Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Additives

14 views
Skip to first unread message

Homer W. Smith

unread,
Aug 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/2/96
to

> Ten years ago, John came up with
> the reason why people bogged past a certain point in mockup processing,
> something that always eluded Hubbard. This breakthough was the beginning of
> what we now call Idenics.

Omitted data.

What was the breakthrough?

Homer


Mike Goldstein

unread,
Aug 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/3/96
to
>Dear Homer,

Thank you for your query. I would like to answer your question by first
giving you some background that led up to this discovery.

In the '50s, when John and LRH were researching the mockup processing,
it just didn't make sense why people were bogging. The theory was sound,
"what is a person doing but mocking up, and if you get him mocking up on
purpose what he's mocking up compulsively, that should handle it". But past
a certain point, they bogged. LRH finally came up with the "why" that this
was just too high of a level of processing, people weren't up to it, and
that they had to go to easier gradients. This is where the development of
the bridge really started becoming a reality. By 1967, with the advent of
OT 3, he thought he had the final gradient, the final step of what he
called "negative processing", and could now do what he called the "positive
processing", which was another name for mockup or creative processing. But
by now, he had this great marketing structure of the bridge, and was making
money, successful, etc. So instead of just putting the mockup processing in
in it's researched form, he re-packaged it into levels and you had your old
OT levels, 4-7, which were positive processing type levels. Not as
effective as the mockup processing, but more marketable. But people going
on those levels bogged, just like the ones in the '50s had on mockup
processing. So, he felt he had to go to another gradient, figured there
was more on the OT 3 case unhandled, and came out with OT 3 Expanded to be
done before OT 4. But even after this, people still bogged. This went on
till the late '70s, and then he came out with NOTs, which he felt was the
next gradient after OT 3. Just like he had done with mockup processing in
the '50s, he put the old OT levels on a back burner and redesigned the OT
levels 4-7 all around NOTs.

In around 1985 you had alot of people in the independent field who had
finished all the existing Scientology levels, through their NOTs, etc. But
most were trying to figure out, "Where do I go from here?" Many many felt
it was OK, but they still had things about themselves that had never been
handled, some things they carried along with them on the entire bridge,
always being told, "Well, that will be handled on up the bridge!", but it
wasn't. Many felt they were at "square one" again. Alot of people just
went into other subjects or started doing their own research, which is what
we did. It seemed like the most logical research step was to see if these
guys who had completed the entire bridge could do the mockup processing now.
And since John had been the research auditor in the '50s and was privy to
all that was being done, much of which was never written up, who better to
do it? For the next year we worked with people who had completed their
entire bridge either in the Church or with some independent group. At first
people did great, but then they bogged, just like people had done in the
'60s, in the '50s, and yet these people now had completed everything. So,
either there were more gradients to be done, or just maybe LRH had come up
with a wrong "why" in the '50s. It turned out it was a wrong why.

Basically what John came up with was that yes, it's true that mockup
processing is very powerful but it's continued effectiveness depends on what
IDENITY the person is in when you are auditing him. No matter how good the
process, once you hit the limitation of that identity the person is in when
your auditing him, the process won't go farther. And you have to handle
that & what's connected with it. This simple "why" had nothing to do with
gradients. This was the beginning of what we now call Idenics.

In the beginning we just worked with people who had finished the entire
bridge, and these individuals handled quickly without bogs. Then we started
getting people coming to us who had heard about what we were doing, but who
had not completed the entire bridge. There was the possiblity of them
bogging and that they would have to go back and complete their bridge, but
we agreed to take then on. None bogged. It didn't matter if they were in
the middle of their NOTs, only Clear, only did some grades, or never done
any auditing. People did well without having to do any of the bridge. So
in looking for a "next step", we actually stumbled on an "undercut" to
Scientology, which makes sense as the real "why" didn't have anything to do
with "gradients". Hence, a new subject was evolved out of an old one. It's
not that the old one was unworkable to us, just obsolete. You can cut down
a tree with a pocket knife, but if you have a power saw, why bother with the
knife anymore. What I'm telling you is not some theory that's being
considered. It's ten years of workability.

The subject of "identities" is not new. People have talked about them
for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years. 900 years ago someone called them
"elementals". Actually, I like the term "beingness" the best. But much
about their makeup, generation, how people get stuck in them, their
relationship to people's unwanted conditions has not been known, until now.
This sort of thing, the subject of identities, is included in what I have
previously referred to as the "mechanics" of Idenics. If you wish to get
more information on this right away, you can read the articles on our home
page. The address is http://rainbow.rmii.com/~idenics If you have any
questions that come up while reading anything there let me know and I'll
answer them.

Regards, Mike Goldstein

>
>


Homer W. Smith

unread,
Aug 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/3/96
to

> >Dear Homer,
>
> Thank you for your query. I would like to answer your question by first
> giving you some background that led up to this discovery.

OK, your posting actually said something.


I just came out of session running,

"What are you mocking up?"
"What are you not mocking up?"

It should be understood that the questions are run rhetorically, one
does not actually try to get significances or answers, one tries instead
to get the efforts behind the mocking up and not mocking up.

Apparently I am engaging in a very complex back and forth between
mocking up in order to not mockup, and not mocking up in order to mock up,
resulting in a very sophistcated, complex, dense and deadly ridge in the
center of my throat. It is the one that is killing me.

No doubt it is the result of me trying to kill someone or something.

"Who or what are you still trying to cause the death of?"

I dramatize this ridge during the day of work, as I try to mockup a
better future of not mocking up a worse future etc.

I am trying to mockup up something, and trying to not mockup
something, and the two are in collision.

By the way a Black V is someone who has no future, that is a kind of
identity. At least no future that he wants. His blackness is to some
extent an inability to see more than a few clock ticks down the road.

He also can't see his past. He is stuck between a wall of 'nothing
there' both before him and after him on his conception of the time track.

You can kind of feel around for this wall before or after which you
have no concept of what went on or is going to go on.

These are points of total no irresponsibility, and form a sandwich of
not know with him in the middle.

Yum, monster food.

("Hey Homie, that's an identity!")

Homer

Mike Goldstein

unread,
Aug 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/3/96
to
>Thanks for telling me about your session. I hope it went well for you. Mike
>


0 new messages