Knowledgism's 10% rule?
Christine Norstrand
>
>> You are way out of line Homer.
>
>My definition of 'way out of line' is someone who want's to
>charge all my students 10% of everything they ever make after
>training with me,on an ongoing basis.
>
>How do you feel about that?.
>
>Sarah
>
Lest this get lost in the shuffle of high affinity flying about today, I'd
like to know what the truth is of this. I've heard this from a few people.
Do the Knowledgentsia have to send 10% of what they make after being
trained to Flag, I mean er, Alan?
I'm not even sure I'm wholly opposed to it, if it makes more training
widely available to others. But 10% seems a bit steep.
What's the truth here?
Alan doesn't read my posts because I'm so red zone. How about you,
Jonathan-cakes? Do you know what the Defender of the Faithful is up to here?
Steve n' Sarah
The data I heard is this:
If you take things down from the K. website and us it,then there is no
charge.
If you go to Dallas and pay for proper training,then you are 'asked' to
just give ACW 10% of whatever you charge your clients.
To be fair you get 'free' case advice,if you ask for it (but you may as
well ask as you are paying for it anyway).
Knowledgism auditing costs $200 per hour to begin with and prices may 'change'.
I feel this is extremely cheap,especialy for those who earn low wages and need to
improve themselves.
Personally,I'd like to do the Power Clean Slate couse so that I can add this
to the processes that I give away to people for nothing but no-one
at Dallas will tell me how much it costs.
Alan..How much is this course?
Is it true you want 10%
Why?
Sarah
Homer Wilson Smith
> Jonathan-cakes? Do you know what the Defender of the Faithful is up to here?
Alan is not on clear-l.
If you cc to wis...@cyberstation.net he will mostly likely
respond.
Homer
Homer Wilson Smith
> I feel this is extremely cheap,especialy for those who earn low wages and need to
> improve themselves.
Cheap? For low income?
Steve n' Sarah
I said:
> > Knowledgism auditing costs $200 per hour to begin with and prices may
> 'change'.
> > I feel this is extremely cheap,especialy for those who earn low wages and
> need to improve themselves.
Homer,who missed the sarcasm,said
> Cheap? For low income?
Let's get this straight.
$200 per hour is,to my mind,disgusting.
I audit people on low income for free and,when they become
more able and can live the lives they only dreamt of before,I get rewarded
in many ways,financially and otherwise.
$200 per hour says to me that someone is more interested in
lining their own pockets that helping people.
I don't give a flying fuck about how 'professionals' are worth
paying this sort of money.
I don't give a flying fuck about how its 'worth it'.
I have to deal with people who don't make $200 a week
and coudn't afford to pay stupid prices like this.
Forgive me for my opinions,but is Alan telling me that
the people I deal with deserve no auditing?.
It's sick,it's stupid and it's downright wrong!
But what do I know,I'm only in this to help people,not to line
my pockets or to pay someone else 10% for the work I do.
Fuck him and the horse he rode in on.
I devote three nights a week,out of my own time,to getting
people flying and winning with the Pilot's 'self-clearing' book.
It's hard,but worthwhile work.
I'm not in this for the money.
Sarah
Christine Norstrand
>
>
>But what do I know,I'm only in this to help people,not to line
>my pockets or to pay someone else 10% for the work I do.
I love you, Sarah.
>Fuck him and the horse he rode in on.
>
That's Heidrun's job. At least the horse.
>I devote three nights a week,out of my own time,to getting
>people flying and winning with the Pilot's 'self-clearing' book.
>It's hard,but worthwhile work.
>I'm not in this for the money.
>
Voice of experience: If you give somebody something for nothing, they hate
you for it. It makes less of them. As recently as a year ago, I charged
whatever the person thought it was worth. What I got paid was what the
person thought *they* were worth.
There's a middle ground here -- I'm hardpressed to know what it is. $200
is so beyond the reach of most folks that they wouldn't even try, I think.
But Alan is pushing training more than sessions, and I think that is the
ultimate way out (I forget where I was talking to Mr. Good about this just
this week, but basically I think we agreed that if you play, you get dirty).
An exchange idea I like is: I will give you sessions now for 50% and you
either process or make sure someone else gets processing for an equal hour.
It would be so nice if the honor system worked.
Homer Wilson Smith
> lining their own pockets that helping people.
No. Need does not bestow right.
Prices should rise to the highest level that the market can bear.
If you wish prices to come down, YOU need to provide competition.
> I don't give a flying fuck about how 'professionals' are worth
> paying this sort of money.
Worth is only what others are willing to pay for it,
they line up outside your door and bid for your services.
The seller never determines the price of anything, only the
buyer.
If Alan force charged $40000/hr for auditing, probably no one would
show up. If he force charged $20/hour, probably too many would show up,
and they would start out bidding each other anyhow.
Prices in a competitive environment are governed by natural law, not
morals or caring for the poor or the rich, all of which are irrelevant.
> I have to deal with people who don't make $200 a week
> and coudn't afford to pay stupid prices like this.
> Forgive me for my opinions,but is Alan telling me that
> the people I deal with deserve no auditing?.
Yes, they don't deserve auditing from him. Need does not bestow
right. People do not have a right to another's product just because they
exist.
It is up to them to compete and bring prices for themselves
and others down.
> But what do I know,I'm only in this to help people,not to line
> my pockets or to pay someone else 10% for the work I do.
> Fuck him and the horse he rode in on.
The goal 'to help people' is an aberration.
Your overall goals are to create, survive and destroy in the space
time game stream.
That includes creating, causing to survive and destroying poor people
and rich people.
Those that can not survive, that are not sufficient to their
own surival, don't.
You only owe help to those that helped you.
Homer
Ralph Hilton
wrote:
>
>Personally,I'd like to do the Power Clean Slate couse so that I can add this
>to the processes that I give away to people for nothing but no-one
>at Dallas will tell me how much it costs.
>
>Alan..How much is this course?
>
>Is it true you want 10%
>
I saw the clean slate stuff on the net - Alan posted it.
I would suspect that the Power clean slate course is for those who are too
clueless to read the issues and need a certificate.
For me I find Alan's renditions too verbose and feel that he does in 30 lines
what I would rather do in 3 or 4.
But most people cannot confront the possibility that their cases are quite
simple and need a solution that is proportional to their degree of non-confront.
The original "clean slate" was the stuff that came out in false data stripping
issues.
--
Ralph Hilton
http://Ralph.Hilton.org
Homer Wilson Smith
> simple and need a solution that is proportional to their degree of non-confront.
Ralph,
Have you found that simplicity?
Can you state it?
Homer
Jonathan Good
>
>Lest this get lost in the shuffle of high affinity flying about today, I'd
>like to know what the truth is of this. I've heard this from a few people.
>
>Do the Knowledgentsia have to send 10% of what they make after being
>trained to Flag, I mean er, Alan?
>
>I'm not even sure I'm wholly opposed to it, if it makes more training
>widely available to others. But 10% seems a bit steep.
>
>What's the truth here?
>
>Jonathan-cakes? Do you know what the Defender of the Faithful is up to here?
>
I really don't know. I have not received processor training from Kn.
I could call and ask for ya'll but the truth is, I don't care.
I'm 100% sure that they do not dictate the price that another charges.
Sarah's issues concerning $200.00 per hour are irrelevant to the subject.
She could charge whatever she wants or nothing at all.
For those with issues about what to charge, I suggest you open a center,
pay the lease, electricity, phones, internet, promotion, mailing,
printing, and staff and all the other hidden expeneses like taxes, water,
trash pick-up, and toilet paper. Run it effectively enough that people
will not only have gains but also recommend others to you.
Then call up Alan and tell him that his prices are too high.
Wild guess here based on nothing but business sense, if Knowledgism is
doing better than break even right now, I'd shit bricks.
It's a delicate balance in business whether to charge more to get more
money or to charge less and have more customers to make up for the loss.
That decision is entirely up to Alan and his staff.
If you have no overhead, you can charge as little as you want and it
might seem adequate.
As far as the 10% rule goes, without knowing what the "deal" is, it
doesn't serve too much to make less of the idea. For some, case advice
from Eric, Colin, or Helen would be worth a hell of a lot. If they have a
referral service for people who want processing in your area, it would be
worth even more. You can't buy that. For Ralph, LaMont, Christine, Enid,
and all the other unnamed or unknown trained Auditors, it's probably not
worth squat.
Homer is correct: Prices (paid) are determined by the buyer, not the
seller.
Jonathan
C. B. Willis
: Homer is correct: Prices (paid) are determined by the buyer, not the
: seller.
: Jonathan
Yes BUT if you can sell something to buyer who really wants what you have
and doesn't have any preconceived notions about what it "should" cost,
then you can set a price and they will buy it. Of course it helps to be
able to deliver outstanding value.
The rule of thumb I use in pricing is to survey the field to see the range
of what's out there for what price, charge what I'd personally be willing
to pay or consider is fair and reasonable for the quality and uniqueness
of what I'm offering, and deliver well beyond client expectations. I like
people to say they got more than their money's worth, and they nearly
always originate that, and early.
- CBW
Jonathan Good
Perfect. No particular disagreement with that. I'm glad it works for you.
Prices are usually "set" by the seller. "Setting" a price has little to
do with "getting" a price. If it's too high relative to the amount of
money the customer has or is willing to part with, it is the customer
that is going to determine that.
If the buyer pays the price, no matter what it was, he has determined the
price. The price is what was paid, not what was asked.
And as you said, delivering outstanding value is going to make the buyer
happier about paying the price, whatever it was.
As Christine said though, there IS a low end at which the buyer will
(may) no longer respect or value the product ... because the seller
didn't.
Jonathan
Christine Norstrand
>>As Christine said though, there IS a low end at which the buyer will
>>(may) no longer respect or value the product ... because the seller
>>didn't.
>
>>Jonathan
>
>
>Sarah doesn't love me any more 'cause I charge too much, and the head of a
>large corporation practically laughed me out of my office because I charge
>too little. His statement was if you charge less than $5,000 a day for 8
>hours of training our board will pass on you. Their belief is that the
>training company can't be worth much if they charge so little.
>
Good on the point being made.
But now I wonder, do you charge individuals corporate rates? I am not
picking on you here. I don't know what the solution to pricing is.
Processing should be accessible and not just to the few. It should cost
enough to be well thought of.
Homer has said repeatedly that the way to make money is to sell to the big
guys.
Alan C. Walter
>(may) no longer respect or value the product ... because the seller
>didn't.
>Jonathan
It must be "pick on Alan's prices" week.
Sarah doesn't love me any more 'cause I charge too much, and the head of a
large corporation practically laughed me out of my office because I charge
too little. His statement was if you charge less than $5,000 a day for 8
hours of training our board will pass on you. Their belief is that the
training company can't be worth much if they charge so little.
Alan
Alan C. Walter
>>It must be "pick on Alan's prices" week.
>>
>>Sarah doesn't love me any more 'cause I charge too much, and the head of a
>>large corporation practically laughed me out of my office because I charge
>>too little. His statement was if you charge less than $5,000 a day for 8
>>hours of training our board will pass on you. Their belief is that the
>>training company can't be worth much if they charge so little.
>>
>Good on the point being made.
>
>But now I wonder, do you charge individuals corporate rates?
No.
> I am not
>picking on you here. I don't know what the solution to pricing is.
>Processing should be accessible and not just to the few. It should cost
>enough to be well thought of.
Overhead has a lot to do with it.
It takes a lot of guts to open a center. Even a small place will cost
roughly $5,000 a month including utilities, phone and insurance. Then there
are staff salaries.
Staff is very important, to run a successful center requires the staff
co-processing and training at least 3 hours every day. So the staff will
put in at least 55 to 60 hours a week.
My staff salaries run about $15,000 a month. Our rents and utilities run
about $10,000 a month.
>
>Homer has said repeatedly that the way to make money is to sell to the big
>guys.
Not really, but it is vital to process and train people who have good comm.
lines. Also who can directly benefit from the processing and training,
usually if the tech is good the peoples incomes increase substantially.
My rule of thumb is for every $ invested in processing and training the
client should get a ten times return on their money.
Self employed people, business men, artists, sales people are the best
public as they can increase their production and effectiveness and get an
immediate return on their investment. But to get that type of people takes
good confront and superb people handling skills, and good marketing.
I don't want pc's. If the person won't train and co-process they cannot
make it.
We only sell a minimum of processing. Usually we can fix most cases and get
them flying in under 10 hours. Most of our students learn to co-process on
the courses and can continue to co-process when they go home.
Since Dec. 97 we have made 36 Culture DeOppresion and DeProgramming
processors and approx 145 clean slate processors.
Of the 36 Culture DeOppresion and DeProgramming processors 35 are in the
process of opening centers. The Culture DeOppresion and DeProgramming
course runs out the boxes that constrain most peoples reach and havingness.
It also runs out the Poverty Cult mentality.
We train very kindly, no abuse, no enforcement, no stat push. It takes a
lot to make and keep a safe environment.
The biggest stop for most processors making a living at processing and
training is the confront it takes to ask for the money and to get the
client to make the time. The other stop is going out and getting clients,
especially those with good comm. lines.
It takes many skills and great discipline to build a viable center. But
more importantly it requires perfect costing and estimating prices.
My suggestion to anyone who wants to open up a practice is to get at cause
over money, marketing, and processing. Keep processing and traing on the
area until you are at cause over the area. Often it takes years.
Alan
Heidrun Beer
>Personally,I'd like to do the Power Clean Slate couse so that I can add this
>to the processes that I give away to people for nothing but no-one
>at Dallas will tell me how much it costs.
I have sent you the figure I have from the last fax I have from Dallas.
Please check with he...@knowledgism.com, the list is a few months old
and prices might have changed.
Heidrun Beer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"You shall know them by their fruits." (The Bible)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Heidrun Beer
>Let's get this straight.
>$200 per hour is, to my mind,disgusting.
>I audit people on low income for free and,when they become
>more able and can live the lives they only dreamt of before,I get rewarded
>in many ways,financially and otherwise.
This idea is flawless; I have one question though. How would you
make sure that a very highly trained person doesn't have to waste
his time with the activity of earning money?
How do you make sure that he can be in session full-time,
has enough money to live from, and all the equipment he
needs for his processing activities?
And how do you make sure that enough people around you know that
this person is available, and understand what he might be able
to do for them, and get the information about why they might need
his help?
>$200 per hour says to me that someone is more interested in
>lining their own pockets that helping people.
Not if so much tech is given out completely for free - containing
the essentials to really help a person in a lot of different
case situations.
>I don't give a flying fuck about how 'professionals' are worth
>paying this sort of money.
>
>I don't give a flying fuck about how its 'worth it'.
You have an income independent from the processing you do.
Please become aware of the fact how much time you have to spend
to make this income.
All this time you are NOT IN SESSION. Why is this OK for you?
>I have to deal with people who don't make $200 a week
>and coudn't afford to pay stupid prices like this.
>Forgive me for my opinions,but is Alan telling me that
>the people I deal with deserve no auditing?.
>
>It's sick,it's stupid and it's downright wrong!
If they don't spend their time on making money, then they can
use it to train and co-process. I would never protest against
processing prices as long as the TRAINING prices are moderate
and ALL training you need is available for those who reach.
The decision of the church to make the NOT's-training "Sea-Org only"
is, in my opinion, a crime. You can see the consequences they have
pulled in. But if you are really determined to operate a center
which really TRAINS people, there is no way around financing it.
Of course you can always prove me wrong. But only by showing how.
Not by just ranting!
>But what do I know,I'm only in this to help people,not to line
>my pockets or to pay someone else 10% for the work I do.
>Fuck him and the horse he rode in on.
You prefer the SCN model where the staff is starving?
>I devote three nights a week,out of my own time,to getting
>people flying and winning with the Pilot's 'self-clearing' book.
>It's hard,but worthwhile work.
>I'm not in this for the money.
Nobody is in this for the money. Even in the church, 99% of people
never see money - it's all put into buying houses and paying lawyers.
But on this planet, nothing runs without energy. Those who can
afford money, pay in money. Those who don't have the opportunity
to convert their time into money efficiently, "pay" with their time.
Both is needed.
Fuel is only one thing that's needed to run a car. You also need
a driver, maintainance, spare parts and oil. You need a team of
designers who keep upgrading the technology. You need roads to drive on,
the material and people to build them, and again the immense technology
behind that!
But in the first place you need to know where you want to arrive.
Knowing your goal, you will arrive there - by car, or if you can't
afford fuel, then with a bicycle, or running, walking, CREEPING.
Without knowing your goal, no fuel in the world will bring you
anywhere.
Steve n' Sarah
Heidrun wrote:
> This idea is flawless; I have one question though. How would you
> make sure that a very highly trained person doesn't have to waste
> his time with the activity of earning money?
> How do you make sure that he can be in session full-time,
> has enough money to live from, and all the equipment he
> needs for his processing activities?
> And how do you make sure that enough people around you know that
> this person is available, and understand what he might be able
> to do for them, and get the information about why they might need
> his help?
I do not have a problem with people charging for Auditing.
I have a problem with overpricing.
Robert Ducharme's idea of charges put auditing within the reach of
almost everyone and I can respect that.
As a matter of fact,I can applaud it!
> >$200 per hour says to me that someone is more interested in
> >lining their own pockets that helping people.
>
> Not if so much tech is given out completely for free - containing
> the essentials to really help a person in a lot of different
> case situations.
Oh,alright then.
Because I also give away tech,my professional rates are now going to be
$1,000,000 per hour.
This is because I am a trained professional and if you can't afford it,no matter
if you need my help,you can fuck off.
After all,I need to eat.
Oh,and once I've trained you,you can jack up your prices just so you can keep
sending me money that I don't deserve.
This is fair and reasonable too.
> You have an income independent from the processing you do.
> Please become aware of the fact how much time you have to spend
> to make this income.
>
> All this time you are NOT IN SESSION. Why is this OK for you?
You are right,make that $1,500,000 per hour then.
(Subject to "change")
>
> If they don't spend their time on making money, then they can
> use it to train and co-process. I would never protest against
> processing prices as long as the TRAINING prices are moderate
> and ALL training you need is available for those who reach.
Yes,the data you sent me,although overtaken by other mails,shows
training prices to be about $15 per hour.
No problem with that.
None whatsoever.
> >But what do I know,I'm only in this to help people,not to line
> >my pockets or to pay someone else 10% for the work I do.
> >Fuck him and the horse he rode in on.
>
> You prefer the SCN model where the staff is starving?
Don't be stupid.
I prefer fair and reasonable pricing and NO TEN PERCENT.
Fuck him,and his horse,and his 10%.
>
> Nobody is in this for the money.
Good.So Alan can lower his prices then.
McDonalds goes for high volume and low profit per burger..
So Heidrun,how much do YOU charge,no,don't Q&A,just quote
some numbers .
Go on...
> Fuel is only one thing that's needed to run a car. You also need
> a driver, maintainance, spare parts and oil. You need a team of
> designers who keep upgrading the technology. You need roads to drive on,
> the material and people to build them, and again the immense technology
> behind that!
If driving cost say...$200 per hour how many cars would be on the road?
Oops...almost everyone would have to travel on foot.
But hey,fuel cost's money to produce and you have to maintain the petrol pumps
don't you.
By the way,I'm curious.Just what does Alan's dick taste like?
Sarah
Heidrun Beer
>> You have an income independent from the processing you do.
>> Please become aware of the fact how much time you have to spend
>> to make this income.
>>
>> All this time you are NOT IN SESSION. Why is this OK for you?
>
>You are right,make that $1,500,000 per hour then.
How did this answer my question?
>I prefer fair and reasonable pricing and NO TEN PERCENT.
OK. Then how is your idea of contributing to the research-team
who provides tested and proven tech for you?
The 10% model is only one possibility out of many. For me,
this group is not "some other people". They are a remote part
of my own team; it is totally natural for me to contribute to them.
>So Heidrun,how much do YOU charge, no, don't Q&A,just quote
>some numbers .
I don't want to reveal the agreement without permission.
With Alan's permission, I would tell the figure we have
negotiated.
Aside from this agreement, I reserve the right to make my own
decisions, perceiving present time in my location on the planet,
and following a general "greatest good" rule. A remote policy
can always be wrong if the scene is changing locally.
And - I am no robot. I do emergency handlings for free, and
if in an individual case I am convinced that the person's
contributions are substantial, I charge less or nothing, always
keeping in mind that nobody can win if people compete each other
out of a viable range of operation.
The essential question is, is an individual defining himself
as a client or a team-member? A client, by paying with money,
more or less buys himself out of a greater responsibility
to ensure the group's survival. A team-member might provide money,
but will also be present with any other type of support whenever
needed - physically, mentally and spiritually. His idea of exchange
is not defined in figures but in a RESULT: the survival and success
of the group. He does what it takes and will participate in all sorts
of activities as well as money-earning.
We are entering MY area of tech-research here, which has to do
with group-consciousness. Individuals develop a FEELING of what
the group, as a whole, is in need of. Their awareness of unity
with each other is such that common human buttons like money
are not triggering anymore: Money is just one of the many items
that have to circulate in order to keep the lines flowing.
A group has negative feelings like pain or hunger as well as
positive feelings like joy or pride. Of course how it treats
its members is an important part of these feelings. To pay them
poorly or deny them attention, acknowledgement, information,
training or processing leads to a shabby, worthless feeling
of the group - that's one reason for the need to charge
decent prices.
The other side of this is how the group treats the public. It leads
to a pretty similar shabby and worthless feeling of the group and/or
its leader(s) to possess a great value and make it artificially
scarce in order to get financially rich out of proportion. Such a
wealth is always paid for bitterly with the loss of SPIRITUAL
money (LOVE).
Of course we have to realize that such a group is itself part of a
greater whole, and is hurting this greater whole by holding back
a contribution which would be needed by this greater whole.
Actually the circles we are drawing, looking at the 8 dynamics, are
arbitrary borders, needed only in order to teach the first rough
outlines of the subject to people who have completely forgotten.
What we really have is just SPIRIT, divided into units, sub-units,
sub-sub-units, and so on. All is INSIDE and part of a universal ME.
Whichever of this ME's cells denies free-flowing contribution to another
or others, is lowering the flourishing state and blissfull aliveness
of the whole. Looking at two of these sub-units - a hypothetical
processing center and its hypothetical client -, this is true for
both sides. The client who denies contribution to the center is lowering
the well-being of the whole as well as the center which denies processing
to the client.
What we want is a viable BALANCE where both, the center and the
client, can survive and expand. A center which sucks the client
dry of money is endangering this as well as a client who doesn't
substantially contribute as an exchange for the processing he gets.
An individual can tune into the feelings of a WHOLE as soon as
he/she has processed out the state of SEPARATION. This is pretty
much the target of Alan's tech, and for this reason I use it.
My own research begins above that. It is very un-human-like,
deals with a consciousness that might be compared to that of
a bee-hive (an amazing example for a functioning group-consciousness).
I am very glad to have somebody who has mastered the tech that
is needed to process separated individuals. I often don't
understand them well.
>By the way,I'm curious.Just what does Alan's dick taste like?
Sorry, I haven't tried it. But it probably tastes like Steve's,
and every other (washed) one: Nice.
BTW I am curious too: Do you really want to start yapping at me
in Christine's footsteps?
Christine Norstrand
>
>BTW I am curious too: Do you really want to start yapping at me
>in Christine's footsteps?
>
CBW wrote me and asked me what's the deal with remarks about your
sexuality. Now, I live on the other side of the planet but in the last two
weeks, two people who live 3000 miles from each other have told me that
they were either a) taken aback, or b) unreceptive to suggestions in this
vein from you. And both of them were heterosexual females who didn't want
it and do not know each other.
This in the wake of your free love philosophy and the religiosity of your
viewpoint that was so beautifully parodied by Ralphie, well, I don't even
wonder. And then today, the Circe story about how you turn men into pcs.
Ummm, there are other auditors out there. Unless you have some reason for
maintaining a power differential (altitude), then a referral would be in
order, *if* they came in on a relationship line rather than a help line.
As for Alan, well, I don't really think that's a sexual relationship,
although I think you'd just love to be the mistress of new Hot Springs
Ranch in Bumfuck, Texas. I do think Alan's invested in the adulation, but
not for personal reasons. If he caters to it, he gets his work translated
into German and that serves his larger purposes. Like Homer, Alan assesses
the value of relationships he maintains. I don't think it's based on
personal affinity for the person's own sake. I expect big disillusionment
and a new infatuation with someone else as soon as you are no longer useful
to him. Since we just went through this with your relationship with Ralph
and the incredible beauties of the mountain org, mecca of technical
perfection, perhaps it might be more expedient to save it as a template and
just replace the names and locations.
I consider your sexual philosophy and behavior, well, uh, PTS. Hence:
trouble.
Steve n' Sarah
I asked
> >By the way,I'm curious.Just what does Alan's dick taste like?
Heidrun replied
> Sorry, I haven't tried it
Still busy with the Horse are we?
Sarah
Steve n' Sarah
Me >>
Heidrun >
> >I prefer fair and reasonable pricing and NO TEN PERCENT.
>
> OK. Then how is your idea of contributing to the research-team
> who provides tested and proven tech for you?
It's simple.
I pay him for training...when I'm gone,he finds new students.
Is that unreasonable?
Let's say I do a course at the local School/Uni...whatever.
I pay my money,I do my course..off I go and they recruit new people.
If your local university suddenly decided they wanted 10% of everything
you made in your new job...would you enroll?
Why should I pay Alan a penny for MY effort.
Yes,he develops some dammed good stuff and is perfectly entitled to
training fees which I have seen and consider reasonable.
But...after I complete the course and go off to help others?
I must carry on paying him?
No thanks,I'll pass.
> The 10% model is only one possibility out of many. For me,
> this group is not "some other people". They are a remote part
> of my own team; it is totally natural for me to contribute to them.
Barnum was right.
> >So Heidrun,how much do YOU charge, no, don't Q&A,just quote
> >some numbers .
>
> I don't want to reveal the agreement without permission.
> With Alan's permission, I would tell the figure we have
> negotiated.
This is news to me.
I understood from earlier mails and post's that after training you could charge
as much or little as you wish.
We have 'negotiated'?
Perhaps this should be cleared up,do you mean to tell me that Alan tells people
how much they can or cannot charge?
What's going on here?
> Aside from this agreement, I reserve the right to make my own
> decisions, perceiving present time in my location on the planet,
> and following a general "greatest good" rule. A remote policy
> can always be wrong if the scene is changing locally.
Keyphrase;"Aside from this agreement"
> And - I am no robot. I do emergency handlings for free, and
> if in an individual case I am convinced that the person's
> contributions are substantial, I charge less or nothing, always
> keeping in mind that nobody can win if people compete each other
> out of a viable range of operation.
Okay,so how does this affect this 'agreement'
I am unhappy with having to somehow clear my prices with someone else.
This is one of the reasons I will not go to Dallas.
The main one is this 10% rule.
His tech is good but your statement that you 'negotiated' your price structure
with Alan implies that you may have altered the charges you wished to make
in order to fit in with Alan's idea's.
True,I do not charge for training.
True,I do not need the money anyway.
But.answering a point Christine made,I do insist people find and audit their own PC's
and many of them are totally new to the whole concept of spiritual improvement.
> We are entering MY area of tech-research here, which has to do
> with group-consciousness.
Yes,Locutus.
>Individuals develop a FEELING of what
> the group, as a whole, is in need of. Their awareness of unity
> with each other is such that common human buttons like money
> are not triggering anymore: Money is just one of the many items
> that have to circulate in order to keep the lines flowing.
Fine,good,thank you.
As you yourself quoted from my earlier post.I am rewarded in many ways,
financially and otherwise.
I will be going commercial later this year,I have a large and strong
base to operate from.There were NO (read my lips...it's no as in Zero)
processors here when I arrived.
Now we have to beat them off with a stick!
> - that's one reason for the need to charge
> decent prices.
Please list some sensible reasons why I should jack my prices up to
give Alan 10%.
Please state how this might affect people who are,say,borderline on being able to
afford auditing.
Please tell me why Acey deserves my income over and above the training fee's
(Which I would be perfectly happy to pay)
> Whichever of this ME's cells denies free-flowing contribution to another
> or others, is lowering the flourishing state and blissfull aliveness
> of the whole. Looking at two of these sub-units - a hypothetical
> processing center and its hypothetical client -, this is true for
> both sides. The client who denies contribution to the center is lowering
> the well-being of the whole as well as the center which denies processing
> to the client.
(for Ralph)
I would pay Acey for training,not because I need it,but because new,raw
public who have never heard of anything spiritual are impressed by
little certificates.
> What we want is a viable BALANCE where both, the center and the
> client, can survive and expand. A center which sucks the client
> dry of money is endangering this as well as a client who doesn't
> substantially contribute as an exchange for the processing he gets.
$200 per hour is a substantial contribution.
The training fees are reasonable but the idea of going out and
charging people more money..just to pay it to Acey,is not.
What do I get for my 10%
If I don't want it,why isn't it optional?
I thoroughly applaud the way he gives tech away and I like his
training prices.
10% STINKS though.
Fuck him and the horse he rode in on.
Well,fuck him...I understand you're quite busy with the horse.
> BTW I am curious too: Do you really want to start yapping at me
> in Christine's footsteps?
>From private comm,someone was quite upset that my posts were
being too serious,so I'm flaming for a bit.Nothing personal.
But it still stinks.
Sarah
Heidrun Beer
>CBW wrote me and asked me what's the deal with remarks about your
>sexuality. Now, I live on the other side of the planet but in the last two
>weeks, two people who live 3000 miles from each other have told me that
>they were either a) taken aback, or b) unreceptive to suggestions in this
>vein from you. And both of them were heterosexual females who didn't want
>it and do not know each other.
So what? There are different viewpoints on everything on that planet,
from opera singing to Big Mac's. A glance into the Chart of Human
Evaluation shows that at the top of the scale a person would be
able to embrace different viewpoints rather than fighting them.
>I expect big disillusionment
>and a new infatuation with someone else as soon as you are no longer useful
>to him.
You have trouble with rich and dear emotions, probably with
admiration and love generally. It is so much easier to tear
them to pieces and bury them under ridicule and derision, than
to create and maintain tenderness and care between spiritual beings
and communicate and live and act at a level of bliss.
But you are not alone in this. Well, the planet is big
enough to allow everybody to create their own personal climate
around them.
RDucharme
>
>I do not have a problem with people charging for Auditing.
>I have a problem with overpricing.
>
>Robert Ducharme's idea of charges put auditing within the reach of
>almost everyone and I can respect that.
>As a matter of fact,I can applaud it!
In all fairness to Alan and others who have a center, they do have a lot of
overhead to pay while I have none. Now professionals may often be able to
charge less than $200 per hour for whatever services, but still, the bottom
line fact remains that each person has every right to charge whatever price
he wants - even I do. If I had an office to maintain and a staff to feed
I'd probably have to charge above 100. an hour to stay in business.
Advertizing, rent, salaries and a family to feed are all a fact of life. My
main contention is that the relatively poor should have access to
professional services too. That's the need that I and others like me fill.
But nobody is under any obligation, moral or otherwise, to handle them, just
as I'm under no moral obligation to contribute to the wellbeing of the poor
beggers in India or the local street corner. That's a choice made by the
practitioner. I just saw an untapped need there and have been filling it.
To expect all of these people to suddenly raise their necessity levels and
"make things go right" is just plain unrealistic. That's not the way it
happens in the real world.
I have been processing a poor person from a rural southern town who has
only a part time job, no car, and had been depressed and suicidal and
drinking for most of his life. But he was willing to invest in a 2 or 2 -
1/2 hour session every 2 weeks because of what he'd read on the internet.
He's been running whole-track personal GPMs almost from the beginning and
getting tremendous case gain, though he had never been connected to the CoS
before. He pays me faithfully and is gradually pulling out of his
predicament. Traveling to a far away city and paying several thou would
have been too steep a gradient for him. So now he is making things go right
in his own way and I make no apologies for charging him less than the going
rate, though I charge him my standard rate.
Also, I see nothing wrong with only processing and not training (I leave
training up to those with the facilities). Doctors only heal and don't
teach. Almost all businesses run that way and they don't get flak for that.
If a person wants to learn about medical treatment they have access to a lot
of self help books on the subject. Processing is the same way. When a
person is in good enough shape, he should naturally gravitate towards
returning the flow. Co-processing can be done via exchange of money too,
and with a time lapse. So in that sense I could be said to be participating
in co-processing when I purchase a few hours of auditing.
Robert
Ted Crammer
>For those with issues about what to charge, I suggest you open a center,
>pay the lease, electricity, phones, internet, promotion, mailing,
>printing, and staff and all the other hidden expeneses like taxes, water,
>trash pick-up, and toilet paper. Run it effectively enough that people
>will not only have gains but also recommend others to you.
Been there, done it, still paying for the privilege.
Ten years ago, in my area, $150 was just about right assuming no stupid,
loss-generating move (bad promo, etc.) on my part. 20 years ago, $100 was
just about right.
Probably the right price is the one that allows you to continue to play the
game as you would like to play it with those you would like to play with.
This is another area where one size does not fit all.
Good suggestion but too much reality for most.
Ted
Heidrun Beer
>
>Me >>
>Heidrun >
>
>> >I prefer fair and reasonable pricing and NO TEN PERCENT.
>>
>> OK. Then how is your idea of contributing to the research-team
>> who provides tested and proven tech for you?
>
>It's simple.
>I pay him for training...when I'm gone,he finds new students.
>Is that unreasonable?
No, it makes sense to me. There remains the question how high
training prices would have to become for this model to function.
I assume that this whole construct will change a lot with the
broadening of the basis.
>Let's say I do a course at the local School/Uni...whatever.
>I pay my money,I do my course..off I go and they recruit new people.
>If your local university suddenly decided they wanted 10% of everything
>you made in your new job...would you enroll?
It depends on how important it is for me to study their stuff,
and how they are doing financially. I might pay even more if they
need it and deserve it.
>Why should I pay Alan a penny for MY effort.
>Yes,he develops some dammed good stuff and is perfectly entitled to
>training fees which I have seen and consider reasonable.
>But...after I complete the course and go off to help others?
>I must carry on paying him?
>No thanks,I'll pass.
You don't have to. The material on the web-site is probably
a sufficiently big toolbox for you to resolve most of the
case-conditions you encounter. If you send your people to
Dallas for the special processing like the Codes, they come
back to you and you continue.
As soon as you call your center "Knowledgism" though, the work
Alan has done in promotion will benefit you too, and an exchange
flow is justified.
BTW I have never been asked to pay 10%. It was me who first was
aware of the open exchange situation, and it was me who offered
a payment and asked for the desirable amount. I don't know
whether 10% is a general rule.
>> The 10% model is only one possibility out of many. For me,
>> this group is not "some other people". They are a remote part
>> of my own team; it is totally natural for me to contribute to them.
>
>Barnum was right.
??
>> >So Heidrun,how much do YOU charge, no, don't Q&A,just quote
>> >some numbers .
>>
>> I don't want to reveal the agreement without permission.
>> With Alan's permission, I would tell the figure we have
>> negotiated.
>
>This is news to me.
>I understood from earlier mails and post's that after training you could charge
>as much or little as you wish.
>We have 'negotiated'?
We had a talk in Dallas. We had pretty different ideas, but as it's
me who lives in the local scene and has the data about it, we more
or less ended up with the figure I proposed.
>Perhaps this should be cleared up,do you mean to tell me that Alan tells people
>how much they can or cannot charge?
>What's going on here?
Communication. It is his tech; if I want to represent it, using
the name he chose, don't you think we should be in agreement?
Alan is much more experienced in center-building. I asked for his
advice - he didn't try to give me orders!
>> And - I am no robot. I do emergency handlings for free, and
>> if in an individual case I am convinced that the person's
>> contributions are substantial, I charge less or nothing, always
>> keeping in mind that nobody can win if people compete each other
>> out of a viable range of operation.
>
>Okay,so how does this affect this 'agreement'
>I am unhappy with having to somehow clear my prices with someone else.
Of course! I cleared a guideline with Alan. My day-to-day-decisions
are my own. I don't think that he would be happy with puppets in his team;
and certainly I would not become a puppet, I think you know that?
>This is one of the reasons I will not go to Dallas.
Well, Austria is closer anyway. I'll make special prices
for you [double them] :-)))
>The main one is this 10% rule.
>His tech is good but your statement that you 'negotiated' your price structure
>with Alan implies that you may have altered the charges you wished to make
>in order to fit in with Alan's idea's.
No, it was the other way round. I asked for his suggestions,
generally applying the condition of "Power change", using his
successful actions as a template. But in the question of prices,
my feeling was that my area wouldn't easily digest what might
be perfectly real in Texas. We had no discussion and no fight,
I would say we had a brainstorming - finding the optimum line
together. "Work with" (green zone) rather than "Work for"
(yellow zone).
It is a matter of trust anyway. I don't have to show him my books.
But I always was sensitive in the area of exchange. Maybe you are
right though and it should all be covered by training fees?
>True,I do not charge for training.
>True,I do not need the money anyway.
>But.answering a point Christine made,I do insist people find and audit
>their own PC's and many of them are totally new to the whole concept
>of spiritual improvement.
Sure.
Alan has defined as one way of SPIRITUAL ABUSE (quote):
"not maintaining your spirituality by making your mind,
body, identity or material objects more important than you"
As money belongs to material objects, you see that he himself has
defined as a law of Knowledgism that a person's spirituality
always comes BEFORE money. So for me, his training and processing
must be made possible as a first priority.
I don't think that I will ever have a quarrel with Alan about money -
he knows that I would rub his nose in this paragraph (despite
Christine's rantings, I'm pretty immune against guru-ism). The 10%
were not enforced on me. But I certainly can see your point.
>There were NO (read my lips...it's no as in Zero)
>processors here when I arrived.
>Now we have to beat them off with a stick!
Wow, great!
>Please list some sensible reasons why I should jack my prices up to
>give Alan 10%.
I was talking about paying staff.
>Please state how this might affect people who are,say,borderline on being
>able to afford auditing.
For such people I always find an individual solution. I never
let somebody down who is reaching for spiritual enhancement.
If he can't afford to pay, he certainly can find a friend and
start training and co-processing with him. I very much prefer
such solutions, because people need the training part even more
than the processing. Only with the training they can UNDERSTAND
what happened in the past, and create a better future!
>Please tell me why Acey deserves my income over and above the
>training fee's (Which I would be perfectly happy to pay)
Because he continues to research. But again, the 10% model is
only one of many possible. I don't think it MUST be done that way.
I personally would certainly not allow this to become a reason
for someone to stay away from training. For me it was no issue,
as the proposal came from myself.
>(for Ralph)
>I would pay Acey for training,not because I need it,but because new,raw
>public who have never heard of anything spiritual are impressed by
>little certificates.
Do you have a printer connected to your computer? Printing
a pretty certificate might be cheaper than flying to Dallas
to get one!
But I doubt that your printer will have a lot of processing
experience to share with you.
>$200 per hour is a substantial contribution.
>The training fees are reasonable but the idea of going out and
>charging people more money..just to pay it to Acey,is not.
OK, I can live with that! Don't allow this to get between
your feet on your training path! I can think up a different
model every 10 minutes, and probably you too!
>What do I get for my 10%
>If I don't want it,why isn't it optional?
Good question! Again I don't even know how other people's
agreements look like.
>I thoroughly applaud the way he gives tech away and I like his
>training prices.
>10% STINKS though.
Don't pay them then. A honest agreement and spiritual bond is worth
more than any money in the world. Create YOUR model of exchange with
Alan. Dallas is proud of having no "cookie-cutter"-system for the
handling of cases. I think this applies here too.
Heidrun Beer
>My
>main contention is that the relatively poor should have access to
>professional services too. That's the need that I and others like me fill.
Definitely yes. But how do you decide whom to support and whom not?
Maybe it would be a solution if a center gives free service to
let's say five people per year. But then somebody else would have
to select them, or it would be the end of peace.
Another possibility would be for a larger center to have one staff
whose post is designed for free processing. Could be a part-time
post too, depending on the size of the center. One person, or a
certain amount of hours a week, something like that?
I would like it most if the really wealthy people would sponsor
some of the really poor. It could be done in a personal way -
a rich family "adopts" one poor person.
Again there are so many solutions possible that we probably
could come up with another one every 10 minutes. The key-word,
for me, is the INTENTION.
Thinking a little longer, I cannot see why a poor person should
not be able to fold letters or clean the place, instead of paying.
Do I miss something here?
Ted Crammer
>I have been processing a poor person from a rural southern town who has
>only a part time job, no car, and had been depressed and suicidal and
>drinking for most of his life. But he was willing to invest in a 2 or 2 -
>1/2 hour session every 2 weeks because of what he'd read on the internet.
>He's been running whole-track personal GPMs almost from the beginning and
>getting tremendous case gain, though he had never been connected to the CoS
>before. He pays me faithfully and is gradually pulling out of his
>predicament. Traveling to a far away city and paying several thou would
>have been too steep a gradient for him. So now he is making things go right
>in his own way and I make no apologies for charging him less than the going
>rate, though I charge him my standard rate.
Robert,
In the 2 or so years I have been on Clear-L, this is the finest success
story I have seen you post. Not because the guy is poor but because he's
never been connected to CoS.
Ted
Ralph Hilton
I have found parts of it as have others. Hubbard tried to work from the simple
to the more complex with a combination of inductive and deductive reasoning.
Some peole seem happier with a simple process others with more complex ones.
In areas of heavy charge I find myself using a more complex procedure which
becomes simpler as I confront the type of charge.
Ted Crammer
>Thinking a little longer, I cannot see why a poor person should
>not be able to fold letters or clean the place, instead of paying.
>Do I miss something here?
These are generous offers but you have to be able to overcome the cultural
stigma that a person burdens himself with over not being able to pay just
like "everyone" else.
The other side of this issue is that most of the freebies will downgrade
your service in a business man's eyes even if you are running a "church."
If he looks around and sees where your MEST and staff could use upgrading
he'll not be able to make sense of the givaway. There's no business out
there that burdens itself with people who can't pay unless it is one of
those government subsistence programs but that's not business in the usual
sense. If your facilities are state-of-the-art and staffs are each and
every one sharp and proficient, he'll probably grant you the givaways and
whatever else you want to do that is not considered to be generally sound
business practice. You'll need lots of money to get to that point.
I have given away a lot of auditing. Most people will not accept very much
if they feel out exchange and will generally end it off on their own
determinism ~before~ their difficulty is fully resolved. Students to the
contrary, they have a way to exchange fairly.
Ted
Homer Wilson Smith
> large corporation practically laughed me out of my office because I charge
> too little.
And the goal of a large corporation?
"To enslave the masses?"
Homer
Ted Crammer
>Some peole seem happier with a simple process others with more complex ones.
>In areas of heavy charge I find myself using a more complex procedure which
>becomes simpler as I confront the type of charge.
This is my observation as well.
"What have you done?" seems simple enough but I have had pcs balk after
clearing the command and starting the process.
"What do you mean 'What have I done?!?'?
"Done to who? When? What are you talking about!?"
In that case, it runs best if the command can be specified down a channel
that is as narrow as need be so that the command can be understood and run.
Assessing:
Since yesterday?
Since I last audited you?
etc.
Regarding wife? family? work? school? etc.
The process "Since I last audited you, what have you done at work?" might
then run just fine to EP and the general process "What have you done?" can
be run to EP after that. This is an extreme example. If the pc is on the
right program it probably won't come up once in a thousand hours.
Ted
Christine Norstrand
>On Sat, 18 Jul 1998 09:15:03 -0400 (EDT), Christine Norstrand wrote:
>
>
>>CBW wrote me and asked me what's the deal with remarks about your
>>sexuality. Now, I live on the other side of the planet but in the last two
>>weeks, two people who live 3000 miles from each other have told me that
>>they were either a) taken aback, or b) unreceptive to suggestions in this
>>vein from you. And both of them were heterosexual females who didn't want
>>it and do not know each other.
>
>So what? There are different viewpoints on everything on that planet,
>from opera singing to Big Mac's. A glance into the Chart of Human
>Evaluation shows that at the top of the scale a person would be
>able to embrace different viewpoints rather than fighting them.
>
>
>>I expect big disillusionment
>>and a new infatuation with someone else as soon as you are no longer useful
>>to him.
>
>You have trouble with rich and dear emotions, probably with
>admiration and love generally.
I'm sure in your worldview, true. You probably think penguins are primitive.
>and communicate and live and act at a level of bliss.
>
Bliss? Glee of insanity?
>But you are not alone in this. Well, the planet is big
>enough to allow everybody to create their own personal climate
>around them.
Oh? Does this mean you are leaving for the Green Zone?
Homer Wilson Smith
10 percent makes sense if you are allowed to use the
trademarks of the power source that trained you.
You would be paying for the recognition, the referrals, the
tech support etc.
I wouldn't accept it otherwise.
I would never pay for the right to use tech.
> The essential question is, is an individual defining himself
> as a client or a team-member? A client, by paying with money,
> more or less buys himself out of a greater responsibility
> to ensure the group's survival. A team-member might provide money,
> but will also be present with any other type of support whenever
> needed - physically, mentally and spiritually. His idea of exchange
> is not defined in figures but in a RESULT: the survival and success
> of the group. He does what it takes and will participate in all sorts
> of activities as well as money-earning.
I think probably that centers should be employee owned, and
that prices should be charged to allow for the physical growth
of the center at a rate it can afford tempered of course by
extant competition.
That way you aren't paying for the tech, for the gains, for the
auditing, or the training itself. Just for the presence of the
facilities. No one gets rich but the people who work there
in havingness of facilities and availability of the wins and tech.
> A group has negative feelings like pain or hunger as well as
> positive feelings like joy or pride. Of course how it treats
> its members is an important part of these feelings. To pay them
> poorly or deny them attention, acknowledgement, information,
> training or processing leads to a shabby, worthless feeling
> of the group - that's one reason for the need to charge
> decent prices.
An article in one of the local papers said that a person has to be
making at least 16,000/year to have a 'livable' wage. in this town. This
isn't a poverty level, its a new concept here, a livable wage, includes
having children, means of transportation, schooling, work etc.
> All is INSIDE and part of a universal ME.
Yes, the HIGH-US.
Homer
Homer Wilson Smith
> the value of relationships he maintains.
Doesn't everyone?
Relationships consist of fair exchange. When its out, that's
the end of it.
Value of relationships is determined by what the being values.
Now me, being a low toned asshole, I tend to value very explicit
things, I don't have unconditional love for anyone, including myself,
no doubt a great failing of mine.
But even those who are capable of unconditional love for everyone
and everything, will select and manage their comm lines astutely.
I don't think it's based on
> personal affinity for the person's own sake.
I have never found affinity for people for their own sake.
I don't expect others to do the same of me.
I find affinity for what the being produces.
> I consider your sexual philosophy and behavior, well, uh, PTS. Hence:
> trouble.
You mean I gotta be a Penguin?
My animal wants to be promiscuous.
Homer
Homer Wilson Smith
> > who provides tested and proven tech for you?
>
> It's simple.
> I pay him for training...when I'm gone,he finds new students.
> Is that unreasonable?
Not the same thing. Alan might be offering you more of
a franchise with strong upstream support and downstream referals.
This is not a simple 'course'.
> This is news to me.
> I understood from earlier mails and post's that after training you could charge
> as much or little as you wish.
> We have 'negotiated'?
I probably would not accept a franchise though that forced
a price level on my services. A percentage tithe perhaps, but not
an end price.
> True,I do not charge for training.
> True,I do not need the money anyway.
You make it in the streets?
Can I get a franchise from you?
Homer
Homer Wilson Smith
> able to embrace different viewpoints rather than fighting them.
So much for LaMont.
Homer
Paul Misiunas
<wis...@cyberstation.net> wrote:
>Sarah doesn't love me any more 'cause I charge too much, and the head of a
>large corporation practically laughed me out of my office because I charge
>too little. His statement was if you charge less than $5,000 a day for 8
>hours of training our board will pass on you. Their belief is that the
>training company can't be worth much if they charge so little.
On 18 Jul 1998 11:15:05 -0400, con...@atnet.at (Heidrun Beer) wrote:
>Alan has defined as one way of SPIRITUAL ABUSE (quote):
>
> "not maintaining your spirituality by making your mind,
> body, identity or material objects more important than you"
These extracts just seem to go together perfectly.
Pushing spiritual philosophies via common business practices has hit
the big time. It seems that the CoS first defined and implemented this
new trend, which of course has spread to those that it has touched.
How does one resolve the difference between encouraging spiritual
knowledge and the need to have others play along in our game?
Paul
http://fza.org
RDucharme
>On Sat, 18 Jul 1998 10:58:35 -0400 (EDT), RDucharme wrote:
>
>>My
>>main contention is that the relatively poor should have access to
>>professional services too. That's the need that I and others like me fill.
>
>
>Definitely yes. But how do you decide whom to support and whom not?
I don't support anybody. I charge everyone the same fee. Barter is always
an option though.
Alan C. Walter
>> Sarah doesn't love me any more 'cause I charge too much, and the head of a
>> large corporation practically laughed me out of my office because I charge
>> too little.
>> Alan
>
> And the goal of a large corporation?
>
> "To enslave the masses?"
> Homer
Probably, but isn't that the goal of ALL Cults?
Makes being a "sovereignty virus provider" and an "anti enslaver" pretty
dangerous. One would almost have to operate under a pretty heavy disguise
if they were stupid enough to take on ALL the Cults.
Why even those stupid enough to give away their power and sovereignty to an
LSD tab or some pot look positively sane in comparison to someone who will
walk into the lions den of the real enslavers of the masses and unmock them.
Fancy being willing to take on ALL those who's goals are "To enslave the
masses,"almost scary enough to hide away in Elmira ranting and raving fix
me, fix me, fuck you, fix me.
You would think someone would come up with a rundown that runs out
destructive enslaving Cultures and destructive enslaving Programmes.
Can you imagine what a few thousand people could accomplish being trained
and effective in being able to run out the destructive enslaving Cultures
and destructive enslaving Programmes on this planet if they really wanted
to end enslavement of the masses, or just their own enslavement.
But that would take an awful huge confront, it would be much easier to keep
ones own case in position to use as an excuse for doing nothing than being
stupid enough to take on that heartbreaking effort.
Alan
C. B. Willis
: If your local university suddenly decided they wanted 10% of everything
: you made in your new job...would you enroll?
: Why should I pay Alan a penny for MY effort.
: Yes,he develops some dammed good stuff and is perfectly entitled to
: training fees which I have seen and consider reasonable.
: But...after I complete the course and go off to help others?
: I must carry on paying him?
It's called commitment and lifestyle.
Your commitment to the cause is full and extends for life.
If you're delighted to participate in that way to help keep
the cause going, then it may be a misalignment.
It's analogous to tithing 10% to the church.
Now in the case of Mormons, they have quite a community
lifestyle going, lots of activities and communication,
several weekly meetings. Internet allows something similar
with other groups who are in essence an internet church or cause.
Like anything else, much of the value is in what you bring to it.
Universities have a built in public by social agreement
that clearing groups do not. In a private business, it takes
7 times the money to bring in a new customer via marketing and sales,
than it does to re-sell an existing customer. A private clearing
operation with high overhead needs every dollar it can come by.
Even your independents working at home with little overhead,
they still have the cost of marketing and sales, which is easily
50% of whatever they charge.
I charge $100/hour btw for various consulting services, with a 15-minute
minimum (which may go to 30 minutes any day now), and $3000 for my One
Year Program which is 30 hours and contains lots and lots of info etc.
that I don't deliver anywhere else, in any other format.
My personal rule of thumb is, charge whatever seems reasonable to you,
whatever you'd be willing to pay yourself, then up the price if you start
feeling resentful that you're not making enough for what you're putting
out, if you feel the exchange is unbalanced.
- CBW
LaMont Johnson
Having established and operated groups and centers, having audited and
trained auditors in many establishments over the course of my 30 or so
years in Spiritual Counseling, I feel I might have a bit to contribute
to this years long on-going diatribe and dialogue about prices.
Then again, maybe not. But we shall see as we progress, those who follow
along.
Junipero Serra could be said to be the king and originator of the
American Franchise system. Start somewhere down in Mexico, maybe around
San Felipe, and start travelling north to San Francisco, and count the
missions of the Catholic Church he established. And by the time Brother
Junipero hit "the New World", casting 10% of your bread on the water was
at least a 5,000+/- year old idea.
In traditional church establishment, church bonds are sold. There is no
income to be generated by these bonds, but those who purchase the bonds
get tto become deacons, lay ministers, family pews and other perks and
bennies which demonstrate their support of the organization.
The Xof$ continues this activity through lifetime memberships, etc.
Us goood old franchise holders....eh...Mission Holders had to do it on
our own hook. We couldn't sell lifetime memberships into our ..uh...
Mission (and some of us truly held the religious concept dear). So, we
had to set up and deliver. If the tech wasn't good or the area too
loaded with entheta, then the Mission shut down. I remember people
laughing at me when I said I was going to establish Mission of
Hollywood, after several other really cool guys had not been able to
turn Hollywood over. So, I bought bus bench ads for Dianetics, bought
newspaper ads in the neighborhood weeklies, and ran surveys non-stop on
the corner of Hollywood and Vine, while keeping book sellers in shoe
leather and hamburgers, while they sold DMSMH on street corners to
whores, pimps, cops, tourists and anybody else who would spend the (at
that time) two bucks.
Keeping three auditors going plus two admin folks and three street book
sellers going wasn't an easy task, but I got it going. Sometimes, in the
beginning, I'd have to raid the coffee machine to have enough dough to
stop by Ralph's Grocery Market on the way home to feed myself, my then
wife and my son. But we prospered as a group. We did so well that FOLO
would show up every Tuesday night at our Mission and "request" donations
to their group. I forced in an exchange, and got training for myself and
my staff, at their International Executive Academy (something that few
field operations benefitted from - it was mostly a xhurch staff
academy).CCLA would show up to sell us books, because we were selling
far more than they were, with their 60+ staff.
Later, after diaspora, I purchased Jon Zegels' center and had my own
operations in Riverside and Garden Grove happening. I burned up three
automobiles running from one center to the next. Between the three
locations I had around 19 staff (auditors, course supervisors and admin
staff), all of whom got paid every week.
While in Austin, I helped Jayne as a senior C/S, and Senior auditor at
her center. She was flat out, four sessions a day, five days a week. I
only believe in one day off, if I am auditing, so between the two of us,
we were delivering around 70 chair hours a week. I doubled her lowest
rate for my PCs, and I still wasn't earning $200 an hour. That was a pay
cut for me, because my start up rate at that time for new people was
$175 an hour. Advance clients paid upwards of $375 for very specific,
hand tailored material.
And, for executive management stuff, I required $650-1,000 per hour,
based on the size of the company and the diligence and disciplines I
employed, or viewpoints and added staff I might employ in order to
approach the outpoints/expansion programs/intelligence activities
required for the client firm.
I was never hurting for clients, who were very happy to pay for the
services I delivered.
Today, were I to set up an operation - not Alan's model wherein
co-auditing makes up the brunt of what is being delivered - say, rather,
the trational model of a Clearing Center (2 senior executives, 2-3
auditors, 2 key admin personnel, 1-2 course supervisors), I'm looking at
a minimum of 2500 square feet of space. If I can find decent $2.00 space
(meaning not in some run down section of town), my rent is $5,000. Now
paying salaries to staff (execs wait, even though we double as Senior
C/Ses and Staff training officers, and Qual/Ethics for staff and public,
and computer operators, etc.), that's about $16,800 a month in salaries.
Mail, phones, faxes, computers and on-line services including web-site,
promo, supplies, materiel and the rest will account for another $8,000
per month. OK, janitorial, trash service, water, plants, FEDEX,
materials and tape manufacture, etc. add another $4,000. And these
aren't all the costs, by any stretch of the imagination.
The above totals around $35,000 a month.
3 auditors will deliver not more that 80 hours per week, or about 300
per month. So, the minimum I can charge for a break even, if my auditors
receive a flat salary is $125 hour +/-. If my auditors are paid by the
hour, then $200 is the minimum rate.
Anybody receiving service from a dedicated group of trained
professionals, in reasonably secure, clean and modern facilities, which
delivers spiritual counseling exclusively for a rate of $200 per hour in
a metropolitan US city is getting the break of a lifetime.
To insure that I made out on the deal (means did not have to beat up the
coffee machine to feed my family), I would have to charge $250 minimum.
But Homer would have to pay $750, and I wouldn't laugh at his jokes. I
wouldn't even audit him.
But you all knew that.
Alan Walter and Knowledgism is the very best operation I know of on the
planet, at this time, which delivers a valid, excellent and (dare I say
it) standard personal and spiritual enhancement and enlightenment
product to those who are diligently working on spiritual enlightenment.
LaMont Johnson
LaMont Johnson
It's ok with me that you take LSD before your session, as long as
it ok with you that you put Mr. Clean in your gas tank before
driving over to get that session.
Love, LaMont
Homer Wilson Smith
> the cause going, then it may be a misalignment.
?
PIP...@aol.com
<< I have to deal with people who don't make $200 a week
and coudn't afford to pay stupid prices like this.
Forgive me for my opinions,but is Alan telling me that
the people I deal with deserve no auditing?. >>
I have the same opinions. I'm not angry about what others charge, the main
thing i'm really interested in with this work besides helping others is
effectiveness. I do many "free" sessions and also charge up to $35/hr. the
average is $25/session for most steady low income clients who pay in advance.
If the main goal were making money, I would do things differently and I would
have different clientelle. I'd charge more and have clients who were already
somewhat successful and maybe just had a few problems or were on a spiritual
path.
Most of my clients are not on a spiritual path and have major problems. Many
are on psychiatric drugs and have seen psychiatrists for many years. I guess
this is working with a "down stat". But I don't see it that way. My goal is
not to clear the planet but to contribute... to plant a seed. The guy who
invented the paper clip died broke while the guy who massed produced them made
a fortune. When we discover something new and helpful to people it would be
nice to prosper from it but it is more important to me that the info gets
disseminated. It's not important that people have paper clips, but it's
essential to have some keys to life.
If I were a tribal shaman, healing would be my forte and my beingness. There
would probably be no material compensation but perhaps some spiritual exchange
or there would just be the natural joy of living my purpose. Here we're
talking about business. When I did Idenics sevices and used the name
"Idenics", I had certain advantages which were well worth the then 5% fee I
paid to Survival Services for use of their logo, name, and supervision. It's
all about goals. My goals are to help, discover, and teach, but I also have
to survive, and I would like to prosper as well. How do I reconcile the
opposing vectors in these goals? It depends on my priorities.
Pip
C. B. Willis
: > the cause going, then it may be a misalignment.
: ?
Correction,
If you're NOT delighted to participate in that way to help keep
the cause going, then it may be a misalignment.
- CBW
OldHag needs her computer glasses instead of her bifocals
(IRC joke)
Heidrun Beer
>The other side of this issue is that most of the freebies will downgrade
>your service in a business man's eyes even if you are running a "church."
>If he looks around and sees where your MEST and staff could use upgrading
>he'll not be able to make sense of the givaway.
I was thinking for instance of physically immobilized people
whose physical survival is ensured by a small pension, who
cannot earn money anymore, but would be spiritually aware
and maybe even capable of training others, once their cases
have been fixed. Tragedies like being in the wheelchair after
an accident. Vietnam vets. Things like that.
Heidrun Beer
> I think probably that centers should be employee owned, and
>that prices should be charged to allow for the physical growth
>of the center at a rate it can afford tempered of course by
>extant competition.
>
> That way you aren't paying for the tech, for the gains, for the
>auditing, or the training itself. Just for the presence of the
>facilities.
Well said! Yes!
PIP...@aol.com
<< As Christine said though, there IS a low end at which the buyer will
(may) no longer respect or value the product ... because the seller
didn't. >>
A mango is delicious (if you like mangos) whether you find it growing in the
wild, someone gives it to you, or you buy it for $2.00 at the store. It's
value is intrinsic. But one can be "programmed" to have the value of the
mango, and even its taste, based on some other consideration, such as the
price. This may be the way it is, but what is freer viewpoint?
Also if I help someone for free it can be because I enjoy it, I value the
action and significance of it, and it is not worthless at all. If you are
drowning in a ditch and I pull you out, you may love me or hate me for it,
reward me or kill me, but i did it for my own reasons according to my own
considerations and values. I was concerned and wanted to help.
I had this low income couple I was working with and my processes were new and
experimental so I charged them nothing. Out of the blue the lady won a
lawsuit and gave me a lot of money! Later when I got deathly ill they brought
bags of food over to my house. I'd say their exchange was "in".
When I receive value from someone I appreciate it and naturally want to give
something in return. Awhile back I found an auto shop where I got great and
competant service for very low cost. I felt that I needed to pay more but
didn't. Later the guy changed my oil (I bought the materials) and charged me
NOTHING so I gave him $5. Was he making nothing of his work, or was he being
nice and promoting good will? When you give a gift is it only because you
expect something in return or is there joy in giving? Do I think his work is
valueless now or do I think he's a chump? Actually I like him and can't wait
to get my brakes fixed so I can pay him some money and show him I appreciate
his generosity. I feel protective and worry that others will take advantage
of him. How weird!
This thread has gotten me thinking. My brain just cranked up to third gear.
i hate it when that happens.
Pip
Homer Wilson Smith
>
> It's ok with me that you take LSD before your session, as long as
> it ok with you that you put Mr. Clean in your gas tank before
> driving over to get that session.
>
> Love, LaMont
OK! 200 mics of LSD down the old shoot, and 200 mics of Mr. Clean
down the old tank.
It's a deal.
Homer
LaMont Johnson
an equal amount."
Owen Roe
can't pay unless it is one of those government subsistence programs but
that's not business in the usual sense. If your facilities are
state-of-the-art and staffs are each and every one sharp and proficient,
he'll probably grant you the givaways and whatever else you want to do
that is not considered to be generally sound business practice. You'll
need lots of money to get to that point."
One way that many professions provide low cost or free service is
through internships. The client is getting a valuable supervised service
and the intern is getting valuable experience.
Practically all my auditing in Scio was by interns, however I paid full
price. There was not a little resentment because of this, but I never
complained even when I knew the auditor was struggling through.
*************************************************
History note brought to you by our public schools: " It was an age of
great inventions and discoveries. Gutenberg invented the Bible. Sir
Walter Raleigh is a historical figure because he invented cigarettes.
Another important invention was the circulation of blood. Sir Francis
Drake circumcised the world with a 100 foot clipper"
Ted Crammer
>One way that many professions provide low cost or free service is
>through internships. The client is getting a valuable supervised service
>and the intern is getting valuable experience.
>
>Practically all my auditing in Scio was by interns, however I paid full
>price. There was not a little resentment because of this, but I never
>complained even when I knew the auditor was struggling through.
Medical schools have "free clinic." I don't know of any other professions
out side of the medical community that run internships where someone can
get low cost or free stuff. Well maybe lawyers now that I think of it. Any
others? The pizza guy just hit my doorstep for the second time today. I'll
have to ask about the intern program.
Someone with a tooth ache can have an extraction for free. A repair might
have salvaged the tooth but what the heck if the students were not at that
point in their training.
Kidding aside, these clinics perform a valuable service to the community.
Not all are free but have greatly reduced prices.
I was a seasoned professional by the time I got to my last Internship and
doing it was really an afterthought. As a paying customer, you should have
had someone well past the struggling stage.
--
Ted
Ralph Hilton
This reminds of when I started auditing at Flag. I learnt to audit on the RPF 20
years ago. It was a bit of a heavy gradient co-auditing XDN from scratch. After
a couple of months I got posted as a review auditor in the RPF and was was doing
class VIII & X review actions on the basis of read the bulletin fast then run
it.
I got through the RPF in 6 months and almost immediately was told to audit in
the HGC and tell the PCs that I was an interned class 4. I refused despite some
heavy flack from the CMO. I had made it as a review RPF auditor on a cope basis.
Flag public paying the rates they do should get seasoned auditors but they often
just get outer org interns.
Christine Norstrand
>
> You mean I gotta be a Penguin?
>
> My animal wants to be promiscuous.
>
Yes, I know. She's been telling us how beautiful and high toned it is for
months now. But you know me, I'm just red zone and refuse to get with the
program.
> Homer
>
Me, my animal is wolfy. Wolves mate for life and like to take out rabbits.
Kinda the Elmer Fudd of the animal kingdom.
Robert bob Hummels
>
>On Sat, 18 Jul 1998 09:48:34 -0400 (EDT), Steve n' Sarah wrote:
>
>>
>>Me >>
>>
>>> >I prefer fair and reasonable pricing and NO TEN PERCENT.
>>>
>>> who provides tested and proven tech for you?
>>
>>It's simple.
>>I pay him for training...when I'm gone,he finds new students.
>>Is that unreasonable?
>
>training prices would have to become for this model to function.
>
>I assume that this whole construct will change a lot with the
>broadening of the basis.
>
>
>>Let's say I do a course at the local School/Uni...whatever.
>>If your local university suddenly decided they wanted 10% of everything
>>you made in your new job...would you enroll?
>
>and how they are doing financially. I might pay even more if they
>need it and deserve it.
>
>>Why should I pay Alan a penny for MY effort.
>>Yes,he develops some dammed good stuff and is perfectly entitled to
>>training fees which I have seen and consider reasonable.
>>But...after I complete the course and go off to help others?
>>I must carry on paying him?
>
>You don't have to. The material on the web-site is probably
>a sufficiently big toolbox for you to resolve most of the
>case-conditions you encounter. If you send your people to
>Dallas for the special processing like the Codes, they come
>back to you and you continue.
>
>As soon as you call your center "Knowledgism" though, the work
>Alan has done in promotion will benefit you too, and an exchange
>flow is justified.
>
>BTW I have never been asked to pay 10%. It was me who first was
>aware of the open exchange situation, and it was me who offered
>a payment and asked for the desirable amount. I don't know
>whether 10% is a general rule.
Please correct me if i am wrong...was this the 1982 model
David M used to destroy most of the Mission network in the
CofS? My basic understanding is that the missions were
crushed by over collection from the Church.
>>> The 10% model is only one possibility out of many. For me,
>>> this group is not "some other people". They are a remote part
>>> of my own team; it is totally natural for me to contribute to them.
>>
>>Barnum was right.
>
>??
>
>
>>> >So Heidrun,how much do YOU charge, no, don't Q&A,just quote
>>> >some numbers .
>>>
>>> I don't want to reveal the agreement without permission.
>>> With Alan's permission, I would tell the figure we have
>>> negotiated.
>>
>>This is news to me.
>>I understood from earlier mails and post's that after training you could charge
>>as much or little as you wish.
>>We have 'negotiated'?
>
>We had a talk in Dallas. We had pretty different ideas, but as it's
>me who lives in the local scene and has the data about it, we more
>or less ended up with the figure I proposed.
>
>
>>Perhaps this should be cleared up,do you mean to tell me that Alan tells people
>>how much they can or cannot charge?
>>What's going on here?
>
>Communication. It is his tech; if I want to represent it, using
>the name he chose, don't you think we should be in agreement?
>
>Alan is much more experienced in center-building. I asked for his
>advice - he didn't try to give me orders!
>
>
>>> And - I am no robot. I do emergency handlings for free, and
>>> if in an individual case I am convinced that the person's
>>> contributions are substantial, I charge less or nothing, always
>>> keeping in mind that nobody can win if people compete each other
>>> out of a viable range of operation.
>>
>>Okay,so how does this affect this 'agreement'
>>I am unhappy with having to somehow clear my prices with someone else.
>
>Of course! I cleared a guideline with Alan. My day-to-day-decisions
>are my own. I don't think that he would be happy with puppets in his team;
>and certainly I would not become a puppet, I think you know that?
>
>
>>This is one of the reasons I will not go to Dallas.
>
>Well, Austria is closer anyway. I'll make special prices
>for you [double them] :-)))
>
>
>>The main one is this 10% rule.
>>His tech is good but your statement that you 'negotiated' your price structure
>>with Alan implies that you may have altered the charges you wished to make
>>in order to fit in with Alan's idea's.
>
>No, it was the other way round. I asked for his suggestions,
>generally applying the condition of "Power change", using his
>successful actions as a template. But in the question of prices,
>my feeling was that my area wouldn't easily digest what might
>be perfectly real in Texas. We had no discussion and no fight,
>I would say we had a brainstorming - finding the optimum line
>together. "Work with" (green zone) rather than "Work for"
>(yellow zone).
>
>It is a matter of trust anyway. I don't have to show him my books.
>But I always was sensitive in the area of exchange. Maybe you are
>right though and it should all be covered by training fees?
So..exchange for processing should be more than exchange for training?
>>True,I do not charge for training.
>>True,I do not need the money anyway.
>>But.answering a point Christine made,I do insist people find and audit
>>their own PC's and many of them are totally new to the whole concept
>>of spiritual improvement.
This is the ideal model. If the CofS would have pushed
a one for one auditing exchange.....no need to pay auditing
staff..they are all working to pay off their own auditing.
My problem with the $200.00 processing fee is the whole group
suffers. You yourself Heidrun have said many times that the
case of everyone matters in terms of release for the individual.
>Sure.
>
>Alan has defined as one way of SPIRITUAL ABUSE (quote):
>
> "not maintaining your spirituality by making your mind,
> body, identity or material objects more important than you"
>
>As money belongs to material objects, you see that he himself has
>defined as a law of Knowledgism that a person's spirituality
>always comes BEFORE money. So for me, his training and processing
>must be made possible as a first priority.
>
>I don't think that I will ever have a quarrel with Alan about money -
>he knows that I would rub his nose in this paragraph (despite
>Christine's rantings, I'm pretty immune against guru-ism). The 10%
>were not enforced on me. But I certainly can see your point.
>
>>There were NO (read my lips...it's no as in Zero)
>>processors here when I arrived.
>>Now we have to beat them off with a stick!
>
>Wow, great!
>
>
>>Please list some sensible reasons why I should jack my prices up to
>>give Alan 10%.
>
>I was talking about paying staff.
Again....one for one on auditing hours. You get one, you owe
me one.
>>Please state how this might affect people who are,say,borderline on being
>>able to afford auditing.
>
>For such people I always find an individual solution. I never
>let somebody down who is reaching for spiritual enhancement.
>If he can't afford to pay, he certainly can find a friend and
>start training and co-processing with him. I very much prefer
>such solutions, because people need the training part even more
>than the processing. Only with the training they can UNDERSTAND
>what happened in the past, and create a better future!
>
>
>>Please tell me why Acey deserves my income over and above the
>>training fee's (Which I would be perfectly happy to pay)
>
>Because he continues to research. But again, the 10% model is
>only one of many possible. I don't think it MUST be done that way.
>I personally would certainly not allow this to become a reason
>for someone to stay away from training. For me it was no issue,
>as the proposal came from myself.
>
>
>>(for Ralph)
>>I would pay Acey for training,not because I need it,but because new,raw
>>public who have never heard of anything spiritual are impressed by
>>little certificates.
>
>Do you have a printer connected to your computer? Printing
>a pretty certificate might be cheaper than flying to Dallas
>to get one!
>
>But I doubt that your printer will have a lot of processing
>experience to share with you.
>
>
>>$200 per hour is a substantial contribution.
>>The training fees are reasonable but the idea of going out and
>>charging people more money..just to pay it to Acey,is not.
>
>OK, I can live with that! Don't allow this to get between
>your feet on your training path! I can think up a different
>model every 10 minutes, and probably you too!
The training does NOT have a low price if ANY tithe is
required to use it. What was that quote the work was
free keep it that way. LRH
>>What do I get for my 10%
>>If I don't want it,why isn't it optional?
>
>Good question! Again I don't even know how other people's
>agreements look like.
>
>
>>I thoroughly applaud the way he gives tech away and I like his
>>training prices.
>>10% STINKS though.
>
>Don't pay them then. A honest agreement and spiritual bond is worth
>more than any money in the world. Create YOUR model of exchange with
>Alan. Dallas is proud of having no "cookie-cutter"-system for the
>handling of cases. I think this applies here too.
>
>
>
>
>
>Heidrun Beer
bob
Robert bob Hummels
>
>> Knowledgism auditing costs $200 per hour to begin with and prices may 'change'.
>> I feel this is extremely cheap,especialy for those who earn low wages and need to
>> improve themselves.
>
> Cheap? For low income?
That was my thought as well Homer... you know,
about 45% of the US government employees here
in Germany earn under $15.00 per hour? Actually
most of those earn less than $10.00 per hour.
So lets do the math...if I don't waste any money
on the luxuries in life like rent, food, heat,
electricity and taxes then I only have to work for
2.5 days to afford one hour of auditing..that leaves
me with what...2 hours of auditing I can afford each week.
Unfortunately your avereage PC is NOT going to think the
above expenses are avoidable :-) and the Government will also
claim that tax is NOT a luxury! So...unless I live in the RED
ZONE as a homeless person I can not afford to get to the YELLOW
ZONE...hum....makes perfect sense to me ;-).
Yes, I understand Alan thinks he gives away enough processes
on his web site for free to raise your earning ability to the
point where you can afford his prices. Still...try and feed that
crap to a new PC who comes in wanting to improve themselves.
Do you think a bank will give them a loan for "training"?
I can just see the loan officer now...right then you have listed
for collateral one each thetan...uh just what is a thetan worth on
the open market today? :-) Cute picture right?
bob
>
Heidrun Beer
>Yes, I understand Alan thinks he gives away enough processes
>on his web site for free to raise your earning ability to the
>point where you can afford his prices.
That's not the idea. If somebody really wants to improve, he needs
to TRAIN. Only then he will understand life as it happens, and can
improve in the weak points that have led to earlier failures.
For somebody who has mastered all the processes which are offered
for free on the net - and really USES them -, the service of
a professional processor will be needed only for very few hours.
In your other post you write about processing one to one. That's
true for co-processing-teams who have an independent income.
If you have (a) highly trained specialist(s), this would be a waste
of qualified time. His (their) rates must be high enough to pay for
all the other things too which are needed to run the organization
around him (them).
Normally you have to charge 5 to 10 times of what he gets himself
in order to cover that.
Looking from the viewpoint of a group who has erased their charge
on abuses in the area of money it is like saying "Hey, let's pay
all together to keep Bill (or Tom or Henry) alive and happy! He can
train us all and resolve the 1% of difficult situations that we cannot
handle ourselves! Let's buy him all the books, tables, paper and pens
he needs, and let's pay his phone and power and rent and car, so that
he can really concentrate on our needs and doesn't have to think
of money at all!"
Society is doing this in abundance with other specialists like
singers or actors. Everybody understands that they should be kept
free from distractions and be allowed to do their specialist's
work for the benefit of all.
Heidrun Beer
Robert Hummels
>
> On Tue, 21 Jul 1998 00:36:17 -0400 (EDT), Robert "bob" Hummels wrote:
>
> >Yes, I understand Alan thinks he gives away enough processes
> >on his web site for free to raise your earning ability to the
> >point where you can afford his prices.
>
> That's not the idea. If somebody really wants to improve, he needs
> to TRAIN. Only then he will understand life as it happens, and can
> improve in the weak points that have led to earlier failures.
Yes...pay for the training....exchange one for one on the processing.
> For somebody who has mastered all the processes which are offered
> for free on the net - and really USES them -, the service of
> a professional processor will be needed only for very few hours.
or then again what happened to NOT AT ALL?
> In your other post you write about processing one to one. That's
> true for co-processing-teams who have an independent income.
> If you have (a) highly trained specialist(s), this would be a waste
> of qualified time. His (their) rates must be high enough to pay for
> all the other things too which are needed to run the organization
> around him (them).
>
> Normally you have to charge 5 to 10 times of what he gets himself
> in order to cover that.
That IS the problem...what on earth do you need a "Professional Auditor"
for? If you have dozens of public who OWE you their hours....well.....?
My one and only experience with a "Pro Auditor" in the CofS left me
wishing my "co-audit basic dianetics without cert yet" auditor would
come back.
Throwing some OT47 at the public does NOT provide them with
a good auditor...handing them someone with a little less "Perfection"
may work. Often that OT47 will cave-in the PC just because of
"What" they are. Think back to your own days as Q public.....
did you have the confront to face an OT47 "With Papers" at
the auditing table?
> Looking from the viewpoint of a group who has erased their charge
> on abuses in the area of money it is like saying "Hey, let's pay
> all together to keep Bill (or Tom or Henry) alive and happy! He can
> train us all and resolve the 1% of difficult situations that we cannot
> handle ourselves! Let's buy him all the books, tables, paper and pens
> he needs, and let's pay his phone and power and rent and car, so that
> he can really concentrate on our needs and doesn't have to think
> of money at all!"
No, this is "How to build an untouchable guru in ten easy steps or
less!"
> Society is doing this in abundance with other specialists like
> singers or actors. Everybody understands that they should be kept
> free from distractions and be allowed to do their specialist's
> work for the benefit of all.
It worked for LRH until Davey stepped in right?
bob
Robert Hummels
only folks.....excuse the double posting.
Heidrun Beer
>> For somebody who has mastered all the processes which are offered
>> for free on the net - and really USES them -, the service of
>> a professional processor will be needed only for very few hours.
>
>or then again what happened to NOT AT ALL?
You cannot know this in advance. Don't you think some person
should be available whom you can ask if you don't know how
to handle a situation?
>That IS the problem...what on earth do you need a "Professional Auditor"
>for? If you have dozens of public who OWE you their hours....well.....?
Let's look behind the labels, Bob. A "professional auditor" is simply
someone who has seen a lot and learned how to produce the right
reaction fast enough to stay helpful to the PC. Or at least this is
how I would define a professional auditor.
It has nothing to do with money, in the first place. But of course
such a person is precious and rare; this is why I would tend to keep
him free from other activities. That's why money has to flow - to have
him available as much as possible for special handlings.
Of course this is only my personal opinion, gained from many years
of working in a business where I saw that the best results stem from
having people do what they can do best!
>My one and only experience with a "Pro Auditor" in the CofS left me
>wishing my "co-audit basic dianetics without cert yet" auditor would
>come back.
Such things happen, but I don't think you have a sample here which
is big enough to extract a rule from your personal experience.
>Throwing some OT47 at the public does NOT provide them with
>a good auditor...handing them someone with a little less "Perfection"
>may work. Often that OT47 will cave-in the PC just because of
>"What" they are. Think back to your own days as Q public.....
>did you have the confront to face an OT47 "With Papers" at
>the auditing table?
These people were my only hope to make myself understood!!!
The higher trained they were, the better I could work with them.
Although it never worked really well, with no auditor. It was
much later that I learned that I am so fast as a PC that I have
to solo-audit most things - I need an auditor mostly for masses
that are so heavy that they tend to knock me unconscious in session.
Robert Hummels
>
> On Tue, 21 Jul 1998 17:00:41 +0200, Robert Hummels wrote:
>
> >> For somebody who has mastered all the processes which are offered
> >> for free on the net - and really USES them -, the service of
> >> a professional processor will be needed only for very few hours.
> >
> >or then again what happened to NOT AT ALL?
>
> You cannot know this in advance. Don't you think some person
> should be available whom you can ask if you don't know how
> to handle a situation?
A C/S yes...but an auditor?
> >That IS the problem...what on earth do you need a "Professional Auditor"
> >for? If you have dozens of public who OWE you their hours....well.....?
>
> Let's look behind the labels, Bob. A "professional auditor" is simply
> someone who has seen a lot and learned how to produce the right
> reaction fast enough to stay helpful to the PC. Or at least this is
> how I would define a professional auditor.
IF they can keep their own considerations OUT of the session.
What I see as a prime example is LaMont. He is so sure of his
being right (due to past experience) that his consideration
of Homers case causes a major ARCX every time they communicate
on the list. Homer, of course deserves some of the blame but
neither of them are willing to admit that perhaps the other
might have a valid point.
In session, the super OT auditor extrordinar is bound to have
their own "perfect" case remedies which may, or may not apply
in any given case. I think they make great C/S's but may cause
more harm than good in a less or more than typical case as auditors.
> It has nothing to do with money, in the first place. But of course
> such a person is precious and rare; this is why I would tend to keep
> him free from other activities. That's why money has to flow - to have
> him available as much as possible for special handlings.
It has a LOT to do with money. You are setting this master blaster
auditor on a pedestal where they lose their group orientation
and become "ME" fixated in a very short time. This is why I used
to get sick seeing someone at the ORG "worshipping" an LRH portrait.
> Of course this is only my personal opinion, gained from many years
> of working in a business where I saw that the best results stem from
> having people do what they can do best!
I have no argument with this...just do not see the need to have
a "master blaster" paid full time in staff.
> >My one and only experience with a "Pro Auditor" in the CofS left me
> >wishing my "co-audit basic dianetics without cert yet" auditor would
> >come back.
>
> Such things happen, but I don't think you have a sample here which
> is big enough to extract a rule from your personal experience.
Heidrun...how were OTs treated in the Orgs you were at? Do you really
think they receive "normal" considerations in comm with beginners or
even those more advanced but NOT at that OT step yet?
> >Throwing some OT47 at the public does NOT provide them with
> >a good auditor...handing them someone with a little less "Perfection"
> >may work. Often that OT47 will cave-in the PC just because of
> >"What" they are. Think back to your own days as Q public.....
> >did you have the confront to face an OT47 "With Papers" at
> >the auditing table?
>
> These people were my only hope to make myself understood!!!
> The higher trained they were, the better I could work with them.
Perhaps your arrived with a very high level of confront.
My experience is that they disrupt comm because of that unspoken
yet somehow communicated "I'm an OT ___ so you had better listen...
or else. I saw the same reaction everytime the SO arrived as well.
> Although it never worked really well, with no auditor. It was
> much later that I learned that I am so fast as a PC that I have
> to solo-audit most things - I need an auditor mostly for masses
> that are so heavy that they tend to knock me unconscious in session.
I understand this reality quite well. I NEVER made gains as fast in
a co-audit situation as I do with solo. I think a lot of it has to do
with not needing a meter cause the indicators are so obvious (at this
point)
I have never hit one of those masses you speak of...perhaps it will
change
my view :-).
bob
LaMont Johnson
You missed my post of the number of centers I've set up and managed, and
the tens of thousands of hours to PC's and students I've delivered.
You generalize about the ruckus between Homer and myself. We are both
Big Boys who are able to state what is real, without kowtowing to the
other.
Finally, unless you have been audited by a flawless auditor, under
excellent conditions, you are on shakey ground making empty statements.
It isn't about the money - it never was, and never will be.
Those who want Cadillacs, pay Cadillacs prices. Those who don't drive
Yugos..or Brabants...or don't drive at all.
In the beginning, I audited for free, until I gotr confidence.
Then I audited for $5-10 an hour until I became sharp.
Then, $25-50 an hour after miracles became second nature.
Then $100 an hour when Orgs around the world started clamoring for me to
show up and deliver in their locations.
Then $142.50 when the xhurch demanded I not undercut.
Then $200 so that I could pay my attorneys.
Then $250 so that I could pay the attorneys, and take some home for
myself.
I got up to $450 with certain PCs and Corporate entities.
And now, I don't get a penny. But that's because I don't do that
anymore.
Unless you've walked that mile in these shoes, it's best to recognize
that there might be a few things you have no experience with, this
lifetime.
And I have lived on the German economy when a buck got you DM 4.20, but
I also got flight pay, TDY pay, hazardous duty pay, and per diem.
Also, I got shot at every now and again.
Even Uncle knows, "you get what you pay for..."
Love, LaMont
Heidrun Beer
>In session, the super OT auditor extrordinar is bound to have
>their own "perfect" case remedies which may, or may not apply
>in any given case.
No. The quality of an auditor is measured against the question
whether he audits THE PC IN FRONT OF HIM. We are not talking
about church robots here. We are talking about AUDITORS - people
who are trained to listen, to understand, and lead a person
to his very individual own realizations.
>It has a LOT to do with money. You are setting this master blaster
>auditor on a pedestal where they lose their group orientation
>and become "ME" fixated in a very short time. This is why I used
>to get sick seeing someone at the ORG "worshipping" an LRH portrait.
I understand that you got sick (I experienced this too), but it's
not me who erects a pedestal for anybody. These things happened
in the church, not in the freezone.
>I have no argument with this...just do not see the need to have
>a "master blaster" paid full time in staff.
I suggest you build a center and run it for a while. Then let's
talk again. A "public" or "client" can afford the luxury to look
through his own eyes only. If you manage a center, you need to
look through your client's and student's eyes as well as through
your staff's, AND your own, and this not only for present time
but for years ahead.
Good OT-exercise in spanning spaces, times, possible realities and
different viewpoints :-) You even need to span the PAST if you really
want to understand how people arrived at their present time viewpoints.
>Heidrun...how were OTs treated in the Orgs you were at? Do you really
>think they receive "normal" considerations in comm with beginners or
>even those more advanced but NOT at that OT step yet?
Hey, we are not talking about Orgs here! Don't you think the people
who left this system have learned how NOT to do it?
>Perhaps your arrived with a very high level of confront.
>My experience is that they disrupt comm because of that unspoken
>yet somehow communicated "I'm an OT ___ so you had better listen...
>or else. I saw the same reaction everytime the SO arrived as well.
Sure, I have seen it often. But these people lost their grip
on the BASICS!!! Until they re-gain this, and thoroughly,
I would call them neither auditors nor OT's.
Robert Hummels
>
> Treasured Bob,
>
> You missed my post of the number of centers I've set up and managed, and
> the tens of thousands of hours to PC's and students I've delivered.
No, LaMont....I understand this quite well..but your attitude of
higher altitude (:-) than those around you scares me. And this
is what Heidrun is proposing. Perhaps you don't have these same
attitudes in the auditing room.....but the chances of finding
the individual who does NOT are less than you might think.
> You generalize about the ruckus between Homer and myself. We are both
> Big Boys who are able to state what is real, without kowtowing to the
> other.
Yes...to yourselves...the outward appearance is something else
again, and the point I wish to make. It takes a lot of confront
to stand up to the "big boys" and disagree.
> Finally, unless you have been audited by a flawless auditor, under
> excellent conditions, you are on shakey ground making empty statements.
All I can rely on are what is true for me...and I have never
been audited by even a good auditor let alone a "flawless" one.
> It isn't about the money - it never was, and never will be.
For you perhaps....but what about the Guru Heidrun talks of setting
up.
> Those who want Cadillacs, pay Cadillacs prices. Those who don't drive
> Yugos..or Brabants...or don't drive at all.
>
> In the beginning, I audited for free, until I gotr confidence.
>
> Then I audited for $5-10 an hour until I became sharp.
>
> Then, $25-50 an hour after miracles became second nature.
>
> Then $100 an hour when Orgs around the world started clamoring for me to
> show up and deliver in their locations.
>
> Then $142.50 when the xhurch demanded I not undercut.
>
> Then $200 so that I could pay my attorneys.
>
> Then $250 so that I could pay the attorneys, and take some home for
> myself.
>
> I got up to $450 with certain PCs and Corporate entities.
>
> And now, I don't get a penny. But that's because I don't do that
> anymore.
>
> Unless you've walked that mile in these shoes, it's best to recognize
> that there might be a few things you have no experience with, this
> lifetime.
Oh....I do indeed, but when I voice these unexperienced expressions
I usually get a response like yours back :-).
> And I have lived on the German economy when a buck got you DM 4.20, but
> I also got flight pay, TDY pay, hazardous duty pay, and per diem.
Well...the rate is DM 1.78 today. with no flight pay, hazardous duty or
per
diem....a different proposition all together.
> Also, I got shot at every now and again.
This....I have avoided and do not invite the experience. :-)
> Even Uncle knows, "you get what you pay for..."
..is that why he buys Million dollar toilets for the Air Force?
> Love, LaMont
>
ARC,
bob
Robert Hummels
>
> On Wed, 22 Jul 1998 02:09:46 -0400 (EDT), Robert Hummels wrote:
>
> >In session, the super OT auditor extrordinar is bound to have
> >their own "perfect" case remedies which may, or may not apply
> >in any given case.
>
> No. The quality of an auditor is measured against the question
> whether he audits THE PC IN FRONT OF HIM. We are not talking
> about church robots here. We are talking about AUDITORS - people
> who are trained to listen, to understand, and lead a person
> to his very individual own realizations.
Well....I guess bad experience leads one to incorrect conclusions.
> >It has a LOT to do with money. You are setting this master blaster
> >auditor on a pedestal where they lose their group orientation
> >and become "ME" fixated in a very short time. This is why I used
> >to get sick seeing someone at the ORG "worshipping" an LRH portrait.
>
> I understand that you got sick (I experienced this too), but it's
> not me who erects a pedestal for anybody. These things happened
> in the church, not in the freezone.
.yes, but your acts of placing someone above the "common" worker
as the AUDITOR are a step in this direction again. History has the
awful habit of repeating and repeating...........
> >I have no argument with this...just do not see the need to have
> >a "master blaster" paid full time in staff.
>
> I suggest you build a center and run it for a while. Then let's
> talk again. A "public" or "client" can afford the luxury to look
> through his own eyes only. If you manage a center, you need to
> look through your client's and student's eyes as well as through
> your staff's, AND your own, and this not only for present time
> but for years ahead.
Well....perhaps when the CofS vs Germany issue ends......
right now I would be inviting disaster. The whole country
is PTS to Scientology, and anything that might be connected to it.
> Good OT-exercise in spanning spaces, times, possible realities and
> different viewpoints :-) You even need to span the PAST if you really
> want to understand how people arrived at their present time viewpoints.
I'll get right on it :-)!
> >Heidrun...how were OTs treated in the Orgs you were at? Do you really
> >think they receive "normal" considerations in comm with beginners or
> >even those more advanced but NOT at that OT step yet?
>
> Hey, we are not talking about Orgs here! Don't you think the people
> who left this system have learned how NOT to do it?
Again...history repeats itself.....even with the best of
intentions to prevent it.
> >Perhaps your arrived with a very high level of confront.
> >My experience is that they disrupt comm because of that unspoken
> >yet somehow communicated "I'm an OT ___ so you had better listen...
> >or else. I saw the same reaction everytime the SO arrived as well.
>
> Sure, I have seen it often. But these people lost their grip
> on the BASICS!!! Until they re-gain this, and thoroughly,
> I would call them neither auditors nor OT's.
Now on this we are in TOTAL AGREEMENT :-)
> Heidrun Beer
bob
Heidrun Beer
>..yes, but your acts of placing someone above the "common" worker
>as the AUDITOR are a step in this direction again. History has the
>awful habit of repeating and repeating...........
I know that - and I'm not happy about it. But the fact that abuse
has occurred should not justify going into apathy on important things.
And QUALITY in training is maybe one of the most important things
I can think of. It is gained by experience mostly. If motivation,
ethics, talent and discipline are the same in both an "old hat"
and a "greenhorn", then the experience of the "old hat" will
make the difference.
In all areas where not terror is reigning, this system works
for training. You have it in flight training, sports training,
yes even in computer-programming training :-)), and everywhere.
So we just need to restore the once well-known knowledge that in
a suppressive environment no wins are possible. As soon there is
no more suppression, quality can be ensured. And the closeness
between auditor and PC, under the name of "ARC" known to be the
one single most important factor for successful auditing, is
certainly the major part of the quality we want to arrive at.
Heidrun Beer
RDucharme
>> >That IS the problem...what on earth do you need a "Professional Auditor"
>> >for? If you have dozens of public who OWE you their hours....well.....?
>>
>> Let's look behind the labels, Bob. A "professional auditor" is simply
>> someone who has seen a lot and learned how to produce the right
>> reaction fast enough to stay helpful to the PC. Or at least this is
>> how I would define a professional auditor.
>
>IF they can keep their own considerations OUT of the session.
>What I see as a prime example is LaMont. He is so sure of his
>being right (due to past experience) that his consideration
>of Homers case causes a major ARCX every time they communicate
>on the list. Homer, of course deserves some of the blame but
>neither of them are willing to admit that perhaps the other
>might have a valid point.
>
>In session, the super OT auditor extrordinar is bound to have
>their own "perfect" case remedies which may, or may not apply
>in any given case. I think they make great C/S's but may cause
>more harm than good in a less or more than typical case as auditors.
Where did you pick up that data from? That's a very cynical view which I
don't think is true in most cases. What tends to happen is that a pc will
gravitate to the professional auditor who provides him with the service he
feels he most needs. The professional auditor is bound by the unwritten
code of the capitalist to provide a service that is of the highest quality
and greatest benefit to the client so that the client will be the most
satisfied with the results. Otherwise he'll soon go out of business.
I've had plenty of auditors who were inexperienced. I know they have to go
through their apprenticeships with somebody, but I'd never go to another one
again just like I'd never go to a trainee surgeon for major surgery. And
performing surgery on myself would have its drawbacks too.
Robert
Homer Wilson Smith
> > whether he audits THE PC IN FRONT OF HIM. We are not talking
> > about church robots here. We are talking about AUDITORS - people
> > who are trained to listen, to understand, and lead a person
> > to his very individual own realizations.
It's the understand part that get's me. That's why I wonder
about LaMont and LSD, and everyone on the planet and The Proof.
I tend to not audit the proof around other auditors because
they haven't gone through the understanding phase. Its just words
to them which they then pigeon hole in the nearest niche that
it fits in, in their mind.
Homer
Homer Wilson Smith
> higher altitude (:-) than those around you scares me.
For the record I do not mind an attitude of higher altitude,
I do mind egregiously off target AOI's that show a complete
lack of duplication of the person being talked to.
I also mind a lot of 'talk at' and not so much 'talk to' or
'talk with'.
> Yes...to yourselves...the outward appearance is something else
> again, and the point I wish to make. It takes a lot of confront
> to stand up to the "big boys" and disagree.
Nah, take your left hand and pick up the tomatoe, put it
ever so gently in your right hand and throw it.
What's the big deal?
> > Finally, unless you have been audited by a flawless auditor, under
> > excellent conditions, you are on shakey ground making empty statements.
>
> All I can rely on are what is true for me...and I have never
> been audited by even a good auditor let alone a "flawless" one.
My auditor's have all been sufficiently flawless. It's the C/Sing
that's important. A good auditor running an off target process merely
becomes the target.
Homer
Heidrun Beer
> I tend to not audit the proof around other auditors because
>they haven't gone through the understanding phase. Its just words
>to them which they then pigeon hole in the nearest niche that
>it fits in, in their mind.
But if the understanding part is "out", the whole comm formula
is "out" and auditing doesn't actually occur. We have a situation
of "no auditing" then and everything which happens is a fake!!
I remember a post of LaMont though where he comments on the
vital necessity of the auditor understanding (he writes about
various professions here and how the auditor would have to
make sure that he knows what they are talking about).
Heidrun Beer
>How many of you out there truly think you can
>still do Book 1 auditing without a meter and pull it off
>successfully? There is a Universe full of more advanced
>tech that you can not use in the Basic Dianetics course.
The incident handling of Book 1 is incomplete as well as
the more sophisticated NED handling which uses the meter.
The part which is missing is the examination of the
colliding intentions of (a) the PC and (b) the being(s)
who is (are) causing the incident. They need to be
disentangled if the incident is to fully erase.
Senior to the body's physical pain there is the spiritual
being's interrupted creation - a vision that could not be
pursued like intended, because the incident occurred.
Then you have the other factor of the other person(s)
telepathic projections which have been picked up during
the incident - HIS visions that HE pursued.
It is not more difficult than a Book 1 handling to process
these things along with the physical circumstances with the
incident, once the auditor has understood the importance
of these factors.
Heidrun Beer
>Yes...I tend to agree with all of this....but an auditor who
>is auditing someone as part of their Basic Dianetics course
>is not allowed to use all this knowledge. They are limited to using
>ONLY those processes the PC knows from Book 1.
>
>That is the ARCX I had....
You are one of MANY.
Where do you think is the difference between the 8 million
members the church claims, and the few thousand who are really
active?
Austria had difficulties a few weeks ago to gather 300 "Active
Member Signatures"!
C. B. Willis
: The part which is missing is the examination of the
: who is (are) causing the incident. They need to be
: disentangled if the incident is to fully erase.
One or more beings may be ostensibly causing an incident,
but nothing happens in reality without agreement (conscious
or unconscious) among all parties, and desire for certain
experiences which may in turn lead to something else, etc.
So question is, What responsibility did you have in the incident?
or such.
A question I ask and I expect to be anathema to most on this
list is, "What was the soul's desire for experience?"
(i.e., What was your (you as the soul/spirit's) desire for experience?)
For students who know "how to Work," the answer is normally
forthcoming in less than a minute.
Once they get their own deeper and desired role in what happened,
the incident tends to unravel.
There could be lots of arguments about phrasing, but I find the above
question works best and gives an ability to look AT, take an
objective viewpoint on the situation.
The realization is that they got exactly what they wanted in essence,
even if they didn't like the form that it took. So they learn to look at
things more deeply, go beyond appearances. Very basic Christian
metaphysics and Vedanta.
- CBW
http://www.geocities.com/athens/parthenon/1802
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| cbwi...@netcom.com | "Values are the infrastructure |
| | upon which civilization |
| | will be reinvented." - CBW |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Heidrun Beer
>A question I ask and I expect to be anathema to most on this
>list is, "What was the soul's desire for experience?"
>
>(i.e., What was your (you as the soul/spirit's) desire for experience?)
That makes a lot of sense to me. A question I use for myself,
usually out of session because I am looking at a broader area
of life rather than a specialized session item, is "What did
I need to learn here?"
I like the Knowledgism rule "All life is a process", but for me
"All life is aimed at learning" has even more truth.
Maybe this can only work if a certain goal is being created.
Then my spiritual teammates can check back for which role or
which end-product the lessons have to be compiled.
Dopertchouk, Oleg
> I like the Knowledgism rule "All life is a process", but for me
> "All life is aimed at learning" has even more truth.
>
"If life is a lesson, who is a teacher?" and "Why the knowledge cannot
be conveyed in a direct way? Why go through all this trouble?". Looks
like there's a catch somewhere...
Cheers,
Oleg
Heidrun Beer
Yes! I read it a few years ago during my research for the 1986-novel.
In a book of Thorwald Dethlefsen (a medician who is researching
past-life therapies) he writes (or quotes? I don't recall) the
following principle which I summarize here:
The spirit needs to learn a certain principle or truth and now
has a choice. The choice is NEVER to NOT-LEARN, but only to
learn (a) actively or (b) passively.
If he refuses to learn actively, as in study or otherwise actively
dealing with the matter in whichever suitable way, he himself
(you might call it a higher self) then creates a non-conscious
desire for an event to happen that will allow him to passively
learn what before he refused to learn actively.
These things are usually unpleasant experiences like a disease
or tragedy in life. He kind of "ordered a lesson".
I have several times in my life prevented the worst by seeing
it coming. I asked "What's the message in this?" and then acted
according to the message, not against the apparent and visible
threat.
It is most difficult when other people are involved whom you
cannot control. One most impressing story happened a while ago
when a business partner neglected the project of a client.
I had invested years of study and hundreds of hours of unpaid
development work to get this project which I knew would feed me
for years if I could make the sale. I finally had spiritually
EARNED this goldmine. I had paid for it with (summarized) three
years of my life where my husband and kids saw only my back
because I was doing this study.
Unwaware of this history, that guy treated the project like
a mere annoyance. Sometimes he worked, sometimes he didn't.
We couldn't keep delivery promises. My spiritual "earning"
of the project got wasted by not honouring its unique value
(other companies have to sell their services daily, and here
we had a major project for years!)
I myself had other interests, and my own creation of the goldmine
faded out too. Finally the project was on the edge of being
closed down!!!
The APPARENT reasons were mismanagement in the client's own
company where the responsible people had spent money on the
project without proper planning and the bosses got angry about
the huge black hole through which their money disappeared (to me).
The apparent ARGUMENTATION would have been to raise hell about
this very fact. But as I had warned them about their missing
planning for many months without a result, this alone wouldn't
have saved the project. The REAL reason was that both my partner
and myself had NO LONGER SPIRITUALLY CREATED THE PROJECT.
The lesson was about the nature of spiritually creating into the
physical reality, and the cycle of action which consists of
CREATE-CREATE-CREATE rather that START-CHANGE-STOP. You have seen
it, most often in marriages, that what isn't created any longer,
will sooner or later cease to exist.
So what I did was: I created the project again. Apparently writing
a "To-Do-List" for them to estimate the future costs, I mocked up
the whole project in a new unit of time, first creating its space-time
boundaries (anchor-points) and then filling them with details.
I spent around two full days only with making it more detailed
and more solid and more real. With the To-Do-List I had written,
I then prompted my CLIENTS to create THEIR part of this shared
creation. The computer people there came together, discussed my
list and mocked the project up too. Now we had enough solidity for it
to persist in the physical universe, and it was possible to sell
it to the bosses.
Today this project is alive again and still expanding. You see,
what I did was: I observed the passive learning lession before
it arrived, and preceded it with an act of active learning.
A second lesson was about teammates - how to determine whom
you invite into your team. Here I got help at the right time
in form of Alan's "Paradigm Matrix Book" where he describes
the characteristics of various "Paradigm Enhancers" and "Paradigm
Crashers" in a team.
This was a similar milestone for me like the PTS-SP-data a few
years ago. But then again I could have studied both without being able
to apply it, because I had no situation in life as a demonstration.
So maybe some events are just 3-dimensional representations of what
you are about to study - a better clay demo?
I do believe in such things.
C. B. Willis
: I like the Knowledgism rule "All life is a process",
This is the viewpoint of many contemporary therapists also.
: but for me "All life is aimed at learning" has even more truth.
The counterargument to this claim is that it puts you at the
effect of life, rather than cause over life.
I understand Homer's proof to argue against the claim also.
However I find it a workable proposition
if you deliberately collapse the distinction between cause and effect.
- CBW
Heidrun Beer
>However I find it a workable proposition
>if you deliberately collapse the distinction between cause and effect.
No, I think the person himself is actually CAUSING the experience!
Homer Wilson Smith
> > "All life is aimed at learning" has even more truth.
> Every time i hear this statement i have this question:
> "If life is a lesson, who is a teacher?" and "Why the knowledge cannot
> be conveyed in a direct way? Why go through all this trouble?". Looks
> like there's a catch somewhere...
>
> Cheers,
> Oleg
I agree, there is nothing to learn.
Homer
C. B. Willis
: >However I find it a workable proposition
: >if you deliberately collapse the distinction between cause and effect.
[Heidrun:]
: No, I think the person himself is actually CAUSING the experience!
That's exactly what I meant.
- CBW