Rogers ( wrote:
>When I say SP I mean the 2-3 percent who are embedded in a facsimile mass
>wherein they were overwhumped most gloriously (and probably simultaneously
>had severe out-ethics) and ALL their current perceptions of the environment
>are filtered through that facsimile "awareness" of dangerous beings all
>around themselves.  While they can still "think" and calculate, all their
>thinking has the undercurrent of (cough) "knowingness" that people are
>dangerous, and more powerful people are even more dangerous.

>So, first of all, Cathy, do you think such a person, such a phenomena, could
>exist and does exist?

Homer who is not Cathy:
     Yes, totally out of PT (Present Time) stuck in a motivator where
all beings fit the valence of the dudes that done him in.  The facsimile
is kept in restim by need to justify and restrain own later or earlier

     The facsimile acts to both restrain the SP and to justify the
regretted overts.  But since it is in heavy restim, it pokes the being
with pain to flip valences into those of his tormentors, and so he
dramatizes on others what others did to him in the incident.

     The incident that he is stuck in however, is a solution to a *MUCH*
worse set of overts and regrets, the incident is confrontable, what it
solves isn't.  Thus the SP is quite happy tormenting himself with
hallucinations of evil everywhere, and doing to others what they did to

     He is GRATEFULL for it.  Audit the gratefulness, and the incident
he is using to be SP will run and the prior or later overt/regret will
come forward.

     Basic Electra EXM-40 "Overwhelm, Justification and Restraint".

     The real problem is minimizing WHAT incident an SP is stuck in.

     Underestimatino can lead to failure to run it out.

     A being can be stuck in a run-in with the AllThatIs.  Most real
SP's are stuck in the valence of cold hard uncaring MEST.  Beings who
believe in permanent loss of any kind are stuck in such a valence.

     Scientology processing won't work on a case that is trying to
remain a case, while trying to become a 'better' case.

     Only once one knows the underlying doctrine, and sees it's
desirability, can one begin to audit out all case.

     Case is basically "I didn't, wouldn't, couldn't, shouldn't choose
what is."

     If you really believe this, then auditing can only go so far.
Mostly it will end up in an ARC break, because auditing can't ultimately
make you happy if you really believe you aren't fully responsible for
all things.
     If you are ready to give it up and accept total responsibility for
both sides of all dicoms, not as error, but as art, then auditing will
produce real case change and a real OT (Operating Thetan).