DICHOTOMYThe BE DO HAVE Implant
(from Ken Oggers posts)
I'm not quite sure if "Implant" is the correct designation for this thing.
This seems to be a pattern that was entered willingly for the sake of a game, but there is some protest on it and it was other determined.
The feeling on it is of one bunch of powerful beings building it and then tricking another bunch into diving into it,
perhaps by challenging them and pushing buttons of 'pride' etc.
It fits the 1964 concept of R6 as a senior pattern (rather than a true implant) which caused Actual GPMs etc. to form beneath it as one played the games implied by the pattern.
However it is not an all encompassing pattern that embraces all of modern existance. Instead it seems like one of many similar constructions which we went into and out of for games and adventure.
There does not seem to be a lot of force on it and the items do not have a lot of kick to them, but there is an almost hypnotic feeling of 'Facination' attached to this one.
I tried to date it, but it is a bit out of reach and I don't think that I'm seeing the events of that time clearly. My first impression was that it is significantly prior to home universe, but after running it a bit, it seems more likely that it is a bit after home universe, possibly in the later of the two "games" universes that followed home universe. It is certainly much earlier than Inc 1 or Clearing Course.
But I'm fairly sure that there were many things like this and that only a few (such as this one) were designed to be abberative and unpleasant.
It seems like one played with many other beings under the influence of such a pattern and then left and went into another pattern when one tired of the game.
And usually it wasn't abberative but just fun. However, on a sour pattern like this one, the game didn't go well and one not-ised things and left things unresolved and eventually left the game in disgust. And that left things hanging there which could kick in later because they hadn't been confronted.
I'm also having trouble visualizing how one 'played' once one had passed through the pattern and entered the playing field. My feeling is that one became many identities simultaneously and played against others who were doing the same. In other words, this was played by high level multi-threaded beings. But again, I'm streatching a bit here and I could be a bit off base.
The pattern I found may be inaccurate and incomplete, but charge came off and I got some cogs from it, so its close enough.
And as I mentioned above, I think that there were a number of abberative ones like this and I'm not sure that everybody went through all of them. I would expect that we each
worked on building a few nasty ones as well as getting suckered into a few of them as a motivator, but different people might have different ones that they hung up on.
There are a series of dichotomies begining with creative - destructive. Each dichotomy has 18 goals. Each goal has 20 items.
Except for the very start of the pattern, each dichotomy begins with a goal on the negative side. The very first one skips the first goal (which would be 'to be destructive') and starts with the second one ('to be creative'). The very end of the entire series of dichotomies swings you around to the start again by leading into the missing first goal ('destructive') and then begining the entire series again for a total of 12 runs (repeats).
I found this thing by playing around with the R6 'What am I dramatizing' process.
First of all, R6EW is aimed at end words and assumes that what the person is dramatizing is an end word, and I felt that that was probably not always correct, and most especially
would usually be a wrong assumption on a clear.
So I altered the command to 'What end word might I be dramatizing'. I included the 'might' so as not to assume that there were any. That would probably be a good idea even on somebody who is doing R6EW before clear, because I don't believe that the whole case is end words and R6 type patterns.
I was also considering the 1964 concept that a true R6 pattern might be senior to actual GPMs. Of course the final R6 platens that ended up on OT 2 are supposed to be nothing more than an implant done recently (75 Million years ago) in the current universe. But that doesn't mean that there aren't real patterns, it just means that the BC students running R6 still had too much charge on implants.
Ron seems to have had the idea in 1965 that the Clearing Course platen was a higher pattern senior to actual GPMs rather than being yet another implant. I'm still a bit unsure of that. But I do know that although I got considerable gains running it, it did not undercut actual GPMs for me.
But maybe undoing the actual GPMs by means of a pattern is an unreal expectation because one really lives the actual ones and gets ones postulates wrapped up into them.
I did run my own current actual GPM, which was the goal 'To be intelligent' in considerable detail and with immense gains. When I did that, I could see how I'd lived the items lifetime by lifetime. I've never gotten that level of result from simply running a platen, even the CC platen.
My research question was to find out if that actual GPM I'd run out could be traced back to a higher R6 style pattern by means of the R6EW process.
So I oriented to the mostly errased actual GPM 'to be intelligent' and looked for an end word that the entire actual GPM could be a dramatization of.
Right away, I thought of 'SMART'. The negative seemed like it should be 'STUPID' (not "unsmart", although that is suggested by the 1964 materials).
I thought of R6EW Sixes (making a grouping of related pairs) and immediately got:
smart <--> stupid
smarter <--> stupider
smartest <--> stupidest
Then it seemed like these should replicate on Be, Do, and Have, and I immediately got:
To be smart <--> to be stupid
to be smarter <--> to be stupider
to be smartest <--> to be stupidest
to do smart things <--> to do stupid things
to do smarter things <--> to do stupider things
to do the smartest things <--> to do the stupidest things
to have smart ideas <--> to have stupid ideas
to have smarter ideas <--> to have stupider ideas
to have the smartest ideas <--> to have the stupidest ideas
In other words, a pattern of 18 goals on this smart/stupid business.
Since I think that one of the mistakes in the R6 research was to deal exclusively with end words instead of running the detail items (and thereby leaving too much charge behind), I then tried to list for the items of the goal 'to be smart'. That gave a set of 20 items including an ending section that carried me into the goal 'to be stupider'.
With that I could see that 'to be stupid' had to come before the goal 'to be smart' in the pattern and I backed up and filled it in.
So the sequence was
A. To be stupid
B. To be smart
C. To be stupider
D. To be smarter
E. To be stupidest
F. To be smartest
G. To do stupid things
etc.
I tried to jump to the end of the whole smart/stupid dichotomy, to the end of the goal 'to have the smartest ideas' and found that I could not list the item that carried it into the next dichotomy. So I laid out and scanned through the entire mess of 360 items (18 goals times 20 items on each) and then found that the next dichotomy was obvious.
The next one was wise/foolish, with the goal 'to be foolish' opposing the goal 'to have the smartest ideas'.
Once I did about a third of wise/foolish, the pattern lost strenght and I could pretty much skip the detail and jump to the final items of the set.
Soon I was just jumping to the final transition items between each dichotomy and getting the next dichotomy in the series.
The bottom of the series wraps around to the top and the whole thing begins with the dichotomy creative/destructive. From there I carried it the rest of the way around the circle back to smart/stupid.
This seems to be a pattern that was entered willingly for the sake of a game, but there is some protest on it and it was other determined.
The feeling on it is of one bunch of powerful beings building it and then tricking another bunch into diving into it,
perhaps by challenging them and pushing buttons of 'pride' etc.
It fits the 1964 concept of R6 as a senior pattern (rather than a true implant) which caused Actual GPMs etc. to form beneath it as one played the games implied by the pattern.
However it is not an all encompassing pattern that embraces all of modern existance. Instead it seems like one of many similar constructions which we went into and out of for games and adventure.
There does not seem to be a lot of force on it and the items do not have a lot of kick to them, but there is an almost hypnotic feeling of 'Facination' attached to this one.
I tried to date it, but it is a bit out of reach and I don't think that I'm seeing the events of that time clearly. My first impression was that it is significantly prior to home universe, but after running it a bit, it seems more likely that it is a bit after home universe, possibly in the later of the two "games" universes that followed home universe. It is certainly much earlier than Inc 1 or Clearing Course.
But I'm fairly sure that there were many things like this and that only a few (such as this one) were designed to be abberative and unpleasant.
It seems like one played with many other beings under the influence of such a pattern and then left and went into another pattern when one tired of the game.
And usually it wasn't abberative but just fun. However, on a sour pattern like this one, the game didn't go well and one not-ised things and left things unresolved and eventually left the game in disgust. And that left things hanging there which could kick in later because they hadn't been confronted.
I'm also having trouble visualizing how one 'played' once one had passed through the pattern and entered the playing field. My feeling is that one became many identities simultaneously and played against others who were doing the same. In other words, this was played by high level multi-threaded beings. But again, I'm streatching a bit here and I could be a bit off base.
The pattern I found may be inaccurate and incomplete, but charge came off and I got some cogs from it, so its close enough.
And as I mentioned above, I think that there were a number of abberative ones like this and I'm not sure that everybody went through all of them. I would expect that we each
worked on building a few nasty ones as well as getting suckered into a few of them as a motivator, but different people might have different ones that they hung up on.
There are a series of dichotomies begining with creative - destructive. Each dichotomy has 18 goals. Each goal has 20 items.
Except for the very start of the pattern, each dichotomy begins with a goal on the negative side. The very first one skips the first goal (which would be 'to be destructive') and starts with the second one ('to be creative'). The very end of the entire series of dichotomies swings you around to the start again by leading into the missing first goal ('destructive') and then begining the entire series again for a total of 12 runs (repeats).
I found this thing by playing around with the R6 'What am I dramatizing' process.
First of all, R6EW is aimed at end words and assumes that what the person is dramatizing is an end word, and I felt that that was probably not always correct, and most especially
would usually be a wrong assumption on a clear.
So I altered the command to 'What end word might I be dramatizing'. I included the 'might' so as not to assume that there were any. That would probably be a good idea even on somebody who is doing R6EW before clear, because I don't believe that the whole case is end words and R6 type patterns.
I was also considering the 1964 concept that a true R6 pattern might be senior to actual GPMs. Of course the final R6 platens that ended up on OT 2 are supposed to be nothing more than an implant done recently (75 Million years ago) in the current universe. But that doesn't mean that there aren't real patterns, it just means that the BC students running R6 still had too much charge on implants.
Ron seems to have had the idea in 1965 that the Clearing Course platen was a higher pattern senior to actual GPMs rather than being yet another implant. I'm still a bit unsure of that. But I do know that although I got considerable gains running it, it did not undercut actual GPMs for me.
But maybe undoing the actual GPMs by means of a pattern is an unreal expectation because one really lives the actual ones and gets ones postulates wrapped up into them.
I did run my own current actual GPM, which was the goal 'To be intelligent' in considerable detail and with immense gains. When I did that, I could see how I'd lived the items lifetime by lifetime. I've never gotten that level of result from simply running a platen, even the CC platen.
My research question was to find out if that actual GPM I'd run out could be traced back to a higher R6 style pattern by means of the R6EW process.
So I oriented to the mostly errased actual GPM 'to be intelligent' and looked for an end word that the entire actual GPM could be a dramatization of.
Right away, I thought of 'SMART'. The negative seemed like it should be 'STUPID' (not "unsmart", although that is suggested by the 1964 materials).
I thought of R6EW Sixes (making a grouping of related pairs) and immediately got:
smart <--> stupid
smarter <--> stupider
smartest <--> stupidest
Then it seemed like these should replicate on Be, Do, and Have, and I immediately got:
To be smart <--> to be stupid
to be smarter <--> to be stupider
to be smartest <--> to be stupidest
to do smart things <--> to do stupid things
to do smarter things <--> to do stupider things
to do the smartest things <--> to do the stupidest things
to have smart ideas <--> to have stupid ideas
to have smarter ideas <--> to have stupider ideas
to have the smartest ideas <--> to have the stupidest ideas
In other words, a pattern of 18 goals on this smart/stupid business.
Since I think that one of the mistakes in the R6 research was to deal exclusively with end words instead of running the detail items (and thereby leaving too much charge behind), I then tried to list for the items of the goal 'to be smart'. That gave a set of 20 items including an ending section that carried me into the goal 'to be stupider'.
With that I could see that 'to be stupid' had to come before the goal 'to be smart' in the pattern and I backed up and filled it in.
So the sequence was
A. To be stupid
B. To be smart
C. To be stupider
D. To be smarter
E. To be stupidest
F. To be smartest
G. To do stupid things
etc.
I tried to jump to the end of the whole smart/stupid dichotomy, to the end of the goal 'to have the smartest ideas' and found that I could not list the item that carried it into the next dichotomy. So I laid out and scanned through the entire mess of 360 items (18 goals times 20 items on each) and then found that the next dichotomy was obvious.
The next one was wise/foolish, with the goal 'to be foolish' opposing the goal 'to have the smartest ideas'.
Once I did about a third of wise/foolish, the pattern lost strenght and I could pretty much skip the detail and jump to the final items of the set.
Soon I was just jumping to the final transition items between each dichotomy and getting the next dichotomy in the series.
The bottom of the series wraps around to the top and the whole thing begins with the dichotomy creative/destructive. From there I carried it the rest of the way around the circle back to smart/stupid.
The item pattern
On the goal to be XXX, with a direct opposite of YYY
Note that the first half of the statement is what you are 'being' in the pattern and the second half is your relation to the opposition.
1. Those who have the goal to be XXX
dominate those who have the goal to be YYY
2. Those who have the goal to be XXX
are dominated by those who are being YYY
3. Those who are being XXX
dominate those who are being YYY
4. Those who are being XXX
are dominated by those who like being YYY
5. Those who like being XXX
dominate those who like being YYY
6. Those who like being XXX
are dominated by those who agree with being YYY
7. Those who agree with being XXX
dominate those who agree with being YYY
8. Those who agree with being XXX
are dominated by those who talk about being YYY
9. Those who talk about being XXX
dominate those who talk about being YYY
10. Those who talk about being XXX
are dominated by those who try not to be YYY
11. Those who try not to be XXX
dominate those who try not to be YYY
12 Those who try not to be XXX
are dominated by those who talk about being XXX
13. Those who talk about being YYY
dominate those who talk about being XXX
14. Those who talk about being YYY
are dominated by those who agree with being XXX
15. Those who agree with being YYY
dominate those who agree with being XXX
16. Those who agree with being YYY
are dominated by those who like being XXX
17. Those who like being YYY
dominate those who like being XXX
18. Those who like being YYY
are dominated by those who are being XXX
19. Those who are being YYY
dominate those who are being XXX
20. Those who are being YYY
are dominated by those who have the goal to be ZZZ
Item 20 is the transition and contains the opposite
of the next goal. The first item of the next goal
(NNN) would be:
1. Those who have the goal to be NNN
dominate those who have the goal to be ZZZ
But since we go through a progression of 18 goals before the dichotomy changes, we can plot this item as well.
In the following, letters indicate each goal and the numbers represent the 20 items for a goal. Here are the first 4 goals (letters A to D) of an 18 item set (which would be letters A to R).
A. The goal to be XXX
A1. Those who have the goal to be XXX
dominate those who have the goal to be YYY
.
A20. Those who are being YYY
are dominated by those who have the goal to be XXX
B. The goal to be YYY
B1. Those who have the goal to be YYY
dominate those who have the goal to be XXX
.
B20. Those who are being XXX
are dominated by those who have the goal to be MORE YYY
C. The goal to be MORE XXX
C1. Those who have the goal to be MORE XXX
dominate those who have the goal to be MORE YYY
.
C20. Those who are being MORE YYY
are dominated by those who have the goal to be MORE XXX
D. The goal to be MORE YYY
D1. Those who have the goal to be MORE YYY
dominate those who have the goal to be MORE XXX
.
D20. Those who are being MORE XXX
are dominated by those who have the goal to be THE MOST YYY
And so on through the set of 18 goals for the dichotomy.
The very last of the 360 items, which would be item R20, would tie into the next dichotomy.
In the example, it would be:
R20. Those who have the MOST XXX ideas
are dominated by those who have the goal to be (new endword)
For the first dichotomy, which is creative/destructive, this item would be:
R20. Those who have the most destructive ideas
are dominated by those who have the goal to be responsible
And this leads in to the second dichtomy, which is responsible/irresponsible. Note that responsible starts out as an opposition and the first goal of this second dichotomy is 'To be irresponsible'.
Note that each goal inverts as one proceeds through the 20 items, so that by item 20 you are being the opposite of the goal. And because the goals themselves are opposites, there is a terrific almost duplication between items at the top of one goal and the items at the bottom of the opposite goal, which tends to make the opposing goals pull together.
The dichotomies
Each has 18 goals each of which has 20 items giving a total of 360 items per dichotomy.
Note that there might be some skipped dichotomies.
The very first dichotomy, creative - destructive, skips goal A (which doesn't come until the end of the entire run of dichotomies) and begins with goal B, which is 'TO BE CREATIVE'.
(1) creative - destructive
(2) responsible - irrestponsible
(3) good - evil
(4) helpfull - callous
(5) sharing - selfish
(6) valued - worthless
(7) upstanding - degraded
(8) strong - weak
(9) active - inactive
(10) powerful - unable
(11) free - enslaved
(12) aware - unconsious
(13) knowing - unknowing
(14) smart - stupid
(15) wise - foolish
(16) Success - Failure
(17) admired - detested
(18) loved - hated
(19) praised - rediculed
(20) sensible - irrational
(21) competant - incompetant
(22) productive - wastefull
(23) enduring - transient
(24) timeless - sequenced
(25) pervasive - located
(26) flexible - fixed
This last dichotomy ends with
R20. Those who have the most fixed ideas
are dominated by those who have the goal to be creative
That leads back into creative - destructive (the top of the series).
Note that at this point we have goal A of the creative - destrutive dichotomy, which is
A. To be destructive.
Only when we get down to the second goal of the dichotomy do we duplicate the very beginning of the pattern which is:
B. To be creative.
The whole mess repeats for 12 runs, ending with to be destructive. Then one enters the game, beginning with the goal to be creative, but one is doing it in opposition to being destructive and so begins to live the pattern.
Note that being creative is a native state characteristic and therefore is a correct indication to the person. But here it is in an altered form because of the opposition to destruction, which is not present in the high scaled pure creation, and therefore one decays.
DETAILED PLATEN
These are the first 3 goals only, to show how this works. You could copy the item template given earlier and do global replaces on the XXX and YYY if you need a detailed item platen of some particular section of the implant.
Note that there are 26 dichotomies of 18 goals and 20 items each so that the whole mess has almost ten thousand items.
Dichotomy 1 (creative - destructive), the first goal is goal B of the dichotomy:
1-B TO BE CREATIVE
1. Those who have the goal to be creative
dominate those who have the goal to be destructive
2. Those who have the goal to be creative
are dominated by those who are being destructive
3. Those who are being creative
dominate those who are being destructive
4. Those who are being creative
are dominated by those who like being destructive
5. Those who like being creative
dominate those who like being destructive
6. Those who like being creative
are dominated by those who agree with being destructive
7. Those who agree with being creative
dominate those who agree with being destructive
8. Those who agree with being creative
are dominated by those who talk about being destructive
9. Those who talk about being creative
dominate those who talk about being destructive
10. Those who talk about being creative
are dominated by those who try not to be destructive
11. Those who try not to be creative
dominate those who try not to be destructive
12 Those who try not to be creative
are dominated by those who talk about being creative
13. Those who talk about being destructive
dominate those who talk about being creative
14. Those who talk about being destructive
are dominated by those who agree with being creative
15. Those who agree with being destructive
dominate those who agree with being creative
16. Those who agree with being destructive
are dominated by those who like being creative
17. Those who like being destructive
dominate those who like being creative
18. Those who like being destructive
are dominated by those who are being creative
19. Those who are being destructive
dominate those who are being creative
20. Those who are being destructive
are dominated by those who have the goal to be more creative
1-C TO BE MORE DESTRUCTIVE
1. Those who have the goal to be more destructive
dominate those who have the goal to be more creative
2. Those who have the goal to be more destructive
are dominated by those who are being more creative
3. Those who are being more destructive
dominate those who are being more creative
4. Those who are being more destructive
are dominated by those who like being more creative
5. Those who like being more destructive
dominate those who like being more creative
6. Those who like being more destructive
are dominated by those who agree with being more creative
7. Those who agree with being more destructive
dominate those who agree with being more creative
8. Those who agree with being more destructive
are dominated by those who talk about being more creative
9. Those who talk about being more destructive
dominate those who talk about being more creative
10. Those who talk about being more destructive
are dominated by those who try not to be more creative
11. Those who try not to be more destructive
dominate those who try not to be more creative
12 Those who try not to be more destructive
are dominated by those who talk about being more destructive
13. Those who talk about being more creative
dominate those who talk about being more destructive
14. Those who talk about being more creative
are dominated by those who agree with being more destructive
15. Those who agree with being more creative
dominate those who agree with being more destructive
16. Those who agree with being more creative
are dominated by those who like being more destructive
17. Those who like being more creative
dominate those who like being more destructive
18. Those who like being more creative
are dominated by those who are being more destructive
19. Those who are being more creative
dominate those who are being more destructive
20. Those who are being more creative
are dominated by those who have the goal to be more destructive
1-D TO BE MORE CREATIVE
1. Those who have the goal to be more creative
dominate those who have the goal to be more destructive
2. Those who have the goal to be more creative
are dominated by those who are being more destructive
3. Those who are being more creative
dominate those who are being more destructive
4. Those who are being more creative
are dominated by those who like being more destructive
5. Those who like being more creative
dominate those who like being more destructive
6. Those who like being more creative
are dominated by those who agree with being more destructive
7. Those who agree with being more creative
dominate those who agree with being more destructive
8. Those who agree with being more creative
are dominated by those who talk about being more destructive
9. Those who talk about being more creative
dominate those who talk about being more destructive
10. Those who talk about being more creative
are dominated by those who try not to be more destructive
11. Those who try not to be more creative
dominate those who try not to be more destructive
12 Those who try not to be more creative
are dominated by those who talk about being more creative
13. Those who talk about being more destructive
dominate those who talk about being more creative
14. Those who talk about being more destructive
are dominated by those who agree with being more creative
15. Those who agree with being more destructive
dominate those who agree with being more creative
16. Those who agree with being more destructive
are dominated by those who like being more creative
17. Those who like being more destructive
dominate those who like being more creative
18. Those who like being more destructive
are dominated by those who are being more creative
19. Those who are being more destructive
dominate those who are being more creative
20. Those who are being more destructive
are dominated by those who have the goal to be the most creative
1-E TO BE THE MOST DESTRUCTIVE
1. Those who have the goal to be the most destructive
dominate those who have the goal to be the most creative
etc.
