*************
The following message is relayed to you by  trom@lists.newciv.org
************
Ant,

This is a super excellent choice for a replay post.


I really appreciate Pilot's most qualified, honest, and objective
questioning and critiquing of TROM and his suggestions.

He is not a parrot.

It is refreshing  and most valuable.

I much concur, with him on almost  all points, with the exceptions of  his
references to early track, which I have no experience or reality on.

Based on my experience, I think going back track to this life time, is  a
trap and really messes people up.

I am not a 100%  sure, but that is what I think from observations.


One point that really stood out  for me is the following:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

*His Timebreaking is a bit different from earlier techniques.*

*I tried it and it seemed like fun to do it with light*

*incidents, but I prefer to handle light incidents with*

*simple itsa and blowing by inspection.*

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Blowing by inspection is very close to  what I figured out  to do, two or
three yrs ago.


I found taking pieces of the picture and time breaking them,  impossible to
do.

I think that part,  is BS.

I think Dennis just made  that up  to put in a gradient.


I also use a bit of time breaking, by being aware of present time and my
surroundings at the same time.


I don't think The Pilot is right on that piece TBing may be for heavy
incidents.

I could not do it on heavy incidents, either.

It drove me crazy and caved me in.


By this time, The Pilot probably had no heavy incidents left, so could not
test the procedure.



And I agree with The Pilot on his comments on L4 and L5.

L5 does not seem to fit with my case.

(I am trying to figure it out and see what needs to be changed to make it
work for  me.)


Such commentaries, as the Pilot's,  need to be made part of the TROM book,
in commentary sections.

They are invaluable.


Because most, if any  future new comers will not go back and do the
research to find such valuable material, nor should they be expected to do
so.


And the Pilot's comments prove that a person without a scn background,
cannot do the process.

And the TROM process is not for everyone by far.

At least not in it's present form.


Thanks again for posting that, Ant.


I feel quite vindicated.


David


In vain we build a world, if at first we don't find the cause and cure for
the problems of the mind, which is readily doable by the masses.









On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 2:13 AM, The Resolution of Mind list <
trom@lists.newciv.org> wrote:

> *************
> The following message is relayed to you by  trom@lists.newciv.org
> ************
>
> Sent* 15th of October 2016 Saturday*
>
> by *ant.phill...@post8.tele.dk <ant.phill...@post8.tele.dk>* (Antony
> Phillips)
>
>
> There is material here by The Pilot concerning TROM. The Pilot at that
> time was anonymous and answered questions and made comments every fortnight
> on an Internet Newsgroup. "The Pilot (Ken Ogger) played a notable part in
> the exodus from Scientology Church from 1997 when he published his Super
> Scio book (800 A4 pages), his Scientology Reformers Home Page (36 A4 Pages
> also in 1997) ". More details at http://scientolipedia.org/info/Ken_Ogger
> .
>
>
> Note that this is a resend of a message sent some years ago, and some data
> (like addresses) is liable to be inaccurate.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>
>
> To: tro...@newciv.org
>
> From: Antony Phillips <i...@post8.tele.dk> <i...@post8.tele.dk>
>
> Subject: [trom] Replay B56
>
>
> *************
>
> The following message is relayed to you by tro...@newciv.org
>
> ************
>
>
>
>
> From: "RVH" <r...@ozemail.com.au> <r...@ozemail.com.au>
>
> To: "TROM-L" <tro...@newciv.org> <tro...@newciv.org>
>
> Subject: Pilot's comments on TROM
>
> Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 16:07:25 +1000
>
>
> I was just now reviewing some posts from the Pilot to a.c.t. and realised
> that I
>
> had not seen any comments on this on TROM-L. This was posted in early
> April, and
>
> I trust it will be of interest to those on this list.
>
>
> Ron Van Haarlem
>
>
> ========================================== [This is the bit from The
> Pilot. He quotes someone who wrote to him on the Internet, the parts
> beginning with >, and then comments or answers them. ]
>
>
> Subj : Super Scio Tech - Reviewing Trom (attn Jules)
>
>
> REVIEWING TROM (Attn Jules)
>
>
> On 29 Mar 98, ju...@dev.null (Jules Trent) asked on subject
>
>
> "To Pilot re: TROM"
>
>
> > First, thanks for a much prior post re, Power Pr realization
>
> > (with clear cog as side effect) producing a state that is, per ...
>
> ...snip...
>
> > trouble, got huge LF/BD/FN on "was nothing wrong in the first
>
> > place:.....Thanks again...
>
> > Shouldn't have invalidated myself--- DUH!
>
>
> Great!
>
>
> > Re TROM:
>
> >
>
> > 1) What's your opinion on running it just as given?
>
> >
>
> > 2) Up through stage 3, it is ho-hum. Timebreaking seems to be
>
> ...snip...
>
> > opinion as compared to the view given in TROM itself?
>
> >
>
> > Will await possible reply on A.C.T.
>
> >
>
> > Jules
>
>
> I've said a bit about Trom before, but it is about time I reviewed
>
> it in detail.
>
>
> For starters, here are my quick notes on reading it. These are,
>
> of course, my opinions of what he is having people do.
>
>
> -----
>
>
> NOTES ON TROM
>
>
> In general he has nice descriptions of postulates, games, etc.
>
> and a good discussion of some of the important points involved
>
> in auditing.
>
>
> Level 1:
>
>
> Setups, run by another, basically, the CCHs.
>
>
> RI (Repair of Improtances), The Governor
>
>
> a) Create Something
>
> b) Have another create something
>
>
> or similar processes (bring something into existance)
>
> (create an importance).
>
>
> Note, mockup in all directions, & you don't have to percieve
>
> them for them to be real.
>
>
> RI by perception -
>
>
> Feeling objects, getting weight and temprature, etc.
>
>
> Level 2:
>
>
> Bascially then and now alternate spotting with a differentiation
>
> step.
>
>
> Level 3:
>
>
> Timebreaking - simultaneously perceiving a past scene and PT until
>
> the past scene dissolves.
>
>
> Level 4:
>
>
> Overwhelm - Bascially handling incidents of enforced and
>
> inhibited "know" on both inflow and outflow by means of
>
> the timebreaking process.
>
>
> Level 5:
>
>
> Postulates - handled in terms of Games.
>
>
> It is basically a GPM like pattern of postulates / counter-postulates
>
> (8 pairs of items) on Must / Mustn't Know. There is a GPM crossover
>
> style valence shift in the middle of the scale.
>
>
> The pattern then repeates on a substitute significance.
>
>
> One basically holds up the postulates of the items and timebreaks
>
> whatever shows up, and one does lots of RI.
>
>
> Additional Materials:
>
>
> These extend the level 5 handling into more goals, which are
>
> seen as derriving from the basic set on Know.
>
>
> One of the lists of additional goals is: To create, love, admire,
>
> enhance, help, feel, control, own, have, eat, sex.
>
>
> ----
>
>
> The RI processes are appropriate for use as what I refer to
>
> as a "safety net" in self processing. In other words, something
>
> basic that you can do to cool down restimulation if you get
>
> into trouble.
>
>
> The creative RI is usable but is a very high gradient for
>
> someone if they get in trouble. In other words, it could be
>
> very workable under normal circumstances but be too steep at
>
> the exact time when the person needs it most.
>
>
> The RI by perception should work even if the person is heavily
>
> spun in by a bad mistake. But it is not necessarily the easiest
>
> process of its kind.
>
>
> I put many different processes of this class into the self
>
> clearing book on the basis that some will work better than
>
> others for a given individual and he may need alternatives
>
> if he gets into trouble.
>
>
> Also, although all processes of this class are theoretically
>
> unlimited, they do sometimes flatten and overrun temporarily,
>
> so you need multiple choices.
>
>
> I would recommend doing the first few chapters of self clearing
>
> first and having those processes at your fingertips in addition
>
> to the RI in case of trouble.
>
>
> Also, some of the processes in those first chapters should reach
>
> lower than the RI set and can probably subsitute for doing CCHs
>
> at level 1, at least for anybody who is aware enough to read
>
> the book and try it.
>
>
> ----
>
>
> He is also using the RI processes as a sort of havingness
>
> step to balance blowing mass in session.
>
>
> This is not a bad idea, and is very much in keeping with the
>
> late 1950s style of processing.
>
>
> But it is also to some slight degree a solution to bypassing
>
> too many areas and running with inadequate Itsa.
>
>
> I don't want to invalidate this, because running havingness
>
> or create or any nice booster action between steps or at
>
> the end of session is a good and helpful thing.
>
>
> However, it usually only becomes critical (and needs to be
>
> done in vast quantities), when there is too much being
>
> sidestepped. For example, with quickie triple grades in the
>
> late 1960s, you were asking for an instant cave in if you
>
> didn't finish the grade off with a havingness process.
>
>
> The effect is not simply due to blowing too much mass at once.
>
> That is the mistake. You can blow tons of mass without this
>
> effect if you balance areas of handling. The effect comes
>
> from blowing really deep holes in the bank while ignoring
>
> other areas. The effect has occured often on the Scientology
>
> research line because of the stupid idea of having found
>
> the one and only right why and then pushing it to the hilt
>
> while ignoring all the other things we knew. But it rarely
>
> happens with things like expanded grades that use a broader
>
> base.
>
>
> So I would say that if you seem to be needing too much RI,
>
> then you should run something other than TROM for awhile.
>
> Trom's biggest liability is simply that it is a very narrow
>
> subset of the tech and the areas that can be handled.
>
>
> At the same time, he does give me the idea that I should
>
> check over the self clearing book and add some havingness
>
> or creative mockups to the end of the occasional chapter
>
> which doesn't already have them built in. These things
>
> are always useful as an enhancement.
>
>
> What I'm really trying to say here about Trom is that his
>
> RI actions are good but also that they are good enough to
>
> cover weaknesses in his levels.
>
>
> ----
>
>
> Unfortunately, he completely misses the areas of the grades.
>
> That was also true of 1950s Scientology. That will give
>
> trouble eventually, and that is why we ended up with modern
>
> Scientology even though the 1950s stuff is ten times more
>
> powerful. The really smart thing is to use both instead
>
> of one or the other.
>
>
> ----
>
>
> His level 2 is a very "standard" application of late 1950s
>
> Scientology. There are dozens of varitions of these kinds
>
> of processes and all work very well. Some are in the self
>
> clearing book.
>
>
> ----
>
>
> His Timebreaking is a bit different from earlier techniques.
>
> I tried it and it seemed like fun to do it with light
>
> incidents, but I prefer to handle light incidents with
>
> simple itsa and blowing by inspection.
>
>
> But the timebreaking seems to be designed as a heavy
>
> incident handling technique rather than a light one.
>
> For me most incidents are not "heavy" and so I rarely
>
> use heavy incident running, by which I mean any technique
>
> like R3R or other drills that let you push through on
>
> something that is really difficult to confront and can't
>
> be blow by simple itsa.
>
>
> But I felt that I should try this once just to see how
>
> good the timebreaking was on a rough incident.
>
> Finaly I remembered an old picture of some kind of 4 dimensional
>
> spiral which I had clipped while running something else
>
> and never gotten around to examining more deeply. This
>
> was something from before home universe in the area of
>
> track that I still have trouble understanding and Itsaing,
>
> so it seemed appropriate for a real test.
>
>
> So I got present time and this old 4 dimensional thing
>
> around me simultaneously.
>
>
> Present time started distorting. Lots of shifts back and
>
> forth in depth perception and intensity of colors and some
>
> sporatic double images of room objects. Really wierd.
>
> That cooled down a bit (but didn't entirely stop) and that
>
> damn spiral just sat there solid as a rock.
>
>
> Finally I got impatient and, while continuing to hold both
>
> the spiral and present time in my attention, I started spotting
>
> points on the spiral (simple objective spotting). That
>
> got things moving, and suddenly I started being able to
>
> itsa the thing, and I realized that it was curving through
>
> a 4th dimension as a means of transportation between two
>
> different 3 dimensional frames.
>
>
> With that the whole thing dissolved and the distortions
>
> stopped and I felt really good.
>
>
> My conclusion was that I had to beef up the Itsa line
>
> to get this to work well on a heavy picture. So that
>
> makes it a marginal process unless you enhance it a bit
>
> or instinctively tend to spot and itsa things in the
>
> thing that you are handling.
>
>
> But it is still a nice trick.
>
>
> ----
>
>
> For level 4 I would say that you would be better off with
>
> recalls and intensive Itsa on the buttons being handled.
>
> But this is not to say that the timebreaking wouldn't
>
> work but just to say that it might be slower and might
>
> not run as deep.
>
>
> Pushing at things in a way that maximizes Itsa is better
>
> because it gives you much more orientation and understanding
>
> of what you are taking apart.
>
>
> ----
>
>
> Level 5 has the inherent assumption that the basic goal
>
> is To Know. This may act as a wrong item for some
>
> people.
>
>
> It is possible that there is a very early track actual
>
> GPM series that begins with this goal and runs well
>
> on his short item pattern.
>
>
> It is also possible that there is an implant series
>
> that this is approximating.
>
>
> It is also possible that this might actually be pieces
>
> of something larger and that it works sometimes to
>
> relieve charge.
>
>
> If it is only an implant, I would think that the
>
> timebreaking actually works better than repetative item
>
> spotting. It might even be strong enough to blow charge
>
> on a platen that is only half right. And that might
>
> be a good use for the timebreaking technique in
>
> general. I'm only guessing now, but I think that it
>
> could drain charge off of an out of sequence or wrongly
>
> worded implant item that wouldn't blow on simple spotting.
>
> If, however, this stuff is some kind of actual GPM,
>
> the timebreaking technique would probably not give enough
>
> Itsa to really handle it fully. That was always the
>
> bane of the GPM research, namely that there was too
>
> much running of items and too little Itsa of how the
>
> items were lived.
>
>
> It does feel like he is very close on some early actual
>
> GPM series, but I don't have my hands on it right now and
>
> I wouldn't venture to say how accurate his pattern is or
>
> how many people would be able to run this series successfully.
>
> I would suggest that people who try to run this should
>
> try to add in some technique to get more itsa. Perhaps
>
> simply to describe what somebody might do to make such
>
> and such a postulate stick or what overts they might
>
> commit while doing it. Or to try and date/locate when
>
> they were living the item.
>
>
> If somebody is makeing gains with this, I would say go
>
> for it, and please write up what you find. But if
>
> it wouldn't run and doesn't indicate, I would say
>
> that you shouldn't push it or try to force it to run
>
> because it may be way off from where you are sitting
>
> right now.
>
>
> Right now I think that we set up an actual GPM series
>
> for each universe and that we leave it running and don't
>
> abandon it when we move down to a lower universe and
>
> start a new series, so that many sets are running
>
> concurrently. And each could be traced sequentially.
>
> That would be the way to distinguish an actual series
>
> from an implanted one (you don't live implants
>
> sequentially, you dramatize different parts as they
>
> go into restim). But one series of actuals might
>
> explain your choice of professions and a different
>
> one might explain your love life and yet another one
>
> might explain your taste in movies.
>
>
> If he is right in the simplicity of his item pattern,
>
> then the series is a holdover from an very early universe
>
> because we have gotten more complex as we went along.
>
> It feels like he has pieces of a larger goals series.
>
> Since the technique allows for finding more goals,
>
> one would have to see what one came up with. His goals
>
> series does approximate the Know to Mystery scale and
>
> he mentions substitute as the action which one does
>
> as one cycles downward, which fits in with the general
>
> theory of K to M.
>
>
> It is quite possible that the K to M scale is rooted
>
> in an actual GPM sequence and originates from there.
>
> I will be quite interested to hear what people find
>
> out while working with this level. I can not
>
> guarantee that it is either safe or accurate, but I
>
> don't want to invalidate it because it could well be
>
> a significant piece of the puzzel.
>
>
> ----
>
>
> In summary, I would say that there is some good stuff
>
> in Trom, and that he has done some good writeups
>
> about basic things that will be useful in studying
>
> other techniques as well, but that it is far from a
>
> complete case handling and should be used in conjunction
>
> with other things.
>
>
> He is also to be commended for having made it primarily
>
> a solo effort.
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> The Pilot
>
>
> ==========================================
>
> The free Self Clearing Book, The Super Scio book, and the
>
> "SCIENTOLOGY REFORMER'S HOME PAGE" are all over the net.
>
> See The Self Clearing Homepage for URLs to these sites
>
> http://fza.org/pilot/selfclr.htm or
>
> http://www.proweb.co.uk/~tech/clear.htm
>
>
> Or see The Pilots Home Page at http://fza.org/pilot/index.htm [no longer
> available]
>
>
> Some translations are available, see
>
>
> In German - http://www.cso.net/mt/pilot.htm
>
> In Russian - http://www.user.cityline.ru/~cisergem/ or www.aha.ru/~espinol
> <http://www.aha.ru/%7Eespinol>
>
>
> All of this week's posts will be collected in Super Scio Archives
>
> #28 and #29 and posted to ACT. See the Pilot Archives at FZA.ORG.
>
> Note that some of my posts only go to ACT. I cannot be reached by email.
>
> I watch ARS and ACT for messages with Pilot in the subject line.
>
>
> ------------------
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
> From: Ray Harman <ray...@adelaide.dialix.com.au>
> <ray...@adelaide.dialix.com.au>
>
> Message-Id: <199805241213.vaa07...@adelaide.dialix.com.au>
> <199805241213.vaa07...@adelaide.dialix.com.au>
>
> Subject: Ability meter voltage
>
> To: tro...@newciv.org
>
> Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 21:43:47 +0930 (CST)
>
>
> Dear Trommers,
>
> I saw in a long series of exchanges someone had said that
>
> the Ability meter puts up to six volts across the cans at high TA.
>
>
> The latest model 3A runs on two AA cells. That's a maximum of three volts.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Ray Harman.
>
>
>
>
> Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 06:21:25 +0200
>
> From: Antony Phillips <i...@post8.tele.dk> <i...@post8.tele.dk>
>
> Reply-To: i...@post8.tele.dk
>
> Organization: International Viewpoints
>
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
>
> To: <ivy-subscrib...@lightlink.com>
>
> ...
>
> [Message clipped]
_______________________________________________
TROM mailing list
TROM@lists.newciv.org
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom

Reply via email to