hil1.memo

[Clearing Archive Roboposter]

>RALPH'S NEW NOTS PROCESS
>
>
>On 19 Nov, 97, ra...@atnet.at (Ralph Hilton) posted on
>subject "NOTs"
>
>> According to Scientology 8-8008 NOTs is a limited procedure. It
>> validates negative aspects of case too much.
>> > From observation people who run it too long deteriorate.
>> But there is an appealing aspect to it in that its a fairly simple
>> procedure.
>> But there is perhaps a simple approach that addresses NOTs without
>> negating self.
>> One could hypothesize that the NOTs case is pulled in as a substitute
>> for lost beingness.
>>
>> Based on that hypothesis:
>>
>> 1. Locate a bt/cl/mass.
>> 2. Pose the question: "What lost aspect of my own beingness is that a
>> substitute for"?
>> 3. Spot the time and place of the dissassociation/ separating of that
>> beingness from self.
>> 4. Spot the beginning of the prior confusion to the separation.
>>
>> I haven't tried it on anyone else yet.
>> Running it myself I find the bt vanishes without any address to its
>> case.
>>
>> Anyone wanna be a guinea pig :-)
>>
>> Ralph
>
>
>This is brilliant.
>
>I'm already having cogs with it.
>
>Of course I've blown Nots stuff left, right, and center, running
>it to the S/Nots EP and then overrunning it endlessly thanks to
>the wrong why of thinking that Nots was the basic source of case.
>I discussed that a good bit in the Super Scio book.
>
>So I didn't look for a bt/cl/mass. Instead, I recalled blowing
>some back when I was running Nots to death. It left vacumes.
>
>This is why I got so frantic on trying to address the subject
>of split pieces of myself.
>
>When I first did OT3, I just knew immediately that it was a
>criss cross implant, we each fragmented and put pieces of
>ourselves onto each other as "BTs". The idea didn't bother
>me and I didn't worry about it and simply worked at blowing
>things. OT3 went to a nice EP.
>
>I was able to run Nots too, knowing about this business but
>ignoring it and making good progress.
>
>Then I went too far with the Nots processing. Vacumes left
>behind. Screwed up emptynesses and energy imbalances which
>I could hardly percieve but which were kicking me in the
>teeth.
>
>Without quite seeing it or what was going on, I became really
>bothered about this split self business. Went half crazy
>trying process after process and chronically getting sick
>on the stuff but just knowing it was the thing that had
>to be handled. The writeup on that is in chapter 6 of
>Super Scio. Finally I found the "point to the being you
>divided from" process and it worked easily and I felt better
>and began running out the splits that way.
>
>But I didn't see the relationship until you posted this
>process.
>
>The whole damn thing falls into place.
>
>I would suggest a step to be added, which should be done
>without prejudice (don't force something to be there
>if you don't spot something).
>
>See if you can spot the beingness of yours that was
>separated and have it "point to the being you divided from".
>
>Exmple: Under the impact of, let us say, a mass implant,
>I split off a piece which is my "godlike identity" and
>I end up as the remnant "human idenity". This split piece
>was jammed onto somebody else and someone else's "godlike
>identity" was jammed onto me, and I grab it at that time
>because I feel the loss and the vacume.
>
>Then I blow this thing of somebody else's on OT 3 or Nots
>and that's good but now the vacume is back. So maybe I suck
>in another BT to fill the hole. Or maybe I'm lucky and
>expand to fill the gap.
>
>It does seem like I was able to run quite far on Nots
>before this became a major factor. I can't say for sure
>whether this is runnable from the start or only shows
>up later.
>
>Wow.
>
>Much thanks.
>
>

Yes. Good points. I have worked with the "Point to the being you
divided from" a fair bit. Although I find "Spot the being you divided
from" works fine and personally runs slightly faster and cleaner.

I am inclined to run the full sequence back.

So I would address the split off aspect with "Spot the being you
divided from" then spot who that aspect returned to then say to that
being "Spot the being you divided from" and so on. I have found that
this runs back to either unlocatedness of static or a sensation of
theta returning to self.

The point about vacuums seems to get what has happened with a lot of
people who have run NOTs for a long time. The vacuum pulls in more
NOTs case.

I've been checking things on the meter between sentences here and
realized a bit of charge was being left in the earlier time and space
due to clustered aspects of others.

The lost aspect of self sometimes became combined with lost aspects of
others creating a persistent mass.

Getting the beginning of the prior confusion seems to split apart the
cluster.

So the latest version becomes:

1. Locate a bt/cl/mass. If one has previously run NOTs then also
check for and flatten "Is there a vacuum left by a blown bt/cl"?
2. Pose the question: "What lost aspect of my own beingness was/is
that a substitute for"?
3. Spot the time and place of the dissassociation/ separating of that
beingness from self.
4. Spot the beginning of the prior confusion to the separation.
5. Look into the time and place from step 3. On each aspect (they
appear to me as a grouping at this point rather than the solidity at
step 3) run:

Address the split off aspect with "Spot the being you divided from"
then spot who that aspect returned to then say to that being "Spot the
being you divided from" and so on. I have found that this runs back to
either unlocatedness of static or a sensation of theta returning to
self.

6. When the space is clean spot the location again from step 1. Any
residual mass/ pictures/ copies seem to blow on inspection.

There is another aspect to this that side tracks a little. It gets
into the realm of "Incredibles".
In looking for the "Jewel of Knowledge", as mentioned in the Pilot
Book, I found very little at first.
Today I shifted into another cosmological viewpoint of the track. (I
try looking at the "track" in different ways - sometimes one works
better, sometimes another - so I now none of them are "true" yet.)
On doing this I got many thousands of Jewels of Knowledge. This may be
another dimensional aspect of the already multi-dimensional jewel.

Outside of that I get what I can best describe as "Prime Home
Universe" which is vast and hardly yet explored.
It differs markedly from what I previously had as "Home Universe".

The lost aspects' time and space seems to be in one of these jewels or
jewel dimensions and I am currently getting .5 to 1 division BDs on
getting the number of the Jewel sequence/dimension as the first part
of step 3 above.

But the last section is from my subjective case so I would be inclined
to use the less cosmologically evaluative version of steps 1-6 on
others.



--

Ralph

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Mar 23 00:06:02 EDT 2023
FTP://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/hilton/hil1.memo
WWW://www.clearing.org
BLOG://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
Send mail to arc...@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.