NOT KNOW PROCESS (Self Clearing etc.)
On 6 Feb 99, Lisa & Dave <firstname.lastname@example.org> posted on subject "SelfClear: not-know"
An excellent point. And it is missing from the book, and should have been there, but I "forgot" about it because it was an area where I felt that something was missing in the tech and I needed to do some work on it. Thanks to you I've finally gotten back to the area of not-know processing and the results are below.
But first I wanted to quote some of the other good discussion that you generated.
On 6 Feb 99, Ted Crammer <email@example.com> posted in response
: Not-know processes were on old OT-7. I think you'll find one or more in
Yes, excellent. This one should be in the self clearing book.
Then Ra <firstname.lastname@example.org> continued with:
(he begins by quoting the original post above)
> The earliest not-know processes were in the early PABs. They were,
Excellent process. And it is why "what could you not know about that problem" would work. But other problems processes work for other reasons. (was that last paragraph an LRH quote?)
> Before the condition of Knowing, one would first Not-Know. This
Very good. But where is this from (Filbert?). The lower range is extended below the LRH one I'm familiar with.
> It was discovered the harmonics of the first (not know) would produce
The lie process is also a covert way of getting the pc to create and might be thought of as a low level creative process that works even on PC's who can't get mockups and are unwilling to invent things, except, that is, to get out of trouble. A very workable process.
> So the workable processes were, Not Know, Unknown, Desired,
The first two are really good, being right on the not-know button. The third one is probably best left until one is going to address the subject of ARC breaks. And the last one (refusal) is out ARC and therefore has to be alternated with something positive.
> What have you denied about (terminal). etc, etc. Any number of
Doubtful. He has to be one step higher, able to mock it up, and choosing not to. But if we are talking about able to mock it up in total detail, we are really talking cleared theta clear here and we're light years above the dianetic clear. So this not know is a very high state. The dianetic clear is simply pulling up above the effort band (see K-M scale later) rather than the not-know band which is much higher.
> Once you go clear, it is the strangest feeling in the world
Way out gradient for most cases.
(he quotes the beginning of Ted's post here)
> Lots in COHA. Very workable. Easy to Solo Audit as well,
(and the rest of Ted's post here)
> Good suggestion. You want to be able to look right at the wall,
Objective not-know (what could you not know about that object) was one of the best of the old not know processes.
> EP is when you can either know or not know anything at will.
Run a variety of not-know processes to reach this. Don't run a specific one with a hidden standard of the cog that has to occur. Take wins instead and vary the process (many not know processes are possible).
> You will cog on the factors, the conditions of existence, ARC,
That is why not know is not the top. When they can consciously mock it up as desired, without either the need to know or not know because they can simply create (as it was before or different or whatever they feel like), then there is no conceivable reason to keep it mocked up (except maybe bits of it occasionally for fun).
> Happy FTA.
You too (he means Floating TA).
On 7 Feb 99, From: "Aaron Bair" <email@example.com> posted
on topic "Self Clearing Survey Reply"
He gave an very detailed response to the survey which is really helpful to me (I'm not going to repeat the whole thing here).
Among other things, he pointed out the following:
> >10. Do you have any suggestions for improvements?
For chapter 14, see the Super Process on Protest that I'm posting along with this.
> I second the motion to have a "the first postulate is NOT-KNOW"
Yes, the not-know processes are great. See the breakthrough below.
And there is a high powered version of spotting spots in the self clearing book. But since it can act as an exteriorization process and turn on out-int, I put it fairly late. Chapter 11 which handles out-int should be done first.
To add to the background, here is the EXPANDED KNOW TO MYSTERY SCALE as included in the book Scientology 0-8.
This is the final version of the scale, but note that this is the scale which varied continually during the 1950s, not just being expanded or having minor refinements but having the order shifted around occasionally. Sometimes sex was above eat. Sometimes Know (knowingness) was at the top, then not know, then know about. Sometimes it was not-know, then know, then know about. Often mystery was the bottom.
Personally I would say that Sex is above Eat because the 2nd dynamic is above the 1st. And I would think that the pattern is Thought - Emotion - Effort because that shows up elsewhere and because that would be a pattern of increasing solidity. Then Symbols - Sex - Eat show up nicely as substitutes for thought, emotion, and effort respectively.
But the biggest bug has always been the top of the scale. I think that not-know above knowingness is correct, the not-know processes run better than processing knowingness. Below knowingness comes know about.
But if you have it that way, there is something missing at the top, and native state with no definition in this context is just a sort of cop out or a place holder.
This is the bug that was nagging at me and which kept me from writing a chapter on not-know processes for self clearing. I couldn't really do it in the face of that uncertainty.
I took another look at the K-M scale back in August of 98. The post is called "Knowingness and Creation" and it is in post34.txt in the archives.
The top of the scale is create. This is above knowing. The idea of knowing isn't even defined until you first not-know what you are creating. Otherwise how could you need to know it, you are simply creating it.
Right now my current view of K-M is that it should be:
Probably the easiest one to start with is to pick objects in the room (or the walls etc.) and run a few commands of "not know something about that object" on each one.
Then do the not-know variation of union station, which is done by going to a crowded place, selecting people and running "not know something about that person". That one is discussed in the conquest of chaos tapes that were posted recently.
Then move up to the more exotic ones such as not know something about an area or situation or futures etc. (see the various posts above)
A Super Process on Not Know -
This one is the real breakthrough. When I was first reading all the above posts and thinking of my earlier work in putting create at the top of the K-M scale, it occurred to me that we could test whether create belongs above not-know by using a process to work the two against each other.
The process is dynamite. It does a lot more than I imagined when I thought it up. Here it is.
a) Create (mockup) something
b) Not Know who created it
In its pure form, it is just wild and wonderful to run.
But of course I had to experiment further. So I mixed it in with book and bottle as follows:
a) mockup a book
b) not know who created it
c) not know its weight
d) not know its color
e) not know its temperature
f) not know its contents
g) not know when it was created
h) not know its location.
Then mockup a bottle and do the same. Then mockup ANOTHER book and so forth.
After having a few dozen not known books and bottles disappearing into an unknown location, I had a funny mass of energy swirling around and just hanging there persistently. Not really swirling around me but over to the side somewhere.
Quite amazing really.
As an experiment, I tried to blow it by copying it, changing its color, etc. but it really didn't want to blow, and by this point it was just a mass and I kind of felt foggy about it.
Note that I was not flattening not-know on any step and I was continually mocking up more books to not-know rather than doing anything more with the previous ones.
I had had no problem using simple creative not-know (above) repetitively. It was only when I did this book and bottle variation and kept adding to it that a mass built up. And the mass was not in the location where I had been mocking the books up, so I had never aimed the command at it either.
Of course this was a research experiment, so I was quite happy with the odd results.
Then the question was how to get rid of the mass.
I decided to try repetitively not-knowing who created the mass. After half a dozen commands, the not-know came off and I suddenly had good awareness of having created the mass and the individual points of creation and the books and bottles that were in it and so forth, so I simply unmocked it.
Interestingly enough, I didn't have to flatten all the different not-knows I'd done, but just repetitively did a not know on who created the mass.
I noticed another interesting thing. When I'd mockup a book, I would make its cover a certain color, and when the not-know came off, I would know what that color was as I unmocked it.
But I had never assigned any contents to the books, I'd simply not know what the contents were. At the end I again knew what the contents were, but the contents, of course, was nothing because I'd never mocked it up in the first place, so I was aware that it had no contents.
The not known contents and the not known color were the same kind of feeling during the period when I had the whole mess suspended there. One was there but not known and the other had never been there in the first place. And what I learned was that you can't tell the difference between those two situations until you get the not know off.
After this I tried picking objects and running "not know who created that object" (once per object). That actually brought up some wild awarenesses, and was also a lot of fun.
Anyway, the creative not-know process is extremely beneficial and seems to mimic some basic mechanisms.