Looking for auditing, favourably from open-minded squirrel

I M Dex said:
... the mechanics of 1951 effort processing, which nobody I know of has ever recognized or pointed out. "Get the effort/get the counter-effort", reworded as "the condition/how you handled it".
Click to expand...

Oh, I thought you know me (and Rolf=Clearbird), Dex 😜

Our modality "DEEP Clearing" is firmly based on effort processing. It is the key to resolving "own GPMs", once called "the core of the case" by LRH.

Most of today's Scientologists are in red-hot dramatization of own GPMs, aka "frozen games conditions". In other words, the world is a battlefield and everything is "us against them". A condition never looked at or handled, since LRH abandoned his work on GPMs and we, who completed it, are considered enemies. Sad!

By the way, " get the effort/counter effort" is not enough. Effort buries emotion, and emotion buries thought (source: chapter 2 of "A history of man").

It is the thought (postulate) that shapes the person and often in not a good way. It has to be processed after it has emerged by releasing first the effort and then the emotion. And that on both poles, if there is a counterpole.

We have written two websites about this, one for Scientologists and one for the rest of the world.

Complete Your Bridge - GPM Processing Presented by Clearbird

"Complete Your Bridge" is a website for Scientologists who keep working at their case, independent from the pressures and regulations in their former church. Specifically it deals with Actual GPMs, the part of the case that Ron Hubbard saw as its core. We use DEEP Character Clearing (DCC), a new...
completeyourbridge.org

Homepage of DEEP Clearing - A New Modality in Self Development, by Rolf Dane and Heidrun Beer of the Ability One Group, Denmark.

Everything about our modality "DEEP Clearing". Presented by Ability One Group, Denmark.
deepclearing.org
 
Last edited:
Hbeer54 said:
Oh, I thought you know me (and Rolf=Clearbird), Dex 😜

Our modality "DEEP Clearing" is firmly based on effort processing. It is the key to resolving "own GPMs", once called "the core of the case" by LRH.

Most of today's Scientologists are in red-hot dramatization of own GPMs, aka "frozen games conditions". In other words, the world is a battlefield and everything is "us against them". Sad.
Click to expand...
Hello Heidrun, it's been a long time, my best to you and Rolf :)
 
pineapple said:
There are of course other types of overts besides the above-mentioned FAUXVERTS:

NOVERTS -- Things that can't be converted into overts, and thus aren't even fauxverts; they just aren't.

DOUGHVERTS -- Overts involving money, very common in scn.

PO'VERTS -- A subset of DOUGHVERTS: insisting one is too poor to donate, refusing to buy a revised copy of an LRH book one already has several copies of, buy a second e-meter, etc.

HOVERTS -- Engaging in prostitution while pretending to body-route, in an attempt to supplement one's non-existent staff pay; again a type of DOUGHVERT.

BLOWVERTS -- Overts that are followed by an actual blow, i.e. leaving. Usually a BLOWVERT results from a history of continuous DOUGHVERTS. Once one has sunk to HOVERTS, the BLOWVERT is not far behind.
Click to expand...
Least favorite of all is the SLOWVERT. This is because since it did not f/n, we went e/s and it cost another intensive. And another. And another.
 
Dotey OT said:
Least favorite of all is the SLOWVERT. This is because since it did not f/n, we went e/s and it cost another intensive. And another. And another.
Click to expand...
And now-can-I-go-verts, when you can't be excused until you come up with enough material to satisfy the order, so you get busy including everything you've done that you could think of a way to frame as bad, in hopes that it would be enough to be considered complete.
 
I M Dex said:
And now-can-I-go-verts, when you can't be excused until you come up with enough material to satisfy the order, so you get busy including everything you've done that you could think of a way to frame as bad, in hopes that it would be enough to be considered complete.
Click to expand...
I was shown some ref by an maa at aola where the old one says "what you are looking for is the blood dripping sort of overt, don't take up anything less" to paraphrase. That is the result of trying to find something to be made guilty of after a month of the new fprd hco style.

But I used to badger the newbys doing the pv&i course to dig deeper. Was thinking they could get the most for their $35.
 
Dotey OT said:
"what you are looking for is the blood dripping sort of overt, don't take up anything less" to paraphrase
Click to expand...

isn't that -- and the others cited -- getting into blatant violation of the auditor's code 'not to evaluate for the PC'?

not that it would surprise me at all -- i'd argue that that the auditor's code itself violates that from the start....
 
Reyne Mayer said:
isn't that -- and the others cited -- getting into blatant violation of the auditor's code 'not to evaluate for the PC'?

not that it would surprise me at all -- i'd argue that that the auditor's code itself violates that from the start....
Click to expand...
You can be required to write up your overts out of session as part of an ethics action. Since you're not being audited, the auditor's code doesn't apply.

There's also security checking, which looks sort of like auditing -- it's done on a meter -- but is done for security purposes not for case gain, and is prefaced with the caveat "I AM NOT AUDITING YOU." Here you can say whatever's necessary to get the pc to give it up.

Even in an actual session, if you suspect the pc is concealing something, you can suggest something WORSE than what you suspect he's done, the theory being that he'll tell you his REAL overt rather than have you think worse of him. This is called the "murder routine."

I heard a story once about an auditor doing the murder routine who asked the pc, "Did you fuck a dog?" to which the astonished pc supposedly said, "Yeah, how'd you know?" (I've long suspected this was an urban legend but it was told to me as something that really happened.)

There were probably further refinements after I left scn. The FPRD hadn't come along yet at that time.
 
Last edited:
pineapple said:
You can be required to write up your overts out of session as part of an ethics action. Since you're not being audited, the auditor's code doesn't apply.

There's also security checking, which looks sort of like auditing -- it's done on a meter -- but is done for security purposes not for case gain, and is prefaced with the caveat "I AM NOT AUDITING YOU." Here you can say whatever's necessary to get the pc to give it up.

Even in an actual session, if you suspect the pc is concealing something, you can suggest something WORSE than what you suspect he's done, the theory being that he'll tell you his REAL overt rather than have you think worse of him. This is called the "murder routine."

I heard a story once about an auditor doing the murder routine who asked the pc, "Did you fuck a dog?" to which the astonished pc supposedly said, "Yeah, how'd you know?" (I've long suspected this was an urban legend but it was told to me as something that really happened.)

There were probably further refinements after I left scn. The FPRD hadn't come along yet at that time.
Click to expand...
A huge mistake by the church, and Hubbard, is separating ethics from auditing. Cleaning up ethics IS an auditing action. Writing up overts is a case action. One of the maddest declarations from Hubbard was that you are not permitted to audit someone in a "lower ethics condition" – which is the opposite of the truth. You must audit lower ethics conditions, but you must audit the lower ethics condition cause(s), not audit the normal bridge, not until the ethics is cleaned up. Heh, also please note that find out who you really are is a NOTs command. Lol. :)
 
Ed8 said:
A huge mistake by the church, and Hubbard, is separating ethics from auditing. Cleaning up ethics IS an auditing action. Writing up overts is a case action. One of the maddest declarations from Hubbard was that you are not permitted to audit someone in a "lower ethics condition" – which is the opposite of the truth. You must audit lower ethics conditions, but you must audit the lower ethics condition cause(s), not audit the normal bridge, not until the ethics is cleaned up. Heh, also please note that find out who you really are is a NOTs command. Lol. :)
Click to expand...
I don't think scn ethics was ever really about case gain. It was a means for Hubbard to intimidate and control his followers and punish his enemies, or those he believed were his enemies. It wasn't intended to make people better, only to keep them cowed and incapable. It did what Hubbard intended, and in that sense it worked.

Scn wasn't about making people better. It was a way for Hubbard to gratify his "insatiable lust for power and money" and to fulfill his postulate in The Affirmations that "all men are your slaves."
 
pineapple said:
I don't think scn ethics was ever really about case gain. It was a means for Hubbard to intimidate and control his followers and punish his enemies, or those he believed were his enemies. It wasn't intended to make people better, only to keep them cowed and incapable. It did what Hubbard intended, and in that sense it worked.

Scn wasn't about making people better. It was a way for Hubbard to gratify his "insatiable lust for power and money" and to fulfill his postulate in The Affirmations that "all men are your slaves."
Click to expand...

i had to give that one a 'winner', though i'll say i think that i think he may have wanted to make those around him better or more able, and also to do so for others to the extent that would bring him fame, power and wealth.

my take, particularly given what i know of what we might call his 'virtual' 'very good friend' Aleister Crowley, is that at least at first he expected to create some sort of circle of 'big beings' around him able to exercise their will and powers, and in his cynically utilitarian, might-makes-right, even spiritually Darwinian worldview, it was acceptable if lessers further down the spiritual food chain got exploited or even had to be sacrificed in this life. KSW is then partly a reflection of his proving unable to play nicely even with like-minded and equally capable others, and abandoning that hope.
 
Reyne Mayer said:
i had to give that one a 'winner', though i'll say i think that i think he may have wanted to make those around him better or more able, and also to do so for others to the extent that would bring him fame, power and wealth.

my take, particularly given what i know of what we might call his 'virtual' 'very good friend' Aleister Crowley, is that at least at first he expected to create some sort of circle of 'big beings' around him able to exercise their will and powers, and in his cynically utilitarian, might-makes-right, even spiritually Darwinian worldview, it was acceptable if lessers further down the spiritual food chain got exploited or even had to be sacrificed in this life. KSW is then partly a reflection of his proving unable to play nicely even with like-minded and equally capable others, and abandoning that hope.
Click to expand...
Hubbard could not tolerate anyone being a "big being" in his domain, or for that matter, beyond his authority. He punished, degraded, and eliminated anyone who shone too brightly in or around Scientology- Alan Walter, John Mcmaster, David Mayo, Jack Horner, to name a few. Rather than empowering "big beings", Hubbard's affirmation "all men are my slaves", lays bare his intentions about others.
 
I M Dex said:
Alan Walter, John Mcmaster, David Mayo, Jack Horner, to name a few
Click to expand...

those are the sort of names i had in mind. but didn't some just get fed up and leave, only later to be vilified?

p.s. and yes, i think the Affirmations are always an important early point of reference to go back to....
 
Last edited:
Reyne Mayer said:
those are the sort of names i had in mind. but didn't some just get fed up and leave, only later to be vilified?
Click to expand...
I agree with Dex here. Hubbard couldn't tolerate any "big beings" except himself. Anyone who got too big or was too well liked got the shaft.

What evidence do you see of this "circle of big beings"?
 
pineapple said:
What evidence do you see of this "circle of big beings"?
Click to expand...

originally there were certainly collaborators like Winter and Campbell.

there were also some in his circle like Sara and Robert Heinlein who i'd say were his equals -- and in some ways his betters.

later it seems to me others like Jack Horner might have fit that bill. Ray Kemp was certainly a fellow adept hypnotist and stage magician.

does that make sense, or do you differ?
 
Trump is very Big and a Being................................................................of sorts

pineapple said:
I agree with Dex here. Hubbard couldn't tolerate any "big beings" except himself. Anyone who got too big or was too well liked got the shaft.

What evidence do you see of this "circle of big beings"?
Click to expand...
 
Reyne Mayer said:
those are the sort of names i had in mind. but didn't some just get fed up and leave, only later to be vilified?
Click to expand...
Some left to get out from under Hubbard's oppressive, autocratic thumb, to be free to implement their own ideas without being overruled, rejected, and/or discredited. But in the cases of Alan Walter, John Mcmaster and David Mayo, they didn't simply choose to move on, they were harshly abused and then escaped when they could.
 
Reyne Mayer said:
originally there were certainly collaborators like Winter and Campbell.

there were also some in his circle like Sara and Robert Heinlein who i'd say were his equals -- and in some ways his betters.

later it seems to me others like Jack Horner might have fit that bill. Ray Kemp was certainly a fellow adept hypnotist and stage magician.

does that make sense, or do you differ?
Click to expand...
Winter and Campbell were collaborators, who quit because they couldn't stand Hubbard's autocratic attitude and disdain for anything resembling scientific method. Hubbard let them think they were equals until dianetics really got underway in 1950, then made it clear who was boss. Have you read "A Doctor's Report on Dianetics"?

Heinlein was never involved in dianetics. He read the book, that's about all.

Sara was married to Hubbard. If you think he ever regarded her as an equal, read what he says about the role of women in society in Science of Survival. (They're just for having babies and raising families and shouldn't be educated to do anything else.)

I think Horner and Kemp knew Hubbs was boss all along. Horner tried running his own show later, after being assigned a Condition of Enemy by Hubbard and leaving scientology.
 
pineapple said:
Sara was married to Hubbard. If you think he ever regarded her as an equal, read what he says about the role of women in society in Science of Survival.
Click to expand...

he may have said that, but i believe she's right when she said he relied on her for pretty much everything he got from Korzybski's General Semantics -- which she was something of a real student of, unlike him who she also said i think quite accurately was terrible at studying others' work -- and apparently she contributed a lot directly or indirectly to the 'Logics' in particular. he relied on her and then Mary Sue a lot, but then again maybe it fits that regardless of his actual dependence on them for things he wasn't capable of himself, he wouldn't treat them as equals -- or maybe that was partly some sort of show....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I M Dex
My Story
Replies
2
Views
872
guanoloco
guanoloco
E
Sydney AO and Org
Replies
8
Views
461
Scooter
S
Karen#1
Scientology hiding Sci-Fi film that confirms it blames victims and coddles criminals
Replies
2
Views
100
Enthetan
Enthetan
J. Swift
Hubbard’s Money Laundering: The External Account Scheme Hidden in a 1968 Scientology Newsletter
Replies
0
Views
287
J. Swift
J. Swift
HelluvaHoax!
The cringey, corrupt & criminally conniving cult could have been catastrophically worse if this had happened. . .
Replies
19
Views
954
guanoloco
guanoloco
Back
Top