> Certainty of the future.
> Is this not known now?  Do you know the OT IX to OT XII ones?

     They are not publically released, and no I don't know them.

     But you know OT VIII is basically

     What determines how you feel?

     If you can get someone to put an 'other determinism' there enough,
he will suddenly find he is determining (causing) the other determinism
to be there.

      Knowing by looking flip flops to looking by knowing.

     That's the observation/consideration flip flop.

     There are two opposing definitions of To Determine.

     The first is to learn aboutg what is out there, by being an EFFECT
of what is out there.

     The second is to CAUSE what is out there.

     To determine by looking (learning) moves into to determine by

      That is the purpose of auditing.

      The preclear is going "What's there?  What's there?" trying
to determine or find out what is there.

      The auditor goes well ok "Put a cat there.  Good, did you
put a cat there?" and the preclear goes "Wow there's a cat there!"

     The preclear determined (caused) that there will be a cat there,
and then determned (learned) or verified there was a cat there.

      So he is now operating both sides of To Determine.

      That is way higher than "What's there?" effect, effect, effect.

      Run the following with "Get the idea of ...".

      "There is NO   DETERMINING"
      "There is SOME DETERMINING"   Run both definitions

      Run truth with

      "There is NO   TRUTH."
      "There is SOME TRUTH."

      Run Character with:

      "There is NO   Author"
      "There is SOME Author"
      "There is NO   Character"
      "There is SOME Character"

      Future is the same way:

      "There is NO   FUTURE."      Run PAST and PRESENT too.
      "There is SOME FUTURE."

      Spend some time with 
     "How do you feel about your future?"
     "Are you causing that, or are you learning that?"

      "There is NO   CAUSE"        Run on OTHER CAUSE also.
      "There is SOME CAUSE"

     All the complexity in auditing is a waste of time.

      The higher the OT level, the simpler the issue and the simpler the
auditing to run it.

     Sometimes you gotta run refused, no, inhibited, enforced, desired,
curious about, known about, and source of.  But most often NO and SOME
work just fine.  But just in case, don't forget sub-refused.  That is
below refused.

      "There is NO   BRAIN"
      "There is SOME BRAIN"

      "There is NO PROOF"
      "There is SOME PROOF"

     The real answer to the prove it cases is to give them a solo
process they can run for a few hours across many days, that will show
that "Scn is good thing and ought to be continued".

     Much better than dropping an atom bomb on their soul.

     The OT's who HAVE power are nervous about it and how someone who
doesn't have power is going to respond to it.

     It's one thing to move the marble on the table, quite another to
move a meatball to reason about it.

      Fools rush in where Angels dare not tread and God's go crying for
their mama.
     That's why we have the prime directive.

     The prime directive is more than a security protocol built around
paranormal powers, particularly those that can be used as a weapon of
war.  The prime directive is part and parcel of what allows the power to
exist in the first place, for the protocol enables the power.

     No protocol, no power.

     Those looking to find the power (as proof of something) before
putting the enabling security protocol in place first, will of course be
forever disappointed.


Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com    In the Line of Duty    http://www.lightlink.com
Tue Apr 22 15:00:00 EDT 2008
Sat Jan 19 17:50:22 EST 2013