From anon@squirrel.owl.de Fri Aug 21 13:32:01 1998 Path: newscene.newscene.com!novia!dca1-hub1.news.digex.net!digex!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: 21 Aug 1998 20:32:01 -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 9/13 ROUTE TO INFINITY TAPES Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology Message-ID: <501d558507d19811da4e1594847a3bc6@anonymous.poster> Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net Lines: 630 Xref: newscene.newscene.com alt.religion.scientology:515171 alt.clearing.technology:62538 FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST THE ROUTE TO INFINITY TAPES (TECH 80 LECTURES) 9/13 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 ************************************************** THERAPY SECTION OF TECHNIQUE 80: PART I A lecture given on 21 May 1952 (T80-3A "Therapy Section of 80: Clearing up overt acts, dependencies".) Tonight I would like to give you the therapy that goes along with Technique 80. So far in these lectures I've talked to you about theory. Well, this technique combines understanding with actual mechanical running. You can just take a preclear and start him with this technique, but he won't get too much out of it. He has to understand what his goal is. Now, if you take any individual or any group of people and you start to work with them and you don't tell them what you're trying to do, they don't do very well; you know, like the government does. Of course, the government doesn't know what it's trying to do. But you as the auditor should know what you're trying to do with Technique 80. You're trying to make it possible for this person to be cause on all dynamics. How high you get him up is up to you. Believe me, if you got him up to two, the second dynamic - one and two - you'd have Superman. If you got him to one, two and three and nobody else was using Technique 80, why, you very probably have - oh, I don't know - governor of the state or the president or somebody. I mean, somebody who would just sort of automatically step into that position. Don't think you're starting out here with anything light; it's not light. But oddly enough, the technique itself is almost like light processing. There isn't any heavy running of engrams, there isn't any heavy running of secondaries. You should know the techniques of thought, emotion and effort, but it's not necessary for you to get into the beginning of a heavy incident and run it through, because that's not what you're aiming for. What you're trying to do is locate the points of unresolved incident that impede a person from being, and on the other hand, impede him from not being. And, by the way, it might be a new thought to you that somebody could be impeded from not being. Well, it's quite a thought. You ever a little kid and have to brush your teeth, and so on? Well, the little kid wants to be dirty, and he is impeded from being dirty. Well, that's a perfectly good ambition; he wants to be dirty. So? All right. Here's somebody who knows very well that if he becomes a sergeant in the army he's going to lose all his friends who are privates. And so he is trying to not be a sergeant - goes up on the bulletin board anyway. Well, that's upsetting to him - very upsetting. Of course, that type of incident of which I am speaking now is very light, it's very mild, but it's almost funny, the mildness of this-lifetime incidents which impede not-beingness and beingness. It's almost funny; they're just nothing, really. If you take some preclear, he's been run over by trucks and thrown off buildings and so forth - terrific casualties have occurred to him. And incidents, heavy physical-pain incidents - they're not what's wrong with him. But here he is, he's got a bad leg and, oh, his eyesight is all bad and he feels horrible and so forth. And you say, "Well, gee, we'll have to run out all those incidents in order to make him capable of being - we'll have to run all those heavy incidents." No. This technique doesn't care about heavy incidents at all. It wants to know why these incidents are hung up in maybes, and that's all this technique wants to know. It's going to resolve those maybes. And you will find that the real maybes - the real maybes - are very light. There isn't anything very heavy about them. But the fellow has come up against something which has made him halt in a decision between two heavy incidents. Now, you take the "Handbook for Preclears". There's a Chart of Attitudes in there. Across the top of the Chart of Attitudes you have such things as "I am," "I know," "cause," "everyone," "owns everything"; and there should be two additional columns on it - "freedom" and - forgotten what the other column is. Female voice: "Win and lose." Yes, that's right: "win and lose." Very silly, I was trying to read the Chart of Attitudes and it isn't printed on there. Well, anyway, you take those top bands. Now, you take these bottom bands. If a fellow has decided finally - "I don't know," he says; "I just know not, that's all, I'm ..." or if he's decided "Well, I'm dead," that's not very aberrative. But don't get him between "I know" and "I know not." Fellow says, "I know. No, I don't, I know not. Oh, well, I think I know, but I'm not sure I know not," and he goes this way, bing, bing, bing - rrrrrr. And, you'll find one, two, three or four circumstances in the present lifetime which are sufficient to aberrate the case very thoroughly and inhibit very strongly a state of beingness for the individual. One, two, three or four or five; hardly more than that, usually just one. And it has to do with the fact he received a motion and then he tried to use the motion and then he said, "I won't use this motion." And that's the indecision. You see, that's basically the only indecision there is. "I've received a motion. Now, shall I or shall - I'm going to ... No, I won't use that motion." It's that cycle of action. "Something has happened to me here and I'm going to do something, but I'm not going to do it." And he promptly goes into a maybe. And you may think you have to take the whole case to pieces to find one of these things. The weird part of it is, is the preclear will give you everything necessary to resolve his case, usually in this technique, in the first session certainly, and certainly within three or four sessions. They'll tell you everything you need to know. The incidents are right there; they'll tell you all about them. They will no more than sit down and they'll tell you this incident. And you say to yourself, "This can't possibly be what's wrong with this case because this is too simple." And so, you take this incident and you put it aside and you say, "Well, we'll park that over here and we'll go in for something - we'll go in for blood over here." No, no. They tell you about it. But the reason you haven't picked up this incident the first moment it showed up is a very simple reason: You didn't pick up the combination of incidents. He gave you one end of the incident, and it was up to you to guess the other end of the incident. But once you know how to guess the other end of the incident, it ceases to be a riddle and becomes a very scientific problem. The preclear will always give you the wrong side. And he'll give you the side that's in view as far as he's concerned. He says, "You see this? Well, this is what's wrong with me." He'll tell you, and that isn't what's wrong with him. There's an incident down here which matches this incident, which actually is locked together solid, and it won't let this incident resolve. And here's this incident over here. And why won't it resolve? Because there's a maybe right here. Now, here's incident one. All right, this is an early incident. Now, the first thing that happens on this first incident - it's injurious, the preclear recovers from it. There was some impulse in this incident to use force or do something. There's a little unresolved decision right in that incident. Now, the next thing that happens to him that is aberrative regarding this incident may happen to him any time during the next lifetime. It can be five minutes from then, five years from then or fifty years from then. This incident could coast in just sort of a little annoying little spin sort of a thing. Every once in a while he'd kind of think about it; it wouldn't amount to anything. He'd go on being effective in life, until one day something happens. One day he says, "Here is a motion," and something confronts him about this motion. And the second he's confronted with something that requires him to use this motion, he says, "Well, here I ..." There it is - maybe. So, what's happened is he comes along here, along the track, and way up here - all of a sudden here's another incident. There's force involved in this incident one way or the other. And he says right there, "I'm wrong. I ... Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. I. . . maybe I. . . But it couldn't because it didn't; I mean, it - but, on the other hand, if I had have ..." What happens is, is this incident moves over - this one moves over - and we get them locked together. What is computation? Computation is the resolution of problems. Computation is taking the maybes out of existence. So long as you can remove maybes by the process of comparing data and get a situation which balances out yes or no, you are thinking smoothly. But the second that you get a proposition where "maybe it's yes, maybe it's no" - zong. Well, now, you see this in thought all the time. I mean, people do this with a thought - well, a person has a thought and then he has another thought and then the two thoughts are in conflict. Or he goes up and somebody tells him one thing, and then he goes over here and somebody tells him another thing. And then he gets hung up on a big maybe here in the middle, so he starts thinking about it all the time and he can't think about it all the time, so he eventually kind of goes into apathy about the whole subject. Well, that would be different. What I'm talking to you about here is force, effort - good heavy effort. There's effort in both of these incidents, effort in both of them, so that it is a maybe which is hung up with effort in it. Now, oddly enough, you will find that this effort here has a lot of locks in it; they're little locks. It's all wound up. There are a lot of maybes, maybes, maybes. In other words, this thing can wind into the whole life pattern; it could just pervade all computation. It can become compulsive, obsessive, inhibitive, all sorts of strange things. It gets to be a mess. If a man has this sort of a situation happen to him (as everyone has), he eventually - if you took a look at his brains - mind, rather - and had all of his facsimiles, it would look like an alarm clock some kid had taken apart. It's just all snarled up. Now, there's the computational view. I'll give you a - give you an example. A little kid, he's two years old. Somebody comes in and steps on him - bang. Didn't hurt him very bad, but stepped on him. He's lying on the floor. When he's twenty, the person who stepped on him jostles him a little bit and he hauls off and hits him. Two incidents, both containing physical force. It just won't work out. He shouldn't hit this other person; he knows he shouldn't hit this other person. The other person didn't do anything, they just jostled him. Well, now, from twenty on, you'll find this man worrying about this. Down in a substratum he's thinking about it all the time. But what's he tell you when you ask him as an auditor "What happened to you in your life?" Supposing this was his uncle George. And he says, "Oh, I'm a wreck because my uncle George did so many bad things to me. All he did was do bad things to me. You know, when I was a little kid I remember going into the store and I had ten cents. And he said I couldn't buy any candy. And another time I wanted to go for a ride in the car, and so on, and he kept my - he kept telling my mother that she ought to punish me. And the whole trouble with my life is George and the horrible way which he acted toward me. And I understand that when I was a little baby, why, he was awful mean and brutal to me. You start to run him, and the first incident he'll present you is Uncle George stepping on him. Is that the incident you want? No! He's not going to tell you this other incident. And the other incident is his hauling off and hitting George. And George - he's a young man of twenty by this time and his uncle George is pretty old. And yet here he is, Uncle George jostles him a little bit, restimulates this thing, and he hauls off and hits Uncle George - bang! See? "I shouldn't be hitting Uncle George, I ..." Well, Uncle George never worried him much up to that time. But to hear him talk afterwards, you'd think that Uncle George was the - well, he was the devil incarnate. This is what is known as justification - justification. He's justifying, and he justifies by presenting you with motions like this, so that he won't have to face this one. He don't want to face that one. No, that was hitting Uncle George. Oh no, no, no! Well, you ask him about it, he'll tell you about it. Maybe he's forgotten it, by the way, and maybe not. But if you ask him about it, he'll say, "Yes, well, I did. I hit Uncle George once. I hit him and I felt kind of bad about it, but that hasn't got anything to do with it." Oh, yeah? You say, "Well, it hasn't got anything to do with it, but let's run it anyway - hmm? Shall we just go through this? Just scan this, very ... ?" "Well, it hasn't got anything to do about it." "Well, how about just scanning through it just once?" "Well, I tell you, it's got nothing to do with it!" He'll get frantic after a while. And you'll finally take him by the scruff of the neck and you shove him into the front end of the incident and you run him through a few times. And finally he says, "You know, that's funny. My back hurts." "Well, what are you doing now?" you say. "Well, it's this incident. I tell you what the incident that's really wrong with me - I'm lying on the floor and Uncle George comes in and steps on me. You say, "Run hitting Uncle George." You see? You see the complete mechanical justification? He's giving you this one all the time, and all he's really trying to say to himself, and he's never even able to say this, is "I had a perfect right to hit Uncle George, because look what he did to me. The first thing that you get into when you try to stop a fight between two little kids is this: "He hit me first." Well, actually, it's as simple as that; simple as that. If you find somebody hating, snarling and writhing about somebody else, find out what they did to that person. If you find a preclear who wants to do nothing but run engrams about how horrible some member of his family is, how much he was abused by his mother and all he'll do is run these engrams about his mother: his mother did this to him, his mother did that to him, his mother did something else to him, his mother did . . . You know, you could waste a long, long time without resolving that case - lot of time you could waste. Because the fact that he's presenting you with all of these incidents and so forth - just look at that in interpersonal relationships, around in life or on the therapy couch, look at it either way, simply that he's saying, "I was justified, I was justified, I was justified, I was justified." It doesn't matter whether he says "So this teacher grabbed me by the back of the neck and slapped my face and so forth. And I was expelled from school. And this and that happened to me, and - and, boy ... Just boil it all down to this: "I'm justified, I'm justified, I'm justified." And it's your job as an auditor to find out just this datum as your opening wedge in 80, just this datum: justified in doing what? Now, it may take an E-Meter to find it. Actually, they have a tendency to sort of look at an E-Meter and they say, "All right, I'll take hold of the cans" - sort of like "Let's make a little pact here, that you don't ask me any of these questions that are really hot." And you say, "Well, now, let's see. What happened to you?" and so forth. And he says, "Well, so, my younger brother kept hitting me over the head with a brickbat and he hit me over the head with a hammer and did this and he did that and did this and did that." "Come on," you say, "now what did you do to your younger brother?" "Nothing." The needle will go wheww! And you say, "Well, now, you're sure you never did anything to him?" "Oh no, no, no, no." Whewww! You say, "Well now, what about it? Can't you just give us just a little inkling, maybe?" "No. Hah. Well, of course, there was that business about the kiddie car, but that - that was nothing, that was nothing." "Well, what did happen?" "Well, I ... Well, I don't know. You see, I was never sure - my mother said I was, but I - I was never sure that I did knock him off of the kiddie car." "Knocked him off of what kiddie car?" "Well, little kiddie car down the street that I brought in. And, of course, it fractured his skull and he was in the hospital for about six months, and he's never been quite right since. But ... Now, you'll get this type of interplay in any case and it follows some very, very definite rules. It follows some very definite rules. Any time a person is protesting about a motion having happened to him - and this is a hard and fast rule, by the way: Any time a person is protesting about a motion that has happened to him, you can be assured that he has tried to use this motion and has hung himself up in a maybe, or he is merely telling you about a lock on that situation. One or the other. Now, any time he gets one of these computational things that won't resolve, his mind is neither peaceful nor clear and his beingness is impeded on all fronts. You can be sure that if he's protesting about any motion of any kind - that something that's happened to him, if he's protesting about that motion - or actually if he's protesting about any motion on any dynamic violently, you know very well that he's guilty as sin of having tried to use that motion and found out it was the wrong motion to use. In processing a case, if you will follow that thing through, you will see a case start to fall apart in front of you. I dare say there are people who have run for a couple of hundred hours - as much as that, maybe; maybe many more. Nearly all the auditing was merely their justification. They were just running justification, justification, justification. And they're not going to run out of justification - as long as you leave untapped - the incident that they are trying to justify. So, "What are you trying to justify?" You know the religious world tells you "Repent, ye sinners." They tell you, "You're all sinners." And everybody says, "Yup, yup, we're sinners all right. It's a good thing the fellow up there on the altar doesn't just know how much." But what's sin? Well, they seldom bother to explain that; they make a big plaque or something of the sort and they say, "Sin is one, two (not putting a dollar in the collection plate), sin," down the line, they give you a nice long list of sins. Well, there's no reason to list it. A sin is misusing a counter-effort you have received. That's all a sin is. Because every time you do, badly, it'll wind you up in this squirrel-up. It makes computation, then, very difficult, very difficult, because everything a person is thinking goes over and under and around this and so forth. You remember the cartoons of Rube Goldberg about the little man takes off his hat which knocks lever which throws basketball and so forth? Well, that's the kind of diagram you'd have to draw to get somebody's thinking apparatus if he's got one of these things badly in view. Now, that's the first thing for you to remember on this. Actually, it's an overt-act proposition, and you know about overt acts. If you refuse to commit an overt act, or if you commit one and are very sorry for it, you will then be unable to remain yourself, but will do, to some degree, a life continuum for the thing you hit. You say, "Bang! I regret it." That means that you go right around here, and that is not beingriess on other dynamics; that is being an effect, not a cause. There's two ways that this sort of overt act happens to you. One, you're cause and you go along and you're just fine. And you receive a motion of some sort or other, and you've got that back here, and you've never worried about this motion before. But you're being cause. And one day you decide to be cause with violence, so you pick up this motion and you go wham! with it. But just as it's going, you say, "Snnnff!" but it's too late. And you spend the next thirty, fifty or five thousand years trying to pull back this instant of time, which keeps you there on the time track. Well, therefore, the first entrance into a case with Technique 80 is simply to find out what the fellow is protesting about. And then, of course, "methinks the preclear doth protest too much." And what you get is a justification and you turn that around and find the overt act. Then run the overt act out and you'll find out you don't have to exhaust this thing very much; you just run it just a little bit and it'll unbalance. He'll try to run the earlier one, then try to run the later one and so on; they're all snarled up. You've got a perfect picture of a person trying to run an incident. He's going around and around, first in one, then in the other, first in one, then in the other. They're usually almost to the character of locks. It'll blow; it'll blow. Now, there's another reason why a person will protest: if somebody has tried one way or the other to make him an effect, and this person has worked on him to make him an effect, make him an effect, make him an effect - by being nice to him. And they've practically taken over his whole anatomy just by being nice to him. And eventually he'll get to the point where he'll realize that he no longer owns himself. The ownership of self has moved out from underneath him, and so at this time he says, "I'm just tired of this," so he'll begin to say that this person who is doing nice things for him is doing bad things for him. And there's a big maybe. He's gotten to the point where he realizes that all of these nice things, these nice things, these nice things, for him and his hands and his stomach and his clothes and his time and so on - somebody is being so nice to him. You can't protest against that; I mean, it's just something you can't protest against. And the guy will finally, if he's ever going to save himself, he suddenly - he suddenly hauls off and says, "Oh, you're hurting me, you're injuring me," and he'll try to do something to the person or do something to himself. And he'll get hung up in that maybe. And that is another kind of a maybe: the protest against nice things. There's the fellow's protest against himself of having slugged, hurt, injured, with thought, emotion or effort - some other being (you know, overt act), which hangs him up in a maybe. But you're only interested in the maybe characteristic of that, you see. He's hung up in a maybe by doing this overt act or his thought of doing it or an emotion that is overt, or a real effort that's overt. He's hung up in that line or he's hung up over here on a dependency line. He's been made very dependent, very dependent. Continually in this society, you'll find a sixteen, seventeen, eighteen year - old kid is in a high state of revolt. "Papa, Mama - they're no good anymore; they're old-fashioned. They can't understand. They wouldn't be able to understand a woman of the world" (or a man of the world, as the case may be). "They don't have a person's best interests ..." All they're - all the kid is trying to do there in his teens is simply break this: "You're helping me, you're helping me, you're helping me. I've got to do something about it because I'm getting owned, owned, owned. And I don't own myself anymore. And I'm getting worried about it, so I've got to protest, and I'll find anything to protest against." And the kid, at that stage, will have the doggonedest things wrong with his parents. Oh, he just has terrific numbers of things. The parents have done this and done that, and done this and that to him. And actually, what he can't face is the fact that his mother fed him every day. One preclear had a very bad set of teeth, and the bad set of teeth was just in protest of having been fed very well, very long. He knew his mother was tired. His mother would cook special things for him. He'd plead with his mother not to. And his mother would cook special things for him and so forth, and he'd eat them and so forth. And he finally got down to a point where he didn't want to have anything more to do with this, so he got bad teeth. And all of his toothaches went by the boards the second this computation was clipped. Interesting, isn't it? In other words, you can have suffered any quantity of damage. Actually, personally, you can have suffered any quantity of damage without having anything very bad take place - just damage, as far as damage is concerned. The engram that hangs up is the engram you tried to use and couldn't use and restrained yourself from using; you hung yourself up with it - or somebody was too nice to you too long. And by the way, if any of you have ever had the experience of trying to help somebody else, you know that it invariably backfires. Sooner or later, sooner or later in trying to help somebody you'll wind up with a backfire. Hm? Female voice: I don't agree with you. Oh, it'll work out in the long run. Well, I tell you, whenever you find a preclear whose mom and pop are "no good," suspect then one of two things: They've been very nice to him or he's done an overt act against them. Those are the two things you suspect. Now, isn't that strange? Doesn't it sound to you, as I tell you that, irrational? It's perfectly rational, but doesn't it sound to you irrational that a person would get to a point of where he will tell you "My father beat me every day" (his father never laid a hand on him)? "My father beat me every day, and this happened and that happened and other things happened," and so on. Not a word of truth in it. What did happen: his father was too nice to him too long. Because, you see, there's a way of being nice to people which actually is a very insidious way of taking them over. You know, you just interrupt their initiative enough so that they keep getting grooved along your will. It actually is a nice impulse; there isn't anything mean about it really, but it ruins the self-determination of the person to whom it is done. And that is what they're protesting against. They no longer are owned by themselves but owned by somebody else. (continued in part 10/13)