CONCEIVE A KINETIC In Creation of Human Ability, LRH had a process called Conceive a Static. He rated it as a 5 star process, although rough on the pc. Rough indeed. If ever there was evidence of Hubbard's maternal malevolence toward all of man kind, this might be it. It is not possible to concieve a static any more than it is possible to mockup, create or understand a static. The static is a native state of total unmanifestation, it exists prior to and is the cause of any kind of conception, mockup, creation or understanding. Thus if you are conceiving anything, you aren't a static. You might be able to BE a static, but never to conceive a static. Thus conceive a static can not possibly be run, it will only give the pc losses as every auditing command will end in failure and is possibly the basic basic on Black Dianetics designed to grind a pc in until he can't get out. So listen closely now. The way IN, is the way out. That does NOT mean you turn around after coming in and attempt to follow your path out. That sticks you IN. That's for little kids in the forest leaving bread crumbs behind them. They get eaten by the big bad wolf from behind while trying to get out. The way IN, is the way out, means just what it says, if you want to be out, come in again. That's because coming in puts you out. That's because you can't come in unless you ARE OUT! "The way to BECOME the Creator, is to BE the Creator BECOMING the CREATURE. Watch it, Medusa is the Devil's Harem." - Adore Thus postulating that you are coming in, pre posulates that you are out so you can come in, and this perfectly duplicates the original postulate to come in which, if you let go of it while coming in, vanishes, leaving you out should you decide not to come in again. Original postulate: "I am out and I want to come in." Trap postulate: "I am in, and I want to get out." Freeing postulate: "I am out and I want to come in." Remember that postulates do not stick of their own accord, because a prime postulate can not create time. Take your attention off a prime postulate, and it was never there, period. Postulates can only stick because of a second postulate to the effect that you must DO something about the first postulate in order to 'solve it'. Every postulate is a postulate of limitation and therefore is to some degree a problem seeking a solution. Prime postulates are made from the timeless state and only stick because they are committed to by doingness or effort validating the 'truth' of the prime postulate and its problematic nature, which then creates time and chase, which separates the being from the timeless start point. Once a postulate is made, there are only two ways to go. Let the postulate go, and it will vanish leaving you out. Or, Commit to solving the problem posted by the postulate by CREATING SOMETHING MORE, making MORE postulates that create effort and doingness and solutions that you hope down the road in time will handle the problem. Could you possibly ever get any further dug in? We have been taught that the second creation of a prime postulate will cause it to vanish. It isn't really the second creation of the prime postulate that ends it, it is the return to the first creation of the prime postulate, then NOT followed by the time creating postulate that one must DO something to solve it. Thus by bringing your pc back to the prime postulate, you get him to fail to create the continuance postulates, and thus he doesn't continue. The moment he then takes his attention off of the prime postulate it vanishes because he is no longer creating it! Prime postulate: "I am a cop". Second postulate: "Cops survive by chasing criminals." The *SECOND* he starts chasing criminals, he becomes stuck as a cop in *TIME*. To vanish this, one needs to reattain the timeless moment of creation of the prime potulate: "I am a cop". Then have him fail to make the second postulate, and make ANOTHER prime postulate instead: "I am a scientist." Now if he makes a second postulate that determines what scientists do to survive, and COMMITS TO IT WITH DOINGNESS AND EFFORT, he gets stuck as a scientist in time. But if instead you just get him to keep making FIRST or PRIME postulates only, without making any concommittant continuance postulates, pretty soon he will stop with the being a preclear nonsense and go Poof, and end up back in native state, big snooze, no postulates remaining, no postulates ever created. Remember native state has no sense of the past, once all present time creations are gone, they never 'were'. How can something which has no time, have a concept of the past, of what 'used to be'? It can't. Native state is pristine. All prime manifestation is NEW. So how do we get back to native state? Well certainly not by POSTULATING native state! That's a contradiction don't you see? It will KILL you, so don't do it, ok? Save it for running on your friends. On Halloween or something. Stop trying to KNOW what a static is. Knowing what a static is, is not what a static is! Get it? So what did we do when we came in? We postulated a KINETIC. Thus we alter the process in Creation of Human Ability from Black Dianetics: Conceive a Static to White Dianetics: Conceive a Kinetic. If we wish to be orthodox about it, we would run, Spot SOME Kinetic. Spot NO Kinetic. Or better yet, Get the idea of NO Kinetic. Get the idea of SOME Kinetic. Remember NO Kinetic does NOT mean a static, but a pretended apparency of the absence of a kinetic via force, mass and not-isness. If it is truely a static no kinetic, the needle will float. If it is a pretended no kinetic, the needle will read and run. Remember also that the ball doesn't bounce off the wall because the ball and the wall have anything to do with it. The Static is orchestrating both events as a third party to make it appear that the static doesn't exist and the ball and the wall effect each other directly. The causal bridge between the ball hitting the wall, and the fact that the ball actually bounces off the wall, is your postulate, via the static orchestrator, that they will. Same thing in the physical universe, you need a force on an object to effect an acceleration. But the causal bridge between the existence of the force and the appearance of the acceleration is a posulate that this is the way things are. Without that postulate, the force would go through the object. No postulate, no static orchestration. Now there is another thing about making mockups that LRH fails to mention in his early books. He asks you to mockup black and white crosses, beauty and ugly, objects of various kinds etc, until the pc is completely remedied of all scarcity of experience. But the world is not made of objects, the world is made of MOVING objects, kinetic, in particular objects with CHANGING motion called acceleration. A stationary or unchanging object, like a stationary mockup, will simply cave the pc in. Thus running "mockup a MOVING object, or mockup something moving," is way more productive than merely mocking up things the person wants to have." He doesn't want a dead still girl anyhow, he wants a DANCING SMILING girl, don't you see? We don't care how big or heavy or far away or how long the object is moving, we care about how SLOW OR FAST it is moving, and its changes in speed or direction. Facility with slow and fast is WAY more important than facility with small and big, or near and far, or long and short. Havingness is mass IN CHANGING MOTION, which is why mocking up explosions was so useful. But the bank has many kinds of flows in it, some explosions, some implosions, some pushes, some pulls, shears, twists, turns, knots, and one hell of a lot of ridges as these things collide and produce mass. Thus if you want to poduce miracles on a new pc, simply run something like Mockup NO motion. Mockup SOME motion. Get the idea of NO motion. Get the idea of SOME motion. If you really want to go for the gold, use changing motion instead of motion. Spacation fails for the same reason, too much space merely as-ises everything in sight. The pc didn't WANT space or that's what he would have, he wanted space with something MOVING in it. This creates space AND time AND mass AND force AND *CHANGING* energy (accelerations and deaccelerations) AND motion. Notice forces do not cause MOTION, force causes changing motion, so with out changing motion there is no force. So if you really want to mockup something, it has to include force which means changing motion. And now your pc is happy and will run the process and will run it until he exteriorizes. This is the 'GOVERNOR' LRH wrote about that limits how much motion the pc can make before it throttles him, keeping him in check. The governor needs to be run out forever more. The governor is simply motion without force to changing. Static mockups are death by definition. The more MOTION your pc can mockup the more force and mass, and time and space he can mockup too. Try it sometime on a dear friend. Run 'mockup a mass' and see what happens to his tone. Then recover from it with 'mockup a mass in MOTION'. Then recover from that too with 'mockup a mass in changing motion.' Aside from being totally absent of any space and time, the static is eternal stillness in both space and time, An unchanging motion can't tell who is moving, it or the observer, so that's a static again for one of them, right? The static is NOT an infinite amount of space nor an infinite amount of time. The static is a true NO space and NO time. The opposite then of a static then would be MOTION in space and time. Motion is native state's raison d'etre. Manifestation is manifestation of MOTION, change. Start and stop are dead ends. You can't have motion with out having something in motion, but going after the something will not produce the motion. Going after the motion AND THE FORCE TO CREATE IT will however produce the something in unlimited quantities. Without the motion the process will fail. Running the motion will also turn on the E-motion, as emotion is used to move the body, and efforts and thought and ideas. Mocking up a pink elephant is a dead end. Mocking up a rocket powered FLYING pink elephant, doing figure 8's and spelling out 'AUDITING WORKS' in the sky, well now that will make your needle float. The needle moves on force which is new, changing, acclerating or deaccelerating MOTION, the needle sticks on NO MOTION. Homer Fri Nov 21 00:55:32 EST 2008 ================ http://www.clearing.org ==================== Mon Feb 15 12:06:02 EST 2016 WEB: http://www.clearing.org BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore625.memo Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body =========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof =============== Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty. Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect. Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty. Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFWwgV6URT1lqxE3HERAtkoAJ9yY4A7OUW40fuNZIaVDukcyartSACfaiPr i5sYSRxAGr6sqdnwaFuWP4c= =2hIk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Mon Feb 15 16:57:13 EST 2016