Talk:The Process (collective)

reputed participants
I am not convinced that this section is important to the entry.Please explain the importance of these members. --Seekue 04:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Given that the very nature of the Process was about its participatory aspects knowing who it was that were actively involved is key towards understanding the groups significance. --this was unsigned but added by 68.173.166.23 on 12.may.07


 * when this was initially started, i agreed with the person above who seems unable to sign their posts. however, today's entry of "e023" changes that opinion:
 * his myspace page places his age as ~14 in 1995, which doesn't preclude him from active roles, but does increase the unlikeliness
 * i'm having a hard time finding reference to him in mail archives
 * sowieso - there needs to be some criteria established.. mr.unsign above cites "actively involved" - vague, but a start, and seemingly enough to keep e023. i'll make a myspace page (wretch), so that i can email him to get clarification on who he is Quaeler 08:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * usc seems to have deleted the archives prior to june, 1999 unfortunately; i did find 2 emails in the remaining archives from a e023 making reference to a past stint on the list. self referential, but about as much energy as i'm going to devote today - so i'll leave this as switzerland. Quaeler


 * If I remember correctly e023 was a late subscriber to the_process discussion that became involved with the folks that branched onto the DVOA IRC channel around 1997 or so. Fitz


 * dankeschoen, fitz Quaeler 11:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Bitte. Besides, seeing this stuff being gone over is a nice piece of nostalgia mixed with a sense of seeing how big an effect one mailing list at the right time had. Fitz


 * A mailinglist ought to be treated like the wiki highschool alumni rule, recognizing only "notable" persons. There is a member area with 'notable' persons listed in the Processors section of the archive here: . Perhaps one can create an alumni list and link to it from wikipedia, but I am not yet convinced that the participants section is a worthwhile contribution to an encyclopedic entry. Seekue 17:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * while i somewhat agree with Seekue, i think the definition of "notable" is a really vague thing these days and were we to start barring certain entries, then we need to have some widely agreed upon metric. complicating this, of course, is that The Process is, 'by design', a viral sort of thing – so, for example, were what was done in the '90s heavily influential on some person in South Carolina, and they went forth and had some large impact in South Carolina - would Seekue, or myself, or Fitz, or &hellip; have heard about it? probably not. have they in some sense contributed to The Process? ya, sure (unfortunate for this topic, though)... meh.. Quaeler 09:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * ok - we've now gotten to the straw which has broken this camel's back. i suggest two items of action. a. move reputed participants to its own wiki page. b. once it's on its own page, maybe i'll feel less strongly about this - but the notion that wikipages often become a place for quasi-shilling tangential external sites really makes me gruff. this latest addition ('grey lodge') is linked to basically a blog of political rambling. first amendment ho, and all that, but i think it fails the litmus test for external links on wikipedia. arguments? Quaeler 22:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * to be more explicit, barring fruitful objection based dialog prior to 23.july.2007, i'll perform the above actions listed as a. and b. &mdash; that being done, though, i find it likely that any randomly chosen wiki administrator will question the useful nature of the content and thereafter slate the new page for speedy deletion; i'll argue against it, but it doesn't seem like i can make a very strong case. Quaeler 09:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * after shortly wrestling with appropriate verbage today, i found myself unable to produce a valid sounding wiki entry that wouldn't be a prime target for speedy deletion (and i found myself without the stomach to relegate the section to that logical conclusion). fitz's intelligent, slightly pleasingly snarky, letter-of-the-law change of linking to his wiki user page may set future standard, but this is highly preferable to crap like myspace links; so as an immediate solution in lieu of plan-a.-and-b. i'm getting rid of external links, and leaving a comment in the section that no external links should be placed there. i may also do some table styling or similar if i feel a smidgen more creative than i do presently.. Quaeler 20:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Technologies
I have been searching a long time regarding the process methods.

I have seen from the partial reconstucted page that TOPY sigil work is one method.

But from another site by veindance, which is unfortunatly down, described an 8008 process, and had detailed info that wasnt on your reconstruction site.

I saved the HTML site if you want to see it.

But my main question is,

Do you have any saved documents to how The Process performed deprogramming, and if so, was there any relevance to the 8008 formula, or is this mumbo jumbo?

Hyperpsonik23 11:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * the collective effort was involved with no deprogramming efforts that i'm aware of; the compiled archives from The Process Church of The Final Judgment aren't publicly available yet, but i've seen no mention of Scientology's "8008 formula" &mdash; the mixing of this with 'Process ideas' seems to be something that arose at the end of the 1990s. Quaeler 09:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

So the Process Collective was about Networking, and TOPI was along the lines of the album, The Process then?

The reason I have been researching is because of my interest in Skinny Puppy Lyrics.

EDIT: (from above statement) And because I wanted to join, but process.org is still, "Rebuilding, Back soon..."

Hyperpsonik23 11:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Genesis had some internal compartmentalization with each component strictly defined, but from my observation, Genesis utilized the terms The Process, TOPI, and Transmedia Foundation in many interchangeable and overlapping ways - with the latter two components more closely related to one another than they were with the former. The other Founders did not reference TOPI or Transmedia much (if at all), it seemed to be more of a Genesis thing. Seekue 15:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * TOPI functions for GPO in a number of ways that are similar to how Anton LaVey used The Church of Satan and Satanism in general after he divested himself of the more formalized approach of degree systems and local membership groups in the mid 1970s. In the same way that the Church's Satanism became "Whatever and whoever Anton is interested in this week" TOPI has been the blanket lable for whatever odd ideas, projects and activties GPO has felt like using it for since the mid-1990s. Fitz

Just for clarification,

Was The Process strictly about the philosophy of changing individuals and the world by any means neccisary, and not strictly an esoteric way.

Or was The Process about sharing information between Philosophers and Artists?

Or was The Process a little mixture of the two and whatever members bring along with it?

Hyperpsonik23 11:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A few years into things I made the comment that the_process was the "Seinfeld" of the Internet, a "Mailing List About Nothing." Really the whole project had more of a stone soup feel to it with those involved pretty much bringing whatever they had to a table someone else had set but stepped back from to observe the outcome. Some people involved had various backgrounds in self-transformative methods but the Process proper never had anything more formalized then an encouragement among its member to try and post as honestly as possible. For example at that time I was pretty highly enamored of Hakim Bey's writings on Poetic Terrorism as a method of inducing cognative dissonance in the hopes that in that small period of disruption people might awaken a bit from the autopilot conditions most people live in by necessity. Other people brought rather extensve experience with topics like Thelema, Neurolinguistic Programming, SubGenius religiosatire, Robert Anton Wilson's reworking of Tim Leary's ideas, and all sorts of odd things. The resulting environment was rather information rich but over time exhibited a rather high learning curve for new subscribers.


 * The "8008" material was simply a personal interest of one subscriber to the_process list who never had much active posting time but who was very interested in Scientological methods utilized by the Freezone and the Process Church. Fitz June 28

-Thank you. That clears alot up for me and possibly those who stumble across this.

I have contact some of the "Reputed" members of the process and they are interested in making an underground online forum for The Process.

Too bad the process.org is still down.

If there was to be an underground forum, do you think there should be some cautions?

I read a small excerpt I beleive from William Morrison that process.org was a possible target for government hacking.

I dont know of the dangers or the views of "the MeAN" but I dont think its that big of a threat because collectives like TOPY and people like Ogre and others aren't dead.

In my opinion either this hasnt happened because if they were somehow mysteriously dead, then members would have figured out why and there would be a big scaffle.

Or they dont view it as a threat.

What do any of you think?

Hyperpsonik23 11:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * i think there need be no more caution taken than any other discussion activity that occurs on the internet these days; "The Government", at the moment, has a lot more serious things to worry about (with a lot less resources than needed), than to spend time reviewing what's being suggested.
 * WRT the 'government hacking', there was one short period in 1996 during which there were brute force telnet attempts from an IP; when i inquired with the owner of the containing block, i was told that the IP was assigned to a machine that had been used in previous months for an FBI sting operation. today, brute force attempts happen so frequently that it's a waste of time to track down which may come from the masonic-illuminati-boogie-men versus mundane hacker kids &mdash; take that all for what it's worth.
 * lastly, i know you might be big on shaking up the system, but would it kill you to briefly conform by properly indenting, and correctly signing (4 tildes) your verbage? the façade of coherence which that would impart might encourage more general discussion. Quaeler 11:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new to Wikipedia Discussion.

Thank you for your input.

For all we know the FBI telnet attempt may have been a "fear tactic" or a single person abusing power.

Hyperpsonik23 11:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Process Underground
Hey all, there was a small off-shoot that was created to sustain activity.

I do not know how to add this to the article, but the URL to the site is:

http://www.processunderground.us.tt

If someone could add that, that would be great and much appreciated.

Hyperpsonik23 07:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * H23, I imagine that some valuable infos make come from your newly active The Process board. If this is the case, it may be worthwhile for you to learn some basic wiki-knowledge so that you may contribute to this article. You are already adept at commenting within this Talk section, including the posting of links, and it really is not much more difficult than that.
 * Goto the main article, scroll down to the External Links header and then click Edit. If you do not see the links, then you clicked the wrong edit. If you do see the links, then just follow the same formatting that you will already see there and add your link. Learn the Process and the Product will follow.Seekue 19:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * don't add it - it fails at least one of the WP:EL rules (requires registration). -- Quaeler 04:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I just removed it. Do I have to create a seperate wiki-article for it? Hyperpsonik23 05:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * you could try making a wiki-article for it, but it may be marked for 'speedy deletion' under notability rules. if it is so nominated, you can argue for it to be kept on its talk page.
 * either way, since you require registration on that site, you'll never be able to link it to a wiki article under the external link rules (WP:EL). if a body of work falls out of the forum discussions, consider making it publicly available on the site so that you can link it from one or more wiki articles. -- Quaeler 05:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Will do, I have to wait a little bit so I can change the settings on the forum. Once it is a Publicly viewable forum, ill make an article for it. Thanks a lot for the info. Much appreciated.Hyperpsonik23 07:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The forum is now publicly viewable. Hyperpsonik23 07:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Reconstituting The Process
I've done my best to update and revise this page as The Process is both notable and important. Also: I was unsure how to summarize The Process' manifesto, so if anyone wants to take another crack at it, please do. Blind Donkey (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)