ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at

The Tech Error of ’62-’63—How it Went Negative: RogerB’s FZ Presentation in Pasadena

Discussion in 'Evaluating and Criticising Scientology' started by RogerB, Nov 9, 2009.

  1. haiqu

    haiqu Patron Meritorious

    Re: The Tech Error of ’62-’63—How it Went Negative: RogerB’s FZ Presentation in Pasa

    In the thread "Australians in Scientology" RoberB said:

    To which I replied:

    Well I've had a chance to watch them and here are my comments (without evaluation):

    Part 1:

    Oppose vs Complement - Apparently a workable viewpoint, may be from an earlier universe. I also refer to a well-known alternative to LRH's five solutions of the Black Panther mechanism, which is "to co-operate with the black panther." Of course this could lead to some strange bedfellows (e.g. Scn and IRS! now there's a GPM item ...)

    Inversion from survive to succumb at tone 2.5 or so (aka "Power Inversion") - This was well known in the Sydney Org around 1975, and although I have no LRH reference to hand it is assumed that he had this datum. The resultant chart of four quadrants is a bit binary or black/white compared even to the early data available in "Science of Survival" but serves to illustrate the issue.

    Part 2:

    Causer -> Receiver seems like the basis of the Comm Formula to me, not a case issue.

    Part 3:

    I assume you refer to PAB 64 "First Postulate" of 1955 - not 1954 - here (HCOB Vol II p279). If so I can't see what you're attributing to LRH at all, you might like to re-read it and discuss further.

    Part 4:

    Skill of receiving emanations - Well yes, probably an OT ability but certainly unreal to an average Scn newcomer.
    Ascension experiences - sound just like key-outs redefined to me. They get rehabbed prior to starting a major action. And your point is ... ?
    Stuff the PC wants handled - I agree this was a weak point when I came in. There is such a thing as an optional and C/S-defined "Wants Handled Rundown" (part of NED??? Dunno, I did the HSDC) but seems to only relate to the Mest-U (physical universe) case. Apparently Scn as represented by the Bridge Chart only regards a PC as a body until he has done the OT levels. No point complaining that OT IX and above aren't available to you, it's a do-it-yourself job at this stage.
    Maniac-like OTs - IMHO seem to be a symptom of an incomplete case, and/or out-ethics, and/or a fixation on SPs being everywhere (false data).

    Part 5:

    Celebration of wins necessary - I got this data as a case feature from Allen Wright a few years ago. He (figuratively) crashed after qualifying for Olympic selection as a cyclist and winning his first heat too easily, and it took him a very long time to find the why. He did quite a good video presentation on it which I have tucked away somewhere.
    Pleasant / unpleasant sensations - Yep. Thetan's equivalent of a chocolate fix.
    Impressing others with ability - see Ser Facs, ethics, O/W tech. Nothing new here.
    Process from the top down - where's the top, Roger? We're all looking for that higher Q after all.

    Overall impressions (with evaluation): Seem to be outlining errors, secrets revealed, new discoveries that in actual fact are mostly in the tech. Those things which are truly new discoveries would either be unreal to most, or relate to case phenomena that - in the main - belong beyond the current realms of Scn as she is practiced (aka para-Scientology). Thus potentially valuable to advanced cases, assuming they aren't simply cognitions that one normally experiences along the way.


    1. The case against GPM running - either implanted or real - isn't proven anywhere here.
    2. The PC should take auditing at his own speed and intersperse it with study to fill in the gaps.
    3. There is NO WORLD SHATTERING RUSH to get through this, except in the reg's mind.

    BTW as far as the quadrant chart (Cause-Complement-Destructive-Weak) goes, I can personally see innumerable instances in present life of all but Cause. I have recently become aware that I am now knowingly Cause, and am exterior of my standard "case" and very aware of the theta universe as separate from Mest and also from individual thought. I am also able to directly address it as something to run processes on for the first time.

    Your data here on ESMB have been useful in my achieving that state, whatever it might be, through enhancing the ability to see new viewpoints.

    As a final comment, Allen Wright used to say that one of the things he'd like to do when he got OT was to run the Grades processes again to get all the latent gain out of them. I now know what he meant, although it seems to blow by scanning and inspection now.

    Last edited: Sep 24, 2013
  2. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    Re: The Tech Error of ’62-’63—How it Went Negative: RogerB’s FZ Presentation in Pasa

    I'm just commenting on this, disrelated to the thread theme.

    I did Expanded Grades, quad, in the mid- to late-70s, a few hundred hours' worth. They dealt mostly with this-lifetime incidents. I ran a bunch of stuff on the earlier grades, not so much on Grades 3 and 4. For 20 years or so I wondered if I had missed stuff, but since "you can only run Grades once" while in the cult I never got to find out. I also wondered if there was more stuff from an additional 20 years of living that would be available to run.

    In 2000 I spent about 160 hours running the Pilot's Self-Clearing processes, which cover much of the Grades material, so I got a chance to revisit them and satisfied myself that they were "flat enough."

    Now I have different viewpoints on the thing. Provided one is competent enough to do so (and willing, of course!), I don't see too much problem in solo auditing most of the Grades, even a second or third time through. On the basis of if something is charged and ready to run then run it, and if it isn't then skip it. Don't bother with trying to rehab a process that you want to skip "to ensure it is really flat" or something, just run stuff you want to run and skip the stuff you don't.

  3. haiqu

    haiqu Patron Meritorious

    Re: The Tech Error of ’62-’63—How it Went Negative: RogerB’s FZ Presentation in Pasa

    Correction: The "Wants Handled R/D" was part of XDN.

    From the Tech Dictionary:

    SANDERSON R/D, the “Wants Handled R/D” as outlined in Expanded Dianetic
    Ser1es 9, HCOB 10 Jun 72 was originally called the “Sanderson R/D” on Flag.
    (BTB 30 Aug 72)

    WANTS HANDLED RUNDOWN, an Ex Dn rundown. The important points of
    the RD are to run it as a “wants to get rid of,” not a “wants to achieve” and to
    complete each thing the pc wants handled before going on. Handling of each
    thing the pc wants handled is dictated by what the “thing” (somatic, intention,
    terminal, condition, doingness) is. (HCOB 28 Mar 74)

  4. haiqu

    haiqu Patron Meritorious

    Re: The Tech Error of ’62-’63—How it Went Negative: RogerB’s FZ Presentation in Pasa

    As long as one didn't have any considerations about each grade having an End Phenomenon then I suppose that would work.

  5. AnonKat

    AnonKat Crusader

    Re: The Tech Error of ’62-’63—How it Went Negative: RogerB’s FZ Presentation in Pasa

    Bump for the newbies

  6. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

    Re: The Tech Error of ’62-’63—How it Went Negative: RogerB’s FZ Presentation in Pasa

    I can agree with this. In fact, until this was done, I wouldn't try to do anything else. Once it's done, I'm not sure why you'd do anything else.
  7. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

    Re: The Tech Error of ’62-’63—How it Went Negative: RogerB’s FZ Presentation in Pasa

    This link is dead. I think "Konchok Penday" ran on hard financial times, because the primary UCP pages are no longer on the initial servers. All I see is mirror sites. Here's a mirror for these scales.
  8. AnonKat

    AnonKat Crusader

    Re: The Tech Error of ’62-’63—How it Went Negative: RogerB’s FZ Presentation in Pasa

    Tech Rampage going on here !@
  9. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    Re: The Tech Error of ’62-’63—How it Went Negative: RogerB’s FZ Presentation in Pasa

    Yes, that comment by marildi above is relatively valid. Hubbs did note that above 2.0 we are "survival" and below "is succumb" . . . the issue is that he observed that in terms of human behavior, but actually did nothing with the observation in terms of addressing it with processing the spiritual Being.

    His reference to it is as though some academic observation that never got applied.

    And nowhere does he mention or refer to the spiritual reversal of vector or of polarity where the Being actually inverts as in going from being present to being totally absent or from being interested and loving to being hateful.

    And nowhere does he mention the "reverse rocket read" that accompanies this monster change point/action of the Being.

    All Hubbs mentioned is the point that behavior is different at the two areas of the Tone Scale . . . that is a far cry from observing and understanding the actual event of what Alan called the Power Split.

    What we are talking about here is the change point that a Being goes through as they decline the mood scale wherein they flip from positive to negative. This is a very different issue than Hubb's simple observation that folks "are survival" above 2.0 and "succumb below 2.0."

    The tech discovery I relate is why is it so! And it is a fuller look at why and how come it occurs and the mechanics of it and reveals a handling for such.

  10. AnonKat

    AnonKat Crusader

    Re: The Tech Error of ’62-’63—How it Went Negative: RogerB’s FZ Presentation in Pasa

    Thank you Roger Reposting it back to Miraldi
  11. AnonKat

    AnonKat Crusader

  12. AnonKat

    AnonKat Crusader

    Re: The Tech Error of ’62-’63—How it Went Negative: RogerB’s FZ Presentation in Pasa

    Roger would you like to give your ipinion about Synpathy being low on the tonescale ? And the 2 different definitions in Webster and the Scientology definition ? Above link leads to a discussion about it .

    A little bit of the discussion:

    Last edited: Oct 31, 2013
  13. Re: The Tech Error of ’62-’63—How it Went Negative: RogerB’s FZ Presentation in Pasa

    there is what you might call "sympathy" down there, and when it's coming from a strong heart going to one bereaved an in mourning it can healthful and nourishing but coming out of circuits with eyes blind to strength it smothers, it's skanky...

    what is called for from those who will turn their face to land of the living is empathy and love and a passion for renewing and reviving and reigniting the life and weltanshaung in those around you; born of a shared in oneness in That Which Is Greater Than Ourselves

    and to come at dianetics from the true enthusiam; "entheos"; god within fukkin' ROCKS! sugarplum...
  14. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

    Re: The Tech Error of ’62-’63—How it Went Negative: RogerB’s FZ Presentation in Pasa

    God is, indeed, within us.
  15. Leon

    Leon Gold Meritorious Patron

    Re: The Tech Error of ’62-’63—How it Went Negative: RogerB’s FZ Presentation in Pasa

    I'll give you my two-cents worth of it.

    Notice that just a little way above Sympathy on the scale is Fear. What the guy is basically afraid of here at this level ( and please ignore what he is wrong-targeting as the supposed cause of his fear) is a fear of losing his beingness - the who and what that he is. He fears the possibility of completely ceasing to exist.

    Then he drops below this and - in his own view - actually does cease to exist as himself and just goes on being ""alive" robotically and on automatic. And when he encounters someone else and sees them as being alive he instinctively mimics them, copies what they are manifesting. And since he is on a succumb postulate he prefers copying those who are lower toned than he is. He actually feels uncomfortable and out-of-valence when copying a higher-toned person.

    And that is the Sympathy and is why it is such a low tone level.

    In common with all lower tones, this is also an other-determined, low-scale imitation (harmonic) of a higher scale ability. In this case it mimics the higher toned ability to duplicate and share another's emotional state. The two should never be confused with each other. They are quite different. The English language does not differentiate and uses the one word to describe both states.

  16. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    Re: The Tech Error of ’62-’63—How it Went Negative: RogerB’s FZ Presentation in Pasa

    Umm, I don't particularly like getting into these kinds of "discussions" where folks get into being "clever" about countering each other with quotes from "authority" . . . and particularly when Hubbs is the "authority" :melodramatic: But for you, AnonKat, I'll indulge . . .

    Hubbs, of course, did a lot of misuse of language and the invention of words and also reinterpreting of what standard words meant.

    As it happens, "Sympathy" is not one of them . . . though some of the comments cited appear to make it appear so.

    One things Hubbs did too often fail to do is juxtapose what we observe as the negative expression (low toned) of a thing against or as compared to the higher tone positive expression of of it.

    Here we are talking about how one relates to another.

    Sympathy as defined in standard dictionaries, and in terms of its derivation, simply means: feeling the same as another, or feeling as another.

    It is a low mood level harmonic of empathy. That is a word and concept that's worth really doing a dictionary number on. Even in the regular dictionary you'll observe that it is defined as a causative, outflowing of "feeling" . . . not an inflowing, effect of as being the same as the other.

    Leon is right, a person going into sympathy is not in actual control of what they are effect of. Compare this to the control a person expressing empathy exhibits as they get active truly helping another (if they choose to).

    I spent many years pulling people out of the surf as a life-saver. I had an understanding of the situation the "victim" was in and acted effectively with empathy . . . BUT if you compare my emotional state and action doing a rescue to many on shore going into shock, distress, concern and sympathy for the victim . . . you'll get a good and graphic example of the distinction between the two levels on the Mood Scale.

  17. F.Bullbait

    F.Bullbait Oh, a wise guy,eh?

    Re: The Tech Error of ’62-’63—How it Went Negative: RogerB’s FZ Presentation in Pasa

    I came across a transcribed conversation that is called The Unstacking Procedure by Dennis Stephens, November 3, 1992. It can be found here: Here is a part of it that I thought was relevant to this thread. Here Dennis is discussing the jammed cases that came out of the early '60s Briefing Course at Saint Hill.


    Don't ask the PC to Oppose his goals

    There’s only my own research, many years later I discovered what had happened to these people
    and umm... and got the repair out for it. I know the repair, I don’t think it’s generally known
    outside my research exactly how to take this situation apart, but the truth of the matter is
    that while... what I’m leading up to is this datum that when you muck around with goals and
    purposes your... your... Ok, you can ask the preclear for goals and purposes and postulates as
    long as you don’t ask him to oppose them.

    Get that very clearly, your quite safe, any auditor in the world can work with goals and purposes
    and intentions as long as he doesn’t ask,“What is the...who or what would oppose that goal...
    what would be the opposition goal for that goal?”
    Now once you... there you... once you ask that question you walk where angels fear to tread. There is the danger point. There is the line that Ron crossed and ahh... it all went wrong from that point onwards.
    And I didn’t know why it went wrong, none of us knew why it went wrong, and none of had the
    repair to put it back right. It was just endless repairs, even the repairs were being repairs .... repair
    ed and the repairs that were repairing the repairs were being repaired. It just all fell apart at
    that point.
    In fact I would go so far as to say that the ahh... that this was ... one of the main causes of the
    decline of Scientology. Ron Hubbard, case wise, took an enormous pounding on this. It hit Ron
    very hard indeed, case wise, subjectively, himself. He looked absolutely terrible in 1962 when I was over there.
    I knew he was under enormous restimulation, you could see it. He was bravely struggling on
    with his research, the research was killing him. And he was trying everything he knew to get this
    subject of goals out right, he never did get it right and case wise he never did recover. He went
    downhill casewise. It hit Ron as hard as it hit anyone. Casewise he went downhill badly from
    1964 onwards, even though he abandoned work on goals, went on to other things, still he
    couldn’t lift that material. He couldn’t lift that restimulation.
    And the datum here is that ahh...unless.... safer you can work with goals and purposes, it’s
    quite safe as long as you don’t ask that key question, “what would oppose it?” You can do
    anything else with a goal or a purpose. You can put...put the goal, you can mock them up, you
    can have other people mock them up, you can ask what purpose would a thing have. What’s the purpose of a cat? What’s the purpose of a dog? What’s the person... purpose of a brick? What’s
    the purpose of... of a house? You know?
    What purposes have you had? You can do this goals, you can get him to write long lists of goals
    up, I mean the auditors got enormous freedom on this subject but he must not... having got a
    purpose or a goal he must not ask what is the... the opposition goal unless he knows exactly
    what he is doing? If he doesn’t know exactly what he’s doing, doesn’t know the complete anatomy of the subject of goals and purposes in the mind he’ll rapidly worsen his preclear and he won’t know what’s going on. And he won’t be able to repair it.
    The effect is that, if you muck around with goals and... and ... and the opposition to goals and
    ask that question, “Who or what would oppose a goal?” and you don’t know... the complete
    anatomy of what’s going on,your attempt to use this technology, the attempt to run these
    processes and so forth will act as a maj... on the preclears case, as a major Engram. And this is
    what happened to the Scientologists on the Briefing Course.
    The auditing was an Engram. If you ever get one of these people that were at the Saint Hill
    Briefing Course between 1961 and 1964, the whole of that period when they worked on goals,
    you will find, the whole of that area will sit on their case like an engram.
    It will respond exactly like an engram. As you come up to it the needle will start to jiggle as you get closer to it the needle will... will... will go into rises, then as you start to talk about the Briefing Course you’ll see the needle rise and you’ll see the tone arm rise. It’s just as if the preclear was approaching a
    major engram, major engramic experience which he cannot confront.
    This is what will... one of the things that I spotted myself later after I left the Briefing Course, I
    got to work with some of these people, trying to repair, and everyone of them without exception
    who was... who’d been at the Briefing Course, soon as you tried to talk to them about it or any
    of them wanted to talk to you about it, because they were so upset about it, soon as they started
    to talk about the Briefing Course 1961 to 1964 and the auditing that had, up would go their tone
    arm and the needle would stick and it was just as if you were talking about a major engram on
    their case.
    So that’s the first moral of the story there, it’s a rather grim message, it’s rather grim, Greg, that uhh... you’re limited...there is a limitation on the subject of working with goals and purposes.
    Don’t ask that question, “Who or what would oppose a goal or a purpose?”unless you know
    exactly what you are doing and that unfortunately it does mean a familiarity with my research.

  18. Cat's Squirrel

    Cat's Squirrel Gold Meritorious Patron

    Re: The Tech Error of ’62-’63—How it Went Negative: RogerB’s FZ Presentation in Pasa

    My understanding is that sympathy is projected fear; if someone is sympathetic towards you when you have a problem, they are in a state of weakness and holding the thought that they wouldn't be able to cope if the same thing happened to them, as opposed to empathy, in which the other person is enamating strength and competence. That's why empathy is comforting when you're in a tough situation whereas sympathy isn't.

    Ruth Minshull has a good chapter about sympathy in her book "How To Choose Your People". She says it functions as a stop; "don't do that, it'd be too much for you / will hurt you!"
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2013
  19. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

    Re: The Tech Error of ’62-’63—How it Went Negative: RogerB’s FZ Presentation in Pasa

    This is meaningless to me until it is demonstrated that there is a difference between a "spiritual being" and a human being.
  20. Cat's Squirrel

    Cat's Squirrel Gold Meritorious Patron

    Re: The Tech Error of ’62-’63—How it Went Negative: RogerB’s FZ Presentation in Pasa

    From my admittedly limited knowledge of Advaita Vedanta and Yoga, which deal extensively with this stuff, it's almost certainly impossible to demonstrate that to the satisfaction of another person. The higher states of Samadhi in particular (in which you know for certain that you are an immortal, spiritual being) appear to be totally subjective and aren't observable by anyone else.