SUPER DOOPER OT RECALL PROCESSING

Ralph made a great joke about getting overly status happy

OTs to do some self analysis by giving them a super secret

self analysis list that is only for special OTs.

I thought it was hilarious.

The super duper special OT recall processes:

Self Analysis, an orthodox expanded straightwire grade (recall

release), self clearing chapter 6, or any of a wealth of other

similar techniques (I'm sure Alan uses some, etc.) ARE the

super duper advanced OT processing way way up the bridge.

==========

Demo Session:

Just for the hell of it, I'll run a recall question on myself

here to see what I can get now. I always like "recall a time

you went fast" from self analysis (the wording might be slightly

different, I'm not bothering to look it up). So I'll give

it a shot. Note that this is unrehearsed & unprepared, I'm

1
just gonna see what happens.

1. Recall a time you went fast -

Roller skates, 7 years old, zooming down the block, on the

sidewalk because my mother didn't want me doing it in the

street. Old style skates with a skate key. Concrete very

rough and full of pebbles. I'd completely forgotten. Facinating

how much detail I'm spotting.

1. Recall ...

Space ship. Trying to get away. Zooming along. Then bang!

run right into a mountain. Can't figure it. In space,

going out of a star system, then bang, hit a mountain on

a planet that was at least a 100 million miles behind me.

Maybe some kind of warp drive & it malfunctions and bang,

you're somewhere else? Doesn't feel right. Maybe some OT,

some god of the local system reaches out, grabs the ship,

and snaps it back into a planet. Bang, spot the impact

again, bang. Yeah, that feels right. Drifted up from the

wreckage (hardly more than dust and scraps and gook from

the splattered bodies) and in complete puzzelment as to

2
what happened. It hung up on a big question mark, never

saw what grabbed the ship.

1. Recall ...

Magic universe. Facinating. Beautiful. Indigo sky.

Some wizard has gotten pissed off. Nothing to do with

me, but he has started flinging around balls of fire.

I start running up a hillside. Feeling tired, out of

breath. He notices and tosses one in my direction.

I can feel the heat on my back. Then I'm looking down

at the body and pulling it with a beam. Zoom, I'm

up at the top of the hill. Dazzed. Can't figure what

happened. Thinking over & over, wow, how did I do

that, felt amazing, want to do it again but can't,

but it was a huge win anyway. The body actually flew

threw the air, zoom. I loved it but it had left me

puzzeled as to how (seems obvious now).

Ah. Hung up on a maybe. This & the other one were things

that I'd intentionally wanted to remember (at the time)

because I couldn't figure them out and felt that I'd have

to keep thinking them over until I understood what happened.

But I'd never quite figured them out (then) and so had

3
gotten apathetic and then postulated forgetting because

I got sick and tired of trying to understand what happened.

A double layering, first anxious to remember, and then

determined to forget, what an interesting mechanism, and

I can feel some mass releasing, like things that were

held based on a misunderstood about what really happened.

That's really neat. Holding onto incidents and keeping

them mocked up because of a misunderstood in the incident.

This is a nice EP, so I'll end off here.

===============

The above is just a trivial little session, no big deal.

But that is how recall processes run after you get above

all those minor lower OT levels and facing up to implants

and entities and GPMs and stuff like that.

This is how you open up the track. It doesn't come as an

automatic side effect of doing some super dooper process

or running implant items on forgetting or something like

4
that. Those things just take barriers out of the way.

You still have to run self analysis or the equivallent.

And you run it again and again and again.

But you can't do that one after the other. One big run

on recall and then it bypasses charge to keep on going.

The other grades start to kick in because they are being

bypassed. So attempting to do a second run through immediately

will act as an overrun. So you run grades again, and maybe you

get a clear OT state on grade 2 or whatever.

I had expanded grades after going clear and keying out OT

on power processing (and after doing the PDC and route one

and running SOP 3 (PDC) on myself and after having a lot

of auditor training).

The pass through self analysis (which I had run on myself

before) as part of expanded straighwire ran very deep and

whole track (although not as deep as the above demo). At

that time we ran each question of self analysis earier

similar to an FN, so the gains were immense and it did

open up my track extensively. And that was the pass

through the grades where I went clear OT on grade 2.

5
Since then, of course, I have taken more passes at these

grades areas. And after a few, the buttons of protest

and inval and so forth were starting to really kick in

as bypassed charge because they were missed grades.

You've seen the writeups I've done in those areas since

then. And of course there are more grades areas (eval

for example) which are starting to really draw my attention.

So there is more to be researched.

But straighwire remains one of the most important workhorses

as far as opening up track and handling case. It just

gets better and better and better.

And note that it is not that the grade wasn't run right

the first time. How many new people with no previous

training or processing would be able to reach early

track on a first run through?

Although it didn't in this example, self analysis type

techniques will often run all the way back to home universe

on an OT. This is the way to reach into the next area of

the track that is accessible no matter how advanced the case

is.

6
Hope This Helps,

The Pilot

-----

asked on subject "mapping Route 2 to the OT processes"

> Here's an interesting one.

>

> Apparently, _all_ the OT processes originate from

> Route 2 in Creation of Human Ability.

>

> If anyone has already done it, could they please

> post the mapping of which Route 2 processes map to

> the OT processes.

>

> Thanks! :)

>

> Arc, Ryan :) :) :) :)

More Route 1 than Route 2 actually. And some come from SOP8C.

I haven't done the exercise. It's a nice idea.

7
The only "complete" OT bridge was around the beginning of 1954.

It was:

1. SOP 8 (PDC materials) to exterior

2. SOP 8C (1st & 2nd ACC) to drill after exterior

3. SOP 8OT (3rd ACC) to roll your own bridge to handle whatever

else was in the way.

This turned out to be too tough. So Ron addressed himself

to undercutting and providing an easier gradient.

This resulted in the undercuts of group processing (4th ACC),

SOP8D to handle valences (the 5th ACC), the phoenix lectures

material (7th ACC) and finally Routes 1 and 2 (8th & 9th ACC).

(I haven't gotten around to studying the 6th ACC yet).

Route 1/2 was basically aimed at replacing SOP 8 as a way to

produce a thetan exterior and doing some of the easier bits

of SOP8C to get him moving towards OT.

The more advanced materials of SOP8C and SOP8OT remained as

an upper bridge but Ron never got back to them because he

had to then undercut Route 1/2 with the processes of the

8
late 1950s.

Note that the later use of the term "8C" to refer to the objective

processes which was run as the SOP-8C setup action is a tech

degrade of the highest order.

Hope this helps,

The Pilot

==========================================

---

The Journal of Scientology, Issue 24-G, 31 January 1954 "SOP-8-C: The

> >Rehabilitation of the Human Spirit. (Starts on page 10 of "old" Tech Vol

> >II, my question pertains to page 15)

>>

> >As part of Step VII: Barriers

>>

> >(b) Have preclear do six ways to "nothing."

subj : Super Scio Tech - Continuing The Golden Dawn Discussion (Attn Koyote, Rogers)

9
CONTINUING THE GOLDEN DAWN DISCUSSION (Attn Koyote, Rogers)

On 10 Apr 99, "Koyote" <koyote@paonline.com> posted

"To Pilot On Y2K & Golden Dawn"

> The Pilot wrote in message ...

>

> > So I tried to tune into whatever might be being mocked up for the

> > turn of the millenium.

> > This is probably just dub-in or subconcious concerns stirring up, but I

> > thought I should mention it anyway.

>>

> > At first I seemed to be getting "Red Dawn". That is an old second rate

> > invasion movie and pretty far fetched. Maybe just my feeling that it

> > is a good time for an invasion. But it didn't seem quite right.

>>

> > And then it seemed like what it really was was "Golden Dawn".

>>

> > That rang a bell as something I read once, maybe connected with occult

> > practices. So I looked it up in Colin Wilson's book on the Super

> > Natural. It was an occult group that was active for 13 years back

10
> > around the turn of the century. Yeats was involved and even Crowly for

> > a brief period (they denied him their higher orders and he made trouble

> > and then went on to OTO).

>>

> > Maybe its not significant. I don't even know if this "Golden Dawn" was

> > supposed to be a positive or a negative mockup although my guess would be

> > that they were attempting white magic.

>>

> > Anybody know more about this? Is there some new group that has revived

> > the name? Any idea if this is slanted in a positive or a negative

> > direction?

>

> Heya. I'm new around here, so I'm still not entirely sure about how

> you're gonna define positive and negative.

>

> The Golden Dawn is said to be in operation by some renovators. There are

> also smoky rumors that the old GD is still about, but really damned deep

> underground. Whatever.

I can see that I had an oversimplified view. There seem to be many

groups and the name is popular.

> The OTO is alive in at least two manifestations. The A.'.A.'. is around,

11
> but it is widely acknowledged that the current manifestation has little to

> do with anything Crowley ever intended.

>

> There are others secretive magical orders, Temple of Psychic Youth,

> Temple of Set, etc.

>

> These all may be accessed by some level of consciousness under "Golden

> Dawn" in a sort of Jungian manner as the first, and often only, exposure

> most dabblers have in this type of magical order is through Isreal

> Regardie's works on the Golden Dawn and/or Golden Dawn Tarot systems.

>

> Some of these orders right, some go left. Many of them have, at some

> level, the evolution/uncovering (depends on the theology) of the divine

> in individual man as a goal. Many of them also Work to increase the

> ability and opportunity for other men to glimpse and pursue the divine

> potential/resident.

From my viewpoint, the differentiating factor would be whether

the target is to gain personal power for oneself or a few only, in

which case they are trying to make slaves, or whether the goal is

towards ability for others as well as oneself.

I am, of course, aligned with the latter and feel favorable towards

those who "Work to increase the ability and opportunity for other

12
men."

> Many of these orders are planning/executing serious Workings for y2k.

> Those I have direct access to intend the Work to result in an overall

> increase in ability and drive pushing more meatballs into a place

> where they can initiate.

>

> This is all, I gather, positive, yes?

Yes.

> The only problem in defining positive and negative here is that many of

> these orders subscribe to a theology which includes individual divinity,

> but not an overall Master divinity which must be served.

I don't believe in a Master divinity which must be "worshipped".

I do believe in an all encompassing divine which could be termed

a life static or universal mind or God or whatever. Bringing about

a general increase in awareness and ability would be serving that.

I suspect that we simply have a bit of confusion here between serve

and worship.

13
> And, as such, much of their work is oriented against mass

> mind/collective salvation, etc. theology.

>

> This, in fact is the source of some of the y2k workings- the "Osirian

> death cults" (or christian, muslim, etc. sacrifice based religions) are

> running around pushing for total stasis- the end of the world followed by a

> never changing kingdom of heaven and hell- end of *all* games, you lose!

> Personally, I can see why they fight that kind of mindset....

An interesting way of putting it.

I think that for most Christians, Heaven is simply the idea of

a place where "things will be better". If it is "total statis",

then it is a trap, but if it is sharing in an infinity of creation,

then it is freedom. Most Christians are not up to thinking in these

terms and as to Christ's original intentions, I would think that

infinite creation would be more his style than some perpetual

status. He was a rebel against the orthodox orders of his time.

I would prefer, therefore, to define "heaven" as infinite creation

and sidestep the argument. With that definition all games become

possible rather than all games being ended.

The real killer is wishing to see others burn in hell for eternity.

14
Now that is not only a desire for stasis and an unchanging status

quo but is an evil purpose that one would expect to rebound against

the holder.

> Tread Rightly,

>

> Koyote

-----------

On 14 Apr 99, Koyote continued on this subject with a response to my

post "Super Scio Tech - To Phil On Y2K & Golden Dawn"

> Pilot man,

>

> It may be a Jungian unconscious tie in sorta thing (I know very

> little of clearing technospeak, so bear with me). Most people who

> access magick, ceremonial magic, high magic (many names) access first

> the Golden Dawn (G.D.) work, history and system.

>

> There are a bunch of orders, Temples, schools in existence. The

> Ordo Templi Orientalis (OTO) exists in at least two "valid" forms,

15
> Crowley's A.'.A.'. is also around- though not in a form most

> occultists accept as valid. The G.D. also exists in a couple of forms

> including perennial restarts of the Order, individuals and informal

> groups performing the work, and some say that the core G.D. never

> really ended ops but went deep underground.

>

> Coming from the stream of magical orders also one finds some of

> the more magickally oriented Wiccans (very rare!), and orders such as

> the Rune Gild, TOPY (Temple ov Psychic Youth), Temple of Set, Order of

> the Dragon, Telesis Foundation, Etc.

>

> I don't know a whole hell of a lot about all of these, though I am

> pretty knowledgeable about a couple. The goal of most of these orders

> is the diefication of man. This is approached in two distinct manners:

>

> 1. Through seeking instruction/access/oneness with/from some sort

> of God thing.

>

> 2. Through discovering and raising one's self to a divine state as

> a being seperate from any god thing.

>

> There is an expansionist goal as well, running through most

> orders, to get more people to access, develop, or develop the ability

> to access their divine natre/being.

16
>

> I do know that some of these orders a planning big juju for the 2k

> event. The juju primarily focuses on expanding the potential and rate

> of evolution (to divine beingness) in humanity. Some efforts are using

> the expected morass of y2k babies as a focus.

>

> I think that many of these have a partial cause/focus in

> countering/uncreating the stasis (end of world and eternal unchanging

> kingdom of heaven) sought by many end of worlders.

>

> So there ya go, at least that's what I can figure of it,

>

> Koyote

Thank you for the additional info. This has been quite informative.

----------

And to round this out, here is a response from "Rogers"

<here-i-yam@erols.com> also on the same topic.

> The Pilot wrote in message ...

>

> > At first I seemed to be getting "Red Dawn". That is an old

17
> > second rate invasion movie and pretty far fetched. Maybe just

> > my feeling that it is a good time for an invasion. But it

> > didn't seem quite right.

>>

> > And then it seemed like what it really was was "Golden Dawn".

>

>

> Gee, Anjin-san, now I feel a bit hostile. I LIKED "Red Dawn." What do you

> mean "second rate" and "far fetched?" I'm just teasing! I don't feel

> hostility, but actually I DID like the movie - rather primal I must admit.

It wasn't bad actually. I just read too many similar Sci-fi stories

as a kid (often with interesting aliens instead of mundane invaders)

and got a bit overrun.

> Now, to the real point. I really and truly doubt that any problems

> associated with a group going by the name "Golden Dawn" is going to be in

> terms of THAT (magical and metaphysical group) "Golden Dawn."

>

> Still, just to approximate some answers to you query. There are still some

> Golden Dawn practitioners and authors knocking around. There's one fairly

> prolific writer in, I think, New Zealand of all places.

>

> Mostly, I think they are small potatoes. When I think of these guys it

18
> reminds me of pre-scientology psychotherapists, but, in their case, they

> were pre-Crowley and never evolved. Crowley WAS an evolution in this field.

>

> I think one can get a pretty "clear" (he says facetiously) view of the

> Golden Dawn mentality by looking at the actual book by that name. It's a

> disorganized mess! To use a French technical term, it's a cluster-fuck!

>

> It's one of those "sticky" subjects that has you scratching your head for

> years - very "mysterious" stuff.

>

> Crowley found it both pathetic and amusing that, after his ceremonial

> initiation - full of sworn pledges not to divulge the "secrets" upon pain

> of death, blah, blah, blah - the first "secret scripture" he was presented

> with was the HEBREW ALPHABET!

About like finding an implant platen instead of real handling of

actual GPMs when one finds out the super secret CC materials.

> > It was an occult group that was

> > active for 13 years back around the turn of the century.

>

> Without looking this up (Owen's going to be mad at me again) I think the

> group might have been founded in 1887, 13 years before the turn of the

> century. It was, most definitely. sometime around that time.

19
>

> > Yeats was involved and even Crowly for a brief period (they

> > denied him their higher orders and he made trouble and then

> > went on to OTO).

>

> Yes as to Yeats. But Crowley didn't go "directly" to the OTO. Story is,

> they invited him in later - after he had done a lot of work on his own

> stuff - because he apparently "discovered" their innermost doctrine on his

> own separate track.

>

> BTW. I think Crowley was born in 1875. This was the time period (I

> believe) when people would go on to higher university education when they

> were about 12 or 13 years old. Unlike today, they didn't sit on you and

> stifle you for thirteen years through high school and then another four

> years through college in those days. And the "classics" were an integral

> part of the curriculum in any serious college. It's like a different world.

> The schooling was much less aberrative I think. Well, a shorter exposure

> to the abuse anyway.

>

> > Maybe its not significant. I don't even know if this

> > "Golden Dawn" was supposed to be a positive or a negative

> > mockup although my guess would be that they were attempting

> > white magic.

>

20
> Definitely, White Magick.

>

> But, I could see that "Golden Dawn" could be a nice name for a terrorist

> group, in fact, it sort of seems familiar. It reminds me of one of the

> (assumed to be fictitious) names of a terrorist group given in "True Lies"

> or some other movie.

>

> Do you think the Defence Satelites could be sufficiently discombubulated by

> the Y2K problem... No, let me phrase that differently... I wonder if some

> terrorist group or antagonistic nation might "postulate" that the Defence

> Satelites will be messed up by the Y2K bug, sufficiently so to give them a

> bit of an "edge" in some sort of attack?

>

> Les.

The folks that would be interested in doing a military attack would

probably not be of a mindset to try and postulate things.

One would hope that the US military has not been so stupid as to

have Y2K bugs in unreachable orbital hardware. Then again, the

military mind has not been known for its intelligence, the Sea

Org being a case in point.

I don't really feel that this one is in the cards, but I'll watch

21
my back anyway.

----------

Let's hope that all this means is a push for consciousness raising

and enlightenment. I've been expecting that anyway because of

the significance that people put on the date.

It would be nice, however, if something loosens up the single frozen

fixed reality into a flexible mockup where there is more free choice

and a flux of varying agreements and realities.

Best,

The Pilot

--

subj : Super Scio Tech - Valences (Attn Beth, Ralph)

VALENCES (Attn Beth, Ralph)

On 19 Apr 99, ralph@hilton.org (Ralph Hilton) continued

the discussion on "Depression"

22
> On 19 Apr 1999 14:33:56 -0400, in alt.clearing.technology Beth Guest

> <beth@guests2.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>

> >In article <371bb9f0.59851239@mgate.telekabel.at>, Ralph Hilton

> ><ralph@hilton.org> writes

>>

> >>

> >>No - auditing the strong important valences is incorrect. A person goes into

> >>weak valences. In early Dianetics Hubbard was running motivators thus the

> >>causative valences were addressed.

> >>The most aberrative valences are the ones one committed overts against and

> >>those would be the weaker ones.

> >>The reference on this is "The Rule of the Weak Valence" tape of 12 November

> >>1959.

>>

>>

> >How does one run out valences in Scn?

>>

> >I know the Kn process to do this but cannot recall the Scn one at the

> >moment and would be interested.

>

> The easiest and most effective I have come across is:

23
>

> Tell me a difference between yourself and .....

> Tell me a similarity between yourself and ....

This is an excellent one, but the easiest is probably SOP8D

"Spot some places where ... would be safe".

This can just be run repetatively (spot lots of places, briskly,

if you can) and taken to a nice win.

For maximum effectiveness, you can do a few commands of

"Spot some places where ... would place you to make you safe"

whenever the above seems to flatten (ceases to produce change)

and then go back to the first command again. That lets you

push the process deeper. In that case you should keep on until

you get a major valence shift.

This SOP8D process and the topic of valences is one of the

main subjects of the 5th ACC, which is available as the "Universes"

cassettes. FZBA mentioned in one of their recent postings that

they were going to do this ACC soon, so watch for the these in ACT.

LRH even used a variation on this one in some group processing

sessions during the 5th ACC (using general terminals like find

24
some places where problems would be safe, etc.)

Also, the bright think rundown used a variation of this.

> Valences can also be split with processes such as general o/w on the

> terminal, help, failed help, From where could you communicate to a ...

Certainly.

Another good one is to mock the terminal up in various places

and blow them up. That's from the 1st ACC.

> The LX lists and process 220H from 1968 give a general valence address.

I'm going to ramble a bit here. The LX1 handling is much too

heavy for a beginner to solo, so some people might want to skip this

section.

Probably half of the auditing I did between the introduction

of quickie standard tech in late 1968 and the advent of expanded

grades in mid 1970 was 220H (the 7 resistive cases, now known

as GF40) and most especially LX1 (which was the handling for

25
the out of valence item on 220H).

The 220H is covered in the Case Supervisor Actions HCOB which

is in part 13 of the Class 8 pack that was posted recently

(the pack has the 20 May 75 revision of this HCOB of 12 Aug 69).

You'll also note that the damn HCOB was confidential, so they gave

us non-confidential excerpts from it and checked us out on that.

Later, after the HGC was a smoking ruin, non-confidential references

came out on GF40 etc.

What would happen is that the person would get all his grades

in under an hour (per LRH's instructions, this was not somebody

else's alter is), they'd feel great for a week, and then they

would cave in, feel overwhelmed, the TA would go low, and they'd

almost inevitably read on out of valence on the 7 cases.

Then it would be endless reviews, mostly running LX1 to try

and get the TA back up. Note that LX2 and 3 came out later

as a gradient into LX1, and note that the CS 53 and other

low TA handling did not come out until much later. So the

only known processes in "standard tech" that brought up a

low TA were LX1 and Power Process 6, and you were not allowed

to run PrPr 6 on public at an outer org. So LX1 was the only

handling.

26
As a setup for LX1, we'd first run "recall another person".

That was in the original version of the C/S Actions HCOB.

Note that the one posted to the net is a later revision

which doesn't have this process and has been upgraded with

the LX2 etc.

Then we'd be into the LX1, which was basically assessing for

the engram chain necessary to resolve the case (buttons like

crushed, overwhelmed, etc.). We'd run 3 flow recalls, then

secondaries, and then engrams, and then reassess and run

another button, etc. until the person snapped into valence.

It would work, too. Quite dramatic really. But one hell

of a hard run and hell to audit as well because the TA would

dive to 1.5 if you breathed wrong.

You could walk around the academy in those days and look

at students doing e-meter drills and almost never see

a TA above 2.

I even got run on an LX1 as a pc, and sure enough, we got

to basic on a heavy chain and the feeling of apathy and

unreality which seems to go with a low TA suddenly vanished.

And I mean suddenly and with a great feeling of relief.

27
Unfortunately it doesn't cure bypassed grades and quickie

type processing or proof you up against an org gone mad

with ethics conditions and wrong whys. So the result

unstabilizes in a month or so and the pc starts spinning

again because you've only handled the symptom rather than

the cause.

> A very powerful general valence cracker is

>

> Get the idea of entering a mind

> Get the idea of not entering a mind

>

> I'm currently working out expanded versions to handle quad flows and 8

> dynamics.

This goes far beyond valences. Definitely a powerful and

advanced process. I wouldn't recommend this for beginners,

there are far too many considerations and implications attached

to the concept of mind. But it felt right for me to give it

a try right now.

So I fooled with this one a bit. I would suggest running

"another entering a mind" before attempting "another entering

28
your mind", because that last one is a very steep gradient.

Each of these ran nicely to a mild win. My plan was to do

a light touch and cycle back through each flow multiple times

rather than trying to push deeply at the start.

Then I thought about flow 0, not even running it but just trying

to figure out what the process command should be. As I was trying

to wrap my wits around "get the idea of entering your own

mind", it was like some barrier fell away and I sort of

exteriorized in some strange manner. The very concept of

"mind" seemed meaningless for a moment and then it seemed

like I had many minds in various places.

As best I can describe it, it was like the whole package, not

just thought and identity but also experience and consideration

and the data I was working on could be seen as an interrelated

cohesive unit, but it was something I HAD rather than being

me myself, and I had many such packages, each kept in isolation

from the others.

Of course with a big blowout like this, one drops the process,

at least for the time being, so as not to invalidate the win

or reinteriorize or overrun.

29
So I sidetracked into mocking up and throwing away "minds"

in this sense of the word (complete packages of identity,

data, track, and thought processes). That was really wild.

> --

> Ralph Hilton

> http://Ralph.Hilton.org

Probably there should be some kind of grade and/or self clearing

chapter on the subject of valences and identity. I'll try

and put some more thought into this and suggestions would be

welcome. There are already quite a few mild valence handling

processes worked into self clearing, such as processes 10.4

and 10.5 (duplicating others viewpoints) which is a variation

on the old "wearing heads" process from the early 1950s.

Another good process for a grade on valences is step 4 of the

220H handling for out of valence. This is done on the 220H

after the 3 LX lists and can be found in the C/S Actions HCOB

mentioned above. The process is:

4. 3 Way or Quad Recall each leg to F/N:

30
F1. Recall another causing you to be someone else.

F2. Recall you causing another to be someone else.

F3. Recall another causing another to be someone else.

F0. Recall causing yourself to be someone else.

This one would seem to be just a bit steep for a beginner to

do without setup (Ron put it after the LX handlings), so this

should be run after running easier valence shifting processes.

Also, there can be heavy force connected with this (implants

etc.) so this should be left until after one gets one's

confront up on force (by a clear cog or whatever).

It is also intresting that in the 1968 quickie lineup, Ron

put real valence handling up at old OT 4. The valence

shifter processes was "What valence would be safe?"

I would say that this is an easier process than many of

the above, and I would suggest the following variation

for use in self clearing:

Run alternately:

a) What identity would you consider it safe to be

31
b) What identity would you consider it safe for others to be

c) What identity might another consider it safe to be

d) What identity might another consider it safe for others to be

This is a fun and easy processes and would probably fit

in very well around grade 5 on a standard bridge, before

worrying about implants, entities, or whatever.

Ron's placement of valence handling way up at OT IV in

the early OT lineup shows that he considered this to be

a significant case factor which was operative after clear

and after handling entities. Remember that this was the

quickie era and the consideration would be that there were

no GPMs, implants, or entities affecting the case after

a properly run OT III.

Here is the full OT IV rundown from the C/S actions

HCOB:

> 1. Ruds or GF to F/N.

> 2. Rehab drugs.

> 3. Valence shifter "What valence would be safe?"

> 4. Rehab ARC Straightwire to Grade IV.

> 5. Rehab R6EW to OT II.

32
> 6. Prepcheck OT III.

> 7. Rehab OT V and VI.

> 8. Run "What has been overrun ?"

> 9. Run "What can you confront ?"

>

> IF THE PRE OT DOESN'T EXTERIORISE, WE WILL DO 7 CASES NEXT SESSION

> UNTILL HE DOES GO EXTERIOR which is really the end phenomena of

> OT IV. Audited only by a class VIII.

This should also clear up the occasional question that I've

seen about what was supposed to bring about exterior perceptions

in the original OT lineup. Apparantly the idea was that if

entities had already been handled, then all you had to do was

handle valences and non-confront and any case outpoints to

turn on exterior perception. I've even heard of some people

who did turn on some perception briefly after getting the IV

rundown. Then one was supposed to do the old OT V & VI to

improve and stabilize the ability.

Note that "what has been overrun" was not a repetative process

or a listed list. Instead one took up anything that gave a

TA blowdown (BD) on the meter (sometimes anything that read at all)

and rehabbed it to FN. This was the ONLY handling for high TA

during the quickie era. One used it at lower levels if the

33
TA was high, but only rehabbed the first BD to FN so as to

get the TA back in range. Apparantly the IV rundown included

a more thorough run of this processes, doing it as a major

action with the TA in range instead of only using it as a

repair.

Sorry for continuing to slide off into discussions of the

quickie era. The recent posting of the Class VIII pack and

Ralph's mention of 220H have gotten me busy thinking over

that old messed up attempt to make OT on a lick and a

promise.

Best,

The Pilot

==========================================

subj : Super Scio Tech - Super Dooper OT Recall Processing

SUPER DOOPER OT RECALL PROCESSING

34
Ralph made a great joke about getting overly status happy

OTs to do some self analysis by giving them a super secret

self analysis list that is only for special OTs.

I thought it was hilarious.

The super duper special OT recall processes:

Self Analysis, an orthodox expanded straightwire grade (recall

release), self clearing chapter 6, or any of a wealth of other

similar techniques (I'm sure Alan uses some, etc.) ARE the

super duper advanced OT processing way way up the bridge.

==========

Demo Session:

Just for the hell of it, I'll run a recall question on myself

here to see what I can get now. I always like "recall a time

you went fast" from self analysis (the wording might be slightly

different, I'm not bothering to look it up). So I'll give

it a shot. Note that this is unrehearsed & unprepared, I'm

just gonna see what happens.

35
1. Recall a time you went fast -

Roller skates, 7 years old, zooming down the block, on the

sidewalk because my mother didn't want me doing it in the

street. Old style skates with a skate key. Concrete very

rough and full of pebbles. I'd completely forgotten. Facinating

how much detail I'm spotting.

1. Recall ...

Space ship. Trying to get away. Zooming along. Then bang!

run right into a mountain. Can't figure it. In space,

going out of a star system, then bang, hit a mountain on

a planet that was at least a 100 million miles behind me.

Maybe some kind of warp drive & it malfunctions and bang,

you're somewhere else? Doesn't feel right. Maybe some OT,

some god of the local system reaches out, grabs the ship,

and snaps it back into a planet. Bang, spot the impact

again, bang. Yeah, that feels right. Drifted up from the

wreckage (hardly more than dust and scraps and gook from

the splattered bodies) and in complete puzzelment as to

what happened. It hung up on a big question mark, never

saw what grabbed the ship.

36
1. Recall ...

Magic universe. Facinating. Beautiful. Indigo sky.

Some wizard has gotten pissed off. Nothing to do with

me, but he has started flinging around balls of fire.

I start running up a hillside. Feeling tired, out of

breath. He notices and tosses one in my direction.

I can feel the heat on my back. Then I'm looking down

at the body and pulling it with a beam. Zoom, I'm

up at the top of the hill. Dazzed. Can't figure what

happened. Thinking over & over, wow, how did I do

that, felt amazing, want to do it again but can't,

but it was a huge win anyway. The body actually flew

threw the air, zoom. I loved it but it had left me

puzzeled as to how (seems obvious now).

Ah. Hung up on a maybe. This & the other one were things

that I'd intentionally wanted to remember (at the time)

because I couldn't figure them out and felt that I'd have

to keep thinking them over until I understood what happened.

But I'd never quite figured them out (then) and so had

gotten apathetic and then postulated forgetting because

I got sick and tired of trying to understand what happened.

37
A double layering, first anxious to remember, and then

determined to forget, what an interesting mechanism, and

I can feel some mass releasing, like things that were

held based on a misunderstood about what really happened.

That's really neat. Holding onto incidents and keeping

them mocked up because of a misunderstood in the incident.

This is a nice EP, so I'll end off here.

===============

The above is just a trivial little session, no big deal.

But that is how recall processes run after you get above

all those minor lower OT levels and facing up to implants

and entities and GPMs and stuff like that.

This is how you open up the track. It doesn't come as an

automatic side effect of doing some super dooper process

or running implant items on forgetting or something like

that. Those things just take barriers out of the way.

You still have to run self analysis or the equivallent.

38
And you run it again and again and again.

But you can't do that one after the other. One big run

on recall and then it bypasses charge to keep on going.

The other grades start to kick in because they are being

bypassed. So attempting to do a second run through immediately

will act as an overrun. So you run grades again, and maybe you

get a clear OT state on grade 2 or whatever.

I had expanded grades after going clear and keying out OT

on power processing (and after doing the PDC and route one

and running SOP 3 (PDC) on myself and after having a lot

of auditor training).

The pass through self analysis (which I had run on myself

before) as part of expanded straighwire ran very deep and

whole track (although not as deep as the above demo). At

that time we ran each question of self analysis earier

similar to an FN, so the gains were immense and it did

open up my track extensively. And that was the pass

through the grades where I went clear OT on grade 2.

Since then, of course, I have taken more passes at these

39
grades areas. And after a few, the buttons of protest

and inval and so forth were starting to really kick in

as bypassed charge because they were missed grades.

You've seen the writeups I've done in those areas since

then. And of course there are more grades areas (eval

for example) which are starting to really draw my attention.

So there is more to be researched.

But straighwire remains one of the most important workhorses

as far as opening up track and handling case. It just

gets better and better and better.

And note that it is not that the grade wasn't run right

the first time. How many new people with no previous

training or processing would be able to reach early

track on a first run through?

Although it didn't in this example, self analysis type

techniques will often run all the way back to home universe

on an OT. This is the way to reach into the next area of

the track that is accessible no matter how advanced the case

is.

40
Hope This Helps,

The Pilot

==========================================

subj : Super Scio Tech - A Fun OT Drill

A FUN OT DRILL

Pick an object in the room that it would be easy and

safe for you to move.

First run the following commands alternately. Repeat

the set at least twice and then continue until you feel

like the object is in agreement with you.

a) Have the object say hello to you.

b) acknowledge it

c) Have the object like you.

d) acknowledge it

e) Have the object agree with you.

41
f) acknowledge it

Then do the following list of commands alternately. In this

case the acknowledgements just seem to get in the way so you

can leave them out. A brisk pace is desirable. Continue to

a nice win. The object does not have to move for the drill

to be complete (at least for now), the drill has a good feeling

to it.

Begin each repeat of the commands with step 1.

1. Pick a simple movement such as lifting the object up,

and then do it, physically. Then put the object back down

in the same place.

2. Then intend the object to do that same motion again, but

don't reach over and enforce it physically with your body

this time. Instead, maintain the intention and do the

following:

a. Have the object desire to move

b. Have the object be happy about the idea of moving

c. Have the object like the idea of moving

42
d. Have the object agree with the idea of moving

e. Have the object have faith that it can move

f. Have the object know that it can move

g. Have it feel that it would be good to move

h. Have it feel that it would be ethical to move

i. Have it feel that it would be beautiful to move

j. Have it feel that it would be constructive to move

k. Have it feel that it would be reasonable to move

l. Have it feel that it would be logical to move

m. Have it feel that it would be responsible to move

n. Have it feel that it would be enjoyable to move

o. Have it feel that it would be humorous to move

p. Have it feel that it would be interesting to move

q. Have it feel that it would be entertaining to move

r. Have it feel that it would be exciting to move

s. Have it feel that it would be enlightening to move

t. Have it feel that it would be creative to move

Then go back to step one and move the object physically.

Note that it is usually preferrable to end with step 1.

Then select another object and do both sets of processes on

it as above.

43
Have Fun,

The Pilot

==========================================

subj : Super Scio Tech - The Be Do Have Implant

The BE DO HAVE Implant

I'm not quite sure if "Implant" is the correct designation

for this thing.

This seems to be a pattern that was entered willingly for the

sake of a game, but there is some protest on it and it was

other determined.

The feeling on it is of one bunch of powerful beings building

it and then tricking another bunch into diving into it,

perhaps by challenging them and pushing buttons of "pride"

44
etc.

It fits the 1964 concept of R6 as a senior pattern (rather

than a true implant) which caused Actual GPMs etc. to form

beneath it as one played the games implied by the pattern.

However it is not an all encompassing pattern that embraces

all of modern existance. Instead it seems like one of many

similar constructions which we went into and out of for

games and adventure.

There does not seem to be a lot of force on it and the

items do not have a lot of kick to them, but there is an

almost hypnotic feeling of "Facination" attached to this

one.

I tried to date it, but it is a bit out of reach and I don't

think that I'm seeing the events of that time clearly.

My first impression was that it is significantly prior to

home universe, but after running it a bit, it seems more

likely that it is a bit after home universe, possibly in

the later of the two "games" universes that followed

home universe. It is certainly much earlier than Inc 1 or CC.

45
But I'm fairly sure that there were many things like this

and that only a few (such as this one) were designed to

be abberative and unpleasant.

It seems like one played with many other beings under the

influence of such a pattern and then left and went into

another pattern when one tired of the game.

And usually it wasn't abberative but just fun. However,

on a sour pattern like this one, the game didn't go well

and one not-ised things and left things unresolved and

eventually left the game in disgust. And that left things

hanging there which could kick in later because they hadn't

been confronted.

I'm also having trouble visualizing how one "played" once

one had passed through the pattern and entered the playing

field. My feeling is that one became many identities

simultaneously and played against others who were doing

the same. In other words, this was played by high level

multi-threaded beings. But again, I'm streatching a

bit here and I could be a bit off base.

=========

46
The pattern I found may be inaccurate and incomplete, but

charge came off and I got some cogs from it, so its

close enough.

And as I mentioned above, I think that there were a number

of abberative ones like this and I'm not sure that everybody

went through all of them. I would expect that we each

worked on building a few nasty ones as well as getting

suckered into a few of them as a motivator, but different

people might have different ones that they hung up on.

There are a series of dichotomies begining with

creative - destructive. Each dichotomy has 18 goals.

Each goal has 20 items.

Except for the very start of the pattern, each dichotomy

begins with a goal on the negative side. The very first

one skips the first goal (which would be "to be destructive")

and starts with the second one ("to be creative"). The

very end of the entire series of dichotomies swings you

around to the start again by leading into the missing

first goal ("destructive") and then begining the entire

series again for a total of 12 runs (repeats).

47
============

I found this thing by playing around with the R6 "What

am I dramatizing" process.

First of all, R6EW is aimed at end words and assumes that

what the person is dramatizing is an end word, and I felt

that that was probably not always correct, and most especially

would usually be a wrong assumption on a clear.

So I altered the command to "What end word might I be

dramatizing". I included the "might" so as not to assume

that there were any. That would probably be a good idea

even on somebody who is doing R6EW before clear, because I

don't believe that the whole case is end words and R6 type

patterns.

I was also considering the 1964 concept that a true R6

pattern might be senior to actual GPMs. Of course the

final R6 platens that ended up on OT 2 are supposed to

be nothing more than an implant done recently (75 Million

years ago) in the current universe. But that doesn't

48
mean that there aren't real patterns, it just means

that the BC students running R6 still had too much charge

on implants.

Ron seems to have had the idea in 1965 that the CC platen

was a higher pattern senior to actual GPMs rather than

being yet another implant. I'm still a bit unsure of

that. But I do know that although I got considerable

gains running it, it did not undercut actual GPMs for me.

But maybe undoing the actual GPMs by means of a pattern

is an unreal expectation because one really lives the

actual ones and gets ones postulates wrapped up into them.

I did run my own current actual GPM, which was the goal

"To be intelligent" in considerable detail and with

immense gains. When I did that, I could see how I'd

lived the items lifetime by lifetime. I've never gotten

that level of result from simply running a platen, even

the CC platen.

My research question was to find out if that actual GPM

I'd run out could be traced back to a higher R6 style

pattern by means of the R6EW process.

49
So I oriented to the mostly errased actual GPM "to be

intelligent" and looked for an end word that the entire

actual GPM could be a dramatization of.

Right away, I thought of "SMART". The negative seemed

like it should be "STUPID" (not "unsmart", although that

is suggested by the 1964 materials).

I thought of R6EW Sixes (making a grouping of related

pairs) and immediately got:

smart <--> stupid

smarter <--> stupider

smartest <--> stupidest

Then it seemed like these should replicate on Be, Do,

and Have, and I immediately got:

To be smart <--> to be stupid

to be smarter <--> to be stupider

to be smartest <--> to be stupidest

to do smart things <--> to do stupid things

50
to do smarter things <--> to do stupider things

to do the smartest things <--> to do the stupidest things

to have smart ideas <--> to have stupid ideas

to have smarter ideas <--> to have stupider ideas

to have the smartest ideas <--> to have the stupidest ideas

In other words, a pattern of 18 goals on this smart/stupid

business.

Since I think that one of the mistakes in the R6 research

was to deal exclusively with end words instead of running

the detail items (and thereby leaving too much charge

behind), I then tried to list for the items of the goal

"to be smart". That gave a set of 20 items including

an ending section that carried me into the goal "to be

stupider".

With that I could see that "to be stupid" had to come

before the goal "to be smart" in the pattern and I

backed up and filled it in.

So the sequence was

51
A. To be stupid

B. To be smart

C. To be stupider

D. To be smarter

E. To be stupidest

F. To be smartest

G. To do stupid things

etc.

I tried to jump to the end of the whole smart/stupid

dichotomy, to the end of the goal "to have the smartest

ideas" and found that I could not list the item that

carried it into the next dichotomy. So I laid out and

scanned through the entire mess of 360 items (18 goals

times 20 items on each) and then found that the next

dichotomy was obvious.

The next one was wise/foolish, with the goal "to be

foolish" opposing the goal "to have the smartest ideas".

Once I did about a third of wise/foolish, the pattern

lost strenght and I could pretty much skip the detail

and jump to the final items of the set.

52
Soon I was just jumping to the final transition items

between each dichotomy and getting the next dichotomy

in the series.

The bottom of the series wraps around to the top

and the whole thing begins with the dichotomy

creative/destructive. From there I carried it the

rest of the way around the circle back to smart/stupid.

===============

The item pattern :

On the goal to be XXX, with a direct opposite of YYY

Note that the first half of the statement is what you are

"being" in the pattern and the second half is your relation

to the opposition.

1. Those who have the goal to be XXX

dominate those who have the goal to be YYY

53
2. Those who have the goal to be XXX

are dominated by those who are being YYY

3. Those who are being XXX

dominate those who are being YYY

4. Those who are being XXX

are dominated by those who like being YYY

5. Those who like being XXX

dominate those who like being YYY

6. Those who like being XXX

are dominated by those who agree with being YYY

7. Those who agree with being XXX

dominate those who agree with being YYY

8. Those who agree with being XXX

are dominated by those who talk about being YYY

9. Those who talk about being XXX

dominate those who talk about being YYY

54
10. Those who talk about being XXX

are dominated by those who try not to be YYY

11. Those who try not to be XXX

dominate those who try not to be YYY

12 Those who try not to be XXX

are dominated by those who talk about being XXX

13. Those who talk about being YYY

dominate those who talk about being XXX

14. Those who talk about being YYY

are dominated by those who agree with being XXX

15. Those who agree with being YYY

dominate those who agree with being XXX

16. Those who agree with being YYY

are dominated by those who like being XXX

17. Those who like being YYY

dominate those who like being XXX

55
18. Those who like being YYY

are dominated by those who are being XXX

19. Those who are being YYY

dominate those who are being XXX

20. Those who are being YYY

are dominated by those who have the goal to be ZZZ

Item 20 is the transition and contains the opposite

of the next goal. The first item of the next goal

(NNN) would be:

1. Those who have the goal to be NNN

dominate those who have the goal to be ZZZ

But since we go through a progression of 18 goals

before the dichotomy changes, we can plot this

item as well.

In the following, letters indicate each goal and the numbers

represent the 20 items for a goal. Here are the first 4

goals (letters A to D) of an 18 item set (which would be

letters A to R).

56
A. The goal to be XXX

A1. Those who have the goal to be XXX

dominate those who have the goal to be YYY

A20. Those who are being YYY

are dominated by those who have the goal to be XXX

B. The goal to be YYY

B1. Those who have the goal to be YYY

dominate those who have the goal to be XXX

B20. Those who are being XXX

are dominated by those who have the goal to be MORE YYY

C. The goal to be MORE XXX

57
C1. Those who have the goal to be MORE XXX

dominate those who have the goal to be MORE YYY

C20. Those who are being MORE YYY

are dominated by those who have the goal to be MORE XXX

D. The goal to be MORE YYY

D1. Those who have the goal to be MORE YYY

dominate those who have the goal to be MORE XXX

D20. Those who are being MORE XXX

are dominated by those who have the goal to be THE MOST YYY

And so on through the set of 18 goals for the dichotomy.

The very last of the 360 items, which would be item R20, would

tie into the next dichotomy.

In the example, it would be:

58
R20. Those who have the MOST XXX ideas

are dominated by those who have the goal to be (new endword)

For the first dichotomy, which is creative/destructive,

this item would be:

R20. Those who have the most destructive ideas

are dominated by those who have the goal to be responsible

And this leads in to the second dichtomy, which is

responsible/irresponsible. Note that responsible starts

out as an opposition and the first goal of this second

dichotomy is "To be irresponsible".

Note that each goal inverts as one proceeds through the 20

items, so that by item 20 you are being the opposite of

the goal. And because the goals themselves are opposites,

there is a terrific almost duplication between items at

the top of one goal and the items at the bottom of the

opposite goal, which tends to make the opposing goals

pull together.

=================

59
The dichotomies:

Each has 18 goals each of which has 20 items giving a

total of 360 items per dichotomy.

Note that there might be some skipped dichotomies.

The very first dichotomy, creative - destructive, skips goal A

(which doesn't come until the end of the entire run of dichotomies)

and begins with goal B, which is "TO BE CREATIVE".

(1) creative - destructive

(2) responsible - irrestponsible

(3) good - evil

(4) helpfull - callous

(5) sharing - selfish

(6) valued - worthless

(7) upstanding - degraded

60
(8) strong - weak

(9) active - inactive

(10) powerful - unable

(11) free - enslaved

(12) aware - unconsious

(13) knowing - unknowing

(14) smart - stupid

(15) wise - foolish

(16) Success - Failure

(17) admired - detested

(18) loved - hated

(19) praised - rediculed

61
(20) sensible - irrational

(21) competant - incompetant

(22) productive - wastefull

(23) enduring - transient

(24) timeless - sequenced

(25) pervasive - located

(26) flexible - fixed

This last dichotomy ends with

R20. Those who have the most fixed ideas

are dominated by those who have the goal to be creative

That leads back into creative - destructive (the top

of the series).

Note that at this point we have goal A of the creative -

62
destrutive dichotomy, which is

A. To be destructive.

Only when we get down to the second goal of the dichotomy

do we duplicate the very beginning of the pattern which is:

B. To be creative.

The whole mess repeats for 12 runs, ending with to be

destructive. Then one enters the game, beginning with

the goal to be creative, but one is doing it in opposition

to being destructive and so begins to live the pattern.

Note that being creative is a native state characteristic

and therefore is a correct indication to the person. But

here it is in an altered form because of the opposition to

destruction, which is not present in the high scaled pure

creation, and therefore one decays.

==============

DETAILED PLATEN:

63
These are the first 3 goals only, to show how this works.

You could copy the item template given earlier and do

global replaces on the XXX and YYY if you need a detailed

item platen of some particular section of the implant.

Note that there are 26 dichotomies of 18 goals and 20 items

each so that the whole mess has almost ten thousand items.

Dichotomy 1 (creative - destructive), the first goal

is goal B of the dichotomy:

1-B TO BE CREATIVE

1. Those who have the goal to be creative

dominate those who have the goal to be destructive

2. Those who have the goal to be creative

are dominated by those who are being destructive

3. Those who are being creative

dominate those who are being destructive

4. Those who are being creative

are dominated by those who like being destructive

64
5. Those who like being creative

dominate those who like being destructive

6. Those who like being creative

are dominated by those who agree with being destructive

7. Those who agree with being creative

dominate those who agree with being destructive

8. Those who agree with being creative

are dominated by those who talk about being destructive

9. Those who talk about being creative

dominate those who talk about being destructive

10. Those who talk about being creative

are dominated by those who try not to be destructive

11. Those who try not to be creative

dominate those who try not to be destructive

12 Those who try not to be creative

are dominated by those who talk about being creative

65
13. Those who talk about being destructive

dominate those who talk about being creative

14. Those who talk about being destructive

are dominated by those who agree with being creative

15. Those who agree with being destructive

dominate those who agree with being creative

16. Those who agree with being destructive

are dominated by those who like being creative

17. Those who like being destructive

dominate those who like being creative

18. Those who like being destructive

are dominated by those who are being creative

19. Those who are being destructive

dominate those who are being creative

20. Those who are being destructive

are dominated by those who have the goal to be more creative

66
1-C TO BE MORE DESTRUCTIVE

1. Those who have the goal to be more destructive

dominate those who have the goal to be more creative

2. Those who have the goal to be more destructive

are dominated by those who are being more creative

3. Those who are being more destructive

dominate those who are being more creative

4. Those who are being more destructive

are dominated by those who like being more creative

5. Those who like being more destructive

dominate those who like being more creative

6. Those who like being more destructive

are dominated by those who agree with being more creative

7. Those who agree with being more destructive

dominate those who agree with being more creative

67
8. Those who agree with being more destructive

are dominated by those who talk about being more creative

9. Those who talk about being more destructive

dominate those who talk about being more creative

10. Those who talk about being more destructive

are dominated by those who try not to be more creative

11. Those who try not to be more destructive

dominate those who try not to be more creative

12 Those who try not to be more destructive

are dominated by those who talk about being more destructive

13. Those who talk about being more creative

dominate those who talk about being more destructive

14. Those who talk about being more creative

are dominated by those who agree with being more destructive

15. Those who agree with being more creative

dominate those who agree with being more destructive

68
16. Those who agree with being more creative

are dominated by those who like being more destructive

17. Those who like being more creative

dominate those who like being more destructive

18. Those who like being more creative

are dominated by those who are being more destructive

19. Those who are being more creative

dominate those who are being more destructive

20. Those who are being more creative

are dominated by those who have the goal to be more destructive

1-D TO BE MORE CREATIVE

1. Those who have the goal to be more creative

dominate those who have the goal to be more destructive

2. Those who have the goal to be more creative

are dominated by those who are being more destructive

69
3. Those who are being more creative

dominate those who are being more destructive

4. Those who are being more creative

are dominated by those who like being more destructive

5. Those who like being more creative

dominate those who like being more destructive

6. Those who like being more creative

are dominated by those who agree with being more destructive

7. Those who agree with being more creative

dominate those who agree with being more destructive

8. Those who agree with being more creative

are dominated by those who talk about being more destructive

9. Those who talk about being more creative

dominate those who talk about being more destructive

10. Those who talk about being more creative

are dominated by those who try not to be more destructive

70
11. Those who try not to be more creative

dominate those who try not to be more destructive

12 Those who try not to be more creative

are dominated by those who talk about being more creative

13. Those who talk about being more destructive

dominate those who talk about being more creative

14. Those who talk about being more destructive

are dominated by those who agree with being more creative

15. Those who agree with being more destructive

dominate those who agree with being more creative

16. Those who agree with being more destructive

are dominated by those who like being more creative

17. Those who like being more destructive

dominate those who like being more creative

18. Those who like being more destructive

are dominated by those who are being more creative

71
19. Those who are being more destructive

dominate those who are being more creative

20. Those who are being more destructive

are dominated by those who have the goal to be the most creative

1-E TO BE THE MOST DESTRUCTIVE

1. Those who have the goal to be the most destructive

dominate those who have the goal to be the most creative

etc.

===============

Best,

The Pilot

72