|
|
|
|
17 May 97
There is an area which I have been calling the "black emotions" such as hatred, vengance, jeliousy etc. In Chapter 4 of Super Scio, I mention that a grade of auditing needs to be researched in this area, but I didn't have the answers to solving it at that time.
Various freezone researchers have been poking into this. Alan Walters call them "The Furies" and Enid Vien calls them "Psychic Storms". Inspired by reading their materials, I decided to take another stab at this one myself.
Everyone can see these cores of rage exploding occasionally. Almost anyone who has been active in Scientology for a long time has at least one of these masses buiding up on the CofS itself. The loyalists usually keep these well suppressed but they do blow up occasionally. And when somebody throws in the towel and leaves, you're likely to see fireworks. You see these things in ordinary life too, so its not just the org, but its especially common in Scientology, which means that we are either creating or restimulating these things (or both) without properly handling them.
The standard tech approach is to handle these as an ARC break, and that just doesn't work for these things (it does work just fine on ordinary ARCXs - this area is something else). It strips off the surface charge and cools the person down a bit (if you're lucky) by handling the trigger which caused the core of rage to blow up, but it bypasses the underlying reason, and so the core continues to grow.
I have had a black mass of rage building up on the time period of late 1968 when the first crew of Class 8 auditors came back from Flag and started cutting the auditors to shreds. Once in a rare while it would flare up out of control and I would feel like killing somebody. I have gotten this handled as an ARCX a number of times, and that does cool it down for a little while, but it never errased it. Neither did Dianetics or any other handling.
Alan's handling goes further than the orgs, but it also misses the mark as far as handling the source of the charge. If I seem a bit critical here, please realize that it is not meant as an attack. It is simply the disappointment of an avid fan seeing somebody hit what should have been a home run and watching them trip and fall as they round the bases.
Alan gets itsa on the fury, and then runs the emotions ("moods") that the thetan is mocking up as part of it. This is good. It puts the being at cause. But its like handling an ARCX with two way comm instead of simply pricking the bubble of charge with an ARCX assessment. So it leaves residual charge which he tries to scan out with his "holographic" handling instead of seeing the whole thing dissolve (which is what happens if you really pull the plug on something).
The underlying button suggested by Enid Vien is betrayal. This does seem to be a factor, but when I looked over my own area of fury from 1968, the feelings of being betrayed were after the fact rather than at the first point of upset. For me on this incident, it was like spotting the subsequent drop in affinity on an ARCX where the source was an enforced reality. In other words, betrayal might be one of the key buttons, but it wasn't the right one in my particular case.
Since ARCX handling didn't work, but this did seem to be the same kind of thing on a vaster scale, I decided to try using the Be / Do / Have triangle as a method of approach. I think that this triangle sums up to Games rather than Experience (which is the common freezone interpretation) so I included that as well.
But the usual CDEINR assessment just didn't seem to hit the mark. So I scratched my head about what could be done to be/do/have/games which would get me so pissed off. And I realized that the button had to be "distroyed".
As soon as I formulated the assessment, I knew the answer.
The assessment was:
Connected with that area, is there a Distroyed Beingness?
Connected with that area, is there a Distroyed Doingness?
Connected with that area, is there a Distroyed Havingness?
Connected with that area, is there a Distroyed Game?
The instant reaction was on Beingness and the instant answer was "An Auditor". And with that answer, all the charge fell apart spectacularly. It was like poping a baloon or lancing a boil. It was unbelievable.
In early 1968 I had been a damn good auditor, perhaps a bit innocent and still learning, but on the whole I was very happy with the beingness and most other people (PCs especially) were also happy with the beingness I was mocking up. Then the Class 8s showed up and that beingness was crushed, shattered, and stamped into the ground. In subsequent years, that valence was glued back together with scotch tape and chewing gum, but it was never the same.
The suppressed rage on this had been enormous. The answer to the question was completely obvious in retrospect. And yet I'd never quite hit it precisely in earlier auditing and I didn't know that obvious answer until the moment that I asked myself the question above. And with that, the rage was simply gone. It was the first time that I have every been able to think about that time period without wanting to strangle somebody. I'm still amazed that I can look back at it and actually feel good. There is an enormous feeling of freedom and serenity connected with this.
This is not to say that the things which happened back in late 1968 were good, but simply to say that it has lost all power to affect me. The original "auditor" beingness has come back to me in place of the patched up copy.
I never audited professionally again after 1969. I had a true horror of doing it, it was dangerous in the extreme and highly restimulative. All the auditing I did subsequently (and I did quite a lot) was auditing of family, friends, students, and staff members, all done at no charge and either un-CSed or with CSes who I felt were "safe". I was lucky in that some of the PCs who I had audited back in the early days had themselves become Class 8 CSes and had a mistaken belief that I was still one of the best auditiors around and they coaxed and pampered me back into auditing and gradually I built myself back up again. But I always refused, absolutely, to ever again audit a paying PC.
Now for the first time, that big black stuck point is gone.
In this case, the whole thing simply blew, but I can imagine that you might need to go earlier similar sometimes. Also, you might need to get Itsa, just like handling an ARCX. In this specific instance, I had already hit the area so many times that it was ready to blow apart if the correct button was hit.
I cannot guarantee that "distroy" is always the correct button. Maybe there are others that need to be assessed. Perhaps things like betrayal. Or maybe its simply the next lower button on the CDEINR assessment and we mearly need to add it. Broadening this out to a general technique would take some work on the part of highly trained people who are sharp enough to spot missing buttons while soloing their own areas of fury.
Because of all the recent A.C.T. discussions of Robert Ducharme's GPM Clearing and running "shocks", I decided to try researching this a bit further by looking for points of shock in the area.
Sure enough, they were there. Or rather, they had been there and now seemed to be discharged. These were points of spiritual shock as the beingness ("an auditor") was erroded by continual counter postulates and impingement. Of course there were physical shocks as well (overboards, etc.) but they seemed insignificant by comparison.
Examining the area further, there was absolutely no connection with GPMs. There was no direct opterm and no goals in opposition. Somebody else might have had different considerations and gotten a similar incident locked up on a GPM, but as far as I was concerned, I had been crushed by my own side rather than by an opponent.
But there was most certainly a valance which had been crushed. And that brings up a point that I mentioned in Super Scio but which I'd now like to take a little further.
The apparent pattern is that there are locks (PTPs, overts, ARCXs, etc.) stuck onto secondaries and engrams which are in turn suck to valences which are stuck to GPMs which are grouped together to form the core of the reactive mind.
In 1952, Ron said that the current pattern of counter-thought (locks) which is built up on counter-emotion (secondaries) which is in turn built up on counter-effort (engrams) is an inversion and that the scale starts with thought followed by emotion followed by effort.
I merged this with the more modern discoveries and some practical observations (how could a godlike being ever get an engram or GPM or implant or whatever unless he was already abberated in the extreme) and came up with the following:
1. The first abberation consists of willful decisions not to communicate.
2. This leads to PTPs, Overts, ARCXs etc. All these things build on themselves (chains of problems) and each other (comitting overts to solve problems, etc.) and lead to further out-communication which encourages more PTPs etc.
3. Finally the being is so weak and full of considerations that he can't recreate things at will and therefor he can experience loss. These lead to more PTPs etc. which in turn encourage more secondaries and so on.
4. Eventually he has lost so much that he starts interiorizing into his creations and therefore can be hit and hurt and thus becomes subject to engrams. Now he's really got things for the secondaries and locks to stick too and all these things keep happening and encouraging each other. And he continues to make decisions to not communicate (encouraged by the locks, secondaries, and engrams) and keeps launching new abberations into the mess.
5. Hit one to many times, he now begins to solve this by mocking up identities both to protect him from direct impact and to let him evolve and tailor these valences to handle the locks, secondaries, and engrams which are constantly on his plate. And these things get smashed and bent out of shape and the more basic abberations start bundling up on them too.
6. But he can't make the valences persist either, so he begins using a series of valences aligned towards a goal so that he can shift from one to the next in succession as they get distroyed. And so he comes around to building up GPMs, which further encourages all the other abberations.
7. Now some bright guy comes along and designs an implant to group all these GPMs together and its mud from there on down.
I don't think that this is a complete picture, but it does show why an OT would continue to have PTPs, Overts, and ARCXs even after ungrouping the collapsed mass of his GPMs. And it proposes that even after somebody totally errased every actual GPM they ever had in any universe, they might still have some kind of "Valence Masses" on identities that had been crushed.
The more I fool around with really early stuff (home universe and earlier), the more I seem to run into charged valences that are not tied into a goal oppose pattern.
Think of a chess game. There are six valences (king, queen, rook, bishop, knight, and pawn). The goals for both teams are identical, the only difference being which side they are on. The valences are not in one to one direct opposition. Its six against six. And pieces might be sacrificed by their own side.
In 1968, I felt like I was a white bishop that was run over by the white queen (I know chess doesn't quite work this way) on her way to attack the enemy king. The really sad part was that it was a failed checkmating attempt miss-planned by a white king who had already lost his hold on the game, so the sacrifice was for nothing.
I do think that its a big mistake to call anything "GPM Clearing" unless it deals with goals in opposition. I do not think of R2-12 or 3D criss cross as GPM processes, since they deal exclusively with valence packages. I do think of R3GA, R3MX, and R6GPMI as GPM processes because they do address opposing goals.
The reason I think this way is that we are solving a huge puzzle with a trememdous number of pieces and numerous different areas, some of which we do not even have names for yet. If we confuse the blue of the sky with the blue of the lake and try to force fit pieces into the wrong area, we're just going to get more confused.
Robert may have found something very important, and he's making the mistake of forcing it to fit into an area of the puzzle that is already fairly well defined and it doesn't line up very well. It might actually be something more basic than GPMs. If it is obvious to him that he is clearing up distroyed identities, then he could call it identity clearing or valence clearing, but if this is not obvious to him, then he shouldn't use that name either. In that case he needs to find our what he is handling and pick an appropriate name. Otherwise some know-it-all like me or Alan might just toss it all out the window on the basis of it being a shallow approach to handling GPMs when it is really some exciting new area that needs to be addressed as well.
I've run into all sorts of other things that don't even fit into the above pattern. Things like symbol masses, abberative thought pools, and penalty universes.
In my humble opinion (IMHO), I don't even know the half of it yet because every time I pull on a little thread like the above, I get as many new questions as I get answers.
Homer is right. Post everything to the net. I can't go it alone. You can't go it alone. Even Ron (numero uno super researcher) couldn't go it alone. Just look at how he ended up when he tried to be the only source.
We (and this includes the Church of Scientology itself even though they haven't cognited yet) are not in the position of auto manufacturers in cut throat competition to overjump each other with slightly different improvements. We are in the position of alchemists struggling to figure out the true laws of chemistry and physics. In the absence of cross-fertilization, it will take centuries (if it is allowed to occur at all).
Speeking of cross fertilization, I was pleasantly surprised to see that Ralph Hilton also took a stab at the Helatrobus implant. I only found about half of what I think is a series of about 256 goals (see Chapter 8 of Super Scio). He found about half of them also. There are a surprising number that are on both our lists and the other ones he found feel like they fit into the gaps in my platen for this thing. If enough people tackel this one, we might even wind up with a complete platen and who knows what benifits might result. It makes Ron's research into this monster seem posatively shallow.
Another useful piece was Homer's recent followup on my comment that initially the being only fell into traps of his own making and Homer's further conclusion (which I'm sure is correct) that early on, the first overts would always be failed attempts to commit an overt.
I have only recently started reading Homer's archives. When I first ran across them last year, I decided to finish the book (Super Scio) instead before launching off into a vast area of new ideas. I wanted to get all my own stuff written up and organized before I lost track completely. For me it was a major case action. Now I'm taking the next step.
By the way, I never said that you shouldn't run engrams on a Clear, I only warned about R3R. I had a lot of dianetics after clear. Some of it went very well (especially a dianetic assist), but a lot of it was trouble. The biggest problems were health form and drug rundown style somatic chains and (worst of all) putting in quad flows. Those kinds of incidents ran well on simple recall processes or self-analysis (lots and lots of engrams ran out very nicely on getting self-analysis audited on me in the HGC after clear as part of an advance program). When you run this kind of stuff with Dianetics, you often remember the incident in detail on the locate step of R3R and are ready to go earlier and then the auditor insists that you mock it all up again to run, and that gets you into trouble. Then it doesn't "errase" (because it was already gone and has been put back) so you try to go earlier on a null chain and pickup some BT's picture because there's nothing else there to find. Eventually you wind up with more pictures than when you started and it's all borrowed bank.
Incident running of some sort is definitely needed. The real question is what's safe and what works. I could even see using R3R on something heavy enough to require repetative passes. Furthermore, full confront of the force in pictures (the Dianetic Clear state) makes engrams into trivial incidents but does not do so for secondaries (that would require a willingness to lose anything, and clears do not usually have that). As you can see from the above, I consider that secondaries go much earlier on the track.
Since I don't know exactly what Robert is doing, I can't comment either way. If the PCs are making gains, and they're still happy a few days later (rather than scratching their heads about the whole thing), then its probably fine.
Good Hunting,
The Pilot
|
|
|
|
