Actually, Joe, the tech (standard) I applied was essentially the word clearing tech of “how it IS that way and how it ISN’T that way.” It brought to mind the data on exchange by dynamics, and it clicked for me that the person (or entity) was part of and involved with a dynamic that still exists. You yourself probably see that now without necessarily looking at it strictly in terms of “the” dynamics.

It might not click with everybody right away, using that particular piece of tech, but since the RPEC procedure is to first clear all relevant terms, including “dynamics,” any and all other word clearing tools can also be used – such as clay demos, which are very powerful, as you know. These other tools also cause a person’s thinking to loosen up.

But thanks anyway for the compliments. 🙂

This comes pretty close to what the term “brainwashing” describes …

A fifteen year old passing judgement on you. This is something right out of Cambodia’s Pol Pot’s killing fields.

That is scientology, in a nutshell: children filing knowledge reports on their mothers, immature teens judging forty-year-old adults on their “questionable” behavior, while some disgusting guru squats back at home base and gets rich.

The guru’s age is over, thank you internet!! I so SO much enjoy watching the scientology gong show in its death throes. I just hope it doesn’t go down like Waco or Jonestown.

It is all so numbing, juggling all that crap… I guess that is why scientology deserves its reputation as a cult.

Well said.

Hoi POLIO???!!!! I meant Hoi Polloi of course!

Marildi, I think that the method you suggest above re: THE dynamic to do the formula on is a bit ingenious I must say, and yes, that does make sense to me as a handling that would be workable.

HOWEVER … I do have to point out (and I really think you already know this) that the “Marildi figure out” is not in the HCO B itself (which it could easily be if LRH knew how he wanted this procedure done) and so is not in any way “standard” which was once the agreement we all had in the CoS as to how to do technical actions. Not that this would bother me anymore as I note below.

Philosophically I am not now against the idea of something like the RPEC being done on a basis of “do it however you and your twin or EO think is workable” and proceed in that way. But I also have to point out to you, and not intending to butter you up with too many compliments here … but Marildi, you are only sharper than about 99.9% of the people I met in my 35 years in the CoS (while the pretense in the CoS is that “some” folks above us know what the “corrected” way to do things is and the word on that goes down to the hoi polio. I no longer think there are any people at the top of the CoS with such knowledge and I now don’t think there was in 1975 either.)

Basically, if a person has attention on some past lower condition, I do believe he would release the charge by doing RPEC on it as I’ve described. And that would be because of doing something in PT that made a difference in the “real” universe.

I did RPEC on LOC too – the “imaginary” way you described. Later, when it got corrected, since I had no more attention on it the handling was to leave it at that. So I haven’t actually done it the “corrected” way, and to be honest, I don’t know if an MAA or Ethics Officer would agree with my understanding of it. But they would have to show me their reference. I know the one I’m using, in addition to the RPEC reference itself. This is the way I see it, using your example:

Joe: “…Now since one has committed the act against LOUIS personally, how would picking out a person in the present deal with THAT?”

The reference I think applies is the one that describes how to do conditions and exchange by dynamics. Here’s a quote of part of the instructions on exchange by dynamics (emphasis in caps is mine):

“Now, have him consider ‘his own second dynamic’. What does his second dynamic give his first dynamic? What does HIS second dynamic give THE second dynamic and what does it give him?” (HCOB 4 Apr 72 “Ethics”)

Per the above, a person can consider his OWN dynamics as well as THE dynamics. This makes sense to me because I think it’s true that there is a general intention and “thrust” for survival in the various areas of life – which would be “the” dynamics.

So in the case of RPEC on King Louis, you would need to consider which of “the” dynamics you had a past unhandled condition on. For the Liability formula, as an example, you would make up the damage on that dynamic or portion of it, be it a person, a group, or whatever

With regard to what you wrote here: “While I feel it is a failure of intellectual integrity to reject and/or deride all of LRH’s work, I feel the same standard needs to be directed at ACCEPTING as truth or workable ALL of his work as well ” – I fully agree.

I no longer accept everything LRH said just because he said it, and if I thought RPEC was wrongheaded I would absolutely say so.

This is in a rich and very religious neighborhood, both jewish and catholic. I think this explains the situation.