From anon@squirrel.owl.de Tue Aug 25 10:08:10 1998 Path: newscene.newscene.com!novia!news.idt.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.alt.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news Date: 25 Aug 1998 17:08:10 -0000 From: Secret Squirrel Comments: Please report problems with this automated remailing service to . The message sender's identity is unknown, unlogged, and not replyable. Subject: FZ BIBLE 7/13 ROUTE TO INFINITY TAPES repost Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology Message-ID: <3fd67f2d94ea56a40cb3514fb4d752c2@anonymous.poster> Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net Lines: 534 Xref: newscene.newscene.com alt.religion.scientology:516586 alt.clearing.technology:62763 (sorry, very bad propogation in the remailers, & long chains so things hit days apart at random) FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST THE ROUTE TO INFINITY TAPES (TECH 80 LECTURES) 7/13 Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet. The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists. It misuses the copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom. The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings of Judiasm form the Old Testament of Christianity. We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against. But the Christians are not good and obedient Jews and yet are allowed to have their old testament regardless of any Jewish opinion. We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists. We ask for others to help in our fight. Even if you do not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose to aid us for that reason. Thank You, The FZ Bible Association ************************************************** ( 20 May 52 DECISION, continued from part 6/13) Now, in interpersonal relations your problem is simply this: the problem of other people's decisions. That actually is the core of interpersonal relations. These people, by being certain things, become very antipathetic to your survival and happiness. By deciding not to be certain things, they become helpful to your survival. And again, by deciding to be certain things they become helpful, and deciding not to be certain things they become very unhelpful. You see how that would be, then? You're continually faced with people's decisions. Now, there is why individuals who are low on the tone scale are so very hard to be around: It's this decision scale more than anything else. I told you last night that ARC - affinity, reality and communication - add up to computation. They are understanding. The three together will actually make mathematics. They are computation; they are understanding; they are a gradient scale of knowingness. A, R, C. So ARC would also be beingness, wouldn't it? As you go up the line on ARC, you get into beingriess. And therefore, clear-cut ARC resolves into decision. And this is a tone scale, again, of ARC and decision. So that you get your A, your R and your C: Here we have "to be," decisions can be effected, so forth, and we have affinity. Well, believe me, when a person is up there on the tone scale, they decide "to be" on an affinity level, it's really a big "to be." Affinity. They just - wheeoww! On agreement, remember that they're cause or they are in parity with other people who are capable of being cause. You start agreeing with people who are way up there to the top of the tone scale and you're not going to be in bad shape, you'll be in good shape. You start agreeing with somebody down here, you're agreeing with fear so that fear becomes reality. And if you start agreeing with "not to be" - down, not to live, not to act well and so forth - done yourself a very, very bad trick. This is sympathy right in here in this band. You've agreed that it's all right not to be. You say, "Poor fellow. Poor fellow. It's all right not to be," and the only thing wrong with that is, is you've gone into agreement too low on the tone scale, which is sympathy. All right. Now, as far as communication is concerned, believe me, it's relatively easy to communicate with somebody who is way up at the top of the tone scale. It is very simple to do that. In the first place, anybody up that high, theoretically, is not communicating to any large degree through MEST. The person is actually communicating very, very straight, and it's pretty easy to hook up to. As a matter of fact, when that is hooked up to on a communication level, it has a deaberrative effect upon the individual. Down here when communication is hooked up to, it has an aberrative effect, because they'll start throwing you maybes and so forth. There is ARC on the basis of decision. Practically all that is really wrong with any preclear is basically, if he's in bad shape, he's decided to be the things he shouldn't be, or he's decided not to be the things he should be. This isn't too bad. Might have said that a little bit wrong. I mean, you know lots of people who seem to be getting along fine, and, gee, they've decided to be the damndest things. And you know people that are getting along fine who have decided not to be, perfectly ... Some fellow, he decided not to be a millionaire. See? That's what he decided. That's all right - that's what he decided. Of course, you won't go into very close agreement with him if you think the thing to be is a millionaire. But that's just a - just a matter of decision. What's wrong here is the person who - "Am I gonna be a millionaire, not gonna be a millionaire? Is it good to be a millionaire? No, millionaires get into danger every once in a while; I'm not to be a millionaire. Well, the communists are liable to shoot us, so therefore it's better not to be . . . Now, that isn't good enough. We're - not got any communism over here. I mean, the thing to do is - well, it's awful hard to make a million dollars. But then on the other hand, I might make a million dollars, and I might marry a girl that had a million dollars. Well, it's a ..." Well, the way they get from there on down the tone scale is in terms of maybes. Br-r-r, br-r-r, brr. And they keep hanging up here, hanging up here. Timelessness sets in. Any preclear that's very aberrated has a bad case of timelessness. And the way to resolve timelessness is to resolve decision, and it's the easiest way to get at it I know. The way he got timeless is getting a motion and then not using the motion. He's unwilling to use this motion. He says, "Oh, that motion's very, very bad. Very, very, very bad motion. I can't use that motion!" He can't even change that motion. You can't - that's, by the way, what they call sublimation (just a hobson-jobson back into an old cult they used to have). Sublimation is the alteration of a motion into another kind of a motion - very simple. All right. The motion comes in, he won't use it, bluntly. He says, "No!" Well, you know that's not so bad. It'll hang him up with one. That's not so bad, because he still at least said no. But the example I gave you a little while ago: the fellow gets hit in the jaw, and then a few weeks or lives or something later he says, "Oh, he will, will he? Well ... " He's called the facsimile up and then hasn't used it. He said, "It's all right to use it. No, it isn't all right to use it. W-h-o-o-a!" And there it'll sit. And he'll say, "I wonder what I do with this. Well, won't go out there, won't go out there. I think I'd better go see a dentist." That's what will happen to him, because it's an unwillingness to decide on that. He can say no and somewhat get away with it. "I've got this motion. Now I'm not going to use it at all. No, it's just bad and I'm not going to use it. I got my head cut off in the last life and I'm not going around and cut off people's heads, and that's all there is to it!" That's not so bad. But if he comes around and he says, "I got my head cut off in the last life and . . . Look how sharp that butcher knife is. Huh. No. Ha-ha. No. Yes. No. Yes." And you'll find people running around who say, "You know, I have the awfullest time. I get near the edge of high buildings and I just want to jump off, but ... " You know? So he jumped off a high building some time or other, or somebody threw him off a high building, and he's called this up. He said, "I think I'll throw him off the building." Here's somebody else - "I'll throw Og over the cliff." Somebody threw him over a cliff once, so he sees Og standing in the middle of a cliff. He doesn't like Og; Og makes eyes at his cave girl or something of the sort. So he says, "I'll go throw Og off the edge of the cliff. No. No. No, I shouldn't do that. They passed this law in the tribe a while ago, and besides he's carrying a club with a spike on it. And if he turned around and saw me I might get hit with the spike. No, I'd better do it, though, because. . . No, I better not do it because if I - and somebody'd find out . . ." Believe me, after that, every time he goes near a cliff edge . . . Yeah. Is he? Should he? It's funny, but he keeps getting the idea he wants to jump off! Well, that's silly, because it'd kill him. So he'll sit around the cave instead of going out hunting; he'll get lean, he'll get thin and become declasse' in the tribe, and be pointed out by the tribe elders to the little children as the thing not to be. And there he is. Because every time he walks out of the cave and every time he sits down in the cave and anyplace else, he's worrying about this cliff edge. That's how people get obsessions. That's how they get inhibitions, so forth. If you want to be utterly uninhibited, I'm afraid you would have to use every motion that you can tap - not have to use it but have to be willing to use it. In other words, no inhibitions of any kind. But, believe me, you've got to be pretty well up the tone scale before you start using these things, because people object. People object. Particularly when you think of the number of facsimiles which you have and what kind of facsimiles they are and some of the things that have happened to you. Now, if you turn around and think "Gee, I - would I have to be able and willing to use any one of those, to be completely uninhibited?" But you don't even have to worry about that; you can be inhibited and still not have a body. All right, the point is, in comes the motion. If you say, "This motion I will not necessarily hold in reserve, but I will classify: 'This motion is not to be used.'" In comes a motion: "I'll use this motion." In comes another motion, not to be used: "I consider this bad. I'm not going to use it." You know what's very interesting about reform motions: Old lady by the name of Carry Nation one time bought a hatchet. It was an unfortunate day for the saloon keepers of America. And she went around and there was a lot of talk about bills of rights and suffrage and all sorts of things, but it started, more or less, with that hatchet. I want to tell you something about Carry. When she was younger, she used to go down in the basement and tipple. I wouldn't like to have that known, but that's the horrible truth of the matter. Beware of these people who come around and say, "Now, actually, we've all got to get absolutely down, wipe out, murder, stamp out and kill and throw to the lions, wolves or anything else that we can find to throw them to, the Z class of the society." Not necessarily beware of them but just know right that moment that they've taken a motion from that Z class and they've said, "Shall I? No, I better not." And then all of a sudden they say, "That maybe; that's what's driving me mad, that maybe. That's what's making me 'not to be' or 'to be' and so forth and I must do something about this maybe. And it's this maybe that's doing it. It's this maybe, I say!" And picks up the hatchet, you see, and goes to work on the saloon keepers - pardon me, it was the bottles. I'm going to give you a little bit more about decision, just a little bit more. In interpersonal relations, you will notice that when you have a person agreeing on a decision, you will get action. If a person agrees on a decision, you will get action if it's an action decision, and if it's a "not to be" or an inaction decision, you will also get the inaction. In other words, you get what you want by bringing to pass an agreement. This is very, very important in interpersonal relations and is actually the one problem of interpersonal relations. You'll find all arguments are based upon an inability to agree. You will find that all friction which occurs between an individual and a group, an individual and another individual, or a group and a group, is simply on this basis of disagreement. And this disagreement comes about because of a divergence of decision. Now, decision is very difficult, sometime, to reach. But this is one of these hidden things, actually, in an argument. You are arguing with somebody. If you will isolate out of the argument the decisions for action or inaction - you see, a decision can be for action or a decision can be for inaction - and if you have selected out the action and inaction decisions which you want effected, the argumentation will be minimal, because you have clarified the problem of interpersonal relations before you have tried to practice interpersonal relations on this problem. You've clarified the problem. "Exactly what do I want this person to do?" or "Exactly what do I want this person not to do?" And from there you base your arguments. Now, if it comes to a pass where it's very important whether or not this person acts or inacts as you wish, in interpersonal relations one of the dirtier tricks is to hang the person up on a maybe and create a confusion. And then create the confusion to the degree that your decision actually is implanted hypnotically. The way you do this is very simple. When the person advances an argument against your decision, you never confront his argument but confront the premise on which his argument is based. That is the rule. He says, "But my professor always said that water boiled at 212 degrees." You say, "Your professor of what?" "My professor of physics." "What school? How did he know?" Completely off track! You're no longer arguing about whether or not water boils at 212 degrees, but you're arguing about professors. And he will become very annoyed, but he won't know quite what he is annoyed about. You can do this so adroitly and so artfully that you can actually produce a confusion of the depth of hypnosis. The person simply goes down tone scale to a point where they're not sure of their own name. And at that point you say, "Now, you do agree to go out and draw the water out of the well, don't you?" "Yes-anything!" And he'll go out and draw the water out of the well. The introduction of decision is also the end and object of war. It is an unsuccessful war which is fought without that. Any war fought without that as an object or an end is an unsuccessful war. Really, there isn't too much wrong with war, but there's a great deal wrong with waging war with no end in view. So that's just enMEST. Clausewitz, in his great treatise back in umpteen-umpde-umph, has something to say about war being a method of persuading the cooperation and more closely allied views on the part of some other country, said persuasion being by force of arms. That is not exactly the way he stated it; but he used a paragraph about that long. Anyway, force of arms is what you use in order to make a decision take place. Now, this country goes out and anchors all of its battleships in Pearl Harbor, you see, and says, "Well, there we are." They made no decision about the war. And we fought a war from 1941 to 1945. And the end product of that war was national apathy and near economic collapse. The youth of this country today have no feeling whatsoever for any further action along any line. You take your eighteen-year-old boy today: no goal. If he starts out in any line, the army is going to get him. If the army is going to get him, that's just silly. That's going to be silliness and so forth, so he's just in apathy about the whole thing. There's no cause ther