pilot excerpts

8/10/2019 Pilot Excerpts

1/19

PILOT EXCERPTS.

A History Of AbandoningProcesses(From Post 48 - February 1999)

With the May 1950 release of Dianetics the Modern Science of Mental Health came the ideathat there was One Basic Why (engrams) which could be handled by a single technique toproduce 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 painfullyobvious 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 thehumanoid clear of DMSMH , the amount of material that would have to be handled hadseemed 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 sawthat.

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

And so the search was on to find faster more powerful techniques to undercut the bank andreach 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 wasDianetics old and abandoned but even the technique 88 processes of just a few monthsbefore were considered obsolete.

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

They were not accumulating techniques in those days, instead they were using them brieflyand 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


2/19

was a great set of super techniques, probably the best single collection that was puttogether in the early days. But please realize that when it was truly in use, everything elsewas abandoned. That includes Dianetics, group processing, technique 88, fac one handling,running entities, the mockup processes of the doctorate course, the advanced OT rundownknow 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, CofHAwas so well consolidated that in later years route 1 would sometimes be identified as whatto run if the current bridge was completed. But it stopped being used in the org's processinglineup.

And then come the later ACCs [Advanced Clinical Courses], each again focusing on a limitedtarget 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 brieflyand then abandoned with the ultimate target seen as GPMs and all other processing simplybeing 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 thegrades are devised in 1965, you will see occasional HCOBs labeled as "HGC AllowedProcesses". Those are complete lists of the techniques permitted in those times. All otherprocesses 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 learnsomething sophisticated such as a computer language by knowingness alone without thehard work and experience.

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


3/19

learning programming.

And yet I pickup new computer languages these days with a careless wave of the hand. Icertainly don't bother "learning" them in any formal manner. Using C as an example, when Idid 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 asophisticated multi-threaded program. Within a few days I was solving problems forsupposed C experts at work.

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

But I do come very close to picking up new computer languages by pure knowingness nowthat I have lots of experience in the area. Except that it isn't by knowingness. It can't be orelse 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 anafternoon? 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 inagreement with what others had created. Knowing how the machine works and knowingwhat the language would have to do, you of course know what is there in the languagewithout having to learn it, it is just obvious.

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

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

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

Where a computer neophyte would fail would be in not doing the mockups in sufficientdetail so as to be of comparable magnitude to existing computer languages. Note that I'mnot talking her e 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 detailedinstruction set and parsing rules, because that is the one that gives you the ability to know


4/19

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 betweenKnowingness and Know-About (learning). But in practice, you generally shift up fromleaning to pure knowing without going through a not-know step. And you can shift fromKnowing down to leaning by simply going downtone or losing confidence or contracting yourspace 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. Idon'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 anddifferent one.

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

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

CREATENOT-KNOW

KNOWKNOW-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 whenI was getting set up for expanded grades back in the 1970s. I was a class 4 auditor andgrade VA release from the 1960s one process per grade era. My auditor was one of my ownformer 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. Butthe first step of the program required doing all the word lists for any correction list that theymight have to use. And since I was grade VA, that meant every word list in existence exceptfor 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). TheC/S did not dare bypass the word clearing step because that would be squirreling. And we


5/19

all wanted me to get onto the expanded grades processing. And nobody wanted to give mea lot of bypassed charge on wasting money on unnecessary actions. That quantity of wordclearing 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 thatpopped into my head and the auditor would just say the next word without stopping toconsider whether I was answering correctly. He had confidence that I knew the answers sohe wasn't worrying about it. And we weren't worrying about context. It was "Run?" - "GoFast" rather than "Run?" - "do a process", and it was as fast as we could say the wordsquickly. So we did about 30 definitions per minute. We went through thousands of words ina couple of hours.

And something wild happened. First of all, I lost all considerations. Then I was just talkingfrom knowingness without looking at any pictures or considering anything. Then there was amoment 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 FNon 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 beright but not as a result of looking at or knowing anything. They simply were right because Iwas postulating that they should be correct and in agreement because I wanted to getthrough the word clearing action without any time wasting distractions such as looking upwords (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-Mscale 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 aplane by visualizing everything that could happen and what you would do about it. He talksabout a beginning auditor preparing themselves to do a session in this manner; Visualizingeverything that could happen and how to handle it. He certainly saw a bit of this in thoseearly inspired days, but it didn't make it into the general theory or onto the K-M scale. Buthe does talk at times about learning something by doing mockups to approximate it (I thinkthat that one is even on the study tapes).

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

And my thought experiment with the C language points up another key concept. It is notthe 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.


6/19

Tesla is said to have visualized the complete AC power generation system in his mind beforehe 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 detailand when you dig further you often find that they had a tremendous ability to visualizethings as well.

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

But this factor of details is why you don't get an OT simply by having the person be biggerand permeate things. He is simply not up to mocking up the quantity of details necessaryfor good perception and control. If you get the idea of being as big as the galaxy (which isfun and interesting), you probably get a vague blur rather than precisely visualizing thedetails 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, butyou grow by quantum jumps rather than linearly by one item at a time. Once you canhandle a certain level of detail, then you can handle it. Once you can hold one musicalcomposition 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 individualpoints on objects. Then as a second step, spot and hold points, keeping the previous pointswhile 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 alittle more detail each time.

Go ahead and permeate a big city and see how many individual buildings you can hold inyour 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 followmultiple 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 intothe ordinary activities of your life so that they build up naturally and easily.


7/19

And there are quantum jumps where you start getting collections of detail as a unit withoutloosing sight of the detail. Think of reading. You probably get The Cat as a single unitrather 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 towrite 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 andspellings 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 youdo this consciously in present time without putting it on circuit, it soon jumps to being ableto handle packages of details.

Part of our downfall may have been that we decided that there were too many details and itseemed overwhelming or too boring and so we put the details on automatic so that wewouldn't have to confront them. But if it is on automatic, your confront never comes up andyou 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 detailsyou can mockup and hold. If you want to be god, you better plan on tracking every sparrowthat falls.

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

I'm sorry if this sounds like work. It can be rough getting started. But at the top of the scaleits 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 ofmoving from co-creation and a shared beingness to other-creation (the loss of the sharedbeingness). This is what results in the assumption of synthetic beingnesses (valences) andcreated 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 isan 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 samespace, which is loss of love, the pinnacle of ARC.

Valences are created primarily to try to attract or have co-creation with another. Failing


8/19

this, valences are created to have counter-creation, which still maintains an activerelationship.

Any processing directed at removing valences should be complimented with ARC processesin 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 loveabout 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 r esultof 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 withthe 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 withwhat is described there, except only that Carmelo's unknown author is a lot more verboseand 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.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?p=695206


9/19

One of the things I have observed over the years which aligns with The Pilot's thing ofblowing all the mechanics of using the mind to look for "definitions and meanings" of wordsis this: my observation is that words, whether written or spoken, are actually representationsymbols for concepts. That is, words are symbols that represent concepts . . . and ofcourse, 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 isinterested. If unmetered, check for interest or physical reaction or mental reaction nomatter 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 daysof scientology-yore.

TED

There is NO correct, valid, right "understanding", because any "understanding" exists in thetemporary mind, based largely on some incomplete conceptual framework, of a temporaryhuman being, on a temporary planet in a temporary universe.

The only valid way to "understand" anything is to get out and OBSERVE. That BYPASSESany need for communication in words. Also, words are loaded and VERY tricky, and are NOTthe things they describe or talk about. Another reason Hubbard never described the usefulaspects of General Semantics, is probably because it helps strengthen a person AGAINSTthe 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 itat everybody, equally, with no aspect of how YOU can or will use it to change somebodyelse'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 theUniverse, and aim it abundantly at all creation.


10/19


11/19

quite a while. And then stop. And then ask yourself WHY you haven't been doing this allalong?

There are MANY more possible exercises. NONE require a shared agreement, other thanthat 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 insome 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 . Ittranscends the personal human ego. It is entirely an OUTFLOW. With no concern in any wayabout "inflow". It has nothing to do with "me". It is a BIG idea! This idea is non-existent inScientology. 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 atsome 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 . Thenotion 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 operatesFAR BELOW the unconditional affinity I described above. You don't need some "bridge" toget to the high realms of spiri tual 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 apenny!

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

Pilot'sPost Z14

OT Research Affinity Defined,Wavelength Drill


12/19

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 wildlittle trick that doubles exterior perception.

And the trick is easy to learn. I coached two people throughit in a few minutes after explaining the theory and both gotit 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 exteriorperception (usually mixed in with lots of dub-in and imagination),then do chapters 1, 2, and 11 of Self Clearing, which shouldat least get you to the vague level that people used toget from old OT 5 and 6. [ Self Clearing is downloadablefrom http://freezoneearth.org/downloads/files.html#Self2004 - get the 2004 edition, whichwas 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 theoryis 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 thatwe have a very detailed definition of Communication.

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

We do not have a definition of Affinity that is ofcomparable magnitude, with components that can bedrilled and used. And yet we know that it is a basic of
http://freezoneearth.org/downloads/files.html#Self2004http://freezoneearth.org/downloads/files.html#Self2004http://freezoneearth.org/downloads/files.html#Self2004


13/19

great importance.

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

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

And if you raise the dampers on a piano (step on the rightpedal) and hit a note, other strings which are harmonicsof it (an octave above and below etc.) with also startvibrating slightly. Again, this is just high schoolphysics.

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

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

And then there is matching tones on the emotional tonescale. If you think of these emotions as havingwavelengths, again you have resonance.

So let's begin by defining an axiom for resonance. Notethat I'm using "axiom" in the popular sense (a basicprinciple) as did Hubbard rather than in the strictmathematical sense.

__

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

Matching tones on the emotional tone scale is an example ofresonance between beings. Sympathetic vibrations betweenpiano strings or tuning forks is an example of resonancebetween physical object.

___

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


14/19

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 ORVIBRATION ACROSS A DISTANCE FROM A POINT OF DESIRE TO APOINT OF ACCEPTANCE WITH ADMIRATION, LIKING, ANDRESONANCE.

___

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 anotherlevel of practical application. And that brings us backto that trick I was talking about.

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

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

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

A specific element will have electron shells at fixeddistances from the nucleus. These are like frozenwaves which have a wavelength. When we heat up ametal, it glows at a specific wavelength because ofthis. In physics, spectrums can be analyzed to preciselypin down the elements present in something based on thisprinciple (spectrographic analysis). Again this is

just textbook physics.

Of course a complex object has many elements and shouldprobably be thought of as a composite. But theoversimplified idea that an object will have a singlebasic vibration is actually good enough to start with.


15/19

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 vibrationswith the object (you can feel this easily). Note thatyou don't have to hit the actual vibration, but justa harmonic of it, so it doesn't matter that much whetheryou use a high pitch or a low one, but it is importantto 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, matchingvibrations, you should find that you can pretty muchmatch wavelengths automatically without having to assessin detail.

You should experience a startling increase in mentalperception of an object whenever you hit it with a

matching vibration, especially perceptions of theinside and far side of the object (it is a 3D perceptionrather than looking).

Note that matching wavelengths goes way beyond simplepermeation (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 musicalnote to heal somebody, and I've even heard mention ofthe idea that humming the correct note might enable one

to move an object. And there is even Scriabin's ideathat the ultimate musical composition would bring theworld to fulfillment and allow it to end.

When you first drill this, you can just look at an objector a wall and project a vibration at it. But once youget the knack of it, try it exterior in conjunction withany exteriorization drill that works for you.


16/19

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

There is lots more that you can play around with. Youcan 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 yourperceptions raised a notch, it's still probably moredub-in than accurate data. You mustn't invalidate thehalf correct perceptions or they get weaker.

Of course I ignored my own advise and tried to readsome playing cards upside-down. I used 8 numbers (2 to9) in 4 suits to make calculations easy. I held eachcard up facing away from me and mentally roared vibrationsat it until I had a clear visio of the card's face.

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

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

It was crazy because I could only violate the mathematicalprobability by getting an obviously incorrect perception.I'd see a 7 of hearts clearly and it would be a 7 ofclubs when I turned it over. Or I'd see an 8 or spadesclearly and it would be a 3 of spades when I turned it

over. But I'd be right on either the suit or the digiton about 3/4 of the cards.

An hour of this and I was just about banging my headagainst the wall and getting exhausted and invalidatingmy perceptions because every damn visio was obviouslywrong (I never ever saw the correct card, which wasalso contrary to chance because I should have accidentally


17/19

gotten one right every 32 cards).

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

And yet there was a consistent and dramatic violationof mathematical probability.

I thought this over a bit.

My first idea was that the true perception coming throughmust have been no more than a tiny flash of color or theshape of a single number and I was building an entirevisio 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 accurateperception but something was overlaying it with analter-is because there is some mechanism designed toblock 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 orso of these factors which sum up into the creation of

reality.

One of them is intention. Another is resonance. Yetanother is faith/belief. Each of these acts as significantamplifiers, and each one can be drilled individuallyand is fairly easy to master.

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

I started thinking of affinity as a duplication of motion.

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

And agreement would be a duplication of intention.

By communicating, you might duplicate the fact thatsomebody else likes to fish, and yet you might not


18/19


19/19

The Pilot

pilot excerpts

Documents