Pilot'sPost Z14 OT Research – Affinity Defined, Wavelength Drill
Pilot'sPost Z14
OT Research – Affinity Defined, Wavelength Drill
From Post 26 -- March 1998
OT RESEARCH
I've made a tech breakthrough.
Not the whole shooting match, but another piece of the puzzle.
I began by trying to expand the Axioms and it yielded a wild
little trick that doubles exterior perception.
And the trick is easy to learn. I coached two people through
it in a few minutes after explaining the theory and both got
it easily and experienced the same effect that I got from it.
Note that the trick is an amplifier rather than a method for
turning on exterior perceptics [perceptions].
If you don't already have some slight degree of exterior
perception (usually mixed in with lots of dub-in and imagination),
then do chapters 1, 2, and 11 of
Self Clearing, which should
at least get you to the vague level that people used to
get from old OT 5 and 6. [
Self Clearing is downloadable from
http://freezoneearth.org/downloads/files.html#Self2004 - get the 2004 edition, which was not available when this was written, AntEd]
I'll get around to explaining the trick later in this post.
You should be able to do it with a few minutes of drilling.
But you need the underlying theory first. And the theory
is really a lot more important than the trick anyway,
because it might lead to a lot more.
---------------
If you look over the Scientology Axioms, you'll see that
we have a very detailed definition of Communication.
Basically it is cause, distance, effect, with intention,
attention, and duplication. In other words, we have 6
components, and one of them, “intention” is a very active
component that we drill with TR 8 and it seems like one
of the significant factors in OT abilities.
We do not have a definition of Affinity that is of
comparable magnitude, with components that can be
drilled and used. And yet we know that it is a basic of
great importance.
I began by looking for an active factor in Affinity,
something comparable to "intention" in the definition
of communication.
And I thought of having two tuning forks with matching
pitches, and you strike one and the other vibrates in
sympathy with it. This is a high school physics experiment
and you can find the effect described in any good textbook.
And if you raise the dampers on a piano (step on the right
pedal) and hit a note, other strings which are harmonics
of it (an octave above and below etc.) with also start
vibrating slightly. Again, this is just high school
physics.
This could be referred to as “resonance”. It is motion
in sympathy.
And I thought of a mother rocking a child. A sharing
of motion. It builds affinity. The same for sex.
And then there is matching tones on the emotional tone
scale. If you think of these emotions as having
wavelengths, again you have resonance.
So let's begin by defining an axiom for resonance. Note
that I'm using "axiom" in the popular sense (a basic
principle) as did Hubbard rather than in the strict
mathematical sense.
__
AXIOM X-1: RESONANCE IS A SIMILARITY OF MOTION.
Matching tones on the emotional tone scale is an example of
resonance between beings. Sympathetic vibrations between
piano strings or tuning forks is an example of resonance
between physical object.
___
I thought of the cause and effect sides of communication
and felt that there should be something similar for affinity.
After a bit of contemplation, it occurred to me that these
would be “desire” and “acceptance” (thank you Allen).
And of course liking and admiration would fit into it.
And I felt that I should define it as an active thing.
Putting this all together yields the following axiom.
___
AXIOM X-2: AFFINITY IS THE ACTION OF IMPELLING A FLOW OR
VIBRATION ACROSS A DISTANCE FROM A POINT OF DESIRE TO A
POINT OF ACCEPTANCE WITH ADMIRATION, LIKING, AND RESONANCE.
___
Of course most of this is old hat. We even know that
duplicating motions as in mimicry tends to build affinity.
But this idea of resonance opens the door to another
level of practical application. And that brings us back
to that trick I was talking about.
-------------------
I discussed resonance between beings and between objects,
and that raises the question of resonance between a being
and an object.
Think of objects as having an inherent wavelength, a
sort of musical note that they will respond to.
A specific element will have electron shells at fixed
distances from the nucleus. These are like frozen
waves which have a wavelength. When we heat up a
metal, it glows at a specific wavelength because of
this. In physics, spectrums can be analyzed to precisely
pin down the elements present in something based on this
principle (spectrographic analysis). Again this is
just textbook physics.
Of course a complex object has many elements and should
probably be thought of as a composite. But the
oversimplified idea that an object will have a single
basic vibration is actually good enough to start with.
Here is the drill:
a) pick an object
b) imagine that you are sort of humming a note at it
(this is done mentally, not by humming out loud)
c) project this note into the object
d) shift the note up and down until it matches vibrations
with the object (you can feel this easily). Note that
you don't have to hit the actual vibration, but just
a harmonic of it, so it doesn't matter that much whether
you use a high pitch or a low one, but it is important
to slide up and down the scale by very small increments.
e) permeate the object with the vibrations.
Repeat this on a number of different objects.
After you have assessed a few objects this way, matching
vibrations, you should find that you can pretty much
match wavelengths automatically without having to assess
in detail.
You should experience a startling increase in mental
perception of an object whenever you hit it with a
matching vibration, especially perceptions of the
inside and far side of the object (it is a 3D perception
rather than looking).
Note that matching wavelengths goes way beyond simple
permeation (I've played with that too).
With hindsight, there are ideas like this in metaphysics.
There is the idea in India of playing a specific musical
note to heal somebody, and I've even heard mention of
the idea that humming the correct note might enable one
to move an object. And there is even Scriabin's idea
that the ultimate musical composition would bring the
world to fulfillment and allow it to end.
When you first drill this, you can just look at an object
or a wall and project a vibration at it. But once you
get the knack of it, try it exterior in conjunction with
any exteriorization drill that works for you.
I think that you'll find that whenever you add in this
vibration business, It's like turning on a light switch
and your perception increases a notch.
There is lots more that you can play around with. You
can project broadband “roars” or play around with
chords to match a series of wavelengths at once.
--------------
Don't get into trying to prove things. Even with your
perceptions raised a notch, it's still probably more
dub-in than accurate data. You mustn't invalidate the
half correct perceptions or they get weaker.
Of course I ignored my own advise and tried to read
some playing cards upside-down. I used 8 numbers (2 to
9) in 4 suits to make calculations easy. I held each
card up facing away from me and mentally roared vibrations
at it until I had a clear visio of the card's face.
The results were freaky. 50 percent accuracy on calling
the suit. 25 percent accuracy on calling the number.
Not one card seen correctly. Every perception a total
dub in, but the suits and numbers were perceived at
twice the level of random guessing.
As a control, I dropped the mental roaring and the
incorrect dubbed in perception and the accuracy immediately
dropped to 25 percent on suit and around 12 percent
on the number (the normal probability).
It was crazy because I could only violate the mathematical
probability by getting an obviously incorrect perception.
I'd see a 7 of hearts clearly and it would be a 7 of
clubs when I turned it over. Or I'd see an 8 or spades
clearly and it would be a 3 of spades when I turned it
over. But I'd be right on either the suit or the digit
on about 3/4 of the cards.
An hour of this and I was just about banging my head
against the wall and getting exhausted and invalidating
my perceptions because every damn visio was obviously
wrong (I never ever saw the correct card, which was
also contrary to chance because I should have accidentally
gotten one right every 32 cards).
That left me feeling quite frustrated, so I'm not going
to try it again soon.
And yet there was a consistent and dramatic violation
of mathematical probability.
I thought this over a bit.
My first idea was that the true perception coming through
must have been no more than a tiny flash of color or the
shape of a single number and I was building an entire
visio of a card based on that tiny signal of real data.
But I talked this over with a friend and he suggested
that it was more likely that I had gotten an accurate
perception but something was overlaying it with an
alter-is because there is some mechanism designed to
block doing this with complete accuracy in this universe.
There is more to be learned here.
--------------
My thought right now is that there must be a dozen or
so of these factors which sum up into the creation of
reality.
One of them is intention. Another is resonance. Yet
another is faith/belief. Each of these acts as significant
amplifiers, and each one can be drilled individually
and is fairly easy to master.
--------------
I started thinking of affinity as a duplication of motion.
So I reviewed the duplication in the communication formula
and saw it as a duplication of data or content.
And agreement would be a duplication of intention.
By communicating, you might duplicate the fact that
somebody else likes to fish, and yet you might not
want to fish yourself. But you might duplicate the
intention to fish and therefore come into agreement
with them even if the two of you aren't talking.
And you might both go fishing together and thereby
duplicate the motion and come to feel more affinity
for each other.
These are 3 separate duplications. All 3 would be
involved in a shared reality which I would see as
a duplication of creation.
From this comes the thought that the ARC triangle
might be a limited perspective. Note that understanding
seems to be a byproduct rather than the sum (complete
ARC would be more than just understanding).
And it should be obvious that agreement by itself
may be a factor in reality but is not the sole
determining criteria. After all, the majority of
people once believed the Earth was flat (even though
the educated people like Columbus knew better)
and it continued to be round despite that.
The real equation might be:
Affinity plus Agreement plus Communication plus another
half dozen unidentified factors all sum together to
yield Reality.
Or in other words, duplication of data plus duplication
of motion plus duplication of intention plus duplication
of various other things all sums up to duplication of
creation (which is the reality of the physical universe).
All this would be occurring on a compulsive level of course.
---------------
As usual, finding an answer has left me with more questions.
But the trick with resonance does work and the axiom on
affinity has lots of implications.
So have fun.
Affinity,
The Pilot