Response to Mike McClaughry`s attack on Pilot`s SelfClearing.
peterst...@hotmail.com
Some weeks ago, Mike McClaughry posted an article on several places on
the internet. In this article he attacked the Handbook for
Selfclearing from the Pilot (a.k.a. Ken Ogger). Since Virginia
McClaughry kept on reposting it, I decided to write an article to
counter the outpoints in Mike`s writing.
see e.g.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=3c10493b%40news2.lightlink.com
for the original article.
By shifting the meaning of words, and omitting data, Mike is
suggesting that
1) the methods in Handbook for Selfclearing don`t work , although the
truth is that several people have actually tested it extensively and
found that it DOES work.
2) The Pilot did it in an attempt to destroy Scientology. As
"evidence", Mike now generalizes The Pilot into the freezone, then
mentions criticisms that are valid against some people in the
freezone, but then incorrectly suggests that those same criticisms
naturally apply to The Pilot too.
The motivation of Mike to write it is not clear to me, but due to the
presence of false and omitted data, and false accusations, his
conclusions are unacceptable. I will go over his article and point out
some of the outpoints in his logic.
Mike quotes LRH:
>> ".....it tells us that an individual considers himself Mesty, or massy, if you see, and therefore he has to have a second terminal. And a second terminal is required to discharge the energy."
Let me start with the word "terminal". From the Scientology Technical
Dictionary:
*TERMINAL, 1*. it would be any fixed mass utilized in a
communication system. That, I think, is the best of the various
definitions that have come out for this. Any mass used in a
fixed position in any communications system. Thus you see a man
would be a *terminal*, but a post could also be a *terminal*.
(5703PM01) *2*. something that has mass and meaning which
originates, receives, relays and changes particles on a flow
line. (HCO PL 25 Jul 72) *3*. anything used in a communication
system; something that has mass in it. Something with mass,
meaning and mobility. Anything that can receive, relay or send
a communication. (HCOB 25 Jan 65) *4*. any point of no form or
any form or dimension from which energy can flow or by which
energy can be received. (~Scn 8-8008~, p. 32)
(rest snipped for brevity)
from this, one can deduce that an auditor is a terminal, a preclear is
a terminal, a book is a terminal (sends communication) and a note-book
is also a terminal (can recieve written communication, and
subsequently send the communication to others who read it).
Let us now move on to Self-auditing.
Tech Dic: Self-auditing is out-of-session wondering and chewing on
bank. (HCOB 10 Apr 72)
In out-of-session chewing on bank there`s only one terminal involved:
the person doing the self-auditing. So no as-issing is to be expected.
So far the situation is clear and in fact Mike mentions an important
point.
However, there are ways of doing processing without an auditor being
physically present, even for low-level cases. See for example this
quote from LRH`s book Self Analysis page 39:
"Dianetically speaking, this self-processing section could be called
"straight wire". It is not "auto processing". The reader is actually
being processed by the author"
Another example: LRH`s Handbook for Preclears page 1:
"This volume of self processing is designed for use in any of four
ways:
(snip)
4. As a processing manual used wholly by the preclear without an
auditor.
The last use is possible , particularly when the preclear knows
considerable about this science from other sources. But it is
possible,by reading this book alone, with considerable stamina, to
carry straight on through." (end quote)
Note that the Handbook for Preclears has processes that deal with
areas that are also covered by the grades, like help, problems and
service facsimiles.
Other examples of solo processing and solo drilling that can be used
are e.g. the O/W write-up, "taking a walk" from LRH`s book The
Problems of Work, the confront drills from the study series and
contact assists. Many more examples can be found in LRH lectures.
So the things that must be differentiated are (co)auditing,
self-auditing, solo-auditing (pre-OT levels) and solo-processing.
The notion that a second terminal must be present to deal with charge
is not new; LRH lectured extensively on this subject as early as 1953
in the Admiration and the Renaissance of Beingness tapes. He said that
lack of attention can be handled with a powerful technique called
Admiration Processing (a.k.a. double terminalling). So I mocked up
myself doing SelfClearing, twice, and had the mockups face each other.
There was indeed some charge on doing processes solo, but it was minor
and blew in a few seconds.
Mike writes:
>> Self-auditing does not produce tone arm action - as Ron states in the following reference: Level 0 tape 6 February 1964 The communication cycle in auditing-LRH
>> The Pilot's Self- Clearing procedure is not recommended because it violates the basics of auditing.
Here Mike introduces a key false datum: By making these statements
close together, he suggests that "The Pilot`s Self-clearing procedure"
is equal to self-auditing. It isn`t.
Most of the book uses the following procedure: The Pilot asks a
question (or gives a command). The solo-processor looks into his bank,
and finds an answer to the question. The solo-processor then writes
down the answer in a notebook. That way there are THREE terminals
involved: 1) The Pilot, communicating through the book. 2) the
solo-processor 3) the notebook where the solo-processor writes down
the answer.
Please note that this is the SAME procedure that LRH uses in his book
"Handbook for preclears".
Aside from the semantic difference between the words "auditing" and
"processing", this procedure does NOT violate the basics of
processing.
Other parts of the book prescribe objective processes. Objective
processes have other terminals present by definition.
>> Personally, I think it is a betrayal of Beings to tell them to Solo audit the grades as in Pilot's "Self- Clearing" procedure. It denies them all the case gain they could have had if they did it the only way it works, by having another person audit you on the Grades.
Doing the Handbook for Selfclearing doesn`t deny one his/her
case-gain. Neither does doing LRH`s Self Analysis, neither does doing
LRH`s Handbook for Preclears, neither does eating icecream.
Mike misses the entire point of why the Pilot wrote the book in the
first place. The Pilot wrote the book to REMEDY SCARCITY OF
PROCESSING.
There are TOO MANY Scientologists going through life hoping that one
day they win the lottery, so they can quit their job, buy a plane
ticket to the nearest class VIII auditor willing to sell processing,
and finally get up the bridge.
Going up the bridge probably was easier in the 1970`s, when management
was on-purpose, the orgs and missions were big and widespread, staff
was skilled and prices were affordable. However, over 99.9% of the
world`s population have missed that opportunity.
To get up the standard LRH bridge today in the co-audit way one has to
have 1) sufficient money 2) plenty of time (usually incompatible with
#1 ) 3) a good intelligence 4) enough personal strength to keep
moving. 5) not too much of a history of drug abuse or psychiatric
mistreatment. 6) motivated to go all the way. 7) enough talent as an
auditor.
Then the next step: one needs the luck to find a twin who
a) also has these 7 points in.
b) is compatible with you (you must at least like each other and you
mustn`t be too different in case-level)
It is easier if a group exists near you. However, for example in my
country there are NO RON`s Orgs, no FZAO`s and no FZints. All the
potential twins that I found, failed on one of these points I
mentioned, so I don't have one now. Many other people are in the same
situation.
My plan for this year is to train myself up to class zero auditor
using the materials from the internet. And MAYBE one day I have the
opportunity to co-audit.
But with the Handbook for Selfclearing I can have case-gain NOW. And
in my own time. There are parts of my day in which I have little to
do. For example, every work day I travel quite some time in public
traffic. Using a pocket notebook, I plan on doing a few hundred hours
of SelfClearing this year, which will hopefully give me casegain worth
the equivalent of a few intensives (intensive = 12.5 hours of Standard
Tech processing). And for free too.
In 1997, Ken Ogger noticed that the CofS wasn`t doing well. Curiosus
gathered some statistics: see e.g.
http://www.fzint.org/discus/messages/4/43.html?1008548959
(read from bottom up)
The number of CofS tech delivery centres doesn`t go up. Between 1990
and 1997 the number of missions has risen by 2 while the number of
class 5 orgs has lowered by one. This is a long term condition of
"emergency" (see Introduction to Scientology Ethics) so for this the
"danger" formula must be applied.
But even worse, if you look at the product (amount of processing) ,
the number of new clear people, OT 6 completions and OT 7 completions
are all in a steep decline. This is a "danger" statistic and one
rapidly going towards non-existence. That means that there are large
numbers of Scientologists who don't get processing.
The formula for a danger condition is "bypass and handle". Ken Ogger
wanted to boost the amount of processing done directly by revitalizing
the 1950`s tradition of solo-processing aside from Standard Tech, not
as a replacement for Standard Tech.
in SELF CLEARING APPENDIX A: NOTES FOR PROFESSIONALS, the Pilot
writes:
"…. this book derives primarily from the Scientology of the
1950s when self processing was not only considered acceptable
but actually encouraged among people who were trained in
processing. Even as late as 1966, the standard correction
lists only considered self processing to be an error if
it was done concurrently with receiving intensive processing
from a professional."
There are plenty of clues from the older Scientology literature that
support this claim.
For example: LRH`s Creation of Human Ability , p 161:
"R2-67: OBJECTS
To a person who cannot hold the two back corners of the room, the
simple location of objects is valuable. WHEN A PERSON IS
SELF-AUDITING, THIS IS A VERY VALUABLE SOLO PROCESS. [capitalization
added by me]
The command is: `locate some objects`, etc. The person looks at them
or puts his attention on them and notes what they are. This is all
there is to the process. For variation, one locates some more objects.
By objects is meant physical universe, present time, visible objects."
[end quote]
Note that old OT 1 consisted of doing the entire book Creation of
Human Ability solo.
The practice of solo-processing has been wiped out by a whole
generation of RTCologists who are afraid to simply duplicate
Scientology data and think for themselves, in fear of being branded a
"squirrel". It makes people afraid of really using the tech.
"Squirrel" is a word of which the meaning has severely shifted. In
this case, the word has become a dramatization of fears of taking
responsibility for your own mind, and implants like Facsimile One,
that say that you shouldn`t touch your mind.
Most Scientologists do not know the history of the development of
Scientology since RTC ignores history writing except for propaganda
purposes. Ken Ogger is old enough to remember that there were times
when Scientology was quite different from today.
The purpose of Ken`s book is to solve the general lack of processing
by revitalizing the 1950`s tradition of solo-processing aside from
Standard Tech, not as a replacement for Standard Tech. There`s nothing
against doing the Standard Tech line-up, except that it takes quite
some study, effort and organizing to make it happen. Of course one can
learn to become a solo processor by studying all of the LRH materials
(especially tapes) from the 1950s, but since the information is rather
scattered, Ken decided to help people out by putting the key data into
a single book so people can get started as soon as possible.
Due to his high intelligence, his extensive knowledge of Scientology,
his many years of experience and his more-than-excellent research into
new upper levels (see his book Super Scio), The Pilot was one of the
few people alive in 1997 who was qualified to write a solo-processing
book.
Mike Writes:
>Self auditing violates another law that makes auditing work:
>THE AUDITOR PLUS THE PRECLEAR IS GREATER THAN THE PRECLEARS BANK
>THE PRECLEAR MINUS THE AUDITOR IS LESS THAN THE PRECLEARS BANK
This datum comes from DMSMH chapter 9. Note that DMSMH was written in
a time before the discovery that the preclear is himself responsible
for the state of his mind. This was discovered in 1951 (see the
lectures in NEW R&D volume 8). In DMSMH, LRH wrote that what was done
to a PC is the only thing that is abberative. In 1951 he openly
admitted that he was wrong about that.
It is not that this "law" is entirely wrong. But it was discovered
later that a person mocks up his own reactive mind so comparing a
preclear with his bank is really comparing apples with pears.
The point is that most people are at effect of their bank. And you can
only process from a position of cause. The easiest way to be cause is
to be in the presence of an auditor who is willing to be effect
(willing to listen). But there are other ways to put yourself in a
position of cause. In fact, most of the tech from the 1950s after 1952
can be catechorized as ways of putting yourself in a position of
cause.
Mike writes:
>> You will end up in the same case condition as the Pilot, with your case wrapped around your head, all restimulated and not handled, and in a mess.
WRONG ASSIGNMENT OF CAUSE due to OMITTED DATA.
OMITTED DATA: Pilot was doing very fine casewise until he was attacked
with the OSA Sex-Drugs-Hypnosis Implant somewhere in the end of 1999.
Before that time, his posts were remarkably uptone.
Recently I have gone over some of his hundreds posts again from before
the implant, and was again marveled by his brilliance and high tone. I
realized how low the tone has become on the various Scientology boards
and newsgroups of the internet. The small number of posts he wrote
after the implant show indeed that he is in a (temporary) state of
massive key-in. But those posts are only a few.
Hopefully his current bad condition is temporary, and he will recover
from the implant.
As a side note: Using a temporary personal crash as evidence of the
unworkability of a certain method of processing is dangerous ground.
In the same line, a few other nasty questions can be asked, like: if
Capt. Bill was so cosy with his "Body Org" , how come he died of
cancer ? LRH has had his crashes and bad periods too (see e.g. the
statements of Otto Roos, David Mayo and many others). In fact from
several testimonies that are available on the net it can be concluded
that LRH died in quite a bad shape. Of LRH, Capt.Bill and Ken Ogger,
Ken Ogger is the only one whose crash can be attributed to something
else than the tech he was using, i.e. the SDH implant. And he may
still recover this life. Anyway, researching new upper levels is not
the safest job in the world, and case cave-ins must always be
considered an occupational hazard, even for people of the caliber of
LRH, Capt.Bill or Ken Ogger.
The question whether SelfClearing is effective is a valid one by
itself. Aside from the terminals-issue that Ken solved by using the
processing method from LRH`s Handbook for Preclears, it is clear that
solo-processing is more difficult than being audited by a good
auditor. A person tends to bounce off areas of heavy charge, and will
not be able to itsa anything if he gets in too deep or becomes too
restimulated.
The Pilot solved it 1) by adding light OT drills that LRH developed in
the 1950`s to increase somebody`s confront of an area before starting
to handle the charge in it. 2) by stressing handling surface charge.
Since processing surface charge is much easier, the book advices
handling the surface charge of as many areas as possible, one by one,
before going deeper on a specific area. This is approach is different
from Standard tech, which is geared towards milking a specific area as
dry as possible before going to the next.
Concentrating on handling surface charge may be a slower and longer
road but it is easier and especially safer.
And it doesn`t stop people from jumping on the Standard Bridge when
the opportunity arises, because the Handbook for Selfclearing stays
close to the original Scientology paradigm, unlike a lot of other
freezone practices that use altered terminology.
The info on the tape that Mike quoted, "Level 0 tape 6 February 1964
The communication cycle in auditing", should be evaluated in the light
of the time period it was written in. The first half of the 1960s was
the period of research into deep bank implanted GPMs processing.
Powerful techniques like metered Listing & Nulling were used to reach
as deeply into the bank as possible, far deeper than the ability of a
pc to easily look himself. Undoubtedly the auditors of that time were
able to blow a lot of charge using those techniques, but if it went
wrong, it really went wrong. A repair auditor who worked with LRH in
that period said that pc`s were often brought in on a stretcher.
Surely the techniques of that time are not first choice for attempting
solo processing.
LRH said that you can measure the effectiveness of processing by
measuring tone-arm action. So I tried some SelfClearing while on a
meter once, and indeed found some tone-arm movement. However I found
that putting attention on the meter was quite a distraction from the
solo-processing procedure, so I quit using the meter. Note that in
standard tech there is a rule that the auditor shouldn`t direct the
PC`s attention to the meter because that kills the itsa-maker line, so
it was to be expected that soloprocessing with a meter would be less
efficient.
Now I just use the meter occasionally in SelfClearing, mostly to check
for low havingness or persistent F/N`s (which in itself is a clue that
tone-arm action has occurred).
To make a quantitative measurement of the workability of
Self-clearing, it would require an experienced person doing it, and a
second person watching the meter. Then the TA should be averaged over
a large number of processes done this way. The Pilot said that because
in selfclearing one is targetting surface charge, some of the
processes will give fast progress, while the majority will give slow
results. What areas contain much surface charge is different for
everybody.
A more qualitative way to check the effectiveness of SelfClearing is
to check whether people get wins from doing it. I have had quite a few
wins from Selfclearing, including a cleaner mental space, increased
productivity, the clear-cognition and some reality on former lives.
Other people report good wins too. See for example the diary of R and
T:
http://fza.org/pilot/diary/index.html
R and T did the Pilot`s Handbook for selfclearing, and they kept a
detailed diary of the chapters they did, the results of the drills,
their realizations and their wins.
One of them was a beginner in Scientology, and she went Clear by using
the Pilot`s book. The other writer had already reached the level of OT
III in the CofS, and by doing the Handbook for Selfclearing, he
managed to rehabilitate some "advanced abilities". The road and
conclusions he had leading up to those is fascinating reading.
Kathie Lynch
Kathie
<peterst...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c571f3c...@news.hetnet.nl...
> ".. this book derives primarily from the Scientology of the
Levi Murphy
Thorough, professional, detailed and very well-expressed. Nice
analytical touch.
LOGIC18
Ralph Hilton
<3c571f3c...@news.hetnet.nl>, :
>Response to Mike McClaughry`s attack on Pilot`s SelfClearing.
>
>Some weeks ago, Mike McClaughry posted an article on several places on
>the internet. In this article he attacked the Handbook for
>Selfclearing from the Pilot (a.k.a. Ken Ogger). Since Virginia
>McClaughry kept on reposting it, I decided to write an article to
>counter the outpoints in Mike`s writing.
>
Nice idea but too wordy.
Anyone who has actually studied the Solo Auditor's course and has a vague
understanding of the Data Series would see that Mike is clueless about solo
auditing.
I don't have the patience or time for a detailed rebuttal of Mike's BS - it
would probaly turn out about the size of the Bible.
Any class 8 with a spare hour to dig out the references could shred his
rants in a few paragraphs.
--
Ralph Hilton
http://www.fzint.org/rhilton
Freezone International: http://www.fzint.org
FZAOINT http://www.fzaoint.org
C-Meter: http://www.inquisitive-instruments.co.uk/
Paul Matulef
bring up two very excellent points.
One: The need to develop more accessable means of auditing. Only the church it seems
makes the claim of %100 standard results and we all know what nonsense that is. Even
if there is an 'optimum' method (that truly has not been qualified yet) most do not
have access to this. It is like saying the only means of transportation is a Bently with
a chauffer and mechanic on had at all times, when a 60's beetle (or bicycle) might be available
right now to get you across town.
Two: The church is notorious at holding people back for countless reasons. They would
rather see someone languishing in endless cycles (ethics, peition, financial, etc.) then getting
some kind of case gain immediately. I can think of countless times I have run across very
nice people trapped by some kind of bizarre control, afraid to look at alternative, yet
unable to make forward progress. This is not only a Church phenomena, but in
any situation where one get caught up in an overly complex and arbirary policy.
I'm sure the pilot, as well as most other technical researcher would welcome discussions
and views about how to improve things. Just saying that Ron said this or that as a justification
is really lame from a communicaton or scientific point of view.
I think it's really incredible that so many people are taking an interest in the mind, spirit
and clearing.
peterst...@hotmail.com wrote:
(rest snipped for brevity)< br>
AMI
> Nice idea but too wordy.
>
> Anyone who has actually studied the Solo Auditor's course and has a vague
> understanding of the Data Series would see that Mike is clueless about
solo
> auditing.
>
> I don't have the patience or time for a detailed rebuttal of Mike's BS -
it
> would probaly turn out about the size of the Bible.
>
> Any class 8 with a spare hour to dig out the references could shred his
> rants in a few paragraphs.
My take on it too.
It's kinda - where do you begin?
ami
Virginia
Wow.
Somebody's..... gottems BIG MU'ski's.
To be expected with no ethics anywhere in sight.
Virginia
<peterst...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c571f3c...@news.hetnet.nl...
> ".. this book derives primarily from the Scientology of the
anonymous2
put in the ethics.
Thank God, the freezone would be just like a ship without a rudder if it wasn't for
you gently applying the loving hand of ethics onto all of us.
Virginia wrote:
"straight wire". It is not "auto processing". The reader is actuallybeing processed by the author"
Paul Smith
>Peter actually thinks this post of his *handles* anything?
>
>Wow.
>
>Somebody's..... gottems BIG MU'ski's.
>
>To be expected with no ethics anywhere in sight.
>
>Virginia
You dumb fuckwit, can't you see they are discussing technology and
not who should be thrown off of ACT? What a fuckwit.
Paul.
>> processes have other terminals present by definition.
>>
>> >> Personally, I think it is a betrayal of Beings to tell them to Solo
>audit the grades as in Pilot's "Self- Clearing" procedure. It denies them
>all the case gain they could have had if they did it the only way it works,
>by having another person audit you on the Grades.
>>
>> Doing the Handbook for Selfclearing doesn`t deny one his/her
>> case-gain. Neither does doing LRH`s Self Analysis, neither does doing
>> LRH`s Handbook for Preclears, neither does eating icecream.
>> Mike misses the entire point of why the Pilot wrote the book in the
>> first place. The Pilot wrote the book to REMEDY SCARCITY OF
>> PROCESSING.
>> There are TOO MANY Scientologists going through life hoping that one
>> day they win the lottery, so they can quit their job, buy a plane
>> ticket to the nearest class VIII auditor willing to sell processing,
>> and finally get up the bridge.
>> Going up the bridge probably was easier in the 1970`s, when management
>> was on-purpose, the orgs and missions were big and widespread, staff
>> was skilled and prices were affordable. However, over 99.9% of the
>> world`s population have missed that opportunity.
>> To get up the standard LRH bridge today in the co-audit way one has to
>> have 1) sufficient money 2) plenty of time (usually incompatible with
>> #1 ) 3) a good intelligence 4) enough personal strength to keep
>> moving. 5) not too much of a history of drug abuse or psychiatric
>> mistreatment. 6) motivated to go all the way. 7) enough talent as an
>> auditor.
>>
>> Then the next step: one needs the luck to find a twin who
>> a) also has these 7 points in.
>> b) is compatible with you (you must at least like each other and you
>> mustn`t be too different in case-level)
>>
>> It is easier if a group exists near you. However, for example in my
>> country there are NO RON`s Orgs, no FZAO`s and no FZints. All the
>> potential twins that I found, failed on one of these points I
>> mentioned, so I don't have one now. Many other people are in the same
>> situation.
>> My plan for this year is to train myself up to class zero auditor
>> using the materials from the internet. And MAYBE one day I have the
>> opportunity to co-audit.
>> But with the Handbook for Selfclearing I can have case-gain NOW. And
>> in my own time. There are parts of my day in which I have little to
>> do. For example, every work day I travel quite some time in public
>> traffic. Using a pocket notebook, I plan on doing a few hundred hours
>> of SelfClearing this year, which will hopefully give me casegain worth
>> the equivalent of a few intensives (intensive = 12.5 hours of Standard
>> Tech processing). And for free too.
>>
>> In 1997, Ken Ogger noticed that the CofS wasn`t doing well. Curiosus
>> gathered some statistics: see e.g.
>>
>> http://www.fzint.org/discus/messages/4/43.html?1008548959
>>
>> (read from bottom up)
>>
>> The number of CofS tech delivery centres doesn`t go up. Between 1990
>> and 1997 the number of missions has risen by 2 while the number of
>> class 5 orgs has lowered by one. This is a long term condition of
>> "emergency" (see Introduction to Scientology Ethics) so for this the
>> position of cause. In fact, most of the tech from the 1950s after 1952
>> can be catechorized as ways of putting yourself in a position of
>> cause.
>>
>> Mike writes:
>>
>> >> You will end up in the same case condition as the Pilot, with your case
>wrapped around your head, all restimulated and not handled, and in a mess.
>>
>> WRONG ASSIGNMENT OF CAUSE due to OMITTED DATA.
>> OMITTED DATA: Pilot was doing very fine casewise until he was attacked
>> with the OSA Sex-Drugs-Hypnosis Implant somewhere in the end of 1999.
>> Before that time, his posts were remarkably uptone.
>> Recently I have gone over some of his hundreds posts again from before
>> the implant, and was again marveled by his brilliance and high tone. I
>> realized how low the tone has become on the various Scientology boards
>> and newsgroups of the internet. The small number of posts he wrote
>> after the implant show indeed that he is in a (temporary) state of
>> massive key-in. But those posts are only a few.
>> Hopefully his current bad condition is temporary, and he will recover
>> from the implant.
>>
>> As a side note: Using a temporary personal crash as evidence of the
>> unworkability of a certain method of processing is dangerous ground.
>> In the same line, a few other nasty questions can be asked, like: if
>> the opportunity arises, because the Handbook for Selfclearing stays
>> close to the original Scientology paradigm, unlike a lot of other
>> freezone practices that use altered terminology.
>> The info on the tape that Mike quoted, "Level 0 tape 6 February 1964
>> The communication cycle in auditing", should be evaluated in the light
>> of the time period it was written in. The first half of the 1960s was
>> the period of research into deep bank implanted GPMs processing.
>> Powerful techniques like metered Listing & Nulling were used to reach
>> as deeply into the bank as possible, far deeper than the ability of a
>> pc to easily look himself. Undoubtedly the auditors of that time were
>> able to blow a lot of charge using those techniques, but if it went
>> wrong, it really went wrong. A repair auditor who worked with LRH in
>> that period said that pc`s were often brought in on a stretcher.
>> Surely the techniques of that time are not first choice for attempting
>> solo processing.
>>
>> LRH said that you can measure the effectiveness of processing by
>> measuring tone-arm action. So I tried some SelfClearing while on a
>> meter once, and indeed found some tone-arm movement. However I found
>> that putting attention on the meter was quite a distraction from the
>> solo-processing procedure, so I quit using the meter. Note that in
>> standard tech there is a rule that the auditor shouldn`t direct the
>> PC`s attention to the meter because that kills the itsa-maker line, so
>> it was to be expected that soloprocessing with a meter would be less
>> efficient.
>> Now I just use the meter occasionally in SelfClearing, mostly to check
>> for low havingness or persistent F/N`s (which in itself is a clue that
>> tone-arm action has occurred).
>> To make a quantitative measurement of the workability of
>> Self-clearing, it would require an experienced person doing it, and a
>> second person watching the meter. Then the TA should be averaged over
>> a large number of processes done this way. The Pilot said that because
>> in selfclearing one is targetting surface charge, some of the
>> processes will give fast progress, while the majority will give slow
>> results. What areas contain much surface charge is different for
>> everybody.
>>
>> A more qualitative way to check the effectiveness of SelfClearing is
>> to check whether people get wins from doing it. I have had quite a few
>> wins from Selfclearing, including a cleaner mental space, increased
>> productivity, the clear-cognition and some reality on former lives.
>> Other people report good wins too. See for example the diary of R and
>> T:
>>
>> http://fza.org/pilot/diary/index.html
>>
>> R and T did the Pilot`s Handbook for selfclearing, and they kept a
>> detailed diary of the chapters they did, the results of the drills,
>> their realizations and their wins.
>> One of them was a beginner in Scientology, and she went Clear by using
Kevin G! Brady
arguments, and would start by just looking at the BS "Why" in his old
scientologyintegrity site. The Why is Marcabs? Please. Cuckoo. (Murph,
begin Phase Two "KookNuke", authorisation 43tye32lmn, codename Co-Pilot)
--
The White Ranger of Marcab
Keeper of the Threads
OMITTED AGENT 013
kgb/Kevin G. Brady/rockslam/journeyman
tabula_...@hotmail.com
"Ralph Hilton" <aon.91...@aon.at> wrote in message
news:g6ee5ukgq08s6eiik...@4ax.com...