Find hereafter 'Sequence of Aberation', wrote by Pilot  It's a fantastic way of getting off of accepted abberations and misnomers, and is usefull for anyone, at any level

If there are mine comments: (text)

 

SEQUENCE OF ABBERATION

I have occasionally said something about one type of abberation leading to another.  I think that all the mechanisms can be laid

out in a sequence with each one developing in response to the previous one.

Once a mechanism is in place, all the more basic abberations lock up on it further, so that it is hard to see which one is

more basic in present time.  To sort this out, you need to consider  an early track period where the later mechanisms were not operative.

For example, problems are more basic than overts.  Many types of non-confront could lead to a persistance which results in

a problem.  Eventually, one begins to commit overts to solve  problems.  Once that occurs, more problems will build up on

the non-confronts engendered by the overts.  To see the logic of this, you have to consider if one would commit overts in

the absense of problems or if, on the other hand, one could have problems in the absense of overts.

And in a similar manner, one could have non-confronts for many reasons which do not involve problems, but one would

not have a problem unless one was already non-confronting something.  Hence, non-confronts are more basic.  But once

the being does have problems, that will cause him to non-confront more things.

Therefore it should be possible to lay out the various abberative mechanics in a sequence.  One begins from a

godlike being that has no considerations or limitations and cannot be hurt or hit with force and carries it down through

more and more complex and overwhelming abberative mechanics until one reaches the late complex ones.

I've taken a stab at this many times, but I always feel a bit unsatisfied.

Rather than sit on this any longer, I felt that I should put out what I do have and ask for suggestions as to things that

are missing or errors in sequence or mixing in things that are not of comparable magnitude.

So here it is for comments and suggestions.

----------

SECTION A: THE BEGINNING

This first section is not really abberative.

1)  First there is Static (or Static Transfer of context enering representation)  Neither one nor many.(incomparability of Static)

2)  Then there is the concept and creation of separation which could be thought of as imposing space or space/time(time is a different style of separating things).  And since nothing else exists, it is the static itself which separates.

3)  Next we have Concieve / Create / Communicate.  Here one is adding to the richness of creation and since there are other beings (other separations from static) and since they are separate from each other, communication naturally comes into play.

Until the above are in place, ARC (Affinity-Reality-Communication)as we know it would be undefined.  Static is a singularity (by which I mean a hole in the equation rather than saying that it is one - it is neither one nor many in the normal sense) and therefore could not have ARC because there is nothing there to have ARC with.  At the same time, it could not have no-ARC either because there is also nothing to have no-ARC with.

For affinity, one needs to concieve of likeing some things more than others.  And reality would involve sharing creations.  Hence these begin to come into play after the 3 Cs above.  At first one would exchange and copy everything and then gradually one would become selective.

And so the ARC begins from a completeness which is the singularity and then has to diminish slightly from an absolute as part of separating from static.

At this level, there would not be Be/Do/Have as we know it.  There is no need for havingness when one creates what one wishes without restriction because there is no need to keep anything around.  In a similar manner there is no fixed Be or Do.  Instead there is just continuous create,with transient be/do/have as a side effect.

Note that communication processes are not generally distructive of havingness even though they should be in theory because they can dissolve mass.  This implies that communication is more basic than havingness.

The KRC triangle also has no need for existance except as transients in the continuous create.  There is no question of control when one just creates what one wants, and there is no question of responsibility in an atmosphere

where it is not yet possible to commit an overt.

Many of our basics are not yet operative in this "time". But affinity does become a factor.  Note that it starts from an absolute and then slips slightly as a side effect of the introduction of distance between beings who are individually concieving and creating and exchanging things.

But a slight slip in affinity or communication is not really abberative as long as it is not fixed on any line but continues to shift so that all lines flow at one time or another.

If you process in the direction of out-ARC or out-comm or out-affinity, the PC (Pre-Clear or persom, who is being audited)gets worse.  However, if you process in the direction of disagreement (out-agree), the PC improves (this is a keynote of the doctorate course).

This would imply that at basic, ARC is not locked into triangle.  You can have high communication and affinity without having to be in agreement.  In fact the mocking up of different realities instead of a single agreed upon

reality would bring about more interest and more communication between beings.

But note that there is a sort of R in ARC even at the start, however it is an R involving duplicating other's realities without at the same time having any need to agree with them, nor any need to get agreement from others on one's own realities.

At this level there is also the assignment of location(orientation in space) and sequence (orientation in time). But note that these are willfull rather than fixed.  The being generates spaces and time-streams rather than being

trapped within them.  But since there is a space/time orientation implied in the original separation, there is always a higher space above space and a higher time above time.  At the top, the time-like separation is the before 

and after separating and the space-like separation is the separation itself.

SECTION B: THE WILLFUL SEMI-ABBERATIONS

I'm uncertain of the order of events here and suspect that I'm missing some factors.

4)  Willfull assignment of external cause

To allow communication between the separated semi-statics, one must permit others to create in one's space.

5)  Willfull choices to not communicate

The being has to cut back from absolute comm and duplication to keep from being everybody at once.  This is fine as long as all lines are allowed to flow eventually, but leaves the door opened for trouble in areas that are not flowing at the moment.

6)  Willful choices to dislike (out-affinity)

This is most likely to happen on lines that have not flowed in some time (temporary willful out-communication).

Note that willful choices to disagree are non-abberative as long as communication is present per the earlier discussion on disagree running as a positive rather than a reverse process.

7)  Not-know

To avoid duplicating everything and to add surprise and variety, one makes decisions to not-know some things. Again, this is fine as long as it is transient and not fixed as a permanent not-know.

8)  Not-Remember

This is really a variation on not-know.  It is really just not knowing the past.  Again, one does it for surprise and variety.

9)  Not-Confront

This is another area where one can make willfull choices for fun and only risks abberation if it becomes fixed rather than transitory.

All of the above are in this section because they will process successfully by simply getting the person to do it (communicate or confront or recall or whatever) without worrying about why he isn't confronting or why he doesn't want to talk.  In other words, he can push these through on postulate alone.  Therefore they are more basic than any persistant abberations.

SECTION C - THE FIRST REAL ABBERATIONS

When willful abberations are present in a transient state, it is possible to fall into this next series.  One could avoid that by intentionally reversing the willfull abberations when these next factors show up, but this next set encourages one to do the opposite and make things worse.

10)  Protest

In the presence of out-comm etc., it is possible for one to recieve a creation which one does not want and that opens the door to protesting something.  If one is protesting, one can't as-is.  The correct solution is to reopen create and communicate in the area, but if one mocks up the protest

strongly instead, it reduces the ability to create and communicate.

Protest results in there being things one is unwilling to create.

11)  Invalidation

Eventually one wants to invalidate beings whose creations one is protesting.  And once they also have things that they are protesting, they have blocks in creativity which they can be invalidated for.

The most basic invalidations are invalidations of the being's cretions and his ability to create.

12)  Withholds

The most basic withholds are to avoid invalidation.

True overts as we know them now do not yet exist because nothing can be hurt.  But one withholds the action of creating something that would be invalidated or one withholds the fact that one has created it so as to avoid invalidation.

Also, comm is further cut by withholds, leading to more non-confronts, protest, and invalidation.

13. Restrained Create

To avoid having withholds, the being now reduces his ability to create so that he will not mock up things which he then has to withhold.

14) Knowing without Creating

To handle inval and protest, one now wants to be able to know things in the areas affected without at the same time being willing to create those areas.  This introduces alter-is and launches one onto the K to M scale.

SECTION D - THE SOLID ABBERATIONS

15) Failed Create

The accumulation of invalidations, the continual reduced willingness due to protest, the alter-is introduced by approximate instead of creative knowingness, and the attendant increase in willful out-comm etc. eventually

leads to a failure to create something.

This is the first point where he is really in trouble rather than just playing.

16) Need for Agreement

The solution to a failure to create is to get others to help create it and for that one needs their agreement.

One tries to use communication and other's affinity to gain agreement and the ARC triangle eventually locks into place.

One is now in the trap of having to have agreement.

17) The Need To Be

To get agreement, one must to some degree fix one's beingness instead of shifting around and being anything from moment to moment.

18) The Need for Havingness

Because one ‘can't’ create everything (due to earlier described abberations), those things which one cannot create at will need to be kept around. This is a solution to failed create.  It is also a solution to failed beingness, if one fails to be something by postulate, then one trys to have the things that go with that beingness so that others will agree to the beingness.

19) The Need for Doingness

High on the scale, instead of doing something to produce something, one just creates it the way one wants, and when one wants it a different way, then one creates that.

But as the ability to create gets blocked, one engages in doingness as a solution to how to gain havingness.

It is as this point that the Be-Do-Have triangle becomes effective.

Be-Do-Have leads to games, but at this point these are still light games rather than fixated ones.

The above section might develope during what I refer to as the reality wars in the cosmic history section of Super Scio.

Note that the KRC triangle is still not fully operative.  There is no serious concept of responsibility at this level because there is no concept of irresponsibility.  One still creates what one creates.

SECTION E. THE GRADES ABBERATIONS

20) Problems

Early problems are attempts to handle be/do/have in the presence of out-comm, non-confront, and failures to create.

21) Overts

Early overts are comitted to solve problems.

22) Out-Responsibility

This might better be termed the assignment of other causation. Having regretted the fact of an overt, one shifts the reponsibility over to others.  It is at this point that the KRC (Knowledge-Reality-Control) triangle becomes solid.

23) Enforce/Inhibit

One begins to enforce and inhibit in an attempt to handle out-responsiiblity.

24) ARC Breaks

Because of enforce, inhibit and overts, one begins to have ARC breaks.  The basic ones are probably on enforced agreement (reality) since communication and affinity are close to theta (being) and tend to have a dissolving effect on abberations.

25) Justifications

One starts to justify to handle the ARC Breaks which come about because of overts one has comitted.

26) Right/Wrong

When one fails to justify oneself to others, one then justifies the matter to oneself by insisting that one is right and the others are wrong, hence the development of early service facs (not GPM derrived ones).

27) Help

Once one has failed even in justifying one's overts to oneself, one begins to help in an effort to make amends. Note that true help in the sense of contributing to others creations exists earlier.  This is abberated help, done in the face of irresponsibility.

SECTION F.  THE ADVANCED ABBERATIONS

Here I am a bit uncertain of the sequence.

28) Sources

To avoid responsibility, one begins to assign other sources.

29) Codes

To solve out-responsibility, one begins to mockup codes to live by.

30) Not-Isness

Because one violates ones codes, one begins to not-is.

31) Randomity and Complexity

Because one is not-ising, one now has difficulty with too much randomity and complexity.  One begins to be overwhelmed by quantity.

32) Reality Frames

To cut down randomity, one focuses things down into reality frames which are more ordered and limited in their interactions.

33) Machinery and Automaticity

Also to cut down randomity and to work around the fact of not-isness and to handle the complexities of keeping frames mocked up without having to confront the complexity, one begins to use machinery and automaticities.

34) Games

In keeping with the above, one mocks up more formalized game patterns with roles (terminals) and goals that are held more ridgidly.

The above all develope prior to the fall of home universe.

SECTION G. THE PAINFUL ABBERATIONS

35) Abberated Control (Implanting)

Due to the abberative factors above, one now sees others as responsible for the condition that one is in, and therefore seeks to control others to enforce agreement.

Implants come into use in the form of high asthetics combined with trickery, note that it is not yet possible to use force against a being but only against his mockups.

36) Loss

With formalized games comes the idea of a winner and a looser.  And with the evolving complexity and an increasing inability to create comes the possibility of having things that one feels one could never create again.

This makes it possible to suffer losses.

The overwhelming loss is the fall of home universe.

At this point the emotional tone scale also comes into play (as opposed to random uses of emotion).

37) The Rock

As a solution to loss, one mocks up solidities which are supposed to be the being (instead of just projecting things) but which are actually substitutes for oneself.  Note that the fall of home universe is the zero point for a being, after this he operates as matter and energy instead of as

a pure creative force.

38) No Change

To prevent further losses, decay, and destruction, he begins to resist change.

39) Protect

Failing to resist change, he begins to protect.

Eventually he begins to protect the rock and hides it behind a mask.  He attempts to protect his creations in general and fails.  He also begins to protect others.

40) Symbols

Once he has failed to protect and help, he solves loss by substituting things, and especially he begins to subsitute symbols for things.

41) Pain

He creates pain to warn himself of loss.

42) Engrams

He begins collecting pictures of painful incidents to prevent them from happening again.

H. THE COMPLEX ABBERATIONS

43) Force

Carrying engrams, the being becomes the effect of force.

44) Implanting by force

Being affected by force and being capable of affecting others by force, the being now uses implanting by force (instead of by asthetics) to enforce agreement and so decays further.

45) Unconscious divisions

The being could always occupy many viewpoints or divide his attention and operational points, being both one and many.

But if one of his operating points is overwhelmed and forced into agreement, he does not want the others to recieve the implant or the enforcement in parallel, and so he now creates heavy partitions and divides in a manner that leaves the parts unconsious of each other so that all will not fall if

one is implanted.

46) Use of BTs (Body Thetans or Body Beings)

The being now pushes fragments of himself onto others to control them and is in turn abberated by fragments of others. Eventually this also becomes as subject for implanting.

44) Valences

Being affected by force and entities, the being now flinches from occupying the effect point and substitutes identities for himself.

45) Goals

Being isolated in individual identities/viewpoints/valences, and having those smashed, he now solves the problem of how to achieve something by postulating goals that span across multiple identities.

46) GPMs (General Problem Mass)

Seeing that his goals still fail, he postulates the identities as solutions to the opposition which he believes to be external to himself and out of his control.

Up until this point, the abberations and implants are still simple decay scales.  But here we finally get the double sided terminal - opterm pattern.  And of course the actual use of it as a solution is followed by implanting false patterns.

This probably begins about 3 universes back.

I. THE UNCONSIOUS ABBERATIONS

47) Unconsciousness of self

With GPMs, one progresses through beingnesses that one later detests and opposes.  And because of fragmentation, one has fragments or theta (beingness) lines which are in different GPMs and hence oneself in one viewpoint can find oneself in another viewpoint that one detests.  

This is enough to knock out any last vestiges of awareness in any higher viewpoints from which one is creating lesser viewpoints or identities.

48) Compulsive Create

Since one is still creating to balance the nothingness, but one is no longer conscious of creating, the creations become unknowing and compulsive.

49) Trapped in Reality

Since one is no longer controlling what is mocked up, one becomes trapped within it.  The compulsive create brings about a chaos of creations which one solves by freezing everything down to one reality.

50) Solidification

With the compulsive create of reality, all of the above solidify and invert.

Now one has, for example, the fact of painful impingement even when one is confronting a present time force that is impinging on one rather than simply having the engramic somatics that derrive from cumulative non-confront.

There is much more here.  Things which were "would be nice" or "sometimes interesting" became compulsions and then passed beyond that into physical laws.

This has been the anatomy of this universe and the one before it (the magic unvierse) as well.

Think of a liquid with particles and solidities but which was none the less in motion and capable of being stirred and manipulated.  And then it solidifies, as in making Jello.

The above is a beginning sketch.  I can wrestle with the exact sequence and with which factors should or shouldn't be included.

When I wrote this, the thing that struck me most was locking down the ARC triangle.

Affinity and communication are basics, highly desirable to all beings.  Compulsive agreement, on the other hand,leads to the solidification of reality and complete entrappment.

It seems like the first trap was to make people think that they were supposed to agree just because they liked someone or something and were in communication with it.

This suggests the following process:

"Spot something or somebody which you could like while disagreeing

with it or them".

Also -

"Spot somebody who you could have likeing you without requiring

their agreement".

"Spot something that another could like without having to

agree with it".

Etc.

This immediately makes me think of watching an enjoyable horror movie without having any need or desire to agree with the reality presented.

It also makes me think of talking with the critics on ARS where there are some whom I enjoy talking with and have affinity for but certainly don't agree with on various things related to the tech.

The compulsion to agree is probably rooted in trying to compel others to agree.

Go to a crowded place, spot individual people and get the idea of their disagreeing with you but liking you anyway.

Hope this helps,

The Pilot