The Pilot - Squirrel unter Beschuß

Im folgenden gebe ich eine Reihe Postings wieder, die zwar nicht unmittelbar aufeinander folgten, sondern in ganz verschiedenen Gruppen erschienen, aber dann doch zusammen gehören.

Die Debatte ist größtenteils auf Englisch. Ich möchte sie hier jedoch trotz der Mühe für den deutschsprachigen Leser wiedergeben, denn sie macht den genauen Trennungsstrich zwischen LRH und Squirreln an einem interessanten Thema klar: Den Themen "Postulate" und "Positivem Denken". Auf den ersten Blick scheinen diese beiden Themen Synonyme zu sein.

Doch The Nameless One stellt mit Hilfe umfangreicher LRH-Zitate klar, wie groß der Unterschied ist und warum man nun gerade gegenüber den Verfechtern des "Positiven Denkens" oder der "Affirmationen" nicht nachsichtig sein sollte.


Zu Anfang war dieses Posting von The Pilot am 26 Juni 2001, das ich wegen seinem Umfang auf einer separter Seite gespeichert habe. Es wird im nächsten Beitrag auch ausführlich zitiert, so dass jemand, der sich schnell einen Überblick verschaffen will, auf das Lesen des Originals auch verzichten kann. Es ist zur Vollständigkeit und wegen der gebotenen Fairness hier aufgeführt.

Andreas


Um den Hintergrund zu geben, vor dem Ralph Hilton seine Zweifelcondition-Zuweisung an Ken Ogger (ehemals The Pilot) abgegeben hat, möchte ich hier ein Posting aus CoSEvaluation wiedergeben, das am 4. Juli 2001 von "Nameless One" veröffentlicht wurde. "The Nameless" schreibt Satiren derart, als wäre er ein Markabianer, der aus der Sicht der Wächter über den Gefängnisplaneten Erde schreibt. Er zitiert dabei ein Posting von Ken Ogger (ex The Pilot), mit dem er sich auseinander setzt.  

Andreas    

Am 4. Juli 2001 schreibt the "Nameless One" in CoSEvaluation:

While perusing my normal Earth communications channel a few days ago, I ran across something rather interesting, which brought to mind some of my former training.

Here is a small excerpt from one of my earlier training manuals:

"Markabian Intelligence Eyes Only

Perception Control Operations
Use of Illogic, and Confusions

Logic, when deftly used, is like a fine instrument.  In the wrong hands, it
is a clumsy, and crude weapon, but in the hands of a master, it is a
beautiful thing to behold, capable of the most expert subtlety.  There is a
very fine edge between logic and illogic, and if not used skillfully, one
can be cut by this edge as well.  Logic will uncover and expose illogic, and
confusions can be resolved.

Truth is that which is or could be, a lie is that which is not or could not
be.  Confusions result from an inability to distinguish between the two. 
Logic is the process of identification and separation of truth from lies.

The normal operation of the mind is to accept truth, reject lies, and hold
in suspension confusions, until resolved.  However, when the mind of your
opponent is properly manipulated, it can be caused to reject truths as
false, accept lies as true, or become so confused that he becomes completely
disoriented, and loses his original vector.  This is a gradient process, and
sufficient preparation must be employed if one is to be successful."


Within the Markabian culture, the subject of logic is taken very seriously,
and it's use is highly developed and extensively used throughout the
society.  Children are taught from an early age to develop this and many
other skills including multi-vector target acquisition and multi-dimensional
game-playing.  I myself received this type of training from an early age. 
However a bit later in life, I traveled to a special school run by an
master, and began learning things not known or taught within the Markabian
culture.

After recently locating and reconnecting with my old teacher, I am once
again progressing well in my training.  Now let's see if I can apply my
former studies along with my new lessons to a recent post done by someone:

>From: pilot@scientology.at (The Pilot)
>Subject: Super Scio - MAKING POSTULATES STICK
>Organization: The Pilots hidden place
>Xref: news.tele.dk alt.clearing.technology:117547
>alt.religion.scientology:861576
>
>
>
Super Scio - MAKING POSTULATES STICK

Super: above or beyond
Super Scio: above or beyond Scientology
Translation: This is something that is beyond Scientology (making postulates
stick)


>I'm still recovering, but finally there is hope and a light at
>the end of the tunnel.

Translation:
I'm going uptone
There is hope
Finally, after all this time, this is what you have been searching for.


>I have been using a mixture of Scn and Science of Mind (SofM)
>tech (The Church of Religious Science) and getting real world results.

Note use of the term "real world results".  These words were chosen
specifically for the meanings they convey.  "Real" means that which is
actual, as opposed to that which is illusory.  "Real world", therefore,
would be the "actual" as opposed to "illusory" world.  What is being
conveyed is that the 3rd universe, the MEST universe, is "real", and by
inference, anything else is illusory.  Therefore, only results observable in
the 3rd universe are "real".

Translation: By squirreling (mixing Scientology with Science of Mind tech),
you will get "real" not "illusory" results.
Keep your attention focused on the physical universe, it is the only thing
that is important.

No qualification yet as to the type of results, but results nonetheless.


>It has been rough and slow, but that anything could break the
>hell I was trapped in is incredible.

Translation:
It was not easy to get where I am now
Nothing else worked
I was trapped but now I'm free
This is incredible.

Notice also the justification given for squirrelling:
"but that anything could break the hell I was trapped in is incredible."


>The Scientology tech is limited in that it is almost all negative
>gain.

Translation:
Scientology is limited
The gains are mainly negative


>A Scientology OT could not make a postulate stick if
>his life depended on it.

Note the use of the generalization "A Scientology OT" in this invalidation. 
A, means any one of some class or group, therefore, by direct inference, he
is saying that none are capable of this most basic of abilities.  Also, the
OT level to which he is referring is not mentioned, a further generality. 
This could mean ANYONE from OT 1 to OT 7 (in the church), OR, any higher OT
levels outside of the church.  Not to mention anyone below that such as
Clears.  This of course, is in direct opposition to what LRH says.

This invalidation is, of course, false.

Further, the use of the term "if his life depended on it" would indicate
moments of extremely high necessity level, when most people (OT or not) are
often capable of rather incredible feats, including manipulation of the
physical universe.

Translation: Anyone who studies Scientology isn't capable of making a
postulate stick, even during moments of extremely high necessity level.


>I certainly couldn't, and I was as
>good at it as anybody I know in the subject.

Translation:
HE couldn't make a postulate stick even during moments of extremely high
necessity level.
He was among the best that he knew.

This is, of course, simply another invalidation.  Since HE couldn't do it
(and of course he was among the best), this invalidates the whole subject
doesn't it?


>And of course sometimes I did make a postulate stick (including
>wild things that violated physical universe laws),

Here we have the first direct contradiction of facts.  First he claims that
neither he nor anyone else he knew in Scientology could make a postulate
stick "if his life depended on it", then immediately following he claims
that sometimes he did, "including wild things that violated physical
universe laws".


>but it was never something I could count on, so that
>when the ability was needed instead of just being a
>"would be nice", it failed.

Translation:
He did not trust his own abilities
His postulates were not under his conscious control
When he had a must-have on the postulate, it didn't work
When he didn't have a must-have on the postulate, it did work.


>The SofM tech, on the other hand, is exceptionally good at
>putting postulates out there and getting real world manifestations.

Logical error: He states that the SofM TECH is "good at putting postulates
out there..."  Only a thetan can do that (put out a postulate).
"on the other hand" means "as opposed to", in this case, Scientology.
Once again, note the use of the term "real world".

Translation: Unlike Scientology, SofM will enable you to manifest your
postulates in the MEST universe.

In other words, your spiritual state and condition are unimportant, what is
important is being able to create effects in the physical universe. 
Remember, keep your attention focused on the physical universe.


>Except that they are clueless about running out case charge
>and they often fail because charge goes into restim.

Another contradictory statement.  Just before he stated that the SofM tech
is "exceptionally good at... getting real world manifestations", and now he
says "they often fail because charge goes into restim."


>Often there are instantaneous real world results, but not
>quite what one was mocking up.

There's that "real world" phrase again.  Apparently, someone is using this
phrase as a button.

Is this what SofM tech is exceptionally good at?  This sounds almost exactly
like what he was saying earlier about his own experiences prior to his
involvement with SofM.


>One of their simplest actions is to use positive affirmations.
>These things do work.

Another contradictory statement.  Just above he stated that the results were
often "not quite what one was mocking up."


>LRH used affirmation tech endlessly
>during his youth, as the critics have been quick to point out.

Note the use of the term "affirmation tech", as if this were a valid
technology which LRH developed.

Logical assumption: that LRH used this "endlessly".

The author wouldn't actually have any first-hand knowledge of how much or
how often this technique was employed during his youth, and yet this
statement is intended to convey the idea that it is somehow "akin to"
Scientology tech developed much later.  LRH also dabbled in and experimented
with mysticism, hypnosis, and the psychiatrist's couch, but he threw all of
those out in favor of a workable technology.


>But the flaw is that you can sometimes restimulate the negative
>and get a ridge and keyin charge instead of getting the
>positive manifestation that you are affirming for.

Logical error in sequence: restimulate, get a ridge, key-in charge.  The
ridge was already there, but postulating against it simply restimulates it.

Restimulation: 1. the reactivation of a past counter-effort... 2. ...the
reactivation of an existing incident.  3. ...reactivates a facsimile, which
then acts back against the body or awareness of awareness unit of the
person.  This is a very simple system of stimulus-response.

Flaw: a defect or fault impairing the soundness or validity of something.

Logical error: There is no flaw, simply a stimulus-response mechanism.

Goals Problem Mass: the goal has been balked for eons by opposing forces. 
The goal pointed one way, the opposing forces point exactly opposite and
against it... Where these two forces have perpetually met, a mental mass is
created.  This is the picture of any problem - force opposing force with
resultant mass. 
HCOB 20 Nov 61

They're a conglomeration of identities which are counter-opposed, and these
identities are hung up on the postulate-counter-postulate of a problem. 
SHSBC 243, 6302C26.

This is a very key statement if we examine it closely.  "A conglomeration of
identities" describes exactly, the upper-level case.

In an article written in late March of 1959 entitled
The Subject of
Clearing
, we find the following:

"...The first Clears I made in 1947 that were stable were in reality Theta
Clears, not Mest Clears.  ...When I found in 1950 that other auditors could
not achieve this, I made it my thorough business to: 1. Study all phenomena
related to Clearing;  2. Study ways to train auditors to do the job and  3.
Achieve the original state on a broad scale by auditors in general on all
types of cases.

...Mest Clearing is shortcut clearing.  By keying out engrams, one becomes
free of them.  This was achieved in a very large number of cases.  BUT not
all people could be Mest Cleared, AND the state is not always stable.  What
happens to a Mest Clear sometimes?  What makes the state unstable?

A Mest Clear, according to several reports even from those given bracelets
(of which they should still be proud), starts acting like a Theta Clear and
can't make it.  It's a lose.  He falls back.  In short, a Mest Clear can
postulate.  And he postulates himself into trouble.  He can still key in
engrams.  His postulates operate powerfully on his bank, evidently, and
there he goes.

...Because of this liability (and because of later gains I made on Theta
Clearing) no HGC is now even trying for Mest Clear.  It's all Theta Clearing
now...  The Mest Clear, then, still has a malady - the ability to postulate
his engrams into heavy play."


And then, less than two months later we have more data coming out.  In
HCOB
7 May 1959, NEW PROCESS
, we find this:

"...The broad tone scale is divided into three general parts.  Highest is
Pan-Determinism.  Mid-range is Self-Determinism.  Low range is
Other-Determinism.  The fundamental difficulty is that something has so
thoroughly overwhelmed the pc that he is it.  This is Other-Determinism
become the person.  Mild locks use this route to further overwhelm him.  A
person doesn't really find anything in this lifetime that would have
overwhelmed him enough to aberrate him.  It took great doing...

...Auditing is the reversing of other-determined flows by gradient scales,
putting the pc at cause again.

THE BASIC ERROR
The question was asked me, and a fine question it was, "Why does a thetan
make his postulate fail to stick in the first place?  Why would he say, 'I
can get my postulates all messed up and so cause an overt act'?"  Obviously
all aberration is third dynamic.  The entrance into self-determinism
requires that a thetan conceive the idea of other beings.  Also he must then
conceive that there are zones of privacy form which he must not communicate.
  This error leads to obsessive or fixed channels on which he can be
overwhelmed, since he "may not" take the position of cause on this channel. 
...A person, therefore, becomes as aberrated as he cannot communicate, as
aberrated as he is overwhelmed by Other-Determinisms, as aberrated as he
himself dare not assume cause points.

A NEW PROCESS
This leads to a new process...

'From where could you communicate?' or
'Find a place from which you could communicate'..."


It would appear as though LRH provided all the data about why the author has
been having troubles with his postulates not sticking, and as some will
recognize, this new process became Grade 0.  Any familiar with the upper
bridge will also recognize what Grade 0 was beginning to gradiently address.


>This flaw is recognized in early (1952-4) Scientology and
>therefor any kind of positive thinking or affirming was rejected
>as an unworkable tech.

Logical error: use of the word flaw, again, in-place of stimulus-response
mechanism.

Note that immediately following the misspelled word above (therefor), we
have a false statement.

False statement: "any kind of positive thinking or affirming was
rejected...".  LRH never discouraged thinking positively.

Tone 40: "giving a command and just knowing that it will executed despite
any contrary appearances." 
Tone 40 is positive postulating. (PAB 133)

We also find the following in
The Joy of Creating written in 1982:
"Force yourself to smile and you'll soon stop frowning.  Wax enthusiastic
and you'll soon feel that way..."


>From the earliest published works in 1950 and '51 (Dianetics, Science of
Survival, Self-Analysis), there was never any mention of "positive thinking"
or "affirming" as any type of workable technology.  Rather, the need to
eliminate the source of hidden mis-emotions and counter-intentions is always
emphasized.  In Dianetics, LRH also says the following: "Never install a
positive suggestion of any kind in a patient no matter how much he may beg
for one.  It has proven nearly fatal."

In December of 1951, in an article entitled
Postulate Processing, we find
the following:
"The auditor's objective when applying Postulate Processing is to raise his
preclear from the state of compartmented static into a state of motion.  It
cannot be achieved simply by giving new postulates to replace the old.  A
first essential is to process the old conclusions and beliefs.  Merely to
make a new conclusion which violates an un-detected static in one's past
sets up non-optimum randomity; confusion exists between the new and the old.
  Actually, earlier postulates are to the individual the valid postulates,
and will cancel succeeding ones to a great extent."


>That was a big mistake.

Direct invalidation of LRH and Scientology.

Translation:  The author knows better than LRH what works and what doesn't.
And this is the same author that told us at the beginning "but that anything
could break the hell I was trapped in is incredible", and "I'm still
recovering...".


>Repetative affirmation done well is repeatative postulation
>and it sinks into the inaccessible area (the "subconscious")
>and spreads out into the manifestation of reality.

Grammatical error: Misspelling of the word "repetitive" twice, with two
different spellings in the same sentence.

Note that again, immediately following the misspelling, we have false data
being promoted.

Now we get to what the author is really promoting:
Installation of repetitive commands into the "inaccessible area", the
"subconscious".  This is a typical implant technique.  Are we raising
anyone's tone here, or just installing commands below the level of awareness
in order to create an effect?

The author is also promoting the idea that the bank is more powerful than
the individual, and one should use it and enhance it in order to get a
"manifestation of reality".  That only through the bank can one get "real
world results".  This is typical implanter think.

Also note that this technique being promoted is not putting the person more
at cause, but rather, more at effect.  As some will see, the use of this
technique will take the person from Self-Determined, back down into
Other-Determined.


>There are endless examples of affirmation tech
>working, and actually even without any processing, it seems to
>work more often than the times it fails and keys in charge.

Generality: "endless examples"

Use of the term "affirmation tech" to again promote the idea that this is
some type of workable technology akin to Scientology.

Here the author is subtly invalidating Scientology processing by insinuating
that it is "unneeded", and results can be obtained without it.  Note the
words chosen however, to convey this message:

"it seems to work"
"more often than the times it fails"

Seem: to appear to be, feel, do, etc.; to give the outward appearance of
being or to pretend to be.

So this means that it SEEMS to work just over 50% of the time, but no data
on how often it ACTUALLY works.  Not exactly the type of 100% results
expected from a workable technology.


>But you do have to keep your eye out for the negative going
>into compulsive create and handle it if it does.

As LRH said in 1951:
"Merely to make a new conclusion which violates an
un-detected static in one's past sets up non-optimum randomity."

Goals Problem Mass: the goal has been balked for eons by opposing forces. 
The goal pointed one way, the opposing forces point exactly opposite and
against it... Where these two forces have perpetually met, a mental mass is
created.  This is the picture of any problem - force opposing force with
resultant mass. 
HCOB 20 Nov 61.

The author fails to mention that LRH pointed this out as early as 1951, and
thus seeks to take credit for this "discovery".


>One of the simplest tricks is just to alternate the positive
>and the negative until the ridge blows and then switch
>back to the positive affirmation.

Trick: 1. a crafty or underhanded device, maneuver, stratagem, or the like,
intended to deceive or cheat; artifice; ruse; wile.  5. a clever or
ingenious device or expedient.

Expedient: 1. tending to promote some proposed or desired object; fit or
suitable under the circumstances.  2. conducive to advantage or interest, as
opposed to right.

Again, the author appears to be the source for some new technology.  In
Scientology: 8-80, published in 1952, we find Concept Processing and Black
and White.  In
chapter eight, it says the following:

"Concept running is easily done.  The preclear "gets the idea" of knowing or
not being and holds it, the while looking at his time track.  The concept
runs out, or the somatic it brings on runs out, and the concept itself is
run."


In chapter eleven, LRH discusses the exact procedure and lists 29 different
dichotomies.  He also includes the following warning:
"As the preclear runs, he finds the speed of the change of flow changes more
and more rapidly until it runs like a vibration.  This vibration,
theoretically, can increase to a strong current which becomes so great it is
well to ground your preclear by using an E-meter or letting him hold a wire
in each hand which is connected to a bare water pipe or radiator. 
Otherwise, his MEST body may be damaged by the flow."


As we also saw earlier, however, Mest Clears were being produced in the
early days, but the state was unstable due to the NOTS case.  He found that
unless this "banana peel" as Mayo called it, was handled, the person would
end up falling on their head.


>For example, somebody thinks that they are stupid, or maybe
>really is stupid.

Most likely this would be a case manifestation, the "thought" that they are
stupid being generated by case.

>So they begin to affirm that they are smart.
>This will help, and it will make it easier for them to study
>things and is actually a very benifical action.

Logical error: Just how, exactly, this helps is a mystery, as immediately
below the author states that this causes charge to key-in.  Keying-in charge
is generally not looked upon as beneficial, unless of course, you are
in-session at the time.

Once again, immediately following the misspelling of beneficial and
repetitively, we find false data...

>Except that whenever they start going "I am smart"
>repetatively, they begin to think of all the reasons why
>they are really stupid and key in charge and start
>invalidating themselves and spinning.

While it is possible that the person himself generated his own invalidation
immediately after his "good" thought, most likely it is his case which is
generating it.  Mis-identifying the source of the thought can cause a
mis-ownership of the charge, and prevent as-isness.  Those that are familiar
with NOTS will understand this mechanism and the problems that mis-ownership
can cause.  Until a person is capable of separating from case and properly
identifying the source of the aberration, they will BE it.

In an article published in September of 1952, entitled The Running of
Concepts, LRH says the following:
"...Concept running also includes specific thoughts.  It does not include
phrases and the auditor must be careful not to let the preclear repeat
phrases, since these will repeat him into unconscious periods of engrams. 
Let the preclear simply get the concept contained in a phrase, and feel this
concept rather than express it."



>So then they should alternately get the idea of being smart and
>being stupid, or really mockup being each of those alternately,
>until something releases.  Maybe old pictures or whatever will
>come up along the way or maybe the ridge will just blow.  That
>is oldtime Scientology processing at its best.

Notice that the author has now mis-identified HIS squirrel process as
"oldtime Scientology", despite the fact that it disagrees with LRH on
certain points, and is a definite alteration to LRH developed processes.

Notice in the above statement, the use of the word "maybe" twice, and then
immediately below, we have a "might" on the F/N.  Again, not exactly the
kind of results one would expect from a 100% workable tech.  And yet, this
is being attributed to "oldtime Scientology", which it is not.


>Then they might have a nice FN on smart/stupid and the Scientology
>mistake would be to stop there because you will get an overrun
>if you continue processing smart/stupid after the ridge blows.

Logical error: An F/N is only a meter read, and not necessarily the EP of a
session or process.

Again however, we have the author indicating that he knows better than LRH. 
As I recall, this is something Alan Walter used to promote as well -
continuing past the F/N into overrun territory.


>The right action would be to start repetatively postulating
>being smart again once the smart/stupid ridge has FNed and blown.

However, from a logic standpoint again, if one was now cause in this area,
why would one need to repetitively tell oneself that he is?

Tone 40: 1. defined as "giving a command and just knowing that it will be
executed despite any contrary appearances."  Tone 40 is positive
postulating.
(PAB 133)  2. a positive postulate with no counter-thought
expected, anticipated or anything else; that is total control.
(PAB 152)

We can see therefore, that "repetitive affirmation" would not be Tone 40, as
it is expecting counter-intention.  If the charge really WAS blown, and
there were no more counter-postulates or counter-intentions, one would only
need to make a single new postulate.  Anything more would be unnecessary. 
If a single postulate doesn't work, it can mean only one thing, one is not
really cause in the area yet.  Control is low?  Raise knowledge and
responsibility.

(snip)

>Another very important item is the SofM concept of God, which
>is pretty much the same as Scientology Axiom One (life is basically
>a static).  Except that SofM considers it an active force rather than
>putting it back at the start of track.

I don't recall LRH saying anything about the 8th dynamic being inactive, no
longer existing, or existing only at the beginning of the track.


>SofM considers that "God" is a universal mind of which we
>are all a part, and that we are co-creators with God and
>that "God" is basically a static.

Now we are getting into a really tricky area which is dependant upon
people's mis-understandings in order to have it's intended effect.


Dn Axiom 1: THE SOURCE OF LIFE IS A STATIC OF PECULIAR AND PARTICULAR
PROPERTIES

Dn Axiom 2: AT LEAST A PORTION OF THE STATIC CALLED LIFE IS IMPINGED UPON
THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.

Impinge: 1a. to strike, hit, or dash (on, upon, or against something) b. to
touch (on or upon); have an effect.

Dn Axiom 7: THE LIFE STATIC IS ENGAGED IN A CONQUEST OF THE PHYSICAL
UNIVERSE.

Definition: a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location
in space or in time.  It has the ability to postulate and perceive.

>From The Phoenix Lectures:
"A thetan is very, very close to being a pure Static.

...Thetans think of themselves as being in the MEST universe (MEST universe:
the physical universe, from the initial letters of matter, energy, space,
time).  Of course, this is a joke, too.  As the Static they can't possibly
be *in* a universe."

Dn Axiom 3: THAT PORTION OF THE STATIC OF LIFE WHICH IS IMPINGED UPON THE
PHYSICAL UNIVERSE HAS FOR ITS DYNAMIC GOAL, SURVIVAL AND ONLY SURVIVAL.


In order to understand what is being communicated here, we need to better
understand the dynamics themselves.

DEFINITION: DYNAMIC IS THE ABILITY TO TRANSLATE SOLUTIONS INTO ACTION.

Dynamics: there could be said to be eight urges (drives, impulses) in life. 
These we call dynamics.  These are motives or motivations.  We call them the
eight dynamics.

Dn Axiom 55: SURVIVAL EFFORT FOR AN ORGANISM INCLUDES THE DYNAMIC THRUST BY
THAT ORGANISM FOR THE SURVIVAL OF ITSELF, ITS PROCREATION, ITS GROUP, ITS
SUBSPECIES, ITS SPECIES, ALL LIFE ORGANISMS, MATERIAL UNIVERSE, THE LIFE
STATIC AND, POSSIBLY, A SUPREME BEING.

We can observe that the dynamics (starting from the first) are
ever-increasing outward, towards encompassing and including more and more
life and responsibility.  In reality, the dynamics are an integral part of
the being himself, they are not a separate thing that is detachable.  As a
person progresses up the Bridge, this becomes more and more apparent.

1. An individual
2. His mate & offspring (subgroup of 3)
3. His group (subgroup of 4)
4. His species (mankind - subgroup of 5)
5. All living organisms (Lambda - subgroup of 6)
6. All matter (Phi - subgroup of 7)
7. All thetans (Theta - subgroup of 8)
8. All (Static - highest truth)

Scn Axiom 45: THETA CAN CONSIDER ITSELF TO BE PLACED, AT WHICH MOMENT IT
BECOMES PLACED, AND TO THAT DEGREE A PROBLEM.

Scn Axiom 46: THETA CAN BECOME A PROBLEM BY ITS CONSIDERATIONS BUT THEN
BECOMES MEST.  MEST is that form of theta which is a problem.

Scn Axiom 50: THETA AS MEST MUST CONTAIN CONSIDERATIONS WHICH ARE LIES.

Scn Axiom 52: MEST PERSISTS AND SOLIDIFIES TO THE DEGREE THAT IT IS NOT
GRANTED LIFE.



>They recognize that there is this one thing that they call
>God which is universal and includes everything and then they
>get the idea of being one with it and visualizing what they
>want to have from that viewpoint, and they see it as already
>done in present time and then acknowledge that it is done
>and let go of it.

This is where it gets real tricky, so let's break it down a little at a
time.

>"They recognize that there is this one thing that they call God..."

First, we have God (eighth dynamic) described as a THING, and a singular
thing at that.  Has nothing to do with us, as it is a separate THING.

>"which is universal and includes everything..."

So, this one singular THING, is now defined as universal and includes
EVERYTHING.  That's a pretty good trick of logic.  Try and wrap your mind
around that one for a few thousand years.  Now if this one thing included
everything, wouldn't that include all thetans, all beings?

>"and then they get the idea of being one with it..."

Alright, so try to get the idea that there is this thing which is
everything, and then try to get the idea of being one with it.  Got a
headache yet?

If you understand the dynamics and the axioms, you will understand that each
of us (as an individual thetan) is a part of the 8th dynamic, while at the
same time, the eighth dynamic is a part of each of us.

There is no need to "try to be one with" "God" or the universe, or nirvana,
or whatever you choose to call it, as we already are.  Trying to "be one
with" something that you ARE, is a very tricky operation.  It requires the
person to first deny themselves.  To not-is your own dynamic and then "try"
to be a part of it again.


>The idea is that since we all are this one that is God
>which Scientologists might call the basic life static, we
>are, each of us, capable of being God and thinking for
>God...

Now you don't suppose that there would be any hidden charge in this area do you?


>and placing our thoughts within that senior oneness
>to be brought about by the normal mechanics of the creation
>of reality.

Another very tricky one.  Notice the use of "senior oneness".  This is
inferring that each of us is "junior" to, or less than.  Puts a God up there
to worship again, which immediately invalidates self.  What was it LRH said
about "denial of self"?

This is also going from self-determinism back down to other-determinism. 
Quite a bit different than pan-determined.  In order to be a maker or player
of games you need to be pan-determined.  Being other-determined makes you a
piece.  Now who would want less players and more pieces?


>This does seem to work.

There's that "seem" word again, but just below, we find the opposite.


>When it fails, they blame it on hidden emotional conflicts
>etc. which are causing the surface thought that one is visualizing to be
>opposed subconsiously and so forth.
>
>In other words, it fails due to case charge and hidden
>counter postulates.
>
>With Scn, we have powerful tech for running out the case charge.  With
>SofM, we have a better technique for pushing
>a postulate into the agreed upon reality.  The workable
>action would be to mix the two.
>
>I have occasionally had a postulate stick and fantastic
>things happen during my involvement with Scientology.
>With hindsight, I can say that everytime that worked,
>I was postulating from a higher viewpoint and feeling
>the interconnection between beings rather than making
>the postulate from inside my skull.

Notice what he says just above, about when his postulates did work.  He says
he was "feeling the interconnection between beings".  This is actually much
closer to the truth than his earlier statements, and is in complete
agreement with LRH materials on the subject.  One doesn't become cause over
one's dynamics by fighting them.  A nice twist right at the end, after all
the false logic and contradictory statements.


>Much of Earnest Holme's writings on Science of Mind are
>from the 1920s and 30s.  They predate Scientology.
>A great deal of the 1952-4 Scientology ideas actually
>trace back to SofM although this influence was never
>acknowledged.
>
>I'm still looking into this.
>
>=========
>
>It should be obvious to anyone whose done Scn's upper
>levels that implants etc. will tend to get in the way
>of any positive affirmation tech.  It should also be
>obvious that the upper levels didn't give one a clue
>about how to really make a postulate stick.  You really
>need both.

>From
The Subject of Clearing, March 1959:
"...In short, a Mest Clear can postulate.  And he postulates himself into
trouble.  He can still key in engrams.  His postulates operate powerfully on
his bank, evidently, and there he goes.

...Because of this liability (and because of later gains I made on Theta
Clearing) no HGC is now even trying for Mest Clear.  It's all Theta Clearing
now...  The Mest Clear, then, still has a malady - the ability to postulate
his engrams into heavy play."

GPM: "They're a conglomeration of identities which are counter-opposed, and
these identities are hung up on the postulate-counter-postulate of a
problem." 
SHSBC 243, 6302C26.

>From HCOB 7 May 1959, NEW PROCESS:
".."Why does a thetan make his postulate fail to stick in the first
place?..."  Obviously all aberration is third dynamic.  The entrance into
self-determinism requires that a thetan conceive the idea of other
beings..."


And finally, we get to the real point of this whole post...

>This means that the only way out is by mixing practices.
>
>And so the existance of advanced orgs like FZAO which
>will do a good job delivering LRH tech without attacking
>you for also working with other tech, like SofM, is
>absolutely essential.

So the final points the author wishes to communicate are:

1. Squirreling is the only way out
2. The FZAO accepts squirreling

Now, let's do a quick recap of the post, just so we can extract the salient
points.

Introduction of a problem (postulates don't work)
Assigning cause (Scientology doesn't work)
Introduction of solution (SofM tech)
A = A (SofM tech is like Scn tech)
Solution to problem (Squirreling)
Squirreling = good
FZAO = reasonable
Reasonable = good


Now there is something very subtle going on here also.  This is the first
point to becoming reasonable on squirreling.

The author "showed" us how similar "affirming tech" was to Scn tech, and
"told" us how LRH used this "tech".  Getting reasonable on this first point
is a small, hard to spot overt.  Once you've given in on this first point,
you have to not-is that you have committed an overt, and so you cut your own
perception to that degree.  The next one gets easier.  Thus, a being must
maintain his ethics if he is to avoid this trap.

>And of course the Self Clearing book that I wrote is
>the best solo bridge that I know of, so you can work
>with that too.  It's free and you just have to roll up
>your sleeves and do it.
>
>Put all these things together, stir well, and maybe we
>really can all make it.
>
>
>Good Luck,
>
>Ken Ogger
>formerly The Pilot
>truthseeker7@excite.com


Now, what was it that LRH said about squirreling?  From
KSW 1:

"Squirreling (going off into weird practices or altering Scientology) only
comes about from noncomprehension.  ...When people can't get results from
*what they think* is standard practice, they can be counted upon to squirrel
to some degree.

...An instructor or Supervisor or Executive *must* challenge with ferocity
instances of "unworkability."  They must uncover what *did* happen, what
*was* run and what *was* done or not done."


Alright, now lets brush-up those deductive logic skills.

We know that the author has squirreled and is promoting squirreling. 
Therefore we can assume (per LRH) that he didn't get the results he expected
>from what he thought was standard Scientology tech.  According to the
author, that is exactly what occurred:

"...could not make a postulate stick if his life depended on it.  I
certainly couldn't, and I was as good at it as anybody I know in the
subject.

And of course sometimes I did make a postulate stick (including wild things
that violated physical universe laws), but it was never something I could
count on, so that when the ability was needed instead of just being a "would
be nice", it failed."

So, LRH was spot-on here.  He was having trouble with his postulates
sticking.

Now what does LRH have to say about that particular phenomena?

>From December 1951,
Postulate Processing:
"...It cannot be achieved simply by giving new postulates to replace the
old.  A first essential is to process the old conclusions and beliefs. 
Merely to make a new conclusion which violates an un-detected static in
one's past sets up non-optimum randomity; confusion exists between the new
and the old.  Actually, earlier postulates are to the individual the valid
postulates, and will cancel succeeding ones to a great extent."

>From March 1959, The Subject of Clearing:
"...Mest Clearing is shortcut clearing.  By keying out engrams, one becomes
free of them.  This was achieved in a very large number of cases.  BUT not
all people could be Mest Cleared, AND the state is not always stable.  What
happens to a Mest Clear sometimes?  What makes the state unstable?

A Mest Clear, according to several reports even from those given bracelets
(of which they should still be proud), starts acting like a Theta Clear and
can't make it.  It's a lose.  He falls back.  In short, a Mest Clear can
postulate.  And he postulates himself into trouble.  He can still key in
engrams.  His postulates operate powerfully on his bank, evidently, and
there he goes.

...Because of this liability (and because of later gains I made on Theta
Clearing) no HGC is now even trying for Mest Clear.  It's all Theta Clearing
now...  The Mest Clear, then, still has a malady - the ability to postulate
his engrams into heavy play."

>From November 1961, Goals Problem Mass:
"the goal has been balked for eons by opposing forces.  The goal pointed one
way, the opposing forces point exactly opposite and against it... Where
these two forces have perpetually met, a mental mass is created.  This is
the picture of any problem - force opposing force with resultant mass.

>From February 1963, SHSBC 243, 6302C26:
(referring to a GPM) "They're a conglomeration of identities which are
counter-opposed, and these identities are hung up on the
postulate-counter-postulate of a problem."


So it would seem that our luckless author has indeed, slipped on the banana
peel.  He has run into the upper-level case.  Counter-postulates of other
beings that he is unaware of, and therefore not-ising.

As we have seen, shortly after the above quote, LRH provided a solution.

>From HCOB 7 May 1959,
NEW PROCESS:
"...The fundamental difficulty is that something has so thoroughly
overwhelmed the pc that he is it.  This is Other-Determinism become the
person.

...Auditing is the reversing of other-determined flows by gradient scales,
putting the pc at cause again.


THE BASIC ERROR
The question was asked me, and a fine question it was, "Why does a thetan
make his postulate fail to stick in the first place?..."  Obviously all
aberration is third dynamic.  The entrance into self-determinism requires
that a thetan conceive the idea of other beings...

...A person, therefore, becomes as aberrated as he cannot communicate, as
aberrated as he is overwhelmed by Other-Determinisms, as aberrated as he
himself dare not assume cause points.

A NEW PROCESS
This leads to a new process...

'From where could you communicate?' or
'Find a place from which you could communicate'..."



Could it be, that our hapless author simply has Grade 0 out?


The Nameless One

(As always, permission to re-post and cross-post granted)


Raph Hilton in ACT am 14. 7. 2001 weist Ken Ogger eine Doubtcondition zu:

There has been a fair bit of controversy over the issue of applying LRH techor mixing it.

I wish to apply LRH tech.

>From that I understand that one can address any of the LRH tech to any target.

People may wish to write up rundowns. They might be for particular cases.

I have observed degrees of suppression from some areas and have written up handlings which align with the scn axioms.

I will have to say to people openly that the tech I wish is apply to their case is either exactly the words of LRH or an extension from the Axioms and Logics and basic auditing principles.

New processes are ok as long as they are backed up very fully by LRH references and are subject to extensive testing and the PC knows what they are getting.

There has been some controversy here after Pilot's post about SofM.

The criticism of Pilot and the FZAOINT has been at a rather low tone level but nevertheless I see that there are points of truth there.

I see no choice but to ask Ken Ogger to apply a condition of Doubt.

I would ask him to decide whether or not he wishes to apply standard tech or to mix it in his post as Snr C/S FZAOLA.

I would ask him to either make a public statement to use only LRH tech on post or resign.

I ask that his statement include that his will not use any SofM or other tech in C/Sing but that he will apply standard tech to all cases.

The existing bridge works. It just hasn't been applied.

I admit that I have my own faults of misapplication.

As far as I am concerned we are working toward putting the bridge there as LRH intended.

So, Ken, I have to ask for a public statement that you will apply LRH tech standardly on post without additives or your resignation as Snr C/S FZAOLA.

Given the circumstances that is the lightest appropriate ethics gradient.

Ralph Hilton
Snr C/S FZAOINT


Heidrun Beer antwortet auf Ralph und versucht Ogger zu rechtfertigen:

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Heidrun Beer An: clear-l@lightlink.com Cc: family-l@lightlink.com ; COSevaluation@yahoogroups.com ; USE@yahoogroups.com ; ivy-subscribers@lightlink.com Gesendet: 14. Jul 2001 08:01 Betreff: [USE!] Re: FZAOINT tech
On Fri, 13 Jul 2001 20:37:03 -0400 (EDT), Ralph Hilton wrote in
<
dg2vktooif3ag35rmkml8t6pfmcc95tp1c@4ax.com>:

(... Zitat von o.g. Posting von Ralph rausgeschnitten)

I think this is what Ken is saying. It hasn't been applied in the church,
but the SofM people, not knowing LRH but having found the information
otherwise, do apply (some of) it. His recent wins stem from applying
tech which has been omitted by the church although it does exist in
LRH's writings.

The importance of putting out positive postulates is well known to LRH.
But in the conventional route most church members have gone, it is hidden
somewhere beside the lines or at least after many years of doing other
training and processing. How many typical Scientologists actually get
to study the PDC, ever? How many can afford to go to the "Freewinds"
where the special "OT hatting course" probably teaches it?

The knowledge about postulating should be taught the start of the
training route as well as the processing route.

Making positive gains in ability and achievements should be the main
focus, only to be accompanied by the removal of charge (=negative gain)
where the student runs into barriers to his making positive gains.

Ken has encountered a group which is observing the correct priorities
while the church has failed to do so. Or maybe LRH himself who has
written the checksheets and arranged the two sides of the bridge.

ACW has also given the "paradigm sequence" of implementing a dream
(vision) a high priority. I think Ken is correct in adjusting the
priorities to their actual sequence.

If we assume that spirit and matter are two branches of theta having
chosen opposite routes - spirit being the ultimate lawgiver and matter
being an ultimate follower of laws -, the consequence is that if a
spirit fails in playing his role of giving laws to the surrounding
matter (how to interplay with him), matter will do weird things by
adopting the next best source of laws, either those of other (maybe
opposing) spirits, or following the randomity of the MEST-universe
(which is actually a whole cosmos of laws in itself, but unorganized
by spirit).

The basic and most natural way for a spirit to produce laws is by
putting out a vision (mock-up), which MEST then can use as a template
or "mould" to arrange itself and become what we call "reality".

This is not a very complicated truth to teach and it needs to be at the
beginning of any teaching, not hidden away in some secret "advanced
levels" or buried in tons of taped materials, if we want our clients
to become more causative (=OT).

Heidrun Beer

 


Andreas schreibt am 14.7.2001 in USE! dazu:

Liebe Heidrun, lieber Ralph,

danke an Heidrun, dass ich durch ihr Posting von Ralphs Entscheidung erfahre.  

Ralph wahrte seine Integrität und wies dem Pilot eine korrekte lower Condition zu.  

Dabei geht es nicht um die Differenz, die Heidrun hier aufmockt. Selbstverständlich ist das Wissen um Postulate ein integraler Bestandteil der Basics der Scientology.  

Es geht genau um die Unterstellung - die hier auch von Heidrun versucht wird - dass LRH die Bedeutung von Postulaten unterschätzt hat. Was für ein Schmarren!  

Es benötigt eben gerade nicht der Zugriff auf eine "andere Tech", um in korrekter Weise mit Postulaten umzugehen. Im Gegenteil: LRH hat dieses alte Wissen umfangreich unter- sucht und 1. herausgefunden, woran es liegt, wenn das postulieren scheitert und 2. entwickelt, wie man dem abhelfen kann.  

The Pilot hat eben nicht "Gewinne durch eine andere Tech", sondern er hat sich durch "Solo-Auditing" auf selbstentwickelten Squirrelprozessen derart eingekeyt, dass es lange gedauert hat, bis er durch Standardtech wieder ausgebuddelt wurde.   Es wäre wirklich an ihm, seine Verwirrungen zu konfrontieren und seine Squirrelpublikation (SuperScientology) zu widerrufen! Denn solange er anderen zumutet, dadurch in den gleichen beschissenen Zustand zu geraten, wird er sich nicht voll erholen können.  

Ich finde es sehr begrüßenswert, dass Ralph als Snr C/S Int der FZAO Int darauf besteht, dass sein Junior Ken (Snr C/S FZAOLA) ebenfalls ein Gelübde auf Standardtech abgibt.  

Andreas


Änderungsstand: 14. Juli 2001 - Copyright © 2001 by Andreas Groß, Schweiz
Bitte Informieren Sie uns über Änderungen oder Fehler