PILOT EXCERPTS.

A History Of Abandoning
Processes

(From Post 48 - February 1999)


With the May 1950 release of Dianetics the Modern Science of Mental Health came the idea
that there was One Basic Why (engrams) which could be handled by a single technique to
produce an ultimate case state which was at that time referred to as "Clear".

Of course that went by the boards when the discovery of past life incidents made it painfully
obvious that there was no way to run out all of an individual's engrams.

At the same moment that the ultimate target was found to be unbelievably higher than the
humanoid clear of DMSMH, the amount of material that would have to be handled had
seemed to jump by a factor of about a trillion to one.

Ron mentions, on at least one tape, that he had a moment of great despair when he saw
that.

Remember that this is before techniques such as mockup processing which could blow all
the charge out of an area without actually running every damn incident that had ever been
connected with something.

And so the search was on to find faster more powerful techniques to undercut the bank and
reach the target in a reasonable amount of time.

And there was this idea of some key basic-basic which would undo everything.

By the time of the Philadelphia Doctorate Course (PDC) at the end of 1952, not only was
Dianetics old and abandoned but even the technique 88 processes of just a few months
before were considered obsolete.

Every ACC (advanced clinical course) in those days had its own lineup of processes and
most of the earlier processes were abandoned.

They were not accumulating techniques in those days, instead they were using them briefly
and then dropping them in favor of the next latest and greatest super techniques.

Eventually, by mid 1954, we end up with Route 1/2 of Creation of Human Ability. And that
was a great set of super techniques, probably the best single collection that was put
together in the early days. But please realize that when it was truly in use, everything else
was abandoned. That includes Dianetics, group processing, technique 88, fac one handling,
running entities, the mockup processes of the doctorate course, the advanced OT rundown
know as SOP-8C, the even more advanced roll your own OT bridge of SOP-8OT, and
everything else from earlier times.

And as always, there was a new bridge the following year. But unlike all the others, CofHA
was so well consolidated that in later years route 1 would sometimes be identified as what
to run if the current bridge was completed. But it stopped being used in the org's processing
lineup.

And then come the later ACCs [Advanced Clinical Courses], each again focusing on a limited
target and trying to run the entire case that way.

And finally we have the St. Hill Special Briefing Course [SHSBC]. Again most of the
processes are old and we only use a limited subset. Techniques like R2-12 are used briefly
and then abandoned with the ultimate target seen as GPMs and all other processing simply
being a way to get the person up to running GPMs.

If you examine the old tech volumes for the time period from the late 50s up until the
grades are devised in 1965, you will see occasional HCOBs labeled as "HGC Allowed
Processes". Those are complete lists of the techniques permitted in those times. All other
processes could be considered to be canceled.

Knowingness and Creation

Create as top of Know to Mystery Scale

(From Post 34 August 1998)

This one may be a key breakthrough.

I was thinking about the Know to Mystery scale and wondering how one could learn
something sophisticated such as a computer language by knowingness alone without the
hard work and experience.

It just didn't seem to me that knowingness would go that high. You can pick up things by
knowingness, but I just couldn't imagine it really working at that level of detail. My thought
experiment was to consider somebody running "get the idea of knowing the C language" (C
is a computer programming language) alternated with "get the idea of not knowing the C
language" and my conclusion was that it wouldn't actually yield a knowledge of the
language although somebody might have a few good cogs and get their confront up on
learning programming.

And yet I pickup new computer languages these days with a careless wave of the hand. I
certainly don't bother "learning" them in any formal manner. Using C as an example, when I
did start using the language back in the early 1980s, I spent a few hours flipping through
Kernigan and Richie's book, glanced at some sample code, and immediately wrote a
sophisticated multi-threaded program. Within a few days I was solving problems for
supposed C experts at work.

Now of course I already had a dozen other computer languages under my belt, and I knew
machine internals well, having done system programming in assembler (machine) language
back in the 1970s.

But I do come very close to picking up new computer languages by pure knowingness now
that I have lots of experience in the area. Except that it isn't by knowingness. It can't be or
else you could get to this state simply by drilling knowingness.

So what am I really doing when I pick up some new complex computer area in an
afternoon? It is not knowingness. I hardly work on that at all.

It is the create button. It is mockup by approximation.

In learning C, for example, I was visualizing what would have to be under the hood,
mocking up how the language would have to work, almost creating it and simply staying in
agreement with what others had created. Knowing how the machine works and knowing
what the language would have to do, you of course know what is there in the language
without having to learn it, it is just obvious.

So I went back to the thought experiment and considered whether you could get somebody
to know a computer language by running "mockup a computer language", and my feeling
was that yes, this one could work if it was taken far enough. Of course this might be a bit
out gradient and would probably overrun before you got far enough, but I could see it
working in the right direction.

In practice, I am quite capable of inventing a computer language, and picking up an existing
one simply means getting enough anchor points and orientation to duplicate what somebody
else has mocked up.

I'll bet that somebody who already knows a few computer languages could drill mocking up
new ones and turn into a real hotshot.

Where a computer neophyte would fail would be in not doing the mockups in sufficient
detail so as to be of comparable magnitude to existing computer languages. Note that I'm
not talking here about mocking up a vague symbol of a mass called a computer language,
I'm actually talking about mocking up a language in all its detail, including a detailed
instruction set and parsing rules, because that is the one that gives you the ability to know
these languages easily.

The point here is that if you can create them, you can know them.

This puts CREATE as the top button on the Know to Mystery Scale. Starting from static
nothingness, you have to Create something first before it can be known.

Ron bounced around a bit on whether Know or Not-Know was the top button on the scale.
Putting Not-Know at the top doesn't quite feel right, so one tries to put it between
Knowingness and Know-About (learning). But in practice, you generally shift up from
leaning to pure knowing without going through a not-know step. And you can shift from
Knowing down to leaning by simply going downtone or losing confidence or contracting your
space again without manifesting a Not-Know step.

However, moving up to create, there is a natural tendency to do a little bit of a not-know. I
don't mean a "blast everything out of existence", but simply that you would ignore the
existing computer languages (not-knowing them slightly) so as to mockup a fresh and
different one.

And coming downscale from create, after creating something, you would have to not-know
it to some degree before you actually needed to do anything to know it (knowing it is an
inherent effortless side effect as long as you are at create).

So the top of the Know to Mystery scale is really:

CREATE
NOT-KNOW
KNOW
KNOW-ABOUT

And then it goes downwards (looking etc.) to Mystery as is discussed in other writings.

I had a wonderful experience once when I was being word cleared in session. This was when
I was getting set up for expanded grades back in the 1970s. I was a class 4 auditor and
grade VA release from the 1960s one process per grade era. My auditor was one of my own
former PCs and the C/S also knew that I had been a real hot shot cramming officer.

Everybody involved, including myself, the auditor, and the C/S knew that I probably knew
the Scientology materials and definitions better than both the auditor and the C/S did. But
the first step of the program required doing all the word lists for any correction list that they
might have to use. And since I was grade VA, that meant every word list in existence except
for the ones on the Clearing course and OT levels.

So the word clearing was a totally bullshit step which everybody knew was a waste of time,
and it was being charged for at the current auditing rates ($50 per hour at that time). The
C/S did not dare bypass the word clearing step because that would be squirreling. And we
all wanted me to get onto the expanded grades processing. And nobody wanted to give me
a lot of bypassed charge on wasting money on unnecessary actions. That quantity of word
clearing can easily burn up 25 or 50 hours of auditing.

So we went through those word lists at express train speed. The auditor would say the word
and I would say the definition. I wouldn't think about it, I'd just say the first thing that
popped into my head and the auditor would just say the next word without stopping to
consider whether I was answering correctly. He had confidence that I knew the answers so
he wasn't worrying about it. And we weren't worrying about context. It was "Run?" - "Go
Fast" rather than "Run?" - "do a process", and it was as fast as we could say the words
quickly. So we did about 30 definitions per minute. We went through thousands of words in
a couple of hours.

And something wild happened. First of all, I lost all considerations. Then I was just talking
from knowingness without looking at any pictures or considering anything. Then there was a
moment of stumbling when I realized that I didn't know anything and this was all
meaningless. I talked to the auditor a bit about machinery blowing and he indicated an FN
on that and then we went back and continued the word lists.

And then I realized that I was just creating definitions and not actually knowing anything,
simply inventing without reference to anything. And the definitions just happened to be
right but not as a result of looking at or knowing anything. They simply were right because I
was postulating that they should be correct and in agreement because I wanted to get
through the word clearing action without any time wasting distractions such as looking up
words (and I didn't have to look up any in that entire endless list).

At the end of the action I had a floating TA and was in a state of creation above
knowingness, but of course I didn't recognize the significance of that or fit it into the K-M
scale as I did just now. But it is a great example of what I am talking about in this write-up.

In the Hubbard College Lectures of 1952, Ron talks about how you would learn to fly a
plane by visualizing everything that could happen and what you would do about it. He talks
about a beginning auditor preparing themselves to do a session in this manner; Visualizing
everything that could happen and how to handle it. He certainly saw a bit of this in those
early inspired days, but it didn't make it into the general theory or onto the K-M scale. But
he does talk at times about learning something by doing mockups to approximate it (I think
that that one is even on the study tapes).

So this isn't really new data. But the relative importance has been missed. Seeing it this
way as the top of the K-M scale puts a whole lot of things into context and opens up
practical applications.

And my thought experiment with the C language points up another key concept. It is not
the size or significance of the mockup that is important. It is the amount of detail.

The difference between a child's stick figure painting and a Rembrandt is the detail.

Tesla is said to have visualized the complete AC power generation system in his mind before
he wrote down the design of the Niagara Falls generators for Westinghouse to build.

Mozart is said to have composed symphonies in his head, complete in every detail, before
setting them down on paper.

The great men in almost every profession are usually notorious for their attention to detail
and when you dig further you often find that they had a tremendous ability to visualize
things as well.

Recently there has been a discussion of theta size on Clear-l / ACT, with processing about
mocking yourself up as bigger and so forth. Now that is nice and getting the idea of being
bigger and smaller alternately is certainly a good process. A thetan's ability to reach and to
have space is definitely one of the monitoring factors and you can get a big fast gain that
way.

But this factor of details is why you don't get an OT simply by having the person be bigger
and permeate things. He is simply not up to mocking up the quantity of details necessary
for good perception and control. If you get the idea of being as big as the galaxy (which is
fun and interesting), you probably get a vague blur rather than precisely visualizing the
details of 3 billion star systems (yes it is that many).

Now don't let this discourage you. It is a gradient like everything else. It starts slowly, but
you grow by quantum jumps rather than linearly by one item at a time. Once you can
handle a certain level of detail, then you can handle it. Once you can hold one musical
composition in your mind in detail, then you can do them endlessly, like Mozart. Its only
the first one that's hard.

Do the usual attention drill (a locational, as in Self Clearing process 1.1) spotting individual
points on objects. Then as a second step, spot and hold points, keeping the previous points
while adding a new one so that you can hold multiple points simultaneously.

Do mockups and see how many details you can put into them. Do it occasionally getting a
little more detail each time.

Go ahead and permeate a big city and see how many individual buildings you can hold in
your mind at once. Try it occasionally and keep pushing the number up.

Listen to complex music and follow individual lines. Then listen again and try to follow
multiple lines at once and see how many you can get.

Study something complex and work on getting more and more of it into your mind at once.

There are lots of things that you can do here and there are many ways to work them into
the ordinary activities of your life so that they build up naturally and easily.

And there are quantum jumps where you start getting collections of detail as a unit without
loosing sight of the detail. Think of reading. You probably get The Cat as a single unit
rather than as 6 letters or two words. And yet you probably do see and know all the letters.
Just contrast that with the first time learning experience of sounding out all the letters and
composing words while reading something.

I wonder how it would work to just have kids mockup words and how to spell them and to
write them down without inval or eval and just keep them at it until something gives way.
Then you would just have to orient them to what the currently agreed upon words and
spellings are. This is just in theory, but it might turn on a fantastic learning ability.

You raise your ability to handle detail by rolling up your selves and handling details. If you
do this consciously in present time without putting it on circuit, it soon jumps to being able
to handle packages of details.

Part of our downfall may have been that we decided that there were too many details and it
seemed overwhelming or too boring and so we put the details on automatic so that we
wouldn't have to confront them. But if it is on automatic, your confront never comes up and
you don't get that jump up to handling quantities of detail easily.

I would say at this point that theta horsepower is primarily monitored by how many details
you can mockup and hold. If you want to be god, you better plan on tracking every sparrow
that falls.

So the top of knowingness is the Create button, and the monitoring factor is how many
details you can create.

I'm sorry if this sounds like work. It can be rough getting started. But at the top of the scale
its lots of fun to mockup lots and lots of details.

Affinity,
The Pilot
The core of case is the target, and this core is a moment of disruptive loss, the moment of
moving from co-creation and a shared beingness to other-creation (the loss of the shared
beingness). This is what results in the assumption of synthetic beingnesses (valences) and
created shared beingnesses (entitity case, i.e., demon circuits).
GPMs are the result of the other-creation and the attendant assumption of being opposed,
occasioned by the loss of co-creation (shared beingness) the resultant counter-creation is
an attempt at containing a continuum with the ex-co-creator.

The huge, basic charge is loss of shared beingness, which is loss of occupying the same
space, which is loss of love, the pinnacle of ARC.

Valences are created primarily to try to attract or have co-creation with another. Failing
this, valences are created to have counter-creation, which still maintains an active
relationship.

Any processing directed at removing valences should be complimented with ARC processes
in the direction of rehabilitating the beings ability to experience love.

Possible techniques: F0, What could you love about yourself,
F3 What could another or others love about another or others?
F2 What could another love about you?
F1 What could you love about another?
(In this reverse order).
It could be run using specific terminals in ones environment, e.g., What could you love
about yourself in the presence of ______?
What could ______ love about another, What could another love about _____?
What could you love about ____?
What could ____ love about you?
CARMELOORHARDS

riginally Posted by Mark A. Baker
Not sure what you meant by the above statement. Is it possible you meant to say: GPMs are the result
of the other-creation and the attendant assumption of being opposed, occasioned by the loss of co-
creation (shared beingness) the resultant counter-creation is an attempt at continuing a continuum with
the ex-co-creator. Or is something else intended?


Mark A. Baker
you are correct. my erro


I find TROM to be very illuminating in this regard. What Carmelo posted aligns exactly with
what is described there, except only that Carmelo's unknown author is a lot more verbose
and hard to access.


Ant,

Thanks for that Pilot's piece "Knowingness and Creation" . . .

There's some very good info in it that should help many.

One of the things I have observed over the years which aligns with The Pilot's thing of
blowing all the mechanics of using the mind to look for "definitions and meanings" of words
is this: my observation is that words, whether written or spoken, are actually representation
symbols for concepts. That is, words are symbols that represent concepts . . . and of
course, above concepts one has the creative act that brought such into being.

Rog
I might even start on what was...

"What have you loved about yourself (another, others)?" etc.

"Could" suggests ability.

"Might" suggests possibility thinking. I prefer "might."

I would suggest an assessment list. Add to the items that Roger listed.

knowledge, truth, creation, relationships/alignment, harmony, understanding, God, ...
Conjugate to fit the sentence structure. If metered, run reading items if pc/client is
interested. If unmetered, check for interest or physical reaction or mental reaction no
matter how subtle.

Above and beyond that, there would be no substitute for understanding processing basics,
your client, and being able to roll a process specifically for him/her as was done in the days
of scientology-yore.
TED
There is NO correct, valid, right "understanding", because any "understanding" exists in the
temporary mind, based largely on some incomplete conceptual framework, of a temporary
human being, on a temporary planet in a temporary universe.

The only valid way to "understand" anything is to get out and OBSERVE. That BYPASSES
any need for communication in words. Also, words are loaded and VERY tricky, and are NOT
the things they describe or talk about. Another reason Hubbard never described the useful
aspects of General Semantics, is probably because it helps strengthen a person AGAINST
the manipulative use of ARC (which Hubbard depended upon).

If you want to explore this thing known as Affinity, just go out, mock it up HARD, and aim it
at everybody, equally, with no aspect of how YOU can or will use it to change somebody
else's mind in some manner. Just go out and channel the inherent LOVE of the Universe,
and aim it abundantly at all creation.
somebody else's mind in some manner. Just go out and channel the inherent LOVE of the
Universe, and aim it abundantly at all creation.




But, drop the "bringing about understanding in others" aspect of it all. ARC uses "affinity" as
a way to improve manipulation and control by greasing the line of communication. As with
so many aspects of Scientology, it is often horribly contrived and phony. Affinity, as
practiced by Scientology and many Scientologists, exists and is inserted into the mix ONLY
to shape and direct your "understanding" along some desired path. While involved in the
group I was never comfortable doing such things, although looking around I saw MANY
others who had absolutely no problem with it at all.

GADFLY.


Originally Posted by Zinjifar
And, the basic lie is that affinity requires a shared reality.

Zinj
Bingo! I learned THAT many years ago when I mocked up my own drills along the lines of
"love" and "affinity".

Drill #1: Go to a crowded place. Aim a flow of immense "love" at each person walking by.
Envision each person as filled with brilliant yellow-white loving energy. Do it for as long as
you like.

Drill #2: Get the idea of a mother's love. Notice how it is entirely an OUTFLOW, with no
concern for enjoyment of self. Get the idea of a mother's love as "nurturing, wishing the
best in another, intending nothing but total happiness in another". Close you eyes and fill
yourself with this feeling and energy. Envision this energy expanding past the limits of your
body and mind. Let it explode outwards in all directions. DO THEDRILL. Don't "think about"
doing the drill! Experience and intellect are two very different things, and "thinking about"
something is NOT EVER the same as doing and gaining the requisite experience. YOU can
actually mock this up at will, and quite easily, but you will never LEARN THAT if you just
"think about it". The intellect has "some" value, but is only a small part of the picture when
it comes to the mind of any person. Many fail to realize that. Sometimes, seemingly forever!

Drill #3: Stand by a traffic corner. Whenever a car slows down or stops, surround the car
and all of the occupants with this "feeling of well-wishing described in Drill #2". Do this for
quite a while. And then stop. And then ask yourself WHY you haven't been doing this all
along?

There are MANY more possible exercises. NONE require a shared agreement, other than
that the "others" are on planet Earth with you. And all involve the knowing, intentional
mocking up of AFFINITY.

Doing the same with "admiration" also can be valuable, but it is a few steps lower than
"unconditional love".

Get this, the concept of "unconditional love" doesn't exist in Scientology. It does exist in
some religions and in MANY New Age philosophies. It means loving, fully and without limits,
and with absolutely NO concern for what you may or may not "get back" in any way. It
transcends the personal human ego. It is entirely an OUTFLOW. With no concern in any way
about "inflow". It has nothing to do with "me". It is a BIG idea! This idea is non-existent in
Scientology. It aligns with the notion of the "Love of the Father" or the "love of Jesus" in
Christianity.

Any time you actually go out and PRACTICE unconditional love, you are chipping away at
some aspect of the personal ego.

In Scientology the notion of "affinity" is always tied into what you are going to GET BACK,
as some sort of inflow. Money, help, participation, and especially assisted survival. The
notion of the dynamics, and exchanging between the dynamics within the context of
"survival" is rammed down your throat in Scn. It has value, on some level, BUT it operates
FAR BELOW the unconditional affinity I described above. You don't need some "bridge" to
get to the high realms of spiritual serenity. Just go out and honestly do the drills I gave
above, for a week or two. You may well be amazed at the "results". And it won't cost you a
penny!

Affinity doesn't have to be limited and restricted as some utilitarian tool that "greases the
lines of communication", but it functions that way in Scientology (to the detriment of
many).


Pilot'sPost Z14

OT Research Affinity Defined,
Wavelength Drill

From Post 26 -- March 1998

OT RESEARCH

I've made a tech breakthrough.

Not the whole shooting match, but another piece of the puzzle.

I began by trying to expand the Axioms and it yielded a wild
little trick that doubles exterior perception.

And the trick is easy to learn. I coached two people through
it in a few minutes after explaining the theory and both got
it easily and experienced the same effect that I got from it.

Note that the trick is an amplifier rather than a method for
turning on exterior perceptics [perceptions].

If you don't already have some slight degree of exterior
perception (usually mixed in with lots of dub-in and imagination),
then do chapters 1, 2, and 11 of Self Clearing, which should
at least get you to the vague level that people used to
get from old OT 5 and 6. [Self Clearing is downloadable
fromhttp://freezoneearth.org/downloads/files.html#Self2004 - get the 2004 edition, which
was not available when this was written, AntEd]

I'll get around to explaining the trick later in this post.
You should be able to do it with a few minutes of drilling.
But you need the underlying theory first. And the theory
is really a lot more important than the trick anyway,
because it might lead to a lot more.

---------------

If you look over the Scientology Axioms, you'll see that
we have a very detailed definition of Communication.

Basically it is cause, distance, effect, with intention,
attention, and duplication. In other words, we have 6
components, and one of them, intention is a very active
component that we drill with TR 8 and it seems like one
of the significant factors in OT abilities.

We do not have a definition of Affinity that is of
comparable magnitude, with components that can be
drilled and used. And yet we know that it is a basic of
great importance.

I began by looking for an active factor in Affinity,
something comparable to "intention" in the definition
of communication.

And I thought of having two tuning forks with matching
pitches, and you strike one and the other vibrates in
sympathy with it. This is a high school physics experiment
and you can find the effect described in any good textbook.

And if you raise the dampers on a piano (step on the right
pedal) and hit a note, other strings which are harmonics
of it (an octave above and below etc.) with also start
vibrating slightly. Again, this is just high school
physics.

This could be referred to as resonance. It is motion
in sympathy.

And I thought of a mother rocking a child. A sharing
of motion. It builds affinity. The same for sex.

And then there is matching tones on the emotional tone
scale. If you think of these emotions as having
wavelengths, again you have resonance.

So let's begin by defining an axiom for resonance. Note
that I'm using "axiom" in the popular sense (a basic
principle) as did Hubbard rather than in the strict
mathematical sense.
__

AXIOM X-1: RESONANCE IS A SIMILARITY OF MOTION.

Matching tones on the emotional tone scale is an example of
resonance between beings. Sympathetic vibrations between
piano strings or tuning forks is an example of resonance
between physical object.
___

I thought of the cause and effect sides of communication
and felt that there should be something similar for affinity.
After a bit of contemplation, it occurred to me that these
would be desire and acceptance (thank you Allen).

And of course liking and admiration would fit into it.

And I felt that I should define it as an active thing.

Putting this all together yields the following axiom.

___

AXIOM X-2: AFFINITY IS THE ACTION OF IMPELLING A FLOW OR
VIBRATION ACROSS A DISTANCE FROM A POINT OF DESIRE TO A
POINT OF ACCEPTANCE WITH ADMIRATION, LIKING, AND
RESONANCE.
___

Of course most of this is old hat. We even know that
duplicating motions as in mimicry tends to build affinity.

But this idea of resonance opens the door to another
level of practical application. And that brings us back
to that trick I was talking about.

-------------------

I discussed resonance between beings and between objects,
and that raises the question of resonance between a being
and an object.

Think of objects as having an inherent wavelength, a
sort of musical note that they will respond to.

A specific element will have electron shells at fixed
distances from the nucleus. These are like frozen
waves which have a wavelength. When we heat up a
metal, it glows at a specific wavelength because of
this. In physics, spectrums can be analyzed to precisely
pin down the elements present in something based on this
principle (spectrographic analysis). Again this is
just textbook physics.

Of course a complex object has many elements and should
probably be thought of as a composite. But the
oversimplified idea that an object will have a single
basic vibration is actually good enough to start with.

Here is the drill:

a) pick an object

b) imagine that you are sort of humming a note at it
(this is done mentally, not by humming out loud)

c) project this note into the object

d) shift the note up and down until it matches vibrations
with the object (you can feel this easily). Note that
you don't have to hit the actual vibration, but just
a harmonic of it, so it doesn't matter that much whether
you use a high pitch or a low one, but it is important
to slide up and down the scale by very small increments.

e) permeate the object with the vibrations.

Repeat this on a number of different objects.

After you have assessed a few objects this way, matching
vibrations, you should find that you can pretty much
match wavelengths automatically without having to assess
in detail.

You should experience a startling increase in mental
perception of an object whenever you hit it with a
matching vibration, especially perceptions of the
inside and far side of the object (it is a 3D perception
rather than looking).

Note that matching wavelengths goes way beyond simple
permeation (I've played with that too).

With hindsight, there are ideas like this in metaphysics.
There is the idea in India of playing a specific musical
note to heal somebody, and I've even heard mention of
the idea that humming the correct note might enable one
to move an object. And there is even Scriabin's idea
that the ultimate musical composition would bring the
world to fulfillment and allow it to end.

When you first drill this, you can just look at an object
or a wall and project a vibration at it. But once you
get the knack of it, try it exterior in conjunction with
any exteriorization drill that works for you.

I think that you'll find that whenever you add in this
vibration business, It's like turning on a light switch
and your perception increases a notch.

There is lots more that you can play around with. You
can project broadband roars or play around with
chords to match a series of wavelengths at once.

--------------

Don't get into trying to prove things. Even with your
perceptions raised a notch, it's still probably more
dub-in than accurate data. You mustn't invalidate the
half correct perceptions or they get weaker.

Of course I ignored my own advise and tried to read
some playing cards upside-down. I used 8 numbers (2 to
9) in 4 suits to make calculations easy. I held each
card up facing away from me and mentally roared vibrations
at it until I had a clear visio of the card's face.

The results were freaky. 50 percent accuracy on calling
the suit. 25 percent accuracy on calling the number.
Not one card seen correctly. Every perception a total
dub in, but the suits and numbers were perceived at
twice the level of random guessing.

As a control, I dropped the mental roaring and the
incorrect dubbed in perception and the accuracy immediately
dropped to 25 percent on suit and around 12 percent
on the number (the normal probability).

It was crazy because I could only violate the mathematical
probability by getting an obviously incorrect perception.
I'd see a 7 of hearts clearly and it would be a 7 of
clubs when I turned it over. Or I'd see an 8 or spades
clearly and it would be a 3 of spades when I turned it
over. But I'd be right on either the suit or the digit
on about 3/4 of the cards.

An hour of this and I was just about banging my head
against the wall and getting exhausted and invalidating
my perceptions because every damn visio was obviously
wrong (I never ever saw the correct card, which was
also contrary to chance because I should have accidentally
gotten one right every 32 cards).

That left me feeling quite frustrated, so I'm not going
to try it again soon.

And yet there was a consistent and dramatic violation
of mathematical probability.

I thought this over a bit.

My first idea was that the true perception coming through
must have been no more than a tiny flash of color or the
shape of a single number and I was building an entire
visio of a card based on that tiny signal of real data.

But I talked this over with a friend and he suggested
that it was more likely that I had gotten an accurate
perception but something was overlaying it with an
alter-is because there is some mechanism designed to
block doing this with complete accuracy in this universe.

There is more to be learned here.

--------------

My thought right now is that there must be a dozen or
so of these factors which sum up into the creation of
reality.

One of them is intention. Another is resonance. Yet
another is faith/belief. Each of these acts as significant
amplifiers, and each one can be drilled individually
and is fairly easy to master.

--------------


I started thinking of affinity as a duplication of motion.

So I reviewed the duplication in the communication formula
and saw it as a duplication of data or content.

And agreement would be a duplication of intention.

By communicating, you might duplicate the fact that
somebody else likes to fish, and yet you might not
want to fish yourself. But you might duplicate the
intention to fish and therefore come into agreement
with them even if the two of you aren't talking.
And you might both go fishing together and thereby
duplicate the motion and come to feel more affinity
for each other.

These are 3 separate duplications. All 3 would be
involved in a shared reality which I would see as
a duplication of creation.

From this comes the thought that the ARC triangle
might be a limited perspective. Note that understanding
seems to be a byproduct rather than the sum (complete
ARC would be more than just understanding).

And it should be obvious that agreement by itself
may be a factor in reality but is not the sole
determining criteria. After all, the majority of
people once believed the Earth was flat (even though
the educated people like Columbus knew better)
and it continued to be round despite that.

The real equation might be:

Affinity plus Agreement plus Communication plus another
half dozen unidentified factors all sum together to
yield Reality.

Or in other words, duplication of data plus duplication
of motion plus duplication of intention plus duplication
of various other things all sums up to duplication of
creation (which is the reality of the physical universe).
All this would be occurring on a compulsive level of course.

---------------

As usual, finding an answer has left me with more questions.

But the trick with resonance does work and the axiom on
affinity has lots of implications.

So have fun.

Affinity,

The Pilot