NOT KNOW PROCESS (Self Clearing etc.)

Ref: Post 48.txt

Date: 17 Feb 1999

On 6 Feb 99, Lisa & Dave <> posted on subject "SelfClear: not-know"

# Hello,
# I have a question that I hope the pilot or someone else can answer. While
# reading The Fundamentals of Thought, I came across a chapter called know
# and not-know. I found it interesing. I scanned through the self clearing
# book to find a not-know process but I couldn't find any. Is it somewhere
# and I missed it? If there isn't one in there, is there a reason?
# It seemed pretty powerful to not-know the future and instead have a
# nothingness to create from. Usually when I think I know the future, it's
# really the failures from my past pushed into the future.
# Thanks,
# Dave

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 <> posted in response

: Not-know processes were on old OT-7. I think you'll find one or more in
: Creation of Human Ability.
: Interesting observation. I agree.
: Running solo, by yourself? Try this: Select an area of life that you
: would like to improve upon. Run, "Think of something you could not-know
: about_______." You can write down the answers to help stay organized
: about it and complete auditing comm cycles. Then if the answers come
: too fast and the writing slows you down, just skip the writing and
: enjoy the session.
: --
: Ted

Yes, excellent. This one should be in the self clearing book.


Then Ra <> continued with:

(he begins by quoting the original post above)

> The earliest not-know processes were in the early PABs. They were,
> at the time the "one shot OT" processes. Not know is below static.
> Basically, the processes were run to the point where you could just
> not-know the entire universe around you. I forget off hand the
> principles behind it, but it will come to me in a second.......
> Oh yeah, here it is. :) I get couple second com lags on studying tech
> decades ago. :)
> The idea is this. It was pretty much proven that the early held the
> late in restim. This is why engrams would erase. One of the processes
> was: "What could you not-know about that incident" (somatic, picture,
> situation, condition, etc.) This is why the problems processes work.

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
> repeats all the way down the Know to Mystery Scale. For reference,
> I have included it here.
> Scale abbrev. range
> Not know NK Spiritual
> Know K
> Unknown U
> Curious C
> Desired D
> Enforced E
> Inhibited I
> No N
> Refused R
> False F Human
> Denied DEN
> Absurd A
> Rationalized RAT
> Abusive ABUS
> Horrible H
> Compressed COMP Sub-Human
> Conjured CON
> Recriminatory RCR

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
> case change, and would reach all the way south. The second Know, would
> not, and would tend to cave the pc in. This became a very useful process,
> and by determining where the being was on the tone scale you could run
> at his reality level processes that he would actually do, bring him up
> tone, and then run the next not know harmonic.
> A person in bad shape would try like hell to not know something, but
> was well above his reality level, and he would in actuality, just
> Not-Is it, causing it to persist. But the Process "Lie about something"
> (harmonic of not-know) had a lot of workability. "Tell me the truth"
> spun him in. The reason? Because Truth is a harmonic of Know, lie a
> harmonic of not-know. You get him to start telling you the truth, he
> as-ises the truth, and leaves all the lies, along with its charge and
> mass. You get him to lie, he as-ises alter-isness, and the truth remains.
> Very workable, very strong processes. Unfortunately, a being on the
> bottom has to tell you lies for about a million hours before he really
> gets anywhere, because his r is so low, and his horsepower is almost
> in non-e.

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,
> Inhibited, refused, Denied, rationalized, horrible, and conjured.
> (you see some of this app in handling arc breaks)
> What could you Not Know? Give me an Unknown datum. What have you
> desired? Recall a refusal.

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
> questions could be put in to any of the brackets to hit the pc's
> tone level. Soon as he was up, then you use the next harmonic.
> Eventually he would be able to just Not Know the whole bank, and
> guess what? Clear.

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
> that you ever had a bank, you not- know it so thoroughly.
> Lrh abandoned it, as a one shot clear and ot process, because
> it took too long.

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,
> and not know something about it. Repeat with many objects. Runs
> best outside with plenty of variety. Wont be long until you will
> be able to Not Know huge chunks of the universe. Its a strange
> feeling, kinda scary at first. But then to get it back, all you
> have to do is know it again. :)

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,
> KRC, and the entire tone scale. It probably could be continued
> to the 3 universes., but you definitely would be in ot 5 and 6
> abilities at that point. If you can not know someone else's bank,
> or a part of it, you will find it will disappear for you, all
> right, but they go around just like you didn't erase it at all.
> The being has to come up to the point where they can not know
> their own case. Otherwise they just keep on mocking it up.

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).

> Tom


On 7 Feb 99, From: "Aaron Bair" <> 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?
> I'm sure you are planning to expand with the breakthrough on loss post, so
> that's covered. I just read you have some enhancements for chapter 14, so
> that's covered.

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" section.
> That was a great tape, if there is any other work out there in the same line
> I'd love to be exposed to it. Running not-know was as cool as spotting
> spots or holding corners used to be when I first started reading LRH books.
> Hey, is there a spotting spots in space process in self-clearing? Before I
> even got into the church I read that (in phoenix lectures?) and drilled it
> for days and days. Eventually I had to stop because I started being able to
> see with my eyes closed and it scared the good sense out of me. The "hole"
> I could see through went away after another week or so. I still get brave
> every now and again and spot a few spots until I become aware of being
> outside the normal 3-dimentional reality, but I don't continue past that. I
> really look forward to the days when I can intentionally go for that kind of
> result again.

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.

Native State

Not Know

Know About











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:


Not Know


Know About











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.

Have Fun,

The Pilot