*************
The following message is relayed to you by [email protected]
************
Hi,
I've got to resend that comment which seemingly did not go out
for whatever reasons yesterday. In case you receive it double I
apologize in advance.
Below I'm going to paste-in the message and after that I've added a
supplemental write-up which was done a little later.
Robin
-----
Hi David, Hi Colleen,
from my own doing of creative RI I can exactly confirm
what you experience here, David.
Things getting brighter, more real, feeling more in PT
is does not come too unexpected when we consider that
the objective version of RI aims for the same results.
Objective RI is an objective process and as such part of
the CCHs
[Definition: CCHs, 1 . a highly workable set of processes starting with
control, going to
communication and leading to havingness in that order. The CCHs are
auditing
specifically aimed at and using all the parts of the two way comm formula.
(BTB
12 Sept 63) 2 . several associated processes which bring a person into
better
control of his body and surroundings, put him into better communication
with his surroundings and other people, and increase his ability to have
things
for himself. They bring him into the present, away from his past problems.
(Scn
AD) 3 . actually, control, communication and havingness. When you
apply c o n t r o l , you obtain communication which gives the preclear
havingness. And it is a method of entrance on cases which is rather
infallible.
(SH Spec 9, 6106C07)]
[OBJECTIVE PROCESSES, 1. objective processes deal with body motions
and observing and touching objects in the auditing room. (HCOB 30 Sept 71
V)
2 . Iook around or physical contact processes are obviously "objective."
Pcs
who have been on drugs obviously have to be run on objective not subjective
processes. Anyone can be brought more into present time with objective
processes. (HCOB 2 Nov 57RA)]
IMHO the CCHs are one of the most underrated processes ever invented.
I have had the greatest case gains back in SC on objectives. That includes
my very first out-of-body (exteriorisation) experience. This fantastic
feeling
of filling an incredible large space lastet for several weeks. Still
produces
VGIs and a F/N on an E-meter by only remembering that
Regarding the 2nd command of RI ("Have another create an importance" resp.
"Have another create something") I can report the following:
I started out with word-clearing (W/C) the commands words by word with a
good
dictionary and finally the whole command itself in order to get the
meaning right
(I've made this a standard routine with all my auditing. Works wonders for
me.)
While doing W/C I realized that the command can be interpreted two-fold.
Being well aware that Dennis Stevens was a highly trained tech-terminal
in the early days of Dianetics and SC who had known Ron Hubbard personally
I thought it is not too far fetched that he might have had in mind - when
formulating the RI commands the SC-definition of "Have" ... "To Have" ...
"Havingness"
[Before moving on, here some more definitions with relevance:
REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS, 1. remedy of havingness does not mean
stuffing the preclear with energy. It means remedying his ability to have
or not
have energy. (Dn 55 .', p. 117) 2 . by “remedy” one means the correction of
any aberrated condition. By “havingness” one means mass or objects. It
means
the remedy of a preclear's native ability to acquire things at will and
reject them
at will. (PAB 50) 3 . means remedy of the condition of having to have.
(9ACC-1, 5412CM06)
SUBJECTIVE HAVINGNESS, one way to run this is to ask the preclear what he
can mock up. Then have him mock up what he can, and shove it into his body.
That is the most elementary way of running this. (PAB 154)
TERRIBLE TRIO, well, amongst all havingness, what is the super-gold
process?
There is one. It is terribly certain, it does not fail in our experience
and its gains
are permanent. It is a process known as the Terrible Trio. The commands of
the Terrible Trio are “Look around the room and tell me what you could
have.”
“Look around the room and tell me what you would let remain.” And, “Look
around the room and tell me what you could dispense with.” When I
originally
gave the triple havingness process to staff auditors somebody sensing its
effectiveness, dubbed it “the Terrible Trio.” (PAB 80)
DEPLETION OF HAVINGNESS, the truth of something, even when arrived at
by the route of subjection and force, will as-is the something and cause
its
vanishment, and thus it is no longer had. This is called by auditors the
depletion
of havingness. (5601C31)
DOPE-OFF, 1 . the phenomenon of a person getting tired, sleepy, foggy (as
though
doped ). One of the phenomena of going past a misunderstood word. (BTB 12
Apr 72) 2 . a state of lessened awareness, still above unconsciousness, and
manifested principally by communication lag. Dope-off is also caused by
impaired havingness. (COHA Gloss)
FACTUAL HAVINGNESS, purpose: to remedy havingness objectively. To
bring about the preclear’s ability to h a v e o r n o t h a v e , his
present time
environment and to permit him to alter his considerations of what he has,
what he
would continue and what he would permit to vanish. (HCOB 3 Jul 59)
HAVING, to be able to touch or permeate or to direct the disposition of.
(PAB 83)
HAVINGNESS, 1. that which permits the experience of mass and pressure.
(A&L,
p. 8) 2 . the feeling that one owns or possesses. (SH Spec 84, 6612C13) 3
. can
be simply defined as ARC with the environment. (SH Spec 294, 6308C14) 4 .
that activity which is run when needed and when it will not violently
deflect the
pc’s attention. (SH Spec 85, 6111C28) 5 . the result of creation. (SH Spec
19,
6106C23) 6 . the ability to duplicate that which one perceives, or create a
duplication of what one perceives, or to be willing to create a
duplication of it.
But it’s duplication. (lSHACC-10, 6009C14) 7 . ability to communicate with
an
isness. The ability to conceive an is-ness and communicate with it. (
17ACC-4,
5702C28) 8. havingness is the concept of being able to reach or not being
prevented from reaching. (SH Spec 126, 6203C29) 9 . the need to have
terminals and things to play for and on. (Dn 55!, p. 137) Abbr. Hav.]
On the other hand you can insert into the command line the ordinary
definition for "Have" (pls. chk. this out yourself) according to a
dictionary. In one footnote somewhere in the TROM-textbooks the Editor
(Pete) brings an example to explain the commands meaning. I paraphrase
here with my own words: "Create a magician that creates a rabbit out
of his hat." Well, a very valid interpretation. But I've been unable to
find anywhere in the textbook a remark from Dennis that explicitly supports
this version of the 2nd RI-command (the one using standard dictionary
definition).
Since Dennis is not with us anymore we can not ask source. How did I deal
with
that? Well, I just tried both versions. The one with the significance
according to the
Scientology Tech. Dictionary (see above) in mind. Then the other with the
definition
of "have" we use in everyday language.
I can tell from my application that both work fine. I had a couple of good
cognitions on both of them and could run them to good points.
In both instances however - and this had been reported by others as well -
the RI run to being "flat" could require so much time that I sometimes
decided
to end the session before even starting with the main process simply
because
of time constraints. But that did not really matter.
If you care to analyze and compare both command-versions you might perhaps
come to the conclusion that the essential meaning are not necessarily the
exact
equivalent to each other but have sufficient similarities to grant us the
right
to label the whole issue with the tag "Hairsplitting" and thus leave the
issue
alone.
Considering that in real life, when we interact with others, we or our own
creations
often clash with other's creations and that causes significant potential
for
troubles we clearly recognize that this certainly challenges a beings
ability to
"confront" and "to have" while still maintaining high ARC.
Regards
Robin
-----
2nd part:
Hi everybody,
I got to add some more to my previous post.
First of all RI in the context of TROM was obviously meant to
be a supporting activity in order to get the main part - the
Levels of TROM done. The purpose of RI is comparable to the purpose
of lubrication oil in an engine. Remove the oil and you have friction
and finally end up with a piston seizure.
RI in TROM calms down your mind, satisfies the craving for importance
(= havingness) which can manifest in a feeling of loss when charge (= mass)
is blown out of existence by realization (as-isness). Filling up the
deficit allows the being to consolidate and focus anew on further
processing. In that respect RI has a similar status as the rudiments
in other practices.
Now, why did Dennis give us a pair of commands for RI?
a) "Create an importance"
b) "Have another create an importance"
A basic law in this universe is that nothing can flow endlessly in
one direction.
This is not so because I say so, or Hubbard said so or others did.
It is simply an observable matter of fact in the framework of this
particular universe. And as thus its validity is not only limited to
MEST and physics but as well applicable to the human mind under the
assumption that the masses it contains are akin to those present
in MEST. Only difference is the degree of density.
It can easily be seen that nothing can flow continuously in one direction.
In order to inhale one must exhale and vice versa. A river can not just
go on flowing endlessly when there is not an other reverse flow present
somewhere else to keep the system balanced. A flow continuing too long in
just one direction will inevitably stuck.
With that knowledge we have another clue what it is all about with
the two RI commands. Under the reasonable assumption that the both
commands exist for the purpose to establish a flow reversal (in order to
keep the whole process balanced) by alternating commands a) and b) whenever
one of the commands is "exhausted" (which is the equivalent of producing
(temporarily) no more change. From that one can further conclude that
command b) should rather be executed with the intention to create an
inflow. In other words, to make you the effect or receiving point of the
creation. In doing command a) you - the creator of something or the one
who consciously and intentional assigns an importance - is assuming the
source point. Despite of being the effect of your own creation immediately
after creation you are still in charge of the overall cycle.
Now you do b). You say: "Have another create something" with the
significance in
mind of: "Create another which creates something". Well, then you did
actually
not really reverse the flow. Because if you look at the whole arrangement,
you have created, it is still all a creation of yours. You could go on
with this
ad infinitum like this "Create someone who is creating someone who is
creating
some.......". It would actually be a valid response to command a) (the
first
one in the set!).
Interestingly enough Dennis did not use the above wording
for his command b). If he would have done so, there would be no margin
left for various interpretations. But he did not and we can only speculate
if he did what he did on purpose or not.
In the light of the above I'm inclined to say, the interpretation of
command b) "Have another create something" in the sense of "Accept (or 'be
able
to reach for' respectively 'assert your havingness' respectively 'be
willing to
confront'....) another's creation" is the one that makes more sense.
If some may have doubts that it is impossible for a being to be the
effect of ones own creations ... well, I do not think that anyone
has doubts here. I just want to direct your attention towards a very
old and funny game Dennis describes someplace in the TROM materials.
It is "The Surprise Game". Auditors used to play it back in the 1950ties
in London where Ron had introduced it to them.
Look it up at the tromhelp-website (it is available as audio and a
transcript
as well) and try playing it solo. It's amazing. (Basic idea is to mock
up a box with a lid on it so that you can't see the inside. You postulate
that there is a surprise in the box. You open it and ... what a surprise!
... that postulat does _always_ stick and you get a surprise.)
ARC
Robin
_______________________________________________
TROM mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
