From anon@squirrel.owl.de Tue Aug 25 09:52:06 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 16:52:06 -0000

From: Secret Squirrel <anon@squirrel.owl.de>

Comments: Please report problems with this automated remailing service

	to <postmaster@squirrel.owl.de>. The message sender's identity

	is unknown, unlogged, and not replyable.

Subject: FZ BIBLE 10/13 ROUTE TO INFINITY TAPES repost

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology

Message-ID: <18be8382355f7ebbeef1bc0b7d5d736c@anonymous.poster>

Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net

Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net

Lines: 583

Xref: newscene.newscene.com alt.religion.scientology:516566 alt.clearing.technology:62758



(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) 10/13



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



**************************************************



(21 May 52 THERAPY SECTION OF 80: PART I, continued from part 9/13)



In either case, a person will become owned by somebody else

- in either case. In other words, if you injure a dynamic

badly, you have a definite commitment with yourself to

continue the existence of that dynamic. That's the overt

act, that's life continuum, of which we already know.



All right, life continuum, the overt act, is simply your

moving out of yourself, your disownment of yourself. And

you go over and try to be this dynamic and say, "I'm awful

sorry, dynamic, I didn't mean to do that. I will be you."

"You bum over there," - that's you, see that? You just change

it completely. And that's a very bad situation. Or the

fellow just works so that people are nice to him and nice

to him and nice to him; he'll finally blow up in their

faces. And then he says, "I'm awful ashamed for having

blown up and I realize I don't have any cause to blow up,

and, gee, you've been nice to me all this time so there

must be some reason why I'm mad." And what he doesn't

realize is that he is being owned, little piece by little

piece, first his left finger and his right finger and his

left foot and his right ear, until he's all owned over

here. And he doesn't like that, and that's what he's

blowing up against. His lack of comprehension of it winds

up in a computational snarl like that. All right.



Now, the reason why it is very, very nice to resolve this

very early in the case in Technique 80 is because the case

will play all sorts of tricks on you with the additional

technique, unless you resolve the overt act and the protest

against dependency.



You could say, then, that there's an overt act and a

dependency - those two things. If you resolve those (very

easy to resolve, they're right there in sight; it doesn't

take long), you're then free to get on the road, because

for the first time you're processing the preclear's first

dynamic. Unless you get these overt acts and these

dependencies out of the road, what you're trying to process

with Technique 80 will be somebody else.



And that's very disappointing; you've got a preclear there

on the couch and you're processing this preclear and you

want this preclear to own himself and then finally get out

along the line of the rest of the dynamics. And this is all

going to be fine, except you worked for fifty, sixty, seventy,

eighty, ninety, a hundred hours and all this time you've

been processing Grandma. Well, all you've done is

rehabilitate the valence of Grandma's ownership of the

preclear. Well, that isn't getting anyplace.



So it's up to you to resolve the overt act and the

dependency problems on the case. And then, for the first

time, you've got him enough inside one so that he can carry

on from there. And having gotten him that far inside one,

you go on to give him possession of the actual physical

facts of his own organism.



The end in view, of course, actually is continually

interrupted by new overt acts and new dependencies showing

up every time you go out to the new dynamic - the next

dynamic, see? So here you are with your preclear and you

just get along fine. You get his overt acts and his

dependencies very beautifully resolved, and you've got that

all nicely resolved, and now we're going into the second

dynamic.



Now you'll find out that there's new overt acts and new

dependencies on the second dynamic. And now you've got to

resolve those again, but they again are very easy to

resolve.



Why doesn't he like children? Why is he terribly

over-anxiously concerned about children? - whichever way it

is. There'll be an overt act or a dependency involving this

"maybe" computation. And you find out he doesn't like

children. All right, he doesn't like children. (By the way,

an E-Meter really speeds this thing up.) You say, "Do you

like boys?"



"No."



"You don't like boys?"



"No, I don't like boys, no. No, particularly little boys.

They ... they're bad, they're bad."



"All right, what did you do to one?"



"Oh, I didn't do anything to one. Oh no, no, no, no, no. Of

course, except that ... Well, I ... I like children."



And you say, "Come on, what did you do?"



"Oh, well, it wasn't anything really. It was at this tea

party. I mean, this little girl was having this tea party,

and - yeah, I was invited over there and it was a hot -

well, anyway, I dumped his head in the punch bowl, and he

got a bad cut in the head."



All right, run it out. I mean, it's one of these "big,

major incidents." And all of a sudden, you'll find out that

he - little boys are little boys. And just carry it along

like that.



You'll sometimes find a dependency on a children level. He

feels utterly dependent on children. This is a great one,

but it's a very simple one. It's usually, a child - as a

child, this preclear was taken care of by older children

and he's never noted the fact that those children are no

longer children now but have grown up. So he's sort of hung

there as dependent upon all these kids taking care of him.



And they tuck him in, you see, and they help him to walk

and they show him how to run a tricycle, and they do this

and they do that and eventually he says, "I'm not going to

be owned like this anymore!" And he flares up and says,

"You're hurting me." And you'll sometimes resolve the

dependency one by finding that it lead into an overt act.



He went in and said to Mama, "She hit me." No, she didn't,

but he said so. He'll go in and make up all sorts of

stories to protest. So let's get the protest off, then, on

the second dynamic.



Now, we take - of course, women for men and men for women 

come in on the second dynamic. Well, you get a very special 

kind of interpersonal relation and a very special kind of overt

act - very special, highly specialized - when it comes between

a man and a woman who are sexual partners. Procreation in

this society is practically an overt act in itself. Boy,

that's bad. So you just resolve a few overt acts along that

line.



By the way, you find out that very often they're not very

violent, what you're running into, so that you can clear up

this dynamic so that you can practice the second part of

the technique on that dynamic. Because this is just the

half of the technique I'm telling you about here - that's

clearing up overt acts and dependencies. You'll find out

that they're quite simple to resolve. Something happened to

him and he tried to make it happen to somebody else and

then he stopped himself from making it happen to somebody

else, and he said, "Bang!"



So he's hung up with that, and on the second dynamic those

can be very interesting.



On the third dynamic, of course, we have the same sort of a

situation. Very often his first concepts of a group are in

childhood. Why Freud had to stress childhood to the degree

that he stressed, I do not know, unless he was hung up

there on the track. But he did completely overstress it,

because when you think of all the childhoods that you can

have, all the adulthoods you've had and all the other

experiences you've had, this little section - childhood -

isn't very bad.



But you know something about childhood? It's occluded on

most people; it disappears from view. And man has an

instinctive curiosity, that when something gets buried or

hidden from view, he's like a hound dog, he's got to root

down there and find it. Whatever it is, he thinks it's

there. Well, very often it is there, but quite as often it

isn't.



The reason childhood gets barred from view, by the way, is

a very simple one: everybody owned you and you didn't own

yourself, so therefore you don't own your memories. And

these memories just sort of disappear along with the rest

of you. And your childhood is full of overt acts and full

of dependencies, both ways.



Very often you can spring a whole childhood into view by

merely solving a couple of little minor overt acts that

happened in childhood.



I remark one of about a five-year-old girl. She kicked her

mother in the stomach, gave her mother a bad stomach ache,

and there went childhood. Gone, right there. She just - "Poor

Mama," and so on, and she just buried all that. Big overt

act. Blew this one into view, and so forth, there came

childhood. There it was, all lying out perfectly arranged 

in order.



Gives you just exactly the mechanism of how things get

buried from view - just exactly. And that is the mechanism

of how they get buried from view, too.



All right. You go out to the third dynamic, you'll find out

that in a gang of kids, in a classroom, something or other,

this preclear of yours has done a betrayal - an outright

betrayal - one way or the other, of a group, or has hurt the

group or has been very villainous on the subject one way or

the other, or later on has become so entirely dependent

upon the group that he hates the group.



And you realize with that, that we've moved right straight

into the modern economic system?



Why do people hate people? As far as the third dynamic is

concerned it seems inevitable that they would, because the

dependency of each on the group has been magnified to be so

great. Oh, everybody teaches the kids this, they teach you

this, they tell you this all the time: "You're dependent on

the group, you're dependent on this social culture, you're 

dependent on this economic system, you're dependent on it." 

And then they never bother to tell you that this economic 

system, without you as individuals, wouldn't mote... - it 

just wouldn't function.



At this tone level of the society, they have a little sign

they like to hang up in stores: "If you think you're so

necessary to existence, go on down to the cemetery and take

a look; they thought they were too." You know, cute. In

other words, they say, "Here's this group, this mighty

group here; it's all - important and you're not important 

in it."



If you don't believe this is what happens, look at the

number of votes that get turned in, in a presidential

election. Probably very few people here tonight believe

that their vote is very important in a presidential

election. You say, "Well, that's just one little vote, and

it doesn't amount to anything." Oh yes, it does.



Far as the fourth dynamic is concerned, you get some very,

very interesting overt acts and some very, very interesting

dependencies.



A man fares better because he's a man, because the rest of

man helps him. But every degradation of man, as a form,

actually lies on the fourth dynamic.



Every time a person himself acts badly, unethically,

degrading himself in some fashion, or is degraded, he has

immediately the sensation that he is degrading the whole

race.



Think of what war does, by the way, on that. Here are the

bodies - because the fourth dynamic, as far as we're

concerned as we go up these dynamics (we're on Technique

80, which has to do with bodies) - and on the fourth dynamic,

out on the battlefield, they throw the corpses around with

a wild abandon. Anybody who has been through a war comes

out the other end feeling a little bit degraded.



Natural. In the first place, he's lived like a dog; in the

second place, he's committed overt acts against other

groups, which are antipathetic to the fourth; but most

important of all this, he has acted, himself, disgracefully

so as to degrade the form and the physical being of man.

And that, all by itself, is probably your strongest level.

You would say automatically that, well, you don't think

very many people would have offenses against the fourth

dynamic. Oh yes, every single time you've not acted with a

high level of ethic and pride of race and have yourself

deteriorated in any degree or become less, you recognize

that you were offending on the fourth dynamic. Because you

have a certain face to keep as far as the fourth dynamic is

concerned, and you consider it a very sacred trust. So look

for those degradation points. They are what are important

on the fourth dynamic.



Far as the fifth dynamic is concerned, that's very easy.

Again you get the overt act and the dependency. There's a

lot of dependency on animals but we don't seem to mind it.

We don't seem to mind it too much. Where we get it is the

overt act.



Now, a person can get so bad - a person can get so bad, so

wicked, so... so ... just mean - that they eventually come

to a point where they are utterly, mawkishly, stupidly

saccharine about animals. But that's the cycle.



You see somebody who is super saccharine on the subject of

animals or a type of animal and so on: "What did you do,

fellow? What did you do?" Because his sympathy for all

those animals, and this and that and so forth, is his

protest that he hasn't done anything to them. "Here's this

nice kitty. I haven't done anything to cats; look how nice

I treat this cat here. I haven't done anything to cats. You

see, the cat likes me. Well, I haven't done anything to

cats. You know, men are no good, but cats are all right."



Well, the truth of the matter is, every time you get this

pushed way over - the sympathy on the line - find out what

he did to a cat.



And it's a little act, it won't amount to much, it'll blow

rather rapidly. But, boy, will you have trouble getting him

to run it.



Now, the thing he did to the cat unfortunately has to be

preceded by something a cat did to him to really be a bad

louse-up. But usually what the cat did to him was somewhat

accidental - didn't amount to much - and he took it out on a

cat but that was wrong to take it out on the cat, so he

hangs up in a big maybe.



As far as the sixth dynamic is concerned, our concepts of

MEST (matter, energy, space and time) do not allow us to

recognize what a good, solid overt act against MEST can be.



We build cars that are guaranteed to last upwards to two

years. We build houses - well, they'll be all right in

fifteen. Oddly enough, we build skyscrapers - fine, proud, 

sweeping skyscrapers - and they're designed on the engineering 

blueprints to last twenty-five years.



We're really temporary. Maybe you didn't know that.



What fools them is the Flatiron Building is still there and

so is the Woolworth Building. They were built to last a

little bit longer. But the Chrysler Building - in another

fifteen years, watch out. Somebody will have to go in there

with skyhooks and pick that thing up, because it's not -

you know, the marble facing on it is about that thick. They

got a real thin saw and made real thin slabs, and they

glued them on it. Great stuff.



Well, this temporariness permits a deterioration of MEST.

Actually, have you ever noticed how a Negro, in particular,

down south, where they're pretty close to the soil,

personifies MEST? The gatepost and the wagon and the whip

and anything around there-a hat. They talk to them, you

know? "What'sa mattuh wi' you, hat?" They imbue them with

personality. Well, you don't do that very much anymore,

because as you go down tone scale you don't do this.

Because, actually, all that MEST is, really-you might

consider it in the same range and the same band as solid

thought. But it's, by aesthetics and other things, molded

up by man into being what it is.



And an overt act against MEST: you're going to find that

people will treat their MEST very, very badly - very often

treat their MEST very, very badly. Car: Well, they go on

driving it and driving it and driving it. It knocks and it

spits and it snarls and sniffs and jumps, and they just go

on driving it, although they really know that if they don't

get a little thing fixed on that car that the next thing

you know the car is going to start getting a pyramid of

things happening to it.



Well, this again will give you an oddity; they have a

dependency incident or an overt-act incident - one, two,

three, four, five incidents - on the subject of MEST when

they do that. And they've got this one on the sixth

dynamic.



Now, you say, how would you possibly make an overt act 

against MEST?



Nothing easier. You could have them way back or just recent

and so forth. You know that wrecking a car is a heck of an

overt act against a car.



And you say, "Well, I shouldn't have done that," and so

forth. But you say very often, "Well, it wasn't a very good

car anyway and the insurance will pay for it. I don't want

to look at this car. Yeah, well, it's just a car. Doesn't

matter." Well, a boy has to get pretty bad off if he gets

to a point where he says "Well, this car ..." Little while

before that, he liked it. But now he's got to demonstrate

that, well, it didn't amount to much, so the overt act

can't be very much.



Compare that with your feeling of possessions when you were

maybe three, four or five years of age.



What we should have used childhood for, in researching in

the field of psychotherapy, was to find out how good things

could be, not how bad they can be. And if you find a child: 

a possession, an object, a piece of MEST - they personify it, 

they take care of it. Of course, they are very forgetful; 

they leave the doll out in the rain and so forth once in a 

while, but actually they don't do it on purpose until they're 

taught to - until somebody takes their MEST away from them.



The little kid, at first, he doesn't pay too much attention

to MEST, he's not very careful about it, but when he has it

he likes it. Well, you're not supposed to be too careful

about it, but when you have it you like it. And if you like

it a lot, well, you kind of take care of it and you keep

taking the rag doll to bed, and you take this and that and

so on.



Then all of a sudden somebody comes along and says, "Dear, 

put your doll away."



"Don't wanna."



"Go on, put your doll away."



"Why?"



"Well, if you don't, I'll beat the hell out of you!" (They

don't say that.) Well, after that has happened a few times,

you see, the child has the idea that it no longer owns this

doll, and has moved away from beingness as a doll. So it

won't take care of the doll.



And at first, a little kid is delighted with clothes. "Oh

gee, clothes." Gets them dirty, not too careful of them,

but clothes, gee. Nice frills, ribbons - little girl, you

know? Little boy, you give him a Confederate hat, put it on

his head, something like that - boy, that's really

something. He really likes that.



All right, what happens to him later on? Why does he sort

of get a strange idea about hats and frills?



"Dear, why don't you brush your shoes? Take care of your

shoes." "Don't walk through the mud puddle." "Don't get

anything on your pants." "When you're eating at the table,

don't spill things upon your shirt. Mother has to work and

slave and wash and wash and work her fingers to the bone so

that you can stay clean."



And after a while - and after a while the kid's convinced

that he doesn't own any of these clothes. They're not his,

so he moves out of the beingness of clothes.



Of course, before he's very old in this aberrated society,

he will have moved out of the beingness all the way down

the dynamics including his clothes and his own skin. Now,

you see, there's the reverse process. Now we're trying to

take him and put him back in his own skin and then give him

back these things. Well, you go on up the line.



Overt acts against the seventh dynamic are much easier than

you suppose - much easier than you suppose. Because,

actually, it's an overt act against aesthetics, which is

the key on the seventh dynamic. There's where it shows up

mainly, because aesthetics are mainly manifested on the

seventh dynamic. And so you get this way up the line there,

aesthetics.



You've all had your aesthetic values and interests and so

on pushed around pretty badly. But there's a dependency and

there's an overt act on the seventh dynamic - aesthetics -

that you should hit. There's nearly always one there. If the

beauty of the world has disappeared for somebody, and he

keeps saying so and he keeps saying so, find out where he

killed it for somebody else.



And you find that lock and his beauty will turn on again.

And I don't know anything else that will turn it on. In

other words, if the world is not beautiful to him anymore,

find out where he killed it for somebody else.



That is a very, very nice way to get into the seventh

dynamic. There are other things on the seventh dynamic if

you've been fooling around with mysticism.



And then we get to God. Well, now, I haven't had any 

conversations lately in that department. I always more or 

less ran on the theory that you couldn't do much injury 

to something that was that big and that vast, but you sure 

can injure yourself in doing something to it. And here 

again we have the two facets: overt act and dependency. 

That person who has gone on being dependent on the subject 

of the eighth dynamic, of course, he gets to a point 

where he finally says, "There is none! I'm not going to 

have anything more to do with it. No. No, no. Anything 

that would own me that thoroughly must be bad; therefore, 

I'm not going to have anything to do with it, and I'm 

going to throw it overboard, nearest possible line." And 

he becomes a professional atheist or any number of things. 

And oh, he goes through a lot of mad gyrations. But, you 

see, there's actual overt acts against that dynamic.



Processing an entity one day that had come from the deep,

dark fastnesses of Siberia, and had been a perfectly valid

being up to the moment when this entity had foolishly

robbed a church.



That was an overt act many centuries ago of such great

magnitude that it had taken this thing down from any status

at all to just zero - sheww! Hit that one - bang! Came right

back up again. This, by the way, is in Entity Processing.



Now, there's an overt act of a highly specialized kind, but

you start asking the preclear and you'll find out that

there are many overt acts against the eighth dynamic- many

of them, many of them, many of them.



It depends on what the individual believes the eighth

dynamic is. He's told what the eighth dynamic is: "God is

everywhere, God is everything, God is in everything, God is

outside of everything, and it's in everything, and it

watches you, and the watchbirds are watching you, and God

is watching you and everybody's keeping his finger on

you ...." And the first thing you know, the fellow is going

to say to himself, "Hm-mm, there's something wrong with

this. I wish I had a little privacy." And this is hard on

him.



So if he's accepted this - this concept or this description

- which is perfectly true; I mean, God is everywhere; he

isn't watching you, you are it. Anyhow, perfectly true,

maybe, to him, that God is everywhere and he'll do

something which he knows would be very offensive to what

his concept of God is. And he knew that God was watching

him, so therefore this is an overt act against God.



And do you know you can pick that up out of almost anybody

that has ever been infected - I mean, ever studied

Christianity.



Now, that is so deeply buried, by the way, that it takes

considerable digging sometimes to make your preclear find

this one.



The dependency one is easy; everybody knows you depend,

depend, depend, depend. But on the other side, that is not

as easy to find. When did he do something that was an overt

act to God? But it's one that you have to solve on the case

or you'll never get him up here where he'll play God. And

by the way, that's a terribly hard thing to do - terribly

hard thing to  do - unless you happen to be completely, 

ravingly insane and merely are playing God and nothing 

else, which doesn't count.



Well, as I've shown you this, you go on up the dynamics one

right after the other until you have found your overt act

and dependencies in the preclear on each one of these

dynamics, all up the line. And you don't find very many of

them on each dynamic - one, two, three, something like that.

You don't have to run them very much, just sweep them a few

times, take the charge off of them. All of a sudden he'll

recognize them and suddenly begin to compute on the

subject.



And there, every time you start this process of 80, your

first step is to clear up the dependency and the overt act

on the dynamic you're working on. And then you use the

second part of the technique.



=====