Self Clearing Additions

SELF CLEARING ADDITIONS

A few more things which will get incorporated into version two of the self clearing book when I get around to doing it.

Note that feedback from people working with the book, both as to things with worked spectacularly well and as to areas which gave difficulty, is helpful.

1. Sales Hype

I’m so turned off by sales hype that I tend to do it in reverse, down playing things and making less of them.

If I were selling cars, I’d probably say that the things might actually get you to work if you were lucky as long as you paid constant attention to keeping them filled up with gas and had a mechanic work it over regularly and you had adequate driving skills.

This is in contrast to car commercials which show beautiful girls and drivers with racing skills zig zagging through hairpin turns.

I don’t believe in making outrageous claims or indulging in false PR, but I really should work a little harder in generating some excitement and enthusiasm because it takes a good bit of determination for somebody to roll up their sleeves and get to work at facing up to their aberrations and expanding their abilities.

This is like the old joke about the pessimist and the optimist, where one says the bottle is half empty and the other says that it is half full.

After all, cars are very useful for driving to places and a nifty looking one will get you some attention and you can even learn to drive those hairpin turns.

So let me say for starters that I do believe that all those wild OT abilities are there at the top and that we are moving in that direction. And that in the meantime, the sporadic OT abilities are available now and can be gotten for free by many people by putting in some work on self clearing.

And the various chapters of self clearing really should have a few words of encouragement to build up some energy for pushing through the barriers. The chapter on communications, for example, should start by pointing out that you are going to do a hell of a lot better in life if you open up your communication lines.

All the chapters in the book have that hidden assumption, namely that it is an area of importance that will really make a difference. The entirety of the gains achieved in orthodox Scientology today are based on working over no more than about a third of the areas in the book, and people pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for this.

So count yourself lucky and get to work.

2. Positive Action

Current orthodox Scientology processing tends to concentrate on negative gain. Earlier 1950’s Scientology assumes that you will get into positive action but doesn’t play that up except for the areas of drilling OT abilities. The exception is auditor training, where areas (such as communications) which are necessary to auditing successfully are studied and drilled.

I made a point of covering positive areas that have been well mapped out in auditor training, such as the second of the chapters on communication which covers the positive skills.

But I neglected this in other areas.

Notice that in communication, after one blows off the barriers to communicating, there is a second chapter drilling things such as “intention” and “acknowledgments” and then one is expected to actually go out and communicate. This is where one develops real ability to live life.

In the chapter on recall processes, one will begin opening up one’s recall of the past, especially by means of spotting pleasure moments etc. With the barriers gone, one can now work more easily with positive memorization techniques (such as those given in popular “improve your memory” type books), but self clearing does not mention that.

As a general rule of thumb, in any area where something major falls out of your way, you can now engage in positive actions on that line more easily. If the book doesn’t give you some specific positive thing to do, then just look around and see if you can now find something which will contribute to your abilities and enjoyment of life.

The sky’s the limit on this stuff.

3. Improvement to Chapter 14.

When I took a second run at the chapter on Protest, I found that process 14.1 could be upgraded as follows:

The original version was –

14.1.1a) What are you protesting

14.1.1b) What have you done to communicate that

14.1.1c) Who should acknowledge that

A better, more powerful version is

Select an area of Protest, then

14.1.1a) Describe the protest, or an earlier similar protest

14.1.1b) What have you done to communicate that

14.1.1c) Who should acknowledge that

14.1.1d) Visualize them as acknowledging your protest.

It worked better to stay on the same area of protest, spotting and describing it again on each pass through the commands, allowing it to shift around (the protest will shift as you keep running it) and also changing over to an earlier similar protest if it shows up while doing this. That lets you handle the protest fully instead of jumping over to a different protest.

The addition of the last command (d, visualizing an acknowledgment), made the process run much faster and deeper.

Once an area of protest is handled, another protest can be selected and run in the same way.

These changes (staying with the same protest, and visualizing acknowledgments) can also be applied to the other processes in sections 14.1 and 14.2.

4. An easier version of Chapters 16 and 17

The rundowns for handling must have / can’t have and so forth are fairly complex and advanced. These are good for advanced students but may be a bit difficult for a beginner on his first pass through the book.

So if it seems like too much, a simpler version can be used.

Take each major item in both chapters (such as money or pain or whatever), and run

a) Mock up a way to waste ____
b) Mock up a way to have more ____

Just run them alternately without worrying about which side of things (trying to have or trying to avoid) you are stuck on.

Then use the more sophisticated rundown on the second time through the book.

Have Fun,

The Pilot


FreeZone America presents: ‘The Pilot’

Ref: post32.txt

Date: 12 Jun 98

subj: Super Scio Tech – Self Clearing Ch 3 Improvement

SELF CLEARING CHAPTER 3 IMPROVEMENT

I hid on a better variation for 3.3 Emotions while doing some other research (described in another post).

The process given is workable but it is easier and faster if you alternate positive and negative emotions.

Pick objects and alternately put sadness and happiness into them.

The alternately put fear and courage into objects.

Then alternate hate and love.

And boredom alternated with great interest (or excitement).

Usually it seems best to do two alternations with the same object before moving on to another one. I slightly prefer starting with the lower emotion and ending with the higher one, but the other way around also works as long as you don’t leave the negative emotions behind in the objects.

A rapid pace, moving quickly from object to object, is generally best.

You can also have yourself feel these alternately, but it is easier if you run these on objects first.

An advanced step, for later in the book or for a second pass (unless you are already an advanced student), is to alternately mockup a big sphere of hatred and then love for the entire environment (or the whole world) until something dissolves. You kind of push these spheres out and layer them over everything as you are doing this.

The same goes for the other pairs above, but hatred and fear probably are the most significant on this variation. On these two I found old walls of blackness that I had layered over everything that were forming a sort of shell around me. Doing it consciously regained control over the old mockups and dissolved them with a gain in perception and good feeling. They were remnants of bad times in the distant past.

Best,

The Pilot


FreeZone America presents: ‘The Pilot’

AN EXPANDED BRIDGE

Ref: Post 53.txt

Date: 8 April 1999

In the Super Scio book, I pointed out that more grades were possible than those run in the CofS.

As I mentioned in another post, when I finally got around to working on these, I was researching them as solo actions on myself and it ended up as the Self Clearing Book.

But only a small percentage of the population are really up to reading something new and then doing it on their own. I’m not just talking about processing here, few people teach themselves in any area unless somebody else gets them started first.

Furthermore, one can often run faster and deeper with a trained professional, and even somebody who is doing great at solo could use an occasional cleanup by a professional as a boost.

The idea would be to have solo, co-processing, and pc routes available, and use a mixture of these as appropriate.

A beginner doing the book is probably going to need two passes through it to reach the same depth as we usually get on a first pass in professional handling.

But no matter how well you set up the case or how thorough you are in running an expanded grade, you are never going to do more than scratch the surface of one of these grades areas on a first pass. The later grades hold the earlier ones in place and vise versa. He has problems because he has overts and he commits overts because he has problems, and under those problems are more overts and under those overts are more problems and so on down to basic where you find that the original overts are preceded by problems. Except that this is vastly oversimplified. It is not just problems and overts but every grade.

The easiest route would probably be to get one pass through the grades professionally and then solo the deeper and deeper runs that take one back through earlier universes.

The most economical route (its free) would be to do it all on your own or with a twin (as in the self clearing diaries that are up at fza.org), but of course this requires time and determination.

Compromises between these two extremes are possible.

One way would be to get setup by a professional, do a good solo course, and then run the self clearing book using rudiments and metering and be professionally C/Sed so as to run deeper on a single pass.

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

I have been talking cheerfully here about the Self Clearing Book as if it was a complete roadmap of the grades areas.

Unfortunately, it isn’t. This is a subject that is still evolving. The new write-up that I just put out on Inval should make it obvious that I’m still filling these things in.

The current CofS grades lineup is basically –

– TRs & Objectives

– Recall

0. Communication

1. Problems (& Help)

2. Overts

3. ARCXs (& Change)

4. Serv Facs (& Responsibility)

After which they do Dianetics, Implants, & Entities.

Also they used to do Power (including Sources), Power Plus, and dramatization (aimed only at end words).

And handling of exteriorization, study, and suppression are done as needed although they aren’t grades.

Super Scio Chapter 4 section 5 – “Grades of Release” sketched out an expanded bridge. Note that a number of levels come from moving disrelated things into grades of their own (separating Help from Problems, etc.)

Briefly, it was:

1. Confront and Knowingness (willing to find out, etc.)

2. Doingness (objectives etc.)

3. Recall

4. Comm

5. Problems

6. Help

7. Overts

8. Change

9. Eval

10. ARCXs

11. Inval

12. Responsibility

13. Games

14. Wasting

15. Exchange

16. Protect

17. Serv Facs

18. Loss

19. Emotions

20. PTSness

21. Location

22. Causation

23. Sources

24. Power (not-isness etc.)

25. Power Plus (& agreements etc.)

26. Perception

27. Protest

28. Words (end words, etc.)

29. Dramatization

30. Force

31. Goals

32. Actual GPMs

Plus it lists Dianetics, OT Drills, Implants, and Entities as advanced things to do.

Note that this was only a sketch rather than a detailed set of grades. The Self Clearing Book has 48 chapters, most of which are grades. In general this is a better lineup than that given in Super Scio (having been written a year later), but it omits grades such as Inval that I didn’t yet have enough on to assemble properly.

I have been gradually been filling in missing pieces as I get them worked out. Note that the CofS expanded grades material were gradually accumulated over a period of two decades, it takes time to figure out these things.

Briefly, the self clearing lineup is:

Ch 1: BEGINNING STEPS

Ch 2: REACH AND WITHDRAW

Ch 3: THOUGHTS, EMOTIONS, AND ATTITUDES

Ch 4: SUBJECTIVE PROCESSES

Ch 5: STUDY

Ch 6: CONFRONTING THE PAST

(+ the Rudiments in post 49 will become Ch 6A)

Ch 7: WILLINGNESS AND ACCESSIBILITY

(+ Not Know in post 48 & 50 – will become Ch 7A)

Ch 8: COMMUNICATION BARRIERS

Ch 9: MORE ON COMMUNICATIONS

Ch 10: THE DUPLICATION FACTOR

Ch 11: EXTERIORIZATION

Ch 12: HELP

Ch 13: CHANGE AND NO CHANGE

Ch 14: PROTEST (+ see post 49)

Ch 14A – (the new chapter on inval posted this week)

Ch 15: PROBLEMS

Ch 16: MUST HAVE AND CAN’T HAVE

Ch 17: MUST AVOID AND CAN’T GET RID OF

Ch 18: CAUSE

Ch 19: OVERTS, MOTIVATORS, AND WITHHOLDS

Ch 20: A STEP FURTHER OUT

Ch 21: AFFINITY, REALITY, AND COMMUNICATION

Ch 22: MORE ON UPSETS

Ch 23: TRICKERY AND FALSE DATA

Ch 24: SUPPRESSION

Ch 25: JUSTIFICATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITY

Ch 26: REPRESSION

Ch 27: KEEPING YOURSELF MOVING

Ch 28: INCIDENT RUNNING

Ch 29: HANDLING LOSS (+ see breakthrough on loss in post41.txt)

Ch 30: LOCATIONS

Ch 31: ADVANCED INCIDENT RUNNING

Ch 32: INCREASING PERCEPTION AND ORIENTATION

Ch 33: SOURCES AND OTHER ADVANCED MECHANICS

Ch 34: IMPLANTS

Ch 35: ENTRY POINTS

Ch 36: ENTRY INTO THIS UNIVERSE

Ch 37: UNIVERSES

Ch 38: ENTITIES AND SPIRITUAL FRAGMENTS

Ch 39: ENERGY

Ch 40: MACHINERY

Ch 41: BODIES

Ch 42: OBJECTS AND INFINITY

Ch 43: ADVANCED CONCEPTS

Ch 44: ETHICS, MORALITY, AND THE DYNAMICS

Ch 45: AESTHETICS

Ch 46: THE UPPER DYNAMICS

(+ reality frames in post 42 – will become Ch 46A)

Ch 47: POSTULATES

Ch 48: NEXT STEPS

Still to be done would be a chapters on eval, protect, games, goals (trying for a light keyout of GPMS), and possibly chapters on agreement and on exchange (but I hardly have a clue in these areas yet yet). Also I want to beef up chapter 5 on Study with some processes. This is all tentative because if I knew what needed to be written here I would have posted it already.

Note that chapter 20 has a very light touch on the areas of games, goals, and emotions, but I think that more can be done in these areas.

Eventually I’ll do a second edition of the book with all the new material worked in.

Also note that in general I’m trying to parallel the “Sequence of Aberration” that I wrote up in post 52.

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

For professional use, the self clearing book could be run as is, but it has two shortcomings –

a) It avoids some processes that are hard to solo. You can get deeper faster by adding those in (although he will make it anyway eventually). For example, you could begin handling a grade on inval by flying inval ruds on 5 flows (include another to himself). After that, the pc would run deeper on the other processes. And you could even add in a prepcheck on the subject of invalidation (prepchecks are tough to solo).

b) It mixes in mockup processes and OT drills which require a superlative auditing skill that hasn’t been taught in the CofS since the 1950s.

Consider process 1.2 which is a locational done with the eyes closed. You give him the first command and one of two things happen. Either he does the command or he doesn’t. If he does, you are going to get big gains fast and it is easy. But what if he says “all I can see is blackness”?

Now you have to vary the question. You have to get him to some kind of win. And if it is really rough, you have to bail out as fast as possible. But you want a win first if at all possible (not even an FN or three equal comm lags or whatever, just something that gets the pc a little bit at cause in the area – then maybe bridge over to a locational with the eyes open to get an FN).

Maybe you’ll make it with a bit of coaxing. Or you suggest “well, if you could see something, what would it be?” and then “OK, now spot that”. But what you can’t do is simply repeat the question. It will probably go into a grind and you’ll drive the TA up. All the modern muzzled auditor training is exactly the reverse of the auditing style needed. If you look at the LRH demo sessions in the 9th ACC that was posted recently, you’ll see how these processes need to be run. Also, in professional handling, my inclination would be to use OT drills like we use havingness processes. After a big win on ordinary processing, end off with a bit of OT drilling. Self clearing had to use a fixed sequence because of the need to train the person concurrently with doing the processing. You can do better by adjusting to the pc. It is especially good to run some OT drills when the pc has a persistent FN. That should avoid the occasional situations where the pc can’t do the command. It is inappropriate to do any case handling over a persistent FN, but it is the best time to be running OT drills.

Also, OT drilling will quickly get most pcs exterior and you have to run process 11.1 or else you will be launched off into an ext/int rundown. The ext/int rundown is a great action, but it is to some degree off program to have to dive into one sideways from the middle of trying to run a grade. The ext/int liability is why OT drills were dropped in the first place, and Ron only discovered the ext/int why around 1970.

Although the int drilling in process 11.1 is an old 1950s process (it is from the 3rd ACC), Ron never realized how important it was (because the int keyin had not been spotted) and so it was not used extensively outside of that particular ACC. And so Route 1 was pretty much abandoned even though they had a process which would have made it work.

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

The best approach for auditors trained in modern standard tech would probably be to deliver expanded grades as they were trained to plus to add in missing grades using the appropriate chapters in the self clearing book.

And possibly to supplement this with doing some light OT drilling (especially 1.2 and 11.1) when the pc is persistent FN. But don’t even dream of trying OT drills on a pc unless you have had some wins doing them yourself solo first, remember all the old warnings Ron gave about the auditor keeping the pc inside his head.

Self clearing chapters 1 to 10 are all really setup,

TRs & objectives, recall, and grade zero actions.

You could use a normal standard tech lineup and optionally add in things from the book as appropriate.

It is especially desirable to get wholetrack recall on straightwire before launching into the regular grades because the gains on the grades will be an order of magnitude greater. It makes a huge difference in how deep the case runs. I don’t know what the org’s current batting average is on this, it is certainly not a requirement for attesting to a recall release. You could use the extra material in chapter 6 after the standard processes and self analysis if he hasn’t made it yet. But don’t make this an absolute roadblock, one can make good gains on the grades even if they don’t run whole track. A new grade on Not Know could come before or after grade zero, they are both very early track. My inclination is to put Not Know (chapter 7A) first in self clearing because it requires less effort on the PC’s part but to put it after grade 0 in professional handling because it is harder to explain (the person doing self clearing has the advantage of studying the theory at the same time).

The processes on willingness and accessibility (chapter 7) go hand in hand with knowingness, so it makes sense to put these together with “not know” to form a grade on Knowingness (EP, willingness to know or not know).

I like the sequence of Help and Change before trying to run protest because those are easy repetitive processes (even though change is currently taught on class 3).

Both of these are, of course, in the standard lineup but not attested to separately (which I think is a mistake).

Then do the new grades on protest and inval using the processes given in self clearing. Note that the protest/admiration process I posted recently is dynamite and essential to really making it on protest.

Of course you then do the real grade 1 problems processes. The next grade could be called havingness and would be the Must Have and Must Avoid processes of chapter 16 and 17. For professional use, I would suggest shifting back and forth between doing a “Waste” process and then a “Have More” process rather than running all the waste processes first (chapter 16) and then doing all the have more processes (chapter 17). I was trying to keep it simpler for solo by doing one first and then the other. Also, add in lots of havingness using the Precessions HCOB since that is the target of the grade.

With protest, inval, and havingness handled, and the whole track opened up, grade two (O/W) should run like a charm, followed by grade three (ARCXs).

Next it would be appropriate to handle suppression. Simply do the suppressed person rundown on any suspected suppressive influences. But do not handle the person as a PTS, just do this nice lineup of processes, that will put him at cause which is what you want (you do not want to go witch hunting and put him at effect). Since he is not disconnecting, but simply handling troublesome terminals, you do not need an S&D or any assurance that they are SPs, they are probably not. Simply do 2 way comm to find people he has difficulty with and run the rundown on terminals that give large reads or high TA action.

Next would be grade 4 (service facs and responsibility).

The next question is how to arrange the more advanced grades. I’m inclined to put any long Dianetic runs (drug RD, health form, etc.) after power because the speed increase on running dianetics after power is immense. The self clearing book puts power later (chapter 33) to ensure that it is in the accessible band without requiring listing techniques.

Chapter 26, on repression, is really about not-isness. The advanced standard process in this area is power process 5 which is in self clearing as 33.5, so we will leave this grade for a bit later.

But handling of loss and emotion is a good idea at this point. Begin with the processes in chapter 3 and 20 on emotions and then do chapter 29 (handling loss) using narrative R3R if needed on any major loss that is troubling the pc.

Note that small amounts of narrative R3R are quite workable fairly early in the lineup. We used to do major dianetic handling before grades, and I think that that is a mistake, it ends up going into the hundreds of hours because the pcs run slowly. But it does show that PCs low on the bridge can run incidents.

Intimately connected with loss is the area of “protect”. All of the help processes can be run with the word “protect” substituted for “help”.

Chapter 30, locations, is a good setup for the sources process (Power process 4, self clearing 33.2). With this gradient, it should be possible to run it as a simple repetitive process instead of using power listing techniques. And this area is major enough to be a grade in its own right, so call it SOURCE and run chapter 30 plus 33.1 and 33.2.

Next we want power process 5 on not-isness, except that on an advanced case it often runs far beyond that into a keyed out OT state, penetrating beyond is-ness as well as not-isness. The processes on cause and creation which surround it in chapter 33 of self clearing are based on the huge keyed out state I went into when this was run on me back in 68. So run chapter 26 and then 33.3, and then 33.5 to 33.7. And then finish up with 33.4 because that is the most causative of the set and it is a good one to complete the grade with. Call the grade Power.

Finally we want to run power process 6 (33.9) as well as the rest of 33.8 to 33.14. Use the full many flow version of prpr 6 with formal class 7 techniques for maximum results and use the same technique on 33.10 (beliefs). For 33.13 (significances), see the group processing session in the anatomy of the spirit of man tapes where Ron runs this on the audience. That one often produces a sort of clear cog where the pc realizes that he is mocking up all the significance. This grade could be called Existence.

Then do Power plus. Finish it off with 33.18 which is really a more advanced version. The processes of 33.15 to 33.17 are really OT drills but could be worked in here as well if you’re up to the auditing style necessary.

Note that old style power in the 1960s was a quickie grade with just a few very hot processes run with almost no setup. That is why there are so many cautions and exotic listing techniques, etc. The pc was way over his head. With an easy gradient like that given here and a battery of processes instead of just one in each area, it should behave like normal grade processing.

Also note that despite the warnings of not running power after clear, many people run on it had had the clear cog and subsequently found that they were clear when it was run and the gains on it were fantastic.

This is a good point for a grade on games. Run the processes on games and also on goals in chapter 20.

Exchange would fit in here as well. Hopefully I’ll be expanding on this area eventually. For professional auditing, the nicest starting process would be R2-69 “please pass the object”.

Evaluation and agreement might belong together and they might fit in here. But maybe not, I wouldn’t know for sure until I figure them out, and I’m still wrestling with these areas.

Finally we get to dianetics. There are really three different levels here.

First, drug handling. Begin with drug rehabs. Then somatic and prior assessments. Then, for each drug, run “what was (drug) intended to solve”. Then finish up with mocking up each drug sensation and pushing it into the walls. If the person has gone clear, substitute recalls for R3R but be sure to do all steps, especially identifying somatics prior to taking the drug.

Next do an ext/int rundown. That is worth running at this point even if the person does not have ext/int difficulties turning on. Also do collapsed space in 31.8 exactly the same as ext/int except for using the collapsed space buttons instead of the end of endless int buttons. If the person has already gone clear, just run recalls instead of R3R.

Finally do a health form. If not yet clear, follow it with wants handled rundowns until you do get a clear cog.

With power in etc. it should be easy. You could call this confronting force. Sometimes the person will have gone clear before you had any chance to do R3R. I don’t like the idea of skipping all incident handling. Clears can run narrative with great benefit. But overly thorough R3R procedure and somatic chain running will skip them over onto entity’s pictures which is undesirable.

Best would be date, duration, locate and then scan through without any move commands (which entities might obey) and a careful r-factor to have the pc tell you if the incident goes (expect fast erasures by inspection). But this is experimental and might better be left for solo where the person is not going to push himself the way an auditor might.

By this point you should have somebody who is not only clear but is very far along towards OT. If there are any doubts about the clear state you could do a CCRD or DCSI, but I doubt that you’ll need to, especially if you use the correct definition of “confront of force in pictures and knows he’s mocking it up” rather than an end of all aberration.

Past this point he has to solo. So we’ll call this the end of the grades. The easiest next action is OT 1 and then flattening implant platens (much easier than running repetitive processes).

And note that although he hasn’t fooled around with implants or entities yet, he’s still an order of magnitude beyond the states usually attained on the orthodox bridge, especially if you’ve been beefing him up with occasional OT drills.

In summary, the new list of grades would be –

1. TRs & Objectives

2. Recall

3. Communication

4. Knowingness

5. Help

6. Change

7. Protest

8. Invalidation

9. Problems

10. Havingness

11. O/W

12. ARCXs

13. Suppression

14. Service Facs

15. Loss

16. Protect

17. Sources

18. Power

19. Existence

20. Power Plus

21. Games

22. Goals

(23. Eval)

(24. Agreement)

25. drug handling

26. exteriorization

27. force

On either a second pass through self clearing or after getting grades professionally, self clearing chapter 34 (implants) should include the entirety of the CC and OT 2 platens plus the easier ones in Super Scio chapter 8. That would basically be an expanded OT 2.

Then the areas covered in self clearing chapters 35 to 48. Of course a thorough version of chapter 38 is the entirety of Solo NOTs, but should also include fragments that one is putting on others.

Throughout these upper levels one should be doing lots of OT drills (there are quite a few in the later self clearing chapters).

Then go for erasure of actual GPMs (Super Scio chapter 3) and of Penalty Universes (Super Scio chapter 5), and keep working in OT drilling (Super Scio chapter 7 etc.).

At this point one might have a shot at running the grades solo in the basic area well before home universe.

I know this sounds long, but hopefully, one will have keyed out OT well before this point and have occasional wild and sporadic abilities.

I think that the more we learn, the easier it will be to get an early OT keyout.

But I can’t imagine how you would have a stable OT if he still had charge on protest for example. And so you need the big array of things for stability.

And one probably needs to hear the early ACCs (especially the 3rd) and know how to roll your own processes for whatever dregs are left after all the mapped out areas are handled.

Also note that when I talk about real OT, I don’t just mean some low scale character who can levitate ashtrays or something. The target is creating realities.

For example, you take your friends to a restaurant and it isn’t quite what you expected, so you wave your hands at a picture on the wall and it becomes a picture of another restaurant and you take your friends by the hand and step into the picture. And everyone eats well and Queen Victoria comes out and tells bawdy jokes and a grand time is had by all. And then everyone steps back into the “real” world and you dissolve the picture behind you and nobody else in the “real” restaurant notices this business or thinks it unusual.

And your friends are just as well fed as they would have been if they had eaten in the “real” restaurant because your mockup was just as real as anything else.

Best,

The Pilot


FreeZone America presents: ‘The Pilot’

RUDIMENTS AND SELF CLEARING (Attn. MadTurnip0)

Ref: Post 49.txt

Date: 17 Feb 1999

At 20:01 11/02/99 -0500, MadTurnip0 wrote:

> greetings and salutations,
> I’ve been doing the self-clearing book for a period of about 5 months now
>with several cognitions but no serious steady wins or anything I could call a
>permanent win. I find that after a process I feel good for a short while but
>it usually wears off the next day when I wake up. I’ve been doing the
>communications processes for about a week now with mild wins. I was wondering
>whether anyone could help me with a small problem I have. I find that at times
>I think too much, sort-of anxiety attacks, process 1.1 helped me with this
>problem for a while but I find that it doesn’t help as much as it used to. I
>was wondering also wondering whether if anyone knew of a process that could
>help me stop being so introverted at times, because I consider myself quite shy
>especially infront of strangers. I would appreciate any help anyone could
>offer. thanx in advance.

Robert suggested holding corners, which is a good suggestion but you have probably already done that (it is in chapter 3).

Somebody else pointed out that they started getting spectacular results after running an exteriorization process, and that can do it if the process will run, but exteriorization can have side effects unless you begin by running the process in chapter 11, and not everybody is up to running these kinds of processes initially.

Another person suggested running overts/withholds, and that is one of what we call “the rudiments” and it is a possibility too. But my best guess is that it is the area of problems, and that is another of the 3 most important rudiments used in orthodox Scientology processing.

A couple people have indicated that they were getting slow gains and the most likely source is the area of rudiments. So I decided that I’d better do a write-up on this, and here it is. It should probably be fitted into the book at around chapter 7 because that is about the minimum amount of skill that would be needed.

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

RUDIMENTS AND SELF CLEARING

There are three basic areas that are the most likely to slow down and interfere with processing. It is common in professional sessions to check these areas and handle if one of them is bothering the person before going on with regular processing.

Unfortunately, these are not the easiest areas to run. Even in professional processing, a thorough handling of these things is not generally undertaken until other easier targets have been cleared up. But a professional generally can and will do a light handling just to get them out of the way so that the person will make faster progress.

The three areas (slightly oversimplified) are problems, overt acts (guilt, etc.), and upsets.

In orthodox Scientology, the light handling of these 3 areas at the beginning of any processing session is referred to as the rudiments, meaning basic or rudimentary actions.

The processes in chapters 1 to 3 of self clearing were selected, among other reasons, for the fact that they often run well despite trouble in these 3 areas and they can often cool down problems, upsets, etc. as a side effect.

In a general book such as self clearing, it is not possible to guess what particular area might be blocking somebody because it varies from individual to individual. So the arrangement of chapters is based first of all on the skill and knowledge needed to run the processes and secondly on the sequence which will generally run fastest if there isn’t some particular thing in the way.

But if there is a specific thing which is of great interest and which is holding one back, it can be handled out of sequence. In this case, the best action might be to simply do a light handling of the area and then go back to doing the chapters in order, doing a deeper run on the more advanced chapter when one reaches it in its proper place.

Before attempting this, you will need the skills for running subjective processes that is given in chapter 4 and it would be best to have the experience gained in running the recall processes of chapter 6 as well. Note that chapter 5 is aimed at the specific target of difficulties with study and can be temporarily bypassed if one is good at study and has one of these other areas in the way.

===========

The 3 rudiments, in more detail, are:

A. Problems

This is an important area to handle in general, but the specific roadblock that might need handling out of sequence is the case where one has a specific problem in the present which is holding one’s attention. The general symptom is that one does not seem to make very many gains while running anything else. This is partially because one doesn’t give much importance to gains which do not cure the problem and partially because other things run in a slower and shallower manner while the problem is holding one’s attention.

This is covered in chapter 15. If this seems to be the case, read the beginning of chapter 15 and if it makes sense and seems interesting, run some of the processes until the current problem releases. But note that problems in general will run much faster after handling areas like “communication” and “help” which are in earlier chapters.

B. Overts, Withholds, and Guilt

This is a tough area to face up to, and so it is down in chapters 18 and 19. Note that chapter 18 “Cause” is the easier handling and helps one build up for chapter 19.

But if one is plagued with guilt, some handling may be needed immediately. And if one is filled with hostility and continually hurting others, that also tends to slow one down and interfere with making gains from other processes. Sometimes feelings of anxiety or worry can come from this area as well although it is not the only source for these.

If this seems to be the case, jump ahead to chapter 18 (and 19 if needed) and do some processes until there is a feeling of relief.

C. Upsets

By this we generally mean upsets with other people. Unlike problems, where one usually feels like things are stuck and unchanging, if there is some big upset one can feel like life is getting worse.

This is the most difficult of the three areas. It is covered in chapters 21 and 22. You will need an understanding of the introductory section of chapter 21 before studying 22. But it is process 22.3 which is specifically aimed at taking apart a current upset, so read forward to that point (the section on the e-meter can be skipped for now). Then use 22.3 on the upset until you feel better.

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

If you are running processes with some success but don’t seem to be making big gains, the above 3 are the most likely reason.

But there is also the matter of skill. If you are just getting tangled up on running things, you would be better off doing a second pass of chapters 1 to 6, especially as chapters 1 to 3 can cool down the above areas even though they don’t address them directly. And for some people, chapter 5, which is about studying, might be essential to learning the techniques well enough to have success with them.

Immediately after chapters 1 to 6 comes chapter 7 which is aimed at raising the speed with which the processes will run. If you get though chapter 6 and are unsure whether or not to jump ahead (rather than feeling a real need to), go ahead and do chapter 7 because it will make the others run faster.

There are other areas which might get in the way. As mentioned above, some people may need to handle study (chapter 5).

There is also the special case where somebody in the person’s environment is continually cutting him down as is discussed in the chapter on Suppression (chapter 24).

Another tough one is the situation where there has been a recent terrible loss. The first section of Chapter 29 can be used to gain some relief (but 29.2 requires skills learned in earlier chapters, so just use 29.1 if you need to jump ahead to this).

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

A phenomena that is uncommon in normal life but frequently occurs is spiritual practices is something called “exteriorization”. This usually means being exterior to the body but it can also mean exteriorizing from games or even from the universe.

On the one hand, this can be an extremely big gain. Among other things, it often takes one right out of the problems, guilt, and upsets mentioned above (and therefore is another way around these barriers).

On the other hand, if one snaps back in with some force it can give one a headache and might be disturbing enough to act as a roadblock. In this case the person’s attention might be occupied with trying to get out again and other processes will not run well.

Some people might already be in this situation from earlier practices.

In rare cases it might occur even as soon as the first process of the first chapter of self clearing.

But for many people the whole topic might seem unreal until they are very far along.

Therefore, as a compromise, exteriorization was placed in chapter 11.

If you do get some sort of out of body experience or feel like you have suddenly entered some divine state or see the world completely differently as if you were outside of the ordinary games of existence, then you should go immediately to chapter 11, read the introduction, and do process 11.1.

The special quality of 11.1 is that it proofs one up against the side effects mentioned above. It is also an exteriorization process in its own right, so it is more than just a remedy. There are faster and more spectacular exteriorization processes, but they are much later in the book because this is the safe one.

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

Hope this helps,

The Pilot


FreeZone America presents: ‘The Pilot’

NOT KNOW PROCESS (Self Clearing etc.)

Ref: Post 48.txt

Date: 17 Feb 1999

On 6 Feb 99, Lisa & Dave posted on subject “SelfClear: not-know”

# Hello,
#
# I have a question that I hope the pilot or someone else can answer. While
# reading The Fundamentals of Thought, I came across a chapter called know
# and not-know. I found it interesing. I scanned through the self clearing
# book to find a not-know process but I couldn’t find any. Is it somewhere
# and I missed it? If there isn’t one in there, is there a reason?
#
# It seemed pretty powerful to not-know the future and instead have a
# nothingness to create from. Usually when I think I know the future, it’s
# really the failures from my past pushed into the future.
#
# Thanks,
# Dave

An excellent point. And it is missing from the book, and should have been there, but I “forgot” about it because it was an area where I felt that something was missing in the tech and I needed to do some work on it. Thanks to you I’ve finally gotten back to the area of not-know processing and the results are below.

But first I wanted to quote some of the other good discussion that you generated.

==========

On 6 Feb 99, Ted Crammer posted in response

: Not-know processes were on old OT-7. I think you’ll find one or more in
: Creation of Human Ability.
:
: Interesting observation. I agree.
:
: Running solo, by yourself? Try this: Select an area of life that you
: would like to improve upon. Run, “Think of something you could not-know
: about_______.” You can write down the answers to help stay organized
: about it and complete auditing comm cycles. Then if the answers come
: too fast and the writing slows you down, just skip the writing and
: enjoy the session.
:
: —
: Ted

Yes, excellent. This one should be in the self clearing book.

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

Then Ra continued with:

(he begins by quoting the original post above)

> The earliest not-know processes were in the early PABs. They were,
> at the time the “one shot OT” processes. Not know is below static.
> Basically, the processes were run to the point where you could just
> not-know the entire universe around you. I forget off hand the
> principles behind it, but it will come to me in a second…….
>
> Oh yeah, here it is. :) I get couple second com lags on studying tech
> decades ago. :)
>
> The idea is this. It was pretty much proven that the early held the
> late in restim. This is why engrams would erase. One of the processes
> was: “What could you not-know about that incident” (somatic, picture,
> situation, condition, etc.) This is why the problems processes work.

Excellent process. And it is why “what could you not know about that problem” would work. But other problems processes work for other reasons. (was that last paragraph an LRH quote?)

> Before the condition of Knowing, one would first Not-Know. This
> repeats all the way down the Know to Mystery Scale. For reference,
> I have included it here.
>
> EXPANDED CDEI SCALE
>
> Scale abbrev. range
>
> Not know NK Spiritual
> Know K
> Unknown U
> Curious C
> Desired D
> Enforced E
> Inhibited I
> No N
> Refused R
> False F Human
> Denied DEN
> Absurd A
> Rationalized RAT
> Abusive ABUS
> Horrible H
> Compressed COMP Sub-Human
> Conjured CON
> Recriminatory RCR

Very good. But where is this from (Filbert?). The lower range is extended below the LRH one I’m familiar with.

> It was discovered the harmonics of the first (not know) would produce
> case change, and would reach all the way south. The second Know, would
> not, and would tend to cave the pc in. This became a very useful process,
> and by determining where the being was on the tone scale you could run
> at his reality level processes that he would actually do, bring him up
> tone, and then run the next not know harmonic.
>
> A person in bad shape would try like hell to not know something, but
> was well above his reality level, and he would in actuality, just
> Not-Is it, causing it to persist. But the Process “Lie about something”
> (harmonic of not-know) had a lot of workability. “Tell me the truth”
> spun him in. The reason? Because Truth is a harmonic of Know, lie a
> harmonic of not-know. You get him to start telling you the truth, he
> as-ises the truth, and leaves all the lies, along with its charge and
> mass. You get him to lie, he as-ises alter-isness, and the truth remains.
> Very workable, very strong processes. Unfortunately, a being on the
> bottom has to tell you lies for about a million hours before he really
> gets anywhere, because his r is so low, and his horsepower is almost
> in non-e.

The lie process is also a covert way of getting the pc to create and might be thought of as a low level creative process that works even on PC’s who can’t get mockups and are unwilling to invent things, except, that is, to get out of trouble. A very workable process.

> So the workable processes were, Not Know, Unknown, Desired,
> Inhibited, refused, Denied, rationalized, horrible, and conjured.
> (you see some of this app in handling arc breaks)
>
> What could you Not Know? Give me an Unknown datum. What have you
> desired? Recall a refusal.

The first two are really good, being right on the not-know button. The third one is probably best left until one is going to address the subject of ARC breaks. And the last one (refusal) is out ARC and therefore has to be alternated with something positive.

> What have you denied about (terminal). etc, etc. Any number of
> questions could be put in to any of the brackets to hit the pc’s
> tone level. Soon as he was up, then you use the next harmonic.
> Eventually he would be able to just Not Know the whole bank, and
> guess what? Clear.

Doubtful. He has to be one step higher, able to mock it up, and choosing not to. But if we are talking about able to mock it up in total detail, we are really talking cleared theta clear here and we’re light years above the dianetic clear. So this not know is a very high state. The dianetic clear is simply pulling up above the effort band (see K-M scale later) rather than the not-know band which is much higher.

> Once you go clear, it is the strangest feeling in the world
> that you ever had a bank, you not- know it so thoroughly.
> Lrh abandoned it, as a one shot clear and ot process, because
> it took too long.

Way out gradient for most cases.

(he quotes the beginning of Ted’s post here)

> Lots in COHA. Very workable. Easy to Solo Audit as well,

(and the rest of Ted’s post here)

> Good suggestion. You want to be able to look right at the wall,
> and not know something about it. Repeat with many objects. Runs
> best outside with plenty of variety. Wont be long until you will
> be able to Not Know huge chunks of the universe. Its a strange
> feeling, kinda scary at first. But then to get it back, all you
> have to do is know it again. :)

Objective not-know (what could you not know about that object) was one of the best of the old not know processes.

> EP is when you can either know or not know anything at will.

Run a variety of not-know processes to reach this. Don’t run a specific one with a hidden standard of the cog that has to occur. Take wins instead and vary the process (many not know processes are possible).

> You will cog on the factors, the conditions of existence, ARC,
> KRC, and the entire tone scale. It probably could be continued
> to the 3 universes., but you definitely would be in ot 5 and 6
> abilities at that point. If you can not know someone else’s bank,
> or a part of it, you will find it will disappear for you, all
> right, but they go around just like you didn’t erase it at all.
> The being has to come up to the point where they can not know
> their own case. Otherwise they just keep on mocking it up.

That is why not know is not the top. When they can consciously mock it up as desired, without either the need to know or not know because they can simply create (as it was before or different or whatever they feel like), then there is no conceivable reason to keep it mocked up (except maybe bits of it occasionally for fun).

> Happy FTA.

You too (he means Floating TA).

> Tom

==========

On 7 Feb 99, From: “Aaron Bair” posted

on topic “Self Clearing Survey Reply”

He gave an very detailed response to the survey which is really helpful to me (I’m not going to repeat the whole thing here).

Among other things, he pointed out the following:

> >10. Do you have any suggestions for improvements?
>
> I’m sure you are planning to expand with the breakthrough on loss post, so
> that’s covered. I just read you have some enhancements for chapter 14, so
> that’s covered.

For chapter 14, see the Super Process on Protest that I’m posting along with this.

> I second the motion to have a “the first postulate is NOT-KNOW” section.
> That was a great tape, if there is any other work out there in the same line
> I’d love to be exposed to it. Running not-know was as cool as spotting
> spots or holding corners used to be when I first started reading LRH books.
> Hey, is there a spotting spots in space process in self-clearing? Before I
> even got into the church I read that (in phoenix lectures?) and drilled it
> for days and days. Eventually I had to stop because I started being able to
> see with my eyes closed and it scared the good sense out of me. The “hole”
> I could see through went away after another week or so. I still get brave
> every now and again and spot a few spots until I become aware of being
> outside the normal 3-dimentional reality, but I don’t continue past that. I
> really look forward to the days when I can intentionally go for that kind of
> result again.

Yes, the not-know processes are great. See the breakthrough below.

And there is a high powered version of spotting spots in the self clearing book. But since it can act as an exteriorization process and turn on out-int, I put it fairly late. Chapter 11 which handles out-int should be done first.

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

To add to the background, here is the EXPANDED KNOW TO MYSTERY SCALE as included in the book Scientology 0-8.

Native State

Not Know

Know About

Look

Emotion

Effort

Think

Symbols

Eat

Sex

Mystery

Wait

Unconscious

This is the final version of the scale, but note that this is the scale which varied continually during the 1950s, not just being expanded or having minor refinements but having the order shifted around occasionally. Sometimes sex was above eat. Sometimes Know (knowingness) was at the top, then not know, then know about. Sometimes it was not-know, then know, then know about. Often mystery was the bottom.

Personally I would say that Sex is above Eat because the 2nd dynamic is above the 1st. And I would think that the pattern is Thought – Emotion – Effort because that shows up elsewhere and because that would be a pattern of increasing solidity. Then Symbols – Sex – Eat show up nicely as substitutes for thought, emotion, and effort respectively.

But the biggest bug has always been the top of the scale. I think that not-know above knowingness is correct, the not-know processes run better than processing knowingness. Below knowingness comes know about.

But if you have it that way, there is something missing at the top, and native state with no definition in this context is just a sort of cop out or a place holder.

This is the bug that was nagging at me and which kept me from writing a chapter on not-know processes for self clearing. I couldn’t really do it in the face of that uncertainty.

I took another look at the K-M scale back in August of 98. The post is called “Knowingness and Creation” and it is in post34.txt in the archives.

The top of the scale is create. This is above knowing. The idea of knowing isn’t even defined until you first not-know what you are creating. Otherwise how could you need to know it, you are simply creating it.

Right now my current view of K-M is that it should be:

Create

Not Know

Know

Know About

Look

Thought

Emotion

Effort

Symbols

Sex

Eat

Mystery

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

PROCESSING

Probably the easiest one to start with is to pick objects in the room (or the walls etc.) and run a few commands of “not know something about that object” on each one.

Then do the not-know variation of union station, which is done by going to a crowded place, selecting people and running “not know something about that person”. That one is discussed in the conquest of chaos tapes that were posted recently.

Then move up to the more exotic ones such as not know something about an area or situation or futures etc. (see the various posts above)

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

A Super Process on Not Know –

This one is the real breakthrough. When I was first reading all the above posts and thinking of my earlier work in putting create at the top of the K-M scale, it occurred to me that we could test whether create belongs above not-know by using a process to work the two against each other.

The process is dynamite. It does a lot more than I imagined when I thought it up. Here it is.

a) Create (mockup) something

b) Not Know who created it

In its pure form, it is just wild and wonderful to run.

But of course I had to experiment further. So I mixed it in with book and bottle as follows:

a) mockup a book

b) not know who created it

c) not know its weight

d) not know its color

e) not know its temperature

f) not know its contents

g) not know when it was created

h) not know its location.

Then mockup a bottle and do the same. Then mockup ANOTHER book and so forth.

After having a few dozen not known books and bottles disappearing into an unknown location, I had a funny mass of energy swirling around and just hanging there persistently. Not really swirling around me but over to the side somewhere.

Quite amazing really.

As an experiment, I tried to blow it by copying it, changing its color, etc. but it really didn’t want to blow, and by this point it was just a mass and I kind of felt foggy about it.

Note that I was not flattening not-know on any step and I was continually mocking up more books to not-know rather than doing anything more with the previous ones.

I had had no problem using simple creative not-know (above) repetitively. It was only when I did this book and bottle variation and kept adding to it that a mass built up. And the mass was not in the location where I had been mocking the books up, so I had never aimed the command at it either.

Of course this was a research experiment, so I was quite happy with the odd results.

Then the question was how to get rid of the mass.

I decided to try repetitively not-knowing who created the mass. After half a dozen commands, the not-know came off and I suddenly had good awareness of having created the mass and the individual points of creation and the books and bottles that were in it and so forth, so I simply unmocked it.

Interestingly enough, I didn’t have to flatten all the different not-knows I’d done, but just repetitively did a not know on who created the mass.

I noticed another interesting thing. When I’d mockup a book, I would make its cover a certain color, and when the not-know came off, I would know what that color was as I unmocked it.

But I had never assigned any contents to the books, I’d simply not know what the contents were. At the end I again knew what the contents were, but the contents, of course, was nothing because I’d never mocked it up in the first place, so I was aware that it had no contents.

The not known contents and the not known color were the same kind of feeling during the period when I had the whole mess suspended there. One was there but not known and the other had never been there in the first place. And what I learned was that you can’t tell the difference between those two situations until you get the not know off.

After this I tried picking objects and running “not know who created that object” (once per object). That actually brought up some wild awarenesses, and was also a lot of fun.

Anyway, the creative not-know process is extremely beneficial and seems to mimic some basic mechanisms.

Have Fun,

The Pilot


FreeZone America presents: ‘The Pilot’

MORE ON NOT-KNOW, AND A RECALL PROCESS (Attn. ROGERS)

Ref: Post 50.txt

Date: 5 Mar 1999

On 23 Feb 99, “Rogers” responded to my

post on “Super Scio Tech – NOT KNOW PROCESS (Self Clearing etc.)”

> Hi Pilot! (Anjin-san!)
>
> I’ve snipped your post quite brutally here just to keep the whole thing a
> reasonable size as well as focussing on a specific area for comment.
>
> Just wondering if the masses that were, shall I say, excited, by the fact of
> mocking things up (book and bottle) and then not-knowing stuff about them
> might have possibly felt like “glee-masses.” Well, that’s just my own
> descriptive phrase (I think) but I’m sure you get the picture.
>
> Quite obviously, your later ingenious application of the not-know principle
> did deal with these masses, so maybe this is a moot point. But I am sort of
> curious.
>
> Don’t mean to overrun you on this – just off the top of your head
> recollection is fine. But did the masses have a similar vibration (as it
> were) as when you were doing that other process where you had two
> counter-postulates instilled into an object at the same time. I am
> referring to a sort of “It is” versus “It isn’t” process you covered. Hope
> you know which one I am referring to. Anyway, was it like that or did it
> have a taste of glee in there. Or both?

Neither. In fact, now that you call my attention to it, it had a different quality than anything I’ve hit before in processing. There was a bit of a chaos and mystery quality to it. Not unpleasant, just strange, about like looking at static on a mistuned TV set.

> Just conceptualizing. Just seems like a possible shortcircuit between
> Create and Not-Know, like maybe there should be one or two more items
> in-between them. Either that, or perhaps the process just needs a buffer
> command inserted between the two given.
>
> It strikes me that this process might hit the “irresponsibility” button, if
> you know what I mean, but then again, maybe this parallels what we actually
> did very early on the track.

The simple process, alternating mockup with not-know who created it seems to run very well and easily and did not turn on the chaos effect mentioned above. I just tried mockup a book alternated with not-know its contents and again, that is fun and flattens easily. So these are basics.

What turned on the chaos effect was changing the not-know each time. So don’t run it that way except as an experiment, and then handle it by flattening the same not-know repetitively. Running “not-know who created it” definitely works and blows it without flattening the other not-knows. I’m not sure if flattening “not-know its temperature” for example would have the same effect since “who created it” might be an undercut.

> I am a also made a bit suspicious by the fact that the masses that were
> excited were “over to the side.” Almost as if they were “peripheral” or a
> side effect.

It seemed more likely that in not-knowing its location (occasionally, interspersed rather than flattened) enforced that it would not be in the location it was created in and so it pushed off a bit in a random direction. You could try it and see what happens, just be sure to clean up later with a straight run of “not know who created it” repetitively on the mass.

> Perhaps the process just activated an automaticity?

It didn’t really feel that way.

> I could postulate some notion along the lines of “Create a machine.
> Not-know who created it.” as a possibility but then again, I am
> still not sure there isn’t some missing ingredient.

There probably are missing things in regards to this. See below.

> It certainly is a great topic, so I hope you won’t mind me giving you
> another opportunity to analyze it.
>
> The section of your post that is in question is immediately below. Best,
> Les.

(I didn’t repeat it again since it is in the archives)

It would seem that pure create and exchange of creations doesn’t require a not-know. At that level, even responsibility / irresponsibility doesn’t exist except as a concept in context within a story line or a created frame of reality.

One can also play both sides of a game in an exterior manner without a not-know. Consider, for example, setting up and working chess problems. It is not true that one has to not-know the solution to enjoy the puzzle. The solution is not there to know until it is mocked up. Only then would you have to not-know it to be able to solve it again, and why not mockup another puzzle instead.

However playing against an opponent rather than with one does require not-know so that one can trick and outsmart the other. And some games (many card games for example) are not interesting from an exterior view.

And so not-know would run earlier on the track than interiorizing into games.

Not bothering to know something is different from putting up a barrier to knowing.

One probably has to not-know first before one gets into protests and other more sophisticated aberrations.

But communication is more basic.

So the early pattern is probably 1) separate, 2) create, 3) communicate, 4) not-know, 5) protest, 6) invalidate. After that comes grade 1 and so forth.

Since recall of pleasure moments works without finding any whys or handling any case, it has to be close to basic just like the comm processes. But it has to be a bit less basic than comm because we do get some benefit by running stops on recall (reasons for to forgetting, etc.). So it feels right to put this around the same place as not-know.

Based on that, I looked at forgetting as simply not-knowing the past.

So I tried “not know what I had for lunch” for each day of last week. Two quick cycles, just thinking of each day and deciding not to know what I had for lunch that day and I not only remembered what I had each day but even the various thoughts and so forth that I had while deciding what to have on those days.

This is a spectacular recall process. I would suggest doing a good bit of recalling pleasure moments first and then also getting one’s confront up on force and overts and things like that. But based on some brief fooling around, this is the fast one that brings up tons of whole track data quickly.

I’ve been looking for a fast high powered recall process for awhile now and this is it.

Best,

The Pilot


FreeZone America presents: ‘The Pilot’

A SUPER PROCESS ON PROTEST

Ref: post 49.txt

Date: 17 Feb 1999

This is one of the most powerful processes I’ve ever run. It dissolves solidities, blows somatics, undercuts problems and just about everything else.

The area addressed is “protest” and that is probably the most critical unhandled button on anyone who has had orthodox Scientology grades. It is a key basic right up there with problems, overts, and ARC breaks. In orthodox handling, the protests get bypassed with only the lightest lick and a promise and they accumulate. Eventually the former Scientologist ends up out there with a picket sign protesting the whole damn subject.

I had taken a stab at this area before and there is a chapter on it in the Self Clearing book. But as I mentioned in a recent post, the chapter is only a first pass and more work was needed. So I was thinking about that and trying things.

And I’d just put together those axioms of creation, and doing that improved my view of early track.

I’ve previously theorized that the downward spiral begins with willful decisions not to communicate. And I could see that eventually the being would be tying to communicate a protest and could not get it across (because of out communication) and therefore would begin to mock up something compulsively to communicate that protest.

That does run nicely and is still a good start on handling protest (in expanded grades, we learned not to discard the earlier processes when we hit upon a more advanced one in an area).

But it is not basic. There is an earlier action connected with protest on the track. Before he begins trying to communicate his protest, he must have something that he is protesting. So it begins with an inflow that he objects to and pushes a protest against.

So I came to the following concept:

Imagine that Joe is busily creating things. He has all sorts of interesting mockups and spaces and so forth. So do other people. They exchange creations.

One day Bill puts something in Joe’s space. Joe and Bill are already slightly out of communication. So Joe doesn’t feel like communicating with Bill and doesn’t want to take Bill’s viewpoint for the moment necessary to vanish the creation. So instead of admiring/acknowledging the creation for a moment and then as-ising (uncreating) it to get rid of it, he protests against it.

In protesting against it, he cannot now create it and therefore cannot uncreate it and as a result it becomes solid and he is stuck with it. And so he protests more. And the more he protests, the more solid it becomes and the harder it is for him to control or handle it. Soon he has problems in the area and then he’s committing overts to solve the problems and down we go.

A friend helped with the next part. We were bouncing around ideas on protest in the coffee shop and he realized that admiring something was the correct opposite to protesting the existence of it. Soon we were alternately admiring and protesting the existence of objects on the table and that was one hell of a process all by itself.

Then I added a third step, based on the idea that the correct handling was to take the viewpoint of creating something to dissolve it instead of protesting it.

With that I quickly knocked out a back somatic that had been troubling me all that morning (more on this later) and he tried running protest on the location that he was in and knocked himself right out of his head.

I’ve been playing with it since then and the process is wild. It runs extremely fast (usually just a few cycles through the commands) and runs on just about anything with spectacular results.

The commands are:

a) Protest the existence of ….

b) Admire the existence of ….

c) Get the viewpoint of creating the existence of ….

At basic, protest is an outflow. So on the first command, you are projecting a protest at the target. It is not passive and it is not merely disliking it or detesting it, it is an active flow of protest, a sort of “get it out of here”.

The assumption here is that anything which is in your space which you don’t want is, at some level, being protested. So we have the pc do consciously what he is doinging unconsciously, which in this case is to protest.

Considering how well this runs on objects selected at random, I might even theorize that at some level (maybe deeply suppressed), one is protesting the entire universe and that is what makes it solid and holds one trapped here.

And notice that the command is to protest the existence of rather than to protest something about something. If you want to run a spot on a salt shaker, you protest the existence of the spot (ignoring the salt shaker) rather than protesting the fact that the salt shaker has a spot on it. If you do it the other way, you wouldn’t have a pure protest and it doesn’t run right, you’re trying to hold the salt shaker there at the same time that you’re protesting the spot on it.

The admiration step is very important. Generally you will find that as you run through the commands a few times you will begin permeating and acknowledging the target for its existence. If necessary you could make a point of permeating it on this step, but it seems better to just let that come about naturally.

Generally on the first pass you are mostly protesting and only willing to give it a tiny grudging bit of admiration and then distastefully get a vague idea of creating such a thing. But that lets you really protest it heavily on the second time and then you find that you really can admire it a bit and start really getting the viewpoint of creating it.

And that “get the viewpoint of creating” is another wild part of this. Often there is a bit of a feeling of motion at some spiritual level and sometimes you get thoughts that seem connected with the creation of what you were protesting. It is just fantastic.

And then on the next pass something feels like it is really coming apart. Often you feel like you are permeating it on the protest step and that is frequently accompanied by a feeling of warmth and energy releasing. And often it starts to seem like a huge joke and the thing that you were protesting seems immensely funny, like a practical joke that you had pulled on yourself.

And you’ll find that when this happens, somatics disappear, if that was what you were running. Or things seem different and situations seem to change. Or perceptions change if you were running this on an object.

The biggest limitation seems to be on how much you can knock out on one run.

I mentioned that I tried it immediately on a back somatic. I had been lifting things the night before and what it really was was a bunch of little aches and pains, just the usual morning after effects of using muscles that were out of shape.

I’d run a few little assists on it in spare moments and eased it up a bit, but I hadn’t had the time to clean it up properly, I know from experience that somatics from sore muscles run slowly for me. This was at lunch time, by the way, so I hadn’t had too many spare moments and it was one of these deals where you pretty much ache all over.

So I took a shot at it right away, protesting the somatic, admiring, and creating it in rotation. A few commands and the somatic blew completely. Until, that is, I moved around and a different set of muscles started aching.

So I did it again, this time being very careful to protest the entire business, not just the ones that hurt in the particular position I was in. Again, just a couple of commands and the somatics were gone.

And I turned my head far to the side and there were more somatics. Run it again. Twist my shoulder around. Run it again. Shift into a weird position. Run it again.

It took a half dozen runs before I was moving around comfortably with no more back somatics. On the first few I kept trying to get the whole thing, and later I didn’t bother, just getting my protest at the muscles that were now hurting. It didn’t seem to make any difference in the process.

The individual runs were fast (especially the later ones) and the whole business still only took a few minutes. But there was this odd effect of only getting a small or limited amount of as-isness even when I tried to run a broader target.

Of course I tried running the entire physical universe as a single item. It runs well too. And some weight of oppression seems to dissolve, but it is hard to say exactly what, the itsa is not good on such a broad target. But the universe was still here for me afterwards. And I found that I could run that one again, and another little weight seemed gone, but not the whole universe. This one is fun, but it is probably using a teaspoon against the ocean.

Narrower and more specific targets produce better results. And there is much better itsa, so that is the way to go. You might try a broader target occasionally just to see what you can pick up, but don’t get into grinding away at a big one over and over.

Use it on things that you currently feel heavy protest towards and you can feel the charge lifting off in great chunks.

And of course I’ve been running this on various things that I protest in CofS. It is amazing how much protest that organization can engender. Note that you do not run “CofS assigning lower conditions” because you end up holding CofS solid while trying to run the lower conditions out of it. Just run “the existence of lower conditions” or a specific lower condition assignment you were given once or something like that where the entire item is a target of the process.

Unfortunately there does seem to be that limitation on how much really dissolves on each run of the process. But I wonder if enough freezoner’s ran off enough protest at CofS whether it might cause the unpleasant solidities in that place to dissolve.

Note that in the ideal scene, one can create everything but only chooses to create some things. It is restoration of choice over the existence of things rather than an irrevocable vanishment. So don’t be afraid of as-ising something you like, you’d just put it right back.

This might also unblock the road on running positive mockups successfully. The big barrier to this was that it doesn’t work well to try to mockup a good leg to handle the fact of a bad leg. Although this tends to be explained in terms of alter-is and not-is, we could also describe it as being due to his protest at the bad leg blocking his ability to create a good leg. That does fall under the same theory (the later condition persists) but opens the door to a simpler handling.

The theory would be to first blow all your protests in an area and then run a positive create to mockup what you want.

The maximum strength positive create process from the early ACCs is to mockup others creating the item. At one point Ron suggests using self analysis and running the commands as “mockup another creating …”

That all pretty much fell by the wayside because of the good leg / bad leg problem that would get in the way of positive create. So there wasn’t as much work on this as on other variations of creative processing.

My feeling on this is that if one is going to create a specific rather than vary the thing being created, then one should vary the terminal that one is mocking up to create it. In other words, “mockup Joe creating X”, “mockup Bill creating X” alternately. Even better might be to use dichotomies for classes of terminals as in “mockup a strong person creating X” alternated with “mockup a weak person creating X”.

This might also be helpful for people working with TROM since that has a positive create process in its lineup.

This protest business might also be the basic bug on creative processing. According to Ron (I think around 1957 – possibly it was the 16th ACC), occasionally somebody’s TA would soar out the roof on trying to do a mockup command. We know from modern tech (C/S series 1) that protest can drive the TA up. So my hypothesis now is that occasionally a creative process would restimulate this protest at other’s creations and cause the TA to soar.

How far one could go with this remains to be seen. But I can say for sure that there are big gains and cogs to be had running the protest process given above.

Affinity,

The Pilot


FreeZone America presents: ‘The Pilot’

REALITY FRAMES, AN ADVANCED PROCESS

Ref: post 42.txt

Date: 8 Dec 1998

This is wild, and yet it is amazingly simple and obvious.

Think of a reality, a universe, a game, a role in that game, and a viewpoint playing that role with a track and a bank and whatever else seems to go with it.

As an easy first gradient, think of a character in a movie or a book and then consider the complete package at any point in the ongoing drama.

We need a word for this package of reality and identity and the prior history taken at any instantaneous moment in the track of the mocked up creation.

Thinking of the frames of a movie and also of frames of reference, I decided to call this package a “FRAME”, or a Reality Frame (to distinguish it from other more normal uses of the word).

The process is to drill stepping in and out of frames.

Begin with easy fiction, TV or movies, things that are fun and easy to confront. Work up the gradient. Eventually you want to mockup stepping in and out of “real” frames, but the weight of track and case and complexity are immense in any approximation of the real world, so you need to work up to it.

On the early track we mocked up frames and stepped in and out of them, exchanged them, etc.

It is not possible to experience pain or loss or shock except in the context of a frame. Only the earliest aberrations (things like enforced & inhibited comm, protest, etc.) can exist in an environment where one steps in and out of frames at will.

————————

Last month I had that big cognition on loss and stopped flinching at pictures of loss. And of course I stopped flinching at pictures of force way back when (that is the dianetic clear state).

So of course I wondered what I might still be reacting on and the obvious answer, per Ron’s thought-emotion-effort theory was mental shocks. And I’ve already run quite a few of those, but that’s not the same as getting to a clear state on the subject.

And Robert Ducarme has been getting good mileage out of paying special attention to shocks in incident running and has been pointing out some of Ron’s early statements on the subject (it seems to have gotten lost in modern R3R dianetics).

But I was looking for a fast way though and was almost exterior to the whole mess thanks to the big keyout that came along with the big blowout on loss.

So I decided that a gradient of confronting mocked up shocks would be fast and easy, and the occasional shocking moments that one gets in movies or whatever seemed ideal. You don’t get real pain or loss watching a movie but you do get shocks (which are generally fun, but still shocking) so it approximated the earlier track situation where one could not be affected by force or loss but was already subject to shocks.

This was good in theory, but in practice I was still blown out over the loss business so instead of connecting with the mental impact of shocks and flattening that, I jumped past it and noticed that the shocks could only exist in the context of an ongoing drama.

I probably will have to flatten the area of shocks eventually because I think that there is a clearlike state available on that topic as well. But I put it aside for the moment because this other thing was just too good to miss.

So I began thinking of how one would get in and out of context and that lead to the frames idea above.

————————

This is to some degree a sequel to the old 1950s process called “wearing heads”, of which a variation is presented in Self Clearing as process 10.5 “Other’s Viewpoints”. In the process, one mocks oneself up as somebody else and looks around from their viewpoint.

And it is a sequel to the final process in the last chapter of Self Clearing where one mocks up a scene and steps in and out of it.

Both of these are easy and fun processes and you might need to do them first.

Certainly I found them both easy by this time, so my approach to drilling stepping in and out of the context of a frame was basically a combination of the two.

My first attempt was to pick something light and easy. I settled on the pleasant sitcom, “Cheers” and decided to step in and out of the “Norman” character.

It was unbelievably difficult. I was shocked. I could easily mock myself up as Norman and walk around with his viewpoint in the Wearing Heads process. I could easily mockup the bar at Cheers and visualize myself in and out of the scene as in the final Self Clearing process.

But when I put the two together, trying to step in and out of the Norman viewpoint in the bar at Cheers, there was a horror to it and an incredible flinch.

I comm lagged on this for a day, not quite daring to do it for real and sort of making halfway tries occasionally.

Finally I was talking this over with a friend in the coffee shop and I realized that I was flinching at the fear of being trapped in the frame.

Then I could see that in wearing heads I was mostly adding an additional viewpoint to my current one and in stepping into the picture I was retaining my current viewpoint and only moving into a different scene.

But in really mocking myself up in the frame, I was narrowing down, accepting a new set of limits.

Once I had spotted that and confronted those considerations, I found that I could do the drill and flatten the charge on it. And of course it wasn’t a complete narrowing down, you only narrow in the viewpoint that you reach into and remain yourself behind that. And of course these things weren’t sticky and entrapping once I started really confronting.

I drilled this some more with various things and it got easy and a lot of charge seemed to blow.

But the amount of charge on it was surprising, so I began to speculate that we had used sticky frames as traps early on the track. I’m even suspecting now that what I refer to as the reality wars were fought with sticky frames.

————————

So I wondered how a frame would become sticky.

And of course I thought of the things that get people hooked on a soap opera or deeply involved in a book or a movie.

Things like mystery, unanswered questions, and wondering what is going to happen next.

And if you’re really good, you get a series of questions going so that when one gets answered there are others to keep the person involved until you can raise the first question again.

In other words, you have a “who killed xxx” question going and then you start “who is sleeping with yyy” and then when the murder of xxx is found you keep the audience hooked with the second question while you start up another murder mystery. This is the typical soap formula.

My next thought was that there must be some basic or eternal questions which are keeping us stuck in this frame.

It seemed like “Who am I”, “Why are we here”, “What is the purpose of it all” and so forth were good candidates.

And of course “Who am I” is the flow zero version of the NOTS question.

So let us say that it is one of the basic questions and when you get an answer it loosens the being up a bit. I don’t think it sets anyone totally free because there are many questions going at once, but answering any one might relieve enough charge to let an entity go on their way or whatever.

So I decided to try and flatten “What is the purpose of it all” as a repetitive question, just acknowledging each answer I might find for myself.

Instead of listing for a single right answer, I took the attitude that there were many valid answers but that I would gradually move from surface ones to getting down to deeper basics.

That had a wonderful effect.

I spotted things like “Its all a game” and “We’re here to learn” and finally came down to the fact that the meaning of it all is whatever arbitrary we feel like assigning to it at the moment.

And that gave a real feeling of freedom.

The NOTs question actually has layers of valid answers. Saying “I’m Joe” is valid but its surface, so you strip off the layers and get to the most basic answer which is “I’m me”.

After finding one of these, it will start building up layers again because of course you start being various identities and adding meaning back into life and so forth, so the answer is pure only for a short time.

And so it works like the soap opera. When you have the answer to “who am I”, you lack the answer to “why are we here”, and by the time you find out the second one, you are already away from the first one.

Of course the series of basic questions is much longer and I’m not sure what else is on the list. Speculatively, it might be enough simply to have a full list and the basic answers to them and to consider them all at once. But I’m only guessing here.

——————–

This last section might just be my own dub-in, so take it with a grain of salt.

If we are all stuck in a frame, the important question would be when and how did we get stuck.

When I thought of that, I immediately flashed on the fall of home universe.

Ron has said that anybody can spot fall of home universe by spotting the time when the stars fell down. I’m not sure how many people he tried this on, probably only a handful. But I get something on it and I know at least a few other people who do, so it would seem like there is something there even if it is not very accessible.

I wrote up a lot of my own Itsa on home universe in the Cosmic History chapter of Super Scio. But I was never very sure of exactly what caused the collapse, and you’ll note that I mentioned my uncertainty about that in the chapter.

In other words, I have had a fairly good view of the home universe time period for awhile now, and I have this incident of the collapse, which I also feel fairly good about but there has always been this gap between them and I have been quite bothered by the question of why did it collapse.

So I revisited the area with this new awareness of frames.

Home universe is not in a frame. It is a place where you create frames. The frames are the “story universes” mentioned in Super Scio.

The “fall of home universe” sequence is within a frame.

Spotting real home universe, and spotting the fall, and shifting between those two points in time back and forth, I can feel the same narrowing down as I go into the fall as I feel when I shift into something like the Norm character at cheers.

Its a goddamned story line, and its the story that we’ve been stuck in ever since. The story of how did a god become mortal.

It never actually happened (except in the sense that all is illusion anyway), instead it was presented to as a fait acomplee and then we became intrigued by the problems of how would you operate from a limited human viewpoint.

Imagine that you go to watch one of these movies where the world is destroyed and now the survivors have to get along somehow. Now imagine that it is an interactive video game where you get to play as well as just watch. And now imagine that it is so popular and engrossing that eventually people go into the thing and forget that its a movie and never step back out into the real world again. In the end you think that the world really has been destroyed and that becomes your reality.

My only proof of this is subjective. It occurred to me that if this was the case, then we might not have gotten really hooked the first time but instead might have gone in and watched the opening sequence and played a bit and then left. Only after a few times might somebody get so hooked that they stayed in too long and forgot who they were. And then they became subject to the shocks and loss and force that might hit them in the context of the frame and could decay further down to our current level.

Based on that, it would mean that the fall of home universe happened multiple times because you would get the sequence each time you connected to the game.

And I can spot that. Its there, over and over again, the same goddamn collapse with the stars falling down and everything starting to decay.

One of the hooks is “Why did home universe fall” and of course they never answered that one but just kept promising to. The real answer is that it never did fall. Its just part of the story line.

———————-

A few more observations:

Reality generators pushing in more and less of various qualities would be a way to add variety and randomity to a complex frame so that it was interesting enough to keep people’s attention and complex enough to prevent casual as-isness.

All the more complex aberrations such as GPMs could only come about in context and so exist only within frames.

But we must have already decayed seriously due to basic grades style aberrations or else we would not have forgotten and become lost so easily. Home Universe is at the bottom of the positive scale, the last point at which we were creating and discarding realities at will.

Hope this helps,

The Pilot