Hi Marie,

Let me apologize for the cold shower you received, I am glad to see
that not all feel the same about your inquiry. Please realize that
you are the first one to submit such a request and you are touching
some hot issues and some soft spots...
Frankly, both your original inquiry and some of your frustrations
about our community are legitimate.

Henry wrote:
<<
or perhaps you might look into buying one of the books on the market
that answer those kinds of questions precisely. theyre much cheaper
than the schools! but i wonder...why is it you want to know?...
-henry
>>
I am curious about specific references myself. Perhaps Henry can
clarify his thoughts...

To put things in perspective, the protection of intellectual property
versus the freedom to copy and access knowledge is an old debate. In
1997, Ross ANDERSON, a cryptograph at Cambridge University raised the
issue in very modern terms. His words are more eloquent than I can
rephrase so here is a link to his rationale:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/eternity/node1.html#SECTION0001000
0000000000000
(make sure you copy the entire link with all the zeros at the end,
and no spaces)

More on the issue:
http://www.fool.com/news/foth/2000/foth000814.htm

Ross Anderson's Eternity Service - concept
Whith Gutenberg copying and distributing 'copyrighted' material and
other material became possible (including the Bible and revolutionary
philosophies as well). Gutenberg's vulgarisation of printing allowed
mankind to access knowledge. This in turn allowed the Reformation,
the Renaissance and later Revolutions.
Today, Copyright protection has swung back to a before-Gutenberg
state. The law, the police, and governmments all protect intellectual
property to a level that is very close to how the Bible was 'owned'
by the Curch before Gutenberg. At least, right after Guntenberg, even
if an author could be prosecuted and killed, his/her work could live
on: they couldn't burn it all anymore; there were too many copies.
Today, with the informatiuon technology, the law can actuall shutdown
web sites, prosecute Internet Service Providers, and make knowledge
disapear from man-kind's reach.
The solution that Ross Anderson conceptualized is based on anonymacy,
multiplication of servers, high encryption level, so that it becomes
very hard even for the powerfull to delete knowledge from mankinds
access. Later AT&T Research Labs and other labs actually implemented
some tests. This was such a danger to big copyright owners such as
Microsoft, affraid to see its software freely available, that
Microsoft offerred millions of $ to 'save AT&T Broadband back in
December 2001, when I looked into the subject. (I personally suspect
this 'donation' was not out of Bill Gate's good heart)
The AT&T implementation of Ross Anderson's Eternity Service is
actually called 'Publius'. Why is it important:
<<
Publius is a Web publishing system that is highly resistant to
censorship and provides publishers with a high degree of anonymity.
Publius was the pen name used by the authors of the Federalist
Papers, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison. This
collection of 85 articles, published pseudonymously in New York State
newspapers form October 1787 through May 1788, was influential in
convincing New York voters to ratify the proposed United States
constitution.
>>
source: http://cs1.cs.nyu.edu/waldman/publius.html

Some problems:
- with the good comes the bad; if it becomes impossible to prevent
anything from being published, copied, and accessed, then freedom of
speach is granted, but child pornography sites, bomb making sites,
etc., become virtually unstoppable.
The society is not quite prepared for free access, although it has
some means to respond. Publius servers can be made inaccessible on a
national scale, prosecuting authors,... We may be talking about the
next intellectual revolution for freedom of speach, but it won't be
without a fight from the establishment, conservative coallitions,
major copyright lobbies, etc.
And of course Napster and other newer versions which expand beyond
just music are yet just a beginning.


Marie,

How dos it relate to your observations?

Well yes our society is organized and managed by its leaders as a
secret society, and yes we do have gurus in place that hold on to the
intellectual property that was passed on to them. Yes there is an
underlying phylosophy installed in our 'clan' that is protective of
that intellectual property. To the point where the disciples of Ida
P. ROLF are not writing the books that would answer your question and
more such as a way to self-learn Structural Integration in detail.

Certainly, on the surface there are some seamingly 'good reasons',
like making sure that the know how is passed on 'properly', with
appropriate training passed on from word to mouth and hand to hand:
protecting the 'integrity of our recipe' (that is really the only
reason that is given).
However it only takes to scratch that surface very little to see how
superficial such a reasoning is. You and I know that eventually such
books will be available. Can anyone tell me honestly that it is
better to have such books bublished generations later, than as soon
as possible, as little time as possible after the death of our
founder?

What would actually preserve the recipe best:
- Waiting until nobody can write it correctly, because it will be
2nd, 3rd or Nth hand information and knowledge?
- writing it here and nnow, and make sure there is something serious
and as close to the real thing as possible to pass on to the next
generations?

Of course inevitably, when that question is answerred, one realizes
how little vision our leaders have. One realize the kind of secret
society we are associated with, and the kinds of gurus we have,
unwilling to do the right thing for prosperity. Instead our gurus
have transmitted a very classical 'cult' model to us, with all the
things that go wrong with cults, including dogmatism, including
unwise financial greed, including not being allowed to question such
leadership directly...

So Marie,

Please believe me when I wish you good luck in finding the
information you requested.
I may have some objections, such as that without more explaination,
the sequence will not be nearly as useful as a full training (as
others mentioned), and of course that having access to the sequence
doesn't mean that you will be doing Structural Integration (as you
mentioned).
However, I strongly believe that anyone should have access to our
trade 'secrets'. You are right, it is simply not human to hide
something so good for mankind.

If on your way, you find interesting material that is in writing, or
on the web, please let me know. I am particularily intereted in
listing on my web site serious descriptions of the work, in any form,
http://idaprolf.org , so that others can learn without being
eliminated by the financial, geographical, and other barriers.

One should be able to learn whatever one can, how ever much one wants.

Sincerely,

Reda EL ANDALOUSSI
http://idaprolf.org