In Creation of Human Ability, LRH had a process called Conceive a

      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

      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.


      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

      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


      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

      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

      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

      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

      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.


Fri Nov 21 00:55:32 EST 2008

================ ====================
Mon Feb 15 12:06:02 EST 2016
Send mail to saying help in body
=========== ===============
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.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

Mon Feb 15 16:57:13 EST 2016