"Super Power Rundown Series"

"Super Power" has a name problem. It hasn't been released by the CofS in 27 years. They have collected over $100 million for a building to deliver it in. The hype and expectation is considerable. There is no reliable information on the nitty-gritty of the processes/rundowns that comprise the CofS's Super Power, although it supposedly contains several rundowns. Some CofS people have received it, but they ain't talking.

In the independent field there's stuff floating around called "Super Power". On his website one auditor says he has received three versions of "Super Power" and that he is trained to deliver it. One of his pcs is publicly stating (as of Dec 2005) that he received it. But neither have posted specifics as to what exactly is being done. I don't know of anyone else in the field *publicly* stating that they deliver "Super Power".

There are also five items posted to Usenet entitled "Super Power Rundown Series", issues 1 through 5, dated 5 or 7 May 1993. I don't know who wrote them. The CofS doesn't seem to have had them removed from Google, so I assume they are not authentic items copyrighted by CST. But I do not know that for a fact, as they do not seem to be freely available on the Web.

In December 2005 I started to solo audit these items. I have been writing up my comments while doing so, in case someone else finds them valuable. This is not "the definitive critique of Super Power". It is not "Paul Adams trashing LRH". It is just one guy's opinion of what I have seen and experienced regarding some issues with the label "Super Power" on them. Anyone can write a bunch of crap and label it "Super Power", and until others start evaluating this stuff and publishing it where it can be read the mystery will continue. This is just the first "User Review".

Before paying over thousands of dollars to someone in the field to get "Super Power", I suggest you read what I have written here; read anything else you can find on what is being delivered under that name; then ask the person you are considering getting the auditing from just what the hell they are going to deliver. Because if they are going to deliver what is on the five issues I have experienced so far, exactly as it is written in those issues, you could do better for your money. If you're just solo'ing it like me, no biggie.

I am not reproducing the entire issues here. They are readily available via Google on Usenet.

Comments re "Super Power Series 1" The Condition Below Confusion:

The first time I checked these commands, using them exactly as written in the original issue, they each just F/N'd. I went onto Series 2. After working that over as described in the Series 2 section below, I then came back to Series 1 and had another look at the process and worked it over in session. This time it ran well. So here are my revised comments about Series 1:

The commands are not all correct. The first command, "Find a viewpoint", the "Flow 1+" [*see next paragraph] command, is OK. The word "viewpoint" has to be thoroughly cleared with the pc. This command only ran well after I rubbed my nose in it in clearing it and finally understood what it could mean; until that point it just F/N'd. "Viewpoint" can literally mean a point from which to view the physical universe, like one's skull or kneecap or the top of the Eiffel Tower or the center of the sun. This part of the process could be similar to a Route One Grand Tour! "Viewpoint" can also mean the way someone looks at things, and that part of the process could be equivalent to the "Wearing Heads" process in PAB 7. There may be other ways of looking at it, but that is as far as I got.

*"Flow 1+" is covered in a post archived here. Briefly, I am calling a command like "Recall a kiss" a "Flow 1+" command, as opposed to the less inclusive Flow 1 commands "Recall being kissed" or "Recall being kissed by another".

The next command given is a Flow 3 command. The correct Flow 2 command would be, "Find a viewpoint you have created for another". Again, this went completely over my head until I got down to it and figured out what it meant. In Flow 1+, working out what it meant was a small part of the TA compared with running it; in Flow 2 working it out and running it were intertwined, so I am not going to write down what I figured out as it might just be relevant to my own case.

The Flow 3 command given is almost OK, but for some reason the original author put it in the present continuous tense instead of the past tense like Flows 2 and 0. I tried both, and for me the past tense worked much better. To be complete, I worded the Flow 3 command as: "Find a viewpoint that another or others have created for themselves or others."

The Flow 0 command is OK as-is, namely: "Find a viewpoint that you have created for yourself."


Comments re "Super Power Rundown Series 2" 8th Dynamic Processes:

I have two comments re the introductory text. It says to start with the eighth dynamic. But all the commands are about the eighth dynamic! So that instruction is somewhat meaningless. And the intro says, "This process puts responsibility back into the person and sets him up for repair of all earlier actions which brought about a dwindling spiral away from the 8th dynamic viewpoint." I don't see why it would do that, and it didn't with me. I did find this a simple process to run solo, with good TA, once the commands had been worked over as below.

But who wrote the original commands? Some disgruntled recruiter? They are just plain wrong. There seem to be four main errors:

I have corrected the third point by changing the "you" to "your first dynamic" etc.

I have corrected the fourth point by removing the last four commands for later use as stated.

The auditor must clear on both himself and the pc the correct definition of "the" in the context of "the eighth dynamic", namely: "used to indicate that a singular noun represents a species, class, etc.", or the equivalent definition in your own dictionary. Examples: the cat loves comfort; he plays the guitar well; the cow is a domestic animal. Clear the other definitions of "the" as needed.

Then clear "The 8th dynamic" as meaning the class of all eighth dynamics, i.e. your mom's 8th dynamic plus your dad's 8D plus your spouse's 8D plus your son's 8D plus your daughter's 8D plus each of your other family members' 8Ds plus your boss's 8D plus each of your co-workers' 8Ds plus all the neighbors' 8Ds plus Halle Berry's 8D plus George Bush's 8D plus The Hollywood Strangler's 8D plus everyone elses' 8D too. This would include sensible 8th dynamics and screwball or inverted 8th dynamics too.

In order to run the commands, they need to be expanded out to allow the process to run charge off on specific terminals. The order of specific terminals does not matter--it should be whoever the pc comes up with in the order the pc comes up with them. Have the pc say at least the name of the terminal whose viewpoint is being assumed, along with any cognitions etc.; if auditing the process solo, write at least the terminal's name on the worksheets. For the Flow 2 commands, have the pc say at least who the two terminals are for each command, the one doing the causing and the one whose viewpoint is being changed. Similarly, get the specific terminals being viewed in the Flow 3 commands, and the Flow 0 commands.

Run each command for as long as it produces change, per the Auditor's Code. Don't stop because of a cog or F/N.

The commands through #8 have been written out in full. For commands 9-12, use the commands for 5-8 but change "second" to "third", and so on.

The commands rewritten to run the flows correctly would be:

1A. Get the idea of your first dynamic assuming the viewpoint of the eighth dynamic
2A. Get the idea of you causing others' first dynamics to assume the viewpoint of the eighth dynamic
3A. Get the idea of others causing others' first dynamics or their own to assume the viewpoint of the eighth dynamic
4A. Get the idea of you causing your first dynamic to assume the viewpoint of the eighth dynamic
5A. Get the idea of your second dynamic assuming the viewpoint of the eighth dynamic
6A. Get the idea of you causing others' second dynamics to assume the viewpoint of the eighth dynamic
7A. Get the idea of others causing others' second dynamics or their own to assume the viewpoint of the eighth dynamic
8A. Get the idea of you causing your own second dynamic to assume the viewpoint of the eighth dynamic

and so on up through the seventh dynamic.

The commands you want the pc to run, that you have to groove in with the pc so he runs them that way, are given below and numbered 1W, 2W etc:

1W. Get the idea of your first dynamic assuming the viewpoint of one specific person's eighth dynamic, maybe your mother's or father's. Use whoever comes to mind. Get the idea of your first dynamic assuming the viewpoint of another specific person's eighth dynamic, maybe your sister or boss. And another specific person. And another...and another...and another and so on, starting with people you know and continuing with people you know of but don't know personally, like Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie maybe, and finally with individuals you know of generally but not specifically, like "Snowboarders" or "people in India" or whatever. Include beings not on this planet. Continue until finally you can embrace the idea of your first dynamic assuming the viewpoint of each of these individuals' eighth dynamic simultaneously. You will have got the idea of your first dynamic assuming the viewpoint of the eighth dynamic.

2W. Get the idea of you causing a specific other person's first dynamic to assume the viewpoint of AN eighth dynamic or THE eighth dynamic. Get the idea of you causing another specific person's first dynamic to assume the viewpoint of an eighth dynamic or the eighth dynamic. And another...and another...and another and so on, starting with people you know and continuing with people you know of but don't know personally, and finally with individuals you know of generally but not specifically, like "old people" or "people in Europe" or whatever. Include beings not on this planet. Continue until finally you can embrace the idea of you simultaneously causing every single other being in the Universe's first dynamic to assume the viewpoint of the eighth dynamic. At that point you will have really got the idea of you causing others' first dynamics to assume the viewpoint of the eighth dynamic; ultimately the idea of you causing the first dynamic to assume the viewpoint of the eighth dynamic.

3W. Get the idea of a specific other person causing his or her first dynamic, or another's first dynamic, to assume the viewpoint of an eighth dynamic or the eighth dynamic. And another. This could include the same specific other person doing the causing, or the same specific other person's first dynamic having their viewpoint changed, whether by themselves or another: do whatever comes up. Get the idea of another specific person...and another...and another...and so on, starting with people you know and continuing with people you know of but don't know personally, and finally with individuals you know of generally but not specifically, like "women" or "people in the USA" or whatever. Include beings not on this planet. Continue until finally you can embrace the idea of others simultaneously causing their own and every single other being's first dynamic to assume the viewpoint of the eighth dynamic. You will have got the idea of others causing others' or their own first dynamics to assume the viewpoint of the eighth dynamic; ultimately the idea of others causing the first dynamic to assume the viewpoint of the eighth dynamic.

4W. Get the idea of you causing your first dynamic to assume the viewpoint of one specific person's eighth dynamic, maybe your mother's or father's. Get the idea of you causing your first dynamic to assume the viewpoint of another specific person's eighth dynamic, maybe your sister or boss. And another specific person. And another...and another...and another and so on, starting with people you know and continuing with people you know of but don't know personally, and finally with individuals you know of generally but not specifically, like "children" or "people in Africa" or whatever. Include beings not on this planet. Continue until finally you can embrace the idea of you causing your first dynamic to assume the viewpoint of each of these individuals' eighth dynamic simultaneously. You will have got the idea of you causing your first dynamic to assume the viewpoint of the eighth dynamic.

and so on.

Revised Commands

The words of the commands that you actually say to the pc are:

1R. "Get the idea of your first dynamic assuming the viewpoint of someone's eighth dynamic." "Get the idea of your first dynamic assuming the viewpoint of another's eighth dynamic." "Get the idea of your first dynamic assuming the viewpoint of another's eighth dynamic." Repeat to EP.

2R. "Get the idea of you causing another's first dynamic to assume the viewpoint of an eighth dynamic or the eighth dynamic." Repeat to EP.

3R. "Get the idea of someone causing their own first dynamic, or another's, to assume the viewpoint of an eighth dynamic or the eighth dynamic." Repeat to EP.

4R. "Get the idea of you causing your own first dynamic to assume the viewpoint of another's eighth dynamic." Repeat to EP.

5R. "Get the idea of your second dynamic assuming the viewpoint of someone's eighth dynamic." "Get the idea of your second dynamic assuming the viewpoint of another's eighth dynamic." "Get the idea of your second dynamic assuming the viewpoint of another's eighth dynamic." Repeat to EP.

6R. "Get the idea of you causing another's second dynamic to assume the viewpoint of an eighth dynamic or the eighth dynamic." Repeat to EP.

7R. "Get the idea of someone causing their own second dynamic, or another's, to assume the viewpoint of an eighth dynamic or the eighth dynamic." Repeat to EP.

8R. "Get the idea of you causing your own second dynamic to assume the viewpoint of another's eighth dynamic." Repeat to EP.

9R. "Get the idea of your third dynamic assuming the viewpoint of someone's eighth dynamic." "Get the idea of your third dynamic assuming the viewpoint of another's eighth dynamic." "Get the idea of your third dynamic assuming the viewpoint of another's eighth dynamic." Repeat to EP.

10R. "Get the idea of you causing another's third dynamic to assume the viewpoint of an eighth dynamic or the eighth dynamic." Repeat to EP.

11R. "Get the idea of someone causing their own third dynamic, or another's, to assume the viewpoint of an eighth dynamic or the eighth dynamic." Repeat to EP.

12R. "Get the idea of you causing your own third dynamic to assume the viewpoint of another's eighth dynamic." Repeat to EP.

13R. "Get the idea of your fourth dynamic assuming the viewpoint of someone's eighth dynamic." "Get the idea of your fourth dynamic assuming the viewpoint of another's eighth dynamic." "Get the idea of your fourth dynamic assuming the viewpoint of another's eighth dynamic." Repeat to EP.

14R. "Get the idea of you causing another's fourth dynamic to assume the viewpoint of an eighth dynamic or the eighth dynamic." Repeat to EP.

15R. "Get the idea of someone causing their own fourth dynamic, or another's, to assume the viewpoint of an eighth dynamic or the eighth dynamic." Repeat to EP.

16R. "Get the idea of you causing your own fourth dynamic to assume the viewpoint of another's eighth dynamic." Repeat to EP.

17R. "Get the idea of your fifth dynamic assuming the viewpoint of someone's eighth dynamic." "Get the idea of your fifth dynamic assuming the viewpoint of another's eighth dynamic." "Get the idea of your fifth dynamic assuming the viewpoint of another's eighth dynamic." Repeat to EP.

18R. "Get the idea of you causing another's fifth dynamic to assume the viewpoint of an eighth dynamic or the eighth dynamic." Repeat to EP.

19R. "Get the idea of someone causing their own fifth dynamic, or another's, to assume the viewpoint of an eighth dynamic or the eighth dynamic." Repeat to EP.

20R. "Get the idea of you causing your own fifth dynamic to assume the viewpoint of another's eighth dynamic." Repeat to EP.

21R. "Get the idea of your sixth dynamic assuming the viewpoint of someone's eighth dynamic." "Get the idea of your sixth dynamic assuming the viewpoint of another's eighth dynamic." "Get the idea of your sixth dynamic assuming the viewpoint of another's eighth dynamic." Repeat to EP.

22R. "Get the idea of you causing another's sixth dynamic to assume the viewpoint of an eighth dynamic or the eighth dynamic." Repeat to EP.

23R. "Get the idea of someone causing their own sixth dynamic, or another's, to assume the viewpoint of an eighth dynamic or the eighth dynamic." Repeat to EP.

24R. "Get the idea of you causing your own sixth dynamic to assume the viewpoint of another's eighth dynamic." Repeat to EP.

25R. "Get the idea of your seventh dynamic assuming the viewpoint of someone's eighth dynamic." "Get the idea of your seventh dynamic assuming the viewpoint of another's eighth dynamic." "Get the idea of your seventh dynamic assuming the viewpoint of another's eighth dynamic." Repeat to EP.

26R. "Get the idea of you causing another's seventh dynamic to assume the viewpoint of an eighth dynamic or the eighth dynamic." Repeat to EP.

27R. "Get the idea of someone causing their own seventh dynamic, or another's, to assume the viewpoint of an eighth dynamic or the eighth dynamic." Repeat to EP.

28R. "Get the idea of you causing your own seventh dynamic to assume the viewpoint of another's eighth dynamic." Repeat to EP.

(Don't run an eighth dynamic set at this point).


Comments re "Super Power Rundown Series 3" Ethics Repair List:

I can't believe LRH wrote this stuff. This is called an "Ethics Repair List". The instructions are to run it like a repair list M3, i.e. to start at the top and work down it, and if you get a read take it up with 2WC E/S as needed to F/N. There is nothing particularly wrong with that, as a light repair action. In the first session, about thirty minutes, I got up to question 67, F/Ning mostly. A couple of questions read and some charge came off, nothing very heavy. It ran like rudiments-type stuff, fairly light, but not bad. But listen to this from the intro:

"The purpose of the Ethics Repair List is to return full power to a being by proofing him up against injustices, counter postulates, failed purposes, counter purposes and evil intentions across the dynamics.

"These questions are asked in an unlimited way. In other words it applies to the whole track and whatever the person comes up with you simply two way comm it earlier similar to EP. This repair list is actually designed to set the person up to be able to do the actual super power process. It cleans up the whole track on the subjects of ethics and justice."

This is just marketing and PR bullshit. 2WC is a rudiments-type handling, that just cleans up already restimulated charge without trying to stir up more to run. If there's nothing sitting there, then fine, consider the pc's rudiments at that time thoroughly in on the subjects of ethics and justice. But that is all! It's not a procedure that is designed to address the whole track subjects of ethics and justice as it doesn't restimulate the charge first and then use some process to clean it up. I don't think one would say to a pc at the start of session, "We're just going to fly the ruds. I'm going to ask questions like "Is there an ARC Break?" as normal, but it applies in an unlimited way to your whole track as well."

I finished the list the next day, just under a further two hours. It ran about the same as the first day, on a light rudiments level. It might run better for someone who hasn't done grades and got a lot of charge off from this-lifetime incidents. I did the list as written, the "before" state, not the "after" state you can benefit from if you redo the list from my comments here. As Roger Ebert says about his reviews of bad movies, "We see them so you don't have to". The small gains from getting the charge off were about balanced by the annoyance of having to even look at some of the questions. Some of them have NOTHING to do with ethics and justice, and just seem to be there on a basis of "Oh, I wonder what it would be like to ask this question. I'll just toss it in here, maybe no-one will notice."

There were 24 questions like "Do you have an evil purpose?" I expect to try an FPRD later on, but not right now, and not with 2WC to F/N, so I skipped those questions. I will comment on them here, though, in case someone has different considerations about ev purp questions.

On the layout and flows and so on, the questions are divided into groups of four as usual, and are meant to represent the four flows. The first eight questions are all about intentions. They are given as:

1. Have you had a wrong intention?
2. Has another had a wrong intention?
3. Have others had wrong intentions?
4. Have you caused yourself to have wrong intentions?

5. Have you been given a wrong intention?
6. Have you given another a wrong intention?
7. Have others given others a wrong intention?
8. Have you caused yourself to be given a wrong intention?

The first four are to do with having wrong intentions; the second four being given a wrong intention. I'm not sure how you give someone a wrong intention: it's not like tossing over an apple. However, it is possible to do something that results in another adopting a wrong intention. Maybe the question will communciate to some pc so I wouldn't necessarily toss it out willy-nilly. But on the subject of just having a wrong intention, I only see two commands possible:

1R) Have you had a wrong intention?
2R) Has another had a wrong intention?
3R) Omitted
4R) Omitted

On the idea of giving people wrong intentions, like apples maybe, the four flows would come out something like:

5R) Have you been given a wrong intention?
6R) Have you given another a wrong intention?
7R) Have another or others given themselves or others wrong intentions?
8R) Have you given yourself a wrong intention?

"Have you caused yourself to be given a wrong intention?" is a more inclusive question than "Have you given yourself a wrong intention?" I used the shorter one to be consistent with the other flows, but I could have used the other type and remained consistent with those too. Take your pick.

9-12 are like 5-8. The questions seem OK as-is, apart from the same "caused yourself" comment, and a comment that I don't like "others to others" and prefer "another or others to themselves or others" as it is a more accurate command for the third flow.

13-20 are like 1-8. The commands may as well have been copied and pasted in, except using "postulate" instead of "intention". Copy and paste in my comments as the same.

21-28 are like 1-8. Same comments.

29-32 are fine, except I would reword flow 3 as above.

33-40 are all about disagreements. They are:

33. Has anyone ever disagreed with you?
34. Have you ever disagreed with someone?
35. Have others disagreed with others?
36. Have you caused yourself to be disagreeable?
37. Has someone ever caused you to disagree with another?
38. Have you ever caused anyone to disagree with someone else?
39. Have others caused others to disagree with others?
40. Have you caused yourself to disagree with yourself?

33-35 seem OK; but one would expect 36 to be "Have you disagreed with yourself?" Disagreeing is a very different concept to being disagreeable. 37-40 seem OK except for my usual flow 3 comment. I can't say that "Have you caused yourself to be disagreeable?" is wrong, as it was one of the two questions out of the first 67 that ran on me, but it is not a consistent question. Questions consistent with it would be "Have you caused another to be disagreeable?" etc.

41-44 are about being punished for disagreeing and the flows are OK (usual flow 3 comment), but the commands are changed half-way through. The first two are about "disagreeing with someone" and the second two have the more open form of "disagreeing". I'm not sure which is preferable.

45-48 are OK.

49-52 are fairly OK, except the command changes half-way through again and is not consistent. Use one or the other.

53-56 are OK, I guess. I never did like this formation for a flow 0 command, but I don't have a better one.

57-60, same comments as 53-56.

61-64 is a dog's breakfast. Question 61 is fine and would lead to 62R-64R.

61. Have you ever disagreed with a spouse?
62R. Has a spouse ever disagreed with you?
63R. Has another ever disagreed with a spouse?
64R. Have you ever disagreed with yourself (over a spouse)(as a spouse)(etc.)?

The actual question used for 62, namely "Have you ever caused another to disagree with a spouse?", would lead to another group. The original question 64 fits in here too.

61RA. Has another ever caused you to disagree with a spouse?
62. Have you ever caused another to disagree with a spouse?
63RA. Have another or others caused themselves or others to disagree with (a spouse)(spouses)?
64. Have you caused yourself to disagree with a spouse?

And the actual question used for 63, namely "Have others caused other spouses to disagree with others?", without rewording it, could lead to a group of:

61RB. Has someone caused you to disagree with a spouse?
62RB. Have you caused a spouse to disagree with someone?
63RB. Have others caused other spouses to disagree with others?
64RB. Have you caused yourself to disagree with a spouse?

My suggestion? I don't know. Run each group on a bunch of people and see which, if any, reads, and then use that. If you don't know and think it is important not to miss anything, check all three. It's not like it takes a long time to check.

65-68 are OK as written.

End of first session. Onto the next session.

69-72 are basically OK, except the 0 flow is "Have you lied yourself about another" and the "about another" is an unnecessary limiter and shouldn't be there.

73-80 takes up the 0 flow from question 72, and expands it into eight questions, one for each dynamic! I guess the author thought lying to oneself was a highly-charged subject. Maybe it is for some: it wasn't for me. You can discover for yourself how eight dynamics spreads across nine questions.

81-84 is about lying to others, but using the words "agree with someone verbally but disagree mentally". The flows are messed up and "have you ever caused" is screwy. If you have been following along you should be able to work out the correct flows yourself by now, as I am tired of writing all this out.

85-88 same

89-92 usual errors:
89. Have you ever been falsely imprisoned by another? (better without the "by another")
90. Have you ever falsely imprisoned another? (OK)
91. Have others ever caused others to be falsely imprisoned? (better: Have another or others ever falsely imprisoned themselves or others?)
92. Have you caused yourself to be imprisoned because of others? (Huh? What happened to the "falsely"? Why limit the reason to "because of others?" Would "imprisoned oneself" work?)

"Causing someone to be imprisoned" is not the same as "imprisoning someone". It is odd to use both concepts in one set of questions. I would suggest one or the other.

93-96 Almost the same set of questions. Similar errors to those already discussed in this write-up.

97-100 are about being wrong. That gives two questions: "Have you ever been wrong?" and "Has another ever been wrong?".

101-104 are OK, but I would think 104 would be better as "Have you ever forced yourself or your body into something?"

105-108: I'm not sure about the 0 flow question here.

109-112: same comment

113-116: same comment

117-120 are OK

121-124 are OK

125-128 are probably ev purp questions that I didn't look on as ev purp questions in session. See my comments at the top of this issue.

129-144 are ev purp questions. Apart from that:
129-132 are OK
133-136 have the flows and "either causing or just having" mixed up.
137-140 similarly
141-144: the flows are OK but the question seems strange, like putting in a false button.

145-148: usual flows/cause comments.

149-152: same comment as 141-144

153-156: usual flows/cause comment

157-160: OK I guess

161-164: OK I guess

165-168: the 0 flow question is wrong. It should be something like, "Have you ever said you did anything evil?" and not "Have you ever made yourself say anything evil?"

169-172: the 0 flow question should probably be, "Have you ever wronged yourself?" and not as written.

173-176: another ev purp group just tossed in! The 0 flow switches from giving ev purps to causing to have ev purps.

177-180: even more ev purps. The tense changes in flow 3, plus all four sound like a "false" button again.

181-184: I'm going to write these out and see if you can spot what is wrong with them:
181. Have you ever done anything wrong?
182. Has another ever done anything wrong?
183. Have others ever done anything wrong?
184. Have you ever caused yourself anything wrong?

The next four sound crazy and I would tend to toss them out completely. If you insist on having them in there, I don't see how one could use more than the first two questions.

185. Is it wrong to be wrong?
186. Is it wrong for another to be wrong?
187. Is it wrong for others to be wrong?
188. Is it wrong for you to cause yourself to be wrong?

189-192: Same comments as 185-188. On my session worksheets I wrote, "Getting near the end now. Good. I'm getting tired of these silly questions. I wonder how good Ralph's Super Power is going to be?"

193-196: OK I guess, although there is an extra "caused" in there.

197-200: OK

201-204: I got some charge off on 201, although I don't see how the question relates to ethics and justice. On 202-204 the commands are messed up. If this group is going to be left in there, it should say:
201. Has anything ever happened too fast for you?
202R. Have you ever caused anything to happen too fast for another?
203R. Have another or others ever caused anything to happen too fast for themselves or others?
204R. Have you ever caused anything to happen too fast for yourself?

205-208: Same comments as above but with "slow".

209-212: Almost OK, except "given an arbitrary" turns into "caused an arbitrary".

213-216: I didn't understand this. The form is similar to 209-212, with the same complaint about "caused" suddenly appearing, but the first question is, "Have you been given an absolute?" WTF does that mean? Answers on a postcard please to ...

217-220: The flow zero question here is, "Have you caused yourself any false laws?" How are you doing for postcards?

221-224: The end. Hooray!

My overall impression of this "Ethics Repair List"? As written, it is better than nothing at all. If re-written per my suggestions it would be a bit better, but not much. Find something relatively standard somewhere and do that instead.


Comments re "Super Power Rundown Series 4" The Eighth Dynamic Viewpoint:

The commands as written are not good. Refer to my comments in Series 2. If you run them as rewritten, in the manner as described in my comments above on Series 2, it will probably work out well. I tried running these again at this point, but I had already got the available charge off and it was an overrun.

Running the commands as below, for the first time, should work well, as long as you don't expect to be juggling planets at the end of it.

1R. "Get the idea of your eighth dynamic assuming the viewpoint of someone's eighth dynamic." "Get the idea of your eighth dynamic assuming the viewpoint of another's eighth dynamic." "Get the idea of your eighth dynamic assuming the viewpoint of another's eighth dynamic." Repeat to EP.

2R. "Get the idea of you causing another's eighth dynamic to assume the viewpoint of an eighth dynamic or the eighth dynamic." Repeat to EP.

3R. "Get the idea of someone causing their own eighth dynamic, or another's, to assume the viewpoint of an eighth dynamic or the eighth dynamic." Repeat to EP.

4R. "Get the idea of you causing your own eighth dynamic to assume the viewpoint of another's eighth dynamic." Repeat to EP.


Comments re "Super Power Rundown Series 5" The Final Process, The Actual Super Power Process:

I will say right at the start that I had a couple of nice wins running this final process, and you will probably have better ones if you use the revised commands given below. It is a process worth running. Please understand that, and don't be put off by the trashing I am about to do of the original issue. I'm not kidding--I do mean this is a worthwhile process, as revised below.

The first sentence of this issue says, and I quote, "The final step of the Super Power Rundown is to give back to the person his full potential power as a being."

Yeah, right. In case you didn't notice, that is marketing and PR bullshit at its finest. Talk about setting someone up for a loss when he finds he can't juggle planets at the end of it!

There is more hyberbole in the issue you can read for yourself. God! I'm going to quote more: "At some point during the running of this series of processes the person will reach a state wherein they are speechless. They will laugh with wild abandon. Their TA will be floating! They will probably also be exterior and will be unable to communicate in words what they are experiencing. This is the end result of the Super Power Rundown."

Maybe that happened one for one on everyone else who was run on it, and I just missed out because I'm so negative. Or I wasn't set up properly (interesting turn of phrase). Or maybe I wasn't grooved in well enough to the idea that I had to laugh uncontrollably for an hour. That said, I did have some nice cogs and F/Ns and VGIs.

The process as written has sixteen commands, with much duplication. At first glance, it seems to be four sets of four, each set comprising four flows. But it's a dog's breakfast again. I think they can be reduced down to four or six commands.

The way I got it to run was like in Series 2, by mocking up the idea of a specific person (my mother, my brother Joe, my boss Gerald etc.) either granting infinite power to another, or receiving infinite power from another. Rather like a fairy godmother touching someone with a magic wand and there's a golden flash and KAPOW! Then getting the idea with another person. And another. And so on, taking charge off using specific people I have interacted with.

1R. Get the idea of receiving infinite power from someone. (Repeat)
2R. Get the idea of giving infinite power to another. (Repeat)
3R. Get the idea of another or others giving infinite power to themselves or others. (Repeat)

Hah! This is easy. So the zero flow should be, "Get the idea of giving infinite power to yourself." Right? Well, I don't know. That's processing a no-game condition. Try it and see what happens.

On the last four commands in the issue I got something out of the second one, "Get the idea that another is infinite", again taking a specific terminal and imagining him or her as infinite, then taking another specific terminal , whoever came to mind. The ones involving me being infinite all ran up against my consideration of it being a no-game condition and went nowhere.

OK, so that's that. I'm going to take a look at Ralphie's Super Power next....


Comments re "Super Power 2000 by Revenius":

The first thing I did on Ralphie's Super Power was a 53 SF. That went fine. Not much to comment on there except it is a standard action to do a 53 before starting a juicy new RD. It was amusing to me that a couple of items that had to be cleaned up involved the (original) Ethics Repair List I had just forced myself through above! I never did redo it based on my suggestions. That would have been too much.

Next was the Bright Think RD. I remember the HCOB when it first came out, and thought I remembered the process OK. I found it on the Web, just the Flow 1+ command, as I remembered it. It ran fine, and cycled down and up the track like it's supposed to. Ralph says the EP includes a revivification. Well, I didn't get a reviv. I ran it as long as I could, which happened to coincide with an F/N cog VGIs, and that was that. I'm not being snarky here--I would have gone on, but I just felt like it was EP'd. So I didn't.

Next on Ralphie's program is the Happiness Rundown. Ralphie's Super Power is sure no skimp job! I did the HRD around 1980 and I am not interested in redoing it.

Next is the Ethics Repair List, one of Ralph's and not the horror above. I glanced over it in adding a blank line between the sets of four flows, and guess what? Ralph knows what the four flows are. Good for him.

Dec 18: I just finished Ralph's Ethics Repair List. It was very good. I could be picky about a few questions but I'm not going to be. Overall, it was just fine. Far, far better than that other piece of crap in the 5-issue Super Power.

Next is the False Definition Rundown, whatever that is. I'll see tomorrow....

Paul Adams
http://www.fzglobal.org
December 2005





DISCLAIMER: This site is not connected to or endorsed by the Church of Scientology. Dianetics®, Scientology® and others are trademarks and service marks owned by Religious Technology Center.




Robot Tech menu | Scientology Disconnection List | Trademarks | POW Correspondence Course | Auditor Assessment Checklist | Course Supervisor Assessment Checklist | Abilities | Comparison | Writings | Upper Level Writings | Poetry | Food Replicator | Rubik's Shepherd | Rubik's Tartan | Pix | HGB Staff in 1994 | Links | Home | Paul's Scn Quals | Paul's ID | Paul's Pix | FZ Admin | Paul's Squirrel Academy | Scienowiki



Copyright ©2005 by Paul Adams. All Rights Reserved.