Page last updated:
Emergency Assist for Uncontrollable Freewheeling / Psychotic Break
If you or someone you know is experiencing uncontrollable freewheeling (i.e. a psychotic break) where you have uncontrollable flow of facsimiles, the way to remedy this is to take control over the SELECTION process itself:
Select a picture. Hold it. (or Stop it)
Select another picture… Hold it.
By “picture” is meant a mental image picture such as a hallucination or a memory recording.
The aim is to regain an ability to select and hold facsimiles at will. Once this is accomplished, you should find it easy to snap to present time.
While being directed such as through Scientology’s Locational Assist can stop freewheeling, it leaves the subject in a state of dependency on an external “handler.” The ultimate remedy of this condition would be to regain one’s OWN ability to select and hold facsimiles.
Freewheeling is a term from Dianetics referring to a process where the mind cycles through incidents (recordings) on its own, outside of practitioner’s conscious control. Freewheeling was purposely induced in the early days of experimental Dianetics to place auditing routine on “autopilot.” The term retained its use to describe a state where a pre-clear loses some control over one’s mind and begins to (re)experience facsimiles at random usually requiring some emergency corrective processing to stop it. Freewheeling when used to describe uncontrollable flow of facsimiles that someone is unable to stop in essence is another term for a psychotic break and can indeed be one of the most frightening experiences someone can have.
Losing an ability to do so on one’s own, someone in this state will commonly yearn to be directed or make strenuous efforts to fix (hold attention) on some narrow task or even on some narrow idea in an attempt to prevent oneself from sliding down into a stream of random facsimiles (realistic hallucinations of being in different locations, being other identities, perceiving others in abnormal ways or seeing and hearing things and identities that are not there… etc.)
When it comes to Scientology, Freewheeling is ordinarily a direct result of Scientology’s own coercive practice with regards to “pulling withholds” (i.e. Security Checks, Ethics Interviews, Rudiments) which forces a subject (pre-clear) to give up control over SELECTING and viewing one’s own facsimiles (memory recordings) while handing it over to an authoritarian Scientology practitioner. Combined with continuous group invalidations and suppression of individual’s “divergent” thoughts and behavior as well as enforcement of the “approved” thoughts and behavior is almost guaranteed to undermine individual’s control over one’s mind which can eventually manifest as freewheeling of lesser or greater degree.
The resulting DECREASED ABILITY of an individual to control one’s own mind could be the very reason why so many Scientologists end up staying “in the fold” under an authoritarian group control even when such people leave the Church itself and organize an “independent” group that is usually as authoritarian or even more so than the one they left behind.
Rehabilitation of Ability to CRITICIZE
1. The expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes.
2. The analysis and judgement of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work.
Criticism is not about what someone has done or withheld; it’s about what someone can observe OR it could be a form of attack. A practitioner striving toward greater ability should be able to create and confront criticism without any reference to one’s own or someone else’s o/w’s (overts and withholds). Anyone can simply make up some criticism and it doesn’t have to be connected to anything else but individual’s WILL to do so.
Processing: Recall and Verbalize or Observe and Verbalize
Recall something that you did not like or disapproved of – verbalize what you see.
Observe something you do not like or feel disapproval of – verbalize what you see (i.e. trash on the ground, dirty dishes in the sink, bad haircut on someone walking by, etc.)
Do this until you feel at liberty to have and express criticism in any form.
You can also use a Self-Analysis approach such as:
Recall a time when you felt critical. Recall another time when you felt critical. Recall an earliest time when you felt critical.
Not a necessity in this case, but this could be complemented, as in Self-Analysis, with an address to some sense perception such as “What was the sigh in that incident?” Also note that this exercise is liable to get someone in a heavily charged area of some loss or upset with something, and this is good – a person should be able to communicate and discharge an area of upset.
This will need to be balanced on a Confront end with something like:
Recall someone else being critical (toward you or toward someone or something else)
Note that it is necessary to run both Create (one’s own expression of something) and Confront (facing another expressing something similar) to “close the loop” on attaining a state of cause with respect to a given reality – expression of criticism in this instance.
Depending on your history, you may also want to go over times when someone invalidated/denied/negated/contradicted a critical thought that you had or a critical statement that you made as well as the times when you invalidated/denied/negated/contradicted criticism expressed by someone else.
Rehabilitation of Cause Over Harm
An individual can be trapped by that which he or she is unwilling or unable to destroy. This can seem counter-intuitive at first especially with all the indoctrination against harm in Scientology and societies at large, but one can make one of the biggest leaps in spiritual ascension by taking responsibility over the realities of harm itself. This is done with the usual pairs of Create and Confront – re-experiencing memories or creating mockups of harming something or someone and confronting incidents or mockups of someone else trying to harm you or another.
What are you unwilling to harm? or What are you unwilling to destroy? – is a question straight out of Creative Processing explained in The Philadelphia Doctorate Course (see bottom of this page).
How could you harm (or destroy) the Church, the group, Scientology, or Hubbard? or How could you undermine your spiritual progress? could be all valid processing questions for a Scientologist.
How could you harm a pc? could rehabilitate an auditor who no longer audits.
How could you harm an auditor? could rehabilitate a blown pc.
Overt acts (regrettable acts) could be audited out successfully by having a pc mockup MORE of similar actions or scenarios – and this would be taking responsibility for that aspect of reality which a pc became unwilling to create and so unable to duplicate (as-is) and perceive.
The way Hubbard reconfigured this area in Scientology starting with 1959 forward actually made people unwilling to have the power of creation over the realities of harm and destruction due to a false belief that harmful actions (overts) are the primary cause of one’s downfall from an all-powerful state. Quite the opposite is actually true. One is powerful to the extent that he or she can destroy any given form of reality including that of other people.
If you could easily destroy the reality of a given individual or people in general, if only on a level of constructs of consciousness (perceptions), then they would not be of much concern to you. If you could destroy matter, if you could destroy energy, if you could warp space and determine time… then the physical universe itself would be powerless in your eyes, and you could easily pervade through it as a unit of consciousness – hence, powerful mockups of destroying and manipulating physical realities is one of the most direct routes to spiritual power.
When considerations of harm are effectively repressed as in Scientology or modern Western societies, then people become that much more fixated upon it until there is nothing else but actual harm if only in the form of hostile attitudes, lawsuits, and all sorts of subversive or destructive actions set on autopilot. Heavy substance abuse and endless interpersonal drama are the marks of the modern culture bent on trying to eliminate any and all realities of harm instead of taking responsibility for them.
It is also not hard to see how someone who is not willing to harm and destroy could easily end up in a victim band to those that are. That’s why any worthy spiritual practice should also include some form of training in martial arts.
Rehabilitation of Self-Determinism with respect to ETHICS
What do you believe is wrong?
What do you believe is right?
It is important to have “believe” in the question (as opposed to “what is wrong?”) since the point here is not to reaffirm one’s convictions about right and wrong but to flush to view those convictions (that in turn form one’s perception) so they can be evaluated and re-evaluated if needed.
It should be noted that the “wrongs” (what one believes is wrong) is the main target of this process as this is an area where one will have stuck charge and attention since it is those realities (actions and other forms of expression) that one believe to be wrong that he or she is unlikely to have full responsibility for and be able to duplicate. “What do you believe is right?” is asked as a “balancing act” so that one’s attention does not get fixated in one direction – looking at one’s considerations of “wrongs.”
Reverse Flow Assist
Identify what someone is trying to do to you, and mock-up doing it to them.
If someone is trying to get you to fail somehow and you are suffering because of it, make some mock-ups (realistic visualizations) of them failing and suffering because of it. If someone is trying to minimizing you as an individual, mock-up them being minimized… and so on.
Rehabilitation of Ability to WITHHOLD
In order to contain anything, one must have space. This is true for physical and spiritual realities alike. Hence, an ability to withhold is rehabilitated through rehabilitation of one’s ownership of SPACE. Some sample commands could be:
Think of a space you could have.
Think of a space where you could be.
Get an idea (vision) of you having counter-intention toward another.
Get an idea (vision) of another having counter-intention toward you.
Get an idea (vision) of someone else having counter-intention toward another.
Note how this ties into the definition of Responsibility as “the power of creation or determination over something” – in this case counter-intention as a form of reality or expression.
Handling Fixed Attention on an Item (Cause Resurgence Process)
The more likely reason that one’s attention is stuck on some situation or a person, group or some other item (a potential target of address in processing) is due to FAILED cause as opposed to “bad” cause. The remedy for this is:
What have you FAILED to do?
If a PC has attention fixed on some past situation it’s:
What have you failed to do in that situation?
If a PC has attention fixed on some person, ask:
What have you failed to do to __named person__?
The answer could be anything from “failed to say hi” or “failed to express affinity” to “failed to kill.” It is whatever the PC wanted to do and withheld oneself from doing for whatever reasons and so still has attention stuck on the “target” of failed cause (as well the the reasons for withholding). In a way the PC is stuck in being cause in that direction due to having withheld and still withholding some action. In such a case the PC may have an impression that he or she is being somehow “inhibited” by the target person or some circumstances in the situation when the actual inhibiting factor are the considerations that caused the PC to restrain oneself from doing something.
This could be supplemented with Creative:
What could you do to ____? or
Get an idea of something you could do to ____. or
Get an idea of something you could have done to ___ (or “in that situation”).
Discharge Service Facsimiles
There is a lot of talk about “service facsimiles” (serv facs for short) in Scientology, but it is not at all clear how you could identify what those are and run them out. If a “service facsimile” is some condition that a PC uses to make others wrong then it seems like it could be brought into view and discharged by simply asking:
How could you make __target person(s)__ wrong?
Some lead-up questions could be:
Is there anyone you are protesting or trying to prove wrong? or
Is there anything you are protesting? – i.e. someone could be protesting some general notions in society and not necessarily anyone specific.
The target of protest should be identified before asking the question “How.”
This could be a very powerful exercise that can help someone realize that they’ve been poor or sick or messed up in some way out of protest with respect to some persons or some notions that exist in society.
A NOTE ON CREATIVE PROCESSING
Creative Processing should be restored back to use and is something that can be used successfully on one’s own.
The key reference for CP is HCOB 31 OCTOBER 1959 CREATE PROCESSES – DANGERS & ADVANTAGES:
Please, see Step 6 PDF for clarification of what it is.
RULE: Creative Processing on FLOWS – DYNAMIC MOCKUPS – is effective and should be used; Creative Processing on STATIC MOCK-UPS should not be used as per logic in the reference above. Hence, not all forms of creative processing that exist throughout Scientology materials should be used.
Static mock-up would be picturing objects and manipulating them somehow while keeping them “solid” such as “mock-up a box in front of you and keep it from going away” – would be a static mockup requiring someone to solidify a “mental image picture” of the box for example. A dynamic mockup would be mocking something up without trying to “hold” the picture. “What could you do to your house?” for example would be dynamic mock-up of someone picturing different things they could do without having to “hold” those pictures in place.
Some basic instructions that can be used for Creative Processing are laid out in The Philadelphia Doctorate Course:
[01 DECEMBER 1952] The Philadelphia Doctorate Course: E-Meter: Demo
You put him on an E-Meter. You ask him an assessment, according to a rote procedure—it’s just one, two, three, four, five. And you’re only asking him one real thing. You’re asking him, “What can’t he create?” and “What can’t he destroy?” That’s all you’re asking him—dynamic by dynamic, dynamic by dynamic. “What can’t he create?” “What can’t he destroy?”
That could also be phrased as “What is he unwilling to create?” “What is he unwilling to destroy?” In other words, it’s a “can’t” assessment and then you apply Creative Processing to what he can’t do.
Now, what is an assessment? You’re going to get this in much greater detail, but I’ll just give you this just offhand. What is an assessment? Well, we just mark it up like this. This is an assessment: create-destroy. Now, this is a very elementary assessment I’m giving you. There is a more complex assessment. This has some additional factors in it which merely put — with create and destroy — other related factors with create and destroy and it simply permits you to do a more sensitive assessment. But this is still the basic assessment. The other just makes it a little better. This is the basic material, right here.
Now, that’s also — in the center there — change. But you’ll find that for a crude, first-run assessment, you’re not too worried about what he can or can’t change. That will turn up. He changes much more easily than he creates and destroys. So this is an assessment and the assessment merely wants to know what he can’t create and what he can’t destroy in terms of mock-ups, illusions, creative mock-ups.
But it points what? It points right back to all the maybes of the case. Bullpen datum is a maybe. So we have to take dynamics here: One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven and Eight. And over here we take One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven and Eight. And we just take those as such and we make an assessment of the case. We find out what he can’t create, can’t create, can’t create. And we just ask about objects and items and conditions underneath these dynamics under create. And we ask for objects, items and conditions under destroy and we watch the little needle and we mark it as it dives. And we just make a graph of this character. That’s all there is to that graph. And there you have it.
Now, it’s very simple, isn’t it? Now you apply Mock-up Processing to that.