Oleg,

It seems that Pierre has answered your question directly - and correctly so if he wants to get into exact specifics. However, I think your question is important and the issues it raises might well be valid concerns of many that are "knocking on the door" of that area of the Bridge.  As such a public answer would be of value.

My attempt to answer you here, though I hope it won't violate anyone's sense of confidentiality, may never the less go completely over the heads of the new people on this list.  So, if you find yourself in that position, sorry, please pass on to the next message.

Some of this contains my opinions - please note!

Your questions are also important, not just because of the tech aspect, but also because I think they highlight one of the worst aspects of not just the freezonee, nor even just of Scientology but of religious and spiritual matters in general.  Namely the tendency of such movements to fragment.  In Scientology we have broadly (as I see it) five main factions.
1) The so called "mother church" - the CoS.  Unfortunately off the rails at this time.
2) Utter squirrels who have maybe taken one bit of LRH's work and tried to handle the whole of existence with it or similar (or worse)
3) Those who, because of problems with copyright issues, have attempted to re-write LRH's work in their own words.  I don't know much about them personally, but it seems to me that they are successful to the degree that they have truly duplicated LRH's work.  Personally I would rather try to get proper source documents myself and so have no time for them.  The only time I want to see work from others is when it was LRH approved or sponsored, or has had to be written by others because the CoS has the only LRH copies and aren't sharing them, or the material is covering areas that would certainly have been covered by LRH issue had he lived long enough (some FZ experiences with levels beyond NOTs may come into this category for example)
4) FZAOINT and those who beat the "standard tech", "we're with LRH" drum
5) The "Rons" Orgs who also beat the "we're with LRH" drum, but have some extras in their line up primarily attributable to Capt Bill.

Oh, and there is that idiot called Tommy Thompson who claims to be standard but squirrels OT2 (or so I last heard) and who won't work with any terminal of comparable magnitude.

Faction 2 I don't care about.  Faction 3 I don't care about save for the exceptions I noted.  Faction 1 I might care about, but it seems irredeemable short of Hubbard showing up again and, even then, will quite likely require an expert in the use of a rifle to get rid of the cancer at its heart (that is if he would even want to save it!).  Factions 4 and 5 I do care about (contrary to the impression some may have gathered in the email list conversations I've had with the person who goes by the name of VAST [a RO terminal] on the net)

The fact that factions 4 and 5 seem to regard themselves as separate is a matter of sadness as far as I am concerned.  For it is my belief that they are not truly that different and the differences are more apparent than real.  Quite a lot of these apparent differences are due, not to true differences in the tech, but to rumour, false data and stories generated by poor application in sepcific instances.

The primary apparent difference occurs in the area of NOTs as you point out. The RO equivalent of NOTs is something called Excalibur.

Amongst the criticisms of NOTs levelled by RO people is that it is
1) never ending, or, at best, like lawn mowing
2) that various people have ended up dead from its misapplication and
3) that it isn't LRH, but was developed by David Mayo instead.

Well, what can one say about this.  David Mayo certainly had a hand in the development of NOTs - exactly how much is perhaps open to debate.  My answer to that is, "so what!"  It was developed, actually by the pair of them at a time when LRH was himself quite ill.  If the tapes and stories of what LRH was like as a PC are anything like true of how he behaved at that particular time, the sessions were probably 50% a case of LRH saying "Ask me blah" and "Did that read?"  And after it was done, LRH probably said to Mayo, "Well, write it up then!"  So the fact that the bulletins may well have actually been put to pen and paper by Mayo doesn't alter the fact that LRH knew about it and had a hand in it.  So that gets rid of objection 3 as far as I am concerned.

With regard to misapplication, even if these stories about untimely deaths are true, I also say, "so what!"  People die of smoking too much, crossing the road without looking, fad diets and all manner of things that they shouldn't die of if they did all the things they were supposed to do and none of the things that they are not supposed to do.  There are too many 'supposed toos' in life.  Get over it.  In any event, the only story I recall that got close to covering specifics of what really happened in one case showed that the Pre-OT was actually ill with something they should have seen a doctor about and thus violated one of the more basic HCOBs that applies to all levels  i.e. if you're ill, see a medical doctor first - then get cleaned up with auditing - not the other way around.  So, remember your KSW.  Challenge instances of supposed unworkability - find out what was actually run and what was not run.

In any event, Capt Bill himself died at a rather younger age than one might expect - so RO people dragging up instances of supposed "death by NOTs" are really cases of "the pot calling the kettle black" anyhow.

And, finally, on the subject of misapplication, it may be true that people can go off the rails misrunning NOTs.  From the number of supposed RO adherents who put up sites on the net that clearly demonstrate that they are stuck out of PT themselves dramatising some old incidents about implant stations and the like only goes to show that Excal can be misrun too.  This is not necessarily a criticism of Excal - it merely shows that misapplication is quite possible wherever you go.  Chose your solo CS wisely and, better, know the tech yourself!!!

With regard to whether NOTs is overly long, or like lawn mowing well, I can say these things which may or may not be relevant according to how you see it

The EP stated in the HCOBs for NOTs has been achieved by at least one person I know (using NOTs, not Excal).  That person said it was not a stable EP in the sense that pushing on beyond NOTs seemed to, in some sense, destabilise it.

Or one might say that as one pushes on, one's space expands and thus one encompasses more NOTs case to handle.

Some adherents of the RO route would say that Excalibur is a terminated handling to the NOTs case - however I have had two respected figures from the RO world assert to me quite different things about the EP of NOTs and whether Excal actually achieves it - so I don't regard their opinions on the subject as definitive.

My own opinion of it is that if one has even an inkling of what OT8 is about (that the RO world don't do by the way), then one would not make the mistake of thinking there is some discreet end to NOTs as such - instead one would have a better understanding of infinity and not crave meaningless "closures" (and also recall basics such as 'absolutes are unobtainable.')  Which doesn't mean to say there isn't a good point to end NOTs and do other things - I just think that the NOTs HCOBs don't say it very well because LRH (and/or Mayo) factually did not have enough experience at the time of what it was all about - one has to understand that a) we are two decades on from them in terms of track experience with this particular level and b) that it was relatively new tech still at the point they went off the line (and even RO people would acknowledge that it is not a short level!).  So, instead, a good CS should look to their understanding of all the tech, listen to the originations being made etc - just as with anything else!

Finally, one also has to point out that RO rubbishing of NOTs hardly makes sense in that Excal incorporates NOTs anyway.

Having, I hope, put to bed any and all criticism of NOTs by the Rons Orgs, there is, perhaps, one valid point to be made.  NOTs stands for New Era Dianetics for OTs.  It isn't New Era Dianetics - but it does have some similarities in terms of what is adressed and, particularly for the purposes of this discussion, one should also note that they are both "limited" processes.  That is to say they address negative aspects of the PC/PreOT and seek to strip these negatives away.  Such processes, per perfectly non confidential tech, cannot be run ad infinitum.  Sooner or later one has to address the PC or PreOTs ability and responsibility.  It is, perhaps, fair to say that Excal seeks to do this whereas NOTs doesn't.  To that extent Excal is, at least, less limited (but still, never the less, is primarily addressed to negatives and, therefore still limited).  Whether that makes it a better process or not I can't say - I never actually tried running Excal. From what I see and hear of how some people run - especially these days with the faster route to Clear (and this is my opinion only) is that some folk have a hard enough time contacting their OT3 case, consequently expecting people to take responsibility, at least initially, for their NOTs case, is probably biting off more than a Pre-OT can easily chew at first - so NOTs is probably the better option initially at least.  Beyond that I am into speculation (if it isn't mainly speculation already - I am not a CS - just a keen observer).

I have to say that I am glad I have read what I have of Capt Bill's work. And Pilot's.  And Revenius.  Even if not for the tech in those writings, then for the expansive viewpoints they contain.  So having, spent a long time mainly rubbishing RO criticism of NOTs, I have to say that I do not think it is all bad.  Far from it - I can't tell anyone not to run Excalibur - I don't know of any really good reason that stands scrutiny why you shouldn't.  I don't know of any trials, let alone systematic ones, that have been conducted comparing NOTs with Excal.  I do know that a lot of the comparisons that are made are so much hot air not based on any inspection of verifiable facts.  I do know that I like LRHs work - but I "take it with a pinch of salt".  I do know that I quite like the work of others - and take those with "two pinches of salt".  I am of the opinion that some of Capt Bills work contains some bright idea CSes that are good - at the very least for some specific situations - but that that maybe too much has been made of those specifics and that, rather, one should simply get on with applying basics - but that is entirely an opinionated viewpoint and I accept that others may think differently.

One does have to realise that as one goes further and further into the OT band, so one's need for a full grasp of the tech becomes ever greater.  One starts solo with some easy gradients and sessions that can be comfortably CSed.  As one goes further, one goes faster.  And also one runs into situations that require one to be able to "play the piano" with the tech. Eventually one gets to the point where, to stop and ask for CS instructions about what to do next would require the session to stop every few miniutes and, in the end, every few seconds.  Obviously that is not a workable way to proceed even with a CS "on site" with you.  In the Freezone, even less so. So, in the end, it is not whether LRH was right - or whether Capt Bill way right - or David Mayo or Ralph Hilton or Pierre Ethier or anyone else but yourself.  That is the correct route.  Know the tech so well you can write it yourself from scratch is about the only thoroughly good advice one can give in the end.

Nick



----- Original Message -----
From: "Oleg V. Matveyev" <oobe@yandex.ru>
The basic question is: there is a lot of data in FZ regarding the falsity of NOTs tech. Much ARC
     Oleg


 Basicly, all "Excalibur" by capt. Bill (which we
did) is is some C/Sing technique based on NOTs critics. He like many others says many times in his writings that NOTs are raw tech, that they are too long and unworkable.

What are your experiences regarding NOTs?

Are there any data on C/Sing logic of NOTs?

What is the EP of NOTs by which C/S can decide if preOT completed certain steps and NOTs as a whole?

Do you know any real completions of NOTs? What were their states?

How do we go about putting a person on NOTs after OT III?

Thanks a lot beforehand.

PS: I have just returned home after a long travel, so I'll be able to resume the upload. Send me ftp data again, I had some tech trouble with hardware for some weeks and lost it.




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Yahoo! Groups Links

  a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fzaoint/

  b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  fzaoint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

  c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.








Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fzaoint/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:  fzaoint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/