Subject: Re: UCP: Co-Audit vs. Solo
From: [email-masked]
Date: 4 Nov 1999 12:03:18 -0500
Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology

in message <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Anon)
 wrote  in thread "Re: UCP: Co-Audit vs. Solo", on Thu, 04 Nov 1999
15:17:04 GMT,  :  

>On 4 Nov 1999 05:10:24 -0500, Honza Svasek <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>>In my experience anything can be solo audited as long as you have enough
>>discipline to NOT get into an endless Q&A.

. . . and don't confuse your SOMATICS, 
which eventually WILL turn on HARD, 
with TRUTH, and OBEY them instead of 
CONFRONTING them and EXAMINING them.

>>For me UCP (after two sessions) is easier to solo as TROM because  it is
>>more simple.
>>
>>On TROM it was not unusual for me to get into long (15 min) useless
>>wanders. But at some point you'll realize, and you can get back at the
>>right track.

>>So solo you tend to waste time, and maybe one needs a tool to keep you at
>>the right track and interested.

Yes.  Bouncing out from boredom or distracted attention or feeling "it's
not working" are SO EASY to do, and the Witness eliminates the ease of
that.  At least you have to TALK about the somatics that are driving you
OUT OF SESSION, and that tends to put your attention back ON them, instead
of turning AWAY from them, and puts you BACK IN SESSION.

>>Tool could be good session admin, maybe a solo C/S, or maybe even a
>>computer that presents the questions and prompts for a response. (The
>>ultimate in muzzeled auditing)

I've thought about a simple computer program working from a basic flow
chart for many years.  It COULD work . . . but I don't know.  It hasn't
been tried yet.  I was VERY FIRED UP ABOUT IT TWENTY YEARS AGO, but then my
handbasket went to the proverbal place and it got dropped out.  Maybe it
could get dropped back in again.  Even if it doesn't work well for major
case gain, it might be a FABULOUS dissemination and training tool, and get
people interested and ready to co-audit really smoothly.

There HAVE been a few counselling programs dating back decades, which
attracted attention.  ELISA [or ELIZA?] I believe to be the first one,
dating all the way back to 1948 or so.  It's a very interesting possibility
I went into apathy on long ago.  Maybe I'm coming out?

Techtalk #22 lays out the basic flow chart very clearly.  It's almost a
trivial exercise for a computer maven.  A few questions in big print with
possible VOICE.  A couple of prompter loops.  A few help screens.  A few
diagnostic questions on how you are doing and what is happening.  A few
originations from the computer re "I'm not sure what is happening, please
give me some more data."  A few questions to help evaluate if the session
is DONE or not.   Some end of session wrap-up or overview questions for
integration and extroversion.  Not much else is needed?  Voice recognition
of a few simple Seeker commands or responses would eliminate a lot of
distracting keyboarding.  Standard Mouse reponses to a few standard
questions would also help minimize technical distractions.

Well, OK, it IS a big project, but at least the overall pattern and scope
is QUITE APPARENT.

Also, you would need to have the training or reality-factor section on WHAT
UCP IS and HOW it works adapted for the progam to feed you data in the
correct order, unless you simply tell them to "Read the Techtalk Series."
ALL the $cientologese would have to be eliminated or translated for general
public consumption.  

OKAY . . . IT IS A *BIG* PROJECT!

I was really gung-ho on it about 20 years ago, but realized that it would
probably take man-years to develop, and I simply did NOT have the time or
financial resources to do it.  I spent a couple of weeks trying to figure
out BASIC from the command list, and after maybe a hundred hours of work
finally managed to get ONE QUESTION up on the screen.  That put me into
apathy real fast.  The POSSIBILITY is there, but there is NO certainty that
it would work, and it would require a HUGE INVESTMENT IN TIME.  I haven't
even gotten all my alt.clearing.technology articles posted to my web site
yet.  I'm backlogged on plaintext.

If it could be distributed as freeware, it would maintain the Gods Church
*FREE ENLIGHTENMENT* policy, which I like very much, even though the
temptation to become a billionaire DOES beckon.  However, freeware would
leave no way to recover development costs, except perhaps shareware
donations to Gods Church.  It seems that it would take a TRUE BELIEVER who
is also a computer whiz to get this off the ground.  Of couse, Linux
demonstrates that HUGE projects can be organized and executed by
volunteers.  Perhaps a minimalist version could be launched quickly and
then upgraded?  You tell me!

The computer could NOT do the TWO-WAY-COMM sharing of viewpoints at the
end.  Maybe you would have the irresistable urge to call your friends or
post to ACT?    :-)

Several people are working on emeter cards for computers, but I am QUITE
CERTAIN that is totally unnecessary.  Having the computer put the question
on the screen, or better yet TALK to you, MIGHT be enough to KEEP YOU IN
SESSION.  THAT SEEMS TO BE KEY!

THAT WOULD BE A BIG BREAKTHROUGH!

MAYBE *YOU* ARE THE GUY TO DO IT!

>>I don't feel that another TERMINAL is needed to achieve as-issness,
>>release etc.

OK.  I'll go for that.
BUT IT SURE DOES HELP.

STAYING INTERESTED AND IN SESSION SEEMS TO BE THE KEY.

>My experience supports this. But solo is for some reason harder, for
>some reason I don't fully understand.

The analogy I like to use is:
You *CAN* have sex by yourself . . . . . 

THE RELATIONSHIPS I HAVE WITH THOSE 
I HAVE SHARED UCP WITH ARE *THE* MOST 
OPEN, STABLE, TRANSPARENT, TELEPATHIC 
AND ENDURING ONES I HAVE.   THE TRUST 
LEVEL IS *AWESOME*

>>However, I find co-auditing big fun and probably faster.

AND BUILDS SACRED ENDURING TELEPATHIC RELATIONSHIPS.

THAT IS A *MAJOR* BENEFIT IN *ADDITION* TO CASE HANDLING.

>Yes, I would imagine it could be big fun if you have a good partner,
>otherwise it can be quite efforty, teaching someone, handling their
>misapplication of what earlier would have been called the "auditor's
>code", teaching a person that interfering with the Seekers process is
>NOT a helpful thing even though they think it is and are really trying
>to "help" by giving you their opinions, prior experience, etc.  If
>you've got someone who has some previous training the co-audit is MUCH
>more productive.

Trying to teach someone to Witness and correct all their compulsive errors
which are pulling me out of session while trying to be a Seeker PULLS ME
OUT OF SESSION AND MAKES ME GRUMPY!  Maybe if you are both starting out
it's not such a problem?

>I definitely find having a good partner leads to deeper, better
>results and I can really go deeper into my thoughts, prior
>experiences, etc., and BE there without having to shift back and forth
>between Witness viewpoint and Seeker viewpoint.
>
>I keep hoping we will discover someday some piece of insight that
>makes Solo more powerful.  It somehow "limits" me to think that I MUST
>have someone else INTENDING for me to handle MY case.  

How about "AS GOD IS MY WITNESS"?

There is something powerful about 
sharing with ANOTHER HUMAN BEING.

*ALL* of the twelve step programs 
have this as a CRITICAL ELEMENT.

NOW MATTER HOW GOOD YOUR COMPUTER 
PROGRAM, IT *CANNOT* SUPPLY THIS ELEMENT.

THAT IS THE *HUGE* RESERVATION THAT I HAVE.

I've discussed this with Scorpio and Mudrunner and there
is a VERY REAL sense that the Witness represents GOD
or the ENTIRE UNIVERSE for the Seeker.  Speaking to
ANOTHER VIEWPOINT OF GOD gets it OUT of your
universe and into the universe-at-large.   There is some
thing VERY POWERFUL about this which makes me
question how well computer-Witnessed UCP will work,
no matter how well written the program is.  It will NEVER
BUILD SACRED RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHERS.
It will never OBLITERATE your withholds from GOD.

>I still am not certain that THEIR intention has anything to do with MY
case.  

Not with your case . . . WITH YOU.
YOU ARE "your case."
"It" is NOT something you carry around with you 
. . . like a badly behaved television set.
"IT" IS YOU!

>I have
>to really think that one through.  If it is true, it more or less
>offends my own desired sovereignty over MY universe.  

And was your fantasy to be all alone in your universe?

>Yet, if it's
>true, so be it.  I just don't know if the correct WHY is someone
>else's intention.  If that's the case, then maybe salvation does have
>to come from a third party, such as a benign God, Jesus, etc..  

"AS GOD IS MY WITNESS"?

>The
>premise has implications, for me, that I must examine more thoroughly.
>Then you get into the concept of third parties being able to "as-is"
>someone else's bank.  

I think THAT is a load of CRAP!

I have NEVER seen it done.

I do NOT believe it is even possible.

You CAN telepathically or conversationally induce hallucinations and
dramatizations in someone whose tone level permits that, and many people
will gleefully proclaim that as a WIN!  I am NOT interested in that . . .
except as a way of getting people to DO UCP and actually get themselves
ABOVE the tone levels in which they can be influenced in that way.

>Maybe so, but I can't just accept such things on faith.  

Why should you?  IT'S CRAP!

>There are many so-called OT's who were supposed to be able to
>virtually do anything with anyone's universe.  

And they were *SUPPOSED* to be "CLEAR" before they got to be "OT"!

SO WHAT?

Slick Willie was SUPPOSED to be honest!

>From what I've seen,
>they stumble, have colds, get hurt, stay fat, etc..  I'm not impressed
>with their supposed "abilities".  

Good!

Your perceptions are much better than theirs!

You do NOT share their hallucinations!

>But once you posit that someone else
>can create an effect an effect on my case, not by interaction, an
>exchange of (discernable) communication, but by their silent
>intention, where's the limit?  

I do NOT posit that!

>Why can't they do ANYTHING,
>potentially, in someone else's universe?

Because they are HALLUCINATING!

>I guess I'm still stuck in Doubt.  So be it.  

FLUNK!

You are NOT "stuck in doubt" . . . although 
you ARE dramatizing that SOMATIC.

YOU ARE *MOVING THROUGH* DOUBT.

>That's where I am.  

Yes . . . MOVING!

>I don't easily align with what looks like "magic" from my viewpoint.
>Willing to change.  

You ARE changing.

Your every posts testifies to that FACT.

>But for now, that's not real for me.

OK.  THAT'S where you ARE at.

>LRH's concept was that the auditor plus PC were, together, "bigger
>than the bank."  Words, words, words.  Where's the ACTUAL  why?
>Other's beliefs are only that.  Don't mean ANYTHING to me if I can't
>see the mechanics of it.  And as yet, I don't.

Keep Looking!

>>Always: Your milage may vary, and the proof of the pudding is in the
>>eating.

YUM!  YUM!

>I agree.  Thanks for you input.
>Glad to see you are here.
>
>Anon

ME TOO!

Konchok Penday
Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
<[email-masked]>

FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
"Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"

__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html