Advertisement
“An Overview of Scientology” banner

Scientology® pages index  |  Contact

David Mayo project (3b):
  Notes on NED for OT's (NOT's) and its relation to
    the state of ‘Clear’
(no confidential technical information will be shared!)
(to other Scientology pages)

>> Do you want to help with preserving the original technology? <<  Consult my want list here!

Please note that words with an asterisk (*) are defined at the bottom of this page! Only first appearances are indicated.

        
“Any OT who has somatics is auditable on Dianetics which he should have had in the first place as he was using Scn grades to get rid of his headache! Or some somatic.”
        
  L. Ron Hubbard            
  (from HCOB 24 May 69 “The Difficult Case”)  

New Era Dianetics for Operating Thetans’ (abbreviated ‘NED for OT's’ or in short ‘NOT's’).

There exists a relation between the definition of Clear and NED for OT's. For this reason this analysis on NED for OT's could be seen as a logical continuation of my analysis of Clear page.

 
Index:

Overview, basic information and a few considerations
    - (1) That which caused ‘NED for OT's’ to come into being ...
- (2) The characteristics of a ‘somatic’  &  Its relation to Clear and NED for OT's
- (3) Time coincidence:  ‘New definition of Clear’ vs ‘NED for OT's’
‘Audited NOT's’ (Sept 78)  &  ‘Solo NOT's’ (Sept 80)
‘Audited NOT's’ & ‘Solo NOT's’  turn  ‘New OT V-VII’ (Mar 82)
A note about the whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard in regards to NOT's
The need for NOT's contradicted in earlier writings of L. Ron Hubbard versus 1978 status quo
           - Dianetics run on OT's as per 1969 (a skipped gradient)
- The 1978 state of affairs
- ‘New Era Dianetics’ (NED) vs ‘Standard Dianetics’
Who wrote NOT's?
    - Composer/typing initials as found on the ‘NED for OT's Series’ references
- David Mayo, Merrill Mayo and Julie Mayo (Gillespie) about NOT's
- ‘David Mayo on the Origin of NOT's’
- Court rulings
Clear and its relation with the NOT's materials and final notes
    - Reflecting back on ‘SO ED 2344 Int’, 20 Aug 83 “The Story of a Squirrel: David Mayo”
- A brief summary of the technical changes
- A proposal and warning (a final notice)



 
Back to Main Index Overview, basic information and a few considerations
    
“BREAKTHROUGH 
A research fact which was impeding further progress of Clears, and which applies to OT Grades, has been found by Ron. New Era Dianetics cannot be run on Clears or above without serious consequences to the body particularly when New Era Dianetics is run wrong and upside down. Below that grade New Era Dianetics can be run safely and beneficially.
    Immediate benefit from this discovery is that ‘New Era Dianetics for OTs’ has been developed for issue and use at AOs and Flag. ...
  D. Mayo
Flag Senior C/S
  Approved by
  L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER”
    
 
(from ‘Source 18’, Nov-Dec 78, page 11)
 

 
Go back (1) That which caused ‘NED for OT's’ to come into being ...

September 1978 introduced the following new datum:
        
“New Era Dianetics or any Dianetics is NOT to be run on Clears or above or on Dianetic Clears.”   
(from HCOB 12 Sept 78 “Dianetics Forbidden on Clears and OTs”)
        

This new datum changed things around a bit. It is said that there appear to have been people who have had run Dianetics on them to its supposed end phenomena, but that still would be subjected to bodily reactions or sensations (referred to as somatics). Why did Dianetics not take care of these? Well, some persons have proposed to me that a Clear was that person that “can be at cause knowingly and at will over ‘mental’ matter, energy, space and time as regards the first dynamic* (survival for self).”. So, this proposed option then may theoretically tell us why there still would be somatics, as they will be relating to the remaining dynamics and not to survival for self.  The problem is that we do not find this argument supported in Scientology writings. It may be so that any somatics always will affect the first dynamic, and thus would have been run flat prior to commencing the OT levels, i.e. theoretically. A somatic is defined as something that springs from the reactive mind. A Clear as per its definition has eradicated this very reactive mind, and thus removed the necessity of still having somatics.
(addressed in next section: “(2) The characteristics of a ‘somatic’  &  Its relation to Clear and NED for OT's”)

Reflecting on this it is not all together very clear what NED for OT's could be said dealing with. We can however be sure about that it is relating to handling somatics. Although at its release it was promoted as a repair action on those OT's that have had Dianetics run on them. Very quickly after that it became though a standard action that any such an OT had to do. For so far that I have been able to verify there is no direct explanation given anywhere to why suddenly everyone had to do it. If NED for OT's is about handling somatics then this may create a predicament, as it handles somatics (or so it says) with other procedures than Dianetics. So, the question arises why it is referred to as being Dianetics or NED when it isn't? It is further also contradicted by existing references from L. Ron Hubbard. We find the following observations and findings:

Skipped gradient:  One possible option that we do find supported in the writings of L. Ron Hubbard however hints to simply a skipped gradient. Solution then is to go back to Dianetics, run the somatic flat (what should have been done in the first place), and then go on with Scientology processing (ref. HCOB 1 May 69 “Grinding Out Engrams” & HCOB 24 May 69 “The Difficult Case”. A further notice is found in HCOB 15 Jul 70 (Corr and Reiss 25 Nov 70) “Unresolved Pains”).
(discussed in detail in later chapter “The need for NOT's contradicted in earlier writings of L. Ron Hubbard versus the 1978 status quo”, section “Dianetics run on OT's as per 1969 (a skipped gradient)”)

Results with Dianetics better after OT VII:  A second option is forwarded in relation with the development and release of OT VII in September 1970. A first notice is found in ‘Clear News 44 (AOLA Edition)’, [Nov-Dec 70] that on its front page noted that “Results on Dianetics and Expanded Grades are also much faster and complete after OT VII.” (this was a notice only for Clears and OT's). Further notices appeared about this in later issues of this periodical. We find such a sequence first in a technical bulletin in HCOB 31 May 71 “Best Advance Program (As often done on Flag)” and later confirmed again in HCOB 3 Feb 72 “R6EW–OT III No Interference Area”. But it only should then be run after OT III or OT III Expanded (OT IIIX).

 
Go back (2) The characteristics of a ‘somatic’  &  Its relation to Clear and NED for OT's

The ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’ (first released 1975) says:
        
“SOMATIC, 1. by somatic is meant a pain or ache sensation and also misemotion or even unconsciousness. There are a thousand different descriptive words that could add up to a feeling. Pains, aches, dizziness, sadness—these are all feelings. Awareness, pleasant or unpleasant, of a body. (HCOB 26 Apr 69)  2. body sensation, illness or pain or discomfort. ‘Soma’ means body. Hence psychosomatic or pains stemming from the mind. (HCOB 23 Apr 69)  3. this is a general word for uncomfortable physical perceptions coming from the reactive mind. Its genus is early Dianetics and it is a general, common package word used by Scientologists to denote ‘pain’ or ‘sensation’ with no difference made between them. To the Scientologist anything is a somatic if it emanates from the various parts of the reactive mind and produces an awareness of reactivity. Symbol: SOM. (HCOB 8 Nov 62)  4. the word somatic means, actually, bodily or physical. Because the word pain is restimulative, and because the word pain has in the past led to a confusion between physical pain and mental pain, the word somatic is used in Dianetics to denote physical pain or discomfort, of any kind. It can mean actual pain, such as that caused by a cut or a blow; or it can mean discomfort, as from heat or cold; it can mean itching—in short, anything physically uncomfortable. It does not include mental discomfort such as grief. Hard breathing would not be a somatic; it would be a symptom of misemotion suppression. Somatic means a non-survival physical state of being. (Science of Survival, p. 79)”
        

It says quite clearly: “pains stemming from the mind”, “coming from the reactive mind” & “anything is a somatic if it emanates from the various parts of the reactive mind”.

And as per HCOB 2 Apr 65 “The Road to Clear”: “A clear has no vicious Reactive Mind and operates at total mental capacity just like the first book (‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’) said. In fact every early definition of CLEAR is found to be correct.”  LRH.  

Then “A clear has no vicious Reactive Mind” and thus would not have somatics as these were “coming from the reactive mind”. The options for solution as given by HCOB 1 May 69 “Grinding Out Engrams” & HCOB 24 May 69 “The Difficult Case” , which are: skipped gradient back to Dianetics run the somatic flat back to Scientology processing, are in alignment with and are a logical continuation of all the above.

Then why would OT's have somatics? Why do we have NED for OT's? Why does everyone have to run it? Have some reverted to alternate solutions instead of simply going back to basics?

 
Go back (3) Time coincidence:  ‘New definition of Clear’ vs ‘NED for OT's’

Either of these started be worked upon in the exact same time period, which is September 1978:
        
“The state of Clear can be achieved on Dianetics.
        
 
I have now determined there is no such thing as Keyed-Out Clear (=Release). There is only a Dianetic Clear and he is a Clear.”
(from HCOB 24 Sept 78 III “Dianetic Clear”)
 
Versus:
        
“New Era Dianetics or any Dianetics is NOT to be run on Clears or above or on Dianetic Clears.
        
 
Anyone who has purchased NED auditing who is Clear or above must be routed to an AO or Flag to receive the special NED Rundown for OTs.”   
(from HCOB 12 Sept 78 “Dianetics Forbidden on Clears and OTs”)
 


HCOB 25 Jun 70RA (Revised 6 Oct 78) II “Glossary of C/S Terms” tells us “A Dianetic Clear is not run on Power (Grade V-VA), R6EW (Grade VI) or the Clearing Course (Grade VII), but goes directly onto OT I (after doing the Solo Auditor Course).”. Thus also leaving the Basic Basic for what it is, i.e. not run flat (see here below).

        
“BASIC BASIC—This belongs in Scientology. It is wholly beyond the scope of Dianetics. It means the most basic basic of all basics and results in clearing. It is found on the Clearing Course. If contacted or run before the pc was brought up through the Scientology Grades, he wouldn't be able to handle it anyway as experience has shown. So this is part of Scientology, not Dianetics.”          LRH
(from HCOB 23 Apr 69 “Basic Definitions”)
        

Let's realize something here. Now, if you do not run out this Basic Basic, then what could be the consequences? Could it be somatics still appearing? Somatics which then would have to be run out with NED for OT's? There exists an obvious interaction in this change in the definition of Clear and NED for OT's coming into being.

This all seems to relate about a tale that involves that you first leave out some steps (Grades V-VA, VI & VII), this then could create some other reactions later on (somatics), which then need a handling (turned to be NED for OT's). Now, what if you would have done the Grades V-VA, VI & VII, run out your Basic Basic and all that, would there have been any somatics?

Of course I am just trying out some possibilities per the data at hand, and attempt to force some logic on them. The questions that are raised though are interesting.

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index ‘Audited NOT's’ (Sept 78)  &  ‘Solo NOT's’ (Sept 80)

2nd wall of fire from 'Source 19', Feb-Mar 79  
Go back Audited NED for OT's  (NOT's)

Release date:  15 Sept 78
Flag release date:  16 Dec 78
Available service:  at least Jul 79

It was first referred to as the Second Wall of Fire in ‘LRH ED 301 Int’, 17 Dec 78 “Ron's Journal 30, 1978—The Year of Lightning Fast New Tech”. A few months later ‘Source 19’, Feb-Mar 79 introduced it as follows:

“The most major breakthrough since 1968 — New Era Dianetics for OTs,— produces remarkable results in the OT band. It is a must for every Clear and OT.
  The 29 rundowns on NED for OTs result in an OT who is ‘cause over life.’
  It is not a solo level, but is audited by a top notch OT III, Class IV auditor called an Advanced Course Specialist (ACS).
  This phenomenal rundown is being delivered now at the Flag Land Base. It can only be fully described in the words of those who have had it — the results are beyond all expectations!”
.


Originally released and promoted being just a repair action

It is not generally known that these NOT's originally were meant and introduced as a repair action for those that had been run on Dianetics (or NED) after they went Clear. It appears that this is also specifically stated by HCOB 15 Sept 78 I, NED for OTs Series 1, (Confidential). This original intent however was fairly quickly abandoned.


Official release

Audited NOT's was officially released at Flag (Clearwater, Fl) on 16 Dec ’78 at “what has been called the best Flag event ever” in a “thrilling talk” by “David Mayo, Senior C/S International who assisted Ron in his research and development of this new OT Level”. L. Ron Hubbard himself was conspicuous by his physical absence although David Mayo did say: “Ron asked me to give you his love.”. David Mayo tells that “NED for OT's began on September 12 of this year [1978] when Ron discovered that you can't audit a Clear on R3R or engram running.”. To that effect we see the release of HCOB 12 Sept 78 “Dianetics Forbidden on Clears and OTs”. The main outline of this short HCOB is found in this sentence that gives us the following clue: “Anyone who has purchased NED auditing who is Clear or above must be routed to an AO or Flag to receive the special NED Rundown for OTs. They are NOT to be run on regular New Era Dianetics.”. This is implying persons still having bodily reactions (somatics) after having gone “Clear” or being “above” Clear. Meaning that you already would have run Dianetics that directs its attention to the physical body. NED (Dianetics) for OT's would then address somatics that still may exist.
It was made available to the public since July 1979 as we see that the service appears first on donationlists since that month as per periodical Advance!.

The ‘Source’ article with announcements and various information of the Flag release of NOT's as hosted by David Mayo can be consulted in the below:  (pop-up window)
    ‘Source 19’, Feb-Mar 79 “NED for OTs Released at Flag”

 
Go back Solo NED for OT's  (Solo NOT's)  (consists of course and auditing part)

Release date:  Sept 80  
Flag release date:  11 Oct 80
‘Flag's First Public’ Solo NOT's Auditing completion:  7 Jul 84
 (see ‘Source 43’, [late 84], p. 8)

“On 11 October 1980, David Mayo returned to Flag with the joyous task of bringing the capacity audience assembled in the auditorium, the news of Ron's great breakthrough on NOTs — Solo NOTs.”
(from ‘Source 30’, [Jan-Feb 81])

A full transcript of this talk was published as ‘Flag Information Letter 383’, Dec 80 “Solo NOTs – A Talk by Commander David Mayo”. From the introduction notices on this reference: “It specifically answers all such questions and probably all of the questions you are likely to be asked by public persons.”.
The main outline of this speech was re-published in the periodical Source which can be consulted here in the below:  (pop-up window)
    ‘Source 30’, [Jan-Feb 81] “The Special Release Briefings for NOTs & Solo NOTs”

See also another article of David Mayo in ‘Advance! 77’ [ca Sept-Oct 82] “NED for OTs: The Second Wall of Fire” (pages 15-17).

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index ‘Audited NOT's’ & ‘Solo NOT's’  turn  ‘New OT V-VII’ (Mar 82)

Audited NOT's:  The publication ‘What Is Scientology?’, (1992 edition) may note on page 507: “Later that year (1978), New Era Dianetics for OTs (New OT V) was introduced.” and on page 645 it notes at “SEPTEMBER 1978”:  “Audited New Era Dianetics for OTs (New OT V released)”. However it is actually not generally know that it was not until March 1982 that it was addressed as New OT V.
We further learn from page 769 at: “NEW ERA DIANETICS FOR OTS (NEW OT V) MATERIALS”: “This new, audited OT level was released 15 September 1978. The materials covering New OT V comprise over 60 HCOBs.”. Then it is rather strange that it says in ‘Advance! 74’, [ca Mar-Apr 82] that “Ron's recent breakthrough at the level of OT bring you NEW OT V — NED for OTs. ”, as this service itself had been released already a whole 3½ years earlier. NED for OT's was not new, that which was new was that it turned New OT V.

Solo NOT's:  On page 507 in ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1992 edition) it notes: “The most significant achievement of 1980 was the release in September of another two OT levels, New OT VI and VII.” and on page 647 it notes at “SEPTEMBER 1980”:  “New OT VI and VII released—the Hubbard Solo New Era Dianetics for OTs (Solo NOTS) Course (New OT VI), utilizes technology developed by L. Ron Hubbard and enables a person to take the role of both auditor and preclear and actually audit himself on the level of OT VII, Solo New Era Dianetics for OTs ... .”. As with Audited NOT's it was not until March 1982 that Solo NOT's was addressed as New OT VI and New OT VII. (New OT VI consisted of doing this Hubbard Solo NOT's Auditor Course, New OT VII was the auditing part as per that course).

I think this is rather noteworthy. Why is history not related to us as it actually happened? In the same manner it is completely skipped to mention anything at all about what may have happened with the original OT levels that in fact were something else.

As a matter of coincidence “New OT VIII through XI” were first announced in this exact same time frame (see ‘Advance! 74’, [Mar-Apr 82], insert). Assumably though this will not be a coincidence.

NED for OT's - received after OT III or any higher level  (since December 1978)
Solo NED for OT's - received after NED for OT's

  
    Release date                     Flag release  
 (hosted by
  David Mayo)
 Cancel date 
 (silently
  disappeared)
 Introduced as
 (in Mar 82)
 OT III                   20 Sept 67  (18 Jan 68*)        
 OT Drug Rundown  29 Jan 80      New OT IV  
 OT IV, V & VI  23* Jan 68    Jan 82*  
 OT VII  20 Sept 70    Jan 82*  
 NED for OT's  15 Sept 78  16 Dec 78    New OT V  
 Solo NED for OT's  Sept 80  11 Oct 80    New OT VI & VII 
   
      Release date:  Given are the dates that are found in ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1992 edition). The dates indicated with an asterisk (*) were found in an article that was published in ‘Advance! 18’, [Apr-May 73], entitled: “A History of Advanced Courses”.
* Omitted on Grade Chart in January 1982 (=HCOB 19 Jan 82 “New – Streamlined Classification and Gradation Chart”)

March 1982 also introduced that Solo NOT's Auditing (New OT VII) could be done “at home”. In order to “save tremendous time and money, and enjoy the powerful gains of Solo NOT's on a continuing basis!”  (from ‘Source Special Edition’, [Mar-Apr 82]).

A more detailed study and comparison of the 1980 with the 1982 Grade Chart regarding “‘OT IV-VII’ replaced with ‘New OT IV-VII’” can be found on my Grade Chart study page. It also discusses some options about why we may have lost these old OT levels. For consultation click here (separate window).

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index A note about the whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard in regards to NOT's

We learn from the previous that both the Audited NOT's and Solo NOT's were not introduced by L. Ron Hubbard in person. The official release of either of these were hosted by Snr C/S Int David Mayo. We actually may ask the question why L. Ron Hubbard would have chosen not to do this himself. We in fact do not even have some video taped announcement from L. Ron Hubbard that easily could have been produced and then shown during the official release. We do not even have any tape recording in where L. Ron hubbard speaks about it. When Audited NOT's was released at Flag on 16 Dec ’78 it was David Mayo that spoke for L. Ron Hubbard. Per ‘Source 19’, Feb-Mar 79 in the article “NED for OTs Released at Flag” David Mayo said: “Ron asked me to give you his love.”. This does not relay what kind of contact he would have had with L. Ron Hubbard, did he actually meet him in person, was it via letter, by phone or otherwise. A good question to ask would though be why we don't see L. Ron Hubbard doing these things himself anymore, as he did actually used to do so. This coupled to the fact that there in fact exist groups that use the Scientology technology but discard of everything that came about roughly since early 1980 or so. This is not without reason as we can't really certify anymore that a variety of the writings that were issued since that time under the name of L. Ron Hubbard were actually written by him. Many were found to actually to not have been written by him, a whole variety of these were also cancelled during the big clean-up during 1990-91 (for details consult in particular my pages “Non-LRH turns into LRH? – Proposal to solution”, “Story of the Cramming Series – LRH or not LRH?” and “L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order (2)”, see Scientology index page.)

I was given the following information by a Class XII Auditor (identity protected, turned Cl XII in early 90's) that proposes to shed some light on some things about how NOT's may have been recorded: “From 1976 onward everything was recorded on a dictaphone. Only access to the original recordings would tell what were his actual words. To make things more complicated, these dictaphone tapes can be a hodge podge of 20 or more subjects. For example, on a tape he starts by telling something about NOTs, then the next section is about letter writing, how to run a course, then orders to the Flag Bureaux, Instructions about his clothing and room requirements, data on the cramming series, more data on NOTs, etc.”. Realizing though that these dictaphone recordings (if the story turns out to be true) obviously never would be made part of any public release either way. This same person then continues with saying to me: “Some of them have even been destroyed for various reasons. (mainly legal worries).”. So may be they don't even exist anymore then.

So, we appear not to have anything recorded on tape or video in where L. Ron Hubbard refers to NOT's. That which would positively confirm if something was really deriving from L. Ron Hubbard would be things like video recording or even better when he in person appears at events, but not so anymore since even the later 70's. All what we actually have are some LRH ED's attributed as deriving from L. Ron hubbard taht are talking about NOT's and related matters. We also do find a lot of Public Relation in Scientology magazines such as ‘The Auditor’. These tell about what L. Ron Hubbard had been up to and so on, often quoting from various newly issued HCOB's or LRH ED's or such. I remember asking once the HAS of Amsterdam org so around 1983-84 about the whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard. She herself was satisfied with the information that he was researching the upper levels, so she told me. Various rumours in fact were going around during that time, and people were asking questions and were wondering. The lot of these rumours would have stopped instantly if only L. Ron Hubbard would appear in person at some event or even appeared on a prerecorded video, but this never happened. Either way we may have to face the fact that anyone can publish or release something and say some other person wrote or devised it. It is amongst other this what makes the physical absence of the person L. Ron Hubbard appear very suspect indeed in regards to NOT's.

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index The need for NOT's contradicted in earlier writings of L. Ron Hubbard versus the 1978 status quo

 
Go back Dianetics run on OT's as per 1969 (a skipped gradient)

Prior to September 1978 it was alright to run Dianetics on OT's which the below quoted reference makes quite clear. It may speak for itself:
        
“OT CASES  
        
 
Handling the OT Case can be very tricky. Any one of these can give the auditor trouble. But it is usually nothing much to handle unless the OT is what we call a ‘False III’. This is somebody who gaily went up the grades without doing them. You don't have to know more about it than that.
 
 
Thus if a person who is OT is giving trouble being audited on Dianetics it's better to turn him or her over to a Class VIII for routine handling on Scientology.
 
 
Any OT who has somatics is auditable on Dianetics which he should have had in the first place as he was using Scn grades to get rid of his headache! Or some somatic.
 
 
If the ‘OT’ isn't auditable on Dianetics then he's a problem for a Class VIII and not a very tough one either.
 
 
To the HDG* this is not very complex.
 
 
Audit the ‘OT’ on Standard Dianetics. If it works okay just carry on until he's rid of his somatics and turn him over to Qual when he's okay.
 
 
If it doesn't work, then cease Dianetics and turn him over to Qual who will get the thing straight by the usual Class VIII remedies.
 
 
That's all you have to know about OTs in Dianetics.”          LRH
(from HCOB 24 May 69 “The Difficult Case”)
 
* HDG, Hubbard Dianetic Graduate.  One who is trained to teach the Dianetic Course after graduating from the Hubbard Standard Dianetics Course (HSDC).

Obviously the above relayed information was abandoned since mid-September 1978 with the release of HCOB 12 Sept 78 “Dianetics Forbidden on Clears and OTs” that announced the datum: “New Era Dianetics or any Dianetics is NOT to be run on Clears or above or on Dianetic Clears.”. The puzzling aspect is though that HCOB 24 May 69 “The Difficult Case” still is found in its original form in the 1991 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes. It has never been cancelled nor revised. Why is that? Quite clearly this is clashing data!


And then we also have the following:
        
“OTs AND DIANETICS  
        
 
We have encountered two cases who were ‘OT VI’ who also got into grinding* without there being anything earlier. In both these cases, they did not want a session and were only going through it to be obliging. Both of these ‘OTs’ had skipped some of their grades. The proper action would have been to review their grades, the grade known as OT III was certainly out. When a person gets above Clear, oddities can be expected to occur when you try to run Dianetics on them. If they really haven't made all their grades, however, and are physically ill, the correct action is to do all possible to handle their case by Standard Dianetics and then rehabilitate or get done all the rest of the grades. What has happened here is that they were using Scientology to escape an uncomfortable body that should have been straightened out by Dianetics in the first place. The ‘out grade’ is in fact Dianetics, failure to use it before going on to Scientology.”          LRH
(from HCOB 1 May 69 “Grinding Out Engrams”)
 
* “GRINDING means going over and over and over and over a lock, secondary or engram without obtaining an actual erasure.”

This reference actually confirms that “When a person gets above Clear, oddities can be expected to occur when you try to run Dianetics on them.”. Dianetics however as an action that could be run on Clears or OT's was not abandoned. In above HCOB 1 May 69 “Grinding Out Engrams” and the earlier quoted HCOB 24 May 69 “The Difficult Case” it is indicated that Dianetics had been passed by (skipped) and that instead Scientology was run on them. The solution proposed is to simply go back and do what should have been done in the first place. Back to Dianetics, run it flat, and go on running Scientology.

As it was the case with HCOB 24 May 69 “The Difficult Case”, this HCOB 1 May 69 “Grinding Out Engrams” is also still found in its original form in the 1991 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes. The message of both of these references is that if you are faced with somatics that one reverts back to running it with Standard Dianetics.


And still confirmed in 1972:  (underlining is mine)
        
After 7 above (OT III) or after 9 above (OT III Expanded) one can run more Dianetics, Expanded Grades, GF40, the famous L10 or do any other case action. One cannot profitably do these actions between Solo R6 and OT III. That's just the way the bank is.”          LRH
(from HCOB 3 Feb 72 “R6EW–OT III No Interference Area”)
        


A further notice from 1970:
        
“It occasionally happens that a pc's certain pain does not resolve on Dianetics.
        
 
There are two reasons for this:
 
 
1.  NOT ENOUGH AUDITING ON ENOUGH CHAINS. ...
 
 
2.  SYMPATHETIC NERVOUS SYSTEM PAINS.”          LRH
(from HCOB 15 Jul 70 (Corr and Reiss 25 Nov 70) “Unresolved Pains”)
 
Solutions are given to resolve these Unresolved Pains. Consult the reference for details.

 
Go back The 1978 state of affairs

So it was alright to run Dianetics on OT's at least as early as 1969, and it was still alright 9 years later, till it was abandoned in mid-September 1978. Why? This is touched in ‘LRH ED 298 Int’, 19 Sept 78 “A.D. 28, The Year of Technical Breakthroughs”, although it does not relate much details about this “investigation”& “research” itself.

This reference does relate about NED for OT's. It tells also that “Each of these (Technical Breakthroughs) is the result of years of research and in recent months one major discovery has led to another with great rapidity and astounding success.”. It then tells the following concerning NED for OT's:
        
“An attempt to run NED on an OT resulted in a phenomenon which caught my attention, and on further investigation brought to light the fact that you cannot run NED, or any Dianetics for that matter, on a Clear (Dianetic or Scientology Clear) or above. Research into this paid off handsomely with a fantastic breakthrough for Clears and OTs. I have now developed an entirely new rundown called ‘NED for OTs.’ This deals with living lightning, the very stuff of life itself. Run exactly correctly by the book it produces remarkable results in the OT band, and has made it possible for me to now release OT VIII. ‘NED for OTs’ is a highly confidential rundown done by a Class IV, OT III auditor, called an Advanced Courses Specialist (ACS), who is specially trained on its rundown and techniques. It is now forbidden to run NED on Clears or above. From Grade VI to OT III is the Non-Interference Zone, during which nothing should be run. Persons in this zone should move on up to OT III so that they may be audited on ‘NED for OTs.’ This rundown will be delivered in AOs and Flag to OT IIIs and above. Clears and OTs who have paid for NED will now receive ‘NED for OTs’ which in the pilot auditing produced results beyond their wildest dreams. While much of it is confidential I can tell you that the first step of ‘NED for OTs’ is designed to raise perceptions, especially theta perception, and as for the rest of the rundown . . . surprise, surprise, surprise!”          (signed at bottom with ‘RON’ [=LRH])  
(from ‘LRH ED 298 Int’, 19 Sept 78 “A.D. 28, The Year of Technical Breakthroughs”)
        

Note that it said in above LRH ED:  “An attempt to run NED on an OT resulted in a phenomenon which caught my attention, ... .”.
The following is what David Mayo wrote and published in April 1985 relating to this when he was called to see L. Ron Hubbard who was taken ill somewhere early September 1978: “I had some folders and the main thing that I could see from the folders was that he'd been having quite a lot of auditing on NED and that there were various strange indications. His TA had been getting higher and higher and the needle had been getting tighter. Various somatics had been turning on and the more somatics that turned on, the more they'd try and run these somatics out with NED and then the more somatics would turn on, and so on.”  (from ‘The Journal of the Advanced Ability Centre’, April 1985).
Per this statement it would seem that this “OT” that the LRH ED refers to would have been L. Ron Hubbard himself. He then (if the statement is truthful) would have caught the attention of himself.

There is also the following notice further justifying NED for OT's in an LRH ED issued in December of 1978:
        
“NED is cleaning up anything and everything Book One ever mentioned with lightning speed. Of course, when somebody goes Dianetic Clear, he can't be run on more engrams. right? Right! So it's forbidden now to run NED on Dianetic Clears. ...
        
 
In 1978 I discovered that it was deadly to go on running Dianetics on a Dianetic Clear. Such gave the semblance of no case gain! (Naturally.)”  
(from ‘LRH ED 301 Int’, 17 Dec 78 “Ron's Journal 30, 1978—The Year of Lightning Fast New Tech”)
 

A logical question is: “Why took it a whole 9 years to actually realize that something was wrong with running Dianetics on OT's?”. This time factor does not come to me as directly comforting. Just think about it for a moment. If something was awfully wrong with it, it would obviously have caught someone's attention at a much earlier date. Things like this are not likely to appear sudden. Now, couple to this the fact that both HCOB 1 May 69 “Grinding Out Engrams” & HCOB 24 May 69 “The Difficult Case” (see previous section) are also still considered valid references till this day. Why is this?
The big irregularity here is basically that it is not explained why this would be so! It is just a claim that is being made about that a “Dianetic Clear, he can't be run on more engrams”. It comes sudden, unexpected and we receive no adequate explanation of any kind. This would not be a scientific way to go about it.

Another important angle here is the observation that problems only occurred with reference to running New Era Dianetics (NED). The examples given here above do at no place directly involve the running of Standard Dianetics (St Dn). Rather obviously this should be given attention, as the conclusion nonetheless made in ‘LRH ED 301 Int’, 17 Dec 78 “Ron's Journal 30, 1978—The Year of Lightning Fast New Tech” was that “it was deadly to go on running Dianetics on a Dianetic Clear”. Remember that HCOB 1 May 69 “Grinding Out Engrams” and HCOB 24 May 69 “The Difficult Case” made/make no objection running Dianetics (St Dn) on Clears.
Only one constriction is made and this by HCOB 3 Feb 72 “R6EW–OT III No Interference Area”, that says: “One cannot profitably do these actions between Solo R6 and OT III. That's just the way the bank is.”   LRH.

The LRH ED also further states clearly: I have now developed an entirely new rundown called ‘NED for OTs.’” (underlining is mine). Which authorship later was disputed by David Mayo (see next chapter).

 
Go back ‘New Era Dianetics’ (NED) vs ‘Standard Dianetics’

Mind that it did say in ‘LRH ED 298 Int’, 19 Sept 78 “A.D. 28, The Year of Technical Breakthroughs”:  (underlining is mine)
        
“An attempt to run NED on an OT resulted in a phenomenon which caught my attention, and on further investigation brought to light the fact that you cannot run NED, or any Dianetics for that matter, on a Clear (Dianetic or Scientology Clear) or above.”
        
It says actually NED here, it does not say Dianetics. Could this be the reason why this “phenomenon” did not occur at an earlier date?

It raises the question what difference there may be between NED and Dianetics. Could there be something that triggered this “phenomenon” when run NED but not Dianetics? It could explain why it did not surface at an earlier date, as NED only was released a few months back in July 1978. This reasoning seems enervated though by the following text found in this LRH ED that reads: “further investigation brought to light the fact that you cannot run NED, or any Dianetics for that matter, on a Clear (Dianetic or Scientology Clear) or above.”.
Does this mean that NED was actually more accurate than Standard Dianetics and so this “phenomenon” could be caught? or is NED something that caused this “phenomenon” to actually come into being, but wasn't there from the start? And thus it caused NED for OT's to come into being to fix this newly created problem?

I go into more detail about this in an article that can be consulted in below link:  (separate window)
    “‘New Era Dianetics’ can not be run on Clears, but it can with ‘Standard Dianetics’”

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index Who wrote NOT's?

The last 3 sections in this chapter carry an uncertainty factor. Because here I have no other choice than to relate to various outside sources of information. Another reason why I don't really want to touch this is because these NOT's are in fact considered confidential. Although it is not that I actually have so very much of a choice here. So far the findings of my research in regards to the phenomena of Clear raised some questions about the authorship of NED for OT's and they require some answering. I will attempt to do this sparely but adequately.

As per the previous sections the question arose if someone other than L. Ron Hubbard may have been responsible for the drafting of NED for OT's. If someone else may have been responsible for that? Well, this may not be so easy to positively certify. After all the Church of Scientology does claim that L. Ron Hubbard wrote NOT's. In particular this is so stated by the present Senior C/S International Mr. Ray Mitthof. However, we are facing some indications that may suggest something different. Another difficulty is that this is confidential material, data about them is not freely distributed. There exist a variety of messages, affidavits and even some transcriptions of court documents to be found on the Internet that address these things. I can not really vouch for the reliability and authenticity of any of these and if the persons really are whom they say that they are. Although it seems likely that at least a variety of them are authentic, partly due to the many details that are given in these texts. Details that are confirmed for their correctness from additional sources. This is as far as it goes, I can not and will not vouch for them. But the things that they relate are to say the least interesting, and they are frequently referred to as valid arguments.

 
Go back Composer/typing initials as found on the ‘NED for OTs Series’ references

A name that immediately surfaces is David Mayo as a possible author or co-author of these NED for OT's materials. This is not so surprising as at the time that the NOT's started to be written (mid-Sept 78) he was the Flag C/S. A total of 28 references of the NED for OT's Series came about in that same month. An additional 12 of them were released in Oct/Nov of 1978. Dec 1978/Feb 1979 released another 6 of them. David Mayo had by October 1978 been promoted to Senior C/S International. Besides the fact that he was the highest technical posted person under L. Ron Hubbard, another strong indicator for his involvement with the NOT's material is the fact that the bulk of them actually carried his initials. They were typing initials ‘dm’, as opposed to composer initials that would be indicated as ‘DM’. One story that I used to hear within the Church itself is that L. Ron Hubbard send his research notes about the NOT's material to David Mayo, who then put them together in a usable form or simply typed them out. This seems a plausible explanation in regards to them being just typing initials. We should though also realize that all of the references in this NED for OT's Series carried a duplicate set of typing initials, most of them note ‘LRH:dm:kjm’. Per this L. Ron Hubbard would have been the originator, David Mayo the 1st typist, and this ‘kjm’ the second typist (full name unknown). Why would there have been a second typist? This is actually unclear and is not explained, although this second typist could have been a finishing touch prior to releasing them as HCOB's.
Interesting is also that HCOB 15 Sept 78 I, NED for OTs Series 1 (Confidential) that carries the composer/typing initials ‘LRH:mm:kjm’. Now, who would/could this ‘mm’ be? We know that David Mayo later as being the Senior C/S International would have an assistant, which came to be his wife Merrill Mayo (also a Class XII Auditor). It is fairly safe to assume that this ‘mm’ denotes her. We find a second reference in this NED for OTs Series with ‘mm’ as follows: HCOB 15 Sept 78R IV (Revised 13 Feb 81) NED for OTs Series 9R (Confidential) that carries the composer/typing initials: ‘LRH:dm:mm:kjm’. Three sets of typing initials, assumed being amongst other David Mayo and Merrill Mayo. Odd in a sense is that it says further in the signature area of the reference: ‘Assisted by Senior C/S Int Assistant’, because ‘Assisted by’ would as a rule be referring to a co-composer and should (in this case) thus have been indicated as: ‘MM’. Typists as a rule are only referred to or mentioned by their initials.
Either way we are facing here indications of typists, that means people that typed out something. We are not seeing composer initials which are indicated as capitals: ‘DM’. Sure, it will be hard to deny involvement of David Mayo with the NOT's Series, although not as an actual author or composer purely as per these initials found!

I have been informed by a Class XII auditor that these NED for OT's Series references had been de‘Mayo’nized in 1991. This probably involved removing amongst other these ‘dm’ and ‘mm’ indications. I don't know what else may have been done.

We do actually find further inconsistencies in these composer/typing initials in for example 5 references as they appear in the Happiness Rundown Series, and on its checksheet for the course (all released during Feb-Mar 1981). These 6 references are found to have noted on them ‘as assisted by Senior C/S Int’, this can be seen here (pop-up window). The inconsistency is that on these 6 issues the Snr C/S Int (David Mayo) is indicated as ‘dm’ (‘LRH:dm:ljb’), where it should have been ‘DM’. As explained in the previous ‘as assisted by’ does not match with ‘dm’.

 
Go back David Mayo, Merrill Mayo and Julie Mayo (Gillespie) about NOT's

In a court affidavit from David Mayo, dated 1 May 1987 at Palo Alto, California, he declares at point #10:
        
“The technology of Dianetics and Scientology is a product of the efforts of many people, including myself, and among others, Melanie Murray, Julie Mayo, Merrill Mayo, Dona Haber, Brian Livingston, and Phoebe Mauer. Moreover, I am the primary source of NOTs and SOLO NOTs.”.
        
Would the above be true the NOT's Series references may have been falsely attributed to L. Ron Hubbard. In addition if David Mayo states this then at the same time he admits also that the composer/typing initials as found on these NOT's references would be incorrect. Instead of finding ‘LRH:dm:kjm’ we should have seen ‘LRH:DM:kjm’ and with the notice that it was ‘for L. Ron Hubbard by Flag C/S’ (consequently for the releases since October 1978 it should then have said ‘for L. Ron Hubbard by Senior C/S International’). We have to realize here that in fact David Mayo either way does admit to have written things that were attributed to someone else, somewhere there is a dishonesty factor involved here. The reference that applies to all these rules concerning signatures are laid out in HCO PL 21 Jun 59 “Signatures on Bulletins, Policy Letters and Sec EDs” consult here (separate window).

Merrill Mayo's Open Letter, ca. 1983. Extract from a letter which was received from Merrill Mayo that I found posted on the Internet. I don't know to whom it was send and can also not vouch for its authenticity, but it probably is.
        
“In late August of 1978, David was called away from Flag to audit LRH. Then LRH made him Senior C\S International. When LRH discovered and formulated NED for OTs, David worked with him very closely on this research. David also got people trained to audit and C\S it and got it delivered to the public, and again the same was done for Solo NOTs later.”
        
She was the wife of David Mayo at that time and also functioned as his assistant.

A communication from Julie Mayo, dated 28 April 1996, which is found on the Internet posted on a newsgroup that amongst other relates:
        
“In 1980, I became Senior C/S INT Assistant. One of the first things that I did as Senior C/S INT Assistant was to help David Mayo write Solo NOTs. In fact, part of the original SOLO NOTs checksheet was written by yours truly. Hubbard wasn't around Gilman Hot Springs at that time. He was in seclusion with the Broekers.”
        
Note: At the time she was known as Julie Gillespie, it was not until later that she became the wife of David Mayo. Please realize that I can not vouch for the reliability or the source of this data, but it is probably authentic due to the detailed nature of these messages.

 
Go back ‘David Mayo on the Origin of NOTs’

There is a story going around which is attributed to as having been told by David Mayo himself. At various places out on the Internet we find this story posted. It is introduced as follows:
        
“David Mayo worked with L. Ron Hubbard to create the NOTs levels. In early 1996 he wrote a letter introducing himself to the community (newsgroup), in which he summarized his history with the Church. In this excerpt from his (never published) letter, Mayo describes how he came to co-author the NOTs material.”
        
These are 3 sentences that are not necessary related with each other. The first sentence is just a claim. The second one relates about David Mayo posting on some newsgroup. Then the third sentence gives us another statement about some “(never published) letter”. What the heck has some “(never published) letter” to do with David Mayo introducing himself on some newsgroup? That the first sentence is assumed true, and the second sentence is confirmed true, does not automatically mean that the third sentence is true as well! Is someone playing a trick on us here? As far as I have been able to check these messages of David Mayo on that newsgroup are not reflecting back to this supposed “excerpt” of that “(never published) letter”. How and where did this letter actually surface from? The things where this letter relates about are also not in particular confirmed in any other more or less objective source.
There exist 3 other sources of ‘confirmation’ which are Russell Miller in ‘Bare-Faced Messiah: The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard’(1987), Bent Corydon in ‘L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman?’ (1987) & Jon Atack in ‘A Piece of Blue Sky: Scientology, Dianetics, and L. Ron Hubbard exposed’ (1990). Their tales about this though are quite alike, as if they borrowed it from each other or took it from the same source. Various matching details are interesting. The preface of Jon Atack's book by the way was written by Russell Miller. They all published their book in a time span of just 3-4 years. It is also to be noted that either of these persons are antagonists towards the subject of Scientology.

A combined source can be traced back to an interview that Russell Miller (British writer and journalist), supposedly had with David Mayo in Palo Alto, California, on 28 August 1986. Miller then used it for his biography of Hubbard, ‘Bare-Faced Messiah: The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard’, published in 1987. This book itself seems to have been written with the sole intent to defame L. Ron Hubbard and the subject of Scientology. It is really not very objectively written. Where ever possible the subject and especially the person are being discredited. The question arises why David Mayo would have agreed upon to be interviewed by this Russell Miller? I find no data about that, or any clarification from David Mayo himself on that. His messages (256 I counted for 1996) on that earlier mentioned newsgroup also relate nothing about Russell Miller or the book ‘Bare-Faced Messiah’.
Transcripts of this interview of Russell Miller with David Mayo appear out on the Internet. Usually together with a transcript of Russell Miller's book, and additional transcripts of interviews with other persons about Scientology also used for the book. They are referred to as transcripts taken from tape recordings. Sound files of these are not available, the transcripts are. When one goes through this transcript we find that David Mayo does not give a very flattering picture of L. Ron Hubbard. Quite the contrary, the person of L. Ron Hubbard is portrayed by David Mayo as highly unreasonable, constantly yelling, displaying irrational behaviour and even delusional. Some things are not very clear to me here. David Mayo had been involved with Scientology for a considerable amount of time. That is: he stayed on! He was well acquainted with the technology and the subject, became a Class XII auditor and so on. After he got expelled (1983) from the Church he then created his own group still using Scientology technology, and even compiling a new version of the NOT's material. If David Mayo finds that Scientology is something to have (for some reason or another) then why does he portray L. Ron Hubbard like we find him described on that interview? Or is it assumed that a person with these characteristics still can come up with something like Scientology? In fact the clarity and rationality as found in his writings contradict this tale as told by David Mayo about the person L. Ron Hubbard. Another option could be that it simply was not L. Ron Hubbard but someone that may have acted as him.

Either way this is one of the stories that is often referred to as how these NOT's came about. It also appears accepted by various. For these reasons it needs to be addressed. It is for that reason that I discuss it here. Just because something is stated as being true, does not make it true or fact! I am still missing out on comments from David Mayo about his motives for that interview with Russell Miller (assumed it is authentic), also I actually have not been able to find information about if David Mayo actually supports this story or opposes to it, i.e. from other sources then the interview itself. I personally think that the source of it and the things that it tells are to say the least rather dubious. You can consult the story as relayed by this “(never published) letter” here (pop-up window). The interview with Russell Miller though appears to only relate to NOT's in the following excerpt: “He was ill in late ’78, September, and I was transferred to La Quinta when he was ill. He thought there was going to be an FBI raid and in early 79 he left La Quinta and ended up in an apartment complex in Hemet. Later I was transferred to audit him on NOTs and then he went on to doing Solo NOTs in mid ’79.”. If anyone knows more about this or likes to comment on this, then please contact me.

 
Go back
Court rulings

There appears to exist also a court ruling concerning the “authorship of certain Scientology scriptures called NOTs” and who would presently be the owner of these. It is dated 4 Jun ’91. Available on the Internet is a transcript of this (I searched in vain for actual scannings of this document). This document may speak for itself. Some interesting information is being relayed and it is worthwhile consulting. Click here to consult (pop-up window).

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index Clear and its relation with the NOT's materials and final notes

 
Go back Reflecting back on ‘SO ED 2344 Int’, 20 Aug 83 “The Story of a Squirrel: David Mayo”

In the section of the SO ED entitled SUPPRESSIVE ACTS it did say:
        
“Issued verbal tech and squirrel instructions to auditors and broadly published a misdefinition on the State of Clear, causing tech personnel to think that this was Source data and send pcs who had not achieved the State of Clear to attest to Clear, thus jamming these persons’ progress up the Bridge; ...”
        

So it says: “send pcs who had not achieved the State of Clear to attest to Clear, thus jamming these persons’ progress up the Bridge” by use of having “broadly published a misdefinition on the State of Clear”. How does this work?
The state of facts are that the definition of Dianetic Clear factually had been altered to mean a fullfledged Clear, and this was “broadly published”in various HCOB's issued since September 1978. Considering this we may have to face the possibility that you because of this that you may be are sending “pcs who had not achieved the State of Clear to attest to Clear” and “thus jamming these persons’ progress up the Bridge”. See, we have a change in the definition of what is a Clear and what is not a Clear. A Dianetic Clear is not anymore just a Release, it is considered a Clear. A change that is accepted, implemented and in use ever since. It has never been questioned, giving attention or has been analyzed. No one is giving any attention that this may have been wrong, instead David Mayo is being judged and doomed because of some “lower harmonics in the State of Clear” which bear no relevance whatsoever to a change in the definition of Clear! We are also facing that both the previous definition and the new September 1978 definition are both represented in ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes at various locations. All these are a strange state of facts and happenings.

 
Go back A brief summary of the technical changes

Prior to September 1978 a Clear was someone who had run Dianetics and then the Scientology Grades, including Grades V, VA & VI and the Clearing Course (Grade VII). A Dianetic Clear at that time was just considered a Release, you still had to run Scientology Grades in order to become a fullfledged Clear, a so-called Scientology Clear or Theta Clear. Then starting from September 1978 a Dianetic Clear was declared a Clear, and leaving the Grades V, VA & VI and the Clearing Course only for those who had not gone Clear on Dianetics. March 1979 in addition introduced so-called Natural Clears, meaning those that will not have any Dianetics run on them and never will have.
Since September 1978 still you first would run Dianetics, and then the Scientology Grades. November 1981 turned this around, now you first were to run Scientology Grades and then Dianetics (NED). The 1982 Grade Chart displays this Alternate Route to Clear (Clearing Course), the 1983 Grade Chart placed it outside of the Bridge itself, only to have the Grades V, VA & VI and the Clearing Course (Alternate Route to Clear) to reappear on Grade Charts issued in later years.
All these implicate various changes, it changes position and your perspective on what next to do. Add to the above changes that July 1978 had introduced NED and was replacing the previous Standard Dianetics. And that since March 1982 the original OT levels IV to VII were dropped. Then we can safely conclude that between July 1978 and March 1982 the Bridge had undergone some very drastic changes indeed. Various things were literally turned upside down.

In regards to David Mayo the conclusion can be drawn that he in fact was involved in the changes and new introductions since September 1978, and acted since October 1978 as the Senior C/S International. Various of these delicate and shifting changes and additions that were introduced and came about during his time of reign are in fact being upheld till this day! True may be though that the Survival Rundown (May 80) was discontinued since. Although it may be looked upon as rather odd that this rundown nonetheless appears on donationlists at least as late as August 1984. Still in use are the Happiness Rundown (Nov 80/Oct 81) although in somewhat adjusted form, and also the Sunshine Rundown (Nov 81) remains in use today, both of which witness of an active and obvious involvement of David Mayo. This would actually indicate that David Mayo can not have been considered all that bad this even by the Church of Scientology.

 
Go back A proposal and warning
(a final notice)

The following was proposed to me by an old-timer Class IX Auditor and NOT's C/S:
        
“Without any proof, just suppose that the following is true:
        
 
1.NOTS is based on a lie, the lie being that it is NED or at least a form of Dianetics for OTs. Truth is that NOTs has nothing to do with Dianetics but served to knock out Dianetics from use by Scientologists. It was a covert attempt to undermine the world and effectiveness of Scientology.
 
 
2.People who keyed out on Dianetics and grades were told they were now Clear and that it would be very very very dangerous and destructive to their cases if they would ever be run on Dianetics. So on the lower bridge Dianetics was knocked out of usage as well.
 
 
3.Mayo blames LRH for confusing the definitions of Clear. Mayo leaves Scientology (currently).
 
 
4.They changed the definition of reactive mind in the tech dictionary even already in 1975 conveniently leaving out GPMs. This shows the whole sabotage of the subject was a planned operation. They left out GPMs and that is what Dianetic Clears, Releases and anybody should run on the Clearing Course in order to go Clear. Just compare to the Scientology Abridged dictionary def of Reactive Mind.
 
 
The confidential NOTs materials give the first data on Dianetic Clear and are the justification for it. The reason they give has to do with OT III material and is confidential but is contrary to earlier LRH HCOBs. The fact that Mayo wrote these issues makes him the prime suspect of having been the instrument to sabotage the tech.
 
 
Mayo wrote the NOTs stuff, this is the stuff where the whole idea of Dianetic Clear comes from or integrates with. So it is most likely Mayo who invented the new definition for Dianetic Clear as well as the NOTs stuff. There is also an obvious time coincidence factor.”
 

Now, if David Mayo really was the bad dude one deems him to be, would it not be advisable to seriously investigate any and all of these processes, additions and changes that were introduced during his time of reign? Another consideration may be if he really can be deemed being this bad person, if various of these changes are found being upheld to this day. My analysis regarding various claims made against David Mayo also reveal that some of these accusations made have been found questionable, inconsistent or simply are unsupported by fact. Then we have to ask ourselves if the fact that the Bridge so drastically got changed during his time around, if it is plausible that this only would be a coincidence! We have various options here. I provide my data and research and you as the reader will have to figure it out for yourself, and draw your own conclusions. Either way we have to realize that the Bridge as it was after David Mayo had left was not the same as how it was before he arrived at the scene. In fact before and after are very different indeed!

We may have to reflect on the possibility that we do not need NOT's. What is the actual validity of NOT's? Define ‘somatics’! Somatics spring from and are seated in the reactive mind. A Clear has eradicated this reactive mind. Then why would an OT have somatics? This is explained confidently by L. Ron Hubbard in for example HCOB 1 May 69 “Grinding Out Engrams” & HCOB 24 May 69 “The Difficult Case”. These refer to it as a simple skipped gradient, something that had been passed by. These references also state very clearly that Dianetics can be run on OT's as Dianetics had not been run to its end phenomena, and thus one went back and run Dianetics. Instead 9 years later some came up with NOT's. NOT's that originally was promoted as a repair action for those that have had Dianetics run on them. A few months after that it was suddenly judged that everyone had to do it. And today (since March 1982) it has turned into a whole series of OT levels (New OT V, VI & VII), knocking out the original OT V, VI & VII. NOT's that came about as per David Mayo when some person that was denoted being L. Ron Hubbard got sick in September 1978, and thus NOT's was called into being. All this sure makes for a fancy story. The question is if it all adds up. Have basics been violated?

Here I also have come to the end of my thesis about Clear, NED for OT's and any that may relate to the subject in some way. My findings may urge some to have a closer look into this. It was my purpose and intent to point out any possible incongruities to myself and now –by releasing this– also to others, there is no other purpose then stated here. You have to find out for yourself what to think of all this. The things that I write may disturb some although they are directly based on my factual findings. The blind should not be leading the blind as in the literal context.

 

Vocabulary:

     Advanced Org(anization) (AO):
The denominates a Scientology organization which delivers higher level auditing and training. The first Advanced Organization was located in Saint Hill, England. The initials AO will appear somewhere in the name for the various AO's. For example: AOLA, ASHO, AOSH EU, etc.. This may also be referred to as a Saint-Hill organization.
     AO:
Short for ‘Advanced Organization’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     Clear:  (extensive definition list)
1. A Clear, in an absolute sense, would be someone who could confront anything and everything in the past, present and future. (Ability Minor 56)  2. A Clear is somebody who has lost the mass, energy, space and time connected with the thing called mind. (SH Spec 80, 6609C08)  3. A Clear has no vicious reactive mind and operates at total mental capacity just like the first book (DMSMH) said. (HCOB 2 Apr 65)  4. The name of a button on an adding machine. When you push it, all the hidden answers in the machine clear and the machine can be used for a proper computation. So long as the button is not pressed the machine adds all old answers to all new efforts to compute and wrong answers result. Really, that’s all a Clear is. Clears are beings who have been cleared of wrong answers or useless answers which keep them from living or thinking. (Auditor 4 UK)  5. What we mean by Clear is an erasure of the mental mass which inhibits their thinking, postulating, and so on. (SH Spec 75, 6608C16)  6. An unaberrated person. He is rational in that he forms the best possible solutions he can on the data he has and from his viewpoint. He obtains the maximum pleasure for the organism, present and future, as well as for the subjects along the other dynamics. The Clear has no engrams which can be restimulated to throw out the correctness of computation by entering hidden and false data in it. (Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, p. 111)
     cramming:
A section in the Qualifications Division where a student is given high pressure instruction at his own cost after being found slow in study or when failing his exams. The cramming section teaches students what they have missed. This includes trained auditors who wish to be brought up-to-date on current technical developments.
     DMSMH:
Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’. The first book published on he subject. ‘A Handbook of Dianetic Procedure.’
     Dynamics:
The urge, thrust and purpose of life – SURVIVE! – in its eight manifestations. The First Dynamic, survival of self; the Second Dynamic, the urge toward survival through sex and children; the Third Dynamic, the urge to survive through a group. The Fourth Dynamic, the urge to survive through all mankind; the Fifth Dynamic, the urge to survive through all living things; the Sixth Dynamic, the urge toward survival as the physical universe; the Seventh Dynamic, the urge toward survival through spirits or as a spirit; the Eighth Dynamic, the urge toward survival through infinity. (Marriage Hats booklet)
     GPM:
Goals Problem Mass’. 1. A GPM is composed of mental masses and significances which have an exact pattern, unvarying from person to person, whose significances dictate a certain type of behaviour and whose masses, when pulled in on the individual, cause psychosomatic effects, such as illnesses, pains or feelings of heaviness and tiredness. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary).  2. The problem created by two or more opposing ideas which being opposed, balanced, and unresolved, make a mass. It's a mental energy mass. (SH Spec 83, 6612C06).  3. The basis of the reactive mind is the actual Goals Problem Masses (GPMs). (HCOB 17 Oct 64 III)
     HCOB:
Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on white paper. Written by LRH only , but only so starting from January 1974. These are the technical issue line. All data for auditing and courses is contained in HCOBs. For more information go here (separate window).
    HCO PL:
Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on white paper. Written by LRH only, but only so starting from January 1974. These are the organizational and administrative issue line. For more information go here (separate window).
     lock:
1. An analytical moment in which the perceptics of the engram are approximated, thus restimulating the engram or bringing it into action, the present time perceptics being erroneously interpreted by the reactive mind to mean that the same condition which produced physical pain once before is now again at hand. Locks contain mainly perceptics; no physical pain and very little misemotion. (Science of Survival, p. 112)  2. A situation of mental anguish. It depends for its force on the engram to which it is appended. The lock is more or less known to the analyzer. It's a moment of severe restimulation of an engram. (Dianetics: Evolution of a Science, p. 84).
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     NED:
New Era Dianetics’. Offcially released to the public on 30 July 1978 (ref.: ‘The Auditor 151 (US edition)’, Sept 78). It replaced and abolished the previous in use Standard Dianetics (St Dn).
     preclear (pc):
1. A person who, through Scientology processing, is finding out more about himself and life. (The Phoenix Lectures, p. 20)  2. A spiritual being who is now on the road to becoming Clear, hence preclear. (HCOB 5 Apr 69)  3. One who is discovering things about himself and who is becoming clearer. (HCO PL 21 Aug 62)
     Operating Thetan (OT):
1. Willing and knowing cause over life, thought, matter, energy, space and time. And that would of course be mind and that would of course be universe. (SH Spec 80, 6609C08)  2. An individual who could operate totally independently of his body whether he had one or didn't have one. He's now himself, he's not dependent on the universe around him. (SH Spec 66, 6509C09)  3. A being at cause over matter, energy, space, time, form and life. Operating comes from “able to operate without dependency on things” and thetan is the Greek letter theta (θ), which the Greeks used to represent “thought” or perhaps “spirit” to which an “n” is added to make a new noun in the modern style used to create words in engineering. (Book of Case Remedies, p. 10)
     R3(R):
Routine 3 (Revised)’. Consists solely of finding a goal, then finding a terminal that matches the goal and running the terminal, and then finding another terminal for that goal, and another terminal for that goal, till that goal disappeared. And then finding that the goal had probably disappeared, and finding another goal, and finding a terminal for that goal, and so on. ... And eventually you got into the situation where you'd find a goal and it would blow up and you'd find a terminal and it would blow up, and then you just couldn't find anything, and you got a free needle. What you've done in essence was to pick off a number of pieces of the goals problem mass so the pc was floating free of the goals problem mass. (SH Spec 139, 6204C26)
  Goal: The prime postulate. It is the prime intention. It is a basic purpose for any cycle of lives the pc has lived. (SH Spec 160, 6206C12)
  Terminal: An item or identity the pc has actually been sometime in the past (or present) is called a terminal. (HCOB 8 Nov 62)
     R6EW:
Routine 6 End Words’. When the pc has taken the locks off the reactive mind itself, using R6EW, he attains Fourth Stage Release. (HCOB 30 Aug 65) [Grade VI Release].
     reactive mind:
1. That portion of a person's mind which works on a stimulus-response basis (given a certain stimulus, it gives a certain response) which is not under his volitional control and which exerts force and the power of command over his awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and actions. It consists of GPMs, Engrams, Secondaries and Locks. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary)  2. Stored in the reactive mind are engrams, and here we find the single source of aberrations and psychosomatic ills. (Scientology 0-8, p. 11)  3. ‘bank’: a colloquial name for the reactive mind. This is what the procedures of Scientology are devoted to disposing of, for it is only a burden to an individual and he is much better off without it. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary)  4. The reactive mind acts below the level of consciousness. It is the literal stimulus-response mind. Given a certain stimulus it gives a certain response. (The Fundamentals of Thought, p. 58)
     SH (org):
Saint Hill (organization)’. A Saint Hill organization applies to any organization authorized to deliver the advanced level Scientology services. May also be referred to as an AO (Advanced Organization). For example AOSH UK or AOLA. The first AO was located in Saint-Hill, England.
     squirrel:
Going off into weird practices or altering Scientology. (HCO PL 7 Feb 65, Keeping Scientology Working)
     St Dn:
Standard Dianetics’. Reissue of 1950-Tech, as such established and released in April 1969 (ref.: HCOB 24 Apr 69 “Dianetic Use”). It was finalized in December of that year. Abolished and replaced by New Era Dianetics (NED) since 30 July 1978.
     ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’:
This is a series of books that contain the HCOB's, and any references that are primarily dealing with technical matters. The HCOB's are printed in red ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in red bindings. The references are arranged in chronological release order (per issue date). These books may also be referred to as the ‘red volumes’. The ‘old red volumes’ then would refer to the 1976-80 release, the ‘new red volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window).
     tone arm (TA):
1. Tone arm refers to the tone arm or its motion. (HCOB 13 Apr 64)  2. Tone arm action. A technical term for a quantitative measure of case gain in the Scientology processing of a preclear for a given unit of time. (Introduction to Scientology Ethics, p. 38)  3. The measure of accumulation of charge. (Class VIII No. 6)  4. A measure of the amount of encysted force which is leaving the case. (SH Spec 291, 6308C06)


Go to top of this page


Advertisement