> Homer does make case gain, if that's who you are talking about.  

     I do?
 
     Now Alan, this is not a criticism, nor a personal attack, just
the Facts Jack, ok?  Please don't get red in the face, please don't
get angry, please remain my friend, ok?

     Actually Alan's write up about L&N makes me sad.
 
     For one it is a "Need help" writeup, there is no hope the pc can
do it for himself.
 
     Secondly it posits thousands of out-lists, endless complexity
etc, making the pc feel it is going to take thousands of hours and
endless amounts of dollars etc to get all this handled.
 
     Thirdly it doesn't indicate, which makes the first two grate
even worse.

     It produces a No Hope and No Peace reaction in me.
 
     Here is my analysis.
 
     In the first place the Question is 
 
     "What's this THING in my body?"  or
 
     "What's this all about?" or

     "What's going on here?"
 
     The answer changes as each layer comes off, I hope for a last
answer, but so far haven't found one.
 
     But more importantly, the QUESTION is more important than the
ANSWER, and perhaps that is the answer to "What is wrong with me?"
 
     Answer: I am trying to find the answer to the question, rather
than as-is the question.
 
     Most pcs can't imagine asking a question without trying to get
the answer.  They can't see the EFFORT to ask the question, because
they are too busy straining to find the ANSWER.
 
     It is quite an accomplishment to be able to finally ask a question,
without trying to get the answer at all.  One does this to observe
the efforts involved in the question.

     One way to practice this is to ask a question which you know
the answer to and see if you can ask it without having the answer
come forward, like "What is my name?"
 
     Then one sees that the efforts to ask the question are more
damaging in terms of ridges and impacted masses, than not knowing the
answer is.
 
     Answers cool out questions, because the pc stops asking the question,
not because the answer is right!  Wrong answers can also cause more
questions which then leads to endless cave in.

     This is possibly why the Zen Master give a Koan to their
preclears, it is an unanswerable question.  The intent is to get the
pc aksing questions that guarantee there is no answer to look at, so
that finally the pc looks as the process of asking itself without
answering and starts to blow charge.

     Thus "What question are you asking" is itself a listing question
of sorts, although it has many answers, but I would think that the
handling would NOT be to then get the 'correct' answer to any of those
questions, but to run something that would run out the asking of all
those questions which the pc lists.
 
     This takes an awful lot of confront of NOT KNOW, the pc has to be
willing to HAVE not knowing the answer to all these questions, but he
will cool out the restim on his masses significantly if he can do so.
 
     Questions like Why am I here?, Who am I?  What am I supposed to
be doing?, What's my purpose?, When did I come in?, How do I get out?
All the basic Who, How, What, Where and Why's that drive the pc mad
through the trillenia.
 
     Adore would have you spot the question and then ask it WITHOUT
ANSWERING IT, until the charge is off.
 
     "The caliber of the caliper of souls is 
 
      The Questions they have asked, and
      The Answers they have rejected."

      Ultimately native state has no answers, in this sense ALL
answers to questions are false and are out items.
 
     Thus auditing the asking of questions, instead of the answering
of questions, might lead to more fruitful results and bypass the need
for all the 'powerful' complexity that makes others necessary in the
game of case gain.
 
     Perhaps we could call this the OT Q&A rundown, as LRH said the
only aberration there is waiting for an answer.  Adore says the only
aberration there is is LOOKING FOR AN ANSWER BY BEING AN EFFECT,
but its the same thing.  This is because the true answer to the
question is the exact duplication of the question and its implied
not know, at which point the not know blows and the prior know
arises.  This is not an effort thing to learn by looking, this is
at worst an effort thing to duplicate the not know on the prior know.

     Alan's message comes across to me as people can not help
themselves until they have been helped by others at great expense.
 
     Adore's message is you can help yourself if you would simply
observe yourself asking how.

     The logic behind this is simple, when the unwanted condition was
originally created, there was no question going on in the background
asking "how do I get rid of this, where do I get help for this etc?

     One get's rid of the condition by making it again, by exactly
duplicating the original efforts to create it, thus if you are asking
"What is this?  How do I get rid of it?  Who is going to help me?
When it is going to happen?  Why am I suffering from it?" you aren't
duplicating the efforts at the moment of creation of the condition
because those questions were not going on at the time.
 
     On the other hand, if there were questions going on at the time
of the original creation, and the efforts of those questions are still
being asked consciously or unconsciously in present time, then that
question asking alone will keep the incident in full bloom.
  
     Adore says that questions stick us to incidents, nothing else.

     Thus the way to run the incident is not to ask "How do I run
this incident?" but to run the question you were asking in the
incident!

     Notice that the incident question is NOT "What question was I
asking in the incident?"

     Asking "What question was I asking in the incident?" is
self auditing.  This is the figure-figure LRH talked about.

     Running the asking of the question in the incident, particularly
its efforts and ridges of failure, whether or not you know what that
question is, is solo auditing.  This is in fact very effective effort
processing.

     Adore says that this effort processing gets at the postulate in
the incident because ultimately all postualtes relate to being unable to
know and answer the damn question!

     Thus spotting the extant questions in present time, NOT TO ANSWER
THEM BUT TO COOL THE ASKING, will go a long ways to bringing the
original incident to the forground and allow you to run the rest of it
out.

     LRH says the pc is trying to solve problems in the present by
using efforts he used against problems in the past.  If what Adore
says is true, the basic problem is an unanswerable question, thus the
efforts the pc is using to answer present time questions he knows he
is asking, will be the same efforts he used on the past track
questions in the incidents that are holding him down.

     Since the past track efforts do not properly match his present
time questions, he will be both failing to answer his present time
questions AND restimulating his past track overwhelms.

     Freedom from overwhelm is also freedom from overwhelm about
asking and answering questions.

      This listing and running the present time questions, AS QUESTIONS
NOT AS ANSWERS, will lead to the past track incidents and questions wherein
the pc first got entangled in misduplication of the know - not know
cycle and learning by looking at effects in order to know about cause,
(violations of the proof).

     Misconsturing a know - not know cycle as a not know - know cycle
is a serious alter-is and might be the genesis of seriousness.  If so,
then it is the seed of the joke.

     Adore goes so far as to DEFINE an incident as a run in with a
question.  AS the alter-is of know - not know takes place, the
question (not know) becomes an effort to learn by looking with no
responsibility for the not know.  Thus rather than duplicat4e
the not know thus blowing it off, the pc gets into learning by looking.

     Thus every incident on the mental plane is a violation of the
know - not know sequence by trying to indulge in answering a question
which is a not know - know sequence, and on the spiritual plane its a
violation of total responsibility.
 
     The point is that the not know itself is created with postulate
and effort, so the way to erase that and know again is to duplicate
the effort to not know and the postulate, NOT indulge in MORE effort
to learn by looking which is a violation of The Proof.

     It is the effort to learn by looking, to learn by being an
effect, to learn about cause by looking at effects, that pulls in all
sorts of stuff that you have assigned as cause that might teach you
what it is you want to know.
 
     Learning and Teaching are dicoms.

     If a cause has no effects on you, there is no way to learn
anything about it as a cause , nor have it teach you anything about it
as a cause, because all learning and teaching about cause takes place
via the effects that the cause has on you.

     Since you are now trying to learn about cause by looking at
effects of that cause, you must become the effect of those causes,
and so of course you get impinged upon all over the place.

     This is justice working.

     If you say "I must know about cause, the only way to know about
cause is to look at its effects on me" then you shouldn't complain
when you find yourself the effect of those causes, eh?

     Saving knowledge (knowledge that saves) does not reside in any
created thing, as salvation is salvation FROM all created things.

     Learning by looking is what LRH called ransacking facsimiles,
although that falls short of the scope of what we are talking about
here, as beings will ransack all of creation, every other cause he can
think of in fact, to find what they are looking for, which ain't out
there anyhow.

     Adore says one can know anything by not knowing some more.
Asking questions is not the way to do that.
 

     Alan's message has a very negative effect on me and is very
disheartening, because it appears to me he is trying to sell other
determinism as my salvation, namely him or any other good auditor,
with the implication that if only I had done it right by coming to him
in the first place before I struck out on my own, which I surely
should have known better than to do, I would be ok by now.
 
      I don't think Alan is capable of duplicating how much this
stance grates on me.

      It in fact violates every principle I stand by.
 
      Remember it is not the message of help that grates on me,
it is the apparent message of *NEED* beyond my willingness to need,
help.

     If instead of saying

     "Homer come to me and we will list all those questions you have
been asking and find the correct answer to all them which you in your
grand role as Supreme Dodo were not able to do, and you will be all better."

     he said,

     "Homer shut the fuck up, get on a meter or whatever, and list
out all the questions you are asking, and run the asking of them
without any effort to actually find the answer until you hit a blow
out of peace."

     I would have felt much better about it.

     But what do I know.  I am not an Emperor nor an Ambassador, just
a Joker in the King's Court.

      Homer