From anon@squirrel.owl.de Mon Aug 31 13:13:24 1998 Path: newscene.newscene.com!novia!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.alt.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news Date: 31 Aug 1998 20:13:24 -0000 From: Secret Squirrel Comments: Please report problems with this automated remailing service to . The message sender's identity is unknown, unlogged, and not replyable. Subject: FZ BIBLE 1/3 SHSBC-344 ITSA MAKER LINE Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology Message-ID: Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net Lines: 534 Xref: newscene.newscene.com alt.religion.scientology:519353 alt.clearing.technology:63213 FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST TAPE LECTURE SHSBC-344 16 OCT 63 THE ITSA MAKER LINE 1/3 Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet. The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists. It misuses the copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom. The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings of Judiasm form the Old Testament of Christianity. We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against. But the Christians are not good and obedient Jews and yet are allowed to have their old testament regardless of any Jewish opinion. We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists. We ask for others to help in our fight. Even if you do not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose to aid us for that reason. Thank You, The FZ Bible Association ************************************************** (part 1 of 3) THE ITSA MAKER LINE Tape lecture of 16 Oct 1963, SHSBC-313 renumbered 344 How are you today? Audience: Fine. Good. Good. We have the 16th of October AD 13, don't we? Is that the date? Female voice: 17th. What's the date? Audience: 16th. All right. All right, you're outvoted. One motion we don't have to table. Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. Well, we have a lot of material, but the material you were most fascinated with was the examination of the communication cycle and the recognition that there was another communication line in it you hadn't really been aware of. Several auditors so far have been very, very delighted indeed, and I think several pcs already have been. And there will be a great many more pcs who will be delighted with this before we get through. I better give you a bit of a talk about that, in spite of the fact that I haven't hit on a final name for this line - we'll call it the itsa maker. Now, that possibly is not the most applicable name. Let's take a look at this thing. This line is actually the line which you are guiding as an auditor and which sorts out the various things in the case, and which then reports - which then gets the material, you might say, that is reported to the auditor as itsa. Actually, the itsa itself occurs at the end of this line, not at the auditor. So actually, it's the itsa communication line that goes from the pc back.to the auditor. That is the itsa communication line. Itsa is a commodity. It's a commodity. It's actually the identification of isness - and, of course, time can enter into it and you will get wasness. Now, you get all types of variations, all tone scales and everything else fit into this commodity called itsa. You could ask for "failed decisions." Well, the pc says "itsa," see - he says "it's a failed decision," don't you see. It's a this, and it's a that, and it's something else, but you could even have a failure to identify. You could ask pcs for failures to identify. Now, if you were going to ask a pc for a failure to identify, you of course are on the borderline between a confusion and an itsa. See, that's the borderline in between there. Times when you didn't find out something. Now,you'd be surprised that occasionally you'll get a little TA action on this. But you will also stir up enough overrestimulation to mess things up gorgeously. Now, the commodity called itsa is so simple - recognizing it can have tremendous variety - it is nevertheless tremendously simple as a commodity. There is nothing much to this commodity. You walk in the room and you look around to see what's there, you see. Well, it's a chair, it's a student, it's a ceiling, it's a floor, don't you see. That's itsa for the room. And that's all there is to it. Now, until the itsa is recognized, it's only potential itsa. There is something there to be itsaed. Now, where you get in a lot of trouble as an auditor is you think you have a potential itsa where there's in actual fact a nothingness, and you're trying to get the pc to itsa a nothingness. This is the way you go about it. Let me show you just some of the problems that an auditor runs into with this. He says to the pc - he says, "What's going on?" or "What's happening?" You see? And the pc says, "I'm just sitting here looking at a picture of a statue." You got that now, see. That's the situation. Now, the auditor says, "What is happening?" or "What is going on?" in some version or another. Now, the degree that the auditor can vary this, buries it from view of what he's actually doing, see. The pc has told him what was being - what was there, see. He said "itsa." "Sitting here looking at a picture of a statue," see. Simple. Now the auditor says, "What else is there? What are you doing? What else are you doing? How are you doing it?" and so on. "What decisions are you making about this?" You get this? Well, the pc isn't doing anything else, isn't making any decisions about the statue and in actual fact there is exactly nothing else going on. Now, this is the commonest method by which an auditor refutes itsa. Now, on a meter you call it "cleaning a clean." And you'd be very reprehensible at somebody who's saying, "On this blank has anything been invalidated?" And the meter is just absolutely sleek, see. "Oh, what was that? What was that? What was that? Wha - wha - wha-wha - what was that? What was that?" You know, you didn't get a read, see. And you can count on the pc ARC breaking very shortly. "Oh, that. There isn't anything else. There's nothing else been invalidated." Protest, see? "Well, I'11 ask the question again. On blank has anything been invalidated. Oh, that reads. That reads. That reads. What was that? What was that? Wha-what was that? That reads." Well, yeah, there's something there now because he protested the fact that a clean, clean was, so he protested the Invalidate button, so now the Invalidate button now reads on Protest. You got the idea? Now, out of this idiocy can get some of the most tangled situations. See, he cleaned a clean on the meter and the pc protested the cleaning of the clean, which made Invalidate read as a button. So now Invalidate reads, so now the auditor demands to know what is there. The auditor now becomes certain there is something there, don't you see. Reading on the meter, isn't it? And out of this, they can go wandering all over bayous and byroads and up in balloons and so forth, and it just goes to pieces from there - all of which proceeds from cleaning a clean. You've probably seen this happen - you may have had it happen bo you. It's a what - a very common error. Any auditor will do it sooner or later - he'll accidentally clean a clean. He just wants to be sure, you see. "Anything else been suppressed there?" you know. He's had a clean read, and he wishes to God he never said so, but of course Suppress can suppress its own read. So you're left in a bit of a quandary - and the pc said, "No, there's nothing else." "Ah, ah - well, I see a read there now." Protest read or something like this sort of thing. Pc looks and gives four or five more answers - each one of which is protest, do you see. So the button keeps reading, reading, reading. Finally, the pc says, "Yeah, but there isn't anything else here!" See, he's getting up into an ARC break situation. What's he being asked for? He's being asked to identify nonexistent itsa. Now, this is, the same trick as this: You take a wide, empty room. And you - this is brainwashing stuff, see - and you say to the person as you bring him in the door, "Describe to me the elephant in the middle of the room." And the fellow says, "There isn't any elephant in the middle of the room." "Oh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh - oh, no, no, no, no, no. Let's look carefully. Look carefully. Now, look all around the floor and see if you can't see those footprints and so forth. Now,you'll - you'll get - you'll get it after a while. You'll get this elephant after a while there." I swear if you kept it up, you could make the guy practically mock up an elephant in the middle of the room, don't you see. But the guy would be very overwhelmed and very ARC broken. What you're trying to do is tell him that something exists which doesn't exist. Now, perhaps that is - aside from the definitions of it - the source of - or failure to understand the definitions and so forth of itsa - probably the source of the greatest difficulty is cleaning cleans. You've seen it happen on a meter, you've seen yourself get in trouble occasionally, too, cleaning it on the meter. Well, similarly, you can clean it without a meter. You can say, "What are you looking at?" And the person says, "I'm sitting here looking at a statue." "Oh, all right, good. Now what kind of a statue?" This is barely admissible, see, because that one might lay an egg too. "Well, it's just a statue kind of a statue." You see? "Yes, but what does it look like?" "Well, it looks like a statue." "Um, all right. Uhm. Wha-what else are you doing there?" "Oh, I'm not doing anything else. I'm just sitting here looking at this - or was sitting here looking at this statue - until I was so crudely interrupted." "All right. Well, now who might have made the statue?" "Well, I don't know." "What time period do you suppose it's in?" "Uh, sometime I guess." "Well, where - where - where is this statue located? Where is this statue located now? Where's it located?" and so forth. "Well, I don't know. Just here." Well, the amount of tone arm action you're going to get out of that is horrible because, actually, there's nothing else to itsa, don't you see? The auditor is creating new things to itsa which aren't there. The pc was just sitting there looking at a statue and actually probably was just looking at a vague blur, and he couldn't tell whether it was female or a male or anything else. He didn't know where it was located. He knew nothing about it except he was just struck by the fact that he saw this thing, and he assumed it was a statue and so he was sitting there looking at a statue. The auditor comes along and says, "What are you doing?" you know? And he says, "I'm sitting here looking at a statue." Now that is the itsa - and the way to really foul the pc up - and this is something you as an auditor just have to get straightened out yourselves, see - the way to foul the pc up, then, is to demand more than the pc's got. And you're not going to get itsa; you're not going to get itsa by demanding more than the pc's got because there's nothing else there to itsa! There simply isn't anything to itsa. You have got the itsa. But by asking again, you deny the fact that it has been itsaed. Now there's the real hook in all this. You say - you've said in effect when you say, "What else" - oh, you could say, "What else are you looking at?" without disturbing the pc too much. He says, "I'm sitting here looking at a statue." And the auditor says, "Well, what else are you seeing?" There would be a good example, see: "What else are you seeing?" Well, maybe he isn't seeing anything else. You see, this would be your thing - but you have in effect said, "I have not accepted what you have said." So now the itsa comm line is cut - as different from cutting the pc's itsa, see. You have not permitted the itsa particle to travel on that comm line. You have not only cut the - you have not only refuted the itsa - you see, the itsa isn't cut - it's refuted. You say it doesn't exist. "You haven't said anything. You haven't said anything because I want to now know much more about it than you have said. So therefore, you haven't said anything." This is what you're saying. So you also cut the itsa comm line. See, you've not just blunted out the itsa but you've cut the itsa comm line and the pc will ARC break eventually under this kind of treatment accordingly. So that then it appears to you that by cutting the comm line, you have caused an ARC break. So then you specialize in not cutting the comm line, and go on asking the pc ridiculous questions which knock the itsa in the head. Now you see how you could get fouled up on this? And your pc would ARC break like mad and be very upset about this and that and about his auditing and not getting any TA action and no gains and all this sort of thing, you see. Basically, no TA action. And the auditor could be quite certain what's wrong, you see, that he is inadvertently cutting the pc's comm line to the auditor in some fashion. And so now, compound the felony by developing a new system which overcomes this - because he actually hasn't got the trouble in the first place, see. He's got a new system he's going to develop to cure this old error, and he's going to say all the time, "Have I interrupted anything you were saying?" Well, this is not germane to it, so would only compound the ARC break. See? He hasn't interrupted anything, so again he has cleaned a clean. In other words, he's put his finger on the wrong error. You see that? This kind of a situation could develop: Auditor says the whatsit, see. The auditor says, "What's happening?" or "What are you doing?" And the pc says, "Well, I'm just sitting here looking at a statue." "Oh? What's the - what else is in view there as you're looking at the statue? What else are you looking at there in the statue?" He isn't looking at anything else - there isn't anything else there, don't you see? So the pc says, "Well, uh, mm-mm, uh, mm, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh. I'm just looking at the statue." Auditor sees a dirty needle, knows that a cut comm line turns on a dirty needle. Now says, "In some way have I cut your communication line?" Hell, no - he's forced the communication line, not cut it. Not only that, but he's invalidated - the sensation is that the - what the pc has said has been invalidated. You would be surprised how well something runs when you say to a pc, "What's happening?" or "What are you doing?" The pc says - said, "I'm sitting here looking at a statue." Now the auditor who doesn't have an eye cocked on his meter at this moment... You know, an auditor should be walleyed - one eye on the pc and one eye on the meter. And notices - and you can, you actually can get nicely walleyed. You look at this thing out of the corner of your eye - you can see what's happening to a meter even while you're apparently looking straight at the pc. As a matter of fact, it drives my pc nuts sometimes when she gets all tangled up in something or other, she'll notice something like this and growl about it, you know. "But you didn't see that on the meter!" Well, of course, I have seen that on the meter. It looks to the pc like this, you see. Pc absolutely certain that you aren't looking at the meter. Not so. Not so at all. I've seen everything that meter has done, see. I tell you how you do it - I tell you how you do it: You take the iris, you see, and it has an inner reflective quality, see. And you actually look at the reflection of the meter on the inside of the iris. That's actually the way you do it. Anyway. Joke. But you actually can see this. Now, you've got to establish - what are you trying to do? Well, actually, you're trying to get tone arm action, see - that's what you're trying to do. Because that is the most visible action of success. If you've done everything else successfully you get tone arm action; so you say, well, what are you trying to do? You're trying to get tone arm action. Don't say, "I'm trying to clear somebody, I'm trying to heal somebody's broken leg, or I'm trying to do this or trying to do that." Scientology Levels I, II and III, you're trying to get tone arm action. The significance of how you get tone arm action - oh, bleaaaah! No matter what you do with a pc, it's all got to be done thoroughly at Level IV. You understand that? You can destimulate and put present time back where it belongs and dust the case off and let the case live, don't you see? You can do very remarkable things at Levels I, II and III - don't make a mistake. And on Level IV, you're going to find all the somatics again. It isn't that you haven't blown charge off the case at large - yes, you have at Levels I, II and III, but a lot of it was destimulated charge. You make it possible for somebody actually to run IV at Levels I, II and III. But the significances are the pc's actual GPMs, the pc's RIs, the terminals and oppterms, and that whole chain of actual goals back to time immemorial contains every possible reason why the pc is batty, except one. Except one. How did he get so batty that he started doing this in the first place! Well, actually, that's merely a decision. It's just a sort of "How do you make matter," see. Well, he easily comes out of that. You want to know why the pc has pictures? He's probably got some GPM to make pictures, you see. You want to know why the - why the pc is getting less powerful? Well, he has some GPM to be less powerful. I mean that's a - see? That's - you want to know why the pc is terrified of height? Well, he's got an RI or a GPM to make him terrified of height, don't you see? I mean anything wrong - or if the guy has a broken leg, why, you're going to have - you're going to have some RI someplace or other that tells him to break his leg. You get the idea? I mean, the - they're - all the explanations are there. There's no sense in looking for explanations anyplace else on a case. You understand? And that's very discouraging - but amongst us pros we can - I mean its very discouraging to the pc after he's just gotten rid of this and he feels fine about it and all is going along well, to actually realize that back on the track the real reason is still resident. But if we didn't recognize that as auditors, we would not be honest with our own technology because we know that to be true. He's got stuff back on the track, don't you see? Now you've got to put a case in shape so the case will sit there and run this high-powered stuff at Level IV, and Level IV is the Scientologist level. You can talk all you want to about how easy it is perhaps to run raw meat and all that sort of thing. It is - it is too. But remember this at Levels I, II and III: It practically takes an educated pc and a very well educated auditor to run Level IV, and the pc wouldn't know what to do with it if he got there. So you've got two different brands of action going on here, see. You've got three gradients of one brand - Scientology I, II and III - and you've got another brand of stuff. And that other brand of stuff depends utterly on skill at I, II and III. But Level IV is the Scientologist level. I don't think after looking it over for a long, long time, is I frankly don't think in spite of this - I know this is quite a revolutionary statement but this is actually based merely on observation - is I don't think, it's my own opinion after all the evidence is in, that anybody will make OT except a trained auditor. Now, that's the only - the only person I know of. In the first place, his confront is up to this stuff. In the second place, he knows what to do. In the third place, you're dealing with things that a pc would have to be educated into the nomenclature of before he could even run the process. How are you going to communicate to a pc "actual GPM." Well, you could say actual Goals Problem Mass. What's that going to communicate? These are totally unknown factors. These are - these are factors adrift in the whirl-wind, you see. Nobody's ever heard of these things before. And as far as somebody being able to become conscious of and concerned without his confront as an auditor rising, without an understanding of the various puttogethers of these things - plooey! I just don't think it can happen, see. I think that's the basic barrier on the track. The basic barriers to development of mental science. If you specialized 100 percent on a total effect and total result by reason of a mental science - see, total; that was your goal - and you were not going to make a fully trained pro out of everybody you were going to do it to, see. At the same time, if you had - if you had a body of professionals over here which were barring out everybody else from becoming professionals - the same modus operandi that the medicos use, that the psychiatrists try to use, other people try to use, you know. They say, "Us educated people," see. And "We hold the holy sepulcher," you know, and "Worship Saint Pavlov." This kind of stuff, do you see? All right, they bar all these fellows out, and then these other fellows that are supposed to be the fellows who have the effect created on them, don't you see - they're the patients or they're the recipient of the technology - and then all of these birds who are the pros, you see, they have all the know-how. And these other fellows over here, why, they're the recipients of the know-how, but they don't get any of the know-how and so forth. And I think that's a very effective system from ever - for ever keeping anybody from getting anything, or getting anywhere. So your Scientology Levels I, II and III - particularly Levels I and II - are very adaptable to handling far in excess any requirement that the public at large has for a psychotherapy. It's wildly in excess! You just learn a few of these things I'm trying to teach you, and you'll find it's just wildly in excess. Staff Auditor here is having a ball on this stuff. I mean, case - oh, poof! Nothing to that, see. Got to remember, he's saying the raw meat case - there's nothing to what? Making the case feel better. Making the case feel happier. Curing the lumbosis. Getting the case over this. Getting the case over that. Yeah. Ah, but there's a different mission which mental science could fulfill. Entirely different mission, which is a total sweep-up of the total case. How tough and how educated and how understanding do you think a pc has to be in order to stand up to the number of randomities which can occur at Level IV, because, don't kid yourself, they can occur! Well, let me tell you: In two or three instances now, people have been carefully audited in HGCs at this particular level, and in two or three of those cases, even though they had a GPM or two cleaned up, they got a couple of RIs out of place. A couple of RIs out of place - you ought to have ten goals out of place sometimes. Ten GPMs smeared around backwards - you'd know what a creak was, man! "Well, we had a couple of RIs out of place so we had an awful ARC break. And we want our money back from the organization." Oh, slap my wrist! They're going to run into that continually, so why - why say it doesn't exist? We could be hopeful and say well, wouldn't it be nice if it didn't exist? But actually what you have for the first time is really a body of pros who, by the nature of the technology as far as I can survey the technology, have a level of technology applicable to them who were possessors of a level of technology which is applicable to the general public in the fields of mental and physical healing! Now, this is a riches that you probably hadn't really totally looked at. When you finally get through and get it all summed up - summed up, the characters that are going to make it are Scientologists, as other people aren't going to make it. I know I've done the research vanguard on this as a pc, because it would have killed anybody else - but I personally can't see anybody going through one-tenth of what I've gone through in the last two weeks, see. What, on the general public level? Oh, no. I can see you characters going through it, see. ********** continued in part 2 **********