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 Historical content remains viewable.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

Idenics and GPMs

248 views
Skip to first unread message

Joel Love

unread,
Feb 3, 2002, 7:15:10 PM2/3/02
to
This letter by Mike Golstein was written in response to questions by a
former Scientologist. It covers how Idenics differs from the delivery
of one part of the Scientology bridge and it may clarify some of the
questions raised by my last post. Again, the proof is in the pudding
and the only way to really know how Idenics differs is to take Mike up
on the offer of a FREE inroductory phone session. For more information
see our website at http://www.idenics.com or call Mike on our
toll-free number 1-800-idenics.

Thanks for the responses from my last post, they really help to point
me in the areas needing attention.

Thanks,
Joel Love

Idenics and GPMs

I have been asked why don't we run clients using the data on GPMs in
Idenics. I'll do the best I can to answer this question, but other
questions come up based on my response. If so, you may e-mail me at
ide...@rm.incc.net or call me on my toll-free number, 1-800-433-6427,
and I'll be happy to discuss this subject further with you.

In 1982-83 there was a mass exodus from the Church of Scientology
of many of the top technical people, many of whom had worked and been
trained personally by Hubbard. Delivery of the entirety of that
technology was then available without the high prices or oppressive
management. This was the beginning of what was called the
"independent movement" or "the freezone". Over the next few years,
hundreds of people did their entire bridge of services. However,
there were two things missing in this "independent field" that existed
in the Church of Scientology: (1) The constant "carrot" of the "next
step", a marketing ploy that promoted dozens of levels above the
existing upper levels that would be released when enough people had
completed the current bridge of services, and (2) Heavy penalties that
would be enforced on those who questioned the technology, organization
or the results they had achieved or lack of results from their
services. Therefore, many of these "independents" who had completed
all available steps began to question, "Where do I go from here?"
"I've done this whole bridge of services, and that was fine, but I
didn't really achieve the things that were initially promised and I
still have issues that have never been handled!" Having the same kind
of questions and knowing the existence of dozens of unreleased
researched levels was nothing but a marketing ploy, many of the top
technical people in the "independent field" began their own research
on, "Where do we go from here?" (For more information on the above
please refer to my audio cassette, "Idenics 1990".)

For a highly trained and experienced technical person, there were
several sensible research routes. Having a staff of some of the best
technical individuals in the world at Survival Services, we embarked
on extensive research in many of these avenues. One of these routes
was "GPMs". This particular technology that was being done in the
early 1960s produced some good results, but on the most part, those
being run on GPMs at that time got into a lot of serious case
difficulties. Hubbard then believed that these difficulties were due
to the existence of "implanted GPMs" that were getting in the way
and messing up the track of the person trying to run his OWN GPMs. He
determined that one had to run out the "implanted GPMs" before being
able to run one's "own GPMs". The running of one's own GPMs was
halted and people then began running implanted GPMs as laid out in
Hubbard's new upper levels. However, after one had completed the
levels dealing with implanted GPMs, Hubbard then embarked on the
running of "entities" that eventually encompassed the rest of his
upper levels, and the running of one's own GPMs never appeared on his
bridge again.

A possible route of , "Where do we go from here?", being the
running of one's own GPMs seemed sensible because, (1) people had run
out the implanted GPMs, (2) people had completed extensive work on the
subject of entities, and (3) there had been new technical developments
since the early 1960s having to do with such things as "listing and
nulling" and the operation of the meter that could make the running of
GPMs more successful. Two of my top technical staff with extensive
auditor experience and training, one of whom had done the original
"Briefing Course" when the GPM data still existed on that course,
began research on this possible route. At the same time this GPM
research was being done, John Galusha was already working on his own
avenue of research and development. (Check out my audio tape, "Idenics
1990" for more information.) John Galusha had a unique and more
extensive technical background than any one else in the world. (See my
article on John Galusha on our home page for more information.) John
had had a greater knowledge and experience in the subject of GPMs than
any other technical person, yet at the time of our research; he had no
interest in pursuing a research line on GPMs. The other two technical
people being so enthused about GPMs was all right with him, but it was
not anything that he would have anything to do with. My respect and
trust in John's opinion was unbounded, but I felt it was my job to let
those who wanted to, explore all possible routes.

The work we did on GPMs did produce some positive results, as those
results produced by others in the "independent field" who went the
"GPM route". However, these results were greatly overshadowed by the
results being achieved by the clients John Galusha was working with.
In fact, those people who were bogging after doing the GPM work with
us or with others in the field running people on GPMs, unbogged
rather quickly and did extremely well after being processed by John
Galusha on what he was doing. In time, all our other, less successful
research routes were dropped, and all that was being pursued was
John's route of research and development. This early research and
development of John's was the beginnings of what we now call
"Idenics", a new subject that doesn't invalidate earlier technology,
but definitely "undercuts" it.

People have asked me why we don't use other parts of Scientology
technology such as "Dianetics", the "Grades processes", "PTS-SP"
data, etc. They ask if I don't use this technology because I don't
believe it works. My answer has been this: I do know that much of
this other technology does have workability. I also know that one
can use a pocketknife to cut down a tree. It will take a long time
and maybe cause a lot of problems, but it will work. But if I
possess a power saw, why in the world would I use a pocketknife?
Idenics as we do it is like now using a "power saw" compared to the
"pocket knife" of that earlier technology. So no, I don't believe the
technology of Scientology is unworkable, just obsolete. But I've
gotten off the track some. Let me get back to what you were
specifically interested in, GPMs.

A couple of interesting questions to explore are, "Why do some
people, some times, get positive results being run on GPM technology?"
and "Why do some people, some times, not get any results, get limited
results, or bog down when being run on GPM technology?" Some people
have responded to these sorts of questions by saying things like, "The
client has to be "Clear" in order to run GPMs." Or, "This client just
didn't have enough confront. He needs to first do...." There are
probably thousands of such scenarios one could come up with, any of
which may be partly true for someone in some circumstance. I would
like to present to you some ideas that you might find more broadly
applicable.

In GPM tech the GPM is composed of "terms"(terminals) and
"opterms"(opposing terminals), and each of these has a "goal". Another
way of looking at a "term" is as an "identity", and the main part of
and what makes it an "identity" is a major "goal", "purpose" or
"desire". In fact, the most productive and applicable definition for
"identity" is "A way of being in order to accomplish something". You
can see from the definition that "what is to be accomplished", in
other words, the "goal", "purpose" or "desire", is THE component that
makes it what it is. The idea that people have various "identities",
and that these "identities" each have a "goal", is an idea that is
widely applicable. But beyond this datum, GPM tech becomes less and
less applicable on a wide basis. For example, "identities" are
usually found in pairs, and many times the pair is in some way in
conflict or opposition. BUT NOT ALWAYS. (I.e. You could have a pair
that had more of a "symbiotic" rather than opposing relationship.)
Other parts of GPM tech are almost never applicable to any individual.


There isn't a whole lot I can with certainty say about "people"
except maybe that each one of them is different and has his/her "case"
put together the way they have it put together. I never met one
person, in all my years of working in this area that had things put
together the way it's laid out in GPM tech, unless they were
"educated" into the subject. John Galusha told me in 1985 that this
was his experience, but at that time I really didn't get what he was
talking about. In Idenics we have quite a number of pieces of tech
that are very broadly applicable, such as the most extensive tech
ever developed on the subject of "identities". And as wide an
application as you might think that is, I've still run into those
individuals with whom that tech wouldn't get you to "first base".
And in a case like this, you had better find another way or the client
will go nowhere. This is why in Idenics we have a very unique
application that is senior to all the technical mechanics of the
subject. Non-evaluation and non-judgement are taken to a point not
even imagined in subject like Scientology. And it is along this
application that the truly amazing results are realized.

But let's take a moment and look at the activity of "educating"
people in technical concepts such as GPMs. As I've mentioned
previously, an individual has things put together the way they do.
And one ability that everyone has to some degree is the ability to
"mock up". But any ability can go out of control, and in this
circumstance we have "aberration"; "an ability gone out of control".
The "case" a person has is really just mock-ups out of control or on
automatic. The ideal scene in processing would be for the client to
"let go" of these compulsive mock-ups, take them off of automatic and
have a choice with regards to these things. Unfortunately, in most
therapies, clients end up adding more mock-ups. (For more information
see articles "Mock-ups and Unwanted Conditions" and "Additives: Less
Is Better" on our home page.) Instead of just getting the client to
look at and inspect what is already there, most systems, perhaps
unwittingly, assist the client to take on more baggage through
judgement, evaluation, suggestion, opinion and advice. When you
"educate" a client about his/her case and how it's put together
clients tend to mock up what they are being educated into and fit what
they already have into that mocked up structure. The client may have
things of his/her own that are similar to what he/she is being
educated about and therefore that system may "indicate". At best
the client may be able to let some things go, but in most cases, they
just take on an explanation that only serves to give that client some
temporary relief. But these explanations then just become added
mockups to what they already have.

Here's sort of an outrageous example of what I'm talking about:
What if I told you I had discovered the true cause of somatics? That
might get your attention. Then I went on to tell you that it all
started 85 billion years ago on the planet "Jerkos" where all beings
in this sector of the universe we implanted with the "Train Track
Incident", an incident where all these invisible train tracks were
randomly implanted into the person to be carried forth in all new
bodies he would thereafter occupy. And that these train tracks had
these invisible trains continually running on them and every time the
trains crossed in front of one another there would be a somatic. And
that I alone, even though I'd broken my back a dozen times, had
managed to map out the route of running this implant and unless you
follow this exact route you'll be plagued by somtics forever! Quite a
silly story I made up! You could probably picture that story as I
told it, mock it up. But you know it's just a silly story and can
just let go of that mock up, no harm. But what if I published this
story in some "independent" magazine as fact. Probably most people
would just blow it off. But what if some guy who read it suffered
from somatics , was desperately looking for an answer to his problem
and was once hit by a train. Just thinking about trains turned on
some somatic and he thinks to himself, "You know, something about this
indicates to me, maybe I should check it out!" He contacts me and I
sell him a special solo course that he audits himself on for the next
six months, when maybe the most he would need to do is to run his own
incident of being hit by a train. I know this is a ridiculous scenario
and could probably never happen or maybe... Well, you get the idea.

The above example should help to illustrate my point about a person
fitting their own "stuff" into some system where things about that
system hit "close to the mark" but where the individual takes on other
things too. A system like GPMs may contain data that is "close to the
mark" and therefore "indicate". You may even be able to get something
done with such a system. So why don't I use GPM data? Because it's
much easier, faster, more productive and very much less chance of
trouble to simply let the client find out how he/she has things really
put together. Then it's just a matter of getting the client to look,
inspect and handle what is there. (Refer to audio tape, "What I Do, A
Discussion With John Galusha" for more information.) Too easy? Well,
it really is easy. You just have to have a technology composed of a
wide base of broadly applicable questions and then an application
that ONLY gets the person to look and inspect what is there.

I hope this answers the question of why we don't run clients using
the data on GPMs. You may want to view our website at:
http://www.idenics.com for more information and if you have further
questions or want information not found on the site, please e-mail me
at ide...@rm.incc.net. You can also call me anytime, day or night, on
my toll-free number: 1-800-433-6427.

Sincerely,
Mike Goldstein

Heffer

unread,
Feb 5, 2002, 10:02:37 AM2/5/02
to
On Mon, 04 Feb 2002 00:15:10 GMT, lo...@mindspring.com (Joel Love)
wrote:

> Idenics and GPMs

GPM's eh? Seems that the FZex's just can't
get away from Hubbardology.

GPMs my *ass*. I guess you must wonder at
times how normal people can live their
lives without engrams, without a case,
without GPMs and without an entire
godzilla-sized crock of shit to rotate
their lives around.

What the hell, you can't wake up in the
morning and *not* feel possessed by the
need for a sanity reassessment?

Heffer

Joel Love

unread,
Feb 5, 2002, 10:26:20 AM2/5/02
to
Hello Heffer,

Had you read the post before commenting on it, you would have found
that in Idenics we agree with you. GPMs, Case, Engrams, Bank ect.. are
all just extras on the problems people do sometimes have. In Idenics
we do not deal with any of the above concepts, we simply address the
problems and conditions a person may have and want to get rid of or
handle in some way. John Galusha, man who developed Idenics referred
to GPMs, the bank, case ect. as "pretended knowingness" and said that
the hardest thing for an idenics practitioner to do was unlearn these
"pretended knowingnesses" that get in the way of looking at the guy in
front of you and handling what he wants.

Joel Love

On Tue, 05 Feb 2002 15:02:37 GMT, hef...@scientologylies.com (Heffer)
wrote:

0 new messages